A NEW HISTORY OF Ecclesiastical Writers: Containing an ACCOUNT Of the Authors of the several Books of the OLD and NEW TESTAMENT; Of the LIVES and WRITINGS of the PRIMITIVE FATHERS; An Abridgement and Catalogue of their WORKS; Their Various Editions, and Censures Determining the GENUINE and SPURIOUS. Together with a Judgement upon their Style and Doctrine. ALSO, A Compendious History of the COUNCILS; With Chronological TABLES of the whole. Written in FRENCH By Lewis Ellies du PIN, Doctor of the SORBON, And Regius Professor of Divinity at Paris.  
VOLUME the FIRST, Containing the AUTHORS that Flourished in the THREE First AGES of the CHURCH.  
The Second Edition, Corrected.  
LONDON, Printed for Abel Swalle and Tim. Child, at the Unicorn at the West-End of St. Paul's Churchyard, M DC XCIII.   

ADVERTISEMENT Concerning this TRANSLATION.  
WHEN I first undertook to Revise this following Translation, I had no Thoughts of having my Name made so public as it has been since upon this Occasion. Few Men, I suppose, will ascribe it to Vanity or Ambition, since the French Language is so very common among us, that it is not thought a part of Learning to understand it: For though Translating is not always the easiest Employment in which a Man may be busied, yet the Opinions of Men, by which most Things receive their Estimate, have set so much an higher Value upon Original Productions, than upon any, even the exactest Copies, that it is no Wonder if that has been for the most part concealed, which, when divulged, would have brought so little Credit.  
But I am sensible that Apologies are tedious Things to those who are absolutely unconcerned: And it will be rather expected that I should acquaint the World with what they shall find in this Translation, than either why it was Revised by me, after the several Translators had finished their Parts; or why the Notice of its future Publication seemed to have been immediately given by my Order. And here indeed I ought to say, that the Book itself, with which the English Reader is presented, is a very valuable One. The Doctrines and Practices of the Primitive Church are represented with so much Candour and Sincerity, that those who are unacquainted with the Writings of the Fathers, need not fear being imposed upon. Our Author is indeed of the Communion of the Church of Rome, and accordingly he does not (as indeed he durst not) any where conceal his Own Opinion; but yet, as long as he never suffers the Sorbonist to break in upon the Historian, his Writings carry an Authority with them, greater than they could have done had they come from a Protestant. Truth, I confess, is the same, whoever speaks it; yet all Men grant, that it carries a more Convictive Force along with it, when extorted from those whose Ingenuity over-bears their Interest, than when it freely comes from Men that advance their Cause by telling it.  
For this Reason I have taken as much Care as I could, that Monsieur Du Pin's Sense should be exactly preserved; and therefore, when he citys Authors whom, for Form sake, he was obliged to call Heretics, if they are not named with Applause, it is not to be wondered at.  
In some few places I have thought fit to interpose: But lest that might occasion any Confusion, the Paragraphs are all enclosed in Hooks; which will plainly distinguish whatever I say, from my Author's Words.  
The great Use of Books of this kind is, to form an Idea in the Minds of those that read them, of that unaffected Piety and Zeal which inspired the Primitive Christians, and which at last subdued the whole Roman Empire, and made its Princes follow the Banner of the Cross of Christ with Joy and Pleasure. What a Thing that was, can be but imperfectly conceived from the Writings, and, God knows! much more imperfectly from the Practices of this degenerate Age. The Abridgements of the Books of these first Christians will be much more effectual to this Purpose, than a bare dry History could possibly have been; for they wrote about Things that their Hearts were full of: And Men who are at all Times ready to lay down their Lives in Defence of any Cause, will produce warmer and more moving Arguments to awaken their drowsy Brethren, than can possibly come from others that are less concerned, because in much less Danger.  
If therefore the Reading of these Papers shall be a Means to incite those that are able, to draw from the Fountains in larger Quantities, having found these small Streams sufficiently inviting; and those that must take what they read upon Trust, to endeavour to live up to these great Patterns which are here proposed to their Imitation, I shall have my End; and shall think the Pains which I have taken in this Work, not only very well bestowed, but myself abundantly rewarded.  
W. W.   

THE Author's PREFACE.  

PART I.  
The Reason of the Title. An Account of those Authors that have written upon the same Subject. A general View of the Design of this Work.  
THE Name of Bibliotheca, or Library, is not only given to those Places that contain great Numbers of Books; but also to Collections that have been made by several Authors, and to those Books that treat of their Works. Thus Collections of the Works of several Fathers, are called Bibliothecae Patrum: A General History drawn out of vast Numbers of Historians, such as Diodorus Siculus' Bibliotheca Historica: A Book that treats of the Sacred Volumes of Scripture, such as Sixtus Senensis' Bibliotheca Sancta; or rather, Bibliocheca Sacrorum Codicum: A Treatise upon those Authors who have written concerning Matters of Religion, as this of ours is, Bibliotheca Authorum Ecclesiasticorum: And, in short, any Book that speaks indifferently of all sorts of Authors, and Writings, composed upon different Occasions, may be called a Bibliotheca.  
This is not the first time that such sort of Libraries have been made: Apollodorus, an Athenian, a most learned Grammarian, that lived under the Reign of Ptolomaeus Euergetes, Two Hundred and Forty Years, or thereabouts, before the Nativity of Jesus Christ, composed a Bibliotheca of the Original of the Gods; that is to say, of the most ancient History, as it lies disguised under Fictions and Fables. In imitation of him, Diodorus Siculus, that lived in Augustus' Time, composed a Bibliotheca of General History; which was taken out of an infinite Number of Authors. To these, we must join those Authors that have written the Lives of Illustrious Persons; such as Hermippus, Antigonus, Satyrus, Heraclides, Aristoxenus, and Diogenes Laertius, amongst the Greeks; and amongst the Latins, Varro, Tully, Nepos, Santra, Hyginus, and Suetonius; who have composed the Lives of the Philosophers, and other Authors.  
To descend now to those Christians that have made Catalogues of their own Authors: Are not Clemens Alexandrinus' Stromata a Bibliotheca of the Opinions and Judgements of an incredible Number of Writers? May not the History of Eusebius be called a Library of Ecclesiastical Authors? since his whole Book is little else but an Account of their Lives, a Catalogue of their Works, and a Collection of several memorable Passages. But St. Jerom is the first of the Christians, that has expressly treated of Ecclesiastical Authors; which Book was translated into Greek by Sophronius. Gennadius of Marseilles, Isidore of Sevil, Ildefonsus of Toledo, continued it down to their own Times. Honorius Bishop of Autun made a small Abridgement of these four Authors. Sigebert of Gemblours, and Henry of Ghent, continued their Books down to St. Bernard's Time. And Lastly, Auberius Miraeus, who published these Authors under the Title of Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica, continued the History of these Ecclesiastical Writers down to our Times. Trithemius, who lived about Two Hundred Years ago, made a distinct Book upon the same Subject. We ought not to forget the Roman Council, held under Pope Gelasius the First, in the Year 494, in which there is a Catalogue of the Sacred Books, and of Catholic and Apocryphal or Heretical Authors. Amongst the Greeks, the learned Photius composed an excellent Bibliotheca, in which he gives a short Summary of the Books that were read; and passes his own Judgement upon near Three Hundred Volumes of different Authors, that not only treat of Religion, but also of History, Rhetoric, Philosophy, Grammar, Physic, Medicine, and other profane Sciences. But never was more Industry and Labour bestowed upon all sorts of Books, and especially Ecclesiastical, than has been in these last Ages, wherein we have revived (if I may use the Expression) all manner of Learning and Knowledge, and carried Criticism to a Perfection and Height that it never arrived to before. The Roman Catholics and Protestants have seemed to rival each other in composing of these Bibliotheca's. Erasmus, who caused some of the Fathers to be printed, writ several Prefaces and Annotations upon their Works, that contain abundance of judicious Reflections; and though he is sometimes overhasty in rejecting some particular Books, yet however we must own that he opened the Way for those that followed him. Since him, most of those Persons that have obliged the World in publishing these Authors, have written their Lives, and made some Critical Observations upon their Works. But to confine myself at present, only to those that have written upon Ecclesiastical Authors, Sixtus Senensis, in his Bibliotheca Sacra, has not only treated of the Authors of the several Books of the Bible, but likewise of their Commentators too: And since there is scarce any Ecclesiastical Author to be found, who has not writ something or other about the Scripture, he was obliged to speak of most of the Fathers, and a great Number of other Ecclesiastical Writers. Cardinal Baronius also, whose principal Design was, to collect together every thing that had a relation to the History of the Church, in his Annals, has written the Lives of the greater part of the Ecclesiastical Writers, and mentioned their Books. Bellarmine writ a distinct Treatise of Ecclesiastical Authors, which reaches down to the Year 1500. wherein, after he had briefly taken notice of their Profession, and the Time when they lived, he makes a Catalogue of their Works, with some Criticisms upon them. This little Book is very valuable for the great Variety of Things contained in it, but yet it is very imperfect, and his Critical Remarks upon the Works of these Authors are not always exact. Possevin, in his great Apparatus, that is disposed in an Alphabetical Order, has supplied part of those things that are wanting in Bellarmine's Book. An Italian Master of the Sacred Palace, has made some useful Reflections and Notes upon several Books. Halloixius treats very largely of Ecclesiastical Authors, but speaks very little of the Writers of the first Ages. After him, Father Labbé, a Jesuit, composed a Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, as a Supplement to Bellarmine, but it is very imperfect; and he himself tells us, that it was only an Extract out of a great Universal Library, that he had been preparing a long time: But whether he never lived to finish it, or for whatever other Reason it was, it has not as yet seen the Light. I shall say nothing of those that have made Critical Animadversions upon these Authors since his Time, because they have only copied from other Critics that wrote before them, without adding any thing remarkable of their own. I shall likewise pass them over that have criticised upon some particular Books; as, Sirmondus, Launoy, and Morinus, upon the Books attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite; because it will be time enough to take notice of them, when I shall treat of the Books upon which they have criticised.  
But we ought by no means to omit those Books which the Protestants have written upon these Ecclesiastical Authors, because, though they are full of Errors, Falsehoods and Invectives, and sometimes treat the Fathers with little Respect; and have besides, upon false Conjectures rejected several Books which they disliked, as not being agreeable to their own Opinions, and discovering their own Errors; though, I say, it must be owned, that almost all the Treatises written by them upon this Subject, abound with such Faults as aught to be abhorred by all Catholics; yet we must do them the Justice to confess, that for what has a Relation to the Critical Part, they have sometimes seen more clearly than the Catholics themselves, and have discovered some Things that we are obliged to acknowledge and approve. The Centuriators were the first amongst the Protestants that seriously attempted to write the Lives of Ecclesiastical Authors, and to make Critical Remarks upon them; and it must be owned, that their Books are very useful even to the Catholics themselves. Conrardus Gesner's Bibliotheca, Abridged by Josias Simlerus and Frisius, and augmented by some others, is no ill Dictionary of these Authors. Perkins and Cook have published an accurate Examen of Spurious Books; but they have done it rather upon the Faith of other People, than by their own proper Light. Scultetus' Work upon the Fathers of the Four first Ages of the Church, is more considerable, not only for several Points of History and Criticism, that are there very succinctly set down; but also for the Analysis, or Abridgement of their Writings, which he has performed with great Exactness, but in a Scholastic Way, and consequently tedious. Vossius' Treatises upon the Greek and Latin Historians, Poets and Philosophers, amongst whom he has placed several Ecclesiastical Writers, are excellent Things in their kind, and show a great deal of Learning. River has taken the greatest pains, is the most exact, and has performed the part of a Critic best upon Spurious Works; but then his Book is not exempt from those Faults that are common to Protestants, as we have observed above. I shall not mention those that have spoken of the Ecclesiastical Authors by the buy; as, Tossanus, Hottinger, Aubertin, Maresius, Sandius, and many others: As also those that have composed particular Treatises upon some Books; as, Blondel upon the false Decretals of the Popes, and the Books of the Sibyls; Daillé upon the Canons and Constitutions of the Apostles, and upon the Epistles of St. Ignatius; Pearson, and some other English-Men, upon the same Letters; Vossius upon the Creeds; Beveridge upon the Apostolic Canons; Alix upon Tertullian; and several others.  
There is not one of all these Books which we have mentioned, that comprehends all that might be said upon these Ecclesiastical Authors. Some of them contain nothing, in a manner, but their Names, and a Catalogue of their Works: Others only give a short Account of their Lives, and handle what relates to the Critical Part very succinctly. The greatest part of them wholly employ themselves in Examining the Spurious and Supposititious Books. Photius is the only Man amongst the Ancients, that has made an Abridgement, and passed his own Censure upon the Books he mentions; but then the Ecclesiastical Authors he treats of are few in Number; and besides, he passes over some of them very superficially, and slightly. Scultetus is the only Modern Writer, who has given the World an Epitome of the Doctrine of the Fathers; but then he speaks little or nothing of their Lives, and has made no Critical Reflections upon their Works: The perplexed manner wherein he treats of these Matters, renders him disagreeable to the Reader: And besides, he only concerns himself with the principal Authors of the Four first Centuries. Halloixius has wrote upon fewer of these Authors; and his Work, which is of a prodigious Bulk, is by no means exact, and he is full of false and useless things. Having thus observed the Mistakes or Failures of all these Works, I undertook to make a Bibliotheca of Ecclesiastical Authors, more ample and perfect than those that have hitherto appeared in the World; and that I might the better succeed in my Design, I endeavoured to render it as like as was possible to what we commonly call a Bibliotheque, or Library. Thus, as we ordinarily range the Books in those places, according to the Order of their Matter and Time, I have likewise in this Work disposed the Ecclesiastical Authors according to the Order of Time; and it will be an easy matter to reduce them into a Method, according to their Subjects, by the Assistance of a Table at the End of every Volume. When we enter into any Library, the first thing we generally take notice of, are the Titles of the Books; and in this Library also, at the first opening of the Leaves, the Reader may see the Names of the Authors, and a Catalogue of their Works. But since it is not enough barely to consider the Titles of Books, so that we must of necessity read them over if we would be learned, I have not contented myself with making a Catalogue of their Treatises only, but I have drawn up an Abridgement or Summary of what is contained in them, observing at the same time what particular Opinions are to be found in their Writings. If in other Libraries, you often see the Pictures of Great Men and Famous Authors, either Painted upon Cloth, or Engraven upon Copper; here also you will see their Pictures drawn after a more Lively and more Natural manner; not only in the History of their Lives, but also in the Judgement that we have given of their Style, their Spirit, and their Genius. Lastly, As in great Libraries Men are not content with having only one Edition of an Author, but endeavour if they can to procure all, or at least a great part of them; so in this, I have taken notice of all the different Editions of Authors, that came to my knowledge, and I have endeavoured to omit as few, as was possible. However this Library of mine, will contain more Volumes upon Ecclesiastical Matters, than any other Collection of Books can pretend to show; because, it not only comprehends those that we now have; but likewise gives an account of those that are lost; the Number, whereof is exceeding great; and than it may boast of another advantage wholly peculiar to it; and that is, It helps to distinguish those Books that are forged, from those that truly belong to the Authors, whose Names they bear, which are confounded and mingled together in common Libraries. This is the design of my Undertaking, a small but very considerable part whereof I now present to the Public, which only concerns the Three first Ages of the Church; with a Resolution to publish a Continuation of the other Ages (a good Part of which is already done) and so to bring it down to our own Times, if God gives me Abilities and Strength enough to finish so long a Work, and if the Reception it meets withal in the World satisfies me, that my Endeavours may be of some advantage to the Public. I am not so vain as to flatter myself with having performed so great a Design, as perfectly as it ought to be, whatever Diligence, Pains or Exactness I have used in the Performance: But this at least, I may venture to assert, That of all the Books that have been written upon Ecclesiastical Authors, there is none that comprehends so many things. If I have failed in my undertaking, I have this to comfort myself, that I have drawn such an Idea of a Work as may employ the Learned a considerable time for the Public Benefit; and if they will be pleased hereafter to acquaint me with the Faults which I may have possibly committed, or inform me of those things which I have let slip, and communicate to me part of their Observations, as well upon the Authors that are in this Volume, as upon those that I shall examine in the next; I hope this Work will be able to acquire some sort of Perfection, according to my hearty Wishes, for the common Benefit of Mankind, the Advancement of Learning, and the Advantage of Religion itself.   

PART II.  
Some Observations upon the Method. An Account of the Design of the Work. Rules of Criticism laid down.  
IT being not sufficient barely to represent the general Design of this Work, as I have done in the First Part of the Preface, I found myself obliged to give some short Account of the Method I used in the Management of it. I usually begin with the Life of every Author, which I relate as succinctly, and in as few Words as possibly I can. For there being two ways of Writing the Life of any Person; one by taking in the Moral; the other by comprehending the Historical Part: I have applied myself wholly to the last, as being the most agreeable to my Design. In the first, I set down all the Actions of those Men, whose Lives I write, and then enlarge upon their Virtues; and make several Reflections upon their Behaviour and Conduct: In the Second, I only take notice of the principal Circumstances of their Life, passing over those Actions that are purely personal, and that have no Relation to the History of their Times, contenting myself with delivering Matters of Fact without a large Examination, whether they were well done or not. After this Manner, I have endeavoured to write the Life of those Authors of whom I have Occasion to speak, chief taking notice of those Circumstances that concern their Writings, and may serve either to illustrate them, or to make the Order, Subject, and Occasion of them known. For nothing is of more Use to make us understand the meaning of any Author, than the knowing when, and with what Temper he wrote, what Heretics he opposed, what Opinion he designed to establish; and lastly, what Condition he was in at that Time. A Bishop, for Example, writes otherwise than a Layman, an African otherwise than an Asiatic, and a Man under Persecution, talks in a different manner from one that is at ease. An Author that attacks the Heresy of his own Time, and besides, has personal Contests with his Adversaries, expresses himself in another strain, than a Man that writes against an Heresy that is extinct, and who has no other share in the Quarrel, or no other Motive of Writing than to defend the Truth: In a word, we speak and we writ generally according to the different Motions and Passions, with which we are agitated; the Objects that most forcibly strike us, represent themselves in a lively manner to our Imaginations, and by that means determine our Tongues and Pens to that side. After Tertulian was provoked against the Church, he never wrote one single Book, wherein he does not fall upon it, and bring in the Paraclete of Montanus. St. Cyprian making it his Business to support his own Authority and the Discipline of the Church against those that attacked both, speaks always of the Unity of the Church, and of Public Penance. Origen, who was full of the Platonic Philosophy, considers all the Principles of Christianity as they have a Relation to Plato's Doctrine. St. Athanasius, a sworn Enemy of the Arians, never took Pen in hand, but he fell upon them. St. Austin having the Donatists and Pelagians always in View in all his Writings, and even in his Homilies, talks perpetually of the Church and of Grace. 'Tis the same with all the rest, and if we examine the Matter narrowly, we shall find that all Men are, made after the same sort, and agree as to this particular. We commonly know by a Man's Discourse what Books he reads, what Sciences he studies, what Religion he is of, what Profession he follows, whether his Circumstances in the World are happy or not, and whether he is well or ill received by great Men; so difficult a Matter is it to conceal our own Opinions, when they have once made a deep Impression within! We offer a Violence to ourselves when we attempt to conceal them for any time, and sooner or later they escape from us, notwithstanding all our Endeavours to the contrary. And this shows what a considerable Advantage it is to us towards the better Understanding of any Author, to be perfectly instructed in the History of his Life, and to know what Country he was of, in what Times he lived, what was his Profession, his Genius and Inclination, what Heretics he opposed, and what Interests he had to manage.  
This very same Reason likewise makes us sensible, that it is not sufficient to know in general the Age wherein any Author wrote; but that we must also, if it is possible, find out the exact Time and Year in which he wrote every Treatise, and so observe the Order and Series of his Works; for besides, that a Man writes otherwise when he is Young, than when he is well in Years; it is a certain Truth, that the several Changes, that happen every day in the Course of worldly Affairs, and to every Person in particular, often make Men alter their Style. Tertullian, when he was engaged in the Sect of the Montanists, opposes what he had formerly established. St. Cyprian speaks of the Reconciliation of Penitents, according to the different Circumstances of the Times he lived in; St. Austin, when he writes against the Pelagians, speaks otherwise of God's Grace and of freewill, than he used to do before. St. Athanasius when he was under Persecution, wrote more violently than when he enjoyed Tranquillity. In a word, since nothing is so changeable as the Mind of Man, and since every Accident, that influences it, is under continual Motion, it must necessarily follow, that an Author will write differently in different Times. It is therefore of infinite Use to observe, as we have done, the Chronology of any Writer's Works, if we can discover it either by Reasoning, or by Conjecture; and this was more easily done in Polemical Discourses, than Treatises of Morality. The Characters, that help us to know the Time and Order of their Works, are, 1. The Years of the Emperors, the Names of Consuls; or lastly, the Years when any particular Epocha's begin, as we find them any where set down. 2. The Names of Persons that are mentioned there. 3. The Citations of the Works of other Authors, or of the Author himself. 4. Conjectures drawn from the Style, the Matters that are treated of, and the manner wherein they are delivered. I do not explain these Characters, because they are so easy to be understood, and because they may be so often discovered by an infinite Number of Examples in the Book itself.  
A Catalogue of the Works of these Authors was absolutely necessary: Sometimes I made it separately, and sometimes, as I had occasion to discourse of them in a Chronological Order. This Catalogue as well comprehends the Books that we have at present, as those that are lost, whose Titles have been preserved by the Ancients: but this has not been observed in the ordinary Catalogues, where they content themselves with setting down those Books only that are to be found in the Editions we now have. I have not suffered even those Authors to escape me, of whom we have not any entire Discourse remaining. I have made a Catalogue of their Treatises, where I could be fully informed of them by any of the Ancients, and I have taken Care to preserve the Fragments of some Writers that are still remaining, and to acquaint the Reader in what Authors and in what Places they are to be found. I have referred what I have to say of the Rules of Criticism to the End of the Preface, where I shall examine them more particularly.  
One would imagine that a Summary or Abridgement of these Books would prove a long Work, and swell the Volume to a mighty great Bulk; yet I have reduced it into very narrow Bounds, and have suffered nothing that was of considerable Moment, to escape me. I have contrived to make it as little troublesome and tedious as was possible, by not always confining myself to the Formality of an exact Method, and without making a scrupulous Analysis of their Propositions and Reasonings.  
I contented myself with delivering the Arguments of their Books in a few Words. When I met with any considerable things either for Doctrine, Morality, or Discipline, I carefully took notice of them, and I have also drawn out of several Books those Passages that appeared to be the most Beautiful, and those Thoughts that were the most Sublime: For the end which I always proposed to myself, was to give a true Character of the Author I treated of, and to omit nothing that was remarkable, and yet for the Reader's Ease, I have done it as short as I could.  
After this Abridgement of their Work, I generally give my Judgement of the Style, and Genius, and Learning of the Author. I done't in the least question but that several Persons will be offended at the Liberty I have taken, and that even those who approve my Design in the main, will be of a different Opinion from me; for the Judgements of Mankind are so vastly divided in nothing as in the Censures they pass upon other Men. Every Man thinks he has sufficient Authority in himself to judge another, and indeed every Man judges after his own Way, led by his own Fancy or Humour, without any certain or steady Rules.  
Hence it follows, that it is almost impossible to find two Persons that agree in their Opinions of a Third Person, and indeed this Reflection made me at first alter my design of drawing up the Characters of my Authors, foreseeing plainly, that I should hereby draw upon myself a great number of Adversaries. For though the Persons of whom I speak, have been long since dead, yet they have abundance either of Admirers, or Censurers, that will appear either for, or against them; so that whether I commend or blame them, it's all one, and I must expect to be censured and ill thought of. But afterwards, when I considered with myself, that since all the World give themselves the Liberty to judge the Ancients upon all occasions, just as they please, I thought that no Man ought to condemn me for doing the same, after I had carefully read them over, and particularly in a Book where the Subject and Design seemed to require it; I resolved to do it however with Moderation, and yet with a convenient Freedom. I don't pretend to oblige any Man to follow my Judgement; neither do I flatter myself that I have always found out their true Characters; I only desire my Reader not to condemn me inconsiderately, or upon the Faith of another, without having so much as read or studied these Authors; and I likewise conjure him to rest satisfied, that in passing my Censures, I have used all imaginable Exactness and Application, knowing that a Man cannot be too circumspect when he offers to judge others, and especially those Persons that have left so great a Reputation behind them in the World, and to whom we own so much Respect.  
I conclude with a Catalogue of the several Editions of those Books, which I have examined with the utmost Care and Diligence. I am not certain that I have set down all, yet I am satisfied that I have mentioned the best, and given my Judgement of each in particular. So that any Man may see at first sight, which Edition is most used, and aught to be most valued.  
At the End of these Three first Centuries, I have made an Abridgement of the Doctrine, Discipline, and Morality of those Times, that whatever is to be learned in the Authors of those Ages, may be seen at one View. This Summary I have composed as faithfully and in as short a compass as I could; however I don't pretend to have taken notice of every thing that is to be found in the Authors of the Three first Ages upon these Subjects, since I only designed to set down the Principal Points, that I might give my Reader a small Idea of them.  
Lastly, There are several Tables at the end of each Volume, which will not be wholly useless. The first contains a Catalogue of the Authors, in a Chronological Order, where one may see the time of their Birth, and Death, and that wherein they flourished. The Second contains a Catalogue of the same Authors, in an Alphabetical Order. The Third, is a Catalogue of their Works: The Genuine, the Spurious, and those that are lost. The Fourth, is a Catalogue of their Works, according to the Matters contained in them. And the last, is an ordinary Table of the things contained in the Body of the Book.  
I have only now to acquaint my Reader, that at the end of each Author, I have added some Annotations, that are merely Critical, to make my Book as plain and easy as was possible. In these Notes you will find some Illustrations and Proofs of the things that I asserted in the Text. I was not willing to reserve them till the end of the Volume, because generally most Men do not look so far, and so never mind them; nor to charge the Margin with them; because they were too long to be placed there, and consequently would have interrupted the Series of the Discourse. But I have placed them at the end of each Author, where it is an easy Matter to consult them by observing the several Letters that will conduct the Reader, and yet not detain him too long from the Text. Those that are but indifferently skilled in these Matters, may, if they please, pass over these Notes; but I would desire those that have a Mind to examine carefully what I have written, to read them along with the Text, because I have often barely asserted several things in the Text, that are justified and proved by these Notes.  
I shall leave the Reader to judge, whether this Book may be of any Advantage to the Public, or no; but I think I ought to acquaint him, that the principal End I proposed to myself, was to excite those that shall peruse it, to read the Works of the Holy Fathers; and that whoever imagines himself dispensed with from consulting the Originals by reading my Book, does manifestly pervert and abuse the Design of it. I published it with an Intention to give them a Taste, and not to make them lose their Appetite for the Fathers; and the Abridgement I have made of their Works, was only designed to inflame those that love these things, to go and refresh themselves at the Fountain head. This Work may easily inspire Men with a Desire of reading the Fathers, since it gives them beforehand a general Idea of their Doctrine and Maxims; but here is not enough to save them the Labour of reading the Originals: And let a Work of this Nature be never so well written, yet we ought to read these things in their Originals, where only they are to be found in their Purity, and Natural Beauty. This I thought necessary to premise, before I set down the Necessity and the Rules of true Criticism, and the great Importance of them, which I am now going to explain.  
Criticism is a kind of a Torch, that lights and conducts us in the obscure Tracks of Antiquity, by making us able to distinguish Truth from Falsehood, History from Fable, and Antiquity from Novelty. 'Tis by this Means, that in our Times we have dis-engaged ourselves from an infinite Number of very common Errors, into which our Fathers fell for want of examining Things by the Rules of true Criticism. For 'tis a surprising thing to consider how many spurious Books we find in Antiquity; nay, even in the first Ages of the Church. Several Reasons induced Men to impose Books upon the World, under other Men's Names. The first, and most general, is, the Malice of Heretics; who, to give the greater Reputation to their Heresies, composed several Books, which they attributed to Persons of great Reputation; in which they studiously spread their own Errors, that so they might find a better Reception, under the Protection of these celebrated Names. And thus the first Heretics devised false Gospels, false Acts, and false Epistles of the Apostles, and their Disciples: And thus those that came after them published several spurious Books, as if they had been written by Orthodox Authors, that so they might insensibly convey their Errors into the Minds of their Readers, without their perceiving the Cheat.  
The Second Reason that inclined People to forge Books under other Men's Names, is directly contrary to the First; being occasioned by the indiscreet Piety of some Persons, who thought they did the Church considerable Service, in forging Ecclesiastical or Profane Monuments in favour of Religion and the Truth. And this Reason prevailed with some ancient Christians, to forge some Testimonies in behalf of the Christian Religion, under the Name of the Sibyls, Mercurius Trismegistus, and divers others; and likewise induced the Catholics to compose some Books, that they might refute the Heretics of their own Times with the greater Ease. And Lastly, The same Motive carried the Catholics so far, as to invent false Histories, false Miracles, and false Lives of the Saints, to nourish and keep up the Piety of the Faithful. Now, though the Design of these Persons seems to be commendable, yet we ought not, by any Means, to approve of the making use of these sorts of Artifices to defend the Truth; which is well enough supported by real Proofs, without the necessity of inventing any false ones. It would be a Shame to call Lying and Falsehood to its Assistance, and we must never use such sort of Methods, which Truth and Sincerity will always condemn, whatever good Effects they may pretend to have.  
The Third Reason of the Forgery of some Books, keeps a middle Way between those we have already mentioned; for there have been some Persons in the World, that have been guilty of this Imposture, without any other Design, than to divert themselves at the Expense of their Readers, and to try how nearly they could imitate the Style of other Men. Hence it is, that some Authors have composed Treatises under St. Cyprian's, St Ambrose's, and St. Austin's Names. But it must be confessed, that this Reason has not been near so common as the other two, and that it very rarely prevailed, especially in the Primitive Times. Only in these latter Ages there have been some, who having Vanity enough to over-value their own Productions, have published them under the Name of ancient celebrated Authors; desiring rather (as the Abbot of Billi says) to appear abroad, and be esteemed under other Men's Names, than to continue despised, and be buried in Darkness, by writing in their own. And these are the Reasons that may have occasioned the Forgery of Books; Malice, Indiscreet Piety, and the Humours of Men.  
But besides these Reasons that have advanced this Trade of Forgery, there are several others that have occasioned the setting Authors Names to several Books, which they never writ. The first, and the most general, is, the Fault of the Transcribers, or Printers, who have frequently set wrong Names in the Title-Pages of their Books. And this has happened several Ways; for either they did it to raise the Price of the Copy, or, because they found these Tracts at the End of some other Author, they therefore concluded too rashly that they were done by the same Hand; or through Ignorance and Negligence; or lastly, some not being able to find out the Name of the true Authors, upon the strength of a few feeble Conjectures, have supposed they had good Reason on their side to change it.  
From hence therefore, one Book has often carried the Name of several Authors in Manuscript, and this has principally happened to Sermons; either because the Transcribers found it their Interest to publish them under the Names of Great Men, to make them more vendible; or because these Sermons, though of different Authors, by being often inserted into the Office of the Church, and divided into Lessons, were so interwoven and confounded one with another, that it was a difficult matter to distinguish them.  
A second Reason of the giving to some Books the Name of wrong Authors, is, because sometimes Men have written Books by way of Dialogue, or otherwise, to which, in imitation of Tully, they have given the Names of those Persons whom they have introduced there as Speakers. After this manner Vigilius Thapsensis made five Books under the Name of St. Athanasius; and perhaps too under the same Name he composed the Creed that is attributed to that Father: Whence it happened, that those that looked upon the Titles of these Books, attributed them to St. Athanasius, without examining the Reasons why they carried his Name: As if we should attribute Tully's Books to Laelius, Brutus, or Cato.  
Lastly, The Ambiguity of Titles, and the Resemblance of Names, have often contributed to the ascribing of Books to those to whom they did not belong. Two Authors were of the same Name, though perhaps they differed in every Circumstance beside; and this has given Occasion to several unwary or ignorant Readers, to attribute their Books to the wrong Persons. This has frequently happened; and, to give one remarkable Instance of it, the Resemblance of the Names of Sixtus the Philosopher, and Sixtus the Pope, caused the Sentences that were written by the former to be attributed to the latter.  
Having thus discovered the Reasons why we find so many Books attributed to Authors who have no just Title to them, we ought to establish the Rules of true Criticism. 'Tis equally dangerous to be ignorant of them, as to take them the wrong Way, and misapply them; for if we do not know them, we may be easily imposed upon by false Monuments; and if we do not understand them aright, or if we abuse them by allowing ourselves too great a Liberty, we may very often reject the Truth itself. This last Abuse has been frequent with many Critics of our Time, and particularly Protestant's, who, upon very slight superficial Conjectures, have rejected several Books that are unquestionably ancient and genuine, because they contradict their Doctrine or Discipline. Wherefore we may, in the first place, set this down for a general Rule in these Matters, that we ought always to act fairly, and upon the Square; and that we must lay aside our Passions, or our Interests, and hearken only to our Reason, when we pass our Judgement upon Supposititious or Genuine Books. 'Tis very ill done to conclude that such a Book is spurious because it pinches us, and afterwards to search for Reasons why it may be thought so. We ought, on the contrary, when a Book does not please us, to use more than usual Circumspection to examine the Reasons that make us call it into question; since it is to be feared, that unless we take due Care, the Prejudices we have form against it may cast a Mist before our Eyes, and make us mistake frivolous Conjectures for solid Reasons. We shall now examine the Proofs and Conjectures that a Man may have of a Book's being spurious, one by one, as they lie: They are either External, or Internal; and both one and the other may be convincing or probable.  
The Internal Proofs are those that are drawn out of the Books themselves, which we apparently demonstrate to be supposititious, either by the Time there set down, or by some other Sign, or by the Opinions that are there maintained, or by the Style wherein it is written. Time is one of the most certain Proofs; for nothing more evidently shows that a Book cannot belong to that Time wherein it is pretended to have been written, than when we find in it some Marks of a later Date. These Marks, in the first place, are, False Dates; for 'tis an ordinary thing for Impostors, that are generally ignorant, to date a Book after the Death of the Author to whom they ascribe it, or of the Person to whom it is dedicated, or written; and even when they do fix the Time right, yet they often mistake in the Names of the Consuls, or in some other Circumstances: All which are invincible Proofs, that he that dated this Book did not li●e at that time. Secondly, Impostors very often speak of Men that lived long after the Death of those Persons to whom they attribute those spurious Discourses, or they relate the History of some Passages that happened afterwards, or they speak of Cities and People that were unknown at the time, when those Authors wrote; or lastly, they cite Authors that wrote and lived after those whom they make to mention them.  
The Opinions or Things contained in a Book, do likewise discover the Forgery of it: 1. When we find some Opinions there, that were not maintained till a long time after the Author, whose Name it bears. 2. When we find some Terms made use of, to explain these Doctrines, which were not customary till after his Death. 3. When the Author opposes Errors, as extant in his own Time, that did not spring up till afterwards. 4. When he describes Ceremonies, Rites and Customs, that were not in use in his Time. 5. When we find some Opinions in these Spurious Discourses, that are contrary to those that are to be found in other Books, which unquestionably belong to that Author. 6. When he treats of Matters that were never spoken of in the Time when the real Author was alive. 7. When he relates Histories that are manifestly fabulous.  
In short, Style is a sort of Touchstone, that discovers the Truth or Falsehood of Books; because it is impossible to imitate the Style of any Author so perfectly, as that there will not be a great deal of difference. By the Style, we are not only to understand the bare Words and Terms, which are easily imitated; but also the Turn of the Discourse, the manner of Writing, the Elocution, the Figures, and the Method: All which Particulars, it is a difficult matter so to counterfeit, as to prevent a Discovery. There are, for instance, certain Authors, whose Style is easily known, and which it is impossible to imitate: We ought not however always to reject a Book upon a slight difference of Style, without any other Proofs; because it often happens, that Authors writ differently, in different Times: Neither ought we immediately to receive a Book as Genuine, upon the bare Resemblance of Style, when there are other Proofs of its being spurious; because it may so happen, that an ingenious Man may sometimes counterfeit the Style of an Author, especially in Discourses which are not very long: But the Difference and Resemblance of Style may be so remarkable sometimes, as to be a convincing Proof, either of Truth or Falsehood.  
The External Proofs are, in the first place, taken from ancient Manuscripts; in which, either we do not find the Name of an Author, or else we find that of another: The more ancient or correct they are, the more we ought to value them. Secondly, From the Testimony or Silence of ancient Authors; from their Testimony, I say, when they formally reject a Writing as Spurious, or when they attribute it to some other Author; or from their Silence, when they do not speak of it, though they have occasion to mention it: This Argument, which is commonly called a Negative one, is oftentimes of very great weight. When, for Example, we find, that several entire Books which are attributed to one of the Ancients, are unknown to all Antiquity: When all those Persons that have spoken of the Works of an Author, and besides, have made Catalogues of them, never mention such a particular Discourse: When a Book that would have been serviceable to the Catholics, has never been cited by them, who both might, and aught to have cited it, as having a fair Occasion to do it, 'tis extremely probable that it is supposititious. It is very certain, that this is enough to make any Book doubtful, if it was never cited by any of the Ancients; and in that Case, it must have very authentic Characters of Antiquity, before it ought to be received without Contradiction. And on the other hand, if there should be never so few Conjectures of its not being Genuine, yet these, together with the Silence of the Ancients, will be sufficient to oblige us to believe it to be a Forgery.  
These are the Rules of Criticism, by which we distinguish False and Spurious Works from those that are Genuine. As I said before, some of these Rules are convincing, and some are only probable; the Internal Proofs are generally more certain than the External; and amongst these, the positive Testimony of Authors is the most presumptive and strong. But it may be said, that all of them are sometimes more, and sometimes less convincing and probable; and that the Sovereign Rule is, the Judgement of Equity and Prudence; according to which we ought to balance the Reasons of one Side and the other, and consider all the Conjectures that can be brought for or against it. For it often happens, that although every Conjecture, considered apart, does not seem to bear any considerable weight, yet when they are all joined together, they make the thing almost morally certain. I have brought no Examples to explain all these Rules that I have set down; for, besides that they are sufficiently clear and intelligible of themselves, it is impossible to read in any Pages of my Book, without finding them applied upon all Occasions.  
Before I conclude my Preface, I am obliged to make some kind of Answer to those who have been pleased to declare, that they should have been better satisfied if I had wrote my Book in Latin. Some Persons have been of that Mind, because they have a greater Value for Latin, since it has lasted longer, and is more currant in Foreign Countries: Others take it ill that I have published those things in French, which, as they pretend, ought only to be understood by Divines. These Men have told me, That they could not endure to see Women and ignorant People learn the most curious Parts of Divinity: And that it might prove of dangerous Consequence to instruct them throughly in the Doctrine of the Fathers.  
As for the First, I shall take care to satisfy them, by translating my Book into Latin some time or other, if the Public shall think it worth being preserved.  
For the Others; As their Complaint is unreasonable, so I never saw any good Reasons to hinder my publishing it in French: For when the Fathers themselves wrote, they made use of a Language that was understood by all the World; and we live at present in an Age, wherein great Numbers of their Books have been translated with Applause. No Man therefore ought to take it ill, that I publish an Abridgement of their Doctrine to all the World: On the contrary, It were to be wished, that every Christian could be instructed in these Matters, that they might be the better confirmed in their Belief, when they see that this Doctrine has been always taught in the Church of JESUS CHRIST, who is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth.    

THE CONTENTS OF THE First Volume.  

PREFACE.  
PRELIMINARY DISSERTATION. 

Sect. I. Of the Authors of the several Books of the Old Testament. Pag. 1  
Sect. II. Of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament; of Books Doubtful, Apocryphal, and Lost, that belonged to the Old Testament. 26  
Sect. III. The History of the Hebrew Text; of the Version of the Septuagint, and other Greek Versions of the Old Testament. 35  
Sect. IV. Of some Authors, whose Works have a relation to the Old Testament; viz, Philo, Fl. Josephus, Justus, Aristeas, Aristobulus, Josephus Bengorion, Berosus, the false Dorotheus, Zoroaster, etc. 41  
Sect. V. Concerning the Authors of the Books of the New Testament. 43  
Sect. VI Of the Canon of the Books of the New Testament; and particularly, of those Books that were formerly doubted of. 49     

An Account of the Lives and Writings of the Primitive Fathers, etc.  
OF the Letter falsely supposed to be sent by Jesus Christ to King Agbarus, and of that of Agbarus to Jesus Christ. Pag. 1  
Of some Letters falsely attributed to the Virgin Mary. 2  
Of the Counterfeit Gospels. 3  
Of the Counterfeit Acts of the Apostles, and of the false Revelations. 4  
Of the Epistle to the Laodiceans, and some others, attributed to St. Paul. 5  
Of the Epistle of St. Barnabas. 6  
Of the Liturgies that are falsely attributed to the Apostles. 8  
Of the Apostles Creed. 9  
Of the Canons and Constitutions attributed to the Apostles. 13  
Of the several Books attributed to Prochorus, Linus and Abdias; of the Acts of the Passion of St. Andrew. 16  
Of the Books of the Sibyls, Mercurius Trismegistus, and Hystaspes; Of the Letters of Lentulus and Pilate, concerning Jesus Christ; of the Epistles of Seneca to St. Paul; and of a Passage in the History of Josephus, concerning Jesus Christ. Pag. 17  
Hermas. 26  
St. Clemens Romanus. 27  
St. Dionysius the Areopagite. 31  
St. Ignatius. 35  
St. Polycarp. 44  
Papias. 46  
Quadratus and Aristides. 48  
Agrippa. ibid.  
Hegesippus. ibid.  
St. Justin the Martyr, 50  
Melito. 55  
Tatian. ibid.  
Athenagoras and Hermias. 56  
Theophilus Bishop of Antioch. ibid.  
Apollinarius of Hierapolis. 57  
Dionysius of Corinth. ibid.  
Pinytus, Philippus, Modestus, Musanus, and Bardesanes. 58  
St. Irenaeus. ibid.  
Victor, Polycrates, Theophilus of Caesarea, and Bachillus of Corinth. 61  
Several Writers, of whom nothing remains, and who were little known amongst the Ancients. ib.  
Serapion of Antioch. ibid.  
Rhodon. ibid.  
Pantaenus. ibid.  
St Clemens Alexandrinus. 62  
Miltiades; the two Apollonii; and the two Anonymous Authors, who wrote against the Heresies of Montanus and Artemo. 66  
Tertullian. 69  
Caius. 86  
Hippolytus. 87  
Geminianus, or Geminus. 90  
Alexander. ibid.  
Julius Africanus. 91  
Minutius Foelix. 92  
Ammonius. 95  
Origen. 96  
Ambrose and Tryphon, Disciples of Origen. Pag. 116  
Beryllus. ibid.  
St. Cyprian. 117  
Pontius. 144  
Cornelius. ibid.  
Novatian. 145  
St. Martialis. 146  
Sixtus. 147  
Gregory Thaumaturgus. ibid.  
St. Denys of Alexandria. 149  
Theognostus. 153  
Athenogenes. 154  
Denys Bishop of Rome. ibid.  
Malchion. ibid.  
Archelaus. 155  
Anatolius. ibid.  
Victorinus. ibid.  
Pierius. 156  
Methodius. ibid.  
Pamphilus. 161  
Lucian. ibid.  
Phileas. 162  
Zeno of Verona. ibid.  
Arnobius. 163  
Lactantius. 165  
Commodianus. 169  
Julius Firmicus Maternus. 170  
Of the Councils held in the Three First Ages of the Church. 171  
Of the false Decretals attributed to the first Popes. 173  
Abridgement of the Doctrine, the Discipline, and the Morals of the Three First Ages of the Church. 178  
A Chronological Table of the Authors of the Old Testament.  
A Chronological Table of the Authors of the New Testament.  
A Chronological Table of the Ecclesiastical Authors treated of in this Volume.  
A Table of the Books, Canonical, Apocryphal, and Lost, which belong to the Old Testament.  
A Table of the Books that belong to the New Testament.  
A Table of all the Works of the Authors treated of in this Volume; showing which are Genuine, which Spurious, and which Lost.  
A Table of the Works of the Authors disposed in the Order of Matters on which they treat.  
An Alphabetical Table of Author's Names.  
An Index of the Principal Matters.    

A Preliminary Dissertation ABOUT THE AUTHORS OF THE BIBLE.  

SECT. I.  
Of the Authors of the Books of the Old Testament.  
OF all those Paradoxes, that have been advanced in our Age, there is none, in my Judgement, more rash and dangerous than the Opinion of those, who have presumed to deny, that Moses was the Author of the Pentateuch: For what can be more rash than to deny Matter of Fact, that has been established by express Texts of Holy Scripture by the Authority of Jesus Christ by the Consent of all Nations and by the Authentic Testimonies of the most Ancient Authors And what can be more dangerous, than to bid Defiance to Antiquity, and consequently destroy the Authority of those Books, which are, as it were, the very Foundations of our Religion ? And yet this they do, who dare affirm that the Books of the Pentateuch are not written by Moses, and endeavour to prove it by such weak Conjectures, that 'tis impossible for a Man of tolerable sense to be convinced by them For, allowing all that they allege were true, they could only prove, the same thing has happened to the Books of Moses, which has happened almost to all the Books of Ancient Authors, viz. That some few Words, Names and Terms have been altered or added to render the Narrative more intelligible to those that lived in the following Ages. For example: We find the Ancient Names of Cities are sometimes changed for those they received afterwards, because they would have been no longer known by their Ancient Appellations. There are likewise some short Explications inserted into these Sacred Books, to illustrate what was said by the Author: And, in short, some necessary Passages have been added to complete the History. These things are common, and we find Examples of it in the Books of Homer, Herodotus, and almost all the Ancient Historians, and yet no Body is inclined for all this to reject their Books, as if they did not belong to those whose Names they bear. Why then should we not say the same thing of the Books of the Pentateuch, which have been more constantly assigned to Moses, than the Poems of the Iliads or the Odysseys to Homer, or the Histories of Herodotus and Thucydides to those by whose Names they are known? Let us examine all the Reasons that are alleged against the Antiquity of the Pentateuch, since they imagine they are unanswerable, (which yet is very false, as we shall make appear in these following Discourses) and we shall see they only prove that some Names of Cities or Countries are changed, some few Words inserted to explain some Difficulties; and lastly, that the account of Moses' Death has been put in since, which was but necessary to finish the History of the Pentateuch. We ought therefore to affirm it for a certain Truth, That Moses was the Author of the first Five Books of the Bible, called the Pentateuch.  
There are given to each of these Five Books, (which have their Names in Hebrew from the first Word in each Book) there are given 'em, I say, such Names as have a relation to the Subject. The first is called Genesis, because it gins with the History of the Creation of the World. It contains besides that the Genealogy of the Patriarches, the History of the Flood, a Catalogue of the Descenda●… of Noah do●n to A●… 〈◊〉, the Life of Abrah●●, of Jacob and Joseph, and the History of the Posterity o● J●●o●, down to the Death of Joseph. So that this Book comprehends the History of 2369 Years, or thereabouts, following the account of the Years of the Patriarches, as we find them in the Hebrew Text.  
The Second is called Exodus, because the principal Subject of it is the Departure of the Children of Israel out of Egypt, and all that passed in the Wilderness under Moses' Conduct, for an Hundred forty five Years, viz. from the Death of Joseph, to the Building of the Tabernacle. We find there a Description of the Plagues wherewith Egypt was afflicted; an Abridgement of the Religion and Laws of the Israelites; together with the admirable Precepts of the Decalogue.  
The third is called Leviticus, because it contains the Laws, the Ceremonies, and Sacrifices of the Religion of the Jews: All which has a particular Relation to the Levites, to whom God gave the charge of all those things that concerned the Ceremonial part of that Religion.  
The fourth is called Numbers, because it gins with the Numbering of the Children of Israel that came out of Egypt, and concludes with the Laws that were given the People of Israel during the Thirty nine Years of their sojourning in the Wilderness.  
Deuteronomy, that is to say, the second Law, is so called, because it is, as it were, a Repetition of the first: Fo● after Moses has described in a few Words the principal Actions of the Israelites in the Wilderness, ●e recites abundance of the Precepts of the Law.  
We don't certainly know when these Books were composed by Moses, or which was first written: However, 'tis very certain, that Deuteronomy was written last, in the Fortieth Year of the Departure out of Egypt, and a little before the Death of Moses.  
We can't so certainly tell who are the Authors of the other Books of the Bible: Some of 'em we only know by Conjecture, and others there are of which we have no manner of Knowledge.  
It is not certain that the Book of Joshuah was written by himself; for as it is observed by the Author of the Abridgement of the Scripture attributed to St. Athanasius, this Title is set at the Head of that Book, not so much to discover the Author, as to make the Subject of it known; because it treats of War, and other things that happened under the Conduct of Joshuah, after the same manner as the Books of Judges, of Kings, of Tobit, of Judith, are so called, because they give an Account of the Lives and Actions of those whose Names they bear. But though 'tis commonly believed that this Book was written by Joshuah, and this Opinion seems to be countenanced by some Words of the last Chapter, where it is said that Joshuah wrote all these things in the Book of the Law: Nevertheless we must affirm, that 'tis certain, that Theodoret, and some others among the Ancients, are not of this Opinion, and that we have Reasons strong enough to make us doubt whether he is the Author or no. However it is, 'tis a most unquestionable Truth, that this Book is ancient, and that if it is not Joshuah's, it was written either by his particular Order, or a little after his Death. It carries the History of the People of Israel Seventeen Years beyond the Death of Moses, or thereabout.  
We yet know less of the Author of the Book of Judges. Some with the Talmudical Doctors attribute it to Samuel, some to Hezekiah, others to Ezrah. In short, some Persons are of Opinion, that every Judge wrote his own Memoirs, which were afterward collected by Samuel or Ezrah. Be it as it will, the Book is certainly ancient, and admit it was put into the condition we now find it by Ezrah, yet we cannot reasonably question its being composed from ancient Memoirs. It contains the History of what happened to the Israelites from the Death of Joshuah, to that of Samson. We cannot precisely tell what Number of Years it takes in, tho' 'tis commonly fixed to something above 300 Years.  
The Book of Ruth is a kind of an Appendix to the Book of Judges, which is the reason why the Jews made but one Book of these two, and for the same reason 'tis commonly believed that one Author composed both. 'Tis certain that the History of Ruth comes up to the times of the Judges, but we don't know the time exactly. We may assign it to the time of Samgar, Eight and twenty Years, or thereabouts, after the Death of Joshuah.  
The two first Books of Kings are called by the Hebrews the Book of Samuel, which has occasioned the Opinion that they were in part written by that Prophet that is to say, that he composed the Four and twenty first Chapters, and that the Prophets, Gad and Nathan afterwards completed the Work. This is the Opinion of the Talmudists and Isidore, and is founded upon these Words of the Chronicles, 1 Chron. 29. 29. Now the Acts of David the King, first and last, behold they are written in the Book of Samuel the Seer, and in the Book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the Book of Gad the Seer. Theodo●…t and Diodorus of Tarsus seem to be of this Opinion, when they say, that it was the custom of all Prophets amongst the Hebrews to write down whatever happened in their time; and that upon this score it is, that the first Book of Kings is called the Prophecy of Samuel. Others pretend that these Books are of a later date, because we find some ways of speaking there which done't belong to that time, but perhaps they were added since; and it is very probable that both these Books are very ancient. However, 'tis certain that they were written before the Chronicles. The first of these two Books of Kings contains that which passed under the Government of Eli of Samuel, and under the Reign of Saul: The second, is the History of David's Government. The two last Books of Kings, contain the History of the Reign of Solomon Son of David, and afterwards the Reigns of the several Kings of Israel, and Judah, down to the Destruction of Israel, and the Captivity of Judah. We don't know who is the Author of these two Books. Some, as the Talmudists for instance, attribute them to Jeremiah, others to Isaiah, and the greatest part to Ezrah. 'Tis a Collection, or an Historical Abridgement drawn out of several Memoirs and Books of the Prophets, which are there frequently quoted. These Four Books of Kings contain the History of almost Six hundred Years.  
The two Books of Chronicles are called Paralipomena by the Greeks, because they contain some Circumstances that were omitted in the other Historical Books. The Hebrews call them Diaries, and St. Jerome Chronicles. 'Tis commonly believed that Ezrah wrote them, and that he drew this Abridgement partly from those Books of the Bible which we have, and partly from other Memoirs that he had at the time of his writing. St. Jerome thinks that this was the Book that is cited in the Book of Kings, under the Name of The Book of the Say of the Kings of Judah. But 'tis evident that it is not, and that the Book of Chronicles was written since that of Kings, as we prove by the last Words of that Book, where mention is made of the Deliverance of the Jews by Cyrus.  
'Tis commonly believed that it was Ezrah, who composed the first Book of those that carry his Name; and indeed Ezrah speaks there in his own Person pretends that the first Chapters of that Book were written by another Author, but his Conjecture is not strong enough to make us quit the common Opinion The second Book belongs to Nehemiah without question for he declares himself the Author of it in the beginning of the Book, and always speaks of himself in the first Person. The first of these two Books contains the History of the Deliverance of the Jews from their Captivity, and their Re-establishment in Judea from the first Year of Cyrus, to the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus, for 82 or 83 Years. And the second gins from the twentieth Year of the aforesaid Artaxerxes, and reaches to the Reign of Darius his Son, Surnamed the Bastard, which comprehends the History of the Jews for thirty or one and thirty Years.  
'Tis commonly believed, that Tobit and Tobias wrote their own History themselves But this Opinion is very uncertain. 'Tis generally believed that this Book was at first writ in Chaldee, that St. Jerome translated it into Latin, and that this History was afterwards put into Hebrew. There are two different Hebrew Editions of it, one set out by Munster, and the other by Fagius. There is also an ancient Greek Edition, out of which the Syriac Version was composed. Tobit was one of the Israelites that were carried out of Samaria by King Shalmanezer.  
The Author of the Book of Judith is yet less known, as Isidore has observed. Some believe it was written by Eliachim, or Joachim High Priest of the Jews, of whom mention is made in that Book: Others say it was Joshuah the Son of Josedec, the Companion of Zorobabel: Others in short, maintain that it was not written till the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, before the Maccabees time. 'Tis written in Chaldee, and that has made Huetius think that it was written during the Babylonian Captivity. St. Jerome translated it into Latin, rather following the Sense, as he tells us, than the bare Letter. The Greek Version which we have is very different from the Latin, and seems to be more literal. The time wherein the History mentioned in this Book did happen, is no less uncertain Some place it before the Captivity, others after, and some have the boldness to say, That whatever is in this Book, is only a Parable and Allegory, that has nothing of Historical Truth in it.  
The time, and the Author of the History of Hester, are also very uncertain St. Epiphanius, St. Austin, and St. Isidore, attribute this Book to Ezrah. Others to Joachim High Priest of the Jews, Grandson of Josedec. Most Men say that Mordecai wrote it who is so often mentioned in it. The T●lmudists attribute it to the Synagogue. The six last Chapters, that are found in the Greek, are not in the Original Hebrew. Origen, in his Letter to Africamus, believes it was lost. Grotius pretends that these Chapters were composed by the Greek Proselytes. Sixtus Senensis says they were taken out of Josephus. Bellarmine, and some others, maintain, that there are two Hebrew Editions of this Book, one larger than the other, where these last Chapters are found, and the other the same with what we have. Some say the History of Hester happened under Darius the Son of Hystaspes; others place it under Xerxes; and lastly, there are some who place it under Ciaxares King of the Medes. The first Opinion seems to be most probable.  
The time wherein Job lived, is yet more difficult to discover; and the Author of the Book, who has compiled his History, is no less unknown Some, as Origen, St. Gregory, and Suidas, attribute it to Job himself: Others believe that Moses was the Author of it, or that he translated it into Hebrew. St. Gregory Nazianzen attributes it to Solomon; others to Isaiah, or to some one of the Prophets. All these Opinions are built but upon very slight Conjectures. Wherefore 'tis better, in my Opinion, to suspend one's Judgement, than to assert any of the abovementioned Opionions that are equally uncertain. But at the same time we must not fall into the opposite Error, by saying with the Talmudists, and some other Critics, that the History of Job is an entire continued Fiction The Persons and Nations that are there called by their proper Names, the Testimonies of Tobit, of Ezekiel, and St. James, with the Opinions of the Ancient Fathers, aught to convince us that the Foundation of this History is real and true. But the manner wherein 'tis related, the Conversation that is held with the Devil, the Prolixity of the Discourses of Job's Friends, and of what Job himself delivered in his miserable estate, aught to make us acknowledge, that this History is mightily amplified and adorned with several feigned Circumstances, to render the Story more useful and agreeable. 'Tis commonly believed that Job lived before Moses, or at least in his time, and that the History related in this Book happened during the time when the Israelites were in the Desert, because there is not a Word spoken there about the Written Law. Some there are who make Job to descend from Nahor, the Brother of Abraham, but others from Esau. The last Opinion seems to me to be the most probable, because 'tis supported by the Authority of a very ancient Addition, which is to be found at the end of the Greek Edition of the Book of Job.  
Though the Psalms are commonly called The Psalms of David, or rather The Book of the Psalms of David; yet 'tis certain, as St. Jerome has observed in many places, that they are not all of 'em his and that there are some of them which were written long after his Death. 'Tis therefore a Collection of Songs that was made by Ezrah. It is a difficult matter to say who are the Authors and to distinguish those that were made by David, from those that were composed by others. But whoever were the Author 'tis certain, as Theodoret has judiciously observed, that they were composed by Persons inspired by God, and that they are cited under that Character both in the Old and New Testament  
The Authors of the following Books are better known; the Proverbs or Parables belong to Solomon, whose Name is written in the beginning of that Book, The Proverbs of Solomon the Son of David. 'Tis observed in the 25th Chapter, that the following Parables are still Salomon's, but that they were collected by some Persons chosen by the King Hezekiah; These are also the Proverbs of Solomon, which the Men of Hezekiah King of Judah copied out. The 30th Chapter gins with these Words. The Words of Agur the Son of Jakeh, which show that this Chapter is an Addition made to the Proverbs of Solomon by one Agur, as is easy to be proved, because this Chapter is entirely separated from the rest, and besides is written in another Style. In short, the last Chapter is entitled, The Words of King Lemuel. We ought therefore to conculde, from what has been said, that the 24 first Chapters are Salomon's Originally, that the five following one's are Extracts or Collections of his Proverbs, and that the two last Chapters were added afterwards.  
The Book of Ecclesiastes is ascribed to Solomon by all Antiquity: And yet the Talmudists have made Hezekiah the Author of this Book, and Grotius, upon some slight Conjectures, pretends it was composed by Zorobabel. It gins with these Words, The Words of the Preacher, the Son of David, King of Jerusalem: Which may be applied to Hezekiah as well as to Solomon: But what is said of that Wisdom in several places, which was peculiar to him, and in the second Chapter of his Riches and Power, determines that we ought rather to understand it of Solomon.  
The Song of Songs, that is to say, a Song by way of Excellence, is allowed to be Salomon's by the Consent of the Synagogue and the Church. The Talmudists attribute it to Ezrah, but without any Grounds.  
The Book of Wisdom is commonly said to be Salamon's but this Opinion is not very probable. For, 1. This Book is not to be found in the Hebrew. 2. It was never received into the Hebrew Canon. 3. 'Tis evident, as St. Jerome has observed, that the Style is extremely different from that of Solomon, and that it was composed by a Greek. The same St. Jerome observes, that it was commonly attributed to Philo, which we are to understand of an older Philo than him whose Works we have. However, it appears plainly, that it was composed by a Hellenist Jew, who had a mind to imitate the Books of Solomon, from whom he has borrowed abundance of Thoughts.  
The Preface which is before the Book of Ecclesiasticus, and the Fifth Chapter of that Book, inform us, that the Author thereof was a Jew, named Jesus the Son of Syrach, who composed it in Hebrew, and which was translated into Greek by his Grandson. St. Jerome tells us, he saw in his time an Hebrew Copy of it Some of the Ancients attribute it to Solomon perhaps because of the resemblance of the Subject, and the Thoughts, which is so great, that 'tis visible he designed to imitate him, and that several Thoughts are taken from him.  
The Books of the Prophets carry the Names of their Authors undisputed. Isaiah is the first and most excellent of the Prophets. He was the Son of Amos, whom we are by no means to mistake for the Prophet of the same Name He Prophesied from the end of the Reign of Uzziah, to the time of Manasses, by whose Command, they say, he was cruelly slain, and sawn asunder with a Wooden Saw He himself collected into one Volume all those Prophecies which he delivered under Uzziah, Jotham, Ahas and Hezekiah, Kings of Judah. Besides these, he wrote a Book of the Actions of Uzziah, which is mentioned in the 2d of Chron. Chap. 26. Verse 22. Some Apocryphal Books are ascribed to him; amongst others, that famous one so often quoted by Origen; and another, entitled, The Ascension of Isaiah, which St. Jerome, and St. Epiphanius mention; and a later one likewise, called, The Vision of Isaiah. Some have pretended that this Book of Isaiah which we have, is only compiled out of the Works of Isaiah; but the Conjectures which they bring to prove it, are extremely frivolous  
Jeremiah, born in a Village near Jerusalem, of Sacerdotal Extraction, began to Prophesy about the end of the Reign of Josiah, when he was very young, and continued his Prophecies till after the Captivity of the Jews in Babylon. He was not carried away with the other Jews into that City; but tarrying in his own Country to lament its Destruction, he was afterwards taken Prisoner, and carried into Egypt along with his Disciple Baruch; where, as 'tis commonly believed, he was stoned to Death. The Fathers think that he always lived in the state of Celibacy. We are told in the beginning of the 36 Chapter, that King Jehoiachim having burnt the Book of his Prophecies, this Prophet composed a new Volume larger and stronger than the former. He afterwards added those Prophecies, which he made till the Babylonian Captivity, and those which he delivered in Egypt. In the 50th and 51 Chap. he foretells all that was to come to pass in Babylon, and these he transmitted thither by Saraiah the Son of Neriah. The 52d Chapter does not belong to him, for his Prophecies terminated at the end of the 51 Chapter, as appears by these Words, Thus far are the Words of Jeremiah. It was rather written by Baruch, or Ezrah, and contains an Account of taking of Jerusalem, and of what happened during the tivity of the Jews in Babylon, after the Death of Isaiah. It serves to illustrate the Prophecies of Jeremiah, and particularly his Lamentations, which follow in order, and make another part of the Works of Jeremiah. In this last Book one sees the Ruin and Desolation of Jerusalem painted in lively Colours, and especially the Grief and Concern of the Prophet upon occasion of that mournful Scene. It has a Preface in the Greek and Vulgar Latin, which is to be found neither in the Hebrew, nor in the Chaldee Paraphrase, nor in the Syriac, and seems plainly to have been added to explain the Argument of the Book. In short, these Lamentations end with a Prayer to God. The Style of Jeremiah, if we may be determined by St. Jerome's Testimony, is Simple in its Expressions, and Majestic in its Sense. But this Simplicity of Language does not appear to us at present. On the contrary, we find him Elevated and Sublime, both in his Sense, in the Turn, and the Majesty of his Expression.  
The Prophecy of Baruch, who was the Disciple and Secretary of Jeremiah, formerly made up but one Book with that of this Prophet. Josephus reports that Baruch was descended of an Illustrious Family, and that he perfectly understood the Language of his own Country. We are told in the first Chapter, Verse the first, That he wrote this Prophecy in Babylon, but we don't certainly know the time The Hebrew Copy of Baruch is lost, though we need not doubt but it was written in that Tongue. There is a Letter in the Syriac, which by some is attributed to Baruch, but 'tis very clear that it is written by a Christian. The Epistle to the Captives of Babylon, which we find in Baruch, belongs to Jeremiah. The Author of the second Book of the Maccabees has mentioned it; it is exactly the Style of that Prophet, and contains nothing but what is very agreeable to the time in which it was written.  
Ezekiel, the Son of Buzi the Priest, having been carried away into Babylon under Jeconiah, began to Prophecy in the fifth Year of the Captivity, and was slain, as 'tis commonly believed, by a Prince of that Nation, whom he reproved for his Adoration of Idols. His Prophecies are dark and obscure. St. Jerome says, his Style is neither very eloquent nor very mean, but between both.  
Daniel, one of the Royal Family, was sent captive into Babylon, when he was but an Infant. The Jews don't reckon him amongst their Prophets: But the Christians, following the Authority of Jesus Christ, who gives him that Title in St. Matthew, Chap. 24. Vers. 15. look upon him under that Quality and Character: And indeed there is no dispute, but what he has wrote, deserves the name of Prophecy, as the Jews themselves are obliged to confess. But they don't give him the name of a Prophet, because he lived a Life extremely different from that of the other Prophets, and rather like one of the Great Men of Babylon: Besides, they think that he was an Eunuch, and there is a passage in his Book seems to confirm it 'Tis certain, that the first Chapters of Daniel's Prophecies are undoubtedly his, though we have reason to doubt of the Antiquity and Truth of the two later, which contain the History of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon The four first Chapters in Daniel are written in Hebrew, the following ones, as far as the 18th Chapter, in Chaldee, and were afterwards translated into Hebrew. The last are written originally in Greek.  
The Twelve lesser Prophets composed but one Book among the Hebrews. Hosea the Son of Beeri is the first He prophesied in the Days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, Kings of Judah; and 'tis very plain, that he wrote this Prophecy, because he frequently speaks of himself in the first Person. There is one passage in his Book that appears very extraordinary, and that is, God's commanding him to take a Wife of Whoredoms, and Children of Whoredoms. But either this aught to be simply understood of a Vision, as St. Jerome pretends, or we are to suppose that God did not command him to commit Adultery, but only to espouse a Prostitute, as St. Basil and St. Austin have explained this place. The Style of this Prophet is very pathetic, and full of short lively Sentences, as St. Jerome has observed.  
The Prophet Joel follows Hosea in St. Jerome's Edition; but we don't certainly know the time when he Prophesied Some Persons believe that he is more ancient than Amos; others say that he did not write till after the Captivity of the Ten Tribes; and there are plausible Conjectures both of one side and the other. According to some he was of the Tribe of Gad, but others place him in the Tribe of Reuben.  
Amos, a Herdsman of Tekoah, a Village two Leagues from Bethlehem to the South, was chosen of God to be a Prophet in the time of Uzziah King of Judah, and of Jeroboam the Son of Joash King of Israel, two Years before the Earthquake, which happened in the 24th or 25th Year of Uzziah.  
The time of Obadiah's Prophesying is altogether unknown St. Jerome, with the Jews, believes that this Prophet was he, that was Governor of the House of King Ahab, who is mentioned in the first Book of Kings, Chap. 18. Vers. 4. he that fed the Hundred Prophets. Others believe he is the same with that Obadiah, whom Josiah made Supervisor of the Building of the Temple, who is mentioned in the second Book of Chronicles, Chap. 34. Vers. 12. Most People make him Contemporary with Hosea, Amos and Joel. Some after all, believe that he lived in the time of Jeremiah, after the taking of Jerusalem.  
Jonah, the Son of the Prophet Amittai of the City of Gath, near Diocesarea, of the Tribe of Zabulon in Galilee, Prophesied under King Jeroboam, Uzziah and Azariah. God sent him to the City of Ninive to Preach Repentance there, and his Book is an Account of his Message and Journey. He has written another Prophecy mentioned in the Book of Kings. This Book which we have, seems to be quoted by Tobit in the 14th Chapter, Verse the 4th, and is approved by our Saviour Jesus Christ himself.  
The Prophet Micah, born at Morasthi, a Village of Palestine in the Tribe of Judah, Prophesied under the Reign of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, after the Prophets of whom we have spoken already, but before Jeremiah, who citys him in the 26th Chapter. He is a different Person from him, who lived in the time of Ahab and Jehoshaphat, and 'tis commonly believed that he died a Martyr.  
We don't certainly know the Country of the Prophet Nahum: Nor have we any better Assurances of the Time wherein he lived. His mentioning the Destruction of Ninive, makes some think that he lived in the Time of Sardanapalus, under Jeash and Jehu; which if it were so, he would be the most ancient of the Prophets. Josephus is of Opinion, that he lived in the Time of Jotham, and that he foretold the Ruin of Ninive, which happened many Years after the time of Josiah. St. Jerome, Theodoret and Theophylact, say he Prophesied after the Captivity of the Israelites; others say under Hez●kiah, and some under Manasses. The most received Opinion is, that he Prophesied after the Captivity of the Ten Tribes by Shalmanezer, before Sennacherib's Expedition against the Tribe of Judah, which is foretold in the first Chapter of his Prophecy.  
Nor have we any better Information either of the Country or time of the Prophet Habakkuk▪ The Jews say that he Prophesied in the time of Manasses, or Jehoiachim, a little before the Captivity. St. Epiphanius, and the false Epiphanius, make him Contemporary with Zedekiah and Jeremiah. Others say he lived in Josiah's time, St. Jerome in Daniel's, confounding him with that Habakkuk who is mentioned by that Prophet. The most probable Opinion is, that he lived under the Reign of Manasses, whose iniquities he seems to describe in his first Chapt. Vers. 13, and 14. and before the Expedition of the Chaldeans against the Jews, which he foretells in the first Chapt. Vers. the 6th, as well as their Destruction Chapt. the 2d, Vers. the 3d.  
The time wherein Zephaniah Prophesied, is exactly marked out to us in these Words at the beginning of his Prophecy, The Word of the Lord came unto Zephaniah, the Son of Cushi, the Son of Gedaliah, the Son of Amariah, the Son of Hizkiah, in the days of Josiah the Son of Amon King of Judah. We don't know from what Country he came. St. Cyril makes him to have been of Noble Extraction, because he mentions his Ancestors.  
Haggai, and the two following Prophets, Prophesied not till after the return of the Jews from the Captivity of Babylon. It is said in the beginning of Haggai's Prophecy, that it was written in the second Year of Darius the Son of Hystaspes, and the sixth Month.  
Zechariah, the Son of Barachiah, Grandson of Iddo wrote his Prophecy in the same Year of Darius, two Months after the Prophet Haggai, as he himself has observed in the beginning of his Prophecy. He is a different Person from that Zechariah, of whom Isaiah speaks in his eighth Chapter and of him that was slain by the Command of King Joash between the Temple and the Altar, 2 Chron▪ 24. 20.  
Malachi, whose Name in Hebrew signifies My Angel Prophesied since Haggai and Zechariah, after the Rebuilding of the Temple, For the two former exhort the People to build the Temple, but he exhorts them to observe the Law, and offer their Sacrifices with purity; which does necessarily suppose that the Temple was already rebuilt. Besides this, the Disorders for which he reproves the Jews, are the very same with those which Nehemiah lays to their charge, which is a manifest Argument that they both lived in the same time. Malachi is the last of the Prophets; and as there was none other to succeed him till the coming of Jesus Christ, so he concludes his Prophecy with an Exhortation to the Jews to observe the Law of Moses, and wait for the great and dreadful Day of the Lord, who should turn the Hearts of the Fathers to the Children, and the Hearts of the Children to their Fathers. All which clearly and expressly sets before us St. John Baptist, and Jesus Christ.  
The two Books of the Maccabees were not written by the same Person, as the sensible difference of the Style, of the Chronology, and the History sufficiently show We don't know who is the Author of the first; 'tis indeed very probable that it was Originally written in Hebrew, and afterwards translated into Greek and Latin. The second is an Abridgement or Epitome of Jason, who was one of the Jews of Cyrene, as it appears by the Preface of that Book, which gins Chap. 2. Vers. 23. It is preceded by two Letters of the Jews at Jerusalem to the Jews inhabiting Egypt, added by the Author of this Abridgement which he has made with a great deal of Liberty. These two Books are called The Books of the Maccabees, from the Name of Judas the Son of Mattathias, Sir-named Maccabeus, because he had placed in his Banner the first Hebrew Letters of the Words of a certain Sentence in Exodus which being joined together make that word. These two Books contain the History of the Jews under the Government of the Greeks, from the Reign of Alexander to that of Demetrius Soter, which comprehends the space of Forty Years, or thereabouts, and they conclude an Hundred and Thirty Years before the Coming of our Saviour Jesus Christ.  

NOTES.  

(a) THere is no Paradox more dangerous than the Opinion of those who have presumed to deny that the Pentateuch was composed by Moses.] I have already observed in the first Edition, that this Paradox was started by Rabbi Aben Ezra, because he is the first that raised these Objections, which have occasioned some Persons to believe, that Moses was not the Author of the Pentateuch; and though he durst not openly declare his Opinion in this Matter, yet he expresses himself after such a Manner, that it will evidently appear that he was not hearty persuaded that the Pentateuch was written by Moses. For in his Explication of these Words in Deuteronomy, Behold what Moses said to the Israelites that were beyond Jordan, he not only makes use of this passage to show that this Book was not Moses', but he musters up the most terrible Objections he could raise for this purpose. You will know the Truth, says he, if you comprehend the Mystery of the Twelve: Moses wrote the Law: The Canaanites were then in the Land: In the Mountain of the Lord it shall be seen: Behold his Iron Bed: Words which allude to some passages in the Pentateuch, and which he uses to prove; that it was not written by Moses. And 'tis principally upon the Authority and Reasons of this Rabbi that Hobbs, Pererius, and Spinosa, established their Doctrine, when they publicly maintained that the Pantateuch was not written by Moses. To these Authors we may add Monsieur Simon, who has wrote a Book, called, A Critical History of the Old Testament. I was not willing to name him in the first Edition of this Volume, though I took occasion then to confute his Reasons; but since he has been pleased to declare that he was the Person, whom I meant, in a Letter to Monsieur Labbe a Doctor of the Faculty, he ought not to resent it as an Injury, if I attack him by name, and endeavour to show, that his Hypothesis about the Books of Moses is a rash and dangerous as Spinosa's.  
Monsieur Simon lays down his Opinion in the first Chapter of the first Book of his Critical History, p. 3. of Leers Edition. When we suppose that there have been such public Scribes, we ascribe to them all the Historical part of the Pentateuch, and to Moses all that belongs to the Laws and Ordinances; and 'tis this which the Scripture calls the Law of Moses. And so one may say in this sense, that all the Pentateuch is really and truly written by Moses, because those persons that made the Collection lived in his time, and what they did was by his particular Direction. He says the very same thing in his 2d Chap. p. 17. 'Tis therefore not improbable that there were in Moses ' s time such sort of Prophets, who were necessary to the State, because they preserved the most considerable Actions that passed in their Commonwealth. This being granted we shall distinguish in these five Books of the Law that which was written by Moses, from what was written by the Prophets and public Scribes: We may attribute to Moses the Commandments and Ordinances which he gave the People, in lieu of which we may suppose these same public Scribes to have been the Authors of the greatest part of this History. In the seventh Chapter, p. 50. he adds: As for what concerns the Books of Moses, such as they now are in the Collection which we have, the Additions that have been made to the ancient Acts hinder us from discerning what is truly his, and what has been added by those who succeeded him, or by the Authors of the last Collection. Besides, this Compilation being now and then Epitomised out of the ancient Memoirs, one cannot be assured, that the Genealogies there are set down in their full length and extent.  
From these Principles of Monsieur Simon, it follows in the first place, that Moses is not the Author of the greatest part of the Pentateuch, for the Controversy here is not about some few Passages that are of small consequence, but even those that make up the Body and principal Part of the Pentateuch; Moses according to his Notions, being only concerned about the Laws and Ordinances, has no share in any thing besides, and so the History of the Creation, and of the Deluge, in a word, all Genesis, and whatever has a relation to the Historical part, is taken away from Moses. It is to no purpose to say, as he has done already, p. 3. That one may say, that all the Pentateuch is Moses ' s, because they that made the Collection lived in his time, and did nothing but by his order. For would it not be a Jest to ascribe to Moses the Works of the public Scribes of his time? If this were really true, a Man might ascribe all public Registers to those Kings and Princes, in whose time, and by whose order, they were compiled: But what is a great deal more surprising, Monsieur Simon, or at least one of his Zealous Defenders, abandons this Hypothesis as not to be maintained, and acknowledges that there is no convincing proof to make us believe there weresuch public Scribes divinely inspired in the time of Moses. This is taken notice of in a Marginal Note of the 17th Page of his Critical History, and the same Edition that we cited before. We find in truth, says the Author of that Remark, this sort of public Scribes in the time of the Kings amongst the Hebrews. … but we find no Footsteps of them in the Books of Moses. The Author of the Answer to a Letter which Monsieur Spanheim wrote against F. Simon confesses the same thing. If you now demand of me, what is my Opinion concerning these public Scribes; I answer, That it would be very hard to reject 'em totally… In the mean time I don't altogether agree with him as to the time, wherein he pretends, that these Prophets were Established in the Jewish Commonwealth for the Reasons he brings, and indeed the greater part of his Authorities clearly suppose, that this happened after Moses. If this Letter was Monsieur Simon's, as the World was inclined to believe, he cannot possibly excuse himself from having dealt very treacherously in a matter of the highest consequence about Religion, since he has established the truth of the Pentateuch upon a supposition, which he himself acknowledges to be either false or uncertain. But suppose this Letter was not his, it shows at least, that those persons who are the most favourable to his Hypothesis, freely own 'tis impossible to prove there were any of these public Scribes divinely Inspired in Moses' time; and consequently that Monsieur Simon, who has grounded the validity of the Pentateuch upon this Hypothesis, has done it upon a very weak Foundation, even in the judgement of those Critics who stand up the strongest for him. Thus Monsieur Simon alleges this Conjecture as only a matter of probability. In the second place, Monsieur Simon has of himself ruined whatever he says of the Antiquity and Authority of the Pentateuch, by confidently asserting, as he has done in the third passage we quoted, that the Pentateuch, in the condition we find it in at present, is only an Abridgement of the ancient Acts that were made in the time of Moses, and that 'tis impossible to discern what is ancient, and what is not. Is not this formally to deny that Moses was the Author of the Pentateuch, and that the Books which we now have are not so ancient, as is pretended?  
In a word, he establishes the Authority of the Books of Scripture upon the pretended Inspiration of certain Scribes or Keepers of the public Registers, whom he believes to have been from time to time among the Jews. Now nothing is more uncertain than the Existence or Inspiration of these public Scribes, as we shall show in the following Pages.   

(b) By express Texts of Holy Scripture.] It is very certain that Moses wrote the Law, and that in Scripture we are to understand the Pentateuch by the Law. Exod. 24. v. 4. and 7. Moses wrote all the Words of the Law, and took the Book of the Covenant, and read it in the audience of the People. Deut. 31. v. 19, and 22. Moses therefore wrote this Law, and gave it to the Priests the Sons of Levi… and to all the Elders of Israel. In Exodus, ch. 17. v. 14. God commanded Moses to write the Law, and give it to Joshuah. And in the Book of Joshuah, ch. 1. v. 7, and 8. God tells him, That the Volume of the Law which he received from Moses ought to be always in his mind; This Book of the Law shall not departed out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night… that thou mayst observe to do according to all the Law which Moses my Servant commanded thee. Now tho' the Word Law may indeed be applied to one part of the Pentateuch, yet we ought to take notice, that it is generally taken in Scripture for the whole Pentateuch. And 'tis certain, that in the 31st Chapter of Deuteronomy, where it is said, Moses therefore wrote this Law, it is meant of all this Book, and the Passage of Joshuah ought likewise to be understood of the whole Law. To this may be added, that in the other Books of the Old Testament, they always consider the entire Pentateuch as the the Work of Moses. In the first of Kings, ch. 2. v. 3. David speaking to Solomon, tells him, That the Ceremonies, Precepts, and Laws of the Jews, were written in the Law of Moses; Keep the Charge of the Lord thy God to walk in his Ways, to keep his Statutes and Commandments, and his Judgements, and his Testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses. It is therefore believed, that all the Pentateuch, which contains these Ceremonies, Precepts, and Judgements, was the Law of Moses. All the Law is likewise attributed to Moses in the second Book of Kings, ch. 21, and 23. v. 8. v. 25. If they observe all the Law of Moses. In the second Book of Chronicles, ch. 23. v. 18. To offer the Burnt-Offerings of the Law as it is written in the Law of Moses. Is not Leviticus therefore Moses' Book? That which is delivered in the 30th, 31st, and 35th Chapters of the same Book, is taken out of Leviticus and Numbers; are they not therefore the Books of Moses? In the 25th Chapter, Deuteronomy is cited as one of Moses' Books; As it is written in the Law in the Book of Moses, the Father shall not die for the Children: Which Words are to be found in the 24th Chapter of Deuteronomy. Leviticus quoted by Baruch, ch. 2. as a Book that was written by Moses; As thou speakest by thy Servant Moses, in the day when thou didst command him to write thy Law, before the Children of Israel saying, If ye will not hear, etc. Which words are in the 26th Chapter of Leviticus, v. 14. In the second Book of Kings, ch. 22, and 23. as also in the second Book of Chronicles, ch. 34. it is said, that Hilkiah found a Book of the Law of Moses' written, perhaps, with his own hand, as these words seem to imitate, Per manum Moysi. This Book of the Law, according to Josephus, is all the Pentateuch, according to others Deuteronomy. However it is, yet it follows from hence at least, that Deuteronomy is his. Now Deuteronomy supposes, that the other Books of the Law were written, because it is as it were an Abridgement, and upon that account is called Deuteronomy, or The Second Law. In the ninth Chapter of Daniel, it is said, that the Curse, which is written in the Book of Moses, is fallen upon the Jews, and in the tenth Verse the words of Deuteronomy and Exodus are particularly cited. The Prophet Malachi, ch. 4. exhorts the Jews to remember the Law of Moses. Raguel, in the 7th Chapter of Tobit, says, He will give his Daughter in Marriage to Tobias, to obey the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses is frequently repeated in the Psalms; the 77th, 104th, 105th, 135th Psalms, contain the History of the Israelites, which is plainly taken out of the Pentateuch. The Law of Moses is often cited in Ezrah; (Ez. 9 10. 23.) the Passages cited in these places are to be found in the Books of the Pentateuch. In the 10th Chapter of Nehemiah, v. 29. the Israelites oblige themselves by a new kind of an Oath, to keep the Law and Precepts of Moses. Now among these Precepts, there are several that are taken out of the Books of the Pentateuch. In the second Book of Maccabees, ch. 7. Eleazar saith, I will not obey the King's Commandment, but that of the Law, which was given unto Our Fathers by Moses. Lastly, whatever is taken out of the Pentateuch in the New Testament, is always cited under the name of the Law of Moses. St. James in the 15th Chapter of the Acts, says, The Jews read Moses every Sabbath day in their Synagogues; Moses of old time hath in every City them that Preach him, being read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day. And St. Paul, in his Epistles, says, That the Jews did not understand Moses, although they read him; Usque in hodiernum diem cum legitur Moses. Therefore they did not in the least doubt, that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, since they tell us, that those who read that Book, read Moses. All these Passages make it very evident in the first place, that Moses wrote the Law of the Jews. Secondly, That by the name of the Law, we ought to understand, the Pentateuch. Thirdly, That not only Deuteronomy, but also all the other Books of the Pentateuch, have been cited in Scripture for the Books and Law of Moses. Fourthly, That this has ever passed for a constant truth, of which no body doubted. Fifthly, That they not only believed Moses to be the Author of the things contained in these Books, but of the Books themselves, so that when they read them, one might say, they read Moses; as when we read the Aeneids, we say, we read Virgil.   

(c) By the Authority of Jesus Christ] In St. John, ch. 5. There is one one that accuseth you, (saith our Saviour) even Moses in whom ye trust: For had you believed Moses, you would have believed me, for he wrote of me. 'Tis plain therefore that Moses wrote, and that he wrote those Books, which the Jews read for his. Now who doubts that these Books were the Pentateuch. And indeed since our Saviour does always distinguish the Prophets from the Law of Moses, by the Law he can mean only the Pentateuch. In the first Chapter of St. John, Philip saith to Nathaniel, We have found him, of whom Moses in the Law, and the Prophets did write. There are many other places where our Saviour citys the Books of the Pentateuch under the name of the Law, and consequently we ought not to doubt, that he has assured us that these Books were written by Moses.  
St. Luke, in the 24th Chapter of his Gospel, saith, That our Saviour beginning with Moses, and continuing with the Prophets, Expounded to his Disciples, who were going to Emmaus, the Things that were said concerning himself in the Scriptures. Therefore Moses was the most ancient Author of the Jews, and the Pentateuch was acknowledged to be written by him, as they owned the Books of the Prophets to be written by the Prophets.   

(d) The Consent of all Nations.] 'Tis certain, that not only the Jews were always of opinion, that these Books were written by Moses, but also that all People have considered Moses as the Author of the Law and Religion of the Jews. 'Tis the unanimous Consent of all Nations, and all Men, no one ever questioning the Truth of it before these last Ages. Huetius maintains, that all Religions have borrowed their Theology out of the Books of Moses, whose History they have purposely altered and disguised, to accommodate it the better to their Fables. He pretends, for Instance, That Adonis of the Phaenicians; that Mercury, Osiris, Serapis, Anubis, and the other Gods of the Egyptians; that Zoroaster of the Persians, and the Divinities of the Western Nations; that Cadmus, Apollo, Priapus, Aesculapius, Prometheus, and the other Gods of the Grecians; that Janus, Faunus, Vertumnus, Evander of the Latins; in a word, that all these Fabulous Deities, were taken out of the Books of Moses, but disguised according to the Pagan manner, and put into a new Dress. But these Conjectures being only Probabilities, and no more, cannot serve to demonstrate a Truth, which does not need such Supports, as being clearly established upon indisputable Principles.   

(e) And by the Authentic Testimonies of the most ancient Authors.] That is, a continued Tradition of Authors from the Times that came nearest to Moses down to ours; and as we cannot doubt that Homer's Poem is his, because all Writers that have appeared since his Age have attributed it to him; so neither can we reasonably doubt, that these Books were written by Moses. They commonly produce the Authority of Sanchoniathon, who, as they give out, lived before the Trojan War, and wrote the History of the Phoenicians, Translated afterwards into Greek by Philo Byblius, where he has borrowed several Passages out of the Books of Moses. But 'tis not certain that this Author is so ancient as they pretend. They likewise affirm, that Homer and Hesiod have taken many things out of him, and 'tis indeed extremely probable. The same thing has been observed of the Philosophers, as Thales, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Socrates, and Plato, but all this is said by Conjecture. We ought therefore to rely principally upon the Testimony of those Authors, who tell us positively, that Moses was the Chief Leader and Lawgiver of the Jews, such as Manetho, cited by Josephus in his first Book against Appion, Philochorus the Athenian, whom the Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles, commonly said to be St. Justin, mentions; Eupolemus, cited by the same Author; Eupolemus, cited by Alexander Polyhistor, mentioned by Eusebius; Apollonius Molo, cited by Josephus; Castor, cited by the Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles; Diodorus Siculus, produced by the same Authors, and by St. Cyril in his first Book against Julian, though in our Copies he does not make mention of Moses, but of Mnuës, who is the Osiris of the Egyptians; Chaeremon Author of the Egyptian History, cited by Josephus; Trogus Pompeius, Epitomised by Justin, who makes Moses the Author of the Jewish Laws; Nicolaus Damascenus, cited by Josephus; Mendesius, cited by the Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles, by Tatian, by Eusebius, and by St. Cyril. S●rabo, who makes Moses the Author of the Religion and Laws of the Jews; Appion, who although an Enemy to the Jews, yet supposes that Moses gave 'em their Laws; Juvenal, who speaks of the Volumes of Moses, Sat. 14. Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses. Ptolemy of Alexandria, who calls him the Legislator of the Jews; Pliny, Tacitus, and Justin, who have observed the same thing; Numenius, who has taken notice that Plato was a Grecizing Moses; Longinus, who commends the beginning of Genesis, and produces a Passage in it as an Example of Sublimeness, calling the Author in these words, The wise Lawgiver of the Jews; Porphyry and Julian, who wrote against the Christian Religion, yet acknowledged that the Books of the Pentateuch were written by Moses. To these we may add several Authors, who have delivered Histories down to Posterity, that were undeniably taken out of the Pentateuch, such as Hecataeus, Berosus, Abydenus, Manetho, Eupolemus, Alexander, Polyhistor, Artapanus, Demetrius the Jew, and many others, cited by Josephus in his first Book against Appion, by the Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles, by Clemens Alexandrinus, by Eusebius in his Books De Praep. Evang. I have not mentioned Philo, Josephus, and the other Jews, because they all take it for granted that Moses is the Author of the Jewish Laws, meaning by these words, the five Books of the Pentateuch. The Samaritan Pentateuch affords us yet more convincing Proofs; for after the division of the People of Israel, which happened under Rehoboam the Son of Solomon, the ten Tribes preserved the Pentateuch written in the Samaritan Character, which is the ancient Character of the Hebrews, from whence we may rationally conclude, that at that time they had the Pentateuch in the same condition, as it is in at present, which they constantly ascribe to Moses. One cannot with any tolerable pretence question the Antiquity of the Samaritan Pentateuch, since it is written in Characters, which were not in use after the Babylonish Captivity. The Version of the Septuagint, which is assuredly very ancient, is likewise another Proof that the Books of the Pentateuch are written by Moses. In a word, all those who have spoken of the Pentateuch, whether Jews, Christians, or Pagans', have taken it for granted, that these Books were written by Moses. And certainly 'tis extravagant 〈◊〉 to oppose a few weak ill-grounded. Conjectures to the Universal Consent of all Mankind.   

(f) And consequently Ruin the Foundation of our Religion.] One of the great Proofs of the Truth of our Religion, is its Antiquity, which is principally supported by the Antiquity of the Books of the Law. Now if they are not Moses', and if they carry a fa●●e Name, what Proof can we give of their Antiquity? This is the ready way to give occasion to Libertines to Ridicule 'em, and consider▪ 'em only as Fabulous Books, composed at pleasure by the later Jews after the Captivity.   

(g) If what they alleged were true, yet they could only prove.] Here are the Objections which Rabbi Aben-Ezra, Spinosa, the Author of the Book of the Praeadomites, 〈◊〉. Simon, and some others, propose against the Antiquity of the Books of Moses, and the Answers to them, from which we shall better discern their Weakness.  
The first Objection is drawn from these words of Deuteronomy; Behold the Words which Moses spoke before all the Congregation of Israel beyond Jordan. This could not be written, say they, by Moses, who never passed the Jordan, no more than the Children of Israel did, while he was alive. Answer. The Hebrew word, as Vatablus observes, may 〈◊〉 on this side as well as on the other side. Pigninus, Buxtorf, and all Persons that are conversant in Hebrew are of the ●ame opinion. It literally signifies, In 〈◊〉, in transeundo; In their passage, being ready to pafs. Thus this Objection that appeared so terrible at first sight, carries indeed no difficulty with it.  
Second Objection. In the Pentateuch, Moses is always spoken of in the third Person. He is commended there in several places, as in Numbers, ch. 12. where he is called, The meekest man upon earth; as also in Deuteronomy, ch. 34. And there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses. And is it credible that Moses would have thus commended himself? Answer. 'Tis ordinary for those who compose a History, where themselves are concerned, to speak of themselves in the third Person. Caesar in his Commentaries always speaks of his own Actions in the third Person. Josephus does the same thing in his History of the Wars of the Jews. St. John in his Gospel speaks likewise of himself in the third Person; The Disciple, says he, whom Jesus loved. And in another place, If I will that he tarry, what is that to you? St. Matthew relating his own Conversion, speaks of himself in the third Person, and some faith, that St. Luke was one of the two Disciples, whom our Saviour met going towards Emmaus. The Praises which Moses gives himself are not excessive. It was necessary that in his own Books he should take notice of the signal Favours which God had con●e●●ed upon him, as well as conceal none of his own Miscarriages. Josephus and Caesar often commend themselves after the same manner.  
Third Objection. In the 12th Chapter of Genesis the Author has this remarkable Parenthesis, And the Canaanite was then in the Land. Which makes it evident, say they, that this was written when the Canaanites were no longer in Palestine, otherwise this Advertisement had been impertinent. Now 'tis plain, they were not chased out of that Land till a long time after Moses' death, and consequently he is not the Author of this Book. Answer. Since these words, Cananaeus erat in terr● ill●, bear this sense, it may be reasonably supposed, that this Parenthesis was inserted after Moses' time. This is an usual thing, and it often happens that these sorts of Explications, which at first were written in the Margin, to illustrate the Text, afterwards were inserted into the Text by way of Parenthesis. But one may likewise say, that these words Cananaeus aute● erat in terr●, don't signify Olim erat in terrâ, but Jam tum erat in terrâ, i. e. That Moses speaking of the passage of Abraham through the Land of Sichem, observes, that the Canaanites were then in the Land. Thus the sense is natural, and no ways forced.  
Fourth Objection. In Genesis, ch. 22. 〈◊〉. 14. the Mountain Moria is called The Mountain of the Lord, who will provide; App●llavitque Abraham nomen loci illius, Dominus videt. Now, say they, it had not this Name, till after it was set apart to make a Temple there. Answer. But how do they know this? For is not the contrary expressly attested in that place of Genesis? And does it not appear, that this Mountain received the name of The Lord will provide, because of Abraham's Answer to his Son, My Son, God will provide?  
Fifth Objection. In Deuteronomy, ch. 3. 〈◊〉. 10, and 11. where mention is made of Og● King of Basan, 'tis said, That he alone was remaining of the Race of the Giants. Behold his Bedstead was a Bedstead of Iron, is it not in Rabbath of the Children of Ammon? Nine Cubits was the length thereof, and four Cubits the breadth of it. They say, these words make it evident, that the Author of Deuteronomy was of a later standing than Moses. For in the first place, why should Moses speak of this Bed, to prove the Greatness of this Giant, since all the Israelites might have beheld it themselves? 'Tis more probable to say, That this was written by an Author, who lived in a time▪ when they had no knowledge of this King. Secondly, Why was not this Bed any longer in the Land of Basan, but in Rab●ath of the Children of Ammon? In short, say they, this Bed was not discovered till the time of David, who subdued the Ammonites, and took R●bbath, as we find it related in the second Book of Samuel, ch. 12. 〈◊〉. 30. Answer. Supposing all this to be true, 'tis easily answered, by saying that, as for what has a relation to Og's Bed, it was added in a Parenthesis. But why might not Moses give an account of that Bed, to prove the Greatness of that Giant, even when he addressed himself to the Israelites, since perhaps he was▪ writing this Relation some considerable time after the King was ●●ain, and 'tis not to be imagined that all the Israelites had seen the Bed? But admit the Matter was not so, yet Moses might very well make use of this Proof to make the Matter of Fact credible to Posterity. Thus the Historians of our Time, when they occasionally discourse of any extraordinary Thing, although it is never so well known to the World, yet they frequently say, We have such and such Proofs of it, the Monster is still kept in such a place, 〈◊〉 As for what follows, that this Iron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Land of Basan, and not in Rabbath this is all taken upon supposition, for whymight not the 〈◊〉 possess it in the time of Moses?  
Sixth Objection. The Author of the Pentateuch, say they, give such Names to several Cities and Countries as they had not, till a long time after the Death of Moses. In Genesis, ch. 14. 'tis said, That Abraham pursued the Kings, who had carried way his Nephew Lot, as far as Dan. Now the Name of Dan was not given to this Country till a long time after, when six hundred Men of the Tribe of Dan took the City of Laish, and, after they had taken it, gave it the Name of their Tribe, as we read in the Book of Judges, ch. 18. The same Author likewise speaks often of the City of Hebron, which was not so called, till after the Death of Moses, from Hebron the Son of Cal●●, to whom Joshuah gave it; formerly it was called Kirjah-Arba, as we are particularly informed in Joshuah, ch. 14. v. 15. In Deuteronomy, ch. 3. v. 14. it is said, That Jair the Son of Manasseh took all the Country of Argob unto the Coasts of Geshuri, and Maachathi, and called them after his own name Bushan-Havoth-Jair unto this day. Answer. We may generally answer these Objections thus, by saying, That these Names were changed after Moses' time, to render the History more intelligible to those, to whom the ancient Names of those Cities and Countries that Moses used, would be altogether unknown. But the first Difficulty may be cleared otherwise, by saying, That the Name of Dan is more ancient than they pretend: That the River Jordan was so called, because it has its Original from two Springs Jor and Dan. So we may say there was another City of that Name called Dan or Danna, whereof mention is made in the 15th Chapter of Joshuah, Verse the 49th, which was in the Tribe of Judah, in the Country of Sodom. To the second Instance we may return this answer, That it is not clearly said in the Book of Joshuah, that Hebron gave his Name to the City of Kirjath-Arba, but only that the City of Hebron was formerly called by that Name. Which may be well enough understood of an ancient Name, which it had heretofore. The last Difficulty is not considerable, 'tis only in these Words, Usque in praesentem diem. Now Moses might use this Expression to demonstrate that Country more clearly, or perhaps it might be added after him.  
Seventh Objection. The Author of the Pentateuch speaketh of things that happened after the Death of Moses, in Exodus, Chap. 16. Verse 35. it is said that the Children of Israel did eat Manna, Forty Years, until they came to a Land inhabited; they did eat Manna, until they came to the Borders of the Land of Canaan. Now this could not be written by Moses, who died before the Forty Years were accomplished. After the same manner 'tis written in the 36th Chapter of Genesis, Verse 31. And these are the Kings that reigned in the Land of Ed●m, before there reigned any King over the Children of Israel. Which words put it beyond controversy, that he who wrote this, was alive after the Israelites had Kings set over them. To this we may add, that after this Author has given us a Catalogue of the eight Kings of the Edomites, he speaks of their Dukes. Now they had not Dukes in the place of their Kings till a long time after, as we may observe in the first Book of the Chronicles, Chap. 1. Verse 5. In short, 'tis said in Deuteronomy, Chap. 2. Verse 12. that the Sons of Esau dwelled in Seir, after they had driven out and destroyed the ancient Inhabitants called Horims▪ as the Children of Israel did unto the Land of their possession. Which passage, say they, seems to intimate, that the Israelites had subdued the Edomites when this was written. Answer. If all these places were to be taken in the sense that is given them, yet we might answer, that some of them have been since added, or that Moses sometimes spoke by a Prophetic Spirit. But we need not run to such Solutions. Moses might say, that the Israelites should eat Manna Forty Years, knowing, as he certainly did, that they were to tarry so long in the Desert, as it appears in the 14th Chapter of the Book of Numbers. Moreover, God had revealed to Moses, that the Israelites should afterwards have a King, as it is clearly foretold in the 17th Chapter of Deuteronomy, Verse 14. The eight Kings of the Edomites there mentioned, might have reigned from Esau to Moses; and the Dukes, of whom he speaks, did not succeed the Kings, but governed at the same time. Lastly, these Words, As the Israelites did to the Land in their possession, don't at all signify or intimate the Land of the Edomites, but the Land which was promised to the Israelites. And let not any one say, that the Israelites were not as yet in possession of the Land of Promise in Moses' time, since 'tis certain that the Tribes of Reuben and Gad, with a great part of that of Manas●e●, had possessed themselves of the Country of the Amorites, and of the Men of Basan, after they had put 'em to the Sword.  
Eighth Objection. The strongest Argument at first view is the Death and Burial of Moses, which is described at the end of Deuteronomy. To this there are two Answers. The first of those, who say with Philo and Josephus, That Moses wrote it himself by a Spirit of Prophecy. The second, which is the more common and solid of the two, That this Account was added either by Joshuah, or by Ezrah; or lastly, by the Synagogue of the Jews, to make the History of the Pentateuch more perfect.  
Ninth Objection. They say, That Moses is so far from being the Author of the Pentateuch, that the Author there citys Books that were composed by Moses; as The Book of the Covenant, Exod. 24. The Book of the Wars of the Lord, Numb. 21. 14. in which there was likewise written the War against Amelek, which is mentioned in Exodus, Chap. 17. Verse 14. The Book of the Law of the Lord in Deuteronomy, Chap. 31. Verse 9 And lastly, a Song, which is referred to, in the two and thirtieth Chapter of Deuteronomy. From whence they conclude, that the Pentateuch was compo●ed out of the several Books of Moses. Answer. This Objection carries no force with it; for what should hinder Moses from citing the Books which he had formerly composed? Besides, should we grant that all these passages are to be understood of those Books that were written by Moses, it would not inva●… ou● Opinion. But this cannot certainly be proved. For in the first place, we don't know, whether there was any such Book or no that was entitled, The Battles of the Lord; for the Hebrew Text does not intimante that it was already written, but that it might be. Neither is it evident whether there is any Book mentioned: For the Hebrew Word may signify any manner of Narrative, and so the Words that are cited may bear this sense, As it will be related when the Israelites describe the Battles of the Lord. Mr. Simon quarrels with this Interpretation, which, I say, these Words will naturally bear; but however, he does not demonstrate that they cannot be thus applied. Others understand this place of a certain Song, which they used to sing in honour of their Victories. It is not said in Exodus, Chap. 17. that the War of Amelek was written in the Book of the Battles of the Lord, but only God commanded Moses to write it, and 'tis that which he did in that place. That passage in Exodus, Chap. 24. does not prove that Moses wrote a Book of the Covenant, but only that being come down from the Mountain, he recited to the People the Laws which God had given him in the Mountain, which are set down in the preceding Chapters. And this it is which is called in that place The Book of the Covenant. The Book of the Law, of which mention is made in Deuteronomy, is not different from Deuteronomy itself. And after all, it is not improbable that Moses referred to a Song, which he himself had composed.  
Tenth Objection. There were (says Mr. Simon) amongst the Hebrews, Prophets inspired by God, who had a particular Charge given 'em to preserve in Writing the most important Actions that happened in that Government. 'Tis probable, there were several of these Prophets in the time of Moses, and then we may rationally suppose, that Moses, as a Legislator, wrote only the Edicts and Commandments which he gave to the People, and that he left the care of collecting and transmitting to Posterity the most considerable Passages of State to these above mentioned Scribes or Prophets. Answer. This Supposition is founded upon very uncertain Conjectures, and precarious Principles. The Egyptians, say they, had such Scribes or Registers to write down their Sacred Transactions, and therefore there were such also amongst the Jews. A very fine Consequence this! 'Tis credible however that Moses established such an Order of Men. But what Proofs have they to support this tottering Supposition? Why, Josephus and Eusebius tell us, that amongst the Hebrews it was not lawful for every one to write their History, but only for the Prophets who were inspired by God. All this may be very true; but then Josephus and Eusebius understand by these Prophets no other Persons but Moses, and those after him, who wrote the Books of the Old Testament down to the Reign of Artaxerxes. We must pass the same Judgement of Theodoret, say they, and the other Fathers: Now this, in my Opinion, is to make 'em speak things they never thought of, and not to understand them aright. As for what they add farther concerning these Prophets, whom they have invested with an Authority to add or diminish from the Books of Scripture, this is still more improbable than the other. They barely tell us instead of proving it, that in the Books of Kings several other Memoirs are quoted, from whence they draw this Conclusion, that all the Books of the Bible, which have come down to our Hands, are only Abridgements and Summaries of the ancient Acts. But does it follow from hence, that all the other Books of the Bible were used after this rate? Does it follow, that they added to, or retrenched from them, after they were once made? Or lastly, that they were composed by these Prophets? They would have it proceed from this Reason, that there are so many Contradictions in the Books of the Holy Scripture. They say that this is the Reason of the Differences between the Chronicles and other Historical Treatises of the Bible, of that variety of false Conjectures that ruin the Authority of the Scriptures; and what is yet more material, that 'tis not impossible to reconcile these seeming Contradictions. To this purpose they amass together a great quantity of other Conjectures of this Nature, very subtilely invented, but weak and ill-grounded, and yet upon the strength of these, they make the Authority of the Bible to depend, after they have endeavoured to undermine the solid Foundations which bear it up. Thus by pretending to advance Criticism, they forsake the Rules of true Judgement, and follow the Fantastic Chimaeras of their own Imaginations. There is no weight in what they have invented themselves, or what they have found ready invented to their Hands by some Rabbis; and yet at the same time they scruple and doubt of several things that are clearer and better established.  
Although I did not name Mr. Simon in my first Edition, yet he very well perceived that this reproach was addressed to himself. The manner wherein he answered me, sufficiently showed, that he was sensibly touched, however this his Carriage does not in the least justify him. For in stead of demonstrating by solid Reasons, that the Reproaches I fastened upon him, were undeserved and ill-grounded, he has filled his Letter with nothing but Contumelies and scornful Reflections, which shows how heinously he resented the Liberty I took in examining his Hypothesis; and this all sensible Men observed as soon as ever his Letter appeared in public. But now to make it evident to the whole World, that I have Reason on my side, viz. that Mr. Simon is in the wrong for quarrelling with me upon this occasion, I shall only cast my Eyes on the Preface of his Book, where he sets down the Principles of his Work at length: The World will observe, (says he) that having considered nothing in this Essay but the Prophet of those who have a mind to know the Grounds of the Holy Scriptures, I have inserted abundance of Principles, very useful to resolve the most weighty Difficulties of the Bible, and at the same time to answer those Objections which are usually made against these Holy Books. These Principles are reducible to three Heads: The first is, That there were always amongst the Hebrews a sort of Prophets, or Public Registers, Divinely inspired, who made what Alterations or Additions they thought fit, in the Books of the Old Testament. The second is, That they heretofore wrote their Books upon little Leaves, which they rolled one over another round a small piece of Wood, without stiching them together; whence it happened sometimes, that not taking sufficient care to preserve the order of these ancient Leaves or Volumes, the things themselves treated of, have sometimes been misplaced. The third is, That there is a great deal of Reason to believe, that those Persons who joined these old Memoirs together, to keep up the Body of those Canonical Books which are now remaining, made no scruple at all to cut off several Synonymous Terms, which were found in their Copies, and were perhaps inserted only for a fuller Illustration. These are the great and admirable Principles of Mr. Simon, his public Registers, his Rolls, and Synonyma's. Here is, according to him, a way to resolve the most perplexed Difficulties of the Bible, and to defend its Authority against the Disciples of Spinosa. Here is an infallible Expedient whereby we may confound the Socinians and Protestants, and invincibly prove the Inspiration of the Holy Books. And lastly, here is a neverfailing Salve to silence all the Objections that can be urged against the Scripture. I am of Opinion that Mr. Simon will find very few People who will be inclined to subscribe to the Usefulness of these Principles. But this is not the Business I design to examine, 'tis their Solidity I desire to see, upon which he values himself so exceedingly. For if it be made evident, that these Principles are only established upon weak frivolous Conjectures, then adieu to all those Advantages, say I, that may be drawn from thence. Let us therefore examine all the Proofs that Mr. Simon has brought together in his Critical History, and other Books.  
The first of his Principles, is that about the Scribes or Registers that were divinely inspired. But he gives us no Proofs of this matter in his Preface; it seems that was not the proper place. In the first Chapter of his Critic, which is a sort of a second Preface, he contents himself with saying, That he gives the name of Prophets to the Authors of the Books of the Bible, and with repeating what he said before in his Preface concerning the great advantage of these public Scribes; as if it were enough for him barely to assert these things, without giving himself the trouble of proving them. But in the second Chapter he endeavours to make this whole matter evident, and therefore let us consider by what Reasons he offers to do it. In the first place he observes, that the Jewish State acknowledged no other Chief or Head, but God. From this Principle he concludes, that God himself gave 'em Laws by the Ministry of Moses, and of the other Prophets who succeeded him. This Conclusion is undeniable, but it was not necessary to prove it by a Principle more obscure than the Conclusion that is drawn from thence. But we are not concerned to know, whether there were any of these Prophets amongst the Hebrews, for that is a constantly received Truth; but 'tis our business to know, In the first place, Whether there were in all Ages amongst the Jews those Scribes or Registers whom he talks of, who looked after the Records and Histories of the Affairs of that Nation. Secondly, Whether they were divinely inspired. Thirdly, Whether they are the Authors of the Books of the Bible. 'Tis Mr. Simon's business to prove these three Propositions, and not barely to tell us in general, that there were Prophets amongst the Jews. The second Remark made by Mr. Simon is this, That in all well-regulated Kingdoms, and especially in the Eastern Nations, they had always certain Persons, who took care to see, that the most important Occurrences of State were preserved in Writing. I thought indeed that Mr. Simon would have concluded from this Observation, that they had such Persons likewise amongst the Jews. He disowns this Consequence, and therefore this can only pass for a Comparison, and so we must look for other Arguments to show there were such public Scribes amongst the Jews. It carries a great deal of Probability with it, continueth he, that Moses, upon the first establishment of that State, set up this sort of Scribes, whom we may call Public or Divine ones, to distinguish 'em from particular Writers, who usually engage to write the History of their own Times from no Motives but those of Interest. However 'tis not certain that Moses ever did institute these Scribes, 'tis a mere Conjecture and nothing else. But how does Mr. Simon endeavour to prove it? He gives us two Reasons in a Parenthesis; the first is, Because Moses was bred up in the Egyptian Court, where they had Priests, to whom they gave the name of Scribes or Registers, of Sacred Things. As if it were necessary, or indeed probable, that Moses would appoint amongst the Children of Israel whatever he saw practised by the Egyptians. He ought to have produced some Reason, or at least some Conjecture, to prove that Moses imitated them in this. But Mr. Simon omits to do it. The second Reason, which he alleges to prove that Moses established this sort of Scribes amongst the Jews, is▪ Because he was a perfect Lawgiver; as if it was necessary for a perfect Lawgiver to institute such a Custom. Was not Lycurgus a perfect Lawgiver? And yet, by the acknowledgement of Mr. Simon himself, he did not appoint any of these public Scribes in his Commonwealth. But for what purpose I wonder should Moses set 'em up amongst the Jews, when he himself had written their Laws and History. Besides, could Mr. Simon undeniably prove, that there were these public Scribes in the time of Moses, yet it would not follow from thence, that they were the Authors of the Pentateuch. And thus we see, that all Mr. Simon's admirable Conjectures to show, that the Books of the Pentateuch were wtitten by the Scribes divinely inspired, fall to the ground, without doing what they were produced for.  
Let us now see, if he is more fortunate in his Citations. The first is from Josephus, who tells us, That amongst the Jews it was not lawful for every one to write their Annals, but that this Province was only reserved for the Prophets, who knew remote and future Things by Divine Inspiration, and committed to Writing all the remarkable Passages of their time. Now to this I formerly answered, That Josephus by the Prophets understands no more than Moses, and those that wrote the Books of the Old Testament after him. Mr. Simon answers, That the Reasons of Josephus are 〈…〉 〈◊〉. The 〈◊〉 faithfully Translated are these; 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to write History, th●… is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at all 〈◊〉 our Histories. They are the 〈◊〉 wh● write, either about ●●●●●●● T●i●gs 〈◊〉 ●●●●●n●● a long time ago, and which they ●●●●● 〈◊〉 Divine Ins●●●●●ion, or about Things that happened i● their 〈◊〉 ti●●, and those they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they ●●re 〈◊〉. We have not 〈◊〉 of Books that contradict 〈◊〉 another, and ●●●y serve to perplex the Reader. We have only twenty two, which contain the History of all times, and to which we resign our Belief with a great deal of Justice. Of these Books there are five by Moses .... Fr●● Moses down to Artaxerxes King of 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 lived after X●●xes, the Prophets in thirteen Books wrote the History of their Times. The four following co●●●in Hy●●●s i● Praise of God, and several Moral Precepts. In short, fr●● Artaxe●x●● down to 〈◊〉 own Times we have our History very well written, but these Books are not of the same Authority with the former, because there has not been a continued and regular Succession of prophet's. Nothing in the whole World can be more directly opposite to Mr. Simon's Hypothesis than this passage of J●sep●●●. Mr. Simon supposes, that in Moses' time there were public Scribes, who cited the Memoirs from whence they composed the ●●●tat●●●ch; and J●s●ph●s expressly tells us, that these five first Books were written by Moses. Mr. 〈◊〉 supposes, that the following Books are only Abridgements of those ancient Memoirs, that were from time to time written by the public Scribes, and afterwards collected together by others of the same Character; and J●sep●●s supposes, they were written in the same manner as we now find 'em, by the Prophets that lived upon the spot when these things, which they have delivered, were transacted. Mr. Simon would needs have it, that in the Jewish Nation there were always public Scribes divinely inspired; and Josephus plainly tells us, that the Succession of Prophets failed after Artaxerxes. Now what can be more irreconcilable than all this? Besides, 'tis observable, that Josephus' Prophets are different from Mr. Simon's public Scribes. They were not Men entrusted with the Registers, and appointed to write History: But Prophets, whom from time to time we find amongst the Jews, who took care to transmit the Passages of their time to Posterity; and their Books are not at all different from those, which the Jews acknowledged for Canonical in the time of Josephus. From all which it necessarily follows, that this passage confirms my Hypothesis, and utterly destroys Mr. Simons: For we maintain with Josephus against Mr. Simon, That Moses is the Author of the Pentateuch, and that the other Authentic Books of the Old Testament were written by Men divinely inspired, or by Prophets who lived near the times wherein those Occurrences happened which they delivered, though we do not ●●●●ainly know their Names: 'T●● to these Books and not to the 〈◊〉, that we are to apply the Words of St. Gregory upon Job, which Mr. Simon manifestly ●●●verts and abuses in his 〈◊〉 Chapter, Q●●● 〈◊〉 seripserit v●ld● superv●●●●● 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Auctor Lib●● Spirit●● S●nct●● 〈◊〉 credatur. For this Father speaks this only with relation to the Book of Job, wh●se Author is unknown to us.  
The second Author, that Mr. Simon alleges in his Critical History to prove these S●ribes divinely inspired, is Eus●bius: Eusebius, says he, confirms this Opinion, when he takes notice, that amongst the Jews it was not allowed for all sorts of People to pass their Judgement upon those Men that were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Holy Books. He citys in the Margin, Eusebius de praeparatione Evangelic; that is to say, a great Book in Folio; I have diligently hunted after this passage there, but have not been so happy as to meet with it. But let the matter be how it will, I don't see what Assistance it brings to Mr. Symon's Hypothesis; The Jews had Writers that were divinely inspired; Who questions it? As also, That it did not belong to all the World to judge who they w●re, that were thus divinely inspired; but this Province was reserved for those Persons, who had the same Inspiration themselves. Well then, suppose it were so, does it therefore follow that the Books of Moses were composed by the Keepers of Registers? Does it follow that those who were appointed to write History, and that too out of the public Memoirs, were divinely inspired? Or lastly, That all the Books of Scripture which we now have, are but so many Abridgements extracted out of these Memoirs. As for what remains, Mr. Simon could not have cited any Author more contrary to his own Hypothesis, than Eusebius, and that even in this very Book De Praeparatione Evangelicâ. For one of the great Principles, which he there establishes in several places, is the Authority and Antiquity of the Books of Moses, which he always supposes to have been written by that Prophet in the same manner as we have 'em at present. The Truth of this Assertion he confirms by these three Propositions, which he lays down in the beginning of the 14th Book. The first is, That Moses is ancienter than any Greek Author. The second, That he has written what he had learned of his Ancestors. The third, That the Jews have neither added nor diminished from the Writings which he left them. And now I'll leave the World to judge whether these Principles of Eusebius agree with those of Mr. Simon.  
The third Author cited by Mr. Simon is Theodoret. It must be confessed, that this Father owns, (as well as several other Authors have done) that the Books of Kings and Chronicles were composed from very ancient Memoirs. But this is not the point in Question. We confess, we are not assured of the Authors of those Books. We acknowledge they are a Collection drawn out of old Memoirs. But we demand of Mr. Simon, whether it follows from hence, that the Pentateuch, and other Books of the Bible, are of the same Nature. This is a thing which Theodoret would beware of saying, because he owns Moses to be the Author of the Pentateuch. 'Tis with this Assertion he gins his Pre●●●● to the Books of Kings, from whence Mr. Simon has drawn these passages which he qu●●●s After having explained the Books of Moses, etc. To these three Authors has Mr. Simon in his Letter to Monsieur L' Abbe, added the Author of the Synopsis, attributed to St. Athanasius. This Author follows the Opinion of Josephus, and after having observed that the five first Books of the Bible do without dispute belong to Moses, he says, that all the following Books are not written by those whose Names they bear, but that they were composed by Prophets who lived from time to time. Lastly he observes, when he is speaking concerning the ●●r●●icles, that one finds several Historical Books of the Prophets quoted there. And what does all this make for Mr. Simon's Hypothesis? Have not we said the very same thing? Does not all the World agree as to this particular? Had Mr. Simon kept himself here, no Body would have fell upon him.  
The last Author, whom Mr. Simon citys to justify his Hypothesis, is the Author of the Chroni●●● Alexandrinum. This Author in the place transcribed by Mr. Simon, tells us, that there were some Prophets who wrote their own Prophecies themselves, as David the Book of Psalms, and Daniel his Prophecy; and that there were others who did not write themselves, but that they had Scribes in the Temple, who wrote down, as it were in a Journal, the Words of each Prophet ...... That the Books of Kings were thus composed by parts, that under Saul ' s Reign they wrote whatever passed in his time, and so likewise in David ' s time, and the other Kings; That the Chronicles are but a Collection of Registers, and several Papers of their Kings; That Moses wrote the Pentateuch; That Joshuah is the Author of the Book which bears his Name; That the Book of Judges was written by the Scribes in the Temple from time to time, as well as that of Ruth; That Solomon composed the Proverbs, the Canticles, and Ecclesiastes. This Author's Hypothesis is extremely different from that of Mr. Simon. 1. He supposeth for a certain truth, that Moses was the Author of the Pentateuth, and does not attribute his Works to the public Scribes or Abbreviators. 2. He does not say, that these public Scribes were inspired by God, or that they wrote the History of themselves. He supposes the Prophets dictated that to them as well as their Prophecies. 3. He believes that the Books of Kings and Judges were the very Originals from the Prophets, which were joined together. Instead of which Mr. Simon believes, that these Books are Abridgements. I won't lose so much time as to answer the Rabbis, and other Authors of that Stamp, whom Mr. Simon has mustered up in his last Letter. 'Tis visible there's not one single Author he quotes that is of the same opinion with himself. For, In the first place, they all of 'em acknowledge, That the Books of the Pentateuch ought not to be attributed to Scribes, or to Prophets divinely Inspired, but to Moses himself. Secondly, they say, That the following Books were written by Persons divinely Inspired, to whom they gave the name of Prophets, but they don't tell us, that these Prophets were Supervisors of the Registers, or public Scribes. Thirdly, they acknowledge, That there were ancient Memoirs, or ancient Histories, often quoted in the Books of Kings, and the Chronicles. No body doubts this, I have frequently observed it, and have made a Catalogue of the Books that are quoted in the Old Testament. But it does not f●llow from hence, that all the Books of the Bible are Extracted from these Memoirs, and Compiled a long time after. Mr. Simon has given these public Scribes authority to change, to enlarge, and abridge these Sacred Books as they see convenient. To prove this, he quotes Don Isaac Abarbinel, a Learned Spanish Jew, as if we were obliged to take all for Gospel that these Rabbis have been pleased to deliver. He joins Procopius and Theodoret to this Jew, as Men that have observed, that the Books of Kings and Chronicles were drawn out of several other Historical Books. Not to displease Mr. Simon, he has mightily altered the Point, for this is not the Question under debate. We agree with him, that the Authors of the Books of Kings, and the Chronicles, compiled their Histories out of Memoirs and particular Historians whom they found, as Livy and Mez●ray made use of the ancient Historians to compose their Histories: But for all this, we dare not say, they have changed or diminished the ancient Histories, that always continued in the same condition they were in, nor that they had a Privilege to do this, much less that they have made any considerable Alterations or Additions to the Books of Moses. Mr. Simon at last brings in a very dangerous Maxim, though he covers it under a specious appearance of Usefulness: It would be dangerous, says he, to pretend to Correct one Book of Scripture by another, because they don't agree altogether themselves. 'Tis very truly said, that we ought not to Correct one Book of Scripture by another: But it is not true, that two Books of the Scripture don't altogether agree with each other. There is not any real Contradiction between the Books of the Bible; if there are any apparent ones, the fault does not lie in the Authors, but in our want of understanding them. 'Tis a piece of extraordinary Rashness and Presumption to suppose with Mr. Simon, that there are real Contradictions in the Books of the Bible, that the Author of the Chronicles has reported Matter of Fact otherwise than it is in other places, or that the Genealogies and Chronology of the Scriptures are faulty, and the like: I know, says Mr. Simon, that it is expressly forbidden in Deuteronomy to add or diminish a Tittle from the Word of God. Here then there is an express Text against Mr. Simon's Hypothesis. Now to answer this Passage, he ought to allege some other place of Scripture, which restrains and limits this Prohibition to private Persons, or gives Permission to the Prophets and public Scribes to do the contrary. But Mr. Simon thinks it enough to quote the Author of the Book Cozri, who is of the same opinion, but by a peculiar Misfortune that attends him, we find, that a certain Commentator towards the bottom of the Page, where this Book is quoted, observes, That the Author of the Book Cozri does not speak of the Scripture in that place, but only of the Explication of the Commandments, which depended upon the Judges of the Sanedrim▪ who had po●●r 〈◊〉 extend or limit the● according to the circumstances of Ti●…, and ●…rgent Occasions▪ What b●com●● then of Mr. S●…'s Answer▪ It stood only upon the Authority of the Author of the Book C●…, and now we see, that this very Author will not be brought to say what he would have him▪ Af●… all, Mr. Simon quotes the Common Opinion of the Fathers, who believe, that the Collection of the Old Testament, such as it now is, was composed by ●…ah, which confirms, says he, what I am now maintaining; for Ezrah could not correct and restore these Books, which, according to them, had been ●…pted during the time of the Captivity, but in the Quality and Character of a Prophet and public Scribe, and therefore he is called a Scribe by the way of Excellence in the Bible. I would willingly know what necessity there was, that Ezrah should restore the Holy Scripture in quality of Public Scribe, or Master of the Rolls. Is it not infinitely more probable to imagine he did it, because he was commanded to restore the Religion and Laws of the Jews in their ancient Purity, as being their Chief and Highpriest. Whenever he is called a Scribe in Scripture▪ 〈◊〉 not in Mr. Simon's sense, but because he was well skilled and knowing in the Law of the Lord. We need only give ourselves the trouble to read this passage, Ez. 7. v. 6. Ezra went up from Babylon, and he was a ready scribe in the Law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given▪ That is to say, he perfectly understood the Law, the Word Scribe being taken in the same sense in Jeremiah, ch. 8. v. 8. And it does not signify any thing else in the New Testament, where this Name is given to all the Doctors of the Law.  
The second Principle of Mr. Simon depends upon the changing of the Rolls or Volumes in which these Sacred Books are written. I said before, that this Conjecture is only pleasant because it is new, and that it was a Chimaera, that had nothing at all to do with the Argument in hand. Mr. Simon answers me immediately, That what I call a Chimaera, was a very ancient opinion, and likewise taken notice of by the most ancient Critics. It was therefore his business to look after his Proofs. But I have no Exceptions to make to the Antiquity of Rolls; (for 'tis very plain that they formerly wrote upon Leaves which they rolled together) but only to the ill use he makes of 'em. He ought to have shown by convincing Instances, that these Rolls frequently occasioned Transpositions, and he ought likewise to have applied this Conjecture to some Examples in Scripture which had suffered by this disorder. But this I defy him to do after all his attempts, he dares not undertake any thing of that nature, but contents himself to say in general terms, That it may be so. I said also, That this Conjecture had nothing to do with the Subject, because if we supposed, that some little confusion might accidentally happen in the rolling of these Leaves, yet the Abridgers might easily rectify 'em and set 'em in order. To this Mr. Simon replies, that 'tis to no purpose to talk of the Abridgers, because these Leaves were disordered long after the Collection of the Abridgements. I did indeed believe Mr. Simon had spoken of the Leaves of the Originals or Memoirs, out of which, as he pretends, they made an Abridgement of the Bible, and I am still of opinion, that he is thus to be understood, where he says, p. 35. I much doubt whether we are to attribute to Moses and the public Scribes, that lived in his times, the disorder and confusion which we find in several places of the Pentateuch: There is great probability for us to believe, that as they wrote their Books then upon little Rolls, or single Leaves, which they rolled one upon another, the order of these Leaves has been changed. Now it was very probable, that this than had a relation to Moses, and the public Scribes: But since Mr. Simon is willing to have it underderstood of the Times that followed these Abridgements, he ought to inform us, that the little Order which we find, as he pretends, in the Pentateuch, proceeded from the changing of these Rolls. But this he can never be able to do, and I challenge him to apply this Conjecture to the Examples which he produces; as one may readily rectify a printed Sheet of Paper which was transposed in binding a Book. Hence it follows, that this second Principle of Mr. Simon is so very far from being well grounded, that 'tis indeed wholly useless. As for what concerns his third Principle, which is the Repetition of the Synonymous Terms, from whence he pretends to conclude, that the Books of the Bible are composed from several ancient Memoirs, 'tis a false and frivolous Conjecture; for there is much greater reason for a Man to believe, that these Repetitions came from one Author, who wrote these Things a● Memoirs at first, than from an Epitomiser, who has weaved one continued History without making any repetition of the same Things, or the same Words: Besides, that these Repetitions which Mr. Simon produces as Examples, are not absolutely needless, but serve either to Illustrate what has been said, or else to Corroborate some Circumstance or other, or lastly, to give more Force and Efficacy to what is written. 'Tis no unusual thing to meet with Repetitions of that nature in most Authors, and principally in those, that writ the History of their own times with an air of Simplicity and Unaffectedness.  
Eleventh Objection. 'Tis pretended that the Repetitions, which we meet with in the Pentateuch, were not in all probability made by Moses, but rather by them, who made a Collection of the Holy Books, and have joined together several Precepts or Explications of the same Words. There are abundance of these Repetitions which they produce. They say moreover, that there are many Repetitions of the same thing differently related, and this makes it appear, that this History is drawn from several different Memoirs. They add, That we cannot rationally attribute them to Moses, because of the little Order or Regularity we find them in. They produce upon this occasion a Conjecture that is pleasant enough, because new. There is reason to imagine, say they, that as they wrote their Books in those times upon Rolls, or separate Leaves, which they rolled one upon another, the order of the Leaves has been changed and inverted. And so they pretend, that the diversity of Style, which is to be found in the Books of the Pentateuch, is a satisfactory Proof, to show that the same Writer was not the Author. Answer. All these Objections are extremely weak and impertinent, and rather destroy, than contribute any thing to the Hypothesis they are produced to establish. For can any Man in the World believe, that an Author, who had abridged any History, would so often repeat the same things, that he would preserve no order, and not write in the same style throughout. On the contrary, Don't all Abbreviators make it their business to make their Relations in as few Words as possible, regularly, and after an uniform manner? The contrary Faults more frequently belong to the first Authors of History, who naturally and simply recount all Affairs which they know. This sort of Repetition is very familiar and common among the Ancients, and particularly amongst those, who wrote an History or Fable first; and they are rarely found in Historians, who compile their Works out of the Memoirs of other Men, the reason is, because the first write naturally, just as they speak, without Meditation and Study, and the others on the contrary, having all their Matter ready fitted to their hands, are only at the Expense of ranging, and digesting it Methodically. The Repetitions, which we find in the Pentateuch, are often necessary to explain the Particularities of those Things, which at first they were forced to relate in general; for this reason it is, that the particular Circumstances of the Creation of the World, which were set down in the first Chapter of Genesis, were afterwards told over again, more particularly in the second. 'Twas the Genius and Custom of the Hebrews to repeat the same Words, as it was indeed the fashion of all the Ancients.  
But we are not to believe, that there is so little order, as they would make us believe, in the Pentateuch, and if there were less than there really is, that would be rather an Argument to show it belongs to Moses, who wrote without Art, Method, and Affectation, as those People generally do, who leave Memoirs behind them of those Passages, wherein themselves bore a share. The conjecture about the Rolls is an extravagant Whimsy, that makes nothing at all to the purpose, for if there were any confusion of the Leaves, the Abbreviators might without any great difficulty set them right in their true order. Lastly, what they pretend about the considerable difference of style in the Pentateuch, is notoriously false: On the contrary, a Man may observe all along the Genius of the same Author; and if he sometimes does not happen to enlarge upon the Affairs, which he relates, 'tis because his Matter required shortness, or because he did not judge it convenient to use that liberty. Now we cannot in justice call this a difference of Style, when all the rest is agreeable, and of a piece.  
But let us leave Mr. Simon to answer his Adversary, who pretends, as well as himself, that the Pentateuch does not belong to Moses, but to a Jewish Priest sent from Babylon to instruct the Christians. His Conjectures, which are easily answered, are these:  
In the first place, he says, That the 11th and 12th Verses of the second Chapter in Genesis could not be written by Moses. The name of the first is Pison, that is it which compasseth the whole Land of Havelah, where there is Gold. And the Gold of that Land is good, there is Bdellium, and the Onyx Stone. These Remark, ssays Mr. Simon's Adversary, seem to proceed from an Author who had been in that Country, that is to say, in Chaldea, for Pison is an Arm of Euphrates, that discharges itself into the Persian Gulf. It is by no means probable, that Moses, who never went far from Egypt, should be able to give so particular a relation of a Country so remote and distant, in a time when such Voyages were very rare, and attended with abundance of Difficulties. But I would willingly understand what should hinder Moses from knowing, that this Country was watered with the River Pison, and how was it possible for him to give a description of the place, unless he had given the most public and commonly known Marks. We see plainly, that some Countries, though never so remote, are yet known well enough for those excellent and precious Commodities that are found there, which are to be met with no where else, and which are transported from thence to other places. 'Tis not necessary for a Man, to go to Potosi, to be informed, that the Gold of that Country is very fine, and in great plenty; or to make a Voyage to the Indies, to know that Pearls and precious Stones, are found there; nor is there any more strength in the second Reason▪ which supposeth, that the exactness wherewith this Author describes the erecting of the Cities of Mesopotamia and Assyria, v. 18. of the 10th Chapter of Genesis, is a clear indication, that the Writer thereof had been in that Country. For is it necessary that an Historian should have been in all the places he mentions? On the other hand, Was there ever any Historian in the World that has seen all the Countries which he gives an account of?  
These are this Author's private Guesses: We have already answered those which have been started by Hobbs, Spinosa, and Mr. Simon, as well as himself, but don't think it worth the while to throw away any time in refuting those extravagant Whimsies he makes so much noise about, to prove that the Pentateuch was written by a Samaritan Priest. They are so weak and pitiful that they deserve no body's Consideration, and indeed if such Reasonings were to be allowed, I don't know one single Book in the World which might not upon as good Grounds be taken away from the true Author, and bestowed upon another. From hence we may see, of what ill consequence it is to give one's Imagination too large a Scope, and mistake bare Conjectures for eternal Truths.   

[h] They would only prove, that the same thing has happened to the Books of Moses, which has almost happened to all the ancient Authors, viz, That some few Words, Names, and Terms, have been added or altered to render the Narrative more intelligible.] If one examines all these Objections that I have already answered, he will be convinced they prove no more, and that one might have answered almost all of them by this very Remark. Mr. Simon, who cannot contradict me in this Point, is mighty desirous to set upon me another way, by objecting, that in my Preface, and other places of my Book, I have laid down Rules which seem to prove from these Additions, that the Pentateuch is a supposititious Work: For it seems I had affirmed in the first part of my Preface, That impostors for the most part relate Matters of Fact that happened after the Death of those whom they speak of, and they give an Account of Cities and People that were not known in the time of those Authors whose Names they assume. From whence Mr. Simon draws this Consequence, that since I own there are several such Additions in the Pentateuch, a Disciple of Spinosa may thence conclude, that according to my Rule 'tis a supposititious Work. To this I answer, that this Objection of Mr. Simon shows, that he has not so great a share of good Sense, and closeness of Arguing, as he has of Rabbinical Learning. For if he had only considered the General Remark which I made in my Preface about the Rules of Criticism there laid together, he could not have been guilty of so manifest a Solecism as this. I desire him to mind these Words a little: A Man may say, that all these Rules which I have here laid down, are convincing and probable in different degrees, but that the Sovereign and Principal Rule is the Judgement of Equity and Prudence, which instructs us to balance the Reasons of this and tother side, in distinctly considering the Conjectures that are made of both sides. Now this is the General Rule of Rational Criticism, and we abuse all the rest if we don't chiefly make use of this. Let us now apply it to the present Question. There are in the Pentateuch some Terms, and Names of Cities, and other Passages that could not come from Moses; must we therefore hastily conclude that it was not written by Moses, because 'tis a certain sign that a Book is spurious, when one finds such Occurrences in it, as have happened after the Death of the Author to whom it is attributed, and because we there meet with some Names of Cities and People that were not known in his time? Or on the other hand, Does it follow, because the Pentateuch was writ by Moses, notwithstanding some Additions which are there to be found, does it I say thence follow, that the abovementioned Rule is false? These two Consequences are very indiscreetly drawn, but the Rule is still good, and the Books of the Pentateuch may yet be written by Moses. The Rule is good, but we ought to make a good use of it. When there are no certain Proofs of the Antiquity of a Book, and besides there are other Conjectures to incline us to doubt of it, we may in pursuance to this Rule, conclude it spurious. But when it is past Dispute that such a Book is written by such an Author, and there is an infinite number of evident Arguments to demonstrate the truth of it; then we are necessarily to conclude, that these Words, and Terms, and Names, were afterwards added. After all, where there are Reasons on one side, as well as on the other, we ought carefully to balance them, to weigh one against the other, and at last to determine the matter on that side, where the greatest appearance of probability lies. These are the true Rules of Criticism, which it seems Mr. Simon is ignorant of, or at least does not rightly examine, otherwise he could never have forgot himself so far, as to accuse me wrongfully for giving favourable Rules to the Disciples of Spinosa. The fault is by no means to be imputed to these Rules, which almost every Critic has given before me, but 'tis his way of Arguing, and drawing of Inferences that has been favourable to the Spinosists. His Conjectures, and Objections, and in short his Hypothesis, has served to confirm those Persons in their Errors, besides that several places of his Book give the greatest Blow imaginable to the Authority of the Holy Scripture; When he asks me, What answer I will return to a Spinosist, who to prove that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, shall use my own Reasons to show that the Liturgy of St. James, as 'tis commonly received by the Oriental Nations, was not made by him? I will answer him, that there are not the same Reasons to induce a Man to believe that St. James was the Author of that Liturgy, which goes under his Name, as that the Books of Moses were written by him: That this was never affirmed in any of the Epistles of the Apostles, that the Ancients never speak of it, that this Liturgy does not agree with the Discipline that was in use in St. James' time. Whereas the Scripture informs me that Moses was Author of the Pentateuch, and Jesus Christ and his Apostles have assured me of the truth of it, and all the ancient Writers have testified so much, besides the Universal Agreement of all People in this matter. 'Tis therefore a manifest Injustice and Calumny in Mr. Simon to accuse me for designing to destroy the Books of Moses, under a pretence of defending them against the Spinosists.  
Nor does Mr. Simon reason better in applying what I have said with regard to the Book of Joshuah, to the Books of the Pentateuch; 'tis but comparing the Arguments I brought to prove that the Books of the Pentateuch belonged to Moses, with those that are commonly produced to prove that the Book of Joshuah was written by Joshuah, and any Man will soon perceive the mighty difference between one and the other, and that the Reasons that are alleged in favour of Moses, are infinitely stronger than those that are urged to prove that Joshuah composed the Book that bears his Name. No Man ever yet doubted that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, but 'tis not the same case with the Book of Joshuah. Mr. Simon supposeth there is as much evidence for one, as the other; in order to prove this, he imagines that all those formal places of Scripture that are produced to show that Moses was Author of the Pentateuch, reduce themselves to this Head, viz. That Moses wrote the Law; and he pretends there is the same reason to affirm, that Joshuah added the Book of his History to the Books of the Law. But if any one will give himself the trouble to consider the passages that are to be found in the Notes (b) and (c), he will be persuaded that they are very positive as well as numerous, and done't lie in so narrow a compass as those which are brought in behalf of Joshuah: Besides, 'tis but reading the 24th Chapter of the Book of Joshuah, where we find this last passage, and we shall see that it may be very well understood of the Moral and Ceremonial Precepts that are mentioned in that place. From hence it evidently appears, that there's a vast difference between the Reasons that prove Moses to be the Author of the Pentateuch, and those that seem to intimate that Joshuah composed the Book which contains this History; and that a Man without incurring the guilt of rashness, may doubt whether he is the Author of that Book; but that he cannot doubt whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch, without being guilty of that crime to the highest degree. At the same time I will not absolutely deny that Joshuah was Author of the Book that carries his Name; I have only observed, that it is not absolutely certain, and 'tis an easy matter to take notice, that I rather incline to that party which assigns it to Joshuah.   

(i) We done't certainly know when these Books were written by Moses.] Some say that Genesis was written by Moses, after the departure out of Egypt; so Pererius and Tena. 'Tis most probable, that all of them were written after the departure out of Egypt, and particularly that Genesis was composed after the Promulgation of the Law. This is the Opinion of Eusebius and the Ancients, and indeed we find in Genesis several Allusions to the Law; as for example, in Chap. 2. there is mention made of the Law of the Sabbath; and in the 7th and 8th Chapters of clean and unclean Beasts: Which are sufficient Intimations that Moses wrote those things, when his Thoughts were full of the Law then newly made. Deuteronomy is the last, for besides that it is a Repetition of what we find in the Law, it plainly tells us, that Moses spoke those things to the People of Israel when they were ready to go over Jordan. To this we may add, that he there relates whatever happened towards the end of his Life; and lastly, that the Account of his Death is inserted there, as being his last Work.   

(k) Though 'tis commonly believed that this Book was written by Joshuah.] Most of the Modern Writers are of this Opinion, as was also Isidore in the 6th Book of his Origines, Junilius, and Dorotheus, Vatablus, Abulensis, Driedo, and Bellarmine say the same, as do likewise the Talmudists Babatra, c. 1. This Opinion is chief supported by these Words in the last Chapter, Vers. the 26th, where it is said, that Joshuah wrote all these things in the Book of the Law of God. However, this passage may have a relation only to what is written in this Chapter, or else perhaps Joshuah might have written another Book, of which this was an Abridgement. 'Tis said in Ecclesiasticus, Chap. 46. that Joshuah was the Successor of Moses in Prophecies; But this does not prove that he wrote any thing. Theodoret assures us, that the Book of Joshuah is nothing else but an Extract out of the Book of Jasher, which is mentioned in the 10th Chapter, Vers. the 13th.  
The Reasons that are brought to prove that this Book was not written by Joshuah, are generally these. In the first place, say they, it is observed there in the 10th Chapter, Vers. 13. that the Book of Jashar, where the Wars of Joshuah were written, is quoted, therefore the Book of Joshuah is later. 2. We meet there this fashion of speaking, Usque in praesentem diem, unto this day, frequently repeated: As for instance, when it's said in the 4th Chap. Vers. 9 That the twelve Stones which Joshuah took out of the midst of Jordan, continue there unto this day. And in the 5th Chap. Vers. 9 The name of the place is called Gilgal, unto this day. 3. The taking of the City of Lachish is related Chap. 10. Vers. 35. tho' it happened not till after the Death of Joshuah, as we may see, Judges, Chap. 18. Vers. 29. So likewise, Chap. 11. Vers. 14. and the following, there is an account of Caleb and his Daughter Achsah, which passage did not fall out till after the Death of Joshuah, as it is written in the first Chapter of the Book of Judges. In the same Chapter, Vers. 28. there is mention made of the Land of Cabul, which received this Name from Hiram King of Tyre, as we may find it in the 9th Chapter of the first Book of Kings. Lastly, in the 9th Chapter, Vers. 23. and the last, it is said, That Joshuah made the Gibeonites Drawers of Waters and Hewers of Wood in the House of his God, which is probably to be understood of the Temple, that was not built long after the death of Joshuah. These Arguments are not wholly unanswerable. First, We don't know what manner of Book the Book of Jasher was; 'tis not said that all the Wars of Joshuah were set down there, but only the relation of the Sun's standing still. Some think that Genesis is there called the Book of Jasher, where, as they pretend, this memorable Event was foretold. Others believe 'tis the Pentateuch; Grotius says it was a Song composed upon that occasion. Huetius supposes that it is a Book of Morality. Lastly, others imagine it to have been a Book of Annals. If this last Opinion were the only true one, yet it by no means follows, that Joshuah was not Author of that Book where these Annals are quoted. Secondly, Suppossing that Joshuah wrote this Book towards the end of his Life, as is most reasonable to think he did, when he had occasion to speak of those things that happened at the beginning of his Ministry, he might very well make use of that Expression, Usque in praesentem diem, unto this day, even as St. Matthew himself, who wrote a little after the Death of our Blessed Saviour, tells us, that the Field Aceldama was called The Field of Blood unto this day. These, and the following Objections, may be answered, by saying, that these things have been added since, and particularly the taking of the City of Lachish by the Danites: Or at least we may say that the City of Lachish, mentioned in Joshuah, is a different place from Laish in the Book of Judges. The second Objection may be answered by saying, That whatever is said concerning Othoniel and Achsa in the Book of Judges, is only a Recapitulation of what happened in the time of Joshuah. The Land of Cabul, mentioned in Joshuah, is different from that in the Book of Kings: Josephus has distinguished them; one is a Country, the other a Village. The House of God, mentioned in the Ninth Chapter, may be understood well enough of the Tabernacle and Ark, which was in the time of Joshuah.   

(l) Be it as it will, the Book of Judges is ancient.] To prove that this Book was not composed till after the Captivity, they commonly instance in these words in Chap. 18. Vers. 30, 31. Until the day of the Captivity of the Land; and in these, In those days there was no King in Israel. Words, say they, which demonstrate that this Book was written after the Captivity, and in the time when they had Kings in Israel. But the Captivity spoken of in this place, is not that of Babylon, but the Captivity that happened in the time of Heli, when the Ark was taken by the Phllistines, and the Idol of Micah was destroyed, as it is observed in this place of the Book of Judges. And as for these words, In those days there was no King in Israel, they don't necessarily suppose that there were any when this Author lived, and perhaps they were added by Ezrah.   

(m) Which has made Men think, that the Books of Samuel were written by that Prophet.] This Opinion is not certain, because Chap. 9 Vers. 9 it is said, That he that is now called a Prophet, was before-time called a Seer, which Samuel could not say. In the fifth Chapter, Verse the fifth, the Author of this Book, relating the History of the taking of the Ark, tells us, that the Priests of Dagon did not tread upon the Threshold of Dagon unto this day. But this might well enough be said by Samuel, because that happened when he was young, and he wrote not this Book till towards the end of his Life.   

(n) Ezrah speaks there in the first Person.] He speaks of himself in the first Person, Ezrah, Chap. 7. Vers. 27, and 28. God hath extended his Mercy towards me before the King, and I, etc. And Chap. 9 Vers. 5. I fell upon my Knees, and spread out my Hands.   

(o) The Conjecture of Huetius is not so strong as to make us quit the common Opinion.] He says, that the Author of the six first Chapters was at Jerusalem in the time of Darius, as it appears by these words in the fifth Chapter, ad quod respondimus eye qu● essent nomina. Now Ezrah came not to that City till after Darius' Reign under that of Artaxerxes, as is easily proved by the beginning of the seventh Chapter. But 'tis no hard matter to refute this Conjecture, by observing that when Ezrah said, Respondimus eyes, he only spoke in the Name of the Jews; and 'tis an usual thing with the Historians of any Nation to cry, We did such or such a thing, although the Historian had no share in the doing it.   

(p) The second Book is constantly attributed to Nehemiah.] He gins thus, The Words of Nehemiah; and after the same manner, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Timaeus, etc. begin their Works, not to mention the Prophets. The Author of Ecclesiasticus speaks of the Actions of Nehemiah, Chap. 40. and the Author of the second Book of the Maccabees commends his Writings.   

(q) 'tis commonly believed, that Tobit and Tobias wrote their own History.] This Opinion is principally founded upon the Angels commanding them in the 12th Chapter, Vers. 20. Narrate omnia mirabilia ejus. In the Greek Interpreter it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Writ all his wonderful Works. Secondly, because in the Greek and Hebrew Editions they speak of themselves in the first Person.   

(r) The time wherein the History of Judith happened is no less uncertain.] Some say this History happened before the Captivity, and prove it, first, because it is said in this Book, that it happened a little after the City of Ecbatana was built by Arphaxad King of the Medes. Now that City, according to Eusebius and Herodotus, was built by Dejoces, who lived a long time before the Captivity. Secondly, King Nabuchadnezzar, who sent Holofernes into Jud●a, reigned in Ninive, which City was destroyed before the Captivity of Babylon. Thirdly, This Nabuchadnezzar, they tell us, is Saosd●thinus, Grandson of Sennacherib, and Son of Assaradon King of the Babylonians, who gave the Name of Nabuchadnezzar to their King. Fourthly, They say that Eliachim, or Joachim, was Highpriest under Manasses, as we may see in the 22d Chapter of Isaiah. Those who are of the contrary Opinion, return the following Answers to these Conjectures. To the first they reply, That Ecbatana was several times rebuilt. To the second, That Ninive was restored to its ancient Splendour by the Kings of Persia. To the third, That the Name of Nabuchadnezzar was common to the Kings of Babylon and Assyria. To the fourth, That Eliachim, of whom mention is made in Isaiah, and in the second Book of Kings, Chap. 18. was not Highpriest. The Reasons which they allege for this Opinion are as follows: First, That this History happened at a time when there were no Kings at Jerusalem, and the High-Priests had the whole Authority in their Hands: Now this was not before the Captivity. Secondly, We read that there was one Eliachim; or Joachim, Highpriest after the Captivity. Thirdly, Achior, Prince of the Edomites, being asked by Holofernes, Chap. 5. Vers. 3. Who the People of Israel were? He tells him, That they were lately carried away Captives into a strange Land, but now possessed the City Jerusalem. Et plurimi eorum captivi abducti sunt in terram non suam, nuper autem reversi ad Dominum Deum suum, ex dispersione quâ dispersi erant adunati sunt, & ascenderunt Montana haec omnia, & iterum possident Jerusalem. And in the Greek it is added, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et Templum Dei eorum factum est in solum. Words that show, that this passage ought to be understood of the Captivity, and Destruction of the Temple. Lastly, They add, that it is said in the 16th Chapter, that Judith, who lived an Hundred and five Years, saw no more War in Israel; and in the 8th Chapter, that when she went to find out Holofernes, she was young and beautiful. Hence they say it evidently follows, that this History did not happen during the Reign of Manasses, because from the War which Pharaoh Necho made in the time of King Josiah, it was but Forty five or Forty six Years to the Captivity, so that by this account she must have been Sixty four Years old, when she went to meet Holofernes, which is by no means probable. These Reasons, I confess, are not unanswerable; but however, this Opinion seems to me to be most agreeable to Truth. The greatest part of the Protestant Critics, as Luther, Chytraeus, Beroaldus, Scaliger, and Grotius, believe that this History is a Fiction, or Allegory, which Grotius has very hadsomely explained; but this is a rash Opinion, and ought not to be followed.   

(s) The time and Author of the History of Hester are still uncertain.] Scaliger assures us that it happened under Xerxes. First he says, that the Name of Assueras, in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, resembles that of Xerxes: That Xerxes' Queen, whose Name is Amestris according to Herodotus, is the same with Hester: That the Feast whereof mention is made in this Book, is that which is related by the same Historian, which Xerxes made before his Expedition against Greece. This Opinion is easily confuted, because from hence it would follow, that Hester was very old when she was married to Xerxes, and that her Uncle Mordecai was an Hundred and sixty Years old; for being one of those who were carried away Captives into Babylon in the time of King Jeconiah, when he was Ten Years old, if we thereto add the Seventy Years of Captivity, and the Years of the Kings of Persia after Cyrus, it will by the least Computation make up an Hundred and fifty Years. Secondly, Amestris was married to Xerxes a long time before his Expedition into Greece, as it appears by the joint Testimonies of Herodotus and Ctesias. The Father of Amestris was Onophes a Persian, and no Jew. In short, that Queen was illnatured and cruel. The Opinion of those, who place this History under Artaxerxes, is confuted by the same reason that is urged against the former; for 'tis precisely said in the second Chapter, Vers. 6. that Mordecai was of the Number of those, who were carried away by the King of Babylon along with Jeconiah. The third Opinion of those, who believe it was Cyaxares, is no less improbable. For first of all, the King who is mentioned in that Book, is called King of the Persians, and not of the Medes. Secondly, It is said that he Ruled from India to Aethiopia; now the Medes were never so powerful. Thirdly, Ahasuerus commonly resided in the City of Susa, which, as Solinus, Diodorus, and Plutarch testify, was the place of residence of the Kings of Persia, and not of the Median Kings. Lastly, It could not happen under Cyaxares the Father of Astyages, as the Authors of this Opinion are agreed. As for Cyaxares, who is supposed to be the Son of Astyages, he is altogether unknown to Herodotus, and other ancient Historians. None mention him but Xenophon, and all the World knows he is no exact Historian in his Cyropaedia. So that after all, the Opinion of those who believe that Ahasuerus was the same with Darius the Son of Histaspes, as it is by far the most probable, so it carries no difficulty with it. The first Reason alleged against the other Opinions, makes it evident that it could not be any of the Persian Kings after Darius; and as for what is said of him in this Book, that he Ruled from India to Aethiopia, it excludes all the Kings before Cambyses, and at the same time excludes Cambyses himself, who never conquered Egypt, and consequently belongs to none but Darius. It is said there, that Ahasuerus resided in the City of Susa, which agrees very well with Darius the Son of Histaspes, because, as Aelian has observed, that King built himself a Palace in that City; and besides Herodotus▪ adds, that he kept his Treasure there. The same Historian tells us, that he passionately loved one of his Wives, whom he calls Artissone▪ and that he put a Diadem upon her Head. This passage suits mightily with the History of Hester, and the Name too bears some Conformity, for Hester is likewise called Hadassa. King Ahasuerus made all the Isles of the Sea Tributary to him. Now according to Thucydides, Darius the Son of Histaspes conquered them, as it is also observed by Plato in his M●nexenus, and after him none of the Persian Kings brought them under their Command. They Object, That Ahasuerus was descended of the Persian Kings, as it appears in the 16th Chapter, whereas Darius was the Son of Histaspes, who was not King. But Herodotus assures us, that he was of the Royal Family. They likewise tell us, that it is written in the same Chapter that Haman would have translated the Empire to the Macedonians. Now, say they, the Macedonians were not known till a long while after the time of Darius. Some People say, that Haman was no Macedonian, and that in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we ought to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because he was of the Race of Agag, but this Conjecture is not solid. Answer, The History of Hester could not happen after this King, as we have already shown, and the contrary Opinion is very weak. It was Natural for Haman, who was a Macedonian, to endeavour to Translate the Empire to his own Nation, which was very Famous and Powerful at this time, as Justin has informed us. Lastly, they say, That Ahasuerus is also called Artaxerxes in the 16th Chapter; Now there were but three Kings of that Name, viz. one Surnamed Longimanus, another Mnemon, and the last Ochus. Ahasuerus therefore was one of these three. Answer, Artaxerxes is a Name that might perhaps be given to all the Kings of Persia, as Caesar to all the Roman Emperors.   

(t) The greatest part make Mordecai the Author of it.] It seems that Mordecai was the Author of this Book, by chap. 9 vers. 20. and 23. and by chap. 12. vers. 4. where it is said, That he wrote down all that happened. In the Septuagint, chap. 9 Hester is joined to Mordecai, which made Serrarius, and some others, believe, that Hester and Mordecai composed it together. Those that pretend it was done by the Synagogue, draw their Conjecture from hence, because the Original and Ceremonies of the Feast of the Jews, called Purim, are there largely described, upon which occasion the Book seems to have been written.   

(u) The Author of the Book, that recounts the History of Job, is no less uncertain.] Those that attribute it to Job ground their Opinion chief upon this, that he twice wishes in the 19th and 31st Chapters, that his Words were written down: But 'tis easy to observe, that he does not here speak of an ordinary Book, and that 'tis only a Figure, to show how well he was satisfied of the Truth of them. Quis mihi tribuat ut scribantur Sermones mei: Quis mi●i det ut exarentur in libro Stylo ferreo, & plumbi laminâ, vel certè sculpantur in silice? those that make Moses the Translator of it, as particularly the Author of one of the Commentaries upon Job, commonly ascribed to Origen, does, say, That he Translated it out of the Arabic or Syriack. The Talmudists and Rabbins make Moses the Author of it; and this is likewise the Opinion of the Author of the second Commentary upon Job, attributed to Origen, of Methodius in Photius, of Polychronius, of Julianus Halicarnasse●s in the Catena, and of Nicetas upon Job. St. Jerome also seems to be of the same Judgement. The only Reason they allege to support this Opinion, is the resemblance of the Style, but for my part, I profess 〈◊〉 cannot find it out. The Style of the Book of Job is Figurative, Poetical, Obscure, and full of Sentences. One finds there an infinite number of Arabic or Syriack Terms, and 'tis extremely different from the Style of the Pentateuch. Origen rejects this Opinion, Tom. 5. in Johannem, where he formally denies that Moses wrote any other Books besides the Pentateuch. St. Gregory, who attributes it to Solomon, brings nothing to prove this conjecture of his. Those that ascribe it to Jeremiah, justify themselves by the Conformity of the Style, and the Syriack Words that occur so frequently there. Codurcus makes an Edomitish Prophet Author of it, but upon very frivolous idle Surmises. Some attribute it to the Captive Jews in Babylon, without any Foundation, so that we can say nothing of the Author of this Book, but that he is altogether unknown.   

(x) Who say that the History of Job is wholly feigned.] This is the Opinion of the Talmudists, of Maimonides, and several Rabbins; but Ezekiel, ch. 14. v. 14. Tobit, ch. 2. v. 12. and St. James in his Epistle, speaks of him as a Man that really was. The proper Names of Job, of his Friends, of his Country, of the Number of his Children, serve to show that it is a true History. St. Cyprian in his Treatise of Patience, St. Jerome in his Ep. 103, St. Basil, Homily the 4th, St. Austin in his Sermon 103, and all the Fathers, speak of him after this manner. 'Tis alleged against this Opinion, that the proper Names of this Book have Mystic Significations; That Job signifies a Man in Grief; Uz, Counsel; Zophar, one that is Watchful; Eliphaz, the Law of God; Elihu, God himself. To this it is answered, That most Hebrew Names have such sort of Significations. All the other Objections only prove, That this History is delivered Poetically. This is really true in this History, that there was a certain great Person named Job, who was reduced to the extremity of Misery, by the loss of his Goods, and his Children, heightened by a very severe fit of Sickness; that he supported himself under all these Afflictions with incredible Patience; and at last was restored to a prosperous Condition. Upon the Occasion of this remarkable Event, some one or other composed the Book of Job, the Discourses of his Friends, the Answers of Job, etc.   

(yz) Some Persons make Job to have descended from Nahor the Brother of Abraham.) This is the Opinion of Bellarmine, who makes him the Grandson of Nahor, and older than Moses. He concludes, that 'tis probable he lived long, and that he lived not in Moses' timen, but he produces no Authorities to back this Opinion. Amongst the grandchildren of Esau there is one called Jobab, which Name is easily form into that of Job. Hence it is, that some People believe he was one of the Descendants of Esau, and an Edomite. This is particularly observed in the Greek Addition, which is without question very ancient, since Theodotion has acknowledged it. Grotius believes, that in chap. 26. vers. 12. there is mention made of the Drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, but that is not certain. Castellio assures us, that in chap. 28. vers. 28. there is a passage taken out of Deut. chap. 4. vers. 56. but these two passages are different. The first is, Ecce timor Domini ipsa est Sapientia: The Second is, Haec est enim vera Sapientia & Intellectus. Grotius adds, That this Book was written after David and Solomon, but before Ezekiel, pretending, that as it is quoted by that Prophet, so there are several passages in it drawn out of the Psalms, and the Books of Solomon; but this is not evident, and it should rather seem, that David and Solomon borrowed some of their Thoughts out of Job, although it is not necessary either to say one or the other.   

(aa) 'Tis certain, as St. Jerome has observed, that all the Psalms were not written by David.] St. Jerome, Epist. ad Cypr. Scimus errare eos qui Psalmos omnes David arbitrantur, & non eorum, quorum nominibus Inscripti sunt. Epist. ad Sophronium. Psalmos eorum testamur Autorum, qui ponuntur i● titulis; scilicet Asaph, Idithum, filiorum Chore, Emon Esraitae, Mosis, Salomonis, & reliquorum quos Esdras uno volumine comprehendit. This is also the Opinion of Origen, of St. Hilary, and the Author of the Abridgement attributed to St. Athanasius. St. Augustine in his Exposition of the second Psalm seems to be of that opinion: But in his Book of Heresies, Heresy the 26th, he takes the other opinion to be the more probable of the two. Theodoret also is doubtful in the matter, as he testifies in his Preface upon the Psalms. Some others of the Fathers seem to have been persuaded, that they were all composed by David, as St. chrysostom, Euthymius, Cassiodorus, and particularly Philastrius, who in Heresy the 126th reckons all those for Heretics that doubt the truth of it. Nevertheless it is very certain, that they were not all written by David, for in the first place, there are some of them that bear other names; and secondly, some passages are to be found there, which happened after David's death, as in Psalm the 137th, where mention is made of the Captivity of the Jews in Babylon. One may observe the same thing in Psalm the 64th and 124th.   

(bb) It is difficult to name the Authors of them.] St. Jerome pretends, that these Psalms belong to those whose names they carry; but this is not certain. 'Tis 
[I believe it should be 5 instead of 50, because the 146th Psalm has this Title in the LXX, of Haggai and Zechariah.]  believed, that the fifty next immediately after that that carries for its Title the return of Haggai and Zechariah, were written by those Prophets. The Author of the Abridgement, commonly attributed to St. Athanasius, believes, that all the Psalms entitled to David, ipsi David, are nevertheless done by some other hand. Our Blessed Saviour citys the hundred and tenth Dixit Dominus, which is found to have that Title, under the name of David, Matt. 22. v. 42. The hundred and thirty seventh Psalm carries the name of David and Jeremiah, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which makes it apparently thus to be understood. A Psalm of Jeremiah composed in imitation of David. The 64th Psalm, in the Vulgar Translation, bears the name of Isaac and of Ezekiel; the 70th that of the Sons of Jonadab, and the chief Captives. The Jews make Solomon the Author of the 92d, and of several others. Origen says, that the 90th was composed by Moses, whose name it bears; and the Jews tells us, he made it upon the occasion of a Sedition that happened amongst the Children of Israel, upon the return of those that were sent to discover the Land of Promise. St. Jerome is of the same opinion. The ten following Psalms are also attributed to Moses, not only by the Jews, but even by St. Hilary and Jerome. This cannot possibly hold true of the 99th, where mention is made of Samuel. Some of the Rabbis attribute the 92d to Adam, as the Talmudists do some to several of the ancient Patriarches. There is a Greek Psalm, which is not of the number of the 150 attributed to David but written by some Hellenist who has borrowed it out of David, Isaiah, and Ezekiel.   

(cc) They have been cited as Books inspired by God both in the Old and New Testament.] The 105th, the 96th, and the 136th Psalms are to be found in the 16th Chapter of the First Book of Chronicles, and in the 7th of the Second Book it is said, that the Priests did sing the Psalms which David had composed for the Lord, singing, For his mercy endureth for ever. This is the 136th Psalm, which is yet to be found quoted in Chapters 5, and 20, of the same Book, in the 3d of Ezrah, in the 13th of Judith, in the 33d of Jeremiah, and the 3d of Daniel, [according to their Computation, who esteem the Song of the Three Children to be part of the Canonical Scripture.] In Ecclesiasticus, ch. 47. v. 9 it is said, that David praised God with all his heart, and set Singers before the Altar, In quorum sono dulces fecit modos. I have not leisure to speak of those many passages in the Prophets which allude to several places in the Psalms. In the Second of Maccabees, ch. 2. v. 13. there is mention made of the Psalms of David; St. Matthew, ch. 13. v. 35. and 27. v. 35. recites the Prophecies about our Blessed Saviour, contained in the Psalms. Jesus Christ himself citys the Psalm Dixit Dominus, etc. under the name of David; and in St. Luke, ch. 24. it is said, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning him: The Acts and the Epistles of the Apostles, are full of Citations out of the Psalms.   

(dd) Grotius has pretended upon slight conjectures it was composed by Zorobabel.] This Opinion is not supported by any solid Reason. He says, that the Shepherd mentioned towards the end of the last Chapter is Zorobabel, and his Son Abiud, but he brings no Proofs to recommend this Opinion. They commonly object, when they would prove that this Book was not written by Solomon, that there are abundance of Chaldee words to be found in it, that are only to be met in Daniel, Ezrah, etc. but perhaps these words might be in fashion amongst the Jews towards the end of Salomon's Reign, or it may be they were added since. One might also object this passage of ch. 2. v. 8. Os regis observa, which makes it credible that it is not a King that speaks; but we ought to read observa, as it is in the Septuagint. [It looks also a little strange that Solomon should so often say, that he did so or so, above all that were before him in Jerusalem (Eccles. 1. 16. 2. 7, 9) since his Father David was the first King that ever Reigned in Jerusalem.]   

(ee) This Book of Wisdom is commonly attributed to Solomon.] This is St. Cyprian's opinion in his Book of Morality, of St. Augustine in his second Book of the Christian Doctrine, ch. 8. The ancient Versions, the Rabbins, Origen, St. chrysostom, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyprian, have likewise attributed it to Solomon. The most ancient Fathers call the Proverbs, the Wisdom of Solomon.   

(ff) St. Jerome says, he saw in his time an Hebrew Copy.] Munster and Fagius still make menon of an Hebrew Copy of this Book: Buxtorf tells us, he saw one that was Printed at Constantinople, but 'tis probable, that that Text was made upon the Greek.   

(gg) Some of the Ancients have attributed this Work to Solomon.] St. Cyprian and St. Ambrose have cited it under his name. St. Hilary testifies, that several Persons in his time attributed it to him. This opinion is impossible to be maintained, not only because we know who is the Author, but also because in ch. 47. there is mention made of the Prophets that lived after Solomon. Eusebius; St. Jerome, the Author of the Abridgement attributed to Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, St. Chrysostom; St. Austin, Caesarius of Arles, and many others, have acknowledged the true Author of it, who was Jesus the Son of Syrach. St. Jerome says, he lived under the Highpriest Simon the Son of Onias the Second, and that he wrote this Book after the Version of the Septuagint, or at least, that he lived in their time: And first he proves it by the Preface of his Grandson, who says he collected these Books of his Grandfather in the time of Ptolemy Euergetes, who immediately succeeded Ptolemy Philadelphus. Secondly, because he commends the Highpriest Simon the Just, Son of Onias the First, ch. 50. and afterwards the Translator praises Jesus the Son of Sirach, as one that lived in the time of that Highpriest. Thirdly, because, ch. 2. he seems to speak of the Persecution, which the Jews suffered under Ptolemy the Son of Lagus, and in the first year of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Huetius believes, that Joseph the Son of Syrach is the same with a certain Jew named Ben Sirrah, who has written the Proverbs in Hebrew, but this opinion does not appear to be well grounded.   

(hh) The Son of one Amos, whom we must not confound with the Prophet that bears this name.] The name of the Prophet is Amos, and that of the Father of Isaiah, is Amots. The first was a Shepherd, the second was of Royal Extraction. The first lived in the time of Uzziah King of Judah, the later is more ancient. St. Jerome in cap. 1. Isaiae, St. Austin in the 18th Book de Civitate Dei, ch. 27. St. Cyril in his Preface upon Amos, and others, have distinguished between these two. Clemens Alexandrinus, l. 1. Strom. the Author of the Life and Death of the Prophets, attributed to St. Epiphanius, and the Rabbins, have confounded them. St. Jerome tells us, that the Father of Isaiah was Father in Law to Manasses.   

(two) By whose command, they say, he was cruelly put to death, and sawn asunder with a Wooden Saw.] This is a common Tradition amongst the Jews, and is confirmed by the Testimonies of Tertullian, St. Jerome, and St. Basil.   

[kk] The conjectures they bring to prove it 〈◊〉 very frivolous.] They say, that the Prophecy of Isaiah does not begin before the 6th Chapter; when, after 〈…〉 said that 〈◊〉 ●●ld his Tongue, he says, I heard a voice of the Lord, ●aying, wh●● shall I send? In the second place they pretend, that what he says in the first Chapter concerning the desolation of Judah, does not at all agree with with the Reign of Uzziah, and therefore 'tis not the beginning of his Prophecy. Thirdly, we don't find, say they, in this Book the Life and Actions of Uzziah that were written by Isaiah, as we are informed in the Chronicles. Fourthly, Isaiah prophesied also under Manasses, but there are no Prophecies under his Name, that have any relation to the Reign of that King. Fifthly, the order of things frequently reversed as well in Isaiah, as in the other Prophets. Answer▪ To the first Objection we return this answer, That the Prophet does not say, he had as yet wrote nothing, but only that he tarried a long time without writing, and at last God commanded him to write. 'Tis believed, he wrote this in the last year of King Uzziah. To the second we reply, That he might foretell a future desolation, even at a time before it happened. 'Tis an easy matter to answer the third by saying, that the Book of the Actions of Uzziah mentioned in the Chronicles, is different from that of his Prophecies. In order to answer the fourth, it sufficeth to observe, that it is not where said, that Isaiah wrote those things which he prophesied under Manasses. Lastly, as for the fifth, we say, that we ought not to expect a continued Historical style from the Prophets. On the contrary, their Prophecies are generally written without connexion and order. Their was formerly another Prophecy of Jeremiah mentioned by Origen, where these words were to be found, Appenderunt merced●… m●…, etc. The nazarenes made use of it, as St. Jerome testifies in cap. Matth. 27.   

(ll) We done't certainly know at what time.] Some are of opinion, that Baruch went not to Babylon till after the death of his Master Jeremiah, to whom he was too far engaged ever to quit him, and they confirm this opinion by the 2d Verse, where mention is made of the burning of Jerusalem. Others say, he wrote his Book before the destruction of Jerusalem, because he there speaks of Sacrifices and Consecrated Vessels, which makes them believe, that he was one of those that were deputed in the fourth year of Zedekiah, of whom Saraiah the Brother of Baruch was chief. They affirm therefore, that having carried the Book of Isaiah thither, he composed his Prophecy the year following to comfort the Captives, and that the fifth year after the taking of Jerusalem, which is mentioned in the second Verse, aught to be computed from the Captivity of Jechoniah.   

(mm) Which seems to be confirmed by a certain passage in his Book.] In the first Chapter, verse 3. Et ait rex Asphe●es praeposito E●…horum 〈◊〉 fuerunt ergo inter eos Daniel, etc. Origen and St. Jerome are of this opinion. The Author of the Life and Death of the Prophets attributed to St. Epiphanius, and the false Dorotheus, are of the contrary opinion.   

(nn) The truth and antiquity of the two last Chapters, that contain the History of Susanna and of Bel, are mightily doubted Africanus, Eusebius, and Apolli●… reject both these Stories as fabulous, and maintain they were not written by Daniel, but that they make a part of the Prophecy of H●… St. Jerome seems to be of this opinion in his Preface upon Daniel. Origen has defended the truth of this History, without being willing to affirm that it was Canonical. The Author of the Book of the Wonderful things in Scripture attributed to St. Austin, Tom. 3. lib. 2. chap. 32. does not mention the History of Susanna, and rejects that of Bel. Theodoret in his Comments upon Daniel speaks not a word of these Histories. Nicephorus places the History of Susanna amongst the Apocryphal Books. The Action of Susanna is related and commended by Clemens Alexandrinus, l. 4. Strom. by Tertullian, libr. de Corona, c. 4. by St. Cyprian, Ep. 4. by St. Austin in his 118th Sermon, and in several other places; by St. Basil, lib. 3. de Spir. sancto. cap. 〈◊〉. by St. Ambrose, lib. 2. de Spir. Sancto; by St. chrysostom in an Homily which is in Tom. 5. by Gregory Nazianzene in his 29th Oration; by Avitus in his Epistle to his Sister; by St. Fulgentius in his Answers to Ferrandus; and by Bede. The Author of the Abridgement attributed to St. Athanasius, and Ruffinus, seem to own it for a Canonical Book, as well as St. Ambrose, and Sulpitius Severus. The Objections that are urged against this History are these. In the first place they tell us; that the History of Susanna could not happen when Daniel was a youth, as he is called in that Story. For in the 13th Chapter, verse 65. it is observed, that Astyages was dead, and Cyrus reigned in his place. Now Daniel was then well in years. Answer. This History happened a long time before, and as for the above mentioned passage it is put out of its place. For in the ancient Versions it is placed at the beginning of the Book of Daniel, and 'tis therefore set at the end of it in the Vulgar Edition, because it is not to be found in the Hebrem Text. Wherefore these words of the 13th Chapter, verse 65. And King Astyages was gathered to his Fathers, do not at all concern the History of Susanna, but that of Bel, which immediately follows, and accordingly in the Edition of Sixtus Quintus it is joined to it.  
Africanus objects, that it is not credible, that Joachim the Husband of Susanna was so rich and powerful in the Captivity, as he is said to be in that Book; nor that the Captive Jews had authority to condemn their own Criminals. To this Origen answers, That the Jews that were carried away Captives into Babylon were not plundered, but that they were both rich and powerful, and that there is a great deal of reason to believe they had authority to judge and condemn their Malefactors by their own Laws, as they had afterwards, when they were conquered by the Romans. In the second place, Africanus raises an Objection about an allusion that is to be found in this History, where Daniel is introduced discoursing to the Elders in certain words, that allude to the Greek names of the Trees, under which they found Susanna committing wickedness. For the first of them having said, that it was under a Mastic Tree, in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he answered him, that an Angel should cut him in two, because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in Greek to cut asunder; and the other having said, that it was under a Holm-Oak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he makes use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which allusions, says Africanus, makes it appear, that it was a Greek that wrote these things. On the other hand Origen answers, that Daniel never made use of these terms, or names of Trees, but of some other Hebrew or Chaldee word, to which the Verb that signifies to cut asunder, answered, and that the Greek Interpreter endeavoured to render this sense by finding out some names of Trees, which alluded to those Greek Verbs that signify to cut asunder: And thus in Genesis, when it is said in the Hebrew, that a Woman is called Isha, the feminine of the word Is that signifies a Man, the Latin Translation has rendered it haec vocabitur virgo, and in the Greek, Symmachus has translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a better word than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Septuagint have used.  
'Tis commonly objected against the History of Bel, that the ancient Title in the Septuagint attributes it to Habakkuk, and that the Daniel mentioned in that History was a Priest; 'tis therefore another Daniel to whom all this happened. Answer. St. Jerome observes, that the Greek Interpreter of Daniel, whose Version goes under the name of the Septuagint, has allowed himself a great deal of liberty. Secondly, 'tis said, that Habakkuk, who lived in the time of Manasses, was dead about that time. Likewise 'tis replied by way of answer, that we ought to distinguish between the two Habakkuks, one that was a Prophet and lived in the time of Manasses, and the other who is spoken of in this place of Daniel, the last was of the Tribe of Levi, the former of Simeon. Lastly they tell us, that in the History of Bel and the Dragon it is said, that Daniel was six days in the Lion's Den, whereas in the sixth Chapter, v. 19 we are told that he continued there but one night. But to this they answer, that Daniel was twice cast into the Lion's Den, under Darius, because he prayed to his God contrary to the express command of that King, and under Cyrus upon occasion of the Dragon. The Prophecy of Daniel is quoted by Ezechiel, chap. 14. v. 14. in the first Book of the Maccabees, chap. 2. v. 59 and 60. Matth. 24. v. 15.   

(oo) Hosea the Son of Beeri is the first.] 'Tis believed, that he is the most ancient not only of the twelve Minor, but also of all the Prophets. The false Epiphanius, and false Dorotheus report, that he was of the Tribe of Issachar, and the City of Belenor, but these two are not very credible Authors.   

(pp) The Prophet Joel follows Hosea.] This order is observed in the Hebrew Text, but the Greeks place Amos and Micah between them.   

(qq) 'Tis not certainly known at what time Joel prophesied.] Huetius pretends, that he prophesied after the Captivity of the ten Tribes, because it is said, chap. 3. v. 2. that they have scattered the People of Israel amongst the Nations. But why might not he speak of a future thing, as if it were already done? He likewise says, that there is not a word spoken of the Kingdom of Israel in the whole Prophecy, but this is not certain. Those persons that say he prophesied before Amos ground themselves principally upon his prediction of a Famine towards the end of the first Chapter, whereof Amos speaks as of a thing already past in the 4th Chapter of his Prophecy. But Huetius thinks, that these are two several Famines, that the Famine mentioned in Amos happened naturally, whereas the other, which Joel foretold, was to be occasioned by the incursions of Enemies.   

(rr) The time of Obadiah is uncertain.] 'Tis not probable, that this Prophet was he, of whom mention is made in the Book of Kings, for he is only called there one that feared God. 'Tis more probable, that he lived in the time of Ahaz, when the Edomites, in conjunction with the Israelites, made War upon the Tribe of Judah, because he perpetually declaims against the Edomites.   

(ss) Jonah the Son of the Prophet Amittai.] The Hebrews say, he was the Widow's Son of Sarepta, but this is only a groundless fancy.   

(tt) He that was the Son of Histaspes.] This is the opinion of Josephus, of Clemens Alexandrinus, of St. Jerome and Theodoret. Scaliger thinks, that it was Darius Nothus, because there is mention made here of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes his Predecessors, whom he takes to be Xerxes and Longimanus; but it is an easy matter to answer him, by saying, that these names are given in Scripture, without any discrimination, to all the Kings of Persia; and that by them we may understand Cyrus and Cambyses the Predecessors of Darius the Son of Histaspes, or Cambyses and Smerdis, or, if we please, Cambyses himself, to whom the Scripture gives two Names. Scaligers other Argument is stronger; he says that Zechariah and Haggai Prophesied at the same time. And Zechariah in the first Chapter, vers. 12. and in the 7th, vers. 5. testifies, That when he wrote, the People of Israel had been Threescore and Ten years in Affliction, and that God was Angry with them. Now the Second year of Darius, the Son of Histaspes, is not the 70th year of the Captivity. To this it is answered, That the Prophet Zechariah does not say, that it was 70 years since the Children of Israel were in Captivity; neither that they were then in Captivity, but he only says in general Terms; that they had been in Affliction, and that God had poured down his Indignation upon them for the space of Threescore and Ten years, which ought to be understood of the 70 years of the Captivity, although it was already past. The Hebrew and Greek Phrase in this passage no more denotes the present time, than the past. One undeniable Argument to prove, that Haggai wrote in the time of Darius, the Son of Histaspes, is this, that speaking of the second Temple, in ch. 2. ver. 3. he says, Who is left amongst you that saw this House in her first Glory? Quis in vobis est derelictus, qui vidit Domum istam in Gloriâ suâ Primâ? Now if this had been Written under Darius Nothus, these Persons ought to have been 176 years old, or thereabout; and it would follow, that Ezrah was 100 years old, Zorobabel and Joshua 140, for so great a space of time there is from the first year of Cyrus down to the time of Darius Nothus.   

(vu) Grandson of Iddo.] He is called in Ezrah the Son of Iddo; in the Septuagint, and in St. Jerome's Version, the Son of Barachiah, the Son of Iddo. St. Jerome is of Opinion, that he was the Natural Son of Barachiah, and the Son of Iddo by Imitation; Others say he was the Son of the latter, according to the Law, but 'tis far more probable that he was his Grandson, as it is observed in our vulgar Translation. St. Jerome is mistaken in confounding this Iddo with him, that was sent to Jerusalem in the time of Jeroboam, since there were 240 years from Jeroboam to Dari●s, a time too long to allow between Grandfather and Grandson.   

(xx) He is different from Zechariah, mentioned by I●aiah.] By Chronology it appears, that this was not the Prophet, no more than he who is mentioned in the Chronicles, and died in the time of Joash. The First was the Son of Barachiah, the Second of Jehoiada. That which has occasioned this difficulty, is the saying of our Saviour, in St. Matthew, chap. 25. That Zechariah the Son of Barachiah was Slain between the Temple and the Altar; which agrees with what is related in the Chronicles, with Zechariah the Son of Jehoiada; and this introduced St. Jerome to believe that our Blessed Saviour spoke of him, and that we ought to Read, as we find it in the Gospel of the nazarenes, the Son of Jehoiada, and not of Barachiah. Origen on the contrary, and several others, understand this place of the Prophet, who, they say, was Slain after the same manner. They have this Text of the Gospel on their side; and besides, our Saviour speaks of a Prophet, which cannot be understood of the Son of Jehoiada.   

(yy) Malachi, whose Name in the Hebrew, signifies, My Angel.] And this has made Origen and Tertullian believe, that he was an Angel Incarnate. He is called an Angel by the greatest part of the Fathers, and in the Version of the Septuagint, but he was Angel by Office and not by Nature, as he himself calls the Priests Angels. Some Persons, as Jonathan the Chaldee Paraphrast, St. Jerome, and several Jews believed, that it was an Appellative Name which Ezrah assumed, and that he was Author of this Book, but this Opinion is established upon very weak Conjectures; and besides, Ezrah is no where in Scripture called a Prophet. St. Jerome proves his Opinion in the first place, because Malachi and Ezrah lived at the same time; Secondly, Because what is in Malachi is very like what we find in Ezrah; And lastly, Because in chap. 2. vers. 7. he seems to point at Ezrah by these Words, Verba Sac●rdotis custodiunt Scienti●m, & c. ●ut these Conjectures are light and frivolous. For the first only proves that Malachi and Ezrah lived at the same time, not that they were one and the same: The second is not true, and if it were, it would prove just nothing. The Words quoted in the third ought to be understood of Levi, and all the Priests of the Law. He adds, that in Ecclesiasticus, chap. 49. where mention is made of all the Prophets, the Name of Malachi is not to be found. To this it is answered, That we ought not to be surprised, because he is not Named there, since in the same place there is no mention made of Daniel, and several others.   

(zz) The difference of the Style, of the Chronology, and of the History make it appear.] The first Book of Maccabees was written by an Hebrew, the second by a Greek; the second gins the History a great deal higher than the first. One follows the Jewish Account, the other that of Alexandria, which gins Six Months after. Some Persons attribute the first to Josephus, others to Philo, others to the Synagogue, and others to the Maccabees. The Phrase of the first is Jewish; and St. Jerome tells us, he had the Hebrew Copy of it. It was Entitled, The Sceptre of the Rebels against the Lord, or rather, The Sceptre of the Prince of the Children of God. The second was Written by Jason, as it is observed in the Preface. Huetius believes, that the third and fourth Chapter, as well as the two last, don't belong to Jason, because it is said in chap. 2. vers. 20. that he wrote down all that passed under Antiochus and Eupator, but then the remainder, which is the end and the beginning of that History, aught to be understood.   

(aaa) From a Sentence in Exodus.] This Sentence is in Hebrew, Mi Camacha Be Elim Jehovah: Who is like to the Lord amongst the Powers? Now taking the first Letters of each Word we make Maccabee: Others give a different Etymology of this Name, but this is the most probable.     

SECT. II.  
The Canon of the Books of the Old Testament, of Books Doubtful, Apocryphal, and Lost, that belonged to the Old Testament.  
WE call the Books of the Bible Canonical Books, because they are received into the Canon, or the Catalogue of Books, that we look upon as Sacred Opposite to these are those Books, we usually call Apocryphal which are not acknowledged as Divine, but rejected as spurious. The first Canon or Catalogue of the Holy Books was made by the Jews; 'tis certain they had one, but 'tis not so certainly known who it was that made it. Some Persons reckon upon three of them, made at different times by the Sanedrim, or the great Synagogue of the Jews But 'tis a great deal more probable, that they never had more than one Canon or one Collection of the Holy Books of the Old Testament, that was made by Ezrah after the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and was afterwards approved and received by the whole Nation of the Jews, as containing all the Holy Books. Josephus▪ speaking of this business, in his first Book against Appion, says; There is nothing in the World that can boast of a higher degree of certainty, than the Writings Authorized amongst us, for they are not subject to the least Contrariety, because we only receive and approve of those Prophets, who wrote them many years ago, according to the pure Truth, by the Inspiration of the Spirit of God. We are not therefore allowed to see great numbers of Books that contradict one another. We have only Twenty two that comprehend every thing of moment that has happened to our Nation, from the beginning of the World till now, and those we are obliged firmly to believe. Five of them are Written by Moses, that give a faithful Relation of all Events, even to his own Death, for about the space of Three Thousand years; and contain the Genealogy of the Descendants of Adam. The Prophets, that succeeded this admirable Legislator, in Thirteen other Books, have Written all the memorable Passages that fell out, from his Death until the Reign of Artaxerxes, the Son of Xerxes, King of the Persians. The other Four Books contain Hymns, and Songs, composed in the Praise of God, with abundance of Precepts, and Moral Instructions, for the regulating of our Manners. We have also every thing Recorded that has happened since Artaxerxes down to our own Times; but because we have not had, as heretofore, a Succession of Prophets, therefore we don't receive them with the same Belief as we do the Sacred Books, concerning which I have discoursed already: and for which we preserve so great a Veneration, that no One ever had the boldness to take away; or add, or change, the most inconsiderable thing in them. We consider them as Sacred Books, and so we call them; we make solemn Profession inviolably to observe what they Command us, and to Die with Joy if there be occasion, thereby to preserve them. Origen, St. Jerome, the Author of the Abridgement attributed to St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, and several other Christian Writers do testify, That the Jews received but Twenty two Books into the Canon of their Holy Volumes. The Division that St. Jerome has made of them, who distributes them into three Classes, is as follows. The first comprehends the Five Books of Moses, which is called The Law; The second contains those Books that he calls the Books of the Prophets, which are nine in number; namely, the Book of Joshuah, the Book of Judges, to which, says St. Jerome, they use to join the Book of Ruth; the Book of Samuel, which we call the first and second Book of Kings; the Book of Kings, which contain the two last. These Books are followed by three great Prophets, viz. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, which are three different Books, and by the twelve minor Prophets, which make up but one Book. The third Class comprehends those Books that are usually called, the Hagiographa, or Holy Scriptures; the first of which is the Book of Job; the second the Psalms of David; the three following are the Books of Solomon, which are, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles; the sixth is Daniel, the seventh the Chronicles, the eighth Ezrah, which is divided into two Books by the Greeks and Latins, and the last is the Book of Esther. Thus, says St. Jerome, all the Books of the Old Testament; amongst the Jews, just make up the number of Twenty two, five whereof were Written by Moses; eight by the Prophets, and nine are the Hagiographa. Some Persons make them Twenty four in number, by separating Ruth, and the Lamentations of the Prophet Jeremy, and placing them amongst the Hagiographa: This Prologue to the Bible, continues he, may serve as a Preface to all those Books, that we have Translated out of the Hebrew; and we ought to understand, that whatsoever Book is not to be found in this number is Aprocryphal. From hence it follows, that the Book of Wisdom, commonly attributed to Solomon, the Ecclesiasticus of Jesus the Son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and the Pastor, don't belong to the Canon no more than the two Books of Maccabees do; one of which was originally Written in Hebrew, and the other in Greek, as the style sufficiently shows. Thus we see how St. Jerome has clearly explained the Canon of the Scriptures, as they are received by the Jews; yet we have reason to doubt, whether he has been very exact in this Catalogue, since in some particulars it does not agree with Josephus. For although they are agreed about the number of the Books, yet they notoriously differ in the manner of distributing them. Josephus places all the Historical Books, to the number of Thirteen, amongst the Prophets, adding to St. Jerome's nine, Daniel, the Chronicles, Ezrah, and Job. And consequently he sets only those in the third rank that are purely Moral Treatises, as the Psalms of David, and the Three Books of Solomon. But besides this difference, we may probably suppose, that Josephus has not reckoned the Book of Esther in the number of the Canonical Books. For he is of opinion, that they were all written before the Reign of Artaxerxes, but as for the History of Esther, he believed it fell under the Reign of that King, as we may see in his Antiquities▪ 'Tis therefore very likely, that he never considered that Book as Canonical, but that to make up the number of the 13 Books of the Prophets, he reckoned the Book of Ruth separately from that of the Kings. 'Tis in pursuance of this Canon, that Melito, and the Author of the Abridgement of the Scriptures, attributed to St. Athanasius, reject the Book of Esther, and separate the Book of Ruth from that of the Kings. Some Persons pretend, that he has not owned the Book of Job, because he makes no mention of that History, but we ought not to wonder, that he passes it by, since it has no relation to the Nation of the Jews, and he only designed to speak of them in his Antiquities. Others imagine, that he acknowledged Ecclesiasticus for a Canonical Book, because he has cited a passage out of it in his second Book against Appion. But it is visible, as Pithaeus has remarked, that this Citation, which is not to be found in the ancient Version of Ruffinus, has been since inserted into the Text of Josephus  
The ancient Christians have followed the Jewish Canon in the Books of the Old Testament. There are none quoted in the New Testament but those that were received into the Canon of the Jews, and the greatest part of these are frequently cited there. The first Catalogues of the Canoncial Books made by the Ecclestastick Greek and Latin Authors, comprehend no more, but at the same time we ought to affirm, that even those Books, that have been since added to the Canon, have been often quoted by the Ancients, and indeed sometimes under the name of Scripture.  
The first Catalogue, we find of the Books of Scripture amongst the Christians, is that of Melito Bishop of Sa●dis, set down by Eusebius in the 4th Book of his History, chap. 26. It is entirely conformable to that of the Jews, and contains but twenty two Books, in which number Esther is not reckoned, and the Book of Ruth is distinguished from that of the Judges. Origen also in a certain passage drawn out of the Exposition of the first Psalm, and produced by Eusebius in his 6th Book, chap. 25. reckons twenty two Books of the Old Testament, but he places the Book of Esther in this number, and joins the Book of Ruth with that of Judges. The Council of Laodicea, which was the first Synod that determined the number of the Canonical Books, St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his fourth Catechetick Lecture, St. Hilary in his Preface to the Psalms, the last Canon falsely ascribed to the Apostles, Amphilochius cited by Balsamon, A●astasius Sinaita upon the Hexameron, lib. 7. St. John Damascene in his fourth Book of Orthodox Faith, the Author of the Abridgement of Scripture, and of the Festival Letter, attributed to St. Athanasius, the Author of the Book of the Hierarchy, attributed to St. Dionysius, and the Nicephori, follow the Catalogue of Melito. Gregory Nazianzen is of the same opinion in his thirty third Poem, where he distributes the Books of Scripture into the three Classes, viz. Historical, Poetical, and Prophetical He reckons up twelve Historical Books, namely, the five Books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the two Books of Kings, the Chronicles, and Ezrah; The five Poetical Books are Job, David, and the three Books of Solomon; and there are likewise five Prophetical Book, viz. the four Great, and the twelve Minor Prophets. Leontius in his Book of Sects follows this Catalogue and distribution, only he reckons the Book of Psalms by itself. St. Epiphanius, in his Eighth Heresy, counts twenty seven Canonical Books of the Old Testament; nevertheless, he adds nothing to Origen's Canon, but he separates the Book of Ruth from that of Judges, and divides into two the Book of Kings, the Chronicles, and the Book of Ezrah. Several of the Latins reckon twenty four Books, whether it be that they add Judith and Tobit, as St. Hilary has observed of some in his time, or whether they separate Ruth, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah, as St. Jerome has observed. Victorinus upon the Apocalypse, St. Ambrose upon the same Book, Primasius the Author of the Poem against Martion, Bede, and the Author of the Sermons upon the same Book, attributed to St. Austin, and several others, reckon twenty four Books of the Old Testament, and say, they are represented by the twenty four Elders in the Revelations. The first Catalogue of the Books of the Holy Scriptures, where they added some Books to the Jewish Canon, is that of the third Council of Carthage held Anno Dom. 397. when the Books of Judith, Tobit, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and the two Books of the Maccabees were reckoned in the number of Canonical Books. There is at the end of this Canon a Postil that is very remarkable: Let the Church beyond the Sea be consulted (to confirm, or) before this Canon is confirmed. De confirmando isto Canone Ecclesia Transmarina Consulatur. This Catalogue of Canonical Books is confirmed by the Authority of Pope Innocent the First, in an Epistle to Exuperius, and by that of a Roman Council held under Gelasius, A. D. 494 and is followed in the Decree of Eugenius to the Armenians, and by the holy Council of Trent. All these Catalogues serve to acquaint us in general, what were the Books that were always believed to be certainly Canonical, and which they are, whose Authority have been questioned by Antiquity. But nevertheless we ought to speak of them particularly, for although they were not received in the first Ages by all Churches, nor reckoned by all Authors in the Canon of the Books of the Bible, yet they were frequently cited by the Ancients, and sometimes too as Books of Scripture, and for this reason were afterwards admitted into the Canon along with the first.  
The Book of Esther, according to some, was in the Jewish Canon, but others say, it was not reckoned at all. It is placed in the Canon, as we have already observed, by Origen, by the Council of Laodicea, by St. Jerome, by St. Epiphanius, by St. Hilary, by St. Cyril, not to mention the Council of Carthage, or the Decisions of Pope Innocent and Gelasius. Josephus, Melito, St. Athanasius, and the Author of the Abridgement of the Scripture, Gregory Nazianzen, Leontius, the Author of the Book of the Hierarchy, and Nicephorus, reject it. The Action of Esther is commended by Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians, and by Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. 1. Paedag. and l. 5. Strom. which makes it appear, that this Book was known and esteemed by the first Christians. The six last Chapters of this Book are not to be found in the Hebrew. Origen is of opinion, that it was formerly extant in that Language, and has been since lost. But it is very evident, that they are taken out of several places, and that they contain some Pieces that were probably collected by the Hellenist Jews. And for this reason Dionysius, Carthusianus, Nicolaus de Lira, Hugo Cardinalis, and afterwards Sixtus Senensis, and several of the Moderns, turn them out of the Canon of the Holy Books.  
The Book of Baruch is not to be found by name in the Jewish Canon, but perhaps it was joined together with Jeremiah. Melito, Origen, St. Hilary, Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Epiphanius, don't make any mention of it, confounding it perhaps with Jeremiah, but St. Jerome expressly rejects it out of the Canon in his Preface to Jeremiah. On the contrary, the Council of Laodicea, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius in his Festival Letter, and the Author of the Abridgement, annex it to Jeremiah, along with the Lamentations of that Prophet. It is cited under the name of Jeremiah, and as a Book of Scripture by Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. 1. pedag. ch. 2. by St. Cyprian in the Fourth Book of his Testimonies to Quirinus, ch. 6. by Eusebius in his Books of Demonstration; by St. Basil in his Fourth Book against Eunomius; by St. Ambrose in his First Book of Penance, as also in his First Book of Orthodox Faith, ch. 2. by St. Austin, lib. 18. de Civ. Dei; by St. Chysostom in his Homily of the Trinity, and by many other Church-Writers that are more modern. It is not necessary to take notice, that it was received by the Council of Carthage, by Pope Innocent, by the Roman Council under Gelasius, by the Decree of Eugenius, and by the Canon of the Council of Trent.  
The Book of Tobit is rejected in all the ancient Catalogues of the Books of the Bible, and not received into the number of the Canonical Books. Origen in his 27th Homily upon the Numbers says, it is one of those Books that were read to the Catechumen, but that it is not Canonical St. Jerome, who frequently rejects it as an Apocryphal Book, that was neither to be found in the Jewish or Christian Canon, yet gave himself the trouble to Translate it, speaks of it very advantageously in his Preface, and calls it a Sacred Volume in his Hundred and fortieth Epistle. Ruffinus in his Exposition of the Creed expressly rejects it as an Apocryphal Book. But besides that it is received by the Council of Carthage, and by Pope Innocent and Gelasius, it appears, that in Irenaeus' time it was reckoned amongst the Books of the Prophets, because this Author, l. 1. ch. 34 has observed, that the Gnostics, who distributed the Prophets into several Classes, and attributed them to their pretended Divinities, assign the Prophets Haggai and Tobit to Eloi. This Book is often cited by St. Cyprian, who likewise calls it Holy Scripture in his Book of Alms and Good Works. It is also cited by St. Hilary upon the 129th Psalm, where he makes use of the Authority of this Book to prove the Intercession of Angels. The same Father making a Catalogue of the Canonical Books, observes, that several Persons made the number of them twenty four, by adding the Books of Tobit and Judith. St. Ambrose explained it throughout as a Book of Scripture, and cited it in his Hexameron, and so has St. chrysostom in his 13th Homily to the People of Antioch, and the Author of the Apostolic Constitutions in the 8th Book, chap. 45.  
The Book of Judith is not only rejected in all the ancient Catalogues of the Canonical Books, but it is also scarcely mentioned by the Ancients, though Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians, Clemens Alexandrinus, l. 4. Strom. Tertullian in his Book of Monogamy, and in his first Book against Martion, commend the Heroic Action of Judith, which makes it evident, that they had all of them an esteem for that Book. St. Jerome, after having several times rejected it as an Apocryphal Book, and observed in his Preface before it, that we ought not to prove any contested Doctrines out of it, adds, that we read, that the Council of Nice, reckoned it in the number of the Holy Scriptures; Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicaena in numero Sanctarum Scripturarum legitur computasse. We ought to believe, that St. Jerome reported this passage upon the Faith of another, there being not the least appearance of its truth. For besides, that we find nothing like it in the Creed, in the Canons, and Letters of the Council of Nice, and that it is highly probable, there are no other Acts of that Assembly, is it to be imagined, that if they had made a Canon concerning the Sacred Books, not so much as one Man, that assisted in that affair, would make mention of it? Is it to be thought, that St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, St. Cyril, who could not be ignorant of the Decisions of the Council of Nice, would have rejected the Book of Judith as Apocryphal, if it had been reckoned amongst the Canonical Volumes by the Authority of a Council they so highly reverenced? In short, would St. Hilary have contented himself with saying, that some Persons added this Book to the Canon, and not rather have openly declared, when he was speaking of the Canonical Books, that the Church received it? St. Jerome himself, if he had been assured of this business, would he have rejected this Book so often, and not alleged this Catalogue of the Council of Nice, which ought to have been the infallible rule for him to follow? We must therefore say, that this Father received this Information from another. But if the Council of Nice reckoned not this Book of Judith in the number of Canonical Books, yet the Latin Church has since done it by the Council of Carthage, by the Mouth of Innocent the First, by the Roman Council under Gelasius, and by the Council of Trent, which followed the Decree of Eugenius.  
The Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus in the ancient Catalogues are placed in the number of those Books that are very profitable, but not Canonical; Nevertheless, these Books are cited by St. Barnabas, by Clemens Romanus, by Tertullian in his third Book against Martion, and in his Book of Prescriptions, by Clemens Alexandrinus, by St. Cyprian in several places; likewise frequently by Origen, by St. Hilary upon the 140th Psalm; and according to some by St. Basil, by St. Ambrose, by St. Jerome, and St. Austin; but it does not follow, that all these acknowledged them for Canonical. On the contrary, Origen, St. Jerome, and St. Hilary, ranked them amongst the Apocryphal Books; And St. Basil plainly says, in the Preface to his Commentary upon the Proverbs, That there are but three Books of Solomon; and he sufficiently shows in several other places, that he did not own the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for Canonical Books. Philastrius and Ruffinus reject them as well as St. Hilary, who has written a Letter about them to St. Austin. Theodoret is of the same Opinion in his Preface to the Canticles. One cannot say that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, and St. Austin, who seem to own them for Canonical, as it has been determined by the Council of Carthage, by Innocent the First, by the Roman Council under Gelasius, by the Decree of Eugenius, and by the Council of Trent.  
To conclude, the two Books of Maccabees are not entered into the Canon of the Books of the Holy Scripture in the Catalogues of Melito, of Origen, of the Council of Laodicea, of St. Cyril, of St. Hilary, of St. Athanasius, of St. Jerome, and others whom we have Named. In Eusebius' Chronicon, they are opposed to the Canonical Books, in these words, That which we have hitherto reported of the Annals of the Jews, is drawn out of the Holy Scripture; that which follows is taken out of the Books of the Maccabees, Josephus, and Africanus. Tertullian in his Book against the Jews, relates the History of the Maccabees, but yet he does not cite the Books of the Maccabees as Books of Scripture. St. Cyprian quotes them very often under that Character, and so does St. Ambrose, and St. chrysostom. St. Jerome himself, who rejects them in several places, citys them sometimes as Books of Scripture. St. Austin quotes them in his Book of the concern which we ought to have for the Dead, to prove that we may offer Sacrifice for the Deceased; and he assures us, l. 18. de Civit. Dei, that although these Books were never received as Canonical by the Jews, yet they were acknowledged for such by the Church. But in his first Book against Gaudentius, taking occasion to speak of the action of R●zias, who killed himself, he thus delivers his Thoughts about the Books of the Maccabees; The Jews don't receive these Books of the Maccabees as they do the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms; but the Church receives them, and they are not unprofitable, provided one Reads and Understands them with some sort of Moderation, and they deserve esteem particularly for the History of the Seven Maccabees. In the last Canon attributed to the Apostles, we find the three Books of Maccabees reckoned amongst the Canonical Books, but there is reason to believe, that this passage has been added, because they are not acknowledged for Canonical Books by Nicephorus, Johannes Damascenus, and several others, who have owned the Authority of the Apostolical Canons. They are received by the third Council of Carthage, and by Innocent the First. There is but one of them approved by the Roman Council under Gelasius. It is a very surprising thing, that after all these Authorities, St. Gregory the Great should thus Speak of them in the Nineteenth Book of his Morals; We don't without Reason, says he, produce Testimonies drawn out of those Books that are not Canonical, since they have been Published for the Edification of the Church. We ought to make the same Reflection upon all the rest of the Greek and Latin Ecclesiastical Writers, whom we have cited, and who since the Decisions of the Councils of Carthage and Rome, and the Declaration of Innocent the First, reckon but Twenty two or Twenty four Canonical Books of the Old Testament. Which makes it evident, that these Definitions have not been followed by all Authors, and all Churches, till at last it was entirely determined by the Council of Trent.  
I shall not speak of the Histories of Susanna and Bel, that are in Daniel, and have been rejected as false, or as Apocryphal, by several of the ancients, since I have already discoursed largely about them.  
Besides these Books, that were at last received into the Canon of the Books of the Old Testament, there are many others, that either were not admitted into the Jewish Canon, although they were more Ancient, or that having been composed since, have been esteemed and cited by some Christian Authors, but never found any place in the Canon, or those lastly that were supposititiously obtruded upon the World by Heretics, and by consequence were always rejected.  
In the first place there are several Books cited in the Old Testament, that have been totally lost long since, and are not Named in the Jewish Canon. The first of these Books, as they commonly pretend, is the Book of the Battles of the Lord, that is cited in the 21st Chapter of Numbers, vers. 24. But it is not certain, as we have elsewhere observed, that there is any mention made of a Book in this place: we ought to pass the same Judgement upon the Book of the Covenant, that is mentioned, as they assert, in Exodus, chap. 24. but is in reality nothing else, but the Body of the Laws, which Moses received from God, and delivered to the People. Neither is there any greater certainty, that the Book of Jasher, cited by Joshuah, chap. 10. vers. 13. and in the second Book of Samuel, chap. 11. vers. 18. was an Historical Book, although I confess there is some reason to believe it was. But one cannot hardly doubt, that the Books of Nathan, of Gad, of Shemaiah, of Iddo, of Ahijah and Jehu, cited frequently in the Books of the Chronicles, were Memoirs composed in all probability by these Prophets. We must say the same thing of the Book of the Say and Acts of the Kings of Israel, oftentimes cited in the Kings, which is different from the Chronicles, as we have already observed. To these must be added the Book of Samuel, cited in the first Book of Chronicles, and the last Chapter. The Discourses of Hosai, [or of the Seers] that are mentioned in the second Book of Chronicles, chap. 33. vers. 19 The History of Uzziah, written by the Prophet Isaiah, and cited in the second Book of Chronicles, chap. 26. vers. 22. The Three Thousand Parables written by Solomon, as it is said in the first of Kings, chap. 4. vers. 32. The Five Thousand, or rather the Thousand and Five Songs, with the several Volumes concerning all manner of Plants and Animals, that were likewise composed by Solomon, as we are informed in the same place. The Descriptions of Jeremiah, that are mentioned in the second Book of Maccabees, chap. 2. vers. 1. The Prophecy of Ionas that is lost. The Memoirs of Johannes Hircanus, [mentioned 1 Maccab. 16. 23, 24.] and the Books of Jason, that are mentioned in the second Book of Maccabees.  
'Tis usually Asked, Whether these Books cited in the Old Testament were Canonical or no? This Question in my Opinion is asked to no purpose, since we have not any remainders of them at present; but however, certain it is, that they are not Canonical in the same Sense as we usually take the Word; that is to say, they were never received into the Canon, either of the Jewish or Christian Church; and no body knows whether they ought to have been admitted there, in case they had been still preserved. Neither can we positively tell, whether they were written by the Inspiration of God, or were the mere Works of Men, only the latter Opinion seems to be more probable. In the first place, because the greater part of them having been composed before Ezrah, he had without question reckoned them in the Jewish Canon, if he had looked upon them to be Divine Books. Secondly, because we must otherwise be obliged to say, that the Church has lost a great part of the Book of God. Thirdly, because the Apostles never cited any other Books than what we now have, as Books of Scripture. Fourthly, because the Fathers are all agreed, that these Books were Apocryphal, and place the Book of Enoch, cited by St. Judas, in the same rank. This is the Opinion of Origen, of St. Jerome, St. Austin, and indeed of all the Fathers except Tertullian. For although Theodoret, and some other Greek Fathers, give the Title of Prophets to the Authors of these Books that are cited in Scripture; yet it does not follow from thence, that they composed these ancient Memoirs by the Inspiration of God. It is not necessary, that all the Writings and Discourses of a Prophet should be Inspired by Heaven. Upon this account, St. Austin has very Judiciously observed, cap. 38. l. 28. de Civit. Dei, that although these Books, cited in the Holy Scriptures, were written by Prophets that were Inspired by the Holy Ghost; yet it is not necessary to say, that they were Divinely Inspired: For, says he, these Prophets might one while writ like particular Men, with an Historical Fidelity, and another while like Prophets that followed the Inspiration of Heaven: Alia sicut homines Historicâ diligentiâ, alia sicut Prophetas Inspiratione Divinâ scribere potuisse.  
Let us now go on to the Books that are not in the Canon of the Old Testament, and which we have at present. The Catalogue of them is as follows. The Prayer of King Manasses, who was Captive in Babylon, cited in the second Book of Chronicles, where it is said, that this Prayer was written amongst the Say of Hosai, who has Translated into Greek the Discourses of the Seers, or Prophets. It is to be found at the end of the ordinary Bibles, there is nothing lofty in it, but it is full of pious Thoughts. The Latin Fathers have often quoted it: It is neither in Greek nor Hebrew, but only in Latin.  
The third and fourth Books of Ezrah are also in Latin in the common Bibles, after the Prayer of Manasses. The third, which is to be found in the Greek, is nothing but a Repetition of what we find in the two former; it is cited by St. Athanasius, St. Austin, and St. Ambrose, St. Cyprian likewise seems to have known it. The fourth, that is only to be had in the Latin, is full of Visions and Dreams, and some Mistakes. 'Tis written by a different Author from that of the third; for besides the great difference of Style, one of them reckons Nineteen Generations from Aaron down to him, and the other but Fifteen.  
The third Book of Maccabees contain a miraculous Deliverance of the Jews, whom Phiscon had exposed in the Amphitheatre at Alexandria, to the fury of Elephants. Josephus relates this History in his second Book against Appion. This Book of the Maccabees is to be found in all the Greek Editions. It is reckoned in the number of Canonical Books, in the last Canon attributed to the Apostles, but perhaps that has been added since; it's also mentioned in the Chronicle of Eusebius, and in the Author of the Abridgement of Scripture, attributed to St. Athanasius. This History, if it be true, happened about Fifty years before the Passages that are related in the other two Books, and therefore aught to be the first; It is without any Reason called the Book of Maccabees, since it does not speak of them in the least.  
The fourth, containing the History of Hircanus, is rejected as Apocryphal by the Author of the Abridgement of Scripture, attributed to St. Athanasius. It is mentioned by scarce any of the Ancients. Perhaps it was taken out of the Book of the Actions of Johannes Hircanus, mentioned towards the end of the first of Maccabees. Sixtus Senensis assures us, that this account very much resembles Josephus', but that he has abundance of his Hebrew Idiotisms there.  
There is towards the end of Job in the Greek Edition, a Genealogy of Job, that makes him the fifth from Abraham, with the Names of the Edomitish Kings, and of the Kingdoms of his Friends. This Addition is neither in the Latin nor in the Hebrew. There is likewise in the Greek a Discourse of Job's Wife, that is not in the Hebrew, rejected by Africanus and St. Jerome. Towards the end of the Psalms in the Greek Editions, we find a Psalm that is not of the number of the Hundred and Fifty, made in the Person of David, when he was yet a Youth, after he had Slain the Giant Goliath. The Author of the Abridgement of Scripture, attributed to St. Athanasius, citys it, and places it also in the number of the Canonical Psalms. To conclude, at the end of Wisdom there is a Discourse of Solomon drawn from the eighth Chapter of the first Book of Kings.  
We have not the Book of Enoch, so celebrated by Antiquity, and cited by St. Irenaeus, by St. Clement of Alexandria, by Tertullian, by Origen, by Athenagoras, by St. Jerome, and several other Fathers: But we learn from those passages of it which the Fathers have quoted, and which still remain in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarches, and in the Chronography of Syncellus, that it principally treated of the Stars, and their Virtues, of the Descent of Angels to the Earth to entertain a Commerce with the Daughters of Men, of the original of Giants occasioned by this correspondence, of Things that were to befall the Jews, of our Saviour, of the Destruction of Jerusalem, of the Dispersion of the Jews, and the last Judgement. It contains a World of Fictions upon these Subjects; For which Reason all the Fathers, except Tertullian, have looked upon it as an Apocryphal Book, that▪ does not belong to the Patriarch Enoch. That which has caused all the difficulty, is that this Book seems to have been cited under Enoch's Name by St. Judas, in his Canonical Epistle, verse 14. And of this, says he, Enoch the Seventh from Adam Prophesied, saying, Behold the Lord cometh, etc. from whence one may conclude, That we ought either to reject the Epistle of St. Judas, or believe that the Book of Enoch truly belonged to that Patriarch. St. Austin avoids this difficulty, by saying, That the true Book of Enoch, cited by St. Judas, is lost, and that a spurious one has been since Fathered upon him. But it is not probable, that the Book of Enoch, cited by St. Judas, is different from that which was known to St. Irenaeus, to St. Justin, and the other Fathers that lived in the first Ages of the Church; And therefore St. Jerome, after Origen answers, That St. Judas might cite an Apocryphal Book if he pleased, and that this hindered not his Epistle from being Canonical, that even in the other Books of the New Testament, we find some passages that are drawn out of Apocryphal Books, which ought not to diminish the Authority of the Canonical Books, or give any new power to the Apocryphal on●●. Some of the Modern Cr●… have pretended to unravel this difficulty with greater ease, by maintaining, that St. Judas does not here speak of the Book of Enoch, but only of a Prophecy of that Patriarch, which he had learned by Tradition, as St. Paul reports the Names of Jannes and Jambres, the Egyptian Magicians of Phar●…, from the common Tradition of the Jews; but this Opinion being contrary to the Determination of all the Ancients, is in my Judgement very improbable and ill-grounded, and we had much better rely upon St. Jerome's Solution.  
The Book of the Assumption of Moses, from whence, as they pretend, St. Judas took the Relation of Michael the Archangel▪ s Disputing with Satan about the Body of Moses, is not so famous in Antiquity; nevertheless it is cited by Origen, l. 3. Pri●c. and by St. Clement, l. 3. Strom. who there gives us an account of a Vision of Joshua and Caleb, that was taken out of this Book. Oecumenius in his Commentary upon the Epistle of St. Judas recites these Words of the Archangel to the Devil, the Lord rebuke thee Satan; Increpet te Deus O Diabole; as quoted from hence. St. Jerome tells us, it is an hard matter to say, from whence St. Judas took this passage; only he observes, that there is something like it to be found in the Prophecy of Zechariah, chap. 3. verse 2.  
Origen likewise citys a Book, Entitled, The Assumption, the Apocalypse, or the Secrets of Elias. Syncellus after him, pretends, that out of this Apocryphal Book, St. Paul has taken this Sentence in his Epistle to the Corinthians; The Eye hath not seen, nor the Ear heard the good Things that God hath prepared for them that love him: As also that in the Epistle to the Galatians; Circumcision availeth nothing, etc. Moreover he is of Opinion, that this Sentence in the Ephesians, Awake thou that sleepest, is taken out of the Apocryphal Book of Jeremiah. But it may so happen sometimes, that like Sentences may be found in two different Books, and yet it is not necessary to say, that one Author borrowed them from the other.  
Some Jews have Forged and Counterfeited those Books, that are by some attributed to the Patriarches; as for Example, the Books Entitled, The Generations, and the Creation, ascribed to Adam, The Revelation of the same, cited by St. Epiphanius. 'Tis also commonly believed, that he composed a Book about the Philosopher's Stone; and that there was a Book of Magic extant, said to have been written by Cham, as we find in Cassian's eighth Conference, chap. 21. The Abridgement of Scripture that goes under the Name of St. Athanasius, makes mention of the Book of the Assumption of Abraham. The Author of the Homilies upon St. Luke, attributed to Origen, in the 15th Homily, and some others quo●e the Book of the Twelve Patriarches. The same Author in the 35th Homily, citys an Apocryphal Book, where Angels and Devils Dispute about the Salvation of Abraham. The Author of the abovementioned Abridgement of Scripture, speaks of two Apocryphal Books, one of which is the Prophecy of Habakkuk, from whence as they pretend, the History Bel, that is in Daniel, was taken; and an Apocryphal Book that carries the Name of Ezekiel. Hermas, one of the most ancient Christian Writers, in his Pastor, ch. 2. citys the Prophecies of Eldad and Medad, that are mentioned in chap. 11. of Numbers. Origen and St. Ambrose cite a Book of Jannes and Jambres, the Magicians of Pharaoh, that is rejected by Gelasius, as an Apocryphal Book. There is also a Book of King Og placed in the number of Apocryphal Books by Gelasius.  
The Ebionites have imposed a Book upon the World, Entitled, Jacob' s Ladder, as Epiphanius testifies. Manes composed a Genealogy of the Sons and Daughters of Adam, as we are informed by St. Austin, and Pope Gelasius. In short, there were abundance of such kind of Books formerly to be found, composed either by the Jews, who had an admirable Talon at Fiction, or else by the Heretics, who made use of them to give the greater Reputation to their Errors, so that it would be an unprofitable, as well as a tedious Thing, to make an exact Catalogue. But I ought not to omit two passages cited in the New Testament, as if they were in the Prophets, which upon strict search are not to be found there, and which have given occasion to some Persons to imagine they were taken from other Books; The first is in St. Matthew, ch. 2. v. 23. Jesus, says he, dwelled in a City called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet, He shall be called a Nazarene. Now these Words, He shall be called a Nazarene, are not to be found in any of the Prophets that we now have, which has induced St. chrysostom to imagine, that they are taken out of some other Prophet that is lost. Others pretend, that they are cited out of the 11th Chapter of Isaiah, vers. 1. where it is foretold, That a Branch shall grow out, which they call in Hebrew Netzer. Huetius thinks, that this passage is taken from the 13th Chapter of the Book of Judges, verse 5. where it is said, that he shall be a Nazarite from the Womb. But the most probable Opinion is that of St. Jerome, who supposes, that St. Matthew does not cite any Prophet in particular, but only all the Prophets, who have predicted, that our Blessed Saviour should be Holy, and Consecrated to God, as the Nazarites were.  
The second passage is cited in the same Gospel, chap. 27. verse 9 Then, says he, was fulfilled that which was spoken in Jeremy the Prophet, saying, And they took the Thirty pieces of Silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the Children of Israel did value, and gave them for the Potter's Field, as the Lord appointed me. This Prophecy is not to be found in Jeremiah, but there is something that seems to resemble it in Zechariah, chap. 11. verse 13. Origen in his 35th Treatise upon St. Matthew, pretends, that it ought to be said, that this passage is taken out of an Apocryphal Book called, The Secrets of Jeremiah, or else that we must affirm, that in this Gospel the Name of one Prophet is used for that of another. Some other Authors say, that this Prophecy has been struck out of the Book of Jeremiah. Others run to Tradition, which, as they give out, preserved this Prophecy of Jeremiah down to the time of St. Matthew. It is very probable, say some others, that this Prophecy being composed of the Words of Jeremiah, and the Thought of Zechariah, has been cited only under the Name of Jeremiah, as in another Place a Prophecy of Malachi being joined to one of Isaiah, is attributed to the latter: But yet 'tis a great deal more probable, that St. Matthew having only wrote, as it was spoken in the Prophet, without Naming any one, they added in the Text of the Gospel, the Name of Jeremiah, that Evangelist not being accustomed to Name the Prophets, whom he citys. This is St. Jerome's Solution of the matter, which seems to be by far the Solidest.  

NOTES.  

(a) WE call the Books of the Bible Canonical, etc.] Some Persons say, that they are thus called, because they are the Rule of Faith; but the other Opinion is far more probable.   

(b) Books that are called Apocryphal.] We don't know well why they were so called. This word comes Originally from the Greek, where it signifies to hid or conceal. St. Austin, L. 15. de Civit. Dei, Ch. 23. says, they are so called, because the Original of them is not known. Others, as St. Jerome and Gelasius, believe they had this Name given them, because they contained the hidden Mysteries of the Heretics. St. Epiphanius imagines this distinguishing Appellation was set upon them, because they were not kept in the Ark. The Signification also of this word is doubtful, one while they give this Name to all Books that are not in the Canon, another while only to erroneous or ill Books. Some of the Fathers make three Distinctions of Books, viz. The Canonical, the Doubtful, and the Supposisitious. Consult Origen upon the fourth Chapter of St. John. St. Athanasius in his Festival Letter, St. Gregory in the Poem to Seleucus. Eusebius, and the other Fathers, divide them but into two sorts, Canonical and Apocryphal: But then they distinguish the Canonical into two Classes. Indeed generally speaking they are ranged into three Classes, the Canonical of the first Rank, the Canonical of the second Rank, and the Apocryphal.   

(c) Some Persons distinguish three Canons made at several times by the Sanedrim, or the great Synagogue of the Jews.] Serarius makes only two: The first made by Ezrah, and the Synagogue in his time: The second, either when they sent the LXX Elders to Translate the Bible, or when the Dispute about the Resurrection was so warmly discussed between the Sadducees and Pharisees: Genebrard supposes there were three; The first, composed by Ezrah, and approved of by the Synagogue; The second, appointed by a Grand Assembly of the Synagogue, when they sent the LXX, at which time, as he pretends, Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, and the Book of Wisdom, were added to the Canon; The third, at the time of the famous Controversy between the Sadducees and Pharisees, when the Books of the Maccabees, according to him, were Solemnly approved and received.   

(d) But 'tis a great deal more probable, that they never had but one Canon.] It is unquestionably true, that Ezrah received, and collected the Sacred Volumes, and consequently that he was the Author of the Canon amongst the Jews. Neither they, nor the ancient Christians acknowledged any other. As for the Books, which as they pretend, were inserted into the other Canons, 'tis certain they were never owned by the Jews; and what they talk about the two great Assemblies of the Synagogues, that were Convened upon that Occasion, is all a Chimaera and Fiction. The Ancients themselves never make the least mention of the Approbation of the Synagogue or Sanedrim of the Jews, which our Moderns boast of so mightily. Some are of Opinion, That Nehemiah added the two Books of Ezrah to the Canon, and found their Notion upon what is said in the 2d. Book of Maccabees, ch. 2. v. 13. that he gathered together the Books of David, and the Prophets, and the Books of the Kings, etc. But this only proves, that he erected a Library, as it is intimated in that place, and not made a Collection of the Sacred Books. Others say, that we ought to attribute this Canon to Judas Maccabeus, because it is said in the first of Maccabees, Chap. 1. Verse 56. that Antiochus and his Ministers burnt and tore to pieces the Books of the Law: And in the second Book, Chap. 2. Verse 13, 14. the Jews of Jerusalem acquaint their Brethren that were in Egypt, that Judas Maccabeus had gathered together all those things that were lost by reason of the War. This does not prove that Ezrah's Canon was entirely lost, and that Judas composed another, but only that he got other Copies of those Sacred Books that were burnt and torn under Antiochus, and made a Collection of several pieces relating to the History of their Wars, which was never received into the Jewish Canon. Our Opinion is invincibly proved by the Concurring Testimonies of Josephus and St. Jerome.   

(e) But it is visible, that this Citation has been since inserted into the true Text of Josephus.] The passage which, as they pretend, is cited by Josephus, is in Chap. 42. of Ecclesiasticus, Verse 14. Better is the Churlishness of a Man, than a Courteous Woman. 'Tis beyond dispute, that it was afterwards added, for Josephus proposes in that place to cite the Laws of Moses, and this passage makes nothing at all to the purpose. In the Ancient Version of Ruffinus this Quotation is not to be found, which makes it evident, that it has been added since.   

(f) There are not others cited in the New Testament, but those that were received into the Canon of the Jews.] Some Persons say, that the Book of Wisdom is cited by St. Paul, Rom. 11. in these words, Who hath known the Mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his Counsellor? Which they say are the very same in effect with those in Wisdom, Chap. 9 For what Man can know the Counsel of God? But this passage cited by the Apostle is to be found word for word in Isaiah, Chap. 40. Vers. 13. where the Greek Terms are the same that are used by St. Paul. St. Basil, L. de Spir. Sancto, Ch. 5. Tertullian in his fifth Book against Martion, Ch. 14. St. Ambrose, or rather the Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul, that are falsely attributed to him, Peter Lombard, and several others observe, that it is taken out of Isaiah. 'Tis also pretended, that the passage in his Epistle to the Hebrews, where it is said, that Enoch was translated, that he might not taste of death, is taken out of that Book. But it is in Genesis, Chap. 5. Vers. 25. It is likewise said, that there are several Allusions in the Gospel and the Epistles of the Apostles to some places in Ecclesiasticus, the Book of Wisdom, Judith and Tobit. Every one abounds in his own sense, and can find out what Resemblances or Allusions he pleases; but it is not necessary that two Persons that have happened upon the same thought, should take it one from the other. St. Justin, and the Ancients, don't accuse the Jews, for not acknowledging all the Books of Holy Scripture for Canonical. Theophilus says, that Zechariah is the last of the Prophets, and concludes the Holy Scripture with Ezrah.   

(g) A great part of these are quoted there.] These are all Books that are cited there; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, the second Book of Samuel, the first of Kings, Job, the Psalms, the Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Haggai, Habakkuk, Nahum, Zechariah, Malachi.   

(h) Gregory Nazianzen distributes the Books of Scripture into Historical, Poetical, and Prophetical. This Distribution in my Opinion, seems to be the justest, and most natural.   

(i) By that of the Roman Council held under Gelasius, Anno Dom. 494.] There is mention made in this Catalogue but of one Book of Ezrah, and one Book of Maccabees, although the Number of Books is not exactly distinguished in all the rest. For Example: Regnorum libri quatuor— Esdras liber unus, Maccabaeorum liber unus. In some Manuscripts Job is not mentioned there, and they read Maccabaeorum libri ●uo.   

(k) St. Jerome, who frequently rejects it as Apocryphal, and puts it out of the Canon, not only of the Jews, but the Christians also.] Every time that St. Jerome treats expressly obout the Canonical Books in his Prologues to the Kings, to the Books of Salmon, Ezrah, and Esther, in his Epistles 7 and 103 to Paulinus, in his Commentary upon Ezekiel in l. 17. ch. 43. he always rejects those Books that are not to be found in the Canon of the Hebrews as Apocryphal, and only fit to be considered as such. But when he speaks without making any manner of reflection, he frequently citys these very Books as parts of the Holy Scripture, and attributes the same Character to the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, although it is certain, that he believed the contrary. In his Prefaces before Judith and Tobit, as if he had a mind to restore the Reputation of these Books, he speaks very advantageously of them.   

(l) The Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.] Besides several Allusions to the Scripture, which might be produced, but don't prove, that they were cited from thence, St. Barnabas citys a passage drawn out of the Book of Wisdom, Chap. 2. Vers. 12. and another out of Ecclesiasticus, Chap. 4. Vers. 36. Clemens Romanus, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, has quoted the Book of Wisdom, Chap. 11. Vers. 22. Tertullian likewise has quoted the same Author in his Book against Martion, towards the end, and in his Prescriptions. Clemens Alexandrinus has also quoted him frequently. St. Cyprian very often quotes these two Books, and ascribes them to Solomon. Origen mentions the Book of Wisdom under the Name of Scripture in Epist. ad Hebr. in his third Book against Celsus, and in his eighth Homily upon Exodus, as he also citys Ecclesiasticus, Tom. 2.— upon St. Matthew, Treatise the 24th: And Eusebius, l. 6. of his History, Chap. 13. says, That although St. Clement citys these Books, yet they are for the most part rejected. St. Hilary citys them upon the Psalm 104. St. Basil also citys them sometimes, and particularly in his fifth Book against Eunomius. So does St. Jerome frequently, in his Commentary upon Psalm 73. in his 16th Book upon Isaiah, and in his 33d Book upon Ezekiel, and in his second Book upon Isaiah. St. Austin does the same in abundance of places. They are likewise cited by the Author of the Book of Divine Names, and of the Hierarchy, in the last Book, Chap. 2. in the first, Chap. 4. In the Letter of the Council of Sardica, set down by Theodoret, Hist. l. 2. c. 8. By Anastasius Sinaita, lib. 9 In Exam. Orat. 2. De incircumscripto, and Quest. 8. and 10. By Johannes Damascenus, l. 4. Of the Orthodox Faith, Chap. 16. In his third Oration of the Nativity, and in his Sermon of the Dead. But to cite a Book, as Gretzer observes, is not to declare it to be Canonical. These Books are thrown out of the Canon by those very Persons that cite them under the Name of Scripture, and they that attribute them to Solomon, when they cite them, at other times formally deny it. Some seem to think, that the Book of Ecclesiasticus is cited by those who produce this Sentence as from the Scripture, Do nothing without advice. Such as St. Basil in his short Rules, Quest. 104. Eusebius de Praep. Evang. Lib. 12. Cassian, Conference 2. Boniface, Epist. 98. The council of Ephesus, in the Epistle to the Synod of Pamphylia. But the same Sentence is in substance in the 13th Chapter of the Proverbs, Vers. 16. and is word for word in the 24th Chapter, Vers. 13. of the Septuagint Version, from whence these Fathers quoted it; as well as Isidore Pelusiota, who frequently uses it. The Proverbs likewise are very often cited by the Ancients under the Name of Wisdom, by Melito in his Catalogue, Proverbia quae & Sapientia, for so it ought to be translated, and not Proverbia & Sapientia; by Origen, Hom. 17. upon Genesis, upon Exodus, and Numbers; by the Author who has written under the Name of Dionysius of Alexandria against Paulus Samosatenus; by the Author of the Constitutions, frequently by St. Basil, Const. Monast. C. 3. and 16; by Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 1. and 26. And by Gregory Nyssene in his Book of The Life of Moses, and in his 7th Book against Eunomius. By the Council in Trullo, Chap. 64. By the second Council of Nice, Act. 6. The Proverbs are also called by St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata. By Hegesippus, and the Ancients, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

(m) St. Basil sufficiently observes, that he did not own the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for Canonical.] In his Epist. 406. to Amphilochius, he tells us, that Philo speaking of the Manna, has said according to the Tradition of the Jews, that it had a different Taste according to the difference of Palates or Appetites. Now this is expressly said in the Book of Wisdom. St. Basil therefore believed it was written by Philo, if this is the Book whereof he speaks, or at least that it was no Book of Scripture, for otherwise he would not barely have called an Opinion, that is so clearly established there in the 16th Chapter, by the Name of a Jewish Tradition. The same St. Basil, Lib. 2. contr. Eunom. says, that this passage, Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum, is only to be found once in Scripture. Socrates says the same thing, Lib. 4. Chap. 7. If they had acknowledged the Book of Wisdom to be Canonical, they ought to have said that this Sentence is twice to be found in the Bible, because we read it in the Book of Wisdom, as well as in the Proverbs.     

SECT. III.  
The History of the Hebrew Text. Of the Version of the Septuagint, and other Greek Versions of the Old Testament.  
THE Books of Moses, and almost all the rest of the Books of the Old Testament, were written in Hebrew. The ancient Characters, which Moses and the other Authors, that wrote before the Captivity, made use of, according to the common Opinion, were the Samaritan. For after the Division of the Ten Tribes under Rehoboam the Son of Solomon, the Israelites preserved the Pentateuch in the same form they received it from Moses, and gave it afterwards to the Men of Cuth, who came to settle in their place at Samaria, from whence they were called Samaritans. The Tribes of Judah and Benjamin also preserved the same Characters till the Babylonish Captivity. But being once carried away into Babylon, they insensibly used themselves to write and speak after the manner of the Chaldeans. Therefore it was, that Ezrah, having reviewed, and gathered together the Books of the Bible, used the new Chaldee Characters, as being better known to the Jews than the Ancient, which they have used almost always ever since. But the Jews not only borrowed their Characters from the Chaldeans, but they borrowed their Language also, which was the same with that of the Syrians or Assyrians, and came very near the Hebrew It is very certain, that at first this Language was not common to all the Jews, that they all understood Hebrew, and that there were likewise some Persons that spoke it still; so that the Chaldee and Hebrew Tongue were at the same time common in Judea But by little and little they were confounded together, and the Vulgar Language of the Jews became the Syriack, but mixed with several Hebrew Terms, which was afterwards commonly called Hebrew. Nevertheless, the Sacred Books still continued written in Hebrew, and the Jews read them in that Language in their Synagogues; but the ancient Hebrew Language being no longer common, and beginning to be less intelligible to all the Jews, they explained the Original Hebrew in their Synagogues, and this perhaps might give the first occasion to the Chaldee Paraphrases, though those we now have seem to be of a later date. The Hebrew Text continued in this state without Points, till about the Year of our Lord 500, at which time the Jews of Tiberias invented the Points, to limit and restrain the Reading and Pronunciation of the Hebrew Tongue.  
I will not lose any time in endeavouring to prove all these things by any larger Explications, since any Man may see them more amply handled by those Persons, who have wrote Volumes of purpose upon these Subjects; Neither will I discourse of the Oriental Versions of the Old Testament, that are all new, and besides of a very inconsiderable authority. But I cannot forbear to spend some time about the Greek Version of the Bible made by the LXX, whom we commonly rank in the number of Ecclesiastical Authors.  
It has been long disputed, whether there was not a Greek Version of the Books of the Bible more ancient than the Septuagint. St. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and some other ancient Writers, who pretend, that Plato, and several other Pagan Philosophers, have borrowed many passages out of the Books of the Bible, were of opinion, that they were Translated into Greek before the Seventy undertook that business. They that follow this opinion, support it principally by the Testimony of Aristobulus related by Eusebius, who says, that before the time of the Seventy, some Persons had explained, all that concerned the Laws of the Jews, their departure out of Egypt, and whatever happened to them after the taking of their Country; words that seem to imitate, that the Pentateuch had been Translated before the Version of the Septuagint. St. Augustin, l. 18. De Civit. Dei, ch. 11. and Baronius after him deny it, and assure us, that the first Version of the Bible was the Septuagint. 〈◊〉 endeavours 〈◊〉 reconcile th●se 〈◊〉 Opinions, by saying, that there were only some few fragments 〈◊〉 ●●e Old T●…ment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the S●…, but that these LXX Elders were the first, that made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Version of all the 〈◊〉 Volumes. He grounds his Opinion upon the above cited passage of 〈◊〉, which ought to be only understood, says he, of some parts, as the Circum●…tion he 〈◊〉 ●●kes i● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well as what he adds, that the Law was first entirely translated under P●olomy Philade●…. But in case this Book of Aristo●ulus should only be the work of 〈◊〉 ●●elle●ist 〈◊〉, as it is exceeding 〈◊〉▪ this Opinion would become very uncertain. Let us go on now to the V●●sion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
All the Ancient Fathers have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●●sephus and Philo, that the Version of the Bible, commonly called the ●…int, was composed by Seventy or Seventy two Jews sent to Ptolemy Philadelphus, who 〈◊〉 to have the Jewish Books in Greek, that he might place them in the Magnificent Library which 〈◊〉 had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at 〈◊〉 by the care and industry of Demetrius Phalereus an Athenian. This has gone a long time for constant matter of fact, nor was it ever questioned but in our Age, in which some Critics have been found, that have looked upon this History to be fabulous. We shall examine the conjectures they generally bring to prove it.  
In the first place they say, that this Story is wholly ●ounded upon the Authority of Aristeas and Aristobulus, from whom Josephus and Philo have taken all that they say in this matter, and that if these two Authors should prove s●…s, as the greatest part of the Critics agree they are, than there would be no other credible. ●…ess of the tr●… of this business, the Father's having talked of them only upon the relation of these Authors. Secondly, these Critics pretend, that this History does not in any manner agree with the Chronology of those times, and they demonstrate it thus: All those Authors, say they, who speak of this subject, 〈◊〉 that it was Demetrius P●a●ereus, who had ●een formerly a great Man at Athens, that took the pains to make the Jews come to translate the Books of the Bible, and in the mean tim● they pretend, that this Version was composed under the Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Now Demetrius could not be in reputation under Ptolemy Philadelphus, nor could he be alive at that time, when they suppose that this Version was made. For it is certain, that Demetrius lived in Egypt under the Reign of Ptolemy the Son of Lagus, and that having counselled this Prince to name for his Su●… the Children which he had by E●ridice, he incurred the disgrace of Ptolemy Phil●…s, who ●●nished him the Court immediately after the death of his Father, and ordered him to be kept close in a certain Province, where he died soon after, as Hermippus, cited by Di●genes L●ert●●s testifies. All which makes it evident, that in the first place Demetrius was never in any credit with P●●lomy Philadelphus, and consequently, that he was not Supervisor of his Library, nor ordered to bring the Jews to translate the Bible: Secondly, that the Version of the Septuagint being made, as we are obliged to suppose, some years after the beginning of Philadelphus' Reign, Demetrius could not be employed in that affair, since he was dead before. 'Tis commonly answered, that Ptolemy Philadelphus reigned some time along with his Father, as 'tis observed in Eusebius' Chronicon, and that in this time he took care of the Library, and got the Version of the Bible to be made. 'Tis likewise urged, that this is the reason why some Author's place this Translation in the time of Ptolemy the Son of L●gus, and others in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus. But in my Opinion this answer does not clearly remove the difficulty, since Aristeas and Josephus tell us in express words, that it happened under the Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and that he was the King who took so much care ●o complete his Library, without making the least mention of his Father. 'Twas to him alone that Demetrius addressed himself, to procure his Letters to the Jews, he was the only Man that wrote them; In a word, all Authors who say this matter happen▪ d under his Reign, speak not one word of Ptolemy the Son of L●gus, and those that affirm, that it happened under the first Ptolemy, don't mention a syllable of Philadelphus. Vitruvius' in the Preface to his 7th Book tells us, that Ptolemy Philadelphus made a Library in imitation of the Kings of Pergamus, and that Aristophanes, an Athenian Grammarian, was his Library Keeper, from whence it follows, that Demetrius never managed that Office, and that the Library was not begun till after his death. For that King of Pergamus, in imitation of whom Ptolemy Philadelphus erected his Library, was Eumenes, who could not possibly do it till after the death of Demetrius; and therefore Suidas says, the Version of the Septuagint was not made till the 33d year of the Reign of Philadelphus, and he observes, that Zenodotus was his Library Keeper. This still discovers another contradiction in Chronology, that is to be found in Aristeas' and Josephus' Narration; for they say, that the Seventy came into Egypt when Ptolemy made a solemn Festival, occasioned by a Naval Victory which he obtained over Antigonus. This Sea-Fight ought to be the same, which Diodorus mentions in his 20th Book, and happened in the third year of the 118th Olympiad. Now at that time Demetrius was not come to Egypt, where he came not till after the death of Cassander, which happened in the second year of the 120th Olympiad, according to the Testimony of Hermippus. And though one should still maintain, that he came thither at that time, yet it is certain, that Eleazar was not then the High Priest, since according to Eusebius, he did not begin to be so till the 123d Olympiad. They observe also another Solecism in Chronology, and that is in the Epistle attributed to Demetrius by Aristeas: For Hecat●us of Abdera, that was Demetrius' Contemporary, is there cited as a Man that had been dead a long while ago. Thirdly, 'tis urged against the truth of this Story, that it is notoriously full of the fictions and inventions of the Hellenist Jews. It is supposed there, that Eleazar chose Seventy two Men, by taking six out of every Tribe. Now all the World knows, that at this time some of the Tribes were not to be found there, as having been carried away out of Judea, by Shalmanezer after the taking of Samaria. To this it may perhaps be replied, that there were still remaining amongst the Jews some Persons descended from all those Tribes, that were concealed in the Tribe of Judah, but that Eleazar should find just Six and no more in every Tribe, who were able to do such a business, seems, as they say, to look a little too fabulous▪ It is certain, says a modern Critic, that if we reflect a little upon the History of Aristeas, and read it with never so little Application, we shall be convinced, that an Hellenist Jew wrote this Book under the name of Aristeas in favour of his own Nation. The Miracles that are related there, and the very manner in which it is written, give us a true Idea of a Jewish Genius, which always, and especially at that time, delighted to publish Forgeries, that contained scarce any thing but extraordinary things. He tells us, that some Persons having form a design to Translate these Sacred Volumes, were deterred from their bold resolution by a signal punishment from Heaven, that Theopompus having determined to insert some part of their Law into the body of his History, became mad; That the same Theopompus having prayed to God, during the intermission of his Distemper, to discover to him the cause of this unfortunate accident, God answered him in a Dream, that it happened to him for his great presumption in endeavouring to make common those sacred things that ought to be kept private, and that he was restored to his former health, after having desisted from this Enterprise. We read in the same place, that Theodectus, a Tragic Poet, lost his sight▪ for having presumptuously attempted to insert a passage of the Bible into his Works, but that he recovered his sight upon acknowledgement of his fault, and begging pardon of God. After all, the Authors of the Books attributed to Aristeas and Aristobulus say nothing but what is great and pompous, and extraordinary. Aristeas for example does not content himself with saying, that the Seventy carried a Copy of the Law, but he adds, that they brought one written in Characters of Gold. He makes Demetrius give the King a Petition, that they might have the Books of the Jews. He describes the Table, and the other Presents, which King Ptolemy offered to the Temple at Jerusalem, very fabulously. In a word, there is scarce one single Circumstance in the whole Narration, that does not look very like a fable.  
These reasons, and many others which may yet be brought, have made several Critics reject these Books that are attributed to Aristeas and Aristobulus; and what is yet more material, there are some Persons that doubt, whether there were ever any Version composed by the 70 Jews that were sent to Ptolemy Philadelphus. As for myself, although I am hearty persuaded, that these Books of Aristeas and Aristobulus are spurious, yet nevertheless I am of opinion, that we cannot absolutely deny, that there was a Greek Translation of the Bible made in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus: But I dare by no means affirm, that this business was done perfectly after the same manner, as we find it related in the Book attributed to Aristeas.  
Now as the Jews are fruitful in Fictions, so they are not content with retailing those, that are to be found in this Author, but they have likewise added abundance of more extraordinary passages, in supposing, that these 72 Persons were shut up severally each Man in a particular Cell, and that they all of 'em translated the Scripture in the same manner, insomuch that all their translations were found conformable to each other, not only in the same Sense, but even in the same Words and Expressions. Upon this foundation they pretend, that they were inspired by God, and that their Version ought to be considered, as wholly Divine. Some of the Fathers, that were extremely inclined to value the Authority of this Translation, readily believed this Fiction of the Jews but St. Jerome, who had examined these things more exactly, and who preferred the Hebrew Text to the Translation of the Septuagint, laughed at this Story with reason, since neither Aristeas, nor Philo, nor Josephus, who were the first Persons that gave us the History of this Version, spoke a word concerning these little Cells; but on the contrary Aristeas, or the Author of the Book that bears his name, tells us, that the Seventy, when they made this Version, concerted matters amongst themselves, and conferred together. 'Tis upon the Testimony of the same Author, that St. Jerome assures us, that the Seventy only translated the five Books of Moses. Aristeas, Aristobulus, and Philo, tell us, that they translated no more than the Law, a word which ordinary signifies the Pentateuch only. And though we might understand it of all the Books of the Old Testament, which is not true, yet Josephus utterly excludes this Explication, by telling us, that this Law was that of the Legislator of the Jews, which passage can only agree to Moses and his Books. The Talmudists are of the same Opinion. On the the other side St. Justin, and the greatest part of the ancient Fathers, believed, that the Seventy translated all the Bible, because in their time the Greek Version of the Books of Scripture, that are joined to the five Books of M●ses, went under the name of the Septuagint: But it is far more probable to believe, that the Seventy only translated the five Books of Moses, and that the following Books were from time to time translated by other Authors, as the difference of the style, that is to be observed between the several Versions, sufficiently shows, since we have not the positive Testimonies of the Seventy to the contrary. But though the Greek Version of the other Books of the Bible, joined to that of the LXX, was not performed by them, yet we must acknowledge, that it is very ancient, and that the Jews had no other before our Saviour was born.  
But after the Christian Religion was settled, as the Christians supported themselves by the Authority of the Version of the LXX, so some of the Jews resolved to make a new Translation of the Books of the Bible, which as they pretend, should be more conformable to the Hebrew Text, and less favourable to the Christians Aquila the Jew, who lived in the time of Adrian, was the first Man that thought of this design, and after put it into execution, by translating the Hebrew Text into Greek word for word. Afterwards Theodotion a Disciple of Tatian, who after turned Marcionite, and at last a Jew, and flourished in the time of the Emperor Commodus, made another Greek Version of the whole Bible, in which, as he does not confine himself so closely to the Letter, as Aquila did, so neither does he depart so 〈◊〉 from it as Sy●… the Author of the third Version, who lived in th● time of the Emperor 〈◊〉. He had formerly been a Jew, and at last went over to the Sect of th● 〈◊〉▪ which c●… up very near to 〈◊〉. His Version is much freer, and he only concerns ●…self to render the 〈◊〉▪ without 〈◊〉 at the words In the time of the Emperor Cara●…a there was another Ver●… of the Books of the Bible ●ound, or at least of one part thereof, and li●…wise a sixth under ●…r the Son of M●…, which is called the Nicopolitan. Lastly, Origen added a Seventh Version, but that reached the Psalms only. The Hexapla, and Tetrapla of Origen were composed of these Vers●…. In the H●… they were joined to the Hebrew Text written two ways, that is to say, in 〈◊〉 Characters, and in Hebrew Characters, and this composed the two first Columns of the Work: In the third Column ●…od Aq●…'s Translation, which was joined to the Hebrew T●…, 〈◊〉 following the l●…r more religiously than any of the rest. The Version of the Sep●… was ●…d between th●… of Sy●… and 〈◊〉, and so these three Versions composed three Column●▪ the two other Versions were ranked in the two last Columns, and the Seventh, which was of the B●●k of Psalms, in the ninth Column. I think that this Work ought rather to be called Octapla than H●…, being composed of eight Columns; and therefore some have believed, that the Hexapla did not con●… the fifth and sixth Version, but only the other four; and that these two Versions having been added since Origen▪ they than made Octapla of them. But E●sebius, and St. ●erome, with several of the ancient Writers, make no distinction at all between the Octapla and Hexapla, but only between the Tetrapla and the Hexapla, and plainly affirm, that both the fifth and sixth Version were in the Hexapla of Origen, and even the seventh of the Book of Psalms. Therefore we must either say, that they counted not the two Columns of the Hebrew Text, or else, that the fifth and sixth Versions were ●nly of some particular Books of the Bible; and that thus the same Work of Origen had six Columns in some places, in others eight, and even nine in the Psalms, but that they were called Hexapla, either because there were generally but six Columns▪ or because the fifth and sixth Columns were afterwards added. And this appears to be the opinion of St. Epiphanius, which the Learned H●etius has so excellently explained. In the Tetrapla, that were made after the Hexapla, Origen has retrenched the fifth and sixth Versions, as also the two Columns of the Hebrew Text, so that they are only composed of the Versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theodo●ion. We must still observe, that the Version of the Septuagint, that was in the Hexapla, and Tetrapla, was corrected and augmented in several places, yet without being changed. For Origen added there some passages taken from Theodotion, which he marked with an Asterisk, and as▪ for those places, that as he supposed aught to be cut off, and retrenched, he enclosed them between two Hooks. Since that there have been three Versions of the Septuagint used in the Church. The first is the ancient or vulgar, and was received by L●cian, it was used at Constantinople, and in the East. The second was that of Hesy●hius, which they used in Alexandria, and all over Egypt. Lastly the third, which was used in Palestine, was the same with that, which was in the Hexapla of Origen, and which Eusebius and Pamphilus transcribed, and published separately. Here, says St. Jerome, are the three different Versions of Scripture, that divide the whole Earth. Totúsque orbis hac inter se trifariâ varietate comp●…gnat. I shall not say any thing about the Authority of the Version of the Septuagint, compared with that Hebrew Text, because it is a great and famous Question that does not in the least concern that design I have proposed to myself.  

NOTES.  

(a) WERE almost all written in Hebrew.] We must except Judith, Tobit, some Chapters of Daniel, and some of the first Book of Ezrah, which are written in Chaldee, and some other Chapters of the same Prophet Daniel, with the Books of the Maccabees that are written in Greek.   

(b) The Characters which Moses made use of, etc. were the Samaritan.] This opinion was taken for granted in St. Jerome's time, as he himself observes in his Preface to the Kings, and it is confirmed by ancient Medals, where we find this Inscription, Holy Jerusalem, written in Hebrew in the Samaritan Characters; and this could not be written after the division of the Tribes, for at that time the Samaritans did not consider Jerusalem as an Holy City.   

(c) Gave it to the Men of Cuth.] 'Tis far more probable, that the Men of C●th had the Books of the Law rather from the Israelites than the Jews. In the first place, because they preserved them written in the ancient Character, which makes it evident, that they did not receive them after the Captivity, since the Jews at that time wrote in Syria●k Characters. Secondly, because the Collection of the Sacred Books amongst the Samaritans only contained the Pentateuch, and consequently they received them of the Israelites, who acknowledged no other Books but these to be sacred, and not of the Jews, who admitted the rest.   

(d) Ezrah having reviewed and gathered together the Books of the Bible.] I have followed the common opinion of the Jews and Holy Fathers, who ascribe the collecting and revising of the Sacred Volumes of the Old Testament to Ezrah: Others are of opinion, that it was Nehemiah that took this care, but let the matter be how it will, certain it is, that the Jews at their return from the Babylonian Captivity, took care to search after, and gather their Books together. The Author of the fourth Book of Esdras, which is a Book full of falsities and fictions, supposeth, that all the Copies of the Sacred Books being burnt or lost, Ezrah dictated them all anew by a Divine Inspiration. We have this ●able at length in the 14th Chapter of this Book, where it is tacked to several other foolish Whimsies. St. Clement of Alexandria, Theodoret, and St. Basil have followed this opinion, without reflecting upon it; but others who have used more precaution in this matter, are content to say with us, that Ezrah▪ collected, reviewed, digested, and put in order the Books of Holy Scripture, when there were many Copies of it as yet remaining. This is the opinion of St. Iren●…us, Tertullian, St. Jerome, St. C●●ysostom, the Author of the Abridgement of the Bible, commonly attributed to St. Athanasius, and of several others. The first opinion is not only extremely prejudicial to Religion, but impossible to be maintained. For, first, What probability is there, that the Jews during the Captivity, should lose all the Copies of that Book, for which they always preserved so profound a veneration, and which was the foundation of their Religion? Why should we think, that not one single Man amongst them kept it by him? Is it credible, that Ezekiel, Daniel, and Jeremiah, were deprived of reading the Books of the Law? Can one conceive, that Ezrab had no other knowledge of them than by Inspiration? He, I say, that was so learned a Doctor of the Law of Moses at the time when he was in Babylon, as it appears, ch. 7. v. 6. of the first Book of Ezrah. 2. We ought to make the same reflection upon the Israelites of the Ten Tribes. Now it is not probable, that they did not carry the Holy Books along with them. The Book of Tobit informs us, that Tobit read the Prophecy of Amos, Tob. c. 2. v. 6. 3. And 3dly, is it not past dispute, that the Men of Cuth preserved the Pentateuch, which the Israelites of the Ten Tribes gave them? 4. It appears by the 9th Chapter of Daniel, that the Jews had the Books of Moses, and read them during the Captivity. All Israel, says this Prophet, have transgressed thy Law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice, and therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the Law of Moses, because we have sinned against him. And a little lower, All this evil is come upon us, as it is written in the Law of Moses. 5. It is said in the sixth Chapter of the Book of Ezrah, that the building of the Temple was finished in the sixth year of Darius, and that the Priests and Levites were established in their Ministerial Functions, as it is written in the Law of Moses. Sicut scriptum est in lege Moysis. Now Ezrah was not yet come up to Jerusalem, for it is related in the following Chapter, that he arrived in Judea in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes. 6. In the second Book of Ezrah, ch. 8. the People being desirous to be instructed in the Law of Moses, did not request him to dictate it to them anew, but only to bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had given to the People of Israel. Et dixerunt Esdrae scribae, ut afferret librum legis Moysis quam praeceperat Deus Israeli. And it is said immediately after, that Ezrah brought the Book of the Law, and read it before all the People. It will be said perhaps, that I have borrowed these Reasons out of another Man's Book, I own it, but I thought they were suitable to the present occasion.   

(e) It is very certain, that at first this Language was not common to all the Jews.] This is abundantly proved against the common opinion, by what is said in the Book of Nehemiah, ch. 13. v. 24. that the Children of the Jews who had Married strange Women, spoke Asotice and not Judaice. In the Hebrew the words are Ashdodith, and Jehudith, and this last word in the second Book of Kings, ch. 18. v. 26. is opposed to Aramith, which signifies in Syriack, Precamur loquaris nobis Syriace & non Judaice; in the first Book of Ezrah, ch. 4. v. 7. and in the Prophet Daniel, ch. 2. v. 4. Aramith has still the same signification. On the contrary Jehudith signifies the Hebrew Tongue in opposition to the Syriack, as we may see in the second Book of Chron. ch. 32. v. 18. 2 Kings, 18. 26. and in Isaiah, ch. 36. v. 11. There were several Jews therefore in the time of Ezrah that still spoke Hebrew. And this is evidently proved by the Books of Ezrah that were made since the Captivity, and yet were written in Hebrew, and not in Chaldee, except some Chapters of the first Book of Ezrah, where he tells us of the opposition, that the Officers of the King of Persia, who spoke Chaldee, gave to the Jews. From whence it follows, that the Jews both understood and spoke Hebrew. For otherwise why should Ezrah, if he designed to have his Books intelligible by all the Jews, writ them in a Language, which was not natural to them. The same consideration will hold good as to the Books of the latter Prophets, who wrote in Hebrew after the Captivity, and yet addressed their Prophecies to all the People. But lastly, that which admits of no reply, is a remarkable passage in the Book of Nehemiah, ch. 8. and 9 where we find, that the Law was read in Hebrew before the People, and all the People harkened to it, and understood it; These Remarks have been lately made by a very Ingenious and Learned Person. Mr. Simon indeed brags, that he has invincible Reasons to overthrow them; When he has honoured the World with a Sight of them, we shall see whether they are powerful enough to make us retract this opinion, as he would willingly persuade us they are; but in the mean time he ought not to take it amiss, if till then, we continue in the same mind.   

(f) The Syriack Tongue mixed with Hebrew Words became the vulgar Language of the Jews, which was afterwards called the Hebrew Tongue.] The truth of this appears by the Hebrew Words that we find in the New Testament, which are all, as St. Jerome observes, Syriack Words, and what our blessed Saviour says, That not one jota of the Law of God shall pass away, etc. makes it evident, that the Jews at that time used the present Hebrew Alphabet, and not the ancient, and it is demonstrated from hence, that the▪ of the Jews was a little Letter, which is true of the Syriack [and Hebrew] J●d, and not of the Samaritan, which has three Feet.   

(g) The Chaldee Paraphras●● which we have seen to be of a l●ter date.] The C●●ldee Paraphrase is divided into three Parts▪ The first, that contains the Pentateuch, is attributed to O●kelos; the second, that contains the Prophets, to Jonathan; the third, to one Josephus the blind. There is likewise another Paraphrase of the Pentateuch, called that of Jerusalem, and another of the Canticles; but all these Paraphrases are imperfect, as well as new. Since that time the Jews having committed to writing abundance of Traditions in a Book which they call Misna, they afterwards composed Commentaries upon it, whereof the most celebrated is called the G●mera. But all these Books are full of ridiculous foolish Fictions, and have nothing common with the Scripture; The Masora, that is, a sort of a Critical Performance upon the Bible, is of more use and advantage. The Follies and Whimsies of the Cabala are impertinent and impious.   

(h) About the year of our Lord 500, the Jews of Tiberias invented the Points.] These Points were not used in St. Jerom's time, as may be easily proved from several Passages of this Father drawn out of his 22th Question upon Jeremiah, and out of his Commentary upon Habakkuk, in Chap. 3. Vers. 20. which abundantly show, that in his time the Pronunciation of the Hebrew Words was not determined by the Points, as it has been since.   

(i) I am of opinion, that one cannot absolutely deny, that there was a Greek Version of the Books of the Bible made in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus.] It is not credible, that the Authors of the Books attributed to Aristeas and Aristobulus entirely invented the whole History, and that there is no part of it true. 'Tis sar more probable, that they only added several Circumstances to the Matter of Fact, which was assuredly certain. Mr. Simon imagines, that this Version was called the Septuagint, because it was approved by the Sanedrim, but this is a Conjecture without any Foundation.   

(k) Some of the Fathers have believed this Fiction of the Talmudists.] The Author of the Discourse against the Greeks, attributed to St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, and St. Clement, believed it, St. Austin questioned and doubted the truth of it, St. Jero●● laughs at it.   

(l) Aquila the Jew.] A certain Syriack Author▪ ●ited by Monsieur Le J●i [the Publisher of the French Po●●g●●ot▪] tells us, that he was descended from Adrian, and adds many other Passages 〈◊〉 are extremely improbable. St. Jerom assures us, that he was a Jew, in his Commentary upon the third Chapter of Habakkuk, upon the third of Isaiah, and in his Epistle to Marcellus.   

(m) Theodotion the Disciple of Tatian.] St. Jerom's Testimony confirms what we have said here, St. Iren●●s names him in his Book against H●●esy, from whence it follows, that he lived when Elut●erius was Pope.   

(n) Symmachus, etc.] What we say concerning this Man, is taken out of St. Jerom in his Preface upon Job; Eusebius also says, l. 6. c. 7. that he was an Ebionite; and this is the reason why Hil●ry the Deacon Author of The Commentary of St. Paul, attributed to St. Ambrose, calls the Ebionites S●…machians.   

(o) We yet find another Version of the Bible in the time of the Emperor Caracalla.] St. Epiphanius is of opinion, that this fifth Version was found at Jericho, the Author of The Abridgement attributed to St. Athanasius is of the same opinion: But Eusebius following the Testimony of Origen, tells us, that the sixth was found at Nicopolis; that we don't know where Origen found the fifth; and that the seventh, which was only a Version of the Psalms, was found at Jericho. Consult Euseb. l. 6. c. 16. St. Jerom assures us, that all these Translations were made by Jews.   

(p) Eusebius, St. Jerom, and several other Ancients, make no distinction between the Octapla from the Hexapla.] They place the fifth, sixth, and seventh Version, in what they call the Hexapla. St. Epiphanius, in his Book of Weights and Measures, speaks of the Octapla, but as of a Work which was not distinguished from the Hexapla, for after he has described the Hexapla, h● adds, And if we find there the fifth and sixth Version added, it follows that we ought to call them Octapla. These Columns were unquestionably written upon different Rolls, that were fastened one to the side of another.     

SECT. iv  
Of some Authors, whose Works have a Relation to the Old Testament, viz. Philo. T. Flavius, Josephus, Justus, Aristeas, Aristobulus, Josephus Bengorion, Berosus, the false Dorotheus, Zoroaster, etc.  
THere are several Authors, whose Works, whether Genuine or Spurious, have a Relation to the History of the Old Testament, whom we think ourselves obliged to take some short notice of.  
Philo, a Jew of Alexandria, lived in the time of Caius Caligula, and was the chief Person of an Embassy, that the Jews sent to the Emperor. He composed several Works upon the Old Testament, a Catalogue of which may be seen in Eusebius' History, l. 2. ch. 8. and in St. Jerom's Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, as well as at the beginning of the Greek and Latin Impression of his own Writings, printed at Paris, 1640. This Author is a Platonist, and so well imitates Plato's Style, that he has been called by some The Jewish Plato: He explained the whole Bible by way of Allegory, he is very Eloquent and Diffusive, his Works are full of Moral Thoughts, and continual Allegories upon all the Histories of the Bible; he approaches very near the Notions of the Christians in his Morals. His Works were published in Greek by Turnebus, and printed at Paris 1552. and at Francfort 1587. Translated into Latin by Gelenius, and printed at Basil 1554, and 1561. at Lions 1555, in Greek at Geneva 1603. and in Greek and Latin at Paris 1640.  
Josephus was descended of the Sacerdotal Race of the Asmoneans, as we are told in his Life, which he wrote himself, where all his Employments and Actions are exactly related. He was born Anno Dom. 37. and died 93. He was surnamed Flavius, by reason of Vespasian. He composed the History of the Jews, which he took for the most part out of the Books of the Bible, and continued it down to the time of the Wars of the Jews, under the Name of The Jewish Antiquities. He also wrote the History of the War against the Romans, and the taking of Jerusalem. He has likewise written, besides his own Life, two excellent Books against Appion to answer the Objections, which that Heathen had mustured up against the Antiquity of the Jewish Nation, the Purity of the Law, and the Conduct of Moses; and he has written a Treatise concerning the Martyrdom of the Maccabees, which is called by Erasmus, and not without Reason, An exquisite Masterpiece of Eloquence. This Author wrote very politely, and the turn which he gives things, is very agreeable. His History is beautified with admirable Descriptions, very eloquent Harangues, and very sublime Thoughts; his Style is clear and faithful, he not only diverts his Readers, but he also brings them over to what side he pleases; in one word, he excites and calms the Passions as himself thinks fit. We may say, he is a perfect Historian, and we may justly call him the Livy of the Greeks. The Treatise of the Maccabees sufficiently shows the Beauty of his Genius, and the Height of his Eloquence; and his Books against Appion demonstrate his profound Learning, and the exactness of his Judgement. The Works of this Author have been printed several times in Latin, of the Translation partly of Ruffinus, partly of Gelenius, and partly of Erasmus; and at Geneva in Greek and Latin, Anno Dom. 1611. It were to be wished that we had a new Edition of it, in a better Letter, and better Paper.  
Justus of Tiberias wrote also an History of the Jews, and some Commentaries upon the Bible, but Jesephus accuses him of Falsity and Lying. We had not placed him in the number of the Ecclesiastical Authors, if St. Jerom had not done it before us.  
The Books of Aristeas and Aristobulus concerning the Version of the Septuagint, are manifest Forgeries, and imposed upon the World by some Hellenist Jew, as we have already shown when we were discoursing of that Version.  
The History of the War of the Jews by Josephus Bengorion, was written by an Author that lived since St. Jerom's time. He speaks of the Goths as being in Spain, and of the Franks in Gaul. Now these People were not settled in Spain and in France till about the fifth Century, and so by consequence this is a spurious Writer, who having stolen several things out of the true Josephus, has mingled them after his manner with Fictions and Fables.  
The Testament of the Twelve Patriarches, which is extant in the first Volume of the Bibliotheca Patrum, is a Book wholly filled with Trifles and Impertinencies, and deserves nothing but contempt. Neither should one have a better opinion for the Abridgement of the Lives of the Prophets, the Apostles, and the other Disciples, attributed to Dorotheus of Tyre, who suffered Martyrdom in the time of Dioclesian. It is a Book altogether unknown to the Ancients, full of gross Faults and Mistakes in History, and made up of Fables and Tales to divert the Reader.  
There are some Books that go under the Name of Berosus the Chaldean, of Manetho the Egyptian, and of Metasthenes; but they are altogether unworthy of these great Men, whose Names they carry, and the Forgery is plain and manifest. All those Passages out of the true Berosus, cited by Josephus in his Book against Appion, are not to be found in this Book that is ascribed to him, but we find there several Things that are clean contrary. He speaks of the City of Lions, which had not that Name till after Caesar's time. In short, the History of Berosus went no farther than the time of Nabuchadomso●, and Nabopalass●…, and this descends much lower.  
The Book of Zoroaster, of The Sacred History of the Persians, a Fragment whereof is cited by Eusobius in his first Book De praepar. Evangel. is a supposititious Work, as well as the other Writings attributed to that fabulous Author. In fine, the History of the Phoenicians, which is supposed to be written by Sanchoniathon, and translated into Greek by Philo Biblius who lived in the time of Adrian, is a Romance, wherein there are several Passages taken out of the History of the Bible, and many Circumstances of the Fables of the Greeks.  

NOTES.  

(a) ZOroaster.] There were many of this Name, but 'tis generally held, that the first and most celebrated of them lived in the time of Nimrod, that he was King of the Bactrians, and that he was overcome by Ninus. They speak wonderful Things of his Knowledge, his Wisdom, and of the Prodigies which he wrote. They make him the first Author of the Persian Philosophy, which they called Magic. Plato speaks of Zoroaster as Inventor of that Science amongst the Persians, and observes that he was the Son of Oromazes. Eubulus, cited by Porphyry, attributes the Institution of the Mysteries of the Goddess Mithra to him. E●doxus and Hermippus, cited by Pliny, tells us, that he lived Six thousand Years before Plato. But Ctesias, who has written the History of Zoroaster, testifies, that he lived in the time of Cyrus. This is the reason why Arnobius distinguished the two Zoroasters. Eusebius also makes Zoroaster as old as Ninus, and St. Epiphanius says, that he lived in the time of Nimrod. He is called Zarades by the Persians, and by the Greeks Zoroaster. There are several Explications given of his Name: Some pretend, that it signifies a Living Star; others say, that he was the Son of Aster; and lastly, others tell us, that it signifies a Contemplator of the Stars. All that is related of the ancient Zoroaster is fabulous. Diodorus Siculus tells us, that the King of Bactria, that fought against Ninus, was named Oxiartes, and not Zoroaster. Nevertheless there is a great deal of reason to believe, that there was a Man of this Name amongst the Persians, who taught 'em Magic. Hermippus tells us, that he made an infinite number of Verses. The Fragment, which Eusebius citys in the 7th Chapter of his first Book De praeparatione Evangelicâ, taken out of the History of the Persians attributed to this Author, has so plainly explained all the Attributes of God, that it is visible, it was composed by an Author who was no Stranger to the Christian Religion. Synesius citys the Oracles of Zoroaster, upon the Dreams that are taken out of the Works of the later Platonists. These Oracles have been published by Opsopaeus, and printed at Paris 1599 with the Notes of Psellus and Plato. 'Tis no difficult matter to discover, that these Writings have been forged by the Platonists, that lived since our Blessed Saviour.   

(b) Sanchoniathon.] This Author was unknown to all the Ancients. Porphyry is the first Man that cited this History, which is full of Fables and ridiculous Fictions. Whatever we there find concerning the Origine of the World, and the first Men, is taken out of Genesis. From thence he has borrowed the Word Bohu to signify Night, and that of Colpia, which is given to the Wind; as for what he says of the Aeora, and of the Firstborn, it looks very like the Dreams of the Valentinians. Lastly, he takes several things out of the Fables of the Greeks, which evidently show, that the Author of this Book could not live in the time of Semiramis. [Mr. Dodwell has writ an English Discourse, to prove that this Book could not be older than Philo Byblius, who is said to Translate it out of the Phaenician Language.]   

(c) Philo Byblius.] This Man was a Grammarian, of whom mention is made in Suidas, who lived after Nero's time, for 'tis observed, that he was 78 Years old, when Serus and Herennius were Consuls, which was A. D. 137. that is almost an hundred Years after the Death of Nero. According to the Testimony of the same Suidas, he wrote twelve Books, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and thirty Books, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et de Claris viris; and one Treatise about Adrian's Empire, under which he lived. Suidas does not speak of this Translation of the History of Phoenicia, Eusebius and Theodoret cite it after Porphyry. This Philo is probably the Man, of whom St. Clement of Alexandria speaks, lib. 1. Strom. and whom he calls Philo the Pythagorean.     

SECT. V  
Concerning the Authors of the Books of the New Testament.  
THE Gospel in the Greek Language signifies Happy Tidings, but now this Word, in the common acceptation of the Church, is taken for the History of the Life of Jesus Christ; and the Name of Evangelist, that was heretofore given to all those Persons that preached the Word of God, is at present only given to the four Saints that writ the four Gospels, which the Church has always owned for Canonical. We there find two Apostles, that were Eye-Witnesses of the Life and Actions of Jesus Christ; and two Disciples of the Apostles, who wrote their Gospel upon the relation of others.  
The first of the four Evangelists is St. Matthew, who of a Publican became an Apostle of our Blessed Saviour: He wrote his Gospel in Jerusalem soon after the Death of Jesus Christ in favour of the Jews that embraced the Christian Faith, as St. Jerome has observed. For this reason he wrote in Hebrew, or rather in Syriack, according to the Testimony of Papias, St. Irenaeus, Fusebius, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, St. Epiphanius, and indeed of almost all the Ancients, whose positive Determinations we ought not to reject, unless we have convincing Proofs to the contrary.  
Therefore the Opinion of Cajetan and some others, who pretend, that the Original of St. Matthew's Gospel was written in Greek, is rejected with reason by all the Learned Critics, as being established upon very weak Foundations. St. Jerome assures us, that in his own time he saw an Hebrew Copy of this Gospel in the Library at Caesarea, and that the Nazarenes likewise had a Copy of it in the City of Beraea, which they gave him the liberty to Transcribe; and that it was remarkable, that all the Passages out of the Old Testament, cited in this Gospel, were exactly according to the Hebrew, and not according to the Septuagint. Eusebius also tells us, that Pantaenus found a Copy of it amongst the Indians, but it is not certain, whether that was not a Copy of the Gospel of the Nazarenes, which was different from that of St. Matthew. However it is, 'tis past dispute, that the Original Hebrew of St. Matthew's Gospel is lost at present; and it is equally certain, that the Hebrew Texts; that have been published in our time, are not the Original of St. Matthew (no more than the Syriack Version published by Widmanstadius: The Greek Version, which we have, is very ancient, and was extant even in the time of the Apostles, as St. Jerome and St. Austin have observed. We cannot tell who is the Author of it: Some Persons, as for instance, St. Athanasius in his Book Entitled, The Abridgement of Scripture, attribute it to St. James Bishop of Jerusalem, Theophylact to St. John; Papias says, that they Translated into Greek, as well as they could, without naming in particular any Author of that Version.  
The Evangelist St. Mark, the Discple and Interpreter of St. Peter, and Founder of the Church of Alexandria, seems to be different from that Mark, who is so often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Epistles of St. Paul. He composed his Gospel at Rome with St. Peter, at the entreaty of the Christians residing in that City, setting down in Writing those things which he had learned from that Apostle, who also approved of his Gospel after it was composed. Some late Authors imagine, that it was written in Latin, but this Opinion is contrary to St. Jerome's and St. Austin's Opinion, and indeed has no tolerable Pretences to support it, for we can no more doubt that St. Mark wrote it in Greek, than that St. Luke or St. John did theirs. He follows St. Matthew in abundance of things, and sometimes abridges him, nevertheless there are some Historical Passages which he relates more copiously, and with the addition of several Circumstances. 'Tis commonly believed, that this Gospel was written in the Forty third Year after our Saviour's Birth, and, according to the common Computation, Ten Years after his Death, but this is not certain. St. Jerome observes, that the last Chapter of this Gospel is to be found but in very few Copies, and that almost all the Greeks reject it. Wherefore, says he, one may reject it, particularly because it seems to relate some things contrary to the account we have of them in the other Evangelists. And in his second Book against the Pelagians, he citys a Passage that was inserted into this Chapter, and contained the Error of the Manichees: It plainly proceeds from this addition, that in most of the Copies of St. Mark, this Chapter was entirely left out; for as for the rest, it is cited by St. Irenaeus, and several others, and contains nothing that cannot be reconciled with ease to the Accounts given by the other Evangelists.  
St. Luke was of Antioch, the Metropolitical City of Syria. He was a Physician by Profession, and very well skilled in the Greek Tongue; he was not an Apostle or Disciple of Jesus Christ, but was a Disciple or Follower of St. Paul, whom he accompanied in his Voyages. He himself tells us, says Eusebius, in the beginning of his Gospel, the reason of his writing, for many Persons having rashly undertaken to write the Evangelic History, he thought himself obliged to rescue it out of ill Hands, after he had been exactly informed of all the Occurrences by those that were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word, that is to say, by the Apostles, and particularly by St. Paul. 'Tis imagined, that the Apostle speaks of this Gospel, when he says, according to my Gospel, and that he meant St. Luke when he wrote this passage. The Brother whose praise is in the Gospel in all Churches, Cujus laus est in Evangelio per omnes Ecclesias. St. Jero●● observes, that ●e wrote his Gospel travelling along with St. Paul, when he was in Ach●i● and B●otia, towards the second year of Nero, and the fifty sixth of Jesus Christ. The same Father assures us, that he always continued unmarried, and that he lived Fourscore and four years. He is also the Author of the Acts of the Apostles, which Book contains the History of the Church from the Ascension of 〈◊〉 Blessed Savio●● to the fourth year of Nero, during the space of 29 or 30 years.  
St. John the Evangelist of the City of Bethsaid● 〈◊〉 Galilee, was the Son of Zebedee, and was called to the Apostleship when he was very young. St. Jerome and Tertullian affirm, that he continued in the state of Celibacy all his Life-time. He was the dearly beloved Disciple of Jesus Christ, and 'tis supposed, that he speaks of himself, when he says, the Disciple whom Jesus loved: But though this were not to be thus understood, yet the tenderness which Jesus Christ had for him, sufficiently appeared in the last Supp●●, when he placed him in his Bosom, and in his last words to his Mother, Woman behold thy Son. After the descent of the Holy Ghost, he went and preached the Gospel in Asia▪ where he founded and governed the Churches for a long time, being Bishop of Ephesus, the Metropolis of that 〈◊〉. He was condemned at Rome by the Emperor Domitian to be thrown into a Vessel of burning Oil, but he came out, says Tertullian, more vigorous and strong than when he entered in at first. He was banished afterwards into the Isle of Patmos, where, as 'tis generally supposed, he wrote his Revelation. After the death of Domitian he came back to Ephesus, and there wrote his Gospel, about an hundred years after the Birth of our Blessed Saviour. St. Jerome reports, that he was engaged in this Work by the other Bishops and Christians of Asia, who obliged him to write his Gospel▪ to confound the Errors of Cerinthus and E●ion, who said, that Jesus Christ was a mere Man, and that He had no being before He was born of the Virgin Mary. The same Father adds, that he had yet another reason to write his Gospel after others, for having read the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, he observed, that they only concerned themselves to write the History of one year of our Blessed Saviour's Life, namely, from the imprisonment of St. John, down to the Death of our Saviour, which made him resolve to give an account of the most considerable things that occurred in the preceding years. He has likewise written three Epistles. The first, of which no Man ever doubted, is directed to the Faithful, and particularly to the Parthians, if we may believe St. Austin, and some other ancient Writers, that is to say, to all the Faithful dispersed in Persia, which at that time was under the Domination of the Parthians. We don't certainly know the time or place where it was written. The two others were directed to particular Persons, one to a Lady called Electa, the other to Gai●s. They only carry the name of an Elder or Priest; which has made some People of opinion, that they were written by another St. John, as Eusebius and St. Jerome observe. But the Style, the Spirit, and Thoughts of these Epistles, together with the concurring Authority of most of the Fathers, make it evident, that they belong to this Evangelist. There is a greater difficulty about the Apocalypse, the stile of which Book appears to be different from the rest, and which several of the Ancients rejected, or attributed to another St. John: but the most received opinion is, that it was written by the Evangelist. The Style of St. John is simple, and has little eloquence in it, but his Thoughts are very losty. He lived till the time of Trajan, not dying till the 68th year after the Passion of our Blessed Saviour.  
St. Paul descended of the Tribe of Benjamin, and born in the City of Tarsus, came up to Jerusalem, and there became the Disciple of Gamaliel, a famous Pharisee. He was converted to the faith of Jesus Christ in that miraculous manner which is set down in the Acts of the Apostles; he afterwards changed his name of Saul into that of Paul, after he had openly Converted and Baptised the Proconsul Sergius Paulus. The History of his Travels and Preaching, down to his first imprisonment at Rome, is written by St. Luke in the Acts. We don't certainly know, what he did after his enlargement; some of the Ancients were of opinion, that he went into Spain, but this is very uncertain, and the contrary seems to be the more probable. Be that as it will, 'tis certain, that he was beheaded afterwards at Rome for his Religion, by Nero's Command, towards the 64th year of the common computation. He has written 14 Epistles, all which, Antiquity has owned to be Genuine and Canonical, excepting the Epistle to the Hebrews, concerning which there has been formerly some doubt, and some Persons have supposed, that it was written in Hebrew. They are not ranked in the New Testament according to the order of time, which nevertheless is very necessary to be known.  
The Epistle to the Romans was written from Corinth, as Origen proves by several reasons; for first of all it was sent by Phoebe Servant of the Church at Cenchrea from Corinth. Secondly, St. Paul calls Caius his Host, with whom he tarried at Corinth, as we may see in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 14. Thirdly, in the Salutations, that are to be found towards the end of this Epistle, we find the Names of those who departed from Corinth to go to Jerusalem, as it is said in the 20th Chapter of the Acts. It was therefore written at the time, when St. Paul, having gathered the Contributions of Macedonia, and Achaia, went to visit Jerusalem in the 57th year of Jesus Christ. From whence St. Chrysostom concludes, that it was written after both the Epistles to the Corinthians, in which he exhorts the Faithful to this Charitable Contribution.  
Nevertheless they were not written much before: For the first was written from Ephesus, as it appears, ch. 16. v. 8. (and not from Philippi, as some Greek Inscriptions observe) in the absence of Timothy. The second was written from Macedonia after his return. In some Copies it is said, that it was written from Philippi, in others from Nicopolis.  
That to the Galatians is yet older than the two Epistles to the Corinthians. It was written from Ephesus, at the time when St. Paul taught in the School of one Surnamed Tyrannus in the beginning of the year 56. It is observed in some Greek Copies, that it was written from Rome, but this is not probable, because he does not there speak concerning his Chains, as he does in his Epistle to the Ephesians, where he mentions them in Three several places.  
This Epistle therefore was written towards the 62d year of our Lord, as well as that to the Philippians, and that other which is directed to the Christians of Colossae, a City of Phrygia near Hierapoli● and Laodicea.  
The two Epistles to the Thessalonians seem to be the earliest, if we follow the Chronological order. It is probable, that the first was written towards the year 52; for after St. Paul had converted many Christians at Thessalonica, as it is observed in the Acts, ch. 9 v. 7. he sent Timothy thither, who being come to find him at Corinth, informed him of their Affairs, as it is observed in the third Chapter of this Epistle, which was consequently written in the year 52. The second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written soon after, and from the same place.  
The first Epistle to Timothy was written after he was ordained Bishop, when St. Paul was freed from his Chains in the sixty third year of our Blessed Saviour. The second Epistle was written from Rome, when St. Paul was twice imprisoned there, a little before his Martyrdom. The Epistle to Titus was written about the same time with the first Epistle to Timothy. That to Philemon was written at the time of his first imprisonment at Rome. And to conclude, the Epistle to the Hebrews was written likewise about this time, since it is there observed, ch. 13. v. 23. that Timothy was delivered. Some of the Fathers, as Caius, and Hippolytus, and the ancient Church of Rome, have rejected this Epistle. Others attribute it to St. Barna●as, some to St. Clement, and some to St. Luke; but however the most prevailing opinion is, that it was written by St. Paul. St. Jerome seems to accommodate these differences, by saying, that the thoughts belong to St. Paul, but that the words and composition are either St. Barnabas' or St. Luke's, or rather St. Clement's, who diligently collected whatever he learned from his Master. Those ancient Writers that attribute it to St. Paul, say, that it was written in Hebrew, that is to say, in Syriack (being written by an Hebrew to the Hebrews. Some of the Moderns pretend it was written in Greek, but to this Authority of the Ancients, they oppose nothing but frivolous weak Conjectures, which are too weak to bias any Man.  
The Epistles that follow those of St. Paul, are called General, because, if we except the two last of St. John, they are not directed to the Faithful of one City, as those of St. Paul are, but to Christians dispersed in several Countries.  
The Epistle of St. James was not written by James the Son of Zebedee the Brother of John, but by St. James the Brother of St. Judas the Apostle, and Cousin of our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, and Bishop of Jerusalem. For it cannot belong to the other St. James, since it is directed to Christians out of Judea, whereas he suffered Martyrdom, before the Gospel was preached in any other place than Judea.  
St. Peter the chief of the Apostles has written two Epistles; the first that has been received as Canonical by all the Ancients was written from Babylon. Some of the Ancients were of opinion, that the City of Rome was meant by this name, but the Sense is not natural. We cannot precisely assign the time when it was written, but certain it is, that it was sent, after the Disciples of Jesus Christ were called Christians at Antioch, that is to say, at least nine years after the Death of our Blessed Saviour; for the name of Christians is to be found there in the fourth Chapter. Now if thou art called a Christian. Si autem Christianus cognominaris. It is also probable, that it was written after St. Peter's being delivered out of Prison, A. D. 44. for until that time he continued for the most part in Judea. Some believe, that it was written towards the end of his Life, because it does not seem to have been written long before the second Epistle, but this is not certain: One may say, that it was written at Babylon in the 45th year of Jesus Christ.  
The second was probably written towards the end of his Life, because he there testifies, that he expected Death very suddenly, ch. 1. v. 14. Some of the Fathers have doubted, whether this Letter was written by St. Peter, because the stile of it is so extremely different from that of the former, as St. Jerome observes, but St. Peter discovers himself so plainly and openly there, that we cannot with the least colour or pretence attribute it to any body else.  
St. Judas the Apostle the Brother of James and Simon the Son of Alpheus, Surnamed Thaddeus and Lebbeus, wrote the Epistle, that carries his Name, after the Death of most of the Apostles, as he testifies when he exhorts the Christians to contend earnestly for the Faith, which was once delivered to them by the Apostles. He imitates and follows the thoughts and design of the second Epistle of St. Peter, and even inserts some of his words into his own.  

NOTES.  

(a) THE Gospel signifies in Greek happy tidimgs.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived from the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifies well, and the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifies to tell. 'Tis to be found in Homer and Xenophon, but in another sense, viz. 'tis taken for the recompense which is given a Man for carrying good news. Tully has used this term in this sense in one of his Epistles to Atticus.   

(b) The word Evangelist, that was heretofore given to all those that preached the Word of God.] Act. 21. v. 18. Philip is called an Evangelist. St. Paul in his 2d Epistle to Timothy, ch. 4 v. 5. beseeches that Bishop to do the work of an Evangelist. Opus fac Evangelistae.   

(c) Soon after the death of our Blessed Saviour.] This is the opinion of St. Jerome, and St. Epiphanius, who say, that he composed his Gospel, before he went to preach to the Gentiles. St. Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 1. seems to say the contrary, when he assures us, that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews, and in the Language of the Jews, at the time when St. Peter and St. Paul founded the Church of Rome: But these words are not to be understood in the literal sense.   

(d) For this reason he wrote it in Hebrew, or rather in Syriack.] Papias cited by Eusebius, l. 3. of his History, Chapter the last. St. Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 1. St. Jerome in his Preface to the Evangelists, in his Book of the Ecclesiastical Writers, and in several other places. Eusebius, l. 3. c. 18. the Author of the Work upon St. Matthew attributed to St. chrysostom, St. Epiphanius, Haeres. 29. & 57 The Author of the Abridgement of Scripture, attributed to St. Athanasius. St. Cyril, Catech. 14. St. Austin, l. 1. de Consensu Evangel. cap. 2. testify, that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written in Hebrew, that is to say, in Syriack. St. Irenaeus and St. Jerome say, that it was written in the Language of the Country, which was the Chaldee or Syriack Tongue mixed with Hebrew words, which is commonly called the Hebrew Tongue in the New Testament. St. Jerome tells us plainly, that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written in this Tongue, for in his Commentary upon the 12th Chapter of this Gospel, he says, that some Persons were of opinion, that the Gospel of the Nazarenes was the Original Hebrew of St. Matthew; and in his second Dialogue against the Pelagians, he says, that the Gospel of the Nazarenes was written in Chaldee or Syriack with Hebrew Characters. Those that are of the contrary opinion, who maintain, that St. Matthew wrote it originally in Greek, as Grotius well observes, reject the unanimous Consent of the Ancients without any appearance of Reason. Let us for once examine the Conjectures of a certain Author, that is of this opinion: He says, that the words Emanuel, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani, Aceldama, and other Syriack Terms are explained there; but this does not at all prove, that this Gospel was not written in Syriack, for otherwise we ought to say, that several Books of the Old Testament were not written in Hebrew, because even in those Books we have the Hebrew Terms explained after the same manner; for example, Gen. 31. v. 49. Galaad, id est t●…us testis, 35. v. 18. Be●●●i, id est, filius dol●ris mei; Exod. 12. v. 11. Pesach, id est, transitus Domini; and 16. v. 15. Manhu quod significat quid est hoc. These Explications are not to be found in the Hebrew, but have been added by the Interpreter; and we ought to make the same judgement of these passages in St. Matthew. They pretend still, that these Fathers never saw the Original of St. Matthew, that they said it was Hebrew, only because the Gospel of the Nazarenes was in Hebrew, which is extremely different from that of St. Matthew. To this it is answered, 1. That we cannot say this of the most ancient Fathers, as Papias, St. Irenaeus, etc. 2. That although the Gospel of the Nazarenes was different from that of St. Matthew, yet it might very well be taken from the Original of St. Matthew, in which the Heretics had infected, and altered abundance of things.   

(e) No more than the Syriack Version.] It is an easy matter to show this, because the Hebrew or Syriack words that are cited in the Greek of St. Matthew's Gospel are different from those of the Syriack, in the 27th Chapter in stead of Haceldama, he has Agurascadema; in stead of Cephos, he has Cepho; for Eli, Il; for Golgotha, Golgoutho; for Jaacob, Jaacoub; for Joseph, Joouseph. We likewise find there abundance of Greek words terminated after the Syriack manner, which makes it evident, that it was a Grecian that Translated the Greek of St. Matthew into Syriack, and not the Original itself of St. Matthew.   

(f) The Evangelist St. Mark seems to be a different person from that Mark, who is so often mentioned in the Acts, etc.] He, of whom mention is made in the Acts, ch. 12. v. 12. and in ch. 15. v. 37, and 39, was Surnamed John the Son of Mary. There is likewise mention made of one Mark the Cousin of Barnabas, Colo●. 〈◊〉. v. 10. 'Tis very probable he is the same with the former, but the Evangelist in all appearance is a different Person: for besides that he was not Surnamed John, he was the Disciple of St. Peter, and attending upon him, at the same time that the other was with St. Paul: he was likewise at Alexandria at the time when the other was with St. Paul: at Rome. Some think, that St. Mark the Evangelist was one of the Seventy two Disciples, but this is not certain enough to be relied upon; It is more probable, that he was converted to the Faith by St. Peter, who calls him his Son, and whose Disciple and Interpreter he was.   

(g) He composed his Gospel when he was at Rome.] This is the opinion of all the Ancients. Papias in Eusebius, l. 2. c. 15. St. Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 1. St. Clement cited by St. Jerome, Tertullian, l. 4. Contra Marcionem, Eusebius, St. Jerome, etc. St. Irenaeus tells us, that it was written after the death of St. Peter, others on the contrary unanimously affirm, that it was written whilst he was living, and that he approved of it. Upon this account several Persons have called it the Gospel of St. Peter, as Tertullian observes.   

(h) Some modern Authors imagine, that it was written in Latin.] Baronius adann. Chr. 45. n. 14. and those that follow him without farther consideration are of this opinion, but after all it's a Problem that cannot be maintained. St. Jerome in Epist. 125. to Damasus, expressly tells us, that all the New Testament, except St. Matthew's Gospel, was written in Greek. And St. Austin, lib. de Consensu Evang. c. 2. tell us, that all the four Evangelists, except St. Matthew, wrote in Greek. The Latin St. Mark which we now have, is certainly a Translation of the Greek.   

(i) St. Luke a Physician by profession.] St. Paul in his Epistle to the Colos. Luke the beloved Physician greets you. Nicephorus, l. 2. c. 43. of his History affirms, that he was an excellent Painter, and some People say, that he drew the Picture of the Virgin Mary, but these are fictions.   

(k) He was neither of the number of the Apostles, nor of the Disciples.] This is certainly true, because he tells us, that what he wrote, he learned from others. St. Irenaeus, l. 1. c. 2. St. Jerome upon ch. 65. of Isaiah, St. Austin, and several others positively say, that he was not a Disciple of Jesus Christ. They are only some few modern Authors, that are pleased to bestow this Character upon him.   

(l) Cujus laus est in Evangelio per omnes Ecclesias.] We cannot certainly tell, whether the word Evangelium in this place signifies a Book of the Gospel, or whether we are not rather to understand it thus, The Brother who deserves praise for having preached the Gospel. That which follows afterwards, and who was ordained to be the Companion of our Travels, made Baronius believe, that it is Silas, of whom we are to understand this passage. But St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose in his Preface upon St. Luke do understand it of this Evangelist.   

(m) He afterwards changed his name of Saul for that of Paul, after having converted and baptised the Proconsul Sergius Paulus.] The Author of the one and thirtieth Sermon, attributed to St. Ambrose, tells us, that he changed his name at his Baptism, but this is but a groundless fancy, for in his time they gave no name to any body at their Baptism. Others say, that he changed his name; when he changed his profession; and some pretend to affirm, that he had two Names. The most probable opinion is, that he took the name of Paul after the conversion of Sergius Paulus, for till that time he is constantly called Saul in the Acts of the Apostles, and afterwards he is always called by the name of Paul. It was the custom of the Romans to give their own names to others in testimony of friendship; Josephus for example received the name of Flavius from the Emperor Vespasian by way of Honour: [Or rather, because having been once his Prisoner, he set him at Liberty: it being usual for freed Men, to take their Patrons Praenomen.]   

(n) Some Authors pretend, that he went into Spain, but this is very uncertain.] St. Athanasius in his Epistle to Dracontius, St. Cyril, Cat. 17. St. Epiphanius, Haeres. 27. St. chrysostom in Ep. ad Hebr. and in Matth. 76, and Homil. de laud. Pauli, Theodoret in Ep. ad Timot. c. ult. Hier. in 11. Is. Greg. moral. l. 3. c. 22. Isidore, Bede, Ado, etc. are of this opinion. All these Authors lived after the third Century, but before that time nothing is written concerning it, and besides they don't speak of it as a certain thing, but only as a probable conjecture. St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, c. 15. v. 24. promises, that he would go into Spain, but though it follows from thence, that he had a design of going thither, yet we cannot rationally conclude, that he was ever there. Pope Gelatius, and Innocent the first tell us, that he did not perform that promise, and it is very certain, that the Gospel was preached somewhat later on this side the Alps.   

(o) In the year 61 according to the vulgar computation.] All Authors are agreed, that St. Paul was beheaded at Rome, but however they are not agreed about the year. Some of them tell us, that he suffered Martyrdom with St. Peter, others place it a year, and some two years, lower; some pretend, that this happened in the last year of Nero's Reign, which was the sixty eighth of our Blessed Saviour; but most Men think, that St. Peter and St. Paul suffered Martyrdom at the time of Nero's Persecution, which began in the fourth year of that Emperor, after the burning of Rome, Anno Dom. 63. and therefore according to this account these two Princes of the Apostles suffered Martyrdom in the 64th year of the Vulgar Aera.   

(p) The most received opinion is, that it was written by St. Paul.] This opinion seems to be the most probable. The Epistle to the Hebrews does not belong to St. Barnabas, having a different Title from that of this Apostle. There is no reason to attribute it to S. Luke. The style and the thoughts very much resemble those of St. Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians: and upon this account I am apt to believe, that we ought to attribute the Composition or Translation of it rather to him than any other, although it is written in the name of St. Paul, and by that Apostle: for it was written at Rome by a Person that enjoyed his liberty, and who had Timothy for his Colleague. These three Characters show plainly, that it was written by St. Paul, who did not put his name to it for fear of offending the Jews, who were prejudiced against him. Grotius believes, that it was written after the taking of Jerusalem, because it is observed, says he, in the third Chapter, that there were certain Christians, who supposed the Day of Judgement was very near; an Opinion that was not common till after Jerusalem was taken, but this is a bare conjecture upon weak grounds. St. Jerome answers the usual Objection about the diversity of stile, that is alleged to prove, that this Epistle was not written by St. Paul, by saying, that it was occasioned either by him that composed it under St. Pa●d, or else by the Interpreter. [But i● 〈◊〉 Lowth's Opinion be true, the Controversy must be a● an end: For in his Vindication of the Authority of the H. Scriptures against the five Letters published by the Answerers of Mr. Simon, p. 24. He says, that St. Peter quotes the 37th Verse of the 10th Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the 15th Verse of the 2d Chapter of his 2d Epistle, where he says that St. Paul often said those things which the unlearned and unstable wrest as well as the other Scriptures to their own destruction.]   

(q) In Hebrew to the Hebrews.] St. Clemens Alexandrinus is of another opinion, as also St. Jerome, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and several others. Estius and some of the moderns believe, that it was written in Greek, 1. because the Scriptures there cited follow the Septuagint, and not the Hebrew; 2. because there is no probability that the Copy should be lost. These reasons are exceeding weak, for suppose the Citations are not to be charged upon the Interpreter, yet, why might not St. Paul, when he was writing in the Syriack Tongue, translate the Septuagint into that Language, rather than cite the Hebrew Text▪ since the Septuagint was more familiar to him? This may serve by way of answer to the first Reason. The second is yet weaker, for why might not the Hebrew Copy of this Epistle be lost, as well as the Original Hebrew of the Gospel of St. Matthew?   

(r) But of St. James the Brother of the Apostle St. Judas, and Co●sin of our Blessed Saviour.] This ●ames is he, that is called in the Gospel the Son of Alpheus, for there were but two in all: He is called the Brother of our Lord, either because he was the Son of Joseph by another Wife, or because he was very nearly related to him.   

(s) It was written from Babylon.] Eusebius, l. 2. c. 5. of his History says, that it is Rome that St. Peter calls Babylon in this place. Some have thought that Papias and St. Clement, cited by Eusebius, were of this opinion, but he does not cite them upon this Subject. St. Jerome received this opinion from Eusebius, and carried it farther with strong Reasons. Tho▪ after all this Interpretation is false, and it is more natural to say, that he wrote this Epistle from Babylon.   

(t) St. Peter discovers himself so plainly there, that we cannot with the least colour attribute it to any other Author.] The Author of this Epistle tells us, that he was with Jesus Christ upon the Mountain, he calls St. Paul his Brother, and makes himself Author of a former Epistle written to the same Persons. Now all this agrees very well to St. Peter, and it is visible, that he, who composed it, was no Impostor. The Character of this Epistle is perfectly Apostolical, and the Style is not sensibly different from that of the first.     

SECT. VI  
Of the Canon of the Books of the New Testament, and particularly of those Books that were formerly doubted of.  
THE first Canon of the Holy Books of the New Testament was not composed by any Assembly, or by any one Person in particular, but by the Unanimous Consent of all the Churches, that were agreed upon the Authority of certain Books, and considered them as Sacred and Divine. 'Twas this Consent of all the Churches, that in the Primitive Times served for a Rule to distinguish the Canonical Books from those that were Doubtful and Supposititious. 'Tis in pursuance of this Rule that Eusebius, who is the first Man that made an exact Enquiry into these Matters, distinguishes three sorts of Books that belong in some manner to the New Testament. The first Class comprehends those, that have been always received by the Unanimous Agreement of all Churches, such as the four Gospels, the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, if we except that of the Hebrews, (which some Authors did not number amongst the rest, because they supposed it was not St. Paul's,) and the first Epistles of St. Peter and St. John. The second Class comprehends those, that having not been received by the whole Catholic Church, yet nevertheless were looked upon by some as Canonical Books, and cited as Books of Scripture by Ecclesiastical Authors. But this Class does yet branch itself into two Divisions, for some of these Books have been since received by all the Churches, and acknowledged for Genuine, such as the Epistle of St. James, the Epistle of St. Judas, the second Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third Epistle of St. John: The other on the contrary have been universally rejected, either as Spurious, or unworthy to be placed in the number of Canonical Books, though they might otherwise be useful enough, such as the Book of the Pastor, the Epistle of St. Barnabas, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, another according to the Hebrews, the Acts of St. Paul, the Revelation of St. Peter. In short, the last Class contains those Books that were devised by the Heretics, and were always disowned by the Church, such as the Gospels of St. Thomas and of St. Peter, etc. As for what concerns the Apocalypse, of which we have not as yet discoursed, Eusebius observes, that some Persons place it in the first Class, that is to say, in the number of those Books that are unquestionably Canonical, and that others reckon it amongst the Books of the second Class.  
This observation of Eusebius, which is confirmed by the Testimonies of the Ancients, whom he citys in several places of his History, shows, that the Canon of the Books of the New Testament was almost the very same in all Times: For although there were some of the Epistles of the Apostles, that at first were not received by an Unanimous Consent of all Churches, yet they were always considered as Books of great Authority, and soon after they received the same Authority with the rest. This is confirmed by the ancient Catalogues of the Holy Books of the New Testament, where the Books, which we receive at present, are comprised: You will find all of them, except the Revelation, in the Canon of the Council of Laodicea, which St. Cyril of Jerusalem follows. They are all received by St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, St. Gregory Nazianzen, by Amphilochius, the Council of Carthage, the Council at Rome, by Pope Innocent, and all the other Greek and Latin Authors since Eusebius. They are all cited as Holy Books by those Authors that lived nearest the time of the Apostles. In short, 'tis beyond Controversy, as we have already demonstrated above, that these Books were written by those Persons, whose Names they bear: The Epistles themselves that were formerly questioned, contain nothing disagreeable to the Faith and Doctrine contained in the other Books, that have been received and acknowledged by all the Churches from the beginning.  
The Epistle to the Hebrews has been received as Canonical, with the Consent of almost all Churches. They were only a few Latines that questioned its Authority, because they did not believe it to be written by St. Paul: But although it was not composed by him, which is not probable, as we have already shown, yet it ought nevertheless to pass for Canonical, it being a constantly received Tradition, that it was written by one of his Disciples, and that it was owned by almost all the Chuches of the World, as soon as it appeared in public. It is cited by Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians, by Clemens Alexandrinus, by Tertullian and Origen, by St. Cyprian, and all those that came after, as a Writing undoubtedly Canonical. We cannot find out the particular Author, that questioned the Epistle of St. James as doubtful; it is cited by all the Ancients, and placed in the number of Canonical Books in all the Catalogues that we have. The same Observation may be made upon the second Epistle of St. Peter, which was certainly written by that Author, as we have elsewhere shown. It is cited by St. Austin, by Origen, and by many other ancient Writers. The Epistle of St. Judas was rejected by some, not because they had any lawful Grounds to doubt that St. Judas was the Author of it, but only because there is a Citation out of the Book of Enoch to be found there: And yet notwithstanding that, it was set down in the ancient Catalogues of the Books of the New Testament, and it has been cited by Tertullian, by Clemens Alexandrinus, by Origen, by St. Cyprian, by St. Gregory Nazianzen, and by several other Authors. St. Jerome tells us, that although several rejected it, by reason of the Citation out of the Book of Enoch; yet it was received in his time, because it was ancient, and approved by the usage of the Church, Autoritatem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 meruit. The two last Epistles of St. John being very short, and containing nothing that is disagreeable to what we find in the first, cannot occasion any difficulty. They are written without question by the Author of the first, as may plainly be proved by the likeness of Style: The second is cited by St. Ire●… in his first Book, ch. 12. and in the third Book, chap. 18. by Tertullian, by Origen, by St. Dianysius of Alexandria, and by many others. In a word, they are both of them reckoned in the number of Canonical Books in all the ancient Catalogues of the Volumes of the New Testament.  
Nothing more remains for me to discourse of but the Apocalypse, which some of the Ancients, according to the Testimony of Eusebius, placed in the rank of indubitable Books, others in the number of doubtful Books, or rather spurious. It was rejected by Caius an ancient Priest of Rome, who attributed it to the Heretic Cerinthus, as Eusebius testifies in the third Book of his History, chap. 28. On the contrary, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Origen, St. Cyprian, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian, cite it in abundance of places, and attribute it to St. John the Evangelist. St. Dionysius of Alexandria observes, that several Persons before him disowned and confuted the Apocalypse as a Book full of Fictions and Falsities, but that many others approved of it; that as for himself he durst not presume to reject it, that he believed it had a hidden meaning, but that he was fully persuaded it was not written by St. John, as he endeavours to prove by several Reasons. St. Jerome tells us in his 129th Epistle, that in his time the greater part of the Greek Churches did not receive this Book, no more than the Latins did the Epistle to the Hebrews, but that he received both the one and the other, not minding the Custom of his own Time, but the Authority of the Ancients. Amphilochius also observes, that in his time some received it, but that there were great numbers that rejected it, and indeed it is not to be found, as we have already taken notice in the Catalogue of the Council of Laodicea, nor in that of St. Cyril. But it has been since acknowledged by the Greek and Latin Churches, and cited by St. Epiphanius, by St. Chrysostom, by St. Ambrose, by St. Hilary, by St. Jerome, by St. Austin, and by all those that have written since. It was reckoned amongst the Canonical Books by the Council of Carthage, by the Roman Council under Gelasius, and by Pope Innocent. The fourth Council of Toledo held in the year 633, in the sixteenth Canon has determined, That it was written by St. John, and that it ought to be placed in the number of the Holy Books. And the Council of Trent, by whose Decisions we ought to be determined, reckons it amongst the Canonical Books of the New Testament.  
We ought here to discourse a little concerning the Apocryphal Books of the New Testament, that were forged either by the Catholics or Heretics. But these not being of the number of Canonical Books, aught to be ranged amongst the Books of the Ecclesiastical Writers: Wherefore we will now begin our Library of Ecclesiastical Authors with them.    

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

Of the Letter supposed to be sent by Jesus Christ to King Agbarus, and of that of Agbarus to Jesus Christ.  
EUsebius gives us an Account in the first Book of his History, of a certain King of Edessa 
a EDessa.] This is a famous City, situated beyond the River Euphrates, between Syria and Mesopotamia. , named Agbarus 
b Named Agbarus.] Others read Abgarus, and he is so called in some ancient Medals; but it is written Agbarus in the most correct Manuscripts, and it is pronounced so in Arabic. , who having heard the report of the Miracles that were wrote 
The Letters of Jesus Christ and Agbarus.  by Jesus Christ, sent a Letter to him, the purport whereof was, To entreat him to Cure a Distemper with which he was afflicted: And that our Saviour did not then grant his Request, but wrote a Letter back to him, wherein he promised to send one of his Disciples to heal him: and lastly, that St. Thomas the Apostle, immediately after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, deputed Thaddeus one of the 72 Disciples, who went and performed the Promise that had been made by our Saviour to Cure his Disease, and at the same time Converted him, together with his whole Family. Eusebius grounds this Story upon the Letters of Jesus Christ and Agbarus, which were taken out of the Archives of the Church of Edessa, which he likewise produceth Translated out of Syriack into Greek. Now it is probable, that Eusebius credited those Records that were exhibited to him too easily, as also, that these Letters are forged, and that this whole History is fabulous. For first, how can it 〈◊〉 imagined that the King of Edessa, upon the bare rehearsal of the Miracles of Jesus Christ, should address himself to him, as one that was convinced of his Divinity, and instructed in the Principles of his Religion: Having heard (says he) of the Miracles which thou hast wrought, I am persuaded that thou art God, or the Son of God. It is evident, that these words could not be written but by a Person already persuaded and trained up in the Doctrine of Christianity, who makes Agbarus speak almost the same Expressions as he himself would have used on the like occasion. The following Words that are likewise attributed to this King; viz. That being informed, that the Jews laid Snares for Jesus Christ, he designed to molest them, and invited him to come to his City, which, although it were small, might be sufficient for them both, more clearly demonstrate the falsehood of this Letter: For who can believe, that a King should offer the Moiety of his Kingdom at once to a Man that was altogether unknown to him?  
Neither is it more difficult to discover the forging of the other Letter that is attributed to Jesus Christ, beginning with these words; Thou art happy, Agbarus, for having believed in me, without seeing me; for it is written of me, That they that see me shall not believe in me, to the end, that they that believe on me without seeing me may receive Eternal Life. To what purpose are these Words written? Is it not apparent, that he that composed this Letter alludes to the expression of Jesus Christ to St. Thomas, Happy are they that have not seen and yet have believed? Which Words being not spoken by our Saviour till after his Resurrection, nor written till a long time after, it evidently appears that this Letter is counterfeit.  
The History, which is afterwards produced concerning these two Letters, and taken from the same Archives, is no less fabulous. It is reported that Judas the Apostle 
c That Judas the Apostle, who is also called Thomas] Thomas the Apostle was not surnamed Judas, but Didymus, and Judas the Apostle was not called Thomas; which is a farther Proof of the Falsehood of this History. , who is also called Thomas, sent Thaddeus the Apostle, one of the 72 Disciples, to King Agbarus: That this Prince, being informed that there was a Man in his City that wrought many Miracles, and doubting whether he were not the Disciple whom Jesus Christ had promised to send, gave orders to one named Tobias to bring him into his Presence: And that he had no sooner seen him, but his Countenance seeming to him to be Divine, he prostrated himself at his Feet to worship him, desiring to know, whether he were that Disciple whom Jesus Christ had promised to send to cure his Distemper. Thaddeus having answered that he was, and that if he believed in Jesus Christ he should be saved, Agbarus replied, I have believed so firmly in him, that I included to pr●… War against the Jews who Crucified him, and utterly to destroy that Nation; if the fear of the Roman Empire had not deterred me from this Undertaking. Certainly the Person (whosoever he be) that caused this petty Prince of Edessa to utter these Words, was endued with very little judgement, in ascribing to him a Design so extravagant as this; for is it not an egregious piece of folly to imagine, that a Prince only of one single City should undertake to maintain a War against a Nation so powerful as that of the Jews, and should hope to destroy it, to revenge the Death of a Man, whom he knew only by hear-say. What probability is there, that nothing but the fear of the Romans was able to divert him from so rash an Attempt? I shall not proceed to make any Reflection on the other Circumstances of this Relation, which appear to be no less fabulous than those that we have even now recited: I shall only add, that the time wherein it is affirmed that those Occurrences happened, shows this whole History to be Supposititious. They take notice at the end of this Record, that these Things were Translated in the 430th Year of the Edessenian Aera, now the 430th Year of the Edessenians is the 15th of Tiberius, in which the Ancients believed that Jesus Christ died and risen again. And we must say according to this Epocha, and what we find recorded in the Acts, that this happened immediately after our Saviour's Resurrection, and that Agbarus, and several other Gentiles of Edessa, received the Gospel before Cornelius, which is plainly contrary to the Acts of the Apostles; and consequently we may be certain that this History is false, and that these Letters are forged. The Authority of Eusebius is not to be regarded in this case, since it is evident, that he hath too rashly given credit to the Memorials that were transmitted to him, taken from the Archives of the Church of Edessa. And none can be ignorant, that this sort of Records ought not too much to be relied on, especially with respect to Histories of such a nature.  
But in regard that these Fables are always augmented in process of time, it hath been likewise feigned that Jesus Christ, in writing to Agbarus, sent him his Picture drawn on an Handkerchief. Evagrius is the first that makes mention of this Effigies in Book IU. Chap. 27. of his History, relying on the Authority of Procopius, who nevertheless takes no notice of this Relation. However since the time of Evagrius, the Defenders of Image Worship have often cited it, and the modern Greeks so firmly believed it, that they keep a Festival on the 16th of August in Commemoration thereof.   

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

Of the Counterfeit Gospels.  
NOthing more clearly evinceth the truth of this Maxim of Holy Scripture, That the Father of Lies often changes himself into an Angel of Light, than the great number of Books, that 
Counterfeit Gospels.  have been heretofore forged in imitation of the Sacred Writings. For as the Holy Ghost hath caused Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and a Revelation to be written, so in like manner the Devil to counterfeit the Truth, hath procured several Gospels, Acts, Revelations, and Epistles, to be devised by his Ministers, which have also been attributed to the Apostles. To begin with the Gospels, besides the four that are Canonical and true, there were in the Primitive Ages of the Church several others that were fictitious and substituted in their room as well by the Heretics as by some Catholics.  
Among these last, we may reckon the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and that according to the Hebrews which though spurious, yet have been quoted by Catholic Authors as Works composed by the Orthodox. The Gospel according to the Egyptians is cited by 
a QUoted by St. Clemens.] Stromat. Lib. 3. pag. 452. St. Clement citys an Expression of Jesus Christ to Salome, taken from this Gospel: I am come to destroy the Works of the Woman, and by the Woman he understands Concupiscence. Moreover, in pag. 465, after having produced another passage on the same subject, cited by the Heretic Cassianus, he replies, first, that it is not found in the four Gospels that are acknowledged by us, and afterward endeavours to apply a good sense to it.  Clemens Alexandrinus, as also by Epiphanius 
b By St. Epiphanius.] Haeres. 26. The Valentinians likewise made use of this Gospel. , who declares, that the Sabellians made use of this Gospel to confirm their Error, because it contained divers Mystical Expressions concerning Jesus Christ, some whereof might perhaps be applied by them to prove, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were but one Person.  
The Gospel according to the Hebrews, written (as it is reported by St. Jerome) in the Syriack Tongue with Hebrew Characters is yet more remarkable among the Ancients; It is quoted by Hegesippus 
c By Hegesippus.] In Eusebius, Lib. 4. chap. 22. , by Ignatius 
d By St. Ignatius.] In this Epistle to the Inhabitants of Smyrna, where he citys two passages that are observed by St. Jerome; the first is, In carne eum post Resurrectionem vidi, & scioesse; I saw him in the flesh after his Resurrection, and I know that he is. The second is this, Palpate, quia non sam daemonium incorporale; Handle me, and you shall perceive that I am not a phantom without a body. , by Clemens Alexandrinus 
e By St. Clement.] Stromat. Lib. 2. pag. 380. where we read this Sentence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , and by Origen in several places, particularly in his Eighth Treatise on St. Matthew, where he produced a considerable Fragment out of it 
f Wherein he produceth a considerable fragment.] It is a passage that contains the Answer of Jesus Christ to the rich young Man mentioned in St. Mark's Gospel, chap. 10. and in St. Luke, chap. 18. expressed in other words. Moreover Origen in his Eleventh Tome upon St. John, citys another passage of this Gospel, wherein the Holy Ghost is called the Mother of Christ. . St. Jerome 
g St. Jerome quotes it very often in his Catalogue. Voce Ignat. & voce Jacobus, Lib. 2. in Matth. chap. 7. and 12. Lib. 3. contra Pelagianos.  translated it into Greek and Latin, as he has often told us, observing likewise in one place, that some were of opinion, that this Gospel was the Original of St. Matthew's, which was reputed to have been written in Hebrew; nevertheless, it is certain, that the Gospel according to the Hebrews, was different from that of St. Matthew, as well on the account, that all those things which are related by the Ancient Writers concerning this Gospel, and among others the History of the Woman accused before Jesus Christ 
h The History of a Woman accused before Jesus Christ] Eusebins, in Hist. Lib. 3. declares, that the History of the Adulterous Woman was recorded in this Gospel. Moreover St. Jerome affirms, that it was related therein, that Jesus Christ appeared to St. James, who had bound himself with an Oath not to eat, until he had seen our Saviour risen from the dead; and in his Third Book against the Pelagians, he informs us, that it was written in this Gospel, that the Mother of our Lord, and of St. John the Baptist spoke to him thus: John the Baptist baptizeth for the remission of sins, let us go and be baptised; and that Jesus Christ replied to them, have I sinned, that I should go and be baptised?  are not to be found in St. Matthew's Gospel, as in regard, that they are clearly distinguished by Eusebius and St. Jerome, who had a perfect knowledge of both those Gospels. Add to this, that St. Jerome translated the Gospel according to the Hebrews, whereas the Author of the Version of St. Matthew's Gospel is unknown, and that in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Scriptures of the Old Testament are cited according to the Hebrew Text, whereas St. Matthew in his hath followed the Translation of the Septuagint. This Gospel is not different from that which is called by Origen, the Gospel of the Twelve, nor from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, as appears from the Testimony of St. Jerome, by whom they are often confounded: Moreover the Ebionites made use thereof to prove their Doctrine.  
Besides these two Gospels so often cited by the ancient Writers, that are lost, there is yet extant a Book, Entitled, Protoevangelium Jacobi, published by Neander, and inserted in the Orthodoxographa. This Book is full of idle Tales and frivolous Relations concerning 
i This Book is full of idle Tales and frivolous Relalations.] Here's a Specimen of the Fables contained in the Protevangelium Jacobi. Joachim was elected among the Nations of the Twelve Tribes, Renben admonished him, that it was not lawful for him to offer sacrifice, because he had no incense, whereupon he retired for grief into the Wilderness, and fasted there 40 days. Anne mourned, and her Servant Judith advised her to take a Laurel Tree: therefore she went into a Garden, where she lamented, that she was not like unto a Bird that had a Nest in the Laurel Tree. The Angel appeared unto her, and told her, that she should have a Son; This Angel descended and delivered the same thing to Joachim; he beheld himself in the Plate, or in the Ephod of the Highpriest, and saw not that he had sinned. The Virgin was able to go when she was six months old; she was bred up by Angels in the Temple; she was Married to Joseph, because a Dove flew out of a little Staff, that was given to him by the Highpriest. St. Joseph having perceived that she was with Child, caused her to drink the Water of Jealousy according to the Law, etc.  the Nativity, Life, and Delivery of the Virgin Mary; The Gospel of Nicodemus likewise, annexed to that of St. James in the same place, is equally full of Fables relating 
k Is equally full of fables.] Here's another Specimen of the Fables received in the Gospel of Nicodemus. ●…re sent for him by a Massinger, this Massinger worshipped him; all the Soldiers did so he like 〈◊〉 against their wi●… and the ●nsign●●●●ed themselves twice before him. The History of the Evangelists is i●…'d with divers fables. Jesus Christ is made to answer Pilat's Question. What is Truth? Nicodemus is represented speaking as also those whom our Saviour had healed: and the Woman that was cured of the issue of Blood is called Ver●nica. Moreover the Author of this Gospel describes the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, adding many things concerning him; he introduceth the dead that were raised at his Resurrection, entertaining one another with absurd and impertinent Discourses, declaring, that they made the sign of the Cross, he introduces the Devil reasoning very ridiculously concerning our Saviour's descent into Hell; And lastly, he feigns, that after his Resurrection, Pilate having commanded the Jewish. Books to be brought to him, they acknowledged that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and rehearseth several other Tales of the like nature.  to the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as the former is of those that belong to the Life of the Virgin Mary.  
However, although those Gospels are unworthy of Credit because they are so foolish, yet they do not contain any gre●s E●…s, in those do that were forged by the Heretics, no part whereof now remains in our possession; such were the Gospels a●…'d to St. Peter, to St. Thomas, and to St. Mathias, mentioned by Eusebius, Book 3. Chap. 25. as also those of St. Bar●…ew, and of the Twelve Apostles, cited by St. 〈◊〉 in his Preface to St. Matthew; The Gospel of Philip, which was that of the Gnostics, (according to the Testimony of Epiphanius, Har. 26.) and was used by the Ebionites, Basilides, and Apelles. The Gospel of Jud●● substituted by the G●…tes, who honoured that Traitor, as St. Epiphanius and Theodoret assure us, when they speak of these Heretics. And lastly, the Gospels of Thaddeus, Barnabas, and Andrew, and those that were ●…ted by Hesychius, together with a Book concerning the Infancy of Jesus Christ, and another relating to the Genealogy of the Virgin Mary, attributed to St. Matthew, and reckoned by Gelas●●s in the number of Apocryphal Writings that were forged by Heretics.   

Of the counterfeit Acts of the Apostles, and of the false Revelations.  
FOrasmuch as the Acts of St. Luke contain only a very small part of the Transactions of some of the Apostles, since he gives no account of the proceed of all, neither doth he describe 
Counterfeit Acts of the Apostles, and false Revelations.  at large even all the Actions of those that are mentioned by him; They that applied themselves to the counterfeiting of these Records, were furnished with great variety of matter, wherein they might exercise their deoeitful Arts. The first that practised this Artifice, was a certain Priest, and a Disciple of St. Paul, who being inflamed with a false Zeal for his Master, forged under the name of St. Luke the Acts of Paul and Thecla, and was convicted of this Imposture by St. John, as we are assured by Tertullian, and after him by St. Jerome. However, the simplicity of this ancient Priest might be more easily excused, in regard that he had no ill design; but we cannot but be seized with horror when we reflect on the enormous practices of the Heretics, who have presumed to write the Acts of divers Apostles at their pleasure, wherein they have obtruded their detestible Errors. Such were the Acts of St. Peter and St. Paul devised by the Manichees, and mentioned by Philastrius, in which the Apostles were introduced, affirming, that the Souls of Men and of Beasts were of the sane nature, and working Miracles to cause Dogs and Sheep to speak: The Acts of St. Andrew, of St. John, and of the Apostles in general, substituted by the same Heretics, according to the Testimony of St. Epiphanius, Philastrius, and St. Augustin 
a PHilastr. Haeres. 48. Epiph. 47. and St. Aug. Lib. de fide contra Manich. : The Acts of the Apostles counterfeited by the Ebionites, and cited by St. Epiphanius in his description of their Heresy: The Doctrine, Preaching, Voyages, and Disputes of St. Peter, falsely attributed to St. Clement, containing the Errors of the Ebionites, and the 
b In Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: This might admit divers significations, but St. Epiphanius determines it to signify an Account of St. Paul's being lifted up to Heaven. It contained abstruse Matters, and seemed to be the same with the Secrets or Revelation of St. Paul. St. Augustin quotes this Book in Joan. Tract. 98.  History of St. Paul's being snatched up into Heaven, being a Work compiled by the Gajanites; whereof the Gnostics likewise made use, and St. Epiphanius assures us, Haeres. 8. The Acts of St. Philip, and of St. Thomas received among the Encratites and the apostolics, as is also observed by the same St. Epiphanius in Haeres. 47, and 61. The Memoirs of the Apostles invented by the Priscillianists: The Itinerary of the Apostles rejected in the second Council of Nice, Act. 5. to which may be added several false Relations, as that of the Lots of the Apostles rejected in the Decretal: The Writings of the Apostles compiled by Dictinius, and disallowed in the Synod of Braga, chap. 17. A Book of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ, cited by Suidas, the Author whereof pretended to prove that our Saviour was descended from the Tribe of Levi, and that he was reckoned by the Jews among the Priests: A Tract, Entitled, Liber Apostolicus, which was a Rhapsody devised by Martion, and whereof St. Epiphanius makes mention: And a Book concerning the Death and Assumption of the Virgin Mary, ascribed to St. John; as also the Interrogations of the Blessed Virgin composed by the Gnostics, together with another Book, concerning her Genealogy, published by the same Authors.  
Lastly, there are several counterfeit Apocalypses or Revelations, as the Revelations of the great Apostle forged by Cerinthus: The Apocalypse of St. Peter, which Eusebius in Book 3. chap. 25. of his History reckons in the number of those spurious Books that are not Heretical, and which (as Sozomen affirms) was read every year about the time of Easter in the Churches of Palestine. And the Revelation, or the Secerts of St. Paul, which was heretofore very much esteemed by the Monks: The Egyptians (according to the Testimony of Sozomen) boasted that they had it in their possession, and it is inserted in the Catalogue of Apocryphal Books by Gelasius, together with the Revelations of St. Thomas and St. Stephen. None of these Books are now extant, neither ought we to be troubled for their loss.   

Of the Epistle to the Laodiceans, and some others attributed to St. Paul.  
BEsides the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, some of the ancient Writers have likewise cited one directed to the Laodiceans, and indeed, we have at present an Epistle mentioned by St. Anselm, 
St. Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans.  S●xtus Senensis, and Stapulensis, which is inserted in some Germane Bibles 
a INserted in some Germane Bibles.] It was published in Latin by Pistorus, and afterwards annexed to the Germane Bibles printed at Ausburg, Worines, and Amsterdam; [Particularly in those Bibles which Eli●s Hutterus set out in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German, in Quarto.] , and is written in St. Paul's Name to the Laodiceans. It is not certain whether this be the same with that which was used when St. Jerome lived 
b Whether this be the same as that which was used when St. Jerome lived.] That which gives occasion to doubt, whether this Epistle be the same with that which was published heretofore, is that Philastrius affirms in chap. 88 That that which was extant in his time contained several Errors; and there are none in that which we now have. Moreover, that which is cited by St. Epiphanius was composed out of several Sentences of the Epistle to the Ephesians. , however it is evident, that that which we now have in our possession, doth not appertain to St. Paul 
c That which we now have in our possession doth not appertain to St. Paul.] It is not conformable to the Style of St. Paul; it is extremely concise, even shorter than that to Philemon, neither hath it any one particular Subject. , and that that which was extant in St. Jerome's time, was generally rejected, as he declares in his Catalogue; ab omnibus exploditur. That which gave occasion to the forging of this Letter (as is observed by Theodoret) is, that St. Paul at the end of his Epistle to the Colossians, exhorts them to cause the Epistle that he had sent to them to be read by the Laodiceans, and to read among themselves that from Laodicea; this hath induced some to believe, that there was an Epistle written to the Laodiceans at the same time with that to the Colossians; and this also gave Martion the opportunity of altering the Title of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and giving it the name of the Epistle to the Laodiceans. But this error is founded on the ignorance of the Greek expression; for no mention is made in this place of any Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans, but of one written from Laodicea. Some are of opinion that this is the Epistle to Timothy, which they imagine to have been written from that City. But it may be much more probably affirmed with St. chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius, and Oecumenius, that it was an Epistle written to St. Paul from Laodicea, by the Christians of that City, and for this Reason it is called in the Vulgar Translation the Epistle of the Laodiceans.  
Moreover, as it hath been concluded from this place in the Epistle to the Colossians misinterpreted, that St. Paul wrote a Letter to the Laodiceans; so in like manner some have inferred, that he wrote a third Epistle to the Christians of Corinth, from a Passage taken out of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 5. v. 9, 10, and 11. viz. I wrote unto you an Epistle, not to company with Fornicators, etc. But (as St. Chrysostom observes) this Epistle is the very same that he then wrote, and the sense is, When I even now wrote unto you in this Letter, not to keep company with Fornicators, I do not mean the Fornicators of this World.   

Of the Epistle of St. Barnabas.  
JOSEPH, Surnamed by the Apostles 〈◊〉, that is to say, the Son of Consolation 
a THat is to say, the Son of Consolation.] In Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Son of Consolation, or of Exhortation. Oecumenius on the Acts, chap. 36. and Notkerus in his Martyrology follow the first Interpretation; but St. Jerom seems to embrace the later. , who was 〈◊〉 Levite, and a Native of the Isle of Cyprus 
b A Native of the Isle of Cyprus.] This Island of Cyprus was full of Jews, and a very great number of them were massacred therein under the Reign of the Emperor Trajan, according to the Testimony of Di●, Eusebius, and Or●sius. , laboured even as much as the Apostles 
The Epistle of St. Barnabas.  themselves in establishing the Foundation of the Christian Religion. Some of the ancient Writers 
c Some of the ancient Writers.] Those are St. Clemens Alex Stromat. lib. 2. Euseb. Hist. lib. 1. chap. 12. and lib. 2. chap. 1. St. Epiphan. Tom. 1. contra Haeres. & Dorothaeus. But venerable Bede rejects their opinion, because St. Luke in the 4th Chapter of the Acts declares, That Barnabas was one of those that laid the Price of the Lands, and other Possessions that were then sold, at the Apostle's Feet; for though this doth not absolutely hinder, but that he might have been one of the Disciples of Jesus Christ; yet St. Luke seems thereby to insinuate, that this was the beginning of his Conversion to Christianity.  affirm, that he was one of the 72 Disciples of Jesus Christ; but St. Luke makes mention of him after such a manner, as induceth us rather to believe, that he was not admitted into the Fellowship of the Apostles until after our Saviour's Death. However it be, it is evident, that ever since that time he hath been reputed as one of the principal Preachers of the Gospel, and was deservedly reckoned in the number of the Apostles. We have no certain account of his Life, but only what we find set down by St. Luke in the Acts.  
He hath written (says St. Jerom,) an Epistle, which is full of Edification for the Church, although it be not Canonical: This Epistle is often cited by St. Clemens Alexandrinus 
d By St. Clemens Alexandrinus.] Stromat. lib. 2. p. 373, 375, 389, 396, and 410. Lib. 5. p. 571, 572. 577, and 578.  and Origen 
e Origen.] Lib. 1. Con. Celsum; and Lib. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and Eusebius, lib. 3. Hist. c. 25. Lib. 6. c. 13. and c. 14. Tertullian in his Book De Pudicitiâ tells us, That St. Barnabas' Epistle was more generally received by the Catholic Church than the Pastor. But he takes St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews to have been written by St. Barnabas. , who do not in the least doubt, but that it belongs to him whose Name it bears. It is true indeed that Eusebius and St. Jerom place it in the Rank of Apocryphal Books 
f In the Rank of Apocryphal Books.] Eusebius divides the Apocryphal Books into three Ranks, the first contain those that come nearest to the Canonical Writings, that is to say, those that are rejected by some, and received by others as Canonical, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the second are comprehended those Books that are not allowed as Canonical by any; but such as were not forged by Heretics, as those are that belong to the third Rank. The Epistle of St. Barnabas ought to be reckoned among the first of these sorts, at least among the second; which, although Apocryphal, may nevertheless belong to those to whom they are attributed, as the Book of the Pastor, and others. And although St. Jerom declares in his Epistle to Laeta, that those Books are Apocryphal, that do not belong to the Authors whose Name they bear, yet he too often makes use of this Term in another signification. Now that Eusebius and St. Jerom believed that the Epistle of St. Barnabas was written by him, appears from hence that they constantly impute it to him; Euseb. lib. 6. chap. 13. Item ex Barnabae, Clementis, & Judae Epistolis. It is certain, that he judged that the Epistles of St. Clement and St. Judas were really composed by those whose Names they bear; and in another place, Judae Epistolam intelligo, item Barnabae Epistolam, & Revelationem quae dicitur Petri. Where he makes a particular Mark on this last Book, viz. That it is ascribed to St. Peter, but he doth not declare the same thing with respect to the Epistle of St. Barnabas; on the contrary, he barely affirms, that it is his, as the Epistle of St. Judas belongs to St. Judas. St. Jerom likewise speaks expressly to the same effect; Barnabas unam aedificationem Ecclesiae continentem Epistolam composuit, quae inter Apocryphas numeratur. Which plainly shows, that he did not believe it to be Apocryphal, because of its being falsely attributed to St. Barnabas, since on the contrary he himself imputes it to him, in affirming that it is Apocryphal. , nevertheless they do not deny that it was written by St. Barnabas; on the contrary they attribute it to him, declaring only, that it ought not to be esteemed of the same Authority as the Canonical Books, because although it really belongs to St. Barnabas, yet it is not generally received by the whole Catholic Church.  
And it is upon this account that this Epistle is not amongst the Canonical Writings, because to cause a Book to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Rank, it is not only sufficient that it was composed by an Apostle, or a Disciple of the Apostles, but it is likewise requisite that it should be received as Canonical throughout all the Churches of Christ; otherwise the Treatise of Hermas, and the Epistle of St. Clement, ought also to be inserted in the Catalogue of Canonical Books. Therefore it is a very weak Argument to affirm, that the Epistle of St. Barnabas doth not appertain to this Apostle, because that if it were certainly his, it would have been reckoned in the number of the Canonical Writings; since before a Book can be owned as Canonical, it is necessary, whosoever is the Author thereof, that it should be acknowledged by the whole Church; because there are Books written by the Apostles, or their Disciples, that were not heretofore, and are not as yet placed in the Rank of Canonical Writings; and on the contrary there are others, the Writers whereof are not certainly known, that have been formerly, and are now, inserted in the Canon of Holy Scripture, as in the New Testament, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Revelation; and several Books in the Old, the true Authors of which cannot be positively shown. Besides, though it were true, that all Books are Canonical, which we know to have been written by Men who had Authority to make them so, yet who hath assured us, that St. Barnabas ought to be included in this number, rather than St. Clement, or Hermas? The Catholic Church hath a Right to declare it, and since she has not done it, this is a sufficient warrant to reckon his Epistle amongst the Apocryphal Writings, though it be really his.  
Furthermore it hath been objected, that this Epistle is unworthy of St. Barnabas, and that it is not credible that so great an Apostle who was full of the Holy Ghost, and the Colleague of St. Paul, should be the Author of the most part of those things that are therein contained; such are the forced Allegories, the extravagant and incongruous Explications of Holy Scripture, the various Fables concerning Animals, and several other Conceits of the like nature that are comprised in the first Part of this Epistle. To this I answer, That notwithstanding these Defects, St. Clement, Origen, Eusebius, and St. Jerom, attributed it unto him; and I am of the opinion, that it is a very great piece of Impudence for any one to imagine himself to be more clearsighted in this matter, than those exquisite Critics of Antiquity: They lived much nearer the time of the Apostles than we do: They had a great number of Books composed by their Disciples which are now lost; and consequently, they were more capable than we are of judging of the Style and manner of Writing of the Apostles, and their Companions and Disciples. If then they have found that the Allegories, Mystical Explications and Fables, that are found in the Epistle of St. Barnabas might be his, with what right can we positively assert, that they cannot be his? Certainly they must needs have but a very little knowledge of the Genius of the Jewish Nation, and of the Primitive Christians that were Educated in the Synagogue, who obstinately believe that these sort of Notions could not proceed from them; on the contrary, this was their Character: They had learned of the Jews to turn the whole Scripture into Allegory, and to make Remarks on the peculiar Properties of those Living Creatures that were prohibited to be eaten; therefore it is not to be admired that St. Barnabas, being by Nation a Jew, and writing to his own Countrymen, hath allegorically explained divers Passages of the Old Testament, in applying them to the New, and found out several Moral Reflections upon the Proprieties of those Creatures that were not permitted to be eaten by the Jews. The Epistle of St. Clemens Romanus, and the Stromata of St. Clemens Alexandrinus, are full of this kind of Allegories and Figurative Expressions. The History of the Phoenix, related by St. Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians, so much celebrated among the Primitive Christians, seems to be more Fabulous than that which is alleged by St. Barnabas in this Epistle concerning the Properties of certain Animals; and the Allegory of the Blood of Jesus Christ typified by the Scarlet Thread of the Harlot Rahab, in the Epistle of St. Clemens Romanus, is as far fetched as the greatest part of those of St. Barnabas. But what necessity is there to produce farther Proofs of a Matter of Fact that is so evident, since it is sufficiently known to all Men, that the Writings of the Primitive Christians are generally full of such Fables and Allegories?  
Lastly, the Author of this Epistle is accused for representing the Apostles as the most flagitious Persons in the World before their Conversion; but his Words have been taken in too strict and literal a sense; for he intended not to say, that they were the wickedest Men in the World, but only that they were great Sinners 
g That they were great Sinners.] Thus the following Words ought to be interpreted. Super omne peccatum peccatores. Many very devout Persons have often used this Phrase, I am the greatest Sinner that ever lived in the World, and other Expressions of the like nature, which are not to be understood Literally. .  
It is not known to whom the Epistle of St. Barnabas is directed, because we want the Title; it appears from the Body of this Letter, that it was written to some converted Jews that adhered too much to the Law of Moses: It is divided into two Parts, in the first of which he shows the unprofitableness of the Old Law, and the necessity of the Incarnation and Death of Jesus Christ, producing divers passages of Scripture relating to the Ceremonies and Precepts of the Old Law, which he explains Allegorically when he applies them to our Saviour and the New Law: The second Part comprehends particular Moral Instructions, containing several Rules and Directions concerning what ought to be done, and what ought to be avoided.  
This Epistle was first published 
h Was first published in Greek, etc.] It is said, that there was an older Edition than Menardus' printed in England by the order of the Learned Usher, but that the whole Impression was burnt. We may add to these, another Edition of this Epistle published by Maderus in Germany at Helmstadt. [There have been two other Editions of this Epistle, one at Oxon 1685. in Duodecimo, wherein all that is in the old Latin Version that is not in the Greek, as also all that is in the Greek that is not in the old Version, is printed with Red Letters: Lastly, Mr. Le Moyne has set it out in his Vari● Sacra with large Comments at Leyden, in Quarto, 1685.]  in Greek, together with the ancient Version by Menardus, and this Edition was printed at Paris by Piget in the Year 1645.  
Afterwards the famous Dr. Isaac Vossius caused it to be reprinted with the Epistles of St. Ignatius revised and corrected from three Manuscripts, Anno Dom. 1646.  
Lastly, Cotelerius published it, adding a new Translation è Regione, together with the old Version, entire, and certain Critical Remarks at the end. It is prefixed at the beginning of his Collection of the Works of the ancient Fathers, printed at Paris by Petit, Anno 1672.  
The Greek Text of the four or five first Chapters is wanting in all these Editions, but they are extant in Latin in the ancient Version, which, although barbarous and defective, hath nevertheless served to correct the Greek Original in some places.   

Of the Liturgies that are falsely attributed to the Apostles.  
WE need only to reflect on what we find Recorded in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, concerning the Administration of the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and upon 
The Liturgies of the Apostles.  the Accounts of St. Justin, and other Primitive Fathers of the Church, to be persuaded that the Apostles and their Successors celebrated the Eucharist with great Simplicity. This hath been observed by all those that have written concerning Liturgies 
a BY all those that have written concerning Liturgies.] Gregorius Papa. Lib. 7. Ep. 63. ad Joan. Syracus. Mos Apostolorum fuit, ut ad ipsam solummodo Orationem Dominicam, oblationis Hostiam consecrarent. Walafridus Strabo de Reb. Eccles. Cap. 21. Quod nunc agimus multiplici orationum, cantilenarum, & consecrationum officio, totum hoc Apostoli, & post ipsos, ut creditur, proximi orationibus, commemoratione Passionis Dominica, sicut ipse praecepit, agebant, simpliciter proficiente de hinc Religione amplius acta sunt à Christi cultoribus Officia Missarum. Remigius Altissiodorensis de Celeb. Miss. Lib. 1. Nam Missam B. Petrus Apostolus primus omnium Antiochiae dicitur celebrâsse, in quâ tres tantummodò orationes in initio fidei proferebantur, incipientes ab eo loco ubi dicitur; Hanc igitur oblationem: See Stephan. Augustodun. de Sacramento Altaris, cap. 20. Benno. Aug. de Offi. Miss. c. 1. Rupert. Tuit. Lib. 2. de divi. Off. c. 1. Hug. 〈◊〉 de S. Victor. de Divi. Lib. 2. Cap. 11. Honorat. Augustod. in Gemm. An. Lib. 1. Durand. de Mende Rat. Off. Lib. 4. Cap. 1. Radulphus Tongrens. de Canon. Observat. S. Antonin. in Summ. Maj. Tit. 13. Cap. 5. Cassand. de Liturg. c. 18. Polydore Virgil, and others that have treated of Rituals, and of the Ceremonies of the Mass. , who have unanimously agreed, that the Celebration of the Mass was performed in those Primitive Ages without much Ceremony, and that they used but few Prayers; but by little and little others were added, and several visible Ceremonies were annexed, to render the Service more venerable to the People. In fine, the Churches afterwards regulated, and committed to Writing, the manner of Celebrating it, and this is what they called Liturgies, which being compiled conformably to the various Customs of divers Places, are likewise found to be different. And forasmuch as Men are naturally inclined to make some Alterations in their Exterior Habit, many things from time to time have been successively added to them.  
This single Remark is sufficient to show, that the Liturgies, that bear the Name of the Apostles and Evangelists, were not actually composed by them: But to prove this clearly, and beyond contradiction, we shall only examine them one after another.  
The Liturgy, or Greek and Latin Mass, attributed to St. Peter, and published by Lindanus in the year 1589. from a Manuscript of Cardinal Sirlet's, that was not very ancient, and which was afterwards Printed at Paris by Morellus, Anno 1595. cannot be St. Peter's for the following Reasons, since mention is made therein of St. Sixtus, Cornelius, and St. Cyprian: The Virgin Mary is called the Mother of God, a Term that was not generally in use, until after the Condemnation of the Nestorian Heresy; The Canon of the Latin Mass, which is reputed by St. Gregory, to have been composed by a Scholastic, that is to say, a Learned Man of the Fifth Century, is entirely inserted therein: Moreover it contains divers Litanies taken from the Sacramentarium of St. Gregory, and the Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom: There are also Prayers for the Patriach, a term altogether unknown before the end of the Fourth Age of the Church, and for the most religious Emperors. In short, if St. Peter had been the Author of this Liturgy, it would have been used by the Church of Rome, neither would it have lain hid during so many Ages. These Reasons made the Learned Cardinal Bona say, that this Liturgy was forged, and that it was in all probability compiled by a Grecian Priest Latinized, because it is collected partly from the Greek Liturgy, and partly from the Latin, and the name of St. Peter was prefixed to it, either that it might obtain more Authority, or because a great part of the Liturgy of the Church of Rome was comprehended therein.  
The Mass of the Ethiopians that bears the name of St. Matthew, appears more evidently to be forged. There are Collects for Popes, Kings, Patriarches, and Arch-Bishops: The Twelve Apostles are therein invocated: The Four Evangelists are cited, as also the Synods of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus: The Nicene Creed is inserted with the Particle Filioque: Moreover mention is likewise made of St. Athanasius, St. Gregory, and St. Basil, together with the Epact, the Golden Number, and the Trisagion; which plainly shows, that this Liturgy is of a very late date.  
One ought to give the same Judgement of the Liturgy of St. Mark, published by Cardinal Sirlet, and Printed at Paris by Morellus; for we find therein the word Consubstantial, and the Trisagion: There are also several Prayers for the King, and even for St. Mark himself, and mention is made of Chalices, Deacons, Subdeacons', Chanters, Monks, Religious Persons, etc. which Circumstances are apparent Demonstrations of its novelty.  
There remains only the Liturgy attributed to St. James, which divers Learned Men have taken much pains to vindicate, but to no purpose; for although it is more ancient than those that we have already examined, since it is cited in the Synod that was holden in the Emperor's Palace in Trullo, after the Fifth General Council, yet we ought not to say, that St. James was the Author thereof, or that it was composed in his time. For, 1. The Virgin Mary is called in this Liturgy the Mother of God; and the Son and the Holy Ghost are said to be Consubstantial with the Father, terms that were altogether unknown in St. James' time: But supposing that they were not, is it credible, that this Authority should not be alleged in the Councils of Nice, Ephesus, and Constantinople? 2. We find therein the Trisagion and the Doxology, that is to say, the Sanctus and the Gloria Patri, which were not generally recited in the Church until the Fifth Century; for though it might be proved that they were in use before, yet it must be confessed, that it was not the general custom of the Church. 3. There are Collects for those that were shut up in Monasteries: Can any man say, that there were Monasteries in the time of St. James? 4. There is mention made of Confessors, a term that was not inserted in the Divine Offices, till a long time after St. James, even according to the Confession of Bellarmin. 5. In this Liturgy there is mention made of Churches, Incense, Altars, etc. can it be imagined that these things were used in St. James' time? 6. We find therein very many Citations of the Epistles of St. Paul, the greatest part whereof were written after St. James' death; neither ought we to object with the Cardinals Bona and Bellarmin, that these things were afterwards inserted, because it is not probable, that they should be added in so many places; besides, the Connexion and the Ceremonies of this whole Liturgy do not argee with the time of the Apostles.  
I shall not here speak of other Liturgies cited by some Authors, such are those of the Twelve Apostles mentioned by Abraham Ecchellensis, and that of St. Barnabas quoted by a certain Monk, because they are unknown to me; neither shall I examine that which is comprised in the Constitutions of St. Clement, nor that which is extant in the Writings that are attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, in regard that these Books being forged, as I shall hereafter show in another place, it is not to be doubted but that the Liturgies which they contain, are in like manner fictitious.   

Of the Apostles Creed.  
HAving already Discoursed of the Works of every one of the Apostles in particular, it remains, that we should now give some account of those that are reputed to be composed by 
Of the Apostles Creed.  them in general; The most Authentic among these is the Apostles Creed, which is generally believed to have been made by all the Apostles. But Authors are not agreed about the time wherein it was written by them, nor concerning the manner how it was compiled, nor the design they had in making it. Some are of Opinion with Ruffinus 
a RUffinus.] In Exposit. Symboli: Isidore, lib. 2. de Off. c. 22. , that they compiled it in the very same year that Jesus Christ died, a little after the descent of the Holy Ghost; whereas Baronius and others conjecture, that they did not finish it till the Second year of the Reign of the Emperor Claudius, a little before they were separated. As to the manner of their drawing it up, some have imagined, that every one of the Apostles pronounced 
b Every one of the Apostles pronounced his Article.] This is the opinion of the Author of the 115th Sermon, De Tempore apud Aug. Of St. Leo, Ep. 13. now 27. Of Venant. Foretunat. in Exegesi Symb. Apost.  his Article, and that for this reason it is called a Symbol, as consistng of divers Sentences: Others believe●, that it was compiled by them after they had conferred all together; and there are some also who assert, that all the Disciples had a share therein. Lastly, as to their design in composing it, some determine that it was, that they might be all found unanimously to agree in one and the same Doctrine 
c Some determine that it was, that they might be all sound unanimously to agree in one and the same Doctrine.] The former opinion is maintained by Ruffinus, and the later by the modern Authors. , and others, that it was for the benefit of the People, that they might be able to propound to them an Abridgement of the Christian Faith, which should be easy to be understood, and to be retained in their Memory. The Etymology of the word Symbol is yet more uncertain 
d The Etymology of the Word Symbol, is yet more uncertain.] The Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, properly signifies a Note, Sign, or Mark; therefore the Mystical Signs and Notes of Pythagoras were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Herodian uses the Word to denote a Military Signal. Other Authors, as Dion Cassius, and Suetonius, apply it to signify Signs or Marks, and certain Tickets that were given to those that were to be admitted to public Shows, and for the distribution of Largesses. Some say, that the Word Symbolum among the Latins signifies an Entertainment, where every one pays his Club, or even the Club itself; But this does not belong to the Neuter Symbolum, but to the Feminine Symbola, and in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as may be seen in Aristophanes' Scholiast, in Athenaeus and Plutarch; therefore it ought to be read in Terence's Andria, Symbolam dedit, and not Symbolum. Aulus Gellius, lib. 6. c. 1. makes use of the Word Symbola to signify one Man's share in a Reckoning, and declares, that this Term was also attributed to those Questions that were Expounded by Taurus the Philosopher in the Presence of divers Persons. St. Cyprian is the first that applied the Word Symbol to denote an Epitome or Abridgement of the Christian Faith. Ep. 45. Optatus calls the Heretics, The Deserters of the true Symbol, alluding to a Military Signal. And, and to the same effect, St. Chrysologus, in Hom. 62. declares, That the Symbol is the Covenant that we make with God in Baptism. ; for some affirm, that the Creed is so called, because it is as it were the distinguishing Mark and Character of Christians 
e The distinguishing Mark and Character of Christians.] This Etymology is produced by Maximus Taurinensis, and Venantius Fortunatus. It hath been likewise observed by Ruffinus, Isidorus Hispalensis, lib. 2. de Off. c. 22. and Durandus de Mende, lib. 4. Rationalis, c. 25. But the second and third Etymology are more common; and the last is maintained by Ruffinus; S. Aug. Serm. 181. de Tempore; Isidore, lib. 2. div. Off. c. 22. Rabanus Maurus, lib. 2. Init. Clerical. cap. 56. Durandus supra: Eucherius, Homil. de Symb. and Innocent. III. lib. 2. De Sacris Missae Mysteriis, c. 49. The first however is the most probable. ; others, because it was composed of the Sentences of several Persons; and lastly others, on the account of its being made in a general Conference.  
However, although it is an Opinion established on very good grounds, that this Creed was made by the Apostles, and it cannot be denied, that they all preached and taught the Articles therein contained after one and the same manner, as the main Points of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, in which it was necessary that all Christians should be instructed; yet it may be justly doubted without incurring the imputation of rashness, whether they were assembled together to compose this Creed, and whether they wrote it word for word, as it is now received in the Church of Rome; nay there are very weighty Reasons, whereby it appears, that this Opinion, though commonly received, is nevertheless very improbable.  
For first, neither St. Luke in the Acts, nor any Ecclesiastical Author before the Fifth Century hath made any mention of this Assembly of the Apostles, and none ever affirmed, that they composed the Creed of the Church of Rome, either by conferring together, or by pronouncing every one a particular Article.  
Secondly, the Fathers of the Three first Ages disputing against the Heretics, endeavour to demonstrate by many Arguments, that the Doctrine contained in the Creed, is that of the Apostles, but they do not affirm, that it was compiled by them; and yet there could not have been a stronger, or more convincing proof brought against those Heretics, than to have said thus to them; You impugn the Doctrine of the Creed, and yet it is certain, that the Apostles were the Authors thereof, therefore you impugn the Doctrine of the Apostles. However they did not argue after this manner; On the contrary they prove by Tradition, and the Consent of the Apostolical Churches, that the Doctrine comprised in the Creed, is that of the Apostles.  
Thirdly, if the Apostles had made a Creed, it would have been every where the same throughout all Churches, and in all Ages; all Christians would have learned it by heart; all Churches would have repeated it after the very same manner; in fine, all Authors would have expressed it in the same terms. Now the contrary is evident; for it is certain, that not only in the second and third Centuries, but also in the fourth, there were many Creeds, and all, though the same as to the Doctrine, yet differed in the Expression. In the second and third Ages of the Church, we find as many Creeds as Authors 
f As many Creeds as Authors.] St. Irenaeus exhibits a Creed, l. 1. c. 2. and another in lib. 2. c. 1. Tertullian made use of three different Creeds in three several places, In prescript. lib. contra Praxeam, & de Virginibus velandis. See Origen. lib. 1. Peri Arch. & in Dialog. contra Marc. Optat. lib. 1. All which Creeds are different from the Vulgar. , and the same Author sets the Creed down after a different manner in several places of his Works, which plainly shows, that there was not then any Creed that was reputed to be the Apostles, nor even any regulated and established Form of Faith. Ruffinus in the fourth Century compares three ancient Creeds of the Churches of Aquileia, Rome, and the East, and we may observe in these three Creeds, none of which perfectly agrees with the common one, very considerable differences in the terms, as appears from the Table that is subjoined at the end of this Article. St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetick Lectures produceth a particular Creed, that was used by the Church of Jerusalem when this Father wrote. The Authors that have written Commentaries on the Creed, as St. Augustine in his 119th Sermon, St. Maximus, Petrus Chrysologus, Fortunatus, and others, omit divers Expressions that are inserted in our Apostolical Creed, among others this at the end, The Life Everlasting; and St. Jerome observes in his Epistle to Pammachius, that the Creed concludes with these words, The Resurrection of the Body.  
It is evident from these Reflections, that although the Creed be the Apostles as to the Doctrine which it contains, nevertheless it is not theirs, as to all the terms, and that they did not draw up any one form of Faith comprehended in a set number of words, which they were all obliged to use: But that having learned the same Faith from Jesus Christ, they likewise taught it to all those that were converted to the Christian Religion, and instructed them all in the same Mysteries. That they that were thus trained up in this Faith, had it so deeply imprinted on their mind, (as St. Justin and St. Irenaeus observe) that they were always ready to give an account thereof, and as often as they should be required to do it, without making use of any one particular form; and from thence proceeds the difference of the Creeds that are set down by the Fathers. And lastly, that for the assistance of the Memory, certain forms of these Articles of Faith, were afterwards compiled, which were found to be different according to the diversity of the Churches wherein they were used. For I doubt not in the least, that besides the abovecited Creeds, there were many others of which we have no knowledge, from whence it must be inferred, that Jesus Christ is the Author of the Doctrine contained in the Creed, and that the Apostles preached and published it throughout the whole World; but that it cannot be determined by whom these Forms were collected, wherein this Doctrine is comprised.  
It may be objected, that St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lucifer Calaritanus, and St. Jerome affirm, that the Creed is the Rule of Faith, which the Church hath received from the Apostles; That St. Ambrose 
The Epistle of St. Barnabas.  says, that the Church of Rome hath preserved the Apostolical Creed in its purity without Alteration; That St. Augustine, Ruffinus, Leo, Maximus Taurinensis, Fortunatus, Petrus Chrysologus, and a great many others 
g And a great number of other Authors.] S. Irenaeus. lib. 1. cap. 2. Tertullian, de Prascript. c. 37. & 13. de vel. Virg. c. 1. Lucifer, lib. 2. contra Const. Hier. Ep. ad Pammach. St. Ambrose, Ep. 7. lib. 1. As also, Ruffinus in Expos. Symboli, Aug. Serm. 115. Maximus, St. Leo, Fortunatus, etc.  have taken it for granted as a thing beyond Controversy, that the Creed was composed in an Assembly of the Apostles, that this Opinion is Authorised by the Church, and that it seems to be a rash Presumption to doubt of it; And lastly, that all Catholics are agreed in this Judgement, and that none but Heretics, or at least Persons that are suspected of Heresy, durst presume to call it in question.  
To these Objections I answer first, that the Testimonies of St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lucifer, rather overthrew the vulgar Opinion, than establish it; for these Fathers do not assert, that we have received the form of Faith from the Apostles, but only the Faith and Doctrine that was communicated to them by Jesus Christ; therefore if there were any force in the Objection, it must be conluded, that our Saviour is the Author of the Creed. Moreover, it is further to be observed, that by the Phrase Rule of Faith used by Tertullian, a set Form of Faith is not to be understood, but the Faith itself, which he declares to have been founded by Jesus Christ; and Lucifer Calaritanus doth not discourse of the Creed, but only of the Faith of the Church as it relates to our Saviour's Divinity. Lastly, when St. Jerome says, that the Faith of the Creed, which is an Apostolical Tradition, was not written on Paper, or with Ink, but was engraved on the Fleshly Tables of the Heart; he gives us to understand, that he meant nothing else, but that the Faith and Doctrine comprehended in the Creed proceeds from the Apostles, who have taught it to all the Faithful. After the same manner, when St. Ambrose assures us, that the Creed was preserved in its purity by the Church of Rome, he doth not speak of the form of the Creed, but of the Doctrine therein contained. As for the other Authorities that are alleged, they are of little moment. Ruffinus is the first, and the only Person among the Authors of the Fifth Century, that asserts, that the Creed was composed by the Apostles, and yet he proposes this Opinion, as a matter that depended only on a popular Tradition; St. Augustin never approved it, for he doth not so much as mention one word thereof in his 119th Homily, and the 115th which might be cited to this purpose, cannot be proved certainly to be his: In fine, the the other Authors who lived after Ruffinus, have taken this History from him, and are too modern to give a certain Testimony of a matter of Fact so ancient as this is; We may also add, that it is related by none but the Latins; that the Greeks never spoke of it, and that even they that produce it, do in no wise agree among themselves, concerning its Circumstances, as hath been already shown. To conclude, there is no rashness in departing here, from the vulgar Opinion, since it is merely a Critical Question, that hath no regard to Faith, because it is granted on all sides, that Jesus Christ is the Author of the Doctrine comprised in the Creed, and that the Apostles taught it to all the Christians. Besides, they that maintain the common Opinion, are at last obliged to subscribe to our determination when they are urged; and to acknowledge, when it is objected to them, that the ancient Roman Creed was different from our Vulgar; that our Creed is not the Apostles as to the words, but as to the Sense, which comes to our Opinion at last. And besides it is not unusual in Critical Matters to forsake an Opinion that hath been generally received, and to embrace that of some Learned and Judicious Men, even of those that are suspected not to be Orthodox. Thus all the World is at present agreed in this, that the Apostolical Constitutions and Canons were not written by the Apostles, as we shall show in the following Article, and yet scarce any Man presumed so much as to doubt thereof, before Erasmus.  

A TABLE, wherein the Four ancient CREEDS are compared.  The VULGAR▪ 〈◊〉 of AQUIL●… The ORIENTAL▪ The ROMAN. I. I Believe in one GOD the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven, and Earth. I. I Believe in one GOD the Father Almighty. In the ancient Editions of Morellus and C●●chius, we read, In Deo Patre Omnipotent; The ●●lative Case being put instead of the Accusative Deum; but this was a fault of the Transcriber. I. I Believe in one GOD the Father Almighty, invisible and impassable. I. I Believe in GOD the Father Almighty. II. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord. II. And in Christ Jesus his only Son our Lord. II. And in our only Lord Jesus Christ his Son. II. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord. III. Who was Conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary. III. Who was born of the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary. III. The same as in that of Aquileia. III. The same as in that of Aquileia. iv Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was Crucified, dead and buried, he descended into Hell. iv Was Crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was buried, he descended into Hell. iv Was Crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. iv The same as in the Oriental. V The third Day he risen again from the Dead. V The same. V The same. V The same. VI He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. VI He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father. VI The same as in that of Aquileia, saving that some add, Almighty, as in the Vulgar. VI The same as in that of Aquileia. VII. From thence he shall come to judge the Quick and the Dead. VII. The same. VII. The same. VII. The same. VIII. I believe in the Holy Ghost. VIII. And in the Holy Ghost. VIII. The same as in that of Aquileia. VIII. The same as in that of Aquileia. IX. The Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints. 
IX. I Believe the Holy Church.  
Pamelius adds Catholic, but falsely; for there is no more expressed by Ruffinus than these Words, The Communion of Saints.  IX. The same as in that of Aquileia. IX. The same as in that of Aquileia. X. The Forgiveness of Sins. X. The same. X. The same. X. The same. XI. The Resurrection of the Body. XI. The Resurrection of this Body. XI. The same as in the Vulgar. XI. The same as in the Vulgar. XII. And the Life everlasting. Amen. XII. Wanting. XII. Wanting. XII. Wanting.   

Of the Canons and Constitutions attributed to the Apostles.  
THE Opinions of Authors are extremely divided, as to the Canons that are commonly called Apostolical. Turrianus and some others have determined, that they were all composed by the Apostles: Baronius and Bellarmine except the 35 last, which are rejected by 
Apostolical Canons and Constitutions.  them as Apocryphal, but they have made no difficulty to admit the first 50. Gabriel Albaspinaeas Bishop of Orleans, and others, have believed, that although these Canons are not written by the Apostles, yet that they were very ancient, as being properly a Collection of the Canons of divers Councils that were holden before that of Nice; this Opinion is likewise maintained by the Learned Dr. Beverege, in a Book lately published by him, Entitled, Vindiciae Canonum, etc. calling by this Name the Collection of 85 Canons attributed to the Apostles. Lastly, M. Daille affirms, that these Canons are not only falsely ascribed to the Apostles, but are also of a much later date, and were not collected until about the end of the Fifth Century. We shall now proceed to examine these Opinions, and to establish that of Albaspinaeus, which seems to be most probable.  
It is not very difficult to prove, that these Canons were not compiled by the Apostles themselves; we need only peruse them, to be convinced, that they contain divers things that never were, nor indeed could be decreed by the Apostles 
a Divers things that never were, nor indeed could be established by the Apostles.] In the first Canon it is Decreed, that a Bishop should not be Ordained but by two or three Bishops; whereas it is certain, that in the time of the Apostles one single Bishop was sufficient to Ordain another. In the third it is determined, that the First-Fruits should be so presented to the Bishop and Priest, as that they should be brought immediately to them, and not offered on the Altar. In the fourth it is provided, that Oil and Incense only should be offered on the Altar. Now it is not probable, that any such things were offered in the time of the Apostles. In the fifth Canon it is ordained that the Feast of Easter should not be celebrated after the Jewish manner: If this had been determined by the Apostles, the Controversy between Victor and the asiatics might have been easily decided; but it was not, and Victor only alleged the Tradition of his Ancestors: In like manner the 21. Canon against those that made themselves Eunuches would have been produced by Demetrius against Origen, and Origen's action would not have been justified by Alexander and Theoctistus, if there had been then extant a Canon of the Apostles, that had so precisely forbidden it. In the 34th and 35th Canon's mention is made of the right of Metropolitans, and of the distinction of Bishoprics, which were not fixed at that time. In the 50th Canon it is decreed, that he that did not baptise or dip a Child twice in the Water should be deposed; This practice, though very ancient, is later than the Apostolical times. The 52d is against the Errors of the Montanists and Novatians. The 60th is against Books forged by the Heretics after the death of the Apostles. And the 66th is against the Sabbatical Fast. The 69th regulates fasting in Lent. In the following Canons are contained several Injunctions concerning Oil, Vessels of Gold and Silver, and Vails consecrated in Churches, things that were not known in the time of the Apostles. The last Canon comprehends a Catalogue of Sacred Books which could not be written by the Apostles. In the 45th, 46th, and 47th Canons the Baptism of Heretics is rejected as null and void. This question was not resolved by the Apostles. Moreover the style of these Canons is not like the Apostles; and the matter is very different from that which was usually treated by them; neither were the names of Clerk, Bishop, Altars, Sacrifice, etc. so common in the Apostolical times. ; some whereof relate to certain Questions that were not debated until many years after their death 
b Questions that were not debated until many years after their death.] Viz. The questions relating to the Feast of Easter, the Baptism of Heretics, as also concerning those that make themselves Eunuches; those that would not admit Sinners to repentance; those that fast on Sundays, etc. Vide supra. . But it ought to be observed, that they are usually styled by the ancient Writers, Ancient Canons, Canons of the Fathers, and Ecclesiastical Canons; Titles that are likewise prefixed to them in several Manuscripts, as Cotelerius has observed: And if they are sometimes called or entitled Apostolical, it cannot be upon the account of their belonging to the Apostles; but it is sufficient that some of them have been made by Bishops that presided over the Church a little after the Apostles, because they that lived at that time were generally called Apostolical Men. The Author of the Apostolical Constitutions is the first that attributed these Canons to the Apostles, and he hath said some things to induce us to believe, that they were actually composed by the Apostles 
c To induce us to believe that they were actually composed by the Apostles.] As for Example in the 29th Canon, where it is ordained, that those Bishops that should obtain the Episcopal Dignity by Money, should be deposed, as Simon was by St. Peter; he hath added by me Peter. For these words are not found in the Epistle of Tarasius to Pope Adrian, nor in the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus. Moreover in the 5th Canon, we read at present the Lord hath declared unto us; whereas in the Greek Manuscripts, and in the Edition of Zonaras and Balsamon, it is simply expressed, the Lord hath declared; and in that of Joannes Antiochenus, Our Lord hath declared. Lastly in the 82d Canon there is this expression, as our Brother Onesimus, and in the last, our Acts, where it ought to be read simply as in the Arabic Paraphrase, as Onesimus, and the Acts of the Apostles. . Therefore these Canons are not the Work of an Impostor, who hath forged them under the Name of the Apostles, but only a Collection, that hath been falsely imputed to them, that it might be esteemed more Authentic: And I am apt to believe, that no Person was more capable of performing this Artifice, than the abovecited Author of the Apostolical Constitutions 
d I am apt to believe that no person was more capable of performing this Artifice.] It is suitable to the temper of this Author, who designed to pass every where for a Disciple of the Apostles; for which reason he has given us divers Constitutions under their name, attributing to every Apostle some particular Constitutions and Liturgies, at the end whereof he annexed these Canons with the abovementioned additions; and he likewise adds in the name of the Apostles: This is what we thought fit to command you O ye Bishops, continue to observe these things. , who hath in like manner ascribed many other Writings to the Apostles, and hath inserted these Canons entire in his third Book.  
As for the Antiquity of them, it is apparent that they are very ancient, and that a great part of them (if not all) were decreed by Councils that were holden before that of Nice: For first, they do not contain any thing (according to my judgement) but what is conformable to the Discipline that was observed in some Churches at the end of the second Century, throughout the third, and in the beginning of the fourth. Secondly, they comprehend certain Ordinances that are known to have been made in those times: As for Example; There is a Canon that prohibits the Celebration of the Feast of Easter with the Jews, now we are assured, that this was Decreed in divers Synods assembled in the time of Pope Victor. Moreover there are three, wherein the Baptism of Heretics is rejected, as void and of no effect, which is declared by Firmilian and Dionysius Alexandrinus to have been determined in the Councils of Sy●…a and Iconium, that were holden some time before them. But who can believe, that these Canons were made or counterfeited at a time when Persons baptised by Heretics were generally admitted without rebaptising them? And it cannot be imagined, that they were forged by St. Cyprian, or Firmilian, on purpose to authorise their Discipline; it is much more reasonable to believe, that they really are the very Canons of the Synods of Iconium and Synnada, which have been falsely attributed to the Apostles, not by these Saints, but by later Authors. Thirdly, It is clearly proved, that the greatest part of these Canons are more ancient than the Council of Nice, because they are often cited in this Council, and those that were convened not long after, as well as by the Authors who wrote in the fourth Century 
e 
They are often cited.] In the first Canon of the Council of Nice, the second of the Apostles is alleged, concerning those that make themselves Eunuches, and in the fifth Canon of the same Council, the 12th and 32d is cited relating to Excommunication. In the ninth Canon of the Council of Antioch the 34th is quoted concerning the Metropolitan; in the 20th Canon of the same, the 10th about Excommunication; in the 21st Canon, the 14th prohibiting Bishops to leave their Dioceses; and in the 23d Canon the 76th, that a Successor. ought not to be elected. In the Synod of Constantinople convened in the year 394, the 14th Apostolical Canon is quoted, of the Jurisdiction of Bishops. In the Council of Ephesus, Acts 7. col. 788. we find the 35th cited concerning Ordinations; and in Act. 1. the 74th is alleged relating to the three Admonitions that ought to precede Ecclesiastical Censure. Moreover Alexander in Theodoret, lib. 1. c. 4. citys the 12th, as also Athanasius, Epist. ad omnes Orthodoxos, where he likewise alludes to the 29th, 30th, and 75th Canons. The 34th is alleged by Arsenius, in like manner the 30th, 35th, and 81st are quoted by Pope Julius in his Epistle. St. Basil in the 43d Canon plainly citys the 24th of the Apostles, under the name of an ancient Canon; in the 12th Canon the 77th concerning Bigamy; and in the first the 47th relating to the Baptism of Heretics. Lastly Theodotius in Cod. Lib. 3. de summâ Trinitate quotes the 17th under the name of an Apostolical Canon.  
M. Daillé replies, that all these Quotations do not relate to the Apostolical Canons, but to the Discipline, Customs, and Traditions that proceeded from the Apostles; however this answer hath no probability; for the word Canon signifies written Laws, and the Council of Nice distinguisheth Canons from Customs, which are therein called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Moreover M. Daillé adds, that certain Canons and ancient Laws are often cited that are not included in the Apostolical, and he produceth two Examples, the first whereof is taken from the 13th Canon of the Nicene Council, and the 2d from the 21st of that of Ancyra. But first, the Apostolical or Ecclesiastical Canons are not cited by name in these two, but only in the first an ancient and Canonical Law or Custom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the second, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an ancient definition. Secondly, nothing hinders but that these words may be understood of some ancient definitions of Synods; as for example, the Law wherein it was ordained to receive the Lapsi at the point of death, cited in the first Canon, was made in the Eastern and African Churches before the Council of Nice, if we may give credit to the Testimony of Dionysius Alexandrinus in Ep. ad Stephanum, produced by Eusebius, Lib. 7. chap. 4. and 5.  , under the name of Ancient Laws, Canons of the Fathers, Ecclesiastical Canons, and even Apostolical, which is different from what they call Customs, Manners, or Discipline, concerning which there are no written Rules or Injunctions. Therefore it is certain, that these Canons are ancient, that they have been erroneously ascribed to the Apostles, and that they are a Collection of Ordinances of divers ancient Synods that were holden before the Council of Nice, but it is not known when this Collection was made, nor who collected it, nor even whether it consists of those 85 Canons that are now extant, or of a lesser number. However, it is probable, that it was compiled at several times, and that some Canons have been successively added, because no order is observed therein, as also because that the Canons relating to one and the same Subject are often found separated, besides some Contradictions.  
The Objections propounded by Mr. Daillé against the Apostolical Canons, manifestly prove against Turrianus that they were not composed by the Apostles, but they do not in the least impugn our opinion. As for Example; It is objected by him, That there are in these Canon's certain terms that were not usual in the time of the Apostles, as Clerk, Lecturer, Laic, Metropolitan, etc. But he cannot deny that these terms were used in the third Age of the Church. That which is ordained concerning Lent, and against fasting on Sundays or the Sabbath, may belong to the third Century since the same things are found in the Works of Tertullian. The Canons against those that make themselves Eunuches, might be composed by Demetrius against the Error of Origen. The Canons concerning Easter, are apparently those of the Councils that were convened under Victor; and others relating to the Baptism of Heretics, are probably those of the Councils of Synnada and Iconium. Upon the perusal of all the Objections alleged by M. Daillé, it will appear, that although they are extremely weighty against the Opinion of Turrianus, yet they are of no force against ours 
f They are of no force against ours.] However, some of the most material of M. Daillé's Reasons may be objected to us; for instance, he affirms that St. Athanasius in the matter of Leontius the Eunuch, citys the Canon of the Council of Nice, and not the Apostolical, which shows (says he) that it was not as yet known: Moreover, that it is not quoted by St. Epiphanius against the Valesian Heretics: That St. Basil reckons the triple immersion in Baptism amongst the unwritten Traditions, and consequently, that the Canon of the Apostles in which it is ordained, was not composed in the time of this Father: That this Canon was made against those Heretics that Baptised with a single Immersion, and that the Eunomians were the first that followed this practice. These are the Arguments of M. Daillé that can be urged against us, but it is very easy to refute them. St. Athanasius citys the Apostolical Canon rather than that of Nice. St. Epiphanius produceth no Canon against the Valesians; but only the Holy Scripture. St. Basil and the other Fathers understand by unwritten Tradition all those matters that are not contained in the Sacred Writings. Lastly, the Canon concerning triple Immersion was not made against Heretics, but to prevent the negligence of Priests. The 84th Canon might indeed be objected with much more probability, wherein we find the Books of the Maccabees, together with the Epistles and Constitutions of St. Clement among the Canonical Writings. But it must be replied to this Objection, that this Canon is corrupted, that the Books of the Maccabees are not extant in the Greek Copy of Joannes Antiochenus, and it may easily be discerned, that the Epistles and Constitutions of St. Clement, have been added by the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, who endeavoured to pass for St. Clement, to raise the reputation of this Book. It may be proved that this Canon is ancient, because the Books of the Old Testament that were not inserted in the Canon of the Jews, and the Revelation are omitted. Lastly, It is asserted against us, that these Canons were unknown to the Authors of the Fifth Century, that they are not cited by Eusebius, nor included in the C●dex Canonum of the Catholic Church; but all these Objections are frivolous, for the Ecclesiastical Writers of the fourth Age have often referred to these Canons. Eusebius indeed hath nor mentioned them, but neither doth he take notice of the Canons of the Nicene Council and in fine it is not to be wondered at that they are not found in the Code of the universal Church, which did not contain all the ancient Canons, no more than that of the African Church comprehended those that were made by St. Cyprian or Agrippinus. .  
It ought then to be esteemed as certain, that not only the first 50 Canons, but likewise the following 35. are very ancient, though they do not belong to the Apostles. Therefore they have been always much esteemed by the Greeks, as being of great Authority. Joannes Antiochenus, who lived in the time of the Emperor Justinian, hath inserted them in his Collection of Canons; and they are commended by Justinian himself in his sixth Novel. They are in like manner approved in the Synod that was holden in the Imperial Palace after the fifth General Council; cited in the seventh Oecumenial Council, and allowed by St. Joannes Damascenus, and Photius, but with this difference, that the first, who was no great Critic, attributed them to the Apostles, and the other that was more quicksighted in these matters, doubted whether they belonged to them. However they have not always met with the same Reception among the Latins. Cardinal Humbert hath rejected them, and Gelasius hath placed them amongst the Apocryphal Books, as well because they were falsely ascribed to the Apostles, as because he found among them some Canons, that authorised the opinion of St. Cyprian concerning the Baptism of Heretics. Hinchmar favourably explains Gelasius' Notion, declaring, that he did not insert them among those Books that were Apocryphal and full of Errors, but only in the number of those, with respect to which this Rule of St. Paul ought to be observed, Try all things, and hold fast that which is good. Dionysius Exiguus hath translated the first 50, and hath prefixed them to his Collection, taking notice however, that some Persons would not acknowledge them; and perhaps this is the reason that Martinus Braccarensis would not admit them into his Collection of Canons; but Isidore hath made no difficulty to afford them a place in his, and ever since they have been always accounted as a part of the Canon Law. It is further to be observed, that as soon as they appeared in France, they were generally well received there, and were first urged in the cause of Praetextatus under the Reign of King Chilperic, wherein their Authority was allowed, as we are informed by Gregorius Turonensis in the fifth Book of his History, Chap. 19 where he takes notice, that there was an Appendix added to the Collection of Canons, which contained certain Canons, as being writ by the Apostles, quasi Apostolicos, and citys one of them, which is the 25th Apostolical, but according to a different Version from that of Dionysius Exiguus. Lastly, Hinchmar Bishop of Rheims observes, that they were annexed to the beginning of a Collection of Canons compiled for the use of the Church of France, separately from the others, and as for their Authority and Antiquity, he is altogether of our opinion, which he explains in these words, in the 24th Canon. The Canons (says he) that are called Apostolical, collected by some Christians, were written in a time when the Bishops could not freely assemble together, nor hold Councils; they contain many things that may be allowed, but they likewise establish others that ought not to be observed.  
I cannot say the same thing of the Apostolical Constitutions, as I have done of the Canons, viz. that they are not supposititious, but that in process of time a false Title happened to be attributed to them; for the Author of the Constitutions is an Impostor, that endeavours every where to pass for Clement a Disciple of the Apostles, and who imputes to them all in general, and to every one in particular, divers Ordinances that are in no wise consonant to the Apostolical ones; such are those concerning Churches built in the form of Temples, Catechumen, Energumen, Fasts, Liturgies, Unction, 〈◊〉 for the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉; The Ordination of Deacons and Deaconesses; Virgin●, Confessors, 〈◊〉; The 〈◊〉 of Oil and Water; The First-Fruits of Tyths, Festival Days, the Celebration of Easter, 〈◊〉 many other things that were not practised in the time of the Apostles, not to mention a great number of Absurdities and Mistakes of time, together with some Errors that are contained 〈◊〉 
g A great number of Absurdities and mistakes of time, together with 〈◊〉 Er●●● that 〈◊〉 contained therein.] As in Book 1. That the Beards of Women ought to be shaved, and not those of Men. In Book 2. Chap. 1. That all Bishops ought to be 50 years old. In Chap. 57 it is ordained, That the Gospel according to St. John should be read; which was not written until the 97th year of our Lord, after the death of the Apostles. In Chap. 1●. the Author asserts, That the Bishop presides over Kings and Magistrates; and in Book 3. Chap. 2. That third Marriages are an Intemperance, and the fourth a manifest Debauchery. In Book 6. Chap. 6. mention is made of the Ebionites, whose Errors sprang up after the decease of the Apostles. In the 14th Chapter, James the Son of Zebedee is introduced as present at Jerusalem after the time of his death. In Book 8. Chap. 4. it is declared, That the Constitutions were made in the presence of St. Paul and the Seven Deacons; now it is certain, that St. Stephen, one of the said Seven Deacons, died before the Conversion of St. Paul. In Book 1. Chap. 32. Female Slaves are permitted to suffer themselves to be deflowered by their Masters. Moreover this Author is accused of Arianism. , which evidently demonstrates beyond contradiction, that these Constitutions were not composed by Apostles, and 〈◊〉 that they do not belong to St. Clement, as we shall show more at large in discoursing concerning the Works o● this Father, where we shall likewise endeavour to discover at what time they were forged.  
I shall add nothing concerning the Nine Canone that are also attributed to the Apostles, and are reported to have been made by them in a certain Council of Antioch unknown to all Antiquity; because there is no question but that they are fictitious; neither are they at present maintained by any 
h Neither are they maintained at present by any.] This Synod is unknown to St. Luke, and to all the ancients; for although it is said to be cited by Innocent I. Ep. 18. it is a mistake, since he only mentions the Council of Jerusalem; and whereas it is written, Antiochenam Ecclesiam quae meruit apud se celeberrimum Apostolorum Conventum. The Church of Antioch, which deservedly had the most famous Convention of the Apostles celebrated there, it ought to be read propter se, near that City; for it is apparent, that this Pope spoke concerning the Synod of Jerusalem, which was the most famous Convention of the Apostles. Moreover, not so much as one of the ancient Authors makes mention of these Canons, and indeed they are altogether absurd: It is said in the first, that the Christians were called Galileans, a name that was not attributed to them until after the death of the Apostles. In the third Canon it is decreed, that the Christians should live Anagogically, a harsh and insignificant Term. In the 9th Canon the Synagogue is called Belluine; and in the 8th it is ordained, that there should be Images in the Churches, a practice that was not in use in the time of the Apostles. This Canon is cited by Gregorius Pessinuntius in the second Council of Nice, but it is well known that many Apocryphal Records were alleged in that Council. .   

Cf several Books attributed to Prochorus, Linus, and Abdias, and of the Acts of the Passion of St. Andrew.  
IN the time of the Apostles there lived a certain Person named Prochorus, one of the Seven first Deacons, and there is now extant a Book under his name, containing the Life of St. John, which 
Prochorus, Linus, Abdias, etc.  is Printed among the Orthodoxographa, and in the Bibliotheca Patrum. But Baronius, Bellarmin, Lorinus, The Master of the Palace, and in a word, all those that have written concerning Ecclesiastical Authors both Roman Catholics and Protestants unanimously agree, that it is a supposititious Book, and unworthy of him whose Name it bears; and indeed, it is a Narrative full of absurd Fables and Tales. It is related there, that St. John cast himself at the Feet of the Apostles, desiring to be exempted from going into Asia; That after he was taken out of the Cauldron of boiling Oil, a Church was built in Honour of him; That he composed his Gospel in the Isle of Patmos, etc. The Style of this Book argues its Author to be a Latin or a Greek, and not an Hebrew. Lastly, we find therein the words Trinity and Hypostasis.  
The two Books attributed to Linus concerning the Passion of St. Peter, and St. Paul are likewise generally rejected, as fictitious and full of Fables. They say, that Agrippa was Governor of Rome in the time of St. Peter, who suffered Martyrdom without the knowledge of Nero; That this Emperor was offended that he was put to Death; That part of the Roman Magistrates were Christians; and that the Wife of Albanus departed from her Husband against his Will, following the advice of St. Peter. In fine, both these Books are full of Errors, Falsities, Fictions, and notorious Untruths; in the last of which mention is made of the Epistles of St. Paul to Seneca, and of Seneca to St. Paul.  
We must likewise give the same Judgement upon the Book imputed to Abdias, that contains divers extremely fabulous Relations concerning the Lives of the Apostles, and was Printed by itself in the years 1557, 1560, and 1571; at Basil, Anno 1532, and at Paris in 1583; it is also inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum. At first they tried to make it pass for a Book composed in Hebrew, by a Disciple of Jesus Christ, named Abdias of the City of Babylon, Translated into Greek by Eutropius, and into Latin by Julius Africanus; but now the whole World is convinced of this Error, and it is generally agreed, that it was forged by an Impostor, that falsely pretends to be a Disciple of Jesus Christ, who nevertheless citys Hegesippus, and Julius Africanus, whom he could not have seen if he had lived in our Saviour's time; and lastly, he relates many fabulous Narrations concerning the Life of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, which it would be too tedious here to rehearse.  
Men are divided in their Censures upon the Acts of the Passion of St. Andrew written by the Priests of Achaia, which are inserted in the History of the Saints published by Surius, Baronius, Bellarmine, and some other Critics of the Church of Rome admit them as authentic, but they are rejected by many. The ancient Ecclesiastical Writers know no other Records of St. Andrew than those that were corrupted by the Manichees, mentioned by St. Augustine, Philastrius, and Pope Innocent 
a MEntioned by St. Augustin, Philastrius, etc.] St. Aug. lib. de Fide contr. Manichaeos'. Philastr. lib. de Haeres. N. 40. Innocentii I. Epist. ad Exup. Gelasius in conc. Roman. , and which are reckoned by Gelasius in the number of Apocryphal Books. But it is certain that those were different from these whereof we now discourse; It is also evident, that these last Acts of the Passion of St. Andrew, have been cited by none but Authors that lived since the Seventh or Eighth Century, as by Remigius Altissiodorensis. Petrus Damianus, Lanfrank, St. Bernard, and Ivo Carnutensis, which is the cause that we can have no assurance that they are very ancient. Thirdly, the Mystery of the Trinity is not only explained in these Acts after such a manner as gives us occasion to suspect, that he that wrote them lived after the Council of Nice; but he likewise propagates the Error of the modern Greeks, in affirming, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, and remains in the Son. It is indeed objected, that there are Manuscripts wherein these words are not expressed, but who knows, whether they have not been omitted in some, rather than added in others? Therefore this History ought at least to be esteemed, as a dubious Writing, that cannot be applied (as St. Jerome declares) to prove any Doctrine of Faith.  
The account of the Life and Death of St. Mathias was forged by an Author who pretends to have received it from a Jew that Translated it out of the Hebrew Tongue. We ought also to place in the rank of Apocryphal and fabulous Books, the Life of St. Mark, and the History of St. Clement, together with that of Apollinarius, setdown in the Collection of ancient Histories compiled by Laurentius de la Bar. And we need only read them over to be convinced of their falsity.   

Of the Books of the Sibyls, Mercurius Trismegistus, and Hystaspes: Of the Letters of Lentulus and Pilate, concerning Jesus Christ: Of the Epistles of Seneca to St. Paul, and of those of St. Paul to Seneca: And of a Passage in the History of Josephus.  
WE join all these profane Records together, that have been heretofore alleged in favour of the Christian Religion, that so we may examine them; and although we should 
Sibyls.  reject them, yet we do not believe that we do any wrong to Religion, which is sufficiently furnished with solid and convincing Proofs, without standing in need of those that are false or dubious. We begin with the Verses that are attributed to the Sibyls, which are frequently cited by the ancient Writers to convince the Pagans of the Truth of the Religion of Jesus Christ; but before we proceed to Examine them, it would be expedient to give some account of these Sibyls and their Books.  
It is difficult to assign a true Etymology of the Word Sibyl; Lactantius, and after him St. Jerom, affirm, that the Sibyls were so called, because they were the Interpreters of the Decrees of the Gods; and that their Name consisted of two Greek Words 
a COnsisted of two Greek words.] These two words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the Aeolic Dialect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lactantius Lib. 1. c. 6. Hierom. Lib. 1. in Jovin. It is objected against this Etymology that the Adjective 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Three last Syllables whereof compose a Dactyl, make it manifest that the word Sibylla cannot be derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , signifying the Counsel of the Gods, which being written in the Aeolic Dialect compose that of Sibyl. It is derived by some from an Hebrew Word, and by others from an obsolete Latin Adjective 
b From an obsolete Latin Adjective.] This Adjective is Sibus, which according to Festus signifies the same as Acutus, or Callidus; a quick, or crafty Man. , that signifies, Subtle or Acute; but this later Conjecture is false, since the Word Sibyl was used by the Greeks before the Latins. The most probable opinion is, that the Name Sibyl, which was proper to the famous Delphic Prophetess, afterwards became common to others, as that of Caesar, peculiar only to Julius, was after him appropriated to all the succeeding Emperors.  
Nothing is s● 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s of the S●…s 
c Nothing is so uncertain as the Number and Names of the Sibyls.] Pl●t● in his Ph●dr●s mentions but one S●●yl, neither doth he declare to what place she appertained. The Author of the Book de Mir●bilibus Auscult●tionibus in Arist●tle speaks of her of Cum●. Diodorus Siculus Lib. 4. gives an Account of her of Delph●s, affirming that she was named D●phne, and was the Daughter of Tire●●●●; but Virgil, P●usanias and Suidas call her by the Name of M●nt●, and St. Clement, by that of Arte●is. Di●●ysius H●lic●rn●ss●us, Pliny, Juve●al, etc. mention but one Sibyl: However it doth not follow, that they knew no others. Str●bo Lib. 13. and 17. assures us, that there were two at Eryth●●, and that the Second called Athen●is lived in the time of Alexander the Great. Stephanus de Urbibus and Capella, Lib. 2. de N●p●ii● Philol●giae reckon likewise two, Er●phile a Native of Troy, who came to Cuma, and Symmachia of the City of Erythr●. Soli●●s in Polyhi●t. c, 〈◊〉. produceth three, the Delphic named E●iphile, who was more ancient than Homer, the Erythraean, and the C●●●●. Aeli●● Var. Hist. Lib. 2. c. 35. reckon Ten, the Erythr●●●, the Samian, the Egyptian, the Sardian, the Cu●an, the Jewish and four others. St. Clement, Str●mat. Lib. 1. M●nt● (says he) and a multitude of Sibyls; the Samian, the 〈◊〉, the Thessalian, the Thespr●tick, etc. Lactantius in Lib. 1. recites Ten after Varro: The first is that of P●●s●● mentioned by Nicaner, who wrote the History of Alexander the Great: The second of Lybia, cited by E●●ipides. 3. The Delphic alleged by Chrys●ppus, in Lib. de Divin●ti●ne. 4. The Cu●an in Italy, whom N●vius and Pis● mention, the former in his History of the Punic War, and the later in his A●●als. 5. The Erythraean, whom Ap●ll●d●rus Erythr●us affirms to have lived in his City. 6. The S●mi●●, concerning whom Erat●sthenes hath written. 7. The Cuman, called by some Amalthaea, and by others Dem●phile, or Her●phile. 8. The Hel●sp●nti●k born in the Country about ●r●y, and in the Town of Marpess●●. 9 The Phrygian, who Prophesied at Ancyr●. 10. The Tiburtine named Albunea, who uttered her Oracles at Tybur, near the River Ani● now called i'll Tevero●e, at the bottom whereof it is reported, that her Statue was found holding a Book in her hand. Isidore hath followed the Catalogue of Lactantius, but Suidas reckons up Twelve: Some with Pausanias, confound the Erythraean with the Delphic, the Phrygian, the Samian, and the Colophonian. Others as Capella, and the Author de Mirab. Auscult●t. join the Cuman, and the Erythraean. St. Justin makes no Distinction between the Babylonian and the Cuman; according to the Opinion of some, the Persic is the most ancient, others attribute the greatest Antiquity to the Cuman, and St. Clement to the Delphic. , many of the ancient Writers ●…s of her of Delph●s. S●●●●● and some Others 〈…〉 〈◊〉 produceth three, her of Delph●s, her of Erythr●, and her of C●●●. ●…, the L●●y●k the Delphic o● Erithr●●●, the Cuman and the Babylonian. Aelian, V●●●s, 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and most other Writers, reckon ten, and some add others to the number, but they do not agree about their Names, nor the Place of their Habitation, and they often 〈◊〉 them one with another.  
However, it is certain, that the Name of Sibyls was given to certain Women, who being transported with Enthusiasm 
d Transported with Enthusiasm.] We need only read the Description, that is made by all the ancient Authors of the manner how the Sibyls uttered their Oracles: See Virgil in Ae●eid: Lucan▪ Cl●udian in Pa●egyrico H●n●rii Pl●t●●ch. de Orac. Pythiae, etc. It was so evident among the Heathens, that they were possessed, that they applied the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to signify, to Play the Madman, Diod. Lib. 4. Now this fury that deprived them of their Senses, cannot be esteemed as an Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but as an Effect of their being possessed with a Daemon, and intoxicated with the Exhalations of inflamed Choler; For in my Opinion, it is an Imagination without any Ground to affirm with St. Jerom, that they received the Gift of Prophesying from God, in recompense of their Virginity. , and an extravagant Fury, caused either through a violent Inflammation of Choler, or by the possession of 〈◊〉, pronounced divers obscure and enigmatical Sentences that passed among the Heathens for Oracles and Predictions. It is reported, that the Sibyl of Cuma wrote them on the Leaves of Trees 
e Wrote them on the Leaves of Trees.] Virgil, Aeneid. 6. F●liis tantum ne carmena m●nd●. Juvenal. Credit me f●lium recitare Sibylla. , and that a Collection of them was offered by a certain Woman to Tarqvinius 
f Was offered by a certain Woman to Tarqvinius.] This History is Recorded by many ancient Authors; some affirm, that those Books were Presented to Tarqvinius S●●erb●s, and others, to Tarqvinius Priscus. It is Reported, that the Woman who brought them had Nine Volumes, which she offered to Sell at a dear Rate, but perceiving that Tarqui● would not give her what she required, she burned Three of them; that afterwards having demanded as much for the other Six, as she had done for the Nine, and being repulsed, she burned Three more, when at last the King being astonished at her boldness, bought the Three that were left at the same Price that she had asked for the Nine: See Dionysius Halicarnass●●s. Antiquit. Lib. 4. Aulus Gellius and Lactantius. Pliny reckons but Three Books instead of Nine; and affirms, that Two of them were burnt.  King of the Romans, who bought part thereof, which he caused carefully to be laid up in an Urn or Stone-Pot, and to be placed in the Capitol, having created Officers on purpose, whom he called D●…iri, whose Office it was to keep those Oracles with care, and to consult them upon urgent Occasions. The number of those that executed this Commission was by little and little increased, for there were afterwards ten, and at last fifteen, constituted for this purpose; and very severe Punishments were inflicted on these persons, if they suffered the Books of the Sibyls to be seen. It is related by Di●nysius Halicarnass●us, and Valerius Maximus, that one of these Duumviri was put▪ to Death as a Pa●ricide, that is to say, he was sowed up alive in a Sack, and thrown into the Sea, for permitting some of the Sibylline Verses to be transcribed. These Books were thus preserved until the year 671, after the Foundation of Rome, which was the 83d before the Nativity of Jesus Christ. But the Capitol being burnt in that year, these Books were likewise consumed with the rest of the Ornaments of this Palace, as is observed by Dionysius Halicarnassaeus, Pliny, and other Authors. When the Capitol was rebuilt, the Consuls made a Proposition to the Senate, to send Ambassadors into Greece to Erythrae, as also into Asia, to collect the Oracles of the Sibyls, and to transmit them to Rome: Whereupon Octacilius Crassus, and L. Valerius Flaccus were deputed to go unto Attalus King of Pergamus, who brought out of Asia a thousand Verses attributed to the Sibyls, which they had gathered together throughout all the Parts of that Region from the Copies of divers private Persons. But forasmuch as there were many things therein that seemed to be false or superfluous, fifteen Men were appointed to Revise and Correct them, and after this Correction they were placed in the Capitol in the room of the others. In the time of Augustús, these Books were again reviewed; above two thousand Verses attributed to the Sibyls were burnt by the Command of this Emperor, and those that were allowed to be Genuine, were enclosed in two Golden Boxes in the Temple of Apollo. Some are of opinion, that these Writings were burnt in the Conflagration of Rome under Nero, but they have not produced any convincing Proofs of this matter. However, it is certain, that as long as there were Pagan Emperors at Rome 
g As long as there were Pagan Emperors at Rome.] See Dio in Tiberius and Nero, Spartian in the Life of Adrian, Julius Capitolinus in that of Gordian. Trebellius Pollio, in that of Gallienus, and Vopiscus in that of Aurelian. Aurelius' Victor, Ammianus Marcellinus, Lib. 24. Zozim. Lib. 2. Procop. Lib. 1. , the Oracles ascribed to the Sibyls were carefully preserved there, to which they had Recourse on all extraordinary and emergent Occasions, and Julian the Apostate designing to re-establish all the ancient Heathen Superstitions, caused the Sibylline Books to be diligently sought for, and consulted.  
There are now extant many Greek Verses attributed to the Sibyls, which are divided into eight Books; but at present it is almost generally agreed throughout the whole World, that they are a fictitious Work, as the Time in which they were written 
h As the time in which they were written.] It is certain, that the Sibyls were ●ater than Moses, however the Author of this counterfeit Work affirms, that the Sibyl was in Noah's Ark, and nevertheless it is declared in Book III, that these Oracles were written 1500 years after the Grecian Empire was Established. Now after whatsoever manner this may be understood, it follows that all these Predictions concerning the Jews and M●ses, are forged, since these 1500 years continue till the Destruction of Jerusalem. In Book V we are informed by the Author, that he saw the second Ruin of the desirable House; which is plainly to be understood of the last Destruction of Jerusalem. He says in Book VIII. That after Trajan, intimated by the Letter T, one should Reign whose Name was to be taken from the Adriatic Sea, this is Adrian; and that after him Three should Govern at a time, that is to say, Antoni●●s, Marcus and Lucius, and that the last should obtain the Supreme Government▪ which shows that this was written at the beginning of the Reign of Mar●●● Aurelius, or at the end of that of Antoninus▪ for in regard that L●●ius was the youngest, it was natural to foretell that he should live longest. , the Style 
i The Style.] It appears, that he that counterfeited these Books, was not really transported with Enthusiasm, but only pretended to be so: The V●●ses of the Sibyls were obscure and without Order, whereas these 〈◊〉 not very Irregular: The Affairs of the Emperors are therein Historically digested, and not after a Prophetical manner▪ The style contains nothing of that Impetuosity and Enthusiasm that is every where Conspicuous in the Expressions of the Sibyls, neither is it like that of Homer who took many Verses from those Prophetesses, if we may believe Diodorus: Moreover the Author of these Sibylline Books was illiterate; for he derives the Name of Ad●m from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; in the Second Book he affirms, that the Four Letters of his Name signify the four Q●…s of the World; tho', in Hebrew and Chaldee, there are but three; he feigns that the Letters of the Name of God, Compose the Number 1697. which is not true, unless it be written in Greek after a Barbarous manner; from the Name of JESUS, which he makes to consist of four Vowels, and two Consonants, he extracts the Number of 888 years, and from that of Rome 948. he vouches the Fables of the ●●●ans, as true Histories; Moreover he says, that the Mountain A●●●●● is in Phrygia; that the River Eur●t is 〈◊〉 Epirus, and that Gog and Magog are Ethi●pians, which shows that this▪ Impostor was ignorant of the Hebrew T●●g●e▪ of Geography and History, which we cannot say of the Sibyl. , and the Things therein contained 
k And the things therein contai●●●.] There are certain Principles in these Books, that were not imbibed by any but the ancient Christians; the Author is of the Opinion of the Mill●naries, he believes Nero to be Antichrist, that the Souls of Men shall remain in Hell until the Resurrection, that the Fire of the Judgement shall serve instead of Purgatory, that the Terrestrial Paradise shall be preserved, and that at last the wicked shall be delivered from Hell 〈◊〉: he likewise maintains divers other Opinions of the ancient Christians. Lastly, it cannot be doubted, but that the Accounts in these Books, of the Nativity, Life and Actions of Jesus Christ, have been taken from the History of the Evangelists: And indeed, the Prophets have said nothing that comes near the Pla●●ness, that appears in the Books of the Sibyls. I shall omit many other Reasons. , do most clearly demonstrate. And if it be certain, that the eight Books, which we now have in our possession under the Name of the Sibyls, are counterfeit, it is no less true, that those that were in the hands of the Fathers, and which they cited, were equally spurious, and also that they were not much different from those that we have at this day; I affirm therefore, First, That the Books of the Sibyls, alleged by the Fathers, were not really those Sibylline Oracles that the Romans preserved, with so much Care; For besides that these last were so strictly kept, that a Copy of them could not be procured by any means whatsoever, much less common, as those were that are quoted by the Fathers, which were every where visible; it is plain, that they comprehended such matters as were altogether different from those that are usually found in the Writings of the Fathers. For in the former profane Things were only comprised, concerning the Ceremonies of the Heathens, whereas the later were full of Predictions and Instructions relating to Christianity. The Books of the Sibyls were never consulted among the Romans, without extracting from them some Superstitions perfectly Pagan 
l The Books of the Sibyls were never consulted among the Romans, without extracting from them some Superstitions perfectly Pagan.] See Livy in many places, Varro, de Ling. Lat. Lib. 5. Cicero in Verrina ult. Tacitus Lib. 15. Suetonius in Jul. Num. 97. Plin. Lib. 5. chap. 17. Solyn. Polyhist. Chap. 10. Val. Maxim. Lib. 1. Numb. 1, and 10. Plutarch in the Lives of Publicola, Fabius and Marius. Pausanias' in Phocaicis. Capitolinus in Gordiano. Trebellius Pollio in Galienis, and Vopiscus, in Aureliano & Floriano. Sext. Aurel. Victor in Claudio-Ammian. Marcellin. Lib. 22, and 23. Macrob. Saturnal. Lib. 1. chap. 17.  They were informed therein, that they ought either to offer some sort of Sacrifice to the Gods, or to fasten a Nail in the Capitol, or to celebrate some particular Games to the Honour of Jupiter. At another time it was found to be necessary to cause the Statue of Aesculapius to be brought to Rome to erect a Temple to Venus, to offer Sacrifices to the Infernal Deities, and to appease the Heathen Gods with peculiar and extraordinary Solemnities. Lastly, Nothing was ever gathered from these Books, but Ceremonies that were absolutely profane. On the contrary, the Fathers allege nothing out of the Writings of the Sibyls, but what relates to the Christian Religion, and to the true Worship of God. Is there any probability, that these Prophetesses should have uttered Things so different, and that they should have taught in one and the same Book, the way of Worshipping the True God, and the greatest superstitions of the Gentiles? Who can imagine that these Books, that were kept by the Romans to Authorise all their Superstitious Rites, and which they esteemed as the most sublime and refined part of their Religion, should contain far clearer Prophecies concerning Jesus Christ, than all that was ever declared by the Jewish Prophets? Moreover, not only the Books of the Sibyls that are now extant speak of our Saviour in such plain Expressions, as look more like a History than a Prophecy; But the same thing may be said of the Books cited by the Fathers, that comprehend the same Predictions, and even more distinct. For can there be a plainer Prediction concerning Jesus Christ, than the Verses produced by Eusebius in the Prayer attributed to Constantine?  

There is but one God, who is also the Saviour;  
Who hath suffered for us;  
Who is marked out in these Verses.   
The Acrostic quoted in the same place is not more obscure. Can any thing be spoken more expressly concerning the Creation of the World, the last Judgement, and the Life Everlasting, than what is produced by Theophilus Antiochenus, as proceeding from a Sibyl? All the other Sibylline Verses recited by the Fathers, are written almost after the very same manner on every particular Subject, and this obliged the Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles, attributed to St. Justin, to affirm, that the Sibyl had foretold the Advent of Jesus Christ in clear and evident Terms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now what an absurdity is it to believe, that the Heathens, from whom God had concealed the Coming of his Son, and whom he suffered to walk in Darkness, should have more notable Prophecies among them, than all those of the Jews, to whose Custody he had committed the Sacred Writings, and to whom he had given the knowledge of the Messiah?  
Moreover, this Argument might be urged farther, and it might be demanded from whence the Sibyls could receive the knowledge of the Messiah. It is alleged by some, that they were Inspired by God; and by others, that they took from the Holy Scripture, all that they uttered concerning Religion; but there is no probability neither in the one nor the other Assertion; For what likelihood is there that God should inspire Sorceresses and Priestesses of false Gods, that deluded Mankind, to cause them to adore the Daemons with which they were possessed? Or who can imagine, that God should make use of such Instruments to reveal his Mysteries so clearly to the World? And on the other side, how could they draw those Truths out of the Old Testament, that are but very obscurely expressed therein, and which the Jews themselves could scarcely understand?  
It remains only for a more full demonstration of the falsity of the Sibylline Oracles that were used by the Fathers to show, that they differed very little from those that still bear the same Title. To evince this, it will be sufficient to observe, that excepting three or four Passages, all the others quoted by the ancient Authors, being very numerous, are expressed in equivalent Terms in the Sibylline Books that are read even at this day. Now the strongest Argument that can be alleged to prove that a Work is ancient, is, that those Passages that have been cited by the ancient Writers are found therein. Do we not frequently demonstrate the Antiquity of an infinite number of Books, only because a particular Passage recited by some ancient Author, is there to be found? Why then may it not be concluded after the same manner, that the Sibylline Books, tho' forged, are the same with those that were formerly extant? And this Proof is of so much the more force, because this may be urged not only against one single Passage, but very many, that are alleged by different Authors, and also because the Sibylline Oracles still remain in the same Language in which they were cited. Moreover it is not to be admired, that there are some Passages which are not found therein, and that there are others which are not Verbally expressed, because some places in these Books are wanting; and it hath been often observed, that the ancient Writers are not usually very exact in their Quotations, but adhere to the Sense rather than the Literal Expression. It might likewise be added, that all that is related by the ancient Fathers concerning the Books of the Sibyls that were heretofore in use, is conformable to these: The Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles affirms, that the Style of the Sibylline Writings was not very polite; these are of the like nature; they were then reported to contain divers Anachronisms, and this Defect is also at present observable among them, They Treated concerning Jesus Christ, the last Judgement, Hell, etc. all these Things are in like manner comprised in those that we now have in our possession. Lastly, these last are very ancient, and belong to the time of the most ancient Fathers; for some Opinons may be found there, that could not be maintained but in the Primitive Ages of the Church: Such are the Errors of the Millenaries; That Nero is Antichrist; that the End of the World was near at hand; that it should happen in the time of Antoninus; that Rome should soon be destroyed 948 years after its Foundation, and many other Things that could never be asserted by later Christians, who would have been very far from admitting such Notions, when they were convinced of the falsity of these Predictions. Upon the whole matter it ought to be concluded, that the Books of the Sibyls were certainly forged in the Second Century, but it is difficult to determine the precise time, and by whom this was done; all that can be alleged as most probable is, that they began to appear about the end of the Reign of the Emperor Antoninus Pius 
m They began to appear about the end of the Reign of Antoninus Pius. Possevinus affirms, that these Books were written under the Reign of C●mmodus; but he is deceived in taking the Conflagration mentioned in Book V for the Fire of the Temple of Vesta, that happened in the time of that Emperor, for the Temple of Jerusaleus is to be understood in this place, which is called the desirable House, and the Guardian Temple of God. We have already shown, that the Author had seen Lucius and Marcus, but that he knew not the later Emperors. All the Fathers that have quoted the Sibylline Books, wrote either under the Reign of Antoninus Pius, or after that time, Josephus indeed and Hermas cite the Sibyls, but in general Terms, and there were possibly some Verses extant under their Names, even in the time of Josephus, who produceth one of them concerning the Tower of Babel, Lib. 1. Ant. c. 5.   
M. Vossius in his last Book gives us an Hypothesis of the Sibylline Oracles somewhat different from this; he acknowledgeth that the ancient Writings of the Sibyls which were preserved until the burning of the Capitol, were entirely profane, and differed from those that are cited by the Fathers; But he maintains, that among those that were brought from Greece by Octacilius Crassus, there were some Prophecies inserted that had been received from the Jews, who pretended that they were written by the Sibyls, in which the Coming of the Messiah was foretold, and that these were cited by the Fathers under the Name of The Books of the Sibyls, which Title was actually attributed to them.  
This Hypothesis, which is well enough contrived, yet lies liable to many Difficulties; for first, the Collection of Oracles ascribed to the Sibyls, that was made after the burning of the Capitol, related no less to the Pagan Superstitions, than the ancient Verses ascribed to the Sibyl of Cuma. Secondly, Since the Predictions concerning Jesus Christ, expressed in the passages of the Sibylline Books, and quoted by the Fathers, are clearer than those that were contained in the Prophecies of the Jews, there is no probability that they could proceed from any of that Nation. Lastly, The Doctrine comprised in the Books of the Sibyls, seems rather to be that of a Christian than of a Jew, since the Coming of Jesus Christ, is therein manifestly foretold; the Resurrection of the Dead, the Last Judgement, and Hell Fire, are expressly described in plain Terms; and mention is made of the Millennium, of the appearing of Antichrist, together with many other Things of the like nature, which could not be related, but by one that had been instructed in the Christian Religion. Therefore it is much more probable, that the Writings attributed to the Sibyls were forged by a Christian, rather than by a Jew.  
However, none ought to be surprised that we reject those Books as supposititious, which have been quoted by the Ancients as real, and it must not be imagined, that we thereby contemn the Authority of the Fathers, or that we impugn the Truth; on the contrary, we should do an Injury to it, if we should endeavour to support it by false Proofs, especially when we are convinced of their Forgery. The Fathers are to be excused for citing the Sibylline Verses as true, because they had not examined them, and finding them published under the Name of the Sibyls, they really believed that they were theirs; but they that are certainly informed of the contrary, would be inexcusable if they continued to rely on such Testimonials, or refused ingenuously to confess what the Truth obliged them to own. And indeed it ought not to be admired, that the Fathers did not examine these Books critically; it is sufficiently known, that they wholly applied themselves to Matters of the greatest Consequence at that time, and that they often happened to be mistaken in profane Histories, and to cite fictitious Books; such are the Works of Hystaspes, and Mercurius Trismegistus, which they almost always joined with those of the Sibyls; as also the Acts of Pilate, Apocryphal Gospels, divers Acts of the Apostles, and a great number of other Records that have been undoubtedly forged.  
But altho' the most part of the ancient Writers cited the Oracles of the Sibyls, yet there were even then many Christians that rejected them as Counterfeit, and could not be persuaded to approve the practice of those that made use of their Testimony, whom in derision they called by the Name of Sibyllists. This is attested by Origen, in his Fifth Book against Celsus: Celsus (says he) objects, that there are Sibyllists amongst us, perhaps, because he hath heard it reported, that there are some amongst us who reprove those that affirm, that the Sibyl is a Prophetess, and call them Sibyllists. St. Augustine hath likewise acknowledged the falsity of these pretended Oracles; and as often as he makes mention of them, he declares that he is not convinced of their Truth, particularly in Lib. 18. c. 45. De Civit. Dei. Were it not (says he) that it is affirmed, that the Prophecies that are produced under the Name of the Sibyls and others concerning Jesus Christ, were feigned by the Christians. And in cap. 47. It may be believed, that all the Prophecies relating to Jesus Christ, that are not contained in the Holy Scriptures, have been forged by the Christians: Wherefore there can be nothing more solid in confuting the Pagans, than to allege those Prophecies that are taken from the Books of our Enemies.  
But the Heathens (say they) doubted not of the truth of the Predictions of the Sibyls that were urged by the Fathers; they only put another sense upon them, nay they even proceeded so far as to own, that the Sibylline Verses foretold the Nativity of a certain new King, and a considerable Revolution. This is mentioned by Tully in divers places; moreover when Pompey took the City of Jerusalem, it was commonly reported, that the Sibyl had foretold, that Nature designed a King for the People of Rome; the Senate was likewise astonished at it, and, by reason of this Prediction, refused to send a General, or an Army, into Egypt. Lentulus (according to the Testimony of Cicero and S●llust) flatter▪ d himself, that he should become this King that was intimated by the Sibyl. Others have interpreted this Prophecy, with respect to Julius C●sar or Augustus, as is observed by Cicero and Suetonius. Virgil, in his Fourth E●logue, produceth the Verses of the Cuman Sibyl, foreshowing the Birth of a new King that should de●oend from Heaven. In short, it is most certain, that the Gentiles acknowledged that the Books of the Sibyls were favourable to the Christians, insomuch that the later were prohibited to read them, as appears from the Words of Aurelian to the Senate, recited by Vopiscus. I admire, (says he) Gentlemen, that you should spend so much time in consulting the Writings of the Sibyls, as if we were debating in an Assembly of Christians, and not in the principal place of the Roman Religion.  
These Arguments seem to be very plausible, but if we examine them, we shall find that they contain nothing that is solid: The Pagans never submitted to the Authority of these Books of the Sibyls that were quoted by the Fathers; on the contrary it is manifest, that Celsus was persuaded that they were forged by the Christians; and St. Augustine plainly declares, that this was the general Opinion of all the Gentiles. The Sibyl●●e Verses mentioned by Tully were Paracrosticks, that is to say, the first Verse of every Sentence comprehended all the Letters in order, that began the following Verses; now among all the Verses of the Sibyls, only those cited by Constantine are composed in Acrostics. As for the Asse●tion, that in the time of P●●pey, Julius Caesar, and Augustus, there was a general report, that it was foretold in the Sibylline Books, that a new King should be born within a little while; we may easily reply with Tully, that the Verses attributed to the Sibyls by the Heathens were made after such a manner, that any sense whatsoever might be put upon them; and that, perhaps, mention might be made therein of a certain future King, as it is usual in this kind of Prophecies. Therefore when the Grandeur of Pompey began to be formidable to the Roman Empire, they thought it fit to make use of this pretence, to prevent him from going into Egypt with an Army. And Lentulus, to whom this Charge was committed, being Governor of Syria, vainly flattered himself with this Prediction, which ●…ight peradventure be further confirmed by the Prophecies of the Jews, who expected the Coming of the Messiah, believing that he ought to be their King.  
Afterwards when it happened that Julius Caesar, and Augustus after him, actually made themselves Masters of the Roman Empire, the Prophetical Expressions of the Sibyls were interpreted in their favour▪ neither was it necessary on this account, that they should clearly point at the Coming of Jesus Christ, ●s it is expressed in the Writings of the Sibyls that are alleged by the Fathers; but it was sufficient, that they mentioned a future King, which is the usual practice of all those that undertake to utter Predictions of extraordinary Events. This gave occasion to Virgil, who intended in his fourth Eclogue to compose Verses in Honour of Pollio his Patron, as also to Extol Augustus at the same time, and to describe the Felicity of his Reign; this, I say, afforded him an opportunity to do it with greater Majesty, to make use of the name of the Sibyl▪ and to pronounce these Verses:  

Ultima Cumaei venit jam carminis ●t as;  
Mag●… ab integro 〈◊〉 n●scitur or do:  
Jam 〈◊〉 progenes C●… alto;  
Jam redit & Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna.   
By which nothing else is meant, but that at the Nativity of Saloninus the Son of Pollio, under the Consulate of his Father, and the Reign of the greatest Prince in the World, the Golden Age should return, as it was foretold by the Sibyl; That Plenty and Peace should flourish throughout the whole Universe, and that the Virgin Astr●●, the Goddess of Justice, who had abandoned the Earth at the beginning of the Iron Age, should descend again from Heaven: What is there in all this, that resembles the Prophecies concerning Jesus Christ? Or rather, what is there that is not altogether profane, and signed by an Heathen Poet, who only makes use of the Sibyls Name to flatter the Ambition of Augustus, and to add greater Authority and Lustre to that which he says in his Commendation? Lastly, the Words of Aurelian do not intimate, that the Christians were forbidden by the Pagans to read the Sibylline Books, but only that the Christians looked upon them as profane Writings, which in no wise related to their Religion, and to which they gave no Credit.  
THE Books that are attributed to Hystaspes, and Mercurius Trismegistus, and cited likewise by the ancient Fathers, are not more Genuine than the Verses of the Sibyls. There is nothing now extant of Hystaspes, and this A●… was altogether unknown to the ancient Heathens; but the same thing cannot be said of Mer●●ri●● Surnamed Trismegistus 
n Surnamed Trismegistus.] In Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Egyptians call him Thaaut; some affirm, that he was styled Trismegistus by the Grecians, because he was a great King, a great Priest, and a great Philosopher; others as Lactantius, that this Name was attributed to him, by reason of his incomparable Learning. , who is mentioned by the most ancient Pagan Writers 
o Mentioned by the most ancient Pagan Writers:] Plato in Phaedrus declares, that he invented the Characters of Letters together with Arts and Sciences. Cicero in Lib. 3. de Natura De●rum assures us, that he governed the Egyptians, and that he gave them Laws and found out the Characters of their Writings; It is Recorded by Diodorus Siculus, that he taught the Grecians the Art of discovering the Secrets of the Mind. And we are informed by Jamblichus, who quotes Manetho and Scleucus, that he wrote above Thirty five thousand Volumes. St. Clemens Alexandrinus in Stromat. Lib. 6. makes mention of Forty two Books of this Author, and gives an Account of the Subject of some of them. The Works of Mercurius Trismegistus, are cited as favourable to the Christian Religion by the Author of the Exhortation to the Centiles, said to be St. Justin, by Lactantius in the Fourth Book of his Institutions, by St. Clement, in Lib. 1. Stromat. by St. Augustine, in Tract. de 5. Haeres. and in Lib. 8. De Civit. Dei, Chap. 23. by S. Gyril of Alexandria, in Lib. 1. contra. Julianum, and by many others.  as an incomparable Person, and an Inventor of all the Liberal Arts and Sciences. He was an Egyptian, and more ancient than all the Authors, whose Works are still extant: 
Hystaspes, and Mercurius Trismegistus.  He is believed to be as Old as Moses; he either wrote, or at least it is said that he wrote, Twenty five, or Thirty thousand Volumes. But we have only two Diologues at present under his Name, one whereof is called by the Name of Poemander; and the other of Asclepius, who are the principal Speakers. The first Treatise is concerning the Will of God, and the second Treats of the Divine Power; these have been cited by the ancient Fathers, to prove the Truth of our Religion, by the Authority of so famous an Author. But it is certain that they cannot be his, 
p But it is certain that they cannot be his.] The Eternity and Divinity of the Word is clearly explained in the Poemander, and the Author of this Book attributes to the Son, the quality of being Consubstantial with the Father; he declares, that he is the Son of God our God, who proceeds from the Intellect of the Father, and he makes use of the very words of the Septuagint, in describing the Creation of the World: he Discourseth of the Fall of the first Man. In short, he Copies out several passages of the Old and New Testament and follows the Principles of the Modern Platonic Philosophy. But the Book Entitled Asclepius hath not quite so great a Tincture of Christianity: The Author Treats therein of Idolatry after an exquisite manner; he explains the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he Transcribes many things out of the Holy Scriptures, and the Works of the Grecian Writers: Lastly, he foretells the Extirpation of the Egyptian Religion.  for the Author of these Treatises is a Modern Platonic Christian, who argues from the Principles of that Philosophy, and hath taken from the Holy Scripture, that which he writ concerning the Word of God, and the Creation of the World.  
IT were needless to show the falsity of a Letter attributed to Lentulus, and directed to the Senate 
A Letter of Lentulus.  and People of Rome, concerning the Actions of Jesus Christ, since the Forgery is apparent: It is pretended to have been written by Lentulus, as Governor of Jerusalem, although he never was so; the Superscription thereof is inscribed to the Senate and People of Rome; whereas ever since there were Emperors, it was the general Custom among the Governors of Provinces to write immediately to them: Moreover the Contents of this Letter are ridiculous, there is a mean and unworthy Deseription of the Person of Jesus Christ; as particularly it is said, that his Hair was of a light Colour, long and lose after the manner of the Nazarenes; the style is also very far from the Purity and Elegancy of the Age wherein Augustus lived. In short, this Letter is not so much as mentioned by any of the ancient Writers.  
THE Letter of Pilate to Tiberius on the same Subject, concerning the Miracles of Jesus Christ seems 
Pilaet's Letter.  to be more Authentic; for it is recorded by Tertullian in his Apologotick, that Tiberius being informed of the supernatural and wonderful Operations, that were performed by our Saviour in Palestine, which were so many Testimonies of his Divinity, made report thereof to the Senate, and determined, that he ought to be Enrolled among the Gods; but that the Senate having rejected this Proposition, Tiberius nevertheless persisted in his Opinion, and forbade his Subjects to persecute the Christians. It is added, a little after by the same Author, that Pilate being a Christian in his Heart, wrote to Tiberius concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Eusebius in the second Book of his History Chap. 2. produceth this passage of Tertullian, and giving a large Account how the same of our Saviour was spread abroad, and came to the Ears of Tiberius, he says, that Pilate sent a Letter to the Emperor, according to the usual Custom of the Governors of Provinces, who were obliged to give an Account of the most remarkable Occurrences that happened within their Jurisdiction, and that he wrote to him concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, avouching that he had been informed of his Miracles by many, and that a great number of People esteemed him as a God, after he risen again from the Dead. We find in the Orthodoxographa, after the Epistle of Lentulus another attributed to Pilate and directed to Tiberius, wherein the same things are contained. But it is difficult to determine whether this Letter was extant in the time of Eusebius, or afterwards forged from his Story. However, there are divers learned Men, that doubt of the Truth of this History, which hath but very little probability in its Foundation; for what Likelihood is there that Pilate should transmit these things in writing to Tiberius, relating to a Man whom he had condemned to Death? And although▪ he had written them, is it credible that Tiberius should have made a Proposition to the Senate, for the admitting this Person into the number of the Gods upon the bare report of a Governor? And if he had propounded it, who can doubt but that the Senate would have immediately submitted to his Judgement? Therefore, tho' this Relation cannot be absolutely Charged with Falsehood, yet it ought at least to be accounted as dubious. [Dr. Pearson late Bishop of Chester in his Lectures upon the Acts of the Apostles (p. 64, 65.) vindicates the Truth of this Story against the Objections of Tanaquil F●●●● so fully▪ that I shall set down his Reasons at large: And 1. He says, that T●… might have taken his Information from the Acts of the Senate, wherein the Votes and Acts of every day were constantly set down. 2. He observes from S●●●●●ius, that Tiberius acquainted the Senate with every thing that he was informed of, whether public or private, of great or of little Concern. 3. He observes that Tib●●i●s often took no notice when the Senate decreed things against his own Opinion; and this also is expressly affirmed by 〈◊〉. 4. The Senate refused to Rank Jesus Christ amongst the Gods out of a Compliment to Ti●●●ius, who had before refused Divine Honours, Commanding that no Sta●●●● of his should be Erected in their Temples, unless for Ornament; they might probably theref●●● suspect that this was proposed by Ti●●●ius, who never spoke his mind plainly in any thing▪ to 〈◊〉 them, who could not attribute those Honours to any Body else which Tiberius had forbidden to be paid to himself, without making that Person greater than Tiberius. 5. It is not probable that Pontius Pilate should neglect so remarkable a thing, as the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, when all the Governors of particular Provinces were obliged to send Relations of every one that was considerable under their Governments to the Emperors who sent them: And the Question is not, ●s F●●●r misunderstood it, whether the Christians than made any considerable Figure in the World; but whether upon Pilat's transmitting an Account to Tiberius, of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ at Jerusalem, when he was Procurator of Jud●●, the Emperor did not propose to the Senate that this Jesus Christ might be ranked amongst the Gods; which being positively asserted by Tertulli●n, cannot be disproved by any Negative Arguments that may at this time of day be brought against it.  
But tho' these Reasons which are urged by this great▪ Man against Tanaquil Faber, sufficiently vindicate the Truth of Tertullian's Authority in this Matter; yet that is no Argument why the Epistle that goes under Pilat's Name should be Genuine. Pilate sent this Account of Jesus Christ in the Acts of his Administration, not in a particular Letter to the Emperor. The Acts are quoted by Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and St. chrysostom, and this Letter was made in all probability when the Original Acts were lost.]  
BUT we have reason to reject the Thirteen Epistles, as well those of Seneca to St. Paul, as the others 
Epistles of Seneca to St. Paul, and of St. Paul to Seneca.  of St. Paul to Seneca, as undoubted Forgeries; altho' St. Jerome, and St. Augustine seem to own them as Authentic. For (1) These Epistles are not written according to the style of St. Paul, nor in that of Seneca 
q Are not written according to the style of St. Paul, nor in that of Seneca.] The style of those that are attributed to Seneca is Barbarous, and full of words that are scarce Latin. The Epistles ascribed to St. Paul, do not suit with the Gravity of this Apostle, and contain Compliments rather than solid Instructions. . 2. It is declared therein, that in the Fire that happened in Rome under Nero, there were only 132 Houses burnt, which is a manifest falsehood since it is certain, that a great part of the City was consumed as Tacitus informs us 
r As it is related by Tacitus.] He informs us, that of Fourteen quarters of the City of Rome, there remained but four entire, that there were three, the Houses whereof were wholly consumed, that very little was left in the other Seven, and that those that were left were half burnt. . 3. The date of these Letters is false 
s The Date of these Letters is false.] One of them is Dated under the Consulate of Apri●nus and Capit●, that is, Vipsanius and Capit●, Five years before the burning of Rome, and the other under the Consulate of Phrygius and Bassus. But it was under the Consulate of Lecanius Bassus, and Li●inius Cr●ssus, that this Fire happened: And the Letter is Dated in March, whereas the Fire did not begin (according to the report of Tacitus) till May following. . 4. They contain nothing that is worthy of Seneca, or of St. Paul. 
t They contain nothing that is worthy of Seneca or of St. Paul.] There is scarcely one Moral Notion in those of Seneca, or one Christian Precept in those of St. Paul.  Lastly, it may be easily discerned, that they were feigned by some Persons, merely to gratify their Fancy, and to Exercise their Faculty of Invention.  
A late Author acknowledging, that the Epistles extant at this day under the Name of Seneca to St. Paul, and of St. Paul to Seneca are counterfeit, and yet not daring to affirm, that St. Jerom and St. Augustine, who believed them to be Genuine were deceived, hath imagined that the real Letters of St. Paul to Seneca, and of Seneca to St. Paul were lost since their time; and that those that we now have in our Possession, were substituted in their room. But besides that the respect that we have for these two Fathers, ought not to hinder us from believing, that they might be mistaken in a matter of so little moment 
u In a Matter of so little moment.] It is certain, that the Fathers have often cited Apocryphal and counterfeit Books, as we have already shown; Natalis Alexander himself the Author of the Opinion, which we now confute, Confesses it, and on the very same Account rejects the Epistle of Jesus Christ to Abgarus, and that of Abgarus to Jesus Christ, that are more Authorized by the ancient Writers than those Letters of Seneca. : it is also to be observed, that they do not positively assert, that those Epistles were Authentic, but only that they were generally reputed to be so; and that they were read under their Names: 
x But only that they were generally reputed so to be.] St. Jerom in Catalogue. I reckon Seneca in the number of Ecclesiastical Authors, by reason of certain Letters which are read by many under the Name of Seneca to St. Paul, and of St. Paul to Seneca. St. Aug. Ep. 14. now the 153. Seneca of whom certain Letters are read written to St. Paul. But in Lib. de Civit. Dei, Chap. 11. He declares that Seneca neither commended nor censured the Christians, and that he hath made no mention of them; therefore he did not believe that these Letters were his.  Moreover it might be easily demonstrated, that the Letters which remain in our hands at present, and those that were extant in the time of St. Jerom are the same, for he declares that Seneca wished in one of his Epistles, to be among his Followers, what St. Paul was among the Christians, which bears a great Analogy with what we find in the 11th Letter of Seneca to St. Paul 
y Which bears a great Analogy with that which we find in the 11th. Letter of Seneca to St. Paul.] According to St. Jerom; Optare se dicit servus ejus esse loci apud suos, cujus sit Paulus apud Christianos. ●n the 11th Letter of Seneca we find the following Expression. Cum sis vertex, & Altissimorum montium cac●men haud te indignum in prima facie Epistolarum nominandum censeas— nam qui meus tu●s apud te locus, qui tuus velim ut me●s. If apud tu●s were put instead of apud te, these words would express S. Jerom's Sense; and they seem not to be capable of admitting any other; however it is evident, that he alludes to this place. . It is not known, when or by whom these Epistles were forged, and it is difficult to determine, whether it were on their Account, that there is this passage in the false Acts of the Passion of St. Linus, that Seneca and St. Paul wrote divers Letters one to another; or whether the Narrative of this Author, gave the hint to those that forged these Letters, as Cardinal Baronius conjectures.  
LAstly among all the profane▪ Monuments that might be quoted for the Confirmation of the Truth of the Christian Religion, none seems to be more considerable than this passage of Josephus, taken 
●assage of Josephus, concerning Jesus Christ.  from Book 18. chap. 4. of his Jewish Antiquities, wherein he declares: That, at that time there was a wise Man named JESUS, (if we may only call him a Man; for he wrought many Miracles, and taught the truth to those that received it with joy,) who had a great number of Disciples, as well among the Jews as the Gentiles; that he was the CHRIST, and that being accused by the chief of his Nation, he was crucified by Pilat's Order: That nevertheless, he was not abandoned by those▪ that loved him, because he had appeared unto them alive on the Third day, as was foretold by the Prophets, and that he was the Author of the Sect of the Christians, which remains at this day.  
This Testimony of Josephus is produced by Eusebius, St. Jerome, and several others after them, as a Record very important for the establishing of the Christian Faith; but in these later times, when Matters began to be examined more accurately, there have been, and there are even at present many learned Men, who maintain that this passage doth not really belong to Josephus, and it must be Confessed, that their Conjectures are not altogether to be disallowed, for they affirm,  
1. That the style is intricate, not very fluent, and different from that of Josephus, whose▪ Expressions are generally clear and elegant.  
2. That it is evident, that this passage was inserted afterwards into the Texts of Josephus; because the Coherence of the following Sentence is interrupted; for immediately after the end thereof, we read, About that time the Jews began to be afflicted again, with another Calamity, words that have no manner of Relation to what went before, concerning our Saviour: but which manifestly appertain to the Account of the Massacre of the Jews, whom Pilate had caused to be slain in Jerusalem, that came just before this passage concerning Jesus Christ; which plainly shows (say they) that it doth not belong to Josephus, and that it hath been afterwards added.  
3. They argue, that in case this passage were taken separately, yet even than it might be easily perceived, that those are the words of a Christian, and not of a Jew; since Jesus Christ is therein called God, his Miracles and Resurrection is acknowledged, and it is declared, that these things were foretell by the Prophets; How can it be imagined that this should proceed from a Jew, especially Josephus, who seems to doubt of the Miracles recorded in the Books that were written by Hebrew Authors?  
4. What probability is there, that Josephus a Person extremely addicted to the Interest of his own Nation, should speak so honourably of Jesus Christ, whom he did not believe to be the Messiah, (as is observed by Origen in his Book against Celsus) and that he should accuse his Countrymen, as having unjustly put him to Death?  
5. Josephus describing in the same Book, Chap. 8. the Martyrdom of St. James, declares, that he was the Brother of Jesus Christ; now if he had made mention of him in some of his preceding Chapters, he would not have failed to take notice thereof, or at least, he would in this place have added somewhat in his Commendation.  
6. This Testimony (say they) is not only unknown to the Authors that lived before the time of Eusebius: but Origen expressly denies, that Josephus wrote any thing concerning our Saviour; It is very strange, (says he in Tom. 2. in Matth.) That Josephus who did not acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Messiah, should give so Authentic a Testimony concerning the Innocency of St. James. Would he have spoken to this effect, if there had been in his time so remarkable an Evidence of the Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Works of Josephus, as that which is now extant therein? Theodoret hath also observed, that Josephus knew not our Saviour. But nothing is more considerable than the silence of Photius as to this Matter, who making an exact Epitome of the Books of Josephus, takes no notice of this passage concerning Jesus Christ, which he would not have omitted, if it had been then found in all the 
Biblioth. ●od. 238.  Copies of the Writings of Josephus, and if he had believed that it was written by him.  
Lastly, that which deserves a more particular Reflection is, that it is remarked by Photius in another place, that there was extant in his time a Book concerning the Universe attributed to Josephus, which he judged to be fictitious, in regard that Jesus Christ is too honourably mentioned therein, and he adds afterwards, that he hath been since informed that this Book was written by Caius a Priest of Rome; Perhaps this passage▪ which is at present in his Antiquities, was taken from this 〈◊〉, who ●ere the Name of 〈◊〉.  
H●… replies to 〈◊〉 Testimonies of Ori●●●, 〈◊〉 and Photi●●, that those Authors happened to meet with certain Manuscripts of Joseph●●, in which this passage had been struck out by the Jews: But 〈◊〉 Answer see●… rather to weaken its Authority; for i● there were ancient Manuscripts, wherein it was not expressed, we have yet more reason to doubt of its Veracity; and the Arguments that have been already produced▪ ●●●●●ciently show, that it is more probable▪ that it hath been added in some Manuscripts by the Christians, than left out in others by the Jews. However, I shall not undertake to decide this Question, but shall leave it to the Judgement of the Reader to determine; whether the Authority of Euse●ius, St. Jer●●●e, and all the Manuscripts of Josephus that we have at present in our Possession, aught to be preferred before the abovecited Conjectures of the learned, the general Testimonies of Origen, Theo●●ret and Photius, and perhaps some ancient Manuscripts of Josep●●s, that are long ●ince l●s●.   

HERMAS.  
THERE are Three things to be examined in this Book of the Pastor, attributed to Hermas, which is one of the most famous Books of Antiquity. 
a One of the most famous Books of Antiquity.] The Book of Hermas entitled The Pastor, hath been admitted by many Churches as Canonical. S. Irenaeus citys it under the Name of Scripture, Lib. 4. chap. 3. B●ne erg● pronunciavit Scriptura quae dicit primò ●mnium cre●●, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De●s, etc. This Passage is found in the Pastor, Lib. 2. Mand. 1. Clemens Alexandrinus produceth several other Expressions, as taken from a Book of great Authority, Lib. 1. Stromat. p. 311, and 356. Lib. 2. p. 360, 379, 384, and 385. Lib. 4 p. 503. Lib. 6. p. 679. It is likewise cited by Origen as a Book of Holy Scripture, Homil. 10. in J●s. Homil. 1. in Psal. 37. Homil. 13. in Ezek. Lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, c. 3. Lib. 2. c. 〈◊〉. Lib. 2. in Matth. c. 24. 42. t. 1. Comment. in Joan●em, Lib. 10. in Ep. ad Rom. where he declares, that the same Hermas mentioned in this place of the Epistle of S. Paul, is the Author of the Pastor, item in Oseam, Phil●c●l. c. 8. Although he observes in other places, that it was not generally received in H●mil. 8. in Numb. Lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Philocal. c. 2. and Homil. 35. in Luc. It is reported by Eusebius, Lib. 3. ch. 3. that some reckoned it among the Canonical Writings, and others in the number of good Ecclesiastical Books that were necessary for new Converts, Lib. 3. c. 25. He placeth it amongst the Apocryphal Books, and observes, Lib. 5. c. 8. that it is quoted by S. Irenaeus. St. Athanasius citys it in Lib. de Incarnate. Verbi, and in Lib. de Decret. Synodi Nic●n●, p. 252. Edit. P●ris. 266. where he expressly declares, that it is not included in the Canon. He quotes it again in his Epistle to the Bishops of Phrygia, p. 396. and in his Paschal Epistle he inserts it in the Catalogue of Books that are not Canonical. S. Jerom, in Lib. de Script●ribus, affirms, that it is a useful Book, but almost unknown to the Latins. In his Prologue, he placeth it in the rank of Books that are not Canonical. In Comment. in Hoseam, c. 7. v. 9 he citys it, adding these words, Si cui tamen placet ejus reciper● L●cti●n●●. In his first Book on Habakkuk, ad c. 1. v. 14. he calls it Apocryphal, and finds fault with a foolish Thought in the Book. Ruffinus on the Creed reckons it among the Ecclesiastical Books, though not Canonical. It is cited by Cassian. Collat. 8. c. 12, 13, and 17. And S. Prosper rejects it as a Book of no Authority. Ut nullius Autoritatis, contra Collat. c. 30. Gel●sius inserts it in the List of Apocryphal Books. And lastly, Maximus citys it in Lib. 4. De divinis nominibus. This shows, that notwithstanding its various fortune, it hath been always very famous.  1. Who is the Author thereof? 2. Whether it be Canonical or not? 3. Whether it be a useful Book; as also, whether it deserves the Esteem and Reputation that it formerly had?  
The first Question may be easily determined. It bears the Name of Hermas, and all the ancient Writers have cited it under this Name; it appears likewise from the Antiquity thereof, that it might possibly be written by that Hermas, whom S. Paul salutes at the end of his Epistle to the Romans. Origen, Eusebius and S. Jerom have made no difficulty of asserting it; however, it cannot be doubted, but that the Author of this Book was called Hermas, and that the Name of Hermes hath been attributed to him by some Authors through a mistake, which gave occasion to certain Modern Writers, to ascribe this Book to one Hermes, the Brother of Pope Pius I. 
b To impute this Book to one Hermes, the Brother of Pope Pius I.] The Author of Dam●sus's Pontifical, Regin●, the Author of the Letter of Pope Pi●● 〈◊〉. and some other modern Writers, are in this Error, and they seem to have taken it from the Author of the Poem against Martion, who affirms, that Hermas, who wrote this Book, was the Brother of Pius; Post hunc deinde Pius, Hermas cui Germine frater Angelicus Pastor cui tradit● verb● locutus. But he calls him, Hermas and not Hermes; It is true indeed, that we find in the Version of Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made by Ruffinus, Lib. 1. c. 3. and Lib. 4. c. 2. Hermes instead of Hermas; but it is a fault of the Transcriber, for in the Greek Text of the last Fragment that is extant of the Phil●calia, it is read Hermas, and not Hermes; and Ruffinus himself in other places calls him Hermas. Moreover all the ancient Writers, as St. Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, S. Jerom, and others abovementioned, always call him Hermas, and never Hermes. Baronius and some others distinguish two Books, one written by Hermes the Brother of Pius, which Treated of Easter, and the other by our Hermas; but since they ground their Opinion only on the Authority of modern Writers, in attributing a Book to this pretended Hermes, a Person unknown to all Antiquity, their Conjecture seems to be without any probability.  But this Imagination is sufficiently refuted by the Testimony of all the ancient Fathers, who constantly call him Hermas, besides the Author of this Book was a Greek, and his Writings were more known amongst the Greeks, than the Latins, as is observed by S. Jerom, which would not have happened, if it had been Composed by the Brother of Pope Pius. 
Hermas.   
As for the Authority of this Book, it is certain that it hath been heretofore received in many Churches as Canonical, and that S. Irenaeus, S. Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and even Tertullian in Lib. de Oratione, cite it as a part of Holy Scripture; nevertheless it cannot be doubted, that it hath been rejected by divers other Churches, 
c It cannot be doubted that it hath been rejected by divers other Churches.] Origen acknowledgeth, that it was Thrown out of the Canon of Holy Scripture by many Christians; Turtullian, in Lib. de Pudiciti●, replies to certain Persons, who objected it to him, that this Book was rejected by divers Orthodox Churches. Eusebius, S. Athanasius, S. Jerom, and Ruffinus abovecited, reckon it among those Writings that are not Canonical, yet such as may be useful for the Instruction of Christians; and Gelasius placeth it amongst the Apocryphal Books.  and esteemed only as a Treatise, that might be used to very good purpose for the Edification of Christians: But there have been very few ancient Authors, that have not set a high Esteem on this Book, and it hath been almost always cited by the Fathers, as a Work of great Authority 
d It hath been cited as a Book of great Authority.] Tertullian censures it, but after he turned Montanist, Origen observes that it was contemned by some Christians, but that he had a great Esteem for it. S. Jerom in one place accuseth it of Nonsense, but in others he commends it. S. Prosper throws it aside as a Book of no Authority; but it was because he scarce knew it. .  
It hath not been so much valued by Modern Authors, and there are very few at present that commend it; or that have the same regard to it, as those that lived in the primitive Ages of the Church. And indeed, if we may judge by the Method according to which it is written, and by the things therein contained, it doth not seem to deserve much Esteem. The First part Entitled the Visions is full of many Revelations, that are explained to Hermas by a Woman representing the Church; they all relate to the State of the Church, and the manners of the Christians. The Second part which is most useful, is called the Ordinances, wherein are comprised divers Precepts of Morality, and pious Instructions, which the Pastor or Angel of Hermas prescribes to him. The Third Part is called The Similitudes, because it gins with several Similes or Comparisons, and concludes with Visions. These three Books comprehend very many Moral Instructions concerning the Practice of Christian Virtues; but the great number of Visions, Allegories, and Similitudes, make them tedious, and all these Moral Truths would, in my opinion, have been more useful, if the Author had propounded them simply, as the Apostles have done in their Epistles.  
We have lost the Original Greek Text of these three Books; and there remains only a Version which is printed in the Orthodoxagrapha, as also in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and hath been likewise published separately by Barthius, and lastly by Cotelerius, together with the Greek Fragments extracted from ancient Authors. It is not known when, nor by whom this Translation was composed; some attribute it to Ruffinus; and others affirm, that it was made in the Primitive Ages of Christianity, when the Writings of Hermas were not altogether unknown to the Latins. However it be, this Version is not amiss, since it exactly agrees with the Greek Passages cited by St. Clement, Origen, Antiochus, and some other ancient Writers.  
[There have been other Editions of Hermas' Pastor, besides these which M. Du Pin mentions: It was first published by Jacobus Faber at Paris, 1513. Then at Strasburg, 1522. And it was lately published from two MS. Copies at Oxon, with short Notes in 12o. A. D. 1685.]   

S. CLEMENS ROMANUS.  
ST. Clement the Disciple, and Coadjutor of the Apostles 
a St. Clement the Disciple and Coadjutor of the Apostles.] This is the same Clement whom S. Paul mentions, Phil. 4. v. 3. reckoning him in the number of those that had laboured together with him in propagating the Gospel, and that had assisted him in his Ministry; With Clement also, and with other my Fellow-labourers, whose Names are in the Book of Life. , was ordained Bishop of Rome after S. Anacletus 
b Was ordained Bishop of Rome after Anacletus.] He is reputed by S. Irenaeus, Eusebius, and other ancient Writers, to have been the third Bishop of Rome, tho' some affirm, that he was the immediate Successor of S. Peter; but it is better in my opinion to adhere to S. Irenaeus. , in the year of our Lord 93. Divers Books are attributed to him, some of 
S. Clemens Romanus.  which are really his, others are ancient tho' supposititious, and others are both counterfeit and modern: And indeed we can only reckon among those that were certainly composed by this Bishop the two Epistles to the Corinthians, the first whereof, so famous among the ancient Authors 
c So famous among the ancient Authors.] S. Irenaeus hath cited it, Lib. 3. chap. 3. S. Clemens Alex. Lib. 1. Stromat. p. 289. and Lib. 4. p. 516. Lib. 5. p. 686. Lib. 6. p. 647. Origen, Lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; chap. 3. In Joan. 1. chap. 29. Euseb. Lib. 3. chap. 16, and 36. Lib. 4. chap. 22, and 23. S. ●yrill, Catech. 18. Epiph. Haeres. 27. N. 7. Hieron. in Lib. de Viris illustribus, and Lib. adversus Jovin. c. 7. Comment. in Isaiam, Lib. 14. chap. 52. vers. 13. Comment. in Ep. ad Ephes. Lib. 1. chap. 2. vers. 2. Lib. 2. ad chap. 4. vers. 1. Author. R●sp. ad Orthodox. apud Just. Quaest 74. Photius, Cod. 113. , was undoubtedly written by him. Irenaeus Book 3. chap. 8. speaks thus. In the time of S. Clement, (says he) upon occasion of a great Division that happened in the Church of Corinth, the Church of Rome wrote a very pathetical Letter to the Corinthians, to restore them to Peace, wherein she strengthens their Faith, and preacheth those Traditions that they had lately received from the Apostles. This Epistle which is cited by S. Cle●●ns Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, S. Jerom, and Photius, was for a long time concealed, until at length M. Patrick Young having found it in an ancient Manuscript 
d In an ancient Manuscript▪] It is called The Manuscript of Thecla, because it was written with the hand of an ancient Virgin called Thecla, who lived, (as is generally believed) in the time of the first Council of Nice. These Epistles have been since printed in the Collection of Cotelerius, in L●bbee's Edition of the Councils, and at Helmstadt in the year 1654. [As also at Oxford in 1677.] , caused it to be printed at Oxford, Anno Dom. 1633.  
After the Holy Scriptures, it is in my opinion one of the most eminent Records of Antiquity. S. Clement, therein exhorts the Faithful of the Church of Corinth, that was in a Disturbance by the revolt of some Christians, who refused to submit to their lawful Pastors, he exhorts them, I say, to a Reunion, and to seek after Peace; particularly he admonisheth them to persevere in the Obedience and Submission that they owed to their Spiritual Guides, he censures those that disturbed the Church, and that promoted secret Cabals against their Ministers on purpose to supplant them; He gins with putting them in mind of the Happiness of that Peace which they had formerly enjoyed; afterwards he represents to them the misfortune of their present Divisions, and proceeds to show by many Examples, what lamentable Consequences have always attended it, and how displeasing it is to God: Moreover he adviseth them to repent, in practising Humility, Obedience, and Charity, in imitation of the Humility of Jesus Christ, and the Mercy of God, through the Hope of a Resurrection: From thence he takes an occasion to recommend to the Faithful the Practice of many Christian Virtues, and the Observation of a Regular Discipline: He declares to them, that it was very ill done to rise up against the Pastors and Bishops that were Constituted by the Apostles, or Elected by the Faithful after their Death▪ He aggravates the heinousness of their Crime that were the first promoters of this Division, and earnestly solicits them to return to their Duty by obeying their Ministers, and by reuniting themselves with the rest of the Believers. Thus you have an account of the Subject of this Epistle written by S. Clement in the name of the Church of Rome to that of Corinth, about the end of the Persecution raised by the Emperor Domitian. The Style thereof (says Photius) is simple and clear, and it comes very near the natural and artless manner of Expression used by the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors. I shall add, that one may discern a great deal of Energy and Vigour, accompanied with much Prudence, Gentleness, Zeal, and Charity.  
The second Epistle of S. Clement is not so certainly known to be his; Eusebius, S. Jerom, and Photius observe, that there is reason to doubt of its being Genuine, because it is not mentioned by the ancient Writers; nevertheless some of the Fathers have cited both these Epistles, as if they were of equal Authority 
e Some of the Fathers have cited both these Epistles, as if they were of equal Authority.] The Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, c. ult. S. Epiphan. H●res. 27. chap. 6. and 30. chap. 15. S. Jerom, adversus J●v. chap. 7. Photius C●d. 126. Damasus, Lib. 4. Orth. Fidei. S. Dionys●●s of Corinth takes notice but of one single Epistle, and there is some difference in the style of the second, which makes us doubt of its Veracity. The Sibyls were heretofore cited therein, if we may give Credit to the Author of the Questions attributed to S. Justi●; but he doth not declare, whether it were in the first Part, or in the second, and part of the second is lost. Moreover S. Epiphanius seems to mention other Epistles of S. Clement. . The Fragment that is now extant of this last Letter published in Latin by Wendelinus, and in Greek by Mr. Young, is an Exhortation to the Practice of Repentance, and of divers Christian Virtues on the account of the Mercy of God, and the Reward that is promised to the Faithful.  
Besides these two Epistles, several voluminous Books have been attributed to S. Clement even in the Primitive Ages of the Church, that were not his; such were (as Eusebius declares in the third Book of his History, chap. ●8.) the Disputes of S. Peter and Appion, whereof the ancient Authors have made no mention, and which contain Matters that are far from the Purity of the Apostolical Doctrine: We may conjecture, that these Writings were part of the Book, Entitled, Recognitiones Clementis, which is likewise called, The Voyages, Itin●ra●y, or Acts of S. Peter: This Work, though▪ fictitious, is ancient, being cited by Origen 
f Being cited by Origen.] Tom. 〈◊〉. Comment. in Genes. in Philocal. chap. 22. and in Matth. ch. 26. Euseb. lib. 3. Hist. chap. 3, and chap. 38. Athanas. in Synops. Epiph. H●res. 30. chap. 25. Hieron. in Catalogue. and Lib. 1. in Jovin. chap. 14. and Comment. in Ep. ad G●lat. Lib. 1. chap. 18. Ruffinus de Adulterate. Lib. Orig. Author op. imp. in Matth. chap. 10. vers. 15, 16, 24, and 42▪ Photius, Cod. 112, and 113. , Eusebius, S. Athanasius, S. Epiphanius, S. Jerom, and the Author of The Commentaries on S. Matthew, ascribed to S. Chrysostom: Ruffinus hath made a Translation thereof which is still extant; Gelasius hath inserted it in the Catalogue of Apocryphal Books; and Photius observes, that there are Absurdities and Errors to be found in it: And indeed it is a Writing full of Fables, Tales, Conferences, and ridiculous Disputes, feigned at pleasure, and pretended to be holden between S. Peter and Simon Magus, concerning certain Events and Occurrences that are related after a childish manner; But that which is more dangerous, is, that we may easily discover in several Passages thereof the Opinions of the Ebionites, though▪ much palliated, together with many other Errors. In short this Book is of no use, if we reflect on the Style and Method in which it is written, or on the Things that are comprised therein.  
I shall not pass the same censure upon the Apostolical Constitutions that are likewise falsely imputed to S. Clement, and which, tho' written by a later Author 
g Tho' written by a later Author.] The Author of the Recognitions is not the same with the Author of the Constitutions, tho' some have been of this Opinion; for their style is different; the later is well versed in the Principles of the Christian Religion, and in the Rites of the Church, but the other is ignorant of these matters; moreover they maintain a contrary Doctrine: The Author of the Constitutions, in lib. 8. c. 46. reckons the Sun, Moon, and Stars, in the number of inanimate Creatures; whereas the Author of the Recognitions imagineth, that they have a Soul, in lib. 5. chap. 16. Lastly, the Author of the Constitutions was not an Ebionite, but he that writ the Recognitions was. , yet contain many things very useful to the Discipline of the Church; ●t is not known by whom, nor when they were composed 
h It is not known by whom, ●r when they were composed.] It is certain that they do not belong to the Apostles, as we have already evidently demonstrated. ; All that can be certainly affirmed is, that they are cited by S. Epiphanius 
i They are cited by S. Epiphanius.] In Haeres. 45. this Father produceth a passage that is found in the beginning of the Constitutions, and in Haeres. 80. he citys another, which we read in Lib. 1. Constitut. chap. 3. concerning the Beards of Priests. In H●res. 25. he quotes a passage taken from Lib. 5. chap. 14, and 17. relating to the Fasts enjoined on Wednesday and Friday, as also on the Days before Easter. In H●res. 70. he observes, that the Audians made use of certain Constitutions▪ which, though dubious, ought not altogether to be rejected, as containing nothing contrary to the Faith or Discipline of the Church. This may induce us to believe, that the Constitutions which are now extant, have been corrupted since the time of Epiphanius, because the same thing could not be assumed of those. Add to this, that in the same place Epiphanius citys a passage concerning Easter, wherein the Christians are admonished to celebrate that Feast together with the Jews, and the contrary is expressly declared in Constitut. Lib. 5. chap. 1●. Moreover in the same place, he produces other Testimonies, out of the Constitutions that are not found therein: Perhaps S. Epiphanius had not sufficiently examined this Work, or perhaps he cited it without Book, or on the Report of another; However it be, he acknowledgeth it to be dubious. , and the Author of The Commentary on S. Matthew, falsely attributed to St. Chrysostom; but the passages which are produced by them not perfectly agreeing with those that are found in the Constitutions which are extant at this day, we may be induced to conjecture that they have been since corrupted, and so much the rather, because they are infected with the Arian Heresy 
k Because they are infected with the Arian Heresy.] In Lib. 6. chap. 25. the Author reckons in the number of Heretics, those that believe that JESUS is the same with the God of the Universe, but this might have been said in opposition to the Sabellians; and so much the rather since he adds, and do not distinguish the Son and the Holy Ghost. Many other Passages are likewise alleged, wherein he affirms, that the Son and the Word is the Servant, and Minister of God the Father. These are the Phrases used by the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, but they have been suspected ever since the Council of Nice. . and several other Errors. This is the Judgement that was given concerning them by the Greek Bishops in the Synod that was convened in the Imperial Palace of Constantinople after the fifth General Council. However I admire that the Learned Photius 
l That the Learned Photius.] He censures them on Three several Accounts. in ●od. 112. First ex malafictione, from which (as he says) they may be vindicated; Secondly, by reason of some Expressions used by the Author, which are Contradictory to the Book of Deuteronomy, and for these he might likewise be excused; and Lastly, he chargeth him with Arianism, from which he cannot be cleared without offering him some violence.  hath not made this Observation, and that he hath imputed the Errors of this Book to its Primitive Author.  
It remains only to inquire, whether this Book be the same as that which is mentioned by Eusebius 
m Mentioned by Eusebius.] Euseb. Lib. 3. chap. 25. Athan. in Ep. Fest. & Synopsi.  and S. Athanasius, Entitled, The Doctrine, or the Precepts, of the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is the Opinion of Nicephorus 
n Of Nicephorus.] Niceph. in Stichometria. Zonara's in Ep. Ath. Mat. Blast●res in a Collection of Canons that is not Printed. , Zonaras, and Matthaeus Blastares; but it seems to me to be most probable, that The Constitutions of the Apostles, and the Book called their Doctrine, were two different Works which the likeness of their Titles hath caused to be confounded 
o Which the likeness of their Titles hath caused to be confounded.] There are many Reasons to prove, that these are two different Books, for first S. Athanasius reckons the Book of the Doctrine of the Apostles, among those that were usually read to the Catechumen, whereas the Constitutions were Composed rather for the use of Bishops, and we find it prohibited in the last Canon to publish them, or to discover the Contents thereof to all sorts of People. Secondly, the Book of the Doctrine of the Apostles, contained only Two hundred Verses according to the Stichometria of Nicephorus, which cannot agree with the Constitutions, that are more voluminous▪ Thirdly, in the Index of Scripture made by Anastasius Nicenas, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are mentioned as distinct Books, and in some Manuscripts the Constitutions are Entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Fourthly, in the Epitome of S. Athanasius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are distinguished; therefore this Work was not attributed to S. Clement▪ Fifthly, when Eus●bius Discourses of the Writings of S. Clement, he takes no notice of the Apostolical Constitutions, neither have the Ancients mentioned them. The Arians might have objected them, in Vindication of their Heresy, and the Orthodox would have been obliged to make a Reply, but this is not done by either Party; therefore they are of a later Da●e, than the Doctrine of the Apostles; that was known to Eusebius, and S. Athanasius. These Reasons howsoever probable they may seem to be, are not altogether Irreprehensible; to the First it is replied, that the Constitutions were made for the use of all Christians, as appears from the first Words thereof; that the last Canon might perhaps be of a later Date; that S. Ath●nasius observes only, that this Book was useful for the instructing of Catechumen in the Discipline, and Faith of the Church, tho' it was not Canonical, which may be very safely affirmed of these Constitutions. In Answer to the Second it is alleged, that there were two Editions of the Constitutions, one more large being that which is now extant; and another, that was an Epitome thereof, and perhaps Nicephorus makes mention of this last under the Name of The Doctrine of the Apostles: Besides that there are some Manuscripts wherein there are 6000 Verses, and besides the Length of every particular Verse is not known. Thirdly, that the Distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing to the purpose, the one possibly was an Abridgement of the other, neither is it certain, whether The Constitutions, be the Books now called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Fourthly, the Clementinae are a Work different from the Constitutions, as well as The Doctrine of the Apostles. Lastly, the ancient Writers have not cited every thing that occured to them; the Arians have not made all the Objections that were obvious; and the Orthodox have not replied to every particular Circumstance that might be objected against them. These are the Answers, that are propounded to those that distinguish this Book of The Doctrine of the Apostles from The Constitutions, and I shall leave it to the Determination of the Reader, whether they do not cause greater Difficulties; for my part, I believe the formet Opinion to be more probable.   
It is therefore extremely difficult to determine when the Constitutions ascribed to the Apostles first appeared, since the Author of them is absolutely unknown, neither can it be proved whether they were at first the same as they are now. We can only conjecture, that it is most probable that the Constitutions ascribed to the Apostles, or St. Clement belong to the third, or rather the fourth Century, and that they have been from time to time corrected, altered, and augmented, according to the various Customs of different Ages and Countries 
p That they have been from time to time Corrected, etc. according to the various Customs of different Ages and Countries.] It is on this Account, that the Ethiopians have certain Constitutions different from Ours, which are cited by Anastasius Nicenus, Cod. 189. in the King's Library, and in his Questions, Q. 160. where they are much commended. .  
Those that we have at present are not in Greek. Crabb gives us a Latin Epitome of them in his second Edition of the Councils, Pinted Anno 1557. The first entire Version that ever appeared, was made by Bovius, and inserted by Surius in the Collection of Councils, which he set forth in the years 1567., and 1585. Nicolinus published another Translation of the Constitutions composed by Turrianus, together with the Annotations of the same Author; this was Printed at Venice in 1563, and at Antwerp in 1578. Afterwards Binius caused it to be reprinted in his first Edition of the Councils, Anno Dom. 1606. but he did not think fit to allow it a place in his second Edition of the year 1608. Fronto Ducaeus, a Jesuit, is the first that published a Greek and Latin Edition of those Constitutions at the end of Zonaras, which was annexed to the new Collection of Councils. They are divided into eight Books, containing a great number of Precepts relating to Christian Duties, especially to those of Pastors, and concerning the Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church, of all which it would be too tedious to give a particular account. They that are desirous to be further informed, may have recourse to the Titles of the Chapters that are prefixed to these Tracts.  
The last Work attributed to S. Clement, is a Collection of divers Pieces, Entitled, Clementinae, and there hath been a Book under this Title for some time: The Author of the Epitome of the H. Scriptures attributed to S. Athanasius mentions them, and after him the Chronicle of Alexandria, Nicephorus Callistus in the third Book of his History, chap. 18. S. John Damascen, and some others 
q 8. John Damascen and some others.] S. Epiphanius seems to quote Haeres. 26. n. 16. as also Anastasius; Q. 20. p. 242. Maximus in Homil. 53. and 55. Cedr●nus in Compend. Hist. p. 170, and 171. Moreover it is cited in a Collection of the Works of the Fathers, which is in the Library of the Jesuits College at Clermont, and by Nicon in his Pandect. .  
Perhaps this is the second Part of the Recognitions cited by Ruffinus, for it is a Continuation of the Preach and Acts of S. Peter. The Greek and Latin Collection, published by Cotelerius under this Name, contains divers Tracts full of Errors in Philosophy, as also of the Heresy of the Ebionites, and is such another Book as the Recognitions. There must needs have happened some Alteration in these Clementinae, as well because they do not agree with that which is cited from them by Maximus, and by the Author of the Chronicle of Alexandria, as because they are infected with the Errors of Eunomius; besides, there is a Passage cited by an Author in the Library of the College of Clermont which is not to be found there; and we are informed by Nicephorus, that the Clementinae are an Orthodox Work, whereas this (as we have already shown) abounds with Errors. It contains, first, two Apocryphal Letters, one of which is attributed to S. Peter as written to S. James, wherein he adviseth him not to deliver the Book of his Preach to the Gentiles, which is followed by a Protestation of S. James. The other is a Letter of S. Clement to S. James, which tho' it be ancient, and translated by Ruffinus, yet is certainly counterfeit; as we shall hereafter show when we give an account of the Forgeries of the Decretals of the Popes. To these two Epistles there are nineteen Homilies annexed relating to the Voyages, Preach, and Disputes of S. Peter. Moreover at the end of this Work is likewise inserted an Epitome of the Actions of S. Peter extracted from the Clementinae, the Recognitions, and the Epistle of S. Clement. Cotelerius found three of them in the King's Library, and hath published but one, which is the shortest, formerly published by Turnebus, and Printed at Paris Anno Dom. 1555. All these Writings, which are of very little use because they are full of Errors, are only a Contexture of Fables and idle Tales. Lastly, Cotelerius hath added the Records of the Martyrdom of S. Clement, concerning the Antiquity whereof we have no assurance, and which appear on the contrary to have been composed by the modern Greeks 
r 
Which appear on the contrary, to have been Composed by the Modern Greeks.] It is related in these Acts, that S. Clement was sent beyond Sea, (ultra mare) and afterwards into a Desert near the City, (in Desertum urbi vicinum). That he found there 2000 Christians condemned to hue Marble out of the Quarries, who entreated him saying, Ora pro nobis Pontifex, ut digni efficamur promissione Christi; Pray for us O Priest, that we may be made worthy of the Promise of Christ. That S. Clement caused a Spring to rise up in that place, because these Christians were obliged to fetch water Six Miles off from thence, that they built there within one Year 75 Churches, that they demolished the Temples, and cut down consecrated Trees to the Number of 300000, that the Emperor Trajan being astonished at these Actions, sent thither the Precedent Aufidianus, who caused S. Clement to be drowned; that whilst his Disciples sought after the Relics of his Body, the Sea withdrew, and they found it laid in a Tomb of stone, and that it was revealed to his Disciples, that his Body should not be taken away, and that the Sea should retire after the same manner every Year during seven Days, which it continues to do (says the Author of these Acts) even unto this Day, and this was accompanied with divers Miracles. Here are many Fables that do not agree with the time of S. Clement. Who can imagine that People condemned to hue Stones should find means to Erect 75 Churches, and to pull down an infinite Number of Temples? S. Ephrem, or rather the Author of the Narrative, which is falsely said to be his, giveth an Account of the same Miracle, concerning the Sea that was dried up, to discover the Body of S. Clement and adds that his Child being left in a Tomb, was found alive, and in good health at the end of the year following: But this pretended Ephrem is an Author no less addicted to Fables, who calls himself Archbishop of Chersona, tho' he never was in that place.  
[There have been several Editions of S. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, besides Mr. Young's and Cotelerius': Joachim Maderus Printed it at Helmstadt 1654. in Quarto; Colomesius likewise set it out at London in Octavo, with some few Notes 1687; and it was Printed at Oxon in 1677 in Twelve. All these Editions are in Greek and Latin; Mr. Burton who writ Notes upon Antonius' Itinerary, as far as it concerned Britain, Translated it into English, and Printed it with Notes in Quarto 1647, at London.]  .  
Now it will not be amiss briefly to recollect all that hath been said concerning the Works of S. Clement, and to declare our Opinion in this matter. The first Epistle to the Corinthians was certainly written by him, and is a good and useful Treatise. The second is very ancient, tho' not of the same Authority. The Constitutions are an ancient and useful Book falsely imputed to S. Clement, in which many things have been added and altered in process of time, for which Reason several Errors have crept in amongst them. The Recognitions are an Apocryphal Work, ancient indeed, but abounding with Errors and Fables. The same Judgement ought to be given concerning the Clementinae, which are not perhaps so ancient, as also the second Part of the Recognitions. The Book Entitled, The Doctrine of the Apostles, may be the same with the Original Constitutions, but it is more probable that they are a different Work. We can give no account of the Book that bears the Title of The Precepts of S. Clement, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Voyages or Itinerary of S. Peter are the same as the Recognitions and the Clementinae. The Epitome is an Abridgement of these Apocryphal Writings. The Acts of the Martyrdom of S. Clement were composed by the modern Greeks. The Discourse of Ephrem is likewise of a later Date. There were also certain Sermons ascribed to S. Clement concerning the Just Judgement of God and Divine Providence cited by Anastasius Antiochenus, Quest. 96. but there is no probability of their being his. The five Decretals are counterfeit; and the Revelations or Apocalypse of S. Peter, heretofore thought to have been written by S. Clement, is likewise supposititious. Thus we have given in short the Judgement that (according to our Opinion) ought to be given of all the Books that are, or have been, attributed to S. Clemens Romanus, and all that we judge necessary to be propounded or explained concerning them in this place.   

S. DIONYSIUS the Areopagite.  
DIONYSIUS the Areopagite; who is reputed to have been a Native of Thrace, 
a A Native of Thrace.] Caesarius Dialog. 2. interrogat. 112. in Thracia ex qua Dionysius Areopagite ortus est.  after he had been converted by S. Paul, as it is recorded in the Acts 
b Acts 17.  of the Apostles; was made Bishop of Athens 
c Was constituted Bishop of Athens] Dionysius Corinthius in Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 4. and lib. 4. cap. 4. , and suffered Martyrdom 
d And suffered Martyrdom.] Aristides in Usuard●●, and the other ancient Writers of Martyrologies.  in that City. I shall not spend time in proving that he never came into France, and that that S. Denys who was the first Apostle of this Kingdom, is different from the Areopagite; this Question has been so clearly discussed in our time 
e This question hath been so clearly discussed in our time.] Sirmondus' published a Discourse wherein he proves it beyond contradiction; after him Launoy wrote several Tracts to confirm his Opinion, and to show the falsehood of the Records produced by Hilduinus, which are urged to authorise the vulgar Opinion; and in a word, to confute all the Arguments that are usually brought. To which we may add what Morinus had said concerning this Question in the beginning of his Book of Ordinations; And though I inserted nothing relating to this matter in the Text, yet I thought it convenient to set down the Opinions of the Learned Men abovementioned, for the benefit of those that have not read their Works. The first Proof is, That it is certain that the Gospel was Preached later in France, than in the other Regions of the World, and that there was no Persecution in that Country before that of Valerian, as it is expressly attested by Sulpicius Severus an Author who lived in the Fourth Century. Now if St. Dionysius the Areopagite had been in 〈◊〉, the Christian Religion would have been introduced there very early, and there would have been many Martyrs in that Kingdom before the Perfection▪ of 〈◊〉. Secondly, It is evident that 〈◊〉 was the first that propagated Christianity in France; that during his Life, and that of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Faith was only established in the Pro●●●●●s of 〈◊〉 and Ly●●●, and that there were no Martyrs but in these two Churches in the time of the Persecution of 〈◊〉 Aurelius; therefore there were no other Churches then planted among the Ga●ls. And indeed ●●se●i●s mentions no other Churches, or any other Martyr's in 〈◊〉, no more than the Christians of the Church of Ly●●s in the Epistle that they wrote concerning their Martyrs called by them Prot●-Ma●●yrs. Thirdly, it is related by 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉▪ in the first Book of his History, chap. 2●. on the credit of an ancient Author that composed a Treatise concerning the Passion of St. Sat●rni●s, that St. Denys and his Companions the Apostles of France, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the 〈◊〉 of the Emperor 〈◊〉, about the year of our Lo●● 250, to ●…blish the Faith of Jesus Christ in that Country, which was almost entirely extinct after the death of St. 〈◊〉. Fourthly, there are great numbers of Martyrologies, in which the Festivals of St. Di●●ysius the A●●●pagite, and of St. Denys the Apostle of France, are described as on two different days, and wherein the place and circumstances of their Martyrdom are distinguished. We may likewise draw the same Argument from the ancient Breviaries, Miss●ls, Kal●ndars and L●it●ni●s in which St. Denys the Apostle of France is reckoned after the Saints that suffered under Marcus Aurelius. Fifthly, the Author of the Life of St. Fuj●ianus▪ Fulbertus, Carnutensis, and Lethaldus, distinguish two Denies. Sixthly, the opinion of those that affirm, that S. D●●ys the Apostle of France is the same with the Areopagite, was unknown before the Ninth Century▪ neither doth the Monk that wrote the Life of our St. Denys in the year 750, say one word concerning this matter. ●ildui●●s, who is the first that mentions it, is a very fabulous Author, who tells abundance of Lies, and citys a Book written by one named Vi●bius, which is plainly forged▪ on the credit of which wretched Author he builds up the Opinion of those that confound the two St. Denies. , that there is scarcely any one, tho' never so incredulous that can question it. I could also very willingly forbear to give any Account of the Books that are attributed to him, or to show how they have been forged, were it not that the Design of my Work obligeth me to this undertaking; therefore I shall do it with as much Brevity and Moderation as is possible.  
We must observe First, that the manner of the first appearing of those Books ought to be suspected; for it is certain, that being unknown to all Antiquity, they were first quoted by the Severian Heretics, in a Conference holden between them, and the Orthodox Bishops at Constantinople in the Palace of the Emperor Justinian 532 Years after the Nativity of Jesus Christ. The silence of all the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, is without doubt a very great prejudice to them; for who can imagine that so considerable an Author as S. Denys (if these Books had been really Composed by him) should have been unknown to Eusebius and S. Jerom. And who can believe, that if they had known them, they should take no notice of them, when they Composed an exact Catalogue of all the Authors, of whom they had any knowledge; not omitting even those, that had so little Reputation that they were scarcely heard of in the World? Is it possible that Eusebius in making mention of Dionysius the Areopagite in two several places, should not have observed according to his usual Method, that he had written several Books. S. Jer●● in his Epistle to Magnus doth not omit the Testimony of one single Author, to prove that it is lawful to make use of profane Books, whereas the Writings of S. Denys, might have served as a notable Proof; why then doth he not speak so much as one word concerning them? He gives us an Account in his Catalogue, of Quadratus Bishop of Athens, and of Aristides the Athenian Philosopher; is it possible that S. Denys should be more obscure than these two Writers, or less esteemed by S. Jerom? How could it happen, that all the ancient Writers that mention S. Dionysius the Areopagite, as Dionysius Corinthius, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, and the Author of the Dialogues ascribed to S. Caesarius the Brother of S. Gregory Nazianzen, should give us no Intimation of these Books? In short why were these Books which contain many things relating to the Doctrine, and Discipline of the Christian Church, and that would have been of great Authority, as proceeding from so ancient and considerable an Author as S. Dionysius the Areopagite, never cited, either for or against any Heretic, or for the Illustration of any point of Discipline before the sixth Age of the Church? Furthermore admitting, that they had appeared even at that time, as Books of whose Antiquity and Truth there could be no scruple; if they had been then produced by the Orthodox as ancient Records, if they had been rejected by none, would not this be a matter of great moment? But who are they that produce them? they are Heretics who have been used to quote counterfeit Records. How do they cite them? As uncertain Books, sicut suspicamini, say the Catholics. To what end do they produce them? To establish their Errors. Against whom do they cite them? Against the Orthodox. And what do they reply? This aught to decide the Controversy; let us then hearken to them, and let us give Credit to their Testimony, rather than to that of the Heretics: How can you prove (say the Orthodox Bishops to the Severian) that these Records which you affirm to belong to S. Dionysius the Areopagite, are Genuine, as you imagine; for if they were his, they could not have been unknown to S. Cyril of happy Memory; but why do we only mention S. Cyril? If S. Athanasius had believed that they had been written by S. Dionysius, would not he have made use of their Authority in the Council of Nice, to prove the Consubstantiality of the Trinity against the blasphemies of Arius? If they have not been cited by any of the ancient Writers, how can you demonstrate, that they were written by him? Thus the Orthodox then argued; but having since perused these Books, and finding nothing therein, that is contrary to the Catholic Faith, they admitted them without much Examination; tho' there have always been some Critics, who have questioned them. Photius says in the beginning of his Bibliotheca, that one Theodorus wrote a Book by way of reply to the Objections that were generally urged against these Books, and he produceth the Objections that were propounded by this Author, but takes no notice of the Answers that he had annexed to them, which is an Argument that he thought them to be of no great strength.  
2. The style and method of these Books, is very far from the manner of writing used in the First and Second Centuries, as being swelling and too much affected; the Author purposely leaves ordinary and natural Expressions, to make use of those that are lofty and Figurative; he Amplifies every thing, even that which ought to be recited after the most simple manner, he uses a great deal of Artifice in the disposing of his Periods, and observes an exact Method in the Order of his Arguments; which shows that it was written by a Philosopher, who had leisure to revise and polish it with much Care and Study, which doth not agree with the Character of S. Dionysius the Areopagite, nor with the way of writing in his time.  
3. Neither are the Contents of these Books conformable to the Genius of the Age, wherein S. Dio●●si●s the A●●●pagite lived. The Christians were employed in these primitive Times, in Composing Three ●orts of Books, Apologies for their Religion, Epistles for the Instruction of the Faithful, and to exhort them to suffer Martyrdom; and Lastly, Treatises against the Heretics: Now these Writings attributed to S. Denys plainly relate to another Subject, and have a quite different Design; for his principal Intention is to treat of Mysteries after a curious and exquisite manner, and to expound them according to the Principles of Plato's Philosophy, and even in Platonic Terms. He is not content to propound them with the simplicity of the ancient, but he applies himself nicely to inquire into all the Difficulties that might occur therein, and to raise divers Questions more curious than useful concerning the nature of God, and the different Orders of Angels: He explains the Doctrine of the Trinity more distinctly, even than S. Athanasius himself: He plainly rejects the Errors of the Nestorians, Eutychians, Anthropomerphites. He speaks of the Church as in a prosperous Condition, and enjoining Peace; neither doth he make any mention of Persecutions or Martyrs: He distinguishes the several Orders of Angels, and observes their difference, things that were unknown to the ancient Writers, and concerning which they were not solicitous to be informed, as S. Iren●us assures us, in Lib. 2. chap. 55. and S. Cyril Catech. Illum. 11. Upon the whole matter, if we compare these Writings, with those of the other ancient Authors, we shall find that there can be nothing more different, either as to their style, and method, or as to the matters therein contained.  
We shall now proceed to give particular Proofs whereby it will plainly appear, that these Books were not written by S. Dionysius the Areopagite, and there are Two sorts of these, some proving that they cannot belong to S. Denys, others showing that they were Composed by an Author who lived after the Fourth Century. I shall begin with the Arguments which prove that those Books do not belong to S. Denys. 1. The Author of the Book, de Divinis Nominibus, Dedicates it to Timothy, and then citys an Epistle of S. Ignatius. Now Timothy was dead when S. Ignatius wrote his Epistles, and Onesimus succeeded him; and besides, he calls Timothy his Son, and yet he must needs be older than S. Denys. 2. He citys and explains the Gospel according to S. John, and the Apocalypse, which were scarcely written when S. Dionysius the Areopagite was alive: And yet he declares in those Books, that he was but a young Man. He citys the Revelation, as undoubtedly included in the Canon of Holy Scripture, and yet it was very much questioned in the primitive Ages of the Church, whether it were Canonical or not. The same Reflection may be likewise made upon his Citations, taken from the Second Epistle of S. John, and that of S. Judas. 3. He rejects the Error of the Millenaries which could not have appeared in his time. 4. He expressly produceth in Lib. de Divinis Nomin. chap. 4. certain Passages out of the Epistle of S. Ignatius to the Romans, written by this Bishop a little before his Martyrdom; whereas S. Ignatius was put to Death under the Reign of the Emperor Trajan, and S. Dionysius the Areopagite, under that of Domitian, and consequently the later was dead, when the former wrote this Epistle. Maximus replies that this Citation is added, but there are Three or four entire Lines that relate to this matter, which there is no reason to disallow. 5. This Author affirms, that he was present at the Death of the Virgin Mary, but S. Dionysius the Areopagite was not Converted at that time; for it is generally believed, that she died Fifteen years after the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and S. Paul who Converted S. Denys came not to Athens till Seventeen years after our Saviour's Passion.  
Lastly, there are many Reasons, by which it may be proved, that this Author wrote after the Fourth Century; For, 1. He treats of the Mysteries of the Holy Trinity, and the Incarnation in such Terms as were not known till after the Fourth Age of the Church; he used the word Hypostasis to signify the Divine Persons, (c 7. Coelest. Hier. c. 1. de Divinis Nominibus) whereas it is well known, that this word was not used in this Sense, till after the end of the Fourth Century. 2. In Lib. de Coelesti Hierarchia cap. ult. He confirms the Baptism of Infants by an ancient Tradition: We declare that (says he) which our Bishops have taught us according to an ancient Tradition. Can this have been written by S. Dionysius the Areopagite, or rather, doth not this show, that he that discourseth thus, is a much later Author than this Bishop of Athens? 3. He describes the solemn Administration of Baptism as it was, when the Church being delivered from Persecution, began to practise the ancient Ceremonies with exterior Pomp and Splendour. 4. He speaks of Churches built on purpose, wherein there was a Sanctuary separated from the rest of the Churches; as also of the perfuming of Altars with incense, and of divers Ceremonies relating to the E●●rgumens, Catecumen, and Pe●●tents, which were not observed in those Primitive times. 5. It is certain, that the Institution of Monks is not so ancient as S. Denys, and that they were not consecrated till long after the Age wherein he lived. Yet the Author of the Divine Hierarchy in chap. 6. mentions them, as being more ancient than himself, and adds, that his Instructers called them T●●rapeutae or Monks; and he gives an Account of the manner of their Consecration, and distinguisheth several sorts of them. 6. He often citys the Ecclesiastical Authors that lived before him, who wrote concerning matters that were only debated in the 4th. Century, such were the distinctions between Love and Charity, the Opinions relating to the several Functions and Orders of Angels, as also the Lot by which St. Mathias was elected, the Prayers that were recited at Mass, which he declares to have been received from their Ancestors by Tradition; The Baptism of Infants, of which he affirms the same thing; The Funeral Rites and Solemnities, the Ceremonies of Baptism, and many other Customs. Lastly, he citys St. Clemens Alexandrinus under the name of Clement the Philosopher, and the passage of this Author produced by him, is taken from Stromat. lib. 8. which shows that he speaks of St. Clement, who lived in the Third Age of the Church.  
However many Arguments are alleged to prove the Verity and Antiquity of these Books, which nevertheless may be very easily confuted in a few words. It is objected first, That it is affirmed, by Maximus, Anastasius Sinaita, and Cypari●●●●●●, that St. Dionysius Alexandrinus composed Scolia or Annotations on the Books of Dionysius the Areopagite de Nominibus Divinis. 2. That St. Athanasius in Quest. 4. add Antiochu●, and Origen, in his first Homily on St. John quotes the Writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, and that St. Gregory the Great calls him an ancient Father; St. Gregory Nazianzen seems likewise to cite him in Hom. 38, and 42, where after having declared that the repetition of the word Holy thrice, relates to one and the same Lordship, and to one and the same Divinity, he adds, as another hath very excellently and very clearly Philosophized before us, which may well be applied to the Author of the Hierarchy, who lived before the time of St. Gregory Nazianzen, and whose Philosophy was very sub●●●e. Moreover S. Denys is cited by S. Chrysostom in his Sermon of false Prophets; Where is (says he) St. Ignatius the Tabernacle of God, where is Dionysius the Areopagite, the Eagle of Heaven? designing by this Expression to set forth the magnificence of his style. There is a comparison in Lib. de Divinis Nominibus, chap. 3. of an Anchor that attracts us to it more than we drew it to us, which S. Clemens Alexandrinus seems to have taken from S. Denys. Lastly, Nicephorus affirms, that Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem, who assisted at the Council of Chalcedon, in replying to Pulcheria concerning the Sepulchre and Death of the Virgin Mary, made use of the words of S. Dionysius the Areopagite. All these Arguments seem to prove, that the Books de Hierarchia & de Nominibus Divinis, were written by S. Denys, or at least that they are more ancient than the Fourth Century.  
But if we examine these Objections, they will appear all very weak: For, 1. We ought not to believe on the Testimony of Anastasius and Maximus, that Dionysius Alexandrinus, the Disciple of Origen, composed any Annotations upon the Writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, since Eusebius and St. Jerom, who took a Catalogue of the Works of this Saint, did not mention it; whence we ought to infer, either that it was another Dionysius Alexandrinus, or that some Grecian hath forged Commentaries on the Books attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, under that name. 2. The Book Entitled, Quaestiones ad Antiochum, cited under the name of St. Athanasius, and the Homilies on several places of the New Testament ascribed to Origen are alleged to no purpose, because it is certain that these Books are falsely attributed to St. Athanasius and Origen, as it is generally agreed. 3. St. Gregory Nazianzen doth not cite St. Denys by name; Elias Cretensis is of opinion that St. Athanasius is here meant, and indeed the passage quoted by St. Gregory Nazianzen concerning the Trisagion is found word for word in one of the Homilies of St. Athanasius, who living before St. Gregory might be cited by him. 4. The Sermon quoted under the name of St. Chrysostom, was without question not written by this Father, but by John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople; and though it really belonged to the former, yet he takes no notice of the Writings of St. Denys, but only extols him as a great Saint. Lastly, it is more probable that the Author of the Treatise De Divinis Nominibus, hath borrowed the similitudes from St. Clemens Alexandrinus, whom he citys in another place, than that St. Clement should have taken them from him.  
As for the Authority of Nicephorus and other modern Writers, it proves nothing else, but that these Books were attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite when they wrote, and this is agreed on all sides, for after they first appeared in the beginning of the Sixth Century, they soon got a great deal of Reputation and Authority; They are cited by St. Ephrem in a Treatise that he composed in vindication of the Synod of Chaleedon; The Monk Jobius, Andreas Caesariensis, Leontius, Anastasius Sinaita, Suidas, Nicephorus, and many other modern Greeks, make honourable mention of them; and Joannes Scythopolitanus, Maximus, and Pachymeres, wrote Commentaries on this Author. Among the Latins, Gregory the Great citys them with great applause; Joannes Scotus Erigena translated them into Latin, and Anastasius the Library-Keeper sent this Version to Charles the Bald, with a a Preface and Annotations. But the Testimony of these modern Authors is of very little moment in this matter, and only proves, that these Books were then thought to belong to St. Dionysius the Areopagite; On the contrary, the Reasons that we have already alleged are sufficient to convince all Persons that are Ingenuous and of a clear Judgement, that they were forged about the end of the Fifth Century, or at the beginning of the Sixth, for the time when they first appeared cannot be precisely determined; but it is certain, that they were written since the Fourth Century, and before the middle of the Sixth. Moreover it cannot be affirmed, that the Works of some other Denys might accidentally be imputed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, it being evident that the Author of these Books affects to seem to have lived in the time of the Apostles.  
We shall here subjoin a Catalogue of the Works that have been published under the name of St. Dionysius the Areopagite; A Book concerning the Celestial Hierarchy, another of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, a Treatise of the Divine Attributes, another of Mystical Divinity, together with Ten Epistles, whereof the Four first are written to the Monk Cajus, the fifth to Dorotheus, the sixth to the Priest Sosipater, the seventh to the Bishop Polycarp, the eighth to the Monk Demophilus, the ninth to the Bishop Titus, and the tenth to St. John. All these belong to the same Author, who hath likewise composed some others which are cited by himself; A Book concerning Symbolical Theology 
f Cited cap. 15. lib. de celest Hier. cap. 1, and 13. de div. nom. cap. 3. de Myst. Theolog. and Ep. 9 , another treats of the Soul 
g C. 4. lib. de div. nom. , another of Divine Hymns 
h C. 1, and 2. de divin. nomin. and cap. 3. lib. de Myst. Theolog. , another of Theological Instructions; a Treatise concerning the just Judgement of God 
i Lib. de celest Hier. c. 7. , and another of those things that are understood by the Mind, and of those that may be perceived by the Senses 
k C. 1, and 2. the celest Hier. ; but these are lost. The others have been often Printed in Greek and in Latin separately 
l Often Printed in Greek and in Latin separately.] In Greek by Morellus in the year 1562, with the Scholia of Maximus and Pachymeres; at Basil in 1539, and at Venice in 1558, in Latin, of the Version of Ambrose Camaldulensis at Strasburg in 1468, and in 1502, with the Notes of Jacobus Faber Stapulensis; in 1504 at Alcala, of the Translation of Ficinus; at Colen by Quentelius in 1546. In this Edition they have put in the Version of Scotus Erigena, Petrus Sarrasinus, Ambrose Camaldulensis, and Marsilius Ficinus, together with a Paraphrase by the Abbot de Verceil, and the Annotations of Dionysius Carthusianus. Perionius finding these Versions too obscure, made a new Translation, which was Printed at Colen, at Paris in 1557, and 1567., and at Lions in 1585. Clausarus likewise made another Translation that was Printed at Strasburg in 1546. The Book de Mystica Theologia was Printed with the Notes of a Divine at Paris, in Quarto, in the year 1626. , and were published in Greek and Latin by Lanselius at Paris, Anno Dom. 1615, afterwards at Antwerp in 1634, and again at Paris 1644, by the Jesuit Corderius, together with the Commentaries of Pachymeres and Maximus.   

St. IGNATIUS.  
IGNATIUS Surnamed Theophorus 
a Surnamed Theophorus.] This is not an an Epithet, but his Surname. Some have believed, that he was that young Child, whom Jesus Christ placed in the middle of his Apostles, and that from thence he took the Name of Theophorus, but this is a vain Imagination without any Ground, not supported by the Testimony of any ancient Author; and besides, it contradicts the Opinion of S. Chrysostom, who declares that S. Ignatius never saw our Saviour in the Flesh. , was the Successor of Evodius 
b The Successor of Evodius.] S. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and the Author of the Chronicle of Alexandria affirm, that he was ordained by S. Peter; but Eusebius, S. Jerom and the other ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, place Evodius between S. Peter, and S. Ignatius.  in the Episcopal See 
S. Ignatius.  of Antioch, about the year of our Lord 70. He governed this Church for the space of almost Forty years with admirable Prudence and Constancy, and at last suffered Martyrdom in the Tenth year of the Reign of Trajan, when this Holy Prelate having professed the Faith even in the presence of the Emperor himself with great Courage, (if we may believe the Acts of his Martyrdom) was condemned to be exposed to wild Beasts in the Amphitheatre at Rome: And he is reputed to have wrote his Epistles to several Churches in the way as he was carried a Prisoner in Chains to that City, for maintaining the truth of the Christian Religion; but since there are very great difficulties concerning the number and different Editions of these Epistles, it will be necessary to draw up their History, and to produce the Testimony of Authors that have mentioned them since his time.  
Immediately after the death of this holy Martyr, Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, his Disciple, collected these Epistles, and sent them to the Christians of Philippi, as appears from a Letter that he wrote to them, and which cannot be questioned without contradicting not only Eusebius, S. Jerom, and Photius, the most renowned Critics of Antiquity, but also S. Irenaeus himself the Disciple of S. Polycarp, who citys this Epistle, and commends it in these words: There is an Epistle of Polycarp to the Christians of Philippi, which is extremely accurate, and very proper to show the character of the Faith, and the Doctrine of the Truth, to those that take any care of their Salvation. Moreover, we have not only an approbation of S. Polycarp's Epistle by S. Irenaeus, to prove the Authority of S. Ignatius', but it is likewise evident, that this Father had read these Epistles: Irenaeus (says Eusebius) was not ignorant of the Martyrdom of S. Ignatius, and mentions his Epistles in these words: Thus one of our Brethren being condemned for maintaining the Faith, to be exposed to the wild Beasts, said, 
c Wild Beasts, said.] In citing the Testimony of any Author, we say, as he says, or as he writes, without using any Choice; and it ought not to be concluded from thence, that S. Irenaeus only produced a remarkable Expression of S. Ignatius, without taking it from any of his Works, for it is much more probable, that he took it from his Epistle to the Romans, because it is found there word for word.  I am the Wheat of God, and shall be ground by the Teeth of wild Beasts, that I may become the Bread of Jesus Christ. The words recited by S. Irenaeus in Lib. 5. contra Haeres. cap. 28. are also found at present in the Epistle of S. Ignatius to the Romans. Origen hath cited the Epistles of S. Ignatius, and that which he produceth in two several places, is read in those that are now extant. I have found it written (says he in his 6th Homily on S. Luke) in the Epistle of a certain Martyr, I mean Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, who was exposed to wild Beasts at Rome, I have found it written (I say) very elegantly, that the Virginity of Mary was unknown to the Prince of this World. This passage is word for word in the Epistle of S. Ignatius to the Ephesians. The Second passage quoted by Origen is in his Commentary on the Canticles. We remember (says he) the Expression of a Saint named Ignatius in speaking concerning Jesus Christ, my Love is Crucified, and I do not believe that he ought to be reprehended on this Account. These are the Testimonies taken from Authors who wrote in the Second and Third Centuries; in the fourth, Eusebius citys the Epistles of S. Ignatius, declares their number, and gives us a Catalogue of them. He says in the Third Book of his History, chap. 36. that this Holy Martyr being carried from Asia into Italy confirmed the Churches of the several Cities, through which he passed, in the Faith, and admonished them to avoid Heresies by constantly adhering to the Tradition of the Apostles; and that being arrived at Smyrna, where (l) Polycarp was then Bishop, he wrote four Letters; The first to the Church of Ephesus, wherein he mentions Onesimus their Pastor; The second to the Magnesians, wherein he speaks of Damas' their Bishop; The third to the Trallians, where he names Bishop Polybius; And the last to the Church of Rome, wherein he entreats the Romans not to deprive him through the fervour of their Prayers of the Crown of Martyrdom. Afterwards he recites a large Fragment of this Epistle, and adds, that being departed from Smyrna, and arrived at Troas, he wrote to 〈◊〉 Philadelphians, as ●●so to the Church of Smyrna; and particularly to S. Polycarp their Bishop, recommending to him the care of the Church of Antioch, as unto a good Pastor worthy of those Apostolical times. He 〈◊〉 likewise a Fragment of the Epistle to the Inhabitants of Smyrna, and confirms what he had before alleged by the Attestations of S. Irenaeus and S. Polycarp. It is evident from this passage, that in the time of Eusebius there were Seven Letters, which were esteemed undoubtedly to be S. Ignatius', and that they were the very same with those that are still extant, because they were written from the same places, to the same Persons, and on the same Subject, and contain all the Passages that are produced by Eusebius word for word, after whom these very Epistles were unanimously allowed by the whole Church, and cited by an infinite number of Ecclesiastical Authors. S. Athanasius who could not be led by the Authority of Eusebius, whose History perhaps he had never seen, sets down in his Book of the Synods, a passage of this ancient Bishop, which is in the Epistle to the Ephesians. S. Chrysostom in the Oration, that he made in Commendation of S. Ignatius, recites this famous Sentence taken from his Epistle to the Romans: Would to God that I might ere long fight with Beasts, and in another Oration, if that be really his, 
d If that be really his.] We find this Oration in the sixth Tome of his Works, it is Entitled, Quod unus ●it Veteris & Novi Testamenti Legislator. It hath been cited by Pope Adrian 1. in his Epistle to Charles the Great. Epiphanius the Deacon hath likewise alleged it against Gregorius Neocaesariensis; it is quoted also by Theodosius in the Second Council of Nice. The style doth not seem to be that of S. Chrysostom, as being full of Allegories; some say that it seems to have been written about the time of the declining of the Roman Empire, through the Incursions of the Barbarous Nations, which are mentioned therein; nevertheless, it may be understood of the inroads of the Arabians that were made under the Reign of the Emperor Valens. Others think that this passage is put in since.  he quotes a passage of the Epistle to S. Polyoarp.  
S. Jerom acknowledgeth the Seven Epistles of S. Ignatius mentioned by Eusebius to be Genuine: they are reckoned in his Catalogue of Authors, and cited by him in divers other places of his Works. The Learned Theodoret uses the Authority of the Letters of this Father, as certainly written by him, against the Heretics, and in his Dialogues produceth many large Passages out of the Epistles to the Smyrneans, Ephesians, and Trallians, that are expressed after the very same manner, as they are Printed in the Editions of Vossius and Bishop Ʋsher. Gelasius likewise citys a passage of the Epistle to the Christians of Smyrna on the same Subject in his Treatise concerning the two Natures of Jesus Christ: The Author of the Book of the Divine Attributes, ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, produceth a Sentence taken from that to the Romans. S. Ephrem in the sixth Century (according to the report of Photius, God. 228.) hath cited the Writings of S. Ignatius: Gildas de Excidio Britanniae, produceth a large passage of the Epistle to the Romans: The Monk Jobius (as it is related by Photius, Cod. 222.) quotes another of that to the Smyrneans: Leontius opposeth the Authority of S. Ignatius to the Heretics in Lib. de Sect. Act. 3. Anastasius Sinaita of the Seventh Century, in his Book Entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (The Guide) sets down a passage taken from the Epistle to the Romans, and Antiochus a Monk of Palestine, in his 124th Homily to Eustathius, concerning the Honour, that is due to the Bishops, recites many passages of those to Polycarp, the Philadelphians and Trallians. S. Maximus acknowledgeth the Works of S. Ignatius, and Theodorus in the Eighth Century (whom Photius mentions Cod. 1.) produceth divers passages thereof, as also Andreas Cretensis a Writer of the Ninth Century, in Hom. 2. de Virgin; and Singelus, in his Panegyric upon S. Dionysius the Areopagite: To these may be added, Simeon Metaphrastes in the Tenth Century, Honorius Bishop of Autun in the Twelfth, Nicetas Choniates in the Thirteenth; and Lastly, Nicephorus Callistus in the Fourteenth: This shows that the Epistles of S. Ignatius have been allowed by the Church in all Ages, as authentic Records; but the modern Grecians since the time of S. Joannes Damascen have used other Letters, that are not named by Eusebius, whereas before, the Seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius and S. Jerom were only cited.  
Having produced the several Testimonies of the Ancients, concerning the Epistles that are attributed to S. Ignatius, we shall now proceed to show what Judgement hath been given by the Moderns concerning the same, and for the better understanding of this matter, it seems to be necessary in the beginning, to set down a Catalogue of the different Editions of these Epistles that have been made in our time.  
The first Edition of the Epistles of S. Ignatius, was published at Paris, Anno Dom. 1494. which did not contain any of the Seven that are recited by Eusebius, but only the Three Latin Letters, one whereof was written to the Virgin Mary, and the other two to S. John. In the Year 1498, Eleven were Printed in Latin, which being revised by Clictovaeus were Reprinted at Strasburg in 1502, 1515, and 1527, as also by Henry Peter at Basil, in 1520. Not long after Champerius added three others, and one written to Maria Cossobolita, which he caused to be Printed at Colen, by Quentelius in 1536. together with the Commentaries of Dionysius Carthusianus on the Works attributed to S. Dionysius the Areopagite; afterwards they were Printed at Antwerp in 1540 at Alcala in 1541. at Basil in 1530, and 1540 at Zurick in 1546, 1550, 1557, and 1560. at Paris in 1569, 1575., and 1610. at Colen in 1570, at Basil in 1569, and 1628. at Louvain in 1568. and at Antwerp in 1572. In the Year 1557, they were set forth at Colen, according to the Version of Perionius, Pacaeus gave us the Greek Text. In 1557, 1558, and 1562 Morellus procured them to be Printed in Greek, at Paris in Octavo. Moreover Gesner published them in Greek, in 1559, with the Translation of Brunnerus. In the Year 1566. they were published at Antwerp, being corrected from certain Manuscripts by Vairlenius, and Printed by Plantin. Mestraeus set forth a new Edition of them in 1608. Vedelius a Protestant caused them to be Printed with large Annotations in Quarto, at Geneva, Anno Dom. 1623. Lastly, Usher having observed, that three English Divines had formerly quoted a passage of S. Ignatius, in the very same words as it is expressed by Theodoret, which was not inserted in the Greek Text, nor in the Vulgar Translations, judged that it might not be difficult to find some Manuscripts of the Original Epistles of S. Ignatius in England; Whereupon having made Enquiry, he happened to meet with two, one in the University of Cambridge, (in Caius' College Library;) and another in a private Library of one Richard Montague, which contained an ancient Version of those Epistles very different from the Vulgar; and afterwards having compared this Translation, with the passages recited by the Fathers, he perceived that it exactly agreed with them, quite through; for which reason, when he set out a new Edition, 
e He made use thereof in preparing a new Edition.] The first Edition of Usher was Printed at Oxford, Anno Dom. 1644 It contains 1. A preliminary Dissertation. 2. The Six Epistles of S. Ignatius in Greek, wherein all that is not in the ancient Version is distinguished by Red Characters. 3. The counterfeit Letters. 4. The ancient Latin Translation. 5. Several Notes. In the Year 1647. he published another Edition which he calls Appendix Ignatiana, in which he inserted the Greek Text, published by M. Vossius in 1646. as also a new Translation. He added therein 1. The ancient Records of the Martyrdom of S. Ignatius, which bear the Name of Philo. 2. The Letters of Tiberianus, Pliny and Trajan concerning the Constancy of the Martyrs. 3. The entire Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, concerning the Martyrdom of S. Polycarp. 4. Annotations on the Acts of the Epistles of S. Ignatius.  of the Epistles of S. Ignatius he used them, and caused the places that were added by the Modern Greeks, to be distinguished, in the Greek Text by red Characters. Not long after, the Learned Isaac Vossius found in the Library of Florence a Greek Manuscript of the same Epistles, which had been perused about an Hundred years before by Turrianus, wherein the Greek Text perfectly answered to the Version published by Usher, and so he published the Greek Original of S. Ignatius. 
f To publish the Greek Original of S. Ignatius. His Edition was Printed at Amsterdam, Anno Dom. 1646. It contains, 1. The seven Original Epistles, excepting that to the Romans, as they were▪ written in his Greek and Latin Manuscripts. 2. The Greek Epistles falsely attributed to S. Ignatius, which are not cited by Eusebius. 3. The three Latin Letters to the Virgin Mary, and S. John. 4. The seven Greek and Latin Epistles, as they were in the former Editions. 5. The Epistle of S. Barnabas, together with Notes on the whole Work. The Editions of Cotelerius and of Maderus at Helmstadt in Octavo, are not different from that of Vossius, which hath been lately Reprinted at London, in 1680.   
We may Learn from the knowledge of these Editions, that the Epistles of S. Ignatius ought to be divided into three Classes. The first contains those Three that are only extant in Latin, written to the Virgin Mary and S. John. The Second comprehends those that are in Greek, whereof Eusebius and S. Jerom make no mention, which being five in number 
g Which being five in Number.] We find at the beginning, the Epistle of Maria Cassobolita: afterward the first Epistle of S. Ignatius to this Mary; the Second to the Inhabitants of Tarsus; the Third to the Antiochians; the Fourth to Hero a Deacon of the Church of Antioch; and the last to the Philippians. , are cited by some Modern Greeks. In the Third Rank, are comprised those Seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius 
h The seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius.] They are written according to the Order observed by M. Vossius, First to the Christians of Smyrna; the Second to S. Polycarp; the Third to the Ephesians; the Fourth to the Magnesians; the Fifth to the Philadelphians; the Sixth to the Trallians, and the Seventh to the Romans. Moreover we may distinguish Four ancient Editions of the Epistles of S. Ignatius; the First contained only these seven that were known to Eusebius, and the other ancient Writers without any Additions; the Second comprehended only these seven Epistles, but with several Additions; Pearson had a Manuscript of them; which Copy had been used by Gobarus, Anastacius Antiochonus, and the Author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, in the Third there are the seven Authentic Epistles without Interpolations, together with the counterfeit; such are those of the Version of Usher, and the Greek Manuscript of M. Vossius, and these were perused by S. Joannes Damascenus and Antonius: The Fourth is that of the seven Genuine Epistles, together with the Additions, and the others that were forged, which is the Vulgar. , but these are either such as were published before the Editions of Vossius and Usher; or such as are conformable to their Copies, that is to say, more concise, and more simple.  
We must likewise distinguish three several Opinions concerning these Epistles: The first is, of those that allow them all, even the three which are written only in Latin, as Faber, Roffensis, Driedo, Marianus Victorius, Canisius and Halloixius. The last of whom, tho' Living in a clearer Age than the former; yet was not a better Critic than any of them that were before him. We may also reckon almost in the same Rank, those that admit all the Greek Letters, wherein they follow the Opinion of Cardinal Bellarmin, Bar●… and P●…vin. The Second is of those who reject all. Calvin was the chief Promoter of this Op●…ion, being followed by the Centuriators, by Socinus, and even, after the Editions of Usher and Vossi●s, by 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉, Albertinus and Daill●, who have used their utmost Endeavours to ruin the Credit of their 〈◊〉. The Third Opinion is that of those who keeping the middle way, ascribe to S. Ig●…ius only the Seven Epistles, that are recited by Eusebius and S. Jerom, disallowing all the rest as Supposi●●ious, and owning that there were some Additions in the others. This has been formerly observed by very Learned Men, even before the Editions of Vossius and Ʋsher appeared, as by Che●●itius, Perkins, Cook and Vedelius, who tho' separated from the Communion of the Church of 〈◊〉, yet were very able Critics. But since their Editions, the judicious of both persuasions as R●vet, Grotius, Pet●vius, Labbaeus, and the Author of the Offices of the Holy Sacr ●…ent, have acknowledged that the Seven Epistles of S. Ignatius, which had been corrupted by many Additions, were restored to their Original purity in Vossius' Greek Edition, and in the Version published by Usher. M●… is the only Person among the Learned, that maintains the contrary Opinion, affirming that the Original Text of those Letters is contained in the ancient Greek Edition, whereas it is retrenched and corrupted in the later of Vossius. I had almost forgotten to observe, that Usher and some others after him, have rejected the Epistle of S. Ignatius to S. Polycarp; and therefore reckon only fix as Genuine. Thus we have represented the different Opinions concerning the Epistles of S. Ignatius; let us now consider which side we ought to take.  
First it is certain, that the Three Latin Epistles, whereof Two are written to S. john, and the Third to the Virgin Mary are forged. S. Bernard is the First that quotes them in his 7th Sermon, on the Psalm Qui habitat; they were unknown to the ancient and modern Grecian Writers; they were never extant in Greek, and the affected gingling of words that appears therein, shows that they were Composed in Latin, and by one of that Nation. Besides they are written in a mean Style, and they are full of useless Notions unworthy of S. Ignatius.  
Secondly, neither can it be doubted, but that the Five Greek Letters, which are not quoted by Eusebius and S. Jerom are in like manner counterfeit. For had they been extant when these Authors lived, it were impossible but they should have seen or heard of them. And is it credible that having seen them, they should take no notice of them, when they made a Catalogue of the Epistles of S. Ignatius? 2. They were not only unknown to Eusebius and S. Jerom, but likewise to all the Greek Fathers, whose Testimonies we have produced, and who have all cited only the Seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius, the others being quoted only by the more modern Writers: They contain many things that do not agree with the time of S. Ignatius, for there are some Heresies named which did not appear until a great while after his Death: We find an account of Subdeacons', Lecturers, Chanters, Porters, Exorcists, and of those that were called among the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Readers. Now who knows not that these Orders were established after the Decease of S. Ignatius? They mention also Assemblies of Virgins, Lent, the Sabbath, Festivals, etc.  
Thirdly, it must be confessed that the Epistles of S. Ignatius such as they were before the Editions of Usher and Vossius, were corrupted, and different from those that are cited by the ancient Writers. 1. Because the passages cited by Theodoret and others, are not conformable to those which we may find in the vulgar Edition. 2. Because if we compare the ancient Edition with Vossius', it will evidently appear, that the later is not an Epitome of the former, but that the other is a kind of a Paraphrase of this last: for the greater part of the passages which are extant in the ancient Edition, and are not to be found in Vossius', are Explanations and Paraphrases, or thoughts added afterward, that have no manner of coherence with the rest, and wherein one may find a plain difference in the Style and Doctrine. 3. There are divers things contained in the Vulgar Edition, that cannot belong to the time of S. Ignatius, and which might give an occasion justly to doubt of their Authority, before the Editions of Usher and Vossius were published. As for Example, in that to the Trallians we find the Names of Theodotus and Cleobulus; there are certain passages that confute the Opinion of Saturninus concerning Marriage, and the Errors of Praxeas, mention is also made therein of the Nicolaitans, of the lesser Orders, etc. things that by no means suit with those primitive Ages of the Church.  
I have now only to inquire whether the seven Epistles, according to the Edition of Vossius were written by S. Ignatius, and the first Question that offers itself to our Examination, is whether this Father wrote any Epistles at all: To which I reply, that it cannot be reasonably doubted: For, 1. This matter of Fact is attested by all Antiquity. 2. It is proved by the abovecited Tradition, that the Authors who saw S. Ignatius, as S. Polycarp, and those that lived immediately after him, as Irenaeus and Origen, knew and quoted these Epistles. Now to believe that they were falsely attributed to him even in their time, is in my opinion great Nonsense; therefore it ought to be taken for granted, that S. Ignatius wrote Epistles; And who can imagine, that those are not Genuine that were collected by S. Polycarp? Or what likelihood is there that they were lost between S. Polycarp's death, and Eusebius' time, and that others were substituted in their room? Wherefore Eusebius had the Original Epistles of S. Ignatius, and they that succeeded him, whose Testimonies we have already alleged, having without doubt preserved the Seven that are mentioned by him, it cannot be affirmed with any probability that they have cited fictitious Epistles. From whence we ought to conclude, that since all the Passages produced by them may be found word for word in the Editions of Usher and Vossius, it is very probable that they contain the Authentic Epistles of S. Ignatius in their Original Purity. And this Argument is of so much the more force, because this is not only true in the resemblance of one or two Passages, for it were not to be admired that they should agree, since they might have been inserted by an Impostor; but in a very great number that are cited by different Authors, which makes it much more certain. Besides, there is nothing in these Epistles that does not agree with the Person, and Time of S. Ignatius; there are no Defects in the Chronology, nor any Anachronisms, which are usually found in Supposititious Works; there is no mention made of any Heretic that lived after S. Ignatius; the Errors that are refuted belong to his time, as that of the Simonians and Ebionites concerning the Passion and Divirsity of Jesus Christ; the Tradition of the Church is confirmed according to Eusebius: He speaks of those Gifts of the Holy Spirit that were visible in the Church; he citys very few Passages out of the Holy Scriptures; he imitates the Style of S. Paul, and intermingles nothing of profane Learning. Upon the whole matter, these Epistles are written with great simplicity, and bear an Apostolical Character; thus all the Arguments that evince the Falsification, or the Corruption of the other Epistles, invincibly prove the Truth and Purity of these. But this will appear yet further from the Answers to the Objections propounded by Salmasius, Blondel, and Daill●, which we shall set down and confute in a few words, replying only to those that may be alleged against the seven Epistles, as they are Printed in the Edition of Vossius, and omitting the others which do not relate to our Opinion.  
Objection, 1. Our Adversaries not being able to produce any considerable Testimonies, at least such as can be esteemed to be of sufficient Authority, and being unwilling to appear to be the first Authors of the Opinion which they maintain, have sought for the Author of the Stichometria, which is prefixed to the Works of Syncellus and Theophanes, and is commonly attributed to Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, tho' it is not certain whether it is his or not. This Stichometria is a Catalogue of the Sacred Books both Canonical and Apocryphal, together with the number of their Verses, at the end whereof are annexed, The Apocryphal Books of the New Testament, the Voyages of St. Peter, and The Doctrine of the Apostles, of St. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Hermas; from whence M. Daille concludes, that this Author hath inserted the Epistles of S. Ignatius among the Apocryphal and Counterfeit Writings.  
Answer. First, This Author calls all those Books Apocryphal that are not Canonical, and in this sense the Epistles of S. Ignatius may be reckoned under this Denomination, as the Book of the Pastor, which is styled Apocryphal by those that do not receive it as Canonical, tho' it is very ancient, and was certainly written by him whose Name it bears.  
Secondly, This Author doth not mention the Epistles of S. Ignatius or S. Polycarp, and there is no probability that he intended to do it, because his design is to make a Catalogue of the Sacred Writings both Genuine and Apocryphal; now what Analogy is there between this and the Epistles of S. Ignatius, which being written a long time after the Death of the Apostles, could not be comprised amongst the Books of the Holy Scripture? And indeed if the Epistles of S. Ignatius, and S. Polycarp ought to be rejected as fictitious, because this Author hath inserted their Names among the Apocryphal Books of the New Testament, we must likewise reject the Epistle of S. Clement, whose Name is found immediately before; therefore it must necessarily be inferred, that he intended to reject some other Books that were ascribed to S. Clement, to S. Ignatius, and to S. Polycarp, and that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aught to be understood with relation to these three last; for after having said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Doctrine of the Apostles, he adds without specifying any thing else, of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, that is to say, the Books in like manner Entitled, The Doctrine of Clement, The Doctrine of Ignatius, and The Doctrine of Polycarp; this is the plain sense of that Passage.  
Thirdly, Although it were granted, that this Author had rejected the Epistles of S. Ignatius, which is not true, of what weight could his Testimony be, against the Tradition that we have even now alleged?  
Object. 2. It is said, that these Epistles were unknown to S. Justin, to S. Clement of Alexandria, and to all the ancient Writers before Eusebius.  
Ans. Tho' this were true, yet there are many Books whose Truth is not called in question, that are mentioned by Eusebius alone, and by no other ancient Author; but besides, we have already shown, that these Epistles are cited by S. Polycarp, S. Irenaeus, and Origen, and that the Passages which they produce, are found in those Letters that we have.  
Object. 3. The style (say they) of the Epistles attributed to S. Ignatius, is very different from that of this Father; it is full of lofty Expressions and affected Epithets, which is very far from the simplicity of the Apostolical Times. They say moreover, that the Inscriptions of these Letters are long and full of pompous Epithets.  
Ans. The Objections taken from the Style are of little moment; for who hath informed these modern Critics how S. Ignatius writ? However it is not true, that the Style of these Epistles is far from the simplicity of the ancient Christians; on the contrary, it is very simple, and extremely natural: It must be confessed indeed, that there are some Epithets and compound Words, but this agrees with the Asiatic style, which is generally more florid than that of other Nations? It might also be added, that we find the like Epithets in the Epistle of S. Clement, and in other ancient Authors. The inscriptions are not longer than S. Paul's Epistles, and in the Editions of Usher and Vossius they are not so large nor so magnificent as in the Vulgar, as well as in that of the Epistle to the Romans recited by Metaphrastes.  
Object. 4. This Objection is the first of those that are taken from the Contents of the Epistles themselves. It is said, that the Author writes against the Opinion of Saturninus, who believed that Jesus Christ suffered only in Appearance; and of Theodotus, who imagined that our Saviour was a mere Man. Now these two Heretics are later than S. Ignatius.  
Ans. The fast of these Errors was maintained by Simon Magus and Menarder; the other was asserted by Cer●a●us and E●ton, Heretics who lived in S. Ignatius' time.  
Object. 5. This is the principle, or the only Objection that hath any difficulty, it is taken from an Expression in the Epistle to the Magnesians, That the Eternal Word proceeded not from Silence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which seems to be said purposely against the Errors of the Valentinians, who first used the word Silence as a Term of Art.  
Ans. If there were no Answer to be given to this Objection, I should rather choose to affirm, that this Passage is added, than merely on this account to reject the Epistles that are acknowledged as Authentic by all the Ancients. There are many Books wherein some Editions have been made, which make them appear later than they really are; and we find some of this sort in the Bible, in Homer, and in almost all the Ecclesiastical and Profane Authors. But there is no necessity to make use of this answer, since we have several others that are sufficient to afford reasonable Satisfaction to the Impartial and Judicious Reader.  
For 1. It is not true that S. Ignatius here speaks of the Silence of the Valentinians, or of any other Notion of the Heretics that is like it, he only declares, that the Word of God is not like unto that of Men, which comes from, or follows after Silence. These are his Words: There is but one God who hath made himself manifest by his Son Jesus Christ, who is the Eternal Word of God, that doth not proceed from Silence, and that is in all things like unto him that sent him. The main design of S. Ignatius in this place, is to Establish our Saviour's Divinity against the Ebionites. He shows that he is God, because he is the Word or the Speech of God, which being Eternal, is not preceded by Silence as that of Men. This Explication is natural and liable to no difficulty, though M. Daillé hath thought fit to censure it as Impertinent; however there is none that reads this Passage but will readily grant, that this Sense is most proper and very conformable to the Intention of the ancient Writers, who endeavoured to demonstrate the Difference that there is between the Word of God and that of Men. S. Augustin, in his Homily concerning the Nativity of Jesus Christ, makes use of the very same Comparison, without having any regard to the Valentinians; Quod est (says he) hoc Verbum? Quod dicturus antea non silebat, quo dicto, non siluit qui dicebat: And S. Fulgentius, Lib. 3. ad Trasim. cap. 28. Idem Verbum nullo potuit coerceri silentio, quia ipse Patris est sempiterna locutio. That which is affirmed by M. Daillé, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was used by the Valentinians, may be true, but they oftener used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, neither is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peculiar to the Valentinians, it is commonly applied in Greek to signify To go or come forth. Besides S. Ignatius says not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which may signify, that the Word of God came not forth after Silence as that of Men.  
2. Valentinus and his Disciples did not affirm, that the Word came from Silence. The Word according to their fantastical Imagination, came from the Spirit and the Truth, and not from the Deep and from Silence.  
3. The Opinion of Valentinus concerning Silence, was devised and propagated before his time, for all that speak of his Heresy observe, that he revived the ancient Errors of the Gnostics. Eusebius declares in Lib. 2. de Theolog. Eccles. cap. 9 that Simon Magus often talked of Silence among his Followers: Secundum impiu● (says he) Haereticorum principem, qui, impia dogmatizans, pronunciavit dicens, erat Deus, & Sige; which comes nearer to the Error, that is supposed to be confuted by S. Ignatius. S. Irenaeus attributes this Opinion to all the Gnostics, as also Tertullian, S. Epiphanius, and S. Augustin. S. Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 23. and after him Ellas Cretensis, charge it upon the Gnostics. This shows, that tho' the Author of the Epistle to the Magnesians should have opposed the Error of those that maintain that the Word proceeded from Silence, yet this doth not hinder but that it might have been written by S. Ignatius.  
4. It is not certainly known, whether Valentinus had not already began to divulge his Errors even before the Death of S. Ignatius, since it is evident that S. Polycarp survived this Arch-Heretick, and tho' he was not declared to be the Ringleader of this Party till afterwards, yet he might even then have taught some of his pernicious Doctrines, to which S. Ignatius might allude. These four Answers are solid, and every one of them separately might be sufficient to convince any Man; but the first in my opinion is most natural.  
Object. 6. In the Epistle to the Christians of Smyrna, mention is made of certain visible Princes that shall be judged, if they do not believe in Jesus Christ. Now what probability is there, (say they) that S. Ignatius should speak this of the Emperors and Kings of his time?  
Ans. Why may not this be affirmed of the Unbelieving Emperors and Kings that were Con-temporary with S. Ignatius? Since Tertullian and S. Justin have declared as much of the Emperors of their time, and that too in the presence of the Emperors themselves. Moreover it is not necessary to understand the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only of Emperors and Kings, since it may signify all that areinvested with any Authority.  
Object. 7. In the Epistle to the Romans we find this Expression, That he was led by the Leopards, which are Soldiers. This Explication (say they) is needless, and the Comparison is childish.  
Ans. And I say that the Similitude is very natural, and that the Explication was necessary. Bochart indeed affirms, that the word Leopard was not used until the time of Constantine; but how does he know it? It is in the Acts of the Passion of S. Perpetua and S. Felicitas; Aelius Spartianus, in the Life of Geta, thinks, that it was an old Word at the time when he wrote his History.  
Object. 8. In the Epistle to the Philadelphians, he speaks of Penitents that were publicly received by the Church, whereas (say they) in the first Ages, they that had once fallen were not afterward readmitted into the Communion of the Church; neither was there any Penance that ended in Reconciliation.  
Ans. There is nothing in the Epistle to the Philadelphians concerning public Penitence who had committed enormous Crimes; this is a mere Imagination. It is only declared, that they that had departed form the Church should obtain Pardon for their Fault, if they repent thereof by re-entering into it, that is to say, if they reunited themselves to the Church, from which they were separated. It is certain, that Heretics and Schismatics returning to the Church were always readmitted. Beside, the Example of the young Man who was reconciled by S. John, after he had been for a long time Captain of a Troop of Highwaymen, and of many others, show, that Penance was then in use; and Morinus evidently proves, that in the two first Centuries Absolution was granted more easily than in the third.  
Object. 9 Onesimus Bishop of Ephesus, who died before S. Ignatius, is cited by Name in this Epistle.  
Ans. This Onesimus is not he that was the Disciple of S. Paul, whom others affirm to have been Bishop of Beraea: And besides even the Onesimus, mentioned by S. Paul, might be living when S. Ignatius wrote this Epistle, since that of S. Paul to Philemon was written from Rome about the year of our Lord 64, therefore tho' Onesimus might be 26 years old then, yet he could not have been above 70 years of Age about the year 107, or 108, when S. Ignatius Composed these Works, which is no very extraordinary thing.  
Object. 10. The Author of the Epistles attributed to S. Ignatius citys (as they say) several Apocryphal Books. He produceth in the Epistle to the Smyrneans a Sentence concerning Jesus Christ, taken from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Who can believe this of S. Ignatius?  
Ans. This is no unusual thing among the Ancients. S. Jerom gives us the same passage of S. Ignatius, and Papias hath likewise quoted the Gospel according to the Hebrews. S. Clement, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, uses some Expressions as taken from the Holy Scriptures which are not there, as is observed by Photius, Cod. 126. S. Judas also citys the Book of Enoch. And besides, we cannot positively affirm, that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is cited by S. Ignatius, for he only produceth a Sentence, as knowing by Tradition that it was uttered by Jesus Christ. Thus S. Clement and S. Barnabas set down the Words of our Saviour, which they had either heard spoken by him, or had received from those by whom he was seen in the Flesh. Lastly, this Passage in S. Ignatius is quoted by S. Jerom, as belonging to the Gospel according to the Hebrews; but Origen produces it out of the Book, entitled, The Doctrine of S. Peter, which shows that it was a very common Expression.  
Object. 11. The ardent desire of suffering Martyrdom, expressed by S. Ignatius, is (according to their Judgement) too excessive.  
Ans. This hath been admired in the Epistle to the Romans, by the ancient Christians; the same Ardour appears likewise in S. Cyprian, in Germanicus a Martyr of Smyrna, and in many others. Certainly they must needs have but a very little knowledge of Antiquity, who deny that the Primitive Christians were inflamed with a fervent desire of suffering Martyrdom, and a Man shows that he is but meanly skilled in Divinity, if he blames this Passion, when it neither does, nor says any thing that is impudent or indecent. And this is the case of S. Ignatius, who, in testifying an earnest desire of becoming a Martyr, uttered no Expressions but such as were very prudent, and very moderate: Let us read his Epistle to the Romans with the same Spirit as he wrote it, and we shall be so far from censuring it with the modern Critics, that we shall admire it as much as the Ancients did.  
Object. 12. S. Paul doth not mention the Ephesians in all his Epistles, as it is affirmed by the Author of the Epistle to the Ephesians: Therefore, etc.  
Ans. He doth not say that S. Paul mentioned the Ephesians in all his Epistles, but throughout the whole Epistle that he wrote to them, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and composed altogether for their use.  
Object. 13. He declares that he saw Jesus Christ, which, S. Chrysostom says, is not true.  
Ans. The passage which is meant by them signifies only, that he knew and believed the real Incarnation of Jesus Christ. And after all, it was not impossible for S. Ignatius to have seen our Saviour.  
Object. 14. He gives an account of the Errors of certain Heretics that abstained from the Eucharist; now there were not any such (says M. Daillé) in the time of S. Ignatius, but afterwards when these Epistles were counterfeited.  
Ans. Who hath informed him, that there were no such at the time when these Epistles were forged, and none before? These Heretics are the Docetae, who believed that Jesus Christ suffered only in appearance, whose Heresy was very ancient.  
Object. 15. He affirms, that the Romans might easily have delivered him from his Persecutor, why then did they not do it?  
Ans. He doth not declare that they were absolutely able to deliver him, but only that he was ready to undergo Martydom, if they did not prevent it; that they might easily do whatever they thought fit, that is, use their endeavours to rescue him from Death; but for his part, he could not find a better opportunity of suffering for Jesus Christ.  
Object. 16. He promiseth to send a Book to the Ephesians; but how could he do it when he was going to be put to Death?  
Ans. His meaning is, That he would write a second Letter to them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a second small Vol●…, upon two Cond●… First, 〈◊〉 God should 〈◊〉; a●d Secondly, in case the 〈◊〉 should want it. He ●…ght well hope to write another▪ having had the liberty to write the former.  
〈…〉 they) too much Arrogance and 〈◊〉 in these Epistles; the 〈…〉 the knowledge of Celesti●● things, Se multa sapere in Deo, and that he knew the 〈…〉 and Stations of the Angel●.  
Ans. All this might be 〈◊〉 by an ancient Bishop, that had acquired the Reputation of S. Ig▪ 〈◊〉; all the Chris●… might likewise boast that they were endued with the knowledge of Cele●…al Things, and 〈◊〉 especially Bishops. S. Ig●●tius immediately adds after the Words cited in the Objection, 〈◊〉 knowledge I have, I 〈◊〉 ●ot p●●●ed up, but I measure myself. He says nothing of Angels, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been said before by S. Paul.  
Object. 18. What reason is there, that S. Ignatius should be sent to Rome to be exposed to wild Beasts in the Amphitheatre of that City, as if Persons condemned to this sort of Punishment, were not executed in all the great Towns, where Shows were exhibited? Why must he be brought thither by ●ea and Land, a way so far about?  
Ans. If we may believe the History of the Martyrdom of S. Ignatius, he was sent to Rome by the express Command of the Emperor. However, if this were not true, it is ordained by the Law, 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Crimin●…, condemned to be to●● in pieces by wild Beasts, should be conveyed to Rome 〈◊〉 the Emperor's Permission; (which ought to be understood of considerable Malefactors;) such were the Ringleaders of Factions, and the Bishops among the Christians▪ especially so famous a Bishop as that of Antioch. The way through which he was conducted thither was the ordinary Road; for to come to Rome out of Syria, it is necessary to go to Smyrna or to Ephesius, a●…eward to cross the Hellesp●nt, and so to Br●nd●sium, and from thence to Rome.  
Object 19 The last Objection which is the cause why all the others were made, is taken from the different Orders of Bishops and Priests, who are often distinguished in the Epistles that are attributed to S. Ignatius▪ It is supposed that this distinction was not made until the third Age of the Church, from whence it is concluded that these Epistles are none of his.  
Ans▪ This Supposition being false, the whole Objection must consequently fall of itself, and tho▪ we had no other Proofs of the distincton of Bishops and Priests in the second Century, than the Epistles of S. 〈◊〉, ye● we ought not to doubt thereof, and instead of inferring from thence that these Letters are Counter●elt, it may well be concluded on the contrary, that the different Orders of Bishops and Priests, were established in S. Ignatius' time, since they are found in the Ep●…es that have been acknowledged by all the ancient Writers as certainly belonging to him: But there are many other Testimonies which make it appear, that there was a distinction between Bishops and Priests even in the second Age of the Church. Hegesippus, for Example, gives us a Catalogue of the Bishops of Jerusalem; can this be said to be a List of the Priests of that City? 〈◊〉 hath made another of the ancient Bishops of Asia, and Eusebius hath compiled that of the principal Cities throughout the whole World since the time of Jesus Christ▪ Therefore there must of necessity have been always in the Church, Persons called Bishops, who presided over Churches and Priests. The Martries of Lions' style Pothinus Bishop, and S. Irenaeus Priest. The anonymous Author, cited by Eusebius against the Cataphrygians, distinguishes Priests from Bishops. And there are infinite numbers of Testimonies and Arguments, by which it may be proved that there was some difference made between Priests and Bishops even in the second Century; but we shall insist no longer on this Subject: And I am afraid that I have already tired the Reader's patience in refu●ing all the Objections that have been alleged against the Epistles of S. Ignatius, but I judged it necessary for the confirmation of their Authority.  
It remains only, for the conclusion of our Critical Inquiries concerning these Epistles, to give some account of that to S. Polycarp. I know not what reason Usher might have to reject it, since it plainly belongs to the number of the Seven that are mentioned by Eusebius, who clearly distinguisheth it from that which was written to the Inhabitants of Smyrna. S. Jerom follows Eusebius in this particular. Et propri● (says he) ad Polycarpum. It is true indeed, that here he citys a Passage of the Epistle to the Smyrneans as appertaining to that of S. Polycarp, but this may only be an Error as to matter of Fact, and it very frequently happens, that in Citations one Work is taken for another. A notable mark of the Truth of this Epistle is that in the Manuscript of Florence, it is found to be different from the Vulgar Edition, as well as the six others that are esteemed Authentic, whereas all the rest which are forged do not vary in this Manuscript from the ordinary Editions; this shows, that the Author of these Letters, is the same Person that made the Additions in the real Epistles of S. Ignatius, and that all those that are purged from these Additions in the abovecited Manuscript of Florence, and in the Edition of Vossius, are undoubtedly genuine.  
The Cronological Order of these seven Epistles is this: First, it is certain that they were all written by S. Ignatius when he was in Bonds, and as he was conveyed from Antioch to Rome to be exposed to wild Beasts in that City. Secondly it is likewise evident, that four of them were made at Smyrna, where he re●●ded, perhaps, for some considerable time; these four in the Edition of Vossius and in S. Jerom are put in this following Order; the Epistle to the Ephesians, to the Magnesians, to the Trallians, and the last to the Romans. It cannot be precisely determined, whether this be the Order wherein they were written, or whether they were all composed at the same time. It is probable that the Epistle to the Romans is the last, because he declares therein, that he wrote to the other Churches, and that he went cheerfully to suffer Martyrdom: It seems to have been made when he was ready to departed, being wearied with the long stay of his Guards in that place; so great was his Passion to suffer Martyrdom.  
He wrote the three others at his departure from Smyrna whilst he stayed at 〈◊〉, from whence he was obliged to go to Naples. The Epistles to the Smyrneans and to S. Polycarp seem to have been written together, and that to the Philadelphians last, because it is expressed in the later, that the other Cities had sent several Bishops and Priests into Syria; and in the Epistle to S. Polycarp, he chargeth him to depute a fit Person for the Episcopal Function in that Country. However there is a more probable conjecture to prove, that the two others were written after that to the Philadelphians, according to S. Jerom's Opinion, because S. Ignatius declares therein, that he was ready to embark for N●ples, and that this was the reason why he could not write to the other Churches, which shows, that the time of his departure drew near when he Composed them. He there mentions his Martyrdom, as a thing certainly to be accomplished. S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Christians of Smyrna, confutes the Error of those that denied that Jesus Christ took upon himself the human Nature; that he assumed a real Body, and that he actually suffered: He affirms, that those Heretics neglected the Poor and the Widows, and separated themselves from the public Prayers of the Church, and from the Eucharist, because they did not believe that it was the Body of Jesus Christ, which had been nailed to the Cross for our sakes, and afterwards risen again from the Dead: He admonisheth the Smyrneans to avoid Divisions as the Original of all Evil, to obey their Bishop, to honour the Priests and Deacons, and to do nothing contrary to the Precepts of their Bishop, without whose Assistance (saith he) it is not lawful even to Baptise, or to celebrate the Agapae or Love-feasts.  
In the Epistle to S. Polycarp, he gives excellent Counsels to this Bishop; he advises him to endeavour to preserve Union in his Church, to watch continually over his Flock, and to apply convenient Remedies to their Distempers, to reprove those that offend, with Charity and Gentleness, to pray to God incessantly and to sue for his Grace. In short, to labour without Intermission as a faithful Servant and Soldier of Jesus Christ, who being invisible and impassable, made himself visible and mortal for our sakes. He admonisheth him to take care of the Widows, not to despise the meanest People, not to suffer any thing to be done without his Concurrence, and to do nothing himself but what is conformable to the Will of God, to enjoin Women to please their Husbands, and Husbands to love their Wives, as also to recommend to them Chastity, accompanied with Humility, and to inform the Christians, that their Marriage when performed, according to the Will of God, aught to be solemnised in the Presence of the Bishop. Afterward he exhorts all the faithful, to submit to their Bishop, Priests and Deacons, and to work out their own Salvation. Lastly, directing his Discourse to S. Polycarp, he adviseth him to call a Synod, and to ordain a Bishop to be sent into Syria.  
In the Epistle to the Ephesians, he testifies his Joy in seeing Onesimus their Bishop, who came to him with a Deacon named Burrus, and two other Believers; he admonisheth them to live Holily, in perfect Unity among themselves, and in Obedience to their Bishop and Priests; he declares, that they that do not join with the Bishop and are not present at the public Service of the Christians, over which the Bishop's preside, are without the pale of the Church, and deprived of the Celestial Food. Afterward he warns them to beware of Heresies, to avoid the Company of Heretics, and to believe that Jesus Christ is God, who was incarnate, that he is impassable as he is God, and passable as he is Man. Lastly, after having commended their Piety, he exhorts them to pray to God, for all sorts and conditions of Men, frequently to assemble together, to make public Prayers and Supplications, and inviolably to preserve Faith and Charity; he affirms that the Prince of this World, that is to say, the Devil, was ignorant of the Virginity of Mary, of her Childbirth, and of the Death of our Lord: He promiseth to send to them a little Book, that is to say, a Letter concerning the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and he entreats them to pray to God for him.  
In the Epistle to the Magnesians, he exhorts the Christians of that Church to be obedient to their Bishop Damas', who came to see him, to do nothing without him, and to live in Unity one with another. He admonisheth them not to suffer themselves to be led away with vain Opinions, not to live like Jews but as Christians, to believe in Jesus Christ, who is the Word of God that doth not proceed from Silence, but was sent by God the Father, and is our only hope. At last he desires them to remember him in their Prayers.  
In the Epistle to the Philadelphians, he Congratulates their Union, he exhorts them to avoid corrupt Doctrines, and advises them not to follow those that are the Abetters of Schisms and Divisions amongst them, and to concur in every thing with their Bishop. Lastly, he refutes the Arguments of those that refused to believe any thing, but what was written in the Old Testament, and declares that the Gospel is the perfection of that which was prefigured in the old Law.  
In the Epistle to the Trallians, he commends their Union, and the Submission and Respect that they shown towards their Bishop, Priests and Deacons, and exhorts them to persevere in this Union, and to beware of Heretics. He expounds the Orthodox Doctrines of the Catholic Church, that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, that he was really Man, that he actually suffered and died, and not in appearance, as some Heretics said.  
Lastly, in the Epistle to the Romans, he expresseth his Zeal, and ardent desire of suffering Martyrdom, and entreats them not to take this glorious Crown from him, by preventing his being exposed to wild Beasts in the Amphitheatre of Rome.  
Upon the whole matter, all these Epistles are ●ull of very wholesome Precepts, and useful Exhortations; they are extremely worthy of a Christian, of a Bishop, and of a Martyr▪ and are all full of Warmth and Piety. One cannot read them, without perceiving every where, that this Holy man was animated with a Zeal truly Divine for the Salvation of Souls, for the fulfilling of the Law of Jesus Christ, and for the preservation of his Doctrine. In every thing that he says, he appears to be full of Love to our Saviour, of affection towards his Brethren, of Care for the Discipline of the Church, and of Ardour for the blessing of Peace. In short, let Critics that are of a contrary Opinion say what they please, I dare maintain that these Epistles deserve to be well esteemed, and to be admired by all those who profess to have any Respect for Books of Piety.   

S. POLYCARP.  
ST. Polycarp 
a S. Polycarp] Halloixiu● says that S. Polycarp was originally of Smyrna; that he was born in the East, and that he was a Slave in his youth, that he was bought by a certain Lady named Calisti●ne, who gave him his Liberty, and caused him to be instructed in the Christian Religion; that she afterwards made him her Steward, and at last her Heir. He enlarged on the liberal donations of this Lady; he affirms that B●c●l●● Bishop of Smyrn● was at first Tutor to S. Polycarp, and afterwards S. Jo●●; he write● much in the commendation of this Fictitious Buc●l●●, and declares, that he ordained S. Polycarp who is the Angel of Smyrn●. These Tales and many others are extracted from the false Acts of the Life of St. Polycarp forged under the name of Pionius from the M●nologium Graec●r●m by the modern Greeks.  the Disciple of S. John the Evangelist 
b The Disciple of S. John the Evangelist.] S. Ir●…us tells us, lib. 3. cap. 3. that he was constituted Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles; and this could be done by no other than S. Jo●●. , and by him ordained Bishop of Smyrna, was after the decease of this Apostle, esteemed as the Head of the Churches of Asia; 
c The head of the Churches of Asia.] S. Jerome says that he was Pri●…ps 〈◊〉 Asia, that is to say, that he was the most considerable Bishop, and (as I may say) succeeded in the Authority of S. John.  when 
S. Polycarp.  he went to Rome, under the Pontificate of Anicetus about the Year 160 
d About the year 160.] He died in the seventh year of the Emperor Marcus A●relius in the year 167. he had then served Jesus Christ 86 years, as he declares himself in the Acts of his Martyrdom; Thus he might have begun to serve God in the year 81 after the Nativity of our Saviour, and then he might be Ten years old. He conversed with all the Apostles, if we may believe the Testimony of S. Irenaeus. S. John died in the year of our Lord 101, and in the second of Traj●n; he was banished in the fourteenth of Domitian, A●… D●…. 95, and returned into Asia after the death of this Emperor. These Observations may serve to fix the Chronology of the Life of S. Polycarp. He was born about the year of our Lord 70, he began to consecrate himself to the service of God in the year 81. At that time he conversed with the Apostles, and became the Disciple of S. John; after the return of this Apostle he was ordained Bishop of Smyrna, however it is not precisely known in what year, but this must of necessity have happened before the year 101, since S. John died that year: He undertook his Journey to Rome in th● beginning of the Pontificate of Anicet●●, who presided in that See from the year 158 to the year 169.  he converted several Marcionites, and obliged them to return to the Bosom of the Church. He had several Consereno●s with Pope Anicetus, probably about several particular Customs of the Church of Rome; They debated the question of the day when they should keep Easter, which was afterwards disputed under the Pontificate of Pope Victor, but each of them having judged it to be most convenient to observe his own custom, they a●…cably communicated one with another; and Anicetus to do the greater honour to S. Polycarp caused him to officiate in his own Church 
e In his own Church.) All these Circumstances are related by S. Ire●●us. There are some who affirm, that the Expression of S. Irenaeus signifies only, that Anicetus administered the Holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper to S. Polycarp, but he would not thereby have done him much honour, it may be better understood according to our Explication. , and in his own place.  
This Holy Bishop always abhorred Heretics; and he used to tell a Story, That S. John having seen Cerinthus entering into a Bath, speedily fled from thence without bathing himself therein, fearing lest the building should fall because Cerinthus the Enemy of the Truth was there; and he himself having once accidentally met with Martion, who desired that he would vouchsafe to take notice of him, he replied, I know that thou art the ●ldest Son of the Devil. He had a very particular respect for the Memory of S. John; he took much delight in telling over the Discourses that he formerly had with him, and with others that had seen Jesus Christ in the flesh; he related every thing whereof he had been informed by them concerning his Doctrine and Miracles, and if he had heard any one maintaining any Principles contrary to the Apostolical Faith, he was wont to cry out, O God to what times hast thou reserved me! and would immediately departed from the place where he was. All this is recorded by S. Irenaeus, and cited by Eusebius in the 14th Chapter of the fourth Book of his History, and in Book 5. Chap. 20.  
The illustrious Martyrdom of this Saint, which happened in the year 167. after the Nativity of Jesus Christ on the 23d day of February, is described after a most elegant manner in the Excellent Epistle of the Church of Smyrna to those of Pontus, produced in part by Eusebius, in the Fifteenth Chapter of the fourth Book of his History, and published entirely first by Archbishop Usher, and afterward by Valesius. They there give an account that S. Polycarp did not voluntarily surrender himself to his Executioners, but that he waited after the example of our Saviour, until he was delivered into their hands; that many Christians suffered before him with admirable constancy, all the Torments imaginable; that there was only one Quintus, who had persuaded the others to present themselves before the Tribunal of the Judge, that was overcome in the great Trial, which shows (as it is observed in the same Epistle) that although we cannot but admire the constancy of those that have generously suffered, after they had presented themselves, yet their Conduct ought not to be approved, since it is condemned in the Gospel. That S. Polycarp being informed of what had happened, determined to remain in the City; but being constrained to retire into a little House in the Country, he there continually prayed to God night and day for all the Churches, and for all Men; that three days before he was apprehended, being fervent in Prayer, he saw a Vision, wherein he perceived that his Bedstead was all on fire, which caused him immediately to foretell that he should ere long be burnt alive; that although he was removed from the place of his abode, yet he was seized by the Soldiers of the Provost-Marshal, led into the City and brought before the Proconsul, who endeavoured to persuade him to swear by the Genius of Caesar, and to curse Jesus Christ, whereupon Polycarp being encouraged by a Voice from Heaven, openly declares that he was a Christian; That the Proconsul having caused his profession to be proclaimed with a loud Voice, all the People who were in the Amphitheatre, cried out, that he should be burnt alive: That being tied to a Stake, he prayed to God, and concluded with Blessing the most Holy Trinity; that when the Fire was kindled it made a kind of a Circle round about the Body of this holy Martyr, who remained in the midst thereof without receiving the least hurt; And lastly, that the Pagans perceiving that the Fire could not burn or consume him, sent an Officer to run him through with a Sword; and would not suffer the Christians to carry off his Body, which continued whole and entire, lest (as these deluded Heathens affirmed) they should adore it in stead of Jesus 
[There is nothing in this Declaration of the Church of Smyrna which the Protestants ever disallowed: They are far from thinking that those are not worthy of extraordinary Honours here below, who are so peculiarly graced by God himself. But yet if they ●re jealous of the Honour which is only due to Jesus Christ, and afraid of doing any thing which may derogate from it, they think this to be a thing which needs no excuse; since we have a positive command for the one, whereas the other is wholly discretionary: And we can never E●● in assigning the Bonds of that Respect which is due to Saints and Martyrs if we consider that their great Honour arises from their inviolable fidelity to our common Master; and that the chiefest reason why the Church at first commanded the anniversaries of Saints and Martyrs to be observed with so much splendour▪ was to encourage the rest of the faithful to imitate them as they imitated Jesus Christ]  Christ. Fools, as they were, (these are the words of the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna) they did not know that the Christians worship none but Jesus Christ because he is the Son of God, and only honour the Martyrs who are his Disciples and Followers, because of the Love which they testify to have for their King and Master. The Centurion having caused the Body of this Martyr to be burnt, the Christians carried away his Bones being more valuable than the most precious Stones, and more pure than Gold, which they buried in a place where they assembled together, to celebrate with joy and cheerfulness the day of his Martyrdom, thus honouring the memory of those that have fought gloriously for the defence of their Religion, and to confirm and instruct others by such Examples. These were the Notions of the Primitive Church concerning the Respect due to Martyrs and their Relics, explained after a clear and exact manner, which are as far removed from the aspersions that are cast on them by the Protestants of our time, as from the superstition of some Roman Catholics.  
S. Irenaeus assures us in his Letter to Florinus, that S. Polycarp wrote several Epistles to the Neighbouring Churches to confirm them in the Christian Faith, and others to some of his Brethren to encourage and exhort them to persevere in the Truth. We have at present but one single Epistle written by him to the Philippians, and particularly cited by S. Irenaeus, Eusebius, S. Jerom and Photius, 
f By S. Irenaeus, Eusebius, S. Jerom, and Photius.] S. Irenaeus in Lib. 3. contr. Haeres. says thus, There is extant an Epistle of Polycarp to the Christians of Philippi, which is extremely accurate, and very proper to show the Character of the Faith, and the Doctrine of the Truth, to those that take any care of their Salvation. Eusebius adds in lib. 4. cap. 14. that S. Polycarp in this Epistle makes use of some Testimonies taken from the First Epistle of S. Peter; These References are found in that which we now have under his Name. S. J●rom affirms, that this Epistle was read in the Assembly of the Faithful of Asia. See Photius, ●od. 126.  who have all commended and approved it as really belonging to this Primitive Bishop. And it cannot be doubted that it is the same with that which was extant in the time of these ancient Writers; wherefore I shall make no difficulty to affirm, that it would be great rashness to reject it, as M. Blondel and M. Daillé have done; for by whom have these modern Authors been informed that this Letter was not composed by S. Polycarp? What reasons can they allege? Do they know S. Polycarps' style better than S. Irenaeus his Disciple? Have they a greater insight into this matter than Eusebius, S. Jerom, or Photius? Besides, if the Arguments produced by them had any weight, one might set them in the balance with the authority of these ancient Writers, but they are so weak that they scarcely deserve to be mentioned. This Epistle (says M. Daillé) is disallowed by Nicephorus in his Stichometria: This is indeed an authority of great moment fit to be set against the testimony of Eusebius, S. Jerom and Photius! It is not certainly known by whom this Stichometria was composed, and although we should allow that it was written by Nicephorus, yet he is a late Author, and of very little authority in comparison of those that we have now cited. After all, he doth not reject the Epistle of S. Polycarp, but only a certain Work that was attributed to him, and the Book of the Doctrine of S. Polycarp (as we have elsewhere observed) ought to be thereby understood, after the same manner as the Book of the Doctrine of S. Ignatius, and the Book of the Doctrine of S. Clement. Otherwise we must likewise disallow the Epistle of S. Clement to the Corinthians, whose name is found among the Apocryphal Writings immediately before that of S. Polycarp. It is certain also, that there was extant a Book, entitled, The Doctrine of S. Polycarp, as well as one called, The Doctrine of S. Clement, since it is cited by Maximus, Bede, Ado, Usuardus, Metaphrastes, Pachy●…eres, Honorius, and Nicephorus Calistus.  
M. Daillé perceiving th● weakness of his objection against the Epistle of S. Polycarp, is obliged to assert, that though the first part is genuine, yet the second wherein he mentions those of S. Ignatius, i● supposititious▪ And to prove this he shows, that the Epistle was concluded with the Invocation of Jesus Christ, and that which follows aught to be esteemed as an addition made afterwards, being of no authority. But M. Daillé cannot maintain this Hypothesis without rejecting the Testimony of Eusebius and Photius, who cite this second part, and more especially that which relates to the Letters of S. Ignatius; neither doth it signify any thing to urge that the Epistle was concluded before, because, it is evident, that the Invocation of Jesus Christ is frequently inserted in the middle of an Epistle, which is nevertheless continued after this sort of conclusion; this is very often to be found in S. Paul's Epistles, particularly in the Fifteenth Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. The only objection alleged by M. Daillé that hath any manner of probability is this; It is manifest (says he) that the Author who wrote that part wherein S. Ignatius is mentioned, supposeth him to be yet living, since he requires the Philippians to inform him concerning the transactions of S. Ignatius, and of those that were with him; De ipso Ignatio & de iis qui cum eo sunt 
g Qui cum eo sunt] It is expressed in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, they that had been with him, and who followed him when he passed through Philippi.  quod certius agnoveritis significate. But if we observe these words, it will appear, that they might as well be written after the death of S. Ignatius, as when he was alive, and that S. Polycarp only desired an account of the particular Circumstances of the Life and Martyrdom of that eminent Bishop, which were not unknown to the Christians of Philippi, through which City he had passed in his Journey to Rome.  
This Epistle being full of admirable Counsels, Precepts, and Exhortations taken from the Holy Scriptures is written with a great deal of elegancy and simplicity, as Photius has observed already. It was Printed in Latin together with the Epistles of S. Clement and S. Ignatius in the years 1498, 1502, 1520, 1536, and 1550, at Basil in 1579, at Colen in 1530, at Paris in 1569 with the Works of S. Ireneus, at Ingolstadt in 1546, at Paris in 1562, and at several other times, it is likewise inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum set forth by La Bigne. Besides it was Printed at Colen in 1557 of the Translation of Perionius, with the Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, and in 1585., with them and the Epistles of S. Ignatius. Halloixius first published part thereof in Greek from a Manuscript which Sirmondus had transcribed from a Copy written by Turrianus. Usher hath Printed it in Greek and Latin afterwards with the Epistles of S. Ignatius in the year 1644. Cotelerius put it into his Collection of the ancient Records of the Fathers. Moderus hath likewise procured it to be reprinted at Helmstadt, and lastly it was Printed in Holland in 1687, with a Dissertation concerning the Life and Writings of S. Polycarp, in a Collection of Treatises, entitled, Varia Sacra, set forth by M. Le Moine.  
There are several other Works attributed to this ancient Bishop, as an Epistle to S. Dionysius the Areopagite, quoted by Suides, and a Treatise concerning the Union of S. John, which is pretended to be kept in the Abbey of Fleury; some Passages or Notes on the Gospels are likewise produced for his, which are taken from the Catena of Fevardentius under the name of Victor Capuensis. But it is very probable that these Tracts are fictitious. S. Jerome in his 28th Epistle to Baeticus declares, that it was commonly reported in his time, that the Authentic Works of Josephus, Polycarp, and Papias, were brought to him, but that it was a false rumour.   

PAPIAS.  
PApias, Bishop of Hierapolis 
a Hierapolis.] There are several Cities of that Nam●, but this lies between Phrygia and Lydia near Laodice●, being famous for Springs of hot Water. , a City of Asia, was a Disciple either of S. John the Evangelist 
b A Disciple of S. John the Evangelist] S. Irenaeus, Lib. 5. cap. 33. Hac Papias Joannis auditor Polycarpi contubernalis. S. Jerom, Ep. 29. Ad Theodorum: Refert Irenaeus vir Apostolicorum temporum & Papiae auditoris Evangelistae Joannis Discipulus. In the Martyrologies of Beda, Usuardus, and Ado, as also in the Roman, in the Works of Trithemius and Andreas Casari●…, in Anastas. Sinait. Lib. 7. in Hexamer. Oecumen. in Act. cap. 2. he is called The Disciple of S. John the Evangelist. Eusebius on the contrary reciting a Passage of Papias in Hist. Lib. 3. cap. ult. wherein he speaks of two john's, observes that the Master of Papias was not John the Evangelist, but the other John called the Elder. His Reason, or rather Conjecture, is that this Author in the beginning of his Books doth not assure us, that he was the Disciple of the Apostles, or that he had learned any thing from them, but only that he had received that which he declares from those that were familiar with the Apostles, and who knew them. However, in the Passage alleged by Eusebius to prove his Assertion, Papias only affirms, that he interrogated the ancient Men who had seen the Apostles, demanding of them, What says Andrew? What says Philip? What says S. John? What says John the Elder? Therefore if it may be inferred from thence, that he was not the Disciple of S. John the Evangelist, because he informs us, that he enquired of those that had seen him what were the Opinions of this Apostle; it may as well be inferred that he was not the Disciple of John the Elder. However, the words of Papias may be interpreted after such a manner, as to signify nothing else, but that he was careful whensoever he happened to meet with any one that had familiarly conversed with the Apostles, to desire of them a particular account of their Doctrine or Judgement; Which makes me believe, that he was the Disciple of the Evangelist, and this is confirmed by the Authority of S. Irenaeus, who certainly means S. John the Evangelist; for S. Polycarp was his Disciple, and he asserts that Papias was the Companion of Polycarp, Polycarpi contubernalis. , or of some other Person who bore the same name: He wrote five Books, entitled, The Explications of our Lords Discourses, which were extant even in the time of Trithemius; 
Papias.  but at present we have only some few fragments in the Writings of the ancient and modern Authors. He was the first that promoted the famous Opinion, or rather Dotage of Antiquity 
c The famous Opinion, or rather Dotage of Antiquity.] This was the opinion of S. Justin, Athenagoras, S. Irenaeas, S. Clement, Tertullian, Lactantius, and many other ancient Writers. , concerning the Temporal Beign of Jesus Christ, which they fancied should happen on Earth a thousand years before the day of Judgement, when the Elect should be gathered together after the Resurrection in the City of Jerusalem, and should enjoy there all the Delights imaginable during these thousand years.  
S. Irenaeus produceth a fragment taken from the fourth Book of Papias, wherein he endeavours to prove this Opinion by a passage of the Prophet Isaiah: And Eusebius having cited a Paragraph of his Preface to these Books, in which he shows the great care that he took to be informed of the Doctrine of the Apostles, by interrogating their Disciples, adds; That this Author hath set down many things, which he pretended to have learned by an unwritten Tradition, of which sort there are several new Parables and Instructions of our Saviour Jesus Christ, that are not contained in the Gospels, together with other fabulous▪ Histories, among which we may reckon the Reign of Jesus Christ on Earth during the space of a thousand years after the Resurrection of the Body; That which led him into this Error (continueth Eusebius) is that he understood the Discourses and Instructions of the Apostles too literally, not understanding that a mystical sense ought to be given to this sort of Expressions, and that the Apostles only made use of them as Illustrations; for ●e was a Man of a very mean capacity, as appears from his Books, who nevertheless gave occasion to many of the ancient Fathers, and among others to Irenaeus, to follow this Error, which they maintained by the authority of Papias. Eusebius in the same place relates two Miracles, the account whereof Papias declares that he had received from the Daughter of Philip the Deacon, who resided at Hierapolis; That a dead Man was raised at that time, and that Barsabas, surnamed Justus, Elected to be an Apostle, together with S. Mathias, having swallowed deadly Poison, was not hurt by it! Moreover he assures us, that Papias had collected in his Books divers Explications on some words of Jesus Christ composed by Aristion a Disciple of the Apostles, and the Traditions likewise of the venerable Elder S. John; but omitting these things, he is content only to recite a passage wherein this ancient Writer affirms, that S. Mark compiled his Gospel from what he had heard S. Peter tell of the Actions and Discourses of Jesus Christ, and this is the reason that he hath not observed an Historical Method; That S. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and that it was afterward Translated into Greek. Lastly, Eusebius affirms, that he cited the first Epistles of S. Peter and of S. John, and that he explained the History of a Woman that was accused before our Saviour of several Crimes, which was found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Thus we have given an account of all that is recorded by Eusebius concerning Papias. Andrea's Caesariensis and Oeoumenius have likewise produced some Passages 
d Andraeas' Caesariensis and Oécumenius have likewise produced some Passages.] Andraeas' Caesariensis in Serm. 12. in Apocalyps citys a Passage of Papias, wherein he says, that the disposing of Sublunary Things was committed to the Care of the Angels that are round the Earth, but that they did not perform their Duty as they ought to do; Oecumenius upon the Acts observes, that Papias believed that Judas did not end his Life by hanging, but that he was run over with a Chariot, which is the Opinion of Theophylact, Euthymius and Oecumneius.  of his Works in their Commentaries on the Holy Scripture, but it is not certain whether they were Papias' or no.  
The Judgement that ought to be given concerning him, is that which hath been already given by Eusebius, that is to say, that he was a good Man, but very credulous, and of very mean Barts, who delighted much in hearing and telling Stories and Miracles. And since he was exceedingly inquisitive, and inclined to believe every thing that was told him, it is not to be admired that he hath divulged divers Errors and extravagant Notions as the Judgements of the Apostles, and hath given us fabulous Narratives for real Histories, which shows, that nothing is so dangerous in Matters of Religion, as lightly to believe, and too greedily to embrace, all that hath the appearance of Piety, without considering in the first place how true it is 
e Without considering in the first place how true it is.] This is conformable to an excellent Passage of S. Augustin: Non sit Religio nostra in Phantasmatibus nostris; melius est enim qualecumque verum quàm omne quicqùid pro arbitrio fingi potest, melior est vera stipula, quàm lux inani cogitatione pro suspicantis voluntate formata: De ver. Rel. c. 55. .   

QUADRATUS and ARISTIDES.  
THese two Defenders of the Faith presented Apologies for Christians to the Emperor Adrian: The first was a Disciple of the Apostles 
a A Disciple of the Apostles.] Hieron. Ep. 84. ad Magnum. This appears from the Fragment that is set down afterward. We must not confound this Quadratus with another of this Name who was Bishop of Athens, and the Successor of Publius mentioned by Eusebius, Lib. 4. cap. 23. S. Jerom makes no distinction between them in his Catalogue, nor in his Epistle to Magnus; and they are likewise confounded in the Men●logium Graec●rum: But Vales●us clearly proves that they are different; for the first was not a Bishop, as appears from the Testimony of Eusebius, Lib. 3. c. 37. and Lib. 4. c. 3. Besides, the former Quadratus was a Disciple of the Apostles, and lived in the time of the Emperor Adrian, whereas the other never saw the Apostles, as being Contemporary with Dionysius Corinthius under the Reign of Antoninus. And it cannot be doubted, but that it was the Elder who presented the Apology to Adrian. , and it is said, that he had the Gift of Prophecy 
Quadratus & Aristides.  
b It is said, that he had the gift of Prophecy.] E●sebius, Lib. 3. cap. 37. assures us, that he was endued with the Gift of Prophecy, as were the Daughters of Philip the Deacon, and Miltiades in Euseb. Lib. 5. cap. 17. reckons him in the number of the Prophets of the New Testament. . Eusebius assures us, that the Apology of this Author was extant in his 〈◊〉, and that it shown the Genius of this Man, and the true Doctrine of the Apostles. But we have only a small Fragment produced by Eusebius in the fourth Book of his History, chap. 3. wherein the Author declares, that none could doubt of the Truth of the Miracles of Jesus Christ, because the Persons that were healed or raised from the Dead by him, had been seen, not only when he wrote his Miracles, or whilst he was upon Earth, but even a very great while after his Death: So that there are many (says he) who were yet living in our time 
c In our time.] Eusebius Thessalenicensis citys this Author against Andreas Cretensis▪ apud Phot. Cod. 335. Bede, who hath confounded him with the Bishop of Athens, declares, that he determined that there was no Meat from which a Christian ought to Abstain, which is likewise Recorded in the Menologium Graecorum upon the 21st day of September. .  
We have also lost the Apology of Aristides which was preserved till S. Jerom's time. This Aristides was a very Eloquent Athenian Philosopher, (says the same S. Jerom) who when he changed his Religion, did not alter his Profession, and presented unto the Emperor Adrian, at the same time as Quadratus, a Volume in form of an Apology, wherein he produced the Proofs of our Religion, and being still extant, shows the Learned how excellent a Writer this Author was. The same S. Jerom observes in another place, that this Work was full of Philosophical Notions, and that is was afterward imitated by S. Justin.   

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

HEGESIPPUS.  
HEgesippus appeared in the World a little after the Death of the Apostles, about the beginning of the Second Age of the Church 
a About the beginning of the second Age of the Church.] Euseb. Lib. 2. cap. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. Hieron. Hegesippus vicinus Apostolicorum temporum omnes à Passione Domini usque ad suam atatem Ecclesia●●icorum Actuum texens Historias, multaque alia ad utilitàtem legentium pertinentia hinc inde congregans, quinque libros scripsit Sermone simpliciori, ut quorum vitam sectabatur, dicendi quoque exprimeret caracterem. . He left the Jewish Religion, in which he was born 
b He left the Jewish Religion in which he was born.] Euseb. Lib. 4. c. 22. No●…ulla item in Hebraeorum Evangelio, & ex Hebraicâ Linguâ profert in medium, satis per haec apertè significans se ex Hebrais ad Christi fidem transisse. , to Embrace that of the Christians; he took a Journey to Rome under the Pontificate of Pope Anicetus, 
Hegesippus.  and remained there until that of Eleutherus 
c And remained there until that of Eleutherus.] So S. Jerom says; but Hegesippus only declares that he came to Rome, and resided there during the Pontificate of Anicetus, whose Deacon Eleutherus was at that time; that Soter succeeded Anicetu●, and Eleutherus Soter. This shows, that he lived in the time of the Antonines, and wrote his History at least under the Pontificate of Eleutherus. In the Chronicle of Alexandria it is observed, that he died under the Reign of the Emperor Commodus. , that is to say, from the year 165, until the year 180, or thereabouts; he is the first Author that hath Composed an entire Body of Ecclesiastical History, which he divided into five Books 
d Which he divided into five Books.] According to the Testimony of Eusebius and S. Jerom; this Work was entitled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apud Euseb. & Gobarum apud Ph●t. c. 232. , wherein he relates the principal Occurrences which happened in the Church from Jesus Christ's Passion to his own time. This Book was written in a simple Style 
e This Work was written in a simple Style.] This Eusebius, Lib. 4. c. 8. and S. Jerom de Script. Eccles. both bear witness. , because he resolved (says S. Jerom) to imitate the Phrases and Dialect of those, whose Lives he wrote. We have only some few Fragments left, which are inserted by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History.  
The first Fragment extracted from the Writings of Hegesippus, and produced by Eusebius in the second Book of his History, Chap. 23. contains a Relation of the Martyrdom of S. James Bishop of Jerusalem, but his way of telling it looks more like a fabulous Narrative, than a true History 
f But his way of telling it, looks more like a fabulous Narrative than a true History.] Scaliger proves by many Arguments that this Relation is fabulous, some whereof are not very solid, but others are so convincing, that the Answers of Halloixius and Petavius are not sufficient to give satisfaction to any Man of a sound Judgement; for to omit the particular Circumstances of the Life of S. James recited by Hegesippus, which cannot be true; as that he alone was permitted to enter into the Sanctuary, because he was not clothed in Woollen but in Linen, and other Things of the like nature; the account of his Martyrdom being contrary to that of Josephus, the verity of whose History was never suspected by any, furnishes us with Arguments against which it is almost impossible to dispute. See Valesius his Notes on Eusebius. .  
The second Fragment of Hegesippus is likewise to be found in the History of Eusebius, Book 3. Chap. 20. He therein informs us, that the Emperor Domitian caused a strict Search to be made after the Posterity of David, who were the Children of S. Judas the Brother of our Lord, but that perceiving them to be extremely poor, and very far from being able to make any attempt against the Empire, he soon dismissed them without any molestation 
g He soon dismissed them without any molestation.] This Narrative is likewise accused of Falsehood by Scaliger, but his Arguments are not so considerable as those which he urges against the former: The Answers of Halloixius and Valesius are indeed of some weight; yet I can scarcely persuade myself of the truth of this Relation. .  
The third is also found in the same Book, ch. 32. where he gives an account of the Martyrdom of Simeon the Son Cleopas Bishop of Jerusalem, who was Crucified under the Reign of Trajan, and adds, that hitherto the Church had remained a Virgin 
h Hitherto the Church had remained a Virgin.] Not but that the Church always remains in this state. Therefore the meaning of Hegesippus is this; That until that time she was not torn in pieces by Heresies and Schisms, and that all those who were called by the Name of Christians, had one and the same Faith, whereas afterward the Arch-heretics divided the Professors of Christianity, rend the Church, and propagated their pernicious Errors. It were a manifest Abuse of this Passage to interpret it otherwise. , but that after the Death of those that had heard and seen Jesus Christ in the Flesh, the first Heresiarch's began openly to divulge their detestable Errors.  
The fourth Fragment concerning Antinous, whom Adrian caused to be Registered amongst the Gods, is cited, Book 4. Chap. 8. only to show, that Hegesippus lived after the time of that Emperor.  
The fifth is in Book 4. Chap. 22. where Hegesippus speaks of his Journey to Rome in passing through Corinth, where he saw Primus the Bishop of that City; he describes the Election of Simeon in the room of S. James, and makes mention of a certain Person named Thebutis, whom he affirms to have been the first that rend the Church by his Errors, being incensed because he was not made a Bishop; he observes, that this Thebutis had collected his Doctrines from the seven Sects that were among the Jews, as well as the other Heretics.  
Eusebius adds, that Hegesippus produced divers Passages out of the Hebrew and Syriack Gospels, and that he speaks of several Traditions of the Jews; it is likewise observed by him, that he citys the Proverbs of Solomon, as well as S. Irenaeus, under the Name of The Book of Wisdom, and that he mentions certain Apocryphal Writings composed by the Heretics of his tme. This is all that is extant of the five Books of the History of Hegesippus, the order of which is also unknown to us; but, as far as we can judge by the remaining Fragments of this Work, it was not very exact, and was rather filled with feigned and fabulous Relations, than with solid and real Histories.  
We have besides, under the Name of Hegesippus an History of the Wars of the Jews, and of the taking of the City of Jerusalem, divided into five Books, which hath been often published, and particularly at Colen with the Notes of Galterius, in the year 1559. It was likewise printed in a Collection of the Works of the Fathers, set forth by Laurentius de la Bar, A. D. 1583. as also in the Bibliotheca Patrum of La Bigne, etc. But it is certain that this Work does not belong to Hegesippus, it being evident that it was written by an Author who lived after the Reign of Constantine the Great. For first, The History of Hegesippus was merely Ecclesiastical, whereas this is an History of the Jews copied out in part from Josephus. Secondly, We do not find therein any of the Passages of the true 〈◊〉 that are produced by 〈◊〉. Thirdly it is Recorded by thy Auth●● in Book 3. Chap. 5. that th● City of 〈◊〉, w●ich was 〈◊〉 as the third in 〈◊〉 and Dig●●ity 〈◊〉 those of the Roman Empire became the second ever since the City of 〈…〉 was called by the name of Constantinople. It is plain therefore, that the Author of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…. Some with Gronovius attribute it to S. Ambrose, by reason of the 〈◊〉 of its 〈◊〉 ●o that of the Writings of this Father; others, as Labb●●, are of opinion, that it is a Greek Version; and l●stly, 〈◊〉, as Vossius and Mir●●s, affirm, that this Book was Compiled since the time of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, th●● is to say, after the tenth Century, because the Author discoursing concer●ing the City of 〈◊〉 declares, that it formerly belonged to the Persians, and that at present it was a 〈◊〉 against th●●, which may be understood of the taking of this City by the Emperor Phocas. However i● be, this Author is only a Transcriber, or an Interpreter of Josephus, who hath made a kind of an imperfect Epitome of his History. The Latin Interpreter, who hath Translated it from Joseph●s, gave i● the Title of Ninevehs or Josippi, and the Transcribers not understanding this Word, have substituted Igis●pp● or Egesip●● in its room, as it appears from some ancient Manuscripts.  
Father Mabillon observes in his Voyage into Italy, that he found in the Ambrosian Library at ●●●lan an ancient Manuscript of this Book, wherein it is said, that it was Translated by S. Ambrose, in th● Titles whereof it is sometimes written Josippi; he saw another likewise at Tur●n that appeared to be about 700 years old, and that was entitled Egesippi. If these Manuscripts are as ancient as M●billon would have them to be▪ this Book must of necessity be of greater Antiquity than Vossius and Miraeus have imagined. It was Printed by itself at Paris in the years 1511, 1589, 1610; and afterwards inserted in the Bibliothecae Patrum.   

S. JUSTIN.  
ST. Justin was a Native of the City of Sichem, otherwise called Naples of Palestine 
a Of the City of Sichem, otherwise called Naples of Palestine.] In Dialog. 2. a p. 212. ad p. 223. Just. Ap●l. 2, p. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ Justin the Son of Priscus Bacchius of Flavia, The new ●ity, ●r Naples of Syria. This was one of the principal Cities of the Samaritans, and it hath had four Names. The first and most ancient is that of Sichem; thus it is usually called in the Holy Scripture, and in the Works of Josephus: The Second is Ma●o●ort●a, or Mamorth●, in Joseph. Lib. 5. the bell● Judaico, c. 4. and in Plin. Lib. 5. Nat. Hist. c. 13. The Third is Naples, and the Fourth is Flavia, which Name it has had ever since one of the Emperors (it is not certainly known, whether it were Vespasia● or Domitian) caused a Colony of the Greeks to be Transported thither. Moreover this Name is to be found, not only in the passage of S. Justin, that we have even now cited, but also in ancient Medals and particularly in one of D●●itian's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , which even at this day bears the Name of Napolous; his Father was called Priscus Bacchius; he was a Grecian by Birth and Religion 
b He was a Greek by Birth and Religion.] S. Epiphanius seems to believe, that S. Justin was of the Extraction and Religion of the Samaritans, when he says, that he passed from the Samarit●● to the Christian Religion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But when S. Justin himself mentions his Conversion▪ he decla●es, that he had been Educated in the Greek Religion, and that having disc●●ered the Falsehood thereof he readily embraced the Christian. It is true indeed that he calls the Samaritans in his Dialogue, and in his first Apology, his Stock, his Nation, and the like: But it was because he was horn among them, in a City the Original whereof was Samaritan, as S. Paul is said to be a Citizen of Rome, and of the City of Tarsus, tho' he was a Jew, and of the Tribe of Benjamin; and perhaps Epiphanius meant nothing else in this place. , but having in vain sought for the Knowledge of the true 
S. Justin.  God among all the Sects of the Pagan Philosophers, (tho' ●●e chief adhered to the Platonic) was Converted to the Christian Faith in a private Conference that happened between him and a certain ancient Man unknown to him, as himself tells the Story in his Dialogue with Tryphon; however being turned Christian he did not lay aside his Habit nor his Profession, but added to his skill in the Heathen Philosophy, a profound Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. He was at Rome when the Persecution, that was raised under the Reign of Antoninus Pius the Successor of Adrian, began to break forth, where he Composed an excellent Apology in behalf of the Christians, and Dedicated it to the Emperor, and to the Caesars. his Sons 
c 
To the Emperor, and to the Caesars his Sons.] The ●●scription of this Apology is, To the Emperor Aelius Hadrianus, Antoninus Pius, Augustus Caesar, and to his Son Verissimus, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural Son of Caesar, and the Adoptive of Antoninus Pius. To understand this Inscription it is requisite to know, that the Emperor Antoninus Pius, the Adoptive Son of Adrian, adopted Marcus Antoninus the Philosopher; and Lucius Verus, the Son of Aelius Verus, whom some affirm to have been adopted by Marcus▪ the Philosopher; therefore the first, who is named in this Inscription, is the Emperor Antoninus Pius; the Second called Verissimus, is Marcus Antoninus the Philosopher▪ the Adoptive Son of Antoninus; the Third is Lucius Verus, the Son of Aelius Verus, who had been Caesar, and was the adoptive Son of Antoninus Pius; he affects to call them Philosophers, and Pious▪ that so he might insinuate himself into their Favour, & that he might oblige them patiently to hearken to the Reasons of the Christians.  
This Reason is by no means true: S. Justin designed only to give these Emperors those Titles, by which they themselves desired to be called: This Family of the Antonines from Adrian to Commodus affected the Title of Philosophers, as much as of Fathers of their Country, or any other Title by which the flattering Romans endeavoured to get the Favour of their Masters whom they Courted.  , about the year 150 after the Nativity of Jesus Christ 
d About the Year after the Nativity of Jesus Christ] It could not be written before this time, because he mentions in two several places, the Followers of Martion, who came not to Rome, till the Death of Pope Hyginus in the Fourth year of Antoninus, and did not begin to propagate his Heresy, until about the end of the Reign of the same Emperor. S. Justin himself says, that it was 150 Years after the Birth of Christ, when he wrote it, Dici a nobis Christum an●e cen●um quinquaginta an●os natum sub Cyrenio. It is observed by Eusebius in his History, that it was Composed under the Pontificate of Anicetus, wherefore S. Jerom is deceived when he asserts, that it was presented in the Fourth year of Antoninus, and Scaliger is yet more mistaken, when he maintains that it was written in the beginning of his Reign; and the Argument alleged by him, that S. Justin mentions the War raised against the Jews under Adrian, as a thing that lately happened, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not considerable, since this might very well be affirmed of a War that was made ten or twelve Years before.   
This Apology is commonly called the second, but is really the first, whereas the other commonly so called is actually the second 
e Is actually the second] It is not to be doubted but that the Apology which is commonly called the first is really the second, for besides the authority of Eusebius, and Anastasius the Library Keeper, it is evident that it was written a little before the Martyrdom of S. Justin, since he therein describes the snares that were laid for him by the Philosopher Crescens. But there is only the testimony of Eusebius to induce us to believe that it was Composed in the time of Marcus Antoninus. Valesius affirms, that Eusebius is mistaken in this point; 1. Because he affirms in this Apology, That a certain Woman that was desirous to live separately from her Husband, presented a Petition to the Emepror, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not to the Emperors which she ought to have done, if this had happened in the beginning of the Reign of Marcus Antoninus, who had Lucius Verus for his Associate in the Empire. 2. Because he there says, that a certain Person named Lucius reproved a Judge in these words: this is not worthy of a pious Emperor, nor of him who is the Son of a Caesar and a Philosopher; or, as it is expressed by Eusebius, Of a Philosopher the Son of a Caesar, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eusebius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This Pious Emperor (says Valesius) is Antoninus Pius. and the Philosopher the Son of Caesar can be no other than Marcus Antoninus surnamed the Philosopher. The third objection is, that Urbicus who is mentioned in this Apology, as Praefectus or Governor of the City of Rome, exercised this Office under Antoninus, as appears from the third Oration of Apuleius, and from the Inscriptions of G●uter, p. 38. These are the Reasons or rather Conjectures of Valesius, which nevertheless seem not to deserve to be preferred before the a●●estation of Eusebius, and in my opinion they may be easily answered; for, 1. Mention is only made of one Emperor in this Apology, because Lucius was absent, and might be engaged in his Expedition against the Persians. 2. The Epithe● of Pious might likewise be attributed to Marcus Antoninus▪ the Philosopher, and his Son Commodus might well be called the Son of the Philosopher. Lastly, Urbicus might be Governor of Rome in the beginning of the Reign of Marcus Antoninus the Philosopher, as well as at the end of that of Antoninus Pius. , nay, (if we may give Credit to the Testimony of Eusebius) it was not Presented unto the Emperor and the Se●ate 
f And the Senate] Valesius affirms, that it was directed to the Emperor alone, and not to the Senate, however it is not only addressed to the Senate, but the Author likewise in the sequel of his Discourse makes application to the Romans in the plural number.  until the time of Marcus Antoninus the Philosopher and Successor of Antoninus Pius. The Subject of these two Apologies is almost the same. S. Justin in the former, to show the Injustice of their Proceed in Punishing and Persecuting the Christians, and that they were Innocent of the Crimes laid to their Charge, gives an exact account to the Emperor and his Sons, of their Doctrine, Manners, and Ceremonies, which Qualifications render this Apology one of the most considerable Records of Antiquity, and one of those wherein many things are contained relating to our Religion. We there find the Doctrine of the Church concerning the Trinity, the Incarnation of our Saviour, and Eternal Life, as also the Proofs of the Christian Faith, the Holiness of the Conversation of its Professors, together with a Description of their Assembles, and the Ceremonies used by them in the Administration of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.  
The second Apology, whereof some few Sentences are lost, doth not comprehend such variety of Matter, as being properly a Complaint or Remonstrance directed to the Emperor, the Senate, and all the People of Rome, concerning the Injuries that were unjustly offered to the Christians. In this last Apology he describes the Snares that were laid for him by a certain Cynic Philosopher named Crescens, whom he had convinced of Ignorance and Debauchery. I expect (says he) that those that falsely call themselves Philosophers, should lie in wait for me, and should cause me to be bound with Chains; perhaps through the Instigation of this ignorant Crescens, who delights more in vain Glory than in the Truth. This really happened just as he foretold; for not long after, Tatian 
g As is observed by ●atian.] In Lib. contr. Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ He procured that Justin should be condemned to death, as if to die were the greatest of all evils.  the Disciple of Justin observes, this Crescens caused him to be Condemned to Death in the Sixth year of the Reign of Marcus Antoninus the Philosopher 
h In the sixth year of the Reign of Marcus Antoninus the Philosopher.] The Author of the Alexandrian Chronicle sets the death of S. Justin down in this year, and we have no● any certainer proof. , in the year 166. It is not certainly known what kind of Punishment was inflicted on him, unless we stand by the Accounts which are given us in the Menelogi●m 
i To the Menologium.] In Menolog. K●lend. J●nii▪  of the Greeks, or the Acts of his Martyrdom 
k Or to the Acts of his Martyrdom.] These Acts are very plain, and contain the Replies of S. Justin and of six other Companions of his Martyrdom, which are very generous and pathetical; which makes me think that they are ancient.  related by Metaphrastes, which seem to be very ancient; wherein it is declared, that he was beheaded by the command of Rusticus the Perfect o● Governor of the City of Rome, under whom Epiphanius 
l S. Epiphanius.] It ought to be observed that S. Epiphanius is deceived in referring the Martyrdom of S. Justin to the Reign of the Emperor Adrian; but he is not mistaken as to the name of Rusticus, who lived in the time of Marcus Antoninus, and was much esteemed by him.  likewise affirms, that S. Justin suffered Martyrdom.  
Besides these two Apologies, there are several other Books of this ancient Father, as, his excellent Dialogue againg Tryp●●● 〈◊〉 Jew, which was Composed by him after his first Apology, since he expressly assures us therein, that he had informed the Emperor, in a particular Writing, that some Samaritans were led away with the Impostures of S●… 〈◊〉; 
m Pag. 342.  which passage is in his Apology, dedicated to the Emperor 〈◊〉, from whence it follows that it was written before this Dialogue Eusebius says, that this Conference was holden at Ephesus, but whether S. Justin ever had any Discourse with Tryphon, or whether he only feigned it, as Blato, Cicero and many others have done, this Book is very considerable. This Author proves against the Jews by an infinite Number of passages taken from the Old Testament, that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Word; who first appeared unto the Patriarches, and afterward condescended so far as to be made Man, and to be born of the Virgin Mary, for our Salvation. Of all the Writings of this ancient Martyr cited by Eusebius, these only that we have new mentioned remain entire; to which may be added, a Fragment of his Treatise of Monarchy, wherein (says Eusebius) he demonstrated the Unity of one God, not only by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, but also by the Testimony of profane Authors the first part of this Work is lost, but I am persuaded, that there is no reason to doubt, but that the Tract which is at present Entitled, Of Monarchy, is the Second part thereof, and so much the rather, because it gins after this manner; 
n It gins after this manner.] Pag. 103. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Having already produced Divine Authority; I shall also make use of humane Allegations, from whence it evidently appears, that this Book which we now have, is the Second part of that mentioned by Eusebius.  
We might likewise attribute to S. Justin, two Orations which are prefixed at the beginning of his Works, wherein he exhorts the Gentiles to embrace the Christian Religion, in showing the absurdity and novelty of that of the Pa●ans, and the Truth and Antiquity of ours. These two Discourses are undoubtedly ancient, and tho' they are not quoted by Eusebius, and the style of them seems to be a little different from that of S. Justin, yet we may affirm them to have been written by him, without any injury to his Reputation. The same Judgement may likewise be given of the Epistle to Diognetus, 
o The Epistle to Diognetus.] This Letter is written very much after S. Justin's way. There is mention made of a certain Person named Diognetus an able Painter in the Writings of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, and in those of Julius Capitolinus.  which was also Composed by an ancient Author, who lived in a time when the Christians were under Persecution: But the other Epistle written to Zena and Serenus, does not agree in the least with the style of S. Justin, and contains many Precepts, which rather concern Monks than simple Christians 
p Rather concern Monks than simple Christians.] Such are these following Instructions; That they ought not to give occasion to Discord; That they ought not to withdraw themselves from the Public Prayers on the account of any Difference; That they ought not to seek after the chiefest and the most honourable Employments; That they ought to keep silence, and to preserve modesty; That they ought not to discourse of the affairs of the World, but that they ought to look upon them as out of their way, and not to retain them in their minds; and many other Admonitions of this nature, which although exceeding useful, yet suit more with another Age different from that wherein S. Justin lived, and seem to have been given to Monks rather than ordinary Christians. The Author gives an account there of a Letter which he had written to a certain Pope, and to his Superiors, which further confirms our conjecture. .  
As for the other Works that bear the Name of this Father; Besides that they are not cited by Eusebius, nor any of the ancient Writers, we have positive Proofs that they are counterfeit. The first of these is a Treatise purely Philosophical, the Compiler whereof produceth divers passages of Aristotle's Physic; which he confutes very dryly, and in a style altogether different, not only from that of S. Justin, but even from that of the Age wherein he lived. At the end of this Tract there is another written, after the same manner, and probably Composed by the same Author, wherein are comprehended five Questions, which he calls Christian, tho' they have a much greater Tincture of the subtlety of a Philosopher, than of the simplicity of a Christian. Besides the Author of this Book resolves these Questions, after the method of the Pagan Philosophers; and afterwards disallows of the first Answer, by accommodating Christianity to Philosophy; to this are annexed several Philosophical Axioms together with divers Questions and Answers concerning incorporeal things, and the Resurrection. All these Books are written in the same style and by the same Author after the Heresy of the Manichees was sprung up, which is, often mentioned therein; now since this Heresy was not known till above an Hundred years after the Death of S. Justin, it must necessarily be affirmed that they were not written by him.  
The Book of Answers to the Questions of the Orthodox, containing 146 that are very curious, is much more useful, and more worthy of a Divine than the preceding; but neither can this belong to S. Justin, tho' it is ascribed to him by Photius; for besides that this sort of Questions and Answers were not usual in his time, in which no regard was had to matters of Curiosity, such as the most part of those that are comprised in this Work, Origen is cited in Quest. 82. and 88 S. Irenaeus in the 115. and the Manichees in the 127. The Author Discourseth there of the Mysteries of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation, in such Expressions, and with such Precautions as were not in use, until those Heresies were started in which these Truths were called in Question. We find the Words Hypostasis, Person, Consubstantial, in Quest. 16, 17, 139, 144. according to the Sense that was attributed to them by the Church, in the Fifth and Sixth Century. In Quest. 126, he says, that at the time when this Book was written, Christianity was no longer under the Dominion of Paganism, which evidently shows that the Author of these Questions is much later than S. Justin, not to mention that there are some things in this Work, which are not conformable to the Doctrine of this Father; as for Example, in Quest. 52. he denies that the Witch of Endor caused the Soul of Samuel to return, which is asserted by S. Justin, in his Dialogue against Tryphon; in Quest. 112. he says that it was a created Angel that communed with Moses and Jacob, which is expressly contrary to the Doctrine of this Father, and of the rest of the Writers of that Age, who believed it to be the Word himself. Some attribute these Questions to Theodoret, as well because they come near his way of writing, as because there are several Phrases used by this Writer, which are also frequently found in Theodoret. However it be, this Book was written by an Author, who lived about the Fifth or Sixth Age of the Church. Lastly, the Exposition of Faith, attributed to S. Justin, and cited by Leontius, and Euthymius Zagabenus too plainly refutes the Errors of the Arians, Nestorians and Eutychians to be written near the Age, in which this Father lived.  
It were to be wished, that instead of these Books which are falsely ascribed to S. Justin, we had those that were really Composed by him, whereof the Titles only remain at present. He wrote as he himself declares 
q As he himself declares.] Apol. 2. Pag. 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We have also Composed a Book against all the Heresies that have appeared, which we shall present unto you if you desire it. S. Irenaeus lib. 4. Cap. 14. Praeclare Justinus in ●o libro, quem Scripsit contra Marcionem ait, quoniam ipse quoque Domino non credidisset alterum Deum annuncianti, and Lib. 5. Bene Justinus in suo libro ait, quoniam ante adventum Domini nunquam ausus est Satanas blasphemare Deum, quip nondum sciens suam damnationem. , a Treatise against Heresies; and it is difficult to determine, whether the Book against Martion, cited by S. Irenaeus in two several places, was part of this Tract; or whether it were a distinct Work, according to the Opinion of S. Jerom; however 
r As to the Doctrine of the Trinity.] The most difficult passage concerning the Trinity is that which we read in his Dialogue, pag. 356, and 357, wherein he declares, That the Father is invisible and the Son visible, and that the Majesty of the Father is greater than that of the Son. But if we reflect a little on this matter it will appear, that S. Justin and the other Fathers who said the same thing, yet do not affirm that the Father is of a different nature or substance from the Son; but only, that it is the Son who manifested himself unto Men, or rather, that the Father hath not discovered himself unto Men but by his Son. Their Principle is this, That the Father performs no exterior action but through his Word, which is his Son; that it was the Son who Created the World, who revealed himself under several Figures to the Patriarches and Prophets, and who at last was made Man. It is on this account that they assert, that the Son is visible and the Father invisible, because the Father is not visible but through the Son; But this doth not hinder them from being of the same nature. We find the like expressions in S. Athanasius, Orat. 4. contr. Arian. who cannot be suspected of maintaining any Here rodox Opinions concerning the Divinity of the Word. , there is nothing now extant, except two passages quoted by S. Irenaeus. We have also entirely lost two Books that were Composed by S. Justin, against the Gentiles, in the first of which, after having Discoursed of divers Questions that are usually debated, as well by the Christians, as among the Pagan Philosophers, he treated of the Nature of Demons; the other was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called and contained a Confutation of the Errors of the Heathens. It may perhaps be suspected by some, that those two Treatises are the Orations prefixed at the beginning of the Works of S. Justin, immediately before his two Apologies, but besides that they have different Titles, there is not any Description in either of the two, of the Nature of Demons. Moreover there was another Work called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, the Psalmist, and a Book of Collections concerning the Soul, wherein he produced the Opinions of the Pagan Philosophers, promising to give his own in another Discourse on this Subject. These are all the Writings of S. Justin mentioned by Eusebius, S. Jerom and Photius; besides which (says Eusebius) There are many other Works written by him, in the hands of the Christians; Perhaps the Epistle to Diognetus, and the two Books against the Gentiles belong to this Number. Anastasius Sinaita and Glycas, cite a Commentary of this Father upon the Hexameron. Methodius, Leontius and S. John Damascen quote a Book of his concerning the Resurrection of the Body, but it is very probable, that these Writings are none of his.  
This Author (says the Learned Photius, speaking of S. Justin) was perfectly skilled in the Christian Philosophy, and yet more in the Profane; he had acquired an universal Learning, and a perfect knowledge of History; but he hath taken no care to adorn the Natural Beauty of Philosophy, with the Artificial Ornaments of Eloquence; Therefore his Discourses tho' very Learned, have not the Elegancy and Grace of Eloquent Discourses. This Character appears throughout all his Works, which are extremely full of Citations, and of passages taken from the Holy Scriptures and profane Authors, with little Order, and without any Ornament. He had joined to his exquisite Skill in the Pagan Philosophy, an admirable knowledge of the Sacred and Prophetical Writings, as also of the Principles of the Christian Religion; that there is scarce any one of the ancient Fathers who ever Discoursed more accurately, than he hath done of all its Mysteries. It is true indeed, that as to the Doctrine of the Trinity (r), he seems to differ from us in following the Platonic Maxims; but it will appear to those who shall thoroughly examine his Opinions, and those of the ancient Fathers, that in the main they agree with ours 
s In the main they agree with ours.] We need only examine his Discourse concerning the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity in his Apology to the Emperor, p. 36, 93, 94. as also concerning the Divinity of the Word, p. 67, 96. and in his first Apology, p. 44, 45. and more especially his Declaration concerning the Word in his Dialogue, p. 267. where he not only confutes the Opinion of those that imagined that Jesus Christ was a mere Man, but he likewise proves that he is really God; and in p. 358. where he plainly asserts, that the Word was begotten of the Father without dividing his Substance. , and that they are only different in the manner of Expression. He asserts with many of the ancient Writers, that the Souls of Men after their Separation from the Body, shall wait for the Day of Judgement, to be either entirely happy or miserable 
t To be either entirely happy or miserable.] In his Dialogue, p. 223. he declares, that the Souls of the just and of the wicked wait for the day of Judgement in a place where they suffer more or less, proportionably to the good or evil that they have done in the World. ; but at the same time he acknowledgeth, that during this interval they shall receive Punishments or Rewards, according to their Deserts. Moreover he believes (according to the Opinion of the most part of the primitive Christians) that the Just after the Resurrection shall remain for the space of a Thousand years in the City of Jerusalem where they shall enjoy all lawful Pleasures 
u Where they shall enjoy all lawful pleasures.] See p. 306. of his Dialogue; This Opinion is common to him and almost all the ancient Fathers, and it was a fancy set on foot by Papias, and from him spread among the Primitive Christians, of the vanity whereof we are at present convinced. . He seems to have thought that the Souls of the wicked should at last become capable of dying 
x That the Souls of the wicked should at last become capable of dying.] We find this notion in the beginning of his Dialogue, p. 222, 223, and 224. where the old Man that instructs him, refutes the Opinion of Plato, that Souls are incorruptible of their own nature, and maintaining that they are so only through grace; from whence he concludes, that the Souls of the wicked are only tormented as long as it shall seem good to the Will of God; insomuch that after many Ages they shall cease to be. ; tho' in other places 
y Although in other places, etc.] In his Apology to the Emperor, p. 57 he affirms, that the torments of the Damned shall not only last for a thousand years, as these mentioned by Plato, but that they shall be everlasting. Observe likewise what he says concerning these torments in p. 64, 65, 66. and in other places, wherein he always calls them Eternal, opposing this word Eternal to the Pains that shall one day have an end.  he affirms that their torments shall be eternal. He has a peculiar Opinion concerning the Souls of the righteous; which he affirms to have been before the coming of Jesus Christ, under the power of the Devil, who could cause them to appear whensoever he should think fit 
z Who could cause them to appear, etc.] He asserts this in speaking of Samuel, whose Soul the Witch really caused to return, according to his Opinion in Dialog. p. 332, and 333. . He hath asserted, as S. Irenaeus assures us, 
aa According to the testimony of S. Irenaeus.] This passage is set down above.  that the Devils were ignorant of their Damnation until the coming of our Saviour; nay, he goes further in his Apology to the Emperor, affirming that they are not as yet thrust down into Eternal Flames 
bb That the Devils are not as yet thrust down into Eternal Flames.] We find this in his Apology to the Emperor, p. 71.  etc. Lastly, he seems not to despair of the Salvation of those who have lived Virtuously among the Gentiles, having only the knowledge of God without that of Jesus Christ. 
cc Having only the knowledge of God without that of Jesus Christ] In his second Apology, pag. 83. he declares that they that lived according to the Principles of Natural Reason, as Socrates, Heraclitus, Azarias, Misael, etc. might be called Christians, and he seems to suppose that they were saved by living up to the Law of Nature.  These are almost all the particular Points wherein he hath departed from the present Opinions of the Catholic Church.  
The Works of S. Justin were first Printed all together in Greek 
dd The Works of S. Justin were first printed all together in Greek.] I do not speak of the several Editions of the Versions which are common, and whereof there are three besides that of Langus. The first was Composed by Picus Mirandula, and printed at Basil by Henry Peter in the years 1528, and 1551. The second by Perionius, and Printed by Nivelle at Paris in 1554. The third by Gelenius was Printed at Basil in 1555. Lastly, a Translation of all the Works of Justin was set forth by Langus, and Printed at Basil in 1565, and at Paris in the same year, and in 1578, together with large Commentaries. The Book of the Confutation of the Opinions of the Aristotelians was translated by Postellus, & printed by itself by Nivelle in 1552. A Greek Edition of his Apologies and several other little Tracts of the Greek Fathers were Printed at Rome by Zannerus. The Exhortation to the Greeks in Greek is Printed by itself by Guillard at Paris. , by Robert Stephen in the years 1551 and 1571; except the Second Treatise against the Gentiles, and the Epistle to Diognetus, which were printed by themselves, by Henry Stephen in the years 1592., and 1595. This Edition was soon followed by that of Commelinus in Greek and Latin, published by Fridericus Silburgius, Anno Dom. 1593. It comprehends the entire Works of S. Justin, divided into Three Parts, the first whereof contains the Books against the Gentiles, the Second, the Dialogue against Tryphon, and the Third, the Tracts that were Composed for the Instruction of the Christians: They are translated by Langus; except the Second Oration against the Gentiles, and the Epistle to Diognetus, which are of Henry Stephen's Translation: at the end are subjoined some Notes of Silburgius, Stephens, and other Learned men. Morellus followed this Edition in the Impression of the Works of S. Justin, which he caused to be made at Paris in the years 1615, and 1656. only he added the small Tracts of Athenagoras, Theophilus, Hermias and Tatian. This last Edition is thought to be the best, and yet it is very imperfect, and it were to be wished that another might ere long be published; to this end a new Version ought to be made of all St. Justin's Works, because Langus' hath many defects, the ancient Manuscripts ought to be consulted (if any such can be found) and exactly compared with the Greek Text, which was not corrected by Silburgius from any Manuscript: Lastly, some Annotations ought to be added, and many of those that are already Printed should be cut off.  
As for the disposing of these Works, the following Order may be observed; They should be divided into Three Classes. 1. Those that were really Composed by S. Justin. 2. Those that may be his, tho' we cannot certainly affirm it. And, 3. Those that are manifestly Supposititious. His Apology to the Emperor Antoninus, that which ought to be called the first Apology, that so for the Future it may always be cited under that Name, aught to be placed in the Front: the other Apology that immediately follows, should be Entitled the Second; after this might be inserted the Fragment of the Books concerning Monarchy; the excellent Dialogue against Tryphon, should be the last Treatise of this Class at least, till some of those that are lost, happen to be found. The Second Class should contain the two Orations to the Greek, and the Epistle to Diognetus. The Third may take in all the Books that are undoubtedly forged, which also might be distinguished into two Parts; in the first whereof should be placed those Writings, that may be in some manner useful, such are the 146 Questions, the Exposition of the Faith, and the Epistles to Zena and Serenus; and then in the Second one may add the Philosophical Tracts above cited, if it should not be thought more convenient to omit them altogether.   

MELITO.  
MElito Bishop of Sardis in Asia, is one of those Fathers, who wrote the most concerning the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church; but there remains nothing of them at present but 
Melito.  the Titles, and a few small Fragments produced by Eusebius in the Fourth Book of his History, chap. 26. The Titles are these; Two Books of the Feast of Easter, one of the Lives of the Prophets 
a A Book of the Lives of the Prophets.] Some reckon two Books on this Subject, but it is plain from the Greek Text of Eusebius, and the Authority of S. Jerom, that there was but one.  one of the Church, one of the Lordsday, one concerning the Nature of Man, another of his Creation, one of the submission of the Senses unto Faith 
b One of the Submission of the Senses unto Faith.] S. Jerom, and Ruffinus distinguish the Book of Faith, from that of the Senses, but it is more probable, that it was but one Book bearing the abovementioned Title, as being Composed against some Heretics, who asserted that we ought to believe only according to our Senses. , a Book concerning the Soul, the Body, and the Spirit, one of Baptism, another of Truth, another concerning the Generation of Jesus Christ, one of Prophecy, one of Hospitality, another entitled the Key, one of the Devil, another of the Apocalypse, one of God incarnate 
c Of God incarnate.] It is expressed in Greek. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of God incarnate, or invested with a Body. Others expound this passage after another manner, imagining that he maintained that God was Corporeal; but this last is not the proper signification of the Greek word. However, Origen, cited by Theodoret in Quest. 20. in Exodum, says that Melito wrote a Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that God was Corporeal, which answers to the other Interpretation. , and a Collection taken out of the Holy Scriptures. Lastly, an Apology presented to Marcus Antoninus, whereof we have a fragment in Eusebius, wherein Melito entreats the Emperor, that he would vouchsafe to examine the Accusations that were alleged against the Christians, and to cause the Persecution to cease by revoking the Edict that he had published against them: He represents to him, that the Christian Religion was so far from being destructive to the Roman Empire, that it was very much augmented since the propagation thereof; that this Religion was persecuted only by wicked Emperors, such as Nero and Domitian; that the Emperors Adrian and Antoninus had written several Letters in its behalf, and therefore he hoped to obtain of his Clemency and Generosity, the favour which he so earnestly requested. Eusebius also gives us another little Fragment out of the Book concerning Easter, to show the time when this Author wrote, in which he mentions Sagaris Bishop of Laodicea, whom he affirms to have suffered Martyrdom, under Servilius Paulus the Proconsul of Asia. As also another Fragment more considerable, which is the Preface to his Collections, wherein he gives us a Catalogue of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, omitting those that are not included in the Canon of the Jews; these are the Books of Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom (for he calls the Book of the Proverbs by the Name of Wisdom) Judith, Esther, and the two Books of the Maccabees.  
There is also another Fragment of Melito's preserved by the Author of the Chronicle commonly called the Alexandrian in Olympiad 236. wherein he says, that the Christians do not adore insensible Stones, but that they worship one God alone; who is before all things, and in all things, and Jesus Christ who is God and the Word before all Ages. It is not known from what Book this Fragment was taken; but it is probable, that it is in his Apology to the Emperor. Some other passages are likewise attributed to him, which are taken out of a Catena of the Greek Fathers upon Genesis, but they seem to me to be unworthy of this Author 
d Unworthy of this Author.] One of these passages is produced by Halloixius, being a Comparison between Isaac and Jesus Christ, full of childish Notions and Expressions, that are more agreeable to the Modern, than the ancient Writers. ; we find also in the Bibliotheca Patrum, another Book under his Name Entitled, Of the Passage or Death of the Virgin Mary, which is inserted by Pope Gelasius amongst the Apocryphal Writings, and rejected by Bede; But it is at present generally agreed, that this Book as not being cited by any of the ancient Writers, and containing many untruths and absurdities, is a counterfeit Work. Melito lived under the Reign of Marcus Antoninus, he presented his Apology in the Second year of this Emperor, that is to say, in the Year of our Lord 182. and died before the Pontificate of Victor, as appears from the Epistle of Polycrates to this Pope, wherein he mentions him, as already dead in these Words: Why should not I speak of Melito, whose Actions were regulated by the Motions of the Holy Ghost, who lies interred at Sardes, where he expects the Judgement and Resurrection? This shows that Melito was esteemed as a Prophet, that is to say, as a Man inspired by God, according to the Testimony of Tertullian produced by S. Jerom. If the same Tertullian had not assured us, that this Author wrote Elegantly and was a good Orator, it would be very difficult to give any Judgement concerning his Style, by that little of his Writings which is yet extant.   

TATIAN.  
TATIAN Surnamed the Assyrian, 
a Surnamed the Assyrian.] At the end of his Treatise against the Gentiles, he declares that he was born in Assyria, and that he had been instructed in the Theology of the Grecians.  from the Name of his Country, was an able Orator, and S. Justin's Scholar. He remained in the Communion of the Church during the Life of his Master, but after his Martyrdom being puffed up with Pride, which often attends the Opinion 
Tatian.  of Knowledge, he became Head and Author of a new Sect 
b Of a new Sect.] S. Irenaeus Lib. 1. Euseb. Lib. 4. c. 29. S. Jerom, in Catalogo. , which was called the Heresy of the Encratites, or of the Continent, because these Sectaries condemned Marriage, as also the use of diverssorts of Meats and Wine, leading a sober and austere Life in appearance; besides this, they maintained some of the Errors of the Valentinians, and affirmed that our Forefathers were Damned: This Sect was afterwards augmented by Severus 
c This Sect was afterward augmented by Severus.] S. Epiphanius affirms, that Severus lived before Tatian, but he is mistaken. , from whom they took the Name of Severians: these later rejected the Epistles of S. Paul, and the Acts of the Apostles. But to return to Tatian; he having got a great facility in writing, Composed a great number of Books, and among others an excellent Treatise against the Gentiles, which is most esteemed of all his Works, as also a Gospel Collected from the Four Evangelists.  
There is yet extant the Treatise of Tatian against the Gentiles, which was first Printed at Zurick, in the Year 1646. together with the Version of Conrad●s Gesner, afterwards inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum; and Lastly, annexed to the Works of S. Justin; the Title thereof is as follows: The Discourse of Tatian against the Gentiles, proving that the Greeks are not the Inventors of any of the Sciences, as they boast themselves to be, but that they were all invented by those whom they call Barbarians. This is indeed the Subject of the beginning of his Discourse, but then he adds, that the Greeks corrupted the Sciences, which they received from the Barbarians, and more especially Philosophy. Afterwards he proceeds to the Explication and defence of the Christian Religion; he Treats of the Nature of God, of the Word, of the Resurrection of the Body, and Freedom of the Soul: He confutes the Opinion of Fate, he discourseth of the Nature of the Soul, and of Devils, discovering the Snares that they lay for Men. He intermixeth all these things with several Satyrical Reflections on the ridiculous Theology of the Pagans, and the corrupt manners of their Gods and Philosophers, showing at the same time, that the Writings of Moses, are more ancient than all other Histories, and giving an admirable Description of the Holy Conversation of the Christians. This Work is extremely full of profane Learning, and the Style thereof is Elegant enough, but exuberant, and not very elaborate; and the Matters therein contained are not digested into any Order. It was certainly Composed by Tatian, before he fell into Heresy, tho' after S. Justin's Death, since he doth not condemn the State of Matrimony in that Book 
d He doth not condemn the State of Matrimony in that Book.] On the other hand, Pag. 168. he seems to approve it. . He argues concerning the Generation of the Word, in such Expressions as do not agree with our manner of explaining it, but they may be interpreted in a Sense which is not Heretical 
e A Sense which is not Heretical.] He asserts that the Word was begotten in the time of the Creation of the World; altho' he was from all Eternity, calling the Generation of the Word his Application, (if we may so term it) to the exterior Works: He adds, that the Word was not begotten by way of Separation, but after the same manner, as one Fire is lighted or kindled by another; so that God did not remain without the Word, but that the Word proceeded from him, and remained in him altogether, or at the same time this he explains by the instance of human Speech. These are the Principles of some of the ancient Christians. The Version of this Treatise was Printed together with the Greek Text at Basil, in the Years 1564, 1569, 1575., 15●●. and at Geneva, in 1592. . He maintains that the Angels, and Devils consist of Bodies and Souls: He denies the Immortality of the later, affirming that they die, and that they shall hereafter rise again with their respective Bodies, which is a considerable Error.  
As for the Gospel that was Compiled by Tatian, S. Epiphanius in his Description of the Heresy of the Nazarenes, hath confounded it with that which was Entitled: The Gospel according to the Hebrews; and indeed they had this in common, that the Genealogy of Jesus Christ was not in either of them: But the Gospel according to the Hebrews was older than Tatian's; besides the later was only a kind of a Catena or Concordance, wherein this Author had gathered together, what he judged proper to be Collected out of the Four Evangelists. S. Ambrose seems to mention it in the Preface to his Commentaries on S. Luke; when he declares, that some Writers had made one single Gospel out of the Four, by Collecting those passages, which they believed to be most favourable to their Opinions, and omitting the rest. The Gospel of Tatian was Composed after this manner; in which he retrenched the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, together with all that which relates to his human Nature, and his Extraction from the Stock of David. Baronius thought that that was the Work of Tatian, which is in the Seventh Tome of the Bibliotheca Patrum, under the Name of Ammonius; but this is a distinct Book; for as Valesius observes, it is an Historical Epitome of the Gospels, written by an ancient Orthodox Author, containing many passages, wherein Jesus Christ is called the Son of David; whereas Tatian's Gospel was a Rhapsody of the passages taken out of the four Evangelists, on purpose to induce us to believe that our Saviour was not descended from the Lineage of David. Tatian lived after the Death of S. Justin, and died about the time when S. Irenaeus wrote his Book concerning the Heresies. S. Clement in the Third Book of his Stromata, citys a Treatise of this Author Entitled, Of Perfection according to the Saviour, written by him after his Fall into Heresy; he produceth a passage out of it against Marriage, which he confutes in Pag. 460.   

ATHENAGORAS and HERMIAS.  
ATHENAGORAS an Athenian Philosopher, lived in the time of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus, 
Athenagoras & Hermias.  to whom he presented an Apology for the Christians 
a In the time of Emperor Marcus Antoninus, etc.] He joins Lucius Aurelius Commodus with Marcus. Labbé affirms that it was Lucius Verus; but it is more probable, that it was Commodus the Son of Antoninus, and that this Apology was presented after his being taken into the Government, about the Year 178. . This Work and its Author, were unknown to Eusebius, S. Jerom, and Photius, but it is cited by S. Epiphanius in the Heresy of Origen. In this Apology he refutes the three principle Calumnies that were alleged against the Christians, as 1. That they were Atheists. 2. That they eat humane Flesh. 3. That they committed horrible Crimes in their Assembles. To the first Accusation he makes Answer, that the Christians were not Atheists, since they acknowledged and adored one God in Three Persons, and lived Conformably to his Laws and Commandments, believing that he sees and knows all things; that they refused to worship Idols, and to offer Sacrifice to them, as being persuaded that they were not Deities. He replies to the two last Objections, in showing that the Life, Laws and Manners of the Christians were very far from Murder and those infamous Crimes whereof they were accused. He plainly Establisheth the Unity of the Essence of God, and the Trinity of the three Divine Persons: He affirms that the Word, that remained in God from all Eternity departed from him, (if we may use such an Expression) to create and govern all things: He maintains the worship of Angels, and declares that they were created to take care of Affairs here below. He asserts that the Devils were ruined through the Love that they bore unto Women; he admits freewill in its utmost Latitude; he makes divers Descriptions of the Holiness of the Conversation of the Christians; he commends Virginity; he condemneth second Marriages, calling them an honest Adultery; Lastly, he Treats of the Resurrection, and of the last Judgement.  
There is another Treatise of this Father extant, concerning the Resurrection of the Dead, wherein he endeavours to prove, that it is not only not impossible, but even extremely credible: These two Books are written in a Dogmatical style; they were Printed separately in Greek and Latin 
b 
In Greek and Latin] At Paris in Quarto, by Veke, Ann. Dom. 1541, and in Octavo, by Stephen with Nannius' Translation in 1557. Also by Plantin at Antwerp in 1560, 1583, and 1588. The Translation of Suffridus was Printed at Colen, with Commentaries in 1567., and 1573. Nannius' Version of the Treatise concerning the Resurrection, was published at the end of the Works of Philo at Basil 1561, and in 1558 by Episcopius, as also at Colen in 1599 There is a Version of the Treatise of the Resurrection by Ficinus, and Printed at Basil in 1516, and another of Valetus in Italian, Printed at Venice in 1556. The Apology was Printed in Latin at Paris in 1498, in Greek and Latin in 1577. In Latin at Basil 1565. Translated by Gesner, and there again in 1558, in Octavo at Zurick in 1599 The Book concerning the Resurrection of the Dead, was Printed in Latin at Paris in 1498, at Basil in 1561. In Greek and Latin in Venice in 1498, and 1550. At Basil in 1593., and 1653. At Paris in 1615, 1618., and 1636. The Translations which are at the end of S. Justin, are Nannius' of the Treatise of the Resurrection, and Gesner's of the Apology.  
[Athenagoras has also been Printed at Oxon Gr. Lar. in 12o. 1682; and at Leipzick 1684, in Oct. come Not is Var.]  , Translated by Gesner, Nannius, Marsilius Ficinus and Suffridus, and are inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum, as also in Greek, in the Supplement to the Bibliotheca; and Lastly, after the Works of S. Justin, with the Annotations of Gesner, and Henry Stephen; there is another imperfect Tract annexed to them, which is a continual Series of Satyrical Reflections, on the Opinions and Philosophical Notions of the Gentiles, Composed by Hermias, a Christian Philosopher. But this Author is not known, nor the precise time when he wrote, however it is not to be doubted but that he is ancient, and that he lived before the Pagan Religion was extirpated. This little Book was Printed by itself in Greek and Latin, at Basil, Anno Dom. 1553.   

THEOPHILUS' Bishop of ANTIOCH.  
THEY that imagine 
a They that imagine, etc.] This was the Opinion of Gulielmus Tyrius, who in S. Bernard's time wrote the History of the Crusade, See lib. 4. c. 9 It is a gross error, for according to this account Theophilus must have lived above 150 years. , that this Theophilus whom we speak of is the same with him, to whom S. Luke dedicates the Acts of the Apostles, are grossly mistaken; for this Man was so far from being Contemporary with S. Luke and the Apostles, that he was not Ordained Bishop 
Theophilus' Bishop of Antioch.  of Antioch 
b Ordained Bishop of Antioch.] He was the sixth; The first (according to the testimony of Eusebius) was Evodius, the second S. Ignatius, the third Hero, the fourth Cornelius, the fifth Heros, and Theophilus the fixth; S. Jerome indeed declares in one place that he was the seventh, but he is mistaken; Eusebius in his Chronicle, and in his History, refers his Ordination to the eighth year of the Reign of the Emperor Marcus, that is the 170 after Christ, according to the common computation. , until the Year 170. after the Nativity of Jesus Christ, and he governed this Church Twelve or Thirteen Years, until the beginning of the Reign of Commodus 
c Until the beginning of the Reign of Commodus.] Eusebius affirms that Maximinus was his Successor in the seventeenth year of Marcus Antoninus, but in the Chronology of the Emperors composed by Theophilus at the end of his third Book to Autolycus he reckons nineteen years and ten days of the Reign of Verus, that is to say, of the same Emperor Antoninus, and it cannot be affirmed that 16 years ought to be put instead of 19, as it is in the Translation, for by computing the total Sum of the years of the Emperors which amount to 237 years and one day, it is apparent, that there must of necessity be 19 From whence it follows, that either he was mistaken in reckoning up a greater number of years of the Reign of this Emperor under whom he lived, than were really passed, which is not credible, or that he did not write these Books until after this time, under the beginning of the Reign of Commodus; and then, he could not have had Maximinus for his Successor until the year 182 of the Vulgar Account, unless he was taken in his Life-time to be his Coadjutor. There is more probability that Eusebius was deceived a year or two. Nicephorus in his Chronography of the Patriarches of Antioch allows 13 years to Theophilus, which agrees with our Opinion. ; that is to say, until the Years of our Lord 181, or 182. This Bishop was no of the most vigorous Opposers of the Heretics of his time; he wrote a considerable Book against Martion, and a Treatise against the Heresy of Hermogenes. 
d And a Treatise against the Heresy of Hermogenes.] Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Jerom, Sub Imperatore M. Antonino Vero librum contra Marcionem composuit, qui usque ●odie extat. And Eusebius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. Jerom, Et contra Haeresim Hermogenes liber unus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. Jerom, Et alii breves, elegantesque tractatus ad aedificationem Ecclesiae pertinentes. , wherein he cited the Apocalypse. He likewise Composed other small Tracts, for the Instruction and Edification of the Faithful: All these Works are entirely lost; but we have Three Books still written by him to Autolycus, a Learned Heathen of his Acquaintance, who had undertaken to vindicate his Religion against that of the Christians.  
In the first of these Books he answers the Request, that had been made to him by that Heathen, to teach him how to know the true God, and after having declared that to attain to the knowledge of him, we must be purified in mind and heart, he proceeds to Treat of the Nature of God, and of those things which the Divines call his Attributes, as his Eternity, Immensity, Power, Invisibility; afterward he enlargeth on the Blessedness of the other Life, and on the Resurrection of the Body; he observes by the way, that Princes ought to be honoured as having received their Authority from God, and derives the Etymology of the word Christian from Unction. This first Book is properly a Discourse between him and Autolycus, in Answer to what this Heathen had said against the Religion of Jesus Christ. The second Book was written to convince him of the Falsehood of his own Religion, and of the truth of the Christians. He gins with a Confutation of the Opinions that were maintained by the Pagans, concerning their Gods, and shows the Contradictions of the Philosophers, and Poets on this Subject; he explains at large the Creation of the World, and that which happened in the succeeding Ages; he Demonstrates that the History of Moses is the oldest, and truest History that ever was, and that the Poets have extracted many things from the Holy Scriptures, particularly their Relations concerning the Torments of the Damned. In the third Book, after having proved that the Writings of the Heathens are full of an infinite number of Notions, contrary to right Reason and good Manners, he shows that the Doctrine and Lives of the Christians, are very far from those Crimes that are laid to their Charge. Lastly, at the end of his Work he adds an Historical Chronology, from the beginning of the World unto his Time, to prove that the History of Moses is the ancientest and the truest. It is apparent from this little Epitome, how well this Author was acquainted with profane History. These three Books are filled with a great Variety of curious Disquisitions concerning the Opinions of the Poets and Philosophers: Tho' there are but few things that relate immediately to the Doctrines of the Christian Religion; not that Theophilus was Ignorant of them, for it appears from several passages that he was very skilful in these Matters, but in regard that he Composed this Book chief to convince a Pagan, he insists rather in proving our Religion, by Arguments from without, than by expounding its Doctrines. He is the first Author that hath applied the word Trinity 
e The word Trinity.] Lib. 2. p. 94. and 100 , to the Three Persons of the Godhead, but he calls the Third by the Name of Wisdom: He asserts two things concerning the Word, which seem to savour of the Arian Heresy; the first is, that the Word may be in a Place, and the Second, that he was begotten in Time; but these Expressions, which are common to him, and many of the ancient Fathers, had a different Signification 
f But these Expressions which are common to him with many of the ancient Fathers had a different signification.] They meant nothing else by the first Expression, as hath been already observed, but that God made himself manifest unto Men by the Word, therefore when Theophilus affirms that the Word is in a place, and that the Father cannot be there, he intended only to declare, that the Word appears unto Men in a place, as he heretofore appeared unto Adam in the Terrestrial Paradise, and that the Father doth not appear in that manner: This is the System of the ancient Christians: It would be more difficult to resolve the second Expression, were it not that they themselves have explained it, since they acknowledge that the Word is Eternal, and that he remained in God from all Eternity, as his Council, Wisdom, and Word. But they say that the same Word who was in God, in some manner went out from him when he undertook to Create the World, because he began to make use of this Word in Exterior Operations, and this is what they call the Procession, Prolation, and Co-generation of the Word, which does not hinder but that the Word might be from all Eternity, and eternally begotten of the Father after the same manner as we apprehend it, but this is not that which they call Generation. These Expressions are not only used by Theophilus, but likewise by Athenagoras, Tatian, Tertullian, the Author of the Book concerning the Trinity, amongst the Works of this Father, Lactantius, the Compiler of the Homilies attributed to Zeno Veronensis, and afterwards by Rupertus in his Commentaries on Genesis.  from that which was afterwards given them by the Arians.  
Moreover these Books are full of Moral and Allegorical Expressions, the style is elegant, and the turn of the thoughts very agreeable, that whoever reads them, cannot doubt but that the Author was a very Eloquent Man. They are entitled in the Greek Manuscripts, The Books of Theophilus to Autolycus concerning the Faith of the Christians against the malicious Detractors of their Religion. They have been published in Greek and Latin, as also in Latin by Conradus Gesner, and Printed at Zurich in the Year 1546; afterward they were inserted in the Orthodoxographa, Printed at Basil in 1555. Fronto Ducaeus annexed them to the first Volume of the Supplement of the Bibliotheca Patrum set forth in 1624.; and they were afterwards Printed at the end of the Works of S. Justin in the Edition of Morellus.  
Besides these three Books, we have another Book in Latin attributed to Theophilus, consisting of Allegorical Commentaries on the four Gospels, which is in the Bibliotheca Patrum; There was a Commentary on the Gospels under his name in S. Jerom's time, divers passages whereof are produced by him in his Annotations on S. Matthew; there were also Commentaries on the Proverbs of Solomon; but this Father observes in his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers, that they did not come up to the elegancy or to the style of the Writings of Theophilus.   

APOLLINARIUS, or, APOLLINARIS of HIERAPOLIS.  
APollinarius, or, Apollinaris Bishop of Hierapolis, a City of Phrygia, wrote several Books under the Reign of Marcus Antoninus, the Titles whereof only remain at present; The first was an 
Apollinarius.  Oration dedicated to the Emperor in defence of the Christian Religion; The second a Treatise against the Gentiles divided into five Books; The third, two Books concerning Truth; The fourth, two Tracts against the the Jews; The fifth was one or more Treatises against the Sect of the Montanists, which then began to appear. These are all the Works of this Author that are cited by Eusebius and S. Jerome 
a By Eusebius and S. Jerome.] Lib 4. Cap. 27. S. Jerome in Catalogo omits the Books against the Jews, neither are they found in the Version of Ruffinus, nor even in some Greek Manuscripts of Eusebius. , they were extant in Photius' time, who having read his Books against the Gentiles, as also those concerning Piety and Truth 
b As also those concerning Piety and Truth.] Photius Cod. 14. It is probable that the Book of Piety is the first of those two that are cited by Eusebius, under the Title of Truth. Besides, he affirms, that there were other Works of this Author, which he had never seen. , declares, that he was much to be esteemed both for his Doctrine and his Style; wherefore I shall prefer the Judgement of this Learned Man before that of Trithemius, who without perusing the Works of Apollinarius, peremptorily asserts, that there seems to be more Zeal than Learning in what he has writ.  
We find in Eusebius, Book 5. Chap. 16. a large fragment of a certain Author, whom he doth not name, against the Heresy of the Montanists, from whence Ruffinus and Nicephorus have asserted, that this Fragment was taken from the Discourses of Apollinarius against them, but they must of necessity be deceived; for Apollinarius composed his Books to confute their Opinions, when they first began to be divulged, whereas the Anonymous Author of this Fragment, wrote after the death of Montanus, Maximilla, and Theodotus, who were the Ringleaders of that Party; besides, he makes mention of this Heresy as maintained in a Country far distant from his, and established a great while ago, which plainly shows, that this Fragment belongs not to Apollinarius, and consequently, that there is not any part of his Works now extant.   

DIONYSIUS of CORINTH.  
DIonysius Bishop of Corinth lived under the Reign of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus, and in the beginning of Commodus'. He not only took care of his own Flock, (says Eusebius, Book 4. Chap. 23.) but he also made the Christians of other Countries partakers of his Divine 
Dionysius of Corinth.  Labours, causing them to fructify every where by his Catholic Epistles, which he sent to many Churches. The first is written to the Lacedæmonians, containing an Instruction of the Catholic Faith, and an Exhortation to Peace and Unity. The second is directed to the Athenians, to excite their Faith, and to induce them to lead a Life conformable to the Rules of the Gospel: He likewise reproves their negligence, whereby they had almost abandoned the Christian Religion ever since their Bishop Publius suffered Martyrdom in the Persecutions that were raised in his time: Moreover he mentions Quadratus, who was elected Bishop of Athens after the Martyrdom of Publius, and testifies, that the Christians of this City owed the renovation of the ardour of their Faith to his Care. Besides this, he informs us, that Dionysius the Areopagite being converted by St. Paul, (as it is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles) was constituted the first Bishop of Athens. There is also another Epistle written by him to the Nicomedians, wherein he confutes the Heresy of Martion, and keeps close to the Rule of Faith. He likewise composed a Letter directed to the Church of Gortyna; as also to all those of Crete, in which he extremely commends Philip their Bishop, to whom his whole Church had given authentic Testimonies of his singular Abilities and Generosity, and he admonisheth them to avoid Heresies. In his Epistle to the Amastrians, and to the other Churches of Pontus, addressing his Discourse to their Bishop Palma, he explains divers passages of the Holy Scriptures; He therein lays down several Precepts concerning Marriage and Chastity, determining at the same time, that all Penitents should be received that returned from any Crimes whatsoever, and even from Heresy. In the same Volume is contained another Epistle to the Gnossians, wherein he adviseth Pinytus their Bishop not to impose on the Christians the heavy burden of the Obligation to preserve their Virginity, but to have respect unto the weakness which is incident to most of them. Pinytus in replying to this Epistle, extols and admires Dionysius of Corinth, and exhorts him at last to afford them more solid nourishment, and to send frequent Letters to him which might fill and satiate the People that were committted to his charge, lest being always nourished only with Milk, they should grow old, and yet remain in a kind of Intancy. This answer represents as it were a lively Portraiture of the Faith of Pinytus, his diligence in watching over the Flock, with which he was entrusted by God, his profound knowledge in Divinity, and his extraordinary Eloquence. We have also in our hand another Letter of Dionysius written to the Romans, and particularly directed to Soter, who was then their Bishop; a passage whereof it will be expedient here to produce, in which he recommends to them the continuation of a certain Custom, that had been always observed by them from their first plantation unto the persecution which happened in our time. This is (says he) a custom which hath been established among you, O ye Romen, ever since the beginning of your Church, to be charitable unto your Brethren, and to send to divers Churches throughout the World things necessary for their subsistence; you comfort the poor in their indigence, and relieve the urgent necessities of those that are condemned to the Mines; This custom you have received from your Ancestors, which the blessed Bishop Soter hath not only retained, but even augmented, by abundantly distributing the Donatives appointed for the relief of the Faithful, and cherishing as a Father would do his Children all the Brethren who came to Rome. He mentions St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, which had been for a long time constantly read in the Church of Corinth, as he testifies in these Words. We have even now passed the Lord's Day, when we perused your Epistle, which we shall hereafter read continually, as we do that of St. Clement, that we may be replenished with Precepts and wholesome Instructions: Afterward he observes, that his Letters were corrupted by Falsifiers in these Words: I wrote several Epistles at the Entreaty of the Brethren, but the Ministers of the Devil have filled them with Tares, by retrenching and adding many things; they may well expect this terrible Sentence: Cursed be he that adds or diminisheth any thing from my Words. Wherefore it is not to be admired, that some have presumed even to corrupt the Sacred Writings, since they have done it in Books of much less Authority. Besides these Epistles, there is another Extant, written to Chrysophora his faithful Sister, to whom he gave Instructions suitable, carefully nourishing her with spiritual Food. These are the Contents of this passage of Eusebius, concerning the Epistles of St. Dionysius, which I have set down entire, because he hath made use of the same Method as we should have done, in case those Epistles had been still Extant.  
Moreover Eusebius in his 2d. Book Chap. 25. recites another Fragment of his Epistle to the Romans, wherein it mentioned the Death of St. Peter, in the City of Rome in these Words. Thus (says he) as I may so say, by your Exhortations you have mixed the Grain that sprung from the Seed of St. Peter and S. Paul, that is to say, the Romans and the Corinthians: for these two glorious Apostles entering into our City of Corinth, instructed us in dispersing the spiritual Seed of the Gospel, afterwards they passed together into Italy, and having given you also the like Instructions, they suffered Martyrdom with you at the same time. This is all that we certainly know concerning the Life and Writings of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth. In the Menologium of the Greeks, he is reckoned among the Martyrs, 
a He is reckoned among the Martyrs.] On the 29th of November, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, on this day Dionysius Bishop of Corinth died by the Sword. Glycas affirms that he suffered Martyrdom under the Reign of Antoninus Pius; and yet it is certain, that he lived under Marcus Aurelius.  but since neither Eusebius, nor S. Jerom take any Notice of the matter, I am apt to believe that the Latin Church hath done more prudently in placing him in their Martyrology in the Rank of the Confessors.   

Pinytus, Philippus, Modestus, Musanus, and Bardesanes.  
AT the same time lived Pinytus Bishop of Gnossus in the Island of Crete, who replied (as we have even now observed) to S. Denys of Corinth, in an Eloquent and Learned Epistle, Philippus 
Pinytus, etc.  Bishop of Gortyna, mentioned likewise by the later, wrote a Treatise against Martion as well as Modestus 
a As well as Modestus.] S. Jerom affirms, that in his time there were other Tracts extant under the Name of Modestus; but that they were rejected by the learned as Supposititious. , but less accurate.  
Among these may be reckoned Musanus, who wrote a Work against the Encratites, and Bardesanes 
b Bardesanes.] Porphyritis, Lib. de Abst. citys one Bardesanes a Babylonian, who he says lived in the time of his Forefathers, and writ concerning the Brachman and Indian Philosophers. But he must needs have been another Person.  the Syrian, who Composed two Tracts translated into Greek by his Disciples, the First against Martion, and other Heretics, and the Second concerning Fate; this last was dedicated to the Emperor Antoninus 
c Was Dedicated to the Emperor Antoninus.] It is asserted by S. Jerom, that he presented it to him; but it is more probable, that being Translated, it was afterwards delivered by others; for since he wrote in Syriack, it is not credible, that he presented, or even Dedicated his Book to the Emperor; on the contrary, he Composed it at the Entreaty of his Friends; and in the form of a Dialogue. . Besides he wrote other Treatises upon the Persecution, that was then raised against the Christians of Syria: Eusebius observes, that this Author having been engaged in the Sect of the Valentinians, tho' he had acknowledged and retracted the most part of his Errors, yet he retained some of them; wherefore he is accused by S. Jerom, of being the Deviser of a new Heresy: Tho' he owns that Bardesanes was endued with a very quick Apprehension, and was extremely vehement in his Disputes. S. Epiphanius likewise makes him to be the Ringleader of an Heresy. Bardesanes (says he in Haeres. 56.) is the Author of the Heresy of the Bardasianites, he was a Native of Mesopotamia, and an Inhabitant of the City of Edessa; moreover he was a very good Christian 
d A very good Christian.] S. Epiphanius is deceived; for it is otherwise affirmed by Eusebius, that he was at first a Valentinian, and that his Errors were the remainders of this Heresy. , and wrote many useful Books, being well skilled in the Greek and Syriack Tongues 
e Being well-skilled in the Greek and Syriack Tongues.] He did not understand Greek, since, as Eusebius assures us, his Disciples Translated his Works. . He was intimately acquainted with Abgarus Prince of Edessa, and assisted him in his Studies; he lived until the time of Antoninus Verus, and Collected many things concerning Fate against the Astronomer Abidas: There are also other Works written by him agreeable to the Faith: He Courageously withstood Apollonius the Friend of Antoninus 
f The Friend of Antoninus.] Neither is there much certainty in this Relation. , who advised him to deny that he was a Christian, and undauntedly replied, that he did not fear Death, which he could not avoid, tho' he should do that which the Emperor required: But at last this Man adorned with so many Virtues fell into Heresy, suffering himself to be infected with the Errors of the Valentinians; inventing divers Aeones, and denying the Resurrection of the Dead. He acknowledged indeed the Law and the Prophets, together with the whole New Testament, but then he admitted several Apocryphal Books along with them. Eusebius in Lib. 6. Praeparat. Evangl. produceth an excellent Fragment of the Writings of this Author against Fate, whereby it is evident that it was written in the Form of a Dialogue. He proves in this Fragment, that Men are not Conducted by Nature and Necessity as brute Beasts, but by Reason and with Liberty, because, altho' the Nature of all Men be the same; yet there are infinite numbers of Manners, Customs, Laws and Religions among them, that are different even in the same Country, and under the very same Climate, which cannot proceed but from the different Choice that is made by them. Afterwards having alleged many Examples to evince this Truth, he adds: What shall we say, of the Society of Christians, who are dispersed throughout all the Cities of the World, and who cannot be induced by any Consideration, nor by any Arguments whatsoever, to follow the Manners and Customs of those among whom they reside; but on the contrary, wheresoever they are, they still adhere to peculiar Laws, and have Manners different from those of the People among whom they live, without being persuaded by any means to commit those things, which their Master hath declared to them to be Criminal, choosing rather to suffer Poverty, Dangers, Ignominy, 〈◊〉, and even Death itself? This passage set down by Eusebius, not only shows that Bardesanes was a Person of a quick Apprehension, and of a vehement Temper, (as hath been observed by S. Jerom) but it likewise informs us, that he had acquired much Learning 
g That he had acquired much Learning.] This Fragment contains an Enumeration of the Manners, Customs and different Laws of a very great number of People, which plainly shows his Learning, and it is written as agreeably as the Subject was capable of allowing it. , and that his Style wanted neither Elegancy nor Ornament.   

S. IRENAEUS.  
WE know nothing of the Country of S. Irenaeus 
a That he was a Greek.] Galesinius and some other Authors tells us, that he was of Smyrna, but this is barely a Conjecture: 'Tis certain, he was a Greek, and in all probability of Asia. , but only in general, that he was a Greek. It is probable, that he was at first Educated in the Christian Religion 
b He was at first Educated in the Christian Religion] He always speaks of the Christian Religion, as if he had never been of any other, and he not where takes notice, that he had ever been a Heathen. Besides it is certain that he was a Christian, and a Disciple of S. Polycarp from his tender years, as he himself testifies in his Letter to Florinus, as it is cited by Eusebius, Lib. 5. c. 20. I have seen you, says he, when I was as yet but a Child in Asia with S. Polycarp, I remember it very well because we best retain what we have seen in our Youth, so that I can tell, what kind of a place it was where S. Polycarp lived, what Discourses ●e held, and after what manner he lived. And in the Third Book against Heresies, Ch. 3. Polycarp●s ●ut●●● constitu●●● ab Apostolis Smyr●is i● Asiâ Episc●p●●, quem & nostr● pri●â ●●●te vidimus, multum enim 〈◊〉, & ●aldè s●●●x▪ Gl●●io●issim●, 〈◊〉 N●bilissim● 〈◊〉 fashions ex●vit è vitâ▪ Which clearly Demonstrates that S. Irenaeus was very young, when he used to go to S. Polycarp, and that on the other hand, S. Polycarp was extremely old. , or at 
S. Irenaeus.  least that he made profession thereof even from his Youth, during which he was a Disciple of S. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna in Asia, who was then very Old. This induceth me to believe, that this Father could not be born till about the end of the Reign of the Emperor Adrian, or the beginning of that of Antoninus Pius, some time before the Year 140, after the Nativity of Jesus Christ 
c 
The Year of our Lord, 140.] 'Tis commonly believed, that he was born towards the end of Trajan's Reign, or in the beginning of Adrian's. But this does not agree with what we have observed concerning him, by which it undeniably appears, that he only knew S. Polycarp in his old Age, when he himself was e●●eeding young: Besides, S. Ir●naeus lived till the 〈◊〉 202, or 203, wherein he suffered Martyrdom, and that he had Strength and Vigour enough still 〈◊〉 under the 〈◊〉 of Eleutherus, towards the Year of our Lord 178. And this abundantly discovers the Error of those Persons, who have imagined, that Irenaeus was the Angel of Thyatira, of whom mention is made in the ▪ Apocalypse. 'Tis certain, that Book was writ before his Birth, for in his Fifth Book speaking of the Revelations; It is not very long, says he, since it has appeared in the World, almost in our own time, at the end of Dom●i●● ' s▪ Reign.  
[Mr. Dodwel has fixed the time when S▪ Irenaeus lived▪ in his Third Dissertation▪ upon this Father▪ in this manner. Irenaeus speaking of S. John's Revelation says (Lib. 5. cap. 30.) Nequ● enim ante 〈◊〉 t●mporis visum est, sed pe●e sub n●stro Seculo, ad finem Domitiani imperii: So that the la●●er end of the Reign of the Emperor Domitian, was very near the time when S. Irenaeus lived. Whence it must follow▪ that he was alive at least under the former part of Trajan's Government. But then the words, Sub nostro seculo, are not so easy; because S●●ulum at that time signified as often the time of the present Emperor's Government as any thing else. Irenaeus says also, that when he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he heard S. Polycarp at Smyrna; when he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now S. Polycarp was an old Man in the beginning of Hadrian's Reign, to which time Irenaeus being his Disciple must be referred: For S. Irenaeus in his Letter to Florinus, says, that he saw him when himself was very Young, making a very splendid Figure in the Emperor's Court. Now this can agree to none but Hadrian; who often went about his Empire, staying long in several places, where their Antiquities and Histories could afford him Entertainment. This of necessity must be about the Year CXXII▪ since not other time can be Assigned in Hadrian's Reign for such a Journey.  
As for the time of his Death it must be carried as much higher as that of his Birth. The common Opinion is, that he suffered in the Persecution which Severus raised in Gaul, after he had Conquered Albinus. But that is inconsistent with itself; and it is no ways probable, that Severus should raise Persecution against those Men, for favouring Alb●●●●●, who as Tertullian assures 〈◊〉, made it a great part of their Justification, that in all these Civil Wars they had never declared themselves of any one Faction against the Emperor Severus; and this he appeals to as a thing notoriously known. Besides none of the Ancients within 300 Years of Irenaeus ever mention his being a Martyr, a thing never omitted in those Primitive times, whenever they had just grounds to give a Title, which of all others they thought the most Honourable. It is plain by the Controversies concerning Easter, and his Letter to Florinus, that he lived to Commodu●'● time. And if he were 25 years old, when he ●aw Florinus at Smyrna about the Year CXXII, he must have been born near or in the Year XCVII. In the Year CLXXXII (the 3d. of Commodus) he wrote against Blastus and Florinus, when by this Account he himself was 85 years old. The last Controversies concerning the time of observing Easter were in the Year CLXXXIX, in the 10th year of Commodus, when we are sure that S. Irenaeus was alive, because his Opinion▪ was appealed to, and he gave it so solemnly as to put an end to their Differences. Then he was by the former Account, in the XCII Year of his Age: After that we have no Memorials, either how long he lived, or what he did.]  . He was also a Disciple of Papias, if we may believe S. Jerom 
d S. ●erome▪] Ep. 29. ad Theodorum. Refert Irenaeus, vir Apostolicorum temporum, & Papiae auditoris Johannis Evangelistae discipulus. , and perhaps it is he whom he frequently citys in his Work against the Heresies, under the Name of an Elder, that had seen the Successors of the Apostles 
e Who had beheld the Successors of the Apostles.] Lib. 4. c. 45. Quemadmodum audivi à Presbytero, qui audierat ab his, qui Apostolos viderant, c. 47. valdè i●sensatos ●stend●bat Presbyter eos. Item c. 49. 50, 52. and Lib. 5. c. 5. and cap. 17. he citys Papias by Name, Lib. 5. c. 33. . After he had thus spent the time of his Youth in the School of the most Learned of the Apostles, 
f He went into France.] Gregory of Tours writes, that he was sent thither by S. Polycarp. We don't certainly know what Year, though 'tis probable he did not stay long in Asia.  he went into France; where he was ordained Priest of the Church of Lions by Pothinus, who was Bishop of that See 
g By Pothinus.] Halloixius was of Opinion, that he was ordained Presbyter by S. Polycarp. But there is more Reason to induce u● to believe, that he was ordained by Pothinus, and therefore S. Jerome calls him the Presbyter of Pothinus. . And when this Holy Prelate had suffered Martyrdom in the 90th▪ Year of his Age, being the 17th of the Reign of Marcus Antoninus, and the 178th Year of Jesus Christ, Irenaeus was Elected his Successor upon his return from a Voyage that ●e made to Rome 
h At his return from a Voyage that he made to Rome.] 'Tis certain, that the Martyrs had resolved to send him to Rome to carry their Letter, but we can't certainly tell, whether he went thither or no. Valesius thinks, that though they intended to send him, yet Pothinus' Death preventing him, he was detained there to be his Successor, and so never went to Rome at all. Baronius and Petavius say, that he went to Rome, and that he was not ordained till after his Return. They have the Authority of S. Jerome to support them, who says the same thing in his Book of the Ecclesiastical Writers in the following words. Irenaeus, Pothini Episcopi qui Lugdunensem in Galliâ regebat Ecclesiam Presbyter, à Martyribus ejusdem loci ob quasdem Ecclesiae quaestiones r●gatus Roma●● Missus, honorificas super nomine suo ad Eleutherum perfert literas, posteà tum Pothino prop● Nonagenario Martyrio Coronato in locum ejus substituitur. Eusebius also seems to be of the same Opinion, since he mentions a Letter wherein it is said, that he was sent to Rome, without telling us, that his Journey was stopped by the Death of Pothinus. The Conjecture of Valesius is only founded upon the Improbability of the thing, that they would send S. Irenaeus, who was the chief and the best known Member of the Church of Lions, and who besides was to succeed Pothinus; at a time when that Church stood so much in need of his Assistance▪ But besides that in a Question of Fact, as this is, a Conjecture of this Nature is of little Consequence, so it may be replied, that he was sent at the beginning of the Persecution, and that he returned before the Death of Pothinus. Fevardentius imagines, that S. Irenaeus carried Letters also into Asia and Phrygi●▪ which the same Martyrs wrote to their Brethren in those Churches about the same Subject, but this is very improbable, and there is nothing in Eusebius to induce us to believe it. All that we Read there, amounts only to this, that the Churches of Vienna and Lions, after the Death of Pothinus, and the other Martyrs, wrote a long Letter (which in all probability was Composed by S. Irenaeus) to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, cited by Eusebius towards the end of which, They passed their Censure upon the Montanists, with a great deal of Piety and Devotion, setting before them (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the Letters which their Martyrs had written, while they were as yet in Chains, as well to the Brethren of Asia and Phrygia, ●s to Eleutherus Bishop of Rome. But he does not say, that those first Letters to the Brethren of Asia and Phrygia, were carried by S. Irenaeus, nor that they were sent at all, till the Letter concerning their Martyrdom was writ, and it seems to be very improbable that they would send them the second time, if they had been carried thither once before▪ As for what relates to the Ordination of S. Irenaeus it is certain, that he was only a Presbyter, when he went to Rome, and this appears by the Letter of the Martyrs by Eusebius, and S. Jerome. It is more difficult to know, who ordained him afterwards. Father Quesnel in his Dissertations upon S. Leo, pretends that he was ordained by the Pope, and that he went purposely to Rome upon that Account, others believe that he came back before the Death of Pothinus, and was ordained by him. It is more natural and more agreeable to the Testimony of the Ancients to believe that he was not Elected, and ordained Bishop of Lions, till after the Death of Pothinus; and whereas Father Quesnel pretends, that at that time there was only one Bishop of France, and therefore it was necessary for S. Irenaeus after the Death of Pothinus to go and be ordained at Rome, all this is precarious, and the rather, because it appears that S. Irenaeus was sent thither while Pothinus was living, and upon another occasion. ; having carried several Letters thither written to Pope Eleutherus, by the Ma●●●●● of Lions, concerning the new Sect of the Mont●●ists. At the end of this Epistle, these Holy Men recommended S. Irenaeus in these words: We have desired our dear Brother and Colleague Irenaeus, to carry this Letter unto you; we commit him unto your Care; and we entreat you to esteem him as a Person that hath very much Zeal for the Gospel of Jesus Christ; if we believed that his Dignity would add any thing to his worth, we would have recommended him to you in quality of a Priest; but he is much more recommendable for his Zeal and Piety.  
S. Irenaeus being constituted Bishop, was not only employed in governing his particular Church with singular prudence, but he applied himself also to the preserving of all the other Churches in the World from the infection of Heresies, which were then spread abroad in great numbers. And it was on this account 
i 'Twas upon this Account.] He himself tells us in his Preface to the fifth Book, that he Composed these Books to convert the Heretics, and to preserve the Novices in the Faith, left they should be l●● aside by those, who would use their utmost Endeavours to pervert them, and sedúce them from the Truth.  that he Composed in Greek 
k In Greek.] 〈◊〉 having ●ound this ancient and ●ar●arous Version, a● first imagined, that these Books were Originally written in Latin, but afterwards he altered his Opinion, and no body doubts at present, but that they were written in Greek. For first S. Jerome places S. Irenaeus amongst the Greek Authors. Secondly, Eusebius S. Epiphanius, Theodoret, Photius and S. John Damascene, read and quoted him in Greek. Thirdly, This Author was less known to the Latins, than to the Greeks; and Lastly, speaking of the number of the Letters, and the Name of Antichrist, Lib. 5. he says several things that could not be said but by an Author that wrote in Greek. We don't know who made this Version; some have attributed it to himself, but this is a foolish Chimaera; it was certainly Composed by a Man that understood neither Language as he ought. It was not known in the time of Gregory the Great, who in his 50th Letter to Aetherius tells him, that he had searched a long time after the Writings of S. Irenaeus, without being able to find them. Gesta vel script● B. Irenaei jamdiu est quod sollici●è quae●●oimus, sed hactenus ex eis invenire aliquid non valui. S. Austin cites a passage out of S. Irenaeus, Lib. 1. contra Jul. cap. 3. which is of another Version. ▪ under the Pontificate of Elutherus 
l Eleutherus.] This appears, because in his Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome, from S. Peter down to his own time, he ends with Eleutherus, who, he says, was then living. Nunc duodecimo loc● Episcopatum ab Apostolis sortitur Eleutherus, Lib. 3. c. 3.  five Books against Heresies, bearing this Tide 
m Bearing this Title, etc.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eusebius, Photius, and others. This agrees with the name which he has given his Books in his Prefaces to Lib. 2, 3, and 4. and in the last Chapter of the 4th as well as the first of the fifth. The Heretics of those times called their knowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and themselves Gnostics, which was also the name of a particular Sect. , The Confutation and Subversion of that which is falsely called Knowledge. He wrote likewise at the same time two Epistles to two several Heretics of Rome, one whereof was directed to Blastus, and the other to Florinus, whom he knew when he was the Disciple of S. Polycarp. In the first of these Letters he treated of Schism, and in the second concerning Monarchy. In the latter he proved, that there was but one God, and that he was not the Author of Evil; for this was at first the principal Error of Florinus, tho' he soon fell into those of the Valentinians, which obbliged S. Irenaeus to dedicate another Work to him, Entitled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it was written against the Octonary of the Aeons' of the Valentinians.  
Not long after, under the Ponficate of Victor the Successor of Eleutherus, the Controversy that arose between the Asiatic Bishops and this Pope, gave occasion to S. Irenaeus to use his utmost endeavours to re-establish Peace. The subject of this dispute was to know on what day Easter ought to be observed; The Bishops of Asia, according to their ancient custom, always celebrated that Festival on the 14th of the Moon of March, on whatever day of the week it happened, whereas the Western Churches waited for the Lordsday before they celebrated it. This difference in point of practice, which seems to be but of little consequence, produced some disturbance among the Churches of the first Ages; and when S. Polycarp came to Rome in the time of Pope Anicetus, these two Bishops earnestly endeavoured to accommodate this matter; but not being able to persuade one another to leave their former Custom, (so jealous have Churches always been of their Ceremonies and Customs) they parted very good Friends, thinking that a difference of so little moment ought not to interrupt their mutual Agreement. But under the Pontificate of Victor, this Contest was revived with greater heat; and had well nigh caused a division in the Catholic Church. For this Pope, incensed because the Bishops of Asia being very far from submitting to the Threats and Penalties which he had denounced against them, in case they refused to abolish their own Custom, and to Conform to that of the Western Churches, had procured a large Epistle to be written to him by Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus in vindication thereof; took a resolution to drive Polycrates and the Asiatic Bishops out of their Churches, and sent every where Letters (says Eusebius) in which he declared them to be Excommunicated. Whereupon the other Bishops, and even those that celebrated the Feast of Easter with those of the West, disapproved the proceed of Victor, and wrote Letters to exhort him to take other Measures more conformable to Peace and Charity. But there was none that performed this with greater efficacy than S. Irenaeus, who wrote an Epistle to him under the name of the Church of France, wherein he declares, that tho' he himself solemnised the Feast of Easter on the Lord's Day according to his manner, yet he could not approve of his undertaking to Excommunicate whole Churches for the observation of a Custom which they had received from their Ancestors. He advertiseth him, that different Customs have been used in Churches not only in the Celebration of the Festival of Easter, but also of Fasts, and in divers other matters of practice. Lastly, he lays before him, that his Predecessors did not contend with the Asiatic Bishops in this matter; and that S. Polycarp being arrived at Rome, and having holden a Conference with Pope Anicetus touching this affair, they decreed, that mutual Communion and Peace ought not to be broken for a matter of so small importance. It is probable that Victor was convinced by these Reasons; for tho' the asiatics did not lay aside their Custom, yet it doth not appear that the Union between them and the Bishops of Rome was thereupon discontinued. This Epistle is produced by Eusebius, who affirms, that this Father wrote many others of the like nature to other Bishops.  
To return to the Works of S. Irenaeus, besides those that we have already mentioned, he wrote a Treatise against the Gentiles very concise and extremely necessary, (says Eusebius) Entitled, Of Knowledge 
n Of Knowledge.] St. Jerome distinguisheth this Treatise of Knowledge from that against the Gentiles, for want of having sufficiently minded a passage in Eusebius, Lib. 5. c. 26. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as also another Tract which he wrote to Martion, to show what was the Doctrine that was Preached by the Apostles; and lastly, a Book containing several Dissertations, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on different Subjects, wherein (according to the Testimony of Eusebius) he quotes the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon. These are all the Works of S. Irenaeus that Eusebius and S. Jerome mention 
o That Eusebius and S. Jerome mention.] S. Jerome speaking of the Apocalypse of S. John tells us, that S. Justin and S. Irenaeus have interpreted it, from whence some conclude, that S. Irenaeus composed a Commentary upon it. But S. Jerome's true meaning is, that these two Authors cited and explained some passages of it. Some Authors formerly attributed to him the Book De Universo, which was composed by Caius a Presbyter of Rome, mentioned by Photius, Cod. 48. The Author of the Questions attributed to S. Justin, citys a Book about Easter, Quest. 115 and tells us, that there was an Account, that they did not pray kneeling on Sundays, and that there was mention made of the Pentecost, all which perhaps might be found in the entire Letter of S. Irenaeus to Polycarp, of which Eusebius has only given us a fragment. Eusebius in his fourth Book, ch. 25. speaking of the Book of Philip against Martion, tells us, that S. Irenaeus and Modestus had likewise wrote against the same Heretic. S. Irenaeus himself, lib. 1. c. 29. promises to write particularly against that Heretic. We are not assured whether he ever did write against him or no, because neither S. Jerome, nor Eusebius, who have given us a Catalogue of all the Books of S. Irenaeus, mention it. 'Tis probable, that the Letter of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons concerning their Martyrs was writ by S. Irenaeus. , but it is not known when these last were written.  
The Death of S. Irenaeus was no less glorious than his Life; for after having governed the Flock which Jesus Christ had committed to his Charge for 24 years, he was not willing to abandon it in the time of the persecution of the Emperor Severus, which was much more cruel in France than in any other part of the World. He suffered Martyrdom at Lions with all the Christians that were found in that City, and in so great numbers that their Blood ran down through all the Streets, according to the report of Gregory of Tours in the first Book of his History, Chap. 27. We have not any particular account of his Martyrdom, which happened in the year, 202, or 203, after the Nativity of Jesus Christ.  
Of all the Works of this Father, there remains only in our possession a very barbarous Version of those against the Heresies, and some few Greek Fragments of these Books given us by Eusebius, Theodoret, S. Epiphanius, and S. Johannes Damascenus, which are collected in the last Edition of Fevardentius, and in the Writings of Halloixius. There is also a Fragment of his Epistle to Florinus extant, and a considerable part of that to Victor, and an Advertisement which he had inserted at the end of his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to oblige the Transcribers thereof, faithfully to revise and correct their Copy from his Manuscript. The Version of the five Books concerning the Heresies, tho' Barbarous (as I have hinted already) and full of Faults, yet is a very valuable Fragment; for the Variety which is in it is admirable.  
In the First Book, after having described at large the Errors of the Valentinians, in Chap. 1. He opposeth to them in the Second, the Faith of all the Churches in the World, which he comprehends in a kind of Creed; In the Third and fourth Chapters, he proceeds to show that all the Churches and all Christians agree in this Faith, and that the most Learned cannot add any thing to it, or make any Alterations from it, nor the most simple and ignorant, diminish any part of it. The following Chapters are spent in explaining the absurd Notions of Valentinus and his Disciples. In the 20th he returns to the Source and Original of the Heretics, and beginning with Simon Magus, he gives an Account successively of all the Heresies that appeared since the time of the Sorcerer, even unto that wherein he wrote. This first Book indeed is extremely tedious, being filled with almost nothing else but the wild Conceits, and extravagant Imaginations of the primitive Heretics: There is a notable passage in it concerning Penance, upon the occasion of certain Women, who being defiled by a famous Impostor named Mark, afterwards did Penance, during the remainder of their Lives. In the Second Book, S. Irenaeus gins to impugn the Errors which he had barely recited in the First: He chief makes use of the Principles of the Heretics in opposing them, and shows that they contradict themselves, and that all their Whimsies are ridiculous and ill laid together. In the Third Book he confutes them by the Authority of Holy Scripture and Tradition: He proves that it is impossible, that all the Churches in the World should agree together, to alter the Apostolical Doctrine; that the Evangelists and Apostles knew but one only God, the Greator of Heaven and Earth, and one jesus Christ God and Man, who was born of a Virgin, who is not the Son of Joseph, but was really Man, and that he actually suffered, and not in appearance only, as was pretended by the Heretics. He occasionally refutes the Error of Tatian, concerning the Damnation of Adam, and maintains as a certain truth, that he is saved. In the Fourth Book he continues to demonstrate, that there is but one God; particularly, he shows against Martion, that the same God is exhibited in the Old and New Testament; he Answers all the Objections of the Heretics, and especially those which they took from Scripture; afterwards he allegeth the Reasons that induce a spiritual Man, that is to say, a Christian, to condemn the Pagans, Jews, Heretics, and Schismatics. Lastly, he rejects the Opinion of those who affirmed, that Men were naturally good or evil, and proves the Liberty of Mankind. In the last Book, he Treats of the Redemption of Jesus Christ, of the Fall of Man, of the Resurrection of the last Judgement, of Antichrist, and of the State of Souls after Death. This is in General the Subject of every one of the Books of S. Irenaeus: and they that peruse them will find several other passages relating to some weighty Articles of our Religion.  
There are for Example, many excellent Paragraphs concerning the Holy Scriptures, and among others, one in Book 2. Chap. 46, and 47. There are very considerable passages touching the Eucharist in Book 3. Chap. 19 Book 4. Chap. 32. and 34. and in Book 5. Chap. 4. Where he proves the Resurrection of the Body against the Valentinians, because it is not credible, that being nourished with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, it should remain in Corruption: He mentions the Three Persons of the Trinity 
p Of the Trinity.] Lib. 1. c. 2. lib. 3. c. 20. lib. 4. c. 25, 37, and 75. and lib. 5. . In many places of his Works, and almost as often as he speaks of the Word he establisheth his Divinity, Eternity 
q His Divinity and Eternity.] Lib. 1. c. 19 lib. 2. c. 18, and 48. lib. 3. c. 6. In all these places, and several others, he says, that the Word is truly God. Lib. 2. c. 43, and 56. and lib. 3. c. 20. he says, that the Word is, and was always co-existent with the Father.  and Equality with the Father 
r And his equality with the Father.] In the fourth Book, ch. 8. he says, that the Son is the measure of the Father, because he comprehends him. He seems to have said something contrary to this lib. 2. where he says, that the Father is greater than the Son, that he knew not of the day of Judgement; And in another place he says, that the Father is invisible and the Son visible. But as to the first passage, there is no more difficulty in it than in that of S. John, and he speaks there of Jesus Christ considered as a Man. And the second ought to be understood after the same manner, as we have explained a like passage of S. Justin. It is yet more favourable to us, because he says that the Son makes the Father visible, Visibile Patris Filius. Which shows, that the Father and the Son are of the same nature. .  
In the Second Book 
s In the second Book.] Lib. 2. c. 51, etc. principally in the 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64. where he speaks of the Immortality of the Souls of the Iust See likewise Chap. 37. and 73. of the fourth Book, and Lib. 5. c. 32. , he Treats at large ●onccerning the Faculties of the Soul; he conceives that it is distinguished from the Body, and that it is of a different Nature; he there refu●es the Metempsychosis, or Transmigration of Souls out of one Body into another, and proves that those of the just shall subsist Eternally. But 〈◊〉 s●…s to have believed, as well as S. Justin, that they are immortal only through Grace, and that those of the wicked shall cease to be, after they have been tormented for a long time. He maintains also another particular Opinion, that the Souls assume the Figure of their Bodies, but this word Figure may be understood of some peculiar Quality of the Soul.  
He Discourseth in many places of the Fall of the first Man, and of the lamentable Consequences of his Sin 
t Of the lamentable consequences of his Sin.] Lib. 3. c. 20, 33, 34, and 35. and in several places of the fifth Book. , he teacheth that to repair this 〈◊〉, and for the Redemption of Mankind, the Word was made Man, and that 〈◊〉 is through Grace, that he hath merited for us by his Passion, that all Men may be saved 
u That all Men may be saved.] Lib. 3. cap. 18, 20, 22, and 33. Lib. 4. chap. 5. . As for the State of Souls separated from their Bodies, he determined that they were conveyed into an invisible place, where they expected the Resurrection of the Body, and that the Just after having Reigned with Jesus Christ on Earth, during the space of a Thousand years, and enjoyed temporal Pleasures, should enter into Heaven, to possess Eternal Happiness 
x To possess eternal happiness.] Lib. 5. c. 31, 32, etc. . He imagined also, that our Saviour descended into Hell, to preach the Faith there into the Patriarches, and to the ancient just Men, as well Jews as Gentiles, and that they that believed at his Preaching should be reckoned in the number of the Saints 
y Number of the Saints.] Lib. 4. c. 39, and 45. . Moreover he maintained some other particular Opinions; he believed for Example, that Jesus Christ lived above Fifty years upon Earth 
z Above fifty years upon Earth.] Lib. 1. c. 40. etc. , and that as Man. He was ignorant of the Day of Judgement, etc. He approves the Judgement of S. Justin, that the Devil knew not his Condemnation before the coming of Jesus Christ 
aa Before the coming of Jesus Christ] Lib. 4. c. 78. . He asserts, that the Saints shall understand by little and little, those things whereof they had no knowledge in their Entrance into Happiness 
bb Whereof they had no knowledge in their Entrance into happiness.] Lib. 2. c. 47. . Lastly, he imagines that God sent Enoch to the Angels 
cc To the Angels.] Lib. 4. c. 30. , whom he conceives to 〈◊〉 corporeal. The ancient Propagators of Christianity ought to be excused for these sorts of Opinions, th●… being scarcely one of them that had not admitted some Notions almost like these.  
The Style of S. 〈◊〉 (as far as we can judge by that part of his Works, which as yet remains) is succinct, clear and 〈◊〉, but not very sublime: He declares himself in his Preface to the First Book: That the Elegancy of a po●●e Dissertation ought not to be sought for in his Works, because residing among the Celtaes, it is impossible but that he should ●nter many barbarous Words; that he did not affect Discourse with Eloquence 〈◊〉 Ornament, and that he knew not how to persuade by the force of his Expressions, but that he wrote with a vulgar Simplicity. He takes more pains to instruct his Reader, than to divert him, and he endeavours more to convince him by the Matters which he propounded, than by the manner of Expressing them. It cannot be doubted, but that he was a very profound Scholar in all sorts of Knowledge, as well profane as Sacred; he perfectly understood the Poets, and Philosophers 
dd The Poets and Philosophers.] It is certain, he understood Homer very well, since he collects several Verses taken out of different places, to describe the carrying away of Cerberus, lib. 1. And as for the Pagan Philosophers, he knew them so very thoroughly, that in the second Book, ch. 11. he discovers all that the Valentinians had borrowed from each of them. We need only read over his first Book to be sufficiently persuaded, that he had very particularly applied himself to know all the Opinions of the Heretics. One sees by the Histories which he citys as well in his Books, as in his Letter to Victor, how well he was versed in History, and in the Discipline of th● Church. ; there was no Heretic of whose Doctrine and Arguments he was ignorant, he had an exquisite knowledge of the Holy Scriptures; he retained an infinite number of things, which the Disciples of the Apostles had taught by word of mouth: Lastly, he was exceeding well versed in History and in the Discipline of the Church, so that nothing can be more literally true, than what is attested of him by Ter●dlian, Irenaeus ●●●niu● Doctrinarum Cariosissimus explorator. Moreover his Learning was accompanied with a great deal of Prudence, Humility, Efficacy and Charity, and it may be justly affirmed, that he wanted nothing that was necessary for the Qualification of a good Christian, an Accomplished Bishop, and an able Ecclesiastical Writer. However, the Learned Photius had reason to take notice of one defect, which is common to him, with many other ancient Authors; that is, That he weakens and obscures (if we may so term it) the most certain Truths of Religion, by Arguments that are 〈◊〉 very solid 
ee Arguments that are not very solid.] Phot. God, 120. Etsi in aliquibus Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum certa veritas spuritis rationibus fuscari videtur. . It were easy to produce some Instances of this defect, but it seems to me to be more expedient to leave them to the Judgement of the Readers of his Works.  
Erasmus first published the ancient Version of the Five Books of S. Irenaeus, which was at first Printed at Basil, in the Year 1526. A Second Edition was likewise set forth at the same place by Frobenius in 1528. afterwards in 1533, 1545, 1548, 1554, 1560, in Folio, and in 1571. at Paris in 1528, and 1563. in Octavo by Petit, in a very fair Character, and by the same Printer in 1567., again in Octavo. These Editions were followed by those of Gallasius Minister of Geneva, in the Year 1570.  
Lastly, Fevardentius a Professor of Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, a Learned Man in his time undertook this Work, and Printed at Paris by Nivellae, in 1575. and 1576, the Five Books of S. Irenaeus, Revised and Corrected in many places, from an ancient Manuscript, and Augmented with Five entire Chapters, which were found in his Manuscript at the end of the Fifth Book. He has added at the end of every Chapter several Notes, which he judged to be necessary for the better understanding of this Author; they are for the most part useful and Learned, but there are some which exceed the due Limits, that a Commentator should prescribe to himself, whose Design ought not to be, to make Ostentation of his Learning, or to Treat of matters of Controversy, but barely to explain the Sense of his Author. The second Edition of Feu●rdentius, Printed at Colen in the Year 1596, and afterwards in 1630, and at Paris in 1639. is better than the former, because it contains the Greek passages of S. Irenaeus, which are extant in the Works of S. Epiphanius, and some other ancient Writers. To these may be added, those that are Collected by Halloixius from the Writings of S. Joannes Damascenus, in a Manuscript of the Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld. I am of Opinion, that it would be useless to make a new Edition of the Works of S. Irenaeus, at least until the Greek Text shall happen to be found; for to Compose one from the Version, that we now have in our Possession (as Halloixius proposes) would be a Business scarce of any manner of use.   

Victor, Polycrates, Theophilus of Caesarea, and Bachillus of Corinth.  
ST. Jerome places Victor amongst the Ecclesiastical Writers, because he wrote some little Pieces about the day of the Festival of Easter, which he believed ought not to be celebrated upon any 
Victor, etc.  other day but a Sunday. Eusebius mentions but one Roman Synod published in the Name of Victor.  
Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus wrote a Letter against the Opinion of Victor, wherein he pretended that we ought to celebrate this Festival upon the 14th day after the appearance of the Moon in March, upon what day of the Week soever it fell. Eusebius citys part of this Letter written in the name of Polycrates, in the 24th Chapter of the Fifth Book of his History, wherein he asserts, that St. Polycarp, and several other Disciples of the Apostles celebrated the Feast of Easter on the same day, as was generally observed in Asia, that is to say, the Fourteenth day after the appearance of the Moon in March upon what day soever it happened. This difference, as we have already observed, raised some divisions amongst the Churches, and exercised the Pens of the most Learned Bishops. The Bishops of Palestine, Narcissus of Jerusalem, Theophilus of Caesarea, Cassris of Tyre, and Clarus of Prolomials, wrote a Letter in the name of the Council, wherein, after they had proved that they derived this custom from the Apostles, they gave Orders to have their Letter solemnly published, and declared, that they celebrated Easter after the same manner as the Church of Alexandria did. Bachyilus' Bishop of Corinth wrote also a Letter in the name of the Bishops of Achaid upon the same Subject, and in Eusebius' time the Letters of the Bishops of Pontus of the Province of Osroene were extant. But all these Books are lost, and we have nothing that is ancient upon this Subject, except the Fragments of a Letter of St. Irenaeus, and of that of Polycrates cited by Eusebius, lib. 5. c. 4. All these Letters were writ towards the end of the Reign of Commodus, or the beginning of that of Severus. There goes indeed under the name of Prolycrates, a Book Entitled, The Passion of Blessed Timothy, mentioned by Sigebert, and published by Stapulensis, but 'tis a supposititious Work, and never mentioned by the Ancients.   

Several Writers, of whom nothing remains, and who were little known amongst the Ancients.  
THERE lived at this time several Writers, whose Works were extant in Eusebius' time, who mentions these that follow, lib. 5. cap. 27. Heraclitus upon St. Paul; Some Books of 
Several Writers, etc.  Maximus upon that common Question among the Heretics, From whence proceeds Evil; and About the Creation of Matter; The Commentaries of Appion, and of Candidus upon the Hexameron; Sextus ' s Book concerning the Resurrection; A Treatise of one Arabianus, and the Writings of several others, whose time, says Eusebius, we are not able to find out, there being no Traces or Signs of it; and lastly, the Discourses of several Authors, whose Names we don't so much as know, who, though they were Oxthodox, and of the Church, as appears by their Explication of the Scriptures, yet they were for the most part unknown, and without reputation, because their Books carried not the Names of their respective Authors. To these we must add a certain Person named Judas, who Composed a Dissertation upon the Seventy Weeks of Daniel, wherein he has composed a Chronology that reaches down to the Tenth year of the Emperor Severus, and would persuade the World, that Antichrist was then at hand. So much had the persecution, raised against the Christians at that time, troubled the Church.   

SERAPION of ANTIOCH.  
SErapion the Eighth Bishop of Antioch was advanced to this Dignity in the Tenth year of the Emperor Commodus, in the year of our Lord 191. He wrote a Letter to Caricus and Pontius 
Serapion of Antioch  against the Sect of the Montanists, a Fragment whereof Eusebius has cited, wherein he opposes the Authority of Apollinarius Bishop of Hierapolis, and the 
a The Subscriptions of two Bishops of Thrace.] These Subscriptions occasioned Baronius to imagine, that a Council was held upon this Subject; but they are only the Subscriptions of the Letters of two Bishops of Thrace, who wrote to the asiatics concerning this new Sect, (as the Church of France had done) and therefore there is no necessity of saying that there was a Council assembled upon this occasion.  Subscriptions of two Bishops of Thrace to the Montanists. There was also in the time of Eusebius another Letter of his addressed to Domninus, who of a Christian turned Jew, to reduce him from his Apostasy, and a Book concerning the Gospel falsely attributed to St. Peter. Eusebius citys a Fragment of this Book, by which it appears, that the subject and occasion which induced Serapion to write it, was a Contest that arose in the Church of Rhossus in Cilicia about the truth of that Gospel, that Serapion happening to be there, permitted them to read it, but that afterwards being convinced, that those Persons who defended it, were secret Heretics, and that Martion, who was the principal Asserter of it, received it from some Heretics named the Doc●t●, (who believed that Jesus Christ did not really suffer, but only in appearance) he wrote this Letter to them, till he could go to see them himself, to acquaint them with the falsity and errors of that Gospel.  
St. Jerome takes notice, that in his time there were some short Epistles of the same Author, that were conformable to his austere rigid way of living; but they are wholly lost. This Bishop governed the Church of Antioch till the first year of the Emperor Caracalla, and the year of our Lord 203. Antoninus succeeded him, and was the Ninth Bishop of Antioch after the Apostles.   

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

PANTAENUS.  
PAntaenus, a Stoic Philosopher 
a Born in Sicily.] Some have thought that he was an Hebrew, but they are mistaken, for St. Clement speaking of the Master he had in Egypt, who was our Pantaenus, Lib. 1. Strom. calls him the Sicilian Muse, which shows that he was a Sicilian, for otherwise he would as soon have called him the Attic Muse. That Master of his, whom he calls an Hebrew, was another Person that instructed him in Palestine. , born in Sicily, about the beginning of the Reign of the Emperor Commodus 
b Presided.] Eusebius, lib. 5. c. 10. and St. Jerome in Catalogo. , presided over the celebrated School of Alexandria, where from the time of S. Mark the founder of that Church, they had always a Divine that was eminent for 
Pantaenus.  his Learning and Piety, to explain the Holy Scriptures, and to instrust them in Human Learning.  
He was obliged for a time to leave this Employment to undertake another far more excellent. For the Indians having sent to the Bishop of Alexandria to furnish them with a Divine to instruct them in the Christian Religion, Demetrius sent Pantaenus thither, who undertook this Mission with Joy, and behaved himself very worthily in it. 'Tis reported, that he found that the Indians had already some Tincture of the Christian Religion, which had been infused by St. Bartholomew the Apostle, and that he met with the Gospel of S. Matthew amongst them written in Hebrew 
c Which that Apostle had left there.] S. Jerome tells us, that Pantaenus brought it with him, and that it was in his time preserved in the Library of Alexandria. I cannot easily prevail with myself to believe this Story, and indeed I should rather believe, that this was the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which the Nazarenes owned, which might pass for that of S. Matthew; for why should S. Bartholomew leave an Hebrew Book with Indians? , which that Apostle had left there.  
After Pantaenus was returned to Alexandria, he re-assumed the Government of the School of that City, which in his absence he in all probability had committed to the care of his Disciple S. Clemment a Presbyter of Alexandria. He continued to explain the Holy Scripture publicly under the Reign of Severus, and Antoninus Caracalla, and as S. Jerome tells us, was more serviceable to the Church by his Discourses, than by his Writings. Nevertheless he published some Commentaries upon the Bible, where he has discovered, as Eusebius says, the Treasures of the Scripture. We may judge after what manner he explained the Sacred Text, by the like performance of St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and the rest that were brought up in that School. They abound in Allegories, they find mysteries and instructions in every thing, and scarce ever follow the literal sense, and fill their Annotations generally with a great deal of Learning. A Man ought to have abundance of Wit and Eloquence to keep up this way of writing Commentaries, and to render it advantageous and entertaining to the People, otherwise it will degenerate and grow flat and tedious. The Commentaries of Pantaenus are all lost. We only know, that he was the Author of that Rule, which has been ever since followed by all the Interpreters of Prophecies; that the Prophets often express themselves in indefinite terms, and that they make use of the present time, instead of the past and future. Theodotus has related this Opinion of Pantaenus, but he speaks of it, as if he had rather said it than writ it.   

S. CLEMENT of ALEXANDRIA.  
SAint Clement 
a S. Clement.] He was called Titus Flavius Clemens, S. Epiphanius, in the Heresy of the Secundians, says, that he was called Atheniensis by some, and Alexandrinus by others, which has been the occasion that it was generally believed that he was of Athens, and that he was called Alexandrinus from the name of the Church whereof he was a Priest, but his Country is not certainly known. He was of the Sect of the Stoics. , a Presbyter of Alexandria, and Disciple of Pantaenus 
b Disciple of Pantaenus.] S. Clement had several Masters, as he tells us himself, Lib. 1. Stromat. p. 274. He says that he had two in Greece, one of Coelosyria, and the other of Egypt. And two others in the East, whereof one was an Assyrian, and the other of Palestine, and descended from the Hebrews: But that at last he found out one in Egypt, who was more Excellent than all the rest. This last was Pantaenus, whom he often mentions in his Book of Institutions We do not know who were the other four. Baronius believes that the Assyrian was Bard-sanes, and he of Palestine, Theophilus of Caesaria, but Bardesanes was not properly an Assyrian, and Theophilus of Caesaria was rather S. Clement's Companion than his Master. Valesius thinks with greater probability, that Tatian was the Assyrian, and Theodotus the Hebrew, under whose Name there is a Fragment of the Institutions at the end of the Works of S. Clement. , was after him, or rather at the same time with him, Master of the School at Alexandria, and Catechist of the 
S. Clement of Alexan.  Catechumen 
c Catechist of the Catechumen, etc.] Eusebius, Book 5. Chap. 10. and Book 6. Chap. 6. and S. Jerom in his Catalogue. We have already said, that Pantaenus left the School of Alexandria to his Care when he went to preach to the Indians, and it is probable, that after his return they both taught in the same School. , belonging to the Church of that City. He flourished under the Emperors Severus, and Antoninus Caracalla, and it plainly appears, that he lived till the Reign of Heliogabalus, or Alexander Severus, that is, till about the Year Two hundred and twenty from the Birth of Christ 
d About the year two hundred and twenty from the Birth of Christ] It is generally believed that he died about the year 200 from the Birth of Christ, but he must needs have lived longer; for Pantaenus who was his Master lived to this time, and the Ancients assure us that he survived him. He wrote his Stromata in the time of the Emperor Severus. . As he was endowed with extraordinary Learning, and a singular Talon in Writing, so he Composed several considerable Works, which discover great Industry and Study. This is plain by the Catalogue which is left us of them, by Eusebius and S. Jerom. The Eight Books of Stromata; Entitled the Commentaries, or Stromata of Titus Flavius Clemens, concerning true knowledge; Eight Books of Hypotyposes, or Instructions, an Exhortation to the Gentiles, quoted in the Seventh Book of the Stromata; Three Books commonly called the Pedagogue; and a Book Entitled, What rich man can be saved; a small Treatise concerning Easter; a Discourse of Fasting, another of Slander; an Exhortation to Patience, written to the Catechumen; a Book Entitled, The Ecclesiastical Rule, against the Jews, Dedicated to Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem. Besides these Books, S. Clement in his Second Book of the Pedagogue, Chap. 10. tells us, that he wrote a Book of Continence, and in his Third Book, Chap. 8. a Book concerning Marriage. Of these Works we have still Three remaining that are very considerable, The Exhortation to the Gentiles, the Pedagogue, the Eight Books of the Stromata, and the little Tract Entitled, What rich man can be saved, which Johannes Mattheus Cariophylus, Archbishop of Iconium, published from a Manuscript of the Vatican Library, whence Father Combe●is made a new Version which he set forth, together with the Original Greek, in the last Volume of his Supplement to the Bibliotheca Patrum. [It was Printed also at Oxon in Twelve 1683. Doctor Cave says, that it was published formerly under Origen's Name, being Printed by Michael Gheislerus, with Origen's Commentaries upon Jeremiah.]  
The Exhortation to the Gentiles, is a Discourse written to convert the Pagans from their Religion, and to persuade them to embrace that of Jesus Christ. In the beginning of it, he shows what Difference there is between the Design of Jesus Christ, and that of Orpheus, and those ancient Musicians, who were the first Authors of Idolatry, by telling us that these drew in Men by their Singing, and the sweetness of their Music, to render them miserable Slaves to Idols, and to make them like the very Beasts, and Stocks and Stones which they adored; whereas Jesus Christ, who from all Eternity was the WORD of God, always had a Compassionate tenderness for Men, and at last took their Nature upon him, to free them from the Slavery of Daemons; to open the Eyes of those that were blind, and the Ears of those that were deaf; to guide their Paths in the way of Justice; to deliver them from Death and Hell; and to bestow on them everlasting Life; to put them in a Capacity of leading a Heavenly Life here upon Earth; and Lastly, that God made himself Man, to teach Man to become like unto God. Having thus represented the Advantages of the Christian Religion, he exhorts them in a few words, to embrace Virtue, Justice, Temperance, and to imitate the Example of Jesus Christ, that so they may become worthy of eternal Salvation. He afterwards shows the Falsehood of the Pagan Religion: First, by discovering the Infamy, and Vanity of their Mysteries, which he enumerates and describes exactly. Secondly, by showing the Original of Idolatry, and after what manner Men first invented those false Deities. Some, says he, contemplating the Stars, and admiring their Courses, deified them, so the Indians adored the Sun, the Phrygians the Moon, and others gathering with Pleasure the Fruits that grow out of the Earth, made a Deity of Corn, which they call Ceres, and another of the Vine, and that they call Bacchus. Others dreading Punishments, Afflictions, Miseries and Calamities, invented particular Deities, who were either the Instruments of sending them upon mankind, or else of diverting them from Men: some Philosophers following the Fancy of the Poets, made Deities of the Passions, such as Love, Hope, and Joy, and others placed the Virtues in the Rank of Gods, representing them by external Shapes; Hesiod and Homer in their Accounts of the Generation of the Gods, and Descriptions of their Actions have given Rise to a new sort of Theology. Lastly, the common People have made Gods of those, from whom they have received any considerable Benefit. After having thus discovered the Original of Idolatry, he shows the Folly of it, by proving that the Principal Gods, as Jupiter, Mars, Vulcan, Aesculapius, etc. were Men like others, and that we know their Country, their manner of Living and Employments, and that we may see their Sepulchers to this Day: That the Poets have set down their Loves, their Wounds, and their Crimes: That the wisest of the Heathens have owned the Falsehood of these Deities: That the several Religions of the Pagans destroy one another: That it is a strange kind of Blindness, to adore Statues as real Deities. Then he goes on to the principal Design of his Work, which is to exhort men to adore the true God, and to embrace the Religion of Jesus Christ: he shows that the wisest of the Philosophers, as Plato, Cleanthes, Pythagoras, and Xenophon, have confessed that there was but One true God; and that even the most ancient Poets, as Aratus, Hesiod, Euripides and Orpheus, have been obliged to acknowledge the same; and that the Sibyls, the Prophets, and the Books of Scriptures teach only the Worship of One God. Afterwards he is very earnest to persuade Men to embrace the Christian Religion, in Consideration of the great Advantages that it carries along with it, towards the Attainment of eternal Salvation, which they cannot otherwise hope for, and for preserving themselves from eternal Torments, which they cannot possibly avoid, but by believing in Jesus Christ, and by living conformably to his Laws. If you were permitted, says he, to purchase eternal Salvation, what would you not give for it? And now you may obtain it by Faith and Charity. There is nothing can hinder you from acquiring it, neither Poverty, nor Misery, nor Old Age, nor any other State of Life: Believe therefore, in One God who is God and Man, and receive eternal Salvation for a Recompense Seek God, and you shall live for ever. Thus he concludes with a long Exhortation, wherein he most earnestly presses Men to quit their Idolatry and Vices, and to live and believe as the Christians do.  
The Second Book Entitled the Pedagogue, is a Discourse entirely of Morality. It is divided into three Books. In the first he shows, what it is to be a Pedagogue, that is to say, a Conductor, Pastor, 
Book I.  or Director of Men: He proves that this Quality chief and properly belongs only to the WORD Incarnate. He says that it is the part of the Pedagogue to regulate the Manners, conduct 
Chap. 1. Chap. 2. Chap. 3. Chap. 4.  the Actions, and cure the Passions. That he preserves Men from Sins, and heals them when they have been already Guilty. That the WORD performs these Functions by forgiving our Sins, as he is God, and instructing Us as he is Man, with great Sweetness and Charity. That he equally informs Men and Women, the Learned and the Ignorant, because all Men stand in need of Instruction, being all Children in one Sense. Yet however, that we must not think that the Doctrine of the Christians is Childish and Contemptible: But that on the contrary, the Quality of Children, which they receive in Baptism, renders them perfect in the knowledge of Divine Things, by delivering them from Sins by Grace, and enlightening them by the Illumination of Faith: And that so we are at the same time both Children and perfect Men, and that the Milk wherewith we are nourished, being 
Chap. 5. Chap. 6. Chap. 7.  both the Word and the Will of God, is a very Solid and Substantial Nourishment. That the WORD guided the Jews in the Old Testament by Fear; but that after it was Incarnate, it has changed this Fear into Love. That Reproaches, Afflictions, and Punishments, which the WORD makes 
Chap. 8.  use of to chastise Men, are not Signs of his bearing any hatred towards them, but Effects of his Justice, and of the Care which he takes to Correct them: That it is the same God, the Creator of the World, who is both Good and Just, that punishes and shows Mercy: That he is good upon his own 
Chap. 9  Account, and just as to Men: That Reproofs and Chastisements are for their Good; that there are two kinds of Fear, the Fear which Children have of their Father, or Subjects of their King, and the Fear which Slaves have of their Master. That both these Sorts of Fear are profitable to Men, but that the First is by much the most perfect. That the WORD inclines Men to good by its Exhortations, and prevents them from Sinning, by its Threaten: That he performed the Function of a 
Chap. 10.  Pedagogue by Moses and the Prophets, and that he is at last come himself to give Men suitable Remedies to their several Miseries, and to Conduct them according to the Dictates of right Reason. 
Last Chap.  That the whole Life of a Christian is a continued Series of Actions, conformable to Reason, and that Sin is produced by the going out of that way.  
In the 2d. and 3d. Book of the Pedagogue, S. Clement descends to the Recapitulation of humane Actions, and gives Rules for Temperance and Christian Modesty. In the former of these he shows, 
Book II. Chap. 1. Chap. 2. Chap. 3. Chap. 4. Chap. 5. Chap. 6. Chap. 7.  that the End and Design of Eating, ought not to be Pleasure but Necessity, and that therefore we must avoid Excess both in the Quantity, and the Quality of our Meat. That Wine is not to be Drunk but with great Moderation, and that young Persons particularly ought wholly to abstain from it. He finds great Fault with Luxury in Householdstuff and Movables. He is of Opinion, that Vocal and Instrumental Music, aught to be banished from the Christian Festivals, and that we should only celebrate therein the Praises of God. He is against immoderate Laughter, and uttering such Words as are unseemly. He requires that exact Modesty be observed in the Countenance, and in Discourse; he reprehends those who put Crowns and Garlands upon their Heads, and who perfumed themselves with Balm. He allows but little Sleep, and that in such Beds, that are neither too 
Chap. 8. Chap. 10. Chap. 11. and 12. Book III. Chap. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.  stately nor too delicate. That it is not lawful to Marry but with a Design of begetting Children; That we should not make use of Clothes, but for the sake of Decency. He declaims against Luxury of Apparel, against precious Stones, against Fantastical Dresses in Men or Women, and against public Baths. He describes and inveighs against all these things better than ever Juvenal, or any of the ancient Satirists had done before him. He intermixes his satire with several Curious Instructions, and descends to particulars like a Casuist.  
He passes in the next Place to the Precepts of Virtue opposite to the Vices he has been reprehending: 
Chap. 6. Chap. 7. and 8. Chap. 9, and 10. Chap. 11. Last Chap.  He shows, that there is none but the Christian, who is truly rich. That he ought to live in an entire Frugality. That he must not make use of any Exercises, and Pleasures, no farther than is absolutely necessary for his Health. He adds moreover divers Instructions, more particularly suited to the Women, to persuade them to carry themselves always Civilly and Modestly, and more especially in Churches. Lastly, he makes a Collection of several Places of Scripture, which relate to Morality, and the Conduct of our Life, and concludes by exhorting Men to hearken unto, and to obey the Precepts of Jesus Christ, their Supreme and Sovereign Pedagogue, to whom he Addresses a Prayer, praising him with the Father, and the Holy Ghost, and returning him Thanks for making him a Member of his Church. These Books are very profitable for those that study Morality, and if the Casuists of our Times had perused and considered them well, they had not fallen into that damnable Remissness, wherein they have suffered themselves to be overtaken: They might also be very useful to all Christians, and I much wonder that no Person has undertaken to translate them in this Age, wherein several Pious and Learned Men, have employed their Time and Labour in rendering intelligible to all People the most excellent Writings of the Fathers, by translating them into our Language with a Clearness of Expression, and Exactness of Style not to be imitated. But if any would undertake the Translation of the Pedagogue, he must leave out several Passages, that are not fitting to be read by every Body, and accommodate some other places to the Manners and Customs of our Times.  
The Books Entitled Stromata 
e The Books entitled Stromata.] This Book was called, as Eusebius tells us, The Stromatic Commentaries of Titus Flavius Clemens concerning the Gnostics, according to the True Philosophy; This Title is at the end of the First Book, opposing the False Gnostics to the True ones, which are the Sober and Discreet Christians.  are so called, because they contain several choice Thoughts 
f Choice Particulars.] The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies a Sheet of Linen, or a Bag to enclose Pieces of Tapestry; it likewise signifies a certain Fish with speckles on the Back. It is here taken for that neat mixture we see in Tapestry, and it imports as much as Miscellaneous Commentaries or Discourses. Ruffinus translates it, Opus varie contextum; Plutarch wrote a Book with this Title, and Origen wrote another after S. Clement.  Collected from divers Places, and joined together, so as to make a Variety somewhat like that in Turkywork Carpets. Let us see how S. Clement speaks of his own Work, in the Beginning of his Fourth Book. These Books, says he, are stored with Varieties, as their Name imports; we here pass on continually from one thing to another, and we often mention things that are foreign to our Subject. He afterwards compares this Work to a Meadow, a Tract of Land, or a Garden, wherein one may find all sorts of Herbs, Flowers and Fruits, of which we may gather what we please. But not, as he says in another place, to those beautiful Gardens, where the Trees and Plants are ranged only to please the Sight; but rather to a thick and shady Mountain, where the Cypresses, the Linden-Trees, the Laurels, the Ivy, the Appletrees, the Olives, the Figg-Trees, and other kind of Trees both fruitful and barren, are mixed together. He says that he has observed this Method designedly, that so he might not clearly discover our Mysteries to th●se who were not yet initiated, and yet so as others might comprehend them, and might thence make their advantage; as, says he, the Fruit-Trees of this Mountain, whereof we but just now spoke, are concealed from those who would rifle them, whereas the Labourer who understands them, may pluck them up, and make a Garden, or a pleasant Forest. Do not therefore expect, says he, in these Books, either Order or Politeness; since our Design was to conceal, and, if I may so say, to embroil Things, that so none but the Intelligent, and those who will take the Pains to inform themselves, may be able to comprehend them: So that as S. Clement has not observed any Method in these Books, but intermixed several Notions all along of Philosophy, and Religion, it is a difficult matter to make such an Abridgement of them, as we have given of the Books of the Pedagogue. However we shall endeavour to give an Account of the principal Matters, which he there Discourses of.  
In the First Bork, after having shown how advantageous it is, for Persons of Ability to Compose Books, he proposes the Subject of his, saying that they shall contain the principal Verities of Religion mixed, or rather concealed under the Maxims of Philosophy. Thence he takes occasion to refute those who find fault with Philosophy; to show the Profit and Advantage of it; to Discourse of the use that may be made of it: and he concludes by showing that the Philosophy of the Hebrews is the most ancient of all, justifying this Truth by a most curious and exact Chronology.  
In the Second Book he ●reats of Faith, and its Effects, which are Repentance, Hope and Fear; he proves that Faith is necessary; that it is not in us by Nature, but by Will; that it is God's Gift, but so as to depend upon our own freewill; that true Repentance consists in doing no more that which we are troubled for having done already; that there are two kinds of it, the First is that of those, who turned to the true Faith, to efface the Sins they committed, whilst they were Heathens; the Second is that of those, who have fallen after their Conversion, but yet have an opportunity of obtaining Forgiveness, provided they are hearty sorry for their Sin; but that those who often fa●l into the same Sin, and by that means make a Circle of Repenting and Sinning, are like to those who have no Faith: And that it is only a seeming, and no true Repentance, in those who ask Pardon for those very Sins which they never intent to reform. Upon occasion of Repentance he Discourses of Sin. He says that Men commit it freely, and that they are purified from it by Faith and Charity. That the Fear of God is very profitable for us, that it instructs us, that it causes us to avoid Sin, and that it incites us to Love. He commends Charity, Temperance and Hospitality. He condemns those that p●…ge themselves in sensual Pleasures: And proposes to them the Example of the Martyrs who suffered Fire, Torments, and Death itself for the defence of Justice and Truth. Afterwards he Discourses of Marriage, and defines it to be a lawful Conjunction between a Man and a Woman, for the Propagation of Children. He approves of it, and shows its advantages, telling us that it is never lawful to leave the Woman, in order to Marry another, upon any Pretence whatever.  
He continues in the Third Book, to speak against the Incontinence of the Nicolaitans, Carpocratians, Valentinians, and several other Heretics, and he defends Marriage against the Marcionites, against Tatian, and the other Heretics that blamed it, tho' he prefers Virginity before it as a greater good; Provided, says he, that it be kept merely for the Love of God, and for the observing his Commands. He maintains that Marriage is indissoluble, he does not entirely condemn Second Marriages, but blames them. He occasionally tells a Story of Nicholas one of the Seven first Deacons, who is supposed to be the Author of the Nicolaitans, who having a handsome Wife, and being accused of Jealousy, brought her, as they say, before the Apostles, and gave her leave to Marry whom ●he pleased of them. But he excuses Nicholas, and says, that those who boast of being his Disciples have put a wrong Construction upon this Action, as well as upon his Words: That he was informed, that he never had any Commerce with any other Woman, but his Wife: That his Daughters remained Virgins, and his Son was very Cha●t. He says that the Apostles S. Peter, and S. Philip were Married, and that they had Children: That even S. Philip married his Daughters, and he adds also, that S. Paul had a Wife, wherein he is mistaken.  
[Thou it is uncertain whether S. Paul was ever Married, yet it is a rash thing to say positively he was not. S. Clement alleges a Tradition in this Matter, which might easily be conveyed entire down to his time. It is plain, that the true Yoke-fellow, Philip. 4. 3. was a Woman; which others of the Ancients understood of his Wife, besides S. Clement. His Expostulating with the Corinthians, and asserting that he had a Power to lead about a Sister, or a Wife as well as S. Peter or any of the Apostles, may as well prove, that S. Paul justified his own Practice, as that he thought the thing simply lawful: especially since he is there making a Defence for himself. The Question however is very far from being certain in the Negative, and therefore at least ought to be left undetermined.]  
In the Fourth Book he treats of Martyrdom, and Christian Perfection. He shows the Excellency of Martyrdom, and exhorts Christians to undergo it, confuting the Heretics, who held that Martyrdom was no Virtuous Action: He makes the perfection of Christianity, to consist in the Love of God and our Neighbour. He would have us love Sinners, and yet detest their Sin; that we should do good out of a principle of Love and not for Fear. For that Man, says he, that abstains from Evil only out of a slavish Fear, is not good voluntarily, but for Fear-sake; and he who would not have abstained but in Consideration of the Recompense, cannot be said to be just with a good Heart. For in the one 'tis Fear, and in the other the hope of a Reward, which renders them Just, or rather which makes them appear so to the Eyes of the World. He says that God inflicts Punishments upon Men for Three Reasons. First, that the Man whom he Chastises may become better. Secondly, that those who are to be saved, may take warning by these Examples. Thirdly, lest he should be despised by Men, if he did not avenge Affronts and Injuries done to himself.  
In the Fifth Book, after having shown that the way of instructing by Allegories and Symbols was very ancient, not only among the Jews, but also among the Philosophers, he proves that the Greeks took the greatest part of the Truths, which are in their Books, from the Barbarians, and principally from the Hebrews. This Book is full of Citations from the Poets, and the heathen Philosophers.  
In the Sixth Book, he speaks again advantageously of Philosophy. Afterwards he gins to draw a Character of the True Gnostick, that is to say, to give the Idea of a Christian, that is perfectly Good and Wise. These are the principal strokes of his Picture. The True Gnostick has the Command over his Passions. He is exactly Temperate, and allows his Body no more than what is necessary. He loves God above all Things, and the Creatures for Gods-sake, and the Relation they bear to him, and nothing is able to separate him from this Love. He bears with Patience all unfortunate Accidents. He makes it his Business to know all things which relate to God, without neglecting humane Learning. His Discourses are regular and to the purpose, full of Sweetness and Charity. He is never overcome with Anger. He prays continually by Charity, that unites him to God; First, begging of him the Remission of his Sins; and then the Grace not to sin any more, but to do Good. Afterwards S. Clement enlarges upon the Source or Spring, from whence this Gnostick derives this true Knowledge, and complete Science. He says that it is the Holy Scripture, the Law and the Prophets, and in particular the Decalogue which he briefly explains, and Lastly, the Doctrine of Jesus Christ foretold by the Prophets, preached throughout the World, and received notwithstanding all the Contradiction of Kings, and the great Men of this World, who opposed it with all their Might.  
In the Seventh Book, he goes on to describe the Virtues of his Gnostick; he says that he employs himself entirely in honouring God, in loving him, in understanding, hearing and imitating his WORD, which was made Man for our Salvation; that he does it not only upon certain days, but during the whole Course of his Life; that the Sacrifices by which he Honours him, are the Prayers and the Praises which he offers up at all times and in all Places; that he is Gentle, Courteous, Affable, Patiented, Charitable, Sincere, Faithful and Temperate; that he despises the good things of this World, and that he is ready to suffer every thing for Jesus Christ; that he does nothing either out of Ostentation, or Fear, or the Desire of being rewarded, but out of pure Love to the Goodness and Justice of God: Lastly, that he is entirely Holy and Divine. Afterwards S. Clement Answers several Objections of the Greeks and Jews, who affirmed that the multiplicity of Heresies ought to hinder Men from the embracing the Religion of Jesus Christ. To which he Answers, that this multitude of Sects is likewise to be found among the Heathens, and the Jews; that it was foretold by Jesus Christ, that such a thing should happen among the Christians. That it ought not to make us forsake the Truth, but rather on the contrary to seek after it, with the greater Care and Diligence. That there is an infallible Rule to distinguish Truth from Falsehood; that this Rule is the Holy Scripture, which being an incontestable Principle serves for a Proof of whatever we say. That it must be Confessed, that the Heretics make use of it as well as the Catholics. But than first they do not make use of all the Sacred Books. Secondly, those which they do use are corrupted. Thirdly, they chief urge ambiguous Passages, which they explain according to their own Fancy, by departing from the true Sense, and keeping only to Terms. Hence he takes occasion to condemn in general all Heretics, who rejecting the Tradition of Jesus Christ, and his Apostles, and forsaking the Faith of the Church, have made themselves the Authors of particular Sects, by inventing new Doctrines, and corrupting the Truth. He says, that there is but only One Catholic Church, which is more ancient than all the Assemblies of the Heretics, that it was founded by Jesus Christ, who died under Tiberius, and established it in the World by the Apostles, before the end of Nero's Region. Whereas there was hardly so much as one Heresy older than Adrian's Time, and that they all bore the Name of their Author, or that of the Places and Countries where they first appeared, or from the Doctrine they taught, or the things which they honoured, which sufficiently discovers their Falsehood and Novelty. He concludes by making the Description of these Books of the Stromata, and by promising to begin another Subject in the following Book.  
The Last Book in our Editions, is a Collection of Logical Principles, which contains nothing that regards the Christian Religion, or that is worth giving an Account of. Photius observes, that in his Time there were some Editions, where this last Book was Entitled; What rich Man can be saved: And that it began with these Words. Those who make pieces of Oratory. But Eusebius distinguishes that Book from the Stromata.  
S. Clement of Alexandria, does not start at all from the Doctrine of the Church in those Works of his, whereof we have already given the Abridgement. He does not only mention Three Divine Persons, but he invokes them as One only God 
g As being One only God.] Lib. 1. Paedag. Cap. 8. Unus est universorum Pater, ●●●m etiam verbum universorum, & spiritus sanctus unus, qui & ipse est ubique. And Book 3. Chap. 12. Let us praise the Father and the Son, says he, the Son because he is our Pedagogue and our Master, together with the Holy Ghost who alone is the Whole, in whom are all Things, and by whom all Things are one, to whom be Glory for ever and ever. And again Book 5. pag. 544. The Father is not without the Son, neither the Son without the Father. And Pag. 598. after having quoted some Words of Plato, he understands them of the Trinity; For, says he, the Holy Ghost is the Third, and the Son, by whom all things were made, is the Second. . Besides he uses the Name of the most Holy Trinity. He says that the WORD, which was from the beginning in God, which is God, and equal to God, by which he created the World, and instructed all Men, did at last become Man to save us by his Doctrine, by his Example, and by his Death. It is true, in another Place he says, that the Nature of the Son is the most Perfect, the most Excellent, and that which approaches nearest to Almighty God, words which would seem to imply as if he believed, that the Nature of the WORD was different from that of the Father: But we know well enough, that the Ancients had not yet made so exact a Distinction between the Terms Nature, and Person, and that they often took one for the other. And indeed his way of Discoursing of the Excellency of the WORD, in this and other Places, sufficiently declares that he did not believe, that he was of a different Nature, taking the word Nature in the same Sense as we at present do. For he says that the WORD is God, that it is without Beginning, that he is equal to the Father, that he is in the Father, that he created all Things, etc. Expressions which clearly discover what his Opinion was concerning the Divinity of the WORD. He seems however to follow the way of speaking of some of the Ancients, in saying 
Book IU. Pag. 537. and 565.  that the WORD is Visible, that he may be known, and that it is by him that we know the invisible Father, of whom he is the Image; but it is an easy matter to Accommodate these Expressions to the Doctrines of the Church, as we have shown in our Critical Remarks upon several Authors already. He says, that the Blessed Mary remained a Virgin after she brought forth. He holds that the 
Book VII. Pag. 756. Book V Of the Strom. p. 550. Book II. p. 2. Chap. 2. Book III. Pag. 468. and 499.  Daemons sinned through Incontinency. He acknowledges Adam's Fall, and the Punishment of his Sin, which all Men have incurred. But he seems not well to have understood the Nature of Original Sin. 'Tis true, that in the passage commonly alleged from him against Original Sin, he contradicts the Opinion of those who affirmed, that the Generation was Corrupted. But he speaks after such a manner as would make us think, that he did not believe Original Sin, or at least, that he never considered it. Let them tell us, says he, how an Infant that is but just born has prevaricated, and how he who has already done nothing, could fall under Adam's Curse, etc. He often exhorts Men to do good by the hopes of Eternal Happiness, and dissuades them from Evil, by the Fear of Everlasting Punishments, without speaking at all of the Opinion of the Millenaries. He holds, that without Faith in Jesus Christ none can be saved: But he says, that Jesus Christ, and the Apostles preached the Gospel in the Limbi to just Persons, as well Gentiles as Jews, that they might obtain this Faith, wherein they were before deficient. He ascribes much to freewill, he believes that our Salvation, and Faith which is the beginning thereof depends upon ourselves, though not without the Assistance of Divine Grace 
h Though not without the Assistances of Divine Grace.] Lib. 5. Stromat. pag. 547. Nam neque fieri potest ut fine libero animi arbitrio & instituto consequamur, neque universum est positum in nostrâ voluntate, quale sit id quod est eventurum. Gratiâ servamur, sed non absque bonis operibus. Et oportet quidem cum naturâ apti simus ad bonum, ad id aliquod adhibere studium. Oportet mentem quoque habere bonam, & quae nullâ retardetur penitentiâ à boni consecutione. Ad quod maximè divinâ opus est gratiâ, rectâque doctrinâ, castaque & mundâ animi affectione, & patris ad ipsum attractione. And Lib. 4. pag. 518. he says, that it is God which gives us Continence. Pag. 530. he says, that it is Grace that enables us to run our Course without any impediment. Pag. 495. he says, that it is the Power of God which makes us resist Temptations. . He speaks nobly of the Necessity and Efficacy of Baptism. Baptism, 
In Protrep. p. 54. & Sequentibus. Book 1. Paed. Chap. 8. and 9 Book 3. Chap. 11. and 12. Lib. 1. Stromat. p. 3. 11. lib. 3. p. 444. Lib. 6. p. 661. In Protrep. p. 53. & Paed. lib. 1. cap. 9  says he, is called Grace, Illumination, Perfection, Washing, by which Name it is called, because it cleanses us from our Sins; it is called Grace because it remits the Punishment due for our Sins; Illumination because it enlightens us with the Illumination of Faith; Perfection because it makes us perfect. And afterwards, pag. 95. These Bonds of Sin are immediately broken by the Faith of Man, and the Grace of God; Sins are remitted by this admirable Remedy of Baptism, and we immediately cease to be Sinners; from being Blind as we were before, we become clearsighted, for what is taught to the Catechumen is purely Instruction to guide them to that Faith, which is thus internally conveyed by the Holy Spirit. We have given an account of the difference that he makes between the Remission of Sins committed after Baptism, and that which is obtained by Baptism. We have showed that he allowed but one Repentance after Baptism, and that he rejects the Repentances of those Persons who often relapse into the very same Sins, as things of no value; that he approves of Marriage, and believes it indissoluble; that he blames Polygamy, and even second Marriages. He speaks but little of the Eucharist, and what he says of it is very obscure, because he endeavours to conceal this Mystery from those who were not Baptised. But he declares expressly in the Second Book of the Pedagogue, Chap. 2. that the Bread and Wine are the Matter of it, and condems the Heretics who used any thing else besides Bread, and Wine mingled with Water. He observes that in several Churches, after the Eucharist was distributed, it was left to the liberty of each 
Lib. 3. Stromat. p. 462, & 465. Lib. 1. Stromat. init. Lib. 7. p. 754.  of the Faithful, to take a part of it. He often citys Apocryphal Books, as the Gospel according to the Egyptians, the Book of Hermas; yet in the mean time he only allows the Four Gospels to be Canonical. He admits of the Authority of Tradition, and that of the Church. These are the Opinions of S. Clement upon the Principal Articles of our Faith, which are conformable to the Doctrine of the Church, in all the main Points, and different only in some Things of lesser Consequence.  
But this cannot be said concerning his Work of Institutions, which according to the Testimony of Photius contained several Errors, even contrary to what he had taught in his other Works. Let us see what this Learned Critic says of the Matter. The Hypotiposes, says he, were written upon some Passages of the Old and New Testament, which he explains and interprets briefly; but though he has in several places very Orthodox and true Notions, yet in others he has some that are very Erroneous and Fabulous; For he says that Matter is Eternal, and he feigns Eternal Ideas produced by the Decrees of God; he places the Sun in the number of Created Being's; he holds the Metempsychosis; he pretends that there were several Worlds before Adam; he fancies Eve to be produced from Adam after an infamous manner, and different from that which is set down in the Scripture; he imagines, that the Angels having had to do with Women, begat Children of them; he thinks that the WORD was not really and truly Incarnate, but only in Appearance; he feigns two WORDS of GOD, the one Superior and the other Inferior, this last was that which appeared unto Men; he adds, that this WORD is not of the same nature with the WORD of GOD, that it was not the WORD of the Father that was incarnate, but a certain Virtue and Power of GOD proceeding from the WORD, which being a Spirit entered into the Souls of Men. He endeavours to prove these Opinions by Scripture. In a word, these Eight Books are full of such sort of Errors and Blasphemies; whether it be the Author of this Book that has written them, or whether it be any other who puts them out under his name. The intent and design of the whole Work appears to be an Explication of Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, the Canonical Epistles, and Ecclesiasticus. The Author observes that he was the Disciple of Pantaenus.  
If this Work was so full of Errors, as there seems no reason at all to doubt after the Testimony of Photius who had seen it, it must needs have been composed by S. Clement, before he was throughly instructed in the Christian Religion, and had altogether quitted the Opinions of Plato; which seems very probable, for we cannot say that he was not the Author of these Books, which are attributed to him by all Antiquity, and there is no likelihood that they were falsified by the Heretics in so many places. Besides that these are the Opinions of one who would accommodate the Platonic Philosophy to the Christian Religion, or rather of one who was half a Platonist and half a Christian. However among the Ancients these Books have been had in sufficient esteem and reputation. Eusebius citys several Passages out of them. In the First Book, Chap. 12. of his History he brings one out of the Fifth Book, where it is said that Cephas, Mathias, Barnabas, and Thaddaeus, were of the number of the Seventy Disciples of Jesus Christ. The same Eusebius in the Second Book, Chap. 1. produces another passage taken out of the Sixth Book, were he says that Peter, James, and John, (though they were preferred by Jesus Christ to the other Apostles) did not dispute about Precedency, but chose with one consent St. James the Just to be Bishop of Jerusalem. And another out of the Seventh Book, where he says, that these Three Apostles had the Spirit of Knowledge, which they communicated to the Seventy Disciples. In the 9th Chapter there is another Passage taken from the Seventh Book, where he says, that James the Brother of John by his Constancy converted his Accuser, and that they were both beheaded for the Faith of Christ. In the 15th Chapter, he says, that S. Clement in his Sixth Book of Institutions affirms, that S. Mark composed his Gospel by the Direction of S. Peter, and that this Apostle approved of it when it was finished. Lastly, Eusebius in the Sixth Book 14th Chapter tells us, that S. Clement in his Institutions explains all the Books of the Old and New Testament, not omitting even those of which many Persons doubted, as the Epistles of S. Judas, S. Barnabas, and the Revelation of S. Peter: That he says that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by S. Paul, and translated by S. Luke: That S. Paul would not put his Name to it, because he was hated by the Hebrews. He sets down the Order of the Gospels; he says that the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Luke were first written, that S. Mark composed his at Rome at the Instance of the Faithful, and by S. Peter's Order, and that S. John writ his the last at the desire of his Friends, to explain what was most Spiritual in Jesus Christ, the others having sufficiently spoken of his Body.  
The famous Valesius has observed, that we have still a very considerable Greek fragment of this Work at the end of S. Clement, Entitled, An Extract of the Oriental Doctrine of Theodotus. For it contains those very Errors, concerning Christ's Person, which Photius has observed in the Hypotiposes; and the Author says towards the end, that Pantaenus was his Master. It is also likely, that the other fragment which follows, which is a Collection of Words and Expressions of Scripture, is likewise taken out of these Books, for besides that it is found with the Works of S. Clement, it is written after that manner in which Eusebius and Photius acquaints us, that the Work of S. Clement was composed, and it appears that it is the very same Design.  
There is also another considerable Fragment of S. Clement taken from his Book, What Rich Man can be saved, in Eusebius, Book 3. Chap. 23. where he tells us a famous Story of S. John. He says that this Apostle coming to a City of Asia, recommended to the Bishop a young Man who seemed to have very good parts: That this Bishop presently took care of him, and having sufficiently instructed him, he baptised him; but afterwards neglecting to look after him as before, this young Man grew lewd, and became the Ringleader of the Robbers; that S. John returning some years after, demanded of the Bishop the Trust which he had committed to his Charge, and let him know, that he required this young Man from him. The Bishop telling him that he was utterly lost, and that he was become the Head of the Thiefs, this Holy Apostle being extremely concerned at this unfortunate Accident, immediately took Horse, caused himself to be taken by the Robbers, and to be brought before their Chief, who remembering him, immediately fled; but S. John running after him, made him acknowledge his fault, promised him to obtain for him Christ's Pardon, and brought him back along with him, and having put him into a Course of Repentance, he did not leave him till he was reconciled to the Church. We have this Book entire in the last Volume of the Supplement of the Bibliotheca Patrum, translated by Gislenius, and the Greek Text published by Cariophylus: 'Tis an excellent Discourse, wherein S. Clement explains the Words of Jesus Christ to the young Rich Man recorded by S. Mark, Chap. 10. And it shows, that in order to Salvation, 'tis not necessary for any one absolutely to quit his Possessions and Riches, provided he makes a good use of them. Upon occasion of this Question, he discourses of Love towards God, and towards our Neighbour, and of Repentance. By the way he says something of the Advantage there is in having a Director, to reprehend us severely for our Faults, and to give us suitable Remedies for our Amendment. And it was to show the Efficacy of Repentance, that he told this Story of S. John. We find under the name of S. Clement, in the Bibliotheca Patrum, some Explications upon several Passages of the Old Testament, and Commentaries upon the Canonical Epistles. If these Fragments are really his, they must be taken from his Books of Institutions, which is not very improbable, because they have a near Relation to what Photius says of the Institutions, and besides they have the Genius of S. Clement.  
There is no doubt but S. Clement was a Person of Extraordinary Qualifications. S. Jerom makes no scruple of saying that no Man had ever more knowledge than this Father; and it is certain, that of all the Ancients, there is none whose Books are so full of Profane Learning as his 
i Whose Books are so full of profane Learning at his.] I believe the Reader will not think it tedious to read the following Passage of Gentianus Hervetus concerning the Learning of S. Clement. Do you desire, says this Author, to read Histories that are very Ancient and very Curious? Read S. Clement who understood all ancient History so perfectly well, that one would think him to have been ignorant of nothing that had passed in the World. Have you an Esteem and Veneration for the Verses of the ancient Poets and the Answers of the Oracles? You cannot put too high a value upon S. Clement, who quotes Passages from several ancient Poets, whose Works we have lost. Would you be willing to know the Rites and Ceremonies which were observed in the Sacrifices of the Heathen Gods? Read S. Clement, who discovers the most hidden Mysteries of the Pagans. Besides, Is there any one among the Christians who has any respect for the Superstitions of the Heathens, who commends their Manners and Customs (and I wish to God there were no such Persons left) but if there be any, they may disabuse themselves by reading S. Clement, who clearly makes out the Falsehood of the Pagan Religion, so that after having read it, they cannot but be ashamed of their Folly. have you a mind to understand the Opinions and Maxims of the ancient Philosophers? Read S. Clement, who discourses of the Original of Philosophy, of all the Sects of Philosophers, and of their Doctrine, yet so as he always prefers the Philosophy of the Christians before all others, and proves by invincible Arguments, that This is That which is only Divine, whereof God himself is the Author. Would you know the Tenets of the Heretics who infested the Church in its infancy? S. Clement explains them concisely, and confutes them very solidly and substantially. Do you seek for Testimonies against the Heretics of our Times? S. Clement will furnish you with several. Have you a design to correct that abominable corruption of Mannners in this present Age? There is no Author that reproves Vice more severely, that exhorts more powerfully to the practice of Virtue, and that gives better Rules and Instructions for leading a Christian Life. Lastly have you a mind to re-establish the ancient Discipline of the Church? You cannot have too high an esteem for the Learning and Sanctity of S. Clement, who being a Priest carried himself, and lived after so Holy a Manner, that it were very much to be wished, that there were more Persons in this Age like him. : He even shows too much of it for a Christian Writer, and we may say that he was more a Philosopher than a Divine, though he was by no means ignorant of our Religion, and perfectly understood the Holy Scriptures. But he is much more Emphatical upon the Moral than upon the Doctrinal Part of Christianity; and he explains almost all the Passages which he citys, after an Allegorical manner in imitation of Philo Judaeus. He writes almost always without Method and Coherence. His Style is careless; which may be particularly observed in his Stromata. For in his Exhortation to the Gentiles, and his Pedagogue, he writes more floridly, as Photius has observed, and he is all along buoyed up with a certain Majestic gravity which is very delightful.  
The Works of S. Clement have been Printed in Greek at Florence in the year 1550 for Torrensis, by the Care of Petrus Victorius. They were translated by Gentianus Hervetus, which Translation was Printed at Florence by the same Person in the year 1551; at Paris in 1566, 1572, 1590., 1592., and in 1612; at Basil in 1556, and with S. Irenaeus in 1560, and 1566; at Amsterdam in 1613. Silburgius afterwards took Pains upon this Author, and having collected the Observations and Corrections of several Learned Persons, caused it to be Printed in Greek by Commelinus in the year 1592., in Folio. Afterwards it was published in Greek and Latin by Heinsius, who revised the Translation, and added some new Observations, and caused it to be Printed in Greek by the same Commelinus in the year 1616. This Edition was followed by those of Paris in the year 1629, and 1621., which is the best of all; That of 1641 is not so Fair and Correct.   

Miltiades; The two Apollonii; And two Anonymous Authors, who wrote against the Heresies of Montanus and Artemo.  
'TIS not known neither what was the Country, nor the Profession of Miltiades; he wrote a Book against the Montanists, wherein he particularly maintains, That a Prophet ought 
Miltiades, etc.  not to speak in an Ecstasy or Fury 
a In an Ecstasy or fury.] This is taken from the Author against the Heresies of the Montanists, in Eusebius, Book 5. Chap. 17. and the meaning of it is, that true Prophets ought never to deliver themselves in a Fury, nor to be out of their right Senses, as the Montanists were. This likewise is the Rule which S. Chrysostom gives for distinguishing the False Prophets from the True. Homil. 29. in Epist. ad Corinth. 8. And S. Jerom, in his Preface upon Nahum, Non enim loquimur in Extasi, ut Montanus, & Prisca, Maximillaque delirant, sed quod Prophetat liber est visionis intelligentis. S. Jerom here uses the Term Ecstasy in the same sense with the Anonymous Author. . Eusebius affirms, that he has left evident Proofs of his Skill, and the Pains which he took in the Study of the Holy Scripture, in those Books which he wrote against the Gentiles and the Jews, each of which was divided into two Volumes. And that besides these Discourses, he wrote an Apology for the Christian Philosophy, Dedicated to the Governors of the Provinces 
b To the Governors of the Provinces.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eusebius and S. Jerom understood these Words of Emperors; but since there was but one in this Author's time, it is more natural to explain this Expression by Governors of Provinces. . This Author lived under the Emperor Commodus.  
There were at the same time two different Authors, both of which were called Apollonius. The false is a Greek Author, who wrote against the Sect of the Montanists, wherein he Confutes their last Prophecies step by step, and Censures the Practice and Manners of those Heretics. Eusebius gives us a Fragment of it in Book V Chap. 18. where he describes the Exorbitances of Montanus and his Prophetesses; he accuses them for taking Sums of Money and Presents. He particularly reprehends two Persons of this Sect, who boasted of their being Martyrs. Besides, Eusebius observes, that Apollonius says in this Book, that it was forty years since Montanus invented his Prophecies; that he makes mention of Thraseas, who was a Martyr in his time, and that he mentions a Tradition, that Jesus Christ had given Orders to his Apostles not to go out of Jerusalem for twelve years.  
The second Apollonius was of Rome, a Senator of that City, if we may believe S. Jerome 
c If we believe S. Jerom. Eusebius does not say, that Apollonius was a Senator, but S. Jerom affirms it in his Catalogue to Magnus. We cannot tell whether he knew it certainly, or whether it be only by Conjecture that he says so. But it is likely, that it was upon the account of his being a Senator, that the Praefectus Praetorio sent him back to the Senate to be Tried there. . He was accused in the time of the Emperor Commodus for being a Christian, and was brought into the Judgment-Hall before Perennis the Praefectus Praetorio. His Accuser was Condemned 
d His accuser was condemned.] It was his Slave, if we may believe S. Jerom, and 'tis very probable, for he was condemned to have his Bones broken, the ordinary Punishment of Slaves.  according to the Law of the Emperor, which punished the Accusers of the Christians with Death, and Apollonius was sent back to justify himself before the Senate; where he appeared, and made a very Eloquent Oration in Defence of his Religion, tho' notwithstanding that he was condemned to Death, because there was an Ancient Law which ordained, That those Christians, who were once judicially accused for their Religion, should not be acquitted if they did not forsake it. S. Jerome says, that he Composed this Oration to Present to the Senate. But Eusebius assures us on the contrary, that he spoke it before them. But whether he wrote it with a design to speak it, or that the Christians had taken care to preserve it, it was extant in Eusebius' time among the ancient Acts of the Sufferings of the Martyrs.  
The same Esebius gives us a Fragment of an Anonymous Author against the Heresy of Montanus. This by some is attributed to Apollinarius, and by S. Jerome, sometimes to Rhodon, and sometimes to Apollonius. Tho' it was not written by either of these Authors, but by one more modern, who lived, as we have said, after the Death of Montanus and his Prophetesses. It was divided into five Books. Eusebius relates some Passages taken from the First, Second, and Third. In that which is taken from the first Book, the Author describes the furious Transports of Montanus and his Prophetesses, and those who pretended to Prophecy. In the Passages taken from the second Book, he says, That Montanus and Maximilla killed themselves; that Theodotus likewise threw himself down headlong; and that very Holy Bishops, as Zoticus of Comana, and Julian of Apamia, being willing to Convict the Prophecies of Maximilla of Imposture, were hindered by some who favoured that Sect. He adds, that Maximilla foretold, before she died, Wars and Persecutions, and yet that after her Death both Church and State enjoyed perfect Peace and Tranquillity. In the Passage taken from the third Book, he says, That the Martyrs, of which they boast, cannot justify themselves, since even the Marcionites likewise have made the same Pretences: But that the Martyrs of the Church do carefully avoid Communicating with those of this Sect, as has been practised in the City of Apamia by the Martyrs named Alexander, and Caius, who were of Eumenia. Moreover in the following Chapter Eusebius relates a Passage taken from the same Book, where he says, That all the Prophets which have been since the time of the New Testament, such as Agabus, Judas, Silas, the Daughters of Philip, Quadratus, were not agitated by the same Spirit of Prophecy as Montanus and Maximilla, whose False and Lying Prophecies were made in a sudden Heat, accompanied with Lewdness and Impudence, which took its Rise from Ignorance, and ended in Involuntary Folly: But that in the ancient Prophecies, nothing like this was to be found. That since the time of Maximilla and Montanus, there has not been any Person of this Sect, who could boast of being a Prophet, whereas the true Gift of Prophecy ought to be always in the Church.  
The other Author, whereof Eusebius gives us a Fragment without naming him, in the fifth Book of his History, Chap. 28. had written a Discourse against the Heresy of Artemo, who believed, that Jesus Christ was only a mere Man. It is related in this Fragment, that those of this Sect affirmed, that till Victor's Days the true Apostolical Doctrine was preserved, but that it was corrupted from the time of Zephirinus. Which possibly may be somewhat probable, (says this Author) if what they assert had not been first confuted by the Holy Scripture; and secondly, by the Writings of those Christians who were more ancient than Victor, such as Justin Martyr, Miltiades, Tatianus, Clemens, and several others that maintain in their Discourses the Divinity of Jesus Christ. For who can be ignorant of the Writings of Irenaeus and Melito, who have taught, that Jesus Christ was God and Man at the same time. And even those Hymns and Psalms written by the Faithful since the beginning of Christianity, extol the Word of God, attributing Divinity thereto. So that since the Doctrine of the Church has been Preached for so many years, how can they say, that till Victor's time the whole Church was of their Opinion? Are they not-ashamed to invent this Calumny against Victor, who knew very well that Theodotus the Currier, who was the first Author of the Sect of those that deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ, was turned out of the Church by Victor himself? For if this Bishop had been of the same mind with Theodotus, how comes it to pass that he Excommunicated him upon the account of his Doctrine? And what probability is there, that Zephirinus, who succeeded Victor, and continued in the See of Rome for ten years, should make an alteration in the Doctrine of the Church? And thus it is that this Author confutes the General Principle of all Heretics that ever were, or ever shall be, giving us an infallible Rule to convince them, which has been, and shall always be, the Custom in the Church of God. For there was never any Age, wherein the Heretics did not say, that the Church had changed its Doctrine, nor was there ever any time wherein they were not confuted first by Scripture, and secondly by Tradition, that is to say, by the Testimony of Authors, who lived before the Rise of those Heresies. Eusebius adds another Fragment from the same Author, where he speaks of the Penance of a Confessor called Natalis, who suffering himself to be abused by Asclepiodotus, and Theodotus the Goldsmith, the Disciple of Theodotus the Currier, was Tormented for several Nights as a Punishment for his Fault, and afterwards did public Penance for the same in the Pontificate of Zephirinus, and so was Reconciled to the Church. To conclude, in this last Passage he describes the Character of these Heretics, and he says, that they have corrupted the Scriptures, and overthrown the Rule of Faith; that when we object to them any Passages of Scripture, they try whether they can make thereof any Compound or Disjunctive Syllogisms; that they study Geometry and Logic, and that they pervert the simplicity of the Faith taught in the Holy Scriptures, by their false Subtleties, which is the Common Character of all Heretics. We do not know who this Author is, nor what was the Title of his Book 
e We do not know who this Author is, nor what was the Title of his Book] Nicephorus calls it the Labyrinth, and Theodoret, Lib. 2. Haeret. Fabul. confirms this Title. Photius, Cod. 48. attributes the Book of the Labyrinth to Caius, and others ascribed it to Origen. : But this Fragment set down by Eusebius plainly discovers, that he was a Learned Man, and well skilled in the Controversy, and understood how to Reason closely against the Heretics, and to give admirable Rules for their Conviction.   

TERTULLIAN.  
TErtullian 
a Tertullian.] He was called Q. Septimius florence Tertullianus, which distinguishes him from the Consul Tertullus and Tertullian the Martyr.  was a Native of Africa, of the City of Carthage 
b And of the City of Carthage.] He testifies as much himself in his Book De Pallio, c. 2. and in his Apology, c. 9 Witness, says he, the Troops of our Country, speaking of the Troops under the Proconsul of Carthage. S. Jerom confirms the same in his Chronicon, and in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers. . His Father was a Centurion 
Tertullian.  in the Troops which served under the Proconsul of Africa 
c And says, that his Father was a Centurion of these Troops, which was no very considerable Employment.] Eusebius seems to say, that Tertullian was a Roman, and a Person of Quality. Hist. l. 2. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. What he says of Tertullian's being well skilled in the Roman Laws, has made some believe, that he was a Lawyer, and indeed there is a Lawyer of the same Name: But it is certain, that he is a different Person from our Tertullian, and Eusebius does not say, that he was a Lawyer, but that he was well versed in the Roman Laws. What Eusebius adds of his Country and his Extraction, is by no means to be maintained, if we do not understand it of the Roman Writers; and that the Sense must be, that Tertullian was one of the most Excellent of all the Latin Authors. Ruffinus has given this Sense to this Passage of Eusebius by translating it, Inter nostros Scriptores admodum clarus. Pamelius says, that Tertullian was a Lawyer, but he brings no good Argument for it, relying only upon the Authority of Trithemius, who is a modern Author.  And there is no doubt to be made, but that he was at first a Heathen 
d But that he was at first a Heathen.] He himself says, speaking to the Heathens in his Apology, We have been likewise of your Party; Men are not born Christians, but they become so. And in his Book De Spectaculis, and in that concerning the Resurrection of the Flesh, chap. 19 and 59 he says, That he had assisted at those Sights and Spectacles, and that he had spent part of his Life in Lewdness. , but it is not known when, nor upon what occasion he was entered into the Church 
e But it is not known when, nor upon what occasion he was converted to the Church.] Pamelius says, that he was converted by the Answer of an Oracle, and Father George of Amiens affirms, that it was by a Vision, but neither of these are to be credited. . He flourished chief under the Reigns of the Emperors Severus, and Antoninus Caracalla 
f And Antoninus Caracalla.] S. Jerom affirms, that he flourished under these Emperors, and this appears by his Writings; some have said, that he flourished about the year 160, but they are mistaken. , from about the year of our Lord 194, till towards the year 216. And it is very probable, that he lived several years after, since S. Jerom relates, that it was reported in his time, that he lived to an extreme old Age 
g To an extreme old Age.] S. Jerom, in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, says, Usque ad Decrepitam aetatem vixisse fertur. . But we do not exactly know the time of his Death.  
The Books that he wrote to his Wife sufficiently show, that he was a Married Man, but we cannot gather from thence when he was Married. The Learned are divided as to this matter, some pretending that he married his Wife before he was a Christian, and that he left her after he embraced Christianity; others believing, that he was not Married till after he was Baptised. Which has been the occasion that some have found a difficulty in clearing this Point, which at first sight seems to be of no great moment, whether, as it is commonly believed, that Tertullian was ordained a Priest within a little time after his Conversion; if he married his Wife after he was Baptised, and afterwards remained with her, it would seem that it might be concluded from thence, that in his time it was lawful for Priests to Marry. And this is that which has made Pamelius say, that Tertullian. before he was ordained Priest, made a Vow of Continence to his Wife. But because it appears in the Books which he directed to her, that he still lived with her when he wrote them, the Author of the Life of Tertullian and Origen has been obliged to say, that he might maintain Pamelius' Opinion, that these Books were written by Tertullian immediately after his Conversion: Though it is more probable, that Tertullian was not Married till after he was Baptised 
h That he was not Married till after he was Baptised.] His Wife was a Christian; and he does not say in any place of his Works, that she was converted with him, or that she had converted him; it is therefore more probable, that he Married her after he was a Christian. For there is no likelihood, that while he was a Heathen, he should Marry a Christian Woman; and if she had been converted with him, or that she had converted him, he would without doubt have taken some notice of it in the Books which he wrote to her. [His urging S. Paul's Authority and Command in his second Book to his Wife, when he advises her to marry a Christian if ever she married again, is a strong presumption, that if he married after his Conversion, his Wife was a Christian at that time.] , and that he did not write these Books to his Wife till he was old 
i Till he was pretty well advanced in Years.] These Books are composed in the form of a Last Will or Testament; In the first, he exhorts his Wife to preserve 
[That is not a necessary Consequence.]  her Continency after his Death; a sign that she had but little regard of it in his Life time. In the second, he tells her plainly, that it is a Duty to endeavour to maintain that Continency in their Widowhood, which they could not preserve in their Married Estate: Which shows, that Pamelius' Opinion is nothing but a groundless Supposition. These Books were written by Tertullian towards the end of his Life, as may be proved. First, by the manner of the Composition, which is in form of a Last Will or Testament. Secondly, because a Man seldom troubles himself to write to his Wife, what would he have her do after his Death, but till he is in years. Thirdly, because though Tertullian was not a thorough-paced Montanist when he wrote those two Books, yet he seems to be leaning very much that way. , a little before he fell into the Errors of the Montanists.  
There is no Passage in his Writings from whence it can be concluded, that he was a Priest of the Catholic Church 
k There is no Passage in his Writings from whence it can be concluded, that he was a Priest of the Catholic Church.] There is a Place in his Book De Animâ, c. 9 whence it may be concluded, that he preached in the Church of the Montanists, and that they related to him strange Visions. But as all the Montanists talked after this rate in their Assemblies, it cannot certainly be concluded from hence, that he was a Priest; and we have only the Authority of S. Jerom for it. ; but S. Jerom affirms it so positively 
l But S. Jerom affirms it so positively.] In his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers, Cum usque ad mediam aetatem Presbyter Ecclesiae permansisset, ad Montani Dogma delapsus est. , that there is no reason to question it. It is commonly believed, that he was a Priest of the Church of Rome 
m It is commonly believed, that he was a Priest of the Church of Rome.] That which makes it believed that he was a Roman Priest, is what S. Jerom says of his falling into the Error of the Montanists, because he was provoked by Envy, and the Injuries which he received from the Clergy of that Church. But there is no necessity for all this that he should be at Rome, since there was a sufficient Intimacy and Correspondence between these two Churches, so that it might be easily known at Rome, what was said and done at Carthage, and though he had been then at Rome, yet it would not have followed, that he was Priest of that Church: None of the Ancients affirm it, but on the contrary, Optatus calls him a Carthaginian, as he calls Zephirinus Urbicus, that is, the Bishop of Rome: And also Victorinus Patavionensis. The Praedestinatus of Sirmondus calls him plainly, a Presbyter of Carthage. : But being of Carthage, and having almost always remained there, he ought rather to be called a Priest of the Church of Carthage, than of Rome. He was not so happy as to preserve this Dignity to the end of his days, for after having continued in the Church for about 40 or 45 years, he separated from it in the beginning of the Third Century 
n In the beginning of the Third Century.] The Epocha of his Change is certain, for we may easily fix it, because he says in his Book against Praxeas, that this Heretic being come to Rome, hindered the Bishop of that Church from acknowledging the Prophecies of Montanus, that he wrote against him at that time, and had obliged him to revoke his Opinion, that afterwards he acknowledged the Paraclet, or Comforter. Now it is very likely, that Victor was this Bishop that rejected the Prophecies of Montanus; For Tertullian says, that Praxeas hindered him from consenting to these new Prophecies, by urging the Authority of his Predecessors, who could be no other than the Pope's Anicetus and Eleutherus, in whose time these new Prophecies of Montanus first began to appear: So that Tertullian could not be turned till after the Pontificate of Victo; who was Pope from the Year 193, to the Year 201. He was a Montanist when he composed the Books against Martion, which were written in the Year 207. So that Pamelius, who fixes his Change in the Year 210, is mistaken. , to follow the Sect of Montanus and his Disciples.  
As to the Reasons of his Separation, some have said, that it was Jealousy that carried him to this Excess, because Victor was Preferred before him to the See of Rome; Others say, that he was angry because he could not get the Bishopric of Carthage, which he put in for, and that this made him take up such a Resolution; And lastly, others have assigned different Reasons 
o Have given different Causes thereof.] Baronius is the Author of the first Opinion, ad An. 201, n. 9 Pamelius, in his Life of Tertullian, of the second. And there are others besides, who have assigned other Causes for his Change, which are all groundless. , which are yet less probable; But this is rather to divine, than to give the Reasons of Tertullian's Change: Which are not where grounded upon the Testimony of any ancient Writer. That which has the most likelihood, is what is related by S. Jerom, that the Envy which the Roman Clergy bore him, and the Outrageous manner wherewith they treated him, exasperated him against the Church, and induced him to separate from it. And besides, the extraordinary Austerity which appeared in the Sect of the Montanists, suited very well with his violent and severe Temper, which caused him to carry every thing to Extremities. And it was for this reason that he was so enraged against the Catholics, and that he treated the Church with such Fury, after his Separation from it. It does not appear by his Books, that he ever afterwards returned from his Error, and none of the Ancients have affirmed it; but on the contrary, they have all spoken of him, as of a dead Man out of the Communion of the Church. It would therefore be a thing altogether against common Sense to imagine, as some have done, that he at last returned into the Bosom of the Church.  
And this is an exact Abridgement of Tertullian's Life; let us now proceed to his Writings, and begin by examining the Order, according to which they were Composed, that so we may afterwards make a more exact Judgement of them. And by considering them in this manner with relation to the order of Time, they may be divided into two Classes: The first, comprising those which he composed whilst he was still a Catholic; And the second, those which he wrote after he was a Montanist. They are easily distinguished, because he never fails in his later Books, of speaking of the Holy-Ghost of M●ntanus, of the Prophecies of the Montanists, and of their Extraordinary Fasts, of declaiming against Second Marriages, and against the Absolution which is granted by the Catholioks to those who fall into Sin after Baptism; or lastly, of Railing against the Catholics whom he calls Psychici, that is to say, Carnal and Sensual. But we must consider them more particularly, and examine in what Years the several Books were written.  
It is evident, that Tertullian wrote his Book Of Penance, whilst he was yet a Catholic; for therein he expressly confutes one of the Principal Errors of the Montanists, by proving, that those who have committed Sins after their Baptism, may obtain Absolution from the Church, provided they do Penance. Erasmus questions, whether this Book be Tertullian's or no, because it is written more politely than his other Books; and the Authority of Erasmus has made Rhenanus reject this Discourse, though since 'tis quoted under Tertullian's Name, by S. Pacianus an Author of the Fourth Century, there seems no reason to question its being Tertullian's: Besides, the difference of the Style is not very considerable, and it is no wonder that Tertullian, when he was a young Man, and newly Converted, should write a Book, upon which he bestowed so great pains, more politely than usual.  
His Book of Baptism was written about the same time: For it is not only free from all the Errors of the Montanists, but even what he says, That Baptism is reserved to the Bishops, and that it is never permitted to Women to Teach or to Baptise, is expressly contrary to their Discipline.  
Besides, we have no reason to doubt, but that he composed the Discourse of Prayer whilst he was yet a Catholic: For speaking therein concerning Fasts, he says, That there is no Solemn Fast among the Christians, but that which is before Easter; which is contrary to the Discipline of the Montanists, who observe several Lents. Besides, he citys in this Treatise the Book of the Pastor, which he rejected after he was a Montanist. We cannot exactly tell in what Year these Books were written, nor which of the three were Composed first.  
His Apology for the Christian Religion was wrote about the year 200 
p His Book of the Apology for the Christian Religion was written about the Year 200, from the Birth of Christ] It is very likely that it was Composed about this time. M. Allix pretends, that it was not written till the Year 211, but his Reasons are but weak. He says, that he alludes in the 47th Chapter to the Book of Prescriptions; but though he here makes use of the term Prescribe, it does not thence follow, that this Book was Composed after that of the Prescriptions. The second Reason is taken from an Eclipse seen at Utica, in the Year 210, to which, says he, Tertullian alludes in the 20th Chapter; but he does not speak at all in this place of any particular Eclipse. The last and principal Reason of M. Allix, is that in the 4th Chapter of the Apology, he speaks of Severus as if he were dead. Severus, says he, A Prince of great Constancy; has he not lately abolished by his Authority the Papian Law; which ordains, that one should have Children before the Age in which the Julian Law gives permission to Marry. But this might be said of Severus whilst he was yet living, and it is likely that he abolished this Law (if yet he did abolish it at all, for it was rather Constantine that did it,) in the beginning of his Reign. But what we read in the 5th Chapter, Who are those that have made Laws against the Christians, 'tis neither Adrian, nor Vespasian, nor Antoninus, nor Severus, might prove that he wrote after the Death of Severus, but we must read Verus, as it is in the later Editions, and not Severus. , in the beginning of the Persecution under the Emperor Severus. It is commonly believed, that he wrote it at Rome, and Addressed it to the Senate: But it is more probable, that it was composed in Africa 
q It is more probable that it was composed in Africa.] Pamelius and several Authors are of Opinion, that he wrote his Apology at Rome, and that he addressed it to the Senate. But there is not one Passage in this Book, that gives any ground for this Conjecture. On the contrary, this Book is Addressed to the Chief Governors of the Cities. Tertullian speaks of Rome and the Romans, as not being in their City, nor with them. In Chap. 21, 24, 35, and 45. he speaks of the Proconsul, and there was not any at Rome. As to what we say, that it was not Addressed to the Senate, but to the Governors of the Provinces, the beginning of the Apology does evidently show: Which is this. Si non licet vobis Romani Imperii Antistites, in aperto & in ipso vertice civitatis Praesidentibus ad judicandum palam dispicere, & coram Examinare quid sit liquidum causa Christianorum, si ad hanc solam speciem Auctoritas vestra de Justitiae Diligentiâ in publico aut timet, aut erubescit inquirere. Si denique domesticis indiciis nimis onerata sectae hujus infestatio obruit viam defensioni, etc. Those which he calls Imperii Antistites are the Governors and Proconsul's, and that which follows plainly shows it, for he says, that they preside in vertice civitatis, which does not signify the City of Rome, which is always called Urbs, and what he adds, that it belongs to them to examine the Cause of the Christians, to try them, and to receive Informations against them, does evidently prove, that he speaks of the Governors of Places. Secondly, he does not mention so much as one word of the Senate in the whole Book. Thirdly, he speaks of the Proconsul, as of the Supreme Magistrate, Chap. 45. Lastly, he always calls those to whom he Addresses this Work Praesides, a Title which properly agrees to the Governors of the Provinces. , and indeed he does not address himself to the Senate, but to the Proconsul of Africa, and the Governors of the Provinces.  
The Books concerning Patience, and the Exhortation to the Martyrs, may have been written about the same time: But that to Scapula was not composed till some years after, as well as the Two Books to the Nations.  
Afterwards, as he began to incline towards the Montanists, he wrote about the year 202, or 203, the Discourses concerning Public Sights and Spectacles, and of Idolatry 
r The Discourses concerning public Sights and Spectacles, and of Idolatry.] In the 5th Chapter of the Book concerning Idolatry, he alludes to the Joy at the Birth of Geta; He speaks in his Book concerning Public Sights and Spectacles, Chap. 7. of the City of Rome, like a Person who was not there, so that this Book could not be made at Rome as has been believed. . This is the last of the two, the other being quoted Chap. 13. He was not yet a thorough-paced Montanist, but he began to embrace their Opinions, though he had not yet openly left the Church. He still kept the same Opinions when he composed his Books Of the Ornament, and Dresses of Women 
s His Books of the Ornament and Dresses of Women.] The Latin Titles are, De cultu Muliebri, & de habitu Muliebri. : And two Books Dedicated to his Wife. His Book of The Testimony of the Soul has no certain Epocha 
t His Book of the Testimony of the Soul has no certain Epocha.] It was written after his Apology, as may be concluded from the 5th Chapter. ; but as we do not find therein any Footsteps of the Errors of the Montanists, we may believe that it was written by Tertullian before he separated from the Church.  
And these are all the Works that can be attributed to Tertullian whilst he remained Orthodox, all the others being certainly written after his returning Montanist. His Books against Martion are the first of these last kind of Books 
v His Books against Martion are the first of this last sort.] It is evident that he was a Montanist, when he Composed the Books against Martion; this appears by the 28th Chapter of his First Book, by the 24th of the Third Book, by the 22d of the Fourth Book, and by the 15th of the Fifth Book. In the Fourth Book, Ch. 22. he calls the Catholics Psychici. ; The Epocha of them is certain, for in the first Book, chap. 15, he says, That he writ it in the 15th Year of the Emperor Severus, that was the 207th after Christ. In the first of these Books he promises his Book of Prescriptions 
x He promises his Book of Prescriptions.] Lib. 1. cap. 1. Alius libellus hunc gradum sustinebit adversus Haereticos, etiam sine tractatu Doctrinarum revincendos, quod hoc sit de Praescriptione novitatis; We may affirm, that it was written before, and that he only published it then, that he might confirm some Arguments in his Books against Martion. Which has given occasion to some, to think that this Book was written by Tertullian, whilst he was yet Orthodox, because he speaks so advantageously for the Church against Novelties. But he makes use of the very same Principles, in his Book against Martion, and against Praxeas. The Catalogue of the Heretics, where he puts the Montanists in the Number of Heretics, is not Tertullian's; so that Reason, which might contribute to make it believed, that he wrote his Prescriptions whilst he was a Catholic, is of no consequence. : So that although this be a very excellent Discourse, and that it contains nothing but what is Catholic. yet it must be confessed that he composed it when he was a Montanist, unless we should say, that he kept it by him for some time unpublished: However it be, it was composed when he wrote his Book concerning the Flesh of Jesus Christ, wherein he refers to the Book of Prescriptions in the second Chapter.  
The Book concerning the Soul was written after the Books against Martion, which are cited in the second Chapter, but before the Book concerning the Resurrection of the Flesh, where he quotes his Book concerning the Soul, and also that concerning the Flesh of Jesus Christ. So that this is the Order of the Books composed by Tertullian after those against Martion. The Book of Prescriptions, of the Soul, of the Flesh of Jesus Christ, of the Resurrection of the Flesh; these were all composed from the year 207, to the year 210.  
His Scorpiacus 
y The Book entitled Scorpiacus.] This Book of Scorpiacus was written after the Books against Martion, as may be seen by the 5th Chapter. , his Book De Coronâ 
z The Book De Coronâ.] It was written upon occasion of a Donative granted by the Emperors Antoninus Caracalla, and Severus, to the Soldiers, about the Year 209. , and that De Pallio 
aa The Book De Pallio.] Scaliger pretends that this was his first Work; and Salmasius on the contrary says, that it was written when he was made Priest. The first believes, that the Cloak was a Habit for all Christians. And the second maintains, that it was only a Habit for the Priests; but both of them are mistaken, for the Christians and Priests wore both long and short Garments indifferently, according to the Customs of the Places where they were. The Cloak was a Habit for Philosophers, and such as made Profession of a more austere Life than ordinary. What is said in the second Chapter of his Book De Pallio, that the triple Virtue of the Emperor had entirely routed the Barbarians, and procured Peace and Tranquillity to the People, can not otherwise be understood, but of the latter end of the Reign of Severus, who enjoyed a most profound Peace after he had defeated all his Enemies, and taken in as Partners in the Governments, his two Sons Caracalla and Geta, and this is what Tertullian calls Triplex Imperii Virtus, as when he says, Barbari exclusi, he alludes to the Wall which Severus caused to be built in Britain, to put a stop to the Incursions of the Barbarians. , were written about the same time, but we do not know the year. In his Book De Coronâ, he says, That he had composed a Treatise concerning the Confessions, and Sufferings of the Martyrs. Baronius believes, that it is the Scorpiacus which he means: But I believe, it is rather that Book concerning Flight in time of Persecution. For his Scorpiacus was written against Heretics, whereas that which he intended, when he wrote the Book De Coronâ, aught to have been against the Pastors, who withdrew themselves in time of Persecution.  
The Book against the Jews was written towards the end of the Reign of Severus, in the year 209, as appears by what he says of the State of the Roman Empire in the seventh Chapter 
bb What is said concerning the State of the Roman Empire, in the Seventh Chapter.] He ascribes in this place the flourishing Condition of the Empire, the Germans beaten back, the Britain's hemmed in and secured, the Moors besieged by the Roman Legions, etc. Which agrees to the time of the Emperor Severus, though this cannot be understood, but of the latter end of his Reign, when after he had Conquered all the Barbarians, he caused that Wall to be built, which we just now mentioned, and dispersed the Roman Legions about the Frontiers of the Empire, as Dion Cassius observes. . We do not certainly know the time when those Books were written against Praxeas, against Hermogenes, and against the Valentinians, but only that they were written by Tertullian when he was a Montanist 
cc We do not certainly know the time when these Books were written against Praxeas, etc.] It is evident, that the Book against Praxeas was Composed after he was a Montanist, supra. In his Book against Hermogenes, he accuses this Heretic of pretending to be Married, etc. which is a Reproach exactly agreeable to the temper of the Montanists; And in the Book against the Valentinians, he commends Proclus or Proculus a famous Montanist. This Book was written after his Book against Hermogenes, for he observes there, that he had already written against this Heretic. . Neither can we give any account of the time of his writing the following Treatises in Defence of the Montanists against the Church; His Discourse of Chastity, of Fasts, of Monogamy, his Exhortation to Chastity, of Flight in time of Persecution, and that wherein he proves, That Virgins ought to be veiled. S. Jerom adds to these, Six Books of Ecstasy, and a Treatise against Apollonius, which are lost.  
I have now nothing to consider, but the small Treatise addressed to Scapula, which we certainly know when it was written, for it was after the Death of Severus under Antoninus Caracalla, about the year 213 
dd About the Year 213.] Severus, says he, the Father of Antoninus, had some regard for the Christians. . And the two Books to the Gentiles were composed about the same time 
ee The two Books to the Nations composed about the same time.] In the First Book, Chap. 17. he alludes to the Titles of Antoninus Caracalla, who caused himself to be called Parthicus and Germanicus; and in the same place, Chap. 9 he says, That there was not yet elapsed 300 Years from the Death of Jesus Christ to his own time, which shows, that the Third Age was then already advanced. Besides, that these Books were written since his Apology, which is the Subject of this, and which he here enlarges, and polishes, and puts into order in these two Books, wherein we may find several Phrases and Expressions taken from the Books which he wrote after he was a Montanist. . And this is the Chronology of all the Works of Tertullian.  
There are some others which are falsely attributed to him: And amongst these we are to reckon the small Catalogue of Heresies, which is at the end of the Book of Prescriptions. For first of all, it is of a different Style. Secondly, it was not to be found in the old Manuscript of Agobardus, which is the most ancient Manuscript of Tertullian's Works, nor in another old Manuscript, which Rhenanus made use of for the first Edition of Tertullian. Thirdly, in those Manuscripts where it is to be found, it is separated from the Prescriptions, and sometimes in stead of being at the end, it is placed in the beginning, and so Trithemius both saw, and quoted it. Fourthly, the Prescriptions have a Conclusion before this Catalogue, wherein Tertullian does not promise to make such an Abridgement of the Heresies, but to write against them all separately. Fifthly, 'tis the Work of some Author that lived after S. Epiphanius, from whom he borrows the History of Martion, and perhaps he may have taken from S. Jerom what he says concerning the Jews.  
There goes likewise under Tertullian's name a Letter concerning Jewish Meats, but it is of a quite different Style, and the places of Scripture are there quoted after another manner than they are in Tertullian's Works, which plainly shows, that it is none of his: 'Tis a Letter of a Pastor to his Church, written in the time of Persecution. S. Jerom attributes to Novatian a Letter concerning Jewish Meats, which in all probability is this very Treatise that bears the same Title.  
There is likewise attributed to Tertullian, a Book concerning the Trinity, which is none of his: For besides the difference of the Style, that Author mentions the Heresy of Sabellius, which was after Tertullian's time. S. Jerom observes, that Novatian writ a Book of the Trinity, wherein he had made an Abridgement of Tertullian's Book; and he adds, that several Persons attributed Novatian's Book to S. Cyprian. The Book of the Trinity, whereof we speak, might possibly be this Abridgement of Novatian, especially since Ruffinus observes, that Novatian's Book was corrupted by the Macedonians, which agrees with this Treatise whereof we speak, in which there are Errors concerning the Divinity of the Holy-Ghost.  
There pass also under Tertullian's Name several Poems, which are no more his, than they are Virgil's or Homer's. The Poem called Genesis, seems to be that which Gennadius attributes to Salvian Bishop of Marseilles 
ff Which Gennadius Bishop of Marseilles attributes to Salvian.] In Catalogue. cap. 67. In morem Graecorum de principio Genesis usque ad conditionem hominis composuit versu Hexametro. This is true of that Poem ascribed to Tertullian. , that concerning the Judgement of God was, perhaps, composed by Verecundus 
gg Perhaps that which was composed by Verecundus.] Isidore de Viris illustribus, cap. 7. Verecundus Africanus Episcopus studiis liberalium Literarum disertus edidit carmine dactylo, duos modicos, brevesque libellos, quorum primum de resurrectione, & judicio scripsit, alterum de paenitentia. The Poem concerning Judgement is also concerning the Resurrection. Garcias says, that he had seen the Poem concerning Pennnce, and he repeats the first Verse of it, which is written after the same manner as the beginning of this Poem concerning Judgement; but yet there are some Passages, which seem to come from a later Author than Verecundus, who, as it is believed, lived in the Fifth Century.  an African Bishop, mentioned by Isidorus Hispalensis, in the seventh Chapter of his first Book of Illustrious Men. In the Poem against Martion 
hh In the Poem against Martion.] Tertullian, in his Book De Animâ, chap. 57 says, that it was not the Soul of Samuel, but only a Phantasm, which the Witch raised up; and the Author of the Poem in his third Book supposes, that it was Samuel himself that was raised, to acquaint Saul what was to befall him. Tertullian, in his Book of Prescriptions, makes S. Clemens to succeed S. Peter; but this Author places him the Fourth, making two Popes of Cletus and Anacletus. , there are some Opinions different from those of Tertullian. There is likewise a Poem to a Senator in Pamelius' Edition, one of Sodom, and one of Ionas and Ninive in the Bibliotheca Patrum, of which we do not know the Authors; the first is ancient, and the other two seem to be written by the same Author. Besides, S. Jerom affirms, that Tertullian writ several other Treatises, which were lost in his time, and amongst others, a Book Of the Habits of Aaron, whereof this Father speaks in his Letter to Fabiola. He quotes likewise a Book Of the Circumcision, another Of those Creatures that are Clean, and of such as are Unclean, a Book concerning Ecstasy, and another against Apollonius; Tertullian himself citys several other Treatises of his own composing, as in his Book Of the Soul, a Discourse concerning Paradise, and in his Book Of the Testimony of the Soul, chap. 2. a Discourse Of Destiny; and in another place, a Book concerning The Hope of the Faithful, and another against Apelles. He had also composed a former Work against Martion, which being lost in his own time, he was obliged to write a new one. Lastly, he wrote the Discourses Of Baptism, Of Public Sights and Spectacles, and that wherein he proves, That Virgins ought to be veiled, in Greek.  
But we have said enough of Tertullian's Works as to what relates to Criticism and Chronology, we will now look upon them with relation to what they contain. And considering them thus, we may distinguish them into three Classes: The first, comprising those which were written against the Gentiles. The second, those which were made against Heretics. And the third, those which relate to Discipline and Manners. The first Book of this first Classis is his Apology against the Gentiles, wherein he shows the Injustice of those Persecutions and Sufferings which they inflicted on the Christians, and the Falsehood of those Accusations which were laid to their Charge; and at the same time proves the Excellency of their Religion, and the Folly of that of the Heathens. He gins, by showing that there is nothing more unjust or opposite to the very intent and design of Laws, than to Condemn without Understanding, and to Punish without considering whether there be any just Ground for such a Condemnation. And yet that this is put in practise every day against the Christians, that they are Hated, Condemned, and Punished, merely upon the account of their being Christians, without eve● considering or giving themselves the trouble to be informed what it is to be a Christian. That there are indeed some Laws made by the Emperors, which forbidden Men to be Christians, but that these Laws are Unjust, subject to Alteration, made by Evil Emperors, and contrary to the Opinions of the Justest and Wisest amongst them. He afterwards confutes the Calumnies which were spread abroad against the Christians, as that they used in their Night-Meetings to cut a Child's Throat, and to devour it, and that after they had put out the Candles, they had filthy and abominable Conversations amongst themselves. He shows, that there is not only so much as the least Proof of these Crimes alleged against them, but that their Life, their Manners, and the Principles of their Religion, were directly opposite to these Abominations. We are, says he, beset daily, we are continually betrayed, we are very often surprised and oppressed, even in the very time of our Meetings; But did they ever find this Child dead, or a dying? Was there ever any one that could be a Witness of these Crimes? Has ever any one of those who have betrayed us discovered these things? Besides, he presses the Heathens further, by showing that these Crimes were frequently committed amongst themselves, that they have slain Children in Africa in Honour of Saturn, and that they have sacrificed Men in other places, that their Gods have been guilty of a thousand shameful and abominable Practices; whereas the Christians are so far from killing a Child, and drinking its Blood, that they do not so much as eat the Flesh of those Beasts that have been strangled, and that they are such inveterate Enemies to all kind of Incests, that there are several amongst them who preserve their Virginity all their Lives. After having thus confuted those Calumnies which were set on foot, on purpose to render the Christians odious; he gives an Answer to that Objection which was made to them, That they did not own the Pagan Deities, and that they did not offer up Sacrifices to them for the Prosperity of their Emperors; from whence they concluded, that they were guilty of Sacrilege and Treason. He answers in a word, that the Christians did not pay any Honour to the Gods of the Heathens, because they were not true Gods, and he appeals, for a Testimony of this, to the Consciences of the wisest of the Heathens themselves. He evidently demonstrates, that their pretended Gods were Men, and for the most part Criminals, that were dead, and that their Images cannot be Adored without the greatest Folly and Madness in the World, that even the Wisest of the Heathens despised them. He occasionally confutes what has been objected by some to the Christians, that they worshipped an Ass' Head, and adored Crosses. And from thence he takes occasion to explain the Doctrine of the Christians. We Adore, says he, One only God, the Creator of the World, who is Invisible and Incomprehensible, who will Recompense Good Men with Everlasting Life, and Punish Wicked Men with Eternal Torments, after he has raised them from the Dead. He proves this Truth by the whole Creation, which so evidently demonstrates that there is a God: That it is, says he, the greatest Wickedness that can possibly be conceived, not to acknowledge him, of whom 'tis impossible that we can be ignorant, even by the very Dictates which Nature inspires into all Men, which oftentimes cause them to Invoke the True God, as when we say, If God thinks good, if God pleases, God sees us, and the like. And this he calls, The Testimony of a Soul that is naturally Christian: Testimonium Animae naturaliter Christianae. Lastly, by the Antiquity of the Books of Moses, which are more ancient than all the Writings of the Greeks, and by the Authority of the Prophets, who foretold those Things that were to come to pass. Then after having proved the Unity of God, which the Jews acknowledge as well as the Christians, he goes on to that Faith of Jesus Christ, which is peculiar to the Christians: He says, that the Christians do not look upon him as a mere Man, but as God, who is the WORD of God, begotten of the same Substance, that he is thus God and the Son of God, and that his Father and He are One; that the WORD coming down into the Womb of a Virgin, (as was formerly foretold) took Flesh upon him, and was born God-Man: He only desires them to consider it as a Fable like theirs till he has proved it by Invincible Arguments: Which he presently does by the Authority of the Prophets, who have plainly foretold Jesus Christ by the Miracles which he wrought, by that extraordinary Eclipse which happened at his Death, that is taken notice of in the very Records of the Heathens; and lastly, by his Miraculous Resurrection. And all these Things, says he, are Authorized by the Testimony of Pilate, who being already a Christian in his Heart, wrote them to Tiberius Caesar, and the Caesars had then been Christians, if it had been possible either that the World could subsist without Emperors, or that the Emperors could be Christians. He adds to these Proofs, that of the Establishment of the Church notwithstanding Persecutions; and that which may be drawn from the Confession of the Heathen Gods, that is to say, the Daemons who submitted themselves to Jesus Christ, and were against their wills driven out of the Bodies of those that were Possessed only by the Name of Jesus Christ. And here he makes a Digression, to prove, that the Romans owed not their Greatness and Prosperity to their Gods; from whence he concludes, that the Christians are not guilty of Treason, since the Gods, whom they will not own, have not any Power to Succour and Preserve the Emperors. But, says he, we Invoke for their Prosperity the Eternal, the True, and the Living God, who gave them their Life and their Empire, who alone has power over them, and who alone is above them; and after whom they are the Chiefest. They are Great, only because they acknowledge themselves Inferior to him, Ideo magnus est, quia Coelo minor est. 'Tis this God to whom the Christians pray with their whole Hearts, for all the Emperors, that he would grant them a long Life, a peaceable Reign, a faithful Council, valiant Soldiers, an obedient People, and in a word, all that a Man and an Emperor can possibly desire. He adds, that the Christians have greater Obligations upon them for the Performance of this, than other Men. First, because the Holy Scripture enjoins them to it; and Secondly, because being persuaded that the World should end together with the Roman Empire, they desired to retard those Calamities which were to happen at the end of all Things, by praying for the Preservation of the Empire. That it is true, that the Christians do not swear by the Genii of the Caesars, nor by their Health, which is more precious than those Genii who are only Daemons, and that they do not Solemnize the Festivals of the Emperors, but that this is only for fear of falling into Idolatry. That in other things they are more Obedient, and better Subjects than other Men, though they have the Power in their hands, if they had a mind to defend themselves. We have been, says he, but a little time in the World, yet we are to be met with in all places; you may find us in the Cities, in the Villages, in the Armies, in the Courts of Justice, in the Senate, and in the Markets. We have left you your Temples alone to yourselves. What Wars might not we be capable of Undertaking? And with what Resolution might not we carry them on, though we had not near so many Troops as you; we, who die daily with so much Joy, were it not a Law amongst us to suffer ourselves rather to be killed, than to kill others. Si non apud istam Disciplinam magis liceret occidi quam occidere. But how could the Heathens object, That the difference of Religion could cause any disturbance in the Commonwealth, or make Parties and Factions? He says, that the Christians have no Ambition, nor Pretensions in this World, as they are Christians, are so far from forming any Parties against the Government, that they think upon nothing less than State-Affairs. And that he might persuade the whole World of this Truth, see the Description which he makes of the Christians of his time, and of their Assemblies. We make up, says he, a Body that is united by the Bond of the same Religion, the same Discipline, and the same Hope. We assemble ourselves, and compose, if I may so say, a Body of an Army, to force Heaven by our Prayers, and this Violence is very acceptable to God. We pray not only for ourselves, but also for the Emperors; for their Ministers, for the Magistrates, for the good of the State; for the Peace and Quietness of the Empire; and lastly, for the retarding the end of the World. Besides, we assemble ourselves to Read the Holy Scriptures according to our different Wants and Necessities, for our Instruction, and Information in our Duty. These Sacred Oracles are of signal Use for the preserving our Faith, the confirming our Hope, and the regulating our Manners, by the Meditation upon its Precepts. And 'tis in these Assemblies that the necessary Exhortations and Reproofs are to be expected. The Judgements which are there delivered, are given with all the Equity and Circumspection imaginable; because those who pass Judgement are verily persuaded, that Almighty God takes notice of them. Their Censures are all Divine, and 'tis a great Presumption of God's future Judgement against any One, when he has committed any Sin, for which he deserves to be separated from the Communion of Bread, and from Prayer, and the Assembly of the Faithful; and in a word, to be deprived of all manner of Communion of holy Things. Those who preside among us, are the most Ancient, and such whose Probity is very well known; and this Honour is not to be purchased for Money, but it is bestowed upon pure Virtue, for all those Concerns which relate to God, are not to be valued at a Price. If we have any kind of Treasure, it is not to be looked upon as a Blessing that is any ways dishonourable to our Religion, as if it was to be purchased upon any account. Every one contributes according to his Ability what Alms he pleases, and when he pleases, which yet is commonly done Monthly. None are compelled; every one gives freely what he will. These Contributions are the Contributions of Piety, for we do not employ them in making merry Meetings, or in other unnecessary Expenses: But to maintain and bury Orphans, and poor People, to relieve old Men and infirm Persons, to assist the Faithful who are exiled into the Islands, or condemned to work in the Mines, or confined in Prison, for having embraced the Faith of Jesus Christ. We all call ourselves Brethren, not only because we are all Brethren by the Right of Nature, but because we all acknowledge One and the same God for our Father, because we have all one and the same Spirit which sanctifies us: And lastly, because all things are common among us, but our Women. Our Feasts are called Agapae, that is to say, Entertainments of Love and Charity. They were not Instituted for debauched Parasites, but for the Entertainment of the Poor, being assured that God has a more especial Regard for them. And if the Reason of the Institution of these Feasts is wholly Sacred, the Consequences of them are equally so. There is nothing here to be seen, that is any ways contrary to Civility and Modesty. They do not sit down at Table, till they have refreshed and nourished the Soul by Prayer, they eat no more than what is necessary to suffice Nature, and they drink no more than what is fitting and convenient for chaste and regular Persons; they take care not to glut themselves, so as to hinder their rising in the night to worship God. They discourse of such things as are profitable, because they look upon themselves, as in the Presence of God, who is a Witness of every thing that we say. The Supper is concluded with Prayer, and they do not break up in a Tumult or Disorder; but they retire regularly and with great modesty, as it is not hard for such Persons to do, who take greater care to nourish their Souls, with that holy Discipline, in which they are instructed, than their Bodies with the Victuals which they eat. After having thus described the Assemblies of the Christians, he shows, that those Calamities and Misfortunes which happen in the World, are unjustly attributed to them, as if they were the cause of them. He maintains, that 'tis these are the Men who divert and prevent them, and that they are very far from being any ways the occasion of attracting them. He concludes, by proving that we admire those Virtues in the Philosophers, which are discernible in a much more excellent and higher Degree in the Christians.  
The Two Books to the Nations are almost of the very same Subject with the Apology. And Tertullian repeats therein the greatest part of the things which he had said before in his Apology, but he puts them in another Order, explaining and enlarging upon them: So that the difference between these two Books is this, that the first is written with Heat, and without much Study; and the second is a Methodical Treatise, and composed with great Consideration. The Second Book to the Nations was written against the false Gods of the Heathens, wherein he gave an exact Account of the Deities of the several profane Religions, and shown how exceedingly foolish a thing it is to own them; but this Book is so imperfect, and there is so little Coherence in all that we have extant of it, that it cannot be of any great advantage to us.  
In the Book of The Testimony of the Soul, he enlarges upon one Proof for Religion, which he had advanced before in his Apology, that the Soul does naturally, and even against its will, acknowledge, that there is but one God, and that there is another Life after this. He proves it by those Notions which Nature hath inspired into us, and which are so deeply engraven in our Minds, that nothing is able to efface them: So that they often come from a Man, when he thinks of them the least. As when one says without any reflection, God grant it, what pleases God, God help me, good God, etc. Expressions that manifestly suppose, that the Soul is penetrated with the knowledge of a God, as the Fear which we naturally have of Death, the desire of leaving behind us a Name to Posterity, and that Compassion which we have for the Dead do evidently suppose, that there is another Life after this. Now these Notions being natural to the Soul, and to be found in every Body, it must necessarily follow, that they come from God. And this is the Subject which Tertullian enlarges upon very ingeniously in this little Treatise.  
The Book to Scapula, was composed to dissuade the Governor of Africa from the Persecution which he had raised against the Christians. He gins, by representing to him, that the Christians rather wished for Martyrdom, than feared it; and that therefore it was not out of any Apprehension he had of them, that induced him to direct this Discourse to him, but the earnest Desire which he had for the Salvation of the Heathens, because the Religion of the Christians obliges them to love their Enemies, and to endeavour to convert them from the Error wherein they are at present. He afterwards tells him, that the Christians adore that God whom Mankind knows by Nature; he represents to him, that it ought to be left to the free Direction of Men to embrace that Religion, which seems to them to be most agreeable to Truth: That another Man's Religion does neither hurt nor good to any body: That it is not an Act of Religion to constrain Men to embrace a Religion, which they ought to choose voluntarily. 
This must be owned to have been a great piece of Ingenuity in a Doctor of Sorbon, when the Persecution of the Hugonors was at the height in France.  Non est Religionis cogere Religionem, quae sponte suscipi debet, non vi. He adds, that the Life of Christians is unblameable; that they pay an entire Obedience to the Emperors; that they were never found engaged in a Party with the Rebels. They are, says he, Enemies to no Man, and least of all to the Emperor, very well knowing, that it is their God who has established him, they love, honour, and respect him, most hearty wishing his Preservation, and that of the Empire, as long as the World shall continue; We therefore honour the Emperor after that manner, which is lawful for us, and which only can be of advantage to him; that is to say, as a Man who is next under God, and who has received from God every thing that he has. We likewise offer Sacrifices for his safety, but they are the Sacrifices of Prayer: For God does not stand in need of Incense, nor of the Blood of Victims. After having thus vindicated the Christians from the Crime of High-Treason, he dissuades Scapula from the Persecution against Christians, by the Examples of those who have been punished for persecuting of them, and likewise by the Examples of those who have had so much moderation, as to permit them to enjoy their Liberty and Tranquillity. And these are the Books written by Tertullian, in defence of the Christian Religion against the Gentiles.  
There is but one Book of his against the Jews, wherein, First, he proves, that the Law of Moses, and its Ceremonies, were established but for a time, and that they were to cease at the coming of Jesus Christ. And Secondly, that the Messiah expected by the Jews, and foretold by the Prophets is already come, and that this is Jesus Christ. Which he evidently makes out from the Prophets, who foretold the time of his Coming, and the circumstances of his Life and Death. He observes, that the Original of the Jews mistake arose from their confounding his last Coming, wherein he will appear in great Power and Glory, with his first Coming, wherein he was seen in great Humility, and took upon him the mean Condition of other Men.  
Although the Book of Prescriptions against the Heretics is not, in the order of Time, the first that Tertullian has written against them, yet it is so, as to the Order of the Matters which it contains; because it is designed against all Heresies in general, whereas the others are only against some particular Heresy. This Book is entitled, Of Prescriptions, or rather, Of Praescription against the Heretics; because herein he shows, that their Doctrine is not to be admitted by reason of its Novelty. Before he enters upon the Matter, he endeavours to obviate the Scandal of those, who admire, how there could be any Heresies in the World, how they could have been so great and so powerful, and how it comes to pass, that so many considerable Persons in the Church, have been seduced to embrace them, by showing that Heresies have been foretold, that they are necessary Evils for the Trial of our Faith, and that we must not judge of Faith by Persons, but of Persons by their Faith; Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? After having given this necessary Caution, he lays down the first Principle of Prescription. We are not allowed, says he, to introduce any thing that is new in Religion, nor to choose by ourselves, what another has invented. We have the Apostles of our Lord for Founders, who were not themselves the Inventors, and Authors of what they have left us; but they have faithfully taught the World the Doctrine which they received from Jesus Christ. Heresies have risen from Philosophy and humane Wisdom, which is quite different from the Spirit of Christianity. We are not allowed to entertain our Curiosity, nor to inquire after any thing that is beyond what we have been taught by Jesus Christ and his Gospel, Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Jesum, nec inquisitione post Evangelium. And when we have once believed, we are to give credit to nothing any farther than as we have already believed. And here it is, that he Answers the Objection of the Heretics, who urged this Passage of Scripture, Seek and you shall find: by telling us, that it is not permitted to seek when we have once found, that it would be a Labour to no purpose, to seek for Truth among all the Heresies; and lastly, that if it be permitted to seek, it is after having admitted the Rule, that is to say, the principal Articles of Faith, which are contained in the Creed. But as the Heretics did often allege the Holy Scripture, in Defence of themselves; he proves that the Church was not obliged to enter into a Discussion of those Passages which they quoted; that this way of confuting them is very tedious, and difficult, because they do not acknowledge all the Books of the Scriptures, or else they corrupt them, or put a false Interpretation upon them; which renders the Victory that is to be obtained over them uncertain and difficult. He says then, that it is to better purpose to understand perfectly, who it is, that is in Possession of the Faith of Jesus Christ; who those Persons are, to whom the Scriptures were committed in Trust; and who are the first Authors who have given an Account of our Religion. He goes back even to Jesus Christ, who is the Source and Original of this Religion, and to the Apostles who received it from him. He shows that it is impossible, that the Apostles should preach any other Doctrine, than that of Jesus Christ, and that all the Apostolical Churches should embrace any other Faith, than that which the Apostles had delivered to them; from whence he concludes, that it must of necessity follow, that that Doctrine, which is Conformable to that, which is found to be the Faith of all the Churches, must be that which was taught by Jesus Christ: and that on the contrary, that that which is opposite thereto, must be a Novel Doctrine. He farther confounds the Heretics by the Novelty of their Opinions. It is evident, says he, that the most ancient Doctrine is that of Jesus Christ, and by consequence that alone is true, and that, that on the contrary, which had not any Date till after his Ascension, must be false and supposititious. Having laid down this infallible Rule, he proves the Doctrine of the Heretics to be of a later Date than that of the Church, because the Authors of the Heresies were after the Establishment of the Church, from which they have separated themselves. That the several Sects of the Heretics cannot reckon their Original from the time of the Apostles, nor show a Succession of Bishops, from their Times, as the Apostolical Churches can, with whom they do not communicate. That though they could pretend to such a Succession, yet the Novelty of their Doctrine condemned by the Apostles, and the Apostolical Churches would convince them of being Cheats and Impostors, and that what they have added, taken away, or changed in the Books of the Holy Scripture, does farther discover, that they invented their Doctrine after these Books were composed. That lastly, their Discipline and Conduct, which is absolutely Humane, and Earthly, without Order, and without Rule, renders them every way contemptible. I have exactly set down the Reasonings of Tertullian in this Work; because, as he himself observes, they are not ●nly proper to confute the Heresies that were in his Time, but also to disprove all those that sprang ●p afterwards, or that should arise hereafter, even to the end of the Church.  
I shall not enlarge so much upon the Works which were written against those Heresies which ●re now extinct. The most considerable, is, that which he composed against Martion, which is disided into Five Books. This Heretic maintained that there were two Principles, or two Gods; the ●e Good, and the other Evil; The one Perfect, and the other Imperfect; that this last is the God whom the Jews worship, who created the World, and delivered the Law to Moses; whereas the first 〈◊〉 the Father of Jesus Christ, whom he sent to destroy the Works of the Evil One; that is to say, ●e Law and the Prophets, which Martion rejected. He affirmed likewise, that Jesus Christ was not clothed with true Flesh. And by consequence, that he did not suffer really, but only in appearance. ●hese are the Errors which Tertullian confutes in this Work. In the First Book, he shows that the unknown God of Martion, is only a Fantastical and Imaginary Being. In the Second he proves that, ●…at God the Creator of the World, whom the Jews worshipped, is the Only true God, and the Au●●or of all Good. After having demonstrated this Truth by invincible Arguments, he resolves those difficulties which are raised by the Marcionites against God's Conduct in the Old Testament, He ex●…ains for Example, Why he has permitted Sin? Why he suffers Sinners? Why he punishes Men so ●…erely? Why he seems sometimes to alter his Conduct and Design, etc. In the Third Book he ●ews, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who is the Creator of the World, and the Author of the ●…w, that he has been foretold by the Prophets, and that he took upon him true Flesh, by taking ●…on him our Nature. In the Fourth Book he shows, that it is the same God, both in the Old and the New Testament. He reconciles the pretended Contradictions alleged by Martion, and shows that the whole Life of Jesus Christ was foretold, and figured in the Old Testament. That Jesus Christ has explained the Prophets, and perfected the Precepts of the Law. In a word he proves at the end of this Book, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Creator of the World, by the Doctrine of the Prophets, by his own Doctrine, by his Inclinations, by his Virtues, by his Opinions; and lastly, by his Resurrection. In the Last Book, he shows from the Epistles of St. Paul, that it is the same God, that is preached both in the Old, and in the New Testament, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Creator of the World. There are in this Book two difficult Passages concerning the Eucharist, which have given Subject to very great Disputes; of which I shall not speak in this Place, contenting myself to refer the Reader to those, who have discoursed of them at large, that so I may pass on to the other Works of Tertullian.  
After having maintained the Unity of God against Martion; he defends the Trinity of Persons against Praxeas. This Heretic came from Asia, to diffuse the Poison of his Error in Rome; he was namrally of a very unquiet and uneasy Temper, and besides was vainly puffed up with the false Opinion of being a Martyr, which Quality he took upon him, because he was for a short time imprisoned for the Faith. Being come to Rome, under the Pontificate of Victor, he prevented this Pope from acknowledging the New Prophecies of Montanus, besides he made him, if we believe Tertullian, revoke the Communicatory Letters which he had granted to the Montanists. He begun to divulge his Heresy in the City of Rome, and afterwards went into Africa; where he made some Proselytes; but he was convinced by a Catholic (which without doubt must be Tertullian) and obliged to put down in Writing a Recantation of his Error. So after he had concealed his Doctrine for some time, he published it anew, and Tertullian, who had confuted him before, whilst he was yet a Catholic, wrote against him, after he fell into the Error of the Montanists. He establishes in this Book, the Distinction of the WORD, and the Trinity of Persons against the Heresy of Praxeas, who acknowledged but one Person in God, making no Distinction between the Father and the Son, and by consequence maintained, that the Father made himself Man, and suffered for Us. Tertullian opposes to him the Rule of Faith, which obliges us to acknowledge only one God in Three Persons, which are all Three of the same Substance, and have all one and the same Power, and that it was the Person of the Son, who was incarnate, and died for Us. He shows that this Trinity of Persons, does no ways prejudice the Unity of the Godhead, as the Unity of the Godhead does no ways hinder the Trinity of Persons That the Son is of the Substance of the Father, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son. That the WORD which was from all Eternity in God, and who did, as it were, come out of him to create and govern the World, as a Person subsisting, who nevertheless has not a different Substance from that of the Father, so that it does not follow from hence, that we believe two Gods, and two Lords; that it is the Son, and not the Father, who made himself Man, without ceasing to be God, and that the Properties of humane Nature, are only to be found in Jesus Christ. In a Word, he explains very handsomely in this Treatise, the Faith of the Church, concerning the Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. It must be owned, that in some Places he expresses himself after a manner, not very agreeable to that which has been used in the following Ages. 
ii He expresses himself after such a manner as is not very agreeable to that which has been made use of in the following Ages.] He says first, that the WORD was begotten of the Father, when God created the World; but he acknowledges at the same time, that he was in God, and a Person distinct from the Father from all Eternity. And so the whole Ambiguity lies in the Term Generation, which he does not understand of the Eternal Procession of the Son, but of a certain Prolation or Emission without, which he supposes was done at the Instant of the Creation of the World, because it is by the WORD that God Created it, and doth still govern it. And this appears evidently in Tertullian's Book, and we ought not to wonder, if in his Book against Hermogenes, he says, that there was a certain time, when the Father was not the Father, and when he began to be the Son, because he believed that he had not the Quality and Name of Son, till this World was Created, though he was in God before, and distinguished from the Father from all Eternity. Secondly, he says, that the Father is invisible, and the Son visible; but in that Sense which we have explained, that is to say, that the Son, who has always rendered himself visible to Men, by taking several Forms, under which he has appeared to them; and lastly, by making himself Man. Thirdly, He seems in some Places to ●●sinuate, that even the WORD, as it is the WORD is inferior to the Father; but this must be understood of an Inferiority, which the Divines call of Original, that is to say, (as he explains it himself) because he has received all from the Father, for he 〈◊〉 expressly in several places, that the Father and 〈◊〉 Son are of one, and the same Substance. Fourthly, 〈◊〉 sometimes makes use of the Word Substance, to 〈◊〉 the Person Subsisting, which is an usual thing amo●… the Ancients before the Council of Nice, and 〈◊〉 amongst some of them after it.  But we must pardon these kind of Expressions in the Ancients, who wrote before those Terms, which they made use of, were fixed and limited to a certain Sense.  
But it is a difficult Matter to excuse him, where he seems to assert, as well in this Book, as in other Places of his Works, that God had a Body, or rather that he was Corporeal. Yet there are some Authors that vindicate him from this Error, and this has occasioned a Question, which is so common, and if I may say it, so trivial, that I do not think it necessary to say any thing of it in this Place.  
Hermogenes was another African Heretic, who maintained that Matter was Eternal, and that God did not create it when he made the World, but that he only made use thereof, to form things as we see. He sucked this Error from the Philosophy of the Stoics, and defended it by Syllogis●…, connected according to their Methods of Reasoning, which made Tertullian say in the Treatise which he composed against him, that the Philosophers were the Patriarches of the Heretics. He there discovers the Fallacies of the Sophisms of this Heretic, and shows that our Religion teaches us, that God created even that Matter, whereof he made the World.  
The Book against the Valentinians, is rather a satire and Raillery, than a serious Confutation of the Extravagant Sentiments of these Heretics. Valentinus, the first Author of this Sect, separated from the Church out of spite, because hoping to be Elected a Bishop, by reason of his Wit and Eloquence, he was put by to prefer another Person, who had suffered for the Faith of Jesus Christ in times of Persecution. After he had separated from the Church, he invented, or rather revived an old Opinion, according to the Principles of which, he feigned a Succession, and imaginary Generation of a kind of Deities. His Disciples refined upon his Notion, and form quite different Systems. But as all these Fancies were impertinent and ridiculous, so they took great Care to conceal them, lest if they should discover them, all the World should be presently sensible of their Extravagancy: 'Tis this which Tertullian upbraids them with. If you teach the Truth, says he to them, why don't you discover it? It persuades by teaching, and it teaches by persuading; it is not ashamed of showing itself; on the contrary, 'tis ashamed of nothing, but of being concealed. You reproach us for our Simplicity; it is true, we love it, because it is by this means, that we know, and make known the Will of God. But 'tis no wonder that the Heretics should blame this Simplicity, and should so carefully conceal their Principles; for they were so extravagant, that the bare Discovering of them would be sufficient to render them ridiculous: 'Tis this which Tertullian does in this Work. I undertake; says he in this Book, to discover to the Eyes of all Men, the hidden Mystery; but though I profess to relate the Opinions of these Heretics, without making a particular Confutation, yet I hope I shall be pardoned, if I cannot forbear censuring them in some Places. What I do is nothing but a Sport before a real Combat, I shall rather show them where I could strike them, than lay them on. But if there are found some Passages that may excite Laughter, 'tis because the very Subject causes it. There are many things which deserve to be jeered and ridiculed at this rate, lest if we should confute them seriously, we should seem to lay too great Stress upon them. Nothing is more due to Vanity than Laughter, and to Laugh, does properly belong to the Truth, because it is pleasant▪ and to Sport with its Enemies, because it is certain of the Victory.  
And these are all the Books which are particularly against the Heretics; there are others, in which Tertullian likewise confutes some Errors, and defends some Catholic Truths, though they were not written against any Heretics in particular. Such are the following Books.  
The Book of the Flesh of Jesus Christ. wherein he proves against the Heretics Martion, Apelles▪ and Valentinus, that Jesus Christ took upon him true Flesh, like to ours, in the Womb of the Virgin.  
The Title alone of the Book of the Resurrection of the Flesh, is enough to discover, that it was written against the Sadducees, and against the Heretics who denied the Resurrection.  
The Scorpiacus, so called, because it is a Remedy against the Poison of Heretics, like Scorpions, defends the Necessity and Excellency of Martyrdom against the Gnostics.  
The Book of the Soul, written against the Opinions of the Philosophers, and the Heretics, treats at large of the Nature of the Soul, and its Qualities. But it is full of false Principles and Errors. He pretends that the Soul is Corporeal, and that it takes a certain Form of a Body, though it be invisible; he confutes the Opinion of Plato, concerning Reminiscency, or the Faculty of Remembering, and Pythagoras' Transmigration; he affirms, that the Soul does not come from Heaven, but that it is form with the Body, and that as the Body of the Parents produces a Body, so their Soul produces a Soul. That all Souls, and even those of the Martyrs, which some have excepted, are disposed of after Death, in a certain Subterraneous Place, where they receive Refreshment, and Torment, according to the Good or Evil which they have done: And that they expect the Resurrection, and the Day of Judgement, which will render them entirely happy, or entirely Miserable to all Eternity. There are likewise in this Treatise, some other particular Opinions; as for Instance, that the Soul and Breath are the same thing; that that which is unreasonable in the Soul, comes from the Devil; that every Soul has its Daemon; that all Dreams are not vain.  
The Book of Baptism is divided into two Parts; the First relating to Doctrine, and the Second to Discipline. In the First he defends the Necessity and Efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism against the Heretics called Caiannites; he proves that the Waters of Baptism do procure to us Forgiveness of our Sins, and of the Punishment which they deserve. What can there be, says he, more miraculous, than to see that by washing the Body by an external Baptism, we efface at the same time, the Mortal Stain of the Soul, and when that Stain is once taken away, the Punishment is likewise remitted to us? He afterwards discourses of the Imposition of Hands, and of the Unction which followed after Baptism, to make the Holy Ghost descend upon the Faithful, and to draw down upon them the Blessings of Heaven. We do not receive, says he, the Fullness of the Holy Ghost by Water; but it prepares us for receiving it by washing us from our Sins. And as St. John prepared the Way of the Lord, so the Angel which is present in Baptism, prepares the Way for the Holy Ghost, by the Absolution of our Sins, which we obtain by Faith, which is confirmed and sealed by the Invocation of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. When we come out of the Font we are anointed; and this Unction, which is performed on our Flesh, is profitable to our Soul, as external Baptism has a spiritual Effect, which is to deliver us from our Sins. Afterwards, there is the Laying on of Hands, to draw upon us the Holy Ghost, and this most Holy Spirit descends voluntarily from Heaven, into purified and blessed Bodies. In the Second Part, he discourses of several Questions concerning Baptism, which relate to Discipline. The first is concerning the Baptism of St. John, whether it were from Heaven, or from Earth? He says, that it was from Heaven, because it was ordained by Heaven: However, That it did not bestow any thing that was Heavenly, but that it made way for Heavenly things, by bringing us to Repentance; and that it neither conferred the Holy Ghost, nor Remission of Sins. The Second, is concerning the Necessity of Baptism, upon which he starts a considerable Objection, taken from what there might seem that the Apostles, of whose Salvation no doubt can be made, were never Baptised. To this he Answers, That possibly they might have been Baptised, though we find no mention of it; and in the Second place, that that Familiarity which they had with Jesus Christ, the Greatness of their Faith, and the Ardency of their Charity, might supply in them the Defect of Baptism, since Jesus Christ has promised the Remission of Sins, and Salvation to those Persons who had Faith, though they were not Baptised. That nevertheless, there is no doubt to be made, but that at present, Baptism is necessary to Salvation, and that though formerly a Man might be saved only by Faith in one God, yet that now we must believe in Jesus Christ, and that it was necessary, that this Faith should be sealed by Baptism, that Jesus Christ had made a Law for it, and prescribed the Manner, saying, Go and teach all Nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And that this Sentence of the Gospel: If a Man be not born again of Water, and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, does invincibly establish the Necessity of Baptism.  
The Third Question is, Whether one may Baptise more than once? He says expressly, that there is but one Baptism, that it never ought to be reiterated. He excepts however the Baptism of Heretics; Who, says he, are not able to give it, because they have it not. And therefore it is that we have a Rule among us to Re-baptize them. He adds, that Martyrdom is a kind of Second Baptism, which is instead of the Baptism of Water, when any Person has not received it, and which repairs it, when that Grace is lost, which it conferred.  
The Fourth Question, is concerning the Minister of Baptism: He says, the Bishop has Power of Administering it, and after him the Priests and Deacons; nevertheless, with his Permission, to set a higher Value on the Priesthood. That in 
This is also ingenuously taken notice of, because the Church of Rome allows Women to Baptise in Case of Necessity.  Case of Necessity, any Man may administer it, and that we should be Guilty of the Loss of a Soul, if we did not afford it that Grace, whereby it may be saved; there are none but Women, to whom he seems absolutely to prohibit the Administering of Baptism, in any Circumstance whatsoever.  
The Fifth Reflection, is concerning the Condition of those who are to receive Baptism. He says, that it is not to be Administered rashly, and that it is good sometimes to put some Stop to it, that those who receive it may be the better disposed. He would chief have this Discipline observed in respect to Infants, and though he supposes that they are capable of receiving Baptism, yet he will not allow them to be Baptised without Necessity. What Necessity is there, says be, to expose Godfathers to the Hazard of Answering for those whom they hold at the Fonts; since they may be prevented by Death, from being able to perform those Promises which they have made for the Children, or else may be disappointed by their Evil Inclinations. Jesus Christ says, indeed, Hinder not little Children from coming to me; but that they should come to him as soon as they are advanced in Years as soon as they have leart their Religion, when they may be taught whither they are going, when they are become Christians, when they begin to be able to know Jesus Christ. What is there that should compel this innocent Age to receive Baptism? And since they are not yet allowed the Disposal of Temporal Goods, is it reasonable that they should be entrusted with the Concerns of Heaven? For the same Reason, he farther says, it is proper to make those, who are not Married, wait for some time, by reason of the Temptations which they have to undergo till they are Married, or have attained to the Gift of Continency. Lastly, he says, Those who shall duly consider the great weight and Moment of this Divine Sacrament, will rather be afraid of making too much haste to receive it, than to defer it for some time, that so they may be the better capable of receiving it more worthily.  
The Sixth, Is concerning the proper time for Administering of Baptism. He says, That it may be done at any time; but that the solemn Days for performing it, are the Times of Easter and Penticost.  
Lastly, he says, That those who are desirous to dip themselves Holily in this Water, must prepare themselves for it by Fast, by Watch, by Prayers, and by sincere Repentance.  
And this is what the Second Part contains, wherein there are but two Errors, the First whereof concerning the Baptism of Heretics, is common to him, with several others; and the Second, which relates to the Baptism of Infants, is particular to him alone, and we shall not find any of the Ancients speaking after the same manner.  
The Book of Penance is the First of those which relate merely to the Discipline of the Church; therein he distinguishes two sorts of Penance; the first is that which is performed before Baptism; and the second is that of those, who being so unhappy, as to fall into Enormous Sins after Baptism, do recover themselves by a laborious Penance. In the First Part, he shows the Necessity there is of proving and preparing Ones self, for a long time, for the Reception of this Grace of Baptism, by a true Repentance. He fears not to say, that Baptism is to no purpose, if we have not repent of our Sins, and amended them, and that it is great Presumption to imagine, that having led a disorderly Course of Life till the very Day of Baptism, we should be made Holy all of a sudden, and that we should cease from Sinning immediately after we have received this Sacrament. Can it be believed, says he, that the Reformation is made just at the time when we are absolved? No certainly, it is made at the time when the Pardon is yet in suspense, and that we are afraid still of the Punishment, though we had not as yet deserved to be delivered from our Sins, that we might be in a Capacity of deserving it. When God still threatens us, and not when he has pardoned us— I confess that God grants Remission of Sins, to those who receive Baptism, but they must take Pains to be made worthy of it; for who would be so bold, as to confer this Sacrament on a Person, of whose Repentance he has any reason to make a Doubt. You may impose upon the Minister, and so procure Baptism, by false Pretences; but God, who knows the Hearts, keeps his own Treasures himself, and does not grant his Grace, but only to those that are worthy of it; so that none can imagine that he may sin more freely, because being yet but a Catechumen, he shall receive the Remission of his Sins in Baptism; for this Sacrament is the Seal of Faith, and Repentance is the Beginning and Stamp of Faith. Lastly, We are not washed from our Pollutions by Baptism, only that we might sin no more, but because we have our Heart already purified: Quia jam corde loti sumus. The Second Part of this Treatise, is of Penance after Baptism, called Exomologesis. He declares at first, that he finds it difficult to discourse of this Second Repentance, which is the last Hope that remains to those who have committed any Crimes, that is to say, Enormous Sins after Baptism: Lest, says he, by treating of this new Means of recovering ourselves from Sin, which God offers to us; it might seem as if we would open a Way for Sinning afresh. However, he says, that God foreseeing Man's Infirmities, and the Devil's Temptations, was willing, that though the Gate of Remission was shut, and the Grace of Baptism refused for ever to those who had forfeited their Baptismal Innocence; they should yet have one Remedy left, which is a Second Repentance, but that it is granted to them but once. He afterwards describes the laborious Exercises of this public Penance, called Exomologesis. 'Tis, says he, an Exercise instituted to humble and abase the Sinner. It makes him lead a Life that is proper to prevail with God for Mercy; it makes him lie in Sackcloth, and upon Ashes, entirely to neglect his own Body; it overwhelms his Mind with Grief and Sorrow; it reduces him to drink nothing but Water, and to eat nothing but Bread, and to take no more than what is necessary for his Sustenance; it obliges him to prolong his Prayers, and to feed them, if I may so say, by Fast: It causes him to break out into Sighs, Groans and Tears, to cry Day and Night to the Lord, to cast himself at the Priest's Feet, and to prostrate himself before God's Favourites. Lastly, To conjure all his Brethren to pray to God for him, and to appease his Wrath by their Prayers. After having thus described the Fatigues of this Exomologesis, he shows the Necessity of it, and reproves those who were ashamed to embrace it, when they had committed Sins after Baptism.  
His Book of Prayer, is a Discourse partly Moral, partly Ecclesiastical; for in the First Part, he explains the Lord's Prayer; and in the Second, he discourses of some particular Ceremonies, used in the Prayers of the Christians. First, He advises the Christians to be reconciled to their Brethren, to free their Minds from all sort of Trouble and Passion, to purify their Hearts from all Sin, before they betake themselves to Prayer; Secondly, He says that the Christians do not use to wash their Hands before Prayer, but that in Praying, they commonly lift them up towards Heaven. Thirdly, That it is not necessary to take off our Cloaks when we Pray, nor to sit always after Prayer. Fourthly, That we ought to pray with a modest Countenance, lifting our Hands towards Heaven. Fifthly, That our Voices must be low, that we must not speak louder than is necessary, to be heard. For, says he, it is not the Sound of our Words that God gives ear unto; but he regards the Intention of our Heart. Sixthly, That when we fast in private, and for the sake of Devotion, we must not abstain from the Kiss of Peace, as when it is a solemn Fast against the time of Easter. Seventhly, That the Stationary Days, that is to say, those Days when several of the Faithful continued in Prayer and Fasting till Three a Clock in the Afternoon; we must not abstain from assisting at the ordinary Prayers, as if it was necessary to break our Fast, as soon as we have received the Body of Jesus Christ. Your Station, says he, will be more solemn. Receive the Lord's Body, and keep it, and so you shall be Partakers of the Sacrifice, and you will perform your Devotion the better.  
In his Book concerning Idolatry, he shows, that the Crime of Idolatry is not only committed by Sacrificing to Idols, but also several other ways, of which he gives us a very pretty Account. He pretends, that all those Workmen who make Pictures, representing the False Gods; that the Astrologers, who have given to the Planets the Names of the Heathen Gods, and who attribute to them any Power and Efficacy; Professors of Rhetoric, who commend the Gods of the Heathens; the Merchants, that furnish Commodities for the Adorning the Temples, and offering Sacrifices to the Gods, are all guilty of Idolatry. He maintains that it is not lawful for the Christians to Feast on those Days which the Pagans Solemnize in Honour of their Gods, nor to adorn their Houses with Torches and Laurels, in Honour of their Princes and magistrates; that they may be allowed to go to the Weddings of their Kinsfolks, though Sacrifices be offered there; but that this is only to satisfy that Duty to which we were obliged, upon the Account of our Relation. That it is likewiise lawful for Servants to follow their Masters to the Sacrifices, and for Christians to render to Heathen Emperors that which is their Due. But that they ought not to accept of Offices, nor bear Arms, at least, that they cannot do it without countenancing of Idolaty. Lastly, He does not acquit those of Idolatry, who attribute the Name of God to the pretended Deities of the Heathens, or who swear by their Name, whether it be through Custom or otherwise. And all this is grounded upon this most certain Principle, That all those who any ways favour the Wicked in their Vice, or contribute to Wickedness in any manner whatsoever, are themselves guilty; but Tertullian seems to stretch it a little too far in some Particulars, and to lay too great a S●●●ss upon the Rigour of Things which might be excused: As for Example, To bear Arms for the Defence of the Empire, to Adorn their Houses with Torches and Laurels, in Honour of their Princes▪ and to make use of some ways of Speaking that are Customary, though they may have some Affinity to Idolaty.  
And to the same purpose, defending in his Book De Coronâ Militu, the Action of a Soldier, who had refused to put a Crown upon his Head; he maintains that it is absolutely prohibited to the Christians to Crown themselves, and even to bear Arms He speaks in this Discourse very advantageously of Custom and Tradition, and relates several remarkable Examples of Ceremonies, which he pretends to be derived from Tradition. To begin, says he, with Baptism, when we are ready to enter into the Water, and even before we make our Protestations before the Bishop, and in the Church, That we renounce the Devil all his Pomps and Mini●●es; afterwards we are plunged in the Water three times, and they make us answer to some Things which are not precisely set down in the Gospel; after that they make us taste Milk and Honey, and we bathe ourselves every day, during that whole Week. We receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist, instituted by Jesus Christ, when we Eat, and in the Morning-Assemblies, and we do not Receive it, but from the Hands of those that preside there. We offer Yearly Oblations for the Dead, in Honour of the Martyrs. We believe that it is not lawful to Fast on a Sunday, and to pray to God kneeling. From Easter to Whitsuntide we enjoy the same Privilege. We take great Care not to suffer any Part of the Wine and Consecrated Bread to fall to the Ground. We often Sign ourselves with the Sign of the Cross; if you demand a Law for these Practices, taken from the Scripture, we cannot find one there; but we must answer, That 'tis Tradition that has established them, Custom that has authorized them, and Faith that has made them to be observed.  
The Book concerning Flight in time of Persecution, is a further Mark of the Extreme Rigour of Tertullian, for there he maintains, That it is absolutely Prohibited to Fly in time of Persecution, or to give Money not to be Persecuted.  
The Book De Pallio, is a small Treatise, wherein he endeavours to prove, that he had reason to quit the Toga, or the long Roman Gown, and to wear a Cloak; he shows therein a great deal of Wit and Learning, and it seems as if he Composed it, rather to show what he was capable of saying upon so trivial a Subject as this is, than seriously to defend the Action.  
In his Book concerning Public Sights and Spectacles, he dissuades the Christians from those Sights and Spectacles, showing how these Pleasures are both shameful and dangerous to those who have Renounced the Pomp's and Pleasures of the World, and Idolatry.  
There is no need of giving the Reasons why he wrote those Books concerning the Ornaments and Dresses of Women, since the Titles themselves do sufficiently show against what Abuse they were written: So likewise the Title of the Book, that Virgins ought to be Veiled, does discover the Subject; but we are not to understand it only of Virgin's Consecrated to God; for Tertullian's Design is to prove, that young Women should be Veiled, that is to say, that they should have their Face covered in the Church: Which he undertakes to prove, contrary to the Custom of his Country, where only married Women were veiled. And upon this Account he speaks against this Custom; and maintains, that it cannot prescribe against Truth; which is true, when it relates to Doctrine, but not when it concerns only a Matter of Discipline, which is but of little Consequence.  
In the First Book written to his Wife, he Exhorts her not to Marry again; and in the Second, he Advises her, that in case she will Marry again, to take a Christian for her Husband.  
The Treatise of Patience is an excellent Exhortation to the Practice of this Virtue: In which Discourse, Tertullian sets forth with a great deal of Eloquence, all the Motives and Arguments which might induce Christians to Patience, and dissuade them from Impatience.  
The Discourse directed to the Confessors whom he calls Martyrs according to the ancient way of speaking, is likewise a very powerful Exhortation to those who were in Prison upon the Account of the Religion of Jesus Christ, to encourage them to bear with Patience their Chains and Torments, and to persevere with Constancy to the End; nothing can be more Pathetical and Moving than this little Discourse.  
I have now nothing more to do, but to speak of those Books which Tertullian Composed against the Church, in Defence of the Montanists, and they are Four: His Book of Modesty, of Monogamy, an Exhortation to Chastity, and A Treatise of Fasts. In his Book of Modesty, he endeavours to prove against the Church, that it has no Power to Remit the Sins of Fornicators and Adulterers, and that when Men are once fallen into these Crimes after Baptism, they cannot be any more admitted into the Communion of the Church, how Penitent soever they may be. In his Book of Monogamy, and the Exhortation to Chastity, he absolutely condemns second Marriages, as being Adultery. Lastly, In his Discourse of Fasts, he commends the Excessive Fasts of the Montanists, who made several Lents, observing the Stationary Fasts, as if they had been expressly enjoined, making them to continue till Night, and not eating upon those Days any thing but Bread and Fruits, nor drinking any thing but Water. In all these Books, excepting his Book of Exhortation to Chastity, he formally attacks the Church, and the Catholics, whom he calls Psychici, and speaks every where very advantageously of Montanus and his Prophetesses, believing that the Holy Ghost had inspired them to set up and establish a more perfect Discipline. For as to what relates to the Rule of Faith, that is to say, to the principal Doctrines of Religion, Tertullian and the first Montanists were of the same Opinion with the Church: And therefore it is, that in this Book against Praxeas, he says, that he always believed in One only God, in three Persons, and that he still believes it more firmly, since he has been instructed by the Paraclete or Comforter: And in his Book which he wrote, to prove that Virgins ought to be Veiled, he says, that excepting the Rule of Faith, which is immovable, and can no ways be changed, Manners and Customs that relate to Matter of Discipline may be reform and altered. That it is this which the Paraclet has done by the Ministry of Montanus, who has instructed Men in a much more perfect Discipline than that which the Apostles had taught them, that Justice was with him in the Cradle while he was an Infant: That the Law and the Prophets were as it were the Infancy, that the Gospel was as it were the Youth, but that there was no complete Perfection to be found, but in the Instructions of the Holy Ghost, who spoke by Montanus; for Tertullian and the first Montanists do not believe that Montanus was the Holy Ghost, but only that the Holy Ghost had inspired him, and sent him to Reform and Perfect the Discipline of the Church; and they did not attribute this Privilege only to Montanus, but also to several of his Disciples, and principally to Women; and they would have it believed, that there were among them several Persons who had Revelations, and prophesied Things to come. These Persons were sometimes strangely agitated, sometimes they fell into an Ecstasy. This Sect gave a respectful Attention to all that they said, either while they were thus agitated, or after they came to themselves, as it was believed that these were so many Revelations, of which it was not lawful to make any doubt; they allowed them to speak in their Assemblies when they would, and they believed that they had more Power and Authority than Priests and Bishops. And this was the Reason that there was but very little Order and Rule observed in their Assemblies. But as to other things, they practised a very severe and austere Discipline; they for ever condemned not only those, who after their Baptism had committed Murder or Idolatry, but also those who had fallen into Fornication and Adultery, to ●ye under a perpetual Excommunication; They imposed new Fasts, and observed them very strictly, eating nothing but Bread and Fruits. They Condemned second Marriages; and they believed that it was not lawful to flee in Times of Persecution. As soon as ever this Sect appeared in the World, it deluded a great many Christians by that outward Show of Perfection and Sanctity which it carried along with it. For on the one hand, the Austerity of their Lives added Weight and Credit to their Revelarions; and on the other hand, their Revelations caused their Discipline to be embraced. Several good Men were immediately brought into the Snare, and in a short time we find the Churches of Phrygia, and afterwards other Churches divided upon the Account of these new Prophecies. Even the Bishop of Rome himself was imposed upon by them, and granted them Communicatory Letters, which he presently Revoked, being sensible of his Error. The Christians of the Church of France were more circumspect as to this Matter, and wrote to Pope Victor and the Churches of Asia concerning these new Prophecies, giving such a Judgement of them as was very discreet and agreeable to the Faith; as Eusebius tells us: But we do not certainly know what it was that they wrote, though it is very likely that they disapproved of these new Revelations, wishing nevertheless, that they would treat with Gentleness and Moderation, those who had suffered themselves to be surprised by Error, that so they might be induced to return into the Bosom of the Church. At length the Bishops of Asia having met together several times, to examine these new Prophecies, considering of what Consequence it was to put a Stop to their farther Progress, Condemned them, and Excommunicated as well those who were the Authors of them, as those that followed them. And this is all that I thought necessary to say concerning the Sect of the Montanists, and the Condition in which it was in Tertullian's time. We will now return to our Author, and speak of his Genius, his Style, and the Judgement that ought to be passed upon his Writings.  
He was of a very quick, sprightly, and sharp Temper, but he had not all that Exactness and Clearness that might have been wished. There is very often more Glittering then Solidity in his Reasonings: He rather strikes and dazzles by his bold Expressions, than convinces by the Force of his Arguments. His Thoughts are far fetched, and sometimes lofty enough; the Turn which he gives them is high, but not very natural. He oftentimes stretches things too far. He is warm, and transported almost upon every thing. He is full of Figures and Hyperboles. He was very well furnished with Knowledge and Learning, which he sufficiently knew how to make use of to good purpose. His Excellency consisted in satire, his Jests are very ingenious and biting. He attacked his Adversaries very cunningly, and overthrew them by a multitude of Reasons; which are interwoven, and, as it were, linked one within another. Lastly, If he does not persuade by his Reasonings, he at least forces Consent by that pompous way of Expression whereby he sets them out. His Style is Concise, his Expressions Emphatical, and there are in his Writings almost as many Sentences as Words. Yet Lactantius had reason to take notice of three considerable Defects in him. Tertullian, says he, was very well versed in the fine Learning, but his Style is neither fluent nor polite, but very obscure. In loquendo parum facilis, parum comtus, & multum obscurus. These three Faults in Style are common to him, with the greatest part of the African Writers 
kk These three Faults in Style are indeed to be found in the greatest part of the African Writers.] We must except Minutius, S. Cyprian and Lactantius, they had quite worn off that way of Writing, though S. Cyprian still retains some relish of it.  but we may say, that they are in a very high Degree in Tertullian, and that there is not any Writer, whose Style is more harsh, less polite, and more obscure than his. All his Works are subject to these Defects, some more, and some less. He is more clear and concise in his Polemical Discourses, more obscure and harder in his common Places; as in the Book De Pallio, which is one of the obscurest Pieces of Antiquity. His Book of Penance is the most Polite of all. The most excellent, and the usefullest of his Works, are, his Apology, the Prescriptions. his Books of Penance, of Baptism, of Prayer, and his Exhortations to Patience, and to Martyrdom.  
After what we have said already, it is an easy matter to judge the true Character of Tertullian; But it is not so easy to determine, whether he be more to be commended, or Blamed: For first of all, if we were to make a Judgement, in relation to the Service which he did the Church, it would be difficult to say, whether he has done more Hurt or Good. For on the one hand, he vigorously defended its Doctrine against several Heretics, he maintained in some of his Works very considerable Points relating to Discipline; and la●tly, he all along Established an excellent Morality: Buton the other hand, besides that he always had several Errors, he formerly opposed the Discipline of the Church after he separated from it. And if we judge in the second Place by the Temper of the Man, there is so much of Good and 〈◊〉 in it, that we cannot tell which of the two ought to carry it. Lastly, If we make a Judgement of him by his Style, we cannot tell whether he is to be Commended for what he has that is Great and Surprising, or to be Blamed, because of its other Defects and Imperfections. And thus Learned Men have always been, and are still extremely divided 
ll 
And thus Learned Men have always been, and are still extremely divided.] We shall here set down some Judgements made by the Ancients and Moderns concerning Tertullian: S. Cypri●n, by the Relation of S. Jer●m, who was told it by a Priest that had heard it from a Secretary of S. Cyprian's, used every day to read something of his Works; and when he called for his Book, he said, Give me my Master. And in truth S. Cyprian has imitated him, and has borrowed a great many things from him. He has likewise composed the greatest part of his Works with the same design as Tertullian, as his Book of Idolatry, in imitation of Tertullian's Apology. His Books De Disciplina & habit●●uliebri, de zelo & liv●re, de Oratione Dominica, de opere & el●…synis, were written in imitation of those of Tert●llian upon the same Subject. Eusebius says of Tertullian, that he was one of the ablest of the Latin Writers, and that he has obtained a great Reputation in all the Churches.  
L●ctantius passes the Judgement which we have already related, which is not very advantageous to him. S. Hilary says in his Commentary upon S. Matthew, that the Error into which he fell, has taken away the Authority of his Books, which deserved Approbation. C●nsequens error hominis detraxit scriptis probabilibus Authoritatem.  
S. Jerom speaks sometimes very advantageously of him, as in his Catalogue, where he calls him a Man of a quick and sharp Wit; and in his Epistle to Magnu●, he says that there was not any Author, who had more Learning and Subtilty; but in other places he reprehends his Errors and Defects. In his Apology against ●uff●●us, he says, I commend his Wit, but condemn his Heresies; and in his Book against Helvidius- who opposed to him Tertullian's Authority, he makes this Answer, What I have to say to you concerning Tertullian, is, that he is not of the Church. Ecclesiae hominem non esse.  
S. Austin commends Tertullian's Style, and always condemns his Error; in his Book De Genesi at Literam, he says, that Tertullian having an excellent Apprehension, did sometime discover the Truth, and that he could not forbear sometimes to establish it even against his own Opinions.  
Vincentius Lirinensis gives a Character of Tertullian in these Words; Tertullian, says he, was among the Latins what Origen was among the Greeks, that is to say, the first and the most considerable Man they had. In word, Is there any Author more knowing and better versed, both in Ecclesiastical and Profane Learning? Has he not comprised in his vast and prodigious Memory; all the Philosophy of the Sages, the Maxims of the different Sects, with their Histories, and what else appertained to them? Did he ever undertake to attack any thing, which he has not almost always, either pierced by the Vivacity of his Wit, or overthrown by the Force and Weight of his Reasonings? And who can sufficiently extol the Beauties of his Discourse, which is so well guarded, and ●inked together by a continual C●nin of Arguments, that he even forces the Consent of those whom he cannot persuade? His Words are as so many Sentences. His Answers are almost so many Victories, as has been sufficiently experienced by the Martions, the Apelles ' s, the Pra●eas ' s, the Hermogenes ' s, the Jews, the Gentiles, the Gnostics, and a great many others, whose Blasphemies he has silenced by great numbers of Books that have ●een as somany Thunderbolts which have reduced them to Ashes. And yet though ●e has had all these Advantages, he did not continue in the Ancient and Universal Faith of the Church, and he has proved himself less faithful than El●…t. At last he altered his Judgement, and his Error, as has been observed by that blessed C●●fess●r S. Hil●ry, by which means he has taken away that Authority fr●● his Writings, which otherwise they would have deserved.  
I shall take no notice of the Judgement of Trithem●us, Rhenanus, Politian, Pa●elius, Rigaltius, and some other Moderns, which every body may consult upon occasion, and I shall conclude with the Judgements given by two of our French Authors, who have both given us Characters of Tertullian, but in a different way.  
The first is the famous M. Balsac, in a Letter written to Rigaltius, which is the Second of the Fifth Book. I expect (says he) the Tertullian whic● you are publishing, that he may learn me that Patience, for which he gives such admirable Instructions; He is an Author to whom your Preface would have reconciled me, if I had had an Aversion for him, and if the Harshness of his Expressions, and the Vices of his Age had dissuaded me from reading him; but I have had an Esteem for him for a long time, and as hard and crabbed as he is, yet he is not at all unpleasant to me. I have found in his Writings, that Black Light which is mentioned in one of the ancient Poets, and I look upon his Obscurity with the same Pleasure, as that of Ebony which is very bright, and neatly wrought. This has always been my Opinion; for as the Beauties of Africa are not less amiable, though they are not like ours, and as S●ph●●isba has eclipsed several Italian Ladies, so the Wits of that Country are not less pleasing with this foreign sort of Eloquence▪ and I shall prefer him before a great many affected Imitators of Cicer●; And though we should grant to the nicest Critics, that his Style is of Iron, yet they must likewise own to us, that out of this Iron he has forged most excellent Weapons; and that he has defended the Honour and Innocence of Christianity; that he has quite routed the Valentinians, and struck Martion to the very Heart.  
The second Character of Tertullian, 
Recherche 〈◊〉 to Verité.  is that which Father M●llebranche gives us in his Search after Truth, in his Second Book, Chap. 3. Tertullian (says he) wa● without doubt a Man of extraordinary Learning, but he had more Memory than Judgement. He excelled more in his Fancy and Imagination, than in Judgement and true extent of Thought. Ther● is no doubt to be made, but that at last he was an Enthusiast, in that sense which I have explained it, and that he had almost all the Qualities which I have attributed to these fanatics. That Respect which he had for the Visions of Montanus, and for his Prophetesses, is an unquestionable Proof of th● Weakness of his Judgement. That Fire, those Heats, those Enthusiasms upon little Subjects, do evidently discover the Extravagancy of his Fancy: How many Irregular Transports are there in his Hyperboles and Figures? How many Pompous and Magnificent Reasons, which prove only by their glittering, and which persuade only by stunning and dazzling of the Understanding! He afterwards endeavours to show that this is a true Picture, by making some Excerptions out of his Book De Palli●, which he thinks to be the most proper ●ook to justify what he affirms.   in the Judgements which they have given, and which they still give of this Author; which makes me believe, that it is better to commend the Good, and to blame what is amiss, than to pretend to make an absolute Judgement, which would be always subject to a thousand Disputes.  
In the last place, to speak briefly of the Editions of Tertullian, there has hardly been any Author of●…er Printed, and upon whom more Persons have bestowed their Pains. For which, two Reasons may be given, the Corruption of the Manuscripts, and his Obscurity, and these two Reasons are likewise the cause one of the other; for his Obscurity induced the Transcribers, who did not understand him, to alter some Words, that they might make such a Sense as they themselves understood: And the Corruptions of these Transcribers have been so far from clearing his Meaning, that they have rendered it still more Obscure; Which has been the occasion that this Author has given so much Trouble to all those that have hitherto set out any Editions of any part of his Works.  
Rhenanus was the first who published Tertullian's Works, which were first Printed at Basil in the year 1521. from two Manuscripts which he had got out of two Abbeys in Germany; and the second time in the year 1528. I have a great Esteem for the Arguments and Notes, which this excellent Person, who was very well versed in all Parts of Learning, and in Ecclesiastical Antiquity, has put at the beginning of the greatest part of Tertullian's Works: And I think that no Man has laboured more successfully than he in the Explication of this Author; and that Rigaltius has very well observed, that Rhenanus wanted nothing to have made his Work complete, but more Manuscripts. Yet his Notes have been Censured by the Spanish Inquisition, and they have been put at Rome in the Index Expurgatorius, because of some Remarks which were a little too free upon the Abuses that were common in his time: But this ought not to diminish the Esteem we ought to have for him. We likewise find Editions of Tertullian, printed at Basil in the years 1525, 1536, 1539. But they are plainly Copies of the first Edition, wherein nothing is altered but the year. The third Edition of Rhenanus is the best, it was Printed at Basil in Folio in the year 1550. In this Edition, there are some Books corrected by Gelenius out of a Manuscript from England. The fourth was likewise Printed at Basil in 1562. The fifth is of Paris, Printed by Guillard in 1545. The sixth was Printed upon a very curious Letter in the year 1566, Printed at Paris in two Volumes in Octavo, for Volchelus, and Audoenus Parvus. Laurentius de la Bar set forth a new Edition of Tertullian, Printed at Paris in 1580. Then Pamelius Published Tertullian with new Commentaries: His first Edition was in the year 1579, Printed at Antwerp. It was followed afterwards by that of 1583, Printed at Paris for Sonnius; and it was afterwards Printed at Antwerp by Plantin in 1584.; at Heydelberg for Commelin in 1596, and 1599; at Cologne in 1617.; at Geneva in 1597, 1601, 1607; at Zurich by Belie in 1657; at Paris in 1608, in 1616, in 1634, in 1658, in 1664; and at Rouen in 1662. The Commentaries of this Author are both Learned and Useful, but he digresses too much from his Subject, and he often brings in things, which are of no use for the understanding of his Author. Tertullian's Works have been likewise Printed according to Pamelius' Edition with Jimius' Notes, at Franeker in 1597. In the year 1627., Rigaltius Printed nine Treatises of Tertullian at Paris in Octavo, more Correct, from a Manuscript presented by Agobardus, who lived in the Ninth Century, to the Church of Lions, whereof he was Bishop, and he collated it with the various Readins of a Manuscript of Mousieur Montchal. In 1584., Latinus Latinius published his Conjectures to restore some Places of Tertullian, which he pretended were corrupted. Pancirollus also had taken pains upon Tertullian, but he published nothing. Fulvius Ursinus Collected several various Readins from Manuscripts, and put them in the Margin of one of Pamelius' Editions of Tertullian which Rigaltius used. Johannes Woërus has likewise made some Notes upon Tertullian, as well as Albaspinaeus, who wrote several upon some Passages relating to Discipline and Penance. Pithaeus, Mercerus, Junius, Salmasius, Richerius, Theodorus Marsilius, and some others, have made Remarks upon his Book De Pallio, Printed separately at Paris in 1576, and 1594, with Junius' Notes; In 1600, with those of Salmasius; In 1625, Jacobus Gothofredus published from the Manuscript of Agobardus the two Books to the Nations, which were never Printed before. They were Printed at Geneva for Choiiet, together with the Commentaries of that Learned Lawyer.  
La Cerda the Jesuit undertook to make a Continued Commentary upon Tertullian's Works, more ample than those which had been hitherto made: He began this Work, and caused two Volumes of it to be Printed at Paris in 1624., in 1630, and 1641; but he never finished it, and his Commentaries are only upon part of Tertullian's Books; and besides they are long and tedious, because he explains several things which need no Explication, and he very often leaves his Subject.  
After all these, the Learned Rigaltius having Revised Tertullian's Works from the Manuscript of Agoba●dus, and making use of the various Readins Collected by Ursinus, Pithaeus, and Junius, published the Text of Tertullian more Correct in very many places, and added some short Notes, to examine which of the two Readins is the truest, to reject or confirm some Conjectures, and to explain the most Difficult and Uncommon Words; And he has annexed at the end longer Observations, to explain the difficult Passages, or to clear some ancient Practi●es; or lastly, to discover some Point of Learning which was more difficult to be cleared. Where, if, says he, you find any Opinions that are a little too free, as about the Confession of Secret Sins, about the Face of Jesus, (which he believes was not at all Comely, grounding it upon the Testimony of Tertullian, and some others of the Ancients) and upon the Wax-Tapers which are lighted up in the Churches in the Daytime, you must not think that I have taken notice of them any otherwise, than as they were necessary to explain Tertullian's Notions, and not any ways to reprehend the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, or to disapprove of the Opinions of those Fathers, who lived after his time. Words by which Rigaltius endeavours to excuse those Opinions, which were too freely inserted sometimes by him in his Notes, as well upon St. Cyprian as Tertullian; But I do not know whether this Excuse will satisfy every Body, for it must be confessed, that there are some places, wherein he sufficiently shows, that he speaks according to his own Opinion, rather than according to that of his Author, and in which he even digresses from his Subject, to make Observations which are sometimes not very agreeable to the present Practice of the Church: But though we might have some reason to tax some of his Notes as to what relates to Divinity; yet we must confess on the other side, that the Notes and Remarks which he has made relating to Criticism, Grammar, and the Explication of some difficult Passages of Tertullian, are very excellent. However he is generally blamed for being too bold in his Conjectures, and that he has not been exact enough in Revising his Author from ancient Manuscripts; And lastly, that he has inserted his Conjectures, and other men's into the Text, without the Authority of any Manuscripts.  
The Bookseller, who Printed the Tertullian of Rigaltius in 1634, being willing to make the Work as Complete as he could, Printed in 1635, in a Volume by itself, the Notes and Commentaries of those who had taken Pains upon Tertullian before him, that so we might have all that had been done upon this Author, excepting the Commentaries of La Cerda. This Volume joined to the Edition of Rigaltius' Tertullian of 1634, which was afterwards Reprinted in 1641, is the perfectest Edition of this Author.  
It has been since Printed in 1664, which is not so large, but more Commodious, wherein they have put in the Margin the entire Notes and Observations of Rigaltius, together with others selected from those of Rhenanus, Pamelius, Albaspinaeus, La Cerda, and Salmasius, etc. together with the Corrections of Mercerus. Priorius, who had the Care of this Edition, has put at the beginning a Preface, which he calls, A Discourse concerning the Life and Errors of Tertullian, that is not exactly done, any more than this Author's Notes; which have not found a General Esteem among the Learned.  
I do not speak of the Edition of Tertullian published by Father George, which he caused to be Printed at Paris in 1648, and 1650, in three great Volumes, which he has Entitled Tertullianus Redivivu●, because there is nothing in this Edition worth taking notice of; and those long and tedious Commentaries which this Capuchin has made, can be of no advantage to the Ignorant, nor of any use to the Learned.  
It would be a desirable thing to have a new Edition of Tertullian Printed, the Text whereof should be exactly agreeable to the best Manuscripts, without inserting the Conjectures of particular Persons. And they ought likewise to add a Choice Collection of those Notes which are the most useful, taken from all the Commentators; And lastly, they should not range the Books according to the Order of Time, but according to the Order of the Matters, as we have done in giving an Abridgement of the Books, and to prefix at the beginning, The Life of Tertullian, and a Criticism upon his Writings; like that which we have done here in French, but larger, and more exact.   

CAIUS.  
CAIUS a Priest of the Church of Rome 
a A Priest of the Church of Rome.] Eusebius and S. Jerom tell us plainly, that he was a Priest, and that he lived in Zephyrin's time; but they do not say that he was a Roman. His Treatise was Composed in Greek; Photius is the First, who affirms expressly, that he was a Priest of the Church of Rome; and he adds, that he was ordained Bishop of the Gentiles. , lived in the time of the Popes Zephirin and Victor that is to say under the Emperors Severus and Antonius. He wrote a Treatise by way of Dialogue 
b By way of Dialogue.] Eusebius calls it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, a Book of Dialogues; and Caius and Proclus, seem to have been the Persons who spoke therein, for Eusebius in his Third Book, relates the Words of Proclus taken from this Dialogue.  against a famous Montanist called Proclus or Proculus 
c Proclus or Proculus.] The Sect of the Montanists was divided into two Parties, the one were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is observed in that small Abridgement of Heresies, at the end of Tertullian's Prescriptions. It is thought that this Proclus was the same with Proculus the African, who was likewise a Montanist, and of whom Tertullian speaks; but this is not likely; for he, against whom Caius writes was a Greek, and was called Proclus, and not Proculus. , wherein he reprehended, 
Caius.  and accused this Heretic for giving credit too rashly to those new Prophecies, and at the same time confuted his Reasons. Eusebius speaks of this Treatise in three Places: The first is in Chap. 25. of the Second Book of his History, where he quotes a Fragment of it relating to the Sepulchers of S. Peter and S. Paul, which were to be seen at Rome in this Author's time. The second is in Chap. 28. of the third Book, where he speaks of the Heretic Cerinthus in these Terms. Cerinthus tells us in some Revelations which he had written, as if he had been a great Apostle, prodigious Things, which, as he said, he had learned from the Angels, assuring us, That after the Resurrection, Christ should have an Earthly Kingdom, and that Men should live in Jerusalem, where they should enjoy Carnal and Sensual Pleasures, and spend a Thousand years in continual Marriages and Jollity. The third place wherein Eusebius speaks of Caius is in his Sixth Book, Chap. 20. where he says, that Caius condemning the Boldness by which the Enemies of the Church do counterfeit some Books of Scripture, reckons but 13 Epistles of S. Paul, not counting that which was written to the Hebrews among the number of this Apostles Writings. Lastly the same Eusebius in his Third Book, Chap. 21. recites some Words relating to the Daughters of Philip the Deacon, taken from this Author's Dialogue.  
Eusebius and S. Jerome make no mention of the other Works of Caius, but the Learned Photius tells us, That he had likewise composed a Treatise against the Heresy of Artemon, who believed that Jesus Christ was only a mere Man, and that he was the Author of a Book Entitled, The Little Labyrinth 
d The little Labyrinth.] We have observed, that Eusebius does not Name the Author of this Fragment, but that Theodoret ascribes it to the Author of the Labyrinth, and on the other hand, Photius informs us, that Caius was the Author of that Book, and proves it, because the Author of the Labyrinth says, That he wrote a Treatise concerning the Universe, whence it would follow, that it was Caius who was the Author of this Fragment; but I should rather believe it to be taken out of the Book, which he Composed against Artemon. Eusebius says, That the Book from whence he produces this Fragment, was written against his Heresy, and the Passages which he brings from thence do clearly show it. , from whence Eusebius has taken the Passage concerning the Penance of Natalis. Photius likewise attributes to him a Treatise Of the Universe, or Of the Nature of the Universe, or of the Causes thereof, which went in his time under the Name of Josephus; Let us see what he says of it. This Work contains two little Books, wherein he shows that Plato contradicts himself; he convinces the Philosopher Alcinous 
e The Philosopher Alcinous.] He wrote a Treatise, wherein he makes a Comparison between Aristotle and Plato.  of several Falsities and Absurdities concerning Matter and the Resurrection; he opposes his own Opinions to those of this Philosopher, and shows that the Jews are a much more ancient People than the Greeks; he believes that Man was compounded of Fire, Earth, and Water, and of a Spirit which is called the Soul, of which he speaks in these Terms: God has formed this Spirit together with the Body, and taking the principal part from thence, he has caused it to penetrate and fill up all its Members; so that extending itself throughout the whole Body, he has taken the form from thence; but it is of a colder nature than Matter, of which the Body is compounded. This Opinion which supposes that the Soul is Corporeal, (if nevertheless he acknowledges no other Soul in a Man than this Spirit) this Opinion, I say, is quite different from the Doctrine of the Hebrews, and does not agree with the greatness of his other Notions. To conclude, as the same Photius adds, (from whom we have only translated his words) he speaks of Jesus after a very Orthodox Manner. For he calls him Christ, and speaks of his ineffable Generation from the Father, after such a manner as is no ways to be reprehended; which gives us occasion to doubt whether this be the Work of Josephus or not; though the Style very much resembles that of this Historian. He adds also afterwards, that he has found and observed that this Book was written by Caius Author of the Labyrinth; but that not bearing the Name of its Author, some have attributed it to Justin Martyr, others to Irenaeus; though in reality it was composed by Caius. The Proof which he brings for it, is, That the Author of the Labyrinth, whom he believes to be Caius, says, towards the end, that he was the Author of the Book concerning the Nature of the Universe; but this Argument is not absolutely convincing. For it is not certain, that Caius was the Author of the Book of the Labyrinth, which some have attributed to Origen, and 'tis likely enough, that there might be two several Books of different Authors, which might have very near the same Title.   

HIPPOLYTUS.  
HIPPOLYTUS, who was according to the Relation of some, Bishop of Ostia in Italy 
a 
Bishop of Ostia in Italy.] S. Jerom, in his Catalogue, says, that he does not know of what City he was Bishop. Gelasius, in his Book De duabus Naturis, citing Hippolytus, says, that he was Metropolitan of Arabia. Nicephorus makes him Bishop of Pontus: It is more likely that he was a Bishop of Arabia, than of Italy: For it is certain that he was of the East, and S. Jerom observes in one of his Homilies, that Origen was his Scholar; some have said, that he was the Disciple of S. Clemens, and this is very probable.  
[Monsieur le Moyne's Conjecture, that Hippolytus was Bishop of Portus Romanus, now called Aden in Arabia is most probable; for it was an easy Mistake for those, who knew nothing of this Arabian Portus, to imagine, that he was called Portuensis from the Portus Romanus, by Ostia in Italy, especially since there has been so current a Tradition of his suffering Martyrdom in Italy.]  , and according to others Metropolitan of Arabia, suffered Martyrdom 
b Suffered Martyrdom.] S. Jerom, in the Preface to his Commentaries upon S. Matthew, calls him a Martyr, and in the Martyrologies, he is ranked in the Number of Martyrs. It is certain, that he suffered Martyrdom in Italy, and perhaps at Ostia: His Acts are forged and counterfeit. It is affirmed herein, that he suffered Martyrdom under Claudius, it should have been under Alexander; and Ulpianus, who is mentioned in these Acts, perhaps may be Ulpius, who was Governor of Rome in the time of this last Emperor. , under the Reign of 
Hippolytus.  the Emperor Alexander. He made himself considerable by the Commentaries which he Composed upon the Holy Scripture 
c Which he composed upon the Holy Scripture.] S. Jerom says, that Origen being excited by his Friend Ambrose, undertook to write Commentaries upon the Sacred Scripture, in imitation of Hippolytus. . Eusebius and S. Jerom assure us, that he had written upon the Six days Work, upon Genesis, Exodus, the Canticles, the Psalms, the Prophet Zachary, the Prophet Isaiah, upon some places of Ezechiel, upon Daniel, the Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, and the Apocalypse; and that he Composed Two Treatises, the One concerning Saul, and the other concerning the Witch of Endor. Besides these Works upon the Scripture, he likewise wrote a Treatise concerning Antichrist, a Discourse concerning the Resurrection, a Work against all the Heresies, and one in particular against that of Martion; a Discourse concerning Easter, wherein he has given a kind of Chronicle, to the First Year of the Emperor Alexander; and a Paschal Cycle for Sixteen years. He likewise made one or more Homilies in the Praise of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which he recited in the Presence of Origen, who followed and imitated him in the Works, which he composed upon the Holy Scripture. There is a Catalogue of his Works upon the side of a Statue found near Rome, where his Paschal Cycle was affixed; several Books are here omitted, mentioned by Eusebius and S. Jerom; but there are others, 
d But there are other Works.] 'Tis very like that it is a Collection of Homilies, which was extant in Theodoret's time, who citys several of them, which perhaps might make a part of his Commentaries upon the Scripture.  of which they have not spoken: The Catalogue is this. The Works of Hippolytus, upon the Penitential Psalms, concerning the Witch of Endor, upon the Gospel of S. John, and the Apocalypse, concerning the Gifts of God. Apostolical Tradition, a Chronicle, a Book written to the Greeks, another upon Plato, or concerning the World, an Exhortation to Severina, a Demonstration of the Time of Easter in a Table, Odes upon the whole Scripture, a Discourse of God, of the Resurrection of the Flesh, of Good, and from whence Evil proceeds. This Catalogue does not appear to me, to be so faithful and exact, as that of Eusebius and S. Jerom, who own besides, as well as Honorius Augustodun●nsis after them, that Hippolytus writ several other Treatises, whereof they had not any Knowledge. And we have now almost entirely lost, even those of which Eusebius and S. Jerom have given the Catalogue.  
There goes indeed under his Name, a small Discourse, Printed at Paris in Greek, with the Version of Picus Mirandula, in the Year 1557, and afterwards in 1660, and inserted into the Bibliotheca Patrum, with this Title; Of the end of the World, Antichrist, and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. But it is very uncertain, whether this be the Treatise of Antichrist 
e It is very uncertain whether this be the Treatise of Antichrist.] The Books of Hippolytus were Entitled, Of the Resurrection, and of Antichrist, according to the Relation of Eusebius, and S. Jerom: This is Entitled, Of the End of the World, etc. This Style is mean and Childish, whereas that of Hippolytus was grave and lofty. This Treatise gins with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. There are a great many trifling Conjectures concerning the Birth, and the Life of Antichrist; he believes that he is to be a Devil; he says that S. John is not dead, which is contrary to ancient Tradition: He citys the Apocalypse instead of Daniel; he holds that the Souls of Men have been from all Eternity, which agrees with Origen's Opinion: In a word, this Treatise is worth very little.  attributed to Hippolytus, and mentioned by Eusebius. The Title being different from that related by Eusebius; the Style mean and Childish: And Lastly, The Fables and Falsehoods which it contains, give us sufficient Ground to doubt it. There is another Treatise of Christ and Antichrist, which bears the Name of Hippolytus, published in Greek by Gudius, which Father Combefis has caused to be Printed in Greek and Latin, in the last Volume of the Supplement to the Bibliotheca Patrum. Though this Treatise be more ancient than that which was published before under Hippolitus' Name, yet does it not appear to me worthy of this Author. Those that read the Commentary upon the History of Susanna, and the Greek Fragment upon Daniel, which are Printed in the same Place, will pass the same Judgement upon them.  
The Demonstration against the Jews, published in Latin by Turrianus, and inserted by Possevinus into his Apparatus, is a Fragment of some Homily, or of some other Book of that Nature. It is not certain, whether it be written by Hippolytus. There was found at Basil, a Treatise upon the Apocalypse, attributed to Hippolytus; but it is doubted whether it be his, because of the meanness of the Style, and the little Learning there is in it, as Sixtus Senensis has observed. The Collections, or rather the Extracts taken by Anastasius the Library-Keeper, out of the Sermons of Hippolytus, upon some Points of Divinity, and upon the Incarnation, against Bero and Helix, Heretics of the Sect of the Valentinians, published by Turrianus and Canisius, and related in Greek by Anastasius, in his Collections set forth by Sirmondus, seem to be very ancient; but it is not certain whether they belong to Hippolytus. We must make the same Judgement of the Homily, Entitled, Of One Only God in Three Persons, and of the Incarnation, against the Heresy of Noetus, which is published hy Vossius, with the Works of Gregorius Thaumaturgus; but though it was not really written by Hippolytus, yet it contains the Principles of the Ancients concerning the Trinity. 
f The Principles of the Ancients concerning the Trinity.] These Principles are, that the WORD was from all Eternity in the Father, as being his Wisdom, his Power, and his Counsel; that when he designed to create the World, he did, if I may so say, put him without him; and this is that which they call Generation: That it is by him that he created the World; and that he governs it; that it is he who made himself visible to Men; who spoke to the Patriarches and the Prophets; who gave the Law; and who at last became Incarnate; that conformable to this Oeconomy, we acknowledge Three Persons in God, which nevertheless make but one only God; that the WORD before he took Flesh, had not perfectly the Quality of the WORD, and that we may say, that he was begotten of the Father; That we ought to believe that the WORD descending from Heaven into the Womb of the Virgin Mary, took therein a reasonable Soul, and everything that belongs to human Nature, Sin only excepted, and all this in order to save Man, who fell by the Sin of Adam, and to render him Immortal, etc.   
That little Work, Of the Lives of the Twelve Apostles, which Father Combefis caused to be printed from a Manuscript in the King's Library, in his Supplement to the Bibliotheca Patrum, is not Hippolitus', and contains several Fictions of the modern Greeks, 
g Several Fictions of the modern Greeks.] Such as these following, that S. Andrew was Crucified upon an Olive-Tree: That the Relics of S. John were not found in his Sepulchre, that S. Bartholomew was Crucified with his Head downwards; that S. Thomas Preached among the Magis; that he was run thorough in four Places with a Lance made of Deal in the City of Salamis; that Thaddaeus preached the Gospel in Mesopotamia; Things which are taken from the Fictions of the modern Greeks, as from Sophronius and others.  relating to the Deaths of the Apostles. We must say the same of a Book written much upon the like Subject, concerning the Seventy two Disciples 
h Concerning the Seventy two Disciples.] This is manifestly the same with the false Dorotheus.  of Jesus Christ, which was in the Library of Cardinal Sirletus, which Baronius mentions in his Notes upon the Martyrology upon the Ninth Day of April.  
Photius had read Hippolitus' Book against the Heretics, and gives us this Account of it. I have read the little Book of Hippolytus, who was Disciple of S. Irenaeus, against Two and thirty Heresies: He gins with the Dositheans, and he goes on as far as Noetus and the Noetians. He says that all these Heresies have been confuted by S. Irenaeus, and that he has Collected in this little Book; the Reasonings and Arguments of this Father. His Discourse is clear and serious, and he says nothing but what is to the purpose, though he has not all the Beauties of the Attic Style. He affirms, some things which are not true, and amongst others, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by S. Paul. It is said, that he made several Homilies to the People, as well as Origen, who was his Friend, and that he wrote several other Books. The same Author, in another place, mentions the Commentary of Hippolytus upon Daniel. He says, That though he does not literally explain this Prophet, yet he does not let slip any part of his Sense, that is considerable, that he interprets things according to the manner of the Ancients, and not with that Exactness which has been since observed; but that he is not to be censured for that, because it is not reasonable to expect from those who lay the Foundation of any Science, that they should omit nothing that might be said upon it; but on the contrary, we ought to commend them, because they were the first Discoverers, for those Things which they first found out: That as for the rest, Hippolytus was mistaken, in pretending to fix the time of the End of the World, and of the coming of Antichrist, which Christ would not discover to his Disciples, even then when they desired it of him very earnestly. He pretended, says he, to fix it five hundred years after the Death of Christ, as if the World was to last but Six thousand years; which is too nice a Subtlety. His way of writing is clear and plain, and very proper for a Commentary, though he departs from the Rules, and the Purity of the Attic Dialect. We have likewise a Homily which he made concerning Jesus Christ and Antichrist, wherein, though he follows the same way of Writing, yet he is more plain, and savours more of Antiquity. And these Passages of Photius, do not only discover the Subject of those Works of Hippolytus which he had read, but also the Style and Character of this Author.  
The Paschal Cycle for Sixteen years, composed by Hippolytus, whereof Anatolius, Eusebius, S. Jerom and Victorius have made mention, was found round about a Marble Statue, that was dug out of the Ground in the Year 1551, near Rome, 
i 
Near Rome.] Near the Church of S. Laurence, in in a Place where there was in all probability a Chapel to Hippolytus. The Statue is of Marble, representing Hippolytus sitting in a Chair, on the sides of which, there are two Cycles, for Eight Years each; on the Right side is that of the 14th Days of the Moons, and on the Left, that for the Sundays. On the side of this Cycle, there is a Catalogue of Hippolitus' Works, which we have already set down. This Canon is the most ancient Paschal Cycle that we have.  
[The Catalogue of Hippolitus' Works, taken from the Roman Marble, is so very uncorrect in Monsieur Du Pin, that I shall translate it anew from the Greek Copy, with some few Notes upon it to explain it.]  

Commentaries upon the Psalms.  
Of the Witch of Endor.  
Commentaries upon the Gospel according to S. John, and the Revelations.  
Of Spiritual Gifts.  
Apostolical Tradition.  
Chronicles; or Chronological Accounts of Time. 
a Accounts of Time.] This Dr. Cave joins with the next Line, and so makes but one Title thus, Chronicles to the Greeks: but as the Marble lies in Gruter, (from whom Dr. Cave transcribed it) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes one Line, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another; now for the most part one Line makes a whole Title, where the Conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not connect more together, especially where a complete Sense can be made by such a Division: But here the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a Discourse upon a Philosophical Subject, concerning the Universe against Plato and other Greek Philosophers, has no great Coherence with a Chronology.   
Against the Greeks, and against Plato, or concerning the Universe.  
An Exhortation to Severina. 
b Severina.] This according to Monsieur le Moyne is faulty, and should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Severa Augusta; and his Reason is, because Theodoret speaks of a Letter written by this Hippolytus to a certain Queen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Reason is not sufficient to me, for Inscriptions upon Marbles, when drawn by skilful Men, are Copied by the Graver with more Care than ordinary Books by Transcribers: And because we cannot tell who this Severina was, therefore it does not follow either, that Hippolytus did not write such a Letter to her, or that he might not write another to an Empress, which Theodoret might have seen and quoted.   
A Demonstration of the Time of Easter, as it is in the Table.  
Odes upon all the Scriptures. 
c 
All the Scriptures.] This Duke Pin has rightly translated; Le Moyne tells us, that it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon all Heresies. Heresies seem to be as improper things to write Hymns upon, as one would wish. But the Historical Parts of Scripture will afford Matter enough for the loftiest Genius to work upon. Dr. Cave does deservedly throw aside Le Moyne's Conjecture, though it seems strange that he should not discern that the received Reading was true.  
Scaliger's Conjecture of the two first Lines, which are almost all eaten away, is too rash; he takes the Letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be parts of the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from whence he concludes, that Hippolytus wrote Commentaries upon the Seven Penitential Psalms; but (as Dr. Cave observes, that Word applied to those Psalms was unknown in that Age, and what to put in the room of it, is hard to assign, and so I left it out.    
Of God and the Resurrection of the Flesh.  
Of Good, and whence cometh Evil.    and carried into the Vatican Library; and afterwards it was published by Gruter, by Scaliger, and by Bucherius; who caused it to be Printed, together with the Cycle of Victorius of Aquitain, in the Year 1633. Mabilion observes in his Voyage into Italy, that he saw at Rome in Cardinal Chigy's Library, an Ancient Greek Manuscript, 
Iter Italicum.  containing the four great Prophets, wherein there is a Commentary of Hippolytus upon the Dream of Nab●….  
Lastly, Theodoret quotes and produces some considerable Fragments of Hippolytus, 
k Lastly, Theodoret relates some considerable Fragments of Hippolytus.] He citys some from an Oration upon these words of Isaiah, Dominus pascit me, etc. from his Sermon upon Hannah and Elkanah, from a Homily upon the beginning of Isaiah, from a Book concerning the Distribution of Talents; and Lastly, From a Letter to a Queen (which some believe to be Mammea, the Mother of Alexander, others, one called Severa, whose Name is mentioned in the Catalogue of this Author's Works, which was on the side of his Statue; from an Oration upon Canticles, from an Interpretation of the Second Psalm, and from the Three and twentieth Oration upon the Two Thiefs. See the Tradition related by Theodoret at the end of his Three Dialogues.  concerning the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, taken from several of his Homilies, and from his other Treatises upon the Holy Scriptures.   

GEMINIANUS or GEMINUS.  
WE join Geminianus, or Geminus 
a Geminianus or Geminus.] He is called by Eusebius in his Chronicon Geminianus; and by S. Jerom, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, Geminus. , a Priest of Antioch to Hippolytus the Martyr, because they both flourished under the Reign of Alexander, and because he is spoken of in 
Geminianus or Geminus.  Eusebius' Chronicon in the same place, where Hippolytus is mentioned. We know nothing of the Works of this Author. Only S. Jerom assures us, that he left behind him some Pieces, which were Monuments of his Parts.   

ALEXANDER.  
ALexander, a Bishop in Cappadocia, being come to Jerusalem, to visit the Holy Places that are there, when Narcissus, who governed that Church, was not capable himself alone, by reason 
Alexander.  of his great Age, to discharge all the Duties of the Episcopal Office; the Christians of of that City retained Alexander, and made him his Coadjutor, by the Consent of the Bishops of the neighbouring Churches. It is said that they had a Revelation, and heard a Voice, advising them to choose him Bishop; and indeed there needed nothing less than a Miracle, to authorise an Election so extraordinary as this 
a An Election so extraordinary as this.] There were were two things in this Ordination which were New, and contrary to the Laws of the Church. The first was the Translation of a Bishop to another See: The Second, the making a Coadjutor to a Bishop whilst living.  and for which there had yet been no Precedent. He governed this Church jointly with Narcissus, as his Colleague. See what he says of it at the Conclusion of a Letter written to the Antinoites. Narcissus, who held before me the Episcopal See, and who is now united 
b Who is now united.] It appears by this, that Alexander was not only Coadjutor, but that he alone had the Care of the Church, that Narcissus did not concern himself with any thing, and that he had no more than barely the Honour.  with me in Prayers, being a hundred and sixteen years old, sends you Greeting, and exhorts you to be all of one and the same Mind.  
Alexander being in Prison in the time of the Persecution under Severus, wrote likewise a Letter to those of Antioch, wherein he Congratulates them upon the Ordination of Asclepiades, who succeeded Serapion in that See: He sent this Letter by Clemens, as it is believed of Alexandria. 
c As it is believed of Alexandria. S. Jerom believes that it was S. Clement of Alexandria, and this may very well be, For he lived till this time, and he was intimately acquainted with Alexander, to whom he Dedicated a Book concernin the Ecclesiastical Rule. Eusebius, Lib. 6. cap. 13.  Besides, he wrote a Letter to Origen, of which Eusebius recites a Fragment in the 14th Chapter of the 6th Book of his History, where he says, that he was a Friend of Pantaenus, and of Clement of Alexandria, and that these men made him acquainted with Origen. And last of all, he sent a Letter to Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, which he wrote along with Theoctristus, Bishop of Caesarea, in favour of Origen, wherein he proves by several Examples, that Bishops may invite those that are proper for instructing the People, to Preach in their Presence: He wrote besides several other Letters, of which we have nothing remaining. He suffered Martyrdom at Caesarea in the time of the Persecution, under the Emperor Decius.   

JULIUS AFRICANUS.  
JUlius Africanus, who was of Palestine, 
a Who was of Palestine.] Some have confounded him with Sextus Africanus of Lybia; but this is an Error: For our Author was of Palestine, and lived there, whereas the other was only of Lybia.  though older than Origen, 
b Older than Origen.] In the Letter which he wrote to Origen, he calls him his Son, and he continues his Chronicle no farther then to the Time of Heliogabalus, which shows that he was older than Origen.  is believed to have been the Disciple of Heraclas, because being drawn by his Reputation, he came to Alexandria to confer 
Julius Africanus.  with him. 
c To confer with him.] Heraclas was undoubtedly Bishop of Alexandria, when he came into this City. He says as much himself in his Chronicle, according to the Relation of Eusebius, Lib. 6. cap. 3. and of Bede de Sex. aet. Pag. 86. of Ado, and others.  He was deputed by the Emperor Alexander, 
d By the Emperor Alexander.] This Embassy was under Alexander the Son of Mammea, and not under Heliogabalus. That which made Eusebius mistake, is because Africanus' Chronicle went no farther than the time of Heliogabalus.  to cause the City of Emmanus to be repaired, which was afterwards called Nicopolis. He particularly applied himself to Chronology and History, and composed an exact Chronicle, 
e And composed an exact Chronicle.] Eusebius gives it the Name of a Chronography, and S. Jerom styles it a History of the Times: Photius and Bede call it a Chronicle. It contained the Origine and Succession of all the Monarchies and Commonwealths, and he annexed to the end thereof, a kind of Table, called a Canon, wherein he disposed under every Year, what he had before observed Successively. S. Basil citys a Passage from thence, relating to the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, in the 29th Chapter of his Book, de Spiritu Sancto.  divided into five Books, from the Beginning of the World, to the Third Year of the Reign of Heliogabalus, 
f The Reign of Heliogabalus.] Photius, who had seen it, says that his Chronicle went no farther than the Reign of Macrinus. But the Computation of years, and a Fragment related by Scaliger, clearly show, that he continued it to the time of Heliogabalus.  wherein he gave a brief Account of the most remarkable Accidents from the beginning of the World, to the time Jesus Christ, and related in few Words all that had happened since Christ's Time, to that wherein he wrote. We have not this famous Work at present under Africanus' Name. But Eusebius has inserted it almost entire in his Chronicon, altering and adding some few things, and Correcting some of his Mistakes. We have still some of his Fragments in two Works, published by Scaliger, of which one is Latin, and is called Chronological Extracts, taken out of Eusebius and Africanus; and the other is Greek, and Entitled, A Collection of Histories.  
Besides this Chronicle, he wrote two Letters upon two important Questions relating to the Scripture: The first directed to Aristides, was written to reconcile that seeming Contradiction which is found in the Account given of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ by S. Luke and S. Matthew. Eusebius gives us a considerable part of this Letter, in the First Chapter of the Seventh Book of his History. And in order to reconcile this Difference, he has recourse to that Law of Adoption, that took place among the Jews, and which obliged the Brothers to Marry their Brother's Wives who died without Children. He says then, that Matthan, who descended from David by Solomon, married a Wife named Estha, by whom he had Jacob: But that after the Death of Matthan, this same Woman married Melchi (he should have said Matthat) who descended from David by Nathan, of whom she had a Son named Heli, and that so Heli and Jacob were Brothers by the Mothers-side; and that Heli dying without Children, Jacob was obliged to marry his Widow, of whom he had Joseph the Husband of Mary, who was by Consequence natural Son to Jacob, and the Son of Heli according to the Law; and descended from Solomon by Jacob, and from Nathan by Heli. This way of reconciling the Evangelists, as to the Geneology of Jesus Christ, is very easy, and has hardly any Difficulty in it; but that every Body may readily comprehend it, we shall represent it in the following Table.  

DAVID  SOLOMON, And his Descendants, related by S. Matthew.  NATHAN, And his Descendants, relalated by S. Luke. MATTHAN, The first Husband. ESTHA, The Wife of both. MELCHI, Or rather MATTHAT, The Second Husband. JACOB, The Son of Matthan, the first Husband. THEIR COMMON WIFE, Whose Name we do not know, First married to Heli, of whom she had no Children, and afterwards to Jacob, his Brother. HELY. The Natural Son of Jacob. JOSEPH. The Son of Heli, according to the Law.  
The Second Letter of Africanus, relating to the History of Susanna, was written to Origen, who had in a Conference cited the Prophet Daniel, to vindicate the Innocence of Susanna. Africanus writes to him, that he admires that he does not look upon this Part of Daniel as Fictitious, and that this whole History is no more than a Fable. The Reasons which he brings for this Opinion, are very Learned and Ingenious, and there was a Necessity for so great a Man as Origen to answer him; and yet it seems as if Africanus wrote to him, rather to be instructed in the Truth, than with any Design of Disputing against him.  
There is likewise attributed to this Author, a Work Entitled, The Cesti, which is cited under his Name, not only by Suidas, and Sincellus; but likewise by Photius, and even by Eusebius, in the Sixth Book, Chapter 31, of his History: If that Passage, which is not to be found in Ruffinus' Version, nor in S. Jerom, be not foisted in. But it is more likely, that this is the Work of another Africanus. 
g Is the Work of another Africanus.] These Books, Entitled Cesti, were Discourses containing nothing but profane Learning, they were so called à Cesto Veneris: They treated of Herbs, and particularly of those that had any Faculty in procuring Love. The Author of this Book was of Lybia; he called himself Sextus Africanus, or rather Africanus Cestus. He was probably a Heathen, as the Title, and the Subject of his Work sufficiently show. There is a Book attributed to one Africanus, cited by Politian, under the Name of Cestus, being a Manuscript in the King's Library, but not the same which Photius speaks of: It was lately published.  We do not know whether he, of whom we speak, wrote any thing else, nor when he died.   

MINUTIUS FELIX.  
MInutius Felix, a famous Lawyer at Rome, 
a A Lawyer at Rome.] Not only Lactantius and S. Hierom assure us that he was of this Profession; but this likewise appears by the beginning of his Dialogue, where he says, That it being Vacation time, he had no Business at the Hall.  who lived in the beginning of the Third Century, 
b In the beginning of the Third Century.] The Ancients do not fix precisely the time wherein he lived. S. Hierom, in his Catalogue, wherein he keeps the Order of Time, places him between Tertullian and S. Cyprian. It is evident that Minutius has taken several Thoughts from Tertullian, and that S. Cyprian, in his Book Of the Vanity of Idols, has transcribed in several Places the Words of Minutius. This makes it probable that he was an African, and his Style savours a little of Africa.  wrote an excellent Dialogue, Entitulled Octavius, in defence of the Christian Religion. 
Minutius Felix.  'Tis a Conference between a Christian, whom he calls Octavius, 
c Octavius.] He is also called Januarius, and Cecilius is named Natalis; and Minutius Felix, Marcus. It would be rather to divine, than to believe, that these were the Januarius and Natalis, Bishops of Africa, who lived in S. Cyprian's time: It would have been more likely that Octavius and Caecilius were imaginary Names in the Dialogue, if we had not been told that they are their proper Names.  and a Heathen named Cecilius, where Minutius sets as Judge. Cecilius speaks first against the Christian Religion, and gins by laying down this Maxim, that every thing is uncertain and doubtful, and that therefore it is a great piece of Rashness, especially in the Christians, who are an ignorant and stupid sort of People, to pretend to establish their Opinions as certain and Infallible Truths That there being no Providence that governs the World, and all things being dubious, it is the best way to stick to the Religion of our Ancestors. That the Roman Empire was first established, and afterwards arrived to its present Height by the Religion of the Gods; that they never contemned the Omens and Presages of the soothsayers, without repenting of it; and that their Oracles certainly foretold things that were really to come to pass. Afterwards he attacks the Religion of the Christiand in particular, he accuses them of worshipping an Ass' Head, adoring Crosses, and other things which were yet more dishonourable. He upbraids them for those Crimes of which the Heathens them-were justly accused; to wit, the Murdering of Children, the Committing of Incests. He reprehends in them as a Crime, that excessive Love which they had one for another. He finds fault with them, because they had no Temples, Altars, nor Statues. He tells them, that they can neither see themselves, nor show to others that God whom they adore; that they feign that he sees all things, but that it is impossible that he should be able to take care of every particular thing, if he has the Charge of the whole Universe lying upon him. He pretends that it was to no purpose that the Jews adored and honoured this God. He scoffs at the Hopes of the Christians. He looks upon the Resurrection, Hell, and Heaven to be Fables, like those of the Poets. He says, that Men being necessarily Good or Evil, 'tis ridiculous to believe that God will punish or reward them for their Actions. He examines the Condition of the Christians in this Life, which is to be Poor, Ignorant, subject to Diseases, persecuted, exposed continually to Racks and Tortures: Which shows, says he, that their God either cannot, or will not relieve them, and by consequence that he is Impotent or Malicious. That on the contrary, the Romans, who do not adore the God of the Christians, are not only Powerful, and Lords of the whole World; but they likewise enjoy all those Pleasures, from which the Christians are forced to abstain. He concludes by advising the Christians not to seek any more after Heavenly Things, and not to flatter themselves vainly with the Knowledge of them: maintaining that all things being uncertain and doubtful, it is better to suspend our Judgements, than to judge rashly, for fear of falling into Superstition, or utterly destroying all Religion. After some Reflections of Minutius Felix, Octavius answering Cecilius' Discourse, observes how he has argued after a very inconstant manner, sometimes admitting a Deity, and sometimes seeming to doubt thereof. Which he has not done, says he, out of any Craft or Cunning, this sort of Artifice not suiting with his Candid and Frank Temper; but that has happened to him which usually happens to a Man who is Ignorant of the Way, when he sees several Paths, he stands in suspense, not daring to choose any, and not being able to follow them all. In like manner, as he adds, he who has no certain Knowledge of the Truth, is always in doubt, and suffers himself to be led by the first Suspicion, without being able to stop himself. He afterwards reprehends all the Reasonings of Cecilius, and he answers every one in particular. After having shown that Poverty and Ignorance, which was upbraided to the Christians, could be no ways prejudicial to the Truth; he proves the Divine Providence, by the Order and Beauty which is seen in the Universe, and by the admirable Perfections of all the Creatures. And he shows, that it could be no other than God, who has created all things, governing them by his WORD, ruling them by his Wisdom, and bringing them to perfection by his Power: That he is not to be seen, because he is more subtle than the Sight: That he is not to be comprehended, because he is greater than all the Senses: That he is infinite and immense: That the Bounds of our Understanding are by much too shallow to have a perfect Knowledge of him: That it is only he who comprehends himself; that it is impossible to give him a Name suitable to his Perfections: And yet that all Men do naturally know him: That the People stretching out their Hands to Heaven, invoke only this God, and that the Prophets and Philosophers have acknowledged him. He afterwards shows, that the Antiquity of their Fables ought not to give them any Authority: That they have not only so much as the least Appearance of Truth, but that they are Impertinent and Ridiculous, and that he must be void of common Sense, who gives any Credit to them: That we are not to attribute the Establishment, nor Increase of the Empire, to the Religion of the Romans, since it was founded at first by Parricide, and by the Rapes of strange Women, and that it afterwards grew to its Greatness by Uncleanness, by Sacrilege, and by unjust Wars: That very often their Commanders contemned the Auguries; and that nevertheless they were successful in what they undertook: That the Answers of their Oracles were very often false and ambiguous, and that we are not to wonder, if by a great Chance they sometimes hit: That the Daemons, who are impure Spirits, made use of these Superstitions to destroy Mankind; and to set them at a greater Distance from God, after they were already lost by their Vices and disorderly Desires: That 'tis these Spirits who answer in their Statues, who possess Men, and agitate them so furiously; but being conjured by the Name of the only true God, they are obliged to go out of the Bodies of those whom they have tormented. He afterwards confutes the Calumnies wherewith they aspersed the Christians: He says, That if it were true, they ought not to be compelled to deny their Religion, but rather to own those Incests, Impieties and Murders wherewith they were accused: That the Christians are too well instructed, to adore an Ass' Head, and too chaste, to commit Uncleanness in the Celebration of their Mysteries: But that there is a Religion among the Heathens, in which they worshipped Beasts, and committed execrable Villainies without Punishment; that they are not the Christians, but the Heathens, who place their Hopes in mortal Men, and in inanimate Statues, and who were frequently guilty of Murders and Incests: That the Christians do neither adore nor desire Crosses, and that they are so far from shedding Man's Blood, that they dare not so much as to eat that of Beasts: That they are modest and reserved, not only in Body, but in Mind: That they commonly Mary but once, and that they have no other Design in their Marriage, but the having of Children: That their Repasts are not only very chaste, but also very Sober: That there are several Christians who preserve a perpetual Continency, and yet without any Vanity upon that Account: That though they refuse to bear any Offices, yet they are not for all that of the Scum of the People: That their Number increases continually, which is a certain sign of their Virtue: That they do not distinguish themselves from others by any outward Mark, but by their Innocence and Modesty: That they love one another and call one another Brethren, because they have all one and the same God for their Father: That they have nither Statues, nor Altars, nor Temples, because the Majesty of God cannot he represented by Images, nor enclosed in Houses built by the Hands of Men, and that it is better to consecrate our Mind, and our Heart as his Temple. Nun melius in nostra dedicandus est ment, in nostro Consecrandus Corpore? That the Sacrifices and Victims which he requirs, and which we ought to offer up unto him, are Justice, Purity and Innocence: That though God be invisible, yet he is discovered by his Omnipotence: That he knows all things, and nothing can be concealed from him: That he protected the Jews so long as they honoured him; and 'twas only for their Sins that they have drawn upon themselves his Anger and Vengeance. After having thus diso●…sed▪ of the Object of the Christian Worship, he goes on to the Proof of the other Points of their Doctrine. He shows, that the Learned do agree, That the World shall have an End: That Pythagoras and Plato believed one part of the Resurrection when they taught the Immortality of the Soul, and the Metempsychosis: That it is not more difficult for God to raise up Men after their Death, than it was for, him to produce them out of nothing: That all the Revolutions of Nature are as so many Images of the Resurrection: That several had rather be annihilated for ever, than to rise again to endure Eternal Torments; and that they were confirmed in their Opinion by the Impunity which they enjoyed in this Life: But that the Judgement of God will be by so much the more Rigorous, as it is slower in Punishing: That these Torments shall be excessive, and shall have neither End nor Bounds: That the Fire which shall burn the Body without consuming it, shall nourish it (if I may so say) and make it to subsist to all Eternity: That it is sufficient not to know God to be Condemned to suffer these Pains, because it is not a less Sin to be ignorant of him, then to offend him: But that the Heathens shall not be Punished only for this Ignorance of God, they being guilty of several Crimes; that they cannot excuse themselves by alleging Destiny, since Man is a free Agent, and that Destiny is nothing else but the Execution of God's Decrees, which are regulated according to Men's Actions: That that Poperty which is so frequent amongst the Christians, makes for their Glory; that the Evils and Persecutions which they suffered, are no Proof that God has forsaken them, but that he tries and purifies them: That it is a Spectacle well becoming God, to behold a Christian stoutly contending with Pain, standing firm and steadfast in the midst of Torments, insulting over his Executioners and Judges, freely resisting even Princes and Emperors, and yielding only to God. You exalt, says he, to the Skies, a Scevola, who after having miss of his Aim in killing a King, voluntarily lost his Hand, and saved his Life by this courageous Action. But how many Persons are there among us, who have suffered without Complaining, not only their Hand, but their whole Body to be burnt, though they could have delivered themselves from these Torments, had they pleased? What do I say? Even our Sons and our Daughters laugh at your Gibbets, at your wild Beasts, and at all your Punishments. And ought not this to convince you, that it is impossible that they would have endured these Pains to no purpose; or that they could be able to suffer them without God's Assistance? And do not think that those Persons are happy, who being utterly ignorant of God, are loaded with Honours and Riches. These are unfortunate Men, who are raised up, that their Downfall might be the greater, these are Victims which are fatened for the Sacrifice. For what solid Good can be had without God, since Death shows that all the rest is no more than a Dream? This being so, a Christian may indeed seem to be miserable, but can never be really so: Christianus videri potest miser, non potest esse. He adds, that they abstain from Pleasures, from public Sights, and from the Pomp's of the World, because all these things are contrary to good Manners, and that their Life is more unblameable than that of the Philosophers, who seem to be wise by their Discourses, and by their outward Appearance, but were by no means sound at the Bottom.  
After Octavius had thus answered all the Objections of Cecilius, the last acknowledges himself convinced by his Arguments: I do not expect, says he, the Determination of our Arbitrator; we are equally victorious, Octavius triumphs over me, and I triumph over Error. I submit myself therefore to God, I acknowledge his Providence, and I do publicly declare, that the Religion of the Christians, among the Number of whom I place myself from this present, is the only way that discovers the Truth.  
This Dialogue is Elegant, the Expressions are Select, the Words proper, the Turn agreeable, the Reasons are set forth to advantage, and beautified with a great deal of Learning. In a word, this small Treatise shows, as Lactantius has observed, that Minutius had been a very excellent Defender of Religion, and of the Truth, had he entirely applied himself to this Study. But this is rather the Production of one who would divert himself from Business, than a Book written with great Assiduity and Diligence. He flourishes upon his Subject without treating of it thoroughly. He takes more pains in showing how ridiculous the Opinions of the Heathens are, and in confuting them by their own Authors, than in explaining and proving the Doctrine of the Christians Besides, he does not appear to be very well skilled in the Mysteries of Religion and he seems to have believed, that the Soul should die with the Body. 
d That the Soul shoul●…ie with the Body.] He says, That there is nothing after Death, as there was nothing before the Production; and that being made of nothing, it shall likewise be renewed of nothing.   
This Discourse passed a long time for the Eighth Book of Arnobius; for it being found together with the seven Books of Arnobius in an ancient Manuscript of the Vatican Library, it was printed four times 
e Four times.] The first by Sabaeus, according to the Manuscript of Rome, in the Year 1542. The second in Germany by Gelenius. The third in Holland, at Leyden, in the Year 1552. The fourth at Basil, by Erasmus, in 1560.  under his Name, before any Body knew its true Author. The Learned Lawyer Balduinus was the first that found out this vulgar Error, and caused this little Treatise to be printed by itself in the Year 1560, at Heidelberg, with a learned Preface, wherein he restores it to its true Author. But though we own to this famous Lawyer the Honour of having first made this Discovery, yet 23 years after, Ursinus causing Arnobius' Works to be printed at Rome, whether he had not seen Balduinus' Edition, or whether he had a mind to attribute all the Honour of this Observation to himself, separated this Book of Minutius from those of Arnobius, without taking any notice that it had been done before, ascribing to himself by this means the whole Credit of the Discovery. Some time after, in the year 1603, Wowerius caused it to be printed at Basil by Frobenius, with very useful Notes, for the understanding of this Author. In 1610, it was printed at Francfort in Octavo, according to Balduinus' Edition. Afterwards Elmenborstius caused it to be printed at Hambourg with some new Observations, in the year 1612, adjoining thereunto the Preface of Balduinus. The Year following, Heraldus the Lawyer published at Paris an Edition of Minutius in Quarto, which was more correct than the others. Lastly, Rigaltius revising it very diligently from a Manuscript in the King's Library, being the same which was in the Vatican, put it forth in the Year 1643, with very learned and curious Notes; and it was reprinted at Amsterdam in 1645, together with Julius Firmicus. This Edition of Rigaltius was followed in the Edition of S. Cyprian of 1666, to whose Notes they have added part of those of Wowerius, Elmen●orstius, Oizelius, and those lately made by Priorius. Lastly, All these Notes were printed together with the Text, after the manner which they call Variorum, in the Year 1672.  
S. Hierom says, That in his Time there was a Book concerning Destiny attributed to Minutius Felix: but though this might be the Work of an eloquent Author, yet it was not written with the same Style with this Dialogue. It is true, that Cecilius promises in this Dialogue, to treat more largely of Destiny upon another occasion: but to tell whether he did it or no, or whether this Treatise that was extant in S. Hierom's Time, was the same which he promised, or rather, whether this Promise gave occasion to some other Author to forge a Discourse thereof under Minutius' Name, are things which we cannot positively determine.   

AMMONIUS. 
Ammonius.   
AMMONIUS, a Christian Philosopher, the Master of Plotinus and Origen, 
a Master of Plotinus and Origen.] Porphyry says, in Plotinus' Life, That this Philosopher, when he was twenty years old, came to hear Ammonius; that he was his Disciple for eleven years; and that he had another Disciple named Origen. But, as we shall observe elsewhere, this is a different Person from the famous Origen. Nevertheless, Eusebius assures us, That our Origen was likewise his Scholar, and it seems undeniable, and we must needs confess, that there were two origen's, who were Disciples to Ammonius.  flourished in Alexandria, 
b Flourished in Alexandria.] There was another Ammonius, a Philosopher likewise, who lived after the Council of Chalcedon. He was somewhat older than Origen, and a Platonist.  where he publicly taught Philosophy in Alexander Severus' Reign. Porphyry falsely accuses him for having quitted the Christian Religion, in which he had been educated: for it is certain, as Eusebius and S. Hierom observe, That he always continued steadfast in the Doctrine and Precepts of Christianity. Witness, says Eusebius, those excellent Works that he has left behind him, which are so many authentic Monuments of his Faith and his Ability; as the Book entitled, The Agreement between Moses and Jesus Christ, and all the other Pieces which may be found in the Hands of studious Persons. In the Number of these Works we may reckon a Gospel composed out of all the Four: which was a kind of Harmony and Concord which he had drawn up with a great deal of Pains and Study, as is testified by Eusebius in his Epistle to Carpianus, placed at the beginning of his Canons upon the Evangelists. Which has given occasion to S. Hierom to affirm, that Ammonius writ Canons like those of Eusebius. But they were not, properly speaking, Canons which Ammonius composed; for the Canons were no more than Indices of the Places of the Gospels, which are contained in One, Two, Three or Four of the Evangelists; whereas Ammonius' Harmony or Concord contained the entire Text of the Four Evangelists, which Eusebius made use of in making his Canons, which referred to this Concord, and were a Table to it. Trithemius likewise attributes Canons to Ammonius, but they are those of Eusebius. We have at present in the Bibliotheca Patrum an Harmony of the Four Evangelists, falsely attributed to Tatianus by Victor of Capua; which Cardinal Baronius, Father Labbè, and several other Learned Men do ascribe to Ammonius. It is certain, that this was not written by Tatianus, who retrenched the Genealogies of Jesus Christ, which are to be found in this Concord. It bears the Name of An Harmony, and it is ascribed in the Title to an Alexandrian, which made Baronius conjecture that it was written by this Ammonius, who was of Alexandria, and whose Works bore the Title of an Harmony. Zacharias, Bishop of Chrysopolis, who lived in the Twelfth Century, and made Commentaries upon Ammonius' Harmony, has followed this word for Word, which confirms Baronius' Conjecture.   

ORIGEN.  
ORIGEN 
a Origen.] There is not any Ecclesiastical Author, whose Life we have more exactly. Eusebius, who was his great Admirer, has described it very particularly. 'Tis from him that we have taken, without citing him, almost all that we have related concerning him. We must add thereunto S. Hierom in his Catalogue, and in several other Places. Ruffinus against S. Hierome; S. Epiphanius in the 64th Heresy; Photius in the 118th Volume, where he has given an Abridgement of the Apology of Pamphilus, and what Origen says of himself, Tom. 6. in Matth. & alibi. We have also made use of the Assistance of the Moderns, and particularly of that famous Work of Huetius, entitled Origeniana; of the Life of Tertullian and Origen, written in French by a worthy Man; which we say as much to do them Justice, as to take off from ourselves the Imputation of being a Plagiary. [Our Author means Dr. Allix, Treasurer of the Church of Sarum, who had a great Esteem paid to him in his own Country for his extraordinary Learning, till the late Persecution forced him hither for Relief.  was born in the City of Alexandria, about the year 185, from the Birth of Christ. 
b Was born in the City of Alexandria, about the year 185 from the Birth of Christ] S. Epiphanius says, That he was an Alexandrian. Eusebius says, That he was seventeen years old at the time of the Persecution of Severus, which was in the year 202 from the Birth of Christ, and by consequence he was born in 185.  Besides the Name of Origen, he had moreover that of Adamantius. 
c He had moreover that of Adamantius.] Photius believes that he had this Name by reason of the strength of his Reasonings. S. Hierom says, That he had it because he resisted Errors like a Diamond. But this is only guessing: we may say the same of those who seek for the Etymology of the Name of Origen, out of a needless Curiosity.  His Father, who 
Origen.  was called Leonidas, educated him in the Faith of Jesus Christ, and did not only cause him in his Youth to learn the politer Learning, with all the profane Sciences, but he particuly ordered him to apply himself to the understanding of the Holy Scripture, before any other kind of Learning, giving him every day some Portions thereof to learn and repeat. And it happened very luckily, that the Son's Inclination exactly answered the Father's Design; for the pursued his Study with a most extraordinary Zeal and Fervency; and as he was endowed with a quick Apprehension, and very great Sagacity, he did not content himself with that Sense which at first view presented itself, but he afterwards endeavoured to dive into the mysterious and allegorical Explication of the Sacred Books, and sometimes would even puzzle his Father by ask him the meaning of some Passages of Scripture, which obliged this good Man seemingly to reprehend him, and to advise him not to soar above the reach of his Understanding, and to content himself with the most clear and natural sense of the Scripture; though inwardly he was extremely joyful, and returned Thanks unto God with all his Heart, for his great Mercy, in bestowing on him such a Son. But that these Opinions may not be attributed either to the blind Love of a Father for his Child, or to that Affection which Eufebius, who relates these things, had for Origen, it may be sufficient to observe, That S. Hierom, even then when he wrote against Origen, with the greatest Earnestness, was obliged to acknowledge, that he had been an extraordinary Person from his very Infancy Magnus vir ab infantiâ. Ep. 65. ad Pammachium de erroribus Origenis. When he was a little more advanced in Years, he had for his Master in Philosophy, the famous Ammonius, 
d He had for his Master in Philosophy, the famous Ammonius.] There were two origen's Disciples to Ammonius: The first of whom, Porphyry speaks of in the Life of Plotinus, and Longinus, who wrote nothing but a small Treatise of Daemons, and lived but to the Reign of Gallienus, and who was Porphyry's Disciple and Friend, which does not agree with our Origen, as has been observed by Valesius and Huetius.  the Christian Philosopher; and in Divinity, the learned S. Clemens of Alexandria. He was not above sixteen or seventeen years of age, when the Persecution began at Alexandria, in the 10th Year of the Reign of Severus, and the 202d from the Birth of Christ. His Father being seized and imprisoned upon the account of the Christian Faith, he would also have offered himself to the Persecutors, out of the great Zeal he had to suffer Martyrdom; but his Mother opposed it very stiffly, and was even forced to hid his clothes, to prevent him from going abroad to put his Design in Execution: And being thus detained against his Will, he wrote a Letter to his Father to exhort him to Martyrdom, wherein he expresses himself thus: Stand steadfast, my Father, and take care not to alter your Opinion upon our Account. Leonidas being animated by his Son's Exhortation, courageously suffered Martyrdom, and was beheaded within a little while after. His Goods having been confiscated, Origen remaining with his Mother and Brethren, was reduced to extreme Poverty; but a certain Lady of Alexandria, who was very rich, whether out of Compassion to his Misery, or out of the Respect she had for him, afforded him all kind of Assistance, and even took him into her House. There lived with her at the same time a famous Heretic of Antioch, whom she had adopted for her Son, who held Conferences in her House, where a great Number, not only of Heretics, but also of Catholics, were present. But though Origen was obliged of necessity to converse with this Man, yet he would never hold Communion with him in Prayer, keeping exactly to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions, and testifying the Abhorrence that he had for the Doctrine of the Heretics. However, in a little time he put himself into such a Condition, as not to stand any longer in need of his Lady's Assistance; for applying himself entirely, after his Father's Death, to the Study of Human Learning, he taught Grammar, and by his Employment he got a sufficient Competency to maintain himself.  
Whilst he followed this Profession, the Chair of the School at Alexandria becoming vacant by the Retreat of S. Clement, and by the Flight of all those who were dispersed by the Persecution, some of the Heathens, who were willing to be converted, made their Application to him, though he was not then above eighteen years old. The two first of his Disciples were Plutarch, and Heraclas his Brother, who succeeded Demetrius in the See of Alexandria. At length, the Reputation and Number of those that were converted by him increasing every day more and more, Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, confirmed him in the Employment of Catechist, or Professor of Sacred Learning in the Church of Alexandria. When he saw himself settled in this Charge, he left of teaching Grammar, not being willing to depend upon any other Profession for his Subsistence: He sold all his Books that treated of human Learning, contenting himself with four Oboli a day, which were allowed him by the Person who purchased them.  
And then it was that he began to lead a very strict and severe Life, which contributed no less than his Learning to attract to him a great number of Disciples, notwithstanding the Fury of the Persecution, which being then begun at Alexandria, under the Government of Laetus, continued still with greater Violence under Aquila his Successor. He had several of his Disciples there, who suffered Martyrdom in the same Place; among others, Plutarch, Serenus, Heraclides, Hero, etc. And he was himself very often exposed to the Rage of the Heathens, when he went to the Assistance and Encouragement of the Martyrs. He then carried his Austerities so far, as to commit an Act of thet Excess, as to be blamed even by those who have been his greatest Defenders, and which he himself afterwards condemned, though he might do it upon a good Motive, 
e And which he himself afterwards condemned, though he might do it upon a good Motive.] Eusebius, his great Advocate, speaks of it in such a manner as shows he was ashamed of it. The Passages where Origen himself has condemned it, are in the 15th Sermon upon S. Matthew, Chap. 19 Ver. 12. and against Celsus, Book 7. We do not know whether he made use of Iron, or of some particular Simple; nor is it any great matter if we did know it.  and out of an excessive Zeal for Charity. For as his Employment obliges him to be often with Women, whom he instructed as well as Men, that he might take away from the Heathens all pretence of Suspicion of any ill Conduct by reason of his Youth, he resolved with himself to execute to the Letter that Perfection which he was persuaded was proposed by Jesus Christ in these Words of the Gospel; That there are some who make themselves Eunuches for the Kingdom of Heaven. He was willing to keep this Action private, and did all he could to conceal it from his Friends: but it was presently discovered; and being come to the Knowledge of Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, he commended his Zeal, and the Fervency of his Faith, and bade him not be discouraged upon that Account, but to continue more earnestly in the Instruction of the Catechumen.  
In the mean time, Origen's Reputation increased daily more and more, and procured him so great a Number of Disciples, that he himself alone was not able to manage it: and therefore he committed to his Friend Heraclas the Care of those who were to be instructed in the first Principles of Religion, reserving to himself such as were advanced to a higher Degree of Knowledge. It was about this time, in the beginning of the Reign of Antoninus, that he went to Rome, 
f In the beginning of the Reign of Antoninus, that he went to Rome.] Baronius places this Voyage under Heliogabalus, and says that Origen was sent for to Rome by Mammaea; but he is mistaken, for Mammaea caused him to come to Antioch, and not to Rome.  under the Pontificate of Zephirinus; and much about the same time, he likewise composed that great and famous Work, called the Tetrapla; which was a Bible, wherein by the side of the Hebrew Text, he had transcribed in different Columns, the Translation of the Septuagint; that of Aquila; that of Symmachus, and that of Theodosion, distinguished by Verses; and he added thereunto afterwards two other Versions without any Authors Name, and a Seventh only upon the Psalms, which he found at Jericho in a Barrel: and these Versions, with the Hebrew, written both in Hebrew and Greek Characters, make up that Book which is called the Hexapla. 
g That Work which is called the Hexapla.] See Valesius upon Eusebius, where he proves that the Hexapla do comprehend six entire Versions, and that the seventh was only upon the Psalms. Eusebius writes, that they were composed at this time. S. Epiphanius believes that they were made at Tyre. As they are great Works, and tedious to compose, 'tis likely that he began them then, and finished them afterwards.  These Works mightily increased his Reputation, and drew from all Parts into Alexandria a great Number of learned Persons to converse with Origen, and to be instructed by him. Ambrose was one of this Number: He anathematised the Heresy of Valentinus, in which he had been engaged, to embrace the Orthodox Faith. Origen was afterwards obliged several times to leave Alexandria: For first he was sent for by an Arabian Prince, who wrote to Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, and to the Governor thereof, to send him to him to be instructed by him; and a little while after, this City being cruelly harassed by the War which the Emperor Antoninus Caracalla made against its Inhabitants for having affronted him by their Jeers and Scoffs, Origen retired into Palestine; and being come to settle in the City of Caesarea, the Bishops of that Province desired him to expound publicly the Scripture in that Church and to instruct the People in their Presence, though he was not yet a Priest; to which Request of theirs he complied. Now whether Demetrius envied him this Honour, or whether he was persuaded that they had violated the Rules of the Church, he wrote to these Prelates, telling them, That it was a thing unheard of, and that it had been never practised till then, that Laymen should Preach in the Presence of Bishops. But Alexander of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus of Caesarea, writing back to him, proved by several Instances, That this had been often put in Practice. In the mean time, Demetrius had written to Origen to come home; and having also sent some Deacons to press his Return, he was obliged to betake himself again to his first Employment. Some time after, he was again diverted from it by Order of the Princess Mam●●●, who caused him to come to Antioch, that she might see, and discourse with him: but staying with her but a little while, he returned to Alexandria, and fell again to work upon the Holy Scripture, with the Assistance of his Friend Ambrose, who furnished him with Copyers. He continued there till the Year 228, when he departed from thence with Letters of Recommendation from his Bishop, to go into Achaia about some Ecclesiastical Affairs. 
h About some Ecclesiastical Affairs.] This Business was without doubt to confute Heresies which were at that time very numerous in Achaia, as S. Hierom and Ruffinus relate. 'Tis probable it was in this Voyage that he wrote, whilst he was at Nicomedia, (as he himself observes) his Letter to Africanus concerning the History of Susanna. It was likewise at this time that he convinced two Heretics of falsifying the Conferences which he had with them, and of making him say what he never said. Ruffinus relates this in the Book de Adul. lib. Orig.  It was in this Voyage, as he passed through Palestine, that he was ordained Priest by the Bishops of this Province, being 42 years old. This Ordination of Origen by Foreign Bishops extremely incensed his Diocesan Demetrius against him, it having been done without his Permission. He wrote every where Letters against him, upbraiding him for the Action which he had committed in his Youth. However, Origen returned to Alexandria, where he continued to write his Commentaries upon the Sacred Scripture. It was then that he published his five Books of Commentaries upon the Gospel of S. John, eight Books upon Genesis, Commentaries upon the first Five and twenty Psalms, and vopn the Lamentations of Jeremiah; his Books de Principiis, and his Seromata.  
All this while the Bishop of Alexandria was not at all appeased, but continued to persecute him: And in a Council which he assembled in the Year 231, it was ordained, That Origen should go out of Alexandria; that he should not be permitted to teach there any longer, nor so much as to live there; but that nevertheless he should not be deprived of his Dignity of Priesthood. Origen being banished from Alexandria, retired to Caesarea, his ordinary Place of Refuge, where he was very well received by Theoctistus, Bishop of that City, and by Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, who undertook to defend him, and commissioned him to expound publicly the Scripture, hearing him as if he had been their Master. But Demetrius not being satisfied with the first Judgement given against Origen, accused him in a Council of the Bishops of Egypt, 
i Accused him in a Council of the Bishops of Egypt.] Photius, Cod. 118. makes mention of these two Councils, and S. Hierom. Lib. 2. in Ruff. c. 5.  and having caused him to be Deposed, and even to be Excommunicated, according to S. Hierom, wrote at the same time to all Parts against him, to procure his being thrust out of the Communion of the Catholic Church. For when once a Priest was excommunicated, and deposed by his Bishop by the Consent of the Bishops of the Province, he could not be any longer received in any Church. There was no need of examining whether it was justly or unjustly that he had been condemned in his Province. So that it is no wonder if all the Bishops of the World, excepting those of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia and Achaia, who were particularly acquainted with Origen, and with whom he had a most familiar Intimacy, should consent to his Condemnation; and if Rome its self, having assembled its Senate against him, says S. Hierom, that is to say, its Clergy, did condemn him after the Example of his own Bishop. We believe, says S. Augustin, upon a Subject almost like this, whatsoever we are informed of by Letters from a Council, and we must not do otherwise. For those who had not any particular Knowledge of Origen, aught to believe him guilty; and those who knew him, that they might not violate that Order of Discipline, aught to consent to his Excommunication, after it was once signified to them by his own Bishop. And so it was that Martion being excommunicated by his Father, and his Bishop, and being come to Rome, desiring to be received there into Communion, received this Answer from the Clergy of that Church: We cannot receive you, without the Consent of your Father; for as there is in the Church but one and the same Faith, so there aught to be therein but one and the same Spirit, and one and the same Discipline. Therefore, by a great Number of Canons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions, it was absolutely prohibited to any Bishop whatever, and even to the Bishop of Rome himself, to receive into Communion those Priests who had been excommunicated by their Bishops upon any Pretence whatever. Nevertheless Origen found, as we have said, some Protectors, especially in Palestine, where he continued to explain the Scripture at Caesarea with great Reputation, both in the Life-time, and after the Death of Demetrius, who lived not long after he had condemned Origen. All sorts of Persons, not only from that Province, but even from remote Countries, came to be his Disciples. The most famous were, Gregory, Surnamed afterwards Thaumaturgus, who was Bishop of Neocaesarea, and his Brother Athenodorus. But though after Demetrius' Death, the Persecution which he had raised against Origen abated a little, yet he was always looked upon as a Person excommunicated by all the Egyptians, and the Sentence which was given against him by Demetrius continued under his Successors, 
l The Sentence which was given against him by Demetrius continued under his Successors.] Gennadius says, That Theophilus reports that Heraclas drove Origen out of the Church; and the Author of the Life of St. Pachomius, says the same thing, as well as Peter of Alexandria, cited by Justinian in his Letter against Origen. It is most certain that the Sentence given against him was not revoked, and that not one of the Egyptians would have any thing to do with him.  Heraclas and Dionysius, though the first had been Origen's Disciple, and the second had a great Esteem for him. In this time he went on with his Commentaries upon S. John, and he began to compose some upon Ezekiel and Isaiah.  
After the Death of Alexander, under whose Reign all this happened, his Successor Maximinus stirred up a Persecution against the Church in the Year 235. Ambrose, Origen's Friend, and Theoctistus, Priests of Caesarea, having been taken and brought before this Emperor, upon the account of the Christian Religion, Origen sent then an Exhortation to Martyrdom. Nevertheless, he concealed himself during this Persecution, and retired for some time to the City of Athens, where he finished his Commentaries upon Ezekiel and went on with the Commentaries upon the Song of Solomon, which he finished when he returned to Caesarea in Palestine, from whence he went afterwards to Caesarea in Cappadocia, where he remained some time with Firmilian, who invited him thither.  
Under the Reign of Gordianus, which began in the Year 238, Beryllus, Bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, fell into a very gross Error, affirming, That our Lord, before his Incarnation, was not a Person subsisting. Some Bishops being assembled to convince him of this Error, they caused Origen to come thither also. After that several Bishops had had Conferences and Disputes with this Bishop, Origen being desired to enter the Lists with him, discoursed him at first familiarly, being willing to be throughly informed of his Opinion; and after having perfectly understood his Error, and the Grounds upon which he pretended to maintain it, he convinced him by several Reasons, and set him again in the right Way, forcing him to acknowledge his Error. The Records of all that passed in this Affair were preserved for a long time after, wherein was to be seen the Sentiments of Beryllus, the Opinions of the Bishops who met there, the Questions proposed to him by Origen, and the whole Conference which they had together in his Church. S. Hierom takes notice, That in his Time, Origen's Dialogue with Beryllus was extant. This Bishop having acknowledged his Error, preserved the Purity of his Faith even to his Death, and had an extraordinary Kindness for Origen, to whom he wrote several Letters. S. Hierom places him among the Number of the Ecclesiastical Writers.  
Afterwards Origen was called, under the Reign of Philip, to another Assembly of Bishops, which was held against some Arabians, who maintained, That the Souls of Men died, and were raised again with their Bodies. After having spoke in the Presence of them all, upon the Question which was in agitation, he defended the Truth, and attacked this Error with that Force of Argument, that he caused all those to change their Opinion, who had fallen into the Mistake.  
He was then Threescore years old, or thereabouts, and yet this did not hinder him from carrying on his Works with the same, or rather with greater Diligence; for he did not only compose several Books in his Study, but he made almost every day Discourses to the People, and for the most part without any time allowed to prepare them, which were nevertheless so well esteemed, that the Transcribers took them after him as he delivered them, and published them afterwards. This Employment did not take him off from composing several considerable Books; as his Eight Books against Celsus, Twenty five Volumes upon S. Matthew, Twenty five Volumes of Commentaries upon the Minor Prophets, a Letter to the Emperor Philip, and one to Severa his Wife. 
m A Letter to the Emperor Philip, and one to Sever●● his Wife.] Some have believed that this Emperor was a Christian, and say that Babylas deprived him from the Communion of the Church till he had repent for the Murders which he had committed; but this Story is very uncertain.  S. Hierom says, That he wrote also a Letter to Pope Fabianus, wherein he sets forth his Recanting of the Errors which he had written, and laid the Blame of them upon Ambrose. If this be so, he did it to make this Pope favourable to him, that he might get again into the Communion of the Roman Church. He wrote also at this time against the Heretics called Helcesaitae.  
Afterwards, in the Persecution of Decius, which was about the same time, Origen suffered with great Constancy for the Faith. He was seized, put into Prison, loaded with Irons; he had for several Days his Feet in the Stocks, where they were cruelly extended, even to the greatest Extremity: They threatened him to burn him alive, and they racked him with several sorts of Tortures, to try his Patience to the utmost; but he endured all with an undaunted Resolution. 
n But he endured all with an undaunted Resolution.] S. Epiphanius accuses him for approaching to the Heathen Altars, and for making as if he would offer Incense to the Gods: But this Story, and almost every thing that Epiphanius says concerning Origen, is fabulous, and invented by some Enemy to Origen, who deceived S. Epiphanius, a Man easily imposed upon. To show that this Story is false, 'tis sufficient to observe, that even Origen's greatest Enemies, as Theophilus, S. Hierom, Justinian, etc. who have omitted nothing to cry him down, have taken no notice at all of it; and that his Defenders, Eusebius and Pamphilius, are so far from excusing him from this Crime, that they have on the contrary commended his Constancy and Resolution. 'Tis true, S. Epiphanius does not say that this happened in the Persecution of Decius, as Nicephorus does; but in what time soever they fix this Accident, it is equally overthrown by the Observation we just now made. It is also less probable, when it is referred to the time of Maximinus' Persecution; for what likelihood is there that Origen, after having committed so gross a Fault, should be honoured, as he was, by the Bishops of Palestine?  Being come out of Prison, he held several Conferences, and wrote Letters worthy of a Holy Confessor of Jesus Christ. Lastly, After having laboured so much, and suffered with such great Credit and Glory, he died in the beginning of the Reign of Gallus, in the Year Two hundred fifty two, from the Birth of Christ, and in the Sixty sixth Year of his Age. 
op He died in the Year 252 from the Birth of Christ, and in the 66th Year of his Age.] According to Eusebius, Lib. 7. cap. 11. he died in the first Year of the Reign of Gallus; and S. Hierom, in his 65th Epistle, written 400 years after Christ, says, That it was 150 years after Origen's Death. It is certain, according to Eusebius, that in the Year 202 Origen was seventeen years old, and that in the third year of the Emperor Philip he was above sixty years old, So that if we suppose him to have lived but sixty six years, as S. Hierom assures us in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, he must have died in the beginning of the Reign of Gallus, in the Year 252; but if he lived sixty nine years, as Eusebius writers, he must have lived to the end of the Reign of Gallus; that is to say, till the year 254 or 255.   
Though what we have remaining at present of the Works of Origen, makes up several considerable Volumes, yet they are nothing in comparison to what he has wrote. 
q Yet they are nothing in comparison to what he has written.] It is certain that he composed a very great Number of Books; and he made them with that ease, that he could hardly find Scribes enough, as both his Friends and Enemies agree. S. Hierom in his 65th Letter to Pammachius, speaking of Origen, says, Who is there of you that can read as many Books as he has composed? And in another Place, he says, That he compiled an innumerable company of Books. Theophilus says the same thing. Eustathius says, That he filled the World with his Works. Vincentius Lirinensis affirms, That none has written more than him; and it is upon this Account that he had the Name given him of Chalcenterus, and Syntacticus. S. Epiphanius and Ruffinus say, That he writ 6000 Volumes. S. Hierom seems to dispute it, telling us, That there is not not the third part of them in Eusebius' Catalogue. By the Word Volumes, we must not understand such Tomes as are now adays, but only small Works; so every Homily, every part of a Book, is in this sense a Volume: so that we need not admire, though he had written 6000 Volumes.  Eusebius had made an exact Catalogue of his Works, in the Apology which he made for him, under the Name of the Martyr Pamphilus; and S. Hierom did the same in one of his Letters. But both of these Catalogues being lost, we have no knowledge of any, but those that have been cited by the Ancients; which still are much more in number than those which we have now remaining.  
We may distinguish two kinds of Works written by Origen. The One are upon the Sacred Scriptures, and the Others are separate Treatises upon different Subjects. He had composed three sorts of Books upon the Scripture, not to mention his Hexapla and Tretrapla, which were rather a Collection than a Work; to wit, Commentaries, Scholia, and Homilies. In his Commentaries, he wholly gave up himself to that Heat and Fire which was natural to him, to penetrate the height and depth of the Scripture, and the most mysterious Interpretation thereof, the better. His Scholia were, on the contrary, only short Notes to explain the difficult Places. These two kinds of Works were more for the Learned, than for the use of the People; whereas the Homilies, which the Latins call Treatises, and which we call Sermons, were Moral Instructions upon the Holy Scripture. We have none of the Scholia remaining, nor have we hardly any of the Homilies in Greek; and those which we have in Latin, are translated by Ruffinus and others with so much Liberty, 
r Are translated by Ruffinus and others with so much Liberty.] Ruffinus says it himself in the Conclusion to his Version of the Commentaries upon the Romans; and S. Hierom also somewhere upbraids him with it. And besides, this appears by the Translation itself, which is full of Figures and Allusions to Latin Words, of Terms taken in another sense than what they were in Origen's Time, where the Trinity and other Mysteries are expressed in such Terms as were not used till after the Council of Nice, and where there are Points of Discipline more modern than Origen's Age; which has given occasion to those who have not considered the Liberty that Ruffinus took of adding or leaving out what he pleased, to doubt whether the greatest part of these Works were Origen's or no. The Liberty which Ruffinus has given himself is still more evident, by what he has written in the Prologue to his Version of the Commentary upon the Epistle to Romans, which he says he has Abridged by above the half. S. Hierom's Versions are not more exact; and the most faulty of all is that of an ancient Translator, who has interpreted the Commentaries upon S. Matthew.  that it is a difficult matter to discern what is Origen's own, from what has been foisted in by the Interpreter. A great part likewise of his Commentaries are entirely lost. The following Table will present you in one View those Works which we know to have been composed by Origen upon the Scripture, what we have left of them in Greek, and what we have only remaing of them in Latin.  
S. Epiphanius, and after him Cedrenus and Suidas, say, That Origen writ upon all the Books of the Holy Scripture. We shall here give the several Books in order, of which there remains now any knowledge.  
The Books of Origen, of which we have any knowledge, and by whom they are cited. The Books or Fragments of Origen, which we have in Greek, and whence they are taken. The Latin Books of Origen, and their Translators. Proofs and Notes upon the Table. 
Thirteen Tomes of Commentaries, and two Books of Mystical Homilies upon Genesis. S. Hierom apud Ruffinum invect. 2. & Ep. ad Damasum. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 24. But these thirteen Tomes went no farther than Ver. 15. of the 4th Chap. where it is written, Omnis qui occiderit Cain, etc. S. Hierom ibidem ad Damasum, q. 1.  
Two Books of Mystical Homiles upon Genesis. Idem Ibid.  
Pamphilus in his Apology produces a small Fragment of his Preface upon Genesis.  
Three Fragments of Tomes, some Commentaries upon Genesis, related by Eusebius in his Books the Praeparatione.  
The first upon Ver. 12. of the first Chapter of Genesis, taken from the 7th Book.  
The second taken out of the third Tome, upon Ver. 14. taken from the 6th Book, and in the 22d Chapter of the Philocalia.  
The third, which is in the Philocalia, cap. 14. is extracted out of the same Tome upon the 16th Verse.  
Some Fragments taken from the Philocalia, cap. 16, & 17.  Seventeen Latin Homilies upon Genesis, translated by Ruffinus [1]. It is doubted whether they be not extracted from the two Books of Mystical Homilies, because they seem to be of the number of those which were made ex tempore, and transcribed by the Writers. The last Homily is imperfect. [1] In the Prologue to Ursatius, which is written by Ruffinus, he says, That he has collected and translated into Latin, the Homilies of Origen upon the whole Pentateuch; so that though this Version in Merlin's Edition bears S. Hierom's Name, yet it was made by Ruffinus, as Erasmus and Genebrard acknowledge. The Author of the Conclusion to the Version of the Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Romans, which is also Ruffinus, says positively, That he had translated Origen's Homilies upon Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus: They are those that follow. 
Commentaries upon Exodus in the Philocalia, cap. 26.  
Item, Some Scholia.  
And twelve Homilies.  Some Commentaries upon Exodus, and upon Leviticus [2]. 
Twelve Homilies upon Exodus, translated by Ruffinus.  
Sixteen upon Leviticus, attributed falsely to S. Cyril, translated also by Ruffinus.  [2] There is in the Philoca●●a, cap. 1. a passage taken from the second Homily upon Leviticus, which is not to be found in those Latin Homilies which we have. He must therefore necessarily have written more than sixteen. Besides, in those which we have, Hom. 4, & 6. he citys more of them. 
Scholia's upon Leviticus, and sixteen Homilies. Ruffin. invect. 2. & in Prologo Homil. in Num.  
Commentaries upon Deuteronomy, which he citys himself, Tom. 32. in Joan. and in the 8th Homily upon S. Luke. Cassiodorus had seen eight Books of them, de Inst. Divin. c. 7.  
Sfime Homilies. Ruffin. Prologue. ad Ursat.   Eight and twenty Homilies upon Numbers, which are doubtful, because they were translated by Ruffinus with great liberty [3]. [3] The Style is Ruffinus', who has made a Preface thereto; in which he affirms, and also in his Prologue to Ursatius, That he has collected in this Work, and disposed in order, all that he could find of origen's upon Numbers, whether they were written in Homilies or Scholia; so that this Work is more Ruffinus' than Origen's; and we must not wonder, if we therein find some Explications which appear to be of a Latin Author, and later than Origen. Six and twenty Homilies upon Joshuah. A Fragment of the 20th Homily upon Joshuah, in his Philocalia, cap. 12. Six and twenty Homilies upon Joshuah; to which there is a Preface attributed to S. Hierom; but 'tis more likely to be by Ruffinus, as well as the Translation of this Work, both because of the conformity of Style in the Prologue and in the Version, as because he owns them in the conclusion of the Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Romans.  Nine Homilies upon the Books of Judges.  Nine Homilies upon Judges, all translated by Ruffinus for the s●me Reasons.  
Two Homilies upon the Kings: One upon the first Chapter of the first Book;  
And the other Entitled, De Engastrimytho.  
Cassiodorus had seen another upon the first Book of Kings, one upon the Second, and a very long one upon the second Book of Chronicles. Lib. Decretal. Diu. cap. 2.  The Homily de Engastrimytho was taken from a Manuscript of the Vatican Library, and published by Leo Allatius in 1629. with Eustathius in Hexaëmeron, who wrote against this Homily of Origen's. The Subject of this Discourse is, to inquire whether the Witch of Endor did really raise the Soul of Samuel, or whether the Devil only appeared in his shape. Origen maintains the first Opinion, and Eustathius the second, Authors are divided hereupon. The first Homily upon the Kings, which is in all probability done by the same Interpreter.  
He composed several Homilies upon Job; witness Eustathius in Diagnostico de Engastrimytho; and S. Hierom Ep. 75. The first of whom tells us▪ That he had said some things very childish concerning the Names of Job's Daughters▪ and the second, that he had said some things concerning the Stars, and against the Devil, which the Church does not receive.  
He was the first that made Commentaries upon all the Psalms, as S. Hierom tells us, Ep. 89. S. Hilary has copied and imitated them in several places. Trithemius says that he had seen them.  
He also wrote Homilies and Scholia upon the Psalms, as the Author of the Commentaries upon the Psalms, attributed to S. Hierom, assures us,  
A Commentary upon the Proverbs, cited by Pamphilus.  
A Fragment upon the first Psalm, taken from S. Epiphanius, Haeres. 6●. Three others taken from the Philocalia, cap. 2, & 3.  
Another Fragment containing the Catalogue of the Sacred Books, taken from Eusebius' History, lib. 6. cap. 25.  
Another from S. Epiphanius, Ibid.  
Item, One upon the 4th Psalm, taken from the Philocalia, cap. 25.  
One upon the 40th Psalm, Ibid.  
And lastly, One upon the 82d Psalms, taken from a Homily; Eusebius Hist. lib. 6. cap. 38.  Nine Homilies upon the Psalms, translated by Ruffinus.  
Two Commentaries upon the Song of Songs: One was made when he was young;  
The other, which he composed when he was older, divided into Ten Tomes, in which he has outdone himself; upon which account, S. Gregory Nyssen says, That he has taken extraordinary pains upon this Book of Scripture, In Proaemio lib. Canticorum.  A Fragment taken from his first Commentary upon the Canticles, in the Philocalia, chap. 27. And one taken from his second, chap. 26. 
Two passages taken from the Commentary upon the Canticles, in the Apology of Pamphilus, translated by Ruffinus, in S. Hierom Tom. 4.  
Hüetius believes, that the Latin Book upon the Canticles ought not to be divided into Homilies, since it is a continued Commentary, and that it is the very Commentary of Origen translated by Ruffinus.  
Sixtus Senensis, and several others, think that it is by a Latin Author. See the Remarks here at the side [4]  
Two Homilies translated by S. Hierom word for word.  [4] Not only the Protestant Critics, as Perkins, Coke, Rivet, and others, do reject this Work after Erasmus and Amerbachius, but likewise Sixtus Senensis, and several Papists. In some Editions it is attributed to S. Ambrose, in others to Peter Lombard, others, as Merlin, Genebrard, and Huetius, believe it to be that of Origen; and even Blondel in his Apology is of this opinion, as well as Aubertin. The Reasons against it are, That it appears to be by a Latin Author, 1. Because in his Prologue he citys the Greeks as strangers to him. 'Tis answered, That he opposes the Greeks, not to the Latins, but to the Christians. 2. 'Tis said, That the Author speaks as if he had written in Latin; for he explains the three Greek Names of the three parts of Philosophy; Generales Disciplinae, says he, quibus ad scientiam pervenitur, tres sunt, qu●s Graeci Ethicam, Physicam, & Theoriam appellaverunt, (nos has dicere possumus Moralem, Naturalem, & Inspectivam) nonnulli sane etiam Logicam, quam nos rationalem possumus dicere. And in another place he says, That the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aught to be translated by diligere, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by dilectio. 'Tis answered, That these Explications are by the Interpreter. A third Reason, which is more considerable, is, That S. Hierom in his Prologue upon Origen's two Homilies upon the Canticles, which he translated, saith, That Origen in the ten Tomes explained the Translations of the Septuagint, of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the fifth Version; which is not to be found in this Work: But this perhaps was left out by Ruffinus; besides, it may be said that this Commentary here may be accommodated to all these Versions: so the Reasons which are for the Negative are but weak, whereas those which are for the Affirmative are very strong. First, It is certain that Origen did write upon the Canticles. Secondly, This Commentary has the Character and Style of Origen, which gives an allegorical and figurative sense to every thing. Thirdly, There are some Sentences and Thoughts exactly like those which are in the Homilies translated by S. Hierom. Fourthly, It explains the Hebrew words, and draws from thence a mystical sense, after Origen's way. Fifthly, He here citys his other Works. Sixthly, He has peculiar Notions concerning the Soul and the Angels. And lastly, That which is a convincing Proof, is, That the Greek Fragment of Origen upon the Canticles, cited in the Philocalia, is found here, though interpreted with a great deal of liberty. That it is a continued Commentary, and no● Homilies, is proved by the Style, because there is a Preface written by the Author; and besides, all Origen's Homilies have a like form of Conclusion, whereas this Commentary is continued without this Conclusion. Ruffinus is the Author of this Translation; and it is certain that it was not S. Hierom, who says in the Prologue of the two Homilies, That this Translation would require too much leisure, pains, and expense, and that he durst not undertake it. Gennadius says, That all Origen's Works which were not translated by S. Hierom, were done by Ruffinus; and indeed the Style of it is very like Ruffinus'. 
Thirty Books of Commentaries upon Isaiah.  
Five and twenty Homilies.  
And some Scholia. Hier. lib. 1. Apel. adversus Ruffin. cap. 3. & in Proaemio Comment. MSS. Eusebius Book 6. chap. 32. says, That the thirty Tomes went as far as the Vision of the fourfooted Beasts.  
Several Homilies upon Jeremy: Cassiodorus and Rabanus Maurus tell us, That there were 45 of them.   
Two passages taken from his Commentary upon Isaiah. One upon the 1 chap. and the other upon the 28th chap. in the Apology attributed to Pamphilus in the 4th Tome of S. Hierom.  
Nine Homilies translated by S. Hierom (as the same S. Hierom in his Catalogue, and the conformity of the Style, makes it appear.) The 9th is imperfect, to which there is added the end of the 9th Homily upon Jeremiah.   Five Tomes of Commentaries upon the Lamentions of Jeremiah; Eusebius. 
Nineteen Homilies upon Jeremiah, falsely attributed to S. Cyril, and published by Corderius, twelve whereof are translated by S. Hierom.  
A Fragment of the 39th taken from the Philocalia, chap. 1.  
A Fragment extracted from the 20th Tome, taken from the Philocalia, chap. 11.  Fourteen Homilies upon Jeremiah, translated by S. Hierom, twelve whereof are also in Greek; but the Translation differs very much from the Greek, and the Homilies are disposed without any order.  Five and twenty Books of Commentaries, and some Homilies upon Ezekiel; Eusebius Book 6. chap. 32.  Fourteen Homilies upon Ezekiel, translated by S. Jerome, as the Prologue, Style, St. Jerome's own Testimony in Catalogo assures us, and Ruffinus Invect. 2.  Some Commentaries upon Daniel; Orig. Tract. 24. in Matth.  S. Jerome inserted into his Commentaries upon Daniel, Origen's Scholia, taken out of his 10th Book of Stromata.  Five and twenty Volumes of Commentaries upon the lesser Prophets. S. Hieron. de Scriptorib. Ecclesiast. lib. 6. cap. 36. The Commentaries upon Hosea and Zachary are a part of them. S. Hierom makes mention of two little Books of Origen upon Hosea, in the Preface to his Commentary upon the Prophets: but he did not explain it entirely, as it appears by S. Hierom, and by the Philocalia. A Fragment of the Commentary upon Hosea, in the Philocalia, chap. 8.   [5] Five and twenty Tomes of Commentaries upon S. Matthew, with Homilies and Scholia. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 36. and S. Hierom in Proaemio Comment. in Matth. 
A Fragment of the first Tome upon S. Matthew, in Eusebius lib. 6. Hist. cap. 25.  
Another taken from the first Tome in the Philocalia, chap. 6.  
The Commentaries from the 13th Chap. Ver. 36. to the 22d Chap. Ver. 33. are published by Hüetius, who has copied them from a Manuscript in the Queen of Sweden's Library; and from another in the King's Library, from the 11th to the 16th ●●me, and comprising the 17th.  
A Fragment of the first Tome upon S. Matthew, in the Apology of Pamphilus.  
Another of the 7th Tome, ibid. Bullinger citys some passages thereof, in Disput. contra Casaubonum, p. 2. Deamb. 3. p. 19 taken out of the Commentary upon the 6th Chap. and the 23d.  
The Translation of the Commentaries upon S. Matthew, from the 13th Chap. Ver. 16. to the 27th, Ver. 66. is improperly divided into 36 Homilies, made by Erasmus from the 13th Chap. Ver. 36. to the 16th Chap. Ver. 20. The remainder is an anci●n Version, of which we do not know the Author [6].  
[5] In the Preface attributed to S. Hierom, upon the Homilies on S. Luke, there are 36. Ruffinus in his second Invective reckons 26 of them, We had better keep to the Account of Eusebius and S. Hierom.  
[6] Some have attributed it to S. Hierom; but he himself says in his Prologue upon S. Luke, that he would not undertake it. In his 65th Epistle, he says, That no person dared till his time to interpret the Books de Principiis, and the Tomes of Origen, therefore it is not ancienter than S. Hierom. Neither was it done by Ruffinus, who in his Version of the Apology of Pamphilus, translates some passages of this Commentary, and relates them after a different manner than what is to be found in this Version, which differs very much from the Text; and it is quite another Style from that of S. Hierom, and of Ruffinus. 'Tis probably later than Genn●dius, who says that all that we have of Origen in his time was translated by S. Hierom, or Ruffinus. Aquinas relates some passages of them word for word, in his C●tena aurea: so that this Author is between Gennadius and Aquinas, and nearer the first than the last, because he citys a passage of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, Tract. 8. which was not quoted by Origen; which shows its Antiquity, besides the Style and the Terms are old. Hüetius, from whose Observations we have taken all this, believes that it was made in Cassiodorus' time, and that it might be ascribed to Epiphanius Scholasticus, the Author of the Tripartite History, were not the Style quite different: Therefore he attributes it to one Bellator, a Friend of Cassioderus, who had translated several Greek Books, and particularly some of Origen's Homilies, at the desire of Cassiodorus.  
Commentaries upon S. Luke. 〈◊〉. Tomes. S. Hierom. Prol. 〈◊〉▪ in Lucam. Origen T. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Nine and Thirty Homilies upon S. Luke. Id. ibid. & in C●talogo.   Nine and thirty Homilies upon S. Luke, translated by S. Hierom [7].  Two and thirty Tomes of Commentaries upon S. John. Ruffin. Invect. 2. 
There are but 9 Tomes upon S. John extant, 1. 2. 6. 10. 13. 19 20. 28. 32. Ferrarius published a Version divided into 32 Tomes, taken from a Venetian MS. Hiietius published the Greek from a MS. in the King's Library.  
A Fragment of the 4th Tome. Philocal. c. 4.  
Another of the 5th Tome. Ibid. c. 4.    Some Homilies upon the Acts. A Fragment of the Comments upon the Acts. Ib. c. 7.  
[7] He mentions it in the Catalogue of his Wo●ks, and in his Prologue to Paula & Eustochicum; and it is quoted by Ruffinus in his Invective. Ruffinus upbraids him for having omitted and altered, in translating Origen's Homilies upon S. Luke, those passages which were against the Divinity of the Son; and that when he quoted this passage, Ecce enim ut facta est vox, etc. he observes that he added, Principium substantiae ejus; which is to be found in the 4th of those Homilies that we have still extant. Lastly, according to the report of Ruffinus, S. Hierom translated seventy of Origen's Homilies. Now he had translated 14 upon Jeremiah, 14 upon Ez●kiel, and 9 upon Isaiah, as appears by his Prologue upon Ezekiel; and there remains, to make up the 70, these 39 upon S. Luke; besides that those which we have under his Name, are written according to the style and manner of Origen. It is objected in the first place, That there are therein several Greek words turned into Latin: for example, it is observed, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, gratiâ plena; That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, sine ratione, That cadaver comes à casu; That in the Greek there is an Article. Homily 22, and Homily 25.  
Answ. These Explications are put in by the Interpreter. There are the like in those Books which we have at present in Greek, and which are undoubtedly his, and in the ancient Translators, as in him that interpreted S. Irenaeus, etc. Secondly, It is objected, That the Holy Ghost is there called the Third Person. Ans. Origen often said, That the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost were 3 Hypostases, and the Latins have translated the word Hypostasis by that of Person: for example, Ferrarius translated that passage of the second Tome in Joan. after the same manner. Third Objection: He makes a Dialogue between the Devil and Jesus Christ, and makes them hold long Discourses together. Ans. This is exactly Origen's way. Fourth Objection: He makes use of the Authority of Isaiah and the Psalms against the Sadducees, in the 39th Homily; whereas Origen said that the Sadducees admitted only the Law, and by consequence he would not have made use of any other Books against them. Answ. Origen never said that the Sadducees did not admit the Prophets, but only that they did not make use of them to prove the Doctrines of Faith.  Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Romans, which were to the number of 15 Tomes, according to Ruffinus in the Preface to his Version; or twenty, according to Cassiodorus. 
A Fragment of the first Tome of the Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans, chap. 24. of the Philocalia.  
Another taken from the 9th Tome, in the 9th chap. of the Philocalia.  Ruffinus translated 15 or 20 Tomes of Origen's Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Romans [8]. [8] Ruffinus ●bridg'd them into ●alf the compass, as he acknowledges in his Preface. Some attribute this Version to S. Hierom; but unjustly: for in the conclusion he strikes at S. Hierom in these words: Some perhaps may ask me why I put my Name, and may inquire why I have not set down, for example, The Commentaries of Hierom upon the Epistle to the Romans. And he adds, That he translated the Books of S. Clement; and that we should not think that it was done by Hierom, he puts the Name of Clement in the Title, which shows that this Translation was done by Ruffinus. We have also two Latin Passages taken from the Apology of Pamphilus. 
Some Commentaries upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians; Hom. 17. in Luc. & Hier. Ep. 52.  
Some Commentaries, Homilies and Scholia upon the Epistle to the Galatians. S. Hierom in Proaemio Commentar. Ep. ad Galat. & Ep. 89. ad August.  
Three Tomes upon the Epistle to the Ephesians. Lib. 1. Apol. ad Ruff. 4, 5.     A Commentary upon the Epistle to the Colossians. Apolog. de Pamp●●lo.  Fragments of Commentaries upon 〈◊〉 Epistles 〈◊〉 the Colossians and to T●tus, in the Apology of 〈◊〉.  One upon the Epistle to the Thessalonians. Hi●r. Ep. 52. One upon the Epistle to Titus. Apolog. Pamph.  S. Hier●●, in the Epistle to Mi●●erius & Alexander, ●el●●●● a Fragment of the Commentaries of Origen upon the Epistle to the 〈◊〉.  
Some Commentaries and Homilies upon the Epistle to the Hebrews.  
He promised a Commentary upon the Apocalypse, Tom. 3 in Matth.  E●s●bius lib 6. cap. 25. relates a Fragment upon the Epistle to the Hebrews. Lastly, There are some Fragments of a Commentrry upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the Apology of Pamphilus.   All these Greek Fragments are exactly collected by Huetius in the two Volumes which he has published, containing all that remains in Greek o● Origen's Works upon the Scripture; and 'tis to him that we are indebted for almost all the Remarks that are here. He has not inserted the Fragments which are in the C●●enae, because he believes they are not of any great Authority.    
The other Treatises of Origen are not near so many in Number as his Works upon the Holy Scripture: and yet they were very considerable: for not to mention his Commentaries upon the Philosophers, which Eusebius speaks of in the 6th Book, Chap 18. of his History, he wrote 
s He wrote two Books of the Resurrection.] S. Hierom in Ru●●in. like. 2. Invect. says, That Origen composed two Books, and two Dialogues of the Resurrection. The same in his 6th Epistle citys the 4th Book of the Resurrection. Methodius wrote against this Work.  2 Books of the Resurrection; the Treatise de Principiis, divided into 4 Books; 10 Books of Stromata, 
t The Treatise de Principiis, divided into four Books, and ten Books of Stromata.] This last Book was composed in imitation of that of S. Clement of Alexandria; witness S. Hierom, Ep. 84. who says, That Origen compared therein the Opinions of the Philosophers and Christians, and proved our Doctrines from Plato, Aristotle, Numenius and Cornutus. In the tenth Book he explained the Epistle to the Galatians, and some Passages of Daniel.  witness the same Eusebius, Chap. 24. The Book of Martyrdom, mentioned in the 28 Chapter. The 8 Books against C●●sus in the 36 Chap. The Letter to Africanus, concerning the History of Susanna; to which we may add, the Dispute which he had with Beryllus, which was extant in Eusebius' Time, 
u And some Discourses and Letters which Eusebius had collected.] Eusebius has related a Fragment of that which he wrote to his Father, being then very young, lib. 6. cap. 2. Item, of another against those who accused him of applying himself too much to the Study of Human Learning, Chap. 19 He makes mention in the 28th Chapter of the Letters which he wrote in the time of the sixth Persecution; afterwards in the 36th Chapter, of a Letter to the Emperor Philip, and of one to Severa his Wife; and lastly, of one to Fabianus, and of several others, cited at large in the 39th Chapter. S. Hierom in his Catalogue, citys the three last, together with a Letter to Beryllus. Ruffinus citys a Letter to his Friends, Lib. de Adult. lib. Origenis; where he complains that some had falsified his Writings. In the 13th Chapter of Philochalia, there is part of one set down to Gregory Thaumaturgus; ●edr●nus and Suidas have preserved a Fragment of another Letter.  and some Discourses & Letters which Eusebius collected, and divided into three Books, as he declares in the same 5th Book, Chap. 36. S Hierom mentions almost all his Works; and besides these, two other Dialogues of the Resurrection, and a Treatise explaining the Hebrew Names of the New Testament, which he added; to that of Philo, concerning the Explanation of those of the Old. 
x Concerning the Explanation of those of the Old.] S. Hierom in Praefat. ad lib. Hebr. Nom. The Author of the Orthodox Questions, attributed to S. Justin, Quest. 82, and 86.  And also in the Apology of Pamphilus, there is mention made of a Treatise concerning Prayer, composed by Origen. Theodoret often citys our Author against divers Heretic: 
y Theodoret often citys our Author against divers Heretics.] Lib. 1. cap. 2. He says, that he wrote against Menander. In the 4th Chapter against Basilides and Isidorus; in the 7th, against the Helcesaites; Eusebius says, concerning these last, That it was in his Homilies. In the 19th Chapter, against Appelles; in the 3d Book, Chap. 2. against the Nazareans. He attributes to him in the 5th Chapter, the little Labyrinth against Theodotus, which is by another Author.  but we must not therefore think that he composed so many express Treatises against these Heretics; they are only some Passages of his Works, where he confutes several Errors, whilst he is writing upon other Subjects.  
The Chief of all these Books is the Discourse against Celsus, divided into eight Books, which were published in Greek long since, with the Translation of Gelenius, and the Notes of Haeschelius, and of one Christoph. Persona, printed at Rome in the Year 1471, and afterwards very correctly in England in ●658. The Exhortation to Martyrdom has ●een lately published by W●●st●nius, the Greek Professor as Basil, together with the Letter to Africanus, concerning the History of Susanna, which was formerly set forth in part by Haeschelius, in the Year 1602. We have likewise the Version of the four Books de Princip●●s, composed by Ru●●inus. But he has taken so much Liberty 
aa But he has taken therein so much Liberty.] He declares it himself in his Preface, where he says, that he has retrenched and added several things concerning the Trinity. The Passages out of these Books, related in the Apology, are quite different from this Version, as well as those which are in the Ph●l●●●lia.  that we cannot discern what is Origen's own. There are some Latin Fragments of the Books of the Resurrection, cited in the Apology of Pamphilus, which we have only in Latin. The Letter to S. Gregory Thaumaturgus is entire in Greek in the Philocalia. Ruffinus relates a Fragment of a Letter to those of Alexandria, where he complains that they had corrupted his Books. S. Hierom accuses him for having omitted, that in this same Letter Origen railed at Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, and at those others who had condemned him. Eusebius also produces, as we have already said, some Fragments of two Letters. The Book of Prayer, which Hiietius had promised, has been lately published in Greek and Latin in England. This Work was addressed to Ambrose and Tatianus, and it may be divided into three Parts. In the first, he treats of the Necessity, the Advantage, and the good Effects of Prayer. In the Second, he discourses of the different kinds of Prayer, and particularly explains the Lord's Prayer. In the Last, he speaks of the Circumstances and Conditions which ought to prec●de, accompany and follow our Prayers. Lastly, We may join to Origen's Works the Philocalia, which is a Collection of several Passages of Origen, relating to the Holy Scripture, made by S. Basil, and S. Gregory N●zianzen, and published by Tarinus in the Year 1618., and the Book of the Apology of Pamphilus, of which we have the Translation done by Ruffinus, which is amongst S. Hierom's Works in the Fourth Tome.  
We ought also to have reckoned here the Dialogue against Martion, which bears his Name, if it was not more probable that it was composed by another Author 
bb If it was not more probable that it was composed by another Author.] This Dialogue is a Dispute against the Marcionites, and the Valentinians, wherein he introduces Origen, defending the Doctrines of the Church; M●gethius, and Marcus taking the Part of the Marcionites; Droferius, Valens, and Maximus, that of the Valentinians, and Eutropius as a Judge between them. We have three different Versions of it, that of Perinius, that of Picus, printed in 1655, and that of Humfredus in 1557, which is much the exactest. But it has 
[Whom our Author 〈◊〉 ... by▪ this Englishman I know not. ●et●tenius, the Greek Professor at Basil, was the first that published it at Basil, Gr. L●t. in 1674. 40.]  been lately published in Greek by a Learned Englishman, who pretends that it is Origen's. Hi●etius after Halloixius and Rivet believes that it is not Origen's, and this Opinion seems the most probable. 'Tis indeed cited in the Philocalia, as a Work of Origen's: But it is possible that S. Gregory and S. Basil might have been deceived because it bears his Name; or that believing that this Book containing nothing but Origen's Opinions, and going under his Name, they might quote it in a Work wherein they made a Collection of his Opinions. Besides it appears by the Title, that they had taken this Passage from Eusebius, who relates it word for word as it is in the Philocalia, in his 7th Book de Praeparati●●e Evangelicâ, as taken from the Treatise of one M●ximus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, concerning Matter; and at the end they add the following Remark: This is extracted from Eusebius ' s Book, De Praeparatione Evangelicâ; the Author thereof is Maximus, a famous Writer among the Christians, as Eusebius observes; but it is likewise found almost in the same Terms in Origen' s Dialogue against the Marcionites and other Here●ick●, in which Megethius is the Disputant▪ and Eutropius the Judge. This Observation makes it appear, that the Authors of the Philocali● believed that this Passage did really belong to Maximus, relying upon Eusebius' Authority; but having also found it in a Dialogue which bears Origen's Name, they believed that they might cite it as his, without examining whether he was the Author of it; for 'tis a thing very unlikely to affirm, that Origen had taken this Passage from Maximus, to insert it into his Dialogue, since it is already in Eusebius in form of a Dialogue, though the Names be suppressed. So it seems that we may say that Maximus was the Author of this Dialogue, wherein he introduces Origen, disputing against the Heretics, and Eutropius as Judge. But there are considerable Difficulties raised against this Hypothesis. The first, That Maximus was more ancient than Origen, as appears by Eusebius, who in the first Book of his History, Chap. 27, places him amongst the Authors, who flourished under the Emperor's Commodus and Severus. The Second is, That it is not likely the Treatise of Maximus should be this Dialogue, because it was Entitled concerning Matter, and he only proved therein, that Matter was a created Substance, whereas this Dialogue contains several other Points of Religion. We may answer to the first Reason, That Eusebius was not exact in setting down the Times of Authors, and especially of those about whose Lives he was not particular. The second Objection is more difficult; though we may say, that Eusebius having extracted out of this Book of Maximus, only what relates to the Original of Evil, and the Creation of Matter, he gave it the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & unde sit malum, though it treated of other Subjects; besides that, this Dialoguew as chief designed to confute the Error of the Marcionites, who admitted of several Principles for the explaining the Cause of Evil, and that of the Valentinians, who made Matter Eternal. Which agrees with what Eusebius says in his History, that Maximus composed several Volumes concerning that famous Question among the Heretics; From whence comes Evil? And to prove that Matter is a created Substance, for though there are other things discoursed of in this Dialogue, yet these are the two Principal Heads. Nevertheless, as the Passage which is related by Eusebius, and in the Philocalia, does not agree exactly with what is in this Dialogue, and that the Names of Origen, and the other Disputants are not there to be found, 'tis likely they were added after the Death of Maximus and Origen. There are likewise in this Dialogue some Things which might give occasion to conjecture, that it is more Modern than any of these Authors. For it having been objected in the First Part, that the God of the Creation, who has the Hearts of Kings in his Power, must of necessity by a wicked God, since he suffered the Christians to be persecuted: He answers, These pitiful Shifts which you make, might have had some probability in former times, and there might have been some necessity then of returning an Answer to them, which might have been done very easily: But now we have a Religious Prince, what have you to say? Will you say that it is another God who rules his Heart, since this Godly Prince governs us much better than the others, and yet after a quite contrary manner; for he establishes what the others would have destroyed, he overthrows the Images and Temples which the others honoured. Which shows that this Dialogue was composed in Constantine's time; for to say that this is to be understood of Philip, is to affirm a thing of which there is no likelihood; because supposing that he was a Christian, of which we are not assured, it was most certain that he did not make Profession thereof, and we cannot say of any Emperor before Constantine, that he overthrew, Idolatry, and destroyed Temples and Idols. So the most probable Opinion is, That this Dialogue was composed in the beginning of the Fourth Age by one of Origen's Disciples, who has inserted Maximus' Dialogue into his Discourse. Besides, there is another Reason not to attribute it to Origen, which is taken notice of by Hüetius; which is, that we find some Notions that are very Orthodox, and quite different from Origen's Errors, concerning the State of Innocence, Man's Body, the Soul, and the Resurrection. , who has introduced Origen in this Dialogue defending the Church's Cause, and therefore has given it Origen's Nam●: as Cicero gave that of Laelius and Cato to his Books of Friendship and Old Age.  
But we must reckon amongst the Supposititious Books two different Commentaries upon Job, Printed in Latin under Origen's Name; the first divided into three Books, which concludes about the middle of the third Chapter of Job. We do not certainly know whether it was composed in Latin, or whether it was translated from the Greek 
cc Whether it was composed in Latin, or whether it was translated from the Greek.] Erasmus, Aubertin, and Cook are of Opinion that it was Latin, because the Phrase and Manner of Expression is Latin; but this might proceed from the Interpreter. That which makes it believed that the Author was rather a Greek, is the Prologue which is in the Interpreters Name; which Erasmus rejects as Supposititious. : however, 'tis certain that it was not written by Origen 
dd 'Tis certain that it was not written by Origen.] He says some things contrary to what Origen affirms. For Example, in the Second Book, he says that Jesus Christ preached three years and a half; and Origen, in his Book De Principiis, Cap. 2. and Hom. 32. in Lucam, says that he preached but a Year and odd Months. , but by some other Author, who lived since the Time of Arius 
ee But by some other Author, who lived since the time of Arius.] He calls the Church that believes the Trinity, a Sect and a Heresy. He rejects the Word Trinity and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: He commends the Martyr Lucian, who died a long time after Origen, and whom the Arians extolled as their Patron: Upon which Arius calls Eusebius of Nicomedia, Collusianita: And this sufficiently shows how grossly they are mistaken, who have attributed these Commentaries to S. Hilary. , and one that was an Arian himself.  
The other Commentary upon the Book of Job, translated by Perionius from a Manuscript of the King's Library, is also by an Arian 
ff The other Commentary upon the whole Book of Job, is also by an Arian.] He condemns the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and calls the Catholics Homousiasts; He commends Lucian the Martyr; and it is different from the First, because he makes Moses to be the Author of the Book of Job, and the First only makes him to be the Interpreter. Whereas Origen, in his Sixth Book against Celsus, says, that Moses wrote nothing but, the Pentateuch. It is of a different Style from the Treatises of Origen, and he confutes those, who believe the Stars to be animated, which is Origen's Opinion. , but different from the first, though he commends the Martyr Lucian as well as Origen, and speaks of the Manichees. The four Homilies upon Job, which were published under Origen's Name in the first Edition by Genebrard, were left out in the second, because they are not Origen's, no more than S. Chrysostom's, to whom they are still attributed. It is observed in a Letter prefixed to Er●smus's Edition, that there were still remaining under Origen's Name, some little Notes upon Job, which they would not insert in his Works, because they appeared to be of a quite different Style and Genius.  
There is in the King's Library, a Commentary upon S. Mark, ascribed likewise to Origen, which is certainly none of his 
gg A Commentary upon S. Mark, ascribed likewise to Origen, which is none of his.] It is of a quite different Style, He says he will collect the Opinions of the Ancients. In some Manuscripts it is attributed to S. Cyril; in others to Victor of Antioch: It has been Translated, and Published under this Name by Peltanus. He citys Origen, Eusebius, S. Chrysostom, Apollinarius, and Theodoret; and he mentions the Nivatians. .  
The ten Homilies upon several Passages of the Gospel, collected by Merlinus, are all written by others 
hh The Ten Homilies are all of other Authors than Origen.] They have been collected in several Places, and put into order by Merlinus. They are all written in a different Style from Origen's; and composed by a Latin Author: They have all Designs that are quite differing from those of Origen's Homilies; They are full of Quibbles upon Words, and of affected Rhetorical Figures, which is not to be found in Origen's Works. In the First, he says, That Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin, without opening of her Womb; The contrary to which is taught by Origen, in his 54th Homily upon St. Luke. The Second discourses of the Arians and the Manichees; and therein the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is defended; therein likewise are cited the Books attributed to St. Dionysius. The 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th Books are all filled with vain Repetitions, Antitheses, Quibbles upon Words, Synonima's and Allusions, which prove that it is a Latin Author, they are of the same Style of the First. The 9th is composed of Three Parts (as Huetius has observed.) The First is Part of Origen's ●4th Discourse upon St. Matthew. The Second is taken from St. Hierom's 8th Book upon Isaiah; and the Last from the 17th Chapter of St. Gregory's Ninth Book of Morals. , being written after a quite different manner, and almost all of them composed by a Latin. The Book concerning Sighs, or Penance, attributed to Origen, and placed by Gelasius among the Number of the Apocryphal Pieces, is without doubt counterfeit, as well as his Preface. Morellus caused to be printed under Origen's Name, in the year 1601, some Scholia upon the Lord's Prayer, and upon the Hymn of the Blessed Virgin, and of Zachary; but the Bibliotheca Patrum, etc. 
ii But the Bibliotheca Patrum, etc.] Michael Chifleri tells us in the Preface to his Commentary upon Jeremiah, Printed in the Year 1623., that he found four and twenty of them, and that the Last was the Treatise of St. Clement, What Rich Man can be saved? He sets down Eight.  informs us. That they were written by Petrus Laodicensis. Besides, there were found in the Vatican Library, some Homilies upon Jeremiah, some whereof were printed by Chifletius in the Year 1623., which also are none of his. The Book concerning Coelibacy of the Clergy, which is amongst S. Cyprian's Works, bears the Name of Origen in a Manuscript of the King's Library 
kk Bears Origen's Name in a Manuscript of the King's Library.] By Vincentius Bellovacensis, and some others. Pamelius is of this Opinion. In other Manuscrps it is attributed to St. Hierom and St. Augustin. Some have believed that it was Translated from Greek, but it is, as we shall show hereafter, written by a Latin. , but 'tis the Work of a Latin Author. It is said also, That there are in Libraries some Treatises under this Author's Name 
ll Lastly, They say that th●re are in Libraries other Treatises under this Author's Name.] There is a Book concerning the Astrolabe, which was said to be in the Vatican Library; the Breviary or Abridgement of Origen, a Book concerning Preaching or Catechising, etc. And besides this, there are several of Origen's Fragments in the Catenae Graecorum Patrum: But it would be an endless Labour to collect them all. Hiietius, who neglected this Toil, thinking it to be too Great, by reason of the Multitude of the Catenae, and to be to no purpose, by reason of their little Authority; tells us that Father Combefis, a Man of indefatigable Pains, having undertaken it, he has referred us to the Collection which he has made of them. 'Tis probable he did not think them worth publishing. , which are very dubious, they not being cited by the Ancients, and being for the most part upon such Subjects, upon which it is not likely that Origen should have written.  
I shall not stand to set down in particular the several Editions of Origen's Works, as well in Greek as in Latin, having already taken notice of the greatest part of them: It shall suffice me to say, That all Origen's Works that are in Latin, have been collected by Merlinus, and afterwards by Erasmus, and printed in two Volumes at Paris in the Year 1512, and at Basil in the Years 1526, 1545, and 1571. That Genebrard has since made a larger Collection, printed at Paris in 1574, 1604, and 1619; and at Basil in 1620. That all the Greek Fragments of Origen's Books upon the Scripture, are published with a Translation by the Learned Hiietius, and printed in France in two Volumes, in the Year 1667, but that he has not yet set forth the other Works of Origen, as he promised. That his Books against Celsus, and the Philocalia were printed in England in 1658. That Wetstenius, Greek Professor at Basil, caused to be printed there, in 1674, the Dialogue against Martion, the Exhortation to Martyrdom, and the Letters of Africanus and Origen, concerning the History of Susanna; and lastly, That the Book concerning Prayer has been lately printed in England. So that to have all Origen's Works, as well those which we have only in Latin, as those in Greek, we must have Genebrard's Edition, Huetius' two Volumes, the Books against Celsus, with the Philocalia, printed in England in Quarto; the Quarto Volume set forth by Wetstenius, and the little Treatise concerning Prayer, lately printed in England.  
It would be very tedious, and to little purpose, to give here an Abridgement of all Origen's Works, and particularly of his Homilies, and his Commentaries upon the Scripture, which are almost all full of Allegories and Morality; besides, having only the Version of the greatest part of the Homilies, we cannot be certain whether that which relates to Doctrine and Discipline, be Origen's own, or Ruff●nus's: I ●●all therefore content myself to give a Summary of his Doctrine upon the principal Points of our Religion, examining at the same time whether he be guilty of those Errors of which he is accused.  
If we had had his Books of Principles in Greek, we might easily have been informed of all his Opinions; for these Books contained the Abridgement of his Doctrine: But since we have only Ruffinus' Translation, in which he himself confesses that he altered and omitted several Passages, wherein Origen discourses concerning the Mystery of the Trinity, which he believes were corrupted by the Heretics, we cannot be assured of Origen's Doctrine from this Version, except it be in those things for which he is condemned: so that we must have recourse to those Works of Origen which we have in Greek.  
Origen's Notions concerning the Nature and the Attributes of God are very Orthodox; he believes that he is a Spiritual, Invisible, Simple, and Eternal Essence. He is wrongfully accused for believing that God had a Body, since 
Lib. 4. contra Celsum, & 6. Lib. 3. contra Celsum▪ T. 14. in Joan. & de Princip. c. 1. q. 20. in Exod. Lib. 4. contra Celsum.  he says directly contrary in several places, and proves it by many convincing Arguments. He discourses admirably concerning the Knowledge and the Providence of God. Some have accused him of having set Bounds to his Power, because he says, That he is called Omnipotent only because he governs all things, and not because he can create any thing new. Justinian citys in his Letter to Mennas, a Passage taken from the second Book of Origen's Principles, where he says that the Power of God is finite, and that he made all the Creatures that he can govern. Russinus also taxes him of this Error. He seems indeed to have believed that God created that Matter from all Eternity, whereof he has made the World, and of which he will make successively several other Worlds.  
The Ancients are extremely divided as to the Judgement that is to be given of Origen's Doctrine concerning the Trinity.  
S. Hierom, John Bishop of Jerusalem, S. Epiphanius, S. Austin, and after them Theophilus, Justinian, and the fifth Council, have accused him of several Errors about this Mystery: On the contrary, Didymus, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, and anonynious Author, of whom Photius speaks in the 117th Volume, S. Chrysostom and Russinus have either cited him against the Arians, as an Author who had Orthodox Notions concerning the Trinity, or defended him against the Accusations of his Enemies; the One by giving a favourable Sense to his Words, and the Others by maintaining that those Passages which were found not to be agreeable to the Faith of the Church were added; and that there were other contrary Expressions, which were entirely conformable to the Doctrine of the Church. It is certain that in Ruffinus' Latin Versions which we have of the Book de Principiis, and the Apology of Pamphilus, and of his other Works, the Doctrine of the Trinity is explained after a very Orthodox manner. But we must confess, that we cannot rely upon Ruffinus' Credit, who acknowledges that he added and altered several Passages relating to the Trinity. It is true, he says he has taken what he has added from other Places of Origen; but S. Hierom denies it, and we are not obliged to believe Ruffinus upon his own word. So likewise we ought not to give Credit entirely to what St. Hierom says against Origen, since he was as violent against him, as Ruffinus was passionate for him. Therefore, Neither believing his Enemies, nor his zealous Defenders, let us consult those Pieces of his Works which we have in Greek And here still we are in a Labyrinth, from which it will be difficult to extricate ourselves. Herein we find some things which appear no less contrary, than the Opinions themselves of the Authors who who have written for and against him. He often speaks very excellently of the WORD, which gives us reason to believe that he 
Tom. 1. Comment. in Joan. p. 17. 19 p. 30. ibid. & Homil. 6. in jerem. p. 28. Tom. 2. 47, 48. ibid. lib. 2. cont. Celsum. Lib. 6. cont. Celsum, & lib. 8.  was persuaded of his Godhead: He says, That he was from the beginning in the Father; That he is the Image of the Father; That He was begotten of the Father from all Eternity; That he is a Subsistence, and a Person distinguished from the Father; That he is the Wisdom of God, and that he is God himself; That he never leaves his Father; That those are in an Error, who deny that the Godhead of the Father and the Son is the same, though their Substance be different; That he is God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though he be not the Source and Original of the Godhead, as the Father is, whom upon that account he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That he is above all Creatures; That we may address our Vows and our Prayers to Him, as to God the Father; That he is only known by the Father; That he ought to be honoured as the Father, and that he has the same Power. Lastly, S. Athanasius citys two formal Passages for the Eternity of the WORD, and for his Equality with the Father; and S. Basil also citys one which is very clear for the Divinity of the Holy Ghost.  
But, on the other side, in his Books we meet with many Expressions which are very harsh, little conformable to the Orthodox Doctrine, and which seem to favour the Arians. He says, That the Word is an Hypostasis different from 
Lib. de Decretis Concilii Nicaeni. Basil. de Sp. Sancto c. 29. lib. 8. cont. Ceisum, & Tom. 2. in Joannem p. 56. & p. 17, & 23. Tom. 2. in Jean. p. 49, 56, & 70. Item Tom. 13. p. 218. Item Tom. 32. lib. 8. cont. Celsum, & lib. 5.  the Father; and he takes the Word Hypostasis to signify Nature and Substance. He says likewise, That the Father and the Son are One in Concord and in Will; and that the last is not properly God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but only called God, because he is the Image and Resemblance of the Divinity; That the WORD and the Holy Ghost were made by the Father; That we must not compare the Father with the Son; and that the Father is greater than the Son, who is inferior to Him, though he be superior to all Creatures, as the Sunbeam is inferior to the Sun; and lastly, That the WORD is the Minister of the Father. These Expressions, and some others like them, are hard indeed; but when there are Contradictions in Authors, we ought always, in my Opinion, to take the most favourable Side. Besides, That it is more easy to put a good Construction on these last Expressions, which were very common before the Council of Nice, than to put a bad one upon the First: For, without making use of Ruffinus' way of defending him, who says that these Places are either added or corrupted; and without alleging in his Excuse, that being to dispute against the Sabellians, he was obliged to make use of some Terms which might seem to favour the opposite Error: without making use, I say, of these general Defences I believe we may explain in a very Catholic Sense, those Expressions which I have just now related. When he says, That the Father and the Son were Two Hypostases; he understands by the Word Hypostasis, all that is opposed to nothing; and he had no other Design than to maintain against the Sabellians, That the WORD was not a Virtue or a Quality from the Father, but a Person subsisting. It is certain, That in Origen's Time the Word Hypostasis and Substance were synonymous Terms; but so too by the Word Substance, was often understood a Person subsisting; and some Catholic Authors, not only before the Council of Nice, but even afterwards have affirmed that the Father was a Substance, the Son a second Substance; understanding, as S. Hilary observes, by Substance, the Persons subsisting. In the second Place, Origen does not say that the Son is a Creature: He does not deny but that he is God, but he only denies that he is God of himself, as the Father is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and this is what he would explain by the Comparison of the Sun and the Sunbeam, which the Fathers, who lived after the Council of Nice, thought to be very proper for the explaining the Mystery of the Trinity. And thus it is, that going upon this Principle, he says, That the Son is inferior to the Father, and that the Father was greater than the Son; not that he believed them to be of a different Nature, since he owned that they are One and the same Divinity, and One and the same Substance; That the Son was equal to the Father, and that he was in him from all Eternity; but because the Son derives his Divinity from the Father, who is the Source of the Godhead. As to what he says, That the Son is the Minister of the Father; That the Father made use of him in making the World; and that the Son was created. These are Expressions that are too common amongst the Ancints, to be particularly objected to Origen as a Crime.  
S. Hierom accuses Origen, for saying, That the Son, in comparison 
Epist. ad Avitum.  of the Father, was not Goodness itself, but only the Image and Representation of Goodness; and Huetius confirms this to have been 
Tom. 2. in Joan. p. 56. Tom. 6. p. 130. Lib. 5. contra Celsum. Tom. 15. in Mat.  Origen's Opinion by some of his Greek Passages. The same S Hierom upbraids him also for affirming that the Son in comparison of the Father, was a lesser Light; That he was not the Truth, but the Image of the Truth; That he was Visible, and the Father Invisible; but we may easily discern that these Expressions, as harsh as they may seem, being considered separately, were meant by Origen in a good sense, he having no other Design than to prove that the Father was the Source and Original of Goodness and Truth; and that the Son received it from him; and that in this sense he was the Image of the Father's Goodness, the Brightness of his Godhead: Expressions which in this sense are very Orthodox. As to what he says, that the Father is Invisible, and the Son Visible, we have shown in other Places what the Ancients meant by this way of speaking.  
Lastly, It is easy to answer what S. Epiphanius and several others object to Origen, That he denied that the Father was Visible to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost: for he affirms so expressly in so many places, That the Father is perfectly 
Tom. 20. in Joh. p. 292.  known of the Son, and even of the Holy Ghost, that he must of necessity have had some other meaning, when he seems to assert the contrary. Ruffinus answers this Objection, That he denied that the Father was visible to the Son, as Bodies are visible to Bodies that he might confute the Error of the Valentinians, who believed that God was Corporeal; and he citys a Passage of Origen, where he distinguishes betwixt Seeing and Knowing, and affirms, That we may say that the Son knows the Father, but that we cannot say that he sees him, because Seeing is the Property of a Body. I shall not make any Answer to other more trivial Objections, because it is easy to satisfy them, as well by what we have just now said, as by what we have observed upon the other Fathers. 
a Lib. 1, count. Celsum, lib. 2. lib. 3. & lib. 4 Com. in Joan. & in Mat. passim lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Apol. Pamphili. Vide Tom. 1. in Joan. p. 3. Tom. 20. p. 307. lib. 6. Lib. 1. cont. Celsum. Lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophil. Ep. 2. Paschal. Hier. Ep. ad Ruffinum. lib. 1. cap. 5. & Ep. 61. ad Avitum. c. 4. Sulpit. Severus Dial. 1. c. 3. Bern. Serm. 44. Albert. in Ep. 8 Dion. Hom. 40. in Lucam. Hom. 1. in Levit. L●b. 5. in Ep. ad Rom. T. 1. in Joh. p. 32, 38. T. 2. p 69. t. 1. in Mat. p. 313. 〈◊〉. 15. in Mat. 313, L. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 3. Lib. 5. in Ep. ad Rom. Justin. Ep. ad Mennam. Hier. Ep. ad Avitum. Vide, Hom. 1. in Levit. in Luc. c. 2. Hom. 12. in Leu. & 8. Hom. 20. in Luc. lib. 2. de Princip. c. 3. Tom. 1. Com. in Johan. Tom. 2. p. 320.  There are no very considerable Objections made against Origen's Doctrine concerning the Incarnation; for though he be accused of several Errors, he affirms so positively in all his Works, That the WORD had taken a Body and a Soul like ours in the Womb of a Virgin, by the Operation of the Holy Ghost; That Jesus Christ had true Fesh; That he really suffered; That he is altogether God and Man, in that the Human Nature was united with the Divine Nature in one and the same Person: That it is impossible to accuse him of any Error concerning the Mystery of the Incarnation. Perhaps, as he was of Opinion, That the Souls were in Heaven before they came down into their Bodies, he might think the same thing of the Soul of Jesus Christ. But this was only a particular Error, for which he was not very earnest.  
He is accused of believing that the Death of Christ was of Advantage to all reasonable Creatures, as Angels, Devils, and even insensible things; and 'tis certain that he does assert this wild Notion in several places of his Works. He has feigned a Spiritual Death of Jesus Christ in the other World, which has given occasion to tax him for holding that Jesus Christ died several times. He believed that Christ did not come out of the Virgin's Womb by Penetration; and he accuses the Virgin Mary of Distrust. But these are but slight Errors, and common among the Ancients.  
As he believed that the only Point of Faith relating to the Angels, was, That there were such Being's, and that neither Scripture nor Tradition had determined any thing as to their Nature and their Number; so he has taken the Liberty to deliver his own Thoughts hereupon: He imagines that they are Corporeal, though invisible, having nevertheless a Spiritual Soul. He says, That the good Angels have a finer, and the Evil ones a grosser Body. The Principle from whence he has drawn this Conclusion, is, That all intelligent and spiritual Creatures having been created in Heaven with a perfect Freedom of Will, they have been afterwards, for a Punishment of their Faults, confined to Bodies more or less gross, according to the Quality of their Crimes, and ranked in such and such Orders or Degrees of Creatures inferior one to another: yet so, nevertheelss, as that after having suffered this Exile, if I may so say, for some Ages, they may by living virtuously, return to the Place from whence they were banished. 
b This is the Principle of the Platonists. Theophilus, Justinian, S. Epiphanius, Methodius, and an anonymous Author in Photius, ascribed it to Origen. He plainly asserts it in his first Book of Principles, C. 6. Tom. 15. & 13. in Matt.  And going upon this Principle, he affirms, That men may become Angels, and Angels Men; That the Angels being free, do often commit Faults; That the Devils shall one day be delivered; That the Angels are guilty of several Offences in their Administration of things here below, for which they are immediately rebuked, and for which they shall be judged in the Day of Judgement. All these Fancies, and several others, are the Consequences of Plato's Doctrine, to which Origen was wonderfully addicted. We must nevertheless acknowledge, that he does not propose these things as Doctrines of our Religion, but only as his Opinions and Conjectures.  

c Hom. 23. in J. S. lib. 2. Per. c. 11. Tom. 13. in Mat. & p. 310, 311. Tom. 14. p. seq. lib. 1. in Ep. ad. Rom. Hom. 23. in Jos. lib. 8. cont. Celsum, Hom. 4. in Num. Hom. 2. in Jos. lib. 1. Per. cap. 10. lib. 8. cont. Celsum, Hom. 4. in Psal. 36. Hom. 20. Hom. 35. in Lu●. lib. 5. cont. Celsum, lib. 8. Hom. in Ezek. Hom. 23. in Lucam.  He says in several Places, That the Angels take care of Men; That every Church, every Society; and lastly, every Man has his Guardian-Angel; and even in some places he says, That every one has his good and evil Angel; in other Places, That several Angels have the Care of one particular Person; and in others, That they take care of inanimate Things. Though he denies that we ought to address to the Angels the same Prayers, and the same Adorations as to God, yet he allows that they may be prayed unto, and honoured according as they deserve.  
Concerning the Soul, he says in the Preface to his Books of Principles, that it is not determined by the Tradition of the Church, whether it be produced by another Soul, or whether it comes from elsewhere; whether it be Eternal, or created at a certain time; whether it animates the Body, or whether it be only confined there. This is what he says in the Language of an Ecclesiastical Author: But following the Principles of Plato's Philosophy, he holds, That Souls are intelligent Creatures, which have been from Eternity, which are sent into Bodies as into a Prison, for a Punishment of their Sins; That they pass from Body to Body; That they become Angels; and lastly, That they are in a continual Motion. He asserts all these things in his second Book of Principles, Chap. 6, and 7. and in several other places of his Works. 
d Lib. 2. Per. cap. 2.  He says in some Places, That the Soul is Corporeal; but in others, he assures us, that it is Spiritual and Incorporeal.  

e Hom. 1. in Genes in Exhort at. ad Mart. lib. 6. contra Celsum. In Luc. cap. 41.  He holds it as an Article of Faith, That there is a Free Will in all reasonable Creatures; from whence it follows, That though a Man may be excited to Good by some Celestial Power, and spurred on to Evil by the Devil, yet he is never constrained to do Good or Evil. This is what he says agreeably to the Doctrine of the Church; but he extends this Liberty, by following Plato's Principles, to all sorts of Conditions; and he pretends, That an intelligent Creature is, and will always be free to do Good and Evil, in whatsoever State and Condition he is; for in this he makes Free Will to consist. 
f Lib. 2. Per. c. 3. & lib. 3. cap. 1. & 3. Lib. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, c. 1, & 2. & in Ep. ad Rom. passim. Tom. 11. in Matt. Item 16, & 13. in Joan. lib. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, c. 7. lib. 3. c. 1. Rhi●oc●l. cap. 20. in Ep. ad Rom. lib. 7, & 9 & lib. 2. de Princip. cap. 9 Hom. 10. in Levit. 1. in Ezek. lib. 1. Per. c. 5. Hom. 35. in Luc. c. 1. Lib. 3. Per. Tract. 33. in Mat. Lib. 4. & 9 in Ep. ad Rom. Supra, & lib. in Ep. ad Rom. lib. 3. P●r. c. 2. lib. 1. P●r. c. 8. lib. 3. cap. 2. in Psal. 4. Hom. in Psal. 36. Hom. in Matt. p. 210. Tract. 15. in Matt.  He does not seem to have made any Distinction between Adam's State, and that of Mankind after the Fall.  
He attributes very much to freewill, and Nature, and he speaks but very little of Grace, which he believes was infused into Souls according to the Merits which they have, before they are confined in Bodies; and afterwards it is augmented according to the Good and Evil which they do in making use of their Natural Liberty. He ascribes in several Places the Conversion of a Man, and all the Good which he acts, to Free Will; and allows hardly any thing to Grace, so that it was not without Reason that St. Hierom accuses him for having furnished the Pelagians with Principles; though yet in some places he speaks very advantageously of Grace; and of the Assistance of God. He is taxed for holding, that Men may arrive to such a Degree of Perfection, that they shall be no more subject to Temptation, nor commit any more Sins: And indeed there are some Relics of this Error in his Books. He has also affirmed, that those who have sinned, after having received the Holy Ghost, could obtain no more Pardon for their Sin. 
g Lib. 5. in Ep. ad Rom. Tom. 13. in Matt. p. 328. T. 15. p. 385. Tract. 35. in Matt. ibid. & Lib. 1. in Ep. ad Rom.  And upon this account he maintains, that St. Peter had not as yet received the Holy Ghost, when he denied Christ, and that being forsaken by God, it was impossible for him not to sin. 
h Lib. 1. in Ep. ad Rom. & Lib. 7. ejusdem operis.  When he explains that Passage of the Fifth Chapter of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans he discourses of Original Sin after a very obscure manner; as if he doubted of it: And we must not wonder after this, that he did not admit of any other Predestination, than that which has respect to Merits.  
He believed that the Stars were animated with reasonable Souls confined to these Bodies. 
i Tom. 1. in Joan. p. 17. Lib. 1. Per●…o. 7. & lib. 2. Tom. 13. in Mat. Lib. 5. con. C●lsum & in Ep. ad Rom. Cap. 8. & Lib. 8. Justin. Ep. ad Me●….  He owns the Resurrection of the Body, but by Philosophising too nicely upon this Matter, he has, if I may so say, Spiritualised it.  
He admits of two Resurrections; That of the Righteous, and that of the Wicked. He acknowledges the last Judgement, wherein Men and Angels shall be Judged; but he seems to make a doubt in what Place it should be, if all Men were there to be judged. 
k Lib. 5. Con. Cels. lib. 2. Per. c. 3. Lib. 2. c. 10. See Methodius in Epiphanius, and St. Jerom in his Epistle John of Jerusalem. Tom. 17. in Matt. pag. 494, & 495. lib. 2. Per. c. 3. & 10. & Lib. 3. Cap. 6.  He says, That Jesus Christ shall appear there, but that we neither know the Place where he will appear, nor the Manner how. He rejects the Opinion of the Millenaries. He confesses that Good Men shall against be recompensed with Eternal Blessedness, and the Wicked punished with Eternal Fire; but he destroys the Simplicity of this Faith by Reasoning too much on this Subject. He believes that all Men, even the most Holy, shall pass through the Fire: That after Men have passed through the Fire, the Wicked shall be cast into Hell, that is to say, into the Lowest Place, and they shall be there tormented with Eternal Fire. This Fire (as 
l Tract. 30, & 34. in Matt. lib. 2. in Ep. ad Rom. & lib. 9 Hom. 6. in Exod. Hom. 3. in Psal. 36. Hom. 14 in Luc. lib. 5. cont. Cels. & lib. 8. ad Rom.  he Explains it in other Places) is Remorse of Conscience, and Vexation of Spirit. 
n Lib. 4. Per, cap. 2. & lib. 1. cap. 6. Philocal. cap. 1.  He makes Blessedness to consist in an Union with God. He says that Souls come to it by degrees; that after they are separated from their Bodies, they are for some time upon Earth, in order to be purified, that afterwards they are taken up into the Air, and instructed by Angels, that they pass through several Places, where they remain for some time, and that at last they come to the Highest Heaven, in comparison whereof the Firmament is but a Hell; that the more they retain of Earth in them, the longer they are upon this Journey: That the Souls which are arrived at this Sovereign Degree of Bliss, may fall from it, and that they are sent back again into Celestial Bodies, or others, and that they afterwards return from whence they were driven; that so Blessedness may have an End, and that Torments shall have a Conclusion likewise. 
n Lib. 2. de Prin, & lib. 5. con. Cels. Tract. 34. in Joan. Hom. 26. in Num. & 27, 28. & Passim. Tract. 30. in Matt. Lib. 1. de Prin. c. 6. lib. 2. c. 3. & 12. lib. 3. cap. 6. l●b. 3. de Prin. c. 3. & lib. 2. Hom. 7. in Levit. Hom. 6. in Num. & in Reg. in Ezech. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. lib. 1. Per. c. 6. 〈◊〉. 15. & Tract. 33. in Matt. Hom. 8. in L●vit. 14. in Luc.  He says in his Preface to the Book de Principiis, that God Created the World, that it had a Beginning and that it must have an End; but that it is not determined by Tradition, what it was before, and what it will be after. He imagines that it was made, if I may so express it, to be a Place of Banishment for all. Intelligent Creatures. He makes no Difficulty of asserting, that there were more Worlds before this, and that there shall be more after it. He says, That God always had the Matter upon which he wrought, which supposes that it is Eternal, since God Created it from all Eternity.  

o Lib. 2. cap. 1. & 8. & Tom. 19 in Joan. Justin. Ep. ad Mennam. and two Passages from Lib. 1. & 4. Hieront. Ep. 59 ad A●itu●.  He says, That the Earthly Paradise was in Heaven, and he has explained of the Souls which were there, that which is said in Genesis concerning Adam and Eve. He understands by the Fig-Leaves, wherewith they covered themselves after the Fall, the Mortal Bodies to which the Souls were Chained.  
It may be concluded from all, that we have already said concerning Origen's Doctrine upon the Tenets of our Religion, that although he professed to believe the Doctrine of the Church, 
p Lib. 1. Per. c. 2. Method. apud P●●tiam. c. 3. on Genes● c. 1. This was objected against him by Methodius in Epiphanius, by Photius, by Eustathius, by John of Jerusalem, by St. Jerome; and it may be found in Lib. 4. de Prin. 〈◊〉. 2.  yet he sets up some Philosophical Principles, the Consequences of which were found contrary to what was taught by the Christian Religion; which obliged him, in order to accommodate these things which were so directly opposite one to the nother, to invent several Opinions that were very far from the Simplicity of the Faith. So that we must distinguish in Origen what he says according to the way of Speaking used by the Church in his Time, and what he says according to the Principles of Plato's Philosophy, and then we need not wonder, if after, having acknowledged the Truths of Christianity, he should lose himself by advancing such Platonic Notions as are destructive to them. And this, in my Opinion, is the reason of his principal Errors, which are all of them founded upon three Principles taken from the Platonic Philosophy; which are: First, That Intelligent Creatures have always been, and shall eternally exist. Secondly, That they have always been free to do Good and Evil. And Lastly, That they have been precipitated into the Lower Places, and confined to Bodies for a Punishment of their Sins. Let any one throughly examine▪ all Origen's Errors, of which we have just now spoken, and he will easily perceive that they all proceed from this, that he was willing to accommodate the Truths of the Christian Religion to these Platonic Principles.  
There are besides some other slighter Errors in Origen, into the greatest part of which he fell by confining himself too much to the Allegorical Sense of the Scripture; for Example, 
q Tom. 12. in Matthaeum.  Explaining Christ's Words concerning the Power of Binding and Losing, which he granted to St. Peter, he seems to reserve this Power to those Bishops and Priests who imitate the Virtues of this Apostle, and in the same Sense he says, that all Spiritual Men are this Rock, upon which Jesus Christ has built his Church. So likewise 
r Tom. 11. in Matt.  explaining that Passage of Scripture, where it is said: Not that which goeth into the Mouth defileth a Man, he speaks of the Eucharist after so Obscure and, Allegorical a manner, that it is very difficult to comprehend his Meaning, 
s Hom. 〈◊〉. in Num. & Tract. 35. in Matt. Hom. 7. in Levit. 〈◊〉 Tom. 〈◊〉. in Joan.  He likewise explains Alllegorically what is said of the Eucharist in other Places of the Word of God. It is easy however to defend him against the Protestants upon the Subject of the Real Presence, since he acknowledges in the Eighth Book, that the Loaves which are offered in the Church are made a Holy Body by Prayer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We might easily bring other Examples of the Oversights that he has committed, endeavouring too much to Spiritualise the Words of the Scripture, but I shall pass them over in Silence.  
He speaks of the Sacred Scripture after a very excellent manner, as of a Book written by Persons who were inspired by God. His Passages upon this Subject have been collected by St. Basil, and St. Gregory Nazianzen, in a Book which they have Entitled Philocalia. 
t Hom. 2. & 6. in Gen. Hom. 3. & 5. in Levit. Hom. 2, & 3. in Exod. item 7, & 11. in Levit. lib. 1. Per. c. 2. Hom. 9, & 2. in J●s.  He distinguishes the three Senses of Scripture, but he applies himself particularly to the Allegorical Interpretation, and he affirms that there are some Places which have no literal Meaning. He proves that every Body ought to read the Scripture.  
Now for some Points of Discipline which may be observed in his Works. The Christians assembled together in his Time in the Churches, not only on Sundays, and Festivals, but also on other Days. 
u H'm. 10 13. & 9 in Num. Hom. 6 in L●vit. Hom. 4. in 〈◊〉 Hom. 6 in Jerem. Hom. 8. ibid. Hom 10. in Levit. Hom. 21. in Jos. Hom. 9, & 11. in Jerem. Tract. 35. in Matt. H●m. 2. in. Jud. & Hom. 2. in Ps. 37. Hom. 15. in Levit. Hom. 10. in Ezech. Tract. 6. in Matt. Hom. 14. in Lev●● 〈◊〉. in cap. 4. Matt. Hom 2. in Levit. 〈◊〉 Hom. 14. 〈◊〉  He often speaks against those who neglected to do it, and who did not hear the Word of God with due Respect. There were Priests and Bishops in his Time, who were chosen by the People. And their Duty was to teach the People, they instructed the Catechumen, and prepared them for Baptism for a considerable time. They Baptised the Children; and Baptism was never reiterated; they anointed those who were Baptised with Oil. They observed Lent; and also fasted Wednesdays and Frydays. They expelled out of the Church, such as committed Public Crimes after baptism: And 
x Tract. 11. in Matt. Tract. 32. in 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. s. lib. 8. Hom. 17. in Levit.  he observes in his Book against Celsus, that there were some Persons set apart on purpose to take care of the Manners of the Faithful. They allowed of Penance but once, and that rarely too. Excommunication was the greatest Ecclesiastical Penalty. Nevertheless, It was not doubled but that those who were unjustly Excommunicated, might be saved. Simony also was Prohibited.  
In his time Sins were confessed to the Priests, and they examined those who were to teach in Public. They believed that one ought to live a very Holy Life, to approach the Blessed Sacrament, and that as it was very advantageous to those who received it Worthily, so it was Damnation to those who received it Unworthily. They did not admit Persons that were twice Married to Holy Orders. They concealed the Mysteries, and principally of the Eucharist from the Infidels and the Catechumen. They Prayed to God on their Knees, and turning towards the East. They celebrated Good-Fryday, Easter, Witsontide, and Sundays, with very great Solemnity.  
And these were the Principal Points of Discipline, that can be observed in the Books of Origen: It would be too tedious to take notice of Points of Morality that he discourses of in his Homilies, which are all filled with them. We shall here present you only with some of them.  
He says, that we ought not to make use of Marriage, but only for the Sake of having Children: that he who does Good out of servile Fear, shall be less rewarded than him who does it out of Love. 
y Hom. 5. in Exod. & 23. Hom. 3. in Gen. & ibidem. Hom. 5. Hom. 2. in J●r●m. Hom. 8. Hom. 2. Hom. 3. & 〈◊〉 in Exod. Hom. 14. in 〈◊〉. Item Hom. 15. Tract. 6. in Matt. Hom. 2. in Levit.  There are in his Homilies upon Exodus, a great many curious Allegories upon the Necessity of Renouncing the World, and leading a Christian Life. He says, that Pharaoh represents the World, who slew the Male Children, that is, the righteous, and preserved the Females, that is to say, Vicious and Effeminate Persons; and he makes a pretty Moral upon this Allegory. He says, that Egypt is the Type of the World, from whence we must departed, not only in Body, but in Mind, by renouncing it entirely. There are a great many other Allegories and Moral Thoughts of the same Nature. He distinguishes two 〈◊〉 of Sins; Great Sins, and Lesser Sins. He ranks among the number of lesser Sins, such as may prove Mortal; and by great Sins, he understands such, for which we can do Penance but once. He gives seven Remedies for Sins, Baptism, Martyrdom, Alms-deeds, Forgiving of our Enemies, the Conversion of our Brethren, Charity, and Laborious Penance, and lastly, that Repentance and Unction of which St. James speaks. 
z Hom. 〈◊〉.  He says, that we must not presently reprehend publicly the Sin of our Brother, but that we ought first to rebuke him in Private, afterwards before one or two Witnesses; and lastly, if he did not reform, than we are to tell it to the Church. 
a Hom. 10. in Levit.  He shows that true Fasting is an Abstinence from Sin, and that we ought to Fast in order to Feed the Poor. His Homilies up Numbers, Joshuah, and the Judges are more filled with Allegories than Morality. Those which he composed upon the Psalms have more Morality in them: He there discourses of Humility, of Prayer, of Patience, of Meekness, of the Prosperity of the Wicked, of Repentance, of that Holiness which is required to Communicate worthily, of the Choice of a Guide. His other Homilies are mixed with Morality and Allegories: His large Commentaries have more Learning in them. He therein handels several Questions very learnedly, and makes very judicious Remarks upon them. He gives some Explications upon the Holy Scripture, that are very curious and ingenious: But he goes ●●o, far from the Le●●er, to find out Allegorical Senses, and he amuses himself in Explaining too scrupulously all the Words of Scripture, that he might the better give them a Mystical Sense. He is a Great Enemy to. Heretics, he attacks them as often as he discourses of any Subject that has any relation to their Errors. He does not let any of them escape; sometimes he writes against Simon, Basilides, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Martion, and Montanus: at other times he attacks the Ebionites, the Helcesaites, the Encratites, the Ophites, and the Sabellians. 
b In. Genes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  He acknowledged for Canonical Books of the Old Testoment, only those which were in the Canon of the Hebrews to the Number of Two and Twenty: 
c Hom. 〈◊〉. in N●…. & 25. in J●s. in Frag. in Ep. ad H●b. in Apol. Pamphili. lib. 3. con. Cells H●m. in. E●cod. 8. lib. 2. Per. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 in Matt. & Hom. 18. in Num.  He ranks the Book of Esther in this Number, and joins the Book of Ruth with the Book of Judges, and Baruch with that of Jeremiah. As for the Books of Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom, he commends them as Good Books, profitable for Catechumen, but such as are out of the Canon of the Books of the Sacred Scripture. He calls them nevertheless in some places Divine Books. He citys the Book of Wisdom under the Name of the Scripture. He citys likewise the Maccabees, and the Book of Ecsiasticus, which he affirms to be among the Books of Solomon. We have already taken notice of his Opinion concerning the History of Susanna. He receives as Canonical Books of the New Testament, the Four Gospels, the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul; 
d He always citys it under S. Paul ' s Name. Hom. 8. in Exod. 7. in Levit. in Jerem. Hom. 1. lib. 1. Per. Lib. 2. in Matt. c. 13. ap. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 25. lib. 2. Per. c. 5. & lib. 2. Per. in Matt. c. 13. Hom. in Jesum. 3. & 10. in cap. ●8. Matt. Hom. in Jer. 14. in Ez. in Luc. Hom. 8. in Exod. Hom. 10. in Jos. lib. 1. Per. lib. 2. lib. 3. in Luc. Hom. 35. Luc. 3. per.  He says however, concerning that to the Hebrews, that the Thoughts of this Epistle are St. Paul's; but that it was Composed by some other Person, and that there is none but God who knows the Author of it, though some attribute it to S. Clemens, others to S. Luke. He says that there is but one Epistle of S. Peter, which was received by all the Churches, but that we may grant the Second likewise to have been his. He says the same thing of the Two last Epistles of S. John. He citys the Epistles of St. Judas, and St. James in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans. He likewise quotes the Revelations, and attributes them to St. John. Besides these Books, he often citys Apocryphal Writings, as the Gospel's according to the Egyptians, and according to the Hebrews; the Book of Hermas, the Epistle of S. Barnabas, the Book of Enoch, and even some Heretical Books, as the Apocalypse of S. Paul, a Book conterning the Twelve Apostles, the Doctrine of S. Peter, the Acts of S. Paul, the History of Isaiah, and and some others.  
Origen had very quick Parts, a very strong and Extensive Fancy: but he relied too much on the Vivacity of his Genius; and often lost himself out of too great earnestness to fathom, and subtilise every thing. He had a very happy invention, and a much more happy delivery of what he had invented: But he had not that exactness in his Inventions, nor all that Gracefulness in the Delivery as might be wished. He carried on his Work with so great ease, that he is said to have Dictated to Seven or Eight Persons at a time, and he was so ready in Expressing himself, that he made the greatest Part of his Homilies Extempore. Upon which account his Style was not very Correct, nor Coherent; He had a vast Memory, but he often trusted too much to it. He was a Person of most profound Learning; and he particularly Studied Plato's Philosophy, which he understood to Perfection, and indeed he was too much addicted to it for a Christian. He understood likewise the Maxims of the other Philosophers. He had applied himself mightily to the Study of Humane Learning: He was neither Ignorant of History, nor Mythology, and he had as great knowledge in all the Profane Sciences, as those who had Studied nothing else all their whole Lives. But he particularly excelled in the knowledge of the Holy Scripture, to the Study of which he entirely addicted himself. He had Learned it all by heart, and that he might not neglect any thing which might be of use for the understanding the Letter thereof, he carefully Examined all the Versions of the Bible, which were in his time, and compared them all together with the Hebrew Text, adding thereto a Literal Commentary upon the most difficult Places. He was not very well skilled in the Hebrew; yet he knew enough of it to understand it, and to observe the Differences of the Text, and the Translations; but he did not keep to the Literal Explication of the Bible. He thought it necessary for the setting off of the Holy Scripture to the best advantage, which appeared but plain and simple to the Heathens, and for the rendering it of greater use to all the World, to give Mystical or Allegorical Interpretations of every thing in it. And herein imitates the way of Philo and Aristobulus, and followed the Genius and Manner of the Platonists. We have already taken notice, that Hippolytus explained the Scripture Allegorically, and that it was in imitation of him that Origen undertook this way of Writing. St. Clement of Alexandria his Master, is also full of Allegories, and 'tis not to be denied but that the Hellenistical Jews, and the Primitive Christians made very frequent use of them: But Origen has carried on an Allegory as far as it can possibly go, and he has furnished Matter to all the Greek and Latin Fathers who have imitated him, and have hardly done any thing else than copy him. This way of explaining the Holy Scripture by continual Allegories, seems to me to be very defective. For though it may be good sometimes to awaken, if I may so say, the Auditor, and to direct him by such kind of Allegories, yet they become useless and tedious, when they are perpetual; and the Mind, which requires great Application for the comprehending of them, is tired, and soon loses the Consequence both of Reasoning and Thought: Besides, that by minding only the Allegorical Sense, we neglect the Literal, which is oftentimes more excellent, and of greater Advantage than all the Allegories in the World, that divert the Mind without instructing it, and strike the Imagination without affecting the Heart. Lastly, If in explaining the Holy Scripture, we should only stick to the Allegory, as Origen has done, it might give occasion to believe, that the Scripture taken barely in the Literal Sense would be but of very little Advantage, which is a very great Error. 'Tis therefore a very ill way of defending Origen in this Point, to say with a modern Author, that he seems to have been excusable in this, because he had learned by Experience, that the Letter of the Scripture was but of little use for Instruction. For this is to make him assert a thing which is very false, the Letter of the Scripture being of exceeding use for Instruction and even more profitable than any Allegory, which is not to be used, but only now and then to awaken the Auditors.  
Origen's Books against Celsus are an excellent Work, and stored with extraordinary Learning. He answers the Objections of Celsus, who of all the Heathens that have written againg the Christian Religion, had made the most cunning ones, and proposed them the most maliciously, very solidly. He establishes by convincing Proofs, the History of Jesus Christ, his Miracles, his Divinity and Resurrection. He confutes the Calumnies and Impostures of Celsus, and of the other Heathens against the Chri-Christians; and Lastly, he proves the Truth and Excellency of the Doctrine and Religion of Jesus Christ. This Book is written very Politely, and with great Care and Exactness. 'Tis not only the best of Origen's Works, but also the most accomplished and best Composed Apology for the Christians which we have of all the Ancients. The Books of Principles were likewise written with great Care, and they had been of very great use, if he had contented himself to explain the Principles of Religion according to Scripture and Tradition, without mixing therewith his own Philosophical Notions. His Commentaries upon the Scripture are more Polite than his Homilies, they are full of Learning, but they are not very Exact, and we may observe therein a great many Fancies which are useless, obscure, and perplexed. Often after having begun one Explication, he passes to another, without finishing the first. His Homilies are plainer and intelligible, but their style is less Elegant.  
The Treatise concerning Prayer is an Excellent Piece of Devotion. It contains a great many Excellent Principles of Morality, and is full of very profitable Instructions. We may also find there several Curious Remarks relating to the Discipline of that Time. But it is not absolutely free from the Errors and Defects which we have observed in the other Works of Origen. As this Discourse is very Instructive and not very much known, I have thought it convenient to give a Summary of it.  
Origen gins it by a Common Place, to wit, that there are an Infinite Number of Things which we cannot know without being enlightened from Heaven. He applies this Reflection to his Present Subject, saying, that it would be impossible for him, without the Assistance of Heaven, to explain how we ought to Pray, what we ought to say when we Pray, and what are the most Proper Times for Prayer. That he who treats of this Matter, must be enlightened by the Heavenly Father, instructed by the Son, and inspired by the Holy Ghost: That in order to Pray as we ought, 'tis not sufficient to repeat some certain Prayers, but we must have Good Dispositions; and that our Prayer may be acceptable to God, it must be accompanied with a Conscience, Pure, and without Blemish. Afterwards entering upon his Subject he observes that the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies Prayer, is mentioned in Scripture the first time, in that Place where it is said that Jacob coming from Mesopotamia, made a Vow to offer unto God the Tenth of all that he should bring from that Country. He adds that the Word is often taken in this Sense, to signify a Promise or Vow of Performing a Thing, if God grants us what we ask of him in our Prayers. But he observes at the same time that there are other Places where it is taken for Prayer itself; and he sets down some Examples wherein it is taken in both Senses.  
After having spoken of the word Prayer, he treats of the necessity of the thing itself: He confutes the Arguments of those who pretended to maintain that it was to no purpose to pray; he observes, that this Error could not be maintained by any but notoriously-wicked Persons, and by Atheists, who deny God's Providence: but that the Devil endeavouring by all means to spread detestable Doctrines among those that bear the Name of Christ, had put it into the hearts of some persons to reject every thing that is sensible in Religion, to despise the Holy Eucharist and Baptism, and to neglect Prayer as a useless thing. Now these are the Reasons which these Persons bring for their Opinion: First, God knows every thing, say they, therefore what need is there of Praying? Secondly, He does not only know what must happen, but he ordains it; therefore what necessity is there of ask that of him, which shall infallibly come to pass? Thirdly, If we are Predestinated before our Birth, it is to no purpose to pray, since we shall be necessarily Saved or Damned. Fourthly, God being immutable, we do but deceive ourselves in believing that we are able by our Prayers to make him alter his Decrees. Origen, in answer to these difficulties distinguishes Three sorts of Things which are in motion. The first are those that are moved by a Foreign Power, such as, Inanimate Being's. The second are those that are moved by their own Nature, but without Knowledge, as Animals and Plants. The Third are those that move themselves, and determine themselves, as Intelligent Creatures. He proves, That these are free, and that Prescience and Predestination does not at all destroy this Liberty, because God ordains nothing relating to free Actions, but what he has foreseen that intelligent Creatures would do freely: And that so Prescience is not the cause of Things, nor of Actions which are done freely; but it only supposes that these things will be, or will not be; and that the knowledge which God has of them, is followed by the Decree, whereby he is resolved to grant or not to grant his Grace, to hear or not to hear; That he foresees the Good and Evil which Men shall commit; That he knows whether they will repent or no; and that, in consequence of this knowledge, he Predestinates or Reprobates them. He adds, That God has appointed Angels over Men to preserve them, as long as they deserve it. One might here take notice of his particular Opinion concerning the Sun, the Moon, and Stars, which he says are intelligent and free Agents.  
After having confuted the Reasons of those who reject Prayer, he shows the advantage of it. He says in the first place, That he who prays, puts himself in a condition of presenting himself before God, and of conversing with him; That in order to this, he ought to drive away all evil Thoughts, to banish all earthly Affections, to raise up his mind towards Heaven, to forget Injuries, to pardon his Enemies, and by no means to repine against God. From hence he concludes, That Prayer cannot be of any advantage, if it be not preceded with great preparation. Secondly, He assures us, That Christ Jesus, the Highpriest of our Offerings, prays with us; That the Angels pray with him, and that the Saints which are departed pray with us, (and this here is one of the most ancient and excellent Monuments to prove the Intercession of Saints.) His words are these: The Souls of the Saints which sleep among the number of the Just, pray with us, as it is said in the Book of Macchabees.— And since the imperfect Knowledge which we have in this World is made perfect in the other Life, 'tis a very great Absurdity not to believe the same thing of the other Virtues, and principally Charity towards our Neighbour, which we ought to believe to be much stronger in the Saints than in mortals Men, who are subject to Weaknesses and Imperfections. He adds, That every faithful Person has his Angel that hears him, and preserves him whilst he prays. Lastly, He proves the necessity of continual Prayer, by the Example of Jesus Christ, by that of Just Persons, and by the reckoning up of those Benefits and Graces which have been bestowed upon Men from their Prayers: He exhorts the Faithful to pray for spiritual and heavenly Things, rather than for earthly and sensual Goods, such as Beauty, Nobility, Riches: He shows the meanness and the vanity of these things.  
He distinguishes four kinds of Prayers, after the Apostle S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, Supplication, which is to ask any Good of which we stand in need. The second called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is, according to Origen, a request that is made in any danger, with assurance of obtaining what we desire: He observes, that this kind of Prayer is commonly joined with Doxology, that is to say, with Praising of God's Holy Name; The third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a Prayer made by a Person who has great confidence that he shall obtain what he asks, he being much in God's Favour. The last is, Giving of Thanks for the Benefits which we have received. He gives Examples taken from the Holy Scripture, of each of these kinds of Prayer.  
This first Part of his Treatise concerning Prayer, is followed with an Explication of the Lord's Prayer.  
He makes two Observations upon these first words, Our Father▪ The first is, That it is only in the New Testament, where there is given to God with assurance the Title of Our Father. The second, That if we would say these words as we ought, we must be of the number of the true Children of God, that is to say, Free from Sin, and in a state of Grace.  
He says upon these words, which ar● in Heaven, That we must not understand them in a gross sense, as if God was in Heaven after a corporeal manner.  
Upon these words, Hallowed be thy Name, That it is not as if God were not Holy in himself, but only that we desire that men should acknowledge this Holiness in his Conduct. He observes, That this and the following Forms are in the Imperative, but that it is taken for the Optative Mood. And from hence he takes occasion to confute Tatian, who affirmed that these Words of God in Genesis, Let there be light, was not an express Command, but only a simple Wish. By these other Words, Thy kingdom come, the faithful Person prays the Lord, That the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, which is in him, may be perfected and completed by the expectation of the Day of Judgement. By these, Thy will be done, we desire of God, That men may fulfil God's Will upon Earth, as it is accomplished in Heaven; or else, That the Wicked, being represented by the Earth, should perform God's Will, as it is already done by Just Persons. Origen would not have us understand these following words, Give us this day our daily bread, of bodily Bread; but he understands them of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, weo is our Bread and our Nourishment. He observes, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Supersubstantialis, which we render by DAILY, is not to be met with in any Author; and that it is peculiar to the Evangelists. In order to explain it, he tells us, That as bodily Bread is changed into our Substance, so this Bread of the Word of God communicates its Nature and Efficacy to our Souls. By Daily Bread, he means Eternity. Upon these Words, And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us, he explains the several Duties of Men. He says, That they own to themselves the good of their Souls, that they own very much to their Guardian Angels, but that they are above all things indebted to Jesus Christ, and to the Holy Ghost; that every Condition and every Estaté has its peculiar Duties. There is one Duty, says he, of a Wife, another Duty of a Widow, another of a Deacon, another of a Priest, another of a Bishop, whose Charge is much the greater, and he shall render an exact Account to God, who will punish him very severely, if he does not acquit himself well of his Duty. He adds, That as we are indebted to others, so others are indebted to us; and that if we call to mind those Duties wherein we have been wanting towards others, we shall easily pardon those who have been deficient therein towards us, as God forgives us the faults which we have committed against him; That the Priests forgive in the Name of Jesus Christ the Sins of Men; but that, in imitation of the Priests of the Old Law, they must be instructed by the Holy Ghost who those are for whom they ought to offer up Sacrifices, when, and after what manner they must do it. Wherefore he blames those who not being sensible of what is beyond their Power, boast of their being able to pardon Idolatry, and to forgive Adultery and Fornication; which shows, that at that time they refused Communion to Idolaters in some Churches. Upon these words, And lead us not into temptation, Origen says, That it is impossible to pass through this life without temptations; and he proves it, by giving a Catalogue of those temptations to which we are exposed in all conditions and at all times: from whence he concludes, That we ought not to pray not to be tempted, but only not to sink under temptation. He observes, That God suffers us to fall therein, for a punishment of our sins. He here delivers his Opinion of those Souls that were always free, which were sent into this world for a punishment of the faults which they had committed in the other life. He afterwards discourses of the advantage of temptations, for the trial and proving of our Virtue. Lastly, Upon these words, But deliver us from evil, he says, That God does not deliver us from all the troubles and afflictions of this life, but that he makes us support them with patience.  
After having explained the Lord's Prayer, he discourses of the temper and disposition of mind that is requisite for Prayer, of the place where we are to pray, and of the time proper for Prayer. He would have him that is to pray, to recollect and prepare himself, that so he may perform it with the greater attention and fervency; and that after having purified his mind from the thoughts of this World, and banished from his heart all passions and earthly affections, he should reflect upon the excellency of the life to come; That he should drive from his heart all thoughts of hatred and enmity; That he should lift up his hands and eyes towards Heaven, when nothing hinders him; for he allows sick Persons to pray sitting or lying. He observes that kneeling is necessarily when we ask God pardon for our Sins. Concerning the place of Prayer, he says that every place is proper to pray in, but that Custom will have it that we should choose the most retired part of the House for our Prayers; and that we should prefer the place which is set apart for the Assemblies of the Faithful, where the Angels are present, where we may be sensible of the Efficacy of Jesus Christ, of that of the Holy Ghost, and of the Suffrages of the Saints departed. He would have us always turn ourselves towards the East▪ whether we be in our Chamber, or in an open place. Lastly, He distinguishes four Branches, or Common-Places of Prayer; The Doxology, which ought to be said, says he, at the beginning of Prayer, praising and glorifying the Father of Jesus Christ through the Holy Ghost; It ought to be followed with Thanksgiving; Afterwards we must make a Confession, or an Accusation of ourselves for our Sins; to which we ought to add the craving of Heavenly Benedictions for us and our Friends. Lastly, We must conclude our Prayer by praising God through the Son in the Holy Ghost. And this is a great part of what is contained in this Treatise of Origen's, which sufficiently shows it to be of great use. There is nevertheless one passage which may create a great deal of difficulty to those that read it: For he therein affirms, That we ought to address our Prayers only to God the Father, and not to Jesus Christ; because the Son of God being different from the Father, 'tis absurd to direct our Prayers to him. This expression is very harsh, and difficult to excuse: yet we may say, That he would have us address our Prayers to the Father alone, for fear we might seem to acknowledge several Gods; and that when he says, That Jesus Christ is an Essence different from the Father, he takes the term Essence for Pers●n. And indeed he owns in several other places, and principally in the fifth and eighth Book against Celsus▪ That we may and aught to direct our Prayers to Jesus Christ. Be the thing as it will, it cannot be denied but that he has asserted in this place several Propositions favourable to the Opinion of the Arians, on which it is difficult to put a good Construction.  
There is nothing more for me to do, to complete all that relates to Origen, than to give an Account of the Quarrels and Disputes which arose in the Church after his Death, upon the Accounted of his Person and his Writings: But this not being a Subject which any ways relates to the Design which I have proposed in this Work, I do not think it necessary to engage myself in this Relation, which otherwise would be but of very little use.   

AMBROSE and TRYPHON, Disciples of ORIGEN.  
AMBROSE would not have deserved to be reckoned amongst the Ecclesiastical Authors, had he not been Origen's Friend, and contributed very much to the Publishing of his Works, 
Ambrose and Tryphon.  both by furnishing him with amanuensis, and by continually pressing him to his Work. He had been a Marcionite, and though he was converted, yet he retained some of his Errors, (i● we believe St. Hierom.) However he was ordained Deacon, and generously confessed the Faith of Jesus Christ, with Theoctistus the Priest in the time of the Emperor Maximus. He was a Person of Quality, and wanted not Parts, which he shown in some of his Letters to Origen, that were extant in St. Hierom's time, but now are all lost. He died before Origen, and S. Hierom says that he was blamed because, though he died Rich, yet he left nothing to his Friend, who was Poor.  
Tryphon who was likewise Origen's Disciple, and who had written some Letters to him, was looked upon in St. Hierom's time as a Man very well versed in the Learning of the Sacred Scripture, which still appears, says this Father, by several Works which he had composed; but more particularly by a Treatise concerning the Red Heifer in the 19th Chapter of Numbers, and upon the Division of the Sacrifices made by Abraham in the 15th Chapter of Genesss: From whence it appears, that Origen's Disciples following their Master's Genius, applied themselves wholly to Allegories.  
[It is most probable, that Tryphon's Commentaries, are, in imitation of his Master Origen's, Allegorical; yet it is only probable, at least, for any thing, that M. Du Pin has to say against it: and when things are lost, to determine concerning them positively, is only beating the Air; and though we ourselves know how little weigh● can be laid upon our words beyond conjecture, yet it may lead others into mistakes, who think we can prove what we say, though we do not.]   

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

Saint CYPRIAN.  
SAaint Cyprian 
a Saint Cyprian.] His own Name was Thascius, as appears by the Letter to Pipin, and the Acts of his Passion.  was by Birth an African, and taught Rhetoric with great Reputation 
b Before he turned Christian.] This is all we are able to say of what concerned him before his Conversion, because Pontius the Deacon in his Life, and St. Jerome in his Catalogue tells us no more of him. What Baronius has cited, taken out of the Oration of St. Gregory Nazianzen, concerning one St. Cyprian a Martyr, does not belong to our Bishop of Carth●ge: 'Tis commonly believed that St. Gregory speaks of another St. Cyprian, but 'tis a great deal more probable, that the Greeks, who knew but little of what passed in the West, feigned these Circumstances in the Life of St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage▪ as it was a familiar thing with them to adorn and set off the Lives of Saints, with several uncertain and fabulous Narrations.  before he was a Christian. 
c He was Converted.] His Conversion might happen towards the Year 246. Having been Baptised at Easter or at Whitsuntide, he writ his Letter to Donatus in Autumn. He tells us in his 59th Letter to Cornelius, which was written in the Year 252, that it was four years since he had been made a Bishop. Thus he was Bishop 10 years. He calls Donatus his Predecessor.  He was converted by the Persuasion of a Priest called Cecilius, 
St, Cyprian  from whom he took afterwards his Surname. From the time that he was a Catechumen, he made a resolution within himself to live continently, believing, as his Deacon Pontius tells us, who has written his Life, that it was almost impossible otherwise to come to the Knowledge of the Truth. Presently after he was Baptised, he sold all his Goods to assist the Poor. He was afterwards ordained Priest, and after the Death of Donatus Bishop of Carthage, he was elected Bishop in his Place, in the Year 248, 
d The Year 248.] The Persecution under Decius began at the end of the Year 249, or else at the beginning of the Year 250.  by the Suffrages of the Clergy, and the People of Carthage, and the Choice was confirmed by a great Number of Bishops, who were then assembled in that City. The Persecution of Decius beginning two Years or thereabouts, after his Ordination; the Heathens being enraged because he encouraged his People to stand firm to the Religion of Jesus Christ, demanded him several times in a full Theatre, to expose him to the Wild Beasts. And this obliged him to retire from Carthage, according to the Command which he believed he had received from God in a Vision. In this Retreat he wrote several Letters to his People, his Clergy, the Confessors, and the Clergy of Rome, of which we may see a Catalogue, with an Account of their Subjects in the Sequel of this History. When the Fury of the Persecution abated, St. Cyprian came back to Carthage, and called a Council there the 15th of May, in the Year 251, wherein he, with the Bishops his Colleagues, regulated whatever related to the Penance of those who had fallen in the time of Persecution, either by taking Tickets or Testimonials from the Magistrates, certifying that they had committed Idolatry; or by offering Incense publicly upon the Altars of their Gods, or by eating the Meat which was Sacrificed to them. For the first they ordained that they should be reconciled; but for the Latter, they judged it necessary to leave them still under Penance, and not allow them Reconciliation till they became dangerously sick, provided also that they had begun to do Penance beforethey fell sick. For as for those who stayed till they were seized by some desperate Distemper, before they desired to undergo their Penance, it was thought expedient wholly to refuse them Absolution, because then, says St. Cyprian, 'Tis not so much their Sorrow for their Sin, as the Fear of Death that obliges them to desire it. Quia eos non tam Delecti Penitentia, quam Mortis Admonitio petere compellit. As for those ecclesiastics, who had fallen into Idolatry, it was ordained that they should for ever be excluded from the Clergy, that they should communicate no more with the Faithful but as Laymen, and that even some of them should be obliged to undergo the Severities of Penance. They Excommunicated Felicissimus and those of his Party, who had disturbed the Tranquillity of the Church of Carthage, in St. Cyprian's Absence. Perhaps it was at this Synod that Privatus, a Heretic of the Colony of Lambesa, presented himself, who had been already Condemned in a Synod of Ninety Bishops, and seeing himself so far rejected, that they would not so much as hear him make his Defence, embraced the Party of Felicissimus. The Council, after they had made these Regulations, wrote a Synodal Letter to Cornelius, lately Elected Bishop of Rome, who assembled likewise a Synod of Sixty Bishops and several Priests, who followed the Rules of the African Council in the ordering of public Penance, and Excommunicated Novatian, who joining himself to Novatus, refused the Grace of Reconciliation to those Persons, who had once fallen into any Sin, and caused himself to be ordained Bishop of Rome, in opposition to Cornelius, by three Bishops, whose Credulity and Easiness he had abused in this Matter. This for a time made a kind of a Schism in Rome, for Novatian drew to his Party, not only some Priests, but also the Confessors who were ready to suffer Martyrdom. The Heads of both Parties being desirous to obtain the Favour of St. Cyprian, and of the other African Bishops, wrote Letters to them, and sent their Deputies into afric. But Novatian's were received very ill, and the African Bishops, who had for some time suspended their Judgement, and ceased to send Letters of Communion to either of the two Parties, till they were informed of the Matter by two of their own Brethren, whose Names were Caldonius and Fortunatus, whom they had dispatched to Rome on purpose to learn the true State of the whole Affair: after they were fully instructed by them, and two other African Bishops, who were present at the Ordination of Cornelius, after what manner he had been ordained, decided it in Favour of him, and sent him Letters of Communion, having first confirmed the Judgement he had passed against Novatian in Italy. The Judgement of the Church in afric, and the Eloquent Letters of St. Cyprian, brought the Confessors of the Roman Church over to Cornelius' Party. Thus the Novatians finding themselves cried down in Italy, to be revenged upon St. Cyprian, raised Disturbances in afric, where they caused one Maximus, a Deputy of Novatian, to be chosen Bishop; and on the other side, Felicissimus the Deacon, an Enemy to St. Cyprian, got Privatus of Lambesa, whom we have already mentioned, to ordain, in opposition to him, one whose Name was Fortunatus, and afterwards came into Italy, to get his Ordination ratified there by Cornelius, and by the rest of the Italian Bishops, pretending that this Fortunatus had been ordained by five and twenty Bishops, and that St. Cyprian favoured the Party of the Novatians. Cornelius immediately rejected Felicissimus, and those of his Faction, but at last being either frighted by their Menaces, or else shaken by their Discourses, he entertained some Suspicions to the Prejudice of St. Cyprian, and writ to him after a very disobliging manner; to this the Saint returned a vigorous Answer, exposing his Weakness, and acquainting him with the Malice of his Enemies.  
In the mean time, while Felicissimus endeavoured to create a Misunderstanding between St. Cyprian and Cornelius, that Holy Man assembled a Council of Sixty six Bishops at Carthage in April, in the Year 252, wherein some Ecclesiastical Regulations were made concerning a certain Priest, whose Name was Victor, whom his Bishop had received to Grace contrary to the Decision of the Council, and also concerning the Baptism of Infants. About the same time he opposed one Fortunatianus a Bishop, who still held his Bishopric, though he had Sacrificed to Idols, and offered to reconcile those, who after they had held out for some time, at last yielded to the violence of Torments, and who had undergone Penance for this their Transgression three whole Years.  
St. Cyprian after this, having had several Revelations, which inclined him to believe that the Church was to be Persecuted within a short time, was of Opinion, that in order to prepare the Christians for this new Assault, it would be necessary to fortify them with the Eucharist, and to that Effect, to reconcile them to the Church. So in the Year 253, he assembled a Council of several Bishops, who were all of the same Judgement, and signified their Resolution to Pope Cornelius, that he might use the same Conduct in his own Church. Soon after happened the Persecution of Gallus. Pope Cornelius was sent into Banishment, and suffered Martyrdom the very same Year. Lucius, who succeeded him, was immediately banished, from whence he returned after the Death of Gallus, in the beginning of the Year 254; but he did not long enjoy the Comforts of Peace, but suffered Martyrdom, after he had held the See of Rome for the space of Eight Months only. Stephen was elected in his Place towards the End of that Year, or the beginning of the next. Under this Pope the celebrated Dispute about the Validity of the Baptism of Heretics was warmly discussed between the Churches of Africa and Rome. St. Cyprian being consulted in the Year 255 by Januarius, and the other Bishops of Numidia, whether it was necessary to re-baptize those, who after they had been Baptised by Heretics, desired to be reunited to the Church, returned this Answer, as did several African Bishops assembled in Council, that no Baptism could be valid out of the Church; that it was absolutely necessary to Rebaptize those who had received the Baptism of Heretics; and in one Word, that this Question had been already decided by the African Bishops their Predecessors. Quintus having also sent the same Demand to St. Cyprian, he made the same Answer, and sent him the Decision of this Synod, which was moreover confirmed in another African Council held in 256, which wrote to Stephen about it, to exhort him to embrace this Discipline But he was so far from submitting to the Reason of the Africans, whether because he imagined they had a Design to condemn the Roman Church, or because he thought this Question was of too great Consequence, that he was enraged against St. Cyprian and his Colleagues, and used their Deputies ill: Nay, he prohibited all Christians belonging to his Church, to receive or lodge them, depriving them not only of Ecclesiastical Communion, but also refusing them the common Civilities of Hospitality. The Letter he writ back was full of Injuries and Invectives, and his Decision was comprised in these Terms: If any one comes to you, of whatsever Heresy he is, let there not be made the least Alteration in what has been regulated by Tradition, but only impose Hands upon him, and so receive him. This Letter being brought into afric, St. Cyprian moved at the Proceed of Stephen, sent his Letter, with a Refutation of it, not only to Pompey of afric, but als to Fermilian, and the other Bishops of Cappadocia, who were all of the same Opinion with St. Cyprian, touching the Baptism of Heretics. Firmilian having received it, writ a long Letter, wherein he amply refutes the Opinion and Letter of Stephen, and establishes the Discipline which St. Cyprian defended; saying, It had been observed in his Country by an immemorial Custom, and confirmed in two numerous Synods held at Iconium and Synnada. As soon as St. Cyprian had received this Letter, he assembled a Synod at Carthage, in which the Letter he had writ to Jubaianus upon this Question was openly read, and all the Bishops gave their Suffrages in favour of St. Cyprian's Opinion: Thus I have delivered in a few Words, the History of this famous Quarrel between two great Bishops, both of whom the Church still reuerences as Saints.  
However, If I may be allowed to make some Reflections upon their Opinions and Conduct, I shall not scruple to observe after St. Austin, that St. Cyprian shown a great deal more Moderation in this Dispute, and that we can by no means excuse that Heat and Passion which so far transported Stephen: For though the first maintained his Opinion vigorously, yet he did it with abundance of Candour, and always declared he would leave other Bishops the Liberty to do as they judged convenient, and openly professed he would separate himself from the Communion of no body upon the score of this Controversy, Neminem separantes, said he often, aut a Communione submoventes. Whereas on the other hand, Pope Stephen not only asserted his Opinion with a world of Heat and Rigour, but also treated those Bishops unworthily, who followed a Practice different from his own, calling them false Christians, false Apostles, and Seducers, and refusing their Deputies not only the Communion of the Church, but even Lodging and Hospitality. As for what respects the Merits of the Cause, though 'tis commonly believed that the Pope had the Truth on his Side, yet there is sufficient reason to doubt whether he did not in the heat of his Opposition to St. Cyprian, carry things too far on the other side, and whether the Opinion of St, Austin, which the Church has since embraced, That we ought to receive those Persons without Baptism, who have been baptised by Heretics in the Name of the Trinity, and to re-baptize those who have not been baptised according to that Form: Whether this Opinion, I say, does not steer the middle Course between Stephen's, 
f Between that of Stephen, who seems to have maintained] What induces us to believe that Stephen was of this Opinion, is in the first place, because he make no distinction at all, but says plainly, à quacunque Heresi. Secondly, Because St. Cyprian and Firmilian takes Stephen's Words in this sense; now who can imagine that they would have engaged themselves in a Dispute, without so much as knowing the Opinion of their Adversary. Thirdly, There were scarce any Heretics before Stephen, who Baptised in the Name of the Trinity, so that it had been only a Chimerical Question about a thing which had never been practised, to dispute whether it were necessary to Re-baptize those who had been Baptised in the Name of the Trinity by Heretics, since there were almost no Heretics that used to Baptise after that manner. Fourthly, The ancient Author of a small Book written against the Opinion of St. Cyprian, makes more mention of this Distinction of Heretics, but generally approves all Baptism whatever given in the Name of Jesus Christ. Fifthly, St. Augustin never citys Stephen's Decree for his Opinion; on the other hand, he opposes the Opinion of Stephen and St. Cyprian. and in his sixth Book de unico Bapt. c. 14. he tells us Stephen maintained that no body was to be rebaptized, in nullo iterandum Baptisma. There are several other Reasons which I pass over in silence.  who seems to have maintained that all those who had been baptised by Heretics should be received without Rebaptisation, which way soever they were baptised, â quacumque heresi, and St. Cyprian's, who asserted that all such aught to be rebaptized. Be it as it will, 'tis certain 
g St. Cyprian never altered his Opinion.] There is not the least probability that St. Cyprian altered his Opinion. In the time of the Council of Arles, the Africans still continued this Practice, and in Optatus' time they distinguished between Heretics and Schismatics, receiving the latter without Baptism, but Rebaptising the former.  that St. Cyprian never altered his Opinion; that the Greek Churches were for a long time after him 
h Divided upon this Question.] Denis of Alexandria in Eusebius testifies that the Eastern Churches were divided upon this Question. St. Athanasius rejects the Baptism of Heretics. St. Basil in two Canons of his Letter to Amphilochius examines the different Customs of several Churches about this Question, and inclines to the Party of those who reject the Baptism of Heretics as invalid.  divided upon this Question; that the Council of Arles 
i First decided it in the West.] The Council of Arles, 1. c. 8. De Afris qui propriâ lege utuntur ut Re-baptizent.  first decided it in the West; that it is not unprobable that this was the Council which St. Austin 
k Calls the full Council.] This Question has been discussed with mighty Heat in our time, though it be but of small importance. It is certain that the Council of Arles has decided it agreeably to the Opinion of St. Austin, and that the Africans gave the Name of a full Council to Councils consisting of more than one Province, as was that of Arles. However it is, the Council of Nice has not decided this Question, but only ordained that the Paulianists should be rebaptized. Now it is not certain whether they Baptised in the Name of the Trinity or no: And St. Athanasius himself seems to affirm the contrary; besides that, though they had not Baptised in the Name of the Trinity, yet we cannot say that this Council has determined the Question.  calls the full Council, which first decided this Controversy; that St. Austin followed its Decision, and proves it at large in his Books against the Donatists; that the Western Church has embraced this Opinion, and that though 
l The Eastern Churches.] Those of the East did not make use of St. Austin's Distinction either in the Council of Constantinople, or in the Council that was held in the Emperor's Palace; but they distinguished between three sorts of Heretics. Those that were to be rebaptized as the Paulianists, and the ancient Heretics, together with the Eunomians and Sabellians, who did not observe three Immersions. Secondly, Those that were to be anointed, such as were the Arians, the Macedonians, the Novatians, the Quarto decimani, and the Apollinarians: And lastly, those who had nothing more to do than barely to make an Abjuration, as the Eutychians, the Nestorians, the Severians, the Acephali, and the Monothelites.  the Eastern Churches have not agreed with her absolutely in this Point, yet they always made a distinction between Heretics, and differently received them, It would be no difficult matter to justify all this; but as this is no proper place to discuss this Question, so it would carry us too far from our Subject. The Reader need only consult our Annotations, to be better satisfied.  
To complete what remains of St. Cyprian's Life, it would be necessary here to transcribe the ancient Acts of his Passion, and what his Deacon Pontius has related concerning it; but the Description of his Martyrdom does not concern the Subject or Design of this Work; and therefore I shall only observe, that towards the beginning of Valerian's Persecution, in the Year 257, on the 30th of August, he was banished to Curubis, a City about ten or twelve Leagues distant from Carthage, by the Command of Aspasius Paternus, the Proconsul; that after he had tarried there eleven Months, he was re-called by the Proconsul Galerius Maximus, who confined him to his own Gardens near Carthage; that being informed that the Proconsul had sent some Soldiers to seize and carry him to Utica, he retired inlo a private Place, that he might not suffer Martyrdom out of his own Church, or after any other manner than in the Presence of his own People; and that at last being come back again to his Gardens, after the Proconsul's return to Carthage, he was apprehended, and carried before him; where after he had generously made Profession of the Christian Faith, he had his Head cut off in a Place called Sexti, near the City of Carthage, on the 14th of September, in the Year 258, under the Consulship of Tuscus and Bassus.  
The first 
m The first Letter.] 'Tis rather a Treatise than a Letter, but all St. Cyprian's Works were called Letters, as it appears by Ruffinus in his Apology. St. Pacian calls the Book de Lapsis, a Letter, Ep. 3. ad Sempronianum. St. Austin likewise not only calls the Treatise to Donatus but the Book of Unity, the Treatise of Zeal and Envy by this Name; and in some other places he gives the Title of the Book to the Letters. It is an easy matter however to distinguish the Letters from the Treatises; We leave the Treatise to Donatus amongst the Letters, though is is a Treatise.  Letter which St. Cyprian writ to Donatus, contains a Relation of a Conference he had with that Friend a little after his Baptism: wherein after he has spoke of the marvellous Effects of that Sacrament, he eloquently lays open the Perils we run in this World, the Crimes and Injustices that are there committed, and afterwards showing the Excellence and Happiness of those Persons who consecrate themselves to the Service of God; he exhorts his Friend to live a retired Life, to renounce the World, and to apply himself diligently to Reading and Praying. This Letter, which we are to consider as the First-fruits of St. Cyprian's Works, is written in a very gay florid Style, by no means suitable to the Matter in hand, as St. Austin observes in his Book of the Christian Doctrine; adding, That this Martyr did not follow the same manner of Writing in his other Letters, but that he took up a more masculine and graver way of Writing, and which was more becoming a Christian. These Letters are divided according to the Order of Time 
n Into five Classes.] In the English Edition before the other Letters of St. Cyprian, we find four that are said to have been written before his Retirement, but they bring no Proofs or Conjectures strong enough to support this Opinion, and therefore we had better own that we cannot tell when they were written.  into five Classes: The first comprehends those which he wrote in his first Exile. The second those which he wrote under the Pontificate of the two Popes, Cornelius and Lucius. The third, those which he wrote under the Pontificate of Stephen. The fourth those which he wrote during his last Exile, towards his latter End. The fifth, those of which we cannot set down the precise time when they were written, which are but few. But besides this general Order, which it is easy to observe, we are to take notice what Letters follow each other immediately, and this indeed has been attempted by Pamelius, but with very little Success. The Order he has followed, has been reform by a Learned Person, who has translated St. Cyprian's Letters into our Language, in the Preface which he sets before his Translation. And lastly, He that published a new Edition of St. Cyprian in England, has disposed them in a new Order, according to the Series of Time. We shall follow either of them as we see convenient.  
The first of those Letters that were written in the first Exile of St. Cyprian, in all probability is that which is the fourth in Pamelius' Edition, addressed to his Clergy, that is to say, to his Priests and Deacons, wherein he exhorts them to acquit themselves in his Absence of their own Functions and his, so that nothing may be defective in relation to Order and Discipline: He recommends to their Care those Christians who were imprisoned for the Religion of Jesus Christ, to assist them in their Necessities, and to advise the Christians not to go in Multitudes to the Prisons, for fear of provoking the Pagans; that the Priests, who went to offer the Sacrifice of the Altar in Prison, should go thither each in their Turns, along with a Deacon; and lastly, that the Christians should accommodate themselves to the Times, and take care, as much as in them lay, to soften the Rigour of the Persecution.  
[What Du Pin renders to offer the Sacrifice of the Altar in St. Cyprian, is only to offer. It is well enough known that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was called a Sacrifice, the Lord's Table an Altar, and the Administration Offering, in St. Cyprian's Time; and it has been as often proved by all that have given an Account of the Belief of the Fathers in this Matter, That their Opinion was widely distant from that of the Church of Rome in this Point.]  
This first Letter was soon followed by another, mentioned by him in his sixth Epistle, wherein he commends the Confessors for their Courage, and exhorts them to do nothing unworthy of such glorious beginnings. Monsieur Lombert is of Opinion that it is lost, whereas the Editor of the English pretends that it is the eighty first Letter which Pamelius supposes to have been written during his last Exile; but it is more probable that this Letter was written in his first, because he there excuses his Absence, which he would never have done in his last, where he was 
o Detained against his Will.] The Five and thirtieth Letter is placed after this, in the Edition lately put out in England, but it seems to me to have been written towards the end of the Persecution, because he there speaks of his Return. We are to pass the same Judgement upon the Sixth, and Seventh, and the fifth, which were all written at the same time.  detained against his Will.  
It happened at this time, that a Subdeacon of Carthage, named Clementius, who had gone to Rome towards the beginning of the Persecution, came back to Carthage, bringing two Letters with him from the Clergy of Rome, during the Vacancy of that See by the Death of Fabian: One of them was directed to St. Cyprian, and gave him Intelligence of the Martyrdom of Fabian Bishop of Rome; the other was addressed to the Clergy of Carthage, exhorting them to take care of the Flock of Jesus Christ in the Absence of their Pastor, and encouraging the Faithful to continue steadfast in the Faith of Jesus Christ, and to raise up those who had the Misfortune to fall; to look after the Prisoners, the Needy, the Widows, and Catechumen; to reconcile the relapsed Penitents at their Death to the Church, and to bury the Budies of the Martyrs. It reproached the Pastors who abandoned their Flock in the time of Persecution; which Passage seems indirectly to condemn St. Cyprian's Retreat. This Letter is the second in the Order of Pamelius.  
St. Cyprian answered this Letter of the Roman Clergy, by congratulating them for the glorious Martyrdom of St. Fabian; and having received a Copy of the Letter which the Clergy of Rome had writ to his, though it was both without Inscription and Subscription, yet he sent to Rome to know whether this Letter was really writ by the Clergy of that City, giving them to understand that he was concerned at their seeming to disapprove his Retreat: This is the third Letter. Some time after this, the Proconsul coming to Carthage, persecuted the Christians after a cruel manner, causing some of the Prisoners to be put to Death, and among the rest, Mappalicus, who suffered Martyrdom on the 17th day of April. St. Cyprian being informed of this, made use of their Example to encourage the other Confessors to imitate their Constancy and Generosity: and this he did in the 8th Letter. At the same time also he writ the 36th, addressed to his own Clergy, to whose Care he recommends the Confessors that were in Prison, requiring them to inter the Bodies of those who died there, to reverence them as Martyrs, and to send him word of the Day of their Death, that he might offer Sacrifices in remembrance of them. Some of the Christians being then returned home from their Exile, without receiving Orders to do it, St. Cyprian writ a Letter to them, which is the 8th according to Pamelius' Account, wherein he takes occasion to blame their Conduct.  
[Mr. Dodwell, in his 5th Dissertation upon St. Cyprian, tells us what kind of Sacrifices these are: They could not be offered as Propitiations, because the Church believed the Martyrs were already Blessed. They were only Anniversary Celebrations of the Memory of the Martyrdom of those who suffered so gloriously for the Faith. Thus all the Saints were also remembered in the Diptyches of the Church: Thus the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, and the Blessed Virgin herself, though no Man ever thought they could stand in need of the Prayers of the Faithful. But the Christians were careful, even in the most Primitive Times, to pay all possible Honours to the Memories of those who made a glorious Confession of the Faith. The Acts of St. Polycarp's Martyrdom, which are the oldest we have, show how solicitous the Christians of Smyrna were to have his Ashes, not to worship them, as they themselves declare, but by paying the last Respect to them that was possible, to show how willing they should have been to suffer in the same Cause, if they had had an equal Call. Nay, all Christians that died in the Communion of the Church, had in those early Ages some Honours paid to them after their Death. Therefore St. Cyprian commanded that no Honour should be paid to Geminius Victor, because he had left Geminius Faustinus, a Priest, his Executor by his Will: And so Du Pin's Words, when he speaks of this Business afterwards, are to be understood; for the same Phrases are used, when he speaks of the Commemoration of Martyr's Aniversaries, and of this of Geminius Victor there forbidden.]  
The Persecution that still continued, as it augmented the Number of Martyrs, so it augmented the Number of the Lapsed, that is to say, of those Christians who were so weak as to deny the Faith of Jesus Christ, and offer Incense to Idols, or else such as, to avoid Persecution, got Certificates or Attestations under the Hands of some Judge, to certify that they had sacrificed. Now those who had once fallen away, being thrown out of the Church, and excluded from Communion, addressed themselves to the Martyrs, whose Credit and Authority in the Church at that time was extraordinary, who gave them Tickets, wherein they desired that they might be admitted to Reconciliation. They writ to St. Cyprian on the same account, praying him to take this their Desire into consideration, and to receive these Persons whom they recommended, whenever the Church should be in Peace. But some of them happening to abuse these Tickets of the Martyrs, demanded to be reconciled immediately, and addressing themselves to Felicissimus, and some other Priests, who were Enemies to St. Cyprian, received Absolution from their Hands. St. Cyprian being informed of these irregular Proceed, after he had continued some time in silence, writ a Letter full of Zeal and Earnestness to his Priests and Deacons (this is the ninth) wherein he severely reproves the Priests, who forgetting their Rank, and the Duty they owed their Bishop, had rashly absolved those who had fallen into Idolaty. He reproaches them with deceiving the Faithful, inasmuch as they reconciled them before they had done Penance for their Transgression: He remonstrates to them, that if in Sins of less Scandal and Consequence, it is necessary to undergo public Penance for some considerable time, before the Party offending is readmitted into the Church, by Imposition of Hands from the Bishop and Clergy, it is a strange perverting of Discipline, to admit these to the Communion, who, though they have shamefully denied the Faith of Jesus Christ, and sacrificed to Idols, yet have undergone no Penance for their Crime, nor received the Imposition of Hands of the Bishop and Priests; that as for the Martyrs, they were excusable, because they did not know the Law; but that those who gave them this false Reconciliation were highly to be blamed: That it was a scandalous thing for ecclesiastics to abuse the easy Temper of the Martyrs, whom they rather ought to have dissuaded, in case they requested any thing which was contrary to the Discipline of the Church, but that indeed the Martyrs had demanded nothing like it, since they only writ to him to grant the Favour of Reconciliation to those, to whom they had given Tickets, when the Persecution should cease. At last he threatens some of his Clergy who had shown themselves rash, indiscreet, and presumptuous upon this Occasion, if they continued in their Obstinacy, to forbid them to Offer, till such time as they gave an account of their Behaviour before himself, and the Confessors, and the Congregation of the Faithful. He writ likewise at the same time to the Confessors, to advise them not to be so free of their Tickets, or give them to all Petitioners, but to inform themselves better of the Character of those Persons, to whom they designed this Indulgence; and then dissuades the People from soliciting their Admission into the Church with so much Precipitation, by making them sensible that a rash Absolution was so far from appeasing God's Anger, that it would rather draw his Vengeance down upon them. These Letters are the Tenth and Eleventh.  
His Clergy returning him no Answer, obliged him to write a second Letter to them, wherein, after he has complained of their Silence, he gives the Priests and Deacons leave to reconcile those, who having fallen into Idolatry, had received Tickets from the Martyrs when they were dying; and Order them to Baptise the Catechumen that were in danger. This Letter is the Twelfth in Pamelius' Order, and was written towards the beginning of the Summer 250. His Clergy sending him word, that they did not fail to advise those that had fallen, not to be over hasty, but to undergo Penance; and yet, notwithstanding all the Remonstrances they made, there was some amongst them who daily pressed them; he answered as he did before in his former Letter, that they ought to reconcile those who had received Tickets from the Martyrs, when they were dangerously Sick; but that others, though they had received Tickets, aught to wait till the Bishops could assemble to fix this Business, by common Consent. This Letter is the Thirteenth.  
About this time having received Information, That the Letter, a Copy whereof he had by him, without any Subscription,, came from the Clergy of Rome, he writ to them to justify his Retreat, and give them an Account of the Pastoral Care he had of his Flock, all the while he was absent. This he does in his Fourteenth Letter, wherein he at large acquaints the Clergy of Rome with all that had passed upon the Occasion of the Lapsed; and tells them of the Resolution he had taken conformable to theirs, not to give Absolution to those that had fallen, except they were in danger of Death, till such time as several Bishops could meet to deliberate upon the Affair, by communicating the same to other Churches.  
At the same time Celerinus, a Confessor at Rome, writ a Letter to Lucian, a Confessor at Carthage, wherein he desires him to pray to God for his Sister, who having fallen away in the Persecution, was enjoined Penance: This is the Twentieth. Lucian sends him word again, that he had reconciled all those who had fallen, pursuant to the Order he had received from the Martyr Paul, but upon condition that they would apply themselves to their Bishop, and do public Penance for their Fault: This is the Twenty first Letter; and indeed this Lucian had given Tickets in the Name of Paul and Mappalicus, to all the Lapsed, who presented themselves before him, after he was informed of the Penance they had done after their Fall, and had writ to St. Cyprian, desiring him to acquaint the Bishops with it: This Letter is the Fifteenth. St. Cyprian having received it, sent word immediately to his Clergy, that since the Demand of the Confessors concerned all the Bishops, he durst not prevent them, or take upon himself the Decision of a Matter, wherein all his Brethren had a Share; that therefore he would not reconcile the Penitents till Peace was restored to the Church, and he had the Advice of the rest of his Brethren: This Letter is the Seventeenth. At the same time he sent a Copy of a Letter of a certain Bishop named Caldonius, who was of the same Opinion with himself, as to the Reconciliation of those that had fallen, together with his own Answer to it. These two Letters are the Eighteenth and Nineteenth. At this Juncture arrived Letters from Rome, one from the Clergy, the other from Moses, Maximus, Nicostratus, and the other Confessors,  
The first is addressed to the Clergy, the second to Sturninus, Aurelius, and some other Persons. The Scope and Design of both, is to exhort those that had fallen into Idolatry, not to use over much haste in getting themselves reconciled, but to wait a sufficient time to undergo a true Penance. These Letters that were full of an Evangelical Spirit, rejoiced St. Cyprian exceedingly, and secured him from the Complaints that were made against him. He thought himself therefore obliged to thank the Clergy and Confessors of Rome in two Letters, which he wrote to them. In that directed to the Clergy, the 22d in order, he gives them an Account of all that had happened in Lucian's Affair, he complains of the Rashness of that Man, and tells them very properly to this Subject, That the Martyrs don't make the Gospel, but the Gospel the Martyrs.  
In the other, which he sent to the Confessors (the 24) he commends their Zeal exceedingly, and tells them, That to be true Martyrs, we ought always to observe an inviolable Sanctity in our Words, and not to destroy the Precepts of JESUS CHRIST, when we pretend to die for him. He ordained Satyrus' a Reader, and Optatus a Sub-deacon to carry these Letters, because it was the Custom of Bishops in those days to send their Letters by none but Clergymen. He acquainted his Clergy with this Ordination in his 25th Letter, and sent them a Copy of the Letters he writ to Rome, and excused himself for being obliged to do this Business in the Absence of his Clergy. The Clergy of Rome being fully informed of St. Cyprian's Conduct, sent him a Letter of Novatian's composing, full of Esteem and Respect, which was brought him by Optatus and Satyrus'. They acknowledged, that though St. Cyprian being assured by the Testimony of his own Conscience, was therefore under no 
p Celerinus the Confessor.] These Letters are placed in this Year, because it is not unlikely that they were written some time after the Persecution was begun. This of Celerinus was written after Easter.  great Necessity to justify himself; yet he deserved, however, abundance of Commendation, for desiring that his Actions might be approved by his Brethren; that if he had communicated his Resolutions to them, it was not because they were his Judges, but only that they might partake the Glory of it with him, by supporting and authorising them, as they do in the 30th Letter, wherein they declare, that they were of St. Cyprian's Opinion, That it was necessary to tarry till Peace were restored to the Church, that so the Advice of the Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Confessors, who continued firm to the Church might be consulted, before they regulated a Matter of that great Importance: That as for themselves and their Neighbours, they would determine nothing till they had a Bishop: That in the mean time they deferred to give those Persons Absolution who were able to tarry; but as for those who were in danger of Death, and had given sufficient Marks of a sincere Repentance, and unfeigned Sorrow, they looked upon themselves obliged to relieve them in that Necessity, leaving to God the Judgement of those Persons. This Letter is writ with a World of Elegance and Politeness, and abounds with admirable thoughts upon the retarding of Absolution, and also upon that Penance that is necessary to satisfy God. Let those People, say they, who, by reason of their Crimes, have deserved to be ejected out of the Church, knock at the Gates, but not break them open; Let them come to the Church-Porch, but let them go no farther: Let them demand Peace and Absolution, but let it be with Modesty, Humility, Patience, and Submission: Let their Tears and their Sighs intercede for them, and testify the real Sorrow they have for their Sins.  
The Confessors of Rome likewise returned an Answer to St. Cyprian at the same time. Their Letter, which is the 25th, though not so polite as the former, is equally Learned. They thank St. Cyprian for the Letter he sent them, and assure him they received no small Satisfaction and Comfort from it; they looked upon the Condition of those Persons who had suffered Martyrdom to be extremely happy, since they went directly to Heaven, and thought themselves to be unfortunate, because they were deprived of that Blessing. They commend St. Cyprian for his great Vigilance over his Flock, though he was constrained by Necessity to be absent from it. In short, they were of Opinion, that Penitents ought not to be admitted to Reconciliation, before the Church was in a State of Tranquillity, showing how necessary Repentance is to blot out our Transgressions, and how dangerous it is to close up a Wound before it be throughly healed.  
These Letters being mighty advantageous to St. Cyprian's Affairs, he dispatched a Copy of them to his Clergy, with Orders to show them to the Faithful of Carthage, and to the Bishops that were Strangers, as we find in the 31st Letter: But notwithstanding all this Advice, the Lapsi, in a full Body, writ a Letter to St. Cyprian in the Church's Name, wherein they demanded of him to grant them reconciliation, as being a thing they might justly claim, pretending that Paul the Martyr had given it to all of them before he died. St. Cyprian sent them word, in the 26th Letter, that the Church consisting only of the Bishop and Clergy, and all the Laics who continued firm and steadfast, he wondered how they durst be so bold, as to write to him in the Name of the Church, and demand Reconciliation of him as a thing that was their Due, instead of writing to him after a submissive manner, as some had done before, who, though they had received Tickets from the Martyrs, yet humbly signified to him, that they acknowledged their Fault, that they were hearty sorry for it, and were by no means urgent to receive the Peace of the Church: That he desired them therefore, for the time to come, to let him know precisely what they requested, and to send him their Names, that he might know what to do. He wrote also the 27th Letter to the Clergy, to inform them, that if any of his Priests and Deacons, or else any Stranger should be so presumptuous, as to communicate with the Lapsi, before that Affair were solemnly decided, he declared him to be cut off from Communion. He commends them for separating themselves from Caius a Presbyter of Didda, and his Deacon, who communicated with Apostates, though they had been twice reprimanded by the Bishops; and declares, That he will not judge the Cause of Philumenus and Fortunatus the Deacons, and of Favorinus the Acolyth, who had withdrawn themselves in the Heat of Persecution, but that they must tarry till his return before he examined their Cause, not only with his Colleagues, but also with the People; that in the mean time he would have them deprived of the Distribution that was given to the Clergy, though in such a manner, as should not do any Prejudice to the Merits of their Cause. He afterwards, in his 28th Letter, acquaints the Clergy of Rome with all that he had regulated and done about those that had fallen; and they, for their part, return him a very obliging Letter, wherein they commend his Steadfastness, and condemn the Precipitation of those that were so eager to be reconciled to the Church; but at the same time they excused the Martyrs, who sent them to their Bishop. Towards the end of the Letter, they thank him for the Information he had given them concerning Privatus of Lambesa, and assure him that they think themselves obliged to show, that they are not indifferent in those things which relate to other Churches, because Pastors ought to watch in common for the Body of the whole Church, the several Parts of which are extended in many Provinces. This Letter is the 29th. Towards October, Celerinus of Africa, after he had generously confessed the Christian Faith at Rome, came back to Carthage; and going to find out St, Cyprian in his Retirement, comforted him exceedingly, by letting him know what an Affection Moses, and the other Confessors of Rome bore unto him. This obliged him to write another Letter to them, to acquaint them how sensibly he received their goodwill, and to encourage them to persevere in the Resolution they had taken upon them to die for JESUS CHRIST. This is the 17th Letter in the Order of Pamelius. It contains an admirable Commendation of Martyrdom; he observes in it, that it was almost a full Year since they were in Prison; but then endeavours to satisfy them, that their Recompense would be proportionable to the length of their Sufferings, and that immediately after their Martyrdom, they would receive the Happiness of enjoying GOD,. These Confessors, animated by this eloquent Letter, suffered Martyrdom soon after the Receipt of it.  
In December, St. Cyprian ordained the Readers, Aurelius and Celerinus, both of whom had confessed the Faith of JESUS CHRIST, and signified this Ordination immediately after to his Clergy and People, in his 32d and 33d Letters, wherein he excuses himself for having Ordained them before he had consulted his Church, because we need not stay for the Testimony of Men, when we have that of GOD. He gives them both an extraordinary Character for their Virtue, and the great Constancy they shown in suffering for the Christian Faith. He says, they deserved to be advanced to the highest Dignities of the Church, but that he judged it more convenient to Ordain them only Readers, because they were so very young: That in the mean time he designed to make them Priests; and therefore ordered them to give them their Distributions, as if they were so already. At the same time he associated Numidicus the Priest to his Clergy, who was as illustrious for the Strictness of his Virtue and Faith, as for the Glory of his Confession; for after he had, by his Exhortations, sent a great Number of Martyrs to GOD before him, who were either burnt or stoned to Death, and saw his Wife, whom he entirely loved, cast, amongst several others, into the Fire, with Joy, he himself was half burnt, bruised with Stones, and left for Dead. This is related in the 34th Letter, which was writ in his Favour.  
In the beginning of the Year 257, the Confessors that were in Prison at Carthage, being set at Liberty, some of them were licentious in their Behaviour. St. Cyprian being informed of it, writ two Letters, one to his Clergy, and the other to the Confessors. In the first, which is the 5th according to Pamelius' Order, he sends his Clergy word, that he earnestly desired to come back to Carthage, but that the time not permitting him to do it, he conjured them to supply his Absence, to have a particular Care of the Poor, and to exhort the Confessors not to lose the Honour of their glorious Confession by their Sins, but to suffer themselves to be governed by the Priests and Deacons; that as for himself, he could not regulate the Affairs of his Church alone, having obliged himself, when he was first made Bishop, to do nothing of his own Head, without the Advice of his Clergy, and the Consent of the People.  
In the Letter which he writ at the same time to the Confessors, he advises them to a strict Observance of the Discipline of the Church, lest otherwise they should seem to renounce JESUS CHRIST, by their irregular way of Living, whom they had confessed before with their Tongues. He commends those who behaved themselves discreetly, and vigorously reprehends the rest; he exhorts all Christians to live soberly, and to forsake all Vices, that so they may be perfectly changed, and become perfect, when Peace, which GOD promises to send in a short time, shall be restored to the Church. He gives the same Advice to his Clergy in the 7th Letter, where he tells them, that as the Persecution had been occasioned by the Corruptions of the Manners of the Christians, so it would be impossible to obtain a Cessation of it from GOD, by any other Means, than offering up Prayers to him in the Spirit of Union, and living a Virtuous Life. Soon after the writ the 35th Letter to his Clergy, wherein he assures them, that he passionately desired to come and see them, but that he was obliged to have a Regard to the Peace of the Church; and he was afraid that his Presence might exasperate the Pagans; that as soon as ever they sent him word that all was calm, and GOD should inform him of it, he would speedily repair to them, In the mean time he recommended the Poor to their Care, and sent some Money to Rogatianus the Priest, to supply their Necessities; as also to relieve Strangers, and those that were Sick.  
St. Cyprian being not in a Capacity at that time to go to Carthage, dispatched two Bishops, whose Names were Caldonius and Fortunatus, to relieve the Poor with Money, and to examine those Persons who were thought worthy to be chosen into Ecclesiastical Offices. Felicissimus, who had always caballed against St. Cyprian, and asserted, that it was necessary to admit those that had fallen into a Reconciliation, hindered these Alms and Examinations, as much as lay in his Power, and threatened to separate himself from those that should receive any thing, and obey their Bishop. After this, he retired to a Mountain, with those of his own Party, and declared himself their Head. St. Cyprian being informed of this Defection, writ to the two Bishops, signifying, that since Felicissimus had threatened to communicate no longer with those who were in his Place, he would deprive him, and all the rest of his Faction, from the Communion of the Church; and that, setting this Crime aside, he deserved to be Excommunicated for the Rapines, the Cheating, and Adulteries of which he was accused. This Letter is the 37th. He writ likewise the 39th Letter to his own People, wherein, after he had represented what a Grief it was to him, that this Disturbance retarded his Return, he remonstrates with some Vehemence, that as there is but one Church, so there is but one Chair in every Church, whereof the Bishop is Master; that we cannot set up Altar against Altar, nor establish a new Priesthood; and that those who revolt from their Bishop, and separate themselves from his Communion, are out of the Church. In short he threatens, at the same time, to exclude those for ever, who should join themselves to Felicissimus. Caldonius, Fortunatus, and the rest of St. Cyprian's Clergy, had no sooner received these Letters, but they excommunicated Felicissimus, and those of his Cabal, and acquainted St. Cyprian with it in the 83d Letter. And thus I have given the true Order, aswell as the Subject of all those Letters that were written to St. Cyprian, during the time of his first Banishment.  
The Order of the Letters written after his Return is less perplexed and confused in Pamelius' Edition than that of the former. The 40th and 41st Letters are the first in this second Order, and are addressed to Cornelius, St. Cyprian had sent him word of all that had passed in afric, upon the Difference he had with Novatian, and informed him 
q The Cabals of Felicissimus.] These Letters were carried by Metius the Subdeacon as well as the one and fortieth.  of the Faction of Felicissimus. At the same time also he writ the 43d Letter to the Confessors of Rome, to dissuade them from Novatian's Party, and gave Cornelius information of it in the 42d Letter, wherein he acquaints him, that he had given Orders to his Subdeacon Metius, who carried it, to show it to him, lest he should suspect him to entertain a Commerce with the Schismatics. In the mean time, Primittivus the Priest, who had carried St. Cyprian's first Letter from Cartbage, being returned thither, brought him a Letter from Cornelius, in which he complains that the Letters that were sent him from Adrumetum, were not directed to him, but to his Clergy, ever since Juvenalis and St. Cyprian were arrived there. To this St. Cyprian answers in the 44th Letter, that the Reason of this was, because they had acquainted the Christians of that Colony with a Decision lately made in afric, which, by reason of their Bishop's Absence, they were ignorant of, viz. That they should neither write to Novatian nor Cornelius, but to the Clergy of Rome, till they had received certain News from Caldonius and Fortumatus; and that since Cornelius' Ordination was now approved of by all the World, he himself in particular had writ about it to all the African Bishops. Towards the end of this Letter he prays, That GOD, who chose and established Bishops, would not only vouchsafe to protect and defend them, but give them Grace and Knowledge necessary to repress the Licentiousness of Offenders with Vigour, and to manage the good Inclinations of the Penitents with Gentleness and Clemency.  
In the mean time the Confessors of the Church of Rome returning from their Error, and being received by Cornelius in an Assembly of the Roman Clergy, where five Bishops made their Appearance; Cornelius communicated this News to St. Cyprian in the 45th Letter, which he sent to him by the Hands of the Acolyth Nicephorus, wherein he gives him a particular Account of whatever had passed in relation to the Confessors, and how they had acknowledged their Fault, and desired to be publicly pardoned, owning that they had been abused by the Persidiousness and Artifices of Novatian; and that, though they had communicated with him, yet they were always in their Hearts united to the Church, and acknowledged at the bottom, that as there was but one God, one Christ, and one Holy Ghost, so there aught to be but one Bishop in a Catholic Church: That after this solemn Profession, they had been received with the Approbation of the People; and that they had granted the Favour to Maximus the Priest, to keep his Rank and Dignity. The Person that carried this, brought St. Cyprian another Letter from Cornelius, wherein he informs him of the Departure of Novatus and his Companions, Nicostratus the Deacon, Evaristus the Bishop, Primus and Dionysius: This is the 47th Letter. St. Cyprïan having received these two Letters, answered them by two others. In the first, which is the 46th, he rejoices with Cornelius at the Return of the Confessors. In the second, which is the 48th, he paints Novatus in his true Colours, and accuses him of several Crimes. He tells him, it was he, who by his Caballing, had got Felicissimus to be ordained a Deacon in afric; and that coming to Rome afterwards, he had been the Cause of Novatian's being Ordained; but that it was no wonder that this Man could not continue in the Church, who had violated all the Laws of Christian Morality, the Ecclesiastical Discipline; that he had plundered the Otphans and Widows; that he had cheated the Churches, by laying out their Money to other Uses; that he had suffered his own Father to die of mere Poverty; and that he had been the Cause of his Wife's proving Abortive, by Kicking and Ill-using her; that he ought not only to be deprived of the Pristhood, but also of the Communion of the Church, for his Crimes; and that he had prevented the Judgement which the Bishops ought to have passed against him by his voluntary Separation. At the same time likewise, the Confessors of Rome writ to St. Cyprian, signifying, that after they had deliberated among themselves, concerning the Welfare and Peace of the Church, forgetting what had passed, and leaving the Judgement of it to God, they had reconciled themselves to Cornelius, to the Clergy, and all the Church of Rome. St. Cyprian congratulated them upon their Return, in such a manner as sufficiently testified the Joy he had at such welcome News; as also the Sorrow he had formerly entertained at their falling away. These Letters in Pamelius' Edition, are the 49th and 50th.  
Towards the beginning of the Year 252, Antoninus an African Bishop, who had been of Cornelius' Side, having received a Letter from Novatian, to acquaint him, that Cornelius had received Trophimus, and several other Persons who had offered Incense to Idols, was a little staggered at it, and writ to St. Cyprian, praying him to inform him what was Novatian's Heresy, and why Cornelius had received Trophimus, and the other Apostates. St. Cyprian perceiving him to waver, endeavoured to confirm him by a long Letter; wherein, after he has justified the Conduct that was observed at Rome and in afric, concerning those that were fallen, he defends Cornelius, and demonstrates the Validity of his Ordination. He gins it with making a sort of a Reproach to this Bishop for his Inconstancy, telling him, it by no means became discreet Persons, who had built their Judgements upon solid Grounds, to suffer themselves to be carried away with every Wind, and to be always changing their Opinions. After this he proceeds to justify the Measures that were taken with those that had fallen into Idolatry, whether by taking Certificates, or Sacrificing to Idols. He tells him, as long as the Persecution lasted, he had been of Opinion, that it was their Duty to deny them Reconciliation, to encourage them the better to suffer Martyrdom; but that after Peace was once restored to the Church, and after a mature Deliberation upon this Affair, in a numerous Assembly of Bishops, it was thought convenient to keep a Temper, not by taking away all Hopes of Pardon from those that had fallen, for fear they should live as Pagans, when they saw themselves entirely shut out of the Church, but by obliging them to undergo a long Penance before they could be reconciled; that this had been regulated in Councils of several Bishops, held in afric and at Rome. He afterwards comes to the Person and Ordination of Cornelius, and tells him, that he had not all on the sudden arrived to the Episcopacy, but that he had formerly passed through all the Ecclesiastical Dignities; that he had neither desired it, nor stickled for it, but that he had received it with all Humility; that, in a word, he had used no manner of Violence, as some have done, to get himself made a Bishop, but that he had suffered it rather in receiving the Episcopacy against his Will, Non ut quidam vim fecit, ut Episcopus fieret, sed vim passus est ut Episcopation coactus acciperet; that he had been elected Bishop by several Bishops, who happened to be then at Rome, in expectation of the Choice of the Clergy, and the Suffrages of the People, and with the general Approbation of all Churches, the See being at that time vacant by the Death of Fabian; that after this Ordination, which was approved by all the Bishops in the World, whoever would get himself ordained in the See of Rome, must necessarily be out of the Church; that no Credit was to be given to the secret Calumnies that were published against him; that his Colleagues, after they had diligently examined the Accusations of his Enemies, found him to be Innocent; that he had never received any Certificates from the Magistrates, nor communicated with those Bishops that had Offered Incense to Idols, but that he had followed the Regulations which the whole Church had made concerning Apostates; that as for Trophimus, he had only received him for the Good of the Church, and to procure the Return of several Christians, whom he had brought along with him back again to the Church; that for this Reason he had been received, but on this Condition, to be in the Number of the Laity, and not as the Novatians had reported, in Quality of a Bishop; that since the Benefit of Reconciliation was allowed to Adulterers and Robbers, he saw no reason why Idolaters should be totally excluded; that amongst these, some were more to be blamed than others, that the Libellatici, [Those who had Certificates of their having Sacrificed, though they had never done it,] were more excusable than those that had sacrificed to Idols; that the first of these had been reconciled immediately, and that it had been determined, that Absolution should not be refused the latter upon the Point of Death, because there was no Repentance in Hell, with Exception always to those who deferred to do Penance till they were in Danger. After this he largely proves and demonstrates the reasonableness of this Conduct.  
He observes that some of his Predecessors formerly had absolutely refused Absolution to Adulterers, but that they had not therefore condemned their Brethren, who acted indifferently, nor torn the Church, by making a Separation; that no body ought to be alarmed at what Novatian taught, since he was out of the Bosom of the Church; that he could not be Bishop of Rome, since the Roman See was filled by Cornelius, who had been legally Ordained, and whose Ordination had been approved by all the Bishops in the World; that the Church being a Body whose Members were spread over all the Earth after the same manner, there was only one Episcopacy diffused in the Person of several Bishops united together; and that though Novatian had been rightly Ordained, yet he forfeited that Dignity by separating himself from his Colleagues, and disturbing the Repose of the Church, and that there were no hopes of Salvation for him, being out of the Church. In short, St. Cyprian shows that it is cruel and unreasonable to oblige Sinners, as Novatian had done, to undergo Penance, and yet refuse them the Favour of Reconciliation, to exhort them to make satisfaction for their Sins, and yet deny them that Cure which their Satisfaction deserves to say to them, Weep and Sigh Night and Day, Wash your Sins in your Tears, endeavour to efface them by your good Works, and yet at the same time add, you must die out of the Church; do all you can to procure your Peace, though you shall never be able to obtain the Peace you so earnestly desire.  
But Cornelius did not defend St. Cyprian at Rome with the same Resolution and Constancy as this Saint defended his Party in afric; for Felicissimus arriving there with a Company of factious Persons, to get the Ordination of Fortunatus approved, whom he had caused to be Ordained in opposition to St. Cyprian, Carnelius at first rejected him, and turned him out of the Church, without vouchsafing so much as to hearken to him, and writ to St. Cyprian about it. But seeing no body came from St. Cyprian, and that he had sent him no Directions about it, whereas on the other hand it was openly discoursed, That Fortunatus had been ordained by Twenty five Bishops; that St. Cyprian favoured the Party of the Novatians, and that if the Church of Rome refused to receive the Letters which they brought against him, they would read them in Public. The Pope was not a little affrighted at the Menaces, and wrote a second Letter to St. Cyprian, wherein he acquaints him that he was sensibly concerned at these Accusations, and wondered why he would omit to give him Satisfaction in this Affair. St. Cyprian surprised at the Boldness of Felicissimus, and the Weakness of Cornelius, returns him o generous Answer, in which he tacitly reprehends him for a this Procedure. He tells him, that if the Insolence of Wicked Men renders them terrible to Bishops, and that if they can obtain by Menaces and Violence what they could never pretend to get by Reason and the regular Course of Justice, than there is an end of Episcopacy. As for himself, he declares, that he feared not the Obloquys of his Enemies; that Discipline must not therefore be laid aside, because we are reviled with Calumnies, and illaffected Persons endeavour to affright us by their threatening Speeches; that the Original of Heresies and Schisms is solely owing to the Disobedience shown to the Bishop, whom God has established; and because People don't consider that there is only one Bishop and Judge in a Church, who for that time supplies the Place of Jesus Christ; that a Bishop being once Canonically Elected, and acquitting himself worthily in the Functions of his Ministry, whoever separates from him does actually withdraw himself from the Church; that we ought not to impute this Loss to the Bishop, but to themselves, who voluntarily chose it; that the Reason why Bishops are obliged to have so great a Care in the Discharge of their Consciences, is that no body might pretend to leave the Church for their ill Administration; that his own Election was without any Blemish, as having been substituted in the room of a deceased Bishop, Elected by the Suffrages of the People in the time of Peace, protected by God in his Persecution, united inviolably to his Colleagues, approved by the vigilant Administration of his Office for four years, demanded often in the Cirque and Amphitheatre to be exposed to Lions, and that very lately too upon the occasion of a public Sacrifice. He informs him at last with all that had passed in afric concerning the false Bishop Fortunatus, who was set up by the Faction of Felicissimus, and ordained by Privatus of Lambesa a Heretic, particularly marked out in the Letters of Fabian and Donatus, and condemned in a Council of Nine Bishops. He tells him, that he forbore to write to him concerning this Matter, because he supposed he knew him well enough, since he was one of the five Priests who had separated themselves from his Church a long while ago, and because he himself had ejected Felicissimus, the Chief of that Faction, out of the Church; that Novatus' Party had likewise chosen one Maximus an African Bishop, and that he had scarce troubled himself to write about these Matters now, but since Fortunatus boasted that he was Ordained by Twenty five Bishops, he assures Cornelius, that except the Heretic Privatus of Lambesa, there was only four Bishops, and those too all Apostates, that assisted at his Ordination. After this, he accuses Felicissimus, and those of his Faction, for reconciling those that had fallen in the time of Persecution, without staying till they had done Penance for their Crime, contrary to the Decree of the African Council. He likewise describes the furious Excesses of this Cabal, and adds; After all these Irregularities, after having Elected an Heretic to be a Bishop, they have still the Impudence to go to Rome, and carry Letters from Schismatics to the Chair of St. Peter, to that Chief Church ' which is the Spring of Sacerdotal Unity. But what can their Design be, since they are still resolved to persevere in their Crimes? Or what Benefit can they expect from going to Rome? If they repent of their Faults, they ought to understand that they must come back again hither to receive Absolution for them, since it is an Order established all the World over, and indeed but reasonable, that every one's Cause should be Examined where the Crime was committed. Every Pastor has received a part of Jesus Christ' s Flock to govern, and shall render an Account of his Actions to God alone. Upon this account it is not to be allowed, that those Persons who are under our Charge, should run to and fro, and sow Dissension amongst Bishops by their Temerity and Artifices; but on the other hand, it is necessary for them to defend themselves in that Place, where they may be confronted by their Accusers, and the Witnesses of their Crimes. Their Cause has been examined, Sentence has been pronounced against them, and it would be below the Gravity of Bishops to be justly reproached with being Wavering and Inconstant. He concludes all with laying open the Method which he used with Schismatics, that were desirous to come back again to the Church. He says that he is extremely indulgent to those who acknowledge their Fault, and are hearty concerned for it; that his People complain of his Clemency, and that he rather offends by being too mild than too severe, but that at the same time he continues inexorable to those that pretend to enter the Church by Menaces and Force. They ought to be persuaded, says he, that the Church shall be always shut against them. He adds, That he was not in the least apprehensive of their Threats, and that a Bishop who conforms himself to the Rules of the Gospel, and keeps the Precepts of Jesus Christ, may perhaps be murdered, but can never be overcome. At last, he warns and conjures Cornelius to order this Letter to be read to his flourishing Clergy that presided at Rome together with him, that so if these malicious Reports, that were industriously spread about him, had left any ill Impression, it might be entirely effaced by the Reading of this Letter. It was writ four years after his Election to the Bishopric, that is to say, in the Year 252.  

r About April in the same Year.] The Author of the Annals of St. Cyprian, in the English Edition, believes that this Synod was not held till the end of the Year 253, after the Persecution of Gallus and Volusian was ended: but if it was assembled at that time, the Bishops ought not to have blamed Therapius for giving the Peace to Victor, since they themselves had freely granted it to all People before the Persecution of Gallus; and indeed so far was he from doing any thing against the last Decree, that he rather seems to have put it into Execution; for it is not true that St. Cyprian makes any mention in this Letter of the two Decrees of the preceding Synods; he only speaks of the first, whereby it was ordained that the Peace should not be given to those that had fallen, unless they fell into any dangerous Disease, or in case of Extremity. St. Cyprian's Words are these, Quae res satis nos movit recessum esse à Decreti nostri auctoritate, ut ante legitimum & plenum tempus satisfactionis, & sine petitu & conscientiâ plebis nullà infirmitate urgente, ac necessitate cogente pax ei concederetur. He speaks only of one Decree, Decreti nostri, and not Decretorum, and he does not distinguish between two, for infirmitate urgente and necessitate cogente signify the same thing. And though Terapius the Bishop had reconciled Victor before the Persecution, and his Conduct ought for that reason to be blamed, yet it could never be doubted after the Persecution was over, whether this Reconciliation were valid; besides there is no great probability that Fidus should ever be so ill advised as to accuse Therapius for giving Absolution to Victor long after, and at a Juncture too, when all Bishops gave it to those that were fallen. 'Tis infinitely more probable that this Council was held after the first Council of Carthage, which prohibited the giving Absolution to those that had fallen, unless in case of extreme Sickness, and the second which granted the Peace to all that had fallen. 'Twas likewise in this Interval, that the 52 Letter was written, but after this Council, which in all probability was held about Easter, in the Year 252. For if Absolution had been granted to all the lapsed, the Question of the Bishops concerning those Persons who yielded only through the Violence of their Torments, and St. Cyprian's Answer had been impertinent; and what is more, it was written three years after the Persecution of Decius. Therefore this could not happen but at the beginning of the year 253, and consequently the Synod of Carthage which granted the Peace, was held in the same year, and not in 252, as Bishop Pearson says. Thus if we would be exact in our Chronology, we ought to place the first Synod of Carthage about Easter, in the year 251, the second at Easter 252, which is that of the Sixty six Bishops, and the third at Easter in the year 253.  About April, in the very same year, St. Cyprian, who had been consulted by Fidus an African Bishop, upon the occasion of a Priest, whose Name was Victor, to whom his own Bishop Therapius had granted Reconciliation, and upon the Baptism of Infants, proposed these Questions in a Council of Sixty six Bishops, who were come to Carthage at the Festival of Easter, according to the Custom. They were surprised to hear that Therapius had so strangely slighted the Authority of a Decree which they had Synodically passed the Year before; but nevertheless, after they had maturely weighed every thing, they were of Opinion that the Reconciliation he had received from his Bishop was not to be reversed, and so they permitted him to enjoy Lay-Communion, contenting themselves with Admonishing their Colleague, and advising him to do so no more for the time to come. As for what concerned the Baptism of Infants, they declared it was necessary to Baptise them immediately after their Birth, and that there lay no Obligation upon Christians to tarry till the 8th day. St. Cyprian returns this Answer to Fidus in his Fifty Eighth Letter.  
Soon after, St. Cyprian being consulted by some of his Brethren, who were assembled at Thapsus to ordain a Bishop, about the Case of some Penitents in the City of Thapsus, who having generously confessed Jesus Christ, had at last yielded to the Violence of their Torments, but had done Penance for it three years afterwards; he answers them in the Two and fiftieth Letter, that in his Opinion, they ought by no means to refuse Pardon to such sort of Persons; that their generous Confession ought to atone for the Infirmity of the Flesh, and that, since it had been judged expedient to grant Reconciliation at the Hour of Death, to all those that had fallen, we ought to show greater Indulgence to those who had maintained the Combat a long time, than to those who had yielded merely through Cowardice: Nevertheless, since this was a Question of great importance, he promises to propose it to the Synod that was to meet about Easter.  
About this time also he writ against Fortunatianus, who had been Bishop of Assuri, his Sixty third Letter, directed to Epictetus, who was Elected in his Place, and to the People of that City. This Fortunatianus had the unhappiness to fall into Idolatry, and was upon that account divested of his Bishopric: After his Deprivation he laboured earnestly to repossess himself of it, and to perform his respective Functions as formerly. St. Cyprian condemns these Proceed in this Letter, wherein he demonstrates how necessary a thing Sanctity is to make our Sacrifices acceptable, and advises the People not to suffer him to exercise his Office, but to separate from him, in case he continued in his Design. Towards the end of this Letter, he exhorts the Penitents that were amongst them, not to be impatient at the length of their Penance, but to endeavour to satisfy God, and to continue knocking at the Gate of the Church: Which Passage evidently discovers, that it was writ before the Decree of the Council of Carthage, which granted Absolution to all Penitents.  
This Council was held in the Year 253, about the time that the Emperors Gallus and Volusian dispatched Letters to all Parts, to oblige the People to Sacrifice to Idols: so that the Christians had reason enough to apprehend a general Persecution. Now to encourage them the more to fight against the Enemies of their Faith, the African Bishops thought it convenient to grant Reconciliation to those who were in a State of Penance since their Fall, and having accordingly determined it in this Assembly, they writ a Letter to Cornelius, which is the 53d amongst those of St. Cyprian, to acquaint him with their Decree, and to advise him to do the like: They represented to him, that though they had resolved to prolong the Penance of Apostates, and not to reconcile them till the Hour of Death, yet since they were informed that the Church was going to be persecuted, they judged it expedient to strengthen the Christians, that so they might the better bear the Attacks of their Enemies, and to animate them to the Combat, by giving them the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which would inspire them with Vigour to suffer Martyrdom courageously. That if there were any Bishops who thought themselves obliged to do otherwise, it would certainly lie at their Doors, to render an Account to God of so ill-timed a Severity; that as for themselves, they had only done what they owed to Charity, as well as to their own Consciences, by declaring, that the time of Persecution drew near, and not hiding that which God had revealed to his Servants. A little after this Decree, St. Cyprian writ an excellent Letter to the Thibaritans, which is the 55th in Pamelius' Order, wherein he exhorts them in a very vigorous and moving manner, to suffer undauntedly for Jesus Christ.  
Some time after, St. Cyprian being informed that Cornelius was sent into Banishment with many of the Faithful of Rome, he writ immediately to him to congratulate him upon the account of his Constancy, which he had so visibly shown by being the first of his Church, that confessed the Name of Jesus Christ: He extols his Action, and from thence takes oceasion to triumph over Novatian, saying, that the Confession of Cornelius had evidently discovered which of those two was the true Bishop; and that the Constancy of those who had fallen away in Decius' Persecution, sufficiently proved, that there was good reason to reconcile them to the Church. At last he exhorts Cornelius to pass Night and Day with all his People in Fasting, Watching, and continual Praying, because the Day of Combat and Triumph was at hand.  
It was perhaps at this time, that is to say, towards the end of the Reign of Gallus and Volusian, that the Empire being invaded on all sides by the Barbarians; and several Christians happening to be taken Captives by them in Numidia, the Bishops of that Country contributed to redeem them, and wrote to St. Cyprian, desiring him to assist them in that Conjuncture.  
St. Cyprian intimates to them in the 59th Letter, that he was extremely afflicted at the Misfortune that had befallen his Brethren, that Christians, being all Brothers one to another, aught to be concerned at the Captivity of the Faithful, who were carried away Prisoners, as much as if it were their own Case: That their Suffering aught to represent to them the Person of Jesus Christ, who made himself a Captive to deliver us from the Captivity, wherein we were enthralled: That the extreme Peril of the Virgins, who were consecrated to God, and had reason to apprehend the loss of their Virginity, was a convincing Motive to hasten their Delivery. He tells them therefore, that he returns them his Thanks, because they were willing to let him have a Share in their Works of Charity, and for giving him a fertile Field to cast his Seed in, that so he might one day reap a plentiful Harvest out of it: That all the Christians of his Church had readily and liberally contributed to raise a Sum of Money upon this Occasion: That he had sent them this Sum, which amounted to an Hundred thousand Sesterces, that is to say, the 7500 Livres, to distribute it as they should think fit, and together with it, the Names of those who had contributed towards it, that so they might remember them in their Prayers and Sacrifices.  
Lucius, who was Elected Bishop of Rome, after the Death of Cornelius, being now returned from his Exile, where he had been sent immediately after his Election; St. Cyprian writ the 57th Letter, wherein he congratulates him at the same time, both upon the Score of his Banishment and his Return; as he had before writ a Letter to him, to Compliment him for 
s His Election and glorious Confession.] The English Annalist says, that this Letter was written before the Death of Gall●s and Volufian in 252, because St. Cyprian there speaks of the Persecution as not being quite over, or at least as being still to be feared▪ but this does not prove that Lucius returned before their Death, but only that though these Emperors were dead, there was reason still to apprehend a Persecution, and he actually suffered Martyrdom soon after, at the beginning of the Empire of Galienus, or under Emilian.  his Election and glorious Confession.  
About the same time Pupienus, an African Bishop, giving Credit to the Calumnies which Felicissimus, and the Enemies of St. Cyprian had published against him, writ him a very disobliging Letter, wherein he assured him, that he could not with a safe Conscience communicate with him, because he did not look upon his Ordination to be lawful; and upon that he accuses him of Pride, and of being the Occasion of the Divisions that were in his Church. St. Cyprian answered him in the Sixty eighth Letter, That he wondered extremely how he came to call his Ordination in question, after he had been elected Bishop of Carthage, by the Consent of the Clergy and People, that is to say, by the Judgement of God himself, and had exercised that Function for the space of six years, which shows, that this Letter was writ in the Year 254. That it had been approved by all the World, and acknowledged even by the Pagan's themselves; That an infinite Number of Prelates, Martyrs, Confessors, and holy Virgins had owned him for their lawful Bishop; that after this, he desired Pupienus to judge in his Favour, and to ratify the judgement of God, and of Jesus Christ; That he had done him wrong in listening to scandalous Calumnies, and such too as were justly punishable, against his Brother, and against a Bishop; That even the Pagans were sensible of the Effects of his Humility, and that Pupienus had formerly known him when he communicated with him; That there were no Divisions in his Church, because all his People lived in a wonderful Union with him; and that those only continued without the Church, who deserved to be ejected out of it, if they had been within. After this, he exhorts Pupienus to repent of his Rashness and Pride, and promises to communicate with him, provided he is sorry for his Crime, and endeavours truly to satisfy God. He tells him, that God had informed him in a Vision, That whosoever would not believe in Jesus Christ, when he established a Bishop, should believe him against his Will, when he came to take Vengeance upon him; That he very well knew, that the World made these Visions and Dreams pass for ridiculous, ill grounded Imaginations, but that the same thing had been said of Joseph's Dreams. At last, he concludes with these Words: You have my Letter, and I have yours; they will both be read on the Day of Judgement, before the Tribunal of Jesus Christ.  
Towards the beginning of Pope Stephen's Pontificate, St. Cyprian was consulted by the Bishops of France and Spain, about two Affairs of great Consequence. To give the Reader a short Account of that which related to France, he is to know, That the Heresy of Novatian having spread itself in that Country, Marcianus, Bishop of Arles, being infected with it, joined himself to Novatian, and brought over several Persons to his Party. And because he was not excommunicated by Name, he arrogantly insulted over his Brethren. Faustinus, Bishop of Lions, and the other Bishops of that Province, writ to Stephen and St. Cyprian about it, earnestly desiring that they would concur with them in excommucating Marcianus. Stephen neglecting to send them any Answer, Faustinus writ the Second time to St. Cyprian about it, 
t Who advised Stephen in his 66th Letter.] B●●onius and some others have made use of this Letter to advance the Authority of Rome, but with small success; for first of all St. Cyprian only advises Stephen to do what he himself might do, and what he had really done. Secondly, The Gallican Bishops writ to St. Cyprian as well as to Stephen. Thirdly, They addressed themselves to them, because Marcianus had alleged in his own Defence, that these Bishops had not excommunicated him. Fourthly, St. Cyprian does not write to him to Cite or Depose Marcianus, but only to declare him separated from the Communion, and to advise the People of Arles to Elect another Bishop, because he was notoriously Excommunicated and Deposed, for joining himself to Novatian, who was then out of the Church. Fifthly, He does by no means ground the Necessity of Stephen's writing into France upon his Authority, but only upon a Motive of Charity, whereby Bishops were obliged to assist one another, and upon the Unity of the Episcopacy. Monsieur Launoy has endeavoured to bring the Truth of this Letter into question, and has proposed some Conjectures to show that it is spurious, but they are weak and ill grounded, and scarce any body has been induced to embrace his Opinion, because this Letter is really St. Cyprian's Style, which has a peculiar Character, as St. Austin well observes, by which it may be easily known. The first Difficulty relates to the time of this Letter, but this is easily answered, by saying that it was written at the end of the Year 255, and that the Quarrel between Stephen and St. Cyprian began not till the Year 256. The second is taken from the Silence of the Ancients, but we ought not to be surprised that this particular Fact was not taken notice of, since that of Basilides, and Martialis, which are not questioned by Monsieur Launoy, were also as much forgotten▪ Add to this, that St. Austin. Lib. 6. de Bapt. contra Donatist. Ch. 15. makes meant on of a Letter of St. Cyprian to Pope Stephen, which takes no notice of the Question about Baptism, and cannot be any other than this. The Third Objection of Monsieur Launoy is, that it is not to be found in several Manuscripts, as in that of the Vatican, and above twenty more, according to the English Edition; but than it is to be found in three ancient ones, as Rigaltius has observed, and there are several Letters of St. Cyprian that are wanting in some Manuscripts. The Principal and Last is taken from the History of Trophimus, who came not to Arles, of which Place he was Bishop (if we may believe the ancient Author of the Life of St. Saturninus, quoted by Gregory of Tours) till the time of Decius, which is four or five Years before this Letter of St. Cyprian was written, though it appears by this Letter that Marcianus was Bishop of Arles, and not Trophimus, and the Christian Religion had been a long time established in that City. This we confess to be the greatest Difficulty, but we may answer it by admitting the Epocha of Sulpitius Severus, who tells us, that Trophimus came some years before Decius, and that it is not the Author of the Life of Saturninus, but Gregory of Tours, who upon occasion of what this Author says, that Saturninus was Bishop of Tholouse in the time of Decius, adds seven other Bishops of France, amongst whom is Trophimus, and it is possible that he might reckon some who came some time before. The fifth Epistle of Zosimus, which Qu●snellus has defended against the Conjectures of Monsieur Launoy, confirms our Opinion, for there it is said: Trophimus being sent to Arles by the Holy See, was as it were the Spring of all those Rivers that run through the whole Body of France. Which Passage shows, that it is probable that he came some years before the Empire of Decius, though it were a long time after the times of the Apostles, and several years after the Martyrdom of St. Irenaeus.  who advised Stephen in the Sixty sixth Letter, to satisfy the Desires of the Gallican Bishops, and dispatch Letters into Provence, and principally to the Inhabitants of the City of Arles, wherein he should declare Marcian Excommunicated, and give them notice to elect another Bishop in his Room. He remonstrates to him, that since this Bishop had joined himself to Novatian, who was notoriously excommunicated, there was no necessity of having a new Judgement against him; that all Bishops were obliged to take care that Admission into the Church should not be denied to Penitents; that the numerous Body of Bishops being united to one another, by a Bond of mutual Charity, they were all bound, in case any one should make himself Chief of an Heresy, or the Flock of Jesus Christ, which they feed in common, should be attacked or carried away, to come to their Relief, and to reunite the Sheep of Jesus Christ, like good Shepherds that truly love their Flock.  
The Bishops of Spain likewise had recourse to St. Cyprian, about an Affair of the same Nature, Basilides and Martialis, one the Bishop of Leon, the other of Astorga, having been publicly proved to have taken Certificates of their having Sacrificed, and convicted of several other Crimes, were deposed, and Felix and Sabinus elected in their Places. Basilides owning his Crime, had voluntarily quitted his Bishopric, and was placed in the Rank of Penitents, where he thought himself over happy, if he could but communicate as a Laic: Nevertheless, these two Bishops being afterwards pushed on by their Ambition and Envy, used their utmost Endeavours to regain their Sees; and finding they could not compass their Designs there, they went to Rome, not to demand their re-establishment from Stephen, but only that he would be pleased to admit them to his Communion, which they said would be very serviceable to them to procure their Re-establishment, They acted their Parts so dexterously, that Stephen granted them what they requested; so upon this they went back to Spain, where they became more insolent than ever, and would by all means repossess themselves of their Sees by Force. The Clergy and People of Spain writ to St. Cyprian about it, and deputed Felix and Sabinus, who were ordained Bishops in the room of these two Apostates, to go to him, to know what they were to do in this Exigence. But Felix, Bishop of Saragossa, whom St. Cyprian calls a great Defender of the Faith, writ to him likewise in particular. The Saint judging this to be an Action of no small Importance, read the Letters sent him from Spain, in a Synod of the African Bishops, who, after they had diligently examined the matter, came to this Resolution, That the Deposition of Basilides and Martialis ought to stand good, as well as the Ordination of Felix and Sabinus in their Place. They writ a Synodical Letter concerning it to the Clergy and People of Leon and Astorga, which is placed the 67th, amongst those of St. Cyprian, and sent them word, that they had no reason to suffer Basilides and Martialis to re-enter upon their Episcopal Functions, after they had been found guilty of such enormous Crimes, and Basilides himself had acknowledged so much; that since the People had Power to elect good Bishops, and to reject the bad, they would appear culpable before God, if they communicated any longer with them; That the Ordination of Felix and Sabinus was lawful, since it was made with the Consent of the People by the neighbouring Bishops; That it ought not to be reversed, though Basilides had surprised Stephen, who, by reason of his great distance from the Place, could not exactly inform himself of the truth of Affairs; That this Conduct was so far from effacing their Crimes, that on the other hand it augmented their Gild, because though Stephen was in some sort excusable for suffering himself to be deceived merely out of Negligence; yet we ought to have a Detestation for those Persons, who had so maliciously imposed upon his Easiness; That they extremely commended their Faith and Zeal, and desired them to maintain a Correspendence no more with Bishops of such a profligate Character, who were notorious for so many Crimes.  

u In the same Year another Synod of Bishops was held.] This Synod must of necessity have been assembled in the Year 255, as what followed sufficiently shows. It is different from that which was held upon the account of Basilides and Martialis, at least the Names that are to be seen at the Head of two Synodical Letters, are different. Hence it follows, that there must have been more than one held that very year, and we are not to wonder at it, because it was the custom of the Africans to hold two every Year, one in the Spring, and the other in Autumn. This might be assembled in the Month of September, in the Year 255, the next in the Spring 256. and the last in the Month of September in the same Year.  In the same Year another Synod of Bishops was held in Carthage, who being consulted by Januarius, and the rest of the Numidian Bishops about the Baptism of Heretics, returned them this Answer, that it was necessary to re-baptize all those who had been Baptised by Heretics, according to the ancient Regulation made by Agrippinus in afric.  
St. Cyprian writ the same Year to one Quintus, a Bishop, who had ordered the same Question to be put to him by Lucian the Priest. This Letter is the 71st, as Pamelius has ranged them. He assures him, that some of his Brethren were of a different Opinion from him in this Affair, who pretended that it was the ancient Custom before Agrippinus, not to re-baptize Heretics after they had been once admitted into the Church. To weaken the Authority of this pretended Custom, he lays it down for an undoubted Truth, that we are not to be determined by any Customs of that Nature, but to examine whether they will bear the Test of Reason; That St. Peter, in his Dispute with St. Paul upon the Business of Circumcision, did not treat that Apostle with Arrogance and Pride; That he never alleged his Primacy, or told him, that the new Disciples of Jesus Christ, as St. Paul was, who had likewise been a Periecutor of the Church, ought blindly to obey him, and not to question his Decisions, but gave him the Hearing, and humbly received the Counsel of Truth which St. Paul gave him, and readily submitted to the powerful Reasons of that Apostle, teaching us by that Behaviour to be peaceable and Patiented, and not to espouse our own Opinions with Heat and Obstinacy, but to embrace the Advices of our Brethren, whenever they are useful and agreeable to Truth.  
Some time after this, St. Cyprian assembled at Carthage a Council of Seventy one Bishops, as well of the Province of afric as Numidia, who confirmed all that had been determined by the preceding Synod, concerning the Baptism of Heretics, and decreed, that all Priests and Deacons who were ordained amongst them, or who, after having been some time of their Party, returned to the Church, should be received only in the Quality of Laics: And after this, to maintain that Honour and Friendship which Bishops owed to one another, they acquainted Pope Stephen with these Constitutions, by a Synodical Letter, which is the Seventy second amongst those of St. Cyprian in Pamelius' Order, and towards the end of it represented to him, that since the things they had ordained were conformable to the Christian Religion, and to Truth, they hoped he would make no difficulty to approve them; That nevertheless they knew there were some Bishops in the World, who could be hardly persuaded to change their Opinions, and yet though they kept up their own particular Customs, would never break the Laws of Peace and Charity; That after the same manner they would not pretend to prescribe Laws, or constrain any Persons, since they were satisfied that every Bishop was free to behave himself, as he saw expedient in the Administration of his own Church, for which he was accountable to God alone.  
About the same time likewise, St. Cyprian immediately after this Council, writ a long Letter to Jubaianus a Bishop, who had also consulted him about this Question, wherein he urges abundance of Reasons, and Texts of Scripture to support his own Opinion; and after he has answered the Objections that were brought against it, concludes with this new Protestation, that he had not the least Design to impose Laws upon any of his Colleagues, or to fall out with them upon this Occasion, but inviolably to preserve Faith and Charity, the Dignity of the Priesthood, and Concord with his Brethren. Stephen having answered St. Cyprian very roughly, Pompey Bishop of Sabra, a Maritime City of afric, desired him to let him know what Stephen had writ to him. So he sent him a Copy of the Letter, with another of his own, wherein he bestows a particular Answer upon the Pope's Letter, which is the Seventy third, as Pamelius has placed them. In it he principally opposes the Truth of the Gospel, and the first Traditions of the Apostles, both to the Custom and Tradition which Pope Stephen had alleged for himself. He sent likewise by Rogatianus the Deacon, another Copy of Stephen's Letter to Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and to the other Bishops, giving them an Account of what had been determined in afric upon this Question, and desiring them to acquaint him with the Opinion of their respective Churches. He could not have expected a more favourable Answer than what he received from Firmilian, for that Bishop openly condemns, and that in Terms severe enough the Procedure of Stephen; extols St. Cyprian's Conduct, declares himself entirely in favour of the last, proves it by several Reasons, and assures him it was the ancient Custom of the Asiatic Churches; and that it had been regulated many years before in two numerous Synods held at Synnada and Iconium. This Letter of Firmilian, which is the Seventy fourth amongst those of St. Cyprian, 
x It was written in the Autumn, in the Year 256.] We are told in this Letter, that it was written about Twenty two years after the Empire of Alexander, who died in the year 235, and that it was composed in haste, because Rogatianus was obliged to return by reason of the approaching Winter. It could not be written in 257, because St. Cyprian was banished at the end of that Year.  was written in Autumn in the Year 256.  
Before this Letter came to St. Cyprian's hands, he writ, to Magnus, who had asked his Opinion about the Baptism of the N●vatians, whether these Heretics were to be excepted out of the Number of those who were to be rebaptized, since they owned the same Faith as the Catholics did in relation to the Trinity, and Baptised after the same manner. He answers him, I say, 
y In the 75th Letter.] The English Annalist thinks that this is the first Letter which was written concerning the Question of Baptism, because it does not plainly and openly make mention of the Synods that were held in afric upon that Occasion. It appears more probable to me, that it was written afterwards because it supposes the general Question to be decided, and the Author clearly speaks of some of his Colleagues that received the Baptism of Heretics. He says he knew no reason why Christians should take the Part, if he might so say, of Antichrists, which induces me to believe, that it was written after his Q●rrel with Stephen; besides, it is more natural to imagine, that this Question, which regards the Exception of the general Rule, was made after the Decision. For Magnus proposes it to him as a new difficulty. You demand of me, says he, whether those that come from Novatian' s Party, are to be baptised as well as other Heretics.  in the Seventy fifth Letter, that they ought to be rebaptized as well as the rest, forasmuch as there was no true Baptism out of the Church. In this Letter he answers another Question, proposed to him by Magnus, concerning the Baptism of Clinics, that is to say, of those that were Baptised in their Sickness, that there was no reason to doubt of the Validity of this Baptism; That the Sacrament was equally efficacious, whether the Person was plunged in the Water, or had it sprinkled upon him. He concludes with repeating his usual Protestation, that he would give Laws to none, but leave them an entire Liberty of doing what they thought convenient, and that every one must give an Account of his Conduct to GOD alone.  
Thus we have given an exact Account of all the Letters extant in St. Cyprian's Works, that treat of the Baptism of Heretics. To these we ought to add the Acts of the last Council of Carthage, consisting of Eighty seven Bishops, who assembled there the same Year in the Month of September. In the first place, the Letters of Jubaianus to St. Cyprian, and those of St. Cyprian to that Bishop, were read in the Council. After that St. Cyprian proposed to all the Bishops that were present, to deliver their Opinions freely, but yet so as not to condemn or excommunicate those that were of a different Judgement. For none of us, says he, aught to make himself a Bishop of Bishops, or pretend to awe his Brethren by a Tyrannical Fear, because every Bishop is at liberty to do as he pleases, and can no more be judged by another, than he can judge others himself. But all of us ought to wait and tarry for the Judgement of Jesus Christ, who alone has Authority to set us over the Church, and to judge our Actions. After this Proposition the Bishops gave their Opinions, and concluded all in Favour of St. Cyprian.  
The Persecution of Valerian, that was raised against the Church in the Year 257, put an end to the Controversy about the Baptism of Heretics. This Emperor, who was pushed on by Marcianus, a professed Enemy to the Christians, and a great Protector of the Egyptian Superstitions, declared himself against the Christians, and published an Edict against them in July that very Year, whereby he prohibited them to meet in the Coemeteries, or any where else upon Pain of Death. Pope Stephen having been found in a Coemetery, contrary to the Emperor's Prohibition, suffered Martyrdom for it on the Twentieth of August the same Year, and 
z St. Xystus was Elected in his Place.] This Persecution lasted forty two Months, according to St. Denis of Alexandria and Valerian was taken by the Persians in 261 so it began about July 257.  Xystus was Elected in his Place.  
On the 30th day of the same Month. St. Cyprian generously confessed the Christian Faith before Paternus, the Proconsul, and was banished to Curubis. At the same time the Praefect of Numidia condemned several Christians to the Mines, and amongst the rest many Bishops and Priests of his Province after he had put some of them to Death, and ordered others to be scourged. St. Cyprian, from the place of his Exile, sent them a Letter, which according as Pamelius has distributed them is the 76th, and is the first of the 4th Part of St Cyprian's Letters. In it, with wonderful Eloquence he heightens the glory of their Confession, and encourages them to suffer with Constancy. He comforts them in their difficulties, and principally the Priests that were not able to offer Sacrifice in those places, by representing to them that they themselves continually offered up their own Bodies as living Sacrifices to the Lord. He excites them at last to use more fervency in their Prayers, that so God may give Grace to all the Confessors, to finish their Course courageously, in order to be crowned with everlasting Glory. He sent this Letter to three different places, where these Holy Confessors were dispersed, and remitted some Money to them to supply their present Extremities. It appears by the answers they made him, what Consolation and Joy this Letter gave them in the midst of their Sufferings. These Answers are the 77th, 78th, and 79th Letters, written from three several places, in which they return him their Thanks for his great Charity and Kindness in a simple unaffected Style, and assure him, that his Letter had raised their declining Spirits, healed their Wounds, and rendered their pressures more light, and supportable to them.  
The 80th Letter, which is directed to the Confessors in Prison, was rather writ in his first Exile than in this, as we have observed after the Author of the English Edition. The 81st was writ at the beginning of the year 258, after the Death of Pope Xystus, and the return of St. Cyprian. It is addressed to one Successus, a Bishop, and in it he sends him word, That he was informed by some Letters he had received from Rome, that Valerian had directed a Rescript to the Senate, by which he ordered all Bishops, Priests, and Deacons to be put to Death without delay, and that the Senators, the Roman Knights, and all other Persons of Quality, who were Christians, should be deprived of their Offices and Estates; and that if they continued, after this Edict, to make Profession of the Christian Religion, they should be condemned to Die; That the Ladies should not only forscit all their Fortunes, but ●e Banished, and that those of Caesar's Household should be sent to Prison. He adds, that this Emperor had dispatched Letters to the Governors of Provinces, wherein he enjoined them to Punish the Christians with all Rigour and Severity, who daily expected to see these Orders put in Execution against them; That Pope Xystus had suffered Martyrdom on the sixth day of August, and one Quartus along with him; That the Praefects of the City of Rome were very violent against the Christians, causing some of them to be executed every day, and that they confiscated the Goods of all those that were presented before them. In fine, he desires this Bishop to communicate the news to the rest of his Brethren, that all Christians might prepare themselves the better for the Combat.  
The last Letter of St. Cyprian is that which he writ a little before his Martyrdom, when he withdrew from his Gardens where he was ordered to Reside, because he received information, that the Proconsul had sent some Soldiers to carry him away to the City of Utica, and he was not willing to suffer Martyrdom in a place distant from his own Church and People. But least this retirement should be interpreted to proceed from a fearful degenerous Spirit, he acquainted his Clergy and People with the reasons that moved him to preserve himself; and at the same time conjures them not to raise disturbances, but to preserve Peace and Unity, and that no body should be permitted to present himself of his own accord to the Gentiles, since it was sufficient to speak courageously when they were apprehended by them.  
Besides these Letters of St. Cyprian, the time of whose writing we know, there are five others that respect some points of Discipline, and have no certain Date. The Author of the English Edition has placed four of them at the head of all the Letters, and affirms that they were written by St. Cyprian, before his first Banishment in the Year 246. The first, which is the Sixty Sixth in Pamelius' Order, is directed to the Clergy and People of Furni, and is writ against one Geminius Victor, who by his Will, had nominated a Priest called Geminius Faustinus to be Guardian to one of his Relations. He sends them word, That both himself and his Colleagues were extremely surprised when they were informed of it, because it had been prohibited long before by a Council of Bishops to name any Clergyman in a Will to be a Guardian or Executor, since those that were honoured with the Priesthood, and undertaken the Office of Clerks, ought only to serve at the Altar, and the Holy Sacrifices, and should not take any other employment than that of Praying to the Lord. He shows them that for this very reason the Laity supplied them from time to time, with all things necessary for Life, as in the time of the Old Testament they paid Tithes to the Levites and Priests. He concludes, that since Victor had violated a Constitution made some time ago by a Council, they ought not to Pray for him after his Death, or suffer his Memory to be honoured in the Prayers of the Church.  
The second, which is the Sixty first in Pamelius' Order, was writ upon the occasion of an Actor upon the Stage, who, after he had turned Christian, continued to follow his Profession. St. Cyprian tells Eucratius, who had consulted him to know whether he should let him stay in the Church, that it was below the Divine Majesty, the Evangelical Discipline, and the honour of the Church, to permit a Man that exercised so infamous a Profession to be in her Communion; That if the Law forbidden Men to put on Female Habits, it certainly fo● bade them much more to Personate the Gestures and Postures of Women, and to represent unseemly and lascivious Actions; That though this Actor had forborn to appear on the Stage himself, yet he was no less Criminal in teaching his scandalous Art to others; That if he pretended in his own excuse that he was Indigent, and had no other way left him to maintain himself, he should be relieved as the other Poor belonging to the Church were, provided he would be content with that little Subsistence the Church allowed him, and did not believe, that this was given him by way of recompense for sinning no more, since he alone reaped the benefit of it.  
The third, which is the Sixty fifth in Pamelius' Order, was writ to Rogatianus, against one of his Deacons, who forgetting the respect he owed to his own Bishop, had treated him after an undutiful manner. St. Cyprian and his Brethren, to whom this Bishop had writ about the Matter, answered him that he might have punished him immediately for his Boldness, if he had been so pleased, and that his writing to him about it was only an Effect of his Humility. They enlarge upon the Respect and Obedience that is due to Bishops, affirming, that the Original of all Schisms and Heresies proceeded from the Contempt that was shown to them. At last they advised this Bishop, in case his Deacon still continued to provoke him with new Injuries, to make use of his Episcopal Authority, and to Excommunicate him, together with the other who had joined himself with him; hoping nevertheless that he would give him full Satisfaction, Because, say they, we had rather overcome the Evils we receive by Patience, than revenge ourselves by the Sacerdotal Power.  
The Fourth Letter, which is the Sixty second in Pamelius' Edition, was writ in the Name of a Council to Pomponius a Bishop, who had consulted St. Cyprian's Advice about some Virgins, who having made a Resolution to keep their Virginity, had been too familiar with some Persons, and particularly with a Deacon. He commends this Bishop for depriving the Deacon, and the rest that had lived with them, of the Communion. As for what concerned the Case of the Virgins, it was ordained, that those who had lost their Virginity should do public Penance for their Crimes a considerable time, as being Adulteresses in respect of Jesus Christ their Spouse, and that if they would not quit the Company of those Persons, with whom they had maintained this criminal Correspondence, they should be for ever turned out of the Church, without hopes of Pardon and Salvation, since it is impossible to be saved out of the bosom of the Church. And then as for those who had not lost their Virginity, he judged it expedient to admit them to the Communion of the Church, but with this warning, That if they still continued to live in the same House with those Persons, they should be punished after a more severe manner, and must no more expect to be pardoned so easily. Thus I have briefly run over these four Letters, which the Author of the Annals of St. Cyprian has placed at the head of his English Edition, and pretends to have been written before any of the rest; because St. Cyprian 
yz St. Cyprian.] The principal Reason is, because, he does not speak of any Persecution in his Letters, though this reason is not absolutely convincing.  makes no mention of any Persecution either present or past in them, as he does in almost all the rest. [The Reader ought to consult Mr. Dodwell's Learned Dissertation upon this Letter to pomponius, wherein he will see what gave occasion to those Virgins to live in so Scandalous a manner with the Deacons, fully explained.]  
There remains nothing now but the 63 Letter, which the Author of the Annals in the English Edition, 
aa Pretends to have been written in the Year 253.] Because it appears that St. Cyprian was then a Bishop. Cum mediocritatem nostram s●●pe● ho●il● & 〈◊〉 moderatime te●eamus: Besides that, there he speaks of the Persecution, and says, that this was the cause why some of the Faithful abstained from offering Wine. [This rather, as I intimated above, was the true Reason of this Innovation.]  affirms to have been written in the year 253, in the time of the Persecution under Gallus and Volusian. It is addressed to Caecilius and condemns the Error, or rather the Abuse of some Priests, who offered only Water in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He confronts this ill Custom, which was introduced in some places, with the example and precept of Jesus Christ, and shows that we ought to offer in the Chalice nothing but Wine mingled with Water. He speaks of this after such a manner as may incline us to believe that it was absolutely necessary in his Opinion to mingle Water with the Wine, for he tells us, that as the Body of Jesus Christ could not be only of Meal unless it were tempered with Water so likewise the Blood of Jesus Christ could not be of Wine alone, if it is not mingled with Water. But besides that, in the Explication of these Words we may understand them of the Body of Jesus Christ taken in a Mystical sense, we ought not to wonder that the Fathers speak often thus of Customs established in their own time when they are Ancient; such as this is, which came from the example of Jesus Christ, and the Tradition of the Apostles; we are not at all to wonder, I say, if they speak of them as of necessary things, without scrupulously examining whether they are of absolute necessity, taking them in the rigorous sense. He observes in this Letter, that they used in his time to Celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Morning; and that Baptism was a necessary preparation for the Eucharist. He speaks of this Sacrament in such terms, as plainly shows, that he believed it really contained the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; and yet he lays down several Mystical Reasons to explain why they made use of Bread, and Wine mingled with Water. He tells us, that Jesus Christ is figuratively represented by the Wine, and that the Water which is mingled with it signifies the Union of the People with Jesus Christ. Upon these grounds it is that he says, that if we offered pure Wine, the Body of Jesus Christ would be without us; and that if we offered only Water, we should be without Jesus Christ; And lastly, That as several grains of Corn ground and kneaded together make one Loaf, so after the same manner we are one and the same Body in Jesus Christ, who is that Celestial Bread. [See here the power of Prejudice! The extract which M. Du Pin has given of this Letter, demonstrates that St. Cyprian understood the Institution of the Eucharist to be only Mystical; Caecilius desired to know what St. Cyprian thought of a Custom newly taken up of using Water alone in the Morning when they administered the Lords Supper; It was in dangerous times, when by their Breathes the Christians might have been discovered, if they should have drank Wine so Early: This Innovation of theirs does not seem to have proceeded, from a wilful Contempt of the command of Christ, but from the Notions they had always been instructed in, concerning the Eucharist. They believed that the Lord's Supper was only a commemorative Sacrifice; and so they thought the Death of Jesus Christ could equally be remembered by Water in a Morning, as by Water and Wine together in an Afternoon. The Question than is, whether if St. Cyprian had believed that Jesus Christ was Corporeally present in the Sacrament, he would have used such Mystical Arguments to persuade them to break off so unwarrantable a practice. He ought according to Roman Catholic Principles to have confuted their Error by a right Explication of the Nature of the Eucharist: He ought to have showed them that it was not a Mystical but a Real Sacrifice, and that Jesus Christ is as literally offered up in that Sacrament as he was upon the Cross; and especially he ought to have told them, that Water could not have served instead of Wine, because upon Consecration it could not have been Transubstantiated into the Blood of Christ, and so by consequence it had been no true Sacrament for want of that real Presence, since Jesus Christ had never given his Ministers a Power to turn any thing besides Wine into his Blood, upon Pronouncing the words of the institution. Whereas here St. Cyprian owns the Eucharist to have been a Mystical Sacrifice, and gives this as a principal Reason why Water alone without Wine is ineffectual because there was a positive Institution from which the Church had no Warrant to recede.  
This is further confirmed by his secondary Arguments; In the first place, he says there must be Wine, Quia non potest videri Sanguis ejus, quo redemti & vivificari sumus, esse in Calais; quando Vinum desit Ca●ici, quo Christi sanguis ostenditur: Because, says he, his Blood by which we are redeemed and quickn●d cannot seem to be in the Cup, if the Wine that represents the Blood of Christ be not in the Cup. If St. Cyprian had believed Transubstantiation he ought to have said, That the Blood of Christ is not in the Cup, unless Wine had been put into it. But he says, It cannot seem to be there, i. e. cannot be Typically represented by Water so well as by Wine. This is no force upon his Words; because he afterwards brings several Texts out of the Old Testament to prove that the Blood of Christ was represented by Wine, and not by Water, and that Baptism only was typified by Water by the Prophets. This Reasoning does not agree with modern Glosses; no Man ever searches for a mystical Reason when he can give a plain one. Wine after Consecration is not a Figure of Christ's Blood, but the Blood itself, according to the Church of Rome. And it is improper to say, that the Blood of Jesus Christ could not seem to be in the Cup if the Wine did not represent it, if the Wine were believed to be the real Blood; To be, and to be Represented are very different things. And though St. Cyprian calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice, yet since he describes it as a Commemorative one, by which we are Mystically united to Jesus Christ, by Faith in him, it is impossible to gather from thence, that he believed any other Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, then that which is taught by the Church of England]  
Hitherto we have not been willing to interrupt the order of the Letters, by mingling them with his other Books, according to the Series of the time they were written in, because we could not possibly have made an Abridgement of them without breaking the Continuation of the Letters, but nothing hinders us now from doing it: We shall carefully set down the years wherein they were composed, and this will be full as well for the Chronology of them, as if we had introduced them among the Letters.  
It is probable that St. Cyprian's first Book, I mean after his address to Donatus, is, 
bb A small Treatise entitled of the vanity of Idols.] This Book is cited by St. Jerome. Epist. 84. ad Magmon. Cyprianus, quod Idola Dii non sunt, quâ brevitate, quâ historiarum omnium scientiâ, quò verborum & sensuum splendore perstrin●it. It is probable that it was written in the year 247.  That small Treatise, Entitled, The Vanity of Idols, wherein he refused the Pagan Religion which he had lately quitted. This Treatise may be divided into three Parts. In the first, he proves that the Deities of the Heathens are not true Gods; In the second, he shows that there is only one God; And lastly, in the Third, he shows that Jesus Christ is the word of God, who was sent to bring Salvation to Men. The two first parts are almost word for word taken out of Minutius Felix, and the last out of Tertullian.  

cc The first Books of the Testimonies to Quirinus.] These Books are not only cited by Bede, and by Gennadius, but also by St. Jerome, advers. Pelag. and by St. Austin, lib. contra duas Epist. Pelag. c. 8. & 10. who testifies that Pelagius the Heretic had made a Collection of several Testimonies out of the Scripture, to imitate, or rather to complete the work of St. Cyprian. St. Jerome citys the third Book. He and St. Austin have drawn some passages out of it, so that though they are not to be found in several Manuscripts, yet we are not in the least to doubt of them. Quirinus, to whom this Work is addressed, was in all probability a Neophyte, when it was written to him; for St. Cyprian calls him his Son, and tells him in his Preface, that he sent him these Testimonies to give him the first tinctures of the Faith, and that he presented him with a little Water drawn out of the Divine Fountains, which he might make use of till he could go to drink of them himself at the Springhead.  The first Books of the Testimonies to Quirinus were also in all probability writ by St. Cyprian before he was Bishop, when he wholly employed himself in Reading and Studying the Holy Scriptures. These Books are a Collection of several Texts out of the Bible, and principally the Old Testament upon different Matters. In the first Book he citys those passages that prove, that the Jewish Law was to be only for a time; that it ought to be Abolished, and the Jews to be rejected; That Jesus Christ was to come to establish a New Temple, and New Sacrifices, a New Priesthood, and a New Church; That the Gentiles ought to believe in him, and through his means to obtain Remission of their Sins. In the second he urges those places that concern the Mystery of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and particularly those that show that Jesus Christ is the Wisdom and Word of God, who took our Nature upon him, to redeem Mankind, with the Prophecies wherein it is foretold that he was to be born of the Race of David in the City of Bethlehem; That his first coming was to be without Glory; That the Jews were to Crucify him; That he should rise the Third Day, and come at last to Judge the World. 
dd Has been composed since these.] In the Preface of the first Book he only speaks of two Books, and the third is not to be found in some ancient Editions: but it is cited, as we have observed, by St. Jerome and St. Austin, Retract. lib. 2. c. 1. advers. Pelag. c. 9 de Proedestin. Sanct. c. 3. and 'tis properly speaking, a work by itself: For the two first were written to instruct Quirinus in the first grounds of the Christian Faith, and the design of this is to teach him the precepts of Morality. Some few Texts of Scripture may have been since added to it, which follow the Vulgar Latin. This Treatise might perhaps be written in the year 249.  The Third Book was Composed after these, upon a quite different Subject.  
It is a Collection of several Testimonies, taken as well out of the Old as the New Testament, containing many Precepts of Morality, that either have a relation to Christian Virtues, such as are the Fear and Love of God, Patience under Sufferings, Martyrdom, and Virginity; or that dissuade from Vices, such as Anger, Evil Speaking, Pride, the superfluous Ornaments of Women, and the inordinate love of Riches: Or Lastly, those that lay down the manner how Christians ought to behave themselves towards their Superiors; so that we may justly say of this Treatise, that it is a very useful Collection of all the Morality in the Holy Scriptures.  
The Book of the Discipline, or the Conduct and Apparel of Virgins seems to be the first Work that St. Cyprian composed, 
ee After he was Ordained Bishop.] He was then a Bishop, for he speaks to them, as having Authority over them, and calls himself their Father. Pontius insinuates, That it was not composed till after his Retirement; for, to prove that St. Cyprian's Retirement was of great advantage to the Church, because of the Books he wrote, during his Solitude, he places the Book about the Conduct of Virgins in this number. Who is it, says he, who has taught the Virgins to preserve Discipline, to wear modest Apparel, agreeable to their Condition? But Pontius in this place enumerates the works of St. Cyprian, like a Rhetorician, since the first he mentions is the Epistle to Donatus, which was certainly written before his Confinement, and in all appearance the Luxury of Women, the use of frequenting Baths, and the other Irregularities he reprehends in that Treatise, better agree with a time wherein the Church had long enjoyed Peace. Be it as it will, Pontius always places the Book of the Conduct of Virgins first.  after he was ordained Bishop. The Design of it is to instruct the Virgins, with the care of whom he was entrusted, to preserve in their Habits, and the whole tenor of their Life a truly Christian Modesty. He gins with recommending Discipline, that is to say, a good conduct; as being the Guardian of Hope, the Anchor of Faith and the Guide to the way of Salvation. He shows by several Texts of Scripture that it is of great necessity, and afterwards addressing himself to the Virgins, and extolling their Condition, he exhorts them to maintain this Discipline with the greatest exactness, as having more need of it than any Persons besides He convinces them, that Christian Continence can by no means suit with profane Ornaments; that their Wealth did not excuse this vanity of Dressing; that God gave 'em Kiches not to throw away upon idle Superfluities, but to employ them to good uses, to feed and relieve the Poor; that a great Fortune, unless employed after this manner, does only become a great Temptation; that although these Ornaments that Virgins made use of, did not of themselves destroy them, yet they ought to abstain from them, since they had proved the ruin of others, by drawing the Eyes of young Men after them, and by that means kindling the fire of Love in their Hearts; that rich Attire and care in Dressing only became prostitutes, and that the Scripture always speaks of them after this manner; that they abused the works of God to set themselves out, and that they disfigured the Image he made by the Painting and Curling, and abundance of other Ornaments. After this he advises the Virgins, carefully to avoid all those things that might injure their Chastity, and severely reprehends those who were not ashamed to go to public Baths, though they did it without entertaining the least ill design. In short, after having given these Instructions to the Virgins, he takes occasion to speak of the great advantages of Virginity, and tells them it was the nearest State to that of Martyrdom; that Virgins avoid the Curse pronounced against the first Woman; that they are equal to the Angels; that Virginity is not of absolute necessity, but that it is a great deal more excellent than any other Condition. At last he concludes with desiring the Virgins to remember him when they should receive the Recompense of their Virginity. Tantum mementote time nostri, cum incipiet in vobis Virginitas honorari: Words which make it appear that in St. Cyprian's time they believed that the Saints interceded for us before God.  
The Treatise concerning those that had fallen away in the time of Persecution, and that of the Unity of the Church were composed in the year 251, immediately after the Persecution of Decius. This last was writ upon the occasion of the Schism of the Novatians, and the Faction of Felicissimus; and the first was writ against those of the Faction of Felicissimus that rashly granted the grace of Reconciliation to all that had fallen in the Persecution. He Read both these Books in an African Council held that very year, and afterwards sent them to Rome, as he testifies in his Fiftieth Letter, according to Pamelius' Order.  
In his Treatise concerning those who had fallen away during the Persecution, he gins with giving Thanks to God that Peace was restored to the Church, and makes an honourable Elogium of the Holy Martyrs and Confessors. He deplores the lamentable fall of those Persons that had Apostatised, and observes that GOD never permits a Persecution but to punish the Corruptions and Vices of the Christians. He detests the crime of those who had presented themselves before the Magistrates to deny the Faith of Jesus Christ, and carried their Children to the Altars of the Gods to make them, if it were possible, partakers of their Crimes, and cause them to lose, as one may say, the Grace of Baptism. He observes that a Love for the World and an Inclination to Earthly Things occasioned the Fall of greatest part of those Persons who had Apostatised, and even hindered them from flying to avoid the Persecution: He affirms that the fault of those who were overcome by the extremity of their Torments was a great deal more excusable; but that those who had fallen away merely out of fear of Suffering, before they ever did suffer, could allege nothing in their own defence. After he has shown the greatness of the crime of these Apostates, he passes to the Remedies, and greatly blames those that admitted them to a rash and over hasty Reconciliation. He maintains that a Priest of GOD ought by no means to deceive Christians by a pernicious Complaisance, but to heal them with wholesome Remedies, herein imitating a skilful Chirurgeon, who makes deep Incisions that so he may perfectly heal up the Wound, and never hearkens to the Complaints and Cries of his Patient, who will certainly thank him for it as soon as he is healed; that the liberty some Persons had assumed to themselves to grant Reconciliation unadvisedly to those that had fallen, was a new calamity that succeeded the Persecution; that this false Peace was pernicious, as well to those that gave it, as fatal to those that received it; that a Sinner ought to have time sufficient to expiate his Sin by a true and lawful satisfaction; that it was abominable Sacrilege to approach the Holy of Holys, and to receive the body of Jesus Christ, while their hands were still polluted with sacrificing to Idols, and had scarce digested the meats offered to false Gods; that this in effect is to drink the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of Devils, to eat at the Table of the Lord, and at that of the Devil, and to offer violence, as one may say, to the body and blood of Jesus Christ; that they deceive themselves who think that the Reconciliation which is given them before they have expiated their Crime by a public Penance, and purified their Conscience by Sacrifice and Imposition of Hands from the Bishop, is a true Reconciliation; that is rather a War, a new Persecution, a new Temptation, whereof the Enemy makes use to consummate the destruction of those that fell, by taking away from them the Spirit of Repentance; that they ought not to flatter themselves because they were absolved by the Martyrs, since Jesus Christ only can pardon Sins; that the Merits and Works of the Martyrs can indeed do much, but that only for the day of Judgement, and that it is downright rashness to believe that they can without distinction grant Remission of Sins to all the World, against the express command of Jesus Christ; that if what the Martyrs ordain is just and lawful, it ought to be granted at their request; but if what they demand is against the Law of GOD, and the Gospel, it is not reasonable that it should be granted; besides, that it is not to be presumed that those who are Martyrs for the Gospel, would attempt any thing in derogation to it. After this to strike terror into those who had fallen he relates several Examples of Persons, whom God had severely punished for being so bold as to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ after their Apostasy. Then he addresses himself to those who had taken Certificates from the Magistrates, which testified that they had sacrificed, though they had really done not such thing, and advises them not to flatter themselves, as if there was no necessity of repenting, since to confess that one has committed a crime, is effectually the same thing as to commit it, and that this Declaration was a solemn renouncing of the Christian Religion; that though this crime did not appear very shameful in the Eyes of Men, yet it was heinous before God, who knows the most secret motions and inclinations of our hearts. At last he mightily extols the Piety of those who had neither offered Sacrifice, nor taken Certificates; However, since they had a desire to do it, he exhorts them to confess themselves largely and with sorrow before the Priests of GOD, discovering the Secrets of their Conscience, to quiet their Consciences, and to search out a remedy for their Wounds, though they appeared to be slight and insignificant; and he persuades those that were conscious to themselves of this fault, not to be ashamed of discovering it, and to do Penance for it that so they may obtain Pardon. He concludes all with an exhortation to Sinners, to renounce the Pleasures and Vanities of the World, and to satisfy the Divine Justice by a long and sincere Repentance.  

ff In the Treatise of the Church.] Pontius mentions this Treatise. It is cited by St. Austin in his second Book, Contra Crescon. and by Facundus, lib. 1. cap. 16. under the name of the Treatise of Unity; and in some ancient Editions, it is Entitled, A Treatise of the Simplicity of Pastors.  In his Treaty of The Unity of the Church he gins with advising all Christians to join Prudence to plicity, and to take diligent care to keep themselves from the secret Attacks of the Devil, as Heresies and Schisms, whereby he draws Christians, before they are ware, to separate themselves from the Unity of the Church. After this, he demonstrates, by several Reasons, That the Church of Jesus Christ is essentially One, and that there cannot be more. He tells us, That for a visible mark of this Unity, Jesus Christ had built his Church upon St. Peter; and that he gave the Power of his Keys only to him, tho', after his Resurrection, he gave equal Power and Authority to all his Apostles; that as the Church is One, so there is One only Episcopacy, a part whereof every Pastor truly and really possesses; that such as are out of this Church, have no Salvation to hope for; that a Man may be killed indeed out of the Church, but that he could not be crowned unless he were actually in the Church; that Schism and Heresy are the most enormous Crimes a Man can be guilty of, which God has always punished with the greatest Severity; that the example of a few Confessors ought not to stagger or scandalise any one; for besides that, we are not to imitate them in the faults they may commit; there was still a very great number of them that continued steadfast in the Unity of the Church. At last, he exhorts all Christians whatsoever, to return to it again, to promote Union by their joint endeavours, and to have no manner of Commerce with Schismatics.  
[In the Account which our Author gives of this Discourse of St. Cyprian, he seems not to be so fair as he is at other times. He says from St. Cyprian, That for a visible mark of this Unity of the Church, Jesus Christ had built his Church upon St. Peter, and gave the Power of the Keys only to him; tho', after his Resurrection he gave equal Power and Authority to all his Apostles. St. Cyprian's words are these, Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum, ego tibi dico, inquit, quia tu es Petrus, & super istam Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, & portae inferorum non vincent eam, etc. & iterum eidem post Resurrectionem suam dicit, Pasce oves meas. Super unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam. Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus, parem potestatem tribuat, & dicat, si cui remiseritis peccata, remittentur illi: Si cui tenueritis, tenebuntur: tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis ejusdem originem, ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit. Hoc erant utique & caeteri Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & Potestatis, sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, ut Ecclesia una monstretur. The Lord said unto Peter, I say unto thee, says he, that thou art Peter, and upon that Rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, etc. and again, after his Resurrection, he says to the same St. Peter, Feed my Sheep. He builds his Church upon one. And though he gives equal Power to all the Apostles, and tells them, whose Sins ye retain, they shall be retained, and whose Sins ye forgive shall be forgiven; yet that he might make that Unity manifest, he ordered by his own Authority, that the Original of that very Unity should begin from one. For the other Apostles were the same as he, equally Partners of Honour and Power, but the beginning springs from Unity, that the Church may be showed to be but one.  
Here is no distinction made of different Powers granted before and after the Resurrection. St. Cyprian seems to have designed to obviate this Objection; and lest any Man should think, that any Primacy, except that of being named first was intended, he says, that the other Apostles were St. Peter's equals, both in Honour and Power. But this Passage has had foul dealing showed to it long ago; Manutius published it at Rome with Interpolations in his Edition in 1563. Rigaltius was ashamed of it, and so Printed it in his Notes faithfully. The wonder is, how Mr. Du Pin should say, That Jesus Christ gave the Power of the Keys to St. Peter only, when he had the Oxon Edition before him, and all the other Editions that preceded Manutius', of which he has given us a Catalogue. One sees the the Reason now, why he desires afterwards that some Catholic Divine (as he calls them) would Reprint St. Cyprian, and Illustrate him with Catholic Commentaries. This is the Reason why the Oxon Edition could not satisfy him: Bishop Fell's Notes are too candid and sincere for any one of that Communion; so that though he could not omit speaking honourably of it, lest his judgement should have been questioned, yet the want of Catholic Commentaries was so very deplorable a thing, that he thought by this fly insinuation to depreciate so valuable an Edition of so great a Father: For St. Cyprian alone cannot be put into all men's hands without danger; and it is an unanswerable Argument how little Antiquity favours their Cause, when the Father who wrote more and more earnestly for Catholic Unity, and the support of Ecclesiastical Discipline against Schismatics, and Disturbers of the Peace of the Church, than any Man before the Council of Nice, cannot be brought to speak as they would have him, without using the most palpable misrepresentation, and the most unjust dealing that can be shown to the Writings of any Author whatever.]  
The Treatise about the Lord's Prayer immediately follows that of the Unity of the Church, in Pontius the Deacon's Catalogue, and it is probable, that it was composed soon after, towards the beginning of the Year 252. In this Book he highly recommends Amity and Concord, which shows, that he writ it soon after the former, when he had his Head full of the same thoughts, and at a juncture when it was necessary to enforce them the second time on the World. We may divide it into seven Parts: In the first, he demonstrates, that the Lord's Prayer is the most excellent and efficacious Prayer, since Jesus Christ himself composed it for our use. In the second, he sets down Rules how we ought to Pray, and tells us we must do it with a World of Reverence and Modesty; that the tone of our voice ought not to be high; that when Christians assemble together to celebrate Divine Sacrifices with the Bishop, it is convenient that they should remember to be moderate, and not to make a confused noise with their Voice, because it is not the Voice, but the Heart which is to be elevated to Heaven; that we must pray with great Humility, which he confirms by the example of Hannah; the Mother of Samuel, and of the Publican mentioned in the Gospel. In the third part, he instructs us what things we are to Pray for; and taking occasion to explain the Lord's Prayer, he observes in the first place, that we do not say, My Father, but Our Father, because the Prayer of every Christian is a common Prayer, who does not pray for himself alone, but for the whole Congregation of the Faithful, which make up but one body; that we invoke God by the name of Father, because we are made his Children by Baptism; that we beseech him that his name may be sanctified in us, that is to say, we pray him to sanctify and purify us continually to the end of our Life; that the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, which we expect, is the recompense we hope to receive in the other Life, at the day of Judgement; that when we pray to God that his Will may be done, our meaning is not, that he would do whatever pleases him, but that he would work in us what he would have us to do, that is to say, that he would make us accomplish his Will, which no body is able to do by his own strength alone, without the assistance of God's Mercy; that this Will of God, which we are required to fulfil, is no other than what Jesus Christ has done and taught, that is to say, Humility, Steadfastness in the Faith. Prudence, Justice, Mercy, a good Deportment, to do wrong to none, to preserve Peace with our Brethren, to love God with all our Heart, and to prefer nothing before Jesus Christ, since he himself preferred nothing before us; that when we pray that this Will may be done in Earth as it is in Heaven, we mean (according to his Explication) in our Body, and in our Mind, or rather in the Unbelievers as well as the Believers. After this he says, that the daily Bread we pray for in the Lord's Pr●yer, may be understood either of Spiritual or Corporeal Bread; that the Spiritual Bread we beg for is the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, which the Christians who are truly devoted to Jesus Christ desire to receive, daily fearing to be separated from it by some great Sin; that if we understood it of Corporeal Bread, the meaning is, that we are not to beg of God what is necessary for our Sustenance every day, unless we carry our desires farther: That in praying to God that he would Forgive us our Trepasses, we acknowledge that we Trespass continually, and impose upon ourselves at the same time a Law not to obtain remission, but only upon condition, that we forgive our Brethren the Trespasses they have committed against us: When we desire of God that he would not permit us to fall into Temptation, we intimate, that our Enemy has no Power over us, if God does not give him leave to tempt us, and that he never gives him leave but for two Reasons, either to punish us for our Sins, or else to try us: That the Lord's Prayer concludes at last with a Petition, which is a sort of of an Abridgement of all the rest; for when we beseech God to deliver us from all Evil by his Almighty Power, nothing more remains for us to ask.  
In the fourth part he tells us, that Jesus Christ has instructed us to pray as well by his Example as by his Words; and since he who was without Sin prayed often, certainly we who are Sinners are to pray continually. In the fifth, he recommends vigilancy and attention in our Devotions, exhorting us to think upon nothing but only him to whom we address ourselves, and to banish all carnal Thoughts out of our Hearts. To impress the greater Authority upon this Exhortation, he takes notice of the Prayer which the Priest repeated at that time, when he celebrated the Eucharist, saying, Sursum corda, Lift up your Hearts, and observes, that the People answered, We lift them up to the Lord.  
In the sixth part, he advises all Christians not to content themselves with vain barren Prayers, but to join Alms giving, and other Actions of Piety to them. And lastly, in the seventh part, he discourses of the time of Prayer, after he has taken notice, what are the most solemn hours to Pray in. He concludes with affirming, that Christians ought to Pray to God at all times; and since the serious performance of these duties will procure for them one day, everlasting Happiness, they ought, even now, to begin to thank God. This Treatise of St. Cyprian was so highly approved by St. Austin, that he recommended it to the Monks of Adrumetum, to whom he addressed his Book about Grace and freewill, to read it over carefully, and to learn it by Heart; and he observes, that this Saint speaks after such a manner in this Treatise, as shows, that he was persuaded we ought to pray to God to give us his Grace to perform what he commands us to do in his Law. And indeed, amongst all the Treatises that were composed in the first Ages of the Church, perhaps there is not one that ascribes so much to the Grace of Jesus Christ as this does, or contains more formal Passages to prove the efficacy and necessity of it.  
The Exhortation to Martyrdom, directed to Fortunatianus, at a time when the Christians expected the Persecution of Gallus and Volusian, was writ in the Year 253. 'Tis a Collection of Texts of Scripture, to excite all Christians to confess the Name of Jesus Christ Courageously, and to suffer Martyrdom for the Truth. In the first Chapter he citys those places, that discover the vanity of Idols. In the second, those that show, that we must only Worship God. In the third, those that mention the severe Punishments wherewith God threatens to visit those that Sacrifice to Idols. In the fourth and fifth, those that declare, that God will not easily pardon Idolatry, but punishes those with Death who counsel others to adore Idols. In the sixth, he urges those Texts that may induce us to consider, that since we have been redeemed and enlivened by Jesus Christ, we ought not to prefer any thing before him, since he himself preferred nothing before us. In the seventh, those that represent to us, that since we have once escaped the Snares of the Devil, and the Ambushes of the World, we ought to take heed that we fall into them no more, but make the best use of that delivery. In the eighth, those that recommend Perseverance in the Faith, and all other Virtues. In the ninth, those that show, that Persecutions and Afflictions are sent only to try us. In the tenth, those that give us Consolation, and teach us not to be afraid, since God is more powerful to Protect us, than the Devil to Overcome us. In the eleventh, those that prove, that it was foretold, that the World would hate us, and stir up Persecutions against us; and that good Men always suffered. In the last, there is a Collection of Texts to encourage Christians to suffer Martyrdom, out of hopes of finding a sufficient recompense in Heaven. Here is an Abridgement of this Treatise made by St. Cyprian himself, which he sent at the end of his Letter to Fortunatianus, to whom he Dedicates this Book. He observes in this Letter, that it is the duty of the Bishop to train and exercise those Soldiers, whom Jesus Christ has committed to his Charge; and that Observations drawn out of the Holy Scripture, are the best Arms he can give them.  
The Treatise of Mortality was composed 
gg Upon the occasion of the Infection.] It had its rise in Arabia, then spread itself in Egypt and Africa, from whence it passed into all the West. It was an Epidemical Distemper, a great deal worse than a common Pestilence. It began under the Empire of Gallus and Volusian, and lasted several Years; it raged with twice the violence, under the Empire of Galienus, as we have already observed. This Treatise was written in the Year 253, or 254.  upon occasion of a certain Pestilence that afflicted the Roman Empire, but principally afric the Year after the Death of Gallus and Volusian. He shows in his Treatise, that Christians ought not to be afraid of Sickness or Calamities, but that they rather ought to wish for them, since they furnish them with an opportunity to exercise their Patience, and to merit the Rewards of Heaven; that they ought not to fear Death, but rather to desire it, since it delivers them from all the miseries of this Life, and unites them to Jesus Christ for ever; that we ought not to be surprised, that the Pestilence seizes Christians as well as Pagans, since all the miseries of the Flesh are equally common to both, nay, that a Christian ought to suffer more than the other; that the difference that ought to be between him, and one that does not know God, is, that the latter complains and suffers his Evils with impatience, whereas a Christian shows his Faith at such a juncture, by being not afraid of Death, and his Virtue in bearing every thing patiently, and his Charity in helping his Neighbour; that thought the Good dye as well as the Bad, yet their end is very different, because the Good after their Death, are sent into a place of Refreshment, whereas the Wicked are thrown headlong into a place where they are Tormented for ever; that the first die to be put into a better state of security, and the last to be more severely punished: That Sicknesses prepare us for Martyrdom, and make us Martyrs of Jesus Christ; that for this reason we ought not to be afflicted, because they deprive us of the glory of Confession, since not to mention, that it does not depend upon ourselves to be Martyrs, and that it is the Grace of God to let us die with a Will of suffering Martyrdom, God will crown us as if we had really suffered it: That it would be to no purpose to beg of God, that his Kingdom may come, if the Captivity wherein we are does still please us: That we ought not to bewail those of our Brethren, whom God has taken to himself, since we have not lost them, and they have only gone a Journey before us, which we are all to make one time or another: That we do in some sort distrust the promises of Jesus Christ, if we concern and afflict ourselves at the Death of our Neighbours and Friends, as if they were no more, and that we ought rather to rejoice that they are passed into a better Life, and enjoy a state of repose and tranquillity that will never end: At last he exhorts all Christians hearty to wish for the happy day of their Death, which will free them from the exile of this Life, and give them admission into the Kingdom of Heaven, which is their Country, where they will be everlastingly in the Company of the Saints, and with Jesus Christ.  
His Treatise to Demetrianus 
hh After the Death of Gallus and Volusian.] This Treatise was written during the Plague, to show that the Christians were not the cause of it. He there speaks of the late Fall of Kings, which is to be understood of the Death of Gallus and Volusian, who were killed by their Soldiers.  a Judge in Africa, was likewise composed during the rage of this Pestilence, immediately after 
ii Judge.] It has been commonly believed, that he was Proconsul: But the Author of the English Edition has very well observed, that St. Cyprian does not speak to him as to a Proconsul; and that what he says of him, viz. that he often came to him to dispute with him, and that he drew several Persons over to his Party, is by no means suitable to the Character of a Sovereign Magistrate of afric.  the Death of Gallus and Volusian. He there refutes a Calumny, which the Pagans frequently form against the Christians for being the cause of those Wars, Famines, Plagues, and other Calamities that wasted the Roman Empire. He shows, that those misfortunes that daily happen in the World, which grows old every day, aught to be rather attributed to the Crimes and Impiety of Men; and that the Christians were so far from being the occasion of them, because they did not adore false Gods, that the Pagans rather drew down all these heavy Visitations upon Mankind, because they did not Worship the true God, and Persecuted those that Worshipped him: That all this was the immediate hand of God, who to revenge himself for the contempt they showed of him, and of those that served him, punished Men after this rigorous manner, and made them feel the weight of his displeasure: That the Gods of the Pagans were so far from being able to exercise this Revenge, that they were fettered and ill used, as I may say, by the Christians, who ejected them by force out of the Bodies of those Persons, whom they had possessed: That the Christians suffered patiently, as being assured that their Cause would be soon revenged, that they endured the same Evils which the Pagans did in this World, but that they comforted themselves, because after their Death they should possess everlasting Joy, whereas the Pagans at the day of Judgement would be condemned to everlasting Torments. He exhorts them at last, with great zeal and ardour, to quit their Errors, and to repent of them while they are in a condition to do it; because after this Life is once over, there is no room for Repentance, and afterwards the Satisfaction is useless, since it is here upon Earth, that every Man renders himself worthy or unworthy of everlasting Salvation: That neither Age nor Sins ought to hinder any one from suffering himself to be Converted, since, as long as we are in this World, there is still time for us to Repent, the Gate of the Divine Mercy being never shut to those that diligently search the Truth. Though you were, says he, at the point of Death, if you prayed to have your Sins forgiven, and implored the goodness of God, you would obtain remission of your Crimes, and pass from Death to Immortality. Jesus Christ has procured this favour for us by conquering and triumphing over Death on the Cross, by redeeming those that Believe with the price of his Blood, by reconciling Man to God, and communicating a new Life to him by a celestial Birth. Let us follow them all if it is possible, and receive this Sacrament, and his Sign, etc.  
It is probable, that the 
kk The Treatise of the Works of Merey and almsgiving.] This Treatise is cited by Pontius, by St. Jerome, Ep. ad Pamm. by St. Austin, contr. Jul. contr. Pelagianos & alibi.  Treatise of Mercy and almsgiving was writ when St. Cyprian gathered considerable Alms to redeem the Christians, who had been taken Prisoners by the Barbarians, towards the Year 253. He demonstrates in this Book, by several Authorities of Scripture, and many Convincing Reasons, the necessity of giving Alms; he refutes the frivolous excuses, and vain pretences used by Rich Men to avoid the doing such acts of Charity; and observes, that in his time every one brought a Loaf at the Celebration of the Eucharist, [which was always once a day, in the Morning before it was Light, and often at Night after Supper.]  
St. Cyprian tells us himself, in his Letter to Jubaianus, that he composed his Book of Patience, upon the occasion of a Question concerning the reiteration of the Baptism of Heretics, to show that we ought to preserve Charity and Patience in all Disputes with our Brethren. So this Treatise was composed, at the beginning of the Year 256, and St. Cyprian 
ll He sent to Jubaianus a Bishop.] Ep. and Jub. Teneatur à nobis patienter, & firmiter Charitas animi, Collegii honour, vinculum fidei, & concordia sacerdotii; propter hoc etiam libellum de bono patientiae, quantum valuit nostra mediocritas, permittente Domino, & inspirante conscripsimus, quem ad te pro multâ dilectione transmisimus. Pontius mentions it, St. Jerome citys it, advers. Lucif. and St. Austin in several places.  sent it as soon as it was finished to one Jubaianus a Bishop, together with the Letter which he writ to him. In it he exhorts Christians to Patience, by the Example of Jesus Christ, and the Saints as well of the Old as the New Testament.  

mm The Book of Envy was writ some time after that of Patience.] It was written after the Book of Patience, because when he writ to Jubaianus, he sent him only the Treatise of Patience. It is cited by Pontius, by St. Jerome, in Epist. ad Gal. c. 5. and by St. Austin in many places.  The Book of Envy was writ a little after that of Patience. In it he dissuades Christians from that Vice, which is the occasion of all Mischief, and exhorts them to the practice of Charity and Christian Humility.  
Hitherto we have only mentioned those Works that unquestionably belong to St. Cyprian, I shall now speak a few words of those that are falsely attributed to him, which are put by themselves in Rigaltius' and the English Edition. There is a great number of these Books, some of which are really useful and ancient, though we don't know their Authors, some carry the Names of their Authors at present, and some are of a later date, and deservedly despised.  
In the number of the first, we must place the following Treatises. That against public Shows, the Books of Charity, and the Homily against Novatian, all which works seem to proceed from one Author; and 
nn Might be attributed to St. Cyprian.] I say it might be, for besides the difference of Style, which is obvious to every Eye, they are not attributed to St. Cyprian in the Manuscripts, but only in the Printed Books.  might be attributed to St. Cyprian, if it were not for the difference that is so visible between the Style of this Father, and that of these three Books.  
The Treatise or 
oo The Treatise against Gamesters.] It was writ by some Bishop, but we are not to conclude, that it was by a Bishop of Rome, because he calls himself the Vicar of Jesus Christ, for anciently that name was given to all Bishops.  Homily against Gamesters, is yet more different from St. Cyprian's Style than any of the former, being an intricate confused Book, and abounding with barbarous words. The Scriptures are cited there after another manner than they are in St. Cyprian; and the Author mentions a Book, Entitled, The Doctrine or Doctrines of the Apostles, which, in all probability, was composed since St. Cyprian's time.  
The Book of the Coelibacy of the Clergy is extremely useful: In it he proves, that Churchmen ought not to live with Women; some have attributed it to St. Cyprian upon the Faith of some MSS. others to St. Austin, others to St. Jerom, and lastly, others to Gaudentius Brixienfis. However, it is certain, that it was never writ by St. Cyprian, as the difference of Style, and 
pp Barbarous Words.] Such as Repulsorium, Constitutionarios, Vulgaritatis, Flumirorum, Probrositatis, Participiis, Adunari, Vanificat, Egestosam, Procurativa, Absentarii, Conjugaliter.  the barbarous words, sufficiently witness. Nor is it a Translation out of Origen, but the work of some Latin Author: In short, it is neither 
qq In short, it is neither written in the Style of St. Jerom, nor Origen.] That which has given occasion to attribute it to Origen, is, because the Author seems not to condemn a Man's making himself an Eunuch; but Origen was at last of a contrary Opinion, and repent of his Action. There is only one Manuscript in the King's Library, that attributes it to Origen; as some Modern Authors think, after Vincentius Bellovacensis: But it rather resembles the Style of Gaudentius Brixensis, were it not, that in no Manuscripts or Printed Editions it is ever attributed to him.  written in the Style of St. Jerom, nor Origen.  
The Author of the English Edition supposes that this Treatise was writ in the time of Venerable Bede, when the famous Question of the Coelibacy of Churchmen was so warmly discussed in the West: But this is only a bare conjecture, supported by no solid reason; so that we can say nothing positive concerning the Author of this Work.  
The Book of the Twelve Abuses of the Age, which is likewise attributed to St. Austin, was neither written by that Father, nor by St. Cyprian; for, besides that, it has not the least resemblance of their Style or manner of Writing, the Scripture is always cited there, after St. Jerom's Version. Pamelius has ascribed it to one Erardus, whose Name he found in the Margin of this Treatise in a MSS. of St. Austin. Others again bestowed it upon St. Patrick Bishop of Ireland, and some upon St. John Climacus.  
To these Treatises we must join an Oration in praise of Martyrdom, and another about double Martyrdom, both which were composed by some Author who is not very ancient for his Diversion. The first is penned in an elaborate affected Style; and it seems probable, that the Person that made it, only tried how he could make an Harangue in form. He gins with an Exordium, as if he delivered it before an Assembly; the Periods are carefully wrought, his Thoughts are odd and uncommon, and the whole Turn is extremely Stiff. The Oration about double Martyrdom is writ after a more negligent way by some young Author, who had a mind to imitate St. Cyprian's Style. Gravius imagined that Erasmus was the Author of this Cheat; but in all probability, so able a Man as he was, would have carried on the Imposture better than it is managed in this Book: For though the Author pretends that he writ it 240 Years after Jesus Christ; yet he makes no scruple of telling us, that the Christian Religion was farther extended than the Empire. He speaks of the Persecution under Dioclesian, and Maximin or Maximian, of a War against the Turks, and makes mention of Monks and their Practices: And these are the Books falsely attributed to St. Cyprian, which may be of some use, whose Authors are not known.  
The Treatise of the Cardinal, or principal Works of Jesus Christ, which was attributed to St. Cyprian, though it does not resemble his Style, has been restored upon the Faith of several Manuscripts, to Arnoldus Bonaevallis, a Friend of St. Bernard's, who addressed it to Pope Adrian IU. and who composed some other Treatises besides this, in the very same Style, viz. one concerning the Say of Jesus Christ, another upon the Cross, the Work of the Six Days, and the Praises of the Virgin, all which are Printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum; and lastly, a Treatise of Meditations, which was never Printed before, but has been added in the English Edition of St. Cyprian, to all the other Works of the same Author.  
The Explication of the Apostles Creed belongs undoubtedly to Ruffinus. The Treatise of the Baptism of Heretics, Published by Rigaltius, but directly contrary to St. Cyprian's Opinion in the matter, was writ by an ancient Writer who lived before St. Austin's time, and perhaps was a Contemporary of St. Cyprian.  
The other Treatises attributed to St. Cyprian are not only spurious, but are full of nothing else but Impertinencies and Errors. The first is a Treatise of the Mountains of Zion and Sina, writ by some body who was wholly besotted with the dreaming Enthusiasms of the Rabbins and Cabalists. The Supper is a ridiculous impertinent Book▪ The Revelation of John Baptist' s Head is a fabulous Story, writ after the time of St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, 〈◊〉, the Vandals, the Chronicle of Marcellinus and Pipin, whom it mentions. His Preface attributed to Celsus, upon the dispute of Papiscus and Jason addressed to Vigilius, and the Treatise against the Jews, are two Books, wherein there is nothing regular or solid. The two Trearises directed to the Martyrs, and the Confession or Repentance of St. Cyprian the Martyr, are Books which the Modern Greeks have attributed to the Martyr Cyprian, who perhaps is the Bishop of Carthage, whose Life they have amplified.  
The Secrets and Prayers of St. Cyprian, are Treatises full of Superstition and Impiety. There remains nothing behind but 
rr A Calend●… of Easter.] It has been cited under St. Cyprian's Name, by Paulus Diaconus. The Scripture is cited there according to the Version made use of by St. Cyprian, but there are some words in it that have nothing of the Purity of St. Cyprian, and the turn of the Phrase is wholly different. To discover the Truth of this, we need only set down the very first Period. Multo quidem, non modico tempore anxii sumus & aestuantes, 〈◊〉 in faecularibus, sed in sanctis & divinis scripturis quaerentes invenire, quidnam sit primum diei, non mensis, in q●● mense praescriptum est Judaeis in Egypto XIV. Lunâ comedere Pascha. Cyprian would have never used such a turn as this is to express his Thoughts. This Author tell us, That Jesus Christ celebrated the Passover five times, and died the sixth, in the 16th year of Tiberius, after he had Preached for the space of an year only. This System is ancient.  a Calendar upon Easter, Printed under St. Cyprian's Name in the English Edition. 'Tis the Work of an ancient Author, but the Style is wholly different from that of St. Cyprian. I say nothing of the Poems that are attributed to him, because they go likewise under Tertullian's Name, and I spoke of them when I gave an Account of that Author. [A Man must have a very nice taste of Styles, that can throw away a Book that is almost all Calculation, from any Author to whom it is attributed, if he has no other Reason to reject it.]  
St. Cyprian is the first of the Christian Authors, that was truly Eloquent, as Lactantius has observed; and we may say, that there has been never another since him, 
* This can only be under stóod of the Latins.  if we except Lactantius, who was Master of so much true, and noble, and genuine Eloquence. He professed Rhetoric with mighty Reputation, before he was Converted to Christianity; and what he writ afterwards is admirable in its kind. For as Lactantius adds, He had an easy, fertile, agreeable Invention; and what is more, a Spirit of Perspicuity reigns throughout all his Works, which is one of the best Qualities belonging to any Discourse. He has a great deal of Ornament in his Narration, an easy Turn in his Expressions, and Force and Vigour in his Reasonings, in such a manner that he had all the three Talents required in an Orator, which are to please, to teach, and to persuade; and it is not easy to say which of these three he possesses in the most eminent degree. As St. Jerome said, that his Discourse resembled a Fountain of pure Water, having a sweet and gentle Stream, so we may say, that it does likewise very often resemble an impetuous Torrent, that carries away with it every thing it meets, since he was capable of raising what Passions he pleased, and of persuading us to do whatever he had a mind to. Whether he gives Consolation, or whether he exhorts or dissuades, he does it with so much force, that one cannot possibly avoid being sensibly comforted or encouraged, or deterred by what he says. His Eloquence is natural, and far removed from the Style of a Declamer. There is no insipid mean Raillery, no common Proverbs; in short, nothing that has the tincture of ordinary Literature in his Writings, but the Christian and the Bishop speak all along: A Man may see that his Tongue spoke out of the abundance of his Heart, and that as he had searched into the deepest Christian Truths, so he expressed them nobly and generously: Though we must at the same time own, that after all his endeavours to speak as distinctly and purely as was possible, there is something of the African Genius in him; and he could not forbear now and then to intermix 
ss Some harsh Terms.] Such as exambire, remissa, sanctificati, magnanimitas, mortalitas, confundi, abstinere to excommunicate, Dominicum, etc. words which are not Latin. He has likewise some harsh turns; as for example, he uses the Pronouns, se sui, instead of iste, istic for hic, quando for cum, quamdiu for donec, i●o for potius. He has also some Allusions and Antitheses proper to the Africans.  some harsh terms. So difficult a matter it is to vanquish Nature, or to abstain from those words we daily hear from those with whom we converse.  
His studying and reading of Tertullian, whom he looked upon to be his Master, might in some measure contribute to corrupt his Style: But then on the other hand we must acknowledge, that it furnished him with some Advantages, and that he has borrowed several Thoughts out of him, which he sets off and beautifies, though he was Religiously careful to avoid all his Faults and Errors. For, at the bottom, the Characters of these two Authors are exceeding different. Tertullian is harsh and obscure; St. Cyprian is polite and clear; Tertullian is hot and fiery; St. Cyprian, though he does not want all necessary force upon occasion that requires it, is soft and gentle: Tertullian reproaches his Adversaries, and insults over them in a bitter railing manner; St. Cyprian is infinitely more moderate, and if he is obliged at any time to speak some Truths that displease them, he takes care to soften them by the agree bleness of his Narration: Tertullian vents abundance of false Reasons, and teaches several Errors; on the contrary, St. Cyprian argues almost everywhere with a World of Justice and Solidity, and is exempt, I mean, not only from gross Errors, but even from those of small consequence, commonly found in the Fathers of the Three first Conturies: He says nothing concerning the Mysteries of the Trinity, or the Incarnation, that carries any difficulty with it, or stands in need of an explication. He rejects the Error of the Millenaries, and that of the State of the Soul before the Day of Judgement. He is the first that spoke clearly of Original Sin, and the Necessity of the Grace of Jesus Christ. He plainly distinguishes between Baptism and Imposition of Hands, as two different Sacraments. He speaks of the Eucharist as of a Sacrament, wherein the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is received, and which requires great Purity and great Preparation to be worthily received. He establishes the matter of this Sacrament, but he urges the necessity of mingling Water with the Wine, with too much heat. He is the fir●● that talked largely of Penance, and of the Power of the Priesthood to bind and unbind. He zealously demonstrates how necessary it is towards Salvation, to be within the Church: He discourses very advantageously of the Bishop of Rome, and looks upon the Bishop of that See to be the Superintendent of the first Church in the World. But then he was of Opinion, that he ought not to assume any Authority over the rest of the Bishops that were his Brethren, or over their Churches: That every Bishop was to render to God an account of his own Conduct: That the Episcopal Authority is indivisible, and that every Bishop has his Portion of it. That in case of neoessity, all Bishops may assist their Brethren with their Counsels, though they are not under their ordinary Jurisdiction: That Causes ought to be determined in the respective Provinces, where the Accusers and Witnesses are to be found: That Councils or Assemblies of Bishops are extremely useful: That the Keys were given to the whole Church in general, in the Person of St. Peter, to denote Unity. It may be proved out of his Writings, That they used to Offer Sacrifice for the Dead in his time; That they were persuaded that the Saints interceded for us, and that Sacrifices were Offered in Honour of their Memory. That they made use of Holy Water, that they had Virgins who made Profession of Virginity; and that this condition was mightily honoured amongst the Christians. I take no notice of abundance of other points of Discipline and Morality, which may be observed in the Abridgement we have made of his Works, where the Reader, as he peruses them, may collect them for himself; and indeed, they are of great importance to all People.  
The first Edition of St. Cyprian, which appeared a little after the Invention of Printing, neither bears the name of the Printer, nor of the City where it was Printed. It is more Correct, and freer from Faults than the following ones.  
The second Edition is that of Spire, by Wendelinus, in the Year 1471, in Folio. It is mighty full of Errors.  
In the Year 1512, Remboldus caused this Author to be Printed at Paris, and was the first that divided the Letters into several Books. Afterwards Erasmus having reviewed and Corrected it, Printed it with a Preface and some Annotations, in the beginning in 1520, and 1525, for Frobenius. It was likewise Printed the very same Year at Colen. Afterwards at Paris, for Langelier, in 1541. At Antwerp, in Octavo, in the Year 1542. by Crinitus, and for Frobenius, in 1549. At Lions for Gryphius, in Octavo, in 1544, and 1550. At Basil, according to Erasmus' Edition, in Folio, for John Hervagius, in 1558. Gravius caused it to be Printed with some Notes at Colen; and it was also Printed at Lions, in 1535. 1543, 1549, and 1556, in Octavo. At Venice in the same Volume, in 1547. After these Editions, which are none of the most Correct, Manutius caused it to be Printed at Rome, Corrected by several Manuscripts in 1563, in Folio, in a very neat Character, and augmented with a fifth Book of Letters. Morellus' Edition at Paris in the Year following, is larger and more accurately done. It was Printed too at Geneva, in the Year 1593. with the Notes of Goulartius and Pamelius.  
Pamelius, after he had taken pains with Tertullian, set himself to Publish a more exact Edition of St. Cyprian's Works. He is the first that disposed the Letters according to the Series of Time, distributing them, as we have done into five Classes: but he has not been very exact in distributing those of the same Class in their natural Order. He likewise writ St. Cyprian's Life, and has made large Observations upon this Author; wherein he applies himself more to confirm the Doctrine and Discipline of our Times, than to explain the difficulties of his Author.  
Pamelius' St. Cyprian has been Printed twice at Antwerp, in 1568, and 1589. And at Paris in 1607, 1574, 1616, 1632, and 1644. These Editions are compared with several ancient Manuscripts, and the former Editions. In imitation of him, Rigaltius, after he had Published Tertuillian, undertaken St. Cyprian, and without making the least alteration in the Order observed by Pamelius, he only Corrected the Works of this Author, upon the different Readins of two Italian Manuscripts, which Monsieur de Monchal, Archbishop of Tholouse, had Copied in the Margin of his St. Cyprian, and made some Notes to explain the most difficult places; and some Observations to enlighten the Discipline that was in vigour in this Saints Time. Some of these Observations seem to be bold, and he endeavours to excuse himself for them in his Preface. This Edition was Printed at Paris for Dupuis, in 1648.  
In the Year 1666, Dupuis Reprinted the Works of this Saint, as he did those of Tertullian, that: is to say, he added to the Trxt, which is conformable to the Edition of Rigaltius, the entire Notes and Observations of that Learned Man; together with some choice. Observations of Pamelius, and joined to this Author Minutius Felix, Arnobius, Firmicus, and the Instruction of Commodianus. In the Year 1681. Frederic Reinard, a Minister in Germany, put out St. Cyprian's Letters at Altdorf. There is nothing particular in this Edition, but the great number of Manuscripts with which it was compared.  
Monsieur Lombert having Translated the Works of St. Cyprian into French, and followed. Pamelius' Method in his Translation, has reform some part of this Method in his Preface, and has given us by the assistance of several judicious Men, a more accurate order of the Letters and Treatises of St. Cyprian, than that of Pamelius. [He is quoted with great respect by the Bishops of Oxford and Chester, in the Oxford Edition of this Father's Works.]  
After all, two English Bishops, not long since, put out a new Edition of St. Cyprian, which is more correct, and exact, and larger than all the former. The Text is here Printed in a very fine Character, Revised upon four new Manuscripts, and several different Readins, Copied out of other Manuscripts by very able Men. The Margin is all along charged with a very short and clear Summary of all that is contained in the Text. Just under the Text, the different reading of the Manuscripts and Editions are set down. At the bottom of the Page are placed the Notes, some of which are borrowed from Rigaltius and Pamelius, and the rest which are new are made by the Bishop of Oxford. Most of them are Theological. His Tracts precede the Letters in this Edition, and are disposed according to the Order wherein they are supposed to have been written. The Letters likewise are distributed after a new Method, but very exact. The Books that are falsely attributed to St. Cyprian, are Printed at the end in a smaller Character, with the Works of Arnoldus Bonaevallis that carry his name with a Book of Meditations never Printed before. The Calendar of Easter is at the end of the Volume. At the head of all, there is an Advertisement to the Reader, containing the general design of this Edition; St. Cyprian's Life, by P●…tius his Deacon; some Testimonies of the Ancients concerning St. Cyprian; a Table as well of the Books according to the different Editions, as of the Texts of Scripture cited in the Works of St. Cyprian, and the matter of them. This is followed with a Book written by Dr. Pearson, Bishop of Chester, Entitled, The Annals of St. Cyprian, because it contains the History of the Life and Works of this Saint from Year to Year. [After all, there are some Dissertations of Mr. Dodwell's upon difficult places, wherein he not only explains his Author, but makes large digressions to clear some of the most considerable Questions in all Ecclesiastical Antiquity: and to illustrate those matters of Fact, and points of Discipline which are only alluded to in St. Cyprian, as things at that time perfectly known.]  
I have been lately Informed, That a Doctor of the Faculty in Paris, a Man of prodigious Learning, designs to oblige the World with a new Edition of St. Cyprian. It were to be wished, that this design were put in Execution, it being a matter of great Importance, that St. Cyprian should be Published by a Catholic Divine, who is throughly versed in the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church, and who, in his Annotations would not departed from the Rule of Faith, nor condemn or disapprove the practice of the Church; that so by this means the Works of the Father might without any danger be put into the hands of all People.   

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

CORNELIUS.  
COrnelius was ordained Bishop of Rome, towards the beginning of the year 251. Soon after, Novatian got himself ordained by three Bishops, but his Ordination being Irregular, was Condemned, and Cornelius acknowledged to be the true Bishop of Rome by all the Bishops 
Cornelius.  in the World.  
He was sent into Banishment in the Persecution of the Emperor Gallus, and then received the Crown of Martyrdom, towards the end of the Year 253. after he had presided in the Roman Chair two Years and some Months.  
There are two Letters of this Pope amongst St. Cyprian's, and 
a Eusebius mentions three more.] St. Jerome reckons Four Letters, but he is mistaken, and Eusebius takes notice only of three.  Eusebius mentions three more.  
In the first, he informs Fabius, Bishop of Antiio●, of what had passed in the Synod held at Rome against Novatian, and sends him the opinion of the Italian and African Bishops.  
In the second, he gives a more particular Account of the Decrees of this Synod; and in the third, he describes the Manners and Actions of Novatian. Eusebius has preserved a long Fragment of this last Letter, wherein Cornelius describes the Artifices which Novatian had used, to get himself Ordained Bishop, by abusing the simplicity and easiness of three Bishops, one of whom having acknowledged his Crime, did Penance for it. He afterwards observes, that there were at that time in the Church of Rome, 44 Priests, 7 Deacons, and as many Subdeacons, 42 Acolytes, 52 Porters and Exorcists, without reckoning the Widows and Poor, upwards of 1500, and a 
b And a very great multitude of People.] There were at that time several Churches at Rome, for they had but one Priest to one Church: And this is the Reason why Optatus, speaking of the Churches that were at Rome in the Time of Dioclesian, says, that there were above forty of them.  very great multitude of People.  
He adds, That Novatian could never hope to arrive to the Episcopal Order, because he was Baptised in his Bed, and never received Imposition from the hands of the Bishop, that is to say, the Sacrament of Confirmation, and was afterwards ordained Priest only at the request of a Bishop, contrary to the Order of the Church, which Prohibits the Ordaining of those who had been Baptised after that manner: He reproaches him for denying his Sacerdotal Function in time of Persecution; as also for obliging those of his own Party, when he gave them the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (instead of answering Amen, as was the custom of the Church) to Swear, that they would never return to Cornelius' Party. Lastly, he informs Fabius, that the Confessors of Rome had left his Party, and that several Bishops, whose names he sends him, were condemned in a Synod. This Letter, as well as the others, sent by Cornelius to the East, were in all probability written in Greek. In the Bibliotheca Patrum, we find a very short Letter, attributed to Cornelius, directed to Lupinicus, Bishop of Vienna; but that Letter does not belong to this Pope, no more than the two others which go under his name in the Decretals. For first of all it is not of the same Style with those we find in St. Cyprian. Secondly, the word Mass, which was unknown at that time, occurs there. And thirdly, it is unworthy of this Pope, and 'tis plain, it was counterfeited by some ignorant Impostor. The Style of Cornelius, as far as we are able to judge of it, by those few Letters of his that are still extant, is not very lofty; though he sets off what ever he says, turning every thing to his own advantage, and does not spare his Enemy in the least.   

NOVATIAN. 
Novatian.   
NOvatian, who had been a Philosopher before he was a Christian, was, as we have hinted already, Baptised in his Bed, being dangerously ill. He was afterwards ordained Priest of the Church of Rome, at the instance of his Bishop, who obtained this Favour for him from the Clergy and People, who would have opposed it. Cornelius accuses him for absconding in a Chamber during the Persecution, and for answering the Deacons, who desired him to go out and Baptise some Catechumen, That he would not be a Priest any longer, but that he would follow another sort of Philosophy. Being Master of a great deal of Wit, Knowledge and Eloquence, he might have been very serviceable to the Church, if his Ambition to be a Bishop, which was, in a manner, the sole occasion of the Apostasy of the first Heresiarches, had not carried him to a Separation. After the Death of Pope Fabian, he wrote in the Name of the Clergy of Rome, a very Elegant Letter to St. Cyprian, which is the thirtieth amongst those of that Father, and he still continued in the Communion of the Church during the Vacancy of that See. But as soon as Cornelius was chosen in Fabius' room, pushed forward by his Envy and Jealousy, he attacked his Ordination, accused him of several Crimes, and published a Libel against him. The principal Plea he made use of, was, That Cornelius admitted those who had been guilty of Idolatry to Communion; and to make the best advantage of this Accusation, he maintained, That we never ought to suffer those Persons to participate of the Communion, who had fallen into Idolatry. So he separated from Cornelius, and from those who believed, that the Church might receive them again. The greater part of those who had suffered Courageously for the Faith of Jesus Christ, not being able to endure that others, who had not shown the same Constancy and Resolution, should (if I may use the Expression) stand on the same level with themselves, embraced his Party, together with some Priests. Novatus, a Priest of Afric, who had raised great Feuds against St. Cyprian at Carthage, joined himself to Novatian, and brought with him those of his own Faction. 
a It was he who gave him that pernicious Advice.] St. Cyprian in his 41st Epistle tells us, That Novatus had ordained a Bishop of Rome, as one Felicissimus a Priest had done one at Carthage; not that he made them so himself, for he was no Bishop, but because he had made him so by his Counsels and Faction.  It was he who gave him that pernicious Advice to get himself Ordained Bishop. Novatian, the better to execute this design, sent two of his own Cabal to three simple ignorant Bishops, who lived in a small Province of Italy, and prevailed with them to come to Rome, under a pretence of accommodating Affairs, and putting a stop to some Divisions. As soon as these three Bishops were come to Rome, he shut them up in a Chamber, and caused himself to be ordained Bishop of Rome by them, about Ten a Clock at Night, and this, after he had made them drunk, if we may believe Cornelius. Immediately after his Ordination he dispatched two Letters to the Bishops of the other Provinces, and sent some Deputies into Afric to get his Ordination approved: But the African Bishops rejected his Deputies, and ratified Cornelius' Ordination. The rest of the Bishops also adhered to Cornelius: And one of the three who had ordained Novatian, acknowledged his Fault, and did Penance for it. The Confessors gave him up to Cornelius, who having got him condemned in a Synod of Sixty Bishops, wholly turned him out of the Church. He continued however still to teach this Doctrine, That the Church neither could nor ought to admit those to the Communion who had Apostatised: And as this Severity pleased abundance of People, so he became the Head of a Heresy, which disturbed the Peace of the Church for a very long time.  
Besides, this Letter which he writ before his Separation in the name of the Clergy of Rome, St. Jerome tells us, he composed the following Treatises, viz. of the Passover, the Sabbath, Circumcision, the High Priest, Prayer, Jewish Meals; of Firmness of Mind with relation to Attalus, and many more, together with a great Volume about the Trinity, which is, as it were, an abridgement of Tertullian's Work, that has been by several persons attributed to St. Cyprian; not that Tertullian made a Book expressly about the Trinity, but because he had borrowed whatever he says out of the Books of Tertullian upon the Trinity. We have none of these Works under the Name of Novatian, but 'tis extremely probable, that the Treatise of the Trinity, and that of the Jewish Meats, that are to be found in Tertullian, are the same which St. Jerome attributed to Novatian.  
And indeed, as for the Book of the Trinity, Ruffinus observes, that it was not composed by St. Cyprian, under whose Name it went, but by Tertullian. St. Jerome, who saw farther into this matter than Ruffinus, takes notice in the Apology which he has composed against him, that it was not written by Tertullian, but by Novatian. There are several Reasons which make it evidently appear, that the Book we now have, is the very same with that mentioned by St. Jerome and Ruffinus. For in the first place, it carries the same Title. Secondly, it imitates Tertullian, and uses his Arguments. Thirdly, the Style of it is polite enough, and the Terms very pure. Fourthly, we find some Passages there against the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, a Fault which Ruffinus and St. Jerome observe to have been in the Book of the Trinity, which they cited, and which might have been inserted afterwards by the Macedonians. For this Author establishes very Orthodox Principles concerning the Mystery of the Trinity, which prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, as well as that of the Son.  
It is very probable likewise, that the Treatise about Jewish Meats, attributed to Tertullian, belongs to Novatian, as well by reason of the conformity of the Style, as because the Author observes in the beginning, that he wrote two Letters, wherein he demonstrated, that the Jews knew not what is the true Circumcision, or what is the true Sabbath. All which agrees with Novatian, who, according to 
St. Martialis.  St. Jerome, wrote two Treatises upon the same Subjects.  
The Design of this Treatise is to show, That the Animals forbidden to be eaten by the Mosaical Law, were not absolutely, and in themselves impure. To demonstrate the Truth of this Assertion, he tells us, that the Fruits of Trees were the first Nourishment of Mankind; that afterwards they eat the Flesh of Animals; that the Law came in afterwards, which made a distinction between those Creatures that might be eaten, and those that were prohibited; that under this Dispensation they were called Unclean, not because they were really so in their own Nature, since they were the Creatures of God, but first, to instruct Men to avoid the Vices that were figured, and 
b Represented by these Animals.] As for Example, he says, that the Prohibition of eating Swines-flesh is to intimate to us, that we are not to lead a Carnal Life: That when we are forbidden to eat Weasils, the meaning is, we are forbidden to Steal; that by Crows Pleasures are signified, etc.  represented by these Animals; and in the second place, to serve as a Remedy against Intemperance; that Jesus Christ, who is the end and accomplishment of the Law, has given liberty to Men to eat of all sorts of Meats, provided they done't violate the bounds of Christian Sobriety; and from thence he takes occasion to reprove the Irregularities and Disorders of some Christians, who lived intemperately. He observes; that this is by no means fitting for those Persons who are to pray Night and Day. At last, out of the number of Meats that are permitted to be eaten, he excepts those that have been offered to Idols, from which the Primitive Christians abstained very Religiously; and he concludes all with these Words, that are an Abridgement of his whole Discourse: Having therefore shown what is the nature of Meats; (for he had before discovered the Genius of the Mofaical Law, and explained the nature of the Evangelical Liberty) Let us live up to the Rules of Temperance, and abstain from things Offered to Idols, giving thanks to our Lord Jesus Christ his Son, to whom be Praise, Honour and Glory forever and ever. Amen.  
Some think that Novatian writ this Letter during the Persecution of Decius, before he had separated from the Church; but his way of speaking, at the beginning, makes me rather believe, that it was composed after he became Chief of the Party, in the Persecution of Gallus and Volusian. This Author has abundance of Wit, Knowledge and Eloquence; his Style is pure, clean and polite; his Expressions choice, his Thoughts natural, and his way of Reasoning just: He is full of Citations of Texts of Scripture that are always to the purpose; and besides, there is a great deal of Order and Method in those Treatises of his we now have, and he never speaks but with a world of Candour and Moderation.   

Saint MARTIALIS.  
SAint Martialis came into France with St. Dionysins 
a Under the Emperor Decius.] St. Gregory of Tours is the Man that fixes this Epocha of the coming of St. Denis, Martialis, and their Colleagues into France. There is no Author extant, who is either more ancient or more worthy to be believed than St. Gregory, that has given us any Account of their arrival there any sooner.  under the Emperor Decius towards the year of our Lord 250. Two Letters attributed to him, one written to the People of Bordeaux, the other to those of Tholouse, which were said to be found in the Vestry of 
b Peter of Lymoges.] This Story is related by a Monk called Gausius, in a Chronicle which is to be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum, p. 288, 289. first printed in the year 1521, with Abdias, and afterwards in 1571, and 1614  St. Peter of Lymoges in the Eleventh Century, and have been since 
c Frequently Printed.] They were first printed by Badius in the Year 1521, afterwards by B●rdes in the Year 1573, with the Notes of Elmenhorstius at Helmstad in 1614, at Basil in 1655, at Colen in 1560.  frequently Printed, and inserted into the last Bibliotheca Patrum, though no man questions that these Letters are Supposititious. For in the first place the Author tells us, that he lived with Jesus Christ, which can by no means agree with him who was Bishop of Lymoges in 252. Secondly, in the Eighth Chapter of the Second Letter, he saith, that he Baptised King Stephen, and another Tyrant with his Noblemen. Now in the time of Martialis there was neither King nor Tyrant in France. Thirdly, he tells us, that in his time the Temples of the Gods were demolished, and that Churches were built by the King's Authority, which does not agree with the time of St. Martialis. Fourthly, the Texts of Scripture quoted in these Letters follow the vulgar Translaation, which was composed long after. Fifthly, the Author tells us, that he had eaten with Jesus Christ at the last Supper, though it is certain that none but the Apostles were there.  
The Life of St. Martialis, Printed at the end of Abdias, which carries the Name of Aurelian Bishop of Lymoges, is a spurious Piece, no less than the Epistles of that Bishop, and full as Fabulous as the History of Abdias, to which it is joined. The Author by a very gross Error supposes, that Vespasian succeeded Nero immediately. He tells us that St. Martialis received from Jesus Christ after his Resurrection, the same Power which the Apostles had; that he never suffered either Hunger, Thirst, or Pain, and recounts several other Fables concerning him, which are no less ridiculous than those that are to be found upon the same Subject in the two Councils of Lymoges, held in the Years 1029, and 1031.   

SIXTUS or XYSTUS. 
Sixtus.   
IT is a long time ago, since under the name of Pope Sixtus, who presided in the Roman Chair in the Year 257. Ruffinus published a Book of a certain Pythagorean Philosopher named Sixtus, translated out of Greek into Latin. 
a Saint Jerome often reproaches him with this Imposture.] Ep. ad Ctesiphont. contra Pelag. in Cap. 22. Jerom. in Cap. 18. Ezechielis.  St. Jerome often reproaches him with this Imposture; St. Austin suffered himself at first to be deceived by it, and has cited it in his Book of Nature and Grace, as if it had been composed by Pope Sixtus, but afterwards 
b He retracts this Error.] Aug. lib. 2. retract. c. 42.  he retracts his Error. Gelasius placed it amongst the Heretical Books, supposing it to have been written by some Christian. 
c It is still extant.] In the Bibliotheca Patrum, but I cannot tell whether it was ever Printed by itself.  It is still extant, being a medley of Philosophical Sentences, useful indeed in themselves, and serviceable to the Truth, but having little of the Spirit of Christianity in them. There is no mention made in it either of Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Prophets, or the Apostles; and it is full of the Errors of the Pythagoreans and the Stoics. It renders Man equal to God, and affirms that he is made of a Divine Substance, and would have him be without Passion, according to the Principle of the Stoics, and without Sin pursuant to the Doctrine of the Pelagians. There are several other Pelagian Errors to be found in it.   

Saint GREGORY THAUMATURGUS.  
SAint Gregory, whose Name at first was Theodorus, and afterwards Surnamed Thaumaturgus, that is to say, the Worker of Miracles, by reason of the great number of Miracles he is supposed to have wrought both in his Life-time, and after his Death, was born in the City of Neo-Caesarea in Pontus, descended of a Family that was very considerable as well for its Nobility, as for its great Possessions. He was educated in the Idolatrous Worship, having a Father who was extremely bigoted to Paganism. After he had lost him at the Age of Fourteen years, his Mother would have him study Rhetoric to qualify himself for the Bar. His Sister being married to a Lawyer, who was afterwards Governor of Palestine, and being obliged to follow her Husband, Gregory and Athenodorus her Brothers went along with her, intending to go as far as Berytus, and there apply themselves to the Study of the Laws in a Celebrated School of that City. But being arrived at Caesarea in Palestine, they there met Origen, who having exhorted them to study Philosophy, by little and little inspired into them the Principles of the Christian Faith, and soon after made them his Disciples. After they had been with him for the space of five years, Gregory being willing to testify the great Obligations he had to Origen, and besides, to give him some public Marks of his Acknowledgement, as he took his leave of him, composed a very eloquent Discourse, which he recited before a numerous Assembly invited to that Solemnity. After his return to Neo-Caesarea, he retired for some time, and lived a solitary Life, and was at last, contrary to his Inclinations, ordained Bishop of Neo-Caesarea by Phaedimus Bishop of Amasea, towards the year of our Lord 240. At that time there were but very few Christians in that City, but the number of them was soon augmented by his vigilance and care, and by his Miracles, so that this Church became in a little time one of the most flourishing Churches in the World. His assisted at the first Council of Antioch held against Paulus Samosatenus, as Eusebius tells us in the Sixth Book of his History, ch. 23. and Died a little after in the Year 265. This is an Abridgement of this Bishop's Life, drawn out of his Discourse to Origen, out of Eusebius, St. Basil, St. Jerome and St. Gregory Nyssen in the relation that he gives of the Life of this great Saint.  
The Works of this Father (part whereof of Zinus' Version were Printed at Venice in Latin in 1574, and at Rome in 1594.) were collected and Printed in Greek by Gerrard Vossius, at Mentz in Quarto 1604, and afterwards in Folio at Paris 1621., with some other smaller Fathers.  
The first, as well as the most Eloquent Work he has composed, is the Harangue he made to thank Origen, which was separately Published by Hoeschelius at the end of his Edition of Origen against Celsus in 1605. He gins his Exordium with the difficulty of commending Origen as he deserved. Afterwards he tells him in what a strange manner the Providence of God conducted him to Caesarea, the Conversations this great Man held with him and his Brother to exhort them to the Study of Philosophy, and to possess them with a Veneration for the Holy Scriptures and the Christian Religion; and afterwards he testifies the Regret he had to be obliged to quit a Master whom he so tenderly loved. This Harangue is very Eloquent, and we may say it is one of the most consummate pieces of Rhetoric that are any where extant amongst the Ancients. It was printed under the name of Gregory Thaumaturgus in Greek, and in Latin at Antwerp in 1613. in Octavo.  
The Second Book mentioned by Eusebius and St. Jerome as well as the first, is his Paraphrase upon Ecclesiastes. It was Translated by Jaccbus Billius, who attributed it to St. Gregory Nazianzen upon the Credit of a Manuscript in the King's Library. But certain it is, that it belongs to Gregory Thaumaturgus, not only because we read in Eusebius, and in St. Jerome, that he composed a Book bearing that Name, which we are not where told of St. Gregory Nazianzen, but also because we find there word 
St. Gregory Thoumaturgus.  for word a long Passage cited by St. Jerome, upon the fourth Chapter of Ecclesiastes, as taken out of the Paraphrase upon Ecclesiastes, done by Gregory Bishop of Pontus. I have no more to say of this Book, but only that it is a Paraphrase which largely explains the Moral Reflections in Ecclesiastes.  
St. Gregory Nyssen in his Life of this Father, taketh notice of a Creed which, as he pretends, this Saint received from St. John in a Vision which he saw in the Night, and which was still preserved, being, as he says, written by the hand of Gregory Thaumaturgus. This Profession of Faith is as follows: There is only One God the Father, who is the Father of the Living Word, his essential Wisdom, his Power, and his eternal Image; it is he who being Sovereignly perfect, has begotten a Son Sovereignly perfect as himself. He is the Father of the only Son. There is only one Lord, the only Son of the only Father, God begotten of God, the Character and Image of the Divinity, the efficacious Word by which all Creatures were form, the true Son of the true Father, the invisible Son of the invisible Father, the incorruptible of the Incorruptible, the Immortal of the Immortal, the eternal Son of him who is from all Eternity; and there is only one Holy Ghost, who proceeds from God, and was given to Men by the Son he is the Image of the Son, and a perfect Image of him that is perfect. He is Life, and the Principle of Life to those that Live; He is the Holy Spring, Holiness itself, and the Author of Sanctification. By him God the Father is made manifest, who is above all things, and in all things, and God the Son, who is equally in all things. This is the perfect Trinity, which is not divided but is One in Glory, in Sovereignty and Eternity.  
The following Words, which some Persons do still attribute to Gregory Thaumaturgus, belong to St. Gregory Nyssen, who draws this Conclusion from the abovementioned Profession. There is therefore not created Person or dependent Being in the Trinity, it admits into it nothing that is Foreign, nothing that has been out of it during a time, or which afterwards began to be there; the Father was never without the Son, nor the Son without the Holy Ghost, but the Trinity has ever been immovable and invariable.  
There is likewise attributed to St. Gregory Thaumaturgus another Exposition of Faith, much longer, and translated by Turrianus, which some People might believe to be that which is cited by St. Basil, in his Sixty Fourth Epistle, directed to one whose Name was Aelian. But it is manifest, that this is different from that mentioned by St. Basil, and that it could not be composed by St. Gregory Thaumaturgus: For, in the first place, it is different from that St. Basil speaks of, which was addressed to Aelian, and made in form of a Dispute, wherein he says, That the Father and Son were one in Hypostasis, and only distinguished by abstraction of the Mind, the words which the Sabellians abused; whereas in this which is neither addressed to Aelian, nor composed after the manner of a Dispute, the Error of Sabellius is clearly rejected; and it is formally said, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are Three Persons, and Three Hypostases. In the second place, it cannot be of the time of St. Gregory Thaumatargus; for the Author expressly refutes the Arians, saying, That those who affirm, that the Son is created of nothing, are Enemies to the Faith of the Church, and that those who reject the Word Consubstantial, are out of the Church. Besides, when he explains the Mystery of the Incarnation, he speaks after a manner which makes it credible, that he had the Nestorians and Eutychians in view. Canisius attributes this Profession of Faith to Apollinarius, but it too plainly refutes the Error of that Heretic to be ever his. However it be, it was composed after the time of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. We ought to pass the same Judgement upon the twelve anathemas, which follow this Exposition, and are likewise composed out of the Errors of the Nestorians and Eutychians.  
No body doubts of the Canonical Epistle of this Saint, which is cited in the sixth Council, and is set down by Balsamon. It has all the Characters of Antiquity, which any one can desire in such Monuments. It was written after the Goths had ravaged Asia, under Galienus, and it is directed to a Bishop, whose Name we know not, to instruct him how he was to prescribe Penance to those who had fallen into any scandalous Crimes, during the Inundations of the Barbarians. In the first Canon he says, that those who having been taken Prisoners by the Barbarians, had eaten the Food which was given them, ought not upon that account to suffer Penance, as well because the Barbarians did not sacrifice any Victims to Idols, as also because that which defiles the Man is not the Meat which enters into the Man, but that which goes out of the Man. That for the same reason those Captive Women who had been forcibly carried away by the Barbarians, were not to be blamed; but nevertheless, that those who had lived dissolute Lives before their Captivity, were not easily to be admitted to Communion.  
In the second Canon, and the three following, which to speak properly are only one Canon, he detests the Avarice and Injustice of those Persons, who took the advantage of the Captivity of these miserable Creatures to plunder them of their Goods. He shows, that they are obliged to make Restitution, and that they cannot keep in their Possession the Goods of other Men. In the sixth, he endeavours to show with what Horror the World ought to look upon the Cruelty of those Persons, who detained as Captives those who had freed themselves out of the hands of the Barbarians. In the seventh he ordains, that such Offenders should not be received so much as into the number of Hearers, (this was the first Degree of Penance) who joining themselves with the Barbarians, had fallen upon the Christians, either by Murdering them, or showing the Infidels where they were fled for shelter. In the eighth, he decrees the same Punishment against those who should be convicted to have broken open any one's House during the Ravage of the Barbarians; but then he moderates this Rigour in favour of those who should make a voluntary Confession, and these he places in the third degree of Penitents. 'Tis also under this Class, that in the ninth Canon he ranges those who kept back the things which belonged to others, which they found in the midst of the Field, or in their Houses, as soon as they were convicted of it: But if they confessed the Fact, he believed them not to be unworthy to communicate at Prayers, which was the last degree of Penance. In the tenth, he exhorts those that were willing to restore their Neighbour's Goods, to do it without making any sordid Gain, by exacting any thing for what they had discovered, kept or found, or for any other reason whatever it might be. The last Canon is an Explication of the different degrees of Penance. Weeping and Groaning, says he, consist in standing without the Church Porch, where the Sinner ought to beg earnestly of those who go in to pray to God for him, and this is the first degree. The second degree is that of Hearers, and is performed in the Church-Porch, where the Sinner is to tarry with the Catechumen, and go out with them, after having heard the Holy Scripture, as being unworthy of Prayer. In the Substration, which is the third degree, the Party offending is admitted into the Body of the Church, but must go out with the Catechumen. Lastly, the fourth degree is that of standing up when the Person may tarry in the Church with the Faithful, without being obliged to go out of it with the Catechumen; and this is followed with the participation of the Sacraments. Morinus questions whether this last Canon belongs to Gregory Thaumaturgus, and conjectures, that it has been added by one of the Modern Greeks, to explain the Letter of this Saint. This Conjecture seems to be well grounded.  
There goes likewise, under the name of this Father, a Discourse about the Soul, addressed to one Tatian, which contains the Decision of several Questions concerning the Nature of the Soul, and follows the Principles of the Peripatetics, but in truth it has not the least resemblance of St. Gregory's Style; and besides, it seems to be the product of the following Age, when Aristotle's Philosophy began to be in some Reputation. To be short, it is rather the work of a Philosopher, than of a Bishop.  
I am no less satisfied, that the Sermons which carry the name of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, do really belong to another Author; for besides; that none of the Ancients have ever mentioned them, they are altogether of a different Style, which is so far from approaching the Elegance and Politeness so familiar to St. Gregory, that it is mean and childish. Secondly, The Author of these Sermons speaks of the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, in such terms as show, that he lived after the rise of the Heresies of the 
a The Arians and Nestorians.] For Example, in the first of these Homilies, it is said, that JESUS CHRIST is born of the Virgin, that he is God and Man without Confusion, and without Change, perfect in the Divinity, and the Humanity, like his Father in all, and consubstantial to us. In the second, there are extraordinary Praises of the Virgin, whom he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was not begun to be commonly practised till after the Synod of Ephesus. The Trinity is there called Consubstantial.  Axians and Nestorians. He often affects to make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he speaks of the Virgin Mary, and bestows excessive Praises upon her, which were not customary till after the Council of Ephesus. Lastly, it is evident, that these Homilies were composed when the Church enjoyed Peace, and celebrated its Festivals with great Solemnity.  
The three Sermons upon the Annunciation resemble the Style of Proclus of Constantinople, as it has been observed by him, who has made some Notes upon the Homilies of that Author. The last of the three has also been attributed to St. chrysostom, but the difference of the Style shows that it is not his.  
The fourth Sermon is upon the Baptism of JESUS CHRIST, which Festival was anciently celebrated on the day of Epiphany; it is more eloquent than the three preceding ones, and appears to be composed by another Author, who nevertheless was not St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, for the very same reason we have offered before; there we find the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that of Consubstantial.   

St. DIONYSIUS of Alexandria.  
DYONYSIUS, 
a Dyonysius.] He is Surnamed the Great, by the Ancients. Euseb. St. Basil. Ep. ad Amphil. Maximus and Metaphrastes give him this Name. He had formerly been a Rhetorician, if we may believe Maximus, upon the fifth Chapter of the Hierarchia Coelistis. He was unquestionably descended of a good Family. See Eusebius, Lib. 7. Ch. 11. and the Notes of Valesius.  who had formerly been a Disciple of Origen, and Catechist of the Church of Alexandria, succeeded Heraclas in the Episcopal See of that Church, in the Third 
b The third Year.] 'Tis so set down in Eusebius' History, Lib. 6. Chap. 35. and in his Chronicon 'tis the Fifth. But the Account of his History is the truest; for he supposes in his Chronicon, that Philip reigned Seven years, whereas he was Emperor but Five,  Year of the Empire of Philippus, and 247 of the Nativity of our Saviour. He was one of the most Learned and most Illustrious Bishops of his Age; and being consulted from all parts upon matters of Religion, wrote a vast number of Letters to the most famous Bishops of the Church, besides several Works against the Heretics, and some Treatises of Divinity and Discipline. St. Jerome has composed a Catalogue of all his Works, and Eusebius has enriched his History with several Passages that he has borrowed out of him. The Fragments that are yet ext●nt in Eusebius and St. Athanasius, make us greatly regret the Loss of his Writings, as Works that would have been of infinite Advantage and Use 
St. Dionysius.  in the Explication of the Doctrine of the Church. The Catalogue of them, as it is set down by St. Jerom, being without any order, we shell therefore endeavour to make another of all the Volumes of this Dionysius, whereof we have any knowledge, according to the order of time in which they were written, not forgetting at the same time to take notice of those Fragments that are to be found in Eusebius and in St. Athanasius.  
The first Letter which he wrote, is directed to Febius Bishop of Antioch, immediately after the Persecution of the Emperor Decius; that is to say, at the end of the year 250. Eusebius has preserved two Fragments of it in the Sixth Book, Chap. 41. & 44. of his History. In the first, he gives an Account of the horrid Cruelty of the Persecutors that fell so severely upon the poor Christians of Alexandria, as well towards the end of the Empire of Bhilippus, as also after Decius had published his Edict against them; and he gives us a Narrative of the Martyrdom of several Persons. In the Second, he relates the History of an Old Man, whose Name was Serapion, who having fallen away in the timeof Persecution, was ejoyned a course of Penance, till being ready to die, he sent a Young Boy to fetch him the Body of Jesus Christ, that he might die in the Communion of the Church.  
He describes the Persecution of Decius in his Letter against Germanus, though it was not writ till long after; and he particularly relates what happened to himself; how, having been forcibly hurried away out of Alexandria by some Soldier● against his Will, he was conducted to a Town called Tapofiris, where being rescued by a Company of Country Fellows that fell upon his Guards, he was obliged to abscond for a while, being only accompanied by some Priests.  

c This is that Persecution.] Eusebius refers it to the Persecution under Valerian; but the Circumstances agree with what happened to him under the Persecution of Decius, and not what he suffered under the Persecution of Valerian, in which he was not carried away by Violence. One needs only consulting the two Fragments of his Letter to Germanus, where he gives an Account of what befell him in these two Persecutions, to be persuaded in the matter.  This is that Persecution, which is mentioned in the Fragment of a Letter to Domitius and Didymus, related by Eusebius towards the end of the Eleventh Chapter of his History, Lib. 6. It was also about the end of this Persecution, when he was as yet in Exile, that he wrote a Letter concerning Penance to the Brethren in Egypt, wherein he delivered his own Opinion, as to the manner with which they ought to treat those that had fallen away and he there distinguishes between the different degrees of Offences. He likewise wrote at the same time a Book upon the same occasion to Conon Bishop of Hermopolis, a Letter to his Clergy at Alexandria, one to the Christians of Laodece●, where Thelymidres was Bishop, and one to the Armenians, over whom Meruzanes was Pastor, which treated of Penance; and a small Treatise of Martyrdom to Origen.  
After Peace was restored to the Church in the Year 251. Dionysius having received a Letter from Cornelius Bishop of Rome against Novatian, who had also written to him himself, he answered both one and the other. His Letter to Novatian, whom he calls Novatus, is taken notice of by Etisebius in his 7th Book, Chap. 45. He advises him, if he had a mind to persuade the World that he was Ordained against his Will, as he publicly affirmed, to return back to his Duty, and use all his Endeavours to re-establish Peace and Concord. His Letter to Cornelius is plainly what they called in the Language of those times, a Letter of Communion. He informs him, that he was summoned to a Synod of Antioch, by Helenus' Bishop of Tarsus, by Firmilian of Cappadocia, and Theoctistus of Palestine, in which they resolved to confirm the Discipline of Novatus; that word was sent him, that Fabius Bishop of Antioch was dead, and Demetrian elected in his room; that Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem died in Prison. To these Letters he added one to the Christians at Rome, concerning Peace and Penance; and another to the Confessors to dissuade them from the Faction of Novatian. Afterwards he wrote another to the Romans, which he sent by Hippolytus, wherein he discourses of the Duty and Function of Deacons; and two more to the Confessors of Rome, after they had entered into the Unity of the Church. These are the Letters which he wrote under the Pontificate of Cornelius, and are mentioned by Eusebius in the last Chapter of his Sixth Book.  
Under the Pontificate of Pope Stephen, that succeeded Cornelius in the beginning of the Year 255. Dionysius wrote a Letter to him, in which he acquaints him, That all the Eastern Churches were at last agreed to condemn the rigorous Novelty of Novatus, and speaks to him of the Question concerning the Validity of the Baptism of Heretics, that was in Agitation between him and St. Cyprian. After the Death of Stephen, which happened in the Year 257. he wrote another upon the same Subject to Sixtus his Successor, and begs of him to consider the Consequence of that business, and not to pursue it with the heat of his Predecessor, who had written Letters to Helenus, to Firmilian, and to all the Bishops of Cappadocia and Cicilia, wherein he sent them word, that he would not Communicate any more with them, because they rebaptized Heretics; which, he says, was determined in the Councils of the Bishops. In the same Letter, he speaks against the Error of the Sabellians, that arose in Ptolemais a City of Pentapolis; against which, as he tells him there, he had written a long Letter, or rather a Discourse which he sent him. He wrote likewise to Dionysius and Philemon, Presbyters of the Church of Rome, about the Baptism of Heretics. In his Epistle to Philemon, he tells him, That his Predecessor Heraclas caused the Heretics to abjure their Errors without Baptising them anew; that this was the Custom of his Church; but nevertheless that he had been informed, that the Africans had for a long time observed the contrary, and that it was Established in the East in a very numerous Assembly of Bishops held at Iconium and Synnada, and in many other places; that matters standing thus, his Advice was, that their Customs and Decrees ought not to be reversed, since it is written, That we must not remove the Land mark which our Fathers have given us. This is the true Opinion of Dionysius concerning this matter, and St. Jerome wrongfully accuses him to have been of St. Cyprian's Party, since he tells us in express Terms, That we ought to follow the Judgement of the Church in this Point. He says the same thing in his Letter to Dionysius, who was afterwards Bishop of Rome, and delivers his Sentiments there very boldly against Novatian. ●ostly, He wrote a Letter, which is his Fifth, to Sixtus, concerning the Baptism of Heretics, in which he maintains, That if a Man has been Baptised amongst Heretics, with Ceremonies wholly different from those of the Church, and comes at last to discover it, after he has continued in the Church a long time, participating of the Prayers, and Communicating as others, without having been Baptised, he needs not be Baptised a new, since he has received the Body of Jesus Christ several times, and answered Amen with the rest of the Faithful. Eusebius seems to mention a sixth Letter, written upon the same occasion to the same Pope; where, as he tells us, he has examined this Question more copiously, though perhaps it is not different from this last.  
After Sixtus' Death, Dionysius of Alexandria wrote a Letter concerning Lucian, to Dionysius that succeeded Pope Sixtus, towards the end of the Year 258. 'Twas in this, or rather in the following Year, that he wrote his Letter against Germanus; in which, after he has described the Persecution he suffered in the time of Decius, he relates what happened to him under that of Vaterian; how the Perfect Aemilianus prohibited him to hold any more Assemblies of Christians; how having refused to obey his Orders, he was sent along with his Presbyters, to a Village near Cephro in Lybia; how these Proceed did not hinder the Christians from holding their ordinary Assemblies. Lastly, how he preached the Gospel, and converted great Numbers of Pagans to Christianity, whilst he rarried at Cephro.  
While he continued in this Exile, he wrote some Paschal Letters; that is to say, Letters in form of Homilies upon the Festival of Easter; in which, according to the ancient Custom, he ascertains the time of that Feast. He sent one of them to Flavius, another to Domitius and Didymus, which I imagine to be different from the first that is addressed to the same Persons; wherein he proves, That the Feast of Easter ought not to be celebrated till after the vernal Equinox. He composed a Canon or Table of Eight Years. He likewise written another to the Church of Alexandria, and to many others. Peace was no sooner restored to the Church, but the returned back to Alexandria; tho' he was immediately obliged to departed from thence, by reason of a Sedition that arose in that City 
d Arose in that City.] 'Tis undoubtedly that Commotion, that was occasioned by Aemilianus, Governor of Alexandria, who caused that City, and likewise all Egypt, to revolt from the Emperor Galienus; as Pollio reports it. This Aemilianus was a different Person from him that took up Arms in Maesia, and marched against Gallus and Volustanus some years before. These two Aem●lians are distinguished in the Epitome of Aurelius Victor.   
It was during this Retreat, that he wrote a Letter to Hierax, a Passage out of which Eusebius has borrowed, that gives an Account of a Riot that happened at that time. He likewise wrote another Letter to his Church, which he sent to them on Easter-day.  
A Pestilence 
e A Pestilence.] This Pestilence began in the time of Gallus and Volusianus, but it broke afresh under Gallus; as it is observed by Aurelius Victor and Pollio. Dionysius of Alexandria speaks of the latter Pestilence, and St. Cyprian of the former. Thus those Persons that imagined they spoke of the same Infection, are mistaken.  that succeeded this War, obliged St. Dionysius to comfort and encourage his Congregation with another Letter, in which he describes that admirable Charity wherewith the Christians relieved and buried those that were seized with the Plague, in a very lively manner.  
In short, during the whole time of his Retirement, he never ceased to write to his Brethren, and did them more good by his Letters, than he could have done by his Presence. Eusebius mentions another Paschal Letter of his concerning the Sabbath, and one concerning Spiritual Exercises, and a third to Hermammon, written in the Seventh Year of Galienas, which fell out in the Year 264. some Fragments of which he has preserved in Lib. 7. c. 1. 10. and 23. And yet St. Dionysius was not only content to exhort, or instruct the Faithful by his Letters; but he applied himself vigorously to confute and extinguish the Errors that sprung up in his time.  
An Egyptian Bishop named Nepos, understanding the Promises of the Gospel in a gross sense, and maintaining the Reign of Jesus Christ upon Earth for a Thousand Years, with an inflexible Obstinacy composed a Book which he Entitled, A Confutation of the Allegorists, where he endeavoured to prove his Opinion out of the Apocalypse. He brought over abundance of People to this Opinion in that part of Egypt that was called Arsinoe, which unhappily proved an occasion of Schism and Division in those Churches. Dionysius happening to be there, judged it expedient to examine this Doctrine publicly: And because they generally set up Nepos' Book as an unanswerable Treatise, he confuted it Viva voce, and afterwards wrote two Books against it, Entitled, Of the Divine Promises. In the First, he delivers his own Opinion upon this Question. In the Second, he answers all the Reasons urged by Nepos, and his Testimonies drawn out of the Revelations. Saying upon this last Head, That some Persons have rejected the Apocalypse, as being the Book of the Heretic Cerinthus, who admitted of no other Beatitude, but that which consisted in carnal Pleasures; that as for himself, he durst not entirely reject it, since it was esteemed by a great many Christians, but that he was persuaded it hid a ●idden meaning; which could not be 〈◊〉 by any body; that he acknowledged that Book to be written by an Author inspired by the Holy Ghost, though he did not believe it to have been written by St. John the Evangelist, but by 〈◊〉 of the ●●me Name; as he endeavours to prove by the difference of the Style and Though●● Eusebi●s has preserved considerable Fragments of this book, from whence we have drawn the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Passages. See the Third Book of his History, Chap. 28. and l. 7. Ch. 24. and 25.  
Another Error, that Dionysius of Alexandria opposed and 〈◊〉, if I may use the Expression in its Cradle, was much more considerable. T●… 〈◊〉 Bishops in Pentapolis that embraced the Error of Sabellian, who 〈◊〉 the Th●… 〈◊〉 of the Holy Trinity. This Opinion was so deeply rooted and established in those Quarters, 〈◊〉 the Son of God was 〈◊〉 mentioned in their Churches. Dionysius, to whom this Province belonged, by 〈◊〉 of the Pre-eminence of the Patriarchal See of Alexandria, to preside and watch over all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉; sent his Legates to that place to undeceive the People that were in an 〈◊〉; but being not able to go thither himself in Person, he was constrained to write to 〈◊〉 to confute this 〈◊〉. His 〈◊〉 Letter was addressed to Ammon Bishop of Berenice, the Se●… to 〈◊〉 and Euphranor, and the Last to Ammon and Euporus. The End which he proposed to himself in writing these Letters, was to persuade these People, who had not been very well instructed, that the Father was not the Son, and that He was not the Father, but the Son that was Incarnate and Died for 〈◊〉. But that happened to Dionysius in this Affair, that usually happens to most Men, that while he opposed and attacked one Error, he spoke very favourably of the contrary: Thus going about to prove, that the Son was a distinct Person from the Father, he chanced to say, That he was the Work of the Father; That he was with respect to the Father what a Vine is to the Vine dresser, a Ship to the Builder. And lastly, That the Son did not exist before he was made. These Expressions, that seemed to establish an opposite Error to that of Sabellius, which afterwards was taken up by Arius, gave occasion to some well-affected Catholic Persons, to carry a Complaint to Dionysius Bishop of Rome, against the Bishop of Alexandria. But he being advertised of the matter, wrote Four Books which he presented to the Pope; wherein he refutes not only the Error of the Sabellians, but also that which was attributed to himself; and having desired the Pope to send him all the Objections that were urged against him, he wrote a Treatise which he called, A Refutation and an Apology; because he refutes the Errors of other Men, and likewise Justifies himself. St. Athanasius, from whom I have borrowed this Account, relates divers other Passages, that were extracted out of this Work, in a Book which he wrote about the Opinion of Dionysius of Alexandria; in which, he invincibly proves against the Arians, who had the Confidence to make use of his Authority, That his Notions of the Trinity were very conformable to those of the Church, though he did not much approve of the term Consubstantial.  
To conclude, Dionysius of Alexandria a little before his Death, defended the Divinity of Jesus Christ against Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch: For, being invited to the Synod that was held at Antioch against that Heretic in the Year 264 and not being able to go thither, by reason of his Old Age and Infirmity, he wrote several Letters to the Church at Antioch, wherein he explains his own Opinion, and refutes the Error of Paulus Samosatenus, whom he looked upon as so great a Criminal for advancing this Error, that he would not even condescend to Salute him in his Letter, considering him already as an Heretic, and one that was separated from the Church; as we find it observed by the Fathers of the Council of Antioch, and by Eusebius after them, in his Seventh Book, Chap. 27. and 29.  
Baronius thinks that this Letter of Dionysius, is the same with that which Turrianus published, which is inserted in the first Volume of the last Edition of the Councils P. 850. But he is mistaken; for that Letter, which the Fathers of the Council of Antioch speak of, was written to the Church of Antioch; whereas we find this is addressed to Paulus Samosatenus, as appears by these first words: We Answer what you demand of us, that we may oblige you to speak your Thoughts plainly and openly. From whence it is manifest, That this Letter, if it is not Supposititious, was written soon after the First Synod of Antioch, when Paulus Samosatenus promised to renounce his Opinion; and in all appearance seemed to have changed it effectually. But it's probable enough, that this Letter, which is cited by none of the Ancients, and which was unknown to the World before Turrianus' time was never written by Dionysius of Alexandria. For in the first place, The Fathers of the Second Council of Antioch tell us plainly, That Dionysius of Alexandria would by no means salute Paulus Samosatenus: What reason is there therefore to imagine, that he wrote to him twice, as this Letter supposes? Secondly, The Style of this Letter is extremely different from that of the other Letters writ by Dionysius. In the Third place, the Author of this Letter approves of the Word Consubstantial, and expressly tells us, That the Fathers called the Son of God by that Name. Now it is certain, that both Dyonysius of Alexandria, and the Synod of Antioch, disallowed that term; and in the time of St. Dionysius, a Man could not say, that the Fathers commonly made use of it. And if St. Dionysius of Alexandria had ever used it, is it to be believed that St. Athanasius would have forgotten or omitted so memorable a Passage, when he was writing in his Defence.  
It is not to be imagined, that we have given a Catalogue of all the Works of Dionysius of Alexandria; for he composed so great a number, that notwithstanding all the Diligence that Eusebius used in drawing a perfect Catalogue, he is forced to say at last, and several other Letters. Now the Letters of this Father were Treatises, and his Treatises were written in the way of Letters; for after this manner he wrote some Books concerning Nature, to a young Gentleman named Timotheus; a Book of Temptations to Euphranor, and several Letters to Basilides; in one of which, he tells him that he had composed a Commentary upon the beginning of Ecclesiastes. We have only now one of his Letters to Basilides, Printed in the first Tome of the Councils, where he treats of some matters relating to Discipline. 
Theognostus  'Tis divided into Four Canons; in the First of which, he discourses about the Fast, which the Ancient Christians observed before Easter; and tells us, That some Christians fasted Six days before Easter; others Two, others Three, after an extraordinary manner; That we ought not to break our Fast before Midnight; and that those that were able to hold on till Easter-morning, were more generous; That there were some Persons, who, though they did not fast at all, nay, had spent the Four first days of the last Week in sumptuous and delicate Entertainments, yet imagined they did Wonderful things in fasting only two days: But that they were not to be compared with those that fasted several. In the second Canon he says, That Women ought not to enter into the Church, or receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ while they have their Courses, but to offer their Prays to God at Home; since none by right aught to enter the Sanctum Sanctorum, that is not pure in Body and Spirit. In the Third, he particularly Counsels those that are superannuated, to abstain from the use of Marriage, that they may the better attend their Devotions. In the Fourth, he leaves those Persons that have had an Illusion in the Nighttime, at liberty to receive or forbear the Eucharist; following the Dictates and Motions of their own Conscience.  
Anastasius of Nice, in his 23d Question upon Genesis, citys a Passage drawn out of a Book of Dionysius of Alexandria against Origen; but there is no ground to believe that it was written by our Dionysius, who was so far from being his Adversary, that he was both his Disciple and Defender. He died in the Year 264, after he had held the See of Alexandria Seventeen years, and had one Maximus for his Successor. The Style of this Author is Pompous and Lofty; he is excellent in his Descriptions and Exhortations; in his Polemical Discourses he falls upon his Adversaries with all the Vigour imaginable; he perfectly well understood the Opinion, the Discipline and Precepts of the Church; he had sound piercing Judgement; he was very moderate, very discreet, and ready to take Advice. In short, the Loss of his Works is one of the most considerable Losses we could have sustained in this kind.   

THEOGNOSTUS  
THEOGNOSTUS of Alexandria, is an Author, (unknown to Eusebius and St. Jerome) whom St. Athanasius citys with Commendation, and whose Books were extant in Photius' time, who read them over. We don't precisely know the time when he lived, though we cannot doubt but he was some time after Origen, and long before the Council of Nice. Photius informs us, That he composed Seven Books, Entitled, Hypotyposes; that is to say, Instructions; and he gives us this Account of that Work: In the first Book he treats of the Father, and endeavours to show, That he is the Creator of all things, against the Opinion of those that suppose Matter to be Eternal. In the Second Book he advances some Arguments, whereby he pretends it necessarily follows, that the Father had a Son; but speaking of this Son, he says, That he is a Creature above all Creatures that have Reason: He likewise attributes to the Son of God several other Qualities of the like Nature, as Origen has done: Whether he was of the same Opinion, or whether he speaks after that manner, rather by way of Disputation, than a Design to propose his own true Doctrine; or in short, whether he was somewhat mistaken in the Truth, and that to accommodate himself to the weakness of his Auditors, who having no Knowledge of the true Religion, were not capable of comprehending a perfect Instruction, he supposed it most expedient to give them an imperfect Knowledge of the Son of God, than not to speak of him at all. But though a Man may follow this Method in a Dispute, or in a Discourse, when he is constrained to say the same things often, that are not altogether conformable to his own Opinion of the matter; yet 'tis a Weakness to make use of this Pretence, to excuse those Errors that are published in any Book, where we are obliged to speak the Truth to all the World. In the Third Book, speaking of the Holy Ghost, he brings some Arguments to prove, that there is an Holy Ghost; but in the rest he falls into the same Extravagancies with those of Origen in his Book of Principles. In the Fourth Book he talks erroneously about Angels and Daemons, and assigns small, Bodies to them. In the Fifth and Sixth, he treats of the Incarnation, and uses all his Endeavours to demonstrate after this manner, That it was possible for God to make himself Man. This Book likewise is full of several groundless Fancies: As for Example, when he has a mind to prove that the Son of God is circumscribed in Place by our Imagination; though in Truth he cannot be known there. In the Seventh Book, which he wrote concerning the Creation of God, he discourseth of matters of Religion after a manner conformable to the Doctrine of the Church, and especially of the Son of God, of whom he treats in the Last Part. His Style is elevated, and very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: His Discourses have the Beauty of Old Athens, but without Affectation, so that in his Compositions he does not go very far from the ordinary manner of Conversation; and yet he avoids saying mean things.  
Thus I have shown you what Photius has informed us of this Author. St. Athanasius calls him an Admirable Man, Studious and Eloquent; and is so far from accusing him for having any Unorthodox Sentiments about the Divinity of the Word, that he citys him as a Witness of Consubstantiality. Learn. says he, O Arians, ye Rebels to Jesus Christ, that the Eloquence of Theognostus has made use of the Word Substance; for behold after what manner he discourseth in his Second Book of Instructions: The Substance of the Son is not a strange Substance, he was not produced of nothing, but was begotten of the Substance of the Father, as the Ray is of the Light, or a Vapour of Water; 
Theognostus  for the Vapour is not Water, not is the Ray Light; but neither one nor the other is a Stranger to that which produces it: Thus the Son is as it were the gentle running of the Substance of the Father; yet so as that the Father suffers no Division: For as the Sun is not diminished, though it produces Rays continually; so likewise the Father is not diminished in begetting the Son, who is his Image. This Passage, and the Authority of St. Athanasius, aught to convince us, that Photius has wrongfully accused Theognostus to have erred concerning the Divinity of the Son, upon the score of a few Expressions that did not agree with those of his own Age; without taking notice, that though the Ancients have spoken differently as to this Point, yet the Foundation of the Doctrine was always the same; and that it is an horrid Injustice to require them to speak as nicely, and with as much precaution, as those that lived after the Birth and Condemnation of Heresies. But 'tis an ordinary Fault with Photius, who lived in an Age when these Mysteries were illustrated, and in which People talked with a great deal of exactness, to condemn the Ancients almost all along with too much Severity.  
The same St. Athanasius in another Work concerning the Explication of these words in the Gospel; He that blasphemes against the Holy Ghost shall receive forgiveness of his Sin, neither in this World, nor in that to come; tells us, that Origen and Theognostus have written, that the Sin against the Holy Ghost was falling away after Baptism, and after he has delivered the Passage out of Origon: He likewise adds that out of Theognostus, who says, That he who has passed only the First or Second Bounds is less culpable; but he that passes the Third, has no hopes of Pardon. That the First and Second Bound is the Knowledge of the Father, and that the Third is Baptism, which makes us Partakers of the Holy Ghost; which is confirmed by these Words of the Gospel, I have still many things to tell you, etc. after which, continues he, Our Saviour levels, if I may so say, his Discourse in favour of those who cannot comprehend the most perfect things; whereas the Holy Ghost dwells in those that are perfect. But we must not therefore conclude, That the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost surpasseth that of Jesus Christ, but that our Saviour abaseth himself in favour of those that are not altogether perfect; whereas the Holy Ghost is the Seal of Perfection, which we receive in Baptism: Thus it is not that the Holy Ghost is more excellent than the Son, because the Sin which is committed against him, is without hopes of Remission; but it is, that these imperfect Men, that is to say, those that are not baptised, may obtain Forgiveness of their Sin; whereas those that have once tasted the Celestial Gifts, and once are touched, have no more excuse, nor means to avoid Punishment. St. Athanasius afterwards confutes this Explication, which appears to be very agreeable to the Opinion of Novatian, and gives another Interpretation, which is far more Natural.   

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

DIONYSIUS Bishop of Rome.  
DIONYSIUS Bishop of Rome, who presided in that See, from the Year 258. to the Year 270. written a Letter against the Sabellians, a Fragment whereof remains still preserved by St. Athanasius in his Book concerning the Decision of the Council of Nice; in which, discoursing against the Sabellians, he falls upon the contrary Doctrine, that was afterwards maintained by the Arians. He proves that the Word was not Created, but Begotten of the Father from all Eternity, and distinctly explains the Mystery of the Trinity. This Fragment is plainly taken out of a Letter written by Dionysius, in the Name of the Roman Synod, at the time when Dionysius of Alexandria was accused of falling into the opposite Error to that of the Sabellians.   

MALCHION.  
MALCHION, a very Eloquent Man, was, after he had taught the profane Sciences with a great deal of Reputation in the City of Antioch, ordained Presbyter of that Church, for the Purity of his Faith and his Doctrine. He had a famous Dispute against Paulus Samosatenus in the Second Council of Antioch, held in the Year 270. in which, after he had clearly discovered the Errors which that Heretic endeavoured to conceal, he prevailed with the Council to condemn him. This Conference was taken in Writing by some Notaries, and was extant not only in the time of Eusebius and St. Jerome, who mention it, but also in the time of Leontius; that is to say, towards the end of the Sixth Century: He speaks of it in his First Book against the Nestorians, and recites some Fragments of it in the Third Book. However it is not certain that they are genuine, any more than the 
Archelaus.  Fragments of another Letter of the Council of Antioch, mentioned by Eusebius. St. Jerome tells us, that he was likewise Author of a Letter written in the Name of that Council, against Paulus Samosatenus, and spoken of by Eusebius in the Seventh Book of his History, Chap. 30.   

ARCHELAUS.  
ARCHELAUS Bishop of Mesopotamia, published a Dispute in the Syriack Language, which he had with a Heretic of the Manichean Party, that came out of Persia; and St. Jerome assures us, that in his time it was Translated into Greek. This Author flourished in the time of the Emperor Probus. There is a Fragment of this Writing in the Sixth Catechetick Lecture of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. [This Dispute itself, translated into Latin by an Ancient Hand, was published by Valesius at the end of his Edition of Socrates and Sozomen at Paris, 1668. It is imperfect. Bigotius found it in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, and communicated it to Valesius.]   

ANATOLIUS.  
ABout the same time, under the same Emperor, and under Carus his Successor, Anatolius also flourished, born at Alexandria, and Bishop of Lacdicea in Syria; a Man of profound Learning, very well skilled in Arithmetic, Geometry, Physic, Astronomy, Grammar, and Rhetoric. Eusebius and St. Jerome assure us, that the greatness of his Spirit, the force of his Eloquence, and the depth of his Knowledge, abundantly appear in a Book of his concerning Easter; and that he showed the Dexterity of his Address and Politics in the Siege of Alexandria, which by his Prudent Counsels he saved from an entire Destruction that threatened it. Eusebius in the last Chapter of his Seventh Book, has preserved a Fragment of this Treatise about Easter, concerning the time wherein that Festival is to be celebrated. This same Author likewise composed Ten Books of Arithmetic, and left behind him several Monuments of his Learning and Exactness; particularly in those things that concerned the Holy Scriptures.  
Aegidius Bucherius hath given us an entire Version of the Treatise about Easter by Anatolius, which he Copied out of an ancient Manuscript. He pretends that it was done by Ruffinus, and that it answers the Treatise of Anatolius. And indeed, the Fragment cited by Eusebius, is to be found entirely in Latin, and the Passages cited by Bede are there word for word. But it would be no strange thing, for an Impostor to insert a Passage mentioned by Eusebius, that was so easy to find, and for this Work to be forged since Bede's time. Though I am of Opinion, That this Canon is ancient, though full of Errors, and perhaps a little corrupted by him that Translated it.   

VICTORINUS.  
VICTORINUS Bishop of Passaw 
a Bishop of Passaw, a City of the Ancient Pannonia, and not of Poitiers in France.] Monsieur Launoy has written a Dissertation on purpose, to prove that he was not Bishop of Poitiers in France, but of a City in Pannonia called Petabion or Petavion, now called Passaw. He quotes in this Dissertation Five several places of St. Jerome, where mention is made of this Victorinus, twice in his Catalogue, once against Vigilantius, once against Helvidius, and once upon the Thirty sixth Chapter of Ezekiel; we find in the ancient Editions Petabionensis, or Petavionensis, or Pictabiensis, or Pictabionensis; and that he is also called by this Name in the Martyrologies of Usuardus and Ado, and in some other Ancient Writers, as well as in the first Edition of the Councils by Merlinus; and in the Edition of the Commentary upon the Apocalypse attributed to this Author. And he concludes from all these Authorities, and from several other Reasons that he produceth, that this Voctorinus was nor Bishop of Poitiers, but of a certain City in Pannonia called Petabion or Petavion, and now Passaw. He likewise observes in another small Dissertation, that there were five Authors of this Name. The First is the Defender of the Opinion of Praxeas, whereof Tertullian makes mention. The Second is our Author. The Third is a Rhetorician of Rome, of whom St. Austin speaks in the Eighth Book of his Confessions, Chap. 2. The Fourth is mentioned by Gennadius, who was of Marseilles. And the Last is an Orator, Surnamed Lampadius, mentioned by Photius, Cod. 101. See this Dissertation. , a City of the ancient Pannonia, situate upon the Drove in Styria, and not of Poitiers in France, passeth for a very indifferent Author. 
b St. Jerome saith of him, that he did not understand Latin so well as Greek,] These Passages of St. Jerome are in this Catalogue: Non aeque Latine ut Graece noverat; inde opera ejus grandia sensibus, viliora sunt compositione verborum. And in his Commentary upon Isaiah, Lib. 1. Imperitus sermone, non tamen scientia. Epist. ad Magnum: Victorino Martyri in suis libris licet desit eruditio, non deest tamen eruditionis voluntas.  St. Jerome says of him, That he did not understand Latin so well as Greek; that the Style of his Works is simple and mean, though the Sense is very high; that he had no Notion of Style, though he understood 
Pierius.  the Holy Scriptures very well; that he had no Learning, but that he had great Inclinations that way. His Works, whereof St. Jerome has composed a Catalogue, are, besides a Treatise against all Heresies, some Commentaries upon Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Isaiah; and as far as the Vision of the fourfooted Beasts in in Ezechiel; Ecclesiastes, the Canticles, and the 
c And upon the Revelations.] He likewise wrote some other Works, and made a Commentary upon St. Matthew, as St. Jerome tells us, Praefat. in Matth. And in his Catalogue he says, That he composed several other Works.  Revelations.  
We have in the Bibliotheca Patrum, a Commentary upon the Apocalypse by Victorinus, with a Preface attributed to St. Jerome. It is said in this Preface, That Victorinus was of the same Opinion with Papias and Nepos, touching the Reign of the Thousand Years; and the very same thing is likewise observed by St. Jerome in his Catalogue: Nevertheless we find the contrary in this Commentary, and that Opinion seems to be plainly rejected there, as belonging to the Heretic Cerinthus. There is also mentioned in this Book an Epitome of Theodorus, who reckoned Twenty Four Books of the Old Testament. Now this Theodorus having lived under Justinian, we must of necessity conclude, that the Author of this Commentary lived since that time; however, 'tis far more probable that this Citation of Theodorus has been added since, because the Author of this Commentary lived before Justinian's Age. For he believed with the Ancients, that the Souls of Men should not be happy till after the Day of Judgement; and that Nero was Antichrist; which Opinions were not where maintained in Justinian's time. 'tis likewise very probable, that they have altered somewhat of what he says in his Commentary concerning the Reign of the Thousand Years; besides that, he formally rejects only the Error of Cerinthus, who believed no other Beatitude but that of a Temporal Reign. I don't believe, says he, that the Reign of the Thousand Years will be at the end of the Judgement; or if there is one, we ought to believe that it ends after the Thousand Years are completed. Thus we cannot be certainly assured, that this Commentary does not belong to Victorinus; on the contrary, 'tis somewhat probable that it is his.   

PIERIUS.  
PIERIUS, a Priest and Catechist of Alexandria, Instructed the People of that Church under the Empire of Carus and Dioclesian, at the same time when Theonas was Bishop of that place. He composed several sorts of Treatises, that were extant in St. Jerome's time, with so much Eloquence, that he was called the young Origen. It is certain, he lived a very austere Life, and embraced a voluntary Poverty. He was excellently well skilled in Logic and Rhetoric. The Persecution being ended, he came to Rome, where he continued a considerable time. He wrote a great Homily upon Hosea, which he recited on Easter-Eve, wherein he takes notice, that in his time on Easter-Eve the People tarried in the Church till after Midnight. Photius tells us, That in this Homily he discoursed about the Cherubims that Moses placed over the Ark. The same Author read another Work composed by Pierius, but he does not acquaint us with the Title of it, that contained a dozen Volumes; in which, according to the Testimony of Photius, he has some particular Opinions different from those of the Church. His Doctrine upon the Trinity is Orthodox concerning the Persons of the Father and the Son, though he uses the Word Substance and Nature to signify a Person. But his manner of speaking about the Holy Ghost is dangerous, and scarce Orthodox; because he says, That the Glory of the Latter is less than the Glory of the Father and the Son. Photius moreover adds, That he wrote a Book upon St. Luke's Gospel; in which he proves, That the Disrespect shown to Images, falls back upon that which they represent. As for his Style, he tells us, It is clear, smooth and easy; that it is by no means elaborate, but flows equally and gently, as in Discourses composed Extempore; and that it is full of Enthymems.   

METHODIUS.  
METHODIUS, Bishop of Olympus or 
a Or Patarah.] St. Jerome tells us, he was Bishop of Olympus; Suidas adds, or of Patara. Though we are not therefore to think that there were two Methodius'. But it is probable that Patara, which was a City of Lycia, was likewise called Clympus; because it was built upon a Mountain so called. Methodius likewise calls himself Eubulus, and that is the Name he uses in his Banquet of Virgins. Eusebius does not speak of this Author, because he wrote against Origen. St. Jerome reports, That some Persons said, he suffered Martyrdom in the time of Decius and Valerian; which Account is followed by Suidas. But St. Jerome, and the Martyrologies after him, relate, that he suffered Martyrdom at Chalcis towards the End of the last Persecution.  Patara in Lycia, and afterwards of Tyre in Palestine, (who suffered Martyrdom at Chalcis, a City of Greece, towards the end of Dioclesian's Persecution in the Year 302. or 303.) composed in a clear elaborate Style, a large Work against Porphyrius the Philosopher; an excellent Treatise about the Resurrection against Origen; another about the Pythonyssa against the same; a Book Entitled, The Banquet of Virgins; one about freewill; Commentaries upon Genesis and the Canticles, and several other Pieces that were extant in St. Jerome's 
Methodius.  time. At present, besides The Banquet of Virgins that was published entire not long ago by Possinus a Jesuit, we have several considerable Fragments of this Author cited by St. Epiphanius and Photius, and others, found in Manuscripts, and collected together by Father Combesis, who has Printed them, together with the Works of Amphilochius and Andreas Cretensis. But afterwards Possinus found The Banquet of Virgins entire in a Manuscript belonging to the Vatican Library, and Translated it into Latin, and sent it into France, where it was Printed in the Year 1657. Revised and Corrected by another Manuscript. We cannot doubt, that this is the true genuine Work of Methodius; as well because it carries all the Marks of Antiquity in it, that a Book can possibly have; as also because it contains Word for Word all the Passages that Photius has cited out of this Work of Methodius, and another place cited by St. Gregory Nyssen. 'Tis written by way of Dialogue, in which he introduces a Woman named Gregorium, who tells her Friend Eubulus all the Conversation that passed in a Meeting of Ten Virgins, which she learned of Theopatra. It was composed by Methodius, in imitation of a certain Book, very much resembling it, written by Plato, and Entitled, The Banquet of Socrates. After that Gregorium and Eubulus have exchanged the usual Compliments, and Gregorium has given a short Description of the Place, where these Ten Virgins were assembled; she feigns that Arete, in whose Garden they were met, requests each of them to make a Discourse upon Virginity; which she repeats one after the other.  
The First is that of Marcelia, who enlarges very much upon the Greatness and Excellence of Virginity. She makes it appear how choice a thing Virginity is; and that it is a difficult thing to preserve it amidst so many Thousand Temptations we meet with: That it is necessary to meditate incessantly upon the Holy Scripture, in order to keep it unspotted and undefiled: That Virginity was scarce so much as known under the ancient Law, when Men were permitted to Marry even their own Sisters, and to take several Wives: But that God by little and little has taught Men, in the first place to preserve their Chastity, and afterwards to embrace Virginity: That Jesus Christ came into the World to instruct them in this Virtue by the Influence of his own Example; that he is the Prince of Virgins, as well as the Prince of Pastors; that the Company of Virgins has the first place in his Kingdom, though they are the least in number: And this she justifies by a Passage out of the Revelations, Chap. the 14th.  
Since this Conversation of Marcelia might seem to throw some Dis-reputation upon the Sanctity of Marriage, Theophila proves in the second place, that Jesus Christ in making the great Excellencies of Virginity known to the World, did not design thereby to banish Marriage, and entirely abolish so Sacred an Institution. She says, That the Ecstasy of Adam denotes and signifies the Passion of Marriage; that God is the Author of Generation, and that he forms the Infants that come into the World. Here Marcelia interrupts the Series of her Discourse, and inquires of her, How it comes to pass, if Infants are conceived and born by the Will of God, that he permits the Children of Adulterers to come into the World; that these Children thrive, and are often more perfect in their Body and Mind, and also become better Christians than others: That nevertheless, Experience daily acquaints us with the truth of this Assertion; so that we ought to understand this Saying in the Scripture, The Children of Adulteterers shall be consumed by Fire, only of those that corrupt the Word of God. Theophila returns this Answer to the Obejction, That God is not the Author of Adulterers, though he forms the Infants that are born of such Copulations; and this she illustrates by the Example of a Man that makes Earthen Vessels in a place enclosed with four Walls full of Holes, through which he is furnished with Clay, of which he makes his Work: Now if those that serve him are mistaken in taking one hole for another, and it so happen that his Work is not such as it ought to be, the fault would lie neither in the Workman himself, nor in the Clay, but in those that had made a wrong Application of the matter; That after the same manner, we ought not to cast the Sin of Adulterers either upon God that makes Men, or upon the Matter of which they are made, or upon the Power that is given to Men to beget Children, but upon the wicked Inclinations of those Persons that use these things in a dishonest manner; that every thing in the World is really Good in itself, but becomes Ill through the ill use and management of it. She continues afterwards to prove, by the admirable Beauty and Harmony that so visibly appears in the Contexture of our Bodies, that God is the Author of them. She observes that all Infants, even those that are begotten in Adultery, have their tutelar Angels to guard them immediately after their Conception; that the Soul is in its Nature immortal; that it is not generated by our Parents, but proceeds from God who inspireth it. In short, after she has thus answered this Objection, she concludes, That it is permitted for Men to Marry, though Virginity is a more perfect State than Marriage.  
The Third Discourse goes under the Name of Thalia, who applies the words of Adam to his Wife in Genesis, to our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, and his Church; and following the Opinion of the Apostle, she adds, That the Word was the Wisdom of God; who existing before all Ages, communicated himself after a very particular manner to the first Man; but that Man having violated and transgressed the Commandments of God, became Mortal and Corruptible; and that it was necessary for the Word to make himself Man, to deliver him from the Curse and Tyranny he had rendered himself obnoxious to, and save him from Corruption by his own Death and Resurrection. That it is upon this account, that the Son of God came into the World, to unite himself to the Church, as to his Spouse, which through this means became his Flesh and his Botie; that he died for her; that he purified her by Baptism, and by his Holy Spirit; that these words, Increase and Multiply, are accomplished and fulfilled every day in the Church, which increases in Greatness and Beauty by the Communication of the Word, and by the Union it maintains with him; that Catechumen are as it were Infants, that are as yet in their Mother's Belly, that being perfectly instructed, they are born through Baptism, and at last become perfect full grown Men; that we ought not therefore to abuse these Words, and employ them, to oppose Virginity, to which St. Paul exhorts the Fiathful, not allowing Marriage itself, and second Marriages in particular, but as a Remedy for Incontinence; like one that should desire a Person that is Sick and Indisposed to eat on a Fastday, and say to him, It were to be wished that you were able to East, as all of us have done to day, for you know eating is forbidden; but since you are sick, it is expedient for you to eat, that you may not die.  
In the Fourth Discourse, that goes under the Name of Theopatra, it is maintained, That nothing is more efficacious than Virginity, to make a Man enter again into Paradise, and enjoy a blessed Immortality.  
In the Fifth, Thalusa endeavours to demonstrate, That the most excellent Gift we can present to God, and the most worthy of Him, is to embrace Virginity; and she gives several Cautions and Advertisments to Virgins how to preserve their Virginity without Spot or Blemish.  
Agatha, that manages the Conference after Thalusa, undertakes to prove in the Sixth Discourse, that Virginity ●●ght to be accompanied with Virtue and good Works; and to this purpose she explains the Parable of the Ten Virgins.  
Procilla afterwards gins the Seventh Discourse, wherein she shows the Excellency of Virginity; because of all Virtues, this is that which has the Honour to be the Spouse of Jesus Christ. She explains a a certain place out of the Sixth Chapter of the Canticles, ver. 7. and 8. There are threescore Queens, and fourscore Concubines, and Virgins without number. My dove, my undefiled is but one.  
Thecla, assuming the Discourse after this, observes, That the Greek word that signifies Virginity, only by adding one Letter to it, denotes an Union with God, and a frequentation of Heavenly Things. She takes occasion from t●…ce to show. That Virginity elevates us up to Heaven, and makes us despise the Vanity of things below; and having cited a place in the Revelations, Chap. 12. concerning a Woman that is there described, she explains it of the Church. In short, after she has drawn some Allegories from Numbers, she exhorts all Virgins to persevere in their Virginity, and to resist the Attacks of the Serpent; that is to say, the Temptations of the Devil. From thence she launches out into other matter, and shows that Men are free Agents, and that they are not necessitated to do good or ill by the Ins●…ences and Configurations of the Stars, de●iding the Effects that the Astrologers attribute to the Constellations because of their Names. For, says she, if there was any such thing as fatal Necessity from the beginning of the World, it was ●o no purpose for God to place the Stars of Men, and the Stars of Beasts in order; and that if there was, not a necessity at that time, wherefore should God establish it, since the World was then in its full perfection, and in a time which they called the Golden Age? She afterwards demonstrates; That if we were necessitated by the Fatality of our Nativity under such and such a Constellation, it would follow, that God who is the Author of the Stars, and of their Motion and Disposition, would likewise be the Author of Sin and Iniquity. She adds, That Laws being contrary to things that are done by a fatal Necessity, it is impossible that these Laws should be made by mere Fatality. For, says she, it is not to be supposed that this Fatality would destroy itself. Now, if those that had a share in making these Laws, were not subject to this fatal Necessity, why should we not pass the very same Judgement upon others? Besides, if such a Fatality really took place, it would be Injustice either to recompense the Good, or punish the Bad; or rather, there would be neither Good nor Evil in the World, since every one would be constrained to Good or Evil. Afterwards to explain the Cause of Evil, she says, There are two contrary Motions in us; one of which is called the Concupiscence of the Flesh; the other, the Concupiscence of the Spirit; that This is the Original of all Good, and the Other the Cause of all Evil.  
After this, Tysians taking up the Discourse, explains in the Ninth Discourse a place of Leviticus, V 36. Chap. 23▪ where mention is made of the Feast of the Seventh Month; that is to say, the Fifteenth of September, which is the Scenopegia, or Feast of Tabernacles. She reprehends the Jews for stopping at the bare Letter of Scripture, without penetrating into the h●dden mysterious Sense; and for taking the Figures of things to come, as Marks of things that were already past. She instances in the Paschal Lamb, which they did not comprehend to be a Type of Jesus Christ, who at the Day of Judgement shall save Souls marked with his own Blood; That the Law was the Figure of the Gospel; That these Shadows and Representations are no more, but that we shall have a perfect Knowledge of all things when we shall be raised up from the Dead; That Man was created Immortal, but that his Sin causing him to incline towards the Earth, God made him Mortal, lest he should continue a Sinner everlastingly; That for this reason he separated the Soul from the Body; that so the Sin, which is in the Body, being dead and destroyed, he might raise it up again immortal, and delivered from the tyranny of Sin; That we ought to adorn this Body, which may be called a Tabernacle, with Faith, with Charity, Virtue, and particularly with Chastity; That those that live chastely in the state of Marriage, adorn it in part, but not so perfectly as those that have made a Profession of Virginity; That those Persons who have thus adorned and set out the Tabernacle of their Bodies in this Life, shall enjoy after the Resurrection a Thousand Years of Repose and Felicity upon the Earth with Jesus Christ, that afterwards they shall follow him to Heaven; and that this is the promised Beatitude, in which there shall be no more Tabernacles; that is to say, in which our Bodies shall be changed, and become incorruptible, and Men shall be made like Angels.  
Lastly, Domnina, to show the Excellency of Virginity, falls into a very obscure Allegory upon a place of Scripture taken out of the Book of Judges. After her Harangue is ended, Arete, assuming the Discourse, tells them, That to be truly a Virgin, it is not sufficient barely to preserve and keep Continence of Body, but that it is likewise necessary to purify one's self from all Sensual Desires; That we actually dishonour and fully Virginity, when we abandon ourselves to Pride, or permit a Spirit of Vanity to possess us, because we have preserved our Bodies chaste; That this is to do like the Pharisees, who made every thing appear clean without, while they were full of Impurities within; That we ought to be Virgins both in Body and Spirit, and that we must watch and labour incessantly, lest Idleness and Negligence give an open entrance to other Sins. After this Discourse, all of them Sing their Prayers, and several times repeat, I preserve myself chaste for thee, O my Divine Spouse, and desire to walk before thee with a burning Lamp. At last Gregoriam and Methodius, Surnamed Eubulus, who entertained themselves with the Discourses of these Virgins, discuss this Question, viz. Who were the most perfect Virgins, either those that feel no Motions of Desire, or those that feel them, and though they are assaulted and tormented by them, yet heroically resist and extinguish them? Gregorium gave the preference to the first: But Methodius shows her by the Example of Mariners, Physicians, and Wrestlers, that those Virgins who preserve themselves chaste in the midst of those violent Agitations and Tempests that are excited by their Passions, who have the Art to cure the various Diseases of Concupiscence, and cannot only resist, but also defeat the disorderly Motions of the Flesh, deserve a great deal more than those that have no Appetites and Inclinations to struggle with.  
This Dialogue is full of Allegories, and Citations out of Scripture explained in a mystical Sense; and the Doctrine contained in it is exceeding Orthodox. He does not condemn, or speak dishonourably of Marriage, even when he is setting out Virginity to the greatest Advantages; a Moderation seldom to be found in the Ancients. Photius tells us, That this Book has been corrupted by the Heretics; and that there are some Expressions in it, which the Arians use. And indeed he tells us in the Seventh Discourse, That the Son who is above all Creatures, made use of the Testimony of the Father, who alone is greater than he. But if by reason of this single Expression, we must immediately cry out, that this Dialogue has been abused by the Arians, we must likewise say the same thing of the Gospel of St. John; and there is no greater difficulty in giving a good Sense to this Expression in Methodius, than in the Gospel; and so much the rather, since in the same place, and indeed as often as he speaks of the WORD in this Dialogue, he says, That he was before all Ages: And towards the end of the following Discourse, which is the Eighth, explaining these Words of the Psalmist, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. We ought to observe, cries he, that he says, Thou art my Son; being willing to have it known that he had from all time the quality of the Son, that he will never cease to have it, and that he who was begotten, was, and ever will be the same. As for what concerns the following Passage, this day have I begotten thee; it is to show, that he who was before all Ages in Heaven, was born in time for the good of the World. A little after he takes occasion to speak of the Heretics, who have erred concerning the Trinity. Some of them, says he, as Sabellius, have erred concerning the Person of the Father, who maintained that it was the Almighty that suffered: Others concerning the Son, as Artemas and some others, that affirm, he was only a Man in outward appearance: Others concerning the Holy Ghost, as the Ebionites, who pretend that the Prophets spoke of themselves: For I will not speak of Marchion, Valentinus, and Helcesaites. These Words demonstrate, that we may very well defend Methodius from the Imputation of any Error concerning the Trinity. I cannot spend any more time to observe, that he taught the Opinion of the Millenaries in this Treatise, or to give an exact relation of his Doctrine, which may be learned out of the Abridgement we have made of his Banquet of the Virgins. The Treatise of the Resurrection was written against Origen's Opinion, who believed that Men were not to be raised up again from the Dead in the Flesh. This Book also was composed in form of a Dialogue between Aglaophon, who maintained Origen's Assertion, and Proclus, and Methodius or Eubulus, who dispute against him. St. Epiphanius has cited a large Fragment of it in his Account of the Heresy of Origen; and Father Cambesis has added some other Fragments to it, taken out of a Manuscript of Sermondus. He first of all proves under the Person of Procius, Th●t Man was created Immortal, that Death was occasioned by his Sin, of which it is the Punishment; That Sin was caused by the Envy of the Devil; and that the Devil himself, who was created in Righteousness like to the other Angels, fell through the Sin of Envy, and an inordinate Passion he had for Women; That our first Parents had a real Body and real Flesh before their Transgression; That the Fig-leaves wherewith they covered themselves, denote that after the Death of Man, Sin shall be entirely rooted out of the Heart: For, though men's Sins are blotted out by Baptism, yet nevertheless there remains a Root still, that shoots up young Branches in this Life: So that all we can do to hinder these Branches from spreading, is to root them up, and prune them often with the Pruning-knife of the Word of God. He tells us, that Man is like a cast Statue, which having been disfigured by some Accident, the Workman that made it, casts it anew before he erects it again; That after the same manner, God almighty who made Man, was willing that his Work which was disfigured by Sin, should be destroyed by Death, that so he might re-establish him by the Resurrection; That it is a folly to imagine a Resurrection of the Soul, since the Soul does not die; That Air, Earth, Heaven and the World shall not be destroyed at the Day of Judgement, but that they shall only be purged and renewed by the Fire of Heaven; That Men shall not change their Nature at the Resurrection, and that they shall not be transformed into Angels; but that they still have Body and Flesh, though immortal and incorruptible. All this is extracted from the words of Proclus. St. Epiphanius afterwards citys those of Methodius, who continues to refute Origen's Error about the Resurrection, and who likewise endeavours to prove in the same place against the same Author, That the Body cannot pass the Chains and Prison of the Soul; That the Paradise where Adam lived was upon Earth; That Man does not consist of the Soul alone, as Plato believed, but that the Body and Soul are the two parts of him; That 'tis Fabulous to say, that Souls were thrown headlong down from Heaven in their Bodies, or that they passed through Vertices of Elementary Fire, and through the Waters of the Firmament before they came to the Earth. And at last he makes several curious useful Remarks upon the Scriptural Notion of Flesh, and of the Sin that dwells in our Bodies, explaining at the same time several places of the Apostle. Photius has cited these Explications all along, and added besides, what the same Author has delivered about those Persons that were raised up to Life before Jesus Christ, about the Apparitions of the Dead, and the Parable of Dives and Lazarus; in which he concludes, that Souls keep the Form of their Bodies in another World, and are there punished and rewarded before the Day of Judgement. There still remains a certain Passage of it, which is supposed to belong to the same Work quoted by St. John Damascene, in his Third Oration concerning Images; wherein he says, That Christians make Golden Images representing Angels for the Glory of God. But I very much question whether this Passage belongs to Methodius; or if it does, it must be taken in another sense than that in which Saint John Damascene understood it; and that by Angels, Principalities and Powers, he means the Kings of the Earth, as the Words that immediately precede seem to intimate.  
The Treatise of freewill was composed in Form of a Dialogue or Dispute between a Valentinian and a Catholic. The former affirms, That Matter which is Eternal, was the cause of Evil, or of Sin. On the other hand, the Orthodox Christian makes it appear, that there could not be two Eternal Principles; that if Matter were Eternal, yet Evil would not be Eternal, because the qualities of Matter could not be Eternal; that Matter is not the cause of Evil; and that God is not the cause of Evil, because Evil consists not in a real thing, but in the ill use that we make of our Liberty; that Man having been created with a Liberty either to obey, or not to obey the Commandments of God he sins, when using this Liberty the wrong way, he does things contrary to the Law of God.  
These are the Works of Methodius, which St. Jerome mentions. Photius has made an Extract of a Treatise about created things, written by Methodius. In the First, he says, That these words of Jesus Christ, Cast not Pearl before Swine, ought not to be understood of Doctrine, but of Virtues; and that the meaning is not, that we must conceal Mysteries from the Infidels, but that we must not profane the Christian Virtues; such as Chastity. Temperance and Justice, with the Pleasures of the World that are signified by the Swine. In the Second, he confutes those that thought the World had no beginning; an Opinion which he attributes to Origen. In the Third, he says, That the Church is so called, because it calls Men to fight against Pleasures. [In the Greek Ecclesia, which signifies a Church, or any Assembly of Men, comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to call; because the Public Assemblies were convened by public Criers, who called the People together.] In the Fourth, he says, That there were two Virtues or Powers that concurred to the Creation of the World; the Father that created it of nothing, and the Son that polished and completed the Work of the Father. The Son, says he, who is the Almighty hand of the Father. In the Fifth he asserts, That Moses was the Author of the Book of Job; and he explains the first Words of the Book of Genesis, In principio, in the beginning, of the Wisdom of God. He observes, that God the Father begot the Word, or the Wisdom which was in Him before the Creation of the World; that this Wisdom being a Principle without Beginning, became the Principle of all things; which is a Catholic way of speaking, and far remote from the Arian Opinion; though it does not seem to be altogether conformable to the Expressions of our Age. To conclude, In the last Fragment he citys a Passage of Origen, who would endeavour to prove by Allegories, That the World existed long before the Six Days, that preceded the formation of Adam. Methodius looks upon this as a trifling Opinion.  
Theodoret, in his first Dialogue, citys a Passage taken out of a Sermon of Methodius concerning the Martyrs; where he says, that Martyrdom is so admirable, and so much to be desired, that Jesus Christ the Son of God would honour it himself; and that he who was equal to his Father, was willing to Crown Humane Nature, to which he himself was united with that excellent Gift.  
The Sermon composed upon the Nativity of Jesus, and upon his being presented in the Temple, entitled, Simeon and Ann, published by Pantinus in the Year 1598., and afterwards Printed by Father Combefis amongst the rest of the Works of Methodius, is neither cited by any of the Ancients, nor mentioned by Photius, though it is written in Methodius' Style. The Author of it endeavours to confute the Errors of Origen, and calls himself the Author of the Banquet of Virgins, in the beginning of his Discourse, which shows that it belongs to Methodius. Though we must own that he speaks so clearly of the Mysteries of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, of the Divinity of the Word, whom he calls in several places Consubstantial to the Father, of the Hymn called the Trisagion, of the Virginity of Mary even after her Delivery, and of Original Sin, that it gives us some reason to doubt, whether some thing has not been since added to this Sermon. Besides, the Style of it is more swelling, and fuller of Epithets than that of Methodius.  
Besides all this, Father Combefis upon the Authority of a Manuscript in the King's Library, has restored to Methodius another Sermon upon Palm-Sunday, that was formerly Printed under the Name of 
Lucian.  St. Chrysostom, by Sir Henry Savil, upon the Authority of another Manuscript. It is certain, that it approaches nearer to the Style of Methodius than of St. Chrysostom; but he explains the Mystery of the Trinity so clearly in one place, and opposes the Heretics so very plainly, that there is some reason to believe, that either this place has been since added, or that this Homily was not written by Methodius. Father Combefis has likewise collected some other Fragments attributed to Methodius, cited by St. John Damascene, and by Nicetas, drawn out of his Books against Porphyry. But besides, that we cannot entirely depend upon the Authority of these two Authors, who are not very exact, these Fragments have nothing considerable, and we think it not worth the while to say any thing more concerning them. We shall not take any notice of some Latin Prophecies about Antichrist attributed to Methodius, that are Printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum, since it is agreed on all hands that they are not his.  
The Style of Methodius is Asiatick, that is to say, diffuse, swelling, and full of Epithets. His Expressions are Figurative, the turn of his Sentences affected, he is full of Comparisons, and farfetched Allegories, his Thoughts are mysterious, and he says a few things in abundance of Words. Setting these things aside, his Doctrine is sound, and free from some Errors that were common to the Ancients; particularly concerning the Virginity of Mary, concerning Original Sin, concerning Guardian Angels, and several other Points; as may be observed in the Abridgement that we have made of his Works.   

PAMPHILUS.  
PAMPHILIUS, a Presbyter of Caesarea in Palestine, and 
a Friend of Eusebius.] Eusebius wrote the Life of Pamphilus, and was from him Surnamed Pamphilus.  Friend of Eusebius, suffered Martyrdom, during Maximine's Persecution. He wrote almost nothing himself, unless it be a few Letters to his Friends; but he took extraordinary pains to gather the 
b The Books of Ancient Writers.] He laboured along with Eusebius to copy out exactly, and to correct the Vesion of the Septuagint, that was in the Tetrapla, and Hexapla of Origen, intending to publish it by itself.  Books of ancient Writers, and particularly those of Origen, for whom he had a particular Esteem. He transcribed several Volumes with his own hand, and amongst the rest, his Twenty Five Books of Commentaries upon the Prophets, and that very Transcript was to be seen in St. Jerome's time. Pamphilus when he was in Prison composed 
c Five Books with Eusebius.] St. Jerome in his Catalogue of the Ecclesiastical Writers, makes him the Author of the Apology for Origen; but he afterwards retracted what he had said in his Apology against Ruffinus. The truth is, The Five first Books were composed by Pamphilus and Eusebius together; and the last, which Ruffinus quoted, was Eusebius' alone. See Photius, Cod. 108.  Five Books with Eusebius in defence of Origen, and Eusebius added a Sixth after his Death.   

LUCIAN.  
LUCIAN, a Presbyter of Antioch, applied himself vigorously to the Study of Scripture, and published a new Edition of the Version 
a Of the Septuagint.] The Version which he Corrected, was the common Version of the Septuagint. Upon this account, St. Jerome (Praefat. in Paralipomena) distinguishes between three different Editions of the Version of the Septuagint. The first, was that of Eusebius and Pamphilus, which he calls Palestine, that was taken out of the Hexapla of Origen, who corrected it by an ancient Version, and added several things borrowed from the Versions of Theodotian, Aquila, and Symmachus. The Second was that of Alexandria, whereof Hesychius was Author, who likewise corrected the common Version of the Septuagint. The Last, that of Lucian. This gave occasion to St. Jerome to say, That Totus Orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat.  of the Septuagint, which was afterwards called Lucian's Edition. He was a Man of great Eloquence, and wrote several small Treatises concerning Faith, and some Letters. Amongst others, he wrote one, when he was in Prison, addressed to a Christian of Antioch; the end of which Letter is preserved in the Chronicle of Alexandria, and is as follows: All the Martyrs that are with me, Salute you. I send you word that Bishop Anthimus died a Martyr. Lucian is accused to have been the first Author of the Arian Opinion: And indeed, all the Heads of that Party were his Disciples. He suffered Martyrdom at Nicomedia, under the Persecution 
b Of the Emperor Maximinus.] Eusebius, l. 9 c. 6. Hierom. in Catalogue. And therefore Baronius is mistaken, when following the Acts of his Martyrdom, he says, That he suffered under Maximian; for 'tis a common mistake amongst the Greeks to take Maximian for Maximin.  of the Emperor Maximinus, and was Buried at Helenopolis, a City of Bythinia.   

PHILEAS. 
Phileas.   
PHILEAS, descended of a Rich and Powerful Family in the City of Thmuis in Egypt, after having passed through several Offices and 〈◊〉, and acquired to himself the Reputation of an extraordinary Philosopher, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the City were he lived, and had his Head cut off for the Faith of Jesus Christ, under the Emperor Maximinus. Before he suffered Martyrdom, he wrote a famous Letter to the Inhabitants of the City of Thmuis; in which he describes the Punishments which the Christians were forced to endure in the City of Alexandria. He describes the Constancy with which they supported themselves, and exhorts his Flock to keep up the Religion of Jesus Christ after his Death, which he foresaw would shortly happen. Eusebius in the Eighth Book of his History, Chapter the Tenth, has preserved a Fragment of this Eloquent Letter, which St. Jerome scruples not to call a Book. He likewise tells us, that they had the Answers which he made to the Judge, who would have obliged him to offer Sacrifice. We have the Acts of his Martyrdom, that were Printed at 〈◊〉: But they are corrupt, as most of the rest are; and some things are inserted which are taken out of Eusebius and Ruffinus.   

ZENO Bishop of Verona.  
'Tis commonly believed, that there was one Zeno, Bishop of Verona, that suffered Martyrdom under the Empire of Galienus, and some Sermons are attributed to him, that were published by Guar●●us, Printed at Venice and Verona in the Years 1508. and 1586. and afterwards inserted into the Bibliothecae Pat●●m. But this Author being wholly unknown to all Antiquity, his Works have been absolutely rejected; nay, some have doubted, whether it be true, that there ever was a Bishop of Verona of that Name, that suffered Martyrdom under the Emperor Galienus. St. Gregory the Great is the first that speaks of Zeno, as a Martyr: but before him St. Ambrose, in a Letter written to Syagrius Bishop of Verona, makes mention of one Zeno, the Predecessor of this Syagrius, who soems to have governed the Church of Verena in the time of Constantius, or Julian the Apoltate. The Testimony of St. Ambrose has obliged those that positively maintain that there was one Zeno Bishop of Verona, a Martyr under, the Empire of Galienus; it has obliged them, I say, to distinguish between two Zeno's Bishop of Verona; one put to Death under Galienus, and another that lived in the time of Julian the Apostate. But it is better to own frankly, that 'tis a mistake to believe, that there was one Zeno Bishop of Verona in the time of Galienus. St. Gregory does indeed give the Name of Martyr to Zeno of Verona, but he does not tell us under what Emperor he suffered Martyrdom: And perhaps he might bestow that Title upon him, because he suffered some Persecution under Constantius, or Julian the Apostate. Be that as it will, Molanus observes, That heretofore in the Roman Martyrology, they placed him amongst the considerable Bishops that were Confessors: And Onuphrius Panvinus adds, That the Church of Verona anciently honoured him under that quality, and that Lippomanus Bishop of Verona, was the first that procured him the honour of a Martyr.  
'Tis very certain, that the Sermons which we have under the Name of Zeno, cannot belong to him whom they suppose to have suffered Martyrdom under Galienus; for this Author in his Fifth Sermon speaks of the Divinity of Jesus Christ against the Heretics that affirmed the Word to be God, but did not believe him to be Eternal as the Father, and supposed there was a time when He was not; which visibly demonstrates, That the Heresy of the Arians was then on foot. Neither can these Sermons belong to that Zeno of Verona, who lived under Constantius and Julian; because they are borrowed out of other Authors. There are Four Sermons of them that are 
a Entirely St. Basil ' s.] The Sermons of S. Basil upon these Words, Attend tibi, & de Livore & Invidia, are entirely stolen; and the two other Homilies about Fasting and Temptation, are part of the two longest of St. Basil.  entirely St. Basils. All the Homilies upon the Psalms are taken word for word out of the Commentaries 
b Of St. Hilary.] These Sermons upon the 126, 127, 128, 129, and 130 Psalms, belong to St. Hilary. Those upon the 49, 79, and 100 Psalms, might be his also; because we have lost the Commentaries of this Father upon the Psalms.  of St. Hilary; which shows, That these Sermons attributed to Zeno of Verona, are a Collection of Sermons 
c Stolen out of several Autkors.] Some of the long ones are taken out of Greek Authors, and the short ones out of the Latin Writers, and Fragments of Homilies.  stolen out of several Authors, and heaped together without any Choice. Some are short, others are long; some are well written, and in an elevated Style; others ill, and in a mean pitiful one; some are clear, others obscure. In short, nothing can be imagined to be more unequal. In the Sermon of Continence, he reckons more than 400 Years since St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians, and yet in other Homilies, he speaks of Temples, Martyrs and Carechumen, All these things set it past Dispute, that these Sermons attributed to Zeno of Verona, and unknown to all Antiquiry, are a Collection of Sermons taken out of several Authors of different Times and different Countries, put together indiscreetly by some ignorant Copier.  
The same Censure ought in all probability to be passed upon the 18 Sermons cited by Turrianus under the name of Eusebius of Alexandria. This Author is unknown to the Ancients; neither was there a Bishop of Alexandria 
d A Bishop of this Name.] Eusebius indeed, Lib. 7. Chap. 11. of his History, gives a good Character of one Eusebius a Deacon, that lived with Dionysius of Alexandria, who was afterwards Bishop of Laodicea; but this Man ought rather to call himself Eusebius of Laodicea, than Eusebius of Alexandria.  of this Name, for the Three first Ages of the Church: Therefore these Sermons belong to a more modern Author.   

ARNOBIUS.  
THough Arnobius and Lactantius lived the better part of their time in the Fourth Century of 
Arnobius.  of the Church, yet we shall nevertheless join them to the Authors of the Third, because they wrote with the same Spirit, and after the same manner; that is to say, they did not employ themselves in writing against the Heresies that role in the Fourth Age, but only in in confuting the Pagans in Imitation of the Ancients.  
Arnobius was Professor of Rhetoric at Sicca, a City of Numidia in afric 
a Under the Emperor Dioclesian.] He wrote his Books toward the end of the Third, or the Beginning of the Fourth Century; for in his First Book he expressly tells us, That it was Three Hundred Years, more or less, since the Christians began to appear in the World.  under the Emperor Dioclesian. He was first a Pagan; but as St. Jerome tells us in Euseb. Chron. being desirous to be converted, that he might more easily prevail with the Bishops to admit him amongst the Faithful, he composed, when he was but a Catechumen, Seven Eloquent Books against the Religion he had then left, and these Books were as Pledges or Hostages that procured for him the Favour of that Baptism he so earnestly solicited. Now though it must be confessed, that he did not perfectly understand the Christian Religion when he wrote these Books, in which some Errors are to be sound, yet he confuted the Absurdities of Paganism with singular Dexterity, and vigorously defended the principal Articles of our Religion.  
He gins his First Book with confuting that Popular Calumny, which the Pag ans so industriously advanced against the Christians, viz. That they were the Authors of all the Calamities and Miseries that afflicted the World. He shows, that this is a groundless and unreasonable Fancy, that there were Plagues, and Famines, and Wars before our Saviour's appearance, and that nothing had been changed since his coming: That he was so far from being the Author of their Miseries, that on the contrary, he brought abundance of Good unto the World; That Miseries proceed from Natural Causes, and that it often happens, that those things which in the common acceptation of Mankind pass for Misfortunes, don't prove so in effect; That if the Christians were the Cause of these Calamities, the World would have had no Interval without them ever since the appearance of Jesus Christ; That if the Pagan's Deities sent these Miseries to Men for the Punishment of the Christians, they were unjust as well as weak; That the Christians worship the true God, and apprehend no dangers from false ones; That they adore Jesus Christ, but don't consider him as a Man that suffered Death for his own Transgressions, but as a real true God, who took the Humane Nature upon him to manifest himself to the World, to teach Mankind the ways of Truth, and to accomplish all those things for which be appeared upon Earth; That he died, and afterwards was raised up from the Grave, to satisfy all Men that the Hopes of their Salvation were certain. He proves the Divinity of Jesus Christ by the Exemplary Holiness of his Life, by the Innocence of his Manners, by the great number of Miracles and Prodigies that were wought by him, and by others that had Commission from him, by the Signs that appeared upon the Earth at his Death; and then he shows, that we cannot reasonably question the Truth of these things, because the Evangelists, who have delivered them in writing, were Persons of great Integrity and Simplicity; That there is no reason to imagine they were so Vain, or indeed so Mad, as to pretend they saw those things that they never did see; especially since they were so far from reaping any Advantages from such Inventions that they thereby exposed themselves to the Hatred of all the World.  
In his Second Book, he demonstrates that Jesus Christ was wrongfully Persecuted, since he had done nothing to deserve the hatred of any one, since he was no Tyrant, and destroyed no body, since he acquired no Riches for himself, and did no manner of Injustice to the meanest Person. He likewise shows, that the Pagans had no certain Principles whereby to judge which was the true or false Religion; that they were very much in the wrong, for laughing at the Credulity of the Christians; since in the generality of things that have a relation to Humane Life, Men usually manage themselves by the belief which they repose in particular Persons; That Jesus Christ merited a great deal more than all the Philosophers in the World, because of the Miracles which he wrought; That the Pagan Philosophers believed the same things that are received by the Christians; as for Instance, The Immortality of the Soul, the Resurrection of the Body, and Hell Fire. He takes occasion from thence to discourse of the Nature of Souls, he pretends that they are of a middle quality between a Spirit and a Body; that they are by Nature Mortal; but that God of his Goodness immortalizes the Souls of those who repose their Confidence in him. He confutes Plato's Notions concerning the Soul's Immortality, and its Excellency, Dignity, Exile or Imprisonment in the Body. He supposes that it is Corporeal and extraduce; That Man is but very little different from the Beasts; That his Soul is mortal by Nature, but that it becomes immortal by the Grace of God: Opinions unworthy of a Man that had been perfectly instructed in the true Religion. What he at the same time observes, that in the Matters of Religion we ought not to indulge a fond Curiosity, not endeavour to penetrate into the Reasons of God Almighty's Conduct, nor judge of it by our own Light, is infinitely more worthy of a Christian, Jesus Christ, says he, was God, and I ought to tell you so, though you are not willing to understand it, yet he is God and speaks unto us from God. He has commanded us not to perplex ourselves with unprofitable Questions; let us therefore leave the Knowledge of these things to God, and not amuse ourselves in a vain pursuit after them. And yet he does not forget to answer those Questions that were ordinarily proposed by the Pagans concerning Jesus Christ. Now they often demanded the reason, why our Blessed Saviour, (since his Coming was so absolutely necessary for the Saving of Souls from Death) would suffer so long an Interval of time to pass before he came to deliver them. Arnobius replies, Is it possible for Man to know after what manner God dealt with the Ancients? Who has told you that he never relieved them any other way? Do you know how long it is since Men have been upon the Earth, or in what place the Souls of the Ancients are reserved? Who has informed you that Jesus Christ did not deliver them by his coming? Forbear then to torment yourselves about these things, and meddle not with those Questions which 'tis impossible for Humane Reason to resolve: Be persuaded that God has shown Mercy to them; Jesus Christ perhaps had taught you how, and when, and after what manner it was done, if it would not have afforded matter to your Pride. But wherefore continued the Pagans, did not Jesus Christ deliver all Mankind? He invites, he calls upon all the World, says Arnobius; he rejects no body, he readily receives those that come to him; he only requires that Men would desire and wish for him; but he constrains and forces no Man, for otherwise it would be Violence and not Grace. But are none but Christians delivered from Death? No, assuredly; for Jesus Christ alone has Power to effect it. But, say the Pagans, this is a new upstart Religion; and why should we quit that of our Ancestors for it? Why not, replied Arnobius, provided it is better? Did we never change our Ancient Customs? Did we never alter our old Laws? Is there any thing in the World which had not a beginning at first? Ought we to esteem a Religion for the Antiquity of it, or rather for the sake of the Divinity which we honour? Within less than Two Thousand Years none of the Gods that are now worshipped by the Pagans, were in being, whereas God and his true Religion has been from all Ages. Jesus Christ had his Reasons why he appeared when he did, though they are unknown to us. But why does he suffer those that worship him to be Persecuted? And why, replies Arnobius, do your Gods suffer you to be afflicted with Wars, with Pestilence and Famine, etc. As for us, 'tis not to be admired that we suffer in this Life, for nothing is promised to us in this World: On the contrary, all the Evils and Calamities which we suffer here, make way only for our Deliverance.  
In the Three following Books, Arnobius falls upon the Pagan Religion, and shows, that the Christians had very great reason to reject a way of Worship so very foolish, Extravagant and Impious.  
In his Sixth and Seventh Books, he demonstrates that the Christians did very wisely not to Build Temples, or trouble themselves with the Pageantry of Statues, Images and Sacrifices, and that it is a ridiculous piece of Folly to imagine, that God dwells in Temples, that the Images are Gods, or that the Divinities are contained in them. Or lastly, That we honour the true God, when we Sacrifice Beasts, burn Incense, or pour out Wine in Adoration of him.  
Thus we have considered the Subject of the Seven Books of Arnobius, that are written in a manner worthy of a Professor of Rhetoric. The turn of his Thoughts very much resembles that of an Orator, but his Style is a little African, that is to say, his Words harsh, ill-placed, unpolisht, and sometimes scarce Latin; and 'tis likewise evident that he was not perfectly acquainted with the Mysteries of our Religion. He attaques Paganism with a greater share of Skill and Vigour, than he defends Christianity, and discovers the Folly of That better than he proves the Truth of This. But we ought not to be surprised at it, for 'tis the ordinary Fate of all new Converts, who being as yet full of their former Religion, know the weakness and blind-side of it better than they understand the Proofs and Excellencies of that Persuasion which they have newly embraced. I will say nothing concerning the Latin Commentary upon the Psalms, that carries the Name of Arnobius, because it is a certain truth, in which all the Learned World agrees, that this Arnobius is a different Person from him of whom we have been speaking; that he is of a later Date, and lived after the Council of Chalcedon, since he mentions the Pelagians and Predestinarians.  
The Books of the Senior Arnobius were first published by Faustus Sabaeus, and Printed at Rome by Theodorus Priscianensis in the Year 1542. out of a Manuscript belonging to the Vatican Library, but with abundance of Faults that were to be found in that Manuscript. Galenius, who afterwards set out another Edition of them at Basil, in 1546. and 1560. by Frobenius, took the liberty to Correct them upon his own bare Conjecture, and to insert his own Emendations into the Text. Thomasinus printed them at Paris 1570. Canterus Corrected the Edition of Gelenius, and was the first Man that wrote Annotations upon Arnobius: His Edition was Printed by Plantin at Antwerp 1582. in Octavo. Elmenhorstius published a larger Comment upon him, and reviewed his Seven Books out of an ancient Manuscript. They are likewise Printed with Heraldus' Notes, in the Year 1583, and 1603, at Paris 1605, and at Hamburgh 1610, Stewechius a Learned Man took pains also with the same Author, and Printed him at Douai 1634. in Octavo. Thysius afterward revised his Edition, and caused it to be Printed at Leyden by le More, with the Notes of several others, 1652. and 1657. in Quarto. Lastly, Priorius Printed the Books of Arnobius against the Gentiles, at the end of St. Cyprian's Works, at Paris by Dupuis in 1666.   

LACTANTIUS.  
Lucius' Caelius 
a Lucius Caelius.] This is his proper Name. There are some Manuscripts where he is called Cecilius. 'Tis supposed that he was Surnamed Firmianus from his Country, and Lanctantius from the sweetness of his Elocution; but this is not certain.  Firmianus, Surnamed Lactantius, was 
b Converted in his Youth.] See the Seventh Book of his Institutions, Chapter the last, the Third Chapter of his Epitome, l. 2. c. 10. where he seems to reckon himself in the Number of those, who after they had acknowledged their Error, were converted to the Truth. St. Jerome tells us, That he was the Disciple of Arnobius.  Converted in his Youth to the Christian 
Lactantius.  Religion: He Studied Rhetoric in afric in the School of Arnobius, but far surpassed his Master in Eloquence. Whilst he was there, he writ a Book, Entitled, Convivium, or The Banquet; which acquired him so great a Reputation in the World, that he was sent for to Nicomedia to teach Rhetoric there. But meeting with sew Scholars there, because it was a Grecian City, where they had not very great value for the Roman Eloquence; he gave himself altogether to the writing of Books. St. Jerome informs us, That he wrote a Poem in Hexameter Verse, wherein he gave a Description of his Voyage; and another Piece which he called, The Grammarian; but imagining, that he was obliged to employ his Learning and Time upon a better and higher Subject, he entered the Lists in behalf of Religion. The First Treatise, which he composed after this manner, was that about the Work of God; He afterwards undertook his Seven Books of Institutions, 
c About the Year of our Lord 320.] Lanctantius was at Nicomeida at the time of Dioclesian's Persecution in the Year 302. as he himself tells us, Lib. 5. of his Instit. Chap. 2. He tarried there till the Persecution was over; afterwards he went to France, where he wrote his Book of Institutions: for he speaks of the Persecutors in the Beginning of his First Book, as if he were then in another Country; he therefore wrote it in the time of the Persecution carried on by the Emperor Licinius, which began in the Year 320. So that the Name of Arians. that is to be found in some Manuscripts of his Books, might perhaps have been added since.  about the Year of our Lord 320, in which he strenuously defends the Christian Religion, and likewise Answers all those that had written against it. After he had finished them, he abridged them, and added the Book concerning the Anger of God to the rest.  
He likewise wrote Two Books to Asclepiades, and Eight Books of Epistles; Four to Probus, Two to Severus, and Two to Demetrianus, but all these Books, that were extant in St. Jerome's time, are lost at present. We have only recovered one Small Treatise concerning Persecution mentioned by St. Jerome, which Baluzius has lately Published under the Title of De Mortibus Persecutoruns. He Promises several other Works of the same Author, as his Disputes against the Philosophers, against the Jews, and against the Heretics; but there is no reason to believe that Lactantius ever composed these Pieces, since St. Jerome doth not mention them; at least, that they were contained in his Epistles.  
Constantine afterwards took him to be Tutor to his Son Crispus, to instruct him in all manner of Learning. In the midst of all these Honours he was so very Poor that he often wanted Necessaries, being very far from making any pursuits after Pleasure. This is all that we know of the History of this great and excellent Person, but even this very Circumstance alone, as we find it related in Eusebius' Chronicon, may pass for an extraordinary and magnificent Commendation of him, and aught to inspire us with no mean Idea of his Piety. For he must certainly have been a very Virtuous Man, that could live poorly in a Court, that could neglect the Care even of Necessary things in the midst of Plenty and Abundance, and had not the least taste of Pleasures, when he resided amongst Persons that were overwhelmed in them.  
We are now to consider the Subject of the Seven Books of Lactantius, which besides the general Title of Divine Institutions, have each of them a particular Inscription, that acquaints us with the Matter whereof it Treats. The First is Entitled, De falsa Religione, of false Religion; The Second, De Origine Erroris, of the Original of Error. The design of Lactantius in these Two Books is to demonstrate the falsity of the Pagan Religion. In the first, after he has informed his Reader of the Reasons that moved him to undertake such a Work, and has made his Addresses to the Emperor Constantine, he shows that there is a Providence in the World, and that it is God who Rules and Governs it. He particularly enlarges upon this Second Proposition, and makes it evident by several Arguments, by the Authority of the Prophets that have Established it, and by the joint-Testimonies of the Poets, of the Philosophers, of Mercurius Trismegistus, of the Sibyls, and the Oracle of Apollo, and there is only one God that Governs the World: And lastly, towards the latter Part of this Book, he demonstrates the Falsity of the Pagan Religion, by showing that the Gods to whom they paid their Adoration, were Mortal Men; and not only so but for the most part wicked and profligate Wretches. In the Second Book he goes on to confute the Pagan Religion, and directs his Discourse chief against the Idols and Representations of their Deities; and plainly proves, that it is the highest Degree of Madness and Stupidity to pay Adorations to them as Divine Being's. After this, coming to assign Reasons for the Prodigies and Oracles, which the Pagans attributed to their Idols, he rises as high as the Creation of the World, to furnish himself with a fit occasion of discoursing about the Nature of Daemons, to whom he ascribes all those wonderful miraculous Effects. Lastly, he shows, That the principal Cause of the Errors and Malice of Men is owing to the perpetual Temptations and Snares of the Devil; as also to the abandoning of Cham and his Posterity.  
The Third Book is Entitled, De falsa Sapientia, Of false Wisdom; because it is chief leveled at the Pagan Philosophers, the Vanity of whose Philosophy he endeavours to expose and discover: From hence he draws this Conclusion, That the only Wisdom of Man is to know and worship God.  
The Fourth is concerning true Wisdom; and 'tis in this Book chief that he lays open the Doctrine of the Christians. In the beginning of the Book he shows, That the Philosophers were not able to find out the true Wisdom, because they never searched after it amongst the Jews, and because it is inseparable from the Worship and Knowledge of the true God. He afterwards explains the Doctrine of the Christians with relation to Jesus Christ; and evidently proves, That the Pagan's themselves acknowledged that he was the Word and Wisdom of God existing before the World; That this Word was begotten of God after an incomprehensible manner; That he descended from Heaven, and was born of a Virgin, according to the Predictions of the Prophets, that the Gentiles might know the true God. He than gives an Account of the Life, the Miracles, and Death of Jesus Christ; and shows, That it was necessary for him to undergo the infamous Punishment of the Cross.  
He afterwards demonstrates, That though the Christians do acknowledge that the Son is God, as well as the Father, yet they worship but one God; That the Father and Son are one Spirit, and one Substance, and one God; which 〈◊〉 illustrates and explains by the Comparisons of a Fountain and its Stream, of the Sun and its Rays, etc.  
Towards the End, he declaims in general against Heresies; and tells us, That the Catholic Church only has retained the true worship of God; That it is the Source of Truth, the Habitation of Faith, the Temple of God; That those Men who never enter into it, or who depart from it, are out of hopes of obtaining Everlasting Salvation; That no Man ought to flatter himself, whilst he continues steadfast in his Obstinacy, since his Eternal welfare is concerned in the Matter, which he will be in danger of losing, unless he takes particular Care; That though all the Sects of Heretics pretend and boast to be the Church, yet there is but one properly so called, which heals the Wounds of Man by the wholesome Remedies of Confession and Repentance.  
In the Fifth Book, that treats of Justice, He shows that the Pagans have no such thing as true Justice; That 'tis impossible to find it any where but in the Christian Religion; That it is a great Injustice to p●…secute the Christians, because of their Persuasion; and that though they were in an Error, yet their Adversaries ought to recover them out of it, by the force of Reason and not of Punishments; That we cannot, and that we ought not to constrain Men to be of any Religion; which is a thing not to be defended by Killing of others, but by Dying for it ourselves; not by Cruelty but Patience; That that the Sacrifices which are extorted from Men by Violence, neither signify any thing to those that offer them, nor to those that cause them to be offered, nor to the Gods themselves; That 'tis a surprising thing that the Pagans could suffer the Superstitions of the Egyptians, and the Atheism of the Philosophers, and yet should bear such an incurable hatred to the Religion of Jesus Christ: In short, That though God sometimes permits Truth and Justice to be persecuted; yet he never fails at last to punish Persecutors with the utmost Severity.  
The Sixth Book treats of the true worship of God. He distinguisheth between Two sorts of Worship, True, and False; and Two sorts of Ways, One that leads to Hell, and the Other that leads to Heaven. He tells us, That this last is a difficult Way, that we must pass through Poverty, Ignorance, and a long Series of Sufferings before we can arrive at Virtue; That the Philosophers searched after it to no purpose, since they neither knew what was Good, or what was Evil; having no Knowledge of God, who was the Author of Good, nor of the Devil who is the Author of Evil; That the Law of God is made clear and manifest to us; That this Law contains two Principal Heads; The First of Piety; The Second of Humanity. That Piety consists in worshipping God, and that Humanity which is also called Mercy and Charity, consists in our mutually assisting one another to our utmost Endeavours, since we are descended from the same Father; That if we would acquit ourselves of this Duty, we ought to bestow Alms, to relieve the Sick and Necessitous, to protect Orphans and Widows, to redeem Captives, and bury the Dead; and that the Apprehension of becoming poor, ought not to hinder us from giving considerable Alms, because they blot out and efface our Sins.  
He afterwards discourses about the Passions, and demonstrates, contrary to the Sentiments of the Philosophers, That Mercy or Compassion is not a Vice, but a Virtue; and that Fear and Love, which are Vices when they carry a Man to Earthly things, are Virtues when they move him towards Heaven. From hence, he proceeds to the Precepts of Justice that are less general, such as are the following ones; Not to Lie, not to be guilty of Usury, not to exact Gifts from the Poor, not to revenge ourselves of our Enemies, to speak well of those that revile us, to moderate our Passions, and to refrain from the pursuit of Sensual Pleasures. After he has thus show the way of Justice, he says, That if it should happen that a Man should forsake this way by falling into some Sin; yet he ought not to despair, but turn away from his Evil Practices, and satisfy God, who knows our secret Thoughts. In one word, That the Sacrifice, which we are to present, aught to be Spiritual, and that we ought to offer him the Purity of our Hearts, and the Praises due to his Divinity.  
The Last Book of his Institutions treats about Happiness, and a happy Life. He shows, that this supposes the Immortality of the Soul, which he demonstrates by several Arguments; and likewise that thi●… Mortal Life can never be Happy, unless we take care to preserve Justice. He afterwards discourseth of the End of the World, which he imagines must happen Six Thousand Years after its Creation, 
d Six Thousand Years after its Creation.] So that he seems to have thought that there were no more than 200 Years to reckon from his own time to the Day of Judgement.  and of the Signs that shall precede it, amongst which he reckons the Destruction of the Roman Empire, and of the last Judgement; wherein he tells us, God shall, as it were, weigh both Good and Evil; and that those who have committed more Evil than Good, shall be condemned to Everlasting Punishment; That on the contrary, those who are altogether Just, shall not in the least manner feel the Divine Fire; but that those who are in a middle condition, shall be examined by it, and so purified from their Sins; That after this Solemn Trial is over, Jesus Christ shall Reign a Thousand Years upon Earth with the Just, and when that Course of Time is finished, the World shall be renewed, all Mankind shall be raised again, and God shall make the Just like to Angels, that they may be in his Presence, and serve him during a happy Eternity; but that he will throw the Wicked headlong into Everlasting Fire. He concludes all, with exhorting Mankind to be Converted and Repent while they have an Opportunity of so doing; that so they may put themselves in a Condition of fearing nothing at that Great and Terrible Day. We cannot carry any thing along with us, says he, but the Innocence of our Lives. Those only shall appear rich before God, that bring along with them, if I may use the Expression, the Virtues of Mercy, of Patience, of Charity, and of Faith. This is the Inheritance which cannot be ravished from us, and which we cannot transmit to any one besides: And who are they that desire to acquire these Blessings? Let them that are Hungry come to the Celestial Bread of the Word of God, that they may be everlastingly satisfied. Let them that are Thirsty come to quench their Thirst with the Water of this Heavenly Fountain; Let no Man ground his hopes upon his Riches, or his Power; for these things are not able to make us happy for ever; but let us bind ourselves to the observation of Justice, which will accompany us even to God's Tribunal, where we shall certainly receive the recompense, which he has promised us.  
The Epitome or entire Abridgement of these Seven Books composed by Lactantius himself, is lost: what is extant, gins at the End of the Fifth Book, the rest was lost in St. Jerome's time. This Abridgement contained the very same things with the Books themselves, only more succinctly treated, and thrown into a narrower compass.  
In the Book of God's Anger, Lactantius endeavours to prove, that God is capable of Anger, as well as of Mercy and Compassion.  
In the Book of the Work of God, he establisheth Providence by demonstrating the Excellence of his Principal Work, which is Man; for which Reason, he makes an Elegant Description of all the Parts of his Body, and the Proprieties or Faculties of his Soul.  
The Book of Persecution, or rather of the Deaths of the Persecutors, lately published by Baluzins, and quoted by St. Jerome, was writ immediately after the end of that Persecution, which was begun in the Year 303, under Dioclesian, and ended 313, by the Death of Maximinus, when Licinius and Constantine were Masters of the Empire. 'Tis written to a Confessor, whose Name was Donatus, who suffered several times courageously for the Christian Religion during that Persecution. The Subject which Lactantius proposes to himself in this Treatise, is to show, That the Emperors who persecuted the Christians, died all miserably. He there describes and relates the several Persecutions which the Church suffered; and likewise the exemplary Punishments which God deservedly inflicted upon these persecuting Tyrants. After he has in a few Words briefly run over the Sufferings of the Church under the Emperor's Nero, Domitian, Decius, Valerian, and Aurelian, and given an account of the Tragical Deaths of these bloody Princes; he enlarges more copiously upon the following Persecution. He gives a particular Account of the History of Dioclesian, Maximian, Galerius, Severus, Maxentius, and Maximinus, and tells us how they came to be Emperors, and what was the occasion of the Divisions, and Wars that were raised between them. He represents in lively colours the horrid Cruelties which they exercised upon the poor Christians, and how by the visible Chastisement of God Almighty, they came to a lamentable End. This small Treatise is writ with a great deal of Flame and Elegance, and is exactly agreeable in the Historical Part to the Revolution of the Roman State under these Emperors. We find several Matters of Fact related there, which were unknown to us before, and many other Passages are illustrated, and set in a better light. He there discovers the Policy and Designs of all these Emperor; And lastly, makes it visibly appear, that the Hand of God was upon them to punish them for their Cruelty and ill Usage of the Christian Professors. There are few things in this Book that relate to the Doctrine of the Christians, but he seems to take notice, that St. Peter came not to Rome till the Beginning of Nero's Reign: And he likewise tells us, That as the Emperor Maximinus was offering Sacrifice, one of his Officers made the Sign of the Cross, and thereupon to their great trouble, the Daemons disappeared.  
Besides these Works, whereof we have already discoursed, there are Three Poems attributed to Lactantius, which are not mentioned by St. Jerome, nor are to be found in the ancient Manuscripts; and therefore in all probability they are none of his.  
The First, is a Poem concerning the History of the Phoenix, but the Author of this Piece was certainly no Christian but a Pagan; for he not only describes the Deluge like a Heathen, and contrary to Moses' Account, but he also speaks of Phoebus; as if he owned and acknowledged him for a God. The Second Poem concerning Easter, is addressed to one Felix a Bishop, and was composed by a Christian Author, who lived after Lactantius; 'tis attributed to Venantius Fortunatus, upon the Testimony and Authority of some Manuscripts in the Vatican Library. The Third is about the Passion of Jesus Christ, but is not to be found in any ancient Manuscript of Lactantius; besides, it does not in the least come up to the Purity and Eloquence of his Style, and besides he mentions the Adoration of the Cross. There are likewise some Arguments upon Ovid' s Metamorphosis, and Notes upon the Thebais of Statius, that some Persons have attributed to Lactantius, but they really belong to Lactantius Placidius, a Grammatian. They are quoted by Boetius and Sedulius.  
Lactantius is the most Eloquent of all the Ecclesiastic Authors that wrote in Latin; His Style is Pure, Equal and Natural; in a word, it is extremely like Cicero's, and he justly deserves the Name of the Christian Cicero, not only for the cleanness and purity of his Language; but also for the turn of his Phrase, and his Way of Writing, which is so conformable to that of Tully, that the most accurate Critics have been troubled to find out any difference between them: Nay, there have been some Persons in the World, as we are informed by 
e 
Picus Mirandula.] Picus lib. de Hist. Divinae Philosophiae, c. 7. Quis apud nos non videat esse Ciceronem, sed Christiannm, hoc est, aliquem, qui eum ad lineam vivumque expresse●it? Quis enim non advertit Lactantium Firmianum aequasse ipsum, & forte praecelluisse in Eloquendo?  
Idem, lib. 3. Epist. 10. Lactantius Ciceronis stilum effigiavit, vel ut quibusdam placet, supergressus est; mihi videtur rebus & sententiis crebrior, nec numeris injucundior, nec sibi aequibilitate & candore posterior. Has quip virtutes viribus maximis & amulatus, & assecutus est; hunc nec ●qualem posteri momorderunt, nemo elumbem & fractum, Asiaticum & redundantem nemo causatus est.   Picus Mirandula, who made no difficulty at all of preferring his Style to Cicero's.  
Be that as it will, we are very certain that Lactantius abundantly surpasseth Cicero in his Thoughts, because the Matter of that Religion, which he so handsomely defends, does infinitely excel the Maxims and Doctrine of the Philosophers. He confutes Paganism with all the Ardour and Spirit imaginable, and he likewise solidly establishes the Christian Religion. He discourses of God after a very sublime exalted manner; He explains the Divinity of the Word, and the Mystery of the Incarnation in an Orthodox Way; He describes the Creation of the World, and the Day of Judgement, by as lively and solemn a representation as any Body have ever yet used; but at the same time it must be acknowledged, that he has sometimes inserted false, uncertain and fabulous things into his Discourses. He is full of admirable Precepts of Morality; he lays down Descriptions of all the Virtues clearly and perspicuously, and with an invincible Eloquence exhorts Mankind to the Practice of them; he shows them the way of Justice, and deterrs them from pursuing the Paths of Iniquity; he teaches them to honour God with a true sincere Adoration, and to be throughly Penitent for their Sins. We ought however to own that he has handled Theology after a very Philosophical manner; but that he did not examine all our Mysteries to the bottom, and that he has committed several Mistakes.  
Pope Damasus writing to St. Jerome, is pleased to say, That he took no great pleasure in reading Lactantius' Books; because he frequently turned over several Pages, where he discourseth of things that have no manner of Relation to our Religion.  
St. Jerome passes this Judgement of him, That he was better able to destroy and confute the Errors of the Gentiles; than to maintain the Doctrine of the Christians; He is accused of doubting whether the Holy Ghost was the Third Person, and to have sometimes confounded him with the Son, and sometimes with the Father; but it may be alleged in his defence, That he meant nothing else, but that the Name of the Spirit in Scripture, is common to the Father and Son. But whatever the Matter is, we find no Footsteps of this Error in any of his Works that are now remaining, though in some places he takes occasion to speak of the Holy Ghost. He seems to have been of Opinion, That the Word was generated in time; but it is an easy matter to give a Catholic sense to that Expression, as we have seen it done to others, and we may be with Justice allowed to do so, since he plainly establishes the Divinity of the Word in that very place. His Opinion concerning Angels, that being sent to guard and protect Men, they were afterward seduced by the Temptation of the Devil, and that falling in Love with Women, they begot Terrestrial Daemons upon them; as it is properly peculiar to him, so it is an erroneous Imagination without any Grounds to support it. What he says about the End of the World, The Reign of a Thousand Years, The Fire of Judgement which will prove Men that have been Sinners, is common to him with divers other Authors; as also what he delivers about the state of Souls after Death, being kept in a Common Prison in expectation of the Day of Jugment, pretending that God created them all before the Creation of the World. I take no notice of several other Errors of less Consequence, and some harsh Expressions, which may be 
f Interpreted in a favourable sense.] In the First Book, Chapter the 7th. he says, That God made Himself. His meaning is, That he is of Himself, and was not Created. He tells us, Lib. 4. Cap. 14. That Jesus Christ is never called God, lest it should be thought that there were two Gods. In the Fourth Book, Chap. 13th. he says, That the Son of God was made Man, that he might be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as well as he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which is a vain Conceit. He says, Lib. 2. Cap. 9 That Darkness is from the Devil, who imitates God; and in the Second Book, Chapter the 12th. That Man was composed of two Natures that strive together; words that carry a Tincture of the Manichean Doctrine, unless they be favourably interpreted. In the Sixth Book, Chap. 13. He says, That Alms blot out the Sins of the Flesh: And he seems in the same place to maintain, That they who sin without Passion and without Surprise, shall never obtain Forgiveness for their Sins. In the Seventh Book, Chap. 5. & 14. He speaks of Immortality after such a manner, as might make us believe, that he was persuaded that the first Man was created Mortal. He falls into horrible gross Mistakes in his Chronology; as for instance, when he tells us, Lib. 4. Cap. 5. that Moses was 9●0 Years, and Solomon an Hundred and Fifty before the taking of Troy. In the Third Book, Chap. 23. He denies that there are any such things as Antipodes.  interpreted in a favourable sense.  
The Works of this Author have been Printed often. The First Edition that appeared, was at Rome 1468. in Folio, by Conra●us Leweynheim. The Second at Rome 1470. was Revised by an Italian Bishop. The Third was at Venice 1472, and it was afterwards Printed in the same City in the Years 1483. 1490. 1493. By Bennalius in 1509. 1511. 1515. By Mauritius in 1521. and 1535. At Paris by Petitus in 1509.  
At Rome in 1574. in 1583. and 1650. At Florence in 1513. At Basil in 1521. 1523. 1546. and 1563. Twice in 1556. At Lions in 1532. 1540 At Antwerp by Plantin in 1539. 1582. and in 1570. 1587. and in 1553. 1556. At Genev●● in 1613. At Leyden in 1662. At Amsterdam in 1652.  
Erasmus, Thomasius, Isaeus, Barthius, Thisius, Thaddensis, Galaeus, have wrote Notes upon this Author, that are joined together in this last Edition.  
The last Edition is that which was Printed at Amsterdam, with the Commentaries of several Authors. I have been assured by a very Learned Man, That it is not only far from being the best, but that it is one of the worst Editions that ever came out of this Author.  
[Since the Edition of Amsterdam, Dr. Spark set out an Edition of Lactantius at Oxon, to which he annexed his Book De mortibus Persecutorum, with Notes of his own, and a Dissertation of Mr. Dodwell's De Ripa Striga; to explain a difficult Passage in that little Book. Before this Edition came out, it was Printed by itself at Oxon in 12o. in the Year 1680. Corrected in many places by the Bishops of Oxford and St. Asaph, and by Dr. Isaac Vossius, who endeavoured to supply the Lacunae, which were in Baluzius' Manuscript Copy, from whence these Editions were taken. The Cambridge Edition 1685. in Octavo, of this little Book was taken from these. Since it was Published again by itself at Abo, with some Notes of Cuperus at the End, by Toinardus.]   

COMMODIANUS.  
HERE are Two Authors of the Fourth Century, whose Works have the same Character and 
Commodianus.  Genius with those that were composed by the Writers of the Three first Centuries.  
The First is called Commodianus: He is not where mentioned by the Ancients; but in reading his Poetry, 'tis an easy matter to see that it is not Supposititious. Gelasius places his Books amongst those which he calls Apocryphal, because the Millenary Opinion is here maintained, and Gennadius speaks of this Author in the following Words. Commodianus giving up himself to the Study of Humane Learning, read also the Books of the Christians. This gave him a favourable Opportunity of embracing the Faith. Being now become a Christian, and desirous to offer to Jesus Christ the Author of his Salvation a Present befitting a Man of Learning, he wrote a Treatise against the Pagans in Verse, which is composed in a middle Style, neither Verse, nor Prose: And because he had but slightly turned over our Authors, he was able to confute the Pagan Religion with more ease, than to establish that of the Christians. Hence it is that he speaks of the Divine Recompenses after a gross manner, following in this the Opinion of Tertullian, Lactantius and Papias. But his Morals are Excellent, and he persuades Men to embrace a voluntary Poverty. This is the Opinion of Gennadius concerning this Author, who lived in the Beginning of the Fourth Age, in the time of Pope Sylvester 
a In the time of Pope Sylvester.] Chap. 33. He exhorts the Pagans to join themselves to the Congregation of Sylvester; which plainly shows, that he lived at that time, and wrote in Rome or in Italy, though his Style is African. . He calls himself Commodianus 
b Commodianus.] At the end of his Work he tells us, That his Name may be found out by searching after it in his Verses; now if we take the first Letters of every Verse in the last Strophe, and put them together, we shall find Commodianus Mendicus Christi. , and by way of Allusion Gazaeus 
c Gazaeus.] In all Probability he is so called à Gaza, as he is named Commodianus à Commodis. , and gives himself the Title of the Beggar of Jesus Christ. He tells us, That he was once engaged in the Errors of the Heathens; but that he was converted by reading the Law of the Christians. His Work is entitled, Instructions; and is composed after the Fashion of Verse: I say after the Fashion of Verse, because he neither observes Measure, nor Cadence in it; but only takes care that every Line shall comprise a finished sense, and shall begin with an Acrostic, in such manner, that all the Letters of the Title of every Strophe are to be found one after another at the beginning of each Verse; and thus by taking all the first Letters of the Verse, we find the entire Title.  
His Style is harsh, his Words barbarous, and his Thoughts are seldom elevated. The Author appears to have been a Good Man, very simple, very humble, very charitable, thoroughly affected with the love of Jesus Christ, zealous for his Religion, austere in his Morals, an enemy to Vice, far removed from the Pleasures of the World, and a singular good Monk, as Rigaltius has observed of him. Though after all, we must own, that he was not very Ignorant; for there is a tolerable store of Profane Learning in his Work, and we meet there with several Remarks upon the Pagan Deities that are exceeding Curious and Rare, as well as Entertaining. He seems to have had a great deal of good Sense, of Quickness, and Christian Morality: This Treatise was for a long time buried in Obscurity, and was lately found in our days. Sirmondus had it Copied from an old Manuscript, and Rigaltius made use of this Copy, and Printed it separately in the Year 1650. We may divide it into Three Parts. The First, which contains Thirty six Strophes, is addressed to the Gentiles; whom he exhorts to embrace the Religion of Jesus Christ, after has exposed the Falsehood he of the Divinities which they Adored. The Second is directed to the Jews; whom he likewise persuades to embrace the Christian Religion, showing them, that the Law was merely Figurative. He there speaks concerning Anti-christ, the last Judgement, and the Resurrection. The Last is addressed to the Christian Catechumen, to the Faithful, and to the Penitents, to whom he gives admirable Instructions in Morality. It gins at the Forty sixth Strophe.  
We find in this Author most of the Errors of the Ancients. He is of Opinion that the Daemons 〈◊〉 Angels, that were de●●●ched with the love of Women; and that the Giants came from this 〈◊〉 Commerce; That the World will end after Six Thousand Years; That Nero was Anti-christ; That there will be Two Resurrections, That of the Just before the Reign of the Thousand Years▪ and the General One at the Day of Judgement; That the Just after the First Resurrection, shall live a Thousand Years upon the Earth; That 〈◊〉 that time, all Men shall be Judged, the Wicked thrown head long into Fire, and the whole ●ead of Nature changed. His Moral Instructions are very Excellent. He recommends to the Consideration of the Catechumen to lead a Life free from Sin. He advices the Penitents to pray Night and Day, to live after an austere manner, that they may obtain Remission of their Sins. He Exhorts the Faithful to avoid all Evil, and to banish from their Hearts the very Motions of Hatred, assuring them, That Martyrdom will stand them in little stead, if they have an Aversion towards their Brethren. He represents to Apostates the greatness of their Sin, and admonishes all Christians in general, that being Soldiers of Jesus Christ, they ought continually to wage War with their Passions. He prohibits them to appear at the Profane Shows. He advises Christian Women to be Modest, to avoid Luxury and Magnificence of Apparel. He gives incomparable Instructions to Ministers and Priests, that they may acquit themselves worthily in their Ministry, and persuades them to lead a Life unblameable, and exempt from Avarice; but above all, to relieve the Necessities of the Poor. He counsels the Rich not to value themselves the more highly upon the score of their Riches, but to communicate part to the Indigent; to assist and visit those that are in Sickness, and to Comfort those that labour under Affliction. He says, That we ought not to lament the Death of our Children or Relations. He condemns all Funeral Pomps, and proud Interments. He powerfully reprehends those Persons that don't observe Silence in the Church. The Priest of the Lord, says he, has said, Lift up your Hearts to God; you answer, That you have; and yet immediately forget the Word. He prays to the Lord in behalf of the People, and in the mean time you are entertaining one another with Stories; you Laugh, you speak Evil of your Neighbours, you talk inconsiderately, as if God were absent, even he that has made all, that sees all, and understands all. He advises those that Pray to God, to purify their Hearts, before they address themselves to Him by way of Prayer. In a word, The last Part of his Instructions contains excellent Exhortations, to incline Christians to the Love and Practice of Virtue, to turn them away from Vice, and his Remonstrances concerning the corrupt Manners of the Christians, and the Irregularities of his own time, carry a very near resemblance to those of our Age.   

JULIUS FIRMICUS MATERNUS.  
THIS Author, of whom none of the Ancients have made mention, has written a Treatise, Entitled, 
Julius Firmicus Maternus.  Of the Errors of Profane Religions, which he has addressed to the Emperor's Constantius and Constans, the Son● of Constantine. The Style and Matter of this Book abundantly convince us, that it is no Spurious Piece, and the Title it carries, gives us an occasion to Conjecture, that it was writ after the Death of Constantine, the Eldest Son of Constantine the Great, which happened in the Year 340, and before that of Constans, who was Slain by Magnentius in the Year 350, for it being addressed to Constantius and Constans, there is reason to believe that Constantine their Eldest Brother was already dead, and 'tis very evident that Constans was then alive. We don't know what the Author was, of what Country, or of what Profession. 
a Baronius believes, that he was Bishop of Milan.] Baronius imagines that he was Bishop of Milan in the time of Julius, and that he assisted at a Council held at Rome under that Pope. There is indeed mention made of one Maternus a Bishop of Milan, who suffered in Dioclesian's time in the Martyrologies of the 18th. of July. But he that was the Author of this Treatise, never took upon him the Quality of a Bishop; and we don't find it related in any Authors of Credit and Reputation in the World, that there ever was a Bishop of Milan of that Name. On the contrary, it appears by St. Athanasius, That in the time of Julius there was no Bishop of that Name at Milan: And the Roman Council, of which Baronius is to be understood, is a Chimerical Council invented by Isidorus.  Baronius believes that he was Bishop of Milan; but without any solid Foundation. There are Eight Books of Astronomy that bear the same Name. Now some Persons are of Opinion that they were composed by another Author. 
b Labbè maintains, that they belong to the same Man.] Possevinus and Simlerus distinguish them, and call the last the Younger of the two. Labbè pretends, that he lived in the Years 334 and 337, and according to this Computation, he might perhaps be the Author of the Treatise, De errore Profan● Religionis.  Labbé maintains, that they belong to the same Man; but we cannot positively assert either one or the other. This Treatise De Errore Prophanae Religionis was Printed at Venice in the Year 1499. At Basil by Hervagius in 1533. At Strasbourgh in 1562. And afterwards with Wouverus' Notes by Frobenius in 1603. Afterwards it was joined with Minutius Felix, and Printed at Amsterdam in 1645. And in 1652. At Leyden in 1562, in Quarto. 'Tis likewise to be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum. And lastly, it was put at the end of the last Edition of St. Cyprian, which was Printed at Paris 1666. The Author of it discovers the Original of all the several Religions amongst the Pagans, and shows the absurdity of them. In the first place, he shows how prodigiously Men have debased themselves in making Gods of the Four Elements. Secondly, he lays open the Extract and Rise of the fabulous Deities, giving an Historical Account of those things which the Poets have so disguised in Fiction. In the Third place, he demonstrates the Absurdity and Impiety of the Pagan Theology, where several Persons have had the good luck to drop into an Almightyship, only for being more tightly villainous than the rest of their Fellow-Creatures. In the fourth place, he takes occasion to refresh their Memories with several particulars relating to their Gods, as how they have been slain, wounded and illused by Men. Fifthly, he pretends that the Religion of the Egyptians derived its Original from Joseph, and that their God Serapis is the same with the abovementioned Patriarch, who is so called, because he was the Son of Sarah. (This Reason in my Opinion appears to be weak, and ill-grounded.) Sixthly, he observes, that Men have Deified abundance of things which they either love, or have frequent occasion for; and thus they call Eating and Drinking their Dii Pen●tes, or their Household Gods: Thus Vesta is the Domestic Fire we daily use, and the same Judgement may be passed of several others, and for this Reason it has happened, that the Names of their Gods denote the Proprieties of Natural Things. In a word, he Describes and Enumerates the Profane Signs, or Mysterious Words that are used by the Pagans in their Way of Worship, and he applies them to Jesus Christ with a great deal of Wit. To say the truth, This Treatise is exceeding Elegant, and is abundantly stored with a great deal of Profound Learning; the Author of it shows a considerable Stock of Knowledge, Wit and Eloquence; he frequently Exhorts the Emperors to destroy the Pagan Temples, to suppress their Religion, and to make use of strong and violent Remedies, to cure Men of their Maladies, and retrieve them from their Extravagancies and Errors. At the same time he Exhorts all Men to feed and nourish themselves with the Bread of Jesus Christ, which is his Word and his Doctrine, (for he does not speak of the Eucharist in this place, as some Persons have vainly imagined) to embrace the Light, and come to the Marriage of the Celestial Bridegroom. He tells us there, that God made himself Man to save us, and restore us to that Immortality, which we lost and forfeited by the Fall of Adam; that if he had not assumed a Body in the Womb of the Virgin, and suffered an Ignominious Death for the sake of Mankind, all the Jews, even those of the Old Testament, had never been in a Capacity of obtaining Salvation. He teaches us, that the Soul is Immortal and Spiritual, and that the Daemons were frequently disturbed, and ejected out of the Bodies of those Persons, whom they had possessed, by the powerful Prayers and Intercessions of the Christians. He acquaints us with several Figures or Types of the Cross, drawn out of the Old Testament. Lastly, to speak a Word or Two concerning his Morals; he severely declaims and inveighs against those that disguise themselves in Female Habits. These are the Principal and most considerable Heads that are discoursed of in this Treatise. As for his Astronomical, and Mathematical Books, they are divided into Eight Parts. That Work was first Printed by Aldus Manutius at Venice, in the Year 1499. Reveiwed by one who calls himself Pascennius, and afterwards Printed in the same place in 1501. Lastly, It was Published at Basil by Hervagius, and Corrected by Bucherius in the Year 1551.   

Of the COUNCILS that were Held in the First Ages of the Church.  
THE Canons and Acts of the Councils, aught to be reckoned amongst the Works of the 
Councils.  Ecclesiastical Authors, since they are the Works of several Persons assembled in the same place to deliberate upon the Affairs of the Church, that concern either the Faith, or the Discipline, or the Manners of Christians. These Kind's of Assemblies were used in the First Ages of the Church, and the Apostles were the first Authors of them. For the Christians of the Primitive Church, having had some Disputes, Whether they were Obliged to Circumcise and Fellow the Law of Moses; The Apostles and Priests convened at Jerusalem, to Examine and Resolve upon this Matter, and at last concluded, That it was not necessary to impose these Burdens upon Christians; but only enjoined them to abstain from Meats offered to Idols, from Blood, and from things Strangled, and from Fornication. 
a And only Council of the Apostles.] They usually reckon Four. The first concerning the Election of St. Mathias, Acts. 1. The Second concerning the Election of Deacons, Acts 6. The Third, that whereof we now speak, Acts 15. The Fourth, Acts 21. Where the Priests of Jerusalem declare, That the Converted Jews might observe the Law, and Exhort St. Paul to make a Vow. But in strictness of Speech, only the Third of these Assemblies deserves the Name of a Council. The two First were not held upon the account of any Controversy; nothing was there decided; the Christians found themselves Assembled together, but were not expressly Summoned. In short▪ they were Assemblies of all●the Christians, and not of the Apostles only. The fourth was rather a famaliar Conversation, than a Synodical Deliberation; and they only give some Counsel and an Advertisement to St. Paul, without deciding any Matter. And thus 'tis the Third Assembly alone, that deserves to be called a Council. The Council of Antioch is spurious, as we have elsewhere shown.  This was the First, and Only Council, to speak properly, that was held by the Apostles themselves.  
After their Example▪ when ●ny Difference 〈◊〉 in the Church, or when it was necessary to make any Regulations; the 〈◊〉▪ and 〈◊〉 the Priests themselves met together, to decide the 〈◊〉 Question●, and appoint Laws for the better Government and Discipline of the Church. 'Tis true indeed, that in the Three First Ages of the Church, these Assemblies were more rare, and less remarkable, than they were in the following Centuries; as well because the continual Persecutions of the Emperors hindered the Bishops from meeting freely and in Public, as also because the Tradition of the Apostles being as yet fresh in men's Memories, it was not supposed necessary to Summon a Council for the Establishing of every Truth, and Condemnation of every Error. Hence it is, that we don't find 
b In any Credible Authors.] The Author published by Sirmondus under the Name of Praedestinatus, mentions some Councils that were held against the Ancient Heretics; but he is a Modern Author, and does not deserve Credit upon his own Authority.  in any credible Authors, that any Councils were held to Condemn the first Heretics, such as were the Simonians, the Carpocratians, the Basilidians, the Gnostics, etc. The Errors of these Heretics were looked upon with horror by all the Christians, who considered the Authors of them; and likewise those that maintained them, as Persons already Excommunicated, and separated from the Church, without the Solemnity and Trouble of Convening a Synod to Excommunicate them by Name. In short, every Bishop instructed his own People in the True Faith of the Church, and confuted all sorts of Errors by the Authority of Scripture, and Tradition.  
The first Councils, that are mentioned in Antiquity, are those that were held under the Pontificate of Pope Victor, to adjust the celebrated Controversy about keeping Easter; and some others that were Assembled almost at the same time to suppress the growing Faction of the Montanists. Eusebius mentions the last in the Fifth Book of his History, Chap. 15. and Tertullian assures us, That in his time the Montanists also met together 
c For themselves.] Tertull. in lib. De Jejun. Aguntur praecepta per Gaercias illas certis in locis Concilia, per quae & altiora quaeque tractantur. Some Persons understand this Passage of the Councils of the Catholics; but he speaks of those held by the Montanists, as the following words plainly show.  for themselves. As for what relates to the Synods that were convened upon the Dispute concerning the Celebration of Easter, though the Number of them is usually reckoned to be great; yet Eusebius mentions but Three; one of which was held in Palestine, another in Asia, and a Third at Rome. And then, as for what concerns the Churches of France, of Pontus, of Corinth, and of the East, he barely tells us, That the respective Bishops there, wrote to Pope Victor about this Matter, without speaking of any Council Assembled in these places.  
Agrippinus, towards the Beginning of the Third Century, held a Council in afric; where it was Ordained that Heretics should be rebaptized.  
There were likewise Two Councils held in Arabia, under the Emperor Gordianus; one against Berillus Bishop of Bostra, who maintained, That Jesus Christ was not a different Person from the Father, before he made himself Man; and the other against the Arabians, who affirmed, That the Souls of Men were Mortal.  
We don't know at what time the Councils of Iconium and Synnada were Assembled, that Decreed, It was Necessary to re-baptize Heretics.  
I shall say nothing more of the Councils held in afric, and at Rome in St. Cyprian's time; because I discoursed largely about them, when I had occasion to consider the Writings and Life of that Father.  
Dionysius Bishop of Rome Summoned a Council, in which he Established the Divinity of the Word, and the Mystery of the Trinity against the Errors of the Sabellians, and that which was afterwards the Error of the Arians. He wrote a Letter upon this Occasion to Dionysius of Alexandria, St. Athanasius mentions this Synod.  
In the time of Pope Stephen, a Council was held at Antioch; where the Bishops Condemned the Practice of the Novatians. St. Dionysius of Alexandria sent word to Sixtus, that he was invited thither: Eusebius Lib. 7. Hist. c. 8. St. Epiphanius in his Account of the Heresy of the Noetians, mentions Two Synods that were assembled in Asia against Noetus, and gives us an Account of some Words of that Heretic, and of the last Synod.  
But of all the Councils that were Summoned in the Three First Centuries, the most Celebrated and Famous, are the Two Councils of Antioch Assembled against Paulus Samosatenus, Bishop of that City, who maintained, That the Word was not truly United to the Humanity in the Person of Jesus Christ; and who likewise, according to the Testimony of some Authors, denied, that the Word was a distinct Person from the Father. The First Council assembled against him, was held at Antioch about the Year 264. Eusebius tells us, That the principal Bishops who assisted there were, Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Gregory and Athenodorus Bishops of Pontus, Helenus' Bishop of Tarsus, Nicomas Bishop of Iconium, Himenaeus of Jerusalem, Theote●nus of Caesarea; without mentioning an Infinite Number of others as well Bishops as Priests. He says, That St. Dionysius of Alexandria, being invited to this Synod, could not come thither, but that he acquainted them with his Judgement concerning this Matter by way of Letter, where he disdained to salute the Author of that Heresy. In all appearance Firmilian presided in this Synod; for the Bishops of the Second Council say in their Letter, That Paul having Promised to renounce his Opinion, Firmilian gave Credit to his Protestation, and hoping that this Affair might terminate calmly, without any prejudice or dishonour done to the Church, judged it convenient to defer passing Judgement. And this plainly proves, that Firmilian held the chief place in the Synod, and that they followed his Advice. Now they did not pass Sentence against Paulus Samosatenus in this Synod, because he had promised to quit his Erroneous Doctrine; but it seems he kept not his Word, but relapsed a little time after into his old Error; So a Second Council was held against him in the City of Antioch, in the Year 270, where we find Seventy two Bishops. Paulus Samosatenus was here convinced of his Error by a Priest, whose Name was Malchion, and afterwards he was deposed by the Council, and Dom●us Elected into his Place. The Bishops of this Council soon after wrote a Synodal Letter to Dionysius Bishop of Rome, and to all the other Bishops in the World, to give an Account of their Condemning Paulus, and Electing Domnus in his Room. This Letter is to be seen in Eusebius, Lib. 7. Hist. Cap. 30. They there give an ample Relation of what passed in the First Synod; in which Paulus Samosatenus having solemnly Promised to change his Opinion, Firmilian thought it convenient to defer passing Judgement upon him; That the aforesaid Bishop was upon his Journey, with a Design to come to the Synod, but died by the way. After this, they proceed to lay open the Manners of Paulus, and accuse him of enriching himself by Public Extortion, Rapine and Sacrilege; they reproach him for his insupportable Arrogance, and Cruel Temper; they complained of him for taking upon him the State of a great Lord, as appeared by his numerous Retinue, by his sitting in an high Tribunal, by his ill Treatment of those Persons that did not make their Court to him, and would not commend him, when they sang Praises to God; by his commanding Hymns to be sung in his own Praise, and ordering himself to be publicly commended in the Sermons, by his living too familiarly with Women, and using his Clergy and People after a tyrannical insolent manner. In short, After they have accused him of all those Vices that are ordinary and common to Bishops of great Sees, they say they condemned him principally because he revived the Error of Artemas; teaching, That Jesus Christ was a mere Man, and that he did not exist before he was born of the Virgin Mary; and that having deposed him, they chose Domnus in his room. All which they take notice of, that for the time to come, all Communicatory Letters might be addressed to him only.  
There is also another Letter attributed to this Council, addressed to Paulus Samosatenus, which contains a Profession of Faith. Baronius ascribes it to the first Council; but it being writ a little before Paulus' Deposition, as manifestly appears by the Title, and by its carrying the Name of Himenaeus in the Front, who presided in the Second Council, and not Firmilian, who presided in the First; we ought to conclude, that it belongs to the Second Council. But we have a great deal of reason to believe that the Letter published by T●rrianus is Supposititious, as well as that of St. Dionysius of Alexandria to Paulus Samosatenus; as we have already shown in another place.  
Baronius attributes besides to this Council, a Profession of Faith, set down in the Council of Ephesus in the Third Part, and assigned in that place to the Council of Nice. I don't know what reasons Baronius had to incline him to this Opinion; but it seems past dispute to me, that it does not belong to this Council at Antioch: for certain it is, that the word Consubstantial was there rejected, whereas it is to be found in this Profession, as it is set down in the Council of Ephesus, under the Name of the Nicene Council; although it no more belongs to that, than it does to the former: But the truth is, 'Tis a Profession of Faith drawn up by some Bishops, to reconcile the Decisions of those two Councils, and to explain in what sense the word Consubstantial was rejected by the First, and approved by the Second.  
Thus I have given a Catalogue of the Councils held in the Three first Ages of the Church, that are mentioned by Authors that deserve Credit. I done't in the least question, but that there were abundance of other Assemblies convened in this time: but then there is no reason to admit those, that are only spoken of by Modern Authors, such as the Praedestinatus published by Sirmondus, the Author of the Synodical Book, Bed●; and some others of the same Character.   

Of false Decretals Attributed to the first Popes.  
THE Falsity of the Decretals that are attributed to the first Popes before Siricius, is so well known at present, that it would not be necessary to speak any thing concerning them in this 
Of False Decretals, etc.  place: If the Subject of my Book did not oblige me in a few words to run over the Principal Reasons, which prove them to be supposititious. I begin with them that are general and common to all the Decretals, and I shall afterwards descend to those that are more particular.  
1. 
a All these Decretals were unknown to the Ancient Fathers.] Except that of St. Clement to St. James Translated by Ruffinus, all the rest were absolutely unknown, and no Author ever cited any of them before the Ninth Age of the Church.  All these Decretals were unknown to all the Ancient Fathers, to all the Popes, and all the Ecclesiastical Authors, that wrote before the Ninth Century. Now what rational Man can believe, that so vast a Number of Letters composed by so many holy Popes, that contained so many important Points in Relation to the Discipline of the Church, could be unknown to Eusebius, to St. Jerome, to St. Augustin, to St. Basil, and in short, to all those Authors that have spoken of the Writings of the Popes, or have written concerning the Discipline of the Church? Could it possibly happen, that the Popes, to whom these Letters are so very favourable, would never have cited and alleged them, to raise their Reputation? Who would ever imagine that the Decisione of these Decretals should be never so much as quoted in any Council, or in any Canon? He that will seriously consider with himself, that since these Decretals have been imposed upon the World, they have been cited in an infinite number of places by Popes, by Councils, and often copied by the Canonists, will be easily persuaded, that they would have gained a mighty Reputation, and been quoted very often by Antiquity, if they had been Genuine and True. 
b The first that Published them, if we may believe Hincmar, was one Riculphus.] 'Tis in the Twenty fourth Chapter of his Book against Hincmar of Laon, where it is said, that Riculphus brought the Book of Epistles, as it was collected by Isidore, out of Spain, and dispersed them in that Country. Benedict the Deacon tells us in the Preface before his Collection, that he drew these Decretals out of the Archives of the Church of Mentz, from whence Riculphus had formerly taken them, and where they were found by Autgarius his Successor.  The first Man that published them, if we may believe Hincmarus, was one Riculphus Bishop of Mentz, who died about the Beginning of the Ninth Century. 'Tis commonly believed, that he brought them from Spain, since the Collection carries the Name of Isidorus; but 'tis certain, 
c Not by Isidore Archbishop of Sevil.] He died in 636. and the Author of these Decretals has taken some Passages out of the Council of To●●do, held in the Year 675, as also out of the 6th. Council celebrated A. D. 681. and out of Gregory the Second, and Gregory the Third, Boniface of Mentz and several others who lived after Isidore of Sevil.  it could never be composed by Isidore the Great, Archbishop of Sevil; and there is great Reason to believe, 
d There is reason to believe, that it was no Spaniard, but rather some German or Frenchman.] 'Tis exactly the Style of the French or Germans about the Ninth Age. The greatest part of these spurious Letters are directed to Germans or French. The Author of them citys a Letter of an Abbess of France, to Boniface of Mentz, and another of the same Bishop. Besides, This Collection was first seen in France, being discovered at Mentz.  that it was no Spaniard, but rather some German or Frenchman that begun this Imposture. It likewise 
e Some of these Decretals have been forged since Riculphus.] He died in 814, and there are some Letters amongst them, where we find some Fragments out of the Council of Paris held in 829. Benedict was the first that exposed these Letters to the World; and he tells us, they had been found by Autgarius in the Archives of the Church of Mentz, where Riculphus placed them, having before brought them out of Spain. All this perhaps is only his own Invention.  seems probable, that some of these Decretals have been foisted in since Riculphus' time, and it is no less credible, that Benedict a Deacon of the Church of Mentz, who made a Collection of Canons by the Order of Autgarius Bishop of Mentz, and Successor of Riculphus, put the last hand to this Collection of false Decretals attributed to one Isidorus 
f Surnamed the Merchant or Sinner.] Both these Titles are to be found in the Preface. Isidorus Peccator, sive Mercator, servus Jesus Christi.  Surnamed the Merchant or Sinner, who is a different Person from the famous Bishop of Sevil. 
g We read in History, that one named Isidore.] 'Tis Eulogius himself, some of whose Letters are preserved in the Bibliotheca Patrum; in which he testifies that he had two Brothers, and one of them was named Isidore, who retired to Mentz, and came thither along with some Merchants. Upon this Account possibly they might call that Isidore Mercator; perhaps also this is the Peccator; a Title, which they frequently gave themselves in that Age, and which Eulogius took often himself.  We read in History, that about this time, a certain Man named Isidore, the Brother of Eulogius, came from Spain along with some Merchants, and withdrew himself to Mentz. Now 'tis very probable, that this Man's Name was set to the Collection of Decretals, and likewise occasioned the Belief, that they were brought from Spain.  
Secondly, The Imposture of these Letters is invincibly proved from hence, because they are made up of a Contexture of Passages of Fathers, of Councils, of Letters of Popes, of Canons, and Ordinances of Emperors, which have appeared from the Third Age of the Church down to the midst of the Ninth: 
h 'Tis visible that all these Passages drawn out of different places have been patched together by some Impostor.] It is visible that the Authors themselves never borrowed those Passages out of these Letters. For, 1. Who will believe that an infinite Number of Writers would take long tedious pieces out of these Letters, and never cite them? 2. These Passages being very long and tedious, it does not appear probable, that they copied them out of these Letters. 3. They are the exact Style of these Authors: Now who can imagine that the ancient Popes wrote so many different Styles? 4. They are likewise out of their place in these Letters: Any Man may readily discover, that they are added and patched to the rest of the Discourse; whereas in the Books of the Fathers, from whence they are taken, they are in their proper Natural place.  It is visible, that all these Passages drawn out of several places have been woven together by some Impostor, that had not a Genius large enough to compose the Letters himself.  
Thirdly, The Scripture cited in all these Letters follows the vulgar Translation of St. Jerome, which demonstrates that they are since his time, and consequently done't belong to the Popes whose Names they carry, that lived long before.  
Fourthly, The Matter of these Letters is not at all agreeable to the Age, when the Popes to whom they are attributed, lived: There is no mention made in any of them, either of Persecutions, or Martyrs, or of the Doctrine of the Church in opposition to the first Heretics, or of the Duty of Bishops, or of the Care that ought to be taken of the Flock of Jesus Christ: But they speak of the Questions of Doctrine against the Arians, and the Eutychians, and of several Matters of Discipline, which suppose that the Church had been long Established.  
Fifthly, These Letters are full of Anachronisms; the Consulships and Names of Consuls are ill placed, and out of order; nay, more, the true Years of the Popes don't agree oftentimes with the Account that is to be found in these Letters.  
Sixthly, The Style of these Letters is extremely barbarous, they are full of Solecisms, and we frequently meet with some Words in them, that were only used in the lower Ages. It is worth a Man's while to observe, that all these Letters are of the same Style; now I desire to know how it could possibly happen, that so many different Pope's living in different Ages, should all write the same Style? This sets it beyond dispute, that all these Letters were composed almost in the same time, and by the same Person; or at least by one that pursued the same Train of Thoughts.  
Now since these Letters first appeared in an unlearned dark Age, what wonder is it if they were received with little Contestation? And yet Hincmar Archbishop of Rheims with the 
i The French Bishops made great Difficulty of acknowledging them.] Hincmar rejected them, as having no Authority. Nicholas the First, in Epist. 42. to the Bishops of France, endeavours to confute those that rejected them; but since that time, they have been received and inserted into a Collection of Canons, though Learned Men, always questioned the Truth of them. However at present no body dares undertake to defend them, the Imposture being so abominably gross, that all People may discover the Cheat at first fight. They may serve as a remarkable Example both of the Credulity of the preceding Ages, and the intolerable Impudence of Impostors.  French Bishops, even at that time made great difficulty of acknowledging them. But a short time after they acquired some Authority, being supported by the Court of Rome, whose pretensions they mightily favoured.  
After having thus represented the Reasons that prove in general, that all the Decretal Epistles of the Popes before Syricius are Spurious; I shall now descend to particulars, and endeavour to show in few Words, that every Epistle carries undeniable Signs of its being an Imposture, along with it.  
The First, and that which seems to bear the greatest Authority, is the Epistle of St. Clement to St. James, the Brother of our Lord; the First Part whereof was formerly Translated by Ruffinus. Isidore has added a Second to it, and they are both of them equally Supposititious. The first, because it supposes that St. Clement wrote that Letter after the Death of St. Peter; whereas it is a Truth that has been constantly received, that St. James, to whom it is written, died before St. Peter. Secondly, 'Tis there said, That St. Clement immediately succeeded St. Peter, which is contrary to the Ancients, that place St. Linus and Cletus, or Anacletus between them two. Thirdly, the West is there ridiculously called the darkest part of the World. Fourthly, It is composed to justify the Itinerary, or Book of the Voyages of St. Peter, which is Apocryphal. The Second Part, that was composed by Isidore, is yet a more evident Cheat: For, 1. It was unknown in the time of Ruffinus, and therefore has been invented since. 2. It is full of Texts of Scripture that follow the Translation of St. Jerome: And we likewise meet several Passages there Copied out of St. Cyril of Alexandria against Theodore of Mopsuestia, out of the rule of St. Benedict, out of the Exposition of the Creed by Venantius Fortunatus, out of St. Gregory, and Isidore of Sevil. In short, it speaks of Archpriests and Primates, and we find abundance of Words and Expressions in it, that are unworthy of the time of St. Clement.  
The Second Epistle of St. Clement directed to St. James, has likewise all the same Marks of Forgery. In the first place it makes mention of Sacraments, of the Habits in which the Priests celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of the Pall, of Sacred Vessels, of Chalices; things that seem not to have been in use in the time of St. Clement. Secondly, It speaks of the Ostiarii, or Doorkeepers, Arch-deacons, and other Ecclesiastical Officers, that were not then introduced into the Church. Thirdly, The Letter is writ in a barbarous Style. Fourthly, The Author alleges the Authority of his Ancestors. Fifthly, It ordains several Practices of little or no Censequence to be observed under pain of Excommunication for Six Years. Sixthly, It supposes that St. Clement instructed St. James in the Actions of our Blessed Saviour, and the Discipline of the Church. Seventhly, It alleges St. James his own words, Work out your Salvation with fear and trembling, under the Name of St. Peter's. This Letter is full of divers Passages taken out of the Author of the Recognitions, out of St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Prosper, Laurentius, Justinianus, and St. Gregory the Great. Lastly, The Scriptures there cited, follow St. Jerome's Translation. The Inscription of the Third Letter of St. Clement alone, is enough to discover the falsity of it. It is directed, To all Suffragan Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and others of the Clergy: To all Princes great and small, and to all the Faithful. Now in St. Clement's time there were no great or small Princes that were of the Church. Secondly, This Letter mentions Subdeacons, an Order not then established in the Church. Thirdly, It is for the most part wholly composed of Passages drawn out of the Books of Recognitions: We ought to reject the Fourth for the same Reasons.  
The Fifth is directed to St. James, in the Name of St. Clement Bishop of Rome, and Successor of St. Peter: Now St. James died before St. Peter, from whence it necessarily follows, that this Epistle cannot have been written by St. Clement. 2. The Author of this Letter seems to approve the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans; who taught, that Women ought to be kept in common, and the place where he maintains this Error, is borrowed out of the Book of Recognitions, in which a Platonist is introduced, disputing upon this occasion. In short, the Author of this Letter tells us, he was present at the Death of Ananias, and St. Clement was not as yet Converted, when St. Peter inflicted that terrible Punishment upon Ananias. We must add to all the foregoing Arguments, this weighty Consideration, that all these Letters are of a different Style from that of the Epistle to the Corinthians, which is undoubtedly St. Clement's. There were indeed some other Letters formerly assigned to this Saint, but they were different from those which we have examined here; for St. Epiphanius, who mentions them, assures us, that he there commends Virginity, and speak very advantageously of the Prophets. Now there is nothing that looks like this in the above mentioned Epistles that are chief stolen out of the Itinerary of St. Peter, an Apocryphal Work, forged by the Heretics.  
The first Epistles attributed to Pope Anacletus, is visibly Spurious: For, 1. He calls himself in this Letter, the Defender of St. Clement; now according to St. Irenaeus, Eusebius, St. Jerome, and some other ancients, Anacletus ●…d St. Peter and not St. Clement. 2. The Author of this Letter is pleased to say, That he received several things from his Ancestors by way of Tradition; and could this Expression possibly drop from a Man that lived in the time of the Apostles? 3. He says, That Appeals from Secular Judges ought to he determined before Bishops, but this was not Customary in the time of the Apostles. 4. He tells us, That the Privileges and Laws of the Church ought to be confirmed, none of which were written in Anacletus' time. 5. He talks of Appeals from Ecclesiastical Judgements to the Holy See, and mentions the different sorts of Ecclesiastical Causes. But these Questions were never debated under Anacletus, and when they came to be afterwards discussed, the Authority of this Letter was never alleged. 6. He speaks not only of Primates and Metropolitans, but also of the Apocrisiarii, a Name unknown in the Roman Church till the Sixth Century. 7. The Style of this Letter is barbarous, and full of Solecisms. 8. This Letter is composed of many Passages patched together, that are taken out of the Third Council of Carthage, the Letters of St. Damasus, St. Ambrose, St. Augustin, Ruffinus, Ennodius, Boniface of Mentz: And there is one Passage borrowed from St. Cyprian's Book concerning Unity.  
Nor are there less Proofs to discover the Imposture of the Second Letter attributed to Pope Anacletus. For, 1. The Author of this Letter would neither have Bishops to be Accused, nor Judged. 2. He says, That the Apostles chose the 70 Disciples; whereas it appears by the Gospel, that our Saviour himself made the choice. 3. He speaks of Primates, of Patriarches, and of Christian Kings. 4. He mentions the Division of the Ecclesiastic Provinces, which was made long after the Death of Anacletus. Lastly, He inserts into his Discourse some Passages of the Nicene Council, of Damasus, of St. Jerome, of St. Augustin, of St. Gregory, of Isidore of Sevil, of the 5th. Council of Orleans, and the Vulgar Latin. We ought to pass the same Judgement upon the Third Letter attributed to the same Pope for the same Reasons.  
The first Letter attributed to Pope Evaristus contains, 1. Some things that have a relation to Clandestine Marriage, and several Ceremonies belonging to that Sacrament, all which can by no means agree with the time of Evaristus. 2. 'Tis patched up of some passages out of the vulgar Latin, the Letters of Innocent, and the Dispute of Ithacius against Varimadus. 3. 'Tis dated under Consuls, that were not in the time of Evaristus' Pontificate.  
The Author of the Second Letter attributed to the same Pope, after he has commended several Churches and Bishops, inserts many Texts of Scripture following the vulgar Latin, and imitates divers Phrases of St. Cyprian and the African Fathers. He speaks of Primates, and borrows abundance of things out of Ruffinus, St. Gregory, and Isidore of Sevil.  
In the first Letter attributed to Pope Alexander, we find many things that discover its Novelty. 1. He mentions some Customs that were not used till after this Pope's time; as amongst others, the Benediction of Water mingled with Salt. 2. He speaks clearly and distinctly of the Trinity, and the Errors of the Arians and Sabellians are so openly rejected, that any Man in the World may see it was written since the Birth of those Heresies. 3. We there find some Passages taken out of Ithacius, Clarus, Siricius, Proclus, Ennodius, and Adrian the First.  
In the Second attributed to the same Pope, there is a Quotation out of the Council of Laodicea, that was held under Pope Martin the First, and the Scriptures there cited, follow the common Version. The Third is composed of Passages borrowed out of Sixtus the Pythagorean, St. Gregory and Isidore of Sevil. Besides the date of it is false.  
In the First Epistle attributed to St. Sixtus, he is called an Archbishop, a word not used in his time. 2. The Author confutes those that maintain, that the Son was inferior to the Father. 3. The Author uses some words and expressions of Ithacius, of the Fifth Council of Rome, of Flavian Archbishop of Constantinople, of Martin the First, of Adrian the First, and Sixtus the Pythagorean. In fine, this Letter is dated under the Consulate of Adrian, now there was no Consul of that Name, whilst St. Sixtus was Pope.  
The Second attributed to the same Pope, mentions Consecrated Vessels, Appeals to Rome, the Grandeur of that Church. 'Tis there pretended, that all Bishops wait for the Pope's Decision, and are instructed by his Letters: Modes of Speaking never used by the first Bishops of Rome. 2. The Author borrows the better part of what he says concerning Pope Sixtus and Zosimus, out of the Fifth Council of Rome, held under Symmachus and Martin the First. In a word, the date of the Consuls is the very same with that of the former, and consequently discovers the falsity of it.  
The Epistle attributed to Telesphorus, calls him an Archbishop; a Name unknown in the First Ages. 2. There is a Decree in it, to enjoin Three Masses on our Saviour's Nativity, a Custom which is not so Ancient. 3. The Author supposes, that the Laity and Clergy could not accuse one another in Judgement. 4. He has borrowed several places out of Damasus, St. Jerome, Proclus, St. Leo, Flavian, and Ennodius, Authors of a much later date than Telesphorus. 5. He makes use of the vulgar Translation of the Bible. In short, the date of the Consuls is false and erroneous.  
The Two Letters ascribed to Higinus, are manifestly Spurious. The First is made up of several places taken out of Ithacius, St. Leo, Martin the First, and Adrian the First. The Second is stuffed with Texts of Scripture, according to the old Translation; the date of the Consuls is equally false in both of them.  
The Imposture of the First Letter attributed to Pope Pius, appears, 1. Because the Style of it is rough and barbarous. 2. Because it speaks of a pretended Revelation that appeared to Hermas, who is supposed to be the Brother of Pius. 3. Because there are some Passages manifestly Copied out of the Books of Isidore of Sevil, St. Leo, the Fifth Council of Rome, Sixtus the Pythagorean, Adrian the First, and the Vulgar Latin. Lastly, Because the Date of the Consuls is false, as well as in the Second Letter, which is as evidently forged and spurious as the First. The Theodosian Code is cited there, and likewise a Decree is published in it, which Ordains, That those Clergymen who are found disobedient to their Bishop, should be delivered over to the Secular Power; which Passage does not agree with the time of Pope Pius the First.  
The Two other Letters attributed to the same Pope, are addressed to Justus Bishop of Vienna, and are taken out of the Archives of the Church of Vienna. Baronius pretends they are Genuine, because the Style of them is Simple, and because they are agreeable to the History of the time of that Pope; but there are far greater Reasons to incline us to believe, that they are spurious, 1. The barbarous Style. 2. The Name of Mass unknown to the Ancients. 3. The affected Terms; such as are, Superbeate, Senatoria, Cubilibus aeternis, Perseverabilem, Primarchus, Senatus pauper Christi. 4. It mentions Habits peculiar to Bishops. Lastly, These Letters were unknown to all Antiquity.  
We find several Passages in the Letter attributed to Anicetus, which don't agree with the time of that Pope; as for instance, what is there laid down concerning the Ordinations of Bishops, Sacerdotal Tonsure, Archbishops, Primates, and Patriarches, which were not instituted till long after; besides many other things of the same Nature. 2. The Author of that Letter uses the Vulgar Latin; and Copies abundance of things out of St. Leo, Adrian the First, and the Councils of Nice and Antioch. Lastly, He is mistaken in the Date of his Consuls.  
The First Letter attributed to Soter, is full of Passages borrowed from Ithacius, St. Leo, and the Vulgar Latin; and the Consuls there mentioned, held the Consulship some Years before Soter was Bishop of Rome.  
The Second Letter attributed to the same, is a Miscellany taken out of the Council of Laodicea, and out of Gelasius, Martin the First, and St. Leo. It speaks of Monks, of Palls, etc. Besides the Date of the Consuls does not agree with the Years of this Pope's Pontificate.  
The Epistle of Eleutherus treats of Ecclesiastical Judgements in favour of the Court of Rome. The Author of it pretends, That all Causes relating to the Church, aught to be determined there, and that they cannot be tried in the Province; a Practice contrary to all Antiquity. He follows the Vulgar Latin in his Quotations of Scripture, and citys a Text out of St. John, which he attributes to St. Paul. He copies several Passages out of the Popes St. Leo, Felix the Third, Anastasius, Adrian the First, Victor of Carthage, Hilary the Deacon, the Fourth Council of Carthage, the Sixth Council of Toledo, and the Theodosian Code. Lastly, The Date of the Consuls is false.  
The Inscription of the First Epistle attributed to Victor, plainly discovers the falsity of it. 1. It bestows upon him the Quality of Archbishop of the Universal Church; a Title which the Ancient Popes never gave themselves. 2. It is directed to Theophilus of Alexandria, who lived almost 200 Years after Victor. 3. The Author of this Letter speaks of the Judgements of Bishops, and Appeals to Rome, according to the Pretensions of the Bishops of Rome in the latter Ages. Lastly, He uses the Testimonies of St. Leo and Isidore. The Second Letter attributed to the same Pope, is full of Passages borrowed from St. Leo, and the Vulgar Latin. The Third and Fourth published by Johannes de Bosco, and taken out of the Library of the Abbey of Fleuri, are written in a Style, that manifestly discovers their Novelty. The Scriptures there cited, follow the Vulgar Latin. The First is directed to Desiderius Bishop of Vienna; now we don't read that there was ever any Bishop of that Name in Vienna, before the time of Pope Gregory the Great.  
The First Letter of Zephirinus is composed of several Passages taken out of St. Leo, St. Prosper, Vigilius, St. Gregory, Martin the First, Adrian the First, the Theodosian Code, Anianus, and Sixtus the Pythagorean. 2. We find in it the Names of Patriarch and Primate. 3. It treats about the Decisions of Bishops, and Appeals to the Holy See. 4. The Consul Gallicanus is named there; now there was none of that Name in the time of Zephirinus. Lastly, The Author of it supposes, that the 70 Disciples were chosen by the Apostles.  
The Second Letter attributed to the same Pope, is yet more visibly spurious. 1. The Author of it very impertinently citys the Imperial Laws in favour of the Bishops. 2. He speaks of the Apocrisiarii. 3. He heaps together the very Thoughts and Words of St. Prosper, Adrian, and Paul of Constantinople. 4. He citys the Canons of Pope Adrian as Ancient Statutes. And at last, he says, that there were false Brethren in afric that plundered and spoiled the Bishops: Which cannot possibly be true, for there was no Persecution in afric in the time of Pope Zephirinus.  
The First Epistle attributed to Calistus, is filled with Passages taken out of the Nicene Council, the Fifth Council of Rome, St. Prosper, Gelasius, Symmachus, Isidorus, Anianus, and Sixtus the Pythagorean. He speaks of Ember-Weeks, that were instituted long after the time of this Pope. The Second is likewise full of Passages drawn out of the Council of Antioch, the Fourth Synod of Carthage, Simplicius, St. Austin, St. Gregory, Adrian, and Sixtus the Pythagorean. We find several new Constitutions there.  
The Author of the Epistle attributed to Urban, gives large Commendations of a Life, where all things are held in common; He speaks of Vows, and the Revenue of the Church; he uses the Thoughts and Words of St. Prosper, Eusebius, the Council of Paris, Gregory the Fourth, the Theodosian Code, and the Vulgar Latin.  
The Two Letters attributed to Pope 〈◊〉, are made up of Passages taken out of the Vulgar Latin, St. Gregory, St. Jerome, Sixtus the Pythagorean: The rest is written in a barbarous Style.  
The Author of the Epistle attributed to A●… speaks of a Bishop of Ephesus named Felix, but unknown to the Ancients, and places one Eusebius amongst the Bishops of Alexandria, who is not to be found in the Catalogue of the Bishops of that See. 〈◊〉. Touching the Translation of Bishops, he establishes some things, contrary to the Determinations of the Councils of Antioch, Sardica and Chalcedon. And besides, he citys the Words of St. Jerome, Siricius, Ennodius, St. Gregory, Isidore, Martin the First, and Sixtus the Pythagorean.  
The Author of the First Epistle attributed to Fabian, supposes that Novatus came to Rome in his Papacy, though it was in Cornelius' time, according to the Testimony of St. Cyprian, Eusebius, and St. Jerome. Secondly, he borrows several Passages out of Ruffinus, St. Leo, St. Gregory, Adrian the First, and Boniface of Mentz.  
In the Second Epistle attributed to the same Pope, we read, 1. That disobedient Clerks ought to be delivered up to the Secular Arm. 2. That the Holy Chrism must be made Yearly. 3. We find some places in it, that are Copied out of the Second Council of Carthage, the Fifth of Rome, the Council of Antioch, Siricius, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Innocent, Zosimus, Celestine, Proclus, St. Gregory, Isidore, and Adrian. The Third is full of Passages drawn out of the Letters of Pope Adrian, the Theodosian Code, Anianus, Felix the Third, St. Gregory, the Second Council of Carthage, the Council of Toledo, and other Public Monuments later than Fabian.  
The first Letter attributed to Cornelius is full of Errors; 'Tis there said, First, That the Bodies of St. Peter and St. Paul were removed out of the Catacombs; which appears to be false by the Testimony of St. Gregory, who tells us in the third Letter of his third Book, That the Body of St. Paul lay always near the Porta Ostia, and St. Peter's in the Vatican. Secondly, Some Passages are to be found in this Letter, taken out of the Epistles of Martin the First, and St. Leo. The Second is a Collection of several things out of the Constantinopolitan Council under Flavian, the First and Third Council of Carthage, the Council of Chalcedon, the Fifth of Rome, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and Boniface of Mentz; but nothing shows the Imposture of these two Letters more palpably, than the difference of Style from those that truly belong to Cornelius, which are to be seen in St. Cyprian, with the Fragment of one in Eusebius. There is another Letter of his besides, to Lupicinus Bishop of Vienna, which is writ in a Style as different from that of the true Cornelius, as any of the rest; we find the word Mass in it, which was unknown to the Authors, that lived in the time of this Pope.  
The Epistle attributed to Lucius, is full of Citations out of the Vulgar Latin, and of several Passages taken out of the First Council of Arles, the Third of Carthage, that of Milevis, St. Leo, Gregory, Agatho, Adrian, and Sixtus the Pythagorean: Besides, it is dated Six Months before the Election of Lucius.  
The two Epistles attributed to Stephanus, are filled with Citations out of Modern Authors, and Statutes, that don't all agree with the time of this Pope, and consequently are Spurious.  
For the same Reasons, we must pass the same Judgement of the two Letters of Sixtus the Second, the two of Pope Dionysius, the three of St. Felix the First, the two of Eutychianus, that of Carus, the two of Marcellinus, those of Marcellus, the three of Eusebius, the Letter and Decree of Miltiades, and the rest of the Letters of the Popes collected by Isidore, that are full of several Passages taken out of the Fathers, Popes, and Councils more Modern than the very Popes, by whom they are pretended to be written; and in which many things are to be found, that don't in the least agree with the true History of those times, and were purposely said to favour the Court of Rome, and establish her Pretensions against the Rights of Bishops, and the Liberties of Churches. But it would take up too much time to show the gross falsity of these Monuments, that are now rejected by a common Consent, and even by those Authors, that are most favourable to the Court of Rome, who are obliged to abandon the Patronage of these Epistles, though they have done a great deal of Service in establishing the greatness of the Court of Rome, and ruining the ancient Discipline of the Church, especially in relation to Ecclesiastical Decisions, and Rights of Bishops.   

An Abridgement of the Doctrine, Discipline, and Morality of the Three First Ages of the Church.  
AFter having given a Summary of what is contained in the Works of the Ecclesiastical Authors for the Three first Ages of the Church, I supposed it would not be amiss, to present the 
An Abridgement of Doctrine, etc.  Reader with an Abridgement also of the Theology of the Primitive Christians. This Design, besides the relation it had to the Work itself, seemed in my Opinion to be the principal Fruit and Advantage that could be gathered from it. For the ultimate Scope and End, which a Man ought to propose to himself in reading the Ecclesiastical Authors, and their History, is not to gratify a vain foolish Curiosity, but to learn Religion thereby. We must not study these Matters, only to make a Pompous Ostentation of our Knowledge, but to become better Christians, to become more certain of the Doctrine of the Church, more respectful to its Discipline, and better instructed in its Holy Morality. For all Theology reduces itself to these Three Points, Doctrine, Discipline and Morality. Doctrine concerns the Articles of Faith that our Religion teaches us; Discipline concerns the Government of the Church; and Morality teaches us, what things we are to do, and what we are to forbear. Heretics overthrow the Doctrine of the Church by their Errors. Schismatics destroy its Discipline by violating the Orders and Rules of the Church: And lastly, The vicious Christian discards and lays aside the Laws of its Morality, by living after an irregular manner. For the better avoiding these Rocks and Precipices, it is exceeding requisite for all Christians, to draw out of the Tradition of the ancient Church, that is to say, out of the Books of the Primitive Fathers, who are the unquestionable Witnesses of the Opinion of the Church in their own times; to draw, I say, from thence the Doctrine which they are obliged to believe, to examine the Ecclesiastical Discipline, which they are to revere and obey, and lastly from thence to learn the most Holy Rules of the Christian Morality.  

An Abridgement of the Doctrine.  
THE Doctrine of the Church was always the same, and will be ever so till the end 
An Abridgement of Doctrine.  of the World: For 'tis utterly impossible that the true Church should cease to be, or that the true Church should not teach the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, because whether she should teach a Doctrine different from that of Jesus Christ, or whether she should not teach the Doctrine of our Blessed Saviour, in both these Cases she would cease to be the true Church. Jesus Christ, as St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and all the rest of the Ancients have observed, taught his Apostles all the Truths of Faith. The Apostles published them throughout all the Earth, and opened them to all the Churches in the World, whose Doctrine is found to be conformable each to other in Articles of Faith. This Doctrine was always preserved in the Church, which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. 'Tis indeed very true, that they did not always make use of the same terms, and that before the Birth of Heresies, they did not observe that precaution in speaking of Mysteries, which they did afterwards, when they were attacked by the Heretics: But still the Foundation of Doctrine was always the same as to the principal Articles of our Faith. We must likewise acknowledge, that there were some Errors very frequent in the First Ages of the Church, that have been rejected since, but then they don't concern the principal Articles of our Faith; and besides were never looked upon to be the received Doctrine of the Church, but only the most common Opinions. These previous Observations, will be confirmed by an Abridgement of the Doctrine of the Church, as it is delivered by the Authors of the Three first Centuries; which we are going to represent in as few words as possibly we can.  
They taught, That the Grounds and Principles of Faith, were the Holy Scriptures, and Tradition; that we ought to believe Mysteries, though we were not able to comprehend them; they spoke of the Nature of God and of his Attributes after a most excellent manner; they believed him to be Invisible, Eternal, Incorruptible, etc. they have frequently discoursed of his Providence, his Power, his Bounty, his Mercy, and his Goodness; they wrote very sharply against the false Divinities of the Pagans, and the Errors of Heretics, who imagined that there could be above one Sovereign and Independent Being; they proved that God Created all Things, and even Matter itself, which was not Eternal; they acknowledged the Trinity of the Three Persons in one only God, the Divinity and Eternity of the Word, and of the Holy Ghost; they maintained that the Word was from all Eternity in God, as a Person distinct from the Father; that the Father created the World by him, and that he governs it, and that it was the Person of the Word that appeared to the ancient Patriarches under different Figures, and who was at last Incarnate; that Jesus Christ was the Word made Man, God and Man all together, composed of two entire and different Natures; that he had a Soul and Body like unto ours; that he took this Body in the Womb of the Virgin Mary; that his Flesh was real and true; that he suffered and was really Dead; that he made himself Man, to save the World that was lost by the Sin of the first Man; that he came to discover the Truth to them, to show them an Example; and that he redeemed them by his Death; that he descended into Hell, and afterwards risen again from the Dead; that he will come at the Day of Judgement to judge all Men; that he will Condemn the Wicked to Everlasting Punishments, and reward the Good with Eternal Happiness, after he has raised up both the one and the other. All the Fathers, of whom we have spoken, make Profession of this Faith, and assure us, That this is the Doctrine, which all the Churches in the World have received from the Apostles, and that it was necessary to believe it in order to become a Christian. They sometime make use of some Expressions concerning the Person of the Word, that seem to derogate from his Divinity; as for instance, when they say, that the Word was not begotten, till the Beginning of the World; that he is visible, and that the Father is invisible; that he is one Portion of the Substance of the Father, and that the Father is all Substance. But these ways of Speaking, have a very good Meaning in these Authors, as we have often observed. For when they say, That the Word was begotten at the Beginning of the World, and that he was not the Son before, they don't mean that the Word began only to exist then, since they acknowledge he existed before, and was in God from all Eternity: But they take the Word Generation in another Sense than we do, giving this Name to a certain Prolation, or Emission of the Word, which they imagine was done, when God resolved to create the World; and 'tis in this sense they say, that the Word who was from all Eternity in God, was generated or begotten at that time, and that he had not always the Quality of the Son. We have likewise explained in what sense they say, that the Word is visible, and the Father invisible; and we have made it evidently appear, that they did not believe, that the Word was therefore of a different Nature from the Father, but only that they attributed Visibility to the Son, as they ascribed Almightiness to the Father: Saying, That it is through the Son, that God makes every External Being, and consequently that by him he renders himself visible to Mankind. This Manner of Speaking is so little contrary to the Divinity of the Word, that it is to be found in Athanasius, and in the other Fathers that lived after the Nicene Council. In short, when they say that the Son was a Portion of the Substance of the Father, we are so far from being able to conclude that they were of Arius' Opinion, that on the contrary, it follows from thence, that they believed the Son was not created of Nothing, as Arius afterwards taught, but that he was Consubstantial to the Father; that is to say, of the same Substance as the Nicene Council has determined. But wherefore do they say, that the Son is only something derived from the Substance of the Father? Is it because they believed he was inferior to the Father? Not at all, but it was because they conceived, that the Father, as having all the Divinity in him, communicated it to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. 'Tis upon this account that they usually ascribe to the Person of the Father all the Attributes of the Godhead, as we may see in the 'Greed, where after it is said, I believe in God, they add, Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, etc. and yet we must not therefore say, that these Attributes don't agree to the Son and the Holy Ghost, but only that they are attributed to the Father; because he is the Fountain and Original of the Divinity, and because the Son and Holy Ghost receive it from him. I pass over in Silence some feeble Objections, that are only founded upon the ambiguity of the words Nature and Creation, that have not been as yet determined to a certain sense, as also the Signification of the word Hypostasis has been a long time undetermined. Thus when the Son is called another Substance than the Father, (though that is but very seldom) yet we are not to conclude from thence, that the Person who speaks after this manner, does not believe him to be truly God, because the Words of Nature and Substance were not at that time determined to the sense, they received afterwards, and because they may be taken for a Person subsisting. This is so true, that Gregory Nazianzen, and some others that lived in a time, when these Expressions were determined, forbore not to say sometimes that the Father was the first Substance or Nature, and the Son the Second: And thus it is ordinary for those, that acknowledged the Divinity of the Word, to say, That God made or created him, though they believe that he was not created of Nothing, but Begotten of the Divine Substance.  
As to the Incarnation, the Fathers of the Three first Centuries have said nothing that in the least seems to favour the Errors of the Paulianists, the Apollinarists, the Nestorians, or the Eutychians; and they always distinguished Two Natures in Jesus Christ, and admitted the Proprieties of these Natures without Confusion, and being changed one into the other, yet reunited at the same time in the same Person, God and Man both together. They likewise plainly say, That Jesus Christ was Born of a Virgin by the Operation of the Holy Ghost, without Concupiscence and without Sin. And though they frequently tell us, That the benefit of the Incarnation is the Instruction, and the Example which Jesus Christ has given us; yet they acknowledge besides that, that he has truly Redeemed us by his Death; and that he has satisfied God for us. They believed, that we could not be Saved without believing in him; and for that Reason they imagined, that he descended into Hell, as well as the Apostles after him, to Preach the Gospel there to the Jews and Gentiles, who had known the true God, and had lived virtuously. They were of Opinion, That the Day of Judgement was at hand; That the Souls of Men until that Day, were neither perfectly Happy nor Miseable, though they underwent some Punishment beforehand, or were at rest, according to the proportion of the Good or Evil they had done in their Bodies. They almost universally believed with Papias, that Jesus Christ was to Reign a Thousand Years upon Earth, but they never asserted that Opinion as a Matter of Faith. They were sufficiently divided about the Nature of the Soul; some of them supposed it to be Corporeal, others declared, That they believed it to have been Spiritual; but however the better part of them agreed that it was Immortal, that the Just would be rewarded with Everlasting Happiness, and the Wicked everlastingly Punished. They never disquieted themselves in examining wherein the Beatitude consisted, but they were persuaded, That the Wicked should be punished with Fire, and that not Metaphorical, but Real. They advanced Man's freewill very highly, and maintained that he might carry himself either to Good or Evil; and yet they acknowledged, That since the Transgression of the First Man, we were naturally inclined to Evil, and that we stood in need of the Assistance and Grace of God to determine us to what was Good. They did not Philosophise too far about the Nature, and several Species of Angels; but only satisfied themselves, that there were good Angels, and likewise bad ones called Daemons. They were of Opinion, that both the one and the other were Corporeal, and imagined that the bad Angels were lost for their love of Women, and they positively asserted, that the good Ones took care of things below. All of them were sensible of the Wounds and Punishment of Adam's Sin, but they don't seem to agree, that Infants were born subject to Sin, and worthy of Damnation. Nevertheless, this appears to be the common Opinion; as is evident from St. Cyprian, who says, That it was requisite to Baptise Infants before the Eighth day, for fear lest if they died without Baptism, this delay should prove the occasion of their Destruction. They often spoke of the Necessity and wonderful Effects of Baptism, and said that the Holy Ghost descended by the Imposition of the Hands of the Bishop. They maintained, That the Church had Power to reconcile those that repent of their Sins; and did not doubt but that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and accordingly called it by that Name. They extolled Virginity without condemning Marriage; they honoured the Saints and Martyrs as the Servants of God, they spoke of the Virgin Mary with a great deal of respect, and yet with no less discretion and advisedness. St. Clement affirms, That she continued a Virgin after her Delivery; but Origen, Tertullian, and some others, were of the contrary Opinion. We find nothing in the Three first Ages of the Church, either for or against the Assumption; there is a Passage in St. Irenaeus, that is not favourable to the immaculate Conception. They believed that the Holy Scriptures were written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that they contain all the principal Articles of our Faith; that though they are obscure in some places, yet they are clear enough in many others, and that even their Obscurity has its Use; and that all Christians might read them, provided they made good use of them: That it is necessary to believe what the Scripture, Tradition and the Church teach us, without endeavouring to search too deep into the Mysteries of our Religion, and disputing about them. They acknowledged no other Books of the Old Testament to be Canonical, but those that were received into the Canon of the Jews, though now and then they cited some other Books as very good and useful. In the New Testament they received as Canonical the Four Evangelists, the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, (though some of them questioned that to the Hebrews, and many Persons attributed it to another, and not to St. Paul) the First Epistles of St. John, and of St. Peter. The Epistles of St. James and St. Judas. The Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. John were received by some, and rejected by others, as well as the Apocalypse. They sometimes cited the Apocryphal Books, but never reckoned them amongst the Canonical Scriptures.  
Thus I have given you a short Summary of part of the Opinions of the Fathers in the Three First Ages of the Church. The most part of the Proofs, which I have here laid down, are to be found in the Abridgement of those Authors, that I have made in this Volume; and I done't in the least question, but that those Persons, who will carefully read over the same Authors, will be sensible, that I have imposed nothing upon them, and that their Doctrine is what I have now represented it.   

An Abridgement of the Discipline.  
WE cannot say of the Discipline of the Church, what we have affirmed concerning its Doctrine, viz. That it is the same in all Times, and all Places; because it is an undeniable 
An Abridgement of Discipline.  Truth, that it has been different in many Churches, and has been from time to time subject to change. We ought not however to conclude from this Principle, that it is unnecessary to study the Primitive Discipline, or that we are obliged only to learn that of the Time and Church where we live; for besides, that those Persons who are ignorant of the Discipline of the Primitive Church, cannot pretend to understand the Books of the Ancients, this ancient Discipline is the Foundation of ours: And though the Exterior part has been changed, yet the Spirit of the Church is always the same. It is not therefore an unprofitable Labour as some have vainly imagined, to busy ones self in examining the Discipline of the Ancient Church; on the contrary it is a Study extremely useful, and necessary for a Divine.  
It must be acknowledged that the Discipline that was observed in the Infancy of the Church, however Holy it was in its Simplicity, yet was not arrived to its Perfection; for the Apostles altogether applying themselves to what was necessary at the beginning, were content to Preach the Doctrine and Morality of our Blessed Saviour, without giving themselves the trouble to regulate what related to the Ceremonies, or Discipline of the Church. Nevertheless we are not to imagine, that they entirely neglected it, and St. John, who lived longer than the rest of the Apostles, seems to have applied himself more particularly to it. But the Successors of the Apostles, by little and little, regulated the Ceremonies, that aught to be observed, as well in the Administration of the Sacraments, as in the Assemblies of Christians, and made particular Orders about the Government of Churches, the Form of Ecclesiastical Judicatures, and many other Points of Discipline.  
These Ceremonies were exceedingly augmented in the Fourth Century, when the Church began to enjoy the benefits of Peace and Tranquillity, and Publicly celebrated the Divine Service in the time of the Emperor Constantine. Then it was that the Bishops met together with Liberty, being supported by the Authority of Princes; and made abundance of Rules concerning the Government of the Church, the Rights of the Bishops of the greater Sees, the Forms of Judicature, and infinite Numbers of other Matters.  
We have here obliged ourselves to speak only of the Discipline, that was observed in the Three First Ages of the Church: Then it was plain and simple, and had scarce any other Splendour to recommend it, but what the Holiness of the Manners and Lives of the Christians gave to it. They Assembled every Sunday in particular, in certain Places appointed and set apart for Public Devotion, where they continued a long time in Prayer, which they pronounced with a low Voice, without Singing it aloud, as afterwards they did. The Bishop, or in his Absence, the Minister, presided in that Congregation, where they read the Holy Scriptures, and oftentimes the Bishop preached the Word of God. The Festivals of our Blessed Saviour's Nativity, of Easter, and Whitsunday were Celebrated even in those Days with great Solemnity. It was not their Custom on Sundays, as likewise from Easter to Whitsunday, to pray Kneeling, and when they offered up their Prayers, they always turned to the East. The places where they met were plain and without Ornament, and it seems probable, thatin those times the use of Images, of Crosses, and Incense was not common. They did not give the Name of Temple to their Houses of Public Prayer, nor that of Als●r to the Table upon which they celebrated the Eucharist; they had often their Feasts of Charity and Benevolence, which they called Aga●●, where all Comers were kindly entertained.  
They prayed for the Dead, and made Oblations for them, and celebrated the Sacrifice of the Ma●s in Commemoration of them; the Christians gave one another a Kiss of Peace; they called one another by the Name of Brethren, and continually made the Sign of the Cross. They prayed to Saints and Martyrs, and solemnised the day of their Death with Joy, and were persuaded that they interceded with God in behalf of the Living. They Baptised with some Ceremonies, those that were well instructed in their Religion, and who had given satisfactory Signs of their sincere Conversion; they generally dipped them thrice in the Water, invoking the Name of the Holy Trinity, and they never administered this Sacrament solemnly, but at the Feasts of Easter and Pentecost. In afric towards the Third Age of the Church, they made use of Holy Water in Baptising their Neophytes. They anointed them with Oil after Baptism, and imagined that this Ceremony conveyed some Internal Benefit to them, and likewise in some Churches they gave them Milk and Honey to taste. They imposed hands upon them, that the plenitude of the Holy Ghost might descend on them, and they considered this Imposition of Hands, which was generally reserved for the Bishop, as a distinct Sacrament from Baptism.  
Baptism was never reiterated amongst them, but by Heretics in some particular Churches, and if after it any Christians fell into Sin, of which they were convinced, or made a Confession to the Priest, they were enjoined a severe Penance; that is to say, they were thrown out of the Communion of the Church, forbidden the Assemblies of the Faithful, and obliged to Fast, to Humble and Mortify themselves Publicly at the Church-Porch. In some Churches, and particularly in those of afric and Rome, there was a time, when they never admitted to Peace those that fell into Idolatry, or those that had committed Murder and Adultery. They afterwards consented to some relaxation for Murderers, and Adulterers, and afterwards for Idolaters themselves, whom they reconciled to the Church, either at the point of Death, or after a long and severe Penance. 'Tis true indeed, they did not use the same Severity in all Churches, and in some they admitted Offenders to a Reconciliation after a short Penance, and they likewise abated somewhat of the Rigour of it at the recommendation of the Martyrs. As for the Clergy, those of them that fell into any notorious Sin, were not only deprived for ever from the Ministry, but also obliged to undergo Public Penance, at least in some Churches. They that had once undergone this Scandal in the Face of the Congregation were never admitted into the Clergy. They imposed this course of Repentance never but once, and whoever fell into his vicious Transgressions the second Time, could never be reconciled to the Church, and was to expect his Pardon from God alone. The Sentence of Excommunication was pronounced against Heretics, the Disturbers of Discipline, and those Christians that persisted in a profligate irregular Life. He that was Excommunicated by a Bishop, could be no where received into Communion. The Matter of the Eucharist was ordinary Bread, and Wine mingled with Water; the Faithful made this Offering, and the Priest or the Bishop that presided in the Assembly, said Prayers and Thanksgivings over the Bread and over the Chalice, and after these Prayers were ended, all the Congregation answered Amen. They divided the Consecrated Bread into several pieces, and the Deacons distributed them to the Standards by, and gave them also the Consecrated Wine. In some Churches this Distribution was reserved for the Priests, and in others every Man approached near the Table, and took his Portion of the Eucharist himself. All the Christians took it with wonderful respect, protesting they received the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ: they received the Species of Bread in their hands, and likewise the Eucharist was given to Infants under the Species of Wine. They generally received it in the Morning before they had eaten, but this Custom was not entirely Established as a Law, and sometimes they received it in the midst of a repast. This Celebration of the Eucharist was frequently called a Sacrifice; the Priest recited several Prayers both before and after Consecration, and St. Cyprian observes, that he said, Lift up your hearts to God: And the People answered, We have lifted them up to the Lord. The manner of celebrating this Sacrament was Simple and without abundance of Ceremonies, as we have alreadly observed in another place. They received the Eucharist often, and generally whenever they met together in the Assemblies of the Faithful: but they believed that they were obliged to live Piously, and according to the Holy Rules of the Gospel, that they might partake of this Celestial Food worthily, and after a manner that might be beneficial to them. There is no mention made, in the Three first Ages of the Church, of Anointing the Sick, which St. James speaks of; perhaps because it was seldom used in that time. Marriage was celebrated in presence of the Priests, and was confirmed by some Oblation. Second Marriages were reputed Scandalous; nay, they were condemned by some Persons. In some Churches they allowed the Husband to send home his Wife and Marry another, in case of Adultery only: But this was no general Custom amongst them. They took great Care in the Choice of their Ministers to elect such Persons, whose Life and Conversation were unblameable. After the Death of those who had been ordained by the Apostles, the People elected. Though the Names of Bishops and Presbyters were frequently confounded; yet the Bishops were above the Presbyters. The Bishops were generally Ordained by their Brethren, who imposed their Hands upon them, and the Priests by the Imposition of their Bishop and the Clergy. The Bishop was mightily respected and considered by them: Nothing of considerable moment in the Church could be done without him, even Baptism itself was reserved for him, but then he treated his Presbyters as Brethren, and did nothing without their Advice. There were Deacons in the Times of the Apostles, to whom belonged the Administration of Sacred Things at the beginning of the Church, and to whom in some places it was allowed to lay hands upon Penitents in case of Necessity. The Deaconnesses also are very Ancient. As for the Subdeacons, and other inferior Orders, they were afterwards instituted; yet they were in use in St. Cyprian's time.  
All the Bishops were persuaded, that they received their Office immediately from Jesus Christ, and that Providence had assigned to each of them a Portion of the Flock of the Heavenly Pastor to Govern, in such a manner however, as that in an exigence or time of Necessity, they were to relieve the wants of all Churches. They lived in great Union together, and preserved a mutual Correspondence by Letters, which they sent to one another. The Bishops of great Cities had their Prerogatives in Ordinations, and in Councils, and as in Civil Affairs Men generally had recourse to the Civil Metropolis; so likewise in Ecclesiastical Matters, they consulted with the Bishop of the Metropolitan City. The Churches of the Three Principal Cities of the World were looked upon as Chief, and their Bishops attributed great Prerogatives to themselves. The Church of Rome founded by St. Peter and St. Paul, was considered as first, and its Bishop, as first amongst all the Bishops of the World; yet they did not believe him to be Infallible, and though they frequently consulted him, and his Advice was of great Consequence, yet they did not receive it blindfold and implicitly, every Bishop imagining himself to have a Right to Judge in Ecclesiastical Matters. They had a Prodigious respect for the Decisions of Councils; and the Opinion of the Universal Church, that is to say, of all the Churches in the World, passed for an Infallible Rule of Faith: They esteemed those Persons, that were separated from the visible Society of the Church, to be Schismatics, for whom no Salvation was to be had. The Clergy were not distinguished from others by any peculiar Habits, but by the Sanctity of their Life and Manners, they were removed from all kind of Avarice, and carefully avoided every thing that seemed to carry the appearance of scandalous, filthy lucre. They administered the Sacrament gratis, and believed it to be an abominable Crime to give or receive any thing for a Spiritual Blessing. Tithes were not then appropriated to them, but the People maintained them voluntarily at their own expense. The Goods of the Church were in common between the Priests and Bishop, who had the Administration of them; the Offerings were reserved for the Poor; the Pastors never abandoned the Flock that was committed to their Care, but with infinite regret, and only in case of Necessity, and carefully acquitted themselves in all the Functions of the Ministry. The Clergy were prohibited to meddle with any Civil and Secular Affairs. They were ordained against their Will, and did not remove from one Church to another, out of a Principle of Interest, or Ambition. They were extremely chaste and Regular. It was lawful for Priests to keep the Wives they married before they were Ordained, but Marriage was never permitted after Ordination; but both the one and the other was allowed to Deacons. Monks were not as yet instituted; but there were abundance of Persons of both Sexes amongst the Christians, that lived in a state of Celibacy, and cheerfully submitted to the austerities of an Ascetic Life. There were likewise some Women in the Third Age of the Church, that solemnly obliged themselves to keep their Virginity all their Life-time. All Christians forbore to eat of any Meat that was Strangled, or Blood, or things offered to Idols, which were called Idolothyta. They fasted with great rigour before Easter, some a longer, and others a shorter space, according to the different Customs of Churches: Besides this, they ordinarily fasted every Wednesday and Friday, till Three a Clock in the Afternoon only, and many of them spent these Days in Prayers, which they called their Stations. They likewise fasted and mortified themselves in Times of Public Calamities, and when they were in the rank of Penitents. They were of Opinion, That it was unlawful to fast on Sundays, and from E●ster to Whitsuntide. They buried the Bodies of the Deceased in the Earth, and did not approve of the Custom of those that burned them.  
These are the Principal Points of the Discipline of the Ancient Church, which I have collected with all the brevity and exactness that was possible. But no body ought to conclude from what has been said here, that all these things were practised in all Churches, and in all Times of the Three first Centuries. Some began to be used but in the Third Age, and others were only observed in some particular Churches. After all, it must be confessed, That the Discipline of the Church has been so extremely different, and so often altered, that it is almost impossible to say any thing positively concerning it.   

An Abridgement of the Morality.  
THE Morality of the Gospel has been as immutable as its Doctrine, but it has moreover this Advantage, that though there have been abundance of lewd, wicked Christians in the World, 
An Abridgement of Morality.  who lived in a manner contrary to the Rules of the Evangelic Morality; yet there were never any Persons to be found in all Antiquity, so rash as to overthrow the Rules of this Morality, and to establish Maxims opposite to it; for, there wasscarce ever any dispute in the Church, or any different Sentiments about the Questions of Morality. They followed the Precepts of the Gospel according to the Letter, and exhorted all the Faithful to imitate the Life of Jesus Christ, as a Model of what they were to observe. I should never have done, if I should endeavour to heap together all the Principles or Heads of Morality, that are to be found in the Authors of the Three first Ages: It is sufficient to say, that they not only carried the Professors of Christianity to observe the Precepts of the Decalogue and the Natural Law, but that they likewise recommended to them, the embracing the Perfection of the Christian Morality. They maintained, that the most agreeable Sacrifice that could be offered to God, was to give him a contrite Heart; that it was necessary to love him above all things, in order to be just; that those that were influenced only by a Principle of servile fear, were not really upright; that we ought to die, and suffer all Punishments imaginable, rather than be guilty of any thing, that might give the World occasion to believe, that we have renounced or despised the Doctrine of Jesus Christ; that we ought to love our Neighbour as ourselves, and assist and help him; to wish ill to no body, to render Good for Evil, and Pray for those that Persecute us. They exhorted the Faithful to give large Alms, to visit the Poor, to comfort the Sick, and those that were Imprisoned upon the account of Religion. They recommended it to the Consideration of those Christians that were Rich and Powerful, to employ the Superfluities of their Fortune in these indispensible Duties, and to use the World without being Wedded to it; They taught them, that they were obliged not only to avoid Criminal Pleasures, such as Debauchery, and those that were dangerous, such as the public Shows and Comedies, but also all unprofitable Pleasures that had no other end but the mere entertainment of the Senses; that they ought to content themselves with what was necessary, without a solicitous pursuit and search after those things that served only for Pleasure or Luxury: That Christian Women ought to be extremely Modest in their Garb and Dress. They commanded all Persons of whatsoever Condition, to be Obedient to all Emperors, Magistrates and Secular Powers. They exhorted Wives, to love their Husbands, Husbands to cherish their Wives, Children to obey their Fathers and Mothers, and Parents to have a Care of their Children, and reprehend them without bitterness; they admonished the Faithful to be submissive to their Pastors, and the Pastors to have a great deal of Charity and Zeal for their Flock.  
In a word, They prescribed all the Rules and Holy Maxims of the Gospel to the Observation of Christians, and exhorted them to lead a Life conformable to them. But what is most to be admired, this excellent System of Morality was not only to be found in the Writings of the First Christians; but it appeared and glittered in their Lives and Actions. We say not great things, says one of these Ancients, but we live them. Non eloquimur magna, sed vivimus.    
The End of the First Volume.   

ADVERTISEMENT.  
IN the Table of the Works of the Authors in this Volume, under the Name Hippolytus, in the Column of Books Lost, deal the whole Paragraph [What I said formerly, etc.   

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE AUTHORS OF THE Old Testament.  
With the Names of the Authors, their Country, and Employments, Time of their Birth, Time when they Flourished, and time of their Death.  

MOSES, of the Tribe of Levi, Chief of the People of Israel, born in Egypt in the 2433d Year of the World, 1571 Years before Jesus Christ; he brought the Israelites out of the Egyptian Bondage in the Year 2513, and led them in the Wilderness for forty Years. He died in the Year 2553. 1451 Years before the Birth of Jesus Christ.  
JOSHUA, Son of Nun, Moses' Successor, born in the Year 2460, he succeeded Moses in the Year 2552; and governed the People till the Year 2570, died in the Year 2570, Aged 110 years.  
JOB, descended from Esau, believed to be as old, or older than Moses.  
SAMUEL, Prophet, and last Judge of the People of Israel, born in the Year 2849. he began to govern the People in the Year 2888, and ruled them 21 years, died in the Year 2947.  
The AUTHORS of the Books of Judges and Ruth, who lived before the Captivity.  
DAVID, Son of Jesse, of the Tribe of Judah, King of Israel, born in the Year 2919, he reigned forty years, i. e. 7 years in Hebron, and 33 in Jerusalem; died in the year 2990, and 1014 years before Jesus Christ.  
GAD and NATHAN, Prophets, prophesied under David and Solomon, from the Year 2980. till the Year 3020 circiter.  
SOLOMON, Son of David, King of Israel, reigned from the Year 2990, till the Year 3030, died in the Year 3030.  
A HIJAH and IDDO, Prophets, under Solomon and Jeroboam.  
HOSEA, Son of Beeri, Prophesied under Uzziah, Jotham, etc. from the Year 3194, till towards the End of the next Age.  
JOEL, Prophet; some say, soon after Hosea's death; others, not till after the Captivity.  
ISAIAH, Son of Amos, of the Blood Royal, began to Prophesy in the 25th Year of Uzziah, in the Year 3219, and continued for an Age.  
AMOS, Herdsman of Tekoah near Bethlehem, began to Prophesy in the 24th Year of Uzziah; i. e. about the 3218th Year of the World, and continued 25 or 26 years.  
OBADIAH, Prophet. Time when he lived and prophesied very uncertain.  
JONAH, Son of Amittai of the Tribe of Zebulun, Prophesied from the end of the 31st Century of the World, to the end of the 32d.  
MICAH, of the Tribe of Judah, began to Prophesy in the Year 3257. under Jotham, and continued under Ahaz and Hezekiah, for about fifty years.  
HABBAKKUK, Prophet, sometime in Manasses' Reign, but uncertain.  
NAHUM, Prophet, Time uncertain.  
JEREMIAH, born near Jerusalem, of the Family of the Priests, began to Prophesy in the Year 3375, and continued 45 Years.  
BARUCH, Scholar and amanuensis to Jeremiah, Prophesied in Jeremiah's time, or rather after his death.  
DANIEL, Of the Blood Royal, Prophesied during the Captivity, from the Year 606, before Jesus Christ, i. e. the Year 3398. of the World, for almost 70 years.  
EZEKIEL, Son of Buzi the Priest, began to Prophesy in the Year 3408, the fifth of the Captivity, and continued under Jeconiah 22 years.  
HAGGAI and ZECHARIAH Son of Berachiah the Son of ●…lde, Prophesied after the People returned; and began in the Year 3485. 519 years before the Birth of Jesus Christ.  
MALACHI, Prophet, after the two former.  
TOBIT, wrote after the Ten Tribes were carried away be Shalmanezer, in the Year 3283, 721 years before Jesus Christ.  
The Author of the Book of JUDITH uncertain. Time uncertain.  
EZRA, returned from Babylon to Jerusalem in the Year 3537.  
NEHEMIAH, the Author of the Book of Chronicles, returned in the Year 3550. Lived in Ezra's time.  
The LXX. Interpreters, under Ptolemy Philadelphus, about the Year 3727,  
JESUS, Son of Sirach, under Ptolemy Euergetes, in the Year 3759.  
The uncertain Author of the first Book of MACCABEES.  
JASON, Abridger of the Second.  
PHILO JUDAEUS, A Platonic Philosopher, under the Emperors Tiberius and Caius Caligula.  
JOSEPHUS, of the Priestly Family, descended from the Hasmonaeans, born the Year 37. after Jesus Christ; u●…er Vespasian, ●…us and Domitian died in the Year 93 after Jesus Christ.  
JUSTUS, of Tiberias at the same time.    

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE of the Authors of the NEW TESTAMENT.  
With the Names of the Authors, their Country, and Employments, Time of their Birth, Time when they Flourished, and time of their Deaths.  

ST. MATTHEW, Publican, converted by Jesus Christ, and made an Apostle, wrote his Gospel about the 39th year of the common Account.  
St. MARK, Disciple of St. Peter, wrote about the Year 43, or perhaps several years after.  
St. LUKE, Physician of Antioch, wrote his Gospel about the Year 56. of Jesus Christ. The Acts were written afterwards, towards the Year 58.  
St. JOHN, Son of Zebedee, Apostle of Jesus Christ, and the beloved Disciple, wrote his Gospel about 100 years after the Birth of Jesus Christ.  
The Revelation in the Year 95.  
The time of his Epistles uncertain. Died in the Year 101. after the Birth of Jesus Christ, in the 68th year after his death.  
SAUL or PAUL, of the Tribe of Benjamin, of the City of Tarsus, converted in the Year 34.  
Wrote his two Epistles to the Thessalonians in the Year 52.  
In the Year 56 to the Galatians and Corinthians.  
In the Year 57 to the Romans.  
In the Year 62 to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, the Hebrews, and Philemon.  
In the Year 63 the first Ep. to Timothy, and that to Titus.  
In the Year 64. the Second to Timothy. Suffered Martyrdom in Nero's Persecution, in the Year 64.  
St. JAMES, Kinsman of our Lord, made Bishop of Jerusalem after the Death of Jesus Christ.  
Time when he wrote his Epistle uncertain. Died in the Year 63.  
St. PETER, Son of Jona, Chief of the Apostles, wrote his first Epistle in all probability, about the Year 43 or 44. and the second a little before his death. Suffered in the Year 64. in Nero's Persecution.  
St. JUDAS, Son of Alpheus, called also Thaddaeus or Lebbaeus, wrote after St. Peter's death.    

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE Ecclesiastical Authors That are Mentioned in this Volume.  
With the Names of the Authors, their Country, and Employments, Time of their Birth, Time when then Flourished, and Time of their Deaths.  

HERMAS, a Greek Author; the same Person probably that St. Paul salutes in his Epistle to the Romans; which was written in the Year 57 Neronis 4to.  
St. CLEMENT, Bishop of Rome, by birth a Greek, contemporary with the Apostles, he governed that Church from the Year 93, to the Year 101, under the Emperors Domitian, Nerva, Trajan; died in the Year 101, the third year of Trajan.  
DENYS, believed to have been originally of Thrace, Judge of the Areopagus at Athens, and afterwards Bishop of that Church, converted by St. Paul in the Year 52. constituted Bishop of that Church towards the Year 60; he governed it till the Year 95, under the Emperors Nero, Vespasian, and Domitian; died in the Year 95. in Domitian's Persecution.  
St. IGNATIUS, called Theophorus, of Asia, Bishop of Antioch. Some say he was about seven years old when Jesus Christ preached: Some say he was not born till after Jesus Christ's Death. He succeeded Evodius in the See of Antioch in the Year 70 of Jesus Christ, and governed that Church forty years under Vespasian and his Successors, till Trajan's time, under whom he suffered Martyrdom; died in the tenth Year of Trajan, in the Year 107.  
St. POLYCARP, of Asia, Bishop of Smyrna, born about the Year 70, Consecrated to the Service of God in the Year 81. Consecrated about the Year 98. He governed the Church of Smyrna till the Year 167, from the time of Nerva to Commodus; suffered Martyrdom in the Year 167.  
PAPIAS, of Asia, Bishop of Hierapolis, Disciple of St. John the Evangelist; he flourished under the Emperors Trajan and Hadrian. The year of his death is not known.  
QUADRATUS, of Asia, Disciple of the Apoles, flourished under Hadrian, to whom he presented an Apology for the Christians about the Year 120.  
ARISTIDES, a Philosopher of Athens, presented an Apology to the same Emperor about the same time.  
AGRIPPA, a Greek Author, flourished at the same time.  
HEGESIPPUS, of Palestine, born soon after the Apostles deaths, about the beginning of the Second Century, flourished under the Antonines, and wrote his History under Pope Eleutherius; he died under the Emperor Commodus, about the Year 180.  
St. JUSTIN, a Philosopher, born at Sichem, a City in Palestine, a Greek by Birth and Religion; flourished under Antoninus Pius, to whom he presented an Apology about the Year 150. died in the Year 166.  
MELITO, of Asia, Bishop of Sardis, flourished under M. Aurelius the Philosopher, to whom he presented an Apology for the Christians in the Year 182. died about the Year 185.  
TATIAN, an Assyrian, flourished under M. Aurelius, and Commodus.  
ATHENAGORAS, an Athenian Philosopher, flourished at the same time, and presented an Apology to M. Aurelius.  
HERMIAS, a Greek Author. Time when he lived uncertain.  
THEOPHILUS, a Greek Author, Bishop of Antioch. Consecrated Bishop of Antioch in the Year 170. governed that Church till the Year 181 or 182, under M. Aurelius, and the first years of Commodus. Died in the Year 182.  
APOLLINARIS, a Greek, Bishop of Hierapolis, a City in Phrygia, flourished under the Emperor M. Aurelius; died about the beginning of Commodus' Reign, in the Year 182 or 18●.  
DIONYSIUS, Bishop of Corinth, flourished under the Emperors M. Aurelius and Commodus. Died in the latter End of Commodus', or the beginning of Severus' Reign.  


PINYTUS, a Bishop in Crete.  
PHILIP, a Bishop in the same Island.  
MODESTUS, a Greek.  
MUSANUS, a Greek.  
BARDESANES, a Syrian of Edessa.   These five flourished under the Emperors M. Aurelius Antonius the Philosopher, and Commodus.  
St. IRENAEUS, a Greek, went into Gaul, was ordained Priest, and afterwards Bishop of Lions, born about the Year 140. Disciple of St. Polycarp and Papias, Consecrated in the Year 178. in the 17th year of the Reign of M. Aurelius, under whom, and his Successors, Pertinax and Severus he flourished in the time of Eleutherius and Victor, Bishops of Rome. Suffered Martyrdom in the Year 202 or 203.  
VICTOR, Bishop of Rome, Consecrated Bishop of that Church in the Year 191, died in the Year 201.  
POLYCRATES, of Asia Bishop of Ephesus, lived at the same time.  
THEOPHILUS, of Palestine; Bishop of Caesarea, and  
BACHILLUS, Bishop of Corinth, lived at the same time.  
The two APOLLONII, one a Greek, the other a Roman Senator, flourished under Commodus.  
Two ANONYMOUS Greek Authors, who wrote against the Heresies of Montanus and Artemo, at the same time.  
HERACLITUS,  
MAXIMUS,  
APPION,  
CANDIDUS,  
SEXTUS,  
ARABIANUS,  
JUDAS, and several others, whose Country is not known, flourished under Commodus, Pertinax, and Severus.  
SERAPION, Bishop of Antioch, chosen in the Year 191. governed that Church under the Emperors Commodus, Pertinax, Severus, and Caracalla. Died in the Year 213. about the end of the first year of Caracalla.  
RHODON, of Asia, studied at Rome, under the Emperors Commodus and Severus.  
PANTAENUS, a Stoic Philosopher, born in Sicily, Catechist of Alexandria, Precedent of the Alexandrian School towards the beginning of Commodus' Reign, about the Year 184. He went then into the Indies to preach the Gospel, and upon his return resumed his Employment under the Emperors Severus and Caracalla. Died about the Year 212. under the Emperor Caracalla.  
St. CLEMENT, believed to have been of Athens, Presbyter and Catechist of Alexandria, flourished under the Emperors Severus, Caracalla, and Heliogabalus, from the Year 196. to the Year 220. Died in the Year 220.  
MILTIADES, a Greek, flourished under Commodus and Severus.  
TERTULLIAN, originally of Africa, a Carthaginian, Presbyter of that Church, a Latin Writer, flourished under the Emperors Severus and Caracalla, from the Year 194. till towards the Year 216. He turned Montanist in the Year 207. Died about the Year 220.  
CAIUS, Presbyter of Rome, flourished under Severus and Caracalla, under the Pope's Victor and Zephyrinus, from the Year 196. to the Year 201.  
HIPPOLYTUS, Bishop of Ostia in Italy, or rather of a City in Arabia; suffered Martyrdom in the Year 230.  
GEMINIANUS, or  
GEMINUS, under the same Emperor.  
ALEXANDER, Bishop in Cappadocia, afterwards of Jerusalem, taken in as Coadjutor to Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem, in the beginning of Caracalla's Reign, about the Year 213. Died in the Year 250.  
JULIUS AFRICANUS, of Palestine, flourished under the Emperor Heliogabalus and Alexander Severus, from the Year 218, till about the Year 230.  
MINUTIUS FELIX, a Lawyer of Rome, flourished towards the beginning of the third Century.  
AMMONIUS, a Philosopher of Alexandria, flourished under the Emperor Severus.  
ORIGEN, an Alexandrian, Catechist of that School, afterwards Presbyter, born about the Year 185. settled Catechist about the Year 203, and flourished till the Year 252. died in the Year 252.  
BERYLLUS, Bishop of Bostra in Arabia. Converted by Origen, under the Emperor Gordian in the Year 238.  
St. CYPRIAN, an African, Bishop of Carthage, Converted by Caecilius in the Year 246. governed the Church of Carthage from the Year 248. to the Year 258. under the Emperors Philip, Decius, Gallus, Volusian and Valerian. Suffered Martyrdom in the Year 258.  
PONTIUS, of Africa, Disciple of St. Cyprian, under Volusian.  
CORNELIUS, Bishop of Rome, Consecrated in the Year 251.  
NOVATIAN, a Roman, flourished under the Emperor Philip; created Antipope in 251. and wrote in 253.  
St. MARTIALIS, a Greek, came to Tholouse in the Year 250.  
SIXTUS, Bishop of Rome, chosen Bishop in the Year 254.  
GREGORY THAUMATURGUS, born at Neocaesarea, a City in Pontus, of a Noble Family; afterwards Bishop of that City. Born about the Year 215. Converted by Origen, whose Disciple he was. Chosen Bishop in the Year 240. flourished under the Emperor's Gordian, Philip, Gallus, Volusian, Decius, Valerian and Gallienus, for 25 years. Died in the Year 265.  
DIONYSIUS, Disciple of Origen, Catechist, and Bishop of Alexandria, chosen Bishop in the Year 247. flourished under the same Emperors for seventeen years.  
THEOGNOSTUS, of Alexandria. Time uncertain.  
ATHENOGENES. Time uncertain.  
DIONYSIUS, Bishop of Rome, governed that Church from the Year 258. to the Year 270.  
MALCHION, Presbyter of Antioch, disputed against Paulus Samosatenus in the Year 270.  
ARCHELAUS, a Syrian, Bishop in Mesopotamia, flourished under the Emperor Probus towards the Year 280.  
ANATOLIUS, of Alexandria, Bishop of Laodicea in Syria, under the same Emperor, and his Successor Carus.  
VICTORINUS, Bishop of Passaw, at the same time.  
PIERIUS, Presbyter, and Catechist of Alexandria, under Carus and Dioclesian, about the Year 285.  
METHODIUS, Bishop in Lycia, afterwards of Tyre in Palestine, under the same Emperors; suffered Martyrdom in 302 or 303.  
PAMPHILUS, Presbyter of Caesarea in Palestine, suffered Martyrdom under Maximinus.  
LUCIAN, Presbyter of Antioch, died under the same Emperor.  
PHILEAS, of Thmuis, a City of Egypt, died under the same Emperor.  
ZENO, Bishop of Verona, died in Julian the Apostate's time.  
ARNOBIUS, an African, Professor of Rhetoric at Sicca a City in Numidia, flourished under Dioclesian towards the end of the third, and beginning of the fourth Centuries.  
L. CAECILIUS FIRMIANUS, surnamed LACTANTIUS, according to some, an Italian to others an African, studied in Africa, afterwards went to Nicomedia, where he taught Rhetoric, and at last Tutor to Crispus. He wrote in Latin; flourished under Dioclesian and Constantine, from the Year 302. till towards the Year 330.  
COMMODIANUS, a Latin Author, probably an Italian, in the time of Pope Sylvester.  
JULIUS FIRMICUS MATERNUS, a Latin Author, Bishop of Milan, according to Baronius, under Constantius and Constantine, Sons of Constantine the Great. He wrote about 340 or 350.    

A TABLE of BOOKS that belong to the Old Testament, Canonical, Apocryphal, and Lost.  

Canonical Books unanimously received by Jews and Christians.  
THE five Books of Moses.  
The Book of Joshua.  
The Book of Judges.  
The Book of Samuel, i. e. the first and second Books of Kings.  
Isaiah.  
Jeremiah.  
Ezechiel.  
The Twelve minor Prophets.  
The Book of Job.  
The 150 Psalms.  


The Proverbs  
Ecclesiastes  
Canticles  
Daniel.   of Solomon.  
The Chronicles.  
Ezra divided by us into Two Books.  
Those Books thus divided are 22.   

Books owned by some Jews as Canonical and rejected by others.  
Esther.  
Ruth.  
Baruch.   

Books rejected by Jews, and most Primitive of the Christians, as Apocryphal, and afterwards received by the Church.  
Tobit.  
Judith.  
Wisdom.  
Ecclesiasticus.  
The two Books of Maccabees.  
The History of Susanna.  
Bell and the Dragon.   

Books cited in the Old Testament, which are lost.  
The Book of the Covenant, Exod. 24. [This does not seem to be a Book by itself, but only those Laws which are set down in the 10, 21, 22 and 23d Chapters foregoing: for the People promised in the same Verse, That all which the Lord hath said, they would do, and be obedient, (Exod. 24. 7.) which words refer to the Laws set down above, that God delivered to Moses upon the Mount.]  
The Book of the Wars of the Lord, Numb. 21. 14.  
The Book of Jasher, Josh. 10. 13. 2 Sam. 1. 18.  
The Books of Nathan, Gad, Shemaiah, Iddo, Ahijah, Jehu, Chron.  
The Book of Samuel, 1 Chron. 29. 29. [This also seems to be no other than the Books of Samuel in the Old Testament; in which, as every one knows, there is a very particular Account of David's Life, from his Unction by Samuel, till his Death.]  
The Say of Hozai [or as our Translation renders it, of the Seers.] 2 Chron. 33. 19  
The Discourses of Uzziah, 2 Chron. 26. 22. [This is obscurely expressed: He means the Life of Uzziah, written by the Prophet Isaiah.]  
Three thousand Proverbs of Solomon, 1 Kings 4. 32.  
A thousand and five Songs. Ibid.  
Several other Discourses of his. Ibid.  
The Descriptions of Jeremiah, Matth. 2. 17. [What our Author means here, I cannot tell. The Evangelist quotes the Prophet Jeremiah, (31. 15.) and the sense of the words in the Prophet, agrees with that of those in the Evangelist, exactly.]  
The Memoirs of Hyrcanus.  
The Books of Jason.   

Apocryphal Books, not dangerous.  
The Prayer of King Manesses.  
The Third and Fourth Books of Esdras.  
The Third and Fourth Books of the Maccabees.  
The Genealogy of Job, and a Discourse of his Wife. The 151st Psalm.   

Other Apocryphal Books of the same Nature, which are lost.  
The Book of Enoch.  
The Book of the Assumption of Moses.   

Books forged by Jews and Heretics, Fabulous and Erroneous, which are lost.  
The Generations of Creation of Adam.  
The Revelation of Adam.  
A Book of Magic by Cham.  
The Assumption of Abraham.  
The Book of the Twelve Patriarches.  
A Book of Jannes and Jambres.  
A Book written by King Og.  
Jacob's Ladder.  
The Genealogy of the Sons and Daughters of Adam. With several others.   

Greek Translations.  
An old Version of the Bible, or of some part of it.  
The Translation of the LXX. Interpreters.  
Aquila's Version.  
Theodotion's Version.  
Symmachus' Version.  
A Fifth and a Sixth Version.  
A Seventh upon the Psalms.   

Authors whose Books have a Relation to the History of the Old Testament.  Genuine. 


Philo.  
Josephus.  
Justus.    Forged or Doubtful. 


Aristeas.  
Aristobulus.  
Joseph. Bengorion.  
Pseudo-Berosus.  
Manetho.  
Metasthenes.  
Pseudo-Dorothens.  
Zoroaster.  
Sanchoniathon.  
Philo Byblius.  
The Testament of the Twelve Patriarches.      

A TABLE OF BOOKS that belong to the New Testament.  

Books owned as Canonical, at all Times, and by all Christians.  
THE Four Gospels.  
Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul.  
The first Epistle of St. Peter.  
The first Epistle of St. John.  
[The Acts of the Apostles; This by a Mistake is omitted in du Pin.]   

Books doubted of at first by several, but soon received as Canonical by the Catholic Church.  
The Epistle to the Hebrews.  
The Epistle of St. James.  
The second Epistle of St. Peter.  
The second and third Epistle of St. John.  
The Epistle of St. Judas, something later.  
The Revelation, which was not universally received of a long time.   

Apocryphal Books, not full of Errors.  
The Letter of J. C. to Agbarus.  
The Letters of the V M.  
The Gospel according to the Egyptians.  
The Gospel according to the Hebrews.  
The Protoevangelium of St. James.  
The Gospel of Nicodemus.  
The Ancient Acts of Paul and Theol●.  
The Epistle to the Laodiceans.  
The Letters of St. Paul to Seneca.  
The Epistle of St. Barnabas.  
The Liturgies 

Of St. Peter.  
Of St. Mark.  
Of St. James.  
Of St. Matthew.    
The Canons and Constitutions of the Apostles.  
The Book of Prochorus.  
The Book of Abdias.  
The Ancient Acts of the Passion of St. Andrew.   

Erroneous Books, Forged by Heretics.  
The Gospels 

Of St. Thomas.  
Of St. Mathias.  
Of St. Bartholomew.  
Of the Twelve.  
Of Philip.  
Of Judas.  
Of Thaddaeus.  
Of Barnabas.    
A Book of the Childhood of Jesus Christ.  
A Book of the Genealogy of Mary.  
The Acts 

Of St. Peter.  
Of St. Paul.  
Of St. Andrew.  
Of the Apostles.  
Of St. John.  
Of St. Philip.  
Of St. Thomas.    
The Doctrine and Sermons of St. Peter.  
The Clementines.  
The Memoirs of the Apostles.  
The Travels of the Apostles.  
A Book of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ.  
The Life of the Virgin Mary.  
Questions of the Virgin Mary.  
Revelations 

Of St. Peter.  
Of St. Paul.  
Of St. Thomas.  
Of St. Stephen.     

Other Supposititious Books, favourable to Religion.  
A Letter of Agbarus to Jesus Christ.  
Letters of Lentulus and Pilate, concerning Jesus Christ.  
The Sibylline Oracles.  
The Books of Hermes Trismegistus.  
The Books of Hystaspes.  
Seneca's Letters to St. Paul.  
A Passage of Josephus concerning Jesus Christ; which we cannot tell whether it be Supposititious or no.    

A TABLE Of all the Ecclesiastical Writers Mentioned in this Volume.  
Names of Authors. Genuine Books still Extant. Books lost. Supposititious Books. HERMAS. A Discourse entitled, Pastor, divided into three Books.   St. CLEMENT. Two Epistles to the Corinthians.  

The Conferences of St. Peter and Appion.  
Recognitions.  
Apostolical Constitutions.  
Clementines'.   DENYS the Areopagite.   

Books of the Celestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarcy.  
A Discourse of the Names of God.  
A Discourse of Mystical Theology.  
Ten Letters.   St. IGNATIUS. Epistles to the Smyrnaeans. 

to St. Polycarp.  
to the Ephesians.  
to the Magnesians.  
to the Philadelphians.  
to the Trallians.  
to the Romans. According to Vossius' and Usher's Editions.    

Five spurious Greek Letters. 

to Maria Cassobolita.  
to the Tarsians.  
to the Antiochians.  
to Hero the Deacon.  
to the Philippians.    
Three in Latin, one to the V M. the other two to St. John.   St. POLYCARP. Epistle to the Philippians. Some Letters to the Neighbouring Churches. 

A Letter to St. Denys the Areopagite.  
A Discourse of the Union of St. John.   
[Dr. Cave produces a Quotation out of Holloixius' Life of St. Polycarp, which says, This Book was concerning St. John's Death. They both mean the same Book, because they say from Halloixius, that it is extant in the Library of the Abbey of Fleury. I believe it is false printed in Mr. Du Pin.]  PAPIAS.  Five Books entitled, Explications of the Discourses of our Saviour.  

QUADRATUS.  
ARISTIDES.    Two Apologies for the Chrians.  

AGRIPPA.  
HEGESIPPUS.    

A Discourse against Basilides.  
An Ecclesiastical History, divided into five Books.    JUSTIN Martyr. 

Two Apologies.  
The Second Part of the Book of the Monarchy of God.  
A Conference with Trypho, the Jew.  
Two Orations against the Gentiles, doubtful.  
A Letter to Diognetus, doubtful.   
[These are owned by Doctor Cave.]  

A Discourse against Heresies, particularly against Martion.  
Two Books against the Gentiles, one called The Psalmist.  
A Book of Collections concerning the Soul.   
[Besides these, Dr. Cave mentions, 

An Exposition of the Revelations.  
A Commentary upon Hezameren.  
Letters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
A Discourse upon the Resurrection.    

Letters to Zena and Serenus. 
[Owned by Dr. Cave as Genuine.]   
A Confutation of some Arostotelian Opinions. 
[Owned likewise by him.]   
Questions and Answers to the Questions of the Orthodox.  
An Exposition of the Faith concerning the Trinity.   MELITO.  

Two Books of Esther.  
One of the Lives of the Prophets.  
One of the Church.  
Of the Lord's Day.  
Of the Nature of Man.  
Of the Creation.  
Of the Obedience of our Senses to the Faith.  
Of the Soul, the Body, and the Spirit.  
Of the Truth.  
Of Baptism.  
Of the Generation of J. C.  
Of Prophecy.  
Of Hospitality.  
A Book entitled, The Key.  
Of the Devil.  
Of the Revelations.  
Of God Incarnate.  
Collections out of the Scripture.  
An Apology for the Christian Religion.    TATIAN. A Discourse against the Gentiles. 

A Gospel composed out of the four.  
A Discourse of Evangelical Perfection.    ATHENAGORAS. 

Apology for the Christians.  
A Discourse of the Resurrection.    
A Romance of True and Perfect Love, in French, said to have been Translated out of Greek.  
[Huetius in his Discourse of the Original of Romances, thinks that this Book might possibly have been composed by Philander, who imposed upon M. Fum●e, as if it had been really written by Athenagoras. This Dr. Cave says is very improbable: But if we consider how extremely particular this Author is in his Description of those Buildings he mentions, how very improbable it is that Athenagoras should have brought in his Melangenia, describing Jupiter Hammon's Temple more like an Architect than an Historian, we can hardly conceive it to have been written by a Greek. Besides, the Architecture itself is so very exact according to the Rules of the Five Orders, the Four Ancientest whereof were introduced first by the Greeks; that it is not likely that one of that Nation, who knew very well that Jupiter Hammon's Temple was never raised by Men that were acquainted with their Models of Building, would ever have described it as Built after such a manner, if he he had thought fit to have described it at all. So that though we cannot certainly tell whether Philander, (who wrote Commentaries upon Vitruvius) was the Author of this Romance, or no; yet these Reasons seem to make it more than probable, that it was not written by Athenagoras, especially since a Greek Copy was never yet produced, and that none of the Ancients ever quoted it, either as his, or as belonging to any Body else. And I do not doubt, but Dr. Cave would have been of the same Opinion, if he had read the Book over himself.  HERMIAS. A Discourse to show the Ridiculousness of the Opinions of the Pagan Philosophers.   THEOPHILUS. Three Books to Autolycus. 

A Discourse against Martion.  
A Discourse against the Heresy of Hermogenes: And some other little things.   
[Since the first Edition of Mr. du Pin's Bibliotheque was published, Mr. Dodwell set out the Chronological Fragments of Bishop Pearson, with Additions of his own to the late Bishop of Chester's Discourses concerning the Succession of the first Bishops of Rome. In his Additions to the second Chapter of Bishop Pearson's first Discourse, he brings some Arguments to prove that this Theophilus, the Author of these Discourses to Autolycus, was not that Bishop of Antioch that was the sixth from St. Peter, as it has hitherto universally been believed. Theophilus speaks of the Persecution, as of a Calamity the Christians than groaned under, in two or three places, towards the End of the Third Book: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: daily, and until now. He says also, that it chief lay upon those that hastened after Virtue, and endeavoured to live a Holy Life, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These Mr. Dodwell affirms to have been Proselytes and Catechumen who endeavoured to live up to the Rules of their new Religion, and used great Philosophical strictnesses of Life, as Origen and his Disciples did, which is properly meant by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Persecution of Severus was raised particularly against New Converts, and those that endeavoured to instruct the Catechumen in the Christian Faith: for which reason, Origen was so severely enquired after; from hence it will necessarily follow, That Theophilus, who mentions the Persecution as a thing that had been of some Continuance, which did not begin till the Year CCIII. could not be that Bishop of Antioch that succeeded Maximinus, and preceded Heros.]   APOLLINARIUS.  

An Apology to the Emperor for the Christians.  
A Treatise against the Gentiles, divided into five Books.  
Two Books against the Jews.  
Discourses against the Montanists.    DIONYSIUS Bishop of Corinth.  Epistles to 

the Lacedæmonians.  
the Athenians.  
the Nicomedians.  
the Church of Gortynd.  
the Amastrians.  
the Gnossians.  
Soter, and to Chrystophora.    PINYTUS.  Letter to Dionysius Bishop of Corinth.  PHILIP and MODESTUS.  Discourses against Martion.  MUSANUS.  Discourse against Encratitae.  BARDESANES.  Discourse against Martion. Of Fate.  St. IRENEUS. 

Five Books against Heresies, extant only in Latin.  
A Letter to Victor in Eusebius.   

Letters 

to Blastus.  
to Florinus.    
A Discourse of Knowledge.  
A Discourse against Martion.  
Several Discourses of various Subjects.    

VICTOR,  
POLYCRATES,  
THEOPHILUS,  
BACHYLLUS.    Letters and Discourses concerning the Celebration of Easter.  

HERACLITUS.  
MAXIMUS.    

Commentaries upon St. Paul.  
A Discourse concerning the Original of Evil.    

APPION,  
CANDIDUS.    Commentaries upon the Hexameron.  SEXTUS.  A Discourse of the Resurrection.  JUDAS.  A Discourse upon Daniel's Weeks.  ARABIANUS.  Works unknown.  SERAPION.  

Letters against the Montanists. to Domninus.  
Other Letters.  
A Discourse concerning the Gospel, falsely attributed to St. Peter.    RHODON.  

A Discourse against Martion.  
A Discourse upon the Hexameron.    PANTAENUS.  Commentaries upon the Bible.  St. CLEMENT of Alexandria. 

Exhortation to the Gentiles.  
Paedagogus, in three Books.  
Stromata, in eight Books.  
A Discourse concerning What rich man can be saved.   
[Dr. Cave mentions a Hymn in Praise of our Saviour.  

Eight Books of Institutions.  
A little Book of Easter.  
A Discourse of Fasting.  
A Discourse of Slander.  
An Exhortation to Patience.   
[And several other Discourses.]   MILTIADES.  

A Discourse against the Montanists.  
Against the Gentiles and Jews.  
An Apology for the Christian Religion.    APOLLONIUS, a Greek.  A Discourse against the Montanists.  APOLLONIUS, a Roman.  An Apology for the Christian Religion.  ANONYMOUS Authors.  Discourses against the Heresies of Montanus and Artemo.  TERTULLIAN. 

Of Penance.  
Of Baptism.  
Of Prayer.  
An Apology for the Christian Religion.  
Of 〈◊〉.  
●●●●●tation to Martyrdom.  
A Discourse to Scapula.  
Two Books to the Gentiles.  
Of Public Shows.  
Of Idolatry.  
Of the Dresses of Women.  
Of women's Habits.  
Of the Testimony of the Soul.  
Five Books against Martion.  
Of Prescriptions.  
Of the Flesh of Jesus Christ.  
Of the Soul.  
Of a Soldier's Crown.  
A Book entitled, Scorpiacum.  
[Against the Gnostics.]  
Against the Jews.  
Against Praxeas.  
Against Hermogenes.  
Against the Valentinians.  
Of the Philosophic Cloak.  
To his Wife two Books.  
Of Chastity.  
Of Fasting.  
Of single Marriages.  
An Exhortation to Chastity.  
Of Flight in Persecution.  
Of Veiling of Virgins.   

A Discourse against Apollonius.  
Of Aaron's Robes.  
Of Cir●….  
Of clean and unclean Beasts.  
Of Paradise.  
Of Fate.  
Of the Hope of the Righteous.  
Against Apelles.  


Of Baptism,  
Of Public Shows,  
Of veiling of Virgins,   in Gr.   
[The Discourse de Coronâ Militis was translated likewise by himself into Greek.]  

A Catalogue of Heresies at the end of his Prescriptions.  
A Letter of Jewish Meats.  
Of the Trinity.  
Several Poems.   CAIUS.  

A Discourse against Proclus the Montanist.  
Another entitled, The little Labyrinth.  
Of the Nature of the Universe.    HIPPOLYTUS. A Paschal Cycle. 

Commentaries upon the Psalms.  
Of the Witch of 〈◊〉.  
Commentaries upon St. John's Gospel, and the Apocalypse.  
Of Spiritual Gifts.  
Apostolical Tradition.  
Chronicles; or Chronological Accounts of Time.  
Against the Greeks, and Plato, concerning the Universe.  
Exhortation to Severina.  
A Demonstration of the Time of Easter, as it is in the Table.  
Odes upon all the Scriptures.  
Of God, and the Resurrection of the Dead.  
Of Good, and whence cometh Evil. 
[What I said formerly concerning the Engastrimuthos will not hold; the LXX. Interpreters, from whom the Church has borrowed most of its Technical words, call the Witch of Endor by no other Name.]   
Against Heresies.  
Against the Marcionites.  
Several other Tracts.   

Of the End of the World, and Antichrist.  
A Demonstration against the Jews.  
A Discourse of Susanna. 
[Not disowned by Doctor Cave.]   
Collections against Ber● and Helico, amongst the excerpta of Anastasius.  
Homilies of the Trinity and the Incarnation.  
A short Account of the Lives of the XII. Apostles. 
[Ascribed by some to Hippolytus Jun. who lived about the year DCCCCXXXIII.    GEMINIANUS.  Works unknown.  ALEXANDER.  Epistles, 

to the Antinoitae.  
to the Antiochians.  
to Origen.  
to Demetrius, and others.    JULIUS AFRICANUS. Letter to Origen, concerning the the History of Susanna. 

A Chronicon.  
Letter to Aristides of the Genealogy of J. C. a great part whereof is quoted by Eusebius.    MINUTIUS FELIX. Octavius; A Dialogue against the Gentiles.   AMMONIUS. Evangelical Harmony. Several Treatises. Of Fate; lost. ORIGEN. See the Catalogue of his Comments upon the SS. in his Life. 

Against Celsus in Eight Books.  
Of Martyrdom.  
Of the History of Susanna, in a Letter to Africanus.  
His Principles, in Latin.  
Of Prayer.   

His Principles in Four Books.  
Of the Resurrection.  
Stromata in Ten Books.  
Conference with Beryllus Bishop of Bostra.  
Dialogues concerning the Resurrection.  
Explication of the Hebrew Names of the Old Testament.   

Against Marcus; Dialogue.  
Two Commentaries upon Job.  
Commentaries upon St. Mark.  
Several Homilies.  
The Lamentations of Origen.   BERYLLUS.  Conference, Letters, and other small things.  St. CYPRIAN. 

LXXXIII. Letters.  
Of the Vanity of Idols.  
Testimonies against the Jews, to Quirinus, in Three Books.  
Of the Discipline and Habits of Virgins.  
Of the Lapsi.  
Of the Unity of the Church.  
Of Prayer.  
An Exhortation to Martyrdom.  
Of Mortality.  
To Demetrianus.  
Of Works of Mercy and Alms-Deeds.  
Of Patience.  
Of Envy.   
[Trithemius tells us, That St. Cyprian also enlarged Seneca's and Tyro's Characters, by adding of numbers of Technical words that belonged to the Christian Religion; they are all printed by Gruter, and are commonly bound up with his Body of Inscriptions.]   

Against Public Shows.  
Of Chastity.  
Homily against Novatian.  
Homily against Gamesters.  
Of the Celibacy of the Clergy.  
Of the XII. Abuses of the Age.  
A Panegyric upon Martyrdom.  
Of double Martyrdom.  
A Discourse of the Cardinal Virtues by Arnaldus Bonaevallis.  
Ruffinus' Explication of the Creed.  
Of the Baptism of Heretics.  
Of Mount Zion, and Mount Sinai.  
The Supper.  
Of the Revelation of S. John Baptist's Head.  
Celsus' Preface.  
Two Books to Martyrs.  
St. Cyprian's Confession.  
A Calendar for Easter.  
The Secrets of St. Cyprian.   PONTIUS. St. Cyprian's Life.   CORNELIUS. Two Letters amongst St. Cyprian's, and a Fragment of another in Eusebius.   NOVATIAN. 

A Letter in St. Cyprian's Works.  
Of the Trinity.  
Of Jewish Meats.   

Of the Passover.  
Of the Sabbath.  
Of Circumcision.  
Of the High Priest.  
Of Prayer.  
Of Resolution.  
Concerning Attalus.    St. MARTIALIS SIXTUS.   

Two Letters.  
The Sentences of Sixtus the Pythagorean.   GREGORY Thaumaturgus. 

A Speech to Origen.  
A Profession of Faith in Gregory Nyssen.  
A Canonical Epistle.  
A Paraphrase upon Ecclesiastes.    

An Exposition of Faith published by Turrian.  
A Treatise of the Soul. Sermons,   DIONYSIUS of Alexandria. Besides Fragments produced by Eusebius, we have a Letter to Basilides. 

Two Letters to the Roman Confessors. 

to Stephen.  
to Sixtus.  
to Philemon.  
to Dionysius.  
to Hierax.  
to the Church of Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus.    
Paschal Letters.  
Discourses of Martyrdom.  
Of the Promises of God.  
Against the Sabellians.  
Of the Trinity to Dionysius.  
An Apology and Refutation of his former Opinions.  
Of Nature, and Temptations.  
Several other Letters mentioned by Eusebius.   

A Discourse against Origen, quoted by Anastasius of Nice.   THEOGNOSTUS.  Institutions.  ATHENOGENES.  A Hymn.  DIONYSIUS Bishop of Rome.  A Letter against the Sabellians.  MALCHION.   A Conference against Paulus Samosatenus. ANATOLIUS. A Discourse concerning Easter, in Latin.   VICTORINUS. A Discourse upon the Revelations. 
[This is thought to be Spurious by most Men, or at least extremely interpolated.]  

A Book against all Heresies.  
Commentaries upon Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles, [Habakkuk, St. Matthew, and the Revelations.   
Dr. Cave has published the beginning of a Discourse of this Victorinus, Of the Fabric of the World, which he thinks may be a Fragment of this Father's Commentaries upon Genesis or the Apocalypse.]   PIERIUS.  

Homily upon Hosea.  
Twelve other Books.    METHODIUS. The Banquet of the Virgins, and several Fragments. 

Of the Resurrection.  
Of the Witch of Endor.  
Of freewill.  
Commentaries upon Genesis, Canticles, and several other Books.   

A Homily upon the Presenting of J. C. in the Temple.  
Another Sermon upon Palm-Sunday.  
A Latin Profession of Faith upon the Trinity.   PAMPHILUS.  Letters.  LUCIAN.  

A new Edition of the Version of the Bible.  
Small Tracts, and some Letters.    ZENO Veronensis.   Homilies. ARNOBIUS. Seven Books against the Gentiles. Poems upon his Voyage.  LACTANTIUS. 

Institutions in seven Books;  
An Abridgement of the first three Books.  
Of the Workmanship of God.  
Of the Anger of God.  
Of Persecution, or the Deaths of the Persecutors.   

To Asclepiades.  
Eight Books of Letters.    COMMODIANUS. Instructions to the Gentiles.   JULIUS FIRMICUS MATERNUS. Of the Error of Profane Religions.   COUNCILS of the three first Centuries. A Letter from the Council of Antioch concerning Paulus Samosatenus. Euseb. Lib. VII. Chap. 30. 

Synodical Letters in P Victor's time concerning the Celebration of Easter.  
A Decree of a Council held under Agrippinus, concerning the Baptism of Heretics.  
A Decree of another under Dionysius Bishop of Rome.  
A Decree of another held at Antioch in P. Stephen's time.  
A Decree of some Councils held in Asia, concerning Noëtus.   

A Letter and a Profession of Faith of the Council of Antioch, set down by Turrian.  
Decretals of the Ancient Popes before Siricius.     

A TABLE of all the Writings of Ecclesiastical Authors, according to the Order of their Arguments, that are mentioned in this Volume.  

Apologies for the Christian Religion, and Discourses against Gentilism.  
JUstin's two Apologies.  
— two Orations against the Gentiles.  
Tatian's Book against the Gentiles.  
Athenagoras' Apology.  
Hermias of the Ridiculousness of the Heathen Philosophers.  
Theophilus the Antiochian's Three Books to Autolycus.  
Clemens Alexandrinus' Exhortation to the Gentiles.  
— Eight Books of Stromata.  
Tertullian's Apologetic.  
— to Scapula.  
— to the Gentiles.  
— of the Testimony of the Soul.  
Minutius Felix's Octavius.  
Origen's Eight Books against Celsus.  
St. Cyprian of the Vanity of Idols.  
— to Demetrianus.  
Arnobius' Seven Books against the Gentiles.  
Lactantius' Institutions.  
— of the Deaths of the Persecutors.  
J. Firmicus Maternus of the Errors of Profane Religions.   

Books against the Jews.  
St. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho.  
Tertullian's Books against the Jews.  
St. Cyprian's first Book of Testimonies to Quirinus.   

Books against Heretics.  
St. Irenaeus' five Books against Heresies.  
Tertullian's Prescriptions.  
— Five Books against Martion.  
— Scorpiacum against the Gnostics.  
— against Praxeas, Hermogenes, and the Valentinians.   

Discourses upon particular Articles of Religion.  
St. Justin of the Kingdom of God.  
Novatian of the Trinity.  
Athenagoras of the Resurrection.  
Tertullian of the Resurrection.  
— of the Body of Christ.  
— of the Soul.  
Clemens Alexandrinus' Stromata.  
Origen's Principles.  
Gregory Thaumaturgus' Profession of Faith.  
Lactantius of the Workmanship of God.  
— of the Anger of God.  
A Letter of the Council of Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus.   

Discourses of the Discipline of the Church.  
S. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians.  
S. Ignatius' Epistles.  
S. Irenaeus' Letter to P. Victor.  
Tertullian of Penance.  
— of Baptism.  
— of Prayer.  
— two Books to his Wife.  
— of Chastity.  
— of Fasting.  
— of single Marriages.  
— exhortation ●o Chastity.  
— of the Veiling of Virgins.  
The last Five written when he was a Heretic against the Discipline of the Church.  
Hippolytus' Paschal Cycle.  
S. Cyprian's Letters  
— of the Lapsi.  
— of the Unity of the Church.  
— of Prayer.  
Anonymus of the Baptism of Heretics, printed with S. Cyprian.  
Novatian of Jewish Meats.  
Gregory Thaumaturgus' Canonical Epistle.  
Dionysius Alexandrinus' Letter to Basilides.  
Anatolius of Easter.  
Methodius Banquet of Virgins.   

Books of Morality.  
Hermas' Pastor.  
S. Clement's Epistles to the Coriathians.  
S. Polycarp's Letter to the Phi●…s.  
S. Justin's Epistle to Diognetus.  
S. Clement's Paedagogus in Three Books.  
— his Seventh Book of Stromata.  
— of what Rich Man can be saved.  
Tertullian and S. Cyprian of Patience.  
Their Exhortations to Martyrdom.  
Tertullian of public Shows.  
— of Idolatry.  
— of women's Dresses and Habits.  
— of the Veiling of Virgins.  
— of the Philosophic Cloak.  
— of Flight in Persecution.  
— two Books to his Wife.  
S. Cyprian of the Discipline and Habits of Virgins.  
— three Books of Testimonies to Quirinus.  
— of Mercy and Alms-Deeds.  
— of Zeal and Envy.  
Origen of Martyrdom.  
Methodius' Banquet of Virgins.  
Commodianus' Instructions.   

Commentaries upon the Bible.  
Origen's Commentaries and Homilies.  
Gregory Thaumaturgus' Paraphrase upon Ecclesiastes.  
Victorinus upon the Revelations.  
Ammonius' Harmony.  
Africanus and Origen's Letter, concerning the History of Susanna.  
Africanus' Letters concerning the Genealogy of Jesus Christ.    

AN ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF AUTHOR'S NAMES mentioned in this Volume.  

A.  
ABdias Page. 16  
Agbarus 1  
Agrippa 48  
Alexander 90  
Ambrose 116  
Ammonius 95  
Amos, Pr. 5  
Anony●i 61  
Anatolius 155  
S. Andrew 16  
Apollinarius 57  
Apollonii 66  
Appion 61  
Apostles 4, 8, 13, 14  
Arabians 61  
Ar●●●●●●s 155  
Aristides 48  
Aristeas Pr. 41  
Aristobulus P. 41  
Arnobius 163  
Athenagoras 56  
Athenogenes 154   

B.  
BAchyllus 61  
Bardesanes 58  
Barnabas 6  
Barus● Pr. 5  
Berosus Pr. 42  
Beryllus 116   

C.  
CAius 86  
Candidus 61  
Chronicles Pr. 3.  
S. Clemens Rom. 27  
S. Clemens Alex. 62  
Commodianus 169  
Councils of the Three first Centuries 171  
Cornelius 144  
S. Cyprian 117   

D.  
DAniel Pr. 5.  
David Pr. 4  
Decretals of Popes 173  
S. Denys A●●●p. 31  
S. Denys of Cor. 57  
S. Denys of Alex. 149  
S. Denys of Rome 154   

E.  
ESter Pr. 3  
Ezekiel Pr. 5  
Ezra Pr. 3   

G.  
GAD Pr. 2  
Geminianus 90  
Gregory Thaumat. 147   

H.  
HAbakkuk Pr. 6  
Haggai Pr. 6  
Hegesippus 48  
Heraclitus 61  
Hermas 26  
Hermias 56  
Hippolytus 87  
Hosea Pr. 5.  
Hystaspes 17   

J.  
S. James Pr. 45  
S. John Pr. 44  
Jeremiah Pr. 4  
JESUS CHRIST 1  
Jesus Son of Sirach Pr. 4  
S. Ignatius 35  
Job Pr. 3  
Joel Pr. 5  
Jonah ibid.  
Josephus Pr. 41  
Joseph Bengorion Pr. 41  
Joshua Pr. 2  
S. Irenaeus 58  
Isaiah Pr. 4  
Judas 61  
S. Judas Pr. 45  
Judith Pr. 3  
Judges Pr. 2  
Judius Africanus 91  
S. Justin. 50  
Justice of Tiberius. Pr. 41  
Lactantius. 165  
Lentulus. 17  
S. Linus. 16  
S. Luke. Pr. 43  
Lucian. 161   

M.  
MAccabees. Pr. 6  
Malachi. Pr. 6  
Malchion. 154  
Manetho. Pr. 42  
S. Mark. Pr. 43  
The Virg. Mary. 2  
S. Martialis. 146  
J. Maternus Fer. 170  
S. Matthew. Pr. 43  
Maximus. 61  
Melito. 55  
Mercurius Trismeg. 17  
Methodius. 156  
Micah. Pr. 5  
Miltiades. 66  
Minutius Felix. 92  
Moses. Pr. 1  
Modestus. 58  
Musanus. 58   

N.  
NAbum. Pr. 6  
Nathan. Pr. 2.  
Nehemiah. Pr. 3.  
Novation. 145   

O.  
OBadiah. Pr. 5.  
Origen. 96   

P.  
Pantaenus. 61  
Pamphilus. 161  
Papias 46  
S. Paul. Pr. 44  
Phileas. 162  
Philippus. 58  
Philo. Pr. 41  
Pierius 156  
Pilate 17  
Pinytus 58  
S. Peter Pr. 45  
S. Polycarp 44  
Polycrates 61  
Pontius 144  
Prochorus 16   

Q.  
QUadratus 48   

R.  
RHodon 61  
Ruth Pr. 2   

S.  
SAmuel Pr. 2  
Seneca 17  
Serapion 61  
Sextus 61  
Sibyls 17  
Sixtus or Xystus 147  
Solomon Pr. 4   

T.  
TAtian 55  
Tertullian 69  
Theophilus of Ant. 56  
Theophilus of Caes. 61  
Theognostus 153  
Tryphon 116  
Tobit Pr. 3   

V.  
VIctor 61  
Victorinus 155   

Z.  
ZEchariah Pr. 6  
Zeno Veronensis 162  
Zephaniah Pr. 6  
Zoroaster Pr. 41    

A General Index of the Principal Matters.  
Pr. Stands for Preface. P. for Preliminary Dissertations. The small Italic Letters for Notes.  

A.  
ABdias, Lives of the Apostles falsely attributed to him 16  
Absolution, not too speedy 122. refused to be given anciently for several Crimes, and afterwards granted, ibid. 123.  
Acts of the Revelation of the Apostles, spurious and forged, 5.  
Acts of the Passion of St. Andrew forged by Heretics, 16. Others, quoted by Catholics, also doubtful, ibid.  
Actors, Condemned by the Church, 133.  
Agbarus, K. of Edessa, 1. his Letter to J. C. spurious, ibid. Proofs of its Forgery, ibid. 2. History of his Conversion fabulous, 2. His receiving J. C.'s Picture not probable, ibid.  
Agrippa, Surnamed Castor, 48. wrote a Book to confute the Errors of Basilides, ibid.  
Alcinous, the Philosopher convicted of several Absurdities concerning the Resurrection, 87.  
Alexander, Bishop in Cappadocia, Coadjutor of Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem, 90. his Letters, ibid. his Martyrdom, ibid.  
Allegories, used by the Primitive Christians, 7.  
Ambrose, Origen's Scholar, 116. Anathematised the Errors of Valentinus when he turned Catholic, ibid. Ordained Deacon, ibid.  
Ammonius, his Profession and Life, 95. his Religion, ibid. Harmony of the Four Gospels written by him, and not by Tatian, ibid.  
Amos, Time when he lived and prophesied, P. 5.  
Anatolius, Birth and Qualities, 155. He wrote of Easter, and ten Books of Arithmetic, ib.  
Andrew, see Acts.  
Angels, Corporeal, according to the generality of the Ancients, 55. Origen's particular Opinions concerning them, 110. They take Care of Things here below, 66. They ought to be honoured, ibid.  
Anonymous Authors against the Heresies of Montanus and Artemo, 83.  
Apocryphal Books, why so called, P. 27. b.  
Apollinarius of Hierapolis, 57 Catalogue of his Writings, of which only the Titles remain, ibid. His Style and Genius, ibid. Fragments falsely attributed to him, 64.  
Apollonii, Two different Authors of that Name, and their Writings, 66.  
Appion, His Commentary upon the Hexameron, 61.  
Aquila, Translation of the Bible, and his Version, P. 38.  
Arabianus, an old Author, 73.  
Archelaus, an Author, 174.  
Aristides, Athenian Philosopher, 48. His Apology for the Christians to the Emperor Adrian, ibid.  
Aristeas and Aristobulus, P. 36.  
Arnaldus Bonaevallis, 143.  
Arnobius, His Profession and Religion, 163. yet a Catechumen, he wrote Seven Books against the Pagan Religion, ibid. Abridgement of them, 164. Censure upon them, ib. their Editions, ibid.  
Athenagoras, a Philosopher, lived in M. Antoninus' Time, 56. Presents an Apology to the Emperor in behalf of the Christians, ibid. Abridgement of his Apology, ibid. This Author unknown to Eusebius, ibid. Editions of his Books, ibid.  
Athenogenes, Martyr, Author of a Hymn, 134.  
Aurelius and Celerinus, of St. Cyprian's Clergy, 124.  
Author's little known by the Ancients, Pr. A Catalogue of those that have written about Ecclesiastical Authors, ibid. What Heretics that have written upon them, ibid. Characters by which the Time and Order of their Works may be known, ibid. Of the Authors of the Bible, and what may be guessed about them, P. 1, etc.   

B.  
BAchyllus of Corinth wrote a Letter concerning Easter, 61.  
Baptism, its Necessity and Efficacy, 80. Infant's Baptised as soon as they were born, 128. Questions concerning it, 80. Ceremonies of it, 95.  
Baptism of Heretics: S. Cyprian's and Stephen's Opinions concerning it, 118. f. g. History of their Differences upon that Question, ibid. Councils held about it, ibid. Different Customs in several Churches, ibid. h. i. k. l. decided in a Council held at Arles, 118.  
Bardesanes, a Syrian: His Country; his Profession; at first a Christian; afterwards went over to the Valentinians, 58. His Errors, ibid. A man of quick Parts and Learning, ibid.  
Barnabas: An Apostle; Reason of his Name; his Profession and Employment, 6. His Letter, ibid. Not Canonical, ibid. To whom directed, 7. When and how often printed, ibid.  
Baruch and his Prophecy, P. 5. 〈◊〉. His Book by whom received as Canonical, P. 28. Rejected by S. Jerome, ibid.  
Basilides, Heretic; his Errors, 48, 130.  
Bel; its History, P. 5. nn.  
Berosus, a Supposititious Author, P. 42.  
Beryllus, Bishop of Bostra in Arabia, his Errors and Conversion, 116.  
Bible, Canonical Books, P. 1, etc. Books lost and Apocryphal, P. 28, etc. History of its Books, P. 35, etc. Greek Versions, ibid., etc. In what Language and Characters the Books of the Bible were written, ibid. 38.  
Bibliotheca of Ecclesiastical Authors; Why this Book so called, Pr. Its Design in general, Pr. How pursued, Pr. Why written in French, Pr.  
Bishops established by the Apostles, and afterwards chosen by the Church, 28. distinction of Bishops and Presbyters, 42. Duty of Bishops, 43. they ought to govern the Flock of J. C. from whom they received their Office, 123. They have a Power to judge in matters of Faith and Discipline, 123. Can do nothing without their Clergy, 122.  
Blessedness, The Ancients believed not perfect till after the Resurrection, 54. t. Origen's particular Opinions concerning it, 110.  
Books; ways to find out when they are spurious, Pr. How many sorts, Pr.   

C.  
Caius, Presbyter of the Church of Rome, 86. Fragments of his Book against Proclus, ibid. Other Books of his, 87. His Errors; ibid.  
Calumnies against the Christians refuted, 56.  
Canons of the Apostles. Different Opinions concerning them, 13. Not drawn up by the Apostles, ibid. By whom attributed to them, ibid. Ancient, 14. Nine other Canons falsely attributed to the Apostles, 16.  
Canon of the SS. Of the Old Testament, made by whom, P. 26, 27, etc. What Books it takes in, P. 27, etc. What are Apocryphal, P. 29, 30. Of the N. T. P. 49. Why the Canonical Books are so called, P. 26. a.  
Canticles, P. 4  
〈◊〉 v. 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 ●f the Clergy, ●83.  
Ceremonies of the Church, 8●.  
Cerinthus; His Error concerning the Blessedness of the Right 〈◊〉, 86.  
Charity; Necessity of Alms-deeds, and vain Excuses to avoid it, 154.  
Christians; Their Manners, 61, 53. Their Assemblies, and upon what Occasions, 75. Called each other 〈◊〉, and why, Ibid. How they prayed in the Primitive Church, 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉, when written, and by whom, P. 3.  
Church; Abridgement of the Doctrine, Discipline and Morality of the Three First Ages of the Church, 178 183., out of it no Salvation, 142. Unity of the Church 137. Those that enter in aught to be Holy, 153.  
Clergy; Their Lives and Manners, 183. Exempt from Guardianship by wi●●, 133.  
S. Clemens Romanus, Disciple and Coadjutor of the Apostles, 27. a. When ordained Bishop of Rome, ibid. b. His First Epistle to the Corinthians, sent when, and by whom, ibid. 28. c. Its Antiquity and Authority, and the Esteem paid to it by the Ancients, ibid. An Abridgement of it, ibid. In whose name written, ibid. Its Style, ibid. Second Letter doubtful, ibid. 〈◊〉. Argument, of the Fragment that remains, ibid. Other Books attributed to him, ibid. Recognitiones Clementines, and Constitutions, falsely attributed to him, ibid. 29. Judgement, in general upon all these Books, 30.  
S. Clemens Alexandrinus; his Name, Country and Profession, 68 a. b. c. Catalogue of his Books, ib. Abridgement of his Books, 62, 63. Of the Exhortation to the Gentiles, ibid. of the Paedagogus, ibid. Of the Second and third Book of the Paedagogus, ibid. Of the 〈◊〉, 63, 65. His Learning, ibid. Of his Institutions, ibid. Of the Book entitled, What Rich Man can be saved? ib. What Judgement ought to be made of him, ibid. i Editions of his Works, ib.  
Cloak; Habit of a Philosopher, 72. aa.  
Coadjutor; Example of a Bishop taken in as a Coadjutor in the Primitive Church, 90.  
Commodianus wrote a Book called Instructions, 169. Abridgement of it, ib. His Style, ib. Censure upon it, ibid. His Learning, ib.  
Constitutions, see S. Clemens Romanus.  
Cornelius P. His Election and Ordination, 162. His Letters, ibid. a. His Martyrdom, ibid. Letter to Lupinicus forged, ibid.  
Covenant, 〈◊〉 Book of the O. T. so called, l●st, P. 29.  
Councils; Their Original, 171, 172. Of the three first Ages of the Church, ib. Called by the Apostles, 173. In the Primitive Church, ib. At Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus, ib.  
Confession of Sins used in the Primitive Church, 112.  
Creed, Apostles, when Composed, 9 Whether 〈◊〉 by themselves, doubtful, 10. Reasons, 11. Several compared in a Table, 12.  
Cross; not worshipped anciently, 202.  
St. Cyprian; Country, 117. a. b. Conversion, ibid. c. Ordination, ibid. Life and Actions, 117, 118. Differences with Novatian, 117. Difference with P. Stephen about Rebaptising of Heretics, 118. Censure upon that matter, 118, 119. His Martyrdom, 119. Chronological Order of his Letters, and their Abridgement, 119— An Abridgement of his other Writings, 135,— 140. Books falsely attributed to him, 141, 142. Censure upon his Style, 156. His Learning, ibid. Editions of his Books, 143.   

D.  
DAniel, Life, Profession, Writings, P. 5. 〈◊〉. nn.  
Deacons and Deaconesses, 182.  
Death; Christians Opinions concerning it, 139. Prayers for the Dead, 181.  
Decretals; Falsehood of those anciently so called, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 1●9.  
Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, Origen's Enemy, 98. Excommunicates him, ibid.  
Dem●●s Corporeal; lost themselves by the Love of Women, 56.  
Denys, or Dionysius of Alexandria, called the Great, 149. Origen's Scholar, ibid. When chosen Bishop of Alexandria, ibid. His Quality, ibid. Catalogue of his Works, and Abridgement, 150, 151, 152. Persecutions he suffered, 152. Defends the Faith against Paulus Samosatenus, Nepos, and Sabellius, 170, 171. His Opinion of Baptising Heretics, and the difference between Stephen and St. Cyp●ian, 150. Of Easter, 151, 172. Of Lent, 153. His Death and Style, ibid. Catalogue of his Works, 150— 152.  
Dionysius of Corinth; Time when he flourished, and his Qualities, 57 His Letters and what they contain, ibid. 16. Says that Dionysius the Areopagite was the first Bishop of Athens, 58. Not known whether Martyr or Confessor, ib.  
Dionysius Bishop of Rome; His Writings, 158.  
Dionyfius the Areopagite; Country, 31. a. Bishop of Athens, ibid. c. Not the St. Denys of France, ibid. 〈◊〉. Books attributed to him Forged, 32, 33, 34. Catalogue of them and their Editions, 34, 35.  
Doctrine and Discipline of the Church, 178, 138.   

E.  
EAster; the Day when it was to be kept disputed, 59 History of that Question, ibid. Anciently the People tarried in the Church till Midnight on Easter-Eve 156. Of its Celebration, 181.  
Ecclesiastes, P. 4.  
Edessa; where situated? 1. a.  
Enoch; His Book accounted Apocryphal. Quoted by St. Judas, P. 31.  
●●●vy Condemned, 140.  
Esther; Author unknown, P. 3. 〈◊〉. t. When that History happened, P. 20, 21.  
Eucharist; The Body of J. C. 60, 134, 135. How to be received, and how anciently Administered, 181. Ceremonies used at that time, ibid. Custom of mixing Water with the Wine, 134, 135. Of using Water alone without Wine in the Morning, ibid. Obscurely explained by the Ancients, because of the Gentiles, 112. Necessary Dispositions of Mind to receive it, ibid.  
Eunuch; Not lawful to make ourselves so, 97.  
Excommunication imposed by one Bishop, not to be removed by another, 98.  
Exhoriation to follow Jesus Christ, 62.  
Ezekiel; Life and Writings, P. 5.  
Ezrah; Author of the Books under that Name, P. 3. m.   

F.  
FAsting; When truly performed, 112. Before Easter, on Fridays and Wednesdays, 112, 204. Excessively used by the Montanists, 82.  
Fathers; sometimes mistaken in Critical Matters, 21  
Fear of God; 62, 63. When servile useful, but not sufficient for Justification, 64.  
Feasts of Easter and Pentecost, 112.  
Felicissimus, 118.  
Fuardentius a Franciscan, 61. Censure upon his Notes ibid.  
Flight in Persecution, 121. Condemned by Tertullian, 82.   

G.  
GEminianus, or Geminus, 90.  
Genealogy of Jesus Christ, 92.  
George of Amiens Capuchin, published a trifling Edition of Tertullian, 86.  
God; His existence naturally known, 74, 76. His Attributes, ibid. Providence, 73. Worship, ibid.  
Gospel; Etymology and Signification of the Word, P. 43. a. b. Of the four Canonical Gospels, ibid. Their Order, ibid. Some forged, and why? 3. One according to the Egyptians, ibid. According to the Hebrews, ibid. Believed by some to be the Original of St. Matthew, ibid. Proofs to the contrary, ibid. The Protoevangelium of St. James, ibid. The Gospel of Nicodemus, ibid. Others forged by Heretics, 4. The Hebrew Original of St. Matthew, 3.  
Grace of Jesus Christ, 64.  
Gregory Thaumaturgus; Name, Birth and Education, 147. Origen's Scholar, ibid. Afterwards made Bishop of Neocaesarea, ibid. His Books, ibid. His Canonical Epistle, ibid. Supposititious Books attributed to him, 148.   

H.  
HAbakkuk, P. 6.  
Haggai; Time when he prophesied, P. 6. tt.  
Hebrew Character before and after the Captivity, P. 35. b. c. Language when disused by the Jews, ibid. a. Syriack called Hebrew, ibid. f. g. Points when invented, ibid. h.  
Hegesippus, when he lived, 48. a. His Conversion, ibid. b. Life, 48, 49. Writings and Fragments, ibid. He mentioned the first Heretic that ever was in the Church, ibid. History of the Jews falsely attributed to Hegesippus, ibid. His Genius, ibid.  
Heraclitus author, 61.  
Heresies. Their use, 77. Own their Original to Philosophy, ibid. An infallible Rule to confute them, 68, 77. Their Novelty, 77.  
Heretics. Their Genius, 68  
Hermas. His true Name, 26. b. Who he was, ibid. The judgement the Ancients passed upon his Book, and how it ought to be esteemed, 27.  
Hermias, 56.  
Hermogenes Heretic, 78.  
Hexapla, and Terrapla of Origen how ordered, P. 38, 78, 97.  
Hippolytus. Where Bishop, 87. a. His Martyrdom, ibid. b. Books, 88 Others attributed to him, ib. & 89. e. f. g. h. His Paschal Cycle, 89. i Fragments of his Works, 90.  
Histaspes. An unknown Author, 22. Books attributed to him Supposititious, 23.  
Hosea●. His Prophecy, P. 5. oo.   

I.  
SAint James. His Writings, P. 45. r. 49.  
James the Brother of John converted his Accuser, 65.  
Idols. Punishments inflicted by the Church upon those that Sacrificed, 121, 122.  
Idolatry confuted,  
Jesus Christ proved Messiah, 76, 135. Truly God-Man and really Incarnate, 43. Some of his Words not in the 4 Gospels, 41. Miracles unquestionable, 48. Of David's Family, 49. His descent into Hell, 68 Believed by St. Irenaeus to have lived 50 Years, ibid. Origen's Opinion concerning him, 107, 108. Letter written by him to Agbarus forged, 1.  
Jeremiah. Life and Writings, P. 4. The Fifty Second Chapter not Written by him, ibid.  
St. Ignatius called Theophorus, and why? 35. a. Whose Successor, and how long Bishop? ibid. His Martyrdom, ibid. Testimonies of the Ancients concerning his Letters, ib. 36. Catalogue of Editions, 36, 37. e. f. Judgements and Opinions concerning them, 37, 38. Which ought to be rejected, ibid. Which interpolated, 38. Seven Genuine by Vossius and Usher's Editions, ibid. Their Antiquity asserted, 39, to 42. Objections answered, ibid. The Order in which they were Written, 42, 43. An Abridgement of them, 43.  
Imposition of Hands, 121.  
Incarnation. Doctrine of the Ancients about it, 180.  
Indulgences, 121, 181.  
Job, a real History, P. 3. x. y. z. Author of the Book, P. 3. u. Genealogy, P. 4. y. z.  
Joel. His Prophecy, P. 5. pp.  
St. John. His Beginning, P. 44. Thrown into boiling Oil, then Banished into Patmos, where he is said to have written the Revelation, ibid. Wrote his Gospel at Ephesus, ibid. and three Letters, ib. History of a Young Man Converted by him, 65.  
Jonah, P. 5. ss.  
Josephus. His Works, P. 41. Censure upon his Style, ibid. Upon the Passage in him concerning Jesus Christ, 25.  
Joseph Bengorion. A Supposititious Author. Life, Style, and Works, P. 41.  
Joshua, P. 2. k.  
S. Irenaeus. Life, Time when, by whom Taught, 58. a. b. c. d. When went into France, ib. By whom ordained Bishop of Lions, 59 g. When sent to Rome, ibid. h. His Book against Heresies, when Composed. Why, and in what Language. 59 i. k. l. m. Catalogue of his other Books, 67. Letters to Victor, ibid. Martyrdom, ibid. Fragments and Abridgement of his Works, 59, 60. Particular Opinions, ibid. Style, Learning and Genius, ibid. 61. Editions of his Books, ib.  
Isaiah. His Writings, P. 4. hh. two. kk.  
Judas Author, wrote upon daniel's Weeks, 61.  
Saint Judas his Epistle, P. 45.  
Judges. Book so called, P. 2. l.  
Judgement to come, 180. Ecclesiastical ones ought to be determined in their own Province, 143.  
Judith. Her History, when, by whom Written, P. 3. r. Anciently rejected as Apocryphal, P. 29. Said by St. Jerome to have been received by the Council of Nice, ibid. Reasons to the contrary, ibid. Received by the Latin Church, by the Councils of Carthage and Trent, ibid.  
Julius Africanus. Country and Employment, 91. a. b. His Chronicon, e. f. Other Books, ibid. His Opinion to reconcile the Genealogies of J. C. and of the History of Susanna, ibid. 92. Not the Author of the Cesti, 92. g.  
Julius Firmicus Maternus, wrote a Book of the Errors of profane Religions, 170. Who he was, and when he Lived, ibid. a. b Several Editions of this Book, 171. Abridgement of it, ibid.  
S. Justin. Country and Profession, 50. a. b. Apologies when Written and to whom, 51. Death, 50, 51. g. h. i. k. l. Dialogue with Tryphon, 51. Other Works, ibid. 55. Supposititious, 55. Censure upon his Genius and Style, ibid. Particular Opinions and Errors, ibid. r. s. t. u. x. y. z. aa. bb. cc. Editions of his Books, 55. bb. Design of a new Edition, 55, 56.  
Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of the Jews, P. 41.   

K.  
KIngs. Who writ the Book so called, P. 2. Two first Books called the Books of Samuel, ibid.   

L.  
LAbyrinth. Book so called, by whom written, 87.  
La Cerda Jesuit, Commented on Tertullian, 85.  
Lactantius. Life and Employments, 165. His Book of the Workmanship of God. ibid. Seven of Institutions, ibid. First, of false Religion, ibid. Second of the Original of Error, etc. 166. His other Books, 167. Poems falsely attributed to him, ibid. His Eloquence, 168. Editions of his Works, 169.  
Laodiceans. Epistle to them forged, and why? 5.  
Lentulus. Letter to the Senate, 23.  
Leonidas Father of Origen; Martyr, 96.  
Linus not the Author of the Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul, 16.  
Liturgies. Their Original, 8. One falsely attributed to St. James. 8. Troofs of its being spurious, 9 Why different in different places, 8. Severally falsely attributed to the Apostles and others, 8.  
Lucian. Martyr, 161.  
Lucius P. His Election and Martyrdom, 118.  
Saint Lu●e. Of what Profession and Country, P. 43. i. Not J. C's, but St Paul's Disciple, ib. 〈◊〉. Wrote him Gospel when he journeyed with St. Paul, P. 44. Upon what occasion it was Written, P. 43, 44.  
Luxury Condemned, 136.   

M.  
MAccabees, P. 29. zz. aaa. Whether Canonical, P. 6. Of the 3d and 4th Books, P. 31.  
Malachi, P. 6. yy. The last Prophet, ibid.  
Malchion's dispute with Samosatenus, 154.  
Manasses Prayer, P. 31.  
Manners of the Christians, 51, 57  
Marcianus Bishop of Arles joined with the Novatians, and Excommunicated, 129, 130.  
Martion, Errors and Sect, 58, 61.  
St. Mark the Evangelist not mentioned in the Acts, and St. Paul's Epistles, P. 43. He wrote his Gospel at Rome in Greek, not in Latin, ibid. h.  
Marriages. (Second) disapproved, 63, 182.  
St. Martialis. When went into France, 145. Letters and Life spurious, ibid. Reasons, ibid.  
Martialis and Basilides, Bishops in Spain, turned out for Idolatry, 130.  
Martyrs. Respect due to them, ●45. They give Indulgences, 121, 122.  
Mass. Ancient way of Celebrating, 8. a.  
Matthew. His Gospel in Hebrew, P. 43. c. d. and not in Greek, ibid.  
Mathias. Life spurious, 17.  
Maximus. Author of a Discourse of Matter, 61.  
Meats strangled, and offered to Idols unlawful for Christians to Eat, 164, 204.  
Melito Bishop of Sardis. Writings, 55.  
Mercurius Trisinegistus. Ancient and famous Author, 22, 23. n. o. Books falsely attributed to him, 23. p.  
Methodius. Where Bishop, 156. a. Writings, ibid. Abridgement of the Banquet of Virgins, 157, 158. Sermons, 160. Style, ibid.  
Micah. Country. Time of Prophecy, P. 5.  
Millenaries. Opinion, 54, 60, 86. Rejected by Caius, 110. By St. Cyprian, 142. By Origen, 86.  
Miltiades. Works, 66.  
Minutius Felix. Profession and Time when he Lived, 92. a. b. Abridgement of his Dialogue, 92, 93, 94. Censure, 95. Editions, 95. Book of Fate said to be his, ibid.  
Modestus, 58.  
Moses. Author of the Pentateuch, P. 1. Reasons, ib. etc. 6, 7, 8, 9 Answer to Objections, P. 10,— 18. His Assumption, P. 31.  
Montanists. Sect and Opinions, 66.  
Morality of Primitive Christians, 183.  
Musanus. Writings, 58.   

N.  
NAbum. Prophet, P. 6.  
Nepos. Heretic, 170.  
Nicholas. One of the 7 Deacons. His Action, 78. Author of the Sect of Nicolaitans, ibid.  
Novatus. Novatian, 163. Manners, ibid. Error and Schism, ibid. Genius, ibid. Letters, ibid. Writings, ibid. Condemnation, ibid. Dionysius' Letter to him, 169.  
Ni●●iditus Confessor. His Martyrdom, 124.   

O.  
OBadiah. Time of his Prophecy uncertain, P. 5. rr. Who he was, ibidem.  
Ordination. By the Diocesan, 182.  
Origen. Country, Name, Life, 96. a. b. c. Education, Masters, Zeal for Martyrdom, ibid. After his Father's Death taught Humanity and Grammar, 96, 97. Made Catechist of the School of Alexandria, 97. Professor of Divinity there, ibid. Disciples, ibid. Action blamed, ibid. Voyage to Rome, ibid. f. Hexapla and Tetrapla, ibid. P. 38. Taught the SS. in Palestine, ibid. Ordained and quarrelled with the Bishop of Alexandria, 98. Disputed with Beryllus and others, 99 Commentaries upon the Bible, 98, 100 His Glorious Confession, 99 〈◊〉. Death, ibid., o. p. Division of his Works, 100, etc. Catalogues of Eusebius and St. Hierome lost, 100 Catalogue of his Books upon the SS, 100, etc. Other Books, ibid. 101. Spurious, 106. Abridgement of his Opinions, 107,— 112. Censures of the Ancients upon his Opinions of the Trinity, 108. Of the Incarnation, ibid. 109. Of Angels, 109. He thought them Corporeal, ibid. Of the Soul, 110. Or freewill, ibid. wherein it lies, and its extent, ibid. His Opinion of the Stars, of the Resurrection of Good and Bad, of Judgement, ibid. 111. Points of Discipline taken out of his Books, 112. Points of Morality, ibid. Books of SS. owned and rejected by him, ibid. 113. Genius and Character, 113. Prayer, 114. Abridged, ibid. 115.   

P.  
PAmelius; Commentator upon Tertullian and St. Cyprian, 85. Censure upon it, ibid.  
Pamphilus, 161.  
Pantaenus; Life, Profession, Opinions, Writings, 61. preached the Gospel to the Indians, 62.  
Papias Bishop of Hierapolis; Disciple of St. John, 46. b. Books and Fragments, 47. Of indifferent Parts, ibid. Author of the Notion of the Millennium, ibid.  
Paradise allegorized by Origen, 111.  
Patience; exhortation to it, 82.  
St. Paul; Conversion, P. 44. Changed his Name from Saul, ibid. Beheaded by Nero, ibid. Epistles, P. 45. wrote, 14. ibid. Time and Place of them, P. 44, 45. to the Romans, P. 44. The Galatians, 45. to the Hebrews, ibid. To the Laodiceans spurious, 5. a. b. But two to the Corinthians, ibid. To Seneca spurious, 24.  
Paulus Samosatenus, Error and Condemnation, 152, 172, 173.  
Penance; What, and how many degrees, 149. Before and after Baptism, 181. Public, ibid. Of Idolaters, ib. Absolution when, ibid. Once only after Baptism, 112.  
Pentateuch; Author, P. 1, 6, 7, 8. Argument, P. 1, 2.  
Persecution against Christians, 74.  
St. Peter; Epistles, P. 45. 〈◊〉. His second Epistle, ibid. Suffered at Rome with St. Paul, P. 47. o.  
Phileas Bishop, 162.  
Philip of Gortyna, 58. Wrote against Martion, ibid.  
Philo; His Book, P. 41.  
Philo Byblius, P. 42. c.  
Pilate; Testimony of our Saviour, and Letter to Tiberius, 23.  
Pierius; Life, Professions, Quality, Writings, 156. Censure upon his Writings and Style, ibid.  
Pinytus Bishop of Gnossus, wrote to Dionysius Bishop of Corinth. 58.  
Polycarp; St. John's Disciple, and Bishop of Smyrna, 44. a. b. Looked upon as Metropolitan of the Churches of Asia, ibid. c. Came to Rome, when, ibid. d. Confers with P. Anicetus about the Celebration of Esster, ibid. His Horror of Heretics, 45. Martyrdom, ibid. Letter to Philippians, ib. It's Subject. ib. Editions, 46. Spurious Books, ib. Epistle of St. Ignatius to him, 43.  
Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus disputes with Victor, 61. Letter, ib. Spurious Books, ib.  
Pontius. St. Cyprian's Deacon wrote his Life, 144.  
Praxeas. Heretic, 78.  
Prayer. Use and Conditions, 114. Four sorts, 115.  
Lord's Prayer explained, ib. What Disposition of mind required, 114. How we ought to pray, ibid. Common places of Prayer, ib. 115. Time when, 138.  
Prayer for the Dead, 181.  
Priests, 121.  
Privatus of Lambesa. Heretic, 123.  
Prochorus one of the 7 Deacons, 16. Life of St. John falsely attributed to him, ib.  
Proclus, or Proculus, a Montanist, 86.  
Prophets. Their Books, P. 4. Ought not to speak with Ecstasy, or Fury, 66. a. Prophecies cited in the N. T difficult to find in the Old, 32, 33.  
Psalms. Written by whom? P. 4. aa. bb. cc.   

Q.  
QUadratus. Apologist for Christianity, 48. Who he was, ib. a. Fragment of his Apology, ib. 51. Not Bishop of Athens, ib. Was a Prophet, ib. 〈◊〉.   

R.  
RAillery. Sometimes allowable, 79.  
Religion. Proofs, 19 Exhortation to embrace it, 76. To be taken up voluntarily, ib.  
Resurrection, 79.  
Revelations. Opinions of the Ancients concerning them, P. 50. Others forged by Heretics, 5.  
Rhenanus. Wrote excellently upon Tertullian, 85.  
Rhodon, 61.  
Rigaltius. Censure upon his Comments, 85.  
Ruth. Author of her History, and the time when it happened, P. 2. Why that Book is joined with Judges, ib.   

S.  
SAbellius. Heresy condemned, 152.  
School of Alexandria, 62, 97.  
Scripture. Rule of Faith, 64, 179. Number of Books, P. 27, 28. How many Classes the Books divided into, ib. Which Genuine, which Apocryphal, P. 27, 28. Which lost, P. 30. Those not Canonical, P. ib. Why? ib. Books out of the Canon of the O. T. 31. Quotations from the Prophets in St. Matthew, not to be found, P. 32, 33. Of the Canon of the N. T. P. 49, 50.  
Seneca. Letters to St. Paul, 24. Spurious, ib. Arguments of it, ibid.  
Septuagint. Translation of the O. T. P. 35, 36. Whether there be an older Version, ibid. What Books were Translated by them, ib.  
Serapion. Author: His Book, 61.  
Serapion, A Sick Man, received the Eucharist when he was a Dying, 150.  
Sextus. Author, 61.  
Shows. (public) unworthy of Christians, 82.  
Sibylls. Reason of the Name, 17. a. b. Numbers and Names, 18. c. Their Books preserved in the Capitol by the Romans, 18. What became of them, ib. Those now remaining Spurious, 19 i k. l. Ancient and quoted by the Fathers, 20. When forged, ibid.  
Sichem. Where situated, 50. a.  
Sign of the Cross used by the Primitive Christians, 82.  
Simeon Son of Cleoph●s, 49.  
F. Simon follows Hobbs, Pererius, and Spinoza, in his Notions of the Pentateuch, P. 7. a. His Chimerical System, ibid. His Notion of public Scribes groundless, P. 13. etc. His Principles grounded on weak Conjectures, ib. Proves none of his Assertions, ib. Misunderstands Josephus, ib. 14. Quotes Eusebius to no purpose, P. 14. Misquotes Theodoret, ib. 15. alleges Authors which do him no Service, 15. His false Reasonings, ib. etc. Wrists a Rule in Criticism, P. 18. Applies it wrong, ib.  
Simony condemned, 112.  
Sins confessed to Priests in Origen's Time, 112. how they ought to be reproved, ibid. Distinction, ibid. Remedies, ibid. against the Holy Ghost, how not to be forgiven, 154.  
Sixtus: Sentences of Sixtus the Pathegorean attributed to the Pope, 147.  
Solomon; His Books, P. 4.  
Soul; Irenaeus' Opinion concerning it, 60. Opinions of the Ancients concerning the Souls of the Wicked, 54. x. y. Tatians' Opinion, 55. Tertullian's Opinions of the Soul, 79. Origen's, 110.  
Stars: Origen thought they had Life, 110.  
Stephen Bishop of Rome; His Election, 118. Dispute with S. Cyprian, ib. Censure upon it, ib. Martyrdom, 132.  
Stichometria of Nicephorus, 39, 45.  
Stromata; Meaning of the Word, 77.  
Supremacy of S. Peter, and the Church of Rome, 137, 182. Peter, James and John never disputed it 65.  
Symbol; Etymology of the World, 10, 11. d. e.  
Symmachus, P. 38.   

T.  
TAtian; Country, Profession, 55. a. Heresy, ibid. b. c. Writings, 55, 56. Abridgement, ibid. Gospel said to be made by him, ibid. a Book of his confuted by Clemens Alexandrinus, ibid.  
Temple; God dwelleth not in material ones, 93.  
Tertullian; Country, Life, 69. a. b. c. d. e. If married, when, ibid. h. i. If Priest, of what Church, 70. k. l. His Fall, ibid. n. What Motives, ibid. o. Orthodox Books: Of Penance, 70. of Baptism, 71. of Prayer, ib. Apologetic, ib. of Patience and Exhortation to Martyrdom, ib. of public Shows and Idolatry, ib. of the Testimony of the Soul, ibid. Chronological Order of his Books, 72. y. z. aa. bb. cc. dd. spurious ones, 73. ff. gg. hh. Abridgement, 74— 83. Genius and Character, 83. kk. ll. Editions, 85. Model of a new one 86.  
Thebutis first Heretic, 49.  
Theodotion, P. 38.  
Theodotus; Heretic, 68 another a Goldsmith, a Heretic, ibid.  
Theognostus; His Writings, 153.  
Theophilus' Bishop of Anticoh, 56. Not he to whom S. Luke wrote, ibid. What still extant of his, 57 Abridgement of his Book, ibid. He first used the Word Trinity, 56. Editions, 57  
Theophilus of Caesarea, 61.  
Thomas Apostle not called Judas, 2. c.  
Tiberius; Story of his desire to Deify J. Christ uncertain, 22.  
Tobit; History of him, P. 3. q. His Book rejected, P. 29.  
Tradition; Its Authority, 77, 82.  
Trinity; Opinions of the Ancients, 53. r. 64, 145. of Origen, 108.  
Tryphon, Origen's Scholar, 116.   

V  
VAlentinians; Their Dotages, 58.  
Victor; Difference with the asiatics, 61. Books written by him, ib.  
Victorinus, Bishop of 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉, 155. Writings, 156. Genius, ibid.  
Virgin Mary; Letters falsely 〈◊〉 to her, 2.  
Virgin's top familiar with D●…, ●33.  
Virgins who Vowed to preserve their Virginity, 134. Their Habits and Dresses, 136.  
Virginity commended though not enjoined, ibid.  
Universe; Book of its Nature, 87.  
Unction of the Sick unusual in the Primitive Ages, 182.  
Vossi●●; His opinion of the Sibylline Books, 25. His Edition of Saint Ignatius, 37.   

W.  
WAr; Book of the Wars of the Lord. P. 30.  
Wisdom; Book so called, P. 4. Not solomon's, P. ib. 〈◊〉.  
Word; See Trinity.   

Z.  
Z●…; Prophet, P. 6. Not he whom Eusebius speaks of; or he that was killed between the Temple and Altar, ib.  
Zeno Veronensis, 162 Sermons, ib.  
Zephaniab; Time of his Prophecy, P. 6.  
Zoroaster; Spurious, P. 42.   
FINIS.   

A NEW HISTORY OF Ecclesiastical Writers.  
Vol. SECOND.   

A NEW HISTORY OF Ecclesiastical Writers: Containing an ACCOUNT Of the LIVES and WRITINGS of the PRIMITIVE FATHERS; A Judicious Abridgement AND Catalogue of their WORKS; Their Various Editions, and Censures Determining the GENUINE and SPURIOUS. Together with A Judgement upon their Style and Doctrine. ALSO, A Compendious History of the COUNCILS; With Necessary TABLES to the whole. Written in FRENCH By Lewis Ellies du PIN, Doctor of the SORBON.  
VOLUME the SECOND, Containing the AUTHORS that Flourished in the FOURTH AGE of the CHURCH.  
LONDON, Printed by J. Leake, for Abel Swalle and Tim. Child, at the Unicorn at the West-End of St. Paul's Churchyard, M DC XCIII.   

THE CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME.  

Of the LIVES and WRITINGS of the Authors that Flourished in the Fourth Century, viz.  
EUsebius of Caesarea.  
Constantine the First Christian Emperor.  
Juvencus.  
Rheticius.  
Eustathius Bishop of Antioch.  
Peter of Alexandria.  
St. Athanasius.  
Jacobus Nisibenus.  
Marcellus of Ancyra.  
Hosius.  
Asterius.  
Theodorus.  
Tryphillius.  
Heliodorus.  
Donatus, and Vitellius, and Macrobius, his Disciples.  
St. Anthony.  
St. Pachomius.  
Oresiesis.  
Theodorus Disciple of St. Pachomius.  
The Macarii.  
Serapion Bishop of Thmuis.  
Eusebius Emisenus.  
Basil of Ancyra.  
Liberius.  
St. Hilary.  
Lucifer.  
Victorinus of Africa.  
St. Pacianus.  
Gregory of Boetica.  
Phaebadius.  
Optatus.  
Acacius of Caesarea.  
Photinus.  
Aëtius and Eunomius.  
George of Laodicea.  
The Apollinarii.  
Titus' Bishop of Bostra.  
Didymus of Alexandria.  
Peter of Alexandria.  
Lucius.  
Aquilius Severus.  
Euzoïus.  
St. Cyril of Jerusalem.  
St. Ephrem Syrus, Deacon of Edessa.  
Damasus Bishop of Rome.  
St. Basil the Great.  
St. Gregory Nazianzen.  
St. Gregory Nyssen.  
St. Caesarius.  
St. Amphilochius.  
Maximus.  
Eusebius Vercellensis.  
Meletius.  
Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus.  
Hilary the Deacon.  
Priscillian; Matronianus, Tiberianus, and Dictinius his Disciples.  
Ithacius, or Idacius.  
Faustinus.  
Philastrius.  
Timothy of Alexandria.  
Nectarius.  
Gelasius of Caesarea.  
Siricius.  
Sabinus.  
Ambrose of Alexandria.  
Theotimus.  
Evagrius of Antioch.  
St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan.  
St. Epiphanius.  
Philo-Carpathius.  
Q. Julius Hilarion.   

OF THE COUNCILS Held in the FOURTH CENTURY.  
OF the supposititious Council of Sinuesfa.  
Of the Council of Cirtha.  
Of the Council of Alexandria under Peter, Bishop of that Church.  
Of the Council of Eliberis or Elvira.  
Of the pretended Council of Carthage.  
Of the Council of Rome.  
Of the Council of Arles.  
Of the Councils of Ancyra and Neocaesarea.  
Of the first Councils of Alexandria against Arius.  
Of the pretended Council of Bythinia for Arius.  
Of the second Council of Alexandria against Arius, held in the Presence of Hosius.  
Of the Council of Nice.  
Of the pretended Council of Antioch against Eustathius.  
Of the Synod of Caesarea.  
Of the pretended Council of Tyre against St. Athanasius.  
Of the Synods of Jerusalem.  
Of the Council of Constantinople against Marcellus of Ancyra.  
Of the Council of Constantinople against Paul Bishop of that City.  
Of the Council of Alexandria for St. Athanasius.  
Of the Council of Rome under Pope Julius for Athanasius.  
Of Councils held at Antioch.  
Of the Council of Milan.  
Of the supposititious Council of Cologne against Euphratas.  
Of the Council of Sardica.  
Of the first Council of Sirmium.  
Of the second Council of Sirmium.  
Of the Council of Arles.  
Of the Council of Milan.  
Of the Council of Beziers.  
Of the third Council of Sirmium.  
Of the Council of Antioch.  
Of the Council of Ancyra.  
Of the fourth Council of Sirmium.  
Of the fifth Council of Sirmium.  
Of the Synod of Ariminum.  
Of the Council of Seleucia.  
Of the Council of Constantinople.  
Of the Synod of Melitine.  
Of the Synod of Antioch.  
Of the Synod of Alexandria.  
Of the Council of Paris.  
Of the Council of Italy.  
Of the Council of the Egyptian Bishops, held as Antioch.  
Of the Council of Antioch under Meletius.  
Of the Council of Lampsacus.  
Of the Council of Singedunum composed of Arian Bishops.  
Of the Synods held by the Semi-Arians.  
Of the Synod of Tyana.  
Of the Council of Gangra.  
Of the Council of Laodicea.  
Of the Council of Rome under Damasus.  
Of the Council of Rome under Ursicinus.  
Of the Council of Valence.  
Of the Council of Antioch for restoring Peace i● that Church.  
Of the Councils of Constantinople.  
Of the second Council of Constantinople.  
Of the third Council of Constantinople.  
Of the Council of Aquileia.  
Of the Council of Saragossa.  
Of the Council of Sida in Pamphylia.  
Of the Council of Bourdeaux.  
Of the Council of Capua.  
Of the Councils of Rome and Milan against Jovinian.  
Of the Council of the Novatians held at Sangarus.  
Of the first Council of Carthage.  
Of the second Council of Carthage.  
Of the Councils of Cabarsussa and Bagaïs'.  
Of the Council of Hippo.  
Of the Council of Carthage in the Year 394.  
Of the Council of Carthage in the Year 397.  
Of the Council of Carthage in the Year 398, called the IV.  
Of the Council of Carthage in the Year 399.  
Of the Council of Carthage in the Year 401, commonly called the V.  
Of the Council of Constantinople, in the Year 394.  
Of the Council of Alexandria in the Year 399.  
Of the Council of Cyprus at the same time.  
Of the Council of Turin.  
Of the Council of Toledo.  
An Abridgement of the Doctrine of the Church, in the fourth Century.  
An Abridgement of the Discipline of the Church in the fourth Century.    

AN ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF THE Names of the Authors mentioned in this Volume.  

A.  
ACACIUS of Caesurea. Page 79  
AETIUS. 98  
ALEXANDER. 27  
St. AMBROSE. 198  
AMBROSE of Alexandria. ibid.  
St. AMPHILOCHIUS. 184  
St. ANTHONY. 53  
The APOLLINARII. 100  
AQUILIUS SEVERUS. 106  
ASTERIUS. 52  
St. ATHANASIUS. 28   

B.  
BASIL of Ancyra. 59  
St. BASIL. 122   

C.  
St. CAESARIUS. 184  
CONSTANTINE. 11  
St. CYRIL of Jerusalem. 107   

D.  
DAMASUS. 120  
DICTINIUS. 190  
DIDYMUS. 103  
DIODORUS. 188  
DONATUS. 53   

E.  
St. EPIPHANIUS. 234  
St. EPHREM. 115  
EVAGRIUS of Antioch. 198  
EUNOMIUS. 98  
EUSEBIUS of Caesarea. 1  
EUSEBIUS of Edessa. 59  
EUSEBIUS VERCELLENSIS. 186  
EUSTATHIUS of Antioch. 21  
EUZOIUS. 106   

F.  
FAUSTINUS. 192   

G.  
GELASIUS of Caesarea. 195  
GEORGE of Laodicea. 100  
GREGORY of Boetica. 85  
St. GREGORY NAZIANZEN. 159  
St. GREGORY NYSSEN. 176   

H.  
HELIODORUS. 53  
St. HILARY. 64  
HILARY the Deacon. 189  
Q. JULIUS HILARION. 240  
HOSIUS. 50   

I.  
JACOBUS NISIBENUS. 49  
ITHACIUS. 192  
JULIUS. 51  
JUVENCUS. 20   

L.  
LIBERIUS. 60  
LUCIFER. 79  
LUCIUS. 106   

M.  
The MACARII. 55  
MACROBIUS. 53  
MARCELLUS of Ancyra. 50  
MATRONIANUS. 190  
MAXIMUS. 186  
MELETIUS. 187   

N.  
NECTARIUS. 195   

O.  
St. OPTATUS. 87  
ORESIESIS. 55   

P.  
St. PACIANUS. 81  
St. PACHOMIUS. 54  
PHAEBADIUS. 85  
PHILASTRIUS. 192  
PHILO CARPATHIUS. 240  
PHOTINUS. 98  
PETER of Alexandria, I. 25  
PETER of Alexandria, II. 105  
PRISCILLIAN. 190   

R.  
RHETICIUS. 22   

S.  
SABINUS. 198  
SERAPION. 58  
SIRICIUS. 196   

T.  
THEODORUS of Perinthus. 52  
THEODORUS, Disciple of St. Pachomius. 55  
THEOTIMUS. 198  
TIBERIANUS. 190  
TIMOTHY of Alexandria. 195  
TITUS of Bostra. 102  
TRYPHILLIUS. 52   

V.  
VICTORINUS. 80  
VITELLIUS. 53    

AN Alphabetical TABLE OF THE COUNCILS.  

A.  
Councils of Alexandria, Pag. 242. 250. 255. 265. 285.  
Councils of Ancyra, 248. 263.  
— Of Antioch, 254. 256. 258. 263. 265, 266. ibid. 271, 272.  
— Of Aquileia, 273.  
— Of the Semi- Arians, 267.  
— Of Ariminum, 263.  
— Of Arles, 247. 262.   

B.  
Councils of Bagais, 277.  
— Of Beziers, 263.  
— Of Bythinia, 250.  
— Of Bourdeaux, 275.   

C.  
Councils of Cabarsussa, 277.  
— Of Capua, 275.  
— Of Carthage, 245. 275, 276, 277. 280. 283.  
— Of Caesarea, 254.  
— Of Cirtha, 241.  
— Of Cologne, 258.  
— Of Constantinople, 255. 265. 271. 285.  
— Of Cyprus, 285.   

E.  
Council of Elvira, 242.   

G.  
Council of Gangra, 267.   

H.  
Council of Hippo, 277.   

I.  
Councils of Jerusalem, 255.  
— Of Italy, 266.   

L.  
Councils of Lampsacus, 266.  
— Of Laodicea, 268.   

M.  
Councils of Melitine, 265.  
— Of Milan, 258. 262. 275.   

N.  
Councils of Neocaesarea, 248.  
— Of Nice, 250.   

P.  
Council of Paris, 266.   

R.  
Council of Rome, 246. 255. 270. ibid., 275.   

S.  
Councils of Sangarus, 275.  
— Of Saragossa, 274.  
— Of Sardica, 259.  
— Of Seleucia, 264.  
— Of Sida,  
— Of Singedunum, 267.  
— Of Sinuessa, 241.  
— Of Sirmium, 261, 262, 263. ib. ibid.   

T.  
Council of Toledo, 285.  
— Of Turin, 285.  
— Of Tyana, 267.  
— Of Tyre, 254.   

V  
Council of Valence, 270.    

BIBLIOTHECA PATRUM: OR, A NEW HISTORY OF Ecclesiastical Writers. TOME II.  
CONTAINING An Account of the LIVES and WRITINGS of the Primitive FATHERS, that Flourished in the Fourth Century of Christianity, with Censures upon all their BOOKS, determining which are Genuine, and which Spurious.  

EUSEBIUS of Caesarea.  
EUSEBIUS Surnamed Pamphilus 
a Surnamed Pamphilus.] From the Name of the Martyr Pamphilus his Friend, and not of his Brother, as Nicephorus believed; for in the 7th. Book of his History, he says, That he was first acquainted with him when he was a Priest. , was Born in Palestine 
b Palestine.] All the Ancients call him Eusebius of Palestine. In the First Book of the Life of Constantine, he testifies, that he had his Education in Palestine, and in the Second Book of the same Work, after he has repeated a Law of Constantine directed to those of Palestine, he adds, This was the first Letter which Constantine addressed unto us. 'Tis not known who were his Kindred. Some have thought that he was the Kinsman of Eusebius of Nicomedia, because in a Letter of Arius to this Bishop, Eusebius of Caesarea is called his Brother. Neither is it known who were his Masters. In the Seventh Book of his History, he says, That he hearo Dorotheus, a Priest of Antioch, expound the Scriptures; from whence Trithemius, and some others, have concluded that he was his Scholar. Acacius Successor to Eusebius wrote his Life, but 'tis lost. , towards the latter end of the Reign of Galienus 
c Towards the latter End of the Reign of Galienus.] There is some Proof of this Epocha: For in his History Book III. Ch. 28. he says, That Denys of Alexandria, who died the 12th. Year of the Reign of Galienus, lived in his time: And in the Fifth Book he says, That Paulus Samosatenus revived the Error of Artemon in his time; and in his Seventh Book, where he gives an Account of what was done under Galienus, he says, After we have related the Transactions of former times, we come now to those things which happened in our own time. . He was ordained Priest by Agapins Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, 
Eusebius of Caesarea.  and settled a Famous School in that City. When the Persecution of Dioclesian arose, he exhorted the Christians of Caesarea to Suffer with Courage for the Faith of Jesus Christ, and more particularly assisted his dear Friend Pamphilus, who suffered Martyrdom after two Years Imprisonment. Some have accused him of offering Incense to Idols during this Persecution, to release himself out of Prison 
d Some have accused him of Offering Incense to Idols during this Persecution, etc.] This he was charged with by Potamon a Confessor and Bishop of Egypt, at the Synod of Tyre; for if we give Credit to St. Epiphanius, in Heresy 68, this Bishop perceiving Eusebius of Caesarea there present, cried out, O Eusebius, How come you to sit as Judge upon the innocent Athanasius? Who can endure it? Tell me, I pray you, were not we in Prison together in the time of Persecution? I lost an Eye there, for maintaining the Truth, but you have lost no Part of your Body, you have suffered nothing: How then did you get out of Prison? Epiphanius adds, That Eusebius hearing this, risen up and dissolved the Assembly, saying, Seeing you charge me with things of this Nature, in a place where you are Strangers, it must be true which your Accusers say; for if you exercise such Tyranny here, much more will you do it in your own Country. This is confirmed by the Bishops of the Council of Alexandria, who say in their Letter, That Eusebius of Caesarea was accused by the Confessors of Sacrificing to Idols. In the mean time, this Charge of Potamon is groundless: For although it were true, that Eusebius was cast into Prison for the Faith of Christ, it does not follow that he must have Sacrificed to Idols to obtain his liberty; because he lost no Part of his Body, since he might have been delivered from that Persecution for many other Reasons, without losing any of his Members; and it was a rash Censure of his Neighbour in Potamon, to accuse, as he does, a Bishop of so heinous a Crime, upon so weak a Conjecture as this: But the Goodman had more Zeal than Prudence. ; but this Accusation is groundless, and 'tis much more probable, that he continued always steadfast in the Faith of Jesus Christ 
e 'Tis much more probable that he continued always steadfast in the Faith of Jesus Christ] First, Because we must always think well of our Neighbour, when it does not evidently appear that he has done ill. Secondly, Because 'tis no ways probable, if he had committed such a Crime when he was Priest, that he would have been afterwards chosen Bishop of C●sarea.  Immediately after this Persecution was ended, Eusebius was chosen Bishop of Caesarea in the room of Agapius 
f In the room of Agapius.] Baronius and Blondel place Agricolaus between Agapius and Eusebius, whose Name is to be found among the Subscriptions of the Council of Ancyra. But Eusebius in his Seventh Book reckoning up the Names of those Bishops who governed the Church while the Persecution lasted, endeth his Catalogue of the Bishops of Caesarea with Agapius, of whom he says, that he took a great deal of pains for his Flock during that Persecution: And Eusebius himself was ordained immediately after the Persecution; for he assisted in the quality of a Bishop, at the Dedication of the Church of Tyre, which was done immediately after Peace was restored to the Church, before Licinius had taken Arms against Constantine, which happened in the Year 313. And therefore if there was one Agricolaus Bishop of Caesarea, he did not hold that See for any long time, for Eusebius was ordained to it in the Year 314. , in the Year 313, or 314, from the Birth of Christ: And from that time he was much engaged in the Controversy of Arius, a Presbyter of Alexandria, whom he, (as well as some other Bishops of Palestine) at first protected, thinking that he was unjustly persecuted by Alexander of Alexandria, his Bishop. He did not only write to this Bishop in favour of Arius; but finding he could not prevail to restore him, he permitted him and his Followers to keep their Places, and to hold the ordinary Assemblies of the Faithful in their Churches, upon condition that they should submit to their Bishop, and earnestly desire to be reunited to his Communion.  
It appears by a Letter of Eusebius to Alexander, which is produced in the Second Council of Nice, that he did verily think that Arius, and those of his Party, acknowledged the Eternity of the Word, and that he believed the contrary. Doctrine was falsely charged upon them, which may in some measure excuse his Proceed in this Affair: For as soon as Arius did clearly discover his impious Sentiments in the Council of Nice; Eusebius, with all the other Bishops, condemned them and proposed a very Orthodox Confession of Faith. But because it seemed not to renounce the Heresy of Arius formally ●nough, therefore the Fathers of the Council added to it the word Consubstantial, together with Anathematisms against the Errors of Arius. This new term Consubstantial, gave some trouble to Eusebius, and he refused at first to assent to it; but being afterwards fully satisfied of its true meaning, he made no scruple of Subscribing to it, and of Signing the Confession of Faith made by the Council of Nice, which he was never known afterwards openly to violate, though he always maintained an intimate Correspondence with the Bishops of Arius' Party. He was present with them at the Council of Antioch, held in the Year 330, wherein they unjustly deposed Eustathius, than Bishop of Antioch. But, if he was to be blamed for consenting to that unjust Deprivation of a Bishop who was his Enemy; yet it must be acknowledged that he deserves great Commendation for refusing to Succeed him in his See: For being Elected both by the Bishops and the People, in order to his Ordination to the Bishopric of Antioch, after the Deposing of Eustathius, he did absolutely refuse it; and when the Bishops wrote about it to the Emperor Constantine, that he would oblige Eusebius to agree to this Election, he wrote to him himself, humbly praying that he might have leave to refuse this Bishopric; which at last the Emperor granted, and greatly commended his Moderation. Nevertheless, Eusebius continued always to take part with Eusebius of Nicomedia, and assisted at the Council of Tyre, held against St. Athanasius, in the Year 335, and also at the Assembly of Bishops, which was held at Jerusalem at the time of the Dedication of the Church of that City: And, in fine, he was sent in the Name of those Bishops to the Emperor Constantine, to justify what they had done against St. Athanasius. Then it was that he spoke a Panegyric in honour of the Emperor, at a time of public Rejoicing for beginning the 30th. Year of his Reign, which was the last of his Life: And Eusebius himself did not long survive this Emperor, whom he mightily loved and honoured, for he also died about the Year 338.  
He has written many very Learned Books. The First were his Five Books of Apology for Origen, which he composed with the Holy Martyr Pamphilus, during the Persecution of Dioclesian; and to which he only added a Sixth, after the Death of this Martyr. About the same time he wrote a Treatise against Hierocles, who had written two Books against the Christian Religion. After he was chosen Bishop of Caesarea, he composed his Fifteen Books of Evangelical Preparation, and Twenty Books of Evangelical Demonstration 
g After he was chosen Bishop of Caesarea, he compassed his Fifteen Books of Evangelical Preparation, and Twenty Books of Evangelical Demonstration▪ These are cited in his Ecclesiastical History, B. I. Ch. 2. Blondel believes the contrary, that the History is cited in the Sixth Book of his Evangelical Demonstration, Ch. 23. but he was deceived by the Translation. : After this he wrote a Chronicle from the Beginning of the World down to the 20th. Year of Constantine the Great. After this Chronicle followed his Ecclesiastical History 
h After this Chronicle followed his Ecclesiastical History.] He saith expressly in the beginning of his History, that the Chronicle was written before it, in these Words, Formerly I made an Abridgement of these things in my Chronicle, but now I will give a more ample Declaration of them here in this Work. , divided into Ten Books, which seems to have been finished some time after the Council of Nice, though it reaches no further than the 20th. Year of Constantine. About the Year 332, he composed a Cycle for Easter, at the desire of the Emperor, to whom he dedicated it, and caused some very fair Copies of the Holy Scriptures to be written out, as he himself tells us in the Fourth Book of the Life of Constantine, Chap. 34, and 35. St. Jerom and Bede make mention of this Paschal Cycle of Eusebius, composed, as they say, in imitation of that of Hippolytus. His Books against Marcellus of Ancyra were written after the first Condemnation of that Heretic in the Council of Constantinople, held in the Year 335, or 336 
i His Books against Marcellus of Ancyr● were written after the first Condemnation of that Heretic in the Council of Constantinople held in the Year 335, or 336.] They are Dedicated to Flacillus Bishop of Antioch, who was not chosen Bishop of that Church until the Year 335. Besides, in the First Book of Ecclesiastical Theology, Ch. 14. he says, That Marcellus was condemned. . In short, the Four Books of the Life of Constantine, were composed after the Death of that Emperor, to which he has added three Tracts, viz. The Harangue which he made at the Dedication of the Church of Jerusalem, The Discourse of Constantine to the Convention of the Saints, and a Panegyric in Praise of this Emperor.  
Besides these Works, whose Chronology is known, he hath also written, as St. Jerom testifies, Five Books of the Theophany, or the Incarnation, Ten Books of Commentaries upon Isaiah, Thirty Books against Porphyry, Ten whereof were lost in St. Jerom's time; and a Book of Topography; which is the same that St. Jerom translated and entitled, a Book of the Country of the Hebrews, which was afterwards Published in Greek by Bonfrerius in the Year 1631. There is mention made in this Book of two other Tracts of the same Nature, whereof one contains an Explication of the Names which the Hebrews give to other Nations, and the other was a Topographical Description of the Holy Land and the Temple. St. Jerom also places in the Catalogue of Eusebius' Works, Three Books of the Life of Pamphilus, some little Tracts upon the Martyrs 
k Some little Tracts upon the Martyrs.] We have one Book of these Tracts concerning the Martyrs of Palestine, but it is probable that he wrote more. The Martyrology supposed to be translated by St. Jerom, has been ascribed to him, but that Work is none of his, neither is the Translation St. Jerom's. , the Commentaries upon the 150. Psalms, translated afterwards by Eusebius of Verceilles, and the Rules for reconciling the Four Evangelists, together with a Letter to Carpianus. He mentions also, in an Epistle to Pammachius, Eusebius' Commentary upon the First Epistle to the Corinthians; and he testifieth in another place, that he caused to be Published an Edition of the Version of the Septuagint, taken from the Hexapla of Origen. St. Basil citys a Treatise of Eusebius concerning the Polygamy of the Patriarches, of which Eusebius himself speaks, Book I. Chap. 9 of the Demonstration, and Book VII. Ch. 3. and 7, of the Preparation. In fine, Theodoret tells us, that Eusebius wrote Eclogues upon the whole Scriptures: But we must not forget the Letter which he wrote to the Caesareans mentioned by Theodoret in his History, nor those Letters to Alexander and Euobration concerning Arius, which are cited in the Second Council of Nice, Act. 5. & 6. To thèse we may add, the Letter to the Empress Constantia, which is quoted by the Bishops that condemned Images, whereof there is a Testimony related in the same Council, Act 6. Photius mentions a Book of Eusebius entitled, Apology and Refutation, that is to say, An Apology for the Religion of Christ, and a Refutation of the Errors of the Gentiles, divided into two Books; and also of two other Books, which were, as he says, very little different from the two former. The Commentary upon the Canticles, published by Meursius, is falsely ascribed to Eusebius, since in it are cited the Testimonies of Authors much later than Eusebius, such as Gregory Nyssen, Philo Carpathius, and many others. It is not certain, that Eusebius was the Author of that little Tract of the Life of the Prophets, published in Greek before Procopius, by Curterius, from a Manuscript of the Cardinal of Rochefoucauld, and printed at Paris in the Year 1580, though it appears to be ancient. To conclude, There are some Treatises or Discourses published by Sirmondus, which are believed to be a Translation from the Greek of Eusebius of Caesarea: But though these Treatises, which seem indeed to be translated from the Greek, were composed by some ancient Author, and have something of the Air and Genius of Eusebius' Writings, neither do they contain any thing unworthy of him; yet there is no full assurance that they are his, because they are not mentioned by any of the Ancients, and we cannot now judge with any certainty from a Version, of the Style of Eusebius.  
After we have given a Catalogue of all the Writings of Eusebius, whereof we have any Testimony, we must now Discourse more largely of those that are come to our Hands. His Ecclesiastical History is the most considerable of all his Books, which is a Collection of all the Memorable Things which happened in the Church from the Birth of Jesus Christ to his own time. He has exactly noted the Succession of Bishops to the Sees of all the Great Cities in the World; he has given an Account of Ecclesiastical Writers and their Books, together with the History of Heresies, and some Remarks concerning the Jews. He has described the Persecutions of the Martyrs, the Controversies and Disputes touching Ecclesiastical Discipline; and, in a Word, all things which concern the Affairs of the Church. He Writes nothing of History as from himself, but almost every where, in his Works, he citys the ancient Authors or their Monuments, from whence he had his Relations, and inserts long Extracts taken out of them, as Men usually do when they writ Annals or Memoirs. This manner of writing History, is less agreeable indeed, but much more profitable than any other, and gains Credit and Weight to that which is related: For when a Writer reports the Transactions of Ancient Times without citing the Authors from whence he had them, he cannot so easily gain Credit with his Readers, as when he citys his Vouchers, and produces their Testimonies for the Truth of what he says, since those Relations must certainly be agreeable to Truth, which are founded on the Authority of unquestionable Witnesses. But besides this general Reason, there is also a particular one, why this way of writing History, which is followed by Eusebius, is of wonderful Advantage unto us; which is this, That for the most part, those Authors and their Works which were more ancient than Eusebius, have been loft since his Death by the injury of time; and therefore we are mightily obliged to him who hath preserved in his History, not only the Memory of those Authors, but some considerable Fragments of their Works. In short, without the History of Eusebius, we should scarce have any Knowledge, not only of the History of those first Ages of the Church, but even of the Authors that wrote at that time, and their Works, since no other Writer but he, has given an Account of those things. For it is observable that the Historians who followed after him, as Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, begun t●… History where he ended his, either because they thought that he had Collected in his all that was Remarkable of those first Ages, or because they had no other way of coming to the Knowledge of them but by him. Nicephorus Callistus, who pretended to write a New History in the Fourteenth Century, has mixed in it a great many fabulous and uncertain Tales, because they were not taken out of Eusebius, nor confirmed by the Authority of any Ancient Author. Nevertheless, it must be confessed, That even the History of Eusebius is not altogether so perfect as were to be wished, for it is not written smoothly, neither is it always exact 
l Neither is it always Exact.] Many Faults are observed in it contrary to the Truth of History, and contrary to Chronology. In his First Book he saith, That the Taxing which Josephus speaks of in his Eighteenth Book of the History of the Jews, is the same that St. Luke writes of. In the same Book, Ch. 9 he says, That Lysanias Tetrarch of Abylene was Brother to Philip, and Herod the younger, which is not true. In Ch. 7. he says, That Herod Junior, was banished to Vienna, contrary to the Testimony of Josephus, who assures us, Book XVIII. Ch. 9 That he was sent to Lions. He thinks that Jesus Christ spent Four Years in his preaching. He is mistaken in the Epocha of the Voyage of St. Paul to Jerusalem. In Book XI. Ch. 13. he distinguishes Cephas who was rebuked at Antioch by St. Paul, from the Apostle St. Peter, tho' he was certainly the same. I shall not now mention his other Faults, which he committed by taking things upon hear-say, nor the Apocryphal Books, which he citys very often. He mistakes the Jews of Alexandria, mentioned by Philo, called Therapeutae, for Christians B. II. Ch. 10. he confounds Novatus and Novatianus. B. VI Ch. 45. he makes mistakes in the years of the Pontificates of Sixtus and Eutychianus. . Our Author does often enlarge too much upon those things that ought to be slightly passed over; and on the contrary, sometimes he expresses such things very succinctly, which deserve a much larger Account. But notwithstanding these Faults, it is a most Excellent History, and highly to be prized.  
There is at the End of the Eighth Book, a small Tract of the Martyrs of Palestine, in which he describes the Martyrdom of those that suffered in this Province for the Faith of Jesus Christ. Some have confounded this with the Eighth Book, but against Reason; for it is a distinct Tract, and, as it were, a Supplement to it.  
Ruffinus is the first who Translated this History of Eusebius, but he, according to his usual manner, took a great liberty in doing it. He has passed over the whole Tenth Book, and has added to it two more which contain the following History down to the Death of Theodosins. His Translation is clean, neat, and elegant enough, it gives the Sense and Thought of the Author in a very agreeable Style, and sometimes more faithfully than those Interpreters who have Translated him since. This Version has been the great Magazine to all the Latin Authors, who have drawn from thence whatever they either wrote or understood of the Ecclesiastical History of the First Ages.  
Musculus the Protestant, undertook a new Translation of the History of Eusebius, which he performed happily enough. He ties himself up very much to the Letter, and has Translated the Text with much politeness and brevity: But he does not always understand his Author aright, and so he has committed many Faults in his Version. The Translation of Christophorson is more Elegant, and his Style more Ciceronian, but it is too Copious for an Historian, whose Style should be concise and close. He hath Corrected many Faults of Musculus, and yet his own Version is not altogether free.  
The Learned Henricus Valesius having observed the Faults of all former Versions, undertook to make a new one, more perfect. He published it with the Greek Text, Revised by Four Manuscripts, and added to it most learned Notes. His Version deserves Universal Applause, and the singular esteem of all Learned Men, for it has two qualities that rarely meet together, being both Elegant and Literal; And yet the Critics have observed some Faults in it: But it is impossible to satisfy all Men, and very difficult to avoid all Mistakes, in a Work of so great a length.  
It was very fit that the History of Eusebius should be Translated, that those who neither understand Greek nor Latin might not be deprived of the History of the Church in its Original Purity. The Precedent Cousin has done the Public this Service, who has Translated this History into French, with as great Purity as Faithfulness, and has prefixed to his Version a Preface wherein he briefly takes notice of the principal Errors of Eusebius, and passes a very sound and solid Judgement upon his History and his Person.  
The Chronicle of Eusebius, or the Abridgement of the Universal History of all Times and Places from the Beginning of the World down to his own time, was divided into Two Parts: The First was entitled, Canons of Universal History, or Universal Chronography; and the Second, Chronical Canons. In the first, he has collected the Origin and History of all Nations severally, the Succession of all Kings and Princes of the World, of the High Priests of the Jews, and the Bishops of the Chief Churches from the Birth of Jesus Christ. In the second, he has enlarged and digested these Histories according to the order of Time. St. Jerom has translated both Parts 
m St. Jerom has translated both Parts.] St. Jerom in his Commentary upon Daniel, Ch. 9 saith, That there was found in the Version of the Chronicle of Eusebius an Explication of two Passages of Scripture, both which were in his First Part: Marcellinus says also plainly, That St. Jerom translated the First Part. St. Jerom in the Preface to his Version says, That he translated Eusebius word for word, from the time of Abraham to the taking of Troy; and that from the taking of Troy to the time of Constantine, he had added many things of his own Head, particularly about those Matters that concern the Roman History, which Eusebius had neglected; and that he was the Author of what follows after the time of Constantine, down to the Sixth Consulship of Valens. : But there was nothing remaining of the Translation of the First, but some Extracts containing the Names of Kings, which are Printed with the Version of the Second Part. This Translation of St. Jerom, which was thus Printed at Basle, was afterwards Published more exactly by Arnaud de Pontac, Bishop of Bazas, in the Year 1605. But none took care to Collect the Greek Fragments of the Original of Eusebius, before the famous Joseph Scaliger, who Published them in the Year 1606, in a Book entitled, The Treasure of Time; wherein he gives a larger Version of the First Part of the Chronicle than any other Edition, and renders the Version of the Second Part more Correct and Exact; to which he adds many very considerable Greek Fragments, taken out of some later Greek Authors.  
This Book of Eusebius is a Work of Prodigious Study, and most Accomplished Learning: For he must have read an infinite number of Books and Ancient Monuments, to compose such an Universal History; and at the same time he must have a well-poized Judgement, to collect so many Particulars, and relate every one of them in their proper time. This infinite Labour, is an evident Proof, that Eusebius was a Man of vast Reading and a Prodigious Memory: Nevertheless, it must be confessed, that the Chronicle of Africanus was a great help to him, and that he took almost all his Chronicle, from Africanus' Chronicon, which he had Copied. He corrected indeed some of the Faults which he found in him, but then he himself committed many more 
n But then he himself committed many more Errors in Chronology.] You may see them observed by Scaliger in the Prolegomena to his Treasure of Time. : And indeed it is next to impossible, to avoid all Errors in so long and knotty a Work as an Universal Chronicle. These Faults are pardonable in a Book of this Nature, and do not hinder, but that it ought to be esteemed one of the most useful Books of all Antiquity.  
The Four Books of the Life of Constantine, are, properly speaking, a Panegyric; in which, he gives an Account as an Orator, rather than as an Historian; not only of the Life of this Emperor, but also of the Revolutions of the Empire, and the Affairs of the Church, in which Constantine had a hand. The Style of this Work is more Sublime and Florid than that of the other Books of Eusebius, and yet it is not finer, nor more agreeable. He does nothing for the most part, but give slight hints of the Relations which he has given at large elsewhere, and deliver the Heads of them, leaving out the Circumstances and Particulars.  
He has added at the End of those Four Books, Constantine's Oration to the Convention of the Saints, i. e. to the Christians, and a Harangue in Praise of this Emperor, which he spoke before him at the Festival Solemnity of the 30th. Year of his Reign. In this Piece he enlarges upon the Praises of God, the Wonders of his Providence, the Mystery of the Incarnation, the Benefits of Jesus Christ to Mankind, more than upon the Commendation of the Emperor, which he intermixes only now and then; for he praises him as a Christian Prince ought to be praised; that is to say, by publishing those Virtues which have a relation to Piety and Religion. This Discourse is the most Eloquent of all his Works, and is composed with much Art and Fineness.  
The Fifteen Books of Evangelical Preparation, addressed to Theodorus, (who is believed to have been Bishop of Laodicea, and is mentioned in the 32th. Chapter of the Seventh Book of his Ecclesiastic History) were written on purpose to dispose the Minds of Men to embrace the Christian Religion. In them Eusebius shows, that the Theology of the Pagans was ridiculous, and contrary to good Sense; and that the Christian Theology was Holy and Reasonable. The First Part of this Proposition, he proves in the First Six Books, and the Second Part in the other Nine. He gins with a General Description of the Doctrine of Christ, and to render it the more enticing, he gives an account of the ineffable Blessings it has revealed to Mankind, and how it conduces to Piety, by teaching them to know and honour one God. After this, he alleges some Prejudices in favour of the Christian Religion, such as the Accomplishment of Prophecies, the Holiness of the Lives of Christians, and the wonderful facility, with all Persons, even those that were more dull and barbarous, found in comprehending the greatest and sublimest Truths. After he has thus disposed his Readers to be favourable to the Christian Religion, he destroys the Religions of all the Nations of the World, and lays open the Falsehood of every one of them in particular, not only as to what concerns their History, but as to their pretended Mysteries and Profane Morality. In the Fourth Book, he confutes the strongest Argument of the Pagans, taken from the Predictions of their Oracles. He shows, that the Gods whom they worshipped, were Evil Spirits, called Daemons, as the Philosophers themselves have acknowledged In the Sixth Book he opposes Destiny or Fatal Necessity, and proves there by many Reasons and Testimonies, that Man is entirely a free Agent.  
In the following Nine Books, he shows that the Christians had reason to embrace the Theology of the Hebrews, because none but that affords solid Foundations for a Sincere Piety, together with Sound and true Doctrine. This he proves by a particular Induction of their Opinions, because there is no Theology but this which teaches the Immortality of the Soul, which commands Men to Adore one God only; which informs them, that he was the Creator of the World, which teaches them that the Word is the Son of God, and that the Holy Ghost is to be Worshipped with the same Worship that is due to the Father and the Son; There is no other Religion but this, which teaches Men, that they must not Adore the Angels as Gods, but honour them as the Ministers of God; which gives a rational Account of the Fall of some of the Angels, and instructs Man, that he is made after the Image of God: In a word, there is none but this whose Doctrine is agreeable to Right Reason. After this, he subjoins a long Fragment out of a Treatise of Maximus, which demonstrates that Matter is not Eternal.  
In the Eighth Book he gives the History of the Version of the Septuagint, and to prove the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, he makes it appear by the Testimony of the Jews, that their Law is Mystical and very Significant, which he afterwards represents as worthy of all Esteem, by the holiness of their Lives who have embraced it, by the Example of the Essenes', whose manner of Life he describes, and by the Wisdom of Philo.  
In the Ninth Book, he relates the Testimonies of the Pagans, who have spoken in favour of the Jewish Religion, and of those who allow the Truth of Moses' History. In the 10th he shows, that Plato and the Pagan Philosophers have taken the greatest part of what they have written, from the Books of Moses. In the 11th. Book he demonstrates particularly, that the Doctrine of Plato is agreeable to that of Moses, and compares many of the Opinions of that Philosopher with those of the Jews. He carries on that Comparison in the 12th. and 13th. Books. But in the mean time, he demonstrates, that this Philosopher had his Errors, and that no Book but the Scriptures is wholly free. In the 14th. and 15th. Books, he relates the Opinions of the Philosophers, he shows their Contradictions, and oftentimes confutes one of them by another: From all which he concludes, that the Christians had reason to forsake the Religion of the Pagans, and embrace that of the Jews.  
After he has thus prepared the Minds of Men to receive the Christian Religion, by establishing the Authority of the Religion, and of the Books of the Jews, he demonstrates the Truth of it against the Jews themselves by their own Prophecies. This is the Subject of his Books of Evangelical Demonstration, of which there are only Ten remaining of Twenty which he composed. In the First Book he shows, that the Law of the Jews was calculated for one Nation only, but the New Testament was designed for all Mankind, That the Patriarches had no other Religion but that of the Christians, since they adored the same God and the same Word, honoured him as they do, and resembled their holy Lives. In the Second Book he shows by the Prophecies, that the Messiah was to come into the World for all Mankind. In the Third he makes it appear in favour of the Faithful, that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the World, and demonstrates against the Infidels that he was no Seducer, as his Doctrine, his Miracles, and many other Reasons do evidently prove.  
In the Fourth Book he shows, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and gives an Account of the Reasons for which he was made Man; he explains the Name of Christ, and citys many Prophecies wherein he was foretold by that Name. In the following Books he brings abundance of Prophecies to demonstrate that the Coming of Jesus Christ, the time of his Birth, the Circumstances of his Li●● and Passion, and in a word, all things that concerned him, were foretold in the Books of the Old Testament. What we have of these Books, ends with the last words of Christ upon the Cross; And in the following Books he recited the Prophecies concerning his Death, his Burial, his Resurrection, his Ascension, the Establishment of the Church, and the Conversion of the Gentiles: But these are wholly lost.  
These Books of Evangelical Preparation and Demonstration, are the largest Work that has been made by any of the Ancients upon this Subject, where a Man may find more Proofs, Testimonies and Arguments for the Truth of the Christian Religion, than in any other. They are very proper to instruct and convince all those that sincerely search after Truth. In fine, Eusebius has omitted nothing which might serve to undeceive Men of a false Religion, or convince them of the true.  
The Treatise against Hierocles, was written against a Book of that Philosopher, published by him under the Name of Philalethes, against the Christian Religion; wherein, to render it ridiculous, he has compared Apollonius Tyanaeus with Jesus Christ, and says, That Apollonius wrought Miracles as well as Christ, and ascended into Heaven as well as he. But Eusebius has proved in his Answer, That Apollonius Tyanaeus was so far from being comparable to Jesus Christ, that he did not deserve to be ranked among the Philosophers, and that Philostratus who wrote his Life is an Author unworthy of Credit, because he contradicts himself very often, he doubts himself of those very Miracles which he relates, and he reports many things which are plainly Fabulous. At the End of this Treatise Eusebius has given some Observations against Fatal Necessity.  
In the First of the Five Books against Marcellus of Ancyra, Eusebius endeavours to prove, That this Bishop wrote his Book upon no other Motive, but the hatred of his Brethren; he charges him with Ignorance of the Holy Scriptures, and rallies him for the impertinent Explications of some Greek Proverbs brought in not at all to the purpose. In fine, he blames him for accusing Origen, Paulinus, Narcissus, Eusebius of Nicodemia, and Asterius, of Error touching the Mystery of the Trinity, and endeavours to justify their Doctrine about it. In the Second Book, he discovers the Errors of Marcellus, and proves from many Passages of his Book, That he believes the Word was not a Person subsisting before he was born of the Virgin, That he denies the distinction of the Son from the Father, That he is positive in asserting the Flesh and not the Word to be the Image of God, the Son of God, the King, the Saviour, and the Christ; and in short, That he durst affirm that this Flesh shall be destroyed, and annihilated after the Day of Judgement.  
After he has discovered the Errors and the Malice of Marcellus of Ancyra, he confutes his Opinions in the Three following Books, Entitled, Ecclefiastick Theology, and Dedicated to Flacillus Bishop of Antioch.  
In the First Book he proposes the Faith of the Church which he explains very exactly, rejecting the Errors of the Ebionites, Paulianites, Sabellians and Arians. After this, he shows that Marcellus is guilty of the Sabellian Heresy, and proves by Thirty Arguments drawn from Scripture, That the Word is a Person subsisting of himself. In the Second and Third Books, he goes on to confute the Consequences of Marcellus' Error, and the Arguments which he alleges for it, and proves by many Passages of the Old and New Testament, that the Word is a Subsistence, or a Person-Subsisting distinguished from the Person of the Father.  
From these Books we may learn the true Opinion of Eusebius concerning the Divinity of the Word. He has declared in many places, That the Word is God, and the Son of God; and he says plainly, That he was not made of nothing, nor created in 
B. 1. Ch. 2. B. 3. c. 7. B. 8. c. 1. B. 〈◊〉 c. 9, 10, 11.  time; but begotten from all Eternity of the Substance of the Father. He does expressly reject the Error of those that say, The Word was made of Nothing, and so place him in the number of Creatures. But he seems to insinuate in some places, and chief B. II. Ch. 7. That the Person of the Son is not equal to the Person of the Father, and that the same Adoration is not due to him 
o He seems to insinuate in some places— That the Person of the Son is not Equal to the Person of the Father, etc.] B. I. Ch. 2. of his History, he calls the Son the Minister of the Father's Will, and the second Cause next to him. He says, That the Father Commands, and the Son Executes, and that 'tis not possible for the Father to assume a Humane shape. In his Oration at the Dedication of the Church of Tyre, he calls the Son of God, the Second Cause of our Blessings, the Angel of his Counsel, and the Captain of the Armies of God. Yet these Expressions are more tolerable than that which is found B. V Of Evangelical Preparation, Ch. 4. That the Son is not adorable but upon the account of the Father that dwelleth in him; and Ch. VIII. That the Son is a Lord inferior to the Father. In short, what he says, B. II. Ch. 7. Of Theology, and in other places, is inexcusable, That the Glory of the Son is less than the Glory of the Father, and that the Son does not deserve Equal honour with the Father. . And it is not only in these Books that he speaks after this manner; for he does the like in all his other Writings; wherein he rejects the impious Opinion of those that say, The Son 
Hist. B. 1. c. 2. Praep. B. 4. c. 5. Dem. B. 4. c. 3. B. 5. c. 3. In an Ep. cited in the Second Council of Nice.  was made of nothing, That he is not of the Substance of the Father, That there was a time when he was not: But then at the same time he seems to admit some inequality between the Father and the Son, and to acknowledge some sort of Dependence upon, and Inferiority of the Son to the Father. For this reason it was that he made no scruple to declare in the Council of Nice, That the Son was God from all Eternity: where he also plainly disavowed the Impiety of Arius, who says, That he was made of nothing, That there was a time when he was not: Yet he found some difficulty to approve the term Consubstantial, that is, to confess, That the Son is of the same Substance with the Father; and after he had consented to it by his Signing, he gave such a Sense of the Word in a Letter which he wrote to his Church, as does not at all Confirm the Equality of the Father and the Son: His Words are these, When it is said, That the Son is Consubstantial with the Father, the meaning is only. That the Son of God has no resemblance to any Creature that was made by him, but a perfect resemblance to the Father by whom he was begotten, and not by any other Subsistence or Substance. This plainly shows, That Eusebius did not approve this term, as it establishes a perfect equality between the Father and the Son 
p That Eusebius did not approve this term Consubstantial, as it establishes a perfect Equality between the Father and the Son.] St. Athanasius testifies in his Treatise of Synods, and in his Book of the Decision of the Council of Nice, that he did by no means approve of the Explication that Eusebius gave of this term. , but only as it signifies the resemblance of the Son to the Father, and that the Son was begotten of the Father. It may be said to excuse Eusebius, That he did not admit this Inequality between the Father and the Son for any other reason, but because the Son received his Substance from the Father: But he does every where make use of such Emphatical Expressions to denote this Inequality, that it is difficult to explain them in this Sense, especially since he wrote his Books against Marcellus, wherein he speaks after the same manner, at a time when this Question was debated and even determined: For those Expressions which might be innocent in former times, aught to be suspected after the Decision of the Council of Nice. We might further add the Correspondence which he maintained with the Bishops of Arius' Faction, the Praises which he always gave them, his affected Silence in his History, as to what concerns the Council of Nice, and the disadvantageous Way that he speaks of it in his Books of the Life of Constantine. But though Eusebius' Doctrine could be justified as to the Divinity of the Son, yet it will be much harder to Defend what he says of the Holy Spirit; for he asserts, not only in his Books of Evangelical Preparation and Demonstration, but also in his Third Book of Ecclesiastic Theology, That he is not truly God: The Holy Spirit, says he, is neither God, nor the Son of God, because he does not derive his Original from the Father, as the Son does, being of the number of those things which were made by the Son. What we have hitherto said concerning the Opinion of Eusebius about the Trinity, does plainly demonstrate on the one side, That Socrates, Sozomen, and some late Authors, are to blame, who do wholly excuse him; and on the other side, That it is a great piece of Injustice to call him Arian, and the very Head of the Arians, as St. Jerom has done, whom many others have followed, since he formerly rejected the principal Errors of Arius, which are, That the Word was made of nothing, That he is not of the Substance of the Father, That he is unlike the Father, and, That there was a time when he was not.  
His Sentiments about the other Articles of the Christian Religion, appear to be very Orthodox: He explains the Mystery of the Incarnation in a most Catholic manner 
q He explains the Mystery of the Incarnation in a most Catholic manner.] In a Letter to the Empress Constantia, cited in the Second Council of Nice, and ascribed to Eusebius, he seems to assert, that the humane Nature was changed into the Divine, from whence some took occasion in the Council to accuse him of the Error of the Theopassians: But he teaches the contrary in the Fourth Book of his Demonstration, where he formally denies that the Divine Nature suffered. Yet in the 14th. Ch. he says, That after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Man was swallowed up of the Divine Nature, and that the Word was become God as he was before he was Man, the Man being made God. But this is only a Figurative Expression, to denote the Glory of the Humanity of Christ, for he plainly rejects this Error, in his Books of Mystic Theology against Marcellus, especially, B. III. Ch. 10, 11, etc. , acknowledging in Jesus Christ two Natures united in one and the same Person, and yet distinguished by 
Dem. B. 4. c. 2. B. 3. c. 13. Eccl. Theol. B. 1. c. 20. and 13. Dem. B. 4. c. 2. B. 3. c. 2. and 13.  their Properties. His Discourse is very sound as to the causes of Christ's coming, and his Death, and the Merits of his Sacrifice which he offered upon the Cross to make satisfaction for Mankind, where he saith, that his Divinity suffered not, but only his Humanity.  
He Discourseth often of the good Offices of the Angels to Men, and of the Worship that's due to them; he gives an Account of the fall of the Evil 
Praep. B. 7. c. 6. Dem. B. 3. c. 9 Praep. B. 7. c. 6. Dem. B. 3. c. 6. Hist. B. 1. Dem. B. 1. c. 10, and 8. and B. 3. B. 1. c. 9 B. 5. c. 3. B. 4. Of the Life of Constantine.  Angels, and demonstrates that the Ancient Patriarches had some knowledge of Jesus Christ, and that they were saved by the Merits of his Death. He attributes much to the freewill of Man. He praises the State of Virginity as more perfect, and the Celibacy of Priests, without blaming Marriage. He acknowledges, that the Monuments of the Saints, have a just Right to be Honoured. He Discourses of the Oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ, of which he saith, The Bread offered by Melchisedech, was a Figure. In fine, He approves the Prayers of the Church for the Dead. Photius, Epist. 144. accuses him of denying with Origen the General Resurrection, and at the same time takes Notice, that many have not observed this Error in his Writings, and that it is not to be discovered there but by a careful Examination of them. But, however it may be in other Books, there is not the least footstep of it in those that are now extant.  
St. Jerom maintains in his Book against Ruffinus, That Eusebius alone was the Author of the Six Books of Apology for Origen, which have been ascribed to Pamphilus: But it appears by the Testimony of Eusebius himself, B. VI of his History, Ch. 33. and also by that of Photius, That he composed the 1st. Five Books, together with Pamphilus, and added the 6th. after his Martyrdom. We have the Translation of the 1st. of those Books, which he gins with an Invective against those that accuse the Person and Doctrine of Origen; and then he produces many Passages out of his Works to justify him, concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Pains of the Damned, and concerning the Nature and State of Souls. St. Jerom accuses Ruffinus of having changed those places in his Version, which seemed to favour the Error of the Arians, about the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost: Ruffinus does not deny the Charge, but only pretends that those Passages had been added. Some Books of this Apology contained the Life of Origen, and a Catalogue of his Writings, as appears by the Testimony of St. Jerom, and the Report of Photius, Vol. 118. of his Bibliotheque.  
The Book of Topography, or the Names that the Hebrews give to several Countries, translated by St. Jerom, and lately published in Greek, is a Geographical Explication of all the Countries, Cities and Places, which are mentioned in the Books of the Old Testament. This Treatise is very Exact and Curious, and shows that Eusebius was an able Man in every thing.  
The Harmony of the Evangelists, or the Rules for Reconciling them, contains Ten Tables, in each of which, he has marked by Arithmetical Figures, with wonderful Art, what is related by 4, by 3, by 2, or by 1 Evangelist only: So that in reading the New Testament, where the Figures of those Tables are marked in the Margin, one may presently know, by having recourse to that Table, not only by how many, and by which of the Evangelists, but also in what places it has been related. He composed these Rules according to the Harmony of Ammonius, to which they were instead of a Table, as he himself observes in his Letter to Carpianus at the beginning of them.  
We have a Latin Fragment yet extant, of the Harmony of the Evangelists, upon the Subject of their apparent contradictions about the time of the Resurrection of Christ, translated by the Monk Ambrose, which is believed to be Eusebius'.  
It's said, There are some Greek Commentaries of Eusebius' upon Isaiah, mentioned by Heinsius. St. Jerom in his Epistle to Pammachius, speaks of Eusebius' Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Corinthians. Theodoret in the First Book of his History, Ch. 16, says, That he made Abridgements of the Scripture. 'Tis reported that in the Library of Florence, there are some Manuscript Commentaries upon the Psalms, which are ascribed to Eusebius; and Gelasius in his Book of the Two Natures, citys a Passage of Eusebius taken out of those Commentaries. I don't mention the Commentaries upon the Canticles, published by Meursius under Eusebius' Name, because they are none of his, but composed by a much later Author, as we have already proved.  
The Treatise of the Lives of the Prophets, is a short Abridgement of their Lives, and of the most Remarkable Things that are in their Prophecies.  
The Tracts or Discourses published in Latin by Sirmondus, have much of the Air of Eusebius; whereof the two first were written against the Heresy of Sabellius, to refute that Error, and prove by the Scriptures, that the Word is a Person distinct from the Father, and there he occasionally Discourses against Marcellus of Ancyra, whom he calls the Galatian. In the following Discourse he Treats of the Resurrection, and having established the Providence and Justice of God by sensible Proofs, he thence concludes. That there is a Resurrection; because if there were no other Recompense but in this Life, it would follow, that God were unjust, seeing good Men are oftentimes deprived of all the Advantages of this Life, which wicked Men most commonly enjoy. He shows by the Resolution that appeared in Abraham, when he went to Sacrifice his Son, and by all the Circumstances of that Action which he describes very eloquently; he shows, I say, That this Patriarch must needs believe a future Resurrection, for otherwise he would never have attempted with so much Confidence and Zeal, to Sacrifice that which was dearest to him in this World. He confutes the Opinion of the Pharisees, who held that Men are raised again from the dead to eat and drink, and enjoy the same Pleasures which they ●…d in this Life.  
The Fourth Tract, is a Discourse upon the Day of the Ascension of Jesus Christ, wherein he proves the Truth of his Resurrection and Ascension, by the Constancy of the Martyrs and Apostles, and by the wonderful Promulgation of the Gospel. He observes how impossible it was, that ever the Apostles should undertake to Preach the Christian Religion, and succeed in their Attempt, if God had not encouraged them by his Spirit, and disposed the Hearts of Men to receive their Doctrine. In this Discourse, he describes also the Martyrdom of St. Romanus Deacon of Antioch. In the Six following Tracts, he discourses of things Spiritual and Invisible; and, in the First, he shows, That God is Incorporeal and Invisible, and demonstrates, that things Incorporeal and Invisible, are infinitely more Excellent than those that are Material and Earthly. In the Second and Third, he proves, That the Soul of Man is Immortal and Spiritual, and describes the great Advantages it gives a Man above the Beasts. The Fourth Tract is, concerning the Thought of Man, which has these Remarkable Properties; First, That it knows itself; and, Secondly, That it resists and checks the Motions of Lust. In the Fifth, He goes on still to prove, That God is Invisible and Incorporeal, and takes Notice as he goes along, That Angels are Spiritual. In the Sixth, He answer some Passages of Scripture which seem to attribute Members to God.  
The following Discourse is, concerning the Advantages of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and the great Benefits it hath procured to Mankind. There he explains that saying of our Saviour, I came not to bring Peace, but War; by showing, That Jesus Christ, came indeed, to bring Peace; but Men being unwilling to receive it, there must be War, by necessary consequence, as arising only from the bad Disposition of their own Hearts. Towards the end of this Discourse, he praises those that suffer for the Religion of Jesus Christ, and continues the same Subject in the following Discourse, wherein he shows upon occasion of those Words of our Saviour, Preach ye upon the Housetops what has been said to you in secret. That nothing can dispense with a Christian's suffering for the Religion of Christ. He adds, That tho' there be no Persecution, yet we are obliged to suffer, and to be, as one may say, continually Martyrs, because we are always to fight against the World and ourselves. The Two last Discourses are concerning good Works; in the First of which, he recommends it to Christians, if they would be happy, to follow after that which is Good, and shun that which is Evil. And in the Second, he exhorts them to the practice of good Works, and chief to giving of Alms. This is the Subject of those Discourses, which are more concerning Doctrines than Morality, wherein there appears a great deal of Wit, good Sense, and Eloquence, but little of Order and Method.  
Eusebius was one of the most Learned Men of all Antiquity, as both his Friends and Enemies do equally acknowledge 
r Eusebius was one of the most Learned Men of all Antiquity, as both his Friends and Enemies do equally acknowledge.] See here a part of the Testimonies which the Ancients have given to the Learning of Eusebius. Constantine in his Epistle to those of Antioch, and in a Letter which he wrote to himself, praises his vast Learning St. Basil in his Book of the H. Spirit, Ch. 29. calls him an Author worthy of Credit, because of his Universal Learning, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. St. Jerom, tho' the great Enemy of Eusebius, could not forbear oftentimes to praise his Learning, to confess that he prized his Books, and to say in his Second Book against Ruffinus, That he was a most Learned Man, Vir doctissimus Eusebius; doctissimum dico, non Catholicum: The most Learned Eusebius; I call him most Learned, but not Catholic: It is not to be wondered at, that Ruffinus his Friend gives him the same Title. Antipater of Bostria, tho' he did not favour him, yet gives him the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. one very knowing in most Matters; and further says of him, That he had read all the Books of the Ancients, examined and explained all their Opinions, and that he had written himself most useful Books. Philostorgius praises him for his History, Socrates and Sozomen vindicate him, Victorius calls him a most Learned Man. Gelasius the Pope durst not reject his History, because of its great Learning, and singular usefulness for information. Pelagius assures us, That there is no History, that deserves greater Esteem, than that of Eusebius. Photius, who censures the Style and Doctrine of Eusebius, nevertheless, commends his Knowledge and Learning. I take no Notice of the Testimonies of Modern Authors. ; of whom it may be said without fear of mistaking, That there was no Man of so great Reading and Learning amongst all our Greek Authors. Almost all his Books are the effects of prodigious Labour, and very long and laborious Inquiries. And yet it must be confessed, that he had great Helps by the Memoirs of those who had written before him upon the same Subjects, whose Works he makes no scruple to Transcribe. He did not much Study to polish his Discourses, which is the common Fault of almost all those that make Knowledge and Learning their chief Business. His Style is neither Elegant nor Grateful, as Photius has many times observed, but dry and barren, and extremely unpleasant. He is very proper to teach those who apply their minds seriously to Study and search after Truth, and love to consider it absolutely naked, despoiled of all the Ornaments of Language; but he is not at all proper to entice those who are taken with the manner of Expressing things, and the force of Eloquence. I shall not here add any thing to what I have said concerning his Learning: But as to what concerns his Person, he seems to have been very impartial, very sincere, and a great Lover of Peace, Truth and Religion. For altho' he maintained an intimate Correspondence with the Enemies of St. Athanasius, it does not appear that he was his Enemy, nor that he sided much with any Party in the Controversy of the Bishops of that time. He was present, indeed, in the Councils, wherein unjust things were done to Eustathius and St. Athanasius; but it does not appear, that he gave any Signs of an angry Temper, nor that he served the Passions of other Men. He was not the Author of New Confessions of Faith, neither did he carry on any Plot, to the Destruction of St. Athanasius, or the Ruin of his Party; but he only desired to accommodate Differences, and reconcile the two Parties. He did not abuse the Credit which he had with the Emperor, to Advance himself, nor to Destroy his Enemies, as Eusebius of Nicomedia did; but he only made use of it for the Welfare and Advantage of the Church. I do not doubt, but so many good Qualities obtained him a place among the Saints in the Martyrologies of Usuardus and Ado and some other Ancient Officers of the Church of France 
s Obtained him a place among the Saints in the Martyrologies of Usuardus and Ado, and in some ancient Offices of the Church of France.] The Author of the Life of St. Valerian calls him, Eusebius of Holy Memory. Usuardus in June 21. calls him, St. Eusebius of Palestine, Bishop and Confessor, an Excellent Wit and Historian. Notkerus in June 21, says, The Deposition of St. Eusebius in Caesarea. Manecharius' in a Letter to Ceraunius Bishop of Paris, which is before the Passion of the Martyrs, Speusippus, Elasippus, and Meleusippus, call him Saint. There is in a Manuscript Breviary at L●●●ges, three Lectures to his praise. In an Ancient Breviary of the same Church, printed in 1587. at June 21. there is an Oration in praise of Eusebius; and in the Missal, printed in 1484. a Mass of St. Eusebius. In an ancient Manuscript Version of Eusebius' History, at the Church of Paris, the Name of Saint is given to him. Cardinal Baronius says, That all this is the mistake of some that took Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, for Eusebius of Samosata, and upon this Conjecture, he races the Name of the first out of the Roman Martyrology. But Baronius affirms this without any ground, and against the express Testimonies of the Martyrologies, which do plainly mention Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, and distinguish him from all others by most evident Characters, in which no Man can be deceived. ; for though I must confess the kept not peaceable Possession of this Honour of Saintship, yet in my mind it would be a rash Censure to judge him altogether unworthy of it.  
Since the Works of Eusebius have been printed severally, we will now give an Account of the several Editions of every one of them.  
There were but two Greek Editions of his Ecclesiastical History before that of Valesius. The First was only Greek printed by Robert Stephen, in the Year 1544.  
The Second was Greek with the Version of Christopherson, on the other side, printed at Geneva, in the Year 1612.  
The Version of this Ecclesiastical History, made by Russians, was printed at Rome, in the Year 1476, in Folio, and in the Year 1479, at M●●●ua, and at Haguenam in the Year 1500.  
There was an old Edition printed without date at Paris, in 8vo. by Re●aut, and published by the Cane of Godfrey ●oussard, Dr. of the Faculty of Paris, who has put an Elegant and Sensible Preface before it, addressed to Stephen Po●cher, than Precedent of the Parliament of Paris. He observes in this Preface, That the History of Eusebius, translated by Ruffinus, had been already printed. There have been since that time, several Editions of the same Version of that History in several places, in the Years 1544, and 1528, and at Lions, in 1523, and with all Eusebius' Works in 1542, and 1559, and at Paris in 1541.  
The Version of Musculus was printed at Basil, in 1554.  
The Version of Christophorson, [Bishop of Chichester in England.] was printed at Cologne and Basil. in 1570, at Paris, in 1571, and with the Amendments of Suffridus, in 1581.  
At last, the Version of Valesius was printed with the Greek on one side, revised by Four Manuscripts, at Paris, by Vitré, in the Year 1659., together with the Critical Notes of that Learned Man; to which he has added Four Treatises or Dissertations: The First concerning the Schism of the Donatists, where he has cleared up many Points of that History, which before were very dark and confused and discovered some considerable Errors, into which almost all the Historians of our time had fallen. The Second is a Letter to a Friend, where he shows, That it is the same Church at Jerusalem, which is called by the Name of the Resurrection, and which bears the Name of the Death of Jesus Christ. The Third, clears up some Difficulties concerning the Version of the Septuagint. And the Last, is a Critical Account of some Martyrologies. This is the Fairest and most Correct of all the late Editions in Greek and Latin; which has been since Revised by Petit: But this Second Edition falls much short of the Neatness of the First. The Chronicle has likewise been printed apart in 4to. in the Year 1470, and 1512, and together with the History, and the other Works of Eusebius, as has been noted above.  
Monsieur de Pontac, Bishop of Bazas, published it in 1605, at Bourdeaux, and it has been since printed at Antwerp, in 1608.  
Scaligers Thesaurus, printed in 1606, contains the Latin Chronicle of St. Jerom, the Supplements of the two Prospers, the Chronicle of Victor, John and Idacius, of Marcellinus, of Marcellus, and an Historical Collection in Latin, extracted out of the Chronicles of Africanus and Eusebius, by an ignorant Man, together with the Greek Fragments of the Chronicle of Eusebius, an Abridgement of History from Adam, down to the Second Year of Heraclius, which bears the Name of the Fasti Siculi, or the Chronicon Alexandrinum, and has been since published in 4to. Greek and Latin, by Raderus, in 1615. [All which Editions have been lately superseded by an Edition in Folio, printed at the Lovure by Mr. du Cauge.] After this Abridgement, follows the Chronography of the Patriarch Nicephorus, and an Epitome or Abridgement of many Histories, composed by way of Chronicle. After these, follows the Notes of Scaliger, and a Work, Entitled, Canon Isagogicus, or an Introduction to Chronology. There was a Second Edition of this Work, printed at Amsterdam, in 1658, wherein the Notes of Scaliger are more Large and Correct.  
The Books of Eusebius concerning the Life of Constantine, have almost always been printed with his History. The Version of those Books by Fortesius was annexed to the Version of his Ecclesiastical History by Ruffinus.  
Christophorson translated Three of those Books to add them to his History and the Fourth was finished by Suffridus. Valesius made a New Translation of them. The Oration made in the Praise of Constantine was also printed by itself in Latin at Cologne, in 1581. The Version of the Four Books of Evangelical Preparation, and of the Ten First of Evangelical Demonstration, made by Georgius Trapezuntius, was printed at Venice in 1497, and at Paris in 1534; but it is very unfaithfully done, because that Author gives himself the Liberty to add to it, or take away what he pleases, in that which concerns the Trinity. The Thirteen Books of Preparation, were also printed in Greek at Paris, by Robert Stephen in the Year 1544; and the Year following, the same Printer published the Ten Books of the Demonstration. Since that time, the Version of the Ten Books of the Demonstration made by Denatus of Verona, together with that of the Fourteen Books of the Preparation made by Georgius Trapezuntius, and that of the Fifteenth by Hepperus, was subjoined to the Versions of the other Works of Eusebius, in the Editions which we have already mentioned.  
To conclude. The Books of Evangelical Preparation and Demonstration (which deserve to be separated from the rest, since they belong to different Subjects) have been Printed in Greek at Paris in the Year 1628. in Two Volumes in Folio, with a new Version of the Fifteen Books of the Preparation, made by the Jesuit Vigerus, and Donatus' Version of the Books of the Demonstration, which Versions are placed over against the Greek. Moreover in this Edition was added, the Greek of Eusebius' Treatise against Hiero●les, which had been already revised by Holstenius, published by Morellus in 1606, together with the Ancient Translation of Acciolus, which had also been Printed apart at Cologne in 1532, with the Latin Works of Eusebius; and in short, the Five Books against Marcellus of Ancyra, with the Translation of Richard Montague, and some Notes of his added at the end, which for the most part are in favour of Marcellus, and against Eusebius.  
The Book of the Holy Land has been published in Greek, as we have already observed, by Bonfrerius the Jesuit, and printed at Paris in 1631. In 1580, Curterius put forth some Fragments concerning the Lives of the Prophets, which he has prefixed to the Commentaries of Procopius upon Isaiah. The Notes upon the Cantioles ascribed to Eusebius, have also been published in Greek, without a Version, by Meursius, and printed with Polychronius and Psellus in the Year 1617. The Tracts published in Latin by Sirmondus were also printed at Paris in Octavo in 1643. In fine, The Letter to Carpianus, and the Evangelical Canons of Eusebius, are to be found at the beginning of some Editions of the New Testament, and in Greek at the beginning of the Greek New Testament, printed at the Lovure, by Robert Stephen in the Year 1550.   

CONSTANTINE the first Christian Emperor.  
THough it be a very rare thing to see the Name of an Emperor, in a Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, yet this of Constantine is commonly to be found among them, because of some Discourses 
Constantine the Emperor.  which he made and repeated, if we will believe Eusebius: and it may be also upon the account of the many Letters which he wrote, and Edicts which he made in favour of the Christian Religion: But before we say any thing of the Writings of this Emperor, it will be necessary according to our usual Method, to give a short Abridgement of his Life.  
Constantine was the Son of the Emperor Constantius Chlorus, who was the only Person of all those that shared the Empire in his time, that did not Persecute the Christians 
a Who was the only Person of all those that shared the Empire in his time, that did not Persecute the Christians.] The Donatists in a Petition which they presented to Constantine, say, That he was the Son of a Just Father, who did not Persecute the Christians. Euseb. Hist. B. VIII. Ch. 13, 15. And Ch. 16. he relates, That Constantius was very favourable to the Christians: And Constantine himself in his Edict, recited by Eusebius, in his Books of the Life of that Emperor, says, That his Father was the only Emperor, who was favourable to the Worship of the True God. . His Mother was called Helena, a Woman of mean Birth, who had not the Title of Empress, while Constantius lived 
b Who had not the Title of Empress, while Constantius lived.] Eusebius 〈◊〉. Jerom, Cassiodorus, and Or●sius, make no scruple to give her the Title of Constantius' Concubine; Eutropius, altho' a Pagan, sweetens this Expression, by saying, That Constantine was born of a Marriage that was but little known, i. e. That tho' Helena was Married to Constantius, yet she had not the Title of Empress; (and those Women that had not the honourable Name of Augustae, were called the Concubines of the Emperors.) Helena had not this Dignity till after the Death of Constantius, and then her Son gave it her, as Eusebius observes. She was of Drepane a City of Bythinia, to which Constantine gave the Name of Helenopolis, in honour of his Mother. It is agreed on all hands, That she was of mean Extraction; and St. Ambrose says, She was an Hostess, and by this means Constantius first became acquainted with her. .  
Constantine in his youth, gave early proof of what might be expected from him afterward; His Conduct and Courage appeared a little before his Father's Death: For being detained as an Hostage by the Emperor Galerius, and foreseeing plainly that he and his Associates had a design to kill him, that they might Invade that part of the Empire which belonged to his Father Constantius, who could not live long, he made his Escape out of the hands of the Tyrants, took Post and went in great haste to find his Father in Britain. He killed all the Horses which he found at the Post-houses on the Road which ●e passed, to hinder his Enemies from pursuing after him. When he came into Britain, he found his Father on his Deathbed, who chose him for his Successor. After his Death, he was Proclaimed Emperor by the Soldiers on the Sixth day of August, in the Year of Jesus Christ 306. He was no sooner Emperor, but he gained the love of all his Subjects, by visiting the Provinces under his Government, to give them necessary Orders, and by beating back the Barbarians, who would have passed the Rhine to enter into his Territories; but they were defeated, and two of their Kings killed in the Year 312. After this he attacked the Tyrant Maxentius, who had laid Rome desolate by his Cruelties. He marched towards Italy with an Army of 40000 Men, seized upon all the Cities that opposed his Passage, or constrained them to submit, and defeated three several times the Troops of Maxentius. In short, The Tyrant coming to meet him with a great Army near Rome, was entirely conquered, and perished by the fall of a Bridge, over which he was passing to save himself. Eusebius says, That Constantine assured him, he saw then in the Heavens, a Cross of Light with this Inscription, [By this Sign you shall over come your Enemies,] and that Jesus Christ appeared to him when he was Sleeping, and commanded him to make a Standard after the form of a Cross, which he did in Obedience to this Revelation, and after his Victory, he placed his Standard among the Trophies in the midst of the City of Rome, with this Inscription: [By this Salutary Sign, which is the Mark of the true Power, I have delivered your City from the Yoke of Tyranny, and Established your Senate and People in their ancient Splendour.] After he had regulated the Affairs of Rome, Constantine came to Milan, where he celebrated the Nuptials of his Sister with the Emperor Licinius. In this City 'twas that the two Emperors published their First Edict in favour of the Christian Religion, in which they granted Liberty of Conscience to all their Subjects; and a little after, at their going out of Milan, they allowed the Christians by a second Edict, the Public Exercise of their Religion, and commanded that those places should be restored to them wherein they had usually kept their Assemblies. A short time after this, the two Emperors quarrelled, and declared War against one another in the Year 314. Licinins lost at first a great Battle in Pannonia; but at the second in Thracia, the Advantage was equal on both Sides, which induced the Emperors to make Peace for that time.  
The Wars and Affairs of the Empire did not hinder Constantine from concerning himself with the Affairs of the Christians: For having received Complaints in behalf of the Donatists against Caecilian and other African Bishops, he appointed for Judges, such as lived out of afric, and summoned a Council to meet at Rome under Miltiades, about this Matter. But the Donatists still complaining of this Decision 
c But the Donatists still complaining of this Decision.] Valesius has proved in his Dissertation about the History of the Donatists, That the Donatists did not appeal from the Synod at Rome; but only complained to the Emperor that their Cause was not fully examined; and that they appealed afterwards from the determination of the Council at Arles, to that of the Emperor. , he called a Council at Arles, where they were condemned anew; and at last when they appealed from the Determination of this Council to the Emperor, either because he believed that he might take cognizance of the Matter, since there was nothing alleged, but a particular Accusation against Caecilian, which was Matter of Fact; or because he would oblige the Donatists to yield, as St. Austin observes, he himself gave Judgement at Milan in favour of Caecilian, condemned the Donatists, and wrote against them in afric; caused an Information to be drawn up against Silvanus, who was of their Party, and their Temples to be taken from them; but yet he recommended them to be gently dealt withal, as a means to bring them back again into the Bosom of the Church. About this time he made many Laws in favour of the Christians. He permitted Masters to grant Liberty to their Slaves that were within the Church, in presence of the Bishop and the People. He made Laws for the due Observation of Sunday, forbidding all sorts of Persons to Travel on that Day; and allowed Men to leave their Goods to the Church by Testament. On the contrary, Licinius Emperor of the East, published Edicts against the Christians, caused their Churches to be demolished, and themselves to be Persecuted, or at least connived at those that did so. Constantine declared War against him in 324 conquered him near Adrianople and Chalcedon, and then besieged him in Nicomedia, whither he had retired after his Defeat. Licinius seeing that he was not able to maintain the Siege, came and threw himself at Constantine's Feet, who gave him his Life at the instance of his Wife, who was Licinius' Daughter, and then sent him to Thessalonica, where a little after he caused him to be put to Death, under pretence that he designed to stir up Sedition. After this, Constantine Abrogated the Edicts of Licinius against the Christians, and commanded that those who were Condemned to the Mines or Banishment, or had been deprived of their Honour or Goods upon the account of Religion, should be released and re established in their former Estate; That the Goods of the Martyrs which had been Confiscated should be returned to their Heirs, That the Churches of Christians should be Rebuilt, and their Burial-places restored unto them: Then he Exhorted all his Subjects very earnestly in a Letter, to embrace the Christian Religion.  
And he did not only take care to preserve the Church in Peace against the Attempts of its Enemies, but he used his utmost endeavours to hinder all Divisions in its Bowels by the Disputes of those who were its professed Members. He applied himself to allay the Controversy between Arius and Alexander, by writing a Letter to them, wherein he earnestly Exhorts them to Peace, in a most moving and persuasive manner, assuring them that he had delayed his Voyage to the East, for fear of finding them there at Variance, and praying them to open by their good Agreement, his Passage to the East, which they had hitherto, as one may say, stopped up by their Differences. He sent this Letter by Hosius Bishop of Corduba, a Man commendable for his Worth and Prudence. This Bishop having called a Synod in the City of Alexandria, did all that in him lay to appease their Differences, but not being able to compass his Design, Constantine judged, that the best way to restore Peace to the Church, was to summon a General Council of the East and West in the City of Nice in Bythinia. He himself Assisted at it, Exhorted the Bishops to Peace, and refused to receive the Accusations which one Party formed against the other. He made them agree in the same Doctrine, and approved the Decision of the Council, to which they all Subscribed, except Secundus and Theonas. He wrote himself to all the World, and Exhorted all the Bishops to receive the Decrees of this Council. He banished Arius and two Bishops that had taken his Part in the Synod; he caused the Books of that Heretic to be burnt; he forbade all his Subjects to keep them; and wrote in particular two very earnest Letter against Arius, and his followers. In short, He treated the Bishops of the Council magnificently, testified a great deal of Friendship to them, and sent them away laden with Presents. Eusebius and Theognis having published anew their Errors after the Council, altho' they had Subscribed to its Decrees, were by him sent into Banishment.  
After this, he caused the Sepulchre of Jesus Christ to be found out in Jerusalem, and built a stately Church there, as well as at Bethlehem, and at the Mount of Olives. It's said, That he discovered the Cross of Christ, and some pretend that many Miracles were then done by it. And yet it is very strange, that Eusebius, an Eye-witness of those things, who has exactly described all the Circumstances of the Discovery of Christ's Sepulchre, and who forgets nothing that may be to the Advantage of Religion, should not say one word, neither of the Cross of Christ, nor of the Miracles that are pretended to be wrought by it. About the same time, he gave the Name of Constantinople to the City of Byzantium, and endowed it with the same Privileges which Old Rome enjoyed, from whence it had the Name of New Rome. After this, he laboured more than ever he had done, to aggrandise the Church; he made Laws against Heretics, wrote to the King of Persia in favour of the Christians, destroyed the Temples of Idols, gave great Gifts to Churches, and caused magnificent Copies of the Bible to be made: In a word, he did so much for Religion, that he had good right to be called Bishop of the Church, as to those things that concern its External Policy. And truly the Church had no reason to complain of his Conduct, till the latter end of his Life, when he gave ear to the Accusations that were brought to him against St. Athanasius, by those Bishops that favoured Arius' Faction: For they being offended with him because he would not appear at a Council held at Caesarea, whither he had been cited to come, moved the Emperor to Summon a Synod in the City of Tyre, to Judge his Cause. There St. Athanasius appeared, and finding that his Enemies had injuriously oppressed him, he had recourse to the Emperor, and went to him at Constantinople. Constantine, although prejudiced against him, yet heard him favourably, and commanded the Bishops of the Council of Tyre, who had called another afterwards at Jerusalem, to come to him and render an account of their Proceed. They deputed Six Bishops to go to the Emperor, and accuse St. Athanasius; but those Deputies durst not allege the Facts, of which they had accused him at the Council of Tyre, for fear lest the Emperor, being a lover of Justice, should discover their Falsity, and declare him Innocent. They consult therefore how they might charge him with a Crime against the State, by saying, that he threatened to hinder the Transportation of Corn from Alexandria to Constantinople. This Accusation made such Impression upon the Emperor's Mind, and so stirred him up against St. Athanasius, that he immediately Banished him to Triers, a City of Gaul. The Enemies of St. Athanasius having thus procured his Banishment who was the great Opposer of Arius, they called back again this Heretic, and used all the Endeavours to restore him to the Communion of the Church. But Constantine would not hear of it, till after he had drawn up a Confession of Faith, which appeared contrary to his Errors, and had Sworn and Protested that this was his Doctrine; yet, even after he had done this, the Emperor, being always jealous of the Man, said to him, If thy Faith be right, as thou wouldst make us believe, thou hast done well to Swear; but if not, then let God condemn thee to some Punishment for this false Oath. Which words were followed with a suitable Effect; for in a little time after, Arius perished miserably, the day before he should have been admitted to the Communion of the Church at Constantinople.  
The Reader no doubt may wonder that I have not spoke a word all this while of the Baptism of this Emperor; for it seems very strange, that one who took so great care of the Affairs of Christians, one who was convinced of the Truth of their Religion, and was ignorant in no Point of their Doctrine, should continue so long a time without initiating himself into the Church by the Sacrament of Baptism. And yet this was certainly so either because he waited to receive Baptism, when he should be near his Death, that by this Sacrament he might throughly expiate his Sins, and so appear Innocent before God; or else because he had some other reason for this delay; However it came to pass, he never thought of preparing himself for Baptism until he felt himself Sick, nor had he ever the Imposition of the Bishop's hands, to make him a Catechumen, till the Year 337 
d To make him a Catechumen, till the Tear 337.] Eusebius says expressly, That Constantine than first received Imposition of Hands, and that he assisted at the Solemn Prayers of the Church; which plainly shows, that he was not a Catechumen before. Neither does the Title of the First Book, Chap. 32. of the Life of Constantine, contradict this Observation, for there it is only said that Constantine was Catechised, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the meaning of which is, only that he was instructed in the Christian Doctrine, which does not prove that he was a Catechumen, and we never read before this time that he assisted at the Public Prayers of the Church. , a few days before his Death, being then at Helenopolis, as Eusebius observes in the Fourth Book of this Emperor's Life, Chap. 61. After this, he received Baptism from the hands of Eusebius of Nicomedia, in the Suburbs of that City, as Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Athanasius, St. Jerom and St. Ambrose, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Evagrius, and all the rest of the Ancients unanimously affirm 
e All the Ancients unanimously affirm.] Eusebius, B. I. Of the Life of Constantine, Ch. 32. St. Jerom in his Chronicle, says, Constantinus ultimo vitae suae tempore baptizatus est. St. Ambrose in his Funeral Oration upon Theodosius, says of Constantine, Cui licet baptismatis gratia in extremis constituto omnia peccata dimiserit. The Fathers of the Council of Ariminum, in a Letter written at the beginning of that Synod, say, That he died a little after he was baptised: which is certainly spoken of Constantine the Great, after they had mentioned in the same place his assisting at the Council of Nice. I might add to this many other unquestionable Witnesses, such as Socrates, B. I. Ch. 39 Sozomen, B. II. Ch. 34. Theodoret, B. I. Ch. 32. Evagrius, B. III. Ch. 42. the Author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, etc. . It is therefore a fabulous Story which is related in the Acts, falsely attributed to Pope Sylvester, That the Baptism of Constantine was celebrated at Rome. And indeed, nothing can be more fabulous than the Account set down in those Acts: For there it is feigned, that Constantine, being an Enemy to the Christian Religion, and desiring to Persecute it, was smitten with Leprosy; That the Soothsayers said unto him, the only way to cure him, was to bathe himself in the Blood of Newborn Infants; That many of them were sought out to have their Throats cut, but Constantine being moved by their Tears, and the Cries of their Mothers, restored them again, without putting them to Death: That he was afterwards admonished in a Dream by St. Peter and St. Paul, that he should be cured if he were baptised by Sylvester; which having done, he was presently Purified by Baptism both from his Sins and from his Leprosy. What Forgeries, what Fables are here! What inconsistent Rave of Madmen! Constantine was never an Enemy to the Christian Religion; he did never Persecute it; he was always a Christian from his heart before he came to Rome. There is no Historian that speaks of his having a Leprosy, or that he was cured of it by Baptism. How came Eusebius to forget so considerable a Miracle in the Life of Constantine? With what Face could Julian the Apostate object to the Christians, that Baptism never cleansed any person from the Leprosy, if his own Grandfather had been cured by it? St. Cyril, to confute this Falsehood, never alleged an Example so Illustrious as this of the Emperor had been. But I forbear to mention any more of the many Absurdities and Impertinencies which are contained in those Acts 
f 
I forbear to mention any more of the many Absurdities and Impertinencies which are contained in those Acts.] There 'tis said, That St. Sylvester first appointed the Celebration of Sunday, that he held a Synod of 75 Bishops at Rome in the Year 315, where they found 109 Jewish Priests. The same Author tells a Story of a Font and its Ornaments, which smells rank of a Fable. He makes Laws for Constantine which are ridiculous, and which never any heard of before. He reports, That Constantine laid the first Foundation of the Church of Rome, and carried thither 12 Baskets full of Earth in honour of the 12 Apostles. These Remarks, and many more of that sort, make it as clear as day, that those Acts are Suppositious. And yet there is brought to maintain them, First, The Authority of Pope Gelasius, who places them among those Monuments that are Genuine; And, that of Adrian, who citys those Acts in his Letter to the Empress Irene, for maintaining Images; To which are added, the Testimonies of the Author of a Book called, The Pontifical of Damasus; of Nicholas the First in his Letter to the Emperor Michael; of Anastasius, Nicephorus, and some other Modern Authors. But are all these Authorities to be compared with those of the Ancients whom we have cited? and what else do they prove, but that those Acts were forged since the time of Gelasius? This Pope therefore had never seen them himself, nor does he approve them of his own knowledge, but only saith, That he heard that some Persons had read them. As to Adrian 'tis very well known, that he was not very Critical in the choice of the Monuments which he cited, and that he alleges sometimes those that are forged, as well as those that are Genuine. The following Testimonies are still of less Authority.  
Secondly, Gregory of Tours is cited for those Acts, who B. II. Ch. 31. of his History, saith to King Clovis, Behold, a new Constantine, who goes to Baptism to heal the Malady of an Inveterate Leprosy, and to wash out the Spots and Stains of his past Life by those most holy Waters. But this passage proves nothing, because he does not mean the Leprosy of his Body, but only of his Soul; And moreover, it were not at all strange that Gregory of Tours, a very credulous Man, should give credit to those forged Acts.  
In short, Our Adversaries not finding any ancient Christian for their turn, have recourse to Zosimus a Pagan Author, and a great Enemy to Constamine, who says, That Constantine was tormented with remorse of Conscience, after he had killed Crispus his Son, and Fausta his Wife; and having sought in vain for some Expiation by the Sacrifices of the Pagans, he applied himself to an Egyptian, who told him, That the Christian Doctrine had Power to expiate all Sins; after which Discourse, he abandoned the Religion of his Ancestors. But those who employ this passage to prove the Baptism of Constantine at Rome, do great Injury to Constantine's Reputation, by giving Credit to the Lie of an Heathen, who for this is convicted of Forgery by all Our Writers. Secondly, They do not consider that the Death of Crispus and Fausta happened after the Council of Nice, and so this whole Story of Zosimus is nothing to their purpose: In fine, Zosimus says not that he was Baptised, but that he Embraced the Christian Doctrine. I shall not now stay to refute those that pretend Constantine was twice Baptised, the first time at Rome by Sylvester, the second time at Nicomedia by Eusebius, for the same Authorities we have alleged, destroy this Supposition; and besides, it is altogether incredible that Eusebius and the other Bishops with him, should have Rebaptised Constantine with so much Pomp and Ceremony, if he had been Baptised before; especially at a time when the Dispute about the Trinity was not started.  . It's certain, Constantine died in a little time after his Baptism in the Year 337, of the vulgar Account, May 22th. in the Consulship of Titianus and Felicianus, the 64th. Year of his Age, after he had reigned Thirty Years and Ten Months.  
This Emperor was one of the greatest Princes that ever was, whether you consider his Conduct and Policy, or take a View of the great Actions of his Life, or reflect on the great Services he had done to the Church. Some accuse him of being an Arian, but that's a Calumny; for though he favoured some Bishops, that were of Arius' Faction, and unjustly Banished St. Athanasius, yet he always maintained the Creed of the Nicene Council, and suffered it not to be violated while he lived. The Greeks have given him excessive Praises, and placed him among the number of Saints, but I think the Latins have done more wisely, in suspending their Judgement as to that. We can say nothing of his Style, because it is very probable, that the Writings which bear his Name, were composed by others, though done by his Order: They may be distinguished into three sorts; his Discourses, his Letters, and his Edicts.  
Eusebius assures us. B. III. of the Life of this Emperor, Ch. 2. That he had acquired so profound a Knowledge of the Liberal Sciences, that even to the end of his Life, he composed Harangues for the Instruction of his Subjects; and that the Method which he observed in his Discourses, was, first to begin with the Refutation of the Errors of the Pagans, who adored many Gods; and then he proceeded to prove the Unity of God, and his Providence by which he governs the Universe: After which, he explained the Motives which brought the Son of God down from Heaven to this Earth, and described the Circumstances of the Life which he led here; from whence he passed on to the Description of the last Judgement, and terrified his Hearers with the vehemence of his Discourse, threatening the Vengeance of God, and the Just Punishment of their Sins against the Covetous, the Passionate and the Violent. The same Eusebius, gives us, B. III. Ch. 12. a short Harangue of Constantine's to the Fathers of the Council of Nice, exhorting them to Peace; to which may be added, that Form of Prayer which he prescribed to his Soldiers, related in B. IU. and the Admonition he gave a Covetous Man of his Court, which is to be found Ch. 30. of the same Book: But doubtless the most considerable of his Monuments, is, that great Oration which he made to the Convention of the Saints, translated by Eusebius into Greek, and annexed to his Life. The Preface of this Oration is about the Feast of Easter, the Goodness of our Saviour, and the Ingratitude of Men; but he concludes it with an Apostrophe to the Church. In the Body of this Discourse, he disputes against Idolatry and the multiplicity of Gods; and shows that there is but one only true God, the Creator of all things, and the Father of the Word, who is begotten of Him, tho' the Father suffer no Diminution by it, and who is united to Him: He confutes Destiny, establishes Providence and freewill, and overthrows the Errors of the Philosophers: He discovers the Advantages which Mankind received by the Incarnation of the Son of God, and shows that his Coming was foretold by the Prophets, to whose Authority he adds the Prediction of the Sibyls, which he endeavours to verify by the Testimony of Virgil: He describes the unhappy death of those Emperors who persecuted the Church, and finishes this Discourse with saying, That we ought to attribute all the Good we do to God, and before we undertake any thing, always to implore his Aid by Prayer, as being the Fountain of all Good. The whole Discourse is Sublime, and worthy of the Majesty of such an Emperor as Constantine was.  
The Letters of Constantine, are much more numerous than his Discourses. Here's a Catalogue of them, an Account of their Arguments, the Times when they were written, and the Places where they are to be found.  
1. There is a Letter of Constantine to Caecilian Bishop of Carthage, for distributing the Alms which he gave to the Poor of Africa, written in the Year 312, and set down by Eusebius, Hist. B. X. Ch. 6.  
2. There is a Letter of his to Anulinus for the Immunity of the Clergy, written the same Year, B. X. Ch. 7.  
3. His Letter to Miltiades Bishop of Rome, Empowering him to Judge the Cause of the Donatists, written in the Year 313, Euseb. B. X. Ch. 5.  
4. His Letter to Ablabius, [Dr. Cave calls him, Aelaphius or Aelianus,] commanding him to send the Bishops of Donatus' Party, and Caecilian, to Arles, to be judged there; written in 314, at the end of Optatus.  
5. His Letter to Chrestus Bishop of Syracuse, commanding him to repair to the Council of Arles; written the same Year, related by Euseb. Hist. B. X. Ch. 5.  
6. His Letter to Caecilian, wherein he commands him to come to Rome, to be judged there anew; written in 315, which is to be found at the end of Optatus.  
7. His Letter to Probianus, Proconsul of Africa, to seize upon a Donatist, called Ingentius, set down by St. Austin, Ep. 68 and in his Third Book against Cresconius, Ch. 73. written in 315, as appears from hence, because Probianus did not succeed Aelianus in the Office of Proconsul of afric, till this Year.  
8. His Letter to Celsus, Deputy of afric, written about the end of the same Year, or the beginning of the next, wherein he recommends it to him, to advertise the Bishops of both Parties, that he should come e'er long, to judge them; and to advise them in the mean time, to continue in Peace. He testifies in this Letter, That he had a mighty Passion to Establish a good Agreement among them.  
9 Another Letter of his to the same Celsus, written by his Order by the Praefectus Praetorio in favour of Four Bishops of the Donatists, and one Presbyter who had obtained their Liberty.  
10. His Letter to Eunalius, Deputy of afric, in which he gives him Notice of the Judgement he had given in favour of Caecilian against the Donatists, recited in the Conference of Carthage, Ch. 516. There is a Fragment of it in St. Austin's Third Book against Cresconius, Ch. 71. It was written in 316.  
11. His Letter to the Bishops of Africa wherein he testifies, That he had done all that was in his Power, to procure Peace to the Church; but since he could not compass it, he must wait till God himself afforded a Remedy for their Divisions. This Letter is at the end of Optatus.  
12. His Letter to the Bishops of Numidia, in which he grants them a place to build a Church upon, in the room of that which the Donatists had taken by force, and discharges the ecclesiastics from Public Taxes. Ibidem.  
13. His Letter to Eusebius, for building of Churches at the Charge of the Emperor, written in 324 or 325, B. II. of the Life of Constantine, Ch. 46.  
14. His Letter to the Bishop of Alexandria and Arius the Presbyter, concerning their Differences, wherein he exhorts them to Peace, written about the end of the Year 324, and related by Eusebius, B. II. of the Life of Constantine, Ch. 64, etc.  
15. His Letter to all the Bishops about the Decisions of the Nicene Council, B. III. of the Life of Constantine, Ch. 17.  
16. His Letter to the Egyptians upon the same Subject, Ibid.  
17. His Letter to Alexander upon the same Subject, Ibid.  
18. His Letter against Arius, mentioned by Socrates in the First Book of his Hist. Ch. 9 and related at the end of the History of Gelasius Cyzicenus.  
19 His Letter to the Nicomedians against Eusebius and Theognis, related in part by Theodoret, Hist. B. I. Ch. 20. and entirely by Gelasius Cyzicenus.  
20. His Letter to Macarius' Bishop of Jerusalem, for building a Church in that City, in Euseb. B. III. of the Life of Constantine, Ch. 30.  
21. His Letter to Eusebius for building a Church in the place where the Oak of Mamre stood, where Abraham had a Vision; in Euseb. B. III. of the Life of Constantine, Ch. 52.  
22. His Letter to those of Antioch, upon the Deposition of Eustathius, written in 330, set down by Euseb. B. III. of the Life of Constantine, Ch. 60.  
23. His Letter to Eusebius upon his Refusal of the See of Antioch, B. III. of the Life of Constantine, Ch. 61.  
24. His Letter to the Synod upon the same Subject, Ibid. Ch. 62.  
25. His Letter to Sapor King of Persia, in favour of the Christians, B. IU. of the Life of Constantine, Ch. 9 etc.  
26. His Letter to Eusebius upon his Book of Easter, Ibid. Ch. 35.  
27. Another Letter to him, concerning the Copies of the Bible, Ch. 36.  
28. His Letter to St. Athanasius, in favour of Arius, in Athan. Apol. 2. p. 778.  
29. His Letter to the Church of Alexandria, in favour of St. Athanasius, Ibid. p. 779.  
30. His Letter to St. Athanasius, against the Cheats of his Enemies, Ibid. p. 785.  
31. His Letter to John, the Head of the Meletians, wherein he congratulates his Reconciliation to St. Athanasius, Ibid. P. 787.  
32. His Letter to the Council of Tyre, in Euseb. B. IU. of the Life of Constantine, Ch. 42.  
33. His Letter to the Bishops of the Council of Tyre to cite them to Constantinople, in Athanasius, Apol. 〈◊〉. P. 803.  
34. His Letter to Publilius Optatianus Porphyrius, who Dedicated some Poems to him, that were wrote in Prison; published by Paulus Veiserus, and annexed to the Nurenberg Edition of Marcus Velserus' Works. [The 6th. Letter to Caecilian is only hinted at in a Letter of Constantine's to the Donatist Bishops, wherein he tells them, That tho' he had before given Orders that they should return into Africa, there to have their Controversy with Caecilian Examined, yet he was now resolved that they should of both Sides go to Rome, as he himself had written already to Caecilian. This Letter is in the Collection of Records at the end of Optatus.  
As also another Letter to the Catholic Bishops in the Council of Arles, wherein he congratulates the Conclusion of their Differences, and expresses his detestation of those Persons who would not abide by what was already determined: Adding withal, That if the Donatists would not be quiet, they should be brought before the Vicarius Praefecturae, to whom he had given Orders to send them to his Palace, where they should meet with such treatment as they deserved.]  
There are many other Letters, of which Eusebius designed to make a distinct Volume, as he himself testifies, B. III. of the Life of Constantine, Ch. 24.  
Tho' the Edicts which bear Names of the Emperors, are commonly Penned by their Secretaries of State, yet I must give an Account of those that Constantine published in favour of the Christians.  
The first Edict of Constantine for the Liberty of Religion, was published at Milan, in the Year 313, whereof there is mention made in the following Edict.  
The second Edict of Constantine, by which he gave full Liberty to Christians of the public Exercise of their Religion, and commanded that their Churches should be restored to them, was published sometime after the first, and is set down by Eusebius, Hist. B. X. Ch. 5.  
His third Edict restrains this favour to Catholics. 'Tis found in the same place.  
His fourth Edict in favour of Religion, is dated the last of October, the same Year: It continues the Immunity of ecclesiastics, whom the Heretics had caused to be charged with public Taxes, contrary to the Privileges which had been granted them. The Emperor commands that those who were taxed be discharged, and that a Course be taken to hinder any such Proceed for the future.  
Amongst the number of those Edict, made in favour of the Christians, that which was directed to Ablabius, may be reckoned, bearing Date, May 12. 315. in which Constantine commands, That Provision be made for the Maintenance of the Children of the Poor in Italy.  
The fifth Edict of Constantine for the Christian Religion, is dated November 16. the same Year, wherein he condemns the Jews to the Fire, that should abuse the Christians. It is to be found in the Justinian and Theodosian Code.  
His seventh Edict directed to Protogenes, dated June 7th. 316, grants a very considerable favour to the Christian Church, by appointing a new way of giving Liberty to Slaves, in the presence of the Bishop and the People. This Law is related in the Justinian Code; Tit. 13. l. 1. Besides this, There are two other Edicts upon the same Subject: The first, which is dated in the Year 321, related in the same place, is added to that, which we have been speaking of, That the Clergy may give Liberty to their Slaves, even out of the Church. The third Edict upon the same Subject is lost.  
The first which we have of those Edicts of Constantine, that Establishes the Jurisdiction of Bishops as to Temporals, seems to be that which is related in an Addition to the Theodosian Code, published by Sirmondus, under Title 17th. It imports, That if those who plead a Cause, shall appeal to the Judgement of the Bishops, they shall be referred thither, although the Process be entered before another Judge. This Edict is dated, June 21st. 318. There is besides this, another on the same Subject, without the date of the Year, related in the same Collection, under the first Title, wherein he Confirms and Explains the former Order, concerning the Judicial Decisions of Bishops, and he will have them to stand firm, even tho' they are given between Minors, commanding, that at all times, and as oft as any one of the two Parties shall desire an Appeal to the Judgement of the Bishop, it shall be granted him. He Ordains also in this Edict, That the Testimony of a Bishop shall be received by all the Judges.  
In the Year 319, November 19th. He confirmed the Immunity of the Clergy by a new Edict, declaring, That they should be free from all public Taxes. This Law is related in the Theodosian Code, Lib. 16. Tit. 2. l. 2.  
There are many more Edicts of the Year 320, and 321, concerning the Church, among which may be placed that which abrogates the Papian Poppaean Law, which was made against those that continued unmarried; this Law, Constantine seems to have abolished, in favour of the Christians, who honour those that make Profession of continuing in Celibacy all their Life. Eusebius makes mention of this Edict, B. IU. of the Life of Constantine, Ch. 26. and after him Sozomen, B. I. of his Hist. Ch. 9 and St. Ambrose, B. III. of Virgins.  
It was also about this time, that he made some Edicts against the Donatists. The first is related by St. Austin, B. II. against Petilianus, Ch. 92. and in his Letters 167, and 168, wherein he commands, that the Churches should be taken from them which they possessed: It bears Date, Anno 320.  
The second Edict directed to Verinus, dated May the 4th. in the Year 321, moderates alittle the Rigour of the first, for it permits them to return to their own Country, and to live there in quiet, reserving to God the Punishment of their Crime. This is also related by St. Austin, Ep. 152. and in his Book written after the Conference of Carthage. The Edict for the due observation of Sunday, of which Eusebius makes mention, B. IU. of the Life of Constantine, Ch. 18, and 19 related in the Justinian Code, Lib. III. under the Title, De Feriis. B. III. is dated March 6th. in the Year 321. It imports, That all Judges, People and Artificers, shall cease from their Labour on this Day; yet he excepts Countrymen, who are permitted to Till the Ground on this Day, because it often happens, says the Emperor, That a more seasonable time cannot be found to sow their Corn, or Plant their Vines, and it is not fit, that we should lose a favourable Opportunity which Divine Providence has put in our Hands.  
There is another Edict of the first of July, the same Year, by which he permits all sorts of Persons to leave their Goods by Testament, to the Catholic Church.  
In the Year 323, he published an Edict against those who constrained Christians to Sacrifice to Idols, which is in the Theodosian Code, Tit. 2. B. V.  
In the next Year he made many Edicts after the defeat of Licinius, for the Liberty of Christians, and for the Restitution of their Goods and their Honour. Eusebius relates them, B. II. of the Life of Constantine, Ch. 20, 24, etc.  
He produces likewise in the same place, his Edicts against the Worship of False Gods, and for the Establishment of the Church. Ibid. and Ch. 48.  
After the Council of Nice, he published an Edict, in which he condemns the Books of Arius to be burnt, and commands his followers to be called Porphyrians.  
The Edict of the Month of May, in the Year 326, prohibiting the admitting of rich Persons into the Order of the Clergy, or those that were the Children of such as had born public Offices, appears but little favourable to the Chergy; but it was necessary, because many rich and great Persons, took Holy Orders, to exempt themselves by this means, from the public Taxes, which tended to the Oppression of the Poor. Wherefore Constantine, says wisely in this Edict, That it was just, the Rich should maintain the heavy Expenses of the State, and that the Poor should be fed with the Riches of the Church: We have this Law in the Theodosian Code, B. XVI. Tit. 2. l. 6. Besides this, there is also another Edict published in the Month of July, in consequence of the former, altho', it bears the Names of the Consuls for the Year 320, which forbids the disturbing of those that had taken Holy Orders, before the preceding Law was published, and commands at the same time, that such as had taken Orders since its publication, on purpose to avoid the public Taxes, should be removed from the Clergy, and sent back into the World, and left liable to public Taxes. This Edict is related in the same place, B. III. After all, by another Edict of the first of September, the same Year 326, it is ordained, That Clergymen who were Heretics and Schismatics, should not enjoy this Privilege of Exemption, but should be subject to Taxes and Impositions. This Edict is in the Justinian Code, B. I. Tit. de Heret. and in the Theodosian.  
He treats the Novatians with more moderation than the other Heretics, permitting them by an Edict of the Month of September in the same Year 326, to keep their Churches, their Coemeteries, and the Goods which they had purchased after their Separation from the Church. In the Code of Theodosius, Tit. 5. B. II.  
In the Year 330, he published an Edict against the Heretics, in which he forbids their Assemblies. It is related in Euseb. B. III. of the Life of Constantine, Ch. 63, etc.  
There is in the Theodosian Code, another Edict of the same Year, in favour of the Clergy that were accused, or evil treated by Heretics.  
The Laws concerning the Jews, are the last which Constantine made in the favour of the Christian Religion.  
By an Edict September 27th. 330, He grants to the Patriarches of the Jews, i. e. to those that presided in their Assemblies, Exemption from the public Taxes. He renews the same favour by another Edict December 1st. in the Year following. It is probable that he granted these favours to the Jews for no other reason, but because they Worship the same God with the Christians, and to leave them some kind of Consolation, as he says in one of his Laws, because theirs was once the only true Religion: For at the same time he made very severe Laws against the Jews that should purchase or detain Christian Slaves, and condemned those to death, that circumcised them. There are many other Laws in the Theodosian Code upon this Subject, of the Years 330, 331, and 336.  
I do not place among the Number of Constantine's Edicts, the Donation which bears his Name, in which he is supposed to give to the Bishop of Rome and his Successors, the Sovereignty of the City of Rome, and of the Provinces of the Western Empire; because this Act has so many signs of Forgery, that 'tis impossible it can be attributed to Constantine. I shall here subjoin some of those Reasons which clearly prove, that it is an Impostor.  
1. Not one of the Ancients mentions this pretended Liberality of Constantine to the Church: But who can believe that Eusebius, and all the other Ancient Historians, who have exactly described all the Benefits of this Emperor to Christians, and especially to the Bishops, should pass over in silence one so considerable as this of the Western Empire, to the Bishop of Rome?  
2. Not one of the Popes who mention the Benefits of Kings and Emperors to the See of Rome, or who d●●●nd their Temporal Patrimony, did ever allege this pretended Donation, tho' it had been very much for their Advantage so to do.  
3. The Date of this Act is false, for it bears the Names of the Consuls, Constantine (for the fourth time,) and Gallica●●s: Now Constantine in his fourth Consulship, had not Gallica●●s, but Licinius, for his Colleague: And this Consulship answers to the Year 315, at which time Constantine was not baptised, even in the Opinion of those that believe he was baptised at Rome by St. Sylvester; and yet mention is made of his Baptism in this Edict of Donation. We must add to this Argument, another Error in Chronology: Byzantium is there called Constantinople, tho' it had not that Name, till Ten Years or thereabouts, after the Date of this Edict.  
4. The Style of it is barbarous, and very different from that of the Genuine Edicts of Constantine: It is full of new Modes of speaking, the Expressions are affected, and the Terms such as were never used in any public Acts, till after the time of Constantine.  
5. Who can believe that Constantine should give the City of Rome, all the Provinces and Cities of the West, that is to say, one half of his Empire, to the Bishop of Rome, and that this should never be known till the Eleventh Age of the Church?  
6. There are infinite Numbers of Falsities and Absurdities in this Edict, which demonstrate that it was composed by an ignorant Impostor: take some of them as follows. In it the Pope is permitted to wear a Crown of Gold, like that of Kings and Emperors, whereas in those times, Kings and Emperors did not wear a Crown at all, but a Diadem. The Fabulous History of Constantine's Baptism by Sylvester, and the miraculous Cure of his Leprosy, is reported there as a thing Certain. There are reckoned up in this Edict, five Patriarchal Churches, and that of Constantinople is put in the second place, whereas it had not this Honour, till a long time after. And yet it is supposed, That Sylvester had already acknowledged it for a Patriarchal See. These Falfities and many others that occur in this Edict, do plainly prove, That it is a Forgery.  
In short, to destroy entirely this pretended Edict, it is sufficient to observe, That while Constantine lived, and a long time after his Death, the City of Rome, and the Empire of the West, were always subject to the Power of the Emperors; That the Popes themselves acknowledged them as their Sovereigns, without pretending that the City of Rome, or Italy, or any part of the Western Empire, belonged to them: That all the Temporal Power they have obtained since, is owing to King Pepin and the Emperor Charlemaigne. The Account of this, deserves a little Digression, which will not be tedious to the Reader, and will not carry us too far from our present Subject.  
'Tis certain, that the City of Rome, Italy, and all the other Provinces of the Western Empire, were under the Power of Constantine, and the Emperors that succeeded him. History informs us, That they were absolute Masters of it, That they sent Governors thither, That the City of Rome depended upon their Laws, upon their Power, and the Magistrates whom they should appoint; That they made such Changes there as they pleased: In a word, That they were no less Masters of it, than of all the other Cities of the World. When afterwards the Barbarians begun to invade Italy, they sent thither Generals of Armies to defend it, as being a Country that belonged to them: But in spite of all their Endeavours Theodorick King of the Ostrogoths having Conquered it, made it Tributary, and governed the City of Rome with a Power as absolute as that of the Roman Governors. His Successors, Athalaric and Theodat, maintained the Possession of it, until they were chased thence in the time of Justinian by Belisarius the Roman Captain, who took the City of Rome by Force. A little time after, Count Narsetes delivered all Italy from the Tyranny of these Barbarians, and reduced it under the Power of the Greek Emperors, to which it had belonged.  
His Successor, named Longinus, finding it was difficult to govern all Italy, which was divided into many Petty Principalities, appointed Dukes or Governors over the Principal Cities, and reserved to himself the Sovereignty over them; taking the Title of Exarch or Viceroy, and all this while acknowledging the Emperor for his Lord. From this time forward, the Emperors sent Exarches into Italy, who commonly resided at Ravenna, and governed all Italy. But this Exarchate was diminished by little and little, and at last was wholly destroyed, when the Lombard's made themselves Masters of Italy. Until this time it does not appear that the Popes were Sovereigns of the City of Rome, and of Italy; on the contrary, they themselves were subject to the Emperor or King of Italy, and obeyed him as all his other Subjects. The History of the Pope's furnishes us with many Instances, which prove this clearly. The First is that of Pope Liberius, whom the Emperor Constantius ordered to be made Prisoner, and carried out of Rome by Leontius Governor of that City, as St. Athanasius testifies. The Schism of Damasus and Ursicinus, does also prove, that the Popes were subject to the Emperors. Maximus, that then governed the City of Rome for the Emperor, composed the Differences that arose between those two Competitors, and the Bishops themselves addressed to the Emperor, praying him, that Ursicinus might be forced to departed out of the City of Rome. The same Observation may be made upon the Schism of Eulalius and Boniface, which was also cured by the Order of the Emperor, and afterwards by King Theodorick, when he became Master of Italy. 'Tis remarkable, that this King exercised his Power over the Church of Rome and its Bishop with so much Haughtiness, that he appointed a Visitor to this Church, and sent poor Pope John, being very sick, to the Greek Emperor, to obtain a Revocation of the Edict he had made against the Arians; which John not being able to obtain, Theodorick caused him to be imprisoned at Ravenna, where he died. Theodatus scent in like manner from Rome, Pope Agapetus, to the Emperor Justinian, and when he became Master of Italy, he used the Popes no less roughly than Theodorick had done; for he exacted of them great Sums of Money to confirm their Ordination, and caused the Popes, Silverus and Vigilius, to be carried to Constantinople, where he made them approve the Restauration of Anthimus, to the Patriarchal See of that City. Martin the First, was also banished to the Province of Pontus, by the Exarch of Ravenna, according to the Orders he had received from the Emperor. Justinian the Younger banished also Pope Sergius. In short, The Emperor Leo Isauricus, would have put to Death, Pope Gregory the Second: But the Italians growing weary of their subjection to the Power of Strangers, who could not secure them against their Enemies, began to shake off the Yoke and to acknowledge their Dukes for Sovereigns. The Pope nevertheless opposed them in it, and did all that lay in his Power to retain them in their Allegiance, acknowledging, as he himself speaks in his Letter written to the Duke of Venice, That the Republic of Rome was subject to the Dominion of the Emperors. But the Lombard's afterwards invading Italy, and having no expectation of Succours from the Greek Emperor who was entangled by other Wars, the Popes, Gregory the Third, and Zachary, were obliged to have recourse to Charles Martel Governor of the French. This Prince by menaces obtained of L●itprand King of the Lombard's, and his Successor Rachiseus, the Restitution of the Exarchate of Ravenna, which by his means was twice restored to the Exarches depending upon the Greek Emperors. But at last Astolphus the Brother of Rachiseus made himself Master of it for ever, and obliged Eutychius, the last Exarch of Ravenna, to retire into the East.  
Stephen the Second being afraid, for the City of Rome was obliged to make a Truce with Astolphus for Forty Years in the Name of the Roman Republic. But this King breaking his Word, came four Months after with a great Army to Take and Sack the City of Rome. In this extremity, Stephen writes presently to the Greek Emperor for Succours, but seeing there were no hopes of any from thence, he had recourse to King Pepin, who coming to besiege Pavia, forced King Astolphus to sue for Peace; which was granted him, upon Condition that he should not only restore to the Church of Rome, all the Lands and Territories which she had possessed in Italy; but also should yield up the Exarchate of Ravenna, and the Cities of the Roman Duchy. This Peace was quickly broke by the perfidiousness of this Lombard King, who perceiving that Pepin was gone out of Italy, went forthwith and besieged the City of Rome. Pepin presently relieved it, and raised the Siege; and yet Astolphus found himself in too good a Condition to perform the Articles of Peace, which he had made: But Pepin forced him to give Hostages, and enlarged the Bounds of the Exarchate of Ravenna, which Fulradus the Abbot of St. Denys, received in his Name, and presently restored into the Hands of the Pope. It is observable, that in the time of these two Expeditions of Pepin, an Ambassador came from the Greek Emperor, and demanded back again the Exarchate of Ravenna, as belonging of right to his Master: But Pepin believing that he was lawfully dispossessed, thought it more convenient to give it to the Pope. In the mean time, the Greek Emperor was still Master of Sicily, Apulia, Calabria, and all the extreme Parts of Italy, and had a Governor called George in the City of Naples, who combined with Desiderius the Successor of Astolphus, to Invade the Exarchate of Ravenna.  
Paul the First knowing of this League, and seeing himself attacked by this Lombard, wrote presently to Pepin, his Protector. Desiderius fearing the Power of this King, pushed the Matter no further at this time, and promised to restore to the Roman Church what he had taken from it: But, as it plainly appeared after the Death of Pepin, Pope Adrian implored the Aid of Charlemaigne, who came with a great Army, defeated Desiderius, and shut him up in Pavia. From thence Charles went to Rome, and restored to the Pope all the Cities which his Father Pepin had given him, and all the Estates which the Roman Church had possessed in Italy. In consideration of which Benefits, Adrian, as Head of the Roman Republic, granted him, with the consent of the People of Rome, the Title of Patricius, and gave him the Sovereignty over the City and all the Republic of Rome; insomuch that all the People, and even the Bishop himself, took an Oath of Allegiance to him. After this, Charles wanted nothing but the Title of Emperor, which he received in the Year 800, being then Proclaimed Emperor by the People of Rome, and afterwards Consecrated and Crowned by the Pope. When Charles had gotten the Title of Emperor, he regulated all the Affairs of Italy; he permitted the Lombard's to live peaceably under his Dominion; he gave the Name of Romania to the ancient Exarchate, and shared Italy with the Greek Emperor, on condition, that all which was on this side Naples, should belong to him; and that the City of Naples and all that was on the other side of it, should continue in the Greek Emperor's Power.  
From this time the Successors of Charles were Kings of Italy, and Sovereigns of Rome; though the Popes were Temporal Lords of the Cities that anciently belonged to the Exarchate of Ravenna, and some others. Ludovicus Pius, the Son of Charlemaigne, sent Bernard to Rome, to allay the Dissensions that were risen there. After the Death of this Bernard, Lotharius comes to Rome with an Army, to punish some Rebels, and ordains, That for the future the Magistrates of Rome should be created by the Emperors. But Charles the Bald parted with this Noble Right, and Surrendered up to the Romans the Sovereign Power, restoring them, if I may so say, to their ancient Liberty.  
In the mean while, the Popes begun to lay by little and little the Foundations of their Sovereign Dominion. For although the Sovereign Power did as yet remain in the Body of the People, who created the Magistrates in Rome, and the Neighbouring Cities, nevertheless, the Popes who were now grown Rich and Powerful, used all their Endeavours to make themselves Sovereigns, and that the shadow of Sovereignty should only remain in the People. Yet the Romans had two Consuls, one Praetor, and one Governor of the City, whom they chose; and oftentimes cast off the Yoke which the Popes would impose upon them; which was the Cause of those cruel Wars that happened between the Popes, the Principal Citizens of Rome, and the Emperors of Germany: But at last the Popes got the better on't, and remained sole Masters and Sovereigns of Rome, and the Countries about it.  
All that we have said concerning the Foundation and Growth of the Pope's Power, plainly shows, that the Settlement of their Empire is not owing to Constantine, but to the Kings of France; and by consequence, that the Edict of Donation that bears the Name of Constantine, is wholly Supposititious; but it is not so easy to find out who was the Author of this false Monument, and upon what Motives he Forged it. 'Tis certain, that it is more ancient than Hincmar, since that Bishop citys it in his Third Ep. Ch. 13. and Isidore 
* Mercator.  has put it in his Collection. It is also alleged by Pope Leo the Ninth, in his Epistle to Michael Cerularius; and St. Anselm, Ivo Carnutensis, and Gratian, have inserted it into their Collections. To conclude, Balsamon a Greek Author, has related a part of it in Greek, in his Commentaries upon Photius' Nomocanon. Baronius, and those that blindly follow his Conjectures, have suspected the Greeks of this Forgery, pretending that they forged this Monument to establish the Antiquity of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, by affirming, that the Church of Rome owes its Grandeur to the Emperor Constantine. But besides, that 'tis no ways probable that the Greeks should forge an Act contrary to their own pretended Right over Italy, this Edict is found cited by the Latins 200 Years before it was known to the Greeks. Morinus believes that it was written by John, a Deacon of the Church of Rome, who lived in the Year 963: But that cannot be, since it was cited before that time by Hincmar. Monsieur de Marca maintains, That the Popes framed this Monument with the consent of the French Kings, That they might oppose it against the Greek Emperors, who demanded back again the Exarchate of Ravenna, as belonging to them: But what probability is there, that the Popes and French Kings should have recourse to this Forgery, which might easily be discovered, having much better Reasons to allege to the Greeks, why the Exarchate of Ravenna did not belong to them? Some have attributed this false Monument to the Author of the Collection of Isidore, a notorious Forger of such kind of Pieces; and this Conjecture is more probable than the rest, but neither is it certain, and therefore it is better to suspend our Judgement about this Matter, than to build it upon Conjectures that have so little solidity.  
Besides the Greek Fragments of this Edict recited by Balsamon, 'tis said, there are Four Greek Manuscripts of the whole Edict in the Vatican Library. The Latin Editions of it do not altogether agree; for Isidore's is different from that which is found in the ancient Manuscript of Justellus. One Bartholomew Picernas, boasts that he made a new Translation of it from a Greek Manuscript in the Vatican Library, which he printed with a Dedication to Pope Julius the Second: But he has done nothing but corrected the ancient Latin Edition. A Priest of Deventer has also printed this Edition at Cologne in the Year 1535. The Differences of all these Editions are to be seen in Father Labbe's First Volume of the Councils. It seems more probable to me, That the Greek was taken out of the Latin, than that the Latin was translated from the Greek. However it be, this Monument has neither Authority nor Usefulness.   

JUVENCUS.  
HItherto we have not met with any Poet among the Christian Writers. Here is a very excellent one who flourished under the Reign of Constantine; he was called C. Vectius Aquilinus Juvencus, 
Juvencus.  and was descended of one of the Noblest Families in Spain. St. Jerom assures us that he was a Priest, and that's all that he tells us of his Life. He composed a Poem about the Year 329, divided into Four Books; wherein he describes the Life of Christ in Hexameter Verse, without wand'ring from the Text of the Four Evangelists. St. Jerom also testifies, That he wrote some Books in Hexameter Verse about Mysteries; and 'tis said, That he composed some Hymns, of which St. Jerom says not a Word: But 'tis probable enough, that one who had so fertile a Vein in Poetry, as he had, wrote several other Books. However that be, we have now only Four Books of the History of the Gospel under his Name: In the Exordium of this Poem he says, That if the Verses of those who have published the Actions of mortal Men, which they adorned with their Fictions, have purchased them a Reputation so lasting for many Ages, he ought to be assured of Immortal Glory, who writes the Life of Jesus Christ, and needs not to fear that the Day of Judgement shall consume his Work.  

Quod si tam longam meruerunt carmina famam,  
Quae veterum gestis hominum mendacia nectunt;  
Nobis certa fides aeternae in saecula laudis  
Immortal decus tribuet, meritumque rependet:  
Nam mihi carmen erunt Christi vitalia gesta,  
Divinum in populis falsi sine crimine donum;  
Nec metus ut mundi rapiant incendia secum  
Hoc opus.   
After this, he invocates the Assistance of the Holy Spirit, to enable him to recount the Actions of Christ, in such a manner as is suitable to their Greatness.  

Ergo age sanctificans adsit mihi carminis author  
Spiritus, & puro mentem riget amne canentis  
Dulcis Jordanis, ut Christo digna loquamur.   
After this Invocation, he gins the History of Christ, and relates in Verse, all that has been said by the Four Evangelists, without wand'ring from the Text, and without adding any thing uncertain or fabulous. He concludes those Four Books with a Compliment to the Emperor Constantine, whom he thanks for the Peace of the Church, and mightily commends, because he was the only King who would not allow the peculiar Names of God to be attributed to him.  
The Air of the Poem is very Poetical, the Cadence of the Verse is fine and soft; but the words are not always Poetical, and sometimes they are not very good Latin. That which is chief to be commended in this Author, is the Faithfulness of his Translation; wherein he has rendered almost word for word the Text of the Evangelists. This was a difficult Undertaking, which he has performed with good Success, and one may say, that 'tis almost impossible to have done it better.  
There are a great many Editions of this Author. His Book was printed with Sedulius and other Christian Poets at Cologne, in Octavo 1537; at Basle, in Octavo, 1537, 1550; at Venice by Aldus, in Quarto 1502; at Basle by Oporinus, in Quarto also, 1564; at Lions by Tornesius, 1588.; at Paris, in 1543, 1575., 1589, 1624.; at Vienna, in Quarto 1519; and in many other places: And, it is also to be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum.   

RHETICIUS.  
RHETICIUS Bishop of Autun, had so great a Reputation in the time of Constantine, that the Emperor chose him to be one of the Judges in the Cause of the Donatists. He assisted at the 
Rheticius.  Council of Rome, wherein Caecilian was Absolved, and afterwards at the Council of Arles, held in the Year 314. St. Jerom says, that in his time, this Bishop's Commentaries upon the Canticles, were extant, and also a large Volume against Novatian; but he met with no other Books of his. The same St. Jerom, speaking of this Author's Commentaries, in his Second Letter to Florentius, says, That he gave a lofty sense of the Canticles: And lastly, in his Ep. 133. to Marcellus, he gives a Critical Judgement of these Commentaries, which is very little to their Advantage. He says, They are full of Extravagant Explications; That he found an infinite number of Errors and base Things in them; That the Style, indeed, is lofty and swelling, but such as is not suitable to an Interpreter, who ought not to aim at the discovery of his own Eloquence, but the true sense of his Author. He relates in the same place some of the gross Mistakes of this Author; e. g. That he confounds Tharsis which is mentioned in the Psalms, with the City of Tarsus where St. Paul was born; that he believed the Hebrew word Ophaz, which signifies Gold, signified a Stone, and so confounds it with the Name Cephas, which is given in the Gospel to St. Peter. In short, St. Jerom wrote to Marcellus, That he had not sent the Commentaries of this Author as he desired; because there were many things in them that displeased him, and but few things that he could approve of: And we have nothing more of these Commentaries, nor of the other Works of this Author.   

EUSTATHIUS Bishop of Antioch.  
EUSTATHIUS, a Native of Syda, a City of Pamphylia 
a Syda, a City of Pamphylia.] As St. Jerom observes, this is a Seaport Town, called at present Fort. , was chosen Bishop of Antioch, after he had governed the Church of Beraea for some time 
b After having governed the Church of Beraea for some time.] It is agreed upon all hands that he was Bishop of Beraea. St. Jerom, Theodoret, Socrates and Sozomen testify it. He was also Bishop of that Church, when Alexander of Alexandria wrote his Letter against Arius, for Theodoret notes expressly, that it was directed to him. Sozomen says in the First Book of his Hist. Ch. 2. That the See of Antioch was vacant after the Death of Romanus, and that Eustathius was ordained Bishop of Antioch in the Council of Nice: and in Ch. 17. of the same Book, he says, that he was already Bishop of Antioch when he assisted at this Council; yet S. Romanus was not Bishop, but only a Martyr of Antioch, and Eustathius Succeeded immediately to Philogonus some time before the Council of Nice, but after the beginning of the Arian Controversy, that's to say, in the Year 323, or 324. , in the room of Philogonus, in the year 323 from 
Eustathius of Antioch.  the Birth of Christ. He assisted at the Council of Nice, where he sat in one of the chief Places 
c He sat in one of the Chief Places.] Proclus of Constantinople, in a Synodical Letter to the Oriental Bishops, set down by Facundus, B. I. Ch. 1. says, That he was the Chief of the Fathers in the Council of Nice. Facundus gives him the same Title, B. XI. Ch. 1. and Pope Felix III. calls him, in his 6th. Ep. to Zeno, Precedent of the Council. Theodoret, B. I. of his Hist. Ch. 9 says, That he spoke to the Emperor in the Name of the Council; and Euseb. B. I. Life of Const. Ch. 11. says, That he who first Harangued the Emperor, was seated in the Chief Place on the right Hand: But he seems to say at the Beginning of his Books of the Life of Constantine, That it was himself that made this Harangue, as Theodoret assures us, Hist. B. I. Ch. 19 The Author of the Tripartite Hist. willing to join these several Opinions together, says, That Eusebius did not speak till after Eustathius. Theodorus of Mopsuestia, says, That Alexander of Alexandria, was entrusted with that Office. Be that as it will, it does not follow, that he who spoke first must therefore be Precedent of the Council, as having the first Place upon the right hand: for besides that this might be given him only for the time while he spoke, it may be that this place was not the most honourable: Moreover, Eustathius might be called the Chief, because he was one of the first; But it is more probable, that Hosius was Precedent of the Council. , and there maintained the Faith of the Church with great Constancy. After the Council of Nice, being one of the Zealous Defenders of its Decisions, and one of the greatest Adversaries to the Arians, he drew upon himself the Hatred of the Bishops of Palestine, which burst forth immediately upon the first occasion they found: which offered itself in the Year 329, when Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nice, returned from their Punishment, and went to Palestine, under pretence of visiting the Church of Jerusalem: for than they passed by Antioch, where they were honourably received by Eustathius, and they on their part gave marks of their Friendship to him. But at their Return they brought with them to Antioch, Eusebius of Caesarea, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Aetius of Lydda, Theodotus of Laodicea, with some other Eastern Bishops, with a design to depose Eustathius. These Bishops being then Assembled at Antioch in the Year 330 
d Being then Assembled at Antioch in the Year 330.] All Historians agree, That Eustathius was deposed under the Reign of Constantine. Eusebius an unquestionable Witness, gives us an Account, B. III. Life of Constantine, Ch. 59 of the Tumult that arose in the Church of Antioch upon the Deposition of Eustathius, as a thing that happened after the Council of Nice, but before the Death of the Emperor Constantine. St. Athanasius gins with this Deposition, the History of the Arian Persecution under Constantine; and though there be in the Text Constantius for Constantine, that is a mistake; for 'tis plain from St. Athanasius, that Flacillus, who was ordained in the room of Eustathius, had the Title of Bishop of Antioch, at the Council of Tyre, held under Constantine, from whence it evidently follows that Eustathius was then deposed. The like Error appears in some Editions of St. Jerom's Books of Ecclesiastical Writers; but in the ancient Editions & in the Greek Version, we read under Constantine, & not under Constantius. , did not only falsely charge him with the Error of the Sabellians, but also accused him of infamous Crimes. Theodoret says, That they hired a Woman of an ill Life 
e Theodoret says, That they hired a Woman of an ill Life.] Philostorgius reports also this Story, B. II. Ch. 7. Socrat. and Sozom. allude to it, when they say, That Eustathius was accused of Infamous Crimes. S. Jerom mentions it in his Apol. against Ruffinus; Eustathius says, he found Sons which he knew not of; Filios dum nescit invenit: and the Emperor Constantine seems to hint it in his Letter to the Bishops, the infamous Persons being driven away, as he speaks.  to say, that she had a Child by Eustathius; That this wicked Woman entered with a Child in her Arms into the place of their Assembly, and declared with a loud Voice, That she had it by Eustathius; That this holy Bishop having asked her, if she had any Witness of what she affirmed; she answered, she had none; and yet notwithstanding this, the Bishops believed it upon her Oath, and Condemned Eustathius as convicted of the Crime. St. Athanasius says nothing of this Story, which appears otherwise to be fabulous enough; but he observes only that they accused Eustathius of having treated the Emperor's Mother reproachfully 
f Of having treated the Emperor's Mother reproachfully.] 'Twas to Constantine that they wrote this Calumny; for Eustathius having recourse to the Emperor, and being come to Constantinople to complain of the Injustice that was done him, the Bishops assembled at Antioch made use of this Calumny to stir up the Emperor against him. They added also, that he was the Author of that Sedition which arose at Antioch after his Deposition. These things moved the Emperor to Banish him presently, without enquiring into the Merits of his Cause. The Eusebians also did afterwards make use of an Artifice just like this against St. Athanasius. , and that immediately he was sent into Banishment, with many of his Priests and Deacons; but the place of his Exile is not certainly known 
g But the place of his Exile is not certainly known.] Theodoret says, that he was sent to Illyricum; Philostorgius says only, that he was sent into the West: But St. Jerom assures us, That he was carried away to Trajanopolis, a City of Thracia. St. Chrysostom says, That he died in Thracia: And in fine, Theodorus Lector at the beginning of the Second Book of his History, says, That Calendion the Patriarch of Antioch, caused the Relics of Eustathius to be Transported from Philippopolis in Macedonia, to Antioch. . In whatsoever place it was, there he ended his days, and 'tis probable, that he lived not long after his Condemnation; for there is no mention made of him in History, and 'tis false, whatever Socrates and Sozomen say, That he returned again from Banishment in the time of the Emperor Jovian 
h 'Tis false,— that he returned again from Banishment in the time of the Emperor Jovian.] Theodoret says, That Eustathius was dead when Meletius was ordained Bishop of Antioch. And certainly Meletius ought not to have been ordained in his place before, and the Eustathians (so called because they would not communicate with any Bishop of Antioch that was ordained by the Arian Faction) would never have suffered, if Paulinus had been ordained while Eustathius lived. There is no mention of him in all the Disputes that followed after, neither did he return after the Death of Constantine, when all the banished Bishops were recalled; for it does not appear that he was present in any Council, or that he ever demanded to be restored to his Bishopric: In a word, there is nothing more said of him in History. From all which I conclude, that 'tis something probable, that he died before the Year 337. . This Bishop is the First, if we will believe St. Jerom, that wrote against the Arians. He composed many Books against their Doctrine, abundance of Homilies, an infinite number of Letters, many Treatises of the Soul, and a Discourse of the Pythoniss against Origen.  
Facundus quotes in Latin, Ch. 1. of his B. XI. Four Passages of Eustathius of Antioch, whereof the two first are taken out of B. VII. and the two last out of B. VIII. against the Arians. He alleges them in this place to prove, That this Bishop of Antioch, in speaking of the Incarnation, made use of Expressions, at least as harsh as those that were objected to Theodorus of Mopsuestia: in effect, the Passages which he relates, seem to favour the Error of Nestorius 
i In effect, the Passages which he relates, seem to favour the Error of Nestorius.] In the First, he says, [That God who united the Humane Nature to the Word for the Salvation of Mankind, has concealed from this Humane Nature the Day of Judgement, lest the Man should teach Mankind the time of his second Coming.] In the Second he seems to say, That Jesus Christ incarnate is another Person than the Word; but the word Person is not always taken in a strict sense. In the Third, he says, That the Word dwells in the Humane Nature as in its Temple: an Expression which Nestorius often made use of. In the last, he says, That the Sceptre which God prepared for his Son, does not agree to the Father, nor to the Word, but only to the Man Christ; [Who is, says he, the Lord of all the Creatures, because of the Mixture of the Divine Word.] 'Tis evident, that these Expressions are not exact; but then we ought not for this to accuse him of Error, for 'tis easy to excuse him, not only because of the time when he wrote, but also because 'tis common enough with those that lived a long time after him, to make use sometimes of Expression very like this, to distinguish the Humanity of Christ from his Divinity to which it is united. To which we may add, That 'tis plain from the passages related by Theodoret, that he was far enough from the error of the Nestorians. . But his Doctrine must not be anathematised, says Facundus, upon the account of some Expressions that are less exact, which he made use of at a time when he spoke simply and without precaution, because the Error of Nastarius did not yet appear. The Passage of Eustathius which Theodoret gives us in Greek, Hist. B. I. Ch. 8. is much more considerable than those which are cited by Facundus: It is taken out of the same Work against the Arians, and probably out of the two First Books. Take it whole as Monsieur Cousin has Translated it.  
A very numerous Council being Assembled about this Matter in the City of Nice, where 270 Bishops, or thereabouts, assisted, (for the Number was so great that I cannot precisely set it down, and besides, I took no great care to inform myself of it.) When they first began to inquire into the Faith, a Libel of Eusebius' was produced, which contained a convincing Proof of his Blasphemies. The reading of it, caused a sensible Grief in all that heard it, and great Confusion in its Author. The Malignity of Eusebius' Associates being discovered, and the Impious Writing being publicly tore in pieces, some under pretence of the Peace which they proposed, imposed Silence upon those that used to speak better than others. The Arians apprehending that they should be cast out of the Church by the Judgement of so great an Assembly, condemned the Impious Doctrine, and signed the Confession of Faith. But having secured by their Cabals the principal Dignities to themselves, instead of suffering Canonical Penance as they ought, they maintained the Doctrine that was Condemned, sometimes in private, and sometimes in Public, by several Arguments which they had invented for that purpose. The desire they had to sow the Seeds of Division, made them shun meeting with the Learned, and attacking the Defenders of the Faith; but we do not think that these Atheists can overcome God, for whatever Efforts they make will be vanquished according to the authentic Testimonies of the Prophet Isaiah. Theodoret adds, See here what Eustathius has written of the Arians. There is also another passage in Greek taken out of this Work, related by Anastasius in his Collections, wherein Eustathius maintains, That Jesus Christ cannot be said to be Created and Begotten according to the same Nature; for if he was Created he was not Begotten, and if he was Begotten he was not Created. The same Theodoret citeth in his Dialogues many passages of Eustathius about the Incarnation, taken out of his Book upon the Soul, and his Discourse upon these words of the Proverbs; God hath created me in the beginning of his ways: out of his 15th. and 92d. Homilies upon the Psalms, and out of two other Treatises upon the Inscriptions or Titles of some Psalms 
k Upon the Inscriptions or Titles of some Psalms.] The First is taken from the Treatise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Second from the Treatise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The 6th. Psalm which is our 5th. has for its Title in the Septuagint, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. the Inscription of a Title for David; and the 57, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. an Inscription to David, or to David for an Inscription. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly an Inscription upon a Pillar. The Psalms 57, 58, and 59 have the like titles. The Treatise which Theodoret citys in this place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was composed upon these Inscriptions; as the Second, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was composed upon th●…●nscriptions of the Psalms of Degrees. St. Gregory Nyssen has since made a Treatise upon the Inscriptions of the Psalms. This Observation I own to the Learned Cotelerius. .  
All the passages of Eustathius, reported by Theodoret 
l All the Passages of Eustathius, reported by Theodoret.] In the Passages cited from the First & Second Dialogue, he asserts, That Christ had a Body and Soul of the same Substance with ours, and there he calls the Flesh of Christ, the Temple in which the Divinity dwelled. He observes in the last passage of his Second Dialogue, that Christ had no need of the legal Sacrifices to purify himself, because he purifies himself, and sanctifies all things; but he voluntarily submitted to the Law, to deliver us from that Bondage, us who were enslaved under, and liable to the Malediction of Sin: In the Passages recited out of the last Dialogue, he proves, That the Divinity of Jesus Christ was not subject to any Pains or Sufferings, but only his Humanity: There he affirms, That Jesus Christ had a Soul, That he truly suffered, though voluntarily; and that the Word dwelling in the Body of the Man as in a Temple, restored by the Resurrection that Temple which Death had destroyed. In a word, he shows, that all the Properties of the Humane and Divine Nature were found in Christ; but that we must not attribute to the Divinity that which agrees only to the Humanity, or deny because of his Divinity, the Properties which agree only to the Humane Nature. , prove, That there are two Perfect Natures in Jesus Christ, the Divine and the Humane Nature; That He has a Body and a Soul like us; That He is passable according to the Humane Nature, and, That the Humanity is not changed into the Divinity: From whence it appears, that Eustathius did more formally reject the Error of the Eutychians, than that of the Nestorians, although there are some Expressions in the same Passages, which plainly enough show that he was persuaded, That these two Natures were united in one and the same Person. But the Oriental Writers have always more applied themselves to remark the distinction of the two Natures in Christ, than their intimate Union; whereas on the contrary, the Egyptians are more addicted to discourse of their Union, than their Distinction: Which thing afterwards was the Subject of the great Disputes that were amongst them about the Mystery of the Incarnation.  
The Treatise of Eustathius concerning the Pythoniss 
m The Treatise of Eustathius concerning the Pythoniss.] 'Tis entitled in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Latin, De ventriloquo, which cannot be rendered in English, but by a Circumlocution; that is to say, The Discourse which those Pronounce who have a Devil in their Belly. To understand this, we must observe that the Ancients believed, That the Daemon which the Pagans honoured under the Name of the God Python, entered into the Bowels of the Priests and Priestesses, and by strange agitations excited in them a kind of Fury, which made them say many things which were taken for Predictions: For which reason the Women that professed to Divine things to come, were called Pythonisses. Such was she, to whom Saul addressed himself for consulting Samuel, whose History is the Subject of this Dissertation, and therefore I have entitled it, Concerning the Pythoniss.  cited by St. Jerom, was published in Greek in the Year 1629, and translated into Latin by Allatius; together, with a Discourse of this Author upon the same Subject. The Question there treated of is, Whether the Witch mentioned B. I. of Kings, Ch. 28. did really bring back the Soul of Samuel into this World to speak unto Saul? Eustathius maintains the Negative against Origen, who had taught the Affirmative in one of his Homilies: And after he has related in a pleasant manner all the Circumstances of the History, he refutes the Explication of Origen. He lays it down for a Principle, that the Devil cannot bring back Souls from the other World: He says, It is ridiculous to give him this Authority over the Souls of the Just, and that there is none but God only who is Lord over them. He demands of Origen, Whether the Witch made Samuel appear in Body and Soul together, or if she only brought back his Soul; and then he shows, that neither the one, nor the other is probable. He rallies Origen for attributing to the Holy Spirit the Words which the Witch pronounced when she was acted by an Evil Spirit. He maintains that Saul did not at all see the Ghost of Samuel, but only was astonished with the extraordinary Speeches, and violent Motions of the Witch, and therefore cast himself down upon the Ground to worship. He proves, That 'tis contrary to common sense, to say, as Origen does, That the Gods which the Witch says she saw ascending out of the Earth, were the Souls of the Just and the Angels: He observes, that the Prediction of the Pythoniss was found to be false; and tho' it had been true, it would not therefore follow, that it was from the Holy Spirit, since the Devil has often made such like Predictions, which Chance and the Circumstances of things, that are known to him, have sometimes verified. He does also make it appear from the Circumstances of this Prediction, That it was an Imposture of the Devil, and that it cannot be attributed to the Holy Spirit, without some kind of Impiety. After this, he answers the chief Objection of Origen, taken from the Scripture, which gives the Name of Samuel to that Apparition: To which he says, That he was astonished at an Author, who durst explain the whole Scripture Allegorically, treat as a Fable the History of Moses concerning the Terrestrial Paradise, and give Mystical Senses to all the Histories of the Old Testament, that he should endeavour to put off for Truth, the Fictions of a Woman acted by an Evil Spirit. He shows, That when the Scripture gives the Name of Samuel to this Apparition, 'tis not to be understood as if Samuel himself in Body and Soul were there; but only that this Woman made him believe by the Representation which she gave Saul of this Spectre, that this was the Prophet Samuel whom he desired to consult. In short, he demonstrates, from all the Circumstances of this Story, That there was nothing real in this Apparition; but that it was only an Apparition represented in the imagination of Saul and this Prophetess, by the Devil which possessed them. This is the Sentiment which Eustathius confirms in this Dissertation, which is short, beautiful and very close; for as he says nothing superfluous, so he omits no Proof which might be of Advantage to his Opinion. There appear in it much Learning and a well-poized Judgement, and one may venture to say, That there are few Works of this nature in all Antiquity so perfect as this Discourse. Yet I think, he has treated Origen a little too harshly, in a Question that does not at all belong to Religion, but is purely Critical. To conclude, The Opinion of Eustathius is since his time grown the more common Opinion 
n The Opinion of Eustathius is since his time grown the more common Opinion.] St Justin in his Dialogue against Tryphon, is of the same Opinion with Origen, and concludes, That all Souls, even those of the Just, fall under the Power of Daemons: But Tertullian is of Eustathius' Opinion, in his Book of the Soul, Ch. 57 where he says expressly, That we must not believe that it was the Soul of Samuel which the Pythoniss brought back from the other World; but that 'twas only a Cheat of the Devil. Since Eustathius' time, there are but few Authors of Origen's Opinion, excepting Sulpitius Severus. St. Austin makes a Problem of this Question, in his Letter to Simplicianus, but he inclines to Eustathius' side. Eucherus, Bede, St. Anselm, Rabanus and St. Thomas, follow St. Austin. Theodoret and some others, have said, That God formed this Apparition of Samuel, or that he made an Angel appear under the form of Samuel. St. Basil is of Eustathius' Opinion, in his Commentary upon Ch. 8. of Isaiah; but he seems to approve the contrary Opinion in his Letter to Eustathius the Physician. St. Gregory Nazianzen touches both these Opinions in his first Oration against Julian: But Gregory Nyssen, in a Letter written on this Subject, expressly refutes the Opinion of Origen, and proves that of Eustathius. 'Tis no wonder that Methodius and St. Jerom, condemn Origen's Opinion, but 'tis surprising that Philastrius has taxed it of Heresy, Haeres. 28. The Author of the Question ascribed to St. Austin, Quest. 52. The Author of the Questions concerning the wonderful things in Scripture, B. II. Ch. 2. and of the Questions of the Old and New Testament attributed to St. Austin, Quest. 26. Isidore, B. VIII. Ch. 8. of his Origines, Zonaras Hist. Tom. 1. Syncellus in his Chronicle, and many others, approve the Opinion of Eustathius. The Modern Commentators, are much divided about it: And indeed, the Opinion of Origen may better be maintained when 'tis supposed, That 'twas by the Permission of God, and not by the Power of the Devil, that the Pythoniss brought back the Soul of Samuel; and so it seems to be more agreeable to the Letter of Scripture; but the other is more rational, and explains the Matter in Dispute more naturally. , and I must confess, that 'tis more probable than the other, tho' I cannot affirm any thing for certain in this Matter.  
We cannot give any Judgement so much to the Advantage of that Commentary upon the Work of the Six Days, or the Hexameron which bears the Name of Eustathius, published by the same Allatius; but on the contrary, 'tis a Work altogether unworthy of a Man of his Sense, and which cannot be attributed to Eustathius, without doing him great Dishonour; and there is no probability that it was his. For First, Not only St. Jerom and Theodoret make no mention of it, but it is not found cited by any Author. Secondly, It is an ill contrived Collection of Passages out of Eusebius, St. Basil, the Old Testament, Josephus, Artapanus, the Gospel falsely ascribed to St. James, and many other Authors. Thirdly, The Style is perfectly different from that of his Dissertation concerning the Pythoniss, and the Fragments of Eustathius' Sermons. Fourthly, The things treated of in this Book, do not at all suit with the Genius of Eustathius, for in his Dissertation concerning the Pythoniss, he reproves Origen for studying to make too many useless Remarks and Allegories in explaining the Scriptures, while he neglects the literal sense of them, and the Moral Reflections that should be made upon them: Now this Treatise upon the Hexameron, is almost wholly composed of such unprofitable Remarks, which concern neither Religion nor Manners. Fifthly, This Author gins with an Extract out of the Chronicon of Eusebius, concerning the Antiquity of Moses, and then repeats the first Verses of Genesis, from whence he takes occasion to make a particular Enumeration of all the different sorts of Plants, Herbs, Trees, Fishes, Birds and Beasts; and to discourse of their Nature and Properties, saying many things very fabulous of them: After this, he makes a very imperfect Abridgement of the History of Genesis, adding many Circumstances to it taken out of Josephus. He makes a Digression concerning the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, in which he copies out a passage of Africanus, and then gives an Abridgement of the Fables which are in the Protoevangelium of St. James, concerning the Virgin, St. Joseph, Joachim, and Zachary. Afterwards he resumes the Continuation of his Abridgement of History, which goes as far as the End of Joshua's Government, being nothing else but Extracts out of the Books of Scripture, and the History of Josephus; whereby it appears, that there is neither Order nor Design in all this Work, and that 'tis nothing else but a heap of Passages confusedly jumbled together by a Man of no Learning or Judgement: which cannot be said of Eustathius of Antioch, who was a very Learned, Judicious and Eloquent Man, as any one may easily perceive by his Dissertation, and the Fragments we have of his Works. Allatius has no proof that this Work is Eustathius' of Antioch, under whose Name he has published it; but he endeavours to prove, that it was made by some ancient Author, because in speaking of the End of the World, he maintains that it will not continue above 6000 Years, and in giving the Chronology of Time already past, he does not go beyond the 30th, Year of Constantine. But this proof is not at all convincing, for 'tis probable, that this Author has taken what he says in those places from one of the Ancients, without adding any thing of his own: But suppose he were the Author of what is related concerning the End of the World, may not an Impostor affect to speak so, on purpose to make us believe that his Work was Ancient? Be it as it will, there is no manner of probability that it was written by Eustathius of Antioch.  
I shall not now commend this Bishop for his Zeal in defending the Faith, his invincible Constancy, his Wisdom, and singular Moderation, which appeared in suffering patiently the reproachful Accusation, wherewith his Enemies charged him, and the unjust Deposition which they pronounced against him; but shall content myself to consider him as an Author, and observe with Sozomen, Hist. B. II. Ch. 19 that he had acquired a rare Eloquence, As appears, says he, by his Works, which are most worthy of Commendation, as well for the ancient Purity of Style, as the Sublimity of Thought, the Beauty of Expression, and the Curiosity of his Discourses. These rare Qualities of this good Writer appear in his Dissertation of the Pythoniss, and in his Fragments set down by Theodoret, which confirm the Judgement that Sozomen gives of this Author. I have not seen any other Edition in Greek and Latin of his Works, but that which we have already spoken of, Printed at Lions by Durandus in Quarto, in the Year 1629.   

PETER of Alexandria.  
PETER of Alexandria had his Head cut off 
a Had his Head cut off.] Baronius sets down the Martyrdom of Peter at the Year 310; but Eusebius says, in two places of his History, That he Suffered the 9th. Year of the Persecution, which is 311. according to the vulgar Aera: The Author of the Chronicon Alexandrinum follows Eusebius. Baronius citys for himself, Ch. 13. of the Eighth Book of Eusebius, where Peter is numbered amongst the Martyrs; but in this place of his History, he does not reckon up the Martyrs in order of time, but only Discourses of many famous Bishops and Martyrs.  for the Faith, by the Commandment of the Emperor Maximinus, in the Ninth Year of Dioclesian's Persecution, that's to say, in the Year 311 
Peter of Alexandria.  from the Birth of Christ: We have the Acts of his Martyrdom; but since they do not agree with the Ecclesiastical History of that Time, we ought not to give much credit to them 
b We ought not to give much credit to them.] These Acts were published by Surius, and afterwards in Greek by Combefis: But they neither agree with the History of the Time, nor with that of Peter. 1. This Author says in two places, that Peter died under Dioclesian, which is false, since this Emperor abdicated the Empire a long time before the Year 311. 2. Eusebius says, That Peter was seized, and executed upon the spot. These Acts suppose that he was a long time in Prison, and that he must have written of it to the Emperor who was at Nicomedia. 3. He places amongst the Bishops of Alexandria, one Milius, when, in truth, there was never a one of that Name. 4. He places Heraclas after Dionysius and Maximus, though he certainly preceded them. 5. He feigns that Heraclas had Disputes with Origen, when there was never any such thing. 6. He says, That the Body of Peter was carried into the Church of Theonas, which was built by Alexander the Successor of Achillas, who came after Peter to the See of Alexandria. In short, he relates, that Arius was Excommunicated by Peter of Alexandria, because of his Impious Doctrine: But the Ancients say not a word of this Excommunication, neither does Alexander, nor St. Athanasius object it to Arius: And indeed can there be any probability, that Achillas should receive Arius if he had been Excommunicated by Peter? Especially, if it be true which is related in those Acts, that Peter advertised Achillas and Alexander, that he had seen a Vision, wherein he was given to understand, that Arius should rend in pieces the Church of Jesus Christ. Besides, we read nowhere that Arius published his impious Doctrine before the Pontificate of Alexander, and therefore if he had been Excommunicated by Peter, it must have been for some other cause. There are found indeed in a Treatise of Justinian against Origen, some words ascribed to Peter of Alexandria, which are much like those that are found in those Acts; but besides that, they are not altogether the same: Justinian is neither so Ancient, nor of so great Authority, as to counter-balance the Reasons which we have alleged. . Though St. Jerom and others, who have given an Account of Ecclesiastical Writers, do not place this Bishop among them; yet he certainly wrote some things. There is 〈◊〉 the Council of Ephesus, a passage or two about the 〈◊〉, taken out of his Book about the Divinity. Justinian in his Edict to M●●●a against 〈◊〉, q●●tes two passages of Peter of Alexandria: The First out of a Homily against Pre-existence o● Souls; The Second out of a Mystagogical Discourse composed by him a little before his Martyrdom: this is very 〈◊〉: I exhort you, says this holy Martyr, to watch, for you shall once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Affliction; you know how the Heathens caused S. Thomas my Father and my Bishop, who bred me up, and my Predecessor in this See, to suffer. Would to God I had also been his Successor in Holiness too: You know the Persecution which the great Saint Dionysius endured, and how he was obliged to hid himself, and to be continually changing the place of his Abode, whilst the Heretic Sabellius tormented him in another manner: What shall I say of the holy Bishop's Heracl●s and Demetrius? What Tribulations did not they 〈◊〉 from Origen, who sowed Divisions in their Church, and who caused Disturbances there which are not yet quieted? And we have in Balsamon, in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and in the last Edition of the Councils, the Canons which are said to be drawn out of one of his Discourses upon Penance. Th●se were written in the Fourth Year of the Persecution in 306, about the Feast of Easter; for they begin with th●se words, [Seeing this is the Fourth Easter since the beginning of the Persecution.] In these Canons, he regulates the time of Penance. In the First, he ordains, That those who after long Resistance had at last lapsed, being conquered by the Severity of Torments, and had been under Penance for Three Years, should after Forty Days not be received into Communion, during which time, he exhorts them to watch and pray. In the Second, he adds, yet another Year of Penance for those who had fallen without enduring Torments, only to deliver themselves from Prison. In the Third, he brings an instance from the Parable of the Figtree, to impose Four Years Penance upon these who had voluntarily fallen into Idolatry, without being put in Prison. In the Fourth, he deplores the unhappiness of those that are altogether desperate, and do no Penance at all. In the Fifth, he limits their Penance to Six Months, who had pretended, that they had offered unto Idols, or that they had appreached their Altars, or given up their Names; or had sent Pagans to offer in their stead. In the Sixth he observes, That there were some that sent thither their Slaves, though they were Christians; and in the Seventh Canon he imposes upon them Three Years of Penance, but upon the Slaves one Year only. In the Eighth, he says, That 'tis but just to make them Partakers of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, of the Prayers of the Church and the Word of God, who after they had been once vanquished, returned again to the Combat, and were committed to Prison: or those who suffered Torments, after they had confessed the Faith of Jesus Christ. In the Ninth Canon, he blames their Conduct, who expose themselves indiscreetly to Danger, and by this means bring Persecution upon themselves and their Brethren. He proves by the Example of Christ and his Apostles, that their Conduct is very much to be blamed; and yet he thinks we ought not to refuse the Communion to those who thus rashly expose themselves to Temptation, because they do it in the Name of Christ. In the 10th. Canon, he ordains, That the Clergy who had lapsed, should be deprived of their Ministry, and content themselves with Lay-Communion, which is not to be denied them. In the 11th. Canon, he advises to treat them with Meekness, and receive those Christians into Communion, who having exposed themselves to Martyrdom for the Encouragement of others by their Example, had at last fallen by the Cruelty of their Torments. In the 12th. he says, That those who had given Money to deliver themselves from Torments, were free from Sin in so doing, and moreover praises their Conduct. In the 13th. he makes an Apology for those that fled to avoid Persecution, and justifies their Carriage by many Examples. In the 14th. he says, That they ought to be placed in the Rank of Confessors, who had been forced against their wills to taste of Meats offered unto Idols. The last Canon has no connexion with the former, for there he approves the Fasts of Wednesday and Friday, [On which, he says, we are enjoined to Fast, according to Tradition; On Wednesday, because on that Day the Jews took up a Resolution to deliver up Jesus to Death; and on Friday, because he suffered on that Day for us: But as to the Lord's-Day, that's a Day of Rejoicing, because on that Day Jesus Christ was raised from the Dead, and therefore we do not Kneel on that Day at our Prayers.] Of all the Canons of Antiquity concerning the Penance of the Lapsed, there are none more Judicious or more Equitable than those we have now described. There appears in them a Wisdom and Prudence that's altogether singular, in tempering the rigour of Punishment by a reasonable Moderation; without which, Justice would be weakened by too much Indulgence. He examines carefully all the Circumstances which might augment or diminish the quality of the Crime, and as he does not lengthen out Penance by too severe Methods, so neither does he deceive the Sinner by too remiss an Easiness. 'Tis probable, that about the time when those Canons were composed, Peter of Alexandria deposed Meletius Bishop of Egypt, being convicted of Idolatry, who was afterwards the Author of the Sect of the Meletians; as Athanasius reports in his Second Apology.   

ALEXANDER Bishop of Alexandria.  
AFter the Death of Peter Bishop of Alexandria, who suffered Martyrdom in the 9th. Year of the Persecution begun by Dioclesian, Achill●● was chosen in his room to the See of Alexandria. 
Alexander Bishop of Alexandria.  Alexander, of whom we now write, Succeeded this Achillas in the Year 321, if we follow the Testimony of St. Jerom; or according to others, towards the Year 315. He opposed the Heresy of Arius vigorously, and endeavoured to sti●●e it in its Birth, by Excommunicating him who was the Author of it, and his Followers. This he did in a Council assembled in the City of Alexandria for that purpose. But Arius and those of his Faction, having found some Bishops that received them into their Communion, though they were Condemned by their Bishop, Alexander complains in a Letter which he wrote to his Fellow-Bishops, which is related by Theodoret, Ch. 4. of the First Book of his History; wherein he describes the Troubles that were caused in the Church by Arius and his Faction, he lays open their Heretical Doctrine, and observes that they had withdrawn to some Bishops who had received them into their Communion, and signed Letters in their Favour, because they disguised their true Sentiments, and concealed the Poison of their corrupt Doctrine. He reprehends the Conduct of those Bishops, and accuses them of having violated the Canon of the Apostles, by Patronising the Actions of those who denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Afterwards he refutes the impious Opinion of the Arians, and proves from Testimonies of Scripture, That the Word was not a Creature made of Nothing, but that he subsisted from all Eternity, and is equal to his Father, being of the same Nature with him, and that there never was a time when the Son of God was not, and that the Father was always a Father. After having thus Established the Divinity of the Son of God by most convincing Proofs drawn from the holy Scriptures, he proceeds to the Explication of the Articles contained in the Creed, concerning the Holy Spirit, the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and the Resurrection of the Dead. He observes that Jesus Christ had a real Body, and not an imaginary one, that he was Crucified and was dead; but his Divinity suffered nothing. He adds, That this is the Doctrine of the Apostolic Church, for which he is ready to die; and says, that Arius and Achillas were cast out, because they taught another Doctrine: wherefore he exhorts his Fellow-Bishops to avoid them, and to join with him to repress their Insolence. After all, he prays them to send him their Letters approving what he had done, and concludes his Letter with the Names of those Heretics whom he had Condemned and cast out of the Church.  
When the Bishops who maintained Arius wrote also on their Side in his favour, Alexander found himself obliged to write again a large Letter on this Subject to all the Bishops in the World, which is set down by Socrates and Theodoret, Ch. 6. of the First Book of their History. I know very well, that 'tis commonly thought that this Letter was written immediately after the Excommunication of Arius, before that which is in the Fourth Chapter of Theodoret: But this is a mistake, since this Letter was written at the time when Eusebius of Nicomedia was fully declared a Patron of Arius. Wherefore Alexander having observed in this Letter, That since the Catholic Church was but one Body, and all the Bishops were obliged to preserve Peace in it, It was expedient, that they should reciprocally advertise one another of what happened in each Diocese; to the end, that when one Member was afflicted, all the rest should mourn, or else rejoice together with it. After he had begun his Letter with this handsome Reflection, he adds, That he had once a design to have buried this Disorder in Silence; but since Eusebius had taken upon him the Patronage of these Apostates, and had written on all hands in their favour, he thought himself obliged to break Silence, and to give Notice to all the World of this New Error, and to hinder his Fellow-Bishops from giving credit to the Letters which Eusebius might have written. After this, he inserts the Names of these Heretics, lays open their Error, and refutes it in a few words. He says, That their Impiety was the cause why they were thrown out of the Church and smitten with an Anathema; and though he acknowledges that he was sensibly troubled for their loss, yet he must not wonder that such false Teachers should arise and corrupt the Faith and Doctrine of Jesus Christ, since we are forewarned of them by Christ and his Apostle.  
These Two Letters of Alexander were sharp and vehement; wherein he pursues Arius and his Party vigorously, and having represented their Doctrine after such a manner, as discovers all that's odious in it, he disputes against it by many solid Arguments, and writes to his Fellow-Bishops with great Assurance, and yet with due respect. In short, one may say, That these Letters are the best in their kind.  
Cotelierius has also published a Letter, or a Pastoral Advertisement of Alexander to his Priests of Egypt and Mareotis, written after these Two Letters, in which he tells them, That tho' they had subscribed to the First Pastoral Advertisement which he had addressed to Arius and those of his Faction, wherein he exhorted them to return from their Impiety, and make Profession of the Catholic Faith; yet he thought it still necessary once more to Assemble the Clergy of Alexandria and Mareotis, to show them the Letter which he had written to all the Bishops since the first Condemnation of the Arians, and to give them Notice, that Carus and Pistus Priests, Serapion, Potamon, Zosi●us and Irenaeus, Deacons, having joined themselves to the other Arians, were deposed. He demands their Consent and Approbation, because, says he, 'tis reasonable that ye should know what I have written, and imprint it in your Minds, as if you yourselves had written it. This Monument of Antiquity, gives us to understand, That according to the Discipline of the Church of Alexandria, which was agreeable to that of other Churches, the Bishop of that great See, held Synods of his Priests or Curates, not only of those that were in the City, but also of those that were in the Country, and that he would do nothing without the Consent and Approbation of his Clergy.  
The Cause of Arius being afterwards carried into the Council of Nice, Alexander assisted there, and held one of the Chief Places, as appears by the Council's Letter, to the Alexandrians, wherein they say, That he was Head of the Council and had a great Hand in all its Decisions. He lived but five Months after this Council, and left Athanasius Successor to his See, and to his Zeal against the Arians.   

St. ATHANASIUS.  
ST. Athanasius was born at Alexandria 
a At Alexandria.] He was a Clergyman of this Church, and the Clergy were commonly of that Place where they discharged their Office; but besides this Conjecture, 'tis plain also that he was originally of Alexandria by the Letter of Constantius, who recalling him from his Exile, says that he would restore him to his own Country, etc. Apol. 2. p. 769, 770. and he takes his Country and Church for the same thing. Orat. 1. contr. Ar. , but the precise Year of his Birth is not certainly known, neither do the Ancients tell us any thing of his Kindred 
b Of his Kindred.] The Greek Author of his Life, who is very late, says that they were very noble and of great Piety; but he gives us no Name, nor citys any Author to warrant his groundless Assertion: His Aunt was a Catholic, and died during the Tyranny of Gregory, Ep. ad Solit. p. 817. You may see in a Latin Letter of this Saint related at the end of Lucifer's Works, that during his Persecution, he had not the Liberty to see his Parents, which may be understood of his Father and Mother, according to the proper Signification of the Latin Word. . He was so young during the Persecution 
St. Athanasius.  of Dioclesian and Maximian, that when he speaks of it, he does not say, that he had seen what he says, but only that he learned it of his Fathers 
c But only that he learned it of his Fathers.] In his Letter ad Solitar. p. 855. I heard from my Fathers, that the Persecution was raised under Maximian Grandfather to Constantius. . We know nothing either of his Infancy, or Education. Ruffinus, indeed, tells us, That St. Athanasius being yet a Child, and playing with other Children, imitated the Ceremonies of the Church, and baptised his Comrades; and that St. Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, perceiving it, and having enquired the manner in which they were baptised, he approved the Baptism, and from that time, designed St. Athanasius for the Clergy. But this Story, which, besides its being so very improbable, cannot agree with the Age of St. Athanasius, passes among Learned Men, rather for a Fable than a Truth 
d Rather for a Fable than a Truth.] 1. This Story of Children baptised by Athanasius, does not at all agree with the Discipline of the Church of Alexandria upon the Subject of Rebaptisation, and 'tis a thing unheard of that it should be approved of, or that any could approve a Baptism of this Nature, as Alexander of Alexandria is supposed to have done. 2. It does not agree with the Age of St. Athanasius, for Alexander was not ordained Bishop of Alexandria, according to the Testimony of St. Jerom, until the Year 321. and St. Athanasius being ordained Bishop in 326. was not, in this Interval, of an Age to play such little Pranks. And though it were supposed, against the Authority of St. Jerom, that Alexander was ordained in 315, this would not remove the Difficulty; for it cannot be said, that St. Athanasius played at this Sport when he was above 10. or 12. Years old, from whence it would follow, that he was ordained Bishop at the 25. or 27th. Year of his Age, which is not very probable. . St. Gregory Nazianzen, assures us, in his Panegyric on St. Athanasius, that this Saint applied himself but a short while to the profane Sciences, and proceeded quickly to the Study of the Holy Scriptures. Afterwards he entered into the Clergy, and discharged his Function, when he was in Orders, with general Approbation, according to the Observation of Theodoret. He was particularly taken Notice of by Alexander his Bishop, whom he accompanied to the Council of Nice, being then but a Deacon, and yet the first of the Deacons of his Church. He opposed there the Heresy of Arius, and 'tis believed likewise, that he maintained a Disputation against the Heretics. When he returned again to the City of Alexandria, Alexander cast his Eyes upon him to make him his Successor. Apollinarius, says, in a Passage related by Sozomen, B. II. Ch. 17. of his History, That St. Athanasius fled to avoid being chosen Bishop, and that Alexander being near his Death, did several times call for him. After the Death of this Bishop, he was chosen Bishop of Alexandria, in the beginning of the Year 326 
e In the Beginning of the Year 326.] Alexander died five Months after the Council of Nice, and St. Athanasius succeeded him immediately. St. Epiphanius says in Haeres. 68 and 69. that Achillas was chosen by the Catholics after the Death of Alexander, and Theonas by the Melitians, and that Athanasius was ordained three Months after: But all this Story is fabulous, because Achillas was Bishop of Alexandria before Alexander, and all Historians testify that St. Athanasius succeeded Alexander immediately; and St Athanasius says as much expressly in his 2d. Apology. , by the common Voice of all the People, and ordained by the Bishops of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis assembled in the City of Alexandria. This is the Testimony which the Bishops of these Provinces give of his Ordination in a Synodical Letter reported by St. Athanasius, Apol. 2. p. 726. where at the same time they refute the Calumny of the Arians, who said, That Athanasius was privately Ordained by seven Bishops against the Will of all the rest. The Arians and the Bishops which Patronised them assoon as they saw St. Athanasius their Adversary promoted to this See, looked upon this Promotion as a great Obstacle to their Designs, and therefore resolved to drive him out of the Church. And that they might execute this Design the more easily, they joined with the Schismatics called Meletians, (or rather Melitians 
f Or rather Melitians.] Their Leader is called by all the Ancients 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ) because they had followed the Party of an Egyptian Bishop called Meletius or Melitius, who being deposed in a Synod by Peter of Alexandria, for having Sacrificed to Idols 
g For having sacrificed to Idol●.] St. Athanasius testifies, that this was the Occasion of the Schism of Melitius, which is much more credible than what St. Epiphanius reports to be the Origin of this Schism, after a fabulous manner, being deceived by the Memoirs of some Melitians. , separated himself from the Church, and made a considerable Faction in Egypt. Thus the Bishops that favoured Arius, not being able to persuade St. Athanasius to receive him into his Communion, no more than his followers, tho' Eusebius had written him a threatening Letter to that purpose, did for that reason accuse him of laying a New Tax upon all the Linen or Woollen Vestments of the Egyptians, for the use of the Church of Alexandria; and deputed Ision, Eudemon, and Callinicus, Melitian Bishops, to carry this Accusation to the Emperor. But Alipius and Macarius, Priests of Alexandria, being then at Court when this Accusation was brought against St. Athanasius, defended him, and demonstrated his Innocence to the Emperor Constantine, who thereupon wrote to Athanasius to come and appear before him. At that time Eusebius of Nicomedia, being resolved at any rate to ruin St. Athanasius at Court, caused these three Informers to stay there, who invented new Accusations, alleging that the Priest Macarius had broken a Sacred Chalice by Athanasius' Order, and that Athanasius himself had conspired against the Emperor, by sending a Chest full of Gold to Philumenus who designed to Usurp the Empire. But the Emperor himself having examined this Accusation in one of their Suburbs of Nicomedia, called Psammathie, declared St. Athanasius Innocent of those Crimes, and sent him back to Alexandria with a very obliging Letter in his favour. This was done in the Year 331. The Enemies of St. Athanasius not resting satisfied with this Judgement, the next Year renewed the Accusation of the Chalice broken by Macarius, founded upon the Deposition of one Ischyras who called himself a Priest, altho' he was ordained by Collythus, who was not truly a Bishop, and therefore had not Power to give him a valid Ordination. Ischyras had dwelled at Mareotis, a Country of Egypt, where there was neither Bishop nor Suffragan, but only a great many Parishes governed by Priests. He had one of these Churches, which Athanasius understanding, sent Macarius to forbid him when he visited his Diocese, to Celebrate the Divine Mysteries, and to execute any part of the Sacerdotal Function. This gave the occasion of accusing Macarius, that he had broken one of the Sacred Chalices, altho' he found Ischyras out of the Church and in his Bed. But to render St. Athanasius more odious, they accuse him of having put Arsenius to Death, who was Bishop of Hipsele in Thebais, and of the Faction of the Melitians. The Emperor who had already examined the first Accusation, (which was likewise confounded by the Letter of Ischyras, who acknowledged, that he was forced to invent this Calumny,) did not take any further notice of that Article, but wrote to Dalmatius, to inquire into the second Accusation, concerning the Murder of Arsenius. This obliged St. Athanasius to search every where for this Bishop whom the Melitians had hid in the Monasteries at their Devotion: And at last, he was found at Tyre where he was made known before Paul the Bishop. Then, St. Athanasius having given notice to Constantine, that his Accusers were convicted of an Imposture, the Emperor wrote to Dalmatius, to stop all further Process, and sent a very obliging Letter to St. Athanasius, wherein he exhorts him to moderation, condemns the Rage of the Melitians, and promises him Protection. But for all this, the Arian Faction lost not their Courage, nor did they cease to contrive still new Accusations against him: Whereupon the Emperor being tormented with their continual Importunity, thought fit to call a Council, to put an end to all these Differences; which he ordered to meet at Caesarea, in Palestine, where St. Athanasius was Summoned to appear. But this Saint, perceiving that the Council was composed of his Enemies, would not appear there. His Absence, irritated the Emperor against him, who called another Council to meet at Tyre, in the year 335, and wrote to St. Athanasius, that he should not fail to come there, which he did in such Terms, as might make him sensible, that he was not satisfied with his Conduct. St. Athanasius was forced to appear there in the quality of a Criminal; but he answered the Accusation of the Murder of Arsenius, by producing him before the Council. Ruffinus, says, That they still went on to accuse St. Athanasius, by a Woman of an ill Life, who was presently convicted of being a Cheat, because she took for him a Deacon called Timotheus, who feigned himself to be Athanasius. But this History which is supported by no other Authority, but that of Ruffinus, appears very doubtful, because neither St. Athanasius nor the Council of Alexandria, which relates exactly all the Calumnies and Forgeries which were invented against St. Athanasius, say any thing of it, which they had never omitted, if it had been proposed. There were some other wand'ring Reports alleged against him, but wanting Proof, they insisted upon that of the Chalice, which was supposed to be broken by Macarius; and to inquire into this Crime, they sent Six Bishops to Mareotis, who were very resolute against St. Athanasius, who heard many Witnesses to this purpose, in spite of all the Protestations of the Clergy of Mareotis and Alexandria. In the mean time, St. Athanasius retires, and appeals to the Emperor; but the Synod condemns and deposes him upon the Information at Mareotis. This was no sooner done, but a Letter was brought from the Emperor, directed to the Bishops of the Council, to come presently to Jerusalem, to Celebrate the Dedication of a Church. In the mean time, St. Athanasius arrives at Constantinople, and desires Audience of the Emperor to justify himself: But this was not granted, and all that he could obtain, was an Order, wherein the Emperor sends for the Bishops that had condemned him, to come to Court, and give an Account to him of their Proceed. But instead of coming in a Body, they sent only Eusebius of Nicomedia with Five other Deputies, who without saying any thing of the former Accusations framed against St. Athanasius, accused him now of having threatened to hinder the Exportation of Corn from Alexandria to Constantinople. The Emperor was so provoked by this Accusation, that without hearing St. Athanasius, he banished him presently to Triers, a City in Gaul; but would not suffer his Bishopric to be filled.  
After the Death of Constantine the Great, the Three Caesars his Sons, Constantine, Constantius and Constans, permitted all the Banished Bishops to return to their Churches. St. Athanasius was sent back to Alexandria with Letters from Constantine, after he had been a Year and some Months in Exile 
h A Year and some Months in Exile.] Theodoret B. II. Ch. I. says, that he was there two Years and four Months, but he is mistaken; for he was sent into Banishment at the End of the Year 336, and was restored again June 15, 337. before the Sons of Constantine had taken upon them the Title of Emperors. . This Emperor praises St. Athanasius in his Letter, and says, That his Father would not have Banished him, but that the Eusebians had a design upon his Life, and that he had intended to recall him before his Death. He was no sooner returned to Alexandria, but his ancient Enemies attack him anew: They say, That since his Return, he had stirred up Sedition in the City, and caused some Persons to be put in Prison, and others to be used harshly: but they chief insisted upon his Deposition by the Synod, alleging that he was incapable, according to the Canons, of returning to his Church, or performing his Episcopal Function, till he was restored by another Synod. They insinuated themselves into the favour of Constantius, and moreover accuse St. Athanasius of Selling and taking Money for the Corn, which the Emperor had given to be distributed among the Poor, and the Widows of Alexandria. This Accusation drew upon St. Athanasius a very sharp Letter from the Emperor. And the Eusebians not contented to have Constantius on their side, would also have gained the other two Caesars, and therefore wrote to them against St. Athanasius, but they failed of their aim, and were refused. They endeavoured also to render Pope Julius favourable to them, by offering him the Arbitration of all their differences with St. Athanasius. But this Pope having accepted their offer, and Summoned them to come to a Council, they refused it. In the mean time, St. Athanasius was absolved by a Synod of almost a Hundred Egyptian Bishops in the Year 339, who gave an Authentic Testimony of his Innocence in all the Heads of his Accusation. On the other side, the Eusebians assembled a Council at Antioch in 341, where after they had made a new Creed different from that of Nice, they resolved to send a Bishop to Alexandria: for which end, they first pitched upon Eusebius of Emesa; but he refusing, they chose one Gregory, and went to find out the Emperor, and prayed that this Gregory might be sent to Alexandria. St. Athanasius having only heard of this Choice, withdrew to Rome in the Year 341 
i Withdrew to Rome in the Year 341.] Baronius makes him go in the Year 339, and supposes he was twice there; but Valesius has very well proved, that he was but once there, since he mentions but one Voyage. When he withdrew, he had only heard of the Ordination of Gregory, and the Persecution which was preparing against him and his Church, as he himself says in these Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ; where he was kindly received by Pope Julius, who admitted him to Communion, and sent presently Legates with Letters to Eusebius, and the other Bishops, to cite them to Rome. But the Eusebians did not come at the day which Julius had appointed them, detained his Legates till the Month of January 342 
k Till the Month of January 342.] For so it must be read in the Letter of Julius, and not as Baronius thought. , and sent Gregory to Alexandria, who made himself Master of that Church by force, and used those of Athanasius' Party very ill. While the Eusebians thus desolated the Church of Alexandria, the Pope held a Council at Rome in the Church of Vito the Presbyter 
l In the Church of Vito the Presbyter.] So the Words of Julius must be understood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are ill-translated in these Words, In the Church where Vito the Presbyter assembled them: For he did not assemble the Bishops but the People, according to the common Phrase, colligere Populum, to hold a public Assembly of their People in the Church. St. Irenaeus says, qui praeterquam quod oportet colligunt, which is spoken of Schismatics, who made Assemblies out of the true Church. , towards the end of the Year 341 
m Towards the end of the Year 341.] Valesius thinks that the Council of Rome was not held till the Year 342, after the Return of the Legates: But Julius says plainly, that the Bishops of Italy met at the Day appointed, and that the Legates were detained a long time after till the Month of January, in the Year 342. . There all the Accusations of the Eusebians against St. Athanasius were examined, he himself was justified, declared Innocent by all the Bishops of the Council, and continued in Ecclesiastical Communion: but they determined nothing particularly about his Restauration 
n They determined nothing particularly about his Restauration.] Julius and St. Athanasius say expressly, that he was only assured of that Communion which had been granted him, and that his Enemies complained of nothing else.  to the See of Alexandria. The Eastern Bishops after a long delay at last made answer, towards the Beginning of the Year 342, by the Pope's Legates whom they sent back, excusing themselves because of the War of the Persians, that they could not come to Rome at the Day that he had appointed, and blaming Julius for receiving Athanasius into Communion after he was condemned, and for hearing a Cause anew, after it had been already determined. This Letter was written by a Synod of Antioch, held almost a Year after that which we have mentioned: And that which perplexes this Part of History to this Day, is the want of distinguishing these two Councils of Antioch, or the placing them at different times. Julius having received this Letter, took some time before he answered it, thinking that somebody at least would come from the Eastern Bishops, but nobody coming, he wrote them a long Letter 
o He wrote them a long Letter.] Valesius thinks that this Letter was written by the Council, but that cannot be; for the Pope's Legates were returned when it was written, and they were detained in the East after the Day appointed for the Council, as we have already noted. It does not at all appear by this Letter, whatever Valesius says, that the Legates were returned when it was written: On the contrary it is evident that the Council was held on the Day prefixed, and that the Legates were then in the East. And therefore to reconcile these things, it must be said, that the Letter was written after the Council, although by Order of the Council, which had charged Julius to write his Decision, and to answer the 1st. Letter from the Eastern Bishops, but not the 2d, which was not yet arrived. , which is set down by St. Athanasius; wherein he gives an account of all his Proceed, and reprehends theirs with great sharpness.  
The Cause of St. Athanasius continued in this State till the Council of Sardica, Summoned by the Emperors in the Year 347. The Bishops of the East and the West met there; but those of the East would not assist at the Council, unless St. Athanasius, Marcellus of Ancyra, and the other Bishops deposed by them, would appear as Criminals and Persons Excommunicated, and those of the West would not agree to this Condition: Whereupon the former withdrew, and the latter being left alone to the number of a Hundred, or thereabouts, pronounced the Sentence of Absolution of Athanasius, of Marcellus of Ancyra, and the other Bishops that had been condemned, restored them to their Dignities, and condemned their Principal Adversaries; while the Bishops of the East on the other side, being Assembled at Philippopolis, wrote against those Bishops whom they condemned, and Excommunicated Julius, Hosius, and the other Zealous Partisans of St. Athanasius. Things being at this pass, there was no Security for St. Athanasius to return to the East, without the Authority of the Emperor Constantius, who was Lord of that Part of the World, and therefore he stayed then at Naisse, a City of Dacia, till Constans commanded him to come to Aquileia, and granted him his Protection.  
The Death of Gregory, which happened in the Year 348, came very seasonably to remove the chief Obstacle of Athanasius' Return: For then, either because Constantius knew his Innocence, and the Malice of his Accusers, or because he was desired to do so by his Brother, he would not suffer any to be ordained Bishop of Alexandria, and recalled St. Athanasius who was gone from Aquileia to Rome, to take his Farewell, of the Church of that City and its Bishop, and was come from thence to find out Constantius, and pray him to call his Enemies before him, that he might convict them in his Presence. The Emperor would do no such thing, but only sent him back to Alexandria, with Letters directed to the Bishops of Egypt, to the Clergy and the People of Alexandria, to which he adjoined two Edicts to abrogate and annul all that had been done against this holy Bishop. St. Athanasius returning triumphantly with these Letters, was received even by the Bishops that had been less favourable to him; and two of his greatest Enemies, Ursacius and Valens, seemed to be outwardly reconciled to him. The Emperor Constans, Athanasius' Patron, dying in the Month of February, 350, he had some jealousy lest Constantius should renew that Persecution which he had already made him suffer. But the Emperor sent him word, that he should not trouble himself on that account; That he designed to keep him always in his See, and forbade his Enemies to attack him. Thus Athanasius, who was not yet entered within his Diocese, arrived there at last in the Month of March, 350, where he was received with the Public Rejoicing of the Bishops of Egypt, his Clergy, and all the People. But he enjoyed this Repose but a few Years, which seemed to be granted him for ever; for after the Year 354, the Emperor Constantius sent a Courtier of his to the City of Alexandria with Letters to him, wherein he gives him leave to retire from Alexandria, supposing that he had desired it. St. Athanasius seeing that this Order was founded upon a False Supposition, was of opinion, that he ought not for this to go out of Alexandria. Twenty six Months after, Diogenes comes to Alexandria, and spreads a Report that the Emperor had given Order to drive away St. Athanasius from this City; but since Diogenes brought no Letters from the Emperor, St. Athanasius made Answer, that he should either show him a Letter from the Emperor, commanding him to departed from Alexandria, or at least, that the Governor of Egypt, or General of the Army, should deliver him an Order in writing to this purpose. Twenty three Days after, Syrianus, General of the Army in Egypt, entered with his Soldiers into the Church, on the 27th. of January, 356, abused the Clergy, the People and the Virgins that were there assembled. During this Tumult, St. Athanasius being carried out by some Monks, saved himself, and retired into a Desert 
p Retired into a Desert.] Sozomen and Ruffinus say, that he was hid in a Cistern, but Athanasius says, that he retired into a Desert, and continued there ever after. . Constantius, understanding what had passed, sent an Edict to those of Alexandria, wherein he approves what was done against St. Athanasius, and exhorts the Youth to pursue him. The Count Heraclius published this Edict, and encouraged some lewd young Men of Alexandria, who entered into the Churches, beat all those they met with, tore the Veils, the Seats and the Ornaments, and broke the Episcopal Chair in pieces, with such Violence, that none could check those Disorders; which were yet further heightened upon the Arrival of George, who was ordained Bishop of Alexandria by the Enemies of St. Athanasius. For this Man being come into the City of Alexandria some Days before Easter, entered forcibly into the Church, and caused all those that were for St. Athanasius to be driven away. Who meeting together in the Coemeterie and the desert Places, for the Celebration of the Divine Mysteries on Easter-Day, and the following Sundays, were driven from thence and beaten by the Soldiers; nay, and some of them lost their Lives. In short, because the Bishops of Egypt and Libya, were all for St. Athanasius, they drove away Eighty of them, and sent Six into banishment. These outrages were Authorised by the Letter which Constantius wrote to the Alexandrians, in which he declares against St. Athanasius, and enjoins them to obey George. Thus it was impossible for St. Athanasius to return into the City of Alexandria, and therefore he was forced to lie hid in the Desert, where he composed many Books.  
After the Death of Constantius, Julian the Apostate became Master of the Empire, who taking no side in the Disputes of Religion that were among the Christians, permitted all the exiled Bishops to return to their Country. It happened at the same time, that George, who had intruded himself into the Church of Alexandria, was killed in a popular Sedition in the Year 362. His Death facilitated the Return of St. Athanasius to the City of Alexandria, and his Restauration to his See in that City. When he was returned, he assembled a Council to regulate the manner of receiving the Arians, who had a desire to return into the bosom of the Church, and to compose some Differences which had happened in the Church of Antioch. But he could not long employ himself for the good of the Church, for the Pagans having rendered him odious to the Emperor Julian, he sent an Order, directed to those of Alexandria, importing that Athanasius should departed from their City, because he had only permitted the Exiled Bishops to return into their Country, but not to re-enter upon their Sees. The People of Alexandria, who loved St. Athanasius extremely, sent Deputies to the Emperor, to pray him, that he would not force him out of Alexandria: But this Message only provoked the Emperor against him, who thereupon presently banished him, not only from Alexandria, but also from all Egypt. It is said also, That he gave Secret Orders to put him to Death. St. Athanasius having heard this News, fled beyond the River Nile: And 'tis reported, That he was followed very close by those that were sent to stop him, and he returning the same way that they pursued him, met them on the Road, but when they enquired if he had seen Athanasius, one of his Company answered, That he was not far off, and if they would make haste, they might overtake him; and so having deluded them, he returned to Alexandria. But be this as it will, 'tis certain, That he lay concealed till the Reign of Jovian a Christian Prince, who succeeded Julian. In the Year 363, this Emperor came and found him with some other Bishops of Egypt, at the City of Antioch, where they held a kind of a Synod 
q At the City of Antioch, where they held a kind of a Synod.] 'Tis commonly thought that this Synod was held at Alexandria: But Valesius has well observed, that the Beginning of the Letter shows, that it was written by the Bishops, deputed from the Provinces of Egypt, who were come to Antioch, where the Emperor was at that time. ; and there they drew up a Letter which was addressed to the Emperor, wherein they propose to him the Nicene Creed, as the Rule of Orthodox Faith, and condemn those that denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.  
St. Athanasius was also persecuted under the Reign of Valens, who being baptised in 367, by Eudoxus, an Arian Bishop of Constantinople, made an Edict, wherein he ordains, That all the Bishops that had been deposed under Constantius, should be forced away from their Sees. The Governor of Egypt having received this Edict, prepared to put it in Execution against St. Athanasius, but was hindered by the People. In the mean time, this Saint fearing lest he should be seized, (as they really intended to do afterwards) and seeing the Commotions of the People appeased, retired to the Country into the Sepulchre of his Fathers, and lay there concealed for the space of Four Months; but Valens was obliged to recall him. We are informed by the 47th. Letter of St. Basil, That at this time St. Athanasius had some Difference with the Governor of Libya, whom he Excommunicated; but we know nothing of the occasion of this Quarrel. At last, St. Athanasius, after so many Revolutions and Persecutions, did happily end the course of this troublesome Life, in the Year 373 of Jesus Christ 
r In the Year 373 of Jesus Christ] Proterius Bishop of Alexandria, places the Death of St. Athanasius in this Year, in a Letter to St. Leo; and St. Jerom says, that Peter of Alexandria was chosen the same Year. These Authors are more credible than Socrates, Ruffinus and St. Cyril, who place it in the Year 371. , after he had been Bishop of Alexandria more than 48 Years. And thus I have given you in a few words the History of this Saint, taken out of his own Works, and the Authors that wrote either his Life, or the History of his time: Let us now give an Account of his Writings.  
St. Athanasius was one of those Authors who were forced to write, and were engaged to take Pen in hand, rather by an Obligation to defend themselves, than upon any design to make Books; and therefore the greatest Part of his Books, are either Apologies to justify himself, or Invectives against his Enemies, or Treatises of Controversy against the Errors of the Arians. They are all written in the form of Letters, a way of Writing which is most simple in the Composure, and at the same time most natural, and most proper for one that is in a place of Retirement.  
There is great probability, that his Two Treatises against the Gentiles, were the first which he composed, because he does not there attack the Arians, as he does in all the other Books which he made, after he had any personal Differences with them. The last of these Two Books, is entitled at present, Concerning the Incarnation, and Theodoret citys it under that Name; but St. Jerom gives them both the Title of, Treatises against the Gentiles, and indeed, they are both written rather to Convert Pagans, than to Instruct Christians.  
The next Work of St. Athanasius, after these Two Treatises, is his Apologetic 
s The next Work of St. Athanasius, after these two Treatises, is his Apologetic.] This was composed immediately, after his Retiring. Which he did with a Design to speak it in the Presence of Constantius: But understanding the Mischiefs he had done to those that favoured him, he thought it not safe to come near him. His two Apologies and his Epistle to those that lead a Monastic Life, were written after this, where he speaks with much Sharpness and Freedom against Constantius, particularly, in his Letter to those that lead a Monastic Life.  to the Emperor Constantius, which he wrote sometime after he was forced away from Alexandria, in the Year 356. He wrote also the same Year, Two Letters 
t He wrote also the same Year, Two Letters.] I say that these Two Letters were written a little while after the Enthroning of George, though I know Baronius is of Opinion, that the 1st. was written a long time before, when Gregory seized upon the Church of Alexandria, and that the 2d. was written in 361. but this Opinion is not defensible. As to the 1st. Baronius was deceived by the Version, where he found sometimes the Name of Gregory, and sometimes that of George; but this Confusion is avoided in the Greek, where one may always find the Name of George, when mention is made of him that came to intrude into the Church of Alexandria: But that which can never be answered, is, That Gregory is mentioned there as one that had been condemned, long ago, and was no more. See the Place, p. 948. For after all the Churches in the World had anathematised Gregory, whom the Arians had formerly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, made Bishop; yet the same Arians presently sent George thither. Here you see how Gregory and George are well distinguished. We may add to this Authority, That the Circumstances related in this Letter agree with the Enthronising of George, and not at all with that of Gregory. It may be alleged for the Opinion of Baronius, 1. That 'tis said in the Letter, Philagrius the Governor of Egypt introduced him, who is there spoken of, and 'tis very well known, that Philagrius carried Gregory to Alexandria: But I cannot see why he might not as well be employed to conduct George thither likewise. 2. 'Tis alleged, that 'tis said in the Letter, that he who was sent to Alexandria by the Arians, was ordained by Eusebius; and Eusebius was certainly dead in George's time: But 'tis easy to answer this Difficulty, for 'tis not in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Eusebians, which is the Name that St. Athanasius commonly gives to his Persecutors. St. Athanasius seems to say, that he was at Alexandria when this Trouble happened; but 'tis well known, that he was out of the City when George came thither, since he withdrew before Easter, and George did not thrust himself into those Churches till that time. To which I answer, That Athanasius does not say, that he was at Alexandria, when George arrived there, but only when Philagrius published the Edict against him. Lastly, 'tis objected, that 'tis said towards the end of this Letter, that they would have a Council assembled at Rome in the preceding Year; but the Roman Church, say they, was not then in a Condition to have assembled in the Year 356, because Liberius was then in Exile. A●…. This Objection is easily destroyed, for Liberius and the other Bishops of Italy had many times desired the assembling of a Council. 1. By their Legates sent to Milan in 354. 2. In 355. before Liberius went from Rome: And, 3. When he was come to Court: St. Athanasius therefore might say truly in 356, that those of Rome had desired a Council the Year before. The Letter to the Egyptians was written before George arrived at Alexandria, for there he is mentioned as one ready to be sent thither, p. 290. and he is described as one that was not yet known to the Egyptians. There Cecrops is mentioned as a Bishop alive; but he was swallowed up by an Earthquake which destroyed Nicodemia in 358. There Liberius and Hosius are mentioned with Commendation, who fell away in 357. Baronius objects Two Things to prove that it was not written till 360. 1st Because it is said there, that it was now 36 Years since the Arians were declared Heretics: 2dly, because mention is made in it of a Creed which they would have signed; but we read of none, that there was at this time. In Answer, to the 1st. Objection it may be said, that the Figures are wrong, or rather that we must count the 36 Years from the 1st. Synod held by Alexander against the Arians. 'Tis more easy to answer the 2d. by saying, That the Arian Bishops might make a Creed when they sent George; besides that, Athanasius says only that he heard say, they had made one, and not that they had done it. Be it as it will, this 1st. Treatise against the Arians is a Letter to the Bishops of Egypt, which has nothing of Affinity with the Subject and Matter of the other Four: The Oration that follows gins as a new Discourse, and St. Cyril citys a Passage out of the 3d. Book of Athanasius concerning the Trinity, which is found in that which is now called the 4th. and Theodoret citys one taken out of the Second, which is now in the 3d. Treatise.  upon the Persecution which the Christians of Alexandria suffered, when George took Possession of that Episcopal See. The First which was addressed to the Bishops of Egypt, is improperly called The first Discourse against the Arians. The Second is written to all the Orthodox Bishops. A little time after, he composed his Two Apologies in the place of his Retirement: 'Tis likewise very probable, that he wrote at that time his Four Treatises against the Arians, which he addressed to the Monks, as we learn from the beginning of his Letter to Serapion, concerning the Death of Arius. His Letter to those that lead a Monastic Life, is made up of two different Pieces: The First is a Letter written to the Monks, which is a kind of Preface to some Treatise against the Arians, and may be so to that which follows; it contains about a Page and a half, and ends at these words in Page 810. Gratia Domini Jesu Christi sit vobiscum, Amen. The following Treatise which was addressed to those that lead a Monastic Life, is a History of all that passed from the beginning of Arianism, to the fall of Hosius and Liberius, i. e. to the Year 358. There are some Periods in the beginning, which are lost, that not only this Treatise has no Connexion with the Letter that precedes it, but also there is no Sense in the beginning of it: And I am astonished to think, that so many able Men should read this Book without perceiving, or at least without observing it. The Letter to Serapion, concerning the Death of Arius, was written after the Treatise which is directed to those that lead a Monastic Life, as appears by the beginning of it. The Book of Synods was composed in 359 
u The Book of Synods was composed in 359.] This is evident, because he does not finish the History of the Council of Ariminum, concluding with the Nomination of the 1st. Deputies which were sent to the Emperor; and at the End he adds the Letter of Constantius, and the generous Answer of the Bishops, which he had learned afterwards. He speaks always of that Council as a thing present, and with Commendation; and he says nothing more of what passed at Constantinople after the Council of Seleucia. This Book is probably that which St. Jerom says, St. Athanasius had Written against Ursacius and Valens, unless we should rather say, that it was a Work subjoined to his Letter to those that lead a Monastic Life. , before the Councils of Seleucia and Ariminum, were ended: He afterwards added in this Book, what concerns the Council of Constantinople in 360, and what is there said concerning the Death of Constantius. The two Latin Letters which are at the End of the Works of Lucifer Calaritanus, were also written under Constantius. The Letter of the Council of Alexandria, to those of Antioch, was written after the Death of that Emperor, in 362; the Letter of the Council of Antioch, under Jovian, was written in 363: That which is directed to all the Bishops of Egypt and Arabia, Syria and Phoenicia, was written in 368; under the Reign of Valens, as well as that which is directed to the Africans 
x As well as that which is directed to the Africans.] This is to the Bishops of the Western Africa, and not to those of Cyrenaick, as Baronius thought, who says, that these Letters were written under the Pontificate of Damascus. . And the Letter to Epictetus was written last 
y And the Letter to Epictetus was written last.] He observes in this Letter, that Auxentius and the other Arians, were anathematised by the Councils of France, Spain and Rome. St. Cyril says that it was corrupted, but that which we now have, agrees with that which is related by the Emperor. .  
There are besides, many other Works of St. Athanasius, of which the Chronology is not known, which it concerns us to distinguish well from those that are doubtful or supposititious. These Works are in the First Volume. The Homily upon these Words, My Father hath given me all things, p. 149. The Epistle to Adelphius, p. 155. That to Maximus, p. 162. Two Letters to Serapion, to prove, that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not Creatures, p. 166, and 173. An Exposition of the Faith, p. 240. A Letter concerning the History of the Decision of the Council of Nice, p. 248. A Letter of the Judgement of Dionysius of Alexandria upon the Trinity, p. 548. A Treatise of the Union of the Humane Nature to the Word, which is cited by Theodoret, under the Name of, A Book against the Arians, p. 595. Two Books of the Incarnation, against Apollinarius, p. 614, 633. A Treatise against the Followers of Sabellius, p. 650. An Epistle to John and to Antiochus, p. 951. An Epistle to Palladius, p. 952. An Epistle to Dracontius, p. 955. An Epistle to Marcellinus, concerning the Interpretation of the Psalms, p. 959. The Homily of the Sabbath and Circumcision, p. 964. A Treatise upon the Words of Jesus Christ, Whosoever shall be guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this World, nor in that which is to come, p. 970.  
In the Second Volume; there are few of his Genuine Works; but here follow those which we own. Two Letters to Serapion, concerning the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, p. 10, and 16. A short Discourse against the Arians, p. 22. The Conferences of St. Athanasius with the Arians, in the presence of Jovian, from p. 27, to p. 29. An Epistle to Ammon, p. 35. A Fragment of one, p. 39 A Festival Epistle, p. 38. An Epistle to Russinian, p. 40. A Book of the Abridgement of the Holy Scripture, p. 55. All these Works, whereof some are cited by the Ancients, agree well enough with the Style of St. Athanasius, and they contain nothing in my Opinion, which gives just cause to suspect them of Forgery 
z Which gives just cause to suspect them of Forgery.] Yet there is some Doubt, of some of those Works which are mentioned in this Place; but the Conjectures which are alleged have little Solidity. Some have doubted of the Letters to Serapion, but these are written in the Style of St. Athanasius. The two which are in the 2d. Volume, are an Abridgement of the 2d. which is in the 1st. Volume. The Exposition of Faith which is in p. 240. of the 1st. Volume, is cited by Facundus, B. XI. Ch. 6. The Treatise of the Union of the humane Nature is cited by Theodoret in his 2d. and 3d. Dialogue; And so it cannot be denied, that it is St. Athanasius', especially since it has his Style, although the Author of St. Athanasius' Life affirms the contrary. The 2d. B. of the Incarnation against Apollinarius is no ways doubtful; but the 1st. is called in question, which is more obscure and less methodical: Yet Leontius B. II. against Eutyches, citys the 2d. under the Name of the 2d. Treatise of St. Athanasius against Apollinarius. The Letter to Marcellinus about the Interpretation of the Psalms, is in all Probability that which St. Jerom and Cassiodorus call a Treatise of the Titles of the Psalms, because it contains the Subject and Argument of every Psalm. The Epistle to Serapion of the Death of Arius, is cited by the Ancient Historians. The Homily of the Sabbath and of Circumcision is not wholly of St. Athanasius' Style, but the Difference is very inconsiderable. Some have doubted of the Tract upon these Words, Whosoever shall speak Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; but unjustly, for this Tract has not only the Style of St. Athanasius, but also is proved to be really his, because Gobarus in Photius Cod. 232, testifies, that St. Athanasius had many times cited Theognostus, who is not found cited but in this Book, and in the Treatise of the Judgement of Denys of Alexandria. And, Lastly, because the Treatise which we now discourse of, is cited in the Council of Lateran, held under Martin the 1st. in the Year 549. I think we ought not to reject the Conferences of St. Athanasius with the Arians before Jovian. 'Tis certain that St. Athanasius came to find out this Emperor; and Philostorgius says, that the Arians came to accuse St. Athanasius in his Presence. Moreover, they are written with great Simplicity, and appear to be very Ancient. Scultetus doubts of the Letter to Ammon, because it prefers Coelibacy to Marriage, alleging that St. Athanasius taught the contrary in his Letter to Dracontius: But he was mistaken. The Fragment of the 39th. Festival Epistle ought to be received as undoubtedly his, after St. Jerom's Testimony, who says, that St. Athanasius wrote those Letters which bear his Name. I say the same of the Abridgement of the Holy Scripture, which is upon the same Subject with this Festival Epistle, and has the same Opinions of the Canonical Writers. Some doubt of this last Treatise; 1. because the Author calls Lucian, who was a Ringleader of the Arians, a holy Martyr. 2. Because he does not reckon the Book, entitled Pastor, among useful Books, as St. Athanasius does in his 39th. Letter, and in his Book of the Nicene Synod. But 'tis easy to answer these Conjectures. As to the 1st, That St. Athanasius did not think that Lucian was of the same Opinion that Arius had afterwards, or that knowing he died in the Bosom of the Church, he thought that he ought not to condemn him: Or Lastly, that he cited him as commonly he had been accustomed to cite him. As to the 2d. That he says nothing of the Truth of the Book entitled Pastor, but neither does he reject it as a wicked Book, and by Consequence there can nothing be built upon this Conjecture. .  
There is not any of the other Works, that bear the Name of St. Athanasius, besides those which we have already mentioned, that is Genuine, but they are all either manifestly Supposititious, or very doubtful.  
The Treatise which has this Title, That there is but one Jesus Christ, altho' it be ancient, yet is not written by St. Athanasius. For, First, This Author places Marcellus of Ancyra, amongst the Heretics, whereas St. Athanasius always communicated with him as a Catholic Bishop, even in the last Years of his Life, as appears by the Letters of St. Basil, which complain of St. Athanasius upon this occasion. Secondly, The Author of this Treatise, acknowledges but one only Hypostasis in Jesus Christ, whereas St. Athanasius always took this Word, rather to signify the Nature, than to denote the Person 
aa St. Athanasius always took this Word, rather to signify the Nature, than to denote the Person.] The Council of Nice seems to have taken the Word Hypostasis in this Sense, when it condemns those who say, that the Word is another Hypostasis, or Substance. St. Athanasius says often in his 5th. Oration, that the Father and the Son are one Hypostasis only; and in his Letter to the Africans, That the Hypostasis is the Substance. In short, though the Synod of Alexandria was persuaded that this Difference concerned not Matters of Faith, yet they approved more the Opinion of those who take Hypostasis for Nature. .  
For this last Reason we ought also to reject the little Treatise of the Incarnation against Paulus Samosatenus, which is in the First Volume of St. Athanasius, p. 591. because the Author of it owns three Hypostases in the Trinity.  
The Refutation of the Hypocrisy of Meletius, is rather the Work of Paulinus of Antioch, or some of his Party, than of St. Athanasius, who was neither so conceited of the Notion of three Hypostases, nor so transported with anger against Meletius, as the Author of this Treatise was.  
The Book of Virginity 
bb The Book of Virginity.] This Book is written in a low Style, and contains Precepts about the Quality of the childish Clothes of Virgins: There are in it Expressions unworthy of St. Athanasius, as when he calls a Virgin, the Dancer of Jesus Christ. Theodoret, B. II. of his Hist. Ch. 4. citys a Passage out of a Book of St. Athanasius addressed to Virgins, which is not to be found in this Treatise; which shows that this is not the genuine Treatise of St. Athanasius. , has nothing of the Style of St. Athanasius, and it contains some Precepts very remote from the Genius and Discipline of his time. There is a Difference between him that wrote upon this Subject, who is cited by Theodoret, and him whom St. Jerom mentions.  
The Treatise of Testimonies drawn from the Holy Scriptures, to prove the Essential Unity of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, is none of St. Athanasius'. 1. Because the Author there relates some Passages of the Questions to Antiochus, which were written a long time after St. Athanasius, as we shall show hereafter. 2. The Style of this Treatise is very different from that of St. Athanasius. 3. He uses childish Expressions, and gives impertinent Definitions of Angels and Men.  
The Homily of the Annunciation, or of the Virgin, is also written by a later Author than St. Athanasius. 1. Because he expressly refutes the Error of Nestorius, and that of the Monothelites; and yet neither St. Cyril, nor any other Catholic Author, alleges this Book against those Heretics. 2. In explaining the Doctrine of the Church, he uses such Terms, as were not in use till after the Nestorians and Eutychians time; as when he says, That he acknowledges two Natures in Jesus Christ, without Confusion or Mixture, without Change or Division, Terms which were not used till after the Council of Ephesus. 3. He detests the Error of those that called Jesus Christ, a Man-bearing God, an expression which St. Athanasius did not reject, and the Ancients sometimes made use of, and which was not condemned till after Nestorius had abused it. 4. He gives a ridiculous Etymology of the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by saying, that it comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is not a Greek word.  
The Life of St. Syncletica 
cc The Life of St. Syncletica.] 'Tis cited as St. Athanasius' by Nicephorus Callistus, and there is a Manuscript of it which bears his Name; but in another 'tis ascribed to a Monk named Polycarp, which is very likely to be true: For the Style is unworthy of St. Athanasius. It is full of childish Comparisons, which are to be met with almost in every Period, and agree much better to a Monk, than to St. Athanasius. , published in Latin, by Bollandus, and in Greek, by the Learned Cotelierius, in his First Volume of the Monuments of the Greek Church, is suspected of falsehood, because no body mentions it before Nicephorus; and in some Manuscripts, 'tis ascribed to a Monk named Polycarp; besides that, it has nothing of the Style of St. Athanasius.  
The Life of St. Anthony has better Authority 
dd The Life of St. Anthony has better Authority.] 'Tis alleged against this Life, to prove that it is not St. Athanasius', that this Saint relates the Death of Balacius, after another manner than it is related in this Life: For St. Athanasius says, in his Epistle to those that lead a Monastic Life. That the Letter of St. Anthony was written to Gregory, who gave it to Balacius; whereas in the Life of St. Anthony, it is said, that this Letter was addressed to Balacius himself. 2dly, 'Tis reported in the Life of St. Anthony, that Balacius was killed by Nestorius the Governor of Egypt's Horse, who accompanied him: Whereas St. Athanasius says, that the Horse upon which Balacius road, did by't him: But these Differences are of little Consequence, and the same Author may relate differently such kind of little Circumstances, either through the Fault of his Memory, or because he is better informed at one time than another. The Difference of Style which is to be met with, between this Letter and the other Works of St. Athanasius, gives us more Trouble: But it may be that he proportioned his Style in this Life, both to the Matter, and the Capacity of the Monks for whom he wrote it. This is certain, the Ancients do testify, that St. Athanasius wrote the Life of St. Anthony, and all that they report of it, is found to agree with what is said in that Book which we now have. See St. Chrysost. Homil. 8. on Matth. St. Austin in his Confessions, Palladius Hist. Laus. Ch. 8. Socrates Lib. I. c. 17. and Lib. IU. c. 14. All which makes me think, that 'tis not convenient to reject it. ; for St. Jerom and St. Gregory Nazianzen, say positively, That St. Athanasius wrote the History of the Life of this Father of Monks; but still 'tis doubted, whether that which we now have, be not different from that which was known to these Ancients. Rivet and other Protestant Critics, being Enemies of all those Books which concern Monkery, boldly reject this Life, as a supposititious Work: But their Reasons are not wholly convincing, and all the Circumstances of the Life of St. Anthony, related by the Ancients, are to be found in this Book, and therefore I think it very probable that this was St. Athanasius', altho' something might be added or changed in it, as it often happened to Books of this nature.  
The Creed which bears the Name of St. Athanasius 
ee The Creed which bears the Name of St. Athanasius.] The Reasons that convince me that this Creed is none of St. Athanasius', are these. 1. Because 'twas not known till the Sixth Century. 2. Because St. Athanasius never would make a Confession of Faith, nor a Creed, being persuaded he ought to keep to that of Nice. 3. Because this Creed rejects so plainly the Errors of the Nestorians, Eutychians, and Monothelites, that 'tis easy to perceive, 'twas made since those Heretics, on purpose to reject their Errors. 4. The Style and Terms do plainly show, that this Creed was made by a Latin, and not by a Greek, Author. 5. No Account can be given, upon what Occasion, at what Time, and for what Reason, St. Athanasius should make this Creed. See Vossius in his Book De Tribus Symbolis. 6. It appears by the Terms, that 'twas the Work of a Latin Author. 7. 'Tis not found among the ancient Manuscripts of St. Athanasius. 'Twas made since the Council of Chalcedon, as the Reasons we have now given do clearly prove. 'Tis cited in the Council of Autun, in the Year 670, and there we read in the Fourth Council of Toledo, in 633, some Phrases which seem to be taken out of this Creed. But it must be confessed, that this last Council does not say, That they were taken out of the Creed of St. Athanasius, and that there is no certainty, that this Canon of the Council of Autun, where mention is made of St. Athanasius' Creed, is so ancient, as we have said, since it is not found among the Canons of that Council under Leodegarius; but in a Collection of those Canons taken out of the Library of the Monastery of St. Benignus of Dijon. Hincmar and Abbo, who lived about the Tenth Century; Radulphus, Haimo, Hugo, and some other Ancient Frenchmen have cited it as St. Athanasius'. The Greeks also, as Manuel Calecas, Lib. 2. have made no scruple to ascribe it to him. Pitheus' thought that a Frenchman composed it, because the French Authors were the first that expressly cited it: and perhaps some Frenchman did draw this Creed, partly from the Council of Toledo, and put the Name of St. Athanasius to it. Father Quesnel is of opinion, that 'twas the Work of Vigilius Tapsensis, and it must be confessed, that his Conjectures are very probable: For, 1st. This Author has forged many Books under the Names of the Fathers, and particularly under the Name of St. Athanasius. 2. In all his Writings he opposes the Nestorians and Eutychians, and this Creed attributed to St. Athanasius, is directly against the Errors of those Heretics. 3. The same Vigilius made several Confessions of Faith under the Name of St. Athanasius. 4. The First part of the Creed seems to be a Recapitulation of the Chapters of Vigilius Tapsensis' Book against Vurimadus: and even in the Third Book, the Three first Chapters contain these Propositions, Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus Sanctus; Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus Spiritus Sanctus; Omnipotens Pater, Omnipotens Filius, Omnipotens Spiritus Sanctus, which are word for word in the Creed. These are the Conjectures of Father Quesnel, to which one may adhere so much the rather, while there is nothing to be had more certain about this Matter. Be it as it will, 'tis certainly the Work of a Latin Author, which has been since translated into Greek, which is the reason why the Greek Copies differ among themselves. , passed a long time without any Contradiction, as a Work which was truly this Father's; and yet, now all the World agrees, that 'twas none of his, but some Authors that lived a long time after him. 'Tis not certainly known whose it is; some have attributed it to some French; others, as Father Quesnel, think that 'tis written by Vigilius Tapsensis, who lived towards the End of the Fifth Age of the Church. Howsoever this be, 'tis certain that 'twas composed after the Council of Chalcedon, because it rejects so formally the Errors of the Nestorians and Eutychians, that 'tis evident it aims at these two Heresies.  
St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his Book addressed to Queens, and his Defence of the Eighth Anathematism, citys a Confession of Faith under the Name of St. Athanasius, about the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, which is still found among the Works of this Father, in the Second Vol. P. 30. St. John Damascene, B. III. Of the Orthodox Faith, Ch. 6. and Theorianus, attribute it to St. Athanasius. Basil of Seleucia, in the First Act of the Council of Constantinople, says, 'Twas reported that St. Athanasius was the Author of an Expression which is found in this Confession of Faith, viz. That the Word had but one Nature Incarnate. But Leontius in his Book of Sects, denies that St. Athanasius was the Author of this Sentence, and the Catholic Bishops at a Conference held at Constantinople against the Severians in the Year 533, have also rejected it, as being falsely attributed to St. Athanasius. And truly the Doctrine and Expressions of this Confession of Faith about the Incarnation, do not at all agree with those of St. Athanasius in his Books of the Incarnation; in which he does not only say nothing which may favour the Error of the Eutychians, but also he formally rejects it, and rather favours the contrary Opinion.  
The other Works attributed to St. Athanasius, are yet more manifestly Supposititious, and no body almost has acknowledged them for Genuine. The Dispute against Arius 
ff The Dispute against Arius.] 'Tis evident that 'tis not a Conference-made in the Council, but only a fictitious Dialogue made by some body, under the Names of St. Athanasius and an Arian, and not of Arius; for the Catholic says, That his Adversary is a Monster come out of the Sect of Arius. The Author of this Dialogue is so ignorant, that he thinks the Council of Nice was held in the Year 310.  which is in the First Volume, is a Dialogue composed under the Names of St. Athanasius and Arius, by some body that lived long after. This is plain, and all the World is agreed in't; but 'tis not known who is the Author of it. Some have attributed it to Vigilius Tapsensis; but for my part, I rather believe that 'tis the Work of a Greek, than a Latin Author, and that it may well be attributed to Maximus.  
The Letter of Liberius to St. Athanasius, and the Answer of this Saint to Liberius 
gg The Letter of Liberius to St. Athanasius, and the Answer of this Saint to Liberius.] These Letters neither agree with St. Athanasius, nor with Liberius: The last to St. Athanasius is so written, as if there were some doubt of his being a Catholic: He requires him to Anathematise Arius and Sabellius, that I, says he, may obey your Commands. The Letter of Liberius and the Answer of St. Athanasius, are written as if they were Confessions of Faith, and they favour the Error of Nestorius. The Style of these two Letters is Childish and mean. The Letter attributed to Liberius, gins with a Then. , agree not at all with the History of these two Bishops, and have no resemblance of their Style.  
The Explication of these words of Jesus Christ to his Apostles, Go to the Village that is over against you, and there ye shall find a Colt tied 
hh The Explication of these words of Jesus Christ, Go to the Village that is over against you, and there ye shall find a Colt tied.] This Homily is a Fragment of some Commentary upon the Gospel. It is not the Style of St. Athanasius. He explains all the passages of Scripture in a mystical sense, and draws from thence Allegories, which have more of subtlety than solidity. It is very different from the Air of St. Athanasius, which is grave and serious; and besides, he generally interprets the Scripture in its natural sense. ; the Homily upon the Passion 
ii The Homily upon the Passion.] This also is not written in the Style of St. Athanasius; for though it be something more Sublime than the former, yet it comes not near the Gravity of this Father's Style. There are ridiculous things related in it of the Fear of Christ. 'Tis said, that he counterfeited the Fear of Death, lest the Devil should not withdraw, and that when the Devil heard him cry out, Eli, Eli, he had the boldness to attack him: But on the contrary, St. Athanasius in his Fourth Dialogue against the Arians, does expressly deny that Jesus Christ counterfeited any Fear, and assures us, that as Man he was really afraid. The Author of this Homily disallows all Oaths, whereas St. Athanasius approves them upon several occasions.  of Jesus Christ, and that upon the Seed 
kk And that upon the Seed.] Or rather upon the Action of the Disciples, who eaten the Ears of Corn upon the Sabbath-Day. 'Tis found only in one Manuscript, and it has nothing excellent, nor is it written in the Style of St. Athanasius. , which are found at the End of the First Volume, have neither the Style nor the Air of St. Athanasius, and contain many things unworthy of him.  
The Discourse against all Heresies, which is the last Work of the First Volume of St. Athanasius, is confused, and the Style mean, as is observed in an Ancient Manuscript. He opposes in a few words all Heresies, contrary to the Custom of St. Athanasius, who refutes very largely all those he takes in hand. The Oration upon the Ascension of Jesus Christ, is of a Style more florid than that of St. Athanasius, the Phrases are forced and tumid, whereas St. Athanasius writes in a Simple and Natural Style. The Oration of Melchisedeck cannot be St. Athanasius', since the Author mentions the Fathers of the Council of Nice as dead long before.  
The Letter of Jovian to St. Athanasius, and that of St. Athanasius to Jovian, which are in the Second Volume, are much to be suspected. That of St. Athanasius discovers the Forgery, because it contains a Confession of Faith different from that of the Council of Nice, and 'tis certain that he sent no other to this Emperor. The Author of this Letter writes in such terms, as plainly discover that he was not St. Athanasius, but rather Apollinarius, since he acknowledges but one Nature in Jesus Christ; and indeed, Leontius testifies that Apollinarius had inserted this Doctrine in a Letter to the Emperor Jovian. The Book of Definitions, which are pretended to be Collections out of St. Clement, and other holy Fathers, cannot be St. Athanasius', since the Author citys in it Gregory Nyssen, in the Chapter of the Act. Moreover, he speaks of two Natures and one Person in Jesus Christ, as if he had written after the Birth of the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches. A good part of the Book is taken out of a Book of Anastasius Sinaita, entitled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Guide; and in some Manuscripts, the Definitions are ascribed to Maximus, under whose Name Father Combefis has Published them.  
All the Learned agree, that the Seven Dialogues of the Trinity, are not St. Athanasius' 
ll The Seven Dialogues of the Trinity, are not St. Athanasius ' s.] 1. The Author speaks there of an Addition made by the Council of Constantinople to the Nicene Creed. Anon & vos fidei Nicenae adjecistis? says the Heretic, and the Catholic answers, Sed non ipsi pugnantia. 2. He explains the Six Epithets given to the Holy Spirit by the Council. 3. He treats there of subtle Questions about the Trinity, which were not started in the Time of St. Athanasius. 4. He opposes Eunomius and Macedonius, whom St. Athanasius did never particularly attack. 5. The Author of the Dialogue acknowledges Three Hypostases in Jesus Christ. 6. The Style is wholly different from that of St. Athanasius. There are cited indeed in the Lateran Council under Martin the 1st. Secret 6. Three Testimonies of St. Athanasius; and the 3d. under this Title, In sermone Athanasii qui per modum Interrogationis & Responsionis cum Apollinario fit; which Title agrees well enough with these Dialogues: But what is here related, is not where to be found. ; the difference of the Style, the Terms, and the Doctrine, are convincing Proofs of it; and 'tis plain, that the Author of this Treatise lived since the Council of Constantinople, at the time when the Disputes about the Incarnation of Jesus Christ were afoot in the Church. Father Combefis has restored them to Maximus 
mm Father Combefis has restored them to Maximus.] In the Greek Manuscript which Beza used, 'tis observed on the Margin, This Dialogue is not St. Athanasius ' s, but some say 'tis Maximus ' s. Two other Manuscripts of Rome and Venice, and that of Dufresne, attribute it to Maximus. Gregorius Protosyncellus, Veccus, Acyndinus, Demetrius, and some other modern Greeks, cite it often under the Name of Maximus, and seldom under that of St. Athanasius. It appears by the Style and by all the Arguments in that Author, that these Seven Dialogues are by one and the same Hand; and the Authorities which we have alleged, do plainly show that they ought to be attributed to Maximus. , upon the Authority of some Manuscripts, and the Testimony of the Modern Greeks, who cite them often under the Name of this Author. Garnerius a very learned Jesuit, ascribes them to Theodoret, and has printed them under his Name, in a pretended Supplement to the Works of this Father. But he has nothing to support this Opinion but some slight Conjectures 
nn Garnerius has nothing to support this Opinion but some slight Conjectures.] He has no Manuscripts, nor Citations from the Ancients. All that he says to prove it, is, 1st. That Theodoret writ against the Arians, the Eunomians, the Macedonians, and the Apollinarists, as he testifies in many Places of his Works. 2. That the Doctrine, the Expressions, and the Reasons of this Author resemble those of Theodoret, and this Author denies as well as he, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. These Conjectures are very slight, when there are no Manuscripts for him; for it may so happen that Two Authors, writing upon the same Principles, may agree very near in these Things; besides the Resemblance of the Style is not so great as Garnerius would have us believe. The Proofs which he brings to show that this Treatise is none of Maximus' are not of any greater Weight: He says this Book was written before the Creed of Ephesus, because there is no Mention in it of the Nestorians and Eutychians: That from Maximus' Time the Question was no longer treated of de Genito & Ingenito: That there is no Probability, that Maximus should dispute against the Anomaeans, without opposing the Eutychians, and Monothelites. 'Tis easy to confute these Conjectures, by saying, that Maximus in these Books disputed against the ancient Heresies, and that he sufficiently opposed those of his own Time in his other Books. ; and he does not sufficiently refute the Assertion of Father Combefis.  
The following Book, entitled, A Tragedy, is falsely attributed to St. Athanasius. Photius in Cod. 46. sets down all the Titles of the Questions which are handled in this Book, with some others that are not found there, and ascribes them to Theodoret. Garnerius upon the Credit of Marius Mercator attributes them to Etherius Tyanaeus a Disciple of Theodoret.  
The Questions to Antiochus, and those that follow them, are yet later 
oo The Questions to Antiochus, and those that follow them, are yet later.] In these Questions to Antiochus, the Author citys many Writers more modern than St. Athanasius, as Gregory Nyssen in his 8th. The Author of the Book ascribed to St. Denys, Ibid. St. Epiphanius Question 3. And many others in other Places. They have nothing of the Style of St. Athanasius, and the Author in many Places is of a contrary Opinion: In short, in Athanasius' Time, those kind of Questions that were more Curious than useful, were not suffered. The Questions that follow about the Explication of some Doubts upon Places of Holy Scripture, and the other anonymous Questions are by the same Author as the preceding, and are only a Collection of Passages, taken out of St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Climacus, St. Maximus, which are sometimes recited under their Names. The Author of these Questions calls the Occidentalists by the Name of Franks, and says that the Romans are a Nation of the Franks, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Which plainly discovers that they were composed by the Modern Greeks, after the Empire of the West came to the Franks. The modern Greeks have made many such Collections, which they have put forth under the Name of ancient and famous Fathers.  than those Books of which we have already spoken: These were made by some Modern Greek, and seem to be all written by the same Author. The Homily of the Vigils of Easter, has nothing of the Style of St. Athanasius, but is dry and barren, and full of affected Figures. The Fragments of the Commentary upon the Psalms; related by Nicetas in his Catena, are very dubious, and so much the more, because we have no account in the Ancients that St. Athanasius ever composed a Commentary upon the Psalms. The same must be said of the Passages taken out of the Catena upon Job; for there is not much Credit to be given to these Catena's made by the Modern Greeks. But the Passages cited by Theodoret; are more valuable, for they are almost all found in some of the Works of St. Athanasius which we have mentioned, excepting only those which he citys as taken out of a large Discourse of this Father about Faith. We must also acknowledge for Genuine the Fragment of a Treatise of St. Athanasius upon these words of Jesus Christ, My Soul is troubled, which is recited in the Sixth Council, Art. 14. for besides the Authority of this Council, which citys it as St. Athanasius', 'tis easy to perceive, that it has the Style and Air of this Father. 'Tis also very probable, that the Passages cited by Gelasius and St. John Damascene, and set down at the end of the Second Volume, P. 547, and 548, are St. Athanasius'. The Passage of a Letter to Eupsychius 
pp The Passage of a Letter to Eupsychius.] Theodoret and the Council of Chalcedon cite a Letter of Atticus of Constantinople Successor to St. Chrysostom, directed to Eupsychius. St. Athanasius mentions one Eupsychius Bishop of Cappadocia, Orat. 1. against Ar. But the sixth Council says, that the Eupsychius mentioned by him was a Priest of Caesarea. , recited in Latin in the Sixth Council, is not so certainly his, for it is not written in his Style, and we read nowhere else that St. Athanasius ever wrote to Eupsychius. Photius mentions a Commentary of St. Athanasius upon Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles; we have nothing of it at present and I doubt very much, whether it was St. Athanasius', since Photius himself confesses, that it had not the Style of his other Works, and that none of the Ancients, mention it. The Eleven Books of the Unity of the Godhead in the Trinity, belong to Vigilius 
qq The Eleven Books and the Conference of Arius and S. Athanasius, belong to Vigilius Tapsensis.] It has been observed long since that these were the Works of a Latin Author, who wrote long after S. Athanasius. Sirmondus first discovered that they were written by Vigilius Tapsensis. This he observed in his Notes upon Theodolphus of Orleans, where he says, that these Two Books are found in an ancient Manuscript, together with the Books of this African Bishop against Nestorius and Eutyches, in which he testifies himself that he composed these Dialogues under the Name of St. Athanasius. , a Deacon of afric, and afterwards Bishop of Tapsa, as well as the Dialogue, or Conference of Arius and St. Athanasius, which follows these Eleven Books.  
The Exhortation to the Monks, and to the Spouse of Jesus Christ, which is in the Collection of Holstenius, has nothing of the Style of St. Athanasius, no more than the Book entitled, Instructions abridged for Monks and Christians, published not long ago in Greek and Latin, by Arnoldus, and printed at Paris by the Widow Martin, in the Year 1685. These Books are written in a mean Style, and contain such Rules and Precepts, as neither agree with the Person, nor the Genius of St. Athanasius.  
The Letters of St. Athanasius to the Bishops of Egypt, to the Pope's Marcus and Felix 
rr To the Pope's Marcus and Felix.] 1. The Author of this Letter to Marcus, uses the Words of the Epistle to Felix. 2. The Author of this Letter places the Persecution against St. Athanasius, which happened in 355, under Liberius, Nineteen Years after the Death of Pope Marcus. 3. This Letter is composed of Passages of Authors who lived since St. Athanasius, as St. Leo, Atticus, St. Cyril, St. Celestine, etc. 4. He says, that there were Eighty Canons of the Nicene Council, Forty Greek and Forty Latin, which is a manifest Falsehood. 5. He adds, that he reduced them to Seventy, that there might be as many Canons as there were Disciples of Jesus Christ, and Languages in the World; which is the Height of Impertinence. 6. The Style is very different from that of St. Athanasius, and is of a Latin Author. 7. In 336, when this Letter is supposed to be written, St. Athanasius was in Gaul, and consequently could not write from Alexandria. In a Word, the Letter is dated the 1st. of December, and Marcus died the same Year, in the Beginning of November. The same Reasons, prove that the Answer could not be written by Marcus, for 'tis dated about a Month after his Death. The Letter written to Felix has as many Marks of Falshood. 1. St. Athanasius never communicated with this false Pope. 2. It has not the Style of St. Athanasius, but of a Latin Author. 3. 'Tis composed of Passages taken out of St. Innocent, Celestine, the Roman Council, & Adrian. 4. When Felix was chosen, St. Athanasius lay concealed, and could not then assemble a Synod. The Answer of Felix is composed of Passages out of the decretal Epistles forged by Isidore, and of Testimonies out of the Fathers; and the Date of the Consuls is false. , and those of these Popes to these Bishops, are notoriously False and Supposititious.  
The Relation of the Passion of the Image of Jesus Christ in the City of Berytus 
ss The Relation of the Passion of the Image of Jesus Christ in the City of Berytus.] Sigibert in his Chronicle, relates this Story at the Year 765, and so the Treatise which he citys cannot be St. Athanasius'. I shall give a short Account of the Story; and leave the Reader to judge whether it be fabulous or no. 'Tis said, that a Christian having over-against his Bed an Image of Jesus Christ which was of his natural Bigness, removing out of his Lodging, forgot it in the Lodging where it was, though he knew that Jesus Christ gave it to Nicodemus, who left it to Gamaliel, and that from Gamaliel it passed to St. James, and from St. James to Simeon, and from him to Zachaeus, and so it passed from Hand to Hand till the Destruction of Jerusalem: That a Jew having hired the House where this Image was, for some time did not perceive it; but having invited some of his Friends to eat with him, they discovered it, and after that, all the Jews assembled together to beat it, and one of them having pierced it with a Lance, there came forth Blood and Water, which wrought Abundance of Miracles. The Title of this Story says, that it happened under Constantine and Irene. 'Tis related also in the 2d. Council of Nice, and 'tis said, that it made the Fathers of the Council to weep. , cannot be St. Athanasius'; since the History which is there related, happened not, as is pretended, till the Year 765, and moreover, it is full of Fables, and unworthy of St. Athanasius.  
The Fragment upon the Incarnation, against the Disciples of Paulus Samosatenus, is done by an ancient Author; but we have it not in Greek, and there is no proof that it was St. Athanasius'.  
The other Fragment of the Sabbath, is an Extract from part of the Homily upon the same Subject, which is in Greek, Vol. I. of St. Athanasius' Works.  
The Seven Homilies published by Holstenius, have nothing of the Style of St. Athanasius, but are written by some late Greek Declaimer. There is nothing in them that is useful or sublime; and they come not near the Noble Simplicity of St. Athanasius' Writings, as those who have any relish of such things, are all agreed.  
The Four other Discourses published by Father Combefis, tho' they are more useful than the former, yet they are not St. Athanasius'. The First rejects so expressly the Errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, that 'tis plain, 'twas composed after these Two Heretics had published their Doctrine.  
The Two Last about Easter and Ascension, are attributed in some Manuscripts to St. Basil of Seleucia, and 'tis probable that they are all Four written by him. St. John Damascene, or the Author of a Discourse upon the Dead, citys a Discourse of St. Athanasius, upon the same Subject; but we have none that bears this Title; and 'tis probable that this which is cited by this Author, is supposititious. I say nothing of the Commentary upon the Psalms, which in its First Edition, bore the Name of St. Athanasius, because now 'tis certainly known, that 'twas written by Theophylact.  
When we consider the Works of St. Athanasius, with respect to the Subject on which they treat, they may be distinguished into four sorts: The First, are Historical, and relate to the History of his own time; the Second sort, are purely Dogmatical; the Third concern Morality; and the Last, are upon the Holy Scriptures. His Apologies ought to be ranked under the First Head. The First Apology was written immediately after he was driven out of Alexandria, and is addressed to the Emperor Constantius. There he refutes the Calumnies which his Enemies had made use of, to render him odious to Constantius. And the better to insinuate himself into the Emperor's Favour; he gins his Discourse with saying, That he made his Defence with much assurance before an Emperor, who had been long a Christian, and whose Ancestors had embraced the true Religion: That having made use of the Words of St. Paul, for his own Defence, he took him for his Intercessor with the Emperor, to whom, no doubt, he would give a favourable Hearing. Then he adds, That 'twas not necessary for him to purge himself from the Accusation relating to Ecclesiastical Matters, which his Enemies had formerly framed against him, since as to them he was sufficiently justified by the Testimony of an infinite Number of Bishops, and by the Retraction of Ursacius and Valens, who had acknowledged, that all those Accusations were pure Calumnies invented by them to destroy him; and that tho' these things were not so, yet he ought not to have any regard to an Information made in his absence by his Enemies, which should be of no weight, according to all Laws both Divine and Humane. And therefore without insisting upon those former Accusations in this Apology, he refutes those which were made use of since his Return, to blacken his Reputation with the Emperor. First of all, he is accused of having spoken ill of this Emperor to his Brother Constans. But he takes God to Witness, that he never did it, and says, That it had been a madness in him, to have attempted so bold a thing: That Constans would never have suffered it: That he had not so great an Interest in him, as to dare say any thing against his Brother: That he never spoke to him, but in the presence of many Persons who were Witnesses of what he said. But to prove the falseness of this Accusation beyond exception, he makes a faithful Relation of all that passed in his Voyage to Italy; wherein he says, That he parted from Alexandria, to put his Person and Reputation under the Protection of the Church of Rome; That ●e assisted at the Assemblies of the Faithful there; That he wrote but twice to Constans, while he stayed at Alexandria: The First time to defend himself against some Letters full of Calumnies, which his Enemies had wrote to him; And the Second time, to send him some Copies of the Holy Scriptures; and that he never went to wait on him but twice, and both times by his own Order. At Last, he says, That the Emperor may judge by the manner of his speaking of his greatest Enemies, whether he was capable of speaking ill of him to his own Brother. The Second Accusation was no less heinous, for they accused him of having written a Letter to the Tyrant Magnentius, and they said, That they had the Original of his Letter. To which St. Athanasius answers, That this Accusation had no appearance of Truth; That he had never seen nor known Magnentius; That he never had occasion to write to him; That he had all the reason in the World, to detest him, and to hold no Correspondence with him; That the first Calumny destroyed this, since 'twas incredible, that one who was so much for the Interest of Constans, should be of this Tyrant's Faction, who had revolted from him, and cruelly killed him. And as to their pretending to have this Letter, he says, 'Twas not to be wondered at, that they had found out an Impostor, since 'twas very well known, that they had counterfeited the Emperor's Letters. But he prays Constantius, to inquire from whence they had this Letter, and who gave it them; and to Summon before him the Secretaries of Magnentius, and inform himself, if they had ever received it: He conjures him to examine this Cause, as if Truth itself were present at his Decision; for, says he, If they had accused me before any other Judge, I might have appealed to the Emperor; but being accused before the Emperor, to whom can I appeal, but to the Father of him who is called the Truth, that is, to God? Then he addresses to him in a lively and elegant Prayer, That he might enlighten the mind of the Emperor, to judge in a Cause which concerned the whole Church. The third Accusation is concerning his Celebration of the Holy Mysteries in the Great Church before it was Consecrated: To which he answers, That he did not Celebrate the Dedication of this Church, which he could not do, without the Order of the Emperor; but he confesses, that he did Celebrate there the Divine Mysteries before its Consecration. He excuses himself upon the account of the great Concourse of People that came to Alexandria on Easter-Day; and says, That the old Churches were small and few in Number, and that the People demanding earnestly to Assemble in the Great Church, there to make Prayers for the Safety of the Emperor, he used much entreaty, but in vain, that they would delay it, and rather Assemble, tho' with some inconvenience, in the other Churches; and they would not obey him, but on the contrary, were ready to go out of Alexandria, to keep their Assembly in the Fields: That this was the reason which obliged him to Celebrate in the Great Church before it was Consecrated, which he did so much the rather, because during the Fast of Lent, many Persons had been hurt in the press of the People. That 'twas not a thing without Example, that he had Celebrated Divine Offices in a Church, before its Dedication. That his Predecessor had done the like in the Church of St. Theonas, which he had built, and he had seen the same done at Aquileia: That 'twas much more convenient to Celebrate in a place that was intended for the Assemblies of the Faithful, tho' it was not yet Consecrated, than to do it in the Fields, or in those Churches, where the People were in danger of being stifled. He observes, That tho' there had been no such fear of Danger, yet 'twas more expedient, that all the Faithful should offer up their Prayers together in one and the same Place, (tho' 'twas not yet Consecrated,) than that they should do it apart in several Places. He was also accused of disobeying the Emperor's Orders, when he commanded him to departed from Alexandria. To which he answers, That he was not disobedient to his Orders, but that Montanus having brought him the Letter in which the Emperor permits him to departed from Alexandria, and go for Italy, as if he had asked leave; he did not think 'twas the Emperor's Intention that he should withdraw, but that his Enemies had informed the Emperor, that he desired to retire. That afterwards Diogenes came to Alexandria, without bringing any Letter or Order from the Emperor, and at his Arrival, 'twas sufficiently published, that he must withdraw, but still there was no Order for it to him from the Emperor, either by Word of Mouth, or in Writing: That he always said, He was ready to departed, whensoever the Emperor should Write to him, or Command him to do so; but 'twas agreed not to trouble the Church, till such time as he should receive his Orders: That Twenty Three Days after, Syrianus, General of the Army in Egypt, entered into the Church with his Soldiers, the People being there at Prayers, on the Vigil when we ought to Celebrate Divine Mysteries; that there be committed great Outrages, and obliged him to retire into a Desert; and so he was neither Guilty for Flying, nor for Disobeying the Orders of the Emperor. He says, That if he had retired sooner, he had been Guilty both before God and Men, for 'tis a great Crime in a Bishop, to abandon his Flock, when he is not absolutely forced to do it. He adds, That he intended to go and wait upon the Emperor, and was come out of the Desert upon this Design, and tho' he knew very well the Ill treatment those Bishops had met with that refused to Sign against him, and the Violence that had been used against those of Alexandria, who took his part; yet he did not give over his intended Voyage upon that Account, but having seen an Order to seize him, sent to the Magistrates of Auxumis, he apprehended the Rage of his Enemies, and therefore returned again to hid himself in his Solitude.  
In the First Apology for his Flying, he justifies himself against the Arians, who accused him of timorousness: He describes the Deadly Effects of their Fury, and the Mischiefs they had done to the greatest Bishops of the World, Hosius, Liberius, Paul of Constantinople, and many others. He shows by the Examples of Jacob, Moses, David, Elias, St. Paul and Jesus Christ; and by the Command of Christ in Matt. 10. That 'tis lawful to fly from Persecution, and that 'tis oftentimes of greater Use than to expose ourselves to danger: He observes, That the Saints who delivered themselves up to their Persecutors, did it by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. He demands of his Adversaries, where they had learned, that 'tis permitted to Persecute, and not permitted to Fly: He objects to them, that the Devil is the cause of Persecution, and that Jesus Christ has advised Flight. At last, he complains of the Violence they used against himself, and the Mischiefs they still do to the Church.  
In the Second Apology, he justifies himself from the former Accusations made against him, by setting down the Judgements given in his Favour, in the Councils of Egypt, Rome and Sardica, whose Letters he produces at full length. These Monuments are very considerable for the History of that Time, because there are particular Remarks in them about the Discipline of the Church: As, for instance, we learn from the Letter of the Synod of Alexandria, that the Bishop of Alexandria was chosen by the People, and ordained by the Bishops of the whole Province of Egypt; That the Ecclesiastical Laws forbidden the Translations of Bishops; That the Mystery of the Eucharist was carefully concealed from those that were no Christians; That 'twas an Impiety to break a Chalice, and to spill the Blood of Jesus Christ; That the Eucharist was given to the Laics in both kinds; That 'twas Consecrated on Sunday, and that 'twas kept for some time; That none but Priests lawfully ordained could consecrate and distribute it; That the Bishop had a Throne, or a Seat, that was raised higher than other Seats. Julius the Bishop of Rome, maintains in his Letter, That he could examine anew in one Synod what had been ordained in another, and alleges the Example, rather than the Authority of the Council of Nice. He lays claim to this Power, and complains that St. Athanasius was condemned without sending him notice: He blames the Eusebians for sending a Stranger, that lived almost 60 Leagues off from Alexandria, to take Possession of the Episcopal See of that City. After this, he recites two Letters from the Council of Sardica, one addressed to the Church of Alexandria, and the other to all the Bishops of the World, which contain an ample Justification of St. Athanasius; and the last contains the Subscriptions of many Bishops who Subscribed in this Council afterwards. And after these Letters, there follow three Letters of Constantius to St. Athanasius, commanding him to return; one Letter of Julius to the Church of Alexandria, wherein he congratulates the Alexandrians upon the Return of their Bishop; the Letters of Recommendation which Constantius gave him to return to Alexandria, the Letter of the Synod of Jerusalem to the Church of Alexandria in favour of St. Athanasius, and last of all, the Retractation of Ursacius and Valens addressed to Julius, wherein they declare, That all which was said against Athanasius was false, that they acknowledged Arius for an Heretic, and anathematised his Error; and one Letter from the same Bishops addressed to St. Athanasius, wherein they declare, that they are of his Communion. After St. Athanasius has thus produced these Instruments of his Absolution, being desirous to show that he had done nothing partially, out of favour to himself, goes back again as far as the Beginning of the Schism of Meletius and the Heresy of Arius, and gives an account of all that passed upon this occasion until his Exile, reciting the Authentic Acts to justify all that he Asserts: So that for the future, to read the History of that time, one should begin at the Second Part of this Apology, which gins towards the middle of P. 777. of the Greek and Latin Edition at Paris, and then resume the Beginning of the History, when he shall have finished this Second Part.  
He wrote also this History long before with more order, and deduces it higher in his Book which is called, A Letter to those that lead a Monastic Life. After he has there related all that passed about the Cause of Arianism till the Council of Sar●ica, he insists upon the Circumstances of the Banishment of Pope Liberius. He says, That the Arians did not at all spare him, that they had not any respect for the City of Rome, the Metropolis of the whole Roman Empire, nor for the holy Apostolical See; that by their Instigation, the Emperor had sent a Bishop to Rome, to persuade the Bishop there to Condemn St. Athanasius. But Liberius refusing him, answered, That it was against the Canons to condemn a Man that is absent, who had been judged worthy of Communion while he was present at Rome; That if the Emperor would determine the Controversies of the Church, he should assemble a Free Council, where there was neither Prince, nor Courtier, and where all things might be decided in the Fear of God, and according to the Doctrine of the Apostles; and where every one should follow the Faith of the Council of Nice, and from whence those should be excluded that would not profess to follow it; and afterwards the Council might Examine the Matters now in Debate. He adds, That the Bishop having entered into the Church of St. Peter to consecrate the Presents that were brought to Liberius, as soon as he understood that they were intended to procure his Subscription against St. Athanasius, he reproved the Sacristan for receiving them, and threw them out of the Church as Sacrilegious Offerings: That when these things were told to the Emperor, he caused him to be brought to Constantinople, and that the Pope spoke to him more sharply than he had done at Rome, whereupon he was sent into Banishment; and there he was forced at last to subscribe for fear of Death, after he had resisted for the space of two Years. After this, he describes the Fall of Hosius; and tells us, that Constantius being solicited by the Arians, who would fain engage to their Party a Bishop of so great Authority, exhorted him to Subscribe; and that the Holy Man not only could not endure the Proposal, but persuaded the Emperor to let him alone, and retired into his own Country: And that the Arians still continuing to solicit the Emperor, he wrote many Letters, filled sometimes with fair Promises, sometimes with Threats, to oblige him to Condemn Athanasius. But the Generous Old-man answered him in a Letter which St. Athanasius produces, wherein he declares to him that he had suffered under the Reign of Maximian for the Faith, and that he was still ready to suffer, and to shed his Blood for the defence of Innocence and Truth; he advises him not to hearken to those Easterlings, any more than he would do to Ursacius and Valens. He tells him, That he was Mortal, and that he ought to be afraid of the Day of Judgement; That he ought to meddle no more in Ecclesiastical Matters, than the Bishops should in Temporals. His words are excellent, which are these; [Remember, says he, that you are Mortal, fear the Day of Judgement, keep yourself in Purity, that you may appear there amongst the number of the Elect: Do not meddle at all in Ecclesiastical Affairs, and Command us nothing about those Matters; but learn them of us. God has given the Power of the Empire into your hands, and has entrusted with us that which concerns the Church; and as he who Invades your Empire, acts against the Order of God, so take heed that you render not yourself Guilty of a very heinous Crime, by assuming to yourself a Power in those things which are of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.▪ 'tis written, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's; So than we are not permitted to govern the Empire of the World, and you, Sir, have no Power at all in things that are Sacred.] After this, St. Athanasius relates the Violence that was done to H●sius to make him Subscribe, and how the Emperor caused him to go to Sirmium, where he detained him till he had communicated with Ursacius and Valens. The rest of this Letter is a very vehement Declamation, against the Outrages and Persecutions of Constantius and the Arians; to which is added, a Protestation of the People of Alexandria, concerning the Violences that were used against St. Athanasius.  
The Book of the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia, contains not only the History of these two Councils, but also of the Principal Creeds made by the Bishops of Arius' Faction after that which was made by the Council of Nice, which he sets down in its full length. From thence he takes occasion to treat of the word, Consubstantial, which he maintains against the Arians; and yet he acknowledges, that they are not to be treated as Heretics, who scruple to make use of this word, though they confess the Faith of the Divinity of the Son: He explains in what sense this word was condemned in the Council of Antioch, held against Paulus Samosatenus, and alleges for his sense the Testimony of the two Dionysii, who made use of this word.  
Besides these Works of St. Athanasius, which contain the Deduction of the History of that time, there are some others which concern particular Facts.  
The First is the Book of the Definitions of the Council of Nice, wherein he defends the Decisions of this Council, and taketh notice of the considerable Circumstances of it. He says, That the Bishops of the Council, who were about 300 in number, desired the Arians with great meekness, to justify themselves, but scarce had they begun to speak, when all the Bishops disapproved them; That the Heretics could not agree among themselves, but were obliged to keep silence, and then the Bishops made the Creed, which was signed by the Eusebians; That Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, who had refused to sign the day before, approved of it next day, and wrote to those of his Church about it. After this, he Disputes against the Impiety of the Arians, who had relapsed into their former Error, and proves that the Son of God was from all Eternity. He Justifies the Terms which are used by the Nicene Council in their Creed, and says, The word Consubstantial, has a very good sense, and that there is none more proper to express a formal Condemnation of the Error of the Arians: And he adds moreover, that this word is not new, since Theognostus, Denys of Alexandria, Denys of Rome, and Origen have used it long before the Council of Nice; that this Synod had not established any new Doctrine, but confirmed that which was approved by Scripture and Tradition. He observes, that in Matters of Faith, its Decisions did not run in the same manner as those that were made about the Celebration of Easter, when this Phrase was used, It pleases us, we will have it so; for now they only say, This is the Catholic Faith; Ita credit Catholica Ecclesia.  
The Second Book of this Nature, is a Letter to the Bishops of Egypt, which is improperly called, The First Discourse against the Arians. There he describes the Outrages which the Arians committed against the Catholics, and exhorts his Brethren to shun their Snares: He warns them by no means to Subscribe their Confession of Faith, how Catholic soever it may appear to them, but to adhere to that of the Council of Nice, in which the Impiety of Arius was condemned. Then he recites the principal Heads of his Error, and refutes them by the Testimonies of Holy Scripture. He describes the miserable End of this Heretic; and concludes with an Exhortation to the Catholics to maintain the Faith unto Death; representing unto them, that he is not only a Martyr who suffers Death for refusing to offer unto Idols, but also he that dies rather than betray the Truth.  
The Letter to all the Orthodox Bishops was written about the same Time, and upon the same Subject: There he gives an Account of the violent manner of introducing George into the Church of Alexandria, and describes the Fury of the Arians, and the Damage the Church has suffered by them very particularly.  
In the two Letters to Lucifer, he describes the Persecutions which the Arians set on foot against the Catholics, and represents the lamentable State of the Church.  
In the Letter to Serapion concerning the Death of Arius, he relates the Unhappy End of this Heretic, who perished in a Jakes the very Night before he was to be received into the Church. St. Athanasius says, That he learned this Story from the Relation of Macarius, a Presbyter.  
The Letter written by St. Athanasius concerning the Opinion of Dionysius of Alexandria, concerning the Trinity, may be numbered amongst his Historical Books, because it teaches us a very considerable Point of Ecclesiastical History, which we should not have known if St. Athanasius had not reported it there; namely, That Denys of Alexandria wrote against the Sabellians of Pentapolis, and that in Disputing against them, he made use of such Expressions, as would make one believe that he favoured the contrary Error; That he was accused of this in a Synod held at Rome; That he wrote a Treatise to the Pope, entitled, A Refutation and Apology, wherein he defends himself and confutes his Adversaries; and that he taught in this Book a Doctrine perfectly contrary to that of the Arians: All which St. Athanasius proves in this Treatise, by citing several Passages out of the Book of Denys of Alexandria.  
The Letter of the Council of Alexandria, to those of Antioch, concerns the State of the Church of Antioch after the Death of Constantius, St. Athanasius and the other Bishops of this Council, advise the Church of Antioch to receive the Arians who expressly condemn their Error, to join themselves to Paulinus and those of his Party, to admit into their Communion those that held their Assemblies in the Old City, that is to say, those of Meletius' Party, without requiring any other Profession of Faith, but that of the Council of Nice. They give them notice, That there was no Creed made in the true Council of Sardica; they advise them to have no Disputes among themselves about the Hypostases, since those who acknowledged Three in the Trinity, and those who owned but One, were both of the same Judgement, and only differed in the manner of Expression.  
St. Athanasius speaks after the same manner of the Reception of the Arians, in a Letter to Ruffinian, where he mentions the Decision of this Synod.  
In a Letter to the Emperor Jovian, St. Athanasius and the other Bishops of Egypt, propose to him the Nicene Creed as the only true one: They say, That this contains the Faith which was maintained by many holy Martyrs, who are now with Jesus Christ, that it had never had any Adversaries, if the Malice of the Heretics had not endeavoured to corrupt it; but that Arius and his Followers intending to introduce a New Doctrine contrary to the Truth, the Council of Nice condemned it, and made a Confession of Faith to establish the Truth, and extinguish the Flame that was kindled by his Partisans: That this Creed was praised and sincerely believed in all the Churches of Christ, till some Bishops, having a mind to revive the Error of the Arians, began to despise it; and yet they did not openly declare themselves against it, but only in their Explications of it they reflected obliquely upon the Consubstantiality, and spoke Blasphemies against the Holy Spirit. After they have thus explained the Nicene Creed, they set it down, and tell the Emperor, That this is the only Creed to which we must adhere.  
I say nothing of the Conferences of the Arians and St. Athanasius, because they contain little remarkable.  
The Catholic Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Cilicia, and Phoenicia, was written, as well as the preceding Letters, in the Name of the Synod of Egyptian Bishops, in which St. Athanasius presided. They Exhort the Bishops to whom they writ, to separate themselves from the Arians, to act unanimously in the Defence of the Faith, and not to dissemble the Truth for Fear or Ambition; and to acknowledge the Divinity of the Holy Spirit: and at last they propose to them as a Badge and Test of the true Faith, these words, The Consubstantial Trinity.  
The Letter to the Africans was written upon the same Subject in the Name of St. Athanasius, and 82 Egyptian Bishops; wherein they recommend the Faith of the Nicene Council established by 318 Bishops, published and received by all the World, because this Synod had followed the Doctrine, and manner of Expression used by the Holy Scriptures, and the Fathers.  
In the Letter to John and Antiochus Presbyters, St. Athanasius rejoices because he understood by their Letters written from Jerusalem, that a great number of Brethren were reunited in one and the same Communion; he reproves those that would trouble the Church by their Disputes about words, and wonders that any should dare to reprehend the Doctrine of St. Basil.  
In the following Letter to Palladius, he commends him for being Orthodox, and approves of his staying with Innocent. He rebukes those Monks that would not obey St. Basil, but praises this Bishop, saying he was the Glory of the Church, for he contended for the Truth, and taught those that needed Instruction, and none could be good Catholics that had any Dispute with him. He adds, That he had written to his Monks to obey him as their Father, and that they were to blame for complaining of him. Probably 'twas about the Question of the Hypostases, that the Monks had some Dispute with St. Basil.  
After we have spoken of his Historical Works, let us now come to the Dogmatical.  
The First of these, are the two Treatises against the Gentiles, whereof the Second is now entitled, Of the Incarnation. In the First of these two Books he Opposes Idolatry, and Establishes the Worship of the true God: he discovers the source of Idolatry, that it comes from the Corruption of Man's Heart, who being created after the Image of God, fell under the guilt of Adam's Sin, and inherited from him an unhappy Inclination to Sin, which the Will does very often follow, though it be free to resist it. From this Principle he concludes, in the first place, against the Heretics, That 'tis not necessary there should be two Principles, or two Gods, one Good, the Author of Good; and another Evil, the Author of Evil. He refutes this Impious Opinion by Reason and Authority, and concludes that Sin is not a Substance, but that it entered into the World by the Fall of the First Man. He observes that this is the source of all Idolatry, that Men being fallen from their first Estate do no longer raise their Heart and Spirit to things Spiritual, but fix them on things Terrestrial and Sensible. He refutes afterwards the different kinds of Idolatry, and shows that we ought not to Worship, nor Acknowledge for Divinities, either the Gods of the Poets, or the World, or any part of it. After he has thus overthrown all kinds of Idolatry, he establishes the Existence and Worship of the true God: He demonstrates, that God may be known by the Light of Nature, 1. From ourselves, that's to say, by Reflection upon our own Thoughts, that he is neither Corporeal, nor Mortal. 2. From the Beauty of the Universe, which discovers the Existence of him as the Cause of it: Then he shows that this God is the Father of Jesus Christ, and that he created all things, and governs them by his Word.  
The Second Treatise against the Gentiles, is that which is entitled, Of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ; because there he treats of that Mystery. For explaining the Causes of it, he goes back as far as the Beginning of the World; and proves that it was not made by chance, nor framed of an Eternal Matter, but that God the Father created it by his Word. After this, he speaks of the Fall of Man, who being created after the Image of God, addicted himself to things corruptible and perishing, and so became the Cause of his own Misery and Corruption. He says, that the Fall of Man was the cause of the Incarnation of the Word; because God pitying Man, resolved to send his Son to Save him, and to give him the means of obtaining that Immortality which he had lost. Upon this Principle he found'st the Necessity of the Incarnation of the Word; which he proves, First, Because the Son being the Essential Image of his Father, there was none but he that could render Man like to God, as he was before his Fall: 2. Because as the Word is the Reason and Wisdom of his Father, there is none but he can teach Men and undeceive them of their Errors. From the Causes of the Incarnation, he passes to its Effects, and after he has described the Graces which the Word has merited for Mankind by his Incarnation, he speaks of his Death; and shows, that he was to die as he did, by the Torments of the Cross, that by his Death he might conquer Death both in himself and us. Lastly, He proves the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by the wonderful Effects that followed his Death, and by the contempt of Death wherewith it inspired his Disciples. After he has thus explained the Doctrine of Christians, he refutes the Jews and Pagans, the former by proving from the Prophets that Jesus is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament; and the latter, from the Miracles of Jesus Christ, from the destruction of Idolatry, and the Establishment of the Doctrine of the Gospel; which, though contrary to the Lusts and Passions of Men, was entertained without difficulty, and in a little time by the greatest part of the World. He concludes these Discourses with an Advertisement to his Friend Macarius, to whom they are directed, That he should have recourse to the Holy Scripture, which is the Fountain from whence these things are drawn; to which he adds this Remark, that for the better understanding of it, we should lead a Life like to that of the Authors of these holy Books.  
St. Athanasius wrote but two Treatises against the Gentiles, for his other Dogmatical Treatises are either about the Trinity, or the Incarnation. The Four Discourses against the Arians are the chief of his Dogmatical Works. In the First, which is called the Second, he convicts the Sect of the Arians of Heresy; for which end, he first makes use of an Argument which he employs against all Heretics, which is the Novelty of their Sect, and the Name which it bears; Then he explains their Doctrine, and proves, that 'tis Impious, full of Blasphemies, and comes near to that of the Jews and Gentiles. Lastly, He refutes their Reasons, and clears up a great many difficulties which they propose against the Doctrine of the Church.  
In the Second Treatise, which is the Third in the common Editions, he explains some of the Passages which the Arians allege, to prove that the Son is a Creature, and insists chief upon that in Chap. 8. of the Proverbs, The Lord hath created me in the beginning of his ways, etc. He says towards the end, That the Arians run a hazard of having no true Baptism; because to make this Sacrament valid, 'tis not sufficient to pronounce the words, but we must also have a right understanding of them, and a right Faith. He adds, That if the Baptism of other Heretics who pronounce the same words, be null and void, because they have not a true Faith, 'tis to be thought, that we ought to give the same Judgement of the Baptism of the Arians, who are become the worst of all Heretics. These words of St. Athanasius show, That in his time, those that had been Baptised by Heretics, were Rebaptised in the Church of Alexandria, though they had been Baptised in the Name of the Trinity.  
In the Third Discourse, which is reckoned for the Fourth, he proves, That the Father and the Son have but one and the same Substance, and one and the same Nature, and that they are one God only, though they be two distinct Persons. Afterwards he shows that all that is said of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures, which seems unworthy of his Divinity, should be applied to his Humane Nature, because Christ being a Person composed of the Divine and Humane Nature, the Properties of both these Natures may be attributed unto him. At last, he examines a Question proposed by the Arians, viz. Whether the Father begot his Word voluntarily or necessarily: To which he answers, That he begot him naturally and not by constraint, and so in this sense he begot him voluntarily, because he would beget him, though he could not but beget him.  
In the last Discourse he refutes the Arians, proving that the Word is Eternal and Consubstantial to the Father, and the Sabellians, who denied that the Son was a Person distinct from the Person of the Father; and the Paulianists, who distinguished the Word from the Son of God, and the Paraclete from the Holy Spirit.  
The Discourse upon the words of the Gospel of St. Matth. Ch. 11. My Father has given me all things, etc. contains a Refutation of that false Conclusion which the Arians drew from those words, by saying, That if the Father had given all things to his Son in time, so that there was a time when he had not all things, and by consequence he had not always a Supreme Empire over the Creatures, from whence it would follow, that he was not equal to the Father: To which St. Athanasius answers, That this Passage does not treat of the Absolute Power of God over his Creatures, but concerns the Mystery of the Incarnation. That the Father has given Mankind to Jesus Christ, as a Sick Person is left to a Physician for his Cure: That Man having sinned, and Death being the Punishment of his Sin, the Word became Man, and God gave all Mankind unto him, that he might heal them, and restore to them that Life and Light which they had lost.  
In the Letter to Adelphius, St. Athanasius proves against the Arians, that we must worship the Word in the Person of Jesus Christ.  
In the following Letter to Maximus, he shows, That Jesus Christ is truly God, and truly Man. The Titles of the Letters to Serapion, sufficiently show what they treat about: Against those that say, that the Son and the Holy Spirit are Creatures. The Treatise against the Sabellians, is a Collection of passages out of Holy Scripture, which prove the Trinity of Persons and the Divinity of the Word. The design of the Treatise about the Union of the Humane Nature with the Word, is rather to prove the Divinity of the Son of God, than to explain the Incarnation. The Exposition of Faith, which is in the First Volume, P. 240. is an Explication of the Nicene Creed, concerning the Unity and the Incarnation. The short Discourse against the Arians, is a Writing of the same Nature. The Letter to Epictetus, is the principal Treatise of St. Athanasius, concerning the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, where he refutes the Error and the Arguments of those that maintain that the Flesh of Jesus Christ, was of the same Substance with his Divinity; That the Divinity was changed into the Humanity, or the Humanity into the Divinity; That the Word had adopted a Body without being naturally united to it; That the Body was not assumed in the Womb of the Virgin Mary; That the Divinity did suffer; or in a word, That the Word was a Person different from the Man. In short, He there refutes the foundations of the Error of the Apollinarians and Eutychians, and the principle of the Error of the Nestorians, by showing, That Jesus Christ is one Person composed of a Divine and Humane Nature, wherein all the Properties of those two Natures are found. He refutes the same Errors in the Books of the Incarnation against Apollinarius, in which he proves particularly against this Heretic, That Jesus Christ took one Humane Nature entire and perfect, That it was not destitute of a Soul, nor of Understanding and Will.  
There are few Moral Treatises amongst the Works of St. Athanasius. The Epistle to Dracontius is one of the Chief. [This is rather concerning Discipline, tho' urged with Moral Arguments.] Dracontius was a Monk that had been chosen Bishop: But, either because he was afraid of Persecution, or else because he thought himself unworthy to Govern a Bishopric, he fled and hid himself, lest he should be obliged to take care of the People, of whom he had been ordained Bishop. St. Athanasius in this Letter, reproves his Pusillanimity, and exhorts him to return to his Bishopric. He represents to him, That his Conduct scandalised many Persons; That being ordained Bishop, he was no longer at his own disposal, but owed himself to those for whom he was ordained; That he was obliged to take Care of them, and that he should be answerable for the Salvation of those that should perish for want of Instruction; That he should improve the Talon that God had given him, and take Care of the Flock that God had entrusted him with; That if the Fear of Persecution made him flee from a Bishopric, it was a great weakness in him; but if it was from any dislike of the Episcopal Function, 'twas an injurious Contempt of the Authority and Mystery of Jesus Christ; That he could not excuse himself, by saying, That he had Sworn or Vowed to the contrary, since Jeremy and Ionas were obliged to do contrary to what they had resolved; and besides, That many Monks whom he names, had accepted of a Bishopric, and that this Profession was no hindrance to their Ordination; That a Bishopric was so far from being an occasion of Sin, as some would persuade Dracontius, that it would be rather a means to Sanctify him by his imitating the Apostles; That this State did not hinder, but he might still observe the Customs of the Cloister: [You will be permitted, says he, being a Bishop, to fast, or to abstain from Wine: We have known Monks great Eaters, and Bishops great Fasters: We have seen Monks that drink Wine, and Bishops that drink none: Bishops for the most part live in Celibacy 
* [St. Athanasius' Words are these, Many Bishops never married, and Monks have been Fathers of Children. (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 958. D. Vol. 1.) As these Words are translated, they have quite a different meaning from that which was at first designed by St. Athanasius. He makes his Comparison between those that practised, and those that omitted the Austerities there mentioned, in such a manner as shows that he thought them absolutely indifferent; and besides, there is a great difference between many and the most part. Yet I should not have taken notice of it, if in his account of St. Athanasius' Doctrine, Mr. du Pin had not repeated what he had before observed in this place, and with some Additions; for there he says, That there were Priests and Bishops married, tho' but few. Here is a double mistake; for neither does St. Athanasiu's say, that there be but few Priests or Bishops married, nor does he speak a word of Priests. Monks were not constantly Ordained in those days. St. Anthony, their great Master, was a Layman, and in this very Letter to Dracontius, St. Athanasius, amongst other Arguments to persuade him to accept the Bishopric to which he was Canonically Elected, tells him, That if the Monks desired to have Presbyters among them, to Instruct them in their Duty, they ought not to envy others, who for the same Reason were earnest to have Dracontius for their Bishop.] , and we have seen Monks married: In a word, 'tis permitted to every one, in whatsoever State he is, to use such abstinences as he pleases.] He concludes, with exhorting him to return to his Bishopric before Easter, that his People might not be abandoned, and obliged to Celebrate that Feast without him; and with earnest Entreaties, that he would not hearken to their Counsels, that would hinder his Return: They would, says he, have Priests among themselves, Why then are they unwilling that the People should have Bishops?  
In the Letter to Ammon the Monk; he refutes the Error of some Monks, who condemned the use of Marriage; and shows by the Scripture, that 'tis permitted, and that 'tis an Impiety to condemn it, tho' Virginity is a more perfect State, and deserves greater Rewards.  
The Life of St. Anthony may be reckoned among his Moral Writings, for it contains excellent Instructions for all Monks.  
We must also place among the Moral Works of St. Athanasius his Homily of Circumcision and the Sabbath. There he treats of the Institution of the Sabbath, and thinks that the principal end of its Celebration was not merely to rest, but that it was Instituted to make known the Creator; that the Reason why 'tis abrogated in the New Law, and the Feast of Sunday established in its room, is, because the first Day was the end of the first Creation, and the second was the beginning of the New: For the same Reason he believes that Circumcision was appointed on the eighth Day, to be a figure of that Regeneration which is made by Baptism.  
Lastly, That I may say something of the Treatises of St. Athanasius upon the Holy Scriptures, the Abridgement of the Scriptures, is the most useful of them. There you may see in one view, an Enumeration of all the Canonical Books of the Old Testament according to the Catalogue of the Hebrews, which contains but 22; and he adds those that are not Canonical, but yet are read in the Church to the Catechumen, which according to him, are the Books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith and Tobit; with this Observation, That some placed the Books of Esther and Ruth amongst those which they esteemed Canonical. In the Catalogue of the Canonical Books of the New Testament, he places all those which we acknowledge at present. After he has given us these Catalogues, he makes a very faithful Abridgement of what is contained in every Book, and gives the Reason, why 'tis called by such a Name, and Discourses of the Author that wrote it. Afterwards, he gives a Catalogue of those Apocryphal Books which are of little or no use at all. He speaks particularly of the Four Gospels, their Authors, and the Places where they were composed; he treats in a few Words of the Greek Versions of the Old Testament, and at last, gives a Catalogue of some Books cited in Scripture that are lost. The Fragment of the 39th. Festival Letter is upon the same Subject, and it contains also a Catalogue of the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, and of those that are useful, tho' they be not Canonical, which he distinguishes from these Apocryphal Books, that have been forged by Heretics; and here he follows the same Catalogue which is in the Abridgement: But, he adds to the number of these Books, that may be read to the Catechumen, The Doctrine of the Apostles, and the Book, entitled Pastor.  
The Book to Marcellinus upon the Psalms is also of the same Nature. St. Athanasius, shows there the Excellency of the Book of Psalms, and relates the Subject of many of them, those that are Historical, and those that are Moral. He observes there, That the Book of Psalms, refers to all the Histories of the Old Testament; That it includes all the Prophecies of Jesus Christ; That it expresses all the Opinions which we ought to have, That it contains the Prayers that should be made, and comprizes all the Precepts of Morality: He observes, That there are some Psalms Historical, some Moral, some Prophetical, besides those that consist of Prayers and Praises; all which he distinguishes, and places in their proper Rank and Order. He shows, that the Psalms represent to every one of the Faithful, the State of his own Soul, that every one may see himself there represented, and may observe from the different Passions there expressed, what he feels in his own Heart, and that in whatever State any one is, there he may find Words suitable to his present Disposition, Rules for his Conduct, and Remedies for his Troubles. Wherefore he divides the Psalms according to the different Matters of which they treat, that every one may make use of them according to his Necessities, and according to the different States that he falls into. He adds, That those who Sing, should be of a free and quiet Spirit, that the Melody of their Song, may agree with the Harmony of their Spirit. And last of all, He would not have any Words of the Psalms, which may appear simple, changed, under pretence of making them more Elegant.  
The Treatise upon these Words of Jesus Christ, Whosoever shall speak a word against the Holy Spirit, his sin shall not be forgiven him, neither in this World, nor in the other, is an Explication of this difficult place of Scripture, wherein he first observes, that Origen and Theognostus thought, That the Sin against the Holy Ghost, was the Sin of those who after they were baptised, lost the Grace of Baptism by their Crimes. But St. Athanasius maintains, That this Explication is not Natural, because those that violate their Vows of Baptism, sin no more against the Holy Spirit, than against the Father and the Son, in whose Name Baptism is administered: And to show that this Opinion of the Ancients, is not defensible, he observes, That these Words of Jesus Christ were addressed to the Pharisees who were never baptised, and yet sinned against the Holy Spirit, by saying, That Jesus Christ cast out Devils in the name of Beelzebub: He adds, That if this Explication were admitted, it would give up the Cause to Novatus. He explains the Passage of St. Paul to the Hebrews, where the Apostle says, 'Tis impossible that those who were once baptised should be renewed again, which does not exclude, says St. Athanasius, Repentance after Baptism, but only a second Baptism. After he has rejected this Explication, he advances a New one of his own; and is of Opinion, That to sin against the Holy Ghost, is to deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ, by attributing to the Devil, as the Pharisees did, his most Divine Actions. Thus he explains himself: Those, says he, who observing the Humane Actions of Jesus Christ, considered him as a Man only, were in some measure excusable; Those also who observing his Divine Actions, doubted if he was a Man, were not so much to be blamed: But those who seeing his most Divine Actions, denied his Divinity, by attributing his Actions to the Devil, as the Pharisees and the Arians do, commit so enormous a Crime, that they cannot hope for Pardon. The former sin against the Son of Man, i. e. against the Humanity of Jesus Christ; and the latter sin against the Spirit, i. e. his Divinity. This in short, is the sum of the Explication that St. Athanasius has given of these Words of the Gospel, whereof he treats, and I leave it to the Judgement of the Reader, if he can find another more probable than this of the Ancients.  
We may add likewise to those Treatises of St. Athanasius, upon the Holy Scripture, the Fragments that are found at the end of his Second Volume, and particularly, that which is taken out of the Sixth Council, upon these Words of Jesus Christ, My Soul is exceeding sorrowful.  
I shall make no Extracts out of those Books which I have rejected, as being none of St. Athanasius', tho' there be some things in them which may be useful, because I would make no Confusion, by mixing the Doctrine of another Author with that of this Saint, and therefore without staying to speak of these Books, I proceed to his Character.  
His Style cannot be better described than 'tis already by the Learned Photius, in Vol. 140 of his Bibliotheque. The Discourses of St. Athanasius, says he, are clear, simple and natural, and yet they have much strength and gravity: He places the Reasons which he uses in a wonderful Light; He shows great copiousness of Invention, and a wonderful easiness of Thought. There is in his Works, a Depth of Logic, I do mean of that barren Logic which proposes Reasonings and Syllogisms, without any Ornament, and makes use of Dialectical Terms as Schoolboys do, who would make a show of Wit; but of a Logic like that of the ancient Philosophers, who proposed their Ideas and Reasonings in an excellent manner, accompanied with great Ornaments of Eloquence. He makes use also of Testimonies of the Holy Scripture, and draws from thence convincing Proofs of what he advances. In a word, His Books alone are sufficient for the Refutation of Arianism, and he that should say, That St. Gregory and St. Basil drew from this Fountain those great Torrents of Learning which they employed against this Error, would not be much mistaken The same Photius says also in another place, speaking of the Letters and Apologies of this Father, That they are written with Clearness, Elegance and Grandeur; That he has given a turn at once persuasive and agreeable to all that he says. This Character appears chief in his Apology to the Emperor Constantius, which is a Masterpiece in its kind, for never any Book had a greater Air of Candour and Simplicity than this, never was any Discourse more Elegant, more beautified with Figures, or more persuasive: Here was St. Athanasius' great Excellency in all his Works; they appear simple and open, and yet being closely considered, one may perceive, that they are composed with wonderful Artifice: He observes all along an admirable fitness of Expression, and always adapts his Style to the Subject of which he treats, and to the Persons to whom he speaks. He insinuates himself so dextrously into the mind by his manner of expressing things, that one entertains his Reasons, and feels himself often persuaded by them, before he is ware. How soft soever his Discourse appears, it wants nothing of sharpness; for when he attacks his Enemies, he spares them not in the least, but on the contrary, uses the most smart and emphatical Words that can be found to cover them with Confusion; and to render them Odious, he makes no scruple to load them with the reproachful Names which they have deserved, and to represent the Crimes they have committed, in the most lively Colours that can be drawn with a Masterly Hand: And yet he does it after such a manner, that it seems rather to proceed from a Zeal for the Truths of Religion, than from any Personal hatred which he bears to the Men themselves. The Conduct of this Saint is no less admirable than his manner of Writing. St. Basil gives this Character of him in his 48 Letter, addressed to himself. Who can be found, says he, That has more Prudence than you? Who has a clearer Inspection into the Affairs of the Church, and who has a greater Facility in executing his Designs? Is there any that has more Charity and Compassion for his Brethren? Are not you the Bishop in all the World, that is in most Veneration with those of the West? And in the following Letter he has these Words; The more the Miseries of the Church increase, the more are we obliged, says he, to have recourse unto you; we have no hopes of any Consolation under our Afflictions but by your means, since you can do much, both by your Prayers which are very Effectual, and also by the sharpness of your Wit, whereby you understand at the same time what is most advantageous to the Church. And again in another Letter, When we consider our Calamities, and the State to which we are reduced, we do almost Despair of Safety; but when we cast our Eyes upon you, we take Courage, and consider you as a Physician whom God has given to heal all our Maladies. Who can be a fit Pilot in this Tempest, than he who has all his Life time endured the like Persecutions for the Faith? And truly, 'Tis hard to say, which of the two is most to be admired in St. Athanasius, his unmoveable Constancy and Firmness, which he always showed, or the Prudence that appeared in his Conduct under all his Persecutions. I say nothing of his Humility, his Charity, Pastoral Vigilance, and his other Virtues, because they don't fall directly within the Compass of that Design which I have proposed to myself in this Book.  
His Doctrine is very pure, and his Opinions are not only very Orthodox, but his Expressions are very just and exact. He proves the Existence of a God, the Creation of the World, and Providence, in his Books against the Gentiles. He establishes the Trinity of Three Divine Persons, and the Unity of the Nature and Substance, almost in all his Works; but he explains this Mystery with much simplicity; for he would not amuse the Reader with Disputes about Words, nor search too profoundly into this Matter. He confesses, That he cannot comprehend it, and he will not employ humane Reasonings to Prove or to Explain the Mystery of the Trinity and the Generation of the Word: In short, He shuns as much as he can, to enter upon any of those subtle Questions, which have since unprofitably exercised the Wit of so many School Divines. He speaks admirably of the Fall of the first Man, of the Punishments of Sin, of the Necessity and Effects of the Incarnation of the Son of God. He explains this Mystery in such a manner as is equally contrary to all the Errors of the Heretics of either side; for he teaches against the Paulianists, That the Word is united to the Humanity; against the Valentinians, That it took a Body like ours in the Womb of the Virgin; against the Arians and Apollinarians, That it took a Soul and Spirit; against the Nestorians, That the Divinity is united in the same Person with the Humanity, so that the Virgin may be called the Mother of God; against the Eutychians, That these two Natures subsist in the same Person with their Properties, without Confusion, without Mixture, without Change. He believes, That the Soul is Spiritual and Immortal, and makes no scruple to affirm it as a thing certain, That the Saints are happy and with Jesus Christ. He speaks of the Efficacy of Baptism, and rejects that of the Heretics: He acknowledges not only in his Apology, but also in his Treatise of the Faith, cited by Theodoret; He acknowledges, I say, in both places, That the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 
* [That is to say, St. Athanasius calls the Bread the Body, and the Wine the Blood of Christ: He had no occasion to Dispute the Question, nor to determine of either side, concerning the Real Presence. This is plain from his Second Apology to the Emperor Constantius, for his Flight, wherein he clears himself from the Crime that was laid to his Charge in the Synod of Tyre, That he abetted one Macarius a Presbyter in Mareotis, who broke the Cup in which the Wine was usually Consecrated: The Council of Alexandria, that was called to examine the Cause of St. Athanasius, in their General Epistle, always call the Cup, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Mystical Cup: and speaking of Presbyters, (p. 732. ap. St. Athana. Vol. 1.) say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; it belongs to you alone first to drink of the Blood of Christ; that is, to receive before the Congregation: This determines nothing as to the Nature of the Presence; and our Saviour had sufficiently warranted such Expressions by his Discourse in the sixth Chapter of St. John. If St. Athanasius had said any thing to declare his Opinion, upon a Question at that time not started in the World, his Arguments could have been considered, and his Notions might have then been known: But since all his Writings bend to one scope, from which he hardly ever wanders any occasional Expressions relating to other Disputes, cannot be urged any further than as they do in all probability show what was the Style of that Age; and it is certain, That the Elements were after Consecration, called, the Body and Blood of Christ, at that time; as well, they might, since the Church then believed, what our Church likewise professes, That worthy Communicants do Spiritually eat the Body, and drink the Blood of Jesus Christ, when they eat the Bread and drink the Wine in the Lord's Supper. Mr. Du Pin, takes a great deal of Pains in his First Volume, to Vindicate the Fathers who lived before the Council of Nice, from the imputation of Arianism: And he observes all along, That before those Questions were professedly Examined and Determined by the Church, Men did not speak so exactly as they did afterwards: His Observation is certainly right, and it has always been the received Excuse, whenever the Opinions of these earliest Fathers have been urged on the behalf of the Arian or Socinian Doctrines. If therefore this Excuse be just in one Cause, it is equally so in another; and an occasional Expression can no more be urged in Favour of Transubstantiation, than in Favour of Arianism, when we otherways know, what was the Opinion of that Age, in which the Question was never put concerning it. There will be no necessity therefore to take notice in every place, where our Author fancies, that the Ancients favoured his Cause, of the particular Reasons, why they spoke in such a manner, or of the Sense in which their Words are to be understood; since it has been so often proved by those who have examined all the contested Passages in the Writings of these more Ancient Fathers, that either they favour our Opinions, or that they speak nothing to the purpose of the Dispute that has so long been managed between us and the Church of Rome.]  He praises Virginity, and prefers it to Marriage, tho' he thinks, that 'tis not forbidden. He condemns the Error of the Novatians; He acknowledges the Holy Scripture to be the Rule of Faith, and joins with it Tradition and the Authority of the Holy Fathers. He observes that the Faith is always the same, and that it does not change, and that the Councils do nothing but declare what is the Doctrine of the Church. He attributes much to freewill, and yet he confesses, that since the Sin of Adam Man is inclined to Evil, and fixed upon sensible things. He teaches, That the Soul of Jesus Christ, without dissolving the Union to his Divinity, descended into Hell, to fetch thence the Souls of the Just, and also of those who had lived well under the Law of Nature, who were there in Sorrow waiting for their Deliverance. As to what concerns Discipline in his time, one may observe in his Works, That the Communion in both kinds was then given to the Laics; That the Priests only Consecrated; That the Eucharist was offered upon an Altar of Wood; That the Mysteries were hid from the Catechumen and Gentiles; That the Faithful assembled in Churches, where they were a long time at Prayers; That there were then a Multitude of Monks that were subject to their Bishop as their Father, and that some of them were made Bishops; That there were also Virgins who religiously kept their Virginity; That they were not shut up, but assisted at the Divine Mysteries in the Church; That there were Priests and Bishops married, though but few; That Eunuches could not then be ordained; That the Translation of Bishops was condemned; That the People and Clergy chose them, and other Bishops ordained them; That they must be chosen out of those that were born in the place, rather than Strangers; That they had a Reverence for Churches and Sacred Vessels; That Churches were dedicated with Ceremonies, and that 'twas not permitted to celebrate Divine Mysteries in them before their Dedication, without some kind of Necessity; That there were Fonts in Churches, and that the Bishop had a Chair raised on high, called the Episcopal Throne; That Oil and Wine, and Bread for Offerings were kept in the Font; That they had Coemeteries where they assembled in case of Necessity; That the Churches there were governed by Priests, who kept there the Assemblies of the People; That the Bishops made their Visitations in their Dioceses; That the Church of Rome was considered as the First; That the Church of Alexandria had much Authority over all Egypt; That they used to make the sign of the Cross, and believed that it drove away Devils; That they received not the Offerings of the Impious, but only those of the Just; That a Bishop was not allowed to abdicate his Church; That they Fasted in Lent; That they celebrated the Feast of Easter with great Solemnity; That they used the Prayers of the Church, and read the Gospel in the Vulgar tongue, which was understood by the People. I shall not stay to relate the Principles of Morality which are to be found in his Writings, because they are but few, and those few are not handled in their full extent, excepting only what concerns flight from Persecution, and from a Bishopric, and the Defence of the Truth.  
The First Editions of St. Athanasius' Works are very imperfect, and the Last are confused. The most Ancient that we have found, is a Latin Edition of some Books, which one Barnabas Celsanus printed at Vicenza in the Year 1482, and which he Dedicated to Peter Brutus a Bishop. This Edition is entitled, Treatises of St. Athanasius against the Heretics, and it contains the Four Treatises against the Arians, that of the Union of the Humane Nature, together with the Dispute against Arius, which was also printed in 1500.  
This Edition was followed by that of Paris in 1520, which contains a good part of the Works of St. Athanasius in Latin, translated by different Authors, together with the Commentaries of Theophylact upon the Psalms, which were also published under the Name of St. Athanasius, by Christopher Persona, who caused them to be printed at Rome in the Year 1477, [in fol. and afterwards in 1496. in fol.] and by Reuchlin at Tubing, in the Year 1515.  
These Discourses were reprinted at Francfort by Knobulchus in 1522, and at Basle by Froben in 1527. Eustachius Cornecef Printer at Cologne, printed them in 1532, without the Commentary of Theophylact upon the Psalms, and they were also printed the same Year at Lions by the Treschels.  
After these, Episcopius and Froben undertook a new Edition of the Works of this Father: They were assisted by Nannius Professor at Louvain, who made a new Version of the most part of the Books which bear the Name of St. Athanasius, and compared the Greek with three Manuscripts. They divide the whole into Four Tomes, and place in the last some Discourses attributed to St. Athanasius, which had not been translated by Nannius: This Edition was finished at Basle in 1558, and reprinted in 1564.  
Nivelle added a Fifth Tome, wherein he put the Life of St. Anthony, the Five Dialogues of the Trinity published by Beza at Basle in 1570. This Edition was printed twice at Paris, and the Letter to Ammon, in the Year 1572, and in the Year 1581.  
Hitherto we have said nothing of publishing the Greek Text of the Works of St. Athanasius. Commelinus, a famous Printer at Heidelberg, first undertook it, which he happily finished in the Year 1600; and the same Year he published in Greek and Latin, over against one another, all the Works of St. Athanasius in two Volumes, whereof the First contains those that were translated by Nannius, and the Second all that could be found besides. The Greek Text is revised by many Manuscripts, and printed very exactly. He took care also to add at the End, the different Readins collected by Flecmannus; but these are only in some Copies. This Edition, though very large, is very confused; for the Books are without any order, without any Observations, and many times the Version is very faulty.  
It was a little while after corrected by Fronto Ducaeus, and printed at Paris without the Greek in 1612, but he has left many Faults.  
At last in the Year 1627. the Booksellers of Paris made a New Edition Greek and Latin of the Works of St. Athanasius. They followed Commelin's for the Greek, and that of 1612, for the Latin; and though they say in their Advertisement that they have exactly revised the Greek Text by the Manuscripts in the Royal Library, and have corrected an infinite number of places in it, yet they have still left a good number of Faults behind. They have added in this Edition the Greek of the Life of St. Anthony, which was published before by Hoeschelius in 1611, a Homily upon Easter, published by Plantin at Antwerp, in 1508, the Homilies of Holstenius, and some other Fragments: But they have neither changed the Order of the Books, nor distinguished the Genuine from the Supposititious.  
What I have now said, sufficiently discovers the Necessity that some very Skilful Person, or rather, some Religious Society, should undertake to publish a New Edition of the Works of St. Athanasius. And to make it perfect, they must compare the Greek Text exactly with Manuscripts, make a new Version of all the Books, distinguish the Genuine from the Supposititious, and make a separate Volume of these Last, dividing the First, as we have done, into Four Parts: The First should comprehend the Historical Books; the Second, the Dogmatical; the Third, the Moral; and the Last, those upon the Scriptures. In the Historical, they must observe the Order and Thread of the History; in the Dogmatical, they must keep the Order of the Subject Matters; and in those upon the Scripture; they must first place those that are more general, following very near the Order which we have observed in our Abridgement. As to the Supposititious Books, 'twere good to distinguish them into three Ranks: The First, should contain the Books of ancient Authors unknown; the Second, those of Modern Authors; and the Third, those whereof the Authors are known, unless you would rather pass by the Last, and remit the Reader to the Books where they are printed, [with the other Works of those Authors to whom they do of right belong.]   

JACOBUS NISIBENUS.  
ST. JAMES, a Native of Nisibis a City of Mesopotamia, which was anciently the Boundary of the Empire between the Persians and Romans, having led a very austere life in the Desert, and becoming 
Jacobus Nisibenus.  famous by his Confession under Maximinus, and by the great number of Miracles which he wrought, was chosen Bishop of that City, where he was born: though he did not for that forsake his manner of life, nor work fewer Miracles than before; nay, 'tis said, that he even raised up the Dead. He assisted at the Council of Nice, where he condemned the Heresy of Arius: and Theodoret says, that being at Constantinople, when they would oblige Alexander Bishop of that Church to receive Arius into Communion, he advised the Catholics to have recourse to God by Fasting and Prayer, and to Pray all together for the space of Seven Days, that they might agree among themselves what was best to be done. The Persians coming about the Year 338, to Besiege the City of Nisibis, St. James upon this occasion did the Office both of a Governor and a Bishop; for he not only made fervent Prayers for his People, but encouraged them by his Exhortations to Rebuild a Wall in the room of that which the Besiegers had beat down; he mounted upon the Walls of the City, and appeared Miraculously clothed with Purple, as if he had been an Emperor. 'Tis said also, That at his Prayer God reigned an infinite Multitude of Gnats, which so annoyed the Besiegers, that they were forced to retire in disorder. This Story is related not only by Theodoret, who has written the Life of this Saint, in his Book entitled, Philotheus [which is an Historical Account of Thirty eminent Asceticks] and who speaks also of this Circumstance in his Hist. Ch. 30. of his Second Book; but also by Philostorgius, who cannot be suspected of too much favour to so great an Enemy of the Arians.  
St. Athanasius speaks of this Saint, as of a Bishop who had written for the Church: And if St. Jerom has not placed him among the number of Ecclesiastical Writers, it is because, as Gennadius has observed that this Father understood not the Syriack Tongue, having never read those Syriack Writers, [This, with Gennadius' leave, is something strange: for it is not credible that a Man who lived so long in Palestine, where Syriack was the Mother-Tongue, and who understood Hebrew so well as St. Jerom did, should not understand Syriack, which is but a different Dialect.] whom he mentions but in their Version; so that we must not wonder, that he says nothing of his Works, because they were never translated into Greek. Gennadius has made a Catalogue, wherein he says, That the Work of this Author contained 26 Books, but he names but 23. The 1st. is concerning Faith; The 2d. against all Heresies; The 3d. of Charity in general; The 4th. of Charity towards our Neighbour; The 5th. of Fasting; The 6th. of Prayer; The 7th. of the Resurrection; The 8th. of the Life after Death; The 9th. of Humility; The 10th. of Patience; The 11th. of Penance; The 12th. of Satisfaction; The 13th. of Virginity; The 14th. of the Life of the Soul; The 15th. concerning Circumcision; The 16th. concerning the Benediction of the Grape, which is the cause that the Bunch of Grapes is preserved, which is mentioned by the Prophet Isaiah, Ch. 65; The 17th. of Jesus Christ, to prove that he is the Son of God and Con-substantial to his Father; The 18th. of Chastity; The 19th. against the Gentiles; The 20th. of the Building of the Tabernacle; The 21st. of the Conversion of the Gentiles; The 22nd. of the Empire of the Persians; The 23th. of the Persecution of the Christians. Gennadius, says also, That this Father made a Chronicle, less studied indeed than that of the Greeks, but more bold; for by using the words of Scripture, he stops the mouth of all those that question the Coming of Jesus Christ upon vain Conjectures. This holy Man, as Gennadius goes on, died under Constantius, and was buried by Constantine's Order in the City of Nisibis, to be a kind of a Defender of it after his Death; but some time after, Julian entering into this City, either because he could not endure the Glory of this Saint, or because he would reproach the Memory of Constantine, commanded, that the Relics of his holy Body should be thrown out of the City; wherefore in a few Months after the Emperor Jovian was forced, to save his Empire, to Surrender it to the Persians, under whose Dominion it still remains. [Theodoret gives us another Account of the removal of St. James' Body: He says, That when Jovian Surrendered up Nisibis to the Persians, the Inhabitants who left the Town, carried the Martyr's Bones along with them▪ His Testimony is the more valuable because he lived near the place, and also, because, as he tells us himself in his Ecclesiastical History, he took a great deal of pains to collect and write down the Wonderful Things which were related of this Saint.]   

MARCELLUS of Ancyra.  
MARCELLUS Bishop of Ancyra, assisted at the Council of Nice, where he defended the Faith and opposed the Arians, as Pope Julius affirms, upon the Report of St. Sylvester the 
Marcellus of Ancyra.  Pope. After that Council he wrote a Book against Asterius and other Bishops of the Arian Faction, entitled, Concerning the Submission of Jesus Christ; wherein he advances many Propositions favouring the Error of the Sabellians. The Eusebians immediately accused him of this Heresy, and 'tis said, that he promised in the Council of Jerusalem to burn his Book; but refusing to do it when he was at Constantinople, he was condemned and deposed in a Council held in that City by the Eusebians in the Year 336. There is some probability that he was restored again to his See after the Death of Constantine; but he was driven away at the same time that St. Athanasius was forced out of Alexandria, and obliged to fly for Refuge into the West, where he was Absolved in the Councils of Rome and Sardica. Socrates and Sozomen say, That after this last Council, he was restored to his Bishopric as well as St. Athanasius, but that he could not live there in quiet, because Basil, who was Ordained in his room in the Year 336, was in Possession of his See; and what became of him afterwards is not known. St. Hilary and Sulpitius Severus affirm, That St. Athanasius having discovered that he favoured the Error of Photinus, deprived him of his Communion; and this Bishop seeing himself condemned by his Judgement, refrained from coming to the Church-Gate▪ But this Relation is not true; for St. Athanasius does always speak of him in his Writings as a Catholic Bishop, and we understand by the Letters which St. Basil wrote to St. Athanasius a little before his Death, that this Father continued always in Communion with him. St. Jerom places Marcellus of Ancyra among the number of Ecclesiastical Writers; and says that he composed many Volumes upon different Subjects, but chief against the Arians. We have nothing of his Works remaining, but some Fragments recited by Eusebius in the Books which he wrote against this Author: These passages are very intricate, and favour the Error of the Sabellians. Some have accused Eusebius, that he took for a positive Assertion what Marcellus had only proposed by way of Doubt or Objection: but the contrary appears sufficiently from Eusebius' Book, where 'tis plain, that in the greatest part of the passages which he recites, Marcellus of Ancyra proposes his true Sentiment, which 'tis very difficult to explain in a Catholic Sense. It appears by these Fragments, that Marcellus was a Man that talked much, who had little Wit, or Knowledge, or Eloquence, and was altogether void of good Sense. St. Epiphan. in Haeres. 72. recites a Letter of Marcellus of Ancyra.   

HOSIUS.  
HOSIUS Bishop of Corduba, a City of Spain, did generously confess the Faith of Christ, in the Persecution of the Emperor Dioclesian. The Donatists affirm, That he was condemned for his Crimes by the Bishops of Spain, and was afterwards Absolved by those of France: But this is a Notorious 
Hosius.  Calumny, of which they have no Proof, and which is sufficiently confuted by the great Reputation that Hosius had all his Life-time; besides, that his Enemies never charged him with any such thing. His Name is found amongst the Names of those Bishops that Subscribed to the Canons, which are believed to be made in the Council of Elvira. He was known to Constantine, while this Emperor was in the West, and followed him into the East; where he was so much esteemed by him, that he was chosen to be sent into Egypt, to settle the Controversies that were risen there about the Heresy of Arius, and the Celebration of Easter. There he assembled a Council; to which the Egyptians have not scrupled to give the Name of Ecumenical, and used his utmost endeavours to reduce Arius to the Communion of his Bishop Alexander, and to establish Peace: But all was in vain, for 'twas necessary to have recourse to a more Powerful Remedy, which was the General Council of Nice. There he was chosen Precedent, either because of his Eminent Virtues, and Rare Qualities; or because he had a perfect Knowledge of the Matter which was to be handled in that Council. He presided also at the Council of Sardica, and maintained for a long time with great Constancy the Faith of the Nicene Council, and the Innocence of St. Athanasius, under the Reign of Constantius. This Emperor did in vain solicit him with Promises and Threaten, for he answered and wrote to him with unshaken Firmness; but at last, he was so far overcome by the Miseries which he suffered in Banishment, as not only to Communicate with Ursacius and Valens, in the Year. 357; as St. Athanasius confesses, but also to Subscribe to the Second Creed of Sirmium, which is Arian, as St. Hilary and Rhebadius, who lived at the same time, do clearly Testify. Yet 'tis true, that St. Athanasius who endeavours to excuse the Fault of his Friend, as much as he can, says, That he did not Subscribe to his Condemnation, and that his Friend at his Death, protested by his Last Will and Testament, against what he had done, and expressly condemned the Heresy of Arius. These two Authors, whom we cited before, do not speak at this Rate of him; but on the contrary, St. Hilary, says, That his Subscription discovered what he was formerly, i. e. an Hypocrite, who had no other Religion, but that of the Court. But it will be better to spare his Memory with St. Athanasius, than to blacken it by Declamations without Ground. His Fault indeed was very great, but then his great Age, and the Violence that was used towards him, do render him the less culpable; and I think we ought to believe upon the Testimony of St. Athanasius, that he repent of what he had done before his Death. 'Tis true, that the two Luciferians tell us a Story which would prove the contrary if it were certain; but it looks like a Fable. They say in their Petition to the Emperor Valentinian, that Hosius being returned into Spain with a Declaration of the Emperor, wherein 'twas ordained, That all those that would not Communicate with him, should be cast out of their Sees; One Gregory, Bishop of the Province of Boetica, a dull Man, but a zealous Defender of the Faith, refused to Communicate with him; and being forcibly carried away to Corduba by the Governor's Guards, he continued firm in his Opinion, and boldly reproved Hosius. That Hosius being moved with a violent Passion, desired of the Governor to send that Bishop into Banishment: But the Governor answered him, That he must first be Condemned. And that Hosius being ready to pronounce the Sentence of Condemnation against him, he appealed to the Tribunal of Jesus Christ, and when Hosius was just beginning to Pronounce the Sentence, he fell into Convulsions, and was cast down Dead upon the Ground, or at least lost his Speech. This is what these two Luciferian Priests say of Hosius' End: But besides that this Relation is refuted by the Positive Testimony of St. Athanasius, which is much more credible than theirs; it has all over the Air of a Fable feigned by Lucifer's Party, who please themselves, as is usual for the most part with those Devoto's that are too austere, with such kind of Tragical Stories that happen for the Punishment of some Crime. He lived almost 100 Years, and died in the Year 358. St. Athanasius in his Letter to the Egyptians, which is called his First Discourse against the Arians, places Hosius in the number of those who had written against the Arians, but we have no more of him but that excellent Letter to Constantius, recited by St. Athanasius in his Letter to those that lived a Monastic Life; of which we have made an Extract, when we discoursed of the Works of St. Athanasius. Isidore of Sevil attributes also to Hosius a Letter to his Sister, in praise of Virginity; which was written, as he says, in a Style very Eloquent and Polite; and moreover, he says, That he was the Author of a Part of the Canons of the Council of Sardica: Some also have said that he made the Nicene Creed, but without Ground.  
We may join with Hosius, some Authors whereof St. Athanasius makes mention in his Letter to the Egyptians, who composed very Orthodox Books, which we have not at present, and whereof we have not so much as the Titles. These Authors are Maximinus, of France, Bishop of Triers, and his Successor Paulinus; Philogonus, of Antioch; Cyriacus, of Mysia; Pistus and Aristeus, of Greece; Sylvester and Protogenes, of Dacia; Leontius and Eupsychius, of Cappadocia; Caecilian, of afric; Eustorgius, of Italy; Capito, of Sicily; Macarius, of Jerusalem; Alexander, of Constantinople; Pedarotus, of Heraclea; Meletias', Basil and Longinus, of Pontus and Armenia; Lupus and Appianus, of Cilicia. All these Bishops, and many others, composed Letters or Books, which were extant in St. Athanasius' time, but now we know nothing of them.   

JULIUS.  
JULIUS, was ordained Bishop of Rome, in the Year 334, or 335. He called a Council at Rome, in which St. Athanasius was declared Innocent; and wrote a Letter to the Bishops of the East, of 
Julius.  which we have given an Extract, when we gave an Account of the Works of St. Athanasius. He sent his Legates to the Council of Sardica, and wrote a Letter to those of Alexandria, wherein he Congratulates the return of St. Athanasius to them. These two Letters are genuine, and are to be found in the Works of St. Athanasius. The Eutychians have attributed to Pope Julius, a Letter concerning the Incarnation, addressed to one Dionysius, which Gennadius believed to be truly his; tho' he observes, That tho' it might be useful in the time of this Pope, against those that admitted Two Persons in Jesus Christ; yet it proved pernicious after the Heresy of Eutyches and Timotheus, which it very much favoured. But this Letter has been rejected by Hypatius, in a Conference at Constantinople, with the Acephali; by Facundus, B. VII. Ch. 1. By Eulogius, in his Third Discourse; and by Leontius of Constantinople, Book of Sects, Ch. 8. who have all affirmed, That 'twas written by Apollinarius, and by the Eutychians, and falsely attributed to Pope Julius. There is another Letter of Julius, about the Incarnation, to Docus, which is also cited in the Council of Ephesus, Art. 1. Facundus has acknowledged it for Genuine; and Vincentius Lirinensis, says, that in that Council, The Faith of the Church, was confirmed by the Testimony of Pope Julius. Ephrem has also acknowledged it for Genuine, as appears by an Extract out of his Third Book of Laws, related by Photius. Anastasius, has cited it in his Collections about the Incarnation, as written by Acacius. Leontius only has rejected it in his Treatise of Sects, where he affirms, That 'tis the Work of Timotheus, a Disciple of Apollinarius, as was proved then by many Copies. He adds, nevertheless, That 'tis not at all contrary to the Faith, and that 'tis no great matter whose it is. In short, the same Leontius, affirms, That there were no Writings of Julius in his time (which must be understood with an exception to those that are extant in St. Athanasius,) and that the Seven Epistles which bear his Name, were Apollinarius'. And truly, there is no probability, that Julius wrote Letters about the Incarnation at a time when there was no Question, but about the Trinity: Besides, 'tis known, that the Eutychians, were wont to attribute the Works of Apollinarius, to the Fathers, who had the Reputation of Catholics, as St. Athanasius, St. Gregory, and St. Cyril, that so they might deceive the People, and engage them unto their Heresy.  
I say nothing of the two Decretal Epistles attributed to Pope Julius, because they are plainly supposititious. This Pope died in the Year 352, and was succeeded by Liberius. The Author of Dama●us's Pontifical, Usuardus, Ado, and some others, relate, That he was Banished for the space of Ten Months, till the Death of Constantius: But this cannot be maintained, for Julius never suffered any Persecution, nor any Banishment, for the Defence of St. Athanasius, since this Father says not one word of it in his Books, who would never have failed to charge the Arians with the Banishment of Julius, as well as with that of Liberius, and other Bishops of his Party.   

ASTERIUS.  
ST. JEROM places this Arian Philosopher among the Number of Ecclesiastical Writers, not because he wrote a Book against the Faith of the Church about the Trinity, but because of his Commentaries 
Asterius.  upon the Epistle to the Romans, upon the Gospels, upon the Psalms, and many other Books; which shows, That a Heretic may be placed amongst Ecclesiastical Authors, when he writes such Learned Books as may be serviceable to the Church. St. Athanasius gives a very different Character of this Asterius from that which Eusebius had given of him in his Book against Marcellus. One Asterius, says he, in his Book of the Two Synods, a Sophist of Cappadocia, is a Partisan of the Eusebians; and when he could not enter into the Order of the Clergy, because he had Sacrificed to Idols, during the Persecution of Maximian, he was advised to write a Book for the Opinions of Eusebius, the Impiety of which is equal to that of his Idolatry: For there he compares Jesus Christ to a Locust, and a Worm of the Earth; nay, and seems to prefer these Infects before him. He affirms, That the Word which is in Jesus Christ, is different from the Word which created the World: He runs through all Syria, and enters into all the Churches by the Favour of Eusebius' Recommendation, to teach others to deny Jesus Christ. He insolently opposes the Truth, and goes into those places which are appointed only for the Clergy, and there he rehearses very loudly, his impious Book. Thus St. Athanasius describes the Man and his Work. There are some Fragments preserved in his Writings, which expressly contain the impious Opinions of the Arians: I am only now to tell you, That this Asterius, is different from the Bishop of Amasea.   

THEODORUS.  
THEODORUS, Bishop of Perinthus, a City of Thrace, who was also called Heracleus, was a Bishop of the Eusebian Party. St. Athanasius in his Letter to the Bishops of Egypt, places him 
Theodorus.  among the Number of those that were condemned, being Priests, and afterwards promoted to Episcopal Dignity by the Intrigues of the Arians. He assisted at the Council of Tyre, and was one of the Deputies that were sent to Mareotis, to Inform against St. Athanasius. He assisted also at the Council of Antioch, and came to that of Sardica, and having retired from thence with the Bishops of the East; he was Deposed and Excommunicated in a Synod of the Western Bishops. St. Jerom and Theodoret, Testify, that he was very Learned, and composed in the Reign of the Emperor Constantius, very Elegant and Clear Commentaries upon the Gospel of St. Matthew, and St. John, upon the Epistles of St. Paul, and the Psalms, in which he endeavours, particularly to explain the Historical Sense of them. We have in the Catena upon St. Matthew, published by Corderius, and printed at Antwerp, in the Year 1642, some Fragments attributed to this Theodorus: But one cannot be certain upon the Credit of this Catena, that they are truly his.   

TRYPHILIUS.  
TRYPHILIUS, Bishop of a City in the Isle of Cyprus, called Ledra, was, according to St. Jerom, one of the most Eloquent Writers of his Age; and was in great Reputation under 
Tryphilius.  the Reign of Constantius. St. Jerom had read his Commentary upon the Canticles, and says, That he wrote many other Books that never came to his Hands.   

HELIODORUS.  
GENNADIUS informs us of this Author, in this manner. Heliodorus a Priest, has written a Book of the nature of Principles, wherein he shows, That there is but one Principle 
Heliodorus.  only; That there is nothing Eternal, but God; That God is not the Author of Evil; That all he does, is Good; That he created the Matter which the Malice of Men makes use of to do Evil; That nothing was created without him, and that he having foreseen that Nature would become subject to Corruption by Sin, he forewarned Man of this Punishment.  
I have read nothing else that concerns this Author. Gennadius, places him among those Writers that lived in the time of Constantius.   

DONATUS, and Vitellius and Macrobius his Disciples.  
ST. JEROM, places among the Number of Ecclesiastical Writers, Donatus, Head of the Party of the Donatists in Africa; which in all probability is to be understood of the Bishop of Carthage 
a Which is to be understood of the Bishop of Carthage.] There were Two Donati of the same Party, as St. Austin observes, B. I. Retract. ch. 12. The First was Donatus Bishop of Casae nigrae, or Calame, who never was Bishop of Carthage, whatever Albaspinaeus says, and the Second Donatus was Successor to Majorinus, against whom St Austin wrote a Book, called a Discourse against the Epistle of Donatus; which was written the last by Donatus, for he composed that Epistle which St. Austin refutes; and confirmed the Faction of the Donatists by his Eloquence. . 
Donat. and Vitell. and Macrob.  He says, That he wrote many Books concerning his own Sect; and a Book of the Holy Spirit, whose Doctrine was agreeable to that of the Arians. St. Augustin has wrote a Book against a Letter of this Donatus 
b St. Augustin has wrote a Book against a Letter of this Donatus.] Lib. I. Retract. ch. 21. I have written, says he, a Book against the Epistle of Donatus, who was Bishop of Carthage, next after Majorinus, wherein he pretends, that the Baptism of Jesus Christ is not valid out of his own Communion. , and he assures us in his Book of Heresies, That he was an Eloquent Writer. Gennadius, mentions two other Authors of the same Party: The First is Vitellius, Who wrote, says he, a Book to Defend his Party, upon this Argument, That the Servants of God are hated of the World. This Book adds he, contained Excellent Doctrine, if he had not treated the Catholics as Persecutors. He has written also against the Gentiles, and against the Catholics, who, as he pretends, basely betrayed the Holy Books in the time of Persecution. There are some other Writings of his, which concern the Discipline of the Church. He flourished under Constans, the Son of Constantine.  
The Second is Macrobius, a Donatist Priest, who is mentioned in the Writings of Optatus 
c Who is mentioned in the Writings of Optatus.] B. II. p. 37. Ye say, says he, speaking to the Donatists, That ye have many of your Party in the City of Rome; This is a Branch of your Error, which proceeds from a Lie, and can't come from the Root of Truth: And if it be demanded of Macrobius, what See he belongs to, he may say that he belongs to the Chair of St. Peter, which perhaps he never saw. How can he enter into the Church where the Sepulchers of St. Peter and St. Paul are? Did he ever offer to do it? , who was afterwards sent to Rome, to be Bishop there of those of his Party. He wrote before his Separation, a Book directed to Confessors and Virgins; which is a Book of Morality, and contains very useful Instructions, chief, to teach one to live in Inviolable Chastity. He flourished in Africa, among the Catholics, and at Rome among the Donatists.   

St. ANTHONY.  
ST. ANTHONY, who was the First Institutor of a Monastic Life, was born towards the Year 250, in Egypt: His Parents who were Christians, and very considerable for their Nobility, took 
St. Anthony.  great Care to Educate him in Piety: He was not Instructed in humane Learning, neither had he any Commerce with the World. His Father and Mother dying when he was but Eighteen Years old, left great Riches to him and his Sister: But a little after, he took up a Resolution of forsaking the World entirely; and then he distributed his Inheritance to his Neighbours, Sold his Movables, and gave the Price of them to the Poor, and so retired into a solitary Place towards the Year 270. The first place of his Retreat, was a Cell near his own Village, and after that, he shut himself up in a Sepulchre that was more remote; but at last, he passed over the Nile, and retired into the Ruins of an Old Castle, where he stayed near 20 Years. But he was forced to come forth from thence, towards the Year 305, to govern those that came to put themselves under his Conduct. About this time, the number of those that followed him, increasing daily, several Monasteries were begun to be built in the Deserts, to which St. Anthony was as a Father. His Charity obliged him to go out of his Solitude, during the Persecution of Maximinus, and to come to the City of Alexandria, that he might assist the Christians which suffered for Jesus Christ. But the Persecution was no sooner ended, but he returned to his Monastery, where he betook himself to his former Exercises, and wrought many Miracles, for Delivering those that were possessed, and Curing those that were sick. But these Extraordinary Actions drawing after him a great Multitude of Persons, who troubled his Retirement, he withdrew to the remotest Part of the Mountains, and there built a Cell, or a little Monastery upon Mount Colzim, about a Day's Journey from the Red. Sea. He lived long in this Solitude, out of which he went nevertheless from time to time to visit his former Disciples, who looked upon him always as their Father. In a word, After he had acquired an Immortal Fame here on Earth, he went to receive the Reward of his Labours in Heaven, in the 19th. Year of the Reign of Constamius, i. e. in the Year 356, being the 105th. Year of his Age.  
These are the principal Circumstances of the Life of St. Anthony, taken out of the History of his Life, attributed to St. Athanaesius, which one may read if he has a mind to know those things more particularly. But this is not the place to insist upon them, for we consider him neither as a Monk, nor as a Saint, but only as a Writer. And one may say with all the respect that is due to him, That in this Capacity, he was much less Famous, and less known; for as he had not studied at all, so he could not undertake to write any Great Books; but the quickness of his Wit, might furnish him with Pieces of less Consequence, such as Letters, Exhortations and Answers, so that no Writings but of these sorts are attributed to him.  
St. Jerom, says, That he wrote in the Egyptian Tongue, Seven Letters to several Monasteries, which come near, says he, to the Opinions of the Apostles, and their manner of Writing; and these have been translated into Greek, but we have nothing of them at present, but a Latin Version, which is attributed to one Sarrasius. The First of these Letters is, concerning Vocation; the Second, concerning the Snares of the Devil, and the means of avoiding them; the Third is, concerning the Blessings of God towards Manking; the Fourth, concerning the Incarnation of Jesus Christ; the Fifth, concerning Christian Vigilance; the Sixth, concerning the Knowledge of one's self, and the Necessity of the Incarnation; the Seventh and Last, is also concerning the Knowledge of ourselves; and he Concludes with an Advertisement against Arius. Of these Letters, there are Six addressed to the Arsinoites, (i. e. to the Monks of one of his Monasteries, which was at Arsinoe) tho' St. Jerom speaks but of one that was directed to them. These are all written with much Candour; the Thoughts and Expressions indeed are something elevated, but the Air is simple and without Ornament. There a Man may find a great deal of Piety, and many Excellent Counsels, especially for those Persons that make profession of a Monastic Life. In short, 'Tis obvious to every one that reads them, That the Writer was a much better Christian, than a Scribe, one that understood better the Maxims of Christianity, than the Precepts of Eloquence, and was much more filled with the Unction of the Holy One, than with Humane Science and Learning.  
St. Athanasius, or the Author of the Life of St. Anthony, which is attributed to this Father, sets down a long Exhortation of St. Anthony to his Monks, which contains many Instructions very useful for them, and wholesome Advices about the Temptations of the Devil. There are also found in this Writing, ingenious Answers of the same Saint to the Philosophers, and some other Persons, and a Letter to the Emperor.  
There is moreover a short Rule attributed to St. Anthony, set down in the Collection of Rules made by St. Benedictus Anianensis who lived towards the Year 820, from the birth of Christ, which contains many Moral Precepts, and prescribes some Monastical Observations. Besides these, Gerard Vossius has given us under the Name of St. Anthony, a Sermon, which is a Declamation against the Vices and Excesses of the Men of the World, at the End of which he Exhorts Men to do Penance, by representing unto them the Judgement of God, and the Pains which the damned suffer after the Resurrection. 'Tis hard to say, whether this Discourse be truly St. Anthony's, or whether it be only put out under his Name, as a Discourse that would agree exactly to one so retired from the World as he was. Be that as it will, it has much of the Style of this Saints Letters, though more Elegant and Sublime.  
Lastly, There were two Books of Latin Sermons, attributed to St. Anthony in the time of Trithemius; but now all the Critics agree, that they are none of his, neither can be, since they cite St. Basil, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Chrysostom, St. Nilus and Photius, Authors that lived and wrote after St. Anthony. The Letters of St. Anthony were printed apart, and are since inserted into the Bibliothecae Patrum. His Rule is in Benedictus Anianensis' Code, published by Holstenius, from the Copy of a Manuscript; (which was in the Monastery of St. Maximin, near Triers,) [at Rome in 1661.] and reprinted in Quarto at Paris, by Billaine in 1663.   

St. PACHOMIUS.  
THough St. Anthony was the Institutor of a Monastic Life, yet St. Pachomius ought to be considered as the Author of a Coenobitick Life, because he was the first that appointed regulated 
St. Pachomius.  Societies. He was Born in Thebais, of Gentile Parents, and did for some time bear Arms in the War of Constantine against Maxentius. When this War was ended, he, who had been always a Christian in his Heart, was baptised, and retired with an Hermit named Palemon, under whose Conduct he led a very austere Life. He stayed afterward in Tabenna, a Country of Egypt, situated on the Brink of the Nile in the Diocese of Tentyra, where he Founded a Monastery, in obedience, as is believed, to the Admonition of an Angel, and in Conformity to a Rule, which he is thought to have received from it. Be this as it will, (for though this Story be related by many Authors, I do not think that any Man is absolutely obliged to believe it:) Be this as it will, I say, the Monastery which he Founded in Tabenna, was filled in a very little time, and he was obliged to build many more of them; so that he peopled all the Upper Thebais with Monasteries of his Order. 'Tis reported in the Greek Acts of his Life, published not long since in the great Collection of the Lives of the Saints by Bollandus and Papebrochius, that he was accused at a Synod of Diospolis, because he Divined the most secret Thoughts of Men; but he was Absolved by the same Synod, where were two of his Disciples, after he declared that God of his Grace revealed to him the most hidden things. He died about the Year 400. We have in the Life of St. Pachomius a Rule which is thought to have been given him by the Angels; but there is another also which bears the Name of this holy Abbot, in the Collection of the Oriental Rules, in the Bibliothecae Patrum, and at the End of some Editions of Cassian, which is much larger, and seems to have been drawn up at different times. It contains many Rules concerning the Habits, the Diet, the Employments and the Discipline of Monks: 'Tis thought to have been translated by St. Jerom, and there is at the beginning, a Letter which imitates the Style of this Father well enough. There are also some Moral Precepts published under his Name by Gerard Vossius, printed at Mentz in the Year 1604. and in Benedictus Anianensis' Collection, there are Eleven Letters 
a Eleven Letters.] These were written, as Gennadius observes, to the Superiors of the Monasteries of his Community, who are designed by the Letters of the Alphabet; there is One to the Abbot Hyrus, One to the Abbot Cornelius, One to all the Superiors, to advertise them to come and Celebrate the Feast of Easter, at a Monastery called in the Egyptian Tongue Ba●●m, and this is cited by St. Cyril of Alexandria, in a Letter cited by Bucherius: There is another to the same persons, giving them notice to meet on the Day of Remission, i. e. at the General Chapter, which was held in the Month of August; and another to the Brethren, who were gone out of the Monastery to Work.  of the same Author, written with much Simplicity, which are cited by Gennadius; and a Letter of Theodorus his Disciple, concerning Easter. Gennadius calls St. Pachomius a Man truly Apostolical in his Discourses and Actions: His Rule is very Judicious, and comes down to all the Particulars necessary for the Government of a Monastery.   

ORSIESIS.  
ORSIESIS was Successor to Pachomius after Petronius, who governed the Monastery of Tabenna but a few days. He has written a Spiritual Treatise of the Doctrine or Institution of 
Orsiesis.  Monks, which he left when he was a Dying to the Religious of his Monastery. 'Tis an Exhortation that he made to them to Watch over themselves, and to discharge their Duties exactly, and is filled with many Passages of Scripture, which he applies to his Subjects very properly. Upon this account 'twas that Gennadius said that this Treatise was seasoned with Divine Salt, Divino sale conditus. 'Twas printed apart by Gymnicus at Cologne in the Year 1536. and afterwards inserted into the Bibliothecae Patrum. 'Tis found also in Benedictus Anianensis' Code, that was published by Holstenius.   

THEODORUS.  
THEODORUS a Presbyter, one of the Principal Disciples of St. Pachomius, and his Successor in the Government of the Abbey of Tabenna, if we believe Gennadius, wrote Letters to 
Theodorus.  other Monasteries, which are almost wholly made up of Passages of Scripture: and yet there he often mentions his Master St. Pachomius, and proposes his Example and Doctrine for their Instruction. He admonishes also some Religious to continue with Zeal in their Vocation, and exhorts those that were separated from the Society of others to a Reunion. Gennadius says, that there were Three Letters on this Subject, but we have only one Extant, which concerns the Assembly of Monks at Easter, and that, as we have already said, is in the Abbot of Anian's Code.   

The MACARII.  
THere are several Hermits of this Name, that lived much about the same time, and who are easily confounded, if one does not take heed. The First is he that dwelled in the Desert of Sceta, and 
The Macarii.  lived in the time of St. Pachomius and Orsiesis, and was Evagrius' Master: He was an Abbot in Egypt, and his Feast is kept on the 15th. of January: He was called the Young Old-man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because he had in his Youth the Judgement and Gravity of an Old-man. The Second Macarius, Abbot in Thebais, was the Disciple of St. Pachomius, and his Feast is kept on the 12th. of January. 'Tis commonly believed, That the First of these Macarii was the Disciple and Interpreter of St. Anthony, mentioned by St. Jerom in the Life of Paul the Hermit: But Possinus the Jesuit maintains with great probability, that the Disciple of St. Anthony was different from both these two; and he proves it, because he was one of these two Disciples, who stayed with St. Anthony in his Solitude Fifteen Years, and interred him; which cannot be said of the First Macarius, who died in 390, after he had been 60 Years a Monk of Sceta.  
There is yet a 4th. Macarius, a Monk as well as the other three, but Younger than they, who wrote at Rome about the beginning of the 5th. Century, a Treatise against the Mathematicians. This is he to whom Ruffinus addressed his Apology for Origen, and of whom St. Jerom says to Ruffinus in his 2d. Apology, If you had not come from the East, this able Man had been still among the number of Mathematicians; And in his 16th. Letter, He had been Truly Macarius, that's to say, Blessed, if he had not met with such a Master. There are many Books which bear the Name of Macarius, and 'tis not known to which of the three they belong. These are, First, Fifty Greek Homilies, translated by Picus, printed at Paris in Octavo in the Year 1559, and printed since in Folio in the Year 1623., with St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. There is also an Edition in Octavo, printed at Francfort in 1594, with the Translation of Zacharias Palthenius, and they are inserted into the Bibliothecae Patrum. Secondly, Seven Tracts, published in Greek and Latin by the Jesuit Possinus, in his Book, entitled, Thesaurus Asceticus, or the Ascetical Treasure, printed at Tholouse in the Year 1684. Thirdly, A Rule published by Roverius from a Manuscript of the Abbey of Becco, and in the Collection of the Abbot of Anian; where there is also another Rule written by way of Dialogue between Serapion, Paphnutius, and the two Macarii, which had been before published at the End of Cassian, in the Antwerp Edition of the Year 1578.  
Gennadius assures us, That Macarius the Egyptian, i. e. the Elder, who was a Monk of Sceta, wrote only one Letter to the young Monks, wherein he teaches that Man can perfectly serve God, when knowing his Nature, he does voluntarily embrace all sorts of Labour, and resists all that is most Charming in this Life, to try the Aids that God has given him; and in short, when by keeping himself pure, he arrives to that degree of Continence, that it becomes as it were natural to him. The Subject of this Letter comes near to those Principles which are found in the Tracts & Greek Sermons that bear the Name of Macarius; which would make me believe that they were his, if Gennadius had not assured us, that Macarius the Egyptian wrote but one Letter only, which he mentions. We must therefore say, either that Gennadius was mistaken, or that he intended another Macarius; or lastly, That the Author of these Works, was that Macarius, who was the Disciple and Interpreter of St. Anthony, supposing with Possinus, that he was not Macarius the Egyptian.  
However, The 50 Homilies appear to me to be very Ancient; they are Exhortations to the Religious, and not Sermons to the People. The First contains an Allegorical Explication of the Vision of the Cherubims related by Ezekiel, which he applies to the state of Man's Soul in this Life. The 2d. is of the Kingdom of Darkness; that is to say, of Sin; from which he maintains, That Man could not be delivered but by the Grace of Jesus Christ, and by the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. In the 3d. He recommends to the Brethren to live in Peace, not to condemn one another; to pray continually, and to purify their outward Man by fight against the Temptations of the Flesh and the Devil. He says in this Homily, That 'tis in our power to resist and fight, but God only can pluck up Sin by the Roots; And that as a Man cannot See without Light, Speak without a Tongue, Hear without Ears, Walk without Feet, Labour without Hands; no more can a Man be Saved without Jesus Christ. In the 4th. he shows, That in order to Improvement in Virtue, we must renounce the World, that we may obtain the Love of the Holy Spirit, which is absolutely necessary for the Sanctification of Mankind. He teaches in this Homily, That Angels and Souls are very thin and subtle Bodies, which was an Error very common among the Ancient Monks. In the 5th. he describes the difference between the Life of this World and that of Christians. The 6th. is of Prayer, where he says, That it should be made in silence, with Peace and Tranquillity; That we must not throw forth confused Cries, but having God before our Eyes, we must pray with Attention, and with a Mind full of holy Thoughts. At the end of this Exhortation, there are two Questions and Answers touching some passages concerning the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. The 7th. and 8th. are Questions and Answers about many Difficulties. All which show, That these are not Homilies to the People, but the Exhortations of an Abbot to his Regulars, who had proposed to him the Difficulties they might meet with, to be resolved in them. There are some of these Questions more curious than solid, and the Answers are often very Mystical. Those of the 8th. are about Prayer. In the 9th. he shows, That none can deliver himself from Temptations, but by fixing his Mind entirely upon God. In the 10th. he says, That though a Man be improved in Virtue, yet he ought to consider himself as one that has done nothing, and then he ought to reach forth after God with greater fervour, lest he lose the Holy Spirit by Pride or Laziness. The 11th. and 12th. contain very obscure Reflections concerning the Fall of Mankind, and the Mercies of Jesus Christ; and in the latter part there are Questions and Answers of very little use. In the 13th. he says, That since the coming of Jesus Christ, God requires of Men greater Holiness than before. In the 14th. he discourses of the Reward of Christians. The 15th. has no particular Subject. It gins with a Reflection upon the Obligation that lies upon Christians to honour Jesus Christ with Purity and Faithfulness: and after this it contains many Questions, whereof the First is concerning the Resurrection; viz. If a Man shall rise with all his Members; and the rest concerning Concupiscence, and the Inclination to Sin, that is found in all Men. He is of opinion, That 'tis a kind of Fire kindled in a Man, which inflames, as one may say, all his Parts; That a Man may resist it, but that to do it aright, he must watch continually over himself, and always fight against it. He says, That those who resist their Passions, receive the Holy Spirit, and the Grace which Jesus Christ has merited for them; but they ought to take good heed, that they be not lifted up with Pride, and that they continue in Humility and Contempt of themselves, as being accountable to Jesus Christ for the Grace they have received; and capable of falling from that State of Holiness in which they are, unless they preserve themselves in it, by the virtue of Humility, which he calls the Sign and infallible Mark of a Christian. In the 16th. he says, That a Man ought always to live in Fear, because he is always exposed to Temptations; That even those that have not yet received Grace, ought so to behave themselves, as to do Good and forsake Evil by Natural Motives; but those who have received it, need not such kind of Motives, because this Grace producing Love in their Hearts, makes that become sweet and pleasant, which appeared rough and uneasy, and makes that appear easy which was thought before to be impossible. In the 17th. he treats of the Spiritual Unction, and the state of the more Perfect Christians, and makes it appear, that notwithstanding any Holiness they have acquired, they ought always to fear, because they are always in a Capacity of falling away. In the 18th. he declares the marvellous Effects of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit in the Soul of a Spiritual Man. In the 19th▪ he explains the degrees through which a Man ought to pass to acquire Perfection; That he ought first to use his utmost natural endeavours to do Good, and then God seeing him strive after this manner, gives him the Grace of Prayer, by which means he obtains all Virtues. In the 20th. he says, That none but Jesus Christ can cure the Soul that's wounded by the Sin of Adam, and therefore we must address ourselves to him by Prayer, that he would give us his Grace. The 21st. is of the War that Men are obliged to make against their Vices and their Passions. In the 22d. he describes the terrible difference between the latter End of the Just and the Wicked; and says, that at the hour of Death the Souls of the Just are received by Angels and conducted to the Lord; but those of the Wicked are encompassed by Devils, who draw them down with themselves too Hell. The 23d. is of the Victory which a Christian ought to gain over his Passions. The 24th. is of the Necessity of the Grace and Influence of the Holy Spirit, to make us capable and worthy of Eternal Life. He continues the same Subject in the 25th. wherein, after he has proved, that we cannot shun all the occasions of Sin, nor resist all our Passions, without the assistance of the Grace of Jesus Christ, he makes a lively Representation of the state of the Men of this World, and describes the wonderful Effects which the Celestial Fire of the Holy Spirit produces in our Souls. The 26th. contains many Questions and Answers, concerning the Temptations of the Devil and the Effects of Grace. The Author there teaches, That Man is restored to his Primitive Dignity by the Holy Spirit; That the Devil cannot tempt us any further than God permits him; That Grace changes the Affections of the Heart; That the Devil knows some part of our Thoughts, but there are others unknown to him; That Grace and Charity have no Bounds, and we ought never to say that we have arrived at the highest degree of Perfection; That the Soul goes immediately after Death to that place on which its Love was placed during this Life; That the Good which may be done by Natural Strength, can never Save a Man without the Grace of Jesus Christ; That we ought always to attribute to him all the Good we do, and to say, If God had not assisted us, we should neither have Fasted, nor Prayed, nor forsaken the World: And that God seeing us attribute to him the Actions which may be done by our Natural Powers, has liberally bestowed upon us the Spiritual, Heavenly and Divine Gifts of his Grace; That the Actions which are done without Grace, may be Good, but they are not Perfect. In the 27th. after he has first considered the Dignity of a Christian, he than Answers to many Questions about the Effects of Grace: He says, That no Man shall ever arrive at the top of Perfection in this World; That whatever state they are in, whatever Grace they have, they are always capable of sinning; That the strongest Grace does not hinder the Will from following after Evil, because the Nature of Man, as long as he is in this World, is changeable, and that though God has bestowed very singular Grace upon Christians, they ought nevertheless to work out their own Salvation with Fear and Trembling. In the 28th. he deplores the state of that Soul where Jesus Christ dwells not at all, because of Sin. In the 29th. he says, That God gives his Grace after two different manners; That he prevents some with it before they have used their own endeavours, and bestows it upon others after they have laboured a long time; and then he shows what Reason we have to admire the Goodness and Wisdom of the Divine Conduct both towards the one and the other. In the 30th. he shows, That if the Holy Spirit does not produce within us the Love of God, we cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. In the 31st. he Exhorts Men to Prayer, That they may obtain the change and renovation of their Heart. In the 32d. he says, That we cannot certainly know whether we be in a state of Grace as long as we are in this World, because we are always tormented with the Motions of Lust, but at the Day of Judgement, those who belong to God shall be made known. The 33d. is of the Attention and Fervour we ought to have in Prayer. The 34th. is of Eternal Glory. The 35th. is of the state of a Soul which God has delivered from Evil Thoughts, which he calls a New Sabbath. The 36th. is of their different degrees of Glory, who shall rise again from the Dead. In the 37th. he proves, That many who have thought themselves Just, were not really so; and that those who believed themselves to be arrived at the highest degree of Perfection, have oftentimes fallen into Sin. I pass over the 38th. because that is entire among the little Tracts of Mark the Hermit. In the 39th. he says, 'Tis to no purpose to read the Scripture, if we do not make Improvement by it. In the 40th. he proves, That there is a concatenation of Virtues one with another, and that there is the same in Vices: He answers also three Questions, and in his Answers, he says, That there are different degrees of Damnation, and that greater Sinners shall be more punished, than those that have not committed so great Crimes; That the quiet state of some Souls does not hinder them from exercising Charity; That Grace and an Inclination to Sin may be found together in one and the same Soul at the same time. In the 41st. he describes the Improvements of Grace in a Soul, and makes it appear, that none can preserve this Disposition of growing in Grace without Humility. In the 42d. he says, That nothing but the Actions of Men can be hurtful or useful unto them. In the 43d. he speaks of the different Improvements of those that strive against Sin, but 'tis so obscure, that hardly any thing can be understood in it. The 44th. is of the Change that Jesus Christ wrought in us, and the manner how he heals our Souls: He continues the same Subject in the following Homily, and explains by many Comparisons, the Union of the Soul with God. In the 46th. he says, That a sick Soul may have recourse to a Physician, to pray and request his help, and when the Heavenly Physician comes to its assistance, he joins himself to it, to enlighten and conduct it, and make it his Spouse. The 47th. contains many Allegorical Explications of the Law of Moses, which he applies to the different states of the Soul. In the 48th. he says, That those who have a true Faith of Heavenly things, ought not to have their Affections fixed on things of this Earth; and that those who retire from the World, ought not to be solicitous or anxious about the things thereof: In short, he would not have the Monks make use of any Medicines to help them in their Diseases, but to put their whole Trust in Jesus Christ. In the 49th. he shows, That 'tis not enough to have abandoned the World, but we must also ardently seek after Eternal Happiness. In the 50th. and last, he observes, That God was the Cause of all the Miracles which the Saints wrought, and from this Remark he draws a Moral Reflection, that we cannot command the Devil, but by the Assistance of God and the Power of the Holy Spirit. He adds, That he that considers his Infirmity, his Weakness and Wounds, and does not withal consider the Aids of the Holy Spirit which strengthens him, is an Indiscreet Man: And on the contrary, He that so much thinks upon the Divine Aids as to forget his own Weakness, and so fancies that he can never fall, does miserably deceive himself. After this manner does this Author always reconcile these two Fundamental Doctrines of Grace and freewill, that we ought always so to labour, as if the whole depended upon our own Endeavours, and yet to acknowledge that we can do nothing without God. And if Men had always contented themselves with this Simplicity without nicer Philosophical Inquiries, How many Questions had been ended without Noise! How many Differences composed! What Disputes had been Abolished! What Arguments Superseded! How many Books had been ●●if●ed! But to return to our Author; there are besides Seven Spiritual Treatises of his, which have been published in Greek and Latin by Possinus: The 1st. is concerning Watching over our Heart; The 2d. Of Perfection of Mind; The 3d. Of Prayer; The 4th. Of Patience and Discretion; The 5th. Of the Elevation of the Mind; The 6th. Of Charity; The 7th. Of the Freedom of Spirit; and some Apophthegms of the Fathers. 'Tis plain, That the Author of the 50 Homilies is the Author of these Treatises; for there is the same Genius in them both. He has the same Notions, and the same Style. He Discourses after the same manner of Grace and freewill, and he maintains in these Seven Treatises, as well as the Author of the Homilies, That Angels and Souls are Bodies. But 'tis not so certain that these are the Works of Macarius the Disciple of St. Anthony; and I think 'tis more probable, that they were made by a later Monk. Whoever was the Author, his Style is simple, and one may see that he was a Good Hermit, who speaks from his Heart without Affectation and Ornament, and oftentimes even without Order. He allegorizes all, and expresses a great many mystical Thoughts which are very hardly intelligible, and for the most part makes use of Comparisons which are not just and fit. In a word, Some things have escaped him, which cannot altogether be reconciled to good sense; so difficult a thing it is in Spiritual Matters not to wander sometimes!  
The Rules which bear the Name of Macarius, are of another Author; Those that are found under the Name of Macarius only, in Benedictus Anianensis' Code, are attributed to Macarius of Alexandria, i. e. the Abbot of Nitria, Disciple of St. Pachomius, and Master of Evagrius. There is a certain passage in them which seems to be taken out of St. Jerom's Letter to Rusticus, which makes me think, either that this was added, or that St. Jerom imitated St. Macarius. However, this Rule is ancient, and is cited by the Author of the Life of St. Philibert, who says, That this Saint read the Rules of St. Macarius, St. Benedict and St. Columbanus. The other Rule which is found in the same Code, composed by the two Macarii, St. Serapion, and St. Paphnutius, is made in the Form of a Dialogue, and probably is nothing else, but some Conferences of theirs, which some Monks had gathered together; as the two Rules which follow in the same Code, are a Collection of the Speeches of 34 Abbots. There is also found a Rule in the same Code which bears the Name of the Abbot Isaiah, which is proper for Hermits, and especially younger Regulars. 'Tis full of Moral Precepts, and therefore had the Title of, The Precepts and Advices of the Abbot Isaiah. This Abbot is probably he whom Ruffinus and Palladius mention and call the Abbot of Syria. There are also under the Name of the same Isaiah, some Remarks upon a Religious Life, published by Possinus. At the same time there lived one Mark, a Hermit, who dwelled in the Desert of the Cells, and lived almost an Hundred Years, to whom some Books are attributed, which probably belong to another Mark who lived long after.  
I shall say nothing at present of the Discourses, the Answers, and Admonitions of the other Hermits of this time, because they may be seen in Ruffinus, Palladius, and other Authors who have written their Lives.   

SERAPION Bishop of Thmuis.  
WE must not confound this Serapion, whom we now write of, with the famous Serapion Abbot in the Territory of Arsinoe, though he was a Monk and Abbot as well as the other; 
Serapion Bishop of Thmuis.  but this Serapion was Ordained towards the Year 340. Bishop of Thmuis a City of Egypt, in the Province of Sceta, by St. Athanasius, as we find in his Epistle to Dracontius. St. Jerom says, That this Bishop deserved the Name of a Scholar because of his Eloquence; That he was St. Anthony's Friend, and had the honour to be a Confessor under Constantius, that is to say, to Suffer for the Defence of the Faith of the Council of Nice, and the Innocence of St. Athanasius. 'Tis probable, that 'tis he, whose Name is read among the Subscriptions of the Letter from the Council of Sardica: 'Tis he also who wrote to St. Athanasius about the Death of Arius, as we learn by the Answer of this Father, which is directed to him. St. Jerom, says, That he wrote a Book against the Manichees, a Treatise of the Titles of the Psalms, and many very useful Letters: We have no more extant, but his Treatise against the Manichees, published by Canisius, wherein he proves, That Vice or Evil, is not a Substance, and that our Nature is not Evil of itself: Which he proves chief, because many very wicked Persons do afterwards become very pious and virtuous. This is the Subject of this little Treatise. The Arguments in it are very Solid, but the Style is very Simple and without Art.   

EUSEBIUS EMISENUS.  
THIS EUSEBIUS, was of Edessa, a City of Mesopotamia, of a considerable Family. He had Learned from his Infancy the Holy Scriptures according to the Custom of his Country, and 
Eusebius Emisenus.  then he Studied the Greek and Humane Learning, and came to Palestine to perfect himself in the Knowledge of the Scripture; he was the Disciple of Eusebius of Caesarea, and of Patrophilus of Scythopolis. The Eusebians would have chosen him Bishop of Antioch, after the Deposition of Eustathius; and afterwards would have placed him in the See of Alexandria, in the room of St. Athanasius, but he would not accept of these contested Bishoprics. He was afterwards Ordained Bishop of Emesa, near Mount Libanus, but the People made so great Resistance against him, that he was forced to retire to Laodicea, where he was well received by George, Bishop of that Church, who re-established him in Emesa. He was very dear to Constantius, who carried him with him, to the Persian War. He died in the Year 359, when his Successor, Paul of Emesa, assisted at the Council of Seleucia, as we learn from St. Epiphanius. He is placed in some Martyrologies, among the number of Saints. St. Jerom, gives this Account of the Writings of this Bishop: Eusebius, Bishop of Emesa, who was well skilled in Rhetoric, and had the Air of an Orator, wrote an infinite Number of Books; he applied himself Chief, to give the Historical Sense of Scripture; and therefore those who would Learn to Preach, read his Books with great Attention. His principal Pieces were against the Jews, against the Gentiles, against the Novatians, Two Books of Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Galatians, and many short Homilies upon the Gospels. Theodoret, has preserved in his Third Dialogue, Two Fragments, to prove, That the Divinity of Jesus Christ did not suffer, which are taken out of some of those Books that we have already spoken of; and there are in the Greek Catena's upon the Scriptures, several Fragments which are attributed to Eusebius of Emesa. The Homilies which we have at present under his Name, are none of his, tho' they are cited under his Name in the Eleventh Century, by Guitmondus, and in the Twelfth, by Gratian, but they were all written by some Latin Authors, much later than Eusebius of Emesa 
a But they were all written by some Latin Authors, much later than Eusebius of Emesa.] The Style is of a latin Author that understood no Greek: And it appears by the Homilies of St. Blandina, Epiphodius, Alexander of St. Genest, that the Author was a Frenchman. There is a Sermon of St. Maximus the Second Abbot of Lerins, which mentions also St. Honoratus Abbot of Lerins. And afterwards Bishop of Arles, who lived long after the Death of Eusebius of Emesa. There is also a Sermon of the Rogation-days instituted by St. Mamertus. The Author calls himself the Disciple of St. Maximus Abbot of Lerins, which makes me believe that these Sermons belong to St. Eucherius of Lions, under whose Name they have been printed. The Author of the Homilies about Easter opposes the Heretic Pelagius, and citys St. Gregory the Great. ; some of them by St. Eucherius, others by Faustus Rhedonensis, and Caesarius of Arles, and many other Frenchmen. Petrus Diaconus, Library-Keeper of Mount-Cassin, attributes these Homilies upon the Gospels, and upon the Feasts of the several Seasons, and of the Saints of the Year, to Bruno, Bishop of Signi; and this is confirmed by the Catalogues in the Manuscripts of the Vatican, and Mount-Cassin, where these Homilies are attributed to the same Author. They were Published by Gagneus, and Printed apart, and also in the Fifth Volume of the Bibliotheca Patrum at Cologne.   

BASIL of Ancyra.  
BASIL, was ordained Bishop of Ancyra, in the Year 336, by the Bishops of Eusebius' Party, in the room of Marcellus, whom they had already Deposed: He was Excommunicated, and his 
Basil of Ancyra.  Ordination declared void in the Council of Sardica, but yet he continued still in the Possession of his See: He Disputed against Photinus in the Council of Sirmium, in the Year 351, and there confounded that Heretic. He was one of the greatest Enemies to the Arians or Anomaeans, that is to say, to those that openly defended the Opinion of Arius, and maintained, that the Word was not at all like to the Father: But he was looked upon, as the Head of that Party, which was afterwards called Semi-Arians, who refusing to acknowledge, That the Son was Consubstantial with the Father; affirmed, That he was like him in all things, and even in Substance. Basil, maintained this Opinion stoutly, and caused it to be Established by the Authority of a Council, which was held at Ancyra, in the Year 358. He defended it at Seleucia and Constantinople, against the Intrigues of the Eudoxians and Acacians, who Deposed him in the Year 360, after they had charged him with many Crimes. St. Jerom, informs us, That Basil of Ancyra, wrote a Book against Marcellus his Predecessor, a Treatise of Virginity, and some other little Pieces. We have nothing of his extant, but his Conduct and Actions, discover him to have been a Man of Wit, Eloquent, and well-skilled in Theology. Tho' he is said to be the Head of that Party, who were called Semi-Arians, yet 'tis not certain that he was a Heretic; on the contrary, St. Basil speaks of him as a Catholic Bishop, and St. Athanasius, confesses in his Book of Synods, That Basil of Ancyra, and those of his Party, did not differ from them that professed the Consubstantiality, but only in words; and therefore St. Hilary and Philastrius, call the Bishops of the Council of Sirmium, that was held against Photinus, whereof Basil of Ancyra was the Chief, Orthodox and Holy Bishops.   

LIBERIUS.  
LIBERIUS Succeeded Pope Julius in the See of Rome, in the Year 352. He protests in one of his Letters, That 'twas much against his Will, that he was promoted to this Dignity. In the 
Liberius.  Fragments of St. Hilary, there is a Letter attributed to this Pope, which was written to the Bishops of the East, soon after his Elevation to the Pontificate, wherein he acquaints them, That he had sent to St. Athanasius, three Priests of the Church of Rome, Luke, Paul and Aelianus, to cite him to Rome, that Judgement might be given about his Cause, according to the Discipline of the Church; That he had also directed another Letter to him, wherein he acquaints him, That in Case he did not come to Rome, He would declare him Excommunicated from the Roman Church. He adds, That these Priests being returned, and having informed him that Athanasius refused to come, he had followed the Judgement that the Eastern Bishops gave against him; That he would Communicate with them, and all the Bishops of the Catholic Church; That on the contrary, Athanasius was fallen from his Communion, as well as from that of the Roman Church, and from all Correspondence with it by Letters.  
This is the Substance of this Letter attributed to Liberius, which would not be much for his Advantage, if it were really his: But I think, 'tis very probable, that he never wrote any such thing, and that this Epistle was forged by him that made the Collection of the Fragments of St. Hilary. For First, Is it any ways Credible, that Liberius should Excommunicate St. Athanasius, without any Cause, and without any Regard to the Judgement of his Predecessor, or to that of the Council of Sardica?  
Secondly, The Author of this Letter says, That the Eastern Bishops had wrote to Julius against St. Athanasius, without mentioning the Judgement which this Pope gave in his Favour.  
Thirdly, St. Athanasius never complains that Liberius had Excommunicated him before he was Banished; but on the contrary, he supposes, That he was always for him, till he Subscribed in the place of his Banishment.  
Fourthly, The Words of St. Hilary which follow this Letter, have no connexion with the Contents of it, and plainly show, That he refers to a quite different Letter: The Words are these; [Is not this a very Holy Letter? What does it contain in it that proceeds not from a Spirit full of the Fear of God? But Potamius and Epictetus, desiring to condemn the Bishop of Rome, as is said in the Synod of Ariminum, would not obey him; and tho' Fortunatianus sent this Letter to many Bishops, he lost his Labour.] Now is it credible, That St. Hilary should so commend a Letter that contained the Condemnation of St. Athanasius? What he adds, does yet more clearly prove what we have said, and confirm our Opinion. [They would rather prejudice their own Interests, and hazard all, than refuse Communion to St. Athanasius, or reflect upon the Authority of the Council of Sardica, which had absolved him. The Egyptians wrote to Liberius, that he should maintain Communion with St. Athanasius, as they had formerly written to Julius, to desire him, that he would restore him to it.] These words plainly discover, that Liberius had not Excommunicated St. Athanasius, since the Egyptians do not desire him, as they had formerly done Julius, to restore him to Communion, but only to maintain Communion with him. Qualis ad Julium pridem de reddenda exulanti Communione, talis nunc, ut de subjectis intelligitur, datae sunt de tuenda.  
Fifthly, Liberius himself is a Witness, That he never Excommunicated St. Athanasius. For in his Letter to Lucifer, where he gives an Account of what happened about the Cause of this Saint, at the beginning of his Pontificate, he says, That the Bishops of the East had written Letters against him, that he had not suppressed them, as he was accused, but had read them in Council, and yet gave no Credit to them: Queis fidem & sententiam non commodavimus nostram: [Which we did neither believe nor approve,] because he at the same time received Letters from 75 Bishops of Egypt, in behalf of St. Athanasius. Does not this plainly show, That the Letter which we now speak of, was none of Liberius', since it supposes, that he believed the Letter from those of the East, and Excommunicated St. Athanasius?  
Sixthly, If Liberius had Excommunicated St. Athanasius at the beginning of his Pontificate, would not the Officers of Constantius have alleged this as a Reason to make him Subscribe to his Condemnation? And how could he have maintained so stoutly as he did, That the Church of Rome had always held him Innocent?  
Seventhly, Tho' Liberius should have concealed or suppressed this Letter, while he was of St. Athanasius' Party; yet would he not have produced it immediately after he had Signed against him? For than he could have no Interest to conceal it, but on the contrary, was obliged to publish it: And yet even then he confesses, that he was always of St. Athanasius' side. [Because Julius my Predecessor of happy Memory, received St. Athanasius into his Communion, I was afraid, lest I should have passed for a Prevaricator, if I should have condemned him; but as soon as I understood that you had justly condemned him, I followed your Judgement.] Does not this plainly show, that Liberius did not Condemn St. Athanasius at the Beginning of his Pontificate, but that on the contrary, he did always Protect him, upon the Authority of his Predecessor?  
Lastly, There are some Expressions in this Letter, that were not used till after Liberius' time.  
From all which, I conclude it to be false, that Liberius did write this Letter, or Excommunicate St. Athanasius. On the contrary, immediately after he was exalted to the Pontificate, he wrote to him a Letter of Communion. The Bishops of the East wrote to him against this Saint, and those of Egypt for him. He read their Letters in a Synod, where 'twas decreed that Communion must be continued with St. Athanasius, as it had always been in the West. This happened towards the End of the Year 352, or at the Beginning of 353, before the defeat of Magnentius. After the Death of this Tyrant, Constantius convened a Council at Arles. Liberius sent thither Vincentius of Capua, in his Name, together with Marcellus a Bishop in Campania, and gave them Order to entreat the Emperor, That he would call a Council at Aquileia. These Bishops were so far from being steadfast, that they suffered themselves to be imposed upon, and Subscribed to the Condemnation of St. Athanasius, together with all the other Bishops of the Council, excepting only Paulinus the Bishop of Triers: Liberius understanding this, sent Lucifer Calaritanus, with Pancratius a Priest, and Hilary a Deacon, to carry a Letter to the Emperor Constantius, wherein after he had given an Account of what we have already said concerning every thing that had been done since the Beginning of his Pontificate, in the Cause of St. Athanasius, he prays him to Order the Examination of this Affair in a Free Council, upon Condition that they should begin with Confirming the Nicene Creed. He gave to the same Deputies a Letter of Recommendation, addressed to Eusebius Vercellensis, and indeed, he wrote two other Letters to him, one of Recommendation, and another of Thanks. About the same time, He wrote also to Hosius, and to other Bishops concerning the Lapse of Vincentius of Capua. Immediately after, the Council of Milan, held in the Year 355, which was not more favourable to St. Athanasius, than that of Arles had been before. Liberius wrote an Elegant Letter to Eusebius Vercellensis, Denys and Lucifer then in Banishment, wherein he praises them for their Constancy, and testifies to them, That he was ready to suffer the same Persecution for the same Cause. He says, He knew not whether he should be grieved for their Absence, or rejoice for their Glory; which he observes to be greater than that of former Martyrs, because these suffered only the Torments of their Pagan Persecutors, but they endured the Injuries of their false Brethren. He prays them to assist him with their Prayers, That God would give him Grace to bear with Patience and Constancy, the Trials that he was threatened with. And indeed, a little after, Constantius perceiving that there was none almost left but Liberius, who justified the Innocence of this Saint, and desiring to confirm his Condemnation by the Authority of the Bishop of Rome, sent an Eunuch thither, who urged him to Subscribe to the Condemnation of St. Athanasius to no purpose; for all the Answer he could get from him, was, That he should call a Free Council in some place, that was distant from the Court, where there should be neither Guards nor Officers; That this Council should begin with making a Profession of the Faith, as it had been explained in the Council of Nice; That it should drive away all the Arians, and anathematise their Error, and then afterwards should examine the Cause of St. Athanasius. The Emperor having received this Answer, sent an Order to the Governor of Rome, to surprise Liberius, and send him to Court; which Order was executed. And when he was in the Emperor's presence, he spoke to him with no less Constancy, than he had done at Rome to his Eunuch. We have his Answers in Theodoret in B. II. of his Hist. Ch. 16. wherein he discovers an unconceivable Firmness of Mind, in refusing to Subscribe to the Condemnation of St. Athanasius. Constantius objected to him, That he had been condemned by all the World; and, says he, You are the only Bishop in the World, that justifies an impious Disturber of the Peace; to which he answered with great Constancy, Tho' I were alone, yet the Cause of Faith is nevertheless Good, for at another time there were found but three young Men that disobeyed the Orders of the King. After this, he prayed him, That he would call a Synod, but withal, desired, That before they should proceed to examine St. Athanasius' Cause, He would make all the Bishops Subscribe the Nicene Creed. Constantius being enraged against St. Athanasius, as supposing him the cause of that Enmity, which his Brother Constans had against him; Liberius, as to this, answered him wisely, You ought not, Sir, to make use of Bishops to revenge your Quarrels; for the hands of ecclesiastics, ought not to be employed, but only to Bless and to Sanctify. At last, Constantius threatening him with Banishment; I have already, says he, bid adieu to my Brethren at Rome, for the Ecclesiastical Laws are to be preferred before my Living there. Three Days time were given him to consider of it, and because he did not change his Opinion in that time, he was Banished two Days after to Beraea, a City of Thrace. The Emperor, the Empress, and the Eunuch Eusebius, offered him Money to bear the Expense of his Journey, but he refused it, and went away cheerfully to the place of his Banishment. The Clergy of Rome, having lost their Head, took an Oath to choose no body in the Room of Liberius, as long as he was alive: But Constantius, by the management of Epictetus, Bishop of Cent●…cellae in Italy, procured one Felix a Deacon, to be ordained Bishop, who was himself also one of those that had sworn not to choose a Bishop in the Room of Liberius. St. Jerom, says, That Acacius had a hand in this Ordination. St. Jerom and Socrates accuse this Felix of Arianism; but Theodoret and Ruffinus, say, That he was not an Arian in Doctrine, but only communicated with that Party. However, all the Ancients agree, That this Ordination was not lawful 
a However, all the Ancients ●gree, That this Ordination was not lawful.] St. Athanasius, in his Epistle to those that lead a Monastic Life; says, that he was ordained in the Palace without the Consent of the People, or the Election of the Clergy, by Epictetus, in the Presence of Three Eunuches, and Three Bishops, who were rather Spies than Bishops; that the People would not permit him to enter into the Church, and withdrew themselves from his Communion. St. Jerom says that he was an Antipope. Optatus and St. Austin in the Catalogue of Popes, make no mention of Felix, but place Damasus immediately after Liberius. And certainly Liberius being a lawful Bishop, another could not be ordained in his Room. And whereas 'tis supposed, that after his Lapse he fell from his Bishopric. This can never make the Ordination of Felix valid which was null from the Beginning: Besides Liberius was not deposed after his Fall, but on the contrary was always acknowledged as a lawful Bishop, and continued in the Possession of his See with the Consent of all the Bishops of the Catholic Church. ; and some la●e Authors, are very much to be blamed for putting this Man in the Catalogue of Popes, and yet they have far less Reason to place him among the Holy Martyrs in very many Martyrologies 
b They have far less Reason to place him among the holy Martyrs in very many Martyrologies.] His Festival is kept on August 4th. Mombritius was the first that published his Life, and after him B●lusius put forth a more correct Edition of it. There was a Dispute about the Saintship of Felix, among the Correctors of the Roman Martyrology in the Time of Gregory; and 'tis said, there was then found an old Inscription in the Church of St. Cosmus and St. Damian, expressed in these words: The Body of St. Felix Pope and Martyr, by whom Constantius was Condemned. But the Life of this Felix and these Monuments are apocryphal: For, first they suppose that Constantius put him to Death; But 'tis evident by the Testimony of Marcellinus the Presbyter, that Felix survived Constantius. 2. How could it possibly be, that neither St. Athanasius, nor Hilary, nor Lucifer, etc. nor any other of the Ancients should ever speak one word, either of the Condemnation of Constantius by Felix, or the Martyrdom of this Pope? 3. The Acts of Mombritius relate, that Constantius was condemned for being twice baptised by Eusebius of Nicomedia: But 'tis manifest from the Testimonies of St. Hilary and Lucifer, that Constantius was a Catechumen, and was not baptised till about the latter end of his Life by Euzoius as St. Athanasius relates in the Book of Synods. The Authority of these Martyrologies is of little worth, as well as that of Anastasius the Library-keeper. The Inscription found in the Church of St. Cosmus, and St. Damian is an Argument of little weight. .  
But Liberius, who had given proof of so great Constancy in time of Peace, could not long endure the tediousness of Banishment; for before he had been two Years in it, he suffered himself to be over-persuaded by Demophilus Bishop of that City, to which he was banished, and did not only Subscribe the Condemnation of St. Athanasius; but he also consented to an Heretical Confession of Faith 
c Consented to an Heretical Confession of Faith.] Baronius and many others maintain, that he subscribed only the first Creed of Sirmium which was not heretical: But if this had been so, St. Hilary who approved this Creed, had never called that which was signed by Liberius, the Perfidiousness of the Arians, and anathematised Liberius so often upon the Account of his Subscription. St. Jerom says also, that Liberius was forced to sign Heresy, and all the Ancients speak of the Fall of Liberius, as the Approbation of the Heresy of the Arians, which made Faber, Blondel and Peta●ius think that Liberius subscribed the Second Creed of Sirmium. But this Opinion has its Difficulties, for St. Hilary says, that the Creed signed by Liberius was composed by 22 Bishops, which were for the most part Eastern; and that the Second Creed was made by Pota●ius and the Western Bishops. Basil is reckoned among those that approved the First, and condemned the Second Creed of Sirmium assoon as it appeared. In short, Liberius returned not from his Exile, till after the Council of Ancyra; in which, the Eastern Bishops had already thrown out the Second Creed of Sirmium. What Probability is there then, that they should offer it to him to sign? To answer these Difficulties and clear up this Matter, we must observe, that Demophilus caused Liberius to sign or approve a Creed while he was in Exile, different from that which he signed after his Return to Sirmium; that the Creed which Demophilus presented to him, was made at Sirmium by many Bishops, quae, says Liberius in his Letter, Sirmium à pluribus Fratribus, & Coepiscopis nostris translata & suscepta est: Words which can be understood of none, but the Second Creed of Sirmium, which gins thus; Cum nonnulla putaretur esse de fide disceptatio, diligenter omnia apud Sirmium tractata sunt & discussa, praesentibus sanctissimis Episcopis: And therefore we must say, that the Creed which Liberius approved in his Exile was the Second of Sirmium: For Demophilus was an Arian, and of the Party of Ursacius and Valens, who maintained the Second Creed of Sirmium. 'Twas for this Reason that Eudoxus and Aëtius spread a Report that Liberius was of their Opinion, and Liberius himself wrote to Ursacius and Valens, that he was of their Judgement; but being afterwards called to Sirmium, where he found Basil of Ancyra, Eleusius, and the other Semi-Arian Bishops, who a little before had condemned the Arians in the Council of Ancyra, he and those other Bishops signed a Book, which contained the Creeds of Antioch, the First of Sirmium, and those other Creeds that asserted the Son to be like unto the Father, and were obliged to condemn those that said he was unlike to him. See Sozomen B. IU. ch. 15. of his Hist. Nevertheless it may be objected, That the Second Creed of Sirmium was not made by Basil and the other Eastern Bishops; but that which was presented to Liberius by Demophilus, was made by these Bishops as we are assured by the Fragments of Hilary. To this, I know of no other Answer but by saying, that the Names of these Bishops were added by the Author who made these Extracts out of St. Hilary, who has put in the Margin, Inquirendum, i. e. we must inquire if these were the Bishops: Which plainly discovers, that he was not certain of it, but might set down those Names at a venture. This is what I thought myself obliged to say of this Question, which is very difficult and famous, though of no great use: [Though it is of no great Importance for us to know who precisely were the Bishops that drew up the Second Sirmian Creed; yet it is of great Moment to know whether that or the Creed of the First Council of Sirmium were signed by Pope Liberius: Our Author, who knew the thing was too gross to be quite omitted, shussles it off at last as if it had been a critical Question, only started at first to employ the learned: But when the ablest Advocates of the Church of Rome have confessed, that an Arian Creed was deliberately signed by one of its Bishops, they must also own that this destroys Infallibility effectually: And St. Hilary's Carriage, who declaimed against Liberius' Apostasy with all the Warmth that he usually employed upon such Occasions, shows how the Orthodox Bishops of that Age, thought a Bishop of Rome might be treated, when guilty of a Crime which they thought equal to that of denying the Faith in the Times of Paganism.] ; whether it was the First or Second Confession of Sirmium, is disputed among the Learned. Whichsoever 'twas, he did certainly write one Letter of Communion, to the Bishops of the East, wherein having declared St. Athanasius to be cast out of his Communion, and acknowledged his Approbation of that Confession of Faith which Demophilus presented unto him, he desires them to use their Interest and Prayers with the Emperor, to obtain his Deliverance from Banishment, and restauration to that Church which God had entrusted him with. He wrote also at the same time two Letters, which contained for the most part the same things, one to Ursacius and Valens, and the other to Vincentius of Capua; which are preserved amongst the Fragments of St. Hilary.  
After these Letters, Liberius quickly obtained his Desires; for the Emperor being satisfied, sent immediately for him to come to Sirmium, where he found Deputies of Bishops from the East and from the West. There was held a kind of a Council, which made a Collection of all the Creeds that had been approved by the Semi-Arians, wherein the Son was declared like unto the Father in Substance. These Creeds Liberius was obliged to sign, and then was sent back to Rome, with a Letter from the Synod directed to Felix, importing that Liberius and he should govern the Church of Rome as Copartners. But Liberius was no sooner returned thither, but Felix was forced to departed, and when afterwards he endeavoured to return by Force, he was driven away with disgrace.  
Now Liberius seeing himself in peaceable Possession of his See, as he had Subscribed against his will to the Condemnation of St. Athanasius, and the Creeds of the Arians, so he quickly repent of what he had done, made Profession of the Nicene Creed, and reconciled himself to St. Athanasius. He wrote one Letter to all the Bishops of the World in the Year 362, wherein he would have all those Bishops pardoned, who through surprise, had approved of the Error of the Arians; but he absolutely Anathematizes the Heads of their Party, and those that would not return from their Error. This Letter is set down in the Fragments of St. Hilary. At last the Semi-Arians seeing themselves overpowered by the Anomaeans, who had more Interest in the Emperor Valens, had recourse to Liberius, and sent to him, in the Year 366, Eustathius of Sebaste, together with Sylvanus and Theophilus Bishops of Cilicia, who presented him with Letters from the Council of Lampsacus: Liberius at first would not receive them, because, he said, they were of Arius' Faction; but they persuaded him that they would retract that Error, and profess that the Son is perfectly like his Father, and of the same Substance; yea, they made Profession of the Nicene Creed itself, approved the word Consubstantial, and condemned the Creeds of Ariminum and Seleucia. Liberius having exacted of them these Declarations, wrote into the East in their favour; and he died within a little time after in the Year 366 
d He died in the Year 366.] St Jerom and Marcellinus say so in their Chronicles. . The History which we have now given of Liberius, informs us of the number of Letters that were written by this Pope, as well as the time, the occasion and subject of every one of them: And therefore it will be sufficient here to give a Catalogue of them, and to mark out those that are falsely attributed to him; and in doing of it, we shall follow the Order that is observed in the two Volumes of the last Edition of the Councils.  
The 1st. is that which was written to Hosius upon the Lapse of Vincentius of Capua, published by Baronius, and taken from a Manuscript in the Vatican. This appears to me to be Genuine, and agrees with the History of that time.  
The 2d. is a Letter to Constantius, at the End of Lucifer's Works, and in the Fragments of St. Hilary.  
The three following to Eusebius Verceliensis, are taken out of the Acts of this Bishop, and appear to me to be Ancient.  
The 6th. to the Confessors in Exile, is in the Fragments of St. Hilary, and in the Acts of which we have spoken already.  
The 7th. which was written to the Eastern Bishops after he had signed against St. Athanasius, is taken out of the Fragments of St. Hilary, and is very Genuine.  
The 8th. is that which is supposed to have been written to those in the East, immediately after his Advancement to the Pontificate, wherein he declares St. Athanasius Excommunicated: But we have shown that 'tis very doubtful, though it is in the Fragments of St. Hilary.  
The 9th. written to Ursacius, to Valens, and Germinius, and the 10th. to Vincentius of Capua, from the place of his Banishment, after he had signed, are Genuine, and taken out of the Fragments of St. Hilary.  
The 11th. written to the Bishops of Italy after the Council of Ariminum, is unquestionable, and is preserved in the same place.  
The 12th. which is a Confession of Faith addressed to St. Athanasius is Supposititious, as we have already proved when we discoursed of the Works of that Father, among which it occurs.  
The 13th. which is supposed to be that which Eustathius and the other Deputy-Bishops from the East, obtained of Liberius, and presented to the Synod of Tyana, agrees very well with the History of that time.  
The 14th. and 15th. aught to be ranked among those Letters that are forged by Isidore, and are rejected by all the Critics.  
The three Decrees attributed to this Pope, have not any respect to the Discipline of his time, nor have they any Authority.  
The Conference 
e The Conference.] 'Twas rather an Examination which Liberius underwent in the Emperor's Council.  which he had with Constantius and Epictetus, is preserved by Theodoret, B. II. of his Hist. Ch. 6. and was by him drawn out of the Ancient Acts written in Liberius' time.  
The Style of Liberius is Simple and without Ornament, but strong and clear. His Conduct unblameable, if he had not suffered himself to be overcome by the Love which he had for the City of Rome, and his Church: But he made amends for that Fault by the Constancy which he showed after his Return.   

St. HILARY.  
St. HILARY was born in the City of Poitiers 
a Was born in the City of Poitiers.] St. Jerom in his Preface to B. II. of his Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Galatians, says, that St. Hilary was a Gaul born at Poitiers: Fortunatus says also, that he was of that City. Pictavis residens qua sanctus Hilarius olim Natus in Urbe Pater. The Names of his Parents are not known; for we must not acquiesce in what Bollandus writes, that the Tomb of his Father and Mother were found in a Village of Poictou, where his Father was named Francarius: But there is some probability that he was of a good Family. We need not now distinguish this Hilarius from several others of that Name, of whom we shall speak afterwards. , whereof he was afterwards Bishop. He was bred up in the Heathen Religion, and applied himself in his Youth to the Study of Profane 
St. Hilary.  Learning: He was Married, and had one Daughter named Apra 
b Apra.] The Author of the Life of this Saint which is attributed to Fortunatus, is the only ancient Witness that we have of this Circumstance; who does also observe, that St. Hilary having left his Daughter and Wife at Poitiers when he was banished, had a Revelation in the Place of his Banishment, that a rich and potent young Man courted his Daughter to marry her, but that he by his Prayers hindered her from taking any other Spouse but Jesus Christ, and that he wrote a Letter to her which this Author recites. The same Author adds at the end of B. I. of the Life of St. Hilary, that returning from his Banishment, and finding that his Daughter desired to marry, he prayed God to take her out of the World; that his Prayer was heard, for his Daughter died, and her Mother survived her but a very little time. This is reported by the Author of this Life, who lived soon after King Cloüis, towards the Year 580, and who appears to be different from Venantius Fortunatus. St. Gregory of Tours, citys this Life without naming the Author of it; and so we must not wholly reject what he says, nor yet altogether build upon it. . The Reflections which he made upon the Falsehood of the Gentile Doctrines, did by little and little conduct him to some Imperfect Knowledge of the Truth, which he completed by Reading the Holy Scriptures, as he himself tells us, at the Beginning of his Books concerning the Trinity. After he was perfectly instructed in the Christian Religion. He was Baptised, and probably his Wife and Daughter were converted with him. He lived several Years after his Baptism, before he was made Bishop 
c He lived several Years after his Baptism, before he was made Bishop.] In his Book of Synods, he says, that he was baptised a long while before his Banishment, and but a little while before it he was made Bishop: Regeneratus pridem, & in Episcopatu aliquantisper manens. , but we know not any one particular Circumstance of his Life during all that time. He was Ordained Bishop of Poitiers some years before his Banishment; and immediately after he was promoted to that Dignity, he laboured with all his might to Save the Flock which Jesus Christ had entrusted him with, by Preaching the Truths of the Gospel. Afterwards, when he saw that the Arian Heresy began to spread in France, he wrote Twelve Books of the Trinity against it 
d He wrote his Twelve Books of the Trinity against it.] Some have thought that they were written in his Banishment; but the Preface alone, which is the Beginning of the First Book, discovers that these Books were written before that time: For after he has there described his Conversion he observes that soon after his Ordination the Arian Heresy was spread in France, and that immediately he took Pen in hand to confute their Impious Doctrines. What he says in the Tenth Book, does also prove that he was not banished, but only threatened with Banishment when he wrote it, Sed licet, says he, nunc à multis coacervantibus sibi secundum desideria sua Magistros sana doctrina exulet, (which is plainly meant of the Banishment of Paulinus of Triers, Eusebius of Verceilles, and Lucifer Calaritanus banished after the Council of Milan) non tamen à Sanctis quibusque Praedicationis Veritas exulabit. Loquemur enim exules per hos libros, & Sermo Dei qui vinciri non potest, liber excurret, etc. Where he speaks of his Banishment as a thing that was future and had not yet come to pass, but which was quickly to follow after the Banishment of Paulinus and others: From whence it appears that this Tenth Book was written between the Council of Milan and that of Beziers. , which he finished about the time that he was threatened with Banishment. He was sent by Order of the Emperor Constantius into Banishment, because he had defended St. Athanasius in the Council of Beziers, against Saturninus Bishop of Arles, and against Ursacius and Valens, who had been a little before Excommunicated by the Bishops of France; for being come to this Council, which was Assembled by the intriguing of Saturninus, he desired that Matters of Faith should be handled before all other things, and offered to convict Saturninus, Ursacius and Valens, of Heresy; But they were so far from accepting this Proposition, that they condemned St. Hilary, and wrote a Letter against him to the Emperor, who was then at Milan; whereupon he sent immediately an Order to Banish St. Hilary and Rhodanius Bishop of Tholouse. Nevertheless, there was no Bishops Ordained in their room; and so the Church of Poitiers enjoyed Peace, and St. Hilary continued still to Govern it, and to Administer the Sacraments there by his Priests. The ordinary place of his Banishment was Phrygia 
e The ordinary Place of his Banishment was Phrygia.] St. Jerom in his Catalogue, and Sulpitius Severus B. II. of his Hist. do testify this, as well as the Author of the Life of St. Hilary. Theodoret B. III. ch. 4. says, That Hilary, Eusebius and Lucifer were in Thebaïs', when Julian permitted the exiled Bishops to return to their Sees. This is true of the Two last, but not of the First, for he was then in France. St. Hilary himself says, in his Book of Synods, that he was in the Provinces of Asia. ; where he wrote his Treatise of Synods, which he dedicated to the Bishops of France, to inform them of the Opinions of the Eastern Bishops about the Trinity, and to instruct them how they should behave themselves in these two Synods, the expectation whereof held all the Church in Suspense. This Treatise was composed by St. Hilary after the Council of Ancyra, held in the Year 358, whose Canons he there explains, and before the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, that's to say, towards the Beginning of the Year 359. Sometime after he was sent to the Council of Seleucia by the Lieutenant of the Praefectus Praetorio, and by the Governor of Phrygia. Being arrived at that City, he was kindly received, and gained the good opinion and affection of every Body. First of all, he was required to give an account of the Faith of the Bishops of France, because of the false Reports that the Arians had spread Abroad against them, which rendered them suspected of Sabellianism, and charged with believing that there was but one Person only in the Godhead. But St. Hilary having declared his Faith which agreed with the Nicene Creed, gave an authentic Testimony of the Purity of the Faith of the Western Bishops: and so having removed the Jealousies they might have of his Doctrine, he was admitted to the Communion and Society of the other Bishops, and took his Place among those that were to vote in the Council. He assisted there at the Beginning; but seeing that the greater part of the Bishops were Arians, they would not suffer him to stay there any longer. Yet he continued still at Seleucia till the End of the Council, and followed the Deputies of the Council to the Emperor's Court, to receive the Orders that should be given him: But when he saw that the true Faith was in extreme Danger, the Bishops of the West being overreached, and those of the East overpowered, he desired Audience of the Emperor in Three Petitions, (if we may believe Sulpitius Severus) which he publicly presented, That he might have leave to Dispute for the Faith against his Adversaries. St. Jerom, mentions but one Petition, and indeed, of the three Papers which St. Hilary presented to Constantius, there is none but the Third wherein he desires Audience. This he presented towards the End of the Year 359, and the Second Paper also about the same time. The Arians seeing themselves attacked by so powerful an Enemy, procured him to be sent back into France, yet without releasing him wholly from his Banishment. As he returned, he passed through Italy, and entered France in the Year 360. 'Twas in his Journey, or a little after his Return, that he addressed his Third Discourse to Constantius, which is commonly placed First. St. Jerom, says, That he wrote it after the Death of this Emperor: But it appears by the Discourse itself, that it was composed Five Years after St. Hilary withdrew from the Communion of Saturninus; and after the Banishment of Lucifer, Eusebius and Paulinus, which discovers that it was in 360, and so before the Death of Constantius; and yet 'tis probable, that it was not published in the East, till after the Death of this Emperor, which made St. Jerom believe, that it was not written till that time. 'Twas about the same time, that he composed his Treatise against Ursacius and Valens, which contained the History of the Council of Ariminum and of Seleucia; from whence part of those Fragments are taken, which have been published by themselves. The whole Book consists of Two Parts; The First is taken out of a Book of St. Hilary, which he wrote during the time of Persecution, and before the Death of Constantius, as the Preface sufficiently discovers. This First Part gins at P. 430. and ends at 466. of the Paris Edition in the Year 1652, and it contains the Transactions that happened to the end of the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia. The Second Part taken out of another Book, gins at P. 466, and contains what passed afterwards. When the Catholic Bishops afterwards recovered their Liberty under Julian the Apostate. St. Hilary assembled many Councils in France for the Re-establishment of the Ancient Faith, and the Condemnation of the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia. In them he procured the Condemnation of Saturninus Bishop of Arles, who opposed this Design, as well as Paternus Bishop of Perigueux. As to the other Bishops who acknowledged their Fault, they were pardoned; and all the World must own, says Sulpitius Severus, that our France was obliged to St. Hilary alone for its happy Deliverance from Heresy. He extended also his care as far as Italy, if we believe Ruffinus, and took a great deal of pains to re-establish the Faith there, by visiting the Churches, and causing them to reject the Errors of the Heretics. Eusebius of Vercellae found that St. Hilary had prevented him in this Employment, and Ruffinus makes no scruple to say, That St. Hilary laboured with more Diligence and Success than he [because he was of a sweet and mild disposition, and withal of great Learning, and every way qualified for persuading: Nisi quod Hilarius, viz. natura lenis, placidus, simulque e●uditus, & ad persuadendum commodissimus, rem diligentius & aptius procurabat.] An excellent Remark, which may serve for an Instruction to those who are employed in the Conversion of Heretics: The same Historian adds, [That St. Hilary composed Books concerning the Faith, which were nobly written, wherein he clearly discovers the Artifices and Tricks which the Heretics used to deceive the too Credulous and simple Catholics.] Lastly, Russinus relates in his Book concerning the Corruption of Origen's Works, That St. Hilary having wrote a Book to chastise those that had signed the Creed of Ariminum, his Book was so corrupted by the Heretics, though he knew nothing of it, that he was accused in a Synod of being an Heretic, and forced to departed from it as an Excommunicate Person. But I do not think we ought to take this Relation for certain, because 'tis no ways probable that the Faith of St. Hilary about the Trinity, could be suspected by the Western Bishops. In the Year 364, an occasion offered itself 
f In the Year 364, an occasion offered itself.] Baronius places this Conference in 369, which is a gross mistake, since according to the Testimony of all the Ancients, St. Hilary was dead before. Besides the Letter of Auxentius which was written after this Conference, bears not the Name of Gratian, who was declared Emperor in 367, but only the Names of Valens and Valentinian. It appears by Ammianus Marcellinus, B. XXVI. that Valentinian came to Milan about the end of the Year 364, and went away soon after: And therefore this Conference must have been held in this Year. , wherein St. Hilary showed his Zeal for the Truth. The Emperor Valentinian being come to Milan, published an Edict, wherein he obliged all the Catholics to acknowledge Auxentius for their Bishop. St. Hilary being persuaded that this Bishop was in his Judgement an Arian, presented a Petition to the Emperor, wherein he declared, that Auxentius was a Blasphemer, whose opinions were contrary to those of the Prince and other Catholics. The Emperor being moved by so sharp an Accusation, appointed a Conference, in the Presence of the Treasurer, and the great Mr. of the Palace, between St. Hilary accompanied with Ten Bishops, and Auxentius. 〈◊〉 it this Con●…, after he had ●nd●●vour'd 〈◊〉 the Dispute, was obliged, under pain of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That Je●●● Ch●●st was truly God, and of the same Substance, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Emperor thinking this Profession sincere, embraced his Commu●…, 〈◊〉 St. 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 still continued to proclaim Auxentius a Heretic, who mocked God and M●●, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ou● of Milan as a Disturber of the Peace of the Church. Being thus disabled to speak an● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against Auxentius, he wrote a Tract against this Bishop the next Year. In the Year 36●. 〈◊〉 Collected the Commentaries of all the Transactions, that had happened after the Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as may be seen in the Second Part of the Fragments which is taken out of this Work, where you will find the Letters written in 366.  
At last, After he had endured so much Labour and Trouble for the Defence of the Faith, he finished his course in the Ye●● 367 
g He finished his Course in the Year 367.] St. Jerom places his Death in this Year. Sulpitius Severus says, that he died Six Years after his Return into Gaul, and Gregory of Tours B. I. of his Hist. ch. 3. says, that his Death happened in the Fourth Year of Valeminian. These Two Dates fall out just in the same Year; for the one reckons six Years after the end of the Year 360, which reaches to the Beginning of 367, and the 4th. Year of Valentinian's Reign begun in the Month of February the same Year. .  
Besides the Works of St. Hilary which we have already mentioned, because they have a respect to the History of his Life, he has also written other Books, some whereof are come to our hands.  
He wrote a little Tract against Dioscorus the Physician, and salustius the Perfect, wherein he has particularly shown, says St. 〈◊〉, in his Epistle to Magnus, how far his Learning and Eloquence could reach. This Book is not extant, yet 'tis very probable that 'twas written in Defence of the Christian Religion against Paganism.  
He wrote several Commentaries upon the Scriptures, which are almost wholly taken out of Origen, whose Commentaries he caused H●liodorus to explain to him, if we believe St. Jerom: But it must be confessed, that he followed more the Sense than the Letter of Origen's Commentaries, and that he added many things of his own, as the same St. Jerom has also observed. We have his Commentaries upon St. Matthew, we have also more of his Commentaries upon the Psalms than St. Jerem had seen; for this Father mentions only the Commentaries upon the 1st. and 2d. Psalms, upon the 51st. and those that follow until the 62d, and upon the 118th. and those that follow unto the last; and we have besides th●se Commentaries, the Commentaries upon the 14th. and 15th. Psalms, and upon the 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, Psalms, which bear the Name of St. Hilary, and are written in his Style. But we have none of his Commentaries upon Job, which are cited by St. Jerom, whereof St. Austin relates a Passage in his 2d. Book against Julian, to prove Original Sin.  
There was also attributed to him in St. Jerom's Time, a Commentary upon the Canticles, but this Father says, that he had never seen it.  
St. Jerom mentions also a Collection of Hymns, composed by St. Hilary; a Book Entitled Mysteries; and many Letters.  
I place not the Letter and Hymn to his Daughter Apra, in the Number of St. Hilary's Works, because I doubt not but these pi●ces were the Work of him that wrote his Life, which are not at all like this Father's way of Writing: Some have attributed to him the Hymn Pang Lingua, and that of St. John the Baptist, Ut qu●●nt laxis; but without any Ground: The Books of the Unity of the Essence of the Father and the Son, were Rhapsodies taken out of the Genuine Works of St. Hilary. St. Jerom in his Apology to Pammachius, speaks of a Book of St. Hilary addressed to Fortunatus, which was concerning the Number Seven. Some have confounded this Treatise with St. Cyprian's Books of Exhortation to Martyrdom, being addressed to a Person of the same Name. But that which St. Jerom attributes to St. Hilary, must be different from those of St. Cyprian; and therefore if there be no Mistake in this place of St. Jerom, we must say, that St. Hilary wrote a Treatise addressed to his Friend Fortunatus, concerning the mysterious Significations of the Number Seven. And this Work may very well be one of those Treatises of Mysteries, which St. Jerom mentions in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers.  
The Twelve Books of the Trinity, composed by St. Hilary in Imitation of Quintilians Books, as St. Jerom has observed, are an excellent Work, which contains the Explication and the Proofs of this Mystery. He has there established the Faith of the Church in a demonstrative Manner; he has clearly detected the Errors of the Heretics, refuted them solidly and answered all their Objections: So that this is the largest and most methodical Work of any, that we have in all Antiquity upon this Subject.  
The First Book is a Preface to the Whole, wherein he describes very pleasantly after what manner a Man arrives at Happiness, and the Knowledge of the Truth; and then gives an Account of the Subject of the Eleven following Books. He gins with observing, that Happiness does not consist in Abundance, nor in Repose, as common People imagine, nor yet in the bare Knowledge of the First Principles of Good and Evil, as many wise Men among the Pagan's thought, but in the Knowledge of the true God. He adds, that Man having an ardent Desire after this Knowledge, meets with some Persons that give him low and mean Ideas, unworthy of the Divinity. Some would persuade him that there are many Gods of different Sexes: Others take the Representations of Men, of Beasts, and Birds, for Divinities: Others acknowledge no God at all; and some, in short, confess, That there is a God, but deny that he has any Knowledge, or takes any Care of things here below. But the Reason of a Man discovers these Notions to be false, and so by the Light of Nature, he comes to know, That there can be but one God Almighty, Eternal and Infinite, who is in all places, who Knows all things, and Orders all things; and afterwards by reading the Books of Mos●● and the Prophets, where he found these Truths explained, he was fully convinced of them, and studied with the greatest Application of mind to know this Sovereign Being, who is the Fountain of all kind of Beauty and Perfection. Neither did he stop here, but upon further Enquiry, he came to understand, That 'twas unworthy of God to suppose, that Man to whom he had given so much Knowledge, should be annihilated for ever; for if this were true, to what purpose would his Knowledge serve, since Death would one Day deprive him of all Understanding? But then as on the one side, Reason discovers it to be fit, that Man should be Immortal; so on the other side, the Sense of his present Weakness, and the Apprehension of Death, which he sees is unavoidable, fill him with anxious Fears. In this State, he has recourse to the Gospel, which perfects all the Knowledge he had before, and resolves all the Doubts that yet remain with him. There he learns, That there is an Eternal Word, the Son of God, who was made Man, and came into the World to communicate to it the Fullness of Grace and Truth. This gives him hopes infinitely above all that he could have before, for now he presently perceives the Excellency and Greatness of these Gifts, by understanding, That since the Son of God was made Man, nothing can hinder, but Men may become the Sons of God; and so when a Man joyfully receives this Doctrine, he perfects the Knowledge he had of the Divinity, by the Knowledge of the Humanity of Jesus Christ. He renews his Spirit by Faith; He acknowledges the Providence of one God over him, and gins to be fully persuaded, that he who created him, will not annihilate him. In short, he understands, That Faith is the only infallible means of coming to the Knowledge of the Truth; That it rejects unprofitable Questions, and resolves the captious Difficulties of humane Philosophy; That it judges not of the Conduct of God according to the Thoughts of Men, nor of that of Jesus Christ, according to the Maxims of this World; That 'twas by this Faith, (whereof the Law was only a Shadow and Type,) that Jesus Christ having raised our Minds to that which is most Sublime and Divine, prescribed to us, instead of the Circumcision of the Flesh, the Circumcision of the Spirit, which consists in the Reformation of our Lives, and the Renovation of our Hearts: That as we die to Sin in Baptism, that we may live a Spiritual and Immortal Life, so Jesus Christ died for us, that we might rise again together with him; and so the Death of him who is Immortal, procured Immortality to us Mortals. Now when once the Soul is fully possessed with these Thoughts, she rests satisfied with this Hope, without fearing Death, or being wearied of Life: For she considers Death as the beginning of Eternal Life, and looks upon this present Life, as the means of obtaining a happy Immortality.  
These are the Steps by which St. Hilary guides the minds of Men to the Knowledge of Happiness and Truth, after he himself had arrived at it by the same Methods: For he does not deliver these things as curious and profound Discourses which he had meditated in his Study, but as the History of his own Thoughts which by degrees carried him on to a perfect Conversion. Then he declares, That afterwards being Ordained Bishop, as his Office obliged him to take Care of the Salvation of others, he preached the Truths of the Gospel; And at last, That the Heresy of the Arians, who would judge of the Almighty Power of God, by the weak Light of their own Reason, had obliged him to undertake the Defence of the Truth, and the Refutation of their Errors. After he has in a few words Explained the Faith of the Church, he admonishes the Reader, above all things, when he thinks of God, to divest his Mind of the meanness of humane Opinions, and to judge of God according to the Light of Faith, and agreeable to the Testimony of God himself. For, says he, the chief Qualification required in a Reader, is, That he be willing to take the Sense of an Author from what he reads, and not give that Sense wherewith he himself is propossessed. He must take the meaning of the Author, and not give him one of his own: He ought not to endeavour to find in the Passages which he reads, that which he presumed, aught to be found there before he read them; wherefore in Discoursing of God, he ought at least to be persuaded, that he knew himself, and so to Embrace with Reverence, that Doctrine which he teaches us. He only can give an Account worthy of himself, because he is not known but from himself, and by himself. But if it happens, says St. Hilary, That some Comparison, from humane Affairs be used in Discoursing of these Mysteries, we must not believe that they are Just, or have a perfect Resemblance to them. After this Excellent Advertisement, St. Hilary gives an Account of the Subject of his Eleven Books of the Trinity, and finishes this First Book, with an Invocation of the Divine Assistance.  
In the Second Book, He explains the Catholic Doctrine concerning the Three Divine Persons. He says, He should have permitted Christians to keep themselves to the Words of the Gospel, without diving further into the Mystery of the Trinity, if the Heretics had not obliged them to explain it more clearly. The Errors and Blasphemies of the Heretics, says he, oblige us to do those things which are forbidden us, to search into those Mysteries which are Incomprehensible, to speak those things that are Ineffable, and to explain that which we are not permitted to examine: And instead of performing with a sincere Faith (which were otherwise sufficient) that which is commanded us, i e. Worshipping the Father and the Son, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, we are obliged to employ our weak Reasonings to explain those things which are Incomprehensible; being constrained, if a Man may so say, by the fault of others, to commit this one ourselves, lest we fall into the Error of those who have dared to give an heretical Sense to the Words of Scripture; for that which makes the Heresy, says he, is not the Scripture, but the manner of Expounding it; 'tis the Interpretation that makes the Crime, and not the Words. After this, he gives an Account of the Errors of the Sabellians, the Ebionites and Arians, to which he opposes the Faith of the Church. He says, That the Father who is the First Person of the Trinity, is the Fountain and First Principle of all Things, being Eternal and Infinite; and that the Word, who is the Second Person of the Trinity, is the Son begotten from all Eternity of the Father. He confesses, That this Generation is Incomprehensible, and reproves those that endeavour to explain it. He asks them, If they can comprehend how they came into this World; How they received their Feeling, Life, Preception, Taste, Sight, Understanding, and the other Senses; How they can Communicate them to others. [Tell me, says he, O Man, if thou canst comprehend how all this is done, and if thou canst not comprehend it, with what Face dost thou demand an Explication of the Generation of the Son of God? Thou that art so ignorant of what passes in thyself, Wilt thou be so insolent as to complain for not knowing what passes in God?] And so, without insisting on the Explication of the Eternal Generation of the Word by humane Reason, he proves it by Holy Scripture, and confirms the Catholic Faith of the Divinity of the Word against all Heresies. He speaks occasionally of the Temporal Generation of the Son of God, that is to say, of the Mystery of the Incarnation. At last, He treats of the Holy Spirit, who is the Third Person of the Trinity, and maintains, That he is a Divine Person, distinct from the Father and the Son: He observes, That tho' the Name of Spirit be given sometimes in Scripture to the Father and the Son, yet in most places, it signifies a Person distinct from them both. He Discourses of the Effects and Gifts of the Holy Spirit; and says, That he Intercedes for us; That he Enlightens our Understandings, and warms our Hearts; That he is the Author of all Grace, and of all heavenly Gifts; That he will be with us till the End of the World; That he is our Comforter here while we live in Expectation of a future Life, the earnest of our future Hopes, the Light of our Minds, and the Warmth of our Souls. From whence he concludes, That we must beg this Holy Spirit, to enable us to do Good, and to persevere in the Faith, and keeping the Commands of God.  
In the Third Book, He proves the Divinity of the Son of God, by the Words of the Gospel of St. John, I am in my Father, and my Father is in me. He observes also, 
That the Generation of the Word is incomprehensible, as well as the most part of the Miracles of Jesus Christ; That Humane Reason cannot give an Account of it; and, That Jesus Christ was made Man, to Preach this Eternal Power to Men, and to make known his Father unto them; That in this Sense, we must understand his desire to be Glorified, that he might glorify his Father, viz. That the Glory which the Humanity of Jesus Christ received and made appear unto Men, discovered the Dignity and Power of his Father . He observes also, That the Birth of Jesus Christ, His Resurrection, His Entering into the Room where the Disciples were, unseen, through the Doors, and the other Miracles of Jesus Christ, are no less above Reason, than his Eternal Generation. From whence he concludes, That the Nature and Operations of God, are above the Reason, Perception, and Understanding of Men; That we must acknowledge in these things, the folly of Worldly Wisdom, and the Vanity of Humane Knowledge, and Embrace that Heavenly Prudence, and Divine Wisdom, that seems to be folly to the World.  
In the Fourth Book, He describes the Errors of the Heretics concerning the Consubstantiality of the Word; He opposes to them the Faith of the Church; Answers the Passages which they allege, and endeavours to prove the Divinity of the Word, by many Passages taken out of the Old Testament.  
He continues the same Subject in the Fifth Book, where he thinks, That 'twas the Word which appeared to Abraham, to Jacob, to Moses and the other Patriarches, who is called an Angel, because of his Ministry, and not because of his Nature.  
In the Sixth Book, he proves, That Jesus Christ is the Son of God, By the Testimony of his Father; By his own Declaration; By the Preaching of the Apostles; By the Confession of the Faithful; By the Acknowledgement of the Devils and Jews, and by the Belief of the Gentiles. We must observe here, That in citing a Passage of the Epistle to the Romans, he appeals to the Greek Text, as to the Original.  
In the Seventh, He shows that the Son of God, is truly God. There he observes, That the Heretics use very great Address and Subtlety to Maintain their corrupt Opinions which they falsely pretend to have from Religion; That they deceive the Simple by their Expressions, which are Catholic in appearance; that they accommodate themselves to the Wisdom of this World; That they corrupt the true Sense of Scripture Expressions, by the Explications which they add, as it were to give an Account of what they say. He adds, That 'tis this which renders the Matter of the Trinity, a difficult Subject to treat on: [For if on the one side, says he, I declare that there is but one God, Sabellius, will think, that I espouse his Opinion: If I say, That the Son is God, the modern Heretics will accuse me of admitting Two Gods: If I affirm, That the Son is born of the Virgin, Ebion and Photinus will make use of this Truth, to Establish their Impiety. But, says he, the Doctrine of the Church confounds all these Errors. The Power of Truth is so great, that even its Enemies explain it; that the more 'tis opposed, the more force it gains; and certainly, the Church was never more Triumphant, than when it was most vigorously attacked: It was never more Famous, than when it was reproached: It was never more Powerful, than when it seemed to be abandoned. She wishes, That all Men would continue in her Bosom, and She is never more troubled, than when She is obliged to throw any one out, and deliver him up to the Devil. But when the Heretics go out from Her, or when She casts them out, as She loses on one side the occasion of giving them Salvation, so She gains this Advantage on the other, of discovering the Happiness of those who continue inviolably fixed in Her Communion. And a few Lines after, he adds, All Heresies attack the Church, and while they attack the Church, they overcome one another. But the Victory is gained to the Church and not to them; for they all Quarrel about those Errors, which are all equally rejected by the Church. Sabellius, for Instance, does unanswerably confute the Error of Arius; Arius confounds the Error of Photinus, and so of the rest: but in vain do they mutually Conquer one another, for they are always overcome in some Article or other, and the Church alone remains victorious over all Errors, by professing that Jesus Christ is the true God, Son of the true God, born before all Ages, and afterwards begotten of Mary.] Lastly, he proves that he is God, because the Name of God is given him in the New Testament, and from what is there said of his Birth, his Nature, his Power and his Actions.  
In the Eighth Book he shows the essential Unity of the Father and the Son, and refutes the Interpretations of the Heretics, by explaining the Passages which they alleged, to prove that the Unity of the Father and the Son is an Unity of Will and Judgement, and not of Essence and Nature. At the Beginning of this Book he observes, That 'tis not sufficient for a Bishop to live a Good Life, but he must also teach Sound Doctrine; that as his Life must be Innocent, so his Preaching must be Learned: for if he be Pious without being Learned, he will not be serviceable to others; and if he be Learned without being Holy, his Doctrine will want Authority: From whence he concludes, That the Holiness of a Bishop should shine more brightly by his Learning, and his Doctrine should be recommended by the Holiness of his Life, Ut & vita ejus ornetur docendo, & doctrina vivendo. There is in this Book an excellent Passage for the real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, where he says, That by this Sacrament we truly receive the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, who remains corporeally in us.  
In the Ninth Book he answers the great Objections of the Arians founded upon Five Passages of Scripture, whereof he explains the true sense. And First of all, he shows, That they abuse the Passages which they allege by perverting them from their Natural Sense; That they do not explain them by their Connexion with what follows, and what goes before; That they attribute to the Divinity of Jesus Christ, that which should only be attributed to his Humanity. Upon this occasion he discourses of the Union of the two Natures in Jesus Christ, and explains how by virtue of this Union, those things are attributed to God which agree only to the Humane Nature, and those to Man which belong to the Divinity. Afterwards he explains the Passages which the Arians continually object to the Catholics, one by one: The First, which is taken out of the Tenth Chapter of St. Mark, is the Answer which Jesus Christ made to the Rich young Man, who called him Good Master, Why callest thou me Good, says he, there is none Good but God; from whence the Arians concluded, That Jesus Christ was not truly God. St. Hilary answers, That he does not particularly reprove the Young Man, for calling him Good, but because he gives him this Title, as if it agreed to him in the Capacity of a Doctor of the Law. The Young Man, says he, not knowing that he was the Messiah, who came to save the lost Sheep of the House of Israel, asked him as a Doctor of the Law, and gave him the Title which the Doctors take to themselves. Jesus Christ reproves this Notion, and to explain to him in what sense he should be called Good, he tells him, None is Good but God; showing by this, That he was so far from rejecting the title of Good as it agreed to God, that he accepted of it in that sense. And therefore his Answer is one Proof of his Divinity, which ought to be understood in this sense, Why call you me good, if you believe not that I am God? There is none Good but God; which supposes that he himself was God. St. Hilary confirms this Answer by many places of Scripture, where Jesus Christ gives himself the Title of Good, and of Master; from whence it appears that the Title was not here refused upon its own Account. Upon this occasion he Answers the Objection of the Arians, who say, That Jesus Christ called his Father the only God; and shows that the Father is the only God; because the Divinity of the Father is the same with that of the Son, which Truth he proves by many Passages of Scripture.  
The Second Passage objected by the Arians is taken out of the Gospel of St John, Chap. 17. This is life Eternal to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent; from whence the Arians concluded, That Jesus Christ was not ●he true God, but one sent from the true God. St. Hilary answers, That this Passage does not exclude the Essential Unity of the Father and the Son, since in this and other places, Jesus Christ affirms, That he came forth from God; That he is with God; That he had overcome the World; That he should be honoured as the Father; That he had received the Power of giving Eternal Life; That all things which are the Father's are his. He adds, That in the same Place Jesus Christ prays the Father to glorify him with the Glory that he had with him from all Eternity; which evidently proves the Unity of the Essence of the Father and the Son: Moreover the words alleged in the Objection, prove nothing contrary to the Faith of the Church, which acknowledges that the Father is the only true God, though Jesus Christ is also God, because the Father and the Son are not two Gods, but one God only.  
The Third Objection is taken from Ch. 5th. of the same Gospel of St. John. The Son can do nothing of himself, he doth only what he seethe his Father do. St. Hilary shows that this Passage establishes the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and is very far from destroying it, because it proves the Unity and Equality of the Father and the Son.  
The Fourth Passage is the grand Objection of the Arians founded upon those words of Jesus Christ in St. John, Chap. 14. My Father is greater than I St. Hilary says, That the Father is greater than the Son, considered as Man and as Mediator. The last Objection is taken from those words of Jesus Christ in St. Mark, Chap. 13. No Man knoweth the Day of Judgement, nor yet the Angels, nor the Son, but the Father only: From whence the Arians concluded, That the Knowledge of the Father being more extensive than that of the Son, his Nature must be more excellent. St. Hilary having in answer to this Objection, proved by many Reasons, that Jesus Christ could not be Ignorant of the Day of Judgement, and having demonstrated this Truth, he adds, That what Christ says in this place, that the Son knew not the Day of Judgement, ought not to be understood literally, as if he were really ignorant of it; but in this sense, that he did not know it, not so as to tell it unto Men. Wherefore being asked about the same Matter after his Resurrection, he does not say, That he was ignorant of it; but he reproves his Apostles with that heat, which testified his Knowledge of it, by saying unto them, 'Tis not for you to know the times and the seasons which my Father has reserved in his own Power. He adds also, that it may be said in another sense, That the Son of Man was ignorant of the Day of Judgement, because he knew it not as he was Man, but as he was God: For, says he, as we may say, That the Son of God was subject to Fear, to Sadness, and to Sleep; because the Humanity of Jesus Christ was subject to these Infirmities; So we may say, That he was ignorant of the Day of Judgement, because he knew it not as he was Man, but upon the account of his Divinity.  
In the Tenth Book he Answers the Objections which the Arians draw from those Passages of Scripture which prove that Jesus Christ was subject to Fear, to Sorrow and Pain. And here he maintains, That Jesus Christ had not truly any Fear or Pain, but only the Representation of those Passions within him: In which, if his Judgement is not different from that of the Church, yet it must be confessed, that the manner of expressing it is very harsh. He had answered the Arians better, if he had said, That the Fear, the Sorrow and Pain of Jesus Christ did belong to his Humane Nature, and not to his Divinity. He acknowledges in this Book, That all Men are conceived in Sin, and that none but Jesus Christ ought to be excepted from this General Law. He says, That the Soul is not communicated to Children by the Parents. He observes, That what is said in the Gospel of St. Luke concerning the Bloody Sweat of Jesus Christ, and of the Angel that appeared unto him, is not to be found in many Greek and Latin Copies of this Gospel.  
In the Eleventh Book, he Answers some Passages of the Gospels and of St. Paul concerning Jesus Christ's being risen from the Dead, and becoming Glorious, which are alleged by the Arians to prove that the Son is not equal to the Father: But St. Hilary shows, That those Passages do much rather prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ, than destroy it.  
In the last Book, St. Hilary explains that Passage of the Proverbs, God created me in the Beginning of his Ways, etc. He demonstrates that the Word of God was not properly created, but begotten of God from all Eternity; which he proves by many Passages of Scripture. He expounds this Passage of the Proverbs of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. He adds some Proofs of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, and Ends with a Prayer to God, wherein he begs Grace to preserve in his Heart that Faith whereof he made Profession at his Baptism, that he may always worship the Father and the Son, and receive the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father by the Son.  
His Book of Synods is Addressed to the Bishops of France and Britain. He commends them for the Constancy which they had shown in refusing Communion to Saturninus, and for the Zeal wherewith they maintained the Faith of the Church, by condemning the Impieties of the Arians so sharply: After this, he sets himself to explain the Creeds made by the Eastern Bishops after the Council of Nice. He declares, That if there were any Error in some of those Creeds, it ought not to be attributed to him, since he only relates what others had said; and if they were found agreeable to the Doctrine of the Apostles, the Praise of it ought not to be given to him but to the Original Authors: He leaves it to the Judgement of the Bishops, to whom his Book is written, whether they be Heretical or Catholic. Then he intimates to them, what Obligation lay upon him to instruct them in the Opinions of the Eastern Bishops, that they might Join with the right Side in those Councils which were shortly to be held at Ariminum and Ancyra. But before he comes to speak of those Creeds which are suspected, he relates and explains that of the Council of Ancyra, which was made in opposition to the Second Creed of Sirmium, afterwards he relates the Creeds made by the Eastern Bishops after the Council of Nice, at Antioch, Sardica, and the First Creed at Sirmium. He shows, That those Creeds are Catholic, and endeavours to excuse the Oriental Bishops for making so many, by alleging the Multitude and Obstinacy of the Arians that were in the East. He says, That in those Provinces to which he was Banished, there was only Eleusius, and a small number of Bishops with him, that acknowledged the Divinity of the Word. He Congratulates the Western Bishops for maintaining the Apostolical Faith, engraved by the Holy Spirit in their Hearts, who were ignorant of the Creeds written by the hands of Men. After this, he explains in a lively and clear manner his own Doctrine and that of the Western Bishops concerning the Mystery of the Trinity, and secures it against the false Explications of the Heretics. He gives the true sense of the word Consubstantial, which he justifies against those that directly oppose it, or that think fit it should be suppressed. He Exhorts the Eastern Bishops with much Eloquence to use this term, and to receive the Confession of Faith made by the Council of Nice. He concludes with conjuring his Brethren in much Humility, to Pardon the Freedom he had taken to inform them of these things, and advise them what they ought to do. He Exhorts them to preserve with inviolable Fidelity, the Doctrines of Piety and Religion which were written upon their Hearts, and Requests them to remember his Banishment in their Prayers.  
The Third Discourse addressed to the Emperor Constantius, which should be the First as we have observed already, is a Petition presented to this Emperor, wherein he remonstrates, that he was a Catholic Bishop of France, banished by the Intrigues of his Enemies, who had falsely accused him to his Majesty. He prays the Emperor that he would grant him Audience in the Presence of Saturninus, who was the chief Cause of his Sufferings, that he might have Opportunity to justify himself from those Accusations that were formed against him: and he makes no scruple to declare, that if his Adversary could show that he had done any one thing unworthy, either of the Holiness of a Bishop, or the Piety of a Christian, he would not only quit all Claim to his Favour for continuing to him his Bishopric, but on the contrary, he would be willing to spend his Old Age in a State of Penance among the Laity. But so far as this Petition concerned only his own Person, he went further and protested, that he would never speak more of it unless the Emperor commanded him; yet still he desired with great Boldness and Earnestness, an Audience about the Cause of the Faith, which was common to him with all other Catholics. And to this purpose, he represents to the Emperor the Confusion of so many Creeds. When once they begun, says he, to make new Confessions of Faith, the Faith became the Creed of the Times rather than of the Gospel: Facta est Fides temporum potius quam Evangeliorum. Every Year new Creeds were made, and Men did not keep to that Simplicity of Faith which they professed at their Baptism: And O what Miseries ensued! For presently, there were as many Creeds as might please each particular Party; and nothing else has been minded since the Council of Nice, but this making of Creeds. New Creeds have been made every Year and every Month, they have been changed, they have been anathematised, and then re-established; and so by enquiring too much into the Faith, there is none left; it has always continued uncertain, and there was never any Certainty of the Truth. After he has described this Confusion very smartly, he remonstrates to the Emperor, that the only way to save himself from this Shipwreck, was to acquiesce in the Faith of the Gospel; whereof he made Profession at his Baptism. Then he prays the Emperor, that he would give him Audience in the Presence of the Council, which was to meet at Constantinople; and promises that for explaining and proving the Faith of the Church, he would only make use of the Words of Jesus Christ. He confesses, that all the Heretics boast of preaching the Gospel, but says he, they do not understand it; For they allege Scripture without knowing the meaning of it, and make use of Orthodox Terms without having the True Faith. He presses the Emperor to grant him this Audience for the good of the whole Church; and promises him, that being to speak publicly to him of a Question so famous in the Presence of a Council divided upon this Subject, he would say nothing but what should tend to the Honour of the Emperor, the Preservation of the Faith, and the peaceable Union of the East and the West. And to assure him of this Promise, he gives him this Sign of it, by confining himself wholly to the Terms of the Gospel, in declaring his Doctrine at present. With this Declaration he concludes this Paper, which some have thought Imperfect, but without any Ground.  
The Second Book of St. Hilary to Constantius, is also a kind of Petition, wherein he prays him, To put an End to the Persecutions and Vexations wherewith the Arians exercised the Church; To forbid the Secular Judges to meddle in Affairs of Religion; To leave his Subjects to their Liberty, whether they will be Arians, or no; To permit them to continue united to the Catholic Bishops, and separated from the Arian Bishops; and in short, To suffer all the banished Bishops to return to their Sees. After this, He compares the Persecution of the Arians against the Catholics, with that of the Pagans against the Christians: He shows how Cruel it was, and how far distant from the Spirit of the Church and of Jesus Christ. [The Bishops, say he, are put in Prison; The People are obliged to serve as their Guard; The holy Bodies of the Virgins of Jesus Christ, are exposed to the View of all the World, to abuse them; Men are compelled, I do not say to be Christians, but to become Arians; The Name and Authority of the Emperor is abused; He is imposed upon by Surprise; Judges are desired of him for approving these Injustices; and in short, The People are forced to consent unto them.] After this, He describes particularly, the Violence that was used to Paulinus of Triers, to Dionysius of Milan, to Eusebius of Vercellae, and many others. This Book is imperfect.  
These Discourses of St. Hilary, are written with great Moderation, as to what concerns the Emperor, whose Conduct he excuses; but he has not used the same Moderation in the last, which is commonly placed before the other Two. There he speaks with so fervent a Zeal, that he might deserve to be accused of too violent a Passion, if it were not otherwise certain that he was acted only from a principle of Love to the Truth 
* [The best Excuse that can be made for St. Hilary, is, That Oppression may make a Wise Man mad; and St. Athanasius needs it as much as he; for in his Letter to all those that lead a Monastic Life; he shows as great Marks of Rage and Anger against Constantius, as St. Hilary does here; and yet St. Gregory Nazianzen, a Man that was never suspected of Arianism, has said very great Things of that Prince, when he set him against Julian the Apostate.] . He gins with these Words which are all Sparks of Fire: ['Tis time to Speak, since the time to be Silent is passed; we must wait upon Jesus Christ, since Antichrist Governs: Let the True Pastors cry aloud, since the Hirelings are fled: Let us die for the Sheep, since the Thiefs are entered, and the Lion full of Rage, goes about the Sheepfold.] After he has exhorted the Pastors in these Words, and many others of the same Nature, to Defend the Truths of the Gospel with Courage and Boldness, He gives an Account of the Conduct which he had observed since his Banishment. He says, That he kept Silence in Modesty, hoping that things would change for the better, but there being now no further place for hope, he found himself obliged to speak: He declares, That he wishes he had rather been in the time of Decius or Nero, than in that wherein he lived; That neither Tortures, nor the Fire, nor the Cross, could have made him afraid, but he would boldly have maintained the Combat against his declared Enemies, and suffered with Constancy in this public Persecution. [But now, adds he, we oppose a Persecutor that deceives us with false appearances, an Enemy that puts on a Friendly Countenance to us; Constantius, the Antichrist, who Persecutes the Church under a mask of designing its advancement. He professes, says he, to be a Christian, that he may deny Jesus Christ; He procures Union, to hinder Peace; He stifles Heresies, to ruin Christianity; He honours the Bishops, that he may make them lose the Title of the Ministers of Jesus Christ; He builds up Churches, that he may destroy the Faith. Let him not imagine, adds he, that I Charge him falsely; That I Reproach him: The Ministers of Jesus Christ, aught to speak the Truth: If what I have proposed be a Calumny, I am willing to pass for an infamous Person; but if it be true and publicly known, I use the freedom of an Apostle, in reproving it after a long Silence.] After this, He Justifies his calling Constantius, Antichrist, by giving a horrible Representation of the Persecution that he raised. He adds, That it was neither through Indiscretion, nor Rashness, nor Anger, that he spoke so of him, but that his Reason, his Constancy, and his Faith obliged him to say these things. Yes, says he, addressing himself to Constantius, I tell you what I should have told Nero, what Dioclesian and Maximian should have heard from my Mouth: You fight against God; You use Cruelties to the Church; You Persecute the Saints; You hate those that Preach Jesus Christ; You utterly abolish Religion: In a word, You are a Tyrant; I speak not with reference to the Things of this World, but with reference to the Things of God. This is what is common to you with the Pagan Emperors. Let us now come to that which is peculiar to yourself. You feign yourself to be a Christian, and you are the Enemy of Jesus Christ; You are become Antichrist, and have begun his Work: You intrude into the Office of procuring New Creeds to be made, and you live like a Pagan; You teach things Profane, and are ignorant of Piety and Religion; You give Bishoprics to those of your own Faction, and take them away from the good Bishops, that you may bestow them upon the Bad. You put the Bishops in Prison; You keep your Armies in the Field to terrify the Church; You assemble Councils to establish Impiety in them, and you compel the Western Bishops to renounce the Faith, that they may embrace Error. You shut them up in a City to weaken them by Famine, to kill them with the Rigour of the Winter, and to corrupt them by your Dissimulation: You foment the Dissensions of the East by your Artifices. He adds also many other Accusations of the same Nature; and to complete all, he says, That the Church never suffered so much, under Nero, under Decius, and Maximianus, as it has done under Constantius, who is more cruel than all those Tyrants, because the former gave Martyrs to the Church, who overcame Devils, whereas Constantius makes an Infinite number of Prevaricators, who cannot so much as comfort themselves by saying, that they were overcome by the violence of their Torments. I should never have done, if I should relate all that St. Hilary says in this place of the Persecution of Constantius. He charges him particularly, with the Banishment of Paulinus and Liberius, and the Troubles wherewith he exercised the Church of Tholouse; and concludes with saying, That all those things that he had accused him of, were public and certain; and therefore he had Just Cause to call him Antichrist. He shows afterwards, the Impiety of those Bishops that Assisted at the Council of Seleucia, who maintained, that the Father was not like in Substance to the Son, and condemned the Words, Consubstantial, and like in Substance. He answers, what Constantius alleges as the Reason of condemning these Terms, That we must not make use of any but Scripture Expressions: He answers, I say, That these Terms agree with the Doctrine of the Gospel; That Constantius, and those of his Party, are also forced to make use of such Terms as are not to be found in Scripture; and in short, That the Scripture makes use of Terms more Emphatical, since it establishes the Equality and Unity of the Father and the Son. He blames Constantius for the variety and contrariety of those Creeds that were made after that of the Council of Nice. He explains the Faith of the Church concerning the Majesty of God, and proves by many Examples, That we are not to wonder, if the Eternal Generation of the Son is Incomprehensible. This Book is also imperfect.  
The Book of Fragments, is a Collection of many Pieces taken out of two Books of St. Hilary, and likewise of some Passages out of his other Works. 'Tis not known who is the Author of this Abridgement, nor when he lived. The Passages that are cited in it, are certainly St. Hilary's, and for the most part, the Pieces that are collected in it are ancient; but he does not observe any Order in this Collection.  
He gins with a Fragment of St. Hilary's Preface, wherein after he had spoken of the Excellency of Faith, Hope and Charity, he declares, That he had undertaken to publish a Work of great Importance and vast Extent, but very Intricate, because of the Diabolical Cheats of the Heretics, and wherein he must use great Cunning, because of their Knaveries; against which also, there were many Prejudices, by reason of the Dissimulation and fear of many: That this Book would seem strange, even to those of the Country where he was, tho' there the things themselves were done which he treated of: That what he was to deliver, had come to pass some years ago, but the Silence which he had hitherto kept, made all these things still seem New; That the Peace had almost made him forget the Memory of them, but that not long before these things had been renewed again by the impious Malice of some notable Seducers. After this, He describes the State of the Affairs of the Church under Constantius; He complains, That he had Banished those Bishops that would not condemn St. Athanasius, and that he interposed his Authority in Ecclesiastical Decisions. At last, he says, That he had treated in his Work, of Faith in God, of the Hope of Eternity, and the Defence of the Truth; and he exhorts all Christians to inform themselves of those things which he there recites, that so every one may be satisfied in his own Judgement, without following the Opinions of others blindly.  
After his Preface, follow the Letters of the Council of Sardica, to all the Churches, and in particular to Julius' Bishop of Rome, together with the Subscriptions of some Bishops, and the Names of the Heretics that were condemned.  
The Author of these Fragments, has joined to these two Letters, a Fragment of St. Hilary for St. Athanasius; at the End, the Recantation of Ursacius and Valens, is mentioned: Their Letters to Julius and St. Athanasius, are at the bottom of this Fragment. The Passage which immediately follows, has reference to the Condemnation of Photinus; and that of Marcellus of Ancyra, which he consented to; but the End of that Passage concerns the Council of Nice, whose Creed he recites and explains.  
The First Letter of Liberius, here produced is supposititious, as the Passage which follows, plainly discovers, and as we have already shown when we treated of the Works of this Pope: The Second, is Genuine, which is directed to the Bishops of Italy, concerning the Restitution of the Bishops, who had approved the Arian Creeds. The Letter of the Bishops of Illyricum, concerning the Condemnation of the Creed of Ariminum, is one of the most Excellent Monuments of that time. The Letters of Ursacius and Valens, to Germinius, and his Answer, are put here out of their proper place, being written in the Year 366. We have already spoken of Pope Liberius' Letters that are set down: After which, there follows a Letter of the Eastern Bishops, to the Council of Ariminum, with some Reflections of St. Hilary, which are very much corrupted. After this Fragment, the Author of this Collection has added this Note: Here endeth the Book taken out of the Historical Work of St. Hilary: And yet he adds afterwards many Pieces which are probably taken out of the same Book.  
The 1st. is a Letter from a Council of the Bishops of France, held at Paris, against the Creed made at Ariminum.  
The 2d. is a Letter of Eusebius of Vercellae, written to Gregory, a Bishop in Spain, wherein he commends him for opposing Hosius, and preserving the Faith.  
The 3d. is a Letter, or rather a Confession of Faith, by Germinius the Arian Bishop, against those of his own Party, who had Signed the Creed of Ariminum.  
The 4th. is a Letter written by the Eastern Bishops in the Name of the Council of Sardica, against the Bishops of the West: This Letter should have been placed before those others which we have already spoken of.  
The 5th. is a Letter of the Bishops of the Council of Ariminum to the Emperor Constantius, before they had Signed the Creed which was presented to them by the Arians. There follows after it a short Reflection concerning the Style of St. Hilary.  
The 6th. is the Approbation which the Legates of the Council of Ariminum, gave to the Creed made by the Arians at Nice, a City of Thracia.  
The 7th. is a Letter written to the Emperor Constantius, by the Bishops of Ariminum; after they had approved the Confession of Faith made at Nice, which was presented to them by the Arians.  
The 8th. is a large Letter of Liberius to Constantius, in Favour of St. Athanasius. This is misplaced is well in respect of time, as of the Matter itself.  
The 9th. is a Letter of Constantius, to the Council of Ariminum.  
The 10th. is the Decree of this Council before they had surrendered up themselves to the Emperor's pleasure.  
The 11th. is the Condemnation of Ursacius and Valens, in this Council. Here end the Monuments taken out of the Works of St. Hilary, to which there is subjoined in some Copies, the Creed of the Nicene Council, the Creeds of Ariminum, and that which is attributed to St. Athanasius. These are the Pieces contained in the Fragments of St. Hilary, which might be read with more Pleasure and Profit, if they were disposed according to the Order of time which I have set down in the Notes 
h According to the Order of Time which I have set down in the Notes.] These pieces are: Pages of the Paris- Edition 1652. The Year of Christ. Pag. 447 The Nicene Creed in the Year 325 

433 The Letter of the Council of Sardica to all the Bishops  
A Letter of the same Council to Julius.  
465 The Letter of the Bishops of the East written from Philippopolis upon their Departure from Sardica.   347 443 The Letters of Ursacius and Valens to Liberius and St. Athanasius. 349 

484 The Letter of Liberius to Constantius about the Cause of St. Athanasius.  
450 The Supposititious Letter of Liberius to the Bishops of the East.  
A Letter of Liberius before his Banishnishment.   352 

456 To Eusebius, Dionysius and Lucifer.  
457 To Vincentius of Capua.   354 463 A Letter of Eusebius of Vercellae, to Gregory a Bishop of Spain upon occasion of the Fall of Hosius. 357 

The Letters of Liberius, written in his Banishment after his Subscription.  
457 To the Bishops of the East.   358 

458 To Ursacius and Valens.  
459 Letters which concern the Council of Ariminum.   358 

487 A Letter of the Emperor to the Council.  
488 The Catholic Determination.  
Ibid. The Condemnation of Ursacius, of Valens and Germinius.  
481 The Answer of the Council to the Emperor before he had subscribed.  
459 The profession of Faith, of the Bishops of the East that was given in to the Legates of the Council.  
482 The Acts of the Subscription of the Legates.  
483 A Letter to the Emperor after their Subscription.   359 465 A Letter of Germinius after the Council of Ariminum. 360 

462 A Letter of the Council of Paris.  
451 A Letter of Liberius to the Bishops of Italy.   362 

452 A Letter of the Bishops of Italy to the Bishops of Illyricum.  
Ibid. A Letter of Ursacius and Valens to Germinius.  
453 The Answer of Germinius to their Letter.   366 .  
The Book against Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, is a Manifesto against this Bishop, and against those that maintain him. Who, because they covered themselves chief under the Cloak of procuring Peace and Unity; St. Hilary says, That we can have no other true Peace, but that of Jesus Christ and the Gospel; and that this Peace cannot take place in a time when the Ministers of the Church are become Anti-christs', by opposing the Doctrine of Jesus Christ and the Gospel, while they pretend to preach it. He complains, That they make use of Temporal Power, to maintain a False Doctrine. He endeavours to prove, that Auxentius, fosters Heretical Opinions; he recites the Conference that he had with him, and exhorts the Catholics to take he●d of Antichrist, and to separate themselves from Auxentius. After this Book, follows a Letter of Auxentius to the Emperor, wherein he endeavours to purge himself from the Heresy of Arius, yet without approving the Term Consubstantial, or rejecting the Creed of Ariminum.  
The Commentaries of St. Hilary upon St. Matthew, are very excellent; for there he had made many very useful Historical and Moral Observations. The Chief of them are these following.  
In the 1st. Canon, he endeavours to reconcile the two Genealogies of Jesus Christ, by saying, That St. Matthew describes the Royal Race of Jesus Christ, by Solomon; and St. Luke, the Sacerdotal Race, by Nathan. He maintains, That the Virgin was of the same Tribe, and the same Family with Joseph; and that she continued a Virgin after her Childbearing, and that the Persons who are called in Scripture, the Brethren of Jesus Christ, were indeed, the Children of Joseph, that he had by a former Wife. He says, That the Wisemen acknowledged the Royal Power of Jesus Christ, by presenting him with Gold, his Divinity by offering him Incense, and his Humanity by giving him Myrrh. He observes, That Rachel who mourned for her Children, is a Figure of the Church, which having been a long time barren, became afterwards fruitful. He says, That the Innocents' were made partakers of Eternal Life by the Martyrdom which they suffered.  
In the 2d. Canon, he says, That Jesus Christ did not cause St. John to Baptise him for the Purification of his Sins, since he was without Sin, but that Water might Sanctify us by Jesus Christ. Then he speaks of the Effects of Baptism After Baptism, says he, the Holy Spirit descends upon the baptised, he fills them with a Celestial Unction, and makes them the adopted Children of God.  
In the 3d. Canon, he explains the Temptations of Jesus Christ, and speaks of his Fast for Forty Days▪ He says, That the Devil was ignorant of the Incarnation.  
In the 4th. he explains the Beatitudes: He says, That none but the perfect Man who is wholly purified from his Sins, shall enjoy the Vision of God. He observes, That Adultery is the only cause for which married Persons can be Divorced. He condemns Oaths, Revenge and Vanity.  
In the 5th. he sends the Reader to a Book of St. Cyprian, for the Explication of the Lord's Prayer: He also mentions Tertullian; but he says of this last Author, That his following Errors deprived his First Books of that Authority, which he could otherwise have allowed them. He occasionally says, That the Soul is Corporeal.  
In the 6th. Canon, he particularly recommends Good Works, without which, all other things are unprofitable to Salvation.  
In the 7th. he explains allegorically the Cure of the Leper, and of St. Peter's Mother-in-Law; understanding those places of the Curing of Sinners. He compares the Church to a Ship tossed with a Tempest; and towards the latter End, he observes, That we ought not to mention the Names of Dead Infidels, in the Commemorations of the Saints.  
In the 8th. he Discourses particularly of the Fall of humane Nature by the Sin of the first Man, and of the Reparation of Mankind by Jesus Christ.  
In the 10th. he Advises Catholics not to enter into the Churches of Heretics. He observes, That nothing in the Ecclesiastical Ministry, aught to be sold for Money, and that the Ecclesiastical State, ought not to be ambitious of obtaining Temporal Authority. He says, That at the End of the World, the Jews that shall be then alive, shall believe in Jesus Christ, and be saved. He assures us, That Man was created Free, but that the Sin of Adam enslaved him to Sin and Vice; and that in Baptism we are delivered by the Word from Sins, contracted by our Birth.  
Towards the latter End of the 11th. he explains wherein the Easiness of Christ's Yoke consists excellently, and in a few Words. What is more Easy, says he, than the Yoke of Christ, and what is more Light than his Burden? It is only to be obliging to all the World; To abstain from committing Sin; To desire that which is Good, not to desire that which is Evil; To Love our Neighbour; To Hate no Body; To lay up for Eternity; Not to addict ourselves to things present; Not to do to another, what we would not they should do unto us.  
In the 12th. he explains after the same Manner as St. Athanasius, the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, by saying, That it is the denying of Jesus Christ to be God.  
In the 13th. he observes, That those who are out of the Church, cannot understand the Word of God.  
In the 14th. speaking of St. Joseph, he says, That he was a Lock-Smith, and not a Carpenter, as is commonly believed.  
In the 15th. he observes, that those who are to be baptised, make profession of their Faith in Jesus Christ, and of being firmly persuaded of his Death and Resurrection; and that their Actions may be agreeable to their Words; they pass all the time of the Passion of Christ, in Fasting, that so in some measure, they may suffer with Jesus Christ.  
He speaks in the 16th. of the Prerogative that St. Peter received, when Jesus Christ gave him the Keys of his Church, after this manner: O happy Foundation of the Church, says he, in the change of your Name! O Rock, worthy of the Building of Jesus Christ, since it was to abrogate the Laws of Hell, to break its Gates, and to open all the Prisons of Death! O happy Porter of Heaven, to whom are entrusted the Keys of admission into it, and whose Judgement on Earth, is a fore-judging of what is done in Heaven, since whatsoever he binds or loses upon Earth, shall be bound or loosed in Heaven.  
In the 18th. Canon, he concludes with these Words of Jesus Christ; The Angels of these Children see the Face of my Father. From whence, says he, it may be concluded, That the Angels rejoice at the Sight of God, and that they preside over the Prayers of the Faithful, which they offer continually to God. He says, that those who are bound on Earth by the Ministers of Jesus Christ, (that is, says he, those whom the Ministers of Jesus Christ leave bound in their sins,) and that those who are loosed by receiving them unto the Grace of Salvation, upon the Declaration which they make, having obtained Pardon of their Sins, shall be bound and loosed in Heaven according to the Apostolical Judgement.  
In the 19th. after he has spoken of those that voluntarily make themselves Eunuches to preserve their Chastity, he speaks of Riches, and the use we should make of them. He says, That 'tis no Crime to enjoy them, but that we should observe Moderation, and employ them innocently: That 'tis dangerous to desire to enrich ourselves, and that an innocent Man finds himself overcharged, when he is taken up in purchasing, in preserving and increasing his Riches. From whence he concludes, That tho' 'tis not absolutely impossible for a rich Man to be saved, yet very few of them shall be saved, because it is so difficult a thing to make use of the Goods of this World, as we ought.  
In the 20th. he affirms, That Moses and Elias shall come with Jesus Christ, at the last Judgement, and that they shall be put to Death by Antichrist; he rejects the Opinion of those who thought that Enoch or Jeremy should come before Jesus Christ.  
In the 23d. he says, That Spiritual Persons ought not to entangle themselves in the Affairs of this World; but that they ought to render unto God that which is due, that is to say, their Heart, their Soul, their Will. He shows the Necessity of Loving God in Order to Salvation.  
In the 25th. he observes. That Nicholas, one of the Seven Deacons, was a false Prophet and a Heretic, and that the last Judgement shall be given in the place where Christ suffered.  
In the 26th. he speaks of the uncertainty of the time of the last Judgement, and observes, That 'tis useful to keep all Men upon their Guard.  
In the 27th. he observes, That tho' all Christians are obliged to Watchfulness, yet the Princes of People, and the Bishops are more particularly obliged to Watch over themselves and their Flocks.  
In the 30th. he asserts, That Judas was not present, when Jesus Christ distributed the Sacrament, because he was unworthy of those Eternal Sacraments. He says, That when St. Peter said so boldly, that he would not be offended because of Christ, he did not consider the weakness of the Flesh.  
In the 31st. he thinks that Jesus Christ had no fear of Death at all. He says, He was Consecrated in the Sacrament of that Blood which he was to shed for the Remission of Sins. [This Opinion seems not easily reconcileable with the Account which the Evangelists give of the Agonies of our Saviour in the Garden, and upon the Cross.]  
In the 32d. he observes, That St. Peter's Denials were still more and more Criminal. At first, says he, he only answered, That he knew not what she meant; then he denied that he was of the number of Christ's Disciples; and at last, he said, That he knew him not: But presently he wept, after that Fault, which he could not avoid, tho' he was forewarned of it.  
In the 33d. he says, That the Words of Jesus Christ upon the Cross, My God, my God, why hast th●● forsaken me? Belonged to his Body, which complained of its Separation from the Divine Word. He compares the Crime of those who abuse the Gifts given to the Church, with that of the Scribes and Pharisees, who gave Money to Judas to betray Jesus Christ, and with the Soldiers who Guarded his Sepulchre, that they might say, He was not risen. Lastly, He observes upon the Words of Jesus Christ, Go and teach all Nations, baptising them, etc. He observes, I say, That Instruction ought to precede Baptism, because the Body ought not to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, unless the Soul has received the Truth of Faith.  
There is a Preface prefixed to the Commentaries of St. Hilary upon the Psalms, wherein he treats of some Critical Questions. He says, That some Jews have divided the Psalms into Five Books, and that others have entitled them, The Psalms; but for his part, he gives them the Title of, The Book of Psalms. He maintains, That they are written by the Persons whose Names they bear at the beginning, and is of Opinion, That those that carry no Name, are written by the same Author with the last foregoing Psalm, where the Name of some Author is to be found. He says, There are some that are falsely attributed to Jeremy, Haggai, and Zachary, since those Names are not found in those Copies of the Version of the Septuagint, which he thinks to be authentic. He objects to himself, That there is a Psalm which bears the Name of Moses, wherein Samuel is mentioned, who lived many Ages after. He contents himself with answering this difficulty by saying, That Moses named Samuel by the Spirit of Prophecy. He attributes to Ezrah that Collection of the Psalms which we have at present. He maintains, That all the Psalms ought to be Expounded, with a reference to Jesus Christ and the Gospel. He observes that the Hebrews call the Psaltry Nabla, and he thinks that they never distinguished the Psalms at all. He makes the LXX. Interpreters Authors of their Distinction, and observes, that they have not always followed the Order of Time. From this Distribution, he passes on to the number of Canonical Books. He reckons 22 of them according to the Hebrews, and says, that some have added Tobit and Judith. He observes, That the Lord's Day is a Day of Prayer and of Rest for Christians; and that they are forbidden to Prostrate themselves, or Fast on that Day. He explains afterwards the Titles of the Psalms in general 
* [This Distinction of the Titles of the Psalms, is according to the LXX; in that Translation some Psalms are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Psalms: Others ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Songs: Others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Psalms of a Song: Others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Songs of a Psalm: Others again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Psalms or Hymns.] . He says, That those which are called Songs, were made to be sung without any Instrument of Music; That those which are entitled Psalms, were made to be Played upon Instruments of Music without Singing. That those which are called, Songs of a Psalm, were such as the Chorister Sung after the Instrument; but those which are called Psalms of a Song, are such as the Chorister Sung before the Instrument of Music. Lastly, That those which are called, in Psalms, are such wherein there is a change both of the Person and the Voice. He gives also some Moral Interpretations of those Titles, which are too useless to be repeated. After all, he says, That the Key for understanding the Psalms, is to inquire, what Person it is to whom they agree; for some of them agree to David, and others to Jesus Christ, and others to some Prophet, and so of the rest.  
In his Commentary upon the First Psalm, he says, That there are three or four degrees of Happiness marked in those words, Blessed is the Man who hath not stood in the Counsel of the ungodly, and who hath not walked in the way of Sinners, and who hath not sat in the Chair of Infection. [According to the LXX, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] The First degree is, Not to be of the Number of the Impious, and the Heretics: The Second, is not to be of the number of the Wicked, as the Covetous, the Drunkards, the Incontinent, the Proud, the Detractors, the Robbers, etc. who observe not the Discipline of the Church. The Third, Is not to sit in the Chair of Infection. By this Chair, he understands the Cares and Affairs of the World, which corrupt Men by an Infection, that is almost unavoidable. For though, says he, some Persons that enter upon Secular Offices, and engage in the Affairs of the World, have a Holy and Religious Will, yet they are often corrupted by those Affairs in which they are obliged to employ themselves, and the Rules of this World do not permit them to live according to the Maxims of Christianity. He adds, That those Three Degrees ought to be crowned with a Fourth; which is, continual Meditation in the Law of God: That this Meditation, as well as Prayer, does not only consist in Reading, or reciting the Holy Books, but in the Practice of those things which are prescribed and taught in them; and that 'tis not sufficient to do it out of Fear, but our Practice must proceed from Love and goodwill. He applies the rest of the Psalm to Jesus Christ, and observes, That he restores unto Man, that Immortality which the First Man had lost by his Sin; That the Impious shall be as it were annihilated by the Fire of Hell. He confesses, That they shall rise again at the Day of Judgement, but he maintains that they shall not there be judged at all, because they are already condemned; and that the Judgement shall be only for those, who having had Faith, did not live up to the Laws of Christianity. This Opinion is very singular, and we may believe that he took it from Origen. His next Observation is much more reasonable, which is this, That when it is said in Scripture, That God learns any thing; we must not understand it as if he were ignorant of it before; but only that he then gave to Men the Signs of his Knowledge: As when he says to Adam, Where art thou? This does not imply that he wasignorant of it before, but only that he had a Mind to put him to shame; And so again, when he says to Abraham, Now I know your Faith; this does not signify that he knew it not before, but only that he had now proved it.  
He gins his Commentary upon the Second Psalm with this Observation, That this Psalm is called the First by St. Paul (Act. 13.) because in the Hebrew it is one continued Psalms with the First, though it has been since distinguished from it in the Version of the Septuagint. [In the common Editions of the New Testament, this is quoted as the Second Psalm by St. Paul; and in the common Editions of the Hebrew Bible, the Second Psalm is always distinguished from the First.] He says, That this Version was made in the time of Ptolemy, and that its Authors were the Successors of the Seventy appointed by Moses, who entrusted to them secret Mysteries, which he would not commit to Writing in his Books: That their Successors, instructed by this Tradition, have translated the Psalms according to those Notices which they had, and fixed the sense of many Hebrew words which before were undetermined: That therefore the Version of the Septuagint, aught to be of great Authority, and is to be preferred before all other Versions, which have been made by such Persons as were ignorant of the Tradition which Moses left to the Synagogue. After he has made these Remarks (whether they be just or no, this is not a place to examine) he applies all that's said in this Psalm to Jesus Christ and his Church. He thinks that the first words are spoken in the Person of God the Father, and that the following words beginning at these, Let us break their Cords asunder, agree to the Apostles, understanding by these Cords the Cords of Sin. He observes in this Psalm, That God has no need of any of his Creatures; so that God did not create them for himself, but for themselves: That when he requires Men to Love and to Fear him, this is not for any Profit that he can draw from their Service, but only that this Love and Fear may be serviceable to their own Salvation. He establishes freewill, and says, That Justice is the Consequence of our Good Will, and Happiness is the Reward of our Merits, and that Hell is the Punishment of Sins freely committed: That God does not put himself in a Passion to punish us, being no ways Subject to Change, but that his Justice produces those Effects of Vengeance which Men attribute to Anger. So that he appears not to be Angry, but when he would bring us to Repentance. He says upon these Words, Harken, O ye Kings of the Earth, That the true Royalty of a Man consists in conquering his Passions, and that the Kings of the Earth who are estranged from the Commandments of God are Unhappy Kings. He observes, That the Motives of Fear and Joy are intermixed in this Psalm; That Fear may retain Men in Reverence and Devotion, and that Joy may temper this Fear. At last, he assures us, That after Death, the Impious are reserved in a place of Torment unto the Day of Judgement; and that the Just are conducted by the Angels to the Mansions of the blessed in Abraham's bosom.  
In the Fragment of a Commentary upon the Thirteenth Psalm, he Discourses of the Necessity that Mankind lay under of having a Saviour and a Physician.  
In his Commentary upon the Fifteenth Psalm, he says, That this Psalm is nothing else but David's Prayer which he made to God, to beg of him the Knowledge of what a Man ought to do in order to the obtaining of Eternal Blessedness. By the Tabernacles which he desires, we must understand, says St. Hilary, the Multitude of those Churches that have been Established since the coming of Jesus Christ, who is this Mountain that David seeks after. He says, That Good Works avail nothing without Faith in Jesus Christ. He seems to approve a Lie as Necessary upon some Occasions; but he absolutely condemns Usury, and chief that which tends to the Ruin of the Poor: If ye be Christians, says he, Wherefore do ye draw a Temporal Profit from your Silver? Wherefore do ye not rather lay up for yourselves a treasure in Heaven? If ye be Christians, wherefore do ye expect from Men a recompense of your Liberality? I do not say that you should give them your Goods; but at least ye should be content to demand back again what you had Lent, without Robbing him of more. And remember ye, that he from whom ye exact this Usury is a Poor Christian, for whom Christ was willing to be Poor; Therefore when ye do Good or Evil to this Poor Man, it is to Jesus Christ that ye do it, etc. He discourses against Pride and False Confidence. He says, That we must reprove with all possible sweetness, if we would amend our Brother by it, and we must not use bloody Accusations, which only provoke him: That we must despise the Wicked with Freedom, and honour the Good with Humility, and resist the Powers with an holy Boldness, when they would oblige us to do Evil. He praises this Psalm, which, says he, should be written in the Hearts of Christians, and engraven upon their Memory: They ought to be intent upon it Night and Day, and to make it the subject of their Meditations. In effect, it contains the principal Rules of an holy Life.  
He applies to Jesus Christ the 52d. Psalms, and Exhorts the Rich not to put their Confidence in their Riches, and to make good use of them. He says, That the Just are at Rest till the Day of Judgement, and that the Wicked are in Pain; That there is no Repentance after Death, because there is no more freedom of Choice.  
Upon these words in the 53d. Psalms, The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God; he observes, That the Wicked commonly dare not speak out the Blasphemies that they have in their Hearts; That there is no Man but is convinced that there is a God, but the Pleasure that the Wicked take in committing Sin, makes them say that there is no God. In the rest of this Commentary, he discourses of the Goodness of God, and the Corruption of Men. He excuses the Sin of St. Peter, and blames the Avarice of some Pastors, who eat up the People of God, as it is said in the Psalm. They make, says he, their Belly their God, as the Apostle speaks, they make a Trade of their Ministry, and enrich themselves with the Offerings and Gifts of their People; They make sumptuous Feasts under Pretence of Religion; They fill their Purses with the beneficence of Christians, though the use of these Offerings was intended by the Apostles, only for their daily Food, who renounce the World, or are in want. He condemns those that flatter the Powers, because we must Fear God more than Man.  
He applies the 54th. Psalms to Jesus Christ. There you may find a pretty Moral Reflection upon the Disorders of the Tongue, to which the far greater part of Men are subject, either when they are Angry, or when they Complain; when they Reproach, or when they Flatter; or lastly, when they reprove others. He maintains in the Commentary upon this Psalm, as well as in his Books of the Trinity, that Jesus Christ did not really suffer.  
He Interprets also the 55th. Psalms, of Jesus Christ. In his Commentary upon it, you may find a good Passage about Prayer. God despises, says he, the Prayers which are accompanied with lightness and diffidence, which are disordered with the Cares of this Life, which are mixed with Desires of worldly Good Things, and which do not bring forth the fruit of Good Works.  
There is nothing considerable in the Commentaries upon the following Psalms: You may find in that upon the 57th. his singular Opinion concerning the Last Judgement, which we have already observed: In that upon the 64th. he approves the Vows that are made to perform certain Actions of Piety, such as the Contempt of one's Body, the Preservation of our Chastity and Fasting. He assures us, That Men are Predestinated according to their Merits; he discourses of the wonderful Effects of Baptism.  
His Commentary upon Psalm 119th. is very large and full of Moral thoughts: He there distinguishes the words which are often repeated in this Psalm, the Law, the Commandments, the Testimonies, the Judgements, etc. and gives them such senses as are not very Natural. He teaches, That Grace is necessary to the Observation of the Commandments of God; That the Beginning comes from ourselves, but the Grace of God comes in to our help, and that afterwards it depends upon us, whether we will retain or reject this Grace: That all Men are subject to Sin; That their Faults shall be expiated by the Fire of the last Judgement; He seems also to think that the Virgin Mary shall not be exempted from passing through this Fire; He observes, That a Minister of Jesus Christ who Preaches his Word, should be without blame; That he should Pray in the Night time; That a Christian should shun the Pleasures and the Pride of the Men of this World; That to make our Actions perfect, they must be done from a Principle of Love to God; That Celibacy is more perfect than a state of Marriage; and that those who are out of the Church, which is the Body of Jesus Christ, are delivered up to the Devil. There are also in this Commentary, divers pretty Remarks about almsgiving, Humility, the forbearing of those things which are to others an occasion of Scandal and Falling, about Fasting, about Charity, about Prayer, about the Attention we should have in time of Prayer, and about many other Subjects.  
In the Commentary upon Psalm 121. he says, That God does not forsake us, but when we offend him by our Sins: He maintains, That the Just are in Abraham's Bosom till the Day of Judgement; he declaims against those who live in Excess. He says, That in Baptism a Man is Purged from his Sins, and exchanges his Vices for Virtues.  
In Psalm 123. he discourses against Pride; and admirably describes the Slavery into which the Passions of the Vicious precipitate them, in his Comment upon Psalm 125; These are his words: Consider, says he, a Covetous Man, who deprives himself of all kind of Satisfaction, left he should want Money; you may see him busy, sad, anxious, restless; his Mind is always full of fear, lest he should lose what he has: He forgets Honesty, neglects his Friends, and has no Civility: He has neither Religion, nor Sincerity. The same may be said of other Passions: Into what an Abyss of Infamy does a Man precipitate himself who is mastered by the Passion of Love? Who can be more miserable than he who is a Slave to Drunkenness? Can you see any thing more Shameful than the Motions of a Man transported with Anger? etc.  
In the Commentary upon Psalm 127. he treats largely of the Fear of God. He says, That it is never spoken of in Scripture, but there are joined with it many Conditions: That it consists not in Terror; That 'tis not a Passion which proceeds from Nature, but a rational Motion excited by the knowledge and love of Goodness and Truth. Wherefore, says he, the Fear of God consists entirely in Love. Perfect Charity perfects Fear. The Effects of this love of God, are to obey his Commandments, to follow his Precepts, to believe his Word, and to hope in his Promises.  
In the Commentary upon Psalm 129. he tells us, that 'tis in respect of the Soul that a Man is said to be like God; That the Soul is Spiritual, and the Angels are active Spirits, whom God makes use of to assist the weakness of Men.  
In his Commentary upon Psalm 132. he observes, That the Woman which anointed the Head of Jesus Christ was different from her that anointed his Feet. He takes notice that some have said, That it was upon Mount Hermon the Angels descended to have commerce with Women; but he rejects this Imagination, because we cannot trust those things; but to that which is written in the Book of the Law.  
In Psalm 135. he reproves those that are not Attentive to what is Read in the Church.  
In the Comment on Psalm 137. he observes, That true Repentance consists in refraining from all those Sins which we know ourselves to have formerly committed, and in doing them no more.  
In the Comment upon the following Psalm, he blames the Ministers of Jesus Christ, who addict themselves wholly to the Affairs of this World, that they may purchase Temporal Riches. He says, That we are permitted to hate the Enemies of God; that's to say, as far as they are the Enemies of God, according to that excellent Saying, That we should hate the Vices and love the Persons.  
Upon Psalm 140. he distinguishes Four sorts of Prayer, Deprecation, Oration, Petition, and Thanksgiving: And he says, That it belongs to our Humility to Pray, to the Majesty of God to be Prayed unto; it belongs to our Faith to Petition, and to our Gratitude to Thank God for his Benefits. He describes the Easiness and Danger of offending God by the Sins of the Tongue. He observes that the Book of Wisdom, which the Latins attribute to Solomon, passes among the Greeks and Hebrews for Jesus the Son of Syrach's.  
An infinite number of other Remarks might yet be drawn from these Commentaries, but these are sufficient for our Design: For if we should give an Account of all the Commentaries of Authors upon the Scripture, and all that they contain, we should never have done. Wherefore we pray the Reader, that he would be content with these Extracts which we have made from the Commentaries of St. Hilary, which cannot but be too long already. 'Tis plain, That these Commentaries are almost wholly taken out of Origen. They contain many Allegories and many Moral Thoughts. There is much Wit and Learning observable in them. He advertises the Reader often, that the Latin does not fully express the sense of the Greek word, which also discovers that this Work was taken from a Greek Commentary; and that he followed the Emphasis of the Greek words, the sense whereof the Latin Translator was obliged to express. St. Jerom calls St. Hilary the Rhosne of Latin Eloquence, Latinae Eloquentiae Rhodanum; alluding not only to the Country where he was Born, but also to the Genius of his Style, which is violent and rapid like the Course of the Rhosne; for as this River by the Violence of its Waters carries all before it that hinders its course; so St. Hilary ravishes the Mind and Judgement, and extorts a Consent by the Vehemence of his Expressions. His manner of expressing things smites, astonishes, overthrows, and persuades. His Periods are commonly long and intricate, which renders him everywhere obscure, and almost unintelligible in some places. He often uses barbarous terms, and there are some places in his Works, where there is no Syntax. He is full of Figures and Antitheses; his Reasons, though solid, yet are much improved by the lively and smart turn that he gives them. He does not spare his Adversaries, but he speaks to Powers and of Powers with an unparallelled freedom. He is partial to none, but is a rigid Censor of Manners, and a severe defender of the Faith. Though St. Jerom says in his Seventh Epistle to Leta, That one may read St. Hilary's Works without meeting any thing that is offensive to Piety and Religion, inoffenso decurrat pede; yet it must be confessed, that there are some Errors and some Expressions which are not agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church. One of the principal, is his Opinion concerning the Passion of Jesus Christ. He thinks that he had no sense of Pain, though he received upon his Body the Wounds and Blows which cause Pain. The Schoolmen have endeavoured to give a good sense to this Expression. Some have said with the Master of the Sentences, That he does not deny, but Jesus Christ felt Pain; but he denies that the Pain he had was the Effect of Sin, as it is in other Men. Others have said, That he does not exclude his Sufferings, but the Necessity of Suffering. Some have affirmed, That he speaks in this place of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and not of his Humanity. But all these Solutions appear to me to be groundless; and if one would excuse St. Hilary, it might better be done by saying That the words, Pain, Suffering, Fear and Sorrow, are not to be understood precisely of the perception that is in the Senses, but of the trouble that results from thence in the Soul and Spirit, of the uneasiness of Pain, or the sensible Commotions of Fear or Sorrow: And in this sense it may be said, That Jesus Christ had no Pain, nor Fear; because his Soul continued in a perfect Tranquillity. St. Hilary had not very clear Notions concerning Spiritual Being's; for in the Fifth Canon of his Commentary upon St. Matthew, he says, That all Creatures are corporeal, and that the Souls which are in Bodies are corporeal Substances. He held also an intolerable Error concerning the Last Judgement. I do not insist upon some smaller Errors, as when in Canon 31st. and 32d. upon St. Matthew, he excuses the Sin of St. Peter, when he says in Canon 16th. That the Words of Jesus Christ, Get thee behind me, Satan, were not addressed to this Apostle; when he affirms in Canon 33d. that the Divinity of Jesus Christ was separated from his Humanity at the time of his Death; upon Psalm 119. That the Virgin shall be Purged by the Fire of the Day of Judgement; In Canon 14th. and upon Psalm 129th. That God created the Soul of the first Man before his Body; In Canon 17th. That the World shall not continue above 6000 Years; In Canon 20th. That Moses did not Die, and that he shall come again at the Day of Judgement. But if this Father had some Errors of this Nature, yet it must also be acknowledged, that he held a very Orthodox Doctrine about the chief Mysteries of Faith. He speaks of the Attributes of God in a Sublime and Noble manner; He explains the Mystery of the Trinity, with wonderful clearness and exactness. Every time that he speaks of the Mystery of the Incarnation, he uses the most proper terms to express the Hypostatical Union of the two Natures in Jesus Christ. He explains the different Orders of the Angels and their Ministry. He makes Happiness to consist in the Vision of God, and says expressly, That the Good and Evil are Happy or Miserable before the Day of Judgement. He thinks that on this Day there will be a Purgatorial Fire to expiate the Sins of the Just: He acknowledges the Fall of Mankind in Adam, Original Sin, and the Necessity of a Mediator. He attributes much to freewill and the Merit of Goodworks; and yet he admits the Necessity of the Grace of Jesus Christ, which he seems to subject to freewill. He alleges often the Authority of the Church, and is clearly of opinion, that there is no Salvation out of her Communion. He ascribes wonderful Effects to Baptism, when it is received with good Dispositions. He says expressly in the Eighth Book of the Trinity, That in the Eucharist we Eat and Drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. He approves of Vows and Invocation of Saints; He praises Penance, Fasting and Celibacy: He condemns Simony, Usury and Luxury: In a word, his Writings are full of most pure Morality, and a most holy Discipline.  
The Works of St. Hilary were printed at Paris in the Year 1500 by Badius Ascensius: Afterwards Erasmus having corrected them, caused them to be printed at Basle in 1535. They were also printed in the same City in 1550, revised by Justus Lipsius. In 1572, Gillot published a New Edition of St. Hilory's Works, together with a Preface, which contains the Life of this Father, and some Notes: It was printed the same Year at Paris. In 1605. this very Edition was Reprinted more correctly, because some Able Men, as Nicolaus Faber and Bongarsius gave themselves the trouble to compare this Impression with many Manuscripts. There is added in this Edition, the Fragments of St. Hilary, which were published by the Pithoei, and printed at Paris in the Year 1598., with an excellent Preface of Nicolaus Faber about these Fragments, and the Commentaries of St. Hilary upon the Psalms 13, 14, 149, and 150, which had not been published before. The same Edition has been printed anew at Paris in 1631, and 1652. Leunclavius has published under the Name of St. Hilary, A Confession of the Faith of the Trinity, Greek and Latin, printed at Basle in 1578. The Book of the Unity of the Father and the Son, was printed at the same place in 1528. There is a New Edition expected soon from the Benedictins.   

LUCIFER CALARITANUS.  
LUCIFER, Bishop of Calaris, the Metropolitan City of the Isle of Sardinia, was Deputed with Hilary and Pancratius, by Pope Liberius, to the Emperor Constantius, after the Fall of 
Lucifer Calaritanus.  Vincentius of Capua. He came to the Council of Milan, held in the Year 354, where he Defended Athanasius and his Cause, with great Courage. The Emperor being provoked by his Firmness, sent him into Banishment, where he was detained till the Reign of Julian; but they forced him many times to change his Habitation: For, at first, he was Banished to Germanicia, a City of Syria, whereof Eudoxus was Bishop, afterwards to Eleutheroplis in Palestine, where he was extremely tormented by Eutychus, Bishop of that City. At the Death of Constantius, he was found banished in Thebais, and he suffered also a fourth Banishment, the place whereof is not known: 'Twas at the time when he was in Palestine, towards the Year 356, that he wrote his Books. They are all against Constantius, in behalf of St. Athanasius and his Defenders. The Two First, have no other Title, but, The Books in behalf of St. Athanasius against Constantius. The Third, is entitled, Of Apostate Kings. The Fourth, bears this Title, That we must not Assemble with Heretics. And the Fifth, That we must not Pardon those that Offend against God.  
All these Books are written with so much Heat and Boldness, that Lucifer must needs have a Soul fully prepared to suffer Martyrdom, when he wrote them, as is observed by St. Jerom. But that which is most surprising is, that he was not contented with publishing of them, but also sent a Copy of them to Constantius, and caused them to be presented to him in his own Name. The Emperor being astonished at this Boldness, gave this Copy to Florentius, Grand-Master of his Palace, to send it to Lucifer, that he might declare, whether the Book was his or no. Lucifer confessed it openly, and acknowledged that it was by his Order, that it was presented to the Emperor. He had charged one named Bonosus, to report this at Court, and now made Answer to Florentius, who had written to him, that he was ready to suffer Death with Joy. It was probably upon this occasion, and at this time, that he added his Last Book, entitled, That we should die for the Son of God. St. Athanasius understanding that Lucifer had undertaken his Defence with so much Courage, sent a Deacon to him named Eutychus, to carry a Letter in his Name, wherein, after he had testified the Obligation that he had laid upon the Church, he prays him to send him a Copy of his Works; which having received, he sent him a very obliging Letter of Thanks, and translated them into Greek. We have now those Letters of St. Athanasius, the Letter of Florentius, and the Answer of Lucifer at the End of the Works of this Bishop of Calaris; and what we have said of the rest of his Life is taken out of St. Jerom, and a Petition presented to the Emperor's Theodosius and Valentinian, by Marcellinus and Faustinus, two Luciferian Priests.  
After the Death of Constantius, Lucifer obtained his Liberty as well as the other Bishops that were banished for the Faith. He came to Antioch, and found the Church of that City in Division. For after that Eustathius had been forced to leave it, many Catholics did always separate from those Bishops, that some would have set over them. They were not willing to acknowledge Meletius, who was then Bishop of Antioch, tho' they had nothing to reprehend in his Faith. These Catholics were then governed only by Priests, and they were called Eustathians. Lucifer, a severe Man and a rigorous Defender of Discipline, being come to Antioch, was persuaded, That Meletius was Ordained by Arian Bishops, or such as were suspected of Arianism, and had communicated with them, and therefore could not be a lawful Bishop; whereupon he joined himself to the Eustathians, and Ordained Paulinus a Priest to be their Bishop. This Ordination, which still heightened the Division of the Church of Antioch, was disapproved by Eusebius of Vercellae, who was sent to Antioch, in the Name of the Synod of Alexandria. He condemned the Conduct of Lucifer, and retired into the West, having no more hope of restoring Peace to the Church of Antioch; Lucifer, on the contrary, to maintain what he had done, resolved to have no more Conversation or Correspondence with any of the Bishops who had received into their Communion, those that had formerly signed the Arian Creeds. He withdraws therefore into his own Island, and separates from the Communion of almost all the Bishops of the World. He died in this Resolution, and left some followers called Luciferians, who spread themselves over all the World.  
The Works of Lucifer are written without Art and Eloquence, with much Heat and Passion; the Style is Harsh and Barbarous; there is no Reasoning, nor Principles in any thing that he says. He only proposes Maxims, which he proves by the Testimonies and Examples of Scripture, whether they be pertinent to his Subject or no; from whence it comes to pass, that his Writings, are nothing but a Collection of Passages of Scripture, mixed with Apostrophe's, Applications and Reflections.  
In the Two Books against Constantius, he designs to prove, That this Emperor was very much to blame for endeavouring to compel the Bishops to condemn St. Athanasius, who was Absent and Innocent. To prove this Truth, he produces abundance of Histories and Passages out of Scripture, which show, First, That God condemns no Man without hearing him; And, Secondly, That 'tis forbidden in Scripture to condemn any Man without hearing his Defence; Thirdly, That those who shed the Blood of the Innocent, shall be most severely punished; Fourthly, That Constantius, has no right to command Bishops, because he is a Profane Person, a Heretic, and a Persecutor.  
The design of the Treatise Of Apostate Kings, is to prove by the Examples of many impious Kings, That the Success of Constantius, does not demonstrate, that he has any right to Persecute the Orthodox Bishops, nor that his Doctrine is true.  
The other Books show their Arguments by their Titles. The First, is to show, That we must neither Assemble nor Pray with the Arians, who are declared Heretics: The Second, Is to Justify the severe Conduct of the Catholics against the Arians, and the Liberty that they take to reprove them with boldness and vehemence, without sparing even the Powers themselves; that is to say, this Book is peculiarly designed to justify Lucifer, St. Hilary, and some other Catholics, in their way of speaking to the Emperor Constantius. The last Book contains many Proofs of this Truth, That we must die for the Son of God: He blames the Emperor Constantius, for his Impiety and Cruelty, and at the same time, he praises the Constancy of the Catholics, who suffer Martyrdom with Joy, for the Defence of the Orthodox Faith. [Lucifer's Works, with the Letters of St. Athanasius and Florentius, were Printed at Paris, in 8 vo, by Johannes tilius, Bishop of Meaux, in 1568. and afterwards inserted into the Bibliothecae Patrum.]   

VICTORINUS of afric.  
FABIUS] MARIUS VICTORINUS, born in afric; after he had professed Rhetoric for the space of many Years in the City of Rome, with so much Reputation, that a Statue was 
Victorinus of afric.  erected for him in one of the public Places of the City, did at last in his old Age, embrace the Christian Religion. The studying of Plato's Books, which he had translated, gave him some relish for the Holy Scripture; for when he read it, he admired it, and so became a Christian in his heart. He discovered this Inclination to his Friend Simplicianus, who exhorted him to enter into the Church of Christ, since he was persuaded of the Truth of his Religion. Victorinus, thinking it was sufficient to know the Truth, answered him, as it were jesting upon his Simplicity, And do the Walls than make Christians? But at last, being confirmed in the Faith, by Reading and Meditating upon the Holy Scripture, and considering that Jesus Christ would not own him at the Day of Judgement, if he should be ashamed to confess him publicly here: he says to his Friend, Simplicianus, Let us go to Church; and after he had been some time a Catechumen, he was baptised in the presence of all the People. St. Austin, reports this History, B. VIII. of his Confessions, Ch. 2. which he says, he learned from St. Ambrose. St. Jerom, places this Victorinus among the Number of Ecclesiastical Writers, and observes, that he wrote Books against Arius, composed in a Logical Method, Dialectico More, which are very obscure, and cannot be understood but by Learned Men. He adds, That he had also written Commentaries upon the Apostle St. Paul, but he says in another place, that these Commentaries were almost useless, because this Author having been wholly addicted to the Study of humane Learning, did not understand the true Sense of the Holy Scripture.  
We have at present those Four Books of Victorinus against Arius, which are printed in the Orthodoxographa, and in the Bibliothecae Patrum; but besides this Book which St. Jerom mentions, there are some other Tracts which bear the Name of the same Author. These are in the Bibliothecae Patrum, viz▪ one in Defence of the Word Consubstantial, three Hymns of the Trinity, and one Poem of the Maccabees: Sirmondus has also published by its self, in the Year 1630, a little Treatise against the Manichees, and another about the beginning of Day. All these Books are written in the same Style, and by the same Author.  
In the Four Books against Arius, dedicated to Candidus, he refutes the Errors of this Heretic and those of his Followers; he proves there the Divinity of the Word, and defends the Consubstantiality: But he does it in so Scholastic and Intricate a way, that 'tis very difficult to comprehend his Arguments. One may find several Expressions about the Mystery of the Trinity, that are scarce Sense, and quite different from that way of speaking which is used in the Holy Scripture, and by the Church of God. The Book in Defence of the Term Consubstantial, is a kind of Summary of those Four Books.  
The Treatise to Justinus, who was a Manichee, is written against the Error of those Heretics, who admitted two Principles of the World, and believed that the Flesh was created by an Evil Principle. Victorinus, refutes these two Errors in few words, and exhorts Justinus to acknowledge one God only. Suffer not any more, says he, my Friend Justinus, suffer not yourself, you who are of the City of Rome, to be abused by the Impieties of the Persians, or Armenians. In vain do you macerate yourself with extraordinary Mortifications, for after you have made yourself lean by those Austerities, your Flesh is of no other kind, than that which shall return to the Devil in darkness, who according to you, created it. I advise and require you to acknowledge, That God Almighty is he that created you, that so you may be truly the Temple of God, according to the Words of the Apostle, You are truly the Temple of God, and his Spirit dwelleth in you. If you have not the Honour to be the Temple of God, and to receive the Holy Spirit into you, Jesus Christ is not come to save, but to destroy you; for if we are his, our Body and Soul must belong to him, and then it may be truly said, That God is all in all; That he is the One, and only Almighty and Eternal Principle of the whole Universe, and perfectly Infinite, to whom be Honour and Glory. This is the Conclusion of this Treatise which ispleasanter and more intelligible than those which are written against the Arians.  
In the little Tract about the beginning of Day, he endeavours to show, That the Days of the Creation which are mentioned in Genesis, do not begin at Night, but at the Morning, and end at the Morning of the Day following.  
The First and Third of his Hymns, are in commendation of the Mystery of the most Holy Trinity, which he explains in many Words.  
The Second, is a Prayer to God, and is rather in Prose, like the Creed attributed to St. Athanasius; than in Verse.  
The Poem of the Maccabees, is a Description in Hexameter Verse, of the Martyrdom of those Seven Brethren. There is nothing extraordinary in this Poem; there is nothing Poetical in it, but some mean Imitations of Virgil, and for the most part, the Verses are low and despicable.  
The Commentaries of Victorinus upon St. Paul, have not yet been published. Sirmondus' found some Fragments of them in a Manuscript, from which he took those two little Treatises of which we have already spoken. But probably, he judge▪ d them not worth publishing, though he says in his Advertisement, That the Style of these Commentaries is more clear and clean, than that of his Dogmatical Works.  
There are many Philosophical Books attributed to the same Victorinus, as his Commentaries upon Tully's Rhetoric, cited by Cassiodorus in his Bibliotheca, and by Pope Sylvester the II. in his Epistle 130, which have been Printed several times. There is also attributed to him the Version of porphyry's Isagoge, which is amongst Boetius' Works, a Book about Poetry, and some Books of Grammar. But those sort of Books ought not to come into our Bibliotheca, which should contain none but Ecclesiastical Monuments.   

St. PACIANUS.  
ST. PACIANUS, Bishop of Barcelona, no less Famous, says St. Jerom, for the Holiness of his Life, than the Eloquence of his Discourse, wrote many Books, among which there is one entitled, 
St. Pacianus.  Cervus or The Hart, and some other Treatises against the Novatians. He died under the Reign of Theodosius, towards the Year 380. We have three Letters of his against the Novatians, addressed to Sempronianus, who was of this Sect. An Exhortation to Repentance, and a Treatise or Sermon of Baptism, addressed to the Catechumen. All these Pieces are written with much Wit and Eloquence.  
The First Letter to Sempronianus, has Two Parts. In the First, he makes use of the way of Prescription from the Name and Authority of the Catholic Church, to show, that the Sect of the Novatians, cannot be the Church of Jesus Christ. In the Second, he refutes their Doctrine about Repentance. He observes at the beginning of the First Part, That since the coming of Jesus Christ, there have appeared an infinite Number of Sects, who have all been denominated from the Names of their Authors; That the Name of Catholic is continued only in the True Church; That the Novatians make one of those Sects which are separated from the Catholic Church; That they have forsaken the Tradition of the Church under pretence of Reformation. He opposes to them the Authority of the Ancient Fathers of the Church, who were Successors to the Apostles. Why should not we, says he, have a Respect to the Authority of those Apostolical Men? Shall we pay no Deference to the Testimony of St. Cyprian? Would we teach this Doctrine? Are we wiser than he? But what shall we say of so many Bishops dispersed over all the World, who are united with these Saints? What shall we say of so many Venerable Old Men, of so many Martyrs, and so many Confessors? Is it for us to Reform them? Shall our times corrupted by Vice, efface the Venerable Antiquity of our Ancestors? My Name, says he, addressing himself to Sempronianus, is Christian, and my Surname, is Catholic. Christianus mihi nomen est, Catholicus cognomen. He explains afterwards, the Name of Catholic, and tells us, that the most Learned say, that it signifies Obedient; and that according to others it means, one through all, and shows, that these two Significations agree to the Catholic Church, which alone is obedient to the Voice of Jesus Christ, and which only is the same in all the World. After he has thus spoken of the Church, he proceeds to Penance, and so he enters into the Merits of the Question: May it please God, says he, that none of the Faithful may ever stand in need of it; That no Man after Baptism may ever fall into the precipice of Sin; That so the Ministers of Jesus Christ may never be obliged to Preach and Apply long and tedious Remedies, for fear of Patronising the Liberty of sinning by flattering Sinners with their Remedies. Nevertheless, we allow this Mercy from our God, not to those who are so happy as to preserve their Innocence, but to those who have been so unhappy as to lose it by their Sins. It is not to the Sound, but to the Sick, that we Preach these Remedies. If the Evil Spirits have no more Power over the baptised; If the Fraud of the Serpent which destroyed the first Man, and gave so great occasion of Damnation to his Posterity, has ceased; If, I say, the Devil is gone out of the World; If we may sport ourselves in Peace; If Man does not fall into many Sins of Thought, Word and Deed: Then let us not acknowledge this Gift of God; Let us reject this Aid; Let us have no more Confessions; Let us no longer hearken to Sighs and Tears; Let Justice and Innocence proudly despise these Remedies. But if Man be subject to these Miseries, Let us no more accuse the Mercy of God, who has proposed these Remedies to our Diseases, and Rewards to those that preserve their Health; Let us no more efface the Titles of God's Clemency by an unsupportable Rigour, nor hinder Sinners by an inflexible hardness from rejoicing in those Gifts which he has freely bestowed upon them. 'Tis not we who give this Grace of our own Authority, but God himself who says, Be converted to me, etc. After he has set down many Passages of Scripture, which prove, That God Pardons penitent Sinners, he proposes this Objection of the Novatians: God only, will you say, can grant Pardon of Sin; That's true, answers he, but what he does by his Ministers, he does by his own Power; For he says to his Apostles, Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever ye shall lose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. But, perhaps, he did not give this Power to any but the Apostles? If this were true, than we must say, That they only had also Power to Baptise, to give the Holy Spirit, and to Purify the Gentiles from their Sins: For in the same place, where he gives them Power to Administer the Sacrament of Baptism; he also gives them Power to lose Sinners. Either then these two Powers were peculiarly reserved to the Apostles, or they are both continued to their Successors, and therefore since it is certain that the Power of giving Baptism and Unction, is continued in the Bishops; that same must consequently be granted of the Power of binding and losing. He adds, That whatever Power the Bishop has, he received it from the Apostles; That the right of administering Unction and Baptism, of Forgiving Sins, of Consecrating the Body of Jesus Christ, was devolved upon him, because he is Successor to the Apostles. He concludes this Letter with saying, I know very well, my dear Brother, that the Pardon of sins is not to be granted indifferently to all Sinners, and that they are not to be loosed, before there be some Signs of the Will of God, that it should be done; That Absolution is not to be given, but with much precaution and discretion, after Sinners have sighed and wept long; and when the whole Church has prayed for them, that so no Man may prevent the Judgement of Jesus Christ. If you would write your Thoughts more clearly to me, my dear Brother, I would Instruct you more fully. Sempronianus, having answered this Letter, St. Pacianus, confirmed the Two Parts of his Letter, by Two other Answers.  
In the First, he proves what he had said concerning the Name of the Catholic Church; and as to what Sempronianus had objected, that the People of St. Cyprian had been treated as Apostates, as Sectaries, etc. He shows, that they did not commonly carry these Names, but on the contrary, were always called Catholics, whereas Sempronianus cannot deny, but the Sect whereof he was, did bear the Name of Novatian. He answers afterwards to the Accusation of Sempronianus, founded upon his making use of a Verse of Virgil in his Letter, and shows, that a Bishop is allowed to know humane Learning, and to make a profitable use of it. He answers also another Accusation against the Catholics, concerning the Persecution which he pretends the Novatians had suffered from them. He says That the Novatians must not attribute to the Catholics the severity of some Princes who would not tolerate them; That this was not done upon the Complaint, and at the desire of Catholics, but by the proper Motion of Christian Princes who espoused the Interests of the Church; That the Powers had reason to Protect the Innocent, and to make use of their Authority for the public Good. The rest of this Letter, respects some particular Debates between them, concerning the Persons of Novatian, St. Cyprian and Cornelius. St. Pacianus, defends and praises these two last, and accuses the first of Pride and Schism. In the last Letter to Sempronianus, he treats of Penance against Novatian. He says, That all the Doctrine of the Novatians, explained by Sempronianus, is contained in this Proposition, That Penance is not allowed after Baptism, because the Church cannot forgive Mortal Sin: and in short, That she destroys herself by receiving Sinners. Who is it, says he, that proposes this Doctrine? Is it Moses? Is it St. Paul? Is it Jesus Christ? No, it is Novatian. And who is this Novatian? Is he a Man pure and blameless, who has never forsaken the Church, who was lawfully Ordained Bishop, and by the common Methods, succeeded in the room of a Bishop deceased? What do you mean, you will tell me? It suffices that he has taught this Doctrine. But still, when was it taught? Was it immediately after the Passion of Jesus Christ? Not at all, It was after the Reign of Decius, 300 Years after Christ. But did this Man follow the Prophets? Was he a Prophet? Did he raise the Dead? Did he work Miracles? Did he speak all sorts of Languages? For at least he ought to have these signs for establishing a new Gospel; and though he had, yet the Apostle assures us, That though an Angel should descend from Heaven to teach us a new Gospel, he should be accursed? Was there never any Person, since the coming of Christ till Novatian, that understood the Doctrine of Jesus Christ? and since the Reign of Decius, Is there none but Novatian in the way of Salvation? But you will tell me, We do not acquiesce in Authority, we make use of Reason. But as to me, who hitherto have been settled in my Religion upon the Authority and Tradition of the Church, and am satisfied with the Communion of this Ancient Society, I will not now descent from it, I will not seek after Disputes; and you who have separated from this Body and divided from your Mother, search in Books for every thing that is most secret, that you may disturb those that are at rest. 'Tis not we, but you, that have raised this Dispute. But still let us hear what you say, let us examine your Reasons. You say, That the Church is a Body of Men regenerate by Water and the Holy Spirit, who have not denied the Name of Christ, which is the Temple and House of God, the Pillar and Ground of Truth: we say the same also. But who has taken away from us this Living Water? Have we it not, we who draw from its Fountain? But you who are separated from it, how can you be regenerate by Baptism? How can the Holy Spirit, who has not deserted the Church, come upon you who are fallen off from it? How can your People receive the Holy Spirit, since they are not Confirmed by Bishops, who have received the Sacerdotal Unction? Have not we had some Confessors and Martyrs? Yes, you will say, you have had; but they are now lost by receiving of Apostates. I will not tell you, that Novatian, while he was yet in the Church, wrote a Book to prove that we ought to receive them; but how do you prove that the whole Church is perished by receiving Penitent Sinners? If some Churches have shown too great Indulgence, must others, who have not approved them, but have followed the old way, and preserved Peace, lose upon that account the Name of Christians? He proves afterwards by many Reasons, That the Church by receiving Penitent Sinners, did not cease to be the Church, and that the Schism of Novatian made his Disciples lose the Title of the Sons of the Church. He strongly urges the Testimony of Novatian, who approved before his Separation, the Conduct of those that received the lapsed that were Penitent. He describes afterwards the Origin of the Sect of Novatians; and says, That Novatus an African Priest, being convicted in his own Country of many Crimes, came to Rome to avoid the Condemnation which he had deserved; and that being arrived there, he persuaded Novatian who was vexed that Cornelius was Ordained Bishop of Rome; he persuaded him, I say, to procure himself to be Ordained Bishop, and advised him for gaining his design, to object against Cornelius, the ill Conduct he observed in receiving Penitent Sinners. St. Pacianus enters upon this Matter, and justifies against the Novatians the Conduct of Cornelius, by showing that we ought to receive Sinners to Penance; and that God has given his Church the Power of forgiving Sins. But at the same time, he takes Notice, That there is not the same reason of Penance as of Baptism, for the former aught to be accompanied with much Labour, with Tears and Sighs? He confutes the Objections of the Novatians, and shows, that the passage of St. Matthew, Whatsoever ye shall lose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven, cannot be understood of Baptism. He proves all the Answers of Sempronianus to the Passages alleged in his first Letter to him, to be false. He objects to the Novatians their Hardheartedness, with reference to Penitents. He shows, That those of this Sect are not so pure, nor so Innocent as they boast themselves to be, and that there have been many Persons among them guilty of enormous Crimes. He opposes to them the Authority of St. Cyprian and Tertullian before his Fall. He ends with an Exhortation to Sempronianus to return into the Church.  
He gins his Exhortation to Repentance with an Introduction, wherein he observes, That oftentimes it were better not to mention some Sins than to reprove them; because the Sin is rather learned than restrained. He says, That the Book that he had written against the Play called Cervulus, or the Little Hart, had the Misfortune to render that Immorality the more common. Concerning which, we may learn by the by, That the Book of St. Pacianus, entitled, Cervus or Cervulus, The Little Hart, mentioned by St. Jerom, which is not extant, was composed against some Profane and Lascivious Play or Ceremony, wherein probably there were used indecent Postures. He adds, That this Treatise was written against the Heathens, who mocked at it, and that he was not to expect better success from this Exhortation to Repentance, which was addressed to the Christians of his own Diocese. He says, That we cannot but imagine that this Book was designed only for Penitents, since Penance is as it were the Bond of all Ecclesiastical Discipline: For, says he, we must take care of Catechumen, that they fall not into Sin; of the Faithful, that they relapse not after they have been Purified; and of Penitents, that they may receive quickly the fruit of their Humiliation. After this, he divides his Discourse into Three Parts: He treats in the First of the different sorts of Sin, lest any should imagine that all Sins deserve the same Punishment. In the Second, he discourses of some Persons that are ashamed to make use of the Remedy of Penance, and so receive the Sacrament with an heart and mind polluted with Sin: They are fearful, says he, before Men, but impudent before God, they defile by their impure Hands, and by their corrupt Mouth, they defile, I say, that Altar which makes the Angels themselves to tremble. The last Part, Is of the Pains that they shall suffer who do no Penance, and of the Reward of those that Purify themselves by a true and sincere Confession of their Sins. In the First Part, he distinguishes Sins from Crimes. He averrs, That we must not imagine that Men are obliged to do Penance for an infinite number of small Sins, from which no Person is exempt; That according to the Dispensation under the Old Testament, lesser Faults were rigorously punished, but Jesus Christ is come to deliver us from this Yoke of the Law. Thus after Pardon, if a Man may so speak, of an infinite number of Sins, which need no Powerful Remedies to cure them, there remains a small number which may be easily avoided, that deserve a severe Punishment. Amongst these he reckons Idolatry, Murder and Adultery: As for other Sins, says he, they may be cured by the Practice of Good Works, Inhumanity by Civility, Injuries by Satisfaction, Sadness by Mirth, Harshness by Sweetness, Lightness by Gravity; and so of other Vices which are punished by the contrary Virtues. But what shall be the Punishment of Idolatry? What shall the Murderer do to expiate his Crime? What shall be the remedy of an Adulterer or Fornicator? These are, my Brethren, Capital Sins, these are Mortal Sins. After he has terrified those who have committed these Crimes, with the dreadful words of Fire and Brimstone, and almost made them despair of Pardon, he adds, However you may be healed, if you begin to be sensible of the greatness of your Crime, and the state to which you are reduced; if you have a Fear that approaches near to Despair. I address myself first of all to you, who having committed those Crimes refuse to do Penance; you who are so timorous, after you have been so impudent; you who are ashamed to do Penance after you have sinned without blushing; you who are not ashamed to commit those Crimes, but are ashamed to confess them; you who approach the Holy of Holies, with a Conscience polluted by these Crimes, without trembling, when ye present yourselves before the Altars; you who receive the Mysteries from the hands of the Priests in the presence of the Angels, as if ye were innocent; you who trample upon the Patience and Mercy of God, and present at his Altars a defiled Soul and an unclean Body. After he has thus spoken a word to Impenitent Sinners, he represents to them the Punishments that God has threatened to those that approach unworthily to Holy Things. He proposes to them the terrible words of St. Paul, and exhorts them by most powerful Motives, and most convincing Reasons to discover the Wounds of their Conscience. The Sick that are Prudent, says he, do not hid their Wounds from their Physicians, even those that are in the most secret Parts. They suffer them to apply the Iron, the Fire, and Caustics to Cure them; And shall a Sinner be afraid to purchase Eternal Life for a little Shame? Shall he dread to discover his Sins to God, which are but ill hid from him? He that dares offend against God, why does he blush at any thing? would he rather Perish without shame, than be ashamed to Perish? But though you should be ashamed to discover your Misery to others, yet fear not to discover it to your Brethren, who bear a part in your unhappiness. It does not become one Part of the Body to rejoice in the Evil that befalls another Member of the same Body, they suffer all the same Pain, and contribute to the Remedy. The Church consists of the Faithful, and Jesus Christ is in his Church, and so he that discovers his Sins to his Brethren, is assisted by the Tears of the Church, and Absolved by the Prayers of Jesus Christ.  
After this, he speaks a word to those, who under pretence of being willing to do Penance, lay open indeed their Wounds by Confession, but know not what it is to do Penance, nor what the Remedies which must Cure them; who are exactly like those who discover their Wounds and Diseases to Physicians, but neglect to bind up their Wounds, and to apply necessary Remedies; nay, increase their Disease by taking contrary Remedies and pernicious Potions, and add new Crimes to their old Sins. What can I do for these, I who am a Bishop. Says he, 'Tis very late to give them a Remedy, but yet if any of you be willing to suffer the Iron and the Fire, I can apply them: Behold the Razor which the Prophet presents me. Turn ye, says he, to the Lord your God, with fasting, weeping and mourning, and sighing, and break your hearts: fear not this Incision, for David was very willing to endure it. He relates also many other Examples of Penance, and reproves the Softness, the Pride, and Looseness of the greatest part of Christians and Penitents. He blames them for not observing so much as the daily Exercises of Penance, which are made in the presence of the Bishop; As to weep in the sight of all the Church, to discover by the uncleanness of their Garments the regret they ought to have for losing their Innocence, to Sigh, to Pray, to throw themselves at the feet of the Faithful, to deprive themselves of Pleasures, to prostrate themselves before the Priests, to hold the hands of the Poor, to supplicate the Widows, to beseech the whole Church, and implore its Prayers; and in short, to try all ways possible to save their Souls. After this, he quickens the Penitents by the Fear of Eternal Punishments, which he represents to them in a most Pathetical manner, and he invites them to Penance by the consideration of the Mercy and Goodness of God, who desires nothing but the Conversion of Sinners.  
The Subject of the Treatise of Baptism addressed to the Faithful and the Catechumen, is set down by St. Pacian in the Beginning of his Discourse, I will show you, says he, in what condition we are Born, and how we are renewed by Baptism— To make you understand this, I shall discover to you, what the Gentiles are; what is the Fruit of Faith, and what are the Effects of Baptism. In order to the Explication of these Three Things, he observes, That by the Sin of Adam all Men were enslaved to Death and Sin; That the Law of Moses discovered this Misery very plainly, but afforded no Remedy at all; That so Sin reigned from Adam till Christ, who delivered Mankind from the Tyranny of Sin, because as the Sin of the First Man was imputed to all his Posterity, so the Righteousness of Jesus Christ was communicated to all Men by Baptism, and by the Aid of the Holy Spirit, provided that Faith preceded. He adds, That this Regeneration cannot be perfected but by the Sacrament of Baptism, and Unction, and by the Ministry of the Priest. [For, says he, Baptism Purifies from Sins, and Unction brings down the Holy Spirit, and both the one and the other are applied by the Hand and the Mouth of the Bishop; the whole Man is born again and renewed in Jesus Christ, that we may lead a new Life, which shall never end; because though this Body shall die, yet we shall always live in Jesus Christ, in a heavenly and eternal Life. He observes, That being delivered in Baptism from the bands of Sin, we renounce the Devil and the World, and if afterwards, by forgetting the Grace which we have received, we relapse into a Crime, our Relapse is almost irrecoverable; because that Jesus Christ suffered but once, and we cannot be washed and purified above once. He concludes with an Exhortation to those that are newly Baptised, to preserve the Grace which they had received, to Sin no more, to keep the Purity and Innocence of Baptism till the Day of Judgement, and to endeavour to obtain Eternal Treasures by their Prayers and Spiritual Labours.  
These Extracts which we have drawn from the Writings of St. Pacianus, sufficiently discover his Judgement, his Style and Learning. There is hardly any of the Ancients that speaks more clearly of the Efficacy of the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Penance: He attributes to Chrysm the effect of Confirmation, which is an Opinion very rare among the Latins, who attribute it to Imposition of Hands. Though he speaks advantageously of the Efficacy of the Sacraments, yet he requires very great Dispositions in order to their producing such Effects as they ought to have. He particularly recommends Public Penance for the Sins of Idolatry, Murder and Fornication; under which Three Sins must be comprehended all the Consequents of them, which extend very far. He thinks that those Sins cannot be pardoned but by Public Penance. As to all other Sins, he does not believe it necessary to submit to that Penance which the Canons of the Church enjoined for them. He explains the Fall of all Mankind, that 'twas caused by the Sin of the First Man, very clearly, and the unprofitableness of the Law, the Necessity and Effects of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. He equally condemns the Rigour of the Novatians, and the Impenitence of some Sinners, as well as the heedlessness and softness where with others perform their Penance. His Exhortations are lively and persuasive, his Thoughts well-weighed, his Proofs solid, his way of Writing pleasant, his Style elegant, and the Periods short. In a word, These little Tracts may pass for Masterpieces in their kind, and these two Treatises may be looked upon as a perfect Model of Preaching, or Exhortation to the People.  
The Works of this Father were Published by Tilius, and Printed at Paris, with some other Books in 4to, in the Year 1538, by Guillardus; in 1655, in 8vo, by Melchior Gopnerus; and together with Hermas at Rome in 1564, in Folio; and in the Bibliethecae Patrum.   

GREGORY of Baetica.  
GREGORY, Bishop of Elvira, a City of the Province of Baetica in Spain, wrote divers Treatises in a low Style, and an elegant Book concerning the Faith; which were extant in the latter 
Gregory of Baetica.  End of Saint Jerom's time. We have in the Fragments of St. Hilary, a Letter of Eusebius of Vercellae to this Bishop, where he commends him for the Constancy wherewith he defended the Faith of the Church, and resisted Hosius. Marcellus and Faustinus the Luciferians, tell us, in their Letter to Valentinian the Emperor, That Hosius being ready to condemn him, was miraculously thrown upon the Ground, and lost the use of his Speech. But there is no probability that this Relation should be true, as we have already shown, when we Discoursed of Hosius. St. Jerom, in his Chronicle, joins this Bishop, with Lucifer Calaritanus, and observes, that they would never have any Correspondence with those that were suspected of Arianism. This joined with the Honourable mention that Marcellinus and Faustinus make of this Bishop, may induce us to believe, that he was of the Judgement and Party of Lucifer. He flourished from the Year 357, till the latter End of that Century. The Ancients speak of him as a simple, plain, sincere Man, but a zealous Defender of the Faith. His Style was no ways Sublime, if we believe St. Jerom. There have been printed under his Name at Rome, in the Year 1575., and in the Two first Editions of the Bibliothecae Patrum, seven little Treatises against the Arians, which are thought to be the same with the Book concerning the Faith cited by St. Jerom: But it has since been discovered, that they were written by Faustinus a Luciferian Deacon, to whom the Abbot Trithemius attributes them. They are addressed to the Empress Galla Placidia, Sister to the Emperor Honorius, which discovers that they rather belong to Faustinus than Gregory of Baetica, who was dead when Placidia had the Title of Empress.   

PHAEBADIUS.  
PHAEBADIUS 
a Phaebadius.] Sulpitius Severus, calls him Fegadius; in St. Jerom, and the Greek Translator of his Book, he is called Saebadius, which is a Fault in the Latin, and aught to be read Phaebadius, as it is in the Manuscripts. There is also by mistake in St. Ambrose Fygadius. , Bishop of Again, having seen the Second Creed of Sirmium, composed in the Year 357, by Hosius and Potamius, wrote immediately a Treatise against this Creed. He 
Phaebadius.  assisted afterwards at the Council of Ariminum, held in 359, wherein he defended until the End of the Council, the Nicene Creed, and refused to Sign that which was there proposed. Neither Fear nor Threaten could change his Resolution; but the Governor Taurus, seeing that his Constancy was not to be overcome by these means, used Entreaties, and beseeched him with Tears to take more moderate Courses, that so he might release a great Number of Bishops, who had been shut up for the space of seven Months in one City, where they were distressed by the Rigour of the Winter, and the want of all things. He remonstrated to him, That if all the Bishops did not sign the Creed that was brought from the East, there would be no hopes, that they should ever have permission to return from thence: In short, That he must fix his Resolution, and that he ought to follow the Example and Authority of many that had already signed. Phaebadius, answered, That he was ready to go into Banishment, and suffer all sorts of Punishment, rather than do that which was desired of him, and that he would never receive a Creed made by the Arians. Some days passed in these Debates; but at last, seeing that there was no hopes left of obtaining Peace, he departed from his Resolution, after that Ursacius and Valens had declared, That the Profession of Faith, which they proposed, was Catholic, and that those to whom it appeared not sufficient, might add to it what they thought fit. This Proposition was favourably received by all the Western Bishops: Phaebadius and Servatio Tungrensis, drew up Declarations, wherein they condemned Arius and his impious Doctrine, acknowledging that the Son of God was without Beginning, and that he was not a Creature. But Ursacius and Valens, added maliciously, that he was not a Creature as others are; and so deceived the Bishops who signed with those Declarations, the Creed composed at Nice by the Bishops of the East. Phaebadius, being upon his return to his own Country, was one of those Bishops who were most troubled for their Fault, and who atoned for it, by Declarations and Protestations against what they had done by Surprise: He assisted at the Council of Valentia in 374. We have a Letter of St. Ambrose, addressed to him and Delphinius, Bishop of Bourdeaux. St. Jerom assures us in his Book of Illustrious Men, That Phaebadius lived in his time, and that he was then extremely old: He adds, That he also wrote some other Books, besides that which we have already mentioned. The Memory of this Saint, is particularly honoured at Again, where he is commonly called St. Fiari.  
We have still extant in the Bibliothecae Patrum, a Treatise of this Bishop, against the Second Creed of Sirmium, which was first published by Pithaeus, in a Collection of Ancient French Ecclesiastical Authors, printed by Nivelle, in the Year 1589. This Treatise is a refutation of the Second Creed of Sirmium, composed by Potamius, Bishop of Lisbon, and Signed by Hosius Bishop of Corduba. In the Exordium, he says, That if the greater part of Christians had not been circumvented by the Artifices of the Devil, who makes them take Heresy for Faith, and condemn the Faith for Heresy; he had not undertaken to say any thing of this Writing, which was sent a little while ago into France: That he could be content to continue Firm in his own Faith, without meddling with the Examination of other Men's: But since, says he, we are reduced to this Condition, that we must necessarily embrace Heresy, that we may be called Catholics, or cease to be Catholics by not rejecting Heresy, we find ourselves obliged to discover the Poison of Heresy hid under the appearance of Religion, and to lay open that Error, which is wrapped up in such Terms, as appear at first fight to be Innocent, that so Falsehood being discovered, the oppressed Truth may at last take breath. We must destroy the Opinions of Strangers, that ours may be believed, and so in refuting Error, I shall prove at the same time, the Truth of my Creed, and demonstrate myself to be a Catholic to those that are not overawed by Fear, nor bribed by Ambition. After this, he Examines the Second Creed of Sirmium, discovers the Malignity of it, and refutes by Testimonies of Scripture, the Errors that it contains about the Trinity. He speaks also occasionally of the Mystery of the Incarnation, whilst he refutes a Letter of Potamius; who had affirmed, That by the Incarnation of the Word, God was rendered passable, and that the Son of God, and the Flesh of Man, were become as it were, a Third Person, who was neither God nor Man. He Disputes against this Opinion, showing by Scripture. That the Two Substances, or the Two Natures, continued without mixture in the Person of Jesus Christ; That the Word did still preserve the Properties of the Divine Nature, and the Humanity of the Humane Nature. He is very angry afterwards, that they suppressed the word Substance, which was ordered by the Creed, that he examines. The Bishops, says he, make an Edict, whereby they decree, That no Person shall speak of One Substance. Alas, What have you done, O ye, Holy Bishops Assembled at Nice from all parts of the World? You have to no purpose Composed with admirable Circumspection, a Creed which should be the Infallible Rule of Truth? To what End was your Labour designed? What is the Fruit of your Care? 'Tis now forbidden to teach in the Church, the only Thing which you commanded to be taught there for the Confounding of Error. That is now condemned, which you approved; and that is now approved, which you condemned; Falsehood is maintained, and the Truth is opposed. But in vain do they strive to do it, for Truth shall never be destroyed, it shall remain eternally without Change, and shall punish those that set themselves against it. Let no Man, say they, make use of the Word Substance. Ha', What Evil, what Crime is it, to make use of this Word? Wherein does it wound the Faith? Is it the Sound? Is it the Sense? Afterwards he makes it appear, That this Word is used in Scripture; That the Sense of it is most Catholic; and, That 'tis most proper to expound the Faith of the Church in such a manner, as it may not be capable of any further Explication. At the End of this Treatise, he refutes those that say, The Word of God suffered Pain. At last, he concludes with saying, That there is but One only God in Three Persons. This is what we believe, this is what we defend, what the Prophets have taught us, what the Gospel preaches to us, what the Apostles left us by Tradition, what the Martyrs confessed in their Sufferings. This is the Faith which is engraven on the Hearts and Minds of the Faithful; and when an Angel shall descend from Heaven and teach the contrary, he shall be accursed. He adds afterwards, as a kind of an Appendix, when he speaks of Hosius, Bishop of Corduba; I know very well, says he, that the Name of Hosius, that ancient Bishop, may be objected to me, whose Faith was always so Firm, and I doubt, not but they will make use of his Authority, as a Buckler to cover the Opinion that is contrary to ours. But I answer in a word to those who will make use of these Arms, that his Authority cannot be alleged as an unanswerable Argument, because either he is at present in an Error, or else he always was so. The World knows what he believed till this present time, with what Assurance he approved the Sardican and Nicene Doctrine which I defend, and with what Rigour he condemned the Arians. But if he be at present of another Opinion, if he maintains now what he always condemned heretofore, if he condemns now what he always maintained; How can his Authority be objected to me? If he was in an Error for 82 Years together, How comes it to pass, that I must believe, that at this Age he found out the Truth? But suppose I could believe it, What Judgement can be given of those who died in the Faith of the same Doctrine which he maintained before he altered his Opinion? What Judgement would he have given of himself, if he had died before that Council wherein he changed? And so the prejudice drawn from the Arthority of Hosius, is of no Consideration, because it opposes itself: Besides that, we read in the Scripture, that the Righteousness of a Judge, shall not save him, when he shall departed from it.  
I was very willing to set down this Passage entire, because it may be of great use to weak Persons, who suffer themselves to be drawn into Errors, by the Authority of those whom they highly Esteem and Value. It serves also to discover, that the greatest Men are subject to great Infirmities, and that therefore we must not follow their Example blindly, especially, when Religion is the Matter in question; and that the only Infallible Rule to which we should adhere, is the Authority of the Church, to which we ought to pay a blind Obedience, and without reserve.  
To Conclude, This Tract is written very politely, the Style is clear and clean, the Subject is handled very plainly; and there are sometimes Sallies of Wit, which discover that the Author wrote with much Vigour and Easiness.   

St. OPTATUS.  
ST. OPTATUS 
a St. Optatus.] The Name of Optatus is very common among the Africans. St Austin speaks of many other Persons of this Name, who are easily distinguished from this Bishop. , Bishop of Milevi 
b Milevi.] Some Authors have thought that he was Bishop of Malta, but this is a gross mistake: Milevi is a City of Numidia in afric, often mentioned in the African Councils. , a City of Numidia, wrote under the Reign of Valens and Valentinian, about the Year 370, his Books of the Schism of the Donatists, against Parmenianus, 
St. Optatus.  a Bishop of that Sect. There is nothing in particular, known of the Life of this Author. He died, according to the Testimony of St. Jerom, under the Reign of Valentinian 
c He died under the Reign of Valentinian.] In B. II. he places in his Catalogue of Popes, Pope Siricius, who was not Bishop of Rome till after the Death of Valentinian; which would cause a doubt of what St. Jerom says, if it were not easy for a Transcriber to add the Name of Siricius, when he Copied out this Book after the Death of Optatus. . St. Austin and St. Fulgentius, cite him with great Commendation, and he has been numbered among the Saints, because of the Service he did the Church, by this excellent Book which he composed in its Defence. It was divided into Six Books, since St. Jerom's time: There is a Seventh now extant, but 'tis very probable, that it is Supposititious. First of all, Because Optatus himself in his First Book, divides his Treatise into Six Books, without mentioning a Seventh. Secondly, Because St. Jerom says, That Optatus wrote but Six Books against the Schism of the Donatists. Thirdly, Because the Style of the last Book 
d The Style of the last Book.] The Style of it is flat, mean and weak, whereas the Style of Optatus is sublime, masculine, and enriched with many Figures; there are also many Terms, which appear not to be Optatus': The Author of this Book treats of what Optatus had already handled in B. I. and III. and the beginning of the iv which Repetition does also show, that it is none of his. , comes not near the Elegance and Sublimeness that is in the others. And Lastly, Because it contains Opinions contrary to those that are in the other Books 
e Opinions contrary to those that are in the other Books.] This Author extenuates the enormity of their Crime, who delivered up the Holy Books to be burnt; he denies that it was a Capital Crime, and endeavours to prove that it was light and pardonable. On the contrary, St. Optatus declares, B. I. That it was a great Sin, equal to that of Schism, and that those who committed it, should purchase some Years of this Life, with the loss of Eternal Life, which supposes, that this Crime was Mortal, and deserved Damnation; but the Author of the Seventh Book, teaches the contrary. . This Book therefore was written by some African, who lived soon after St. Optatus (for it cannot be doubted but that the Book is ancient) who thought he ought to make this Addition, which was afterwards attributed to this Father.  
St. Optatus gins his First Book with words very full of Charity. He complains, That the Peace which Jesus Christ left to his Church, is disturbed by the Schism and by the Actions of the Donatists: Yet he gives them the Name and Title of Brethren. Though they renounce us, says he, though all the World knows that they hate us, that they detest us; though they would not have us call them our Brethren, yet we will follow the Command of the Prophet Isaiah, in saying unto them, Ye are nevertheless our Brethren, though ye be Evil: We have the same Spiritual Birth, but our Actions are different. Afterwards, he gives an Account of his Undertaking to write to Parmenianus, whom he calls his Brother: He says, That he was the only Donatist with whom he could have a Conference in Writing, and he shows the Usefulness of it: He observes, That this Bishop in writing against the Catholic Church had written for it; so that it had not been necessary to have answered his Treatise, if he had not affirmed many things whereof he was not well-informed, as when he charges the Catholics with desiring Soldiers that they might Persecute the Donatists. He owns, That this is the only place in all the Books of Parmenianus which is against the Church; and that all others are either for the Catholics only, as when he proves that there is but one Church only; or for the Catholics and the Donatists, as when he shows that Heretics have not the Sacraments of the Church; Or lastly, against the Donatists only, as when he speaks of the Enormity of their Crime, who delivered up the Holy Books and made a Schism. He adds, That the Comparison which Parmenianus has made of Baptism with Circumcision, and the Flood, is honourable to the Church, which maintains, that there is but one only Baptism, as there was but one Circumcision and one Flood.  
Optatus having made this general Remark upon the Book of Parmenianus, gives an account of the Method he has observed in his Work; and then lays down a Scheme of his Refutation, and proposes the Subject of his Books. I shall begin, says he, First of all, with giving an History of the Traditors and Schismatics, with an Account of their Abode, their Persons, and their Names; that so it may be known who those are that are guilty of the Crimes that Parmenianus has Condemned. Secondly, I must show what is the Church, and where it is, because there is but one only, and there cannot possibly be two Churches. Thirdly, I am to prove, That we did not desire the Soldiers, and that we are not guilty of the Crimes which are said to be done by those, who would have procured a Reunion. Fourthly, 'Twill be necessary to show who is the Sinner, whose Sacrifice God refuses, and whose Unction we must flee from. In the 5th. Book, I shall treat of Baptism. In the 6th. I shall lay open your Errors and Designs. This is the Argument of those Six Books of Optatus. In the First Book before we come to the History of the Donatists, which is the Subject of it, we must observe a Mistake of Parmenianus, who says, That the sinful Flesh being drowned in the Waters of Jordan, was purified from all its stains. He reproves this Passage of Parmenianus, because from hence it would follow, either that the Flesh of all Men was purified by the Baptism of Jesus Christ; or that the Flesh of Jesus Christ was sinful. But because he foresaw very well, that Parmenianus might explain his meaning, by saying, That nothing else was intended by those words, but that the Flesh of Men was purified in the Flesh of Jesus Christ, therefore he shows that this Expression is improper; for we never say, That a Christian was baptised in the Flesh of Jesus Christ; but in the Name of Jesus Christ. He adds, That the Flesh of Jesus Christ could not be baptised for the Remission of Sins, since he had not committed any. At last, That he might not Pardon Parmenian in any thing, he blames him even for the term Drowned, which he uses, and tells us, That he could only say of Pharaoh, that he continued at the bottom of the Waters, and not of Jesus Christ, who descended into Jordan that he might come out of it, and who Sanctified the Waters of this River by his descent. He says, That he cannot pass over the Imprudence of Parmenianus, who having given a Description of the Flood and Circumcision, and spoken in the Praise of Baptism, should go about (if I may say so) to raise from the Dead the ancient Heretics, who were buried together with their Heresies in Oblivion, and whose Names and Heresies were unknown long ago in Africa, such as Praxeas, Sabellius, Valentinus and others, who had been confuted in their time, by Victorinus of Passaw, by Zephyrinus of Rome, by Tertullian of Carthage, and other Defenders of the Catholic Church.  
Wherefore, says he, do ye make such a War with the Dead, as does not concern the Affairs of our Time? Is it because ye have no Proof that the Catholics are Schismatics, therefore ye would swell your Book with a Catalogue of the Names and Errors of the ancient Heretics? Why do ye speak of those who had no Sacraments which are common to us? Those that are in Health have no need of Remedies. Virtue and Innocence seek no help nor support but in themselves. Truth wants no far-fetched Proofs. None but the Sick seek after Remedies; only the Weak and Sluggish trust to External Succours, and 'tis a Sign of a Lie when Men take much pains to find out a Justification: Parmenianus had not mentioned these Heretics, but to tell us, That they had not the Signs of a true Church; That their Churches were Strumpets who had no right to the Sacraments, and could not be the Spouses of Jesus Christ. Optatus was so far from refuting this Proposition, that he approved it, but he wondered that Parmenianus had joined the Schismatics with them, since he himself was one of this Number.  
I see very well, says he to Parmenianus, That you know not who were the Authors of the Schism at Carthage. Look back to the Rise of this Affair, and you will see that you have condemned yourselves, by joining the Schismatics to the Heretics; for Caecilian did not separate from Majorinus your Predecessor, but Majorinus separated from Caecilian. 'Twas not Caecilian that deserted the Chair of St. Peter or St. Cyprian, but Majorinus, in whose Chair you sit, a Chair that is of no older Original than Majorinus himself. This being so, he wonders that Parmenian should join the Schismatic with the Heretic, and should say of the former as well as the latter after this manner: How can a Man that is defiled, cleanse another by a false Baptism? How can an impure Man Purify? How can one that makes others fall, lift up those that are fallen down? How can one that is guilty, grant Pardon? or one that is Condemned, absolve? Optatus confesses, That all this may be truly said of Heretics who have corrupted the Creed, and have no share in the Sacraments of the Church; but he denies that this can be said of those that are only Schismatics; who, as he thinks, may lawfully Administer the Sacraments. To prove this, he shows the difference between Heretics and Schismatics. Two things, says he, are necessary to render the Church Catholic; The Confession of the true Faith, and the Unity of Hearts. Schism which breaks the Bond of Peace is begotten by Discord, nourished by Envy, and confirmed by Disputes; thus impious Children forsake the Catholic Church their Mother, withdraw and separate themselves, as you have done, being cut off from the Church, and become Rebels and Enemies: But they innovate nothing in Doctrine, still retaining what they had learned from their Mother. The Heretics on the contrary are Enemies to the Truth, Deserters of the true Creed, though they are begotten in the bosom of the Church, and being corrupted by their Impious Errors, they call themselves Authors of their Sect. Optatus concludes from these Definitions, That Heretics can have no Baptism nor valid Sacraments, but that there is not the same Reason for Schismatics, because they have preserved the true Sacraments of the Church, though they are separated from its Body. After this Digression, he returns to his Subject, and undertakes to prove Historically, that the Authors of the Donatists are guilty of delivering up the Holy Books and making a Schism. 'tis now, says he, 60 Years and more since afric was harassed with a violent Persecution, at which time you might have seen many Martyrs and Confessors; but there were also some Christians who yielded in this Day of Trial, and others who hide themselves: To say nothing of the Laity, Ministers, Deacons or Priests, there were even Bishops, those that were the Heads and Chief of the Clergy, who delivered up the Books of the Divine Law, with an astonishing Impiety; and to preserve for some Years this Mortal Life, exposed themselves to the loss of Eternal Life. Donatus of Mascula, Victor of Rusiccadia, Marinus of Aquae Tibilitanae, Donatus of Calama, and Purpurius the Homicide of Limata, were of the Number of those Bishops, together with Menalius, who fearing to be accused of Sacrificing, would not be present at the Assembly of his Brethren. These Bishops and some others, whom we shall show to have been your Authors, assembled together after the Persecution, on the 12th. of May, in the City of Cirtha, in the House of Urbanus Carisius, because the Churches were not yet rebuilt. Secundus of Tigisis having asked them, they confessed to him that they had delivered up the Holy Books; and when Purpurius objected the same thing to Secundus, they all began to murmur; so that Secundus being afraid of himself, followed the Advice of his Nephew Secundus, who counselled him to leave this Cause to the Judgement of God. The other Bishops, Victor Garbiensis, Felix of Rotarium, and Nabor of Centurio, were of the same opinion, and therefore, Secundus declared that all the Bishops should Sat in the Council. Sometime after the same Bishops, Traditors and Murderers, ordained Majorinus Bishop of Carthage, in whose Chair Parmenianus now Sits. Optatus having thus shown that the Ringleaders of the Donatists were Traditors, Convicts them also of being the Authors of a Schism. In treating of this Separation, 'tis certain, says he, that there was but one Church in afric, as there is in all other Parts of the World, before it was divided by the Bishops who ordained Majorinus. It is only to be enquired, who those were that remained united to the Body of the Church with all the World; and who they were that departed from it, who it was that sat in a Chair wherein he had no Predecessor, who those were that set up Altar against Altar, who he was that Ordained a Bishop in the room of another Bishop yet alive. All the World knows that this was done at Carthage after the Ordination of Caecilian, and that it was done at the Instigation of Lucilla, a great Lady: This Woman had been reproved by the Archdeacon Caecilian, even before the Persecution begun, because before receiving the Spiritual Food and Drink, she had kissed the Bones of a Dead Man, who was not publicly acknowledged for a Martyr, preferring thus the Carcase of a Dead Man before the Cup of Salvation. She retired in great Anger, and very much enraged at this Reprimand. The Persecution came on, which hindered the Bishop from reducing her within the Bounds of her Duty. In the mean time, a certain Deacon, named Felix, being cited to appear before the Tyrant, and accused of writing a Defamatory Libel against him, hide himself in the House of Mensurius the Bishop: who being interrogated about this Fact, denied it publicly, and upon his Denial there came an Order from Court, importing, That if Mensurius did not bring forth the Deacon Felix, he should be sent to Court. When he had received this Order, he was very much concerned: He had then in the Church a great Number of Ornaments of Gold and Silver, which he durst neither hide under Ground, nor carry away with him; he trusted them with the most ancient Men of his Church, believing them Faithful, and made an Inventory of them, which he is said to have delivered to an old Woman, with this Charge, That if he did not return again, she should deliver it to him that should be chosen Bishop in his Room. When he came to Court, he defended himself, and being permitted to return to Carthage, he died by the Way. Liberty being restored to the Church of afric by an Edict of Maxentius, Botrus and Celesius who were ambitious to be Ordained Bishops of Carthage, called together the Neighbouring Bishops about this City, without Summoning those of Numidia to come to them: Yet Caecilian was chosen by the unanimous Suffrages of the People, and Ordained by Felix of Aptungiss, and so Botrus and Celesius failed of their hopes. The Inventory of the Gold and Silver belonging to the Church, was delivered to Caecilian; who sends for the Old Men that were entrusted with this Charge: who had already made it their own Property. When they saw themselves obliged to restore it, they alienated the People from the Communion of Caecilian. Those who had intrigued for the See, did the same thing; and in short, Lucilla, an imperious and powerful Woman, who could not bear a reproof, would not hold Communion with him, and hindered those that belonged to her from doing it. So the Schism was begun by the Passion of a furious Woman, nourished by the Ambition of Botrus and Celesius, and confirmed by the Avarice of the Old Men. These three sorts of Persons invented Accusations against Caecilian, and endeavoured to get his Ordination condemned. They fetched Secundus Bishop of Tigisis to Carthage: thither they came with the Bishop's Traditors whom we have mentioned, and were received by the Covetous, Ambitious and Furious, that we named before, but not at all by the Catholics, who had chosen Caecilian. Not one of them durst enter into the Church where he was with all the People. Caecilian took care to acquaint them, That if his Accusers had any thing to say or prove against him, they had nothing to do but appear. His Enemies could find nothing to blame in his Conduct. But they accused him that Ordained Caecilian, of being a Traditor, making this Infamy rebound upon him. Caecilian also told them, That if Felix had no Power to confer Orders, as they pretended, they might Ordain him a new, as if he had been but a Deacon still: Purpurius then answered with his ordinary Malice: Very well, let him come; Let us make as if we would lay hands upon him to Ordain him Bishop, and instead of doing that, let us put him under Penance. This Design being discovered, the Catholics detained Caecilian, and hindered him from exposing himself to the fury of his Enemies. They must then either force him away as a Criminal, or Communicate with him as an Innocent Man: The whole Church was full of People, the Episcopal Chair was filled, the Altar was in its place, that Altar on which the Pacifick Bishops had offered, as St. Cyprian, Lucianus and others. Nevertheless, they set up an Altar against this Altar, and make an Ordination against all the Laws. Majorinus a Domestic of Lucilla, who had been Reader when Caecilian was Deacon, was Ordained by the Bishops of Numidia, who had themselves confessed their Crimes, and Pardoned themselves. 'Tis plain then that Majorinus withdrew from the Church, and that those were the Ringleaders of the Donatists who separated themselves, and delivered up the Holy Books. After Optatus has thus proved that the Donatists were the Authors of the Schism which divided afric, he shows by the Example of Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, that there is no Crime greater, or which deserves a more severe Punishment than Schism: But not contenting himself with convicting the Donatists, he undertakes also to justify Caecilian; and proves that he was Innocent by the Judgement of the Council of Rome, which Condemned Donatus, and declared Caecilian Innocent. He observes that the Ringleaders of the Donatists had themselves desired Judges of Constantine, and that the Emperor had answered them in great Passion, Do ye desire Judges of me, of me who am waiting for the Judgement of Heaven? He shows, That nevertheless, he gave them for Judges, Maternus Bishop of Cologne, Rheticius Bishop of Autun, and Marinus Bishop of Arles; which Judges came to Rome, and there held a Council with Miltiades, and Fifteen Italian Bishops: That Donatus was there condemned upon the Confession that he made of having rebaptised and re-ordained the Bishops which yielded in the time of Persecution; That the Witnesses which he had produced against Caecilian having declared they had nothing to say against him, he was sent back acquitted by the Sentence of all the Bishops, and of Miltiades who concluded this Judgement: That the Donatists having appealed to the Emperor, he cried out aloud, O strange Fury! They appeal from us, as if we had given a Pagan Sentence. That the Emperor detained Caecilian at Bressia by the Solicitation of Filuminus a Partisan of Donatus. That there were sent into afric two Bishops, Eunomius and Olympus, to declare where the Catholic Church was; That being come to Carthage, they were hindered from doing it by the Seditious Party of Donatus; That these two Bishops made Oath in favour of Caecilian; That Donatus came first to Carthage and Caecilian followed him, after he had been declared Innocent by many Judgements. There remained now nothing more for Optatus to do, but to Vindicate Felix of Aptungiss, who ordained Caecilian, from the Calumny of being a Traditor, which he proves by the Information that Elianus the Proconsul had given about this Matter, who after a most strict Enquiry into it, had declared him Innocent of this Crime.  
The Second Book of Optatus is concerning the Church. There he supposes as an uncontested Principle, That there is but one only Church, which Jesus Christ calls his Spouse and his Dove. This Principle being supposed, he proves that the Party of the Donatists were not the Catholic Church; because from thence it would follow, that the Church had perished in all other Parts of the World, and was enclosed in a little Corner of afric; which was contrary to the Signification of the Catholic Church, that signifies a Society spread over all the Earth. He adds for Confirmation of this Truth, That those who shut up the Church within such narrow bounds defeated the Promise of Jesus Christ; that they straitened the Extent of God's Mercy, and gave the Lie to the Holy Spirit who has spoken by the Prophets. After he has made use of this general Reason against the Donatists, he proves that the Signs of the True Church do not in the least agree to them. The First of those Signs is the Chair, that is, the Succession of Bishops. He says to Parmenianus, That he cannot be ignorant of this Sign of the True Church; For you cannot deny, says he, but St. Peter, the Chief of the Apostles, established an Episcopal Chair at Rome; This Chair was one, that all others might preserve Unity by the Union they had with it; So that whosoever set up a Chair against it, was a Schismatic and an Offender. 'Twas then in this one Chair, which is the first Sign of the Church, that St. Peter first sat; to St. Peter succeeded St. Linus, and after him others till Damasus, who is now our Colleague: by whose means, all the Churches of the World are United with us in the same Communion, keeping Correspondence by Circular Letters. As to your Party, which would willingly be thought to be the Church, inquire after the Original of your Chair. You tell us, That you are a Part of the Roman Church, but this is a branch of your Error, which proceeds from the Root of Falsehood, and not from the Stock of Truth. If Macrobius be asked in what Chair he Sits, can he say, That it is in the Chair of St. Peter, which perhaps he never saw; for certainly he never went to the Sepulchre of the Apostles. He is disobedient to the Command of the Apostle, who would have us Communicate to the Memory of the Saints; and the Relics of the two Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul are in the Church of Rome. Tell me, I pray you, if ever he could enter there, if ever he could offer in the Place where these Relics are certainly kept. Macrobius, your Brother, must then confess, That he sat in the Place where Eucolpius held the See; and if we could ask Eucolpius, he must say, That he succeeded to Boniface of Balli, and Boniface to one Victor Garbiensis, whom ye sent from afric. This Victor is a Son without a Father, a Disciple without a Master, a Successor without a Predecessor, a Pastor without a Flock, a Bishop without a People. For we cannot call them a Flock or a People, who were so few, that they had not one of the Forty Churches at Rome to keep their Assemblies in, and who were obliged to shut themselves up in a Cave without the City, to keep their Conventicle there. Optatus does not enlarge so much on the other Signs of the Church that are very obscure, but he insists particularly upon its Extent. Wherefore, says he, would you Unchurch an infinite Number of Christians that are in the East and the West? You are but a small Number of Rebels who have opposed all the Churches of the World, with which ye have no Communion: You are also convicted of Falsehood, by the Sacrifices which ye offer; for I believe that you do not omit the Solemn Prayer that is made at these Sacrifices; I doubt not but you will say, That you offer Sacrifice for that Church which is one, and scattered over all the Earth. Now this Prayer convicts you of a Lie, for how can you offer Sacrifice for one only Church, since you have divided it into two? How can you offer for the whole Church, since you are not within the Catholic Church?  
Parmenianus objected to the Catholics, That they had exercised Violence and Persecution against them, and concluded from thence that they could not be the true Church, because that ought never to be cruel, nor to feed itself with the Flesh and Blood of the Saints. Optatus answers him, That the Church had never Persecuted them, and that he could Name none of the Church that had done it. He retorts this Charge upon the Donatists, by observing that in the time of the Emperor Constantine the Church enjoyed a profound Peace, and all its Members lived in wonderful Union; That then Pagans were forbidden to exercise their Sacrilegious Ceremonies, than the Devil groaned in their Temples where he was shut up, and then the Donatists were banished into Foreign Countries, lest they should disturb the Peace of the Church: But no sooner was Julian declared Emperor, but they begged his leave to return into their own Country, which he granted them very willingly, knowing that they were most fit to trouble the Peace of the Church. He observes, That the same Edict by which he opened the Pagan Temples, he also restored Liberty to them; That they had not so soon obtained it, but that they exercised horrible Violences in afric. He accuses the Donatists of tearing the Members of the Church, of driving away the Bishops, of invading the Churches, of committing Murders, of killing two Deacons at the feet of the Altars, of rending men's Garments, of dragging the Women, stifling the Children; and in fine, of violating every thing that was most Sacred. ●our Bishops, says he, cause the Eucharist to be thrown to the Dogs, and presently the Tokens of God's Anger appear; for the Dogs being enraged, turned upon their Masters, and tore them as if they had been Thiefs whom they never knew, the Justice of God making use of their Teeth to revenge this Sacrilege. They also caused a Bottle full of holy Oil to be thrown out at a Window, on purpose to break it: But though it was cast down from a very high place, yet being supported by Angels, it fell upon the Stones without breaking. He accuses also a Bishop of their Party named Felix, of abusing a Virgin to whom himself had given the Veil, and of having afterwards deprived an ancient Catholic Bishop, 62 Years old, of his Bishopric, and put him under Penance. Here he makes a Digression about the Vanity of the Donatists, who boasted themselves to be Holy and Innocent. Whence comes this Sanctity of yours, says he, which the Apostle St. John durst not attribute to himself, seeing he says, If we say that we have no Sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us? He that speaks after this manner, does prudently refer himself to the Mercy of God; for a Christian may desire Good, and endeavour to walk in the way of Salvation, but he cannot be perfect of himself: For though he does run, yet there will always remain something to be done by God to perfect him; and 'tis necessary that he should help a Man in his Weakness, for he is Perfection, and there was never any but Jesus Christ the Son of God who was perfect; all other Men are imperfect. It belongs to us to will and to run, but God only can give Perfection. Jesus Christ has not given us perfect Holiness, but has only promised it. Optatus afterwards returns to his Subject, and goes on to charge the Donatists with the Crimes and Sacrileges which they had committed, and accuses them of exorcising and washing the Walls of Churches, of breaking down the Altars, of throwing the Eucharist to Dogs, of making the People Swear by their Name, of shaving the Bishops, and putting them under Penance, of sparing neither Priests, Deacons, nor the Faithful, of reproaching the Innocent, and putting Christians against their will under Penance; and in fine, of doing an infinite number of things against Piety and Christian Charity.  
In the Third Book, Optatus vindicates the Church from those Violences of which it was accused. In the first place, he says, That if some of those Violences were committed by Macarius' Order, the Predecessors of the Donatists, gave occasion to them, because their Seditious Behaviour, obliged the Governor to call for Aid, which they no sooner saw come to him, but they presently fled of themselves; and that none but those that were most obstinate had been Banished. But then he maintains, That the Church did not contribute to this Persecution in the least; and that there was nothing of all this done by Her Advice; that she neither wished for it, nor knew of it, nor contributed any thing towards it; but the Justice of God alone, had sent this Persecution upon the Donatists, to revenge the Dishonour they had done to the Waters of Baptism. Here Optatus makes a very obscure Digression concerning Baptism and the Church. And afterwards returning to his Subject, he says, That Paul and Macarius, were not sent by Constantine, to Persecute the Donatists, but to carry Alms; That Donatus being transported with Rage, demanded of them with unsupportable Pride, what the Emperor had in common with the Church: That from that time he carried on a Design of doing Injury to the Kings and Princes of the Earth, contrary to the Precept of St. Paul, who commands us to pray for them, that we may lead a quiet Life; For, says Optatus, the State is not in the Church, but the Church in the State; that is, in the Roman Empire. Thus St. Paul had reason to say, That we must pray for Kings, even when they made Profession of Paganism: But how much more reason have we to show respect to a Christian Prince, one that is Religious and Fears God, and has sent Alms to the Poor. Wherefore then was Donatus transported with Fury? Wherefore did he refuse the Alms which the Emperor sent? His Officers said, That they were come to distribute Alms in all the Provinces, to those that would receive them; and Donatus told them, That he had written to all places, forbidding them to receive them. Does this look as if he took Care of those that are in Misery, or would relieve the Necessities of the Poor? God hath said, 'Tis I that make Rich and Poor. Can he not then give Riches to the Poor? Yes, but if he had given them to all the World, than sinners had wanted the means of expiating their Faults; for 'tis written, That as Water quenches Fire, so does an Alms expiate Sin. This being so, What Judgement should we give of him that would give to the Poor, and him that would hinder the giving? What would Donatus answer, if God should ask him, O Bishop, What do you think of Constantine? Do you take him for an Innocent Man, or a Sinner? If you believe him to be an Innocent Man, Why do ye not then receive the Presents of an Innocent Man? And if you believe him to be a Sinner, Why do ye not then permit him to give Alms, since 'tis for the Sinner that I have made the Poor? Optatus adds, That Donatus had joined with his Pride, a pitiless Disposition: That he would be considered as the Prince and Sovereign of Carthage; That he exalted himself above the Emperor, though there is nothing above the Emperor, but God only who makes Kings; That he despised his Brethren, and would not receive their Oblations; That he made those of his Party Swear by his Name, as if he had been God, and that he would have them carry his Name, instead of that of Jesus Christ. In the following Part of this Discourse, he proves, That the Donatists had not only brought upon themselves Persecution, by their Pride, and the Contempt they had testified of the Emperor; but also that 'twas they who had begun the War. That 'twas Donatus of Bagais, who had first gathered together a Multitude of Seditious Persons, whom he called Agnosticks or Circumcellians, to hinder Paul and Macarius from distributing their Alms. Optatus, describes the horrible Outrages of these desperate Fellows, and shows, That the Soldiers who came only to put a stop to these Disorders, being attacked by these Madmen, were obliged to defend themselves, and to beat them: That the Church nevertheless had no Hand in this, and that the Seditious could attribute it to none but themselves. He proceeds further, and shows, That they did justly suffer those Mischiefs, because they broke the Unity of the Church; That the Persecution which they endured, was an Evil that was necessary for procuring the Good of Peace and Union; That this Proceeding against them, was Authorised by the Examples of Moses, who put to Death 3000 Men, for Worshipping the Golden Calf; Of Phinehas, who killed Two Persons for violating the Law of God in committing Adultery; and of Elias, who put to Death 450 False Prophets. The Donatists answered to these Instances, That we must put a great Difference between the Spirit of the Old Testament, and that of the New; That Jesus Christ had forbidden in the Gospel, the use of the Sword, when St. Peter drew it to cut off Malchus' Ear▪ Optatus, maintains to the contrary, That this Prohibition respected only the Time and Circumstances of that Action of St. Peter; That Jesus Christ was come to suffer, and not to defend himself; That if St. Peter had compassed what he designed, Mankind had not been delivered by the Death of the Messiah: But as distrusting the Truth of this first Answer, which indeed is not very Solid, because the Advice of Jesus Christ, is general; he tries another Answer, and maintains, That Macarius did not use the Sword as St. Peter did, and that he was not the Author of any Persecution like that of the Pagan Emperors; That he would only oblige Christians to go all into the Church and Pray unto one and the same God in the Spirit of Peace and Unity; That those who suffered on this occasion were not Martyrs, since they had not Charity, without which, none can be crowned; That this cannot pass for a Persecution against the Church, but for a just Punishment of some Persons that were refractory to the Church. He objects to the Donatists, their obliging some Catholics to call themselves still Pagans, that they might rebaptize them. He observes, That they had spread about a Report when Paul and Macarius came into afric; That those two Officers were to set up an Image of the Emperor upon the Altar at the time of Offering Sacrifice, but there was nothing done like it; That even those of their own Party who were present at the Sacrifices, had acknowledged that 'twas a Calumny, and that they saw nothing but the ordinary Ceremonies of the Church: In short, That there was nothing changed, nothing diminished, or added to the Sacrifice. He returns again to Macarius, and proposes to himself this Objection: If the Catholics had not approved the Action of Macarius, they should have excommunicated him, which they did not do, and therefore are guilty of his Crime. He answers, That Macarius being no Bishop, they did not Communicate with him, as one Bishop does with other Bishops, and by consequence the Clergy could not be profaned by his Communion, because a Layman has no right to Preach or to Teach, whereas a Bishop speaks to the People with Authority, beginning his Discourse, and ending it always with the Name of God. The Donatists, add, That Macarius ought not so much as to Communicate with Laymen. Optatus, answers, That being a Minister of the Will of God, and discharging the Office of a Judge, who has Secular Authority in his Hand, the Church ought not to Excommunicate him; That moreover what he had done, might be defended by the Examples of Moses and Phinehas; but in short, That tho' we should confess that Macarius was Guilty, yet the Church could not Excommunicate him who was never accused; That there was no Accuser found, neither had he confessed his Crime, and therefore the Ecclesiastical Judges could not condemn him, since it was forbidden to one and the same Person to be both Accuser and Judge at the same time.  
In the Fourth Book, he refutes the Donatists for saying that the Catholics were such Sinners, that we should shun their Sacrifices, as it is said in Isaiah, ch. 66. and that we should not receive their Unction, as it is in Psal. 140. Optatus, after he has given this Caution in his Introduction, that Men ought not mutually to condemn one another, but to wait for the Judgement of God; and after having exhorted them to receive the Title of Brethren, which the Catholics are willing to bestow upon them, he proves that those Accusations which they draw up against the Church, are rather applicable to themselves, than to the Catholics. For proof of this, he sets down all the Characters of a wicked Man, which are given in Psal. 49. God hath said unto the wicked, Why do they preach my Precepts? Why do they open their Mouth to speak of my Law? Ye that hate Discipline, and have cast my Words behind you? You sit and speak against your Brother. If you see a Thief, you run along with him, and have made yourself the Companion of Adulterers. He shows, That the Donatists cannot excuse themselves from these Crimes; that they hate Discipline, since they eat Peace, since they re-baptize, and rob the Bishops of their Priesthood: That they Preach in their Pulpits against their Brethren; because under pretence of preaching the Gospel they speak injurious Words against Catholics, and inspire those with hatred against them who hear their Sermons; That they endeavour to persuade them that according to the Apostolical Injunction, they should shun them, they should not Salute them, nor wish them good Morrow, tho' all this is to be understood only of Heretics, whose Discourse creeps like a Serpent; that theyjoyn themselves with Thiefs, since they correspond with the Devil to extirpate one part of the Flock of Jesus Christ. He describes this after a very pleasant manner. All Men, says he, that come into the World, tho' they be born of Christian Parents, are filled with an unclean Spirit, which must be driven away by Baptism: This is done by the Exorcism which drives away this Spirit, and makes it fly into remote places. After this, the Heart of Man becomes a most pure Habitation. God enters and dwells there, according to that of the Apostle, We are the Temple of God. When therefore ye rebaptise Men, and exorcise them anew, and when ye say, O accursed, come forth of this Man, 'tis to God that ye speak after this manner, you drive him disgracefully out of this Man, and the Devil reenters into his Heart. This place of Optatus, is very express for proving Original Sin, and the Antiquity of Exorcisms. At last, Optatus shows, That the Donatists render themselves Companions of Adulterers, because they separate from the Church, which is the only lawful Spouse of Jesus Christ, to unite themselves with Adulterers. He comes afterwards to the second Passage taken out of Psal. 140. Let not the Oil of the wicked anoint my Head; and he observes, That this should only be applied to Jesus Christ, and that it is a Prayer, and not a Precept; a Wish, and not a Command. Then he explains also two other Passages which Parmenianus had quoted against the Catholics, and shows, that the First is to be understood of Adulterers or Heretics; and the Second, of Jews, and that neither the one nor the other is applicable to Catholics.  
In the Fifth Book, Optatus proves, That the Donatists commit a great Crime, in reiterating Baptism, which Jesus Christ has commanded to be given but once only. He approves of the Commendations which Parmenianus has given this Sacrament, by saying, That it is the Life of Virtue, the Death of Crimes, the Immortal Birth, the means of obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven, the Port of Innocence, and the Shipwreck of Sins. But he adds, That 'tis not he who gives this Sacrament of Baptism, that conferrs these Graces, but the Faith of him that receives it and the Virtue of the Trinity; and consequently, that Baptism is not to be reiterated, which is administered in the Name of the Trinity. He has also here a most Remarkable Reflection about the Rule which we should Consult in all Ecclesiastical Controversies. We ask, says he, if it be lawful to repeat Baptism given in the Name of the Trinity? Ye maintain, That it is lawful; we say, That it is forbidden. The People are in Suspense, between your affirming and our denying the same thing, and they can neither believe you nor us, for we are all fallible Men: Let us then search after Judges in this Case. But where are they to be found? If they be Christians, they are either of your Party or ours, and by consequence cannot be Judges of our Difference. We must then inquire after a Judge out of Christendom. But then if he be a Pagan, he understands not our Mysteries; if he be a Jew, he is an Enemy to the Baptism of Christians. There cannot therefore be found any Judge upon Earth, but we must seek for one in Heaven. But why should we have recourse to Heaven, since we have the Testament of our Father upon Earth? Let us search after his Will in the Gospel, which will inform us, that he who has been once washed, needs not to be washed again. Wherefore, adds he, we do not rebaptise those who have been baptised, when they return again to us. He proves also, That it ought not to be done, because there is but one Faith, one Jesus Christ, and one Sacrament of Baptism: That there are three Things to be considered in this Sacrament, the Trinity, the Faith of him that receives it, and the Person that administers it: That the Trinity is the first Thing of absolute necessity, without which there can be no Sacrament at all; That the Faith of him that receives the Sacrament, is the second Thing, which is no less necessary, because it ought always to be the same; but then there is not the same Necessity that the Minister should be Faithful and Just, because the Ministers are changed every day, and it is Jesus Christ who baptises, and the Minister ought not to attribute to himself the Effect of the Sacrament which is owing to God only; and in short, because the Sacraments are Holy, and do Sanctify by themselves, tho' the Holiness of the Minister do not contribute to it. Optatus proves this Truth by many Reasons, and many Testimonies. He observes by the buy, That those who had been baptised by John, before Jesus Christ instituted Baptism, were not rebaptised; but those who were baptised, after Jesus Christ had instituted Baptism, have been rebaptised. At last, he endeavours to prove, That the Faith of him that receives Baptism, is necessary to the validity of this Sacrament, which must be understood of Adult Persons only.  
The Sixth Book is written against the Impieties and Sacrileges of the Donatists, who had broken, cut in pieces, razed, and overturned the Altars of the Catholics; Those Altars, says Optatus, which have born the Offerings of the People, and the Members of Jesus Christ, upon which the Almighty God has been invoked, upon which the Holy Spirit has descended, where the Faithful have received the earnest of eternal Salvation, the Support of their Faith, and the Hopes of a blessed Resurrection; those Altars upon which we are forbidden to offer any other Offerings, but those of Peace. For what is the Altar, but the place where the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are laid? What hath Jesus Christ done to you, says he further to the Donatists, that you should destroy the Altars on which he rests at certain times? Why do ye break the Sacred Tables where Jesus Christ makes his abode? Ye have imitated the Crime of the Jews, for as they put Jesus Christ to Death upon the Cross, so ye have beaten him upon these Altars. If ye believed that the Eucharist of the Catholics is Sacrilegious, yet at least ye should have some respect to the former Offerings that yourselves have made upon these Altars. Upon this occasion, Optatus puts a very pleasant Objection to them: All the Faithful know, says he, that Linen Clothes are laid upon the Altars, for the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries. The Eucharist does not touch the Wood of the Altar, but only the Linen Clothes: Why then do ye break? Why do ye scrape? Why do ye burn the Wood of the Altar? If the Impurity can pass through the Linen, Why cannot it penetrate the Wood, nay, and the Ground also? If therefore ye scrape off something from the Altars because they are impure, I advise you also to dig into the Ground, and there to make a great Ditch, that ye may offer in a most pure Place: But take heed that ye do not dig down to Hell, where ye will find your Masters, Corah, Dathan and Abiram. So pleasantly does Optatus ridicule the folly of the Donatists. But from this Raillery, he quickly passes to most bloody Accusations. Ye have also redoubled your Sacrileges in breaking the Chalices, which carried the Blood of Jesus Christ; ye have melted them down to make Ingots of Gold or Silver, which you have Sold in the Markets to every one indifferently, that offered to buy them: Sacrilegious Persons as you are, you have not shown the least respect to those Chalices, wherein you yourselves have offered. Perhaps, infamous Women bought them for their own use. Perhaps, the Pagans took them to make Vessels wherewith they might offer Incense to their Idols. O enormous Crime! O unheard of Impiety! This Declamation of Optatus, clearly shows, what is the Reverence that we ought to pay to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and evidently proves, that it was not considered merely as Bread and Wine, but that it was believed to be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The Donatists answered to these Accusations, That those Vessels having been touched by polluted Persons, were thereby become unclean, as 'tis said by the Prophet Haggai, That which is touched by an impure Man, becomes unclean: From whence they concluded, that they had reason to make no further use of them, but to consider them as common and ordinary Vessels. [As if a belief that the Eucharist was instituted for a Remembrance of the Death of Christ, and of the Benefits which we receive thereby, had not been sufficient to have commanded Reverence to those Instruments with which it was performed.] Optatus answers them, by showing, That the Catholics were not defiled with any Crime that they had not Sacrificed to Idols; That no such Accusation could be proved against them; That the only thing that could render them odious to the Donatists, was their Love of Peace, and their endeavours after Union; That they are united by Communion with all the Churches of the World, and that they cannot be accused of being defiled; but supposing that even the Catholics were unclean, yet the Vessels which they touched at the Invocation of the Name of God, would not be so, because that Sacred Name, Sanctifies even that which is unclean: That the touch of an unclean Person, has less Power to render a Vessel impure, than the Invocation of God has to purify it, since 'tis the Invocation, and not the Touch that Sanctifies it.  
The Second Accusation that Optatus makes against the Donatists, is their putting under Penance the Virgin's Consecrated to God, and making them leave off the Signs of their former Profession, and forcing them to desire a New one, and doing violence unto them. In this place, he speaks of a little Mitre of Cloth, which they put upon their Heads, and of the Veil wherewith they covered them, and says, That those Ornaments were Signs that they had professed Virginity, and that the Donatists, by taking them away from those Virgins to put them under Penance, had given occasion to many Persons to Ravish and Marry them. He adds, that the Donatists had carried away by force, the Ornaments of Churches, and the Holy Books, and that they had washed the Vestments, the Walls and the Floors of the Churches with Salt-Water. He laughs at their folly, and asks them, Why they washed the Vestments, and did not also wash the Books of the Gospel? Why they washed the Walls, which are only looked upon? And why they did not also wash the Pavement of the Streets, and how they would make use of that Water wherewith the Catholics had washed themselves? At last, he accuses them of invading the Coemiteries, and hindering the Interment of the Catholics. Wherefore do you abuse the Dead, says he to them, that you may terrify the Living? Why do you deny them Burial? If you have any Differences with your Brother while he is alive, yet Death should put an End to them all. Why do you insult over him after Death? Why do you refuse him Burial? Why do you quarrel even with the Dead? But, says he, if you could hinder his Body from being Interred among other Christians, yet you cannot separate his Soul from the Company of those Holy Souls that are with Jesus Christ. At last, Optatus says, That the Donatists were so extravagantly wicked, that they corrupted all those that came over to their Party: So those that were Patient, says he, by going over to you, become Furious of the sudden; those that were Faithful, become Perfidious; those that were Peaceable, become Quarrelsome; their Simplicity, is changed into Cheating; their Modesty, into Impudence; their Humility, into Pride. Those who are gone over to your Party, solicit others to come after them, and accuse of Sloth and Stupidity, all those that are yet in the Bosom of the Church, they lay Traps for them, and make them to fall into the same precipice with themselves.  
The last Book which is commonly attributed to Optatus, is a Recapitulation of some Points that have been handled in other places; particularly, he refutes the Objection of the Donatists, who say, That they cannot reunite themselves to the Catholics, because they are the Sons and Successors of Traditors. The Author of this Book, extenuates as much as he can the Enormity of this Crime, and shows, that tho' it were much greater, and that those to whom the Catholic Bishops succeed were guilty of it, yet they have no share in that Gild, neither can it be imputed to them, nor alleged against them as a just Cause of Separation. He shows, that we ought sometimes to suffer sinners in the Church, and to dissemble the Sins of our Brethren for the good of Peace. He observes, That there is no Man free from Sin; and that if any one were so, yet he ought not to separate from his Brethren, though they were Sinners: That the Apostles did not separate from the Communion of St. Peter after his Sin; but on the contrary the Keys were given him, that he being a Sinner, might open the Gates of Heaven to the Innocent, and teach those that are Innocent, that they should not shut them against Sinners. Besides these, there are many other Repetitions of what had been said by Optatus concerning Macarius, and the Persecution that he raised against the Donatists.  
Optatus at the End of his Books, had placed many authentic Instruments to justify the Matters of Fact which he had proposed against the Donatists; we have none of those which Optatus placed there extant, but many other Monuments concerning the History of the Donatists have been added to his Books.  
The First is a part of the Acts of the Conference between the Catholic Bishops and the Donatists, held at Carthage by the Order of the Emperor Honorius, in the Year 411, which belongs to another Century.  
The Second, is part of the Verbal Process made by Zenophilus, who had been Consul, on the 30th. of December in the Year 320, by which it appears, That Silvanus who ordained Majorinus, had given up the Holy Books to the Heathens: Zenophilus there examines a Grammarian named Victor, a Deacon named Castus, and a Sub-Deacon called Crescentianus, and makes them confess, That Silvanus had delivered up the Ornaments of the Church and the Holy Books, according to the Deposition of Nundinarius the Deacon, who was present. He causes also the Verbal Process made in the Year 363. to be read by Munatius Felix, Judge of the Colony of Cirtha, who further confirmed the Deposition of Nundinarius. The Letters written to Silvanus by the Bishops of his own Party are set down, wherein they reprehend him for his outrageous manner of treating his Deacon Nundinarius. He is accused also of making a Simonaical Ordination, of appropriating to his own use the Alms that were given for the Poor, and of being ordained himself by the Solicitation of some Country Fellows. There are many things very remarkable in this Act: For there one may see, That at the Beginning of the 3d. Age of the Church, they used Chalices of Silver and Gold, Cups, Lamps and Candlesticks of Silver and Copper; That they kept in the Church Garments for the Poor; That the Readers, who were very numerous, had the Holy Books; That the Christians had a Library near the Church, where they put their Books.  
The Third Record, is also part of a Verbal Process concerning the Justification of Felix of Aptungiss, made by Aelianus the Proconsul in the Year 314, in the Month of February, as appears by St. Augustin: There he examines one named Ingentius, and Convicts him of making an Addition to a Letter of Caecilian, that he might falsely accuse Felix of being a Traditor.  
The Fourth, is a Letter of the Emperor Constantine to Ablabius; wherein he order him to send Caecilian to Arles, with some Bishops of his Party, as well as some of his Accusers, that he might receive Judgement from the Council which was to assemble there.  
The Fifth, is a Letter from the Council of Arles, of which we have spoken in its place.  
The Sixth, is the Letter which Constantine wrote against the Donatists, when they appealed to his Judgement, after they had been condemned in the Council of Arles.  
The Seventh, is another Letter of the same Emperor, wherein he acquaints the Bishops of Donatus' Party, That he once designed to send Judges into afric, to determine their Differences with Caecilian; but that he judged it more proper to make him come before himself.  
The Eighth, is a 4th. Letter of the same Emperor written to Celsus; wherein he acquaints him, That he will quickly come into afric to decide the Differences between Donatus and Caecilian himself.  
The Ninth, is a 5th. Letter of Constantine, wherein he gives the Donatist Bishops leave to return into afric.  
The Tenth, is a 6th. Letter of this Emperor about the Cause of the Donatists, addressed to the Catholics of afric. He tells them, That he had done all that lay in his Power to re-establish Peace, but since the Obstinacy of some Men had frustrated his good Intentions, they must now wait upon God only for the Remedy of this Mischief, and that till it pleased the Divine Mercy to remedy it, they must proceed with Moderation, and bear with Patience the Insolence of the Enemies of the Church: That they must not render Evil for Evil, since Vengeance is reserved to God only, and that by suffering patiently the Fury of these Insolent Men, they should certainly merit the Glory of Martyrdom. For, says he, Is not this to Fight and Conquer for God, to bear with Patience the Outrages and Injuries of the Enemies of God's People? At last he assures the Catholics, That if they observe this Method, they will quickly see their Enemy's Party weakened, and that God will give Grace to many to acknowledge their Error and do Penance.  
The following Letter is a further Indication of the Meekness of this Emperor, and the Moderation of the Catholics. The Donatists had invaded the Church which Constantine had caused to be built in Constantina a City of Numidia; which the Catholics demanded back again, but they refused it. The Catholics to avoid all further Contention, prayed the Emperor to give them a Place in the Dependences of his Demesnes thereabouts, where they might Build another Church: To which Constantine answered, That he did not only grant their Desire, but he had also written to the Receiver of his Revenues to furnish them with so much Money as was necessary for the Building of this Church. In this Letter he praises the Moderation of the Catholics, and condemns the Obstinacy of the Donatists; and ordains, That the Laws which he had made for Exemption of the Clergy from all Public Taxes, should be put in Execution.  
The last of these Records, which are added to the Books of Optatus, is a Fragment of the Acts of the Passion of the Saints Dativus, Saturninus, Felix, Ampelius, and of some other African Martyrs, made in the time of Anulinus, and written by a Donatist. This Piece contains some part of the Calumnies of the Donatists against Mensurius and Caecilian. The Author of these Acts accuses them of hindering the Faithful from carrying Food to the Christians that were in Prison, and of beating them back with blows of Whips and Cudgels: He adds, That these Martyrs would never communicate with Mensurius, nor Caecilian, because they had delivered up the Holy Books to the Heathens, and that the Church of Christ being Holy, ought not to hold Communion with those that are defiled with a Crime of this heinous Nature. At last, he says, That those Martyrs who wanted Food by the Cruelty of Mensurius and Caecilian, died of Famine in Prison, and went to Heaven there to receive the Crown of Martyrdom.  
The Style of Optatus' Books is noble, vehement and close, but not enough Polite or Neat. He presses briskly upon those against whom he Disputes, and describes very sensibly the Transactions which he relates, and explains the Passages which he produces with a great deal of Wit. He gives his Thoughts a fine and delicate turn, his Expressions signify very perfectly what he means to say; his Reasonings are subtle, and his Relations pleasant. In a word, It appears that the Author of this little Book, was Master of much Learning and Wit. The Doctrine which he teaches is, and always will be of much use to the Church: for there is not the same Reason of those Questions which concern the Truth of the Church, as of those that concern only some particular Doctrines. These continue only so long as the Sect subsists which opposes these Doctrines; and the Books which treat of them become almost useless whenever the Heresy is extinct. But all Heresies, all Schisms having one common Principle, of opposing the Church, the Books which are written in its Defence, are contrary to all Heresies, and will be useful as long as there shall be any Heretics in the World whosoever they be. The Books of Optatus teach us also a great many very remarkable particulars concerning the History of the Donatists: We find in them many Points of Doctrine, and we may observe many things which clear up the ancient Discipline. He says, That all Christians have but one Faith and one Creed. He explains the chief Mysteries in a most Orthodox manner. He shows, That there neither is, nor can be any more but one Catholic Church spread over all the Earth, that it cannot be shut up in a small Part of the World: That this Church is made up of Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Ministers, and those that are merely the Faithful. He observes, That the Bishops are above the Priests, as the Priests are above the Deacons: He considers the Church of Rome as the chief Church in the World, and as the Centre of Unity, because of St. Peter, who was the Head of the Apostles: He says, That Man by Nature is Weak and Imperfect, and therefore has need of the Grace of Jesus Christ to make him Perfect; That we are all Born in Sin, and that Baptism is necessary to obtain Remission of it; That when the Sacrament is given in the Name of the Trinity, it ought not to be reiterated: and yet he seems to think that we ought to re-baptize those who were baptised by Heretics; but he does not make the same determination for those who were baptised by Schismatics. He mentions Exorcism with Commendation, as a necessary Ceremony at Baptism; He speaks of Chrysm also as a Holy Thing, and of the Unction that was used at Baptism. He expresses himself in so plain terms about the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, and about the Adoration that's due to this Holy Sacrament, that nothing can be desired more express. He observes many Ceremonies at the Celebration of the Eucharist, to which he gives the Name of a Sacrifice; and it appears by what he says of it, That in his time they offered Sacrifice for the whole Catholic Church, and then they recited the Lord's▪ Prayer; That the Celebration of it was upon an Altar of Wood, which was adorned and covered with a Linen-Cloth for the greater respect; That they than used Chalices of Gold and Silver, and also had Ornaments. He says, That the Church has Judges; That she punishes Crimes; That she exacts Penances of those that confess their Sins, or are convicted of them. He praises Virginity, and yet he says, That there is no obligation to it upon those that have not made a Vow. He observes, That in his time, this Vow was made Solemnly by the Virgins who dedicated themselves to God; and that they carried a small covering upon their Head, which was the Sign of the Vow they had made. He testifies sufficiently the respect that was paid in his time for the Relics of the Saints, when he speaks of the Sepulchre of St. Peter and St. Paul, and speaking of Lucilla, he blames those that honoured the Relics of false Martyrs, which were not owned by the Church.  
The only Error that can be observed in the Books of Optatus is, That he maintains that those who had been baptised with John's Baptism, before the Institution of Christ's Baptism, were not rebaptised. [See Acts nineteen. 15.] We may add to this, what he says of reiterating the Baptism of Heretics, and perhaps also what he proposes about the Power of Free Will, to which he seems to give the Power of willing and beginning a Good Action, and also of advancing in the Way of Salvation, without the help of the Grace of Christ; but these Errors are light and pardonable. One may also reprehend in his Book the Allegorical way in which he explains many Passages of Holy Scripture, by giving them a sense very remote from that which they naturally have, and by applying them to those things with which they have no affinity. This Fault which would be tolerable in a Preacher, seems not to be pardonable in an Author who writes a Treatise of Controversy, wherein all Proofs should be solid and convincing. But Optatus had to do with such Enemies as used the same way, who perverted Passages of Scripture to calumniate the Church, and commend their own Sect.  
The Text of Optatus is much corrupted in many places. It was printed at Mentz in the Year 1549▪ with many Faults. Afterwards Balduinus a Learned Civilian, published it at Paris in 1563, revised by a Manuscript which was communicated to him by Espencaeus, and corrected in many places. He prefixes to it a large Preface against Calvin, wherein he refutes the Conclusion that this Heretic had drawn from the History of Optatus, That Princes were lawful Judges in Matters of Religion, and at the same time he discovers a great many stupid Mistakes and gross Errors that he had proposed. He thought it not proper to prefix this Preface to the Second Edition of Optatus, which he caused to be printed at Paris in 1569, together with Victor Uticensis, after he had revised and corrected it by a Manuscript. 'Twas by this Edition that Commelinus made his in the Year 1599 The Annotations of this famous Civilian upon Optatus, are most learned and curious, and they perfectly clear the History of the Donatists; but they are so long, that they may rather pass for a Commentary than for Notes. In 1631. Albaspinaeus caused the Books of Optatus to be printed in One Volume in Folio, with short Notes, and large Observations, which he added to the Annotations of Balduinus, and some Notes of an unknown Author. He added the Records of which we have spoken already, together with the History of the Conference of Carthage, published by Balduinus, and the excellent Observations which he made in French and Latin about the Discipline of the Church. In the same Year 1631. Meric Casaubon printed in a little Volume the Text of▪ Optatus at London, with most Judicious Critical Notes. At last, Philippus Priorius took care to make a new Impression of this Author at Paris by the Widow of Dupuis. In 1679, they put in this Edition the Prefaces of Balduinus, the Notes of Albaspinaeus, Casaubon and Barthi●s, and those of the Unknown Author: Priorius also added some, which he put before the others, though they do not deserve such an honourable place. After this followed the Commentary of Balduinus, and the Observations of Albaspinaeus upon Optatus, the Conference of Carthage, and the other pieces of which we have spoken. The History of the Conference of Carthage, written by Balduinus, is the last Discourse in this Volume, which has some affinity with the Books of Optatus. After so many Editions and Commentaries, one would think that this Author were become most correct and plain: and yet 'tis not so, for the Text is still very much corrupted; there are many places that still want to be cleared up and restored. The Notes of Balduinus do indeed enlighten the History; but he is mistaken in many passages of it, as Valesius has plainly proved in his learned Dissertation of the Schism of the Donatists. The Notes and Observations of Albaspinaeus explain some Points of Discipline, but they are not always just. Those of Meric Casaub●n, are the best for understanding of the Text; but those of Barthius and others, are not very valuable: The learned Rigaltius, after he had published Tertullian, Minutius and St. Cyprian, designed to publish Optatus: And it may be presumed, that as he was a very able Critic, very well versed in the African Antiquities, and in the Knowledge of Manuscripts, he would have made considerable Corrections, and restored the Text of Optatus in many places: But he died before he had undertaken this Work. I shall be able perhaps to undertake it, and to publish the Text of Optatus revised by many Manuscripts, more correct than any hitherto published.   

ACACIUS of Caesarea.  
ACACIUS Surnamed One-eyed, because he looked asquint, Succeeded in the Year 338. to his Master Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. He joined himself to the Eusebians, and came 
Acacius of Caesarea.  to Sardica with them: He was one of those against whom the Council of the Western Bishops, that was held in that City, pronounced the Sentence of Deposition. Being returned into the East, he had some Differences with Cyril of Jerusalem, and in hatred of this Saint, he separated himself from the Semi▪ Arians and joined with the Anomaeans, whom he defended stoutly at the Councils of Seleucia and Constantinople; but he quickly repent of taking their part, and having got Meletius Ordained, and many other Bishops, whose Doctrine was Catholic, he reunited himself to them, and signed the Creed of the Nicene Council in the Council of the Eastern Bishops that was held at Antioch, under the Reign of Jovian. He died towards the Year 366. He composed many Books before he was Bishop, and wrote a Book against Marcellus of Ancyra, a Fragment whereof is quoted by Epiphanius in H●res. 72. Some time after he was Bishop, he wrote the Life of Eusebius his Predecessor and Master, as Socrates testifies, Ch. 4. B. II. of his History. St. Jerom says, That he wrote Seventeen Volumes of Commentaries upon Scripture, Seven Volumes about several Questions, and many other Treatises upon different Subjects. This Author had much Wit and Learning, but he several-times changed his Opinion and Language as he was moved by Interest or Passion.   

PHOTINUS.  
PHOTINUS' Bishop of Sirmium, was originally of Galatia. When he was Deacon and Disciple of Marcellus of Ancyra, he followed some of his Errors: He did not distinguish the Person 
Photinus.  of the Word from the Person of the Father, and said, That we ought not to give him the Name or Title of the Son of God, before he was Born of Mary 
a He did not distinguish, etc.] After this manner St. Athanasius in his Second Apology, in his Book of Councils, and St. Epiphanius in Haeres. 51. explain the Error of Photinus. He is commonly accused of renewing the Errors of Paulus Samosatenus and Ebion; but though he speaks like them, yet he was not wholly of their Opinion. For he did not believe with Ebion and Paulus Samosatenus, That Jesus Christ was a mere Man; but he said, That the Son of God was Born of Mary, because he did not believe that he had the Title of the Son of God, before he was Born of the Virgin. He comes nearer to the Error of Sabellius, because he did not distinguish the Word, before he was Born of Mary. : He had hardly discovered his Error 
b He had hardly discovered his Error.] Some say, That he begun to publish it under the Reign of Constantine, which they ground upon the Authority of Severus Sulpitius. But Socrates, B. II. Ch. 18. and St. Hilary in his Book of Fragments, testify, That the Error of Photinus was not known till a little while before the Council of Antioch in the Year 345. All that we have said of the History of Photinus, is taken out of the Fragments of St. Hilary, and what we have observed about his Writings, is taken out of St. Jerom in his Catalogue. , but it was condemned by the Bishops of the East, in a Council held at Antioch in the Year 345, and by the Bishops of the West in the Council of Milan in 346. These last assembled two Years after at Sirmium to depose him, but they could not compass their Design, because of the Opposition that was made by the People of that City, and therefore they were contented to draw up a Sentence against him, and to write of it to the Bishops of the East: But at last, the Eastern Bishops being assembled at Sirmium in the Year 351, when the Emperor Constantius was Master of this City, after the Defeat of Vetranio— they deposed Photinus, and procured his Banishment. He died in Galatia the place of his Exile, under the Reign of Valentinian and Valens, towards the Year 376. This Heretic was a great Master of Wit and Eloquence, was acute and subtle in his Reasonings, and led an unblameable Life. He wrote many Books, but the chief of them were his Treatise against the Gentiles, and his Books addressed to the Emperor Valentinian. St. Epiphanius relates in Haeres. 71. some Extracts of the Conference he held with Marcellus of Ancyra, in the Council of Sirmium; and we have nothing else of his. Vincentius Lirinensis assures us, That he had much Wit, Learning and Eloquence, and that he spoke Greek and Latin equally well, as may be seen, says he, in his Works, whereof he wrote part in Greek, and part in Latin.   

AETIUS and EUNOMIUS.  
THese two Impious Wretches deserve not to be placed amongst the Ecclesiastical Writers, neither should we speak of them here, but to condemn their Books, and their way of Writing about 
Aëtius and Eunomius.  Religion. Aëtius was of Caelosyria, the Son of a Soldier in the Governor's Guard. For some time he was a Goldsmith, but leaving that Trade, he applied himself to the Study of Logic, and retired to the City of Tyre, where he put himself under the Discipline of Paulinus Bishop of that City, about the Year 330. After the Death of this Bishop, he was driven away by Eulalius, and forced to withdraw to Anazarbus, where he conversed with two Disciples of the Martyr Lucianus. From thence he came to Antioch, where he knew Leontius, who was afterward Bishop of that City, and drove him away a little while after. And now not knowing where to hid his head, he set up for Controversy, and disputed publicly with very little success against two Heretics. But probably finding that this Art would not maintain him, he tried a little at Physic. This is what Philostorgius, a great Admirer of A●tius, relates of the Beginning of his Master's Life. St. Gregory Nyssen paints him forth in very black colours. He says, That from a Vine-Dresser, he became a Blacksmith, that he was Indicted in a Court of Justice for taking a Gold Chain from a Woman, and returning her one of the same form and thickness which was nothing but Copper gilt: That afterwards he put himself in the Service of a Quack, and having gained some Money with him, he set up for a Physician; and that at last he learned the Subtleties of Aristotle's Logic, and by this means was admitted into the presence of Gallus Caesar. However it was, this is certain that Aëtius learned all the Subtleties and Sophistical Tricks of the Aristotelian Logic, but he was ignorant in Scripture and Ecclesiastical Antiquity. A Man of this Temper was very proper to advance all sorts of Impiety, to maintain them with Impudence, and also to entangle those that he disputed against. He was Ordained Deacon by Leontius of Antioch, who deposed him soon after. Eudoxus tried in vain to restore him, and was hindered from doing it by the hatred which the Christians of Antioch bore towards him. He continued nevertheless in this City, being in Friendship with Eudoxus, till he was banished to Pepuza, by the Order of the Emperor Constantius. He came to the Council of Constantinople, where he disputed with the Semi-Arian Bishops, who having detected his Impiety, rendered him odious to the Emperor, and procured his Banishment from the Palace. So that Eudoxus, Acacius, and those of his own Party, were obliged to condemn him in the Year 360. After this Condemnation he was banished to Mopsuestia, and from thence removed to Amblada, a Castle in Phrygia. He returned under the Emperor Julian, and Eudoxus, who was gone to the See of Constanti●●●●●, wrote to Euzoius Bishop of the Arian Party at Antioch, to receive him; and the Sentence of Condemnation passed against him. But Euzoïus, not doing it very readily, Eudoxus caused him to be Ordained Bishop, by some Bishops assembled at Constantinople; and soon after, Euzoïus having Assembled a Council of Nine Bishops, declared the Sentence null which was given against this Heretic at Constantinople. But at last, under the Reign of Jovian, Aëtius being abandoned by Eudoxus, and the other Bishops that had maintained him, made a Faction by himself, and Ordained many Bishops for his own Party. He was forced in the time of the Emperor Valens, to retire to the Isle of Lesbos; and yet he died at Constantinople, in the Year 366.  
The Doctrine of Aëtius, was the pure Doctrine of Arius, without disguise; but he used Terms and Comparisons that were very odious to explain it. He affirmed without hesitation, That the Son of God was unlike to his Father; That he was of another Substance; That he was created of nothing: Wherefore his Disciples were called Anomaeans, Heterousians, Exoucontians, Terms that denote the three Dogmes, which we just now mentioned. He affirmed the same things of the Holy Spirit, as of the Word: He imagined, That God revealed to himself the Mysteries that were unknown to the Apostles: He affirmed, That he had a clear and distinct Knowledge of God, and comprehended him even as he comprehends himself. He maintained also with Arius, That the Word assumed the Flesh without a Soul. His Disciples baptised with one Immersion only, and in the Name of the Death of Jesus Christ, they rebaptised those that came over to them, tho' they had been baptised by Catholics. Some of them are accused of having taught, That the most enormous Crimes would not hinder the Salvation of those that were of their Judgement.  
Aëtius, as Theodoret observes, made Theology an Art of Tricks, or Sophistry. He raised a great number of Propositions, which contained unanswerable difficulties, in his Opinion, to destroy the Mystery of the Trinity. We have in the Haeres. 76. of Epiphanius a Libel which contains 47 Propositions of this Nature; and the same Author attesteth that Aëtius composed 300 of the very same sort: I shall set down one or two of them, by which ye may sufficiently judge of the rest. Is it possible for God to make that a person begotten should not be begotten?— If God is not begotten according to his Essence, How can it be said, that he who is begotten is of his Essence? Can the same Essence be begotten, and not begotten?  
Eunomius the Disciple of Aëtius, was the Son of a Husbandman in a Village of Cappadocia: He wrote some time for the public, after which he was made Master of a School, and at last he put himself under the Discipline of Aëtius. He was not so subtle as his Master, but he had a greater command of Words. After he was Ordained Deacon by Eudoxus, he was quickly banished to Myda a City of Phrygia. He returned to Constantinople, at the time of the Council in the Year 359, and some time after, he was Ordained Bishop of Cyzicum by Eudoxus his Protector, who advised him to conceal his Doctrine: But he not following this Counsel, was accused by his People, and Eudoxus was obliged to Condemn and Depose him. Afterwards he separated himself wholly from this Bishop, and retired to a House which he had at Chalcedon, where he hide the Tyrant Procopius. His Master Altius being returned to Constantinople; he lived some time with him, and did the last Offices to him: But he was quickly forced to retire to Chalcedon, and being accused before the Emperor, of giving Sanctuary to his Enemy, he was banished into Mauritania. But Valens, Bishop of Mursa, obtained his Restauration, and he would have obtained the Favour of the Emperor, if Eudoxus had not hindered him from coming into his sight. About the End of the Reign of Valens, Modestus the Praetorian Perfect, banished him into the Isle of Naxos, as a Disturber of the Peace of the Church. After the Death of this Emperor, he returned to Chalcedon; but Theodosius immediately banished him to Halmyris, which Castle being taken by the Enemy, he was removed to Caesarea, a City of Cappadocia. But the Inhabitants of this City not being able to endure him, because he had formerly written against St. Basil, their Bishop, he obtained leave to dwell in the place of his Nativity, where he died. He was alive when St. Jerom wrote his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers. He wrote many Books against the Church, and Seven Books of Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Romans, which are mentioned by Socrates, Ch. 7. of B. IU. of his History. The same Author observes, That he imitated the Sophistical Style of his Master, and followed his way of Arguing; That he was not Learned in the Holy Scripture, and had no understanding of it; but that he had abundance of Words, and repeated oftentimes the same thing in different Terms, without ever explaining clearly, what he proposed; That tho' he employed many Words to explain the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, yet he could never discover the true Sense of that Apostle. He adds, That his other Books were written after the same manner, and that whoever would take the pains to read them, would find multitudes of Words and very little Matter. St. Basil, quotes in his Books against Eunomius, some part of the Books of this Heretic, which he afterwards refutes. Eunomius, answered St. Basil's Book by an Apology, and St. Gregory Nysse● undertook the Defence of his Brother, and the Refutation of this Heretic's Apology. He quotes also some of his Passages, and many of his Arguments. These Fragments of Eunomius, show us, that he followed the Method of his Master, but that he was more plain and copious.   

GEORGE of Laodicea.  
THIS GEORGE was a Priest of the Church of Alexandria, in the time of Arius. He espoused the Interests of this Heretic, and making a show of being Mediator between Alexander 
George of Laodicea.  and him, he maintained his Impiety. We have in Athanasius' Book of Synods, Two Letters of this Man's, one written to Alexander, wherein he would persuade him, that we may say, That there had been a time when the Son of God was not; and the other to the Followers of Arius, wherein he counsels them to acknowledge, That the Son was of the Father, and of God, since all things are of God. Alexander cast him out of the Church, not only because of his Heresy, but also upon some other Account. Being Excommunicated at Alexandria, he endeavoured to procure a Reception among the Clergy of Antioch; but Eustathius refusing him, he retired to Arethusa, and was there received; for Constantine calls him the Priest of Arethusa. He was afterwards Ordained Bishop of Laodicea, and assisted the Eusebians at the Council of Tyre and Antioch. The Western Bishops pronounced Sentence of Deposition against him in the Council of Sardica. Afterwards he declared himself an Enemy of the Eunomians, and the Head of the Party of the Semi-Arians. 'Twas he that wrote a Circular Letter to the Bishops of his own Country, against Aetius and Eudoxus, set down by Sozomen, Ch. 14. of B. IU. of his History, wherein he exhorts them to Assemble 
Theodoret. Haeret. Fab. l. 1. c. 26. Socrates, l. 2. c. 9 and lib. 1. c. 24.  themselves, that they may condemn those impious Men, as they had done in the Council of Ancyra, in the Year 358; soon after this George died. He passed in those ancient times for a very able Man in Philosophy. Theodoret testifies, That he had written against the Manichees, and Socrates, quotes a Book which he composed of the Life of Eusebius Emisenus.   

The APOLLINARII.  
APOLLINARIUS 
a Apollinarius.] The Greeks always called him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: St. Basil is the only Person that wrote it with a double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Jerom, called him, Apollinarius. The generality of the Latins for softness sake, give him the Name of Apollinaris. , the Father, was a Citizen of Alexandria, who forsook his Country, and went to teach Grammar at Berytus. From thence he passed to Laodicea, where he had a 
The Apollinarii.  Son of his own Name, whom he brought up to Learning. This young Man who had a great deal of Wit, in a short time, made a wonderful Progress in Knowledge, and capacitated himself for teaching Rhetoric publicly at Laodicea, while his Father was writing Books of Grammar. Both of them afterwards applying themselves to the Study of the Scriptures, the Father was Ordained Priest, and the Son Reader. But having a great Affection for profane Learning, they maintained an intimate Correspondence with a Pagan Sophist, called Epiphanius, which rendered them odious to the Christians. Socrates, says, That Theodotus Bishop of Laodicea, cast them out of the Church for this cause; and 'tis certain, that George the Successor of Theodotus laid hold of this Pretence, to Excommunicate them, because they took part with Athanasius against him. Nevertheless, Apollinarius, the Son was chosen Bishop of Laodicea 
b Bishop of Laodicea.] St. Athanasius in a Letter to the Antiochians, St. Epiphanius, in Haeres. 77. St. Basil, in Letter 293. Ruffinus, in B. II. Ch. 20. and St. Jerom in his Catalogue, all agree, that he was Bishop of this City. Theodoret in B. V of his History says, That Apollinarius would have invaded the See of Antioch, but by his Disciple Vitalis. , and was beloved and esteemed by St. Athanasius, St. Basil, and St. Epiphanius, and all the great Men of his Age 
c He was beloved and esteemed by all the great Men of his Age.] He was a very good Friend to St. Athanasius, who had seen him at his return from his Banishment, as St. Epiphanius testifies in Haeres. 77. Leontius in B. III. against Nestorius, says, That Apollinarius boasted, of receiving Letters from Athanasius, Serapion, and the great Men of his time. He quotes a Fragment of a Letter of Apollinarius, where he glories in having Letters from St. Athanasius. His Deputies assisted at the Council of Alexandria, and Signed there as the Deputies of an Orthodox Bishop. It does not appear that St. Athanasius did ever break with him. St. Basil says in his Letter 82, That he owed respect to this Man; That he was so much his fast Friend, that he would take his Faults upon himself. St. Epiphanius calls him, a Venerable Old Man, and says, That he was very dear to St. Athanasius, and all the Orthodox Bishops. St. Jerom in his 64 Letter, says, That he had often seen him at Antioch, that he honoured him, and had learned many things from him. I pass over in silence, the Testimonies of Socrates, Sozomen, Philostorgius, Vincentius Lirinensis, etc. , upon the account of his Knowledge and Learning. But afterwards falling into Errors concerning the Mystery of the Incarnation, he was looked upon as a Heretic, and he gave Name to a Sect which was condemned by the Church: He died under the Reign of Theodosius, about the Year 380. All the Ancients testify, That this Author wrote an infinite number of Volumes 
d An infinite number of Volumes.] St. Basil in Epistle 74, says, That he had filled the World with his Books. Theophilus in his first Epistle, says, That he wrote against Origen, against the Eunomians and Arians. Acacius of Beraea, in his Letter to St. Cyril, Tom. 3d. of the Works of this Father, p. 63. says the same thing; and St. Jerom, says, That he made an infinite number of Books. Vincentius Lirinensis, says, That 'twere too long to give a Catalogue of his Books.  upon the Holy Scripture, and upon other Subjects. He made Books against the Arians, Eunomius, Origen, and against many Heretics. He composed also many Homilies, and wrote several Letters 
e Many Homilies, and wrote several Letters.] There are many of his Sermons quoted in the Council of Lateran, under Martin the V whose Extracts are produced in Tom. 6. of the Councils. P. 314, 315. And Sozomen, B. II. Ch. 17. relates a Fragment of Apollinarius, concerning St. Athanasius. He wrote also against Diodorus of Tarsus, as appears by Suidas, B. III. Ch. 4. . But his chief Work in the Judgement of all Men, was his great Treatise divided into 30 Books, which he wrote in Defence of Religion against Porphyry the Philosopher 
f His chief Work in the Judgement of all Men, was his Treatise against Porphyry the Philosopher.] St. Jerom, says, That his 30 Books against Porphyry, were the most esteemed of all his Works. Vincentius Lirinensis says, That it was his greatest and most excellent Work. . It excelled in Beauty and Strength, all that had been written before by Eusebius and the Ancients, against the Pagan Religion. He wrote also in the time of Julian, another great Book of the Truth of Religion against the Emperor and the Pagan Philosophers. 'Tis said, That Julian having perused it, wrote to him that sent it, I have read it; I have understood it; I have condemned it; and that St. Basil or some other Bishop made answer to him; You may have read it, but surely you never understood it; for if you had understood it, you had never condemned it. Under the Reign of the same Emperor, Apollinarius seeing that Christians were forbidden to read to their Children the Greek Poets, Orators and Philosophers, wrote in Heroic Verse the History of the Jews, down to the time of Saul, and divided this Work into 24 Books, in Imitation of Homer. He took Subjects also from the Old Testament, to make Tragedies, Comedies and Odes, in imitation of Euripides, Sophocles and Pindar. Besides that, he turned the Gospels and the Epistles into Dialogues, in imitation of Plato's Books: And thus he supplied to Christians, the want of profane Authors of all sorts. Socrates, attributes the Poetical Books to Apollinarius the Father, and 'tis probable that they were rather his, since they are more agreeable to his Profession. We have also a Translation of the Psalms in Verse, which bears the Name of Apollinarius; and this is the only entire Book we have extant of this Author. 'Tis an exact, faithful, and noble Translation of all the Psalms: Some have also attributed to him the Tragedy, entitled, Christ Suffering, which bears the Name of Gregory Nazianzen; but it has neither the same Air nor Style. Theodoret relates some Passages of Apollinarius in his Dialogues, which prove that this Author acknowledged, That Jesus Christ took Flesh in the Womb of the Virgin, and that this Flesh was not changed into the Divinity; but then withal, they show, That he denied that the Soul of Jesus Christ had an Understanding or Mind. Eulogius in the Extract made by Photius, Vol. 230 of his Bibliotheca, produces a Passage of Apollinarius, wherein he seems to admit one Nature only in Jesus Christ. Polemon, the Disciple of Apollinarius, who is mentioned in the same place, and in the Fourth Book of the Fables of Heretics, written by Theodoret, was of the same Opinion, and attributes it to his Master. The Extracts taken out of the Discourses of Apollinarius and Polemon, produced in the Council of Lateran, under Martin the V Sess. 5. prove also that Apollinarius maintained, That there was but one Nature in Jesus Christ after the Union. And yet he acknowledges in the Passages recited by Theodoret, That the Divine and Humane Nature, remained in Jesus Christ without Mixtureor Confusion, and that each of them retained their own Properties. This probably is that Contradiction which made St. Basil say, That the Judgement of Apollinarius, about the Incarnation, was very obscure and intricate. The same Father, in Letter 59, and 293, and St. Gregory Nazianzen, in his first Letter to Cledonius, accuse him of the Error of Sabellius, who confounded the three Divine Persons. But Theodoret observes, That at the bottom he believed the Mystery of the Trinity as we do, tho' he explained it in such a manner, as gave occasion to accuse him of Error, because he admits Degrees among the three Persons of the Trinity, and seems not to distinguish the Personal Subsistences. And indeed, St. Epiphanius vindicates Apollinarius from the Sabellian Heresy, and says, That Vitalis, his most famous Disciple, who calls himself Bishop of Antioch, was so far from holding this Heresy, That the Pretence which he alleged for his Separation from Paulinus, was because he believed him to be of Sabellius' Opinion. In short, Vincentius Lirinensis, and Leontius, vindicate Apollinarius from the Suspicion of Sabellianism. There are two Errors more attributed to him, which were common to him with many Ancients. The first, is that famous Opinion of the Reign of Christ, and the Saints upon Earth, for the space of 1000 Years, which St. Basil, Epist. 74 and 293; St. Gregory Nazianzen, Epist. 2. and St. Jerom in his Catalogue, Ch. 28. do all charge him with. The second Opinion is, That the Souls of Men are produced by Souls, as the Bodies are by Bodies. St. Jerom and Nemesius, are the only Persons that accuse him of this Error; the first in Ep. 28 the second in Ch. 2. of his Treatise.  
The Opinion of Apollinarius about the Incarnation, was condemned in the Council of Alexandria, where it was declared, That Jesus Christ assumed a Body, a Soul and Spirit, such as we have. Paulinus of Antioch, did also profess this Doctrine in a Discourse by its self, which is at the End of the Council of Alexandria, and in St. Epiphanius, Haeres. 77. In the Year 373, Vitalis the Disciple of Apollinarius, who caused himself to be ordained Bishop of Antioch, went to find out Pope Damasus, and presented to him a Confession of Faith about the Incarnation, which seemed to be Catholic, and clearly rejected the Error of Apollinarius. St. Cyril produces a Fragment of this Confession of Faith, in the Book which he dedicated to Queens. When the Pope saw this Confession, he believed that Vitalis was a Catholic, and therefore did not refuse him his Communion; but having no full assurance of his Sincerity, he wrote to Paulinus, and sent him Articles about the Trinity and the Incarnation, which he should cause Vitalis and all those that would be restored, to Sign. When these Articles were brought into the East, Vitalis, and those of his Sect would not Sign them. Damasus understanding this, says St. Gregory Nazianzen, and being informed that they persisted still in their ancient Error, cast them out of the Church, and tore the Libel and Anathematisms which had been presented to him by Vitalis, being very much troubled that he had been so deceived. He gave this Judgement in a Council at Rome, held in the Year 377, at which, Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, assisted. The Bishops of the East, approved of what Damasus had done, and confirmed the Judgement which the Pope had given against the Ap●llinarians: For in the Synod of Antio●●, in the Year 378, they signed a Tome or a Writing of the Western Bishops, which condemned their Errors. Afterwards, the Apollinarians were always looked upon as Heretics, as appears by the Council of Constantinople, where they are joined with the Arians, Ennomians, and other declared Heretics.  
Apollinarius, of all the Christian Writers, had most studied Grammar, Rhetoric, and profane Philosophy: But he was not profoundly Learned in the Scripture and Religion; he philosophised too much upon our Mysteries, and did not confine himself enough to the simplicity of the Scriptures, which Fault was the occasion of his falling into Error: For when once Men give themselves up to humane Reasonings in the Explication of Mysteries, they presently wander from the right way, and are in danger of falling headlong. He had not the sublime and affected Eloquence of the Bar, but a Philosophical kind of Eloquence which consisted in turning his Thoughts and Reasons, after an easy, clear and pleasant manner. Philostorgius quoted by Suidas, compared him to St. Basil, and St. Gregory Nazianzen, and says, That these three were the ablest Men of their time. That they excelled those who had written before them, and that St. Athanasius in comparison of them, appeared but a Child; That they were well versed in profane Learning, and had made a great Progress in them; That with all this, they had all that was necessary for Reading and Understanding the Scriptures, and chief Apollinarius, who understood Hebrew. That each of them excelled in his kind; That the Style of Apollinarius was fittest for writing Books; That St. Basil's Style was best for public Orations, but Gregory Nazianzen surmounted them both in the sublimity of his Style, which was more lofty than that of Apollinarius, and more grave than that of St. Basil. He adds, That these three Persons had all the Qualities which were most proper for winning the Admiration of all Mankind. The Life of Apollinarius, was probably no less Holy than that of the other two great Men. In short, he might have been equal to the greatest Pillars of the Church, as Vincentius Lirinensis says excellently, if his profane Curiosity had not carried him to the Invention of Novelties, which made him lose the Fruit of all his Labours, and made his Doctrine an occasion of Scandal, rather than Edification.  
Apollinarius' Paraphrase or Translation of the Psalms, was printed in Greek at Paris, in the Year 1580; and together with the Version of Sylburgius, by Commelinus, in the Year 1596. Since that time, it has been put into the Bibliothecae Patrum. The other Works of this Author are lost, except some Fragments; and his Error was probably the cause of this Loss. The Catholics had so great a Horror of Books of Heretics, that they would not so much as preserve those that did not concern their Heresy, and which might have been useful to the Church: Upon which Account it is, that we have scarce any Book of the ancient Heretics, and that the Eutychians were obliged to publish Apollinarius' Books under the Names of Catholic Authors, as we have observed when we spoke of the Writings of Pope Julius.   

TITUS of Bostra.  
TITUS, Bishop of Bostra, a City of Arabia Petr●a, wrote a Treatise against the Manichees, and some other Works, in the time of the Emperor's Julian and Jovian. Julian, who persecuted 
Titus of B●stra.  all the Bishops who had any Reputation, did all that lay in his Power, to drive this Bishop out of his Country, and to render him odious to his People. He wrote to him, that if any trouble happened in the City of Bostra, he should impute it to himself and to his Clergy. This Bishop answered him, That he kept his People in Peace by his Exhortations, and that tho' he had as many Christians as Pagans in his City, yet he so ordered the Matter, that there was no Contention amongst them. Julian laid hold on this Occasion, to write to the Inhabitants of Bostra against their Bishop, endeavouring maliciously to persuade them, that his Answer reproached them, because it supposed that without his Exhortations, they would not have continued in their Duty. However this ill-natured Accusation of the Emperor Julian, did not hinder them from putting Confidence in their Bishop, so that he continued in his See till the time of the Emperor Valens, under whose Reign he died, about the Year 370. He assisted at the Council of Meletius, held at Antioch, under the Reign of Jovian, in the Year 364.  
The Book of Titus of Bostra, against the Manichees, was written in Greek, and divided into Four Parts: There is nothing now extant, but the Version of three of those Books made by Turrianus, and Printed in Canisius' Collection of Ancient Pieces, and in the Bibliotheca Patrum. To the Text of the Author, there are perfixed the Arguments of the Four Books translated out of Greek, which inform us what is the Subject of them. The first Book, says the Author of those Arguments, contains a Refutation of the principal Points of Doctrine taught by the Manichees, which contradict common Sense, and the Principles of natural Reason. The second is intended to show, That Man is not addicted to Sin by a Principle that is Eternal and without Beginning, or by a Being that is contrary to the True God: That there is no Substance of Evil in the World; That there is not in us two sorts of Natures, one Good, and the other Evil; That 'tis Folly and Impiety to Condemn and Reprehend the manner of Governing the Universe. In short, This Book contains all that can be said of Providence, and invincibly proves, That 'tis no wise necessary to admit a Second Principle contrary to God. The Third Book is intended to defend the Law and the Prophets, and to show that God is the Author of the Old Testament; That there is nothing of Evil to be found in it; That it does in every thing agree with the New, and therefore there is no need for the Explication of it to have recourse to a Second Principle contrary to God. The Fourth Book defends the New Testament against the Blasphemies of the Heretics: There he shows that there is nothing in the Gospel which favours their Error; That they abuse some Passages of Scripture to prove their Impiety to no purpose; and that the Diabolical Explications which they give of them cannot help to establish what they say against God. In the First Book, he propounds the Doctrine of the Manichees, and detects the Absurdities of it by Metaphysical Arguments. In the Second he shows, That there is but one God only, and that he is the only Principle; That he is not the Author of Sin; That he made Man free and capable of doing Good and Evil; and so 'tis not God but Man who is the Author of Sin, which proceeds not from the Nature of Man, but from his Will. He explains the great difficulty that's urged by the Manichees, why the Just are so often Unhappy, and the Wicked Happy in this World; and shows that the Just are always Happy and the Wicked Unhappy, because Innocence is the chief Happiness. He adds, That Afflictions are useful to prove and to exercise Virtue. He maintains, That Death is not an Evil, because 'tis the End of sinning to the Wicked, and the Beginning of Recompense to the Good. In short, having surveyed all things in this World, and all the occurrences of this Life, he proves that they are easily reconciled to the Providence of God.  
In the Third Book he shows, That the Old and New Testament agree very well together, and that one and the same God is the Author of them both.  
There are in these Books much Metaphysics and Logic; the Arguments are solid and subtle; the Style is fine and clean enough for a Work of this Nature. It is indeed a surprising thing that he never makes use of Original Sin for the explaining all the Difficulties objected by the Manichees: which might have served as one general Solution to almost all their Objections. For when once Original Sin is admitted, there is no difficulty in understanding, Why a Man is addicted to Sin; Why he suffers Affliction; Why he is subject to Hunger, to Pain, to Diseases, to Miseries, and to Death; and yet he never urges it to explain those Questions, but examines them as a Philosopher. He says not one word of the Grace of Jesus Christ, and seems to suppose, That Man could do Good of himself as well as Evil.  
There is a Commentary upon the Gospel of St. Luke, which is attributed to Titus of Bostra; but this can be none of his Book, since he who is the Author of it, citys St. Jerom, St. Isidore Pelusiota, and St. Cyril of Alexandria, who had not written till after the Death of this Titus of Bostra, whom we now speak of. Yet this is a very good literal Commentary upon St. Luke, and seems to me to be very ancient. There was a Version of it published by Peltanus, and printed by Sartorius at Ingolstadt in the Year 1579. Since that, Fronto Ducaeus published the Greek from a Manuscript out of the King's Library, and it was printed in Greek and Latin in the Supplement to the Bibliotheca Patrum: 'Tis said, That there is a Commentary of the same Author upon St. Matthew, and there is some probability for it, because in the Commentary on St. Luke, he never attempts to explain any thing in this Evangelist but what is not to be found in the Gospel of St. Matthew. In short, Father Combefis has published in his Auctarium to the Bibliotheca Patrum, a Sermon upon Palm-Sunday, which bears the Name of Titus of Bostra, but is not written by the true Titus of Bostra, nor by the Author of the Commentaries upon St. Luke, it having no affinity with the Air and Style of either of those two Writers.   

DIDYMUS of Alexandria.  
NOthing is more surprising than what the Ancients have related of this Author. St. Jerom and Ruffinus, who were his Disciples, assure us, That having lost his Sight from the Age of five Years, 
Didymus of Alexandria.  at which time he was scarce able to read, he applied his Mind so vigorously to Study, that he learned in Perfection, not only Philosophy, Rhetoric and Music, but even Geometry; which one would think could not be learned without the help of Sight. He particularly addicted himself to the Study of Divinity, and was chosen as the most Able Person to fill the Chair of the famous School of the Church of Alexandria. His Reputation drew to him a great number of Scholars, of whom the most famous were St. Jerom, Ruffinus, Palladius and Isidore. He had a wonderful Easiness of expressing himself, a pleasing way of declaiming, and a surprising sharpness of Wit. He answered immediately to all the Questions that were made upon the Scriptures, he confuted the Arguments which the Heretics proposed to him against Religion, and showed in an instant where the weakness of their Reasons lay. He has written many excellent Books. St. Jerom mentions these following in his Catalogue: Commentaries upon all the Psalms, Commentaries upon the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John, Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Galatians, Eighteen Tomes of Commentaries upon Isaiah, Three Books of Commentaries upon Hosea, which are addressed to me, says St. Jerom, and Five Books upon Zachary, which he wrote at my desire, says the same Father; Commentaries upon Job, and an infinite number of other Discourses, which would require a particular Table. He wrote also a Treatise upon the Dogmes, or upon the Sects, Two Books against the Arians, and a Book of the Holy Spirit, which I translated into Latin, says the same St. Jerom. He also interpreted Origen's Principles, and defended them against those that condemned them. He considered this Author as his Master, and espoused his Opinions. He was alive when St. Jerom wrote his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, i. e. in the Year 392, and was then 93 Years old and more; and 'tis thought that he died two Years after. His being addicted to the Opinions of Origen, was the cause of his Condemnation in the Fifth General Council, and in the Fifth Session of the Lateran Council by Martin the Fifth, though he died in the Communion of the Church, and all the Ancients, even St. Jerom, speak of him as one whose Doctrine was very Orthodox. We have among St. Jerom's Works, a Translation which this Father made of Didymus' Book concerning the Holy Spirit. He says in his Preface, That being in Babylon, dwelling in this Province clothed with Purple (by which word, he means the City of Rome) he had a design to write a little Book of the Holy Spirit, and to Dedicate it to the Bishop of that City; but that immediately the Senate of Pharisees cried out against him, and the Faction of Ignorant Men conspired against his Person, which obliged him to return to Jerusalem, where he finished his Work at the desire of Paula and Eustochium; but that he could not Dedicate it to Damasus, who was Dead when it was finished. He adds, That he put at the beginning of it the Name of the Author whom he translated, and thought it better to be only the Interpreter of another's Work, than to mix bad thoughts with that which is good in the Greek Authors, as some Latins have done. He has divided this Treatise of Didymus into Three Books: Though it is rather a continued Discourse which ought not to be parted, or at least, ought not to be divided but into Two Parts.  
This Treatise is the most Demonstrative and Methodical of all those that the Ancients have written to prove the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. He gins with these words. Though we ought to speak with Reverence and Exactness of every thing that concerns the Divinity, yet this aught chief to be done, when we speak of the Holy Spirit, since the Scripture tells us, That the Blasphemy which is spoken against him is unpardonable. Wherefore we must give diligent heed that we may understand what is said of him in the Holy Scripture, lest we fall into some Error, which may make us speak Blasphemies. And upon this account, it seems to be convenient for a faithful Christian, who is sensible of his own weakness, as I am, to keep silence in a Question which is above his Power, rather than venture to treat upon a Subject where he runs so great a hazard. But since there are some Men, who by a surprising boldness exalt themselves against Heaven, and speak of the Holy Spirit such things as are not where to be found in Scripture, and which have never been proposed by any Ecclesiastical Writers, I thought myself obliged to yield to the frequent Entreaties of my Brethren, and to prove my own Opinion by Testimonies of Scriptures, lest some of the Faithful that are Ignorant of this Doctrine, should be seduced by those that hold the contrary. After he has in the following words observed, That the Holy Spirit is not where spoken of but in the Holy Scripture, and that the same Spirit inspired the Prophets and Apostles, he enters upon the Matter, and proves by many Arguments founded upon Passages of the Holy Scripture, That the Holy Spirit is not a Creature, but that he is of one and the same Nature with the Father and the Son. He shows that the Holy Spirit is not a Creature. 1. Because every Creature is either Corporeal or Spiritual. Now the Holy Spirit, says he, is not a Corporeal Creature, since it dwells in the Soul; neither is he a Spiritual Creature, because Spiritual Creatures receive into themselves Virtues, Knowledge and Holiness, whereas the Holy Spirit produces them in others, being himself Substantially Virtue, Light and Holiness. 2. Because every Creature is liable to Change and circumscribed within a place; but the Holy Spirit is immutable, and every where present, and therefore the Holy Spirit is not a Creature. 3. Because he who Sanctifies, and he who is Sanctified, are of different Natures; but the Holy Spirit Sanctifies all Creatures, and therefore he is not of their Nature. He adds, That 'tis never said that Men are filled with a Creature, as 'tis said that they are filled with the Holy Spirit. He shows, That the Holy Spirit is not divisible; but that it receives different Names according to the different Effects it produces, though it be always one and the same Spirit. In short, he shows, That the Apostle St. Paul puts an Essential Difference between the Holy Spirit and the Angels, which sufficiently discovers that it is not a Creature. Afterwards he refutes those that say the Holy Spirit is of the number of those things which were created by the Divine Word. He explains a place in the Fourth Chapter of the Prophet Amos, where 'tis said, That God created the Spirit, Creans Spiritum, by showing that this place is literally to be understood of the Wind, and that it cannot be applied to the Holy Spirit, but in an Allegorical and Figurative sense.  
After he has thus shown that the Holy Spirit is not a Creature, he proves, That he is of the same Nature with the Father and the Son: 1. Because they have but one and the same Operation, and by consequence must be one and the same Substance. 2. Because to Lie to the Holy Spirit is to Lie unto God, as appears by the words of St. Peter to Ananias. 3. Because the Wisdom and Teaching of the Holy Spirit is called the Wisdom and Teaching of God. 4. Because the Holy Spirit is called the Finger of the Father. 5. Because 'tis said of him, that he is Wisdom itself. 6. Because we are to believe in the Holy Spirit, as we do in the Father and the Son, and we are baptised in the Name of the Holy Spirit, as we are in the Name of the Father and the Son. 7. Because he is called Lord, as the Father and the Son are. 8. Because he is sent from the Father in the Name of the Son, as having the same Nature with the Son. 9 Because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are never separated; every thing that agrees to one of the Three Persons, agrees to the other two, and whatever is said of one, is said of the other two, and whatsoever one does, is done by the others, etc. And therefore they have all three the same Nature and the same Substance. He concludes with these words, Since there is no Pardon for those that Blaspheme against the Trinity, we must be very cautious in speaking of this Mystery, lest we be mistaken in the least Expression: And every one who desires to read this Book, must purify himself, that so by an enlightened Mind he may understand what is contained in it, and by a Heart full of Charity and Holiness, he may Pardon us, if we do not always answer the expectation of the Reader. He must only consider the Mind wherewith we have written, and not tie himself up to our manner of Expression: For as the Testimony of our Conscience makes us boldly affirm, That our Doctrine is that of the Christian Religion; so our Sincerity makes us confess, That in the manner of Writing, we do not come near the politeness, fineness, and eloquence of others; because we have only attempted to give a religious Explication of what the Holy Scripture teaches us, without studying to polish and adorn our Discourse: But though he speaks thus of his Style, and St. Jerom says also, That this Author is not a very able Penman, yet this Treatise is very well written for a Dogmatical Treatise. I speak not this of the Words or Terms, since we have not now the Original Greek, but of the turn of his Thoughts, the methodizing of his Arguments, and the manner of expressing himself about a Mystery so difficult to explain as this of the Trinity. He treats of the Subject in a very clear Method, without diverting from the Difficulties of it. He proposes his Arguments plainly and smoothly: His Reasons are close and convincing, one may observe a Vein of Logic which runs through all his discourse without intermission. He quotes the passages of Scripture in their natural sense, and makes many very curious and profound Remarks. He uses the most proper and most fit terms for Explication of the Mysteries. He does not too nicely distinguish, and yet he clears up all Difficulties. In a word, it were to be wished that all the Schoolmen had taken this Treatise for their Pattern, and had followed his Method in treating of the Mysteries of Religion. I forgot to observe that he speaks occasionally of the Incarnation, and that he says, Jesus Christ is God-man; and yet we must not affirm that there are two Persons in him, but believe, that he being God and Man both together, there is attributed to him what agrees to the Nature of God, and the Nature of Man. 'Twas good to observe this against the Error of the Nestorians.  
We have in the Bibliothecae Patrum, Commentaries in Latin, upon all the Canonical Epistles which go under the Name of Didymus. They seem to be Ancient, and they may possibly be a Translation from a Greek Commentary of this Author. He speaks of the Opinion of those who thought that Spirits were from all Eternity, and he neither Condemns nor Approves it. He maintains, That Predestination is nothing else but the Choice which God made of those that he foresaw would believe in Jesus Christ, and do good Actions. He rejects the Millennium, and affirms, That the Pleasures and Joys of Paradise are all Spiritual. He disapproves of servile Fear; He believes with Origen, That the Incarnation of Jesus Christ was profitable to Angels as well as Men, and that it Purifies them from their Faults. He observes, That the Second Epistle of St. Peter is not in the Canon, and believes that it is corrupted. These Commentaries are very clear and intelligible, and contain Useful and Judicious Instructions and Reflections, which are not unworthy of the famous Didymus.  
There is also a little Tract, or rather the Fragment of a Tract against the Manichees, translated from Greek by Turrianus, printed by Possevin in his Apparatus, and inserted into the Bibliothecae Patrum, which goes under the Name of Didymus, which agrees well enough with the Treatise of the Holy Spirit written by this Author. There he refutes by Metaphysical Arguments, the Opinion of the Manichees, who admitted two Principles, the one Good and the other Evil. He explains the sense in which Men are called in Scripture Children of Wrath, by saying, They are so called, because they become the Object of the Wrath of God by the sins which they voluntarily commit; as others are called Children of the Light, and Children of Wisdom, who are Purified by the Light of Truth. He says, That Judas is called a Son of Perdition, because he did those things that deserved Perdition. He is mightily perplexed when he explains the Reason why the Flesh of Man is called Sinful Flesh. He says first of all, That it is so called, because it was produced by the use of Marriage, which commonly was not free from Sin before the coming of Jesus Christ, who sanctified it: That there is none but Jesus Christ and the First Man, whose Flesh could not be called Sinful; for Jesus Christ was Born of a Virgin, and Adam was made out of the Earth; That all Men being begotten by Men after the Sin of the First Man, are subject to Sin; and that if the Body of Jesus Christ had been formed in the ordinary way of Generation, it had been liable to Sin, to which all the Posterity of Adam are subject. He adds, That the Use of Marriage, though it is permitted, is called Sin, in Comparison of Virginity; which is a much more excellent state. After this, he proves that the Devil was not Wicked by Substance, but by Will; He demonstrates, That God is not the Author of Evil, because he created a free Agent, which could incline itself to Good or to Evil; That the Divine Conduct cannot be blamed, and that those who commit Sin ought not to impute it to any but themselves, since it was in their own Power to do Good, and to shun that which is Evil. In a word, That Man is not naturally Wicked, but by his Will only; since he that has been Wicked and Impious, may change his condition by Repentance, and become Good and Virtuous.   

PETER of Alexandria.  
ST. Athanasius dying in the Year 373, the Catholics chose in his room Peter, whom St. Athanasius had designed for his Successor. He had no sooner taken Possession of his Church, but he was 
Peter of Alexandria.  forced away from it by the Governor of the Province named Palladius, and necessitated to fly to Rome. Some time after Euzoius of Antioch brought with him one named Lucius, whom he Ordained Bishop of Alexandria, and caused the Churches to be given to him. This Man being an Enemy to the Doctrine of his Predecessor, was hated by all the Christians of Alexandria, who would not afterwards come any more to the Assemblies of the Church: Whereupon Lucius was obliged to get a Guard of Pagan Soldiers, who committed by his Order infinite Outrages against the Catholics. Peter of Alexandria wrote at this time a Letter against the Exorbitances that were done by the Arians, which Theodoret produces in the Fourth Book of his History, Chap. 22. It charges them with causing a Multitude of Infidel Soldiers to enter into the great Church of St. Theonas, who vomited up Thousands of Blasphemies, violated Virgins, and put to Death many Christians. He adds, That they had committed abominable Sacrilege, in making a Young Man dance upon the Altar in Woman's Apparel, and making him go up into the Pulpit, where he uttered Infamous and Impious words. Afterwards he charges the Arians with carrying away Lucius to place him in the Episcopal See, though he had neither been chosen by the Suffrages of the Clergy and the People, nor Ordained by a Lawful Synod, as the Ecclesiastical Canons required. Afterwards he gives an account of the manner in which he entered into the Church, being accompanied with Euzoïus, and the Chief Treasurer of the City; how he would have forced the Priests and Deacons to approve Arianism, to please the Emperor Valens; with what Boldness and Constancy they answered him, and how they were Imprisoned, Tormented, and sent a Shipboard without Victuals. In short, he relates the Cruelties committed against the People of Alexandria, against the Deacon sent by Pope Damasus, and against Eleven Bishops of Egypt banished to Diocaesarea, together with a great number of Priests and Deacons. We have in Facundus, two Fragments of another Letter written by the same Father to those that were banished. The First, is in Chap. 2. of the Fourth Book, against Timotheus the Disciple of Apollinarius, whom he accuses of having Anathematised St. Basil, St. Paulinus, St. Epiphanius, and Diodorus, that he might communicate with Vitalis only. The Second Fragment is in Chap. 2. of B. XI. where he commends the Epistle of St. Athanasius written to the Antiochians. We have not any other Fragment of the Letters of this Saint, though 'tis probable, that he wrote many more during the space of Six Years that he stayed at Rome. But when Valens being to march against the Goths, gave leave to the banished Bishops to return, he came to Alexandria with a Letter of Recommendation from Pope Damasus. The People received him and drove away Lucius. Sometime after, Peter indiscreetly Ordained Maximus the Cynic Bishop of Constantinople, though he had approved by a Letter the Care which Gregory Nazianzen took of that Church. He died about! the End of the Year 381. The Style of the Letter produced by Theodoret is Simple and Natural, and also very Significant.   

LUCIUS'.  
ST. Jerom places this Lucius, the Adversary of Peter of Alexandria, among the Number of Ecclesiastical Writers, of whom we have already spoken. He says, That he governed the Church of 
Lucius.  Alexandria till the time of Theodosius: But we have observed that he was driven away a little while before the Reign of this Emperor. He adds, That he wrote Letters concerning the Solemnity of Easter, and some Books upon different Subjects.   

AQUILIUS SEVERUS.  
AQUILIUS SEVERUS a Spaniard, of the Race of that Severus to whom Lactantius addressed two Books of Letters, wrote a Volume in the form of an Itinerary, which contains 
Aquilius Severus.  all the History of his Life in Prose as well as Verse. 'Tis entitled, The Catastrophe, or the Experiment. He died under the Reign of Valentinian, that is to say, about the Year 370. This is what St. Jerom has told us of this Author, and 'tis all that we know of him. This sort of Books which contain the Lives of Authors are pleasant when they are written of Great Men who had a share in the Management of Affairs, or of such Persons whose Lives were full of extraordinary and surprising Accidents; and they are useful when they are written of Persons of great Virtue and Merit: But when no such thing is to be found in them, they are commonly tedious and useless Books. 'Tis probable that this Life of Aquilius was filled with Extraordinary Occurrences, which was the reason why he wrote it, and why he gave it the Title of The Catastrophe, or the Experiment. Wherein he probably gives us cause to admire the Providence of God in the wonderful Changes that happened to himself. This is all that we can say by Conjecture, having no certain Knowledge of this Matter.   

EUZOIUS.  
EUZOIUS was the Scholar of Thespesius the Rhetorician, together with St. Gregory Nazianzen. He Studied in his Youth at Caesarea in Palestine, whereof he was afterward Bishop. He 
Euzoius.  repaired the Library of Origen and Pamphilus, causing the Books to be written out upon new Skins, because the old ones began to rot. He was at last turned out of the Church in the time of Theodosius. He wrote many Treatises, which were easy to be known in St. Jerom's time. This is what this Father has told us of this Author. St. Epiphanius speaks of him in Haeres. 73. and places him among those Bishops that were purely Arian: And yet he is different from the famous Arian Euzoïus Bishop of Antioch.   

St. CYRIL of Jerusalem.  
ST. CYRIL was ordained Priest of the Church of Jerusalem, by Maximus, Bishop of that City; but if we believe St. Jerom, he would not do the Office of a Deacon, as long as that Bishop lived. 
St. Cyril of Jerusalem.  After his Death 
a After his Death.] Socrates, B. II. Ch. 30. and Sozomen, B. IU. Ch. 19 says, That Acacius of Caesarea, and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, turned out Maximus, to place St. Cyril in his room: But St. Jerom who speaks of St. Cyril, after such a manner as sufficiently discovers, that he did not favour him, since he treats him as an Arian, tells us, That Maximus was dead, when he was Ordained. But he accuses St. Cyril of persecuting Heraclius, who was Ordained Bishop by the Catholics, in the room of Maximus, and of reducing him to the rank of Presbyters. St. Epiphanius, Ruffinus, and Theodoret, speak not a word of this Heraclius: But Socrates and Sozomen, place him as second of the Bishops whom the Arians set up in Opposition to St. Cyril. St. Jerom, calls the first Irenaeus, instead of Eremius. , he was placed in his room, by Acacius and the Bishops of his Party, which rendered his Faith suspected to the Catholics 
b His Faith suspected to the Catholics.] Ruffinus and St. Jerom, observe, That he oftentimes changed his Faith and his Communion. As to his Communion, 'tis true; for at first, he held Communion with Acacius, afterwards he separated from him; then he communicated with the Bishops of his Party, at the Synod of Melitina; after this he forsook them, to join with Basil of Ancyra, and the Semi-Arians; at last, he reunited himself to the Catholics. But for all this, he did not change his Faith, for he always believed the Son to be like in Substance unto the Father, without condemning the Term Consubstantial. 'Twas Acacius who was so changeable in his Faith, for he sometimes signed the Doctrine, the Words being like in Substance, and sometimes condemned this Doctrine, and approved the Error of the Anomaeans; but Meletius reunited them all, and made them approve the Term Consubstantial. We must not believe St. Jerom about the Cause of St. Cyril, for he was addicted to Paulinus against Meletius, and against all those of his Party. . But he was not long a Friend to Acacius; for the Differences which they had about the Prerogatives of their Sees, quickly broke them in pieces. The Council of Nice had given the Bishop of Jerusalem, the first place among all the Bishops of that Province, and yet left the Rites of the Church of Caesarea entire, which was Metropolis to the Church of Jerusalem. This Honour gave occasion to the Bishop of Jerusalem, to assume to himself some Privileges, and so Maximus of Jerusalem, took upon him to Ordain Bishops in Palestine, and to Assemble a Council of that Province. His Successor, St. Cyril, desiring to maintain himself in the Possession of those Privileges, was troubled by Acacius of Caesarea, who would not endure that the Church of Jerusalem should assume to itself a right which legally pertained to his own Church. To revenge himself for this Encroachment, he called a Council in the Year 356, wherein he deposed St. Cyril, under pretence that he had Sold the Ornaments of the Church, and the Sacred Vessels to relieve the Poor in time of Famine. He placed in his room, Eutychius, who probably was Bishop of Eleutheropolis. St. Cyril appealed from the Sentence of this Synod, to a more numerous Council; but he was forced to retire to Tarsus, where he continued some time with Silvanus, Bishop of that City, who received him very kindly, and gave him leave to celebrate the Holy Mysteries, and to Preach in his Diocese. At this time, there was a Synod held at Melitina, composed of Bishops of Acacius' Party, where St. Cyril was present. He came afterwards to the Council of Seleucia, wherein he took part with Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius, Sebastus, and the other Semi-Arian Bishops, who treated him as a lawful Bishop, and gave him a Seat in the Council, in spite of all the Opposition that was made by Acacius: And Acacius, that he might the better Oppose his Adversary, threw himself upon the Party of Eudoxus, and by this means, got St. Cyril deposed anew in the Council of Constantinople. 'Twas about this time, that Heremius was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem, because probably Eutychius, who was already Bishop of Eleutheropolis, would not leave his Church, to take the See of Jerusalem. After Heremius, there was one named Heraclius, and to him Succeeded one Hilarius. But at last, St. Cyril was restored to his See, under the Emperor Theodosius, after his Ordination had been approved by the Council of Constantinople, held in the Year 380 
c The Council of Constantinople, held in the Year 380.] This appears by the Letter from the Council of Constantinople, produced by Theodoret, wherein the Bishops declare, That they had approved the Ordination of St. Cyril, because it was performed according to form by the Bishops of his Province. . He died in the Year 386, and had John for his Successor.  
St. Jerom assures us, That St. Cyril composed his Catechetical Discourses in his Youth: We have 18 of them extant, addressed to the Catechumen, whereof some are quoted by Theodoret 
d By Theodoret, etc.] This Father in his Second Dialogue, citys a long Passage taken out of the 4th. Catechetical Discourse of St. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, which is word for word found in the 4th. Catechetical Discourse to the Catechumen: St. John Damascen, relates also a Passage taken out of the 12th. in his Orat. 3. de Imag. Cyparissiota, Dec. 6. citys the 10th. Catechetical Discourse. , by St. John Damascen, by Cyparissiota; and there are 5 others, called Mystagogick Lectures, for the Instruction of those that are newly baptised. Cook, Rivet, Aubertin, and other Calvinistical Critics, do all that they can, to prove these Catechetical Discourses supposititious, because they contain many things that displease them 
e Many things that displease them.] The real Presence, Transubstantiation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Ceremonies, Prayers for the Dead, the Exorcisms, Invocation of Saints, the Honour due to Relics, the Celibacy of Priests, the Veneration of the Cross, etc. are Opinions which the Calvinsts cannot endure, and they are mightily troubled to see them established by an Author of the 4th. Age of the Church. , and destroy their Errors. But the Conjectures which they allege to overthrow their Authority, are too slight 
f The Conjectures which they allege are too slight.] They say, That there is a Greek Catalogue wherein they are attributed to John of Jerusalem; but of what Authority is a Catalogue, the Antiquity whereof is not known? Can it be opposed to the Testimony of Theodoret, who citys those Catechetical Instructions under the Name of St. Cyril, and to that of St. Jerom, who testifies, That this Father wrote one? There is no probability, says Rivet, that the Care of Instructing the Catechumen should be entrusted to a young Man. Why not? If he was capable of it, as it appears St. Cyril was. If there was no probability of it, Why does St. Jerom assure us, that it was so? 'Tis said, adds Rivet, That they were spoken ex-tempore, and St. Jerom says, that he wrote them. A pleasant Objection indeed! as if it were not known that Authors do often set down those Discourses afterwards in writing, which they spoke without premeditation at first: The same Rivet is of Opinion, that those places which concern Celibacy, Virginity, Relics, the Cross of Jesus Christ, etc. are added in these Catechetical Discourses; what proof has he for this, but only that those things do not please him? He accuses St. Cyril of Blasphemy, because he says, If the Virgin Mary were so much honoured for carrying Jesus Christ the space of nine Months, we ought yet more to honour Christians for keeping their Virginity for very many years. This thought is not exact, 'tis a little too blunt; but such things did often escape the Fathers in their Sermons, and it is capable of a good Sense. Another Objection of Rivet's is this: This Author says, That the Wood of the Cross is amongst us to this Day. Now these Words to this Day cannot agree, says he, to St. Cyril, who might be present at the finding of the Cross. To which I answer, That the Words, to this Day, respect the time which was already past, since the Passion of Jesus Christ. To conclude, All these Catechetical Discourses, have the Character of Antiquity; they are simple and natural, and explain the Doctrines of the Church after the ancient Way. The Author says at the beginning of his 6th. Catechetical Discourse, That he wrote 70 Years after the beginning of the Heresy of the Manichees: The Canon of the Sacred Books which he recites, is ancient; and the Creed which he makes use of, does not betray his Age: The manner in which he explains the Mystery of the Trinity, shows, that he was a Catholic, but that he managed himself slily; for tho' he always confirms the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, he does not always make use of the Word Consubstantial. The two Arguments of Rivet, against the Mystagogical Discourses, are as weak as the former. The Ancients, says he, do not distinguish these two kinds of Discourses. But neither do they say, that there was but one: St. Jerom, who is the only Person that speaks of them all, says only, That St. Cyril wrote Catechetical Discourses, without telling how many: The other Authors speak of those which they had occasion to quote. 2. He says, That the last are short, whereas the first are very long. But this is no Argument why they should not be all the same Author's. The three first to the Illuminated, are shorter than the last, and are not much longer than the Mystagogical Discourses. The time, and Matter that he writes about, makes any Author longer or shorter; and after Easter, the Instructions ought not to be so long. Aubertin adds, That Praevotius says he supplied many Letters, and corrected many places. And what follows from thence? Is there any one Book to which the first Publishers have not done the same thing? They have added sometimes half a word, or a whole one, or sometimes some words which they thought necessary. But they cannot be supposed to add whole Periods, Pages and Books; and indeed, if ye compare the Edition of Praevotius, with that of Morellus, which preceded it, made by a Manuscript of Monsieur De Mesmes, and with the Latin Versions made from other Manuscripts, you may see that the Differences among them are of very small Consequence, and that they neither altar the Sense nor the Doctrine of this Father. , to call in question the Truth; and the Interest which they have to Oppose them, renders their Censure suspected. Their endeavours are chief against the 5 Mystagogical Catechisms, which are not indeed cited by the Ancients, as the first Discourses are. But the Agreement of the Style 
g But the Agreement of the Style, etc.] There is the same Style, the same Method, the same Air of Writing. The Style both of the one and the other is familiar and unaffected: He explains the Mysteries by Passages of Scripture, and moralizes them after the same manner in them all.  shows, that they are the same Author's; and the End of the 18th. Catechetical Discourse 
h The end of the 18th. Catechetical Discourse.] After Easter, says he, with the help of God, you shall hear other Catechetical Lectures; First, About what is done before Baptism. This is the Subject of the First Catechetical Discourse. Secondly, To explain how ye are purified from your sins by the Baptism of Water. That's the Subject of the Second. Thirdly, How ye have received the Seal of the Holy Spirit. That's the Subject of the Third. And Lastly, Concerning the Holy Mysteries of the Altar. That's the Subject of the Two last. But besides, the Order which he promised to observe in speaking of Holy Mysteries, is that which is observed in these two Catechetical Discourses. , demonstrates it clearly: For there he promises to Compose 5 other Instructions after Easter, whereof he tells you the Subjects, which are very near akin to the Subjects of those which we still have. In short, he citys the first in the last; and since the last are promised in the first, and these again quoted in the last, Who can doubt but they are all the same Author's 
i Who can doubt but they are all the same Author's.] Since he citys the first Instructions in the last, and declares at the beginning of the first Catechetical Discourse, That he delayed to instruct them perfectly in Divine Mysteries, till they were baptised; and toward the end of the same Discourse, he says, That he had explained the Creed in the preceding Discourses. ? And since they cannot deny, but the first which have gone under the Name of St. Cyril, ever since Theodoret's time, are Genuine, they must by consequence confess, that the 5 last belong to the same Author.  
The Eighteen first Catechetical Instructions are addressed to those of the Catechumen, who are called the Elect, or the Enlightened; that is to say, those that have passed through all the other degrees of Catechumen, and are now instructed in order to receiving Baptism within a little time: For the Ancient Church did not give Baptism immediately to all those who desired it, but only to those who had given signs of a sincere Faith, and of the change of their Life, by a long Trial, and by a course of Penance. So when an Insidel offered himself to be admitted among the number of Christians, they begun with discovering to him in particular the blindness wherein he had hitherto been, but they did not permit him to enter into the Church to hear the Public Exhortations. Afterwards when he was sufficiently undeceived of his old Errors, and desired to be instructed in the Truth, he was permitted to enter into the Church, but only to hear the Sermons, without being present, at any of the Prayers: This sort of Catechumen were called Hearers, because they heard the Instructions which were given in the Church. The Third Rank of Catechumen was, that of those that were present at the Prayers, who were called the Supplicants or the Prostrati, because they were present at the Prayers of the Church till the Offertory, and they kneeled and prostrated themselves on the Ground to receive the Blessing of the Bishop. In the mean time they were instructed in the Doctrine of the Church, and their Behaviour and Actions were carefully inspected, and when they found them disposed to receive Baptism, they were permitted to desire it, and to give in their Names, that they might be admitted to it. Those who did so, were called Competentes, that is, Competitors; and if their Petition was admitted, they were called Elect; and then they were prepared to receive Baptism by Instructions, by Exorcisms, and by many Ceremonies. These are all the Degrees that can be distinguished among the Catechumen: But commonly the Fathers without insisting on these Distinctions, called those Catechumen, who were either Hearers, or Partakers only of the Prayers; and they gave the Name of Competitors, to those who were in a Condition to receive Baptism. The last are they whom St. Cyril calls, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Enlightened, because they were already instructed in the Doctrine of the Church, and had given in their Names at the beginning of Lent, to be baptised at Easter, according to Custom. 'Twas to ground them well in our Mysteries, and dispose them to receive Baptism with Purity, that St. Cyril composed those Instructions, as he himself testifies in his Preliminary Discourse, in which he treats of those Dispositions that they ought to bring with them to Baptism, and of the Necessity of hearing Instruction. He exhorts them to Purify themselves from their Sins, and to embrace a truly Christian Life, if they would have Baptism profitable unto them. He admonishes them not to approach this Sacrament, if their Souls were still polluted with heinous Sins, and they persevered still in their wicked Designs and their sinful Customs. He tells them that they deceived themselves, if they imagined that they should receive the Fruit and Effects of Baptism while they continued in this state. If ye are still, says he, of the same wicked disposition of which ye have always been, in vain do ye think that ye shall receive the Grace of Baptism: Ye shall be washed with those Waters, but ye shall not receive the Holy Spirit. Therefore if any of you finds himself troubled with some secret Disease in his Mind, let him take a Remedy. Ye have yet time, the Church offers you a Penance of Four days. Ye may during this time, retire to do Penance, and after that re-enter into the Rank where ye were, To be baptised at Whitsuntide. He adds, That since they cannot receive Baptism but once only, (for none but Heretics, says he, are Rebaptised, because the Baptism which they have received out of the Church is no Baptism) they must take good heed that they do not receive it in vain. After this, he explains the Disposition which they ought to have, that this Sacrament may be profitable to them. God hath said, I require nothing of you but a Good Heart: Say not ye, How is it that my Sins shall be forgiven me? I declare it unto you, It is by Faith and a good Disposition. What is there more easily to be had? forsake then presently your infamous Company, give over your Obscene Discourse, avoid Covetousness and the love of Riches, come and hear Instruction with diligence and delight, be careful to receive the Exorcisms, though ye have been already solemnly exorcised. Nothing is more wholesome than this Ceremony; for as the Gold is Purified by Fire, so the Soul is purified by Exorcisms. He exhorts them afterwards to hear Instruction with Attention. He makes them understand that there is a great difference between Catechising and Sermons; for if it happens that any one does not apply his Mind to a Sermon, or neglects to hear it, 'tis easy to recover that loss, because he may hear to Morrow the same thing; but when all the Mysteries which are necessary to be known for receiving Baptism are explained in their Order, by Catechising, if perhaps you neglect to hear any one of them, you cannot return to it again; and there is such an Essential Connexion of all these Mysteries one with another, that if you do not understand any one of them, you are in danger of understanding nothing of all the rest. He exhorts them, to say nothing to Infidels nor Catechumen of what they shall hear, to behave themselves modestly when they come into the Church, before the Exorcisms are begun, and not to entertain themselves with Profane News; but to read there some useful Book, to Sing or to Pray, and to consider themselves always as in the presence of God, while they are there. He exhorts them to Pray always, that they may shun the snares of the Devil, and to watch continually over themselves, lest they fall into Temptation. These are, says he in the Conclusion, the best Exhortations and Instructions which we can give you, that you may not Build upon Chaff, Hay or Stubble, lest your Building be consumed when it shall pass through the Fire. All that I can do, is to exhort you, 'tis your part to Labour, and God's to Perfect. Raise up your Minds, direct your Intentions, prepare your Hearts, it is for your Souls that you fight, and they are Eternal Treasures which you hope for.  
The First Lecture is also an Exhortation to those that are to be baptised, to prepare themselves by a Holy Life and by Good Works, that so they may receive the Grace of Baptism. It is composed upon a Lesson taken out of the First Chapter of Isaiah, Verse 16. which gins with these words, Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your do, etc. He exhorts them wholly to put off the Old-man, sincerely to renounce all Sin, and to spend in the Exercises of Piety the 40 Days that are appointed to Prepare them for Baptism.  
The Second is concerning Sin and Penance. He teaches them, That Sin is committed voluntarily by the bad use we make of our freewill; That the Devil was the first Sinner, that afterwards he made the first Man sin; That by the Sin of the first Man, all Men fell under Blindness and Death; That he who raised Lazarus raised our Souls, and delivered them from Sin by his Blood; That therefore we ought not to despair, whatsoever Sins we have committed, but to trust to the Mercy of God, and to have recourse to the Remedy of Repentance. He relates many Examples of God's Mercy towards the greatest Sinners: He alleges also the Example of the Angels, to whom he thinks God pardoned many Faults. He adds towards the end, the Example of St. Peter, and concludes with these words; These are, my Brethren, the many Examples of Sinners whom God hath pardoned, as soon as they repent. Do you also Confess your Sins unto the Lord, and you shall obtain the Kingdom of Heaven, and enjoy the Heavenly Reward together with all the Saints in Jesus Christ, to whom be Glory for ever and ever.  
The Third Lecture is concerning the Necessity of Baptism, and of Penance which ought to precede it. You must prepare yourselves, says he, by Purity of Conscience; for you ought not to consider the External Baptism, but the Spiritual Grace which is given with the Water, that is Sanctified by the Invocation of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The Water washes the Body, but the Spirit sanctifies the Soul, that we being purified, may become worthy to approach unto God. You cannot be perfect unless you be sanctified by the Water and the Spirit. So, if any one be baptised without having the Holy Spirit, he receives not the Grace of Baptism, and likewise if any one receive not Baptism, though his Conversation were never so well ordered, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. This Discourse is bold, but it is not mine but Jesus Christ's, who has pronounced this Sentence, when he said, Except a man be born again of Water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. He proves this Truth by the Example of Cornelius, than he shows the Necessity of Baptism by Water, and says, That none but Martyrs only can enjoy the Kingdom of Heaven without being baptised. [The Ancients generally believed that Martyrdom was that Baptism by Fire which John Baptist foretell, Mat. 3. 11. and that was the Cup which our Saviour foretold Zebedee's Children that they should drink, and the Baptism wherewith they were to be baptised.] He teaches, That since Jesus Christ was baptised to sanctify the Waters of Baptism, we must descend into the Water to be sanctified, and as the Holy Spirit did then visibly appear, so now he descends likewise, though after an invisible manner, upon those that are baptised, if they be well prepared for it. In short, he still exhorts those to whom he speaks, to prepare themselves in the remaining part of Lent, that so they may obtain by Baptism the Pardon of their Sins, and the Grace of the Holy Spirit.  
St. Cyril gins in the Fourth Catechetical Discourse, with the Explication of the Articles of our Faith. He says in his Exordium, That the Worship of God consists in two things, in the belief of those Doctrines that Religion teaches us, and in the practice of Good Works; That Faith is unprofitable without Good Works, and that Good Works will prevail nothing without Faith. He observes, That the Articles of Faith are opposed by Pagans, Jews and Heretics; and therefore it is necessary to propose it, and explain it to those that enter into the Church. He says, That before he explains them more largely, he will first give a summary of them, and prays those that are already instructed, to hear with Patience his Catechetical Discourses. Afterwards he summarily explains the chief Doctrines of our Religion. He instructs them concerning the Divinity, That there is but one God only, the Creator of all things, who is every where present, who knows all things, who can do all things, who never changes, who will reward the Good and punish the Wicked, etc. He adds, That we must believe also in Jesus Christ our Lord, the only Son of God, God begotten of God, like in all things to him who begat him, who was from all Eternity, who sitteth now at his right hand and reigneth with him; That we must not believe, that the Son is of another Nature than the Father, nor confound the Persons of the Father and the Son; That he is the Word, and the Word of God, but a Word subsisting, which is nothing like to the Word of Men; That this Word was truly and really united to the Humane Nature; That he assumed real Flesh from the Virgin; That he was truly Man, subject to Humane Infirmities, and to Death itself; That he was crucified for our Sins; That he was buried in the Grave, and that he descended into Hell to deliver the Just, who had been shut up there a long time with Adam; That he was truly risen from the Dead; That being ascended into Heaven, he was worshipped by all the World, and that he shall come again to Judge the Quick and the Dead, and to establish an Eternal Kingdom. Concerning the Holy Spirit, he teaches, That we ought to have the same Notions of him as of the Father and the Son: That he is One, Indivisible and Almighty; That he knows all things; That he descended in the form of a Dove upon Jesus Christ; That he spoke by the Prophets; That he Sanctifies the Soul in Baptism, and that he ought to be honoured as the Father and the Son, being one and the same Divinity. He Exhorts his Auditors to hold fast this Creed, and gives them Notice, That he will prove it in the following Discourse by Testimonies of Scripture: For, says he, we ought not to teach any thing concerning Divine Mysteries, but what we can confirm by the Testimonies of Scripture. Do not believe what I say, if I do not prove it by the Holy Scriptures.  
St. Cyril, after having informed those whom he instructs, what they ought to believe concerning the Divinity, acquaints them with the Knowledge of their own Natures, teaching them that they are composed of Body and Soul; That the Soul is Immortal, because of Jesus Christ who has given it Immortality; That it is free, and has the power of doing Good and Evil; That it did not Sin before it came into the World; That the Souls of Men and Women are of the same Nature; That the Body is the Work of God; That it is not Wicked by Nature; That when it meets with a holy Soul, it is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and that we ought to be very watchful lest we defile it by Uncleanness. He occasionally takes Notice, That Virginity is the more perfect state, but that we ought not to blame Marriage; That Married Persons may hope for Salvation, provided they use Marriage aright; That in Order to their living holily in this state, they must abstain sometimes from the use of Marriage to give themselves unto Prayer, and that their Intention should not be to satisfy a brutal Passion, but to have Children. He adds, That we ought not to condemn even those that proceed to Second Marriages, and that this weakness should be pardoned in those who stand in need of this Remedy to avoid Fornication.  
As to what concerns Abstinence from Meat, St. Cyril says, That Christians do abstain during their Fasts from Flesh and Wine; but that they have no aversation to those things, as if they were in themselves Abominable; That they do not abstain but to Merit the more, by despising what is agreeable to our sense, that they may enjoy the heavenly Feast. He absolutely forbids the Eating of things Sacrificed to Idols, and things Strangled. As for Clothes, he desires that they may be modest, and such as may serve not to adorn but to cover the Body, and defend it from the Injuries of the Wether. He speaks afterwards of the Resurrection, and brings Examples to show that it is not impossible. The Holy Scripture is the last thing of which he treats in this Lecture: He says, That the Old Testament is part of the Holy Scripture, and exhorts them not to read the Apocryphal Books: He informs them, That there are but 22 Canonical Books of the Old Testament, and observes, That they have been translated by the LXX. He believes that this Translation was made by Inspiration, and that the Seventy Interpeters being shut up in separate Cells, all their Versions were found to agree together. He recommends the Reading of the Canonical Books, and Meditation upon them; He reckons amongst this Number in the Old Testament the Book of Ruth, that of Esther, Job and Baruch; but he does not reckon those other Books which are not in the Hebrew Canon. The Canonical Books of the New Testament are according to him, The Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Seven Canonical Epistles, and the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, which in his time and in his Country were at the End of the New Testament, after the Canonical Epistles. He says nothing of the Revelation. He condemns Judicial Astrology, Necromancy, Public Spectacles, Games, Usury, Covetousness, the other Superstitions of the Jews and Pagans, and the Assemblies of Heretics.  
In the Fifth Lecture, after he has proved by many Examples the Necessity, and Virtue of Faith, he says, That we must continue in that Faith which we have received from the Church, and which is fortified with the Testimony of Holy Scripture. But, says he, because Men cannot read the Scripture, some being hindered by their Ignorance, others by their Worldly Business; therefore all that we are obliged to believe is comprised in a few words. I pray you then to remember to fix it upon your Minds, and to be fully persuaded that this is the only true Faith. Afterwards at your leisure ye may search for the Proofs of it in the Holy Scripture. But at present do you acquiesce in the Doctrine which you have learned by Tradition, engrave it upon your Hearts, that you may persevere in it with Piety: for if you remain in doubt and uncertainty, 'tis to be feared, that the Enemy will work your Perdition, and that Heretics will overthrow that Doctrine which I have taught you.  
The Sixth is concerning the Monarchy, or the Unity of God, against Pagans and Heretics. He describes the Errors both of the one and the other, and more particularly enlarges upon the Heresy of the Manichees, and gives an account of its Original, Progress and Impiety. He produces a Fragment of the Dispute of Archelaus against the Heretic Manes. He observes, That Men cannot comprehend the Nature and Essence of God.  
In the Seventh, he explains how the Name of Father agrees to God. He observes that he has only one Son by Nature, who is Jesus Christ, and that Men are his Children by Adoption. He takes occasion from hence to Exhort his Hearers to live worthy of the Title of the Sons of God, and to honour him, though of his good Pleasure he chose them to be his Children. At the same time he admonishes them to have a Reverence for their Fathers and Mothers.  
In the Eighth he shows, That God is Almighty because he can do all things, and all things depend on his Power.  
The Ninth is upon these words, the Creator of all things visible and invisible. There he shows what cause we have to admire the Greatness and Beauty of God's Works.  
The Tenth is upon these words, in Jesus Christ our only Lord. He says, That in order to the Pious Adoration of the Father, we must adore the Son also. He explains all the Names that are given him. He maintains, That 'twas the Son who appeared to Adam and Moses. He makes Moral Remarks upon the Name of Jesus, and that of Christ. He produces many Proofs concerning Jesus Christ, and places in this number the Wood of the Cross, which, says he, is seen to this day amongst us, and with those who having taken of it here, have filled the whole World almost with it.  
The Eleventh is concerning the Divinity of the Word, and his Eternal Generation. There he refutes the Error of the Arians, and proves that the Word is of the same Nature with the Father; That he was from all Eternity, and that he made all things: There he calls St. Peter the Prince or the Chief of the Apostles, and the Sovereign Preacher of the Church.  
The Twelfth is concerning the Incarnation, where he shows by many Testimonies of Scripture, That Jesus Christ was made Man for the Salvation of Mankind. He quotes some of the Prophecies that foretold the Incarnation of Jesus Christ; and shows, That the time of the Messias' coming, the place where he was Born, his Condition, and the manner of his coming into the World, were foretold; he praises Virginity, and observes, That those who performed the Sacerdotal Office, observed Celibacy.  
In the Thirteenth, he relates the Prophecies which concern the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ. He recommends to the Faithful, the signing themselves with the Sign of the Cross on their Forehead, in Eating and Drinking, at their going out and coming in, at their lying down, etc. He calls this Sign, the Terror of Devils, and the Mark of the Faithful. He says, That it drives away Devils; That it cures Diseases; That it defeats Enchantments, and that at one day, it will appear in the Heavens when Jesus Christ shall come to judge the World.  
He proves in the Fourteenth, the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ, where he commends the Piety of those Emperors, who built the Church of the Resurrection at Jerusalem, where he was, and adorned it with Gold and Silver.  
The Fifteenth is concerning the Second coming of Jesus Christ, of the End of the World, and of Antichrist, who will come, says he, after the Destruction of the Roman Empire. He says many more particulars of him, which he endeavours to prove by Prophecies, but the explications he gives of them are not very Solid. He observes, That the Schisms which he then saw in the Church, made him fear that the Reign of Anti-christ was not far off. After this he Discourses of the last Judgement and of the Eternal Kingdom of Jesus Christ. He refutes the Opinion of Marcellus of Ancyra, who had said, That the Son should not Reign any more after the Day of Judgement. He makes very curious Remarks upon the particle Until, and shows, that it is not always exclusive, as when it is said, That Death reigned from Adam until Moses, where the meaning is not, That it did not Reign after Moses.  
The Sixteenth Lecture, is concerning the Holy Spirit. He observes, That we ought to take good heed, lest we say any thing through Ignorance or Error, which is contrary to the Belief we ought to have concerning the Holy Spirit, because 'tis written, That the Blasphemies which are spoken against him, are unpardonable. Therefore he declares, That he will say nothing of the Holy Spirit, but what is said of him in the Holy Scripture, and that he will not inquire by an indecent Curiosity after that which is not written. 'Tis the Holy Spirit, says he, who dictated the Holy Scripture: he hath said of himself what he would have us to know, and what we are capable of knowing about him. He gins with giving an Account of the Errors of Heretics concerning the Holy Spirit, and afterwards recites what is said of him in the Holy Scripture; he describes his Effects, and attributes to him all the good Thoughts and good Actions of the Faithful.  
He continues the same Subject in his 17th. Lecture, where he produces the Testimonies of our Lord concerning the Holy Spirit. He has exactly Collected in these Two Catechetical Lectures, all that is said of the Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testament. He teaches, That the Holy Spirit is not a Breath formed by the Mouth of the Father and the Son, but that he is a Person subsistent of the same Nature with the Father and the Son. He calls St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and the Porter of Heaven. He observes, That the Determination of the Council of Jerusalem, was a General or Ecumenical Law, which all the Earth had, and did still observe.  
The Last of those Lectures which are addressed to the Enlightened, is of the Resurrection, of the Church, and of Eternal Life. In the beginning he shows, That the hope of the Resurrection is the Foundation of all good Actions, because the expectation of this reward, excites Men to labour for it. 'Twas this that made him say, that the Faith of the Resurrection is a great encouragement, and a very necessary Doctrine. He brings for proof of the Resurrection, the Justice of God, which requires, that Sinners which are not punished in this World should be punished in another, and that the Righteous who are miserable here below, should be recompensed in another Life. He says, That all Men have naturally some Knowledge of the Resurrection, and that upon this Account, they have a horror of those who rob the Dead. He brings many Illustrations of it taken from the changes in Nature. He does not forget the Example of the Phoenix, for which he citys St. Clement for his Authority. He observes, That the Generation of Man, is no less wonderful than the Resurrection, and that God who could Create the Universe of nothing, can easily raise a dead Man. After he has employed these Reasons against the Pagans, he alleges against the Samaritans the wonderful Effects of the Divine Power related in the Old Testament, and proves the Resurrection of the Dead by many passages of the Prophets. [This seems to be a mistake; the Sadducees were the only Sect of the Jews that denied a Resurrection.] In speaking of the dead Man, raised at the Sepulchre of Elisha, he says, That by this Example we may know, that we ought not only to honour the Souls of the Saints, but also to show Reverence to the Relics of their Bodies, since they have such Power and Virtue. The Second Part of this Instruction, is concerning the Catholic Church. He says, It is so called, because it is spread over all the Earth; Because it universally receives all the Articles of Faith; Because it generally cures all Sins; and Lastly, Because it possesses all Graces, and all Virtues. He says, It is called the Church, because it is an Assembly of the Faithful; That the Heretics have also their Assemblies of their Churches; That to discern the one from the other, when you go to any place, you must not ask barely where is the Church, or the House of the Lord, because the Heretics give this Name to their Temples; but you must ask, where is the Catholic Church, because this is a Name proper to this Holy Mother of all faithful Christians, which is the Spouse of Jesus Christ. In short, The last part of this Lecture, is of Eternal Life. 'Tis very Remarkable that in the Creed which St. Cyril used, there is found Life Everlasting, because as we have observed in the First Volume of our Bibliotheca, almost all the ancient Creeds, end with the Resurrection of the Flesh. St. Cyril adds to it Baptism, whereof he had already spoken, the Catholic Church and Life Everlasting: He says upon the last Article, That the Eternal Life of Christians is the Possession of the most Holy Trinity. He concludes this Lecture with a Promise to his Auditors, that he would explain after Easter, the Sacred Mysteries which they were to receive upon the Christian Altar, and with an Exhortation to rejoice, because the time of their Redemption, Salvation, and Regeneration approached.  
The Five other Lectures which are called Mystagogical, are addressed by St. Cyril to the same Persons, after they had received the Grace of Baptism. The first is about the Vow which is made in Baptism to renounce the Devil, his Works and all his Pomps. He declares to his Auditors, the Importance of performing this Vow. He says, That the Works of the Devil are Sins, and that his Pomp's are Shows, Plays, and profane Feasts. There is in this first Lecture a Passage expressly for Transubstantiation: For, says he, as the Bread and Wine of the Eucarist, which are nothing before the Invocation of the most Holy Trinity, but Bread and Wine, become after this Invocation, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. So those Meats which serve for the Pomp of the Devil, tho' they be pure of their own Nature, become impure by the Invocation of Devils. [All these Passages are necessarily to be understood, according to those Notions wherein the Christians of that Age had been usually Instructed.]  
In the Second, he treats of the Ceremonies and Effects of Baptism: He says, That the Catechumen after they were unclothed, were anointed from the Feet unto the Head, with exorcised Oil; That after this they were conducted to the Laver; That they were asked, if they believed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; That after they had made Profession of this Faith, they were plunged three times into the Water, and that they retired out of it by degrees, at three times likewise. He teaches them, That the Baptism of Jesus Christ, does not only remit Sins as that of John the Baptist did, but also fills the Soul with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, and makes us the Children of God by Adoption.  
The Third is of Holy Chrism, wherewith the Faithful were anointed immediately after they came out of the Waters of Baptism. He declares to them, That we ought not to imagine this to be common Oil. For, says he, as the Bread of the Eucharist after the Invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no more common Bread, but the Body of Jesus Christ. So the Holy Chrism after Consecration, is no more common Oil, but it is a Gift of the Holy Spirit, which has the Virtue to procure the presence of the Divinity. So while the Forehead and other Parts of the Body are anointed with this visible Oil, the Soul is sanctified by this holy and quickening Spirit. He observes afterwards, That they anointed the Forehead, the Ears, the Nostrils, and the Breast.  
The Fourth Lecture is of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; and the Fifth, of the Celebration of the Eucharist. These two Catechetical Lectures, are so clear, and so strong, for establishing the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church about the Eucharist; That we cannot excuse ourselves from setting them down almost entire. Take then as follows the Translation of them which has been printed in the Office of the Holy Sacrament.  
The Doctrine of the blessed St. Paul alone, is sufficient to give certain proofs of the Truth of the Divine Mysteries, and the Church having judged you worthy to partake of them, ye are by this means so closely united to Jesus Christ, that ye are no more as one may say, but one and the same Body and Blood with him. For this great Apostle says, in the place which we have already read, That our Lord in the same Night wherein he was delivered up to his Enemies, having taken Bread and given Thanks to God his Father, broke it and gave it to his Disciples, saying to them, Take and Eat, This is my Body. Afterwards he took the Cup, and having given Thanks, he said unto them, Take and Drink, This is my Blood. Seeing then, that he speaking of the Bread, declared, That it was his Body, Who shall ever dare to call in question this Truth? And since that, he speaking of the Wine, has assured us so positively, That it was his Blood, Who can ever doubt of it? And who shall dare to say, 'Tis not true that it was his Blood?  
Jesus Christ being at a certain time in Cana of Galilee, changed there the Water into Wine by his Will only; and shall we think, that it is not as worthy of Credit upon his own Word, that he changed the Wine into his own Blood? If he being invited to a humane and earthly Marriage, wrought there this Miracle, tho' no Person expected it from him there, ought not we much rather to acknowledge, that he has given to the Children of the heavenly Spouse, his Body to Eat, and his Blood to Drink, that his Body and Blood may be nourishment to their Souls? For under the species of Bread, he has given us his Body, and under the species of Wine, he has given us his Blood, that so being made partakers of this Body and Blood, ye may become one Body and one Blood with him. For by this means we become, as one may say, Christiferi, that is to say, we carry Jesus Christ in our Body when we receive into our Mouth, and into our Stomach, his Body and his Blood: And thus according to St. Peter, we are made partakers of the Divine Nature.  
Jesus Christ speaking at another time to the Jews, says to them, Unless ye Eat my Flesh and drink my Blood, ye shall have no Life in you. But these gross and carnal Men not understanding the Words spiritually, were offended with them, and withdrew from him, because they imagined, that he would make them eat humane Flesh by morsels.  
[These Words do so fully explain St. Cyril s Sense, that they need no Comment. If the Jews were offended because they did not spiritually understand those Words of Jesus Christ, when he talked to them in the 6th. of St. John; how much more according to this Father's way of Reasoning, Would the Disciples have been offended, if they had understood Jesus Christ literally, when he Instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist?]  
There were in the Old Dispensation Loaves of Bread which were offered before God, and because they pertained to that Old Dispensation, they have ceased with it: But now in the New Dispensation, there is Bread from Heaven, and a Cup of Salvation, which Sanctisies Soul and Body. For as the Bread is the Nourishment which is proper to the Body, so the Word is the Nourishment which is proper to the Soul. Wherefore I conjure you, my Brethren, not to consider them any more as common Bread and Wine, since they are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ according to his Word. For tho' your Sense inform you, that 'tis not so, yet Faith should persuade and assure you, that 'tis so. Judge not therefore of this Truth by your Taste, but let Faith make you believe with an entire certainty, that you have been made worthy to partake of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  
Let your Soul rejoice in the Lord, being persuaded of it as a thing most certain, that the Bread which appears to our Eyes is not Bread, tho' our taste do judge it to be so, but that it is the Body of Jesus Christ, and that the Wine which appears to our Eyes is not Wine, tho' our Sense of Taste takes it for Wine, but that it is the Blood of Jesus Christ.  
Ye have seen that a Deacon gives Water to wash the Hands to the Priest that officiates, and to the Priests that are about the Altar of God. Think you that this was done to cleanse the Body? No, not at all; For we do not use to be in such a Condition, when we enter into the Church, as to stand in need of such washing to make us clean; but this washing of the Hands signifies, that we should be clean from all our Sins; for the Hands signifying Actions, to wash our Hands is nothing else but to purify our Works. Afterwards the Deacon having said with a loud voice, Embrace and kiss one another with a kiss of Peace, we do all mutually Salute with a holy Kiss, because it is the Token of the perfect reconciliation of our Hearts, and of forgetting all the injuries that have been received. After this, the Priest that officiates, says with a loud voice, Lift up your Hearts, because in this tremendous Moment chief, our Hearts should be raised up to God, and not depressed towards the things of this World. Therefore the Priest requires all those that are present at the Sacrifice, to banish from their Minds at this time, all Thoughts of the World, and all the Cares of their Domestic Affairs, that their Hearts may be in Heaven, in the presence of God who hath testified so great Love to Mankind. At these words of the Priest, ye Answer, We lift up our Hearts unto the Lord; and so ye profess to do what he has said. The Priest adds, Let us give thanks unto the Lord. And we ought indeed, to give thanks to him, that we, unworthy as we are of so rare and so excellent a Gift, are honoured with the participiation of it; that he of his Goodness has reconciled us who were Enemies to himself, and that he designs to make us who have been so great Sinners, become his Children by the spirit of Adoption which he communicates to us. Ye answer at these words of the Priest, 'Tis just and reasonable to give Thanks unto him: For when we give Thanks to God, we do a thing that is just, and which we are obliged to do; but when God bestows upon us so great Blessings, he does it not out of Justice, but out of pure Grace and Favour.  
Afterwards, we repeat the Sacred Hymn which the Seraphims sing in Heaven, in honour of the Three Persons of the Trinity, that so by this most heavenly Song, we may communicate with the sublime Host of Angels, and that being Sanctified more and more by these most Spiritual Hymns, we may become the fit to pray unto so Good and so Gracious a God, that he would send down the Holy Spirit upon those things that we offer unto him, and that he would make the Bread become the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Wine his Blood: For whatsoever receives the Impression of the Holy Spirit, is sanctified and changed. [This shows against those who urge St. Cyril's Words  
for Transubstantiation, that he did not think the change of the Elements (whatever it is) depends solely upon the Priest's repeating the Words of Consecration.] Now when this Spiritual Sacrifice is ended, and this unbloody Worship which is given to God by means of the Expiatory Victim is concluded, Then we pray to him for the universal Peace of all the Churches, for the Tranquillity of the whole World, for Kings, for their Armies and their Allies, for the Sick and Afflicted, and in a word, for all those that need God's help. And we say unto God, Lord, we all pray unto thee, and offer up this Sacrifice, that by commemorating those who are dead before us, viz. the Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles and Martyrs, you may receive our Prayers Graciously, for the merit of their Prayers: Then we pray for the Holy Fathers and the Bishops that are dead, and in short, for all those that are departed this Life in our Communion, believing that their Souls receive very great Relief, by the Prayers that are offered for them in this holy and tremendous Sacrifice which is upon the Altar. This I shall easily make you understand by an Example: For I know there are many who say, What good can it do to a Soul which is departed out of this Life, whether with Sins or without them, to remember it at this Sacrifice? But tell me, I pray you, If a King had sent into banishment some Persons that had offended him, and their Friends and Relations should present him with a Crown of great Price to appease his Anger, Don't you think, that upon their Account, the King would show some Favour to the guilty Persons, and at least mitigate their Pains? So do we address our Prayers to God for those that are dead, though they were Sinners, not by presenting to him a Crown, but by offering up to him Jesus Christ himself, who was sacrificed for our Sins, that so he who is so Merciful and Good, may become Gracious to them as well as to us. After this you say, Our Father which art in Heaven, etc.  
When the Lord's Prayer is ended, the Priest says, Holy things are for the Holy; that is, The things which are offered upon the Altar, being sanctified by the descent of the Holy Spirit, are for you that are Holy, by the Infusion of the same Holy Spirit which has been given you; and thus it is, that Holy things are for them that are Holy. Then ye answer, Jesus Christ alone is Holy; He only is the Lord and Master. And 'tis not without reason, that ye speak after this manner, because indeed, there is none truly Holy, but he only who is so of himself, and by his own Nature; and as for you, how Holy soever you be, you are not so by your own proper Nature, but only by the participation of Holiness, by the spiritual Exercises which you perform, and by the Prayers which you address to his Supreme Majesty. After this, you hear most heavenly and divine Music, inviting you to partake of the Sacred Mysteries, by chanting forth these words; Taste and see how good the Lord is. Think you now that you are required to discern this by the Sense of Taste? No, by no means; but by the Testimony of Faith which is certain, and leaves no doubt. For when you take them, ye are not commanded to take the Bread and Wine, but to take the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which they represent. [One that believes with the Church of Rome, cannot say that the Bread and Wine represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ] Now when you approach to Communicate, you must not come there with your Hands expanded, nor your Fingers open, but supporting your right Hand which is to contain so great a King, with your left; you receive the Body of Jesus Christ, into the hollow of this Hand, saying Amen. Then after you have taken Care to Sanctify your Eyes by the Touch of so Holy and Venerable a Body, you Communicate of it by eating it. But take heed that nothing of it falls aside, considering the loss of the least crumb, as if you lost some of your Members. If any one should give you Ingots of Gold, What Care would you take to watch them, that nothing of them should be lost? What Precaution then ought we to use, to keep the least Crum of a thing that is infinitely more dear and precious than Gold and Diamonds, from falling down? After you have thus communicated of the Body of Jesus Christ, approach to the Cup of his Blood, not by stretching forth your hands, but by bowing yourselves as it were to Adore him, and do him Homage, and then say, Amen. Then Sanctify yourselves by the Touch of the Blood of Jesus Christ which you receive, and while your Lips are wet, dry them with your hand, and carry it immediately to your Eyes, your Forehead, and your other Organs of sense, to consecrate them. In a word, while you wait for the last Prayer of the Priest, return thanks to God that he has made you worthy to partake of so great and so sublime Mysteries.  
I shall not stay to make all the Reflections upon these Passages which have been already made by the most able Defenders of the Church, being persuaded that the Plainness of these words exceeds all that can be said, and that Men need only Eyes to convince them that St. Cyril taught the Real Presence, and to make them acknowledge, that the Ceremonies of the Mass are very ancient in the Church.  
We have a Letter of St. Cyril to Constantius, upon the Wonderful Apparition of a Luminous Cross, which was seen over the City of Jerusalem, mentioned by Sozomen in Ch. 4. of the 4th. Book of his History, where he also observes, That the Emperor was advertised of it by St. Cyril. In this Letter he gives great Commendations to the Emperor Constantius; he says, That the Cross of Jesus Christ was found in the time of the Emperor Constantine; he describes the Apparition of the Sign of the Cross, and concludes with glorifying the Consubstantial Trinity. Rivet rejects also this Letter as a Supposititious Writing, and gives no other Reason for his Opinion, but the great Praises which it gives to the Emperor Constantius. [Nazianzen commends Constantius in his Invectives against Julian in as high terms as 'tis possible, and yet they were never questioned.] But this is not a sufficient Proof, since we commonly speak so to Princes, and St. Athanasius and St. Hilary did not use to do otherwise, even after this Emperor had declared himself more openly against the Faith of the Church: For this Letter, if it is true, was written a little after St. Cyril was Bishop of Jerusalem.  
We have also a Letter of the Presentation of Jesus Christ in the Temple, which goes under the Name of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and nothing hinders us to attribute it to him. But we cannot say this of the Letter written in the Name of St. Cyril of Jerusalem to St. Augustin, concerning the Miracles of St. Jerom. Though this Letter were not so ridiculously written as it is, the Title alone would show that it is a gross imposture, since St. Cyril was dead before St. Jerom.  
The Style of St. Cyril's Catechetick Lectures, is Simple and Natural. 'Tis easy to perceive that they were written in haste, and without much Premeditation. Though they do not dive deeply into the Mysteries, yet they explain them very clearly, and they contain much Learning. One may see there upon every Subject a most exact and exquisite Collection of Passages of Scripture. He sets down the Opinions of the Heretics and refutes them solidly. He makes very Judicious Remarks, and explains many Passages of Scripture. I say nothing particularly of his Doctrine, because it is sufficiently explained in the Extracts, which we have taken out of his Lectures.  
Joannes Grodecius was the First who translated and published the Catechetical Discourses of St. Cyril, from a Greek Manuscript of Cardinal Hosius, the Pope's Legate at the Council of Trent. They were printed in the Year 1564. at Antwerp and at Paris; In the Year 1560. at Vienna, and in 1584. at Paris. The Original Greek appeared quickly after the Latin Version, for Morellus printed the 11 first Catechetical Discourses, and the Five last in the Year 1564, from a Manuscript out of Monsieur de Mesmes' Library: They were also printed with a Latin Translation in the same Year at Cologne 1564. But at last Prevotius having found the Greek of all the Catechetical Discourses of St. Cyril in the Manuscripts of the Vatican Library, he printed them at Paris by Morellus in the Year 1609. This Volume is in Quarto, and the Version of Grodecius in one Page, answering to the Greek Text in the other. 'Twas this Edition which was followed by that of Paris in the Year 1631.  
The Letter concerning the Sign of the Cross, was printed apart by Morellus, and since joined to the Catechetical Discourses of St. Cyril. The Oration concerning the Presentation of Jesus Christ, was printed at Cologne by Birchmannus in the Year 1598. These Discourses are all in the Bibliothecae Patrum.   

St. EPHREM the Syrian, Deacon of Edessa.  
ST. EPHREM was of Nisibis a City of Syria, or of some place thereabout. He was Born under the Reign of Constantine, he embraced a Monastic Life from his most tender Youth, and 
St. Ephrem the Syrian, Deacon of Edessa.  became in a little time the Governor and Superior of many Monks. Coming often to Edessa to visit the Church of that City, he was there ordained Deacon. He came also as far as Caesarea of Cappadocia, where he was known and very well received by St. Basil, who had a most particular esteem for him. 'Tis said, That this Saint taught him Greek, and that he conferred upon him the Order of Priesthood; but this Report is not very certain, since the Ancients assure us, that he died a Deacon. Sozomen tells us, That when he was chosen Bishop of a City, he feigned himself to be Mad, lest they should carry him away by force, and ordain him against his Will. I shall say nothing here of his Piety, his Charity, his Humility, the Austerity of his Life, nor of his other Christian and Religious Virtues, no more than of his remarkable Actions and his Miracles, because those things do not concern my Subject. I shall only apply myself to speak of his Writings, which were so famous according to the Testimony of St. Jerom, that they were publicly read in some Churches after the Reading of the Holy Books, and which were so numerous that the whole World was full of them. He wrote them in Syriack, and they were translated into Greek in his own time. Sozomen observes, That though he had never studied, yet he had so many Beauties in his Style, and so many Sublime Thoughts, that the Tracts of his Eloquence might be discerned even in the Greek Translation: and St. Jerom assures us, That having read the Version of his Treatise concerning the Holy Spirit, he perceived in the Translation the Fineness of his Sublime Genius: St. Gregory Nyssen, who wrote a Panegyric upon this Father, insists chief upon his Doctrine and Writings. He praises the Purity of his Faith, and the Aversation he had to the Heresies of Sabellius, Arius and Apollinarius. He says, That he refuted the Anomaeans and the Novatians; and all his Writings are full of solid and convincing Proofs. He adds, That he had read and meditated more than any Person upon the Old and New Testament, and that he had wrote Expositions upon all the Holy Scripture, from the Beginning of Genesis to the End of the New Testament; That he had also composed many lively and Pathetical Exhortations; That Tears and Sighs were very common and familiar with him, as may be seen in his Writings. For, says he, he does not only sigh, when he speaks of Morality and the Precepts of Life, but even in his Panegyrics; all his Discourses are mixed with bemoaning and compassionate Expressions, which are able to move even the hardest Hearts. For who that is Proud, adds he, would not become the humblest of Men, by reading his Discourse of Humility? Who would not be inflamed with a Divine Fire, by reading his Treatise of Charity? Who would not wish to be chaste in Heart and Spirit by reading the Praises he has given to Virginity? Who would not be frighted by hearing the Discourse he has made upon the Last Judgement, wherein he has represented it so lively, that nothing can be added to it but the same thing? God gave him so Profound a Wisdom, that though he had a wonderful facility of Speaking, yet he could not furnish Expressions for the multitude of Thoughts that came into his Mind. We have seen, as the same Father still goes on, one of his Sermons, where he calls Apollinarius a Madman. He tells a very pleasant Story of a trick that St. Ephrem put upon this Heretic. He says, That the Heretic had written two Books, wherein were all the Reasons and Passages of Scripture, that he made use of to defend his Error, and which he had committed to the Custody of a Woman; That St. Ephrem pretending that he was of the same Judgement with Apollinarius, had borrowed them of this Woman, and that before he restored them, he glued all the Leaves fast to one another: That this Woman seeing the Books bound up after the same manner, perceived nothing of what was done, but gave them as they were to Apollinarius, to make use of them in a Public Conference which he was to have with a Catholic, and that then the Heretic not being able to open them, was forced to withdraw with shame. The quickness of St. Ephrem's Wit appeared also in the Syriack Verses which he made in his own Language, in imitation of Hammonius the Son of Bardesanes, who had composed many Hymns which the Syrians Sung with Delight. St. Ephrem perceiving that this Author had cunningly interspersed in those Prayers, some Errors of his Father, and of the Greek Philosophers, fearing lest the Christians of Syria, might fall insensibly into these false Opinions, he endeavoured with all his might to comprehend the Metre of these Verses, and wrote other Books agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church, as Hymns and the Encomiastics of the Saints, which were so well received by the Syrians, that they Sung them to the same Tunes with those of Hammonius. 'Tis said, That he composed almost 100000 Verses of this Nature. Sozomen says also, That he wrote the Life of St. Julianus. To conclude, Photius in Volume 197 of his Bibliotheca, observes that he had read 50 Sermons of this Father.  
It appears by what we have already said, That Ephrem wrote Commentaries upon all the Bible, Treatises of Controversy against many Heretics, a Book of the Holy Spirit, a great many Discourses and Instructions to the People, and to his Monks, some Panegyrics, many Treatises of Morality, and a great number of Hymns to be Sung in the Church: That all his Writings were composed in Syriack, and that the greatest part of them were translated into Greek while he was living. We have none of his Commentaries upon Scripture, nor his Treatises of Controversy; but we have a great number of Discourses, of Moral Precepts, and of Hymns which have been translated into Greek, and published by Vossius towards the end of the last Age, under St. Ephrem's Name. Some Critics, to whom the Books concerning a Monastic Life are not agreeable, have pretended that all those Books are Supposititious. Notwithstanding 'tis very probable, that the greatest part of them are truly St. Ephrem's, because all the Characters that the Ancients give of the Writings of St. Ephrem, agree to these; so that 'tis easy to know them. 1. The Treatises of St. Ephrem were full of Figures and Ornaments, but yet without Fineness and Art; now these are all filled with Exclamations, Interrogations, Comparisons, Antitheses and other Figures, which are grossly enough employed and without choice. 2. He had much Vivacity and Fire, which these are all full of. 3. St. Ephrem related many Passages of Scripture, and these Writings are oftentimes nothing else but a Collection. 4. St. Gregory Nyssen says, That they were mixed with bemoaning Expressions, with Sighs and Tears; That he spoke continually of Weeping even in his Panegyrics: This is properly the Character of the greatest part of the Discourses published by Vossius. 5. The same Father says, That he wrote Discourses of Humility, Charity, in Praise of Virginity, and of the Last Judgement. There are Discourses upon all these Subjects amongst those that were published by Vossius, and have the same Character which this Father observed in St. Ephrem's Books; that is to say, that they are pathetical and moving. 6. He wrote many Hymns upon divers Subjects, and there are among the Books which go under his Name, many Pieces written in Verse, and of a Poetical Style. 7. His Testament which is related in this Edition, is the same with that which is quoted by St. Gregory Nyssen, who produces two Passages out of it, which are word for word in that which was published by Vossius. 8. We have among these Books, The Life of Julianus cited by Sozomen, B. III. of his History, Ch. 14. In fine, The 49 Sermons of St. Ephrem, whereof Photius made an Extract, are found in these Works of St. Ephrem. The same Photius quotes a Discourse of Humility divided into a 100 Chapters, which is in the second Tome, a Discourse upon the same Virtue which is in the first Tome, and a Treatise of Virtues and Vices to the Metebian Monks, which is also in the first Volume, and which contains the same Matters in the same Order. These Reasons plainly show, that the greatest part of the Books, which at present go under St. Ephrem's Name, are the same with Gregory Nyssen, Theodoret, Sozomen and Photius, attributed to this Saint. Now what probability is there, that they should take the Works of another Author for those of St. Ephrem? St. Gregory Nyssen, could not be deceived herein, who lived at the same time. What probability is there, that Photius, who was a very able Critic, and who distinguishes our St. Ephrem from the Patriarch of Antioch, who mentions the Works of the one and the other, in two different places of his Bibliotheca; What probability is there, I say, that he should quote a false Ephrem for a true one?  
'Tis objected 1. That there is not found in his Works that Fire and Loftiness which are mentioned by St. Jerom and Sozomen, and that they seem to be rather Pious than Learned, according to the Judgement of Cardinal Bellarmin. I answer, That tho' there were not found in a Latin Version of the Works of any Author made from another Greek Version, all that Beauty and Loftiness which they had in their Original Language, we should not wonder at it: But those who object this, do not rightly apprehend the Sense of St. Jerom and Sozomen, and have neither a very nice Relish, nor a very right Judgement in this matter. For first of all, St. Jerom and Sozomen, tacitly confess, That the Translation of the Works of St. Ephrem made them lose some part of their Loftiness; but they only observe, That one might perceive some strokes of his Vivacity and Eloquence, even in the Translation itself. 2dly. St. Jerom says the same of the Book of the Holy Spirit, and not of the others. Now it may so happen, that this sublime Reasoning of St. Ephrem, appeared more in his Dogmatical Books, than in his Discourses of Devotion, and in his Edifying Exhortations; such as all those are which are now extant. 3dly. 'Tis not true, that no Vein of Eloquence is to be discerned in them. The learned Photius did not think so. On the contrary, we may admire, says he, in the Exhortations of this holy Man, (which are a part of this Book which we now have) the force wherewith he persuades, his agreeable manner of expressing things, and the pathetical Phrases that he makes use of. It is no wonder, that his Style and his Figures, resemble those Homilies which are made off hand, and without premeditation: Neither must we throw this fault upon the Author, but upon the Interpreter, because those that are learned in the Syriack Tongue, know that they excel in abundance of Words, and in Figures of Rhetoric; so that 'tis hard to say, whether it be from their Language, or from his own Invention, that the strength and elevation of his Dis●●rse proceeds. Moreover, we ought not in reading to look only upon the meanness of the Words, but to consider what Advantage and Profit may be reaped from the things that he has written. [Mr. Du Pin, seems to have forgot that he had named Cardinal Bellarmin just before.] This Reflection of Photius, who was a better Critic in this kind, than Rivet and the other Critics of his way, informs us, that several strokes of the Elevation and Quickness of his Spirit, might be discerned in the Version of St. Ephrem's Discourses, and that one might there perceive the Genius of the Syriack Tongue; and that whatever meanness there may be in his Style, it ought to be attributed to the Interpreter, and not to the Author.  
'Tis objected also, That those Treatises, were written by an Author who understood Greek, since he ●●●es St. Irenaeus, Ch. 8. of the Treatise of Virtue, and the Life of St. Anthony written in Greek by St. Athanasius, in Ch. 10. of the Treatise upon these words, Take heed to yourselves: Now St. Ephrem did not understand Greek, say they, and by consequence these Treatises are none of his.  
'Tis easy to answer this Objection. 1. 'Tis not certain that St. Ephrem did not understand Greek; on the contrary, 'tis probable that a Man who was often among People that spoke Greek, did understand their Language, tho' he was not able enough to write in that Tongue. 2. That though he did not understand Greek, yet he might get the Books of St. Irenaeus, translated into Syriack; and 'tis probable, that for the use of the Monks of his Country, he procured a Syriack Verson of the Life of St. Anthony, who was looked upon as the Rule of all the Monks in the East.  
3dly. They object to us the little Credit that ought to be given to those that have published his Books: They say, We have them not, but as they come through the hands of the Modern Greeks, who are too much given to Cheat; and that the Latin Versions were made by Ambrose Camaldulensis, and Vissius Tungrensis, who were Persons devoted to the Interests of the Court of Rome.  
But why is it sufficient thus to allege general and uncertain Reasons for rejecting any Books? If this be sufficient, What is there that we shall not doubt of? The Protestants will have Reason to reject all the Books of the Fathers, which have been published by Catholics, and Catholics will have reason to reject all those that have been published by the Protestants. Where shall we be then? This therefore is not the way: But we must suppose that both the one and the other have published the Books which they found in the Manuscripts that fell into their hands; for there is no probability that one Man should be so impudent as to forge many Pieces, and pretend that he found them in Manuscripts; and tho' some Persons should be found capable of doing this, yet 'twere impossible, but their imposture must be quickly discovered. They must therefore have other Proofs, besides these general Accusations, to reject any Books as supposititious. But besides, when it is said that we have none of St. Ephrem's Writings, but through the hands of the Modern Greeks, that's a mistake. They were translated while he was alive, as appears by what we have already said. And whereas Ambrose Camaldulensis and Vossius, are accused of being Impostors, 'tis easy to justify them by the ancient Greek Manuscripts which are to be found in Libraries.  
Lastly, Some places of the Books of this Father are produced, which seem to be mean and unworthy of him. 'Tis said, that there is nothing more ridiculous, than what he introduces the damned speaking, We salute you, O Saints, we salute you, O Apostles, etc. They add, That there are contradictions in then, for in his Confessions, he accuses himself of many Sins, and in his Testament he makes himself Innocent.  
To answer this Objection in a word, I might say, That 'tis a very hard matter to avoid, but some weak Thoughts will be found in so great a Number of Books of Piety and Devotion. That if one would compare these Books with those of our Age, which are of the same kind, they might see that the latter are infinitely more filled with false Thoughts, than those of St. Ephrem. But the places which Rivet has chose to oppose to us, are very weak Proofs. The wicked do not Salute the Saints in the Treatise of Hell Torments; on the contrary, they bid them eternally adieu, after they had heard the Sentence of Condemnation: Neither is there any Contradiction between his Testament and his Confessions. He confesses both in the one and the other place with much humility, that he had spent his Life in Sin and Vanity. 'Tis true, that he says in his Testament, that he had not reproached any body, and that he had no quarrel with any of the Faithful; but then he says nothing contrary to this in his Confessions, and though he should have said it, yet he might speak so in humility, as many pious Persons do in this kind of Confessions, wherein they speak oftentimes in the Person of another.  
I shall now draw up a Catalogue, with an Account of the Subjects of St. Ephrem's Works, which are divided into three Tomes.  
The 1st. Discourse of the first Tome, is of the Dignity of the Priesthood, which he exalts as high as it can be exalted. Towards the latter End, he speaks against those who intrude into the Priestly Office, without being worthy of it, and without being called to it. He observes, that the Sacerdotal Dignity is conferred by imposition of Hands.  
The 2d. is an Answer to one of his Monks, who had asked him, who they were that might use that Liberty which St. Paul gives to Marry, rather than to Burn. He answers, That it concerns only those who are not bound, and who live in the World, but not those who have renounced the World, and embraced a Religious Life.  
The 3d. is concerning the Softness of Eli the Highpriest, who would not chastise his Sons.  
In the 4th. he exhorts Christians to celebrate the Festivals, and to approach the Holy Mysteries with Purity.  
The 5th. is concerning Charity towards our Neighbour.  
The 6th. is concerning the usefulness of Singing Psalms. There he condemns idle Songs and Dancing.  
The 7th. is of the Value and Necessity of Prayer.  
The 8th. is of Love of the Poor, and of Alms.  
The 9th. of Fasting.  
The 10th. explains that Passage in the Gospel, There shall be two Men in the field, the one shall be taken, and the other left. He is of Opinion, that the Just are those who shall be taken, and the Wicked those who shall be left. He seems to explain Hell Fire, Mystically.  
The 11th. is concerning the Miseries of this Life.  
The 12th. is of the inequality of Happiness. He observes, that tho' all the Happy enjoy the same happiness, yet there are different Degrees of it. He assures his Auditory, That there is no middle between Hell and the Kingdom of Heaven. [Here then by our Author's own Confession, is a positive Proof, that an Eminent Father of the Fourth Century, disbelieved a middle State, which not only destroys Purgatory, but also the Necessity of Praying to the Saints.]  
The 13th. is also of Blessedness.  
The 14th. of the Contempt we ought to have of the Riches and Pleasures of this World.  
The 15th. is against those who every day do Penance, and always relapse into the same Sins.  
After these Discourses follows a Treatise divided into many Chapters, concerning Virtues and Vices. In the Preface he shows great Humility in debasing himself below those that had prayed him to Instruct them. Afterwards he discovers to them the good Effects of the Fear of God, of the Love of our Neighbour, of Meekness, Patience, Sincerity, Obedience, Hope and Continence; and the bad Effects of the contrary Vices.  
After these Instructions, follow 91 Maxims of Piety, and 96 Advices concerning a spiritual Life, directed to a young Monk.  
The 16th. Discourse is against those who forsake a Monastic Life after they have once embraced it, to return into the World.  
The 17th. is concerning perfect Self-denial, and concerning the Peace of Mind, which every one should have in Solitude.  
The 18th. is of the Sighing of a Soul under Temptation, and of the Tears of Repentance.  
The 19th. is of the Fear of Death.  
The 20th. is an humbling Discourse, wherein he acknowledges himself guilty of many Faults, and prays his Brethren to implore the Divine Mercy for him.  
The 21st. is an Exhortation to Christian Vigilance.  
The 22d. is an Exhortation to the Practice of good Works.  
The 23d. is concerning the Grace of Jesus Christ. He exhorts those to whom he addresses himself, to follow the attractives of Divine Grace, if they would attain to perfection.  
The 24th. is concerning Faith, or rather concerning Trust in the Providence of God.  
The 25th. is against those who say, that, Earthquakes are caused by the Concussions of the Earth, and not by the Providence of God. This discovers that the Author of those Discourses had not much Learning, since it may be truly said, that Earthquakes proceed from natural Causes, tho' they are ordered by the Providence of God.  
The 26th. is against the Superstitions of the Pagans. There he relates, that when the Plague was at Constantinople, a Physician named Domnus, being desirous to preserve himself by the Superstitions 〈◊〉 the Pagans, was seized with the Plague and died, tho' he dwelled in a high place where there was very good Air; that one of his Companions named Macedonius, seeing his lamentable Death, quitted the Pagan Religion, and became a Monk. After this, he brings many Passages of Scripture, to prove that the Plague, and those other Calamities wherewith Men are afflicted, are the Effects of God's Vengeance, and that we must make our Application to him, to preserve us from them. He observes, that God sends these Miseries upon Men, to bring them to the knowledge of themselves, and to Repentance.  
The 27th. is against Pride and a good Opinion of one's self.  
The 28th. is against those who having entered into Monasteries, are guilty of Vices, and particularly of Ambition, Laziness, and Disobedience. At the latter end, he exhorts his Brethren to discharge all the Offices of a Religious Life.  
The 29th. is against Detraction.  
The 30th. is upon those Subjects which Christians ought to lament.  
The 31st. is against Plays and Shows. There he blames those who after they have been present at Divine Offices, go to Dancing, and Sing idle Songs. To Day, says he, they are United to Jesus Christ, and to Morrow they Dishonour him, they Deny him; to Day they are Christians, and to Morrow Pagans; to Day they have Piety, and to Morrow they are Impious; to Day they are Faithful, and the Disciples of Jesus Christ, and to Morrow they are Apostates and the Enemies of God; to Day they hear the Word of Jesus Christ, and to Morrow they apply themselves to hear the Voices and Instruments of Music, which sing or play profane Songs.  
The 32d. is against the Unchaste.  
The 33d. is of that Charity wherewith we should reprove our Brethren that are fallen into any Sin.  
The 34th. is against Curiosity, and of shunning the occasions of Sin.  
The 35th. is against Lewd Women.  
The 36th. is of the means of avoiding the Sin of the Flesh.  
The 37th. is of the Praise of Charity.  
The 38th. is of the Preservation of this Virtue, and of the Unhappiness of those that lose it.  
The 39th. is a Description of that unhappy State to which a Man is reduced by Concupiscence. He prays the Lord to give him Grace to preserve him from Shipwrecks, amidst the Storms of this Life. He requests of him, That his Heart and his Mouth, may be a pure Temple and without Stain, by the Heavenly Grace; and that it may máke his Tongue and Lips to move continually, in Singing forth the Praises of God. This Discourse is one of the Noblest and most Beautiful of them all.  
The Four following Discourses are concerning Compunction, or the Remorse we ought to have for offending God. In the 1st. he says, That the Grace of God is always ready to enter into our Hearts, whenever they are disposed to receive it, or when our evil Thoughts do not put a Bar to it; That in the meantime, it touches our Soul by the Sweetness of its Light, and makes it return to itself, and seek after the Light; That the Grace of God does never wholly forsake us, and that without Grace, we cannot Repent.  
In the 2d. he shows, That we ought not to Despair, and that every one may obtain Pardon of his Sin, provided his Heart be pierced with a sincere Sorrow for his Offence against God, and that he change his course of Life.  
In the 3d. he shows, That we ought to bewail this Life, and to rejoice at Death.  
The 4th. is also of the Sorrow we ought to have, and the Tears we ought to shed in this Life.  
The 44th. and 45th. Discourses are about Penance.  
The 46th. is about Repentance and Conversion.  
The 47th. is of Penance and Patience.  
The 48th. is of Patience under the Crosses, and Adversities of this Life.  
The 49th. is of Constancy and Compunction.  
In the 50th. he exhorts to Perseverance and Watchfulness, from the dread of the Last Judgement, and the Pains of Hell. He says, That we must always pray, even while we labour with our Hands, we must continually resist Temptation, read the Holy Scripture with Attention and Preparation, and live in Silence and Tranquillity: He enlarges particularly, on the Praises of this last Exercise.  
After these Discourses, follow several Sentences, called the Beatitudes of St. Ephrem, in which he recommends above all things, Christian Vigilance to his Brethren.  
After these Beatitudes, follow Questions and Answers upon several Subjects, as about the Renunciation promised in Baptism; about the Last Judgement; about the Different Punishments of the Damned.  
This is followed with a Treatise of remembering Death, wherein he lays open the Vanity of Riches.  
The Second discourse of Death, is attributed to St. Basil, and is of a different Style from St. Ephrem's Discourses.  
The following Treatises are of the Resurrection of the Last Judgement, and the things which shall happen when Antichrist shall come; and of the Apparition of the Cross at the time of Christ's second Coming. This Relation is ended with Lamentations and Prayers, which are attributed to St. Ephrem.  
The Second Tome contains the Life of St. Ephrem, written by Simeon Metaphrastes, choice Sentences drawn from the Books of St. Ephrem; a Discourse of St. Ephrem about his Conversion; a Spiritual Song concerning the praise of Learning and Wisdom; an Epistle to a Monk about Patience; four Exhortations to a young Monk concerning a Monastic Life; six Chapters of Virtues, necessary to a Monk; twelve Chapters upon these words, Take heed to yoúr selves; fifty Exhortations to the young Monks, wherein he exhorts them to Humility, Obedience, Watchfulness, to Labour, Devotion, Meekness, Patience, to Charity, Reading, Prayer, Temperance, and the Practice of the other Monastical Virtues.  
The 49th. is of the Excellencies of a Monastic Life above the Secular. Then follow 100 Maxims, Apophthegms, or Examples of the means for acquiring and preserving Humility, and the other Monastic Virtues; a Discourse against Covetous Monks; another of the Perfection of a Monk; a Treatise of Spiritual Arms, of the Spiritual Combat; an Instructive Exhortation about an Ascetic Life; another Exhortation to Repentance from the second Coming of Jesus Christ; nineteen Advertisements of the Abbot Ammon, and the Apophthegms of the ancient Fathers, wherein he speaks of St. Benedict.  
The Third Tome is divided into three Parts. The I. contains a Treatise composed in imitation of the Book of Proverbs, which is a Collection of Sentences and Maxims for a Spiritual and Monastic Life, a Treatise of a Religious Life, a Treatise of Repentance [or Penance;] a Discourse of the Compunction of the Heart; Another Discourse wherein St. Ephrem accuses himself of his Faults, and asks Forgiveness; A Discourse of the Resurrection, of Judgement, and the Pains of the Impious, with an humble Prayer to God. The II. Part contains Panegyrics upon Just and Holy Men, whom he proposes as Examples and Patterns of Virtue: The 1st. is upon Noah, where he speaks of Continence; The 2d. is upon Abraham and Isaac, where he exhorts to Obedience; The 3d. upon Lot, and against false Confidence; The 4th. in Praise of the Patriarch Joseph; The 5th. upon Daniel, against those that say, The times are Evil, we cannot save ourselves; The 6th. upon Jonah and the Repentance of the Ninevites; The 7th. upon Elijah and the Widow of Sarepta; The 9th. upon the Precious Stone that's mentioned in the Gospel; The 10th. against those that search into the Greatness of the Divine Nature; The 11th. a Discourse upon our Saviour's Transfiguration; The 12th. of the Passion of Jesus Christ; The 13th. the Lamentation of the Virgin upon the Passion of her Son; The 14th. upon the Cross of Jesus Christ, where he speaks of the manner of celebrating Festivals among Christians, of the Virtues of the Cross of Jesus Christ, and the Usefulness of the sign of the Cross; The 15th. is of the Praises of the Virgin, after which follows a Prayer to the Virgin; The 16th. on the Woman that was a Sinner; The 17th. is a Discourse of St. Chrysostom about the same Woman and a Pharisee; The 18th. is a Panegyric upon St. Basil, which is published in Greek by Cotelerius, in the last Volume of his Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae; The 19th. is in Praise of the Forty Martyrs; The 20th. is upon all the Martyrs in the World who have suffered for Jesus Christ; The 21st. is upon the same Subject; The 22d. is upon Abramius; The 23d. is upon Julianus the Hermit; The 24th. is upon the Holy Fathers that died in his own time; The 25th. is upon the same Subject: Two Hymns upon the same Subject; A Discourse of the Happiness of those that died in Christ, and of the Vanity of this World, of the Uncertainty of Life, and the different kinds of Death. The Last Monument of St. Ephrem is his Testament cited by St. Gregory Nyssen, which is properly an Exhortation of this Father, upon his Deathbed, addressed to his Monks; He desires them to remember him in their Prayers; He forbids them to keep his Garments as Relics; He desires that they would Bury him after a plain manner, and without any Pomp; He conjures them to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass for him, and enlarges also upon the Usefulness of Prayers for the Dead, and upon the Virtue of Sacrifice to blot out Sins: Lastly, he gives them many wholesome Advices, and heaps Blessings upon his chief Disciples that were present at his Death, which happened under the Reign of Valens, in the Year 378, on the First Day of February.  
The first that published any of the Books of this Father was Ambrose Camaldulensis, who translated some of them into Latin, which were printed at Brescia in 1490. at Strasburg in 1509. and at Cologne in 1547. Afterwards Gerard Vossius, or Volkens of Borchloon in Germany, searched out all the Works of this Father, and translated and published them in Three Tomes. The First, is dedicated to Sixtus the 5th. in 1581.; The Second dedicated to Clement the 8th. in 1593., and the last in 1598. These three Tomes were printed in one Volume at Cologne in 1603, and at Antwerp in 1619. Ecchellensis published at Rome in 1645, a Song of the Virgin and the Wisemen attributed to St. Ephrem, translated from the Syriack. Cotelerius published the Greek of the Panegyric upon St. Basil, made by St. Ephrem, in his last Volume of the Monuments of the Greek Church, printed at Paris in 1686. 'Twere to be wished that some body would publish the Greek Versions of all the Books of St. Ephrem, which are to be found in Libraries; as also the Syriack Text of some of his Books.   

DAMASUS, Bishop of Rome.  
AFter the Death of Pope Liberius, which happened in the Year 369, the See of Rome being Vacant for some time, by reason of the Caballing of those that pretended to fill it, Damasus at last was 
Damasus, Bishop of Rome  chosen by the greater part of the Clergy and People, and Ordained by the Bishops. But on the other side, Ursinus or rather Ursicinus, who was his Competitor for the Popedom, got himself Ordained by some other Bishops in the Church of Sicinius. This Contest caused a great Division in the City of Rome, and stirred up so great a Sedition there as could hardly be appeased. The two Parties came from Words to Blows, and a great many Christians were killed in the Churches of Rome upon this Quarrel. The Governor of Rome called Praetextatus, being desirous to allay the heat of this Contention, sent Ursicinus into Banishment by the Emperor's Order: But his Banishment did not perfectly appease the Quarrel; for the Partisans of Ursicinus Assembled still in the Churches of which they were possessed, without ever communicating with Damasus; and even when the Emperor had ordered that their Churches should be taken from them, they still kept up their Assemblies without the 〈◊〉, so that it was necessary at last to drive them quite out of Rome. And yet all this did not hinder Ursicinus from having his secret Associates in Italy and at Rome. The Bishop of Pu●… called 〈◊〉, and the Bishop of Parma, were most zealous for his Interests. They were condemned 〈◊〉 Council held at Rome in the Year 372, and afterwards banished by the Authority of the Emperor. However they found means to return into their own Country, and stirred up new troubles there. They got Pope Damasus to be accused by one Isaac a Jew. This Accusation was examined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Council of Bishops held at Rome in the Year 378, which declared Damasus innocent of the Crime that was laid to his Charge. This Council wrote a Letter to the Emperor Grecian, praying him to take some Order for the Peace of the Church of Rome. The Emperor wrote to them, that Ursicinus was detained at Cologne, that he had given Order to banish Isaac into a Corner of Spain, and to force the Bishops of Pu●coli and Parma, out of their Country. This did not hinder Ursicinus from returning into Italy in the Year 381, where he stirred up new Tumults, and endeavoured to pre-engage the Emperor: But the Bishops of Italy being assembled in a Council at Aquileia, in the Year 381, wrote so smartly to him, that he banished Ursicinus for ever, and left Damasus in peaceable Possession of the See of Rome, in which he continued until the Year 384. St. Jerom places him among the Ecclesiastical Writers, because of the many short Tracts which he wrote in Heroic Verse, to which may be added some Letters of his writing: But there are many other Letters which go under his Name, that are supposititious. I shall first set down those of which there can be no doubt.  
The Two Letters of Damasus, directed to St. Jerom, are amongst the Works of this Father. In the first, he exhorts this Saint to write to him; and to oblige him by fixing a Subject, he proposes to him some Difficulties about the Holy Scripture. He observes in this Letter, That he took no pleasure in reading the Books of Lactantius, because they were too long, and were not filled with the Doctrines of Religion. In the second Letter, he desires to tell him the meaning of Hosanna to the Son of David: but there is another Letter attributed to Damasus, and written to St. Jerom, with the Answer of this Father, that is not to be placed in the same rank; for the Style of these Two Letters is very different from that of Damasus and St. Jerom, and they contain many Impertinencies and Follies in the Judgement of Bellarmine and Baronius. 'Tis said in the First, That St. Jerom was Ordained by Alexander; and 'tis certain, that Paulinus Ordained him. In the Second, 'tis supposed, That St. Jerom exhorted Damasus to Order the Gloria Patri to be sung at the End of all the Psalms, as was ordained by the Council of Nice, and as it was practised in the East: But if Cassian is to be believed, this was not practised in the Fast.  
The 3d. Letter of Damasus is written in the Name of this Pope and other the Western Bishops, assembled at Rome, in the Year 370, concerning the Condemnation of Auxentius, to the Bishops of Illyricum. It is related by Theodoret also, in Ch. 22. B. II. of his Hist. and by Sozomen, Ch. 23. of 〈◊〉. VI and it is in Latin in the Collection of Holstenius. These Bishops do here confirm the Faith of the Nicene Council, and declare, that Auxentius was condemned by the Bishops of France, because of his Heresy. They observe, That the Decision of the Council of Ariminum could not prejudice the Decrees of the Council of Nice, because neither the Bishop of Rome, whose Judgement was chief to be waited for, nor Vincentius of Capua, nor many others, had ever consented to it. They say at the End of this Letter, That those who taught another Doctrine, should quickly be turned out of their Bishoprics. They exhort the Bishops of Illyricum to Defend the Faith of the Nicene Council, with Boldness and Constancy.  
The Letter of Damasus to Paulinus, about the Cause of Vitalis, is also Genuine, and has a respect to History, and to what St. Gregory Nazianzen, says in his Letter to Cledonius, that Vitalis the Disciple of Apollinarius, coming to Rome, surprised Damasus, but that afterwards, this Pope had condemned him. The Letter of which we now speak, was written sometime after Vitalis departed from Rome, about the Year 373. It acquaints Paulinus, That he had written to him by this Vitalis, leaving him to manage all things; That he had also sent him word of the same thing before, by the Priest Petronius; but that he was a little troubled when Vitalis was ready to departed; That to take from him all kind of Scruple, lest too great Precaution should hinder those from being received into the Church, who had a mind to return, he had sent to him a Confession of Faith, not so much for his own sake, as for theirs who desired to be reunited to the Church of Rome, and embrace its Communion, that they might Sign it. Wherefore, adds he, if Vitalis will join himself to us, you must oblige him to Sign the Nicene Creed, and to profess that he believes, That Jesus Christ took a Body, a Soul, a Mind, and in a Word, a Nature in every thing like to ours, Sin only, and Concupiscence, excepted; and to Anathematise those that should say, that the Word was instead of a Soul in the Person of Jesus Christ, or should dare to affirm, That there were two Sons of God in Jesus Christ, and deny, that he was the same Son of God before and after his Incarnation. He says, That he could freely receive those that should Sign this Letter, provided they had before approved the Ecclesiastical Canons, and the Faith of the Council of Nice. He concludes with telling Paulinus, That he doubted not but he had Power to propose the same things to those that were willing to be restored, and that he had written to him only for this End; that his Consent and Example might render him more Bold and Free to do it.  
'Twas probably at the same time, and perhaps in consequence of this Letter, that Damasus sent to Paulinus, the Anathematisms that are set down in Greek by Theodoret, Ch. 11. of the Vth. B. of his History, and in Latin by Holstenius. They establish the Faith of the Church concerning the Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, by condemning the contrary Errors. There is one of them against the Translation of Bishops. Vitalis having refused to Sign the Declarations which Damasus would have him to Sign, this Pope assembled a Council at Rome, in the Year 375, where Peter of Al●… 〈…〉 the H●●●●ick 〈◊〉 and his Followers. The 〈…〉 Rea●… 〈◊〉 thinks that th● D●●●ees which are in the Collection o● 〈◊〉, and which 〈◊〉 found in the second Volume of the Additions 〈◊〉 L●●ee's Edition of the 〈…〉 of this Council, and that they were really 〈…〉 These Decrees are Signed by Me●●ti●● of 〈◊〉 by Euse●i●s o● 〈…〉 of 〈◊〉, by 〈◊〉 of T●●s●s, by Eulogi●● of 〈◊〉, by Zen● of ●…, Bishops of the East, whose 〈◊〉 are said, to be in the 〈…〉 of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These Subscriptions make it very 〈◊〉 that these De●… 〈…〉 of this 〈…〉 the Western Bishop●, which was Signed in the Year 378 in a Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof 〈◊〉 invade in the 〈…〉 of the Councils of 〈◊〉 and in a Letter of the Council of 〈◊〉, produced by 〈◊〉 In short, the Bishop● of the East having desired 〈◊〉 to con●●● Tim●●●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉, received this Answer. That he was 〈…〉 by a Council at Rome, 〈◊〉 of Peter of Alexandria. This Letter is recited by 〈◊〉 Ch● 10 of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. of his History. It was written about the Year 378. In the ●…ble of this Letter▪ 〈◊〉 the Greatness of the 〈◊〉 o● 〈◊〉 and speaks of its Pre-eminence above 〈◊〉  
These are the only 〈…〉 of 〈◊〉, that are extant; all the rest that go under his Name, are forged by 〈…〉 〈◊〉 have not the 〈◊〉 of Damasus and contain many things which plainly discover their Forgery. The Letter that goes under the Name of A●●elius Bishop of 〈◊〉 to Dam●●●● as well as the Answer of 〈◊〉 Pope hear the Names of the Consuls, Gr●●●n●● the third time 〈◊〉 the first. Now this Consulship happened in the Year 374, and A●●elius was yet a D●●con when ●…, 385, and he was not Ordained Bishop, till 389. 'Tis plain therefore that 〈…〉 written by Aur●lius. The Letter of the 〈◊〉 of Aspic to 〈◊〉, in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those of 〈◊〉 and Ma●tin, and establishes a Doctrine contrary to that which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Case of Appeals. The Letter to Stephen who is called 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 is taken out of the Letters of Innocenti●●, St. Leo, 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 'Tis said to have been written under the Consulship of Sti●ic●o, who was no● Consul till 16▪ Years after the Death of Damasus. The Letter concerning the 〈◊〉 quotes the Canon● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Version of dionysius Exiguus. There is also a 〈◊〉 of the Council of Chalced●●, and some Passages of the Letters of Siricias, Innocentius, Z●simus, Celestinus, St. Leo, etc. The Letter to the Bishops of Italy, is taken out of St. Leo, St. Gregory, M●●ti● I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I the Falsehood of it is found out by the Note of the Consulship. Lastly, There are in 〈◊〉 C●●●utens●● and Gratian, some Decrees attributed to Damasus; but one cannot be assured of their Antiquity, upon the Credit of these Authors.  
There are besides, above 40 Epigrams, Inscriptions o● Epitaphs in Verse, which go under the Name of Damasus, and are produced by B●●●nius and Gruter, and Collected together by Sarrazanius, who has made long Commentaries upon these Pieces. 'Tis not very certain, that all these belong to Damasus, but 'tis no great matter who is the Author of them, for they contain nothing Remarkable. I shall not here stay to prove that the Book of the Lives of the Popes, entitled the Pontifical of D●●asus, is none of his, because 'tis certain by the Confession of all the World, that it was composed long after the Death of this Pope.  
The Works of Damasus were Printed at Rome, in the Year 1639. By the Care of Ubaldinus, who Dedicated the● to Pope Urb●● VIII. And Billaine▪ Printed another Edition of his Works at Paris, according to that at Rome, in the Year 1672. [His Poems, as Dr. Cave assures us from Oloarius' Abacus Patrologicus, were Printed at Leipsick, by Andrea's Rivinus, in 8vo. 1652.]   

St. BASIL.  
ST. BASIL was of Caesarea in Capp●docia, and was born about the Year 328. His Father was called Basil, and his Mother Emmelia; who were both Christians. He was Educated in 
St. Basil.  Christian Piety, by his Grandmother M●crina; and his Father taught him the Rudiments of Learning. He began his Studies at Caesarea, in Palestine, from whence he went to Constantinople, to hear the Famous Orator Libanius, and at last he went to Athen's to perfect his Studies. There he found Gregory Nazianzen, with whom he contracted a most intimate Friendship. After he had been at Athens sometime, he returned into his own Country, about the Year 355, and departed from thence soon after to take a Journey into Egypt and Libya, and visit the famous Monasteries in that Country. He found the Life of these Asceticks so perfect, that he resolved to follow their Example; and when he returned into his own Country, though his Bishop Dianius Ordained him Reader, he retired into a solitary Place in the Province of Pontus, near the Monastery of St. Macrinus, where he led a Religious Life. His Brethren Peter and Naucratius, and many others of his friends, came to see him in this Place, and embraced the same way of living. He made Rules for them, and so became the first Founder of a Monastic Life in Pontus and Cappadocia.  
Dianius, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, was one of the Enemies to St. Athanasius. He had approved the Creeds of Antioch, of Sardica, and Ariminum, made by the Semi-Arians. This obliged St. Basil to separate from his Communion. He was not reconciled to him, till this Bishop declared on his Deathbed that he had always in his Heart believed the Nicene Creed, and ●was through simplicity that he had Signed that of Constantinople.  
After the Death of Dianius, Eusebius was chosen Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. He conferred the Order of Priesthood on St. Basil, who retired soon after into his Solitude because he had some difference with his Bishop, who was Jealous of him. But he was reconciled to him▪ Three Years after▪ and 〈◊〉 so great a Reputation, that after the Death of Eusebius, he was chosen Bishop of Caesarea▪ towards the End of the Year 369. He was no sooner promoted to this Dignity, but he was persecuted by the Emperor V●le●s, who solicited him by Modestus the Praetorian Praefect to Communicate with 〈◊〉, and to embrace the Doctrine of the Arians. But in vain did he use Threaten, for St. Basil 〈◊〉 him with a surprising firmness of Mind, and would never yield to the Will of the Emperor. 〈◊〉 Constancy so much astonished the Emperor Valens, that when he came himself to Caesarea, he 〈◊〉 not undertake any thing against St. Basil but was present on the Day of Epiphany in the Year 〈…〉 the Public Prayers of the Church of Caesarea, and offered Gifts which were received by the Hand of St. Basil. He returned thither once afterward, and had a long Conference with St. Basil about the Doctrine of the Church. But some time after, this Emperor being pushed on by the Arians▪ 〈◊〉 to turn him out of Caesarea. 'Tis said▪ That at the same time when he dictated this Order, his 〈◊〉 Sick● and that his Sickness made him change his Resolution; That he sent also for St. Basil, and at his Arrival, the Emperor's Son was almost recovered▪ but being afterwards baptised by the Arians, 〈◊〉 relapsed into his Sickness and Died. After his Death, Valens would yet have sent St. Basil into Ba●ish●ent, but was hindered, as is reported, because when he would have signed the Order, the Pen 〈◊〉 three times. This Prodigy made the Emperor give over the Prosecution of this Design.  
But St. Basil did not only maintain the Ea●●h, with a wonderful Constancy, but he also endeavoured to 〈◊〉 Peace to the Church. The East and West were then divided about the Cause of Meletius, 〈◊〉 Pau●inus, who were both at the same time Bishops of Antioch, Paulinus communicated with St. Ath●●a●ius, and was supported by the Western Bishops. Meletius was not of their Communion▪ but was a very good Catholic. He was lawfully ordained Bishop of Antioch, and was acknowledged 〈◊〉 such by all the Eastern Bishops. There wanted nothing but his Reconciliation with St. Athanasius, to make him be acknowledged by all the Western Bishops also; for the Western Bishops blindly followed the Judgement of this Bishop. Wherefore St. Basil used all his Endeavours to reconcile him to St. Athanasius and Damasus. He also prayed Meletius to yield to Peace. He obliged him to send 〈◊〉 Deacon Dorotheus to St. Athanasius, who went into the West as far as Rome, but he could not compass his Design of restoring Peace. He returned thither also a second time with a Letter of St. Basil, and he could obtain nothing but a Deputation of some Priests, to comfort the Eastern Bishops, who were tormented with the Persecution of Valens. St. Basil seeing that the Western Bishops would not 〈◊〉 Peace with Meletius, wrote many Letters to them, wherein he complains of their Behaviour. But howsoever it came to pass, he could not compass this Peace between the East and the West, Which was not concluded till Nine Months after his Death.  
In the mean time, while St. Basil laboured with so much Zeal for the Peace of the whole Church, 〈◊〉 own Province was broken in pieces by Dissensions, which occasioned him much Trouble and Sorrow. The Emperor having divided Cappadocia into two Provinces, Anthimus Bishop of Tyana, the Metropolis of that Part; that was newly erected into a Province, pretended that he ought to be the Metropolitan of that New Province, and that he ought to Ordain Bishops for the Cities that depended upon it; and that he ought not to depend upon the Metropolis of Caesarea, no more than the Bishops of the Cities of that New Province. St. Basil did not contest this right with Anthimus in the least; but they were at difference concerning the Extent of this New Province. Anthimus extended the Limits of it further than he ought; and St. Basil opposed his Attempts. They differed chief about one little City called Sasima, which lay upon a great Road. Anthimus pretended that it depended upon his Jurisdiction; and St. Basil to keep it to himself, erected it into a Bishopric, and gave it to his Friend St. Gregory Nazianzen. But Anthimus was already in Possession: which obliged St. Gregory, being a Lover of Peace, to withdraw from the place, in which he could take no Pleasure, and he was very Angry with his Friend for making use of him to maintain his own Quarrel.  
St. Basil had also another Dispute with Theodotus Bishop of Nicopolis. Meletius and this Bishop were invited to come to a Synod which was to be held at Phargama, near Nicopolis. He wrote to Eusebius of Samosata to be there, and sent his Letter by Eustathius of Sebastia. The good Correspondence which St. Basil had then with this last, rendered him odious to Theodotus, and the other Bishops who desired no more to have him at their Synod. When St. Basil knew this Matter, he held a Conference with▪ Eustathius of Sebastia: In which he found that he spoke like a Catholic, and he caused him to sign an Orthodox Confession of Faith. After he had used this Precaution, he came to find out Meletius and Theodotus, and told them what he had done. Theodotus told him, That Eu●… had since denied what he had then approved. St. Basil answered, That he could not believe him so inconstant; but notwithstanding to try him yet anew, he would offer him a very large Confession of Faith, which if he refused to Sign, he would then separate from his Communion. Melcti●s and Theodotus approved of this Proposal, and the last invited St. Basil to come to Nicopolis; but when he was there, he would not permit him to be at the Prayers of the Church, nor Communicate with him at all. St. Basil seeing himself thus affronted without Reason, retired from Nicopolis, and came to Satala, where he Ordained a Bishop at the Desire of the Inhabitants. From thence he went to find out Eustathius, and made him Sign a Confession of Faith, to which he annexed that of the Nicene Creed. St. Gregory Nyssen sided against his Brother St. Basil, as appears by the Letters 256, and 259, of this Saint; where he accuses him of troubling the Peace of the Church, and of laying Snares for him. Some time after, Eustathius of Sebaestia, who, upon St. Basil's account, was engaged in a Quarrel with Theodotus, declared himself openly against St. Basil, joined the Eudoxians, opposed the Faith of the Co●… of 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of th● Holy Spirit. St. Basil understanding this, 〈…〉 himself to ●…, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Letters against Eustathius.  
T●… are the 〈◊〉 Circ●… of St. Basil's 〈◊〉, and the affairs which took ●p the gr●… part of his time while he was 〈◊〉. The 〈◊〉 Circumstances wh●… are of le●● conseq●… may be l●…'d from 〈◊〉 Letters. St. Basil died upon the First 〈◊〉 January▪ in the Year 3●9.  
The Letters of St. Basil are the most learned and the most 〈◊〉 of all his Books, and perhaps of all Ecclesiastical Antiquity. They are written with an ●…ble Purity▪ Majesty and El●…, and contain an infinite number of things. There 〈◊〉 may see all the History of his time, 〈◊〉 to the Life, the different Characters of 〈◊〉 's Tempers▪ the contrary Interests of each Party▪ and the Motives which acted both sides, and the 〈◊〉 which they made use of 〈◊〉 carrying 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Designs. The State of the Eastern and Western Churches is there described, in lively ●…d 〈◊〉 Colours. He handles an infinite number of Questions of Doctrine, of Discipline and of Morality; which he decides with much Learning and Prudence. There one may find many Letters of Consolation or Exhortation, which are very Edifying and Pathetical, and even those which are only Complimental are full of Wit, and of very solid and useful Thoughts. They are indeed at present 〈◊〉 so great Confusion, that 'tis not an easy thing to read them in order with Delight, and so 〈◊〉 translated, that they are almost wholly disguised, and can hardly be known by those that understand the Beauty of the Original Language. I have beg●n a Translation of them in Latin and French, which I 〈◊〉 perhaps Publish some time or other with Notes. In the mean time, I shall now make some Extracts out of them, according to my usual Method. But to make them more useful, I have ranked the Letters according to the Order of Time. If they are set according to the Subject Matter, they may be divided into Historical and Doctrinal; Letters of Discipline▪ Apologetical Letters, Letters of Instruction or Morality, Letters of Consolation, and Letters of Civility: But I thought it more proper to follow in the Body of our Book the Order of Time; which I have examined as exactly as I could. They shall be divided then into Two Classes: The First, shall comprehend the Letters that were written in his Solitude, before he was Bishop: And the Second▪ which will contain f●r the greater Number, shall consist of those which were written after he was Bishop, which I shall dispose in their Order of Time from Year to Year, as near as I can:  
The First of the Letters written by St. Basil in his Solitude, is the 19th. directed to St. Gregory Nazianzen; wherein he acquaints him with the Resolution he had taken up to live retiredly, and describes the place which he had chosen for his Retreat, very Pleasantly, and very Elegantly. This Letter was written in the Beginning of the Year 358.  
St. Gregory having received this Letter, did not approve of the Habitation which his Friend ●●d chosen, and from the Description which he had given of it, he imagined that it was a very Melancholy and Frightful place. He signified also his Thoughts of it in his 7th. Letter to him, and rallies pleasantly upon the Description he had sent of it. Wherefore St. Basil having a mind to draw him to himself by some more powerful Motive, represents to him in his 2d. Letter, which is commonly put the 1st. the Manner of Life which he had embraced.  
He complains at first, That he could not yet reap all the Profit from his Retirement which he could have wished; which Unhappiness he attributes to the Habits that he had contracted while he lived 〈◊〉 the World; from which he could not yet disengage himself: And he desires him to believe, that he describes in his Letter the manner after which he should live, and not that in which he did live at prosent. After this, he represents the Miseries of a Secular Life, and the Delights of Solitude. He shows how profitable this Retreat is, provided one's Mind be not too much fastened to the World, after he is parted from it. He gives an account of the Exercises of so Happy a State; which consist in Prayer, in labouring with our Hands, in Reading and Meditation upon the Holy Scripture; and gives Rules concerning the Discourse, the Habits, the Eating and Behaviour of a Monk. This Letter was written in the Year 358.  
There are also some other Letters of St. Basil, which are very near upon the same Subject, and were written probably about the same time. The Four first, which are not ranked in the other Classis, are of this Number.  
The First, is addressed to one Chilon; who having renounced the World, had written to St. Basil, to desire some Advice of him, how he should behave himself; which is done in this Letter. He exhorts him to persevere in his Resolution: He Counsels him not to Aspire at first to the highest Perfection of a Religious Life, but to ascend to it by degrees. He particularly recommends to him to abide in Solitude, without going out of it upon any pretence whatsoever, though it were even to be present at the Instructions of the Bishops in the Public Assemblies of the Church.  
After this Letter, follows a short, but very Instructive Exhortation to Young Monks; which contains in few words many Precepts of a Religious Life.  
The Second Letter, is to a Monk who had abandoned his Solitary state, to return into the World, that he might put himself in a way of Trade. He deplores his Fall, and Exhorts him to acknowledge it, and to do Penance for his Fault.  
The Third, is to a Monk of Jerusalem, who had given a horrible Scandal by carrying away a Virgin consecrated to Jesus Christ. He sets before his Eyes the Happiness of that state from which he was fallen, and the Misery of that to which he was reduced by his Crime. He charges him very sharply for his Enormity, and covers him with Confusion for his Infamous Action. Nevertheless, he concludes with Exhorting him from the Consideration of Death and of Judgement, to beg Pardon of his Fault, to Turn and Repent.  
The Fourth of these Letters is addressed to a Virgin, who being consecrated to God by a Vow of Virginity, had suffered herself to be corrupted by a Miserable Man. He represents to her the Enormity of her Crime. He endeavours to terrify her by the Fear of Judgement and of Hell, and gives her hopes, that she shall obtain Mercy, if she will change her Life and Repent.  
The 411. Letter, aught to be joined to this. It contains many Precepts of a MonastickLife; which, for the most part, are drawn out of the Holy Scripture.  
The 165. Letter to Eustathius the Philosopher, was written some time after St. Basil's Retirement. He acquaints him, That since his return from Athens, he had searched for him in all places, but could not meet with him; which Unhappiness he Attributes to the Providence of God, and not to Fortune.  
The 166. to one named Julianus, seems to have been written about the same time. He says, That 'tis in a Man's Power to lead a happy and quiet Li●e, by governing his Passions, and submitting his Mind to all Events that can happen. Neither Loss of Goods, says he, nor Sickness of Body, nor any other troublesome Accidents of this Life can hurt a Virtuous Man, while he designs to walk in the Ways of God, and Meditates upon another Life, who submits to all the Troubles and Crosses of this World; For those who are wholly taken up with the Cares of this Life, are like those Carnivorous Birds, who stoop down to the Earth with the Beasts, though they have Wings to fly in the Air.  
The 167. Letter to Diodorus a Priest of Antioch, was also written about the same time. In it he commends the Two Books which this Author had sent him. He says, That the Second was very acceptable to him, not only because of its Brevity, but because of the many Thoughts, Arguments and Answers which it contained in a very good Method. He commends the plainness of its Style, which is agreeable, says he, to the Profession of a Christian, who ought much rather to write for the Public Good, than to acquire Glory to himself. As to the First Book, which was composed by way of Dialogue, he says, That though it was more adorned with Figures, and had greater Variety of Matter; yet he found it tedious to read, and difficult to understand. He takes notice, That the Calumnies of Heretics, and the Defences of the Catholics are very useless, and interrupt the Thread of his Discourse.  
To this we may join the 168. Letter to Eunomius, wherein he rallies this Heretic, who boasted of understanding all things, by putting to him many difficult Questions about things Natural, to which 'twas impossible to Answer.  
The 41. and 42. Letters to Maximus the Philosopher, who is, in all probability the same that got himself Ordained Archbishop of Constantinople, were also written by St. Basil, when he was in his Solitude.  
The 1st. is concerning the Opinions of Dionysius of Alexandria. He accuses him of Writing some things in his Books, which seemed to be the Seeds of the Error of the Anomaeans: yet he confesses that he did it not designedly; but that in disputing against the Heresy of Sabellius, he had too much inclined to the opposite Error, and in proving the Distinction of the Persons, he seemed to admit a Difference of Nature between the Three Divine Persons. After this, St. Basil explains his own Judgement concerning the Trinity. He does not condemn the Opinion of those who say, That the Word is like to God the Father in Substance; nor even of those who say simply, That he is like to his Father, Provided they add, That he is in nothing unlike to him; because this Sense falls in with their Opinion who call him Consubstantial. He adds, That this last term is less capable of an ill sense. He condemns the Bishops of the Council of Constantinople, who contented themselves with declaring, That the Son was the Image of the Father, without adding, That he was in nothing unlike. At last, St. Basil invites Maximus to come and see him, and directly charges him with having too great an Affection for the City and the Grandeur of this World. This Letter was written after the Council of Constantinople in 360.  
In the 2d. Letter to the same Philosopher, he commends him, and recommends to him the love of Virtue.  
The 2d, 3d, and 33d. Letters addressed to St. Gregory, who was gone to Nazianzum, were much about the same time.  
In the 2d. he observes, That no words are capable of expressing our Thoughts of God, and Admonishes St. Gregory to use all his Eloquence in the Defence of the Truth.  
In the 3d. Letter, he pleasantly rebukes St. Gregory, for writing none but Laconic Letters to him; that is to say, such as were short and concise.  
'Tis plain, That the Letters of St. Basil to the Emperor Julian, if they are Genuine, were written by this Saint in his Retirement, since the Death of Julian happened before he came out of his Solitude. He had known this Prince at Athens, where they had Studied together under Libanius. After he was returned to his own Country, he received a very obliging Letter from this Prince, who had not yet forsaken the Christian Religion. This Letter is the 206. But after he had renounced Christianity, he did no longer treat St. Basil after the same manner: but on the contrary, he wrote a Proud Letter to him, and commanded him to send him 1000 l. of Gold for restoring of the Temples. This Letter is the 207th. among those of St. Basil, to which is subjoined the Answer that Julian made when he had read the Book of Apollinarius, I have read it, understood it, and condemned it. But it appears, that those words were added to the rest of the Letter, to which they have no reference at all. The Two following Letters contain the Answer of St. Basil to this Letter of Julian; yet they are not two Answers, nor two different Letters, but one and the same Answer, of which some have made too. Cotelerius hath published a little while ago the whole entire and in one Letter only, from a Manuscript of the King's Library. It is in his Second Volume of the Monuments of the Greek Church. This Sentence which is put at the beginning of the First, You did not understand what you read, for if you had understood it, you would never have condemned it, was added after the writing of this Letter, as that was, which is at the end of Julian's Letter. I doubt also, whether the Answer that is attributed to St. Basil, be truly his; and I know not but it may be written by some other Person, who would make a trial how he could Answer Julian's Letter to this Father: And indeed, the Style of this Letter is not so Elegant as that of the Letters of St. Basil. He writes to Julian, That he is horribly vexed, when he thinks that he is clothed with the Royal Purple, and that his infamous Head is adorned with a Crown. Is it credible that St. Basil should write to an Emperonr with so little respect, and should treat him as a ridiculous, senseless and impertinent Person, as the Author of this Letter does? In short, There is at the end of this Letter, an Inference drawn from an Opinion of Julians, which is extremely wide, and has scarce any sense, and not according to the Genius of St. Basil, who is nice and exact in his Thoughts, and moderate in his Expressions.  
As to the 205. Letter addressed to the same Emperor, 'tis evident that it is Supposititious. The Title of it is, To Julian the Apostate. Would St. Basil ever have directed a Letter to him with this Inscription? 2. The Style of this Letter is very different from that of St. Basil. 3. This Letter is nothing but a Confession of Faith. Now to what purpose should St. Basil send a Confession of Faith to Julian? 4. He adds to this Confession of Faith, the Invocation of Saints, and Worship of Images. Who ever heard that these Points were put into the Confessions of Faith of the First Ages? 5. He says, That he Honours and Adores the Images of the Saints, because it is an Apostolical Tradition. Would St. Basil have spoken thus? And is it not plain that this Letter is the Work of some Greek, who lived after the Seventh Council?  
The Six Letters published by Hoeschelius, which are the 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, being written to different Persons, were also composed by St. Basil while he was in his Solitude. They contain nothing remarkable.  
The 141 Letter of St. Basil was written in the Year 363. after the Difference which he had with his own Bishop. The Inhabitants of Caesarea complained that he had retired after his Ordination, and recalled him with very Importunate Letters. St. Basil wrote to them, to thank them for their Goodness to him, and to give them an account of the Cause of his Retiring. He admonishes them not to suffer themselves to be surprised by the Artifices of Heretics; and for a Preservative against them, he explains the Faith of the Church concerning the Trinity, and answers some Objections which they alleged. He blames those that said only, the Son of God was like his Father; without adding any thing for Explication.  
The 4th. Letter to St. Gregory, is the last of those which St. Basil wrote in his Retirement before he was Bishop. It is directed to St. Gregory Nazianzen; wherein he Exhorts him to be very careful to procure the Choice of a Bishop, in the room of Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, lately Dead, who might be worthy to fill that Bishopric. St. Gregory had resolved to come himself to Caesarea; but for fear lest the giving of his Saffrage in favour of St. Basil should render him suspected, he contented himself with sending Two Letters written in his Father's Name; whereof one was addressed to the Church of Caesarea, and the other to the Council Assembled in that City, wherein he recommended St. Basil as most worthy to Succeed in the room of Eusebius. Some Authors attribute this Letter of St. Basil which we have already mentioned, to Eusebius of Samosata: And indeed, it is not very probable, that St. Basil should so openly pray St. Gregory to do that which looked so like soliciting that himself might be made Bishop.  
We should join to this the Two Letters of St. Basil to Apollinarius, which were published by Cotelerius, if they were Genuine; but they are Forged by the Apollinarians, since St. Basil himself testifies in the 59, 79, and 82 Letters, That he never wrote concerning the Faith to Apollinarius; and that the Letters which were published under his Name, were Supposititious: Which plainly shows, That the Two Letters, which go under St. Basil's Name, and are addressed to Apollinarius, which Treat of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, and which suppose that St. Basil and Apollinarius held a great Correspondence by Letters, are Forged, as well as those of Apollinarius to St. Basil, which contain Errors not only about the Incarnation, but also about the Trinity.  
The Second Class of St. Basil's Letters, aught to be of those which were written after he was Bishop of Caesarea; These are far more numerous and more considerable. The First, are those which he wrote for the Reconciliation of Meletius with St. Athanasius and the Western Bishops.  
To compass this design, he wrote about the End of the Year 369. the 56. Letter to Meletius, to dispose him to enter upon a Treaty about it. He did not openly acquaint him with his Design, lest he should be discovered; but he signified to him, that he desired that he might see him to treat about an Affair of great Importance; but being detained by his Brethren, he sent Theophrastus to communicate it to him. The Secrecy which he observes in this Letter, plainly discovers that this was the First which he wrote about this Negotiation.  
'Tis probable, that about the same time, to conciliate the favour of St. Athanasius, who had written to him immediately after his Promotion; he wrote an Answer to him by Letter 47. wherein he gives him an Account of the share that he had in the Persecution which the Governor of Libya raised against this Holy Pastor; and he acquaints him, That all the Faithful of his Church, looked upon this Governor as an Excommunicate Person; That they would have no Correspondence with him; because 'tis fit, that the Powers who will use Violence, should find themselves unanimously condemned by all the Churches.  
Meletius having signified to St. Basil, that he would willingly hearken to an Accommodation; this Father wrote to St. Athanasius at the Beginning of the Year 379, the 48. Letter; wherein he exhorts him to procure the Peace and Union of the Eastern and Western Churches, and prays him to begin with receiving the Church of Antioch. He supports this Proposal in Three Letters, which in the common Edition are 49, 50, and 51. The 50th. was written at the desire of Dorotheus the Deacon, whom Meletius sent to Negotiate this Affair. In it, he gives great Commendation of Meletius, and says, That all the other Parties which are in the Church of Antioch ought to reunite to him and to those who adhered to him, as to the principal Body of the Church of Antioch; whereof the rest are but separate Members. He assures him, That the West wished for this Reunion, as well as the East; as appeared by the Letters brought from the West by Silvanus. He conjures him afterwards to use his usual Prudence for procuring the Peace of all the Churches. In Letter 51. he exhorts St. Athanasius to write a Letter of Communion to all the Eastern Bishops; and prays him to send it, either by some Persons in his own Name, or even by the Deacon Dorotheus. He assures him That the Bishops are Orthodox, and that they desire to be Reunited to him; and he promises them, That he will not deliver his Letter, till he has received their Answers, and those Assurances that he shall desire.  
St. Athanasius having received these Letters, would not write at all, but he sent one of his Priests called Peter, to dispose their Minds to Peace. This Priest was very well received by St. Basil, and he performed his Message as well as he could. But this Affair being of too great Consequence to be so easily determined; St. Basil thought it necessary to write to Pope Damasus. Having taken up this Resolution, he sent the Deacon Dorotheus to Meletius, by whom he wrote the 57 Letter, wherein he tells him his Design which he had of sending this Deacon to Rome, and of desiring some Deputies out of Italy. He prays him, if he thought it convenient, to give him necessary Instructions, and to write a Letter in his own Name, and in the Name of all the Bishops of his Communion, and to direct it to the Western Bishops. He writes at the end of this Letter, That the Affairs of the Church were in the same state; That the Civil Powers would not meddle with them, to restore those that were banished; That Euvippus an Arian Bishop was come, but that he had done nothing yet in Public, though he had threatened to fetch the Bishops of his Party from Tetrapolis and Cilicia, to Condemn the Orthodox.  
Meletius sent back Dorotheus, and thought it necessary for him to go into the West. 'Tis not certainly known, whether he wrote at that time to the Bishops of the West, but 'tis certain that St. Basil then addressed his 220 Letter to Damasus. It has no Superscription, but 'tis easy to see, that 'twas addressed to the Bishop of Rome. He gins with showing the Advantage which that Bishop had to restore the ancient Union between the Eastern and Western Churches: After this, he describes the unhappy State to which the Persecution of the Arians had reduced the Churches of the East. He represents to Damasus, That he might give them Ease and Comfort, by writing and sending Deputies to them, to re-establish Peace and Union in the Church. He remonstrates to him, that what he desired, was not extraordinary, since it had been the practice of the Saints, and particularly of the Church of Rome. He observes to him, That St. Dionysius had formerly Comforted the Church of Caesarea by his Letters, and that he had sent some of his Brethren to deliver Christians from Captivity; That now there was more Reason to complain of the Misery of the Church, since not only the Captivity of the Body, but that of the Soul also was to be feared. St. Basil, gave this Letter to Dorotheus, to carry into the West, and he sent this Deacon to St. Athanasius, to confer with him about the means of procuring Peace, that so after he had met with him, he might Embark from Alexandria, to go into Italy. He charged him also with a Letter for St. Athanasius, which is the 52. And tho' in it, he says, That he referred himself wholly to the Prudence of St. Athanasius as to the Management of this Affair, yet he says, That his Advice should be to write to the Bishop of Rome, and to pray him, since there was no probability of calling a Synod, that he would send by his own Authority, Deputies into the East. He observes, That he must choose such Persons as were able to endure the Fatigues of Travelling, and who had much Meekness and Moderation to Correct the Eagerness and Passionate Heats of some of the Bishops of the East: And in fine, who could speak at a fit Season, and accommodate themselves to the Times. He would have them carry with them the Acts of the Council of Ariminum, and an Account of the Transactions in the West, that they may be nulled; That they should come by Sea, without letting any body know of it; That at first they should address themselves to those of his own Communion, before they were pre-engaged by the Associates of Paulinus, the Enemies of Peace: and, in short, That they should condemn the Heresy of Marcellus of Ancyra. This Letter is the 52. At the end, he conjures St. Athanasius to send forthwith the Deacon Dorotheus into the West; that so the Business might be done the next Year, which was 371. He advertises him also, That he must take care to recommend to the Deputies from the West, that they be very Cautious lest they increase Divisions instead of allaying them, and that they prefer to all things the Good of Peace; and that they do not maintain a Schism in the Church of Antioch, out of Affection to some particular Persons.  
The desire of Peace, and the Fear that St. Basil had of bringing Persecution upon the Church, obliged him to be very cautious in his Discourse. Wherefore, though he professed to Believe, and to defend the Divinity of the Holy Spirit; yet he said nothing of it unless he was obliged. And therefore when he was in an Assembly of Bishops held in the Year 370. at the Feast of St. Eupsichius, in the City of Caesarea, he discoursed largely of the Divinity of the Father and the Son, and said nothing almost of the Holy Spirit. Whereupon a Religious Person who was present at this Assembly, accused St. Basil of betraying the Truth by a Cowardice unworthy of a Bishop, and published this Accusation at a Feast where he was present, some time after. St. Gregory Nazianzen, who was one of the Guests at this Feast, endeavoured in vain to defend his Friend; for all the Company blamed him, and at last St. Gregory himself was offended with his Conduct, and wrote to him his Judgement about it in Letter 26. St. Basil having received this Letter by Hellenius, was a little offended with it, and answered him in Letter 33, That he was surprised, that he should so lightly give credit to a Caluminator. He signifies a great Contempt of these kind of Accusations. He invites St. Gregory to come and see him, and says, That what was quickly to come to pass, would serve for his Justification before all the World; because it might be foreseen, that he must suffer for the defence of the Truth, and perhaps should be forced away from his Church and his Country. Which discovers that this Letter was written before the Persecution of Valens, in the Year 370.  
This Emperor had a Design to divide the Province of Cappadocia into two. St. Basil thought that it was his Duty to defend the Rights of his People, and his Church. For this Reason, he wrote to a great Man of his Country called Martinianus, the 376 Letter, to pray him to go to Court and hinder this Division. This Letter was written in the Year 370, as well as the 362, which was plainly written upon the same Occasion. The 309 Letter, wherein he declares, That he continued unshaken, though he had been attacked by the most powerful at Court, refers to the Solicitations which the Perfect Modestus had used to him this Year 370, by Order of the Emperor Valens. 'Tis probable, that the Letter 409, wherein he thanks an Eastern Bishop called Innocentius, for what he had written to him, is also of the same Year; for 'tis likely that this Bishop wrote to him a little after his Ordination, and that St. Basil took no long time to Answer him.  
The Deacon Dorotheus, departed in the Year 371, but his Journey had not all the Success, that might have been hoped for. However, the Western Bishops wrote a Letter to the Bishops of the East, which was sent to them by St. Athanasius, but the Contents are not known. It appears also by the Letters of St. Basil, That there came from the West a Deacon named Sabinus, who carried the Letters of the Bishops of Illyricum, Italy, and Gaul.  
The Eastern Bishops answered the Letter of those of the West, which they received by St. Athanasius, and that which was brought them by Sabinus: There Answers are the Letters 61, and 69. In Letter 61, after they have testified their Joy, that they had, when they understood that the Western Bishops, were all at present United in one and the same Doctrine, they desire of them help and relief in their Miseries, which they describe in a most lively and natural manner. Our Miseries, say they, are known to you, though we should not write them, being published over all the Earth. The Doctrine of our Fathers is despised; The Tradition of the Apostles is overthrown; The new Inventions of some particular Persons prevail in the Churches; They treat Religion as Sophisters, not as Divines: The Wisdom of this World Domineers, and the Glory of the Cross is abhorred; The true Pastors are driven away, and ravening Wolves are entered into their places, who tear the Flock of Christ in pieces; The Churches are abandoned; The Deserts are filled with desolate Christians; The Old Men sigh when they compare the times passed with the present, and the Young Men find themselves miserable, because they never saw the Good things of which they are now destitute. These things ought to affect those who have any love for Jesus Christ and his Church: But what we have said of them, is very far short of the Truth; wherefore, if you have any Charity for us, if you be of the same Mind, if you have any Bowels of Pity, come speedily to our help; Arm yourselves with Zeal for Piety, and deliver us from this Raging Tempest. At the end of this Letter, they make a short Confession of their Faith; wherein they acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is adored together with the Father and the Son: And they conclude with the Approbation of what the Western Bishops had done in Conformity to the Canons.  
The Second Letter upon the same Subject, is written in the Name of Meletius, Eusebius of Samosata, St. Basil, and many other Eastern Bishops, to the Bishops of Italy and Gaul, that is the 69th. among those of St. Basil. There they give a Description of their Miseries yet more large, and more moving than the former, and conjure the Western Bishops to help them and bring them relief; and to send to them speedily a great number of Deputies, who may take their Seats in a Synod, hoping by this means, that they may restore the Faith of the Council of Nice, destroy Heresy, and re unite the Orthodox; who at present are divided in Communion, though they hold one and the same Doctrine. They compare the state of the Churches of the East, to that of Jerusalem, during the Siege of Vespasian; and they say. That as the Jews ruin'd themselves then by their Intestine Seditions, while the Enemy's Army reduced them to the last Extremity; so their Churches were now brought to Desolation, not only by the War of the Heretics, who openly attacked them; but also by the Divisions of the Orthodox: That if they desire Assistance of the Bishops of the West, it was for this particular Reason, That Peace might be restored; and in this, they say, consisted the Relief of their Churches. They conclude their Letter with saying, That they commend and approve the Confession of Faith that was made by those of the West, and that they consented to all that they had lawfully and canonically determined in their Synodical Epistle. These two Letters were sent by Sabinus, who they say, is a Witness of all that they affirm.  
St. Basil wrote particularly by the same Sabinus to Valerianus Bishop of Illyricum, or rather of Aquileia, the Letter 324; wherein he Thanks him for the Charity he had testified in the Letter he had written, and prays him to assist with his Prayers the Eastern Churches, that were afflicted with Heresy and Schism. These are all the Letters of St. Basil written in this Year 371, concerning the Union of the East and the West.  
The Letters which he wrote in favour of Eustathius of Sebastea, against Theodotus of Nicopolis, are also of this Year 371; because he was at Difference with the former in the Year 372.  
The First Letter written upon this Subject is the 26th. addressed to Eusebius of Samosata: He acquaints him, That Meletius and Theodotus of Nicopolis, invited him to be present towards the Middle of June, at a Synod which was to be held at Phargama: He prays St. Eusebius to be present there: He sent him this Letter by Eustathius of Sebastea, and tells him, That he waited for an Answer.  
Eusebius came not to this Synod, but Eustathius was present there, and St. Basil, before he did Communicate with him, would have assurance of his Doctrine; and having had two Conferences with him, he made him agree to the Doctrine of the Church. Being thus persuaded that he was Orthodox, he joined his Prayers with those of this Bishop, to thank God, who had given them Grace to think and speak after the same manner. The Design of St. Basil was to have a Confession of Faith drawn up by Theodotus, or those of his Party, which Eustathius should Sign: But Theodotus without enquiring into the Conduct of St. Basil, refused to admit him to his Synod, because he had communicated with Eustathius. St. Basil being to go into Armenia, passed by a Country House of Meletius called Getasa, where Theodotus was present; and after a free Conference between them, it was agreed, That if St. Basil could make Eustathius sign a Confession of Faith, which plainly contained the Doctrine of the Church, he should then continue in his Communion; but on the contrary, he should separate from him, if he refused to sign that Confession. Meletius and his Priest Diodorus, having approved this Proposal, it was also agreed to by Theodotus, who invited St. Basil to go with him to Nicopolis: But when he was arrived there, he would not communicate with him contrary to his Word which he passed to him; which obliged St. Basil to withdraw, and to go to Satala, there to regulate some Affairs of Armenia, and Ordain some Bishops. He wrote from thence to Count Terentius the 187 Letter; wherein he gives him an account of those Transactions which had passed. Letter 78, is the Confession of Faith which St. Basil caused Eustathius of Sebastea to sign at this time. It contains the Nicene Creed, and rejects the Error of Sabellius and Marcellus of Ancyra. He speaks also of those Differences in Letter 364, to Atarbius.  
He wrote also a little while after, the Letter 239. to Eusebius of Samosata; whom he acquaints with the disgraceful manner wherein he was treated by Theodotus. He says, That he had also a Conference with Eustathius, and that he found him very Catholic. He complains, That the Bishops of the second Cappadocia, lately advanced into a Province, refused to have any Correspondence with him. He rallies his Brother Gregory, and says, It were to be wished that he had a Bishopric that would agree to his Mind; That he is so zealous and watchful, that he could Govern all the Churches of the World; That he was not only capable of Great Things, but that he gave weight to Small Matters, and made Affairs of no Importance, pass for Matters of the greatest Consequence, by his manner of treating of them. He complains of a Bishop named Palmatius, whom Maximus had made use of to Persecute the Church. He invites Eusebius to come and see him, giving him notice that his Presence was necessary to regulate the Affairs of Cappadocia.  
He invites him also by Letter 256, to be present at the Feast of St. Eupsichius, which was the 7th. of September, to Ordain Bishops, and to give him Advice, about the Cause which his Brother Gregory Nyssen had undertaken against him in the Assembly which was held at Ancyra.  
Probably Eusebius of Samosata came not to this Synod of Caesarea, but he sent thither a Bishop named Sabinus, whose Presence comforted St. Basil under the Afflictions which he had met with at Nicopolis, as he acquaints Eusebius by Letter 253; where he excuses the too great Zeal which Theodotus had testified for the observation of the Canons. He says in this Letter, That he passionately wished to see and embrace Eusebius. The Letters 252, 255, 260, were almost at the same time.  
The 254th. is to the same Person, and in the same Year; but it was written before that which we just now mentioned, and at the Beginning of the Year. He writes to him, That Demophilus was upon the Throne of Constantinople, and that he was a Hypocrite; and yet that he had reunited the two Parties; and that some Neighbouring Bishops were joined with him. He deplores the miserable state of the Eastern Churches; and says, That God only knows when there Condition may be better.  
We have already seen that St. Basil went this Year to Satala, to regulate the Affairs of this Church, and that he Ordained a Bishop there, at the desire of the Inhabitants. He recommends him to them in Letters 296, and 183; and in 185 he writes to the Church of the Parnassians, upon the Death of their Bishop; and in 186, he does with much Eloquence and Christian Charity comfort the Widow of the Praetor Anatheus, upon the Death of her Husband. This Letter may pass for a perfect Pattern of true Christian Consolation.  
Athanasius Bishop of Ancyra, dying in the Year 372, it follows that the Letter 53 of St. Basil which is addressed to him, was at least in the Year 371. He complains in this Letter of the Conduct of this Bishop, who accused him of teaching Errors in his Writings, or subscribing to those of others. The Complaint of this Bishop, made St. Basil apprehend that some Heretic had prefixed his Name to his Works. He declares, That he had written against the Anomaeans, and against those that say, The Holy Spirit is a Creature.  
The following Letter is written to the Father of this Bishop, praying him to admonish his Son charitably, not to defame his Colleague without reason.  
'Tis credible that the Letter 381, addressed to the Suffragans, was also written in the same Year with the preceding Letters, and probably soon after St. Basil was a Bishop. He complains in this Letter, That some neglected to observe the Canons, and to follow the Discipline of the Church in the Ordination of Ministers exactly: He observes, that formerly none were chosen, but those whose Probity was well known, and of whom the Priests and Deacons gave a good Testimony to the Suffragans; and that neither were these Ordained until the Bishops of the Diocese were first advertised of it: He complains, That now the Suffragans did not write to the Bishops; and that they also permitted the Priests and Deacons to choose whom they pleased, without enquiring into their Behaviour. From whence it comes to pass, says he, that there are many Ministers, and but very few who are worthy of their Ministry. To avoid this Abuse, he Ordains, That there should be presently sent to him a List of all the Ministers that are in the Villages containing the Names of those which have been admitted, and an account of the Life which they lead; That they should be reduced to the Condition of Laymen, who should be found incapable, and those who had been admitted by Priests since the time of the first Prohibition; and that for the future, none should be admitted but those whose Life and Conversation had been well examined. In fine, he declares, That those who should be admitted into the Clergy, without his Approbation, should be thrust down to the station of the Laity again.  
The 392 to Amphilochius, was written before he was made Bishop of Iconium, and by consequence towards the End of 371, or the Beginning of 372. 'Tis written in the Name of Heraclides, an ancient Friend of Amphilochius. It acquaints him with the Life which he leads under the Conduct of St. Basil, and invites him to come and stay with them.  
The 319 to Innocentius may be also about the same time. He refuses to charge himself with the Care of the Eastern Churches, which this Bishop would have him to do.  
'Twas probably in the same Year that St. Basil undertook to build a Church and an Hospital in Caesarea. Some would have hindered the going on of this Work; whereupon he writes to Elias Governor of the Province in Letter 372; praying him for leave to proceed in his Buildings. The 373, was written to the same Person in favour of a Receiver, who had neglected to send an Account of his Receipts. In the 305, which is to some Receiver-General, St. Basil determines, That an Oath should not be exacted from the Collectors of Taxes; because these kind of Oaths bring no great Profit to the Receivers, and accustom Men to make false Oaths. In the 304 he writes to the same Person, That the Monks ought to be exempted from paying of Tribute.  
In the Beginning of the Year 372, St. Basil having found out the Frauds of Eustathius of Sebastea, separated from him, and reunited himself to Theodotus. This Separation was begun by two Friends of Eustathius, called Basil and Euphronius, who were sent to St. Basil, as Spies upon him. These two Persons having created some trouble to this Saint, he wrote about it to Eustathius, and prayed him to put a stop to the Disorder which they caused in his Diocese. This Letter is the 307, which I believe was written to Eustathius of Sebastea, though some think that it was addressed to another Eustathius Bishop of Himeria, to whom the preceding Letter is addressed. Some time after, Eustathius being invited to a Council held by St. Basil, not only refused to come thither himself, but hindered all those of his Party from going, and declared himself in his Discourses, and in his Letters, against St. Basil. He had also the Insolence to write him a Letter, wherein he declared, That he had withdrawn from his Communion, and published a Writing or Manifesto against him; wherein he accuses him of the Error of Apollinarius. St. Basil understanding these things, acknowledged, but too late, that he had too easily given Credit to one of the greatest Cheats in the World. He began to commend the Prudence of Theodotus of Nicopolis; and to reconcile himself perfectly to him, he wrote the Letter 196, wherein he gives him a faithful account of all that we have said, and testifies the regret he had for trusting to this Impostor. He observes, That he had published a Confession of Faith, which was perfectly agreeable to the Opinions of Arius, and accuses him of re-ordaining Bishops.  
A Bishop of Cilicia named Theophilus, joined himself with Eustathius, against St. Basil. 'Tis to him that Letter 310. is addressed; wherein St. Basil acquaints him, That though he had great Cause of Grief upon his account, yet he would not cease always to remember him.  
The Letter 81. to Eustathius the Physician, was written upon the Separation of Eustathius of Sebastea: for therein he testifies what Trouble he endured for the Separation of those who had withdrawn from his Communion; but yet he was obliged rather to suffer their Division from him, than do any thing against the Truth and against his own Conscience; because there was nothing more dear to him than the Faith, and Hope in Jesus Christ.  
In Letter 82. to Patrophilus, who had objected this Separation to him; He shows him, That his Enemies were the Causes of this Division, and justifies himself from two Accusations which Eustathius had formed against him; Whereof the First was, That he had formerly written to Apollinarius: And the Second, That he had received Diodorus into his Communion. With reference to Apollinarius, he confesses, That he had formerly written one Letter only to him; but he says, That he did not then believe him to be in an Error; That he could not be responsible for his Faults; And, That he had not read his Writings. As to Diodorus, he confesses that he received him into his Communion, as a good Catholic, being Educated by Silvanus of Tarsus, and who could be charged with nothing. He vindicates himself also from the Crimes that were imputed to him in a Writing addressed to Dazizus; and at last, he accuses Eustathius of Sebastea, and describes his Life in such a manner as is very much to his disadvantage. Patrophilus having received this Letter, sent St. Basil word that he would not separate from him. St. Basil thanks him in Letter 85, and admonishes him, That for keeping Peace, we must make choice of such Persons with whom we may be United; and that we are obliged to break with some Persons with whom Peace cannot be had.  
But St. Basil did not only defend himself by Letters written to his Friends; but he wrote also a very smart. Letter upon the same Subject to Eustathius, which is the 79. There he gives an Account of his Conduct and his Doctrine, during the whole time of his Life: He shows him, That he could not be accused without Injustice, for having written almost Twenty Years ago to Apollinarius: He takes Eustathius himself for a Witness of his Faith, and asks him, If he could accuse him of promoting any Error in the Conference which he had with him. He accuses him of being the Disciple of Arius and Aetius. At last, he observes, That the true Cause wherefore he had made this Separation, was not because of the Letter which St. Basil wrote to Apollinarius, as is pretended; but because his Communion might be prejudicial to those who would acquire Favour and Authority.  
'Twas at the beginning of this Year, that St. Basil wrote to his Brother Gregory Nyssen, upon a Complaint that he had against him. He acquaints him in Letter 44, That he was surprised, that there were three Letters written to him, under the Name of his Uncle Gregory, which were none of his. He gives him to understand, That he would come and see him, and the Bishops his Friends, provided they would receive him Honourably. The 45 and 46, are to this Uncle Gregory, upon the same Difference.  
The Letter 43, goes under the Name of St. Basil, and is addressed to the same St. Gregory Nyssen, in the Editions of St. Basil: But 'tis in the Second Volume of St. Gregory Nyssen, under the Name of that Father, and is addressed to their Brother Peter; and indeed, it has more of the Style of St. Gregory, than of St. Basil. The Author of it, explains with much Subtlety, the Difference between the words Hypostasis, and Essence; and shows, That Essence signifies that which is common to the Three Divine Persons; and Hypostasis, that which is peculiar to each Person.  
The Letter 263, to Eusebius of Samosata, was written before Easter, in the Year 372. It contains excuses for not writing to him so often as he would. St. Basil fell sick about Easter, and was afflicted with a Fever, which tormented him till Winter, as appears by the Letters 257 and 258, written at the same time, to Eusebius of Samosata, and by 270, 271, to Antiochus.  
This same Year the Persecution of the Arians was begun anew more fiercely than ever. St. Basil speaks of this Persecution in his Letter 5. to Eusebius, wherein he acquaints him, That 'twas raised against the Catholics of the Church of Tarsus, which was the Centre of Unity to Isauria, Cilicia, and Cappadocia; That the Church was ruined by desperate Persons, and that all things went on from bad to worse, while the Catholics were amused, and did nothing but look on.  
Eusebius answered him, That they must write again to the Bishops of the West, to desire of them some Relief. St. Basil wrote also about it to Meletius, without whose Advice, he would undertake nothing. This Letter is the 58, wherein he complains, that Anthimus, Bishop of Tyana, would have Ordained one Faustus, in the room of a Bishop whom St. Basil had Ordained in Armenia. He sent this Letter by Sanctesimus, whom he charged also with a Letter to Theodotus, wherein he complains of the Ordination of Faustus. This Letter is the 195. Afterwards, he gave to the same Person, three Letters: The First for the Priests of Antioch; the Second for the Monks of that City; and the Last for Pelagius of Laodicea. These Letters are the 199, 200, and 312. There is also a Letter upon the Ordination of Faustus, addressed to Poëmenius, Bishop of Satala, which is the 313.  
A little while after, he wrote to Meletius the Letter 59, wherein having defended himself from the Accusation of Eustathius, who accused him of the Errors of Apollinarius; he says, That he had received Information, that it was resolved at Court, to deliver him up to the Fury of his Enemies; but that this Order was suspended for some time.  
He earnestly prays Meletius to answer the Letter which he had written to him by Sanctesimus; and to send him a Letter for the Bishops of the West, Signed by those who were united with him in Communion and Judgement. He signifies, that the Western Bishops must be advertised not to receive into their Communion indifferently, all those that come from the East.  
The Letter 273, to the Priest Antiochus, who was Nephew to Eusebius of Samosata, which Father Combefis believes to be directed also to Meletius, is upon the same Subject. He prays him to Order, together with the Deacon Dorotheus, what must be done for a Reunion with the West. He Counsels him to dictate the Letter himself, that was to be sent thither. He says, That he had written some time ago to the Bishops of Illyricum, of Gaul, and Italy, by the Deacon Sabinus; but he adds, That it would be convenient to send one into the West, in the Name of a Synod of the East. As to what concerns Athanasius, he says, That he is very well inclined to Peace; but he can do nothing, unless Letters of Communion be sent to him: Moreover, That he does ardently desire the Reunion, and will do all that's possible for him to procure it. This Letter was written before Easter. He signifies, that he waited for his Answer.  
'Twas at this Time, and upon this Occasion, that Letter 70 of St. Basil, was written, addressed to the Western Bishops, wherein he prays them to inform their Emperor of the Miseries which the Orthodox suffered in the East, and to send them Deputies. This Letter was to be carried by a Priest named Dorotheus.  
While Matters were thus ordered in the East, St. Basil, who was now recovering, as appears by the Sixth Letter to Eusebius of Samosata, fell sick again in Winter. He speaks of this Sickness in his Seventh Letter, and excuses himself for not visiting St. Eusebius from the sharpness of the Winter, and the Death of his Mother. He deplores in this Letter, the unhappy State of the Church, and says, That some would have placed Arians at Ancyra and Neocaesarea, in the room of the Orthodox, but that at last, they had left the Churches in tranquillity.  
In the mean time, Evagrius, a Priest of Antioch being returned from the West, brought a Letter, which he would have obliged the Eastern Bishops to Sign; saying, That those which they had written before, were not approved in the West. St. Basil having received Advice of this, wrote to Eusebius of Samosata by his Eighth Letter. There he speaks against Eustathius of Sebastea, and inquires if he was to be present at the Ordination of a Bishop for the City of Iconium, which had formerly depended upon his Metropolis, but did not now since the Division of Cappadocia.  
He wrote also at the same time to this Evagrius; who was come from the West, and who had written to him, that he was suspected, because of his Communion with Meletius. St. Basil answered him by Let●●r 342. That he wa● very little troubled ●t what the World thought of him, but that he would labour hard for Peace; and Exhorts Ev●gri●s to do the same. He signifies to him, That he was troubled to understand by Dorotheus, That he would not Communicate with Meleti●●'s Party. He declares to him, That as things now stand, h● could not send any body into the West.  
He writes the same Account of the Journey to Rome, to that Dorotheus, whom he had charged with Letter 70. He could not forbear taking Notice, how angry he was with the Pope, and saying, That his Brother Gregory, was not a proper Person to be deputed into the West, because he was too simple to have any thing to do with a Proud Man, and one exalted in Dignity, who by consequence would hardly have patience to hear him speak the Truth. This Letter is the 150. The Priest went to R●…e, however, as appears by L●tter 321.  
In the mean time, Eusebius of Samosata, who passionately desired the Peace of the Church, believing that St. Basil neglected to labour in it, wrote a Letter to him, wherein he complains of two Things: First▪ That he had not come to see him: Secondly, That he had abandoned, as one may say, the Church to its Enemies, by his Slothfulness and Negligence. St. Basil answered him, by Letter 262, That he could not come to see him, ●…ause of his Sickness, and that the thing which hindered his Good Success, was not the want of Care; but because the Bishops did not agree among themselves, about Matters of Consequence, and he alone could not regulate Affairs, since the Canons did not allow one Bishop alone, to make Regulations of this Nature.  
The Letter 265, is almost upon the same Subject. He wrote to him, That he ardently desired Peace, but than it must be a real one. He advises him to take heed of those that seem to be Catholics, and yet are not. He declares to him, That he would never Communicate with those who did not receive the Nicene Faith, or who believed that the Holy Spirit was a Creature, because he was not willing to approach the Altar, with a Heart full of Dissimulation and Hypocrisy, that for this Reason, he had withdrawn from the Communion of Euvippus; That they ought to be treated with all mildness, who had not received this Faith; That we should invite them to own it, and show great Charity and Moderation to them: but that we ought never to be Trimmers, nor remain Neuters in Matters of Faith.  
About the End of this Year, the Church of Antioch being afflicted with a rough Persecution, he wrote Letter 60, to comfort it. He proposes the Nicene Creed, as the Rule of Faith. He says, That the Divinity of the Holy Spirit was not there expressly▪ determined, because it was not then directly opposed, but that we ought to condemn all those who admit a Creature in the Trinity.  
The Letter 62, to the Church of Neocaesarea, is also of the same Nature; he Comforts it upon the Death of its Bishop. It was written before the foregoing Letter, and at the beginning of the Year. There are some other Letters of St. Basil, which probably were written the same Year 372, that have not so much reference to History.  
We may place in this Number, the Letters 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, and 279, to the Governor Modestus, who began to be his Friend about this time. He prays him in this last, to preserve the Exemptions of Priests and Deacons.  
We may place also in this time, the Letter 86, to Bosphorus, wherein St. Basil gives an Account of the Difference which he had with his Predecessor, Dianius, Bishop of Caesarea. He says, That he had not anathematised him, but that he was extremely troubled, when he understood, that this Bishop had Signed the Creed of Constantinople; and that for this Cause, he separated from him, but that he returned to his Communion before he died, when he declared, That he had Signed this Creed by Surprise, and without knowing any evil by it.  
There is another Letter, wherein he speaks of this Bishop Bosphorus. It is Letter 300, addressed to the Nuns. There he confutes those who accused him of not receiving the Nicene Creed. He approves it, and yet confesses, that there are Catholics who do not allow of the Word Consubstantial, because they believe that it has an ill Sense. He says, That they ought to be pardoned, because this Term did very much displease the Bishops, who condemned Paulus Samosatenus. He explains the good Sense of this Word, and the distinction of Hypostases. Lastly, He proves the Divinity and Equality of the Father and the Son.  
St. Peter of Alexandria, having Succeeded St. Athanasius, in the Year 373, St. Basil did not fail to write to him immediately after his Promotion to the Bishopric. This Letter is the 320. He Congratulates his Exaltation, and exhorts him to follow the Footsteps of St. Athanasius.  
Soon after this, Peter was forced away, and the Church of Alexandria was persecuted most violently by the Arians. Immediately, St. Basil comforts them in a Letter, wherein he deplores their Misery. This Letter is the 71.  
Amphilochius was Ordained Bishop of Iconium at the End of the Year 372, as appears by the Eighth Letter of St. Basil. 'Twas therefore towards the End of the last Year, or rather at the Beginning of this, that St. Basil congratulated him by Letter 393, and 'twas certainly in 373, that he invited him by Letter 344, to the Feast of St. Eupsichius, which was September the 5th.  
The 395, to the same, is also of the same Year. He acquaints him, That he had finished the Book of the Holy Spirit.  
The Letter 363, to Eusebius of Samosata, was written before Easter of the same Year, during the sharp Winter-Season. St. Basil acquaints him, That he was dangerously Sick.  
Towards the End of this Year, St. Eusebius of Samosata, was banished into Thrace, and St. Basil wrote to him the Letters 9, and 251, to Comfort him in his banishment; and the Letter 269, to his Nephew Antiochus, who accompanied his Uncle. The Clergy of Samosata, being troubled by the Arians, and by the Division of some particular Persons, he Comforts them, and Exhorts them to Peace by Letter 280, and praises the Senate of that City, by Letter 294. He wrote also to Otreus, Bishop of Melitine, the Letter 316, where he speaks of the Banishment of Eusebius.  
It was towards the End of this Year, that St. Basil wrote to the Bishops of the Seacoasts, and of the Isles, the Letter 77, wherein he complains, that they had sent no body to him for Relief in their M●series▪ and prays them to send their Deputies and Letters of Communion. 'Twas also about the same time, that he wrote the Letter 322, upon the same Subject to Elpides. We may place also in the same time, the Letter 87, which he wrote to a Heretical Woman called Simplicia, who concerned herself to make Remonstrances to him. He tells her with some warmth, That it does not belong to her to judge: That he expected his Judgement from God. He adds, That he should not want Witness to justify his Conduct, and that he would not make use of Slaves or Eunuches, whose Testimony ought not to be taken. He gives a dreadful Character of the Eunuches of his time.  
We cannot find a Year wherein we can better place, than in this, the Letter 184 to Palladius, and to ●…centius, Priests and Monks. He informs them, That he is a lover of Peace. He prays God to restrain the Authors of Division, and recommends himself to their Prayers.  
St. Basil being recovered of his Sickness, which had tormented him during the two Winters of the Years 373 and 374, went into Pisidia and Isauria, to regulate the Affairs of those Countries, as it appears by Letter 272. It was before this Journey that he wrote to Amphilochius, the Letter 396, wherein he acquaints him with his Disease, and prays him to delay their meeting for some Days; so it was also in the same Winter, that he wrote the first Canonical Letter to Amphilochius, which he could not send to him because of his Sickness; and St. Amphilochius having sent to him some more Questions, wherein he desired to be informed, St. Basil answered him by the Second, written in the beginning of the Year 374▪ The last of these Letters was probably written towards the end of this Year, after St. Gregory was retired from Nazianzum. We shall speak severally of these Letters.  
The Affairs which he had in Pisidia, concerned the Churches of Isaurus or Isauria, which had been ●…embred from their own Province, to be joined to the Churches of Pisidia and Lycaonia. St. Amphilochius, who was Bishop of Iconium, the Metropolis of Lycaonia, had written about it to St. Basil, and prayed him to come thither. This Saint, before he went into that Country, acquainted him by Letter 406, That he did well to take Care of these Churches; but yet he did not approve of the Design which he had of sharing them amongst many Bishops, lest the Dignity of a Bishop should thereby become contemptible. He says, That it would be better to choose one Man worthy of a Bishopric, who might take some Priests to his Assistance, than thus to divide a small Territory into many Bishoprics. He advises him to place Parish Priests in the Towns where there had formerly been Bishops, before any Bishop was Ordained, lest if there should be one Ordained before, he would not approve of this Regulation. In fine, he admonishes him to confine the Church of Isauria within its own Bounds. He adds, That the Affairs of the Church of Nyssa are in the same Condition, and that some of his Enemies were gone to Court. He subjoins a Question of Doctrine about the Opinion of Philo, who affirms, That Manna had all sorts of Tastes. He says, That this Opinion was grounded only upon a Jewish Tradition. He advertises Amphilochius, that Sympius had sent him a Letter of Communion, and that he had answered him. This Letter is probably the 398, directed to Amphilochius, but it could not be addressed to him, since it appears by this Letter, that he to whom 〈◊〉. Basil wrote, had been at difference with him, and was reconciled some time before, since he thanks him for his Reconciliation.  
In all probability it was about this Affair of Isauria, and some others of the like Nature, that St. Basil went into Pisidia and Isauria; and in the beginning of the Year 374, from Pisidia he went to P●●tus, a Canton whereof called Dazimona, was furiously troubled by Eustathius of Sebastea, who had persuaded many Bishops to separate from the Communion of St. Basil. This Saint, thought to have found one of his Friends called Hilary, in that Country, but he was gone. He signifies in Letter 370, how much he was troubled, that he could not find him. He acquaints him also, That the Anomae●ns and Semi-Arians hated him, and loaded him with Calumnies, because of some Writings that were falsely attributed to him. In his return he went to see his ancient place of retirement, near Neocaesarea, where his Brother Peter dwelled. The Inhabitants of Neocaesarea, believing that he was come to concern himself about their Affairs, conceived an Aversion to him, and accused him of many things. To refute their Calumnies and undeceive them, he wrote to them three Letters upon this Occasion.  
The first, which is the 63, is addressed to the Clegy. He says, That they were to blame, to accuse him of Error, who themselves propagated those things which were asserted by none but Sabellius and Marcellus of Ancyra; That they could have but two Pretences for the Aversion they had testified against him; First, The changing of the way of singing of Psalms; and Secondly, The Affection which he had for those that professed a Monastic Life. As to the last Accusation, he says, That it was very much to his Advantage, that they had this Opinion of him, since there were Monks in Egypt, in Palestine, and in Mesopotamia; and Monasteries of Nuns in all Places. As to the singing of the Prayers of the Church, he maintains, That in that he followed the ancient Custom of the Church; That on the great Festivals the People came before Day into the Church; That after Prayer they stood up to sing in two Chorus', which answered one another; That thus the Night was spent in singing and praying; That at break of Day all the Faithful rehearsed the Penitential Psalms. He maintains, That this Custom took place in Egypt, in Libya, in Phoenicia, in Palestine, in Syria. As to what they objected to him, That this was not in use in the time of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, he answers them, That the Litanies or the Prayers which the Faithful used at Neocaesarea, were no more in use in his time, than this Custom. He adds, That tho' he did not condemn them, yet he thought it more convenient to ask God's Pardon of Sins, by using the Words of the Holy Scripture, than employing those of Men's devising. He maintains also, That it cannot be proved, that the singing of Psalms was not used in St. Gregory's time. He blames them, because they themselves did not observe what this great Man did. He tells them, That he prayed with his head uncovered; That he did not swear at all; That he did not reproach his Neighbour; That he did not bear Envy against him; That he was neither proud nor quarrelsome, etc. whereby he tacitly objects these Faults to those of Neocaesarea. Towards the latter end, he admonishes them to lay aside those Innovations that had crept in amongst them, to admit the three Hypostases in God, not to deny the Name of Jesus Christ, and not to misinterpret the Expressions of St. Gregory.  
The 64 is directed to the most Learned of this Church of Neocaesarea. There he describes the Occasion and Cause which obliged him to come near Neocaesarea. He accuses them of Sabellianism, because they admitted but one Hypostasis. He answers what they had said in a Letter addressed to Anthimus, wherein they alleged a Passage of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, who says, That the Father and the Son were Two by Conception, but One in Substance. He maintains, That this Father did not say this, as an Article of Faith; That this Expression escaped him in the heat of Disputation, and that he never intended to explain his Doctrine about the Mystery of the Trinity exactly, in a Treatise which was made for the Instruction of an Infidel. At Last he asserts, that 'tis not sufficient to say, That there are Three Divine Persons, unless it be added, that each of them has a particular Subsistence by itself.  
The Letter 75 is addressed to all the Faithful of Neocaesarea, whom he treats with more mildness. He complains of them, that having given Credit to the Calumnies which were published against him, they had separated from his Communion. He represents to them, That he was Educated by his Grandmother Macrina, who had been amongst them, and had been Instructed in the Doctrine of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea; and that since that time, he had never Patronised the Arians; That he had Letters from St. Athanasius, wherein he said, That those should be received into Communion, who returned from their Error. St. Basil adds, That he Communicated with all the Orthodox Churches, and so those that would not Communicate with him, were separated from the Church. In short, He does not refuse to be judged by a Synod. He would even submit himself to their Judgement, but upon Condition that they should not lightly believe, but examine the Accusations that were formed against him, and his Defences. There is in this Letter a very fine Sentence against Calumny. The 20th. Letter to Eustathius the Physician, was also written by St. Basil, about the same time, to vindicate himself against those that accused him of teaching, That there were Three Gods, because he admitted Three Hypostases. He justifies this Doctrine, and proves the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. This Letter in some Manuscripts is attributed to St. Gregory Nyssen, and 'tis found among his Works; but 'tis rather St. Basils, than St. Gregory Nyssen's, for it agrees better to him; the Style is more like his, and the Doctrine is different from that of St. Gregory; since the Author of this Letter maintains, That the Soul of Samuel did really come from the Invisible State to speak unto Saul; and St. Gregory expressly teaches the contrary in his Book of the Witch of Endor. In the 382, written to Olympas, he complains, that his Enemies had written against him, and had imputed to him the Error and the Writings of Apollinarius. He confesses, That this Man was a Heretic. A Bishop named Eulancius had taken Part against him with those of Neocaesarea; but he came to himself at last, and wrote to St. Basil, whom he thanks by Letter 281. He defends himself also from the Calumnies of Eustathius, in Letter 346 to Genethlius.  
St. Basil being returned to Caesarea, received there Letters from the East, wherein they acquaint him, that Paulinus' Party had received a Letter from the West, which confirmed to him the Bishopric of Antioch. This Letter so raised the Spirits of those of that Party, that they would have forced every body else to Sign a Confession of Faith, that they might be reunited with them. They did also shake Count Terentius, who had formerly been of Meletius' side, and would have obliged him to Consent to this Union. St. Basil being informed of this News, wrote immediately to him the Letter 349, to persuade him not to abandon Meletius. He says, That those of the West were ignorant of the State of the Eastern Churches, and that they knew not the Reasons which St. Athanasius had to Communicate with Paulinus. He declares, That he accuses no Man; That he desires nothing but Peace; That he congratulates those who had brought these Letters from Rome; but that he could not forsake Meletius and his Church, to join with a Party that had caused the Schism. Lastly, He refutes the Opinion of those of that Side, who admitted but One Hypostasis in the Trinity.  
He sent an Account immediately to Antiochus, who was at Samosata, of all that had been done since the beginning of this Year, and a Relation of what he had learned from Antioch: This Letter is the 272. About the same time, the Priest Dorotheus, who was gone into the West, contrary to the counsel of St. Basil, returned into the East, very much dissatisfied with the manner of Treatment that he had met with from Damasus; who reckoned Meletius and Eusebius of Samosata among the Arians. Peter of Alexandria who was then at Rome, wrote about it to St. Basil, signifying to him, That he was troubled that he had received no News from the East, and that Dorotheus had not satisfied the Bishops of the West. St. Basil answered him by Letter 321, wherein having excused himself for not writing to him before, he complains of the Conduct of Damasus, excuses Dorotheus, and justifies Meletius and Eusebius of Samosata. Some time after St. Basil advises St. Amphilochius by Letter 403, to send a Man of Gravity and Judgement into Lycia, to inquire into the Inclinations of the Bishops of that Country; because he was assured, that they were for the most part Orthodox, and desired nothing more than a reunion with them. He names to him those whom he certainly knew to be Catholics, to be first consulted. He thanks God that Asia was Purged from the poison of Heresy, and exhorts Amphilochius to take care of his Church. The Letters 402, and 403, to the same Amphilochius, are written in the same Year, before the 5th. of September.  
About the End of this Year, Demosthenes, Lieutenant to the Praetorian Perfect, renewed the Persecution against the Churches of Asia. He caused a little Council to be assembled at Ancyra, wherein he procured Hipsius to be turned out, and Ecdicius the Arian to be Ordained in his room.  
Demosthenes came afterwards to Nyssa, to force away from thence St. Gregory, whom he would have Arrested, under pretence that he wasted the Church's Money. St. Basil thought himself obliged on this occasion to write for his Brother to Demosthenes in the Name of all the Bishops of his Province. He gives him to understand, That if he would treat about the Money, the Treasurers were ready to give him an Account of it; but if he accused him of Ecclesiastical Matters, that he himself would examine it, and that he should not send his Brother to be judged out of his own Country. He wrote also the Letter 358. to Abyrcius, wherein he prays him to assist his Brother. This happened about Christmas in the Year 374; for St. Amphilochius having sent Presents to St. Basil at the time of this Festival, St. Basil thanks him by Letter 404, and tells him, That his Brother was forced to fly.  
Demosthenes was not satisfied with forcing away St. Gregory Nyssen upon the Accusation of a profligate Person, but called a Synod of the Bishops of Galatia and Pontus at Nyssa; wherein he got a Bishop ordained in the room of St. Gregory. From thence the same Bishops went to Sebastea, to place one of their own Party at Nicopolis in the room of Theodotus, who was dead. They chose one Fronto, but the Nicopolitans would not receive him. This happened in the beginning of the Year 375; and St. Basil wrote an Account of it to Eusebius of Samosata by the Letters 264, and 10. In this last Letter he complains of the Pride of the Bishops of the West, and says, That their Faith was suspected by him, since they acted as they had done formerly, with reference to Marcellus of Ancyra. In the Letter 405 to St. Amphilochius, he describes and deplores the Misery of the Churches, and says, That Asclepius was killed because he would not communicate with Heretics. And he does the same in the Letter 348. to Elpidius. He speaks also of the Unhappy State of the Church in Letter 266. In Letter 297 written to those of Chalcis, he exhorts them to continue firm and constant in the time of Persecution; He tells them, That it was violent in the East, and that it threatened Cappadocia. The Letters 298, and 299, to those of Beraea, are upon the same Subject, as well as 303; wherein he comforts the Monks that suffered for the Faith. He says, That their Sufferings shall not be less recompensed than those of the ancient Martyrs. We must join to these the 326, and 327, addressed to Barsus Bishop of Edessa; who was Banished, and the 306 to Eustathius of Himmeria.  
He wrote at the same time the 72 against Eustathius of Sebastea, addressed to the Edessenians. There he describes the lightness and changes of this Heretic; and there he speaks of a pretended Council held at Ancyra at the end of the Year 374.  
The 73 is written against the same Person and at the same time; for there he observes, That it was now Three Years since he was accused by Eustathius. He says, That he was unjustly blamed upon the Account of the Errors of a Person [Apollinarius] to whom he never wrote but once, and that it was now Twenty Years since he did it; That those who accused him, did it to please the Powers, to whom they are, and always have been deyoted; That the true Reason why Eustathius and those of his Party were offended with him, was not because he refused to receive their Suffragans, as they pretended, but because they would please Euzoïus; That they were joined to the Eudoxians, and called the Orthodox Homoousians, though they had formerly made Profession of this Faith, and had also presented it to the Synod of Tyana. Lastly, That they had destroyed the Churches which they had invaded. He concludes this Letter with a Profession of Faith, which rejects the Errors of Arius and Sabellius.  
The Letters 190, 191, 192, are written to the People and Clergy of Nicopolis, to comfort and exhort them in the Persecution which they suffered during this Year 375, after the Death of their Bishop. In the last he declares to them, That they ought not to acknowledge him for their Bishop, whom the Arians had Ordained among them, though he calls himself Catholic, which he cannot be, being Ordained by the Hands of profane Persons, for the Destruction of the Faith: That this was his Opinion, which, if they would hold Communion with him, they should follow; Which he had written to them, says he, not that he disinherited them, but to remove the doubt of some, and that if any Person should get himself Ordained Priest by this Bishop, he should have no hope to continue for the future in this Dignity.  
Poëmius, Bishop of Satala, went after this to visit the Church of Nicopolis, about the end of this Year, or the beginning of the next, and confirmed them in the Resolution of taking a Bishop, and Counselled them to choose Euphronius, Bishop of Colonia. St. Basil approved of this Choice by Letter 193, and admonished them not to irritate those of Colonia, who were mightily troubled for the loss of their Bishop. These he comforted by the Letters 290, 291, wherein, after having praised the Zeal and Affection they had for their Bishop, he shows them, that this Translation was necessary for the good of the Church, and exhorts them not to Contest the Matter with the Church of Nicopolis, since that Church was their Metropolis, and what respected it concerned them also. In the Letter 164 he exhorts the Nicopolitans continually to adhere and submit to the Bishop which had been lately sent them.  
While the Eastern Churches were tossed with these Tempests, those of the West being at last moved with some Compassion for them, sent Priests to Comfort them, and to Testify, that they did Sympathise with them in their Sorrows. St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus, who perhaps had seen the 77th. Letter of St. Basil, did the same. St. Basil thanks the former by Letter 74, which is written in the Name of all the Eastern Bishops, and he continues still to desire their Assistance, not so much against the Arians, as against those who under Sheep's clothing were Ravenous Wolves, and rend the Flock of Christ in pieces without Punishment. He accuses Three Persons in particular. E●stathius of Sebastea is the First; and to render him Odious, he describes all his Life, and says, That he was instructed by Arius, and was one of his most wicked Disciples at Alexandria; That being returned to Caes●rea, and ●eeing himself condemned by his Bishop Her●●genes, he had Signed an Orthodox Confession of Faith, and afterwards was Ordained Priest; but then after the Death of Her●●genes, he went to Constantinople, where he again made Profession of Arianism under Eusebius; That being driven out of this City, he returned into his own Country, where he was forced to retire; That soon after he was made Bishop purely by Chance, and then he presently condemned the Nicene Creed in the Council of A●cyra; That the Party whom he joined with at Seleucia, was known to all Men; That at Constantinople he Consented to the Creed of the Heretics; That at last being gone into the West, he carried from Liberius Communicatory Letters to the Synod of Tyana, by means whereof he was restored; That it was not known what Liberius had obliged him to Sign; but presently after he became the Patron of the Heretics, who opposed the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, and persecuted the Orthodox. The Second whom St. Basil accused to the Western Bishops, was Apollinarius, whom he spared more than he had done Eustathius; yet he says, That he had very much troubled the Churches, because he had so great a Facility of Writing, that he had filled the World with his Books; That in so great a Number of Writings, some Errors could not but creep in; That what he had written of Theology, was not founded upon Scripture, but upon humane Reasoning; That he had written Fabulous Things of the Resurrection; That he hath so perplexed the Doctrine of the Incarnation, that few of his Acquaintance have retained the Form of ancient Doctrine; but on the contrary, almost all of them have busied themselves with useless and contentious Questions. Lastly, Paulinus was very much esteemed by those of the West; yet St. Basil spares him not, for he is the Third Person whom he accuses in this Letter. He leaves it to the Bishops of the West to judge, whether his Ordination was lawful or no: But he adds, That that which vexed the most part of the Eastern Bishops against him, was his following the Error of Marcellus of Ancyra, whereby he maintained, That the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, were but One Hypostasis. He desires Assistance of those of the West against those who followed these Three Men, and prays them to send Letters, wherein they might declare, That those who are of their Party ought not to be received into Communion, until they have renounced their Errors. He concludes with saying, That it were to be wished, that the Eastern and Western Bishops could Assemble together to Consult about those things: But since the present juncture of Affairs would not permit them to do it, and a Business of this Nature would not admit any longer delay, they were content to send some of their Brethren to their Western Brethren, to inform them of that which could not be put into a Letter, and to invite them to assist the Churches of Jesus Christ. Father Combefis says, That it is observed in some Manuscripts, that this Letter was never sent; but we ought not to give much Credit to those kind of Observations made by Transcribers.  
The Letter 325 to St. Epiphanius, is also written to thank him, that he had sent some Priests to Visit and Comfort the Churches of the East: He signifies to him, That he deserved so much the more acknowledgement, because it was a rare thing to find Bishops at that time, who had Compassion on their Brethren. And because St. Epiphanius had written to him, That he was troubled for the Difference which was risen in a certain Country which he calls Eleona, St. Basil answers in this Letter, That he had Reason to wish that this Breach were healed; but that he would not have such People made use of, who were fit for nothing but to embroil Matters, because they were not acted by the Love of God. ('Tis probable that he speaks of Paulinus' Party.) He adds, That there had been already sent into that Country, Palladius, a Priest of Caesarea, and Innocentius, a Priest of Rome, to satisfy the Demands of those of this Country, and determine their Differences, which were probably about the Incarnation; That they had been told, that nothing must be added to the Nicene Creed, but the Doxology of the Holy Spirit; That he would add nothing about the Incarnation, because those Questions transcended the Capacity of his Understanding. He sets it down for a Maxim, That when once Men depart from the Simplicity of Faith, by reasoning about it, than there is no End of the Dispute, and all the Questions which they handle, serve for no other use, but to trouble the Minds of the humble. Afterwards he exhorts St. Epiphanius to join with Meletius, and assures him, That St. Athanasius intended to do it, and that their Union was retarded only by the Malicious Counsel of some particular Persons. He confesses, That he did not Communicate with those that were after Meletius, that's to say, with Paulinus, and those of his Party, not because he thought them unworthy of his Communion, but because they condemned Meletius, in whom there was nothing to be reprehended. He praises St. Epiphanius, because he acknowledged Three Hypostases. He exhorts him to cause his Brethren of Antioch to confess the same thing, if they had not already acknowledged it. He prays him to procure the Peace of that Church, by reuniting the Two Parties. Last of all, He speaks to him about the Errors of a Sect of Heretics, called Magusaeans, concerning which St. Epiphanius had desired of him some Account.  
The Letter 55 to St. Ambrose, was at the same time, and probably was sent by the Deputies, who carried Letter 74 into the West. He writes to him, That he had known of a long time his Judgement, Learning and Virtue; That he blessed God for drawing from the Court, a Man Illustrious for his Wisdom, his Dignity and Eloquence, to charge him with the Government of Christ's Fl●ck. He exhorts him wholly to extinguish the remainders of Arianism, if there was any in his Diocese, and prays him to continue the Friendship which they had begun. These Letters are written at the Beginning of the Year 376. 'Twas in this Year also, that he wrote the Letter 293 to Eulogius, and to the other Bishops of Egypt that were banished into Palestine: 'Tis against Apollinarius and Marcellus of A●cyra, whom he charges with the same Errors which he had spoken of in Letter 74.  
The Letter 295 to the Monks, might also be at the same time, as well as the Letters 337, 338, 339 to Ascolius of Thessalonica.  
The Letter 182 written also in the Name of the Churches of the East to the Western Bishops, was in the Year 377, or 378. For the Eastern Bishops who describe there in a most Elegant manner, the Persecution which they suffered, observe that it had lasted 13 Years: But it could not begin before the end of the Year 364, or till 365. They implore in this Letter the Assistance of the Bishops of the West, which they declare they had in vain expected and desired for a long time.  
We refer to those two last Years of the Life of St. Basil, some Letters of Doctrine and Discipline, the time whereof is not certainly known, but which seem to be written towards the End of his Life. We may place in this Number the 65 to those of Josopolis, which is written against those who affirmed, That Jesus Christ brought a Body from Heaven, reviving hereby the Error of Valentinus, and who attributed to the Divinity of Jesus Christ the Properties of the humane Nature. He refutes their Errors, and proves that Jesus Christ had real Flesh. He speaks also of Redemption by Jesus Christ, and of the Fall of Man by the Sin of Adam.  
The 195 to Diodorus then Bishop of Tarsus, was written before the Second Letter to Amphilochius wherein it is cited at Canon 63. There a Question of Importance is handled, viz. Whether it be lawful for a Man to marry his Wife's Sister after her Death? A Man of St. Basil's Diocese had done it, and alleged for his Justification a Letter of Diodorus who defended his Action. St. Basil answers it in this Letter, and opposes to Diodorus the Custom of the Church which did not at all permit it. He answers a Passage of Leviticus, Ch. 18. which seems to allow those Marriages. He answers, I say, First, That tho' that were so, yet there are many things forbidden in the Gospel, which the Law permitted; and Secondly, That the Levitical Law does not indeed forbidden, but neither does it positively allow these kind of Marriages. He adds, That if it is not lawful to a Son to marry his Mother-in-Law, nor for a Father to espouse his Daughter-in-Law, neither ought it to be allowed to a Man to marry his Sister-in-Law, no more than to a Woman, to marry the Brother or the next-a-kin to her Husband; because Man and Wife are so closely united by Marriage, that the Kindred of one become the Kindred of the other. He would not have them object that Passage of Genesis, Increase and Multiply, because it does not respect the New Testament. He observes, That second Marriages are a Remedy against Fo●●ication, and not an in let to immoderate Lust.  
The following Letter to Parergorius is upon a like Subject. He admonishes this Priest who was 70 Years old, to put away a Maid that lived with him, as was Ordained by the Canon of the Council of Nice. He protests, That tho' he should write to him an Hundred Letters, he should always continue Suspended from his Ministry, till he had put her away; and that if notwithstanding this, he would still intrude upon the Exercise of his Office, without amending this Fault, he should be Excommunicated, and so should those also that received him.  
We may join to these Two Letters, the 76 Epistle of St. Basil, to the Bishops under his Jurisdiction, wherein he reproves a thing which was practised by some of them, who under pretence of Piety, received the Money which was offered them by those whom they Ordained. He condemns this Practice as Simoniacal, and threatens to depose those that should do it for the future. He observes, That those Bishops excused themselves from Simony, because they received not this Money before Ordination, but only after it. But, says he, to receive Money before or after, is always to receive it, and under what Pretence soever they do it, they always make a gain of Spiritual Gifts: Now to do this in the Church of God, wherein we believe, that we have the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; to do this there, I say, is a shameful Traffic. These are the very Words of St. Basil; I add nothing to them.  
The 203, and 204, are addressed to those of Tarsus. In them he Ordains, That the Macedonians in order to their Reception into the Church, should make profession of the Nicene Faith; and he anathematizes all those that believed the Holy Spirit to be a mere Creature.  
The 244 is against a certain Bishop who neglected to Punish a Rape. He enjoins him to cause search to be made after the Maid; to restore her to her Parents; to declare him Excommunicated, who had Ravished her; to throw him out of the Church, him and his Family, for the sp●ce of three Years; not to suffer him to be present at the Public Prayers; and in case he should sculk in some little Village, with the Woman he had Ravished, and the Inhabitants would not deliver them, or would Defend them, that then they also should be interdicted Divine Offices. In the 345, he speaks of a Crafty Man, who being Summoned before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, defended himself with so much Eloquence, that he made himself pass for an Innocent Man. In the 245 he speaks of the manner of Excommunication in his time; he says, That the Sinner ought First to be rebuked privately. Secondly, in the presence of two Witnesses; and Lastly, aught to be accused to the Church; and if he did not then obey, he ought to be Excommunicated. He says, That his Soul was set upon it to separate this Impostor, him and all his Family out of the Church.  
The Letter 289 addressed to Caesarea, a Lady, is about frequent Communion. He gins it with declaring, that it is Good and Profitable to Communicate every Day. He says, That in his own Church there was a Communion four times aweek, on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday, and also on other Days, when the Anniversary of some Martyr is Celebrated; That in former times the Faithful themselves Communicated in their Houses, and that this Custom cannot be blamed. That it is still in use, in Egypt, and at Alexandria, where the Faithful carry the Communion to their Houses; That all the Hermits do the same thing; That we must believe, that the Priest having offered the Sacrifice, and distributed the Eucharist to those that are present, tho' they take it one after another in parcels, yet 'tis always the same. For, says he, in the Church itself, the Priest gives one part of it into the Hands of the Faithful, and they put it into their Mouth; and is not this the same thing, as for them to receive all at once many parts of it from the Hand of the Priest?  
It was in one of the last Years of his Life, that he invited the Bishops of Pontus, by Letter 291, to come to his Synod which he held at the Feast of St. Eupsichius. There is also a Letter, which is the 337, wherein he blames one of his Suffragans, because he did not come to this Synod, and orders him to come thither for the future. In Letter 302 he commends a Lady called Theodora, whom he calls a Nun: wherein he observes, That 'tis an easy thing to embrace that kind of Life which is conformable to the Gospel, but 'tis not so easy to observe it even in the smallest things, to do nothing but to please God, to preserve her Modesty always in all her Conversation and Behaviour, to Eat no more but what is precisely necessary, and to keep nothing that is superfluous: That 'tis not sufficient to attain a perfect Humility, not to be lifted up when we are admired or commended, or when we have some excellency either of Mind or Body; but in order to Perfection, we must preserve an inviolable Purity, we must pray continually and fervently; in short, we must have Charity for our Brethren, a contrite Heart and an humble Spirit; we must manage our Austerities with Discretion, and always have the thoughts of a future Judgement present before our Eyes.  
The 317 to a Bishop named Optimus, contains an Explication of that Passage of Genesis, Whosoever shall kill Cain, etc. where he first gives the natural Sense of it, affirming, that this Passage means only, That whosoever should kill Cain, should deliver him from the Vengeance of God which was seven times more severe than Death. He enlarges afterwards upon the Mystical Sense, and upon the Signification of the number Seven, which he takes to denote Remission of Sins. He finds out seven Sins in the Actions of Cain, and seven Punishments of his Sins. He refutes those that think that Lamech killed Cain, and says, That when 'tis said in Genesis, Whosoever shall kill Lamech, etc. the meaning is, that Lamech was more guilty than Cain, because that he having before him the Example of God's Vengeance against a Murderer, was not thereby deterred from this Crime. He adds another Mystical Explication, that for the Expiation of Lamech's Crime, there was not only a necessity of the Deluge which happened in the Seventh Generation after Cain, but also of the Death of Jesus Christ which happened Seventy Seven Generations after Lamech. At last he explains that Passage of the Gospel, wherein Simeon tells the Virgin when he saw the Infant Jesus, That a Sword should pierce through her Heart; where by a Sword he understands the anxiety and trouble of Mind, that the Virgin was to endure during the Passion of Jesus Christ. As these Explications will not be relished by all the World, so St. Basil gave them only for the Satisfaction of that good Bishop who had consulted him.  
In the 323 to Nectarius, St. Basil admonishes him to hinder all Canvasing at the Election of the Bishops.  
In the 335 he Congratulates the Bishop Sophronius, because he continued in the Simplicity of the Faith of his Ancestors. He says, That to maintain this Simplicity we must revive the Credit of the Primitive Christians; but now there were few Persons that were free from Curiosity, and would confine themselves to that Simplicity of Faith, which teaches us to believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  
In the 340, he reproves a Suffragan Bishop, called Timotheus, for concerning himself about Civil Affairs, after he had embraced a Monastic Life. The 343, and 344, are addressed to a Monk called Urbicius; in the Second he refutes the Error of those who affirm that the Divinity of Jesus Christ was changed into his Flesh.  
The 383 to a Superior, treats of the manner how he should admit a Person who would make Profession of a Monastic Life: He order him to receive him according to the Rules of the Holy Fathers, after he had taught him to understand the Obligations, the Duties and the Troubles of a Monastic Life.  
In Letter 387 he prefers the Creed of the Council of Nice to all the Creeds that had been made since that Council. He says, That it did not expressly determine the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, because no Body had then expressly opposed it; and then he proves that the Holy Spirit is not a Creature.  
In the 388 he informs calisthenes, That he was not obliged to keep the Oath which he had made in heat of Passion to punish his Servants.  
In the 391 to Amphilochius, he answers many Questions which this Bishop had put to him. First, He explains that Passage of the Gospel, No Man knoweth of the Day of Judgement, but the Father only; and says, That the Sense of this place is, that the Father knows it of himself, because he is the Fountain and first Principle of this Knowledge, whereas the Son of God receives this Knowledge from his Father, in which Sense it is also said, That there is none Good but God only. He explains in what Sense the Sceptre was always in the Tribe of Judah, tho' it be said, that Jechonias was the last of the Princes of David's Family. He refutes the Opinion of the Encratites, who affirmed, that it was unlawful to Eat of some kind of Meats. He says, That the Triple Immersion observed in Baptism is a Figure of the Three Days that Jesus Christ was in the Sepulchre. He distinguishes Essence from Subsistence; He gives to the Three Hypostases of the Divine Persons, the Names of Paternity, Filiation and Sanctification; He condemns those that admit but One Hypostasis, as being not far off from the Heresy of the Sabellians. At last he says, That Corporeal and Temporal Goods, are not good in themselves, tho' they ought to be preferred to the Evils that are opposite to them: But he averrs that God sends these Good Things according as he thinks fit for the Good of Men: That there is such a Just Man to whom these Evils are necessary, that he may be Just; and there is another Just Man to whom God gives these temporal Good Things for a Recompense; and there is such a Wicked Man to whom God denies them, because they would harden him; but there are other bad Men to whom he gives them in order to their Conversion.  
In the 399 to the same Person, he says, That the Spirit of a Man is good of itself; but it can apply itself to Good or Evil, and to that which is indifferent; That 'tis given to it to know the Truth; That God is this Truth which it ought to know; And, that he is to be known as far as an infinite Being can be known by a finite Mind. This Letter is against the Error of Aetius, who believed, that the Essence of God might be perfectly known.  
In the following Letter he proposes also one of the Sophisms of this Heretic, who thus objected to the Catholics: Do you know whom you adore? If you say that you know him, What then is his Substance? If you know him not, How then do you adore him? St. Basil answers, That the Attributes and Operations of God may be known, but we cannot comprehend his Essence nor his Nature: That by Faith we believe his Existence, which also may be known by his Power and its Effects, and yet both Faith and Reason teach us that he is Incomprehensible.  
In the 401 he solves also another Sophism of Aetius, who asked Whether Knowledge were before Faith, or Faith before Knowledge. He answers, That Knowledge is the Principle of Faith, because the Existence of God is known by the Creatures; and Faith follows this imperfect Knowledge, as Adoration follows Faith. He proves also, that the Works of God and the Effects of his Power may be known, but that we cannot perfectly know his Essence. He explains many Significations of the Word Know-worth In the 408 Letter, he speaks of the Relics of the Martyrs, as well as in 241.  
In the 410 he says, That we ought to be content with the Faith, which we made Profession of at our Baptism, and to confine ourselves to the Words that are taken out of the Holy Scripture for expressing it; That we should shun all new Expressions, because our Salvation does not depend upon the Words, but the Orthodox Faith.  
The 412 is against a Deacon named Glycerius, who had got into Orders, to serve the Cure of a Church in Venesa, together with a Priest. This Deacon after he was Ordained had neglected his Ministry and had gathered together a multitude of Virgins, to whom he had made himself Patriarch: For St. Basil makes use of this very Term, and says, That he had taken upon him the Habit: St. Basil adds, That he did not this for Piety, nor Devotion, but to get Money; That thus he had disturbed the Church to which he belonged, and despised the Parish Priest that Governed it: That being reproved for this Disorder by the Parish-Priest and the Bishop, he had fled with a Company of Virgins and Young Men, himself being at the head of them; That this happened when there was an Assembly of Bishops in the place, and that he had abused the Parents who demanded their Daughters back again. St. Basil prays him to whom he sent this Letter, who had written to him in favour of this Deacon, to persuade him to return, to send back the Virgins, or at least not to detain those by force who desired to return. He promises also Pardon to Glycerius, if he returned with a Letter from him to whom he wrote, and a Resolution to behave himself more Modestly; if not, he declares him Suspended from his Function.  
In the following Letter he still presses this Friend to procure the Return of Glycerius, and the Young Women whom he had carried away with him, and bids tell them, That they needed fear nothing. At last, in the last Letter superscribed to this Glycerius, he exhorts him to return, and promises to Pardon his Fault upon their Account that had begged it for him; and chief for the sake of his Parish-Priest, who had interceded for him. He declares, That he should lose the Dignity of a Deacon, if he absented himself any longer.  
The 417 is written to a Judge, upon a Robbery that was committed in his Church. Some Garments of the Poor were taken away, and the Robbers were discovered by those that looked after the Fabric of the Church; whereupon St. Basil condemned them to make Restitution. Nevertheless, they were accused before this Judge; and St. Basil wrote to him, That he had judged them, and that the Cognizance and Punishment of any thing that happened in Churches, belonged to Bishops.  
The 418 and 419, are written to a Receiver of the Taxes, to pray him to relieve the Poor.  
These are all the Letters of St. Basil, which concern Religion; The others are Letters of Civility, of Recommendation, or Consolation, which have no respect to the Affairs of the Church; of which I shall here give you a Catalogue.  
The Letters of Civility, of Compliment and Congratulation, etc. are the 83, the 142, and those that follow to the 164; the 169, and so on to the 181; the 122, and so on to the 244; the 248, 268, 282, 283, 285, 286, 287, 288, and 312; the 328, etc. to 335; the 341, 350, 351, 354, 355, 356, 359, 363, 369, 378, 384, 386, 389, 390, 407, 425, and 426, and the Three Letters of Libanius and St. Basil, published by Cotelerius.  
Those of Recommendation or Request, are the 11, 84, 215, etc. to 220, 221, 232, 236, 237, 247, 248, 267, 333, 352, 353, 357, 360, 365, 366, 367, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 380, 381, 415, 416, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 427, 428; and the Two published by Cotelerius.  
The Letters of Consolation are 186, 188, 189, 201, 202, 347, 362. I say nothing of the Letter to the Emperor Theodosius, published by Cotelerius; because 'tis evidently Supposititious. All these Letters are written very pleasantly, and they may be compared for their Style and Wit, to those of the most able Writers of Letters.  
We have reserved the Letters of St. Basil to Amphilochius, to be particularly treated of, because they contain Decisions upon principal Points of Discipline, which are not to be considered as the particular Opinions of St. Basil, but as the Laws of the Church in his time: And therefore they are not written in the form of particular Letters, but after the manner of Synodal Decisions, which are called Canons.  
The 1st of these Canons is concerning the Validity or Invalidity of the Baptism of Heretics. St. Amphilochius had asked him particularly, whether it was necessary to rebaptize those who had been baptised by the Novatians, or the Montanists? He answers him, That as to the first of those Heretics, he should follow the Custom of the Churches where he lived; because there were different Opinions upon that Subject. As to the Baptism of the Montanists, he believed that it could not be accounted Valid, and he wonders that the great St. Denys of Alexandria, who was so well-skilled in the Canons, could be ignorant of this Truth. To explain his Answer, he distinguishes Three sorts of Persons that were divided from the Church; The Heretics who differed in Matters of Faith, the Schismatics who separated upon Points of Discipline, and some of the disobedient Christians who withdrew from the Church. He maintains, That the Ancients were persuaded that the Baptism of Heretics was absolutely void; He adds, That the Pepuzians were Heretics, and therefore their Baptism could not be Valid. As for Schismatics, he observes, That St. Cyprian and Firmilian subjected them to the same Law with Heretics, because being separated from the Church, they had not the Holy Spirit, and so could not give it. He seems also to like this Opinion well enough: And yet he adds, That since the Bishops of Asia had thought it convenient to admit the Baptism of Schismatics, he would not hinder it. But though the Encratites were Schismatics, he declares, That their Baptism ought not to be approved, and that those aught to be rebaptised, to whom they had given Baptism, because they gave it with Precipitation, on purpose to hinder the receiving of it from the Church. Nevertheless he confesses, That if the contrary Custom were established, it ought to be followed; and that the Decisions of the Ancients should be observed. In short, he recommends this upon the whole Matter, That none of those who returned to the Church, should be permitted to approach the Holy Mysteries, till they had received the Unction. [That is, till they were Confirmed.]  
In the 2d. Canon, St. Basil condemns to a Penance of 10 Years, a Woman that had procured an Abortion, and he judges her to be guilty of Murder, whether the Child had Life or no. He observes, That the time of Absolution should be regulated by the fervour of the Penance, as well as by the length of it.  
In the 3d. Canon he declares, That if a Deacon commits Adultery, after he has been received into the Order of Deacon, he ought to be turned out of his Ministry: but he would not have him put under Penance, nor separated from the Communion of the Laity, because we ought not to punish the same Fault twice, and a Clergyman is sufficiently punished by his Deposition, and so much more than a Layman who is deprived of Communion, because he can be readmitted afterwards into the Church; whereas a Clergyman cannot be restored when once he is deposed: But in conclusion, the most Effectual Remedy of all Sins, is to forsake Sin, and abstain from Pleasure.  
The 4th. Canon is concerning those that are many times Married. He condemns 3d. Marriages as a kind of Fornication; and says, That the Custom of his Church, was to Excommunicate those who Married the third time, for Five Years; That in other places, they were only put under Penance for two or three Years. He enjoins the same thing to Bigamists, for one or two Years; though he would have neither the one nor the other reduced to the lowest Penance; but that they should be the first Years in the Rank of Hearers; and that the last Years they should partake of the Prayers, though they were still excluded from the participation of the Eucharist, till their Penance was finished, and they had given Signs of their Conversion.  
In the 5th. he ordains, That Heretics should be received who were converted at the Point of Death, provided they gave Signs of their sincere Repentance.  
The 6th. is against Concubinage.  
The 7th. is against Murders, Poisoning, Adulteries, and against other more infamous Crimes. St. Basil says, That all who are guilty of these Crimes, are to be treated with the same Rigour. However he thinks that we ought to have Pity on those who have done Penance for Thirty Years, and that we should receive them without delay; especially if they still bewailed their Sins, and gave signs of Conversion.  
In the 8th. Canon St. Basil treats very largely of Murders, and distinguishes the different Kind's of them, as well those that are Voluntary, as those that are Involuntary. This Canon is more Curious than Useful.  
The 9th. Canon is about Divorce. He lays it down as a Principle, That the Law of Jesus Christ is equal both to Men and Women, and that it does not allow of the Separation of a Man and his Wife, but in case of Fornication: But he says, That the present Custom is not altogether agreeable to the Law of Christ, because it does not allow Women to Separate from their Husbands upon any account whatsoever; so that it seems to excuse from Adultery a Woman that should Espouse a Man whose Wife had divorced herself; but on the contrary, if it was a Husband that quitted his Wife to Espouse another, that Man should commit Adultery, both he that Married to this last Woman, and she that was Espoused to him.  
In the 10th. St. Basil is against Ordaining those who had Sworn never to take Orders, though there be, says he, a Canon which seems to permit it; but he observes, that we must consider the Form of the Oath, the terms in which it was conceived, the Disposition of the Person that made it, and all the lesser Circumstances, to see whether he is obliged by his Oath or no; and if no way can be found to dispense with it, than he ought not to be Ordained. After this, he explains a particular Question which had been proposed to him by Amphilochius, as far as it can be discovered by St. Basil's Answer, it seems to have been this.  
One Cyriacus a Priest of the Church of Mindana, whereof Longinus was Bishop, was obliged by Oath never to quit that Church; yet he was made Parish-Priest to a Village very near it, which was in another Diocese. Longinus seeing himself deprived of a Priest who did very much assist him, earnestly desired his Return, and said, That unless he returned to him, he should quit his Church. 'Tis also probable, that the Priest had some remorse of Conscience for having violated his Oath. Amphilochius demands of St. Basil, what was to be done in these Circumstances? and this Saint gave an Advice full of Wisdom, That they should join to the Diocese of Mindana, the Territory of Mnistia, where this Priest was made Minister by the Bishop Severus: And he says, That by this means, he still belonging to the Church of Mindana, might fulfil his Oath, and might assist the Bishop Longinus, who had demanded him back again. He blames the Conduct of the Bishop Severus, who had acted against the Canons, in removing a Priest from one of his Brethren, and had made him guilty of Perjury.  
In the 11th. Canon, he ordains, That a Penance of 11 Years, should be imposed upon him who commits Murder, though it was done without any Premeditated Design.  
In the 12th. he declares, That the Canons wholly exclude all Bigamists from Ecclesiastical Functions.  
In the 13th. he says, That the Fathers did not punish as Murders those that were committed in War, because they judged that those should be pardoned who were obliged to defend their Country, their Life and their Honour; But he adds, That 'twas advisable for such as had their hands defiled with Humane Blood, to continue Three Years out of the Communion of the Church.  
The 14th. imports, That if he who had been an Usurer, would distribute to the Poor all the Profit he had made by this Shameful Trade, and keep himself from the Passion of Covetousness, he might be advanced to the Priesthood.  
The 15th. and 16th. are not Canons which concern Discipline; but an Explication of some Difficulties about the literal sense of some Passages of Scripture, which had been proposed to him by Amphilochius.  
The 2d. Letter gins with Canon 17th. It contains a Decision in favour of one named Bianon, who was ordained Priest contrary to the Oath he had made. St. Basil says, That he had already made this Rule for the Priests of Antioch, that these kind of Persons should not publicly exercise their Priestly Function, but only in Private. He adds, That he of whom he there speaks, might have a Dispensation from this Law; because he was not at Antioch, but Iconium.  
In the 18th. St. Basil observes, That the Ancients did not treat the Virgins consecrated to God who abandoned their Profession, more rigorously than Bigamists, and that they imposed upon them only a Penance of one Year; but he adds, That the Church and the number of Virgin's increasing now every day, it was necessary to treat them as Adulterers. He gives this Advertisement, That he speaks of Virgins which have consecrated themselves to God, and renounced Marriage; That their Profession should commence from such an Age, at which they were perfectly come to the use of their Reason; because no regard was to be had to such Promises as were made before that time; That we ought not to admit any into the number of Virgins consecrated to God, but those who were 16 or 17 Years old, and even then after they had been tried a long time, and passionately desired to be received, and that we ought to reject those who were brought by their Parents before they had arrived at this adult Age, before they had a Judgement sufficiently ripe, and before they could give any assurance of their fixed Resolution.  
In the 19th. Canon, St. Basil observes, That Men make no Vow nor Profession of Virginity as Virgins do; That those who enter into a Monastical state, seem tacitly to embrace Celibacy; but to oblige them to it, it was necessary that they should be asked, and that they should make Profession of it: and then if they should pass to a Voluptuous Life, they should be punished as Fornicators.  
In the 20th. he says, That we ought not to punish the Women that Married after they had made Profession of Virginity while they were without the Church, being Infidels, or Heretics, or Catechumen; because we ought not to search after the Sins committed before Baptism, since that Sacrament Pardoned them.  
The 21st. is also about the difference which Custom had put between the Faults of Husbands and Wives. He observes, That a Man who is Unfaithful to his Wife is not looked upon as a Fornicator, provided she with whom he committed the Sin was not Married; That the Husband cannot for this be parted from his Wife, though the Wife might be from her Husband, if she should commit the same Sin with a Man. He confesses, That 'tis difficult to give a Reason for this Proceeding; but he says, 'tis the Custom.  
In the 22d. Canon, he obliges those who have forcibly carried Maids away, to restore them to those to whom they were Contracted, or to their Parents; and declares, That they must not be received into Communion before they have restored them. He condemns those who detain the Women whom they have secretly or by force Corrupted, to the same Punishment with Fornicators, which is to endure Penance for Four Years; That for the 1st. Year they shall be excluded from the Prayers, and obliged to stand at the Church-Gate; That for the 2d. they shall be in the rank of Hearers; That for the 3d. they shall be in the number of Penitents; That in the Last Year, they shall be present with the People at all the Divine Service, without being capable of partaking of the Oblation.  
In the 23d. Canon concerning those that Married two Sisters, he refers Amphilochius to that which he had written in his Letter to Diodorus, of which we have already spoken.  
The 24th. is against Widows, who being received into the Number of Deaconesses, Married afterwards. He would have them more severely Punished than Bigamists, if they be above 60 Years old; but he excuses them if they be younger, because it was the Bishop's fault to receive them too young.  
By the 25th. Canon it is provided, That he who shall Marry a Woman after he hath abused her, shall be put under Penance, but he shall have leave to keep her for his Wife.  
In the 26th. he declares, That Fornication is never Marriage, and that it cannot lawfully be the Beginning of a Marriage; and therefore it would be better to part those who have committed this Sin, than to Marry them together; but yet if they have a Mind to Marry, they should not be hindered lest some greater Mischief should follow.  
The 27th. is upon occasion of a Priest, who through Ignorance was entangled in a Marriage within the Prohibited degrees. St. Basil thinks that he ought not wholly to be deprived of the Honour and Dignity of Priesthood: but he forbids him to exercise his Function, and would have him be satisfied with that Place of Honour which is left him, without being able to give the Blessing, to distribute the Body of Jesus Christ, or to do any part of his Sacerdotal Function.  
The 28th. Canon is against some Persons that had made a Vow not to Eat Pork. St. Basil says, That this Vow was ridiculous; and admonishes Amphilochius, to exhort those who made it, not to make any more such kind of Vows, and to allow themselves to Eat indifferently all kinds of Meat.  
The 29th. is against those Great Lords, who take an Oath to prejudice those that are subject to them. The substance of it is, That pains should be taken to correct this Fault; and the means to do it, was to teach them, that they ought not to make such kind of rash Oaths, and that they ought to beware of executing the Evil they have Sworn to do.  
The 30th. Canon is against Ravishers. St. Basil says, That there is no ancient Canon that concerns them; but that his Opinion is, That both they, and such as are Complices in their Crime ought to suffer Penance for Three Years time.  
The 31st. declares, That a Woman can never Marry, though her Husband does not appear, as long as she is not sure of his Death, and that if she does, she commits Adultery. The 36th. ordains the same thing to Soldiers Wives, who Mary again, when they have no more News of their Husbands; yet he thinks them more excusable, because they have more reason to believe that they are dead.  
The 32d. ordains, That Clergymen who Sin mortally, should be degraded, but not turned out of Communion.  
The 33d. That a Woman who takes no care of the Fruit of her Womb, and who is brought to Bed in the middle of the Street, should be punished as one guilty of Murder.  
The 34th. That Women guilty of Adultery, who voluntarily confess it, or are partly convicted of it, should not be defamed, left their Crime coming to Public Notice, should be the cause of their Death; but that they should be ordered to stay out of Communion, till the time of their Penance be over.  
The 35th. is, That when a Husband is forsaken by his Wife, it should be enquired whether there was any Fault in him; and if there was not, but she only was in the Fault, than they ought not to deprive the Husband of the Communion of the Church, but only punish the Wife.  
The 37th. is, That if a Man who had Espoused another Man's Wife, Marries another Woman, after the former was taken away from him, he is guilty of Adultery against the First, but not against the Second.  
The 38th. is, That Young Women who follow those that have abused them, without the consent of their Parents, are guilty of Fornication; And, that though it may seem, that their Fault is made up when the Parents afterwards consent to it; yet they ought to be put under Penance for Three Years.  
The 39th. That she who stays with him, whom she had committed Adultery with, is to be accounted guilty of the Crime as long as she continues with him.  
The 40th. That a Slave who Marries without the consent of his Master, has committed Fornication; because the Contracts and Promises of all those who are under the Power of others, are void without their consent.  
The 41st. That the Marriage of a Widow that's free cannot be nulled.  
The 42d. contains this general Maxim, That the Marriages of all those who are under the Power of another without his consent, are not Marriages, but Fornications; and therefore, that the Marriages of the Sons and Daughters of a Family, are void without the consent of their Fathers, as that of Slaves is without the consent of their Masters.  
The 43d. declares, That he who has given a Mortal Wound to another, is guilty of Manslaughter, whether he first attacked him, or did it in his own defence.  
The 44th. That a Deaconess that hath committed Fornication with a Pagan, ought not to be Excommunicated, but only deprived of the Oblation for the space of Seven Years; after which she shall be received, if she lived chastely during that time.  
In the 45th. he observes, That the Name of a Christian will stand him in no stead, who leads a Life unworthy of a Christian.  
In the 46th. he says, That a Woman that without her knowledge espoused a Married Man, whom his former Wife was parted from, and afterwards separated from him, may Marry again to another; but that it were better if she continued as she was.  
The 47th. Canon is about the Baptism of Heretics. It seems in some Points to be contrary to the first; but when the Matter is well examined, 'tis easy to reconcile them. He observes, That the Encratites, the Saccophorians, and the Apotactites, aught to be treated as Novatians. Now he seems to have said the contrary in the First Canon, where he affirms, That it was absolutely necessary to re-baptize the Encratites. This Difficulty made an Author of our Age believe, That a Negative Particle must be added in the Canon, The Reason which St. Basil alleges to prove this Proposition, seems to confirm this Conjecture, for he adds, That there are Canons which have regulated what concerns the former, though differently, whereas there is none which speaks of the latter. But after a full Examination of the words of this Canon, I find that 'tis not necessary to change any thing in it. Take the true sense of it as follows: St. Basil says, That the Encratites, Apotactites and Saccophorians, aught to be treated after the same manner as the Novatians: That's to say, That with respect both to the one and the other, we must follow the Custom of the Church where we live; and the Reason which he gives for it, is, because there is no Rule and Determination about their Cause, since the Canons are found different about the former, and there is nothing ordered about the latter. He adds, That in his Country they were all rebaptised; but if this Rebaptisation was forbidden in the Province whereof Amphilochius was Bishop, as it was at Rome; and yet he found the Reasons were convincing, which he had brought to prove that the Encratites must be rebaptised, than he ought to call a Council to make this Regulation.  
In the 48th. Canon he counsels Women divorced by their Husbands, not to Marry again, since Jesus Christ hath said, That he who putteth away his Wife, except for Fornication, committeth Adultery, when he espouseth another, and is the cause of her committing Adultery by marrying again.  
In the 50th. Canon he says, That the Laws do not forbid, nor punish Third Marriages, and yet the Church looks upon them as shameful Actions.  
The Third Letter to Amphilochius, is also a continuation of Canons. St. Basil speaks in the Preamble of a Journey he had made a little before into Pontus about the Affairs of the Church. He thanks Amphilochius for the Letters he had written to him; he declares to him that he desired to see him, and that he would do all that lay in his Power to come and meet him; but that perhaps he might be obliged to go soon to Nazianzum, because of the departure of St. Gregory who was gone from it, tho' no body knew the Reason of his going. He acquaints him, That he of whom he had spoken before (probably to make him Bishop of some City depending upon the Metropolis of Amphilochius,) was fallen sick; that there was no other Person that he could cast his Eyes upon. He counsels him rather to put into that place, one whom the Inhabitants of the City desired to have, tho' he had been but lately Baptised. He repeats what he had said in the 10th. Canon concerning those that had taken an Oath that they would not be Bishops.  
The 51st. Canon ordains, that Clergymen should not be otherwise punished for their Crimes but by Deposition, whether they were in Sacred Orders which are given by Imposition of Hands, or in Inferior Orders.  
The 52d. is against Women that Voluntarily suffer their Infants to perish.  
The 53d. ordains, that a Widow-Slave that procures her being taken away forcibly to be Married again, should undergo no other Punishment but that of Bigamists.  
In the 54th. he refers us to what he had said in the former Letter concerning Involuntary Manslaughter; he adds, That it belongs to the Bishop's Prudence to increase or diminish the Penance according to Circumstances.  
In the 55th. he declares, That those who set upon Robbers, aught to be deprived of Communion if they be Laymen, and deposed if they be Clergymen.  
In the 56th. he imposes 20 Years Penance upon Voluntary Murders; and in the 57th. 11 Years Penance upon those that are Involuntary. In the 58th. he imposes 15 Years Penance upon Adultery; In the 59th. 7 Years upon Fornicators. In the 60th. he condemns Virgins who break their Vow of Virginity, to the same Punishment with Adulterers. In the 61st. he imposes one Years Penance upon him that shall accuse himself of Robbery, and two Years upon him that is convicted of it. In the 62d. and 63d. he imposes the same Penance as upon Adulterers, upon those that commit infamous Crimes. In the 64th. he imposes 11 Years Penance upon Perjury. In the 65th. he imposes the same Penance upon Poisoners. In the 66th. 11 Years Penance upon those that dig up the dead. In the 67th. the Penance of Murderers upon those that commit Incest with their Sisters. In the 68th. the Punishment of Adulterers is decreed against those that marry their Kinsfolk in prohibited Degrees. In the 69th. he ordains, That a Reader who shall have to do with a Virgin to whom he was contracted, shall be deprived of his Ministerial Function, and become uncapable of rising to a higher Order. He adds, That if he has committed this Sin with another Virgin than her to whom he was contracted, he shall be deposed, and that the same shall be observed with respect to other Ministers. The 70th. ordains, That Deacons and Priests who have polluted their Lips, if they confess their Crime, shall be Suspended for some time from their Ministerial Function. The 71st. That those who shall be convicted of those Crimes without their own Confession, shall be punished as Malefactors. The 72d. That those who meddle with Divination, shall be punished as Murderers. The 73d. That he who has renounced the Faith of Jesus Christ shall not be received until the point of Death. In the 74th. St. Basil tells him, That the time of Penance may be shortened to those who fulfil their Penance with fervour and humility. In the 75th. he imposes 12 Years Penance upon him that hath committed Incest with his Sister by the same Father and Mother; and says in the 76th. That the same Law should take place against those who Mary their own Daughters-in-Law. The 77th. ordains 7 Years Penance against those who Divorce their Wives, and Marry others. The 78th. decrees the same Punishment against those who Mary two Sisters, tho' at different times. The 79th. condemns those that Mary their Mothers-in-Law to the same Punishment with those that Mary their Sisters. In the 80th. he says▪ That the Ancients spoke nothing of Polygamy, because they looked upon it as a brutish Sin, to which they thought that Men could not be subject; he believes it worse than Fornication, and he imposes upon those that shall be Guilty of it a Penance of 4 Years. In the 81st. he imposes 8 Years Penance upon those that being taken by the Barbarians, were forced by Torments to Eat of Meats sacrificed to Idols, and 11 Years upon those that did it without any constraint. In the 82d. and 83d. he condemns the Perjured, and those that meddle with Pagan Superstitions, to 6 Years Penance. In the 84th. and 85th. he declares, That all those Canons are to be understood of those that are willing to do Penance and amend themselves; but for those that continue in their Crimes, we ought to have no Conversation with them, and never to receive them into the Church, lest we be partakers of their Crimes. There is at the End of this Letter, a Fragment of another Letter of St. Basil, written to the same Person against the Encratites.  
For observing some Order in the other Writings of St. Basil, we may divide them into three Classes. The First shall comprehend those that are upon the Scripture; The Second, those that concern Doctrine; and the Third, those that are about Morality.  
Cassiodorus assures us, That St. Basil made Commentaries upon almost all the Books of the Holy Scripture; of which there remains now but a small Number. The Nine Homilies or Sermons upon the beginning of Genesis, are the first of his Works. St. Jerom, Photius and Suidas, mention them. There are added to those Nine Homilies, Two others about the Formation of Man, which at first were attributed to St. Basil, and afterwards were ascribed to his Brother St. Gregory Nyssen. But they cannot belong to this last, who has treated of this Matter in a particular Work: But there is no convincing Reason, why they may not be attributed to St. Basil upon the Credit of ancient Manuscripts. 'Tis true that those Authors we have just now cited, mention but Nine Homilies of St. Basil's upon the Hexameron; and that Cassiodorus observes, That he did not explain what concerns the Creation of Man; but perhaps those Authors had not seen these two Homilies, which St. Basil composed long after the others. Besides, let Men say what they please, these have the Style of St. Basil, and are like enough to the first, tho' they are not altogether so large. After these Homilies, there ought to follow the 30th. Homily about Paradise.  
Cotelerius has published in Greek in his First Volume of the Monuments of the Greek Church, a Homily upon these Words in the 6th. Chapter of the Proverbs, Suffer not yourselves to be overwhelmed with sleep, which is not unworthy of St. Basil, and has his Style and Air.  
The first of the 2● Homilies upon some Psalms, which is a Preface to all the Psalms, is wholly the same with the Latin Preface, that is prefixed to St. Austin's Commentaries upon the Psalms: Either therefore we must say, That St. Austin's Preface was translated into Greek, or rather that St. Basil's was translated into Latin, and placed at the beginning of St. Austin's Commentaries. These Homilies are quoted in Nicetas' Catena, and by some others; and there is no doubt but they are St. Basil's. Yet Father Combesis rejects the second Homily upon Psalm 28, which is an Abridgement and Repetition of the preceding, and which is wanting in many Manuscripts. He passes also the same Judgement on that upon Psalm 37; and he affirms, that the Style of it is different from that of the others. In some Latin Editions of St. Basil, there are published under the Name of St. Basil, Commentaries upon the Psalms; but 'tis plain they are none of St. Basil's, because they are Extracts out of St. Chrysostom and Theodoret.  
The Commentary upon the first six Chapters of Isaiah, seemed doubtful to Erasmus, because he thought that they were written in another Style. Tilmannus who has translated them into Latin, has undertaken to defend them against the Conjecture of Erasmus, and he proves that they are this Father's by the Authority of four Modern Greek Authors, which are Metaphrastes, Antonius, Maxim●s, and St. John Damascene. Fronto Ducaeus adds to these Four, the Patriarch Tarasius, in his Epistle to Pope Adrian, and the Author of the Greek Scholia upon the Epistles of St. Paul attributed to Occumenius. The Authority of these Modern Greeks would be of no great Moment, if this Work had evident Marks of Forgery, or if the Style of it were altogether different from that of St. Basil; but it must be confessed, that tho' it is not so Elegant as the Work of the Creation, yet it is not much different from the Style of St. Basil, neither is it unworthy of this Father. Rivet has found in it a difference of Opinion, which might make it be rejected, if it were more considerable. He observes, That St. Basil in his Letter 80 to Eustathius the Physician, affirms that the Witch of Endor made the Soul of Samuel really to return, whereas the Author of this Commentary upon Isaiah, on Ch. 8. affirms, That it was the Devil who assumed the Shape of Samuel. Some have answered, That this Epistle to Eustathius, was St. Gregory Nyssen's, but we have shown, that 'tis rather St. Basil's. Therefore all that can be said is this, That St. Basil might change his Opinion about a thing of so small consequence as this is.  
The Second Class of St. Basil's Works comprehends his Dogmatical Books. The first of these Discourses are the Books against Eunomius. St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Jerom and Photius, all assure us, That he wrote against this Heretic, but they say nothing of the Number of the Books. We have at present five of them. The Three first are written in the same Style and after the same Method, and there can be no doubt but they are St. Basil's. The Two last are more Dry and Scholastical; but we ought not to wonder at that. In the First he overthrows the principal Arguments of Eunomius; and in these Two last, he insists upon the Refutation of the Subtleties and Sophistical Arguments of this Heretic upon many Passages of Holy Scripture, as he had promised to do in the Second Book. There is no Cause therefore to reject these Books as supposititious. They were quoted as Genuine by the Greeks and Latins in the Council of Florence.  
The Book of the Holy Spirit to Amphilochius, is that Treatise of all the Works of St. Basil, which most of all Displeases the Protestants; because it contains such things as do not favour them. Erasinus who took great Liberty to condemn every thing that did not please him, made no scruple to reject this, in the Preface which he prefixed to his Version: He was wearied with translating it, and the Style appeared to him perplexed in several Places. These are the Reasons on which he grounds his Judgement about this Book to which he had added many things in the same Preface; That tho' 'tis true, that there are some things in it, which are not unworthy of St. Basil, and which sufficiently discover that they belong to him; yet there are other things in it which are none of his. The greatest part of Protestant Critics, being dissatisfied with that necessity of Tradition which this Book evidently proves, have gladly received this Opinion of Erasmus, and have also added some other Conjectures of their own to his, to reject this Book entirely. Nevertheless, Casaubon being more impartial than the rest, has plainly declared in his Writings against Baronius, That he was not of Erasmus' Opinion. And indeed 'tis certain that St. Basil did write a Treatise of the Holy Spirit; he says it himself in his Letters. St. Gregory Nazianzen speaks of it. St. Jerom and Suidas mention it. Theodoret quotes that Book which we have at this Day, in his first Dialogue, and in the Refutation of the Anathematisms of St. Cyril. After this Author, St. John Damascene in his third Discourse of Images, the II. Nicene Council, Act 4. Photius in the Nomocanon, Burchardus in the Decretals, Euthymius Zygabenus in his Panoplia, Zonaras and Balsamon in the Nomocanon, Anastasius of Nice Quest. 84, and Nicephorus B. XII. Ch. 20. quote it also. Moreover, the Reasons of Erasmus are very weak: For first he accuses the Author of this Work of raising his Style too high, as if this were not ordinary with Authors, and particularly with Writers of Controversy. He reproves him for discovering his Ability in the Logic of Aristotle and Porphyry. Can he do otherwise, having to do with Adversaries which made use of these Arms? Lastly, Erasmus affirms, That the Style is different from St. Basil's; but he pronounces this Sentence upon slight Grounds, and without a sufficient Examination of the Matter; for those who read this Work, find no such difference of Stilein it; but on the contrary they find a great agreement between it and his other Books. Scultetus pretends, that what this Author says of the Authority of Tradition, is contrary to the Doctrine of St. Basil; but it is a Groundless Allegation. Neither is it true, that he lays down in this Book other positions than those which he has explained in other places, concerning the descent of Christ into Hell, and concerning Baptism. If Scultetus had well considered what he affirmed with so much boldness, he would have changed his Opinion.  
No body doubts but the two Books of Baptism are St. Basil's, tho' they be not cited by the Ancients.  
The Book of Virginity has the Style of St. Basil, and what St. Gregory Nazianzen says of St. Basil's Writings concerning Virginity, does perfectly agree to it. It is also cited by Suidas. Yet Mr. Hermant believes it supposititious, because it is addressed to Letoïus Bishop of Melitine, since while St. Basil was living, that See was possessed by Otreius, who lived after the Council of Constantinople, as appears by the Law which the Emperor Theodosius made after this Council. It may be said, that Letoïus was his Predecessor; but there is more probability that he succeeded to him. Either therefore we must say, that the Dedication of this Book is corrupted, and then we must read Otreius for Letoïus, or else that Letoïus was not yet Bishop.  
Among the 31 different Homilies of St. Basil, there are 11 of them which are Dogmatical: viz. The 9th. wherein he proves that God is not the Author of Sin; The 12th. upon the beginning of the Proverbs; The 15th. concerning Faith; The 16th. upon the Beginning of the Gospel of St. John; The 17th. upon Baptism; The 25th. of the Humane Birth of Jesus Christ; The 27th. against the Sabellians, the Anomaeans and the Arians; The 29th. against those who accuse us of worshipping Three Gods; The 31st. of freewill. All these Homilies have St. Basil's Style, and no Body doubts but they are his.  
But there is more Difficulty about St. Basil's Books of Morality. St. Jerom and Suidas mention in general the Asceticks of this Father; but Sozomen, Ch. 15. of B. III. of his History, says, That they were written by Eustathius of Sebastea. On the contrary, Photius, Vol. 191 of his Bibliotheca, attributes to St. Basil, the great Rules, small Rules, and their Prefaces.  
The Ascetical Books attributed to St. Basil, are as follow. The First is a Discourse which may serve as a Preface and Introduction to all his Ascetical Discourses. The Second is a Treatise about the Monastical State, and the renouncing the things of this World. The Third is a Discourse of the Ascetical Life. The Fourth is a Treatise of Faith. The Fifth is a Treatise of the Judgement of God, and a little Preface which in some Manuscripts, makes a part of the Book about Faith. We must also add Two other little Discourses published by Father Combefis, in the Second Volume of St. Basil, Restored. These Tracts are as preliminaries to the great Ascetical Treatises, which are his Morals, the Ascetical Book, the Great Rules explained very largely, which are in number 55, the Little Rules abridged, which are continued unto number 313, some Canons concerning the Punishment of Monks and Nuns, and the Monastical Constitutions. To these Books we may join his Epistle to Chilo, and the following Letters, as well as 411, and some others which concern the Monastical State, of which we have spoken among the Letters of St. Basil. 'Tis not certain whether all these Books that we have mentioned be St. Basil's; but 'tis agreed on all hands that the Constitutions, and the Ascetical Treatises are his: But many adhere to the Testimony of Sozomen, who attributes the Little Rules, and also the Great ones to Eustathius of Sebastea. Yet I see nothing which can confirm this Opinion, and it seems to me that they bear so great a Relation to the other Ascetical Works of St. Basil, that it may be affirmed with much probability, that they all belong to the same Author. Ruffinus who has made an Abridgement of them attributes them to St. Basil: They are cited under his Name in the 5th. Council; and in short, Ph●ius acknowledges all these Treatises for Genuine. Even in his time they made but one Body divided into two Parts: The First contained the Discourse of Judgement, and that of Faith which is a Continuation of it: The Second Part contained the Morals, the 55 Great Rules, the 313 Short Rules, and the Titles of these Rules. This shows that all these Books belong to the same Author, and that they composed but one Book, entitled Asceticks, whereof the First Part is not entire. As to the Three Discourses which precede that which is entitled, Of Judgement, they are distinct Treatises which have no Relation to the other Ascetical Books: The Treatise of Judgement ought to precede that of Faith, and both the one and the other are a Preface to the Asceticks. The Book of a Monastic Life, and the Constitutions are distinct Works, as well as the Rules concerning the Punishment of Monks.  
Of the Moral Homilies, the first is that about Fasting, cited by St. Austin in the First Book against Julian, where he recites also some other Passages which this Heretic had taken out of a Treatise of St. Basil against the Manichees, which we have not at present. The Second Homily of Fasting, which Erasmus has condemned too slightly, is cited by St. John Damascene and by Euthymius. The Third Homily upon the same Subject published by Cotelerius, is not unworthy of St. Basil, tho' it be not so Elegant. The Fourth Homily is upon these Words, Take heed to yourselves. The Fifth is concerning Thanksgiving, which some have believed not to be St. Basil's. The Sixth is upon these Words, I will pull down my Barns. The Seventh to Rich Men. The Eighth upon Famine and Barrenness. The Tenth of Anger. The Eleventh of Envy. The Twelfth upon the beginning of the Proverbs. The Thirteenth contains an Exhortation to Baptism. The Fifteenth is upon Drunkenness. The One and Twentieth was recited to Laciza. The Two and Twentieth of Humility. The Three and Twentieth, that we ought not to set our Hearts upon the Things of this World. The Four and Twentieth prescribes Rules to Young People about reading Profane Books: And the Eight and Twentieth is of Penance. To these we may add the Panegyrics, which are the Panegyric of the Holy Martyr Julita, that of St. Gordus, and that of St. Mamas. There is also one upon Barlaam a Martyr of Antioch; but it has more of the Style of St. Chrysostom than of St. Basil; and 'tis more probable, that it was recited at Antioch, where the Memory of St. Barlaam was held in singular Veneration, than at Caesarea of Cappadocia.  
The 24 Moral Homilies collected by Simeon Logothera, are Extracts out of several places of St. Basil.  
The Latin Discourse of Consolation, and the Advertisement to his Spiritual Son, seem to me, to have neither the Style nor Genius of St. Basil. The Treatise of the Praises of a Solitary Life, is taken out of the Treatise of St. Peter Damian, upon Dominus vobiscum. I say nothing of the Grammar attributed to St. Basil, which is an Abridgement of Grammar by a Modern Greek.  
There remains now no more but the Liturgies attributed to this Father, which are Three in Number. The First is in Greek, and Printed by Morellus. The Second was translated from the Syriack, and published by Masius. The Third was translated from the Arabic by a Maronite of Mount Libanus. But tho' 'tis certain that St. Basil composed a Liturgy, as St. Proclus, the Council in Trullo, and Leontius, assure us: Yet it cannot be positively affirmed, that any one of those which we have is the Liturgy of that Father, as he composed it: On the contrary, there is great probability, that it has not been preserved in its Purity, and that many things have been added and changed in it, as usually happens to those kind of Works. It is observed also, That Petrus Diaconus citys a Famous Prayer taken out of the Liturgy of St. Basil, which is not to be found in any of those Liturgies, which now go under his Name.  
The Homilies of St. Basil upon the Six Days of Creation, are in Photius' Judgement the most Excellent of all his Works. And indeed, he handles this Matter in a very grateful manner; they are filled with many Embellishments of Rhetoric, with agreeable Descriptions, sublime Thoughts, curious and Learned Remarks, and solid Reflections. He explains the Words of Holy Scripture literally, without having recourse to Allegories; and yet he sets off this Explication with so many Ornaments, that 'tis very delightful. He resolves many Questions about the Nature and Difficulties of Moses' Relation: He intermixes from time to time some Moral Thoughts. It appears that he preached these Sermons to his People in the Afternoons.  
The Homily of a Terrestrial Paradise, is also a continuation of this Work; he describes it most Eloquently, and understands it in a Spiritual Sense of a State of Righteousness and Holiness.  
In the Homily upon the Words of the Proverbs, Give no sleep unto your Eyes, published by Cotelerius, St. Basil exhorts to Watchfulness, and the Practice of Good Works.  
His Homilies upon the Psalms are written in the same Style, but they are more filled with Morality. He departs sometimes from the Literal Sense, and does not always apprehend the true Sense of the Prophet. Yet he does not make use of obscure and forced Allegories; but all that he says is Intelligible, Natural, Useful, and Pleasant. The Commentary upon Isaiah, is not so lofty, nor so full of Morality, but 'tis very Intelligible and very Learned.  
The Five Books against Eunomins are a most complete Work of Controversy; he recites the Arguments and Words of this Heretic, and refutes them very solidly and very clearly.  
In the Two first Books, he refutes the principal Arguments which this Heretic used to prove that the Son was not like to his Father. He answers them very clearly, and discovers the Falsehood of this Heretic's Reasonings.  
In the Third he answers the Objections which he made against the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.  
In the Fourth he proves that the Son of God is not a Creature, but is truly God.  
And Lastly, in the Fifth he proves the same thing of the Holy Spirit.  
He handles the most intricate Matters of Theology, in a manner very Learned and Profound, and yet without perplexing and entangling them with the Quirks, the Difficulties and Terms of the Schoolmen.  
He proves also the Trinity of Divine Persons, and their Equality, in the 16th. Homily upon the Beginning of the Gospel of St. John, and in the Book against the Sabellians.  
He particularly Establishes the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, in the Treatise of the Holy Spirit, addressed to Amphilochius. He composed it upon occasion of a Complaint that some Persons had made against him, that at the Conclusion of his Sermons he had said, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, with the Holy Ghost, instead of saying as some do, In the Holy Ghost. Amphilochius had asked him the proper Signification of these Terms, and the Difference between the one and the other Expression. St. Basil commends him for this Exactness, and observes that 'tis very useful to search out the proper Sense of the Terms and Expressions which we use.  
In the 2d. Chapter he makes this Observation, That those who will use different Terms in Glorifying the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, do it for no other End, but to conclude from thence the Dissimilitude and Inequality of the Three Persons of the Trinity.  
In the 3d. Chapter he shows, That the difference of these Terms, of whom, by whom, in whom, have no place but in Philosophy, and we ought not to use them when we speak of the Three Divine Persons.  
In the 4th. he shows, That this Particle, of whom, signifies in Scripture the Efficient Cause, since 'tis said that all things are of God.  
In the 5th. he shows, That the Scripture says of the Father, by whom, and of the Son, of whom, and that it uses the same Expressions when it speaks of the Holy Ghost.  
In the 6th. he answers those who affirm, That we cannot say, the Son of God is with his Father, because he is after his Father. St. Basil maintains, that the Son of God is not at all inferior to the Father, neither in respect of Time, nor in respect of the Place he holds, nor in respect of Honour and Glory, being Eternal as the Father, Infinite as the Father, and having a Glory and Majesty equal to that of the Father.  
In the 7th. he proves, That this Expression, with the Son, is not New; That the Church has used it to denote the Majesty of his Divine Nature, as she has also used that other, by the Son, to signify the access which we have to God the Father by his Son, and therefore we ought to use the former Expression when we sing the Praises of God; and the latter when we thank him for the Favours he has done us.  
He explains this Distinction in Ch. 8. and there he recites many Names of Jesus Christ.  
In the 9th. he explains his Judgement concerning the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, which he received by Tradition, and which is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Holy Scripture. He proves that the Holy Spirit is a Spiritual Person, Eternal, Infinite, Unchangeable, etc. who strengthens us, and gives us Life by his Gifts.  
In the 10th. and 11th. he refutes those that would not join the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. He proves the contrary by the Institution of Baptism, and accuses those that would not add the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son; Of Violating the saving Sacrament of Baptism; Of Prevaricating in the Vow which they had made, and of Revolting from the Religion which they had once professed.  
In Chapter 12. he answers the first Exception of his Adversaries, who said, That Baptism given in the Name of Jesus Christ was sufficient. St. Basil answers, First, That the Name of Jesus Christ denotes the whole Trinity, because it signifies the Anointed of the Lord. Now he says, that the Word Anointed, designs him that does Anoint, and him by whom he is anointed. Secondly, That Faith is inseparable from Baptism, because Faith is perfected by Baptism, and Baptism supposes Faith; That the Profession of Faith precedes Baptism, which is as it were the Seal of it. Lastly, He maintains that 'tis not sufficient to Baptise in the Name of Jesus Christ, but that we must invoke the Three Persons of the Godhead according to Inviolable Tradition, and that we ought to add nothing to, nor take any thing from this Invocation.  
In the 13th. he refutes a Second Answer of his Adversaries, who say, That tho' the Holy Spirit were oftentimes in Scripture joined to the Father and the Son, yet it would not follow from thence, that he was equal to them, since the Angels are there sometimes joined with God. St. Basil answers, That there is a great Difference between the manner in which the Scripture speaks of Angels, and of the Holy Spirit, because it considers the former merely as Ministers, whereas it considers the Holy Spirit as the Fountain of Life, and joins him with the Father, because of the Unity of Essence.  
In the 14th. he resolves also a third Difficulty: It was objected to him, That tho' Men be baptised in the Name of the Holy Spirit, yet it does not follow, that the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and the Son, since 'tis also said in Scripture, That they were all baptised into Moses in the Cloud. St. Basil answers, That this Expression of St. Paul, signifies only, that Moses and the Cloud were the Figure of the Baptism of Jesus Christ, but that the Truth is much more Excellent than the Type.  
In the 15th. he answers a fourth Sophism: We are baptised in Water, said the Heretics, and yet we do not honour the Water as the Father and the Son. St. Basil answers, That this Objection is ridiculous, and that those who make it are mad; That 'tis not the Water that Baptises us but the Spirit; That the Water indeed is joined with the Spirit, as the Sign of the Death and Burial of the Old Man, but that 'tis the Spirit who gives a New Life; That Baptism is administered by dipping three times into the Water, and by invoking the Trinity three times, to signify our dying to Sin, and the giving of Life; That the Baptism of Jesus Christ is very different from that of St. John, which was only the Baptism of Water, whereas that of Jesus Christ is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and of Fire. Last of all, he says, That the Martyrs who suffered Death for Jesus Christ, needed not the Baptism of Water in order to their receiving the Crown, being baptised in their own Blood. He speaks also in this place of the Fire of the Day of Judgement, which he calls the Baptism of Fire, that shall try all Mankind.  
In the 17th. and 18th▪ he shows, That the Holy Spirit is joined to the Father, and to the Son, as a Person equal, and not as one inferior. To prove this, he uses the Rules of Logic, having to do with an Adversary, against whom he must use these Arms.  
In the 19th. he proves, That we should celebrate the Glory and Praises of the Holy Spirit, as we do those of the Father and of the Son, and that we should give him the same Honours.  
In the 20th. he refutes the Opinion of those who say, That the Holy Spirit is neither a Lord nor a Servant, but that he is Free. He shows that this Opinion is very absurd; for either he is a Creature or not; if not, than he is God or Lord; and if he is, he must be a Servant, for all Creatures have a Dependence upon God.  
In the 21st. he shows by many Testimonies of Scripture, That the Holy Spirit is there called Lord.  
In the 22d. he proves his Divinity by many Passages of Scripture.  
In the 23d. he alleges the Miracles attributed to the Holy Spirit, to prove that he is God.  
In the 24th. he shows, That we should Glorify the Holy Spirit, as we do the Father and the Son.  
In the 25th. he answers those who object, That the Scripture never uses this Expression, The Father, and the Son, with the Holy Spirit; and he shows, that to say, The Father, and the Son, with the Holy Spirit, signifies nothing else but, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; That the erroneous way which they would have us use, is not to be found in the Holy Scripture; Glory be to the Father by the only Son in the Holy Spirit; That the Particle in has the same Sense in this place as the Particle with; That the Fathers made use of the Particle with, as being most proper to oppose the Errors of Arius and Sabellius, and that 'tis less capable of an ill Sense; That notwithstanding he is not tied up to this Expression, provided we be willing to render Glory to the Holy Spirit.  
In the following Chapter, he goes on to explain with much subtlety the Difference between the Particles in and with.  
In the 27th. he proposes this Objection, We ought to receive nothing but what is in the Holy Scripture: But these Words are not to be found, Glory to the Father, and to the Son, with the Holy Spirit. In answer to which, he First sends his Adversaries back to what he had said in Ch. 25. Afterwards he adds, That in the Church there are some Opinions and Practices founded upon the Testimonies of Scripture; but then there are also some which are founded only upon unwritten Tradition: That the Scripture and Tradition have an equal Authority for the establishing of Piety and Truth, and that none who follow the Ecclesiastical Laws resist them: That if we should reject all Customs that are not founded on Scripture, we shall greatly prejudice Religion, and reduce it to a superficial Belief of some particular Opinions. 'Tis easy, says he, to give Examples of this; and to begin with that which is most common. Where find we it written, that we must make the Sign of the Cross upon those who begin to Hope in Jesus Christ? What Book of Scripture teaches us, that we must turn to the East to make our Prayers? What Saint has left us in his Writings the Words of Invocation, when we Consecrate the Bread of the Eucharist and the Cup of Blessing? For we do not content ourselves with pronouncing the Words set down by the Apostle St. Paul, and the Evangelists, but we add several Prayers, both before and after, which we consider as having much Efficacy upon the Sacrament; and yet we have them not but by Tradition. We Consecrate the Water of Baptism, the Oil of Unction, and him also who is to be baptised; Where is this written? Is not this a Secret Tradition? Is it not Custom which has taught us that we must Anoint him who is to be baptised? Where has the Scripture taught us, that we must use three Dippings in baptising? We must say the same of the other Ceremonies of Baptism, as of Renouncing the Devil and his Angels. Who has obliged us to do these things? Whence have we Learned them? Have we them not from the Tradition of our Fathers? Who observed them, without divulging or publishing of them, being persuaded that Silence kept up a Veneration for the Mysteries? What necessity was there of putting that in Writing which it was not lawful to reveal or to explain to those who were not yet baptised? Afterwards he gives the Reason of some Usages which he had mentioned. He observes also, That Christians pray to God standing from Easter to Whitsunday; That they kneel and afterwards rise up. He gives Mystical Reasons for these Customs, which are so forced, that 'tis easy to perceive, there is no better Reason to be given than Custom and Practice. Lastly, he concludes, That since there are so many things which we have by Tradition, we ought not to reprehend one simple Particle which the Ancients made use of.  
This he proves in the 29th. Chapter, where he alleges the Authorities of St. Irenaeus, St. Clemens Romanus, the Two Dionysii, Eusebius of Caesarea, Origen, Africanus, Athenogenes, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Firmilian and Meletius, besides the Prayers of the Church, and the Consent of the Eastern and Western Churches. Towards the end of this Chapter he complains of the hardships which his Calumniators make him suffer. In the last, he describes the miserable State of the Church. He compares it to a Fleet of Ships tossed with a great Tempest, which is the cause of Shipwreck to many of them, and Points out the Troubles and Miseries wherewith the Church was afflicted very admirably: This Chapter alone is sufficient to show that this Book is undoubtedly St. Basils.  
He proves also the Divinity of the Holy Spirit in Homily 17th. upon Baptism, and he explains the Faith of the Church concerning the Trinity in Homily 15th. of Faith. He enlarges upon the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. He treats also of the same thing in Homily 29. against those who accuse us of worshipping Three Gods.  
In Homily 19 St. Basil treats of that famous and difficult Question, Why do the Just suffer, and why is there any Evil, if God takes care of things here below? St. Basil answers, That all this is done by the Permission of God; That Diseases, Calamities, Pain and Death are not real Evils; That Sin which is the only Evil, comes not from God, but from ourselves; That God exposes Men to Sufferings, either to cure them, or to punish them, or to make them serve for an Example; Or lastly, to make them good and deserving: And moreover, That God is not the first Author of Diseases, Pain and Death; because he created Man free from them, and these things entered into the World only by his Sin. But why, may some object, did not God make him impeccable? He answers, because in order to the honouring of God, and meriting from him, 'twas necessary that he should obey him voluntarily and freely; That the Devil was the Cause of his own Perdition, by using his Liberty amiss; That the Tree of Life and Death was placed in Paradise, to try the Obedience of Man; and that it was his own fault that he made an ill use of it. He observes that the Daemons dwell in the Air, and are incorporeal.  
The 31st. Discourse which is of freewill, has some Connexion with the preceding. Therein he teaches, First, That Men deceive themselves, if they imagine that they can overcome Temptations, by the sole Power of their own Liberty, without the assistance of God; That freewill can indeed choose for us Good and Evil; but God only can enable us to do Good; That we must therefore beg the Assistance of the Divine Power, which cannot be obtained without refraining from Worldly Pleasures: That by the Sin of the First Man, we are become like Beasts; That we must labour to be of the Number of the Children of God, and to excite in us the Fire of the Holy Spirit, which Jesus Christ came to bring down upon the Earth, and which descended on the Apostles at the day of Pentecost; That we must pray God that this Fire may descend upon us, that we walking always in the Light may never fall, and that we may be as the Lights of the World.  
In Homily 25th. of the Nativity of the Word, he explains the Mystery of the Incarnation. He says, That the Word was not changed by uniting itself to the Humane Naure; That he was made Man to Redeem us; That he took a Body in the Womb of the Virgin Mary, by the Operation of the Holy Spirit; That his Body was made all at once; That Mary was a Virgin, though she was Married to St. Joseph. After this, he examines this Question, Whether she knew her Husband after she brought forth Jesus Christ into the World? He says, That this is not a Fundamental Article of our Faith; but that those who have a love for Jesus Christ, cannot endure to hear it said, that the Mother of God lost her Virginity, and became the Mother of a Man. He explains the Difficulties which may be raised against this Doctrine, from the Particle, Until that, and from the Character of Firstborn, which is given to Jesus Christ. Afterwards he explains some Circumstances of the Birth of Jesus Christ. He believes that the Wise Men were Persians; That the Star which they saw was not an ordinary Star, and that they knew it signified the Birth of Jesus Christ, as well by the Prophecy of Balaam, as because they saw the Power of the Devil very much diminished. Lastly, He exhorts his Auditors to celebrate with Joy the Feast of the Nativity of Jesus Christ.  
In the First Book of Baptism, he proves, First, That we must not Baptise any but those that are well-instructed and persuaded of the Faith of Jesus Christ, and who have renounced the World, their Vices, their Passions, and if need be, their Life. Secondly, He shows, That in order to Salvation, 'tis not enough to be baptised, but that we must also keep the Commandments and do good Works. He shows afterwards what difference there is between the Baptisms of Moses, of St. John, and of Jesus Christ. He says, That the Baptism of Moses separated some Men from others, but did not pardon them; That the Baptism of St. John being received with a Penitent Heart, conferred Remission of Sins; but the Baptism of Jesus Christ is much more excellent and efficacious: That by this Baptism we die unto Sin and live unto Righteousness; That we are Crucified and Buried with Jesus Christ; That we are raised again together with him; That Sin hath no more Dominion over us; That we are filled with the Holy Spirit, and clothed with Jesus Christ. At last, he adds, That after we are baptised, we have need to be nourished with the Food of Eternal Life; that's to say, with the Eucharist, which we ought to receive with most holy Dispositions, lest we should eat and drink our own Damnation.  
In the 2d. Book he proposes many Questions. The First is, Whether he that is baptised be obliged to die unto the World and to live unto God? He answers, Yes, he is. The Second is, Whether he that performs the Office of a Priest, aught to be pure in Heart? He answers, That if Moses removed from the Sacrifices of the Old Law, all those that were impure, Purity is yet more necessary to him that touches the Body of Jesus Christ.  
The Third Question is, Whether it be lawful for one to receive the Eucharist when he is unclean? St. Basil answers it after the same manner as he did the preceding.  
In the 4th. he teaches, That we must obey the Commandments, though it seems to us, that there were some Actions of Jesus Christ or the Saints contrary to them; and that we must never seek for Excuses nor Pretences to dispense with the Observation of the Law. He adds in the 5th. That all disobedience to the Commands of God is punishable, and that it deserves the Divine Vengeance.  
In the 6th. he proves that a Man sins not only by doing Evil, but also by omitting to do good when we are obliged to do it.  
In the 7th. he advertises us, That we must regulate the Inward Man, before we give unto God any external Worship.  
In the 8th. That we must not only perform the things commanded; but also do them in the manner which is enjoined, in the order and time prescribed.  
In the 9th. he shows, That we ought to shun the Society and Conversation of Wicked Men.  
In the 10th. he treats of Scandal. He defines it, That which Seduces us from the Truth, and draws us into Error or Impiety; or, That which hinders us to obey the Commands of God as long as we live: So that every thing may be called Scandal which is contrary to the Will of God. He adds, That 'tis also Scandal to do a thing, though it be lawful, when it is the cause of the loss or fall of the Weak. He observes also, That there is sometimes a Scandal taken without cause.  
In the 11th. he shows, That 'tis never lawful to do those things which are forbidden by the Law of God, nor to obey those that command such things, and that we must never use our Reason to exempt ourselves from Obedience to the Law of God.  
In the 12th. he shows, That we ought not only to take care of those Persons that are under our Conduct; but that our Charity also must extend to all other Christians: and that a Bishop ought in case of Necessity to help all the Churches.  
In the last, he proves by Scripture, That we must endure all and suffer all, even Death itself, rather than fail in our Duty, or disobey the Law of God. This Treatise appears to be rather of Morality than Doctrine; but though he treats there of Moral Questions, yet he handles them Dogmatically, and found'st his Decisions upon all the Testimonies of Scripture which belong to his Subject.  
The Treatise of true Virginity contains many Precepts for preserving Virginity. In it he extols very much the state of Virgins, and discovers the Dangers to which they are exposed. There are in this Treatise some Passages which may offend nice Ears; but 'tis to be considered, that 'tis addressed to a Bishop, and not to the Virgins themselves; setting that aside, 'tis very Eloquent, and very well written.  
In Homily 28. of Penance, he proves against the Novatians, That those who have sinned after Baptism, have still the Remedy of Penance; but he admonishes them that they ought not to sin in hopes of doing Penance; That commonly those who sin with this disposition of Mind are deprived of Repentance; That in truth there is hope of Pardon when they have sinned; but still it is like a Wound that can be healed, which leaves some Scar forever behind it.  
We are now insensibly fallen into the Homilies of Morality, out of which we shall make our Extracts, before we come to the Ascetical Treatises.  
The First is a Homily about Fasting. After he has in the First Part admonished us, that we must Fast with a pleasant Countenance, than he Exhorts Christians to Fast, alleging many Authorities and Examples to that purpose. He shows the Necessity of Fasting, and answers the Excuse that is most commonly alleged for dispensing with it, which is the want of Health or Sickness. Do not allege to me, says he, your Indisposition; Don't tell me that you cannot endure Fasting; 'Tis not to me that ye allege these Excuses, 'tis to God, from whom nothing can be hid. But tell me, Can you not Fast, say you? Alas, Can you fill yourselves with Victuals, can you charge your Stomaches with all sorts of Meats? Do not the Physicians prescribe to those that are Sick Abstinence and Dieting themselves, rather than abundance of Food? How come you then to say, that you can Eat very much, and that you cannot Diet yourselves? At last, St. Basil says, That our Fasting should be accompanied with Abstinence from Evil; That we must fast from our Passions and Vices; and that without this, bodily Fasting is unprofitable. Take heed, says he, that you make not your Fast to consist only in Abstinence from Meats: True Fasting is to refrain from Vice. Tear in pieces all your Unjust Obligations; Pardon your Neighbour; forgive him his Debts. Fast not to stir up Strife and Contention. You eat no Flesh, but you devour your Brother; You drink no Wine, but you cannot refrain from doing Injury to others; You wait till Night to take your Repast, but you spend all the Day at the Tribunals of the Judges. Woe be to you who are Drunk without Wine: Anger is a kind of Inebriation, which does no less trouble the Mind than real Drunkenness. He speaks afterwards against those who use Fasting, to prepare themselves for larger Drinking and Eating, or who indulge themselves as much as they can after they have Fasted, as if it were to redeem the time they have lost. He gives a natural and frightful representation of Drunkenness, sufficient to beget a horror of it; he dissuades from it also from the Consideration of the Body of Jesus Christ which they are to receive. He says, That Fasting and Abstinence are Ornaments to Cities, secure the Tranquillity of Public Assemblies, the Peace of Families, and the Preservation of our Estates: He says, That to be persuaded of this, they needed only compare the Night of this present day in which he Preached, with the Night of the next Day, (From whence it appears that this Day was a Public Fast.) At last he wishes, That in these Days wherein Christians are called to the Practice of Fasting, they might learn to know the Efficacy of their Temperance to prepare them for that Great Day wherein God will reward their Virtue.  
The Second Homily is also an Exhortation to Fasting. Therein he condemns those who allowed themselves great Liberties in Eating and Drinking before their Fasting. He says, That all Christians of all Ages and Conditions are obliged to it. Lastly, He speaks of the principal Disposition for profitable Fasting, which is to abstain from Vice.  
The Third Homily about Fasting published by Cotelerius, is shorter than the two preceding; but it is written upon the same Principles, and upon the same Subject.  
In the Third Homily upon these words, Take heed to yourselves, St. Basil recommends that Vigilance and Care which one ought to have over himself, that's to say, over his Soul, and his Behaviour. He says, That this Care is necessary for Sinners that they may amend their ways, and for the Innocent, lest they should fall: That the first have need to watch over themselves to cure themselves. You have committed, says he, a great Sin, you must then endure a long Penance, you must shed bitter tears, you must pass whole Nights in watching, you must Fast continually. Though you have committed but a slight Sin, yet you must watch over yourselves to do Penance for it; for it often happens, that those who have but a slight Sickness, become dangerously Sick when they neglect it. After this he shows, That this Watchfulness is necessary to fulfil the Duties of all States and Conditions. He reproves those that watch for the Faults of others, but never think of their own. He shows, That this Watchfulness is necessary to every Man in whatsoever state he is, and that it is a Remedy to all our Evils, and to all our Passions. If you are ambitious, says he, if you are lifted up above measure, ●…her upon the account of your great Riches, or because of your Nobility; if you take Pleasure in your Beauty, if you are inspired with a Passion for Glory, if you are Lovers of Pleasures, you have nothing to do but to take heed to yourselves, and you may know that you are Mortal, that you are Dust, and shall return to Dust. If Anger transports you to do brutal Actions, take heed to yourselves, and you shall presently be ashamed of that Condition to which Anger has reduced you. In short, This Watchfulness which you should have over yourselves, will make you know God. You will find some Footsteps of him in yourselves: Your Soul will make you know that he is Spiritual; you will admire him who has made such an excellent Piece of Workmanship, and the more you consider the Perfections of your Soul and Body, the more sublime Idea you will conceive of the Greatness, the Power, and the Wisdom of God.  
The 4th. Homily, entitled, of Thanksgiving, is about the Joy which St. Paul prescribes to Christians in these words of his Epistle to the Thessalonians: Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, giving thanks to God for every thing. He explains in what sense Christians ought always to be Joyful: He says, That in order to their having this Joy, they must be like St. Paul; that's to say, they must live in Jesus Christ, and their Joy must not depend upon changes of Fortune, but it must be solid, and depend upon their own Good Conscience, and their hope of Eternal Happiness, which renders those Happy who are most Miserable in the Eyes of the World. He shows, That the Joys of this World are Afflictions to those that are Good; and on the contrary, the Afflictions of this World are an occasion of Joy to them. He explains in what sense Jesus Christ wept, and why the Saints have Power to weep. At last he exhorts all Christians to be no more sad, for the loss of this World's Goods; but on the contrary to rejoice in the hope of those Good Things that are to come.  
He continues the same Subject in the following Homily which was made upon the Festival of St. Julita the Martyr. This Saint had a Lawsuit with a Man, which she commenced for all her Estate. 'Twas promised her, that she should gain her Cause, if she would renounce Jesus Christ, but she was assured that she should lose all if she should not agree to this Proposition. She answered with Courage: You shall sooner take away my Goods, and deprive me of my Life, than ever make me speak one single Word against my God. This Answer caused her to be condemned to the Fire wherein she expired; but her Body could not be burnt by the Flames. This is the History which St. Basil relates in this Sermon, upon which Occasion he pursues the preceding Discourse, and continues the Explication of the Words of St. Paul. He says, That the continual Prayer which God requires of us, does not consist in a vocal repeating of Prayers, but in the Design that one has to do Good. So according to him, if a Man would pray continually, he ought always to be united to God in his Actions, and in every thing to follow his Will. At last, he says, That we must thank God and praise him for every thing, and that neither Losses, nor Diseases, nor Wrongs, nor Afflictions, nor the Death of our Relations, nor the other Miseries of this Life ought to hinder us from praising God, and giving him thanks continually; That in Adversity we ought to thank God, because 'tis good for us to be humbled; and we ought to praise him in Prosperity, saying to him in the Words of the Royal Prophet, O my God, what shall I render unto thee for all the benefits that thou hast done unto me. He recites many Motives of Consolation in Adversity, taken from the Mercies of God, the Hope of future Happiness, the Wisdom of God, the Submission that's due to his Will, and the Miseries of others. And Lastly, he assures us that nothing but Sin should make us weep, and that if Charity obliges us to Mourn with those that Mourn, that is only by a kind of Condescension which should not last long. At the End of this Homily, he reproves those who make themselves Drunk to drive away Sadness.  
The three following Homilies are about Riches, and against Covetousness. The First is upon the Words of the Rich Man mentioned in the Gospel, who seeing the Superabundance of his Goods, said, I will pull down my Barns, and I will build larger. He gins with this Remark, That Men have Two great Temptations in this Life, Great Adversity, and Great Prosperity. That Job overcame the first, but the Rich Man in the Gospel was overcome by the last. After this he makes Reflections upon the Actions and the Punishment of this Rich Man, and says, they ought to teach us to be Bountiful towards the Poor, and to make good use of our Riches. He observes, That we are only Stewards of our Riches; That all that we have is for others; That we should imitate the Earth which brings forth her Fruit for others; That the Good which we do will turn to our Profit; That 'tis more Glorious to give than to receive; That 'tis an accursed thing to withhold Corn for a time of Dearth; That 'tis a piece of Inhumanity to despise the Poor; That Riches are unprofitable if they be not distributed; That the Thoughts of the Covetous are vain and senseless; and that they take a great deal of Pains to heap up Riches which they never enjoy. After this he answers the Objections of Covetous Men. One says, I will give to Morrow, to exempt himself from giving to Day. Alas! What do you know whether you shall be alive to Morrow in this place? Another says, I am Poor, I have need enough myself of all my Means. Yes you are Poor, you are destitute, but 'tis of Charity, of Benignity, of Faith, of Mercy. A Third says, Whom do I wrong, I detain nothing but what is mine own; and here St. Basil is angry with this wicked Maxim. And I, says he, demand of you, Why do you say, that those Riches are your own? From whom did you receive them, and from whence did you bring them? Did not you come naked out of your Mother's-Womb, and shall not you return naked to the Dust? From whence then did this present Wealth come? If you say it came by Chance, you are impious; if you confess that you received it from God, tell me why did it fall to your Lot rather than another's? God is not unjust in the unequal Division of Goods which he makes amongst Men. Why then are you Rich, and why is this Man Poor? 'Tis that you who are Rich, may receive the Reward of difpensing your Goods faithfully, and that the Poor Man may receive the Recompense of his Patience. And therefore when you appropriate to yourself that Wealth which belongs to many particular Persons, and of which you are only a Steward; you are a Robber, you detain that which is none of your own. Yea, the Bread which you keep to yourself, whereof you have more than serves for the use of your Family, belong to the Poor who die for Famine; the Garments which you keep locked up in your Wardrobe, belongs to the naked; the Money which you hid, belongs to the ruin'd, etc. These are fine Discourses, you will tell me, but Gold is yet a much ●…er thing. Thus does the Covetous Man talk, when he hears us preach. For as it is sometimes seen, that the unchaste hearing us speak contemptuously of the Passion of Lust, do thereby receive a New Fire which stirs them up more violently than before; so also the Covetous hearing us Discourse against Riches, conceive a greater Love and Passion for them. But what think they of these terrible Words of Jesus Christ, Go ye cursed into Eternal Fire; for I was hungry, and you gave me no Meat, I was a-thirst, and you gave me no Drink, etc. Not only those who take away fewer Goods shall be then condemned, but also those who do not distribute of their Riches to the Poor.  
The Second Homily is against those who have an insatiable desire of Enriching themselves. The subject of this is the History of the rich Young Man, who went away sad, when our Saviour bid him Sell all that he had, and distribute the price of it to the Poor. He shows by this Example, That 'tis unprofitable to keep the Commandments, if one does not give Alms; and that all other Virtues will avail nothing, if one's Heart be fixed to this World by an immoderate Love of riches. He shows, That what is necessary is not very much; and at the same time he proves, That the greatest Part of rich men's Expenses are superfluous. He gives a very pleasant List of them in particulars, and which suit well enough with the manners of our Age. He dissuades from Avarice by the fear of Death and of Judgement, and by the meanness of Riches, and the bad Effects which they produce. Afterwards he reputes the most common Pretences which are made use of to excuse Covetousness. The First is founded upon the uncertainty of what may come to pafs: We know not, say they, the Accidents that may happen, or the Necessities we may be reduced to. But, says St. Basil, is not the use of your Treasures yet more uncertain? And though it were not, Can you make use of this Excuse, while you spend your Wealth upon a Thousand Superfluities? But I want it, say you, for my Children. This Excuse for Covetousness is plausible. You cover yourselves with the Pretence of your Children, that you may satisfy your Lusts. Is it from you, that your Son received Life? Is it not from God who guides and preserves him? Ought he then to hinder you from obeying his Commandments? The Riches that you leave him, will, it may be, be the occasion of his Ruin: Who knows whether he will make a good or bad use of them? Is not your Soul neare● to you than your Children? 'Tis for the Good of that, that you should bestow the Chief Part of your Riches in Distributing to the Poor; and then afterwards, give to your Children what they stand in need of for their Livelihood. Those who have no Children, pretend the Necessities of this Life, as a Cloak for their Avarice. They would use what they have, they would neither Sell any thing, nor give any thing away. St. Basil declares, That this Temper of Mind, is contrary to the Respect which is due to the Faith of Jesus Christ, and that it makes it void, whilst it forms to itself a Rule and Conduct contrary to the Maxims of the Gospel. At Last, he refutes the Pretence of those who think to exempt themselves from giving Alms in their Life-time, by leaving their Goods by Will as Legacies to the Poor. Miserable Wretches that you are, says he to them, you will not then be Liberal and Charitable towards Men, till you cease to Live! What Recompense can you expect for a Liberality which comes after Death? O brave Piety to practise no good Works but with Ink and Paper! You deceive yourselves, and you think to fulfil the Commands of the Gospel in dying. Abraham nevertheless will tell you then; My Son, you enjoyed your Good Things and Pleasures in your Life-time: Do not your Actions show, That you could have wished yourselves to be Immortal; That you might always have enjoyed your Riches, and that if you had been so, you would never have remembered the Commands of God, and the Precepts of the Gospel; and therefore it is to Death, and not to you, that the Poor aught to give thanks for the Good you have done them. Do not deceive yourselves, God will not be deceived, he will not be thus mocked; that which is dead is not to be offered unto the Sanctuary, offer up a living Sacrifice. He that offers up only the remains of the Sacrifices is an ungrateful Person.  
St. Basil treats also of Alms in a Homily, which was made upon the occasion of a great Famine and Dearth. After he has described these Calamities, he says, that the hard heartedness of the Rich to the Poor, was the cause of them. The Fields are barren, says he, because Charity is waxed cold? He observes, That public Prayers were made, but in so bad a manner, and with so much distraction that they were not heard; That Children were sent to them, whereas the Heads of Families should have come themselves, to beg God's Mercy for their Sins. He relates the Example of the Ninevites; he exhorts Persons of all Conditions to give Alms according to their ability. You are poor, says he, but you may find many poorer than you: You have Corn for two Days, and there are some who have it only for to Day. If you are Good and Charitable, divide equally what you have left with him that has nothing; be never the more backward to give him because you have but little left for yourselves; you prefer your private Interest and Advantage to the common danger of many Poor People. For tho' you had no more but one Loaf, if a miserable Wretch shall beg of you one Morsel of it, do not refuse him, and when you give it to him, lift up your Hands towards Heaven, and say these Just and Charitable Words: Lord, I have but this one Loaf which you see, and I see myself in danger of having no more; but I prefer thy Commandment to the Love of myself, and of the little that I have, I give a Charity to my Brother, who is sore pinched with Hunger. Give also an Alms on your part, O my God, to your Servant, who runs a hazard of wanting Victuals. I know your Goodness, and put my Trust in your Sovereign Power, you will not long delay the relief of your Liberal Hand, but scatter abundantly in a few Days the Gifts of your Magnificence. 'Tis certain, adds he, that those who rely upon Divine Providence, are like the Springs and Fountains which are not dried up by drawing from them, but send forth their Waters with a greater Force than before. If ye are Poor, lend your Money upon Interest to God who is Rich. Afterwards he represents the Misery and Pain of Hunger, and describes in a most moving manner the Extremity of a Man languishing for want of Food, to beget the greater horror of the Cruelty and Barbarity of Covetous Rich Men, who suffer their Brethren to die for Hunger when they are able to assist them. He observes, That in a time of public Necessity especially, we must give considerable Alms▪ and that we must expiate our Sins by Charity to the Poor. At last, he admonishes the Poor not to throw themselves into Despair, but to put their Trust in the Mercy of God, who has sometimes plentifully fed the Just after an extraordinary manner. He exhorts them to suffer with Patience like Job, to consider their Misery as the Trial of their Virtue, to give thanks to God, to bestow something to the Poor, even of their Necessaries, assuring them that this is the way to procure the Multiplication of their Loaves, as God did formerly Multiply the Cruise of Meal to the Widow of Sarepta.  
To these three Sermons may be joined the Homily wherein he proves, That we must not set our Hearts upon the Riches and Pleasures of this World. There he shows, That the only Care which we ought to be concerned for, is that of our Souls; That we ought to rid our Minds of the Love of Riches, and give bountifully to the Poor. After this he describes a Fire, which it was feared might have burnt down the City: He conjures those that escaped this great Calamity, to relieve those that suffered, and exhorts these last to Patience by the Example of Job, whose History he explains.  
The 10th. Homily is against Anger; where First he excites a horror of this Passion, by giving a Description of its mischievous Effects; and then he shows, That we can have no just Excuse for this Passion of Anger, by showing that all the Pretences which are alleged for it are false. The First is an Injury which we may think we have received. But St. Basil shows, That we ought not to render Injury for Injury, and that we must not imitate our Enemy, nor follow his Footsteps and Example. He adds, That whatsoever Outrage has been done to us, we need do no more, but remember that we are Dust, and shall return to Dust, to convince us that we have deserved all sorts of Reproaches and Disgraces: That by showing Meekness we revenge ourselves of our Enemies, that we acquire the Glory of being Mild and Patiented, and that Silence upon this Occasion, deserves the Rewards of Heaven. Reproaches are another Cause of Anger: But St. Basil shows, That even this is ill-grounded, because these Reproaches are either True or False; if they are True, we are to blame if we trouble ourselves for them; if they are false, our Anger for them gives Cause to suspect that they are true▪ But he called me Poor, says one: If that be true says St. Basil, bear with it; if it be false, What does it concern you? 'Tis no shame to be Poor, for you came naked into the World, and Jesus Christ being Rich would appear Poor in it. He treated me as a Fool and an Ignorant Fellow, will another say. Yet many more reproachful Words were spoken of Jesus Christ. But yet, How can we forbear being angry, when we are abused, and buffeted, when we are beaten and torn in pieces? Will others say. Jesus Christ did also suffer more than all this, answers St. Basil. Lastly, St. Basil prescribes Rules to avoid Anger, as not to think more highly of ourselves than others, to hearken with a Philosophical Temper to the Discourses of a Man that is truly angry with Sin, with the Devil, with Error, with the Enemies of God; to practise Humility, and consider the Miseries of Men. He concludes with some New Reasons to dissuade Men from Anger.  
The 11th. Homily is against Envy. In the First Part, he reckons up the Reasons which may inspire a Man with hatred of this Vice. He says, That 'tis a Vice proper to the Devil, which gnaws and consumes him in whom it is found, tho' he receives no Profit by it, and which is always accompanied with Melancholy and Vexation of Spirit, and that an Envious Man is the unhappiest Man in the World. Lastly, He describes all the troublesome Consequences, and miserable Effects of Envy; and he says, That the best way to Cure this Vice, is to have no great Esteem of the things of this World, to despise its perishable Goods, and to place all our Happiness in the Hope of a Future Life, to believe that nothing but Virtue is a solid and true Good, and to desire nothing else.  
The 14th. Homily is against Drunkenness. It was composed upon the occasion of a Disorder which happened upon Easter-Eve. Probably there had been at that time some profane Recreations; the Men and Women without any Reverence for the Vigils of so Holy a Festival, had made Feasts, and the Women had assembled, and were come to Dance and Sing, even to places where the Bodies of the Martyrs were kept. St. Basil having seen this Disorder, was sensibly touched as he says of himself at the beginning of his Discourse; That after so many Exhortations, after seven Weeks Fasting, after being present so many times at the Service of the Church and the Sermons, during the time of Lent, they had destroyed in one Day the Fruit of all his Labours. He says, That he knew not whether he should hold his Peace, or whether he should speak; That he should have held his Peace, but that he feared the Chastisement of Jeremy, for having refused to Preach to an Unbelieving and Rebellious People; That Drunkenness was the source of this Disorder, and that he must now Preach against this Vice. This is in Effect the Subject of this Homily, wherein he possesses Men's Minds with a great horror of this Crime, and describes the pernicious Effects of it. Towards the end of it, he returns to the excesses of the preceding Day. He cries out against their Songs and Dances, against their immoderate Laughter, against their Apparel, which was neither Honest nor Modest; and he exhorts those of his Hearers who had been of this Company, to Cure themselves of Drunkenness by Fasting, to sing Psalms instead of the merry Songs which they had sung, to turn their Laughter into Mourning, and their Dancing into Kneeling; and in short, to leave off their Sumptuous and Magnificent Apparel, and to put on that which is more agreeable to Modesty and Christian Humility.  
The 22d. Homily is of Humility. He gins it with observing, That Man lost his Dignity by the Sin of Adam, and that he cannot recover it but by Humility: That the Devil uses all his Endeavours to destroy this Virtue, and to deprive us of it, by possessing us with a great Esteem of Riches, of Honours, and the Advantages of Body and Mind. But he shows, That a Man ought not to Glory in all these things, which are no ways permanent, but pass away in a Moment; That the only true Glory of Man, is to know God, to be fully persuaded of his own Misery, and to believe that we are justified only by Faith in Jesus Christ, and that we ought to attribute all to God. This is the great Principle of St. Austin about Grace, which St. Basil explains in this place, adding that we can do nothing without the Assistance and Grace of Jesus Christ; That 'tis a Folly and Stupidity to think, that the Grace of Jesus Christ is a Natural Power; That St. Peter who answered with a Spirit of Pride to Jesus Christ telling him, tho' all your Disciples should be offended, yet will I never be offended, was abandoned to humane Weakness, and so fell into Sin. He speaks afterwards of the other part of Humility, which is, not to Exalt ourselves above others, not to Esteem ourselves more than them, not to Despise them because of their Faults; but to believe ourselves much greater Sinners than they. He exhorts his Auditors to imitate the Life of Jesus Christ which was a continued Course of Actions of Humility; he would have a Christian imitate his Master, and give Signs of Humility in all his Behaviour. Your Humility, says he, must appear in the Plainness of your Apparel, in the Modesty of your Ornaments, in your Gate, in the Frugality of your Table, in the Tone of your Voice, in the Simplicity of your Furniture, in the Order of your House, in the Manner of Accosting and Saluting your Brethren. Take heed that you do not discover in your Discourse and in your Actions a Stately and Affected Way, and be Affable to your Friends, Mild towards your Domestics, Patient with the Passionate, and Courteous to Inferiors. Comfort the Afflicted, Visit the Sick, Despise no Body, be Pleasant in your Requests, Cheerful in your Answers, Complaisant and Easy to all the World; do not Praise yourselves, do no Despise those who Praise themselves, hid as much as you can your own Merit and Virtue, accuse yourselves of your Sins without waiting for the Reproof of others, be not troublesome nor severe in your Reproofs, neither let them be given in Anger; Condemn not your Neighbour for small Faults, have a Compassion and Tenderness for those that have Sinned. In short, eat the Praises of Men, by all the ways that others use to purchase Glory, and think not to please any but God only. In a Word, put on Humility, and by this means you shall arrive at Glory, Jesus Christ will acknowledge you for his Disciple, and will Glorify you.  
The subject of the 21st. Homily which was pronounced at Laciza, in a public Assembly, is more complex than that of the preceding. There he exhorts those to whom he speaks, to remember the Spiritual Discourses which were read to them in the Morning, for finding out Remedies against Temptations. He recommends to them, to have no regard to the Condition of Men in this World, but to consider all Christians as Brethren, to treat the Poor and Rich alike, and the Small as well as the Great, because nothing but Sin puts a Difference between Men. He dissuades them afterwards from the three principal Vices, which are Anger, Envy, and Covetousness. He repeats in this Homily many things which are found in those whereof we have already spoken. He observes in it, That these kind of Assemblies meet every Year; that the People who cannot have Preachers every Day are able to teach them these things, may learn them at least once a Year by coming to these public Festivals.  
The 30th. Homily is an Exhortation to the Catechumen who delay or neglect to receive Baptism. He says in his Exordium, That though one may lawfully receive Baptism at anytime; yet the time of Easter is the most proper time for receiving it: That for this Reason, the Church as a Good Mother, invites at this time all the Catechumen to receive Baptism. He exhorts them to receive it, First, because if the Jews ran with so much earnestness to receive the Baptism of St. John, 'tis very fit that they should show yet more earnestness to receive the Baptism of Jesus Christ, which is far greater, more excellent, and more effectual than that of his forerunner. Secondly, Because 'tis dangerous to delay, and oftentimes Men are surprised by Death, and because without Baptism, we can have no part in the Kingdom of Heaven, nor can we be delivered from the Tyranny of the Devil. If one were to distribute, says he, Gold and Silver; if he were to give Temporal Favours in any place, all the World would run thither: Wherefore then do you not run to Baptism? If one promises to remit all the Debts of another, will not the Debtor run to receive his Promise? When therefore the Business is to receive Remission of your Sins, What Reason have you to delay? If one be guilty of many Faults, Grace is promised in greater Abundance to those who have more Sins. If you be afraid of sinning, Why do you trouble yourself about the time to come? Seeing you are well Conducted through the time past, after having lived to the World, you must live to God. Baptism is the sign by which a Christian is known; it changes a man entirely. He must not put off Living well till Old Age, which is nothing but to Mock God, by giving him the last Years of Life, after he has bestowed the prime of his Years upon the Devil and the World, upon his Pleasures and his Sins. Temperance in Old Age is no longer a Virtue, 'tis a sign of Weakness which will never be rewarded. Moreover, he is not certain that he shall be in a Condition to receive Baptism, he may die suddenly, he may fall into a Sickness, which shall take away his Speech and his Senses: 'Tis very difficult when a Man is Sick to lift up his Head to Heaven, to raise himself, to kneel down, to pray, to hearken to what is taught him, to understand it, to make profession of it, to make an Agreement with God, and to renounce, as he must, the Devil. There is nothing but the love of Licentiousness that can dissuade Men from receiving Baptism; because the Laws of Christianity punish Vice severely, and exact of Men a most regular way of Living: These require that we should be upright in heart, moderate in our words, humble in our thoughts and actions, and pure in our intentions. They forbidden all Passion and Revenge, they command us to love our Enemies, to yield to Violence, to suffer Persecution, to die to Sin, to mortify our Body, and to be crucified with Jesus Christ. But, you will say, This is hard and difficult; 'Tis so, but what Happiness is there in this World, which is easy to obtain? Who hath ever won the Prize without Trouble? Can one hope for the Reward of a brave Man by spending his Life in Pleasures? Can one obtain the Victory without running. We must enter into the Kingdom of Heaven through much Trouble and Labour. Those who do the Works of the Devil, have they less Trouble than we? Are they more exempt from Labour, etc.  
But, 'tis difficulty, say you, to preserve the Treasure of Grace, and the Innocence of Baptism: Must we then refuse a good thing for fear of being deprived of it? If you watch over yourselves, if you be constant in Praying, in Fasting, in Singing of Psalms, and in the practice of the other Exercises of a Christian, you shall preserve your Treasure. Afterwards, he represents in a lively manner, the Remorse which they shall have at the Day of Judgement who shall see themselves condemned for want of receiving Baptism. He represents the Despair which shall seize upon them; and concludes from all these Motives, that they ought quickly to Purge away their Sins by Baptism. This Exhortation is admirably suited to the Christians of our Age, who delay from day to day, to do Penance for their Sins, and forsake their Disorders.  
The 24th. Homily to Young Men, about Reading Gentile Books, is very curious. He does not absolutely forbid the Reading and Study of Profane Books; but he desires, First, That they would not dwell upon them, and that they would not look upon this Study as the principal Thing of their Life, but that they would be persuaded, that the principal Knowledge is that of working out their own Salvation; and that this Knowledge is to be learned in the Holy Scripture. 2. That they should Read Profane Books with Discretion, and not give Attention to the Evil that's in them, but only to the Examples and Discourses which may be Useful, and which lead Men to Virtue. He relates a great Number of Examples and Instructions, which he drew from all sorts of profane Authors. These are all the Moral Homilies of St. Basil; I have now only to speak of his Panegyrics; for that of Julita is rather a Moral Discourse than a Commendation of that Saint.  
In the Exordium of the Panegyric of St. Gordus. St. Basil says, That Christians celebrate the Festivals of Saints, and praise their Actions, to glorify God in his Servants, to rejoice the Righteous, and to excite all the Faithful to their Imitation. He observes that the Saints have no need of our Praises; That 'tis sufficient to relate their Lives, that so their Virtues may serve for a pattern to others. He adds, That the Nobility of Extraction, the Family, the Education, the Masters, are the Subject of Praise in Profane Panegyrics; but Christians have no other Subject of Praise, but the peculiar Virtues of those whom they commend. After this, he gives an Account of the Life of St. Gordus. He says, That this Saint was of Caesarea, and that he had the Command of a Hundred Men in the Emperor's Army; That in his time a furious Persecution was raised against the Church, which St. Basil describes; That then this Saint of his own accord quitted his Office of Captain, and retired into a Solitary place; That after he had been there exercised, purified and prepared for the Combat, he came into the City one day, when all the People were assembled to see a Public Show which was presented upon the Theatre, and declared who he was; That being led to the Tribunal of the Judge, he made Profession of Christianity; That nothing could shake his Constancy, but he went with Courage to the place of Punishment; and that after he was fortified with the Sign of the Cross, he boldly received the stroke of Death. St. Basil describes this History very eloquently, and introduces this Martyr, saying many fine things and well-worthy of his Constancy. I wonder that he did not excuse his Zeal for coming and presenting himself to the Combat, which seemed to be contrary to Christian Prudence, to the Rules of the Church, and the Determinations of the Holy Fathers. 'Tis believed that this Saint suffered Martyrdom under Licinius.  
The History of the Forty Martyrs related in the following Homily, happened also under this Emperor. St. Basil gins it with saying, That the Martyrs could not be praised too much for the Three Reasons which he alleged in the preceding Panegyric: First, Because we testify by this Remembrance of those who were the Servants of God, the respect we own to our common Master. Secondly, Because we celebrate the Praises of the Martyrs, that we may make our own Wills suffer Martyrdom. And, Lastly, That Men may be induced to imitate their Virtues.  
These 40 Martyrs were 40 Soldiers, who being at Sebastea during the Persecution of Licinius, declared that they were Christians. When the Governor of the City saw, that their Constancy could not be shaken, nor they persuaded by fair means to change their Religion, he ordered them to be exposed in the Night all naked to the rigour of the Air, at a time when a Pond near the City was quite frozen over: They resolved all to endure this Torment with Constancy; but one of them being overcome by Pain, renounced the Faith of Jesus Christ, but he lost his Soul, and could not save his Life; for he was no sooner put into warm Water to bring some heat into him again, but he expired. However, God permitted that the number of the 40 Martyrs should be complete, for one of their Guards perceiving the Angels who distributed to each of them a Crown, made Profession of being a Christian, and put himself in their Number, and was baptised in his own Blood, and saved by his Faith. The next Morning they were all Burnt, and their Ashes thrown into the River. This is the History of the 40 Martyrs, as it is related by St. Basil. 'Tis commonly believed that they were exposed all Night in the Pond; But this proceeds from a misunderstanding of St. Basil's words, who say● expressly, That they were exposed to the Air in the Middle of the City▪ at a time when the Pond hard by was all frozen over. 'Tis this which makes the Confusion. He adds one notable Circumstance, That the Mother of one of those 40 Martyrs exhorted her Son to suffer boldly. Lastly, he says, That those 40 Martyrs protect the City of Caesarea; That the Christians can find assistance by their Prayers; That if we should ardently desire for us the Prayers of one Martyr only, we ought much more to beg the Intercession of 40; That whether we be in affliction, or in a joyful condition, 'tis good to have recourse to them, either to be delivered from Evil, or to be continued in Prosperity; That they hear the Prayers of Mothers who pray for their Children, and of Women who pray for the Return or Health of their Husbands. Let us pray then together with these Martyrs, says he concluding his Discourse, Let us join our Prayers with theirs.  
In the Panegyric of the Martyr Mamas, which is the 24th. he Praises this Holy Martyr who had been a Shepherd; seeing that he probably had but little to say of him, he enlarges in this Homily upon the Praises of Shepherds, and gives a Catalogue of the Great Men who had kept Flocks. Towards the end, he makes a Digression against the Arians: 'tis believed that this Mamas suffered under the Emperor Aurelian.  
The Panegyric upon the Martyr Barlaam, is a very short Discourse; wherein he praises this generous Confessor, who had endured with Constancy the burning of his Hand, rather than suffer the Incense to fall into a little Box, which was upon the Profane Altar of an Idol.  
The Ascetical Treatises of St. Basil are very useful, not only to the Monks, but also to all those that make Profession of Piety, and contain the Rules of the Morality of Jesus Christ, which agree to all the World.  
The three First Treatises which are at the beginning of the Asceticks, are distinct Discourses which have no Reference to them; though the First is entitled, A Preface to the Asceticks. 'Tis an Exhortation to those who have embraced a Monastic Life, wherein he endeavours to persuade them, that they are engaged as Soldiers in a Spiritual Warfare, and that they ought to fulfil all the Obligations of it. The Second also, is, An Exhortation to a Monastic Life; wherein he represents the Advantages of Celibacy, and of the Practices of Religion.  
The Third, which is entitled, Of a Monastic Life, contains many Precepts which concern those who retire from the World.  
These three Treatises are distinct Discourses, but the two following of Faith and Judgement are the Preface, or the First Book of the Asceticks. We must begin with the Book of Judgement, and join to it that of Faith, which ends with a little Preface to the Asceticks; and all these make only one Preface to the whole Work. He declares there, that having been educated in the Christian Religion, and instructed from his Youth in the Doctrine of the Holy Books, when he came to the Years of discretion, he perceived that there was much Union among the Professors of Arts and Sciences; but that he found great Divisions in the Church of Jesus Christ, that he was sometime in doubt which Party he should choose; and that meditating upon this Subject, he came to know that the greatest Evil was Schism and Division, which proceeded from the Ignorance and Sin of those who did not obey the Commands of God, and followed not his Law: That having afterwards reflected upon the terrible Judgements of God upon these Persons, he believed himself obliged to adhere to the Faith of the Church, and to meditate on those Precepts of the Holy Scripture which concern the manners and behaviour of Men: That being then persuaded, that nothing but Faith working by Love, would avail any thing, he believed that▪ 'twas Necessary after the Explication of the Faith of the Church, and the Doctrine which is to be held concerning the Trinity, to write a Book of Manners.  
This Conclusion of the Book of Judgement, shows that after it, followed the Treatise of Faith; wherein he says many fine things concerning the Virtue of Faith, and then Expounds the Doctrine of the Church, and makes Profession of the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, whom he affirms to be of the same Substance with the Father. He Exhorts those to whom he wrote, to keep to the Simplicity of this Faith, which is founded upon the Authority of the Holy Scripture, and he prays God that they may always continue inviolably fixed in it. At last, having explained this Faith, he declares, That he has collected into one Body many Precepts taken out of the New Testament.  
These Precepts are comprised in 80 Rules, divided into several Chapters. To these must be joined the 84 Great Rules and the 313 Small ones, which are answers to several Moral Questions, that comprehend all that is most Excellent in Christian Morality. These are they which make up the Body of St. Basil's Ethics or Asceticks, divided into Two Books, as we have observed. They may be consulted concerning all the Offices and Actions of a Christian Life. They may be useful to all States and Conditions, and one may say that St. Basil has there collected, and methodically digested all the Practical Part of the Gospel. Upon which Account Photius had Reason to say, That whosoever shall follow these Precepts, shall undoubtedly be saved.  
The Book of the Instructions of Monks, and of Monastical Constitutions, are two Books distinct from the Asceticks, which contain many Precepts and Rules for the Monks, that are not so general nor so useful to all the World as the Treatise of Morality.  
To know the Genius and Doctrine of St. Basil, we can address ourselves to none better than to his Faithful Friend, Gregory Nazianzen. See then how he speaks of him. He compares his Eloquence to a Trumpet sounding in the Air, to a Divine Word which shall be spread over the whole Earth, to a wonderful Whirlwind raised after a very Surprising Manner. He says, That he has dived into the most hidden Secrets of the Holy Scripture, which he has made use of to Instruct all Men, and to make them lose the Relish of things present, and fall in Love only with things to come. That his Writings are the Object of the Admiration of all Persons, and the Pleasure and Study of all Men of worth. The Authors that wrote after him, says he, say nothing but what they have drawn out of his Works: The Ancients are neglected, and nothing is minded but what he has said anew. In a word, He alone is sufficient to make an able Man.  
When I read his Treatise of the Creation, adds St. Gregory, methinks I am present with the Creator; when I light upon the Books which he wrote against Heretics, methinks I see the Fire of Sodom which reduced those criminal Tongues to ashes; when I peruse what he has written of the Holy Spirit, I acknowledge the God whom I possess, and I make no Scruple to publish boldly the Truth; when I read the Explications of Scripture which he has made for the Illiterate, I understand the deep Abysses of Mysteries; when I hear his Panegyrics of the Martyrs, I despise my own Body. I fancy myself present with those whom he praises, and I feel myself excited to the Combat; when I set myself to read the Discourses which he has written concerning Morals, and the manner of living Well, my Heart and my Soul are purified that they may become the Temple of the Holy Spirit; they reform me, they instruct me, they change me, and lead me unto Virtue. We are not here to think, That St. Gregory Nazianzen in saying all this, heightened the Matter as an Orator, or flattered him as a Friend; what he says is very true, and there is not any Author whose Writings make a greater Impression than those of St. Basil: He describes things so lively, he explains his Reasons with so much force, he urges them so vigorously, he makes such loathsome Portraitures of Vice, such persuasive Exhortations to Virtue, he gives so large and so profitable Instructions, that 'tis impossible to read his Writings, but one must feel himself Instructed and Convinced of the Truth, and he cannot but conceive a Love for Virtue and a Hatred of Vice. His Discourses are not void of Thoughts, and full of Words, as for the most Part those of Orators are; but Eloquence is there joined with Doctrine, they Instruct, they Divert, and they Move at once. His Style is Pure and Significant, his Expressions are Lofty, his way of Writing Elegant, Clean and Persuasive; his Discourses appear always Natural, flowing Gently, and without Affectation: He persuades Pleasantly, he explains things with great Clearness, he knows how to give them so probable a turn, that he may be taken for a Pattern; and he comes near Demosthenes, and the ablest Orators of Antiquity, in the Judgement of the Learned Photius; and even in the Judgement of Erasmus, he excels the Ancient Greek Orators, and is free from their Faults. He was fit for all kinds of Writings. His Commentaries upon Scripture are most Instructive and most Natural: He excels in his Panegyrics. The Force and Subtlety of his Reasoning appear in his Treatises of Controversy; his Discourses of Morality are Instructive and Moving. In short, tho' his Asceticks have not the same Loftiness as his other Works, yet there one may find the same Purity of Phrase, and the same Clearness; but his Method renders them sometimes a little obscure. In a word, Whatever Subject he treats of, he does it always very Learnedly. He had all the Properties of a Divine, Understanding perfectly the Holy Scripture, the Tradition of the Fathers, and the Canons of the Church: He was a very able Rhetorician, a very profound Philosopher, and a very subtle Logician. He understood also the Mathematics, and his own continual Sickness made him a Physician: He understood Philological Learning to Perfection, and made use of it to very good purpose. He knew all that was most Curious in the Poets, the Historians, and profane Orators, as may appear from many places of his Writings, and chief from his little Tract of reading profane Authors. In a word, that which is indeed admirable is, that he joined with this Learning, a profound Piety, and a singular Prudence. He was Sweet and Affable to all the World, Charitable towards the Poor, and Compassionate to others in Misery. He was accused of being Proud, but St. Gregory Nazianzen who suspected him of this Vice, vindicates him from it in his Panegyric. He was of a very infirm Health, and subject to many Diseases; he speaks of them in the most part of his Letters, and also in some of his Homilies. St. Gregory Nazianzen informs us, that he was pale, that he wore always a great Beard, that he was reserved in his Speech, often thoughtful and pensive, had a particular way in his Apparel, in his Bed and his Meat, which some would imitate after his Death.  
The Doctrine of St. Basil is very Pure and Orthodox. He has explained the Mystery of the Trinity against the Heretics, clearly and beyond Contest: tho' at the beginning he was reserved in his Expressions about the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, yet he always owned it, and never spoke contrary to what he thought. He never used any other Precaution, but to be silent upon that Point, when he thought it not necessary to speak of it, or that it would be to no purpose. He was one of those who troubled himself most to distinguish the Three Hypostases in God; that's to say, to prove, that Hypostasis and Person signify the same thing. As to the Mystery of the Incarnation, he acknowledged in Jesus Christ two Natures without Confusion, and yet united in one and the same Person. He rejected the Error of the Apollinarians and Th●●p●ssi●●s, and maintained with the Church that the Properties of the humane Nature do by no means agree to the Divinity. He affirmed several times, That the Cause and Reason why the Son of God was made Man, was the Salvation and Redemption of Mankind, polluted by the Sin of Adam. He knew the Greatness of that Fall and the miserable Effects which it produced, as Concupiscence, Sickness, Death, etc. He established the Necessity of the Grace of Jesus Christ without which it is impossible to do Good. He is the only Person of the Greek Fathers who spoke most clearly of it, and attributed least to freewill, though h● owned it. He admitted the Efficacy and Necessity of Baptism: Yet he believed that this Sacrament might be supplied by Faith and Charity, and by the Baptism of Blood, and that it signified nothing, at least to those that had not Faith, and were not well disposed to receive it: He mentions the Unction that accompanied it, and approves the Ceremonies that were joined with it: He called the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ: Tho' he was of Opinion, that we should Communicate often, yet he requires Holy Dispositions in those who receive this Mystery. He speaks of the Ceremonies and Prayers that were made use of for the Offering, and of the Manner in which it was distributed to the Faithful: He observes, That they carried it and kept it in their Houses, and that they believed it was always Consecrated▪ He commends Fasting, and speaks of Lent as a Fast to which we are obliged. He has also observed, That it was attended with Abstinence from Meat. He speaks of the Usage of Invocating Saints and Martyrs. He is persuaded that they pray for us, and that their Intercession is very profitable. He prefers Celibacy to Marriage. He approves of Vows and a Monastic State. He acknowledges the Authority of Traditions, as well as that of Scripture. However, he has some particular Opinions, as when he maintains in the First Homily of the Creation, That the Angels were created long before the World; and when he affirms in another place, That all Men shall be Purified at the Day of Judgement by Fire, But there are very few of this sort of slight Errors in this Author. There were also some Expressions objected to him which appeared Hyperbolical or less Exact; but 'tis easy to give them a good Sense. I shall not stay to make a larger Enumeration of his Opinions, which I have explained at length in the Extracts out of his Works. I conclude therefore with giving a Catalogue of the Translations and Editions of the Works of this Father.  
The First Edition of the Works of St. Basil in Greek is that of Frobenius, printed at Basil in the Year 1532. It contains the Homilies upon the Creation and the Psalms, 29 different Homilies, the Book of the Holy Spirit, and some Letters. After it followed the Edition at Venice made by Sabius, in the Year 1537. in which are added the Three first Books against Eunomius.  
At last, in the Year 1551, almost all the Works of St. Basil were printed in Greek at Paris, by the Care of Janus Cornarius; who also printed them in Latin by Frobenius in the Year 1549.  
Wolfgangus Musculus made a New Edition at Basle, in 1565, by Oporinus, and added the Commentaries upon Isaiah and 20 Letters. Gothofredus Tilmannus a Carthusian of Paris, was the first Roman Catholic that took Pains to make a Latin Edition of St. Basil's Works. He Revised and Corrected the Versions, and Translated some Books over again, and made a larger Latin Edition of St. Basil than all the foregoing, which was printed at Paris in 1566, and reprinted at Antwerp in 1578, and at Paris by Sonnius in 1603. This is the largest of all the Latin Editions of this Father's Writings.  
The First Edition in Greek and Latin was in the Year 1618., printed at Paris in Three Volumes: In it the Greek Text was Corrected by many Manuscripts from England, and by some out of the King of France's Library. At the End of the Third Volume there are the Notes of Fronto Ducaeus, and of Morellus, with the various Readins, Collected by Schottus. The Last Edition of 1638, is not so fine and correct as the former: But it contains more by 200 Letters, than had ever been printed before.  
Besides these Editions of the most part, or all St. Basil's Works, there are also some particular Treatises printed apart, some in Greek and some in Latin, and their Editions are not to be neglected, because commonly the Great Editions are made from them; but 'tis difficult to gather them all together. These are all that I could find. The Homilies of the Creation of Eustathius' Version, printed at Paris by Badius, Corrected by Faber in 1520. Some Homilies translated by Volateranus, printed at Cologne in 1531. The Asceticks translated by Fumanus, were printed by Gryphius in 1540 The Rules in 1575. at Cologne, and all the Asceticks in 1560. The Book of the Holy Spirit translated by Erasmus, at Basle in 1532. The Homilies upon the Creation at Leipsick in 1566. The Books against Eunomius of Beza's Version in 1520. The Discourse of Fasting at Paris in 1613, at Rome in 1532, by Galesinius. The Homily upon the Nativity, and of Anger, in Greek, at Paris, in 1587. That of Drunkenness at Hanover in 1594. The Homily upon the 40 Martyrs, Greek and Latin, by Stenius at Heidelberg in 1604, and with the Notes of Vossius at Mentz in 1614 The Letter of Communion is in the same Volume. The first Letter to St. Gregory, at Paris in 1562, of Budaeus' Version. Some Greek Letters at Venice in 1499. Some others at Paris and Haguenaw in 1528. Some Select Letters by Stenius at Paris in 1531. A Letter to a Virgin upon her Fall by Cartenus at Paris in 1574. The Canonical Epistles with Balsamon in 1561. The Letters of Julian, at Amsterdam in 1567. The Letter or the Treatise of Reading profane Authors, at Strasburg in 1507; at Basil in 1532; at Paris in 1533, and 1621.; at Rome in 1594. The Treatise of a Solitary Life, at Paris in 1631. The Liturgy in Latin, translated by Hervetus, at Venice in 1548, in Octavo; in Greek in the same City, in 1601, and 1620; at Antwerp and Paris in 1560; that of Masius by Plantin, in 1569; that of Victorius Scialagh the Maronite, at Ausburg in 1604; the Grammar at Florence in 1513; at Basle in 1562 and 1585., in Octavo. The Discourses of St. Basil Collected by Simeon Logotheta, or Metaphrastes, by Morellus, in 1556, 1558, and at Frank fort in 1598. The Third Homily of Fasting, and the Homily upon the 8th. Chapter of the Proverbs, published by Cotelerius in his First Volume of the Greek Monuments, and some Letters in the Third. [Dr. Hammond published a Prayer made by St. Basil, for Forgiveness from God to those who have done us wrong, in Greek, from a Manuscript in the Bodleyan Library, in his Practical Catechism.]  
I have nothing further to do, but to speak a Word or two of the Translators of the Works of St. Basil. Ruffinus has made in Latin an Abridgement of his Ascetical Rules. Eustathius and Dionysius Exiguus translated his Homilies upon the Creation. After them Argyropilus translated it anew, and his Translation reviewed by Tilmannus, is that which is printed in the Greek and Latin Edition. The Homilies of Fasting, and those upon Isaiah, and the Books of the Holy Spirit, are of Erasmus' Version. The Translation of the First Homily against Covetousness is by Volateranus. The Book of Virginity was translated by Ambrose Camaldulensis.  
Beza and Georgius Trapezuntius translated the Books against Eunomius; the Asceticks are translated by Fumancellus; the Letters to Amphilochius by Hervetus; the Letter to Chilo by Tilmannus. The last Letters were translated by Hoëscholius. Father Combefis took Care to print in 1674, the Translation of St. Basil's Sermons; and it had been very happy if he could have spoken Latin as well as he understood Greek. The same Father before his Death made a Review of the Greek Text of all the Works of St. Basil, and their Versions, which was printed at Paris in 1679. This Work may be of great use for making a New Edition of St. Basil: It would be very Advantageous to the Church, and the Commonwealth of Learning, that any one should undertake it. In general, one may say, That all the Translations which we have mentioned are full of Faults, some more, some less: Some of them must be Corrected exactly, and others done anew; the Greek Text should be Review'd and Corrected by many Manuscripts, and the Books ought to be ranged almost in the same Order that we have used in our Extracts, and some Notes added to explain the Text, and some Observations upon the History and Discipline: 'Tis a Work that I would willingly undertake, if God should give me Strength; if I could think that it would be well received by the Public, and that some Printer would be willing to be at the Expense of it. We see every Day multitudes of little French Books appear in Public, and scarce any Ancient Books printed, either in Greek or Latin. The Booksellers, indeed say, 'Tis not their Fault, but the Fault of the Public, because the former Sell well and go off, and they are Enriched by them; whereas the latter remain in their Shops, and so they are undone; the Fault therefore is to be attributed to the Giddiness of Men in this Age, who have lost all relish of Antiquity, and are pleased with nothing but Novelty: True and Solid Learning is not in Fashion in this Age, but Men satisfy themselves with a superficial Knowledge of things: The Study of any thing that is Solid is laid aside; and Antiquity is learned from the Moderns, and 'tis rare for any one to go up to the Fountainhead. This is a most deplorable unhappiness to Learning in general, and 'tis to be feared that this superficial Study of things, will throw us into a worse State, than the Ignorance and Barbarism of the preceding Ages. But since French Books Sell well, the greatest part of the Letters and Moral Homilies of St. Basil, aught at least to be turned into French, which would be no less useful, and more pleasant than the Ascetical Books which have been translated by Monsieur Hermant, who has also written in French the Life of this Saint after a most Exact and Learned manner.   

St. GREGORY NAZIANZEN.  
ST. GREGORY of Nazianzum was born in this City, in the Year 318. [He was born at Arianzum a small Village near Nazianzum, where his Father had an Estate.] His Father 
St. Gregory Nazianzen.  called Gregory had been engaged amongst some Heretics, who were called Hypsistarians, because they professed to worship only the Most High God, and yet they observed some Ceremonies of Pagans and Jews. His Wife Nonna converted him, and caused him to be baptised by Leontius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, about the time that the Council of Nice was Assembled. Soon after he was chosen to be Bishop of Nazianzum, and governed that Church for the space of 45 Years. His Son Gregory applied himself to the Study of humane Learning; he begun his Studies in Palestine, and from thence went to Alexandria, where he studied Rhetoric, and at last to perfect himself, he went to Athens about the End of the Year 344. After he had stayed there some time with St. Basil, he departed from thence after him to return into his own Country; where he was baptised, and took Care of his Father's Affairs. After this he retired with his Friend St. Basil into some Solitary places in Pontus; but he was obliged to leave this Retirement to return home to his Father's Assistance. The Old Man being surprised had Signed the Constantinopolitan Creed; whereupon the Monks and other Catholics of his Bishopric separated from his Communion, and the Division had continued, if St. Gregory the Son had not come to Nazianzum, and restored Peace there. In this Journey 'twas, that he was Ordained Priest by his Father; and after he had reconciled their Minds, he returned again to his Retirement, out of which, nevertheless, he sometimes came to preach unto the People.  
St. Basil being Bishop of Caesarea, Ordained him, as we have already said, Bishop of a little City called Sasima, but he was quickly disgusted with so tedious a Habitation, and departed from it in great Anger against his Friend. [Dr. Cave says, that he never went to see it.] He returned to Nazianzum, where he was obliged to take Care of that Church in Conjunction with his Father, and to be as it were his Coadjutor; which he did upon Condition, that he should not be his Successor: And therefore his Father being dead, he withdrew from Nazianzum, lest he should be detained there by Force. He went to Seleucia, and from thence to Constantinople; where he arrived about the Year 376, and found the City full of Arians, who stirred up the whole City into an uproar against him. He entered into the Church of Anastasia, which was the only Church then remaining to the Orthodox; he assumed the Government, and took Care to Instruct them, and to preserve this little Flock. Being very Eloquent he Converted in a little time a great number of Arians, and increased the number of Catholics. Peter Bishop of Alexandria understanding this good Success of his Labours, wrote to him very Honourable and Candid Letters, and confirmed him in the Bishopric of Constantinople. While things were in this Condition, one Maximus a Cynic Philosopher, attempted to get himself made Bishop of Constantinople; and finding a Priest that joined with him, he gained Peter of Alexandria who Ordained him Bishop of Constantinople; Thither he came afterwards in the Year 379, with some Mariners, accompanied by some Bishops of Egypt, and entered by force into the Church. The Clergy and People having a great Affection for St. Gregory Nazianzen, run into the Church, and drove Maximus out of it, who went to wait upon the Emperor Theodosius; but not being received favourably by him, he was forced to return to Alexandria, where he did all that lay in his Power to Usurp the See of that City. But having no better Success there than at Constantinople, he retired into the West, and presented himself before the Council of Aquileia, where he showed the Communicatory Letters which he had from Peter of Alexandria; and the West being perfectly Governed in all Matters relating to the East by the Church of Alexandria, he was kindly received there, and the Council wrote in his Favour to the Emperor.  
In the mean time St. Gregory who loved Retirement, bid Adieu to his People, recommending to them, that they should keep the Doctrine of the Trinity, and remember him; but his People being resolved not to suffer his Departure, he was forced to promise them, that he would continue at Constantinople, till the coming of the Bishops, who were quickly to Assemble there. The Emperor Theodosius having made his public Entry into Constantinople, in the Month of November, 380, drove away from the Churches Demophilus the Arian Bishop, and ordered St. Gregory to enter into the Great Church. The People urged him to take his place in the Episcopal Throne, but he would not do it; and to quiet the Tumult, and the Acclamations of those that were present, he told them wisely, that they must in the first place give thanks to God for the great Happiness that had befallen the Church. After this he continued in the Government of the Church of Constantinople, and was confirmed in this See by the Authority of the First Council of Constantinople, whereof Meletius was Precedent. But after his Death, the Eastern Bishops, who had hitherto maintained St. Gregory, begun to murmur against his Ordination, being dissatisfied with his opposing the Ordination of Flavianus in the room of Meletius. When he heard them speak of it, he proposed to Resign, which Proposal being received with greater Easiness than he expected, he was forced entirely to resign the Bishopric of Constantinople. When the Egyptians arrived he did it with a great deal of Generosity, tho' he was extremely troubled to quit so dear a Church; for he never spoke of it afterwards but with Grief, and testified a kind of Indignation against those Bishops who forced him away from this See. He withdrew immediately to Nazianzum, where he died about the Year 389.  
The principal Writings of this Father are his Discourses or Sermons, which are composed with great Art and Eloquence. We have 55 of them extant.  
The 1st. is an Apologetical Discourse, wherein he gives an Account of his retiring into Pontus immediately after he was Ordained Priest, and of his return to Nazianzum. He fled for fear of being made Bishop, and therefore in this Discourse he blames those who would all on a sudden mount up into the Episcopal Throne, and carry on Intrigues to obtain that Dignity. I am ashamed, says he, of those who being no more perfect than others, (nay, I pray God they be not worse) dare with sacrilegious Hands, and a profane Spirit approach the Holy Mysteries, and who endeavour to obtain the Sovereign Dignity of Priesthood, when they are not in a Condition even to come near to Holy Things. They push forward and involve themselves in much trouble, that they may have access to the Holy Table, not considering it as an Employment that engages them to Virtue, but as a means to live at their own Ease: In so much that they never think of discharging their Office after an unblameable manner, but of exercising such a Dominion as shall be subject to no body. Never did this Ambition reign more in the Church of Jesus Christ than it does at present. I know it will be in vain for us to endeavour to put a stop to it, but I count it a Duty of Piety to testify our detestation and shame of it. Afterwards he describes very Eloquently, the Difficulties and Troubles of the Episcopal Office. He says, That this Office is more troublesome and painful than can be imagined; That 'tis a most difficult thing to govern Souls; That 'tis the greatest and rarest thing in the World, to know how to Command well; That nothing is more dangerous than an Obligation to answer for others; That a Bishop ought not only to be free from Faults, but also to be very Virtuous; That he ought to be still perfecting himself from Day to Day, and that Virtue should be Natural to him, for if it be forced it will not continue long; That the Science of governing Men without Violence and Fear is the Science of Sciences, ars artium scientia scientiarum; That 'tis infinitely more difficult to Cure Souls than to Heal the Diseases of the Body, because the Cure of the Soul depends entirely upon the Will of the Sick; That the Physician of the Body has leave to use Iron and Fire, and the most violent Medicines, for recovering the Health of the Body; but the Love which Sinners have for themselves will not allow these sort of Remedies to be used, when their Souls are under Cure; That they eat them; That they are are resolved to continue in their Sins, and are ingenious to hinder their Recovery; That they hid their Sins or excuse them, or else impudently defend them; That the Physicians of the Body know by sensible and external Signs, the Diseases which they undertake to Cure; but the Physicians of Souls have invisible and hidden Maladies to heal; That the End of the Physician for the Body is to restore Health, which puts Men in a Condition to enjoy the Good Things and the Pleasures of this World; but on the contrary the Design of the Spiritual Physician is to withdraw Men's Affections from this World, and fix them upon God; That for this End God was made Man, and suffered so much upon Earth. From all this he concludes, That the Profession of a Spiritual Physician is more difficult than the Practice of an ordinary Physician. He adds also to prove the same thing, the great Diversity of Spiritual Diseases, and the different Dispositions of those who are to be cured, who require an infinite number of different Remedies. Some, says he, will be reformed by Discourse, and others by Example; Some must be pushed forward and others kept back; Praises are useful to some, but others have need of Rebukes; Some must be Exhorted, and others must be Chid; Some must be Reproved in Secret, and others in Public; Some must be severely Punished for small Faults, and others must be gently Handled; Some must be Frighted with the fear of the Judgement of the Great Day, and others must be Allured with hopes of Mercy: In a word, Great Moderation must always be observed and all Excess avoided. Lastly, He represents the Difficulties of discharging the Duty of Preaching as we ought, which he calls the First and Principal Employment of the Ministers of Jesus Christ. He says, That all the World undertakes to Preach, and yet 'tis a folly to believe that all those who undertake it are Capable of it; That this Sacred Ministry, requires a sublime Soul, a perfect Knowledge of the Doctrines of the Church, and a very good discerning Faculty. He declaims against those who thrust themselves into this Ministry, before they have meditated long upon the Holy Scripture and studied their Religion. He proposes as a Pattern to Preachers, the great Apostle St. Paul; he Collects together a great many Passages of Holy Scripture against False Prophets, against Priests that are unworthy of their Function, and against those that abuse the Word of God; he does not forget the Charge which Jesus Christ draws up against the Pharisees; That they were like painted Sepulchers which appeared outwardly very Fair, but inwardly were full of Filthiness; and then he makes this Important Reflection. This, says he, is what I think upon Day and Night: These are the Thoughts which macerate me, which consume and confound me. I am so far from dreaming of Governing others, that I think of nothing but appeasing the Wrath of God, and purifying myself from my own Faults. One should be pure himself before he undertakes to Purify others; he should be filled with Wisdom, before he attempts to Instruct others; he must have Light that he may be able to Communicate of it to others; he must not be far from God, who would draw others to him; he must be Holy, that he may Sanctify others; he must be Prudent that he may give them Advice. But when shall we be so, will the People say that are always ready to Undertake every thing, who build those Buildings slightly which presently fall down again? When will you place your Lamp upon a Candlestick? When will you improve your Talon? This is what they say who have more Friendship for me than Piety. You ask me when I shall be in a Condition to Guide others: I tell you, That the Oldest Age is not too long a Term to prepare one's self for so Excellent and so Difficult an Employment; That 'tis better to be slow than forward in this Case; That tho' I have been Consecrated to God from my Infancy, tho' I have Meditated from my Youth upon the Law of God, tho' I have been Exercised in the Practice of Virtue, yet I acknowledge myself altogether uncapable of Governing a Church, chief at a time, when the best thing a Man can do is to shun it, that he may escape the Tempest, wherein all the Members of the Church are divided, Charity seems to be wholly extinguished, Bishops have but the empty Names of Bishops; all the World publicly Slights them, and some Defame them; there is no Fear of God remaining, but Impudence Reigns every where, and 'tis counted a piece of Piety to treat others as Impious. Our Judges are Enemies to God, Holy Things are trampled under Foot, and the Mysteries are laid open to the Profane. Strangers and Infidels, who were not permitted to enter into our Churches, do now come even into the Sanctuary. The Gate is opened to Detraction and Calumny, and he that Rails best at his Neighbour, passes for the honestest Man. The Faults of others are observed, not to bewail them, or bring a Remedy to them; but, on the contrary, to make such bloody Reproaches as increase the Wickedness of those who have committed them. Men are not judged Good or Evil by their Virtues or Vices, but by the Friends they have on their side. The same thing is praised to Day and blamed to Morrow, some admire what others detest, and all their Sins are easily pardoned who are willing to embrace Impiety. This is the height of Iniquity to which we are arrived: But 'tis not the People only who are thus disorderly, but the Curse of the Prophet seems to be fulfilled, The Priest is become like the People. After this he deplores the Misery of the Catholics, who were divided, and contended about useless and trivial Questions. He observes, That one is obliged, when the Faith is the Matter under Debate, both to separate from those who teach Impiety, and to suffer any thing rather than approve it; but that it is a folly to break the Peace, and stir up troubles about Questions which are not of Faith. At last he returns to his Subject, and having represented the Dangers which one runs in the Priestly Office, the Difficulty there is of discharging it well, and the terrible Judgements of God upon those that perform it amiss; he concludes, That he had Reason to prefer a Solitary Life, Calm and Free from Cares, to a Life full of Troubles and Dangers. But after he has justified his Retiring, he gives the Reasons why he returned into his own Country. The First is the Affection and Friendship which he had for his Countrymen. The Second is the Assisting of his Father and Mother. The Third which he explains by the Comparison of Ionas, is his Fear lest he should resist the Will of God, who seemed to call him to the Priestly Function. Here he gives Two admirable Rules about the Conduct which Men ought to observe, either for avoiding or accepting of Sacred Orders. He says, We must be afraid of engaging ourselves rashly; but then we must also be afraid of refusing the Call of God, and that we may keep the middle between these two Extremes, we must be of such a Disposition, that we neither seek after Ecclesiastical Dignities, nor ●●fuse them when they are offered, if we know ourselves Capable. That 'tis Rashness to seek after them, and Disobedience to refuse them; but we must neither Condemn those who eat them for fear, nor those who accept them from a Principle of Obedience; That the Dignity of the Priesthood astonishes some, and others trust to the Assistance of him who calls them; That Abraham obeyed readily; That Mosas refused to obey; That Isaiah immediately obeyed the Command of God who ordered him to Prophesy, but Jeremiah excused himself from doing it by Reason of his Youth. These Reasons, adds he, Charm me, they bend my Soul, they soften my Heart, I can no longer resist, but I humble myself under the Almighty Hand of God, and accuse myself of Sloth and Negligence: If there was any Fault in it I beg Pardon; I have been Silent, but I shall not always hold my Peace; I have now retired to consider myself and to indulge a little to my Grief, but I will now praise God in the Assemblies of his People; I will be yours, my Brethren; I will be yours, O Holy Flock; I submit to you, my Father, I offer you the Sacrifice of Obedience; but give me your Blessing guide me by your Prayers, lead me the way by your Judgement; Let us beg of God all the Grace's Necessary to Conduct the Flock together in the way of Eternal Salvation. He wrote this Discourse at his leisure time, about the Year 362.  
The 2d. Discourse of St. Gregory Nazianzen, is upon the Nazianzenes' neglecting to come to hear him Preach, when upon their Invitation he had left his Solitude to live among them; he complains of their Negligence, and desires them to behave themselves answerably to the Affection that he had for them. St. Gregory preached this Sermon immediately after he was Ordained Priest in the Year 362.  
The 3d. Discourse is against the Emperor Julian, where he employs all the Torrents of his Eloquence. He observes, That this Emperor did in vain endeavour to hinder the Christians from Studying good Learning, and applying themselves to the Liberal Sciences, since this could not hinder them from Confessing the Name of God. He bewails the Unhappiness of those who were overcome by the Persecution of this Emperor; he praises the Providence of God who had destroyed him. He relates that Gallus and Julian having undertaken each of them to build a Church in honour of the Martyrs, this last could not compass his Design, and that his Structure fell down while it was a-building, which St. Gregory does not fail to attribute to the Vengeance of God, who would not suffer the Martyrs to be honoured by him who was to make so many himself. He says, That while Julian followed the Study of Learning he discovered what he had in his Mind; That he Disputed eagerly for the Pagan Opinions; That he loved every thing which alienated Men from the Christian Religion, and that he did not conceal his Opinions from those that were inclined to the same Impiety with himself. That after his Brother Gallus was Created Caesar, all Asia was a School of Impiety to him; That he had the most pernicious and dangerous Masters, that he could find out, and that he busied himself in Magic.  
St. Gregory declaims against Constantius, and accuses him in a Rhetorical way for leaving the Empire to Julian. But he excuses him afterwards, to whom he gives excessive Praises, by saying, That he was Surprised; That he gave way too much to his own Goodness and Natural Easiness; and that in short, It was not in his Power to hinder Julian from being Emperor, who seized the Government against his Will; That he revolted from him, and that Constantius was troubled at his Death; That he had even raised Julian to the Dignity of Caesar. He says, That after Julian had usurped the Empire, he perfectly declared against Christianity; That he effaced his Baptism, by impure Blood, and profaned his Hands by Sacrifices, as if it were to wash and purify them from the unbloody Sacrifice of Christians, by which they partake of the Body, the Divinity and Sufferings of Jesus Christ. He relates, That one Day this impious Man while he was Sacrificing, saw a Cross encircling the Entrails of the Sacrifices; That at another time, having entered into a subterraneous Place to Consult with the Devil, being frighted with the Noise which he heard in the Cave, and the Spectres which he saw, he made the Sign of the Cross without thinking of it; That at this Wonderworking Sign, all the Devils fled and the Noise ceased. Then St. Gregory describes the Arts which Julian used against the Christians. He says, That Julian being persuaded that open Persecutions did only increase the Constancy of Christians, and that the Martyrs did Honour to their Religion, he had recourse to Impostures and Tricks; That he allowed the People to Abuse and use Violence to the Christians, and reserved to himself the ways of moderation to allure and persuade them; That he changed his Court and gained the Soldiers over to his side; That he removed Christians from all Offices, that he enticed some by Hope of Rewards, and seduced others; That he sent some of them into Banishment, and in spite of his affected Gentleness he had exercised the greatest Cruelties upon others. He adds, That this Tyrant had a Design to shut out Christians from all Protection of the Law, and to forbid them to make use of it, alleging this for a Reason, That their Law commanded them to bear Injuries patiently, and to render Evil for Good.  
St. Gregory answers this Raillery, by saying, That if Christians had a Law which obliged them to bear with Evil, yet there was no Law in the World which permitted any to do it. And besides that, there were among Christians Two sorts of Precepts; that some of them do so oblige that it is absolutely necessary to obey them; but there are others which do not oblige, but Christians are free to fulfil or not fulfil them; that all the World cannot arrive at that perfection which consists in the observation of Evangelical Counsels, and that one may be Saved, by observing only what is commanded as necessary to be done. In this place he makes a Digression about the Moderation which Christians observed when they were in Power, and this he opposes to the Cruelties which the Pagans have exercised. There was a Time, says he to the Pagans, when we had the Authority in our Hands as well as you; but what have we done to those of your Religion, which comes near to what the Christians have suffered from you? Have we taken your Liberty from you? Have we stirred up the Fairy of the Mobile against you? Have we put Governors in places on purpose to condemn you to Punishment? Have we attempted the Life of any Person? Have we removed any Body from the Magistracy, or from their Offices? In a word, Have we done any of those things to you which you have made us suffer, and which you have threatened against us? I cannot conceive how St. Gregory could reconcile all these things with what he had said before, that Constantius did very ill to suffer Julian to live, and leave the Empire to him, because he was an Enemy to the Christian Religion, and was to Persecute it; and that in this, Constantius made a very ill use of his Gentleness and Goodness. Afterwards he speaks of the Prohibition which Julian had given to Christians, to study humane Learning. It belongs to us, says he, to Discourse, it belongs to us to understand the Greek Tongue, as it belongs to us to Adore the Gods: But as for you, Ignorance and Barbarism is your Portion; and all your Wisdom consists in saying, I believe▪ St. Gregory answers him, that the Pythagoreans who had no other Reason to give for what they Affirmed, but the Authority of their Master, would not have jested in that manner, upon what the Christians answer when they are asked about their Doctrine, This is what I believe; that this only signifies, that 'tis not lawful to doubt of what is written by Persons Divinely inspired, and that their Authority is of greater force than all the Reasons and Arguments of the World; but that it does not follow from thence, that Eloquence, Terms of Art, and Skill in Languages, belong only to those who Profess to acknowledge many Gods: For, says he, if this be so, either the Greek Tongue is confined to the Religion, or to the Nation: It cannot be said, that 'tis confined to the Pagan Religion; For, Where is that Commanded? Who are the Priests that have enjoined us to study humane Learning as an Action of Religion? Neither can it be said, that 'tis confined to the Nations that profess to Adore false Gods: For it will not follow, because the Greek Tongue has been used among those that profess the Pagan Religion, that therefore it is so confined to them who profess that Religion, that others cannot make use of it. This is as if one should say, that working in Gold cannot be exercised but by Painters, because there were some Painters that were Goldsmiths likewise: He concludes, that Languages cannot be confined to a Profession, nor an Art, nor a Religion, but that they are common to all those that can make use of them. He adds several Curiofities about the Invention of Letters and Sciences, about the Origin of Sacrifices, about Pagan Ceremonies, and the infamous Actions which the Poets attributed to their false Gods. He occasionally answers, an Excuse which the Pagans make to cover the Folly of their Poets, alleging, that they invented what they said concerning their Divinities to please the People, but that under these Veils there was a secret Sense and hidden Mystery. St. Gregory confesses, that there may be in Religion hidden Mysteries, and such Discourses as all the World does not understand; and he acknowledges, that there are some of this nature among Christians; but then he maintains, that the Veils, Representations, the Appearances, and the Figures which conceal these Mysteries and Truths, aught to have the Character of Honesty and not of Infamy: That otherwise this was to do like one that would conduct a Man to a fine City through a Bog, or that would bring a Man into Harbour, by leading him over the Rocks: And besides, that there was no Example produced by the Poets which excited to Virtue, but on the contrary, they inclined all Men to Vice, whereas the Christian Religion teaches nothing but Virtue and Perfection.  
The 4th. Oration is also an Invective against Julian. There St. Gregory represents the visible Judgements which God had made use of to punish his Impiety, as well as the sensible manner of protecting his Church, and defeating the Designs of this impious Man. He relates first, that when Julian would have had the Jews rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem, there arose such a Storm as drove away those that undertook the Work, and that having retired into a neighbouring Temple, there came forth a Fire which consumed them. He adds, that there appeared a Sign of the Cross in the Heavens, which was a Mark of the Victory which Jesus Christ had gotten over these Impious Men; and that all those who saw it, or spoke of it, found their Clothes marked with this Sign. He says, that this Miracle, was so public, that many who saw it embraced immediately the Christian Religion, and were Baptised.  
But if the Power of God appeared in this Miracle, his Vengeance clearly appeared in the miserable Death of Julian. Before he departed to march against the Persians, he made a Vow, That if he returned Conqueror, he would reduce all Christians under the Power of the Devil: But God who confounds the Designs of the Wicked, did not suffer him to return from this Journey. For being unseasonably engaged, he found himself encompassed with the Army of his Enemies, and having mounted up into a high place to discover it, he received a Stroke of which he died. St. Gregory says, that some reported that he was pierced thorough by a Dart from his Enemies, and others, that it was done by one of his own Soldiers, or that one of his own People thrust him thorough with a Sword. He observes, that at his Death he would have it believed that he was become a God, and that he Ordered his most faithful Friends to throw his Body into the River, to make it believed that he was ranked among the Gods; but this was not put in execution. St. Gregory afterwards makes a Comparison between the Funeral Pomp of Constantius and Julian; wherein he observes that the Funeral of Constantius was accompanied with the Ceremonies of the Church, with the Public Prayers sung in the Night time, with Wax-lights and the other Honours which Christians were wont to pay unto the Dead. He excuses this Emperor, as to the Suspicion of Arianism, and throws all the Fault upon the Great Officers of his Court. He affirms also, that after his Death, Angelical Voices were heard to celebrate his Praises. He describes the Manners, the Temper, and the Vices of Julian. He says, that he always had a bad Opinion of him; he makes a very disadvantageous Representation of him; he admires the Providence of God, who relieved his Church, heard her Prayers, and confounded the Designs of the Pagans; yet he deplores their Mis●●y; he exhorts Christians who enjoy Repose at present, to remember the time of their Affliction, and to consider it as a Warning from God, that they should sin no more. Upon this Occasion he descends to Morality, and exhorts the Christians to whom he speaks, to Celebrate the Festivals after a Christian manner, and to bear Injuries patiently. About the End of this Discourse he returns to his Subject, and Invective against Julian. These Discourses were written some Years after the Death of Julian; and they contain more Strokes of Eloquence than Principles of Theology and Morality.  
The 5th. Discourse is an Apology addressed to his Father upon his Retirement. He confesses, that he had retired for love of a solitary Life, but that the Friendship he had for his Father, and the Respect he owed to his old Age, had obliged him 〈◊〉. He says, that his Father called him back, that he might assist him in the Government of his Diocese, and for that end had given him the Unction of Holy Orders. This Discourse was in the Year 362.  
The 6th. Discourse was spoken before St. Gregory Nyssen, who was come to see St. Gregory Nazianzen, sometime after he was ordained Bishop of Sasima. He complains in the beginning of this Discourse, that St. Basil had in a manner violated the Laws of Friendship, by obliging him to accept of this new Bishopric. About the end, he exhorts those that heard him, to purify themselves from their Sins, and to subdue their Passions, in imitation of the holy Martyrs whose Festival they Celebrated. He says, that the best way of Solemnising their Festivals, and the greatest Honour they could do them, was to live Regularly and Holily. He declaims against the Excesses, and Business that was done at the Assemblies on these Festivals. He praises the Martyrs, and gives them the Title of Mediators. He concludes with praying to God, to perfect the great Flocks, and preserve the little ones, and to comfort him by his Grace, and guide him by his Illumination, and assist him in feeding the Flock of Jesus Christ. 'Tis plain, that this Discourse was spoken by St. Gregory in the Year 371, at a solemn Festival of some Martyrs, after St. Basil had Ordained him Bishop of Sasima in the Year 371.  
The following Discourse which was spoken before St. Gregory the Father and St. Basil, was also at the same time, and upon the same Subject. He declares with what Difficulty he had accepted the Bishopric of Sasima, and prays them to assist him with their Prayers and Advices in the Government of his Diocese.  
In the 8th. Homily, he directs his Discourse to the People of Nazianzum, about his Father's choosing him to be his Coadjutor. In it he represents the Obligation that lies upon one to do Service to the Church, when he is capable of doing it; and repeats again the Rule which he had proposed in his first Discourse, That we ought not to seek after Offices, but neither should we refuse them, when we are called to them, and they do not exceed our Abilities. He adds, that he intended now to join with his Father, to take care of the Church of Nazianzum, but that he would by no means be obliged to succeed him, and that no body could ever force him to it. That those who Command must do it voluntarily, as those who Obey must Obey willingly, ut volentes volentibus praesint; which is most necessary, says he, amongst the Clergy, where we do not use Dominion but Instruction. Volentium enim non coactorum, pietatis sacramentum est. This Discourse was in the Year 372.  
In the 9th. Discourse which was at the same time, he speaks to the People of Nazianzum, in the presence of a Magistrate, who took care to make an Assessment of the Taxes. In it, he first gives the Reason of his Silence, and then exhorts Christians to withdraw their Affections from the Things of this World, and to labour only for Eternity, by purifying themselves with good Works. He recommends to Pastors to take care of their Sheep. And to the Faithful, to submit themselves to their Pastors. He admonishes the Men of Learning, not to trust to their Knowledge and Eloquence, not to affect Knowledge more than is necessary, not to grasp at all Learning, but only so much as may serve them for teaching Truth and Righteousness.  
After this, he addresses himself to the Judge, and tells him; That we must render to Caesar the Things that are Caesar's, and to God, the Things that are God's; that's to say, that we must render to Caesar the Tribute that belongs to him; and to his Ministers, the Rewards which the Law has appointed them; and that more than that does not belong to them. He prays him in particular, to treat his People with Gentleness and Humanity in the Assessment which he was to make. He makes a pleasant Observation, that Jesus Christ came into the World at a time when a Tax was made, or an Assessment of all the Inhabitants of the Earth, to show that God is always present at those Actions; that he was made Man, and did himself pay Tribute to comfort those that are in Bondage, and to teach them to bear it patiently: But withal, that by thus abasing himself, he taught the Kings and Potentates of the Earth, to treat those that are subject to them with Mildness and Moderation: That Servitude itself was a Burden heavy enough, which should not be increased by Rigour; that Tribute was an effect of the first Man's Sin, because War which occasioned Tribute, was a Consequence of the first Sin, and a just punishment of God; but that it ought not to be augmented by overcharging and ill using the Miserable. He adds, that God makes in the other Life a Book, or, if it be lawful to use the Term, a Roll, wherein all Men are set down, without any distinction of their State and Condition: That there Men shall be treated after the same manner, as they have treated others, and that if the Judge to whom he Addresses his Speech, would be favourably treated there, he must treat his People favourably and civilly. After he has spoken to him with this freedom, he bestows many Commendations upon him; and prays him to exempt the Poor, the Clergy and the Monks. These Men, says he of the last, who are no ways allied to this Earth, who have nothing but their Bodies, and do not so much as possess that entirely, who have nothing for Caesar and have all for God, that's to say, who can give nothing but Prayers, Hymns, Watch and Tears, of which seizure cannot be made: These Men, I say, who are dead to this World that they may live to Jesus Christ, who have Crucified their Flesh with Jesus Christ, and even parted, as one may say, their Soul from their Body. This is an excellent Description of the ancient Monks, which gives us a great Idea of their Poverty and how much they were disengaged from the World.  
The 10th. Discourse of Gregory Nazianzen is a Funeral Oration upon his Brother Caesarius, wherein he relates his principal Actions, and makes a Panegyric upon them. In it he commends him, and comforts his Father and Mother. He observes, that the same Ceremony is renewed every Year for the Dead. Towards the end, he Discourses of the State of the Souls of the Just, from the time of their Death until the Day of Judgement. He says, that he was informed by the Discourses of the Learned, that holy Souls which are acceptable to God, being delivered from the Bands of this Body, feel an ineffable Joy and Pleasure by considering the Blessedness which they are one Day to receive; that they go directly to God, and that they know already, as it were in an Image and Representation, the Happiness they shall receive after the Resurrection of the Body. He adds, that he had often seen in a Dream his Brother all over Glorious: Whether it was, says he, that the Imagination represented him thus, or that this Apparition was real. He concludes with a Moral Discourse, wherein he shows, that we ought to be so far from Mourning for the Dead, that we ought rather to mourn for ourselves, and sigh, because we continue so long upon Earth. He wrote this Discourse sometime after the death of his Brother, which happened in 368.  
The 11th. Discourse is a Panegyric upon his Sister St. Gorgonia, who died sometime after her Brother. In it he has given an excellent Description of her Virtues, of her prudence and Wisdom in the Government of her Family; of her Humility, her Zeal, her Charity to the Poor; of her Care for Adorning Churches, her Mortifications, her Diligence in Prayer, her submission to the Will of God, her Constancy in her Sickness, and her manner of Dying which was worthy of a Christian. He observes, that she was Baptised a little before she died; but that she had led so holy a Life, that Baptism did not confer any Grace upon her, but was only the Seal of those Graces which she had received. Yet we must not believe that she was not Baptised till her last Sickness; for St. Gregory says, that in a former Sickness, when she saw that the Remedies which were used, gave her no relief, she went into the Church, and there having prayed near the Altar, she mingled with her Tears (what she had referved of the Antitypes of the precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ) and that she was cured immediately. This Action, which St. Gregory calls a pious piece of Impudence, shows that she was baptised some time before her last Sickness. Towards the end of this Panegyric, he describes the happy State of just Souls which are departed out of this Life; he makes no doubt but they enjoy the Company of Angels, and a most perfect Knowledge of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. This Discourse was spoken about 370.  
The following Discourse is about the Reconciliation of the Monks of Nazianzum with his Father, which was made, as we have said, about the Year 363. He congratulatts their Reunion, and proves the usefulness and necessity of Peace. See how he describes the Habit of Monks, and the Austerity of their Life. All that I have seen, says he to them, brings to my Remembrance upon the account of this Fraternal Division, your Watch, your Fast, your Prayers, your Tears, your Knees hardened with bearing the weight of your Bodies, your beating of your Breasts, your deep Sighs, your Tears shed in singing forth continually the Praises of God, your Hair cut short and neglected, your naked Feet, your Habits which have nothing of pride, your Girdle which adorns without being an Ornament, your short Cloaks buttoned back, that bold Gate, that modest Eye, that pleasant Smile, that calm Discourse, that Silence which is more instructive than all Discourse, those regular Austerities, those Riches in Poverty, that Glory under Contempt.  
The 13th. Discourse is also about the Benefits of Peace. In this as well as the preceding Discourse, he makes some Digressions about the Faith of the Church against Heretics, and he concludes this with a Prayer for their Conversion.  
The 14th. is upon the same Subject, where he speaks against the Error of Apollinarius.  
The 15th. was preached after a great Hail which fell in Pontus in the Year 372, which wholly ruin'd the Country. In it he exhorts the People of Nazianzum, to acknowledge that this Judgement was a just Punishment of their Sins; that they ought to consider God as full of Mercy, when they compare it with the Vengeance which God will inflict upon the Reprobate in the other World. He sets down in particular, some of those Sins which God has punished by this Scourge, as the oppression of the Poor, whose Goods were seized upon either by Fraud or Violence, the Usury whereby they had enriched themselves and robbed the Poor, their forgetfulness of God, their rigour towards the Poor, the Contempt which they had shown of the Exhortations of their Preachers, their vain Confidence in Riches, the Covetousness of the Rich which inclines them to keep up their Corn in their Granaries, that they may sell it dear in a time of Scarcity, their sumptuous Apparel and Household-furniture. He exhorts them all to implore the Mercy of God towards them, by their public Prayers, their Fasting, their Penance, and their giving of Alms. He ends this Discourse with praying his Father to appease the Wrath of God by his Prayers, and to beg of him Food for the Body, after he has prayed for the Food of the Soul.  
The 16th. Discourse of St. Gregory Nazianzen, is a famous Oration of the Love of the Poor and of Poverty. He wrote it particularly in favour of the Poor in the Hospital which St. Basil had built in Caesarea, and he spoke it at some solemn Festival about the Year 363. He shows in this Discourse that the Love of the Poor and Poverty is a most excellent Virtue: After this he describes in a most pathetical manner the miserable State of the Poor and Sick: He proposes very pressing Motives with a great deal of Eloquence, for touching the Heart of the Rich, and inclining them to assist the Poor and Sick; and he urges with much clearness and strength, the most convincing Reasons for persuading them that they are obliged to it. He concludes with saying, that almsgiving is not only a Duty of Piety, but o● Necessity; that it is not only a Counsel, but also a Precept.  
The 17th. Discourse is about some Differences that happened at Nazianzum, between the People and the Governor. St. Gregory appeases the People in the first part of this Discourse, and exhorts them to submit without fear to the Orders of the Governor; and in the second part, he speaks to the Governor with a wonderful Frankness to incline him to Mildness and Clemency. He tells him, that he should not take it ill, that he spoke to him with freedom; that the Law of God subjects him to the Commandment of his Bishop. For, says he, the Church has an Authority of her own, which is far Greater and more Excellent than that of Princes, unless you will subject the Spirit to the Flesh, and Heaven to Earth. He adds, that he did not doubt but he would take in good part the Liberty wherewith he spoke, since he was one of the Sheep of his Flock. I will not therefore, says he, make a long Discourse. You Command by Jesus Christ; 'tis by him that you exercise your Authority; 'tis he who has given you the Sword that you carry; but he has not given you so much Power for any other end, but to terrify the Wicked and threaten them with Punishments. Take care then that you preserve this Trust with purity: You are the Image of God, but so are all Men in some Sense. They are all your Brethren, have compassion on them, imitate the Mercy of God, join Mildness with Terror, temper your Threaten by giving some hopes; many times Men compass their Designs better by Gentleness than by Violence. He uses many other Arguments of this nature, to mollify the Wrath of this Governor, whose Threaten had frighted the People of Nazianzum. At last, he says, that if these Reasons did not move, but still he should want some more powerful Motive, that he would take the boldness to offer him Jesus Christ, and those Mysteries of Salvation which he communicated with the same Mouth with which he now desired this favour: In short, he conjures him to grant this Favour to the Church of Jesus Christ, and to consider, that God will treat him after the same manner, as he shall treat those who are subject to his Dominion. This Discourse is a Masterpiece of Eloquence, which seems to have been recited in the Year 372.  
The 18th. Sermon is the Panegyric of St. Cyprian the Martyr. There are in this Panegyric some things that relate to the Life of St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, as what concerned his Studies, his Learning, his Accomplishments, his Banishment and his Death: But there are other Circumstances which cannot agree to him, as when he observes, that he of whom he speaks was a Senator, who made Love to a Christian Lady of Quality, called Justina; that he would have made use of Magic to corrupt her; but this Lady having recourse to Jesus Christ, and the Virgin Mary, to be delivered from this Persecution, the Devil entered into the Body of St. Cyprian, who was not dispossessed till his Conversion. 'Tis certain that this Accident, and some others which St. Gregory Nazianzen relates in this Discourse, happened not to the Bishop of Carthage: And yet he does expressly declare, that he of whom he speaks was Bishop of that City. It must therefore be owned, that St. Gregory composed this Panegyric out of some false Memoires, wherein these Circumstances were added to adorn the Life of this Holy Martyr by a pleasant Story: Howsoever, St. Gregory greatly values this History, and bestows many Praises upon the holy Martyr, whom he designs to commend. He says, that his Ashes wrought abundance of Miracles, and he exhorts his Hearers to honour this Saint by their Virtues and their good Works. He concludes with a Prayer, which he addresses to him, wherein he desires his Assistance and Protection for governing his Flock, and conducting those of whom he had the Charge. This Discourse seems to have been written when St. Gregory was Coadjutor to his Father, that is to say, about the Year 372.  
The 19th. Discourse of St. Gregory Nazianzen, is a Funeral Oration upon his Father, which he spoke in the presence of his Mother and St. Basil. He addresses his Speech to St. Basil after this manner: You cannot be come to Nazianzum but for Three Reasons; To see us, to Visit the Flock, and to provide a Pastor for it. You will satisfy the first by your good Offices in comforting us with a Funeral Oration, wherein you may celebrate the Virtues of my Father, and at the same time show us, that we must despise this Mortal Life, and look upon Death as an assured Harbour, which shelters us from the Storms and Tempests of this Mortal Life. Thus you may comfort us: But how will you comfort this Flock? You may do it, First, by promising that you will take upon you the care of Governing it: Secondly, by showing that we are not abandoned by this good Pastor, and by persuading us that he is with us, that he is here present, that he still watches over his Flock, that he takes care of it, protects and defends it. For I do not doubt (they are his own words) but he being now much nearer to God, does a great deal more for his Flock by his Intercession, than he did upon Earth by his Teaching. After this he gives an Account of his Father's Life, and makes a Panegyric upon his Virtues: Neither does he forget those of his Mother Nonna, whom he comforts towards the end of his Discourse, by letting her see that she ought not to value this Life, nor fear Death, and by promising to assist her all the rest of her Days. It seems that all St. Gregory's Brethren were dead, and that he was left alone. There are many remarkable things in this Oration of St. Gregory, but chief what he says of his Father's Celebrating the Eucharist tho' he were sick; and that one day when he was in his Bed, he consecrated the Elements which were upon the Altar before the People, repeating as little of the Prayers as he could; and that having pronounced the Words of the Consecration of the Eucharist, and given the People the Blessing, he lay down upon his Bed again. What he says of Elections, is also of great consequence to Ecclesiastical Discipline. He declares, that his particular Advice was, that for avoiding Contests and Canvassing, the Elections should be reserved to the principal part of the People, that is, to the Clergy, or at least that they should have the better share in them. We must not forget the Description which he has given of that Magnificent Church, which his Father built at Nazianzum. This Panegyric was in the Year 373.  
Tho' St. Gregory discharged very well the Offices of Natural Affection, by making Funeral Orations upon his Brother, his Sister and his Father; yet one may say, That he excelled himself in discharging the Offices of Friendship, by his Funeral Oration upon his Friend St. Basil, which is the 20th. of his Discourses. There he describes the Life, the Labours, and different Employments of this Saint exactly: He praises his Piety, his Faith and his Virtues, and forgets nothing of all that could be said to his Advantage. It may be observed in all the other Funeral Orations, That the Church in the time of St. Gregory Nazianzen believed, that the Martyrs and Saints enjoyed already Eternal Happiness, and the Vision of God; that they took Care of Men upon Earth, that they Interceded for them, and that it was very profitable to 
[By the Character which Mr. du Pin himself gives of St. Gregory Nazianzen, it appears that he was a Man of very great Warmth of Fancy; and so it is no wonder if when he believed that Saints were after Death received up into Heaven, that he should in some warmer parts of his Harangues, such as Al●cutions to the Saints from their disconsolate Friends below, or Prosopopoeia's, where they are introduced Comforting or Strengthening those whom they left behind, say several things that are not too severely to be scanned. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shows, That he questioned even in his highest Flights whether those Saints whom he was then Commending, understood what he said. And the Consequences are then too manifest to be insisted upon; since no Man ever calmly taught, That the Blessed above can so far concern themselves as to Intercede for the Faithful below, that questions whether these Happy Being's have any Knowledge of what is done upon Earth: Only this must be said, That the Excessive Honours which were paid to Saints and Martyrs upon their Anniverssaries brought in all those Corruptions which afterwards grew so very Scandalous.]  Pray to them for the obtaining of Spiritual and Temporal Favours. St. Gregory could not have spoken this Funeral Oration until after his Return from Constantinople in 381.  
The Panegyric upon St. Athanasius was spoken at Constantinople. There he relates with much Exactness and Eloquence the principal Actions of St. Athanasius, and excites our Admiration of his Doctrine, his Constancy, his Firmness, his Zeal for Religion, his Love of Peace, and his other Virtues. This Disccurse is the 21st. The precise time when it was spoken is not known; but 'tis certain that it was at Constantinople, which he designs clearly enough, when he says, That he was in a City very much corrupted, where there were Arches and Theatres.  
The Discourse in praise of the Maccabees, follows after the Panegyric of St. Athanasius. He observes at the beginning of this Discourse, That tho' many did not honour the Maccabees as Saints, because they lived not since the coming of Christ; yet they are worthy of the same honour with the Martyrs who suffered after Christ; nay, and their Actions are more admirable. For, says he, if they suffered Martyrdom before Christ's coming, What would they not have done, if they had come after him, and had had the Death of Christ for an Example? He adds, That no Man before the coming of Christ, was accomplished with all Virtues, without having Faith in Jesus Christ. He describes afterwards the Martyrdom of the Seven Brethren, and the Constancy of their Mother, and extols those Actions with the most beautiful Strokes of Eloquence: Then he sends the Reader to the Book which Josephus wrote upon this Subject. The time is not known when this Panegyric was recited.  
The 23d. Discourse which bears at present the Title of a Discourse in the praise of Hero the Philosopher, or barely of a Philosopher, was according to St. Jerom's Testimony, a Panegyric upon Maximus the Philosopher, composed by St. Gregory before he had any Difference with him. We have seen that St. Basil also commended this Philosopher in the Letters which he wrote to him. St. Gregory in this Panegyric represents the Idea and Pattern of a Christian Philosopher: There he praises a Solitary Life, and yet prefers Labour and Business before unprofitable Study. He observes, That the Church was become more Illustrious by Persecutions: He describes the Miseries which it suffered under the Emperors, Constantius, Julian and Valens. He describes the horrible Tragedy that was acted in the Church of Alexandria, when Lucius Invaded it, to force away Peter of Alexandria the Successor of St. Athanasius, very particularly. He says, That his Philosopher was then torn with Scourges and sent into Banishment. Towards the End he explains the Faith of the Church about the Mystery of the Trinity. This Oration must have been spoken or written at Constantinople in the Year 378.  
The 24th. Discourse is addressed to the Egyptians who were come to Constantinople. St. Gregory Nazianzen praises the Piety of the Faithful of Alexandria, testifies a great deal of Respect for the Memory of St. Athanasius, a great Esteem for his Successor Peter who then possessed the See of Alexandria, and a great Love for the People of Alexandria, whom he makes no scruple to call his People. He declares, That he would willingly be united in Communion with the Christians of Alexandria, and because they made some Difficulty of joining with him, he expounds to them his Doctrine concerning the Mystery of the most Holy Trinity, and insists chief upon proving the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. This Discourse was spoken in the Year 379, before Maximus was Ordained Bishop of Constantinople by the Egyptians.  
The 25th. Discourse is against the Arians: He gins it with declaring, That they ought not to Glory in their Multitude, nor despise his little Flock, because it preserved and maintained the Purity of the Faith. He represents in the following Discourse the Troubles and Confusions which the Arian Heresy produced, and charges them with all the Outrages and Cruelties, which they had exercised against the Catholics. He shows, That neither the Magnificence, nor Grandeur, nor Riches, nor Power of the Arians rendered their Cause more acceptable in the sight of God. He vindicates himself from the Reproaches thrown upon him of coming to Constantinople to make Disturbances: He says, That he did not come thither of his own accord as those who now run after the Promotions of the Church; That he was called to the place; That be only followed the Guid●… of the Holy Spirit; and that after he 〈◊〉 to Constantinople, 〈◊〉 did not 〈◊〉 those who were ●…bly Covetous; That 〈◊〉 had commenced no Lawsuit against the Arians neither for their Ch●…, nor for the Ecclesiastical Revenues, tho' they were 〈◊〉 possessed both of the one and the other; That he had Persecuted no Body; That ●e had Suffered pa●…tly all manner of Injuries and 〈◊〉 Treatment. After he has shown these things, he makes an Elegant Comparison between the Arians and the Catholics of Constantinople. They have, says he, the Temples, but we have the God that dwells in them, and we ourselves are the Temples; They have the People for them, we have the Angels for us; They have for their Portion Assurance and Rashness, we have the Faith on our side; They have Thre●…, we have Prayers; They Persecute, and we Suffer; They have Gold and Silver, and we are in possession of the Holy Doctrine: But our Flock is little? Yes, but it does not go to throw itself upon Precipices; our Sheep fold is narrow, but it is well guarded against Wolves; it does not 〈◊〉 open to Robbers, and Strangers cannot enter into it. This-little Flock which will every Day grow greater by the Grace of God, gives me no Cause to fear. I see it, I count it easily; I know my Sheep, and they know me; they hear my Voice, they answer me; I call them and they follow me, and they will not follow Strangers, they will not follow Valentinus, Montanus, Manes, Donatus, Sabellius, Arius, Photinus; and they continue steadfast in the Faith of the Trinity, in whose Name they were baptised. This Discourse was spoken by St. Gregory, some time after he was come to Constantinople.  
In the 26th. Discourse, he exhorts those of his Party to observe Moderation in their Disputes with Heretics. He there lays down a great many very Wise and useful Maxims. He observes, That Peace is the greatest Good that can be enjoyed; That Schisms and Heresies have been raised up by Men of great Wit, but turbulent and designing; That those Men, are the Cause of Wars, Seditions, and other Mischiefs, both to the Ecclesiastical and Civil Society; That we ought neither to be too hot, nor too remiss in the Defence of the Faith; That upon the whole Matter, the Order established in the Church between the Pastors and their Sheep, between the Clergy and the Laity, must be inviolably observed; That 'tis often much better to be silent than to speak of Mysteries, because it is very Difficult to comprehend and explain them; and that 'tis very rare to find Ears fit to hear them, and Minds capable of bearing them; That when we are obliged to speak, we should do it with much Humility and Modesty; That the common People should content themselves with believing, and leave Disputes to the Learned; That Faith and Religion are for the Ignorant as well as for the Learned, and for the Poor as well as the Rich; That the Learned themselves ought to shun useless Questions and Disputes; That among the Hebrews, it was not allowed to all the Jews indifferently to Discourse of the Law, but they chose such to do it as were judged Capable of it; That some Men had one Gift, some another; in short, That those who take upon them to Dispute and Teach others, being pushed on by a Zeal for the Faith, should not condemn those who by a reasonable Precaution and wholesome Fear are hindered from adventuring to do the like. He concludes all these Reflections in these Words: If you will all obey me, as well Young as Old, as well Clergy as Laity, as well Monks as those that are barely the Faithful, you will give over this vain Ostentation of showing your Knowledge by Disputes, and you will rather take Care to draw near to God by an upright and prudent Conversation, by the Purity of your Manners, by your edifying Discourses, that so at last you may obtain Eternal Life. 'Tis not necessary here to observe, that this Discourse was spoken at Constantinople.  
In the 27th. Discourse St. Gregory vindicates himself against those who accused him of Ambition. In his Exordium, he inquires after the Reasons, why the People of Constantinople were enticed and as it were charmed by his Preaching. He says, That it could not be his Learning which allured them, for they were satisfied that he had but little of it; That it could not be the Doctrine which he taught them, since he was not the First who had preached it to them, neither had he preached any thing to them which they had not learned formerly from St. Alexander their Bishop: That neither can they say, That he had gained them by Artificial and Flattering Discourses, as for the most part, says he, they do now a-Days who are of the Priestly Function, who have made an Art of Preaching the Word of God, who have brought the Arts of the Bar into the Church, and the Ornaments of the Theatre into the Chair of Truth. You know, adds he, and God is my Witness, That we are so great Strangers to this Fault, that they rather accuse me of Rusticity, and of not knowing the World, than of being a Flatterer, and seeking to please Men, since I sometimes Reprove too severely even those who are most Affectionate to me, when they do any thing that I think not reasonable. You know how I mourned, how I cried, when ye placed me against my Will upon the Throne, violating the Laws of the Church for the Love that you showed me. I used so great Freedom with those who appeared most zealous for me, that they withdrew in Anger, and changed their ancient Friendship all of the sudden into hatred against me. Why then have you so great a Passion for me, but only, First, Because you chose me yourselves, and called me to your Assistance; and Secondly, Because you have acknowledged, that I was neither Ambitious, nor Fierce, nor Passionate, nor Proud, nor given to Flattery; and Thirdly, Because you have seen how I have suffered for you all, both from those that openly attacked me, and from those that so cruelly laid secret S●…s for me. After this he vindicates himself from the Charge which his Enemies drew up against him upon the account of his Eloquence. He says, That 'tis Envy which makes them speak thus. He justifies himself also from the Ambition whereof he was accused; and shows, That he did not ambitiously aspire after the See of Constantinople; That he had met with nothing there but Labour and Fatigue; That if he had been free to choose, he should have preferred his Solitude before so painful an Employment; That he was not engaged in it for any other Reason but only to assist the Church of Constantinople which was then without an Orthodox Bishop; That he would not trouble himself, tho' Men should Censure him for having other Motives than really he had; That God knows what his true Intention was; That he never sought to please Men but God only; That he loved Goodness for Goodness sake, without any prospect of worldly Interest. At last, He addresses his Speech to all Estates of Men, and makes this brave Remonstrance to them: You Kings of the Earth have a respect for your Crown; consider the Excellency of Power which is entrusted with you: All the World is subject to your Empire, but the Heavenly things are above you; 'tis God only who governs them: Be you as Gods with respect to your Subjects, make your Empire to consist in this, and not in Gold, in Silver, and in Arms. You Great Men of the Age, who possess the most considerable Offices in the State, be not lifted up because of your Power, look not upon things Temporal as if they were Eternal: Be you Faithful to the Emperors, but above all things be Faithful to God. You that are Persons of Quality make your Manners answerable to your Nobility. You Wise Men, you Philosophers, you Orators, How can you pretend to Wisdom and Eloquence, if you do not Adore him who is the Author and Fountain both of the one and the other? You that love Riches, harken to the Prophet, who Admonishes you not to trust to the abundance of your Riches; know that you rely upon a frail thing. You that spend your time in Diversions, mortify yourselves by refraining from some things, assist your Sick Brother with that which you have too much of. In short, All you that are Citizens of this Second City of the World, which hardly yields to the First, Govern yourselves after such a manner, that you may be the First in Virtue, and not in Debauchery and Licentiousness. This Discourse was spoken some time after Theodosius and the People had forced St. Gregory Nazianzen to ascend the Episcopal Throne of Constantinople, at the End of the Year 380.  
The following Discourse was spoken, after Maximus had enveavoured to render himself Master of the Episcopal See of Constantinople. St. Gregory had retired for some time into the Country to refresh himself: When he returned, being certainly informed of all that was done against him in his Absence, he made a Discourse to his People against this Philosopher: And First, in the Exordium of his Discourse, he declared the Joy he had upon his Return to his Flock, from which he had been separated, and then he falls very severely upon Maximus, and shows, that he was unworthy of the Episcopal Throne which he aspired to: Afterwards he draws a Portraiture of a True Philosopher to set it against that which he had made of Maximus, and describes the several Offices of all Conditions. He returns to his Subject again, by saying, That he feared not his Enemies in the least: For what will they do to me, says he? How will they provoke me? They say that I am Ignorant: I know no other Wisdom but the Fear of God and the keeping of his Commandments. They blame me for Poverty; alas, would to God, that I could even part with that little which I possess. They force me away from my Bishopric; but did I ever think it a Happiness to be a Bishop? They will take from me one of the Chief Sees and one of the principal Churches in the World. But is it not at this time a piece of Prudence to shun great Dignities, since upon their Account all Churches are embroiled and overthrown, and upon their Account the whole Earth is divided? Alas, Would to God, adds he, that there were no places of Dignity in the Church, no Precedencies, no Tyrannical Prerogatives, and that none would distinguish us but by our Virtue. But at present, what Mischiefs do the Disputes about Prerogatives and Place, bring upon the Church! How many People are destroyed for these Contests? I speak not only of the Laity but even of the Bishops. What more will they do unto me? They will hinder me from approaching to the Altars: But I know another Altar, whereof this is but a Figure which can neither be demolished nor broken. Will they drive me away from my House? Will they hinder me from diverting myself? Will they alieniate my Friends from me? I have no other House but that which the Piety of another Shunamite offered me. As to what concerns Pleasures, all the Evil that I wish to those that design Evil to me, is, That they may enjoy no other Pleasures than what I take. As for my Friends, I have some that will not forsake me, even tho' they should be ill entreated upon my Account. There are others whose Pride I have endured for a long time. Peter has denied me, and it may be has not yet bewailed his Fault. He concludes with deploring the Misery of his Church.  
The 29th. Sermon gins with a Declamation against those who thrust themselves into places of Governing the People, and Preaching the Word of God without being capable. Afterwards he explains the Mystery of the most Holy Trinity very exactly. Above all things he recommends to them that Christians should hold to the Simplicity of Faith, without endeavouring to fathom and comprehend its Mysteries. This Sermon was preached at Constantinople.  
The 30th. Sermon is about the Election of Eulalius Bishop of Doaza. This Discourse is short and contains nothing Remarkable. It was spoken about the Year 372.  
In the 31st. Discourse having spoken of the Mystery of the Incarnation, he explains the Answer of Jesus Christ to the Pharisees, in Ch. 19 of St. Matthew's Gospel, concerning Divorce. He says upon this place, That Jesus Christ condemns the Custom which permits Husbands to forsake their Wives, and does not permit Wives to forsake their Husbands, because in the Sight of God there is no Inequality between the Man and the Woman. He observes, That a Bill of Divorce permitted Husbands to send away their Wives for all sorts of Reasons; but that Jesus Christ did not permit it except only in case of Adultery. He says, That Marriage is commendable, when the Parties are contracted with a design of having Children; but he prefers Virginity to Marriage. He explains in what Sense 'tis said, That all Persons are not capable of embracing Celibacy. Tho' he owns the freewill of Man, yet he confesses, that God must give a Will to do Good, and enable us to obtain the Victory. He occasionally rejects the Opinion of Origen concerning the Pre-existence of Souls. Lastly, He exhorts his Auditors not only to preserve the Purity of Faith as well as of their Bodies, but also to Contribute according to their Power to the Establishment of Sound Doctrine. He addresses himself chief to the Emperor, and tells him, That if he thought that he did great Service to God, by hindering Murders, Adulteries, and Robberies by his Edicts, he might yet do him greater Service by making an Edict in Favour of the Catholic Faith. This Discourse was in the Year 380.  
The 41st. Discourse is an Oration which he made to the Bishops of the Council of Constantinople in the Year 382. Where, after he has made his Apology for governing the Church of Constantinople, by describing the wonderful Effects he had produced in that Church, he prays them to grant him a Successor, with as much Earnestness, as others desire the Greatest Sees.  
The Reasons which he alleges for obtaining Permission to retire, are First, his great Age, the Quarrels of Churches and Bishops, the Envy that some bore to him, the Division of the East and the West, and his Love of Retirement and Solitude. He adds some other Reasons which tend to the Confusion of his Enemies, such as the Persecutions which he had endured with Patience, his Frugality, his Modesty, his Humility. At last, He conjures them to create another Bishop who should be more agreeable to the relish of the World. Here he represents very naturally, the Luxury, Ambition, and Arts which were but too common among the Bishops of the Great Sees. At last, He bids Adieu to his Dear Anastasia, to the other Churches of Constantinople, to the Council, the Clergy, the People, and to the Court. These adieus are pathetical to those that had an Esteem of him, and are very picquant to those that were his Enemies, and wished that he would abdicate his Charge. 'Tis plain that this Discourse is the last of those which he spoke at Constantinople.  
The Five following Discourses are Entitled, Of Theology, because St. Gregory Nazianzen explains there what concerns the Divine Nature, and the Trinity of Persons: There he treats of the Rules which ought to be observed in the Administration of the Word of God. He says First, That this Function does not suit all Men; That he who discharges it must be pure in Heart and Mind; That he should not apply himself to it but with a sedate Temper; and Lastly, That he ought not to treat of those Matters before Pagans, nor before those who have no sense of Religion, and who think of nothing but Pleasures. He adds many fine things about the Dispositions and Qualifications that are necessary to a Divine. He blames those who having their Hands tied, that is, who do no Good Works, yet have a wonderful Itch to prate, and those who think to be great Divines, because they understand the Subtleties of Aristotle's Logic, and the Gentile Philosophy, which they make use of nothing to the purpose when they Discourse about Mysteries.  
In the 2d. Discourse he inquires what may be conceived concerning the Nature of God. He says, That his Existence is known by the Creatures; That his Immensity, Spirituality, and his other Attributes are known; but that it does not follow from hence, that his Essence and Nature can be comprehended; which he proves against Eunomius in the second Discourse of Theology, which contains many great Notions concerning the Nature and Attributes of God.  
In the 3d. he proves the Equality of the Three Persons of the Divinity and the Son, and answers the most part of Eunomius' Sophisms. The 4th. continues the same subject; and in the 5th. he proves, That the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person distinct from the Father and the Son; That he proceeds from the Father, and that he is not begotten as the Son, tho' he be of the same Substance and the same Nature. He observes towards the End of this Discourse, That under the Old Testament the Father only was distinctly known; That the Son is clearly Revealed in the New; That in it also there are found Passages enough to prove the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, but that it was fully cleared by the Tradition of the Church. These Discourses seem also to have been spoken at Constantinople. And thus we are come to the 38th. Sermon upon the Festival of the Birth of Jesus Christ. In it St. Gregory admires the Wonders of the Mysteries of the Incarnation: He describes the Fall of the first Man, which he supposes to have been the Cause of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and reckons up the Advantages which Mankind received by this Mystery. At last, He teaches Christians to Celebrate the Festival of Christmas, by purifying themselves from their Sins, by imitating the Virtues of Jesus Christ, and particularly his Patience and Humility.  
The 39th. Discourse is a Sermon upon the Festival Of Lights, that is, upon the Feast of Epiphany, on which also the Solemnity of the Baptism of Jesus Christ is observed. There he speaks of the Wonderful Effects of this Baptism, which had the Virtue of purifying us. He distinguishes many sorts of Baptism; viz. The Baptism of Moses, the Baptism of St. John, the Baptism of Jesus Christ, the Baptism of the Martyrs, and the Baptism of Penance which he calls a Laborious Baptism; and taking occasion from this last he Discourses against the Error of the Novatians. Last of all, He adds also to this Baptism which we have already mentioned, the Baptism of Fire, wherewith he says one may be baptised in another Life.  
The following Discourse was spoken the next Day. 'Tis an Instruction about Baptism to those that are to be baptised: There he observes the Excellence of Baptism and its marvellous Effects. He sets down and explains the different Names that are given to this Sacrament. He observes, That it consists in Two Things, the Water and the Spirit; That the washing the Body with Water, represents the Operation of the Spirit in purifying the Soul. He says, That Baptism is a Compact which we make with God, by which we oblige ourselves to lead a New Life; That 'tis very dangerous to break the Promise which we made at Baptism, for there is no more Regeneration, nor perfect Renovation to be hoped for afterwards; That we may indeed cover the Wound by a multitude of Tears and Sighs, but that it would be much better not to need this Second Remedy, because it is very difficult and troublesome; and that we can have no assurance but Death may surprise us before our Penance be finished. You, says he, addressing himself to the Ministers of Jesus Christ, you can, as the Gardener mentioned in the Gospel, pray the Lord to excuse the barren Figtree yet a little longer, you can desire him that he would not cut it down, and that he would permit you to dung it, that's to say, to impose as a Penance upon it Weeping, Watching, lying upon the hard Ground, Corporal Mortifications and making humble Satisfaction; but what certainty have you that God will pardon him. Wherefore, my Brethren, being buried by Baptism with Jesus Christ, let us rise with him, let us descend with him into the Waters, that we may ascend with him into Heaven. He proves afterwards, that we ought not to delay the Receiving of Baptism, and refutes the vain pretences of those who delay it. He says, that Infants are to be Baptised to consecrate them to Jesus Christ from their Infancy. He distinguishes Three Sorts of Persons that are Baptised; the First, are those who do Evil wilfully and with Delight; the Second, are those who commit Sin with some reluctancy, and without approving it; the Third, are those who live well before they are Baptised, either because they are naturally inclined to Virtue, or because they would prepare themselves for Baptism. He distinguishes also Three Sorts of Persons among those that do not receive Baptism. Some are Impious and Malicious who live in the greatest Excesses, and have no Veneration at all for Baptism: Others have a great deal of Respect for this Sacrament, but they delay to Receive it either through carelessness, or that they may still have the greater liberty to sin: The last are those who cannot receive it, either because of their Infancy, or because of some sudden Accident. As to the first, he makes no doubt but they shall be most grievously punished, not only for their other Crimes, but also for despising Baptism. As to the Second, he says they shall be less punished because they are not kept from Baptism by Malice, but by Negligence or Folly. As to the last, he says, that they shall never partake of Glory, but neither shall they suffer the Punishments of Hell; because tho' they were not Baptised, yet they were free from Sin, and it may be said of them, that they rather suffered the Loss than were the Cause of it. He says also in the following Discourse, that Infants must be Baptised, tho' there be no danger of their death. After this he enlarges upon the Effects of Baptism, and upon the divine Fire which purifies us. He concludes according to this Custom, with an Explication of the Trinity. In this Discourse he mentions Unction, and some other Ceremonies of Baptism. These Three Discourses were spoken at Constantinople in 381.  
The 41st. Sermon is the First Sermon upon the Feast of Easter, which is very short and contains nothing remarkable. It was spoken at Nazianzum.  
In the 42d. Sermon upon the same Festival, having repeated some part of what he had said about the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, in his Oration upon the Feast of Christmas, he explains the Ceremonies of the Jewish Passover, which he applies to the Passion of Jesus Christ. This place shows that his Allegory's are very far fetched. The rest of his Discourse is a Repetition of what he had said in his Sermon upon the Nativity, concerning the Impiety of Heretics, and an Exposition of the Faith of the Church. 'Tis thought that this Sermon was composed by St. Gregory at Nazianzum, after he returned from Constantinople.  
The 43d. Discourse was spoken at the Feast of the Dedication of the Church of St. Mamas, which was near Nazianzum. There he Discourses of this Dedication which he calls the New Sunday. He exhorts his Auditors to Virtue, and concludes with saying something of the Life of St. Mamas. This Discourse was made when St. Gregory Nazianzen was Coadjutor to his Father.  
The 44th. Sermon of Pentecost gins with an Instruction about the manner of celebrating these Feasts, after which follow his Commendations of the Number Seven: The rest of the Discourse is about the Holy Spirit and his Gifts.  
These are all the Sermons of St. Gregory Nazianzen. The following Treatises are not Sermons but Letters.  
The 45th. is a Letter written to a Monk called Evagrius, who could not conceive how the Divine Nature or Substance could be simple, being composed of Three Persons. St. Gregory resolves this Difficulty, by saying, That the Essence of God is most simple, and that the Persons tho' distinct, yet are not separated, nor really distinguished from the Divine Essence, which is common to the Three. He explains this by many Examples.  
The 46th. is a Letter to Nectarius, who was his Successor in the Throne of the Church of Constantinople; where he bewails the unhappiness of the Church which is attacked by an infinite number of Heretics. He writes particularly against Apollinarius, whose Errors he relates as they were taken out of one of his own Books. He accuses him of teaching, That the Word assumed Flesh from all Eternity; of affirming, That the Divinity of Jesus Christ supplied the place of a Humane Soul, and that it may be said to have Suffered and to Die as well as the Humanity. After this he observes, that it is not lawful to assemble at the Public Prayers with Persons of these Opinions: Then he exhorts Nectarius to Act vigorously against the Heretics, and to pray the Emperor that he would suppress the Liberty which they now had of Meeting and Preaching.  
The 47th. Discourse is an Allegorical Explication of the Four Animals mentioned in the First Chap. of Ezekiel. The Greeks doubt whether this Book be St. Gregory's: And indeed the Style is very confused, and every thing is handled without any Order or Design, and it seems to be patched up of various pieces; which makes me believe, with Jacobus Billius, that this Discourse is unworthy of St. Gregory.  
The 48th. Sermon attributed to St. Gregory, is a Discourse in praise of the Martyrs, published by Leunclavius, which is in Greek in the last Edition. This Discourse seems not to me to have St. Gregory's Style. Some have attributed it to St. Chrysostom.  
The 49th. Discourse of Faith, which is said to be a Translation made by Ruffinus from the Text of Gregory Nazianzen, is the Work of some Latin Author, who quotes the Holy Scripture according to the old Latin vulgar Version. The Prologue of Ruffinus which is at the beginning▪ is a Preface to the Apologetic, and the Seven Discourses of this Author, and not to the Version of the Treatise of Faith. The same Judgement is to be given of the following Treatise, concerning the Faith of the Council of Nice, which is not to be found in many Manuscripts. The First Treatise is quoted under the name of St. Gregory by St. Austin in his Third Letter; but it must certainly be another Gregory than this of Nazianzum: For undoubtedly this Work is a Latin Author's, since in two Places he speaks of the Greeks, as not being one himself. The Reason, or the Word, says he, is called by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and in another place, This is what the Greeks call Homoousion. This Treatise therefore must be some Latin Author's who was called Gregory: And there is none to whom it agrees better than Gregory of Baetica, of whom we have already said, that he wrote a Treatise of Faith. Some have attributed it to St. Ambrose, others to Vigilius Tapsensis; but the Citation of St. Austin shows that it could not be written by this last, and that it was not written by the first. The following Treatise is also the same Author's, being written to explain the former, as Monsieur Quesuel has shown in his 14th. Dissertation upon the ancient Code of the Roman Church, where this Treatise is inserted.  
The 51st. and 52d. Treatises are Two Letters to Cledonius, which St. Gregory wrote against Apollinarius, after he returned to Pontus, as is observed by the ancient Author of his Life. In the first of these two Letters, St. Gregory complains of Apollinarius, that he and his Disciples published new Doctrines, and that they boasted of their being received by a Synod of Western Bishops, tho' they were condemned in it, and explains the Faith of the Church about the Incarnation, and plainly rejects not only the Errors of Apollinarius, but also those that have been since published by Nestorius, by Eutyches, and by all the other Heretics. He gives to the Virgin, the Name and Title of, The Mother of God. Afterwards he refutes the Objections of Apollinarius, and observes another Error of this Author concerning the Trinity. He affirms, towards the end of this Letter, that we ought not to communicate with this Heretic. In the 2d. Letter he discovers the Tricks and Subtleties which the Apollinarians used to make People believe that they were Orthodox. Towards the end of this Letter he has these excellent Words: O strange folly! He pretends to preach that Wisdom which has been discovered since Jesus Christ. What pity ' 'tis! For if the Gospel was not known till about 30 Years ago, than the Gospel was of no use, for 400 Years that the Church has been established: In vain have Christians believed and so many Martyrs suffered; in vain have so many Holy Bishops governed the Church.  
The Paraphrase upon Ecclesiastes was written by St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, as we have observed in speaking of this Father's Works. But we must add here to what we have said in that place to prove it, that not only St. Jerom testifies in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, that St. Gregory Thaumaturgus wrote a Treatise upon Ecclesiastes, but that he citys this Treatise as his, in his Commentary upon the 4th. Chapter, where he quotes a Passage which is Word for Word in the 4th. Chapter of this Paraphrase.  
The Poems of St. Gregory Nazianzen were the Fruits of his last Retirement; he wrote them in the last Years of his Life: In them is to be found all the Fire and Vigour which one would desire in the Works of a young Man, and all the thoughts which the practice of Virtue, for the space of many Years, could inspire into an old Man of consummate Piety.  
The 1st. is a Poem which contains the History of his own Life from his Birth, till his departure from Constantinople. There never was any thing of this Kind written more pleasantly, more elegantly, and more naturally than this Life is. In the first part he describes his public and known Actions, where he says many things which are very useful to explain the History of the Council of Constantinople, and the Divisions of the Eastern and Western Churches; and there also he discourses against the Ignorance, the Pride, and the corrupt Manners of the Bishops of his time.  
In the 2d. Part, he describes the Dispositions of his Mind: The former part relates to History, and this to Morality; and as there are in the former part many Circumstances that belong to Ecclesiastical History; so this contains many Christian and Moral Thoughts. The former is written in jambick Verse, the latter in Hexameters.  
In his Poem of the praise of Virginity, he handles with much Wit and Eloquence, the Question about the Pre-eminence of Celibacy above Marriage; and that he may explain this Question the more pleasantly, after he has enlarged upon the Praises of Virginity, he makes an excellent Prosopopoeia, wherein he brings in married Persons, and those who observe Celibacy, speaking for both their Opinions; each of them says all that can be said on their side in favour of their State, but the latter have the better.  
The 3d. Poem contains many Precepts for Virgins; he recommends to them Silence, Modesty, Retirement, Labour, and other Virtue's necessary for a Virgin. These Two Poems are in Hexameter Verse.  
In the 4th. Poem he bewails in general the Misery of Mankind, caused by the Sin of Adam, and relates some Circumstances of his own Life. This is in Elegiacks.  
In the 5th. having described the Crosses and Sicknesses which he had endured in his Life; he submits himself to the Will of God, and offers to him the remainder of his painful Life.  
The 6th. is upon the Vanity and Uncertainty of this Mortal Life.  
In the 7th. he bewails his Miseries, and prays to God to deliver him from them.  
The 8th. is upon the same Subject.  
In the 9th. he describes a Dream, which he had about the Church of Anastasia.  
In the 10th. after having described the Likeness and Hypocrisy of the Bishops of his time, he congratulates himself upon his departure from Constantinople.  
The 11th. Poem describes the Vices of wicked Bishops, and deplores the Division of the Church; there he observes, that Persecutions increased the Church; but Abundance and Riches have done it great Prejudice.  
In the 12th. which is addressed to the Bishops of the Council of Constantinople, he describes after what manner he was forced away from that City, and testifies his joy, for that God had recalled him to his Retirement.  
In the 13th. he describes the Misery and Weakness of Humane Nature.  
He continues the same Subject in the 14th. wherein he describes the Miseries of Life and the Horror of Death, to teach Men to Love nothing but Jesus Christ, and to have no Affection for any thing but the Treasures in Heaven.  
The 15th. is also upon the same Subject, wherein he represents the Uncertainty and Instability of this Mortal Life and of Worldly Riches, to convince Men that there is nothing Solid here below, but the Love of Jesus Christ.  
The 16th. contains the Beatitudes of the Gospel, and the Rules of a Christian Life.  
In the 17th. he wishes many Imprecations upon himself, if he should wander from the Faith of Christ, and the Precepts of the Gospel.  
The 18th. is against the Desires of the Flesh.  
The 19th. is against the Devil.  
The 20th. is an Exhortation which he made to himself, to stir himself up to Conversion.  
The 21st. is an Imprecation upon the Devil, and an Invocation of Jesus Christ.  
The 22d. is a Prayer to God, to be delivered from this Life of Sin and Death.  
The 23d. is a Reflection upon the Uncertainty of Life, and the Contempt we ought to have of it.  
The 24th. and 25th. is upon the Weakness and Misery of our Nature.  
The 26th. is of the Desire of God.  
The 27th. and 28th. is a Lamentation upon the view of his own Miseries and Sins.  
The 29th. is a Prayer to Jesus Christ.  
The 30th. is a kind of Epitaph.  
The 31st. is a Prayer of a Penitent Person.  
The 32d. is a Farewell to the Devil.  
In the 33d. he makes a Catalogue of the Books of the Holy Scripture. He distinguishes those of the Old Testament, into Historical, Poetical and Prophetical; he reckons 12 Historical, viz. The Five Books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the Two Books of Kings, the Chronicles, and Ezra. He reckons Five Poetical, the Book of Job, the Psalms of David, Ecclesiastes, the Proverbs, and the Song of Solomon; and Five Prophetical, which are the 12 lesser Prophets that make but one Book only, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel; which in all make the number of 22 Books, according to the number of the Hebrew Letters. Afterwards he reckons up the Books of the New Testament, which are the Four Evangelists, upon whom he has this Observation, that St. Matthew wrote for the Hebrews, St. Mark for the Greeks, St. Luke for the Athenians, and St. John for those who penetrate into the most Sublime things. He joins with the Four Evangelists the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, those of St. James, the Two Epistles of St. Peter, and the Three of St. John, and that of St. Judas. He concludes with saying, that these are all the Books of the Holy Scripture, and that all others are Apocryphal.  
In the 34th. he describes the Plagues of Egypt.  
In the 35th. he turns the Decalogue into Verse.  
In the 36th. the Names of the 12 Patriarches are put in Verse, and those of the 12 Apostles.  
In the 37th. and 38th. he reconciles the Two Genealogies of Jesus Christ, by explaining the Opinion of Africanus. 'Tis a very surprising thing, that he could put this Critical Question into Verse, and make all the Names of the Genealogies of Jesus Christ come into Feet, and yet he has done it, and handsomely enough.  
In the following Poems as far as the 46th. he turns some part of the Histories of the Gospel into Verse.  
In the 46th. he prefers a Monastical Life to an Hermetical.  
In the 47th. he prays Hellenius to ease the Monks of Taxes.  
In the 48th. he exhorts one Julianus a Magistrate to almsgiving.  
The 49th. is written in the Name of Nicobulus the Son, who desired of his Father, that he would send him to some famous Academy to follow his Studies there.  
The 50th. is an Answer made in the Name of this Father who exhorts his Son to study.  
The 51st. is written on the Name of the Son of Vitalianus, to appease the Anger of his Father.  
The 52d. is against a lewd rich Man.  
The 53d. is a Prayer of St. Gregory as he went into the Fields.  
The 54th. is of the Silence which he kept during the time of Fasting: Their he describes the Mischiefs which too great desire of Speaking produces, and the Advantages of Silence.  
The 55th. is a Hymn to Jesus Christ upon the Feast of Easter, after he had kept Silence all the time of Lent.  
In the 56th. he gives to one Olympias a Woman ready to be Married, some very useful Precepts for her good Behaviour in Marriage.  
The 57th. is upon his Departure from Constantinople.  
In the 58th. he proves the falsehood of Humane Virtue, and shows, That without the Grace of God, all our Endeavours are unprofitable to our Salvation. Without the assistance of Jesus Christ, says he, a Man cannot walk in the way of Salvation: Therefore we must take heed that we do not attribute to ourselves what does not belong to us; we must not trust our own strength, how enlightened soever we be; we must not despise those who appear to be less advanced than we in the way of Virtue, as if we were nearer the Design and End of our Course. He adds many other Reflections, very proper to beat down the Pride of Man, and to humble him under the Almighty Hand of God.  
The 59th. is a bitter satire against the Monks, who live disagreeably to the Rules of that State, tho' they wear the Habit.  
The 60th. is an excellent Prayer in a time of Sickness.  
In the 61st. he exhorts Nemesius Governor of Cappadocia, to forsake Paganism, and embrace the Christian Religion.  
The 62d. is a Collection of very useful Christian Thoughts and Maxims for the Conduct of our Lives.  
The 63d. is against the Pomp's, the Ornaments, and sumptuous Dresses of Women; and particularly he applies himself to condemn their Painting.  
The 64th. is an Epitaph upon St. Basil.  
After this there are several Sentences or Moral Thoughts, which contain the principal Offices of Life.  
A Description of Humane Life, and several Rules or Maxims of Morality.  
The following Poem is Dogmatical. St. Gregory explains the principal Articles of the Christian Religion; and he treats of the Unity of God, of the Trinity, of the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, of the Creation of the World, of Angels and Devils, of the Nature and Origin of the Soul, of the Two Testaments, of the Cause and Effects of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and of the Baptisms of Water and of Blood. After this comes a Treatise in Verse upon Virginity, many exhortations to his own Soul, and Prayers to God.  
There are besides 33 Poems written in jambick Verse upon different Subjects, a Treatise against Apollinarius, and some other separate things: The Tragedy, entitled Christ's Suffering, wants very much of the Beauty, the Judgement and the Gravity of St. Gregory's Pieces, and so 'tis not without reason that the Critics judge it unworthy of him.  
We have in the Second Volume of St. Gregory Nazianzen, at the end of his Poetical Works, a Discourse of this Saint about Bishops; and tho' we have it now only in Latin, yet 'tis plain that 'tis a Translation of a Genuine Treatise of St. Gregory's. There he relates after what manner he came to Constantinople, and the Troubles he suffered there for the Establishment of the Faith, he complains of the Ingratitude of the Bishops who forced him away from thence; and then he gives a very disadvantageous Character of them, wherein he represents them either Ignorant and Stupid, or Proud and Ambitious, or Covetous, who think of nothing but heaping up of Riches by all kind of Ways, or Hypocrites who under the appearance of Virtue conceal the greatest Immoralities.  
There is in the greatest part of St. Gregory Nazianzen's Letters, more Wit, Learning and Eloquence, than Doctrine concerning Religion and the Discipline of the Church; yet there are some of them, wherein he pursues some Moral Thoughts with a great deal of Eloquence; as in the 17th. wherein he reproves Caesarius because he stayed in Julians Court.  
The 18th. wherein he discourses of the Inconstancy and Frailty of humane Life.  
The 19th. and 20th. concerning the Reconciliation of St. Basil with Eusebius his Bishop.  
The 22d. and 23d. are written in the Name of his Father to procure the Election of St. Basil to be Bishop of Caesarea.  
The 26th. is about the Calumny that had been raised against St. Basil, for his disguising his Opinion about the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.  
The 31st. and 32d. wherein he complains that St. Basil had made him Bishop of Sasima.  
The 37th. wherein he Comforts St. Gregory Nyssen upon the Death of his Brother.  
The 38th. to a Lady who would force a Bishop away from his Bishopric, under Pretence that he owed her very considerable Sums of Money, having formerly managed her Estate.  
The 43d. wherein he reproves St. Gregory Nyssen, because he applied himself more to the Study of humane Learning than of the Holy Scripture.  
The 55th. wherein he declares, That he was afraid of all Ecclesiastical Assemblies, Because I never saw, says he, the End of a Council which was happy and pleasant, and which did not rather increase the Evil than diminish it. But this Censure which he wrote when he was vexed with the Council of Constantinople, which had not treated him very favourably, ought not to pass for a Rule, but only for a Testimony of his resentment which came from St. Gregory in his Passion.  
The 59th. and 71st. wherein he exhorts his Brother and Posthumianus to make Peace between the Bishops.  
The 63d. wherein he exhorts a Particular Person to embrace the Christian Philosophy, and to despise the things of this World.  
The 64th. 66th. 67th. and 70th. wherein he exhorts another Person to bear his Pains and Sickness patiently.  
The 81st. is an Excellent Exhortation to Patience, and some others. But the most considerable of them all is the 219 to Theodorus the Bishop of Tyanea, which might be placed amongst the Canonical ones: The Bishop to whom 
[By Canonical Epistles here, those are meant which were written to determine some particular Question in Discipline, as the Canons of Councils usually did: Of this Nature were St. Basil's Letters to St. Amphilochius mentioned above.]  he writes had consulted him about an Oath, or an Asseveration made in Writing in a certain Affair: He who made this Agreement not willing to hold it longer, cited him with whom he had agreed, before a Judge, and made void the Compact in Court. Now it was asked whether this Man should be treated as a perjured Person, since he had not made a Solemn Oath, according to the ordinary Forms. St. Gregory answers in this Letter, That he is not at all of their Opinion, who think that no Oaths but those which are made with the Mouth, and according to the usual Forms, by laying their Hands upon the Holy Gospels, do oblige in Conscience, and that Asseverations made in Writing do not bind after the same manner: For, says he, if Contracts made in Writing do more bind a Debtor than bore verbal Promises, Why shall not Oaths set down in Writing have at least as much Force, as those which are spoken with the Mouth? In a word, Is an Oath any thing else, but the Affirmation of him who promises, or who assures any thing? From whence he concludes, That this Man who had brought his Action in Law, to have this Compact dissolved, which he was obliged by Oath to fulfil, tho' he gained his Cause, yet was guilty of Perjury, and aught to do Penance for his Sin. This is a very useful Admonition in our time, wherein there is scarce any heed given to Oaths and Affirmations that are made in Writing, as if they were nothing but mere Formalities of Law, and not truly and properly Oaths. St. Gregory teaches the same thing in the Poem made against those who Swear often, where he says upon this Subject, Is one less obliged by writing than by his Words? and tho' he should not have touched the Gospels, yet does he own ever the less Reverence for God?  
The Letters of St. Gregory are in number 242, if we comprehend in that number the 10 last published by Sirmondus; but there are some of St. Basil's which are mixed among them, as the 30th. the 206th. and 207th. His Testament tho' Ancient and Genuine relates only to his Domestic Affairs, and contains nothing but the Disposal of his Estate. This is all that we have to say in particular of the Works of Gregory Nazianzen: The Judgement which may be made of them in general is this:  
It cannot be doubted, but this Author won the Prize of Eloquence from all the rest of his Age; for he does certainly excel them for the Purity of his Words, the Nobleness of his Expressions, the Ornament of his Discourse, the Variety of his Figures, the Justness of his Comparisons, the Beauty of his Reasonings, and the Sublimity of his Thoughts. St. Jerom and Suidas say, That he imitated an ancient Author called Polemon, but we may say, That his Style approached very near to that of Isocrates. How lofty soever it be, it is Natural, flowing gently, and pleasantly; his Periods are full, and hold up to the End; he has a wonderful abundance of Words, an unparallelled easiness of Expression, and a most agreeable turn of Wit. His Orations are composed with much Art and Method, for in them he uses such Characters as are most agreeable to his Subject and his Auditors, so that one may say of him, That he was one of the most perfect Orators of Greece, yet he affected too many Antitheses, Allusions, Similitudes, Comparisons, and certain other Finenesses of Oratory, which seem to render it Effeminate. Sometimes also his Thoughts and Reasonings are false; but then 'tis covered with the sparkling of his Expressions, and involved in the multitude of his words. He is extremely Copious, and says but few things in many Periods. There are great numbers of Philosophical Thoughts interwoven in his Sermons, and they are full of Illustrations taken from History and Fables. He teaches Morality in such a manner as is more proper for Philosophers than the common People; but he is very Sublime and very Exact in the Explication of Mysteries, a Quality which made him deserve the Name of The Divine by way of Excellency. He had much Piety, but little skill in Managing of Business. He was so passionate a Lover of Retirement, that he could not for a considerable time apply himself to any Employment that hindered him from it. He easily undertook great things, but he quickly repent of his Undertake. He had in his Life-time three Bishoprics, and yet it cannot be said that he was lawful Bishop of any one of them. For he would not have that of Sasima to which he was Ordained; and he did not accept of that of Nazianzum, but only for a time, to be Coadjutor to his Father, but upon Condition that he should not Succeed him. When he came to Constantinople, he had no design to be Bishop of that Church, neither did he take the Title upon him. 'Tis true that he was afterwards placed upon the Episcopal Throne by the Emperor and some Bishops; but he was at last forced to leave it. He was of a Morose and Satyrical Humour; he loved Raillery and spared no body; but chief the Bishops that were not worthy of their Ministry, or that did not lead a Life agreeable to their Holy Orders.  
These are the Editions of the Works of this Father. In the Year 1504, Aldus Manutius, a Printer at Venice, published one part of his Greek Poems; In the Year 1516 he published Sixteen Orations, and Nine more in 1536. Afterwards all the Works of St. Gregory Nazianzen were collected together and printed in Greek at Basle by Hervagius in the Year 1550. The ancient Version of Ruffinus was printed at Leipsick about the Year 1522, without any Name. The Translation of Billibaldus Pircheymerus was Printed at the same time with the Greek at Basle by Hervagius in 1550. In 1571 Leunclavius translated 19 Orations which were printed by the same Printer. But all these Versions being very imperfect, Jacobus Billius Abbot of St. Michael of the Hermitage, who was one of the ablest Men of the last Age in the Greek Tongue, made a New Version of St. Gregory's Works, which was first printed at Paris in 1569, and at Cologne in 1570; but the Edition of the same Version which Genebrard published at Paris in 1583, and Dedicated to Pope Gregory the XIII. is much more large and more exact. 'Tis this Version which has the Greek Text on one side, in the Paris Edition in Two Volumes, made by Morellus in 1609. Then there followed in the Edition of the Greek Text, the Corrections and Notes which Billius made on the Margin of St. Gregory at Basle, and it was reviewed by many Manuscripts. The First Volume contains the Life of St. Gregory Nazianzen, written by Gregory the Priest, the Orations and Letters of St. Gregory, together with an Addition, which contains the Greek Text of the Oration to the praise of the Martyrs, some Letters, and the Greek and Latin Testament of St. Gregory, with the Notes of Morellus, and some Critical Observations upon the Text, the different Readins and many Corrections. The Second Volume contains the Poems which had been already published by Billius, with his Version in Verse, and some others translated by Morellus, the Treatise of Bishops, and the Latin Commentaries of Elias Cretensis, Nicetas Serronius, Psellus, Gyrus, and Billius upon all the Works of St. Gregory Nazianzen. This Edition is one of the fairest in Greek and Latin, that was ever printed at Paris: In it the Greek Text is printed very Neatly and Exactly, the Latin Version is Noble and Elegant. The Beauty of the Latin Verse is little inferior to that of the Greek, and the Discourses are ranged in a very good Order; yet there are some Faults in the Text. The Version is not always Literal and Faithful enough, and the Order of time is not exactly observed, neither in the Letters, nor in the Orations. There remains now nothing for me to do, but to take notice of the particular Editions of some distinct Pieces of his Works. We have his Theological Orations translated by Mossellanus, printed at Paris, by Chevallon, in 1532; 38 Orations of Pircheymerus' Version, printed at Basle in 1551; some others translated by Gabriellius at Antwerp in 1575.; some Greek Sermons at Ausburg in 1587.; three Sermons with Corrections upon the Text of St. Gregory Nazianzen, printed at Antwerp in 1573; the Homily of Whitsunday, Greek and Latin, at Leipsick in 1582; the Oration of The Love of the Poor, translated by Zinus in 1550, printed by Vascosanus; the same Oration with the Apologetical Discourse, and the Sermon upon the Birth of Jesus Christ by Eugubinus, printed by Plantin in 1513. The Two Invectives against Julian, and some other Works at Eton, in 1610; the Sermon upon Easter translated by Oecolampadius; the Oration upon St. Athanasius, at Paris in 1627.; some Select Poems printed at Rome in 1592., and 1599; the Tetrastick Verses at Venice in 1562; the Poems translated by Billius, with the Notes of Cyrus, at Paris in 1562; the Poems about Definitions translated and published by Hoëschelius, with the Translation of Leunclavius, in the Printing▪ House of St. Andrew in 1591.; some Poems by Plantin in 1556; the Poems of the Rules of Life collected by Sambucus, by Plantin in 1568; the Poems about Principles at Amsterdam in 1568; the Poem of his Life with the Translation of Billius in 1598.; the Poem of the Canonical Books at Paris in Latin in 1561; some Odes in 1603; the Tragedy Of Jesus Suffering in Greek at Rome in 1542, and at Louvain in 1544: His Letters printed with those of St. Basil, and translated by Comanus; Two Letters to Themistius printed apart; the Letter to Nicobulus printed also apart in 1597; the Testament published by Leunclavius at Frankford in 1596, at Eton in 1610; by Brissonius in his Forms, by Baronius in his Annals; and Lastly, by Sirmondus, at the End of the Edition, Greek and Latin, of 1609.   

St. GREGORY NYSSEN.  
ST. GREGORY Bishop of Nyssa a City of Cappadocia, Brother of St. Basil, was born about the Year 339. He did not embrace a Solitary Life, as his Brothers Basil, Peter and Naucratius 
St. Gregory Nyssen.  did, but continued in the World, and Married a Wife called Theosebia 
a He married a Wife called Theosebia.] In the Oration of St. Gregory Nazianzen in Commendation of St. Basil, he very clearly observes, That St. Gregory Nyssen was he of the Four Brethren that was engaged in Marriage; and the same St. Gregory in Ep. 95. comforts St. Gregory Nyssen ●pon the Death of Theosebia, wherein he speaks of his Wife. . He professed at first Rhetoric, and with much Difficulty quitted that Employment to enter into Orders 
b With much Difficulty quitted that Employment to enter into Orders.] St. Gregory Nazianzen reproves him in Ep. 34. for that he having discharged the Office of a Reader in the Church, seemed willing to embrace his ancient Profession, addicting himself wholly to the Study of Rhetoric and Humane Learning. . He was made Bishop some time after St. Basil in the Year 371. But he did not continue long in peaceable Possession of his See; for he was quickly persecuted by the Emperor Valens, and forced away from his Church in 374, by Demosthenes who substituted in his room a sad Wretch, as we have already observed in the Life of St. Basil. He returned with the other exiled Bishops in the Year 378, and was restored to the Possession of his Episcopal See. He appeared after this with Splendour at the General Council of Constantinople in the Year 382, where he was chosen to make a Funeral Oration upon Meletius the Patriarch of Antioch, and delegated to be one of those Bishops who should visit the Diocese of Pontus, as appears by the Law of the Emperor Theodosius, and as St. Gregory himself testifies in his Epistle to Flavianus. 'Tis believed that he was present also at a Council held in this City in the Year 383, and that he spoke there the Discourse against the Anomaeans, which is entitled, A Discourse about Abraham, or, Of the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit. In 385, he preached also at Constantinople the Funeral Oration of the Empress Placilla. In short, his Name appears in the List of Metropolitans in the Council held at Constantinople for the Dedication of the Church of Ruffini in the Year 394. But it is certain died soon after.  
This Father wrote many Books which are Commentaries upon Scripture, Dogmatical Treatises, Sermons upon the Mysteries of Religion, Discourses of Morality, Panegyrics upon the Saints, Funeral Orations, and some Letters concerning Discipline.  
The First Book upon the Scripture is a small Piece upon the Creation, wherein without insisting upon the Questions which St. Basil had explained before, he endeavours principally to explain the Sense of the Words of Genesis, and the Order of the Creation.  
The Second Book of St. Gregory Nyssen is his Treatise about the Formation of Man, divided into Thirty Chapters, wherein he handles many Questions more Curious than useful concerning the Creation of the World, the Formation of Man, the Nature and Origin of his Soul, concerning the Resurrection, and the Structure of a Humane Body. The●e he teaches, That the Soul is a Spirit which is equally in all parts of the Body; he refutes the Opinion of Origen concerning the Pre-existence of Souls before the Body, and maintains that they are formed in the same Moment with the Body. He thinks, That in the State of Innocence there would have been no Generation, but that Men would have multiplied by some other means.  
The Two following Homilies about the Formation of Man are St. Basil's, as we have already observed. There is also a Homily in the Second Volume, upon the same Subject, wherein he explains all the Sencès in which it can be said, That Man was created after the Image and Likeness of God. We may place among the number of Commentaries upon the Old Testament, the little Tract of the Witch of Endor, wherein he explains a part of the 28th. Chapter of the First Book of Samuel, and proves that it was not truly the Soul of Samuel that appeared to Saul, but that it was the Devil who assumed the Likeness of this Prophet.  
The Book of the Life of Moses is an Allegorical Explication of all the Actions of this Lawgiver to the Jews, from whence he draws either Moral Instructions, or some Reflections upon Religion; upon which account 'tis also entitled, Of a perfect Life.  
The Two Treatises upon the Inscriptions of the Psalms, are more useful than the preceding. In the First, he treats of the End, the Order, and the Distribution of the Psalms. He affirms, That their End is to teach the way of Virtue which leads to Happiness; That they are useful and delightful to all sorts of Persons, in what State and Condition soever they be, and whatsoever their Disposition be. He divides the Psalms into Five Parts, the First ends at the 40th. Psalms, the Second at the 71st. the Third at the 88th. the Fourth at the 105th. and the Fifth continues to the End of the Psalms. He is of Opinion that the Psalms contained in the First Part were composed to dissuade Men from Vice, and induce them to Virtue; That those which are in the Second, represent the Thirst and Ardour of those who have any Knowledge of Virtue and any relish of its Sweetness; That those of the Third Part describe the State of those Persons who are advanced to the Knowledge of Divine Things; That those of the Fourth raise Men's Minds above all things in this World; That those of the Fifth elevate a Man to the highest top of Perfection. There is more Wit than Solidity in these Reflections, as well as in the Interpretations of the Titles or Inscriptions of the Psalms, which he has given in his Second Part, and are almost all of them Allegorical. The same Judgement ought to be made of his Homily upon the 6th. Psalm which follows this Treatise.  
The Eight Homilies upon Ecclesiastes are less forced, more useful and more natural: Those upon the Canticles are wholly Allegorical; but this Book cannot otherwise be explained. He wrote also upon the Proverbs, as he testifies at the beginning of the Homilies upon Ecclesiastes; but that Commentary of his is lost. Possinus has promised his entire Commentary upon Ecclesiastes.  
The First Discourse of Prayer is concerning the Necessity of it, and the manner wherein we ought to pray. The Four other Discourses are an Explication of the Lord's Prayer, as the following Treatise is an Explication of the Beatitudes: He always interweaves his Moral Reflections with a multitude of Allegories, Comparisons, and Histories, which render them less profitable and more tedious.  
In the Homily upon the Words of Chap. 15. of the 1st. Epistle to the Corinthians, When all things shall be subdued unto God even the Father, then shall the Son himself also be subject unto him, which is the First in the Second Volume; he refutes the Consequences which the Arians draw from this Passage, and shows, That by the subjection of the Son, we must not understand a State of Servitude, but the Immortality and Happiness of the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ.  
The Longest and most Excellent of all the Dogmatical Works of St. Gregory Nyssen, is his Treatise against Eunomius, divided into Twelve Books 
c His Treatise against Eunomius, divided into Twelve Books.] There are some who have reckoned Thirteen; but they have inconveniently divided the Fifth Book into Two. These Books are quoted according to the present Division by Theodoret, and the Sixth Council. St. Jerom in his Catalogue Testifies, That St. Gregory Nyssen read this Division of his Treatise to him, , wherein he refutes a part of what this Heretic had asserted in his Apology in answer to St. Basil. St. Gregory composed this Book after the Death of this Father, as we learn from the Letter at the beginning of it, which is addressed to his Brother Peter of Sebastea. At the beginning of the First Book he defends the Person and Conduct of St. Basil against the Calumnies of Eunomius: He describes the Life of this Heretic and that of his Master Aetius, and afterwards refutes the impious Reasonings of this Heretic, and explains the Passages of Scripture which he alleges to prove his Errors. Photius assures us, That in this Book St. Gregory did far excel the other Two Authors which have written against the same Book of Eunomius, as well for the Beauty and Sweetness of his Eloquence, as for the Strength and Multitude of his Arguments. He particularly praises the last Book which in his time was considered as a distinct Treatise.  
His great Catechetical Discourse is an Excellent Treatise of the Manner, in which the Jews, Pagans and Heretics are to be Instructed, to Convince them of the Truth of our Religion. St. Gregory Nyssen observes in the Preface, That the Reasons which are to be used against Pagans, who deny the Unity of God, are different from those that must be alleged against the Jews who oppose the Trinity, and that the Method which is to be followed in refuting the Heretics who oppose the Divinity of One of the Three Persons, should be different from that which is observed in proving the Trinity against the Jews; That in Disputing both against the one and the other, we must use Principles agreeable to Reason, in which they and we are agreed; That when one Disputes against an Atheist he must prove the Existence of a God by the Creation of the World; and when he has to do with a Pagan who admits many Deities, he must prove to him that there is but One, because God must be absolutely perfect, and there can be no more of this Nature but One. With respect to the Jew, he would have us endeavour to make him understand the Divine Word, by comparing it with the Word of Understanding, or the Reason that is in Men, and give him also some Idea of the Holy Spirit by comparing him to the Breath that is in us, and then after that he would have us to prove the Existence of the Divine Word by the Testimonies of Holy Scripture. To make the Incarnation appear probable to the Jews and to the Gentiles, he shows them, That Man has fallen from the State wherein he was created; That his Nature is corrupted by Sin; That it cannot be said, that God is the Author of Evil; That therefore Man must have fallen by his own Fault, and by abusing his Liberty; but that Man being once fallen, must be raised up again by him who created him; and thus it was reasonable that the Word who created him, should come himself to raise him from his Fall, and save him from his Shipwreck. Afterwards he answers all the Difficulties which are proposed against the Incarnation; he says, That it was not unworthy of God to be born of a Virgin, to Eat, to Drink, to Die, and to be Buried, because these things are neither criminal nor dishonourable; That the Divinity being united to the Humane Nature did not lose its Divine Perfections, as the Soul does not lose its Spiritual Perfections by being united to the Body; That the Union of Soul and Body to compose a Man is no less incomprehensible than the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature in Jesus Christ; That the Miracles of Jesus Christ, his extraordinary Birth and his Resurrection are evident Proofs of his Divinity; That the Reason which moved him to become Man, was his goodwill towards Men, and his Compassion towards Mankind; That his Divinity always continued impassable and incorruptible; That the Incarnation of Jesus Christ was the most natural Remedy for us miserable Sinners, and most agreeable to the Goodness, the Justice, the Wisdom and Power of God; That he came at such a time when Wickedness was arrived to its highest pitch; That he called all Men, but by calling them to the Faith he did not take away their Liberty; and this was the reason why many of them still perished; That Men ought not to be compelled and forced to do good, for this would take away the praise of good Actions, and the blame of bad ones; That Christ ought to die, that he might be wholly like unto us, and that he might confirm our Resurrection by his own; That all that he did after his Resurrection firmly proves his Divinity. Afterwards he speaks of Baptism and the Eucharist: He says of Baptism, that there are Three Things in this Sacrament which conduct us to Immortal Life, Prayer, Water and Faith; That the Regeneration which is wrought in Baptism ought not to be attributed to the Water, but to a Divine Virtue; That by dipping the Person under Water Three Times, the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ is represented; That without Baptism, no Man can be washed from his Sins, because by it the Divine Virtue is rendered effectual, in consequence of that which he believes to depend upon freewill; That as the Soul is united to God by Baptism and by Faith, so the Body is united to God by the Eucharist. This is the Doctrine of St. Gregory Nyssen, who says, That the Body of Jesus Christ entering into us, is an Antidote or Preservative against Sin; That it changes and transforms us into him, and communicates unto us Incorruptibility. Afterwards he inquires, How it is possible, that this Body which is distributed alone to so many Millions of the Faithful over all the Earth, should be entire in each of these, and in each part which they receive, and yet not cease to remain still entire in itself: And he answers, That the Body of Jesus Christ having been the Habitation of the Word of God, was changed into a Divine Dignity: And therefore I have reason to believe, says he, that to this Day the Bread being Sanctified by the Word of God, is changed into the Body of the Word of God: For here the Bread is Sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer, not that 'tis presently turned into the Body of God by eating it, but because it is transformed and changed at the same time into his Body, as the Word has said in these Words, This is my Body. He adds, That this Flesh of Jesus Christ is communicated to us, and is changed into us, by means of the Bread and Wine which God hath changed and transformed into his Body, by Virtue of the Sacred Benediction. He speaks in the following Discourse of Regeneration. He thinks that it depends in some manner upon our Will and Free Pleasure; and shows that it is unprofitable, unless after we have received the Sacrament, we lead a Life free from Sin. At last, he Discourses of the Reward of those who have lived well, and the punishment of the wicked. He affirms, That the Fire of Hell is of another Nature than the Fire upon Earth. There are at the End some Periods added against the Heretic Severus. Some Protestant Critics have called this Book in Question, whether it was St. Gregory's or no; but the ablest, as Casaubon and Albertin have been forced to acknowledge it, because they found it quoted oftentimes by Theodoret in his Dialogues, and taken notice of by Euthymius Zigabenus.  
In the Book of Faith addressed to Simplicius, St. Gregory treats of the Trinity. There he proves the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and Answers the principal Objections of the Heretics.  
The Discourse which was formerly Entitled, Of Great Abraham, is now, Of the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit; there he answers the Anomaeans, whom he compares to the Epicureans and the Stoics; he makes also a great Digression in praise of Abraham, wherein he describes the Sacrifice of his Son very naturally.  
In the Treatise addressed to Ablavius, and Entitled, That we must not say there are Three Gods, he shows that the Three Divine Persons cannot be called Three Gods, but that they are One God only.  
The Treatise to Eustathius, and that of the Difference of Hypostasis and Nature, are upon the same Subject; but they are found, as we have already said, among the Letters of St. Basil, and 'tis probable that the first was written by him.  
The Latin Treatise which contains the Passages of the Old Testament, to prove the Divinity of the Son against the Jews, is not St. Gregory Nyssen's, since St. Chrysostom who lived after St. Gregory, is cited in it.  
The Treatise of Common Notions addressed to the Greeks, is a scholastical Treatise about the Terms, by which the Ancients used to explain the Mystery of the Trinity.  
There are two little Tracts of St. Gregory Nyssen's against Apollinarius; the one very short in the First Volume, which is probably nothing but a Fragment; the other a little longer in the Second Volume. There he refutes some Objections of this Heretic; and proves, that 'tis the same Word which appeared to the Patriarches, and which assumed real Flesh in time, and which is so intimately united to the Humane Nature, that what agrees to God is attributed to Man.  
In the little Tract against the Manichees, St. Gregory proves against these Heretics, that Evil is not an uncorruptible and uncreated Nature, no more than the Devil who is the Author of it. He demonstrates this by Ten Syllogisms.  
In the Treatise of Distiny he particularly disputes against Judicial Astrology, which makes our Actions depend upon the Course and Influence of the Stars.  
In the Treatise of the Soul which is in the Second Volume, he first relates the different Sentiments of Philosophers and Heretics concerning the Original and Nature of the Soul, and then proves that it is a Spiritual and Immortal Substance which is united to the Body, which penetrates, and actuates it. He compares this Union to that of the Divine and Humane Nature in Jesus Christ, and rejects the Opinion of Origen concerning the Ascension and Descent of Souls.  
The Second Treatise of the Soul and the Resurrection, which is in the Third Volume, is a Dialogue which St. Gregory is supposed to have had with his Sister Marcina, after the death of St. Basil their Brother. There he proves the Immortality of the Soul. He is of Opinion, that it will distinctly know its Body at the Day of Judgement. He explains the Story of the wicked Rich Man and Lazarus Allegorically. There he refutes the Transmigration of Souls, and proves the Resurrection.  
In the Treatise addressed to Jerius concerning the untimely death of Infants, he endeavours to Answer this Question, Why God suffers Infants to Die before they come to the Use of Reason? The most general Reason that he offers is, That he does it to prevent those Sins that these Infants would have committed, if they had come to the Age of Discretion. And because it may be Objected to him, Why then does God permit so many wicked Persons to live, who had been more happy if they had never been, or if they should have died sooner? He Answers, That God permits it, First, because he draws Good out of the Evil which they do; Secondly, because their Punishment serves for an Example of God's Justice.  
Some Critics have questioned whether the Book of Virginity was St. Gregory Nyssen's: The only Reason which they alleged for calling it in question, is, because the Author was Married: But this Reason is so far from proving what they intent, that it rather proves the contrary, since 'tis certain that St. Gregory Nyssen had a Wife, as we have already shown. He describes in this Treatise the Advantages of Virginity, and the Inconveniencies of Marriage; nevertheless he does not design to condemn Marriage. He adds, that the Christian Virginity does not only consist in the Purity of the Body, but also in the Purity of the Soul. He recommends Temperance, and the shunning of Pleasures and Voluptuousness, and gives many Rules and Examples of Christian Virtues.  
The Sermons or Homilies of the Mysteries have much of the nature of Dogmatical Treatises. Thus in the Sermon upon the Nativity, having exhorted the Faithful to celebrate this Festival with joy; he explains some Questions about the Incarnation, and clears up some Circumstances about the Nativity. He follows the same Method in the Five Sermons upon Easter, which are filled with many Allegories. In the Sermon of the Ascension of Jesus Christ, he explains the 23d. and 24th, Psalms.  
In that of Whitsunday, he exhorts Men to make themselves worthy to Receive the Holy Spirit.  
In that upon the Festival of the Baptism of Jesus Christ, he treats of the Spiritual Regeneration which is wrought by Baptism, and exhorts those that are newly Baptised, to lead a pure Life and free from Sin.  
In the Discourse of the presenting of Jesus Christ in the Temple, of the Purification of the Virgin, and of Simeon, he makes many Allegories upon these Mysteries.  
The Discourses of Morality are less Allegorical and more useful than those that we have spoken of already. The Subject of those which we now have is as follows.  
In the Oration upon his Ordination, St. Gregory discourses of the Miseries of the Church, and the little Faith which was to be found among the Christians of his time. He condemns the Divisions which were in the Church, and the Sophisms that were used about Mysteries. He exhorts Men to pray for the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and to dispose themselves to receive them.  
In the Discourse against those that delay Baptism, he exhorts the Catechumen to receive Baptism presently without delaying it from day to day, as many Catechumen do. He invites them to draw near to Baptism, that they may be delivered from their Sins. He terrifies them with the fear of Death, the time whereof is uncertain. He makes them ashamed of continuing so long in the Rank of Catechumen. He inspires them with a Desire of receiving Baptism, by representing to them the Graces which it conveys, and the wonderful Effects which it produces. He thinks that it would be better to sin after Baptism, than to die without it. He refutes the Pretence of those, who delay to receive Baptism, because they find themselves still inclined to Sin: He says, that they deceive themselves, if they think that after they have spent their Life in Pleasures and Debauchery, they shall be purified by receiving Baptism at the point of Death. He distinguishes, as St. Gregory Nazianzen did, Three Sorts of Persons with relation to another Life. The First Sort are the Saints and Righteous who are happy; The Second, are those who shall neither be Happy nor Miserable; The Third, are those who shall be punished for their Sins. He places in the second Rank those who delay their Baptism till the Point of Death. This is a singular Opinion of his, and does not agree with the Holy Scripture; which has made some believe that this Treatise was not St. Gregory Nyssen's: But it has his Style and Air, and is not much different from his Doctrine, nor from that of St Gregory Nazianzen in the Discourse which he made upon the same Subject.  
The Discourse of Penance 
d The Discourse of Penance.] This Discourse as well as that of Fasting, and the Panegyric upon St. Stephen, belong to Asterius Amasenus, to whom Photius attributes them in Vol. 27. of his Bibliotheque. See what we have said of them, when we give an account of the Works of this Father, where we have retracted what we said upon this Subject in the First Edition.  contains Two Parts: The First against those who reprove their Brethren with much sharpness, and condemn them upon slight Grounds; and the Second against those Sinners who do no Penance, or do it very negligently. He proves by the Example of Jesus Christ who conversed among Pharisees and Sinners, that Sinners are not to be treated with much rigour, nor to be condemned rashly. He adds, that by using them hardly we throw them into Despair; That we ought to consider that we are all Sinners; That God invites all the World to accept of his Grace; That we ought to support the Weak, according to the Example of Jesus Christ; That the greatest Sinners have obtained Mercy; and that God is always ready to pardon those who are penitent. He shows afterwards, that Harshness and Rigour do not agree with the Laity, who by condemning others with too much Severity, condemn themselves; nor with Bishops and Priests, whose Character should be Mild and Charitable, as he proves by the Examples of Moses and Jesus Christ. He observes, that a good Pastor should do as the Gardener mentioned in the Gospel, who prayed his Master to spare the barren Figtree a little longer, and that he should follow the Example of Moses, who continually begged pardon of God for the People of Israel; and whose Affection went so far, that he wished he might be blotted out of the Book of Life, if God would pardon the Sins of his People. He subjoins the example of the prodigal Son, and says, That from thence we ought to learn to open the Church to penitent Sinners, and to treat them with Mildness and Charity. But after he has said these things against the too great Severity of some Ministers of the Church, who despised those that came near them as Supplicants, who would not regard them in their Afflictions, who shunned and repulsed them; he exhorts Sinners to Repentance by the example of the Woman that was a Sinner who is mentioned in St. Luke. He says, that they must imitate her Weeping, her Tears, her Humility and Penance. He declaims against those Penitents, who lived after the same manner that they used to do before they were in a State of Penance. They have, says he, the same Gravity in their Countenances, the same Magnificence in their Apparel, they far as Sumptuously as they did before, they Sleep as well as they did, they mind the same Business as before; in short, they take upon them the name of Penitents, and do no Actions of Penance. They are by their own Fault debarred from the Sacred Mysteries, and from the Communion of Holy Things, and they take no care, nor are any ways solicitous to be readmitted to them; on the contrary they seem to despise them, and look upon them as very vile things. After this he shows by the Comparison of one who was debarred from a King's Table, and of one that being Sick desired to be healed, how great the Folly is of those who never think of doing Penance. You, says he, whose Soul is sick, Why do not you run to a Physician? Why do you not discover your Sins to him by Confession? Why do you suffer your Disease to increase till it be inflamed and deeply rooted in you? Re-enter into your own Breasts, reflect upon your own Ways. You have offended God, you have provoked your Creator, who is the Lord and Judge, not only of this Life, but also of the Life to come. If you be sick with Pleasures, you must cure your Disease with Fasting and Abstinence; if your Soul is sick with Lust, you must use continence for a Remedy. Covetousness is like a Fever that consumes us, drive it away by giving of Alms and by Liberality; this is the Remedy of a Soul that loves Riches immoderately. Have you taken the Goods of another? Make Restitution. Are you ready to perish by Lying? Avoid the danger you are in by the love of Truth. You are in Error and Heresy; blot out this Sin by embracing the Faith of the Church; for what is doing Penance, but effacing and destroying the Evil we have done? Inquire into the Disease wherewith you are seized, be sorry for it, afflict yourselves and communicate your Affliction to your Brethren, that they may be afflicted with you, that so you may obtain the Pardon of your Sins. Show me bitter Tears, that I may mingle mine with yours. Impart your trouble to your Bishop, as to your Father, he will be touched with a sense of your Misery, as Jacob was when he saw the Coat of his Son Joseph stained with Blood; or as David was upon the Death of his Son Absalon: Discover to him the most secret Corners of your Heart; show this Physician your most hidden Wounds, he will take care of your Honour and your Health. The time of our Death is uncertain; my Brethren, let us prevent the Hour of our Death by our Vigilance, as Men use precaution against the Diseases of the Body before the Dog-days; let us endeavour to recover the Groat, which we lost by our negligence.  
The Discourse of Benevolence and Liberality towards the Poor, contains the most convincing Reasons, the most pressing Motives, and the most lively Expressions which can be employed to excite Men to give Alms to the Poor, and to help them in their Necessities.  
In the Discourse against Usurers, he shows that Usury is forbidden by the Laws of Charity, especially when he to whom the Money is lent, is poor.  
In the Discourse about Fasting which was preached at the beginning of Lent, he exhorts the Faithful to fast exactly during this time. In the Sermon against Fornication, he gives a frightful representation of that Sin.  
The Discourse against those who hardly endure Reproofs, teaches that Humility and Submission wherewith they should receive the Chastisements of the Church. St. Gregory discourses there against those who despise Excommunication. He gives a frightful description of the Soul of an excommunicated Person; and says, that it cannot partake of Glory, nor enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; That we must not imagine that Excommunication is an Invention of the Bishops; That it is an ancient Law of the Church, the Custom of our Fathers founded upon the Scripture which first introduced it: He shows the necessity of it. Towards the end he observes, that he did not wonder that many were troubled to bear his Rebukes, and murmured against him; that this Abuse had been of a long time, but he was resolved to bear with patience the Reproaches of others.  
We may place at the head of the Funeral Orations and the Panegyrics of St. Gregory Nyssen, the Discourse wherein he proves, That we ought not to be troubled at the death of the Faithful, because it delivers them from this Mortal and Miserable Life, that they may enjoy Immortal Life and Eternal Happiness.  
In the Funeral Oration upon Pulcheria the Daughter of Theodosius, after he has aggravated the loss which he suffered by the death of this young Princess, he shows that they should comfort themselves, since she is now happy.  
In the Panegyric upon the Empress Flaccilla, he describes the Virtues of this Princess, and represents the Happiness which she enjoys in Heaven.  
In the Panegyric upon the Martyr St. Stephen, after he has given an Account of the History of his Martyrdom and praised his Constancy, he refutes the Enemies of the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit.  
There are Three Discourses of St. Gregory Nyssen's in Honour of the 40 Martyrs, wherein he relates their Martyrdom, and praises their Constancy.  
In the Panegyric upon the Martyr Theodorus 
e The Panegyric upon Theodorus the Martyr.] Some Critics think that this Panegyric is Supposititious. First, because the Author of this Discourse, prays the Holy Martyr to hinder the Incursions of the Scythians: Now, say they, the Scythians had not made any Incursions into Armenia, till a 100 Years after the death of St. Gregory, under the Reign of Anastasius. Secondly, the Author says, that Theodorus was of the Country of Job, that is, of Arabia, and yet his is a Greek Name, and 'tis said in the same Panegyric that he was of Amasea in Cappadocia. But 'tis easy to answer the first Difficulty, for the Scythians had made Incursions into the Roman Empire in the time of St. Gregory Nyssen, as appears by St. Jerom Ep. 30. and by Cedrenus, who says that they entered into Thrace under the Reign of Valens. The second Objection has no Difficulty, for the Author of this Panegyric does not say, that Job was of Arabia, nor that Theodorus was of the same Province with Job, but only that they were both of the East. , having described the Honours which the Church bestows upon Saints and Martyrs, and the Rewards which they enjoy, he relates the Martyrdom of Theodorus, and concludes with addressing a Prayer to him, for obtaining the Graces and Blessings of God by his Intercession.  
In the Panegyric upon St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, he praises the excellent Virtues of this great Saint; he relates many of his Miracles, whereof some are very extraordinary. Suidas names this Panegyric among St. Gregory's Works, and there is no reason at all to doubt of it.  
The Panegyrics upon St. Basil, Meletius and St. Ephraem, contain nothing but the Life and Praises of those great Men. To these Orations we may join the Life of St. Macrina his Sister.  
The Canonical Epistle to Letoius contains the Rules or Laws of Penance. St. Gregory there distinguishes Three Sorts of Sins, which refer to the Three Faculties of the Soul, Reason, Lust and Anger. He says, that the greatest Sins are those which belong to the Spirit of a Man, such as Idolatry, Judaisme, Manichaeism and Heresy. He would have those that voluntarily fall into these Crimes be deprived of the Sacraments till the Hour of Death: But, he says, that those who have been forced by the rigour of Torments to commit some of these Crimes, ought not to be punished more severely than Fornicators. He ordains also, that those who deal in Magic, Witchcraft and Divination of things to come, should be treated as wilful Apostates, if they have practised this Art through Infidelity; but he would have them treated as those who yield under the rigour of Torments, if they have used it only through too much Credulity, or in hope of some considerable Gain. He says, that as to what concerns the Sins of Lust, they may be referred to Adultery and Fornication; and that Fornication is 2 kind of Adultery. He refers to Adultery the Crimes which are against Nature. He imposes Nine Years Penance upon simple Fornication, and double the time upon Adultery; yet he leaves to the Bishop a liberty of Moderating or Lengthening the Penance according to the Disposition of the Penitent; and he would have those treated more gently who confess their secret and hidden Sins. In short, as to the Sins which proceed from Anger, he says, That tho' the Scripture reproves all Sins severely, yet the Fathers have made no Laws but against Murder. He imposes 27 Years Penance for Wilful Murder; and for involuntary Murders, the same space of time as for Fornication; yet he allows this Penance to be diminished according to the Fervour of the Penitent. In general he observes, that all those who fall sick before they have perfectly finished their Penance, should be reconciled at the Point of death, and be admitted to receive the Sacraments; yet upon condition that they fulfil their time of Penance if they recover their health.  
As for Covetousness, he says, That tho' this Crime be another kind of Idolatry, yet there are no Canons made to subject the Covetous to Penance; and therefore it is sufficient to purify them from this Crime, by Instruction and Prayer. As for Robbery, he says, there are Two Sorts of it; that which is done Publicly and by force of Arms, and that which is done Secretly; That those who are guilty the first Sort, aught to be put under the same Penance as Murderers; but as for those who steal fewer Goods in secret, it was sufficient that they should restore them and give Alms to the Poor. He looks upon the Action of those who dig up the Dead as a very great Crime, and puts them under the same Penance as Fornicators.  
At last, he says, That tho' Sacrilege was one of the Crimes which was punished under the Old Law by stoning the Person that was guilty of it; yet this Punishment was mitigated under the New Law, and that now sacrilegious Persons were treated less harshly than Adulterers. He concludes with this Advertisement to Letoius to whom he writes, that he should chief consider the Disposition of the Person that does Penance, because it is not the length of time, but the Conversion of the Person and change of his Life which cures the Sin.  
Some Critics have doubted whether this Letter was St. Gregory Nyssen's; but there is no reason to reject it, and it has been owned by the Greek Church, as appears by the Council held in the Emperor's Palace which approves the Canons of St. Gregory Nyssen, and by the Commentaries of Zonaras and Balsamon who acknowledge it to be Genuine; and besides 'tis sufficiently evident that 'tis the Work of an ancient Author.  
In the Letter of the Profession of a Christian, he shows that it consists in imitating Jesus Christ, and he explains in what sense this can be done.  
In the following Letter to Olympius, he explains particularly wherein Christian Perfection consists, and makes a particular Enumeration of all the Offices and Virtues of a perfect Christian.  
The Treatise concerning the End which Christians ought to propose to themselves is almost upon the same Subject. St. Gregory proves, That the End of all Christians should be to shun Vice, to practise Virtue, to purify themselves from their Sins, to beg the Grace of Jesus Christ, to be humble, to be Charitable, to be diligent in Prayer, to despise the World, and to fix their Affections upon God. This Treatise is addressed to the Monks.  
In the Letter to Flavianus, he complains of the evil treatment he had received from Helladius Bishop of Caesarea.  
In the Letter concerning Pilgrimages to Jerusalem, he dissuades Christians from undertaking lightly these kind of Journeys, because of the Abuses which happen in them. There have been great Disputes occasioned by this Letter: Some have believed it supposititious; others have maintained that what is there said Respects only the Monks and the Nuns. But First, there are no Arguments strong enough to reject it, and the most learned Catholics have acknowledged it as a Genuine Work of St. Gregory's: And in the Second place, some Reasons which are used to dissuade Men from Pilgrimages to Jerusalem, respect all Christians in general. In the mean time, 'tis no ways probable, that St. Gregory Nyssen, who was so very much devoted to the Saints, should absolutely condemn the Piety of those who travelled upon a good Design to visit the Holy Places, especially since this Practice was Authorised and Approved from the beginning of the Fourth Age of the Church. It must therefore be said, that he did not condemn it but upon the account of the Abuses and Superstitions, which began in his time to creep into these kind of Devotions, of which he was a Witness in his Journey to Jerusalem. Thus St. Jerom who was very much devoted to the Holy Places, in his 13th. Epistle, dissuades Paulinus Bishop of Nola, from a Journey to Jerusalem upon the same Reason that St. Gregory uses. And to show that St. Gregory could have no other Aim or Design, one needs but compare this Letter with the following to Eustathia, Ambrosia and Basilissa wherein he acknowledges, that 'tis a Happiness to see the Holy Places, provided a Man represents the Death and Sufferings of Jesus Christ by his own Actions to himself. He complains in this Letter, that the Church of Jerusalem was no more exempt from Divisions than other Churches, and explains towards the latter end the Mystery of the Incarnation. There he teaches, that the Divinity was not changed into the Humanity, but that the Divinity was united to a Nature like to ours, that it assumed a Body and a Soul, and was never separated from them; that the Virgin ought to be called the Mother of God, and not the Mother of a Man. He rejects the Opinion of the Millenaries. He complains of some that would not communicate with him in the Journey which he made to Jerusalem. At last, he exhorts those to whom he writes, who were at Jerusalem, to continue firm in the Faith of their Forefathers, and not to prefer Novelties to the Ancient Doctrine received from their Fathers by Tradition.  
St. Cyril in the Book written to Evoptius, quotes a Passage of St. Gregory's taken out of his Commentary upon the Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians, which can be no other St. Gregory but this of Nyssa. The Eight Books of Nemesius' Philosophy have formerly been attributed to him; but now it is generally agreed that this was a gross Error.  
Tho' St. Gregory Nyssen professed Rhetoric, and Photius assures us, That his Style is Lofty and Smooth; yet one may say, that he came not near the Eloquence of St. Basil, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. His way of Writing is affected, and his Style is no ways Natural; he speaks more like a Declaimer than an Orator; he is always abstruse either by Allegories, or abstracted Reasonings; he mingles Philosophy with Divinity, and makes use of the Principles of Philosophers, both in his Explications of Mysteries, and in his Discourses of Morality: Upon which Account his Works are more like the Treatises of Plato and Aristotle, than those of other Christians. He follows and imitates Origen in his way of Allegorising, and there are also some of this Author's Errors in his Works, about the Nature of Souls, and the End of the Pains of the damned; but he rejects and refutes them expressly in other places: 'Tis very probable therefore that the places wherein these Errors are to be met with were added since, which Germanus the Patriarch of Constantinople shows in a Book, out of which Photius relates an Extract in Vol. 218. of his Bibliotheca; wherein he proves as well by what goes before those places, as by what follows after them, and by an infinite Number of contrary Passages, that those places which agree with the Doctrine of Origen concerning the End of the Pains of the damned, were either added, or corrupted by the Disciples of this Author. He observes also, That the like happened to the Conference about the Soul with Macrina, to the Catechetical Discourse, and the Book of the Perfection of a Christain: And he should have added also the Treatise about Infants who die before they come to the use of Reason. It may be said also, That St. Gregory Nyssen having his Head full of the Books and Principles of Origen, could not always be so careful but some of his Errors would slip unawares into his Reasonings, tho' he was not really of his Opinion, and he rejected them at other times when he was more attentive. Yet 'tis plain that there is an Addition at the End of the great Catechetical Discourse, wherein mention is made of the Heretic Severus.  
'Twas a long time before the Works of St. Gregory Nyssen were all collected together into one Body. The First Editions have only the Eight Books of Nemesius' Philosophy. In 1536, Aldus Minutius printed at Venice three Greek Orations, and in 1537, the Greek Text of the Book of the Formation of Man; and the Version of this Book made by Dionysius Exiguus, was printed with the Treatise of the Life of Moses, and the Eight Books of Nemesius, at Cologne in 1551. The Book of the Life of Moses, translated by Georgius Trapezuntius, was printed at Basle in 1521. In 1544 Camerarius published a Verson of the Homily upon Abraham. In 1550, Zinus published a Version of some Moral Homilies, which was printed by Vascosanus. The Conference about the Soul, translated by Augerius, was printed at Paris in 1557. Laurentius Sifanus collected together and translated several Treatises of St. Gregory Nyssen's, and caused them to be printed at Basle in 1562. In 1567., Leunclavius made a New Translation of the Book of the Life of Moses. In 1564, Hoëschelius caused the Greek Text of some Orations of St. Gregory Nyssen to be printed at Ausburg. In 1567., the Book of Virginity was printed at Rome translated by Galesinius, together with Five Orations; the same Book was also translated by Livineius, whose Version appeared in 1574. The Discourse of Purification and of the Soul was printed at Cologne in 1568. The Edition of the Year 1562 was reprinted at Basle in 1571. There was added to it the Exposition upon the Canticles translated by Leunclavius, and the Letter to Flavianus. The Edition of Nivellè of the Year 1573 is larger, and contains the Version of almost all the Treatises of St. Gregory Nyssen which had been then published: Since that Edition Maximus Margurius, caused the Version of the Book of Perfection, and of the Letter to Letoius, and of the Book upon the Titles of the Psalms, to be printed at Venice in 1585. The Letter to Letoius was also printed at Venice in 1589, together with the Notes of Antonius Augustinus, and at Paris with those of Balsamon in 1561; at Ausburg together with the Homily of the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit, translated by Hervetus, in 1591. The Book of Perfection of Zinus' Translation, was printed at Venice in 1575. In 1593., Hoëschelius printed in Greek at Amsterdam, the Book of the Christian Profession, and that of the Life of Moses, the Treatise against Apollinarius, and that of Faith. Fronto Ducaeus printed in Latin at Ingolstadt in the Year 1598., the Treatises against Apollinarius, of the Witch of Endor, the Discourse upon the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, that of St. Gregory upon his Ordination, his Book against the Manichees, the Treatise of Destiny, and the Oration against Usurers. The Book of the Titles of the Psalms in Greek and Latin, translated by Gretser was also printed at Ingolstadt in 1600, the Treatise about the End of a Christian was published by Morellus in the Year 1606, the same Year appeared in Greek and Latin the Letter about Pilgrimages to Jerusalem, and that to Eustathia, Ambrosia and Basilissa, the first printed by Morellus, and the last by Robert Stephens with Casaubon's Notes; both the one and the other were printed at Hanover, the first in 1607, with the Notes of Du Moulin, and the second in 1611. In 1605, Fronto Ducaeus printed a New Latin Edition of the Works of St. Gregory Nyssen, which contains all that had been published. At last, in 1615 there came out a Greek and Latin Edition of the Works of this Father which was printed in Two Volumes by Morellus, with the Notes of Fronto Ducaeus; but because in this Edition there was not the First Book against Eunomius, nor the Greek of the Moral Orations, therefore there was a Supplement made at the End of St. Basil's Works printed in 1618. The last Edition in 1638 was Copied after this, where the same Version of the last Homilies is put twice, once by itself apart, and once over against the Greek. This Edition was done very negligently, and is very uncorrect.   

St. CAESARIUS.  
CAESARIUS the Brother of St. Gregory Nazianzen, after having finished his Studies at Alexandria, came to dwell at Constantinople, and passed the greatest Part of his Life at Court 
St. Caesarius.  in the Quality of Physician to the Emperor. He continued also some time with Julian, but finding himself solicited to quit the Christian Religion, he retired into his own Country. After the Death of this Emperor he returned to Court and came into Credit again under the Reign of Valens. He was honoured with the Office of Treasurer of Bythinia. He was like to have perished in the Earthquake which happened at Nice, where he lost part of his Goods. He died at Court in the beginning of the Year 369, and made the Poor his Heirs.  
There is no great probability, that a Man who lived as Caesarius did, should compose Dialogues upon the most subtle Questions of Philosophy and Divinity; yet Four of them are attributed to him, which some have thought were written in his Name by St. Gregory Nazianzen; but they can neither be the one's nor the others. For, First, it is not credible, that Caesarius, who spent his Life at Court, and was but a simple Catechumen, should be the Author of those Questions, which suppose the Writer of them to be very well versed in the most subtle Parts of Theology. Secondly, The Title of these Dialogues import that the Author of them was Secretary to the Emperor, and that he had taught Twenty Years at Constantinople; which cannot be said of the Brother of St. Gregory Nazianzen, who was not Secretary, but Treasurer, and who did not profess Theology at Constantinople but Physic. Thirdly, St. Gregory Nazianzen in his Funeral Oration says not a Word of his Skill in Theology, nor that he had written about Religion. Fourthly, This Treatise has neither the Style nor Genius of the Writers of the Fourth Age. Fifthly, It citys St. Gregory Nyssen, who died long after Caesarius, and Maximus an Author of the Seventh Age. All which does plainly show, That it can neither belong to Caesarius nor St. Gregory Nazianzen, whose Style is as different from the Author's of this Dialogue, as the Style of Demosthenes is from that of the Declamations of Aphthonius.  
Photius says, That 'tis easy to perceive, that the Style of these Dialogues, is the Style of a Young Man who had learned some Rudiments of Rhetoric, and was proud of that little Knowledge which he had in Divinity and Philosophy; That his Sallies of Wit are most of them unpleasant; That he often makes use of Poetical Terms, and without any reason varies from the common Construction; That his Style however is clear enough, and that there are few things to be blamed in his Doctrine. These Dialogues contain 195 Questions and Answers about Matters of Theology and Philosophy, more Subtle and Curious than Useful and Profitable. In Photius' time, there were 220 of them. There are still in many Manuscripts thereabouts more or less, which plainly shows that these Questions were written by some Modern Greeks, who loved to busy their Minds with these sort of Questions, and to publish them under the Names of Ancient Authors. Leunclavius was the First who translated these Questions, and his Version was printed at Basle in 1571. Afterwards Elias Elingherus, Library-Keeper of Ausburg published in 1626., 78 of these Questions in Greek and Latin. Last of all, Fronto Ducaeus published the Greek Text and Version of 195 Questions and Answers, divided into Four Books, and those were printed in the Addition to the Bibliotheca Patrum in 1624., and in the Eleventh Volume of the Edition in 1644.   

St. AMPHILOCHIUS.  
ST. AMPHILOCHIUS an intimate Friend of St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzen, was of Cappadocia. Having for some time professed Rhetoric, be afterwards attended the Bar, 
St. Amphilochius.  where he discharged the Office of an Advocate and a Judge 
a Advocate and a Judge.] St. Gregory Nazianzen recommends to him the Affairs of his Friends in Letters 19, 106, 160. and it appears by Letter 106, that he was accused for not doing Justice. . Leaving this he retired into a solitary place of Cappadocia called Ozizala, and after he had led there for some time a very Holy Life, he was in the Year 375 Ordained Bishop of Iconium the Metropolis of Lycaonia, a Province of the Diocese of Asia, bordering upon Cappadocia. When he was Bishop he took Care not only of his own Church, but also of the Affairs of the Neighbouring Churches. He was present at the Council of Constantinople, and there the Care of the Ecclesiastical Affairs of his Country was committed to him. About the Year 383, or 384, he held a Council at Syda against the Massalians, which Photius mentions in Vol 52. Theodoret relates in Ch. 16. of B. V of his History, that St. Amphilochius petitioned the Emperor Theodosius to prohibit the Heretics to hold their Assemblies in Cities; That the Emperor judging his Petition too Rigorous, denied it; but Amphilochius returning some time after to the Palace, and seeing Arcadius his Son close by the Emperor Theodosius who had already been proclaimed Emperor, he Saluted the Father without Saluting the Son; That Theodosius thinking he had failed in his Duty through Inadvertence, commanded him to Salute his Son, to whom St. Amphilochius made answer, That it was enough that he had Saluted him. Whereupon Theodosius fell into a Passion, and declared how much he was offended with him for his neglecting of his Son; That then Amphilochius discreetly told him, You cannot suffer an Injury to be done to the Emperor your Son, and do you suffer those who dishonour the Son of God? That the Emperor being surprised with this Reply, made a Law; wherein he forbids Heretics to hold their Assemblies any longer. Theodoret says, That this happened after Theodosius' Return into the East, that is, about the Year 392. But 'tis much more probable, that St. Amphilochius spoke thus to the Emperor, sometime after the Council of Constantinople in the Year 382, since it was then that the Law of Theodosius was made against Heretics, forbidding their Assemblies. The Year of Amphilochius' Death is not certainly known. St. Jerom in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers written in 392, mentions him as one then living. There also he mentions a Treatise of the Holy Spirit, which St. Amphilochius had read to him a little while before, wherein he proves that the Holy Spirit was God, Adorable and Almighty.  
The Works of this Father have been quoted with Commendation by the Councils and the Ancients. The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, produce some Testimonies out of them against the Errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, but they do not tell us, out of what Book they are taken. Theodoret in his Dialogues produces others which are taken out of the Homilies upon these Words of the Gospel; My Father is greater than I; and upon these other Words, The Son can do nothing of himself; and out of a Homily upon these other Words of Jesus Christ in St. John Chap. 5. He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath eternal life; and out of a Homily upon these Words of Jesus Christ in St. Matth. Chap. 26. My God, let me not drink of this Cup; out of a Discourse against the Arians, which is the same with that upon these Words, My Father is greater than I, as appears by Leontius; and out of another Sermon upon the Word, the Son of God. Facundus in Ch. 3. of B. XI. of his Treatise, citys Four Passages out of St. Amphilochius, whereof the First is taken out of the Homily upon these Words, My Father is greater than I; the Second out of the Homily upon these Words, He that believeth in him that sent me hath eternal life; the Third out of the Homily upon these Words, I ascend to my Father and my God; and the Last out of the Homily upon these Words, Let me not drink of this Cup. The Seventh Council in Action Five, quotes a Fragment of St. Amphilochius against the Books written by Heretics who bear the Name of the Apostles. Leontius and Anastasius Sinaita quote also some Passages of St. Amphilochius. St. John Damascene produces some Passages taken out of Two of his Letters, whereof one was addressed to the Suadrenses and the other to Seleucus. There is also a Fragment and a Question concerning the Flesh of Jesus Christ which is thought to have been extracted by Photius, and another Fragment of a Letter written to the Deacon Pancarius. Barlaam has also collected some Passages taken out of the Letter to Seleucus, out of the First Sermon upon these Words, No Man knows either the day or the hour of judgement; out of another upon these Words, The Child Jesus grew; out of another upon these Words, Destroy this Temple. These Fragments have almost all been collected together by Father Combefis, who has also published the entire Works, as many as could be found, under the Name of Amphilochius, and printed them at Paris in 1644.  
These are Eight Sermons, a Poem upon the Holy Books, and the Life of St. Basil.  
The 1st. Sermon is upon the Nativity of Jesus Christ.  
The 2d. is upon the Circumcision, wherein he enlarges upon the Praise of St. Basil.  
The 3d. is upon the Purification of the Virgin the Mother of God, upon Anne and Simeon.  
The 4th. is a second Sermon upon the Virgin and Simeon, which is not written by St. Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium the Friend of St. Basil, but by another Amphilochius Bishop of Syda, who was present at the Council of Ephesus; for this Sermon is written directly against Nestorius, and is of a Style different from the former.  
The 5th. is upon Lazarus.  
The 6th. upon the Woman in the Gospel that was a Sinner.  
The 7th. which had been formerly printed at Antwerp in 1598., is of the Holy Saturday.  
The Last is about Penance. This has not the same Style as the others. The Author speaks against the Heresy of the Iconoclasts, and relates Fabulous Stories, from whence it appears that this Homily is the Work of some Modern Greek. It cannot be certainly known of any one of these Sermons, that it belongs to St. Amphilochius of Iconium, rather than Amphilochius Bishop of Syda.  
The Poem to Seleucus has the Style of St. Gregory Nazianzen, whatever Father Combefis says to the contrary, and it is very probable that it was written by this Father under the Name of Amphilochius. There he makes an Enumeration of the Canonical Books which is not different from that which is in the 33d. Poem: For tho' he speaks of the Book of Esther and the Revelation, yet he does not put them in the Rank of those Books which all the World receives for Canonical; he only observes, that some have admitted them, and others have rejected them.  
The Life of St. Basil attributed to Amphilochius, translated into Latin by Cardinal Ursus, whose Translation was printed by Rosweydus, published in Greek and Latin by Father Combefis, contains many Fables, and many particulars of the Life of St. Basil contrary to the Truth of History 
b Contrary to the Truth of History.] The Author of this Life supposes, that St. Basil was Bishop in the time of Julian, that Libanius was of Julian's Retinue, that when this Emperor was killed, he was converted in a few Days after, and retired with St. Basil. Now 'tis evident that St. Basil was not Bishop in the Emperor Julian's time, and that Libanius was so far from being converted after his Death, that he wrote a Panegyric in his praise. All the Histories which are related in this Life are Fabulous, and do no ways agree with what the Ancients have said of Saint Basil. In a word, No body can read this Piece but they may presently discover its Imposture. , so that it is plainly the Work of a Modern Greek. Father Combefis, who endeavours to maintain its Authority against the Opinion of Possevinus, Baronius and Bellarmin, says, That some places in it are added and corrupted, but that the Body of the Work is Amphilochius'; which he does not prove at all, nor can it appear probable to those that read it, who will neither find in it the Style, nor the Genius of the Fourth Age of the Church. The Life of St. Amphilochius written by Metaphrastes, is also of no great Authority: Wherefore one may say, That excepting the Fragments produced by the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, by Theodoret and Facundus, all the other Discourses published by Father Combefis under the Name of Amphilochius, are either manifestly supposititious, or at least very doubtful. But we must not say the same of the Letter published by Cotelerius in his Second Volume of the Monuments of the Greek Church, p. 98. It is a Synodical Epistle written to the Bishops of another Province. The Bishops in whose Name St. Amphilochius wrote it, declare, That they wished St. Basil had been present at their Synod; but he being detained by a grievous Sickness, they would be satisfied if he would send to them his Book of the Holy Spirit. They add, That they receive the Faith of the Nicene Council; but that tho' the Fathers of this Council had said, that we must believe in the Holy Spirit, as in the Father and the Son, yet they had not explained the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, because this Question was not then disputed. Afterwards they explain themselves more clearly upon this Subject. They prove the Divinity of the Holy Spirit by Baptism; they say that we must acknowledge in God but one Nature only, and three Hypostases. At last, They exhort those to whom they writ to maintain the Faith and the Peace of the Church, and to sing the in Doxology, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; and add, That 'tis in vain to reject the Communion of the Arians, if they do not believe the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. This Letter has relation to the 403 Letter of St. Basil, wherein he writes to Amphilochius to send Deputies into Lycia, to inquire into the Faith of the Bishops of that Country, who were for the most part Orthodox. Probably Amphilochius did as St. Basil desired him in this Letter, and these Deputies brought a Letter from the Bishops of Lycia to which St. Amphilochius answers by this.   

MAXIMUS.  
THis MAXIMUS was a Philosopher of Alexandria, who procured himself to be Ordained Bishop of Constantinople, and did all that he could to force away from thence St. Gregory Nazianzen. 
Maximus.  He wrote a Book of Faith against the Arians, which he presented to the Emperor Gratian at Milan; this he did in all probability, when he came into the West after he had been driven away from Constantinople and Alexandria. St. Gregory Nazianzen gave him at first great Praises, but afterwards he blackened his Reputation in a wonderful manner. The Western Bishops protected him, but those of the East declared his Ordination null, and made void all the Ordinations that he had made, by the Fifth Canon of the Council of Constantinople.   

EUSEBIUS VERCELLENSIS.  
EUSEBIUS born in Sardinia was Reader of the Church of Rome, and afterwards Bishop of Verceilles. Pope Liberius sent him Delegate to the Emperor Constantius after the Fall of Vincentius 
Eusebius Vercellensis.  of Capua. He was present at the Council of Milan, from whence he was banished into the East, and sent away into Scythopolis, where he suffered very much from Patrophilus the Arian Bishop of that City. He obtained his Liberty under the Reign of Julian, and was present at the Council of Alexandria held by St. Athanasius. He was delegated by this Council for restoring Peace to the Church of Antioch, but he could not compass his Design, because of the Ordination of Paulinus, which was rashly made by Lucifer; for this was an hindrance to the Reconciliation. And therefore having blamed the Conduct of Lucifer he returned into Italy, where he took a great deal of Pains to re-establish the Faith. He died in the Year 370. St. Ambrose made a Panegyric upon him. The Title of Martyr is commonly given to him: But St. Ambrose, St. Jerom, St. Gregory of Tours, and all the Ancients give him no other Title but that of Confessor; and St. Ambrose seems to prefer Dionysius of Milan before him, because he died in Banishment.  
We have a Letter of this Bishop written in the time of his Exile, and sent to his own Church, together with a Protestation against all the Violences of Patrophilus. There is also among the Fragments of St. Hilary, a Letter to Gregory Bishop of Elvira, written in 363, and a little Note that he wrote to Constantius before he went to Milan. St. Jerom testifies. That he translated into Latin the Commentaries of Eusebius of Caesarea upon the Psalms. It is probable that he wrote it in his Exile, where he learned the Greek Tongue, and published it after his Return.   

MELETIUS.  
MELETIUS was of Melitine. He was at first engaged in the Party of the Acacians, and signed their Confession of Faith in the Council of Seleucia. St. Jerom, Socrates, Sozomen, 
Meletius.  and Theodoret, say, that he was first Ordained Bishop of Sebastea, a City of Armenia, in the Council of Constantinople in the Year 360. After that, if you will believe Socrates, he was Translated to Beraea, and from thence to Antioch: But it is more probable, that he was never Ordained Bishop of Beraea, and that when he could not be received at Sebastea, he retired to Beraea, from whence he was called to Antioch, after Eudoxus had quitted that See to go to Constantinople. The Arians thinking that he would be of their Opinion, proposed him for Bishop of that City in a Council held at Antioch in 361, and the Orthodox knowing him better than the Arians, consented to his Election. Some time after the Emperor Constantius, who was then at Antioch, desired those Bishops who were most able, to Discourse in Public, to Explain these Words of Scripture; The Lord created me in the beginning of his Ways for his Works; and Ordered their Expositions to be written down, that they might be obliged to make them the more exact. George Bishop of Laodicea did first explain those Words, and diffused all the poison of his Errors. Acacius Bishop of Caesarea, did next give an Explication, which held the middle way between the Impiety of Arius and the Catholic Doctrine. But Meletius proposed the Orthodox Doctrine of the Church. 'Tis also said, that his Archdeacon having stopped his Mouth, he made known his Doctrine by Signs. The Arians assembled immediately to Depose him, and having Ordained in his Room an Arian named Euzoïus, they caused Meletius to be banished to the place of his Birth. Then the sounder part of the People separated themselves from those that were infected with the Error of Arius, and assembled in the Church of the Apostles, which was in the old City. But besides the Catholics, there were at Antioch a small number of the ancient Orthodox, who after the Deposition of Eustathius continued without Bishops. These would not be reunited to Meletius and those of his Party, tho' they had separated themselves from the Arians: Lucifer coming to Antioch after the death of Constantius, ordained Paulinus for their Bishop; but they were but few in number, and Meletius' Congregation was more numerous. When all the Orthodox Bishops after the death of Constantius had liberty to return to their Dioceses, Meletius returned to Antioch; but Euzïous continued Minister of the Churches, till the Acacians were reconciled to Meletius under the Reign of Jovian, and made Profession of the Orthodox Faith in the Council of Antioch in the Year 363.  
Under the Reign of Valens, Meletius was persecuted again and sent into Banishment, but he was no less odious to the Orthodox of the West than to the Arians. For the Church of Alexandria and the Churches of the West, supported Paulinus and those of his Party, and would have no Communion with Meletius. We have already seen the trouble and labour that St. Basil underwent to reconcile Meletius to them, yet he could not compass his Design while he lived. But Nine Months after his Death, it was agreed between Meletius and Paulinus, that whensoever one of them two should die, no Person should be Ordained in his Room, but the Survivor should continue sole Bishop of the Place. Meletius coming in the Year 380. to the first Council of Constantinople, in which he presided, died in that City to the great grief of all the Bishops. After his death the Eastern Bishops, without any regard to the Agreement made with Paulinus, chose in his room Flavianus. This Election renewed the Schism of the Church of Antioch, which was not ended even at the death of Paulinus which happened in the Year 389, for before he died he Ordained Evagrius for his Successor. This Difference was carried to the Council of Capua, which named Theophilus and the Bishops of Egypt for Judges in this Cause. But Flavianus refusing him addressed himself to the Emperor, whom he persuaded of the goodness of his Cause. This Conduct of Flavianus very much disgusted the Western Bishops, as St. Ambrose informs us in the ninth Letter of his first Book. However he had so much Interest, as to hinder the placing of a Bishop in the room of Evagrius who died in 393, and he reconciled himself to the Western Bishops in 398, by means of St. Chrysostom who persuaded Theophilus to make up this Peace. Yet there were still some obstinate Persons at Antioch, who notwithstanding the Agreement of the whole Church, would keep up a Faction by themselves, and would neither be reconciled to Flavianus nor to his Successors; so difficult it is to bring those back to the Church, who have gone astray through too much Zeal for Religion, and have made a separation under pretence of Purity of Doctrine, and strictness of Discipline. St. Epiphanius has preserved for us in Haeres. 73. the Discourse of Meletius which contains clearly the Doctrine of the Church, and the proofs of the Eternity and Divinity of the Word. We may attribute to him also the Creed of the Council of Antioch in the Year 393, related by Socrates Ch. 25. of the 3d. B. of his History. These Monuments are authentic Proofs that Meletius was a Catholic, which was acknowledged by almost all the Fathers, and even by St. Athanasius. Neither can any one blame him for the Holiness of his Life; but his Ordination for some time was encumbered with great Difficulties: First, because it was believed, that he was Translated from one Church to another; Secondly, because he was Chosen and Ordained by the Arians, to whose Party he was addicted. But as to the first Difficulty, besides that we have in Antiquity some examples of Translations that have been approved of, when they were made for the Good of the Church, as the Event did plainly show this to be: It cannot be said, properly speaking, that Meletius was Translated from one Bishopric to another. For tho' he had been Ordained Bishop of Sebastea in Armenia, yet the People of that Church not being willing to receive him, he was obliged to withdraw immediately to Beraea. Now the Canons are so far from forbidding to give Bishoprics upon such Occasions to those who could not take possession of that which was designed for them, that on the contrary they Ordain, That if it can be done, another Bishopric should be given unto them as soon as possible. The ●…r ●…lty is of much greater consequence, and upon it especially those grounded their separation who would not communicate with him. They said, that they could not acknowledge for a lawful Bishop one that was Ordained by Heretics. But it must be considered that when he was Ordained; 〈◊〉 was Master of the Empire, and the Church of Antioch could have no Bishop that was Ordained by others; that tho' Acacius of Caesarea and the other Eastern Eishops were in as Error, yet they were neither deposed nor deprivid of their Bishoprics, and therefore they might act in such Matters as concerned the Government of the Church, that when the Bishops ordained by Heretics returned to the Church, she left them almost always in possession of their Sees; that the Orthodox had consented to the Ordination of Meletius; that all the Catholic Bishops of the East approved it; that Eusebius of Samosata, and Eusebius of Verceilles acknowledged his Ordination to be valid; and in short, that the Council of Constantinople put it past all doubt. But if we ought to approve the Ordination of Meletius, what can we say of that of Paulinus, but that it was done with much indiscretion and rashness? As to that of Flavianus, it cannot be altogether approved, since it was made contrary to an Agreement concluded between Meletius and Paulinus. Yet the Eastern Bishops may be excused, because perhaps they had no hand in this Agreement, and they fore saw that the People of Antioch could never agree with Paulinus. In a word, the Ordination of Evagrius can be approved by no body, since it tended only to perpetuate the Division and Schism in the Church of Antioch.   

DIODORUS Bishop of Tarsus.  
DIODORUS a Priest and Monk of Antioch, the Scholar of Silvanus of Tarsus, Master of St. John Chrysostom, and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, after he had acquired a great Reputation in 
Diodorus. Bishop of Tarsus.  Antioch by his Conduct and Prudence, was Ordained Bishop of Tarsus in the Year 375. While he was yet but a Priest, he took care of the People of Antioch, in the absence of Meletius who was then banished under the Reign of Valens, and maintained the Orthodox Faith in this Church. After he was Bishop, he was present at the Council of Constantinople, and was one of those that were chosen to take care of the Eastern Diocese. He was very skilful in the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, and wrote Commentaries upon almost all the Books of the Bible. He was one of the first Commentators that applied himself to a literal Explication, without amusing himself with Allegories. He was highly esteemed of by all the great Men of his Age, who wrote very obliging Letters to him, and have given very Authentic Testimonies of his Doctrine and his Piety. One part of these Letters may be seen in Facundus Ch. 3. of his 4th. Book. But in the following Ages Men did not give so favourable a Judgement of this Man's Doctrine, for he was accused of Teaching in his Writings the Errors of Nestorius, as they were afterwards called. It may be for this Reason that none of his Works are preserved. We have nothing but a very considerable Extract out of his Treatise of Destiny, produced by Photius in Volume 223 of his Bibliotheca, and the Argument of another Trearise of the Holy Spirit produced by the same Person in Volume 102. Theodoret also in his Commentaries upon Genesis Quest. 20. p. 22. and Quest. 21. p. 25. produces two other Fragments of this our Diodorus.  
St. Basil in Letter 167 speaks of Two Books of this Author's writing against the Heretics, whereof the Second was composed by way of Dialogue. St. Jerom mentions his Commentary upon St. Paul. Socrates and Sozomen assure us, that he made Commentaries upon almost all the Books of the Bible. Leontius in his Third Book quotes a Book of this Author written against the Sunousiasts, that is, against the Apollinarists. Suidas has given us a Catalogue of his Works taken out of Theodorus, which is as follows. An Explication of all the Old Testament, of Genesis, Exodus, and upon the Psalms, and upon the Four Books of Kings, upon the Chronicles, upon the Proverbs; a Treatise of the Difference between Allegory and Contemplation; a Commentary upon Ecclesiastes, upon Canticles, upon the Prophets; a Chronicle wherein he has corrected some Faults of Eusebius; Commentaries upon the Four Gospels, upon the Acts, upon the Epistle of St. John; a Treatise to prove that there is but One God in the Trinity; a Book against the Melchisedecians, a Treatise against the Jews concerning the Resurrection of the Dead, one of the Soul against several Errors; a Treatise of Destiny against the Astrologers, where he speaks of the Globe of the World, and of Providence; and a Treatise wherein he proves that Invisible things were made at the same time with the Elements, tho' they were not made of them; a Tract to Euphronius, by way of Question and Answer, against Aristotle's System. He says nothing in this Catalogue of the Book of the Trinity, nor of the Treatise against the Apollinarists.  
The Treatise of Distiny was divided into Eight Books and 53 Chapters. There he refutes all the Follies of Judicial Astrology, and shows that the World had a Beginning and was Created, that Man was endowed with freewill, that God was not the Author of Evil, and that the World is governed by Divine Providence. Photius makes a particular enumeration of the Subject of each Chapter in this Work, wherein he produces some part of his Reasonings. He had reason to ridicule the Proposition which this Author had advanced, That the Heaven was not round, supposing that if it were so, the Astrologers would have some good Ground for their Opinion of Fatality: For as he observes, the Figure of the Heaven has nothing in the World to do with this Question.  
Photius observes, that the Style of this Author is pure and clear; but St. Jerom says, that it is not lofty, and that he could never reach the Eloquence of Eusebius Emisenus, tho' he endeavoured to imitate it, because he was not skilled enough in humane Learning. Facundus who quotes this Passage of St. Jerom says only Eusebius, without adding Emisenus. Now if one should thus read the Text of St. Jerom, it would be more convenient to understand the Writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, whom Diodorus rather imitated than those of the Bishop of Emesa, because the Works of Diodorus have no great relation to his Books, whereas they had a great affinity to those of Eusebius of Caesarea, either for the Matters which he treated of, or for the Manner or Style wherein he treated of them. For the Extracts which Photius has produced out of his Treatise of Destiny, are very like to some Books of the Evangelical Preparation or Demonstration of Eusebius of Caesarea. The Judgement which St. Basil has given of this Author's Style may be seen in Letter 167, of which we have given an Abridgement in St. Basil's Life. As to what concerns his Doctrine of the Incarnation, we could better judge of it, if we had his Books; but there is no great probability, that one who was praised, esteemed and cherished by Meletius, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Epiphanius, and even by St. Athanasius, and his Successors Peter and Timothy of Alexandria; who was also considered in a General Council as one of the most Learned and most Orthodox Bishops of all the East; and in short, who was Master to St. Chrysostom, should be guilty of so gross an Error as that of Nestorius. 'Tis true that he had for his Scholar Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and that he was Accused of the same Error with Nestorius; and that he was Condemned as Convicted of this Error after his death in the 5th. Council. But besides that there have been some Persons who have undertaken to justify him: Yet if it should be granted that he was guilty of this Error, it would not follow that he learned it of his Master, since we daily see Heretical Disciples, who have had Orthodox Masters. Should not the Faith of St. Chrysostom, rather serve to justify Diodorus, than the Error of Theodorus to condemn him?   

HILARY the Deacon.  
HILARY of Sardinia, Deacon of the Church of Rome, was deputed by Pope Liberius, together with Lucifer Bishop of Calaris, and the Priest Pancratius, to go to the Emperor Constantius, 
Hilary the Deacon.  after the Synod of Arles, in the Year 353. He was banished after the Council of Milan, and afterwards he joined with Lucifer's Party, whereof he was one of the most zealous Defenders. 'Tis this Hilary, who is called in St. Jerom's Dialogue against the Luciferians, The Deucalion of the World, because he would Regenerate and Renew by a Second Baptism, those that had been baptised by Heretics.  
Tho' there has been no Book printed under the Name of this Hilary, yet the Learned have attributed to him the Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul, which bears the Name of St. Ambrose, and the Questions upon the Old and New Testament, which are at the end of the 4th. Tom of St. Austin. These are the Reasons which have moved them to attribute to him the Commentary upon St. Paul's Epistles. First, St. Austin in Ch. 4. of the 4th. B. to Boniface, citys under the Name of St. Hilary an Explication of this Passage of St. Paul. 'Twas from him that all Men sinned, which is taken Word for Word out of this Commentary. Now this Hilary whom St. Austin quotes, could neither be Hilary of Syracuse, nor St. Hilary of Arles, since they were after St. Austin. No more can it be said, that the Author of these Commentaries was Hilary of Poitiers, because the Style and the Version which he makes use of, are no ways like to the Style and Version of these Commentaries, and there are some Opinions in the one, which are different from those in the other. This Commentary therefore cannot be attributed to any but this Hilary of Sardinia. Besides, the Time and Circumstances agree wonderfully to him; for he says on Ch. 3. of the 1st. to Timothy. That tho' all the World was God's, yet the Church whereof Damasus at present was Governor, is called his House. Which plainly shows, that this Commentary was written by one Well-affected to the Church of Rome, who lived in Damasus' time: And therefore it cannot with any reason be attributed to Remigius of Lions, but most probably was written by this Hilary whom we now speak of.  
Yet Petavius thinks that it cannot be attributed to him for Two Reasons; First, because this Author speaks in favour of Damasus, and 'tis not likely that a Man engaged in the Luciferian Schism which favoured Ursicinus, should acknowledge Damasus lawful Bishop of Rome. Secondly, because upon Chap. 1. of the 1st. Epistle to the Corinthians, he blames the Novatians and Donatists who rebaptised, and says, that to believe that the Grace of Baptism depended upon the Persons who gave it, was injurious to the Baptism of our Saviour. Now the principal Error of Hilary the Deacon, according to the Testimony of St. Jerom, consisted in this, That he would have those Rebaptised who had been baptised by the Arians. This objection cannot be answered, but by saying, that this Hilary did at last return into the Bosom of the Church under the Pontificate of Damasus; but this supposition is contrary to the Testimony of St. Jerom, who says in his Book against the Luciferians, that this Deacon died out of the Church. This Man, says he speaking of Hilary the Luciferian, being dead, his Sect ought to die with him, because he being but a simple Deacon, could ordain no Person to succeed him. Wherefore it must be granted that we have no absolute certainty, that this Book belonged to this Hilary of Sardinia.  
The Commentary upon the Two First Chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, is an Extract out of the Commentary of St. Chrysostom, which is not made by the same Author as that upon the other Epistles.  
'Tis thought that the Questions upon the Old and New Testament which have been formerly printed under St. Austin's Name, in his 4th. Tom, were written by the same hand as these Commentaries. To prove it, 'tis said, first, that the Author of these Questions lived at the same time as the Author of the Commentary, for he says in Qu. 44. that he wrote 300 Years or thereabouts, after the Destruction of Jerusalem, and he speaks of Photinus as an Author then living. He speaks also of the Devastation of Pannonia which happened in 351, and the Famine of the Year 363, as Calamities which happened in his time. Secondly, 'tis thought, that he speaks in Qu. 115. of Sardinia as his own Country: And in short, some maintain that there is so great an agreement both in Style and Doctrine between these Two Treatises 
a There is so great an Agreement both in Style and Doctrine, etc.] Compare Quest. 7. with the Commentary upon Ch. 6. to the Ephesians; Quest. 13. with Comment. upon Ch. 5. to the Rom. Quest. 18. with Comment. upon Ch. 9 to the Rom. Quest. 21. with Comment. upon Ch. 6, and 11th. of the 1st. Ep. to the Corinth. Quest. 23. with the Comment. on the 7th. Ch. of the Ep. to the Rom. Quest. 24. with the Comment. upon the 1st. Ep. to the Corinth. Ch. 11. Qu. 113. with the Com. upon Ch. 1st. of the Ep. to the Ephes. and on Ch. 1st. of the Ep. to the Coloss. Qu. 47. with the Com. upon the 2d. Ch. of the 1st. to the Corinth. and upon Ch. 5. of the 2d. to the Corinth. Qu. 99 with the Com. upon Ch. 10. of the 1st. to the Corinth. Qu. 102. with the Com. upon Ch. 11. of the Ep. to the Rom. and upon Ch. 2d. of the 2d. to Timothy. Qu. 108. with the Com. upon Ch. 3. to the Philipp. the Qu. 109. and 25. with the Com. upon Ch. 8. to the Rom. Qu. 112. with the Com. upon these Words: I see another Law in my Members, etc. Qu. 113. with the Com. upon Ch. 2d. of the 2d. Ep. to the Thessalonians. Qu. 134. with the Com. upon Ch. 3. of the Ep. to the Ephes. and Qu. 115. with the 1st. Ch. of the Com. upon the same Ep. These two Authors make often use of the same Words and in the same Sense; as, Diffidentia, to signify Incredulity, and the Words, Praevaricandi, Meliorandi, etc. , that it cannot be doubted but they are written by the same Author. Which must be understood of the 47 Questions upon the Old Testament, the 50 upon the New, and the 36 upon the one and the other which are all written by the same Author, and not of the other following Questions, which are for the most part a repetition of what had been said in those that went before.  
But whoever was the Author of these Questions they are full of Falfities and Errors 
b Full of Falsities and Errors.] A Catalogue of them may be seen in the Censure which the Doctors of Louvain have prefixed to this Work; one of the chief of them is their Opinion, that Melchifedeck was the Son of God. , and almost all of them are of very little use. The Commentary upon the Epistle of St. Paul is better done, and has more sense in it: It is clear, plain and literal, and gives the meaning of the Text of St. Paul well enough; but it gives very different Explications from St. Austin 
c Different Explications from St. Austin.] For this one needs only read almost all the places of St. Paul, which concern Predestination or Grace. Particularly the Commentaries upon the 5th. and 9th. Chapters of the Ep. to the Romans, upon the 2d. of the Ep. to the Philippians, and the Questions, 13, 24, 47, 115, 223, where he proposes Maxims which are a little Pelagian. , in these places which concern Predestination, Provocation, Grace and freewill.   

PRISCILLIAN and Matronianus, Tiberianus and Dictinius his Disciples.  
PRISCILLIAN whom St. Jerom places among the Number of Ecclesiastical Writers, was the Author of a Sect which was accused of many Impieties. Sulpitius Severus who knew more 
Priscillian, and his Disciples.  of the History of the Priscillianists than any Ecclesiastical Author whatsoever, gives this Account of them: That towards the End of the Fourth Century, one Mark originally of Egypt, being leavened with the Principles of the Gnostics and Manichees, came into Spain to spread his Errors there; That at First he had for his Disciples a Woman called Agapa, and one Elpidus a Rhetorician; and that these were the Persons who instructed Priscillian; That he was a Person of Quality, Rich, Powerful, Quick and Restless, but very Eloquent and very Learned; That he acquired much Learning by hard Study, and that he had a wonderful Easiness in Speaking and Disputing. Happy had he been, adds Sulpitius Severus, if he had not corrupted his fine Parts by joining with a wicked Faction. He had many good Qualities of Body and Mind. He endured with ease, Watch, Hunger, and Thirst. He had no desire to be Rich and lived with much Frugality; but he was proud, and profane Learning had puffed him up intolerably. 'Tis said that he had formerly exercised the Art of Magic. This Man having as we have said, embraced the pernicious Doctrine of Marcus and Elpidus, drew many Persons of his own Country after him, either by persuading them with Reasons, or flattering them with Caresses. Women who naturally love Novelty, and have commonly much Curiosity, and but little Steadiness, flocked after him in great Multitudes, to be admitted among his Party. In a word, he procured the Love and Respect of all the World, by the show of Humility which appeared in his Clothes and his Countenance. Spain began to be infected with the Venom of this Heresy, and even some Bishops were corrupted with it. There were particularly two of them called Instantius and Salvianus, who were engaged by Oath into the Faction of Priscillian. But Hyginus Bishop of Corduba their Neighbour understanding it, informed against them to Idacius of Merida, who kindled, as one may say, the Fire of Division by the Rigour which he used, and irritated Men's minds without putting a stop to the growing Evil. In short, after many Disputes, the Synod of Saragoza was Assembled, at which the Bishops of Aquitaine were present; and these Heretics not daring to appear there were condemned for their Contumacy. Sentence was given against the Bishops Instantius, Salvianus, and against Elpidus and Priscillian. 'Twas also added, That all those who should receive them into Communion, should expect the same Condemnation with them. Ithacius Bishop of Ossobona was entrusted with the Publication of this Sentence, and with the Management of the Excommunication against Hyginus the Bishop, who being the first that opposed Priscillian and his Disciples, was afterwards himself corrupted, and received them into his Communion. But Instantius and Salvianus, without any regard to the Judgement of the Council of Saragoza Ordained Priscillian Bishop of Avila. Then the Bishops of the other Party had recourse to the Authority of the Emperor, and obtained of Gratian an Edict, wherein the Priscillianists were condemned to be driven out of the Churches, and to be banished out of the Cities where they dwelled. Instantius and Salvianus being chased away out of their own Country, went to Rome and Milan; but they were rejected by Damasus, and St. Ambrose. After which they had recourse to the Emperor, and obtained of him a Rescript, wherein he permitted them to return to their own Country, and ordained, that their Churches should be restored unto them. They returned into Spain with this Edict and having gained the Proconsul, they forced away Ithacius. He fled into France and carried his Complaints to the Tyrant Maximus, who was entered as a Conqueror into the City of Triers: This Prince caused Priscillian and his chief Disciples to be carried to a Synod held at Bourdeaux, in the Year 384, in which Instantius was Deposed; and when they would have proceeded to Judge Priscillian also, he appealed from them to the Emperor Maximus, who committed the Judgement of this Affair to the Perfect Evodius who having Convicted Priscillian of Witchcraft and Uncleanness, made his Report of the whole Matter to Maximus, who condemned him and his chief Followers, to have their Heads cut off, which was done in the Year 385. Some have thought that Priscillian was Innocent, and that he was unjustly oppressed by the Faction of Ithacius, whose Conduct was disapproved by the most Pious Bishops of that time. It seems that St. Jerom favours this Opinion in his Catalogue, where he speaks of Priscillian in these Words: Priscillian Bishop of Avila was Executed in the City of Triers by the Commandment of the Tyrant Maximus, having been oppressed by the Faction of Hilatius (it must be read, Ithacius,) and Idacius: He wrote many Tracts whereof some are come to our Hands. Some accuse him even at this Day of the Heresy of the Gnostics, of Basilides and Martion; but others vindicate him, and maintain that he held none of those Errors that are charged upon him. 'Tis true, that the same St. Jerom in a Letter to Ctesiphon, speaks of Priscillian as a notable Heretic, which made Monsieur Quesnel think, that this place of St. Jerom's Book of Ecclesiastical Writers was interpolated. This Conjecture, which is not founded upon the Authority of any Manuscript would be of some moment if it were not known that St. Jerom does often speak differently of one and the same Person. Perhaps St. Jerom's way of speaking of him in his Catalogue, gave occasion to put Priscillian and his Disciple Matronianus into some Martyrologies, and to rank them among the Holy Martyrs.  
St. Jerom speaks of this last after this manner: Matronianus of Spain, a learned Man, and one that was comparable to the Ancients for Poetry, was also put to Death with Priscillian, Felicissimus, Julianus and Euchrotia, who were all of the same Party. We have some of his Works in Verse, which are Evidences of his Wit and Parts. Sulpitius Severus called this Disciple of Priscillian, Latronianus, for Matronianus.  
Tiberianus of Baetica was also an Author of this Sect, Who wrote, says St. Jerom, an Apology to vindicate himself from the Suspicion of Heresy, whereof he was accused together with Priscillian. His Style is swelling and affected. After the Death of those of his Party, being overcome by the tediousness of a long Exile, he married a Virgin consecrated to Jesus Christ.  
Dictinius was a Priest, who had been accused of the same Error, and condemned for it in the Council of Langres. St. Ambrose wrote Letters in his favour to procure his Restauration; But upon condition that he should condemn what he had done, and that he should continue Priest without being capable of rising to a higher Dignity. Nevertheless he did not perform these Conditions, for he continued still in his ancient Error, and got himself Ordained Bishop of Asturica Augusta. Being cited upon this Account to the First Council of Toledo in the Year 390, together with Symphosius who Ordained him, he did not appear before the Synod; but appearing afterwards at a Second Synod held about the Year 400, there Symphosius declared, That he was forced by the People to Ordain Dictinius, and Dictinius himself made a Solemn Recantation of his Errors, whereupon they were both absolved. He wrote some Treatises for the Error of the Priscillianists, which are mentioned by St. Leo, in a Letter to Turribius. What we have said of the Restauration of Dictinius, seems to be contrary to the Testimony of Idacius, who says, that Turribius was placed in the room of Dictinius after he was Deposed for his Heresy; but St. Leo declares very plainly in the Letter which we just now cited, that Dictinius died a Catholic. From whence it appears, that Idacius, (the Author of the Chronicle, who lived in the Fifth Age of the Church, and is different from him of whom we have now spoken) was deceived, and that Turribius succeeded Dictinius after his Death, and not after his Deposition. For to say, as Monsieur Quesnel does, that the Acts of the Council of Toledo, are falsified, or that Dictinius relapsed a second time after his Retraction, is to allege that which has no Foundation, which is contrary to the Testimony of St. Leo, who affirms that this Bishop died a Catholic, and that we may have a Veneration for his Memory after his Retractation.   

ITHACIUS, or IDACIUS.  
THis IDACIUS or ITHACIUS, Surnamed Clarus, Bishop of Ossobona, a City in the Province of Baetica, was, as we have already said, one of the greatest Enemies of the Priscillianists. 
Ithacius or Idacius.  St. Isidore of Sevil observes in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, That he wrote a Book by way of Apology, against the detestable Doctrines of Priscillian, wherein he discovers the Witchcraft and Infamous Crimes of those Sectaries, and shows, That a certain Magician called Mark, a Native of Memphis in Egypt, was the Disciple of Manichaeus and Master of Priscillian. The same Author adds, That this Idacius was deprived of the Communion of the Church, together with the Bishop Ursacius, upon the account of the Death of Priscillian, whose Accusers they had been, and that he being sent into Banishment, ended his Days there under the Reign of Theodosius and Valentinian. St. Isidore makes no mention of the Books against Varimadus, which bear the Name of Idacius; and indeed they do not belong to this Author but to Vigilius Tapsensis, as we shall show when we come to speak of Vigilius: This Apologetic of Idacius is lost. St. Isidore observes that it was well written. [Idacius and Ithacius are not two different Names for the same Person as here seems to be implied; for in Sulpitius Severus they are constantly divided.]   

FAUSTINUS.  
GEnnadius assures us, that Faustinus a Priest (or a Deacon according to others) wrote to the Empress Flaccilla Seven Books against the Arians and Macedonians, wherein he refutes and confounds 
Faustinus.  them by the very same Passages that the Heretics use to establish their Blasphemies. This Work was a long time attributed to Gregory of Baetica; but at last the True Author of it was owned, and it was printed under the Name of Faustinus, with a Letter to Flaccilla.  
The same Gennadius says also, That this same Faustinus, wrote a Petition, which he presented with the Priest Marcellinus, (or rather Marcellianus) to the Emperor's Valentinian and Theodosius, which shows evidently that he was engaged in the Schism of the Luciferians. Sirmondus' published this little Piece in the Year 1656. Before the Petition there is a Preface written by the same Faustinus, wherein he gives a little Historical Abridgement in favour of his own Party. There he relates, That under the Reign of Constantius, almost all the Bishops attempted to condemn St. Athanasius; That Liberius of Rome, Eusebius of Verceilles, Lucifer of Calaris, and St. Hilary of Poitiers, refusing to approve this unjust Condemnation, were sent into Banishment; That Damasus who was then Deacon of Rome, pretended he would accompany Liberius, but returned again immediately; That the Clergy of Rome in the presence of the People took an Oath, not to receive another Bishop while Liberius lived; That notwithstanding this, in a little time after, the Clergy chose the Archdeacon Felix to fill his Place; That Liberius having consented to Impiety, [by subscribing an Arian Confession of Faith] returned about three Years after and was restored to the Possession of his See, and that Felix was driven away from Rome; Upon whose Death, which happened Eight Years after Liberius came back, he received into Communion those of the Clergy that had been of Felix's Party; That he died also in a little while after, and then the Priests and Deacons who had been Faithful to Liberius in his Banishment chose Ursicinus in his room; but the perfidious Party chose Damasus an ambitious Man, who had always aspired to the Episcopal Chair; That this man had committed all sorts of Cruelties and Outrages against those who adhered to Ursicinus, and at last had driven them all out of the City. That since this time those of the Orthodox Party had been abused, dispersed and banished, and that two of them called Marcellinus and Faustinus presented this Petition to the Emperor's Valentinian, Theodosius and Arcadius.  
They complain in this Petition of the Persecutions and Cruelties which they say they still suffer from their Enemies; They affirm, That no Error nor Heresy can be charged upon them, and then accused their Adversaries of having been formerly Heretics, or of having consented to the Condemnation of the Faith of the Church. They describe the miserable End of Arius, to beget a Horror of his Impiety, and they say, That God hath by this visible Judgement approved all that was done in the Council of Nice. They relate afterwards what passed in the Councils of Seleucia and Ariminum, and how the Bishops were forced to Sign the Heretical Confessions of Faith; They bewail their Unhappiness, and praise the Faith and Constancy of Paulinus of Triers, of Eusebius of Verceilles, of Lucifer of Calaris, and a very small number of Bishops, who chose rather to suffer all things than do any thing against their Conscience. They describe the Defection of Hosius Bishop of Corduba, and say, That he died by a visible Judgement of God, for pronouncing Sentence against Gregory of Baetica, who had always boldly defended the Faith. They say, That the same thing happened to Potamius of Ossobona. They add, That these visible Judgements of God do plainly show, that those who would not communicate with the Bishops that were defiled with these Crimes, are so far from being guilty of Impiety, that they do great Service to the Church; That the great number of those who communicate with them, aught to be no Prejudice to others, since this Conduct is contrary to Scripture; That the Pretence of promoting Peace ought not to make us own Apostates for Lawful Bishops; That the Inconstancy of the Catholics, has given occasion to Valens to embrace the Arian Faction. They represent afterwards in a most Odious manner, the Cruelties which they say were committed against their Party in different places of the World, and they conjure the Emperor to put a stop to this Persecution by his Edicts. Not, add they, that we are afraid to Suffer or to Die, being persuaded, that when we die for a good Cause, we shall enjoy after our Death great Tranquillity, and have a perfect certainty of our Blessedness. But we give you Notice of this Disorder, for fear lest the Blood of Christians, if it still continue to be shed, bring down the Wrath of God upon your Government. Tho' the Complaints of these Two Priests were injurious to the Church, yet Theodosius was moved by them, and granted a Rescript in their Favour addressed to Cynegius the Praetorian Perfect, wherein he testifies his Indignation against the manner of treating them, and ordains, That the Bishops Gregory of Spain, and Heraclides of the East, who are mentioned in their Petition, and all those who communicate with them be suffered to live in quiet. This Petition must have been presented after the Year 383, because Arcadius to whom it is addressed, was not admitted a Partner of the Empire till that Year, and the Rescript must be before 388, which was the Year wherein Cynegius died. It seems to have been presented while Damasus lived, who died in the Year 384.  
There is some probability, that Faustinus presented the Confession of Faith which goes under his Name in the Roman Code, published by Monsieur Quesnel at the End of the Works of St. Leo, along with this Petition. I know very well, that this Learned Man pretends, that this Confession of Faith was made about the Year 379, before the Council of Constantinople; but his Conjectures are not convincing: He attributes to the Priest Marcellinus, the Confession of Faith which precedes this in the New Code; but this also is a Conjecture that is not absolutely certain.  
The Style of Faustinus in his Treatise of the Trinity, is very plain and simple: He contents himself with producing Passages of Scripture, from which he draws consequences to prove the Doctrine of the Church, and with answering the Objections of the Arians; but the Style of his Petition is swelling and pathetical. In it you 

[Every Reader must needs see that these Reflections were inserted here more for the sake of the Protestants than of the Luciferians: Either all Abuses aught always to be tolerated, or a Reformer is not to be blamed upon the score of his Office: And when Men set up for Reformers, the Cause only is to be considered not the Pretences; which if it be just, they have no reason to be ashamed of any of these things here urged against them as Marks of Obloquy; if their Numbers are small, they ought to show by a proportionable firmness of Mind, that they place their Confidence in a Being that is Superior to any Powers here below; and if they find Fault with the multitude who do not join with them, they Act according to their own Principles, since all Men who think themselves to be in the Right, must believe that their Adversaries are mistaken; their standing to their own Assertions cannot reasonably be Interpreted to be injurious to Men in Eminent Places: Constancy, Contempt of the World, of Life, Riches and Honours, are Virtues, which, when Supported by a good Cause, are glorious Ingredients in the Characters of the greatest Saints; and therefore are favourable Prejudices for all those Reformers in whom they are to be found; if they are too apt to attribute the ill Successes of their Enemies to Divine Vengeance, they are not Singular, since all Parties and even all Religions constantly practise it; if they are hardly used they may reasonably complain of their Usage; and Mr. du Pin knows that his Church has always taken very particular Care that her Adversaries should never complain against her for Persecuting without Just Cause; whilst they believe themselves to be in the right: Reformers, as all Men naturally do, will aggravate their Sufferings, that they may lay load upon their Persecutors; and last of all, every Man is tempted to think his Adversary's Zeal for Religion to be only Hypocritical.  
If we consider what good Success these Two Luciferian Priests had in their Business, we ought not hastily to condemn them: Theodosius the Great always showed an unshaken Zeal for the Orthodox Faith; and his Carriage towards St. Ambrose who censured him for his hasty and cruel Orders against the Thessalonians, was an Evidence how very much he Reverenced the Orders and Discipline of the Church; and besides, if we reflect upon the Accounts which Ammianus Marcellinus gives us of the Differences between Damasus and Ursicinus, they will seem to plead for Ursicinus' Party. His being a Heathen is no prejudice against him in this Matter, because he was not a Bigot against the Christian Religion; so that it rather gave him the Advantage which all Neuters have of judging impartially of both sides.]   may see the Humour and Genius of all Reformers, who Glory in their small number, who blame the Multitude, who rend in Pieces the Reputation of those who are promoted to Dignities, who testify their Indignation against the Higher Powers, who make a show of much Firmness and Constancy, of a great Contempt of this Life, of Honours and Riches; who look upon themselves as unblameable, and attribute to the Divine Vengeance all the Fatal Accidents which happen to those that are not their Friends; who are always complaining of being Persecuted and ill used; who exaggerate the Evils which they justly suffer, and affect to show a great Zeal for Plety and Religion.   

PHILASTRIUS.  
PHILASTRIUS Bishop of Brescia, flourished under the Elder Theodosius, and was one of the Bishops in the Council of Aquileia. St. Austin says, That he had seen him sometimes with 
Philastrius.  St. Ambrose. We have his Life written as is thought, by St. Gaudentius his Successor. He died before St. Ambrose about the Year 387 
a About the Year 387.] The Author of this Life, says, That he died before St. Ambrose. In Heresy 63 'tis said, that he wrote in the Year 430, but 'tis plain that this was the Mistake of a Figure, and that they put a C for an L, which would make it [just] 380. .  
He wrote a Treatise of Heresies, wherein he reckons 20 Heresies before the Birth of Jesus Christ, and 128 afterwards to the Year 380, in which he wrote, and tells in a few Words the principal Errors of each of them. St. Austin observes at the beginning of his Book about Heresies, that it was a surprising thing that Philastrius who was much less learned and less exact than St. Epiphanius, should reckon up many more Heresies than he did; from whence he concludes, that these two Authors could not have the same Notions of Heresy, because indeed it is very difficult to give a just Definition of it. Wherefore, adds St. Austin, in giving the Catalogue of Heresies, we must carefully avoid these two opposite extremes, whereof one is to make those Heresies that are not, and the other is to omit those Heresies which really are such. 'Tis a rare thing for those who make the Catalogues of Heresies to fall into this last Fault; but the first is very common, and Philastrius was more subject to it than any body. For he feigns a multitude of Heresies that never were 
b Heresies that never were.] As the Nazareans, the Heliognosts, the Adorers of Mice, the Muscaronnites, the Troglodytes in the Old Testament, the Fortunatians, the Baalites, the Celebites, the Molochites, the Tophites; making several Sects of Heretics, of the Abominations committed by the Jews, and the Sacrifices of the People that were their Neighbours. But nothing is more pleasant than his Invention of the Heresy of the Puteorites, which he found'st upon that Passage of Jeremy. They have forsaken me the Fountain of Living Water, to make to themselves broken Cisterns. That which he found'st upon the 8th. Ch. of Ezekiel is not better grounded. Never any but he mentioned the Heresies of Judas, of the Passalorinchites, the Rhelorians, the Discalceati, and some others: Of one and the same Heresy, he many times makes many; and in a word, he reckons the number of Heresies, not by the Sects, but by every particular Opinion. In our days, he might have multiplied at a much greater rate the number of Heresies, by counting as many Errors as have been invented by one or other. , and sometimes he puts in the number of Heresies those Opinions that are true, or at least problematically disputed 
c He puts in the number of Heresies those Opinions that are true or at least problematical.] As in Heresy 26, that the Soul of Samuel was brought back by the Witch of Endor; in the 59th. the Error of the Millenaries; in the 79th. that the Elements shall not perish; in the 88th that the Epistle to the Hebrews may be St. Luke's or St. Barnabas'; in the 63d. that there are more than 7 Heavens; in 94, that there is no other Earth but this; in 96, that the likeness of Man to God may be explained with relation to his Body; in 97, that the Breath which God inspired into Man was his Soul; in 101, that Earthquakes are natural Effects; in 102, and 111, that the Names of profane Gods may be given to the Stars; in 110, that the number of Years since the Creation is not certain; in 126, that David was not the Author of all the Psalms; in 129, that the Stars are fastened to Heaven; in 137, and those that follow, that we may follow another Version besides that of the Seventy, and some others; in the 56th. he condemns those that admit Ecclesiasticus as a Canonical Book. . And therefore we need not wonder, that he made so numerous a Catalogue of Heresies, which he also multiplied, by mentioning one and the same Heresy many times.  
The Style of this Author is mean and flat; he had no great Learning, and has committed many gross Faults 
d Many gross Faults.] There are an infinite number of them in this Book; take some few of them. He places the Ophites, the Gaianites, and the Troglodytes among the Heretics which were before Jesus Christ, which is an Error in Chronology. He says, the Samaritans came from a King called Samarius, the Son of Canaan. What a strange Mistake is here! He says that Mercurius Trismegistus came to the Celtaes, and taught them to adore the Sun. He affirms that the God Accaron was a Fly. He supposes that not only Simon Magus, Basilides, etc. but also Cerdon, Martion, and many other Heretics, published their Errors while the Apostles were alive; a wonderful Mistake in Chronology. There are many more in it of this Nature.  in this little Tract, which is not written with any exactness: Yet there are some remarkable things in it 
e There are some remarkable things in it.] He confirms in many places the Immortality and Spirituality of the Soul, and chief in Heresy 122. In Haeres. 87. he admits as Canonical the Two Epistles of St. Peter, that of St. Judas, and the Three Epistles of St. John. He explains the Mystery of the Trinity in Haeres. 91, 92. He discourses of Grace in Haeres. 97. He says very curious things about the Diversity and Gift of Tongues in Haeres. 103, 104. He rejects in 105, the Opinion of those who thought that the Day of Judgement should happen 363 Years after Jesus Christ. In 106 he rejects the Opinion of those who imagined, that the Sons of Men spoken of in Genesis, were Angels. In the 112, he laughs at those that say there are many Worlds. In Haeres. 116. he plainly admits Original Sin. In 121, he rejects the Opinion of those, who believed that Jesus Christ descended into Hell, and preached the Gospel there to all the Damned, and that those of them who believed in him were saved. In 129, he explains the Eternal Generation of the Word. In 124, he teaches that Men ought to run in the Ways of Virtue, and to desire what is Good, but they ought not to do it with Pride and Haughtiness, for they should acknowledge that they cannot deserve Salvation by their own Works, but by the Mercy of Jesus Christ; that it is indeed in our Power to run, but we ought to hope for greater things from God; and therefore we ought not to magnify ourselves, and say, I can be a Martyr, I can be an Apostle, but we must add, If Jesus Christ will: Because it is from him that we obtain these Graces, and they are not to be acquired by a vain Presumption. In Heresy 144, he observes that the Church celebrates Four Solemn Fasts, before Christmas, before Epiphany, before Easter, and before Whitsunday. I leave the other Observations to those who will take the pains to read this little Tract, whose brevity is one of its best Qualities. .  
This Treatise was printed at Basle in 1528; and at Helmstadt in 1611, and in 1614, and with St. Austin's Book of Heresies, in several places, and in the Bibliotheca Patrum.   

TIMOTHY of Alexandria.  
TIMOTHY the Successor of Peter of Alexandria, who was present at the Second Council of Constantinople, wrote the Lives of the Monks of Egypt, which is mentioned by Sozomen Ch. 29. 
Timothy of Alexandria.  of B. VI of his History. Facundus in Ch. 2. of B. IU. citys a Letter of the same Timothy addressed to Diodorus of Tarsus.  
We have now the Responses or Canon-Laws of this Bishop, upon which Balsamon has written Commentaries. The Questions that were proposed to him, were Questions about Customs and Practices of the Church, and his Answers are very Judicious.  
In the First he says, that those young Catechumen ought to be Baptised, who being present in the Church with the Faithful had received the Eucharist.  
The Second and Third concern those that are possessed by an Evil Spirit; he says, that those Catechumen ought not to be baptised who are afflicted with this Evil, until the Point of Death. As to the Faithful, he would have them permitted from time to time to approach the Holy Mysteries, provided the Devil do not seduce them to discover these Mysteries or to blaspheme them.  
In the 4th. he says, that those Catechumen may be Baptised, who have lost their Wits by Sickness.  
In the 5th. he counsels married Persons to abstain from the use of Marriage, on that day in which they intent to Receive the Communion.  
In the 6th. and 7th. he would not have Women Baptised, nor Receive the Communion, but at certain times.  
In the 8th. he exempts Women newly brought to Bed from the Fast of Lent: Because, says he, Fasting was not appointed but to afflict the Body, and therefore where the Body is already afflicted, they may take what is necessary for it.  
In the 9th. he says, that the Clergy ought not to use the Public Prayers in the presence of the Arians and Heretics, if they have a Design to forsake their Heresy: He takes notice, that the Deacon was wont to say with a loud Voice, before he saluted the People, Let those who do not Communicate withdraw.  
In the 10th. he exempts sick Persons from the Fast of Lent, and permits them to eat Oil in that time.  
In the 11th. he says, that a Clergyman ought not to marry Persons contrary to Law.  
In the 12th. he excuses Nocturnal Illusions, when they do not proceed from a voluntary Cause.  
In the 13th. he would have Persons that are Married abstain from the use of Marriage on Saturday and Sunday, that they may be capable of Receiving the Communion.  
In the 14th. he says, that an Oblation may be offered for those that kill themselves through madness, having lost the use of their Reason; but because this Pretence is often alleged to procure an Offering for those that kill themselves knowingly, therefore the Matter should be well examined.  
In the 15th. Question is of great Consequence. It was asked, supposing a Wife to be perfectly Foolish and Mad, so that she must be bound, Whether an Husband, who, says he, cannot contain himself, may lawfully marry another Wife? He answers, That this Action would be Adultery in him, and that nothing else is to be said upon the Question.  
In the 16th. 'twas asked, Whether a Person that fasted in order to Communicate, having by chance swallowed down a drop of Water, either in bathing himself, or in washing his Mouth, aught to Communicate or no? He answers, that he ought to do it so much the rather, because 'tis the Devil that uses this Artifice to hinder his Receiving the Communion.  
In the 17th. he says, that those who hear the Word of God and do it not, are in some measure excusable, if they be angry with themselves for their Omission, and accuse themselves of it.  
In the Last, he says, that Men begin to sin, when they come to the use of Reason, and so some begin to sin at Ten Years of Age; some sooner and some later.   

NECTARIUS.  
NECTARIUS who was chosen Archbishop of Constantinople in the Year 382, after St. Gregory Nazianzen withdrew, passes for the Author of a Homily upon the Festival of the Martyr 
Nectarius.  Theodorus, Printed at Paris by Nivelle in 1554, together with some Homilies of St. Chrysostom. He discourses in this Homily of Alms giving and Fasting. Nectarius died in 397. He could not be very skilful in Divinity, having spent all his Life at Court, and being only a Catechumen when he was chosen to be Bishop.   

GELASIUS of Caesarea.  
ST. Jerom places Gelasius Successor to Euzoius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, amongst the Ecclesiastical Writers. He assures us, that he had an exact and polite Style, but that he would not publish 
Gelasius of Caesarea.  his Works. Photius in Vol. 89, assures us, that he read the Continuation of the History of Eusebius, written by Ruffinus, Translated into Greek by this Author. He observes, that he was the Nephew of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and that this Father was his Fellow-labourer in the Translation of this History, Theodoret in his first Dialogue quotes with commendation a Passage of this Author, taken out of a Homily upon the Apparition of Jesus Christ, which proves the distinction of the Two Natures in Christ.   

SIRICIUS.  
SIRICIUS succeeded Pope Damasus in the Year 385, and governed the Church of Rome till the Year 398. The Letters of this Pope, are the First Decretals which are truly the Pope's whose 
Siricius.  Name they bear.  
The First Letter he wrote soon after he was promoted to the Pontifical Dignity, in answer to Himerius Bishop of Tarracon, upon some Questions which he had proposed to Damasus Predecessor to Siricius.  
The First Question was, Whether the Arians must be Rebaptised who were readmitted into the Church. Siricius answers, That this was by no means to be permitted, because the Apostle forbids it, because the Canons condemn it, and because it was forbidden by the Constitutions of his Predecessor Liberius, which were sent to all the Churches of the World, after the Annulling of the Council of Ariminum. Wherefore, adds he, in obedience to what was Ordained, by a Synod, We reconcile them to the Church, as well as the Novatians and other Heretics by Invocation of the Holy Spirit, and by Imposition of hands made by the Bishops: This is the Method which all the East and all the West observes, and you cannot vary from this Practice, but you will deserve to be separated from our Society by a Synodical Sentence.  
The Second Question proposed by Hi●●rius, was about the time wherein Baptism ought to be Administered. Siricius thinks, that in this we should follow the Custom of the Church of Rome, that this Sacrament should not be Administered but at Easter and Whitsuntide; yet he excepts Infants and such as are in danger of their Life, who should be relieved with all speed. For fear, says he, lest we be guilty before God of the loss of those to whom we have refused Baptism. He would have this Law observed by all the Bishops, and threatens those who shall not observe it, ●o separate them from the Apostolic Rock, upon which Christ has built his Universal Church. Yet this Law was never punctually observed, neither in the East nor in the West; and nevertheless the Bishops who did not observe it, were never upon this Account separated from the Apostolic Rock upon which Christ built his Universal Church.  
The Third Question is concerning those who having received Baptism had fa●● into Apostasy. Siricius ordains, that if they acknowledge their Fault, they should do Penance for the rest of their Life; but that the favour of Reconciliation should be granted them at the Point of Death.  
The Fourth Question was, Whether a Man could marry a Woman that was promised to another. Siricius answers, that we must not suffer it to be done, because it was a kind of Sacrilege to violate the Blessing which the Priest or Bishop gave to her that was to be married.  
The Fifth concerns Penitents who have relapsed into the Sins of the Flesh, after they had completed their Penance and were reconciled to the Church. Siricius says, that since they have no further the benefit of Penance, he thinks it convenient to give them leave to be present at the Prayers of the Church; but upon condition that they shall be kept back from the Holy Table, that is, from the participation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; yet he would have this Viaticum granted them at the Point of Death. He Ordains that the same Method shall be observed towards Women that fall into Sins of this Nature. And in fine, as to Monks and Religious Persons guilty of Uncleanness, he Ordains, that those detestable Persons shall be separated not only from the Assemblies of the Church, but also from the Society of Monks, and that being shut up in Prison, they shall bewail their Sin all the remainder of their Life, that so they may be capable of deserving the Communion of the Church at the Hour of Death.  
After this, he speaks in the 7th. Canon against those Persons who being in Orders do not observe Celibacy. And he declares, That if for the future any Bishop, Priest, or Deacon shall not continue unmarried, he is to hope for no more pardon, because it was necessary to cut off with the Knife those Sores that could not be cured by other Remedies.  
The Eighth Canon is against those who get themselves Ordained after they have had several Wives.  
In the Ninth, Siricius observes the several Degrees through which one must pass before he arrives at the Priesthood. He says, that he who devotes himself to the Service of the Church, should be baptised very young, and placed among the number of Readers; that if he behaves himself discreetly till he be 30 Years old, he may during that time be made an Acolyth and Sub-deacon, provided that he does not marry above once, and then he does not marry a Widow; that after he shall be Ordained Deacon, if he obliges himself to live unmarried; Five Years after the Order of Priesthood may be conferred upon him; and that in fine at the end of Ten Years, he may be made Bishop. Thus Siricius disposes of thei● time who are designed for the Clergy, from the First Years of their Life: But for those that would enter into Holy Orders when they are already come to Years, he says, in the Tenth Canon, that immediately after their Baptism, they should be placed in the Rank of Readers of Exorists, and Two Years after they should be made Acolytes and Subdeacons', at the end of Five Years Deacons, and some time after Priests, and afterwards Bishops, if the People and the Clergy should choose them. These Rules are very fine in speculation, 〈◊〉 it was never seen that they were exactly observed, and indeed it had been very difficult to do it.  
In the 7th. he declares, that every Clergyman who shall marry a Second Wife or a Widow, shall be turned out of Holy Orders, and reduced to Lay-Communion.  
In the 12th. he observes, that no other Women must be suffered to dwell with the Clergy, but those whom the Council of Nice has allowed.  
In the 13th. he speaks of the Ordination of Monks. We wish, says he, and desire, that those among the Monks who are recommended by the Holiness of their Lives and the Purity of their Faith, may enter into the Clergy, upon Condition that they pass through the Inferior Orders, that they be not Ordained Deacons or Priests till they come to a good Age, and that they do not ascend all of the sudden into the Episcopal Chair, but only after they have continued the time prescribed in each of the Sacred Orders.  
In the 14th. he says, that as a Clergyman 〈◊〉 not permitted to do public Penance, so neither should a Layman be allowed, after he has done public Penance, to enter into the Clergy. At last, he Ordains in the last Canon, that considering the greater part excuse themselves as not knowing these Laws, that their Ignorance be pardoned; but upon Condition that the Penitents and Bigamists who have been Ordained, shall continue in that Order wherein they are, without being capable of ascending higher. He concludes these Canons with threatening the Condemnation of the Holy See to all Metropolitans who did not observe these Laws; and ends his whole Letter with exhorting Himerius, to observe the Canons and the Holy Decrees, and to publish them in Spain.  
The Second Letter of Pope Siricius furnishes us with a good Example of the ancient Manner of Judging used by the Holy Apostolic See: There he acquaints the Church of Milan, that having Assembled all his Clergy, he had condemned Jovinian and his followers, with the Advice and Consent of the Priests, Deacons, and all the Clergy. Omnium nostrum tam Presbyterorum & Diaconorum, quam etiam totius Cleri una sententia.  
The Third Letter of the Pope Siricius is addressed to all the Orthodox; he exhorts them to observe the Canons of the Council of Nice in the Election of Bishops; he recommends to them, not to give Bishoprics to Persons unknown, nor to Novices, nor to Laymen, but to Clergymen, whose Life was unblamable.  
The Fourth Letter of Siricius which is adoressed to the Bishops of Africa, is suspected of Forgery by the most able Critics, who prove it by very strong Conjectures 
a By very strong Conjectures.] Blondel had before rejected this Letter, but with some Doubt, and without giving any convincing Reason; but Monsieur Quesnel has perfectly destroyed the Credit of it, by sapping the foundation upon which it was built, which was the Council of Telepta, wherein this Letter is quoted, and by alleging many new Conjectures against this Letter. These that follow are the chief. 1. The first Canon of this Letter has no Sense in whatever manner it be read or explained; for according to some it must be read, ut sine Conscientia sedis Apostolicae Primatis, nemo audeat ordinare, according to others, ut extra conscientiam sedis Apostolicae, i. e. Primatis, nemo audeat ordinare. The first is ridiculous, First, because the Popes never pretended to take cognizance of the Ordinations of all the Metropolitans. Secondly, because in afric there was but one Primate only, all the other Ecclesiastical Metropolitans were the most ancient Bishops of the Province. The Second is equally ridiculous: For what probability is there, that a Pope should give to all the Metropolitan Churches the Title of the Apostolic See, which Pope Leo in Ep. 78. said could not be granted to the Bishop of Constantinople? Secondly this Letter is copied from that of Innocent to Victricius. Thirdly, the Author of this Letter says impertinently, That the Bishops of afric would have come to the Synod of Rome, if they had not been hindered by old Age or Sickness from coming thither. Fourthly, he makes Siricius speak to the Africans with too much Authority. Fifthly, he only advises Priests and Deacons to Celibacy, as a thing that they were not obliged to; whereas 'tis certain that Siricius looked upon it as an indispensable Law. Six●…ly, what this Author has not copied from the Letter of St. Innocent is barbarous and ill-turned. Seventhly, the Subscription of this Letter is singular, Data Romae in Concilio Episcoporum 80. This is always put at the beginning and never at the end of Synodical Letters. In fine, this Letter was never quoted in the African Councils, which have treated of the Continency of the Clergy, no more than that Council of Telepta, wherein it is pretended that it was quoted, 'Tis true that Ferrandus the Deacon has inserted the Canons of this Council, as well as those of this Letter, into his Collection; but he may be mistaken as Father Quesnel proves in this Dissertation, which is the 15th. of his Learned Dissertations upon St. Leo. , and it contains nothing remarkable.  
The last Letter written to Anysius of Thess●lonica, and other Bishops of Illyricum, was for a long time attributed to St. Ambrose, though he speaks there of this Father in the Third Person, and was restored to Siricius by Holstenius. The Bishops to whom he writes had consulted him about the Cause of Bonosus, who was accused of saying rashly, That the Virgin Mary had Children. Siricius answers Anysius and those Bishops, that the Synod of Capua having ordained that the neighbouring Bishops to Bonosus, and chief those of Macedonia, should take cognizance of the Charge that was drawn up against him, it did no longer belong to him to judge of this Cause; that it belonged to them to whom this Judgement was committed to give their Sentence, and that neither the Accused, nor the Accusers could avoid it; That the Synod of Capua having chosen them to Judge it, the Judgement which they should give was to be looked upon as the Judgement of the Council; That Bonosus having consulted St. Ambrose, whether he could be readmitted to his Church, he had answered him that he must attempt nothing unseasonably; but must wait for the Judgement of those to whom the Synod of Capua had given Authority to determine this Affair: Yet in the following part of this Letter he does not omit to acquaint them with his thoughts of this Question, and to refute the Opinion of Bonosus; but he does it as a private Doctor and not as a Judge, declaring at the end of this Letter, that he waited for their Judgement upon this Affair, that he might follow it as his Rule. This is a very authentic Testimony of the Reverence which the Ancient Popes had for the Decisions of Councils.   

SABINUS.  
SABINUS Bishop of the Macedonians at Heraclea in Thracia, lived about the end of the Reign of Theodosius the Great. He collected together the Acts of several Councils of the Fourth Century, 
Sabinus.  which Socrates quotes several times 
a Quotes several times.] Socrat. lib. 1. c. 8. and 9 lib. 2. c. 15, 17, 39 lib. 3. c. 10. 24. , tho' he wrote very spitefully against the Church, yet his Memoirs had been very useful for clearing up the History of the Councils of that time, if they had come to our hands.   

AMBROSE of Alexandria.  
ST. Jorom speaks of this Author in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers after this manner: Ambrose of Alexandria, the Scholar of Didymus, wrote a great Dogmatical Treatise against 
Ambrose of Alexandria.  Apollinarius, and Commentaries upon Job, of which some spoke to me not long ago: This Author is still alive; which shows that he died not till after the Year 392. And this is all that we have to say of this Author.   

THEOTIMUS.  
THEOTIMUS Bishop of Tomi in Scythia, has written, according to the Testimony of the same St. Jerom, short and sententious Tracts by way of Dialogue, according to the ancient manner 
Theotimus.  of Writing. This Bishop was one of the Defenders of St. Chrysostom. He was present at Constantinople when St. Epiphanius came thither, and spoke to him briefly in Defence of Origen's Books. Socrates produces his Words Ch. 12. of the VIth. B. of his History. Sozomen commends in Ch. 26. of the VIth. B. of his History, and mentions some Miracles which he wrought.   

EVAGRIUS of Antioch.  
ST. Jerom assures us that Evagrius, who was ordained in 386, Bishop of Paulinus' Party at Antioch, was a Man of a brisk and fervent Spirit; that when he was Priest, he wrote many 
Evagrius of Antioch.  Treatises upon different Subjects which he had read to himself, but that they had not yet seen the light; and that he had Translated into Latin the Life of St. Anthony written by St. Athanasius. This shows, that they are to blame, who attribute the Translation of this Life to St. Jerom. This Author died in the Year 393.   

St. AMBROSE Bishop of Milan.  
THe Father of St. Ambrose was Praetorian Praefect of Gaul when this Saint was born, which was about the Year 340 
a About the Year 340.] The date of St. Ambrose's Birth, depends upon the date of that Letter which was formerly the 32d. and is now the 60th. addressed to Severus; for there he says, That he was 53 Years old, and that he wrote in a time of War. Tota objecti barbaricis moribus, & bellorum procellis, in medio versamur omnium molestiarum freto. This may relate either to the War of Maximus, in 387, or to that of Eugenius in 393; if it refers to the first, he was born in 334, if to the second, in 340. 'Tis hard to say whether it refers to the one or to the other. , and was Nursed in his Father's Palace 
b Was Nursed in his Father's Palace.] Paulinus the Author of St. Ambrose's Life says plainly, That he was born in his Father's Palace, who was then the Praetorian Praefect of Gaul. Posito in administratione praefecturae Galliarum Patre ejus Ambrosio natus est Ambrose, qui infans in Area Praetoris in Cunabulis positus, etc. This plainly enough discovers the place of his Birth and Education, for the Dwellinghouse and Palace of the Prafect of the Gauls was certainly in Gaul: 'Tis true that the same Paulinus speaking afterwards of St. Ambrose's Journey to Rome, says, That he went to his own Country, proprium solum, and that St. Basil writing to St. Ambrose, says, He was of the Imperial City: But on these Occasions, the Place of his Parent's abode, the Origin of the Family, and the common Residence of St. Ambrose, was considered as the Place of his Country. And indeed so it was according to the Roman Laws; and the Children born in a Place where their Parents were by chance about their Affairs, were esteemed to be of that Place, which was the ordinary Residence of their Fathers and Mothers. See L. re●●o. ff. de captiv. & L. filios C. de municip. & L. cives C. de incolis. 'Tis more difficult to Assign precisely that City of the Gauls, where the Praetorian Praefect then resided, which is not certainly known. Some are of Opinion that it was at Triers, which St. Athanasius and Theodoret call the Metropolis of Gaul, as Milan was the Metropolis of Italy: For the Residence of the Praetorian Praefect of Italy was at Milan. Ammian. Marcellinus calls the City of Triers, the Dwelling-Place of Princes; to which we may add, the Praises which many Authors have given of this City; but this proves nothing. In the time of the Tyrant Maximus, Evodius the Praetorian Praefect of the Gauls Resided at Triers, as appears by the History of the Priscillianists related by Sulpitius Severus. But it does not follow from hence, that this City was the Ordinary Residence of others, because that Maximus a Tyrant, who was newly raised to the Empire, dwelled at Triers. Some have thought that the ordinary Residence of the Praetorian Praefect of the Gauls was at Arles. The Conjectures for this Opinion are these, That the Emperor Constantine resided in this City, that he honoured it with many Privileges, and particularly to be the Place for the meeting of a Council; That there is a Law of Honorius and Theodosius, which Ordains that every Year an Assembly of the Seven Provinces should be held in the City of Arles, in the presence of the Praefect, sub Illustri praesentia Praefecturae; That Agricolaus the Praetorian Praefect of the Gauls, to whom this Law was addressed, received it at Arles; That in the Petition which those Countries presented to Pope Leo, they establish the Dignity of the Ecclesiastical Metropolis of Arles upon the Privileges which had been granted to this City by Valentinian and Honorius, which made it be looked upon as the Mother of all the other Cities, and upon the Honour which it had to serve for the Residence of the Praetorian Praefect. 'Tis added, That Honoratus writes in the Life of Hilary of Arles, That the Praetorian Praefect came to see this Bishop when he was reduced to Extremity; That St. Prosper in his Chronicle speaks of a Praetorian Praefect called Exuperantius, who resided at Arles; That Liberius Praetorian Praefect of Gaul, who confirmed the Second Council of Orange, dwelled at Arles; That Faustus Rhedonensis writing to Felix the Praefect of Gaul, says, That he resided in a City where he profited by the Instructions of Eonius, and this Man was Bishop of Arles. All these Proofs plainly show, that in the Fifth Age the ordinary Residence of the Praetorian Praefects of Gaul was in the City of Arles; but they do not prove, that it was also in the time of St. Ambrose. One may rather believe, that it was the City of Lions, which at first was the ordinary Residence of the Praetorian Praefect of Gaul. For, First, This City was looked upon as the Chief City of Gaul. Secondly, Strabo, assures us, That the Praefects and Governors of Gaul commonly resided there, and coined Money there of Gold and Silver: Now there is no probability, neither is there any Proof that Constantine changed this Custom in favour of the City of Arles: And therefore there is nothing very certain upon this Subject. . 'Tis reported, that while he 
St. Ambrose.  was sleeping one day with his Mouth open in the Court of this Palace, a Swarm of Bees came and flew about his Cradle, and having many times crept in and out to rest themselves upon his Mouth, at last they mounted up into the Air so high, till they quite vanished out of sight; which was looked upon by his Father as a Prodigy, and a Presage of the future Greatness of this Infant. Profane Antiquity relates the same thing of Plato, and affirms, That it was a Presage of the Sweetness of his Eloquence; but there is more Reason to believe what the Author of the Life of our Saint says, That this swarm of Bees formed those Hony-combs in his Mouth, which should one Day make us relish the Sweetness of Heavenly Gifts, and raise our Hearts up to Heaven.  
The Father of St. Ambrose dying sometime after, his Widow left Gaul, whether she was come to dwell only upon the account of her Husband's Office, and returned to Rome which was their Country. Thither she carried St. Ambrose who was yet very Young, together with Marcellina his Sister, and Satyrus his Eldest Brother; and she took special Care of the Education of her Children. Her Daughter professed Virginity and received the Veil from the Hands of Pope Liberius; St. Ambrose profited very much by the Domestic Examples of the Piety and Virtue of his Mother, his Sister, and the Virgins that were with them; they inspired into him from his tender Youth, the love of Virtue, and secured him from the Corruptions of the Age, and he joined Learning to his Piety. His Works discover how vigorously he applied himself to humane Learning. Having finished his Studies, he acquired by his Merits the Friendship of Anicius Probus, and of Symmachus, two very Honest and Learned Men, tho' of different Religions. The First was the Praetorian Praefect of Italy, in whose Court St. Ambrose pleaded Causes with so much renown, that Probus made choice of him to be his Assessor. Afterwards he made him Governor of Liguria and Emilia, that is, of all that Country, which comprehends at this Day, the Archbishoprics of Milan, Liguria, Turin, Genoa and Bolonia. 'Tis reported that Probus said to him at parting, Go thy way, and Govern more like a Bishop than a Judge; which Words were a Prediction of what happened afterwards. For a little while after, Auxentius Bishop of Milan, who was of the Arian Faction, being dead, the Bishops of the Province of Italy assembled to place one in his room, according to the Orders of the Emperor Valentinian; who would not himself interpose in the Election; and upon this Occasion there arose a great Contention among the People, because the Arians and the Orthodox on each side, did all that laid in their Power to choose a Bishop of their own Party. This Quarrel being like to raise a Tumult, St. Ambrose thought it the Duty of his Office to come into the Church and prevent it, whither being come, he made an Oration to the People with much Discretion and Mildness, exhorting them to proceed in their Choice with the Spirit of Peace and without Tumult. While he was yet speaking, the People unanimously, proclaimed him Bishop of Milan. This unexpected Choice surprised him; he presently 〈◊〉, and made use of all the Artifices he could to shun this Bishopric. He ascended the Bench of Justice, and affecting to seem cruel and unworthy of the Priesthood he caused the Criminals to be brought before him loaded with Chains, and commanded them to be rackid with great severity. This 〈◊〉 failing, he contrived another by making Women of lewd Lives come into his House. But the People perceiving all this to be attested, continued still in their Choice: Whereupon he stole out of the City by Night, with a design to retire to Ticinum; but missing his way, he wandered up and down all Night, and found himself next Morning at the Gates of Milan. His Flight being known, a Guard was set about him, and a Relation of all that had passed, was sent to the Emperor: St. Ambrose wrote also to him on his own behalf, that he might be excused from that Office. But the Emperor being wonderfully pleased, with this Choice of the People, did 〈◊〉 only confirm the Election, but gave Order to the Lieutenant of Italy to see the thing effectually done. In the mean Lieutenant St. Ambrose once more made his escape, and hid himself in the House of one 〈◊〉: But the Lieutenant of Italy having published the Order against all those that knew whe●●● he was, and did not discover him, Leontius by an Innocent kind of Treachery declared where ●he was, and then St. Ambrose finding it was in vain to resist any longer, was first baptised, and some time after made Bishop of Milan, at the End of the Year 374, or the Beginning of 375. 
c Ordained Bishop of Milan about the Year 374, or 375.] In Eusebius' Chronicon, his Ordination is placed in the Year 375. But since it is certain that Valentinian died November 10th. 375. and that his Ordination was made the 10th. of December under this Emperor, we must of necessity place it in the preceding Year.  immediately after his Ordination he distributed to the Poor, or gave to the Church all the Money that he had. He settled his Lands also upon the Church, reserving only the Profits of them for Life. He committed the Care of his Affairs to his Brother Satyrus, who being gone to Rome by Se● in pursuit of a Man who had unjustly possessed himself of some part of their Estate, was like to have perished in a Shipwreck; which made him resolve to be baptised: Nevertheless he escaped the danger and returned safe to Milan, where he died in 379. Thus St. Ambrose having renounced all Care of Secular Affairs, applied himself wholly to the worthy discharge of his Episcopal Function. Tho' he was but newly baptised, and never had time to Study Religion before his Ordination, yet by his great Industry he attained to that Perfection, that at the same time he both learned and taught the Truths of the Christian Religion. He did every Day celebrate the Holy Mysteries; there passed not a Sunday but he preached to his People. He harkened to all Men with Meekness and Charity, he relieved the Poor, he comforted the Afflicted, so that all his people loved and admired him. He applied himself vigorously to root out the remnants of Arianism that were yet in the Church of Milan. He convicted Secundianus and Palladius, and procured their Condemnation in the Council of Aquileia held in the Year 381. The Death of Gratian changed the face of Affairs in the Western Empire. The Tyrant Maximus who had put him to Death, having Usurped Gaul, was become formidable to all Italy. It was feared, that he would pass the Alps, and carry Italy by force from Valentinian the Younger, who was then but Twelve or Thirteen Years old. St. Ambrose was sent Ambassador to this Tyrant in the Year 384, and by his Prudence and Boldness diverted his Design of passing then into Italy. The Empress Justina, Mother to Valentinian, who was an Arian, having a Design to restore Arianism after its Extirpation in the Church of Milan, did at first desire of St. Ambrose, one of the Churches called the Portian Church, which St. Ambrose refused to grant her; and so great was the Assembly of the People round about the Palace, that she was forced to leave St. Ambrose in the Possession of his Church, and to entreat him also to appease the People. Sometime after the Empress sent to him to demand in the Emperor's Name, not only that Church, but also the New-Church. Our Saint opposed them with wonderful Boldness, and answered them with such a fearless Courage, as astonished the Persons who brought the Emperor's Orders to him. This happened at the Beginning of the Year 385. On Palm-Sunday in the same Year, Officers were sent to seize upon the Portian-Church, when St. Ambrose was Officiating in the New-Church. This irritated the People, who run to that Church, and having apprehended one Castulus an Arian Priest, would have made a Riot, if St. Ambrose had not sent some Priests and Deacons to appease them. The Emperor caused many of the Seditious to be Arrested and sent armed Soldiers to take Possession of the Church, which for all that was not put in Execution. On Wednesday in Passion Week the Soldiers were sent to seize upon the New-Church, but the People flocking thither in great Multitudes, the Soldiers never entered it; but the People within it spent the whole Night and Day, in singing of Psalms; and the next day after, the Emperor being prevailed upon by the Boldness and Wisdom of St. Ambrose's Carriage, who had put a stop to the Sedition, and yet had yielded nothing of what was demanded of him, ordered the Soldiers who Surrounded the Church to retire.  
In the Year following the Persecution was renewed against the Catholics and St. Ambrose, by an Edict of the Emperor in favour of the Council of Ariminum. A design also was laid to take from the Catholics the Portian-Church. Orders were given to apprehend St. Ambrose and send him into banishment; but he was still secured by the Affection of the People of Milan, who Guarded him in his Church, where he spent many Days and Nights in singing Psalms and Hymns continually with his People. He was challenged to Dispute in the Palace with Auxentius the Arian Bishop; but he refused to do it, because Laymen and Pagans were chosen to be Judges of their Conference. He offered to refer the Difference to the Judgement of a Council, tho' it was not reasonable to trouble the Peace of the Church for one Man only, nor to call that in Question which had been already determined. After this he spoke an Oration against Auxentius, which provoked the Empress Justina yet more against him: But at last she gave over the further Persecution of this Bishop, seeing it was to no purpose, because his own Wisdom and Courage, and the Affections of his People, covered him from all her Designs. 'Tis believed, That the Discovery of the Relics of St. Gervasius and St. Protasius, and the Miracles that were then done by them, contributed to the Peace of the Church. But 'tis very probable that the true Reason which hindered Justina and Valentinian from pushing things to extremity, was the State of the Affairs of the Empire at that time. Maximus had prepared to pass over into Italy, a Sedition was also to be feared in this Juncture, and they stood in need of St. Ambrose. In effect the Emperor found no Person fit than he to treat with Maximus, whom he sent Ambassador to this Tyrant, who resided at Triers: St. Ambrose spoke to him with much boldness, but he could obtain nothing of him; on the contrary, this Tyrant marched immediately into Italy; and thereby made himself Master of all the Western Empire, so that Valentinian was forced to retire into the East, and desire Aid of Theodosius, who re-established him, after he had defeated, taken and be-headed Maximus. This Revolution happened in 387. St. Ambrose continued during this time in his Bishopric. When Theodosius came into the West, he showed no less Courage with reference to him, than before he had done to Valentinian. He opposed the re-establishment of the Jewish Synagogue, which Theodosius would have done, and of the Altar of Victory, which Symmachus had already endeavoured in vain to restore because of the Opposition of St. Ambrose. 'Tis well enough known, with what freedom he reproved the Emperor Theodosius for the Massacre at Thessalonica which he gave a Warrant for putting in Execution, and after what manner he obliged him to do public Penance for it. The Death of Valentinian and the Advancement of Eugenius for some time disturbed the Repose of St. Ambrose. He was obliged to retire from Milan in the Year 393, but he returned in the Year 394, and finished his Course as he had begun it. He died in the Year 396, aged 57 Years.  
The Works of St. Ambrose above all the other Fathers, have been most corrupted in the ordinary Editions. The Roman Edition from which those that followed after were made, instead of restoring the Text of this Father, hath rendered it more Faulty in many places, by the Liberty which the Supervisors of that Edition took, of making Alterations in it by their own Authority. In this Edition the Works were in great Confusion, without Order, and without any distinction of what were Genuine, and what were Supposititious; which induced the Benedictins of the Abbey of St. german de Prez to undertake a New Edition of this Father's Works, wherein they have restored the Text from many Manuscripts; and ranged the Discourses in very good Order. In it they are divided into Two Volumes. The First which is already published, contains the Treatises of St. Ambrose upon the Scripture. The Second which will quickly come forth, and which they have allowed me to make use of, contains the other Works of this Father. The First gins with the Treatise upon the Creation of the World, composed of Nine Discourses of St. Ambrose to his People, preached in one of the last Weeks of Lent. 'Tis probable, that he reduced them afterwards into the form of a Treatise. 'Tis divided into Six Books, which answer to the Six Days of the Creation. This Work contains many Questions of Controversy, and many Moral and Mystical Considerations upon the Text of the Bible. There are many of them, particularly in the last Books which are very extraordinary, and far-fetched. St. Ambrose made this Treatise about the Year 389. He has imitated St. Basil in it, whose Method he followed, and he has taken many things from him as also from Hippolytus and Origen.  
The Treatise of Paradise is one of the first Books of St. Ambrose. He wrote it as he says in his Letter to Sabinus, soon after he was made Bishop. He does not dive very deep into the Historical Questions which may be made upon this Subject, but for the most part acquiesces in the Allegorical Explications, which he draws out of Philo and other Authors, or which he invents himself: There he refutes the Heretics of Apelles' Sect, and occasionally speaks against the Jews.  
St. Ambrose continues the Explication of the Text of Genesis in the Treatise of the History of Abel and Cain, upon which he makes abundance of long Allegories, wherewith he intermixes some Moral Thoughts. He enlarges particularly upon the Sacrifices of these two Brethren. Upon occasion of the saying that the Blood of Abel cries, he says, That God hears the Just even after their Death, because they are even then living before God and enjoy Eternal Light.  
The History of the Deluge and the Life of Noah, furnished St. Ambrose with very fit Matter for the Continuation of his Mystical and Moral Explications. This is the Subject of the Book of the Ark and of Noah, or of the Ark of Noah, as St. Austin calls it. This Treatise is not perfect, for St. Austin quotes a Passage out of it, which is not to be found there now.  
There are Two Books of St. Ambrose upon the Life of Abraham. In the First he describes the Life and Actions of this Patriarch, and represents his Submission to the Will of God, and his other Virtues. In the Second Book he discourses on the First Actions of this Patriarch, to draw from them a more sublime and spiritual Sense, by applying them to the different Degrees of a spiritual Life, and to the Ways by which we tend to Perfection.  
He treats also of the same Subject, tho' in a more compendious way, in the Book of Isaac and the Soul, where he explains the Union of the Soul with the Word, which was figured by the Marriage of Isaac and Rebecca. There he distinguishes Four Degrees through which the Soul must pass, that it may be delivered from all earthly Affections, and arrive at a State of perfect Union with God. By this Union he explains the Canticles, on which he makes a kind of a Mystical Paraphrase, and therefore this Treatise may pass for a Commentary upon this Book of Scripture.  
St. Ambrose having discoursed of the Soul at the End of the preceding Treatise, found himself insensibly engaged to treat of Death in the following Book. 'Tis entitled, Of the Benefits or Advantages of Death. There St. Ambrose first distinguishes three kinds of Death, The Death of Sin which kills the Soul, The Mystical Death by which we die to Sin, and the Natural Death by which the Soul is separated from the Body. All the World considers the First as a great Misery, and the Second as a great Happiness; but their Opinions are divided about the last: Some wish for it as a great Advantage, and others dread it as a great Punishment. St. Ambrose declares for those who hold it to be a great Benefit, he makes the Advantages of it appear, and opposes to them the troubles of this present Life from which Death deliver us. He exhorts Christians, not to set their Affections upon this Life nor the Pleasures of this World; he makes them sensible of the bitterness which accompanies them; he represents the Dangers to which we are continually exposed, the Temptations to which we are subject in all sorts of Occurrences, and the Sins into which we fall every moment. Afterwards he discourses of the State of departed Souls; he supposes that till the Day of Judgement, they are in Places or Habitations, where they expect Eternal Glory or Damnation, tho' they enjoy already by anticipation some kind of Happiness or Misery. All Souls wait, says he, for what they have deserved; some expect Damnation and others Glory; but in this waiting, the former are not without Pain, nor the latter without some Reward.] St. Ambrose insists particularly upon the Joy which the latter enjoy, and distinguishes Seven Degrees of their Happiness, whereof the last is to rejoice in the assurance they have of seeing God face to face. He concludes with exhorting the Faithful to die without Fear. Let us go on, says he, without fear in the way to Jesus Christ; Let us march without anxiety to the Assembly of the Patriarches and Saints; Let us enter with Confidence into Abraham's Bosom. Yes, O Holy Patriarch, open to us your Bosom, extend your Arms to these poor Faithful. Jesus is gone before us to prepare Habitations, where we are to be received; he promised to do it before we asked it of him. We desire to follow thee, O Lord, but call thou us unto thee, that so we may effectually follow thee, because without thee no Man can ascend unto thee. Thou art the Way, the Truth and the Life, thou givest us the Power, the Faith, and the Reward; receive us, since thou art the Way; confirm us since thou art the Truth; Grant us Life, since thou art the Author of Life; make us to enjoy that good thing which David desired; show us that Eternal, that Immutable Bliss, which we shall enjoy for all Eternity. This Treatise of St. Ambrose has another sort of a relish than the foregoing; 'tis full of useful and solid Reflections, and of just and natural Reasonings. He found'st all that he says upon Passages of the Holy Scripture, which he applies very pertinently and very naturally. He builds very much upon the Fourth Book of Esdras which he citys as Canonical. This Treatise was written about the Year 387. The Book of forsaking the World was written soon after this, of which we have already spoken: the Title of it sufficiently discovers the Subject. There St. Ambrose makes use of several Allegories taken out of the Old Testament, to exhort the Faithful to flee from this World, that they may be wholly united to God.  
The Books of Jacob and a Happy Life, treat of the Happiness of the Righteous. In the First, he discovers the means of arriving at Happiness; the Chief whereof is, to follow the Light of Right Reason, which can command our Passions, and repress the Motions of Lust: For tho' we cannot wholly extinguish our Passions, yet we may restrain their Violence by practising the Virtue of Moderation; for he maintains that we do Good or Evil freely. Jesus Christ, he says, will have none for his Servants which are not free, and the Devil has none for Slaves, but those that are voluntarily Sold to him by their Sins. But because of Man's weakness the Divine Assistance is necessary. The Law which God has given him does clearly discover to him his Sins; but it has not sufficient Virtue to deliver him from Sin and Death; there is nothing but Grace could set us at Liberty, which Jesus Christ by his Death hath merited for all Men. This Grace is so powerful, that provided we be willing to follow its Motions, nothing shall ever be able to separate us from Jesus Christ. Whatever befalls us we shall be happy; a Just Man is above all the Miseries of this Life; 'tis true indeed, he suffers Losses, Afflictions, Diseases, Pains, Captivity, etc. but he does not think himself less happy for being subject to these Accidents. There is nothing wanting to him that possesses Virtue, he fears nothing, he hopes nothing, he desires nothing; tho' he be weak, he is strong enough; tho' he appear to be poor, he is rich; tho' he is despised, he believes himself the more honoured; tho' he is alone, yet he is not forsaken; whatsoever Disease he has, he enjoys a perfect Health.  
These Maxims are confirmed in the Second Book by the Example of Jacob. St. Ambrose there describes the Life and Actions of this Patriarch, and shows, that the Afflictions and Crosses which befell him did not hinder him from being happy. He concludes with the Example of Eleazar and the Maccabees, on whom he makes a very lively and eloquent Panegyric.  
After he has discoursed of the Patriarches Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and treated, as he says himself, of Submission to the Will of God, upon the occasion of Abraham, of Purity of Spirit from Isaac, of Patience under Miseries from the History of Jacob; he treats of Chastity in explaining the History of Joseph, who has given an Illustrious Example of the practice of this Virtue in resisting the Solicitations of Potiphar's Wife. This Action of Joseph is so much the more Glorious, by how much the Charms of this Woman were harder to be overcome; which St. Ambrose studies to set off to the best Advantage, that the Virtue of Joseph may the better appear. After this he pursues the History of this Patriarch, and discourses of all the Circumstances of his Life, which he refers to Jesus Christ, of whom Joseph was a Figure. He lays open this Mystical Sense with much Art and Probability, by comparing what is said of Joseph in Genesis, with what is said of Jesus Christ in the Gospel.  
The Commentary upon the Benedictions of the Patriarches, follows naturally after the Book of the Life of Joseph. St. Ambrose there gives Mystical Senses to the Blessings, which Jacob when he was dying gave to his Children, and refers the greatest part of them to Jesus Christ. This Book and the preceding are Sermons preached by St. Ambrose at Milan about the Year 387, which he afterwards reduced into a Treatise.  
The Book of Elias and of Fasting contains many Sermons preached at Milan in Lent. Having formerly spoken of the Actions of Elias upon other Occasions, he here enlarges upon the Morals of them. The Person of whom, and the Time when he preached do both conspire to invite him to treat of Fasting; and so this is the subject of the First and Principal Part of this Work. He maintains that Fasting is a Duty as old as the World, and pretends that the Law by which God forbidden Adam to Eat of the Tree of Life, was a kind of Command for Fasting. He alleges afterwards the Examples of Noah, Abraham, Moses, Elisha, Daniel, and many others to authorise the Practice of Fasting. He discovers at last the Advantages of it, and shows how Intemperance and Excess are pernicious and inconvenient. This leads him insensibly to discourse against the Debauchery, the Drunkenness, and the other Disorders of men's Tables, which were very common in St. Ambrose's Time: He adds, That these Excesses draw along with them all other Vices, and particularly the Desire of gathering Riches, to furnish the excessive Expenses which were necessary to support their Luxury. He exhorts Christians to apply themselves to God who is the Sovereign Physician of these Evils; and proposes the Day of Judgement as a Dissuasive from these Excesses. Addressing himself afterwards to the Catechumen, he presses them to purify themselves from their Sins by receiving Baptism. He reproves those sharply who delay to receive this Sacrament, and exhorts them rather to imitate the forwardness of Abel than the Negligence of Cain. 'Tis easy to perceive, that this Treatise was composed of many Pieces collected together. St. Ambrose has taken a great part of it out of St. Basil, and in it there are many excellent Passages, and some things very remarkable about the Discipline of the Church. He says in Ch. 10. that they prepared themselves by Fasting to approach to the Holy Table, that they fasted at Milan all the time of Lent, except Sundays and Saturdays; that on Easter-day the Fast ended; that on that Day those among the Catechumen, who were called Elect, were baptised; that they approached to the Altar, and received the Sacrament. In short, St. Ambrose in this Treatise gives very Lively and Moral Descriptions of the Excesses and Debauchery of his Age: One needs only read the 12th. and 13th. Chapters, to be possessed with a horror of them. Even the Women were given to Wine, and did many Actions unbecoming the Modesty of their Sex, of which St. Ambrose makes them ashamed in Chap. 18.  
The Treatise of Naboth and the Poor (for so it ought to be called, according to the ancient Manuscripts, and according to the Custom of St. Ambrose) is a Discourse full of Zeal against the Rich and Powerful who oppress the Poor, preached by St. Ambrose upon the History of the Oppression of Naboth by King Ahab. This Saint there shows, that there are Ahabs and Naboths at all times. The History of Naboth, says he, at the beginning of his Discourse, is ancient, if we consider the time wherein it was Transacted, but in Practice it happens daily; tempore vetus est usu quotidiana: For who is the Rich man that does not desire other men's Goods? Is it not daily seen, that the Rich would take from the Poor the little Estate that they have, and drive them away from the Inheritance of their Ancestors? Where is there one found that is content with what he has? There has not been one Ahab only in the World, he is born in it every day; there has not been one Naboth only killed, there are some such every day oppressed. Every day the Poor are overwhelmed, driven away, persecuted, and reduced to die by Famine, by the Injustice of the Rich. He declaims afterwards against this Barbarity, and shows the Rich, by the Example of Ahab, that they are more unhappy with all their Riches, than the most Miserable and the most Poor in their Wants. He cries out against those sumptuous Feasts and needless Expenses which they make, by which they waste the Blood and Substance of the Poor. Here he relates a frightful Story of a Rich Man, who to procure good Wine to his Table, forced a Poor Man to sell his Son; and then he brings the Parable of the Rich Man mentioned in the Gospel of St. Luke Ch. 12. who purposed to pull down his Barns, that he might build larger, and shows from hence how far the Slavery, Blindness and Misery of Rich Men extends. Afterwards he returns to his History of Ahab, and having represented the horribleness of the Action of Ahab and Jezabel, he exhorts Rich Men not to imitate it, by teaching them the use they ought to make of their Riches, which is described in Psalm 75. He concludes with this Remark, that God pardoned Ahab for this Crime, but this miserable Man brought upon himself Destruction by new Crimes. 'Tis thought, that this Treatise was composed about the Year 395.  
The Book of Tobit is chief written against Usury, which St. Ambrose condemns most severely. There he describes the Miseries to which Usurers reduce the Poor, and the Artifices they use to ensnare young Heirs. Usury according to him, is all that is received above the principal. It is condemned by the Divine Law in the Old and New Testament: If it was permitted to the Israelites with respect to Strangers, it was only with reference to them whom they might lawfully kill. He refutes those by name, who restrain the Prohibition of Usury only to the Poor, and rejects the Reasons of Interest which may be alleged to excuse it. Erasmus doubted whether this Book were St. Ambrose's or no, but it was a doubt very ill grounded, for St. Austin citys it. It has St. Ambrose's Style, it contains his Doctrine, which is also to be found in short, in his 23d. Letter to Vigilius, and it contains many Passages translated out of St. Basil, according to the Custom of St. Ambrose. This Book was written about the Year 386.  
The Four Books of the Intercession of Job and David, (that is, of the Complaints which Job and David made for the Miseries and Weakness of Mankind) are in this Edition replaced here in their natural Order. In the two First Books he enlarges upon the Complaints contained in the First Chapters of the Book of Job, and in the Psalms, particularly in the 72d. and 42d. In the Two last he answers the Complaints of those who tax Providence, because the Wicked are happy in this Life, and the Just miserable. He proves that the Happiness of the Wicked is not true happiness, and that the Calamities, Miseries and Misfortunes of the Good, do not at all render them unhappy.  
In the Book entitled the Apology of David, he saves the Honour of this Holy King, not by justifying his Crimes of Adultery and Murder which are used to render him odious; but by showing, that he risen again from his Fall by a quick and sincere Repentance; that it was for our Instruction that God permitted him to fall into Sin, and that he made amends for his Fault by a great number of good Actions. And therefore he explains the 5th. Psalms, that it may serve as an Apology for this Holy King. These Sermons were preached soon after the Death of Gratian, in the Year 385.  
The Benedictines have placed here among these Works of St. Ambrose which are Genuine, the Second Apology for David; but it is confessed in the Preface, that it has been questioned, and that there is reason for doing so: Indeed it is observed, that in all the Manuscripts that have been seen, this Book goes under the name of St. Ambrose, and the Conjectures which some Critics have alleged to show its imposture, are rejected. But then they find the Style is different from St. Ambrose's, and the Author uses a different Version of Scripture, and sometimes the Vulgar Latin, and he speaks of Two Sorts of Wills and Operations in Jesus Christ, in such a manner as favours very much of the Times of the Monothelites. They add, that this Author only Copies and Enlarges upon what St. Ambrose had said before. The Second Apology contains a great part of what is in the First; And what probability is there that St. Ambrose should twice repeat the same thing? The Subject of both is the same. The Author undertakes to show, that no Man ought to be offended with any thing that is related in Scripture; and that David fell into the Crimes of Murder and Adultery. His Defence is divided into Three Parts. In the First he shows that the Fall of David must be attributed to the Infirmity of Humane Nature, and that his Amendment was the effect of his Virtue. In the Second he says, that David fell, to instruct the Jews that they should continue no longer in their blindness. In the last, Christians are instructed in the Mysteries which is typifyed by David's Fall. The Author enlarges upon common Places, and employs part of his Discourse in Refutation of the Heretics, and chief of the Arians and Manichees. This Treatise is composed of popular Harangues.  
The Expositions of some particular Psalms are not a formal Commentary upon them, but a Collection of Homilies upon the Psalms preached or composed upon several Occasions. However it appears by the Preface to the Commentary upon the First Psalm, that St. Ambrose had a Design to Expound all the Psalms. The Homily upon the First Psalm was preached about the Year 390, after the Institution of Singing in the Church of Milan. The Explications of the 35th. and the Five following Psalms are also a Collection of Homilies preached one after another about the Year 393. The Preface shows that it is a Collection of Sermons, and there are Two or Three Places in the explication of Psal. 36, which serve to denote this Epocha.  
As to the Exposition of Psal. 43. he dictated it himself a little before his Death to his Deacon Paulinus, as he says, in the Life of his Master.  
The Explications of Psalms 45, 47, 48, 61, are separate Homilies. In these Expositions St. Ambrose follows the Text of the Septuagint, but he sometimes takes notice of the Differences of the Versions of Theodotion, Symmachus and Aquila. Yet he does not confine himself to a literal Exposition, but often gives Mystical Senses of them. Sometimes he lays down Principles of Morality, and upon certain Occasions he opposes the Heretics. In many places he copies from St. Basil, and in others from Origen, some of whose Errors have crept into his Expositions.  
The Work upon Psalm 119. is a Collection of many Sermons, wherein St. Ambrose rather confines himself to the Moral than the Spiritual Sense; which gave him occasion to reprove the Vices of some Persons in his time, and he spares not even the Disorders of the Clergymen. He explains the Letters of the Hebrew Alphabet, which serve to distinguish the Parts of this Psalm. But as he knew but little of Hebrew, so what he says about it is not very solid; and 'tis probable that he took his from the Etymologies of Philo, which were full of Faults as St. Jerom assures us. These Sermons were preached about the Year 386, after the Discovery of the Relics of St. Gervasius and St. Protasius. There are as many Sermons, as there are Letters of the Hebrew Alphabet which make the Divisions of this Psalm; each Sermon answers to a Section contained under each Letter. There he explains also part of the Canticles.  
In the Commentary upon St. Luke, St. Ambrose confines himself more closely to the Historical and Literal Sense, than in his other Commentaries. In explaining the Text of St. Luke, he clears some places of the other Gospels, and reconciles the apparent Contradictions which may occur between them. He observes in the Preface to this Work, that the Gospel of St. John is more sublime, but St. Luke follows the order of History more strictly, and relates many more particulars. He adds, that St. Matthew is chief employed in describing the Birth of Jesus Christ, and informing Men of his Manners; that St. Mark dwells longer in the description of his Strength and Power: That St. Luke represents him as a Highpriest and a Sacrifice; And that St. John insists more than any other upon the Miracles of his Resurrection. In the beginning of this Commentary he mentions the many Apocryphal Gospels, as that of the Twelve, the Gospel of St. Thomas, and that of St. Mathias, and assures us, that the Church never received any but those Four Gospels which were written by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. These are St. Ambrose's general Remarks upon the Four Gospels. It were too long to mention particularly all things that are in this Commentary. He confines himself for the most part, as we have already said, to the Letter and History of the Gospel, but yet he cannot refrain from having recourse ofttimes to the Mystical Sense, and draws from it Moral Precepts. These are the Homilies which make up the body of this Commentary, which is divided into Ten Books or Parts. He wrote it after the Persecution of the Empress Justina about the Year 386.  
This Tome ends with a Commentary upon the Canticles, extracted out of the Works of St. Ambrose, collected by William Abbot of St. Thierry, who lived about the Year 1142. We have already observed that St. Ambrose explained some considerable parts of it in many places. This gave occasion to many Persons to extract these Places, and make up a Commentary upon the Canticles. Cartorius caused one of his Collecting to be printed at Louvain in the Year 1558. Ten Years after Gillotius published another which is attributed to Demochares a Doctor of Paris, who probably did nothing else but augment one that was shorter, which is in a Manuscript in the College of Navarr, and in another Manuscript of the Abbey of Vendosme that is 600 Years old. Cheffletius had also a Manuscript of it more ancient by 200 Years, and he found it quoted by Florus, Magister of Lions, who lived about the Year 855, in a Commentary upon St. Paul, which was never printed. The Collection which is published here by the Benedictines, was never printed before. It is published from a Manuscript by the same hand of William Abbot of St. Thierry, and afterwards Monk of Signi.  
The First Book contained in the Second Tome of St. Ambrose's Works, is his excellent Treatise concerning the Office of Ministers, or the Duties of Clergymen. For tho' the name of Ministers be cut out in the Roman Edition, and in those that followed it; yet it is to be found in all the Manuscripts; and 'tis plain by the Book itself, that St. Ambrose composed it for his Clergy. But tho' he addresses himself particularly to them, yet he does not forget to treat of the Duties of all Christians, of which he makes a particular Application to the Clergy.  
He had been several Years Bishop when he composed this Work, for there he speaks to the Clergy whom he had Chosen and Ordained himself: He must therefore have been Bishop for some time, since he had already Ordained a considerable number of Clergymen. He there takes notice, that he had endured several Shocks from the Civil Powers, because he would not deliver up the Deposits which were entrusted with the Church. He says, that Two Persons of whom he had a bad Opinion, had abjured the Catholic Faith in the time of the Arian Persecution, Arianae infestationis; which is to be understood of the Persecution of the Empress Justina.  
He says also, that he sold the sacred Vessels to redeem Captives and Slaves, whose number was so great, that they would fill a whole Province.  
This may have reference either to the War of Maximus in the Year 387, or to the Inundation of the Barbarians, who having killed the Emperor Valens ravaged the Countries of Thrace and Illyricum, and came over into Italy, where they made a great number of Captives, which happened in the Year 379. He speaks also of a Famine which afflicted the City of Rome under Damasus in the Year 383.  
Lastly speaking of a Depositum entrusted with the Bishop of Pavia, he says, that the Emperor did all that he could to wrest it out of the hands of this Bishop, that he might give it to one of his Courtiers. And we find a Law of Valentinian published at Pavia, January the 2d. 386. All these Transactions do clearly demonstrate, that the Books of Offices were not written by St. Ambrose at the beginning of his Bishopric, and that 'tis very probable they were not written till about the Year 390, or 391, when Peace was restored to the Church after the Death of the Tyrant Maximus. He followed and imitated in these Three Books the Design and Method of Tully's Offices. He confirms those good Maxims which this Orator had laid down, and corrects those that are imperfect, refutes those that are false, and adds several others which are infinitely more excellent, more pure, and more sublime.  
The first Six Chapters of the First Book of St. Ambrose's Offices, are a Preface to the whole Work, wherein he inquires, when and how it is seasonable to Speak or to be Silent. The Bishops are obliged by their Office to explain the Word of God; but they ought to discharge this Duty with Humility; they must learn by teaching, and that they may teach. This is what St. Ambrose applies to himself. For, says he, being removed all of the sudden from the Civil Bench, and from the Office of a Judge, that I might be promoted to the Priesthood, I have taught what I had not then learned, and was obliged to Learn and Teach at the same time. After this he discovers the Advantages of being Silent, and the Dangers to which a Man exposes himself by speaking; but yet he would not have Men always to continue in silence. On the contrary, he says, that it is useful and necessary to speak, provided it be done with Humility and Moderation, provided that one weighs his Words in the balance of the Sanctuary, and does not follow the Motions of his Lusts, but Reason and Justice, and provided that he does not employ his Voice to retaliate Reproaches by Reproaches.  
After this Preface he enters upon the Matter, and undertakes to treat of Offices. He affirms that this Name was not only in use among the Philosophers, but that it is in the Holy Scripture. He quotes one single Passage taken out of the Gospel of St. Luke Ch. 1. P. 23. Where there is mention made of the Ministry of Zacharias, and he translates the Greek Word by Office. This example does not prove very strongly what he had affirmed. After this he gives two Etymologies of the Word Officium; the First is ab efficiendo, quasi efficium, and the Second ab officiendo. The Philosophers distinguished Three Sorts of Offices, of Honesty, of Profit, and of Pleasure. St. Ambrose says, that the Christians know no other but that of Honesty, because they refer all to the Happiness of Heaven, being persuaded, that the Profits and Pleasures of this Life, are neither true Profits nor true Pleasures. And therefore he treats only of the Offices which have reference to Honesty. He affirms that this Term of Honesty and Decency was known to David before the Philosophers used it; and for proof of this, he quotes Psal. 64. 2. Praise becomes thee, O Lord, in Zion, Te decet hymnus, Deus, in Zion. He adds some Passages of St. Paul, where he speaks of Decency and Honesty. He affirms that Pythagoras followed David in imposing the Law of Silence upon his Disciples. But he puts a very great difference between their Precepts, in that Pythagoras wholly forbade his Scholars to speak, whereas David teaches us to speak with moderation, and to hold our Peace when it is convenient to do so. He distinguishes Two Sorts of Offices, the less perfect which he calls medium, and the most perfect. He explains this by the Words of Jesus Christ to the young Man, who asked him what he must do to inherit Eternal Life. Jesus Christ answered him at first, Keep the Commandments, Do not commit Murder nor Adultery, etc. These, says St. Ambrose, are the less perfect Offices, to which there is still something wanting. Those that are perfect are designed by what Jesus Christ said afterwards to the young Man, when he had answered him that he had observed all these things. If you would be perfect, go and sell all your Goods, and give them to the Poor, and you shall have Treasure in Heaven, and come and follow me. This gave occasion to St. Ambrose to recommend Alms giving as one of the principal Duties of the Christian Life.  
Here he treats very largely of the Providence of God, and proves against the Philosophers, that it extends to all Creatures. Why then do the Wicked here enjoy Plenty? This is the common Objection: To which St. Ambrose answers, First, that this Abundance does not make them happy in this Life, because the remorse of their Conscience torments them.  
He adds in the Second place, that we must not wonder, if the Wicked seem to be happy in this Life, and on the contrary the Good seem to be miserable, because this is not the Place of Reward or Punishment. That we must wait till the other Life, when every one shall receive according to his Works, that here we are in a place of Combat, that the Just are to endure continual Assaults, that they may obtain one day the Reward of their Victory; whereas the Wicked here enjoy Repose who deserve no Reward, after which shall follow the Punishments which their Sins deserve. That in short, God has granted to those the good Things and Advantages of this Life, that they might be without Excuse in the Day of Judgement, for not observing the Commandments of God.  
St. Ambrose having thus established these general Maxims, enters upon the particular consideration of the Duties of every State.  
He gins with those which belong to young Men: He recommends to them above all things shamefacedness and Modesty; he gives a wonderful description of this Virtue, and proves how necessary it is to Clergymen. He says, that he had hindered one from entering into Holy Orders, because his Countenance was not modest enough, and that he had forbid another to walk before him because he had too confident a Gate. He counsels them not to be present at Feasts, and to shun the Conversation of Women; he recommends to them to stay at home, and to apply themselves to the Duties of Piety which are agreeable to their Ministry. Afterwards he gives Precepts for restraining the Motions of Anger and of other Passions. He describes the Discourses of Clergymen. He does not think it fit that they should use Raillery. He gives them Three Rules for the good Conduct of their Actions. The First is, to hold their Passions in subjection to Reason; The Second is to observe Moderation; The Third is to do all things seasonably and in order. He illustrates these Maxims by the Examples of many Saints in the Old Testament.  
After he has laid down these general Rules, he discourses of Virtues in particular, comparing the Ideas which Christians have of them with those which the Pagan Philosophers had; and shows, that those of the Christians are much more sublime. As for example, Justice among Christians does not allow, that they should render Evil for Evil; it acknowledges no particular Interest, and it takes place, not only with respect to Friends, but also to declared Enemies. Likewise Christians are not only to do good to their Friends and their Relations, but also to their Enemies. It is not Vanity, but Charity, which is the foundation of their Liberality; they do not only give of their Superfluities, but also of their Necessaries. Their strength consists chief in suffering with Courage and Constancy, in keeping off the Violence which is offered to the Weak, in overcoming their Passions, in despising the Riches of this World, and seeking after, loving and valuing nothing but Virtue. They preserve an evenness of Soul and wonderful Tranquillity of Mind in the midst of Crosses: Yet they do not rashly expose themselves, and are not ashamed to fly, when they find themselves too weak to resist Persecutions. In short, their Moderation consists in Tranquillity of Mind, in the love of Mildness, in complete Meekness and perfect Honesty. St. Ambrose explains particularly all the parts of these Virtues, gives excellent Precepts for observing them, and proposes admirable Examples of them taken out of the Holy Scripture. He produces also some Examples of them taken out of Ecclesiastical History; that of St. Laurence is very remarkable. St. Ambrose proposes him as an illustrious Pattern of Constancy. He says, That this holy Deacon, seeing Xystus his Bishop dragged away to Martyrdom, he fell a weeping, not that the Martyrdom of his Master grieved him, but because he was left behind him in the World; upon which account he addresses to him in these Words: Whither go you, my Father, without your Son? Whither run you, O holy Bishop, without being accompanied by your Deacon? You never used to offer Sacrifice without a Minister; what is it then that has displeased you in me? Is it because you have found that I have not well discharged my Office? Try now, whether you have chosen a good Minister: Why do you refuse him with whom you have consecrated, and who has consecrated the Holy Sacraments with you? Why do you refuse him, say I, to mingle his Blood with yours? St. Xystus answers in these Words, and others like them. I do not desert you, my Son, I do not abandon you, but you are reserved for greater Combats: Mourn not, you shall quickly follow me, within Three Days you shall be where I am. Such, says St. Ambrose, was the glorious Contest of those two Illustrious Martyrs, who strove who should first suffer for Jesus Christ. The History of Orestes and Pylades meets with applause, when it is represented how each of them endeavoured with all his might to die for one another. These two would both have died, the one having committed Parricide, and the other being a Complice in it; but there was nothing that obliged St. Laurence to offer himself to Death, his own Zeal only induced him to it; and three Days after, as he was roasting upon a Grid-Iron, he still mocked the Tyrant, saying, I am roasted enough, turn me and eat me, and so he overcame the Violence of Fire by the Strength of his Courage. We must not forget the Example of St. Agnes which St. Ambrose relates before this. This Holy Virgin, says he, being in danger of losing either her Chastity or her Life, secured her Virginity, by yielding up this Mortal Life to purchase an Eternal one.  
About the End of this Book St. Ambrose insists upon the principal Virtues of Clergymen; he recommends to them above all things Disinteressedness and Purity. It appears by this place, That St. Ambrose thought that Bishops, Priests and Deacons, were obliged to live in Celibacy, and that those could not be received into the Clergy who had been twice married, tho' they had been married the first time before their Baptism.  
He concludes with speaking of the Trust committed to us, and of the Fidelity we should show in keeping that which is entrusted to us. He recommends to the Clergy men who take Care of the Vestry, to discharge their Duty with Faithfulness and Modesty.  
He gins the Second Book with enquiring, wherein consists true Happiness; and he shows, That it consists in the Knowledge of God, and in Innocency of Life; That all other good things, do not only fall short of our supreme Happiness, but they do not so much as render us more happy; as on the contrary, the Crosses and Miseries of this Life do not render us more unhappy; That the good things of this World, such as Riches, Abundance, Joy, etc. are truly Evils, because they hinder us from working out our Salvation; whereas those things which are believed to be evil, as Pain, Affliction, etc. are good for us, because they give us Opportunities of practising Virtue.  
Afterwards he treats of the Good that is Profitable; and having shown that there is no true Profit without Honesty, he discourses of the several sorts of Good Things that are truly profitable, of Friendship, of Advice, of Fidelity, of Liberality, of goodwill, of Civility, of the Protection of the Poor and Afflicted, of Hospitality, and the other Virtue's necessary for maintaining Society and Commerce among Men. The Advices which he gives about these things, are very Judicious: Some of them are as follows. Nothing is more profitable than to be loved; nothing is more disadvantageous than not to be loved. Mildness, Civility and Modesty, cause us to be loved of all the World. These Virtues are very becoming to Kings and Princes as well as to private Persons; they maintain Peace and Charity. A Man is more easily trusted, who is loved by many. When Counsel is to be asked, we should address ourselves to a Person who is equally Just and Wise. These Two Virtues are inseparable. We must not only assist the Poor who have nothing to live upon, but it is a Piece of Prudence and Charity to help also those who are unfortunate in their Affairs, chief, when it is not by their Debauchery that they are reduced to this Condition, but by some unforeseen Misfortune. 'Tis also a Duty of Charity to redeem Captives, and rescue them out of the Hands of their Enemies, to save Women from Disgrace; this is, to restore Children to their Fathers, and Fathers to their Children, and Citizens to their own Country. There are some also that do a Work of Charity, by marrying Orphan Daughters. When we cannot help others by giving them Money, it is good to assist them by our Counsel and Labour. We must do Works of Charity with Prudence, and not give Alms to those that are unworthy. There are some that feign Debts, and others that deplore their Misery; we must examine whether these things be true or no; and we are not only to employ our Hands to give, but also to make use of our Eyes to consider the Persons to whom we give. We must look upon him who does not see us, and seek after him who is ashamed to be found. Yet we must not retrench our Alms, under a pretence that many ask them who do not deserve to receive them. I omit many other fine Maxims which he proposes concerning Alms, and contempt of Riches; but I cannot forget that place, where he says, That he broke in pieces the Sacred Vessels to redeem Captives. He justifies himself in this Action, or rather he draws from it a great deal of Glory. The Church, says he, was founded without Gold, if she has it now, 'tis to give it and not to keep it; 'tis for assisting the Poor with it in their great Necessities. What would be said of a Bishop, who to preserve the lifeless Vessels, would suffer the living Members of Christ to perish? Would he say, I am afraid lest the Temple of the Lord should be spoiled of its Ornaments? Might it not be answered to him, That 'tis not necessary that the Sacraments of the Altar should be administered in Gold or Silver; That the Redemption of Captives was an Ornament much more pleasing in the sight of God; That those Vessels could not be put to a nobler Use than when they are employed to redeem the Lives of Christians; That the true Treasure of the Lord is that which has the same effect with his Blood; That then a Vessel is known to be truly the Lord's when there is a double Redemption to be observed in it; that is, when the exterior Vessel redeems from the Enemy, those whom the Blood of Jesus Christ had redeemed from Sin.  
He justifies also this Conduct by the Example of St. Laurence who showed the Poor when the Treasures of the Church were demanded of him. At last, He concludes, That tho' it be a Crime to break the Vessels of the Church, to turn them to our own Profit; yet on the contrary, it is an Act of Charity and Virtue to do it, to distribute them to the Poor, to redeem Captives, or to build a Church, when such things are necessary. He adds, That he used that Precaution, as to take first the Vessels which were not Consecrated, and afterwards to break and melt those that were, lest any should turn the Sacred Chalices to profane Uses. He concludes this Book with recommending to the Clergy, to keep with Faithfulness and Courage what is deposited in the Churches by Widows, and relates some Examples of the Boldness wherewith some have defended these things against those who came to invade them.  
And here I must resume the 24th. Ch. of which I have said nothing. St. Ambrose there describes the chief Duties of Clergymen towards others in a few Words. We must, says he, prepare ourselves by good Actions and by a good Intention to receive Offices, and chief those of the Clergy. We must not carry ourselves proudly in them, nor estrange ourselves from them by negligence; we must equally shun Ambition and the Affectation of refusing them. Simplicity and Uprightness comprehends all, and these are of themselves commendable enough: In the Exercise of his Ministry he must neither be too severe nor too remiss, lest he should seem either to exercise his Authority with Dominion over the Flock, or else to neglect the Duties of his Ministry; he must endeavour to oblige all the World. A Bishop should consider and protect the Priests and the other Clergymen, he should not be offended if they purchase Esteem either by their Charity, or their Fasting, or their Piety, o● their Learning: But these ought not to exalt themselves, much less employ their own Merits to diminish the Reputation of their Bishop. The Wicked must not be defended, nor Holy Things given to those that are unworthy of them; but neither are we to reprove and condemn any Person till he be convicted of a Fault. For if Injustice be otherwise above all things offensive, it is insupportable in the Church, where every thing should be regulated according to Equity, where Impartiality should be observed. The Powerful and Rich aught to have no more Authority than the Poor, because the Rich and Poor are all one in Jesus Christ. The most Holy should attribute nothing more to himself than others; for the more Holy he is, the more Humble he ought to be. When we Judge we ought not to have any respect of Persons. Favour should have no place in our Judgements but only the Justice of the Cause. Nothing does more wound the Reputation and Credit which we may have, than to betray the Cause of the weak in Favour of those that are more Powerful; to reprove a Poor Man that is Innocent severely, and to excuse a Rich Man that is Guilty. 'Tis true that we are naturally inclined to favour Great Persons, lest they find that Injustice has been done them, and afterwards revenge themselves upon us. But, First, if you be afraid of making yourself Enemies, do not meddle with judging or opposing. You can say nothing when a Matter of Interest is under debate, tho' it were better done to protect Justice; but when the Cause of God lies at stake, or it is to be feared that the Impious will be admitted to the Communion of the Church, than it is a very heinous Sin for Clergymen to use Dissimulation.  
In the First Chapter of the Third Book St. Ambrose shows, That this Maxim of Scipio, That he was never more busy nor less alone, than when he was by himself, was ancienter than Scipio; and that it was verified in a more Illustrious manner in Moses, Elias, Elisha, and the Apostles, who did so many wonderful things, when they seemed to mind nothing. He adds, That a Just Man is never alone, because he is always with God; That he is never idle, because he is always meditating; That he seems to be unknown, and yet is Famous; That when he is thought to be Dead, he than enjoys a more happy Life; That he is never more joyful than when others think him to be under Affliction; That he is never richer than when he is poor, because he places all his Happiness in Justice and Honesty. He observes afterwards, That the Comparison which the Philosophers make between the Good of Honesty and of Profit, has no place among Christians, because they acknowledge nothing Profitable to be Good which is not also Honest. He distinguishes two sorts of Good and of Duty, that which is more, and that which is less perfect. In short, he maintains, That a Just Man ought never to seek his own Profit by doing Injury to others; but on the contrary, that he ought to seek the Good of others above his own. He enlarges upon this Maxim, and proves, that for any Man to do Injury to his Neighbour for his own Profit, is contrary to the Example, and to the Law of Jesus Christ, to the Law of Nature, to the Dictates of Conscience, and to the Civil Laws. Pursuant to this Principle he determines, that a Christian in a Shipwreck ought not to snatch from his Brother the Plank which he has taken to save himself; and that he ought not to fight against a Robber who would set upon him, and lays it down for a General Maxim, That 'tis never lawful to preserve our own Life by putting another to Death. The Philosophers were so far in the right when they affirmed, That a Wiseman, tho' he were secured for ever from any Discovery, should do nothing against his Duty; but finding no Example to prove it, they had recourse to the Fable of Gyges' Ring: St. Ambrose confirms this Truth by the Example of David and St. John Baptist.  
In a Word, St. Ambrose proves that in all Cases we ought to prefer Honesty to Profit. He grounds upon this Principle his Assertion, That one who has gathered together much Corn, ought not to keep it up in his Barns until a time of Famine that he may Sell it very dear. He condemns this Practice as a sort of Usury, or Robbery. He would not have Strangers hindered from coming into Cities in a time of Famine, and blames the ancient Romans for the practice of this Rigour; but praises an Old Man, who in his time was of a contrary Opinion. Having related many Examples taken out of Scripture, to show that we ought to prefer Honesty to Profit, he reproves the Conduct of those who are always intent upon sordid Gain, who use all manner of Tricks to Cheat others of their Goods, and leave no means unessayed to possess themselves of their Neighbour's Inheritance. He adds, That this Covetousness is very much to be blamed in all sorts of Persons; but it is insupportable in Clergymen, who ought to allow dying Men their Liberty to make their Last Will with Discretion and Freedom: That a Clergyman ought never to alienate the Goods which belong to another for his own Profit, because it is his Duty to do Good to all the World, and to do no Injury to any Man. From hence he concludes that when we cannot help one Man but we must do Injury to another, it is more convenient to deny our Assistance to the former, than by doing him Good to Prejudice the latter. For this cause he would not have Clergymen meddle in Pecuniary Causes, because in gaining from one they injure another.  
At last he collects several Examples taken out of the Old Testament, which he alleges to prove, That Honesty is to be preferred before any Interest and Advantage whatsoever. He concludes this Book with some Excellent Precepts which he gives concerning Honest and Christian Friendship. I shall set down some of them. Friendship itself ought to give place to Honesty. No Man ought to favour his Friend when he is in the wrong, nor to deal unjustly by him when he is in the right: As we ought to vindicate him when he is Innocent, so we ought to reprove him when he is guilty; we ought to speak to him with sincerity, to open our Heart to him, to reprove him with Freedom, to suffer for him when it is necessary, and to relieve him in his wants. The Foundation of Friendship is Faith in God, and no Man can be a true Friend to another who is an Infidel towards God. Piety preserves Friendship, and makes Friends equal. There can be no Friendship between Persons of different Principles. One Friend ought to admonish another without bitterness, and rebuke him without reproaches. Our Friendships ought not to be founded upon Interest, for Friendship is a Virtue and not a Matter of Traffic. There is no true Friendship where there is Flattery. Thus I have given an Abridgement of St. Ambrose's Offices which is a very useful Book to teach all Christians the Principles, Maxims, and Rules of that most Holy Morality which they profess: And this made it so common in former Ages; every one would have it, every one would read it with attention, and those who had leisure made Abridgements of it which are still extant. It were to be wished that Christians, and chief Clergymen would do the same still, and that they would draw from this pure Fountain the Morality which they teach and which they practise. The French Translation which has been made of it may render it useful to all Men. But let us proceed to the other Treatises of St. Ambrose.  
The Books of Virginity were written by St. Ambrose at the Request of his Sister Marcellina, who having heard some speak of the Sermons which he had made about Virginity, desired him to send her in writing what he had preached, since she could not be so happy as to hear him. Whereupon he put his Sermons in the Form of a Treatise, and divided them into Three Books, which he addressed to his Sister Marcellina, in the Third Year of his Bishopric, that is to say in the Year 377.  
After a very humble Preface, he gins his Treatise with a Discourse in praise of St. Agnes: He sets off the Glorious Martyrdom of that Illustrious Virgin with inimitable Elegance. To Day, says he, is the Feast of a Virgin, let us imitate her Purity: It is the Holiday of a Martyr, let us offer up Sacrifices: 'Tis the Festival of St. Agnes, let Men admire her, and Young Children entertain blessed Hopes of her; let Married Women wonder, and Virgins endeavour to imitate her. But what can we say worthy of a Person whose very Name is a sufficient commendation. Her Zeal was above her Age, and her Virtue exceeded the Powers of Nature ..... This Holy Virgin suffered Martyrdom at Twelve Years of Age. By how much the Cruelty of those who did not spare such tender Years is to be detested, by so much is the Virtue of that Faith to be admired, which could make a Martyr at that Age ..... Here is a New kind of Martyrdom. She was not yet of an Age fit to suffer, and yet she was already able to Conquer. She went to Death with more gaiety than a young Bride to the Nuptial Bed. All People mourned for her▪ and yet she shed not one Tear for herself. It was Matter of admiration, to see her prodigally throw away that Life, which she had scarce yet tasted, with as much Ease as if she were arrived at the end of her Course. In short, what she did was so incredible of humane Nature, that it was believed to be from God, for whatsoever transcends the Power of Nature, must proceed from the Author of it. What Threaten did not her Executioner use to frighten her? What Artifices did he not employ to persuade her? By what various Solicitations did he attempt her to yield to Marry? That were, said she, an Injury to my Divine Spouse, to entertain any hopes of being able to please others; I am only his who has chosen me first: Why do you delay, Executioner, to do your Office? Let this Body of mine perish, seeing it is so unhappy as to be pleasant in the Eyes of those whom I would not have it to please. Having spoken these Words she put herself into a Posture to receive the Fatal Blow; she prayed and then submitted her Neck. You see here a double Sacrifice in one Victim. She is a Martyr both for Religion and Virginity; she remains a Virgin and obtains a Crown of Martyrdom.  
St. Ambrose, having proposed this Illustrious Example, treats at large of the Excellency of Virginity. He shows, That this Virtue comes from Heaven, and that God is the Author of it; That the Heathens neither knew it, nor practised it as they ought; That the Jews themselves did not esteem it, and that it was not common amongst Men till Jesus Christ came into the World. Afterwards he gives a Catalogue of the Advantages which Virginity has above the married State, by comparing these Two Conditions. I do not condemn Marriage, says he, but I will prove that Virginity is more Excellent. Let us compare, if you please, the more considerable Advantages of married Women with the least Happiness of Virgins: The married Woman may boast of her Fruitfulness, which makes her happy in Children, but the more she brings into the World, the more Pain she suffers. She may reckon upon the Comfort and Support she shall have from her Children; but with this let her balance the troubles they bring upon her. What might I not say of the troubles which Mothers must undergo both in Nursing Children and bringing them up, and then in marrying of them? What is more harsh than that Subjection or rather Slavery to which Wives are reduced? What is more uneasy than those perpetual Complaisances which they must always use towards their Husbands? Fears and Jealousies and a Thousand other Cares render them unhappy. The Necessity and Slavery they undergo in dressing and adorning themselves is a perpetual Punishment. But, you, O blessed Virgins, know not what all this attiring means, you have no other Ornament but Modesty and Chastity; you court no other Beauty than that of Virtue, a Beauty which cannot be shared with others, nor taken away by Death, nor defaced by any Sickness; you have none to please but God who loveth beautiful Souls, tho' they be shut up in deformed Bodies; you are not troubled with the Inconveniences of Child bearing, and of bringing forth Children, and yet you have a very numerous Spiritual Offspring.  
St. Ambrose complains that there were so few Persons at Milan who profited by his Instructions, whilst a great many Virgins, not only from Bologna and Placentia, but even from Mauritania, came to receive the Veil at Milan. He reproves Mothers who hindered their Daughters from coming to his Sermons, lest they should embrace Virginity. At last, he commends those Virgins who devoted themselves to God without their Parents leave, and relates the Example of a young Gentlewoman, who being pressed by her Mother and Relations to Marry, threw herself down before the Altars, and would not stir from thence till she had obtained the Consent of her Parents to her professing Virginity. 'Tis observable, that St. Ambrose says, That at length her Relations approved her Design, and so she was not deprived of her Estate.  
In the Second Book he undertakes to Instruct Virgins by some Examples which he proposes to them: And because the Virgin Mary was undoubtedly the most perfect of all Virgins, her Example is the First and most Illustrious. St. Ambrose here proposes her Life as a Pattern which Virgins ought to imitate, and represents her Virtues in a most Excellent manner. From this Father Preachers and Devoto's may learn how to praise the Virgin in such a manner as is worthy of her, without stuffing their Discourses with Apocryphal Stories, Excessive Praises, and False Notions. The Picture which he draws of her, represents her as she was, and sets before our Eyes her Natural Beauty; whereas some of the Devoto's of the latter Ages, have changed and disfigured her by vain Ornaments, which are no ways agreeable to her, neither could she herself endure them.  
St. Ambrose having proposed to Virgins the Example of the blessed Mary, as the Pattern of their Life; sets before them also the Example of St. Thecla the Martyr, to Instruct them how to die well. He sub joins the Example of a Christian Virgin of Antioch, who being carried to the Stews because she would not Sacrifice to Idols, was delivered from the Danger she was in by a Soldier, who changed Clothes with her and saved her. But when this came to be known, the Soldier was carried to the place of Punishment, where the Virgin also rendered herself, and they both received the Crown of Martyrdom. St. Ambrose describes this History in very lively and eloquent Figures, and comparing it with the Fable of Damon and Pythias, he proves that this Action was much nobler and greater, than that which is related of those two famous Friends. Towards the End, he excuses himself for using so many Flowers and Figures of Rhetoric in relating these Examples of Virgins, which he says he did not do to show his Eloquence, but to win the Affection of Virgins by the Sweetness and Smoothness of his Discourse, and to render their Condition the more Amiable by the Beauty of the Examples which he proposed to them, before he proceeded to the Precepts and Advices which might be less agreeable.  
The Third Book gins with an Exhortation which Pope Liberius made to Marcellina St. Ambrose's Sister when he gave her the Veil at Rome in the Church of the Apostles on Christmas-Day. There is no probability that this very Discourse should be Liberius', but it was certainly made by St. Ambrose, and contains very useful Advices to Virgins consecrated to God. After he has exhorted them to love their Divine Spouse, he prescribes Rules concerning their principal Duties; he enjoins them to be very Sober, to shun Visits from the People of the World, to keep Silence, and to be very Modest and Reserved in all their Actions. When he has given these Precepts under the Name of Liberius, he praises the Virtues of his Sister, and chief her Fast, but he Counsels her to moderate them, that she may apply herself more to other Spiritual Exercises, and especially to Prayer. He says, That she should pray in the Morning when she awakes, before she goes out, before and after Meals, towards Night, and when she goes to Bed. He advises her also to repeat in her Bed the Lord's Prayer, and the Psalms, either before she falls asleep, or when she awakes. And he thinks that she ought to repeat every Morning the Creed as the Seal of our Faith. He add, That she ought to weep, and shun excessive Mirth, the Pleasures of this World, and particularly Dancing. And to dissuade Christian Virgins from it, he relates the Example of the Dancing of Herodias' Daughter, and describes the fatal Consequences of it: A fit Example, says he, to teach Wise and Christian Ladies, that they ought not to suffer their Daughters to practise Dancing.  
Lastly, St. Ambrose answers the Question which Marcellina had put to him, to know what was to be thought of Virgins who killed themselves or threw themselves headlong to shun falling into the hands of their Persecutors, who sought to deprive them of their Faith and their Virginity. He relates the Example of St. Pelagia who killed herself, and of the Mother and Sisters of that Saint, who threw themselves headlong into the River. He subjoins the Example of St. Sotera who was of his own Kindred, and concludes from these Examples, that this Zeal is no ways forbidden. Here the Third Book of Virgin's ends in all the Manuscripts, tho' in the printed Editions there are many Pages added, that have no relation to this Treatise, which St. Ambrose concludes with these Examples, as appears by the beginning of this last Chapter.  
The Treatise of Widows was written soon after that of Virgins, as St. Ambrose declares at the beginning of it. It was the Inconstancy of a Widow which made him undertake this Work. St. Ambrose had Comforted her after the Death of her Husband, and had Exhorted her to lay aside her Mourning, but she abusing his Advices, had made use of them to gain Authority to her Design of marrying again. The Holy Father being unwilling that it should be thought he had counselled her to do so, wrote this Treatise of Widows, wherein he exalts the State of Widows as approaching near to the Perfection of Virgins. For proof of this he not only alleges the Testimony of the Apostle St. Paul, but he relates also the Examples of many Widows of the Old and New Testament. He exhorts Widows to continue in their Widowhood, and in his Address to this Widow who had occasioned his writing this Book, he shows her, That all the Reasons which she alleged for proceeding to a Second Marriage, were weak; yet he does not condemn either First or Second Marriages; on the contrary, he rejects the Opinion of the Heretics who had forbidden them; but he prefers the State of Virgins and Widows before that of married Women, and refutes with sharpness the Reasons which Women use for running into Second Marriages. Although he would not openly declare his Opinion of their Conduct, who use the Knife and Fire to Check the Motions of the Flesh, yet he speaks of it after such a manner as plainly discovers that he did not approve it, and observes that it is contrary to the ancient Canons. This Treatise is cited by St. Ambrose in his Commentary upon St. Luke, by St. Jerom in Letter Fifty to Pammachius, and so there can be no doubt but it is this Father's.  
There is in this Edition a little Treatise of Virginity, which in the former Editions had been placed at the end of the Second Book about Virgins, but it is parted from it in all the Manuscripts, and is evidently a distinct Treatise. The Treatise of Widows, which is there cited, was written after the Two Books of Virgins.  
This little Piece is not very coherent. In it he praises the famous Judgement of Solomon, he blames the Action of Jephtha; and then he defends himself against those who accused him of giving excessive Praises to the State of Virginity, and demonstrates the Excellency and Advantages of it. He occasionally answers those who said, That the great numbers of Virgins would lessen the Race of Mankind, and he maintains that there are no places more populous than those where there are most Virgins: For Proof of which he observes, that tho' at Alexandria in the East, and in Africa, there are an infinite number of Virgins, yet these Countries are very well peopled. He adds, that if this Reason were good, they must also advise Women to be lewd, because so they would have more Children.  
After this, he examines the Reasons of those who find no fault with the Consecration of Virgins, but only say, That we should wait till they be of sufficient Age before they receive the Veil. He confesses, that a Bishop ought to beware of giving the Veil with too much precipitation, but then he ought not so much to regard their Age, as the ripeness of their Parts, nor to consider so much the number of their Years as the Disposition of their Hearts; that every Age can follow Jesus Christ, and embrace the perfection of a Christian Life. This gives him occasion to speak of the way which Virgins ought to hold in following of Jesus Christ, and of the Life they ought to lead to imitate him. He concludes with comparing the Instructions of the Ministers of Jesus Christ, who exhort Virgins and Widows to live in Continence, to the miraculous Fishing of St. Peter; and he prays the Lord, that he would make his own fishing successful to the catching of many. This Piece was composed of many Sermons, and was made soon after the Treatise of Widows.  
The following Treatise is entitled in the printed Copies, Of the Instruction of a Virgin, addressed to Eusebius, but in the Manuscripts its Title is, A Discourse of the perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary. And indeed the principal part of this Treatise is against the Error of Bonosus, who had opposed the perpetual Virginity of Mary. But that which gave occasion to St. Ambrose to compose this Discourse, was the Profession of a Maid called Ambrosia, Niece to Eusebius a Citizen of Bolonia, to whom St. Ambrose had made an Exhortation when he gave her the Veil. He committed the same to Writing afterwards according to his custom, and addressed it to Eusebius with a Preface, wherein he discourses of the chief Duties of Virgins that are consecrated to God, which are Silence and Prayer. After this he gives an account of a Discourse which he made when he gave the Veil to Ambrosia: There he says many things in praise of Women, and undertakes the Defence of that Sex against those who blamed it. He proves that they are unjustly accused as being the cause of Man's Falling and Offending; and he extols their Piety by proposing the Virtues of many Women. He shows, that if Eve gave occasion to the Condemnation of Mankind, this Loss was fully compensated by Mary, who is the Honour of her Sex and of the Church. St. Ambrose wonders, that there have been Christians who durst oppose her perpetual Virginity. He adds, that this Error deserved to be buried in Eternal Silence; but because it had been maintained by a Bishop (he means Bonosus) he thought himself obliged to discover and refute it; which he does in the following part of this Discourse, where he establishes the perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary, and refutes the Objections of Bonosus, which were the same with those of Helvidius.  
The First Objection which he proposes is taken from the Word Mulier or Woman, which is attributed in the Holy Scripture to the Virgin. St. Ambrose shows, that this Word is general, and is given to Virgins as well as Married Women and Widows.  
The Second Objection is founded upon this Passage of the Gospel, Before they came together, and upon that other, He knew her not before she had brought forth her Firstborn Son. He answers, that these ways of speaking do not intimate that St. Joseph had afterwards any carnal Knowledge of the Virgin, but only that he had not before; and that the Design of the Evangelist is to discover the principal Mystery, viz. That a Virgin conceived Jesus Christ by the Operation of the Holy Spirit, and not to determine an incidental Question. This Answer is much better than the Second, wherein he pretends, that the Word, cognovit, he knew, is to be understood only of the Mystery, which was yet hid from Joseph.  
The Third Objection is taken from the Title of Joseph's Wife which is given to Mary. St. Ambrose answers, That this Title might be given her tho' she were a Virgin, because it is not the loss of Virginity that makes Marriage, but the actual Consent of the Parties, tho' it were never Consummated. Wherefore he makes no Scruple to conclude, That there was a true Marriage between Joseph and Mary.  
St. Austin and St. Jerom are of the same Opinion; Gratian and the Master of the Sentences followed them; and since that time it hath passed for a Maxim among Canonists and Divines.  
St. Ambrose produces also an Objection taken from the Mention which is made of the Brethren of Jesus Christ, but he does not think that it deserves to be insisted on, since the Word, Brother, is a general Word which has many significations, and agrees to others besides those who are born of the same Father and the same Mother.  
St. Ambrose proceeds afterwards to the Proofs of the perpetual Virginity of Mary.  
He says First, that since Jesus Christ was able to preserve the Virginity of his Mother, it is very improbable that he should permit her to be deprived of that perfection.  
The Second Argument is, that if Mary had not always been a Virgin, she should not have been proposed as a Pattern and Example to Virgins.  
The Third is, that the Virgin was designed to be a Person of the greatest Merits and Perfections, but there is none greater than Virginity.  
The Fourth is, that Joseph durst not come near her, whom he knew to be the Mother of God.  
The Fifth, upon which he insists more largely, is, That Jesus Christ sufficiently testified it, by recommending her to his beloved Disciple when he was upon the Cross: For how, says he, could he remove her from her Husband, and give her to another, if she had known a Husband; How could this Disciple take her to his own house, if she had to do with another as her Husband? Jesus Christ would never have divorced them, and Mary would never have forsaken a Husband. This supposes, that St. Joseph was yet alive, when Jesus Christ upon the Cross spoke thus to his Mother. If this Matter of Fact be not certain, the Argument is nothing worth. Besides, supposing there was a true Marriage between St. Joseph and the Virgin, as St. Ambrose had already said, they ought not to have been parted; 'Tis true St. Ambrose answers, That this Marriage, being designed only for the accomplishment of the Mystery, was to cease assoon as the Mystery was perfectly fulfilled by the death of Jesus Christ. But I doubt this Answer has more 
[It is plain from the 2d. Chapter of St. Luke, that our Saviour lived with Joseph when he was 12 Years old; for not only Joseph and Mary then lived together, but he went with them again to Nazareth, after he had Disputed with the Doctors in the Temple, and was subject unto Them: Afterwards when he entered upon the Ministry, the Galileans took offence at his Preaching because of his being (as they thought) only the Carpenter's Son, which had been a groundless Suggestion, if Joseph and Mary had not Co-habited together; it does not indeed weaken the Opinion of the perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin, tho' it takes off the force of this Argument by which St. Ambrose went about to prove it.]  Wit than Solidity.  
The Sixth proof which St. Ambrose alleges for the perpetual Virginity of Mary, is grounded upon Ch. 44. of the Prophet Ezekiel. He explains what is said in this place of a Gate shut, through which the Lord of Israel had passed, and thinks it ought to be understood of Mary, who is that Gate through which the Lord passed without opening it, and which afterwards continued shut: Which shows that she lost not her Virginity, neither by bringing forth Christ into the World, nor after she became the Mother of God.  
St. Ambrose having thus proved the perpetual Virginity of Mary, exhorts the Virgins to follow her. He proposes to them also another most powerful Motive to engage them to keep their Virginity; and that is the Love of Jesus Christ, their Celestial Spouse, who is extremely jealous of their Purity. The Majesty of this Spouse should make those tremble who had any thoughts of being unfaithful to him. He is God, the Son of God, his Eternal Word, consubstantial to his Father. Hence St. Ambrose takes an occasion to make a Digression about the Divinity of the Word, and to dispute against those Heretics that denied it. 'Tis probable that they were also the followers of Bonosus whom he attacks in this place, since we learn from the Canon of the Council of Arles, that these Heretics followed the Error of the Photinîans and Paulianists; from whence in Gennadius' time the Photinians were called Bonosiacks, as this Author observes in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers Ch. 14. The Benedictines who set out St. Ambrose, whose exactness nothing has escaped, have not forgot to make this Observation.  
After he has occasionally answered Two Objections of those Heretics, he returns to his first Subject of the Virginity of Mary, and continues to exhort the Virgins to imitate her. He applies to this purpose many Passages of the Canticles; in particular he addresses himself to Ambrosia, and gives her excellent Instructions about the Virtues she should practise. He concludes with praying the Lord to receive her into the number of his Spouses, and to pour upon her abundance of his Grace.  
It appears by the Preface of this Book, that Ambrosia was still to continue in her Fathers's House though she had received the Veil; which plainly shows, that all the Virgins consecrated to God were not yet shut up in Monasteries, though there were already some Monasteries set up.  
Towards the end, the Ceremonies of a Virgin's making Profession, are described. She presented herself at the feet of the Altar, where she made Profession before the People; the Bishop preached to her, and gave her the Veil which distinguished her from other Virgins, but her hair was not cut. St. Ambrose says in this Treatise, that he had already written many other Books concerning Virgins; and in it he recites many things which are in his Commentary upon St. Luke composed in 386. At last he speaks of the Error of Bonosus as a Heresy published not long before, which shows that this Treatise was written in the Year 392. For the Affair of Bonosus being carried into the Council of Capua, held in the Year 391, they sent it back to the Bishops of Macedonia.  
When St. Ambrose fled from the Tyrant Eugenius he retired to Bolonia, where he discovered the Relics of St. Vitalis and St. Agricola, who had suffered Martyrdom under the Persecution of Dioclesian and Maximilian, and made a solemn Translation of them. From Bolonia he went to Florence, whither he carried the Relics of these Saints, which he placed in a Church built by a holy Widow called Juliana, which he was entreated to Dedicate. 'Twas at the Dedication of this Church, that he made the Discourse entitled, An Exhortation to Virginity. Juliana having lost her Husband, was not only consecrated to God herself, but by her Example and Instructions she so ordered the matter, that she gave all her Children to God also: Her Son Laurentius was made Reader, and her Three Daughters professed Virginity. St. Ambrose upon this occasion relates the Exhortation of this holy Widow to her Children. She told her Son, that his Father and she had given him that Name which he had, because they had obtained a Son by the Intercession of St. Laurence; That they had designed him from that time for the Clergy, and that in this he ought to comply with their Desires, and fulfil their Vows. Afterwards addressing her Speech to her Daughters, she describes the Troubles of Marriage, the excellency of Virginity, and exhorts them to consecrate themselves too God. She concludes with pressing her Son and her Daughters to accomplish the Vows which she and their Father had made in their behalf. St. Ambrose pursues this Exhortation, by adding Instructions to teach the Virgins after what manner they should live, and Examples to serve them for a Pattern. The example of St. Sothera, the Kinswoman of St. Ambrose, is not here forgotten. Afterwards he promises to Juliana the Reward of her Piety. Lastly, he prays the Lord to accept graciously of that Church which he was consecrating, and to receive favourably the Prayers, and Sacrifices of the Body of Jesus Christ, which should be offered there, and particularly the Oblation of all the Family of Juliana. This Treatise was written when St. Ambrose retired upon the Account of the coming of Eugenius the Tyrant, in the Year 393, towards Easter.  
The Treatise of the fall of a Virgin consecrated to God, is here found under the name of St. Ambrose. It is also among St. Jerom's Works, but certainly it is not his; for it is notorious that the Author of this Treatise was a Bishop, but St. Jerom was only a Priest. Gennadius assures us also, that Niceas Bishop of Aquileia wrote a Discourse addressed to a Virgin who had fallen into Sin, very proper to persuade all those who should fall into the like Faults, to return from their Evil ways. This gave occasion to the Conjecture of many, that this Bishop was the Author of this Treatise. But the Title alone is not a sufficient proof, since St. Basil wrote a Book upon the same Subject which has the same Title. The Benedictines observe, that all the Manuscripts which they have seen, attribute this Work to St. Ambrose, except one only wherein it is attributed to St. Chrysostom. They maintain also, That there is nothing, in this Book which may not very well be St. Ambrose's: But they confess that it has not the Style of this Saint; and indeed there is neither that sharpness of Wit, nor the lively and spiritual Thoughts which are in his Works: This is more languid and less sublime. Whosoever be the Author of it, he is Ancient, for one may find there Traces of the ancient Discipline, one sees that Public Penance was administered but once: Nay, even this Author obliges this fallen Virgin to do Penance all her life, and he seems also to take from her the hopes of receiving Absolution in this Life. It appears, that there were yet Idolaters in his time, and that the Adult were baptised on Easter-day. He admits a middle State between the Damned and the Happy; he describes the Ceremonies of the Profession of Virgins, almost as St. Ambrose does. He says, that she to whom he writes, who was a young Woman of Quality called Susanna, having resolved against the Will of her Kindred to embrace Virginity, professed it on Easter-day at Night in the great Church, where she was accompanied by those that were newly baptised, holding lighted Torches in their hands; That there she pronounced her Vows publicly before the People, and then received the Veil and entered into a Monastery; that presently after Reports were spread about which wounded her Reputation, and they were found to be false, and the Authors of them could not be discovered; but that Three Years after she committed the Crime whereof she had been falsely suspected before, suffering a young Man to lie with her many times, by whom she was gotten with Child. She was accused also of having destroyed her Child, which Murder she endeavoured by all means possible to conceal, and would never confess; but being convicted of it before the Bishop, she was put under public Penance. The Author of this Treatise represents to her the monstrous heinousness of her Crime, and the Scandal she had given; he exhorts her to do Penance all the rest of her Life; he Order her to repeat every day the 51st. Psalms, and to pass her Life in Sorrow and Grief, that at least she might avoid the punishment of Hell-fire. He excites her also to the Acts of Penance and Compunction, which he deduces from many places of Scripture. There is also a Chapter against him who had abused this Virgin, whom he exhorts to do Penance. The Author of this Treatise is accused of being a Novatian, because he tells this Virgin, that she ought not to expect Absolution of her Sin in this Life; and that those who promised her pardon of her Sin in this Life deceived her. 'Tis true, that this Rigour was practised in some Churches in the First Ages of the Church. But he who speaks thus in the Fourth Century, appears to be much inclined to the Novatians. St. Ambrose was the Man of all the Fathers who did most vigorously oppose this Maxim in his Books of Penance, and therefore 'tis no wise probable that he should affirm the same in this Treatise, without giving any Explication of his Words. But here it may be said, that this Author exhorts this young Woman to do public Penance; Why should he exhort her to do Penance, if she was uncapable of Absolution? This is what St. Ambrose and the other Fathers justly object against the Novatians, That they put Sinners under Penance, and exhort and force them to do it, but yet afterwards they deprive them of the fruit of Penance by refusing them Absolution. The Language of the Author of this Exhortation is perfectly like that of the Novatians. He exhorts this young Woman to do Penance, but he gives her no hopes of obtaining Remission in this Life: On the contrary, he tells her expressly, that this shall not be, and that those who promise it to her, do but deceive her; but that she ought always to do Penance, to shun Eternal Torments. He even dares not promise her Glory, but only the Privation of Torments. These are Doctrines contrary to those which St. Ambrose established in his Book of Penance, or rather that is the only Doctrine which he opposes there. It is no ways probable therefore, that this Treatise should be his, and we must still continue in as great uncertainties as ever concerning its Author.  
The Book of Mysteries or Sacraments is an Instruction to the New-baptized, wherein St. Ambrose explains to them the Significations and Virtue of the Sacraments which they had received. Here is an Abridgement of what is most remarkable in this Instruction.  
After we have spoken every day of Morality, and proposed to you the Examples of the Patriarches and Prophets, while the Proverbs were reading, that you might be accustomed to follow the Examples of the Saints, and to lead a Life becoming those Persons who are purified by Baptism, 'Tis now time to discourse to you of the Mysteries and to explain the Sacraments; for if we had explained them to you before you were initiated, we should have thought that we had profaned rather than discovered them: Besides that the light of the Mysteries themselves, which you did not expect, has now astonished you more than if we had instructed you about them before. Open therefore now your Ears to receive the sweet word of Eternal Life, which we signified to you when we celebrated the Ceremony, by which we wished that they might be opened, by saying Ephatha, that so all those who were to come to Baptism might know what was demanded of them and what they answered. At last you are introduced into the place where the Sacrament of Baptism is Administered; you are obliged to renounce the Devil and his Works, the World and its Pomps and Pleasures. You found in this place the Waters and a Priest who consecrated them; the Body was plunged into this Water to wash away Sins; the Holy Spirit descended upon this Water; you ought not to fix your mind upon the External part of it, but to consider in it a Divine Virtue. Do not imagine therefore, that it is this Water which purifies you, 'tis the Holy Spirit. There are Three things in Baptism, the Water, the Blood and the Spirit, and without these Three Things, the Sacrament is not complete; neither the Remission of Sins, nor Grace is received, unless it be in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Baptism of Jews and Infidels does not purify at all; 'tis the Holy Spirit which descended formerly under the Figure of a Dove, which sanctifies these Waters. We must not consider the merit of the Priest, for it is our Lord Jesus Christ who baptises. You made Profession of believing in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. After this you drew near unto the Priest, he anointed you and your Feet were washed. This Sacrament blots out your hereditary Sins, and the Baptism blots out the Sins contracted by your own Will. After this you received white Garments, to signify that you were stripped of Sin and clothed with Innocence. You received the Seal of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Wisdom, of Power, etc. The Father hath marked you out, the Son hath confirmed you, and the Holy Spirit hath given you assurance of your Salvation. Afterwards you run to the Heavenly Feast, and see the Altar prepared, where you receive a nourishment infinitely exceeding that of Manna, a Bread more excellent than that of Angels. 'Tis the Flesh of Jesus Christ, the Body of Life, 'tis the incorruptible Manna, 'tis the Truth whereof the Manna was only the Figure. Perhaps you will tell me, But I see another thing? How do you assure me, that it is the Body of Jesus Christ which I receive? That we must prove. We must show that it is not the Body which Nature hath formed, but that which the Benediction hath Consecrated: Which St. Ambrose confirms by an infinite number of the like Miracles; and lastly, by the Mystery of the Incarnation which he compares to that of the Eucharist. A Virgin, says he, brought forth. This is against the Order of Nature. The Body which we consecrate came forth of a Virgin. Why do you seek for the Order of Nature in the Body of Jesus Christ, since Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin contrary to the Order of Nature? Jesus Christ had real Flesh which was fastened to the Cross, and laid in the Sepulchre. So the Eucharist is the true Sacrament of this Flesh. Jesus Christ himself assures us of it: This is, says he, my Body; before the Benediction of these Heavenly Words it is of another Nature, after the Consectation it is the Body. So likewise of the Blood: Before Consecration it is called by another Name, after Consecration it is called the Blood of Jesus Christ, and ye Answer, Amen, that's to say, 'Tis true. Let the Mind acknowledge inwardly that which the Mouth brings forth; let the Heart be of that Judgement which the Words express. The Church exhorts her Children to Receive these Sacraments which contain the Body of Jesus Christ. This is not Bodily but Spiritual Food, for the Body of the Lord is Spiritual. Lastly, this Heavenly Meat gives us strength, this Divine Drink rejoices us. Having therefore received these Sacraments, let us be persuaded that we are regenerated, and let us not say, How can this be? 'Tis not by Nature but by the Holy Spirit.  
From hence we may learn the chief Ceremonies which were observed in the Church of Milan. As to the Administration of the Sacraments, these which follow are remarked. The Ears of the Catechumen were touched, saying Ephatha, and after that they were bidden enter into the place where they were to be baptised. There they were obliged to renounce the Devil, the World and its Pomp's; the Bishop blessed the Water of Baptism, the Creed was repeated to the Catechumen, they were anointed with Holy Chrisms, their Feet were washed, they were plunged into the Water, and at the same time the Three Divine Persons were invocated; afterwards they were clothed with White Garments, the Sacrament of Confirmation was given them, and the Holy Spirit was called upon for them: From thence they were conducted to the Altar, where they were present at the Consecration of the Eucharist, and received the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, answering, Amen.  
Since these Ceremonies and the Doctrine of this Treatise do not agree with the Opinions of Protestants, some among them have done what they could to raise Doubts about this Book whether it were St. Ambrose's. But the Reasons which they allege are so weak, that the ablest Men among them have sincerely acknowledged that it is really his. There are very strong Proofs that it is this Father's; the beginning alone discovers that it is his, for there he speaks plainly of the Sermons he had made to the Catechumen upon the Lives of the Patriarches and Prophets. This does not agree to any other Author but St. Ambrose; 'tis the Style of this Father, tho' he treats of things more particularly than in his other Books. 'Tis his Doctrine, and no body doubts but it is his Work: It has always been cited under his Name, and is attributed to him in all the Manuscripts. This Discourse was spoken by St. Ambrose, after his Sermons upon the Lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, towards the Year 387.  
The Opinions of Critics are very much divided concerning the Author of the Book of the Sacraments. The Benedictines produce in their Preface what has been said upon this Subject, and after having given a very Wise and Equitable Judgement about the different Opinions, they give their own Thoughts of it, and build their Judgement upon good Reason. First of all, they observe, That 'tis indifferent to the Members of the Church of Rome, to whom this Work be attributed, since St. Ambrose teaches the same Doctrine in his Treatise of Mysteries; and so, tho' it were supposed with Aubertine, that the Author of the Book about the Sacraments is of the Seventh Age, or with Dailleé, that he is of the Eighth, the Cause of the Church would be so much the stronger, because it would have two different Testimonies of the Judgement of the Church; and in different Ages, viz. St. Ambrose in the Fourth Age, and this Author in the Seventh or Eighth. Tho' this were not so, and the Church might draw some Advantage from supposing that St. Ambrose was the Author of the Book about the Sacraments; yet if it should appear that the contrary Opinion is more probable, we must undoubtedly follow it. We must judge of these kind of Matters without Prejudice and Affection, and we must not consider what would be most advantageous to ourselves, but what comes nearest to the Truth. This is what the Benedictines do; they profess to Examine this Question with all possible sincerity, as if it had never been canvassed before, and without addicting themselves to the Prejudices of any Party. They immediately disapprove the Reproaches which the Protestant Critics have thrown upon this Author, they cannot endure that they should make him pass for an Ignorant and Ridiculous Person, for an Impostor and a Liar; They vindicate him from some Mistakes and Absurdities, which Cook, Rivet, and Daileé had fastened upon him. They show, That this Expression, For this cause at Rome the Name of the Faithful is given to the baptised, is not so ridiculous as these Critics imagine, because tho' it were true, that the baptised were called by the same Name in other Churches, yet it were no unprofitable Observation, that in the Church of Rome they were called so also. They observe, That some Manuscripts have Rectè, instead of Romae, but they do not think that we are obliged to follow this Correction. They show also, That the manner wherein this Author relates the last Words of the Pater Noster, Ne patiaris nos induci in tentationem, instead of Ne nos inducas in tentationem; that this manner, I say, of ending the Lord's Prayer was not peculiar to him, and that St. Cyprian read and repeated thus the last Words of the Lord's Prayer. Lastly, They defend him against the Accusations of Barbarism, of false Subtlety, of vain Allegories, which are charged upon him by the Critics whom we have mentioned.  
After this the Benedictines produce the Reasons which are alleged by Catholic Authors, to show that the Books of the Sacraments were St. Ambrose's, and at the same time prove that they are not very convincing.  
The First is drawn from the Authority of many ancient Manuscripts, where this Treatise is found under the Name of St. Ambrose. To these is added the Authority of all the Editions which have been made of it, and the Testimony of a great number of Authors of the Ninth Age, and those that followed it, viz. of Hincmarus' Bishop of Rheims, of Deoduinus of Liege, of Paschasius Ratbertus, of Ratramnus a Monk of Corbie, of Florus a Deacon of the Church of Lions, of Lanfranc, of Berengarius, of Algerus, of Guitmondus, of Durandus Troarnensis, of Ivo Carnutensis, of Gratian, of the Master of the Sentences, and of other later Authors, who have all cited the Book of the Sacraments under the Name of St. Ambrose: This Argument appears plausible enough, yet the Benedictine Fathers maintain, that it is not fully convincing: For how often has it happened, say they, that Books have been, and every Day are taken from those Authors under whose Names they had always passed? It is not very well known that the greatest part of those who cited the Works of the Fathers in the latter Ages, did not carefully examine, whether the Books which they cited were theirs, but trusted to the common Title of them? As to the Manuscripts, the Benedictines assure us, that the most ancient have not the Name of the Author, and that it is probable the Name of St. Ambrose was added in those which are more Modern, either because it was known, that St. Ambrose had treated of this Subject, or because these Books were found together with that about the Mysteries which treats of the same matter, and the first bearing the Name of St. Ambrose, whose it was indeed, they thought that the last were this Father's also.  
The Second Proof which is alleged to show. That the Books of the Sacraments are St. Ambrose's, is taken from the Agreement of the Style of this Work, with that of the Book of Mysteries. The Benedictines say, That 'tis true this Author does so imitate St. Ambrose, that he Copies out the same which he had said; but they observe, that in Copying it out he corrupts it, and accommodates it to his own Style, which is much below that of St. Ambrose. Wherefore this Argument is more proper to raise a doubt, whether these Books of the Sacraments be St. Ambrose's or no, than to confirm them in the Possession of the Title which they bear.  
The Third Argument produces also the same Effect. 'Tis said that St. Austin affirms, That St. Ambrose wrote a Book about the Sacraments; but 'tis evident that the Book which St. Austin citys under this Title, had quite another Subject than this Book. It was a Book of Philosophy against the Platonists, as appears by what this Father says of it in the Second Book against Julian, Ch. 5. and in the Second of his Retractations, Ch. 4▪  
The Benedictines produce also some places drawn out of this Book, which are thought to agree to St. Ambrose, as the Complaint which he made that he had not a strong Voice, and the Explication of the Lord's Prayer, which St. Ambrose probably would not have omitted in his other Treatises, but that it was in this; but at the same time they show how weak these Arguments are.  
After having thus discussed what is said on both sides about the Author of these Books, they endeavour to discover him by the Work itself, and for that end they inquire into these three Things, what Rank he held in the Church, at what time he lived, and of what Country he was.  
As to the First Point they say, That it plainly appears he was a Bishop, who Instructed the Catechumen.  
Upon the Second, they say that the Testimony of the Authors which have quoted him, show that he was older than the Eighth Century, and that there is a Manuscript in the Abbey of St. Gal written in great Letters, which Mabillon believed might be about 1000 Years old, whose Antiquity shows that this Author lived before the Seventh Century: Besides that it appears by the Work itself, that it is more ancient: For there he speaks of a great Number of Adult Catechumen which proves that he lived at a time, when the practice of Baptising all Infants was not yet so general. He observes also, That there were yet in his time some Remainders of Idolatry. And in short, he refutes no other Heretics but the Arians, and he makes use of a Version of the Bible different from that of St. Jero●, which yet is not that which St. Ambrose used.  
As to the last Head which concerns the Country of this Author, 'tis evident that he was not a Roman, since he says, That he Honours the Church of Rome, and follows many of its Practices, tho' he does not think himself obliged to follow it in all. This gives occasion to conjecture, that he was not far distant from it. The Customs and Practices which he describes, agree very well with the ancient Rites of the Church of Milan, and the Churches of Gaul.  
These Remarks seem to prove that this Book may be St. Ambrose's; for all these Characters agree perfectly well to him; but there are other Reasons which hinder the Benedictines from attributing it to him. The First and Principal is the diversity of the Style; for tho' it may happen, that an Author should write in a more plain and less sublime manner than he was wont to do, yet the Strength of his Wit is always perceived. 'Tis never found, that an Author who has naturally an Elegant and Noble Style, does write in a very mean one. St. Ambrose never falls into this Fault; he does not make use of cold and childish Interrogations such as this Treatise is full of: Besides that, 'tis no wise, probable that St. Ambrose should imitate himself so exactly, and transcribe a part of his Book about Mysteries, and a part of his Treatise of the Institution of a Virgin. They add also, That St. Ambrose never reproves his People for Communicating seldom, as this Author does, and that there is no probability that he should oppose so publicly the Practice of the Roman Church about the washing of Feet. These last Conjectures are a little weak; on the contrary, the former are very Strong, and are, as one may think, sufficient to have determined the Benedictines to remove this Book from the Place of which it was possessed, among the Genuine Works of St. Ambrose, especially since in reading the Book of the Sacraments, it plainly appears, that the Author was nothing else but a cold Imitater of St. Ambrose. In effect the Subject of this Book is the same with that of the Book about Mysteries. The Author does nothing but enlarge upon what St. Ambrose had said before. He follows him step by step; he adds very few things of his own; he speaks only of the same Sacraments, and the same Ceremonies; he gives the same Explications of them; he amplifies the same Arguments and the same Observations; yet he enlarges sometimes a little more upon certain Ceremonies. He openly opposes the Custom of the Church of Rome in omitting the Washing of Feet. He explains the Change which is made in the Sacrament more largely. He gives an Explication of the Pater noster, and discourses of Prayer. But he has also taken what he says of it out of St. Ambrose's Book of the Institution of a Virgin. These Six Books are so many Sermons preached to the Novices.  
The Two Books of Penance are undoubtedly St. Ambrose's; they have his Style. He speaks of them in his Commentary upon Psalm 37, and St. Austin citys them several times. There cannot be more convincing Proofs to show that any Work is Genuine. These Books were written against the Novatians, who would not allow the Church to have Power to Pardon Crimes. This is the Error which St. Ambrose disputes against in the First Book.  
He gins with a commendation of Moderation and Christian Meekness, whereof Jesus Christ himself has given us an Example, who condemns the harshness and rigour of the Novatians, who fright Sinners from Penance, and hinder them from applying a Remedy to their Diseases. For who is it, says he, who will have the Courage to do Penance without any hope of Pardon? What Confidence will any one have in such a Physician, who is so far from having Compassion for his Sick Patient, that he shows nothing but Contempt and Rigour towards him. Afterwards he explains wherein the Error of the Novatians consists. They maintain, says he, That we must not admit those to Communion, who have fallen by violating the Law of God. If they spoke only of Sacrilege, if they refused Pardon to this Crime only, this would indeed be a Rigour condemned by the Words of Scripture. But they offend also against common Sense, by making all Crimes equal, and by depriving those of Communion that are guilty of lesser Crimes, as well as those that have committed the greatest. They say, That they do Honour to Jesus Christ by reserving to him only the Power of Pardoning Sins; and in this very thing they dishonour him, because they violate his Commandments. The Church obeys Jesus Christ in binding and losing Sinners. The Novatians content themselves with binding only, and will never lose Sinners, tho' Jesus Christ gave at the same time to the Church the Power of binding and losing; whence it follows that the one cannot be permitted without the other; wherefore both the one and the other are done in the Church, and neither the one nor the other can be done among Heretics: For this Jurisdiction belongs only to Priests, and none but the Church can assume it, since none but she has true Priests, and Heretics have none at all.  
Tho' what we have just now recited might make us believe that the Novatians granted not Remission to any Sin; yet St. Ambrose confesses in the following Discourse that they pardoned lighter Sins, and refused Absolution only to those that were guilty of great Sins. He asserts against them that Novatian was never of this Opinion▪ and that his Judgement was, That Penance should not be allowed to any Sinner. Perhaps St. Ambrose would have found it very difficult to prove this Assertion, which seems not to agree with the Account we read in ●t. Cyprian of the Birth of the Error of the Novatians.  
However it be, St. Ambrose having objected to them, that they condemn the Author of their Sect, disputes against their Distinction, by saying, That Jesus Christ did not make it; That his Mercy extends unto all Sinners; That those who have committed the greatest Sins should perform the greatest Penance; and Lastly, That the greater the Sins have been, the greater need there is of Relief. In the remaining part of this Book he proves by many Passages and Examples taken out of the New Testament, That Absolution ought not to be refused for any Sin whatsoever; and he answers the Objections of the Novatians. He observes also towards the End of this Book, that the Novatians do in vain exhort Sinners to Penance, since they deprive them of the Fruit of Penance. For, says he, if any one be guilty of Secret Sins, and does Penance for them very hearty, in Obedience to the Command of Jesus Christ, How shall he receive the Reward, unless he be restored to the Communion of the Church? I would have the Guilty hope for the Pardon of his Sins, yet he should beg it with Tears, yet he should beg it with Sighs, yet he should beg it with the Lamentations of all the People. I would have him pray for Absolution; and when he is twice or thrice delayed as to his Readmission into the Communion of the Church, let him believe, That this delay proceeds from the want of Importunity in his Prayers; let him redouble his Weeping, let him render himself more worthy of Pity, and then let him return, let him throw himself at the Feet of the Faithful, let him embrace them, kiss them, bathe them with his Tears, and let him not forsake them, that so our Lord may say unto him, Many sins are forgiven him, because he loved much. I have known some Persons who in their Penance have spoiled their Face with much weeping, who have hollowed their Cheeks with continual Tears, who have prostrated themselves on the Ground to be trod under Foot, who by their continual Fasting have rendered their Countenance so pale and disfigured, that they carried in a living Body the very Image of Death. This is a lively Representation of public Penance which was yet in its Vigour in the time of St. Ambrose. This Passage also informs us, That there were then some Persons who were guilty only of secret Mortal Sins, who submitted to the trouble of Public Penance. Monsieur Daillé thinks, that instead of siquis occulta habens crimina, it must be read, siquis multa habens crimina: But his Conjecture not being Authorised by any Manuscript ought not to be received.  
In the Second Book after having answered Two principal Objections of the Novatians, whereof one is drawn from a Passage of the Epistle of the Apostle St. Paul to the Hebrews, where 'tis said, That 'tis impossible for those who have once lost the Grace of Baptism to be renewed again, and the other is grounded upon what Jesus Christ says of the Sin against the Holy Ghost: After, I say, he has answered these Two Objections, and confirmed the Doctrine and Practice of the Church, he exhorts the Faithful to Penance, and signifies to them with what Dispositions they should enter upon it; he proposes the Resurrection of Lazarus as an Illustration of the Spiritual Resurrection of a Sinner, who reflecting upon his own Condition, begs of God the Pardon of his Sins. Lastly, He discourses of the Conditions necessary to make Penance useful, and of the Faults that are to be met with in ordinary Penances. There are also towards the end of this Book, some things very Remarkable concerning the Discipline of the ancient Church in the Administration of Penance.  
There are many ways, says he, of paying to God what is owing him; and tho' a Man be Poor he is always Rich enough to pay him; Prayer, Tears, Fasting, are the Tributes due to him. A Man may lessen his Sin by distributing his Patrimony to the Poor, but Faith must make this Expense valuable; for to what purpose serves the giving away of his Patrimony if he has no Charity. There are some who give their Riches out of Vanity, and satisfy themselves with the Reward which they can have in this World without troubling themselves about that of another. Some having given their Riches to the Church, by I know not what sudden fit of Devotion, without sufficient Consideration of what they do, revoke their Donation. Others blame themselves for having given their Goods to the Poor. But as to those who do Penance, that which they are chief to fear, is, lest they repent of having done Penance: For many Persons being terrified with the fear of Punishment, and pushed forward by the Remorse of their own Conscience, desire Penance, and after they are admitted to it, leave it off for the shame of the public Humiliation. What can be said of such Persons, but that they did well to desire to do Penance for their Sins, but at the bottom they repent of the Good they have done? There are others who desire not to enter upon Penance, but that they may be immediately restored to Communion: These do not desire so much to be loosed as to bind the Priest; for they don't unburden their own Conscience, but they burden the Conscience of the Priest, who is commanded not to give Holy Things unto Dogs, and not to throw Pearls before Swine, that's to say, not easily to admit Impure Souls to the Holy Communion. You see them walk with their ordinary Apparel, who should be weeping and sighing for having defiled the Garment of Baptism and of Grace. You see the Women also still wearing Pendants and Diamonds at their Ears, who should be mourning for having lost the Heavenly Diamond, that's to say, the Grace of Baptism. There are some also who think that Penance consists merely in refraining from the Sacraments. Lastly, There are others, who seeing the hope that is given them of doing Penance, do from thence take occasion to think that they have the greater Liberty to Sin, not considering that Penance is appointed to be a remedy of Sin; and not an in ducement to commit it. But who can endure that you should be ashamed to pray unto the Lord, who are not ashamed to pray so often unto men? That you should be ashamed to appear before God in the Condition of a Supplicant, who are not ashamed to confess your Sins unto Men? Are you afraid to have any Witnesses of your Prayers? Alas! if Satisfaction is to be made to some Men, is it not necessary that you should see many Persons, and pray them to intercede for you? Are you not often obliged to prostrate yourself at his Feet whom you have offended? Must you not kiss the places through which he has passed? Must you not present your Children who had no hand in their Father's Fault, to obtain Pardon by their means? Why are you troubled to do the like in the Church, to appease the wrath of God, to desire the Suffrages of the People? In the Church, I say, where there is but one thing only of which we ought to be ashamed, and that is not to confess our Faults, because we are all Sinners; where he that is most humble is most esteemed, where the more one is abased, the more Holy he is thought to be. Let the Holy Church your Mother mourn for you, let her wash away your Faults with her Tears ..... And yet we have reason to answer those who think that Penance may be done more than once, because this is to abuse the Mercy of Jesus Christ, for if they should once do true Penance, they would not believe that they had Power to reiterate it. As there is but one Baptism, so there is but one public Penance; for we ought also to do Penance for the Sins we commit every Day: But this last Penance is for small Sins, and the former for great ones. I have found more Persons who have preserved the Innocence of their Baptism, than who have done Penance as they should after they have lost it. For 'tis believed, that Penance may be consistent with the Ambition of aspiring to Offices, with Pomp and high Feeding, with the Pleasures and Use of Marriage. But they must renounce the World, and allow less time for Sleep than Nature requires; they must break their Sleep with groaning and sighing, and employ some part of that time in Prayers; they must live in such a manner, that they may be dead to the Use of this Life; let such Men deny themselves, and change themselves wholly, etc.  
This place teaches us many Remarkable Circumstances concerning the Penance which was in use in the time of St. Ambrose; First, That the Sinners themselves desired to be put under Penance. Secondly, That by putting them under Penance they were separated from Communion. Thirdly, That they did Penance publicly. Fourthly, That they used many Fasts, Austerities, and Humiliations during the time of their Penance. Fifthly, That this Penance was imposed but once. Lastly, That this Penance was only for enormous Crimes, and that ordinary Sins were pardoned by the daily Penance. For the better understanding of this place, 'tis necessary to observe, How the Fathers understood this Distinction of great and little Sins. Tertullian who was the first who spoke distinctly of it in his Book of Chastity, places among the Number of little Sins, Anger, Evil-speaking, a vain Oath, a Failure in our Promise, a Lie extorted by shame or necessity, etc. He calls these Capital or Mortal Sins, Murder, Idolatry, Fraud, Apostasy, Blasphemy, Fornication, and other Crimes of this Nature. These are also the Crimes which St. Cyprian calls great Sins in his Treatise of Patience. Origen in Homily 15th. upon Leviticus, says, That there are Mortal Sins which are not in the rank of great Sins. I know very well that Monsieur Arnaud has affirmed, That in this place we must read culpa moralis, for culpa mortalis, as it is to be found in one Edition. But ever since, the Master of the Sentences time who citys this place, it has been read, culpa mortalis; and if one minds well the Sense, he will perceive that it is to be read so. This place of Origen has much affinity with those of St. Ambrose, whereof we are now speaking; for he says, That Penance is allowed but once, and that but seldom to those who have committed great Sins, whereas the Sins of every Day are pardoned every Day. He explains himself also almost after the same manner in his Sixth Treatise upon St. Matthew, where he handles this Question, Whether a Man may not be treated as a Heathen and a Publican, that's to say, separated from the Church, when he does not amend his ways, after he has been reproved for slight Sins. The Examples which he gives of 
[The true Reason why Slander, Evil-speaking, Anger, Covetousness, and such sort of Sins were not subjected to public Penance in the Primitive Church, seems only to have been, because they are not so easy to be proved, and Delinquents cannot so well be convicted. Sins of the Flesh, and Crimes against public Society are Matters of Fact, liable to Proof and Examination, and therefore come under Cognizance of Civil Laws as well as Ecclesiastical; whereas Circumstances may so alter the Nature of Spiritual Crimes, that what in some cases may be damnable, in others may be venial, in others, again, highly commendable; and accordingly the selfsame Actions in all those Cases, shall meet with different Appellations. To speak evil of Dignities is a Sin expressly forbidden in Scripture; yet to defend the Cause of Truth unjustly trampled upon, even against those whom in lawful and indifferent things we are bound to obey, may be very often our Duty. This with due alterations may be extended to all other Crimes where the Good and Evil depends so visibly upon such Circumstances, wherein a Criminal's word must of necessity be taken. And this I suppose was the true Reason why those things were left to God and their own Consciences; since it is most manifest that the Fathers esteemed these Sins if unrepented of, to be as damning as any of those of a grosser Nature.]  slight Sins, are Evil-speaking, lying, idle Words, addictedness to Wine, etc. And those which he gives of great Sins, are Murder, Adultery, etc. He concludes, That there is no doubt but what is said in the Gospel, that we ought to look upon those as Heathens and Publicans who do not Reform after they have been Reproved, is to be understood of great Sinners. He adds, That it may also be understood of other Sinners with respect to the Judgement of Men, but that it does not belong to us, to judge whether they are such before God. St. Austin distinguishes in many places Two sorts of Sins; the great Sins for which Men are put under Public Penance, such as are Murder, Adultery, Fornication, etc. And the other Sins which are daily committed, and are pardoned by a daily Penance. He says of the First, that they kill the Soul all at once, and that Christians who have Faith and Hope do not commit them. But there is one place that is in Ch. 26. of the Book of Faith and Works, where he treats more clearly of this Matter, and distinguishes Three Sorts of Sins. There are some, says he, so great, that they deserve Excommunication, and for which Sinners will want Reconciliation: There are others for which this Penance is not necessary, but they may be healed by the Remedy of Chastisements: And lastly, there are some that are very light, which are blotted out by the Lord's Prayer, from which no Man is free in this Life. This distinction seems to be more just and reasonable; for there are certainly many Sins which are not of the number of great Crimes, neither are they so small, but they may be Mortal. The difficulty is to know, to which of these Two Classes we should refer those Sins, which hold the middle place between the First and the Second; for since this distinction was not very common, and since all the Fathers and St. Austin himself in many places did not distinguish but Two Sorts of Sins, and Two Sorts of Penance, it may be doubtful under what Class this Third Sort was comprehended. For my part I believe that for the most part they were comprehended under the Second: First, because the Fathers in relating the Examples of slight Sins, place in that number those that are considerable enough, such as Slander and addictedness to Wine. The Author of Sermon 41, among those of St. Austin, which is attributed also to St. Ambrose, places in the rank of light Sins, Drunkenness, Theft, Evil-speeches, etc. Julianus Pomerius in the 2d. B. of a contemplative Life Ch. 7. says, That slight Sins are those for which one is not condemned before Men. Caesarius of Arles, Fulbertus of Chartres, and St. Eloi, when they make a particular Enumeration of Mortal Sins, place among them Anger and Drunkenness, but with restrictions, viz. Anger, if it last long, and Drunkenness, if it be continual. Secondly, the Fathers considered the first Class, as enormous Sins, great Sins, great Crimes, which not Christian commits, which do wholly disgrace a Man, and which are extremely rare. Now there are many Sins between these great Sins, and the smallest Sins, of which we cannot speak after this manner. Thirdly, All the Sinners of the first Class, when they are known, either by Confession or by Conviction, are put under Public Penance. But none were put under Public Penance except for very heinous Sins, such as are mentioned in the Canons of Councils, and the Canonical Letters of Bishops. What are these Sins? These are Murder, Adultery, Fornication, and the consequents of these great Crimes. There is no Canon to be seen against Anger, Covetousness and Slander; at least it does not appear that Public Penance was imposed upon any for these kind of Sins. These Sins therefore tho' they be sometimes Mortal, were comprehended under the second Class and not under the First, which contained only those for which Public Penance was done. This may be confirmed by the Canonical Letter of St. Gregory Nyssen to Laetoïus, where he makes an exact enumeration of those Sins which subjected Men to Public Penance, which are all enormous Sins and considerable Crimes. Fourthly, It may be added, that Public Penance being granted but once only, they must be very extraordinary and enormous Crimes for which Men were subjected to it. Lastly, Origen, St. Austin and St. Bernard say, that the great number and the custom of some Sins of the Second Class may finally destroy, and stifle Charity in the Soul; therefore they did not believe, that this Class did not contain Mortal Sins.  
I would not have it thought that I make these Remarks to authorize Licentiousness, or to insinuate, That there are some Mortal Sins which may pass for Venial: God forbidden that I should have such a detestable Design! On the contrary, my intention is to create a horror of all Sins; First of great Crimes. Secondly, of Sins which may be Mortal tho' they appear not so enormous. And Thirdly, even of slighter Sins also. But I thought myself obliged to observe here, for explaining the Passage of St. Ambrose, That none but the Sins of the first Class did subject Men to Public Penance, and that 'tis of these only that the Fathers speak, and which they comprehend under the Name of Enormous Sins and Crimes; tho' there be others which may be also Mortal, and which a Christian ought carefully to shun; but then they are such for which he was never subjected to the Humiliation of Public Penance, but only to Corrections and Reprimands given in secret, as St. Austin informs us. But now let us return to our Subject, the Time is not certainly known when St. Ambrose composed these Books of Penance. He says in the Explication of Psal. 37, made about the Year 393, that it was a long time since they were written: De poenitentia duos jamdudum scripsi libellos, I wrote two little Books of Penance a long while ago: But this denotes no certain time. It appears by the Books themselves, that he was then well advanced in Years, and had taken much pains for the Church. The Benedictines think, that they may have been written in the Year 384.  
After the Treatises of Morality and Discipline, follow his Writings of Controversy. The Five Books of Faith, or the Trinity, are the chief of his Writings of that sort. St. Ambrose wrote the Two first at the Request of the Emperor Gratian, who at his departure into the East in the Year 377, to assist the Emperor Valens against the Goths, desired of St. Ambrose a Treatise concerning the Faith against Arianism which then reigned in the East. St. Ambrose proves the Divinity of the Son in these Two Books of the Faith of the Church, and answers the Objections of the Arians concisely and smartly. The Arians having accused him of treating this Matter too succinctly, and of having abridged their Objections and his own Answers too much, he added in the Year 379, the Three last Books, in which he enlarges and confirms the Principles that he had laid down in the former. These Books are written with much Wit, Vigour and Subtlety; he illustrates the Matter which he handles with lively and pleasant Descriptions. He proposes the most subtle Objections in an intelligible manner, and answers them with all the Industry and clearness that is possible. It may be said, that there is none among the great number of Treatises written by the Ancients upon this Subject, where the Theological Difficulties about the Mystery of the Trinity are better discussed, and cleared up than in this. Yet he is not always Exact, and he sometimes employs Arguments which are not very concluding.  
The Books of the Holy Spirit are written in a less concise, less lively, and less smart Style: St. Jerom says, That they contain nothing Logical, nothing masculine, nothing moving, nothing convincing, but that every thing in them is feeble and languid, tho' it be polished, dressed up and painted with strange Colours. He accuses him also of having robbed the Greeks, and particularly the Book of Didymus, whose Translation St. Jerom published then, and of having made a bad Latin Book out of many good Greek ones; for Ruffinus informs us, That St. Jerom speaks of St. Ambrose in this place. It must be acknowledged, that tho' the passionate Desire which this Saint had to extol the Treatise of Didymus, made him speak a little too vehemently against St. Ambrose's Book, yet there is something of truth in what he says. For this Book is not written smartly, and the greatest part of the things which it contains are taken out of the Works of Didymus, of St. Basil, and St. Athanasius. St. Austin was so far from finding in it that Beauty and those Ornaments which St. Jerom met with in it, that he gives it for an example of a Book written in a low Style, Because, says he, the Subject does not require Ornaments of Discourse to move the Heart, but Proofs of the Truths which he proposes. St. Ambrose has there collected together all that could be said for establishing the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. He wrote it after the death of Athalaricus King of the Goths, and before the death of Peter of Alexandria, and before the Celebration of the Council of Constantinople, that's to say, in the Year 381. There is one place in it, where he seems to assert, That Baptism given in the Name of one Person only of the Trinity, is valid. There are many Explications given of it which may be seen in the Note of the Benedictines upon this Passage.  
The Treatise of the Incarnation is a Discourse which St. Ambrose spoke to refute the Objections which Two Arians, Officers who belonged to the Emperor Gratian, had proposed to him with much pride. He engaged to answer them the next day in his Sermon. Paulinus informs us, that these Two Officers having mounted up into their Chariot to come to this Sermon, were thrown down headlong. St. Ambrose, who knew nothing of this Accident, waited long enough for them, and tho' they came not at all, yet he did not fail to perform his promise. But before he entered upon the Matter, to give them yet longer time to come, he begun his Discourse with the Explication of the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel. Afterwards he applies to Heretics the Curse which God pronounced against the Sacrifice of Cain, and makes a Catalogue of the principal Heresies, ending with the Apollinarians. After this he proves against the Arians the Divinity of the Son, and his Humanity against the Apollinarians, and demonstrates against both the one and the other, That there were in Jesus Christ Two perfect and complete Natures; the Divine Nature according to which he is equal to his Father; and the Humane, that is to say, a real Body and an understanding Soul with the Properties of these Two Natures. When St. Ambrose afterwards wrote down this Sermon, he added the Answer to a Difficulty which the Arians proposed to him after his Sermon, viz. How it is possible, that the Father who was not begotten should be of the same Nature with the Son who was begotten. This is the Subject of this Treatise, which he composed sometime before the Death of Gratian in 383, and after the Book of Faith which he wrote in 379, that's to say, about the Year 382.  
There is at the end of this Treatise, a Passage of St. Ambrose about the Incarnation, which is produced by Theodoret in his Second Dialogue, as taken out of a Book, Entitled, An Explication of the Faith.  
The Letters of St. Ambrose are placed in a new Order, and divided into Two Classes. The First contains those whose Time and Order could be found out. The Second contains those whose Date is not certainly known.  
The Letter of the Emperor Gratian to St. Ambrose is of a more ancient Date than the rest. He wrote to this Holy Bishop after his Return from the East, whither he had gone to assist his Uncle Valens. He signifies to him how much he desired to have him near him, and prays him to send him again that Book, which he had given him before, (meaning the Two Books of the Faith,) and to add to them the Proofs of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. St. Ambrose in the Answer which he made to this Letter, excuses himself for not coming to wait upon him when he returned from the East, and praises the Faith and Piety of this Emperor. He promises Satisfaction to his Demands. This Letter was written in 379, soon after the Return of Gratian.  
The Second is written to Constantius, who was lately promoted to a Bishopric. He exhorts him to govern his Church well in the midst of Storms and Tempests. He discourses to him very largely about the Instructions which he should give to his People. He recommends to him the Church of Imola which was without a Bishop, and prays him to visit it often till a Bishop were Ordained for it; because as for himself, he was so busy during the time of Lent, that he could not go far from his own Church. Lastly, he admonishes him to take heed lest the Arians that came from Illyricum should spread their Error among the Faithful of his Country. He adds, that they ought to think of the Misery which had befallen them, because of their Infidelity; which discovers that the Arians were driven out of Illyricum by the Goths who entered into that Country after the Death of the Emperor Valens: And therefore this Letter was written in the Lent of 379.  
The Two following Letters are addressed to Felix Bishop of Comum. In the First St. Ambrose thanks him for the Mushrooms which he had sent him, and complains that he had not yet come to see him. In the Second he praises him, and invites him to be present at the Dedication of the Church of St. Bassianus Bishop of Lodi. If we may believe Ughellus the Author of Italia Sacra, this Church was Consecrated in the Year 380, but that is very uncertain. This Bassianus subscribed at the Council of Aquileia.  
The 5th. Letter to Siagrius Bishop of Verona concerns a Point of Discipline. This Bishop had condemned a Virgin who was accused of having violated her Virginity, to be examined by a Mid wife. St. Ambrose nulls this Judgement in a Synod of Bishops. Siagrius being offended with this Proceeding, wrote to him, that 'twas to be feared the Inhabitants of Verona would complain of the Judgement which he had given. St. Ambrose shows in this Letter, that his Judgement was as Canonical as that of Siagrius was irregular. He accuses this Bishop of being too hasty in giving this Judgement, which was so disgraceful to a Virgin who had been consecrated by his Predecessor Zeno, and who had always passed for a virtuous Maid. This was so much the more unjust, because there was neither Accuser, nor Informer, nor Witness against her. She had been defamed by none but a Club of Libertines unworthy of Credit, whom she had driven away from her House. And therefore this Judgement being against all Laws Ecclesiastical and Civil, was void in form; neither was it better as to the Matter, because what it ordained was against good Manners, against Modesty and Civility. St. Ambrose represents to him, that there are other ways to be assured of the good behaviour of a Virgin, and that we must never proceed to these Extremities; That oftentimes this way is not successful, and leaves the Matter as uncertain as before; That it was very dangerous to make the Reputation of a Virgin consecrated to God, depend upon the Credit of a Woman who might easily be corrupted or deceived; That if these means might be used, it was only to be used to Maidservants, who are more afraid of a Discovery than of Sinning; but it ought never to be used for trying the Chastity of Virgins consecrated to God; That in this particular Case 'twas to no manner of purpose to use these Means, because if it were true that this young Woman who was accussed had been with Child, and put it to death after her being brought to Bed, as was given out, it had been impossible but this would have been known by many Persons, and consequently there must have been many Witnesses found against her; That the thing which had stirred up some Persons against her, was because she lived retired in her House and made no Visits to the Ladies of the World; That Maximus who was her true Accuser tho' he would not appear in it, had been engaged in a Lawsuit and some Differences with her; That all this Accusation was founded only on a false Report which had been spread about; That Renatus and Leontius the Witnesses, at first contradicted themselves and afterwards disappeared; That Indicia having no more Accusers or Witnesses against her, brought Marcellinus and two other Witnesses, who averred That she always behaved herself very prudently, and in consequence of this, That he and his Colleagues had declared that her Reputation was untainted, and Excommunicated Maximus, Renatus and Leontius her Accusers, with this difference, That Maximus might be received again without doing Penance, by confessing his Fault only, whereas the other Two were obliged to do Penance.  
The 6th. Letter is to the same Bishop upon the same Subject. He represents to him also how odious the Judgement was which he had given, and the Respect which is due to Virginity. This Letter is placed in the Year 380, but there is no convincing proof brought of it.  
The 7th. and 8th. Letters are written to Justus, who is thought to be the Bishop of Lions, who was present at the Council of Aquileia. St. Ambrose explains in the first, after a very Mystical manner, the Questions which this Bishop had proposed to him upon some places of the Holy Scripture. In the Second he affirms That the sacred Writers wrote with Art, and gives many examples of it which are very intricate.  
There are placed here among the Letters of St. Ambrose the Acts of the Council of Aquileia, which are maintained to be Genuine and Authentical, against the Opinion of Chiffletius, who thought fit to affirm That they were composed by Vigilius Tapsensis: But this is an Opinion which is not supported by any reasonable Conjecture 
d This is an Opinion which is not supported by any reasonable Conjecture, etc. p. 824.] These Acts are written in a Simple and Natural way. The Questions which are put to the Accused, and the Answers which they give; are not of the nature of those that are made at pleasure; but such as are made in the ordinary Forms. There is nothing n them which smells of Forgery. They contain particular Facts, which could not be known by any Man that had lived but 30 Years after. There is no Error in them contrary to History. In the other Letters of the Council of Aquileia, there is mention made of Two Bishops of Dacia and Moesia condemned by this Council. The Bishops which are named in these Acts, are all Bishops of that time. What is said there, That this Council was called together from the East and the West, agrees with another Letter of a Council of Italy, where 'tis said, That there was a Synod held in the West, quae videbatur ex universis orbis partibus esse praecepta. There were in this Council some Bishops of Gaul and afric. All the Bishops are named there with their Bishoprics: In fine, all things conspire to confirm the truth of these Acts. The Opinion of Chiffletius is founded only upon frivolous Conjectures. Vigilius Tapsensis, says he, observes that Palladius wrote a Discourse after the death of St. Ambrose to refute what this Saint had said about the Trinity, and that Vigilius himself had answered this Work of Palladius in a little Book by itself. What follows from thence? Vigilius wrote a Treatise against that of Palladius; therefore it was the Acts of the Council held against the Heretics. Who can believe it? Is there any thing more different, than these Acts are from a Piece about Doctrine against any Author's Book? These Acts treat of the judicial Condemnation of a Person, but say nothing of the Refutation of a Book. The other Conjectures are yet more weak. He objects, That these Acts are not found in the ancient Editions of the Councils, as if the first Collectors had collected all: How many Councils did they forget, and Synodical Writings which are in the Works of the Fathers. 2. That Valerian of Aquileia is named there before St. Ambrose. This Objection is no more against the common Opinion than against that of Chiffletius; for either Vigilius had the Acts of the Council of Aquileia, or he had them not; if he had them, why should he change the Order of the Bishops; if he had them not, wherefore was not the Bishop of Milan placed before the Bishop of Aquileia: He must therefore, as well as we, find out a reason why the Bishop of Aquileia goes before the Bishop of Milan: It may be, because the Synod was held in his own City, and the Order of the Emperor for calling the Synod together was directed to him. The 3d. and 4th. Reasons of Chiffletius, is, because this Dispute savours not of Episcopal gravity, and all the Discourses there are made by the same hand. If one takes the pains to read the Acts, he will see that 'tis not so, and that there are Answers and Questions which are Originals, and could not be guessed at by any Author. He alleges for a 5th. Reason, that Anemius Bishop of Sirmium, does there impertinently assume the Title of the Head of Illyricum. But 'tis certain that he enjoyed it in the time of Constantine, and it does not appear that he was dispossessed of it so soon after, since he enjoyed it still in the time of Justinian. 'Tis not certain that Thessalonica had yet received the Lieutenancy of Damasus, and tho' it were so, Sirmium was always the Head of the Western Illyricum; and it may be that the Bishop of Sirmium contended against him for the possession of this Lieutenancy, especially at the beginning. Chiffletius pretends that Ascholius Bishop of Thessalonica was present at the Council of Aquileia, but he has no other Proofs of it but the Authority of a Synodical Book full of Errors. The 6th. Reason of Chiffletius is, that the Answers of Palladius are ridiculous: But it may be they do not appear so ridiculous to all the World, and tho' they did, Is this the first time that Heretics have defended themselves ill? I shall not stay longer to mention the other Conjectures, which are as weak as the rest, so that there never was a fancy worse grounded than this of Chiffletius about these Acts. , and is confuted by the bare reading of these Acts, which discover that they are Originals. These Acts are not entire, for what concerns the Condemnation of Secundianus, and the Conclusion of the Council, is lost. The Six following Letters are written in the name of the Bishops of Italy who were present at the Council of Aquileia, and concern the History of that time. What we have to say of the Acts of this Council and these Letters, may be found in our Discourses of the Councils of Aquileia and Constantinople.  
The 15th. addressed to the Bishops of Macedonia and to the Clergy of Thessalonica, was written upon the death of Alcholius Bishop of that City. St. Ambrose comforts them upon his death, because he was removed into a better life, and enjoys the happiness of Saints. He compares him to Elias and Elisha; he testifies how much he loved him, and how much he regrets the loss of him; he enlarges upon his Virtues, and congratulates the Churches of Macedonia upon the receiving Anysius for his Successor. To him the following Letter is written, which is also full of the Praises of his Predecessor Ascholius. He prays God that Anysius may be successor to his Virtues as well as to his See. These Letters are written in the Year 383.  
In Letter 17th. St. Ambrose writes to the Emperor Valentinian against the Petition which Symmachus had made in the Name of the Senate for restoring the Altar of Victory. He remonstrates to him, that as all the Subjects of the Roman Empire ought to submit to him, so he also was obliged to submit to the only true God, and as they defend his Empire, so he was obliged to defend the Religion of Jesus Christ. That a Christian Prince ought neither to Dissemble nor Tolerate, and much less ought he to Authorise the Worship of Idols and false Gods. He wonders therefore, that under a Christian Emperor, there should be found any Persons so rash, as to hope, that he would grant an Edict for restoring the Altars of the Gods, and that he would contribute towards the Expense of it by giving Money out of his Exchequer: That tho' the Temples had not been destroyed, and the Worship of the Gods forbidden by the Laws of his Ancestors, yet he ought to do it now; but after the Laws have been in force for a long time, there was yet less reason to subvert them: That in this business he must never hearken to the Advice of a Pagan, how prudent soever he may be otherwise; and that if any Christian had been cowardly enough to consent to this Proposition, he deserved not to bear the Name of a Christian any more: That if a Pagan Emperor would re-establish an Altar, and oblige Christians to consent to it, this would be looked upon as a Persecution. How then can a Christian Emperor do it, without committing Sacrilege? That there was no probability, that all the Senate had consented to this Proposition, since all the Christian Senators two Years before had entered their Protestation against it, and that they were not present in the Senate when it was done, because they thought that they could not have their liberty there to make head against it. He warns Valentinian that he should not suffer himself to be surprised, and exhorts him to do nothing new in an Affair of this Importance without the Advice of the Emperor Theodosius, whom he was wont to consult in Affairs of Importance. Now what Affair, says he, can be of greater Importance than this of Religion? What is more precious than the Faith? He prays him to desire of them a Copy of the Act of the Senate, and that they would leave him to answer it. In a word, he tells him with an assurance becoming an Holy Bishop, That if he should act otherwise, the Bishops would not suffer nor dissemble the Injury which he would do to Religion, and that if he came to the Church, he should not find a Bishop there, or else he should find one who would oppose his Entrance into it. And what will you answer then, says he, addressing his Words to the Emperor Valentinian? What will you answer to the Bishop when he shall say, The Church cannot receive Oblations from him who has given Ornaments to the Temples of the Gods: His Gifts shall not be presented on the Altar of Jesus Christ who hath made an Altar for Idols. The Edict signed with your own Hand convicts you of the Fact. How can the Honour which you give to Jesus Christ be acceptable to him, since at the same time you worship Idols? No, you cannot serve Two Masters. The Virgins consecrated to God, have no Privileges, and yet you have granted Privileges to Vestals? Why have you recourse to the Ministers of Jesus Christ after you have preferred before them the Petitions of Pagans? St. Ambrose adds to these Remonstrances of the Bishops, the Charge which his Brother Gratian could draw up against him, if he should return into the World, and the Accusations which his Father Theodosius might justly make against him.  
Because St. Ambrose had desired of Valentinian a Copy of the Petition which had been presented to him in the Name of the Senate, and which he answers in the following Letter, that is also here inserted. Symmachus therein desires of the Emperors, as Governor of Rome, and Deputy of the Senate, that they would cause the Altar of Victory to be repaired, that so the Oath might be administered according to ancient Custom upon the Altar, and that they would restore to the Vestal College and the Priests of the Gods, the Goods and Privileges of which they had been unjustly deprived, since the Gods being provoked with the Injuries done to their Priests, had avenged themselves by a cruel Famine, wherewith the Empire was afflicted. He asserts, That they ought not to imitate the Emperors who have taken away those ancient Ceremonies. He introduces the City of Rome desiring this Restauration, and he affirms that this may be done without any Expense to the Treasury. This Petition was written with all the Eloquence and Politeness possible.  
St. Ambrose answers it in the following Letter, and reduces the reasons of this Request to these Three: The First is the Claim which the City of Rome makes to her ancient Ceremonies: The Second is the Injustice which is done to the Vestal Virgins, and the Priests of the False Gods, by despoiling them of their Revenues: The Third is the Vengeance which the Gods have sent down upon the Empire by Famine. To the First he opposes a contrary Prosopopoeia, wherein the City of Rome condemns her ancient Superstitions, and demonstrates the Advantages which she has drawn from the Christian Religion. In answer to his Second Argument, he compares the Virgin's Consecrated to God with the Vestal Virgins, and the Christian Bishops with the Priests of the False Gods. The Vestals continued Virgins, because of the Honour and Advantages which their Condition procured to them; but the Christian Virgins have no other Recompense of their Virginity, but their own Virtue. They complain that the Priests of False Gods, are deprived of Revenues from the public; but the Christian Priests are even deprived of the Right of Succession. The New Laws, says he, have made this Regulation, and yet we do not look upon it as an Injury, because we are not much concerned for this loss. The Priests of the False Gods are capable of Donatives, but no Legacies can be made in Favour of our Churchmen. I do not complain of this severity, says St. Ambrose, for I would rather that ecclesiastics should have less Riches and more Grace. The Church hath no Patrimony but her Faith; if she has any Revenues they are for feeding the Poor. In short, St. Ambrose discovers the Falsehood of Symmachus' Supposition, That the Gods of the Pagans being provoked, sent the Famine which afflicted the Empire the preceding Year. First, Because this Famine did not begin till long after the Pagan Priests were deprived of their Rewards and their Honours. Secondly, Because this Famine did not continue long, and plenty succeeded it, tho' nothing was done in Favour of the Priests of the Pagan Gods. He concludes this Answer with showing, That the Emperors ought not to expect Protection from the Gods of the Pagans. These Pieces were written in the Year 384 when Symmachus was Governor of Rome.  
The 19th. Letter to Vigilius lately chosen Bishop of Trent, contains some Important Instuctions, which he counsels him to give unto his People. The Principal is, To dissuade the Faithful from contracting Marriages with Infidels; of this he treats largely in this Letter. But he admonishes him also by the buy, to teach his People the Obligation that lies upon them to pay Labourers their hire; to instruct them that Usury is forbidden, and to exhort them to use Hospitality. One of the Reasons which he brings to show, That a Christian ought not to marry an Infidel, is this, That Marriage ought to be sanctified by the Priestly Veil, and by the Blessing, How then can a Marriage be made between two Persons of a different Belief? The History of Samson and Dalilah, affords him a fair Field to enlarge upon, by which Example he shows that Christians ought to shun marrying with Persons of a different Religion. Vigilius died under the Consulship of Stilico in 400 or 405. 'Tis commonly believed that he was 20 Years a Bishop; yet there are Acts of the Life of this Saint, where he is said to be only 12 Years instead of 20. If he died in 400, and was Bishop only 12 Years, this Letter was in the Year 383. If he died in 405, and was 20 Years a Bishop, the Letter may be written at the same time; it cannot be in the Year 381, because the Name of his Predecessor is found in the Subscriptions of the Council of Aquileia.  
The 20th. Letter to Marcellina, Sister to St. Ambrose, contains a Relation of the Endeavours, that the Empress Justina used in the Year 385, to take from the Catholics of Milan, two of their Churches, and of the manner wherein St. Ambrose defended them. The Day after I received your Letter, says he, by which you signify to me, That you were very much tormented with troublesome Dreams, here begun those Commotions which have created me a great deal of trouble. They were not satisfied with ask the Portian-Church, which is without the City, but they demanded also the New-Church which is within the City, and is greater than the other: The Lords of the Court and the Officers, came to find me out, and told me that I must abandon this Church, and hinder the People from making any Sedition. I answered according to my Duty, That a Bishop cannot deliver up the Temple of the Lord. The next morning there was great Crying in the Church, and the Perfect came thither to persuade us to give up at least the Portian-Church; the People opposed him with their Clamours, and he retired, saying, That he would make his Report of what was done to the Emperor. The next Day, which was Sunday, after the Reading and Sermon, when I was explaining the Creed to the Catechumen, I was told, That Sergeants were sent to seize upon the Portian-Church, that they had already hung up Curtains, and that a great many People were flocking thither: I went on still in discharging my Duty and began Mass; but as I was offering, I was informed, that the People having met with an Arian Priest, called Cartulus, had laid Hands upon him. This made me weep, and I prayed to God in the midst of the Holy Sacrifice, that he would hinder the shedding of Blood in the Quarrel of this Church. At the same time I sent Priests and Deacons to recover this Man out of the Hands of the People. Immediately very severe Sentences were passed, First against all the Companies of Merchants; so that at this Holy Time, which was the last Week of Lent, when Prisoners were wont to be set at Liberty, there was nothing heard every where but the rattling of Chains wherewith Innocent Men were loaded, and great Sums of Money were extorted from the People. The Officers threatened Persons of Quality if they would not deliver up the Church to them. The Counts and Tribunes came to me, and required me to deliver up the Church presently, saying, That the Emperor in whose Power all things are, does but demand his Right. I answered them, Did he demand any thing of mine, my Money, or my Land, I should willingly give them up to him, tho' all that I have belongs to the Poor; but places Consecrated to God belong not to the Emperor, neither is it in my Power to give them. If you should demand my Patrimony, said I to them, take it; If you would have my Person, I am here ready for you, carry me away Prisoner, put me to Death, if you please; In short, Do with me what you please, I'm content, I will not call upon the People to Succour me, I will not prostrate myself before the Altar to beg my Life, but I will rather willingly Sacrifice myself for the Altar's sake. I was desired to put a stop to the Sedition of the People. I answered, That all that I could do, was to give no Encouragement to it, but God only could appease it; That if they thought I was the cause of it, the Emperor might banish me whithersoever he pleased. I passed the rest of the Day in the Old Church, and at Night I went back to sleep at my own House, that they might find me ready to be gone if they had a mind to force me away. Next Morning the Church was encompassed with Soldiers; the People came still flocking thither in great Multitudes; the Soldiers who had Orders to seize upon it, joined with the People in the Prayers which were put up in it. In the mean time, St. Ambrose preached in another Church about the present Calamities. He recites here his Sermon full of Boldness and Respect, out of which take an Excellent Passage as follows. I was commanded to deliver up the Church; I answered, That it was not lawful for me to deliver it up, nor for you, Prince, to receive it. You cannot justly Invade the House of any particular Man, and would you forcibly take away the House of Jesus Christ? I was told that every thing is lawful to the Emperor. I answered, That the Emperor has no Jurisdiction over Divine Things; That he ought not to assume this Boldness, and if he would Reign long he must submit to God: For 'tis written, we must render to God what is God's, and to Caesar what is Caesar's; the Palaces are for Kings, the Churches for Bishops: The Emperor has Power over the Walls of the City, but not over Sacred Edifices. 'Twas said, but 'tis very Just that the Emperor should have a Church for himself. No, he ought not to have any. Here some came and told him, That they had already brought the Royal Hang into the Church, and that the People which were there, earnestly desired his Presence. This gave him occasion to apply the Psalm which was read that Morning to the Case in hand, O Lord, the Heathens are come into thine Inheritance, etc. While he was discoursing upon this Subject, there came a Notary in the Emperor's Name to ask him, Why he had acted contrary to the Orders of his Majesty. St. Ambrose answered, That he did not believe that he had done it. Why then, says the Notary, did you send Presbyters into the Church which he had a mind to take Possession of? If you be a Tyrant, the Emperor desires that you would declare yourself so, that he may know what he has to do. St. Ambrose answered, That he had done nothing contrary to the Respect which he owed to the Emperor, nor contrary to the Interest of the Church: That he had indeed sent Presbyters to this Church, but he did not believe that he had herein done any thing contrary to his Authority; That if they took him for a Tyrant, they might put him to Death; That he had no other Arms to defend himself withal but the Invocation of the Name of Jesus Christ; That under the ancient Law the Kingly Power had been given to Priests, but they had never usurped it; That Kings were more desirous of the Priesthood than Priests of the Kingly Power; That Christ himself run away for fear lest he should be chosen King; That Maximus would not say, that he had been wanting in his Loyalty to Valentinian. In short, That Bishops had never been Tyrants, but had often suffered hard things from them.  
All the Day was spent in sadness, and St. Ambrose could not return to his own House, because the Church was encompassed with Soldiers; so he passed the Night in singing Psalms in the Church. The next Day the Book of Ionas was read. As St. Ambrose was expounding it, word was brought him, that the Emperor had commanded the Soldiers to withdraw, and ordered the Fines which were exacted from the Merchants to be restored. What Joys, says he, what Acclamations of the People! This was the Day wherein Jesus Christ was delivered up for us, the Day wherein Absolution is given to Penitents. This is, writes he to his Sister, what is passed, God grant 〈◊〉 here may be an end of it. But the Threaten of the Emperor make me fear still some great●● Commotions: He says, That I am a Tyrant and more than a Tyrant: And when his Officers prayed him to come to Church, he answered them, If Ambrose would command you, you would deliver me up. Behold, what am I to expect after this! All those that heard him say this, testified sufficiently the trouble that it gave them; but there are some about him who have blown up the Coals. Calligonus Master of the Wardrobe came to me, and threatened me in these Words, Why do you despise the Emperor, Vengeance shall quickly come upon you? I answered him, That if God should suffer these Threaten to take Effect, he would do as Eunuches have been wont to do, and I should suffer as becomes a Bishop: Heavens grant, That all the Mischiefs which threaten the Church may fall upon me; That her Enemies may point all their Darts against me; That they may assuage their Rage with shedding of my Blood. Thus ends this Excellent Letter of St. Ambrose.  
Tho' the First Efforts of Justina had such bad Success, yet she did not give over her Persecution▪ To colour her Design, she caused a Conference to be proposed between Auxentius the Arian Bishop and St. Ambrose, before such Judges as they should name, hoping by these means to have a Pretence to force him away. Then an Officer was sent in the name of Valentinian to signify unto him, That Auxentius had named some Judges, and that he should name some on his own behalf. St. Ambrose answered, That according to the good Maxim of Theodosius the Father of Valentinian, Bishops could have none but Bishops for their Judges; That Laymen could not judge between Bishops, and much less Infidels or Heretics, such as Auxentius in all probability had chosen. This is what St. Ambrose remonstrated to Valentinian in Letter 21st. which is properly a Petition, wherein he shows that he had done nothing contrary to the Respect which he owes him by this Answer; That he only followed the Law which his Father had established, and that this was the Custom of the Church: That if a Conference about the Faith was necessary, it should be in the Church and before Bishops: That if Auxentius should appeal to a Synod, tho' it was not necessary to assemble one, (since if an Angel should come from Heaven and teach a contrary Doctrine, it ought not to be preferred before the unanimous Consent of all the Churches;) yet if a Council should be assembled, he was ready to appear there; That he would have come to Court and to the Emperor's Council, if his People, his Clergy and the Bishops had not hindered him; That he was not wont to go thither but for the Interest of the Emperor, neither was it his Custom to frequent the Court.  
At the time when St. Ambrose sent this Petition to be presented to the Emperor, he preached a Sermon to his People, to allay the Fear they were seized with, after they understood that St. Ambrose was cited to appear before the Emperor's Council. This is placed after the preceding Letter. There he declares to his People, That he had no design to abandon his Church; That they might arrest his Body by force, but they could not separate his Mind from it; That he would never willingly forsake them, but if he should be driven away by force, he would not resist. I can, says he, sigh and mourn, I can lament, Tears are my only Arms against Violence and against Soldiers; Bishops have no other Defence. I cannot, I ought not to resist any other ways; but as to flying away and forsaking my Church, that I will never do. You know that the Respect which I have for the Emperor does not make me yield cowardly; that I offer myself willingly to Punishment, and that I do not fear the Mischiefs they threaten me with. If I knew that in my absence the Church would not be delivered up to the Arians, and if it were the Duty of a Bishop to go to the Palace, I would go willingly; but this is not his Duty, for Matters of Faith cannot be handled but in the Church. If any one has a mind to oppose our Creed, let him come here, and I will defend the Faith which I profess. The Soldiers that encompass the Church and their rattling of their Arms, do not at all make me afraid, neither do they shake my Constancy; all that I fear is, that while you detain me, some Resolution may be taken against you. I am not wont to have any fear for myself, but I tremble for you. When the Vessels of the Church were demanded of me, I said, That if they would demand any thing that was mine, I should willingly give it; That I could give nothing that belonged to the Church, and that in refusing them I gratified the Emperor, since he could not receive them without doing an Injury to Jesus Christ. After this he exhorts his People to continue Spectators of the Combat which he was to maintain. He says, That he had no reason to fear, because he was assured, that it was for the Cause of God, who could protect him against all his Enemies, and defeat all their Designs: That he had already smitten them with blindness, since they did not perceive the Gate of the Church which was left open, tho' they had compassed the Church about, and sought for a way to enter into it; That he went forth daily to make Visits, or to go to the Sepulchre of the Martyrs, without being stopped by any Body, tho' 'twas already resolved to drive him away, and that Auxentius had a design to Invade his Church. Here he inveighs freely against this Arian, and against the Law which he had gotten by surprise in favour of his Party. He observes, That he was ready to refute him, tho' there was no need of it, since Auxentius' Cause was quite desperate, and he had been condemned even by those whom he had chosen for his Judges, and in the absence of his Adversaries: That after he was thus conquered, he would have taken the Emperor for a Judge, tho' he was yet but a Catechumen: That he had persuaded the Emperor the preceding Year to take away a Church from the Catholics, but the Resistance of the People hindering him from compassing that Design, he had charged St. Ambrose with rebelling against the Orders of his Prince, tho' he always answered with much Moderation. If the Emperor, says he, demand of us Tribute, we will not refuse to pay it him, the Lands of the Church do pay it. If he would have the Lands themselves, he can take them, none of us does oppose it. I will not give them to him, but neither will I hinder him from taking them. We keep ourselves within the bounds of a Just Obedience. We render to Caesar that which is Cesar's, and to God the things which are God's. Tribute is Caesar's. No body refuses him that. The Church is God's; 'tis unlawful to give it to the Prince; he has no Authority over it. Can any thing be more respectful, or more to the Honour of the Emperor? 'Tis an Honour to him to be of the Church; he is in the Church, but not above the Church.  
The 22d. Letter contains the History of the Discovery of the Relics of St. Gervasius and St. Protasius, and the Sermons which St. Ambrose made to his People upon this Subject. It is also to his dear Sister Marcellina, to whom he communicated an Account of what had passed in his Church. He writes to her, that having dedicated a Church at Milan, he was desired to Consecrate it with the same Solemnity, wherewith he had done the Roman Church (this was another Church which was near the Roman Gate) which he promised to do, if he could find any Relics. That he had caused the Ground at a place which was before the Rails of the Sepulchers of St. Felix and St. Nabor to be broke up; That in this place he found the Bones of two Men of extraordinary bigness with much Blood; That there were sufficient Signs to discover that they were Martyrs; That having brought thither some possessed Persons, it was known by their Agitation, that they were before the Sepulchre of Martyrs; That the People flocked together in great Multitudes for the space of two Days to see these Relics, and that afterwards those Bones were disposed according to their Natural Order to be carried into the Ambrosian Church; That they were laid up in Faustus' Church, where Vigils were celebrated all that Night, and the next Morning they were translated to the Ambrosian Church; That while they were translating, a blind Man was cured. This was the discovery of the Bodies of these Martyrs. St. Ambrose adds two Sermons made to his People upon this occasion, which contain also some Circumstances of it. In them he observes, That these two Saints are St. Gervasius and St. Protasius. He does not tell us, whence he knew it: But St. Austin informs us that he had got an Account of their Death, and the place where their Bodies were laid, by a Revelation which he had that Night. He speaks of the many Miracles which those Relics wrought, of the Possessed that were delivered, of the Sick that were healed, of the Handkerchiefs that were touched, to carry them to the Sick. He tells his People, That these Bones must be put under the Altar; That such Victims could not be better placed than under the Altar where the true Sacrifice lay; That Jesus Christ is upon the Altar, because he suffered for all, and the Martyrs are under the Altar, because they were redeemed by his Blood. He adds, That he had designed this place for his own burial place, because it was fit that a Bishop should be interred in that place where he was wont to make the oblation, but that he yielded this place to the Martyrs, and would presently go and place their Relics in it. The People earnestly desired, that he would put off the performance of this Ceremony till Sunday, but he would delay it no longer than till the next Morning. And then he made another Discourse to his People, wherein he confutes the Infidelity of the Arians, and the Incredulity of some of the Faithful, by the Miracles which these Relics had wrought, and chief by the Cure of the blind Man which was public and certain. St. Austin Ch. 7. of the IXth. B. of his Confessions, and the Author of the Life of St. Ambrose, say, That an end was put to the Persecution by the discovery of those Relics, which discovers to us that this Letter was written in the Year 386.  
The 23d. Letter is written to the Bishops of Emilia, about a scruple they had concerning Easter Day for the Year 387. St. Ambrose observes in the First Place, That the Holy Scripture and Tradition teach us, That we must carefully find out Easter-Day; That the Council of Nice believed this so necessary; That they had made a Cycle of 19 Years; That by this means the Sacrifice in Honour of Christ's Resurrection might be offered in all places in the same Night; That the Bishops of Alexandria and Rome had already made Regulations of this Business; but since there were many who would also have his Opinion, he thought himself obliged to write his Thoughts; and tho' the difference at present was only about the Celebration of the next Easter, yet he would show what Day should be observed for time to come, whensoever the like Question should return. He says, That there are two Things to be observed concerning the Celebration of Easter, the 14th. Day of the Moon and the First Month; That this time was fixed for the Passover under the Old Testament, and that Jesus Christ observed this Law, by celebrating the Passover on Thursday the 14th. Day of the Moon of March, and by being crucified on Friday the 15th. and rising the Sunday following. That therefore Christians ought to Celebrate the Feast of the Resurrection on the Sunday after the 14th. Day of March-Moon, a Day on which it is not any more lawful to Fast; and when the 14th. Day of the Moon happens to be Sunday, as it will fall out to be quickly, we must put off the Solemnity of Easter, till the following Sunday, because we must not Fast upon Easter-Day, nor break our Fast upon the 14th. Day, which is the Day wherein Jesus Christ was delivered up to be crucified. He proves by Examples that this is the Custom. He speaks afterwards of the First Month, and shows that 'tis not necessary to Celebrate the Day of the Resurrection in the First Month, Provided the Day of the Passion happens in it. He makes this Remark, because he was treating of the Passover for the Year 387. which was to be celebrated on the 23d. of April, a Day which seemed not to belong to the same Lunar Month. 'Tis certain that St. Ambrose speaks of the Easter of that Year as being quickly to come to pass, quod futurum est proximè, and that he speaks of the Easter of the Year 380, as being already passed some Years ago, superioribus temporibus; which proves, that this Letter was written in 386, or 387, though there be a place in this Letter, which seems to prove, that it was written in the Year 381, because he speaks of the Easter for the Year 378, as being two Years before. But this must be a Fault in the Transcriber; for what probability is there that he should take so much Pains to fix an Easter which was not to happen till Six Years after, and that he should speak of it as the next Festival?  
In Letter 24th. St. Ambrose gives an Account to the Emperor Valentinian, to whom it is addressed, of his Embassy to Maximus, which the Emperor had entrusted with him the Second time in the Year 386. He tells him, That when he came to Triers, he desired to discourse with Maximus in private, but he would not say any thing but in his Council, tho' he was told, that it was not the Custom for Bishops to do so; That when he was admitted there, Maximus came to salute him, but he would not receive his Kiss till after much Discourse; That Maximus accused him of putting a Trick upon him in his First Embassy, and hindering his Passage into Italy; that he excused himself, and proved from the several Steps that he had made, that he had no Design to deceive him; That he came to treat about a Peace in the Name of his Prince, and that not being able to conclude it, he returned; That he had not passed his Word to him that Valentinian should come and meet him; That he had never dissuaded this Emperor from doing it; That this Resolution of his was taken before he returned, and that he had sent Deputies to acquaint Maximus that he would not come; That he had acted with all the Moderation that is possible; That he had sent back his own Brother to him, tho' Maximus had put Valentinian's to death, and by an unheardof Inhumanity refussed still to restore his Body; That Valentinian had preferred Peace to War, tho' he might hope for Succours from the Huns and Alanes against the Barbarians whom Maximus had brought into the Empire; That Maximus ought not to blame those, who being with Valentinian, made their Escape and fled to Theodosius for Refuge, since he put all to death that he could lay hands upon, and among the rest one Vallion who was a brave Captain; That after this Discourse he received no other Answer from Maximus, but that he would consider what he had to do. St. Ambrose adds, that Maximus understanding that he would not communicate either with the Bishops who had received him into Communion, or who had desired the death of some Heretics, he received Orders to be gone immediately, and at his going away he had the dissatisfaction to see the Holy Bishop Hyginus sent into Banishment, and used with all possible Rigour, so that his Age and bad Usage reduced him to that condition, which left him no hopes but of death.  
The Two following Letters are about a Question which Studius had put to St. Ambrose; Whether a Magistrate ought to condemn Criminals to death, and whether he that condemns such Persons should be excommunicated. The practice in St. Ambrose's time was not very certain: Some Bishops excluded them from Communion, others on the contrary received them; nay, there was also an example of some Bishops, who a little while before desired the death of the Priscillianists: Some Magistrates themselves abstained from these things. St. Ambrose confesses, that we ought not to excommunicate a Magistrate, who according to the Duty of his Office Condemns a Man to death, and Order him to be Executed; but he wishes that Judges would abstain from doing it, and would have no Criminal condemned to death, but only to a Prison or some other Punishment, that so they may have opportunity to reform themselves and do Penance if they be baptised, or to receive Baptism if they be Catechumen. To prove that a Christian Magistrate ought to use this Clemency, he alleges the Judgement which Jesus Christ gave of the Woman taken in Adultery, and makes many Reflections upon this Action in this Letter and the next. These Letters were written after Judgement was given against the Priscillianists, about the Year 386.  
The Seven following Letters to Irenaeus contain Allegorical Explications of some Difficulties about Passages of the Holy Scripture. There are Four of them which were formerly among the Treatises upon the Holy Scripture. 'Tis thought they were written about the Year 386; but there is no convincing proof of it. The order in which they are to be placed is better ascertained, because it is authorised by the First Words at the beginning of each Letter.  
The Three Letters to Orontianus were written immediately after one another. In the Third he speaks of his own persecution, and therefore they were written after the Year 386. These are also about some Difficulties of Scripture.  
The Letters 37th. and 38th. to Simplicius are about Morality. In them St. Ambrose shows, that none but a wise Man can be truly Free and truly Rich. These Letters are placed in the Year 387, tho' without certain proof.  
The 39th. is a Letter of Consolation to Sabinus upon the death of his Sister. He says, that as he returned from Bolonia, he saw the Cities ruined. This may have reference to the irruption of Maximus, or that of Eugenius.  
The 40th. Letter to Theodosius is more considerable. The Governor of the East had written to Theodosius who was then at Milan after the death of Maximus in 388 or 389. That a Synagogue of the Jews and a Temple of the Valentinians were burnt, and that the Bishop was the cause of this Conflagration. Theodosius gave order that those who had done this Action should be punished, and that the Bishop should rebuild this Synagogue at his own Charge. St. Ambrose who was then at Aquileia, understanding that Theodosius had given this Judgement, wrote to him with all possible freedom, that his Order was not consistent with his Piety, and the Zeal he had for the Christian Religion; That the Bishop could not obey him without prevaricating. He defends also the Counsel of this Bishop, and the Action of those who had burnt the Synagogue. He shows, that the Jews had often burnt the Temples of Christians, without being punished for it, or condemned to rebuild them; That it was unworthy of a Christian Emperor who had received so many benefits from Jesus Christ, to take part with a Synagogue of Jews against the Church. In a word, he heaps together many thoughts and expressions of this Nature, which have more of Declamation than true Reasoning, to hinder any Reparation of the Injury which was done to the Jews by burning their Synagogue: He threatens also the Emperor to deprive him of Communion if he did not recall these Orders. He did not only write to the Emperor about it, but he also made a Sermon upon this Subject in his presence, which is related in the following Letter written to his Sister. He prevailed so far, that the Emperor promised none of the Christians should be sought after for this Cause, after which he went, says he, to the Altar, which he should not have approached if the Emperor had not past his word about that matter.  
The 42d. Letter is a synodical Epistle of a Council at Milan, being an Answer to that which Siricius and his Council had written to the Church of that City against Jovinian and his followers. This Letter is signed by Seven Bishops, and a Priest who subscribed it in the presence of his Bishop and by his Command. In it they certify the Pope, that they were of the same Judgement with him concerning the excellency of Virginity. They prove that Mary the Mother of God never lost her Virginity in Childbearing. They show the necessity and usefulness of Fasting. Lastly, they condemn Jovinian and his followers whom Siricius and the Roman Church had condemned.  
The Letters 43d. and 44th. are Explications of Two Difficulties which Orontianus had started about the Creation of the World, which were not explained in St. Ambrose's Treatise upon this Subject written about the Year 389.  
The Five following Letters addressed to Sabinus were written much about the same time: They contain nothing very remarkable.  
The 50th. address to Chromacius is about the Prophecy of Balaam. St. Ambrose was old when he wrote it.  
In the 51st. he exhorts Theodosius to do Penance for the Massacre done by his Order at Thessalonica, and represents to him the Enormity of this Action. This Letter was written in the Year 390.  
The 52d. to Titianus contains nothing remarkable; he congratulates him that Ruffinus was made Praetorian Praefect, not only upon the account of the Honour that was done him by it, but also because this Office hindered him from being Judge in a Lawsuit which Titianus had with his Granddaughter whom Ruffinus favoured. Ruffinus was made Praetorian Praefect in 392. and so the date of this Letter is certainly known.  
In the 53d. St. Ambrose testifies to Theodosius how much he was afflicted for the Death of Valentinian, which happened on the First of March 392, and this Letter was in the Summer following.  
The Two following Letters are written to Eusebius who was of an Illustrious Family of Bolonia. In the First St. Ambrose acquaints him with what he had done for an Officer whom he had recommended to him, and gives him an account of the News about his Grandson Faustinus. In the Second he writes to him that he had detained at Milan, Ambrosia the Sister of Faustinus. This is the Virgin to whom he had given the Veil, of which he speaks in the Book of the Institution of Virgins, published in 392. This Letter was written immediately after.  
The 56th. Letter is an Answer of St. Ambrose to Theophilus, who had consulted him about the difference between Evagrius and Flavianus for the Bishopric of Antioch. St. Ambrose tells him at the beginning of this Letter, that Evagrius had no cause to push on the Decision of this Affair, and that Flavianus ought to fear the event of it. He prays him to pardon these Words, which a just Grief drew from his Pen, because all the World quarrelled about them, tho' they did not sympathise with the Grief of others. He adds, that the Council of Capua having referred this Affair to Theophilus and the Bishops of Egypt, it was like to be determined by a Judgement which could not be suspected of Injustice, since the Judges did not communicate with either Party, but that Flavianus had had recourse to the Emperor's Rescripts, to avoid being judged by the Egyptians. This made St. Ambrose think that Flavian was in the wrong, altho' he did not find the Cause of Evagrius very good, and he condemns very sharply the proceedure of Flavian. But Theophilus having written to him that some means of accommodating this Affair might be found out, he was not averse to it, and counsels him to cite Flavianus yet once more, and if he persisted to refuse to appear, then to accommodate this Affair as he should think fit: Nevertheless he ought not to violate the Canons of the Councils of Nice and Capua, and must still preserve peace with all the World, lest they should seem to destroy that which had been built up. He advertises him also, that it was convenient to write to the Bishop of Rome, being persuaded that he will give no decision which can displease him, because the way to maintain Peace, is to do nothing which may stir up Division among the Bishops of his own Communion. Lastly, he declares to him, that he will joyfully receive what he should determine if the Roman Church approve it.  
The 57th. Letter about the Affair of Bonosus is not St. Ambrose's but the Pope Siricius'. For First, in it he speaks of St. Ambrose as a Third Person. Bonosus, says the Author of this Letter, understanding your Judgement, sent to consult our Brother Ambrose, to know if he might return to his Church; and this cannot be understood of any but our Holy Bishop of Milan. There was no other Ambrose Bishop at that time, and tho' there were, yet 'tis plain that he speaks of our Bishop in this place, since it was he who presided at the Council of Capua, of the execution of whose Judgement he was treating. Secondly, The Style of this Letter is no ways like that of St. Ambrose, and is very like that of Siricius. Thirdly, It appears plainly that it is a Bishop of Rome who speaks. Fourthly, Holstenius has published it in his Collection under the name of Siricius, upon the credit of the Manuscript in the Vatican. Neither is it to Theophilus of Alexandria that this Letter is addressed, but to Anysius of Thessalonica, and the Bishops of Macedonia. For 'tis evident that it was written to those to whom the Council of Capua had referred the Affair of Bonosus; and 'tis no less certain that it was referred to the Macedonians, to the Bishop of Thessalonica, and the other Neighbour Bishops of Bonosus, who was Bishop of Naissa a City of Dardania. To convince any Man of these Two things he needs only read the beginning of the Letter. I have read the Letters which you wrote to me concerning the Bishop Bonosus, wherein you desire our Opinion, either to clear up the Truth, or through Modesty only; but the Council of Capua having ordered that the Neighbours of Bonosus and his Accusers, should be Judges of this Affair, and chief the Macedonians, together with the Bishop of Thessalonica ...... It belongs to you who are entrusted with this Cause, to judge according to the Order of the Council of Capua, because you are substituted in the room of this Synod, who has chosen you to inquire into this Affair. And the same Bonosus having sent to consult our Brother Ambrose whether he should enter into his Church, received for answer, That he should undertake nothing against your Judgement, but follow what you should Ordain, since the Synod has committed to you this Trust. Two things are evident from these Words: First, That the Bishops of Illyricum, and chief those of Macedonia, were entrusted, together with the Bishop of Thessalonica, by the Synod of Capua, to inquire and judge of the Cause of Bonosus. Secondly, That this Letter is addressed to those who were thus entrusted. But some may say, if it be so, why does it speak of the Bishop of Thessalonica and those of Macedonia in the Third Person? Why does not the Author writ thus, The Synod of Capua having referred this Cause to you and to your Brethren, but, The Synod of Capua having thought fit, that the neighbouring Bishops of Bonosus, and chief the Macedonians and the Bishop of Thessalonica, should inquire into and judge this Cause, etc. 'Tis easy to answer, that the Reason is, because he relates in this place the proper Words of the Synod of Capua. Now it often happens, that when such Writings are alleged to the Judges wherein they are spoken of, the way of speaking of them is not changed, but they are named in the Third Person as they are in the Writings. But what is said afterwards is addressed to them, and what is related is applied to them. And this the Author of this Letter does in the next Line; vestrum est igitur qui hoc recepistis Judicium, etc. 'Tis needless to insist any longer upon a thing so clear; and therefore the true Title of this Letter is that which Holstenius has in his Collection; Siricius, to our dear Brethren Anysius, and the other Bishops of Illyricum. This Letter is no ways unworthy of this Pope as some pretend. He does not assume to himself the Judgement of a Cause referred to others. This is no ways contrary to the Prerogatives of the Roman Church; on the contrary this is according to Rule and agreeable to the Canons: This is the Practice and Judgement of the ancient Popes, who had a most profound Veneration for the Decisions of Synods, and who inviolably kept the Laws of the Church.  
The Letter 58 is written to Eugenius, sometime after this Tyrant came into Italy, that's to say, in the Year 393.  
The Pagans who had attempted thrice in vain to obtain of Valentinian the Restitution of the Goods which belonged to their Temple, addressed this New Emperor with the same Petition. He refused twice to grant it; but at last the great Lords of the Pagans having Petitioned that these things might be restored, he did it, saying, That he did not give them to the Temple, but to themselves for the Services they had done him. St. Ambrose who mightily opposed all the Petitions of Pagans under Valentinian, speaks with no less Boldness to the Tyrant Eugenius, than he had done to Valentinian. He remonstrates to him, That how great soever the Power of the Emperor be, 'tis infinitely below that of God, who sees the bottom of our Hearts, and from whom nothing is hid; That he ought not to grant for the Importunity of these great Lords, any thing prejudicial to Religion; That the Bishops would not blame him for the Gifts which he had given to the Pagans; That they did not Envy them these Goods, but they could not approve of his Authorising, by this Grant, the Use that these Pagans would make of it to restore their Religious Worship; That it was never lawful to contribute directly or indirectly to the Worship of False Gods; That in former Ages the Christians of Antioch dwelling at Jerusalem, being obliged to pay a Tax at Antioch, at the time of the public Sports, would never give it, but upon Condition that it should not be employed for the Sacrifice of Hercules, but in other Expenses necessary for the good of the Commonwealth; That if Christian Subjects being forced to obey, thought themselves obliged to do so, a Christian Emperor who was Master of his own Will, had much more reason to use the like precaution.  
In the Letter 59 to Sabinus Bishop of Placentia, St. Ambrose makes an Encomiastic upon St. Paulinus and his Wife, who having sold their Goods to distribute the price of them to the Poor, had taken a Resolution to retire to Nola. This gives him occasion to show the Advantages of Solitude and Voluntary Poverty. This Letter was written some time before St. Paulinus retired to Nola at the beginning of the Year 393.  
The 60th. Letter is to Severus; where he speaks of a Priest called James, who was come from Persia to retire into Campania, that he might serve God more quietly; as also of the troubles and Wars wherewith his own Country was harassed. This Letter has relation to the War of Eugenius in the Year 393, or to that of Maximus in the Year 387.  
The Letter 61st. to Paternus is about a Point of Discipline. This Man who had been Lord Treasurer, as we learn from the Letters of Symmachus, and the 14th. Law de Metallis, had consulted St. Ambrose, if he could marry one of his Sons to his Daughter's Daughter, or his Granddaughter. St. Ambrose answers him, That he wonders he should ask such a Question of him; That the bare Proposal of the thing discovered that it was forbidden; That the Law of God forbidding the Marriages of Cousin-Germains, does much more strongly imply a Prohibition of this, tho' it was not by name forbidden in the Divine Law; That the Civil Laws forbidden it, and that Theodosius forbade Marriages between Cousin-Germains; That if this Law were dispensed with, yet it ought not to Authorise this sort of Marriages, because a Dispensation is only for him that obtains it. The re●son which 〈◊〉 alleges. That his Son was not related to his Granddaughter by the Father's side, but only by the Mother's side, proves nothing, since Marriage was equally forbidden between Brethren, whether they were born of the same Father and Mother, or of the same Mother and different Fathers. Lastly, he says, That it would be more Advantageous to his Family, that his Son and his Daughter should marry to others, because by this means he should have in his Family Children both by his Son and his Granddaughter. The Law of Theodosius which he citys is of the Year 38●, and therefore this Letter was written after that Year: 'Tis there said, that Paternus possessed a g●●at Office which makes it to be placed in the Year 393, because the Law which we have cited, discovers to us, that in this Year he was Lord High Treasurer, Comes Sacrarum ●…gitionum: But he might have been ●o before.  
The Letter 62 was written by St. Ambrose to the Emperor Theodosius, immediately after the Death of the Tyrant Eugenius, who was defeated and killed in the Month of September of the Year 394. St. Ambrose retired from Milan when he understood that Eugenius was coming thither that he might avoid meeting this Tyrant: But assoon as he was gone out of Milan, St. Ambrose returned in the Month of July. Some time after, the Emperor Theodosius having defeated Eugenius, wrote to St. Ambrose to return thanks to God for his Victory. This Saint made Answer in this Letter, That he would do it with Joy, and that he would offer up in his Name an acceptable Sacrifice to God; he praises the Piety of this Emperor, who did not seek after the Pomp's of a vain Triumph, but desired the Bishops to offer up Sacrifices of Thanksgiving. He signifies to him, That he had satisfied his desire; That he had carried his Letter to the Altar, and laid it upon the Holy Table; That he held it in his Hand while he was offering Sacrifice; To the end, says he, that your Faith might be made known by my Mouth, and that your Majesty's Letter might serve as Matter for an Episcopal Oblation. Afterwards he praises God for having placed a Prince upon the Throne who surpassed the greatest Princes in Glory, and the holiest Bishops in Humility. What can be wished for, what can be desired more, says St. Ambrose to him? You possess, Sir, all Virtues, you are a Prince of singular Piety and Clemency. All that can be wished for, is, that God would increase in you this Piety, and that the Church which rejoices that Innocent Men live in Peace and Tranquillity, may receive also the Consolation of seeing the guilty absolved. Show Favour at least to those who have not hitherto taken Arms against their Prince.  
The 63d. Letter addressed to the same Emperor, followed quickly after the preceding, wherein St. Ambrose begs favour for those of Eugenius' Party who retired into the Church after the Death of this Tyrant.  
The 64th. is addressed to the Church of Verceilles, which had lost her Bishop. This was not Eusebius who died in the Year 370, but Limenius who was present in the Year 38● at the Council of Aquileia. If we believe the Acts of St. Gaudentius of Novara, produced by Mambritius and Bollandus upon the 12th. of January, St. Ambrose a little before his Death made a Journey to Verceilles, upon the Account of some Dissension which was in that Church, which was probably about the Election of a Bishop; and this makes some believe that this Letter was not written till the Year 394. But this conjecture is founded upon a very uncertain Ground; for it supposes these two things which are not well proved, First, That what is related in the Acts of St. Gaudentius of Nov●r● is true; Secondly, That the Division which obliged St. Ambrose to go to Verceilles was about the Election of a Bishop. It seems also that St. Ambrose needed not have written this Letter if he had been upon the place himself. Some have said, That this Letter was not St. Ambrose's, because that Venice is named in it: But if this Objection be of any force, we must also for the same reason reject the Second Answer to Symmachus, which is without all Controversy St. Ambrose's. This Letter has his Style and his Air of Writing; he has inserted into it some entire Fragments of his own Commentary upon the Gospel of St. Luke, and upon Psalm 119. He exhorts the People and the Clergy, to put an end to the Divisions which distracted them about the Choice of a Bishop. He admonishes them afterwards to beware of harkening to two Men called Sermation and Barbatianus, who were gone out of a Monastery of Milan to go and lead a licentious Life at Verceilles, where they preached, That no Merit belonged to Abstinence, nor any peculiar Grace to Virginity; and that it was a folly for any one to Fast and Mortify himself. St. Ambrose makes a long Digression to refute these Errors, and to prove the Usefulness of Abstinence and Fasting, and the Excellency of Virginity. Afterwards he returns to his Subject, and treats of the Qualities of the Person who ought to be chosen for a Bishop. One of the Principal is, that he has had but one Wife. St. Ambrose extends this Prohibition to those also who had Contracted a first Marriage before their Baptism. Thus he understands the Passage of the Apostle St. Paul, and the Canon of the Council of Nice. There is also another Condition observed by St. Paul concerning the Qualifications of a Bishop, That he should not be a Novice, or one lately Instructed in the Faith. Because they transgressed this Rule in the Ordination of St. Ambrose, he is forced to justify himself, by saying, That he was Ordained against his Will. At last, he says, If great Care ought to be taken in the Choice of a Person who is to be placed upon any Episcopal Throne whatsoever, it was a Matter of the greatest Importance to place a Person of singular Merit upon the Episcopal Throne at Verceilles, because the Bishop of this Church was entrusted with the Care of a Monastery and a Church, and should join the Practice of a Religious Life with the Virtues of a Bishop; as St. Eusebius did, who was the First that united these two things in the West, by settling Monasteries in a City, and governing his Church without renouncing a Monastic Life. Here he enlarges upon the Praises of this Holy Bishop, and of Denys of Milan, the Companion of his Banishment, and of the troubles he endured for the Defence of the Faith of the Church; and proposes the Life of their Disciples as a Pattern. He concludes with a long Digression, wherein he recommends the Practice of Christian Virtues, and chief of Poverty, of Abstractedness from the World, of Retirement, of Patience, of Charity, of Abstinence, etc. I believe that this last Part has been since added, and that it is a Fragment of some Discourse of St. Ambrose, for it has no relation to, nor connexion with what goes before.  
These are all the Letters of St. Ambrose, of which the Order and Time can be guessed at: The others which compose the Second Class, are without Date, tho' they have prefixed the Figures to these as well as to those that went before. The Nine first contain Expositions upon some places of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Deuteronomy, and the Prophet Micah. These were formerly among the Commentaries upon the Holy Scripture. The Four following are upon some places of the Epistles of St. Paul.  
The 78th. addressed to Marcellus, is about an Arbitration which he had made of a Lawsuit that this Bishop had with his Sister. St. Ambrose was named Judge of it, but he chose rather to make an end of it, to the content of the two Parties, by giving his Sister the Revenue of the Land in Question during her Life only.  
In the 79th. ●he exhorts his Clergy not to neglect the Functions of their Ministry, because of the Pains, the Fatigues, and Persecutions they were to endure in the discharge of their Duty.  
The 80th. 81st. 86th. 87th. 88th. 89th. 90th. 91st. and 92d. are short Letters about private Affairs.  
The 82d. is addressed to a sick Man called Bellicius, who was converted in the height of his Disease, and was now beginning to recover. St. Ambrose tells him, That God had sent this Sickness to save him; That he had smitten him with this Infirmity to Cure him by it; That God knowing his inward Thoughts, saw that he had good Designs but delayed the Execution of them, and therefore God had sent him this Sickness to serve for an Admonition to him; That he had already begun to know the Lord, but he was moreover to receive the Sacraments, by which the World is redeemed, Sins are pardoned, and Grace is distributed. The following Letter is addressed to the same sick Person, wherein he compares his Cure to that of the Man born blind. In Letter 84th. and 85th. he discourses of the true Treasures and the true Riches, and shows, that none but the Rich are truly happy.  
The Funeral Orations upon Valentinian and Theodosius are placed here after the Letters of St. Ambrose. They are two admirable Pieces. The first was spoken in 392. in the presence of the Sisters of Valentinian. There he praises the Virtues of this Prince, and makes no doubt but he was saved, tho' he died before he received Baptism, because Faith and a desire of receiving the Sacrament supplied the want of it. He promises to pray for him. In the Second he particularly commends the Clemency, the Charity and Humility of Theodosius, and concludes with comforting his Son Honorius, before whom he spoke this Funeral Oration in 395.  
It cannot be doubted but St. Ambrose composed Hymns. St. Austin in his Book of Confessions, B. XII. and in his Book of Music Ch. 9 commends the Hymn at Vespers, Veni creator omnium, as St. Ambrose's. He could not be deceived in this Matter; but since he has not set down the number of those Hymns which St. Ambrose composed, it may be doubted whether all those that go under his name be his. Those for the daily Office appear to be more certainly his than the rest; to which may be added the Hymns upon the Hexameron. As for the rest they appear to be in another Style, and of another Author. 'Tis certain that the Vexilla Regis is none of his.  
St. Ambrose wrote also other Books which we have not at present. We have already observed, That we have not now his Genuine Book of the Sacraments and of Philosophy, which is many times cited by St. Austin. The same Saint citys also the Commentary of St. Ambrose upon Isaiah, in B. IU. to Boniface, Ch. 62. and B. II. against Julian. St. Ambrose also mentions it in his Commentary upon St. Luke. We have not now his Instruction to Fritigilda, which Paulinus mentions in his Life, nor the Instructions to Pansophius.  
But if some Books of St. Ambrose have been lost, it must be confessed that several have been attributed to him which are none of his.  
First, There have been put out under his Name a multitude of Sermons, and not one of them his: There are 36 of them printed among those of St. Maximus, 14 in the Appendix to St. Austin's Sermons, two of which are in both places. That which was the 64th. is the Translation of a Discourse of St. Basil upon the words of the Richman, I will pull down my Barns. The Exposition upon Ch. 31st. of the Proverbs is the 37th. Sermon of St. Austin. The Benedictines did not think fit to print these, and so have only given the Catalogue of them. As for the rest which are 58 in number, they have published them here, but they confess that they are none of St. Ambrose's: And indeed there is not one of them which has his Style and Air.  
Secondly, There have been attributed to St. Ambrose some Treatises upon the Scripture, which having no Author that is known have passed under several Father's Names. Such is the Discourse of the Dignity of the Humane Nature, which has also been attributed to St. Austin, under the Title of a Discourse about the Creation of the First Man, which Alcuinus citys under the name of Albinus, and which has also been inserted entire into the Book of the Spirit and the Soul. Such is also the Discourse of the forbidden Fruit, which is amongst the Sermons of St. Austin. The Discourses upon Elijah and Elisha are the Sermons of St. Maximus.  
The Treatise of the 42 Stations or Encamp of the People of Israel in the Desert, belongs to a pretty ancient Author, but it has not the Style of St. Ambrose. It uses the Latin Translation of Origen's Works.  
I say nothing here of a Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul, which is believed to be Hilary's the Deacon, because I have spoken of it in another place.  
The Commentary upon the Revelations is a very late Author's. He speaks of the Lombard's and citys St. Gregory. The name of the right Author of this Commentary has been found at the end of an Oxford Manuscript, where it is attributed to Berengaudus, whom Dionysius Carthusianus citys with Bede and Haimo in his Commentary upon Ch. 10. of the Revelation.  
To these Treatises may be added the Harmony of the Evangelists St. Matthew and St. Luke concerning the Genealogy of Jesus Christ; for it is not St. Ambrose's, because this Author follows the Hypothesis of Africanus which St. Ambrose does not.  
Thirdly, There are many Treatises upon different Subjects attributed to St. Ambrose, whose true Authors have been discovered.  
The Treatise upon the Creed, which is better entitled in the Manuscripts, a Treatise of the Trinity and the Resurrection, is a Collection of Passages out of many Fathers. They have taken the liberty in the Roman Edition to make abundance of Additions and Alterations in it. The Benedictines will publish it just as it is in the Manuscripts.  
The Book of the Divinity of the Son is probably Gregory's of Boetica, as we proved, when we gave an account of the Works of St. Gregory Nazianzen.  
The Treatise entitled of the Mysteries of Easter, is a Sermon which is improperly divided into Chapters. It has rather the Style of St. Maximus than of St. Ambrose.  
The Book of the Sacerdotal Dignity is Gerbertus', under whose Name it has been published by Mabillon in his Analecta, where 'tis Entitled A Pastoral Book.  
The Discourse to a Virgin consecrated to God has a quite different Style from that of St. Ambrose.  
The Book of the Vocation of the Gentiles and the Epistle to Demetrias, are certainly none of St. Ambrose's, since they were written since the Birth of the Pelagian Heresy. We shall afterwards examine to whom they ought to be attributed.  
The 29th. Letter to Florianus is of a Style much below St. Ambrose's, and therefore it is rejected in the Appendix. 'Tis yet more evident, that the 34th. which is a relation of the Martyrdom of St. Agnes, is the Work of an Impostor, who having written a History as he himself pleased, added at the end, that it is St. Ambrose's, who having found these Memoirs in some divine Books, wrote them for the Edification of the Church, and addressed them to some Virgins. The Style of this Relation shows the Author to be a Liar, and discovers the Imposture.  
The 35th. Letter about the Invention of the Relics of St. Gervasius and St. Protasius relates this Event after quite another manner than St. Ambrose does in his Genuine Works, and is written in a Style perfectly different from this Father's. The same may be said of the 55th. Letter concerning the Invention of the Relics of St. Vitalis and St. Agricola, which ends with this Form▪ regnante Christo domino nostro, etc. which belongs to the Ages much later than St. Ambrose.  
The Two Prayers for preparation to the Eucharist, have nothing at all of St. Ambrose's Style. There are found in some Editions, many other Meditations and Prayers of the same nature, but none of them have any thing of his Genius.  
The Book of the Combat between Virtues and Vices, which is also attributed to St. Austin and St. Leo, belongs to Ambrose Autpertus, as is observed in the Preface to this Work, which is in the Appendix to the Sixth Book of the New Edition of St. Austin, p. 219.  
The Exposition of Faith is an Abridgement of St. Ambrose's Book addressed to Gratian.  
The Book of the Holy Spirit is a fragment of some more considerable Treatises written by a Latin Author ancient enough, but different from St. Ambrose.  
The Book of Penance belongs to one Victor, as the last Words prove invincibly, nulla capiaris oblivione Victoris. The very name of Victor is at the beginning of two ancient Manuscripts. We shall inquire afterwards, whether it ought to be ascribed to Victor Cartennensis, or to Victor Tunenensis.  
'Tis not necessary to advertise the Readers that the Book of the Life and Manners of the brahmin's, is a ridiculous Discourse, and unworthy of St. Ambrose, or any Man of Sense.  
The Style of St. Ambrose is not always equally lofty, for he proportions it, as St. Austin observes, to the things of which he treats. Sometimes it is very careless, sometime 'tis very laboured, but 'tis always grave, serious and noble; it is short, sententious, and full of Strokes of Wit. The Books that he took pains about, are very smart, exact and ingenious, and adorned with Figures and Flowers of Rhetoric. His other Books, though they are less polished, yet have their sweetness and smoothness. His words are choice enough, and his Expressions noble. He deversifies his Matter with a wonderful variety of Thoughts and Words. He is ingenious at finding out the most natural and agreeable Turns of Wit. He does not raise great Passions, but he diverts and instructs his Reader, and insinuates himself into his Mind and Heart by soft and pleasant Strains. Neither does his Discourse want strength, and he urges a thing vigorously, when there is occasion. As he joined together in the conduct of his Life a wonderful Generosity and inflexibility with all possible prudence and moderation, so he knew how to temper in his Discourses the boldness and authority of a Bishop, with an Air of sweetness and charity. We have already declared, what Judgement is to be made of his Commentaries upon the Scriptures, and of his dogmatical Books. His Books of Morality are certainly the most excellent of all his Works, and those he took most pains about. There are some of his Letters which may pass for Masterpieces in their kind, particularly those which are written to the Emperors. He who wrote them, plainly discovers that he was a Man brought up at Court, who has such a free Air and easy Way as is not acquired but by seeing the World. The Conduct and Policy which he observed in the greatest part of his Actions and Discourses, discover likewise that he had been accustomed in his younger Years to manage great Affairs, and that he had a Genius very fit for them. He was but moderately learned, chief in Ecclesiastical Matters. But being born in an Age of great light, and having great sharpness of Wit, and a wonderful facility of Speaking, and labouring continually in reading the Fathers that went before him, he became able to discharge with honour all the Offices of his Ministry, and to fill up the place which he possessed to his Credit.  
The First Edition of the Works of St. Ambrose, is that which Maffellus Venia an Augustine Monk, dedicated to the General of his Order, Ambrose Coranus. The Time and Place where it was printed is not set down. The Second was made at Milan by the care of a Priest called Cribellius in 1490. These Two Editions contain 
[Cornelius à Brughem in his Catalogue of Books printed before the Year 1500. mentions an Edition of St. Ambrose's Epistles in 1480 in fol. Of the Generation of John, at Augsbourg 1476. Of the Flowers of Wisdom, Homilies: Venice 1488. They seem by their Titles to be Spurious.]  but a few Treatises.  
Two Years after, Amerbachius Printer at Basle, made another Edition of the Works of St. Ambrose much larger, but less correct. This Edition was reprinted in 1606, by Johannes Petri Printer also at Basle, who added only a great Index.  
Erasmus undertook a New Edition of the Works of St. Ambrose which he divided into Four Tomes. The First contains the Moral Works; The Second, the Polemical; The Third, the Orations, Epistles and Sermons; and the Last, the Commentaries upon the Old and New Testament. These Four Tomes make Two Volumes. This Edition was many times reprinted at Basle, and once at Paris by Chevallon in 1529.  
The Edition of Erasmus being full of Faults, Johannes Costerius a Regular Canon of Lovain● took the Pains to Correct the Text of St. Ambrose by many Manuscripts, and caused it to be printed a new at Basle in 1555, by Episcopius.  
At last, Gillotius having gathered together a much greater Number of Manuscripts, caused the Works of St. Ambrose to be printed at Paris by Merlinus, in the Year 1568. This Edition, tho' more correct than all the rest, was little minded, and in a manner wholly eclipsed by the Reputation of the Roman Edition which followed soon after. Cardinal Montaltus, who was afterwards Sixtus V desiring to purchase a Reputation among Learned Men, undertook it while he was but a Cordelier and General of his Order, and caused Four Volumes of it to be published when he was Cardinal, in 1579, 1580, 1581., and 1582, which he Dedicated to Gregory XIII.  
The 5th. and 6th. appeared under the Pontificate of Sixtus V in 1585., and 1587.  
This Edition was after that the Pattern and Original which was followed in the Edition at Paris, begun in 1586, and in all the other following Editions which are very numerous. 'Twas believed that a Book published with so much ostentation, valued so much by the Publisher, printed in so fine a Character, and with so much care, must needs be very correct and perfect; and yet this Edition has many essential Defects which disfigure it. The first and most considerable is, that the Roman Correctors took the liberty to change, cut off, and add what they thought fit, though they had no ground to do so from the authority of any Manuscript. They carried it so far as that they did not content themselves with changing those Terms which appeared to them harsh, and substitute others according to their fancy, but they also blotted out or added whole Lines and Periods, which made a perfectly new Sense, and altogether different from the Authors, as may be seen by comparing the ancient Editions and the last, with this Roman Edition. Secondly, They have inserted into the Commentaries the whole Text of the sacred Books, which hinders the reading the Commentary of St. Ambrose without interruption. Thirdly, The Order which they have observed in ranging the Books is not natural. They have placed some Letters amongst the Treatises upon the Holy Scripture, they have separated Books that ought to follow one upon another, as the Complaints of Job and David, whereof one is placed in the First Tome, and the other in the Second; they have joined together some Treatises which should be separated; they have ranked the Letters in a very inconvenient Order. In a word, by too much refining, they have corrupted all, as Faber says in a Letter to Fronto Ducaeus, where he observes the Faults of the Roman Edition of St. Ambrose. I have found, says he to him, that nimis fuere ingeniosi in alieno opere, as in the Books De interpellatione sanctorum Job & David, which they have separated and placed the one in the First Tome, and the other in the Second; to do which they were forced, quaedam interpolare minime probabili exemplo. They have done the same in priore Apologia David; and in the Second that which is yet worse; for because it is said in the 8th. Ch. that the History of David with Bathshebah is not a History (which shows that this Book is none of St. Ambrose's, but some Origenists, who Allegorizes almost all the Bible, as also it seems by the reading of it to be collected and made up out of Two or Three Sermons) they have taken away Five or Six Lines which are found in all the ancient Editions. Fourthly, They have made a particular Class of some supposititious Books, and yet they have left a great number of them amongst St. Ambrose's Genuine Works. There are some of them whose Forgery is so manifest, that they cannot be pardoned, such as the Books de Arbore interdicta, de dignitate hominis, de Vocatione Gentium, the Epistle ad Demetriadem in Symbolum Apostolorum, and many others. They must be very ignorant who believed that these Books were written by St. Ambrose, and very impudent who left them among his Genuine Works, when they had a Design to make a distinct Class of those that were supposititious.  
In short, the Authors of this Edition have made no Notes, or marked in the Margin any different Readins; they have only added at the end the Theological and Scholastical dissertations of one Ferdinand Wellofillus, which are a Collection of common Places, and Passages of the Fathers upon different Questions, which are of no use at all for understanding the Text of St. Ambrose.  
Now to commend the Edition of the Benedictines, I need only say that they have avoided all the Faults of the Roman Edition: For First, they prescribed it to themselves as an inviolable Law, that they would put nothing into the Text, which should not be approved by the authority of one or more Manuscripts, and they have changed nothing without acquainting us with the Manuscript upon whose authority they did it. Secondly, They have taken out the Text of the Bible, and left the Commentary of St. Ambrose continued after the same manner as he composed it, excepting only the distinction of Chapters which is a great ease to the Reader. Thirdly, The Order which they observed in ranging the Books is plain and natural. Besides this, they have noted the Chronology of each Discourse, and ranged the Letters according to the order of their Dates. Fourthly, They have not placed any Book that is manifestly supposititious among those that are Genuine. They have only left among them the Second Apology of David and the Books of the Sacraments, because many learned Men believe them still to be St. Ambrose's, tho' it is very probable that they are not. Lastly, they have prefixed to every Chapter most useful Arguments, wherein they discover the time of each Work, and give the Contents of it. They have also placed at the bottom of the Pages such Notes, as contain not only the different Readins of the Manuscripts, but also very useful Explications of difficult places in the Text, whose Sense they have discovered by the most diligent Inquiries with all possible exactness, without diverting to Questions which are of no use for understanding the Text of their Author. All which give us occasion to say, That this Edition of the Works of St. Ambrose is as perfect as it can be, and comes no ways short of the late Edition of St. Austin.   

St. EPIPHANIUS.  
ST. EPIPHANIUS was born about the Year 332, in a Village of Palestine, near the City of Eleutheropolis, and passed his Youth in the Monastic Discipline with St. Hilarion, Hesychius, and 
St. Epiphanius.  other Monks of Palestine. He tells us (Heresy 26.) that he was like to have been surprised by the Heretics called Gnostics, but God of his mercy preserved him. He was chosen afterwards about the Year 366 Bishop of Salamis the Metropolis of the Isle of Cyprus. In this place he acquired very great Reputation for his Ability and Piety; and happy had it been for him if he had not been engaged towards the latter end of his Life in the Dispute of St. Jerom and Theophilus against the Origenists, which disturbed his Repose, and created him a great deal of trouble. This Dispute begun in the Year 391, between St. Epiphanius and John of Jerusalem. He accused this John of maintaining the Errors of Origen; and going into Palestine, he Ordained Paulinianus, the Brother of St. Jerom, Deacon and Priest, in a Monastery which was not under his Jurisdiction. John of Jerusalem complained immediately of this Action of Epiphanius, which was contrary to the Canons and the Discipline of the Church. St. Epiphanius maintains what he had done in a Letter which he wrote to John of Jerusalem, produced by St. Jerom. This Contest farther exasperated their Minds, which were already very much embittered upon the Subject of Origen; both the one and the other endeavour to engage Theophilus of Alexandria on their side. This Bishop, who seemed at first to favour the Party of John of Jerusalem, at last declared against Origen, condemned his Books in a Council held in 399, and persecuted all the Monks that were suspected to favour his Memory. These Monks being persecuted, withdrew to Constantinople, where they were well enough received by St. John Chrysostom: Which so enraged Theophilus, that from that time he conceived a Mortal hatred against St. Chrysostom, as plainly appeared by his following Actions. Nevertheless Theophilus desiring to strengthen his Party, acquainted St. Epiphanius with what he had done against Origen, and solicited him to do the same thing. This Saint who had a great aversion to this Author, assembled a Council in the Year 401, in the Isle of Cyprus, wherein he caused the Reading of Origen's Books to be condemned, and wrote to St. Chrysostom to exhort him to do the same thing: But he not approving of this Proposition, St. Epiphanius came himself to Constantinople, by the persuasion of Theophilus, to cause the Decree of the Council of Cyprus to be put in execution there. Socrates and Sozomen tell us, That before he entered into the City, he Ordained a Deacon in a Church depending upon the Jurisdiction of Constantinople. Cardinal Baronius thinks that these two Historians are mistaken, and that the Ordination of Paulinianus made by Epiphanius in Palestine, in a place depending upon John of Jerusalem, gave them occasion to think, that St. Epiphanius had Ordained a Deacon in the Diocese of St. John Chrysostom. Howsoever this be, St. Epiphanius being come to Constantinople, would not hold communion with St. Chrysostom, and also did all that lay in his power to procure from the Bishops that were then at Constantinople, an approbation of the Sentence of the Cyprian Council against Origen; but he found but very few willing to Sign the Condemnation of one that died in the Communion of the Church, upon so slight Grounds, and others refused to approve his Sentence. St. Epiphanius not being able to compass his Design by these means, resolved to be present the next day in the Church of the Apostles, and there with a loud Voice, before all the People, to condemn the Books of Origen, and all those who defended them. But when he was in the Church, St. Chrysostom advertised him by his Deacon Serapion, that he went about a thing that was against the Ecclesiastical Laws, and which would expose him to great danger, for it was to be feared, that the People would make some Sedition, of which he himself being the Author could not complain, after he had been forewarned of it. This consideration put a stop to St. Epiphanius' undertaking, who was so transported against Origen, that when the Empress Eudoxia, had recommended to his Prayers the younger Theodosius who was seized with a dangerous Sickness, he caused this to be told her for an answer, That the Prince her Son should not die, provided she would shun the conversation of Dioscorus and the other Defenders of Origen. The Empress being surprised with this Answer, which she did not expect, ordered him to be told, That if God would take away her Son, she would submit to his Will, That it was in his power to take him away as he had given him to her, but it was not in the power of St. Epiphanius to raise him again from the dead, since he suffered his Archdeacon to die a little while ago. The heat of St. Epiphanius was a little abated, after he had spoken to Ammonius and his Companions, whom Theophilus had driven away for Origenism, for those Monks gave him to understand that they maintained no heretical Doctrine, and that he had condemned them with too much precipitation. Whereupon he departed immediately to return to Cyprus, and 'tis said that being ready to embark, he told the Bishops that conducted him to the Ship. I leave you the City, the Palace, and the Theatre. He died by the way, or soon after his Return in 402, or 403.  
The Books of St. Epiphanius are First of all, his great Work of Heresies, entitled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that's to say, an Apothecary's-Shop, or Repository of Remedies, which is divided into three Parts.  
The First contains the Heresies before Jesus Christ, which amount to 46; The Second contains 23 of them, and the Third 11 of them, so that this Book contains in all, the History of 80 Sects or Heresies, the Catalogue of which may be seen.  
The Letter written to two Monks serves for a Preface to the whole Work, and for an Answer to a preceding Letter of those two Monks, wherein they had desired St. Epiphanius to set down in writing what he knew concerning Heresies. He seems to have begun this Book in the Year 374, and ended it about the Year 376. In it he not only gives an Account of the History, and the Errors of the Sects and Heresies he writes about, but he also refutes them as well as he could, and employs one part of his Discourse in establishing the Doctrine of the Church.  
The Second Work of St. Epiphanius is his Anchoratus, so called, because it is a sort of an Anchor to which the Faithful may adhere. In it he explains the Doctrine of the Church concerning the Mystery of the Trinity; he proves the Resurrection, and refutes the Errors of the Pagans, the Manichees, Sabellians and Arians. This Book was composed for the Christians of Pamphylia before the foregoing Book, as appears by the Preface, where it is noted, that he wrote it in the 10th. Year of the Emperor Valens, which is the Year 373.  
After this Book followed his Anacephalaeosis, or Recapitulation, which is an Abridgement of his great Book of Heresies.  
In the Treatise of Weights and Measures, having explained the signification of the different Notes that are to be found in the Greek Bibles, he gives an Account of the Weights, the Measures, and the Money of the Jews, and other Nations. In this Book he gives a Catalogue of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, according to the Canon of the Jews, which comprehends the Books of Ruth and Esther, and he writes the History of the Greek Versions of the Text of the Bible. He is of Opinion, that the Lxx Interpreters, translated all the Books of the Bible, and that they made this Version in separate Cells, being all inspired of God to compose it after the same manner. There is much Learning in this Treatise.  
The Physiologus is a Treatise of a very particular Design, wherein he relates the true or false Properties of many Animals, and draws from them some Moral Reflections, good and bad, as well as he could.  
The Treatise of the Twelve precious Stones, which were upon the Pontifical Garments of the Highpriest of the Jews, is an Historical Explication of the Names, the Figures and Properties of those precious Stones. This Book has been cited by St. Jerom, in his Epistle 228 to Fabiola, and Anastasius has made an Abridgement of it, which goes also under the Name of St. Epiphanius.  
The Book of the Life and Death of the Prophets, is a Collection of an infinite Number of Fables and Trifles, which cannot be attributed to St. Epiphanius, without making him pass for an Enthusiast.  
If we believe Petavius, the Nine Sermons and the Treatise of the Mysteries of Numbers, which bear the Name of St. Epiphanius, are not this Bishop's of Salamis, but some other Bishops who had the same Name, as may be discerned by the Style, and other Marks. Tho' I cannot perceive that these Books are more unworthy of St. Epiphanius than the Physiologus, neither do I find so great a difference in the Style.  
The Letter to John of Jerusalem, translated by St. Jerom, is made up of two Parts.  
The First is about the Difference which he had with this Bishop about the Ordination of Paulinianus, and concerning Origenism.  
The Second concerns a particular Matter of Fact which St. Epiphanius relates in these Words: When I entered into the Church of a Village of Palestine, called Anablatha, I found there a Curtain hanging over the Door, whereon was painted an Image like that of Jesus Christ, or some Saint (for I do not remember whose Picture it was, says he): But seeing in the Church of Christ the Image of a Man, contrary to the Authority of Holy Scripture, I tore it, and gave Order to the Churchwardens, to bury some dead body in this Curtain; and when they answered me in a murmuring way, that if I would tear this Curtain, I should give them another, I promised to do it, and now I perform my Promise.  
The First Part of this Letter is acknowledged by all the World as a Genuine Piece, but Baronius, Bellarmin▪ and some others are of Opinion, that this Second is supposititious. They allege many conjectures to prove it, but I find only three that have any probability.  
The First is, that this Letter seems to be finished before the Relation of this History.  
The Second is, because St. Epiphanius condemns in it the Use of Images as a thing contrary to the Authority of the Holy Scripture and the Practice of his own time.  
The Third, because St. Jerom making an Extract out of this Letter in his Epistle to Pammachius, says nothing concerning this History. These Reasons, however, appear not to me strong enough to make me absolutely reject this Letter. For first, altho' what concerns the principal Subject of the Letter was ended before the Second Part, yet it cannot be proved that the Letter was perfectly finished: And St. Epiphanius being to write of this particular Matter of Fact, could not do it, before he had made an end of the principal Affair, for which he wrote; besides, no Man can say, that this Letter was finished before these Words which are at the end of all, I wish that God may have you in his Holy keeping; Secondly, It is very possible that the Use of Images, which had been very rare in the first Three Ages of the Church, was not yet established in Palestine and Cyprus, and that St. Epiphanius, who was a plain zealous Man, thought it was dangerous to introduce it, and that he also spoke in too rigid a manner against this Custom. Lastly tho' St. Jerom has translated this whole Letter, yet he citys no part of it in his Apology to Pammachius, but those places which were to his purpose, neither does he recite the whole First Part, and we must not wonder, that he says nothing of the Second, since it did no ways concern the Contest which he had with John of Jerusalem. Moreover, this Second Part has the same Style with the First, and it agrees well enough with what St. Epiphanius says in Heresy 27th. It is cited by the Author of the Caroline Books, B. IU. Ch. 25. and 'tis said in the 7th. Council, Art. 6. Tome 5. that the Iconoclasts alleged, St. Epiphanius was of Opinion that Images should be taken away, which cannot be meant of any other place but of the Second Part of this Letter. Thus tho' it be true, as appears by the Testimony of St. Gregory Nyssen, in his Panegyric upon Theodorus, and in his Treatise of the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, that from that time there were Pictures in some Churches, which represented the Histories of Scripture, and of the Actions of Saints and Martyrs, yet it cannot be said, that this Custom was general; and it must be confessed that St. Epiphanius disapproved it, tho' without reason, and that he was mistaken in saying, that it did not agree with the Holy Scripture: For I believe that it would be contrary to the Candour and Sincerity that Religion requires of us, to attempt to give another Sense to his Words.  
Last of all, we have a Letter of St. Epiphanius written to Diodorus of Tarsus, related by Facundus in Ch. 3. of his IVth. B. which is a kind of a Preface to the Book of the Precious Stones in the Garment of the Jewish High Priest, written by St. Epiphanius at the request of this Bishop.  
I shall not stay to give an Abridgement of St. Epiphanius' Treatise of Heresies, which would be an useless and troublesome Business: I shall content myself with producing in short the chief Dogmes which he establishes contrary to the Errors of the Heretics.  
First, he proves the Unity of God against the Pagans, against the Valentinians, the Marcionites, and the Manichees. He establishes his Immensity, his Almighty Power, his Infinite Greatness, his Spirituality, and his other Attributes, by refuting the Heretics who believed the contrary. He proves the Mystery of the Trinity, the Divinity of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in many places, and chief in Heresies 62, 69, 71, 74 and in his Anchoratus.  
In Heres. 23 and 65, he shows that God created the World and the Angels.  
He endeavours to explain in Heres. 70. in what Sense Man is created after the Image of God.  
In Heres. 24 and 36. he shows that Sin is not a Substance, and that God is not the Author of it.  
He explains the Mystery of the Incarnation in Heres. 77, 30, 69, and shows, that Jesus Christ was one Person only, composed of the Divine and Humane Nature.  
He shows in Heres. 77, that the two Natures were not confounded after their Union, and that they kept their own Properties.  
He proves the Resurrection in Heres. 42, and 64. and in the Anchoratus, where he maintains, That the same Flesh which we now have shall be raised again.  
He holds in Heres. 24 and 46. that Jesus Christ descended into Hell, to save those that had lived well and believed in God.  
He teaches that the Soul is Immortal and Spiritual, and that it partakes of Happiness after Death. See what he says about this in Heres. 75.  
In Heres. 8. he shows that the Sacraments of the New Law are more Excellent and more Efficacious than those of the Old.  
In his Anchoratus he speaks of Faith as a Disposition necessary to the receiving of Baptism. Tho' he speaks obscurely enough of the Eucharist in his Anchoratus, yet he says enough of it to make us understand, that it is truly the Body of Jesus Christ, and that the words of his Institution are to be understood according to the Letter, and without any Figure or Metaphor.  
He acknowledges freewill in Heres. 16. and yet he admits the Grace of Jesus Christ.  
In Heres. 30. he speaks of the wonderful Effects of the Sign of the Cross.  
He proves the necessity of Ecclesiastical Traditions in many places, and chief in Heres. 69, 51, and 57 He shows the Necessity and Usefulness of Fasting, in the Heres. 33, 75, and 80. There he observes, That the Christians fasted during Lent, and every Wednesday and Friday in the Year, except after Easter until Whitsunday. He supposes that these Fasts are of Apostolical Tradition, and that we are obliged to observe them, and that we must abstain from Meat in the time of a Fast: He says, that in the last Week of Lent, nothing but plain Meats were eaten, that's to say, Bread and Water, and that many passed the two or three last Days without eating any thing.  
In Heres. 76 he establishes the distinction between Bishops and Priests.  
He ranks in the Order of the Clergy Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons. The other Ministers according to him do not partake of Holy Orders.  
These inferior Ministers are the Readers, Deaconesses, Exorcists, Interpreters, Diggers and Porters.  
He observes in Heres. 75. and at the end of Heres. 80. that the Assemblies of People in the Church were chief made on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday, and also in some places on Saturday: That Baptism and the Celebration of the Eucharist were attended with such Ceremonies as were prescribed either by the Gospel, or by the Tradition of the Apostles. That Matins were sung, and that Christians kneeled at their Prayers Day and Night. That Heretics, Idolaters, and all those that were guilty of enormous Crimes, were excommunicated, and their Oblations not received.  
He proves Prayers for the Dead in Heres. 76. and refuces Aetius who said the contrary.  
He says in Heres. 78. that the Saints enjoy eternal Happiness, and that we ought to honour them.  
As to the honour due to the Virgin, he keeps a middle way between the Antidicomarianites, who dishonoured her, by saying, That she had other Children besides Jesus Christ, and the Collyridians' who adored her. He says, That we must honour her, but we must not adore her, nor give her superstitious Worship. Read the Heresies 78 and 79: where he testifies that there is nothing certainly known concerning her Death, nor about the place where her Body is: yet it seems that his Piety induces him to believe that she never died, but he does not deliver this Opinion as a certain Truth.  
He praises Virginity in Heres. 4, 8, 5, 61, and 80. but he does not condemn Marriage, nor yet second Marriages. There he declares plainly, that the Church does not admit any to Holy Orders, but such as will observe Celibacy, and that she excludes Bigamists.  
And yet he confesses in Heres. 59, that there are still some place, where the Deacons and Subdeacons' do not observe Celibacy; but he adds, That this is done upon sufferance, because of the weakness of Men, or the multitude of People. Lastly, he says, That 'tis a great sin to violate the Vow of Virginity.  
He says in Heres. 59, that a Husband, who having divorced his Wife for Adultery or some other Crime, marries another, is free from Sin according to the Authority of Scripture, and that he is no-wise unworthy of Eternal Life, and that he ought to be permitted to continue in the Church.  
He would not have Women undertake any Ecclesiastical Function, and he proves in Heres. 79. That this ought not to be suffered. In short, if one would have an abridgement of the Doctrine, the Discipline, and the Morality of St. Epiphanius' time, he needs do no more but read what St. Epiphanius has said of them at the end of his Book about Heresies, where he has given the sum of them, so as to serve for an Antidote against all the Errors of Heretics.  
Any one that gives the least attention to the Doctrine of Epiphanius, which we have now represented, may easily perceive, that there is scarce any Author, who has made more Observations concerning the Doctrine and Discipline of the ancient Church, contrary to the Errors and Disorders of the Innovators of our Times: Yet they have endeavoured to find in his Writings part of their Errors, and have had the boldness to impute to us the Heresies which he refutes. This Stultetus has done with so much fraud, that 'tis impossible to read what he says about it, without conceiving an indignation against so unjust a procedure. He says First, That St. Epiphanius rejected the Invocation of Saints and the Virgin in Heres. 79. but this is a mere Cheat. St. Epiphanius indeed there condemns those who adored the Virgin, and gave her that sovereign Worship which is due to God only: He maintains that the Church neither adores the Virgin nor the Saints, altho' she has an Honour and due Respect for them. And do not we say the same thing? And can any other Doctrine be imputed to us without a palpable Calumny? But, says Scultetus, St. Epiphanius says in Heres. 75. That the Saints were prayed for, and therefore he cannot approve of their Invocation. This Author methinks should not have cited a place which so plainly opposes the Opinions which he maintains, which I shall set down entire. As to what concerns the custom of reciting the Names of the Dead, what can there be more useful and more reasonable? This is, First of all, to persuade those that are present that the Souls of the Dead are still alive, and that they are not annihilated. Secondly, To make us apprehend that there is good hopes of those that are dead. Moreover Prayers are not only useful to the Living but also to the Dead, tho' they do not blot out all their Sins; yet they serve to expiate some of those which they committed in this Life. We mention Sinners and Righteous Men; Sinners, to implore the Mercy of God for them; Righteous Men, such as the Fathers, the Patriarches, the Prophets, the Apostles, the Evangelists, the Martyrs, the Confessors, the Bishops, the Hermit's, and all Christians, that Jesus Christ may be distinguished from all his Creatures, and that we may learn to give to him the Worship that is due to him only; being persuaded that we ought not to equal Mortal Men to the Lord, whatsoever Righteousness and Holiness they have. After this he distinguishes Two Sorts of Saints, those that are on Earth, and those that are in the Heavenly Jerusalem; and he adds, that the Church does well to observe a Custom which she has received by Tradition; That the Laws of our Fathers cannot be subverted, nor the Commands of our Mothers despised without impiety, according to the Words of Solomon, Harken, my Son, to the Commands of your Father, and do not reject the Admonitions of your Mother. Jesus Christ our Father has taught us his Doctrine by Writing and by Tradition: The Holy Church our Mother has Laws which cannot be destroyed nor abrogated. Nothing is greater nor more admirable than those Laws, and all those who would oppose them, are self-convicted of an Error. Can there be any thing more agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church, or more contrary to the principal Errors of the Innovators! But, says Scultetus, these Arabian Women who offered Sacrifices to the Virgin, did not believe her Eternal or Infinite. But tho' these Women did not, it may be, think so, yet they gave her that Worship which is due only to a sovereign and infinite Being, by offering Sacrifices unto her, and placing all their Religion in doing so.  
The Second Objection of Scultetus is about the use of Images, which St. Epiphanius condemns in his Letter to John of Jerusalem, and which he seems also to reject as contrary to the Law of the Gospel. We have already answered this Objection, by saying, That indeed St. Epiphanius seems to have disallowed the use of Images, because this Custom was not then established in his Country: But 'tis certain, and Baillee himself does not deny it, that 'twas then established in other Churches. Moreover, we must not wonder, that St. Epiphanius speaks of it as a Practice contrary to the Gospel: For 'tis well known, that those who speak against Customs that were not established in their own time, do sometimes make use of Expressions too vehement in rejecting them; as for Example, St. Cyprian condemning the practice of those who did not put Water into the Chalice, makes no scruple to say, that their Custom was contrary to the Law of Jesus Christ. Many other Examples may be brought of this nature, and the Calvinists themselves must acknowledge, that the same is to be said of the Words of St. Epiphanius, since they cannot affirm, that the use of Images, whereof St. Epiphanius speaks in this place, is 
[This Excuse is not defensible: The New Testament is as severe against Idolatry as the Old was, and more, if we consider upon how much nobler Foundations it is constituted. Neither is this only a Matter of Discipline; or if it is, yet it is not an indifferent thing. The Church of Rome was very sensible of this, when she removed the Second Commandment out of the Catechisms, by which she order her People to be instructed. If the Abuses occasioned by placing of Images in Churches had never been more dangerous than they were in St. Epiphanius' time, this Plea might have been valid for those Churches which still desired to retain them; or if the Church of Rome, in her Offices, Catechisms and Directions to her Priests to guide them in their Sermons and Exhortations to the People, had taken all possible care to obviate all Objections whatsoever which could have been raised, she could then have justly urged it. But Mr. Du Pin knows very well that her constant connivance if not Command, has long ago precluded her from all Pretences of this nature: She knows also, that the Laiety in all Countries of the Communion of the Church of Rome where they have not been overawed by a promiscuous conversation with Protestants, have without check paid as gross Acts of Worship to senseless Images of (sometimes fictitious) Saints, as ever the Heathens of old paid to the Images of Jupiter or Apis; and lastly he knows, that his Church is in this Point wholly inexcusable, because it has established and still maintains a Custom, not mentioned at least, if not expressly forbidden in Scripture; unknown to the purest Ages of Christianity, opposed as contradictory to the Law of God at its first appearance, by Men eminent for Piety and Learning in the Time when they lived, and received as Saints by the Catholic Church after their Deaths, and abused by the ignorant People to the basest Idolatry and Superstition in all Countries wherever it has been allowed.]  contrary to the Gospel.  
The Third thing which Scultetus pretends to find in the Books of St. Epiphanius contrary to the Doctrine of the Church, is the condemnation of the Sacrifice of the Mass. He endeavours to prove that St. Epiphanius never taught it, because, he says in Heres. 55. and 42. That Jesus Christ came to abolish the Sacrifices of the Old Law, by one Sacrifice only. The meanest Writer of Controversies would easily answer this Objection, by saying, First, That St. Epiphanius in this place speaks only of the Sacrifices of the Old Law, to which he opposes that of Jesus Christ upon the Cross, and that he does no ways exclude the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharist. Secondly, That the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, properly speaking, is not different from that upon the Cross, and that it is always the same thing which is offered, tho' after a different manner. Thirdly, That St. Epiphanius acknowledges, that the Priesthood of Melchisedeck, and consequently the Sacrifice, continued under the New Law.  
The Fourth Objection of Scultetus is about Purgatory. He affirms that St. Epiphanius did not own it, because he says in Heres. 59 That no Man can change his Condition after his death, and that then there is no more room for any one to repent and to merit Glory. But does it follow from this Proposition which all Catholics acknowledged, that those who died in a State of Damnation could no longer hope for Salvation? Does it follow, say I, that those who died in the Gild of some small Sins could not be purified from it after their deaths? All the Catholics deny this Consequence, and St. Epiphanius has plainly owned it to be false, when he says in Heres. 75, that Prayers for the Dead could expiate some Sins, tho' they could not blot out great Crimes.  
The Fifth Dogm of the Church which Soultetus opposes by St. Epiphanius, is the Vow of Continence: But the Passages which he alleges, are so far from opposing it, that they plainly discover that it was used in the time of this Father, and that the Church punished those very severely who violated it.  
The last is about Baptism administered by Women. St. Epiphanius in Heres. 76, says, that it was not lawful for them to baptise. Do not we say so also? But does it follow from thence that their doing of it in a case of necessity is not valid? This is what Scultetus should prove, but it is not the Question of St. Epiphanius.  
These are the false Consequences which Scultetus urges to oppose the Doctrine of the Church: But he does so grossly calumniate us, by charging upon us the detestable Opinions of some Heretics, that he must have renounced all kind of Modesty to affirm such manifest Untruths with so much boldness.  
First of all, He accuses us of making Women the Ministers of Baptism, as the Marcionites did. But where is it found that Women do Administer Baptism in our Churches? They never do it but in great necessity. And 'tis no Heresy to say, That in this Case all Sorts of Persons may Administer it, 'tis no part of the Error of the Marcionites or the Collyridians'.  
Secondly, He charges us with trusting to Revelations and Miracles, as the Nazarenes did. But is it an Error to believe that there have been, and that there may be Revelations? That Man must have no Religion who says the contrary. The Heretics are to blame for reigning false Miracles, but the Catholics are not to blame for Believing true ones.  
Thirdly, He compares Transubstantiation to the Enchantments of Marcus, who having put white Wine into a Glass, made one part of the Liquor appear Red as Blood, another of a Purple colour, and a Third of a Blue. But what Affinity is there between our Holy and Sacred Mysteries, and the Diabolical Actions of these Ministers of Daemons? What Relation has our Doctrine to these Impieties?  
The other Accusations of Scultetus are no less Calumnious: For do we offer the Sacrifice of the Mass in honour of the Virgin, as the Collyridians' did? Do we teach that Concubinate is lawful, as Aëtius did? Do we adore Idols? The Images to which we pay a bare External Respect, are they the Images of Simon and Helena, and other Heretics? Are they not the Images of Jesus Christ and the Saints, to whose Persons only all our Worship is referred? Do we condemn Marriage and the use of Meats as Tatian and the Encratites did? Do we believe that the Souls of the Wicked may be delivered out of Hell? In short, Is there any Similitude between all the Errors of the Heretics related by St. Epiphanius, and the Doctrines of the Church? Do not we Believe what the Church Believed in his Time? Do not we Practise what she Practised? On the contrary, are not they the Innovators of our Time, who take part with the Heretics of that Time against the Church? Do not they deny with Aetius the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters? Do not they find fault with Prayers for the Dead, and the Honour which is given to Saints? Do not they condemn the Celibacy of Priests, the Vow of Virginity, the Monastic State, the Ceremonies, the Sign of the Cross, the Solemn Prayers? These are the Errors which St. Epiphanius condemns in the Heretics of his Time, and which he refutes by the Practice and Tradition of the Church. And therefore that may justly be charged upon the Sect of Innovators, which Scultetus has unjustly charged upon Us, That their Doctrine is a Garment patched together, and made up of many Pieces and many Shreds 

[Who is most in the right, Scultetus, or our Author, will not be hard to judge, to any one who is acquainted with undisguised Popery; I say undisguised, because Mr. Du Pin goes upon the palliating Principles laid down by the Bishop of Meaux. There is no question but the Seeds of those Corruptions began to spring up in St. Epiphanius' Time, which afterwards grew so high in the Church; yet tho' they honoured the Dead who died in the Lord, and prayed for those who were Guilty of lesser Sins, they neither called upon the former, nor believed a middle State for the latter, if St. Epiphanius' Authority be decisive, in those places which are faithfully urged by Scultetus. In the case of Images in Churches, Mr. Du Pin gives it up, because St. Epiphanius says expressly that it was against the Word of God: Contra auctoritatem Scripturae. In the Matter of the Real Presence our Author and Petavius before him, lay great Stress upon a Passage in the Anchoratus Sect. 57 wherein speaking of the Sacrament as Christ's Body, he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; He that does not Believe it to be the real Body of Christ, as he said himself, is fallen from Grace and Salvation. Now to know the full meaning of St. Epiphanius in these Words, we are to go back to the beginning of Sect. 55. There he raises a dispute of the meaning of Adam's being created after the Image of God, since there is so great disparity between their Natures: And he finds that this cannot be Physically understood, because to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are very different things; yet since it is said in Scripture, we ought to believe it.  
Now to prove this Assertion he urges the Institution of the Lord's Supper: Our Saviour said (says he) of the Bread, This is my Body; and yet it is not like Flesh in the least, so as to resemble Christ's Humane Nature, nor like the invisible Godhead, so as to resemble his Divinity: But because he has said it we must not dispute it, since if we should dispute it, we should fall away from Grace and Salvation. This Illustration therefore cannot in reason be carried farther than the Original Question which it was designed to illustrate; wherefore seeing that St. Epiphanius confessed, that when we say, that Man is created after the Image of God, we do not mean that he is created after the Nature of the Invisible, Incomprehensible and Spiritual God; it is plain that his illustration of the Eucharist is equally figurative as this Expression of Man's Nature, which he is now explaining.  
But it is needless to run through all the rest of the Articles here particularly named. St. Epiphanius' Authority is decisive of neither side; if it were, we must believe that Divorces are lawful for other Causes besides Adultery, and that such Divorces perfectly dissolve the Marriage Bond, for this was his Opinion, as appears from Heres. 59 Sect. 4.]   of ancient Heresies.  
The Style of St. Epiphanius is neither beautiful nor lofty, on the contrary it is plain, low and mean, it is rude and unpolished; without Coherence and Connexion. He had much Reading and Learning, but no Faculty of Discerning, nor Exactness of Judgement. He often uses such things for Reasons to refute the Heretics which are False. He was very Credulous and not very Accurate. He is mistaken in many places about very considerable Matters in History, and gave Credit too lightly to false Memoirs, or to uncertain Reports. He had much Zeal and Piety, but little Conduct and Policy.  
The Works of St. Epiphanius were printed in Greek at Basil by Oporinus in the Year 1544. Cornarius' Translation of this Work, had been published and printed at Basle by Robertus Ullinterus in 1533. The same Printer caused it to be reprinted in 1540, and in 1545; It was also reprinted at Paris in 1564, at Basle in 1560, and in 1578, and at Paris in 1612, with some Corrections of Jacobus Billius: The Physiologus was published by Gonsalus Ponce de Leon at Rome in 1587., and printed afterwards at Antwerp in 1588.: The Book of the Lives of the Prophets, was published in Greek and Latin with the Notes of Zehennerus, and printed at Scheuling in 1612. The Oration concerning the Burial of Jesus Christ, was published in 1614  
At last, Petavius undertook a New Edition of St. Epiphanius, and having found the Version of Cornarius very defective, he made a new one, which he printed at Paris in 1622, together with the Greek Text reviewed and corrected by two Manuscripts. This Edition is in Two Volumes in Folio; The First contains the Book of Heresies; The Second contains the Anchorate, the Recapitulation, and the Book of Weights and Measures, of Petavius' Translation, the Physiologus, the Book of Precious Stones, and the Homilies, together with the ancient Versions of his Works, the Letter to John of Jerusalem, the Life of St. Epiphanius written by Metaphrastes, and the Animadversions of Petavius, which are rather Critical and Chronological Dissertations, than Notes to explain the Text of St. Epiphanius. This Edition was lately reprinted in Germany.   

PHILO CARPATHIUS.  
'TIS said in the Life of St. Epiphanius, that this Saint Ordained one named Philo Bishop of Carpasus, and that he committed to him the Charge of making Ordinations at Salamis in 
Philo Carpathius.  his absence. Upon this Ground it has been thought that this Man lived in the time of St. Epiphanius, and that he was Bishop of the Isle of Carpathus, which is upon the Coast of Asia, near the Isle of Crete: There has also been attributed to this Philo, a Commentary upon the Canticles. But all these Suppositions are found to be False: For, First, The Life of St. Epiphanius which is filled with an infinite Number of Fables and Forgeries, was written by a Modern Greek, and has no Authority, and can no more prove that there was a Philo, than that there was a Papius, or an Eudemon, or a Polybius, or a great many others whom this Fabulous Author has feigned to embellish his History. Secondly, He does not say that this Philo was Ordained Bishop of the Isle of Carpathus, which was not under the Jurisdiction of St. Epiphanius, but of a City called Carpasus, which was in the Isle of Cyprus, mentioned by Pliny: Now it does not appear that this City ever had a Bishop. In short, the Commentary upon the Canticles, is the Invention of some Modern Greek, which contains many things that may be found word for word in the Commentary of Gregory the Great. And tho' it were true that these places were added, as some Authors have suspected, we cannot lay much stress upon an Author so little known as he is.   

Q. JULIUS HILARION.  
THIS Author, of whom the Ancients make no mention, has written a Chronicle, or a Book of the Duration of the World, from the beginning of the World down to the 
Q. Julius Hilarion.  Year 397; which makes it credible that he lived about this time. He speaks of a Treatise which he wrote about Easter; he believed that the World would be at an end 470 Years after Jesus Christ, and he held the Opinion of the Millenaries, which still confirms his Antiquity. His Treatise was first published by Pithaeus, and inserted into the Bibliothecae Patrum.    

OF THE COUNCILS Held in the Fourth AGE of the CHURCH.  

Of the pretended COUNCIL of Sinuessa.  
THIS Council of Sinuessa would be the First Council held in this Century, if the Acts which bear the Name of this Council were Genuine: But it is notoriously known 
The Council of Sinuessa, 303.  among all Learned Men, that they are supposititious, and that the Story on which they are grounded is a Fable which has no Foundation in Antiquity. It is supposed in those Acts, That this Council was assembled at the beginning of the Fourth Century, upon occasion of the Fall of the Pope Marcellinus, who had sacrificed to Idols; That it was held at Sinuessa in a Grotto; That there were 300 Bishops present at it; That the Pope Marcellinus having confessed his Fault condemned himself, and that the Bishops durst not depose him, till he had pronounced Sentence upon himself. None of these things have any probability: For, First, This History is not founded upon the Testimony of any ancient Author: Secondly, St. Austin in his Book against Petilian, Ch. 16. defends the Innocence of Marcellinus against this Donatist, who accused him of having sacrificed to Idols; and therefore to maintain the Acts of the Council of Sinuessa, is to take part with the Donatists against the Church. 'Tis more probable that they were forged by the Donatists to support the Accusation which they had made against this Holy Bishop without Foundation. Thirdly, What probability is there that 300 Bishops could be assembled in the time of the most violent Persecution that ever the Church suffered; since it was all that Constantine could do, to assemble a Council so numerous, at a time when the Church was flourishing, and much farther spread. And certainly if the Catholic Bishops at the Conference of Carthage could reject the Acts of the Council of Cirtha, by saying, that there was no probability that a Council could be assembled in the time of Persecution, tho' this Council was but a Synod of some African Bishops, What may not be said against a Synod that is supposed to consist of 300 Bishops? Fourthly, The Style of these Acts is barbarous, and contain many things which do not in the least belong to Marcellinus' Age. They make the Pagan Highpriest (whom they ridiculously call the Pontiff of the Capitol,) produce what is said in Holy Scripture of the Adoration of the Wisemen, to prove that Incense should be offered to Idols. 'Tis said, That a 100 Christians run to the Temple of Vesta to see Incense offered by Marcellinus: Their Names are recited, which are either almost all African Names, or such as are ridiculous. 'Tis said that 72 were chosen out of them to be Witnesses of this Pope's Sacrilege. The synodical Part of these Acts is no less contrary to the Discipline of that time, than what is said of the Fall of Marcellinus is contrary to the History. 'Tis said, That Marcellinus at first denied his Fault; That the Synod declared to him he should be his own Judge; That the Bishops durst not judge him, because it was not lawful for any body to judge the First See. I say nothing of the Impertinences, which some of the Bishops are made to say, that are unworthy of the Gravity and Simplicity of the Christians of the First Ages. Lastly, he who forged these Acts, says, that Dioclesian was informed of the Condemnation of Marcellinus, when he was at War with the Persians; which yet further discovers that these Acts are not ancient, since the Persian War was ended before the Persecution of Dioclesian, from whence it follows, that he who fell into so gross a Fault in Chronology, is a modern Author unworthy of any Credit.   

Of the COUNCIL of Cirtha.  
THE Violence of the Persecution being a little abated in afric in the Year of Jesus Christ 305, some Bishops of Numidia assembled at the beginning of the Month of May in the City of 
Of Cirtha; 305.  Cirtha, in the House of one Donatus, because the Churches were not yet restored. The occasion of this Synod was the Ordination of a Bishop into the See of this City of Numidia in the room of Paul. The Bishops which were present there were Secundus of Tigisis, Donatus of Mascula; Marinus of Aquae Tibilitanae, Donatus of Calama, Purpurius of Limata, Victor of Garbis, Felix of Rotarium, Nabor of Centurio, and Secundus the younger. A Bishop called Menalius would not be present for fear of being accused and convicted of having sacrificed to Idols. These Bishops, who were afterwards the Heads of the Donatist Faction, accused one another mutually in this Council, and all of them fearing lest they should be convicted of the Crimes of which they had accused one another; they 
The Councils.  pardoned one another, referring themselves to the Judgement of God: After which they ordained Silvanus Bishop of Cirtha. You have the Acts of this Council in St. Austin in his Third Book against Cresconius, Chap. 27.   

Of the COUNCIL of Alexandria, under Peter Bishop of that Church.  
IN the Year 306. Peter of Alexandria held a Council, wherein he deposed Meletius, being convicted 
Of Alexandria, 306.  of having sacrificed to Idols. We have not the Acts of this Council, and we know nothing more in particular of it.   

Of the COUNCIL of Eliberis or. Elvira.  
THE place 
a The place.] The Name of this Council is very various; Some call it Libertinum, others Elibertinum, others Heberitanum, and some Eliberinum; but the more common Name is Eliberitanum, or Illiberitanum. The ancient Geographers mention only Two Cities called by this Name, whereof one was in Gallia Narbonensis, and the other in Boetica. 'Tis thought that the first is Perpignan, and the other in all probability is the City of Granada. The First was destroyed in the time of Pliny and Mela, and 'tis no wise probable that the Bishops of Spain should come so far to hold a Council. Wherefore it is much more probable that this Council was held at the Spanish Elvira i. e. Granada.  and time 
b The time.] Those who said that this Council was held after the Year 400, affirmed what is manifestly false, since at that time the enjoining Penance for those who had sacrificed to Idols, was not debated: The same Reason proves that there is no probability that it was assembled after the Council of Nice. It seems to have been called before that of Arles; but I do not believe that it was called before the Persecution of Dioclesian. There is more probability, that it was assembled when the Persecution ended in the West, and when Dioclesian had abdicated the Empire in the Year 304.  of the Council of Eliberis are very uncertain. Some have thought that 
Of Eliberis or Elvira, 305.  this Council was assembled in a City of Gallia Narbonensis; others say that this City was in Boetica; and the most Learned think that this City of Eliberis was the same with Granada. As to the time, some Authors have placed it at the end of the Third Century, others have removed it unto the end of the Fourth, but the most probable Opinion is, that it was assembled at the beginning of the Fourth Century, before the Councils of Arles and Nice, about the Year 305. The little Order that is observed in the Canons of this Council, the great variety of Rules that are to be found in it, and the multitude of Canons about different Matters, make some Learned Men think, probably enough, that the Canons attributed to this Council are an ancient Code, or an ancient Collection of the Councils of Spain. However this be, it cannot be doubted, but these Canons are very Ancient and very Authentic.  
The Discipline which they establish is very rigorous.  
In the 1st. Canon they are deprived of Communion, i. e. of Absolution, even at the point of Death, who have voluntarily Sacrificed to Idols after they were baptised.  
The 2d. establishes the same Penalty against those, who taking upon them after their Baptism, the Office of Priests to False Gods, were obliged to offer up Sacrifices to Idols by themselves or others, and who have also increased their Gild by Murders or Adulteries.  
The 3d. moderates this Penalty to those who have only caused profane shows to be represented, and grants them Communion at the point of Death, provided they put themselves under Penance, and that they do not afterwards fall into Adultery.  
The 4th. is, That if the Catechumens' cause themselves to be chosen Priests to false Gods, and act in profane Shows, their Baptism shall be delayed for three Years.  
The 5th. imposes Seven Years Penance upon a Woman that shall beat her Servant-Maid in such a manner, that she dies within three Days after, if the Woman had a design to kill her; and Five Years Penance if she had no such design: She is acquitted if the Maid dies more than Three Days after.  
In the 6th. Canon it is ordained, That Absolution shall be refused even at Death, to him who shall kill another by Treachery.  
The 7th. is, That those who relapse into Adultery after they have undergone Penance, shall not be received even at Death.  
The 8th. subject's a Woman to the same Penalty, who has forsaken her Husband without cause, to marry another.  
The 9th. declares, That 'tis not lawful for a Woman, tho' she has forsaken her Husband, because of Adultery, to marry another; and that if she does it, she ought not to be admitted to Communion, till he whom she has married be dead, or at least till the extremity of Sickness make it necessary to grant it her.  
The 10th. allows Husbands to be baptised who have forsaken their Wives, and Wives who have forsaken their Husbands, for Adultery, while they were Catechumen. But if a Christian Woman marries a Man who has forsaken his Wife without reason, the Canon ordains, That the Communion of the Church shall be refused her, even at the point of Death.  
The 11th. Ordains, That Baptism shall be delayed for the space of Five Years to a Catechumeness who has married a Husband that had divorced his Wife without cause.  
The 12th. Canon denies Communion at death to Women who prostitute their Daughters.  
The 13th. subjects to the same Penalty the Virgins consecrated to God, who spend their Life in Licentiousness, but it grants Absolution at the Point of Death to those who do Penance for their Fault.  
The 14th. treats Virgins with much moderation who have lost their Virginity, if they marry those who have abused them; for it ordains, That they should be restored to Ecclesiastical Communion at the end of One Year, without being obliged to do Penance; but than it imposes Five Years Penance, if they have had to do with other Men.  
The 15th. and 16th. forbidden the Faithful to bestow their Daughters in Marriage upon Pagans, Jews or Heretics, how great soever the number of Virgins be among Christians; and it Ordains, That the Fathers who do it shall be separated from Communion for the space of Five Years.  
The 17th. denies Absolution even at the Point of Death, to those who give their Daughters in Marriage to the Priests of False Gods.  
The 18th. forbids Bishops, Priests and Deacons to leave their Churches to exercise Merchandise, and go to Fairs; but it allows them to Traffic in their own Province, and to send their Children, their Friends and their Servants to trade in Foreign Countries.  
The 19th. ordains, That Communion shall be refused, even at the Point of Death, to Bishops, Priests and Deacons who have committed Adultery.  
The 20th. declares, That a Clergyman who is discovered to take Interest, should be deposed and removed; That the same Crime should be pardoned in a Layman if he promises to amend it, but if he relapses he is to be cast out of the Church.  
The 21st. Canon is, That if any Inhabitant in a City shall be absent from the Church for three Sundays together, he shall be separated from Communion for some time, to signify that he has been punished for his Fault.  
The 22d. declares, That he who has abandoned the Church, to go over to a Sect of Heretics, shall not be received back into the Church again till he has done Penance for Ten Years: As for those who were Children when they were entered into an Heretical Sect and return to the Church, the Canon Ordains, That they shall be Received without any delay.  
The 23d. declares, That the ordinary Fasts shall be observed except in the Months of July and August, because of the weakness of some of the Faithful.  
The 24th. forbids those to be admitted to Sacred Orders, who have been baptised out of their own Country, because their Life is not known.  
The 25th. declares, That Credit shall not be given to the Letters of a Confessor, but only to Letters of Communion.  
The 26th. forbids Fasting on Saturdays.  
The 27th. forbids Bishops and Clergymen to have in their Houses strange Women.  
The 28th. forbids Bishops to receive Presents from those that are not in the Communion of the Church.  
The 29th. forbids to recite at the Altar the Names of those that are possessed, and does not permit them to make any Offering themselves in the Church.  
The 30th. Ordains, That the Orders of Subdeacon shall not be given to those who have committed Adultery in their Youth, lest they should rise to a higher Degree, and that those who have been Ordained shall be degraded.  
The 31st. declares, That those may be admitted to Communion who have committed Adultery after Baptism, provided they have fulfilled their Canonical Penance.  
The 32d. declares, That when any Persons fall sick, they ought to be received into Ecclesiastical Communion by the Bishop; but yet if the sickness be violent, the Priest may grant them Communion, and even the Deacon if the Bishop command him.  
The 33d. Canon prescribes Celibacy to Priests and Deacons.  
The 34th. Canon is very obscure: It declares, That Wax-Candles are not be lighted in the Coemiteries, because we must not disturb the Spirits of the Saints. Some understand by the Spirits of the Saints the Souls of the Dead: I think that it is more natural to understand by it, the Repose of the Spirits of the Faithful that are alive and may be troubled with a great multitude of Lights in the daytime.  
The 35th. redresses a dangerous Abuse; it is set down in these Words. We have thought fit to hinder Women from spending the Night in the Coemiteries, because oftentimes under pretence of praying they commit in secret great Crimes.  
The 36th. has very much exercised Divines. Thus it is expressed, We would not have Pictures placed in Churches, lest the Object of our Worship and Adoration should be painted upon the Walls. Many Explications have been given of this Passage, but to me it seems better to understand it in the plainest Sense, and to confess that the Fathers of this Council did not approve the use of Images, no more than that of Wax-Candles lighted in full daylight: But these things are Matters of Discipline, which may be used or not, without doing any prejudice to the Faith of the Church.  
The 37th. Canon permits Baptism to be given at the Point of Death to those who are acted by an Evil Spirit, and to Catechumen, and does not deprive them of Communion if they be faithful. Provided, adds the Canon, That they do not publicly light Lamps. This Addition is very obscure, and there is no great necessity of explaining it.  
The 38th. declares, That a Christian who is neither Penitent nor Bigamist, may baptise in a case of Necessity, those who are on a Journey, being at a great distance from a Church, upon Condition that he present him to the Bishop if he survive, to be perfected by Imposition of Hands.  
The 39th. ordains, That Imposition of Hands shall not be denied to Pagans who desire it after they are fallen into some Disease, provided they have led an honest Life. This Canon must be understood of that Imposition of Hands by which Pagans were placed in the Rank of Catechumen, which this Council calls making them Christians.  
The 40th. forbids Landlords to allow their Farmers or Receivers what they have given for Idols; and if they do it, it imposes upon them a Penance of Five Years.  
The 41st. declares, That the Faithful must be admonished not to suffer Idols in their Houses.  
The 42d. ordains, That those who give in their Names to be entered into the Church, shall be baptised two Years after, if they lead a regular Life; unless they are obliged to relieve them sooner upon the account of any dangerous Sickness, or that it is judged convenient to grant them this Grace sooner because of the fervour of their Prayers.  
The 43d. forbids the Celebration of the Feast of Whitsunday before Easter.  
The 44th. allows a Woman to be received who has formerly led a lewd Life, when she is converted, and would be made a Christian, after she has renounced her Sins.  
The 45th. allows Baptism to be given a Catechumen, tho' he has been long absent from Church.  
The 46th. imposes 10 Years Penance upon one of the Faithful, who has lived long in the practice of the same Sin, which it looks upon as an Apostasy.  
The 47th. ordains, That if one of the Faithful who has a lawful Wife, has committed many Adulteries, fall Sick, and promise to commit this Sin no more, Communion shall not be denied him; but if after his Recovery he relapse into his Sin, it shall never more be granted to him.  
In the 48th. it is ordained, That the baptised shall not put any more Money into the Boxes or Basins, as was commonly done, lest it should be thought, that the Priest gave for Money what he had freely received. It adds, That not the Priests but the Ministers shall wash the Feet of the Baptised.  
The 49th. forbids those who possess an Estate in Land, to suffer the Fruits of it to be blessed by the Jews.  
The 50th. Ordains, That those who eat with Jews shall be separated from the Church.  
The 51st. forbids to admit into the Clergy those who return from Heresy, and pronounces the Sentence of Deposition against such if they are Ordained.  
The 52d. declares those worthy of an Anathema, who publish Deformatory Libels.  
The 53d. declares, That a Person excommunicated cannot be received but by the Bishop who excommunicated him, and forbids all others to receive him into Communion without the consent of his own Bishop.  
The 54th. Ordains, That those Pagans shall be separated from the Church for Three Years who have violated their Promise of Espousals, unless one of the Parties contracted be found guilty of some Crime which hindered them from Marriage.  
The 55th. declares, That they shall be received into Communion at the end of Two Years who were Priests of False Gods, who have carried a Crown, but have not sacrificed nor laid out any Money to the Honour of Idols.  
The 56th. separates from the Church a Pagan Magistrate, during the time that he discharges his Office.  
The 57th. excommunicates for Three Years those Christian Women who lend their Garments for a profane show.  
The 58th. Ordains, That those who bring Letters of Communion shall be examined in all the Churches, and chief in that where the First Episcopal Throne is settled, that is, in the Metropolitical Church.  
The 59th. forbids Christians to ascend into the Capitol to Sacrifice there, or to see sacrificing there, and imposes Ten Years Penance upon those that fall into this Fault.  
The 60th. deprives those of the Title of Martyrs, who are killed for overthrowing Idols publicly, because the Gospel commands us not to do any such thing, and we never read that it was practised by the Christians in the times of the Apostles.  
The 61st. imposes a Penance of Five Years upon him that Marries his Wife's Sister, unless the extremity of Sickness oblige us to give him the Peace of the Church sooner.  
The 62d. declares, That an Actor of Plays or a Comedian who would be made a Christian, shall not be received till he has renounced his Profession.  
The 63d. denies Communion even at the Point of Death, to such Women as being guilty of Adultery have murdered their Infants.  
The 64th. treats with the same Rigour those Women who have continued all their Life-time in the habitual practice of the Sin of Adultery; but as to those who acknowledged their Crime before they were sick, and forsook the Man with whom they had committed this Sin, it grants them Communion after Ten Years Penance.  
The 65th. declares, That if a Clergyman knows that his Wife commits Adultery and sends her not away, he is unworthy of the Communion of the Church even 
[This Canon is an authentic Evidence of the Marrying of the Clergy of the Church of Spain at this time.]  at the Point of Death, lest it should be thought that those who ought to be a Pattern of a regular Life, show an example of Licentiousness.  
The 66th. declares, That he who marries his Daughter-in-law shall not receive the Communion even at Death.  
The 67th. forbids Women that are of the Faithful or Catechumen, to have Footmen or Pages that are beautiful and well-shaped.  
The 68th. delays the Baptism of a Catechumeness to the Hour of Death, who having committed Adultery murdered her Child.  
The 69th. imposes but Five Years of Penance upon those who have fallen but once into the Sin of Adultery.  
The 70th. declares, That if a Woman commit Adultery with the consent of her Husband, he is unworthy of the Communion at the Point of Death; nevertheless if he divorces her he maybe received after Ten Years Penance.  
The 71st. denies Communion even at the Point of Death 
[By infamous Crimes here is meant abusing their Bodies with Mankind.]  to those who have committed most infamous Crimes.  
The 72d. declares, That if a Widow commit Adultery, and afterwards marries the same Man with whom she had committed this Sin, she shall be discharged for Five Years Penance; but if she marry another, she cannot be reconciled, even at the Point of Death, and that if he to whom she marries be one of the Faithful, he shall be put under Penance for Ten Years.  
The 73d. denies Communion, even at the Point of Death, to those who have been the cause of the Condemnation or Death of any Man by their false Accusations, and imposes Five Years Penance if the Matter be of less consequence.  
The 74th. Ordains, That a false Witness shall be punished proportionable to the greatness of the Crime of which he testified falsely: That if the Crime did not deserve Death; and he proves, That he gave testimony with reluctancy, and that he continued long before he was willing to say any thing, he shall be acquitted for Two Years of Penance: But if he does not prove that he was constrained to give this false Testimony, he shall not be received into the Communion of the Church till Five Years after.  
The 75th. deprives those of Communion, even at the Point of Death, who have falsely accused a Bishop, a Priest, or a Deacon.  
The 76th. Ordains, That if a Deacon being guilty of a Crime suffers himself to be Ordained, he shall be put under Penance for Three Years, if the Crime be discovered by his own Confession, and Five Years if it be detected by the testimony of another.  
The 77th. declares, That if a Deacon who governs a People, baptise any Catechumen without a Bishop or without a Priest, the Bishop ought to consummate, as one may say, the Baptism by his Benediction; but if they die before this be done, they may be saved by the Faith which they had.  
The 78th. imposes upon him who commits Adultery with a Pagan or Jewish Woman, a Penance of Three Years, if he himself confess his Sin, and one of Five Years, if he be convicted of it.  
The 79th. forbids playing at Games of Chance, and declares that if any of the Faithful make profession of playing, he shall be deprived of Communion; but if he forsakes this Custom he may be reconciled at the end of One Year.  
The 80th. Ordains, That Freedmen whose Patrons are Secular Men, shall not be suffered to enter into the Clergy.  
The last Canon forbids Women to write to Laymen in their own Names. This Canon is difficult enough, Albaspinaeus understands it of Ecclesiastical Letters. I should more willingly understand it of Familiar Letters.  
I know very well that there are many Difficulties about the true Sense of many of these Canons. I have endeavoured to explain them in the Extract which I made out of them, wherein I followed that Sense which appeared to me most natural, and most agreeable to the Genius of the Ancients. Those that would inform themselves more fully in this Matter, may read the Notes of Albaspinaeus, and the great Commentary of Mendoza, which contains many things that are no-wise useful for understanding these Canons; which are not so difficult when they are read without prejudice to one that understands something of the Ancient Discipline.   

Of the Pretended COUNCIL of Carthage against Caecilian.  
AFter the death of Mensurius Bishop of Carthage, several Persons who had a mind to the Bishopric 
Of Carthage, 311.  of this City, assembled the neighbouring Bishops, to Ordain a Bishop of Carthage, without citing thither the Bishops of Numidia. The design of those Persons did not succeed according to their desires, for not one of them was chosen Bishop, and there was placed in the room of Mensurius, Caecilian Archdeacon of Carthage, who was Ordained by Felix Bishop of Aptungiss. The Bishops of Numidia being offended because they were not called to the Ordination of Caecilian, and being solicited by some of his Enemies, came to Carthage in the Year 311, to the number of 70. They durst not enter into the Church where Caecilian was, but being received by those who called them, they cited him to come before them and defend himself. This Bishop without being daunted answered them boldly. If there be any Proofs against me, let my Accuser appear and produce them. But his Enemies having nothing Personal to object against him, accused Felix of Aptungiss who had Ordained him, and said that this Bishop having been a Traditor could not give a valid Ordination, and consequently Caecilian was not then a Bishop. Caecilian either because he mistrusted the innocence of Felix, or because he would not enter upon this Controversy, made answer to his Enemies. That if Felix had not conferred upon him Episcopal Orders, they might Ordain him anew as if he had been still a Deacon. Purpurius Bishop of Limata, a cunning and dextrous Man, advised those of his Party, to make a show of accepting this Proposition, and when Caecilian should come to receive Ordination, then to put him under Penance instead of laying hands on him to Ordain him Bishop. This Advice had been put in execution, if Caecilian had not been detained by his Friends, who would not suffer him to trust himself to the fury of his Enemies. Then the Bishops of Numidia condemned him, tho' absent, and Ordained Majorinus in his room. They alleged Three Reasons for the Deposition of Caecilian. The First was, because he would not appear before the Council. The Second, because he had been Ordained by Traditors. The Third, because being Archdeacon he had hindered, say they, the carrying of Victuals to the Confessors of Jesus Christ who were in prison. We have only one Article pronounced by the 70 Bishops produced by St. Austin in his Book against Fulgentius the Donatist. It is expressed in these Words, by the Bishop who pronounced it called Marcianus: Our Lord has said in the Gospel, I am the true Vine, and my Father is the Husbandman; he will cut off and cast forth every Branch that is in me, and beareth not fruit. And therefore since it is said, That the Branch which beareth not Fruit should be cast forth, we may truly say, That neither Traditors nor Idolaters, nor those who are Schismatically Ordained by Traditors can continue in the Church of God, unless they be reconciled by Penance, after they have acknowledged and bewailed their Sin. Wherefore Caecilian being Schismatically Ordained by Traditors ought to be Excommunicated. After the Bishops had thus pronounced severally their Sentences against Caecilian, and Ordained Majorinus, they sent a Circular Letter to all the Bishops of Africa, exhorting them to separate themselves from the Communion of Caecilian: But notwithstanding this Letter, Caecilian continued in Communion with a great part of the Bishops of Africa, and with all the other Bishops of the World, who declared themselves in his favour, against the Numidians who made the Schism, and were called Donatists. Thus Caecilian continued in his See, notwithstanding the Judgement of this Synod, and did not so much as assemble a Council to absolve himself from this Sentence, believing himself sufficiently secured against the Conspiracy of his Enemies, says St. Austin, by the Communion of the Roman Church, and of all the other Churches beyond the Sea, from whom ●e received, and to whom he wrote Letters of Communion. What we have said of this Council is taken out of Optatus and St. Austin.   

Of the COUNCIL of Rome.  
COnstantine becoming Master of afric, after he had conquered the Tyrant Maxentius, wrote 
Of Rome, 313.  to Anulinus Proconsul of afric, to maintain the Party of Caecilian, and to endeavour to re-establish Peace in the Church of afric. This Wise Magistrate sent for Caecilian and his Adversaries, read to them the Emperor's Letter, and exhorted them to be reconciled to one another: But some Days after, those of Majorinus' Party presented to him two Memorials; one was entitled, A Manifesto of Caecilian' s Crimes, presented by Majorinus' s Party: And the other was a Petition, wherein they prayed that some Bishops of Gaul might be given them for Judges. Those who presented these two Papers to Anulinus, earnestly prayed him to send them to the Emperor. He did so, and the Emperor having regard to their Petition, gave them for Judges, Miltiades Bishop of Rome, together with Rheticius Bishop of Autun, Marinus Bishop of Arles, and Maternus Bishop of Cologne. Miltiades joined to these Four, Fifteen Bishops of Italy, and these Nineteen Bishops assembled in the City of Rome in the Year 313, and undertook to judge the Cause of Caecilian. The first Day that they assembled, Majorinus' Party presented to the Council a Memorial of the Crimes, whereof they accused Caecilian: But the Judges having desired them to produce their Accusers and Witnesses, they introduced some who were obliged to withdraw immediately, because they declared, that they had nothing to say against Caecilian. He for his part accused Donatus of having made a Schism at Carthage, and urged him to present before the Council, the Witnesses and Accusers which he had brought. Donatus promised that he would present them, and in the mean time was convicted of having rebaptised, and re-ordained. The Second Day a New Memorial was given in against Caecilian, but sufficient Evidence could not be produced. The Judgement of the Seventy Bishops of Numidia was alleged, for which the Judges had no great respect. The Third Day, the whole Cause was determined, Donatus was condemned as being convicted of having rebaptised, and laid his Hands upon Bishops who were already Ordained: And Caecilian was absolved by the Sentence of all the Bishops, and even by the suffrage of Miltiades who concluded the Decision. The Council having thus judged the Cause of Caecilian and Donatus, endeavoured to restore Peace among the other Bishops, by ordering that in those places where there had been a Bishop of each Party, he who had been Ordained first should continue Bishop, and Care should be taken to give another Bishopric to the other. Letters of Communion were also offered to be sent to the Bishops of Majorinus' Party, provided they would be reconciled. At last, the Bishops wrote to Constantine, informed him of their Decision, and assured him, that they had given their Judgement according to Justice and Equity. The Acts of this Council were extant in St. Austin's time, and they were also produced in the Conference of Carthage, but now they are lost. We have taken what we have said, out of Optatus in Book First, and out of St. Austin in his Abridgement of the Conference on the Third Day, in Ch. 11. of his Letter 162, now the 43d. and of Letter 50. now the 185.   

Of the COUNCIL of Arles.  
THE Bishops of Majorinus' Party having lost their Cause in the Council of Rome, addressed 
Of Arles, 314.  themselves to the Emperor, and complained of the Judgement which was given at Rome, alleging that their Judges did not hear all that they had to say. The Emperor desiring they might be solemnly Judged, that so they should have nothing to reply, called 
a Called.] 'Tis certain that the Emperor called this Synod. We have in Euseb. B. X. of his Hist. Ch. 5. the Letter which he wrote to Chrestus Bishop of Syracuse, wherein he commands him to be present at this Council of Arles; he wrote of it likewise to all the other Bishops. Some have said that the Donatists appealed to a Council after the Decision of Rome, but St. Austin who had studied this History exactly, says in an infinite number of places, that they complained only of the Judgement given at Rome, but did not Appeal till after the Decision of the Council of Arles.  a Council in the Year 314 in the City of Arles. This Council was composed of 33 Western Bishops 
b Composed of 33 Western Bishops.] Baronius thought that this Council consisted of 200 Bishops, which he grounded upon a Passage of St. Austin in his Book against the Epistle of Parmenianus Ch. 5. but he misunderstood that Passage, for there he does not speak of the Council of Arles, but of the Council of Rome, which consisted only of 19 Bishops, and not of 200, as they are reckoned in the Text of St. Austin according to the common Editions; but this place has been restored in the last Edition by a Manuscript of the Vatican Library, and instead of reading as it was, Ut ducentos Judices apud quos victi sunt, victis litigatoribus credant esse postponendos, it is now thus restored, ut contra Judices, apud quos victi sunt, victis litigatoribus credant, etc. There are but 33 Names at the head of the Council's Letter; but of these 33 there are 4 Priests, and one Deacon, and six Exorcists. They endeavour to prove that there was a greater number of Bishops at this Council, because Constantine in his Letter to Chrestus, and the second Council of Arles testify, That there were Bishops in it from all Parts of the World: But these 19 Bishops are found to be from all Parts of the West, and so it is not necessary to admit a greater number of them, to verify what is said by Constantine and the Fathers of the second Council of Arles. Ado says, that 600 Bishops were present at this Council; but this is no-wise probable. , with some Priests and some Deacons. Marinus Bishop of Arles presided there; the Legates of Pope Sylvester were present 
c Marinus Bishop of Arles presided there, etc.] His Name is at the head of the Bishops, named at the beginning of the Epistle to St. Sylvester, before those of the Pope's Legates. , but that the Emperor was not there 
d That the Emperor was not there.] Some Authors have said that he was, but they are mistaken; for it appears by the Letter of Constantine written after the Synod, that he was not, and the Donatists would not have appealed to his Judgement, if he had been present at the Sentence given by the Synod and approved it. . The Council heard the Accusations which were formed against Caecilian; but when his Accusers could not prove him guilty of the Crimes whereof they accused him, they were rejected or condemned by the Council. After this cause was judged, the Bishops thought it their Duty, since they were assembled, to make some Rules concerning the Discipline of the Church; and they made 22 Canons.  
In the 1st. they ordain, That the Feast of Easter should be celebrated on the same Sunday in all the Churches of the World, and that the Bishop of Rome should give Notice of the Day to the Churches according to Custom.  
In the 2d. they enjoin Ministers to continue in the Churches where they were ordained.  
In the 3d. they excommunicate those who make use of Arms in a time of Peace.  
In the 4th. they Ordain, That those who run Races in the Cirque, shall be separated from the Communion while they follow that employment.  
In the 5th. they make the same Regulation for those who act upon the Theatre.  
In the 6th. they ordain, That Imposition of Hands shall be given to those who having fallen Sick, declare, That they desire to believe in Jesus Christ.  
In the 7th. they permit the Faithful to enter upon Offices, without being deprived of the Communion of the Church; but upon Condition that the Bishop of the place where they shall take an Office, shall superintend their Conduct, and that if they do any thing contrary to the Discipline of the Church, they shall be separated from his Communion.  
The 8th. determines the famous Question about the rebaptisation of Heretics, and ordains concerning the Africans, who had always rebaptized them, That if any one leave a Heresy and return to the Church, he shall be asked concerning the Creed, and if it be known that he was baptised in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Imposition of Hands only shall be given him that he may receive the Holy Spirit; but if he does not acknowledge the Trinity, he shall be rebaptized.  
The 9th. declares, That in Order to their being received into Communion in a Foreign Church, they should not any longer carry Letters of Recommendation from the Confessors, but Letters of Communion from their Bishop.  
In the 10th. they say, That those who find their Wives in the act of Adultery must be counselled not to marry others, while they are living, tho' the Laws permit them to do it.  
In the 11th. they separate for some time from the Communion of the Church the Christian Virgins that marry Infidels.  
In the 12th. they excommunicate the Clergy that are Usurers.  
In the 13th. they ordain, That those shall be turned out of the Clergy, who shall be proved by the Public Acts to have delivered up the Holy Scriptures; but those who they had ordained shall continue in their Station. They forbidden Men to hearken to these Accusations, unless they be proved by the Public Acts.  
In the 14th. they separate from the Communion until the Point of Death, those who falsely accuse their Brethren.  
In the 15th. they say, That the Deacons should not offer, as they did in many places.  
In the 16th. they ordain, That those who are separated from the Communion, shall be restored no where else, but in the place where bey were excommunicated.  
The 17th. ordains, That one Bishop shall not despise the Judgement of another. This is rather a consequence of the preceding Canon, than a Canon by itself.  
The 18th. enjoins Deacons in Cities to reverence the Priests.  
The 19th. grants to Foreign Bishops the Power of celebrating the Oblation.  
In the 20th. the Bishops of this Council forbidden one Bishop alone to ordain another Bishop; they would have Seven of them meet if it be possible, but if this cannot be done, they do absolutely forbid any one to Ordain, unless he has three Bishops with him.  
In the 21st. they forbidden Priests and Deacons, under pain of Deposition to relinquish the Churches in which they were fixed by their Ordination.  
In the 22d. they declare, That Communion is not to be given to those who having Apostatised, continue a long time out of the Church without doing Penance, waiting till they fall Sick to ask Communion; unless they recover their Health, and give Signs of a sincere Repentance.  
At last the Bishops of this Council wrote to St. Sylvester Bishop of Rome, as the chief Bishop of the World, an Account of every thing that they had ordained, that he might publish these Canons throughout the Catholic Church. They assure him in this Letter, that they were very sorry, that he could not be present himself in Person at this Council, and they pray him to publish their Decisions over all the World.   

Of the COUNCILS of Ancyra and Neo-Caesarea.  
THE Councils of Ancyra and Neo-Caesarea, were held much about the same time as the Council 
Of Ancyra and Neo-Caesarea, 314.  of Arles. We know nothing of the History, nor particular Circumstances of these two Councils; we have only their Canons, which the ancient Church looked upon as Rules that aught to be observed every where, since they have been put into the Code of the Canons of the Universal Church.  
There are 25 Canons of the Council of Ancyra. The First preserves the Honour of the Priesthood to those Bishops, who having sacrificed to Idols repent of their Fault, and afterwards suffered for the Faith of Jesus Christ. But it forbids them to exercise any part of the Sacerdotal Function, and will not so much as allow them to make the Offering or Preach. The Second uses the same moderation to Deacons; but it permits Bishops to show them more Favour if they think it convenient.  
In the 3d. Canon it is Ordained, That those who have been made to offer Incense or to eat of Meats sacrificed to Idols, by force and Violence, are not at all guilty, that they ought to be admitted to Communion, and that they may even be promoted to Ecclesiastical Dignities, provided they have testified their sorrow for what happened to them: But for those who were present at the Feasts made to the Honour of Idols with mirth and jollity, it imposes upon them Five Years Penance, One Year in the rank of Hearers, Two Years in the rank of Supplicants, and Two Years in the number of those that are present only at the Prayers. Whereas those who were present in mourning Apparel, and who lamented during the time of the Feast, if they did eat of the Profane meat, it places them in the rank of Supplicants or prostrate Penitents for Three Years, and afterwards it would have them received without having any share in the Oblation; and if they did not eat at all, it leaves them only Two Years in the rank of the prostrate Penitents, and permits them to partake of the Sacraments at the end of the Third Year. Nevertheless it gives power to the Bishops to shorten or lengthen the time of Penance according to the behaviour of the Penitents.  
The 6th. concerns those who have Sacrificed to Idols, fearing Torments or the loss of their Goods, and who desire to be admitted to do Penance. The Synod orders, That they should be among the number of Hearers till Easter-day, that afterwards they should be Three Years Supplicants or Prostrate, and then they should be present at the Prayers, which is called Communicating without partaking of the Oblation. It excepts however the case of the danger of Death, in which it Order, That they should be received according to the Law made about it.  
The 7th. imposes Two Years Penance upon those who were present at the Feasts made in Honour of the Idols, but carried thither their own Meat, intending not to eat of that which was there presented.  
The 8th. imposes Seven Years Penance upon those who Sacrificed several times; and the 9th. imposes Ten Years Penance upon those who forced their Brethren to do it.  
The 10th. Canon concerns the Celibacy of Deacons. The Council there Ordains, That if they declared at the time of their Ordination, that they would Marry, they shall not be deprived of their Function if they did Marry; but if they were Ordained without making this declaration, and afterwards Married they should be obliged to quit their Employment.  
The 11th. Ordains, That if Maids contracted happen to be carried away by others, than those to whom they were promised, they shall be restored to them again whatever violence they have suffered.  
The 12th. declares, That those may be Ordained who have Sacrificed to Idols before they were baptised, because they are purified from this Sin by Baptism.  
The 13th. Canon is about Suffragan Bishops or Chorepiscopi. 'Tis as follows in the Greek Text: 'Tis not lawful for Suffragan Bishops to Ordain Priests or Deacons, nor for the City Presbyters in another Parish without the permission of their Bishop. 'Tis plain that this Canon is imperfect, and that something must be supplied to make it sense: For what mean these Words, Nor to the City Presbyters, etc. Had Priests ever power to Ordain other Priests in their own Churches? Had they ever permission to do it out of their own Churches by the Bishop's Letters? Why should not the Suffragans who were above the Priests have the same power? There must be something added: See what Dionysius Exiguus has added in his Version. No more is it lawful for Priests to do any thing in the Diocese, without the permission of the Bishop in writing. This Addition is found in the ancient Code of the Roman Church, published by Quesnellus, and in the Version of Isidore; and Justellus has restored it in the Greek Text of the Code of the Universal Church.  
The 14th. condemns the superstition of some Clergymen who would not eat Meat. The Synod Ordains, That if they continued in this Superstition, and would not eat Herbs boiled with Meat, they should be deprived of their Ecclesiastical Function.  
The 15th. declares, That if Priests sell any thing belonging to the Church, while it has not a Bishop, it shall be in the power of the Bishop who is chosen, either to make void the bargain, or to take the price of the thing that is sold.  
The 16th. and 17th. impose long Penances upon those who have committed Crimes contrary to Nature.  
The 18th. forbids Bishops who cannot be received into their own Bishoprics to invade those of others, and allows them only to keep the rank of other Presbyters; of which Honour it Ordains that they shall be deprived if they stir up Sedition against the Bishop of the place.  
The 19th. subject's those Virgins to the same punishment with Bigamists, who violate the Profession that they have made, and forbids them to dwell with Strangers as if they were their Sisters.  
The 20th. imposes Seven Years Penance for Adultery.  
In the 21st. the Synod observes, That the ancient Canons delayed the Absolution of those Women till death, who having committed the Sin of Adultery murdered their Infants; but to mitigate this Punishment, it imposes upon them only Ten Years Penance.  
The 22d. delayeth the Absolution of those till the Point of death who have committed wilful Murder, and till than it places them in the rank of Prostrate Penitents.  
The 23d. imposes Seven Years of Penance for Manslaughter.  
The 24th. subject's those to a Penance of Five Years who meddle with Divination and practise superstitious Actions.  
The last is about a particular Case. A Man had defiled the Sister of her to whom he was contracted, and afterwards married this last; her Sister hanged herself for madness. The Synod Ordains, That all those who were Complices to these Crimes shall be put under Penance for the space of Ten Years.  
These Canons are signed by 18 Bishops of the Dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and of the East. Vitalis Bishop of Antioch is the First among these Bishops. 'Tis certain that he held the See of the Church of Antioch from the Year 311, until the Year 319. After him there is the Name of Agricolaus Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine: But Eusebius makes no mention of this Bishop, and he could be but a very little time Bishop of that Church. Marcellus of Ancyra who is the Third, is famous enough in History. Some think that Basil of Amasea suffered Martyrdom under Licinius, and St. Jerom affirms it in his Chronicon: Yet Philostorgius and St. Athanaesius reckon him among those Bishops who were present at the Council of Nice. The same St. Athanasius mentions Lupus of Tarsus, and Longinus of Neocaesarea. There is mention made of Leontius of Caesarea in Cappadocia in the Life of St. Gregory Nazianzen, where 'tis said, That 'twas he who baptised Gregory of Pisa in the time of the Nicene Council. The others are less known.  
The Council of Neocaesarea made Fifteen Canons about the Discipline of the Church.  
The 1st. is, That if a Priest marries after he has been Ordained, he ought to be degraded; and if he commit Fornication or Adultery he ought to be punished more rigorously, and put under Penance.  
The 2d. is, That if a Woman marry Two Brothers, she ought to be excluded from the Communion of the Church till the end of her life; but at the Point of Death she shall be absolved, provided she promises to break the Marriage. For if the Husband or the Wife die without being parted, the surviving Person can very hardly be admitted to Penance.  
The 3d. is, That the time of the Penance of those who Mary often is regulated by the Canons, but it may be shortened proportionably to the Conversion of the Penitent, and the fervour of his Penance.  
The 4th. is, That he who having a desire to commit Sin with a Woman, and did not accomplish it, seems to have been saved by the Grace of God.  
The 5th. is, That if a Catechumen who is in the rank of those who pray with the Faithful, fall into Sin, he must be placed in the rank of Hearers, and if he continue to sin, he is to be totally turned out of the Church.  
The 6th. commands those Women to be baptised who are ready to Lie-in.  
The 7th. forbids Priests to be present at the Marriage of Bigamists.  
The 8th. declares that he cannot be admitted into Holy Orders, whose Wife has been convicted of Adultery, and that if a Clergy-man's Wife commit Adultery, he ought to divorce her, upon pain of being deprived of his Ministry if he do not.  
The 9th. is, That if a Priest who has committed the Sin of the Flesh before he was Ordained confess his Crime, he ought no more to Offer, but he shall enjoy all his other Rights; for as to other Sins, 'tis thought, that they are pardoned by the Imposition of Hands: But if he does not confess this Fault and cannot be convicted of it, he shall be left to his own Conscience.  
The 10th. is, That a Deacon who shall commit the same Crime before his Ordination, shall be placed in the rank of the other Ministers.  
The 11th. forbids to give the Order of Priesthood to those Persons who are under Thirty Years of Age, tho' they have well deserved, because our Lord was baptised, and begun to preach at that Age.  
The 12th. is, That those who have been baptised in their Sickness can never be ordained Priests, because they seem to have embraced the Faith only through necessity, unless this Favour be afterwards granted them upon the account of their Faith and Zeal, and that there be but few Persons who can be Ordained.  
The 13th. forbids the Priests in the Country to make the Oblation in the presence of the Bishop, or of the Priests of Cities, and does not allow them so much as to distribute the Bread of the Eucharist or to give the Cup, but it permits them to do both the one and the other in the absence of the Bishop, and the City-Presbyters.  
The 14th. declares, That Suffragans represent the 70 Disciples, and so they are looked upon as the Brethren of the Bishops, and have the honour of making the Oblation.  
The last Ordains, That there should be but Seven Deacons in each City how great soever it be. Some of the Bishops who were at the Council of Ancyra, subscribed to this. Vitalis of Antioch presided there as well as at the Council of Ancyra. Which shows that these Two Councils were held after the Year 311, and before the Year 319.   

Of the First COUNCIL of Alexandria against Arius.  
SOme time after, Arius began to publish his Impiety, Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, held 
Of the First of Alexandria, against Arius, 322.  a Council of near a 100 Bishops of Egypt, wherein he excommunicated Arius and his Followers. This Council was held in 322.   

Of the pretended COUNCIL of Bythinia for Arius.  
EUsebius of Nicomedia, and the other Bishops who protected Arius against Alexander, held a 
Of Bythinia, for Arius, 323.  Council the next Year in Bythinia, wherein they declare Arius Orthodox, and worthy of the Communion of the Church. Sozomen mentions this Council B. III. Ch. 15. of his History.   

Of the Second COUNCIL of Alexandria against Arius: held in the presence of Hosius.  
HOsius being sent to Alexandria from the Emperor, to compose the Differences which troubled the 
Of the Second of Alexandria, against Arius, 324.  Churches of Egypt, held a Council in that City which the Clergy of Maraeotis, in a Protestation produced by St. Athanasius, call on Ecumenical Council. It is not known what was determined in this Council. 'Tis probable that the Wise Bishop of Corduba did what he could to reconcile Men's minds, and not being able to compass his Design, he would decide nothing. Socrates in B. III. Ch. 7. of his History, testifies, That in this Council the Terms of Substance and Hypostasis were treated of, in ●opposition to Sabellius: And we learn from the Protestation of the Clergy of Maraeotis, which we just now cited, that Colluthus a pretended Bishop was degraded in this Council, and the Ordinations which he made were annulled. Philostorgius says, That Alexander of Alexandria coming at this time to Nicomedia, and having spoken to Hosius, caused the Consubstantiality of the Word to be determined by a Synodal Sentence. But we have no other Author who mentions this Judgement, neither is there any probability that it was given.   

Of the COUNCIL of Nice.  
COnstantine seeing that he had laboured in vain to allay the Disputes which divided the Church, 
Of Nice, 325.  thought it would be the most ready and effectual means to restore Peace, to call a numerous Synod composed of the Eastern and Western Bishops. This Council was called Ecumenical, i. e. a Council of the whole World, or the whole Earth, because it was called together from all Parts of the Roman Empire, to which the Title of the World, or the Earth was given, and which did almost include the Catholic Church. This Council was assembled by the Order of the Emperor at Nice 
a By Order of the Emperor, etc.] Eusebius B. III. of the Life of Constantine Ch. 6. says, That the Council of Nice was assembled by Order of the Emperor; and the Bishops of this Council in their Letter to the Egyptians, say, That they were Summoned to meet by the Emperor's Letters. Constantine says the same thing, all the Ancients are agreed in it. , a City of Bythinia, about the Month of July in the Year 325 
b In the Year 325.] Socrates assures us, That this Council was Assembled at this time, and it could not be assembled sooner nor later. , in the Second Year of Constantine's Reign 
c In the Second Year of the Reign of Constantine.] It begun in the Month of August, and the Council was held in the Month of July. . St. Sylvester was then Bishop of Rome, who sent thither Victor and Vincentius his Legates. 'Tis commonly held that this Council consisted of 318 Bishops; but those who were present at it do not precisely determine this number 
d Those who were present at it do not precisely determine this number.] Eusebius B. III. of the Life of Constantine, says, that there were at the Council of Nice more than 250 Bishops. Eustathius says, that there were to the number of 270, or thereabouts. St. Athanasius in his Book of the Decrees of the Council of Nice, and in his Epistle to the Monks, says, that they were about 300; yet the same St. Athanasius in his Letter to the Africans, St. Hilary in his Book of Synods, Ruffinus, St. Ambrose, St. Epiphanius, etc. call the Council of Nice, a Council of 318 Bishops. Socrates, Sozomen and Marius Mercator, do not reckon precisely the same number, but they do not much differ from it. , but say only that there were about 300 Bishops. 'Tis not certainly known, who presided in this Council, but 'tis very probable that it was Hosius 
e 'Tis not certainly known who presided in this Council, but 'tis probable that it was Hosius.] St. Athanasius in his second Apology, calls Hosius the Father and Precedent of all the Councils. The Name of this Bishop is the First in all the Subscriptions. Alexander was much esteemed as appears by the Letter of the Council. Eustathius of Antioch is called the chief Bishop of the Council by Proclus and by Facundus. But it is more probable that Hosius presided there in his own Name and not in the Pope's: For he not where assumes the Title of Legate of the Holy See, and none of the Ancients say, that he presided in this Council in the Pope's Name. Gelasius Cyzicenus who first affirmed it, says it without any Proof or Authority. , who held the chief Place there in his own Name, because he had already taken cognizance of this Affair, and was much esteemed by the Emperor who was there present. The Assembly was held in a Hall in his Palace 
f The Assembled was held in his Palace.] Eusebius says so expressly B. III. of the Life of Constantine Ch. 10. Socrates B. I. of his History Ch. 18. and Theodoret B. I. Ch. 7. following herein the Testimony of Eusebius. 'Tis true that this place is called by Eusebius himself in Ch. 7. a Sacred Place, but it is upon the account of the Assembly of the Bishops who were then in it. . 'Tis said that the Bishops presented Petitions to him, wherein they accused one another, and that he burned them all without reading them: 'Tis also said, That many Philosophers came to Nice to oppose the Christian Religion, and that they were confounded by one simple Bishop: But these two Stories are not very certain. But 'tis certain that they minded very closely the Cause for which they were assembled, which was the Heresy of Arius. St. Athanasius Deacon of Alexandria, and some others, Disputed stoutly against him. When the Day was come that this great Affair should be determined, one of the Bishops made a Harangue to the Emperor, and afterwards they begun to enter upon the Business. Arius having explained his Opinions, was condemned with an unanimous Consent. After this Eusebius of Caesarea presented a Confession of Faith, but the Council finding that it did not expressly enough reject the Error of the Arians, urged the Bishops who favoured this Heretic to make a clear Profession of the Divinity of the Son of God; and when the Council saw that all the Terms which were used to dignify the Divinity of the Son of God were eluded by these Bishops by far-fetched Explications, the Council was forced, for excluding all kind of Ambiguity to say, That the Son of God was Consubstantial to his Father. This Word was the Subject of a great Dispute among the Bishops, which was allayed by the Prudence of the Emperor, who made them all agree in the Sense of this Word. And thus in the Confession of Faith, or in the Creed made by this Council, Profession is made, Of believing in one only God, the Creator of all things, visible and invisible, and in one only Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only Son of the Substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, Consubstantial to his Father, by whom all things were made in Heaven and on Earth, who descended for us Men and for our Salvation, who was incarnate and made Man, who suffered and risen again and ascended into Heaven, and who shall come to judge the quick and the dead: And in the Holy Spirit. After this Creed followed an Anathema against those who should say, That there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that he was not before he was begotten, or that he was created of nothing, or that he was of another Substance and another Essence, or that he was created and subject to Change. All the Bishops, except Secundus of Ptolemais, and Theonas of Marmarica, Signed this Confession of Faith 
g All the Bishops except Secundus and Theonas Signed this Creed.] This appears by the Letter of the Synod, and by the Testimony of Theodoret B. I. Ch. 7. and of Philostorgius. Some say, that Eusebius and Theognis would not Sign the Condemnation of Arius, and that they were condemned in the Council. This is not true, and if they did allege this distinction, it was after the Council of Nice and not in the Council. . Eusebius of Caesarea refused to Sign it at First, but he did it the next Day. After this Arius, Secundus and Theonas were condemned in the Council 
h Arius, Secundus and Theonas were condemned, etc.] This appears by the Letter of the Council, tho' St. Jerom affirms the contrary concerning Arius. St. Athanasius, who is more to be credited than St. Jerom in this matter, says several times that Arius was condemned in the Council of Nice. Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret do also testify the same thing. , and a Book of the First, entitled Thalia, was proscribed.  
The Council having thus judged the Arians with rigour, treated the Meletians with more moderation. It permitted Meletius to continue in the City, and to retain the name of Bishop, and the honour annexed to that Office; but it absolutely forbade him to ordain any body: It preserved also the Rank, Honour and Office of those whom he had ordained, provided nevertheless that they should be confirmed by a more Sacred Imposition of Hands, which is a kind of Re-ordination 
i Which is a kind of Re-ordination.] It is commonly thought that this Imposition of Hands, which the Fathers of this Council call, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was only a Ceremony; but Valesius has very well proved that it was a new Ordination; and this is the thing which the Word does properly signify. ; that they should be inferior to those who had been ordained by Alexander, and that they should have no hand in the Election of Bishops. Nevertheless it permits the People and the Clergy to choose them Bishops, if they were found worthy of it, provided that the Bishop of Alexandria approve this Election. Last of all, the Council made a Decree concerning the Celebration of Easter, and ordained that this Feast should be celebrated only on the Sunday. Constantine wrote a general Letter to the whole Church, to acquaint them with the Decisions of this Council, and the Bishops wrote a Letter particularly to the Christians of Egypt, wherein they inform them exactly of what had been ordained about the Cause of the Arians and Meletians, and about the Celebration of Easter.  
St. Ambrose indeed seems to intimate that this Council made a Paschal Cycle; but these Words must be so understood as meaning only, That the Determination of the Council gave occasion to make use of Cycles. St. Leo adds in Ep. 64. That the Council gave Order to the Bishop of Alexandria to give notice every Year to the Bishop of Rome of Easter-day, that he might publish it to all the Churches of the World: But if the Council had made this Order, they would have signified it in their Letter to the Egyptians, where they speak favourably of Alexander and his Church.  
The Council of Nice did not only determine the Differences which troubled the Church by its Decisions, but also made Rules concerning the Discipline of the Church. These Rules, which are called Canons, are in number Twenty, and there never were more Genuine 
k There were never more Genuine.] Theodoret and Ruffinus mention only these 20 Canons; tho' the latter reckons 22 of them, yet he owned no more, because he divided 2 of them. The Bishops of Africa found but 20 of them, after they had enquired very diligently all over the East for all the Canons made by the Council of Nice. Dionysius Exiguus and all the other Collectors of Canons, have acknowledged but those 20. The Arabic Canons which Echellensis published under the Name of the Council of Nice, cannot belong to this Council. , tho' some Modern Authors have added many more.  
The First Canon excludes from Sacred Orders, those that made themselves Eunuches, but not those who became so by Sickness, or by the Cruelty of Barbarians.  
The 2d. forbids to advance those Persons to the Orders of Priest or Bishop, who were lately baptised, and Ordains that those who shall be convicted of any Crime, shall be deprived of their Ecclesiastical Functions.  
The Third forbids Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and other Clergymen to keep Women in the House with them; yet it excepts Mothers, Sisters, and other Persons, of whom there can be no bad suspicion.  
The 4th. Ordains, That a Bishop should be Ordained by all the Bishops of the Province, if it can be done; but if it be too difficult to assemble them all, either because of an urgent necessity, or because of their great distance, he may be Ordained by Three Bishops, provided that those who are absent be willing and consent by their Letter that this Ordination should be made; but it adds, That the validity of what is done in the Province depends upon the Metropolitan.  
The 5th. Ordains, That none of those who shall be separated from the Church by the Bishops in each Province, can be received or restored to Communion in any other place; and that enquiry be the better made, whether their Bishop has justly excommunicated them, they Ordain, That Two Synods shall be held every Year in every Province, one before Lent and the other in Autumn.  
The 6th. Canon is famous for the several Questions it has occasioned. The most natural Sense that can be given to it, is this: We Ordain, That the Ancient Custom shall be observed, which gives Power to the Bishop of Alexandria, over all the Provinces of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, because the Bishop of Rome has the like Jurisdiction over all the Suburbicary Regions (for this Addition must be supplied out of Ruffinus:) We would likewise have the Rights and Privileges of the Church of Antioch, and the other Churches preserved; but these Rights ought not to prejudice those of the Metropolitans. If any one is Ordained without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Council declares. That he is no Bishop: But if any one is Canonically chosen by the Suffrage of almost all the Bishops of the Province, and if there are but One or Two of a contrary Opinion, the Suffrages of the far greater number ought to carry it for the Ordination of those particular Persons. This Canon being thus explained has no difficulty in it. It does not oppose the Primacy of the Church of Rome, but neither does it 
[Only so far, as it may by a Negative Argument be hence very strongly concluded, That the See of Rome then claimed none but Privileges common to it and other Metropolitical Sees.]  establish it. It preserves to Great Sees their ancient Privileges, that is, the Jurisdiction or Authority which they had over many Provinces, which was afterwards called the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch or Exarch. In this sense it is, That it compares the Church of Rome to the Church of Alexandria, by considering them all as Patriarchal Churches. It continues also to the Church of Antioch, and all the other Great Churches, whatsoever Rights they could have; but lest their Authority should be prejudicial to the ordinary Metropolitans, who were subject to their Jurisdiction, the Council confirms what had been Ordained in the Fourth Canon concerning the Authority of Metropolitans in the Ordination of Bishops. This Explication is easy and natural, and we have given many proofs of it in our Latin Dissertation concerning the ancient Discipline of the Church.  
The 7th. is, That since by ancient Tradition the Church of Elias, or of Jerusalem has been honoured, this Prerogative of Honour shall be continued to it, but without prejudice to the Rights of its Metropolis.  
The 8th. declares, That the Novatians who return to the Church, may continue in the Clergy after they have received Imposition of Hands, and made Profession of following the Discipline of the Church. That if a Novatian Bishop in a City, where there is a Catholic Bishop, return to the Church, he shall not take the place of the Catholic Bishop, but continue in the Presbytery, unless the Catholic Bishop will allow him the Name of a Bishop: But if he will not, this Novatian Bishop shall continue Priest or Suffragan.  
The 9th. or 10th. Ordains, That those Priests shall be degraded, who are found either to have Sacrificed, or to have been guilty of other Crimes before their Ordination.  
The 11th. imposes a Penance of Ten Years upon those who voluntarily renounce the Christian Religion, without being forced, either by the loss of their Estate, or danger of their Life.  
The 12th. imposes Thirteen Years Penance upon those who having shown their Zeal for the Faith did afterwards apostatise to obtain Offices: Nevertheless it permits this Penance to be shortened in favour of those who testify much Grief and Remorse.  
The 13th. renews the ancient Law, which Ordains, That dying Persons shall not be deprived of the last and most necessary Viaticum, that is, of Absolution; but upon condition, That if the sick Person recovers his health, he shall be placed only in the Rank of those who are present only at the Prayers of the Church. It leaves it at the discretion of the Bishop to give or to refuse the Communion to dying Persons who desire it.  
The 14th. turns back those Catechumen to the place of Hearers, who Apostatised when they were ready to receive Baptism, and enjoins them to continue in that place for Three Years before they can be restored to the place wherein they were before.  
The 15th. forbids the Translations of Bishops and Priests, and Ordains, That those who shall be Translated, shall return to their First Church.  
The 16th. forbids the receiving of Priests, Deacons or Ministers of another Church without the consent of their Bishop.  
The 17th. Ordains, That Clergymen who are Usurers, or who take sordid Gain, shall be deposed.  
The 18th. forbids Deacons to give the Eucharist to Priests, because it is against the Canons and contrary to Custom, and they have not the power to Offer nor to Give the Body of Jesus Christ, to those who do offer. It forbids them also to take the Eucharist before the Bishops, and advertises them that they are but inferior Ministers to Priests; That they ought to receive the Eucharist after them from the hand of a Bishop or a Priest; That 'tis not lawful for them to sit in the place of Priests, and threatens those who do not obey this Rule with the deprivation of their Ministry.  
The 19th. Ordains, That the Paulianists shall be rebaptised who return to the Church; and that if there be found any who had the Name of Clergymen among these Heretics, who are worthy of Orders, the Bishop shall Ordain them after they have been baptised; but if they be not found worthy of Holy Orders, they shall be deposed. It Ordains the same thing of Deaconesses who are reckoned among the Clergy, tho' they never received Imposition of Hands, that they shall be placed among the Laity.  
The last Canon abolishes the Custom of some Churches wherein they kneeled on Sunday and Whit-sunday, and Ordains for keeping Uniformity, that they shall pray to God standing at this time in all Churches.  
We must add to the History of this Council Two remarkable Stories related by Socrates and Sozomen, which Socrates says he learned from an old Man who assisted at this Council. The First is concerning Acesius a Novatian Bishop, who being asked by the Emperor, whether he approved the Decision of this Council, answered him, That he had received from his Ancestors the Faith which they had decreed, and that he always celebrated Easter on the Day which they had appointed. The Emperor having afterwards asked him, Why then did he separate from the Communion of the Church? He alleged the Indulgence which the Church had given from the time of Decius, and said that those who had fallen into Crimes ought never to be received into the Communion of the Church, and that they ought to expect pardon from God only who only could grant it them. The Emperor hearing this Answer, answered him pleasantly, O Acesius, take then a Ladder, and mount up to Heaven alone. The other Story concerns Paphnutius a Bishop in Egypt, who opposed the Canon, which was proposed in the Council for obliging Bishops, Priests and Deacons to observe Celibacy. This good Man said, that tho' he had lived all his Life-time in Celibacy, yet he did not think, that this Yoke ought to be imposed upon the Clergy. Some question the truth of this Story; I believe they do it rather for fear lest this Story might prejudice the present Discipline, than from any solid proof they have for it. But these Persons should consider that this Canon is purely a matter of Discipline, and that the Discipline of the Church may change according to the Times, and that 'tis not necessary for the Defence of it, to prove that it was always 
[This would be an excellent Defence for the Discipline of the Church of Rome in this particular, if there were some Ages wherein Celibacy could more easily be preserved than it can in others; or if the Constitution of Mankind varied according to the Temporal Interests of any one private Church.]  Uniform in all Places.  
What we have hitherto said, shows, That the Authentical Monuments of the Council of Nice are the Confession of Faith, with the Anathematism subjoined to it, the Letter of the Synod to the Egyptians, the Decree concerning Easter, and the Twenty Canons. I do not think that there ever were any other Acts of this Council 
l I do not think that there ever were any other Acts of this Council.] If there had been any, St. Athanasius would have sent them to his Friend, who desired of him the History of the Council of Nice, or he would have bid him read them: But he never did it, and he gives him an account of his own of what was done in the Council. There is a Passage cited out of St. Athanasius, to prove that he acknowledged other Acts of this Council. 'Tis taken out of the Book of Synods, where mention is made in the Version of it, of the Acts of the Council of Nice. But in the Greek it is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which has been written by the Fathers; and 'tis plain that he speaks in this place of the Confession of Faith. And that which farther shows that there never were any Acts of the Council of Nice, is, that the Fathers of the Council themselves in their Letter to the Egyptians, say, that their Archbishop Alexander, should inform them particularly of all that passed in the Synod. In a word, neither Ruffinus, nor Socrates, nor Theodoret, nor any ancient Historian, had ever seen or known these Acts. St. Jerom says, that he had read the Acts of the Council of Nice, but he means only the Creed, the Canons, and the Subscriptions. The Acts which Gelasius Cyzicenus attributes to Dalmatius were made since the Council, and taken out of Eusebius, Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomen, and other Historians. , since they were unknown to all the ancient Historians. There is a Latin Letter of this Synod to St. Sylvester extant, but it is supposititious 
m The Letter of the Council to St. Sylvester is supposititious.] The Style of it is barbarous and intricate. It gins with this Period which has no sense: Gloriam corroborata de divinis mysteriis. Ecclesiasticae utilitatis quae ad robur pertinent Ecclesiae Catholicae & Apostolicae ad sedem tuam Romanam explanata, & de Graeco redacta scribere confitemur; and afterwards, Nunc itaque ad vestrae sedis argumentum accurrimus roborari, and so on. It is all made up of such kind of stuff. The date is ridiculous, wherein the Consuls are called Sovereigns, an Epithet never given to them, and the Letter is dated Five or Six Days after the Opening of the Council. , which has no Authority, and which has all the Marks of Forgery, that any writing can have, as well as the pretended Answer of St. Sylvester 
n The Answer of St. Sylvester.] The Style is like that of the former Letter; it supposes that St. Sylvester added something to the Council of Nice, it mentions the Cycle of Victorinus who lived long after St. Sylvester. The Date of the Consuls also is false. . Neither is that Council genuine, which is said to have been assembled at Rome by St. Sylvester for the confirmation of the Council of Nice. The Canons of this Council are also Forged 
o The Canons of this Council are also forged.] The Inscription of this Council discovers its Imposture: There 'tis said, that the Council was held in the presence of Constantine in the City of Rome; but Constantine came not to Rome that Year. 'Tis also observed, that it consisted of 275 Bishops: Who can think that Sylvester assembled so numerous a Synod, and yet that it should be unknown to all Antiquity? Why is it not mentioned in some ancient Author? The First Canon concerning the time of Easter is Nonsense. The Second is yet more unintelligible: These are the Words of it; Ut unusquisque Episcopus rediens ad Parochiam suam, compaginem salutationis plebi tuae innotescat. Thus the Style of it is as barbarous as is possible. The Third Canon forbids the Clergy to appear before Secular Judges for any Cause whatsoever. This is contrary to the Discipline of that time. The Fourth declares, That those who would enter into Holy Orders, should pass through all the Degrees, and be One Year Porters, Twenty Years Readers, Ten Years Exorcists, Five Years Acolytes, as many Years Subdeacons, and yet as many Deacons, and afterwards Priests, and that they cannot be Bishops till the end of 6 Years more; from whence it would follow that none could be Ordained Bishops till they were more than 60 Years old; which is ridiculous and contrary to the Practice of the Ancient Church. , which contain Rules contrary to the Practice of that time, and which it had been impossible to observe.  
Constantine sent a Letter to the Catholic Church which is instead of a Synodical Letter of the Council, because by this Letter he publishes what was decided concerning Easter. He says nothing of the cause of the Arians and Meletians, because that particularly concerned the Egyptians to whom the Council gave an account of it. He condemned Arius and the Arians: He sent this Heretic into banishment with Secundus and Theonas, who would not subscribe the Decrees of the Synod; and the Council ending happily in the Month of August in the Year 325, at the beginning of the Second Year of his Reign, he gave the Bishops a noble Entertainment, and sent them home loaded with Presents, after he had exhorted them to Unity.   

Of the pretended COUNCIL of Antioch against Eustathius.  
IN this Council which was held in 330, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and those of his Faction, deposed 
Of Antioch, against Eustathius, 330.  Eustathius, after the manner which we related, when we gave an Account of the Life and Writings of this Bishop, and they chose in his room Paulinus Bishop of Tyre. 'Tis probable that in this Council they deposed Asclepas Bishop of Gaza, and condemned Eutropius of Adrianople. However this be, this Council has not left any Monument in Writing.   

Of the SYNOD of Caesarea.  
ST. Athanasius was cited to a Council held at Caesarea in Palestine, in the Year 334, but he did not 
Of Caesarea, 334.  appear, and there is nothing known of this Synod.   

Of the pretended COUNCIL of Tyre against St. Athanasius.  
THE Emperor called a Council in the Year 335, in the City of Tyre, to judge the Cause of 
Of Tyre, against St. Athanasius, 335.  St. Athanasius. He wrote a Letter to the Bishops of this Synod, wherein he exhorts them to settle Peace and Concord in the Church: He recommended it to them to Judge justly and without Prejudice, and threatened those with banishment who would not appear at the Council. He sent thither Count Dionysius with Guards to hinder any Disorder. This Council consisted of Sixty Eastern Bishops or thereabouts. St. Athanasius came thither with Forty Bishops of Egypt; he was forced to appear there as a Criminal. Several Accusations were proposed which could not be proved, and so they insisted upon that of the Chalice, which they alleged he had caused to be broken in Maraeotis by his Priest Macarius. The Council sent Deputies to the places to inform themselves of the Truth or Falsehood of this Story. But since the Deputies were the greatest Enemies of St. Athanasius, who could not fail of returning their Information to his Disadvantage, he thought himself obliged to retire, and appeal to the Emperor. Some time after, the Deputies returning with an Information, which they had made as they would themselves, the Synod pronounced against him a Sentence of Condemnation and Deposition.   

Of the SYNOD of Jerusalem.  
THE Synod of Tyre was not yet finished, when the Emperor sent a Letter to the Bishops, 
Of Jerusalem, 335.  wherein he ordered them to come presently to Jerusalem, to make there the Dedication of a Magnificent Church which he had built there. They obeyed the Emperor's Orders, and having performed this Ceremony with much Pomp, they made a Synod there, wherein they received Arius, etc. I know very well that Valesius affirms that Arius was then dead, and that the Council received only the Followers of Arius. But St. Athanasius says plainly in his Book of the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia, That Arius and his Followers were received in this Council. We have in St. Athanasius the Synodical Letter of this Council written to the Egyptians and Alexandrians, wherein they writ to them, that they had received Arius and his Party after they were satisfied that they held very Orthodox Doctrines.   

Of the COUNCIL of Constantinople against Marcellus of Ancyra.  
THE Council of Jerusalem being ended, the Bishops came to Constantinople, where they held 
Of Constantinople, against Marcellus of Ancyra, 336.  also a Synod, wherein they deposed Marcellus of Ancyra, as convicted by his Writings of renewing the Error of Paulus Samosatenus and Sabellius. He had been already accused of this Heresy in the Council of Jerusalem, and he had promised that he would retract it, and burn his Book; but refusing to do it at Constantinople, he was there condemned and deposed.   

Of the COUNCIL of Constantinople against Paul Bishop of that City.  
AFter the Death of Constantine, Paul of Constantinople, who had been banished, returned to Constantinople, 
Of Constantinople, against Paul Bishop of that City, 338.  according to the permission which the Caesars had given to the exiled Bishops to return from their Banishment. But Eusebius of Nicomedia who had a mind to usurp the See of this great City, and the Bishops of his Party, being Enemies to Paul, because he was a Defender of St. Athanasius, stirred up against him his Priest Macedonius who accused him of leading a Life unbecoming the Priesthood, and they presently assembled a Synod at Constantinople, wherein they deposed him, and chose in his room Eusebius of Nicomedia.   

Of the COUNCIL of Alexandria in behalf of St. Athanasius.  
ST. Athanasius being returned from Triers, whither Constantine had banished him, reentered upon 
Of Alexandria, in behalf of St. Athanasius, 340.  the possession of the See of Alexandria, and notwithstanding the Condemnation of the Council of Tyre, was acknowledged as their lawful Bishop: yet being opposed anew by the Eusebians under the Empire of Constantius, he caused a Council of a 100 Egyptian Bishops, or thereabouts, to assemble in the Year 340, who wrote in his Favour to all the Bishops of the World, and cleared him from the Accusations that were laid against him. This Letter is extant in the Second Apology of St. Athanasius.   

Of the COUNCIL of Rome, under Pope Julius, in behalf of St. Athanasius.  
THE Eusebians desiring to obtain the Favour of Pope Julius, sent Deputies to him about the 
Of Rome, in behalf of St. Athanasius, 341.  end of the Year 339, to request of him a Council to judge the cause of St. Athanasius, and declared to him at the same time, That if he pleased they would make him Judge of their Difference. Julius answered them, That it was just a Council should be assembled in what place they pleased; That there they might propose their Accusations against St. Athanasius, and answer what he had to say against them. The Eusebians without waiting for this Synod, where they could not be Judges, any more than St. Athanasius, assembled often times at Antioch, where they ordained one Gregory, to fill the See of Alexandria, and sent him to seize upon it by main Force. St. Athanasius understanding what they had done, retired to Rome, where he was kindly received by Pope Julius, who wrote immediately to all the Eastern Bishops, that they should come to Rome on the Day which he appointed, there to appear before the Synod which was to be assembled about the end of the Year 341. The Eusebians never appeared, and detained the Pope's Legates who brought this Letter, till the Month of January in the next Year. However, the Bishops of Italy assembled in a Church of Rome, and examined the Cause of St. Athanasius, and that of Marcellus of Ancyra. All the Accusations which had been alleged against the former were proposed, and after he had proved them all to be false, he was declared Innocent. Marcellus of Ancyra persuaded the Bishops that his Faith was Orthodox, and declared that his Books were misunderstood, and so was acquitted also. At last, the Council prayed Julius to write to the Bishops of the East; which he did in the Year 342, after the return of his Legates. We have often already spoken of this Letter of Julius, and therefore it is not necessary to say any thing more of it here.   

Of the COUNCILS held at Antioch.  
THE Eastern Bishops having quitted the Design they had of appearing before a Council of the 
Of Antioch. 341. 342.  West, or of taking the Pope for Judge of their differences with St. Athanasius, assembled at Antioch in the beginning of the Year 341, and there held a Synod of Ninety Bishops or thereabouts. The occasion of this Synod was the Celebration of the Dedication of the Church of Antioch. But as it was the Custom of the Bishops when they were assembled to make some Ecclesiastical Rules, so these thought fit to compose New Confessions of Faith, and to make Canons concerning the Discipline of the Church.  
In the First of these Confessions of Faith, they declare, That they are not followers of Arius, and that they have no other Faith but what they received by Tradition; That they restore Arius, because they found that his Doctrines were Orthodox, but that they do not follow him. After this Protestation there followed a Confession of Faith, wherein they do not use the Word Consubstantial, but they declare, That they believe in one only Son of God, coexistent with his Father who begot him, by whom all things were made; and in the Holy Spirit. This was the First Confession of Faith that was made after that of the Council of Nice; and it was quickly followed by a Second made by the same Bishops in the same place, wherein they enlarge much more upon the Attributes of Jesus Christ: They say, That he was Born of the Father before all Worlds, That he is God of God, Whole of Whole, a perfect Being, etc. That he is the perfect Image and exact Resemblance of the Divinity, of the Substance, of the Will, the Power and Glory of the Father. They add, That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not Three different Names, but Three Subsistences, and that they are one in Will. They pronounce an Anathema against those who say, That there was an Age or a Moment before the Generation of the Word, or who say, That he is a Creature formed like other Creatures. These Expressions of being one by Will, of being a Creature like others, and some others like them which are in this Confession of Faith, render it very much suspected.  
For this reason perhaps it displeased some Bishops of the Synod, which obliged Theophronius Bishop of Tyana to make a Third Confession, which was approved by all, wherein they profess to believe in Jesus Christ, The only Son of God, God, the Word, the Power and Wisdom by which all things were created, who was begotten of the Father before all Worlds, perfect God of perfect God, who exists in the Father Hypostatically. This Confession of Faith has nothing that could render it suspected, but only the omission of the Word Consubstantial. These are the Three Confessions of Faith which were made in this Council.  
As to what concerns the Discipline of the Church, these Bishops supposing that St. Athanasius had been fairly judged in the Council of Tyre, though they had no more to do but ordain a Bishop in his room. At first they cast their Eyes upon Eusebius of Edessa, a Disciple of Eusebius of Caesarea, and of Patrophilus of Scythopolis: But this Prudent Man refusing it, lest he should be affronted by the People of Alexandria who loved St. Athanasius, they chose Gregory, and prayed the Emperor to send him with a strong Force to Alexandria to take Possession of that Church.  
Afterwards they made 25 Canons concerning the Discipline of the Church, whose Authority has been Disputed upon the account of those who made them. St. Chrysostom and Pope Innocent reject them as being composed by Arians; yet they were inserted into the Code of the Universal Church, and cited in the Council of Chalcedon, where some Canons of this Council of Antioch are quoted; and since that time they have had a place in all the Collections of Ecclesiastical Canons. And indeed, they contain the Wisest, and the Justest Rules that ever were observed in the ancient Church; which has made some Authors believe, That part of them at least were made by another Synod; but their Conjectures will not hold, and it is evident, that the 4th. 12th. and 15th. were made by this Synod, since they are the same which St. Chrysostom and Pope Innocent reject, because they were made by Arians. This being evident, say I, 'tis very probable, that all the other Canons were made by the same Council, especially since in all the Collections, they are attributed to one Synod of Antioch only, which was held soon after the Council of Nice.  
But we must carefully distinguish this Council of Antioch, of which we have just now spoken, that was held in the Year 341, from another Synod made up of a part of the same Bishops, who assembled in the beginning of the Year 342; for this last was held after St. Athanasius was acquitted, when the Bishops of the East sent back the Pope's Legates, after they had been detained till January, in the Year 342. 'Twas in the name of this Synod that they wrote a Letter to Julius, wherein they excuse themselves for not being able to come to the Synod of Rome which he had assembled, both upon the account of the War with the Persians, and because of the shortness of the time between the delivery of Julius' Letter to them, and the Day which he had signified to them for the meeting of the Synod. They took it ill that Julius had written to them all alone, and had addressed his Letter only to Eusebius; but above all they complained that he had taken into his Communion, Athanasius and Marcellus, who were condemned and deposed.  
Probably 'twas in this last Synod that the Fourth Confession of Faith was composed which is produced by St. Athanasius. It comes very near to that of the Council of Nice, saving only that it omits the Word Consubstantial. They made it, as St. Athanasius observes, to send it into the West to the Emperor Constans.  
The 1st. Canon of the Council of Antioch confirms the Decree of the Council of Nice, concerning the Celebration of Easter.  
The 2d. condemns those who would never communicate, and who have an aversion to the receiving of the Eucharist, and forbids the holding Communion with those that are excommunicated, under the Penalty of being excommunicated themselves.  
The 3d. forbids Clergymen to forsake their Churches to abide in others, and ordains that he who will not return being recalled by his own Bishop, shall be deposed, and that the Bishop who detains him shall be punished by the Synod.  
The 4th. ordains, That in case a Bishop being deposed by a Synod, and a Priest or a Deacon being deposed by his Bishop, shall dare to discharge the Functions of their Offices before they be restored, they can never hope to be restored in another Synod; That they shall not be permitted to defend themselves, and that all those shall be excommunicated who have communicated with them, and knew the Judgement that was given against them.  
The 5th. is, That if a Priest or a Deacon despising his Bishop, separate from the Church, and make private Meetings, setting up a New Altar, and will not obey his Bishop, when he shall be admonished and called back again two or three times, he can no longer hope to continue in his Office, and if he continue to trouble the Church, the Aid of the Secular Arm may be implored to chastise this seditious Person.  
The 6th. forbids the receiving of an excommunicated Person until he has been restored to Communion by his Bishop.  
The 7th. ordains, That no Person shall be received into Communion, who has not Letters of Peace, i. e. Letters testifying that he is not separated from the Communion of the Church.  
The 8th. declares, That these Letters cannot be given by the Priests who are in the Country Villages, or at least that they cannot address them but only to their neighbouring Bishops; but that the Suffragans may grant them.  
The 9th. ordains, That the Bishops of the Province reverence their Metropolitan, and do nothing of consequence without him, but only take care of the Diocese, to ordain Priests and Deacons, and to regulate the particular Affairs of their Church; but to do nothing more without the Metropolitan, who ought likewise to do no considerable thing without taking the Advice of the Bishops of the Province.  
The 10th. regulates the Rights of Suffragans. It enjoins them not to exalt themselves above their Rank; to take care of the Churches, which are subject to them, without meddling with the Affairs of others. It permits them in their own Churches to ordain Readers, Subdeacons and Exorcists, but it forbids them to ordain Priests and Deacons, tho' they have even received Imposition of Episcopal Hands, that is, tho' they have been ordained Bishops. Lastly, it ordains, That the Suffragan should be ordained by the Bishop of the City.  
The 11th. ordains, That in case a Bishop, or a Priest, or another Clergyman address to the Emperor without the Consent of the Bishops of the Province, and chief of the Metropolitan, he ought to be excommunicated and deposed; but if he has any Affairs which oblige him to wait upon the Emperor, he may do it with the Consent of the Metropolitan and the Bishops of the Province, which shall be expressed in the Letters which they give him.  
The 12th. forbids Clergymen who have been deposed by their Bishop to address themselves to the Emperor, to obtain Restitution; and takes from those who shall do it all hopes of being restored.  
The 13th. forbids Bishops to pass from one Province to another to ordain there, unless they be called by the Metropolitan of the Province, and nulls every thing which shall be done by one Bishop of a Province.  
The 14th. says, That in case the Bishops of one Province cannot agree about judging of a Bishop, the Metropolitan may call the Bishops of the neighbouring Province, to judge and decide this Controversy.  
But it is ordained in the 15th. That if a Bishop is condemned unanimously by all the Bishops of the Province, he cannot be judged anew, and that the Sentence of the Synod of the Province ought to remain firm.  
The 16th. declares, That if a Bishop who has no Bishopric; invade a vacant Church, without the Authority of a Synod, he ought to be driven away from it, tho' the People of the Church whereof he is Bishop should choose him. It adds, That a Synod cannot be complete and lawful without the presence of the Metropolitan.  
The 17th. declares, That if any being ordained Bishop, refuse to accept of the Bishopric, he is to continue excommunicated until such time as he accepts it, or that the Synod of the Province has otherwise determined about it: But if it be none of his Fault, that he does not go to his Church, but because the People of the Church will not receive him, it is ordained in the 18th. Canon, that he shall have the Honour and Place of a Bishop, upon condition that he do not any wise trouble the Church wherein he shall continue.  
The 19th. forbids the Ordination of a Bishop without a Synod and without the presence of the Metropolitan. It adds, That 'tis convenient that all the Bishops of the Province should be present at this Synod with him; but if this cannot be done, yet they must be summoned to it, and several of them must give their Suffrages, either in the Synod, or by Letters: That if the Ordination be made otherwise, it shall not be good; but if some particular Persons out of a Spirit of Contradiction contest it after it is thus made, the Suffrages of the major Part should carry it.  
The 20th. ordains, That every Year two Synods shall be held in a Province; viz. the First, the Third Week 〈◊〉 Easter, and the Second in the Month of July, that so Priests, Deacons, and in short, all those who pretend that their Bishop has done them any Injury, may have recourse to the Synod. It forbids also to keep these Synods without the Metropolitans.  
The 21st. forbids the Translations of Bishops.  
The 22d. forbids a Bishop to meddle within the Diocese of another, and to make any Ordination there.  
The 23d. forbids a Bishop to ●●oain his Successor.  
The 24th. provides for the preservation of the Church-Lands: It gives the management of them to the Bishops; but it ordains that the Priests shall take cognizance of the Lands of the Church, lest after the Death of the Bishop his Heirs seize upon them.  
The Last regulates the uses to which the Bishop should apply the Revenue of the Church: It ordains, That he shall dispose of them, for the good of the Poor and of Strangers; and that he shall be content with necessaries, according to the command of the Apostle St. Paul; That he shall not keep the remainder to himself; That he shall not give it to his Brethren or to his Children, but that he shall distribute it according to the Advice of the Priests and Deacons; That if he does not do it, he shall be accountable to the Synod of the Province; And Lastly, That if the Priests and the Bishop be accused of conspiring together, to appropriate to themselves the Ecclesiastical Revenues, the Synod shall examine this Accusation, and shall punish them if it be found true.   

Of the COUNCIL of Antioch.  
THE Eusebians assembled also at Antioch about the end of the Year 345, or the beginning of 
Of Antioch, 345.  the next Year, and there made a large Confession of Faith, which they sent into the West, by Eudoxus, Martyrius, and Macedonius. 'Tis quoted as well as the others by St. Athanasius. There they make profession of believing in Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten of his Father before all Worlds, God of God, Light of Light; and they condemn those that say, That he is not God, or that he was made of nothing, and those that say, There are Three Gods, and those that confound the Divine Persons. This Confession is Catholic, tho' the Term Consubstantial is not found in it.   

Of the COUNCIL of Milan.  
THE Bishops of the West being assembled at this Council to find out some means of determining the Differences of the Bishops which troubled the Peace of the Church, the Deputies of the 
Of Milan, 346.  Eastern Bishops came thither, and proposed that large Confession of Faith last mentioned to them: The Western Bishops for their part declared, That the Nicene Creed must be approved, and Arius condemned. This Proposition provoked the Deputies of the Bishops of the East who retired in great anger. Ursacius and Valens were received into Communion in this Council, after they had presented a Manifesto, wherein they condemn the Heresies of Arius and Photinus. The Error of the latter was also condemned in this Synod. This Council was held in the Year 346. For, First, It was assembled when the Deputies of the Council of Antioch came into the West, and brought with them their long Confession of Faith; and St. Athanasius says, That they did this Three Years after the First Deputation which they made about the end of the Year 342. Secondly, Liberius says in his Letter to Constantius composed in the Year 354, That it was then Eight Years since the Legates who came from the East, withdrew from the Council of Milan in great discontent. Lastly, St. Athanasius says, that Constantius commanded him to appear at Milan, in the Fourth Year of his Abode in the West; and he came in 341, and therefore this Synod was held about the end of the Year 345, or the beginning of the Year 346.   

Of the COUNCIL of Cologne against Euphratas.  
THere is commonly placed in the Year 346, a Synod which is thought to have been held at Cologne, 
Of Cologne, against Euphratas, 346.  and wherein 'tis said that Euphratas Bishop of this City was deposed for denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Acts of this Council are extant in the Second Tome of the Councils p. 615. But I find there is great probability that these Acts were forged, and that this History is false: For this Euphratas who is said to have been deposed in this Synod in the Year 346, i e. in the next Year after the Consulship of Amantius and Albinus, was present the Year after at the Council of Sardica as a Catholic Bishop, and was also one of the Deputies whom the Council sent into the East, as appears by the Testimonies of St. Athanasius and Theodoret. Is it possible that a Bishop, who was a little before convicted of denying the Divinity of the Son, and then deposed, should be present at the Council of Sardica among the Catholic Bishops, and should be chosen for a Deputy by the whole Council? Some say, that this Council was held alter that of Sardica; but this Hypothesis which is contrary to the Date of the Acts, may also be easily destroyed: For Maximinus of Triers who is thought to have presided at this Council, as the Acts testify, died soon after the Council of Sardica, since it is certain by the Testimony of St. Athanasius, in his Epistle to those that lead a Monastic Life, That Paulinus, the Successor of Maximinus, was Bishop of Triers when Ursacius and Valens retracted, i. e. in the Year 349. But from the Year 347 to 349, Euphratas was always out of France, and consequently it is impossible that 〈◊〉 should be Deposed by Maximinus of Triers.  
There is also another Argument which prvoes the Acts of the Council of Cologne to be forged. Servatus Bishop of Tongres, says, that he reproved Euphratas in the presence of St. Athanasius. Now this Bishop could not have seen St. Athanasius, but upon Two Occasions. First, when this Saint was at Triers; and Secondly, when Servatus was sent into the East by Magnentius: But he could not reprove Euphratas in the presence of St. Athanasius neither when this Father was at Triers, since Euphratas could not be accused of this Error before the Council of Sardica, nor when he was sent Deputy into the East; for then Maximinus of Triers, who is said to have presided at the Council of Cologne, was dead, as we have just now shown.  
The Subscriptions of these Acts do also plainly discover their Forgery: For there you may read the Names of Desiderius of Langres, and of Simplicianus of Autun, who lived in the Fifth Age of the Church; there is also the Name of Discolus Bishop of Rheims, who is not to be found in the Catalogue of the Bishops of that Church. Lastly Severinus who is said to have been Ordained in the room of Euphratas, was still alive in the Year 402, according to the Testimony of Sulpitius Severus. 'Tis true the Names of Desiderius and Discolus are amongst the Names of the Bishops of France, in the Subscriptions of the Letter of the Council of Sardica; but 'tis probable that he that forged these Acts, took from thence these Names, and added to them the Names of the Bishoprics. However it be, these Acts were unknown to all the ancient Historians, who make no mention of this History, nor of the Council of Cologne. The First who cited them is the Author of the Acts of Servatus of Tongres, which the Learned now own to be supposititious. After him Servatus Lupus mentions them in the Life of Maximinus: Hogerius Abbot of Lobbes, and some Modern Author's mention them; but their Authority is of little weight in so ancient a Matter as this.   

Of the COUNCIL of Sardica.  
THE Emperors Constantius and Constans desiring to restore Peace to the Church, called a Synod 
Of Sardica, 347.  of the Eastern and Western Bishops at Sardica in the Year 347 
a The Emperors Constantius and Constans called a Council at Sardica in the Year 347.] Socrates B. II. Ch. 20. and Sozomen B. III. Ch. 11. testify that it was called in this Year. St. Athanasius confirms this Epocha, because he says, that it was held a Year after the Council of Milan. It appears by the express Testimonies of St. Athanasius, that this Council was called by the Emperors. Hosius says the same thing in his Letter to the Emperor, and the Historians, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Sulpitius Severus follow this Opinion. Socrates indeed says, the Bishops of the East complained that Julius had allowed too little time for coming to the Synod; but he confounds what they say about the Council of Rome, with what concerns the Council of Sardica.  Thither came 100 Bishops from the West, and 73 Bishops from the East 
b Thither came 100 Bishops from the West, and 73 from the East.] St. Athanasius in his Letter to those that lead a Monastic Life, says, that this Council consisted of 170 Bishops or thereabouts. Now it appears by the Subscriptions of the Letter of the Bishops of the East, that these Bishops from the East were 73. St. Athanasius indeed says, That the Letter of the Council of Sardica containing his Absolution was signed by 300 Bishops, but this is to be understood not only of those who were present at the Council, but also of those who subscribed after the Council was over, to its Synodical Letter.  But those of the East having declared to those of the West, that they would not be present at the Council, unless St. Athanasius, Marcellus and the other Bishops that were condemned, were excluded from Ecclesiastical Communion, and the Western Bishops refusing to accept of this Condition, the Council was divided and the Eastern Bishops withdrew. Those of the West, of whom Hosius was the Head and Precedent, 
c Of whom Hosius was Head and Precedent.] The Name of this Bishop is the First in the Subscriptions which are in St. Athanasius, who says, That he was the Head and Precedent of all the Councils where he was present. Theodoret says expressly, That he presided in this Council B. II. Ch. 15. of his History, as well as Sozomen B. III. Ch. 11. and the Council of Chalcedon in their Discourse to Marcianus, Tom iv of the Councils, p. 825. Petrus de Marca has affirmed, That he presided in this Council in the Name of the Pope but his Opinion is not founded on any solid Argument. The Pope's Legates signed after him, and declared, That they only represented his Person: Julius Romae per Archidamum & Philoxenum Presbyteros.  did notwithstanding hold a Synod in their absence, to treat of the Faith, and of the Accusations charged upon St. Athanasius and the other Catholic Bishops, and to make Canons concerning the Discipline of the Church. In Matters of Faith, they all Agreed that they must not make any new Creed, but must hold to that of the Council of Nice: Yet some particular Persons would have made a new Creed, in imitation of the Bishops of the East, but all the Council disapproved their Design. The Creed then drawn up is preserved by Theodoret Ch. 8. of the 2d. B. of his History. Afterwards the Council took into their consideration the personal Accusations against St. Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra. The First justified himself and was acquitted; the Second having alleged that Eusebius and his Adversaries took for Affirmations what he proposed as Objections, was also restored. Asclepas Bishop of Gaza was restored; Theodorus of Heraclea, Narcissus of Neronius, Stephen of Antioch, George of Laodicea, Menophantus of Ephesus, Ursacius of Singidunum, Valens of Mursa, and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, were Excommunicated and Deposed.  
Lastly, the Council produced Twenty Canons and wrote Three Letters. The First which was addressed to all the Bishops, is to the Church of Alexandria by St. Athanasius, and by St. Hilary in his Fragments; the Second is to Julius which is in St. Hilary in the same place, and the Third produced by St. Athanasius. There was also a long Letter to the Emperors, which was in St. Hilary's Book, but is not now in his Fragments, nor any where else.  
On the other side the Eastern Bishops who withdrew from Sardica, assembled at Philippopolis, and wrote a Letter from thence, which they dated from Sardica, addressed to all the Bishops of the World. There they cry out upon St. Athanasius, Marcellus of Ancyra and Asclepas, and make them pass for wicked Rogues. They declare, That they do not join with the Bishops of the West, because they had received into their Communion those Bishops who were deposed in the East, and upon the account of this pretended violation of their Authority they excommunicate Hosius, Protogenes, Gaudentius, Maximinus and Julius. They complain that the whole World was turned upside down, and the whole Church disturbed for the sake of One or Two wicked Fellows. They accuse the Bishops of the West of Arrogance, and reprove them for endeavouring to establish a new Law, to give themselves the liberty of examining a new what had been determined in the East. They observe that the ancient Discipline of the Church is contrary to this Practice, and that the Judgements given in the East ought to be confirmed in the West, as those of the West were received in the East. They prove this Rule by several Examples. Lastly, they add to this Letter a Confession of Faith, wherein they make profession of Believing in the Son of God begotten of the Father before all Worlds, God of God, Light of Light, who Created all things; and they condemn those who say. That the Son was made of nothing, or that he is of another Substance than the Divine Substance, and that he is not of God, or that there was a time when he was not the Son of God; as also they anathematise those who say, That there are Three Gods, or that Jesus Christ is not God; or that there is not one Christ● only the Son of God, or that he is the same Person with the Father or the Holy Spirit. This Letter which is preserved in the Fragments of St. Hilary is addressed to Gregory of Alexandria, to Amphion of Nicomedia, and to several other Bishops, and among the rest to Donatus of Carthage. For which Reason the Donatists urge it in the Conference of Carthage, and the Catholic Bishops being ignorant of this History, say, that the Council of Sardica was made up of Arian Bishops. Some say, That Paul of Constantinople was restored in the Council of Sardica, others who follow Epiphanius, say, That Photinus was condemned there. They are both mistaken; for Paul was dead, and Photinus was not condemned in this Synod.  
I have only now to give an Abridgement of the subject Matter of the Canons of the Council of Sardica. These Canons were not composed as those of other Councils in the form of Laws; but they are propositions made by Hosius and some other Bishops, which are approved by all the Synod.  
In the 1st. Hosius says, That they ought wholly to abolish a wicked Custom and pernicious Abuse, by hindering Bishops to pass from one See to another. And having declared that Avarice and Ambition are the only causes of these Translations, because there is no Example of a Bishop who ever quitted a great Bishopric to take a little one. He proposes for a severe Punishment of this Fault, that those who are guilty of it shall be excluded from Lay-Communion. And all the Fathers of the Council answered, We agree to it.  
In the 2d. Canon, Hosius adds, That the same Sentence ought to be pronounced against those who excuse themselves, because they were desired by the Faithful of their Second Church; and the Synod ordains that it shall be so.  
The three following Canons concern Ecclesiastical Decisions. It had been ordained in the Council of Antioch, That the Decision of the Council of the Province could not be invalidated, and that if the Bishops of the Province could not agree, they should call in those of the neighbouring Province.  
The Council of Sardica falls foul upon these Two Decisions: For in the Third Canon Hosius proposes, First, That it should be forbidden to appeal to Judges of a neighbouring Province; and Secondly, he says, That for the Honour of the Memory of St. Peter, he judged it convenient, with the leave of the Council, to Ordain; That if a Bishop condemned in his own Country thought himself innocent, those who had judged him should write of it to the Bishop of Rome, to inquire whether the Cause of the Bishop accused should be examined anew: That if he, and the Judges whom he should name were of this Opinion, they must proceed to anew Decision upon the place; but if he did not think fit that the Cause should be examined anew, than the Sentence already past must stand good.  
Gaudentius adds in the Fourth Canon, That a Bishop deposed by the Synod of the Province, who desires this new Decision, must not be expelled his See, till the Bishop of Rome has determined, whether the Cause ought to be examined anew.  
Lastly, In the 5th. Canon, according to the Greek, and the 7th. according to the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus, Hosius says, That when the Bishop of Rome thinks fit that the Cause of a Bishop should be examined a Second time, he ought to write to the Bishop's next adjoining to his Province, That they examine the whole Matter with Care and Exactness; That he must also be impowered to send Legates in his own Name to this New Synod, unless he think it more convenient to leave the judging of the Cause to the neighbouring Bishops of the Province only, without sending thither his Legates. The Bishops of the Council approve these Propositions of Hosius and Gaudentius. These three Canons have occasioned great Disputes, which would quickly vanish, if Men would confine themselves to the Words of the Council of Sardica, which sufficiently discover; First, That the Discipline which these Fathers establish is New; Secondly, That they do not give the Bishop of Rome power to judge the Cause of a Bishop in his own Tribunal at Rome; but they only give him Authority to inquire whether it were well or ill determined; and in case he find that it was determined wrong to Order a New Decision of it in the Country, and by the neighbouring Bishops of the Province where it was determined, whither he might send Legates in his own Name to be present, if he thought it convenient. This is the Natural Sense of the three Canons of this Council, which I have explained more at large in my Second Dissertation of the Discipline of the Church.  
The 5th. Canon according to the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus declares, That if there remains but one Bishop in a Province, and he will not ordain other Bishops, the Bishops ought to come to him and join with him in ordaining; but if he persist in his unwillingness and will not meet them for ordaining Bishops, the neighbouring Bishops alone may then ordain them without his Consent. This is the Proposition of Hosius, to which the Council agreed.  
The 6th. is, That a Bishop ought not to be ordained in a Borough or little City, where a Priest is sufficient, lest the Dignity of a Bishop be lessened.  
The following Canons are about the Journeys of Bishops to Court. Hosius for hindering them to go thither continually, and importune the Emperor by their frequent Petitions, thought fit to ordain,  
First, That none of the Bishops shall go to Court, unless he be required by the Emperor's Letters.  
Secondly, That those who shall have Requests or Petitions to make for the Poor of their Churches, shall only send thither a Deacon.  
Thirdly, That this Deacon, before he goes to Court shall address himself to his Metropolitan, to whom he shall make known the occasion of his Petitions, and of whom he shall obtain Letters of Request and Recommendation.  
Fourthly, That those who shall go to Rome, shall address themselves to the Bishop of that City, who having examined their Petitions, shall write of them to Court if he finds them Just.  
Fifthly, Gaudentius adds, That for putting these Rules in Execution, the Bishops which lie upon the Road, shall ask the Bishops whom they shall see going to Court, and if they find that they have not observed the Canon's abovementioned, they shall not receive them into their Communion. But because these Rules were New, Hosius moderates this Penalty, and says, That they must first make them known to these Bishops, and persuade them to send a Deacon to Court from the place where they shall be, and then return to their own Diocese. These Propositions are approved by the Council, and contained in the Canons 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.  
In the 13th. Hosius says, That he thought it necessary to ordain, That Bishoprics shall only be given to those who have discharged the Offices of Reader and Deacon, or Priest, for a considerable time. The Bishops of the Council approve this Proposition.  
In the 14th. Hosius says, That it ought to be ordained, that a Bishop should not continue longer than three Weeks, in the Diocese of another, and out of his own. All the Bishops are of this Opinion: But Hosius moderates this Law in the following Canon, in favour of those who have an Estate out of their Diocese, and who are obliged to continue there more than three Weeks for their Affairs, but he would have them forbidden after this time is spent, to go to the great Church of the City, and orders them to be present only at the Offering of a Priest.  
In the 16th. Hosius proposes the renewing of that Law, which forbids a Bishop to give the Communion to him who is excommunicated by his own Bishop: And the Bishops of the Council say, That this Rule will preserve Peace and Concord.  
The 17th. allows Priests and Deacons who are condemned by their own Bishop to appeal to the Judgement of the Bishops of the Province.  
In the 18th. the Bishop Januarius desires that a Bishop may be forbidden to solicit the Clergy of another Bishop, that he may ordain them in his own Diocese. The Council answers, That these Contests occasion Discord among Bishops, and is of Opinion, that it ought not to be done.  
Hosius adds in the 19th. Canon, That the Ordination of a Clergyman of another Diocese ought to be void, and that the Bishop who shall do it, aught to be punished.  
In the 20th. the Bishop Aëtius having remonstrated that many Priests and Deacons, Strangers, continued a long time at Thessalonica, the Synod ordains, That the Rules made with respect to Bishops may oblige these Persons.  
The 21st. Canon according to the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus which we have followed, declares, That according to the Remonstrance of the Bishop Olympus, the Council is of Opinion, that a Bishop forced away from his own Diocese for the Defence of the Discipline of the Church, or of the Faith and Truth, may continue in the Bishopric of another, till he can return to his own, for it would be great Inhumanity not to receive him who is persecuted, and that on the contrary, much Civility and Kindness ought to be shown to him.  
There are in the Greek two other Canons which concern a particular Business. The Bishop Gaudentius says to the Bishop Aëtius, That since he had had no trouble in his Diocese from the time that he was Bishop of it, he thought that he ought to receive those who were ordained by Musaeus and Eutychianus. Hosius judged that he ought not to admit those who being ordained would not continue in the Churches to which they are named. He adds, That Eutychianus and Musaeus ought not to be looked upon as Bishops, but if they desired Lay-Communion, it should not be refused them.  
These Canon's end with these Words in the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus, The whole Council hath said; The Catholic Church spread over all the Earth, shall observe what has been now ordained.  
However, the Canons of the Council of Sardica were never received by the Catholic Church, as general Laws. They were never put into the Code of the Canons of the Universal Church, approved by the Council of Chalcedon. The East never received them, neither would the Bishops of Africa own them. The Popes only used them, and cited them under the Name of the Council of Nice, to give them the greater Weight and Authority.   

Of the First COUNCIL of Sirmium.  
THE First Council of Sirmium was made up of Western Bishops; it was held in the Year 349, 
Of the First of Sirmium, 349.  Two Years after that of Milan. Photinus who had been already excommunicated, was there condemned, but he could not be forced away from his See, and therefore the Western Bishops only gave notice to the Eastern of the Judgement they had given against this Heretic. This is related in the Fragments of St. Hilary.   

Of the Second COUNCIL of Sirmium.  
THE Second Council of Sirmium was made up of Eastern Bishops assembled by the Emperor Constantius 
Of the Second of Sirmium, 351.  in the Year 351. Basil of Ancyra entered the Lists there against Photinus, and convicted him of Heresy. He was afterwards Deposed by the Bishops, and sent into banishment by the Authority of the Emperor. In this Council was made the First Creed of Sirmium wherein the Bishops make profession of believing in Jesus Christ the only Son of God, born of his Father before all Worlds, God of God, Light of Light, by Whom all Things were made. There they anathematise those that said, He was created of nothing, or of another Substance, or that he was not of God, or that he was made in Time; Those that said there are Two Gods, or those who on the contrary averred, That the Father, or at least one part of him, was born of Mary, and also those who made no distinction of the Three Divine Persons, or who said, That the Divinity was changed into Flesh, and that it was subject to Sufferings and Changes. This is the Sum of that long Creed quoted in Greek by St. Athanasius, and in Latin by St. Hilary, who has considered and explained it as a very Orthodox Confession of Faith.   

Of the COUNCIL of Arles.  
COnstantius had a long time desired to get Athanasius condemned by the Western Bishops. To 
Of Arles, 353.  compass this Design, he assembled a Synod in the Year 353, in the City of Arles. The Pope sent for Legates Vincentius of Capua, and another Bishop of Campania called Marcellus; and ordered them to desire the Meeting of a Council in the City of Aquileia. These Legates being arrived at the Council of Arles, desired that they would begin with handling the Doctrine, and with condemning the Error of Arius, before they spoke of the Cause of St. Athanasius: But Ursacius and Valens who had no other Design but to procure the Condemnation of St. Athanasius, would not admit this Proposition; and forced the Bishops of the Council, and even the Pope's Legates to subscribe the condemnation of this Saint. There was none but only Paulinus Bishop of Triers that continued steadfast, and for this Reason he was banished immediately.   

Of the COUNCIL of Milan.  
LIberius being informed of the Fall of his Legates, sendeth Lucifer Bishop of Calaris, to wait upon 
Of Milan, 355.  the Emperor, and desire of him a new Synod. The Emperor granted him one, and caused it to meet at Milan in the Year 355: But it did not answer the Pope's Expectation. The Emperor caused the Bishops of the East and the West to be Summoned to it; but yet it was composed only of the Western Bishops. There came almost 300 to it. Thither they brought Eusebius of Verceilles, and Lucifer of Calaris, who was the Pope's Legate, together with Pancratius the Priest, and Hilary the Deacon. These were invited to the Synod, and were urged to subscribe the Condemnation of St. Athanasius: They answered, That they must First handle Matters of Faith; That they saw in the Assembly some Heretics, or such as were suspected of Heresy; That in the First place they must make profession of the Faith contained in the Nicene Creed. Dionysius of Milan took Pen and Paper, to write down and sign the Creed: But presently Ursacius and Valens took them by force out of his hands. Thereupon there arose a great Tumult, the People were put in a Commotion, and the Bishops withdrew to the Palace, where they were pressed to sign a Letter written in the Emperor's Name against St. Athanasius. There were but few Bishops who could resist the Emperor's Solicitations, and those who were so steadfast as to do it, viz. Eusebius of Verceilles, Dionysius of Milan, and some others, were sent into banishment. Baluzius in his new Collection of Councils, has caused the New Acts of this Council to be printed, taken out of the Life of Eusebius of Verceilles, published by Ughellus in the First Tome of his Italia Sacra; but there is no probability that they are Authentical.   

Of the COUNCIL of Biterrae, or Beziers.  
THE French Church had not yet been tossed with the Storms which troubled the Peace of all 
Of Biterrae, or Beziers. 356.  the Churches in the World. Saturninus Bishop of Arles a factious Man, was the First who brought thither the fire of Division. He assembled in the Year 356, a Council at Beziers, and used all his Endeavours to make it receive the followers of Arius; but St. Hilary opposed him stoutly, and having desired them to treat of Doctrinal Matters offered to convict Ursacius, Valens and Saturninus of Heresy. Instead of harkening to him they wrote to Court against him, and he was sent into banishment together with Rhodanius Bishop of Tholouse. After he was forced away, the Bishops of this Council being devoted to the Interests of Saturninus, did whatever he desired; but the other Bishops of France would never communicate with him, nor with Ursacius and Valens, and would not suffer other Bishops to be Ordained in the room of those that were banished.   

Of the Third COUNCIL of Sirmium.  
THE Second Creed of Sirmium was made in that City in the Year 357, by Potamius Bishop of Lisbon a City of Spain, in the Presence of Valens, Ursacius, Germinius, and some other Bishops. 
Of the Third of Sirmium, 357.  This Creed is Arian. In it they reject the Word Consubstantial, and they declare, That the Father is greater than the Son, and that the Son had a beginning.   

Of the COUNCIL of Antioch.  
THE Eastern Arians seeing that those of the West had plainly made Profession of their Error, 
Of Antioch, 358.  did also publicly declare themselves in a Council assembled at Antioch in the Year 357. Eudoxius Bishop of that City, a Patron of Aëtiús, Acacius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, Uranius Bishop of Tyre, and some others, did there condemn the Words Consubstantial, and like in Substance, and wrote to Ursacius, Valens and Germinius, to thank them, because by their means the Bishops of the West had embraced their Doctrine.   

Of the COUNCIL of Ancyra.  
THE greatest part of the Eastern Bishops opposed this Design of Eudoxius, and could not endure 
Of Ancyra, 358.  that he should make so public a Profession of the Impious Doctrine of Aëtius. George Bishop of Laodicea wrote a Circular Letter upon this Subject, wherein he exhorted his Brethren to join together for defending the Faith of the Church. Basil of Ancyra presented this Letter to many Bishops who were assembled in his City for Dedicating his Church, about the Feast of Easter in the Year 358. These Bishops wrote a Synodical Epistle related by St. Epiphanius, wherein they First confirmed the Creeds of the Eastern Bishops made at Antioch, at Sardica, and at Sirmium, and then condemned the Heresy of Aëtius, and professed to believe the Son of God to be like his Father. There follow after their Creed 18 Anathematisms, wherein they condemn these following Impious Dogmes, viz. That the Son of God is not like to his Father, That he is unlike in Substance, That he is a Creature, That he is another God than God the Father, etc. At the end of these Anathematisms there is one against those who say, That the Father and the Son are Consubstantial. St. Hilary who explains the others, makes no mention of this last, because the Deputies of this Synod durst not bring it to Sirmium.   

Of the Fourth COUNCIL of Sirmium.  
SOON after the Council of Ancyra, there was a Council held at Sirmium, wherein the Bishops 
Of the Fourth of Sirmium, 358.  of Italy and the West were present. Therein was made a Collection of the Creeds of Antioch, of the First of Sirmium, of that of Sardica, and of that of Ancyra, which Eustathius Bishop of Sebastea, and Eleusius Bishop of Cyzicum, presented to be signed by all the Bishops, who made no Scruple to do it.   

Of the Fifth COUNCIL of Sirmium.  
COnstantius having appointed Two great Synods, one in the East at Seleucia, and the other in the 
Of the Fifth of Sirmium, 359.  West at Ariminum, some Eastern Bishops before they went to Seleucia, met together at Sirmium, where they made a new Confession of Faith, which was dictated by Marcus of Arethusa, after a long Conference with the other Bishops, and was signed by those that were present. Therein they make Profession of believing the Son of God to be in all things like to his Father; but they reject the name of Substance, as a Term that ought not to be used in speaking of the Trinity, because it is not found in Scripture, and is not intelligible by the People. Nevertheless Basil of Ancyra added in his Subscription, That the Son of God was in all things like to his Father, not only by the consent of Will, but also in Substance and Essence. This Creed has the Names of the Consuls at the beginning, which displeased many.   

Of the COUNCIL of Ariminum.  
WHile these things were adoing in the East, the Western Bishops assembled from all Parts 
Of Ariminum, 359.  to Ariminum. The Emperor had sent his Letters Mandatory for them, and provided for them public Carriage, and Money for performing their Journey; but the Bishops of France and Britain thought it below them to accept of these Offers, and chose rather to travel at their own Expense. There came about 400 to the Synod, which began about the Month of July in the Year 359. Ursacius and Valens proposed there the Creed which was made a little before at Sirmium; but the Council confined themselves to that of Nice, and would not receive any other. This it declared by a solemn Decree which was signed by all the Bishops, and to it they subjoined Anathematisms against the Error of Arius, which are related at the end of St. Hilary's Fragments. Ursacius, Valens, Germinius and Demophilus refusing to acquiesce in this Definition, were condemned by the unanimous consent of all the Bishops. Matters being thus determined in the Council to the advantage of the Faith of the Church, the Bishops sent Deputies to Constantius with a Letter, wherein they give him an account of what they had done: But on the other side Ursacius, Valens and their followers, sent also Deputies to the Emperor, and having much greater Interest in the Emperor, they prepossessed him, and hindered him from giving audience to the Deputies of the Synod. And so he did nothing but write back to them, that he had not time to hear the Twenty Deputies which the Synod had sent to him, because he was obliged to go against the Pers●…s; and that he had given them Order to wait till his Return to Adrianople, because he would examine Matters of Religion with a Mind calm and disengaged from all other Business. The Council answered him, That they would never departed from what they had done, and they earnestly prayed him to permit the Bishops to return to their Churches before the rigour of the Winter. In the mean time, the Deputies of the Council assembled at Nice, a City of Thrace, and declared all that was done at Ariminum, null and void. Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius, approved a Confession perfectly like that of Sirmium, wherein they declare▪ That the Son of God is like his Father in all things, and reject the Terms of Substance and Hypostasis▪ Urs●cius and Valens recited this Confession o● Faith at Ariminum, and the Emperor sent his Commands to the Governor, that he should not suffer any Bishop to go away till he had Signed it, and gave Order to lend those into banishment who should continue Obstinate, provided they were no more than Fifteen. At first they all testified much Constancy, but by little and little they suffered themselves to be overcome through Emulation, and the greatest part of them Signed the Confession of Faith: There were but Twenty that held out to the last▪ but in the end they were overcome also, and Signed as well as the others. Nevertheless some of them, as Phegadius' Bishop of Tongres, added Professions of Faith to their Subscriptions, wherein they expressly condemn the Heresy of Arius. When all the Bishops had Signed the Confession of Faith, they wrote to the Emperor, that they had fully satisfied his Commands, by agreeing with those of the East, and rejecting the Word, Substance; and therefore they prayed him earnestly to give Order to the Governor to suffer them to go to their Churches. The Emperor gave them leave: And thus ended this Council, whose beginning was Glorious, and end Deplorable.   

Of the COUNCIL of Seleucia.  
WHile these things were doing in the West, the Eastern Bishops assembled at Seleucia, and 
Of Seleucia, 359.  there raised Disputes which they maintained with extreme Heats. There came to this Synod 160 Bishops of two different Parties altogether opposite to one another. One of them were pure Arians who maintained, That the Son of God was not at all like in Substance to his Father. There were about 40 of this Party. The others called Semi-Arians, made profession of believing the Son of God to be like in Substance, and rejected the Errors of Arius and A●tius; those of this Party were 105: The other Bishops were probably Catholics, Defenders of the Consubstantiality. There was an Officer from the Emperor's Court, called Leonas, present at the Council for hindering any Tumult. The First Assembly was held on the 23d. of September in the Year 359. Leonas required the Bishops to propose what they were to treat o●. The Semi-Arians, whereof the chief were George of Laodicea, Eleusius of Cyzicum, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, Silvanus of Tarsus, Macedonius of Constantinople, Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius of Sebastea, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem, maintained, That Personal Causes should be first examined before they handled Matters of Faith. On the contrary, the Arians, whereof the Heads were Acacius of Caesarea, George of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, E●doxius of Antioch, maintained, That they should first begin with Matters of Faith; and they carried it against the others. They proposed that the Nicene Creed should be rejected, and a New one should be made: But the Bishops of the other Party said, That they received the Council of Nice, and found nothing to be blamed in it, but only the Word Consubstantial. Hereupon there arose a great Dispute which lasted till Night. To put an end to it, Sylvanus of Tarsus said with a loud Voice, That it was needless to make a New Creed, that they had nothing to do, but Sign that which was made at Antioch, by the Synod held there for the Dedication of the Church. The Acacians seeing that this Proposition was approved, withdrew, and the next Day the other Bishops being shut up in the Church, caused the Creed of Antioch to be Signed by all the Bishops. On the Third Day, Leonas reassembled the Bishops of both Parties. The Acacians desired that the Bishops who were divided from them and deposed, should withdraw; they complained that they were not suffered to speak freely in the First Assembly; and they proposed a Confession of Faith wherein they declare, That they did not refuse to approve the Creed made at Antioch, but that they were obliged to reject more expressly the Terms, Consubstantial and like in Substance, which troubled the Church; That they did also condemn those who said that the Son of God was not like the Father, and that they made Profession of believing with the Apostle that he was the Image and Resemblance of the Father. They add, That the Creed of Sirmium was perfectly like theirs. This Confession of Faith is related by St. Epiphanius with the Subscriptions of 39 Bishops of this Party. Sr. Hilary observes, That the greatest Part of those who Signed it being Anomaeans, were forced to explain the Profession which they then made, by saying, That the Son was like his Father as he was his Father, but he was not like him as he was God. The Fourth Meeting was spent in Disputes which came to no end. Wherefore Leonas seeing that there was no means left to reconcile them, declared that he would put an end to the Council, and that he would not be present the next Day at the Assembly of the Bishops. The Acacians took occasion from thence to appear no more. The other Bishops, after a Citation of them, deposed Acacius, George of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, and Six other Bishops of their Party, and excommunicated Nine of them. They restored Cyril of Jerusalem, and ordained one named Anianus Bishop of An●ioch, in the room of Eudoxius; but this Anianus was immediately sent into banishment.  
The Success of what was done both by the one and the other Party in this Council, depended upon the Will of the Emperor; the business was; who should first engage him. The Deputies of the Acacians came first to Constantinople; and they were quickly followed thither by those of the Semi-Arians, whereof the chief were Eustathius of Sebastea, Basil of Ancyra, Sylvanus of Tarsus, and Eleusius of Cyzicum; they were assisted by St. Basil who was as yet but a Deacon. The Emperor would have the Cause of the Faith discussed in his own presence. 'Tis said that Aëtius entered upon a Conference with Basil of Ancyra, and was convicted of Heresy. However this be, Theodoret says, that Eustathius of S●bastea presented to the Emperor a Confession of Faith, wherein it was said that the Son of God was not like his Father, and accused Eudoxius of maintaining it; that the Emperor having given it to this Bishop he denied it, and said that it was Aetius', and that Aetius, having acknowledged it for his, was driven out of the Palace. While these things are doing, the Nicene Creed, which was Signed at Ariminum, was 
[That made in Nicé a City of Thrace.]  brought to Constantinople, and the Emperor having proposed it, it was Signed by all the Bishops of both Parties.   

Of the COUNCIL of Constantinople.  
THE Acacians having stayed at Constantinople, assembled there a Council of 50 Bishops, in the 
Of Constatinople, 360.  beginning of the Year 360. Thither they invited the Bishops of Bythinia who were of their Party, and they approved and published in this Synod the Creed of the Council of Ariminum, changing only a few things in it. Afterwards they condemned Aetius, and excommunicated three Bishops who would not Consent to his Condemnation. But as they condemned this Heretic only out of Policy, that they might obtain the favour of the Emperor who could endure him no longer; so they revenged themselves afterwards upon all the Bishops which opposed them in the Synod of Seleucia, and deposed the Heads of the Semi-Arian Party, who were Macedonius of Constantinople, Basil of Ancyra, Eleusius of Cyzicum, Eustathius of Sebastea, Heortasius of Sardis, and Dracontius of Pergamus. In the Second Session, they added to these Silvanus of Tarsus, Sophronius of Pompeiopclis, Elpidius of Satala, and Cyril of Jerusalem. They alleged many Pretences for deposing of them, and ordained in their room Persons of A●tius's Party. Eudoxius possessed himself of the See of Constantinople.   

Of the SYNOD of Melitine.  
THere is mention made in the Council of Constantinople, whereof we have just now spoken, of a 
Of Melitine, 357.  Synod held at Melitine about the Year 357. This Synod was composed of Bishops of Acacius' Party, since they allege his Authority in the Council of Constantinople, and condemn Elpidius for having received a Priest who had been deposed in this Synod. St. Basil in Letter 74 testifies, That Eustathius of Sebastea was deposed in this Council. St. Cyril was present there, if we may believe the Bishops of the Council of Constantinople. This is all that we could learn of this Synod, of which we have very little in Antiquity.   

Of the SYNOD of Antioch.  
THE Church of Antioch continuing vacant by the departure of Eudoxius, Meletius was ordained 
Of Antioch, 361.  Bishop of it by a Synod which Constantius called in 361. 'Tis said that some time after being invited to preach before the Emperor upon these words of the Proverbs, God hath created me in the beginning of his ways, he declared openly for the Faith of the Church; whereupon the Eudoxians called a Second Synod at Antioch, and deposed him under pretence that he had received into his Communion some Clergymen who were deposed by Eudoxius, and ordained Euzoius in his room. Afterwards they made a Confession of Faith, wherein they discover plainly their impious Doctrine, making no scruple to declare, That the Son of God was not at all like his Father in Substance, and that he was created of nothing. This was the last Synod held under Constantius, and the last of the Creeds made by his Order.   

Of the COUNCIL of Alexandria.  
ST. Athanasius being returned to Alexandria after the Death of Constantius, held a Council there 
Of Alexandria, 362.  to inquire what way they should take with the Arians who were willing to be reconciled to the Church. In this Council the State of the Church of Antioch was considered, and the Bishop's deputed Asterius Bishop of Amasea, and Euse●ius of Verceilles, to make Peace in that Church. The Question of the three Hypostases was debated in this Council; and it was determined that it did not concern the Faith, and that those who say there are three Hypostases in the Trinity are of the same Opinion with those who say there is but one, because they understand the same word differently. In it they also speak of the Mystery of the Incarnation, and determine, That the Word did not only take a Body but also a Soul, and a Mind. We have lost the Synodical Letter, but the Letter which St. Athanasius wrote to the Church of Antioch by the Order of the Council, is still extant. He enjoins them to receive the Christians who assembled in the ancient Church of Antioch, without exacting of them any other Condition, save only, that they condemn the Heresy of Arius; and be obliged to receive the Faith of the Nicene Council, and that they reject their Error who believed the Holy Spirit to be a Creature. He advertises them, that no New Creed was made in the Council of Sardica; he gives them an Account of what was determined in the Council of Alexandria, concerning the Hypostasis, and the Incarnation: He exhorts them to labour for Peace, and to shun such Questions as tended only to foment Divisions. This Letter was Signed by the Deputies of Lucifer, of Paulinus and Apollinarius, and by Paulinus himself who approved it when it was brought to Antioch.   

Of the COUNCIL of Paris.  
THE Western Bishops who had been abused in the Synod of Ariminum, being conscious of their 
Of Paris, 362.  Fault, endeavoured to repair it by assembling many Synods to annul what had been done there, and to maintain the Nicene Faith. France was none of the last that testified her Zeal upon this occasion. St. Hilary assembled there many Councils for Re-establishing the Faith of the Council of Nice. We have yet in the Fragments of St. Hilary, a Letter of a Council held at Paris, wherein the Bishops that were there present acknowledge, That they had done ill to consent in the Synod of Ariminum, that they should speak no more of the Word, Substance. They profess to believe, that the Three Persons of the Trinity are of the same Nature, and of the same Substance, and they condemn Auxentius, Ursacius, Valens and Saturninus. This Council was in the Year 362.   

Of the COUNCIL of Italy.  
'TWas not only in France that the Synod of Ariminum was rejected: The Bishops of Italy also nulled 
Of Italy, 362.  and voided all that had been done in this Synod, and Anathematised Ursacius and Valens as the Heads of the Arians. We have in the Fragments of St. Hilary a Letter written upon this subject in the name of the Bishops of Italy to the Bishops of Illyricum.   

Of the COUNCIL of the Egyptian Bishops, held at Antioch.  
THE Emperor Jovian, a most pious Prince, being at Antioch in the Year 363, desired of St. Athanasius 
Of the Egyptian Bishops held at Antioch, 363.  and the Egyptian Bishops, who were come to wait upon him in that City, that they would explain to him the Faith of the Church. These Bishops being assembled, proposed to him no other Creed but that of the Council of Nice, and rejected the Error of the Macedonians who denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. It is commonly thought that this Council was assembled at Alexandria: But it appears by the Letter which it presented to the Emperor, related by Theodoret Ch. 3. of the 4th. B. of his History, That it was composed of some Egyptian Bishops, representing all the other Bishops of their Province, who had deputed them: Which plainly shows, That this Council was held out of Egypt, in the place where the Emperor was, that is, in Antioch, where 'tis certain St. Athanasius came to wait upon Jovian.   

Of the COUNCIL of Antioch under Meletius.  
THE Acacians seeing that the Emperor Jovian favoured the Catholics, joined themselves with 
Of Antioch, under Meletius, 363.  Meletius Bishop of Antioch, and held a Council in that City, wherein they declared, That they would embrace the Faith of the Council of Nice, and receive the Term, Consubstantial: But at the same time they add, That this Term must be understood in the sense, which signifies, That the Son of God was begotten of the Substance of his Father, and that he is like in Substance to his Father; That we must not believe that there was any Passion in this ineffable Generation; That we must not make use of the Word, Substance, according to the natural sense of this Term; That it was not used but to destroy the Error of Arius, who said, That the Word was made out of nothing, an Error which was revived by the Anomaeans. These Bishops having made this Declaration in their Letter to the Emperor, approve the whole and entire Creed of the Council of Nice.   

Of the COUNCIL of Lampsacus.  
HYpatianus the Deputy of the Bishops of the Hellespont, desired a Council of the Emperor's Valens 
Of Lampsacus. 365.  and Valentinian. They appointed one at Lampsacus, where the Bishops assembled in the Year 365. After they had deliberated for the space of Two Months what they should do, they nulled all that had been done at Constantinople by the Intriguing of Eudoxius and Acacius. They declared that the Son of God was like in Substance to his Father, and adhered to that Profession of Faith which was made in the Synod of Antioch, while the Dedication of the Church of that City was celebrated. They Ordain afterwards, That the Bishops deposed by the Anomaeans, should re-enter into their Churches, from which they had been unjustly forced away, and they appointed them for Judges the Orthodox Bishops of their Province, and some of those that were nearest to it. They sent Deputies to Valens who was then at Heraclea; but they were not well received, because Eudoxius had prepossessed the Emperor, who Ordained, That the Churches should be given to those of his Party. He obliged also Eleusius of Cyzicum, in a Synod held in the Year 366, to agree with Eudoxius; but this Bishop repent of it, and publicly testified the sorrow he had for being overcome by the Solicitations of the Emperor.   

Of the COUNCIL of Singedunum, Composed of Arian Bishops.  
GErminius Bishop of Sirmium made in 366. a Confession of Faith, wherein he makes profession of believing in Jesus Christ the only Son of God, our Lord and our God, the true Son of God, of the 
Of Singedunum, of Arian Bishops, 366.  true Father, God, begotten before all Worlds, like in all things to his Father, in Divinity, in Majesty, in Greatness, in Power and in Wisdom. This Confession of Faith displeased Ursacius, Valens and the other Arian Bishops, who desired of him an Account of his Faith. The only Answer that he made to them was, that he would not separate from them: Wherefore they assembled at Singedunum a City of Moesia, and from thence wrote to him to dissuade him from maintaining that the Son of God was in all things like his Father. This Letter is preserved in the Fragments of St. Hilary.▪ 'Tis Dated December 16th. in the Year 366. Germinius answered them, [That he made Profession of believing the Son of God to be in all things like to his Father, except the Innascibility, God of God, Light of Light, Begotten before all Ages, who is not made of nothing, but begotten of God his Father. In short he says, That he does not departed from the Creed drawn up by Marcus of Arethusa, which had been formerly signed by Ursacius and Valens.   

Of the SYNODS held by the Semi-Arians.  
THE Bishops who are called Semi-Arians, assembled many Councils after the Synod of Lampsacus: 
The Synods of 365. & 366.  They held one at Smyrna composed of the Bishops of Asia, one in the Province of Pamphylia, another in Isauria, and one in Lycia. These Councils wrote Letters not now extant, that were carried to Pope Liberius by Eustathius the Deputy of these Bishops, who sent him into the West to make a Reconciliation with those who made Profession of adhering to the Nicene Creed. Eustathius discharged his Deputation, approved the Nicene Creed, and obtained Letters of Commendation from Liberius. He brought these Letters to a Synod which was held in Sicily, wherein the Faith of the Consubstantiality was approved; and returning afterwards into the East, he received the Letters of a Synod of Illyricum held in the Year 367, which declared the Trinity to be Consubstantial, and particularly established the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Letter of this Council is related by Theodoret B. IU. of his History. About the end of this Letter the Bishops of this Council exhort those of the East to choose for filling up the vacant Bishoprics, either the Children of Bishops which were dead, if they found them capable, or the ancient Priests, and not to Ordain for Priests or Deacons such Persons as came out of the Palace or the Army, but to take them out of the inferior Clergy. The Decision of this Synod was confirmed by an Edict of the Emperor, addressed to the asiatics, wherein he declares that the Term Consubstantial, signifies not only that the Son is like to his Father, but that he is of the same Nature and the same Substance.   

Of the SYNOD of Tyana.  
EUstathius being returned from the East with Letters of Commendation from the Western Bishops, 
Of Tyana, 368.  came to a Synod assembled at Tyana in the Year 368, composed of the Bishops who had declared in Jovian's time, That it was necessary to maintain the ●●aith of the Consubstantiality. Eustathius having read there the Letter of Liberius and the other Western Bishops, was there admitted to Communion, and the Anomaeans were reconciled to the Semi-Arians. A Synod was appointed at Tarsus; but the Emperor Valens hindered its Meeting there, and caused one to be held in Caria, wherein the Term Consubstantial was rejected.   

Of the COUNCIL of Gangra.  
THE precise time of this Council is not known. Some have thought that it was held between 
Of Gangra, 370.  the Council of Antioch and that of Nice. Others following the Testimony of Socrates and Sozomen, place it after the Council of Seleucia. This Opinion is confirmed, because that Eusebius who first signed the Canons of this Council, was probably the Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, the Predecessor of St. Basil. who held the See of this Church from the Year 362, to the Year 371. This Council condemns the Errors of one Eustathius who is different from the Bishop of Sebastea, who under pretence of leading a more perfect and austere Life, established such Practices as were contrary to the Laws of the Church. In the Letter of the Synod, he and his followers are Accused, First, Of condemning Marriage, and parting Wives from their Husbands; Secondly, Of forsaking the Public Assemblies of the Church to keep private Meetings; Thirdly, Of reserving the Oblations for themselves only; Fourthly, Of parting Servants from their Masters, and Children from their Fathers, under pretence of making them lead a more austere Life; Fifthly, Of permitting Women to be habited like Men; Sixthly, Of despising the Fasts of the Church, and observing others, according to their own fancy, even on Sundays; Seventhly, Of believing that it was forbidden in all Times to eat Meat; Eighthly, Of rejecting the Oblations of married Priests; Ninthly, Of despising Holy Places, and the Tombs of the Martyrs; Tenthly, Of believing that none can be Saved without parting with all their Goods. These Errors are condemned in Twenty Canons, which have been placed in the Code of the Canons of the Universal Church.  
The 1st. condemns those who disallow Marriage, and believe that a Married Person cannot be Saved.  
The 2d. thunders an Anathema against those who condemn such as eat Flesh, excepting only the Blood of those things that have been offered to Idols, and things strangled.  
The 3d. is against those who teach their Slaves to despise their Masters, instead of serving them with respect.  
The 4th. is against those who say, we must not take the Communion from the hand of a married Priest.  
The 5th. against those who despise the House of God, and the Assemblies there kept.  
The 6th. condemns those who would have another than the Public Church, who despise it, and would have the Ecclesiastical Functions performed without a Priest approved by the Bishop.  
The 7th. and 8th. are against those who receive the Ecclesiastical Offerings out of the Church, without the consent of the Bishop, or of those whom he has entrusted.  
The 9th. is against those who keep their Virginity, not because of its Excellency, but because they think Marriage to be an abominable thing.  
The 10th. against those who insult over Married Persons.  
The 11th. against those who despise the Agapae, that's to say, the Feasts of Charity.  
The 12th. against those who fancy themselves to be more holy than others, because they wear a singular Habit, and condemn those that wear decent Apparel.  
The 13th. pronounces an Anathema against those Women who leave off their own Habit and wear Men's Apparel.  
The 14th. against those who forsake their Husbands out of Detestation of Marriage.  
The 15th. against those who abandon their Children, who do not Feed them, nor Educate them in Piety, but neglect them under pretence of Devotion.  
The 16th. against those Children who under pretence of Piety forsake their Parents, and show them no more that Respect which they own them next to God.  
The 17th. against those Women who cut their Hair, to destroy the Sign of that Submission which they own to their Husbands.  
The 18th. pronounces an Anathema upon those who Fast on Sundays under pretence of leading a more austere Life.  
The 19th. is against those who break the Fasts of the Church without Necessity, and in Contempt.  
The 20th. pronounces an Anathema against those who abhor the Assemblies and the Sacrifices which are made in honour of the Martyrs, and despise their Memories.  
At last, the Fathers of this Council conclude with these excellent Words: We ordain these things not to exclude those who would, according to the Advices of Holy Scripture, exercise themselves in the Church by these Practices of Continence and Piety, but against those who use these kinds of Austerities for a Pretence to satisfy their Ambition, who despise those who lead an ordinary Life, and who introduce Innovations contrary to Scripture and the Ecclesiastical Laws. We admire Virginity when it is accompanied with Humility; we praise Abstinence which is joined with Piety and Prudence. We respect that Retirement which is made with Humility; but we also honour Marriage. We do not blame Riches when they are in the hands of Persons that are Just and Beneficent; we esteem those who cloth themselves Modestly, without Pride and Affectation, and we abhor uncivil and voluptuous Apparel: We have a Reverence for Churches, and we approve the Assemblies which are there made as Holy and Useful: We do not confine Piety to Houses. We honour all places built to the Name of God; we approve the Assemblies which are kept in the Church for the public Good: We praise the Largesses which the Faithful give to the Church to be distributed among the Poor. In a word, We wish and desire that these things may be observed in the Church which we have learned from the Scripture and the Tradition of the Apostles.   

Of the COUNCIL of Laodicea.  
IT has been commonly believed, That this Council was more ancient than that of Nice, but the Regulations 
Of Laodicea, between 360 & 370.  which are contained in its Canons, do sufficiently discover, that it was held at a time, wherein the Church flourished, and had been a long time delivered from the Pagan Persecutions; which shows that this Council could not have been assembled before the middle of the Fourth Century. 'Tis very probable that it was celebrated between 360 and 370. We know nothing of its History; but we have 60 Canons of this Assembly, which regulate many considerable Points of Ecclesiastical Discipline, and have been received by the whole Church, and put into the Code of the Canons of the Universal Church.  
The 1st. of these Canons declares, That by a kind of Condescension, the Communion ought to be given to those who are married a Second time, after they have for some time given themselves to Fasting and Prayer.  
The 2d. is, That the Communion ought to be given to those Sinners who have done Penance for their Crimes.  
The 3d. is, That those ought not to be promoted to a Bishopric who were lately baptised.  
The 4th. That Clergymen ought not to be Usurers.  
The 5th. That Ordination should not be made in the presence of those who are in the Rank of Hearers.  
The 6th. That Heretics should not be suffered to enter into the House of the Lord.  
The 7th. That in order to the receiving of Heretics, such as the Novatians, the Photinians, the Quarto Decimani, they ought first to abjure and anathematise all Heresies, and chief that whereof they made Profession; and then after they are instructed in our Doctrine, they ought to be anointed with Chrism; and lastly, made partakers of the Holy Mysteries.  
The 8th. That they must be wholly baptised anew who come from the Sect of the Montanist's.  
The 9th. That the Faithful aught to be forbidden to go to the Coemiteries or Churches of Heretics to pray there with them, and that those who do it ought to be excommunicated, and do Penance for their Fault.  
The 10th. That Catholics should not give their Daughters in marriage to Heretics.  
The 11th. That Priestesses should not be ordained in the Church.  
The 12th. That the choice of Bishops should be approved by the Metropolitan, and by the Bishops of the Province.  
The 13th. That the choice of a Bishop should not be wholly left to the People.  
The 14th. That the Holy Mysteries ought not to be sent at Easter as a Benediction.  
The 15th. That none but the Canon-Chanters who sit in high Chairs, and read in Books, shall sing in the Church.  
The 16th. That the Gospel should be read together with the other Books of Scripture, on Saturday.  
The 17th. That many Psalms should not be read together, but between every Psalm a Lesson.  
The 18th. That the same Prayers should be read at Matins as at Vespers.  
The 19th. That after the Bishop's Sermon, the Prayers of the Catechumen shall be read apart by themselves, and when these are gone forth, then shall be the Prayer of the Penitents; and Lastly, after these have withdrawn having received Imposition of Hands, the Prayer of the Faithful shall be made at three times successively: That the First Prayer shall be made in silence, but the Second and Third Prayers shall be pronounced with a loud Voice, and after that the Peace shall be given; that when the Priests shall give it to the Bishop, the Laity shall give it to themselves, and afterwards the Oblation shall go on till it be finished; and that none but those who are Holy shall be suffered to approach the Altar to receive the Communion.  
The 20th. forbids Deacons to sit in the presence of a Priest without his leave, and it ordains likewise, That the other Ministers and all the inferior Clergy shall show the same respect to Deacons.  
The 21st. forbids Ministers to do the Offices of Deacons, and to touch the Holy Vessels.  
The 22d. and 23d. forbids Ministers and Readers to carry the Stole.  
The 24th. forbids all the ecclesiastics to go to a Public House.  
The 25th. declares, That Ministers must not give the Holy Bread nor bless the Cup.  
The 26th. That those who were never ordained by Bishops, must not meddle with exorcising in the Church, or in Houses.  
The 27th. That those ecclesiastics who are invited to the Love-Feasts, must not carry any Meat away with them to their own Houses.  
The 28th. That these Feasts must not be made in Churches.  
The 29th. That Christians must not observe the Ceremonies of the Jews, nor Feast on Saturday▪ but they must labour on this Day, and abstain from labour on Sundays.  
The 30th. That an Ecclesiastic or Monk, must not wash in the Baths with Women.  
The 31st. That Men ought to give their Children in marriage to Heretics.  
The 32d. That the Blessing of Heretics ought not to be received.  
The 33d. That the Faithful ought not to pray with them.  
The 34th. That a Christian ought not to forsake the Martyrs of Jesus Christ to go and honour false Martyrs which have been Heretics.  
The 35th. That Christians ought not to forsake the Church to invoke Angels, and keep Meetings in private.  
The 36th. That those aught to be cast out of the Church who practise Magic, Judicial Astrology, and Witchcraft, etc.  
The 37th. That the Faithful ought not to celebrate the Feasts of Jews or Heretics.  
The 38th. That they ought not to use the unleavened Bread of the Jews, nor follow their Ceremonies.  
The 39th. That they ought not to celebrate the Feasts of Pagans.  
The 40th. That the Eastern Bishops ought to be present at a Synod to reform others there, or to be reformed themselves.  
The 41st. and 42d. That a Clergyman must not go out of his Diocese, without Canonical Letters, without the permission of his Bishop.  
The 43d. That the Porters should not leave the Gates of the Church for a moment under pretence of praying.  
The 44th. That Women ought not to come near the Altar.  
The 45th. That none ought to be baptised in the Second Week of Lent.  
The 46th. That he who is to be baptised, aught to be instructed in the Faith, and that he ought to give notice on Holy▪ Thursday to the Priests or the Bishop, that he will present himself to Baptism.  
The 47th. That those who were baptised during their Sickness, aught to be instructed when they recover their health.  
The 48th. That those who are baptised, after Baptism should be anointed with Heavenly Chrism.  
The 49th. That no Offerings should be made during Lent but on Saturdays and Sundays.  
The 50th. That they should not break their Fast in the last Week of Lent; but Fast throughout the whole Lent eating nothing but dry Meats.  
The 51st. That the Feasts of the Martyrs ought not to be observed in Lent, but on Saturdays and Sundays.  
The 52d. That Marriages should not be celebrated in Lent.  
The 53d. That Christians ought not to behave themselves disorderly at Marriage-Feasts, nor Dance there, but take their Repast Modestly.  
The 54th. That Clergymen ought not to be present at the Shows or Balls, that are made during Marriage-Feasts, but arise and be gone before the Mask gins.  
The 55th. That neither Clergymen nor Laymen, aught to make Feasts at Taverns, by paying every one their Club.  
The 56th. That Priests ought not to enter, nor go up into the Pulpit, before the Bishop be come into the Church, unless he be sick or absent.  
The 57th. That Bishops must not be placed in Towns, nor Villages, but Visitors, who ought to do nothing without the Advice of the Bishop who is in the City, and that the Priests ought to observe the same thing.  
The 58th. That neither Bishops nor Priests ought to make the Oblation in their own Houses.  
The 59th. That private Psalms ought not to be sung in Churches, nor any Books read there which are not Canonical, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament.  
The 60th. and Last Canon contains an Enumeration of the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament. It places in the number of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament those which the Jews acknowledged; and in this number it places Esther, Job and Ruth, but not Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiaesticus, Wisdom, nor the Books of the Maccabees. The Canonical Books of the New Testament are the Four Gospels, the Acts, and the Seven Canonical Epistles, and the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul; but the Revelation is not in this Catalogue.   

Of the COUNCIL of Rome under Damasus.  
IN the Year 370, Pope Damasus assembled a Council at Rome, in whose Name a Synodical Letter was written against the Arians, produced in Greek by Theodoret, B. VI of his History, Ch. 23, and 
Of Rome, under Damasus, 370.  by Sozomen, B. II. Ch. 22. and published in Latin by Holstenius. It is addressed to the Bishops of Illyricum, and not to the Bishops of the East, since these last are mentioned in the Third Person. This Synod confirms the Faith of the Council of Nice; and declares that Auxentius Bishop of Milan was condemned by the Bishops of France. It excommunicates those who do not believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and the same Divinity, and one and the same Substance. It observes, That the Council of Ariminum, could not prejudice the Decisions of the Council of Nice, because those who made the Creed of Ariminum, protested afterwards against what they had done, and also because neither the Bishop of Rome, whose Judgement was chief to be waited for, nor Vincentius of Capua, nor many other Bishops, did ever consent to the Decision of the Council of Ariminum. Lastly, they say, That they hope that the Bishops who hold not the Doctrine established by the Nicene Creed, should quickly be deprived of their Bishoprics, and they exhort the Bishops of Illyricum constantly to defend the true Faith.   

Of the COUNCIL of Rome against Ursicinus.  
THIS Council was held in the Year 372. against Ursicinus the Antipope. In it the Associates of this pretended Bishop are condemned, and among others Florentius of Puteoli, and the Bishop 
Of Rome, against Ursicinus, 372.  of Parma.   

Of the COUNCIL of Valence.  
IN the Year 374, Phaebadius or Fegadius Bishop of Again, and 20 Bishops more, assembled at Valence to settle some Commotions of this Church, and having regulated this Affair they made Four 
Of Valence, 374.  Canons for the Reformation of Discipline.  
In the First they forbidden those to be Ordained for the future who have been twice Married, or those who have espoused a Widow, whither they did it before or since their Baptism: But they do not meddle with the Ordinations of Bigamists made before their Decision, lest they should disturb the Church.  
In the 2d. Canon they Ordain, That Penance shall not immediately be allowed to those Virgins, who Married after they had made a Vow of Virginity, and that they shall not be received until they have made full satisfaction.  
The 3d. Canon delays Absolution of those till death, who having been baptised, did partake in the Profane Sacrifices of Devils, and exhorts them in the mean time to do Penance for their Fault, and to wait for the Remission of it from the Mercy of God.  
In the last place they declare, That all those Deacons, Priests, and Bishops must be deposed, who confess themselves guilty of some great Crime, whether they did really commit it, or only accuse themselves falsely of it. There is a Letter prefixed to these Canons, wherein they address to the Bishops of the Five Provinces, and of Gaul, after which there follows another Letter written to the Church of Frejus, wherein the Synod acquaints it, That tho' the Bishop Concordius had spoken in behalf of one Acceptus, who probably had accused himself of some Crime whereof he was not guilty, yet the Synod did not think fit to make an Exception in his favour from the general Rule which they had made. To give a Reason of this Rule they add, That tho' they knew that many Persons accuse themselves of those Crimes which they have not committed, from the dread they have of the Priesthood, yet Men being more inclined to judge ill than well, they thought fit that all those who had said ill of themselves should be removed from the Priesthood, whether it were true or false, for fear of giving occasion of Disputes, by those Accusations which might be urged against the Ministers of Jesus Christ of such Crimes, whereof they might be convicted by their own Testimony. This Synod consisted of 21 Bishops. Phaebadius of Again is the First; in it there is found also the Names of Rhodanius of Tholouse, of Justus of Lions, of Britto of Triers, of Florentius of Vienna, and of Concordius of Arles. 'Tis observed in some Manuscripts, That it consisted of 30 Bishops, but perhaps this number ought to be corrected, by making it 21.   

Of the COUNCIL of Antioch for restoring Peace in that Church.  
THE Church of Antioch for a long time had been rend in pieces with Divisions. After the Deposition 
Of Antio 378.  of the Great Eustathius, some rigid Catholics had always maintained themselves without a Bishop, till Lucifer Ordained one Paulinus; but the greatest part of the Catholics acknowledged Meletius for their lawful Bishop. The East favoured this last, Egypt and the West adhered to Paulinus. St. Basil used all his Endeavours in vain to reconcile them, for he could not compass it; but Nine Months after his death, as is observed by St. Gregory Nyssen in the Life of St. Macrina, in the Year 378, a Council was held at Antioch, wherein the Two Parties were reconciled, upon condition that no Bishop should be Ordained in his room who should die first, but the Survivor should continue sole Bishop. Theodoret says, That Paulinus would not accept this Condition, but the Bishops of Italy affirm the contrary in the Letter of the Council of Aquileia, and in the Fifth Letter of the Council of Italy. There was received in this Synod a Confession of Faith sent from the West, which is called the Tome of the West, as it is declared in the Fifth Canon of the Council of Constantinople. 'Tis probable, That this Tome is either the Synodical Letter of Damasus, or the Anathematisms which follow it. Baronius says, That Deputies were named in this Council, and he grounds this Conjecture upon a Passage of St. Gregory Nyssen, who says, That he was deputed by a Council; but it cannot be known at present, whether he speaks of this Council or of another.  
In short, Valesius ●ttributes to this Council the Letter 69 of St. Basil, written by several Bishops, to the Bishops of Italy and France, wherein mention is made of a Writing of the Bishops of the West: but this Conjecture cannot be maintained, since there are among the Bishops, in whose Name this Letter was written, the Names of St. Basil Bishop of Caesarea, and Theodotus of Nicopolis, who were dead when the Synod, which we now speak of, was held; besides that there is no mention in it of the Reconciliation of Meletius and Paulinus, which was not till after the death of St. Basil.   

Of the COUNCILS of Constantinople.  
FOR the better understanding the History of the Council of Constantinople, which is called the 
Of the First of Constantinople, 381.  Second General Council, we must distinguish Three Assemblies of Bishops held at Constantinople at Three several times.  
The First was held in the Month of May in the Year 381. In was composed of all the Bishops of the Eastern Empire, except Egypt. Meletius of Antioch presided in the Assemble, and confirmed St. Gregory Nazianzen in the See of the Church of Constantinople. There is some probability that in this Synod the Canon was made, wherein the Election of Maximus is condemned, who endeavoured to invade the See of the Church of Constantinople, and also the Canon wherein the second place of Honour is granted to the Bishop of Constantinople. However this be, Meletius died before the end of this Synod, his Body was carried back to Antioch, and the Eastern Bishops chose in his room Flavianus, contrary to the Promise that was made while Meletius was alive, That no Person should succeed in the room of the Bishop that died first.   

Of the Second COUNCIL of Constantinople.  
WHEN Flavian was Ordained, the Eastern Bishops returned to Constantinople, at the beginning 
Of the Second of Constantinople, 382.  of the Year 382. They were never after so favourable to Gregory Nazianzen, because he reprehended the Ordination of Flavianus, as a thing contrary to the Agreement that was made; and therefore this Saint had no sooner proposed to withdraw, but almost all the Bishops consented to it. After his retirement, the Council Ordained Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople. 'Tis to this Synod that the Canon and Creed of the General Council of Constantinople are attributed. In it was read the Letter of the Western Bishops assembled at Aquileia, wherein they desire that a General Council of the East and West may be held at Alexandria. The Eastern Bishops answered, That they could not go farther off, and they only sent Three Deputies into the West, to acquaint them with their desires of Peace, and to imform them of the truth of their Doctrine.  
The Western Bishops being dissatisfied with this, and with what was Ordained in the Council of Constantinople, complained to the Emperor, First, That they had Ordained Flavianus in the Room of Meletius, contrary to the promise made while he was alive; Secondly, That they had Ordained Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople without any regard to Maximus who had been Ordained by the Patriarch. Thirdly, That they had avoided the calling of a General Council, that they might hold one at Constantinople. At last, they pray that a General Council may meet at Rome to determine all Differences: For say they, 'tis fit that the Eastern Bishops should not despise the Judgement of the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishops of Italy, since they have waited for the Judgement of Ascolius of Thessalonica We do not, add they, assume to ourselves the Prerogative of this Examination, but we expect to have a part in the Judgement, because the Judgement ought to be common to all those who are of one and the same Communion.   

Of the Third COUNCIL of Constantinople.  
THIS Letter from those of the West, was delivered in the Year 383, to a Synod assembled at Constantinople, whereof Nectarius was Precedent. The Bishops of this Council made answer, 
Of the Third of Constantinople, 383.  That they wished they could be present at Rome to treat there of the Affairs of the Church; but not being able to do it lest they should leave their Churches in a forlorn condition, they thought it would be sufficient to give them an account of all that they had ordained. They say therefore, That they have approved the Creed of the Council of Nice, That they admit one and the same Divine Majesty in Three Persons, That as to the Incarnation they have a very Orthodox Doctrine, being persuaded that Jesus Christ took a Body, Soul and Spirit, and that he is a perfect Man. They prove that this is their Doctrine by the Tome of the West, which they approved at the Synod of Antioch. As to the manner of Governing the Churches, they declare, That according to the Canons of the Council of Nice, they believed that the Bishops of each Province, aught to Ordain the Bishops of their own Province, and call in to their assistance their Neighbours also, if they thought fit: That according to this Law Nectarius was ordained Bishop of Constantinople in the General Synod, with the Consent of the People and Clergy of Constantinople, and in the presence of the Emperor; that after the same manner Flavianus was ordained by all the Bishops of the Province and of the Diocese of the East, and that St. Cyril was some time ago ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by the Bishops of the Province. They exhort the Western Church to approve of what they had done, and to admonish them to prefer the Edification of the Church, before the Inclinations they might have to any particular Persons, that so they might re-establish a perfect Union among all the Members of the Church. This is what is contained in the Letter of this Synod related by Theodoret. This Council is not different from that mentioned by Socrates, Ch. 10. of B. V of his History, and by Sozomen, Ch. 12. of B. VII. In which were present the Chief Bishops of all the Sects, ready to defend their own Opinions: But Nectarius confounded them all, by ask them if they would refer themselves to the ancient Catholic Authors, who lived before the beginning of these Disputes: For some being willing to accept of these Terms, and others refusing to do it, the Emperor who saw them divided, desired of every one their Confession of Faith, and when they had presented them to him, he tore all those in which there was not Profession made of believing the Consubstantial Trinity, and made an Edict against all Heresies.  
The Creed of the Council of Constantinople is not very different from that of Nice. The Fathers of this Council have only added some more express Terms, to denote the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, by calling him, The quickening Lord who proceedeth from the Father, who is to be worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the Son, who spoke by the Prophets. They make Profession also, of believing one only Holy and Apostolic Church, of confessing one Baptism only for the Remission of sins, of looking for the Resurrection of the dead, and the Life of the World to come. This Creed was not at first received by all Churches, and there were some that would add nothing to the Nicene Creed. For this cause it was perhaps, that no other Creed but that of Nice was read in the Council of Ephesus, and there it was also forbidden to make use of any other: But this of Constantinople was authentically approved in the Council of Chalcedon, where it was read after that of Nice.  
It was a long time before the Canons of this Council were approved by the Western Bishops: Not only St. Leo rejected them in his Epistle 53, now the 80, but also Gelasius in his Epistle to Dardanus, and St. Gregory in his Epistle 25 of B. VI rejects them, as not being received in the West; but however, they have been received in the East, and are put in the Code of the Canons of the Universal Church. 'Tis not easy to tell how many Canons were made in the Three Councils of Constantinople, whereof we have just now spoken, nor to which of the Three they are to be attributed, and whether they were all made in one and the same Synod. The Version of Dionysius Exiguus contains but Three of them; but the Second contains that which is the Third in theGreek, and the Last is reckoned for the Fourth which concerns the Ordination of Maximus. But the Code of the Canons of the Universal Church, adds to these a Fifth, which concerns the Tome of the Western Bishops, a Sixth about the Form of Ecclesiastical Decisions, and a Seventh concerning the manner of receiving Heretics. Photius, Zonaras, Balsamon, and the other Greeks, acknowledged these last Canons, and attribute them to the Council of Constantinople, so that there can be no Question but they were made by one of those three Councils of which we have spoken, but it is more probable that they were made by the Last. First, Because Dionysius Exiguus has not put them in his Collection of Canons; Secondly, Because Socrates and Sozomen mention only the Four first when they speak of the First and Second Council of Constantinople; Thirdly, Because 'tis plain that these Canons are an Addition, or Supplement to the Three other Canons; Fourthly, because it appears that the Fifth Canon was made by some Bishops, who had a Confession of Faith of the Bishops of the West, which they call a Tome, and which they approved. Now the Bishops of the Third Council of Constantinople speak of this Confession in their Letter to the Bishops of the West, and give it the Name of a Tome; which shows that the Fifth Canon and this Letter were from the same hand. Lastly, Nicholas the I. in his Letter to the Emperor Michael, citys the Sixth Canon of this Council, as belonging to the Council of Constantinople; but he observes that it is not to be found in his Code of the Canons. These Reason's show, That the Four first Canons of the Council of Constantinople; belong to the First and Second Synods, but rather to the First than the Second, because of the Fourth which is against the Ordination of Maximus, and that the three following belong to the Third Synod held in 383.  
The 1st. of these Canons confirms the Creed of the Council of Nice, and pronounces an Anathema against all the Heresies that are contrary to it, especially against the Eunomians, the Anomaeans, the Arians, the Eudoxians, against the Semi-Arians who were Enemies to the Holy Spirit, against the Marcellians, the Photinians and Apollinarists.  
The 2d. Canon consists of Four Parts: In the First the Bishops of one Diocese are forbidden (taking the name of Diocese for many Provinces) to go out of their own Diocese; and 'tis ordained according to the Canons, That the Bishop of Alexandria shall govern Egypt only; That the Bishops of the East shall govern the East, saving always to the Church of Antioch its Privileges and Prerogatives, which are mentioned in the Sixth Canon of the Council of Nice; That the Bishops of the Diocese of Asia shall regulate what concerns their own Diocese; That those of Thrace shall govern only the Churches of Thrace, and those of Pontus the Churches of Pontus.  
The Second Part forbids every Bishop in particular to go out of the Bounds of his own Country to Ordain, or to meddle with the Affairs of the Churches in another Diocese.  
The Third ordains, That the Synod of every Province shall regulate what concerns its own Province, as had been ordained by the Council of Nice.  
The Last Part declares, That the Churches which are among the Barbarians, that's to say, those that are without the Roman Empire, shall be governed according to their ancient Customs, because in these Countries there is no distinction of Dioceses or Provinces.  
The 3d. Canon grants to the Bishop of Constantinople the first Place of Honour next to the Bishop of Rome: Some have pretended that this Canon is to be extended to Jurisdiction; but this Explication is contrary to the Terms in which it is conceived, and was never approved by Practice, tho' the Bishop of Constantinople taking occasion of this Prerogative of Honour, endeavoured afterwards to usurp the Dioceses of Thrace, of Asia, and of Pontus, which at last were subjected to him by the Determination of the Council of Chalcedon. The Reader may see this more largely explained in the first Dissertation about the ancient Discipline of the Church.  
The 4th. Canon declares, That Maximus was never Bishop, that his Ordinations are null, and that all that he did aught to be made void.  
The 5th. Canon, which is the first of those of the Third Council, approves the Tome of the Bishops of the West, and of those of Antioch who acknowledge one and the same Divinity in the Three Persons of the Trinity. There is also mention made of this Tome in the Council's Letter, and 'tis probable that this was the Synodical Letter of Damasus, sent to the Council of Antioch held in the Year 378.  
The 6th. Canon regulates the Form of Ecclesiastical Decisions, and ordains, First, That all sorts of Persons shall not be admitted to accuse Bishops of Crimes which concern Religion; That no Heretics, Schismatics, Persons excommunicated, condemned, and in word, all those that are separated from the Communion of Bishops shall be allowed to do it. Secondly, That the Accusation of a Bishop shall be carried to the Bishops of his own Province. Thirdly, That if the Bishops of the Province cannot judge of the Crimes whereof a Bishop is accused, recourse must be had to the Synod of the Diocese. Fourthly, That those who accuse a Bishop, aught in writing to subject themselves to the same Penalty, to which they expose him that is accused, if they be convicted of Calumny. Lastly, That if any one slighting these Laws, shall address himself either to the Emperor or to Secular Judges, or shall desire a General Council, without acquiescing in the Judgement of the Bishops of the Diocese, he ought to be heard no longer, since he has violated the Canons, and overthrown the Discipline of the Church.  
The Last Canon is concerning the manner of receiving Heretics, who offer themselves to return into the Bosom of the Church. It ordains, That the Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, Quartodecimani, Tetratites and Apollinarists, shall be received after they have made Profession of Faith, and Anathematised their Errors, By the Unction of the Holy Spirit, and the Chrism wherewith they shall be anointed on the Forehead, the Eyes, the Hands, the Mouth, the Ears, at the pronouncing of these Words: This is the Seal of the Holy Spirit. As to the Eunomians, the Montanists, the Sabellians, and all the other Heretics, the Council ordains, That they shall be received like Pagans; that's to say, That at First they shall receive Imposition of Hands to give them the Name of Christian; That afterwards they shall be placed in the rank of Catechumen; That they shall be exorcised by blowing three times upon their Faces, and into their Ears; That they shall be catechised, and that for a long time they shall be permitted to hear only the Holy Scripture in the Church; and at last they shall be baptised.   

Of the COUNCIL of Aquileia.  
THE Council of Aquileia was assembled in the Month of September of the Year 381. It should have been composed of the Bishops of the East and West; but St. Ambrose having declared that 
Of Aquileia, 381.  it was needless to weary the Eastern Bishops with such a Journey, none but the Western Bishops were obliged to come thither, and those of the East were only left at their Liberty to come there if they thought fit. There were about thirty Bishops present at the Council, together with the Deputies of the Bishops of France and Africa. Valerian was Precedent. In it two Bishops of Dacia and Moesia, named Palladius and Secundianus, were accused of Arianism; there was read to them before the Council, a Letter of Arius, but they would neither approve, nor condemn it, and answered only, That they should see in two Days time, that they were both Catholics. This Day being come they appeared before the Council; but they would not acknowledge it for a Judge, desiring a General Council composed of the Eastern and Western Bishops; nevertheless they examined them, convicted them of the Heresy of Arius, and condemned them. The Acts of this Council, the Letter which they wrote to the Bishops of France and Spain, to thank them for the Deputies they had sent, and the Letter addressed to the Emperors, wherein there is an account of what they had done, and prays them to hinder the Heretics from entering into the Church, are still extant: It complains afterwards of the Crimes of an Arian Bishop named Valens; and Lastly, it supplicates the Emperors to hinder the Assemblies of the Photinians. All these Monuments are extant in St. Ambrose.  
The Bishops of this Council wrote a Letter to the Emperor, praying him to drive away Ursicinus, which was published by Sirmondus, and is in the Second Volume of the Councils, p. 998.  
They wrote also a Letter which is found in the same place, in which they give the Emperor an Account of the State of the Eastern Empire, they thank him for restoring to the Catholics the Eastern Churches; but they complain that many things were changed there, and that those were not kindly used who had always been in the Communion of the Western Churches, as Timotheus of Alexandria and Paulinus of Antioch. They pray that a General Council may be assembled at Alexandria, to examine those who ought to be admitted into Communion, and those to whom Communion must be denied. This Letter was delivered to the Emperor, at the time of the Second Council of Constantinople, and was read in this Council.  
At last, when the Bishops understood what had been done in the East without consulting them, concerning the Ordination of Flavianus and Nectarius, they complained of it by another Letter, whereof we have already spoken, preserved in the same Volume of the Councils, p. 345. They testify also by a Fourth Letter which precedes these, how much they could have wished that the Council which they desired had been held, and how necessary it would have been. These Letters do not properly belong to the Council of Aquileia, but were written some time after in the name of those Bishops which were there assembled, and for executing what they had Ordered. For which Reason, it was thought necessary to mention them here.   

Of the COUNCIL of Saragosa.  
WHile the Bishops of Italy were thus labouring to procure the Peace of the Church of Rome, 
Of Saragosa, 381.  those of Spain were no less busied in allaying the Commotions which were raised upon occasion of Priscillian and his Disciples. The Council of Saragosa was assembled upon this account about the Year 381, where having condemned Priscillian and his followers, they made some Canons against their Practices.  
The 1st. forbids Women to meddle with Teaching and Expounding Articles of Faith.  
The 2d. pronounces an Anathema against those who fasted on Sundays from a superstitious or false Principle; and against those who entered not into the Churches during Lent, but hide themselves in their Houses or in the Fields.  
The 3d. anathematizes those who having received the Eucharist did not eat it in the Church.  
The 4th. forbids any to be absent from the Church from the 15th. of December until the Epiphany.  
The 5th. forbids Bishops under pain of Excommunication to receive those who are excommunicated by their own Bishops.  
The 6th. declares, That those of the Clergy must be cast out of the Church, who abandon the Ministry out of vanity to turn Monks.  
The 7th. declares, That it is not lawful for any to take to himself the Title and Name of Doctor, but only those to whom it is granted.  
The 8th. forbids Virgins to be veiled, that are devoted to Jesus Christ, except they be Forty Years old.  
'Tis easy to perceive that all these Canons are made against the Priscillianists, who affected a singular Way of living.   

Of the COUNCIL of Sida in Pamphylia.  
ST. Amphilochius assembled in 383, a Council of 25 Bishops at Sida, a City of Pamphylia, against 
Of Sida in Pamphylia, 383.  the Heresy of the Massalians or the Euchaitae. This Council condemned the Errors of these Heretics, and wrote a Synodical Letter to Flavianus Bishop of Antioch: It is not now extant. Photius had read it, and he tells us of it in Volume 52 of his Bibliotheca.  
The same Photius speaks in this place of a Synod held against these Heretics at Antioch by Flavianus. There were present in it Three Bishops and 30 Priests and Deacons of the Church of Antioch. There Adelphius a Ringleader of the Heresy of the Massalians was condemned, and they would not receive him tho' he should have abjured his Heresy, because they were persuaded that he would not do it sincerely, these Heretics making no scruple of renouncing their Doctrine with their mouth. Flavianus sent an account to the Osroënians of what passed in this Synod.   

Of the COUNCIL of Bourdeaux.  
THIS Council was assembled by the Order of the Emperor Maximus, and condemned Instancius a follower of Priscillian, and had condemned Priscillian himself if he had not appealed to 
Of Bourdeaux, 383.  the Emperor. See what we have said upon this Subject p. 191. 'Tis said, That afterwards there was a Council held at Triers where St. Martin was present. But this Assembly of Bishops who came to Court to desire the Condemation of the Priscillianists, deserves not the Name of a Council. See Sulpitius Severus' Account of it in his Dialogues of the Life of St. Martin. The same Sulpitius Severus, at the end of his Second Dialogue, mentions a Council held at Nismes in St. Martin's time, but he acquaints us with nothing that passed in it.   

Of the COUNCIL of Capua.  
THE Council of Capua was assembled by the Emperor Valentinian in the Year 390, to determine 
Of Capud 390.  the Difference which was between Flavianus and Evagrius, the Successor of Paulinus in the See of Antioch. In it Theophilus of Alexandria and the Bishops of Egypt were named for Judges of this Cause. But Flavianus would not acknowledge them for Judges, and told the Emperor boldly, who had ordered him to come to Constantinople, that he might send him to Alexandria. Sir, if they accuse my Manners or my Faith, I am ready to submit myself to the Judgement of my Accusers themselves; but if they would have my Primacy and See, I will have no dispute with any body about it, neither will I resist those who aspire to this Dignity; And therefore give the See of Antioch to whom you please. This resolute Answer made the Emperor wonder, who sent him back to Antioch to govern his Church. But tho' the Synod of Capua had not been assembled but for this Affair, yet in it they treated of other things. Bonosus a Bishop was informed against there, because he had the boldness to affirm that the Virgin Mary had Children by Joseph after the Birth of Jesus Christ. The Council referred this Cause to Anysius Bishop of Thessalonica, and the other Bishops of Macedonia. They forbidden him to enter into his Church. This Bishop being disgraced by this Judgement, consulted St. Ambrose, whether it were lawful for him to enter into it. This Saint answered him, That he ought to do nothing contrary to the Judgement given by the Bishops of Macedonia: And they desiring to ratify their Judgement by the Opinion of the Bishop of Rome, wrote an account of it to Siricius, who answered them, That the Council of Capua having referred this Cause, it did not belong to him to judge of it, but to them to determine it. We learn all this from the Letter of Siricius, which was formerly attributed to St. Ambóse.  
This Synod treated also of Rebaptisation, of Re-ordinations, and Translations of Bishops, as it is observed in the 48th. Canon of the Code of the Canons of the Church of Africa, which is conceived in these Words, We have declared what was Ordained in the Council of Capua, That it was not lawful to use Rebaptisation, Re-ordination and the Translation of Bishops. This is all we know of this Council.   

Of the COUNCILS of Rome, and of Milan, against Jovinian.  
SIricius condemned Jovinian and his followers in a Synod of his Clergy, and his Condemnation was 
Of Rome, and of Milan, against Jovinian, 390.  confirmed by a Synod of Milan. We have the Letters of these Two Synods. In the First it is determined, That tho' we ought not to despise nor condemn Marriage, yet Virgins are more to be honoured. The Second contains the Proofs of this truth, and in it is shown, That the Blessed Virgin lost not her Virginity by bringing forth Jesus Christ into the World.   

Of the COUNCIL of the Novatians held at Sangarus.  
Socrates' mentions in the 21st. Ch. of the 5th. B. of his History, a Council of the Novatians held at 
Of Sangarus, 390.  Sangarus about the end of this Century, wherein it was declared a thing indifferent to celebrate the Feast of Easter on Sunday or another day, against what was Ordained in another Synod held before that at Pazus.   

Of the First COUNCIL of Carthage.  
THO' this Council was celebrated in the Year 348, yet we have hitherto delayed to speak of it 
Of the First of Carthage, 348.  that we might give an Idea of all the African Councils of the Fourth Age together. This was a general Council of the African Bishops, and Gratus Bishop of Carthage who was present at the Council of Sardica, presided in it. He spoke first to his Brethren, and said, That we must first give thanks to God who hath put an end to the Schism, and inspired the Emperor Constantine, (it must be read Constans) to send Paulus and Macarius into Africa to procure Peace there, and for the Liberty which the African Bishops have enjoyed of meeting together in Provincial Councils, and assembling from all the Provinces of Africa; that afterwards we must examine the Heads, about which it will be necessary to make some Decrees, according to the Divine Laws, and the Instructions of Holy Scripture; but then we must have such a regard to this time of Peace, that we neither weaken the Obligation of the Laws, nor yet prejudice the present Unity by too much severity.  
The 1st. Head which he proposed was about Rebaptisation. He asked, whether that Man ought to be rebaptised who at his Baptism made Profession of believing the Trinity. The Bishops answered: God forbidden, We declare that this Rebaptisation is unlawful, contrary to the Orthodox Faith and the Ecclesiastical Discipline.  
The 2d. Head was to remedy the abuse which the Donatists were guilty of in giving the Name of Martyrs to fanatics, who laid violent hands on themselves, or threw themselves head long from Precipices. Gratus was of Opinion, That they should be forbidden for the future to honour these false Martyrs, and that those Laymen should be put under Penance, who meddled with Deposing of Clergymen. The Bishops approved his Opinion, and said That the same was Ordained in the Provincial Councils.  
In the 3d. they forbidden those Persons who profess Virginity, to cohabit or have any familiarity with any Persons of the other Sex, under the pain of Excommunication for the Laity, and of Deposition for the Clergy. The Reason which they give for this Law is excellent: We must, say they, eat the occasions of Sin, remove all kind of Suspicion, and avoid the Snares which the subtlety of the Devil uses to destroy simple Souls which are not upon their guard, under pretence of Charity and Love to our Neighbour.  
The 4th. contains the same Prohibition to Widows.  
In the 5th. the Bishop Privatus remonstrates, That a Bishop ought not to be permitted to receive a clergyman belonging to another Bishop, unless he has the permission of his own Bishop; neither ought he to Ordain a Layman of another Diocese without the consent of his own Bishop. He alleges the Authority of the Council of Sardica to prove that this Order ought to be observed.  
In the next, another Bishop named Nicasius remonstrates, that it does not become Clergymen to take upon them the charge of Secular Affairs. Gratus confirmed this Remonstrance by the Authority of Scripture, and the Bishops approved it.  
In the 7th. another Bishop proposed, That a Priest or a Layman of another Diocese should not be received into Communion, unless he had a Letter from his own Bishop.  
In the 8th. 'tis Ordained after the Proposition made by Evagrius, and according to the Opinion of Gratus, That those shall not be Ordained, who have been Guardians, or managed several other sorts of business, till their Accounts be made up and ended.  
The 9th. forbids them to choose Clergymen to be Treasurers or Collectors of the Public Taxes.  
The 10. forbids Bishops to invade the bounds of the neighbouring Dioceses.  
The 11th. regulates the numbers of Judges necessary to sit upon a Clergyman. A Deacon who is accused aught to be judged by three neighbouring Bishops, a Priest by six, and a Bishop ought not be judged by less than twelve.  
In the 12th. Antigonus' Bishop of Madaura, complains, that after he had made and signed an Agreement with Optantius, (who probably was his Rival in the Bishopric) by which they agreed to divide the People between them, yet this Optantius continued still, contrary to this Agreement, to win the Affections of all the People. The Bishop's decree that the Agreement should stand good.  
In the 13th. Abundantius Bishop of Adrumetum says, That in the Council of his Province, Priests were forbidden to take Interest. Gratus represented that it was not necessary to make any Canon about this, that they needed only put the Law in Execution which was written in the Gospel; and that if Usury was to be condemned in Laymen, it was much more damnable in Clergymen. All the Bishops approved his Judgement.  
The Last Canon enjoins Clergymen and Laymen to observe these Canons, and those which had been made by other Councils, under the pain of Excommunication for Laymen, and Deposition for Clergymen.   

Of the Second COUNCIL of Carthage.  
FRom the Inscription of this Council corrected by a Manuscript of the Vatican we learn, that it was 
Of the Second of Carthage, 390.  assembled under the third Consulship of Valentinian and Neoterius, that's to say in the Year 390, on the 14th. of June, at Carthage in the Church of St. Perpetua; That Genethlius Bishop of Carthage presided there, and that Bishops came thither from different Provinces. Genethlius opens the Council by giving thanks to God for the coming of the Bishops to Carthage according to the Letters which he had written to them. He says, That tho' all the Bishops were not present at this Council, yet it was to be believed that those who were absent were united in Spirit with it. He recommends afterwards to the Bishops to defend the Faith of the Trinity.  
The 2d. Canon renews the Law established in the preceding Council concerning the Celibacy of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.  
The 3d. forbids Priests to bless the Chrism, to consecrate Virgins, and to reconcile Penitents at a Public Mass. This is one of the most ancient Monuments where the name of Mass occurs to signify the Public Prayers which the Church made at offering the Eucharist.  
The 4th. Canon permits Priests to reconcile Penitents who are Sick and in Danger, with the Bishop's leave.  
The 5th. forbids the making New Bishoprics without the leave of the Bishop of the place.  
The 6th. forbids the admitting any Persons of bad Reputation as Accusers of Bishops.  
The 7th. confirms the Rule made in many Councils, which forbids a Bishop to receive a Person excommunicated by his own Bishop.  
The 8th. declares, That if a Priest excommunicated by his own Bishop, undertake to offer up Sacrifices in private, and to set up Altar against Altar, thereby making a Schism, he ought to be anathematised, because there is but one Church, one Faith, and one Baptism.  
The 9th. forbids Priests to celebrate Mass in all kinds of places: It is called in this place, Agenda.  
The 10th. ordains, That a Bishop accused, who would justify himself, if he cannot call together more, aught at least to defend his Cause before Twelve Bishops, a Priest before Six, and a Deacon before Three, one of which ought to be their own Bishop.  
The 11th. forbids Bishops to intermeddle in the Dioceses of others.  
The 12th. declares, That Bishops shall not be ordained without the Consent of the Primate, that's to say, the Metropolitan, and that in a case of necessity three Bishops are sufficient to ordain a Bishop, provided they have the Consent of the Metropolitan.  
The 13th. is the Conclusion of this Council, which ordains, That all the Bishops shall observe the Canons which shall be signed by all the Bishops present. Some Critics have doubted of the Truth of this Council, because the Names of Aurelius and Alypius are found in it, who were not Bishops when it was assembled: But these Names are not found in the Edition corrected by the Vatican Manuscript, but in their places there are the Names of Genethlius and Felix.   

Of the COUNCILS of Cabarsussa and Bagaïs'.  
THese two Councils are two Assemblies of Donatist Bishops of contrary Parties: In the First of 
Of Cabarsussa and Bagaïs', 393, 394.  of which Primianus head of one Party, Bishop of Carthage, was deposed, and Maximian in the Second. St. Austin quotes the Synodical Epistles of these two Councils; that of the First in the Commentary upon Psal. 36. and that of the Second in divers places of his Books against Cresconius and Petilian. This Father says, That the First Council was held in the Year 393, and consisted of a 100 Bishops; and yet there are but 43 in the Subscriptions of the Council: The Second which was celebrated the next Year, consisted of 310 Bishops.   

Of the COUNCIL of Hippo.  
THis Council was held at Hippo under the Third Consulship of Theodosius and Abundantius, that's 
Of Hippo, 393.  to say, in the Year 393, on the 5th. of October. Its Canons were inserted into the Council of Carthage, in 397.   

Of the COUNCIL of Carthage, in the Year 394.  
THis Council is mentioned in the Code of the Canons of the African Church, where it is observed, 
Of Carthage, 394.  that it was held under the Third Consulship of Arcadius, and the Second of Honorius on the 24th. of June, and that Deputies are named in this Council to attend at the Council of Adrumetum.   

Of the COUNCILS of Carthage, in the Year 397.  
UNder the Consulship of Caesarius and Atticus, who were Consuls in the Year 397, according to the 
Of Carthage, 397.  Vulgar Aera, the Bishops deputed from the Provinces of Africa came to Carthage; but they were not all present there at the same time: Some came on the 26th. of August, a Day appointed for the Council, others came not till some time after. Nevertheless, Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, having conferred with the Bishops who came first, and received Letters from the Bishops of the Provinces, who had not yet sent their Deputies, caused the Canons which the Bishops, with whom he had conferred, thought fit to make, and those which were proposed by Letters from the Bishops of Byzacena, to be read to those that were present. These Canons were received in the Council, which confirmed those which had been made in the Council of Hippo.  
The 1st. Canon order all the Churches of Africa, to inform themselves every Year by the Bishop of Carthage, on what Day Easter should be celebrated.  
The 2d. ordains, That every Year a Council shall meet, to which every one of the Provinces of Africa was to send three Deputies, excepting only the Province of Trip●lis, which could send but one, because of the small number of Bishops in that Province.  
The 3d. requires, That the Canons should be read to those who were to be ordained, that they might not be ignorant of them.  
The 4th. forbids the Ordination of Deacons, and Consecration of Virgins before the Age of 25 Years, and forbids Readers to Salute the People, that's to say, to address any Speech to them, when they read the Gospel in the Church.  
The 5th. ordains, That the Sacraments should not be given to the Catechumen during the Solemnity of Easter, but only the Salt which was usually given them; because if the Faithful do not change the Sacraments during these Feasts, the Catechumen ought much less to do it. 'Tis hard to say, what this Sacrament is, which the Council forbids to give to the Catechumen during the Feast of Easter. It cannot be the Eucharist, for that was forbidden to be given them at all times. But the 37th. Canon of the Greek Code of the Canons of the African Church explains it, by observing that the Catechumen were forbidden to offer Honey and Milk on any other Day, but Easter-Day.  
The 6th. forbids the giving of the Eucharist to the Dead.  
The 7th. regulates the delays of Accusations brought against a Bishop: It orders that their Cause● shall be carried to the Tribunal of the Metropolitan; but that a Bishop cannot be excluded from Communion, for not appearing till one Month after he shall be cited by the Metropolitan's Letters, and that if he bring a lawful Excuse for his absence, one Month more of delay shall yet be given him; but if he appear not in that time, he shall be excluded from Communion till he be acquitted. And if he be not present at last at the Universal Synod which is held every Year, he is to be looked upon as self condemned; he ought not so much as to communicate with his People, while he is excluded from the Communion of other Bishops; that his Accuser ought not to be excommunicated unless he fail to appear on the Day when the Cause is to be heard, and that no Person of a bad Reputation ought to be admitted to accuse a Bishop, unless the Business be about personal Causes which are not Ecclesiastical.  
The 8th. regulates the number of Bishops which are requisite to judge Priests and Deacons. It requires five for judging a Priest, and two for judging of a Deacon. It ordains, That the delays shall be observed which are contained in the forementioned Canon; and as to others of the Faithful, it declares, That the Bishop of the place may take cognizance of them, and judge them alone.  
The 9th. ordains, That if a Clergyman being accused before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, remove the Cause to the Civil Magistrates, tho' he even gain the Cause, he shall lose his Place, if it be a Criminal Cause; and if it be a Civil Cause, he shall lose what he had gained.  
The 10th. declares, That if a Person who has appealed from one Ecclesiastical Tribunal to other Ecclesiastical Judges of greater Authority, be by them acquitted, the Sentence given by the former Judges ought not to prejudice the latter, unless they be convicted of being biased by Passion, or corrupted by Favour. It adds, That it is never lawful to appeal from those Judges that are chosen, even tho' they were not a sufficient number.  
The 11th. forbids the Children of Bishops and Clergymen, to act in profane Shows, or to be present at them, because it is unworthy of Christians to be present in a place where Blasphemies are spoken.  
The 12th. forbids Clergymen to give their Daughters in marriage to Pagans, or Heretics and Schismatics.  
The 13th. forbids Clergymen to make Donations while they are alive, or by their last Will, to such Persons as are not Catholics, tho' they should be of their Kindred.  
The 14th. forbids them to emancipate their Children, unless they be advised by their Kindred, or the Children be come to such an Age, that the Sins which they commit can no longer be imputed to their Parents.  
The 15th. forbids them to be Farmers or Proctors, or to get their Livelihood by dishonest Traffic.  
The 16th. forbids them to receive more than they had lent.  
The 17th. forbids them to cohabit with Strange Women, and permits them only to live with their Mothers, their Grandmothers', their Aunts, their Sisters, their Nieces, and those of their Domestics who dwelled in the House with them before their Ordination.  
The 18th. Ordains, That none shall be Ordained Priests, Bishops and Deacons, unless they have converted all those who lived in the House with them.  
The 19th. declares, That Readers are to be obliged, when they come to Age, to Marry, or to make the Vow of Chastity.  
The 20th. forbids Bishops to undertake any thing in the Dioceses of their Neighbours.  
The 21st. forbids them to detain the Clergy of their Fellow Bishops.  
The 22d. Ordains, That no Clergyman shall be Ordained who has not been examined by the Bishops, and approved by the Suffrages of the People.  
The 23d. That in the Prayers the Name of the Father shall not be put in the place of the Name of the Son, That at the Altar the Prayers shall always be addressed to the Father; That those who have composed private Prayers shall not make use of them, until they have conferred about them with Clergymen of good Learning.  
The 24th. That nothing but Bread and Wine mingled with Water shall be offered for the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  
The 25th. That Clergymen and those who make Profession of Chastity, shall not go to see Widows or Virgins without the permission of the Bishop or some Priests, that they shall not be with them alone, but with other ecclesiastics, or such Persons as the Bishops or the Priests shall appoint them: That Bishops and Priests also shall not visit them alone, but in company with other ecclesiastics or Christians of known Probity.  
The 26th. forbids the Metropolitan to assume the Title of Prince of the Priests or the Sovereign Priest, and declares, That no other Name ought to be given him but that of Bishop of the First See.  
The 27th. forbids ecclesiastics to eat or drink at an Inn unless it be in a Journey.  
The 28th. forbids Bishops to undertake a Voyage beyond Sea without the consent of the Metropolitan, from whom they should receive Letters recommendatory.  
The 29th. declares, That the Sacraments of the Altar ought not to be celebrated by any Persons but such as are fasting, except on Holy Thursday: So that if the Memory of one that is dead is to be celebrated in the Afternoon, the Prayers must only be read without Administering the Sacrament.  
The 30th. forbids Clergymen and Bishops to make Feasts in the Churches, and Orders, That the People shall be hindered from doing it, as much as is possible.  
The 31st. leaves Bishops the liberty to regulate the time of Penance.  
The 32d. forbids Priests to reconcile Penitents without ask leave of the Bishop, unless urgent necessity enforce the doing of it in his absence. It adds, That Penitents whose Crimes are very public and known by all the Church, should receive Imposition of Hands in an high Place near the Bishop's Throne.  
The 33d. Ordains, That when Virgins happen to lose their Relations who took care of them, the Bishop, or in his absence, the Priest, aught to place them in a Nunnery, or commit them to the care of Women of known Probity.  
The 34th. That sick Persons shall be baptised, who cannot answer any longer, when those who are by them testify that they desired it.  
The 35th. That the Grace of Reconciliation shall not be denied to Sorcerers, Comedians, and other Infamous Persons, nor even to Apostates, when they are converted.  
The 36th. hinders Priests from consecrating Virgins without the Bishop's permission, and absolutely forbids them to make the holy Chrism.  
The 37th. forbids Clergymen to dwell in strange Cities, unless the Bishop or the Priests of both Places be satisfied, that they have just and lawful Reasons to do so.  
Almost all the Canons which we have now mentioned were made by the Council of Hippo, except some which were added by the Bishops of Byzacena. These last are the 35th. and so on to the 47th. in the Code of the African Canons: There is one besides of the Council of Hippo, which is the 47th. in the 3d. Council of Carthage. This contains a Catalogue of the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, in the number of which are the Five Books of Solomon, the Books of Tobit, of Judith, of Esther, the Maccabees, the Three Epistles of St. John, that of St. Judas, and the Revelations. 'Tis added in the Council of the Bishops of Byzacena, That it shall be lawful to read publicly the Passions of the Martyrs.  
What concerns the Canonical Books was also repeated in a Council held in 418, under Pope Boniface, wherein it was proposed, That the Churches of Italy should be consulted about this Canon.  
There were Two or Three Canons besides of this Council which were explained in the Synod of Carthage, that we now speak of, whereof the First declares, That a Bishop shall not be Ordained but by Three Bishops; the Second, That those who have no Testimonials, and do not remember that they were baptised, shall be baptised anew; and the last declares, That the Donatists shall be received only to the Rank of Laymen.  
The other Canons were made in this Council of Carthage. The First, as appears by the Code of the Canons of the African Councils, is the 48th. wherein Honoratus and Urbanus Legates from the Province of Mauritania, say, That they have for a long time expected those of Numidia, and declare, That they approve the Nicene Creed, and the Canon which forbids any to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice unless he be fasting. They say that Siricius and Simplicianus ought to be consulted about the case of Infants baptised by the Donatists, whether they may be Ordained in the Church or no.  
In the 37th. the same Legates say, That Re-baptizations, Re-ordinations, and Translations of Bishops being forbidden in the full Synod of Capua, they beg leave to address themselves to the Governor of their Province, to drive away Cresconius, who had removed from Rhegium to Tuburnia, and would not departed from thence tho' he had been many times admonished. The Council granted them this Leave.  
In the 39th. the same Persons desire, that it may be Ordained, that the Ordinations of Laymen cannot be made but by 12 Bishops: But Aurelius having remonstrated that this was impossible in some Provinces, it was Ordained, That Three of them at least should meet. But he adds in the next Canon, That if there be any difference, some other Bishops shall be called in to examine what is said against the Person who is to be Ordained.  
The 41st. declares, That the Bishop of Carthage shall publish Easter-day immediately after the Synod, which shall be assembled every Year at Carthage.  
The 42d. forbids the erecting a Church into a Bishopric which was put under the Jurisdiction of a Bishop, without his consent.  
The 43d. is against those who satisfy themselves with governing their Diocese without attending at Synods.  
The 44th. declares, That Clergymen ought not to be taken from their own Bishops to make them Bishops, without their consent.  
In the 45th. Aurelius' Bishop of Carthage remonstrates, That commonly leave is desired by him from the Bishop of the place to Ordain one of his Clergymen; but he desires to know what is to be done if he refuses it.  
Numidius observes upon this Proposal, that it was always lawful for the Bishop of Carthage, to take those who were desired of him and Ordain them, tho' they were of another Diocese. Epigonius declares in the name of the Bishops, That it is his Right: But Posthumianus remonstrates, That it may happen that a Bishop shall have but one Priest, and it is not just to take him away from him. Aurelius' answers, That a Bishop may easily ordain many Priests, but that it is more difficult to find fit Persons to be Bishops; and therefore tho' a Bishop should have but one Priest, he ought to give him that he may be made a Bishop. Posthumianus replies, That therefore it is just, that another Church which has many Clergymen, should furnish that which has given the one Priest to be a Bishop; and Aurelius answers him, That the Bishop who has many Priests, shall be persuaded to give some of them to him who has given his one Priest to be a Bishop.  
The 46th. Canon, which should be the last, declares, That the Bishops which have been ordained in a Church, where there was never any before, with the consent of the Bishop of the Place, shall continue in their Bishoprics; but that they shall only govern the People whereof they have been ordained Bishops.  
After this Canon follows the Approbation and Subscription of the Bishops, which is found in Canon Fifty.   

Of the COUNCIL of Carthage held in the Year 398, called the Fourth.  
THere are 104 Canons which contain the Ordination and Manners of Bishops, Priests, and other 
Of Carthage, 398.  ecclesiastics, which are attributed to a Council of Carthage called the Fourth. The Preface declares, That it was held under the Consulship of Honorius and Eutychianus, that's to say; in the Year 398, and that Aurelius Bishop of Carthage presided in it. But there is some difficulty about the truth of these Canons; they are neither in the Code of the African Church, nor in the Collection of Canons entitled, The Council of afric, nor in the Collection of Ferrandus, nor in that of Dionysius Exiguus, and there is not so much as one of them cited in these places. In a Manuscript of Cardinal Barberini, these Canons are entitled Ancient Statutes of the Eastern Church; but this cannot be the true Title, because the Ceremonies of the Ordination of the lesser Orders, as they are described in the Canons of this Council, are agreeable to the Practice of the Western Church, who gave them by delivering the Holy Vessels, and is not agreeable to the practice of the Eastern Church which never made use of this Ceremony, but conferred them by Imposition of Hands. In other Manuscripts they are entitled, Ancient Statutes of the Church. They agree well enough to the Church of Africa, as appears by the First Canon, where it is Ordained, That a Bishop shall be interrogated, about the Errors common in Africa, whether he believes the Consubstantial Trinity; if he believes the Resurrection of this Flesh; if he believes that 'tis the same God who is the Author of the Old and New Testament, of the Law and the Gospel; if he held that the Devil is not wicked by Nature, but became so by his own Will; if he did not condemn Second Marriages; if he did not find fault with those who eat Meat; if he believed that Baptism pardoned all Sins, Original Sin as well as the other actual Sins: Lastly, if he held that a Person may be saved out of the Church. These are the Errors of the Manichees, Donatists, and Pelagians which were common in afric. As to the Article which concerns Original Sin, it is something surprising that it should be found so expressly set down in a Synod held in 398, since Pelagius did not publish his Error in Africa till 411, and was not condemned till 412. But it may be this Error was already known, tho' Celestius was not yet come into Africa; and there is no doubt but the Church of afric from that time maintained Original Sin. Howsoever this be, this discovers that these Canons belong to the Western Church, and even to the Church of Africa. I see no reason strong enough to convince me that this Preface is supposititious. The other Canons agree well enough with the Discipline of the African Church. The Reason why they are not found in the Ancient Collections, may be, because they made a Body of Canons apart by themselves for ecclesiastics. They are cited under the name of the Council of Carthage, by Isidore, by Hincmar, by Burchardus, by Ivo Carnutensis, and by Gratian.  
The 1st. of these Canons ordains, That he who is to be promoted to the Episcopal Dignity shall be examined as to his manner of Life, his Learning and his Faith. As to his manners, it commands that Enquiry be made, if he be Prudent, Teachable, Moderate, Charitable, Humble, Affable and Merciful: As to his Learning, if he be Enlightened and Instructed out of the Law of God, if he be Skilful in the Understanding of the Scriptures, and Versed in the Knowledge of the Dogmes of the Church: As to his Faith, the Canon requires that he be examined whether he believes the Consubstantial Trinity; whether he believes that the Son of God assumed real Flesh and a Soul, and that there are two Natures and one Person only in Jesus Christ; and whether he affirms, That he was really dead, and shall rise again to judge the Quick and Dead. It adds, That he who is to be ordained must also be asked, If he believes that the same God is the Author of the Old and New Testament; If he believes that the Devil was not wicked by Nature, but became so by his own freewill; If he believes that the same Flesh which we now carry about with us shall be raised again; If he be persuaded of a future Judgement, of future Punishments and Glory; If he does not condemn Marriage and second Marriages; If he does not blame the use of Meats; If he communicates with Penitents that are reconciled; and if he holds that Baptism blots out Actual and Original Sin. These are the things about which the Fathers of this Council would have him to be examined who is to be ordained; and they add, that if he be found well-instructed in all these Points, he may be ordained Bishop with the Consent of the Clergy and the Laity, in the Assembly of the Bishops of the Province, by the Authority, and in the Presence of the Metropolitan. That after he has received the Holy Orders of Bishop, he ought not to govern himself according to his Passion or Fancy, but according to the Canons of Councils. They add, That Care should be taken, that none be ordained but such as are arrived at the Age which the Holy Fathers require for the Ordination of a Bishop.  
The 2d. ordains, That when a Bishop is ordained, two Bishops ought to lay the Book of the Gospels upon his Head and Neck, and hold it there, and that while one of the Bishops who are present, pronounces the Blessing upon him, all the other Bishops who are present, must touch his Head with their Hands.  
The 3d. That at the Ordination of a Priest all the other Priests should lay their Hands upon his Head, while the Bishop Consecrates him, and lays Hands upon him.  
The 4th. That none but the Bishop shall lay Hands upon a Deacon, when he is ordained, because he is not ordained for the Priesthood, but for the Ministry.  
The 5th. That the Sub-Deacon who does not receive Imposition of Hands at his Ordination, aught to receive the Patten and Chalice empty from the Hand of the Bishop; and the Flagons with Water, and the Basin and Towel, from the Hand of the Archdeacon.  
The 6th. That the Acolyth at his Ordination ought to learn from the Bishop after what manner he should behave himself in his Ministry; That he receive from the Archdeacon a Candlestick with a Wax-Candle, to instruct him, that he is designed for lighting the Wax-Candles in the Church; and that he also receive an empty Flagon to give Wine for the Eucharist of the Blood of Jesus Christ.  
The 7th. That the Exorcist receive at his Ordination from the Hand of the Bishop a Book wherein are written Exorcisms, and that the Bishop speak to him these Words; Receive these, and get them by heart, and have thou the Power of laying hands upon the possessed and Catechumen.  
The 8th. concerns the Ordination of a Reader, which was made in afric, by giving him the Book of the Gospels, and saying to him, Be thou a Reader of the Word of God.  
The 9th. concerns the Ordination of a Porter, to whom the Bishop gave the Keys, saying unto him, Behave yourself as one that must give an account to God of those things which are locked up under these Keys.  
The 10th. commands, That Virgins who would be consecrated by the Bishop, should present themselves in Habits agreeable to their Profession and Vocation, like to those which they are to use for the future.  
The 11th. declares, That Widows and Nuns who are employed about the Baptism of Women ought to be capable of instructing others, and giving an account of their own Faith.  
The 12th. That those who are contracted, and present themselves to receive the Benediction of Marriage, aught to be accompanied with their Kindred, and to abstain from the use of Marriage the Night after the Benediction.  
The 13th. That the Bishop ought to have a Lodging near the Church.  
The 14th. That his Householdstuff should be of little worth, his Table and Diet mean, and that he ought to acquire Authority by his Faith and his Merit, and not by external Pomp.  
The 15th. That he ought not to read the Books of Pagans, nor those of Heretics, but in case of necessity, and when occasion requires it.  
The 16th. and 17th. That he must not take upon him the Care of Widows, of Orphans and Strangers, but that he discharge this Care upon his Archpriest, or Archdeacon.  
The 18th. That a Bishop ought not to be Executor of a Last Will and Testament.  
The 19th. That he ought not to plead a Cause.  
The 20th. That he ought not to trouble himself with Domestic Affairs, but apply himself wholly to Reading, Prayer and Preaching of the Word of God.  
The 21st. That he ought not to dispense with his going to the Synod, unless there be great necessity; and that if he does not go, he must send a Deputy to approve every thing that shall be ordained by the Synod, without prejudice to the Truths of Faith.  
The 22d. That a Bishop shall not ordain ecclesiastics without the Consent of his Clergy, and that he shall desire the Testimony and Approbation of the Laity.  
The 23d. That he shall hear no Cause but in the presence of his Clergy, and that the Sentences which he shall give in the absence of his Clergy shall be null and void.  
The 24th. That he shall be excommunicated who goes out of the Church in Sermon-time.  
The 25th. That if the fear of God does not reconcile the Bishops, they ought to be reconciled together by the Synod.  
The 26th. enjoins Bishops to exhort the People of their Dioceses to live in Peace.  
The 27th. forbids the Translations of Bishops which are made through Ambition; and as for those which are made for the Good of the Church, it says, they ought to be made upon the Request of the Clergy and People by Order of the Synod: Neither does it permit Clergymen to remove unto another Church without the leave of their Bishops.  
The 28th. declares, That the Synod may examine anew the Condemnation of a Bishop.  
The 29th. That a Bishop who accuses a Clergyman or Layman ought to exhibit his Information against him to the Synod.  
The 30th. forbids Ecclesiastical Judges to judge in the absence of the Party accused.  
The 31st. declares, That Bishops ought to use the Goods of the Church, not as their own proper Goods, but as such of which they have only the use.  
The 32d. declares all Sale or Exchange of Ecclesiastical Goods to be null and void, which is made without the Consent of the Clergy.  
The 33d. declares, That the Bishops and Priests who are forced to go into their Neighbour's Churches, shall be received, and that they shall be invited to Preach and to Celebrate the Eucharist there.  
The 34th. That a Bishop being seated shall not suffer a Priest to continue standing before him.  
The 35th. That a Bishop shall sit on a Seat raised on high in the Church, or in the Assembly of his Priests; but in his House he shall converse with them as his Colleagues and Brethren.  
The 36th. That the Priests who govern the Churches, shall send for the Holy Chrism before Easter.  
The 37th. That the Deacon should look upon himself as the Minister of the Priest as well as of the Bishop.  
The 38th. That he may give the Eucharist to the People in the presence of the Priest, if necessity enforce it, and the Priest be willing.  
The 39th. That he shall not sit down but with the Priest's leave.  
The 40th. That in a Meeting of Priests, he must not speak but when he is asked.  
The 41st. That he shall not make use of a Surplice but at the time of Oblation.  
The 42d. That a Minister who discharges faithfully his Ministry ought to be preferred to a higher Dignity.  
The 43d. That Christians who suffer for Religion, aught to be honoured, and their necessities provided for.  
The 44th. forbids Clergymen to suffer the Hair of their Heads or Beards to grow.  
The 45th. exhorts them to make known their Vocation by their Modesty in their Apparel and Countenance, and forbids them to distinguish themselves by their Habit or their Shoes.  
The 46th. forbids them to cohabit with Strange Women.  
The 47th. and 48th. forbids them to walk in public Places, and appear at Fairs.  
The 49th. deprives them of their Rewards who are not present at Vigils.  
The 50th. declares, That those Ministers should be deprived of their Ministry who do not do their Duty, or do it negligently.  
The 51st. 52d. and 53d. require all Ministers, how able soever they be, to earn their living by an honest Trade, yet without failing in their Duty.  
The 54th. forbids the Advancement of those Ministers higher, who envy the Prerogative of others.  
The 55th. commands Bishops to excommunicate those who accuse their Brethren unjustly, and forbids the admitting of them into the Clergy, even though they should amend.  
The 56th. ordains those Ministers to be degraded who are Traitors or Flatterers.  
The 57th. obliges Slandering Ministers to make Satisfaction.  
The 58th. declares, That his Testimony is not to be received without Examination, who often goes to Law.  
The 59th. That the Bishop ought to reconcile those Ministers that are at difference, and that he who will not obey him shall be punished by the Synod.  
The 60th. declares, That a Minister ought to be removed from his Ministry, who speaks lascivious words.  
The 61st. That those Ministers ought to be reprimanded who Swear by the Creatures, and if they continue to do it, they must be excommunicated.  
The 62d. That the same severity must be used to a Minister who sings at Meals.  
The 63d. is against those ecclesiastics who break a Fast without inevitable necessity.  
The 64th. declares, That he ought not to be accounted a Catholic who fasts on Sundays.  
The 65th. That the Feast of Easter ought to be celebrated on the same day.  
The 66th. That an Ecclesiastic who believes that his Bishop has condemned him unjustly, may have recourse to the Judgement of the Synod.  
The 67th. That seditious Persons, Usurers and revengeful Persons, ought not to be Ordained.  
The 68th. That those must not be ordained who are in the Rank of Penitents, and that if a Bishop has ordained any of them through mistake, they ought to be deposed, but if he knew their condition, he shall be deprived of the Power of Ordination.  
The 69th. makes a Bishop liable to the same Penalty, who shall ordain a Widow, or a Woman divorced.  
The 70th. enjoins ecclesiastics to shun the Society and Feasts of Heretics and Schismatics.  
The 71st. Ordains, That the Name of a Church shall not be given to the Assemblies of Heretics.  
The 72d. That none shall Pray or sing with them.  
The 73d. That those shall be Excommunicated who shall Communicate or Pray with them.  
The 74th. That the Bishop shall impose Penance upon him that desires it, without respect to the Quality of the Person.  
The 75th. That negligent Penitents shall be later received.  
The 76th. declares, That if a Person having desired Penance, perceive himself to be seized with a Disease, and lose his Understanding before the Priest can come to him, Penance shall be granted him upon the Testimony of those who affirm that he desired it, and if it be thought that he will quickly die, he shall be immediately reconciled, and the Eucharist shall be put into his Mouth; but yet if he recover his health, he shall be put under Penance.  
The 77th. That Penitents who fall sick shall receive the Viaticum, that's to say, the Eucharist.  
The 78th. That those who are thus received, ought not to think themselves absolved, if they recover their health, without Imposition of Hands.  
The 79th. That if Penitents die in a Journey or at Sea, before the Communion can be given them, yet they shall still be commemorated in the Prayers and Oblations.  
The 80th. That Imposition of Hands shall be given to Penitents during all the times of Fasting.  
The 81st. That Christian Burial shall be given to Penitents.  
The 82d. That Penitents ought to use Kneeling even at those times when the Faithful are exempt from it.  
The 83d. That the Poor and Aged must be honoured.  
The 84th. That the Bishop ought not to hinder any Person to enter into the Church, whether he be a Heretic, Jew or Pagan, until the Mass of the Catechumen gins.  
The 85th. That the Catechumen who would be baptised, aught to give in their Names, and after that be prepared for Baptism by abstaining from Wine and Meat, and by Imposition of Hands.  
The 86th. That Novices, or those who are newly baptised, ought for some time to abstain from Feasts and Shows, and to live in Continence.  
The 87th. contains the Sentence of Excommunication against a Catholic, who carries his Cause, just or unjust before a Judge of another Religion.  
The 88th. excommunicates him who forsakes the Assembly of the Church to be present at Shows.  
The 89th. casts those out of the Church who practise Sooth-saying or Enchantments, and who are addicted to Jewish Superstitions.  
The 90th. declares, That the Exorcists ought every day to lay Hands on the Possessed.  
The 91st. charges the Possessed to take care that the Churches be swept.  
The 92d. declares, That the Exorcists shall feed the Possessed who continue in the Churches.  
The 93d. That Oblations shall not be received from the Brethren that are separated from the Church.  
The 94th. That their Presents shall be rejected who oppress the Poor.  
The 95th. blames those who refuse to give, in Memory of the dead, wherewithal to feed the Poor.  
The 96th. says, That in judging a Cause, the Faith and Conduct of the Accuser and Accused must be inquired into.  
The 97th. That the Superior of Nuns ought to be approved by the Bishop.  
The 98th. That a Layman ought not to teach in the presence of Priests, unless they command him.  
The 99th. That a Woman how Skilful and Holy soever she be, ought not to take upon her to teach in an Assembly.  
The 100th. That she ought not to take upon her to baptise.  
The 101st. That the young Widows which are weak aught to be maintained at the Expense of the Church to which they belong.  
The 102d. declares. That it is the fault of the Bishop or the Curate of the Parish, if the Widows and Nuns, are forced through necessity, to have too much familiarity with the inferior Ministers.  
The 103d. That the Widows who are maintained at the Expense of the Church, aught to be very diligent and constant in the Service of God, that they may edify the Church by their Prayers and Works.  
The 104th. excommunicates Widows who marry again, after they have made Profession of Celibacy.  
Baluzius has added yet one Canon more to these, which is against those who cause Schisms and Divisions in the Church of Jesus Christ, which is the Pillar and Foundation of the Faith of Christians. There were many Bishops at this Council, and they all subscribed, but there are none now extant, besides the Subscriptions of Aurelius of Carthage, of Donatianus of Talabreca, or Telepta, and of St. Austin.   

Of the COUNCIL of Carthage in the Year 399.  
IT was a settled Custom in afric, that National Councils should be held at Carthage very often. 
Of Carthage, 399.  There was one in 399, in the Month of April, which is mentioned in the Code of the Canons of the African Church, which informs us, That this Council sent Epigonius and Vincentius Deputies to the Emperor, to obtain a Law to forbid the taking of those out of Churches who had fled thither, whatsoever Crimes they had been guilty of.   

Of the COUNCIL of Carthage in the Year 401, commonly called the Fifth.  
'TIS commonly thought that this Council was in the Year 398, but it appears by the Code of the 
Of the Fifth of Carthage, 401.  Canons of the African Church, that the greatest part of the Canons attributed to this Council were made in Two Assemblies held in the Year 401, in the Months of June and September; and therefore we follow this Code in the Abridgement of the Canons of this Council.  
Aurelius remonstrates, That it was necessary for relieving the Churches of afric, which were under great Necessity and Grief, to depute some Bishops into the West, and particularly to St. Anastasius Bishop of the Apostolical See, and to Venerius Bishop of Milan. He represents that the Church of afric was so abused and had suffered so great a Desolation, that it had no Deacon who was sufficiently learned, and much less a Priest; that therefore one might hear every day the Complaints of an infinite number of languishing People, and that if the Bishops did not relieve them they must be accountable to God for the loss of their Souls.  
The 1st. Canon of this Council, which is the 57th. in the Greek Code of the African Church, confirms what had been ordained in a former Synod, That it should be lawful to Ordain those, who having been baptised in their Infancy among the Donatists, were afterwards reconciled to the Church; and it leaves it to the Prudence of the Bishops to consider, whether or no they might not receive a whole Donatist Church with its Bishop, who should desire to be re united to the Catholics.  
In the 2d. Aurelius says, That the Emperors ought to be entreated to destroy the Remainders of Idolatry, and to demolish some Temples which were yet standing.  
In the 3d. That they must also be desired to give Orders, that it shall not be lawful to Summon a Clergyman for a Witness before a Secular Judge, who has been Arbitrator or Judge of some Difference.  
The 4th. That they must be desired to forbid the Feasts and Dance which are made to the honour of False Gods.  
The 5th. That they must be prayed to hinder the showing of Sports, Plays and Comedies, on Sundays and Festivals, particularly at Easter-time, when it happens sometimes that more People go to the Circus than to the Church.  
The 6th. That they must be entreated to give Order, that no Person shall defend an Ecclesiastic condemned by the Bishops, under the pain of Correction and a Fine.  
The 7th, That they must be desired to hinder Comedians who turn Christians from being forced to exercise their Profession.  
The 8th. That the Power of enfranchising Slaves in the Church must be desired.  
The 9th. declares, That if one Equitius a Bishop, be found in Italy, who had been condemned in afric, leave shall be desired to make a Process against him.  
These are the Canons of this First Assembly in the Year 401.  
The other Assembly was held the same Year on the 13th. of September. In it were read the Letters of Pope Anastasius, who exhorted the Bishops of afric not to dissemble the Vexations which they suffer from the Donatists. Nevertheless the Bishops were of Opinion, that they should be treated with gentleness, and that a Letter only should be written to the Governors of Cities, to pray them to cause those Churches to be restored to the Catholic Church, which the Maximianists had usurped. This is found in the Canons 66 and 67, of the Greek Code of the Canons of the African Church.  
The 68th. permits the Bishops for Peace-sake, to receive into the Catholic Clergy, those Clergymen of the Donatists who should be converted.  
The 69th. declares, That some shall be deputed to the Donatists, to remonstrate to them, that they ought to be reconciled to the Church.  
The 70th. Ordains Bishops, Priests and Deacons to have no more to do with their Wives, under pain of Degradation; for the lesser Orders, it does not oblige them to Celibacy.  
The 71st. forbids a Bishop to forsake the principal Church of his Diocese and make his abode at another.  
The 72d. declares, That Children ought to be baptised, when there is no proof, nor testimony that they have been already baptised.  
The 73d. renews the Canon which Ordains, That the Bishop of Carthage shall publish Easter-day.  
The 74th. forbids him, who has the care of a Church committed to him after the death of its Bishop, to continue there more than one Year; and obliges him to cause a Bishop to be chosen; and if he neglects it, the Canon ordains that at the end of the Year, another Steward shall be chosen for the Church.  
The 76th. is against the Bishops who absent themselves without cause from the National Council.  
The 77th. is against a particular Bishop named Cresconius, who refused to come thither. The Council Ordains, That he shall come to the first National African Council, and if he did not, that a Sentence should be passed against him.  
The 78th. name's Deputies for deciding a Difference of a Church in Africa.  
The 79th. declares, That those Clergymen are not to be admitted to justify themselves who have continued a Year without taking pains to take off the Excommunication which was pronounced against them.  
The 80th. ordains, That if a Bishop give Holy Orders to a Stranger, or if he make a Monk of another Monastery, Superior of his own Monastery, he shall be separated from the Communion of the other Bishops, and shall enjoy only that of his own Church, and that he who was made Clergyman or Superior, shall not enjoy that Honour.  
The 81st. is against those Bishops who should make Heretics or Pagans their Heirs, tho' they should be of their Kindred.  
The 82d. declares, That the Emperor shall be desired to grant the Power of setting Servants free to the Church.  
The 83d. is concerning the Care which Bishops ought to take, to hinder the Faithful from honouring False Relics and False Martyrs.  
The 84th. declares, That the Emperor shall be requested to demolish the remaining Temples and Idols.  
The 85th. and Last gives Power to the Bishop of Carthage to Dictate and Subscribe, in the name of the whole Council, the Letters which the Council thought fit to write and send. These are the Canons of the Fifth Council of Carthage, which is commonly placed in the Year 398, but was indeed in the Year 401, according to the two Codes of the Canons of the African Church.  
The Reflections which may be made on the Councils of Africa of which we have just now spoken, are these; First, That there were in Africa a great number of Bishops; Secondly, That the Title of Metropolitan in Africa, was not as in other places, affixed to the Bishop of the Civil Metropolis, but to the Antiquity of the Bishopric; Thirdly, That the Bishop of Carthage had much Authority over all Africa; That he enjoyed great Jurisdictions and Prerogatives; in a word, That he was as it were, the Exarch or Patriarch of all Africa; Fourthly, That Synods were very often held in Africa, and they were distinguished into two sorts, one Provincial and the other National or General, which were commonly held at Carthage, where the Bishops deputed from the Provinces assembled under the Authority of the Bishop of that City; Fifthly, That they handled Matters of Discipline, and made such Canons as they saw the Juncture and State of Affairs required; Sixthly, That their Discipline with respect to Clergymen, was very Regular and Exact; Seventhly, That they endeavoured to maintain the Ecclesiastical Authority by the Assistance of the Imperial Laws; Lastly, That they made many Canons very useful for all Christians. These Reflections seemed necessary for explaining what I have said of these Councils, and they may conduce to represent and discover the usefulness of Councils in general.   

Of the COUNCIL of Constantinople, in the Year 394.  
BAlsamon has preserved a Fragment of this Council held at Constantinople on the 27th. of September in the Year 394. It was composed of three Eastern Patriarches, Nectarius of Constantinople, Theophilus 
Of Con●… tinople, 394  of Alexandria, and Flavianus of Antioch, and of Sixteen Bishops of the East and of Asia. In it the Difference was examined that was between Agapius and Bagadius, who both pretended to the Bishopric of Bostra. Bagadius had been deposed by two Bishops. The Council disapproves this Judgement, and declares, That as a Bishop cannot be ordained but by three Bishops, so neither can he be deposed by less than three. Theophilus says, That three Bishops are not sufficient, but all the Bishops of the Province should assemble if it be possible, and all the Synod approved his Judgement. This is all we know of this Council.   

Of the COUNCIL of Alexandria, in the Year 399.  
Theophilus' assembled in the Year 399, a Council at Alexandria, wherein he condemned the 
Of Alex●… dria, 399.  Books of Origen. Justinian quotes a Fragment of the Letter of this Council in his Epistle to Menas.   

Of the COUNCIL of Cyprus, at the same time.  
WIthin a little time after St. Epiphanius, being persuaded by the Letters of Theophilus, held a 
Of Cypri 399.  Council in the Isle of Cyprus, and there also caused the Books of Origen to be condemned.   

Of the COUNCIL of Turin.  
THE Bishops of afric were not the only Bishops who took care to maintain the Discipline of the 
Of Turin 400▪  Church about the end of the Fourth Century: Those of Gaul and Spain have also left us authentical Monuments of their Pastoral Vigilance. The former in the Canons of the Council of Turin, and the latter in those of the Council of Toledo, for these Two Councils were assembled in the Year 400, or thereabouts.  
The Council of Turin determined several Differences between the Churches and Bishops of Gaul.  
The 1st. is, That which Proculus Bishop of Marseilles had with the Bishops of Gallia▪ Narbonensis, of which he would be acknowledged Metropolitan. The Council, for Peace-sake, granted to the Person, and not to the See of Proculus, the Jurisdiction of a Primate over all the Churches in the Second Narbonensis.  
The 2d. Difference was between the Bishops of the Churches of Arles and Vienna, who contested the Right of Primacy. The Synod declares, That this Right belongs to him who shall prove that his City is the Metropolis; but in the mean time it ordains, as a Provision for preserving Peace, That the Bishops of these two Churches shall have under their Jurisdiction the Churches which are nearest to their own Cities, and that they shall live hereafter in Peace, without disturbing one another, by usurping the Churches that are remote.  
The 3d. Question which was to be determined in this Synod, concerned Four Bishops, who had made Ordinations contrary to Order: The Council remits their Fault, on condition that they will not relapse into it any more, and ordains, That for the time to come, those who shall relapse into it, shall be disabled from coming to Synods, and that those who shall be so ordained, shall be deprived of the Priesthood.  
The 4th. is concerning a Layman called Palladius, who complained of a Sentence given against him by his own Bishop, Triferius, before whom he was not able to prove a Crime of which he had accused a Priest. The Council confirms the Sentence of Triferius, leaving him nevertheless the Liberty to show favour to Palladius.  
It confirms also in the 5th. Canon another Sentence of the same Bishop, given against the Priest Exuperantius, who had vomited forth many Calumnies and Reproaches against him.  
The 6th. Canon is against those who communicated with Felix Bishop of Triers, who was of the Faction of the Ithacians.  
The 7th. forbids Bishops to take Clergymen from any one of their Brethren, to ordain them in their own Churches, and to receive those into Communion who have been excommunicated in some other place.  
The 8th. declares, That those who have been ordained contrary to the Canons, and who being ordained have had Children, ought not to be advanced to higher Orders.   

Of the COUNCIL of Toledo.  
THis Council was held in the Year 400, and composed of Nineteen Spanish Bishops assembled at 
Of Toledo▪ 400.  Toledo, who having made Profession of the Faith, and condemned the Errors of the Priscillianists, made Canons concerning Discipline. The First thing which they ordained was, That the Canons of the Council of Nice should be observed: And afterwards they made 20 other Canons.  
In the 1st. they permit the Order of Deacon to be given to married Persons, provided they be chaste, and preserve Continence; but they impose no other Penalty upon a Deacon or a Priest who has not lived in Continence, and who had Children before the Law 
[Continence in these Canons is to be understood of abstaining from the Rites of Marriage.]  which the Bishops of Lusitania made upon this Subject: They impose upon them, no other Penalty, but that they shall not be capable of rising to a higher Dignity.  
The 2d. Canon forbids the ordaining of a Person who has done public Penance: It adds, That if necessity require, he may be made a Porter or at most a Reader; but upon Condition, that he neither read the Epistles, nor Gospels, and that if any such Person has been ordained Deacon, he shall be only in the rank of Subdeacons, without being capable of laying on of Hands or touching Holy Things. 'Tis observed afterwards, that a 
[i. e. The Elements of the Eucharist.]  Penitent is he who having done public Penance after his Baptism, for Murder, or some other Crime of like Nature, has been publicly reconciled at the Altar of God.  
The 3d. Canon declares, That if a Reader marry a Widow, he cannot be advanced to higher Orders, and that at most he shall only be a Sub-Deacon.  
The 4th. That a Sub-Deacon who marries again, shall be put in the rank of Porters or Readers, without being capable of reading the Epistles or Gospels; That he who shall marry a third time shall be separated from the Church for the space of two Years, and after he is reconciled, he shall never rise higher than the rank of Laymen.  
The 5th. deprives a Clergyman of Ecclesiastical Orders, who being designed for the Service of some Church in the City or Country, shall not be present at the Sacrifice which is made there every Day.  
The 6th. forbids Virgins consecrated to God to have any familiarity with Ecclesiastical Men, who are not of their near Kindred.  
The 7th. gives leave to Clergymen who have Wives that do not behave themselves well, to bind them and shut them up in their Houses, and forbids them to eat with them till they have done Penance.  
The 8th. excludes those from Holy Orders who have been in the Wars after they have received Baptism.  
The 9th. forbids Virgins and Widows, to pray with Strangers in their Houses, except in the presence of the Bishop, a Priest or a Deacon.  
The 10th. declares, That those must not be ordained, who have a dependence upon some Family, or who are engaged in some Farm, unless those upon whom they depend, consent to it.  
The 11th. declares, That if a Man in power has rob a Clergyman or a poor Monk, and will not appear before the Bishop to give an account of what he has done, he ought to be excommunicated till he restores the Goods which do not belong to him.  
The 12th. forbids to receive a Clergyman from another Bishop, unless he be a Schismatic, and declares all those Excommunicated who separate from Catholics to join with Schismatics.  
The 13th. Ordains, That those who come to Church and do not receive the Communion shall be admonished, that they must either communicate, or be put in the Rank of Penitents, and if they will do neither, they shall be excommunicated.  
The 14th. Ordains, That he shall be driven away as a Sacrilegious Person, which having received the Eucharist from the hand of the Bishop, does not eat it.  
The 15th. declares, That we must neither eat nor converse with a Layman or Clergyman who is excommunicated.  
The 16th. imposes a Penance of 10 Years for Adultery.  
The 17th. declares, That he who has a Concubine and a Wife both together, aught to be excommunicated, but that he ought not to be excommunicated who has only a Concubine; so that it is necessary for every one that is a Member of the Church, to satisfy himself either with one Wife or one Concubine. This Canon may give some trouble to those, who know not that the Word Concubine, which is at present odious, was formerly taken for a Woman, to whom the Marriage-Promise was given, tho' she was not married with all the Solemnities which the Laws required in Marriage; as St. Austin has explained it in the 5th. Chap. of the Book about the Advantages of Marriage.  
The 18th. declares, That we ought not to communicate with the Widow of a Bishop, a Priest or a Deacon, if she marries again, and that she ought not to be reconciled until the Point of death.  
The 19th. inflicts the same Penalty upon the Daughter of a Bishop, a Priest, or a Deacon, who marries after she has been consecrated to God.  
The 20th. is expressed in these Words: Although it is observed almost every where, not to consecrate Chrism without the Bishop, yet because we are informed that in some places the Priests do consecrate it, we have ordained that for the future, none but the Bishop shall consecrate the Holy Chrism, and that he shall send it through all his Diocese. And to the end that this Canon may be put in execution, every Church shall send to the Bishop a Deacon or Sub-deacon about Easter, that he may fetch Chrism for that day. 'Tis certain that the Bishop can consecrate Chrism at all times, which the Priests cannot do without the Authority and Permission of the Bishop. The Deacons cannot administer the Holy Chrism, 'tis only lawful for the Priests to do it in the absence of the Bishop, or by his Order, if he be present.  
These are the Ecclesiastical Canons which were made at the end of the Fourth Century, and the beginning of the Fifth.   

An Abridgement of the Doctrine of the Fourth AGE of the Church.  
THO' there was nothing taught in the Fourth Age of the Church, which was not believed in the Three First, yet it must be confessed that in it the chief Mysteries of Religion were very much cleared up and explained. As to the Divinity and Attributes of God, there was nothing almost added to what was said by the ancient Fathers, and they were even less handled in this Age than in the preceding. But the Mystery of the Trinity, as we have seen, was the Subject of an infinite number of Books written by the Authors of this Age, and of many Synodical Decisions. The Divinity of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit was established. It was proved, That these Two Persons are of the same Substance with the Father; Essence and Substance was carefully distinguished from the Person; many Arguments were urged whereon to ground this Doctrine; and the Objections which the Heretics proposed against it, were answered.  
There was some Difference among the Catholics about the Word, Hypostasis; Some would have it said, That the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were Three Hypostases, and others maintained that we ought to say, That they were but one and the same Hypostasis; but this seeming Difference consisted only in a Question about a Word, which depended upon the signification of the Word Hypostasis, which one Party took for the Person, and the other for the Nature. All the Fathers of this Age acknowledged, that the Word was a Person distinguished from the Person of the Eternal Father, and that his Generation was Eternal; but they did not think of explaining how this Generation is made; and they confessed, That it is ineffable and incomprehensible: Neither did they insist upon a multitude of subtle Questions concerning the Mystery of the most Holy Trinity, and they always continued in the Simplicity of the Faith, which they established upon the Authority of Scripture and of Tradition. They taught also that the Word appeared to the Patriarches, and in this sense they said that he was visible. Tho' they treated not so much in this Age of the Mystery of the Incarnation as in the next, yet it was explained very clearly, and not only the Errors of Arius and Apollinarius were condemned, who denied that Jesus Christ had a Soul or Humane Understanding different from the Divinity; but even the Errors of Nestorius, Eutyches, and all the other Heretics were rejected beforehand, who either distinguish Two Persons in Jesus Christ, or confound the Two Natures and their Properties. They believed the Incarnation to be necessary for the Redemption of Mankind, and acknowledged that none can be saved without Faith in Jesus Christ. Some taught also that Jesus Christ preached the Gospel to those in Hell, but this Opinion was rejected by many. They affirmed that there were great numbers of Angels and Devils. They determined nothing about the Day of Judgement, and they did all almost confess, that Men are wholly ignorant of it. They looked upon what the Ancients said concerning the Reign of Jesus Christ upon Earth for the space of a 1000 Years as a mere groundless Imagination. They almost all acknowledged that the Souls which are innocent and purified from their Sins, enjoy Happiness before the Day of Judgement, and that the Souls of the Wicked are condemned to Eternal Fire immediately after their death: Yet they confessed that after the Resurrection, their Happiness or Misery should still be increased. They believed that the Souls of Men were Spiritual and Immortal, but they doubted, Whether they were immediately created by God, or produced by the Souls of their Fathers and Mothers. They spoke more of Grace than those who lived in the preceding Ages, and yet they ascribed always very much to freewill. Original Sin, begun to be better known. They excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven, Children who died without Baptism; but they did not affirm that they should endure the Torments of Fire. They acknowledged the Efficacy and Necessity of Baptism. The Imposition of the Hands of the Bishop, or the Anointing with Holy Chrism, was looked upon as a Sacrament which brought down the Holy Spirit upon the Baptised. They maintained against the Novatians, that the Church had power to impose Penance, and to forgive the most Enormous Sins. They taught clearly, That the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist were changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. They gave the Name of a Sacrifice to the Celebration of the Eucharist, and performed it with particular Ceremonies. They were persuaded that Men ought to be Ordained to make them capable of discharging the Ecclesiastical Functions. They approved of Marriage, and would have the Persons to be married, contracted in the face of the Church, and in the presence of a Priest who gave a Blessing. They honoured Virginity, and commended those who professed it; and looked upon those as Sacrilegious Persons who violated that Profession. They had much Reverence and Veneration for the Blessed Virgin and for the Saints; they prayed to them, and also honoured their Relics. They prayed for the Dead. We have often taken notice of their Opinion concerning the Authority of Holy Scripture and Tradition. They taught that there was but one Catholic Church, out of which there was no Salvation, and to whose Authority all Men ought to submit, because it can neither cease to be, nor Err in Matters of Faith.  
Wherefore one may say in general, That the Doctrine of the Fourth Age was the Belief of the Church of that Age, and so the Church not being capable of changing her Belief, it necessarily follows, That the Doctrine of that Time, is not at all different from that which the Church teaches still at this Day.   

An Abridgement of the Discipline of the Fourth AGE of the Church.  
THE Discipline of the Church consists, either in the Government or in the Policy, or in the Ceremonies, or in the Practices which concern Manners and Christian Perfection. It cannot be doubted but these Three Points, and especially the Two former, were very much improved in the Fourth Age of the Church. For before this time, the Church which had been continually tossed and troubled with Persecutions, could never settle one constant and uniform Form of Government, nor celebrate the Mysteries with the Pomp and Splendour of Ceremonies: But when once she was perfectly delivered from the Yoke of Tyranny, under which she had groaned before, and established by the Authority of a Christian Emperor, she made Rules and Laws for the Government of herself, and joined to the purity of Faith the Magnificence of Ceremonies. Thus tho' there had been some Rules for the Government of the Churches of the First Ages, which were established by Custom and Tradition, and there were already many Ceremonies practised; yet it may be affirmed that these things were very much improved in the Fourth Age of the Church, as will easily appear by comparing what was Ordained and Practised in that Age, with what was done in the foregoing.  
First, as to the Government of the Church. It was in the Fourth Age that the Body of the Churches were perfected, and that certain Rules were established for Ecclesiastical Decisions. The Distinction, Distribution and Subordination of Churches were settled for the most part according to the Form of the Civil Government. The Civil Provinces formed the Body of an Ecclesiastical Province. The Bishop of the Civil Metropolis was looked upon as the first Bishop of the Province. Some Rights and Prerogatives were assigned to him, and the Care of overseeing the whole Province was committed to him. In every Province there was held twice a Year Provincial Councils, which the Metropolitan called together, and over which he presided. When a Bishop died, all the Bishops of the Province were called together to ordain a Successor in his room. He was commonly chosen by the Clergy and People of the Vacant Church; The Metropolitan was to be present at this Ordination, and he could not do it unless two Bishops of the Province were with him, and the rest consented to it. As many Civil Provinces made one District, which was called a Diocese, so many Ecclesiastical Provinces made one Ecclesiastical Diocese, of which the Bishop of the Principal City was the Head. This Bishop had the Rights, Prerogatives, Privileges of Honour and Jurisdiction over the whole Diocese; he enjoyed also the Right of Ordaining Metropolitans, which belonged formerly to the Bishops of the Province. The 
[Whoever has attentively read the foregoing accountof the Controversies by which the Church was divided in this Age, and of the Synods that were convened to determine them, can make a very true Judgement whether this is not said (to save himself) by a Man, who having in his other Writings appeared so zealously for the Privileges of the Gallican Church against the Pretensions of the Court of Rome, thought himself obliged to insert this Period for the satisfaction of his scrupulous Brethren. These Abridgements are designed to be heaps of Conclusions from Premises already laid down in the precedent Work, so that tho' this Proposition were true in itself, it were here impertinent, because it cannot be collected from what went before, which makes me think that this Period belongs more to the Licensers than the Author. I need only appeal to this very History, from which Two Conclusions may be certainly drawn. First, That the Orthodox Bishops who were persecuted by Constantius and Valens in the East, were glad to fly to Rome for shelter, and would, as all Men naturally do, make the most of the Assistance they found, that possibly they could. Secondly, That every Metropolitical See was equally concerned to preserve its own Rights, and the rest of the Church thought it only a Matter of Discipline, instituted for the sake of Order and Decency, that one Church had the Rights of a Metropolis, rather than another. This last, Mr. Du Pin takes pains himself to prove, from whence at least this must be plain, That he must believe that in the Fourth Age of the Church, all the Supremacy that was allowed to the Church of Rome was only Titular out of its own Jurisdiction; and then the Primacy granted to St. Peter could not have then been understood to belong to any of his Successors, (even tho' we should allow them to have thought that St. Peter had a real Authority) since the rest of the Church plainly acted without any regard to it, and testified no remorse for it afterwards.]  Bishop of the Church of Rome was in possession of the Primacy which he received from Jesus Christ, as being Successor to St. Peter Prince of the Apostles. This Primacy gave him great Rights and Prerogatives in the whole Church, to maintain the Faith, and cause the Holy Canons to be observed. It happened sometimes, but seldom, that he abused his Power and Authority, but when this happened, the Church was satisfied that she could remedy the Abuse. So when Liberius had subscribed to an Arian Creed, and condemned St. Athanasius, the other Bishops did not think themselves obliged to follow his Example. The Churches of Alexandria, of Antioch, and some others, had also their Privileges founded upon Ecclesiastical Custom. The Church of Jerusalem had a Degree of Honour, and acquired by little and little some Jurisdiction. Lastly, the Bishop of Constantinople procured to himself the Second Rank of Honour, and in a little time assumed to himself the Jurisdiction over Thrace, Pontus, and lesser Asia. The Suburbicary Churches had in a manner no other Metropolitan but the Bishop of Rome. The Churches of Gaul and Spain were governed by Metropolitans and Provincial Synods. The Churches of Africa had not fixed Metropolitan; this Dignity belonged to the most ancient Bishop of the Province: But the Bishop of Carthage had great Rights and Prerogatives, and even a kind of Jurisdiction over all Africa. As to the Churches without the Roman Empire, they had no certain Form, and they were for the most part governed by one Bishop only who had under him many Priests. The Priests took care of the People together with the Bishops: There were also Churches in the Cities and the Country, where they presided over the Assemblies of the People, as Parish-Priests do now. There were also Suffragans who held a middle place between Bishops and Priests: There was no Bishop, Priest, Deacon, or Minister ordained, but who was engaged to do his Duty in one certain Church, and this he was obliged to discharge.  
As for Ecclesiastical Decisions, a Bishop never judged any thing without the Advice of his Clergy. Provincial Councils were commonly held Twice a Year, where the Determinations and Differences of the Bishops of the Province were examined: There all Ecclesiastical Differences were first decided, Matters of Faith only excepted. But those who thought themselves injured, quickly had recourse to the Bishop who presided over the Diocese, and to his Synod. The Bishop of Rome pretended to have this Jurisdiction over all the rest, and the Council of Sardica granted him something like it. But the Eastern Churches and many others maintained the Authority of their Diocesan or National Synods: All the Bishops thought themselves Judges of Matters of Faith. When any Question of Faith became a public Dispute, the Bishops of the Great Sees were consulted, and chief the Bishop of Rome, whose Opinion was of great weight, as well upon the account of his Primacy, as because he answered in the Name of all the Western Bishops, and was a Witness of their Doctrine. The General Council of the Eastern and Western Bishops, was looked upon as the Sovereign Judge for deciding all sorts of Ecclesiastical Controversies. Excommunication or Separation from the visible Communion of the Church, was the Ecclesiastical Penalty, which was made use of against all those who were convicted of an Error or a Crime; if they repent, they were put under Penance, and then they might be restored to the Communion of the Church; but if they were obstinate, they were wholly cast out. The Churches were united together by Letters of Communion. 'Twas forbidden to receive any one into the Church who had been excommunicated, by his own Bishop, without his Consent. And so those who were excommunicated, were separated from the Communion of all the Churches in the World. If any particular Church, any Bishops, or any other Persons separated themselves from the Body of the Church, or continued separated from it, they were looked upon as Schismatics. Translations of Bishops were forbidden; they were very rare in the West; but the Ambition of some Bishops made them common in the East. Many Canons were made for hindering Bishops and Clergymen from going to Court. A Bishop was forbidden to meddle with the Affairs of another Diocese, or to Ordain any Persons out of his own. Persons of an unblameable Life were made choice of to enter into Holy Orders; they were deposed when they committed any Crime. In many Churches the Age and the necessary Times were prescribed, at which any one could be raised to Ecclesiastical Orders. The Bishops, Priests and Deacons, were obliged to Celibacy in the West; which Law was not established in the East. The Church begun then to have great Riches, which came to her from the Liberality of the Emperors and others of the Faithful. The Sacraments were administered gratis, and it was forbidden to take or give any thing for a Spiritual Benefit. Many very useful Canons were made concerning the Life and Manners of ecclesiastics. In a word, Nothing can be Greater or Wiser than the Laws which were made at this time, concerning the Government of the Church; but it must be confessed, That they were not always very exactly observed, and that the Interests and Passions of Men, the Ambition of Bishops, and the Will of Princes, caused them often to be violated, contrary to the Intention of the Church, which used all her Endeavours to maintain them.  
When Christians began in the Reign of Constantine to perform Divine Service publicly with Pomp and Solemnity, there is no doubt but the Ancient Ecclesiastical Ceremonies were then perfected, and that new ones were added to render the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries more venerable to the People. Some of the chief of them were these.  
Baptism was administered to Infants and Adult Persons with many Ceremonies. They were dipped Three times into the Water. Exorcisms and Anointings were in use. Milk and Honey were given to the Catechumen. The Solemn Times for Administering Baptism were Easter and Whit-sunday, and also Epiphany in some Churches. The Adult were prepared for Receiving this Sacrament a considerable time before, and there were many Degrees of Catechumen, as we have already observed. After Baptism the Bishop conferred the Fullness of the Holy Spirit, by Imposition of Hands in the Latin Church, and by Unction in the Greek. The Times and Degrees of Public Penance for Crimes committed after Baptism were settled by an infinite number of Canons, yet it was always left to the Discretion of the Bishop, to lessen or increase them. Public Penance was imposed for all the great Crimes, which the Penitents were either convicted of, or confessed themselves to be guilty of. Absolution was not commonly refused for any Crime; but Penance was never granted twice. The Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist was celebrated with Ceremonies. The Eucharist was commonly given to the Laity in both Kind's; but upon certain occasions they gave it in one kind only. The Bread which was consecrated was ordinary Bread, broken into many pieces. The Faithful were often present at the Holy Sacrifice; Catechumen and Penitents were debarred from it; the Eucharist was received in the Act of Adoration. The Laity received also the Bread of the Eucharist into their hands, but the custom of carrying it to their Houses was very rare, and it was commonly spent all in the Church, while they were fasting. The Love-Feasts or Feasts of Charity, were removed in most Churches; almost all those that were present at the Sacrifice received the Communion; and so Christians received the Body of Jesus Christ very often, and yet were persuaded, that they ought to be Holy and Innocent to receive it worthily. Before the Communion-Office began there were some Prayers which were made for Catechumen and Penitents. The Holy Scripture was read in the Assemblies of Christians, and the Bishop or one of the Priests preached the Word of God. These Assemblies were held in Churches consecrated to God, and built magnificently; they were made very splendid, and Divine Offices were celebrated there with much Pomp and Splendour. Singing of Psalms was also used; Wax-Chandles were lighted chief during the Nocturnal Offices. The Dead were buried with much Ceremony and Pomp, the Great Festivals were celebrated with much Solemnity. Processions began to be introduced. Prayer for the Dead was a common Practice in the Church; they were commemorated at the celebration of the Eucharist. The Invocation of Saints and Martyrs, and the Celebration of their Festivals were common in all the Churches; the use of Crosses was frequent; the Sign of the Cross was made very often; there were Images in many Churches. A Blessing was given for Marriage; but the Church never gave it for Second Marriages, and they even put Bigamists under Penance for some time. Marriages contracted between Persons who could not lawfully Marry according to the Civil Laws, were looked upon as null. Divorce for Adultery was permitted in some Churches. Orders were conferred by Imposition of Hands. Bishops had the sole Power of Ordaining Bishops, Priests and Deacons, and of Confirming. Solemn Baptism also, and the Absolution of Public Penitents was reserved to them. The number of lesser Orders was not fixed; there were more or fewer of them in different Churches. There were Deaconnesses in almost all Churches. The Mysteries were carefully concealed from those who were not yet baptised. The Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and the Laity had their Places in the Churches. In short, Divine Service was performed with much Decency, Modesty, Gravity and Pomp.  
Fasting is one of the chief external Practices which concern Manners: The Christians of the Fourth Age were very Religious in observing it. Lent was established in all Churches, tho' it was longer or shorter in different Places. The Fasts of Wednesday and Friday, (or Saturday in the Church of Rome) were also Religiously observed. During the time of Fasting, they waited till Night in Lent before they eat any thing, and till three a Clock in the Afternoon in other Fasts; and all this time they commonly abstained from Meat and Wine in almost all Churches. The Monastic State was established in this Age, and became very common in a little time. There quickly appeared a great number of Monasteries full of an infinite number of Monks, who retired from the World, observed Celibacy, lived in Obedience, kept excessive Fasts, and performed very great Austerities. Many Virgins were also consecrated to God, made a Vow of Virginity, and lived in common under the Government of an Abbess. The Monks and Nuns were both under the Jurisdiction of their Bishops. There were very few Monks who were Priests; some were taken out of Monasteries to be made Bishops. There were also some Hermits who dwelled alone in the Deserts. The Christians were constantly at Prayers and gave great Alms to the Poor, assisted the Sick, visited Prisoners, and did several other Works of Charity. They sometimes undertook Pilgrimages to visit the Holy Places; but tho' the Holy Fathers approved the Devotion, yet they feared the Accidents which might happen upon it, and were not of Opinion, that these kind of Journeys should be undertaken rashly and lightly. They did not tolerate superstitious Practices, nor any new Devotions founded upon the Imaginations of private Persons, but they recommended the Practice of Evangelical Counsels, and exhorted all Christians to go on to that Perfection which is described in many Places of the Gospel.  
These are some part of the Points of Discipline of the Fourth Age of the Church: I shall not stay now to observe many others, nor to prove these by Authentical Testimonies; because my Design is not to make a Dissertation upon this Subject, which would be longer than all this Volume, but only to give a slight Idea of the Discipline of that Time. Neither shall I undertake to Collect or Abridge what the Writers of this Age have said of Morality, which would be an infinite Work; and the Reader ought to be satisfied with the Extracts that are made in the body of our Book taken from the finest Passages of the Authors here mentioned.   
The End of the Second Volume.   

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORS Mentioned in this VOLUME.  
Giving an Account of the Time of their Birth, their Names, Country and Employments, when they Flourished, with the Time of their Deaths.  

EUSEBIUS, BORN in the Reign of Galienus, about the Year 264. Ordained Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine in 313. Flourished under Constantine. Died in the Year 338.  
CONSTANTINE, Born in the Year 273. The first Christian Emperor. Elected the 6th of August 309. Died May 22. 337.  
C. VECTIUS AQUILINUS JUVENCUS, A Priest of Spain. Flourished about the Year 329.  
RHETICIUS, Bishop of Autun. Flourished at the beginning of the Fourth Century.  
EUSTATHIUS, Born about the end of the Third Century. Elected Bishop of Antioch in the Year 323. Flourished from that time to the Year 330. Died about the Year 335.  
PETER, Ordained Bishop of Alexandria in the Year 300. Suffered Martyrdom in 311.  
ALEXANDER, Ordained Bishop of Alexandria in 305. Died about the End of the Year 325.  
St. ATHANASIUS, Born about the Year 300. Ordained Bishop of Alexandria in 326. Maintained the Faith of the Church until the Year 373. Died about the Year 373.  
St. JACOBUS NISIBENUS, Flourished at the End of the Third and the beginning of the Fourth Century. Died about the Year 340.  
MARCELLUS, Bishop of Ancyra. Flourished from the Year 325, till the Year 336.  
HOSIUS, Born Anno 267. Bishop of Corduba. Flourished from the beginning to the middle of the Fourth Century. Died in 358.  
JULIUS, Ordained Bishop of Rome in the Year 335. Died in 352.  
ASTERIUS, An Arian Philosopher. Wrote about the Year 330.  
THEODORUS, Bishop of Perinthus. Flourished about the Year 330.  
TRYPHILIUS, Bishop in Cyprus. Flourished under Constantius.  
HELIODORUS, A Priest. Under the same.  
DONATUS, Under Constantine and Constantius.  


VITELLIUS, and  
MACROBIUS,   Under Constantius.  
St. ANTHONY the Abbot, Born about the Year 250. He Retired into his Solitude in the Year 270. and Flourished till the middle of the Fourth Century. Died An. 356.  
St. PACHOMIUS, Abbot. Flourished at the end of the Fourth Century. Died about the Year 400.  
ORESIESIS, Disciple of St. Pachomius. Flourished at the end of the Fourth Century.  
THEODORUS, Priest. Successor of St. Pachomius. Flourished at the same time.  


MACARIUS, A Monk of Sceta;  
MACARIUS, Abbot in Thebais, and  
MACARIUS, Disciple of St. Anthony.   Flourished all about the end of the Fourth Century.  
SERAPION, Bishop of Thmuis. Ordained in the Year 340.  
EUSEBIUS EMISENUS, Flourished from the Year 330. Died about the Year 350.  
BASIL, Ordained Bishop of Ancyra in the Year 336. Died after the Year 360.  
LIBERIUS, Ordained Bishop of Rome in the Year 352. Driven away in 356. Restored in 358. Died in the Year 366.  
St. HILARY, Ordained Bishop of Poitiers about the Year 350. Sent into Exile in 356, and Restored in 360. Died Anno 367.  
LUCIFER, Bishop of Calaris. Flourished about the middle of the Fourth Century. Died about the Year 370.  
MARIUS VICTORINUS, Of Africa. Flourished about the end of the Fourth Century. Died about the Year 370.  
St. PACIANUS, Bishop of Barcelona. Flourished about the end of the Fourth Century. Died about the Year 380.  
GREGORY, Bishop of Elvira in Spain. Flourished from the Year 357 to the end of that Century.  
PHAEBADIUS, Bishop of Agen. Flourished from the Year 350, almost to the end of the Century. Died about the Year 395.  
St. OPTATUS, Bishop of Milevis. Wrote about the Year 370. Died in the Reign of Valentinian, about the Year 372.  
ACACIUS, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. Succeeded Eusebius in the Year 338. Died in 366.  
PHOTINUS, Bishop of Sirmium. Discovered his Error about the Year 344. Died in 376.  
AETIUS, Taught his Errors in the Year 340. Died in 366.  
EUNOMIUS, Disciple of Aëtius. Published his Errors from the Year 350 till near the end of the Century. Died about the Year 395.  
GEORGE, Of Laodicea. Began to appear about the Year 320, and was ordained Bishop in 330. Died about the Year 359.  
APOLLIN ARIUS the Father, Priest of Laodicea. Flourished under Constantius and Julian.  
APOLLINARIUS the Son, Bishop of Laodicea. Flourished under Constantius and Julian. Died about the Year 370.  
TITUS, Of Bostra. Flourished in the Reigns of Julian and Jovian.  
DIDYMUS the Blind, Born towards the Year 300. Professor in the School of Alexandria. Flourished about the middle of the Fourth Century. Died about the Year 395.  
PETER, Bishop of Alexandria. Ordained in the Year 373. Died in 381.  
LUCIUS', The pretended Bishop of Alexandria. Invaded that See in the Year 373.  
AQUILIUS SEVERUS, Died about the Year 370.  
EUZOIUS, Died about the Year 390.  
St. CYRIL, Ordained Bishop of Jerusalem in 356. Died about the Year 386.  
St. EPHREM, The Syrian, Deacon of Edessa. Flourished from the Year 360. Died in the Year 378.  
DAMASUS, Ordained Bishop of Rome in the Year 366. Died in 384.  
St. BASIL, Born in the Year 328. Ordained Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia in 369. Died in the Year 379.  
St. GREGORY NAZIANZEN, Born about the Year 328. Flourished from the Year 368. Died in the Year 389.  
St. GREGORY NYSSEN, Born in 330. Constituted Bishop of Nyssa in 371. Died in 395.  
St. CAESARIUS, Born about the Year 330. An Officer of the Emperor. Died in the Year 369.  
St. AMPHILOCHIUS, Ordained Bishop of Iconium in 375. Died about the Year 395.  
MAXIMUS, A Philosopher. Flourished about the end of the Fourth Century.  
EUSEBIUS VERCELLENSIS, Flourished under the Emperor's Constantius and Valens. Died in the Year 370.  
MELETIUS, Chosen Bishop of Antioch in the Year 361. Died 380.  
DIODORUS, A Priest of Antioch. Who Flourished about the Year 370. and was ordained Bishop of Tarsus in 375.  
HILARY, Deacon of Rome. Flourished under Liberius and Damasus.  


PRISCILLIAN,  
MATRONIANUS,  
TIBERIANUS,   Executed in 384.  
DICTINIUS, Died about the beginning of the Fifth Century.  
ITHACIUS or IDACIUS, Bishop of Ossobona. Flourished about the end of the Fourth Century.  
FAUSTINUS, A Luciferian Deacon. Presented his Petition to the Emperors in the Year 384.  
PHILASTRIUS, Bishop of Brescia. Died in 387.  
TIMOTHY, Ordained Bishop of Alexandria in the Year 381.  
NECTARIUS, Chosen Archbishop of Constantinople, Anno 382. Died in 397.  
GELASIUS, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. Flourished about the end of the Fourth Century.  
SIRICIUS, Bishop of Rome. Succeeded Damasus in 386.  
SABINUS, Bishop of the Macedonians at Heraclea. Flourished about the end of the Reign of Theodosius.  
AMBROSE, Of Alexandria, Disciple of Didymus. Died about the Year 375.  
THEOTIMUS, Bishop of Tomi in Scythia. Flourished at the end of the Fourth Century.  
EVAGRIUS, Ordained Bishop of Antioch in 386. Died in 393.  
St. AMBROSE, Born about the Year 340. Baptised and Ordained Bishop of Milan in 374. Died in the Year 396.  
St. EPIPHANIUS, Born Anno 332. Ordained Bishop of Salamis in the Year 366. Died in 402 or 403.  
PHILO CARPATHIUS, A Supposititious Author.  
Q. JULIUS HILARION, Died about the Year 400.    

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE of the COUNCILS held in the Fourth Age of the Church.  
The Figures show the Year in which they were held according to the Vulgar Account.  

The Supposititious Council of Sinuessa. 303  
The Council of Cirtha. 305  
The Council of Alexandria. 306  
The Council of Eliberis or Elvira. 305  
The Council of Carthage against Caecilian. 311  
The Council of Rome. 313  
The Council of Arles. 314  
The Council of Ancyra. eod.  
The Council of Neocaesarea. eod.  
The Council of Alexandria. 322  
The Council of Bythinia. 323  
The Council of Alexandria. 324  
The Council of Nice. 325  
The Council of Antioch. 330  
The Council of Caesarea. 334  
The Council of Tyre. 335  
The Council of Jerusalem. 335  
The Council of Constantinople. 336  
The Council of Constantinople. 338  
The Council of Alexandria. 340  
The Council of Rome. 342  
The Council of Antioch. 341, 342  
The Council of Antioch. 345  
The Council of Milan. 346  
The Council of Cologne. eod.  
The Council of Sardica. 347  
The Council of Sirmium, I. 349  
The Council of Sirmium, II. 351  
The Council of Arles. 353  
The Council of Milan. 355  
The Council of Beziers. 356  
The Council of Sirmium, III. 357  
The Council of Antioch. 358  
Ancyra. eod.  
The Council of Sirmium, iv eod.  
The Council of Sirmium, V 359  
The Council of Ariminum. eod.  
The Council of Seleucia. eod.  
The Council of Constantinople. 360  
The Council of Melitine. 357  
The Council of Antioch. 361  
The Council of Alexandria. 362  
The Council of Paris. eod.  
The Council of Italy. eod.  
The Council of The Bishops of Egypt at Antioch. 363  
The Council of Antioch under Meletius. eod.  
The Council of Lampsacus. 365  
The Council of Singidunum. 366  
Synods held by the Semi-Arians. 365, 366  
The Council of Tyana. 368  
The Council of Gangra. 370  
The Council of Laodicea, between 360 and 370  
The Council of Rome under Damasus. 370  
The Council of Rome under Ursicinus. 372  
The Council of Valentia. 374  
The Council of Antioch for restoring Peace in that Church. 378  
The Council of Constantinople, I. 381  
The Council of Constantinople, II. 382  
The Council of Constantinople, III. 383  
The Council of Aquileia. 381  
The Council of Saragossa. eod.  
The Council of Sida. 383  
The Council of Bourdeaux. 384  
The Council of Capua. 390  
The Council of Rome and Milan against Jovinian. eod.  
The Council of The Novatians at Sangara. eod.  
The Council of Carthage, I. 348  
The Council of Carthage, II. 390  
The Council of Cabarsussa and Bagaïs'. 393, 394  
The Council of Hippo. 393  
The Council of Carthage. 394  
The Council of Carthage. 397  
The Council of Carthage, IV. 398  
The Council of Carthage. 399  
The Council of Carthage, V 401  
The Council of Constantinople. 394  
The Council of Alexandria. 399  
The Council of Cyprus. eod.  
The Council of Turin. 400  
The Council of Toledo. eod.    

A TABLE of all the Writings of the Ecclesiastical Authors mentioned in this Volume.  

EUSEBIUS of Caesarea.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
AN Apology for Origen in five Books; composed by him and the Martyr Pamphilus, with a Sixth by himself alone.  
A Treatise against the Philosopher Hierocles.  
Fifteen Books of Evangelical Preparation.  
Twenty Books of Evangelical Demonstration.  
A Chronicon divided into Two Parts.  
An Ecclesiastical History divided into Ten Books.  
A little Treatise of the Martyrs of Palestine.  
Five Books against Marcellus of Ancyra, of which the Three last are Entitled, Of Ecclesiastical Theology.  
Four Books of the Life of Constantine.  
An Oration of Constantine's to the Assembly of the Saints.  
A Panegyric upon Constantine.  
A Treatise of Topics.  
A Letter preserved by Theodoret.  
A Translation of the Evangelical Canons, and of the Letter to Carpianus.   

BOOKS Lost.  
The Ten last Books of Evangelical Demonstration.  
Part of the First Part of his Chronicon.  
A Paschal Cycle.  
Five Books of the Theophany or Incarnation.  
Ten Books of Commentaries upon Isaiah.  
Thirty Books against Porphyry.  
A Treatise of the Signification of the Names which the Jews give to other Nations.  
A Description of the Holy-Land and the Temple.  
Three Books of the Life of Pamphilus.  
Little Tracts upon the Martyrs.  
A Commentary upon the 150 Psalms.  
The Evangelical Canons and the Letter to Carpianus in Greek.  
A Commentary upon the First Epistle to the Corinthians.  
A Treatise of the Polygamy of the Patriarches.  
Eclogues upon the Bible.  
Letter to Alexander and Euphration, cited in the Second Council of Nice.  
An Apology and Refutation.  
An Oration made at the Dedication of the Church of Jerusalem.   

Supposititious BOOKS.  
A Commentary upon the Canticles.  
Lives of the Prophets.  
Sermons published by Sirmondus.  
A Concordance translated by Ambrose Camaldulensis.     

CONSTANTINE the Emperor.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
An Oration made to the Convention of the Saints.  
An Oration to the Fathers at the Council of Nice.  
A Prayer.  
Several Letters, of which see a Catalogue in p. 15, etc.  
Several Edicts in favour of the Christian Religion, of which you have the Catalogue in p. 16, 17, etc.   

BOOKS Lost.  
Several Harangues.  
Several Letters.  
Several Edicts.   

Supposititious BOOK.  
The Donation of Constantine to the Bishop of Rome.     

JUVENCUS.  


Genuine BOOK still Extant.  
A Poem upon the Life of Jesus Christ.   

BOOK Lost.  
Hymns.     

RHETICIUS. BOOK Lost.  
A Commentary upon the Canticles.   

EUSTATHIUS of Antioch.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
A Treatise concerning the Witch of Endor.  
Fragments of his Book upon the Soul, and of his Discourse cited by Theodoret.   

BOOKS Lost.  
A Treatise against the Arians.  
Homilies.  
Letters.  
A Treatise of the Soul.   

Supposititious BOOK.  
A Commentary upon the Creation.     

PETER of Alexandria.  


Genuine BOOK Extant.  
Canons upon Penance.   

BOOKS Lost.  
A Treatise upon the Divinity.  
A Discourse upon Penance.  
A Sermon against the pre-existence of Souls.  
A Mystagogical Discourse.     

ALEXANDER of Alexandria. Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
Two Letters against Arius, produced by the Ecclesiastical Historians.  
Pastoral Letter published by Cotelerius.   

St. ATHANASIUS.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
Two Treatises against the Gentiles, whereof the Second is, Entitled, Of the Incarnation.  
An Apologetic to the Emperor Constantine.  
A Letter to the Egyptians, Entitled, The First Discourse against the Arians.  
A Letter to all the Orthodox Bishops.  
First Apology.  
Second Apology.  
Four Treatises against the Arians.  
Letter to those that lead a Monastic Life.  
An Historical Treatise to those that lead a Monastic Life.  
A Letter to Serapion concerning the Death of Arius.  
A Treatise of Synods.  
Two Letters extant in the Works of Lucifer.  
A Letter written in the Name of the Council of Alexandria.  
A Letter written in the Name of the Council of Antioch.  
A Letter to the Bishops of Egypt, Arabia, etc.  
A Letter to the Africans.  
A Letter to Epictetus.  
A Sermon upon these Words; My Father hath given me all things.  
An Epistle to Adelphius.  
Two Letters to Serapion upon the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost.  
An Exposition of the Faith.  
A Letter concerning the History of the Decision of the Council of Nice.  
A Letter concerning the Opinion of St. Dionysius of Alexandria, upon the Trinity.  
A Treatise of the Union of the Humane Nature with the Word.  
Two Treatises of the Incarnation against Apollinarius.  
A Treatise against the Followers of Sabellius.  
An Epistle to John and Antiochus.  
An Epistle to Palladius.  
An Epistle to Dracontius.  
An Epistle to Marcellinus upon the Psalms.  
An Homily on the Sabbath, and of the Circumcision.  
A Treatise of the Words of Jesus Christ: Whoever shall be guilty of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, etc.  
Two Letters to Serapion upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost.  
A short Discourse against the Arians.  
Conference between St. Athanasius and the Arians in the Presence of Jovian.  
Epistle to Ammon.  
A Fragment of a Festival Epistle.  
An Epistle to Ruffinian.  
The Book, Entitled, An Abridgement of the Holy Scripture.  
The Life of St. Anthony, [interpolated extremely, if not Spurious.]   

BOOKS Lost.  
A large Treatise of Faith.  
A Treatise upon these Words of Jesus Christ: My Soul is troubled even unto Death.  
Some Dogmatical Treatises.   

Supposititious BOOKS.  
A Treatise to Prove that there is but one Jesus Christ.  
A Treatise of the Incarnation against Paulus Samosatenus.  
A Refutation of the Hypocrisy of Meletius.  
A Treatise concerning Virginity.  
A Treatise of the Testimonies of Scripture for the Trinity.  
An Homily of the Annunciation of the Virgin.  
The Life of St. Syncletica.  
The Creed which bears the Name of St. Athanasius.  
An Exposition of Faith upon the Incarnation.  
A Disputation against Arius.  
A Letter to Liberius.  
An Explication of these Words of Jesus Christ, Go to the Village, etc.  
A Homily upon the Passion.  
A Homily upon Seedtime.  
A Discourse against all Heresies.  
A Discourse of the Ascension of Jesus Christ, and of Melchizedech.  
A Letter to Jovian.  
A Book of Definitions.  
Seven Dialogues of the Trinity.  
A Book Entitled a Tragedy.  
Questions to Antiochus, etc.  
A Homily upon Easter Eve.  
A Fragment of a Letter to Eupsychius.  
Eleven Books of the Unity and of the Trinity.  
An Exhortation to the Monks.  
A short Instruction to the Monks.  
Letters of St. Athanasius to the Pope's Marcus and Foelix.  
A Relation of the Passion, and of the Image of Jesus Christ in the City of Berytus.  
A Fragment upon the Incarnation against the Disciples of Paulus Samosatenus.  
A Fragment upon the Sabbath.  
Seven Homilies, Published by Holstenius.  
Four Discourses, Published by F. Combefis.  
Fragments of Commentaries upon Job and the Psalms cited in the Catenae upon the Scriptures.     

JACOBUS NISIBENUS. BOOKS Lost.  
Twenty three Treatises cited by Gennadius, the Titles of which are set down in Pag. 49.   

MARCELLUS of Ancyra. BOOKS Lost.  
Treatises on different Subjects, and particularly against the Arians; Eusebius citys several Passages in them, which he Refutes.   

HOSIUS.  


Genuine BOOK still Extant.  
A Letter to Constantius.   

BOOKS Lost.  
Several Treatises against the Arians.  
A Letter to his Sister in Praise of Virginity.     

JULIUS.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
A Letter to the Bishops of the East.  
A Letter to the Egyptians, produced by St. Athanasius.   

Supposititious BOOKS.  
A Letter to Dionysius concerning the Incarnation.  
A Letter to Docius upon the same Subject.  
The two Decretals attributed to this Pope.     

ASTERIUS. BOOKS Lost.  
Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Romans, upon the Gospels and upon the Psalms.   

THEODORUS. BOOKS Lost.  
Commentaries upon St. Matthew, St. John, the Epistles of St. Paul, and upon the Psalms.   

TRYPHILLIUS. BOOKS Lost.  
Commentaries upon the Canticles, and several other Books.   

HELIODORUS. BOOK Lost.  
A Book of the Nature of Principles.   

DONATUS. BOOKS Lost.  
A Treatise of the Holy Ghost.  
A Letter on the same Subject.   

VITELLIUS. BOOK Lost.  
A Book showing that the Servants of God are hated by the World; and some other Writings concerning Discipline.   

MACROBIUS. BOOK Lost.  
A Treatise Addressed to Confessors and Virgins.   

St. ANTHONY.  


Genuine BOOKS Extant.  
Seven Letter to Monasteries.  
An Exhortation to Monks.  
A short Rule.   

Supposititious BOOKS.  
A Sermon against Vice.  
Other Sermons.     

St. PACHOMIUS. Genuine BOOKS Extant.  
A Rule for the Monks.  
Moral Precepts.  
Eleven Letters.   

ORESIESIS. Genuine BOOK still Extant.  
A Treatise of the Institution of Monks.   

THEODORUS.  


Genuine BOOK Extant.  
A Letter concerning Easter.   

WORKS Lost.  
Several other Letters.     

The MACARII.  


Genuine BOOKS Extant.  
Fifty Homilies or Discourses to the Monks.  
Seven small Tracts.  
A Rule for the Monks.  
Another Rule in the Form of a Dialogue.   

BOOK Lost.  
A Letter cited by Gennadius.     

SERAPION.  


Genuine BOOK still Extant.  
A Treatise against the Manichees.   

BOOKS Lost.  
A Treatise upon the Titles of the Psalms.  
Several Letters.     

EUSEBIUS EMISENUS.  


BOOKS Lost.  
A Treatise against the Jews.  
Another against the Gentiles.  
Another against the Novatians.  
A Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians.  
Several Homilies upon the Gospels.   

Supposititious BOOK.  
A Homily in Latin.     

BASIL of Ancyra. BOOKS Lost.  
A Treatise against Marcellus of Ancyra.  
A Treatise of Virginity.  
Some other small Tracts.   

LIBERIUS.  
Several Letters. See the Catalogue p. 63.   

St. HILARY.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
Twelve Books of the Trinity.  
A Treatise of Synods.  
Three Discourses addressed to Constantius.  
Fragments.  
Conference with Auxentius.  
Commentaries upon the Psalms, and upon St. Matthew.   

BOOKS Lost.  
A Treatise against Ursacius and Valens.  
An Historical Treatise.  
A Tract against Dioscorus.  
Commentaries upon Job.  
Commentaries upon the Canticles.  
A Collection of Hymns.  
A Treatise of Mysteries to Fortunatus.  
Letters.   

Supposititious BOOKS.  
A Hymn and Letters to his Daughter Apra.     

LUCIFER. Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
Five Books for St. Athanasius, against Constantius and against the Arians.   

VICTORINUS of Africa.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
Four Books against Arius.  
A Treatise in Defence of the Term Consubstantial.  
Three Hymns of the Trinity.  
A Poem of the Maccabees.  
A Treatise against the Manichees.  
A little Tract about the beginning of Day.   

BOOKS Lost.  
Commentaries upon St. Paul.     

St. PACIANUS. Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
Three Letters against the Novatians.  
A Treatise of Baptism.   

GREGORY of Boetica. BOOKS Lost.  
Several Treatises.  
A Book concerning Faith; unless this be the same with the 49th. Discourse among St. Gregory Nazianzen's.   

PHAEBADIUS. Genuine BOOK still Extant.  
A Treatise against the Second Creed of Sirmium.   

OPTATUS.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
Six Books against the Schism of the Donatists.   

Supposititious BOOK.  
A Seventh Book.     

ACACIUS of Caesarea. BOOKS Lost.  
A Treatise against Marcellus of Ancyra.  
The Life of his Predecessor Eusebius.  
Seventeen Volumes of Commentaries upon the Scripture.  
Seven Volumes upon divers Subjects.   

PHOTINUS. BOOKS Lost.  
A Treatise against the Gentiles.  
A Treatise addressed to the Emperor Valentinian.  
A Conference with Marcellus of Ancyra, cited by St. Epiphanius, Haeres. 71.  
Several other Discourses.   

AETIUS. BOOK Lost.  
An Impious Libel upon the Trinity, whereof St. Epiphanius relates some Fragments, Haeres. 76.   

EUNOMIUS. BOOKS Lost.  
Seven Books of Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Romans.  
Several Discourses against the Church.  
An Apology against the Treatise of St. Basil.   

GEORGE of Laodicea.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
Two Letters produced by St. Athanasius.  
A Circular Letter against Aëtius, cited by Sozomen.   

BOOKS Lost.  
A Treatise against the Manichees.  
The Life of Eusebius Emisenus.     

The APOLLINARII.  


Genuine BOOK still Extant.  
A Translation of the Psalms in Verse.   

BOOKS Lost.  
Several Commentaries upon the Scriptures.  
Treatises against the Arians, against Origen, and against several other Heretics.  
A Treatise against Porphyry, divided into Thirty Books.  
A Treatise of the Truth of the Christian Religion against Julian.  
Some Letters.  
A Poem containing the History of the Jews divided into Twenty Four Books.  
Tragedies and other Poetical Pieces, the Subjects whereof were Piety.  
The Gospels and the Epistles in Dialogues.     

TITUS of Bostra.  


Genuine BOOK still Extant.  
A Translation of Three Books against the Manichees.   

BOOKS Lost.  
The Fourth Book against the Manichees, and the Greek Text of all the Four.  
Some other Discourses.   

Supposititious BOOKS.  
Commentaries upon the Gospel of St. Luke.  
A Sermon upon Palm-Sunday.     

DIDYMUS of Alexandria.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
A Translation of his Treatise concerning the Holy Spirit; made by St. Jerom.  
A Translation of his Commentaries upon the Canonical Epistles.  
A Fragment of a Tract against the Manichees.   

BOOKS Lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 103.     

PETER of Alexandria.  


Genuine BOOK still Extant.  
A Letter quoted by Theodoret, Book IU. Chap. 22. of his History.   

BOOK Lost.  
A Letter to those that were Banished, whereof Facundious citys Two Fragments.     

LUCIUS'. BOOKS Lost.  
A Letter upon the Feast of Easter.  
Some other Treatises.   

AQUILIUS SEVERUS. BOOK Lost.  
The History of his Life, Entitled, Catastrophe.   

EUZOIUS. BOOKS Lost.  
Several Treatises of which we have no knowledge.   

St. CYRIL of Jerusalem.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
Eighteen Catechetical Discourses to the Catechumen.  
Five Mystagogical Lectures.  
A Letter upon the Apparition of the Cross.  
A Letter concerning the Presentation of Jesus Christ in the Temple.   

Supposititious BOOK.  
A Letter to St. Austin.     

St. EPHREM the Syrian.  
See the Catalogue of his Works, p. 118, 119, and 120.   

DAMASUS.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
Two Letters to St. Jerom, to be found in the Works of that Father.  
A Letter to the Bishops of Illyricum.  
A Letter to Paulinus.  
Anathematisms sent to Paulinus.  
A Letter to the Bishops of the East against Timothy, produced by Theodoret.   

Supposititious BOOKS.  
A Letter of Damasus to St. Jerom.  
A Decretal Epistle.  
Epigrams, Epitaphs and other Poems.     

St. BASIL.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
431 Letters of this Saint.  
Three Canonical Letters to St. Amphilochius.  
Nine Homilies upon the beginning of Genesis.  
Two Homilies upon the Creation of Man.  
A Homily upon Paradise.  
A Homily concerning Watchfulness, upon the 6th. Chapter of Proverbs.  
Twenty Two Homilies upon the Psalms.  
A Commentary upon the Sixteen first Chapters of Isaiah.  
Five Books against Eunomius.  
A Book concerning the Holy Ghost to St. Amphilochius.  
Two Books of Baptism.  
Thirty One Homilies upon Divers Subjects.  
Three Treatises concerning a Monastic Life.  
A Treatise of Judgement, and another of Faith.   

Ascetical Discourses, viz.  
The greater and lesser Rules.  
The Book of a Monastic Life.  
The Constitutions.  
A Treatise of the Chastisements of Monks.  
A Treatise concerning Virginity.   

BOOKS Lost.  
Commentaries upon the whole Bible.  
A Genuine Liturgy.  
Some other Treatises.   

Supposititious BOOKS.  
Letters to Julian and to Apollinarius.  
Commentaries upon the Psalms.  
A Panegyric upon St. Barlaam.  
A Discourse of Consolation.  
An Admonition to his Spiritual Son.  
A Treatise of the Praises of a Solitary Life.  
Three Liturgies.  
A Grammar.     

St. GREGORY NAZIANZEN.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
Forty Four Discourses or Sermons.  
A Letter to Evagrius.  
A Letter to Nectarius.  
Letters to Cledonius, Entitled, Discourse 51st. and 52d.  
Several Poems.  
A Discourse in Latin concerning Bishops.  
242 Letters.  
His Last Will and Testament.   

Supposititious BOOKS.  
The 47th. 48th. 49th. and 50th. Discourses.  
The Paraphrase upon Ecclesiastes.     

St. GREGORY NYSSEN.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
A Treatise upon the Creation of the World.  
A Treatise of the Formation of the World.  
A treatise concerning the Witch of Endor.  
A Book of the Life of Moses.  
Two Treatises upon the Inscriptions of the Psalms.  
A Homily upon the Sixth Psalm.  
Homilies upon Ecclesiastes and the Canticles.  
Twelve Books against Eunomius.  
The greater Catechism.  
A Treatise concerning Faith, addressed to Simplicius.  
A Discourse upon the Great Abraham, or of the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost.  
A Treatise on the Trinity to Ablabius.  
A Treatise to Eustathius.  
A Treatise of the Difference between the Nature and Hypostasis.  
A Treatise of common Notions.  
Two little Treatises against Apollinarius.  
A Treatise against the Manichees.  
A Treatise of the Soul.  
Another Treatise of the Soul and of the Resurrection.  
A Treatise to Jerius of untimely Death of Children.  
A Treatise of Virginity.  
Sermons upon several Subjects, whereof see the Catalogue, p. 179.  
Funeral Orations and Panegyrics.  
A Canonical Epistle to Letoius.  
Letter to Olympius.  
Letter concerning the Profession of a Christian.  
A Treatise of the End that a Christian ought to propose to himself.  
A Letter concerning Pilgrimages.  
A Letter to Flavianus.   

BOOKS Lost.  
Commentaries upon the Proverbs, and an entire Commentary upon Ecclesiastes.  
Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul.  
Some other Books whereof we have no Knowledge.   

Supposititious BOOKS.  
A Latin Treatise containing the Passages in the Old Testament to prove the Divinity.  
A Book of Philosophy written by Nemesius.     

St. CAESARIUS. Supposititious BOOKS.  
Dialogues upon several Questions in Divinity.   

St. AMPHILOCHIUS.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
A Synodical Letter, published by Cotelerius.  
Several Fragments quoted by Theodoret in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and by several Authors.   

BOOKS Lost.  
Several Homilies upon the Scripture.  
Some Letters.   

Supposititious BOOKS.  
Eight Sermons published by F. Combesis.  
The Life of St. Basil.     

MAXIMUS. BOOK Lost.  
A Treatise concerning Faith.   

EUSEBIUS VERCELLENSIS.  


Genuine BOOK still Extant.  
Three Letters.   

BOOK Lost.  
A Translation of Eusebius' Commentary on the Psalms.     

MELETIUS. Genuine BOOK still Extant.  
A Homily upon these Words in the Proverbs, God hath Created me, etc. quoted by St. Epiphanius, Haeres. 73.   

DIODORUS of Tarsus. BOOKS Lost.  
A Treatise of Destiny.  
A Treatise of the Holy Ghost.  
A Treatise against Heretics.  
Commentaries upon several Books of the H. Scripture.  
A Treatise against the Jews, and against the Melchisedechians.  
Treatises of the Trinity, of the Resurrection, of the Soul, and of Providence.  
A Tract to Euphronius against Aristotle.   

HILARY the Deacon. BOOKS attributed to him.  
Commentaries upon St. Paul, which carry the Name of St. Ambrose.  
Questions upon the Old and New Testament which bear St Augustin's Name.   

PRISCILLIAN. BOOKS Lost.  
Some little Discourses.   

MATRONIANUS. BOOKS Lost.  
Some Pieces in Verse.   

TIBERIANUS. BOOK Lost.  
His Apology.   

DICTINIUS. BOOKS Lost.  
Some little Treatises.   

ITHACIUS.  


BOOK Lost.  
A Treatise in form of an Apology against the Priscillianists.   

Supposititious BOOK.  
A Book against Varimadus.     

FAUSTINUS. Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
Seven Books against the Arians and the Macedonians, falsely attributed to Gregory of Boetica.  
His Petition to the Emperor's Valentinian and Theodosius.   

PHILASTRIUS. Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
A Treatise of Heresies.   

TIMOTHY of Alexandria.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
Canonical Responses.   

BOOK Lost.  
A Letter to Diodorus.     

NECTARIUS. Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
A Homily upon the Holy Martyr Theodorus.   

GELASIUS of Caesarea. BOOKS Lost.  
A Continuation of the History of Eusebius.  
Some Homilies and Treatises.   

SIRICIUS. Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
A Letter to Himerius.  
The Second and Third Letter to the same.  
The Fifth to Anysius.  
The Fourth is dubious.   

SABINUS. BOOKS Lost.  
A History of the Councils, or a Collection of their Acts.   

AMBROSE of Alexandria. BOOKS Lost.  
A Dogmatical Treatise against Apollinarius.  
A Commentary upon Job.   

THEOTIMUS. BOOKS Lost.  
Short and Sententious Tracts in form of Dialogues.   

EVAGRIUS of Antioch. BOOKS Lost.  
Treatises, of which we know nothing.   

St. AMBROSE.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
A Treatise of the Creation of the World, composed of Nine Sermons, and divided into Six Books.  
Upon the Terrestrial Paradise.  
Upon the History of Cain and Abel; divided into 2 Books.  
Of the Ark and of the Life of Noah; not perfect.  
Two Books upon the Life of Abraham.  
A Treatise of Isaac and the Soul.  
A Treatise of the Benefits or Advantages of Death.  
A Treatise of forsaking the World.  
Two Books of Jacob, and a happy Life.  
A Discourse of the Life of the Patriarch Joseph.  
A Discourse upon the Benedictions of the Patriarches.  
The Book of Elias, and of Fasting.  
A Treatise of Naboth and the Poor.  
A Treatise upon Tobit.  
Four Books concerning the Intercession or the Complaints of Job and David.  
The first Apology for David.  
An Explication of Twelve Psalms, viz. Psal. 1. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40. 43. 45. 47, 48. 61.  
A Book upon Psalm 119.  
A Commentary upon the Gospel of St. Luke, divided into Ten Parts.  
Three Books of the Offices of Ministers.  
Three Books concerning Virgins, to Marcellina.  
A Treatise concerning Widows.  
A Treatise of Virginity.  
A Discourse of the perpetual Virginity of Mary.  
An Exhortation to Virginity.  
A Book of Mysteries.  
Two Books of Pennance.  
Five Books concerning Faith, or of the Trinity.  
Three Books of the Holy Spirit.  
A Treatise of the Incarnation.  
Ninety two Letters.  
Funeral Orations upon Valentinian and Theodosius.  
Hymns for the Office and upon the Six Days of the Creation.   

BOOKS Lost.  
Part of the Treatise of the Ark and of Noah.  
A Treatise upon the Incarnation, whereof Theodoret quotes a Fragment.  
A Treatise upon the Sacraments, and of Philosophy.  
A Commentary upon Isaiah.  
Instruction to Fritigildis.  
Another Instruction to Pansophius.  
Cassiodorus mentions some Homilies upon the Book of Wisdom, a Commentary upon all the Prophets, and a Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul.  
A Commentary upon all the Psalms according to Trithemius.   

Supposititious WORKS.  
A Second Apology for David.  
Commentaries upon the Canticles.  
A Treatise of the Fall of a Virgin consecrated to God.  
Several Hymns upon Festivals.  
All his Sermons upon the Year and upon the Feasts.  
A Discourse upon the Dignity of Humane Nature.  
A Sermon upon the Forbidden Fruit.  
The Treatise of the Forty two Mansions or Encampments of the Children of Israel.  
A Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul.  
A Commentary upon the Apocalypse.  
The Harmony of the Evangelists St. Matthew and St. Luke concerning the Genealogy of our Saviour.  
A Treatise upon the Creed.  
A Discourse of the Divinity of the Son.  
A Treatise entitled, Of the Mystery of Easter.  
A Discourse to a Virgin consecrated to God.  
A Discourse of the Vocation of the Gentiles.  
An Epistle to Demetrias.  
The 29. 34, 35. and 55. Letters.  
The preparatory Prayers for saying of Mass.  
The Book of the Combat between Virtues and Vices.  
The Exposition of Faith.  
A Treatise of the Holy Spirit.  
A Book of Penance.  
A History of the Life and Manners of the brahmin's.     

St. EPIPHANIUS. Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
The Book against Heresies, Entitled, Panarium.  
The Recapitulation or Abridgement of his Book of Heresies.  
A Discourse of Faith entitled, Anchoratus.  
A Treatise of Weights and Measures.  
The Physiologus.  
A Treatise of the Twelve precious Stones.  
A Book of the Life and Death of the Prophets.  
A Letter to St. John of Jerusalem.  
Nine Sermons, dubious.   

PHILO CARPATHIUS, Supposititious BOOK.  
A Commentary upon the Canticles.   

Q. JULIUS HILARION, Genuine BOOK still Extant.  
A Chronicon or a Treatise of the duration of the World,    

A TABLE of the Acts, Professions of Faith, and Canons of the Councils mentioned in this Volume.  
Councils. Years held in. Acts, Professions of Faith, and Canons. OF Sinuessa. 303 Supposititious Acts. Of Cirtha. 305 Acts in St. Augustin. Of Alexandria. 306  Of Elvira. 306 81 Canons. Of Carthage. 307 Fragments of its Acts in Optatus and St. Augustin. Of Rome. 313 Some Fragments of its Acts in Optatus. Of Arles. 314 22 Canons, and a Letter to St. Sylvester. Of Ancyra. 314 25 Canons. Of Neocaesarea. 314 15 Canons. Of Alexandria. 322  Of Bythinia. 323  Of Alexandria. 324  Of Nice. 325 A Profession of Faith, a Decree concerning Easter. Of Antioch. 330 25 Canons and a Letter to the Egyptians. Of Caesarea. 334  Of Tyre. 335  Of Jerusalem. 335 A Synodical Letter in Favour of Arius. Of Constantinople. 336  Another of Constantinople. 338  Of Alexandria. 340 A Synodical Letter in Favour of St. Athanasius. Of Rome. 341 A Letter written by Pope Julius in the Name of the Council in 342. Of Antioch. 342 Three Professions of Faith and 25 Canons. Another of Antioch. 345  Of Milan. 346 A Profession of Faith. Of Cologne. 346 Supposititious Acts. Of Sardica. 347 20 Canons, Two Synodical Letters; one by the Bishops of the West, another by those of the East, and a Profession of Faith made by some Bishops. Of Sirmium, I. 349  Of Sirmium, II. 357 A long Profession of Faith. Of Arles. 353  Of Milan. 355 Doubtful Acts, taken out of the Life of Eusebius Vercellensis. Of Beziers. 356  Of Sirmium, III. 357 A Second Profession of Faith. Of Antioch. 358 A Letter to Ursacius and Valens. Of Ancyra. 358 A Synodical Letter, a Profession of Faith, and 18 Anathematisms. Of Sirmium, IU. 358 A Collection of Prefessions of Faith. Of Sirmium, V. 359 A Profession of Faith, with the Names of the Consuls. Of Ariminum. 359 A Catholic Definition, a Condemnation of Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius: A Letter to the Emperor before his Subscription to the Profession of Faith of the East; a Letter to the Emperor after his Subscription. Of Seleucia. 359  Of Constantinople. 360  Of Melitine. 357 A Profession of Faith. Of Antioch. 361 A Letter to the Catholics of Antioch, written by St. Athanasius. Of Alexandria. 362  Of Paris. 362 A Letter of this Council. Of Italy. 362 A Letter to the Bishops of Illyricum. Of the Egyptian Bishops at Antioch. 363 A Letter to Jovian. Of Antioch. 363 A Letter containing a Profession of Faith. Of Lampsacus. 365  Of Singidunum. 366 Letter to Germinius. Of Illyricum. 366 A Synodical Letter confirmed by an Edict of the Emperor. Of Asia. 366  Of Sicily. 365  Of Tyana. 368  Of Gangra. 370 A Letter and 20 Canons. Of Laodicea. 370 60 Canons. Of Rome under Damasus. 360, and 370  Of Rome against Ursicinus. 372 A Letter to the Bishops of Illyricum. Of Valence. 372 A Synodical Letter and four Canons. Of Antioch. 378 A Profession of Faith called The Tome of the Western Church, signed in this Council. Of Constantinople. 381, 382, 383 A Profession of Faith and 7 Canons. Of Aquileia. 381 Acts of the Council, a Letter to the Bishops of the East. Of Saragossa. 381 8 Canons. Of Sida. 383  Of Bourdeaux. 384  Of Capua. 390  Of Rome and Milan. 390  Of Sangarus. 390  Of Carthage, I. 348 14 Canons. Of Carthage, II. 390 23 Canons. Of Cabarsussa & Bagaïs'. 394 Acts in St. Augustine. Of Hippo. 393 The Canons are in the Council of Carthage of the Year 397. Of Carthage. 394 47 Canons. Of Carthage. 397 105 Canons. Of Carthage, IU. 398  Of Carthage. 399  Of Carthage. 401 28 Canons. Of Constantinople. 394 Acts. Of Alexandria. 399 Fragment of its Acts in the Epistle to Menna. Of Cyprus. 399  Of Turin. 400 8 Canons. Of Toledo. 400 21 Canons.   

A TABLE of all the Genuine extant Writings of the Ecclesiastical Authors, according to the Order of their Arguments, that are mentioned in this Volume.  

Treatises in Defence of the Christian Religion against the Pagans and Jews.  
A Treatise of Eusebius against Hierocles.  
The Books of the Evangelical Preparation and Demonstration by the same Author.  
An Oration of Constantine to the Assembly of the Saints.  
A Treatise of St. Athanasius against the Gentiles.  
St. Gregory Nazianzen's Third and Fourth Discourse against Julian.  
St. Ambrose's 17, 18. 40. and 58 Letters.  
The first Part of the Books of Philastrius and St. Epiphanius concerning Heresies.   

Books against Heretics.  
Eusebius' Book against Marcellus of Ancyra.  
St. Athanasius' Treatise against the Arians. See the Catalogue of the Historical and Dogmatical Books.  
Serapion's Treatise against the Manichees.  
St. Hilary's against the Arians.  
Lucifer's Books against Constantius and against the Arians.  
Victorinus against Arius.  
— against the Manichees.  
St. Pacianus' Letters against the Novatians.  
Optatus' Book against the Donatists.  
Titus of Bostra against the Maniebees.  
A Fragment of Didymus' against the same Heretics.  
St. Basil's Book against Eunomius, and other Dogmatical Treatises of his.  
St. Gregory Nazianzen's Discourse of Theology.  
— other Discourses of his.  
— Two Letters to Cledonius against Apollinarius, and several other Dogmatical Treatises against the Arians.  
— A Discourse against the Manichees.  
Meletius' Homily and Profession of Faith.  
Faustinus' Book against the Arians and Macedonians.  
St. Ambrose's Book of the Trinity and of the Holy Ghost.  
— Two Books of Penance against the Novatians.  
Philastrius and St. Epiphanius' Treatises against all Heresies.  
Discourses upon the Articles of Faith in general.  
St. Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Letters.  
The great Catechism or Instruction of Gregory Nyssen.  
St. Epiphanius' Book against all Heresies.  
— His Anchoratus.   

Upon the Trinity.  
Eusebius' Books of Divinity against Marcellus of Ancyra.  
— His Letters to the Church of Caesarea.  
Alexander's Letter against Arius.  
St. Athanasius' Discourses upon the Trinity.  
— Four Treatises against the Arians.  
— Homilies upon these Words: My Father hath given all things, etc.  
— Letter to Serapion.  
— Exposition of Faith.  
— Letter to Maximus.  
— Treatise against the Sabellians.  
— Short Treatise against the Arians.  
St. Hilary's Twelve Books of the Trinity.  
— against Auxentius.  
Lucifer's Books.  
Victorinus against Arius and his Tract concerning the Word, Consubstantial.  
— His Hymns upon the Trinity.  
Phaebadius his Discourse against the Second Sirmian Creed.  
George of Laodicea's Circular Letter.  
Didymus' Treatise upon the Holy Ghost, Translated into Latin by S. Jerome.  
Damasus' Anathematism and Letter.  
St. Basil's Dogmatical Letters; particularly the 41st. 63d. 64th. 65th. 74th. 78th. 141st. 203d. 204th. 325th. 343d. 344th, 387th. 399th. and 401st.  
— Five Books against Eunomius.  
— A Discourse concerning the Holy Ghost to Amphilochius.  
— Homilies 9th. 12th. 15th. 16th. 17th. 25th. 27th. 29th. 31st. upon different Subjects.  
St. Gregory Nazianzen's Discourses 25th. 31st. 32d. 33d. 34th. 35th. 36th. and 45th.  
St. Gregory Nyssen's Twelve Books against Eunomius.  
— A Treatise concerning the Faith addressed to Simplicius.  
— A Treatise of the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.  
— A Treatise to Eustathius.  
— Of Notions.  
St. Amphilochius' Synodical Letter.  
Meletius' Homily and Profession of Faith.  
Faustinus' Seven Books against the Arians.  
Creeds and Professions of Faith of the Councils.  
St. Ambrose's Five Books concerning the Trinity.  
— His Three Books concerning the Holy Ghost.  
— His 9th. and 42d. Letters.   

Upon the Incarnation.  
St. Athanasius' Treatises.  
— His Treatise of the Incarnation.  
— Epistle to Adelphius.  
— Treatise of the Union of the humane Nature with the Word.  
— Two Treatises of the Incarnation against Apollinarius.  
— Letter to Epictetus.  
St. Gregory Nazianzen's 46th. Discourse and the Two Letters to Cledonius which are entitled the 51st. and 52d. Discourses.  
St. Gregory Nyssen's two little Treatises against Apollinarius.  
— Sermon upon the Nativity.  
St. Ambrose's Treatise upon the Incarnation.   

Miscellanies.  
St. Optatus against the Donatists.  
St. Gregory Nyssen concerning the Soul.  
— Another Treatise of the Soul, and of the Resurrection.  
— Of Destiny.  
— Of the Death of Infants.  
Siricius' Five Letters.  
St. Ambrose's Discourse of perpetual Virginity.  
— Two Letters concerning Penance.   

Upon the Discipline of the Church.  
Constantine's Letters and Edicts.  
Peter of Alexandria's Canons concerning Penance.  
St. Athanasius' Letters to Dracontius and Ammon.  
St. Pacianus' Letters, and his Treatises of Baptism.  
Optatus' Books against the Donatists.  
St. Cyril's Five Mystagogical Letters and some of the others.  
The greatest part of St. Basil's Letters, and chief the Canonical Letters to Amphilochius, and the 63d. 79th. 190th. 191st. 192d. 196th. 244th. 289th. 304th. 305th. 340th. 381st. 391st. 408th. 410th. 412th. 413th. 417th.  
St. Basil's Two Books of Baptism.  
— A Treatise of Virginity.  
— The End of his Book concerning the Holy Ghost to Amphilochius.  
St. Gregory Nazianzen's Discourses 31st. 39th. and 40th.  
St. Gregory Nyssen's Treatise concerning Virginity.  
— Canonical Epistle to Letoius.  
— Letter concerning Pilgrimages.  
Siricius' 2d. 3d. and 4th. Letters.  
St. Epiphanius' Letter to St. John of Jerusalem.  
St. Ambrose's Book of Mysteries.  
— Three Books of Virgins.  
— Exhortation to Virginity.  
— Treatise concerning Widows.  
— Two Books of Penance.  
— Treatise of Elias, and of Fasting.  
— Letters 2d. 5th. 6th. 19th. 23d. 25th. 26. 56th. 57th. 61st. 62d. 64th. 79th. 82d.  
Canons of the Councils.   

Books of Morality and Piety.  
Constantine's Prayer.  
St. Athanasius' Letters to Dracontius and Ammon.  
— Homily upon the Sabbath and the Circumcision.  
The Life of St. Anthony.  
St. Anthony's Letters.  
— His Rule.  
St. Pachomius his Letters, Rules and Precepts.  
Oresiesis of the Institution of Monks.  
Theodorus' Letter.  
Homilies, Tracts and Rules of the Macarii.  
All St. Ephrem's Works  
Several Letters of St. Basil, and chief the Four first which are not of the Number of the other Letters, and the 1st. 19th. 165th. 166th. 184th. 302d. 383d. 411th.  
— Treatises concerning a Monastic Life.  
— Of Judgement and of Faith.  
— Greater and Lesser Rules.  
— Book of a Monastic Life.  
— Constitutions, and a Treatise of the Chastisements of Monks.  
— Three Homilies of Fasting.  
— Homilies 3d. 4th. 6th. 7th. 8th. 10th. 11th. 12th. 13th. 15th. 21st. 22d. 23d. and 24th.  
— Panegyrics upon St. Julitta, St. Gordus, and St. Mamas and Barlaam.  
The greatest Part of St. Gregory Nazianzen's Sermons, and all his Poems.  
— Discourse concerning Bishops.  
St. Gregory Nyssen concerning Prayer.  
— Most of his Sermons and Panegyrics.  
— Discourse concerning Virginity.  
— Letter to Olympius.  
— Treatises of the Profession, and of the End of a Christian.  
— Letters concerning Pilgrimages.  
Nectarius' Homily upon the Martyrdom of Theodorus.  
St. Ambrose's Books of Offices.  
— Books of Virgins and Widows.  
— Of Penance.  
— The greatest part of his Discourses upon the Holy Scripture, and chief that of Naboth concerning Riches, and that of Tobit upon Usury.  
— His 37th. and 38th. Letters.    

COMMENTARIES AND DISCOURSES Upon the Holy Scripture.  

Books of Criticism.  
Eusebius' Treatise of the Places in the Holy Land.  
— Evangelical Canons and Letter to Carpianus.  
Eustathius of Antioch's Discourse of the Pythoniss, or Witch of Endor.  
St. Gregory Nyssen's Treatise on the same Subject.  
Fragment of St. Athanasius' Festival Epistle.  
St. Athanasius' Abridgement of the Scriptures.  
— Book to Marcellinus upon the Psalms.  
St. Gregory Nyssen's Treatise upon the Inscriptions of the Psalms.  
Questions upon the Old and New Testament, believed to be written by Hilary the Deacon.  
St. Ambrose's Preface upon St. Luke.  
St. Epiphanius of Weights and Measures.  
— Physiologus.  
— Of the Twelve Precious Stones on the Breast of the Highpriest.  
— Of the Life and Death of the Prophets.   

Upon the Old Testament.  
Victorinus' Tract upon the beginning of Day.  
St. Basil's Commentary upon the beginning of Genesis.  
— Two Homilies upon the Creation of Man.  
— A Homily upon Paradise.  
St. Gregory Nyssen of the Creation of the World.  
— Of the Formation of Man.  
— Of the Life of Moses.  
St. Hilary's Commentary upon the Psalms.  
Translation of the Psalms in Verse, by Apollinarius.  
Twenty Two Homilies of St. Basil upon the Psalms.  
St. Gregory Nyssen's Homily on the fifth Psalm.  
St. Basil's Homily upon the sixth Chapter of Proverbs.  
— Commentary upon the sixteen first Chapters of Isaiah.  
St. Gregory Nyssen's Homily upon Ecclesiastes and the Canticles.  
Victorinus' Poem upon the Maccabees.  
St. Ambrose's Treatise of the Creation of the World, and the rest that follow in the First Volume of his Works.   

Upon the New Testament.  
Juvencus' Paraphrase of the Gospels in Verse.  
St. Hilary's Commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel.  
St. Gregory Nyssen upon the Lord's Prayer, and upon the Beatitudes.  
St. Athanasius upon these Words of our Saviour, Whoever shall blaspheme, etc.  
— Fragments upon these Words of our Saviour, My Soul is heavy even unto Death, etc.  
Commentaries upon all the Epistles of St. Paul, attributed to St. Ambrose, but believed to belong to Hilary the Deacon.  
St. Gregory Nyssen's Homily upon the fifteenth Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians.  
Didymus' Commentary upon the Canonical Epistles.  
St. Ambrose's Commentary upon St. Luke's Gospel.  
— Letters 7th. 8th. 27th. and the five following, also 43d. 44th. 50th. 65th. and the nine following.   

Historical Discourses.  
Eusebius' Apology for Origen.  
— Chronicon.  
— Ecclesiastical History.  
— Treatise concerning the Martyrs of Palestine.  
— Books of the Life of Constantine.  
— Of the Names of Places in the Holy Land.  
— Panegyric upon Constantine.  
Constantine's Letters and Edicts.  
— Harangue to the Council of Nice.  
Juvencus' Poem of the Life of Jesus Christ.  
St. Athanasius' Historical Treatises.  
— Apologetic to Constantius.  
— Letters to the Egyptians, and to the Orthodox.  
— First Apology.  
— Second Apology.  
— Historical Treatise to those that lead a Monastic Life.  
— Letter to Serapion, upon the death of Arius.  
— Discourse of Synods.  
— Letters of Lucifer.  
— Letters to the Bishops of Egypt Arabia, etc.  
— Letters of the Council of Alexandria.  
— Letter to Jovian.  
— Letter to the Africans.  
— Letter to John and Antiochus.  
— Letter concerning the Opinion of Dionysius of Alexandria.  
— Letter concerning the Decision of the Council of Nice.  
— Epistle to Palladius.  
— Conference with the Arians.  
— Life of St. Anthony.  
Hosius' Letter to Constantius.  
Julius' Letter to the Eastern and Egyptian Bishops.  
Liberius' Letters.  
St. Hilary's Treatise of Synods.  
— Discourses to Constantius.  
— Fragments.  
— Conference against Auxentius.  
Peter of Alexandria II. his Letters.  
St. Cyril's Letter upon the Apparition of the Cross.  
Damasus' Letters.  
The greatest part of the Letters of St. Basil.  
St. Gregory Nazianzen's Discourses 7th. 25th. 26th. 30th. 41st. and some others.  
— His Panegyrics, which are Sermons 6th. 10th. 11th. 18th. 19th. 20th. 22d. 23d. and 24th.  
— First Poem upon his Life.  
— Discourse upon Bishops.  
— His Testament.  
St. Gregory Nyssen's Funeral Orations and Panegyrics.  
— Letter to Flavianus.  
Eusebius Vercellensis his Three Letters.  
Marcellinus and Faustinus, Luciferians, their Petition addressed to the Emperor's Valentinian and Theodosius.  
St. Ambrose's Letters 20th. 22d. and 24th.  
— Panegyric on Theodosius and Valentinian.  
Philastrius of Heresies.  
St. Epiphanius of Heresies.  
— An Abridgement of it by himself.  
— His History of the Lives and Deaths of the Prophets.  
Hilarion's Chronicle.    

A General INDEX of the Principal Matters contained in the Second Volume.  
The Figures show the Pages, and the Small Letters the Notes.  

A.  
ABstinence from Meats. Usage and Usefulness of it. III. Fasting consists not in abstaining from Meats, 150.  
Acacius of Caesarea, succeeds Eusebius, 97. His Doctrine and Writings, ibid. Difference with St. Cyril, ibid. Death, ibid.  
Achillas Bishop of Alexandria, 27.  
Acesius a Novatian Bishop, 253.  
Adultery. Canons against Adulterers, and against other Sins of uncleanness, 140, 141, etc. 196.  
Adrian, Pope. Upon what occasion he implored the Succour of Charlemaigne, 19  
Aetius. History of his Life, and of his Condemnation, 98, 99 Death, 99  
Africanus' Chronicon 5.  
Agapae. Feasts of Charity, 268, 269.  
Agapetus Pope, sent by Theodatus to the Emperor Justinian,— 18.  
Agapius Bishop of Caesarea, 2.  
Agapius Bishop of Bostra. Difference with Bagadius for that Bishopric, 285.  
St. Agnes, 207, 209.  
Alexander Bishop of Alexandria. Ordination, 27. Assembles a Council at Alexandria against Arius, ibid. Letter to his Colleagues, ibid. Another Letter of this Bishop, ibid. Advertisement or Pastoral Letter, ibid. Assists in the Council of Nice, 28. Death, ibid.  
Alexandria. Council of Alexandria of the Year 306. under Peter Bishop of that City, 242. Council in 323 against Arius, 250. Another Council against Arius, in 324, ibid. Another in 362 to Determine how the Arians that desired to be reunited to the Church, should be received, 265. Another in 341, in favour of St. Athanasius, 255. Council of Alexandria in the Year 399, where the Books of Origen were condemned, 284.  
Alipius, Priest of Alexandria, defends St. Athanasius before Constantine, 29.  
Alms. Effects and Necessity of Alms-Deeds, 151. 181. Exhortation to it, 166. Not to be done to Persons unworthy, 207  
Alms of Constantine, 12. 15.  
Ambrose of Alexandria. His Writings, 196.  
St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan, 198. Time and Place of his Birth, ibid. and a. b. Parents, 198. Prodigy at his Birth, ibid. 199. Education and Studies, ibid. Elected Governor, ibid. And after Bishop 200. Avoided being Bishop, ibid. At last Ordained, ibid. and c.— acquits himself worthily in the Function of the Ministry, ibid. Persecuted by Justina, ibid. and 201. Writings ibid. 202, etc. Stile, 232— Editions of his Works, 233.  
St. Amphilochius. His Country, 184. Ordained Bishop of Iconium, ibid. Assists in the Council of Constantinople, and holds one at Sida against the Massilians, ibid. Handsome reply to the Emperor Theodosius, ibid. Writings 185.  
Ancyra. Council there in 314. 248. Its Canons, ibid. 249. Another Council in 358 against Aëtius, 263.  
Anger. Contrary to the Spirit of Christianity, 153.  
Angels. Not to be adored, 5.  
Antioch. A pretended Council held there in 330 against Eustathius, 254. Councils of Antioch in the Years 341, and 342. Upon what Subject, 256. Another in 345. 258. Another in 358. which condemned the Terms Consubstantial and of like Substance, 263.— Synod in 361. Constantius' Order, 265. Another Council there in 363 under Meletius, 266. Another in 378. to restore Peace in that Church, 271.  
St. Anthony, Instituter of the Monastic Life. Time and Place of his Birth, 53. His Parents, ibid. In what Time and in what Country he began to Build Monasteries, 54. He came to Alexandria during the Persecution of Maximinus, and why afterwards returned to his Monastery, 53. His Miracles, ibid. His Death, 54. The Author of his Life, 35. 54. Books attributed to him, ibid.  
The Apollinarii. Their Life, 100 a. b. Knowledge and Writings, 100, 101. c. Doctrine and Errors, 101. Condemnation of Apollinarius and his Followers, ibid. His Genius, 102, 103. Loss of his Writings, 102. Edition of his Books, ibid.  
Apollonius Tyanaeus, by whom compared with Jesus Christ, 6.  
Apra, Daughter of St. Hilary, 64.  
Aquileia. Council of Aquileia, 221. and ᵈ 273.  
Arius, Priest of Alexandria. Discovers his Opinions in the Council of Nice, 2. His Principal Errors, 7. Condemnation of his Heresy by Alexander, 27. St. Athanasius opposes him in the Council of Nice, 28. Who joined with him, 2. His Death, 13. Councils held upon occasion of his Heresy, 250.  
Ariminum. Synod there in 359. History of It, 263, 264.  
Arles. Council there under Constantine against the Donatists, 12. Another Council in 314. 247. & a. b.— Canons of that Council, ibid. and 248. Another upon occasion of St. Athanasius, 262.  
Arnaud de Pontac. Edition of St. Jerom's Version of Eusebius' Chronicon, 5.  
Arsenius. A Meletian Bishop, 29. Assemblies of the Faithful upon what Accounts permitted, 2.  
Asterius. Why, and by whom put among the Ecclesiastical Writers, 52. His Writings, ibid. Not Bishop of Amasea, ibid.  
Astolphus, Brother to Rachisius' King of the Lombard's, takes Ravenna, 19 Demands Peace of Pepin, and breaks it soon after, ibid. Besieges Rome, ibid.  
Athalaricus and Theodatus, maintain themselves in the Possession of Rome, 18. They are driven from thence by Belisarius, ibid.  
St. Athanasius. His Country, 28. a. His Parents unknown, ibid. b. The Baptism he is said to confer upon some Children, esteemed a Fable, ibid. d. He accompanies Alexander to the Council of Nice when he was but a Deacon, ibid. His Promotion to the Bishopric of Alexandria, ibid. and e. Endeavours of the Arians to drive him thence, ibid. The Bishops that favoured Arius, accuse him of having imposed a new Tribute upon the Egyptians, and of conspiring against the Life of the Emperor, who notwithstanding, declares him Innocent, 29. Accused again of Murdering Arsenius, ibid. Called to the Council of Caesarea, but appears not, and why. Cited to that of Tyre, he appears, ibid. His Accusation by a lewd Woman, fabulous, ibid. Retires from the Council, and is deposed, ibid. Another Accusation against St. Athanasius, ibid. He is banished to Triers, and recalled by Constantine's Son, ibid. and 30. h. New Accusations against this Saint, 30.— He retires to Rome and is well received by Pope Julius, ibid. Is justified in a Council held at Rome, ibid. Is absolved by the Council of Sardica, and recalled in 348. 31. Letters and Edicts to abrogate all that had been done against St. Athanasius, ibid. Reenters his Diocese, where he is favourably received, ibid. A Report spread against him, ibid. He flies to the Desert, ibid. Where he composed several Books, ibid. Being returned from the Desert, lie assembled a Council at Alexandria, and why, ibid. Flies again to the other side of the Nile, 32. Goes to Antioch to meet the Emperor Jovian, where he held a Synod, What was done in it, ibid. His Death, ibid. His Works, 32, 33, 34, etc. Abridgement of his Works, 39, 40, etc. His Genius, Stile and Doctrine, 46, 47, 48. Editions of his Works, 48. His Funeral Oration, 167. Synods for and against St. Athanasius, 254, 255.  
Auxentius, an Arian Bishop, 201.   

B.  
BAptism. Necessity and Effects of Baptism, 84, 85. 109. 170. 178. It is not lawful to Repeat it when conferred in the Name of the Trinity. 93. 96. Effects of Baptism, 47. 93. Dispositions necessary to the well Receiving it, 109. The Ceremonies of Baptism, 113. 171. The Receiving of Baptism not to be deferred, 154, 155. 171. The Ministers of Baptism, 88, 89. The Baptism of Heretics, 88, 89. 96. 140. 143.  
Barbarians. When and how they made themselves Masters of Italy and Rome, 18.  
St. Barlaam. His Panegyric, 156.  
Basil of Ancyra. His Life and Doctrine, 59 Book against Marcellus of Ancyra, ibid.  
St. Basil Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Names of his Father and Mother, 122. By whom brought up, ibid. His Life, ibid. and 123. His Qualities and Episcopal Actions, ibid. etc. His Death, 124. His Funeral Oration, 167. A Chronological Catalogue and an Abridgement of his Letters, 124, and to 143. His other Writings, 144, etc. to 157. His Character, 157. Judgement on, and Abridgement of his Doctrine, 157, 158. Editions of his Works, 158. Names of the Translators of his Works. 159. Project for a new Edition of them, ibid.  
Belisarias a Roman Captain takes by force the City of Rome, 18.  
Beziers. Council there in 356.  
Bythinia. Pretended Council of Bythinia in 323, for Arius, 250.  
Bishops. Are above Priests, 96, 237. Qualities necessary in a Bishop, 48.  
Bourdeaux. Council there in 383. Against Instantius a Priscillianist, 275.  
Bruno. Bishop of Signi, 59 Writings attributed to him, ibid.  
Byzantium. By whom named Constantinople, 13.   

C.  
CAlaris. Metropolitan City of Sardinia, 79.  
Chalice. Respect due to Chalices wherein the Eucharist is Consecrated, 40. 94.  
Callinicus. A Melerian Bishop, 29.  
Capua. Council of Capua in 390. By whom held, and why, 275.  
Carthage. A pretended Council there in 311. where Caecilian is Elected Bishop of Carthage by Felix Bishop of Aptungiss, 245. I. Council of Carthage in 348. 275. It's History, ibid. and 276. II. In 390. ibid. Its Canons, ibid. and 277. Another Council of Carthage in 394. 277. Another in 397. Its Canons, 277, etc. Another in the Year 398. Called the Fourth, 280. History of this Council, ibid. Canons, 281. &c Another in the Year 399. 283. Another in 401. called the Fifth, ibid. Canons, ibid. and 284.  
Catechumens'. Distinction of different Sorts of Catechumen, 108. Dispositions requisite in Catechumen for receiving Baptism, 109.  
Caelibacy. More perfect than a Married State, 77. Canons against Persons in Orders who do not keep it, 141. 196, 197. 207. 243. 248.  
St. Caesarius. His Panegyric, 165. Life and Employment, 184. Not Author of the Dialogues attributed to him, ibid.  
Caesarea of Palestine. Synod held there in 334. Whither St. Athanasius was cited, but appeared not, 29. 254.  
Charlemaigne, or Charles the Great. Defeats Desiderius King of the Lombard's, and shuts him up in Pavia, 19 Surrenders to the Pope all the Cities which Pepin his Father had given him, ibid. Is made Patricius by Pope Adrian, ibid. In what time and by whom declared Emperor, ibid. His Treaty for the Division of Italy with the Grecian Emperor, ibid. The Successors of Charlemaigne have been Kings of Italy and Sovereigns of Rome, ibid.  
Charles Martel, More of the Palace, or General of France, 19  
Charles the Bald. Gives up to the Romans the Right of Sovereignty, 19 Suffragans how Ordained, 129, 130. Their Power, 249, 250. 257.  
Christian. The Name useless to those who lead a Life unworthy of a Christian, 142.  
Christophorson. Judgement upon his Translation of the Ecclesiastical History, 4.  
Church. Authority and Mark of the Catholic Church, 81, 82, 111. But one Catholic Church spread over the whole Earth, 90, 112. Principal Mark of that Church, 90, 91.  
Churches of the East. Divided upon occasion of that of Antioch, 123. 130. 130, 137, etc. 187, 188.  
Church of Rome. It's Authority, 90.  
Church's Principal, and their Rights.  
Church of Jerusalem. Establishment of their Dignity, 107. 252.  
Churches of Gaul. Difference for Primacy, 285.  
Circus. Canon against those which run in the Circus, 247.  
Ciriha, City of Numidia. 〈◊〉 there in 305. The Names of the Bishops that assisted in it, 241.  
Clergy. Canons concerning the Qualities, Life and Manners of Priests, Bishops and other Clerks; 141, 142, 143. 205. 207. 247, 248, 249, 250. 268. 270. 273. 276, 277. 280, 281. 284, 285, etc. Not subject to Public Penance, 26. 143. Immunities and Exemptions, 15, 16. Edicts of Constantine in their favour, ibid.  
Cologne. Council of Cologne in 346. against Euphratas, 258.  
Communion. How it ought to be Received, 114. Of Frequent Communion, 137.  
Confirmation. Given by the Bishop with the holy Chrism, conferrs the Holy Ghost, 85.  
Constantius Emperor of the East. 30. Causes Pope Liberius to be imprisoned, 18.  
Constantinople. Council there in 336, against Marcellus of Ancyra, 255. Another in 338, against Paul Bishop of that City, ibid. Another in 360. by the Acacians, 265.  
Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, 11. His Parents, ibid. Proclaimed Emperor by his Soldiers, ibid. Defeats the Tyrant Maxentius, ibid. Goes to Milan to Celebrate the Marriage of his Sister with Ljoinius, 12. Quarrels with him, ibid. His care for the Church and what belonged to it, ibid. Assembles a Council at Rome, ibid. Gives Judgement at Milan in favour of Caecilian against the Donatists, ibid. Declares War against Licinius, ibid. Makes Laws in favour of the Christians, and for the Celebration of the Lord's Day, ibid. Abrogates the Edicts of Licinius against the Christians, ibid. Labours to appease the Quarrel between Alexander and Arius, ibid. Assembles a Council of both the East and West at Nice, where he Assists. What passed there, ibid. What he did at Jerusalem, 13. His Zeal for the Christian Religion, ibid. Unblamable if he had not Favoured the Bishops of Arius' Party against St. Athanasius, ibid. He recalls to Tyre the Fathers of the Council of Jerusalem, and Why, ibid. Banishes St. Athanasius to Triers, ibid. His Baptism, ibid. In what Place and by whom, ibid. His Death, and how long he Reigned, 14. His Character, ibid. Is put among the Saints by the Greeks, 14. Account of his Speeches by Eusebius, 14, 15. Discourse upon the Feast of Easter, 15. Letters, ibid. and 16. Edicts in Favour of the Christian Religion, 16, 17. Suppositions donation, 17, etc.  
Constantius Chlorus. The only Emperor in the Tenth Persecution that did not persecute the Christians, 11. and a  
Constans Emperor, Protector of St. Athanasius, Died in 350. 31.  
Consubstantial. When and where that Word was first used, 2.  
Councils. History and Abridgement of the Councils held in the Fourth Century, 241, etc. to the end.  
Councils of Cabarsussa and Bagais in 393 and 394. 277.  
Councils of Constantinople. I. In 381. 271. II. In 382, ibid. III. In 383. 272. Another in the Year, 394. 285.  
Cousin Precedent. His French Translation of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, and his Judgement upon that Author, 4.  
Creed. Of the Creed of St. Cyril, 110.  
Cross. Sign of the Cross, 111. 115. Apparition of a Cross, 12, 115. Invention of the true Cross, 13.  
St. Cyprian the Martyr. His Character by St. Gregory Nazianzen, 166.  
Cyprus, Council of Cyprus in the Year 399, where the Books of Origen were Condemned, 285.  
St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Life and Ordination, 107. Judgements for and against him, ibid. 115. His Quarrel with Acacius, who Assembled a Council against him, in which he is Deposed, and upon what Pretence, 107. And is so again in the Council of Constantinople, ibid. His Successors, ibid. Catechetical Lectures justified, ibid. ᵈ, ᵉ, f. Letters attributed to him, 115. Judgement upon his Style and Doctrine, ibid. Different Editions of his Works, ibid.   

D.  
DAmasus Pope. His Ordination disturbed by Ursicinus, 120. His Genuine Letters 121. Supposititious Letters, 122. Poems and Epigrams. ibid. Editions of his Works. ibid. Council under Damasus, 270. Tom sent to the East by Damasus, 271.  
Deacons. Canons concerning them, 247. 248. 253. 257. 261. 269. 276. 278. 280. 284. 285.  
Dead. Prayer of the Church for the Dead, 8. 237. 238. 289.  
Dedication. Dedication or Consecration of a Church necessary before Celebration in it, 39, 40.  
Deposition. What is necessary for the Deposition of a Bishop, 285.  
Desiderius. King of the Lombard's invades the Exarchate of Ravenna, 19  
Destiny. Against Destiny, 6. 15. 179. 188. 206.  
Dianius. Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, enemy to St. Athanasius 122. 132.  
Dictinius. Errors and Writings of this Priscillianist, 191.  
Didymus of Alexandria. His profound Learning, 103. Catalogue of his Works. ibid. Abridgement of his Book of the Holy Ghost. ibid. etc. Excellency of that Book. 104. Commentaries upon the Canonical Epistles, 105. Treatise against the Manichees, ibid.  
Diodorus of Tarsus. His Life, 188. His Writings, ibid. His Doctrine, 125. 189.  
Dionysius of Alexandria. His Opinion upon the Trinity, 42.  
Discipline of the Church. Canons concerning the Discipline of the Church. 140, 141. 195, 196, 197. 242. etc. to 245. 247, 248, etc. 252, 256, etc. 260. 267, 268. 273. 276, etc. 280. 283, etc. Abridgement of the Discipline of the Church in the Fourth Century, 287, etc. to the end. Regulation of the Discipline of the Church. See the Extract of the Canons of the Councils, from p. 241. to the end.  
Diviners. Canons against those who pretend to Divination, 143. 249.  
Divine. Qualities necessary in a Divine, 170.  
Divinity of the Jews, by whom embraced, 5.  
Doctrine. Abridgement of the Doctrine of the Church in the Fourth Century, 287.  
Donatists. History of them, 12, etc. 15, etc. 241. 246. Refutation of their Error, 87, 88, etc. Convicted of delivering up the Scripture, and of making a Schism, 89, 90. Judgement given against them, 90, etc. Several Books against them, 93, 94, 95, 96.  
Donatus Bishop of Carthage, chief of the Donatists, not Bishop of Calama, 66. and a. Writ several little Treatises. ibid. and b  
Duties of Christians, and principally the Ecclesiastical, 205, etc.  
Drunkenness. A Discourse against this Vice, 153.   

E.  
EGypt. Council of the Bishops of Egypt in 363, held at Antioch, 266.  
Elvira. Council held in that City in the Year, 305. The time of this Council not certainly known, nor the Name of the City, 242. and a. b  
St. Ephrem the Syrian, Deacon of Edessa. Time of his Birth, Country and Life, 115. Writings justified, 116, etc. Catalogue of his Works, 118, etc. Their Editions, 120.  
St. Epiphanius. Time and Place of his Birth, 234. Education, ibid. Election to the Bishopric of Salamis, ibid. Quarrel with John of Jerusalem, ibid. Assembles a Council in the Island of Cyprus, ibid. Comes to Constantinople, ibid. Will not Communicate with St. Chrysostom, ibid. Eudoxia conjures him to pray for her sick Child, and his Answer, 235. His Death, 235. His Writings, ibid. etc. Doctrine, 236, 237. Style and Genius, 239. Editions of his Works, 240.  
Episcopacy. Monk's ought not to Refuse it when they are worthy, 44, 45. When they are to Refuse and when Accept it, 45. 160, 161. 200.  
Evagrius of Antioch. A Bishop of Paulinus' Party, 198. His Books upon different Subjects, ibid.  
Eucharist. Sacrilege to profane it, 91. 94. 115. 149. Sacrifice of the Eucharist, 96. 113, 114. Celebration of the Eucharist, and Ceremonies then used, 48. 96. 113, 114. To be taken fasting, 203.  
Eugenius the Tyrant. When defeated and killed, 230.  
Evil not a Substance, 59 Not a Nature incorruptible, and uncreate, 179.  
Eulalius and Boniface their Schism. By whom appeased, 18.  
Eunomius, Disciple of Aëtius. Country, 99 Life, Errors, Writings and Genius, ibid. Book of St. Basil written against him, ibid. St. Gregory Nyssen's Book against him, ibid.  
Eusebius of Caesarea. Country, 1. and b. Surname, 1. and a. By whom ordained Priest, 1. During the Persecution exhorts the Christians to suffer courageously for the Faith, and remains firm in it, 2e. Is suspected to have offered Incense to Idols, 1. Succeeds Agapius in the Bishopric of Caesarea, 2.— And protects Arius, ibid. Signs the Profession of Faith of the Council of Nice, 2. And in the mean time holds Correspondence with the Arians, ibid. Refuses the Bishopric of Antioch, ibid. Assists at the Councils of Antioch, Tyre and Constantinople, ibid. Makes a Panegyric in honour of Constantine, ibid. Death, ibid. Works, 2, 3. Account of his Ecclesiastical History, and other Works, 3, 4, 5, etc. to 9 His Judgement upon the Trinity, 6, 7. Upon the other Points of Religion, 7, 8. A Judgement upon some of the Works of this Author, 8. Of his Sermons, 8, 9 His Character, 9 Whether he be to be called a Saint, 10. and f. Different Editions of his Works, 10, 11.  
Eusebius of Nicomedia, 2. 9 22.  
Eusebius Vercellensis. His Country, 186. Assists at the Council of Milan, from whence he is sent into Exile; and at that of Alexandria, ibid. His Death, ibid. Called Confessor by the Ancients, ibid. Letters and Writings, ibid.  
Eustathius Bishop of Antioch. Country, 21. and a. Life, 21, 22. Assists at the Council of Nice, 21. and c. Unjustly deposed, 22. and ᵈ, ᵉ, ᶠ, ᵍ, Writings, 23, 24. and ᵏ, ˡ, ᵐ, n. Commentary upon the Biginning of Genesis falsely attributed to him, 24.  
Eustathius of Sebastea. Quarrels with St. Basil: His Frauds, 123, 124. 130. 135.  
Euzoïus, an Arian Author, 106. Different from the famous Arian, Euzoïus Bishop of Antioch, 106.  
Exarches established at Ravenna, 18.  
Excommunication. The ancient manner of it, 137.   

F.  
FAst. The Usefulness and Obligation of Fasting, 150. 181. 203. 243. 268. 369. Fast of Wednesday and Friday, 26. 226. 290. Fast of Lent, 48. 196. 226. Canons concerning Fasting, 26. 195. 268, 269. 282.  
Faustinus, a Luciferian. His Petition to the Emperors Valentinian and Theodosius, 192.  
Felix. Ordained Bishop of Rome, in the Place of Liberius, who was banished, not a lawful Pope, 61, 62. and a. Neither Saint, nor Martyr, ibid. 1. and b  
Flacillus Bishop of Antioch, 6.  
Fulradus Abbot of St. Denys. Received in the Name of Pepin the Exarchate of Ravenna, which he immediately restored to the Pope, 19   

G.  
GAlerius Emperor, 11.  
Galienus Emperor, 1. and c  
Gangra. Council of Gangra in 370. 267.  
St. Gaudentius, Successor to Philastrius, 193.  
Gelasius of Caesarea. Author of some Writings, 196.  
George of Laodicea. Driven from the Church by Alexander, engaged in the Party of Arius, and Author of some Books, 100  
George, Usurper of the Church of Alexandria, killed in a Popular Sedition, 31.  
St. Gervasius, and St. Protasius, 226.  
God. Of the Nature of God, 5. Of his Providence and Justice, 9, etc.  
St. Gordus, Martyr. His Panegyric, 155.  
St Gorgonia, Sister to St. Gregory Nazianzen. Her Panegyric, 165.  
Grace. What Opinion we ought to have concerning the Questions of Grace and Free Will, 58. Necessity of Grace, 119. 149. 154.  
Gregory III and Zachary, Popes. Demand Succours of Charles Martel, 19  
Gregory of Boetica. Life, Writings and Genius, 85.  
Gregory, Father of St. Gregory Nazianzen. Life and Conduct, 159. Funeral-Oration for him, 166.  
St. Gregory Nazianzen. Names of his Father and Mother, and Time of his Birth, 159. His Life, ibid., and c. Ordained Priest by his Father, afterwards Bishop by St. Basil, ibid. Abridgement of his Sermons, 160, etc. to 172. Subject of his Poems, 172, etc. to 175. Letters and Will, 175. Their Number, ibid. His Commendation, ibid. Editions of his Works, 175, and 176.  
St. Gregory Nyssen. Time of his Birth and Ordination, 176. Life, ibid. Writings, 177, etc. to 182. and ᶜ, ᵈ, e. His Character, 183. Editions of his Works, ibid. Persecutions he suffered from the Arians, 131. 135.   

H.  
HEliodorus, Priest. Book of his, concerning Principles, 53.  
Heraclius, Count Raises a Tumult in Alexandria, against Athanasius, 38.  
Heraclius. Ordained Bishop of Jerusalem, 107.  
Heremius. Ordained Bishop of Jerusalem, 107.  
Heretics. Constantine's Edicts against them, 17.  
Hierocles, Philosopher. His two Books against the Christian Religion, 2. 6.  
Hilary, Ordained Bishop of Jerusalem, 107.  
St. Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers. His Life, 64. etc. His Ordination, ibid. Banished by the Order of the Emperor Constantius, and why, ibid. Assists at the Council of Seleucia, ibid. and 65. His Writings, 65, 66. Dispute against Auxentius, ibid. Abridgement of his Books of the Trinity, 66, etc. And of his other Books, 69, etc. to 78. Judgement upon his Style, Genius and Doctrine, 79. Editions of his Works, ibid.  
Hilary the Deacon. His Life, 189. His Works, ibid.  
Q. Julius Hilarion, Author of a Chronicle,  
Hippo. Council of Hippo in 393. 277.  
Homicide. Canons against it, 140, 141, 143, 143. 182.  
Hosius Bishop of Corduba. In what Time he generously confessed the Faith: When? 50. The Donatists falsely calumniate him, ibid. Why sent by constantine to Egypt, ibid. Presides in the Councils of Nice and Sardica; and what he did there, ibid. Communicates with Ursacius and Valens, and subscribes the Second Sirmian Creed, ibid. Why, and by whom accused, 51. History of the two Luciferians, touching him, ibid. How long he lived, ibid. His Death, ibid. His Writings, ibid. His Authority could not prejudice the Truth, 86, 87.  
Hospital of St. Basil at Caesarea, 165.  
Humility. Exhortation to Humility, 154.   

I.  
JAcobus Nisibenus. Life and Miracles, 49. His Writings, ibid.  
Iconium, Metropolis of Lycaonia, 184.  
St. Jerom. His Translation of Eusebius' Chronicon, 4.  
Jerusalem. Synod there in 335. for the Dedication of the Church built there, 255.  
JESUS CHRIST. His Divinity, 44.  
Images defaced by St. Epiphanius, at Anablatha.  
Incarnation of JESUS CHRIST. Explication of that Mystery, 5. 7, 8. 44. 47. 111. 149. 170, 171. Its Causes and Effects, 9 43.  
Instantius, a Priscillianist, 190. 275.  
Joy of a Christian in Afflictions, 151.  
Ischyras, a false Priest. His History, 29.  
Ision, a Meletian Bishop. 29.  
Italy. Council of Italy in 362. against the Synod of Ariminum, 266.  
Ithacius, or Idacius, Bishop. A Spanish Author, Enemy of the Priscillianists, 191, 192.  
Judgement Last. In what place it will be made, 75. 77.  
Judgements Ecclesiastical, 249. 257. 278, 279, etc.  
Julian the Apostate. Succeeds Constantius, and concerns not himself in the Affairs of the Christians, 31. Sends an Order to Alexandria to drive St. Athanasius thence, and what followed thereupon, 31, 32. Declaration against Julian, 162, 163.  
St. Julitta. Her Martyrdom, 151.  
Julius' Bishop of Rome. Assembles a Council at Rome, and declares St. Athanasius innocent, 51. His Judgement in favour of that Saint, 30. 40. History of the Life of this Pope, 51. His Writings, ibid. His Letters upon the Incarnation, and his Decretals supposititious, 52. Death, ibid.  
Just. Of the State of their Souls between their Death and the last Judgement, 165.  
Justina an Arian. Persecutes St. Ambrose, 200. 223, etc.  
Justinian Emperor. Become Master of Italy: Treats the Popes hardly, 18.  
Justinian the Younger. Causes Pope Sergius to be banished, 19  
Juvencus, a Christian Poet. His Life and Writings, 20, 21.   

K.  
KIngs. Respect and Obedience due to them, 39 41. 91, 92. Ought not to meddle with Matters of Faith, 41. 224, 225, 226. Ought to protect Religion, 222.   

L.  
LAmpsacus. Council there in 365. under the Emperors Valens and Valentinian, 266.  
Laodicea. Council celebrated between 360. and 370. the Canons of it received by the whole Church, 268, etc.  
St. Laurence. History of his Martyrdom, 207. A good Action of his, ibid.  
Law of the Jews but for one Nation, 6.  
Leo Isauricus. Would have killed Pope Gregory II. 19  
Leontius, Governor of Rome, puts Pope Liberius in Prison, 19  
Liberius Bishop of Rome, Successor to Julius, 60. Imprisoned by Constantius, 18. Letter to the Bishops of the East, attributed to him, is not Genuine, 60. Maintains the Party of St. Athanasius with Vigour, 61. Therefore banished, ibid. He signs the Condemnation of St. Athanasius, approves an Heretical Profession of Faith, 62. and c. Returns to Rome, and changes his Opinion, 63. Defends St. Athanasius, and the Faith of the Church, ibid. His Death, ibid. and d. Letters and Writings, ibid. A Judgement upon this Bishop, ibid.  
Liberty of the Christian Religion, where first allowed, 12.  
Licinius, Emperor of the East. Loses a Battle against Constantine in Pannonia, 12. Second Battle in Thrace, between them, ibid. Publishes Edicts against the Christians, and persecutes them, ibid. Overcome at the Siege of Nicomedia, throws himself at Constantine's Feet, who gives him his Life, ibid. Put to Death afterwards by Constantine at Thessalonica, ibid.  
Longinus first took upon him the Quality of Exarch or Viceroy of Italy, 18.  
Lord's Day. Celebration of the Lord's Day, 12. 14. f. 17. 26. Not to fast on it, 203. Succeeded the Jewish Sabbath, 45.  
Lucifer Bishop of Calaris. Deputed by Pope Liberius to Constantinople, 79. Assists at the Council of Milan, and vigorously defends St. Athanasius, ibid. His Constancy and Steadiness causes his Exile, ibid. Genius and Writings, ibid. Unadvisedly ordains Paulinus Bishop of Antioch, 80. Separates from the Church, ibid. Judgement upon his Style, ibid. Subject of his Writings, ibid.  
Lucilla, a Lady of Carthage, her History, 89.  
Lucius' Bishop of Alexandria, an Arian, Author of some Letters touching the Feast of Easter, and of some Books upon several Subjects, 106.  
Ludovicus Pius, Son of Charlemaigne. Sends Bernard to Rome, and why, 19  
Luitprandus King of the Lombard's, 19   

M.  
Macarius', Priest of Alexandria. Defends St. Athanasius before Constantine, 29. Accused of breaking a Chalice, ibid.  
The Macarii. How many of them, 55. Their Works, 56, 57 Rules attributed to the Macarii, 58.  
Maccabees. Their Panegyric, 167.  
Macrobius, a Donatist Priest. Author of a Book addressed to Confessors and Virgins, 53.  
Magic. Canons against Magicians, 269.  
Mamas' Martyr. His Panegyric, 156.  
Marcellus of Ancyra. Wrote against his Brethren, and why? 3. i. 6. Life, Fortune and Actions, 50. St. Athanasius always defended him, ibid. Fragments of his Works, ibid. Judgement upon his Doctrine, ibid. Refutation of his Errors, 6.  
Marcellus Bishop in Campania. Sent by Pope Liberius to the Council of Arles, 61.  
Marcellinus Bishop of Rome. Never sacrificed to Idols.  
Marcellina, St. Ambrose's Sister, 210.  
Marriage. Not forbidden, 47, 110. Canons against Marriages forbidden by the Laws. See St. Basil's Canons of Penance, 140. and c. In what manner married Persons ought to behave themselves, 110.  
Marriage between Brother and Sister-in-Law forbidden, 137. 140. Divorce, 237. Polygamy forbidden, 197. Of the Marriage of Children under the Power of their Parents, 142. 229. Second and Third Marriages, 140, 141, 142. Marriage with Infidels forbidden, 223.  
Martyrs. History and Commendation of the Forty Martyrs, 156.  
Martyr's may be saved without Baptism, 110.  
Matter not Eternal, 5.  
Matronianus a Priscillianist, 190.  
Maxentius, Tyrant. Destroys Rome, afterwards Conquered by Constantine, 11.  
Maximus, Philosopher of Alexandria, 186. His Panegyric, 167. Procures himself to be Ordained Bishop of Constantinople, 160. His irregular Manners, 169. His Writings, 186.  
Meletius. His Life, Ordination and Actions, 187.  
Melitius. Author of the Sect of Melitians, condemned by Peter of Alexandria, 26. 242.  
Melitians. Schismatics, 28. and f. Judgement of the Council of Nice concerning them, 251.  
Melitine. Synod there about the Year 357. 265.  
Metropolitan. His Authority and Rights, 257. 269. 277. 278. Ought not to assume the Quality of Prince of Priests, or Sovereign Priest, 278.  
Messiah. Came into the World for all Mankind, 6.  
Milan. Council there in 346. To find means of terminating the Differences between the Bishops. Another Council in 355 under Pope Liberius. Another against Jovinian, 390.  
Monks. Institution of Monks, 53. Precepts and Instructions for Monks, 124. 156. A good Description of Monks anciently, 164. Of their Habits and of the Austerity of their Life, 165. Might be Ordained Bishops, 45.  
Musculus a Protestant. His Translation of Eusebius' History, what, 4.  
Mysteries, hidden from Catechumen and Pagans, 48.   

N.  
NArses Count Delivers Italy from the Tyranny of the Barbarians, 1.  
Nature. Not Evil of its self, 59  
Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople. His Death, 195. A Judgement upon this Author, ibid.  
Neocaesarea. Council there in 314. 248. Canons, 248, 249, etc.  
Nice in Bythinia. History of the Council of Nice, and Circumstances concerning it, 2. 7. 12. 15. 23. 250, etc. The Nicene Creed, the only Rule of Faith, 42.  
Nicephorns Callistus, composed an Ecclesiastical History, and when, 4. Put many uncertain and Fabulous Stories into it, ibid.  
Nisibis a City of Mesopotamia, 49.  
Nismes. Council held in that City in the Time of St. Martin, 275.  
Nonna, Mother of St. Gregory Nazianzen, 166.  
Novatian. Character of that Heretic, 83. Refutation of his Doctrine, ibid. 216, etc.   

O.  
OPtatus Bishop of Milevis. Time when he lived, 87. Died in the Reign of Valentinian, ibid. & c. Number of his Books, 87. and ᵈ, e. Abridgement of his Books against the Donatists, 87, 88, etc. Judgement upon his Style and Doctrine, 96. Editions of his Books, 97.  
Oresiesis, Successor to St. Pachomius. Treatise concerning the Instruction of Monks, 55.   

P.  
St. PAcianus Bishop of Barcelona. Time of his Death, 81. An Extract of his Writings, 81, 82. A good saying of his, 82. His Doctrine, 84. Editions of his Works, 85.  
St. Pachomius. Author of a Monastic Life, 54. Country and Relations, ibid. Life and Time of his Death, 55. Rules and Letters, ibid.  
Palaemon Hermit, Master of St. Pachomius, 54.  
Pamphilus' Martyr, Friend to Eusebius, 1. and a. And not his Brother, 1. a. Suffered two Years Imprisonment, and after Martyrdom, 1. Composed Apologies for Origen with Eusebius, 2. Life written by Eusebius, 3.  
Parmenian a Donatist, his Mistakes, 88  
Paris. Council of Paris in 362. where Auxentius, Ursacius, Valens and Saturnus were condemned, 266.  
Patrophilus, an Arian Bishop. Enemy to Eusebius Vercellensis, 186.  
Paul I. Pope, wrote to Pepin, 19  
Paul of Emisa. Assists at the Council of Seleucia, 59 St. Jerom's Judgement upon his Works, ibid.  
Paulinus of Antioch. His Ordination unlawful, 136.  
Penance. Which is true, 77. Absolution to be granted to Sinners, 82, 83. and c. Necessity of Penance, ibid. 180. Qualities of true Penance, 83. 118. 217. Public Penance, 84. 217. and c. Canons of St. Basil concerning Penance, 140. and c. Canons of St. Gregory Nyssen upon the same Subject, 181, 182. Canons of Peter of Alexandria concerning Penance and Idolaters, 26. Canons of the Council of Elvira concerning Penance, and Depriving of those that are guilty of some Crimes of Communion even when they are dying, 242, etc. Other Canons of the Councils of the Fourth Century; See the Extract of the Councils. If a Judge who has condemned Criminals to Death ought to do Penance, 227.  
Pepin besieges Milan, 19 and afterwards causes Astolphus to raise the Siege of Rome, and obliges him to execute the Treaty of Peace, ibid.  
Persecution. Flight in Persecution, 26. 40, 41. Of the Arians against the Church, 41. 71. etc. To be suffered with Constancy, 151.  
Peter Bishop of Alexandria, under the Emperor, and in what time he suffered Martyrdom, 25. and a. The Acts of his Martyrdom doubtful, 25. and b. His Canons are drawn from one of his Discourses upon Penance, 26.  
Peter another Bishop of Alexandria, Successor to St. Athanasius, 105. Driven away by Palladius Governor of the Province, and retires to Rome, ibid. Fragments of his Letter, 106. Death, ibid.  
Phaebadius Bishop of Agen. His Steadiness in the Council of Ariminum, 85. Subscribes nevertheless a Profession of Faith made by the Arians, 86. Laments his Fault and Repairs it, ibid. Writes a Book against the Second Sirmian Creed, ibid.  
Philastrius Bishop of Bressia. His Life, 193. Judgement upon his Treatise of Heresies, 194.  
Philo-Carpathius. A Supposititious Author, 240.  
Philostratus. An Author not to be credited, 6.  
Photinus' Bishop of Sirmium. His Country, Error, Writings, Condemnation, 98.  
Pilgrimage. Use and Abuse of Pilgrimages, 182.  
Plato. His Doctrine agreeable to Moses', but not free from Error as that of the Holy Scripture, 6.  
Popes. Pope's never received from Constantine the Empire of Rome, 18. and c. Subject to the Grecian Emperors, ibid. Obliged to the Kings of France for their Temporalities, 19 At last became Sovereigns of the City of Rome, and by what Degrees, ibid.  
Prayer. What it is to Pray, 151.  
Priests. Formerly presided in the Assemblies of the Faithful in some Churches, 48.  
Praetextatus Governor of Rome, banishes Ursicinus by the Emperor's Order, 120.  
Priscillian. History of that Heretic, 190. Councils celebrated against him and his Followers, 274.  
Providence of God, extends to all Creatures, 206.  
Psalms. Usefulness of Psalms, 45, 46. Division of the Psalms, 177. Remarks upon the Psalms, 75, 76.   

R.  
RAchifius. King of the Lombard's, 19  
Rapes. Forbidden and Punished by the Ecclesiastical Laws, 137. 141.  
Reformers. Character and Genius of the Reformers, 193.  
Religious Persecuted, well received at Constantinople by St. Chrysostom, Cause of Theophilus' hatred to that Saint, 234.  
Religion Christian. Proofs of it, 5, 6. 15. 42. 178. Edicts of Constantine for Religion, 15, 16.  
Relics. Respect due to them, what? 90, 96, 226.  
Repentance: See Penance.  
Resurrection. Proofs of the Resurrection, 8. 112.  
Rheticius Bishop of Autun. Life and Writings, 21.  
Rhodanius Bishop of Tholouse, 262.  
Riches. Their Use, 75. 77. 151. 203.  
St. Romanus, a Deacon of Antioch, Martyr, 9  
Rome. Council held there in 313, in favour of Caecilian, 246. Another in 341, under Pope Julius for St. Athanasius, 253. Another in 370, under Damasus, 270. Another in 372, against Ursicinus, ibid. Another in 390, against Jovinian and his Followers, 275.  
Ruffinus, Judgement upon his Translation of Eusebius' History, 14.   

S.  
SAbinus, a Macedonian Author, 198.  
Saints. Veneration and Prayer to Saints, 8. 156. 237.  
Sangarus. Council of the Novatians there in 390. 275.  
Saragossa. Council of Saragossa in 347. 274.  
Sardica. Council there in 347. 259. Its Canons and Letters, ibid. etc.  
Saturninus Bishop of Arles, Sided with the Arians.  
Scaliger (Joseph.) First Collected the Greek Fragments of Eusebius' Chronicon, 5.  
Scripture Holy. Canonical Books of the Sacred Scripture, 45, 46. 111. 270. 279. The Rule of Faith, 47, 48.  
Seleucia. Council of Seleucia in 359. History of it, 264. and c  
Septuagint. History of their Version, 5. 111.  
Serapion Bishop of Thmuis, different from him of Arsinoe, 58. His Life and Writings, ibid.  
Sergius Pope. By whom Banished, 19  
Servatio Bishop of Tongres. By surprisal Signs a Profession of Faith made by the Arians, 86.  
Silverius and Vigilius Popes, ill used by Justinian, 18.  
Simony, Receiving Money for the Administration of the Sacraments to be Detested, 137.  
Sin against the Holy Ghost. In what Sense unpardonable, 46. Distinction of Sins, 83, 84.  
Singing the Prayers in Churches, 133.  
Singedunum. Council there in 366. Composed of Arian Bishops, 267.  
Sinuessa. Council held there in 303. The Acts of it Suppositious, 241.  
Siricius Pope, Successor to Damasus, 196. Abridgement of his Letters, ibid. and 197.  
Sirmium. I. Council of Sirmium in 349. 261. II. Council there in 351. 262. III. In 357. 263. iv In 358. ibid. V In 359. ibid.  
Socrates' Historian. Gins his History where Eusebius ends, 4.  
Solitude. It's usefulness, 124.  
Soul. Immortal and Spiritual, 9 47. 110. 236. Book of the Soul by Eustathius of Antioch, 22. Question concerning the Soul of Samuel, 24. Grace and an inclination to Sin to be found at the same time in the same Soul, 57 Of its Nature, 57, 58, 74, 79. 174. 177. 179. 183. 201.  
Sozomen Historian. Gins his History where Eusebius Ends his, 4.  
Stephen II. Pope, makes a Truce with the King of the Lombard's, 19 Has Recourse to Pepin, ibid.  
Sida in Pamphylia. Council there in 383, against the Massalians or Euchaitae, 274.  
Synods, held by the Semi-Arians in 365. and 366. 267.  
Syrianus. Uses the Faithful of Alexandria ill, even in the Church, 31.   

T.  
TAbenna. Monastery in Egypt, Founded by St. Pachomius, 54.  
Taverns. Canons against Taverns, 269.  
Testament New. For all Mankind, and the Law of the Jews for one Nation only, 6.  
Theatre. Canons against Stage-Players, 244.  
Theft. Vide Violence.  
Theodatus. Sends Pope Agapetus to Justinian, 19  
Theodorus Bishop of Perinthus. Life and Writings, 18.  
Theodorus Disciple of St. Pachomius his Letters, 55.  
Theodorus, Martyr, 181. and c  
Theodoret Historian. Gins his History where Eusebius ends his, 4.  
Theodoric King of the Ostrogoths makes himself Master of Italy and Rome, 18. Appoints a Visitor over that Church, and sends Pope John to the Grecian Emperor, and Why, ibid.  
Theosebia. Wife to Gregory Nyssen, 176. and 1  
Theotimus Bishop of Tomi, his Writings, 198.  
Tiberianus, a Priscillianist, 191.  
Timothy of Alexandria. Life, 195. Abridgement of his Canons, ibid.  
Titus of Bostra. Circumstances of his Life, 102. Assists at the Council of Meletius held at Antioch, ibid. Subject of his Book against the Manichees, ibid. and 103. The Opinion we ought to have of it, 103. Commentary upon St. Luke's Gospel attributed to him, not his, ibid. His Death, 102.  
Toledo. Council there in the Year, 400. 285. Canons of it, ibid. 286.  
Triers. Council said to be held there in the Time of St. Martin, 275.  
Trinity. Eusebius' Opinion upon the Trinity, 7. Explication of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, and Proofs of the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost, 27. 44. 47, 48. 66, etc. 110, 111, etc. 146, 147. 178. 220. 251, etc.  
Tryphillius Bishop in Cyprus, 52.  
Turin. Council there in 400. 285. History of it, ibid.  
Tyana Synod held there in the Year 368.  
Tyre. Pretended Council of Tyre in 335, against St. Athanasius, 254.   

V  
VAlence. Council there in 347. Its Canons for the Reformation of Discipline, 270.  
Valens Bishop of Murcia, 99  
Valens Emperor. In what Year and by whom Baptised, 32. His Edict and what he Ordained by it, ibid.  
Valesius. His Translation of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, 10.  
Victorinus of Africa. His Conversion, 80. His Baptism, ibid. Writings against Arius against the Manichees, 81. Other Works, ibid.  
Vigilance Christian, recommended, 151.  
Violence, exercised by the Donatists against the Catholics, 91, 92. The Church did not exercise any against them, ibid. Princes might use their Authority to procure a Reunion of Schismatics and Heretics, 92.  
Violence and Theft. Canons against these Sins, 141. 182.  
Vincentius of Capua. Sent to the Cowcil of Arles by Pope Liberius, 61.  
Virgin's Consecrated to God. Made a Vow of Virginity, 94. Had a Veil, ibid. 210. Penance imposed on those who violated their Vow of Chastity, 142. 213. Not to be condemned without good Proof of their Gild, 221.  
Virginity. The most perfect State, 8. 47. 110. 150. 179. 228. 230.  
Virginity Perpetual of Mary, 212. 228.  
Vitellius a Donatist. Author of a Book for his Party, and another against the Gentiles, 53.  
Vito a Priest, 30. and l  
Vows. Indiscreet Vows forbidden, 142.  
Ursicinus, his Contest against Pope Damasus, 120, 121.  
Usury. Condemnation of Usury, 181. 203. Canons against Usury, 141. 247. 253. 268.  
Usurers. Discourse against Usurers, 181. 203.   

W.  
WIsdom. Book of Wisdom attributed by the Latins to Solomon, 78.  
Women, Not to be clad with Ecclesiastical Habits, 137.  
Word. Not a Creature drawn from nought, 27.  
Witch of Endor. History of it Explained, 23. m. 24. n    

ADVERTISEMENT.  
THE French Copy of this Book is so very uncorrrectly Printed, that those who took Care of this Translation, found it necessary in great Numbers of Places to examine it by those Original Books which were quoted or epitomised: So that though very many Faults were amended in the Body of this Translation, yet upon 〈◊〉 Review of the Work since it came from the Press. Several others were observed, which are here set by themselves, lest they should be imputed to the Printer's Carelessness.  

ERRATA in the French Text.  
PAg. 4. col. 1. l. line 6. from bo●. r. B. 1. C. 12. col. 2. l. 2. r. C. 17. p. 10. l. ult. for 13. r. 15. p. 11. l. 4. r. Hopperus▪ p. 21▪ l. 〈◊〉. r. B. VIII. c. 1. ibid. col. 2. l. 3. r. Theodoret. B. 1. c. 7. p. ●7. 〈◊〉 30. deal and Theodoret. p. 33. col. 〈◊〉. 〈…〉 p. 35. col. 2. l. 〈◊〉. r. c. 21. for c. 17. and l. 7. r. c. 23. for c. 14. p. 51. l. 18. from bot. r. B. 1. c. 5. p. 63. 〈…〉 p. 70. l. 40. for Ariminum and Ancyra. r Ariminum and Seleucia. ibid. l. 17. from bot. r. exhorts the Western. p. 85. l. 4. from bot. r. composed by Pota●ius and subscribed by Hosi●. p. 100 l. 15. r. ch. 15. of B. IU. p. 102. Nazianzen s Words end at Admiration of all mankind. p. 107. l. 21. r. ●ust●●hius of Sevastea. ibid. col. 1. l. 1. r. 〈◊〉. 11. c. 38. l. 2. r. B. IU. c. 20. p. 145. l. 22. from bot. r. ch. 15. B. III. p. 183. l. 24. from bot. r. Margunius. p. 221. col. 1. l. 2. deal p. 824. p. 223. l. 8. from bot. for 383. r. 388. p. 233. l. 16. for 1606. r. 1506. p. 237. and p. 239. for A●tius r. Aerius. p. 250. l. 33. r. B. I. for B. III. p. 256. for Edessa r. Emisa. p. 258, 259. for Servinvs of Tongres, r. Servatio.  
Those likewise who are acquainted with the French Language, know what a Liberty the French Writers take in altering of Proper Names, and in bringing them to the Genius of their own Tongue: For which Reason they will easily pardon some Mistakes of that kind in so long and so various a Work as this. However, lest any should think that this has been neglected, which might occasion Confusion, when the same Persons Names otherwise turned occur in other Books, the following Catalogue was drawn up; in which those Names to which no Page is set, are several times to be met with, whereas the others are hardly ever mistaken any where else. Bostria (p. 9) for Bostra. Eucherus (p. 24.) for Eucherius. Zosinus (p. 27.) for Zosimus. Eudoxus for Eudoxius. Cotelierius for Cotelerius. ●urimadus for Varimadus. Tapsa for Tapsus. Emesa for Emisa. Rhebadius (p. 50.) for Phaebadius. Damascus (p. 33.) for Damasus. Docus (p. 51.) for Docius. Elpidus and Elpides for Elpidius. Poëmius (p. 135.) for Poëmeninus. Narsetes for Narses. Logothera (p. 158) for Logotheta. Fumanus for Fumancellus. Doaza (p. 169) for Doara. Florus Magister (p. 205) not to be divided. Brughem (p. 233) for Beughem. Marcina (p. 179) for Macrina.   

CORRIGENDA.  
PAg. 3. l. 22. r. Euphration. l. 27. deal of. p. 〈◊〉. l. 43. for with r. which. p. 7. l. 24. for formerly r. formally. p. 9 l. 23. deal C. p. 10. l. 〈◊〉. r. Offices, for Officers. l. 31. for revised r. reprinted. ibid. l. 5. from bot. for Four r. Fourteen. p. 13. l. 29. for the, r. their. p. 17. l. 28. r. Clergy. p. 19 l. 37. for as it plainly appears r. l. e declaring himself openly. p. 22. h. l. 8. r. suffered Paulinus to have been. p. 24. col. 2. l. 7. for S. Austin, r. S. Justin. p. 26. l. 18. deal noot. p. 27. l. 14. from bot. for the best, r. a Masterpiece. p. 33. l. 12. r. so that. p. 36. l. 2. r. Frenchman. p. 37. l. 16. for the Act, r. Action. p. 39 l. 33. r. Retractation. p. 41 l. 9 before goes, r. ●e. p. 44. l. 33. deal so that. p. 46. l. 48. r. do not mean. p. 52. l. 28. for who Heracleus, r. which Heraclea. p. 53. col. 1. l. 8. r. by the latter, for the last by. p. 63. l. 35. for 〈◊〉 Volumes r. 2d Volume. p. 65. l. 18. from bot. for viz. r. Vir. p. 68 l. 3. r. Perception. p. 73. col. 2. after l. 1. add 459. To Vincentius of Cap●●. p. 8●. l. 8. for Doctr●… r. Doctor. p. 87. l. 32. for since St. Jerom's, r. in St. Jerom's. p. 100 b. l. 6. r. but it was. p. 107. col. 1. l. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. of the▪ Wor●●. p. 108. col. 1. l. 8. r. wrote some. p. 116. l. 8. for Aversation, r. Aversion. p. 122. l. 44. r. 1672. [in Octavo▪ his Poems. l. 45. deal in Octavo. p. 135. l. 4. r. pretended for little. p. 136. l. 39 r. his Carriage deserved. p. 146. l. 20. r. at Laciza. p. 154. l. 10. for honest, r. decent. p. 170. l. 9 for 41st. r. 32d. ibid. l. 40. for of r. and, and for and r. of. p. 171. l. 28. r. his Custom. p. 173 l. 2. for likeness r. Lightness. ibid. l. 15. from bot. for Hermetical r. Eremetical. p. 190. l. 18. for Provocation r. Vocation. p. 193 l. 11 Marg. Note from bot. deal▪ p. 198. l. 31. r. Sozomen commends him. p. 215. l. 11. from bot. for it is, r. is it. p. 222. col. 2. for Lieutenancy r. Vic●ri●●● twice. p. 238. l. 10. from bot. Marg. Note. for she knows, r. he knows. p. 241 l. 5. for pretended r. supposititious. p. 244. l. 36. r. Defamatory Libels. p. 256. l. 35. for though r. thought. p. 259. l. 7. from. bot. after is, for to the Church of Alexandria, r. produced. ibid. l. 6. after third, add, is to the Churches of Alexandria. p. 94. The Sentence As if a Belief— should have been placed in the Margin against believed to be the Body, and Blood of Jesu● Christ. p. 117. The Sentence Mr. du pin— should have been against these Words, in the next Line, Other Critics of his Way.   
FINIS.   

A NEW HISTORY OF Ecclesiastical Writers: Containing an ACCOUNT Of the LIVES and WRITINGS of the PRIMITIVE FATHERS; A Judicious Abridgement AND A Catalogue of all their WORKS; WITH Censures Determining the GENUINE and SPURIOUS: AND A Judgement upon their Style and Doctrine: Also their various Editions. Together with A Compendious History of the COUNCILS. Written in FRENCH By Lewis Ellies du PIN, Doctor of the SORBON.  
VOLUME the THIRD, Containing the AUTHORS that Flourished in the Beginning of the FIFTH CENTURY.  
LONDON, Printed by J. H. for Abel Swall and Tim. Child, at the Unicorn at the West-End of St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCXCIII.   

PREFACE.  
SINCE the Publication of the former Volumes of this Bibliotheca in our Language, we have had an account, That the Author was censured for it at Paris: It was reasonable enough to expect, that some notice would be taken of that great freedom, with which he so industriously asserts the Privileges of National Churches, against the Pretensions of the Court of Rome; especially if ever the French King should command those of his Clergy, who assisted in the General Assembly in 1682. to make such Submissions as the Court of Rome would accept of. The great care which M. Du Pin has taken to get full Approbations from several Doctors of the Sorbonne, to every Volume, seemed sufficient to secure him from any ignominious Censures which he might have been in danger of at home; but when a Man meets with Enemies upon other Accounts, they will fall upon him for those things which at any other time would not have been regarded.  
It is commonly said, That the first beginning of M. Du Pin's Misfortune, proceeded from a private Quarrel of the Bishop of Meauxes, who was angry with him for publishing a Translation of the Psalms, when himself had published another not long before This was interpreted to be a Trial of Skill in an inferior Presbyter, who presumed to contest with so great a Bishop, that had so long been famous for his skill in Writing: It touched M. the Meaux the more sensibly, because M. Du Pin is said to have corrected several Things in his Translation, wherein the Bishop was mistaken. Therefore, since he could take no hold of that, without exposing himself, which he would not run the hazard of, he collected several bold Expressions in M. Du Pin's Bibliotheca, and exhibited an Accusation of Heresy against him to the Archbishop of Paris, who accordingly proceeded upon it.  
This Accusation was seconded by the Pope's Nuncio, who concerned himself so far in this Matter, that M. Du Pin thought it necessary to yield to his Diocesan, who obliged him to retract several Propositions, and to mollify others that were thought too hard, and to submit his Book entirely to the Archbishop's Mercy. How great that was, appears by the Archbishop's Condemnation and Censure of M. Du Pin's Bibliotheca, printed at Paris, with M. Du Pin's Retractation annexed to it. I have not been able to procure the Condemnation itself, but the Author of the Histoire des Ouvrages des Scavans, has printed an Extract out of it in his last Volume, which says, That the printed Censure condemns M. Du Pin's Bibliotheca, because it contains, Several Propositions that are false, rash, scandalous, capable of giving offence to pious Ears, tending to weaken the Arguments that are brought from Tradition for the Authority of the Canonical Books, and of several Articles of Faith, injurious to General Councils and the Apostolic See, erroneous and leading to Heresy; and, therefore, it forbids all Persons to read it, or to keep it by them.  
This Ordonnance of the Archbishop of Paris was seconded by an Order of the Parliament of Paris, bearing date April 25. 1693. which says, That the Gens de Roy acquainted the Court, that they thought it was their Duty to inform them, That the Archbishop of Paris had lately condemned a Book, Entitled, A new Bibliotheca of Ecclesiastical Authors, written by M. Ellies Du Pin, Doctor in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, because it contained Propositions contrary to sound Doctrine: That the cognizance of every thing that relates to the Faith belonging to the Church, and the decision of those Matters to the Bishops within their respective Dioceses, the suppression of the Books which they condemn, and the afflictive Punishment of those who persist in Opinions which have been censured by the Bishops, belong to the King's Officers, and principally to the Court, the Depositary of Sovereign Justice: That they have nothing to object against the Author of this Book, because he has submitted himself to the Judgement of his Bishop, and because it appears by a Writing, which he has published, That he has retracted some of those Propositions which he had advanced, and explained the rest in such a manner as frees them from all suspicion of Error: That they are willing to believe, That the Faults which M. Ellies Du Pin fell into, and which deserved the Censure pronounced against him, proceeded rather from the Greatness of the Work that he undertook, than from any form Design of introducing new Opinions; and, besides, that there is a great deal of Learning in his Books: That they were obliged to take notice to the Court, upon this occasion, of the Care, the Application and Vigilance, which the Archbishop of Paris shows to preserve sound Doctrine in his Diocese, and to stifle every thing, in the beginning, which may disturb the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church. And, therefore, they omitted nothing in those Stations in which they had the Honour to be placed, that could second such good Designs; and this it was that obliged them to demand of the Court, That those Books that the Archbishop had condemned, might be suppressed; and that all Booksellers should be forbidden to sell them, till they should be corrected according to the Writing of the said Du Pin, annexed to the Archbishop's Censure, and that the Corrections should be approved by him the said Archbishop. The Gens de Roy withdrawing, the Court took the Matter into Deliberation, and it was Resolved, That all Booksellers and others, should be commanded not to sell or keep by them any Copies of the said Books, which have hitherto been printed; and it was Ordered, That they should be brought forthwith into the grief of the said Court there to be suppressed; with very express Prohibitions to all persons to Reprint that Book in any manner whatsoever for the time to come, without the Advice and Consent of the Archbishop of Paris. So far the printed Extract out of the Register of the Parliament of Paris.  
If we may judge of all those things which M. Du Pin has retracted or mollified by that Specimen in the Histoire des Ouvrages des Scavans, the Proceed against him have been spiteful and malicious, rather to satisfy those particular Persons who are concerned to see his Credit lessened, than because he really deserved so rough a Treatment. He acknowleges, for instance, That the Title of Mother of God, given to the blessed Virgin, is not only an innocent Expression, but was always consecrated to her, and aught to be used; That when he said, That there are no positive Authorities for Purgatory in the Writings of the Fathers of the 3 first Centuries, he expressed himself too generally; That when he says, That S. Cyprian was the first that spoke very clearly of the necessity of the Grace of Jesus Christ, he did not pretend to say, That the Fathers did not speak clearly concerning it, before him; That when he said, That General Councils called about Matters of Faith, have seldom given Peace to the Church, he did not mean, That Councils do not bring Peace, or that they ever take the wrong side: These are all the Doctrinal Retractations which the Author of the abovementioned Extract has taken notice of; and then adds, That his Explications are often very much forced.  
It is evident enough, from this short Specimen, That his Accusers had no Inclination to spare him, but would make him smart for all that Liberty with which he made his Abridgements, and passed his Censures upon the Writings of the ancientest Fathers of the Church. In Justice, they ought also to have proceeded against those Doctors of the Sorbonne who gave the Approbations, that are prefixed to the several Volumes, wherein they commend the Faithfulness and Judiciousness of his Extracts, and propose his Work as extremely useful to all sorts of Men: These Doctors certainly knew very well what they did; they knew what use Protestants would make of this Work and of their Approbations; yet this did not, it seems, deter them from giving such Characters as no Man could give who was not himself in earnest, or at least would have others believe him to be so: Accordingly the first Volume, against which there has been the greatest Clamour, was not animadverted upon for near six Years.  
It appears by the Order of the Parliament, That that Court acted only ex Officio, and that that Illustrious Body has a great value for M. Du Pin. Otherwise the Gens de Roy would not have made such Excuses for a Man, upon whose Writings they are then passing Censure; but the Pope's Nuncio is at present too great a Man to be denied satisfaction, when he may be gratified with so small a Sacrifice; and it is probable, That the Archbishop of Paris, who went along with his Master in the greatest Oppositions which he made to Pope Innocent XI. was willing to embrace this Opportunity to show the Pope how zealously he is concerned for the Interests of the See of Rome; especially, when he can gratify a private Revenge at the same time.  
In the Second Edition of the First Volume of M. Du Pin's Bibliotheca, when he gives an Account of the Condemnation of Paulus Samosatenus by the Council of Antioch, he has this Expression, Enfin apres l'avoir accuse de tous les Vices Ordinaires aux Eveques des grands Sieges, ils disent qu'ils l'ont condamne principalement a Paris qu'il renouvelloit l' Erreur d' Artemas. In short, after they have accused him of all those Vices that are ordinary in Bishops of great Sees, they say they condemned him, principally at Paris, because he revived the Error of Artemas. These Words, at Paris, make the latter part of the Period nonsense; and could signify nothing to the Author's Purpose if they had been Sense: it should be read, principalement parce qu'il renouvelloit; principally because he revived: And so it is in the English (edit. 1. p. 193. edit. 2. p. 173.) This unfortunate Erratum coming just after a very severe Character of Paulus Samosatenus, out of Eusebius, put every body upon making a Parallel between this Ancient Bishop of Antioch and the present Archbishop of Paris: And if the Reports that are spread against this Archbishop are true, the Comparison was too just to be over-looked; and it is said at Paris, That this Sentence, thus faultily printed in the second Edition, did M. Du Pin a great deal of Mischief.  
A Censure thus carried on, will be so little to our Author's Disadvantage, that few Persons will think the worse of this Book upon that account; it is his Misfortune that he lives in a Country where he had no other way to save his Liberty, and perhaps his Life, but by yielding to the Storm: And, according to the Principles of his Religion, he was bound to submit to his Diocesan. But this will lessen the Authority of any Books that M. du Pin may hereafter print upon Ecclesiastical Matters, because Fear of giving Offence will make him extremely cautious, and he will dread a severe Inquisition that may set upon every thing which he shall write.  
Those who are unacquainted with Antiquity will be hereby further confirmed in their Opinion, of the Impartiality of our Author, in his Abridgement of the Writings of these Ancient Doctors of the Church, when they see how severely he has been dealt withal upon that account: Otherwise it is very probable that some might think him too favourable in his Accounts of Monkery, Invocation of Saints and some other Superstitions which arose very early, and which were a means of introducing, in a course of Ages, such enormous Abuses into the Church; but tho' some Errors have a more ancient Original than is commonly believed, yet that ought not to be wondered at by any Man, who believes that the Church was never Infallible since the Apostle's Days. Still, as we read downwards, we shall see how that Primitive Simplicity, which adorned the Profession of the first Christians, who were almost always under Fear of Persecution, lessened and wore away. Those who were sensible of the decay of the Primitive Zeal, sought to retrieve it by placing great Merit in the practice of monastical Austerities, whereby they hoped to obtain that Reward which was believed to be peculiarly reserved for those who laid down their Lives for the Name of Christ: This put them upon all those Opinions that tended to mortify, not only forbidden Lusts, but also the allowed Appetites of Human Nature, which the Christian Religion intended to regulate, and not to remove. And when those who could not be Martyrs, saw what Honours were paid to those who had formerly suffered for the Truth, it raised in them an Emulation to do something for the sake of Jesus Christ, that should be more disagreeable to Flesh and Blood than Death itself. This, I believe, is the most probable Reason of that great Ardour wherewith so very many Persons bound themselves under Vows to embrace a Monastical Life, in the fourth and fifth Ages of the Church. The first Monks were some Egyptians, who in the tenth Persecution fled into the Deserts of Thebais; there they accustomed themselves to Retirement, and Use taught them to relish the Satisfactions of a Contemplative state: When the Storm was over, they returned home, and easily persuaded others, who had then, as they thought, no other way of showing their Zeal for Jesus Christ, to embrace this austere Course of Life. In such warm Climates this was not so extraordinarily difficult: Those Esstern People could live upon a very little, better than other Men; so that the terrible Mortifications, mentioned in the oldest Ascetical Books, were not so impracticable, as we, at this Distance of Place and Time may be apt to think them. The Monk in Sulpicius Severus, who heard Posthumianus give an account of the Abstinences of the Eastern Monks, cries out, Edacitas in Graecis Gula est, in Gallis natura. Excessive Eating is Luxury in a Greek, it is Nature in a Gaul: And though one can hardly believe all that Posthumianus there relates, of the Abstinence of the Monks of Nitria and Cyrene, yet it is most certain that they put a mighty Force upon Nature, such a one as nothing but the modern Practices of some of the Mahometan Dervishes could make us believe to be possible.  
But though the Honours paid to Martyrs, which gave Rise to an Opinion, That they could intercede for us in Heaven, or at least hear our Prayers, together with the Love which most Men then showed for a single and a retired Life, may seem too excessive, yet the Opinions and Practices of these Ages were, generally speaking, very venerable. One sees a great and a serious concern for the Truths of the Gospel in almost all their Writings; one sees a sincere Respect paid by Men of all Parties, to the Censures of the Church, and to the Persons of those with whom they were entrusted. They always distinguished between the Faults of Men and their Character and Employment, and when they punished the one, they took care not to cast a Disrespect upon the other; by which means they preserved a real Veneration for Holy Things in their Minds, though their Divisions run as high, and were as eagerly managed as ever they have been since. This is not the only Age wherein Men have met with Temptations, and have shown their Frailty, by being too weak to withstand them; so that an Acquaintance with the Opinions and Practices of these earlier Ages, before a general Corruption had infected the Church, will be of great Use to such as value Religion and Godliness for their own sakes, when it suggests such Thoughts as can only be effectual to restore that Sense of Piety and Charity which is so generally lost among us.  
July 25. 1693. W. W.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 96. line 10. from bottom. read 140th, ibid. l. ult. r. that Hoshahna, p 97. l. 22. r. against Jovinian, p. 99 l. 3. r. altered in it, p. 100 l. 15. from bot. for speaking. r. when he speaks, p. 112. l. 12. r. published five, ibid. l. 25. for Sons of Men. r. Sons of God, p. 192. l. 6. from bot. del. being, p. 204 l. ult. for yea. r. yet. p. 206. l. 5. r. working by Love, ibid. l. 18. from bot. for suspicious. r. suspected, l. ult. r. Opinator, p. 208. l. 28. r. Zozimus', l. 29. r. for their making default, p. 215. l. 16. r. he maintains, p. 217. l. 2. r. This Practice is forbidden in very strong Terms, and upon, p. 222. l. 20. for retract. r. re-examine, p. 226. l. 16. for Parents. r. Relations.  

Proper Names mistaken.  
Rufinus for Ruffinus, Zosimus for Zozimus, Province of Byzacena for Provincia Byzacena. passim. S. Maura, (p. 106.) for S. Maurus. Lodevae (p. 210.) for Lodeve.    

CONTENTS of the Third Volume.  

Of the Lives and Writings of the Ecclesiastical Authors that Flourished in the Beginning of the Fifth Century, viz.  
EVagrius Ponticus 1  
Mark the Hermit 2  
Simplicianus Bishop of Milan 3  
Vigilius Bishop of Trent 3  
Prudentius 4  
Diadochus Bishop of Photice 5  
Audentius 5  
Severus Endelechius 5  
Flavianus, Presbyter of Antioch 6  
St. John Chrysostom 6  
Antiochus and Severianus 52  
Asterius of Amasea 53  
Pope Anastasius I. 58  
Chromacius Bishop of Aquileia 58  
Gaudentius Bishop of Brescia 59  
John Bishop of Jerusalem 61  
Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria 62  
Theodorus Bish. of Mopsuestia 64  
Palladius 66  
Pope Innocent I. 67  
St. Jerom 73  
Rufinus Toranius 107  
Sophronius 111  
Sulpicius Severus Ibid.  
St. Paulinus 113  
Pelagius the Monk 119  
Coelestius, Disciple of Pelagius 120  
Niceas 120  
Olympius 120  
Bachiarius 121  
Sabbatius 121  
Isaac 121  
Paulus Orosius 122  
Lucian, Avitus, Evodius and Severus 122  
Marcellus Memorialis 123  
Eusebius 123  
Ursinus, Monk 123  
Macarius, Monk 123  
Heliodorus, Presbyter of Antioch 123  
Paul 123  
Helvidius and Vigilantius, Heretics 124  
St. Augustin 125 

The first Vol. of his Works 126  
The second Volume 135  
The third Volume 169  
The fourth Volume 175  
The fifth Volume 175  
The sixth Volume 176  
The seventh Volume 187  
The eighth Volume 191  
The ninth Volume 195  
The tenth Volume 200    
Pope Zosimus 207  
Pope Boniface I. 210  
Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais 211  
Polychronius. 215   

The COUNCILS held between the Beginning of the Fifth Century, and the Year 430.  
Canon's of a Roman Synod believed to be held under Pope Innocent I. 216  
Council of Milevis. 217  
Councils held by S. Chrysostom at Constantinople, and at Ephesus in 400, and 401. 217  
Council ad Quercum, in the Suburbs of Chalcedon, in 403. Ibid.  
Council of Carthage in the Year 403. 218  
Council of Carthage, in the Year 404. 218  
Council of Carthage, in the Year 405. 218  
Council of Carthage, in the Year 407. 218  
Two Councils of Carthage, in the Year 408. 219  
Council of Carthage, in the Year 409. 219  
Council of Carthage, in the Year 410. Ibid.  
Council of Ptolemais, in the Year 411. 220  
Conference of Carthage, in the Year 411. Ibid.  
Council of Cirta, or Zerta, in the Year 412. 221  
First Council of Carthage, against Coelestius, in the Year 412. Ibid.  
Conference of Jerusalem, in the Year 415. Ibid  
Council of Diospolis, in the Year 418. Ibid  
Second Council of Carthage, against Coelestius and Pelagius. Council of Milevis against the same, in the Year 416. 222  
Council of Carthage, held about the End of the Year 417. Ibid.  
Council of Carthage, in the Year 418. Ibid.  
Council of Tella or Zella, and some other Councils in Africa, in the Year 418. 224  
Councils of Carthage, concerning the Cause of Apiarius, 418, and 419. Ibid.  
Council of Ravenna. 227  
Council of Carthage, in the Year 420. 228  
Council of Constantinople, in the Year 426. ibid.  
Council of Carthage, against Leporius. ibid.  
Council of Constantinople, in the Year 428. ibid.   

An Alphabetical Table of the Names of the Authors mentioned in this Volume.  
ANastasius 58  
Antiochus 52  
Asterius 53  
Audentius 5  
S. Augustin 125  
Avitus 122  
Bachiarius 121  
Boniface 210  
Coelestius 120  
Chromacius 58  
S. John Chrysostom 6  
Diadochus 5  
Endelechius Severus 5  
Evagrius 1  
Evodius 122  
Eusebius 123  
Flavianus 6  
Gaudentius 59  
Heliodorus 123  
Helvidius 124  
S. John of Jerusalem 61  
S. Jerom 73  
Innocent I 67  
Isaac 121  
Lucian 122  
Mark 2  
Marcellus Memorialis 123  
Macarius 123  
Niceas 120  
Olympius 120  
Orosius 122  
Palladius 66  
Prudentius 4  
Paulus 123  
Paulinus 113  
Pelagius 119  
Polychronius 215  
Rufinus 107  
Sabbatius 121  
Severianus 52  
Simplicianus 3  
Severus 122  
Sophronius 111  
Sulpicius Severus Ibid.  
Synesius 211  
Theodorus 64  
Theophilus 62  
Vigilantius 124  
Vigilius 3  
Ursinus 123  
Zosimus 207   

An Alphabetical Table of the Councils held, from the Year 400, to the Year 430.  
COuncils of Constantinople, in the Year 400, and 401. 217  
Council of Carthage, in 403. 218  
At Carthage, in 404. Ibid.  
The same, in 405. Ibid.  
The same, in 407. Ibid.  
The same, in 408. 219  
The same, in 409. Ibid.  
The same, in 410. Ibid.  
Conference of Carthage, in 411. 220  
Council of Carthage against Coelestius, in 412. 221  
Second Council against the same, in 416. 222  
Council of Carthage, in 417. Ibid.  
Council of Carthage, in 418. Ibid.  
Councils of Carthage, in 418, and 419, concerning the Cause of Apiarius 224  
Council of Carthage, in 420. 282  
Council in the Suburbs of Chalcedon against S. Chrysostom, in 403. 217  
Council of Constantinople, in 426. 228  
Council of Carthage, in 427. ibid.  
Council of Constantinople, in 426.  
Council of Carthage, in 427.  
Council of Constantinople, in 428. 228  
Council of Diospolis, in 418. 221  
Council of Ephesus, in 400, and 401.  
Conference of Jerusalem, in 415. 221  
Council of Milevis, in 402. 217  
The same against Coelestius and Pelagius, in 416 222  
Council of Ptolemais, in 411. 220  
Roman Synod under Innocent I. in 430. 216  
Council of Ravenna, in 419.  
Council of Zirta, in 412. 221  
Council of Zella, in 418. 224    

BIBLIOTHECA PATRUM: OR, A NEW HISTORY OF Ecclesiastical Writers. TOME III. PART I.  
CONTAINING An Account of the LIVES and WRITINGS of the Primitive FATHERS, that Flourished in the Beginning of the Fifth Century of Christianity, with Censures upon all their BOOKS, determining which are Genuine, and which Spurious.  

EVAGRIUS PONTICUS.  
EVagrius Ponticus, a Disciple of the Macarii (not Evagrius of Antioch, mentioned in the Second Volume, nor Evagrius Scholasticus) was ordained Deacon of Constantinople by 
Evagrius Ponticus.  S. Gregory Nazianzen. He Sided with the Defenders of Origen, and left Constantinople; but returned thither in the Year 379, to meet Melanius, and there took upon him the Habit of a Monk. From thence he retired into the Solitudes of Nitria, where he spent the rest of his Life until about the Year 406. Socrates, affirms that he wrote very useful Books. One, saith he, is entitled, The Monk, or, Of an Active Life; the Other, The Gnostick; i. e. Of a Contemplative Life, or for Enlightened Men. This Book is divided into Fifty Chapters. The Third is entitled Antirrheticus, which is a Collection of Passages out of Scripture against the Temptations of the Devil; divided into eight Parts, according to eight Sorts of Thoughts. He wrote, besides Six hundred Gnostick Problems, Two Books of Sentences: Whereof one is Addressed to the Coenobites, and the other to a Virgin. Whosoever reads those Books, will easily see their Worth, and find them to be worthy of admiration. Palladius, Evagrius' Disciple, in the 86th. Chapter of his Monastic History, speaks much in his Commendation, and observes that his Writings were either Books of Piety, or Monastical, or Polemical Books; and this agrees with what Socrates said before. S. Jerom in his Second Book against Pelagius, says, That he wrote to Virgins, to Monks, and to Melanius, and that he composed a Treatise of Apathy, i. e. Of freedom from Passion; and that the Books of this Author were known in the West as well as in the East, because some of them had been Translated by Ruffinus his Disciple. Gennadius mentions this Author in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers; and says, That he had Translated into Latin Evagrius' Treatise against the Eight principal Temptations, One hundred Sentences for the Anchorets, Fifty for learned Men, and some other Sentences that were something obscure: He speaks also of certain Rules dedicated to the Monks and Nuns. There is a Book commonly ascribed to this Author, entitled, The Lives of the Fathers; and some have believed that Gennadius said so: but they misunderstood him; for he doth not say that Evagrius was the Author of those Lives, but that the Book entitled, The Lives of the Fathers, did make mention of Evagrius as a learned and pious Man: and accordingly we find in the 27th. Chapter of the Second Book of those Lives, that Evagrius is mentioned, and his Learning and Piety are commended; whereas it is not likely that Evagrius would have commended himself.  
We have some Fragments of this Author's Works, and several of his Sentences in the Code of the Monastic R●…s, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liv●…and ●●oph●●●gms of the ●●t●●rs, in the Ascetic Treasure, published by P●… ●nd particularly amo●●st th● W●●ks of S. Nilus, where there are several of Evagrius' Writings; whether S. Nilus quoted them, or whether it happened by the Additions of Transcribers, is uncertain. Socrates, Chap. 7. of the Third Book of his History, citys a passage of Evagrius, taken out of his Gnostical Treatise, whe●e it is said, That it is impossible to define the Divinity, and to expound the Trinity. The same Author afterwards citys two passages of Evagrius in the 2●d▪ Chapter of the 4th. Book of his History; whereof one is taken out of the Gnostical Book, and th● oth●● out of the Practical Book. Maximus, S. John Damascene and Anthony, quote many Sentences of th●● Author, which ●re found amongst the Works of S. Nilus.  
Cotelierius in the Third Volume of his Monuments of the Greek Church, Page 68, etc. hath given us part both of the Gnostical and of the Practical Books of Evagrius, which he took out of two Greek Manuscripts, and out of Authors who quoted those Discourses. They begin with a Letter to Anatolius, which is a● a ●●eface ●o the whole Work of the two Books: This Preface is followed by 71 ●●a●t●●● or S●●te●ces drawn from the G●ostical Book, which are written without ●rd●●▪ and 〈◊〉 one with another: There is more Order in the 100 Chapters drawn from the Practical Book. The following Treatise contains eleven Instructions for the Monks. And this is what Cotelierius could find of the Works of Evagrius.  
His Antirrhetical Treatise, or of the Eight Evil Thoughts, is equally imperfect, as we have it: For that which Bigotius hath given in Greek, the Translation whereof was found in S. John Damascene, and in the Bibliotheca Patrum, before the Book of S. Nilus of the Eight Vices, is not the entire Treatise of Evagrius, but only an Epitome containing the Titles, and the Sum of those Eight Chapters, as Big●tius judiciously observes, and may be proved by the Testimony of Socrates; who assures us, That that Book of Evagrius contained several passages of Scripture, whereas there is not one in this.  
Some also ascribe to Evagrius the History of an Hermit called Pac●n, related in Palladius, Chap. 29. and to be found amongst the Works of S. Nilus, published by Suarez at Rome, who observes that this Treatise was ascribed to Evagrius in his Manuscript, as well as the following, which is a Dogmatical Letter concerning the Trinity; the Author whereof refutes the Errors both of the Arians and Macedonians. This Letter belongs to Evagrius, who writ it while he was at Constantinople with S. Gregory Nazianzen.  
It is very probable also, that the Sentences or Maxims which are from Page 543, to 575, of the Writings attributed to S. Nilus, are written by Evagrius, as Holstenius confesses, upon the Authority of Manuscripts. The Greek Manuscripts have quoted some of them under his Name, and they have great relation to those which Gennadius speaks of. To these must be added those which we find under the Name of Evagrius, at the latter end of the First Volume of the Bibliotheca Patrum, in Greek and Latin, of the Year 1624.; and a small Treatise of the Names of God, which is very obscure, published by Cotelierius in the Second Volume of his Monuments of the Greek Church, p. 116.   

MARK.  
MARK the Hermit, of whom we are to speak in this place, lived about the end of the Fourth Century; Palladius and Sozomen speak of him as of a very holy Man. He composed 
Mark.  some Ascetical Treatises, which have been attributed by Bellarmine and some others to one Mark, who lived under Leo the Emperor, in the Ninth Century: But Photius having made a very exact Extract of th●se Treatises, it is impossible they should be of a Man that lived since him; And therefore they must be ascribed to that Mark who lived about the latter end of the Fourth Century. This is what he saith of it in the Two hundredth Volume. I have read Eight Books of Mark the Monk, whereof the First is entitled, Of the Spiritual Life; it may be profitable to those who have undertaken to lead a Religious life, i. e. to be Monks as well as the following; in which he shows, That they are deceived who think to be justified by their Works; showing, that this is a very dangerous Opinion. He adds to this Instruction wholesome Precepts, that lead to a Spiritual life. The Third Book is of Repentance; his design here is to show, that this Virtue is of use at all times. This Book aims at the same end as the foregoing, and the same use may be made of it. His Style is clear enough, because he makes use of common terms, and speaks of things in general; but he wants the smoothness of Old Athens. If there be some darkness, it doth not proceed from the terms he useth, but from the things he treateth of; which are of such a nature, that it is easier to comprehend them by practice than by discoursing. Wherefore you shall find the same obscurity not only in the Books now mentioned, but also in those that follow, and in all the Books of those that have written of the Monastic life, and have discoursed of the Motions and Passions of the Soul, as well as of the Actions which they produce; it being impossible to teach with Words those things that depend upon practice. The Fourth Book, by way of Questions and Answers, shows, That by Baptism we have received not only the Pardon and Remission of our Sins, but also the Grace of the Holy Spirit; and many other Spiritual gifts. The Fifth is a kind of Conference of the Spirit with the Soul: whereby he proves, That we ourselves are Authors of our Sins, and that we ought to accuse no body else upon that account. The Sixth is in the form of a Dialogue between Mark and an Advocate, who discourse of these following Subjects: That none is to seek revenge for an injury received, because the wrong we suffer is to be looked upon as a punishment for our Sins; he adds, that it is difficult to please Men, and that Prayer is to be preferred before any other labour. He concludes, by explaining wherein the Desires of the Flesh consist. He treats of Fasting in the Seventh Book, that is not written by way of Dialogue. The Eighth is directed to a Monk called Nicolas, treating of the ways of appeasing of Anger, and of quenching of Lust. There is also a Ninth Book against the Melchisedechians, wherein he spareth not his own Father who had been tainted with that Heresy. Those that would read useful Books, will not lose their time in reading of this. The Order of these Books is not the same in all Copies; In some those are found last which we have named first. This Observation of Photius is verified by the Latin Edition of these Eight Books, which were published by Johannes Picus, Precedent of the Inquests in the Parliament of Paris, and inserted into the Bibliotheca Patrum. The Four first are there in Photius' order; but the Fifth in his order is the last there; the Sixth is the last but one; and the Book concerning Fasting is immediately after that dedicated to Nicolas the Monk. That against the Melchisedechians is lost. This Author attributeth much to the Faith and Grace of Jesus Christ, and very little to the good Works and free Actions of Men, differing therein from most of the Ascetical Writers. He likewise ascribeth much to the virtue and efficacy of Baptism; and pretends, that it delivers us not only from Death, but also from Lust; and puts us in a condition of doing either good or evil: So that they who have received Baptism are as free either to good or evil as the first Man was. His Opinion is, That a perfect Christian is free from Temptations and from Passions; and maintains, that many of the Gospel-admonitions have the nature of Precepts; An ordinary excess of spiritual Men. In short, it cannot be denied that among many true Maxims, there may be some stretched, and contrary to Truth and right Reason: which is but too common in the most part of Books of a Spiritual Life, both Ancient and Modern. The Original Greek of these Homilies is not only among the MSS. of the King's Library, and in some others, as Oudin hath observed; but also in the First Volume of the Greek and Latin Bibliotheca Patrum, Printed at Paris 1624.  
I say nothing of another Mark, a Deacon of Gaza in Palestine, who is reckoned to be the Author of the Acts of S. Porphyrius of Gaza, related by Metaphrastes and by Surius; because I resolved not to engage in writing any Account of the Acts of the Martyrs, being unwilling to launch into a Sea where it is difficult to avoid being often Shipwrackt.   

SIMPLICIANUS, Bishop of Milan.  
SIMPLICIANUS, Bishop of Milan, Successor to S. Ambrose, exhorted S. Austin by his Letters to exercise his Parts, and apply himself to expound the Holy Scripture: So that he may be said to 
Simplicianus, Bishop of Milan.  have been to S. Austin, what Ambrose was to Origen. We have several Expositions of hard places of Scripture which S. Austin dedicated to him. He also wrote a Letter, wherein he asked Questions, as if he had been to learn, and yet instructed by his questioning. This is what Gennadius observes of this Author. S. Ambrose writ several Letters to him; and we have two Letters of S. Austin, wherein he answered several Questions of Simplicianus, concerning some obscure Passages of the Holy Scripture. This Bishop held the See of Milan but a little while, for he died towards the latter end of the Year 400, or in the beginning of the Year 401.   

VIGILIUS of Trent.  
THere were several of this Name 
a THere were several of this Name.] This is the ancientest. There was another of Africa, who writ upon the Revelations, mentioned by Cassiodorus in the 9th. Chap. of his Institutions. Gennadius, Chap. 51. speaketh of a Deacon called Vigilius, who wrote a Rule for the Monks. Vigilius, Bishop of Tapsus in Africa, famous for his Writings against Nestorius and Eutyches, is a different Person from all these. There was one Vigilius, the Seventh Bishop of Brescia after Philastrius. One Vigilius a Bishop subscribed in the Council of Agatha or aged. But these Names cannot be taken one for the other, without mistaking the Chronology and History. . He that we speak of is the Bishop of Trent 
b Bishop of Trent.] It is certain that Vigilius, Bishop of Trent, lived at the latter end of the 4th. Century, because the 24th Letter of S. Ambrose is directed to him. Usuardus saith, that he suffered Martyrdom under the Consulate of Stilichon, who was Consul in 400 and 405. There is more probability that it was in 400, because in that very Year Sifinnius suffered Martyrdom. , who suffered Martyrdom under the Consulship of Stilichon, in the Year 400 or 405 of Jesus 
Vigilius of Trent.  Christ, to whom S. Ambrose wrote a Letter, which is the 24th amongst his Letters. Gennadius affirmeth, that this Vigilius, Bishop of Trent, wrote a Letter or small Book in commendation of Martyrs, dedicated to Simplicianus; which contained the Acts of those who suffered Martyrdom in his time by the Cruelty of the Barbarians. Surius mentions this Letter, May 23. And it is believed that that Simplicianus, to whom it is dedicated, is the Successor of S. Ambrose in the Church of Milan 
c 'Tis believed that that Simplicianus to whom it is dedicated, is the Successor to S. Ambrose in the Church of Milan.] This Conjecture of Miraeus is indeed probable; this Letter is directed to one Simplicianus a Bishop. He of Milan lived at that time; and Paulinus observes in the Life of S. Ambrose, that the Relics of Sisinnius were sent to Milan. It is true that Gennadius having spoken of Simplicianus as of an Author and Bishop known to him; and then, speaking of Vigilius his Letter, he doth not say that it was directed to him, but only, ad quemdam Simplicianum, to one Simplician; which makes it doubtful, Whether it was to the Bishop of Milan that this Letter was directed. But perhaps Gennadius did not think upon it. However, Vigilius, Bishop of Trent, both lived and wrote at the same time that Simplicianus was Bishop of Milan. . There he gives an Account of the Martyrdom of Sisinnius and his Companions.   

PRUDENTIUS.  
QUintus Aurelius Prudentius Clemens was born in Saragossa, a City of Spain, in the Year 348 
a IN the Year 348.] He saith in the Preface to the Cathemerinon, that he was born under the Consulship of Salia; for so we are to read and understand that Place. 
Oblitum veteris me Saliae Consulis arguens  
Sub quo prima dies mihi.  Most Authors understood not the meaning of it; as, Aldus, Sixtus Senensis, Possevinus, and even Labbée, who believed that he was Consul in a City called Messalia, which is thought by Labbée to be Marseilles; That's a mistake: They took the Name of the Consul Salia, who was Consul with Philippus in the Year 348, for the Name of a Town; and so they ascribed to Prudentius the Consular Dignity that belonged to Salia, under whose Consulship Prudentius came into the World. In the same place he says that he was 57 Years, old when he began to write, which shows that it was in the Year 405. ; and being called to the Bar, was afterwards made a Judge in two considerable 
Prudentius.  Towns, and then promoted by Honorius the Emperor to a very honourable Office. But at the Age of 57 Years, he resolved to mind the things of his Salvation, and to spend the rest of his life in composing of Hymns to the praise of God, and the honour of the Saints; with some Poems against the Pagan Religion, and touching the Duties of Christians. These particulars of his Life are set forth by himself in a Preface to one of his Poems. The Catalogue of his Poetical Works, to the most whereof he gave Greek Titles, is as follows:  
Psychomachia, or The Combat of the Soul. There he describes in Hexameter Verse the Conflict of Virtue against Vice in the Soul of a Christian; and particularly of Faith against Idolatry, of Chastity against Uncleanness, of Patience against Anger, of Humility against Pride, of Sobriety against Excess, of Liberality against Covetousness, and of Concord against Dissension.  
Cathemerinon, or Poems concerning each days Duty; they contain several Odes or Songs about the most ordinary Exercises of Christianity: As for example; Prayers and giving of Thanks at lying down and rising up, before and after Meals, about Fasting, upon the Death of Kindred or Friends, of the Nativity of Christ, and upon the Epiphany.  
After these Hymns come several others, entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or of Crowns, because made in Commendation of Martyrs.  
The following Poems regard several Points of the Christian Religion, and are therefore entitled Apotheosis, or Treatises upon the Divinity. In these he refuteth the Errors of the Heathens, of the Jews, Sabellians, Arians, and Apollinarians, and discourses of the Nature of the Soul, of Original Sin, and of the Resurrection.  
Hamartigenia is a Treatise concerning the Original of Sin, against the Errors of Martion.  
The two Books against Symmachus oppose Idolatry. In the first is showed the Original and Baseness of false Deities; and there is an Account of the Conversion of the City of Rome. In the second Petition which Symmachus presented to the Emperors, to obtain the Re-establishment of the Altar of Victory, and of the Service of the Gods, with the Ceremonies of the Pagan Religion, is answered.  
The last of Prudentius his Works is an Abridgement of some Histories of the Old and New Testament in Distiches. Gennadius speaks of a Book written by Prudentius, called Dittochaeon, i. e. Double food, wherein he had comprised the Historical Part both of the Old and New Testament according to the Person's names. This Book is very like that we now speak of, but only written in a loser Style, and far from the beauty of his other Works. And whereas Prudentius calls the Dittochaeon a considerable Book upon the Old and New Testament, this is a small one upon some places only; which makes me think that it is simply an Epitome of Prudentius' whole Work 
b Prudentius his whole Work.] This Abridgement is ascribed by some to Amoenus; and Georgius Fabricius observeth, that it goes under his Name in a Manuscript belonging to one of Strasburg. It is also printed under the same Name in some Editions of the Bibliotheca Patrum. In all the Manuscripts, Prudentius is said to be the Author of it; and Aldus says, that he saw an Ancient one where the Title of it was Dittochaeon, or Dyrrochaeon: But it is not to be wondered at, if the Abridgement of Prudentius' Works made by one Amoenus, should be taken for the very Work of Prudentius, and perhaps this is the Cause of its being lost. .  
However, Gennadius says, that Prudentius wrote a Commentary upon the Hexameron as far as to the Creation and Fall of the First Man: But that Book is lost.  
Prudentius is no very good Poet, he often useth harsh Expressions not reconcilable to the Purity of Augustus' Age.  
Prudentius' Works were printed and published at Rome, by Aldus Manutius, in the Year 1501, in Quarto. This Edition was followed by those of Germany, and others which are conformable to them; where are added Erasmus' Notes upon the Hymns upon Christmas, and the Epiphany, and those of Sichardus upon the Psychomachia. The Edition of Antwerp of 1540 in Octavo, contains the Annotations of Antonius Nebrissensis and Sichardus. That of 1564. was made after the Notes and Corrections of Putmannus, Graffemburgius and Victor Giselinus, who added his own Commentaries. Most of the late Editions, which are numerous, have been made after that. In 1613. Prudentius was printed at Hanover with Weitzius' Notes; and in 1614 the two Books against Symmachus were printed at Paris, with the Commentaries of Grangaeus: The last Edition of Prudentius was at Amsterdam, in 1667, in Twelves, with the Notes and Corrections of Nicolaus Heinsius.   

DIADOCHUS.  
IT is well known that Diadochus was Bishop of Photice, a City of Epirus, but the time wherein he lived is not known. Bellarmine and others that mention him, place him at the 
Diadschus.  End of the Fourth Century, but without proof. However he is ancienter than Maximus, who quotes him in his Answers to Thalassius. Photius in the 201 Volume saith, That he had read a Book of that Bishop, which contained Ten Definitions and One Hundred Chapters, and observes that this Book is useful for those who design to live a Spiritual Life. The Ten Definitions prefixed before the Hundred Chapters are not extant: These (as we learn by the Titles which Photius hath preserved of them) were properly Reflections upon the principal Perfections of a Spiritual Life. The hundred Chapters of the Spiritual Life were published by Turrianus; 
[Spiritual in the Ascetical Style is to be understood of those extraordinary Exercises and Mortifications, which the old Monks and Hermit's obliged themselves to observe, over and above the ordinary Duties of the Christian Life, that every Christian was by his Procession, made at his Baptism, bound to practise.]  they contain several Maxims concerning a Religious and Spiritual Life; they are written with a plain Style, as most Ascetical Treatises are. There are several false Thoughts, and such spiritual Notions, as will not be relished by every Body.   

AUDENTIUS.  
WHat Gennadius observeth of this Author, whom he mentions immediately after Prudentius, is this: Audentius a Spanish Bishop wrote a Book against the Manichees, Arians, 
Audentius.  and Sabellians, and chief against the Photinians, who are now called Bonosiacks; he entitled this Book, A Treatise of Faith against all Heretics. He there shows, that the Son of God is coeternal with the Father, and that he did not begin to be God when he made himself Man, and that he was born of the Virgin Mary.   

SEVERUS ENDELECHIUS.  
WE have a Bucolick, or Pastoral Poem, of one Severus Endelechius, about the End whereof there is a Discourse of the Efficacy of the Sign of the Cross, and of the Christian Religion, 
Severus Endelechius.  to the embracing of which Tityrus exhorts his Companion. This Author lived since Constantine, but the time is not known. His Poem is pretty well writ. It is likely he lived about the End of the Fourth, or the beginning of the Fifth Century.   

FLAVIANUS.  
FLAVIANUS Presbyter of Antioch, having governed that Church during the Arian Persecutions, in the Absence of Meletius his Bishop, was after his Death, in the Year 380, 
Flavianus.  chosen by the oriental Bishops to fill that See, which was not to be looked upon as vacant, since Paulinus, Colleague to Meletius, was yet alive. This Ordination renewed the Schism of the Church of Antioch. The Western Bishops, who of a long time favoured Paulinus, could not endure that a Bishop should be ordained while he lived, against the Agreement made with Meletius, That the Survivor should remain sole Bishop. They complained loudly of that Injustice; but those who sided with Meletius being the Major part, would not suffer Paulinus, and so nothing was enacted against Flavianus. The Death of Paulinus in the Year 389, did not put an End to the Division of the Church of Antioch; his Party acknowledged Evagrius for their Bishop, whom Paulinus ordained before his Death, and accused Flavianus before Theodosius. This Emperor commanded him to go to Rome, there to be judged: But Flavianus excused himself because of the Winter, promising to execute the Emperor's Orders in the Spring following. But the Synod of Capua in the Year 390, remitted this Business to Theophilus and the Bishops of Egypt. The Emperor commanded Flavianus to repair to Alexandria, which he refused to do, and answered the Emperor, That if they found fault with his Doctrine he was willing to be judged even by his Enemies; but if the Question was about his Bishopric, he would not dispute the matter but readily quit it. The Emperor admiring his Constancy, sent him back to Antioch, and suffered him to live quietly: His resolution provoked St. Ambrose, and the Western Bishops: But Theophilus endeavoured to appease that Quarrel by a milder way than a determinate Sentence: Evagrius being dead, no other Bishop was ordained in his room, and there were but few Christians at Antioch, who owned not Flavianus for their Bishop. But he did not communicate with the Western Bishops before the Year 398, when S. Chrysostom undertook to make his Peace with Anastasius Bishop of Rome, and with the Western Bishops. And thus was Flavianus acknowledged by all as the lawful Bishop of Antioch, and ended his Days in peace, in the Year 404. S. Chrysostom often commends him in his Sermons. He describes his Journey to the Emperor's Court, to get a Pardon for the People of Antioch; and tells the particulars of the Speech he made. Theodoret also speaks much to his Advantage, and observeth, l. 4. of his History, c. 25. that Diodorus and he maintained the Faith of the Church against the Assaults of the Arians. He adds, that Flavianus did not then preach, but furnished Diodorus with Notions and Arguments from Scripture to use in his Sermons; but when he was Bishop of Antioch he preached himself. Theodoret in his Dialogues quotes some places of this Father's Homilies touching the Incarnation; he quotes a Homily upon S. John Baptist, upon the Theophany, and a Homily upon Easter: An Homily upon Judas' Treachery, a Homily upon S. Luke, and another upon these words. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me. None 
[Photius cod. 52. of his Bibliotheca speaks of a Letter written by Flavianus to the Bishops of Osrhoëne, and of another to an Armenian Bishop.]  of these Homilies, nor any other of the Works of this holy Bishop are extant, unless perhaps some of his Sermons are among those that are attributed to S. Chrysostom.   

S. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM.  
SAint JOHN, Sir-named CHRYSOSTOM, because of his Eloquence 
a SIr-named Chrysostom, etc.] It is not known when he was first called by that Name, so justly given him: Some say he had it in his Life-time, but neither S. Jerom, nor S. Augustin, nor Theodoret, nor any other among the Ancients, give him that Name, but call him only John of Constantinople. Sozomen observes, that Antiochus Bishop of Ptolemais, had this Name given him, but does not say, that it was common to him with our Saint. Many Authors have written his Life, but very few have done i● faithfully. Palladius alone may be credited in this Case. Bigotius published the Original Greek of this Author, and with him may be joined Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, who have in their Ecclesiastical Histories, given an Account of several Circumstances of the Life of St. Chrysostom. Theodoret made some Speeches in his Commendation, the Extracts whereof are preserved by Photius, in the 273 Volume. Little regard is to be had to the other Writers of his Life: for they have filled their Relations with Fables. The first of them is George, who is thought to have been Bishop of Alexandria. Some think that part of his Relation was taken out of S. Cyril of Alexandria, but that is not probable. This Author lived about the Year of Christ 600. After him Leo the Emperor, Simeon Metaphrastes, an Anonymus Author, S. John Damascene, Cosmas Vestitor, John Euchaita, the Patriarch Philotheus, and Matthaeus Camariota, have written Lives and Panegyrics of our Saint; but very ill, and stuffed with many Fables. , was 
S. John Chrysostom.  of Antioch; his Father's Name was SECUNDUS, and his Mother's ANTHUSA 
b His Mother's Anthusa.] There was another John, Son of Publia, mentioned by Theodoret in his History, l. 3. c. 19 for in the first place all Historians assure us, that S. John Chrysostom's Mother was called Anthusa; as Palladius in his Life, c. 5. Socrates in his History, l. 6. c. 3. Secondly, Publia was an old Woman in the Time of Julian the Emperor, in the Year 362. according to Theod●ret, and S. Chrysostom's Mother, was alive in 404, as appeareth by his own Letters, the 238th, and 239th, and she was but 40 Years of Age in the Year 368. In short, John the Son of Publia was an only Child; whereas S. Chrysostom had a Sister older than himself, to whom he writ his 238th Letter. . He lost his Father when he was young 
c He lost his Father when he was young.] St. Chrysostom says it in his first Book of Priesthood, c▪ 1. Some have affirmed that his Parents were Pagans, but he says himself in the first Homily against the Anomaeans, that he was bred and brought up in the Church; and it is clear by the place we have quoted out of his Book of the Priesthood, that his Mother was a Christian when his Father died, which was soon after he was born. , and his Mother took care to breed him up like a Christian. He learned Rhetoric under Libanius, and Philosophy under Andragathius, both very famous in their profession. He first designed to follow the Law 
d He first designed to follow the Law.] Some say, that he was called to the Bar, but Palladius, So●rates and Sozomen, only say, that when he was fit for it he quitted it. There is a Letter of Libanius to one John to congratulate him for a public Pleading, wherein he had spoken much to the Praise of the Emperor and of his Children. But this John is not our S. John Chrysostom, who was then a Priest: For this was the Emperor Theodosius, who left the Empire to his Sons about the Year 393. S. Chrysostom indeed confesseth in his first Book of the Priesthood, that he did follow the Bar, but does not mention his Pleading. Such was his Eloquence, that Libanius at his Death said, that he alone was worthy to succeed him, if the Christians had not snatched him away. , but soon altered his Mind, and became a Churchman. He left Libanius his School to study the Scriptures, and had for his Tutors Diodorus and Carterius Superiors of the Monks, that were in the Suburbs of Antioch. He was afterwards baptised by Meletius, and chosen by this Bishop to be Reader. He was so highly esteemed, that he was marked out by an Assembly of Prelates to be made Bishop, as well as Basil his Friend 
e Basil his Friend.] It is not certainly known who this Basil was, nor Bishop of what place; but it is certain, that he was not the great S. Basil, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Socrates and Sozomen, have improperly confounded them; for Basil Chrysostom's Friend was of his own Age, and instructed by the same Masters, as appeareth by the beginning of S. Chrysostom's Book of the Priest hood; whereas S. Basil was much older, and was Bishop of the Church of Caesarea, before St. Chrysostom was 25 Years old: Photius tells us, that Basil S. Chrysostom's Friend, was Basil of Seleucia. This is yet a grosser mistake, because this latter was not ordained Bishop before the Year 431, and he lived till 458. Basil S. Chrysostom's Companion, was rather Bishop of Raphanea, or another of the same Name Bishop of Bible's, whose Names are found in the Subscriptions of the Council of Constantinople. . But knowing the Day when they were to ordain him, he hide himself, avoiding that Dignity with as much Care, as others sought for it with earnestness. About the Year 374, he retired to a Mountain near Antioch, where he lived with only one old Monk the Space of four Years; then he chose to dwell in a Cave for two Years, after an austere manner. The severity of a solitary Life, and continual Labour did much impair S. Chrysostom's health, which obliged him to return to Antioch, about the Year 380. There the great Meletius ordained him a Deacon, and soon after he went to the Council of Constantinople, where he died. After his Death S. Chrysostom sided with Flavianus, who made him Priest, and having received that Order he gave himself wholly to preaching, and therein got such reputation, that after the Death of Nectarius Archbishop of Constantinople, he was with general Consent chosen to fill up that See. The Emperor was obliged to use all his Authority to make him leave Antioch, and at last he was forced to take him away secretly. Theophilus' Bishop of Alexandria, whom the Emperor had sent for to ordain S. Chrysostom, had more inclination for one Isidorus a Presbyter; wherefore he secretly opposed the Ordination of S. Chrysostom. But Eutropius and other Officers of the Court upheld S. Chrysostom so far, that Eutropius (to oblige Theophilus to ordain him) shown him a Memorial containing several Heads of an Accusation form against him, and put it to his choice, whether he would ordain St. Chrysostom, or prepare himself for his Trial upon those Accusations. Theophilus chose the former, and ordained S. Chrysostom the first Day of March 398. This was the beginning of that hatred which Theophilus bore to St. Chrysostom, and which proceeded further than can well be believed, as we shall see afterwards.  
S. Chrysostom being entered upon the Government of the Church of Constantinople, began with endeavouring to reform the manners of the Clergy, and then fell to reproving the Vices of the Court; and this got him the ill-will of many, for he was of a severe Temper not agreeable to men of the World; and his way of living was singular and retired. They found fault, that he always eat by himself, and would never appear at those Feasts where he was invited, which they looked upon as proceeding from Scorn and Contempt of others, though it was only an Effect of his Constitution and Weakness of Stomach, or of his great Sobriety. He discharged the Duties of his Office with wonderful Exactness and Care, knowing that the Revenue of the Church is the Patrimony of the Poor; he cut off the superfluous Expenses of his Predecessors, to increase the Allowances of Hospitals for the Sick. And the Hospital at Constantinople not being large enough, by reason of the great Number of Sick and Strangers, he caused several others to be built, and for each of them he appointed two Priests to take care of the Sick and Strangets, He particularly provided for Virgins and Widows. He constantly preached to the People▪ exhorting them not to neglect the public Service. And he is said, first to have instituted solemn Processions in Constantinople.  
But his Pastoral care was not restrained to his particular Church, but extended itself also to the Churches of Thracia, Pontus, and Asia. He pulled down some Temples of false Deities that were still in Phoenicia. To the Goths that were infected with Arianism, he sent Priests, Deacons and Readers that spoke their Language, thereby to endeavour the Conversion of that People from their Error: He also sent Missionaries to the Scythians that inhabited along the Danube. He wrote to the Bishop of Tyre against the Marcionites of those parts, offering him the Emperor's help: But he never did the Church a more signal Service, than when he reunited the East and West, by reconciling Flavianus with the Western and Egyptian Bishops.  
He assembled at Constantinople a Synod of Two and twenty Bishops about September in the Year 400. Eusebius, Bishop of Valentinople in Asia, came to it, and presented to the Council a Petition containing Seven Articles against Antoninus' Bishop of Ephesus, the Metropolitan of Asia. He was accused, First, Of Melting the holy Vessels, and converting them into Money, which he bestowed upon his Son. 2dly. That he had taken a Marble Stone from the entrance of the Baptistery, to use in his own Bath. 3dly. That the Pillars which remained after the Building of the Church were used to support the Roof of his own Hall. 4thly. That he kept a Servant who was guilty of Manslaughter. 5thly. That he had sold the Lands, which were left to the Church by Basilina, Mother to Julian the Emperor, as if they had belonged to his own Estate. 6thly. That he had again taken his Wife, whom he had put away, and had two Children by her. 7thly. That a Custom was introduced by him, so as to become almost a Law, to take Money for the Ordination of Bishops, proportionably to the value of their Bishoprics. Antoninus' appeared at the Council that was called by S. Chrysostom, where these Accusations were brought against him by Eusebius. They insisted particularly upon the last, as being the most important. Antoninus' denied all; and could not be convicted, because there were no Witnesses; Wherefore the Council deputed three Bishops to go into Asia, and hear the Witnesses that were to be produced by the Accuser. One of these three Bishops being Antoninus his friend, feigned himself sick, that he might not inform against his friend. The two others went to Hypaepae, a City in Asia, where they waited to no purpose for Witnesses, because the Accuser was agreed with the accused, either through fear of his Power, or because he had no sufficient Proofs. The Deputies, weary of waiting, went away, having written a Letter, in which they Excommunicated Eusebius as an Impostor for making default. Sometime after Antoninus died, and his Death caused new Troubles in the Churches of Asia. In this juncture of time the Clergy of Ephesus and the Bishops of that Province made application to S. Chrysostom, and prayed him to come into their Country, to establish some Order in the Church of Ephesus. He came thither in the end of Winter, of the Year 401, and assembled a Synod of Seventy Bishops, wherein Six Bishops were deposed, who were convicted of giving Antoninus' Money for their Ordination. The Heirs of that Bishop were enjoined to return them the Money he had received: and they Ordained Heraclides a Deacon, Bishop of Ephesus. What concerned the Church of Ephesus being thus regulated, S. Chrysostom returned through Nicomedia, where he turned out Gerontius, who was formerly S. Ambrose's Deacon, but went to the East and was ordained Bishop of Nicomedia: He settled in his room Pansophius; and going on in his Journey, in every place, he took from the Novatians and Quartodecimani the Churches which they were in possession of.  
While S. Chrysostom was doing these things in Asia, Severinus, Bishop of Gabala, a famous Preacher, (to whom, at his going away, he had committed the care of his Church) did all he could to get the applause both of the Nobility and People. This begot some jealousy in S. Chrysostom, who expelled him out of Constantinople after he returned; and this he did by the Solicitation of a Deacon of his, named Serapion. But the Empress caused him to come again, having reconciled them, though with much difficulty.  
This Reconciliation was followed by another quarrel with Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, an old enemy to S. Chrysostom. The Historians represent that Bishop as an ambitious Man, passionate, fierce, covetous, and cunning; who would never yield, but compass every thing he undertook; who easily provoked Men to be his Enemies, and sooner or later would undo them: He was no friend to S. Chrysostom, because he was obliged to ordain him against his will: but the hatred he bore to him broke out upon the account of three Egyptian Monks, Dioscorus, Ammonius, and Euthymius, Sir-named the Long-brethrens. Theophilus was very angry with them, because they reproved his Conduct, and received Isidore that was become his enemy: He condemned them in a Synod of Alexandria, assembled in 399, because they would not subscribe the Condemnation of Origen. After this Condemnation he went himself with Soldiers to drive them away, with all the Monks that lived under their Rule. These poor Monks not knowing whither to go, because Theophilus persecuted them everywhere, came to Constantinople, and represented to S. John, the Violences of their Bishop, beseeching him to have compassion on them. S. Chrysostom gave them leave to say their Prayers in a Church he assigned for them, but did not admit them to the Communion of the Eucharist. He only writ to Theophilus to re-establish them. On the contrary, Theophilus sent Men to Constantinople, who delivered to the Emperor a form of Accusation against these Monks; who in their own defence, accused their Bishop also. S. John Chrysostom gave Theophilus notice of it, who answered him fiercely: That he ought to have known, that by the Canons of the Council of Nice, a Bishop is forbidden to judge of Causes that are out of the limits of his own Jurisdiction: That he had no right to receive Accusations against him; and that if he must be judged, the Judgement belonged to the Bishops of Egypt, and not to the Bishop of Constantinople. S. Chrysostom having received this Letter, exhorted both the one and the other to Peace; but neither were disposed towards it. The Monks accused by Theophilus, and some of their Brethren, persuaded of their innocence, continually Petitioned the Emperor; who yielding to their Supplications, at last appointed Judges; who after examination of the Accusations against the Long-brethrens, found them to be Calumnies, and so gave Judgement against some of the Monks that were the Authors of them. All this happened in the Year 401.  
In the Year 402, S. Epiphanius, Bishop in Cyprus, (who held with Theophilus, because he was a great enemy to Origen) came to Constantinople. S. Chrysostom invited him to take a lodging in his House; but Epiphanius, preingaged by Theophilus, writing to him, gave him this answer; That he was so far from lodging in his House, he would not so much as enter into it, nor join in the public Prayers whilst he was there, unless S. Chrysostom first banished the Long-brethrens, and condemned Origen. S. John having refused to do it, S. Epiphanius designed to go himself into the Apostle's Church on the Lord's-day, and there publicly condemn Origen's Books, and excommunicate the Long-brethrens with their Adherents. But as he was going, he met with Serapion the Deacon, who told him from S. Chrysostom, that he undertook things against Order, and against the Canons: That he had ordained a Deacon out of his own Diocese, and celebrated the Eucharist, without permission from the Ordinary; and that he was about a thing that was neither just nor reasonable, and dangerous for himself, for he had to do with a populace which would soon be up; and that S. Chrysostom would not answer for what might happen. This discourse made Epiphanius withdraw, and desist from his enterprise. The Long-brethrens after this went to him, and complained that he condemned them before hearing, and without conviction; they shown, that they had not dealt so with him, having everywhere defended both his Works and his Person. Epiphanius reflecting upon this Remonstrance, and considering what Troubles Theophilus had engaged him in, returned towards Cyprus. At his going away he told the Bishops, I leave you the Town, the Palace, and the Theatre. He died before he got to his own Country.  
After the departure of S. Epiphanius, S. Chrysostom made a Speech against the Disorders of Women: The Empress Eudoxia supposing that it was meant of her, complained to the Emperor, and urged Theophilus to come to Constantinople. This Bishop, who waited for an opportunity to destroy S. Chrysostom, came immediately about the beginning of the Year 403, and brought with him several Egyptian Bishops. Those of Asia that were deposed by S. Chrysostom, or were not satisfied with his behaviour, repaired likewise to Constantinople. Theophilus had his Apartment in one of the Empress' Houses; from whence he sent the Accusers of John to the Emperor, who commanded that both they and Chrysostom should appear before Theophilus his Synod, to be judged there. S. Chrysostom denied them to be his Judges; affirming, That it appertained to the Bishops of his, and of the adjacent Provinces, and not to Strangers, to take cognizance of that matter. Notwithstanding this reason, which Theophilus himself had alleged to avoid being judged by S. Chrysostom, he held a Synod of Six and Thirty Bishops, in the Suburbs of Chalcedon, to condemn S. Chrysostom. One John exhibited Nine and Twenty Articles against him.  
S. Chrysostom was cited to the Synod to answer those Accusations, but he sent three Bishops and two Presbyters, who in his behalf declared to Theophilus and his Synod, That he was ready to submit to any that might be his Judges, but not to Theophilus his professed Enemy, nor to the Egyptian Bishops, who could not regularly judge the Bishops of Thrace. S. Chrysostom objected in writing, particularly against Theophilus; because when he came out of Alexandria, he said, I am going to depose John: Against Acacius of Beraea, because he threatened him long before: Against Severianus and Antiochus, because of the quarrels betwixt them, which were public and notorious. He so much depended upon his innocency, that he promised to appear at the Synod, if these four Bishops would retire: They did not hearken to this Proposition, but cited him to the Synod three times. He answered still, That he would justify himself before a more numerous Synod; but he had reason to reject a Council, where his Enemies were to be his principal Judges. However, his Process was brought before the Council. Theophilus was present, and received the Memorials of Accusation which himself had made. One Isaac a Monk, whom S. Chrysostom had reproved, for going abroad oftener than Monks ought to do, exhibited a Bill against him with Nine Articles: After examination of some of them, Paul of Heraclea, Precedent of the Council, required the Bishops to give their Opinions: They all declared that S. Chrysostom ought to be deposed; and having delivered their Opinions, they wrote a Letter to the Emperor, and another to the Clergy of Constantinople, giving notice of the Judgement they had given against S. John Chrysostom. After this, three Bishops of Asia, deposed by S. Chrysostom, Petitioned the Council for their Restauration; and it is probable that it was granted them. And, on the contrary, Heraclides, who had been ordained Bishop of Ephesus, was deposed. This is what Theophilus his Caballing obtained of the Council: the Acts whereof were extant in Photius' time, who gives an Epitome of them in the 59th. Volume of his Bibliotheca. They were divided into Thirteen Acts or Sessions.  
The news of S. Chrysostom's deposition stirred up a great Sedition at Constantinople; the Emperor commanded that he should be banished, and the People resolved to keep him by force: But three days after he went out of the Church of his own accord, to surrender himself to them that had order to seize him, and was conveyed to a small Town of Bythinia. His going away increased the tumult of the People, who both with Prayers and Threaten addressed to the Emperor to call him back; which so amazed Eudoxia, that she became Petitioner for his return, and sent one of her own Officers to fetch him. When he was come back, he would not perform the Episcopal Functions till he was restored by a more numerous Synod than that which deposed him; he besought the Emperor to call one, and in the mean time withdrew to a place without the City: But the People, impatient of delays, led him into the Church, and he was restored by Thirty Bishops, and Theophilus was obliged to departed.  
After this, it seemed that S. Chrysostom had nothing to fear; but of a sudden a new Storm arose against him. Towards the end of the Year 403, the Empress Eudoxia caused her Statue to be set up near the Church: The People, in honour to the Empress, celebrated some public Games by that Statue. S. Chrysostom looking upon these as indecent things, preached against them: This provoked the Empress, who still preserved a grudge against him, and resolved to have a new Assembly of Bishops, to drive him out of the Church of Constantinople. It is said that the Saint hearing of it, provoked her yet more, by beginning a Sermon with these words: New Herodias is in a fury again; now she demands the Head of John in a Charger once again: However, at the end of that Year, Theophilus being afraid to go to Constantinople, sent thither three Bishops from Egypt; who being assembled with them that were thee at Court, and some others come from Syria, Pontus and Phrygia, they undertook to judge S. Chrysostom. He went to them, and desired to see his Accusation, or to know his Accusers, that he might make his defence about the Crimes laid to his charge: But these Bishops declared, that it was not necessary to examine, whether the things alleged against him were true or false; It was enough for his Condemnation, that he returned to his Bishopric when deposed by a Council, and was not absolved by another Council; because it was provided in the Fourth Canon of the Council of Antioch, That whosoever was guilty of this, could never hope to be restored, nor so much as be admitted to plead for himself. Elpidius and Tranquillus, who defended S. Chrysostom; answered, That this Canon was made by Arians; and that he was restored by those Bishops that communicated with him. The Bishops of the Council denied that the Canon was made by Arians; and insisted upon this, That the Number of those who deposed S. Chrysostom, was greater than of those that communicated with him at his return to his Church. On this ground they confirmed the Sentence of Deposition, which the first Council pronounced against S. Chrysostom.  
By virtue of this Judgement, the Emperor, at the beginning of Lent, 404, forbade him to go to the Church: He obeyed, and left the Clergy alone to perform Divine Service. But he was not suffered to be long at rest, for upon Holy Saturday, Lucius, Captain of the Guards, came with Soldiers into the great Church in the Evening, and drove away forty Bishops that communicated with S. Chrysostom, all the Clergy, and part of the People: Then he placed armed Men about the Sanctuary, entered into the Baptistery, and misused those that were there. Some Soldiers that were not yet baptised, went to the Altar, and spilt upon their clothes the consecrated Elements that were in the holy Vessels. This Violence was followed by the Prince's Edicts against S. Chrysostom, and against those that communicated with him. The next day the People met together in the public Baths, and were driven out by force: So that such as were for S. Chrysostom were obliged to meet in several places of the Town; and were afterwards called by their Enemies Joannites. They did not yet dare to meddle with the Person of S. Chrysostom, who was so much beloved of the People, that they were ready to take up Arms to prevent his being taken away. This Saint, unwilling to be the cause of a Civil War, got away from those Guards that the People set about him, and put himself into the hands of those that were to take him. He was led to Nice; and the same day that he went, which was the 20th. of June, there happened a Fire in the great Church, which burned it to the ground, with the Palace joining to it. Seven days after one Arsacius, an old Man of Eighty years of Age, Brother to Nectarius, was ordained in the room of S. Chrysostom. This Arsacius furiously persecuted S. Chrysostom's friends. This Saint tarried not long at Nice, but left it on the 13th. of July to go to Cucusus, the place of his Exile, where he arrived in September. He endured much by the way, but was kindly received by Dioscorus Bishop of the place. In the mean time Laws were published at Constantinople against those that adhered to S. Chrysostom; Three of them are in the Theodosian Code. The First of the First of September, l. 16. tit. 2. c. 3. It is against Foreign Clerks, who kept Meetings in private places. The Second of the Tenth of the same Month, is tit. 4. c. 5. of the same Book: By this Law those are to be Fined who suffered their Slaves to go to private Meetings. The Third in the same place, c. 6. forbids all the Meetings of those that did not communicate with Arsacius Bishop of Constantinople, Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, and Porphyrius who was chosen Bishop of Antioch in the place of Flavianus. All these Laws are against them that took John's part, and held private Meetings, and refused to communicate with those Three Patriarches. About the latter end of that Year a shower of Hail of extraordinary bigness did much mischief in Constantinople; and the Empress died soon after: John's friends looked upon both these accidents as Judgements from God for the injurious usage of S. Chrysostom.  
The Patriarches of the East having declared against S. Chrysostom, he could expect no relief, but from the Western Bishops, and particularly from the See of Rome, which had always been the refuge of Bishops that were unjustly persecuted in their own Country. To prevent Pope Innocent, Theophilus sent him a Letter by one of his Readers, acquainting him with S. Chrysostom's deposition. This being publicly known in Rome, 〈◊〉, Deacon of Constantinople, petitioned the Pope that he would suspend his Judgement, till he were rightly informed of the matter. Three days after came four Bishops, sent by S. Chrysostom, who delivered to the Pope a Letter from him, imploring 〈◊〉 succour, and that of the Bishops of the West; with another Letter from Forty Bishops and the Clergy of Constantinople; which declared, That S. John Chrysostom was condemned unjustly, and without being heard. S. Innocent being persuaded that Theophilus had not proceeded regularly, sent Letters of Communion to S. Chrysostom, as well as to the Bishops that condemned him; and declared, that it was requisite to call an unexceptionable Council both of Eastern and Western Bishops. Theophilus afterwards sent to Rome the Acts of the Council held against S. Chrysostom; but this altered not the Pope's resolution; who declared, that he could not ●efuse Communion with S. Chrysostom before a new Council had condemned him. Soon after Theoct●nus brought a Letter from Five and twenty Bishops, signifying to the Pope, that S. Chrysostom had been expelled out of Constantinople, and sent into Exile; the same was afterwards confirmed by another Letter of Fifteen Bishops, brought by the Bishop of Apamea; and by the Testimony of Palladius of Helenopolis, who was forced to fl●● to Rome; and by Letters from the Clergy of Constantinople, which gave an Account of the Violences exercised against their Bishop, and the whole Church of Constantinople. The Pope, moved with these things, writ to S. Chrysostom and to his Clergy those Letters which are preserved by Sozomen in his History, l. 8. c. 26.  
S. Chrysostom's friends everywhere published these Letters, and wrought so far with Innocent, that he obtained of Honorius, Emperor of the West, a Letter to his Brother Arcadius, in the behalf of S. Chrysostom; by the which he requested of his Brother, that a Council might be assembled at Thessal●nica, where Theophilus should appear as one accused. Three Bishops, Two Presbyters, and Two Deacons, were deputed to carry this Letter, with the Letters of several Western Bishops, written in favour of S. Chrysostom. But these Deputies were stopped at Athens by the Governor, and sent by Sea with a Guard to Constantinople. They were not permitted to enter into the Town, but were conveyed to a Castle in Thrace, where they were shut up. A Counsellor of State, called Patricius, went thither to ask for the Letters; they answered, That their Order was not to deliver them to any but the Emperor, and the Bishops to whom they were directed. Patricius withdrawing after this Answer, another Officer, named Valerius, was sent to take them by force. The next day Money was proffered them, to admit to their Communion Atticus, who succeeded Arsacius in the See of Constantinople. They refused it, and demanded to be sent back. When they could not be made to comply, they were put into an old Vessel with Twenty Soldiers, that carried them to Lampsacus, where they shifted their Vessel, and arrived at O●ranto, a Port of Calabria, Twenty Days after their Embarquing, and Four Months from their departure out of Italy. This Deputation was dated in the Year 404.  
In the mean time S. Chrysostom being unhealthy in the place of his Exile, was obliged often to shift his Quarters, as appeareth by his 131st. Letter. But notwithstanding his banishment and infirmities, he still sent Priests and Monks to preach the Gospel among the Goths and Persians, and to take care of the Churches of Armenia and Phoenicia; as appears by his 14th. 123d. 126th. 203d. 204th. 206th. and 207th. Letters. But his Enemies would not let him be quiet, but persuaded the Emperor to send him further to Pityus, a Town upon the Euxine Sea: Immediately Soldiers were sent to convey him thither; The usage which he endured, and the fatigue of the Journey so weakened him, that he fell sick of a violent Fever, which carried him off in a few hours. In the place where he died, there was a Church of S. Basiliscus Martyr, where he was buried the 4th. of November, 407, having been Three Years, Three Months, and Four and Twenty Days in banishment: Aged Sixty Years, and Ten Years Ordained Bishop of Constantinople. After his Death, the East and the West were divided for some time upon his account, because those of the West reverenced his Memory; and the others on the contrary looked upon him as a condemned Bishop, whose Name they refused to insert into the Diptyches; That is to say, in the Registers of those that were to be mentioned with Honour at the Celebration of the Eucharist. One would have thought that the Emperor Arcadius his Death happening Five Months after, should have removed the greatest obstacle, which hindered the Bishops of the East from doing justice to the Memory of S. Chrysostom: but Theophilus exercised his hatred against him, even after his death: He wrote against him a book full of Invectives, and reproachful Rail; and prevented, while he lived, any honour to be done to the Memory of S. Chrysostom in the East.  
When Theophilus was dead, the Spirits of the Eastern Bishops began to relent, and they began to be more favourable to the Memory of that Saint. Alexander Successor to Porphyrius in the See of Antioch, was the First, who in the Year 413, inserted the Name of S. Chrysostom into the Diptyches, and who by that means was readmitted to communicate with Pope Innocent. Acacius of Beraea likewise received Letters of Communion from the Pope, upon condition that he should not show any hatred against S. Chrysostom afterwards.  
About the Year 428. Attires Bishop of Constantinople, inserted the Name of S. Chrysostom into the Diptyches, and exhorted S. Cyril of Alexandri● to do the same. This Bishop scrupled it at first: But at last 〈◊〉. Is●odore Pelusiota persuaded him to do it. Thus all the Churches did right to the Memory of S. Chrysostom, and Peace 〈◊〉 restored.  
The Number of S. Chrysostom's Works is 〈◊〉 great, that the Ancient Critics durst not pretend to make a Catalogue of them: S. Is●odore and 〈◊〉, looked upon it as almost impossible. George and Nicephorus say, that he composed above a Thousand Volumes. Suidas and ●●ss●●dorus affirm, that he wrote Commentaries upon the ●…: From all which it is evident, that how many soever of S. Chrysostom's Works are ●…, they are fewer than they have been, and so much the rather; because among those that we have, some are none of his, though they bear his Name.  
The 65 Homilies upon Genesis, are the First of S▪ Chrysostom's Commentaries of the Bible, according to the Order of the sacred Books▪ the Thirty two first were preached in Lent, in the third Year of his being Bishop. This Subject was interrupted by the Festivals; for he was to preach upon the Passion of Jesus Christ. After Easter, he undertook to expound the Acts of the Apostles, and was near a Year about that Work: Afterwards he betook himself to his former Task, and finished his Exposition of Genesis, in Thirty four Homilies. These Homilies are Commentaries upon Genesis, rather than Sermons. And he applies himself particularly to explain the Text of Scripture literally. The Examples of Virtues or Vices spoken of in the Text, which he expounds, are commonly the Subject of his Homilies. The Style is plain, and without those Figures and Ornaments which are to be found in his other Sermons.  
The Nine Sermons of S. Chrysostom upon single passages of Genesis, are more florid, and contain more moral Thoughts. The First is, upon the first Words of Genesis. In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth▪ in it he treats of Fasting and Alms-deeds.  
The Second is upon these Words of the first Chapter, v. 26. Let us make Man after our own Image: There he gives the reason why Moses speaking of the Creation of Man, uses the Expression, God said, Let us make; whereas he said of the Creation of other things, God said, Let them be: And there he shows wherein this Resemblance with God consists.  
In the Third he makes some further Reflections upon Man being like God, and upon the Dominion given to him over other Creatures; and there he answers the Question, Why Beasts fall upon and kill Man; and confesses that it is, because Man by Sin has lost the Empire he had over them. S. Austin quotes this Homily in his First Book against Julian, and produces a passage out of it to prove Original sin.  
In the Fourth the three kinds of servitude which Mankind is fallen into by sin are discoursed of, which are, the Subjection of the Wife to her Husband, that of one Man to another, and that of Subjects to their Princes. He insists much upon this last, and occasionally speaks of the Attention Men ought to give to Sermons.  
In the Fifth he shows, that those who live well purchase their Liberty; and declaims against those that refuse to assist the Poor.  
The Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth, are concerning the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the First he shows, that Adam knew Good and Evil before he tasted the Fruit of that Tree. In the Second he says, that it is so called, because Evil is more perfectly known after Commission; there he also explains those Words of our Saviour to the good Thief: This Day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. The Third is about God's forbidding Man to eat of the Fruit of the Tree.  
The Ninth is upon the Names of Abraham and Noah, where he discourses of brotherly Correction.  
The Tenth Homily upon Genesis in the English Edition is not genuine; it has the same Preface with the Third Homily upon David and Saul; it is written in a swelling Style, and full of Metaphors, and quite different from the first Part.  
The following Sermons are upon the History of Hannah, Samuel's Mother, in the first Book of Samuel; but it treats of several Subjects.  
The Preface to the First is upon the Fast of the last Lent, and upon the Sermons which he had made since against the Gentiles; and after Flavianus his return upon the Feasts of the Martyrs, and against swearing. After this he resumes the Subject of Providence, which he was entered upon: he demonstrates, That it is God who gave unto Man the knowledge of the things which he ought to know; That sickness and death have their use: He takes notice that the Love which Parents have for their Children is an effect of Providence, and that Mothers are not less concerned in the Education of their Children than Fathers: And upon occasion of this last Reflection, he relates the History of Hannah, and he speaks of it in the following Sermon, and thereupon he Discourses of Moderation, of Modesty, and the Reverence due to Priests, and of Grace before and after Meat.  
In the Third, he speaks of the Obligation which lies upon Men, to give their Children good Education.  
In the Fourth, upon the second Part of Hannah's Song, he reproves those who neglect Divine Service to go to Plays and public Shows, and discourses of the usefulness of Prayer.  
In the Fifth he shows their Error, who go to Church only upon great Festival Days. He expounds the rest of Hannah's Hymns, and he speaks of the Advantage of Wealth above Poverty. These five Discourses were preached by S. Chrysostom in Antioch, about Whitsuntide, after Flavianus his Return. In this last Sermon, he mentions a Discourse upon the first Part of Hannah's Hymn not extant.  
There are three Sermons about David and Saul. In the first, after a Declamation against those that frequent Plays to the neglect of Holy Worship, and a Declaration that they should be excommunicated, he treats of patience, and forgiving of Enemies; proposing for an Example David's Action, who would not kill Saul, though God had delivered him into his Hands.  
In the second, that Action is commended, and preferred before all the other great Actions of that King. He prosecutes the same Argument in the third Discourse, where he also complains of those that were given to Plays: He observes, that it is as great an Act of Virtue to bear an Injury patiently, as to give Alms.  
At the End of these there is another Sermon against Idleness, which hath no relation to the Rest.  
The Homilies upon the Psalms, are Commentaries rather than Sermons: S. Chrysostom does not enlarge so much upon Moral Topics, as to give the sense and understanding of the Text. He follows the Version of the LXX, but he often hath recourse to the differences of the Ancient Greek Versions, and quotes even the Hebrew Text in some places to clear difficulties: There are some Psalms upon which we have no Homilies of S. Chrysostom, as the first and second; but there are upon the third, and following to the 13th; upon the 41st and 43d, and so on the 117th; and from the 119th to the last; which make in all sixty Homilies, which certainly are S. Chrysostom's. To these may be added, the Homily upon the thirteenth Psalm, and two others upon the fiftieth, which have likewise S. Chrysostom's Style. Those upon the 51st, 95th, and 100th, are more doubtful; yet I see no reason that we should reject them. It is not so of the Commentaries upon the 101st Psalm, and upon the six that follow, which are Theodoret's. The Commentary upon the 119th, belongs to some modern Greek, that speaks against the Iconoclasts, and takes out of Theodoret's Commentaries part of what he writes. There are also four Sermons upon particular passages of the Psalms, but they must not be joined to the rest; because they are not Explications of the Text of the Psalms, but Sermons upon distinct Subjects.  
These are a Discourse upon these words of the 44th Psalm: The Queen standeth at thy right hand, preached in Constantinople some Days after Eutropius his Disgrace, who had retired into the Church, but was gone out again. He speaks in his Preface, of the Advantage of reading the Holy Scripture. He describes afterwards how the Church was beset, when Eutropius had taken Sanctuary there. He relates what he had done to help him, and with what sincerity he had spoken, without fearing the Threaten uttered against him. He observes that he was taken by his own fault, for the Church had not forsaken him, but he had quitted it: But yet it was no wonder that he reaped no greater benefit from that Sanctuary, because he entered not into it with a Christian heart; That when any Man flies into the Church to take sanctuary there, he ought to go in with his Mind as well as with his Body; because the Church is not made up of Walls, but of an Holy Union among the Members of Jesus Christ. Upon occasion of this Eunuches Disgrace, he shows how little Solidity there is in the goods of this World, and draws a fine Picture of the Instability of Riches, and then concludes with an excellent Description of the Church. Nothing, says he to his Auditors, is stronger than the Church; Let it be your Hope, your Haven and Refuge: It is higher than the Heavens, of a larger extent than the Earth: She never waxeth old, but still retaineth her strength and vigour, for this cause the Scripture calleth her a Mountain, to show her stability; a Virgin, because she cannot be corrupted; a Queen, because of her Magnificence and Splendour; and it gives her the Name of Daughter, by reason of her Union with God, etc.  
Both the Sermons upon these words of the 48th Psalm, Be not thou afraid when one is made rich, were likewise preached in Constantinople. In them he recommends Alms-deeds and Hospitality; and he toucheth upon the Necessity of being present at Divine Service.  
The Homily on these words of the 145th Psalm, My Soul, bless thou the Lord, is a Sermon for the Holy Week, called then the great Week. The reason of that Name S. Chrysostom gives in the beginning of his Discourse, which is this. This Week, says he, is called the great Week, because Jesus Christ wrought great Mysteries at this Time: He delivered Man from the Tyranny of the Devil, he overcame Death, bound the strong armed Man, blotted out Sin. But as this Week is the great Week, because it is the first of Weeks; for the same reason Saturday is called the great Day: and for this cause many of the faithful do upon this Day double their Exercises; some fast with greater Austerity, others watch continually, others bestow much on the poor: some apply themselves with greater Zeal, to the Practice of good Works, and by their Piety bear witness to the Mercy of God: Emperor's themselves honour this Week, they grant a Vacation to all Magistrates, that so being freed from worldly Care, they may spend these Days in the Worship of God: They give honour also to this Day, by sending Letters every where to command the Prison doors to be opened. Let us also have regard to these Days, and instead of Palm-branches, let us offer him our Hearts. Then he explains the Psalm, My Soul, praise thou the Lord. The royal Prophet, says he, cries out Praise the Lord, O my Soul; why does he direct his Discourse to the Soul? to teach us that the Soul should apply herself to the words that are uttered: For if he that prayeth doth not understand his own words, how would he have God to give ear to him? God often doth not grant our Petitions, but that is for our good; he deferrs some time, not to deceive us with vain hopes, but to make us more zealous and diligent, for the fervency of Prayer 〈◊〉 ceaseth when we have what we desired: so that to keep up our Devotion, God is pleased to withhold his Gifts. He observes in this Sermon, that the Righteous after Death, live with us, pray with us, and are amongst us, etc.  
S. Chrysostom writ a Commentary upon Isaiah: but we have only part of it from the beginning, to the eleventh Verse of the eighth Chapter. Both the historical and spiritual Sense is set forth with much solidity and clearness.  
There are also five Homilies of his upon these words of Isaiah, ch. 6. I saw the Lord ●pon an high Throne, and one concerning the Seraphim spoken of in the same place; they are moral 〈◊〉 upon various Subjects, and especially of the reverence due to sacred things, and of the dignity of the Priesthood; there is a very remarkable passage concerning the Ecclesiastical and the Civil Power. Uzziah, saith he, went himself into the Holy of Holies to offer Incense 〈◊〉 being King he would usurp the Priesthood: I will, said he, burn Incense, for I am worthy to do it. Oye Princes keep within the Limits of your own Power: The bounds of Ecclesiastical power differ from those of secular Government. The King rules over earthly things, the Church's Jurisdiction relates to heavenly goods. God hath committed to Kings the things of the Earth, and to me those of Heaven: when I say, to me, I mean to Priests. So that, though a Priest prove unworthy of his Office, yet for all that, you ought not to despise the dignity of the Priesthood. God hath made the Body subject to Kings, and the Soul to Priests. The King pardons corporal Offences, but the Priest remits Sins. The one compels, the other exhorts; the one imposes a law, the other gives counsel; one uses spiritual Weapons, the other sensible Arms; one wages War against Barbarians, and the other against Devils. But the Ecclesiastical power is the nobler of the two, wherefore the King receives the Priest's blessing, and in the old Law the Priests anointed the Kings. But this King would go beyond his bounds, and extend his Power too far, and enter the Temple by force, to offer Incense: but what did the Priest say to this? Sir, you are not permitted to offer Incense. Behold this is a generous liberty; here was a Soul that could not flatter basely. You are not, says he, to go into the Sanctuary, nor to offer Incense to the Lord, that's reserved for me to do. King Uzziah could not bear this reproof, but transported with pride, he opens the Sanctuary and 〈◊〉 Incense. The Priest is despised, the sacerdotal Function is set at nought: The Priest is without power: for the Priest's right is only to reprove freely, and to admonish judiciously. Having then advised the King with that boldness which became him, and the King refusing to yield, but on the contrary preparing Arms to assert his Authority; the Priest crieth out, I have done what my duty commanded me to do, I have no power to go further, O Lord descend the Priesthood which is despised; thy Laws are violated, and Justice is overthrown, undertake for them. This is the Account which S. Chrysostom gives of the High-priest's Constancy in the fourth Homily. In the fifth he speaks of his Meekness. I have showed you the 〈◊〉 of the Highpriest; now take notice of his lenity, for we have need not of Courage only, but much more of Meekness, because Sinners hate to be reproved, and seek all occasions to avoid admonition: and so must be drawn and restrained with Mildness and Charity.  
In the Homily concerning the Seraphim he speaks of that Celestial Hymn, Holy, Holy, Holy: He says, that formerly that Hymn was sung only in Heaven, but since the Lord appeared upon Earth, we are allowed the benefit of that divine Consort. Wherefore, says he, when the Priest is by the holy Table to offer the Eucharist, he does not utter that Hymn, but after he has named the Cherubin and Seraphim, and the Congregation have lifted up their Hearts to God. This passage discovers the Antiquity of this Preface to the Office of the 〈◊〉.  
To these Homilies should be joined the Sermon upon Isaiah, ch. 45. v. 7. I am the Lord, I form the Light and create Darkness, I make Peace and create Evil.  
There is no Commentary of S. Chrysostom's upon Jeremiah 
f There is no Commentary of S. Chrysostom' s upon Jeremiah.] There was a Manuscript in some Libraries that went under S. Chrysostom's Name; but it was so pitiful a business, that it was not judged worth publishing: no more th●● 〈◊〉 Scholia upon the Gospels of S. Matth●●, S. M●●k, and S. Luke. ; but only one 〈◊〉 upon Ch. 10. v. 23. of that Prophet, where he proves the freedom of man's Will.  
To these Homilies upon the Prophets must be added two Sermons of the obso●●●● of Prophecies, wherein he gives reasons why prophecies are dark. He tells us in the first, that the Prophets spoke obscurely of the Evils which were to come upon the Jews; because that had they spoke plainly, they might have been ill used, and perhaps killed by the Jews. This he proves by an infinite Number of Examples of Prophets killed by them, for telling the truth. It is added, that Prophecies were dark, that the Jews might not understand them, till they were to comprehend them. In the second, he says, that the Event has cleared the Prophecies, that the Veil which covered them was taken off in the New Testament, and so the obsc●●ty wherein they were wrapped up has been dissipated. At last he observes, that the Old Testament having been written in Hebrew, is the less clear, because Versions commonly make the Sense more obscure.  
This Father's Commentaries upon the New Testament are more full and entire.  
S. Matthew's whole Gospel is expounded in fourscore and ten Homilies 
g S. Matthew ' s whole Gospel is expounded in 90 Homilies.] In the Translation there are 91, but the 29th is divided into two, though it is but one in the Greek Original; and so the Translation ought to be mended in the Number of the Homilies upon S. Matthew, and the Greek Text to be corrected in the Number of the Homilies upon S. John; for though it distinguishes 88 Homilies, yet there are but 87, because the Preface is not to be reckoned one of them. , and that of S. John in eighty seven. There are four and fifty Homilies upon the Acts, and thirty two upon the Epistle to the Romans; forty four upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians; thirty upon the second; a Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians; four and twenty Homilies upon that to the Ephesians; fifteen upon the Epistle to the Philippians; twelve upon that to the Colossians; eleven upon the first to the Thessalonians; five upon the second: Eighteen upon the first to Timothy; ten upon the second; six on the Epistle to Titus; three upon that to Philemon; and thirty four upon the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is said, that these last were collected after the Death of S. Chrysostom, by a Priest called Constantine who had been his Disciple: but there is no proof of this; and it is more likely that he writ them himself. Part of these Homilies were preached at Antioch, and the other at Constantinople 
h Part of these Homilies were preached at Antioch, and the other at Constantinople.] Photius observes, that it is easy to know which Homilies St. Chrysostom preached at Antioch; because they are more elaborate than those that were preached at Constantinople. But though this general Rule may serve to distinguish them, yet some particulars in the Homilies themselves are remarkable, to determine where they were preached. It is evident, that the Homilies upon Genesis, were preached at Constantinople, as we observed before after Photius, for he speaks positively in the 33d Homily upon Genesis, which is the 28th according to Photius, who reckoneth but 61 Homilies upon Genesis. Erasmus believed, that the 54 Homilies upon the Acts were not S. Chrysostom's; and Sir Henry Savil seems to have doubted of it: but without ground, for they are written in his style, and in several places he discovers himself. The style of the Homilies upon the Psalms, shows that they were preached at Antioch, not to mention the Authority of George of Alexandria, and some other modern Greeks that confirm the same. It cannot be known when he made the Commentary upon Isaiah. The seventh Homily upon S. Matthew, shows plainly, that it was preached at Antioch; for he says there, that they, to whom he spoke, boasted of being Inhabitants of that City, where the Name of Christians took its beginning. That Town is again pointed at in the 68th Homily, according to the Latin, and the 67th according to the Greek: Whereby it is manifest, that these Homilies were preached at Antioch. In the 21st Homily upon the Epistle to the Corinthians, he plainly says, that he was preaching at Antioch. In the 3d Homily upon the Epistle to Titus, he makes mention of Daphne, a Suburb of Antioch, as belonging to the Town where he preached. The Sermons upon the Epistle to the Colossians were preached at Constantinople; for in the 3d Homily he speaks with Episcopal Authority, threatening Sinners to deny them the Peace of the Church; he also mentions the Episcopal Throne whereon he was sitting, and calls himself Bishop. Of the same time are the Homilies upon the Epistles to the Thessalonians: In the eleventh upon the first Epistle, he says, that he presided over them that heard him. The same is to be taken notice of in the 4th Homily upon the second Epistle. In the 4th upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, he threatens to put those out of the Church, who should hire Mourners at the Funerals of their Relations, which justifies his being Bishop. In the 26th Homily upon the second Epistle to the Corinthians, there are these words, That the Son of Constantine caused his Father to be buried in this City. As to the rest, there is no certain proof from what he says, to tell us where they were preached: but the style of the Homilies upon the Epistles to the Romans, and to the Galatians, being smother and more polished; whereas that of the Homilies upon the Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, and Philemon, being careless and without Art; we may believe, according to Photius his Rule, that the former were preached at Antioch, and the latter at Constantinople. .  
These Homilies consist of two parts: The first contains a Commentary upon the Gospel, the other a moral Exhortation to the People. In the Commentary he gives a reason of the Contents of the Gospel, examines all the circumstances thereof, weighs the words, and discovers in those places which seem most plain, great Numbers of fine things, to which no attention would have been given, had he not taken notice of them. He keeps still to the literal Sense, and of all Explications he always chooses, not the most subtle, but the most natural. He seeks for no allegorical or figurative Sense. He useth not far fetched notions to prove his opinions; avoids all entangled and hard Questions, contenting himself to make clear and useful Observations upon the History and upon the Text of St. Paul. He gives a perfect light to all the places of this Apostle's Epistles, which seem most difficult, and particularly to those, which are thought to speak of Predestination and of Grace. His expositions remove all that which at the first view makes them appear terrible and fearful. everywhere God is represented as a good and merciful Being, and willing to save all Men, and who affords them all necessary means of Salvation, Men are exhorted to answer that Call of God; since it is their own fault if they be not saved; for those that are damned damn themselves. He tells them often, that God requireth no impossible thing of them: That with God's help they may keep the Commandments, and practice Virtue. S. Chrysostom finds these comfortable Thoughts in the passages of S. Paul, which seem most terrifying; and endeavours to prove, that they are not contrary to the mind of this Apostle. The Exposition he gives of the most difficult places, is no ways forced; yea, it seemeth very often to be the most simple and natural. However, to my thinking, it is always the most profitable and edifying, and the fittest to be preached to the People, which are much edified by such Remonstrances as tend to practice, but can reap little or no fruit from Speculations about God▪ s eternal Decrees, and other abstracted matters, that have but little Relation to the Government of Life and Manners.  
All the Exhortations that conclude S. Chrysostom's Homilies, are ordinarily about some points of Morality; as about the fear that men ought to stand in of God's Judgements, the Necessity of Repentance, the Contempt of Riches, forgiving of Enemies, Humility, Abstraction of the Heart from worldly things, diligent Meditation upon the Holy Scriptures, and God's Laws; an Abhorrency of Plays and Shows, Charity towards the Poor, Alms, and Hospitality; brotherly Reproof, the Duties of Husbands to their Wives, of Parents to their Children, of Masters to their Servants, of Laymen towards their Pastors, Patience in Afflictions, that Holiness wherewith Men should come to the Sacraments; the Benefit of Prayer, and the Conditions required therein, of Fasting, and the Advantages of a monastical and solitary Life, Assiduity in divine Offices, Attention to preaching, Sobriety, Purity, Modesty, Meekness, Clemency, Contempt of Death, and many other like Subjects, which he handleth with such familiar, and yet such solid and convincing Reasons, that there are no Discourses more capable of inspiring Notions of Piety and Virtue. He does not go about, as most Preachers do, to set forth studied Notions, which divert the Understanding, but do not touch the Heart. He goes to the bottom of things, searches the secret solds of Man's Heart; and not contented to have discovered and described Vice, he begets an horror of it; He sets forth the most powerful Motives to deter Christians from it, and the most proper means to correct it, and to practise true and solid Virtue. He stretches nothing too far, but distinguishes exactly the matter of a precept from the Advice therein contained: He is neither too meek nor too severe: He is neither too familiar, nor keeps too much distance; never complies beyond what is meet, nor terrifies to discouragement: In a word, his Exhortations are an excellent pattern of preaching to the People.  
The Sermons in the Fifth Volume upon several Texts of the New Testament, are not Commentaries, but moral Instructions, or Homilies upon different Subjects.  
The First is of Forgiveness of our Enemies, upon the parable of that Debtor, to whom his Master remitted Ten thousand Talents, and yet afterwards exacted the hundred Pence from him that owed them to him. He speaks of the exact Account that Men must render to God. Rich Men, saith he, must give account for the use of their Riches; poor Men of their patience; Judges of the Discharge of their Office; but above all, Churchmen shall account for their Ministry; they shall be more strictly examined. It shall be asked of him to whom the Word of God was committed, whether out of Idleness or Flattery, he omitted none of those necessary things which his Ministry obliged him to speak; if he explained all and concealed no truth. A Bishop charged with the direction of a Diocese, hath yet a far greater Account to give: his Examination will be not only about his Doctrine, and his helping of the Poor, but especially about the Orders which he shall have conferred, and a Thousand other obligations of the Priesthood. S. Chrysostom speaking of S. Peter in that Homily, calleth him the Head of the Body of the Apostles, the Mouth of the Disciples, the Firmament of the Faith, the Foundation of Confession, and the Fisherman of the whole Earth.  
The Second Sermon of this Volume is against Dancing and Luxury; there he shows, that Preachers are bound to reprove Vice, and that they ought never to forbear, though their preaching seems to be without Fruit: Then he gins to explain the Parable of Dives and Lazarus, making several moral Reflections on the particulars of that Parable in the four following Sermons. The last is quoted by Photius in the 277th Volume of his Bibliotheca, where he speaks of an Earthquake at Antioch, where he preached these Sermons. He observes in the Fourth, that God does not permit any to return from the Dead, and gives the reason of it.  
The Seventh Sermon is an Exposition of the Parable of the Man that was sick of the Palsy; he uses Jesus Christ's Words, concerning that sick Man, and his Cure, to prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ.  
The Eighth is upon these Words of Jesus Christ in S. Matthew, Chap. 26. v. 39 Father, if it be possible, let this Cup pass, etc. There he explains the Mystery of Christ's Incarnation, and in what sense he feared Death, and would have avoided it.  
The Ninth on these words of S. Matthew, Enter in at the straight Gate, is against public Shows: At the latter End of it the case of Dives is compared with that of Lazarus.  
The Tenth contains an Exposition of the Lord's Prayer: This Prayer is not written in S. Chrysostom's style.  
The Eleventh is upon the Resurrection of Lazarus. That Discourse is none of S. Chrysostom's, the style, elocution, and the very thoughts, are quite different from his.  
The Twelfth is upon the Title of the Acts of the Apostles: where after a Discourse, concerning the Establishment and Perpetuity of the Church, which could neither be shaken nor ruined by the severest Persecutions; he shows, that a Christian Life, and good Works, are more to be valued, than the Gift of working Miracles; he ends with a Commendation of the Bishop of Antioch, whom he calls the Successor of S. Peter. For, saith he, it is one of the Prerogatives of our City is to have had for our Master S. Peter the first of the Apostles. It was just, that that City, which had the advantage of bearing first the Name of a Christian City, should have for her Bishop the first of the Apostles: But having enjoyed that happiness, we would not engross it to ourselves, but consented he should go to Rome, the Imperial City: Yet in giving, we have not lost him, we have him still; we have not his Body, but his Faith; and having S. Peter' s Faith, we may truly say, we have S. Peter himself.  
He justifies himself in the Thirteenth for the length of his Prefaces; he shows there the Usefulness of Reproof, and treats of the Conversion of S. Paul, and of the changing of his Name, and reproves them that neglect to labour in their own conversion, under pretence that God will convert them. God, saith he, forceth no man; he draweth only them that are willing to go to him; he is willing to save us; but that is, if we be willing to be saved.  
The Fourteenth is upon these words of S. Paul, Rom. c. 5. v. 3. Rejoicing in tribulations. Here he shows what is the fruit of afflictions, and of persecutions.  
The same Subject is handled in the following discourse, upon these words of the same Apostle: All things work together for good to them that love God.  
The Preface of the Sixteenth is against such as frequent not the Assemblies of the Faithful in Churches; and then he expounds these words of the Apostle, If thine enemy hunger, feed him; exhorting Men to forgive injuries.  
In the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Sermons he makes many very useful reflections upon these words of S. Paul, Salute Aquila and Priscilla. In these discourses we have an example, justifying how many Moral Thoughts may be suggested by a subject which of itself seems dry and barren. For what is there more simple in appearance, and of less instruction, than this Salutation of S. Paul? Yet by a wonderful Art S. Chrysostom makes use of it for the explanation of many important instructions. As about the respect we ought to have for the Poor, Charity towards our Brethren, the small regard that is to be had to Nobility, the profit of working with our own hands, and the reverence due to Churchmen, etc.  
The Nineteenth and Twentieth Sermons are about what S. Paul saith of Marriage in 1 Cor. c. 7. from which he takes occasion to speak against Dancing, Feasting, and other profane Pomp's of Weddings. He teaches what ought to be the end of Marriage among Christians, and how it is to be used. Marriage, saith he, is a remedy against Fornication, let us not therefore dishonour it by filthy Pomps. Christian's ought to banish from their Weddings devilish Pomps, filthy Songs, lascivious Consorts, undecent Dance, obscene Words, Riots, excessive Laughter; and they ought to introduce the Servants of Jesus Christ, and his Priests; to have Jesus Christ in Person in the midst of them, as of the Marriage in Cana. Let no man tell me it is the custom; do not tell me of a custom, if it is sinful. If the thing be Evil in itself, how old soever the use of it be, retrench it: If it be Good, and not usual, bring it in. But know that this custom is not ancient, but an Innovation. Remember the Marriage of Isaac with Rebecca, of Rachel with Jacob; the Scripture tells us how those Weddings were kept; it shows indeed, that there was a Feast more splendid than ordinary; that the Relations and Neighbours were invited, but there were no Fiddles, no Dancing, nor any other shameful Excesses of our Age. Now at Weddings such lascivious Songs are sung, as teach Adultery, and inspire foolish Love; the Guests full of Wine do attend the Bride with impure Discourses. With what reason can you pretend to require Chastity in a Woman, whom you have taught from the very First day to be impudent, and before whom you suffer that to be said and done, which your Footmen would blush to do or hear? To what purpose do ye bring in a Priest to crave a blessing, and the next day yourselves commit base actions? In the same Homily there are a great many Exhortations of the same nature against such disorders, which are not less frequent in our days, than they were in the time of this Bishop. Afterwards he adviseth both Men and Women to behave themselves holily in Marriage; and not only to avoid Adultery, but not so much as give an occasion of suspicion: He proves that Second Marriages are not forbidden, though it is better to forbear, and concludes with a sensible Declamation against Adultery and Fornication.  
The Twenty-first is upon these words, 1 Cor. c. 10. Our Fathers were all under the cloud, etc. After a large Exposition of which words, he speaks of Alms-deeds, and of the necessary Dispositions to communicate worthily.  
The Twentysecond is upon these words of S. Paul. There must be Heresies. He commends the Old Agapae, or Feasts of Charity.  
The Twenty-third is of Alms-deeds, and the care which Men ought to have of such as are in want. This should be placed among the Sermons of Morality.  
The Twenty-fourth is upon these words, 2 Cor. c. 4. Having the same Spirit of Faith, etc. He gives great Praises to Virginity, and to a Monastic life; which he describes in these words: Do you not take notice of those Monks who live privately, and dwell upon the tops of Mountains? What Austerities and Mortifications do they not practise? They are covered with Ashes, clothed with Sackcloth, loaden with Chains and Irons, shut up in little Cells, struggling continually with Hunger, they spend their time in Watch to blot out part of their Sins. He observes also, that though Virginity is a supernatural Gift, yet it is unprofitable if it be not accompanied with Charity and Meekness.  
The Twenty-fifth is upon the same Text; he opposes the Manichees, and exhorts them to give Alms.  
The Twenty-sixth upon the same words, presses the Duty of almsgiving.  
The Twentyseventh is upon these words, 2 Cor. Bear a little with my folly. He lays down Rules very judicious, both at what time and upon what occasions a Man may commend himself.  
The Twenty-eighth reproves them who abuse what S. Paul saith, Phil. c. 1. v. 18. What matters it how Christ is preached? His Discourse is about Prayer and Humility.  
In the Twenty-ninth he treats of the Marriage of Christians, and of the Duties of those that are Married.  
The Thirtieth is upon these words, 1 Thess. c. 4. v. 13. But I would not have you to be ignorant, Brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not even as others which have no hope. He discourses of the way how Christians should bear with the Death of Relations, and confirms what he says by the Examples of Job and of Isaac.  
The Thirty-first is concerning the Duty of Widows, on these words, 1 Tim. c. 5. v. 9 Let not a Widow be chosen of less than Sixty years. He there discourses of Child's Education.  
The following Sermons have less relation to Texts of Scripture, being, for the most part, upon solemn Festival-days.  
The Thirty-second is about Judas' Treason, where he speaks of the necessary Dispositions to communicate worthily.  
The Thirty-third concerns the Festival of Christmas, which was celebrated for Ten years before in the East upon the 25th. of December, as it had been before at Rome. S. Chrysostom proves by several reasons, that this was exactly the day of Jesus Christ's Nativity.  
The Thirty-fourth and Thirtyfifth are upon the Passion of Jesus Christ: In the latter he speaks of forgiving Enemies upon occasion of the good Thief.  
The Thirty-sixth is upon the Resurrection from the Dead.  
The Thirty-seventh is a Sermon upon the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, preached upon Easter-day.  
The Thirty-eighth upon the Ascension, was preached in a Church of Martyrs.  
The Thirty-ninth and Fortieth Sermons are upon Whit-sunday. In the former he answers that curious Question, Why Miracles are not wrought now, as they were in the time of the Apostles?  
The Forty-first is of the Dignity of the Eucharist, and the respect we ought to show to the holy Mysteries. This discourse seems to me to be neither of the Style nor the Order of S. Chrysostom.  
The Seven following Sermons being Panegyrics upon S. Paul, were translated by Anianus, who lived in Athalaricus his time.  
The Forty-ninth is of Meekness.  
The Fiftieth upon the Conversion of S. Paul, was preached at Antioch after that upon the Title of the Acts.  
The Fifty-first is upon the Inscription in the Temple of Athens, To the unknown God, spoken of Acts, c. 17. v. 17.  
The Fifty-second is upon the beginning of the First Epistle to the Corinthians: Paul called an Apostle, etc.  
The Fifty-third shows the Profitableness of Reading the holy Scripture. It is dedicated to persons newly baptised; there he extols the Quality of an Apostle. It is one of the Four upon the beginning of the Acts, preached at Antioch before Flavianus.  
The Fifty-fourth of Christ's Prayers and Qualities, is the First Sermon upon the Incarnation.  
The Fifty-fifth is against those that Fast at Easter.  
The Fifty-sixth against such as observe the Jewish Fasts.  
In the Fifty-seventh he speaks of Alms-deeds, upon occasion of the Hospitality practised towards the Prophet Elijah, who was relieved by the Widow of Sarepta.  
The Fifty-eighth of the Pleasures of the Life to come, and of the Vanity of this World's goods.  
The Fifty-ninth is against those that despair, when they receive not what they ask of God, or who petition for unjust things; he there occasionally speaks of the Duty of Husbands towards their Wives.  
In the Sixtieth he compares Riches with Poverty; treats of the manner how Sinners are to be reproved, and blames those who call upon God against their Enemies.  
The Sixty-first gins with an Exclamation against those that communicate unworthily: He shows that a Preacher is not to preach God's Word with complaisance, but to reprove Vice with fervency, because this is profitable for Sinners to make them know and confess their Sins.  
The Sixty-second concerns Martyrs; there he proves, That the best way of honouring Martyrs, is to imitate their Virtues.  
The Sixty-third is against those who teach, That Daemons govern the affairs of this World, and against such as do not endure with patience the Chastening of God; and, lastly, against those who are scandalised at the prosperity of the Wicked, and the misfortune of the Righteous.  
In the Sixty-fourth he treats of S. Paul's action in resisting S. Peter; and endeavours to prove, that both did it by agreement for the instruction of the Faithful.  
The Sixty-fifth is a Discourse, or rather a Treatise against Jews and Gentiles, to prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ.  
The Sixty-sixth is another Treatise against those who were offended, because of the mischiefs that happened to the City, and the persecution of the Priests, and of the Faithful. It is an excellent Explanation of that hard Question, Why there is so much evil in the World, if the Providence of God governs it? Both these Pieces should be put among S. Chrysostom's Treatises.  
The Sixty-seventh is an Homily concerning the Two Paralyticks of the Gospel: There he proves the Divinity of the Son of God.  
The Preface to the Sixty-seventh is about the Use that Men are to make of Sermons preached in the Church. He gives a reason why the Acts of the Apostles are read in the Church at Whitsuntide. Lastly, he shows that the Miracles of the Apostles proved the Certainty of Christ's Resurrection, and rendered it more famous. This Sermon follows that which he made upon the Title of the Acts.  
In the Sixty-eighth, having reproved those who complained that his Sermons were either too long or too short, he gives a reason of altering S. Paul's Name, and that of Abraham, and of the Signification of that of Adam.  
The Sixtyninth Sermon was preached at Antioch, in the absence of the Bishop. He commends the Martyrs, and treats of Contrition of Heart, and of Alms-deeds.  
The Seventieth is upon the Feast of S. Bassus Bishop and Martyr, upon an Earthquake that happened at Antioch, and upon the Words of Jesus Christ, Matthew, c. II. v. 29. Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of heart.  
The Seventy-first is a Panegyric upon S. Drosis.  
The Seventy-second is a Sermon of Penance, mentioned in the Ninth Homily of Penance.  
All these Sermons now mentioned were preached at Antioch by S. Chrysostom, when he was Priest of that Church. There are but two more in this Volume preached at Constantinople; the first was after the expulsion of Gainas from the City; and the other was after S. Chrysostom's return from his first Exile.  
At the latter end of the Fourth Volume there are Three Sermons of the same. The First was preached at Antioch by S. Chrysostom immediately after his being made Priest. This Sermon is a Panegyric upon Flavianus, who Ordained him. It is the First that S. Chrysostom ever preached. The Two others in the same place were preached towards the latter end of his Life: The First at the time when they contrived his Deposition and former Banishment; the Second after he was recalled: In it there is an excellent Comparison of Sarah seized upon by the King of Egypt, and of the Church of Constantinople, deprived of his presence, by the Caballings of Theophilus an Egyptian Bishop; and a dextrous Commendation of the Empress Eudoxia.  
The first Volume contains several other Sermons, preached for the most part at Antioch: The first Twentyone are called Sermons of Statues; because they were preached at the time, and upon the occasion of a sedition in Antioch, in the beginning of the Year 388, wherein the People had thrown down and dragged about Streets the Statues of Theodosius, and of the Empress Flaccilla.  
The first Sermon is upon these words of S. Paul to Timothy; Use a little Wine for thy Stomach's sake, and often Infirmities, wherein he allegeth several reasons, why God permits his Saints to be afflicted; he preached it sometime before that Tumult, which obliged him to discontinue his preaching. But the heat of that sedition was no sooner over, and the People of Antioch, astonished with the fearful Threaten of the Emperor, had acknowledged their fault, and turned their fury into Mourning; but he resumed the Chair for the comfort of that desolate People: And Flavianus their Bishop as a good Father, went to the Emperor to assuage his Anger.  
The first Sermon of S. Chrysostom upon this Subject, is that which is called the second of Statues: There he bewails the Unhappiness of that City, exhorting the Inhabitants to implore the Mercy of God by fervent Prayers, and turn away his Wrath by good Works, to prevent the Danger that threatened them. This Discourse is very eloquent: Here are some Fragments whereby one may judge of the rest. What shall I say? What shall I speak of? Our present Condition calls for Tears rather than Words, Lamentations rather than Discourses, and Prayers rather than Sermons. The blackness of our Action is so great, the Wound we have given to ourselves is so deep, and so hard to be cured, that we have need to apply ourselves to an Almighty Physician. Then having compared the Misery of that City to that of Job, he adds, Seven Days have I kept silence, as formerly did Job's Friends: Give me leave to open my Mouth, and bewail our Misery.— I groan, I weep, not for the severity of the Threaten, but for the excess of our Folly: For though the Emperor were not angry with us, and should forbear to punish us, how should we suffer the shame of our Action? After this, he describes very elegantly the Happiness which that City enjoyed before that Mutiny, and the Misery it was now reduced to; and concludes this Description with these Words. The great City of Antioch is in danger of being utterly destroyed; she that lately had an infinite Number of Inhabitants, will shortly prove a Wilderness; none in this World can help her: For the offended Emperor hath no equal upon Earth, he is the Sovereign and the Master of all Men. All we can do is to make our Application to the King of Heaven; let us address ourselves to him, and call upon him for help. If we obtain not Mercy from Heaven, we have no remission to hope for. He observes, that God permitted that Mischief, to punish the People for their Blasphemies, and teaches rich Men what use they are to make of their Riches.  
The next Sermon was preached when Flavianus was gone to Court to solicit the Business of the City of Antioch: There he represents the Charity of Flavianus, who would undertake that Journey: He tells them the things that the Bishop was to represent to the Emperor, and bids them hope that these Remonstrances will be heard, affirming that he is confident of all through God's Mercy. God, says he, will stand betwixt the petitioning Bishop, and the Emperor addressed to; he will soften the King's Heart, and put in the Bishop's Mouth the Words which he should speak. He entreats the People to pray earnestly, that God would mollify the Spirit of the Emperor. He speaks of fasting in Lent, affirming that right fasting is to abstain from Sin. At last he advises the People to avoid three Vices, Evil speaking, hatred of their Neighbour; and Blasphemy.  
He goes on to instruct and comfort the People of Antioch, in the following Sermons. In the 4th he praises God, that the Christian's Affliction in the City of Antioch, had put them upon thoughts of their Salvation, and exhorts them to Patience: And in the last place, inveigheth against Swearing, and promises to speak of it all the Week. This Sermon was preached upon Monday of the First week in Lent.  
Next day he continued the same Subject, encouraging the People of Antioch to bear with Constancy and Generosity all the Threaten against them, and not to fear either Death or Sufferings. He shows, that Sin is the only thing that Christians ought to fear, and he speaks again eagerly against Swearing.  
The 6th Sermon was preached the next Day after, for the Consolation of the People that were intimidated by the Magistrate. He giveth God thanks that Flavianus was arrived before those that carried the News of the Mutiny. He tells the reasons that the Bishop was to use to the Emperor, and explains a Law, that was to be urged: He tells them▪ That Sin only was to be feared, and that Swearing aught to be avoided.  
The 7th and 8th were preached upon Thursday and Friday of the same Week: He comforts the People, and explains the beginning of Genesis, which was then begun to be read in the Chuches in Lent. He discourses against Swearing, and reminds them, that it was the sixth Day, that he had preached against that Sin, and that it should be the last time: Which shows, that the 15th Sermon followeth this, for there he tells them, that though he had resolved the Day before to speak no more of God's Command not to swear, because he had sufficiently discoursed on that Subject the Days before, yet he found himself obliged to insist upon it, till he saw them reform.  
The 16th Homily was preached upon Saturday, in the second Week in Lent: Because, he says, at the latter End, behold we have passed the second fasting Week. He speaks of the foregoing Sermon, as of his last, though it had been preached some Days before.  
It is very likely, that the 9th and 10th Sermons follow this, and that they were preached before the Judges, sent by the Emperor, had frighted the People; for S. Chrysostom says nothing there concerning the Desolation of the City, but handleth some Points of Morality, particularly against Swearing, and against those that refused to hear Sermons after Dinner.  
The Officers of the Emperor having erected a Chamber of Justice at Antioch, to punish the Town for their sedition, and to condemn those that were most guilty; dreadful was the Consternation of the People, which made them think of nothing else, but how they might appease the Judges, and mitigate the severity of the Judgement. S. Chrysostom describes the Day of that Judgement, as the most dreadful thing in the World: He says, that all the People expected nothing but Death, some fled, others hid themselves, the Streets were empty; that the rest of the Inhabitants assembled near the Palace-gate, waiting there for their Condemnation: That within the Palace, all was full of Men put to the Torture, or sentenced to Death: That Mothers wept for their Children, and Sisters for their Brethren: In one word, That the whole City was in a fearful Desolation, in expectation of all manner of mischief. In this sad Conjuncture of Affairs, the Hermit's left their solitude to come to Antioch, to solicit the Judges in behalf of the People; The Clergy also attended to move them to Clemency: And every one did his endeavour to work upon them, by all the Tokens of regret and submission, that can be given in such occasions. The Judges moved with these things, and touched especially by the Remonstrances of the Monks, inclined to Mercy, and contented themselves to take from Antioch, the Quality of Metropolis of the East, and to forbid the acting of public Spectacles for the recreation of the People: Having in the mean time sent to prison some of the Magistrates, and Chief men of the City, till they should know the resolution of the Emperor. This Judgement was no sooner pronounced, but S. Chrysostom opened his Mouth to return God thanks for the Success, as he doth in the 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th Homilies, which were preached one after another, those successive Days after the Judgement. But some having again struck a new Terror into the People, S. Chrysostom endeavours to settle them in the 14th Homily.  
The 18th Homily was preached by S. Chrysostom, after Mid-Lent, as he saith in the beginning, complaining of some who rejoiced, that half the time of fasting was over, and of the Impatience which the Inhabitants of Antioch showed, because they were deprived of their bathe and pleasures. He takes notice, that they had not been deprived of them above 20 Days.  
S. Chrysostom being fallen sick, appeared not in ten Days, but was no sooner able to go abroad, but he began again, and preached the 19th and 21st Sermons, that are particularly directed to the People come out of the Country to Antioch, about the Feast of Easter.  
The 22d was preached towards the end of Lent. He discourseth there of the necessary qualifications, to communicate worthily at Easter; affirming, that it is absolutely needful to forget injuries, and to be reconciled; from whence he takes occasion to speak against Enmities and resentments; he adds threaten against such as had not yet left their Custom of Swearing, notwithstanding his manifold Exhortations to this purpose in the time of Lent.  
The last Sermon upon the same subject is the 20th, about the Return of Flavianus, who came back to Antioch before Easter, having obtained of the Emperor's Clemency, pardon for the City of Antioch. In this Discourse S. Chrysostom eloquently describes the wonderful Conduct of Flavianus, the Discourse he had with the Emperor, the Answers of that Prince, and the rejoicing of the People at Antioch, when they received the welcome News of the pardon granted them. This is the true Order of those 22 Sermons of S. Chrysostom, which is much perverted in the Editions.  
The other Homilies in this Volume, are either Sermons upon some points of Doctrine, or of morals, or panegyrics upon Saints. The Sermons of the former kind are these: six Homilies of the incomprehensible Nature of God against the Anomaeans, the last whereof was preached at Constantinople; a Discourse of the Consubstantiality against the Arians, quoted by Theodoret in the sixth Council. A Discourse of the Judgement, which follows immediately after the last. One against those who like the Pagans, kept the first Days of the Months, preached upon New-years-day: A Sermon of Jesus Christ's Baptism; a Discourse about the Devil's Temptations; six Sermons against the Jews: The Homilies of Penance, which formerly were more in Number, and are now to be reduced into the following Order. The first beareth that Title in the first Volume; the second and third are lost, the fourth and fifth are also right set down in the first Volume: We have neither the sixth nor the seventh, except that which is in the 4th Volume be one of these two, for it is falsely entitled, The third Homily of Penitence, seeing he says in the beginning, that he had been some Days without preaching; whereas it is evident by the beginning of the 4th Homily of Penance, that he had preached the four first Homilies of Penance one after another without interruption. The 9th is the 65 Sermon of the 5th Volume of Penance, and of the sorrow of King Ahab. The 10th Homily is the 9th in the first Volume, and the last is the eleventh.  
The Discourse against the Gentiles, is not a Sermon, but a Treatise which is to be placed amongst S. Chrysostom's Treatises: But the Discourse of Baptism, is a Homily directed to the Catechumen.  
The Discourse of anathemas is S. Chrysostom's, though some Critics have doubted it. It is his Style, and therein he speaks of the Homilies of the incomprehensible Nature of God; and it was quoted near 400 Years ago by Philotheus, Patriarch of Constantinople; as written by S. Chrysostom. He proveth in that Homily, that an Anathema is not lightly to be pronounced against any, nor others rashly to be condemned.  
The two Treatises of Prayer, are probably written by S. Chrysostom: but the six Discourses about Providence, which are in the same Volume are none of his, no more than the last of Penance, and Continence, which are supposed to belong to John, the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, who lived long after S. Chrysostom.  
The First of S. Chrysostom's Panegyrics, is upon S. Philegonius Archbishop of Antioch: the Second upon S. Babylas, likewise Archbishop of Antioch: the Third upon Maximus and Juventinus Martyrs, who suffered Martyrdom under Julian the Apostate. These two Sermons were preached one after the other upon the 24th, and the 26th of January, after the Three first Homilies of Lazarus, as is noted in the Fourth. The Third is of S. Pelagia a Virgin of Antioch, who threw herself headlong rather than lose her Virginity. The Fourth of S. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch. The Fifth of S. Romanus Martyr of Antioch. The Sixth is a Discourse to the Praise of the Seven Macchabees. The Seventh is a Panegyric upon S. Meletius. The Eighth of S. Lucianus Martyr of Antioch, preached the next Day after the Feast of Christ's Baptism. The Ninth upon S. Julianus. The Tenth is a second Discourse upon S. Romanus the Martyr. The Eleventh is a second Discourse of the Macchabees. The Twelfth is a third Discourse upon the same Subject. The Thirteenth is of S. Domnina, and of her two Daughters, Berenice and Prosdoce, who chose a voluntary Death before the Violation of their Virginity. The Fourteenth of S. Eustachius Bishop of Antioch. The Fifteenth is a Discourse of Helias and S. Peter. The Sixteenth is of the Egyptian Martyrs. The Seventeenth upon S. Barlaam Martyr in Caesarea in Cappadocia. The Panegyric upon the Martyr Phocas, and the Fragment of that of S. Thecla, which is in the same Volume, are not of S. Chrysostom's Style: But the Discourse upon all the holy Martyrs, is an excellent Sermon worthy of S. Chrysostom. Among the rest, this is one of the finest Passages there. The Devil, says he, has introduced Death into the World, and God makes use of Death to introduce us into Heaven by Martyrdom. Martyrdom is a Combat, the Martyrs are on the one Side, and Tyrants on the other: The Tyrants are armed, and the Martyrs naked: Yet they that are naked get the Victory, and they that bear Arms are vanquished. What Wonder is this? He that is beaten proves Victor over him that beats him: He that is bound overcomes him that is at liberty: He that is burnt tames him that burns him; and he that dies furmounts him that puts him to Death. It is Grace that works these Miracles, they are above the strength of Nature.  
The sixth Volume of the Greek and Latin Edition of Paris contains several Sermons, which Fronto Ducaeus, and other Critics, have judged not to be of S. Chrysostom's Style. Fronto Ducaeus passes this Judgement upon it: We have collected in this sixth Volume some Sermons which are not upon whole Books of Scripture, but upon some places, written in a Style differing from that of S. Chrysostom's Works; for these Discourses are Dramatical and full of Prosopopoeia's, the Style is sententious and concise, with frequent Allegories; and we find not there those Similitudes and other Beauties so frequent in S. Chrysostom's Works; and yet the Authors of these Sermons lived either in the Time of S. Chrysostom, or not long after him. But we ought not to wonder, that some of these are quoted under S. Chrysostom's Name, in very ancient Councils; because they were already published under his Name, and Councils do not usually examine narrowly into the Authors of those Books which they quote: Being contented to debate the Questions offered, and to oppose to Heretical Errors the Writings received in the Church; as did the Apostles and other Fathers who quoted Apocryphal Books. That's the Judgement which this Learned Jesuit makes of the Sermons contained in this Volume; but if we would know whether it is just, we must examine them strictly one after another.  
The First Homily, (the Author whereof shows, that there is the same Lawgiver both of the Old and New Testament,) is not S. Chrysostom's, though Photius quotes it under his Name; for, 1. The Style is quite different from S. Chrysostom's: 2. The order and disposition of this Homily differs much from those of S. Chrysostom. 3. It is full of Allegories, which are very rare in S. Chrysostom. 4. Most of the Thoughts are unworthy of him. 5. There is great Confusion. 6. It both gins and ends in a different manner from the Homilies of S. Chrysostom. 7. It is observed at the End of that Discourse, that it was written in a Time when the Roman Empire was under Oppression. 8. The Blessed Virgin is there often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so that it is plain, this was not done without Affectation.  
The two following Homilies upon two Places of the Beginning of Genesis, are unworthy of S. Chrysostom for the same Reasons.  
The Homily upon these Words of Abraham to his Servant, Gen. 24. v. 2. Put thine hand under my Thigh, etc. is more rational than the foregoing, as to its Notions, but the Style is too concise and close, and comes not near the easiness of S. Chrysostom. Yet this Discourse is ancient and worth reading, and I am apt to believe that it may have been written by Severianus of Gabala, to whom the following Sermon of the brazen Serpent lifted up by Moses in the Wilderness, is attributed in the Manuscripts, and under whose Name it is quoted by S. John Damascene, in the three first Discourses about Images, by Pope Adrian I. Ch. 26. and by the Assembly of Bishops at Paris, in the Year 824. The Author treats of the Trinity, and of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. It appears both by the Style, and by the Beginning, that it is written by the same Author as the foregoing.  
The four Homilies upon Job, are Sermons written by a Monk of the latter Times, who having studied Isocrates his Oration to Demonicus, coldly imitates him in his four Discourses, where there is neither Wit, nor Order, nor Eloquence, nor Thought, nor Reasoning; yet he foolishly fancies that he outdid S. Chrysostom, in Point of Eloquence, many Bars length.  
The fifth Homily upon Job, is the 22d of those Homilies, which Simeon Logotheta composed out of several Passages taken out of S. Chrysostom.  
The Homily upon this Verse of Psalm 38. Man disquieteth himself in vain, comes nearer to S. Chrysostom's Style, and yet is not quite the same.  
The Oration of the Turtle-Dove, or of the Church, is an impertinent Discourse, like the Treatise, entitled, the Supper, falsely ascribed to S. Cyprian, from which the Author of this hath taken some of his Impertinencies.  
The Homily upon the Prophet Elias is more valuable, and yet seems not to me to be S. Chrysostom's. I should rather attribute it to Severianus of Gabala, as well as the three following, of Joseph, Susanna, and the three Children in the fiery Furnance.  
The Homily of Seals written in the same Style with the foregoing, does certainly belong to Severianus of Gabala, being quoted under his Name by Theodoret in the third Dialogue, and by Adrian I. The same Character and Style may be found in the Sermons of Faith, and of the Law of Nature; in that of the Holy Trinity; in the Discourse of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, quoted by Photius under S. Chrysostom's Name; in the Sermon upon Pentecost; in the Sermon preached before Arcadius Theodosius' Son, upon the words of the beginning of S. John, In the beginning was the Word, etc. in the Sermon of Circumcision, that of the Remembrance of Martyrs, and upon Jesus Christ's being Shepherd and Sheep; in that upon these words of S. Paul, My grace is sufficient for thee; in that of the prodigal Son, of Herodias' Daughters dancing; in that upon the Words of Matth. 13. The Jews being assembled took counsel; in the Sermon of the Ten ●irgins, the Homily of the Woman taken in Adultery, and of the Pharisees; in that upon Good-Friday, of the Man that was born blind, and upon these words of Jesus Christ, Matth. 6. Take heed that you do not your Alms before Men to be seen of them; in the Sermon against Hypocrisy; in that upon the beginning of the Year; in the Homily about the barren Figtree; in the Sermon of the Pharisee's Feast; that of Lazarus and Dives; and in that upon the beginning of Psalm 92, which is the 105th in the 5th Volume of S. Chrysostom, of the Eton Edition. The Author of these Homilies, writes in a short, concise Style; enlarges much upon Dogmatical points, and very little upon Moral ones: What he says is intermixed with Allegories: In a word, if one compares these Homilies one with another, and with them that are certainly written by Severianus, he will find that they are very like.  
The Homilies of the Theophany, and the Marriage in Cana, are two inconsiderable Discourses unworthy of S. Chrysostom.  
That of the evil Woman, is yet worse. It was composed by some modern Greek, who having read in History that S. Chrysostom had made a Discourse against Women, made one to represent it: In which either he, or some body else, hath put these words in the beginning, that Sozomen relateth: Herodias is mad again, and asketh for S. John' s Head. The rest of this Discourse is a continual Repetition of impertinent things.  
The Homily of the Canaanitish Woman, is also in Latin among the Homilies upon several passages of the New Testament, ascribed to Origen, and in the Collection of Homilies upon S. Matthew, Hom. 14th and 17th. But here it is in Greek, and larger. The Doctrine, and Thoughts of this Discourse are rational enough, but the Style is very different from S. Chrysostom's.  
The Sermons upon S. John the Forerunner of Jesus Christ; upon the Apostles, S. Poter and S. Paul; upon the Twelve Apostles, S. Thomas the Apostle, and S. Stephen; are unworthy of S. Chrysostom, not only for the Substance, but also the Style. Yet the last of them is something more rational than the foregoing. The Discourse of S. Thomas is quoted under S. Chrysostom's Name, in the sixth Council, and in that of Lateran, under Pope Martin I.  
The Homilies of the Annunciation, Theophany, and the Resurrection, have no Relation to S. Chrysostom's Style.  
The Sermon concerning the Woman of Samaria, is a Discourse, whose beginning is quite of another Style than S. Chrysostom's: The latter End is taken word for word from the 31st. Homily of S. Chrysostom, upon the Gospel of S. John.  
The four Sermons of the Ascension, published by Vossius, are not unworthy of S. Chrysostom, though the Style is not altogether the same with that of this Father's Works: In all probability, they are part of those Two and Twenty which Photius read, which he mentions in the 25th Volume, as well as the Sermon upon the same Subject, cited by Facundus, l. 11. c. 14.  
The Homily which proves, that a Disciple of Jesus Christ ought never to be angry, does not come near to the Style, or the loftiness of S. Chrysostom.  
The Sermon of the false Prophets, is a Declamation made by some Greek, rather than a Discourse really preached by S. Chrysostom, before his Death, as the Title proves.  
The Homily of the public Games in the Cirque, is a pitiful Discourse, not worth reading.  
The Sermon of Christ's Nativity, Page 493. is quoted by S. Cyril, as S. Chrysostom's, in his Treatise to the Empresses, mentioned in the Council of Ephesus; there is no considerable difference of Style; which convinces me that it is S. Chrysostom's, or at least, that it was taken out of his Works.  
The three following Sermons, the First whereof, is upon the Words of S. Luke's Gospel, ch. 2. Caesar Augustus made a Decree, that all the World should be taxed, etc. the Second upon the Answer given to Zachariah, Ch. 1. of S. Luke, and the Third upon S. John's Conception, are all written in the same Style, very different from S. Chrysostom's; they contain abundance of insipid Observations upon the Text of S. Luke, which one cannot read without Tediousness and Trouble.  
The Homily upon the Parable of the Housholder, that hired Workmen into his Vine-yard, doth much resemble S. Chrysostom's Style; if it be not his, it belongs to some ancient eloquent Author, and aught to be placed among those Discourses, which though perhaps not genuine, yet are not to be despised. Some Fragments of them may be found amongst the Homilies, which were collected out of the Works of S. Chrysostom.  
I think the same Judgement ought to be made concerning the Sermon, or rather the Fragment of the Homily upon the Publican, and the Pharisee, and of that about the blind Man, and Zacheus, which are unworthy of S. Chrysostom.  
A Discourse made to prove, that Monks ought not to use raillery or freedom of Speech, is of the kind and style of S. Chrysostom; there is a digression against those that kept Women with them. The Authors of S. Chrysostom's Life observe, that he wrote six Orations upon that Subject. This might perhaps be one of them.  
The Panegyric upon S. John the Evangelist, is not worth any thing, but is a pitiful Discourse made up of obsolete and senseless Words.  
The second Homily of the Holy Cross, is written by the Monk Pantaleon, Deacon of Constantinople, who lived in the 13th Century: The first Discourse upon the same Subject, does not belong to a better Author.  
The beginning of the Homily of S. Peter's Abjuration, is likewise written by some modern Greek, who added at the latter End an Exhortation, taken out of S. Chrysostom's Discourse upon these words of S. Paul, Having the same Spirit, etc.  
The Homily of Bread and of Alms, is a Collection of several Notions of S. Chrysostom's upon that Subject.  
The Discourse of Easter, is very like S. Chrysostom's Style.  
The Sermon about Jesus Christ's second Coming; is a Preface annexed to the moral Exhortations of the 25th, and 31st Homilies, upon the Epistle to the Romans.  
There are several other Sermons in the Greek Edition of S. Chrysostom, printed at Eton, which were not inserted into the Greek and Latin Edition of Paris, as not belonging to S. Chrysostom, or else but Collections out of this Father's Works.  
In the 5th Volume, page 680, there is one upon these words Psal. 92. Dominus regnavit, etc. and upon those of S. Paul, When Jesus Christ shall have given up the Kingdom to the Father, wherein he speaks of Baptism.  
Another in the same Volume, page 740. of those Women that brought Spices to embalm the Body of Jesus Christ: Wherein the Author proves, that the Evangelists do not contradict one another, upon the subject of Christ's Resurrection: Both these Homilies are well enough written, but they are not S. John Chrysostom's.  
There is a Third in the same Volume, page 789 upon these words of S. Paul, The good that I would, I do not, but the Evil that I would not, I do. The Author shows there, in what Sense Jacob was a Type of Christ, and declaims against public Shows. This Discourse is full of Allegories contrary to S. Chrysostom's Custom: It may be attributed to the Author of the following Discourse on these words of the same Apostle: My Grace is sufficient for thee.  
The 123d Homily in the same Volume, pag. 807. upon these words of the Epistle to the Hebrews, When we sin wilfully, there remains no more Oblation, is a Collection out of the 20th, 15th, and 14th Homilies of S. Chrysostom, upon the Epistle to the Hebrews.  
The Homily upon the Nativity of Jesus Christ in the same Volume, pag. 843. where the guardian Angels of Countries and Provinces are discoursed of, is cited by Photius under S. Chrysostom's Name: Yet the Style shows it not to be S. Chrysostom's: It is more probable, that it belongs to Severianus of Gabala.  
At the latter End of this Volume are several other Homilies, yet more unworthy of S. Chrysostom: Viz. the second Panegyric upon S. Stephen, the Homily upon Palm-Sunday, upon the Thief, upon Judas his Treason, and many Sermons upon Easter, etc.  
The sixth Volume is intermixed with several Homilies, which are only Fragments or Collections, taken out of the genuine Works of S. Chrysostom, such as these following Sermons; Of Charity, pag. 742. Of Meekness, pag. 750. Sermons concerning Fasting, pag. 883. A Discourse against those that slept upon the Saturday before Whitsunday, pag. 857. That the Salvation of the Soul is to be preferred before the Welfare of the Body, pag. 893. That Priests ought not to be upbraided with living at Ease, pag. 896. Three Discourses of Penance, pag. 903. That we ought not to weep for the Dead, pag. 943. Of Patience, pag. 949. Of the Soul's Salvation, pag. 961. Against those that abused Virgins consecrated to God, pag. 971. A Discourse against Heretics, pag. 979.  
Lastly, The 7th Volume from pag. 271, to 587. contains above a hundred Sermons upon all sorts of Subjects, whereof some are not printed in the Greek and Latin Edition of Paris; namely, those that are either unworthy of S. Chrysostom, impertinent and foolish, or discourses of modern Authors, or Collections and Fragments taken out of S. Chrysostom. The Catalogue and Titles are in the Table of that Volume.  
I believe, that most of S. Chrysostom's Sermons, which Photius professes to have read, and which are not, now extant, aught to be placed in the same rank. In the 25th Volume of his Bibliotheca, he speaks of a Book bearing the Name of S. Chrysostom, entitled, Remarks upon the Death of Jesus Christ: Which, says he, contained two and twenty short Sermons, upon the Death of Jesus Christ: There were besides, as he adds, in the same Volume, two and twenty Discourses upon the Ascension, and seventeen upon Whitsunday. S. Chrysostom did not use to make short Sermons; his are generally long and full; he abounded in words and notions which he could not easily contract. Yet Photius hath taken no notice, that these Discourses were not S. Chrysostom's.  
But he says, in the 274th Volume, concerning three Discourses of the beheading of S. John the Baptist, that their Subject and Method were very different from the other Sermons of this Father, as well as their Style, which was flat, and far from the Elegancy of S. Chrysostom. The extracts in the same place, which he made out of a Discourse, concerning the 40 Martyrs ascribed to S. Chrysostom, do prove his Assertion.  
Among those Homilies, which he abridges in the 277th Vol. there are several which are rejected, as not being S. Chrysostom's 
i There are several which are rejected as not being S. Chrysostom ' s.] There are Extracts, out of the Homily of the Holy Ghost, out of the Discourse upon these Words, Jesus Christ is the last, etc. of the Sermon upon the Incarnation, and the Guardian Angels; of the Treatise which proves, that both the Old and the New Testament have the same Lawgiver; of the Discourse upon these Words of S. Paul, My Grace is sufficient for thee, etc. The Homily of the Holy Ghost is in the sixth Volume of the Paris Edition: See the 221st, and 222d page. The Homily upon the Nativity, and of the Angels, are in the Eton Edition, Vol 5. pag. 843. That of the Lawgiver in the Old and New Testament, is the first of the sixth Volume of the Paris Edition: There is also in the same Volume the Discourse upon those Words of the Apostle, My Grace is sufficient for thee; the Sermon upon these Words, 2 Cor. c. 11. If any one be in Christ, let him be a new Creature, etc. , but Severianus' of Gabala, or of some other ancient Authors.  
But one ought not to pass the same Judgement upon those which Theodoret quotes in his Dialogues, which are certainly S. Chrysostom's, and which are now extant, most of them 
k But one ought not to pass the same Judgement upon those which Theodoret quotes in his Dialogues, which are certainly S. Chrysostom' s, and which are now entant most of them.] He quotes a Discourse preached by S. Chrysostom, after the Speech of the Gothick Ambassador, which is not found among S. Chrysostom's Discourses. The second passage which he quotes in the first Dialogue, is taken out of the Homily of the Nativity, Vol. I. pag. 426. The Homily which Theodoret citys, under this Title, A dogmatical Homily, showing that which is said of Jesus Christ, seems unworthy of the Power, and of the Divinity, is that which is entitled, Of Consubstantiality, which is in the first Volume, pag. 360. The place which he quotes out of the Commentary upon Psal. 41. is not in that which is now extant: I have not found the Homily of the Confusion of Languages, nor the Passage taken out of the Homily, preached in the great Church. The Homilies against those who affirm, that Daemons govern the things of this World, against those that fast upon Easter-day, and the Homily of Christ's Assumption, are among those that we have; as well as the Passages taken out of Theodoret's Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Ephesians, upon the Gospel of S. John, and that of S. Matthew.  at least.  
Facundus l. 4. c. 2. quotes a Sermon of S. Chrysostom's, in Commendation of Diodorus, this Discourse was published both in Greek and Latin, by the Learned Bigotius, with the Life of S. Chrysostom, written by Palladius▪ It is a Thanksgiving of that Saint to Diodorus of Tarsus, who had publicly commended him. He there confesseth, that the Commendations given him by Diodorus, did put him to some trouble. For, says he, with much humility, great praises do not less check the Conscience than Sins, when a Man finds not in himself those Virtues which are commended by others. After that, he returns upon Diodorus the Praises which he had given him; and as he was compared with S. John, baptist, because of his Name; he shows that Diodorus deserved that Name better than he, having all the Virtues of that holy Forerunner of Jesus Christ.  
Lastly, Cotelierius in the third Volume of his Monuments, hath published an Homily under S. Chrysostom's Name, upon these words of Matt. 20. By what Authority dost thou these things? This Discourse is written by some ancient Author, but not S. Chrysostom; it has his Genius, the reflections are just, and the reasons solid. But one does not find that overflowing Eloquence, nor that abundant fruitfulness which was so peculiar to S. Chrysostom, though it is not unworthy of him. There the Anomaeans are refuted; and he proves, that none ought to pretend to penetrate into Mysteries with humane reason; but that we ought to depend upon what the Scripture says, without searching further.  
These are almost all the Sermons that are attributed to S. Chrysostom, which were printed in Greek and Latin. There are several other Manuscripts in Libraries, that falsely bear the Name of this great Saint, and which are not only unworthy of him, but also are not worth publishing. For in my opinion, it is equally prudent to suppress the ill pieces that are in Libraries, as to publish those that are worth it. It is a kind of Theft, to keep in obscurity from the public those Monuments that may be useful: But it is also a great imposition upon the World, to set forth such Books as serve for nothing else, but to weary the Readers, to increase the Number of bad Books, and to fill Libraries with unprofitable Volumes. I wish, that as Men prohibit the selling of bad Wares, so they would forbid publishing of bad Books, though they are under the Name of great Men. Had this Law been observed in the Commonwealth of Learning, from the beginning of Printing, the World would not have been overwhelmed with infinite Loads of bad Books, which cause so much Confusion in all Arts and Sciences, and particularly in Divinity. This may be said by the buy, upon occasion of the vast Number of Sermons, which have been Printed under S. Chrysostom's Name. But it is less to be wondered at, that the modern Greeks, to advance the worth of their own productions, which of themselves were of very little value, would raise them, by the glorious Name of our Saint. That which is most surprising, is, that Men should have the impudence to give Discourses written by Latin Authors, the Name of a Greek Father. It may so happen, that the Original Greek of some Book might be lost, and that nothing might remain but a Version, as upon the Sermon of S. Joseph, and Continency quoted by S. Austin, which is in Latin, among the Works of S. Chrysostom: But it is impossible, that Sermons taken out of the Works of Latin Fathers, or which were visibly composed at first in Latin, should be written by a Greek Father. As for example, it were ridiculous to say, that the Discourse of Adam and Eve, which is made up of several passages of S. Austin, and which contains the 31st, and 32d Chapters of Gennadius his Book of Ecclesiastical Dogmes: It were, I say, ridiculous to believe that this was ever written by S. Chrysostom: And that Man is little acquainted with the style of Authors, that cannot perceive, that the imperfect Commentary upon S. Matthew, is written by a Latin Author; and that most of the Homilies upon the Old and New Testament, whereof we have no Greek Originals, and which are found in the Latin Editions of S. Chrysostom, mixed with his own proper Works, were composed originally in Latin and not in Greek. These are, the second Homily upon Genesis, and those that follow, to the 16th, from pag. 206. of the last Edition, at Lions, to pag. 222. Eight Sermons upon several Histories of the Books of Kings, from pag. 243. to pag. 250. Five Homilies upon Job, pag. 261, etc. Two other Homilies, pag. 267. Two Prefaces upon the Psalms, pag. 269, and 270. A Discourse upon the Usefulness of the Psalms, pag. 272. Homilies upon Psalms, 9th, 14th, 22d, 24th, 25th, 26th, 29th, 33d, 37th, 38th, 39th, 40th, 42d, 68th, 71st, 84th, 90th, 93d, 95th, 96th, 121st, 122d. A Sermon upon these Words, Wisdom, Chap. 3. They seem dead in the Eyes of Fools, and of Men without Sense. Four Homilies upon four places of Isaiah, pag. 598th, 613th, and 614th. An Homily upon Jeremiah, pag. 616th. A Sermon of the three Children, pag. 617th. One of Sufanna, ibid. and one upon Zach. Chap. 6. pag. 619. Almost all these Discourses have the style of the Latin Preachers, they are full of Sentences, Antitheses, Figures, and playing upon Words 
l Almost all these Discourses have the Style of the Latin Preachers, etc.] They are full of allusions to words, of rhyming Sentences, as Psal. 33. Eja fratres mei, hic modo respondere volo; quanti modo dicunt; ●●lo, qui jam dicebant, volo. To this may be added, this fine Notion. Oracula sanctoe lectionis, quae sonant in auribus vestris, nidum faciant in cordibus vestris. One may find also Explications of Latin and Greek Terms, as upon Psal. 90. Meridies dicitur, quia dividit diem; meros enim pars est divisae diei. And upon Psal. 118. Veritas tres sunt syllabae & septem literae, quia in septima die Deus requievit ab operibus suis. There are several such passages which justify their Author to be a Latin. The style is sententious, concise, and full of Antitheses, and strokes of Wit, which are ordinary faults in the Latin Preachers, to which S. Chrysostom was never liable. , which are usual in Latin Authors. One neither meets with the Eloquence, nor the Copiousness, nor Fruitfulness, nor Sublimity of the Expressions of S. Chrysostom, and the method is quite different from his 
m The method is quite different from his.] St. Chrysostom divides his Discourses into three Parts. The first is a Preface: The second an Exposition of one or more places of Scripture: And the third a moral Exhortation. This Division may always be observed, in S. Chrysostom's Sermons. These have nothing like, they have neither Preface, nor moral Exhortation, neither do they conclude with the Doxology. The Author divides the Scripture into Verses, and citys Latin Authors, as S. Cyprian and Hippolytus; which S. Chrysostom never did. : In a word, the matters there treated of are not such as S. Chrysostom uses to discourse of 
n In a word, the matters treated of, are not such as S. Chrysostom uses to discourse of.] St. Chrysostom always handleth Points of Morality, or common Doctrine; he never insists upon thorny and hard Questions, but avoiding them carefully, he expounds the Letter of the Scripture, and that in a plain way. The Author of these Sermons doth the quite contrary, he fills them with common places, upon Original Sin, Predestination, Grace, and hardening of the Heart, etc. Questions which S. Chrysostom never meddled with. This Author seeks for the allegorical and mystical Sense, and takes little notice of the literal. In short, nothing can be imagined more unlike to S. Chrysostom's way of writing, than the Sermons here examined. .  
We cannot judge otherwise of the greatest part of those Homilies upon several passages of the four Gospels which are not in the Greek, viz. the 27 Homilies upon S. Matthew, in the second Volume of the Lion's Edition, pag. 465, etc. to 502. Of the 14 Homilies upon S. Mark, from pag. 503, to pag. 519. Of six Homilies upon S. Luke, from pag. 519, to pag. 529. Of that upon Zacchaeus, pag. 551. and of 13 Homilies upon S. John, from pag. 164, to pag. 172. All these Homilies are either Sermons of Latin Authors, whereof some are among those of S. Chrysologus 
o All these Homilies are either Sermons of Latin Authors, whereof some are among those of S. Chrysologus.] The 13th, and 16th, are amongst those attributed to S. Chrysologus: The 17th is among those that are attributed to Origen; the 6th is taken out of the 15th Homily of S. Chrysostom, upon S. Matthew. The 21st and 22d, are part of the 32d and 33d Homilies of the imperfect Work upon S. Matthew: The 25th is taken out of the 37th Homily of the same. The 27th and 28th, out of the 40th Homily. The Commentary upon S. Mark, is written by some ignorant Monk. , or extracts from the imperfect Commentary upon S. Matthew, or Versions of some passages of S. Chrysostom, collected and stitched up together.  
The 59 last Homilies upon the Statues, which are in the fifth Volume of the Edition of Lions, from pag. 75, to pag. 188. are of this last sort as well as several other Homilies upon different Subjects, from pag. 287, to pag. 298, and from pag. 312, to pag. 335. Three Sermons of Penance and Confession, and ●●me Sermen of Fasting, and Alms-deeds, from pag. 361, to pag. 376. And lastly, common places upon Providence, Riches, Blasphemies, Debaucheries, and Pleasures, and upon some other matters of Morality which are in the same Volume, from pag. 582, to pag. 601.  
The imperfect Commentary upon S. Matthew 
p The imperfect Commentary upon S. Matthew, etc.] The Author of this Treatise citys the Scripture according to the vulgar Version, he quotes Apocryphal Books, as that of Seth, Ezechias, and the Itinerary of S. Clement. He has heretical Notions concerning the Trinity, as in the 49th Homily, where he calls the Catholics Homoousian Heretics. In the 7th Homily, he rejects the Baptism of Heretics. In the first Homily he speaks ill of Marriage; and condemns second Marriages, Homily 32d. Sixtus Senensis pretends that these Errors, and especially those that concern the Trinity, have been added since, because they are not in some ancient Manuscripts, and also because in some places, he teaches the Divinity of the Son. However, he confesses with all the Critics, that it is not S. Chrysostom's, but a Latin Authors: There are some short Commentaries upon S. Mark, S. Luke and S. Matthew ascribed to S. Chrysostom, and printed at Paris 1576. which bear S. Chrysostom's Name, but are none of his. , divided into 54 Homilies, is undoubtedly written by a Latin Author, who quotes the old Latin vulgar Version, and citys Apocryphal Books. There are also erroneous Notions, and contrary to S. Chrysostom's Doctrine.  
The Latin Sermon supposed to have been preached by S. Chrysostom, after his Return from Asia, is written by one that designed to exercise himself; as also the Discourses of S. Chrysostom, and Severianus upon their reconciliation, which are at the latter End of the 7th Volume of the E●on Edition, and of the second of that of Paris. They rather belong to some Rhetorician, who desired to be thought eloquent, than Sermons written in earnest.  
And now we are come to the Books which S. Chrysostom writ in his Study, which are almost all collected in the 4th Volume. The first and most excellent are the six Books of the Priesthood, which, according to Suidas' Observation, exceed all the other Books of S. Chrysostom, both for Elevation of Style, Beauty of Elocution, and Sweetness and Elegance in the Choice of his Words: S. Isiodore Pelusiota observes, in the 156th Letter of his first Book, that all those that read that Book reap a considerable Advantage from it, seeing that on the one side this Book represents the Priesthood as an Eminent Dignity, not to be approached unto, but with much respect: And on the other side, it teaches Men to enter into it with great purity and innocence. It is composed with so much subtlety, discretion, and exactness, that as they who perform as they ought the Duties of the Priesthood, do find there a Picture of their Virtues; so they who negligently go about the functions of their sacred Ministry, cannot but discover there the representation of their Vices and Sins. And indeed there is not any one Book in all Antiquity, that speaks more nobly concerning the Honour and Functions of the Priesthood. It is in form of a Dialogue between his friend Basil, and himself, and divided into six Books. The first is a kind of Preface, in which, having spoken first of the intimate Friendship that was betwixt S. Basil, and him, and of the Design they had to embrace a retired Life; he relates, that when it was noised abroad, that they would make both Basil and him Bishops, he did not discover to Basil his resolution to retire, and that having hid himself at the time of the Election, Basil was chosen and consecrated Bishop. On this occasion, Basil is introduced complaining of that Deceit, and accusing him of refusing the Bishopric out of Vanity.  
S. Chrysostom justifies himself from the injury that Basil pretended to have received of him, by showing that there are innocent Cheats, which are causes of much good. He proves in the second Book, that he had deceived him to his own advantage, by giving him an opportunity of exercising his love to Jesus Christ after a most excellent manner, in feeding his Sheep. Afterwards he discourses of the Virtue, and Wisdom, which that Office required, proving how great the Charge of Pastors is by the great difficulty of healing Souls fallen sick, either by the Contagion of Vice, or by Errors in Faith. Basil interrupting him there, and telling him, that therefore he was to blame, for avoiding the Cure of Souls, since it was the best way to justify his love of Jesus Christ; he answers, That he did it, because he thought himself unworthy of it; but on the contrary, that Basil was very capable of it. And then to excuse himself towards those, who thought, that by his refusal he had offended them that had chosen him; he answers in the first place, That none ought to be afraid of offending Men, when they cannot any other ways avoid it, but by offending God: 2. He shows, that he was so far from disgracing them by his Denial, that he pretended on the contrary, that he obliged them very much, by not exposing them to the reproaches to which they might otherwise have been subject, and the false reports which might have been raised against them. Is it not certain, says he, that had I accepted the Bishopric, than those that love to caluminate might have suspected, and spoken many things, not only of me, but also of my Electours? They would have said, for example, that they had respect to Riches, or were blinded with the Luster of Birth, or won by my Flatteries. I know not whether they would not have dared to say, that I had bribed them with Money. But, thanks be to God, I took from them all these occasions of Evil-speaking, and they can no more tax me with Flattery, than they can accuse these good Men of being corrupted. For why should he, that bestowed Money, or used Flattery to get an Office, suffer another to take it when he might have it himself? Again, what might not have been said, by detracting Men after my coming to the Office? Can I have made Apologies sufficient to answer their Accusations? Though all my Actions had been without reproach, had they found no pretence to blacken me? But now they have none, for I have delivered those that might have chosen me from all imputations; No complaints will be made of them; It will not be said publicly, They have entrusted young Fools with the highest, and most considerable Offices; they have exposed God's Flock to all sorts of Corruption; Christianity is now made a jest of, and they delight to render it ridiculous; Now the mouth of iniquity must be stopped: For if Calumniatours do thus complain of You (addressing himself to Basil) you will let them see, that a man's Wisdom is not to be judged of by the Number of his Years, nor old Age measured with Gray-hairs; and that not young Men, but Neophytes are to be excluded from Ecclesiastical Dignities. Thus he concludes the second Book.  
To defend himself against such as accused him of refusing the Bishopric out of pride, he says, that it is not to be presumed, that any Man could refuse so eminent a Dignity out of Vanity, and that such as are of that opinion must needs be despisers of that high Office. To undeceive them, he speaks of the Priesthood in these Terms. Though the Priesthood is exercised upon Earth, yet it ought to be reckoned amongst heavenly Goods, since neither Man, nor Angel, nor Archangel, nor any created Power, but the Holy Ghost himself, established that sacred Order, and made men think, that they exercised a Ministry of Angels in a mortal Body. Wherefore whosoever is raised up to the Priesthood, aught to be as pure as if he were already in Heaven, among those blessed Spirits. When you see our Lord placed, and offered upon the Altar, The Bishop celebrating the Sacrifice; and praying for the whole People died, and made red with his precious Blood, do you think that you are amongst Men, and upon Earth? Do you not believe yourselves to be taken up into Heaven for that moment? And do you not put off the thoughts of the flesh? Do you not behold heavenly things with a pure Spirit, and a naked Soul? O Miracle! O Bounty of God He that is above with his Father, suffers himself to be touched by the hands of all in this moment, and gives himself to be held and embraced by those that desire it. Afterwards he compares the Divine Mysteries to Elias his Sacrifice, which caused Fire to come down from Heaven to consume the Victims. He saith, that the Bishop in like manner causeth by his Prayers, not Fire from Heaven, but the Holy Ghost to descend upon the Altar. Having thus exalted the Dignity of the Priesthood, because of the Power which they have to consecrate the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, he discourses of their Power of binding and losing Sinners, which is not less honourable, nor less useful to the Salvation of Men. For, saith he, living as yet upon the Earth, they dispose of the things of Heaven, and they have received a Power which God would give neither to Angels, nor to Archangels; having said unto Men, and not to them, What you shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever ye shall lose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. Temporal Princes have a power to bind, but that is the Body only, whereas Episcopal Power bindeth the Soul, and reacheth unto Heaven, because God ratifieth above, what the Bishops do here below, and the Master confirmeth the Sentence of his Servants. This Power is as much above the Temporal, as Heaven is nobler than the Earth, and the Soul than the Body. It were madness to despise a Power, without which we could hope for no Salvation, nor the possession of the promised Goods: For if none can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, unless he be first regenerated with Water, and the Holy Ghost: And if he that eateth not the Flesh of the Lord, and drinketh not his Blood, is deprived of Eternal Life: And if it be these holy Hands, I mean by the hands of Bishops, that all these things are done: How can either the Fire of Hell be avoided, or the Crowns prepared for us in Heaven, be obtained without their help? They and only they, are entrusted by God with these spiritual Births, and that regeneration which is wrought by Baptism: By them we put on Christ, we are united to the Son of God, and become Members of his sacred Body. Bishops do not judge of the Leprosy of the Body, as the Priests did under the old Law; they judge of that of the Soul, and they do not only inquire whether Souls be purified, but they have power also to purify them: Wherefore those that despise them, commit a much greater Crime, and are worthy of a much severer Chastisement than Dathan, and his Companions.  
Having thus exalted the Dignity of the Priesthood, he discovers the Dangers that attend this Office on all sides: He compares a Bishop that has the Care of a Diocese, with a Pilot that hath the Charge of a Ship. But a Bishop, saith he, is more agitated with Cares, than the Sea with Winds and Storms: The first Rock he meets with, is vain Glory, Anger, Peevishness, Envy, Quarrelling, Calumnies, Accusations, Lying, Hypocrisies, Treachery, and precipitate Violence against the Innocent; joy to see those that serve the Church, neglect their Duty; and sorrow to see them discharge it worthily; love of Praise, desire of Honour, which is one of the most pernicious passions of the Soul; Discourses where pleasure is more looked after, than the profit of the Hearers, servile Flatteries, base Complacency, Contempt of the Poor, degenerate Civilities towards rich men without reason, favours ill-bestowed, which prove hurtful both to the giver and to the receiver; guilty fear, bashfulness in speaking, false modesty, silence, cowardice and fear of reproving great Men. There is no slavery equal to ours, which makes us do even shameful things to please Women. They have got such Power, that they give and take away Bishoprics, even to whom, and from whom they please: Hence it is, that all things are turned upside down: Those that should obey, will be Directours of those that are to command. Yet I pretend not to tax all Bishops with the Crimes now mentioned, there being many; I say many, who have not been caught in these snares, and who far exceed those in number, that are unhappily fallen into them. Neither will I say, that the Episcopal Dignity is the cause of these Evils, I am not so extravagant as to have any such thought. The Sword is not the cause of Murder, nor Wine of Drunkenness, etc. All wise Men accuse and punish such as abuse God's Gifts, as the true Authors of those Abuses: And the Episcopal Dignity is so far from being guilty of these Evils, that it may rather complain, that Men do not exercise it well: We are those whom it may upbraid. Since we dishonour it as much as in us lies, when we admit the first that comes, who having not examined their own strength, nor considered the greatness and importance of that Office, receive it readily, as soon as it is offered. And when they are obliged to act, being blinded with Darkness, they engage their People in a thousand Disorders. For, from whence think you, do so many Troubles arise in the Church? I see no other Spring of them besides the want of Circumspection, and Choice in the Election of Bishops.  
He Discourses afterwards of the necessary qualities in a Bishop, and affirms, that the first is to have no desire to that Dignity, which ought to be looked upon with respect, and such a moderation as may inspire Men with a Desire to avoid so important and difficult an Office: And also, that when a Man engages in it, he should not stay for the Judgement of others, to quit it, but having committed faults unworthy of the same, he should depose himself. Perhaps, says he, it will be objected to me, that I contradict the Words of S. Paul, That he that desireth to be a Bishop, desireth a good work, but I am so far from opposing, that I do only follow them, since it is the desire of the Power and not of the Work which I condemn. The second quality noted by S. Chrysostom as requisite in a Bishop, is to be clearsighted and vigilant, because he lives not for himself, but for a great People. The Third, according to his Opinion, is Meekness; he observes, That a Bishop ought not to be Peevish, Violent or Angry; and that whatsoever his other Virtues be, if these be in him, he is not worthy to be a Bishop. He saith further, That the Vices of a Bishop are of worse consequence than those of a private Man, because, when they are once discovered, they cause a general Scandal, and draw others by their example; and besides, the least faults of a Bishop, being magnified by envious Men, will utterly ruin his Reputation. In the next place, he gives an account of the Disputes and Dissensions which commonly attend the Election of a Bishop, and that the reason of it is, because they do not all agree in the only design which they ought to have, which is to choose the Wisest and most Virtuous. They, says he, have all different Pretences of promoting a Man to an Office; one will have this Man because he is of a Noble Family; another votes for the other, because he is rich, and a third endeavours to advance his Friend, or his Kinsman: This last goes by Caballing and getting of Favour: No Man chooses the most worthy; no Man hath respect either to Virtue or Merit. Then he concludes this Book by a Description of the three main duties of a Bishop, viz. The care of Widows, of Virgins consecrated to God, and their obligation to do Justice to the People, and to help them in their necessities.  
S. Chrysostom having ended this Discourse, Basil told him, That had he sued for that Dignity, his fear might have been rational, but having been chosen when he sought it not, he ought to think himself secure in accepting it. S. Chrysostom answers, That not only those that seek for Ecclesiastical Promotions through Ambition, but also those that do not discharge them well shall be severely punished, because they should have refused them, knowing that they were above their Capacity; and that even those shall be without excuse, who through insufficiency do not perform their Functions in the Church as they ought, under pretence that they were forced to accept of them; neither shall they be acquitted before God, who choose Insufficient Men, by saying that they were deceived, and that they knew them not. This aught to oblige those that are to choose, to consider well what choice they make? and those that are chosen, to examine themselves, Whether they are capable of the Dignity to which they are to be promoted. He discourses afterwards of a Bishop's Learning, that being to preach God's word with Strength and Knowledge, to refute Pagans, Jews and Heretics, and to instruct the Faithful, he hath great need of Learning, of Prudence and Eloquence.  
He goes on in the next Book to speak of the Conditions which are necessary to exercise the Ministry of God's Word, as we ought: He observes, That Commendation is not to be regarded, and that Envy and Malice is to be despised; but that a good Reputation is to be maintained by constant labour: That a good Bishop ought not to be proud for being praised, nor dejected when he is blamed; and that his only aim in his Discourses should be to please God. This, saith he, is the only Rule, and the only Object which they ought to propose to themselves in this excellent Ministry, and not to be applauded and praised. If Men do commend them, let them not reject their Commendations; if they do not, let them not desire it, nor be concerned at the omission: This is sufficient comfort for him in his Labour; yea, the greatest he can have, if he knows in his Conscience, that he hath studied his Discourses for no other end, than that they might be acceptable to God only; adding, that he cannot be envious against, nor jealous of those who have more talents than himself.  
In the last Book he proves, That Bishops have need of a higher degree of Virtue than Monks, because they are exposed to many more dangers; and that it is easier to live well in a Solitude than as a Bishop; yea, that whatsoever Virtues Monks may have, yet they are not fit to be Bishops, because the accidents of a Bishop's life may easily excite those Vices and Infirmities which were hid in Solitude. Lastly, he declares, That the trouble he was in, when they spoke of making him Bishop, made him resolve to hid himself. He sets forth this trouble by two Comparisons; the one by describing the vexation which a Princess, incomparable both for Beauty and Virtue, might be in, who being passionately beloved by a Prince, should be forced to marry a mean and contemptible Man; the other, by describing the astonishment of a Clown, that was forced to take upon him the Conduct of both a great Land-Army, and of a Navy that was ready to give Battle to a dreadful Enemy. He concludes by comforting Basil, who was afflicted to see himself engaged in so hard an Employment, and loaded with so heavy a Burden.  
Some say, that he writ these excellent Books when he was very young, which is not likely. Others think with Socrates, That he composed them while he was a Deacon; but it seems rather, that he made them in his Retirement, before he was ordained Deacon, about the Year 376.  
The three Books in defence of a Monastical Life, against those that blamed that state, were the first fruits of S. Chrysostom's Retreat. In the first he argues for a Monastical way of life, because of the usefulness and necessity of separating from the World. In the Second he answers the Gentiles, who complained that their Children forsook them to retire into desert places; and then he comforts the Christians who were troubled to see themselves bereft of their Children that embraced a Solitary Life, to dwell in Wildernesses. He affirms in these Books, That a Monk is more glorious, more powerful and richer than a Man of the World; representing the great difficulty of saving ourselves in the World, and how hard it is to bring up Children to Christianity; and comparing the condition of a Monk with that of Saints and Angels.  
The short Discourse upon the comparison of a Monk with a Prince, is upon the same Subject. He shows, That Men are mistaken, who prefer the condition of Kings before that of Monks and retired Men. First, Because the greatness of King's ends with them, whereas the advantages of a retired Life continues after death. 2. Because the advantages of Retirement are much more considerable than the Fortune of Great Men. 3. Because it is more glorious for a Man to command his Passions, than to rule whole Nations. 4. Because the War of a Monk is nobler than that of a great Captain, and his Victory more certain; the one fights against invisible Powers, and the other against mortal Men; the one engages for the defence of Piety, and the honour of God, the other for his own Interest or Glory. 5. Because a Prince is a charge to himself and to others by reason of those many things which he needs; whereas a Monk wants nothing, does good to all, and by his Prayers obtains those Graces, which the most powerful Princes cannot give. 6. Because the loss of Piety may sooner be repaired than the loss of a Kingdom. Lastly, Because, after death, a Monk goeth in splendour to meet Jesus Christ, and entereth immediately into Heaven; whereas, tho' a King seems to have ruled his Kingdom with Justice and Equity (a thing very rare) yet they shall be less glorious and not so happy, there being a great difference in point of Holiness, between a good King, and a holy Monk, who hath bestowed all his time and care upon praising God: But if this King hath lived ill, who can express the greatness of those punishments that attend him? He concludeth in these words; Let us not admire their Riches, nor prefer their happiness before that of these poor Monks. Let us never say, that this rich Man is happy, because he is clothed with sumptuous Apparel, carried in a fine Coach, and followed by many Footman: These Riches and great Pomp's last but for a time, and all the Felicity that attends them ends with the Life, whereas the Happiness of Monks endures for ever.  
It was likewise in his Solitude that he writ the two Books of Compunction of Heart, whereof the first is dedicated to Demetrius, and the second to Stelechius. In these Books he discourses of the necessity and conditions of a true and sincere Repentance; affirming, That Christians ought to have their sins always in view, to abhor them with all their Heart, to lament, and continually beg of God the forgiveness of them: That this sorrow ought to be a motion of that Charity which the Holy Ghost inspireth into our Hearts, and to be animated with the fire of a Divine Love, which consumeth sin, and is accompanied with a Spirit of Mortification and Disinteressedness from the Goods of this World, with an esteem of the Treasures of Heaven, and of Spiritual Virtues. He saith in the first Book, That it is not Grace only which makes us do good, since we ought ourselves to contribute on our part, all that depends upon our Wills and Strength; wherefore, saith he, God's Grace is given to every one of us, but it abideth only in the Hearts of them that keep the Commandments, and departeth from them that correspond not with it; neither doth it enter into their Souls, who begin not to turn to the Lord. When God converted S. Paul, he foresaw his good Will before he gave him his Grace.  
The Three Books of Providence were composed by S. Chrysostom, when he came out of his Solitude, and returned to Antioch. There he comforteth a Friend of his, one Stagirius, who having quitted the World, was so tormented with an Evil Spirit, that he was ready to fall into Despair; exhorting him to look upon that affliction as a Grace of God rather than a Punishment; for as much as it appears by the most notable Examples both of the old and of the new Law; that from Adam to S. Paul, Troubles and Afflictions have commonly been the lot of the Saints and Righteous Men: For this reason these Books are entitled, Of Providence, because they clear that great Question which so much perplexed the learned Gentiles, Why the Righteous are afflicted and persecuted if there be a Providence overruling the things of the World? He showeth there, that this Question hath no difficulty, if Men believe, that there is another Life, a Heaven and a Hell: For, saith he, since every one is punished or rewarded in another World, to what end are we concerned at what happens in this? If wicked Men only were persecuted here, we should easily believe, that out of this World there is neither Punishments nor Rewards; and were there none but good Men in affliction, Virtue might be looked upon as the cause of Adversity, and Crimes the reason of Prosperity. Of necessity therefore there must be in this World righteous and wicked Men, some happy and others unhappy. He adds, That by God's permission the Righteous are afflicted, to expiate their sins, and to correct them for their faults. He saith further, That God makes use of the Righteous Man's Fear, to oblige others to look to themselves, and to mind their own Salvation. But why doth it happen, That such as lived well before they were tempted by Afflictions should fall into sin, when Temptation cometh? S. Chrysostom answereth, First, That many seem to be Righteous before Men, who are great Criminals before God, that searcheth the Hearts. Secondly, That God permits the most righteous to fall into sin, to humble them, to keep them from Pride, and from an Opinion of their own Merit; and to put them in mind, that if they have any thing that is good, it is not of themselves, but of the Grace of Jesus Christ.  
The Book of Virginity is written with much Prudence and Wisdom: For, whereas most of the Authors that have written of Virginity, could not forbear, whilst they commended this Virtue, to condemn marriage, or at least, to speak slightingly of it. On the contrary, S. Chrysostom answereth, at first, those Heretics that condemned Matrimony; and proveth, that their Virginity will not only be unprofitable, but also pernicious; adding withal, that as many as condemn Marriage, are Despisers of Virginity: It being a greater advantage to be what it is, a good thing, a nobler and more excellent than another good thing, than simply a Virtue in opposition to Vice. I commend Matrimony, saith he, it is the Haven of Continency for those that will use it well; but there are excellent persons, who have no need of that help, and are able to quench the Fire of Lust by praying, watching, and lying upon the Ground. These I exhort to Virginity, but forbidden them not to marry: If they follow not my Advice, I condemn them not; I excommunicate those that commit Adultery and Fornication, but commend those who make an holy use of Matrimony. Marriage is good, that's my Opinion, but Virginity is better. This I own, and if you will have my Sense, It is as much above Matrimony as Heaven is above the Earth, and makes Men like to Angels.  
Afterwards he makes an Objection to himself against Virginity, which seems natural enough: If it be better to live unmarried, why did God institute Marriage? why did he make Women? and should all Men embrace Virginity, how should Mankind be propagated? To answer these Questions, S. Chrysostom goeth back as far as the creation of the first Man, and taketh notice, That while he was in the earthly Paradise with Eve, he was taken up with a Conversation with God, that he was then freed from Lust and the desires of the Flesh, and lived in a perfect Virginity, and the whole World was at that time a vast Solitude. But Man having disobeyed God's Commands, and becoming mortal and corruptible, with that happy Life which he enjoyed, he lost also the glory of Virginity; so that Sin being the cause of Death, became at the same time the cause of Marriage. It is probable, that tho' there had been no Marriage, yet the World might have been peopled, and that God had created other Men as he had done the first: adding, That it is not the frequent use of Marriage that multiplieth Mankind, but God's Blessing; and he believes, that Marriage is more necessary to the World at present, for a remedy against Incontinency, than for the preservation of Mankind; he grants, That it is necessary for the weak, but that Virginity is far more honourable and profitable too. He pretendeth, That whatsoever S. Paul said of Marriage ought to induce Men to embrace Virginity; and at last he describes the troubles and inconveniencies of a married life, and opposes to them the quiet, liberty, sweetness, pleasure, and other advantages of a single one, and then concludes with this noble Sentence; Here below we are seriously to work out our Salvation; let him that has a Wife live as if he had none; and he that hath not should endeavour with Virginity to get all other Virtues, that so in the next World he may not lament the disorders that he committed whilst he was in this. This Treatise of Virginity is quoted in the 19th Homily upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians, preached at Antioch. It was by consequence composed in that Town, S. Chrysostom being a Deacon, or newly ordained Priest.  
The two Treatises against the cohabitation of Clerks and Women, were composed, if Palladius may be believed, at Constantinople, against the abuse of those Churchmen, who lodged devout Women with them, or themselves lodged in the Woman's Houses.  
Against these Disorders S. Chrysostom wrote two Books, whereof the first reproveth the Virgins that dwelled with Churchmen; and the second admonisheth Churchmen who admitted Women into their Lodgings, and shows, That such mixt-habitation is an occasion of scandal, and cannot be wholly free from sin.  
In the Discourse to a young Widow, he both comforts and exhorts her, To continue in her Widowhood. He made another little Book on purpose to show, That she ought not to marry again; where he proves, That tho' second marriages be not absolutely forbidden, yet it is much better to continue in Widowhood.  
The small Treatise upon this Paradox, That no Man is offended but by himself, was written by S. Chrysostom in his Exile. It is upon a Subject very proper to administer Comfort to a Man in Persecution, for he proveth there by several Examples out of Holy Scripture, That Persecutions and Vexations are so far from doing any harm to those that are tormented wrongfully, that they make them more happy and glorious, and that nothing but Sin can make Men truly miserable.  
In the first Exhortation to Theodorus, who is thought to be the Person who afterwards was made Bishop of Mopsuesta; he adviseth him to do Penance for quitting a retired life to return into the World; showing him, That how great soever his fault might be, yet he might hope for Pardon from God's Mercy, because he always granteth it to those that truly and earnestly repent; which Penance is not to be judged of according to the length of Time, but by the disposition of the Heart, and which consists in a change of life. Afterwards he represents Heaven, Hell and Judgement, whereof he maketh an excellent Description, to oblige him to do Penance, and then he comforts him, by the hope that his Repentance will recover, not only his former Innocence, but also an higher degree of Holiness and Perfection.  
Among the Examples which he mentions to confirm this Truth, he citeth the History of that famous Thief who was converted by S. John, which Eusebius takes cut of Clemens Alexandrinus.  
The second Discourse to Theodorus containeth some milder Motives, to oblige him to forsake a Secular life; where he represents the Labours and Cares of the World, to make him out of love with it. This last Exhortation ought to be placed first: These Treatises were written at Antioch.  
All S. Chrysostom's Letters were written during his Banishment.  
The first is a Circular Letter to Innocent Bishop of Rome, Venerius Bishop of Milan, and Chromatius Bishop of Aquileia, in which, having described the attempts of Theophilus; the Injuries which he received from him; the Injustice and Violence exercised towards him; and the Disturbance in the Churches of the East, upon his account, very eloquently, he entreats them to write to the East to tell them, That what was done against him, was to be looked upon as of no force, as being done against the Laws, in his absence by his Enemies, and to the prejudice of those proffers which he had made to appear before lawful Judges; and consequently, that such as acted so Uncanonically were to be punished according to the severity of Ecclesiastical Laws; declaring, That he was ready to justify his Innocence, and to convince his Accusers of Imposture and Violence before uncorrupt Judges.  
There is another Letter to Pope Innocent, wherein he thanks him for the good Offices which he had endeavoured to do him; but it was written long after the former, in the third Year of S. Chrysostom's banishment.  
The Letter to the Bishops and Priests that were put in Prison for defending his Innocence, and refusing to communicate with A●sacius, was written in the first Year of his Exile. There he commends the Constancy and Courage of these generous defenders of Justice, whom he scruples not to call Martyrs.  
The seventeen following Epistles are directed to the Widow Olympias, who was united to him by the bonds of an intimate Friendship; he comforteth her for the Persecutions she had endured, the Affliction she was in, and for the Sickness she lay under.  
These are some of the Maxims which he lays down to comfort her and himself. Nothing is to be feared but sin, all other accidents of this life are but a Fable and a Comedy; Afflictions, Persecutions, Sicknesses and Death itself should not move us; these are to be born with patience for God's sake, no other Blessing is to be compared with Patience. We are neither to desire Death, nor to neglect Sickness; not the Persecuted but Persecutors are Objects of pity; and the latter are so much the more to be lamented, because, like Men in a Frenzy, they feel not their Distemper. This present life is but a passage, all the Goods of this World are but Dust and Smoke. Such Christian thoughts as these employed the Spirit of S. Chrysostom in his Exile, and furnished him with matter for the Letters he writ to his Friends: He thanked them likewise in his Epistles, for the care they had of him, and for the generous Methods which they followed to justify him; with other Letters to oblige his Friends to continue steadfast to him, to let them hear of him, to let them know what they might do for him, and to pray them, That they would write to him. These are the subjects of the greatest part of 225 Letters written to his Friends. Some are concerning the Affairs of the Church in Phoenicia, the Conversion of the Goths, and the helping of the Poor; which show, That tho' he was banished and deprived of his Bishopric, yet he preserved an Episcopal Spirit, and Pastoral Watchfulness.  
The Judgement which the learned Photius makes of these Letters, is this: (Vol. 36. of his Bibliotheca) I have read, saith he, the Letters which S. Chrysostom writ to several persons in the time of his Banishment; the most useful are those seventeen to Olympias, and that to Innocent Bishop of Rome; wherein he gives an account of the Persecutions which he suffered, as much as the extent of a Letter could permit. The Style of these Letters is not very different from that of his other Works, for it is clear and lofty, florid, pleasant and persuading. The Letters to Olympias are not so artless as the others, because he could not suit an Epistolary Style, with the Matter he was to write, which, if we may so say, has done Violence to the Laws of the art of Writing.  
This Reflection of Photius is particularly to be applied to the Letter directed to Pope Innocent, and the other Western Bishops, wherein he describeth the Persecutions which he endured with great force of Eloquence. There is not among these Letters That directed to Caesarius the Monk: Peter Martyr was the first that quoted it in these latter times; and since he did not tell whence he took it, and that the words seemed contrary to the Doctrine of the Church, and of S. Chrysostom upon the Eucharist, those of the Church of Rome did long suspect Peter Martyr as guilty of Imposture, and looked upon the fragment of that Letter as a piece of his own Invention. But since that time, Bigotius having found an ancient Manuscript of the Version of that Letter in the Dominicans Library at Florence, it was no longer doubted, but that Peter Martyr took from thence the fragment which he quoted, and I think we ought not to reject it as unworthy of S. Chrysostom: For tho' the Greek Original is not extant entire, yet, something of S. Chrysostom's Eloquence appears in that Version: and this Letter is mentioned by several Greek Authors 
q By several Greek Authors.] These Authors are Anastasius in the MS. Collections of the Library of Clermont, Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople, in two MSS. in Mr. Colbert's Library, an Author that wrote against the Severians, published by Turrianus; S. John Damascen, Tom. 4. Var. Lect. Canisii p. 211. [Theorianus in Legatione ad Armenios', p. 74.] these Fragments are in the Rotterdam [and London] Editions. , who have taken several Quotations that are Printed with the ancient Version.  
By this Letter it appears, that Caesarius to whom it was written, admired a certain Book, wherein it was averred, That in Jesus Christ there was such an Union, or mixture of Humanity with Divinity, that they made but one Nature: S. Chrysostom tells him, that this was the Error of Apollinarius, Arius, Sabellius, and Manichaeus, about the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. And to inform him better, he bids him take notice, that there were two Natures in Christ; and each of them doth preserve its Properties, without mixture, and without confusion, tho' united together in the same Person: to explain this truth, he alleges the Example of the Eucharist, and saith, 
† 
The words in the Original are these, Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur PANIS, PANEM nominamus, Divinâ autem illum sanctificante Gratiâ, mediante Sacerdote, Liberatus est quidem Appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus est DOMINICI CORPORIS appellatione, etiamsi natura Panis in eo permansit, & non duo corpora, sed unum corpus filii praeditatur: Sic & hic Divinâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, insidente corporis Naturâ unum filium, unam Personam, utraque haec fecerunt: Agnoscendum, tamen inconfusam & Indivisibilem rationem, non in unâ solum Naturâ, sed in duabus perfectis: Thus translated into English, by the Learned Defender of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, against the Bishop of Meaux. For as [in the Eucharist] before the Bread is Consecrated, we call it Bread, but when the Grace of God by the Priest has Consecrated it, it is no longer called Bread, but is esteemed worthy to be called the Lord's Body, altho' the Nature of Bread still remains in it; and we do not say there be two Bodies, but one Body of the Son; so here the Divine Nature, being joined with the [Humane] Body, they both together make up but one Son, one Person. But yet they must be Confessed to remain without confusion, after an indivisible manner, not in one Nature, but in two perfect Natures.  
Now if we suppose that S. Chrysostom designed his Comparison to be just, or believed that it was so, it will not be easy to find other words more expressive of the Sense of the Church of England in this matter, than those here made use of: and there is no Dispute, but those who took so much Pains to conceal this Testimony, believed that the greatest force that could be put upon this Passage, could never persuade unconcerned Readers, that the Person who wrote it believed that Doctrine of the Eucharist, which is at present taught in the Church of Rome.]   That as Bread is called Bread before the Sanctification, but that after the Divine Grace hath hallowed it by means of the Priest, it ought no longer to be called Bread, but to bear the Name of Christ's Body, tho' it remains in the same nature of Bread, and that Men do not say, that they are two Bodies, but One only Body of Jesus Christ; so we ought to say, that the Divine Nature being united with the Humane, makes but one Christ, and one Person. And yet it must be acknowledged, that each of these Natures continueth perfect and entire, without mixture, and without confusion; for if there remained but one Nature, how could it be said that there is Union? These words of S. Chrysostom, instead of destroying the real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, do suppose and prove it invincibly: for otherwise how could he affirm, that the Body of Jesus Christ is as truly in the Eucharist, as the Divine Nature is in the Person of Jesus Christ? He saith indeed, that the Bread remains in its own Nature. Which seemeth to be against Transubstantiation: but we may understand by Nature, the consistency and appearance of Bread. In a word, this passage is not harder to be understood, than those of Theodoret and of Gelasius, who use the same Comparison: Nay it is much easier, because S. Chrysostom in several places explaineth his Opinion very clearly upon the real Change of the Bread, and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  
This Letter ends with an Exposition of his Doctrine, about the Mystery of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, in these words. It must be Confessed, that the same Jesus Christ who is Mortal, hath two complete Natures, the Divine, and the Humane, and yet he is one and the same only Son, not divisible into two, who comprehends in himself the Properties of both Natures, without any Alteration. They are not two Persons, but the same God, Lord, and Saviour, Word of God, who hath put on our Flesh, but animated Flesh, not Flesh without Soul, as the impious Apollinarius maintains. To this we are to hold; let us avoid those that separate the two Natures, for tho' there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, yet their Union is indissoluble and inseparable. We ought to acknowledge that this Union is made in one and the same Person, and Hypostasis of the Son. Neither let us hear those who affirm, That after this Union there is but one Nature in Christ; since they are obliged by their own Hypothesis, to ascribe Sufferings to the Divine Nature, which is impassable. The Version of this Letter which Bigotius could not get Printed at Paris, for some particular Considerations 
‖ The matter of Fact was in short this; Bigotius having brought a Copy of this Letter from Florence, annexed it to his Edition of Palladius' Life of S. Chrysostom, which was Printed at Paris, 1680. In his Preface, he Vindicated its Authority against those Exceptions, which had before been made to it: and being afraid that the Licensers might suppress it, he reserved some few entire Printed Copies of the Book, before it came into their hands. His fears proved very Reasonable, for some of the Doctors of the Sorbonne, whereof Mr. Grandin, and Mr. Faure were charged as Principal, suppressed the Letter itself, and cut out so much of the Preface of Mr. Bigotius, as related to it, without taking care to fill up the Blank. The Learned Vindicator of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, against M. de Meaux, tells the Story, and Prints that part of Bigotius' Preface which was erased, with S. Chrysostom's Letter to Caesarius, at the end of his Vindication, in London, 1688. And this explains Mr. Du Pin's particular Considerations, leaving every Body to guests at the true Reason.] , was Printed after the Latin Copy, by Mr. le Moyne, at the end of the first Volume of his Varia Sacra, at Amsterdam, 1685. and with the Greek Fragments in the Margin at Rotterdam, by Achers, 1687. This Edition was publicly sold at Paris, which shows, that tho' it was not suffered to be Printed in France, before it was more exactly examined, yet they never designed to suppress it. And indeed the most Skilful Critics having well considered it, do confess that it was written by an ancient Author, and is not unworthy of S. Chrysostom: and the Learnedest Divines of the Church of Rome agree, that the Doctrine set forth in this Letter, is agreeable to that of this Father, and do not find it a difficult thing to expound that passage concerning the Eucharist.  
The Liturgy attributed to S. Chrysostom now Extant, in all probability is not written by him: It is a Liturgy of the Church of Constantinople, made or altered at least since S. Chrysostom, to which his Name was given, because it was for the use of the Church of Constantinople [and to give it more Authority.] We do not find there the Prayers and Ceremonies, which S. Chrysostom mentions in his Homilies, as in use in his time, in the Celebration of the Eucharist; and there were some things which do not suit with the Customs of that Age. The Manuscripts of this Book are very different; in some there are the Names of S. Chrysostom, of Pope Nicholas II. and of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus, who lived long after S. Chrysostom. These passages indeed are not found in that which was translated by Erasmus, but for all that, there is enough to prove that that Liturgy is not of the time of S. Chrysostom.  
This Father is one of the most Eloquent Christian Orators, and his Eloquence is the more to be esteemed, because it is without Affectation and Constraint: Fruitfulness of thought, and abundance of Words and Notions is natural to him; tho' he did not tie up himself as S. Gregory Nazianzen, and S. Basil did, to an Attic purity; yet there is a lofty Greatness in his Style; His Style is pure and pleasant; His Discourse is beautified with a wonderful Variety of Conceptions and Figures; He extendeth his Matters, by an infinite Variety of Expressions; He is very ingenious in finding out Similitudes between things, abundant in Examples and Comparisons; His Eloquence is popular, and very proper for Preaching; His Style is natural, easy and grave; He equally avoideth Negligence, and Affectation; He is neither too plain, nor too florid; He is smooth yet not effeminate; He useth all the Figures that are usual to good Orators very properly, without employing false strokes of Wit, and he never introduces into his Discourses, any Notions of Poets or profane Authors, neither does he divert his Auditory with Jests; His Composition is Noble, his Expressions Elegant, his Method Just, and his Thoughts Sublime; He speaks like a good Father, and a good Pastor; He often directs his words to the People, and expresses them with a Tenderness and Charity becoming an holy Bishop; He teacheth the principal Truths of Christianity, with wonderful Clearness, and diverts with a marvellous Art, and an agreeable way of ranging his Notions, and persuades by the strength and solidity of his Reasons; His Instructions are easy; His Descriptions and Relations pleasant; His Inducements so meek and insinuating, that one is pleased to be so persuaded; His Discourses how long soever are not tedious, there are still some new things which keep the Reader awake, and yet he hath no false Beauties, nor useless Figures; His only Aim is to convert his Auditors, or to instruct them in necessary Truths; He neglects all Reflections, that have more subtlety than profit; He never busies himself to resolve hard Questions, nor to give mystical Senses, to make a show of his Wit, or Eloquence; He searcheth not into Mysteries, neither endeavours to comprehend them; He is contented to propose, after an easy way, palpable and sensible Truths, which none can be ignorant of, without danger of failing of Salvation; He particularly applies himself to moral Heads, and very seldom handleth speculative Truths; He affects not to appear Learned, and never boasts of his Erudition; and yet whatever the Subject be, he speaks with Terms so strong, so proper, and so well chosen, that one may easily perceive he had a profound Knowledge of all sorts of Matters, and particularly of true Divinity.  
He proveth the truth of the Christian Religion, by the strongest, the most probable, and sensible 
In lib. Quod Christus sit Deus: In Orat. de S. Babylâ: contra Gentes: In exposit. Ps. xliv. Hom. contra Judaeos: Hom. 4. in illud, Vid. Dominum lib. Quod unus Christus sit Deus.  Reasons; He urgeth Miracles, Prophecies, and other Proofs of the truth of Religion; but particularly insists upon the miraculous Establishment of the Church, and in this Argument he triumphs; He shows that it is impossible, that the Doctrine of Jesus Christ could have been received, and believed all the world over, notwithstanding the opposition of Secular Powers, the Contradictions of the Wise men in the World, and the endeavours of Devils, had it not been supported by the power of God himself. For, says he, there is need of more than humane Ability, to produce such wonderful Effects, both in the Earth, and upon the Sea, and to oblige Men already prejudiced by extravagant Opinions, and prepossessed with prodigious Malice to such Actions; yet Jesus Christ delivered all mankind, not only Romans, but Persians also, and all other barbarous Nations from their Calamities: And to bring about these Wonders, he made use of no Arms, and was at no expense; raised no Armies, and fought no Battles; but by eleven Men, who at first were unknown, despicable, ignorant, Idiots, poor, naked, and without Arms; He persuaded different Nations, and made them embrace an high Philosophy, not only relating to the Government of this present Life, but also to things to come, and Eternity self; His power over all minkind was such, as that it made them abolish the Laws of their Fathers, renounce their ancient Customs, and follow new ones; He spoilt them even of the love of those things they were most fond of to fasten their Affections, upon such things as are most difficult and painful. But the Promulgation of the Gospel, and the settling of the Church, are not the only Proofs of the truth of our Religion, the Steadfastness and perpetuity of the Church is also in S. 
* In Ps. xliv.  Chrysostom's Opinion an invincible Argument of it. For he addeth, that it is not only a thing worthy of Admiration, that Jesus Christ should settle his Church over all the Earth, but also that he should render it invincible against so great numbers of Enemies as assaulted it on every side. The Gates of Hell that cannot prevail against it, are the Dangers which seem to hurry it to the very Gates of Hell. Do you not perceive the truth of that prediction of Jesus Christ .... Tho' Tyrants took up Arms against it, tho' Soldiers conspired her Destruction, tho' the People raged furiously, tho' a contrary Custom opposed itself, tho' Preachers, Philosophers, Magistrates, and rich Men stood up to destroy it; The Divine word breaking with greater force than fire itself, consumed these Thorns, cleansed these Fields, and disseminated the Seed of preaching over the whole Earth. And though such as believed the Gospel were shut up in Prisons, sent into Banishment, spoiled of their Goods, thrown into the Fire, cast into the Sea, and exposed to all manner of Torments, Reproaches, and Persecutions, and tho' they were treated every where, as public Enemies; yet they multiplied daily; their being persecuted increased their Zeal ..... Those Rivers of Blood caused by the Massacres of the Faithful, before their Eyes excited their Piety, and the Pains they endured inflamed their Zeal.  
This same Saint observes in another place, that Christians are never so disorderly in their Behaviour, 
Orat. contra Gentiles, de S. Babyla.  and so cold in their Devotion, as when he that sits on the Throne is of their Religion. Which, saith he, justifies that this Religion is not established by the Powers of the World, and is not upheld and preserved by Earthly force.  
S. Chrysostom's way of dealing with Heretics is not less rational, than that which he useth towards Heathens and Jews. He expoundeth the Mysteries very plainly, and proveth them by Testimonies of Holy Scripture, and the Authority of the Church, not pretending to penetrate, or give the Reasons of them, and to answer those Difficulties, which have no other Foundation but humane Reasonings. He confesses, that he does not understand the Reasons of what he believes. 
Orat. 1. de incompreh. Homil. 24. in Joannem.  I know, saith he, that God is every where, and entire in every part of the World, but I know not how this can be. I doubt not, but that God is without beginning, but I conceive not how that is, for humane Reason cannot comprehend a thing that hath no beginning. I know that the Son is begotten of God the Father, but I cannot imagine how that was done. He believes that the Divine Nature is so high and unsearchable, that it is not possible to comprehend it; and pursues this Reasoning so far, that he sticketh not to say, that Seraphims and Angels themselves do not see the Substance of God, but only an Emanation of his Divine Light. This passage 
Ib. Orat. 1  hath made some modern Greeks suppose, that the Saints do not see the Substance of God, but only a Corporeal Light, such as (they say) appeared upon Mount Tabor. This also hath exercised the Subtlety of our Divines, who constitute Happiness in the Vision of the Substance of God: And yet S. Chrysostom hath respect in this passage, neither to that Light of the Modern Greeks, not to the Disputes of the Schoolmen; his only design is to show against Aetius, that the Divine Nature is not to be comprehended, and that evident Reasons of the Mysteries are not to be given.  
It is not necessary to enlarge upon the Opinions of S. Chrysostom, concerning the Mystery of the Trinity; it is certain, that he maintained the Faith of the Council of Nice, and that he proved the Divinity both of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; yet it ought to be observed, that he was of Meletius' opinion, concerning the Signification of the word Hypostasis, and that he owned Three Hypostases, and one Nature in God.  
As to the Mystery of the Incarnation, tho' he was equally contrary to the Error 
Ep. ad Caesarium, Homil. de Consub in lib. Quod Christus sit Deus. V Theodor. in Dialog.  of those who distinguished two Persons in Christ, and that of those who confounded the two Natures, and their Properties; yet he in several passages of his Writings, declared against the latter Opinion very eagerly.  
In his Panegyrics of the Saints, he ascribeth to them all manner of Felicity; 
Homil de B. Philog. Hom. de S S. Homil. 39 in ep. 1. ad Cor. & Hom. 28. in ep. ad Hebr. Hom. 29. Matth.  he places them in Heaven, in the same Rank with Angels, and Archangels, of Prophets, and Martyrs; and yet in other places, he seems to affirm, that their Happiness is referred to the Day of Judgement; but these may agree well enough, if we say, that he spoke in the latter of a perfect and consummated Happiness.  
Angels, if we believe S. Chrysostom, are so called, because they declare the Will of God unto Men; for which cause the Scripture representeth them with Wings: 
Homil. 3. de Incompreh. Hom. 3. in ep. ad Coloss. Hom. 14. in ep. ad Hebr.  They take care of Men, are present at Divine Services, and every Christian hath his Guardian Angel.  
The Devil is not wicked of his own Nature, but is become such by Sin. God permits him to tempt Men for their good. It is a Childish thing to believe, that 
Hom. de Diabolo tentatore. Hom. 22. in Genesim.  those are Angels which the Scripture calleth the Children of God in Genesis, and of whom it is said, that they conversed with the Daughters of Men; since they are of a spiritual and incorporeal Nature.  
He Confesses in several places, that the Fall of the first Men was prejudicial to the whole Race, which ever since is become subject to Pains, Sicknesses, and Death, from which it was free before Sin: He acknowledgeth, that an inclination to Evil, and Lusts, are Consequences of the first Man's sin: but he seemeth not to have owned Original sin, after the same manner that S. Austin doth; at least it cannot be denied, that he hath given another Sense to those places of S. Paul which seem to prove it most. As for Example, when he expoundeth that famous passage, Rom. 5. 12. By One man sin entered into the World, etc. He understandeth of Death what S. Paul saith of Sin, because it is the Wages of Sin; and upon those other words of the same Chapter, As by the disobedience of one, many are become Guilty, etc. This Sentence, saith he, seems to have much of Difficulty: for how can it be, that one only Man having sinned, many should be made guilty by his sin? We may easily conceive, that the first Man being become mortal, it was necessary, that his Offspring should be mortal likewise; but what Likelihood, and what Reason is there, that a man should be a Sinner, because of another's disobedience? ... What then signifieth the word Sinner? In my Opinion it signifieth nothing else, but a condemned Man, subject to Pain and Death: This is a way of speaking which does not agree with S. Augustin's Doctrine: Tho' it is not hard to defend S. Chrysostom, by saying, That tho' he spoke thus, yet he admitted all that Divines own concerning Original sin: For what is Original sin, according to them? It is either a Privation of Original righteousness, or Lust with the guilt of Sin, or pain and Gild together. But S. Chrysostom acknowledges all these: for in the first place he Confesseth, that by the first Man's sin, all men were deprived and spoiled of the State of Innocence, that they are become not only mortal, and subject to Pain and Grief, but also inclined to Evil. Thus, in his Opinion, Lust is an effect of the first Man's sin: and that Concupiscence in men, makes them unworthy of eternal Life, if the Grace of Jesus Christ saveth them not by Baptism.  
He ascribes much to the strength of freewill; He always speaks as if he believed that it depends upon ourselves to do good or evil, and affirms that God always gives his Grace to those 
De verbis Jer. Hom. 1. Hom. 2. in 1. ad Cor. Hom. 41. in Genesim. Hom. de tribus pueris. Hom. 12. in ep. ad Hebr. & 8. in ep. ad Phil. & 19 ibid. Hom. 17. in Joan. Hom. 18. in ep ad Rom. & 12. in ep. 1. ad Cor. In Matth. Hom. 83. Hom. 45. in Joan. In orat. de S. Pelagia. Serm. de Zachaeo. Hom. 34. in Matth. Hom. 80. in ep. ad Rom. Hom. 16. & 18. in ep. ad Rom. & Hom. de obscur. Prophet. Serm. 5. de Lazaro. Hom. 45. in Matth.  who on their side do all they can; That we must begin, and God makes an end; That he followeth the motions of our Wills, and giveth them their Perfection; yet he owns the necessity of Grace to do good, but submits it still to our Will: So that according to him, We are to will and choose the good, and God gives us the necessary Grace to fulfil the same; he prevents not our Will, that our Liberty may not be prejudiced; he worketh good in us, but that is when we are willing: when our Will is determined, he draweth to himself, but only those who do all their endeavours to come near to him. Those Principles about foreknowledge, and Predestination, agree very well with these Conclusions. God did not predestinate men, but as he foresaw their merits: foreknowledge is not the cause of the event of things, but God foresaw them because they shall happen. He calls all men; Jesus Christ died for all men; he prepared his Grace for all, he predestinated those whom he foresaw would use his Grace well: He Confesses, that no man is free from sin in this Life, nay he excepteth not the holy Virgin Mary.  
S. Chrysostom attributes much virtue and efficacy to Sacraments, but he requires very holy ispositions, 
Hom. de Bapt. Christi.  that Men may be the better for them. He saith, That Circumcision and the other Sacraments of the Jews, did not blot out Sins, but cleansed only Bodily filthynesses; whereas our Baptism hath far greater Virtue purifying the Soul, delivering it from sin, and filling it with the Grace of the Holy Spirit: that John's Baptism was indeed more excellent, than that of the Jews, but much inferior to ours, because it conferred neither the Holy Ghost, nor the remission of Sins, but only exhorted Men to Repentance. The Baptism of Jesus Christ, not 
In Serm. ad Illuminandos.  only frees the Soul from sin, but also sanctifyeth it, wherefore it is called the Laver of Regeneration, because it reneweth the Soul through Grace. Yet he does not believe, that Baptism produces these Effects in those of riper years, unless they are well disposed to receive it. He exacts from those that come to this Sacrament, that they be watchful in the things of their Salvation, 
Ibid.  disengaged from worldly Cares, and that they renounce all disorderly Conversation: that they be zealous in their Devotion, and banish from their Hearts all thoughts unbecoming so holy an Action, and keep their Souls prepared for the coming of this great King.  
And because the Clinics, (that is such as receive Baptism at the point of Death) have not time thus to prepare themselves, he doubts of their Salvation. He speaketh of their Condition in such terms, as describe the Case of a dying man very naturally, who deferred to repent of his Sins till the hour of Death, and then would receive the Sacraments. Although, saith he, Sacraments contain the same Graces, when the Preparation is different, yet all may not receive them. They receive Baptism laying upon their Beds, you receive it in the bosom of the Church, which is the Mother of all the Faithful; they receive it weeping, and you with joy; they with groans, and you with thanksgiving; they in the heat of a Fever, and you under the Sense of the heavenly Grace: every thing here hath a Relation to the Grace received, there every thing disagrees with it; there are sigh and tears, while the Sacrament is administered, Children cry, the Wife tears her Hair, Friends are dejected, Servants weep, the whole House is in Mourning; and if you mind the Spirit of the sick Person, you shall find it more full of Sorrow, than that of the Standards by; for as a stormy Sea divides into several Waves, so his Soul being agitated with troubles is torn with a thousand Disquiets, racked with infinite Troubles. … In this torture comes in a Priest, whose Presence is more dreadful both to the Company, and to the sick Man, than the Sickness itself: his Visit ordinarily causeth greater Despair, than the Physicians Sentence, that there is no hope of Recovery. They imagine that Sacraments, tho' instruments of the Spiritual life, are infallible tokens of Corporal death. But this is not yet the end of his Misery, nor the height of his Affliction; sometimes while Necessaries for the Sacrament are preparing, the Soul departs out of the Body; and often, tho' remaining in the Body, yet it receives not the fruit of the Sacrament; for when the Sick person knows no body, hears not the Prayers, and cannot utter the Words whereby he is to engage with God, when he is half dead; what benefit can he reap from the Sacrament?  
S. Chrysostom doth not discourse oftener, nor in higher terms of any one Mystery, than of 
Hom. 51. & 83. in Matth. Hom. 45. in Joan. Serm. de de prodit. Judae. Hom. 45. & 46. in Joannem. L. 3. de Sacerdot. c. 4. Hom. 24. in ep. ad Cor. Hom. 3. in ep. ad Eph. Hom. 51. in Matth. Hom. 52. de S Eustathio. Hom. 14. & 17. in ep. ad Hebr. l. 6. de Sacer. c. 1. Hom. 51. in Matth. Hom. 15. in ep. ad Cor. Serm. de prodit. Judae. Hom. in S. Eust. Hom. 33. in Nat. Domini. Serm. de p●odit. Judae.  the Eucharist. He says in many places, that the Body and Blood of Christ are upon the Altars: That Jesus Christ hath left us his Body and Blood: That the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ: That we ought not to doubt of it, seeing Christ himself affirmeth it: That it is a surprising Miracle, comparable to the greatest Wonders: That by virtue of Christ's Words, in the Celebration of this Mystery, Christ is offered in Sacrifice: That Jesus Christ offereth himself to God the Father: That this Sacrifice is made without shedding of blood: That Angels and Archangels are present at it: That fire from Heaven consumeth the things offered, and changeth them into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ: That this Table is to be approached unto with reverence and trembling: That there is need of Holiness, to receive holy things: That Penitents ought not to come near; and that these Mysteries must be hid from Catechumen: That Men ought not only to be freed from Sin, but also from Earthly affections, and penetrated with divine Love, transported with an holy Zeal, and possessed with fervent Charity. Three sorts of Prayers were made at the Celebration: The First for those that were possessed; the Second for Penitents; and the Third for the Faithful. There was mention made of the Dead, and Invocation of Saints; The Sanctus was recited; The Catechumen and Penitents were put out; The Energumenes were brought in at the Consecration, and Prayers were made for them.  
S. Chrysostom wished that all those who were present might communicate; and sticks not to say, That all those that are unworthy to communicate, are not worthy to partake of the 
Hom. 83. in Matth. Hom. 21. ad Pop. Hom. 22. ad Pop. Ant. l. 6. De Sacerdot. c. 4. Hom. in Christi Natalem.  Prayers: And that as he who finds not himself guilty of any Sin, aught to communicate every day; so he, on the contrary, that hath committed Sin, and repent not, should not do it, even upon Festival-days.  
The Sacrament was administered to dying persons, and it was preserved in a Box. 
Hom. 72. in Matth.   
Lastly, That none but the Priests alone have the power to administer the Eucharist, which is the great thing that exalteth their Dignity. 
Hom. 41. in 1. ad Cor. Hom. de Seraphim.   
But there is another Power invested in them which is not inferior to the other, which is that of binding and losing, of retaining and remitting of Sins. It were to be wished that Men needed no Repentance, but that they might keep their Baptismal purity without spot: 
Hom. 15. in ep. ad Cor. Hom. 3. in ep. ad Eph. Hom. 17. in ep. ad Hebr. Hom. 29. ad Pop. Ant. Hom. 17. & 83. in Matth. Hom. 24. in ep. ad Cor. Hom. 31. de B. Philogonio. Hom. 24. in ep. ad Cor. Hom. 33. in Matth.  But it being impossible not to Sin, God hath prepared the remedy of Repentance. Those that are guilty of high Crimes, as Murder, Adultery, or Fornication, and the like, are put out of the Church and enjoined public Penance; but if they mend their faults, they may come in again, having purified themselves by Repentance. As many as continue in Sin, and yet will come into the Church, notwithstanding the Admonitions of Christ's Ministers, aggravate their crime. Men may hope for pardon, whatsoever their Sin be; but let them have a care of being too confident: Few days are enough to get pardon for Sin. 
* L. 3. de Sacerdot. ibid. Hom. ad illumin. Hom. de Davide & Saul. Hom. de Diab. tentatore. Hom. de B. Philogonio. Hom. 9 de Poenitentiâ.  God, saith he, in the Ninth Homily of Repentance, doth not consider the length, but the zeal of Penance. If you have sinned several times, repent; come into the Church and put away your Sins. As you use to rise up as often as you fall, so as often as you have sinned repent of your Sin, and never despair. If you sin a second time, repent again; and beware lest ye fall into that consternation, which may make you lose the hope of future benefits. Tho' ye should sin in the last day of your life, yet enter into the Church by repentance; this is the time of Remedy, and not of Judgement: God requireth not the penalty of Sin, but grants pardon for it. He wisely addeth in the following Homily, That none ought to despair, but every one ought to beware of presumption; for these two extremes are equally dangerous, because Despair hinders Men from rising again, and Presumption makes those fall that stood upright before: Sloth causes us to come short of Heaven, and Despair precipitates into an Abyss of Malice.  
And thus S. Chrysostom observes a just Medium between the exceeding Severity of some who thrust Men into despair, and the soft Compliance of others, who promise Remission without a true and sincere Repentance. Whosoever hath committed Sin, must own and confess it before 
In Hom. de Poenit.  God, if he would obtain pardon: He must be truly affected with a sensible grief for his wickedness; he must truly return to the Lord, and be converted; abhor his iniquity, forsake his vicious habits, after his course of life, and love God with all his heart, and above all things, and do every thing for his sake, etc.  
The only thing that may seem difficult in S. Chrysostom's Discourses concerning Penance, is what he saith of Confession of Sins: For in several places he seems to affirm, That it is not necessary to confess to Men, but that it is sufficient to confess to God, who knoweth the secrets 
Hom. 21. ad Pop. Ant. Hom. 9 de incompreh. Dei natura. Hom. 8. de Poenitentiâ. Hom. 9 de Poenitentiâ. Hom. 20. in Genesim. Hom. in Ps. 50. Hom. 11. in Lazarum. In Hom. de non evulgandisfratrum peccatis. Serm. de poenit. & moestitia Regis Achab. Hom de bapt. Christi.  of the heart. Those passages are remarkable, and have often been alleged by the Enemies of Confession. It has been answered by some, That S. Chrysostom spoke only in opposition to a public Confession, supposed to have been abolished by Nectarius; but these Men do not observe, that most of these passages, even the most express, are taken out of the Homilies preached at Antioch by S. Chrysostom. The best, and the most natural Answer is, That S. Chrysostom does not speak in those places of those enormous Crimes that are subject to Canonical Penance; but in general of such light offences as Christians daily commit; for the remission whereof, they need neither Confession nor Absolution, but only true Motions of inward repentance. He likewise discourseth of that sort of Sins, when he saith, That they are forgiven by Tears, by Alms, by Humility, by Prayer, and other remedies of that nature. However, S. Chrysostom was very severe in the punishment of Sinners; and he not only wished that notorious Sinners might be put out of the Church, and enjoined Penance, as Adulterers and Blasphemers; but he threatened also to excommunicate those who came to the holy Mysteries negligently, and such as lived in hatred and quarrels, that minded stageplays, were envious, proud, etc. Neither would he have great Lords to be spared; 
* Hom. 22. ad Pop. Ant. De Davide & Saul, Hom. 3. Hom. 17. in Matth. Hom. 4. in ep. ad Hebr. In lib. contra gent. de S. Babyla. Hom. de Anathemate.  For, saith he, as to Ecclesiastical Correction, Princes are but as other Faithful, there ought to be no distinction. He adds, That the Ministers of Jesus Christ should do their Duty, tho' there were no hope that their reproof could prevail: Yet he would not have the Sword of the Church used lightly, or that anathemas should be indiscreetly pronounced. This is the subject of the discourse concerning anathemas; wherein he endeavours to refute those, who without lawful authority, undertook boldly to condemn their Brethren, and to pronounce anathemas upon such matters as they were ignorant of. And he observes, that Men ought to be extremely reserved in this case, and not to publish Anathema's inconsiderately against any: But when there is necessity, it ought to be done with an intention to cure, and not to destroy those that are under that penalty. 
† Hom. 9 in Genesim.  He saith further, in another place, That Zeal must be tempered with Mercy, for otherwise it degenerates into Fury, and other Men's faults are not hardly to be judged of.  
In S. Chrysostom's time Martyrs were had in honour; they were commemorated in the public 
In Hom. de SS. In Orat. de S. Babyla. Hom. de B. Philogonio. Hom. 2. ad pop. Antioch Hom. 1. in ep. ad Thess. Hom. 1. in illud Modico vino utere. Hom. 21. in Acta. Hom. 41, 42. in 1 ad Cor.  Services; their Festivals were kept, and their Relics reverenced; not that they believed there was any virtue in those Bones, but because the sight of their Graves, Urns, or Bones, affected and awakened the Mind, after the same manner, as if the Dead were present, and prayed with us; because the sight of their precious Relics made an impression upon the Mind. They visited the holy Places with Devotion; but S. Chrysostom observes, that the chief intention of those Pilgrimages ought to be the assisting of the Poor. The Dead were prayed for: and S. Chrysostom exhorts their Relations to give Alms in their behalf.  
Sundays and great Festivals were kept with great Solemnity. S. Chrysostom exhorteth Christians 
Hom de bapt. Christi.  to spend that day in Exercises of Devotion: He zealously reproveth all those who employ that day about Businesses or Recreations; affirming, That God's Curse will light upon their Labours, and dissipate what they get by neglecting his Service. In several places he encourageth 
Ibid.  the Faithful to frequent Divine Service and the Public Prayers of the Church, and shows that they are more powerful and of greater efficacy, than private ones: He reproves those that gave attention to Sermons, but would go out as soon as the Sermon was ended. When I preach, (says he, in the Third Discourse of the incomprehensible Nature of God) I 
Hom. 3. de Incompreh.  that am Christ's Servant as you are, you come in throngs to hear me; you harken to my words, and exhort one another, and attend with patience unto the end; but when Jesus Christ appeareth in the Mysteries, the Church is empty; you go out as soon as you have heard the Sermon, which is a sign that you have profited nothing; for had the Truths preached unto you made any impression upon your Minds, you would have stayed in the Church, and have partaken of these stupendious Mysteries with reverence and devotion; but, alas! you departed immediately after the Sermon, as if you came only to hear a Consort of Music. Some, to excuse themselves, use this weak reason; We can pray at home, but can hear no Sermons but at Church: You deceive yourselves; for tho' ye may pray at home, yet your Prayer cannot have the efficacy of that in the Church, where so many Priests join their Prayers with yours, and where a common Voice crieth to Heaven to implore God's mercy. Common Prayer is a wonderful Consort, proceeding from a Concord of Charity: To which we are to add the Prayers of the Priests, who are set over the Assemblies; that the Prayers of the People, tho' weaker of themselves, may gather strength by being joined to those of God's Ministers.  
The Fast of Lent was exactly observed, with Abstinence from Meats; but for any Bodily Infirmity it might be dispensed with. Two days of the week were exempt from Fasting, that the Body might have some Respite.  
S. Chrysostom looks upon the Holy Scripture, As the ground and Rule of all the truths of Religion; He exhorts all the Faithful to read it exactly: and this Advice he presses an infinite 
Hom. 3 & 4. de Statuis. Hom. 11. in Genes. Serm 3. & 4. de Lazaro. Hom. 1. & 2. in Matth. Hom. 10. 30, 32, 58. in Joannem. Hom. 11. & 31. in Eundem. Hom. 1. in ep. ad Rom. Hom. 9 in ep. ad Colos. Hom. 19 in Acta.  number of times; He expounds it Literally, and draws from it edifying moral Instructions, but he never proposes any forced Allegories, nor resolveth those Questions that have more of Curiosity than Profit, as most Writers of Commentaries, whether Ancient or Modern very frequently do: I should never make an end, if I should Collect all the common places of S. Chrysostom upon moral Subjects: I shall only mention two or three of the most considerable upon every Subject, and point at some others.  

Opinions of S. Chrysostom upon several moral Principles. Of the Love of God.  
MOST Men have taken up a false Notion of the Love of God, looking upon it as an Act of the mind, which thinks it has a Love for God, and expresses it with words. S. Chrysostom to undeceive them of this Error, proves by a comparison with the love men have for the Creature, that the love which they ought to have for God, is a strong cleaving of the Heart to God, which is the Rule, Principle, and Motive of all their Actions, and which begets in them a contempt of all that is not God. If those (saith he in his Comment upon Psalm 91.) that are in love with Corporeal Beauties, have no Sense for all other things in the World, and follow no business, but that of beholding continually an Object which is so dear and so acceptable to them; Can a man that loveth God, as God ought to be loved, have any Sense afterwards of the good and evil, of the Pleasures and Afflictions of this Life? No truly, for he is above all these things, and his delight is only in good things that are Immortal, and of the same Nature with him whom he loveth; those that love the Creatures do quickly change, ' though unwillingly, their Affection, for Oblivion; because the things which they love decay and corrupt; but this spiritual love hath neither end nor bounds, but contains in itself more Pleasure and Profit than any thing else, and nothing is able to extinguish it.  
He compareth the love that we ought to have for God, with that which covetou sMen have for riches? in the Sixth Homily upon the Second Epistle to Timothy. It is a shameful thing, saith he, that Men possessed with a violent Passion for riches, should show nothing of that love which they ought to have for God; and that, we have less Consideration for God, than covetous Men have for wealth. For to get Money they watch much, undertake long Journeys, expose themselves to Dangers, Hatred and Ambushes, and undergo all Extremities, but we refuse to bear with the least word for God, or to expose ourselves to the least hatred for his Service, etc.  
In the Third Homily upon 1 Cor. he tells Christians, That they love Jesus Christ less than their Friends. Many, saith he, have endured the loss of their Goods, for the Service of their Friends; but none are willing, I will not say, to be deprived of their Goods for Jesus Christ, but even to be reduced to mere Necessaries for his sake, or to content themselves with what they have at present. We often bear with Affronts, and make ourselves Enemies for our Friends; but none will incur the Hatred of any for the Service of Jesus Christ, and both this Hatred and Love are looked upon as unprofitable things; we never despise a Friend when we see him hungry, but would not give a Morsel of bread to Jesus Christ who cometh to us daily ..... if our Friend be sick we visit him immediately; but tho' Christ is often detained in Prison in the Persons of his Members, we come not at him. When a Friend is going a Journey we melt into tears, but tho' Christ daily departeth from us, or rather we daily put him away by our sins, yet we are not affected with Grief upon that Account.  
Last of all, S. Chrysostom observeth Hom. 52. upon the Acts, That, Whosoever loveth God truly, will despise all the things of this World, even those that are the most precious and illustrious. Glory and Shame are indifferent things to him; he is no more Solicitous than if he were left alone in the World: He despiseth Temptations, Scourge, Dungeons, with as much Courage, as if all these were endured by another, or as if his Body were a Diamond; he laughs at the Pleasures of this Life, and is not in the least susceptible of Passions.  
See the Twentieth Homily upon S. Matthew, where he shows that God is to be loved not in Words but in Deeds. Hom. 30. upon 2 Cor. Hom. 3. upon 1 Tim. Hom. 52. upon the Acts.   

Of the Love of our Neighbour.  
CHarity (saith S. Chrysostom in the Sixth Homily upon the Epistle to Titus) is the greatest of all Virtues, it brings the Lovers thereof to the very Throne of God. Virginity, Fasting, and Austerities profit only those that practise them, but Alms-deeds reach to all, and embrace all the Members of Jesus Christ: Now there is no Virtue greater than that which reunites scattered and separated parts. Charity is the Badge of Christian Religion, whereby the Disciples of Jesus Christ are known: That is it which cures our Crimes, cleanses the spots of our Souls, it is as a Ladder to ascend into Heaven, and it joins all the parts of Christ's Body together.  
See the Sixtieth Homily upon S. Matthew, the 15th. and 78th. upon S. John, the 40th. upon the Acts, the 8th. upon the Rom. the 32d. upon 2 Cor. the 9th. upon Ephes. the Second upon the last to Tim. the 33d. upon 1 Cor. the 4th. upon Thes. the 10th. upon the Epistle to the Ephes. the Second upon the Epistle to the Philippians.   

Of Alms-deeds.  
THE first effect of Charity is to give Alms, and the Obligation to Alms-deeds, is included in the Commandment of Loving our Neighbours as ourselves. S. Chrysostom recommends this Virtue in so many places, that he saith himself in the 89th. Homily upon S. Matthew, That they upbraided him with speaking of nothing else. Giving of Alms (saith he in several places) renders Men like unto God, cleanseth from sin, and appeaseth the Anger of God. To give to the Poor, is to give unto God, it is to lend to him upon Use. We are not only advised, but commanded to give Alms. Men are not Masters but only Stewards of their Goods. God who is the Sovereign Lord hath entrusted them with the rich, that they might relieve the poor. All other good works are unprofitable without Alms-deeds. Alms should be given with Joy, and in abundance. Men ought not to stay till Death to dispose of their Charity; but if they have done nothing in their Life-time, it is good to leave to the poor after Death, and give them as much as to a Child, or at least as to a Servant. These Principles and Maxims S. Chrysostom repeateth often in his Homilies, as the Thirtieth Homily upon Genesis, that upon Psalm 101. the Second Sermon concerning Lazarus, the Seventeenth Homily upon 2 Cor. the Sixth upon Titus, The 5th. 35th, 45th, 47th, 48th, 52d. 66th. 78th, 80th, 86th, upon S. Matth. The 23d, 25th, 27th, 40th, 76th, upon S. John, the Seventh upon Colos. the 11th, 15th, 18th, upon Rom. the 20th, 21st, and 43d, upon 1 Cor. the 5th, Homily of Penance, the Sermon upon the Petition of the Sons of Zebedee, the first Homily of Fasting, and in an infinite number of places besides.   

Of Riches and Poverty.  
AS the Luxury of Riches hinders Men from giving of Alms, so we ought not to wonder that S. Chrysostom preaching upon Charity, declaims vehemently against Riches, and speaks in Commendation of Poverty. Riches (saith he in the Second Homily of Statues) are not forbidden, if a good use be made of them. But what Probability is there that Men should not neglect Jesus Christ who is naked, while they build marble Palaces for themselves? O wretched Man! to what purpose is the Magnificency of thy House? This Palace will not, but thy good works will follow thee ..... To day rich, and to morrow poor. I must confess, that I cannot forbear smiling when I read in Wills and Testaments, I give and bequeath to such a one, the Revenue of my Estate for Life, and to such a one the Fee-simple. To speak Properly, we have but the use of things, the Propriety belongs not to us, and tho' we should possess them all our Life-time, yet will they leave us when we die .... Poverty is a singular advantage to those that know how to use it well. It is a Treasure that cannot be taken away, a support that cannot fail, and a Sanctuary that cannot be violated. If you ask the Admirers of that foolish Magnificence, what is the Object of their Admiration? They will answer you, that it is either the brave Horse that carrieth this new Croesus, or his rich Livery, his gilded Clothes, or the delicate Meats that are set before him, or the Pleasures he enjoyeth. This is what is admired, and what cannot be too much deplored; and yet none of these Commendations are directed to this rich Man, they all belong to his Horse, his Clothes or his Equipage, they admire how well he is mounted, they praise his Men, his Clothes, but they say nothing of his Person. Can there be a greater Folly? But on the other side, if you see a poor Man in want, and under contempt, despised by those that see him, make much of him, and by your esteem of him, the Beholders will be excited to Virtue. They will tell you, that he is an indigent Fellow, a Wretch; but do you say on the contrary that he is a happy Man, because he hath God for his Friend, because he hath not fastened his Heart to perishing Riches, nor defiled his Conscience. With such Christian Discourses as these instruct your Brethren; let both your Praises and your Contempts have no other Aim than the Glory of the Almighty .... One may commend, reprove, and be angry for God's sake. If you find a Servant, a Friend, a Neighbour, robbing, or committing Lewdness; If you hear one telling a Lie, or Blaspheming; If you perceive that your Neighbour is going to prostitute his Soul at a Play, call him back, check, and correct that Sinner: These good works will be done to the Honour of God. If this Servant, or this Friend hath offended you, and is departed from his Duty, forgive him, that will be Forgiuness for God's sake; make also Friends and Enemies to yourselves for God's cause. Do you ask how? thus it is: Never contract that sort of Friendship which is gotten by Luxury, Interest or Ambition, but seek to make you such Friends, as may advise you to Moderation under a great Fortune, and Comfort you in Adversity, who may prompt you only to Honesty, and who by their Counsels and Prayers may unite you to Jesus Christ. If you see a lewd Person, one full of dangerous Opinions, break off all commerce with him .... If you speak in any Company, let your words be Godward. He did so often Discourse against Riches, and the abuse of them, that he saith himself, in the Sermon against Eutropius, upon Psalm 44 that they accused him of hating rich Men. But, saith he, why should I not speak continually against them, since they cease not to torment the Poor? I complain not of them because they are rich, but because they use their Riches ill: for I make this Profession, Never to blame any Body for being wealthy, but for withholding what is not his own .... The present Life (addeth he) is a Pilgrimage; let no man say, I have a Town, a House, an Estate, etc. No Man hath any thing here below: all the good things of this Life, are the Instruments of our Journey; we are travelling as long as this Life lasteth. Some gather wealth in this Journey, and bury Gold in the way, and pray tell me, when you are come into an Inn, do you furnish it with superfluous Householdstuff? No certainly, you are contented to eat and drink there, and to be gone as soon as you can. This Life is an Inn, we are scarce come into it, but we are obliged to quit it, therefore let us do it readily; let us keep nothing here, that we may lose nothing in the next Life. You are Travellers in this Life, and less than Travellers; for a Traveller knoweth, when he cometh into his Inn, and when he goeth out, etc. In this dreadful Ignorance I lose a great deal of time; and while I am laying up of Provisions, God calls me, and upbraids me thus, Thou Fool! whose shall these things be which thou hast prepared? for this very Night thy Soul shall be demanded of thee .... But what, will some Persons say, must be done in this Case? even this, Hate temporal Goods, love eternal Life, part with your Estate, I do not say with all, but with what is superfluous; do not covet what is another's; spoil not the Widow, nor rob the Orphan; ravish not the Goods of this World, but take Heaven by violence; Jesus Christ approves of this violence, etc. Do not vex the Poor, but do him Right, etc.  
See Hom. 4. upon S. Matthew, where he proves by the Example of the Three Children, that were cast into the Fiery Furnace, that Riches are not to be worshipped: The 9th. Homily upon S. Matthew, where he shows, that we ought not to be lifted up, because of Riches: The 20th, and 64th, against the desire of wealth: The 42d. against Luxury and Pleasures: The 48th. against excess in Clothes: The 80th. and 81st. Homilies against Covetousness: The 88th. against the Luxury of Women: And, the 19th. Homily upon S. John, concerning the use that ought to be made of Riches.   

Of Forgiving, and against Revenge.  
THE Second effect of Charity towards our Neighbour, is forgiving of our Enemies, in opposition to a Spirit of Revenge, of Enmity and Resentment. S. Chrysostom declaims severely against this Vice, in an Homily purposely composed on that Subject, which is the Twentysecond, concerning Statues. These are some of his Notions. The revengeful Man, saith he, is not less unworthy of the Communion, than the Blasphemer and Adulterer. The lewd Person puts an end to his Crime when he has satisfied his impure Desire; but he that keeps up an obstinate Hatred, sins continually, and never makes an end. The fire of Lust is spent by enjoyment; but that of Hatred feeds itself, and is renewed every moment. With what face then can we implore the Mercy of God, whilst we are full of bitter hatred against our Brethren? Your Brother hath done you an injury; but do you not often commit injuries against God? Do you compare the Servant with his Master? In the mean time, he that wrongeth you, was perhaps wronged by you before: But what wrong hath God ever done you? or rather what benefits hath he not taken pleasure to bestow upon you, and you in requital return only injuries to him again? In a word; pretending to be revenged of others, you punish yourselves: The hatred you harbour, is your own tormenter, to tear your own bowels. Is there any thing more unhappy than he who meditates revenge? He is a Madman that never enjoyeth any rest, his Heart being filled with Storms and Troubles: He abhorreth all the Actions, the Words, and the very Name of his Enemy. And to what end is this Fury, and these Torments? We ought to forgive our Enemies to prevent the pains we feel by hating them. What folly is it to seek revenge at our own cost; to do ourselves a great mischief, that another may receive a lesser, etc.  
See the 61st. Homily upon S. Matthew; the 39th. upon S. John; the 38th. upon the Acts; an Homily upon the Epistle to the Thessalonians, and several other places.   

Of Fasting.  
NExt to giving of Alms, Fasting is one of the most powerful means to obtain pardon for Sin; but that Fasting may be profitable, it must be accompanied with a regular life. This S. Chrysostom takes notice of almost everywhere, when he discourses of Fasting. See how he expresseth himself, in the Second Homily of Statues. I do not call Fasting a mere abstinence from Meats, but forbearance from Sin: For Fasting is not able of its own nature to blot out the pollution of our offences, except necessary dispositions do attend it .... Let us therefore have a care, that in Fasting, we fall not short of the price and reward that belongs to it: But let us learn perfectly to practise it holily. Afterwards he sets forth the qualities of a Fast by the example of that of the Ninevites .... He (saith our Author) offers an injury to Fasting, who defines it to be an abstinence from Meats. You Fast, Brother; but show me your Fasting by your Works: but you will ask me, what Works? I require therefore, that when you see a poor Man, you be sure to help him in his misery; that you reconcile yourself to your enemy; that another Man's Glory may not excite your Envy; and that you shut your Eyes when you meet an handsome Woman: For Fasting respects not the Mouth barely, but the Ear, the Hands, the Feet, and all the other Parts of the Body. Covetous Hands should fast, and touch no more other Men's goods; the Feet should fast, and run no more to profane Shows; and the Eyes should fast, by turning aside from that beauty, whose sight is so dangerous.  
In the Fourth Homily of Statues, he lays down the same Maxims again. We see, saith he, nothing but People making merry, and saying one to another; Victory, all is our own, Midlent is over. My advice to these is, That they should consider, whether the inward Man is in a better condition than it was when the Fast begun: For then indeed we have reason to rejoice, when our Fasting does not end with those Vices that it began with, and when we are come to the Festival of Easter with a Conscience purified by Fasting. I know some who, in the middle of Lent, do dread already that of the next year .... Can there be a greater weakness? But whence cometh it? Even from this, That we make Fasting to consist only in forbearing of Meats, and not in the reforming of our Manners.  
There may be (saith he in the 22d. Homily) several reasons not to Fast; but there is none not to correct a vicious habit. You have broken your Fast, because of a bodily infirmity. Well: But why do you not forgive your Enemy? Is there any corporal indisposition that hinders? Lastly, He observeth in the 7th. and 11th. Homilies upon Genesis, that the true Fast is abstinence from Sin; for forbearance of Meat was introduced to restrain the motions of the Flesh, and to suppress the Passions. See the Homilies of Fasting and of Alms-deeds, and the 57th. upon S. Matthew.   

Upon this; That Man is obliged to do all for God, and to direct all his Actions to him alone.  
COncerning a Christian's Duty, S. Chrysostom discourseth thus in the 23d. Homily, against those that kept the Feasts of the New Moons. S. Paul (saith he) commands us to do all things to the Glory of God: For whether you eat, or whether you drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the Glory of God. You will ask what relation have these things to the Glory of God? Invite a poor Man to your Table; this is called to eat and drink to the Glory of God. You may also work for God by shutting up yourselves in your own Houses: How, and by what means, will you say? When you hear the Disorders and Insolences committed in the Streets, by lewd Men, than shut your doors, have nothing to do with that hellish Crew, and you shall keep your Houses for the Glory of God. You may also glorify the Lord both by your Praises and by your Contempt: As for example; When you see a wicked Man gorgeously apparelled, and sumptuously adorned with the spoil of the Countries, which he hath brought to desolation, and attended with a great number of Servants; and some weak Soul is blinded with that vain lustre, discover to him his error, and make him see the vanity of that insignificant Pomp, and pity the happiness of that unhappy Man. Thus may Men despise things for the Glory of God. This contempt is an instruction for those that are witnesses thereof. We prove God to be present at all the actions of our lives, even in our purchases and sales, when we are contented with an honest gain, and when we take no advantage of other Men's necessities to advance the rates of our Commodities.  
In your Fasts and Prayers, in your Contempt and Praise, in your Silence and Discourses, in Selling and Buying, think always on the Glory of God.  
See upon the same Subject the 6th. Homily upon S. Matthew, the 79th. upon the same, the 9th. and 14th. upon the Acts, and the 18th. upon the Romans.   

Of the necessary Dispositions to communicate worthily.  
NOne of the Fathers have spoken more powerfully and largely than S. Chrysostom, concerning the necessary Dispositions to communicate worthily, nor more dreadfully against unworthy Communicants.  
He requireth in the first place, that those who draw near to the Lord's Table, should put away their Sins. It is written (saith he in the First Sermon of Penance) That without Holiness no Man shall see God; but whosoever is unworthy to see God, is not worthy to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ; wherefore S. Paul will have a Man to examine himself, etc. Reform the Disorders of your life past, and then come to that holy Table, and participate of that Sacrifice with a pure and unspotted Conscience.  
He saith the same things in the 22d. Homily of Statues; Seeing we are advancing into Lent, let us advance in Virtue; it is in vain to run, except we get the prize of the Race: Our Austerities and Fast will profit us nothing, if we come not to the holy Table with an exact purity of Heart: For Lent, Prayers and Sermons are appointed in the Church, for no other purpose, but to make us participate safely of the unbloody Sacrifice, and to wash away with the Waters of Repentance, the filthinesses of our Sins; without this our labour is vain: But if by Abstinence you have corrected one Vice, and gained one Virtue, and put off one evil habit, than you may boldly take place at the Table of the Lord.  
He recommends the same thing in the Homily of Seraphims. I tell you plainly, saith he, I pray, I beseech you not to come to the Lord's Table with a Conscience defiled with Crimes: For to communicate in this condition, is not Communion, but Condemnation; and tho' you should a thousand times come to the Body of Jesus Christ in that condition, yet instead of receiving benefit by it, you would become the more guilty. Let Sinners therefore keep away; that is, those who persevere in their Sin. This I warn you of betimes, even now, that when the day of that heavenly Feast shall come, you may not say, I am unprepared, you should have given me warning .... I know that we are all guilty, that no man can boast of having a pure heart in this World: That's not the worst; but that not having a pure heart, they will not draw nigh unto him that can purify them.  
But to be pure is not sufficient, according to S. Chrysostom, to partake of that holy Table; Men must have a care besides, that they come not thither negligently. Let no Man (saith he in the 83d. Homily upon S. Matthew) approach this Sacred Table with disgust, negligence or coldness; but let all come with a longing desire, with zeal and love .... You ought therefore to watch over your own actions carefully, knowing that those who receive unworthily the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, are threatened with a dreadful punishment. If you cannot endure, without horror, Judas' crime, who sold his Master; and the Jew's ingratitude, who crucified their King; beware also of becoming guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ: Let no Judas, no covetous Man come hither; let none but true Disciples of Jesus Christ be present at that Feast, etc. For this Reason this holy Father observes in the Homily of Judas' Treachery, that this holy Altar is not to be approached unto without reverence .... That no Hypocrite, no Man full of iniquity ought to come near to this Sacred Table. According to these Principles, (he saith in the 17th. Homily upon Hebrews) That, generally speaking, no reckoning is to be made either of those who communicate but once in the Year, or of those that do it often, or such as receive seldom; but of those that communicate with a pure Conscience, a clean Heart, and a blameless Life. Let as many as are thus disposed come always; and as many as are not, let them not come once, because they cannot but draw God's Judgements upon themselves, and become worthy of Condemnation. Do you think that Forty days Penance is sufficient to cleanse you from all your Sins?  
See upon the same Subject the 52d. Homily against those that Fast at Easter; the Homily upon the Nativity of Jesus Christ; the 7th. Homily upon S. Matthew; the 24th. 27th. and 41st. upon 1 Cor. the 3d. upon the Epist. to the Ephesians; the 17th. upon the Epist, to the Hebrews; the 5th. upon Titus and several other places.   

Of Prayer.  
GOD requireth of us servant and constant Prayer; he often withholds those things that we ask of him to excite our Zeal. This Observation is found in the First Homily concerning Statues, in those upon Genesis, in the Commentary upon Psal. 7. and in the Homily upon these Words, Phil. 1. What then? Christ is preached. He describeth both the Conditions and the Effects of Prayer in the 2d. Homily upon Hannah. In the 5th. Homily upon the same Subject, he showeth the Strength and Virtue of Prayer; He lays down the Necessity of Prayer in several places of his Works. See the 22d. Homily upon S. Matthew, the 36th. upon S. John; he speaks of Thanksgiving in the 25th. upon Matthew, in the 35th. upon S. John's Gospel, and in the 14th. upon 2 Cor.   

Of Attention in Prayer.  
WE pay less respect to God, than a Servant doth to his Master, a Soldier to his General, or even a Friend to his Friend; for we speak to our Friends with attention: But whilst our Knees are on the ground, and we are treating with God about the business of our Salvation; whilst we beg pardon for our Crimes, we faint, our Mind is at Court, or at the Bar, and there is no correspondence betwixt our Thoughts and our Words. We daily commit this fault, etc.  
Many go into the Church, and there utter a great number of Prayers; and then come out, not knowing what they have said: They move their Lips, but they do not apply their Minds to their Discourses. What? you harken not to what you say, and would you have God hear it? I kneeled, say you, but your Heart was somewhere else: Your Mouth uttered Petitions, but your Mind was about Bargains, Trading, Exchange or Visits. It is in the time of Prayer that the Devil assaults us, knowing that than we profit spiritually; he suggests to our Spirits a multitude of Thoughts. See the 36th. Homily upon the Acts, wherein he exhorts Christians to pray in the Night.   

Of Humility, against Pride.  
HUmility, according to S. Chrysostom, is the principle of all Virtues, and the ground of all good Works. This he proveth in the 47th. Homily upon S. Matthew: We should not be lifted up for our good Works, but acknowledge our unworthiness before God. Virtues are like Riches; if we expose them publicly, we are in danger of losing them; to preserve them, they must be hid. The more good we do, the less we should boast of it; if we be proud for it, we lose its reward. The greatest Action, and the most acceptable to God, is to entertain low Thoughts of ourselves .... Nothing conduces more to make us beloved of God, than to reckon ourselves most imperfect; that is the height and perfection of Wisdom.  
See the 3d. Homily upon S. Matthew; the 4th. upon the same Gospel; the latter end of the 25th. and 65th. upon the same; the 28th. 38th. 41st. and 48th. upon S. John; the 21st. upon the Romans; the 11th. upon 2 Thessaly. and the 2d. Homily upon the Epistle to Titus; where he speaks against the love of Glory.   

Of Christian Watchfulness.  
S. Chrysostom describeth in several places the various Devices which Satan useth to tempt us, very eloquently. Upon this Subject one may consult the Homily of the Tempter, where he proves that Temptations are profitable for us, provided we stand always upon our guard, and watch continually over ourselves. This he recommends in that place, and in the 13th. Homily upon S. Matthew; where he proves, that in this World the Devil's temptations are to be resisted: In the 14th. where he shows that the diseases of the Soul are not to be neglected; and in many other places, where he gives both Precepts and Means to avoid Temptations and Sins.   

Against Covetousness.  
S. Chrysostom declares his Indignation against Covetous Men in many places, and the Picture which he makes of them is enough to beget in us an abhorrency to them. Thus he speaks of them, Hom. 9 upon 1 Cor. What can be more impudent, shameless and bold, than a miserably covetous Man? A Dog is more modest than the covetous Man, who seizeth upon that which is another Man's. Nothing is more filthy, than those Hands which take all; nothing more cruel, than that Mouth which devoureth all, and is never satisfied. Look not upon his Face and Eyes, as if they were the Eyes and Face of a Man. The covetous Person is never contented, till he hath got all that the World hath; all is brutish in his Face; he is Inhumanity itself, etc. In the 39th. Homily upon 1 Cor. he showeth how abominable a thing a covetous Man is, who having gathered great quantities of Corn, to sell it dear, laments, because it is growing cheap. In another place, Hom. 18. upon the Epistle to the Ephesians; he says that Covetousness is a kind of Idolatry. He carries the same Notion in the 64th. Homily upon S. John. In a word, all his Homilies are full of Invectives against covetous Men; He writes against Usury in the 56th. Homily upon S. Matthew, in the 12th. upon the Romans, and in the 15th. upon 1 Cor.   

Of Meekness, and against Anger.  
THo' S. Chrysostom's Zeal gave his Enemy's occasion to accuse him of being passionate; yet one may easily judge by his Writings, that he was a great lover of Meekness, and that he disapproved of Passion; See his Moral Exhortations, in the 29th. Homily upon S. Matthew, the 33d. and 48th. upon S. John, the 6th. upon the Acts, and the 17th. upon the Epistle to the Ephesians.   

Against Envy.  
ENvy is the most abominable of Sins: Hell never produced one more to be abhorred. Other Sinners have some pleasure; but the Envious Man torments himself, whilst he torments others. Envy hath been the cause of all mischief. This crime is so much the more dangerous, because no Penance is enjoined for it. Men fancy they may blot it out by some small Alms, or a short Fast; they do not weep bitterly for it, as for Adultery or Fornication, etc.  
These are some of S. Chrysostom's Notions about Envy, taken out of the 40th. Homily upon S. Matthew. One may read upon the same Subject the Homily upon Pasl. 49. Hom. 37. upon S. John, the 3d. upon 1 Cor. the 24th. and 27th. upon 2 Cor. and the 3d. upon the Epistle to the Philippians.   

Against Drunkenness.  
THere is not a more dangerous or hateful Sin than Drunkenness, saith S. Chrysostom, in the first Discourse upon these words of S. Paul to Timothy, Use a little Wine for thy stomach's sake, and thine often infirmities. A Drunkard is a dead Man living, voluntary sick, a person useless either for the Commonwealth, or for his Family; one whose presence is intolerable, whose breath, voice and steps are equally odious.  
See the 27th. Homily upon the Acts, the 25th. upon the Epistle to the Romans. See also the 56th. Homily upon S. Matthew, and the 27th. upon the Acts.   

Against Swearing and Blasphemies.  
S. Chrysostom discourseth against Swearing and Blasphemies almost in all the Homilies of Statues, where he declaimeth vehemently against that Vice.  
See also the 8th. 10th. and 11th. Homilies upon the Acts.   

Concerning Public Shows and stageplays.  
S. Chrysostom living in Two great Imperial Cities, where Plays, Shows, Comedies, etc. were very frequent, and to which the People were much addicted; one needs not wonder, that he should so often and so earnestly inveigh against those disorders. He calls their Stages, Schools of Lewdness, Academies of Incontinence, and Pestilential Pulpits. There, saith he, you see lewd Women representing Adulteries, and uttering Blasphemies. With what Eyes will you look upon your Wives, your Children, Servants or Friends at your going out of such places? He refuteth in another Sermon the specious pretences they had to plead for Plays: these are his Words. What harm, say you, is there in going to see a Play? Is that sufficient to keep one from the Communion? But I will ask you, Whether there can be a more shameless Sin, than to come to the holy Table, being defiled with Adultery? Yes, it is a kind of Adultery to go to a Play; and if you will not believe me, hear the Words of him who is to judge of our life. Jesus Christ tells us, That whosoever looketh upon a Woman to lust after her, committeth Adultery. What can be said of those, who passionately spend whole days in those places, in looking upon Women of ill fame and reputation: With what face will they dare to affirm, that they beheld them not to lust after them? And so much the rather, because they hear lascivious Speeches, they see wanton Actions, they are entertained with amorous Songs, and with Voices capable of stirring up shameful Passions; they see Women dressed, painted, and adorned on purpose to inspire Love. The Assistants are in such confusion and idleness, as promote Riotings; and these are natural effects both of the preparations and consequences of Plays. The Musical Instruments, Consorts and Songs, are equally dangerous; they flatter strangely, they effeminate the heart, and prepare it to yield to the snares laid for them by profligate Women. For if in the Church itself, where Psalms are sung, the Scripture is read, where the dread of the Almighty appears, and Men are in a posture of reverence? If, I say, in that so venerable a place, Lust will creep in as a Thief, How shall they be able to overcome the motions of Concupiscence, that constantly frequent the Stage, who neither see nor hear any thing but what is profane and dangerous; whose Hearts are full of evil Thoughts, and whose Eyes and Ears are assaulted continually? But if this be impossible, how shall they justify themselves from the guilt of Adultery? And if they are Adulterers, how can they pretend to come into the Church, and to participate of the holy Table before they have done Penance?  
See the 4th. Homily concerning Hannah, the 1st. 7th. 17th. 37th. and 38th. upon S. Matthew, the 32d. and 58th. upon S. John, and the 17th. Homily upon the Epistle to the Ephesians, against Mountebanks, and Jesters, and Stage-players.   

Of Balls and Gaming.  
S. Chrysostom exclaimeth as much against Balls and public Meetings, as he does against stageplays. There are (saith he in the 23d. Homily to the People of Antioch) no Enemy so dangerous as those nocturnal Recreations, those pernicious Meetings and Dances. Our former miscarriages call for Tears, for Shame and Sorrow, and yet Mirth breaks out everywhere ..... I shall say nothing of idle Expenses; but I am very much troubled at game's and Taverns; how much is there of Impiety and Intemperance? He speaks against Games of Chance in the 15th. Homily to the People of Antioch; where he shows, that they are occasions of Blasphemies, Losses, Anger, Quarrels, and all manner of Crimes.   

Of the Dignity and Qualifications of the Ministers of Jesus Christ.  
WE have already set down S. Chrysostom's Opinion concerning the Dignity and Excellency of the Priesthood, when we mentioned his Books upon that Subject, and the Homilies concerning the History of Uzziah. We also joined to that some places of the same Treatise, concerning the Qualifications of a Bishop, and the Weight of his Office. But to those one may add, what he says to the same purpose, in the 1st. Homily upon the Epist. to Titus, and in the 3d. upon the Acts; where he openly declares his Opinion, that few Bishops were saved. Upon the same Subject one may consult the 1st. Homily upon the Epistle to the Corinthians, the 4th. upon that to the Philippians, and the 3d. upon the Acts. He enjoins Christians in several places to be very respectful towards the Priests; as in the Homilies upon the Song of Hannah, in the 22d. upon S. Matthew, in the 86th. upon S. John, and in the 2d. upon the 1st. Epist. to Timothy. His Observation in this Last is, That we should not hear those Pastors that are fallen into Heresy; but, on the contrary, we ought to avoid them, and separate from them: But not from wicked Priests, whose Character is to be honoured; because, notwithstanding their Wickedness, they truly offer the holy Sacrifice, and validly administer the Sacraments.   

Upon the Usefulness and Excellency of a Monastic Life.  
WE have sufficiently declared S. Chrysostom's Opinion of a Monastic Life, in the Extracts of the Treatises which he composed in his Retirement. To these one may add the Homily of Statues, where he speaks of the Egyptian Monks, the 1st. 8th. 55th. 69th. 70th. 71st. 72d. upon S. Matthew, and the 14th. upon the 1st. Epist. to Timothy.   

Of the State of Marriage, and of the Duties of Married Persons.  
IN the first place S. Chrysostom requireth, that in choosing of a Wife, Men. should have greater regard to Virtue than Riches. He lays down this Maxim in the 74th. Homily upon S. Matthew; there he pleasantly shows how much rich Wives prove troublesome to their Husbands. He says the same thing in the 48th. and 56th. Homilies upon Genesis, in the 49th. upon the Acts, in the 12th. upon the Epistle to the Colossians, and in the 17th. 19th. and 28th. Sermons of the 5th. Volume. He exhorteth Husbands to live well with their Wives, and show them good Examples. In the 38th. Homily upon Genesis, in the Exposition of the 43d. Psalms; in the 30th. Homily upon S. Matthew, and the 20th. upon the Epistle to the Ephesians; in the 10th. upon the Epistle to the Colossians, he treateth at large of the Love which Husbands ought to have for their Wives, and of the respect that Wives ought to show towards their Husbands. He discourses upon the same Subject in the 26th. Homily upon 1 Cor. and the 60th. upon S. John.   

Of the Education of Children, and the Duties of the Master of a Family.  
S. Chrysostom being yet in his Retirement, and sensible of the little care that Fathers took to bring up their Children well, employs part of the Third Book against those that found fault with a Monastic Life, to complain of that miscarriage; and goes so far as to affirm, That a Father who breeds up his Child ill, is more cruel than he that puts him to death; because he makes him liable to eternal Damnation, which is infinitely worse than loss of life. This matter is handled likewise in the Homilies concerning Hannah; where he shows, That not only Fathers, but Mothers also are obliged to give their Children good Education. In the 60th. Homily upon S. Matthew, he blameth the Carelessness of Parents in the choice of a Tutor. Lastly, In the 21st. and 22d. Homilies upon the Epistle to the Ephesians, he admonishes Fathers to be less solicitous about their Child's getting School-learning; and to take more care that they be taught Piety and the Christian Religion. Read the 59th. Homily upon S. Matthew; the 9th. upon 1 Tim. and the 1st. upon Rom. where he discourseth of the Duties of a Master in a Family, in relation to his Wife, Children and Servants. He observes in the 15th. Homily upon the Epistle to the Ephesians, That a Mistress is not to abuse her Maidservants. See also the 16th. Homily upon the 1st. Epistle to Timothy.   

Of Afflictions.  
S. Chrysostom not only teaches us that we ought to bear the losses, sicknesses, and other afflictions that may happen in this World patiently: But he shows besides, that they are the portion of all good Men: He gives Eight Reasons for it, worth reading, in the Homily upon these Words of S. Paul to Timothy, Use a little Wine; in the 4th. and 5th. Discourses concerning Statues; in the 28th. Homily upon the Epistle to the Hebrews; in the 33d. upon S. Matthew; in the 8th. upon 2Tim. and in the 28th. and 29th. Homilies upon the Epistle to the Hebrews.   

Of Death.  
S. Chrysostom's Homilies are full of excellent Instructions concerning Death; wherein he shows, that instead of fearing Death, a Christian ought to desire it. To what purpose, saith he in the 5th. Homily of Statues, should a Man fear sudden Death? Is it, because it brings us the sooner to our Haven, and hastens our passage to an happy life? What folly is this? We expect eternal felicity, and those good things which no Eye hath seen, no Ear heard, and which never entered into the Heart of Man; and yet we do not only put off the fruition of them, but we fear it, yea we abhor it. He tells us in other places, That this life, being but a journey, a train of Miseries, a banishment from our own Country, etc. we should be very miserable if it never were to end.  
See the 21st. and 32d. Homilies upon Genesis; the Discourse upon these Words of S. Paul, Be not sorry for the death of your Brethren; where he carries this Notion further, and saith, That we should be as glad to go out of this World as Criminals are to get out of Prison. See the 1st. Homily upon Genesis, the 14th. upon the Epistle to Timothy, and the 7th. upon the Epistle to the Hebrews.  
Last of all, He hath one Sermon to prove that Death is not to be feared.  
From these Principles, he concludes in several places, that we ought not to weep for the Dead, but on the contrary rejoice; for that they have quitted this miserable life, to enter into one which is both eternal and happy. See the 34th. Homily upon S. Matthew, the 62d. upon S. John, the 21st. upon the Acts, the 6th. upon the Epistle to the Thessalonians, and the 4th. upon the Epistle to the Hebrews.   

Christian Maxims which S. Chrysostom lays down and maintains in his Sermons.  
WE ought not to be addicted to the Goods of this World. Hom. 2. upon Matthew.  
Persons who are not virtuous, will receive no advantage from the Virtues of others. Hom. 〈◊〉. in Matthew.  
The Virtue of our Relations will do us no good, if we ourselves want Piety. Hom. 10. on Matt.  
Men ought to exercise themselves in the practice of all Virtues. Hom. 11. on Matthew.  
No Mercy is to be looked for after Death, but only severe Justice; there is no middle place between Hell or Heaven. Hom. 14. upon Matthew.  
He that reflects upon the joys of Heaven, will find it easy to practise Virtue. Hom. 16. upon Matthew.  
The Commandments of God are not impossible to those that are willing to keep them. Hom. 21. on Matthew. Nay, they are easy with God's grace. Hom. 56. and 76. on Matthew, and 87. upon S. John.  
Let him that is in the State of Grace, not trust too much to his own strength, lest he fall; neither let him that is fallen, despair. Hom. 26. and 67. upon Matthew.  
Spiritual advantages are to be preferred before those things that otherwise seem to be most necessary. Hom. 26. upon Matthew.  
A Man of an ill life, is worse than a dead Man. Hom. 26. upon Matthew.  
Passionate, intemperate, debauched, and covetous Men are worse than those that are possessed with the Devil. Hom. 28. upon Matthew.  
The Yoke of Virtue is light and easy, that of Sin is heavy and troublesome. Hom. 38. upon Matthew, and 88 upon John.  
We ought to examine, and be sorry for our faults, and not be concerned for those of other Men. Hom. 24. upon Matthew, and 60. upon S. John.  
Virtue is more to be esteemed than Miracles. Hom. 46. upon Matthew.  
To feed the Poor is better than to give Ornaments of Gold or Silver to the Church. Hom. 50. upon Matthew.  
He that offends another, wrongs himself more than the other. Hom. 51. upon Matthew.  
A Man that is addicted to worldly things, is in the most unhappy slavery that can be. Hom. 58. upon Matthew.  
It is better to adorn our Souls with Virtue, than the Body with rich Clothes. Hom. 69. upon Matthew.  
A Soul polluted with Crimes, stinks worse than a putrefied Body. Hom. 57 upon Matthew.  
It is to no purpose to have been Baptised, and to be in the true Church, unless we lead our Lives conformably to the Doctrine of the Gospel, and our Baptismal profession. Hom. 6. and 10. upon John.  
Whatever appears great in this World is nothing before God. Hom. 44. in Joan.  
Nothing ought to be better husbanded than Time. Hom. 58. upon John.  
We should not ask of God temporal, but spiritual Goods. Hom. 43. and 54. upon John.  
A Christian ought to work not only for himself, but also for others. Hom. 20. upon the Acts.  
It often happens that those who design to afflict the Righteous, and hinder the purposes of God concerning them, do further them when they do not intent it. Hom. 49. upon the Acts.  
The loss of worldly Goods ought not to be lamented, but that only of the joys of Heaven. Hom. 10. upon the Romans.  
We ought to do that which is good in this World, and not depend upon the Prayers of our kindred and friends after death. Hom. 42. upon 1 Cor.  
The Salvation of others ought to be preferred before our own satisfaction. Hom. 29. upon 2 Cor.  
Virtue's are like Treasures, they must be hid to be kept: If they be exposed publicly, there is danger of losing them. Hom. 3. upon Matthew.  
To be Master of one's own Passions, is true liberty. Hom. 17. upon 1 Tim.  
Nothing is to be lamented but Sin. Hom. 3. upon the Hebrews.  
No Man is offended but by himself. See his Discourse upon this Paradox and his Letters Passim.  
It is easy to get Virtue, and preserve it too. Passim.  
It is more easy to live well, than ill. Passim.  
Small Sins are to be avoided as well as great ones. Passim.  
One only Sin, one evil Action is sufficient to condemn us eternally. Passim.  
The accusation of Conscience is the greatest torment. Passim.  
It is better to suffer ourselves, than to make others suffer. Epist. to Olympias.  
The ignominy of this World, is glory in the eyes of God. Passim.  
This present life is death, and death is life. Passim.  
Afflictions, Persecutions, and Sicknesses, are desirable; but delights, pleasures and joy are to be feared. Passim.  
God's chastisements are great benefits: The good things which he bestows in this world are great temptations. Passim.  
Giving of Alms is the trade that brings the greatest profit. Passim.  
Solitariness and a Monastic life, are more to be desired than the greatest Kingdoms. Passim.  
True Sovereignty consists in commanding our own Passions. Passim.  
It is an effect of God's bounty, that the execution of Precepts, which are necessary to our Salvation, does not depend upon the weakness of our Bodies. Hom. in illud, Modico vino utere.  
Sorrow is the product of Sin, and Sorrow takes away Sin: That which was the penalty of Sin, is become the Salvation of Man. Sin brought weakness into the World, and Sorrow hath destroyed Sin. Hom. 1. de jejun.  
Our Worship is not like that of the Jews, which was loaded with many Ceremonies, and needed much preparation. He that went into the Temple to pray, was to buy Pigeons, to carry Wood, Fire, a Knife, and a Victim. Christians want no such thing: in every place they have an Altar, a Knife, and a Victim; or rather they themselves are the Altar, the Priest, and the Victim. In what place, or what condition soever they are, they may offer their Souls to God. Hom. 4. de Anna.  
Man shall be punished for his Sins, either in this world, or in the next: He ought to be punished here, to prevent punishment hereafter. Serm. 5. de Lazaro.  
Ignorance of the Scripture makes Heresies. Serm. 3. de Lazaro.  
These are some of those Maxims wherewith S. Chrysostom filleth his Discourses; but he enlargeth upon them with such abundance, expoundeth them with so great Eloquence, and pursues them with so great strength, that it is impossible to discover their beauty without reading them in their Original. In reading of these Sermons, all Preachers ought to spend their time, and not in the Sermons of Modern Authors; which, for the most part, are full of nothing but empty Allegories, false Notions, forced Declamations, unprofitable Questions, affectations of Wit, Jingles, Antitheses, and other things of this nature, that have no correspondency with those Evangelical Truths, which ought to be preached with masculine and natural Eloquence.  
But that S. Chrysostom's Works may be more easily read, and that the Editions which should be used, may be known, I shall draw up a Catalogue of the most considerable.  
The first Collections of S. Chrysostom's Works were made of the Versions of his Book.  
The first was Printed at Basle by Pfortzen anno 1504 There was another made in Germany by Cratander anno 1522. and one at Paris 1524. These were followedby the Edition of Frobenius in five Volumes, anno 1533, and 1547. which last is larger and more correct. That of Venice in 1574, in five Volumes, by Hervetus, is better than the foregoing; but the most perfect of these ancient Latin Editions is that of Nivelle, in four Volumes in Folio, of 1581. which was made by the advice and care of the most learned Men of that Age; as Billius, Hervetus, Nobilius, Zinus, etc.  
The first Greek Edition of all S. Chrysostom's Works, is the famous Edition of Eton, procured by the care and vast labour of the learned Sir Henry Savile, who having made enquiry in all the libraries of the World for the Books that went under S. Chrysostom's Name caused them to be Printed in a very fair Character, and very exactly, with very just, very learned and useful Notes. He distinguished the Books that are S. Chrysostom's, from those that are dubious or supposititious, and hath put them in an excellent Order for a first Edition. It is divided into eight Volumes.  
The first contains the 67 Homilies upon Genesis, the Commentaries upon the Psalms, and Isaiah, the two Homilies upon the 50th. Psalms, which he places among the doubtful Books, and the Exposition of the 51st. 95th. and 100th. Psalms, and so on to the 107th. and upon the 119th. which he placeth among the supposititious Writings.  
The Second Volume contains the 90 Homilies upon S. Matthew, and the 88 upon S. John.  
The Third and the Fourth comprehend all the Homilies upon S. Paul.  
The Fifth hath Sixty two Sermons upon several particular passages of the Holy Scripture, and Thirty four other Sermons upon the Saints or Festival days, with Seventy three Sermons upon several Subjects which he Ranks among the supposititious Books.  
The Sixth Volume is made up of the Treatises of S. Chrysostom, the Homilies against the Jews, that of God's incomprehensibility, the Sermon of Anathema, his Sermon after he was ordained Priest, the Twenty two Discourses about Statues, and several other Sermons upon divers Subjects, and particularly of Penance, Fasting, Alms-deeds, and other Christian Virtues. At the latter end there are some Homilies which he puts among the Collections, that were anciently made out of S. Chrysostom, and some supposititious Sermons, with the Liturgy, and two Prayers to God.  
The Seventh Volume gins with a Discourse upon the Scandal of certain Persons, caused by the Persecution and Malice of some Priests. After this is the Treatise wherein he proves that none is offended but by himself, Seventeen Letters to the Widow Olympias, and Two hundred forty three Letters to his Friends, with Five Letters of Constantius the Priest, and a hundred and five Sermons, which falsely bear S. Chrysostom's Name, the Authors whereof are not certainly known. These Sermons are followed by other Discourses of known Authors, viz. Six Homilies of Severianus of Gabala upon Genesis, the Homily of John the Faster about Penance, the Homily upon the Epiphany ascribed to S. Gregory Thaumaturgus, the Homily of the Cross, by Pantaleon a Monk of Constantinople, and Forty eight Homilies upon several Points of Morality, collected out of S. Chrysostom's works by Theodorus. That Volume endeth with Seven Prayers of S. Chrysostom, which are in Latin, the three last of them are supposititious.  
The Last Volume containeth some Supplements of Books Printed in the other Volumes, the Seven Orations in praise of S. Paul, the Sermons upon Eutropius, upon the design which Men ought to have in Preaching, and upon some other Subjects. The Appendix to this Volume, hath several Books which are something like S. Chrysostom's. The First is an Answer in Theodorus' Name, to an Exhortation made by S. Chrysostom: Which is certainly spurious. The Second and Third are two Discourses of Libanius to Theodosius, upon the Sedition at Antioch. After these Discourses follow the Extracts which Photius hath taken out of S. Chrysostom and Isidore Pelusiota's Letters in Commendation of this Father. The Lives of S. Chrysostom take up a good part of this Volume: there are those that were written by George of Alexandria, the Panegyric by Leo the Emperor, the Life of S. Chrysostom by an Anonymous Author, that of Simeon Metaphrastes.  
The various Readins, Conjectures, Restitutions, and Notes of Savil, Bois, and Downs conclude the Volume, with a very useful Table of S. Chrysostom's Books, by their beginnings disposed in an Alphabetical Order. Another Table upon the Notes, and an Errata upon all the Volumes.  
Almost at the same time that Sir H. Savil was at work in England, to publish an Edition of the Original Text of S. Chrysostom's works, Fronto Ducaeus laboured in France, to Print them in Greek and Latin. He Printed them at Paris, Anno 1609. the first Volume which contains the Twenty one Sermons of Statues, and Fifty six others, with Notes at the end. In the same Year came out a Second Volume containing the Homilies and Sermons upon Genesis, the Five Sermons concerning Hannah and Samuel, Three Homilies upon David and Saul, a Sermon against Idleness, a Translation of S. Chrysostom's Life written by Palladius, a Latin Sermon of Continency, and some other Sermons in Latin with Notes. The Third Volume Printed in 1614 contains the Homilies and Sermons upon the Psalms, and the Commentary upon Isaiah. The Fourth Volume Printed the same Year, contains the Works and Letters of S. Chrysostom, his First Sermon, and two others upon his Exile; it ends with the Notes of Fronto Ducaeus. The Fifth Volume is a Collection of Seventy Sermons upon several passages, both of the Old and New Testament, and upon some other Subjects; it was Printed in 1616. The Sixth contains Seventy three Sermons, which Fronto Ducaeus does not attribute to S. Chrysostom; the Homilies made up of Collections taken out of S. Chrysostom by Theodorus, and the Notes of Fronto Ducaeus. The works of S. Chrysostom upon the New Testament were not Printed then, because they had been lately Printed by Commelinus in Four Volumes. The First contains the Homilies of S. Chrysostom, and the imperfect Work upon S. Matthew, the Second, the Homilies upon S. John, the Third the Homilies upon the Acts; and the Last, the Homilies upon S. Paul, and the Commentary of Andreas Caesariensis upon the Revelations of S. John. These Books are in the Greek and Latin Edition of S. Chrysostom, Printed at Paris in 1633, and divided into Six Volumes, which is not so exact as the Edition of Commelinus, and the Six first Volumes that were Printed in 1636, are not so exact as those that were Printed before.  
The Latin Edition of Ducaeus Printed at Paris in 1613. Containeth, besides the Books that are named already, a great many other Homilies which are not in the Greek, and which in all Likelihood were Composed by Latin Authors as we observed before. The Translation was all Revised by Fronto Ducaeus; it was Printed at Antwerp, and lately Printed at Lions with some Additions. It is very strange, that those who took Care of this Edition, did not only leave the same confusion that is in the others, but have even confounded it more, and loaded it with many useless things.   

[These are all the General Editions of S. Chrysostom's Works. I say nothing here of particular ones, whether Greek or Latin, of several of his Works, which are the Springs and Brooks that make up the great Rivers, because it would be too tedious in this Place. But the Catalogue of such as are come to my knowledge are in the following 
* 

Homiliae in Sacram Scripturam.  
IN Genesim Graec. Lat. Morel. 1594.  
Lat. Oecolampad. interpret. Paris, 1524.  
In Psalmos, Nivelle, 1606.  
In Isaiam. Lat. à Tilmanno, Paris, 1555.  
Argumentum in Jeremiam, Gr. Aug. 1602.  
In Matth. Gr. Oxonii, Lat. 1537.  
Opus Imperfectum, in Matth. ex Off. Caveleriana, 1602.  
De publicano & Pharisaeo, Paris, 1595.  
Serm. 4. in Lazarum, in illud Apostoli, Nolite de Dormientibus contristari, etc. Oxon. 1580.  
In Joannem. Aret. interpret, Romae, 1470.  
In omnes Pauli Epistolas Graec. à Donato Veronensi, An. 1529. in fol. 3. Vol. Lat. apud Hervag. 1530.  
In Ep. ad Galatas, interpret. Erasmo, Basiliae, 1526.  
In Ep. ad Philip. Flaminio interpret, Rom. 1578.   

TRACTATUS.  
De Sacerdotio Libri Sex. Graec. Oxon. 1586. Aug. 1599 Lov. 1529, 1568. Basil. 1544. Lat. Paris. 1561.  
De Virginitate Graec. Lat. Livin●io interp. Ant. 1565. & 1575. ex version Poggiana. Romae, 1562.  
De providentia apud Oporinum. Basil. 1552.  
De orando Deum, interpret. Erasmo. Basil. Froben. 1500, 1551. Col. 1573. Ant. 1579. Paris, 1538.  
Aliquot opuscula. Ex V Erasmi, Bas. 1529.  
Liber de vita Babylae contra Gentiles, Gr. Basil. 1527. Paris, 1528. Lat. per Brinium, Paris, 1528.  
Sermons ad Theodorum Lat. 1524. Basiliae, 1547.  
Comparatio Regis & Monachi, Basil. 1533. Gr. Lat. Paris, 1598. Basil. 1526.  
Quod nemo laeditur nisi à seipso. Graece in Octavo, Paris, 1541.  
Liturgia sive Missa, Lat. Erasmo interpret, Paris. 1537. Graec. Paris, 1560. Venet. 1601, 1620. ex version Hervet. 1548. Paris.  
Orat quod Christus sit Deus, Ingolstad. 1579. apud Chevallon, Lat. 1536. Romae, 1526.  
In Euch. Graec. 1571. morel. 1561. Lat. Wormmatiae, 1541. Pragae, 1544. Ant. 1560. Gr. & Lat. Venetiis, 1528. in Bibl. PP.  
Epistolae ad Innocent. Basil. 1529.  
Ad Caesarium Moinii Varia Sacra, Roterad. An. 1687. [Londini 4to. 1688.]   

HOMILIAE VARIAE.  
Hom. ad Pop. Ant. de Statuis, Londini Graec. Lat. 1590.  
Orat. in illud, Modico vino utere. Hanou. 1550. in Octavo, Col. 1582.  
In illud; Oportet Haereses esse. Oecol. interp. Mog. 1522.  
Hom. 6. contra Jud. Hoëschelio interpret. Aug. 1602.  
Orat. Sex de fato & providentia, Gr. Oct. Basil, 1526. Paris, 1554. Hagenoae, 1533.  
Orat. 6. Gr. Oxon. Gr. Lat. 1586. Orat. in Eutropium, in Ps. 100 & in laudem crucis, Paris, 1554. Tilmanno interpret.  
De non contemnenda Ecclesia Dei, morel. 1560.  
In terrae Motum, etc. aliae Orat. interpret Ducaeo, Burdigalae, 1604.  
Hom. de Anathemate, Gr. Lat. Paris, in Oct. 1547.  
Libri tres de providentia Dei, ad Stagirium Lat. Alosti, 1487. ibid. Orat. de dignitate humanae Originis.  
Chrysostomi Orat. 10. a Beurero, Romae, 1581. Gr. Lat. Friburg. 1585. in Oct.  
Varii tractatus, ibid. De animi humilitate, Jejunio & Temperantia, Mog. 1604.  
De Mansuetudine, Paris, 1570. De benignitate, Paris, 1594.  
De politia Morali, Paris, 1545. Orat. 6. Paris, 1554.  
Orat. aliquot. Lat. Gr. Lat. Romero in Oct. Bas. Oporin. 1551.  
Hom. Gr. Hoëschelio interpret, 1587.  
Hom. 2. Tiguri, 1558. Aliae, Lipsiae, Ann. 1538.  
Aliae, Paris, 1606. Orat. Gr. Romae, 1594.  
Florilegia, Mog. 1603. Lat. Hagenoae, 1528.   

SERMONS PANEGYRICI.  
Hom. 4. in Job, Perionio interpret, Paris, 1565, Col. 1568.  
Homiliae de laudibus Pauli, Aniano interp. Paris, 1499. cum op. Bedae seorsim, 1509.  
De Petro & ●aulo Orat. 2. Gr. Lat. 1582.  
Idem cum Orat. in duodecim Apostolos, Rom●, 1580.  
Sermons Panegyrici in S. S. Martyrs, Burd. 1601.  
Duae homil. de S. S. Lugd. 1624. Gr. Lat. Paris, 1594.   

IN FESTA.  
In Nat. Christi, & in pr●cursorem, Ant. apud Tornes, 1609.  
Sermo in Pascha, Ant. 1598. Sermons in Ascensionem, & alii ... ex Ed. Vossii, Mog. 1604.  
Orat. de occursu Domini, Col. 1568.]    Note?    

Antiochus and Severianus of Gabala.  
IN the days of S. Chrysostom there were two famous Preachers, who preached in his Church, in his Absence; The first, Antiochus, was Bishop of Ptolemais in Phoenicia; and the Second, 
Antiochus and Severianus of Gabala.  Severianus, was Bishop of Gabala in Coelesyria. Antiochus came first to Constantinople, where having preached a long time, and got some Money, he returned to his Church. Severianus having heard that Antiochus was become rich by preaching at Court, resolved to imitate him, and therefore went thither with several Sermons which he had prepared. He was well received by S. John Chrysostom, into whose favour he endeavoured at first to insinuate himself, afterwards he grew acquainted with several Persons of Quality, and got into the favour both of the Emperor and the Empress: and tho' he wanted Antiochus his parts, yet he got into great Esteem and Reputation. S. Chrysostom being obliged (as hath been observed) to go into Asia, to compose the Affairs of the Church of Ephesus, found not a Bishop fit to preach in his Absence than Severianus of Gabala, whom he thought to be his Friend. But whether this Bishop, taking occasion of S. Chrysostom's Absence, had a design to get into the Esteem and Affection of the People of Constantinople to usurp that See, or whether Serapion, S. Chrysostom's Archdeacon, had by his Letters begot in S. Chrysostom an Aversion to Severianus of Gabala as a Person that disturbed the Peace of his Church, aiming at getting into his place; or Lastly, whether there was any secret Jealousy betwixt them; These two Bishops were never Friends ever afterwards. S. Chrysostom being come back, drove away Severianus, accusing him of saying, that the Son of God was not made Man, because that Bishop finding that Serapion would not stand up before him had uttered these Words, If Serapion dies a Christian, the Son of God is not made Man. This Serapion told S. Chrysostom, leaving out the first part, If Serapion dies a Christian. But Severianus being well at Court, the Empress recalled him, and did all she could to reconcile them, which S. Chrysostom refused to do, till the Empress entreated him for the sake of Theodosius her Grandchild, whom she laid at his Feet in the Church of the Apostles. S. Chrysostom (if Socrates may be credited) could not then resist the entreaties of the Empress: but this Reconciliation was not sincere, and both these Bishops harboured still an Aversion one to the other. And therefore, in the time of S. Chrysostom's Disgrace, Severianus sided with Theophilus, and the rest of his Enemies to destroy him. This is the Account which Socrates gives of the Dissension of Severianus of Gabala; Hist. Eccl. B. VI cap. 11.  
The Author of S. Chrysostom's Life accuses this Historian of want of sincerity upon this occasion; But till we meet with another Historian of greater credit, setting forth the matter of Fact after another manner, we cannot reject this Relation, nor feign other Motives of Dissension betwixt these two Bishops, than those related by Socrates, who lived near S. Chrysostom's time.  
The ancient Translator of some of S. Chrysostom's Homilies, Anianus, observes, That Antiochus had, plausibilem dicendi pompam, a pompous and lofty Style, which got him the applause of the People. There is no doubt, but formerly they had several of his Sermons. Gennadius mentions but two of his Books: The former is a long Treatise against Covetousness, and the latter a Discourse upon the Miracle of the blind Man, to whom Jesus Christ restored sight, spoken of in the Ninth Chapter of S. John's Gospel: a work of Unction and Humility. Trithemius mentions several Sermons, and other unknown works of this Author. Theodoret quoteth a passage of his, but does not Name the Book where he found it, the words are these. That if we do not confound the two Natures in Christ, there will be no difficulty in understanding the Mystery of the Incarnation. Gelasius in his Book of the two Natures, citeth also some places of Antiochus upon the Incarnation, taken out of his Sermons upon the Nativity, Easter, against Heretics, and from another Sermon. Lastly, Possevinus tells us, That there were some Homilies of this Author in the Medicean Library at Florence. I don't know whether they were ever published.  
Severianus of Gabala was less eloquent, dryer, and more barren, than Antiochus. Socrates observes, that he pronounced the Greek Language ill, because he still kept some thing of the Syriack Accent. Gennadius says, That he had read a Commentary of this Author, upon the Epistle to the Galatians, and a Treatise upon the Festival of Christ's Baptism, and the Epiphany.  
We have observed already, that among S. Chrysostom's works there are several Sermons, which in all appearance belong to Severianus of Gabala, and among the rest a Discourse of the Seals, and upon the brazen Serpent, which are quoted by Theodoret, under the Name of Severianus of Gabala, and several others in the same Style, whereof we have given a Catalogue amongst S. Chrysostom's works: To these we may join the Homily upon Christ's Nativity, which is in the Fifth Volume of the Eton Edition of S. Chrysostom's works, Pag. 843. and the Sermon of the Cross in Greek in the same Volume, P. 898, which afterwards was Printed in Greek and Latin by Father Combefis, cited by S. Damascen in the third Discourse of Images, under the Name of Severianus of Gabala. We have also Six Sermons of the same Man upon the Creation of the World, Printed in Greek in the Eton Edition of S. Chrysostom, and in Greek and Latin, in the last Volume of the Supplement to the Bibliotheca Patrum, by Father Combefis. Severianus observes in the Preface, that all the Books of the Holy Scripture have the Salvation and Benefit of Men for their ultimate End: but that the Book of Genesis is the Ground and Fountain of all the Truths, both in the Law and in the Prophets, because it containeth the History of the World's Creation, without which God's works cannot be known. He adds, That he very well knew, that several Fathers had written of that matter, but that it did not discourage him from writing upon the same Subject, since the latter Writers were not discouraged by the Discourses of the former: that he pretended not to destroy what others had done, but to add such things as might serve for the Edification of the Church: At last, he desireth his Auditors, not to inquire whether his Notions be new, but only whether they are right: In Prosecution of the same Subject, he saith, that Genesis is an History written by the Lawgiver Moses, and dictated by the Holy Ghost who inspired him: That tho' it be a Narration, yet it may be called a Prophecy, because that, as there are three sorts of Prophecies, the first of Writings, the Second of Actions, and the third of both: So likewise there are three parts of each Prophecy: That the first respects the present, the Second what is to come, and the third what is past. Men Prophesy upon the present, when they discover what is designed to be kept from them: as Elisha did, who knew Gehazis' wickedness: Men Prophesy upon the future, when what is to come is foretold. And there are also Prophecies of what is past, when by Divine Inspiration things already passed are written, whereof no knowledge was had otherwise. In this Sense Severianus saith, that Moses was a Prophet in the History of the World's Creation. He observes further, that Moses proposed to himself two things in his Writings, to teach, and to gives Laws: That he began by Instruction in relating the Creation of the World, to teach Men, that God having created them, had a right to give them Laws and Precepts. For, saith he, had he not showed at first, that God is the Creator of the World, he could not have justified, that he was the Sovereign Lawgiver of Men: because it is Tyranny to pretend to impose Laws upon those, that do not belong to us, whereas it is very natural to instruct such as depend upon us. He endeth this Preface by showing the Reason, why Moses spoke not of the Creation of Angels and Archangels: First because it was not pertinent to his Subject: Secondly, because had he done it, there was danger that Men would have worshipped them.  
After this he explains the Text of Genesis about the World's Creation, in a plain and literal way: He doth not enlarge upon the spiritual Sense, but rather finds fault with some Explications, as being too much Allegorical. But he maketh several trifling Reflections, as when he observes in the Fifth Homily, that the first Man was called Adam, a word signifying Fire in the Hebrew, because that as this Element easily spreads and Communicates itself, so the World was to be peopled by this first Man. Several other Notions of this Nature may be found in that Work, which have neither Beauty, nor Exactness, nor Truth. He Answers the Arians and Anomaeans. He observes in the Fourth Homily, that all Heresies bear the Names of their Authors, whereas the true Church has none other Name, than that of Catholic Church. He enlargeth but little upon Morals; yet at the Latter end of this Fourth Homily he recommends Fasting, provided it be accompanied with Abstinence from Vices. In a word, One may say that this whole Work, tho' full of Erudition, yet is of no great use, and deserveth not the Esteem of Men of true Judgement.  
Father Combefis hath added to these Homilies some Fragments taken out of some Catena's upon the Scripture, attributed to this Author, and extracted out of his Commentaries upon Genesis, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and upon Joshua. But if these passages did not show themselves to be written in Severianus his Style, one could not affirm it upon the credit of these Catena's. One might with greater Confidence produce two passages of Severianus of Gabala upon the Incarnation, quoted by Gelasius in the Book of the two Natures, where he observes, That the first is taken out of a Discourse of this Bishop against Novatus.   

ASTERIUS AMASENUS.  
ASterius 
a Asterius.] There were several of that Name. The oldest is an Heretic of Arius his Party, mentioned in the first Volume. There is another Asterius commended by Theodoret, in Philotheo, c. 2. but different from this, as well as the Catholic Bishop of the same Name, who lived in the time of S. Athanasius.  Bishop of Amasea a City of Pontus, flourished at the latter end of the Fourth Century 
b Towards the latter end of the Fourth Century.] We have observed, That in the Sermon upon New-Years-day, he speaks of Ruffinus his Death, and of Eutropius his Disgrace, which he tells us happened the Year before, which justifyeth that he lived at the same time with S. Chrysostom. , and in the beginning of the Fifth. The Sermons of this Bishop have been 
Asterius Amasenus.  quoted with Commendation by the Ancients 
c The Sermons of this Bishop have been quoted with Commendation by the Ancients.] He is cited in the Second Council of Nice, Act. 4. and 6. Photius made some Extracts out of his works, Cod. 271. Hadrian in lib. de un. quotes his Homilies, and Nicephorus defends them against the Iconoclasts. . There are but a small number of them extant, Collected by F. Combefis at the beginning of his first Volume of the Supplement to the Bibliotheca Patrum; The Five first were Printed formerly by Rubenius, who published them at Antwerp, Ann. 1608. and afterwards inserted into the Bibliotheca Patrum: The six following were lately published by F. Combefis, who joined to them the Extracts made by Photius out of the Homilies of Asterius Amasenus, and a Discourse upon S. Steven the Proto-Martyr, formerly published under the Name of Proclus.  
The first Sermon is upon the Parable of Dives and Lazarus. He gins it with this Reflection; That our Saviour not only made use of Precepts to teach us Virtue, and to forbid Vice, but that he further proposed illustrious Examples to instruct us in that way of Life, which we ought to follow. Afterwards he sets down the Text of S. Luke's Gospel, making moral Reflections upon each Verse.  
Upon these words, Verse 26. There was a rich Man which was clothed with Purple, and fine Li●…. He observes, that the Holy Scripture by these two words, understands all Extravagancies of Riches, That the only use of Garments is to cover our Bodies, and defend them from the injuries of the Air: That God hath provided for this, by creating Beasts with hair and wool, whereof Stuffs are made to secure us against both cold weather, and the Beams of the Sun. That besides he hath given the use of Flax for a greater Conveniency; that these things ought to be applied to our use, in giving God thanks, not only because he made us, but also because he has provided all necessaries, to cover and defend us from the Injuries of the Season, But, saith he, if you leave the use of Wool and Linen, if you despise what God hath prepared, and to satisfy your Pride, you will have silk Garments, thin like Cobwebs; if after this you hire a Man at a dear rate to take out of the Sea a small Fish, that you may die them in its Blood; Do you not Act the parts of effeminate Men?  
He reproves those afterwards whose Garments were painted with several Figures, of Men, Beasts, and Flowers, and spares not those, who by a ridiculous Devotion, Printed upon their clothes some Godly Histories: As the Marriage of Cana in Galilee, the Sick of the Palsy in his Bed, the blind Man cured, the Woman that had an Issue of Blood, the Sinner at the feet of Jesus Christ, Lazarus risen again. Asterius speaks against this Practice after this manner: If these Persons will believe me, let them sell those clothes, and honour the true Images of God. Do not paint Jesus Christ, it is enough that he humbled himself, by taking voluntarily a Body for us .... Paint not the Paralytic upon your Garments, but seek for the poor to secure them. It is to no purpose to look upon the Woman having the Issue of Blood, but it is very necessary to help this poor Widow. It signifies nothing to behold the sinful Woman at the feet of Jesus Christ, but it will signify much to bewail your own sins. What good will the Picture of Lazarus his Resurrection do you? endeavour rather to rise spiritually. To what purpose do you wear upon your Backs, the Image of him that was born blind? Ease this blind Man rather. Why do you draw the Shrines of Relics? rather feed the poor. And wherefore do you carry about you the Representation of those Water-pots at the Marriage where our Saviour made Wine; while you suffer the poor to die for thirst? This passage hath been alleged by the Iconoclasts as favouring their Opinions. The Catholics on the contrary have quoted another, taken out of an Homily of the same Author, concerning the Woman afflicted with the Issue of Blood, where he speaks of the Statue of Jesus Christ erected by the same Woman in Paneas, a Town of Palestine. But neither of these passages, belong to the question betwixt the Catholics, and the Iconoclasts; for this which we have transcribed, is not against Images placed in Churches, but against the Fancy of particular men, who trimmed their Habits with Figures, representing some Histories of the Bible; and that of the Statue of Jesus Christ set up by the Woman that was afflicted with an Issue of Blood, hath no Relation to the public Service of Images.  
But to return to our Sermon, Asterius Amasenus pursuant to his Subject, saith that Christians should beware of Luxury and Pleasures, because none can live in Pleasure without Riches. But, saith he, It is impossible to heap up much Riches without Sin. He excellently describes all the things that are necessary to those that seek their Pleasure, and having numbered them, he adds, To have these things, how many poor Men must suffer? how many Orphans must be ruined? how many Widows must have weeping Eyes? and how many Persons must be brought to the utmost Misery? A Soul taken up with these, forgets herself, remembers not what she is, thinks not upon Death, nor a Resurrection, nor Eternity. And when the fatal and unavoidable moment comes, that the Soul is ready to separate from the Body, than a remembrance of the Life past will be of little use: she then will think of Repentance, but it will be to no purpose. For then only will Repentance be available, when there is a Resolution of correcting our former Life. And regret and sorrow for sin seem to be of no use, when a Man is not in a condition either to do good, or to practise Virtue. The rest of this Homily is a literal and moral Explication of that parable, full of solid Notions, and natural Reflections.  
There is not less Eloquence in the Second Sermon of this Author, upon another Parable of S. Luke's Gospel, concerning that Steward whom his Master called to an Account for his Administration and for his Goods. It beginneth with this Maxim; That most Men's sins proceed from an opinion that the Goods which they possess are their own, and that they are absolute Masters of them; That this false persuasion is that which makes us go to Law, Quarrel, and make War for the wealth of this World, looking upon it as proper and convenient for us, and deserving our Love and Esteem. Yet, saith he, it is nothing so; on the contrary we are to look upon all which we have received, as none of ours; we are not Masters of the things which we have at home; we are like Pilgrims, Strangers, Banished and Captives, carried whither we would not, at a time when we expect it least, and at once we are stripped of all, when the Sovereign Dispenser of our fortune pleaseth. This Notion he enlargeth upon in his Exposition of the Parable of the unjust Steward. There one may find excellent Sentences, upon the Contempt that Men should cast upon Riches, and upon the uncertainty of this present Life. He insists particularly upon proving, that Men are not Owners, but Stewards of their wealth; and from this Principle he concludes, That as many as have received of God such good things ought to distribute them faithfully, and be always ready, yea even desirous, to give God an Account. And at last he observes, That after Death there will be no time for Repentance: that this Life is the proper time to keep God's Commandments in, as the other is of enjoying the Reward of good Works.  
The Third Sermon against Covetousness was preached by S. Asterius in one of those Assemblies which were made in Churches to celebrate the Festival of some of the Martyrs. This Homily is full of very natural Descriptions of the Hardheartedness of covetous Men. Covetousness in his Opinion, doth not consist only in the unjust desire of having that which is another's, but in a desire of having more than we ought to have. According to this Notion, it is easy to find in the Scriptures several Examples of covetous Men; and having produced them, he showeth, that all other Vices waste with time: but that the older a Man grows the more covetous he is. This Remark is followed by a Description of a covetous Man, where he omits none of those Characters that can make him appear miserable, and render him odious to all the World. He proveth that Covetousness is the Spring and Cause of all the Crimes and Sins committed in the World. And in short, he shows that it is to no purpose to be concerned for this World's Goods: but far better to put all our trust and confidence in God's providence and mercy.  
The Fourth Sermon is against the profane Festival of the first day in the Year, and against the custom of New-years-gifts. Asterius Amasenus declaimeth against that Practice. He saith, That the Liberalities of that day have no rational ground; That they cannot be called Tokens of Friendship, because true Friendship is not grounded upon Interest; That neither can they be called Alms, since the Poor partake not of them; That they are not of the Nature of Contracts, seeing there is neither loan nor exchange in that Traffic. In a word, That they are not pure Gifts, since there is a necessity of giving them. What Name then, saith he, can be given to the Expense of that day? The Church gives a reason for all the Feasts which it celebrates. It keeps the Feast of Christmas, because upon that day God made himself known unto Men. At Candlemas it rejoiceth, because we are drawn out of the obscurity of Darkness wherein we lay. Lastly, we celebrate with Joy, Pomp, and Alacrity the day of the Resurrection, for as much as this day represents unto us the Immortality which we are to enjoy. These are the Reasons which the Church hath to keep Feasts, and there are the like for the celebrating of all the rest: But what reason can be given for the Festival of New-Years-Day, and for the profusion then Practised? O Folly! O Impertience! At that day every one runs with a design to get another Man's Goods. Those that give, do it with Grief, and they that receive Presents do not keep them, but bestow them upon others. One sends to his Patron, what he received of his Client: Another makes his Compliment to receive Money. The poor give to the rich, and inferior people send Presents to the Great Ones. As Brooks make small Rivers, which at last fall into Great Ones; in like manner the Presents which the common People make to those above them, do all turn to the profit of great Lords, upon whom they bestow them: and thus this Feast is the beginning of Miseries, and the overwhelming of the Poor. Farmers and Labourers are constrained to give to their Landlords; If they fail, they are abused. Miiserable People run like Fools through the Streets, ask from Door to Door, deafening every Body with their Noise and Cries. It is a day of Riot for Soldiers. The Consuls and Governors having made themselves rich with the Pay due to Soldiers, the Spoils of Widows, and the public Treasury, having got Money by selling Justice, by shameful Contracts, by distributing this Money to Fiddlers, Stage-Players, Dancers, and Comedians, lewd Women, and base Fellows, are at this Expense to feed their Vanity. O Folly! O Blindness! God promises an eternal Reward to those who distribute to the Poor, but these rather choose to spend foolishly, that they may get a vain and transitory Glory. But after all, what is the end of all that Vanity? what Figure soever any can make in this World, the end is always a Grave that buryeth Men in eternal Oblivion.  
He describes here the fatal end of Ruffinus, and Eutropius, who just before were deprived both of their Dignities and of their Estates, and concludes with these words of the wise Man: Vanity of Vanities. Dignities, saith he, are Dreams and Visions, which vanish after having given some kind of delight for a very short time: They are Flowers, that dry on a sudden, having flourished for a while.  
The First Sermon is about Divorce. Asterius shows there by several Reasons that Men are not to put away their Wives, yet he excepteth Adultery, and saith, that if a Man puts away his Wife for Adultery, instead of taking her again, he commends him for avoiding a Person who by violating Chastity hath broken the indissoluble bond of Marriage. He observes, that the Law of the Gospel is the same for Men as for Women; but that the Roman Laws, have not observed the same Equity; not permitting Wives to leave their Husbands, but only Husbands to put away their Wives. The reason commonly alleged of this difference, is, that Husbands do not prejudice their Wives, in committing Adultery, whereas by this Crime, Wives do introduce into Families other Men's Children, and make them Heirs, who have no manner of Right. Asterius sticks not to say, that this Reason is impertinent, because Men abusing either Virgins or Wives, overthrow and dishonour their Respective Families, and wrong their Parents and their Husbands very considerably.  
The Sixth Sermon upon the History of Susanna, is full of curious moral Notions. This is one. A Man overtaken with a Sin is often drawn by that first Crime into all sorts of Iniquity, as on the contrary one Virtue is the cause of another.  
The Seventh Sermon is upon the miraculous cure of the Man that was born blind, he exalts the Greatness of the Miracle, and draws an Argument for Christ's Divinity from it.  
The Eighth is a Panegyric in Commendation of S. Peter, and S. Paul; he shows there how wonderful their miracles were, and in several places establisheth S. Peter's Primacy amongst the Apostles. All the Apostles, saith he, must give place to S. Peter, and Confess, that he alone deserveth the first Rank, if a comparison of the Grace's God gave to the Apostles, is a Token of Priority of Honour.  
The following Sermon is a Discourse in Commendation of Phocas the Martyr. He affirms in the Preface, that a remembrance of the Actions of Saints, and of the Martyr's Engagements, is one of the most powerful Arguments that can be, to encourage Christians to Piety and Virtue. He addeth that for this Reason they kept their Relics, that they are exposed to sight in Shrines, that their Feasts are kept, and Churches built to their Honour, to refresh the Memory of their generous Actions. Afterwards he relates the Life of Phocas the Martyr, in a very plain and natural manner, without any mixture of such Histories as are rather miraculous than rational. He ends, with the Honours that were paid to that Saint. He says, That the Memory of him was famous in the Country, where his Body lay; That at Rome he was respected almost as much as S. Peter and S. Paul, and that his Head was had in great Veneration. Asterius tells us that the Martyr Phocas, he speaketh of, was born as Sinope, and a Gardener by Profession, without mentioning that he was a Bishop. This is it perhaps, which hath occasioned the Distinction of two Phocas' Martyrs. The one martyred under Trajan, whose Feast is kept July 14. and the other simply a Martyr; whose remembrance is celebrated on the 5th. of March. The Greeks mention them both upon the 22d. of September. Perhaps it is but one and the same Man, whose History hath been variously reported. For both are supposed to have been of Sinope, and the same Miracles are ascribed to both. Be it as it will, Seamen chose this Saint for their Patron, as Asterius observes at the latter end of this Homily.  
The Tenth Sermon in Commendation of Martyrs, was preached in an Assembly, met together for the Honour of the Martyrs. He gins with this Reflection: Very often we receive much good from our greatest Enemies unawares. Had not Satan persecuted the Church, we should have had no Martyrs. He afterwards observes, That Martyrs are not only Patterns of Virtue, but also Accusers of Vice. And this, saith he, is thus to be understood. A Martyr hath constantly endured fire and flame, why will you not tame the heat of Lust with Chastity? A Martyr hath not regarded all the wealth of the World, wherefore do you not despise a small Sum for the love of God? A Martyr hath put off his own Body for God's sake, why then will ye not part with the meanest Garment to cover a poor Man? We ought either to Honour and imitate the Saints as our Masters, or fear them as our Accusers. Out of Honour to Martyrs, we preserve their Relics with Veneration, looking upon them as Vessels of Benediction, Organs of blessed Souls, and assured Pledges of their goodwill. The Churches are guarded by the Martyrs, as by so many Soldiers. The afflicted make Addresses to them, and with Confidence implore their Intercession. It cureth Diseases, comforteth in Poverty, and appeaseth the anger of Princes. Finally the Churches of Martyrs are an Harbour in a Storm, and a refuge in all Miseries. The Father whose Child is sick, prayeth unto God for his Cure by the intercession of a Martyr, saying, You Holy Martyr that suffered for Jesus Christ interceded for us. You who can Address to God with greater Boldness, carry this word for your fellow Servants. Tho' you are no longer in the World, yet you know the Pains and Afflictions of this Life. Yourselves have formerly prayed to the Martyrs, before you were Martyrs, they heard you when you entreated them, now that you can hear us grant ●s our Requests. But least ignorant Persons should yield to Martyrs the Honour which belongs only to God, he adds, We do not adore the Martyrs, but we Honour them as God's Servants. We Honour not Men, but admire them: We lay up their Relics in beautified Shrines, and we build magnificent Churches to their Memory, to render them the same Honour in the Church, that is given in the World to those that have done famous Actions. He goeth on to establish this Principle in the rest of this Discourse, where he speaks so strongly of the worship of Saints and Martyrs against such as despise them, that it gives occasion of Suspicion whether this be not of a younger Age, than that of Asterius Amasenus.  
The Eleventh Sermon is a Panegyric upon S. Euphemia cited in the Seventh general Council, Act. 4. and by Photius. It seemeth not to me to be of Asterius Amasenus his Style. The Author relateth the History of that Saint, and observes; that she was represented upon a Winding-sheet that was near her Grave.  
After these Sermons come those Extracts produced by Photius, Vol. 271. The first is taken out of a Sermon of Penance upon the sinful Woman, among the Works of Gregory Nyssen, to whom he ascribed it in the Second Volume of his Bibliotheca; but after serious reflection, I have found that it is more likely to be written by Asterius Amasenus.  
The Second Extract is taken out of the Sermon upon S. Steven, among Proclus' Sermons. It differs from that which S. Gregory Nyssen made upon that Subject, tho' I confounded them in the Second Volume.  
The Third is taken out of the Homily upon the Parable of the Traveller, who going to Jericho was taken and wounded by Thiefs, Luk. 10. He supposeth that this Accident was real, and that Jesus Christ makes use of it to inform the Jews of the Greatness of his Charity and Mercy. This wounded man going down to Jericho, is the Figure of Adam, who by his Sin fell from the happy State wherein he was created, and at the same time caused the Fall of all mankind. The Levite and the Priest are Moses and S. John, who finding this Man, that is all mankind, destitute of Grace, Virtue and Piety, and wounded by his Enemies, did indeed look upon him with Compassion, but could not cure him. That the Samaritan is Jesus Christ, who carries a Treasure of Grace, hidden till the time of the New Law. This Exposition of the Parable is pretty exact so far, but the Comparison he makes afterwards, betwixt the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Horse that carried this Samaritan is hardly tolerable, Because, saith he, the Body of Jesus Christ is as it were the Vehicle of the Divinity.  
The Fourth Extract of Photius is taken out of an Homily upon the Prayers of the Pharisee and of the Publican, spoken of Luk. ch. 18. Here is an excellent Definition of Prayer. Prayer is a conference with God, a forgetting of earthly things, and an Ascension into Heaven. He that prayeth standing with his hands lifted up to Heaven, doth by this posture of his Body represent the Cross; and if he prayeth with the Heart, and his Prayer is acceptable to God, he hath the Cross in his Heart. For Prayer extinguishes in him the Desires of the Flesh, the love of Riches, and puts off from his Spirit the thoughts of Pride and Vanity. He addeth, That Vainglory corrupts the best Actions, as Prayer, Fasting, and Alms, etc. and renders them improfitable.  
The Fifth Extract is out of the Homily upon the History of Zacchaeus, it containeth nothing considerable.  
The Sixth is upon the Parable of the prodigal Son. He saith that the Father spoken of in that Parable represents the Father of Eternity; That the two Sons, are two sorts of Men; That the prodigal Child is a Figure of those that have lost the Grace of Baptism; That the Portion of Goods which he desires of his Father, is the Grace of Baptism, and the Participation of the Body of Jesus Christ; That this Child doth indeed ask it well, but does not keep it, but goes into a foreign Country, that is he departeth from God's Commandments; That the Devil is that Citizen and Prince who commandeth the Swine, that is debauched Persons; That this Sinner at last acknowledging his Fault, cometh back to God his Father, but with fear and confessing his unworthiness; That the Father full of Compassion and Mercy receiveth him, embraceth, and puts upon him new Robes; That these new Robes cannot be Baptism which cannot be received a second time, but Repentance, which is instead of Baptism, and which blotting out our Sins with tears, makes us clean and acceptable to God; That the Ring afterwards given to this prodigal Child, is the Seal of the Holy Ghost, which is given in Repentance as well as in Baptism.  
The Seventh Extract is of a Sermon upon the cure of the Centurion's Servant. Photius saith, that Asterius upon occasion of that History, treateth of the Duties of Masters and Servants; That he adviseth Servants to obey their Masters readily and hearty; and exhorteth their Masters to use them with Meekness and Bounty, looking upon them as Brethren. For, saith he, they are made of the same Mould with us, they have the same Creator, the same Nature, the same Passions; they have a Body and a Soul as we have, etc. The Homily at the beginning of the Fast, from which Photius hath taken out the Eighth Extract, is in Latin among the Works of S. Gregory Nyssen. I now Confess, that it rather belongs to Asterius, than to that Father.  
The Ninth Extract is of the Homily upon the Man born blind, which we have entire.  
The Tenth is upon the Woman having an Issue of Blood. There he speaks of the History of the Statue, which that Woman caused to be set up in Honour of Jesus Christ in the City of Paneas.  
This is all that F. Combefis hath collected of the Works of Asterius Amasenus: but since that, Cotelerius in the second Volume of his Ecclesiastical Monuments, hath given us three Homilies upon Psalm 5, 6, and 7. which he ascribeth to Asterius Amasenus, upon the Authority of two Catenae upon the Psalms. He observes that before these Homilies there was one upon Psalm 4. Printed in the Seventh Volume of the Eton Edition of S. Chrysostom, pag. 431. which he likewise attributeth to the same Asterius. I confess I mistrust very much the Quotations of these Catenae, and I should rather believe, that these Commentaries belong to Asterius the Philosopher, who according to the Testimony of the Ancients, writ a Commentary upon the Psalms, than to the Bishop of Amasea, who is not said to have written upon that Subject. Cotelerius pretends that the Conformity both of Style and Doctrine demonstrate that these Homilies were written by Asterius Amasenus. But tho' I pay a great deference to the Judgement of that learned Man, yet I find no such Resemblance; however I would not be believed upon my own word, but leave it to those to judge, who will take the Pains to compare them.  
The Style of Asterius Amasenus is plain, but with a great deal of natural Beauty. His Characters and Descriptions are excellent: His Sermons would be esteemed in this Age, where those things are extremely valued. He is very severe in his Morals; the Reflections he makes are exact and solid. He explains the Scripture-Parables after an ingenious manner, and draws from them very useful Thoughts. He doth not excite his Auditors by violent Motions as great Orators do; but insinuates into their minds Christian Truths, by his agreeable and natural way of proposing them: and infensibly begets in them an Abhorrency of Vice, and a love of Virtue, only by a bare Picture lively drawn.   

ANASTASIUS.  
ANASTASIUS was chosen Bishop of Rome, after the Death of Pope Siricius, Anno. 398. He was an illustrious Person, as commendable for neglecting his private Interest, as for his 
Anastasius.  Pastoral Vigilance. Under his Pontificate, Flavianus and the Eastern Bishops were reconciled to the Church of Rome, and to the other Western Churches. The business of the Origenists making a great noise in the Church, he thought it his Duty to declare his Sense of that matter: He therefore made a Decree after the Example of Theophilus, whereby he condemned both the Works and the person of Origen, and being informed that Ruffinus the Priest was his chief Defender, he cited him to come to Rome, and appear before him: but Ruffinus deferring to appear, he condemned him as an Heretic in the Year 401. at the Solicitation of a Lady called Marcelia, who produced Evidences against him herself, and shown the Errors that he had left in the Translation of the Books of Origen's Principles, as S. Jerom says Ep. 16.  
John of Jerusalem having heard of this Judgement, writ him a very civil Letter, wherein after abundance of Commendations he spoke in Ruffinus his behalf. Anastasius, having returned him thanks for his Compliments, answered, That he could not but condemn Ruffinus his conduct, because he had translated the Books of Origen's Principles, with a design that the People should read them as Catholic Books; that the Fear he was in least they should corrupt the Doctrine of the faithful in his Church, obliged him to condemn them: that he was informed that the Emperors had made an Edict to forbid the reading of Origen's works: that Ruffinus having approved in his Translation the Opinions of Origen, deserved to be treated after the same manner, as he that first published them. Lastly, he declares, that he will hear no more of him; that he might seek for Absolution where he pleased, for his part he looked upon him as an excommunicated person.  
This is the only true Letter of Anastasius, the two others are written by Isidore. The first directed to the Germane and Burgundian Bishops is dated Fourteen years before Anastasius was Pope. Those of Burgundy to whom it is directed, were not then converted. It is made up of several passages of the Letters of Innocent, S. Leo and Flavianus, etc. It is full of Faults, and far from the Style of the true Anastasius. The second addressed to Nectarius is dated Fourteen years after Anastasius his Death, and is taken out of Innocent, S. Leo, Gregory, etc.  
We have not the first Synodical Letter of Anastasius, wherein he condemned Origen's Books, nor the Letter wherein he cited Ruffinus, nor that directed to Venerius of Milan, whereof he speaks in his Letter to John. It is believed, that he writ a Treatise of the Incarnation directed to Ursinus, whereof some Fragments are found at the latter end of Liberatus' Breviary. But it is certain, that they belong to Anastasius. This Pope died in the beginning of the Year 402 and left Innocent his Successor.   

CHROMATIUS, Bishop of Aquileia.  
CHROMATIUS, Bishop of Aquileia, whom S. Jerom in his Preface to the Chronicles, calleth the most Holy and Learned Bishop of his time, writ and preached several Sermons. There is 
Chromat. Bishop of Aquileia.  but one Discourse of his extant upon the Beatitudes, upon Christ's Sermon on the Mount, and upon the words of S. John to Jesus Christ, I ought to be baptised of thee. Which probably is a Fragment of a Commentary, composed by this Saint upon the whole Gospel of S. Matt. He explaineth the Letter of the Gospel, insisting particularly upon the Moral Precepts thereof. In the Exposition of what the Gospel saith concerning Divorces, he seems to have believed, That a Man might Marry another Wife, after being divorced for the cause of Adultery, but he condemneth those that abandon their Wives upon any other Account, and Mary again, tho' he confesseth that humane Laws allowed it. He expounds the Lord's Prayer, and recommends the Exercise thereof, the Love of our Neighbour, Alms-deeds, Fasting, and other Virtues spoken of in Christ's Sermon upon the Mount. In the last Fragment he discourseth of the Efficacy of Christ's Baptism.  
The Style of this Author is not very lofty, but his words are well chosen, his Notions just, his Expositions literal, and his Reflections useful. He was one of the most famous Bishops of the West, and held Correspondence with the Learnedest men of his time. He is one of the Three to whom S. Chrysostom directed the Letter, to demand help of the Western Bishops: and he subscribed the Letters written for him to the East. His Works were printed by themselves at Basil in 1528. and at Louvain in 1548. and afterwards in the Bibliotheca Patrum: I say nothing of a Letter bearing the Name of Chromatius directed to S. Jerom, in which he desires to have the Martyrology of Eusebius; It being certain, that both this Letter and the pretended Answer of S. Jerom are spurious, as Baronius evidently proves in the Seventh Chapter of his Preface to the Roman Martyrology.   

GAUDENTIUS, Bishop of Brescia.  
SAint Philastrius, Bishop of Brescia, who composed the Book of Heresies mentioned in the foregoing Century, dying in 386. in the Year 387, the Bishops of the Province, together with 
Gaudentius, Bishop of Brescia.  S. Ambrose, did, with the Consent of the people, choose for his Successor Gaudentius, who was gone to travel in the East; But fearing, lest he should abide in the East, dreading the Burden of the Episcopal Charge, they not only sent Deputies to him, with a Letter to desire his Return; but wrote a Letter besides to the Eastern Bishops to entreat them, that they would not admit him to the Communion, if he refused to come and govern the Diocese, of which he was chosen Bishop. Whereby Gaudentius found himself obliged to accept of that Charge, and being come back, was ordained by S. Ambrose and the Bishops of his Province.  
All these Circumstances are recorded in the Discourse which he made to them immediately after his Ordination. He was but young when they chose him, as he says in the same place. He was one of the Deputies sent to Constantinople in 404, or 405. by the Western Bishops, to demand S. John Chrysostom's Re-establishment in his See. Possibly he lived a great while afterwards.  
To this Bishop is attributed the Life of his Predecessor S. Philastrius, which Surius Printed upon the Eighteenth day of July. Yet I cannot believe that it is certainly his; but we find in the Bibliotheca Patrum Nineteen Instructions, or Sermons, which are unquestionably Genuine, and which he collected himself, to send them to one Benevolus, one of the most considerable Men in Brescia; who had formerly been Receiver of the Emperor's Memorials, and Injunctions, and who had quitted that Employment, that he might not be obliged to do any thing against his Conscience in obedience to the Empress Justina, who Countenanced the Arians, and persecuted S. Ambrose.  
This Benevolus was constant at Divine Service, and heard the Sermons of Gaudentius with Pleasure; but having been hindered by Sickness from hearing those which this Holy Bishop preached at Easter, he prayed him to commit them to writing; and to Answer the desire of this Man, the Holy Bishop did write his Sermons almost in the same words that he preached them: He joined to them four small Treatises upon some places of the Gospel, and a Fifth upon the Martyrdom of the Maccabees.  
As to the other Sermons which the Copyers writ as Gaudentius was preaching, he will not own them for his, fearing that there may be some Errors in them; this Gaudentius declares in the beginning of his Preface: Afterwards he comforts Benevolus in his Sickness, showing that God permits often, Saints and righteous Men to be afflicted with Poverty and Sicknesses, whereas he lets the wicked enjoy a perfect Health and much Wealth, because both Punishments and Rewards are reserved to the Day of Judgement: that in the mean time he inflicteth visible Chastisements upon the impious and refractory, to frighten others by their Punishments: but permits likewise the righteous to be afflicted for Three Reasons, 1. to Correct, 2. to Purify, and 3. to try them. The severity he useth towards them is a Fatherly severity. He sends them Afflictions, to manifest their Virtue both to Men and Angels, and so all the Sufferings of the righteous are either for their Profit, or for their Glory. Whosoever honoureth, and loveth God truly, thinks himself Happy in the midst of Tribulations, and blesseth God for all that happeneth to him.  
The first of those Sermons preached on Easter-Eve, is directed to the Catechumen that were to be baptised: He gins it with a thought that is rather subtle than solid, to give a Reason why Easter is celebrated in the Spring, after the ill Wether of Autumn, and the severity of Winter, and before the heat of Summer. It is, saith he, to show that Jesus Christ the Son of Righteousness, dissipates by his light the Darkness of Jewish Errors, and softens the hardness of the Heathens Hearts, preventing with his Beams, the hot Fire of the Judgement of the great Day. He adds, That the World having been created in the Spring, it is just that it should be repaired in the same Season. Afterwards he compareth the Christian's Passover with that of the Jews; and the deliverance of the People of Israel from Egypt through the Red Sea, with the Regeneration of Sinners, by the waters of Baptism.  
The Second Sermon is directed to the Novices: Gaudentius expoundeth in that instruction the Mystery of the Eucharist, which was hid from them till that time. He compares it with the Jews Paschal Lamb, taking notice that That was but the Figure, and not the real thing. Whereas in the truth of the New Law, it is the same Lamb dead for all; which being offered in all Churches, nourishes under the Mystery of Bread and Wine, those that offer it, gives life to them that have a lively Faith, and sanctifieth by Consecration those that consecrate the same. This is the Flesh of the Lamb, this is his Blood .... It is the same Lord Creator of all things, who having made Bread out of the Earth, forms his Body of this Bread, because he is able, and hath promised it. He who formerly changed Water into Wine, now changeth Wine into his Blood. Having expounded thus plainly the Mystery of the Eucharist, he speaks of the Dispositions that Men ought to be in to come to it: He findeth them all represented by the Ceremonies observed by the Jews in eating the Paschal Lamb; but his Similitudes are so far fetched, that one would hardly have observed them. For who can believe that the Leathern Girdle that the Israelites were girded withal, was a Figure of the Mortification of Sins? Who would imagine, that when they are forbidden to break a bone of the Lamb, the meaning is that the Scripture-precepts ought to be observed? And who can conclude from burning the remainders of the Lamb, that Men should consume by a lively Faith the doubts which they might have about the Eucharist. These Allegories, and suchlike in this place, are something forced, and I question whether many people can relish them. At last he exhorteth the new baptised strongly to believe that Mystery, and giveth Two mystical Reasons why Jesus Christ chose Bread and Wine to be the matter of that Sacrament.  
He prosecutes, in the Five following Sermons, his Lecture upon that place of Exodus, which speaketh of the Circumstances and Ceremonies wherewith the Jews offered the Paschal Lamb; and he applies them to the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross, and to what is done among Christians; and sometimes he draws from them some Moral instructions.  
The Eighth and Ninth are upon the Gospel of the Marriage in Cana of Galilee; He commendeth Virginity, reproving those at the same time who condemn Matrimony, and warneth Parents, that though they may inspire into their Children the love of Virginity, yet they cannot enjoin them the Vow of perpetual Continency. He maintains, that the Virgin Mary did not lose her Virginity in bringing Jesus Christ into the World. Both these Instructions are full of many Similitudes. He exhorteth the new baptised not to lose the Grace of their Baptism.  
The Tenth Instruction is upon Exodus; There he brings many Allegories upon the Passover, and upon the Lord's Day. He seems to be persuaded, that the World shall end after the accomplishment of Six thousand Years; and that those Dead who appeared after Christ's death, were of the number of those Righteous ones, whom the Soul of Christ, that descended into Hell, delivered in that day. These are the Ten Sermons which Gaudentius preached in Benevolus his absence during Easter holidays.  
The other Sermons are particular Tracts which he collected to join them to the foregoing. The First is upon the Sick of the Palsy, whom Jesus Christ cured on the Sabbath-day. The Second is upon Christ's Words, John 12. And now is the judgement: Which he expoundeth thus: The World is going to judge its Creator and Master. The Third is upon the Nativity of Jesus Christ, and of that patience wherewith he endured Judas his Treason. Upon occasion of this unhappy Apostle's covetousness, he exhorteth to Alms-deeds, which he makes no scruple of comparing with Baptism; saying, That as the Water of Baptism quenches Hell-fire, so abundance of Alms quenches the fire of Lust that remains after Baptism, or at least hinders it from breaking out into a Flame. He occasionally speaks by the buy against those who say they cannot fast, because they will not. He concludes with an Exhortation to love God and our Neighbour. This Sermon is better written and more useful than the others.  
The Fourth is about the sending of the Holy Ghost, and contains a curious Observation against such as pretend to fathom Mysteries. We ought to believe that God is what he hath revealed himself to be; his Actions are not to be examined with a rebellious Spirit, but to be admired with Faith. and Submission: For the Word of God is direct, and all his Actions are for the exercise of our Faith .... And so let us have a care of assaulting, if we may so speak, the Divine Mysteries with injurious Questions. Neither Scrupulousness nor Curiosity will help us to discover them, but only make us lose the Faith which leads to Salvation and Eternal life.  
The Fifth Sermon is in commendation of the Maccabees. Gaudentius endeavoureth to give reasons, Why Swine's flesh was forbidden to the Jews.  
The Sixth Sermon is that which he preached at his Ordination in the presence of S. Ambrose and the other Bishops. He speaks at first of the Violence that was used towards him to make him accept the Bishopric of Brescia. He commends his Predecessor Philastrius: He entreateth S. Ambrose, the first of the Bishops there, to speak in the Name of all the Bishops, as S. Peter the Prince of the Apostles speaketh for them all. He ends, desiring the Bishops to implore God's mercy, that he would assist him with the Virtue of the Holy Ghost to govern his Diocese well.  
The Seventh is a Panegyric upon the Forty Martyrs, for whose honour they had built a Church, to deposit their Relics. S. Gaudentius, who called many Bishops to that Feast, having spoken concerning the Relics of several Martyrs, which he had gathered; viz. those of S. John Baptist, S. Andrew, S. Thomas, S. Luke, S. Gervasius, S. Protasius, S. Nazarius, and the Ashes of the SS. Sisinnius and Alexander, who had lately suffered Martyrdom: He adds, that Travelling through Cappadocia, he found at Caesarea a Convent of Women, where S. Basil's Nieces were, who were so kind as to give him part of the Relics of the Forty Martyrs, left with them by their Uncle. He describeth afterwards those Saints Martyrdom, taken out of S. Basil's discourse; then he makes an end, saying, That the then consecrated Church being adorned with the Relics of so many Saints, was to bear the Name of an Assembly of Saints.  
The Eighth Discourse is a Letter to Germinius, wherein he explains the Parable of the Unjust Steward, related Luke 16. There he treateth chief of the Obligation to give Alms.  
The Last Discourse is likewise a Letter to a Deacon called Paul, to expound that notable place of S. John's Gospel, which the Arians did allege against the Divinity of Jesus Christ: My Father is greater than I Gaudentius there refutes Arius and the Arians with great earnestness; affirming, that this place is to be understood of Christ's human Nature.  
It is not necessary to give a Character of S. Gaudentius. He is sufficiently known by what we have said of him. His Style is plain and without affectation, full of forced Allegories, extraordinary Notions, and far-fetched Allusions. His Sermons are dry, barren, neither instructive nor moving in any considerable degree. In one word, they have not the strength, eloquence, beauty or exactness observed in the Sermons of those Greek Authors formerly mentioned.   

JOHN of Jerusalem.  
AFter the Death of S. Cyril, which happened in the Year 387, a Monk called John, a great Defender of Origen's Books, Opinions and Followers, succeeded in that See. S. Epiphanius 
John of Jerusalem.  being persuaded, that the Origenists were very dangerous Heretics, reproved him before several persons for taking their part. But instead of yielding to S. Epiphanius' admonition, John declared himself openly against him, and upbraided him as a Patron of the Anthropomorphites; that is, of those who affirmed that God had a Body. Soon after S. Epiphanius ordained Paulinianus, S. Jerom's Brother, out of his own Diocese, in that of Caesarea; and that gave John an occasion to complain of him, and to accuse him of violating the Canons. S. Epiphanius excused himself upon the account of the Custom of his Country; and observes in his Letter, that it was not this Ordination which most offended John, but that he was accused of being an Origenist. This Letter of S. Epiphanius was written in 392. S. Jerom was much engaged in the quarrel, and upholding S. Epiphanius' Party, was excommunicated of John, who used all his endeavours to expel him out of Palestine. On the other side, Ruffinus took John's part; so that this quarrel betwixt two zealous Bishops, being fomented by these two learned Men, grew to a great height in a little time. Count Archelaus endeavoured to accommodate the matter; and as they accused one another of Heresy, it was agreed, That for their Reconciliation, they should make a Confession of Faith; but John appearing not in the Assembly called for that purpose, the Accommodation was broke off.  
Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, informed of this Division, thought it his duty to endeavour to quiet it: Therefore he sent his Deacon Isidore for that end; who being already prepossessed in Origen's behalf, strengthened John's Party, and returned without effecting any thing; and only brought Theophilus a Letter from John, wherein he justified himself, and accused S. Epiphanius. This Letter having been spread in the West, obliged both S. Jerom and S. Epiphanius to write to Theophilus, that he should make haste to declare against the Origenists. This Bishop deferred for some time to make this Declaration, suspecting that S. Epiphanius was guilty of the Anthropomorphites Error, which he abhorred. But he found himself obliged to declare himself of a Party, by the Secession of certain Monks of Egypt, infected with the Anthropomorphites Error; who after they had read a Letter of this Bishop against that Doctrine, came in great fury to Theophilus with a design to kill him. Theophilus to appease them, made use of Jacob's words to Esau, I see your faces as the face of God. This persuading the silly Monks, that his Mind was altered, and that he really believed that God had a face, they were quieted. But they being persuaded that Origen was the greatest enemy of the Doctrine which they maintained, said unto him; If you be of this mind, then condemn Origen' s Books. This was the Reason (if we may believe the Historians of that time) for which Theophilus was forced to declare against that Author and his Party; at the time when Theophilus was fallen out with Isidore, the Long-brethrens and the other Monks of Nitria. He accused them of Origenism, and forced them to retire to Constantinople. All this while John of Jerusalem continued in his Opinion, and writ a Letter in favour of Ruffinus and of Origen, to Pope Anastasius. His enmity against S. Jerom lasted long, as we learn by a Letter of Pope Innocent; and he joined himself to Pelagius, and caused him to be absolved in the Council of Diospolis, as appears by the Letter which S. Augustin wrote to him. He died in 416.  
Gennadius saith that he writ a Book against his Adversaries; wherein he professed to admire the Wit, but not the Doctrine of Origen. That Discourse is lost.  
There is attributed to this Author a Treatise dedicated to Caprasius of the Institution of Monkery; but that visibly appears to be the work of a Latin Author, who composed it of purpose to prove, That the Order of the Carmelites, which began in the time of the Old Law, was very ancient in the Church, and that many Christians were of this Order in the Primitive Church. It is a heap of Fables, Visions and Dreams concerning Elias, and some other Prophets, whom this Author feigneth to have been Monks of Mount Carmel. But what is more surprising, is, that upon occasion of this supposed Book, there was a Carmelite that either had so little sense himself, or rather believed that others were so dull, as to attribute to the same Author several Books, which are either without the Name of an Author, or falsely ascribed to others; which he hath had the confidence to collect and publish at Brussels in Folio, ann. 1643, under the Name of John of Jerusalem's Works; as if this pretended Author must necessarily be the Father of all these unknown Children. But in one word; Though this famous 
* [Petrus Wastellus.]  Carmelite, who took the pains to collect them, hath bestowed a whole Volume to show that the Discourses contained in his First Volume, were truly written by John of Jerusalem, and hath endeavoured to justify them from all sorts of Errors; yet one may say that he hath done nothing less than what he promiseth in the Title, and that he hath filled that long and tedious Treatise with idle Conjectures, groundless Suppositions, manifest Falsehoods, or with Matters no ways pertinent to his Subject. So that this great Building failing at the foundation, is quickly fallen into ruin, and is become an object of Laughter to all persons that pretend to Learning.   

THEOPHILUS of Alexandria.  
THEOPHILUS was ordained Bishop in the Year 385, after the Death of Timotheus. We have already observed that he was a politic and daring Man. He took away the remains 
Theophilus of Alexandria.  of Idolatry in the City of Alexandria, by causing the Temples and Idols that were left to be pulled down, and by discovering to the People the Frauds and the Stratagems which the Idol-priests made use of to uphold their Superstition; having hollow Statues wherein Men were hid, who persuaded the People that the Statues spoke.  
This generous Action got Theophilus much credit and reputation, and gave him great power in Alexandria. The Council of Capua having referred to him the judgement of Flavian's business, he dealt very moderately with him; but he showed much partiality in the Ordination of S. Chrysostom; being desirous to have preferred Isidore to that See: However, they were friends in appearance for a while, and they united together to procure the Reconciliation of the Eastern with the Western Bishops. We have spoken before of his Carriage in the case of Origen, and the Origenists, of the policy of his Conduct, and the passion which he shown in the business of S. Chrysostom. There is no likelihood that he ever repent of the injustice and violence which he exercised against S. John Chrysostom: For though S. John Damascene saith, that when he was near death, he caused the Image of that Saint to be brought to him; yet one cannot affirm it upon a testimony of that nature, especially because S. Cyril his Successor, in the Church of Alexandria, persisted after his death to refuse to pay any honour to the Memory of this Saint, and to insert his Name into the Diptyches. It is more likely, that what is related in the Lives of the Fathers in the Desert, is true; viz. That this Bishop, being at the point of yielding up the Ghost, and reflecting upon the long Penance of S. Arsenius, cried out; O how happy art thou Arsenius, to have always had this hour before thine eyes! Which showeth, saith an Author of that time, that Monks who have quitted all the hopes of the World and of the Court, to mourn in the Wilderness, die more peaceably than the Archbishops that go out of their Dioceses, to disturb the peace of the Church by caballing at Court against the most innocent and holiest of their brethren. Yet S. Leo calls him Theophilus of happy Memory; not that he had an opinion of his Sanctity, but because dying in the Communion of the Church, that Title of Honour could not be denied him.  
He wrote, saith Gennadius, a large Treatise against Origen, wherein he condemns both his Writings and his Person, showing at the same time that he was not the first that condemned him, but that he had been excommunicated by the Ancients, and particularly by Heraclas. He composed another Book against the Anthropomorphites, who hold that God hath an humane shape, and members like unto ours: Wherein he refuteth their Opinions, and convinceth them by testimonies of Holy Scripture; proving, that God is of an incorruptible and spiritual Nature; whereas all Creatures are in their Nature's corruptible and subject to change. He likewise presented to Theodosius the Emperor a small Treatise concerning Easter, where he fixes the Day, and time of the Moon when it ought to be celebrated, according to the decision of the Council of Nice, adding some Observations touching the Solemnity of that Festival. This Cycle began in the Year 380, and determined Easter Day for 100 Years consecutively, as S. Leo assures us in the 94th. and 95th. Letters of the new Edition.  
Gennadius saith further, that he had read Three Books concerning Faith, that bore Theophilus his Name; but addeth, that he did not believe them to be his, because they are written in a different Style.  
S. Jerom mentions Five Epistles of Theophilus, which he had translated into Latin. The First was a Synodical Letter against Origen of the Year 399. The Second was a Paschal Epistle for the Year 401, and three other Paschal Epistles for the Years 402, 403, and 404. We have not the Two first, the other Three are among S. Jerom's Epistles. The First is divided into four Parts, according to the Observation of that Saint. In the First Theophilus exhorts the Faithful to celebrate the Feast of Easter worthily. In the Second and Third he speaks against Apollinarius. In the Last he adviseth Heretics to repent. In all the Three he shows his aversion to Origen, accusing him with great vehemence, of several Errors. It is observed in the Last that the Christians of that time forbore in Lent the Use of Wine and Meat. In these Discourses he intersperses some Moral Notions, and endeth all his Epistles with giving notice of the Day when Lent shall begin, and of Easter Day and Whit-sunday.  
We have besides, amongst S. Jerom's Epistles, Three Letters of Theophilus: One to S. Epiphanius, wherein he exhorts him to assemble a Council against Origen, and Two other Letters against the Origenists.  
There are some Greek Fragments of the Paschal Letters cited by Theodoret in the Council of Ephesus, and in that of Chalcedon, which are among those that we have, or else are taken out of other Letters of the same nature: For the Council of Ephesus quoteth a Sixth Paschal Letter; and Justinian in his writing against Origen, produces a great part of the Synodical Letter against Origen, and Two other fragments of a Letter, and of a Treatise directed to the Monks of Scheta.  
Facundus, l. 6. ch. 5. quoteth a Book of Theophilus against S. Chrysostom, full of Invectives and Calumnies against that Saint whereof he gives some Instances, which show how much Passion and Rage had blinded him.  
Lastly, One may see in Zonaras' and Balsamon's Collections some Laws and Canonical Letters of this same Bishop.  
The First is a Pastoral Letter; wherein he saith; that when Christmas Eve happens upon a Sunday, some light Meat may be eaten, that so we may not seem to follow the practice of Heretics, by eating nothing on the Sunday, and yet not to break the Law of Fasting altogether.  
The Second is a Letter containing some Rules for the Province of Lycopolis, directed to Ammon.  
The First concerneth those who had communicated with the Arian Bishops; he ordereth that they should be deposed, allowing them still leave to dwell in the place, and to be dealt with as was appointed by the Bishops of Thebais.  
The Second is upon the occasion of a Priest, who was ordained after he had committed a crime with a Woman that was divorced from her Husband. Theophilus determines that he ought to be Suspended from his Ministerial Function.  
The Third is concerning a Priest who had been excommunicated by his Bishop. Theophilus declares, that the Priest that was Excommunicated by his Bishop, aught to be esteemed Excommunicate till he had justified himself by the Law.  
The Fourth concerneth a Deacon, who was accused to have Married his Brother's Daughter. Theophilus saith, That if he Married her before Baptism, and had not co-habited with her since he was Baptised, he might continue in the Clergy; but if he had co-habited with her after Baptism, he ought to be degraded from the Clergy.  
In the Fifth that relateth to an Accusation brought against a Reader, Theophilus gives this Order; That if he be convicted of Fornication, he ought to be degraded; but if this Accusation is grounded only upon suspicion, no regard is to be had to it.  
In the Sixth he sets down a Rule to be observed in Ordinations; he saith, That the Bishop is to Ordain none, who is not chosen by the whole Clergy in the presence of the People; and that the Bishop is to give his Approbation before he can be Ordained.  
The Seventh appointeth, That whatsoever is left of the Offering after Communion, aught to be distributed to the Clerks, and to the Faithful, and none of it to the Catechumen.  
The Eighth is also concerning a Clerk that was accused of Fornication. Theophilus affirms, That if he be convicted of the Crime, he ought to be deposed; but if he gives a good account of his Behaviour, and it cannot be proved that he committed the Fact, they ought not to give him any trouble.  
The Ninth Canon is about choosing a new Steward in the Church.  
The Tenth enjoins, That the Poor, the Widows and the Pilgrims should not be disturbed, and that none should usurp the church-good.  
The Second Letter contains a Rule, whereby it is ordered conformably to the Canon of the Council of Nice, That the Novatians, who had a mind to come into the Church, might receive Ordination.  
The Third to Agatho, was written upon occasion of a person, who knowing not the Laws of the Church, had contracted an unlawful Marriage; and being censured for it, had left his Wife with her consent. He adviseth the Bishop to whom he writeth, to place them among the Catechumen, if he thought fit, and if he judged that they did it sincerely; otherwise he will have him deal more severely with them.  
The Last Letter is directed to Menna; where he forbids him to admit into the Communion of the Church, a Woman that had wronged another, before she had made reparation.  
Theophilus hath nothing in his Writings that can turn to his Commendation: They are dark, unintelligible, full of false Reasonings and Reflections, that do not concern his Subject. He was a good Politician, but an ill Author. He knew better how to manage a Court-intrigue, than to resolve a question of Divinity. The only Rule of his Opinions was his Interest or his Ambition. He was ready to embrace any Opinion or Party that could satisfy his Passion, without examining much whether it was just or reasonable.   

THEODORUS of Mopsuesta.  
THEODORUS, a Priest of Antioch, Diodorus and Flavian's Disciple, S. Chrysostom's Companion, and, as some have affirmed, Nestorius' Tutor, was chosen Bishop of Mopsuesta, 
Theodorus of Mopsuesta.  about the beginning of the Fifth Century of the Church. Many were the Works that he writ; but the misfortune which they had to be condemned with his Person, in the Fifth Council, by the Intrigues of Justinian the Emperor, caused them to be lost, except the Titles and Fragments that were collected either by his Accusers, or by his Defenders.  
It is probable that he writ Commentaries upon the whole Bible: Photius, Vol. 25th. of his Bibliotheca, saith, That he had read a Commentary of Theodorus upon Genesis, divided into Seven Parts. Facundus and the Fifth General Council mention Commentaries of Theodorus upon the Psalms, the Book of Job, the Canticles, the Twelve lesser Prophets, the Gospels of S. Matthew, S. John and S. Luke, upon the Acts, the Epistle to the Romans, and upon the Epistle to the Hebrews. In these Commentaries he insisted most upon the Historical sense, avoiding all Allegories: He writ a Book likewise to justify that way of expounding the Scripture, entitled, Of Allegory and of History against Origen, quoted by Facundus. Photius observeth further, That Theodorus' Commentaries are full of frequent Repetitions; that they are tedious, and unpleasant to read. The first of his Commentaries is that upon the Psalms; he saith himself, that it was the most imperfect and least exact. In his Commentary upon Job, he says, That though the History of Job be true at the bottom, yet it is written in a fabulous way: He observeth besides, when he Comments upon the Book of Canticles, that it is a difficult thing to write an useful Commentary upon that Book; and that it was forbidden both among the Jews, and among the Christians to read it publicly, since in all probability it was a Nuptial Song, though it is to be understood of the Love of Wisdom.  
The other Treatises of this Author were very long, and very numerous: When he was young he composed a large Work of the Incarnation against the Apollinarists and Anomaeans, divided into Fifteen Books, which, according to his own Testimony, contained above Fifteen Thousand Verses; wherein he shown, saith Gennadius, by convincing proofs; and by testimonies of the Scripture, (for he speaketh of Theodorus, in the 12th. Chapter of his Book, concerning Ecclesiastical Writers,) That in Jesus Christ there is the fullness both of the Divinity and of the Humanity; That Man is made of two Substances, the Soul and the Body; That Sense and Understanding are not separate Substances, but Faculties of the Soul. The Fourteenth Book is concerning the Trinity: But in discoursing of uncreated Nature, he treateth also of Creatures. The Last Book contains many Quotations out of the Fathers, to confirm his Doctrine by the Authority of Tradition. Some considerable Fragments of this Treatise of the Incarnation are cited by Facundus, and in the Fifth Council.  
He wrote besides Five and Twenty Books against Eunomius, in defence of S. Basil's Books, mentioned by Photius in the 25th. Volume of his Bibliotheca; some whereof are cited by Facundus, and in the Fifth Council: Four Books against Apollinarius; A Book entitled The mystical Book▪ A Treatise to those that had been Baptised; Two Letters to Artemius of Alexandria; An Epistle to Cerdo upon the Interpretation of the Psalms; Five Books of the Creature; Five other Books to show that God permitted Sin, because it is for Men's advantage; which are all cited by Facundus, and in the Fifth Council; And Three Books of the Magic of the Persians, directed to a Suffragan Bishop of Armenia, mentioned by Photius in the 81st. Volume of his Bibliotheca; where he saith, That Theodorus in the First of those Three Books, explains that abominable Axiom of the Persians, introduced by Zarades; whereby Zarovas, the God of Fortune, for the first principle of all things, from whom they suppose Oromazus to be descended, by whom they mean the Evil Genius or Satan; That when he had given an account of that Doctrine, which was as base as it is impious; he refuteth it in the same Book. In the Two last Books he treateth of the True Religion; and having begun with the World's Creation, he falls insensibly upon the Law of Grace.  
The Fifth Council attributes to Theodorus of Mopsuesta, Charisius' Creed that was produced in the Council of Ephesus: But Facundus says, That it was none of his, and that it was an injury to him to ascribe it to him.  
Theodorus of Mopsuesta was charged with several Heresies after his Death; and particularly, that he was Nestorius' Tutor; and that he taught in his Writings those Errors, which since bear the Name of that Heresiarch. This personal Accusation occasioned a great Contest, that was agitated with much heat in the beginning of the Sixth Century. Justinian caused this Author to be condemned in the Fifth General Council, in despite of Vigilius, who defended him. He would have obliged all the Bishops to subscribe that Condemnation; but some refused to do it, and undertook to plead for Theodorus. Facundus, Bishop of Hermiana, a City in Africa, proved one of his most zealous Defenders, and composed Twelve Apologetical Books for him; wherein he endeavoureth to justify him fully of all the Accusations that were form against him. This is not a fit place to examine that Question, which we shall handle at large hereafter, when we come to speak of the Fifth Council, and of Facundus' Books: And so instead of examining the Doctrine of Theodorus Mopsuestenus, I shall only give some Remarks upon his Style and way of Writing▪ His Style, if Photius may be credited, is neither lofty nor clear; he is full of tedious Repetitions, but he brings strong Proofs, and hath the Scriptures very ready at command: This judgement of Photius is confirmed by the Fragments of his Writings that are extant: His Style is perplexed and diffuse, no clearness in it, but the Notions are solid and exact enough: He thought and spoke with ease: He despised allegorical and mystical Interpretations of Scripture; but insisted much upon Moral Heads, and made it his main business to set forth the History, and expound the Prophecies.  
Here is a Catalogue of the Latin Fragments of this Author, set down in the Fifth General Council; and by Facundus, which may be consulted to judge both of his Doctrine and of his Style.  

WORKS of THEODORUS of Mopsuesta, cited by Facundus, by the Fifth Council, col. 4. by Photius and Gennadius.  

Commentaries upon the Holy Scripture.  
SEven Volumes upon Genesis, 5. Conc. collat. 4. cap. 62. Photius cod. 25.  
Upon the Psalms, Facund. l. 9 c. 1. p. 131, 132. l. 6. cap. 3. 5. Conc. c. 19 23, 24.  
Upon Job, 5. Concil. c. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67.  
Upon the Canticles, 5. Concil. cap. 68, 69, 70, 71.  
Upon the Twelve minor Prophets, Conc. 5. cap. 20, 21, 22.  
Upon S. Matthew, Facund. l. 3. c. 4. p. 43. l. 9 c. 2. p. 132. Concil. 5. cap. 26. 40, 51, 52, 55.  
Upon S. Luke, Conc. 5. c. 58.  
Upon S. John, Facund. l. 9 c. 3. p. 135. Conc. 5. c. 13, 14, 15, 33, 34.  
Upon the Acts, Conc. 5. c. 16.  
Upon the Epistle to the Romans, l. 6. c. 3. p. 46.  
Upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, Conc. 5. c. 32, 46.   

Treatises against Heretics.  
THree Books of the Magic of the Persians, Photius, cod. 81.  
Fifteen Books of the Incarnation. The 13th. is cited by Facund. l. 3. c. 2. p. 38. The 5th. the 6th. the 10th. the 12th. the 15th. l. 9 c. 3. p. 135, 136, 137, 138, 139. They are all cited l. 10. c. 1, etc. The 6th. p. 149. and 159. The 14th. is cited Conc. 5. c. 17. 54. The 1st. c. 25. c. 27. The 8th. c. 29. the 7th. c. 30. the 12th. c. 43, 47, 48. The 2d. cap. 49, 50. The 13th. in the 53. Gennad. c. 12.  
Twentyfive Books against Eunomius. The 10th. is cited by Facund. l. 9 c. 3. p. 139. Photius, cod. 4.  
Four Books against Apollinarius. The 3d. is cited by Facundus, l. 3. c. 2. p. 37. Conc. 5. c. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12. The 1st. is cited, l. 10. c. 1. p. 149. The 4th. is cited Conc. 5. c. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.  
Five Books of the Creature, Conc. 5. c. 56. and 61.  
Five Books concerning God's permitting Sin, Conc. 5. c. 57, 58, 59, 60.  
A Treatise to those who were to be baptised. Facund. l. 9 c. 3. p. 135. Conc. 5. c. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42.  
A Mystical Book, Fac. l. 3. p. 37. citeth the 13th. Book of this Work.  
A Treatise of History and Allegory against Origen. Fac. l. 3. c. 5. p. 46.  
Two Letters to Artemius, Fac. l. 3. c. 5. p. 45.  
A Letter to Cerdon. Fac. l. 1. c. 1. p. 150.  
Symbolum Charisii, Act. 6. Synodi Ephes. Fac. l. 3. c. 2. and 5. p. 39, and 44. Conc. 5. Act. 4.     

PALLADIUS.  
PALLADIUS, Originally of Galatia, Evagrius his Disciple, left his Country at Twenty Years of Age, in the Year 388 
a In the Year 388.] What he saith in his Preface, and at the beginning of the Historia Laufiaca, determines, th● Chronology of this Author's Life. He says at the beginning of the History, that he went into Egypt under the Second Consulship of Theodosius, which was in the Year 388. And in the Preface, he saith, That he had been a Monk 33 Years, and 20 Years a Bishop, and that he was 53 Years old. He was therefore 20 Years old when he left his Country to become Monk. He was Ordained Bishop in 401, and wrote his History in 421. , and went into Egypt, to learn of the Monks of that place the Exercises of the Monastic life. Being arrived at Alexandria, he addressed himself 
Palladius.  to Isidore to be advised by him; who committed him to the Conduct of a Monk, who lived in a Cave near Alexandria. But Palladius not being able to undergo the Austerities practised by that Monk, was forced to leave him; but nevertheless he continued three Years in the Monasteries about Alexandria: afterwards he undertook to visit those of Nitria and Thebais, and he stayed a great while in those solitary places: But falling sick of a dangerous Distemper, he returned to Alexandria, and put himself into the hands of the Physicians there, who advised him to go into Palestine, where the Air might agree with him better. From Palestine he came to Bythinia, where he was ordained Bishop of Helenopolis in 401. Being one of S. Chrysostom's Friends, when that Saint was condemned, he was obliged to retire to the West, and returning to the East with the Deputies of the Western Bishops, he was put into Prison, and fent back with them. From the Bishopric of Helenopolis, he was translated to that of Aspuna 
b Bishop of Aspuna] Socrates Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 36. reckons him amongst the translated Bishops, and saith, that he went from Helenopolis to Aspuna. ; a City of Galatia under the Metropolitan of Ancyra. He was Ruffinus his Friend, and defended Origen, sided with Pelagius, and opposed S. Jerom. He writ in the Year 421. an History of the Life, Actions, Miracles, and Discourses, of the holiest Monks that he had seen in Egypt, Libya, Thebais, and Palestine. It is Dedicated to one Lausus, wherefore it has had the Name of Historia Lausiaca. This Relation, (as most other Works of this Nature) contains many extraordinary things. Among several Examples of sound Virtue, and useful Reflections, one may find childish Sentences, Examples dangerous to be followed, enormous Austerities, unreasonable Practices, and rash Undertake: The Style of this History is flat, a mere Relation without Ornament or Order; it was Printed in Latin, in the Lives of the Fathers by Rosweidus, and in the Bibliotheca Patrum: The Greek was published by Meursius, and Printed at Amsterdam in the Year 1616. It is Printed likewise in Greek and Latin, in the Supplement to the Bibliotheca Patrum, in 1624. Cotelerius added some Greek Supplements in the last Volume of the Monuments of the Greek Church, Pag. 117, 158.  
This same Palladius is thought to be the Author of S. Chrysostom's Life, and it is very likely. For, 1. The Style of that work is like that of the Historia Lausiaca. 2. Palladius Author of the Historia Lausiaca was S. Chrysostom's Friend, and persecuted upon his Account. 3. It is certain, that the Author of S. Chrysostom's Life was called Palladius, and that he lived in the beginning of the Fifth Century. But there is no Palladius. known besides this. 4. It is manifest, that the Writer of S. Chrysostom's Life, was of the same party, and in the same Interest and Sentiments with Palladius of Helenopolis. 5. The Author of S. Chrysostom's Life is called Bishop of Helenopolis, in a Greek Catalogue of the Authors, that wrote S. Chrysostom's Life mentioned by Sir Henry Savile. The Greek Title of that Dialogue in the Florence Manuscript, which is Six hundred years old, beareth the Name of Palladius of Helenopolis; and it is observed in the Margin, that he was Bishop of Aspuna. Lastly, Diodorus of Trimithus saith, That the Author of S. Chrysostom's Life was Bishop in Bythinia. Yet some Conjectures seem to prove, that Palladius Author of S. Chrysostom's Life, and Paladius of Helenopolis are two different Persons: For, 1. The Writer of S. Chrysostom's Life speaks of the Voyage of Palladius of Helenopolis to Rome, as preceding his. 2. He speaks as if he writ the Dialogue which relates that Life, whilst Palladius of Helenopolis was detained Prisoner in the East: Lastly, Palladius of Helenopolis was but Thirty nine years old when S. Chrysostom died, whereas the Author of the Dialogue makes Theodorus speak of him as of an ancient Bishop. These Reasons persuaded Bigotius, that Palladius Author of that Dialogue, was not Palladius. Disciple to Evagrius. Yet it is easy to Answer; That Palladius feigned these things, after the Custom of Dialogists, perhaps to hid himself the better, being unwilling to be known to be the Author of that Treatise. However, this History is composed in the form of a Dialogue held at Rome, betwixt Theodorus Deacon of Rome and Bishop Palladius. It contains S. Chrysostom's Condemnation, the History of his Life, and a Justification of the Accusations that were brought against him. It is written with great Plainness, but with much Exactness and Truth. It was formerly translated by Ambrose Camaldulensis, but his Version was not sincere. Bigotius having since found a Manuscript in the Library of Florence, which contained the Greek Original of that Dialogue, caused it to be Printed, with a new Version on the side, composed with all the Fidelity and Exactness that can be expected from so able a Man. This Volume is Printed in Quarto at Paris by Martin, Ann. 1680.   

P. INNOCENT I.  
POpe Innocent succeeded to Pope Anastasius in the Year 402. and governed the Church of Rome till 417. This Pope being consulted from all parts, upon divers Questions, both of 
P. Innocent.  Doctrine and of Discipline, was put upon writing of Letters, which conte●… very useful Rules and most judicious Decisions.  
The first Letter, which should have been one of the last, since it was not written before 416. is an Answer to Decentius Bishop of Eugubium a City of Umbria in Italy, upon several Questions put to him by that Bishop.  
The Preface of that Epistle, setteth forth the advantage of the City of Rome. He pretends that if all Churches had held the Practices which they received from the Apostles, they had all agreed in the same Discipline, and that all the difference, which so much scandalizeth the People, is caused by the Deviation from the Apostles Tradition. Upon this Principle he concludes, That they ought every where to observe the Discipline which Rome received of S. Peter, and which it hath always kept. Especially, saith he, because it is evident, that the Churches of Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, and other Islands that are between Italy and Africa, have been settled by the Bishops whom S. Peter or his Successors sent thither.  
Tho' this Pope lays down these Maxims as indubitable, yet are they not without Difficulty; and it would have been hard for him to have proved them well: for what Evidence is there to justify, that the Apostles settled all Points of Discipline themselves? and how can we know that they established them all after the same manner? On the contrary is it not certain, that S. John celebrated the Feast of Easter in the East, upon other days than Sundays, tho' probably both S. Peter and S. Paul did the contrary at Rome? And had the Apostles settled the same Usages, and Ceremonies in all the Churches which they founded, would it therefore follow, that there is a necessity of observing them? Do not all Men know, that Discipline may and is to alter according to the various Circumstances of time? And what Proof is there, that the Church of Rome hath preserved the Discipline settled by S. Peter, better than other Churches have kept that which was given them by other Apostles their Founders. Is there any certainty that the Churches of France, Spain, and Africa, were all founded by those whom S. Peter, or his Successors sent thither? And Lastly, where is the necessity to oblige them all to change their Rites and Customs, to embrace those of the Church of Rome? Many such Queries may be made upon this Principle of Pope Innocent, which could not easily be resolved. But an Italian Bishop his Suffragan, could not in reason propose such Difficulties; he ought to conform to the Discipline of his Metropolis. He had often been at Rome, and present at the public Service, and so might well be acquainted with the Ceremonies practised there. That was sufficient to instruct, and oblige him to reform the Abuses of his own Church: Yet he advised with Pope Innocent; and the Pope thought fit to make him an Answer, not so much to instruct him, as to teach, advise, and reprove with the greater Authority those that receded from the Customs of the Church of Rome, and even to impose them if they would not yield to his Admonitions.  
In the first Canon he declares, That the Blessing is not to be given before the Consecration of the Holy Mysteries; That so it may be as a Sign and Token, that the People approve of the Consecration of the Mysteries.  
The Second enjoins that those who are to be recommended in the Service of the Eucharist be not named, before Their offering be presented.  
The Third forbids Priests to confirm Children, because they have not the Sovereignty of the Priesthood: That they may Baptise, and Anoint the baptised with the Oil that is consecrated by the Bishop, but not lay it upon their Foreheads; because this is allowed to none but Bishops, when they confer the Holy Ghost: He declares that he cannot recite the words, for fear of discovering the Mysteries, if he would answer the advice that was required of him.  
In the Fourth Canon he pretends to give an evident Reason of the Saturday's Fast, by saying, that as all Sundays are kept with joy in remembrance of the Resurrection, and as they fast every Friday, because of the Passion of Jesus Christ. So they should fast likewise upon Saturday, as being between the day of sorrow and that of rejoicing, and the rather because the Apostles mourned all that day. In a word, that since holy Saturday is a Fasting day, all other Saturdays should be such in remembrance of that Day. He observeth that in his time the Divine Mysteries were not celebrated either upon Fridays or Saturdays.  
The Fifth Canon is obscure enough. S. Innocent saith there, that it was to no purpose for Decentius to consult him concerning the leavened Bread, which the Bishop of Rome sent every Sunday to the Parish-Priests in the City of Rome, after he had consecrated it, because his Custom could not concern the Country Parishes, for as much as the Sacraments ought not to be carried far, quia non longe portanda sunt Sacramenta: Wherefore, addeth he, we do not send them to Priests in distant Parishes, because they have Power to consecrate.  
The Sixth declares, that a Priest may not lay hands upon an Energumen, without leave from the Bishop, but that he may if the Bishop gives him Commission to do it.  
In the Seventh it is enjoined, that those who have done Penance should be reconciled upon Holy Thursday, whether they were Guilty of great Crimes, or of lesser Offences, except some 
P. Innoc. I.  Distemper requireth another time: And to judge of Repentance, regard must be had to the Pains, mourning and tears of the Penitent, and his Sin must be remitted, if it appears that he hath made a proportionable satisfaction.  
The Eighth is about the Anointing of the Sick, spoken of in the Epistle of S. James. Innocent saith, that the words of the Apostle are without Question to be understood of the Sick that are faithful, that these may be Anointed with the Oil that is consecrated by the Bishop, and the use of this is not peculiar to Priests only, but all Christians may anoint themselves, and those that belong to them in Case of necessity: that it is not necessary that the Bishop should make this Unction; that it should not be administered to Penitents, because it is a kind of Sacrament, and since other Sacraments are denied, they have no right to this.  
He concludeth with an Exhortation to Decentius, that he should cause the Discipline of the Church of Rome to be observed in his Church, and to instruct the Priests and Clerks under his Care well, that so they might discharge their Ministry worthily.  
The Second Letter was written in 404. to Victricius Bishop of Roven, who likewise asked Questions about points of Discipline. It gins also with the Praises of the Roman Discipline; he exhorts him to send this Letter to his Brethren, that they might learn what Rules they were to follow.  
This Preface is followed by Thirteen Canons.  
The First agreeable to the Decision of the Council of Nice, forbids a Bishop to be ordained without the Consent of the Metropolitan of the Province: declaring farther, that one Bishop alone cannot Ordain.  
The Second prohibits the admitting of those into the Clergy, that have been Soldiers after they were baptised.  
The Third allows a Synod of the provincial Bishops to take Cognizance of all Causes relating to the Persons of Clerks and Bishops, according to the Decree of the Nicene Council; but he addeth, Yet without prejudice to the Rights of the Roman Church, to which great regard is to be had in all Causes. And if they be Causae Majores, devolved to the Holy See, they are not to be brought hither nor judged; before Judgement is given by the Bishops of the Province.  
The Fourth forbids to admit into Orders, a Person that has married a Widow, or a Woman that is divorced from her Husband.  
The Fifth extends this Prohibition, even to those that have married such a Woman before Baptism.  
He confirmeth the same Law in the Sixth, with respect to those that have been twice married.  
The Seventh forbids Bishops to ordain Clerks of the faithful of another Church, except the Bishop of that Church permits it.  
The Eighth ordaineth, that the Novatians and Donatists be received by the sole Imposition of hands; because that tho' they were baptised by Heretics, yet were they baptised in the Name of Jesus Christ. He addeth, That if any Catholics being entered into their Sect, were baptised, and are willing to return to the Bosom of the Church, they must be put to a long Penance, before they be admitted.  
The Ninth is concerning the Celibacy of Priests and Deacons.  
The Tenth forbids the Monks that were ordained Clerks, to leave their way of living.  
In the Eleventh, the Officers of the Emperor, and such as are in public Employments, are not to be admitted into Orders.  
The Twelfth prohibits the admitting of those Virgins that being solemnly consecrated to God, Married, or were corrupted, to Penance, before the Death of the person with whom they have committed the Crime, For, saith he, if a Woman, who during the Life of her Husband marrieth another is an Adulteress, and is not admitted to do Penance before the Death of one of them, with how much more reason should the same rigour be observed towards her, who being united to an immortal Husband, went over to an humane Marriage?  
The Thirteenth enjoins a Penance of some time to the Virgins that Mary, after promising Virginity, tho' they had not solemnly been veiled by the Bishop.  
Pope Innocent finishes his Letter, saying, that if these Canons were observed by the Bishops, there would be no more Ambition among them, Divisions would cease, Schisms, and Heresies would be stifled, and the Devil would have no occasion to assault the Flock of Jesus Christ, etc.  
The Third Epistle of the same Nature with the two former, is written in 405. to Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse.  
In the First Canon of this Letter, he confirms Siricius his Law concerning the Celibacy Priests and Deacons; yet he forgiveth those who through Ignorance observed it not, upon condition that they shall continue in that Order, and not be admitted to an higher. But he ordains that those should be degraded who violated it knowingly.  
The Second Canon relates to Sinners, who stay till the hour of Death to desire Penance: Pope Innocent saith, that they were dealt withal after two different manners. That the ancient Discipline was more severe, because Penance was granted them without allowing them the Communion: but in his time, it was administered to dying Men, that they might not imitate the hardness of Novatian. These last words with several others that are in the Text of that Canon, manifest that by the word Communion, is not to be understood the Administration of the Eucharist: but Absolution.  
The Third Canon exempts those from Penance, that condemned any Persons to Death, who put any to the Rack, or were obliged by their Office to condemn the guilty to any Punishment, because the civil Powers, saith this Pope, are established by God for the Punishment of Criminals.  
The Fourth Canon gives a Reason why more Women do Penance for Adultery than Men. Pope Innocent saith, That the Christian Religion punisheth this Sin equally both in Men and Women, but Wives not being able to accuse their Husbands of this Crime, the Bishop cannot pass Judgement upon secret Sins, whereas Husbands do more freely accuse their Wives, and discover them to the Priests.  
The Fifth excuses those who by their Office are obliged to demand the Death of a Criminal, or to condemn him.  
The Sixth ordaineth, that those should be put out of the Church, both Men and Women, that Mary again after a Divorce; but this penalty is not to extend to their Kindred and Allies, except they contributed to that forbidden Marriage.  
The last Canon contains a Catalogue of the Sacred Books, comprehending all the Books both of the Old and of the New Testament, which we now own for Canonical: He rejects the Acts published under the Names of S. Mathias, S. James the Less, S. Peter and S. John, S. Andrew, S. Thomas, and suchlike.  
The Fourth Letter, without Date, is directed to Felix, Bishop of Nuceria. Having commended that Bishop for ask his advice about some Doubts; he tells him in the First Canon, That those are not to be admitted into Orders, who voluntarily have dismembered themselves. In the Second, That it is forbidden to Ordain such as have been married twice, or have married Widows. In the Third, That those must not be Ordained that have been Soldiers; that have pleaded at the Bar, or have born Offices at Court. In the Fourth, That those of the Laity are to be chosen, who are Baptised, of approved Morals, who have spent their Time with Clerks, or in Monasteries, and who have kept no Concubines. Lastly, in the Sixth, he commands the Observation of the Interstitia; [i. e. the Times between every Ordination, upon any promotion from lesser to higher Orders,] that they Ordain no Man a Reader, an Acolyth, a Deacon or a Priest of a sudden; that so having been long in the inferior Degrees, his Behaviour and Conduct may be tried.  
In the Fifth Letter, directed to Two Bishops of Abruzzo, he bids them depose the Priests that were accused of having had Children since their Ordination, if they be convicted of that crime: He observes in the beginning, that a Bishop ought not to be ignorant of the Canons.  
The Sixth is to some Bishops of Apulia: He enjoins One Bishop to be deposed, though he had done public Penance: He reproacheth them with allowing many things to be done in their Province contrary to the Canons, which might easily have been corrected, if Bishops themselves were not Authors of such Disorders.  
The Seventh is directed to the Bishops of Macedonia about Two Bishops, Bubalius and Taurianus, who had caused the Judgement that was given against them to be re-viewed again, and falsely boasted of having a Letter from P. Innocent, written in their behalf.  
In the Eighth he exhorteth Florentius, Bishop of Tivoli, to restore to his Brother Bishop a Parish which he had taken from him.  
The Ninth declareth, That a Man who married another Woman, while his Wife was in captivity, aught to return to the former; because a Second Marriage cannot be lawful, except the former Wife be dead, or separated by Divorce.  
The Tenth is a Letter of Compliment to Aurelius and S. Augustin.  
The Eleventh to Aurelius is touching the determining of Easter-Day the following Year.  
The Twelfth directed to the same, is upon the choice which they should make of Bishops; he will have them to be chosen from the Clergy, and not from the Laity.  
The Thirteenth is to Juliana, a Lady, whose Devotion he commendeth.  
The Fourteenth to Bonifacius, and those that follow, were written Anno 413, after Alexander, Bishop of Antioch, had inserted again the Name of S. Chrysostom into the Diptyches. Innocent writeth to Bonifacius, that he had admitted that Bishop to his Communion, upon condition that he should not disturb those that were Ordained by Evagrius, and that he should put S. Chrysostom's Name among those Bishops whose Memory was celebrated.  
The Fifteenth is directed to Alexander, Bishop of Antioch; wherein he congratulates their Reconciliation.  
In the Sixteenth to Maximianus, he saith, that he had not yet communicated with Atticus of Constantinople, because he had not performed the Conditions, without which there could be no peace.  
The Seventeenth subscribed by Twenty Italian Bishops, is directed to the same Evagrius, whom he commendeth for reuniting the remainders of Paulinus and Evagrius' Party.  
The Eighteenth to the same, consists of Three Canons; in the first, he extolleth the Dignity of the Church of Antioch, that he may magnify that of Rome the more; saying, That according to the Authority of the Council of Nice, which gives the Sense of all the Bishops in the World, the Church of Antioch had Jurisdiction over a whole Diocese; That this Authority was not granted to it, because of the greatness of the City of Antioch, but because it had been the first Seat of S. Peter; And that it deserved that the most solemn Assembly of the Apostles should be made there: So that it had not given place to the Church of Rome; but only for this reason, That the latter had the End and Consummation of that which the former had but an occasional enjoyment of: And by reason of this Dignity, he tells the Bishop of Antioch, That as he Ordaineth the Metropolitans by an Authority peculiar to him, he ought not to suffer that other Bishops should be Ordained without his leave and consent, by writing to the Bishops that are afar off, and causing them that are near to come to him for Ordination.  
In the second Canon he saith, That two Bishops are not to be made Metropolitans, when Towns are newly erected into Metropoles at the same time, upon the dividing of a Province into Two by the Emperor. He speaketh afterwards against the Custom of the Bishops of the Isle of Cyprus, who ordained Bishops without consulting with the Bishop of Antioch.  
In the Last he affirms, That the Arians returning to the Church, are to be admitted with imposition of hands; but their Clergy are not permitted to continue in the Ministry of the Church.  
The Nineteenth, directed to Acacius of Beraea, is upon the Reconciliation with Alexander of Antioch.  
In the Twentieth, he writes to Lucianus, Bishop of Signi, to stop some Meetings of the Photinians in his Diocese.  
The Twenty-first, directed to Martinianus, a Bishop in Macedonia, is written from Ravenna. He writeth to that Bishop, that he should not refuse his Communion to some Clerks, who were Ordained by Bonosus, but had abjured his Error. He saith, that he had already written a Letter to Rufus, and other Bishops of Macedonia; wherein he gave his judgement, That they were to be received to the Communion, and left in possession of their Churches.  
This Letter is probably the Two and Twentieth, which consequently ought to be set before the foregoing; it beareth date from the Year 414, and is directed to Rufus and other Bishops of Macedonia. He tells them in the beginning, that he was much surprised by a Letter directed to the See of Rome, as the chiefest of all Churches, because they consulted him about things that had no difficulty; and concerning which, he had plainly declared his Opinion. One of those things is the Ordination of such as had married Widows. P. Innocent saith, That there is no dispute that they should not be Ordained; and affirms, that it was the practice of all, both Eastern and Western Churches; Nay, he would have those to be degraded, who are found to be in Orders. The Second is concerning those, who having lost a former Wife, being yet unbaptised, had married a Second after Baptism. Some were of opinion, that this kind of Bigamy did not hinder them from being admitted into Sacred Orders. P. Innocent allegeth several Reasons to prove that such a practice is not to be followed.  
The Third Rule is touching the Ordinations by Heretics. P. Innocent scruples not to allege the same passages, and the same expressions, used by S. Cyprian, to prove the invalidity of their Baptism, to show the nullity of their Ordination: For he saith, That as many as are thus Ordained, having their Heads wounded with the Imposition of Heretical Hands, had need of Penance for their remedy; and that such as need Penance, ought not to be Ordained: That Heretics having not true Orders, cannot confer Orders: That they cannot make those on whom they lay their Hands, partakers of any thing but of the Condemnation that themselves are subject to. After this Observation, he refutes the false Principle of such as believed, that a lawful Bishop's Ordination remitted all Sins. He saith, that the custom of his Church was, to grant Lay-communion, after a single Imposition of Hands, to those who, having been baptised by Heretics, desired to enter into the Church; but that those were obliged to do Penance, who returned to the bosom of the Church, after they had quitted it, to enter into a Sect of Heretics. He blameth those who not only do not put them under Penance, but also suffer them to continue in their Ministry.  
Afterwards he frames some Objections against this Rule. The First is the Law made by Anysius, concerning those whom Bonosus Ordained; whereby he permitted, that they should be received into the Church with their Orders. P. Innocent answers, That this example is of no consequence, because they made use of this Condescension in favour of those that were Ordained by Bonosus, to prevent several Bishops from persisting to follow his Party. That this particular Exigency of the Church obliged them to transgress the Rules; but when the Necessity ceaseth, they ought to return to the Law.  
The Second Objection is grounded upon the Canon of the Council of Nice, which permits the receiving of the Novatians. P. Innocent saith, That this Canon relates to Novatians' only, and is not to be extended to other Heretics. He adds, That in this Canon the business is about Baptism; and that the Council ordains that the Paulianists should be rebaptized, because they baptised not in the Name of the Holy Trinity; whereas the Novatians baptised as the Catholics did, in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And Lastly, He declareth that this Rule concerneth those that were baptised by Heretics; but as to those who were baptised in the Church, and embraced an Heretical Sect, if they recover from their Apostasy, they ought undoubtedly to be put to public Penance; and having done Penance, they can never come into the Clergy. Whence he concludes, That those who left the Church after Bonosus was condemned, to join with him, and received Orders from Heretics, are not to keep their Dignity, nor to be Ordained, when they return again to the Church. Wherefore he exhorteth the Macedonian Bishops to reform that abuse; telling them, That they ought not to allow that in time of Peace, which Necessity commanded to be done in time of Trouble; That it often happens that a fault remains unpunished, because a whole People is guilty of it. Upon such occasions, what is past must be left to God's Judgement, and care must be taken to prevent the like disorders for the time to come. All this is the consequence of the same Third Canon, though it be divided into Four.  
The Last Canon is concerning a Bishop, one Photinus, who had been condemned by the See of Rome with too much rigour. P. Innocent approves of the Admonition of the Macedonian Bishops; but saith, That the See of Rome was misinformed and deceived by the Calumnies of his Enemies. He owns him for a Bishop, and commends the others for informing him better, and desireth them to show kindness to a Deacon called Eustathius.  
The Twenty-third Letter is directed to the Spanish Bishops that were assembled in Council at Toledo. It is about particular affairs of the Churches in that Kingdom. The First Canon takes notice of a kind of Schism among the Bishops of Boetica, and of other Spanish Provinces, who had given the Communion to those of Gallicia. P. Innocent proves that Lucifer's Severity was not to be imitated, in refusing to admit converted Heretics; but, on the contrary, that all possible means should be used to cause them to return into the bosom of the Church.  
The Second Canon is against two Bishops who ventured to Ordain out of their Dioceses.  
The Third Canon is concerning one Bishop John, who by his Deputies had approved the Condemnation of Symphosius and Dictinius. P. Innocent's Opinion is, That his Case ought to be examined, as well as that of the others, to know whether he had acted with Sincerity.  
In the Fourth he speaks of irregular Ordinations practised in Spain, contrary to the Canons: He says, That they are so many, that it were impossible to apply a Remedy; and so he thinks it convenient to leave what is passed to God's Judgement: But for the future to establish a Rule, That whosoever shall Ordain contrary to the Canons, shall be deprived of the Sacerdotal Dignity, together with those that received Orders.  
The Fifth is concerning a business of Patruinus, Bishop of Merida, which, he saith, aught to be examined, and those punished that complain of his Ordination, if they had unjustly accused him.  
The Sixth containeth Rules to be observed in the choice of fit persons to be Ordained.  
To understand well the Three following Letters of Pope Innocent; it is to be noted, That the Bishops of Africa and Numidia having condemned both Pelagius and Coelestius in the Councils of Carthage and Numidia, assembled in the Year 416, wrote to Pope Innocent, to give him an Account of the Sentence which they pronounced against both those Heretics, and their Doctrine, that so they might add to their judgement the Authority of the See of Rome; and so much the rather, because Coelestius had thought fit to appeal, and it was reported that P. Innocent countenanced them. And for this reason Aurelius and Four more of the principal Bishops wrote another familiar Letter to him concerning some disadvantageous Reports that had been raised against him about that business.  
In the Three following Letters, P. Innocent answereth the other Three that were brought to Rome by Bishop Julian; these are dated the 27th. of January, 417.  
The First is directed to Aurelius and the Bishops in the Council of Carthage. He commends them at first for their Courage in condemning Error, and for their respect to the See of Rome, in consulting with it about what they had decided. From which he takes occasion to exalt the Authority of the See of Rome; affirming, That it is of Divine Right to have its Opinion in Ecclesiastical Matters, before any thing be determined in the Provinces concerning them. It is probable that the African Bishops did not own that Right, since they had definitively judged the Case of Pelagius and Coelestius, before they acquainted him with it; and they did not write to him as to a Judge, that might disannul what they had done, but only to get his Approbation of their Decisions, as a thing which he could not refuse to do without being suspected of Heresy. And indeed this Pope who was supposed to favour Coelestius, having known his Errors could not forbear declaring against them; and commending the African Bishops, who had condemned their Authors. He subscribes to their Judgement, and proves by several Reasons the Necessity of the Grace of Jesus Christ. The First is taken from Prayer, which supposeth that we own to God's Help, and not to our freewill, the good that we do. He says, That Man being fallen by the Abuse of his freewill, must be raised again by the Grace of Jesus Christ. That our Saviour not only delivered him from Sins past, but that knowing his weakness, he also prepared him Helps and Remedies to preserve him for the future; and that we must of necessity be overcome, if we be not succoured by him, who alone can make us Conquerors. Necesse est, ut quo auxiliante vincimus, eo iterum non adjuvante, vincamur. By which Principles he condemneth all those who affirm that there is no need of God's Grace to do good, and judgeth them unworthy of the Church's Communion: He saith, that refusing to others God's Succour, they are bereft of it themselves, and aught to be cut off from the Church as rotten Members. He saith further, That if they acknowledge their Error, and admit of God's Grace, being sincerely converted, it is the Bishop's Duty to help them, and not to deny them the Grace which the Church grants to those that are fallen, by admitting them to the Communion of the Church.  
He speaks much to the same purpose in that Letter which follows, directed to Silvanus Valentinus, and other Bishops, who had been present at the Council of Milevis. He seems to restrain that Maxim which he established, of referring all Church-affairs to the See of Rome only to Matters of Faith: Praesertim quoties fidei ratio ventilatur. He refutes particularly the Pelagian Error concerning Children dying before Baptism, whom they pretended to have a share of Eternal life.  
The Third Letter of Innocent upon that Subject is his Answer to the Five Bishops, who writ to him, upon the suspicion of his Siding with Pelagius. He tells them, that by his Two former Letters he sufficiently discovered his Opinion concerning the Doctrine of that Heretic; That as to his Person, he had received certain Acts, by which it appeared, that he had been heard and absolved since the Council; but that he did not believe them, because it was plain from the Acts themselves, that he had not clearly abjured his Errors: He concludes with assuring them, That he had read Pelagius his Book which they sent him, and that he had found it to be full of Blasphemies; that he met with nothing in it that pleased him, or rather that he met with nothing there that did not displease him.  
With this Letter there was a short Letter directed to Aurelius, but there is nothing remarkable in it.  
These Letters should be put last, being written but a little before the Death of P. Innocent, which was upon the 12th. of March of the same Year, and long after those that follow about the business of S. Chrysostom, written in 404.  
The Twenty-eighth is a Letter of Consolation to S. Chrysostom, soon after his Banishment.  
The Twenty-ninth is directed both to his Clergy and People upon the same Subject. The Thirty-first to Theophilus, which is in Greek in Palladius, is the first of the Three. In the same Author there is another directed likewise to Theophilus.  
The Thirtieth Letter to the Emperor Arcadius, as well as the pretended Answers of that Emperor to Innocent, and to his Brother Honorius, are spurious, grounded upon the Fable of Arcadius and Eudoxia's Excommunication. He that forged them, supposeth, That this Empress' outlived S. Chrysostom; but it is certain from Eunapius, who is quoted by Photius, Vol. 77. of his Bibliotheca, that she died soon after S. Chrysostom's Banishment, and three Years before his Death.  
The 32d. 33d. and 34th. Letters of P. Innocent, are written about the Persecutions exercised by John of Jerusalem against S. Jerom.  
This Pope was skilful in the Ecclesiastical Laws: He often speaketh in commendation of the Nicene Canons: He was very zealous for the Grandeur of the Roman Church, and insisted much upon her Rights and Privileges. He writes indifferently well, and he giveth such an Air to his Notions and Reasonings as recommends them, though they have not always that solidity and exactness that might be expected. The Chronological Order of his Letters, which ought to have been observed in the Printing of them, is as follows:  

In the Year 404.  
A Letter to Victricius, Bishop of Rouën, February 15. which is the II.  
A Letter to Theophilus XXXI.  
A Letter to S. John Chrysostom XXVIII.  
A Letter to the People of Constantinople XXIX.   

In the Year 405.  
A Letter to Exuperius, Bishop of Tholouse, February 20. III.   

In the Year 413.  
A Letter to Boniface XIV.  
A Letter to Alexander XV.  
A Letter to Maximian XVI.  
A Letter to Alexander XVII.  
A Letter to Acacius of Beraea XIX.  
A Letter to Alexander XVIII.   

In the Year 414.  
A Letter to the Bishops of Macedonia, December 13. XXII.  
A Letter to Marcian XXI.   

In the Year 416.  
A Letter to Decentius, Bishop of Eugubium, March 17. I.  
A Letter to Aurelius, June 1. XII.  
A Letter to John of Jerusalem XXXII.  
A Letter to S. Jerom XXXIII.  
A Letter to Aurelius XXXIV.  
A Letter to a Council at Toledo XXIII.   

In the Year 417. Jan. 27.  
A Letter to the Council of Carthage XXIV.  
A Letter to the Council of Milevis XXV.  
A Letter to Five Bishops XXVI.  
A Letter to Aurelius XXVII.   

LETTERS without Date, the Time whereof is not known.  
A Letter to the Bishop of Nuceria IU.  
A Letter to Maximus and Severus, Bishops of Abruzzo V.  
A Letter to Innocent, Agapetus, Macedonius and Marianus, Bishops of Apuleia VI.  
A Letter to Rufus, Gerontius, etc. Bishops of Macedonia VII.  
A Letter to Florentius, Bishop of Tivoli VIII.  
A Letter to Probus IX.  
A Letter to Aurelius and to S. Austin X.  
A Letter to Juliana XIII.  
A Letter to Laurentius XX.  
A Suppositious Letter to Arcadius XXX.    

Saint JEROM.  
SAint JEROM was Born in the Town of Strigonium 
a The Town of Strigonium.] This Town is called Strigonium by Ptolemy; some confound it with Strigonium in Istria, others will have it to be different. , Situated upon the Borders of 
S. Jerom.  Pannonia and Dalmatia. He came into the World about the 345 Year of Jesus Christ 
b About the 345 of Jesus Christ] The Chronology of S. Jerom's Life is much disputed; Some say, that he was born under the Empire of Constantine; according to some, in the 25th. Year of that Emperor's Reign; and according to others in the 31st. that is, in the 331, or in 337. Prosper observes in his Chronicon, that he died when Theodosius was the Ninth time Consul, and Constantius the Third, which is in the Year 420; and that he lived 91 Years. If this be so, the Year of his Nativity should be 329 Paulus Diaconus, Sigebert, Bede, and the Writers of the Martyrologies, give him 98 Years; which would set the time of his Birth yet seven Years higher, if we depend upon Prosper's Epocha for the time of his Death. Baronius, on the contrary, computes that he lived but 78 Years; so that if S. Jerom died in 420, he was born, according to that Author, in 342. Lastly, Others affirm, That he was born in 348, or 350; and that he died in 427. All that can be done in this diversity of Opinions, is to find out those which agree best with what S. Jerom hath written of himself, and with the Circumstances of his Life. He saith in his Commentary upon the Prophet Habakkuk, Chap. 3. That he was a Child, a Student in Grammar, when Julian the Emperor was killed. Being, saith he, yet a Boy, PUER, and in Grammatical Exercises, at the time that all the Cities of the World were polluted with the Blood of Victims; in the greatest heat of Persecution, on a sudden came the news of Julian' s Death. This expression, Dum adhuc essem puer, might intimate that S. Jerom was then but 10 or 12 Years old, if S. Jerom did not often use the same word to signify an older Age; for in the Apology to Pammachius, he hath the same word when he speaks of his Age when he was at Rome. Dum essem puer Roma, & liberalibus studiis erudirer, etc. Now it is certain that he was then above 12 Years of Age. In a Letter to Nepotian, speaking of the Time of his retiring, he saith that he was then adolescens, imo penè puer. And yet he was then 30 Years old at the least. In the 15th. Chapter of his Commentary upon Isaiah, making mention of the Earthquake that happened under the Consulship of Valens and Valentinian, anno 365, he saith that he was a Boy, and yet he must be then above 24 Years old. Lastly, In his Preface to the Commentary upon Obadiah, he saith, That he had formerly made a Commentary upon that Prophet, being yet a Child: Quid igitur condemnamus, in quibus pueri lusimus? Baronius affirms, that S. Jerom saith in the same place, that he was 30 Years old when he writ his first Commentary upon Obadiah, and that 30 other Years were gone since: If it is certainly so, there could be no difficulty to fix the Epocha of S. Jerom's Nativity; but he doth not say positively that he was 30 Years old, when he made that first Commentary. It is certain that S. Jerom was ordained Priest by Paulinus, before the Peace was concluded with Meletius, and consequently before the Year 378; but he could not be then less than 30 Years of Age. When he came to Rome, three Years before the Death of Pope Damasus, in 382, he must have been 40 Years old at least. In 392 he composed his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers, and he must needs have been then above 50. He began to grow in Years, when he had some differences with S. Augustin; and he treateth that Saint, who was born in 355, as a person much younger than himself. All these things give us Reason to believe, that S. Jerom was born in the Year 340, or 342; That he completed his Studies at Rome in the 25th. Year of his Age, or thereabouts, towards the Year 365; That he went into the Solitudes of Syria at 30, in 370, or 371; That he was ordained Priest at 35, in 375; That he came to Rome in 382, and went from thence in 385; That he retired to Bethlehem in 386, or 387; That he composed his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers in 392, where he mentioneth the Books that he had wrote before; That he writ Letters and Treatises after the Taking of Rome, in the Year 412; That he died about 420, Aged 78, or 80 Years. . His Father Eusebius 
c His Father Eusebius.] He was of a good Family, and sufficiently rich. S. Jerom says, that he had a great Family. The Name of his Mother is not known. His Aunt by the Mother's side was called Castorina. S. Jerom wrote to her the 36 Letter. He had a Sister that vowed Virginity, and a Brother much younger than himself, called Paulinianus.  took very great Care of his Education: And having made him learn the first Principles of Languages in his own Country 
d The first Principles of Languages, etc.] He gives this Account of his first Studies, in his Apology against Rufinus. Memini me puerum cursitasse per cellulas Servulorum, dum feriatum duxisse lusibus, & ad Orbilium saevientem de aviae sinu tractum esse captivum. , he sent him to Rome, where he had for his Tutor the famous Donatus 
e The famous Donatus.] He that writ Commentaries upon Virgil and Terence, as S. Jerom assures us, in the first Book against Rufinus, where he calleth Donatus his Tutor, as well as in his Chronicon. , under whom he made a wonderful Progress in Philological Learning 
f A wonderful Progress in Philological Learning.] He learned the Latin and the Greek Tongues perfectly, and got an exact knowledge of profane Authors: He exercised himself in public plead and frequented the Bar, as he confesseth in the Second Chapter of his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians. . But that he might make himself yet more perfect, having been baptised at Rome 
g Having been baptised at Rome] He says so positively in two Letters to Damasus, which are the 57th, and 58th, where he observes, That he took the Robe of Christianity in the City of Rome. , he resolved to go into Gaul, where were at that time many able Men, who made Learning flourish. Having performed that Journey with Bonosus his ancient Companion 
h With Bonosus his ancient Companion] S. Jerom saith in his Letter to Rufinus, that they had been bred together, had studied together, and that they went together, to Rome, and traveled together into Gaul; but he followed not S. Jerom in his Journey into Syria, but retired into a Desert Island of Dalmatia. , and collected all the curious things he could meet with in Gaul, he returned to Rome, where he raised a very fine Library, designing to spend the rest of his Life in Studies and Retirement: But finding that neither Rome, nor his Native Country were fit Habitations for such as intended to lead that sort of Life, he resolved to withdraw into a far Country, and so leaving his Country, his Kindred and Estate, carrying only his Library, with a Sum of Money to bear the Charges of his Journey, he departed from Italy with Heliodorus 
i He departed from Italy with Heliodorus.] He would not continue in his Native Country for several Reasons, but particularly, because of the disorderly Behaviour of Lupicinus the Bishop; nor at Rome, by reason of the tumult of that great City, that disturbed his rest. , Evagrius, Innocent, and Hylas, to go to the East. Evagrius left him at Antioch, but Heliodorus, Innocent, and Hylas accompanied him to the place of his Retirement. He went first to Jerusalem, and there stayed some time, afterwards he went through the Provinces of the lesser Asia; and, Lastly, having tarried some time at Antioch, he went into the dismal Solitudes of Syria, that were uninhabited, unless it were with a few Monks. He spent there Four years in Study, and Exercises of Piety: He learned the Rudiments of the Hebrew Tongue, and began to write Commentaries upon the Scripture. Heliodorus soon left him, Innocent and Hylas died in that Desert, and himself was taken very Sick, and being forced at last to quit it, he returned to Antioch. That Church was then divided by the Factions of Meletius, Paulinus and Vitalis, who all assumed the Title of Bishop of that City. S. Jerom made no difficulty what side to take. His Baptism made him a Son of the Church of Rome, and so he was obliged to own him, whom that Church acknowledged for lawful Bishop of Antioch. Having therefore written upon that Subject to Damasus, who was then Bishop of Rome, and having received an Answer in favour of Paulinus, he embraced his party, and was ordained Priest by him, but upon condition that he should not quit that kind of Life which he had embraced, nor be obliged to perform any of the Functions of his Ministry 
k He was ordained Priest by Paulinus, but upon condition that he should not quit that kind of Life, which he had embraced, nor be obliged to perform any of the Functions, etc.] He says in his Apology to Pammachius, that ●e told Paulinus, Si sic Presbyterum tribuis, ut Monachum nobis non auferas, tu videris de judicio tuo. S. Epiphanius writing to John of Antioch, says that S. Jerom and Vincentius, two Priests would perform no Functions of their Ministry, refusing so much as to offer the Sacrifice. Cum sancti Presbyteri Hieronymus & Vincentius propter verecundiam & humilitatem, nollent debita nomini suo exercere Sacrificia, & laborare in hac parte Ministerii, qua Christianorum praecipua salus est. : This Ordination was about the Year 375. before the Peace was concluded betwixt Meletius and Paulinus in 378. S. Jerom might be about 35 Years old at that time. As he would not enter into Orders, but upon condition not to be compelled to Exercise the Functions of his Ministry, so he did not think himself obliged to have his Name registered, nor to reside in the Church of Antioch; he left it therefore to go to Bethlehem, which he chose for his constant Habitation. Yet he did not stay there long, but went to Constantinople, where he conversed with S. Gregory Nazianzen, whom he calls his Master, and of whom he professes to have learned to expound the Holy Scripture. Having tarried some time with this Saint, he had a Call to Rome about the Affairs of the Church, with Paulinus and S. Epiphanius 
l He was called to Rome with Paulinus and S. Epiphanius.] He says so himself in his 16th, and 27th Epistles. He came thither in 382, and went away three years after, as he observes in the Letter to Asella; he speaks in the 11th Letter, and in his Apology to Pammachius of the Letters, and Answers which he writ in Damasus' Name. , whose interest he had Espoused against those of the East; this Journey was in all probability undertaken after the Death of Meletius in the Year 382. Damasus taking notice of S. Jerom's merit, kept him with him, that he might have a Man that was able to answer all Questions proposed from all parts. S. Jerom did not only discharge the parts of that difficult Employment most worthily, but composed several Books besides. He was likewise charged with the conduct of the most considerable Ladies of the Town 
m He was charged likewise with the conduct of the most considerable Ladies of the Town.] These Ladies are become famous by S. Jerom's writings; their Names are Marcelia, who being left a young Widow, and having been but seven Months with an Husband, refused to Marry a Man of the first quality called Cerealis, to continue in Widowhood. Her Mother Albina, who came also to hear S. Jerom. Melania is not less famous by the Praises of S. Jerom, than by those of Rufinus. Asella, Marcellina, and Felicitas, are also of the number of those whom he commended: but his greatest Affection appeared to be for Paula and her Daughters, Blesilla, Eustochium, Paulina, Ruffina, and Toxotium. This is what he saith himself in his Letter to Asella, of the Esteem, which he had gotten among the Women. I have, saith he, dwelled three years at Rome, I was often encompassed with great numbers of Virgins and Women, I often expounded the Holy Scripture to them, This reading made them constant, and their Assiduity begot a kind of Familiarity, upon which an ill Opinion was conceived of me, and yet he was not able to prevent wholly evil speaking. The Clergy of that City, whose manners he reproved, found fault with his Carriage, accused him of too much Familiarity with Paula, and they suborned a Footman to tax him with disorder; but the Fellow being imprisoned, and put to the Rack, disowned all that he had said before. , by which means he got many Friends and much credit. But as he severely reproved the Misdemeanours of the Clergy, and the Vices of the people, so he got many Enemies, who endeavoured to render his Behaviour suspected. After Damasus his Death, S. Jerom who this whole three Years that he was at Rome, longed for his Solitude, took Shipping in August, 385. to go back to Bethlehem, with a great many Persons that accompanied him. He passed thro' Cyprus, where he saw S. Epiphanius; from thence he went to Antioch, where Paulinus received him courteously; and from Antioch he went to Jerusalem, and then into Egypt, where he stayed some time with Didymus. Afterwards he visited the Monasteries of Nitria, and finding the Monks there adhering to Origen's Opinions, he returned to Bethlehem, whither the Ladies Paula, Eustochium, and Melania came soon after. He continued some time in that place in a little Cell. But the number of those that embraced that kind of Life being increased, Paula built there a Church and four Monasteries, one for Men, and three for Women. S. Jerom then enjoying perfectly that Quietness which he so much desired, continued his Labours, and there composed the greatest part of his Works upon the Scripture. His rest was somewhat disturbed by the Quarrels which he had with Rufinus, and with John of Jerusalem, upon the Account of Origenism; yet he went on with writing, and defended himself with a great deal of Vigour. He died very old in the Year of Christ, 420.  
This Saint wrote great numbers of Books, full of profound Learning, and written with great Purity and Eloquence. In our Accounts, and Abridgements, we shall follow Marianus Victorius' Order, that he uses in the Edition which he published of S. Jerom's works.  
The First Volume contains the Letters which S. Jerom writ, either to exhort his Friends to Virtue, or to instruct them, or to commend them in Panegyrics, or funeral Orations.  
The First, directed to Heliodorus, was written by S. Jerom from his Solitude, some time after this Friend left him to return into his own Country. He exhorts him to come back again, by representing the great Advantages of a retired Life, with great force and Fineness, and by answering all the Reasons that might keep him from embracing it with abundance of Art. This Treatise is a Masterpiece of Eloquence in its kind; nothing can be more florid, more agreeable, or more moving. This Letter, saith he, whereof you will find some lines blotted with my tears, will put you in mind of the tears I shed, and of the Groans I uttered at your going from me. You then endeavoured by your Caresses, to sweeten the contempt that you cast upon my Entreaties. .... I was not able to stop you at that time, and now I seek after you now you are absent .... No, I will use no more Entreaties, I will employ no more Caresses: Love that feels its self offended aught to turn into Anger: You who regarded not my Supplications, will perhaps hearken to my Reproaches. Nice Soldier, what are you doing in your Father's house? .... Remember that day wherein by Baptism you listed yourself a Soldier of Christ, than you took an Oath of Fidelity to him, that you would spare neither Father nor Mother for his Service .... Tho' your little Nephew should hang about your Neck, tho' your Mother should tear her hair, and rend her clothes to show you the Bosom that carried you, to oblige you to stay; and tho' your Father should lie down upon the Threshold of the Door to stop you, step over your Father, and follow the Standard of the Cross with dry Eyes: It is great mercy to be cruel on such occasions. I know you will tell me, we have not an Heart of stone, nor Bowels of iron ... The love of God, and the fear of Hell break all Chains. The Scripture, you will say, Commands us to obey our Parents: Yes, but whosoever loveth them more than Christ, loseth his his own Soul. But this, you willsay, is to be understood, when they persecute us to make us deny Christ. You are mistaken, Brother, if you suppose that a Christian can be without Persecution: He is then most violently Assaulted, when he thinks himself most secure. Satan our Enemy is always like a Lion seeking to devour us; ... On the one side Pleasures court us, on the other Covetousness torments us .... You are not allowed to enjoy your own Estate, you must renounce all for Jesus Christ. If you will be Heir to the Goods of this World, you cannot be Coheir with Jesus Christ. Do you know the meaning of the word Monk? Why do you remain in the World, you that ought to be alone? ... But what! you will answer me then, are all those that live in Cities no Christians? You are not in the same condition with others. Hear the words directed unto you by our Saviour; If you will be perfect, sell all that you have, give it to the poor, and come and follow me. Have you vowed perfection? A perfect Servant should have nothing but Jesus Christ. So that if you be desirous of this World's Goods, you are no longer in that State of perfection which you have embraced. Perhaps you will allege the Example of those Churchmen who live in Cities; shall I find fault with their Resolutions▪ God forbid, that I should speak evil of those that succeed the Apostles, who consecrate the Body of Jesus Christ with their Sacred mouths, who make us Christians, and who holding the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in their hands, judge, if I may so say, before the day of Judgement, and are the Guardians of the Virginity of the Spouses of Christ. It is not with Monks as with Secular Churchmen: These ●eed the Sheep of Christ, and we receive from them the spiritual Food: they live of the Altar, and we should be guilty if we did not bring our Offerings to the Altar. I am not permitted to sit down before a Priest, and if I sin he may deliver me to Satan; if you are solicited to take Orders, I shall rejoice with you for your Exaltation, but shall fear a fall ... for as he who worthily discharges his Ministry, acquires a degree of perfection; so he on the contrary that comes to the Altar unworthily, is guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ. All Bishops are not Bishops. If the Example of S. Peter comforts you, let that of Judas terrify you. If you admire Stephen's Sanctity, let the Fall of Nicholas fright you. It is not the Ecclesiastical Dignity that makes good Christians .... It is not easy for all men to have S. Paul's Graces, nor S. Peter's Holiness, who now are reigning with Christ. If a Monk falls, a Priest may pray for him, but who shall pray for the fall of a Priest? S. Jerom having thus far prosecuted his reasonings, endeth with these Acclamations. Imitating, saith he, those Pilots, who happily steered their Ship between Rocks and Banks of Sand! O Wilderness, he cries out, always covered with the Flowers of Jesus Christ! O Solitude, where the Stones that are made use of to build the City of the great King, spoken of in the Revelations, are to be found! O happy Retirement, where Men may have familiar Conversation with God What do you do, Brother, in the World? how long will you dwell under the shadow of Houses? till what time will you be in the Prison of smoking Cities? What are you afraid of in these solitary places? Is it Poverty? but Jesus Christ calleth the poor Happy. Does labour astonish you? Can he that strives in the public Exercises be Crowned before he has fought? Do you think of your Diet? a lively Faith fears not hunger. Do you dread lying upon the naked ground, with your Body's worm out with Fasting? Remember that Jesus Christ rests there along with you. Are you Scared with the extent of this hideous Solitude? Paradise is open to you. These are some of the Arguments which S. Jerom uses to persuade Heliodorus to return to his Retirement.  
The Second Letter to Nepotian Heliodorus his Nephew was composed by S. Jerom long after the First, as he says himself at the beginning. Being, saith he, yet young, when I struggled with the First motions of youth, by the Austerities of Solitude; I writ to Heliodorus your Uncle a Letter of Exhortation, full of Complaints and Tears, to show how sorry I was for the absence of my Friend. I played then suitably to my Age, and used all the Flowers of Rhetoric with which myself at that time was full. But now I am Old, and my Forehead is full of wrinkles, and my Chin covered with a white Beard, I can no longer do what I could do then. And yet, he Discourses here after a manner youthful enough, producing several Examples taken out of Ecclesiastical and profane History, to show that old Men have not the same heat nor vigour that young Men have. He addeth, Expect not therefore from me youthful Declamations, florid Sentences, sweet Words, poignant or acute Expressions at the end of my Periods, to draw the applause of those that hear us; I beg of God only the lights of his Wisdom .... Harken then, as S. Cyprian saith, to a Discourse that hath more Strength than Sweetness; Harken to him that is your Colleague, and your Father by his age .... I know that your holy Uncle Heliodorus, who is now a Minister of Jesus Christ, has taught and does teach you Holiness, and that his Life is an example of Virtue to you: But take from me besides these small Directions, and joining this Treatise to that which I writ before to your Uncle, learn of this how to be a perfect Churchman, as the former may instruct you, how to be a good Monk. These are the main Precepts which S. Jerom giveth to a Churchman in this excellent Letter. A Clerk, saith he, that serveth the Church of Jesus Christ ought to begin with the knowledge of what his Name signifies; and then Labour to be what is signified by it. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a Lot or a Portion: therefore the Name Clerk is given to Churchmen, either because they are consecrated to the Lord, or because the Lord is their Portion, but whosoever belongeth to the Lord, or hath the Lord to his Portion, aught to live as one that possesseth the Lord, and in whom the Lord dwelleth: he is to possess nothing but the Lord .... And so indeed, in serving at the Altar, I ought to live of the Altar: but aught to be content with with what is necessary for Food and Raiment; and stripped of all things, I ought only to follow the Cross ..... I conjure you therefore, and I admonish you, let not Interest make you enter into Christ's Service, neither heap up greater Riches in the Ecclesiastical State than you did when you were in the World, lest they say unto you: Their lot will do them no good: We see some men wealthier since they have been Monks, than they were before: some Clerks have Riches while they serve poor Jesus Christ, which they had not while they served the rich Devil: so that the Church groans to see them rich in her Bosom, that were Beggars whilst they were in the World. You must set the Poor and Pilgrims at your Table, and Jesus Christ will be one of the Guests. Avoid those Clerks as a plague who make Merchandise of the Church's Goods, who become rich and proud, tho' they were poor and contemptible enough before ..... Let Women never come near your Houses, or at least but seldom; have no Familiarity with the Virgins consecrated to God, either be acquainted with none, or love them all equally: Dwell not in the same House with them. Trust not your past Chastity: you are neither holier than David, nor stronger than Samson, nor wiser than Solomon. Visit not Women alone, speak not with them face to face: but avoid whatsoever may beget evil Suspicion .... This is a thing shameful for us. The Priests of false Deities, Comedians, Actors, and the basest of men may be Legatees, only Clergy men and Monks cannot, the Law forbids them; and a Law that was not made by Emperors who were Enemies to Religion, but by Christian Princes. Yet I complain not of this Law, but I am sorry that we deserved it .... The Law was enacted out of a prudent foresight, and yet it is not strong enough to suppress Covetousness. We elude the Law by trusties .... The Glory of a Bishop is to give ease to the Misery of the Poor, and it is his greatest disgrace to apply himself to increase wealth. S. Jerom describes here the Lewdness of some Clergymen, and the baseness of others to ingratiate themselves with rich Men, that they might make them their Heirs. He adds afterwards, That a Bishop ought to do what he preaches; that his mouth, his hands, and his mind are exactly to agree together. He recommends to Priest's Submission to their Bishops, and that they should honour them as their Fathers. But at the same time he warneth Bishops, to remember that they are Priests and not Masters: Sacerdotes se esse noverint, non dominos; And that they are to use Churchmen as Churchmen, if they themselves would be honoured as Bishops. He blames the Custom of some Churches where Priests were not permitted to speak before their Bishop. He would have a Preacher to excite the tears of his Auditors, rather than their applause. He says, That his preaching aught to be neither Declamatory nor Satyrical, but that he ought to expound the Mysteries of our Religion, and the Morality of the Gospel, with Clearness and Gravity. Afterwards he goes to the manner how Churchmen ought to be habited. No Clergyman in his Opinion should affect either black or white Garments, but avoid Neatness and Slovenliness: theone is a Mark of Effeminateness, and the other is often the effect of a foolish Vanity. As to Alms-deeds, S. Jerom complains that in his time some Bishops and ecclesiastics distributed small Alms to the poor, to enrich themselves, by appropriating to themselves considerable Sums under that pretence of those Alms. He tells the Bishops that they ought to take special care whom they entrusted with the Dispensation of Alms. He reproves those who were very careful to see Churches well built, sumptuously adorned with Marble and Gold, and the Altars covered with precious Stones, but took no care to make a good choice of Ministers of Jesus Christ. He forbids Churchmen, and particularly Bishops to make any Feasts for Laymen, but recommends to them Sobriety. Yet he desires them not to proceed to Excess in their Fasts, but that such as they shall observe should be pure, chaste, moderate, simple, and without Superstition. He laughs at those, who refusing to eat Oil upon Fast-days, inquired after Dainties and Meats not easy to be had; and at those, who forbearing to drink Water or to eat Bread, drank the Juice of pleasant Herbs. He declaims against those ecclesiastics, that affected to make a show of their Mortifications and good Works, to get Glory to themselves. Lastly, he recommends to Clergymen Charity, Prudence, Discretion, and Modesty. He takes notice at the latter End, that he writes this Letter in his Retirement at Bethlehem, Ten years after the Book of Virginity, which he wrote at Rome. This shows that this Letter is of the Year 393.  
Nepotian to whom this Letter was written, dying not long after, S. Jerom writ the Third Letter to his Uncle Heliodorus, to comfort him for the Death of his Nephew, of whom he makes a Panegyric. This Letter which is not less florid or less eloquent, is full of Historical passages, collected with much Affectation: He produces the examples of several Heathens who despised Death: and shows that it ought less to be feared by a Christian. That Heliodorus ought to be comforted, since Nepotian was in possession of eternal Happiness. Then he sets forth his Virtues, together with the misfortunes and Miseries of this Life, whence he concludes, that we are to esteem those Happy, who are out of this World. There he makes an elegant Comparison, betwixt the power of Kings and Bishops. A King, says he, Commands men that are obliged to obey whether they will or no; whereas the Bishop hath Dominion over those only that are willing to obey. The Prince brings men under by Terror: The Bishop is bound to serve those that are under his Conduct. The former protects the Bodies which must die; but the latter takes care of Souls to give them eternal Life. All the faithful have their Eyes upon their Bishop, his Family and conduct is observed by every Body, he is to be an example to the whole Church: and there is none but thinks he can do what he does.  
Besides, there is in that Letter, an excellent Portraiture of the uncertainty of this Life. We die daily, saith he, We altar continually, and yet we are so foolish, that we live as if we were to abide eternally. The time I spend in dictating, writing, reading over again, and correcting, is so much time towards the shortening of my Life. The stops, and Letters of my Amanuensis, are so many moments to lessen the length of my Life; the only thing that turns to account, is the love which we have for Jesus Christ. Charity never comes to an end, but lives for ever in the Heart, and by it our Brother Nepotian is still present with us after his Death; it is that which unites us, tho' we be separated by a vast space of Ladn or Sea.  
The Fourth Letter is directed to one Rusticus a Western Monk, to whom S. Jerom gives Rules for that kind of Life, which he was to follow. It gins with this Sentence, None is more happy than a Christian, seeing he hath a Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven: None is to Fight more, since he is in danger of his Life; none is stronger, since he overcometh the Devil: And then he exhorts Rusticus to persevere with Zeal in that profession which he had embraced. He enjoins him to be respectful to his Mother, but not to be too much tied to her, nor to hold any Conversation with other Women. He adviseth him to renounce all these things, and to withdraw from the World. He warneth him not lightly to take upon him Holy Orders, or to affect to be a Master before he had been a Disciple; and to choose rather, to live in a Monastery, than to be an Hermit in a Solitude; and he represents the Inconveniencies of that kind of Life: Commonly, saith he, an Hermit becometh proud; he thinks himself to be some Body, and forgetteth what he is; he eats what he pleases, sleeps as much as he will, fears no Body, and you shall find him oftener in the Town, than in his Cell. Not, saith he, That I find fault with a solitary Life, which I have so often commended: but I would have these Soldiers come out of Monasteries where they have learned their Exercises, lest the severe beginnings of Solitude should amaze them. S. Jerom recommends to him afterwards the Virtues and Exercises of a right Monk, and particularly, working with his hands, Reading and Meditation upon the Holy Scriptures, Prayer, Obedience to Superiors, Chastity, Fasting, etc. He blames the Monks that live like Seculars, and observes, that they used to choose Monks to make them Churchmen. He tells Rusticus, That he ought not to begin to write early, but Practise long before he undertook to teach. At the end of this Letter he praises two Bishops of Gaul, Proculus Bishop of Marseilles, and Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse; what he saith of the latter is very remarkable. This Holy Bishop, saith he, imitates the Widow of Sarepta; he feeds others, and starves himself; his face is pale with fasting; nothing but other men's hunger troubles him; He has given all his Estate to the poor, and yet there is none richer than he; He carries the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ in an Osier Basket, and his precious Blood in a Glass Vessel; one may say, That he drove Covetousness out of the Temple of the Lord. Fellow, saith he, to Rusticus, at the latter End of the Letter, the steps of this good Bishop, and of other Persons who imitate his Virtues, those Saints whom the Pastoral Dignity has made poorer and more humble. And if you desire to embrace a condition more perfect, get out of your Country, as Abraham did, leave your Kindred, and get you to an unknown place. If you have any Goods, sell them, and distribute the price of them to the Poor. If you have none, you are discharged of a great Burden. Strip yourself of all things to follow Jesus Christ only. Nudum Christum nudus sequere. It is hard, I confess, it is Great, and it is Difficult, but the recompense is Infinite. He mentions in this Letter, that which he had written to Nepotian, and so this was written after the Year 393, perhaps in 394.  
In the Fifth to Florentius, who came to Jerusalem, he commends the Charity of that Holy man: He sent him a Letter to be delivered to Rufinus, who was to go from Egypt to Jerusalem with Melania, where he speaks as much to the advantage of that Presbyter, as he spoke afterwards since to his Disparagement. I would not, saith he to Florentius, have you judge of me by his Virtues, you shall see in him the visible marks of Holiness, I am but dirt and ashes, and I think myself Happy if my weak Eyes can but behold his Virtues; he his pure and white as Snow, but I am all ever covered with Sins. S. Jerom writ this Letter from the Solitudes of Syria about the Year 372.  
Florentius having answered S. Jerom, this Saint wrote again a Sixth Letter, to tell him, that having read his, he was tempted to go to Jerusalem, but he durst not quit his Solitude. He prays him to desire of Rufinus the Commentary upon the Canticles that was composed by Rheticius Bishop of Autun, that he might take a Copy of it; and to tell him, that an Old man one Paulus, desired the Copy of Tertullian which he had lent him: He entreats him likewise that he would cause some Books to be transcribed for him, which he had not, of which he sent him a Memorandum: and send him S. Hilary's Commentary upon the Psalms, and his Book of Synods, which himself had Copied with his own hand at Triers: and in requital he proffers to communicate to him the Books which he had in his own Library.  
The Seventh is directed to Laeta Wife of Toxotius Paula's Son. This Lady had a young Daughter called Paula, whom her Grandmother designed for a Religious Life. S. Jerom writes this Letter to the Mother of this little Girl, to teach her how she should breed her up, and exhorts her to send her as soon as she could to his Monastery at Bethlehem. Her Grandfather was a Priest of Jupiter, but the rest of the Family were Christians. This made S. Jerom say pleasantly, that it was a surprising thing that this Old man should make much of a Girl that sung the Praises of Jesus Christ, and be compassed about with a Family of Christians, which gave him hopes that he would be converted: For, saith he pleasantly, I fancy that Jupiter himself might have believed in Jesus Christ, had he had such a Family as yours; what he says afterwards is more serious. Tho' he laughs at my Letter, and calls me Fool and Senseless, yet I despair not of his Conversion, his Son-in-Law did the same, before he embraced the Faith of Jesus Christ. No man is born a Christian, but becomes one afterwards ..... It is never too late to be converted.  
It will not be thought amiss, that I should set down here some of those Precepts which S. Jerom gives for the Education of a young Woman, to show that it is no new thing to see retired Persons, and those that are furthest from the commerce of civil Life, teach the People of the World how to breed their Children. It is strange that such as have Children to bring up, should be obliged to do it well, and to have recourse to those that have made a vow never to have Children, or a Family themselves. Thus, saith S. Jerom, is that Virgin to be Educated, whose Soul is designed to be the Temple of God. Let her not hearken to, let her not learn nor discourse of any thing, but what is proper to inspire the love of God. Let her never hear filthy Talk, nor learn profane Songs, but let her Voice be betimes accustomed to the singing of Psalms: Let no Boys come near her, her Maids and Governesses should be wise, and kept from the Company of disorderly People, lest they teach her more evil than they have learned themselves. Let them teach her to read with Box or Ivory Letters, whereof she may remember the Names ..... She ought to be made to love Study and Labour, either by promising her Reward, or by provoking her by Example. If she be of a soft Temper, reprove her not too fiercely; she ought to be encouraged with Commendation to raise in her mind a Desire to excel others, and some trouble to see herself outdone. Above all, have care that she be not disgusted with Study, lest she come to hate it when she becomes older. Let her read the Sentences of the Holy Scripture, and choose for her an able Master, a Man of a good Life, who may take pains to teach her to read. Despise not these beginnings as inconsiderable, for the rest depend upon them. The beginnings of Reading and Pronunciation are not taught alike by a skilful, and by a wary Man: Do not let her use herself to speak her words by halves, nor to take Pleasure in handling of Gold or Purple: The one will hurt her Speech, and the other her Manners. Let her not learn that in her Infancy, which she must forget afterwards ..... Evil is easily imitated, and we often take up their Vices, whose Virtues we cannot reach: Her Nurse should be sober, no Tatler, nor given to Wine ..... Let her clothes be modest, convenient for the State for which you design her: Let not her Ears be bored, nor her Face used to Painting: she should not have her Hair died fair, nor her Garments adorned with Gold, Pearls or Jewels, unless you design her for Hell fire .... When she grows older, let her follow her Parents to the Church, but never go out to return to the Pomp's of the World. Let her keep to her Chamber, and never appear at Feasts, or public Meetings: but she ought not to use too much Abstinence till she comes to the Age of strength, lest she prejudices her Health. Let her take that which helps necessity, but not what feeds Luxury: Let her not be at music-meetings, nor hear musical Instruments, but learn and repeat daily Sentences out of the Holy Scripture; She should never go abroad without her Mother, nor grow very Familiar with any one of her Servants; provide her a wise, prudent and virtuous Governess, that may show her the way to rise in the Night to sing Psalms, to rehearse the morning Hymns, and at Tierce, Sext, Nones, and Vespers. Let her pray, and work Night and Day; let her learn to handle the Distaff, to turn the Wheel and spin Wool; Let her not meddle with Embroidering either of Gold or Silver; let her be modestly clothed, and soberly fed; she should not fast excessively, but observe Lent regularly, and take no pleasure in Baths.  
To these moral Precepts, S. Jerom adds an Instruction for the Studies of young Girls, and advises them to read all the Canonical Books, both of the Old and New Testaments, not excepting the Canticles. He advises them not to read the Apocrypha, but the Books of S. Athanasius, and of S. Hilary. He concludes by exhorting Laeta to send her Daughter to the Monastery at Bethlehem. This Letter is written from the Solitude of Bethlehem, about the Year 400.  
The Eighth Letter was written in the Year 411. after the taking of Rome by the Goths, it is directed to a Virgin of the First quality, one Demetrias, who was retired into Africa, and there had embraced a Religious Life. S. Jerom having commended her Grandmother Proba, directs her how to maintain her Virginity, by recommending to her several Exercises of Piety, as reading of the Holy Scripture, renouncing the Pomp's of the World, exercising Penance, moderate Fasting, Obedience, Humility, Modesty, Alms-deeds, Prayers at all hours of the day, and working with her hands. He advises her to stick to the Faith of Pope Innocent, and to beware of the Errors of the Origenist's, and tells her, that she should choose rather to dwell in a Nunnery with other Virgins, than to live alone. But he would have her avoid the Company of the Ladies of the World. He finishes his Letter with Commendations of Virginity. It is to be noted, that in those days Virgins consecrated to God might go out of their Cloisters, but S. Jerom advises them to do it seldom. He calleth Penance, a Second Plank after Shipwreck. He observeth that Fasting is not properly a Virtue, but the ground of all Virtues; that Chastity is a degree to arrive at Perfection, but if it be single, it is not enough to merit the Crown of Heaven. He admonishes Virgin's not to be lifted up, because of the perfection of their State, but to humble themselves under the mighty hand of God, who resisteth the Proud, and giveth Grace to the humble. But, saith he, what is of Grace is no recompense for Works, but a Free-gift, wherefore the Apostle writeth, that the good which Man doth is not to be attributed, either to his Will or Labour, but to the mercy of God; and yet to will, or not to will, is in our Power; but what depends upon us, doth not do so without God's help. Velle & non velle nostrum est, ipsumque quod nostrum est, sine Dei miseratione nostrum non est. At last he exhorts Virgins, rather to bestow their Estates upon the Poor, than to beautify Churches.  
The Ninth Letter is directed to a Lady of Quality, one Salvina, who had lost her Husband Nebridius, Son to the Empresses Sister. Tho' S. Jerom knew her not, yet he writ to her at the request of one of her Friends called Avitus. He gins his Letter with Commendations of Nebridius, whose Virtues were the more to be admired, because he had spent his Life at Court, and in great Employments; and then advises his Widow to render to her Children, what she owed her Husband, by giving them a good Education, exhorting her earnestly to continue a Widow, and giving Rules for her Behaviour. He exceedingly blames Second Marriages, and looks upon them rather as tolerated to prevent a greater Evil, than permitted as a good. He observes in that Letter, that Riches do not hinder a Man from being saved, provided he makes good use of them; as Poverty doth not make a Man holy or just, if he doth not avoid Sin. He calls Penance the Remedy of the miserable: He says that men should have a care of Sinning, out of hopes of rising again by Repentance; that such Wounds should be prevented, as cannot be cured without Pain; that it is a far greater advantage to enter the Haven of Salvation with a sound Vessel full fraught with Merchandices, than to be forced to swim upon a Plank, in danger of being broken against the Rocks, and the Waves of an agitated Sea. Salvina or Silvina, to whom this Letter was written, was the Daughter of that Gildo Governor of Africa, who going about to usurp the Empire, after Theodosius his Death, perished Anno 398. She was a Widow, and dwelled at Constantinople when S. Chrysostom was expelled from thence, as we learn from Palladius, who tells us, That S. Chrysostom before he went away, entered into the Baptistery, and called to him Olympias, the Deaconnesses, Procla, Pentadia, and Silvina, Nebridius ' s Widow: So that S. Jerom's Letter might be written about the Year 400. not long after the Death of her Husband.  
The Tenth is written to another young Widow named Furia, of the Race of the Camilli. He dissuades her from Marrying a second time, tho' she had had no Children by her first Husband; he tells her, that in this particular, she should not regard neither the Remonstrances, or threaten of her Father, but he recommends to her, that she should be sober, modest, constant in reading and praying, that she should give Alms, avoid the World, despise its Pomp's, etc. Lastly, he represents the inconveniencies of a Second Marriage very livelily, and says at the latter end of the Letter, that he writ it two Years after his Books against Jovinian, that were composed, sometime before the Year 392. and so this Letter is of 394.  
The following Letter to Ageruchia, is upon the same Subject: He does speak there with less Zeal against Second Marriages, than in the foregoing; and yet he professes not to condemn them. He says that he had seen at Rome a Woman buried by her Twenty second Husband, and a Husband who had buried Twenty Wives. At the end of this Letter he Discourses against such as are too much in love with this Life, and the good things of this World. Men, says he, build as if they were to live for ever, and they live as if they were sure of Life next day. There is none so aged but promises to himself, That he shall live one year more, and so forgets what he is: and when he is come to the age that he desired, yet does he not think himself near Death, and flatters himself with the Life of many years to come. He concludes this with a Description of the pitiful condition, the Roman Empire, was reduced to by the Incursions of the Barbarians, especially in Gaul and Spain, which made him afraid of Rome itself. This shows, that this Letter was written some time before the taking of Rome, which happened in 410.  
In the Twelfth Letter S. Jerom prescribes to Gaudentius some Rules for the Education of his Daughter Pacatula, whom he designed for a Religious Life: It contains such Precepts as are in the Letter to Laeta; there he bewails the misfortune of the taking of Rome, in 410.  
The Thirteenth is directed to Paulinus afterwards Bishop of Nola, who intending to be a Monk, addressed himself to S. Jerom, as a Person perfectly well skilled in the Exercises of a Monastical Life, to ask his advice how he should behave himself. This Father having with great Humility answered Paulinus his Compliments, for his living so long solitary in the Wilderness of Bethlehem, Counsels him to retire out of Cities, if he resolved to embrace a Monastic State.  
In this Separation from the World, he chief places the difference between a Monastical, and an Ecclesiastical State. If, Says he, you will enter upon the Ministry of the Church, and perform the Functions of the Priesthood, if you are pleased with the Episcopal Dignity; then keep in Towns, and work out the Salvation of your own Soul by saving others: but if you would be a Monk, that is, live Solitarily, what do you do in Towns, which are no Habitations for Monks, but for those that love the World? .... Priests and Bishops ought to imitate the Apostles and Apostolical Men, to succeed them in their Virtue, as they do in their Dignity; as for us, we have for our Commanders, The Paul's, the Antony's, the Julian's, the Macarii, the Hilarions; and to come to the Scripture itself, Elias is the first of our Order, Elisha is one of us, the Sons of the Prophets that dwelled in the Fields and Desert places, and upon the Banks of Jordan, they are our Masters. The Sons of Rechab, who drunk neither Wine nor Cider, are also of this Number. S. Jerom having exalted the Monastical State by these Examples, prescribes several Rules to Paulinus for the Exercises which he was to follow in his Retirement. He thanks him afterwards for the Books that he sent him, in Commendation of Theodosius, and having commended it, he exhorts Paulinus to apply himself to the reading of the Holy Scripture, telling him that if he had but that Foundation, nothing would be more learned, more sweet, or more acceptable, and better written than his Works. From thence he takes occasion, to describe the Style and Character of the Latin Ecclesiastical Authors. Tertullian, saith he, is full of Sentences, but his Elocution is hard. S. Cyprian' s Style is smooth, and like the running waters of a Fountain, which passes away quietly, and without Agitation; but having wholly applied himself to the teaching of Virtue, and being busied by Persecutions, he writ nothing upon the Holy Scripture: The glorious Martyr Victorinus can hardly tell his meaning. Lactantius is like a River of a Ciceronian Eloquence; would to God he could as easily have confirmed our Doctrine, as he overthrows that of other men's. Arnobius his Style is uneven, without method or order. S. Hilary hath an high and swelling Style, like the gallic Tragedies, but intermixing th●● way of writing with Grecian Flowers, he often writes long Periods and very intricate, which can neither be read nor understood by Men of ordinary Capacities. And having thus set forth the Character of those ancient Authors, he giveth that of Paulinus in these Terms: You have, saith he, a great deal of Wit, a wonderful abundance of Expressions, a natural pureness, and rare prudence. If you add to that Eloquence, the Study and understanding of the Scripture, I shall quickly see you the first of our Authors. And to this he exhorts him. This Letter was written before Paulinus was ordained, and after his Conversion about the Year 380.  
The Fourteenth Letter to Celantia, is not like S. Jerom's Style. It is thought to be written by Paulinus Bishop of Nola. It contains very useful Instructions, and Precepts for a Lady, to lead a Christian Life in the midst of Honours, Riches, and the Perplexities of managing her Family.  
The Fifteenth Letter to Marcelia, is in Commendation of one Acella a Virgin.  
The Sixteenth directed to a Virgin, named Principia, is the Panegyric of Marcelia, a Roman Lady, Daughter of Albina, who being left a Widow seven Months after Marriage, resolved to continue so, though she was courted by the Consul Cerealis, and was the first of the Roman Ladies that embraced a Religious Life. S. Jerom, after a description of her Virtues, commends her for procuring the Condemnation of Origen's Books, and for the Courage which she shown when Rome was taken; he observes that she died quickly after, and that he writ this Panegyric two Years after her Death; which shows, that this Letter was written in 412 or 413.  
The Seventeenth Letter is from Bethlehem, in the Name of Paula and Eustochium, to Marcelia, whom they invite to come to them, and to visit the holy Places. It may have been written about the Year 400.  
The Eighteenth is written in S. Jerom's Name to the same Lady, and upon the same Subject.  
The Nineteenth is a handsome Letter of Thanks to Eustochium, for a Present of some Fruits that she sent him upon S. Peter's Day.  
The following Letter to Marcelia is likewise to thank him for some Presents, which that Lady had sent him from Rome.  
The Twenty-first is written to an Old Man of Spain of 100 Years of Age. S. Jerom congratulates with him, that God had given him a fine Old Age, freed from the ordinary infirmities, common to persons of those Years; he commends his Virtues, and desires of him the Commentaries of Fortunatianus, the History of Aurelius Victor, and Novatian's Letters, and tells him that he would send him the Life of the Blessed Paul the first Hermit. This Letter may have been written in S. Jerom's first Retreat.  
The Two and Twentieth is a Treatise of Virginity to Eustochium. Having spoken of the Excellency of it, of the Difficulty of preserving and the Danger of losing it, he lays down Precepts which a Virgin is to observe to keep herself pure. He forbids her to drink Wine; he bids her avoid dainty Fare, Effeminateness, Pleasures and superfluous Ornaments; he recommends Solitude to her, and the Reading of the Holy Scripture, Prayer, Renouncing of the Things of this World, Fasting, Humility, and other Christian Virtues. He speaks against some Clergymen who kept devout Sisters in their Houses; And who (saith he) under pretence of Spiritual consolation, entertained a carnal commerce. He blames those also that courted Ladies; and to please them, condescended to do several things unworthy of their Character. To dissuade Eustochium from reading profane Books, he tells her, That being once too earnest in reading Cicero, Plautus, and other profane Authors, he fell into a violent Fever, and by it into a kind of Agony, and then was caught up in the Spirit to the Tribunal of Jesus Christ; where having been sound whips for reading profane Authors too much, he was forbidden to read them any more: He assures Eustochium, that this Story is not a Dream, and calls the Tribunal where he appeared, and the Judgement that was given against him to attest the Truth of what he says: Yet when Rufinus upbraided him afterwards, that for all that he had not given over reading profane Books, he laughs at his Simplicity, and jests upon him for taking a Dream for a Truth. Declaiming against Covetousness, he says, that a Monk of Nitria having got together One hundred Pence which were found in his Cell after he was dead, they buried him with his Money, and with this Imprecation; Let this Money perish with thee. He observes upon that occasion, that there were Five thousand Monks in the Solitudes of Nitria, dwelling in separated Cells; and that there were three sorts of Monks in Egypt, namely the Coenobites, who lived in common; the Anchorets, who dwelled alone in the Wilderness; and thosethat were called Remoboth, who lived Two and Two together, and maintained themselves after their own way, with the work of their own hands. He blames this last sort, and describes the manner of living of the Anchorets and Coenobites at large. After this digression, he concludes with commending the Purity of Eustochium. In all likelihood this Treatise was composed at Rome about the latter end of Damasus' Pontisicate, about the Year 385.  
The Two and Twentieth is written to Marcelia upon the Recovery and Conversion of Blaesilla, Paula's Daughter, and Sister of Eustochium. This young Widow, after the Torment of a violent Fever for Thirty days together, had embraced a Solitary life. S. Jerom commends her for that generous Resolution, and confounds those that blamed her. One may find in that Letter a handsome description of the Habit of those ancient Nuns. S. Jerom speaks there against the Finery of Women. This Letter was written at Rome about the Year 383.  
The next was written much about the same time; it is directed to Paula, concerning the Death of an Holy Nun, one Lea. S. Jerom shows, that they ought to rejoice for her Death, because she enjoyed Happiness. He commends her Virtues, and comparing her Death, with that of one designed to be Consul, which happened at the same time; he shows the vast difference betwixt a poor Righteous Man's death, and that of a great, rich, and impious Lord.  
The Four and Twentieth is a Letter of Consolation to Paula, upon the Death of her Daughter Blaesilla, who departed this Life four Months after her Conversion: S. Jerom shows, that we should not mourn for Christians who die in a State of Grace, but rather rejoice for their Happiness. He reproves Paula severely, because she had given way to excessive Grief. This Letter may pass for an exact Pattern of Elegant and Christian Consolation. It was composed at Rome about the Year 384.  
The Five and Twentieth is likewise a Consolatory Letter to Pammachius, upon the Death of his Wife Paulina, who was also one of Paula's Daughters. He saith but little of Paulina's Death, but enlargeth much in Commendation of Pammachius, who left the World after his Wife's Death, and had bestowed great part of his Estate upon the Poor, and built an Hospital for Strangers in the Port of Rome. S. Jerom says at the latter end of this Letter, that so great a number of Monks flocked to his Monastery at Bethlehem, that he was obliged to send his Brother Paulinianus to sell the rest of the Estate which he had in his own Country, to enable him to support his Undertaking. This informs us that this Letter was written at Bethlehem in 398.  
The Twenty-sixth is a Funeral-Sermon for the famous Paula, whose Life he describes, and makes her Panegyric. It is directed to her Daughter Eustochium. He sets down at the latter end some Epitaphs which he put upon the Grave and upon the Cave where that holy Lady was buried in Bethlehem, and he says that she died Febr. 22d. and was buried the 24th. under the Seventh Consulship of Honorius and Aristaenetus: That is, after our way of reckoning, the 404th. Year since the Nativity of our Saviour: And this proves that Funeral Oration to be of that same Year.  
The Seven and twentieth Letter to a Spaniard, one Lucinius is very remarkable. S. Jerom exhorts that Man who had embraced a Monastical Life with his Wife's Consent, to prosecute the design which he had to come to Jerusalem. He tells him, that he had given Copies of his works to those whom he sent to him; That he had not translated Josephus his Books, nor the Writings of S. Papias, and S. Polycarp; That he translated only some Treatises of Origen and Didymus; That he had corrected the Version of the Septuagint, restored the Greek of the New Testament, and that he sent to him part of the Canonical Books, which he revised and made conformable to the truth of the Hebrew. He afterwards answers two Questions, which Lucinius had put to him about Saturday's Fast, and a frequent Communion. That Answer is too considerable not to be translated here. As to what you ask me concerning the Saturday's Fast, whether it ought to be kept; and about the Eucharist, whether it should be received every day, as is Customary in the Churches both of Italy and Spain, we have upon that Subject a Treatise of Hippolytus, a very Eloquent man, and several Authors have occasionally treated of that Matter; for my part, this is the advice I think aught to be given in that Point; That Ecclesiastical Traditions, not contrary to the Faith, aught to be observed after the same manner, that we received them from our Ancestors: And I am persuaded, that the Custom of one Church is not to be aboushed, because of a contrary one in use in another Church. Would to God that we could fast every day: Do we not read in the Acts of the Apostles, that both S. Paul, and they that were with him fasted in the days of Pentecost, and even upon Sunday's: Yet for all that they ought not to be accused for Manichees, because they did it out of a Spiritual good, before which a Carnal one is not to be preferred. As to the Eucharist, it is good to receive it daily, provided there be no prickings of Conscience, and no danger of receiving our own Condemnation. Not that I would have Men fast on Sundays, or in the Fifty days after Easter, but I must still return to my Principle, That every Country ought to follow its own Custom, and look upon the Ordinances of their Ancestors as Apostolical Laws. This Letter was written about the Year 406.  
Lucinius to whom this Letter is directed being dead. S. Jerom comforts his Widow Theodora, in the following Letter, in which he citeth there the Books of S. Irenaeus with Commendation.  
S. Jerom's Eight and twentieth Letter is a Funeral Oration, in Commendation of a Roman Lady called Fabiola. This Lady had a former very lewd Husband, and having procured a Separation, she was married to another; but having acknowledged her fault, she did public Penance, and was admitted to the Communion. She built at Rome an Hospital for sick Persons whom she had assisted with wonderful Zeal, and surprising Charity. S. Jerom commendeth chief those generous Actions, and speaks of the Journey which she had undertaken to Bethlehem, where she remained some time with him. This Letter was written in 400, two years after the Funeral Discourse for Paulina, and Four years after that for Nepotian, as S. Jerom says in the beginning.  
The Nine and twentieth is a Note to Theophilus, wherein he excuseth himself, that he had not yet translated into Latin that Bishop's Book concerning Easter, because of the troubles of the Church that had disquieted him, and Paula's Death which had overwhelmed him with Grief; So that this Letter was written in the Year 404.  
In the Thirtieth, S. Jerom comforteth a Spaniard, one Abiga●s, for the joss of his sight, he commends his Piety, and desires him to exhort Theodora, Lucinius his Widow, to continue her Journey to Jerusalem, this shows that this Letter was written after Lucinius his Death, about the Year 408, or 409.  
The Thirty first as likewise a Letter of comfort to another Blind man, one Castrutius, who was S. Jerom's Countryman. He thanks him for beginning his Journey to come to see him, but desires him, to undertake the Journey next year. The Year of this Letter is not known. It is probable that it was written very near the same time with the foregoing.  
In the Two and thirtieth, having administered comfort to Julianus one of his Friends, for the loss of two Daughters, of his Wife and Estate, and for the Discontents occasioned by his Son-in-Law, he adviseth him to give himself to God, and embrace a monastical Life: This Letter is written from the Solitudes of Bethlehem about the Year 408.  
In the Thirty third, he exhorteth Exuperantius to forsake the Wars, and the World, and to withdraw himself with his Brother Quintilian to Bethlehem.  
The Thirty fourth is to his Aunt Castorina, with whom he had had some difference, he entreats her by this Letter to be reconciled to him, this Letter was in all probability written during S. Jerom's first retreat, and since he tells her, that he had written to her the year before upon the same Subject, this must be of the Year 373, or 374.  
The Five and thirtieth was written at the same time. He prays Julian the Deacon to send him News of his own Country, and gives him thanks for sending word, that his Sister continued in the resolution not to Marry.  
The Thirty sixth to Theodosius and the other Monks, was written by S. Jerom, after his quitting the Desert of Syria in 374. where those Monks dwelled. He desires them to pray, that God would call him back into the Desert.  
The Thirty seventh to the Virgins dwelling upon Mount Hermon, is written from the Desert of Syria, about the Year 373. He complains that they had not answered the Letters that he had written to them.  
The Eight and thirtieth is certainly not S. Jerom's, and there is nothing in it worth Observation.  
In the Thirty ninth he invites Rufinus Presbyter of Aquileia, who was then in Egypt, to come to him in his Solitude of Syria, where he was alone with Evagrius only, after the going away of Heliodorus, and the Death of Innocent and Hylas. This Letter is of 373, or 374.  
The Fortieth, Forty first, Forty second, and Forty third, are very near of the same time, they are written to his old Friends at Aquileia. The First to Niceas Deacon of that Town, the Second to Chromatius, Eusebius, and Jovinus: The Third to Chrysogonus a Monk of Aquileia: and the last to another Monk called Anthony. These are of no great Consequence.  
The Forty fourth to Rusticus is more useful. He exhorts that Man to do Penance, urging several places of Scripture touching Repentance. He invites him to visit the Holy places. This Letter is not of the same Style with the rest of this Father's Letters.  
The Forty fifth Letter is a biting satire against Virgins and Women, who dwelled with Clergy Men that were not of their Kindred.  
The Six and fortieth is a Declamation against Sabinianus a Deacon, whose Life had been disorderly both in his own Country and at Bethlehem. These Three last are written from the Solitude of Bethlehem. The year is uncertain.  
The Seven and fortieth is an Historical Narrative of a Woman of Vercelle, who having been falsely accused of Adultery, and condemned to die, tho' she constantly denied the Fact, was tortured seven times, but could not be put to Death. The Style of this Letter is florid and childish, tho' S. Jerom writ it when he was well in years.  
The Life of S. Paul the first Hermit, is one of S. Jerom's first Works. This man at Fifteen years of Age withdrew himself into the Deserts of Thebais, when Valerian and Decius persecuted the Church, fearing his want of strength to resist the Temptation. He spent there the rest of his Life, which lasted 113 years. S. Jerom gives an account of the manner of his being visited by S. Anthony, and describes several Circumstances of that History that are very hard to be believed.  
The Life of S. Hilarion is full of Miracles of that Holy Anchorete S. Anthony's Disciple. S. Jerom places it in his Catalogue, amongst those Books which he wrote after his Return from Rome to Bethlehem. Likewise he makes mention there of the History of a Monk in the Desert of Chalcis called Malchus, who having quitted the Monastery to return into his Country, was taken and carried away Captive by the Saracens.  
This Volume endeth with his Book o● the Famous men, or Ecclesiastical Writers, written in Latin by S. Jerom, and translated into Greek, as it is supposed, by Sophronius 
n By Sophronius.] Erasinus published this Version under Sophronius' Name upon the credit of a Manuscript. None doubted at first, but that it was his. Mr. Vossius the Father owned it, but M. Isaac Vossius his Son, contradicted that Opinion in his Notes upon S. Ignatius' Epistles: where he boldly affirms, that this Version is not Sophronius': that it is very bad, that he that made it did not understand Greek; that it is visible that it was written by an Impostor, Huetius in his Book, De optimo genere interpretandi, refutes Vossius, and doth not doubt but that Translation was made by Sophronius. . He did it at the request of Flavius Dexter, Praefectus Praetorio, in imitation of Suetonius, and other profane Authors, who writ the Lives of Philosophers, and other Famous men. He confesses that Eusebius his Books did him much Service: He entreats the Authors of his own time, whom he doth not mention, not to take it ill; he declares that he did not intent to conceal their Works, but that they had never come to his hands; but however, if their Writings make them Famous, his silence will not long prejudice them. Lastly, he observes that this Treatise confounds Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, and the other sworn Enemies of the Church, who reproached it as having no Philosophers, no Orators, or learned Men; by proving to them that it was established, upheld and adorned by very great Men. This Book comprehends the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Authors, and Writers, from Jesus Christ to S. Jerom's time. It concludes with a Catalogue of the Works which this Father had composed to the Fourth year of the Emperor Theodosius, which is the Year 392, of Jesus Christ.  
The Second Tomb, which is in the same Volume contains the Letters, or rather the Discourses of Dispute and Controversy.  
The First is his Treatise against Helvidius, of the perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. That man had written a Book wherein he pretended to show by Testimonies of the New Testament, and the Opinions of some ancient Fathers, that after the Birth of Christ the Virgin Mary had Children, by Joseph her Husband. The first passage of Scripture which Helvidius citys for his Opinion is that of S. Matthew, ch. 1. The Virgin being espoused was found with Child, before Joseph and she came together: Helvidius concluded from this place, that therefore they came together afterwards. S. Jerom answers him, That this Consequence doth not follow, because that a thing is often said to have been done before another, which other is never to be done: and that when it is said such a one died before Penance, it doth not follow, that he, of whom this is spoken, does Penance in the other World; so likewise from what S. Matthew saith, That she was found with Child before Joseph knew her, it doth not follow, that he knew her after she was with Child. The Second passage quoted by Helvidius is another of the same Evangelist, Joseph knew not his Wife till she had brought forth her Son; Helvidius concludes from this passage as from the former, therefore he knew her after she was delivered. He maintained that the word until always signified in Scripture a fixed time, after which the thing would come to pass. S. Jerom shows him, that tho' this is often true, yet there are several passages where it signifies an unlimited time, as it is said of God, I am, till you are grown old, or until that, which can never describe the Term, or the end of God's existence, seeing he is for ever. And when Jesus Christ saith in the Gospel, I am with you to the end of the World; it were ridiculous to conclude, Wherefore he will be no more after the World's end.  
Helvidius' Third Objection is grounded on the Title of First Born given to Jesus Christ, Luk. ch. 2. S. Jerom affirms, that it doth not suppose that he had younger Brethren, for in the Language of the Scripture, every Child of the first lying in of a Woman is called Firstborn, these words being Synonymous, Adaperiens vulvam and Primogenitum, as appears. Numb. 18. Exod. 13. Levit. 12. Luk. 2.  
The last Objection is taken from what is said in Scripture that Jesus Christ had Brethren; now among his Brethren, said Helvidius, are reckoned S. James, and Joses Son of Mary: as it is said, Matt. 27. Mark 15. Luk. 24. That Mary the Mother of James and Joses was present at the Passion, and at the Burial of Jesus Christ, but this Mary, said he, is the Mother of the Lord; for it is not likely, that she should forsake him upon that occasion. S. Jerom answers, that it is very certain by S. John's Testimony, that Mary the Mother of God was near the Cross of Jesus Christ at his Passion, since he recommends her to that Evangelist; but that Mary the Mother of James, and Joses is different from the Mother of the Lord, seeing that of the two Apostles called James, one was Son of Zebedee, and the other of Alpheus. But it cannot be said that the Lord's Mother was married to either of these two Persons. He maintains then, that Mary the Mother of James and Joses was the Wife of Alpheus, and Sister to the Mother of our Lord, and is also called Mary Cleophe. The Conjecture not being very certain, S. Jerom gives this general Answer, That the word Brother is equivocal, and is taken Four ways, a Brother by Nature, by Nation, by Relation, and by Affection; but sticks to the Brotherhood by Blood, showing by several places of Scripture, that Cousins, and near Kindred are called Brethren.  
Having thus with much Wit and Learning, refuted the false Consequences that Helvidius drew from those passages of the New Testament: S. Jerom opposes to Tertullian, and Victorinus whom Helvidius had quoted, the Authority of S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp, S. Irenaeus, S. Justin, and other ancient Apostolical Authors, who had written against the Heretics Ebion, Theodorus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, whom S. Jerom pretends to have been of Helvidius his Opinion. But the Error of those Heretics was far more intolerable, and we do not read that the Fathers quoted by S. Jerom, did precisely refute Helvidius' Error. However S. Jerom rejects Tertullian's Authority, by saying, That he was not of the Church; and as for Victorinus Patarionensis, he saith, That his Testimony hath no greater difficulty than that of the Scripture, since he speaks of Christ's Brethren, but does not say that they were the Sons of Mary. In the latter part of this Discourse, he speaks like an Orator of the inconveniencies of Marriage, and the Advantages of Virginity. This Treatise was composed at Rome, about the Year 383.  
In his Treatise against Jovinian, he further defends the Excellency of Virginity. This Jovinian had asserted in a small Discourse published at Rome, That Widows and married Women were not to be less regarded than Virgins, if they have the same Virtues; This was the first Error of this man. The Second was, That a Christian baptised could not fall from Righteousness. The Third, That Abstinence from certain Meats was unprofitable: The last, That the glorified Saints are all equally Happy. S. Jerom refutes the first of these Errors in the first Book. He explains at first S. Paul's Notions concerning Marriage and Virginity; afterwards he takes notice of the Examples of the Old and New Testament, which Jovinian had brought to prove, that the greatest Saints and most excellent men of all Ages had been Married. S. Jerom shows that he has multiplied those Examples too much: He affirms that the Apostles left their Wives, after their Call to the Apostleship, and that S. John being called before he was Married, always lived in Celibacy: He answers those places of Scripture alleged by Jovinian, and discourses of the Celibacy of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. He condemns second Marriages with much severity, and produces several Examples of Heathen Women that either kept their Virginity, or continued in Widowhood.  
In the second Book he refutes Jovinian's other errors. He shows against the second, that the holiest of Men may fall from Baptismal Grace. Against the third, that tho' God is the Creator of all things fit for Man's use, yet it is good to fast, and use abstinence, and that it is very dangerous to indulge one's Senses, and satisfy greediness. Lastly, that as there are various degrees of Vice, and Virtue here in this life, so there are likewise in the other several degrees of felicity and pain. These Books were not completed by S. Jerom when he writ his book of famous men tho' he mentions these two books there: and so they are of the year 392.  
These Books being published at Rome, several persons found fault with the hard terms which S. Jerom made use of in speaking of Marriage. Pammachius having sent word of it to S. Jerom hinting withal at the principal Passages excepted against. This Father expounds them in the apology directed to him, declaring that it was never his intention to condemn Matrimony.  
He found himself obliged a second time to defend himself from the same accusation against a Monk; and this he does in the Letter entitled the fifty first to Domnion.  
The fifty second Letter to Pammachius was joined to the apology directed to him. He thanks him for securing the Copies of his Books against Jovinian; but he tells him that it was impossible to suppress them: that he had not the good fortune to be able always to correct his own Works, as some had; because he had no sooner composed them, but they were made public even against his Will. He insults over those that found fault, challenging them to write against him. He adviseth him to read the Commentaries of Dionysius, Rheticius, Eusebius, Apollinarius, and Didymus, who expounded that passage of the Epistle to the Corinthians, and spoke in the behalf of Virginity more powerfully than himself. He sends him Word, that he had Translated out of the Hebrew, the Books of the Prophets, of Job, and that he had written Commentaries upon the twelve Minor Prophets, and upon the Book of Kings. He observes that if his Translation of Job be compared with the Greek, and the old Latin Version, there will be found such a difference as is betwixt truth and falsehood.  
The fifty third Letter is directed to Riparius a Presbyter in Spain, who desired to know his opinion of a Book of Vigilantius a Presbyter of Barcelona; who condemned the Veneration of Relics, and the Worship of Saints. S. Jerom exclaims against that error, and prayeth Riparius to send him his Book that he might refute it at large, and this he does with great earnestness in the Treatise that followeth this Letter, written two years after, as he himself affirms. He taxeth Vigilantius, with reviving Jovinian's errors, and wonders that any Bishops should be of his mind. If, saith he, the name of Bishops may be given to such as will Ordain no Deacons, except they are Married: what will the Churches of the East, those of Egypt, and even of the See of Rome, which do not admit into the Clergy any but such as are unmarried, or who, being married profess to live as if they were not?  
Having made this occasional remark concerning the celibacy of Clarks, he particularly undertakes Vigilantius' error about Relics and the Invocation of Saints. This Man maintained that the Bones of the dead were not to be honoured, and that the Saints could not hear our Prayers. S. Jerom puts himself into a great heat to prove the contrary, and falls upon Vigilantius with a great deal of reproachful Language. In that Treatise he likewise defends the Festivals of Saints, the Solemnities practised upon their Eves, Pilgrimages to Jerusalem, the Monastic State, and the use of lighted Torches only in the Night; for he owns, that in his time they lighted none in the Day. We, saith he, do not light Torches in the day time, as you accuse us, but only in the Night, that their Light may afford joy and comfort in the Obscurity of the Night. This Treatise was written long after the Book of famous Men, about the year 406.  
The fifty fourth Letter to Marcelia, is against the errors of the Disciples of Montanus. He not only lays them open, but accuseth them, 1. Of owning but one person in God. 2. Of condemning 2. Marriages, as adulterous. 3. Of holding the obligation to keep three Lents. 4. That they did not acknowledge Bishops to be the Apostle's Successors, and the first of the Hierarchical Order, but that there were two degrees of Persons above them. 5. That they were very rigid in imposing of Penances, and never granted Absolution. 6. That they believed the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla. Lastly he says that they were accused of celebrating Criminal Mysteries with the Blood of a Martyred Child; but declares that he had rather believe that this was not true. This Letter is written about the year 400.  
In the fifty fifth Letter to Riparius, he says that Ruffinus, whom he calls his Catiline, had been expelled out of Palestine.  
In the fifty sixth he commends Apronius for opposing the errors of the Origenistes, and invites him to come to Jerusalem, Both these Letters are written under the Pontificate of Anastasius, about the year 400.  
The two following Letters are written to Pope Damasus, out of the Deserts of Syria. S. Jerom asks his advice, what he should do about the disputes then in the East. I am, saith he, tied to your Holiness' Communion, that is to S. Peter' s Chair; I know that the Church is founded upon that Rock. Whosoever eateth the Lamb out of that House, is a profane Man. Whosoever is not found in that House shall Perish by the Flood. But forasmuch as being retired into the Desert of Syria, I cannot receive the Sacrament at your hands, I follow your Colleagues the Bishops of Egypt: I do not know Vitalis; I do not communicate with Meletius; Paulinus is a stranger to me. He that gathereth not with us, scattereth. He gives an account afterwards of the occasion of those Divisions. After the decision of the Council of Nice, after the Decree of the Council of Alexandria, enacted with the consent of both the Eastern and Western Bishops, they yet ask of me that am a Roman a new Confession of Faith, to acknowledge three Hypostases. It is an Arian Bishop, and the Montanists who require that of me ..... We ask what signifies this Word Hypostasis, they say, that it signifies a subsisting person; we answer that if it be so, we are of that opinion; They are not satisfied with our professing that Sense, but they require further that we own these Terms. There must be some Poison hid under these words. We say openly, if any one owns not three subsisting Persons, let him be Anathema; but because we do not use the Terms which they require we are accused of being Heretics ..... Order me if you please what I should do, I will not be afraid to say, that there are three Hypostases, if you command me so to do. Yet he is afterwards of opinion, that this way of speaking is not to be approved of, because the Term Hypostasis is for the most part equivalent to that of Substance.  
The fifty eighth Letter to Damasus is much upon the same Subject, and he asks his advice with whom he ought to communicate, Meletius, Paulinus, or Vitalis. These Letters are of 374.  
The following Treatise is a Dialogue betwixt an Orthodox Christian and a Disciple of Lucifer Calaritanus. This Man defends the Conduct and Opinions of those of his Sect, maintaining, that those are not to be owned as Bishops that Communicated with the Arian Bishops, and that such as were Baptised by Heretics ought to be Baptised again. The Orthodox Christian affirms the contrary. S. Jerom introduces the Orthodox Christian relating the History of the Council of Ariminum, and the dissensions that troubled the Church, and showing that it was a reasonable thing to Pardon those Bishops that had been surprised. There is in that Treatise a curious passage about Tradition, which he proves by the custom of imposing of Hands, and the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, after the administration of Baptism. He adds, That many other things are observed in the Church upon the account of Tradition without being authorized by a written Law; as, saith he, the dipping of the Head three times in Water at Baptism, the giving Milk and Honey to the Baptised: not bowing the Knee upon Sundays, nor all the time betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide. The Luciferian advances this Proposition; and the Orthodox Christian agrees to it, confessing that the Bishop alone lays his Hands upon the Baptised, to cause the Holy Ghost to come down upon them: that he only conferrs the Sacrament of Confirmation. But he says that this Custom was introduced rather for the honour of the Priesthood, than through any necessity; That however the Holy Ghost descends upon them that are Baptised tho' they receive not the imposition of hands from the Bishop. This Treatise was written at Rome about the year 384.  
The 59th. Letter to Avitus, contains any numeration of those errors which S. Jerom had found in the Books of Origen's Principles, Translated by Rufinus; which Pammachius had sent him ten years since: which shows that it was written about the year 407.  
The 60th. is a Translation of S. Epiphanius' Letter to J. of Jerusalem, concerning the Ordination of Paulinianus, whom S. Epiphanius had ordained Deacon and Priest, in a Monastery of S. Jerom's, which John of Jerusalem pretended to be under his jurisdiction. This Letter is very cunningly written. He complains of the anger which John of Jerusalem had showed for that ordination, representing to him that such behaviour was contrary to the Spirit of the Church; and that instead of being angry that he had ordained a Priest in a Monastery of strange Monks that were not of his Diocese, he ought to show much satisfaction, because there ought to be no Dissension among Priests, when no other thing is aimed at but the good of the Church. That though all Bishops have every one their Church committed to their Charge, and whereof they ought to take Care, and that no Man is to Encroach upon another's Jurisdiction, yet Christian Charity which hath no Bounds is to be preferred in all things; and that the Action is not to be considered in its self, but respect aught to be had to the Circumstances of Time, Place, Persons, and Occasions. He urges afterwards such things as might excuse his Ordination by saying, that there being but two Priests in their Monastery, Jerom and Vincentius, who would not perform any Function of their Ministry, he thought it his Duty to give them a Priest; and having met with Paulinianus, who so declined the Priesthood, that John could not seize upon him to put him into Orders, he caused him to be taken by Force and Ordained a Deacon: and that afterwards he Ordained him Priest against his Will, when he waited at the Altar, and that however the Ordination was performed in a Monastery and not in a Parish of his Diocese. He adds that the Bishops of Cyprus, were much more simple, and careless in the Sense of John of Jerusalem; for they were so far from finding Fault, that their Fellow-Bishops Ordained out of their Dioceses, those Persons that declined the Priesthood; That on the contrary they Exhorted them to do it. He speaketh next against Origen's Errors, and desireth John of Jerusalem to Condemn them. He reduceth them to Eight principal Heads, which are these. 1. That the Son of God does not see his Father, and that the Holy Ghost doth not see the Son. 2. That Men's Souls were sent from Heaven to the Earth for their Sins, and shut up in Bodies as in so many Prisons. 3. That the Devils shall repent one day of their Faults, and shall reign with the Saints in Heaven. 4. That Adam and Eve had no Flesh before they committed sin: and that the Skins wherewith they are said to have been covered, signify their Bodies. 5. That man shall not rise again with Flesh and Bones. 6. That the earthly Paradise is to be understood Allegorically. 7. That the Waters, which the Scripture speaks of above the Firmament, are the Angels, and that those which are said to have been under the Earth are the Devils. 8. That by sin Man lost the Image of God. The latter part of this Letter is concerning a Veil whereon was painted the Image of a Man, which S. Epiphanius had found in a Country Church near Jerusalem, and had caused it to be torn in Pieces, 
[See S. Epiphan. Vol. II.]  because he condemned that Practice as contrary to the Custom of those times. We have showed in another place, that this Letter was truly written by S. Epiphanius in 392, and translated by S. Jerom in 393.  
John of Jerusalem seeing himself thus accused by S. Epiphanius, made an Apology, which he sent to Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, and caused it to be published every where, and chief in the West. Pammachius having seen it at Rome, wrote to S. Jerom, to let him know that Men were divided about that matter, and desired him to write to him about it. S. Jerom did not defer to put Pen to Paper, and directed to him in 393. the Sixty first Letter, wherein he observes, that S. Epiphanius having by his Letter, laid Eight Articles of Origen's Errors to John of Jerusalem's Charge, he had justified himself but from Three, without so much as mentioning the other Five. Those three Articles are about the knowledge of the Son of God, the Pre-existency of Souls, and the quality of Bodies after the Resurrection. As to the first head John of Jerusalem had cleared himself, by declaring that he was no Arian; but S. Jerom pretends that he had not justified Origen. He had explained his Opinion very obscurely upon the Second and the Third. S. Jerom relates Origen's Opinion upon those three Articles, and refutes them with much Earnestness. Then he enlarges upon the Quarrel betwixt S. Epiphanius and John of Jerusalem: He complains, that the latter had addressed himself to Theophilus' Bishop of Alexandria; and that he had said in the beginning of his Apology, that he was charged with the care of all the Churches. You, saith he, directing his Discourse to John of Jerusalem, who make your boast of following the Rules of the Church, and observe the Canons of the Council of Nice, and go about to appropriate to yourself the Clergy that depend upon other Bishops, tell me I pray, Is Palestine under the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Alexandria? If I mistake not, it was decided in the Council of Nice, that Caesarea was the Metropolis of Palestine, and Antioch of all the East. You ought therefore either to send to the Bishop of Caesarea with whom you knew, we Communicated; or if a Judge was to be sought for further off, you might have sent your Letters to Antioch. But I guess what it was that kept you from sending to Caesarea, or Antioch; I perceive what you were afraid of, and were willing to avoid: You chose rather to apply yourself to a preingaged Person, than to yield your Metropolitan that deference which you own him. After that he accuseth Isidore, whom Theophilus had sent to the place to inform himself of the state of things, of being corrupted by John of Jerusalem, of following his Passion, and declaring absolutely for him; of being concerned in Composing the Apology, and then undertaking to carry it himself. So that, saith he, He that dictated the Letter was he that carried it. At last S. Jerom says, That the Original of that Quarrel was not Paulinianus' Ordination, but the accusing of Origen's Errors. And this he lets forth speaking against John of Jerusalem with all possible Vehemency. By this Letter it appears, that both S. Jerom, and the other Monks of Palestine had great Differences with him.  
But lest Theophilus persuaded by John of Jerusalem's Letter, should come to espouse his Interest, S. Jerom directs the Sixty second Letter to him, in defence of his own Cause. This Bishop had sent him a Letter by Isidore, whereby he exhorted him to Peace. S. Jerom declares in his Answer, That he was desirous of nothing more; but that such as could alone procure it, were contented only to make a show of being for it. That the Peace which he would have, was a true Peace, the Peace of Jesus Christ, a Peace without Enmity, a Peace without War. That there could be no Peace, when one would usurp Dominion and Empire, when he Excommunicated true Catholics, when Men were forced to communicate with an Heretic, and to receive the Body of Jesus Christ at his hands, and when violence was used. These things he Charges upon John of Jerusalem, and complains of the injurious Treatment wherewith he uses him in his Letter. And as for that which John of Jerusalem upbraided him withal, that he had formerly translated Origen's Books, which this Author so much condemns; Now he answers, That he was not the only Man that did it: that before him S. Hilary the Confessor had done it: but that imitating him he had expunged what was dangerous in those Writings, and translated what was good and useful; and however he had always commended Origen for his Ability in expounding the Scriptures, yet he had always condemned him for his Errors. That he owned there was a vast-difference betwixt the Apostles Writings, and those of other Ecclesiastical Writers, since the former wrote nothing but what was true, whereas the latter were sometimes deceived. Afterwards he justifieth the Ordination of his Brother Paulinianus, saying, That S. Epiphanius did not ordain him in the Diocese of John of Jerusalem, since the Monastery where that Ordination was performed, belonged to the Diocese of Eleutheropolis, and not to that of Jerusalem: That he had done very ill in asserting that S. Epiphanius had ordained a Child, since Paulinianus was then Thirty years old: That 〈◊〉 himself was not older when he was ordained Bishop.  
S. ●er●● having thus pleaded for himself, doth in his turn likewise accuse 〈◊〉 of Jerusalem. He says, That this Bishop was the Author of all this trouble, and a Fomenter of the Division: that pretending to be for Peace, he prosecuted a cruel War: That he requested, and obtained his Banishment. Here he cries out in this manner: The Church of Christ, saith he, was established by sufferings, and shedding of Blood. Persecutions have increased it, and by Martyrdom it came to be Crowned. If our Enemies were not of this Disposition; if they had rather persecute than be persecuted; In this Country there are Jews and Heretics of all sorts, and particularly infamous Manichees, who hindered them from falling upon these; Their Spleen is against us, we are the only Persons whom they intent to drive away .... One Monk, I speak it with grief, One Monk who boasteth of being the Bishop of an Apostolic See, threatens another Monk, desires he should be banished, and accordingly 'tis done; but God be praised, adds he, Monks are not frighted with Persecutions, they wait for the Blow without Trouble, and without offering to defend themselves. For every Monk being out of his own Country is also out of the World. What need is there of the Prince's Authority, or of written Orders? Let them give us the least Summons, and we will departed immediately, knowing what we are, and being persuaded that the Earth is the Lord's, and that Jesus Christ is not shut up in any place. He tells us of going to Rome to communicate with that Church, from which we seem to be separated; but this we need not do, we are as much in Communion with the Church of Rome in Palestine as if we were at Rome, we communicate with its Priests which are in the Town of Bethlehem. At last S. Jerom professes that he is ready to be reconciled to John of Jerusalem, provided he would put on a charitable Spirit, and prove the same towards him as he had been before. We know, saith he, what we own to the Bishops of Jesus Christ; but let them be contented with Honour and Respect, and know that they are Fathers and not Masters; and particularly with relation to those who despising Ambition, prefer rest and quietness before all other things.  
After S. Jerom's 63d. Letter follows Ruffinus' Preface to his Translation of Origen's Principles. He saith in that Preface, That several persons desirous of learning the Holy Scriptures wished that Origen might be made to speak Latin: That his Colleague and Brother, S. Jerom, having translated two Homilies of this Author upon the Book of Canticles, had so much exalted him in his Preface, that Men were very desirous to see his Works: That he had given this advantageous Testimony of him, That he exceeded all others in his Commentaries, but had surmounted himself in his Homilies upon the Book of Canticles: That this same S. Jerom had promised to translate the other Works of this Author, but he thought it afterwards more glorious to write himself and to be on Author rather than an interpreter. We therefore prosecute and complete a thing which he has both approved and began, but we cannot render Origen' s Words with the same Eloquence. And he adds, That this very thing had kept him from undertaking that Translation; but at last he yielded to Macarius' earnest Entreaties; however that in this Version he had followed the Rule of those who had translated that Author before him; and that he had imitated S. Jerom, by cutting off those things which seemed disagreeable to the Doctrine of the Church; and so much the rather, because in Origen's Works there were Notions quite contrary: That the Reason of that seeming Contradiction might be found in the Apology that Pamphilus had written for Origen, and which himself had translated; and that he pretended to show, by undeniable Proofs, that Origen's Works had been corrupted in several places by Heretics or Men of ill designs; and that for this very Reason he had either omitted or altered in the Translation of that Treatise, those Articles wherein he seemed to speak otherwise than he did in his other Books. This Preface was written in 397. when Rufinus published his Version of the Books of Origen's Principles at Rome.  
It was no sooner published, but Oceanus and Pammachius sent it to S. Jerom, observing that they had found still some Errors there, notwithstanding that great part was expunged: entreating him, that to secure them in the Truth, he would make a Faithful Translation of that Work. The Note which they writ to him about that Business, is the sixty fourth Letter.  
S. Jerom thinking himself indirectly affronted by Rufinus' Preface, intimating that he had formerly commended Origen, which might insinuate that he then approved his Errors, and approved them still, fell instantly to writing, to let the World know in what Sense he had commended Origen: He owns that he did it in two places of his Works, namely, in the Prologue of his Translation of the Homilies upon the Canticles, dedicated to Damasus, and in the Preface to his Treatise of Hebrew Names. But he affirms, that in both these places, he had not spoken either of his Doctrine or of his Opinions. I have commended him, saith he, as an able Interpreter, and not as a man whose Dogms ought to be followed; I have admired his Parts without approving his Doctrine, I have valued his Philosophy, and not his Preaching. He adds, That if any man would know what his Opinion has always been concerning Origen's Books, let him but read his Commentaries upon Ecclesiastes, and his three Volumes upon the Epistle to the Ephesians, whereby it will appear that he hath constantly contradicted Origen' s Opinions. Huetius is not perfectly satisfied with this Excuse of S. Jerom: He says that it doth not appear by the Commentaries which he citeth, that he hath contradicted Origen's Notions, tho' he hath filled them with that Author's Dogms without quoting him. If he believed them false, says he, ought he not to have censured them? Why did he not think it an Honour to Copy them, as he affirms in the Preface to the second Book of his Commentary upon the Prophet Micah? Why hath he asserted in his Preface to the Book of Hebrew Names, That none but an ignorant man could deny that Origen was one of the Masters of the Church, after the Apostles. These Reasons made Huetius say, That Rufinus was in the right in accusing S. Jerom of being an Origenist, and upbraiding him in his first Invective, that the Name of a Master of the Church cannot be given to an Heretic; that S. Jerom's Excuse is pitiful; that Rufinus thoroughly proves that he commended Origen's Doctrine; and that at last this Father is obliged to confess that his Opinions were altered as to Origen: That Sulpitius Severus had a great deal of Reason to find fault, that S. Jerom having at first followed Origen, did of a sudden condemn all his Works: That S. Augustin did justly accuse him of Inconstancy and Lightness; and that Pope Pelagius the II. is not to be blamed for putting him amongst Origen's Disciples. That, in a word, tho' this Holy Doctor acted the part of good Catholic in abjuring Origen' s Errors after he had owned them; yet it were to be wished he had been more constant and moderate, and that he had not so much indulged the Motions of his inflamed Choler, so as to be carried away unto contrary Notions, according to the different Circumstances of Time, and outrageous railing against the greatest Men of his Age. For this must be acknowledged, that Rufinus reproved him often with Reason, and that he often blamed Rufinus without Ground. This is the Judgement which the Learned Huetius, now nominated to the Bishopric of Soissons, doth with much Reason and Justice make of the Parts and Conduct of S. Jerom. I willingly subscribe to it, and do not doubt but that as many as have ever read this Father, will be of the same Mind. 
* [By this it will appear that things are not always to be approved or disapproved upon S. Jerom's Word. In his management of his Quarrel he is deserted by the Papists, because they condemn the Errors of Origen as well as he, and therefore they cannot with any Decency excuse his Carriage towards Rufinus; but in his Controversies with Jovinian and Vigilantius, concerning Virginity, and Invocation of Saints, he is applauded by them; only the wiser men amongst them are a little out of Countenance at his Heat: It is a Misfortune that Jovinian's and Vigilantius' Books are lost; and there is Reason to believe from those other Disputes wherein S. Jerom was engaged, that if we knew what they said for themselves, instead of thinking them Heretics, we should esteem them illustrious Defenders of the Christian Religion against that Superstition which an immoderate Zeal for a Monastical Life, did at that time introduce into the Church. Jovinian indeed is accused of maintaining, That a Christian who is baptised cannot fall away from Grace, which is a very great Error; but it had no relation to his other Opinions, and since Obstinacy is necessary to make a man a Heretic, it would be rashness to call Jovinian a Heretic of whom we know nothing, but what we have from his Enemies.] .  
And now to return to our Subject: S. Jerom going on to justify himself of those things which they reproached him withal, namely, of commending Origen, sets forth some Examples of great Men that might be commended for their Learning, who did hold very remarkable Errors. S. Cyprian, saith he, took Tertullian for his Tutor, as appears by his Writings, and yet did not approve the Dreams of Montanus and Maximilla as he did. Apollinarius hath written very convincing Books against Porphyrius; and Eusebius writ a most useful History of the Church. The former erred concerning the Mystery of the Incarnation, and the latter defends the Opinions of Arius. He owns that he was Apollinaris' Disciple, Didymus' Scholar, yea, that he hath had a Jew for his Master; that he collected carefully all Origen's Works, and read them exactly, but affirms, that he never followed his Errors. Lastly, to make short, he saith, that if he may be believed, he never was an Origenist, and that though he had been, yet now he ceaseth to be so. Upon this Principle he exhorts others to imitate him, and to condemn his Errors; after that, he gives Origen high Commendations, rejecting his Opinions. He refutes what Rufinus had asserted, that the Errors which were found in Origen's Works had been added; and laughs at the Liberty which he had taken to expunge what he thought fit. Last of all, he affirms, that the first Book of the Apology for Origen, which bore the Name of Pamphilus, was not that Martyrs, but Didymus', or at least some other Author's. This Letter is written near 150 years after Origen's Death, that is, in the year 399.  
The Sixty sixth Letter to Rufinus, wherein he complains of his Preface, is written at the same time. He speaks to him as to a person with whom he would not quite fall out; he telleth him, that he knew not with what Spirit he writ that Preface, but that all the World saw how it was to be understood; that he might have been even with him, by commending him after the like malicious Manner, but that he chose rather to justify himself of the Crime laid to his Charge than offend his Friend; that he entreated him to cite him no more after the same manner; that he undertook to write to him about it as to his Friend, rather than to engage with him publicly. To let him know that he would do nothing that might check that sincere Reconciliation which he had made with him, he exhorts him on his part to do the same, lest, saith he, that biting one another we do not mutually consume one another.  
Rufinus, who was not of a Temper to lie still without replying, immediately put pen to Paper to write against S. Jerom. Paulinianus, who was then in the West, having found a Way to get the Extracts of Rufinus his Book before it was quite published, sent them to his Brother, who besides was informed by Pammachius and Marcellinus, of the principal Heads contained in Rufinus' Answer, and so he composed immediately his first Apology divided into two Books.  
In the First he answers Rufinus' Calumnies. The First was, that he had translated into Latin the Books of Origen's Principles without altering.  
S. Jerom answers that he did it, to show the falsity of Rufinus his Translation, and to show Origen's Errors, and so his Translation could hurt no body, since it appeared that it was made only to condemn the Errors of that Book.  
To justify Origen's Doctrine about the Trinity, Rufinus had quoted the First Book of Pamphilus' Apology. S. Jerom affirms, that it was not composed by that Martyr.  
Rufinus laid before him the Praises which he had given to Origen. He answers as he did before, that he had commended his Learning but not his Doctrine, as he had commended Eusebius and Apollinaris without approving their Errors.  
Rufinus charged him with publishing Errors, and Contradictions in his Commentaries. He says that he did it without approving of them; that he has collected in his Commentaries, the Notions and Words of others, observing that some understood those passages in one Sense, and others in another, that so the prudent Reader may choose what is truth, and reject what is false; and that in this Case none can Tax him with Errors, and Contradictions, who barely relates the Notions, and different Expositions of others. This he proves by the Example of the ablest Commentators of profane Authors.  
Rufinus had found fault, that he had variously translated the twelfth Verse of the second Psalm, where the vulgar Translation saith, Embrace the Discipline, by rendering it according to the Hebrew, sometimes worship the Son, sometimes worship ye only. S. Jerom tells him, That he had kept to the Sense rather than to the Letter, translating the Hebrew word Nashecu, which signifieth, Kiss or Embrace, by this term Worship ye; That as to the other word Bar, which hath several Significations, (for it signifies the Son, or a handful of picked Ears of Corn,) he had followed the former Signification in his Commentary, and that in his Version, to prevent the Jews accusing Christians of falsifying the Holy Scripture, he adhered to the latter Signification, which both Aquila and Symmachus followed.  
Rufinus found fault likewise with several passages in S. Jerom's Commentary upon the Epistle to the Ephesians, in which he had abridged the Commentaries of Origen. S. Jerom defends himself, by saying that he produced Origen's Opinions without approving of them, since he observes at the same time, that those Explications were not his own.  
Lastly Rufinus upbraided S. Jerom, that he was naturally given to Calumniating, and speaking evil of every Body: That he reproved other men's works out of Envy: Yea, he laid Perjury to his Charge; because having protested before the Judgement Seat of Christ (as he says in his Book of the Instruction of Virgin's,) that he would read no more the Books of profane Authors, yet it did appear, that he had not left off reading of them. S. Jerom justifieth himself from the former Accusations; but as to the last he thinks it an Honour to follow the Study of learned Books, and declares, that whatsoever he hath said in the Treatise concerning the Instruction of Virgins, was only the Description of a Dream.  
Towards the latter end of this Letter, he asserts that what he had said in the Eighty third Epistle to Oceanus, That Baptism remits all Sins, that it blots out even the very spot of Bigamy: So that a Man might be ordained after a second Marriage, if the former was before Baptism. This Decision is contrary to that of Pope Innocent I.  
S. Jerom having thus pleaded for himself against Rufinus' accusations, answers the Apology which he had made to satisfy Pope Anastasius who had Condemned him, and to justify himself of those things that they Reproached him withal. He made Profession of the Faith of the Church, and of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity at first. S. Jerom answers that this is not the Question, for now all Mankind was persuaded of that Principle concerning the Incarnation. S. Jerom asks him what he thought of the Soul of Christ, whether it was Created before or at the Moment of his Conception. He chargeth him that he did not speak plain enough about the Resurrection of the Body, and further he pretends that Rufinus did not sufficiently explain himself upon the Eternity of the Devil's punishment. Concerning the Origination of the Soul he had said that there were three different Opinions; Some held that one Soul begat another, as Tertullian and Lactantius. Others that God Created them after the Forming of the Body, and so they came in by Infusion; and lastly some imagined that they were made when God Created the World of nothing; that this was Origen's Opinion, and that of some other Greeks: For his part, he was at no certainty about it, but left it to God, and to those to whom it should please God to Reveal it: But that he believed what the Church openly professed, that God was the Creator of Souls, and Bodies. S. Jerom torments himself much about the last Point, and tho' he doth not say that any of these three Opinions are decided, yet he enveigheth much against Rufinus, because he would not Condemn Origen's Opinion. He endeavours afterwards to Refute the Reasons which he alleged to justify himself for Translating the Books of Origen's Principles: He finds fault that he should strike out some of the Errors and leave the rest. He answers those Conjectures which he brought to show that Origen's Books were Corrupted; and since he had asserted the same thing of the passages in the Works of the ancients, as in S. Clemens, Dionysius of Alexandria, and which did not seem to be agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church, of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity: He denies that that can be reasonably said, observing that if such Conjectures may take place, the greatest Heretics should thereby be easily excused, as Marcian, Manichaeus, Arius, Eunomius. But as Rufinus might have pressed upon S. Jerom by ask him, Why then were there any Errors in their Works, and whether he would call them Heretics upon that Account? S. Jerom prevents that Objection by saying, That perhaps they were in an Error, or the expressions they made use of had another Sense, or their Works might be Corrupted by Transcribers; or lastly, that Writing before the Arian Heresy appeared, they did not take the necessary Precautions against it. When S. Jerom made these remarks, he did not consider, that Rufinus might use them to defend Origen, as he did to excuse the Ancients: and perhaps this way of justifying him had been more Solid than that which he made use of, by saying that those Errors had been added. This S. Jerom opposes with all his Might, and endeavours to show, that all the Examples of falsification of the Fathers Works alleged by Rufinus, have no Relation to those that are supposed to be in Origen's Books. In the rest of the Letter he justifies himself from that Calumny, that he blamed the Version of the Septuagint. He declares, that he was so far from Condemning it, that he had Corrected it himself, and spoke much in its Commendation. But he asserts that this Translation was not Composed by the LXX in distinct Cells, and he defends those that have recourse to the Hebrew Text.  
Rufinus was much surprised to see an Answer to a Book that was not yet published, and he Writ immediately to S. Jerom about it, and sent him withal an entire Copy of his first Answer. This Father who was not wont to leave any thing unanswered that was against him, wrote immediately the third Book of his Apology, which contains nothing but Personal Quarrels, or Repetitions of what had been said before: which commonly proves the end of all disputes that continue long betwixt learned Men.  
Pelagius having made his Errors public. S. Jerom, who suffered no New Opinion in the Church to pass unpunished, fell upon him Vigorously in his Letter to Ctesiphon.  
The first Maxim of Pelagius, which he opposes, is that of Apathy, that is, Freedom from Passions, which this Heretic thought Men could attain unto; and that having once got thus far, they might be without Sin.  
The Second is concerning the Grace of Jesus Christ, whereof Pelagius denied the Necessity, affirming that men's Salvation depended upon the Power of their free Will. S. Jerom, as well as S. Augustin opposes this Error, by showing the necessity of Prayer, and of good Works. If saith he, the Grace of Jesus Christ dependeth upon our Will, if we need only a free Will, and none other help is required, to what purpose should Prayer be made to God? Wherefore dough endeavour to move his Clemency, and call upon him for Succour, to obtain daily that which is in our own Power? ..... We must therefore remove fasting also and Continence: For why should I Labour to get that by my Industry, which always depends on myself? He adds that this Consequence follows so Naturally upon this Heretic's Principles, that one of his own Party could not forbear reasoning after this manner in a Commentary, saying; That if there is need of Foreign help to do good, than Liberty is destroyed. S. Jerom saith against this Error, That we have nothing but what is the Gift of God: That indeed it is Man's part to run and to will, but he hath need of God's assistance, to do it: That it is not enough, that God should once give us his Grace, he must give it Constantly: If we would obtain we must ask for it, and having obtained it, there is need of ask again: And yet this Grace does not destroy freewill, neither does it follow upon these Principles, that it is impossible to keep God's Commandments.  
The Third Maxim of Pelagius refuted by S. Jerom in this Letter, is a Consequence of the former. He held, that Man could be perfect, and freed from Sin, without God's help. S. Jerom proves the contrary by several places of Scripture, which show that Man cannot be delivered, but by the Grace of Jesus Christ. This Letter is of the Year 411.  
He handleth the same Questions in the Dialogue against the Pelagians, where he introduces a Pelagian, under the Name of Critobulus, discovering and establishing his Errors; and a Catholic under the Name of Atticus confuting them particularly, by Testimonies of Holy Scripture. This Dialogue is divided into two Books, and was written some time after the Letter to Ctesiphon about the Year 415.  
The Sixty seventh Letter is a Translation of a Letter from Theophilus to S. Epiphanius, whereby he desires that Bishop of Cyprus to assemble a Synod in that Island, to Condemn Origen, as he had done in Egypt. This Letter is of the Year 399.  
The Sixty eighth is a Letter of S. Jerom's to Theophilus, who had sent him Word, that he should be exact in the observation of the Canons. S. Jerom thanks him for his admonition, and exhorts him to use his Authority against the Origenists, since Patience and Meekness could not reclaim them from their Error. This Letter is of the Year 398.  
The Sixty ninth is from Theophilus to S. Jerom, giving him notice how he had driven away the Monks of Nitria who were accused of Origenism. S. Jerom returns him Thanks for that Noble Action by the Seventieth Letter. And he commends him again in the Seventy first Letter for what he had done against Origen. And in the last Place Theophilus acquaints him by the Seventy second that he had cleansed the Monasteries of Nitria of Origenism.  
The Seventy third is from S. Epiphanius to S. Jerom, giving him notice of the Judgement given by Theophilus against Origen: and he sends him the Letter written by that Bishop, and prays him to Publish what he had written in Latin upon that Matter.  
The Seventy fourth is a Note to Marcelia.  
The Seventy fifth is against Vigilantius, who had accused him of Origenism, he uses the same Arguments for his defence, that he had done in his other Letters, and treats Vigilantius very ill. This Letter was written, about the Year 397.  
The Seventy sixth is of the same time. He repeats there what he had written in several places, that Origen deserves to be commended for his Learning, but that his Principles are not to be followed.  
The Seventy seventh to Mark the Presbyter was written by S. Jerom from the Desert of Syria, about the time when the Eastern Bishops tormented him, to oblige him to own Three Hypostases, about the Year 373.  
The Seventy eighth to Pammachius and Marcelia, is about Origen's Condemnation. He gives them an Account of what Theophilus had decreed. He sends them a Copy of his Letter, and the Acts of his Judgement, and desireth them to have it confirmed at Rome, by Pope Anastasius. This Letter is of 399.  
The Seventy ninth is the last Letter of S. Jerom's, to S. Augustin. S. Jerom sent it by Innocent the Priest, who in the Year 419, was sent from Africa into Egypt to look after the Copies of the Council of Nice. It is not directed to S. Augustin alone, but to him and Alypius. He congratulates their overthrowing of Heresy, and tells them, That he had not had time yet to Answer what Anianus, Pelagius' Disciple had written against him, but he would do it very soon if God gave him Life: He speaketh of Eustochium's Death, who was alive when Palladius wrote his Historia Lausiaca, in 419, which shows that this Letter was written in the Year 420.  
The Eightieth Letter wherein he commends S. Augustin for the Resolution and Courage, wherewith he had opposed Pelagius' Heresy, was written some years before. He exhorts him to go on, praising him in this manner, You are commended in Rome; The Catholics look upon you as the restorer of the ancient Faith, and what is yet a more honourable thing for you is, That the Heretics hate you.  
The Eighty first is a Note written about the time of his falling out with John of Jerusalem, after the Condemnation of the Origenists, about the Year 404.  
In the Eighty second Letter, S. Jerom Answers the Question about the Origination of Souls, proposed to him by Marcellinus Governor of Africa. He does not decide the Question, but saith, That he had delivered his Opinion in his Books against Rufinus, and advises him to consult S. Augustin, who would clear that Point to him: He adds, That he could not yet complete the Commentary upon Ezekiel, because of the Barbarian's Incursions. This Letter is of the Year 410.  
The Eighty third to Oceanus concerneth a Point of Discipline, whether a Person twice married, but once before Baptism, is to be looked upon as a Bigamist, and so to be kept from sacred Orders: S. Jerom maintains the Negative with abundance of Wit.  
In the Eighty fourth to Magnus, S. Jerom proveth by the Examples of S. Paul, and of the most famous Christian Authors, that a Christian Author, may, as he did, make use of profane Examples, and profane Authors. This Letter was composed about the Year 400. In this Letter there is a Catalogue of almost all the Christian Authors to S. Jerom.  
The Eighty fifth is an Invective against one who would have Deacons preferred before Priests. S. Jerom exalts the Priestly Dignity which seems too high, when he compares them with Bishops, I am informed, saith he, that one was so impudent as to prefer Deacons before Priests: before Priests, I say, who may be compared with Bishops; For when S. Paul plainly teaches that Priests are Bishops, who can endure that those who serve Tables and Widows, should by Pride exalt themselves above those, who by their Prayers consecrate the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ? Then he produces passages out of the Apostolical Epistles, where they give to mere Priests the Name of Bishops, and adds, That it was to prevent Schism, that in Process of time, one was chosen to be preferred before others, lest every one presuming to ascribe to himself the Pre-eminence, the Church of Jesus Christ should be perpetually divided. For, saith he, in the See of Alexandria, from S. Mark the Evangelist to the time of Heraclas and Dionysius, the Priests chose one of them, whom they placed in a Seat higher than the rest, and called him Bishop, much after the same manner, as an Army chooses an Emperior, or as Deacons choose one of themselves to make him Archdeacon: And indeed, what doth a Bishop do, that is not done by a Priest, if you except Ordination? We are not to believe, that the Church is otherwise at Rome, than in other Cities of the world. Gauls, Britain's, Africans, Persians, Indians, and all other Nations worship the same God, and have the same rule of Faith. If Authority be required, the World is bigger than a City. Let a Bishop be the Bishop of what Town you please, he is neither more or less a Bishop; whether of Rome, or Eugubium, whether of Constantinople or of Rhegium, Alexandria or Tunis, it is still the same Dignity, and the same Function. Power and Riches do not make a Bishop greater, Poverty and want of Credit do not render his Station more vile. All Bishops are Successors of the Apostles. But, you will say, how cometh it to pass, that at Rome a Priest is not ordained, except a Deacon gives him his Testimonial? Why is the Custom of one only Town objected to me? Why is the small number of Deacons so exalted, as if that were the Law of the Church? All that is rare is most esteemed. The small number hath made Deacons valued, and the great number hath rendered Priests contemptible. However, Deacons stand before the Priests, even when the Priests are sat down, and this is observed even in the Church of Rome: Tho' I have seen a Deacon sitting in the same rank with Priests, in the absence of the Bishop, and give the Blessing in the Presence of the Bishop, such is now the Corruption of Manners! But let such as undertake these things know, that they are against Order; Let them hear these words of the Apostle. It is not just that we should leave the word of God, to serve Tables; let them learn wherefore Deacons were established, let them read the Acts of the Apostles, and remember their condition. The Name of Priest or Presbyter denotes Age, and that of Bishop, Dignity; wherefore in the Epistle to Timothy, mention is made of the Ordination of Bishops and Deacons, but not of that of Priests, because Priests are comprised under the Name of Bishops. Lastly, to show that a Priest is above a Deacon, one needs only observe, that a Priest is made of a Deacon, but not a Deacon of a Priest.  
This Letter was written after his going from Rome, the Year is not known, but it was in all probability about the Year 387. What he saith of Bishops, may have a good Sense, if we consider his design in this place, which was to exalt the Dignity of the Priesthood, by comparing them with Bishops, not that he thought them equal in Dignity, since he positively excepteth the Power of Ordination, (and that of Confirmation in his Dialogue against the Luciforians:) but since Priests have a share in the Government of the Church, they may in that Sense be called Bishops. Like Expressions may be seen in S. Jerom's Commentary upon the Epistle to Titus, and in many Authors that have followed him.  
The Eighty sixth is a Letter from S. Augustin, to S. Jerom, whereby he thanks him for the Answer to his, and entreats him in the Name of the whole African Church, to translate the Greek Authors that had writ Commentaries upon the Scripture. He says, That he was very desirous that S. Jerom would translate the Sacred Books after the same way, that he had translated Job, by setting down the differences of the Version of the LXX, which had great Authority in the Church. Now because S. Augustin did not understand Hebrew, he could not apprehend that there should be so much difference, betwixt the Hebrew Text, and the Translation of the LXX, and doth not approve of any departing from it. For, saith he to S. Jerom, either those passages are clear, or they are dark. If they are dark, you may be mistaken, as well as the Seventy; If they are clear, can any Man believe, that those learned Men did not understand them? This Letter which was written about the Year 395, not being carried, S. Augustin wrote another to S. Jerom upon the same Subject in 397. But the Person to whom he had given it to deliver to S. Jerom, gave out some Copies of it which were spread in Rome, so that it was public before S. Jerom saw it. This second Letter is here the Ninety seventh. S. Augustin asketh of S. Jerom the true Title of his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers; afterwards he reproves what S. Jorom had said, That S. Peter, and S. Paul, pretended to have a difference, tho' they were agreed. He pretends that this Opinion is of very great Consequence, and may have dangerous Effects, because if we admit of an officious Lie in the Holy Scripture, it seems to give Men a handle to doubt of all. He therefore exhorts him to alter that passage in his Commentary. At the latter end, he prays him to add to his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, the Errors of some Heretics of whom he speaks, or to make a Book purposely on that Subject. S. Augustin having no Answer, because neither of those two Letters were delivered to S. Jerom, wrote a Third by Cyprian the Deacon, wherein he requireth an Answer to the two former, adding in this, That he found fault with his writing a new Translation of the Bible, pretending that it would cause Disturbances and Scandals, if it were publicly read in the Church: as it really happened in a Church of afric; where a Bishop having publicly read the Prophecy of Ionas, according to S. Jerom's Translation: the People hearing other Terms than they were wont to hear, accused their Bishop of falsifying the Scripture. This Letter was written some years after the foregoing, about the Year 403.  
S. Jerom having received these Three Letters by Cyprian the Deacon, thought himself affronted by S. Augustin's demands, and answered him with some Loftiness in the Eighty ninth Letter. He repeats all the Questions that had been put to him by S. Augustin, and endeavours to give him Satisfaction. He telleth him, 1. About the Title of his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, that it ought to be Entitled, the Book of Famous Men, or of Ecclesiastical Writers.  
2. He defends his Exposition of S. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, about the Action of S. Peter, and S. Paul, by the Authority of Origen, Didymus and other ancient Authors, whose Commentaries he only translated, as he had said before in the Preface. That if he is in an Error, he had rather err with those Great men, than flatter himself with having the Truth only on his side. He adds Reasons to Authority, showing by the History of the Acts, That S. Peter could not but know, that Christians were freed from the Burden of the Law; That on the other side S. Paul had himself practised that very thing whereof he here accuseth S. Peter, by observing the Ceremonies of the Law; from whence he concludes that both these Apostles, being of the same Opinion, had agreed to raise that small Dispute to instruct both Jews and Gentiles by that pious Artifice. Afterwards he refutes S. Augustin's Opinion, and strives to answer the Reasons which he had produced.  
Last of all he gives him Reasons for the Notes, that were in his Translation of the Scripture. He answereth S. Augustin's reasoning, to prove that he had not done well in Translating the Bible a new, very pleasantly, by retorting the same upon him. You cannot be ignorant, saith he, that the Psalms have been expounded by several Commentators, Greek and Latin, who wrote before you. Pray tell me, how you durst undertake to give a new Exposition of them, after those Great men? You believed that those places which you explained were either clear or obscure: If they were clear, it is probable (to use your own way of reasoning) that they did understand them, and if they are obscure, and they did not well understand them, it may be thought that you might be mistaken as well as they. And lastly, he makes himself sport with their Quarrelling with the good Bishop for reading his Translation of Ionas, showing that the occasion of it was ridiculous, because the Question was about one single word only, namely the term Gourd; which he had rendered Ivy. This Letter is of the Year 404.  
S. Jerom being sometime without answering this Letter, S. Augustin wrote to him, that he was informed that he had received his Letters, and expected an Answer, and whereas there was a Discourse that he had sent a Book to Rome against S. Jerom, he assures him that he had not. This Letter is of the Year 402. It is here the Ninetieth.  
S. Jerom in answer to it saith, That he saw a Letter wherein he reproved a passage of his Commentary upon S. Paul, and advised him to retract it; but not being sure that this Letter was from him, he had not answered it yet, because he had been disturbed by the Sickness of Paula. Afterwards he upbraids him for the Liberty he had taken; and Taxes him with seeking after Glory, by attacking Great men, telling him that he ought to examine his own Strength, and not compare himself with a Man that was grown old in Studying the Holy Scripture, and much less provoke him to a Combat. And at last deals with him, as with one whom he did not much value, and whom he judged not worthy of his Anger. This Letter is of the Year 402.  
The Ninety second is written by S. Jerom with the same Spirit. Again he complains that S. Augustin's Letter was published. He writes him word, that his Friends said that he had not Acted innocently in that particular, but seemed to go about to establish his own Glory, by the ruin of another Man's: That if he would Dispute, there were young and able Men at Rome of his own strength; As for himself, he might, like a Veteran Soldier commend the Victories of others, but not engage in the Fight; That he would not so much as read his Books to find fault; That he had seen nothing of his, but his Soliloquies, and some Commentaries upon the Psalms, and that if he would examine them, he could show him how he departed from the Exposition of ancient Authors. This Letter is of the Year 403.  
S. Augustin having received both these Letters, answered him with much Civility and Moderation, yet without subscribing to his Opinions. He speaks of the Quarrel which he had with Rufinus, and laments that Division, representing to him, that he had not showed that Meekness and Charity which he might have done. This Letter is written very Artificially. It is the Ninety third. He directed it to Presidius, to see it conveyed to S. Jerom, as appears by the Ninety fifth.  
S. Jerom contented with S. Augustin's Compliments and Satisfaction, writ to him some time after the Ninety sixth Letter, whereby he excuses himself for having answered him, and tells him, that he earnestly desired there should be no more Disputes betwixt them.  
S. Augustin having received this Letter by Firmus, returned an Answer by the Ninety seventh Letter, to what S. Jerom had written to satisfy his Requests, and defended his Opinions with great Clearness and Moderation. This Letter is here the Ninety seventh, and was written as well as the foregoing in the Year 403.  
After this time there was no more said of the Questions that were betwixt them, and they never writ to one another but with Civility. This may be taken Notice of in the Letters we have already spoken of, and in the Ninety fourth, where S. Jerom thanketh S. Augustin, for Dedicating and sending to him, by Orosius, the Books concerning the Origination of Souls; and he tells him, That he spoke honourably of him in the Dialogue, which he wrote against Pelagius. This Letter is of the Year 406.  
The Ninety eighth is a Compliment from S. Jerom to S. Augustin of the Year 397.  
The Ninety nineth Letter to Asella was written by S. Jerom, at his going from Rome; he defends himself very warmly from the false Rumours, which his Calumniators had spread against him; because of the Familiarity which he had had at Rome with some Roman Ladies. This Letter he writ when he was Embarking to return into the East, in 385.  
The Hundred Letter is a satire against one Bonosus, who had taken, what S. Jerom had writ in general against all Vices, as particularly designed against himself, it is probably of the same time 
[Erasmus's Edition which Dr. Cave follows calls him Bonasus, which seems to be the truer Reading by the Letter itself, wherein S Jerom, quibbles upon his Name, and plays upon his Nose, and tells him, That tho' his Name be lucky, yet upon that Account he has no Reason to value himself]  with the foregoing.  
The Hundred and first to Pammachius, Concerning the best Method of translating, is about the Translation, which he made Two years before of S. Epiphanius' Letter to John of Jerusalem. He was accused of not having done it faithfully. To justify himself, he proves by the Examples of the best Translators both Ecclesiastical and Profane, that to translate well, one is not to follow the words, or terms, but the Sense and Conceptions of his Author. He saith, that this Treatise was composed Two years after the Translation of S. Epiphanus' Letter, of the Year 303, which shows that it is of 395.  
In the Hundred and second to Marcelia, he argues against those who accused him, of corrupting the Text of the Gospel, because he had corrected the faults of the Latin Translation according to the Greek Original; and he reproveth those that found fault with him, for blaming the Virgins frequenting Men's Company. This Letter was written likewise sometime after his Departure from Rome, in 385, or 386.  
These are S. Jerom's Letters, and Treatises contained in the Second Volume.  
The Third contains the Critical Letters and Works upon the Holy Scripture.  
The First directed to Paulinus, is not upon that Subject only; for he exhorts him not only to the Reading of the Holy Scripture, but also to retire, and to vow Poverty. But the Principal Subject of that Letter is Precepts, and a Method which is to be observed both in Reading and understanding the Holy Scripture. He shows at first that no Man ought to enter upon that Study, without a Skilful Guide to show him the Way. He complains that all other Arts, and Sciences, are exercised by none but Men of that Profession, but that every one pretends to be Skilled in the understanding of the Scriptures.  
To show that Men are deceived, and that the Scripture is not so easily understood, as they imagine, he reckons up the several Books, and takes notice of the great difficulty of finding the true Sense and Spirit of them, and he draws up in short very curious Observations upon every Book of the Scripture, and upon the Character of their Authors.  
The Second Letter in Number one hundred and four to Desiderius, is a Preface to his Version of the Pentateuch. He sheweth how necessary, and withal how difficult it is to undertake it after the Translation of the LXX, and that this is defective.  
The hundred and Fifth Letter is a Preface to the Book of Job.  
The hundred and Sixth is a Preface to the Books of Kings, where he sets down the number of the Canonical Books of the old Testament, according to the Jewish Catalogue.  
The hundred and Seventh is a Preface to the Chronicles directed to Chromatius.  
The hundred and Eighth is another Preface to the Chronicles.  
The hundred and Ninth is a Preface to Ezra and Nehemiah.  
The hundred and Tenth is the Preface to Tobit.  
The hundred and Eleventh to Judith.  
The hundred and twelfth to Esther.  
The hundred and Thirteenth to Job.  
The hundred and Fourteenth is another Preface to Job.  
The hundred and Fifteenth is a Preface to the Books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles.  
The hundred and Sixteenth is a particular Letter concerning his Translation of Ecclesiastes.  
The hundred and Seventeenth to Isaiah.  
The hundred and Eighteenth to Jeremiah.  
The hundred and Ninteenth to Ezekiel.  
The hundred and Twentieth to Daniel.  
The hundred and Twenty first to the Twelve Minor Prophets.  
The hundred and Twenty second to Joel.  
The hundred and Twenty third is a Preface directed by S. Jerom to Damasus upon the new Translation of the four Evangelists.  
The hundred and Twenty-fourth is a Letter from Damasus to S. Jerom, wherein he asketh him five Questions about the Holy Scripture. The First, what is the meaning of those Words. Genesis Chap. 4. Whosoever Slays Cain, Vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. The second, if all that God did was very good, as it is said in Genesis wherefore is mention made of Clean and unclean Creatures? The third why God said to Abraham, that the Children of Israel should go out of Egypt in the fourth Generation; and yet it is said in Exodus that it was the fifth Generation which came out of Egypt. The fourth why Abraham received Circumcision as a Seal of Faith. And the fifth why Isaac Blessed that Son whom he designed not to Bless.  
S. Jerom makes no answer to Damasus about the second and fourth Question, because they were handled at Large by Tertullian, Novatian, Origen and Didymus: But he explaineth the rest. He saith to the first concerning those Words of Genesis, Whosoever slays Cain Vengeance shall be taken on him Sevenfold; That they signify, that whosoever killeth Cain, shall undergo the seven sorts of Revenge, or Punishment wherewith he was threatened. He resolves the Third, by observing that we are not to Read in Exodus, that the Children of Israel went out of Egypt at the Fifth Generation, as it is in the Translation of the Seventy, but that they went out Armed, as it is in Aquila's Translation: Lastly he answereth the fifth, saying that Isaac did that good thing for the Family, in Blessing Jacob by a particular Effect of God's Providence without knowing it: He citys afterwards a Passage out of Hippolytus, which gives an Allegorical Sense to that Action, affirming that Esau was a Type of the People of the Jews, and Jacob that of the Church. He approves this Exposition, and so he easily answers Damasus his Question.  
In the hundred and Twenty fifth Letter to Evagrius, he examineth who Melchisedeck was: He rejects that Man's Opinion, who held that Melchisedeck was the Holy Spirit. As also Origen's and Didymus' who said that Melchisedeck was an Angel. He produces the Opinions of Hippolytus, S. Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Eustathius, who believed him to have been a Canaanite, King of a City called Salem, and a Priest of the Lord: He likewise takes Notice of the Jewish Opinion that it was Sem Noah's Son, and he seems not to disapprove it. He observes that the City of Salem, was not Jerusalem as Josephus and most of the ancients believed, but another City near Scythopolis, called, as he says, Salem even in his time.  
The following Letter to Fabiola, is a moral Explication of the Forty Encamp of the Israelites, from their going out of Egypt to the Land of Promise. He looks upon that Journey as a Representation of the way to Heaven, and to every decamping he applies a moral Instruction. The like Reflections are made in the Hundred and twenty eighth Letter upon the Habits, and Sacerdotal Ornaments of the Priests under the old Law.  
He shows in the Hundred and twenty ninth, that what is said of the promised Land, is to be understood spiritually of eternal Glory, and as he makes use particularly of the Epistle to the Hebrews to prove his Assertion, so he affirms, that tho' the Greek Churches will not own it no more than the Revelations of S. John, yet the Latins receive both, because they are quoted by the Ancients.  
In the Hundred and thirtieth to Marcelia, he tells her what the Ephod and Teraphim were.  
The Hundred and thirty first Letter to Rufinus, contains an Allegorical Exposition of the History of the two Women that were judged by Solomon, who were, as he pretends a Figure of the Church and of the Synagogue.  
In the Hundred and thirty second, he answers an Historical difficulty about the years of Solomon and Ahaz. It is said of Solomon that he began to Reign at twelve years, that he Reigned forty years, and that his Son Roboam Succeeded him being forty one years old. It seems by that, that Solomon had a Son at eleven years: The same is said of King Ahaz. He is said to have begun his Reign at twenty years of Age, that he Reigned sixteen years, and that his Son Hezekiah Succeeded him at the Age of twenty five, which also intimates that Ahaz had him at Eleven years of Age. This seems Extraordinary and Incredible. S. Jerom answers that it might possibly be, but that the difficulty might be Salved thus, that the Reigns both of Solomon and of Ahaz, may have had a double beginning: When they began to Reign with their Fathers, and when they began to Reign by themselves. This being supposed, the answer is at Hand, when it is said that Solomon began to Reign at twelve, and Ahaz at twenty years of Age, is to be understood of the beginning of their Reign with their Fathers, whereas when it is said in another Place, that they died after having Reigned, one forty, and the other sixteen years, that is to be understood of the Time when they began to Reign alone. Whence it follows that they might then be of Age to have Children. He confesses at the Latter end of this Letter that there are several Chronological difficulties in the History of the old Testament: Especially about the years of the Kings of Israel and of Juda, but he would have no Man trouble himself much to Explain them.  
The Hundred and thirty third Letter to Marcelia is a Critic upon the Commentary upon the Canticles, that was made by Rheticius Bishop of Autun. He observes several Faults in that Author, which were mentioned in the second Volume of this Bibliotheca.  
The Hundred and thirty fourth to Sophronius containeth Notes upon the Psalms. He saith that some divide them into Five Books, but that he Comprehended all in one Volume, following therein the Authority of the Jews and the Apostles. He affirms that they are written by those whose Names are found at the beginning of every Psalm. He speaks afterwards of his Latin Translation of the Psalms, and of Sophronius' design to Translate it into Greek.  
The Hundred and thirty fifth Letter to Sunia and Fretella, is a Critic upon those passages of the Psalms where the Greek of the Septuagint, and the Latin Version differ. S. Jerom layeth this down for a Rule, That when there is a Difference betwixt the Latin Copies of the New Testament, they ought to go to the Original: So likewise when there is any Difference between the Greek and the Latin of the Old Testament, to find out the Truth, the Hebrew Text ought to be consulted. By this Rule he explains all those passages of the Psalms where the Greek of the Seventy, and the Version then in use did not agree.  
In the Hundred and thirty sixth to Marcelia, he expounds the ten several Names given to God in the Hebrew Tongue.  
In the Hundred and thirty seventh to the same, he gives the Signification of the Terms Halleluja, Amen, Maranatha. Halleluja, according to him, signifies praise the Lord. Amen is a Word which signifies that Credit is given to a thing, desiring that it may be so; and which may be rendered, So be it. Maranatha is a Syriack Word, which S. Jerom translateth, Our Lord comes.  
In the Hundred and thirty eighth Epistle to the same, he shows the Meaning of the Hebrew Selah, which the Greeks translate Diapsalma, a Word very frequent in the Psalms. He saith that some have said that the Diapsalma was an Alteration of the Verse; and others, that it signified a Pause; others, a Change of the Tune: He is not of their mind, but saith with Aquila, that Selah signifies always.  
The Hundred and thirty ninth, to Cyprian, is an Exposition of the Eighty ninth Psalms according to the Hebrew Text.  
The Hundred and thirtieth, to Principia, is an Exposition of the Forty fourth Psalm.  
The Hundred and forty first containeth certain Remarks to understand the Hundred and twenty sixth Psalm.  
The Hundred and forty second, and Hundred forty third, to Damasus, clears the History of Uzziah, speaks of the Seraphim, the Holy, holy, holy, and the rest of Isaiah's Vision described in the sixth Chapter of his Prophecy.  
The Hundred and forty fifth Letter to Pope Damasus, explains the meaning of the Word Hosanna, rejecting S. Hilary's Opinion, who thought that it signified The Redemption of David ' s House; as also that it signified Glory: To expound it he appeals to the Hebrew Text, and pretends, that Hosanna, whereof they have made Hosanna, signifies Save us Lord.  
The Hundred and forty sixth to the same, is an allegorical Exposition of the Parable of the prodigal Son, whom he supposes to be a Figure of the Gentiles converted to the Faith.  
In the Hundred and forty seventh to Amandus, he gives a literal Explication of three passages of the New Testament, of these Words of Jesus Christ, Matth. ch. 6. Take no thought for the morrow; sufficient unto the Day is the evil thereof. Of those of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 2. He that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body: and of that other of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 15. where he saith, that all things are subject to the Son of God, and that he is subject to him who hath put all things under him. At the latter end he moves the Question, whether a Woman having left her Husband because he was an Adulterer, or given to unnatural Lusts, may be married to another; and if, having done it, she might be admitted to the Communion? He answers, That she cannot marry without sinning, and ought not to be admitted to the Communion but after Penance, and having renounced the second Husband.  
In the Hundred and forty eighth, he resolves five Questions, which Marcelia put to him upon several passages of the New Testament. The first is, How S. Paul could say, that eye hath not seen nor e'er heard, neither have entered into the heart of Man the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. Since he says in another place, that God hath revealed them by his Spirit. S. Jerom answereth that in the former place S. Paul speaks of the things which the Eyes and Ears of Flesh may apprehend, and what may be comprehended by humane Understanding without Revelation. The second Question was about the Exposition which S. Jerom had given of the Parable of the Goats and of the Sheep, which are at the right, and at the left Hand of God; whereby he understood the Jews and the Gentiles, and not good and evil Men. Here S. Jerom refers to what he had said in his Books to Jovinian. The third Question was concerning those of whom the Apostle saith, that they shall be carried alive into the Air at the Day of Judgement to meet Jesus Christ. S. Jerom sticks not to say, that this is to be understood literally, and that such as shall be found alive then shall not die, but their Bodies shall become incorruptible and immortal. The fourth is about those Words of Jesus Christ to Mary Magdalen, Touch me not. This is the Sense of them according to S. Jerom, You deserve not to fall down at my Feet and worship me, seeing you doubted of my Resurrection. It is more natural to expound them after this other manner, Do not make haste to embrace and to hold me, I am not yet ascended into Heaven, I will abide for some time upon Earth, and you may do it at leisure. The last Question is to know whether Christ being upon Earth after his Resurrection, was likewise in Heaven at the same time? S. Jerom answereth, that it is unquestionable that the Word of God was every where; but he does not answer the Question proposed precisely, which was not concerning the Divinity, but the Humanity of Jesus Christ.  
In the Hundred and forty ninth Letter he proposeth to himself one of the chiefest and most considerable Difficulties of the New Testament; namely what is the Sin against the Holy Ghost, and in what Sense it is unpardonable. But he doth not go to the bottom of the Question, showing only by the buy, against Novatian, that it is not the Sin of Idolatry.  
The Hundred and fiftieth to Hebidia, and the Hundred and fifty first, to Algasia, contain Solutions of three and twenty Difficulties about particular Passages of the New Testament, which these Ladies had put to S. Jerom. They are very curious Questions, and S. Jerom's Answers are very just and learned.  
To these Works we ought to join the Treatises which are at the latter end of the eighth Volume, which likewise are Critical Letters. Namely,  
The Book of the Names of the Cities and Countries mentioned in the Bible, translated out of Eusebius.  
An Exposition of the Hebrew proper Names in the Old and New Testament.  
The Hundred and fifty first Epistle is an Explication of the Hebrew Alphabet, written whilst he was at Rome.  
A Collection of Traditions, or rather Jewish Expositions upon Genesis; a most curious and useful Work for the right Understanding of the Text of the Scripture; where he takes Notice of all the Differences betwixt the Hebrew Text and the Translation of the Septuagint.  
The Hundred and fifty second Letter, to Minerius and Alexander, upon these Words of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 15. We shall not all die, but we all shall be changed: wherein he gives a particular Account of the different Expositions of this Place by the ancient Commentators. He quoteth Theodorus of Perinthus, Diodorus of Tarsus, Apollinaris, Acacius of Caesarea, and Origen. This Letter is of the year 406.  
In the same place is the Hundred and fifty third Letter to Paulinus, written about the same time; he answereth two Questions put to him. The first, how one could reconcile to freewill, what is said in Genesis, that God hardened Pharaoh ' s heart; and what S. Paul saith, That it is neither of the Will, nor of the Endeavours of Men, but of God who maketh Man to act. The second why S. Paul calleth the Children that are born of baptised Parents, holy, since they cannot be saved, but by receiving and preserving the Grace of Baptism. For the former, S. Jerom referreth him to what Origen saith upon that Subject in the Book of Principles newly translated by S. Jerom. And to the second, he answereth, with Tertullian, that the Children of Christians are called holy, because they are as it were Candidates for the Faith, and have not been defiled with Idolatry; adding, that the Scripture gives the Name of holy to things that are pure; and that in this Sense the Vessels of the Temple are said to be holy.  
Lastly, There▪ is in the same place the Hundred fifty fourth Letter to Desiderius and Serenilla, whom he invites to come to Bethlehem. It is written after the Treatise of Famous men, about the Year 400.  
We are to reckon likewise amongst S. Jerom's critical Works upon the Bible, the Corrections and Translations which he made of the Books of the Scripture. At first he corrected the Greek Text of the Seventy, and reform the common Edition, by Origen's Hexapla. He made a new Translation 
o He made a New Translation.] He speaks of this Version as wholly his own in the Eighty ninth Letter, to S. Augustin; yet it is likely, that he made use in several Books of the Scripture, of the ancient vulgar Translation, which he only corrected: It is certain that he made a new Translation of the Psalms, as he says himself in this Epistle to Sunia and Fretela; He also translated anew the Book of Job, as appears by the two Prefaces to that Book, and to those of Solomon, as it is observed in the Second Book of the Apology against Rufinus.  of them, wherein he marked by two Hooks, those passages of the Septuagint that were not in the Hebrew Text, and added the Version of what was in the Hebrew Text, which was not in the Translation of the LXX, noting those Additions with a Star, so that in this Translation one might see at once, both what was added, and what was wanting in the Version of the LXX. This Translation of S. Jerom's of the Books of the Prophets, is joined to his Commentaries.  
This was the first Labour of S. Jerom upon the Bible, which he undertook when he was but young in his first Retirement.  
Afterwards having attained to a more perfect knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue, he conceived that it would prove a considerable Service to the Church, if he set forth an entire Translation of his own from the Hebrew Text. Wherefore he fell upon that Work, and published a new Latin Version of all the Books, which the Jews own to be Canonical 
p The Books which the Jews own to be Canonical.] He did not translate the Books that were not in the Canon of the Hebrews, except Tobit, and Judith; and so the Translations of the Books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, Baruk, and Jeremiah's Letter, and the Additions to the Books of Hester and Daniel, are not S. Jerom's.  and of the Books of Judith and Tobit, setting before the beginning of each Book the Prefaces already mentioned.  
This new Translation of S. Jerom was but ill received in the Church at first. Men were very much prepossessed in favour of the Septuagint, and S. Jerom's enterprise was looked upon as a rash and dangerous Innovation: S. Augustin himself disliked it, and sent him word, as we have seen, that he would have done better if he had been contented with the Translation of the Septuagint, and not have gone about a new one, which would certainly cause some Scandal and trouble in the Church. Rufinus and others of S. Jerom's Enemies, went yet further, and accused him of perverting the Scripture, and despising the Authority of the Apostles, by rejecting the LXX's Translation which they had made use of, to introduce a new one, borrowed, in some sort from the Jews. All these reproaches did not hinder S. Jerom from publishing his new Translation. He shows the injustice of his Accusers in most of his Prefaces. Sometimes he complains of the ingratitude of Persons in his Age, who instead of acknowledging the good Services he had done to the Church, reckoned it as a Crime in him: Sometimes he declares, That he did not undertake that new Translation to condemn the Septuagint which he commends, and approves, and which he corrected and translated in his Youth, and that his design barely was, to do an useful Work. Sometimes he saith, That he was obliged to make a new Translation, because the Septuagint had been corrupted. But for the most part he affirms openly, That the main reason which put him upon making a new Translation, was, the want of Exactness in that of the Seventy, and the small Conformity which it had with the Hebrew Text; which, he believes aught to be depended upon, as the true Original. And for this reason, almost as often as he speaks of it, he gives it the Name of the Hebrew truth. He allegeth also political Reasons for his undertaking. The Jews accused us in their Disputes with us, that we did not faithfully quote the Holy Scripture, they continually urged that the Hebrew Text was not conformable to what was cited to them out of the Translation of the LXX. The Christians who were ignorant of the Hebrew, and besides had no Translation from the Hebrew, were extremely perplexed, and were forced, either to remain Speechless, or to have recourse to the Rabbins. He sheweth how necessary it was, that a Christian learned in the Hebrew Tongue, should make a Translation conformable to the Hebrew Text. S. Jerom had another Argument to recommend his Translation to the Latins, and that was point of Honour.  
The Greeks, says he, boast that the Latins have the Holy Scripture only through their Channel; it is good to beat down their Pride, and to let them know, that the Latins have no need of them, but could go to the Fountainhead themselves. Interest and Conveniency, were Considerations, that S. Jerom also made use of to bring his Translation into credit. There were a great many different Greek Translations; and several Editions of the Seventy quite different one from the other; It was impossible to compare them together without great pains, and much labour, and to have them without a great deal of Money. And after all, that Variety brought in great Confusion, and rendered the Scripture almost unintelligible, to those that did not understand the Hebrew Text. How necessary then was it to deliver the World out of that perplexity, by setting forth a Translation conformable to the Original, which should make all the rest almost useless.  
How good soever these Reasons were in themselves, yet they were not strong enough to make S. Jerom's Translation welcome to the Latins at first; they kept for the most part to the ancient vulgar Version, being unwilling that any thing should be altered it: But by little and little S. Jerom's got some credit; tho' the ancient vulgar was still in use; so that in S. Gregory's time both these Translations were followed, and this Father observes, that himself used sometimes one, and sometimes the other. Since that time S. Jerom's Translation got the upper hand, and was received and read publicly in the Churches of the West, excepting the Translation of the Psalms, and some Mixtures of the ancient vulgar Translation 
q Excepting the Translation of the Psalms, and some mixtures of the ancient vulgar Translation.] It is certain that our vulgar is not the ancient Translation that was made from the Septuagint. It is certain also that it was made from the Hebrew, but none of the Fathers understood Hebrew besides S. Jerom, and so the Body of that Translation cannot be attributed to any Body else: Besides, the Tran slations of the Books of the Bible which are in his Commentaries, are almost wholly consormable to our vulgar. We find also in the other Books a great many of those Alterations which S. Jerom professes to have made in his Translation. It is certain that the vulgar Translation of the Psalms is not S. Jeroms's. It was not made after the Hebrew, but after the Septuagint, tho' it is in some places conformable to the Translations of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus, and different from that of S. Jerom, which is yet extant among his Works. The Additions to the Books of Hester, and Daniel, are not of S. Jerom's Translation, no more than that of the Books that were not in the Jewish Canon. In shor●, in our vulgar Latin are many places, which are remains of the ancient Translation mingled with the new, for there are several places agreeable to the Translation of the LXX, and differing from the Hebrew Text, as well as from the Observations, and Translation of S. Jerom, who scrupulously tied himself to the Hebrew Truth. , some passages whereof have been preserved in the vulgar Latin.  
As for the New Testament, S. Jerom did not undertake to make a new Translation, but contented himself with comparing the old one with the Greek, and to correct the principal passages where it disagreed with the Text, as he said himself in the Preface of the Gospels to Damasus, in a Letter to S. Augustin, and in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers. This work was much better received than the new Version of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and hardly any Body was offended at it, because the Greek Tongue being easily understood, it was not difficult to discover the Alterations that might be made in the Greek Text, which could not be done in the Hebrew which was understood by the Jews only.  
S. Jerom's Commentaries upon the Scripture, have great Relation to his other Studies, and those Writings that we have hitherto spoken of. First of all he sets down the ancient vulgar Translation, and with it joins commonly his New Translation: Secondly, He inquires after the Sense of the Hebrew Text exactly, and compares it with the several Greek Versions. He citys the other places of Scripture which have any Relation to that which he expoundeth. In making these Observations, he clears the literal Sense of the Scripture, and discovers the Prophecies, by showing their Accomplishment. And in the last place, he adds mystical Explications, and short Allegories, which most commonly are only Etymologies, and Turns of Wit about words. He confesseth, that very often, he barely translated some passages of Origen's Commentaries, and other Greek Authors without naming them: Wherefore he pretends, that the Errors and Contradictions in his Commentaries are not to be imputed to him; because he only related the Opinions of others without approving them: that if he condemned them not, yet he did not intent to defend them, but would spare the others Reputation: And lastly, That this Moderation should give his Enemies no occasion to Calumniate as they did, and to accuse him of upholding such Errors, that he was so far from, and which he refuted in other places.  
These Remarks may give a General Idea of S. Jerom's Commentaries upon the Bible, especially upon the Books of the Prophets, wherein he followeth this method now described exactly, and insists particularly upon the Exposition of the Historical Sense of the Prophecies. He divided his Commentaries into several Books, and intermixed here and there some Prefaces, in which he explains in general, the subject of his Commentaries, and then answers the Calumnies that were raised against him.  
The Fourth Volume contains his Commentaries upon the Four great Prophets, namely eighteen Books of Commentaries upon Isaiah, Six upon Jeremiah, Fourteen upon Ezekiel, and one upon Daniel.  
The Fifth Volume contains the Commentaries upon Ecclesiastes and the Twelve minor Prophets.  
In the Sixth Volume are S. Jerom's Commentaries upon the Books of the New Testament, after these there is a Preface to Damasus upon the Four Evangelists, a Canon, or a Table of the Harmony of the Four Evangelists: Four Books of Commentaries or Notes upon S. Matthew's Gospel; wherein he explains very clearly the Letter of the Gospel, only adding now and then some moral Reflections, but he doth not enlarge upon Allegories. He observeth very near the same method in his Commentaries upon S. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Titus and Philemon, which are in the same Volume, with the Translation of Didymus' Book of the Holy Ghost.  
These Commentaries were not written by S. Jerom in the same order as they are set down in this Edition. Those upon the New Testament were composed first, not long after he was returned from his Journey to Rome towards the Year 388. About the same time he writ his Commentaries upon Ecclesiastes, and undertook afterwards those upon the minor. Prophets, beginning at Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai. These Works were completed before the Year 392. The Commentaries upon the others held him till towards the Year 400. Afterwards he wrote upon Daniel, and having done that, he undertook the Commentary upon Isaiah, which was ended in 409; in 410. he composed that upon Ezekiel. The last of all are the Commentary upon Jeremiah, as it is observed in the Preface. If we add to these Works already mentioned, the Translation of Origen's two Homilies upon the Canticles, that are in the Eighth Volume, of the Nine Homilies upon Isaiah, of Fourteen upon Ezekiel, and of Fourteen upon Jeremiah, which are among Origen's Works, and the Version of Eusebius' Chronicon, we have all the Genuine Works of S. Jerom, the rest being spurious as we shall show afterwards.  
As for the Chronicon it should not be looked upon as a mere Translation of Eusebius, S. Jerom having added many things to it, as he says in his Preface, where he observes that what is there from Ninus and Abraham to the taking of Troy, is a faithful Translation of the Greek: that from the taking of Troy, to the 20th. Year of Constantine, he had added and altered many things, which he had collected out of Suetonius and other Latin Authors; and last of all, That he continued Eusebius his Chronicon from the 20th. Year of Constantine, to the Sixth Consulship of Valens, and the Second of Valentinian, that is to the Year 378. of the vulgar Aera.  
We have lost a Commentary of S. Jerom upon the Tenth Psalm, and the Six following, divided into seven parts, which he mentions in his Catalogue. Notes upon all the Psalms, which he speaks of in the first Apology against Rufinus; and a Treatise upon the Book of Job, which he mentions in the Commentary upon the Fifth Chapter of Amos. S. Augustin in his Treatise of Heresies to Quodvultdeus, saith, That he had heard that S. Jerom had composed a Treatise upon the same Subject, but that he could not find it. The same Saint speaks in the Two hundred and sixtieth Epistle to Oceanus, of a Treatise of S. Jerom's which Orosius had brought to Oceanus, wherein he treated of the Resurrection. Cassiodorus names some other Works of this Father, as a Letter to Antius, where he saith, That he has explained great Difficulties: An Exposition upon Salomon's Judgement: Notes upon all the Prophets; and a Commentary upon the Reveldtions. Trithemius mentions a moral Commentary upon the Four Gospels, and another upon the Canonical Epistles; but these Treatises are not extant: neither is it very certain, that they were S. Jerom's.  
I have omitted some Books that are in this Volume now mentioned, because they are not S. Jerom's, tho' they bear his Name; Here is the Catalogue of them, and a Critic upon them.  
The Questions upon the book of Chronicles, and the Books of Kings, which are rejected by most of the Critics, as being not S. Jerom's. First, Because when S. Jerom makes a Catalogue of his Works, he speaks only of his Questions upon Genesis, but says nothing of his having written the like work upon the Chronicles, or the Kings. 2. Because the subject and the stile of these latter Questions seems different from that of the former. In his Questions upon Genesis, S. Jerom sets down often the Hebrew words of the Text, and the Greek terms of the Translations, of which he examines the differences: but in these there is nothing like it. In the Questions upon Genesis, he seriously searcheth into the Sense of the Scripture, and makes solid and useful Reflections: These on the contrary are full of useless, trifling, and fabulous Remarks. Wherefore Lyranus thinks they are unworthy of S. Jerom; and ascribes them to some newly converted Jew: For my part I would not affirm so positively, that they are not S. Jerom's. They were composed by a Man that understood Hebrew, who kept to the Letter of the Holy Scripture, who was acquainted with Jewish Traditions: all which Characters belong to S. Jerom: the stile of those Books is very like his, and no Man ought to wonder that in a Treatise of this Nature he hath followed some of the Jewish Fancies.  
This will not hold of the small Treatise which contains the Explication of the Countries, and Towns spoken of in the Acts: it being evidently written by some other Author besides S. Jerom, since he quotes this Father's Treatise when speaking of Smyrna. It is among Bede's Works, who probably may be the Author of it.  
The Commentary upon the Lamentations of Jeremiah is a Collection by Rabanus of the thoughts of several Fathers, and particularly of S. Gregory. It is among that Author's Works, and it is cited under his Name, by Bonaventure, in his Commentary upon the Lamentations.  
The Commentary or Book of Annotations upon S. Mark's Gospel, is altogether unworthy of S. Jerom, both for the stile and for the matter. The Author knew neither Greek nor Hebrew, nor spoke very good Latin. He is guilty of ridiculous Errors, as when he saith, That Pascha signifies Passage in Latin, and that Phase signifies the offering of a Victim, and when he Remarks that Nardus Pistica, is as much as to say Mystical. He confounds Mary Magdalen, with Mary of Bethany; an Opinion refuted by S. Jerom in his Commentary upon the Twenty sixth Chapter of S. Matthew. Speaking of the Cross, he repeateth several Verses out of Sedulius, who writ long after S. Jerom.  
The Commentaries upon the Psalms have not fewer Marks of their being Supposititious, for 1. The Author of them had no knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek Tongues. 2. His Method in Expounding the Scripture is quite different from S. Jerom's, for whereas S. Jerom keepeth to the Historical and Literal Sense, he uses only Moral and Mystical Expositions. 3. His Remarks are contrary to S. Jerom's; as when he Expoundeth the Hundred and fourth Psalm, he saith that Cynomia is a Dog-fly. But S. Jerom rejects that Notion, at the latter end of his Letter to Sunia and Fretella. Upon the Eighty sixth Psalm, he observes that according to the Hebrew, it must be Nunquid Zion, dicet Homo? S. Jerom renders it, Ad Zion, dicet Homo. He denies that the Eighty ninth Psalm is written by Moses, tho' S. Jerom ascribes it to him, in his Commentary upon the thirteenth Psalm. He saith that a Passage of Scripture cited by S. Paul in the third Ch. of the Epistle to the Romans, is taken out of Deuteronomy, and S. Jerom shows that it is out of Isaiah. 4. This Author's Style is far from the Elegancy of S. Jerom's, nay it is very full of Faults, Repetitions, and Solecisms. 5. This Author's Commentary is made up of common Places, and moral Exhortations. 6. He quoteth S. Eucherius upon the Sixteenth Psalm. 7. It is manifest that these Commentaries are not Notes explaining the Letter of the Scripture; but Instructions, and Conferences (as appears by the Expositions of the Eighty ninth, Hundred and eleventh, and Hundred and fifteenth Psalms) whose Conclusions are in the form, of an Homily; and by several Expressions, discovering that the Author spoke to others. And this has made it be believed, that they are the Discourses of some Monk, who expounded the Psalms to his Brethren, by collecting the Expositions of some Commentators. Wherefore it is no wonder to find in the Commentary upon the Ninety third Psalms a passage which S. Augustin citeth in his Epistle to Fortunatianus, under S. Jerom's Name, and in the Commentary upon the Fiftieth Psalm, another passage quoted under S. Jerom's Name by S. Gregory, in his Exposition of the Fourth pentential Psalm.  
The Commentary upon Job, having been made, as appears by the Conclusion, at the request of Victorius an English Bishop, who lived in Bede's time, cannot be S. Jerom's, but very likely Bedes himself. Some attribute it to Philip a Priest and Monk, S. Jerom's Disciple, to whom Gennadius ascribes Commentaries upon Job. But this Commentary of Philip's is that which is attributed to Bede, and this is rather Bedes, being very like the Commentary upon the Proverbs of Solomon, which is undoubtedly his, as Trithemius assures us: These Commentaries do very much differ from S. Jerom's, both as to the Style, and the Matter: The Author citeth the Scripture according to our Vulgar Translation; he quotes S. Augustin, S. Gregory, and S. Jerom. In the Commentary upon the Twenty fifth Chapter of Job, there is a passage cited by Faustus Rhedonensis under S. Jerom's Name: It is likely that the Author of that Work had taken it out of this Father.  
The Commentaries, or Notes upon all S. Paul's Epistles are not S. Jerom's, but a Pelagian Author's, who openly teacheth his Errors in several places, and particularly upon the Seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. It is certain, that Pelagius made a Commentary upon S. Paul's Epistles, which S. Augustin quoteth in several places of the Third Book of Merits, and Remission of sins. This same Commentary of Pelagius is likewise cited by Marius Mercator, and there are most of the passages quoted by both these Authors. Yet two or three are not there; which might give occasion of doubting, whether it were perfectly the same, if Cassiodorus had not informed, us that he struck some places out of it.  
The Epistle to Demetrias the Virgin which is the first Book of S. Jerom's Ninth Volume, belongs likewise to Pelagius, as S. Augustin assures us, in his Book of the Grace of Jesus Christ, where he refuteth the Errors therein contained.  
The Second Epistle of the same Volume is a Letter of S. Augustin's to Juliana, Demetrias' Mother, against the foregoing Letter.  
The Third directed to Gerontius' Daughters, is of the same stile with the First; and the Author seems to be of the same Opinions. He commendeth S. Paulinus as his Contemporary and his Friend.  
The Eighth Letter of the knowledge of God's Law, seems to belong to the same Author, and perhaps Pelagius, who was S. Paulinus' Friend, and had written a Letter to him.  
The Fourth Letter to Marcelia, the Fifth to a Banished Virgin, the Ninth of the Three Virtues, the Twelfth of the Honour due to Parents are written in the same stile. Marianus thinks that the former belong to S. Paulinus. The Sixth, and Seventh are of the same Author: In this last there is some Discourse of the Worship of Relics, and of discovering the Bodies of S. Gervasius, and S. Protasius by S. Ambrose. Some ascribe both these Letters to Maximus Taurinensis.  
The Tenth Letter of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, is written by some Latin Author who lived when the East was infected with the Errors of the Eutychians; as he observeth himself▪ long after the Death of S. Jerom, and Sophronius, to whom some have attributed this Letter. He that writ it set it out under S. Jerom's Name, that what he saith of the Blessed Virgin Mary, might be more valued. And the better to colour his Cheat, he pretends to direct it to Paula and Eustochium. Although he enlargeth much upon the Commendations and Prerogatives of the Virgin Mary, yet he saith that it was not certain, whether she was risen again, and her Body carried up into Heaven. This Treatise tho' supposititious, was inserted into the Offices of the Church by Paulus Diaconus, and Alcuinus, in Charlemaign's time: And since it hath made up part of the Lessons for the Feast of the Assumption, in the old Breviaries of France and Ita●y.  
The Eleventh is likewise upon the same Subject, and perhaps written by the same Author.  
The Book of the Seven Ecclesiastical Orders, falsely supposed to be directed to Rusticus Bishop of Narbon, who lived at the same time with S. Leo, belongs to a Modern Author in comparison of S. Jerom, who lived after Isidore of Sevill, from whom he hath taken many things. Yet he is older than Micrologus, or than Bishop Hincmar, who quote this Work under S. Jerom's N●me; which shows that this Author wrote about the seventh Century.  
The fourteenth Letter is a Commendation of Virginity; where he describes the Danger of Losing it, and the Enormity of the Crime committed by a Virgin consecrated to God, when she violateth her Vows. This likewise is a Work of an Author younger than S. Jerom, as well as the thirteenth Letter, where some Expressions which the Scripture makes use of after a Manner suitable to the Weakness of our Understanding, are explained. An ordinary Skill may discover that none of these pieces are S. Jerom's.  
The Creed attributed to Damasus, which is the fifteenth piece of this Volume, is a Confession of Faith copied out, partly from that in S. Gregory Nazianzen, and in Vigilius Tapsensis, which we attributed to Gregory of Boetica: but this was brought to the Form it now has, long after Damasus; for there is the Article that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son. which was not in all the ancient Creeds.  
The Explication of the Creed dedicated to Damasus, immediately after this Confession of Faith now spoken of, is that Confession of Faith which Pelagius sent to Pope Innocent, that is condemned by S. Augustin in his Book of the Grace of Jesus Christ, where he produces some Extracts out of it, which are word for word in this.  
The eighteenth Tract is a third Confession of Faith, supposed to be directed to S. Cyril, and composed by some Modern Author, as appears by his Method of Expounding the Mysteries.  
The following Treatise upon the Creed goes under Rufinus' Name, who without dispute is the true Author of it.  
The Treatise to Praesidius is a Declamation composed by some mean Imitator of S. Jerom, who affects to speak of the Deaths of Valentinian and Gratian, as happening in his time, for I cannot believe that the trifles and impertinences that occur in that Work are S. Jerom's: they are far more worthy of an Impostor.  
The Treatise of the Circumcision to Therasia, is a more genuine and an Ancienter Monument.  
The Twenty first Epistle is a Letter of S. Augustin to Januarius, which was formerly the One hundred and nineteenth, and now the Fifty fifth among this Father's Epistles.  
The Author of the two following Treatises is not known, which are, the one a Declamation against a Virgin called Susanna, that was fallen into sin; and the other a reproof to Evagrius, for refusing to comfort a Churchman that had sinned.  
The Twenty fourth Letter is written by Paulinus.  
The other Pieces in the first part of this Volume are mean, and flat Sermons upon divers Subjects.  
The Thirty sixth concerning the Observation of the Eves of Holidays is ascribed in the Third Volume of F. Dachery's Spicilegium, to Nicetius Bishop of Triers, who lived about the year 535: there may be possibly several other Sermons of the same Author.  
The Fortieth and last, is a Letter upon the Parable of the Prodigal Son, which belongs to some Pelagian Author, and perhaps to Pelagius himself.  
The Second part of this Volume containeth certain Discourses very like S. Jerom's, though they bear the Names of their Authors. These are, a Letter of S. Paulinus to Sebastian the Hermit, the Translation of Pamphilus his Apology for Origen, a Treatise of Rufinus concerning the falsification of Origen's Books, the Translation of Origen's Principles by Rufinus, with his Prologue, Rufinus his Apology to Pope Anastasius, this Pope's Letter to John of Jerusalem: Both the Books of Rufinus against S. Jerom. Three Letters of S. Augustin to S. Jerom, which formerly were the Twenty eighth, Twenty ninth, and One hundred fifty seventh, amongst S. Augustin's, and now the One hundred sixty sixth, One hundred sixty seventh, and One hundred ninetieth, and the Homily of the Pastors which is in the Ninth Volume of the same Author. The Epistle attributed to Valerius addressed to Rufinus, which comes after these Treatises of S. Augustin, is the Work of some Impostor.  
Gennadius his Book of Famous Men, is a continuation of S. Jerom's: but the Catalogue of some Ecclesiastical Authors, which is found also in this Volume, is a sad piece, and so are two Letters going before it, and two others immediately following, falsely ascribed to S. Jerom and to Damasus.  
The Rule for Monks is a Collection of Sentences and Precepts taken out of S. Jerom, composed by Lupus General of the Monks that styled themselves of the Order of Hermits of S. Jerom, and approved by Pope Martin V.  
The Dialogue, of the Origination of the Soul, betwixt S. Augustin and S. Jerom, is the Fiction of some ignorant Person, who drew out of both these Fathers Works some Passages of his Dialogue.  
It is not easy to guests who was the Author of the small Treatise of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; but it is easy to guests, that he that composed it was well versed in the Doctrine of the Fathers: The same may be said of the Author that wrote the Homily upon the Parable of the importunate Neighbour who asked a Loaf o● his Friend. Luk. chap. 11.  
The third part of this Volume contains such ●reatises as Marianus judged unworthy to be ranked among Pieces of any Value. He might have joined to them those which he set down in the first and second Rank, whereof some are even more contemptible than those in the third.  
He gins with three Epistles which some Impostor composed under S. Jerom's Name. But the Imposture is discovered by the Meanness of the Expressions, and the little Exactness in the Thoughts, which discover the Cheat. The first is a comforting Letter to Tyrasius upon the Death of his Daughter. The second an Exhortation to Oceanus, how Injuries are to be endured. The third to the same, concerning the Lives of Clergymen. It is a strange thing that Baronius durst affirm this to be really S. Jerom's, it being manifest that the Style is very different from S. Jerom's; besides that he speaketh of S. Martin, whom he calleth Blessed, and of his Life composed by Sulpitius Severus. We have already given our Judgement of the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Authors that is inserted here, and of the precedent and following Letters.  
The Rule for Nuns is written by some simple and unlearned Monk.  
The Letter of Chromatius and Heliodorus to S. Jerom, and the Answer under this Father's Name, upon the Virgin Mary's Life, are fabulous Fictions wholly unworthy of Credit.  
Lastly, S. Jerom's Life, supposed to have been written by his Disciple Eusebius, S. Augustin's Letter to S. Cyril in S. Jerom's Commendation, and S. Cyril's to S. Augustin about his Miracles, are rejected by every body, as miserable Pieces, full of Fables, Falsities and Ignorance. Can there be a grosser one than what the Pseudo-Cyril saith, That S. Jerom's Miracles convinced Silvanus the Heretic, who taught, That there were two Wills in Christ? as if either S. Cyril or S. Jerom had lived in the Time of the Monothelites, or had approved of those Heretics Doctrines.  
S. Jerom, doubtless, was the Learnedest of all the Fathers; he understood Languages very well, and was well skilled in Humanity and Philological Learning. He was well versed in Ecclesiastical and Profane History, and very skilful in Philosophy. Poets, Historians, Orators, and the Greek and Latin Philosophers were equally familiar to him; he throughly understood them, and filled his Writings with their finest Strokes. His Way of Writing is clear and lively. He affects not that lofty Eloquence of the Bar, which is supported by high Terms and a handsome Turn of a Period; but he excelleth in that other kind of Eloquence that is necessary for those that commit their Thoughts to Writing, which consists in the Nobleness of Expressions and Thoughts. His Discourse is enlivened by a wonderful Variety of lively and surprising Turns, and adorned with an infinite number of different Colours, sometimes he brings in Flowers of Rhetoric; sometimes he dexterously employs Logical Subtleties. He often makes apt Allusions by the finest passages of the Poets, and constantly calleth to his Assistance the Thoughts and Maxims of the Philosophers. In a word, he collects the finest things in all Arts and Sciences, and adapts them so exactly to his Discourse, that they seem to be there in their natural Place. So that his Style may be compared to those in-laid Works, where the Pieces are so artificially pieced together that they seem to have been made one for the other. Yet it must be confessed that he affecteth this Way of Writing too much, and overchargeth his Discourse with Quotations. He gives a diverting and cheerful Air to the roughest Questions, and explains the most intricate Difficulties with great Clearness. His Commentaries upon the Scripture are written in a Style very different from his other Works. Those Flowers, and that Ornament before named, are banished from them, and the Text is explained with Simplicity and Clearness, as he says himself in several places: For he saith in his Questions to Damasus, He that treateth of the holy Scripture, should not borrow Aristotle ' s subtle Reasonings, nor use Tully ' s Eloquence, or the Flowers of Quintilian to refresh his Reader with his Declamations. His Discourse should be plain and vulgar. It is not necessary that it should be composed with Care; it is sufficient that it expounds the Things, and discovers the Sense of the Scripture and clears its Obscurities. Let others be eloquent, and by that get Commendations and Applause; let them thunder out great Words in a plausible Harangue, for my part I am satisfied to speak so as I may be understood, and discoursing of the holy Scripture, I strive to imitate its Simplicity. So much of his Style. His Genius was hot and vehement; he fell upon his Adversaries with fierceness, made them ridiculous by his Jests, trampled upon them with Terms of Contempt, and made them blush with Reproaches. Though he was very Learned, yet there is infinitely more liveliness and Vehemency in his Exhortations and Polemical Works than Exactness and Solidity. He knew a great deal, but he never argued upon Principles, which made him sometimes contradict himself. He often carries his Subject too far, being transported with his ordinary Heat, he commends, blames, condemns and approves of things according to the Impression which they make upon his Imagination. He is more moderate and just in his Commentaries, but not always exact, because he did not think enough, but contented himself with dictating to his amanuensis (as he owns himself) either what he had read in other men's Commentaries, or learned from the Jews. He often sets down the Expositions of different Commentators, without altering any thing, and without naming those from whom he took them: Nay, he introduced such Explications as he did not approve himself, though without refuting them; being persuaded that it was enough that he had given notice to his Reader, that in his Commentaries there were several Explications which he copied out of others. Thus he excused himself of some Errors that were imputed to him, because they were found in his Commentaries. This Advertisement may serve also to vindicate him from several Errors and Contradictions which may be found in his Commentaries. In this manner he justifieth himself against Rufinus, who upbraided him for teaching in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Ephesians. Origen's Opinions of the Resurrection, the Preexistence of Souls, and of the Deliverance of Devils and Damned Men. He does not deny that these Opinions are in his Commentaries; but he asserts, that they are set down in Origen's Name, and not in his own; and consequently, that they ought not to be imputed to him. It is an extraordinary thing however, that having produced these Opinions of Origen without declaring against them, he should afterwards look upon them as Criminal in Origen, and condemn them as very dangerous Errors. But what may seem yet more strange, is, that himself hath uttered something like it in his Commentary upon the 66th. Chapter of Isaiah; where he really acknowledges, that the Punishments of Devils, Infidels, and impious Men, that know not God, are never to end; but he saith, That as for Sinners and impious Men that are Christians, whose Works are to be tried and purified by the Fire, the Judge's Sentence will be moderate, and tempered with Clemency. I know this place is understood of Purgatory and Venial Sins; but S. Jerom's Words seem to imply something more, since the name of Impious Christians cannot be given to those who are guilty of Venial Sins only, and deserve no more than Purgatory. Several such things may be found in the Commentary upon the 4th. Chapter of Amos, in the first Book against the Pelagians, and in the Commentary upon the Prophet Nahum, where he says, That God granted pardon to those that perished in the Flood, as well as to the Sodomites, Egyptians, and other Sinners, who were punished in this World for their Crimes; according to this Rule of the Prophet, That God will not punish twice for the same Sin. Several other particular Opinions of Origen, are to be met with in this Father's Commentaries, which he seems to approve of. He teaches in his Treatise of the Prodigal Son, that the Angels may sin. Upon the Epistle to Titus, he affirms that they were before the Creation of the World. Upon the Prophet Micah, That they shall be present at the last Judgement. Upon the Epistle to the Ephesians, That Christ died for them. Upon Ecclesiastes, That the Sun and the Stars have Souls; and many other Notions of this kind which he rejected himself when he refuted Origen.  
In S. Jerom's Commentaries there are also several Opinions that savour of Jewish Superstitions, or the too great credulity of the first Christians: As when he asserteth in the Commentaries upon the Prophets, Daniel and Micah, That the World shall last but One thousand years; or, when he saith in his Commentary upon the Prophet Habakkuk. That God's particular Providence extends only to Men; and that all other Creatures are governed by a general Providence, without God's having a distinct knowledge of each Event: Or, when by too much scrupulosity he condemns all Oaths, as he doth in his Commentary upon the 5th. of S. Matthew, and upon the 2d. Chapter of Zachary: Or, when he forbids Christians to pay Tribute to Heathen Princes, upon S. Matthew, Chapt. the 7th. Or, when he pretends that the Name of Father is to be given to no Man, in the Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians, l. 2. But if he is too scrupulous in these places, in others he seems to be a little too free; as, when in his Commentary upon Ionas, he advises and approves the Action of such as kill themselves to preserve their Chastity. Perhaps some persons will not think him less to blame in his Commentary upon the 23d. of S. Matthew, where he disapproves the Action of some devout Women, who, in imitation of the Pharisees, bound about their Necks, Books of the Gospel, or Crosses, or other Marks of Devotion 
* [If some Persons will think S. Jerom to blame, others, upon much better grounds, will commend him for disapproving Practices that are so very superstitious, and that cannot any manner of way tend to the advancement of solid Piety and Holiness.] . Lastly, He sometimes giveth Allegorical Senses to things which are to be understood literally; as, when in the Commentary upon the Epistle to the Ephesians, he saith, That Jacob's Wrestling with the Angel, is not to be understood literally of a corporeal and visible Combat, but mystically of an invisible and spiritual Fight: Yet he is angry that Men should say that Hell-fire is not a real fire, and that the Scripture makes use of that word by a Metaphor; or, that what is said of the Earthly Paradise, is not to be understood Literally, but Allegorically. These are some of the Faults that have been taken notice of in S. Jerom's Commentaries, and which crept in by the too great precipitation with which he wrote them.  
His Polemical Treatises are written with more care. But as he indulges his ordinary heat too much, so he falleth into those extremes for which he hath been often blamed. As for example; when he disputeth with Helvidius, he commendeth Virginity to that excess, that it was thought, he designed to condemn Matrimony; and his Book having scandalised many, himself was obliged to apologise for it, and moderate the terms which he had used before. When he undertakes to abate the pride of Deacons, who would make themselves equal with Priests; he so exalteth the Dignity of the latter, that he seems not to think them inferior to Bishops. He discourseth after such a manner of Virginity, as would almost persuade Men that it is necessary to lead that sort of life to be saved. Labour, Fast, Austerities, with other Mortifications, Solitude and Pilgrimages, make up the subject of almost all his Advices and Exhortations. His delight was to write and hear of the Lives of Monks and Hermits, and he easily believed whatsoever was told him upon that subject, though never so extraordinary.  
Most of S. Jerom's Writings being either Critical or Moral, there is very little Dogmatical concerning the main Points of Christianity to be met with in them: Besides, he flourished in a time wherein the Disputes concerning the Trinity and Incarnation were over: The Arian and Apollinarian Heresies having been rejected, and those of Nestorius and Eutyches not being yet risen. the Pelagian Heresy broke out towards the latter end of this Father's Life, which he undertook to refute immediately, with as much vigour, as he could have done in his earlier years. He shown the Necessity of Christ's help, and the Impossibility of living in this World without Sin; and free from Passions, against that Heretic: However, he doth not weaken the strength of freewill, which consisted, in his Opinion, in a free choice, either to follow or to reject God's Call. He went no further into the Nature of Grace, or other Difficulties about Original Sin and Predestination. He seems to think that God hath predestinated or reproved Men, because of his Eternal foreknowledge of the Good or Evil they should do. This he teacheth in his Apology against Rufinus, by opposing Origen's Principle, which grounded Predestination or Reprobation upon past Merits. He saith upon the 121st. Psalms, that the Prayer of Jesus Christ did not always obtain what he desired.  
I shall conclude these Remarks with some Passages of S. Jerom, that express his Thoughts upon the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Penance. You ask (saith he in his Letter to Hedibia, Quest. 2.) how those words of our Saviour in S. Matthew are to be understood: I say unto you, that henceforth I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine, until I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. Some grounding their Opinion upon these words, have invented a fabulous Reign of a Thousand years; wherein, they pretend, that Jesus Christ shall reign corporeally, and drink of a sort of new Wine, whereof he has not drunk from the time of his Passion, to the end of the World. But not to trouble ourselves about such Fables: Let us acknowledge, that the Bread which our Saviour broke, and gave to his Disciples, is the Body of the same Saviour. If then the Bread that came down from Heaven is the Lord's Body, and if the Wine which he gave to his Disciples is his Blood, let us reject those Jewish Fables, 
[These words, which is the Church are not in S. Jerom.]  and go up with the Lord into that great and high Room [which is the Church;] let us receive at his hand the Cup, which is the New Covenant. Moses gave us not the true Bread, but our Lord Jesus Christ did; he invites us to the Feast, and is himself our Meat; he eats with us, and we eat him. We drink his Blood, we daily tread in the Sacrifices, the Grapes that are red with his Blood. He tells us again upon the same Subject, in his Commentary upon the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Corinthians, That Jesus Christ the Son of God hath given his Blood to redeem us, but that this Blood of Jesus Christ may be taken, either for his Spiritual and Divine Flesh; whereof he saith himself, My Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed: Or for his Flesh that was crucified, and his Blood that was spilt in his Passion with the Soldier's Lance. The Author of the Book of the Body and Blood of Christ, that goes under Bertrams Name, quotes this last passage, which doth not prove, as some pretend, that the Flesh of Jesus Christ is not really in the Eucharist, but only that it is not there after a visible, passable, and corruptible manner, as it was upon the Cross. The Comparison, added by S. Jerom, of the Flesh of the Saints, explains his meaning. There may be found (saith he) a variety of Flesh and Blood in the Saints; so that the Flesh which shall one day see the Salvation of God, shall be different from the Flesh that shall be incapable of possessing his Kingdom. Thus, as the Flesh of Saints, in the next Life, is the same Flesh, though impassable and incorruptible; so the same Flesh of Christ, which was corruptible, and capable of suffering upon the Cross, is impassable and incorruptible in the Eucharist. There is another passage, the Exposition whereof is much controverted in the Commentary upon the Twenty-sixth Chapter of S. Matthew, where he saith, That the Lord having celebrated the Old Passover, which was a Figure of the New, passed to the true Sacrament of the Passover, that as formerly Melchisedeck, Highpriest of the Almighty God, offering Bread and Wine, drew out beforehand the Figure of this Mystery; so Jesus Christ, to fulfil the same, should represent the Truth of his Body and Blood. These last words are variously rendered: The Protestants will have the word repraesentare to signify only to represent. The Church of Rome, on the contrary, maintains, that repraesentare implies as much as to make present. This latter Sense is confirmed by the following Words: The fatted Calf which is offered, to obtain the Salvation of Repentance, is the Saviour himself, whose Flesh we daily eat, and whose Blood we daily drink. The Reader, who is one of the Faithful, understands as well as I do, what this nourishment is, which filling us with its abundance, makes us put forth outwardly Praises and holy Thanksgivings. This sacred Feast is daily celebrated; The Father receiveth his Son every day, Jesus Christ is continually offered upon the Altars. In the Epistle to Pope Damasus, he saith, That there is as much difference betwixt the Loaves they offered to God in the Old Law, and the Body of Jesus Christ, in the Eucharist, as betwixt the Shadow and the Body, betwixt the Image and the Truth, and betwixt the Types and the Things they represent. Lastly, In the Epistle to Heliodorus, speaking of Priests, he saith, That they make the Body of Jesus Christ with their sacred Mouth: Qui Christi corpus Sacro ore conficiunt. In his Commentary upon Zephaniah, he seems to doubt whether wicked Priests consecrate it: But 'tis probable, that he speaks thus rather to terrify them, than to establish a Proposition, whose Consequences would prove very dangerous.  
I add an excellent Passage of this Father concerning the Sacrament of Penance, taken out of his Commentary upon these Words of the 16th. Chapter of S. Matthew: Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever ye shall lose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. Some (saith he) Priests and Bishops of the New Law, understanding not the sense of these words, do imitate the pride of the Pharisees, by ascribing to themselves a power to condemn the Innocent, and to absolve the Guilty. But God doth not so much consider the Sentence of the Priest, as the Life of the Penitent: And as the Levites did not cleanse the Lepers, but only separated those that were cleansed from those that were not, by the knowledge which they had of the Leprosy: Even so the Bishop, or the Priest, doth not bind those that are innocent, and lose the guilty; but having heard the difference of Sins, he knows whom to bind, and whom to lose, in the discharge of his Ministry. In this place, we may take notice, 1. Of the Custom of declaring Sins to the Priest. 2. The Power which Priests had to Absolve. 3. The use Priests were to make of the Keys, and the care they were to take not to Absolve, but such as were truly penitent 
* 
[After what has been already said of S. Jerom, one can hardly esteem him a Person, upon whose Authority Points of Doctrine or Matters of Discipline can safely be established. He may however give the Sense of the Church in his own time, in Matters wherein he personally was not concerned, in which we have Reason to think that he gives a faithful Account of things: And therefore since we have no Cause to disbelieve what he says of the Eucharist, and of (what the Church of Rome calls the Sacrament of) Penance; but, on the contrary, may reasonably suppose, that he spoke the Sense of the Church. The Passages themselves are to be examined. Of those concerning the Eucharist, we are to consider, 1. That he keeps himself to the Language of the New Testament in his Answer to Hedibia's Question, and only confutes the Millennaries, but says nothing of the Modus of the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament. 2. That his Interpretation of those Words in S. John, My Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is Drink indeed, of the Spiritual and Divine Flesh of Jesus Christ, shows that he understood them Allegorically; for he distinguishes that from the Flesh of Jesus Christ, which suffered upon the Cross: Now there is equal Reason to believe, that what our Saviour says in the 6th. Chapter of S. John, concerning Eating his Flesh, and Drinking his Blood, is literally to be understood, as what he says in the Institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist: And if one is Allegorically to be interpreted, than they are both. 3. That the Mysteries of Religion were as nicely examined in that Age, as in any since Jesus Christ declared it to the World; and when every thing else that was Mysterious was controverted, this single Article of the Real Presence, as defined by the Council of Trent, which is contrary to that Reason, that the other Disputes concerning the Trinity and the Divine Decrees are properly above, was never debated. This is so strange (if we suppose the Doctrine of the Church of Rome to have been then received) that it is incredible; especially when we consider, 4. That the generality of the Fathers, at that time, interpreted every thing in Scripture Allegorically, to which they could not assign a convenient Literal sense. This the People were used to: This was S. Jerom's practice very often; and he had learned it of Origen, whom he seems sincerely to have followed, till he quarrelled with Rufinus: So that we have great Reason to think, that Men so accustomed to Allegories, as the Teachers and the People were in this Age, would not be at a Loss to interpret our Blessed Saviour's meaning in any of his Words, which Literally interpreted, would contradict and do Violence to that Reason by which they were capacitated to understand any part of his Law.  
The Passage produced in favour of Auricular Confession proves nothing less; S. Jerom says, That after the Priest had heard the difference of Sins, he knew whom to bind and whom to lose; that is very true; but that is no Reason for Men to reveal all their Sins to the Priest; because the Church, in that Age, put Men under Penance only for public Sins; those that had committed private ones of such a Nature, as would, if discovered, have made them unfit to come to the Sacrament, were exhorted to put themselves under a voluntary Penance; and if they did so; they were obliged to declare why they did it, that so the time of their Penance might be regulated; but this seems to have been left to themselves, which makes it quite another thing from the practice of the Church of Rome.]  .  
S. Jerom's Works were published by Erasmus, and printed in six Volumes at Basil, from the Year 1516, to the Year 1526. In 1530, they were again printed at Lions by Gryphius, and at Basil, by Froben, in 1553. The First Edition of Marianus was at Rome, by Manutius, in the Years 1565, 1571, and 1572. The Second at Paris, by Nivelle, in 1579. The Third at Antwerp, in 1579. The Fourth at Paris, with Gravius his Notes, in 1609. The Fifth is of 1624., at Paris. The Last was printed in 1643. These are the Collections of all this Father's Works. There are several of them printed by themselves, as the Letters in Octavo, printed at Rome by Manutius 
[Dr. Cave mentions an Edition of S. Jerom's Works at Frankfort in 1684, in 12 Volumes in folio, with all the Scholia, Censures, Index's, and Collections of all sorts that had been printed, till that time, upon S. Jerom; which are all comprised in the three last Volumes.]  in 1566, at Antwerp in 1568, with Gravius' Notes, and at Mentz in 1470, at Venice in 1476, at Paris in 1583, at Dilingen in 1565, at Louvain in 1573. The Book of Famous Men, at Louvain and Helmstad in 1611, at Colen in 1580, at Lions in 1617., at Antwerp in 1639. The Epistles to Theophilus at Paris in 1546, and 1589. The Book of Virginity at Rome in 1562. The Treatise of Hebrew Names at Wirtemberg in 1626. I say nothing of the Editions of the Chronicon, because they were mentioned in the Account of Eusebius his Works.  
The Benedictines of the Congregation of S. Maura will soon undertake a new Edition of S. Jerom. There is reason to hope that it will not be inferior either in Beauty or Exactness to those of S. Augustin and S. Ambrose, which are almost completed by the Labours of those Illustrious Monks, who make so good use both of their Time and Watch, to enrich the Church with such glorious Works.   

RUFINUS.  
RUFINUS, Sir-named by some Toranus, or Tyranius 
a Sir-named Toranus or Tyranius.] This Surname was given him by a certain Author that speaketh of Ecclesiastical Writers, whose Book is immediately after the Treatise of Ildephonsus of Toledo in Miraeus' Bibliotheca. He is commonly called Toranus; but the Original of that Name is not known. , a Priest of Aquileia 
b Priest of Aquileia.] Gennadius, Palladius, and all the rest of the Ancients say that he was of Aquileia, a City of Italy; yea, himself seems to declare it plainly in his Apology; yet Marius Mercator calleth him a Syrian. Garnerius is of opinion, That that Rufinus, spoken of by Marius Mercator, and whom he supposes to have been Author of the Pelagian Heresy in Rome, is not the same with him of whom we writ now; but his Arguments are very weak, and in all probability he is the same Rufinus. Father Gerberon thinks, on the contrary, that Marius Mercator speaks indeed of our Rufinus; but he affirms, that Rufinus was not born in Aquileia, but only a Priest and an Inhabitant of that Town. He quotes two passages of S. Jerom to prove it, but they are not convincing. It is more natural to say that Marius Mercator called Rufinus, a Syrian, because he dwelled long in Syria, and came from thence, when he sowed the Pelagian Doctrine in Rome. , was famous in S. Jerom's time; and after he had been one of his best Friends 
c One of his best friends] S. Jerom commends him in the 5th. Epistle to Florentius, and recommends him as a Man whom he particularly esteemed. His 4th. Epistle to Rufinus shows the same. , he proved 
Rufinus.  afterwards one of his greatest Enemies. He embraced a Monastic life 
d He embraced a Monastic life.] He saith in his first Invective, that Thirty years before he was baptised in a Monastery by Chromatius, Jovinian and Eusebius. This Writing is of 399, or 400. , and was baptised in a Monastery about the Year 370. He went out of Rome with Melania in 372, to go into Egypt 
e To go into Egypt, etc.] Palladius relateth these Circumstances of the Lives of Rufinus and Melania, in his Historia Laufiaca. Chap. 32, and 33. he saith, That they abode 27 Years in the East, but S. Paulinus reckons but 25: And this Epocha agreeth best with the other circumstances of their Journey. , to visit the Monks in the Desert of Nitria; they came out of Egypt into Palaestina, and dwelled 25 Years in Jerusalem, where the House of that famous Widow was the Resort and Harbour of all the Pilgrims that came to visit the holy Places. She received them with joy, kept them at her own Charges, and gave great Gifts to the Church of Jerusalem. All this time Rufinus spent his Life in the Study and Exercises of Piety. Because he understood the Greek and Latin Tongues very well, he undertook to Read and Translate the Works of Greek Authors, and especially of Origen: He conceived so high an Esteem for that Author, that he undertook ●his Defence against all Accusers. This made him fall out with S. Jerom, who took the contrary side: However, they were reconciled before Rufinus 
f Yet they were reconciled.] S. Epiphanius in his Letter charges Rufinus with Origen's Errors, and reckons him among the Followers of John of Jerusalem, and among S. Jerom's Enemies. S. Jerom says the same in the 66th. Letter to Rufinus, as soon as he had published his Translation of the Books of Principles, Scias nos reconciliatas inimicitias purè colere.  left Palaestina to return to Rome. But this Peace did not last long. Rufinus and Melania having tarried 25 Years in the East, resolved to go back to Rome: They took Shipping in the Year 397; and having passed by Nola, where they were very well received by S. Paulinus, Bishop of that place, they came to Rome. Sometime after Rufinus published the Translation of the First Book of the Apology for Origen, which went under Pamphilus' Name, with a Letter to show that Origen's Works had been falsified, and a Translation of the Books of Principles, with a Preface that offended S. Jerom. This Saint wrote immediately his Apology against Rufinus, against which Rufinus composed Two Books of Invectives. This Controversy made a great noise in Rome, where both these famous Antagonists were in great credit, and had many Advocates. Rufinus kept himself quiet as long as Pope Syricius lived, and received a Letter of Communion from this Pope; with which he retired into Aquileia. But after his Death, Anastasius, that succeeded him, cited Rufinus to appear before him; but he not appearing, only excusing himself by an Apology, was condemned without Mercy; so that he could not preserve his Dignity of Presbyter in Aquileia, where he abode till the Visigoths spoiled Italy in 409, when he was forced to retire into Sicily, where he died in the Year 410 
g Where he died, etc.] S. Jerom in his Commentaries upon Ezekiel and Jeremiah, speaks of Rufinus as one already dead: It is certain that Rufinus retired into Sicily after Rome was taken, as he says himself in his Letter to Ursacius, set forth by Valesius. .  
Rufinus wrote Two sorts of Books, Translations of Greek Authors, and Books of his own making.  
The Greek Translations are the greatest and most considerable part of his Labours; for, as Gennadius says, he gave the Latins a great many of the Greek Books. The Catalogue of them is this:  
The Twenty Books of Jewish Antiquities, by Flavius Josephus.  
The Seven Books of the Jewish War.  
Two Books against Appion of the same Author.  
Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History, reduced into Nine Books, and Translated with great Liberty 
h Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History reduced into Nine Books, and Translated with great Liberty.] He hath passed over almost all Eusebius his Ninth Book, and hath made but One of the Eighth and Ninth. In the Seventh he hath added a Relation of S. Gregory Thaumaturgus his Miracles, which is not in Eusebius; and in the Ninth, an Harangue of Lucian the Martyr. There is some alteration in the Order of the Chapters in the Sixth and Seventh Books. There are several faults in his Translation; he makes Zacharias, spoken of in S. Luke, to have been a Martyr at Lions; he confounds S. Biblias with S. Blandina, etc. . The Books of Recognitions 
i The Books of Recognitions.] Bellarmin believes that this Translation is falsely attributed to Rufinus; but Gennadius owns it to be his. , attributed to S. Clement, with a Preface.  
The Sentences 
k The Sentences of Sixtus the Pythagorean.] S. Jerom upbraids him with that fraud in several places. Ep. ad Ctesiph. in c. 18. Ezek. & in c. 22. Jeremiaes.  of Sixtus the Pythagorean, which he had falsely ascribed to Pope Sixtus the Second of that Name.  
The Book of Origen's Principles; 17 Homilies of the same Author upon Genesis; 12 Homilies upon Exodus; 16 Homilies upon Leviticus; 28 Homilies upon Numbers, 26 Homilies upon Joshua; 9 Homilies upon the Book of Judges; the first Homily upon the Book of Kings; 9 Homilies upon the Psalms, and Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Romans; and a Letter of Origen's, where he complains of his Book's having been corrupted.  
The first Book of Pamphilus' Apology for Origen.  
The Orations of S. Gregory Nazianzen: The Ascetical Rules of S. Basil, and some other Treatises of both these Fathers of the Church.  
The Sentences of Evagrius Ponticus; and some other Treatises of this Author. He Translated besides, if we believe Gennadius, a Treatise of Pamphilus' against the Mathematicians 
* [Bianca Mathematicians, they meant Judicial Astrologers; as also did most of the ancient Romans, who were for the most part very ignorant of that part of Learning, till towards the Fall of their Empire, when Apuleius, Boëthius and Cassiodorus Translated some of the Elementary Books of the Grecians, into Latin.] : And S. Jerom observes, that he had published an Arian's Book under the Name of Theophilus the Martyr; but neither of these Books are extant.  
Rufinus gave himself a great deal of liberty in his Translations, and kept more to the Sense which he judged aught to be given to Authors, than to their Words. In a word, his Translations are Paraphrases, rather than literal and faithful Versions. He hath used much freedom, particularly in Eusebius' History, and in Origen's Treatises, where he hath changed, added and struck out many things, as he acknowledgeth himself. But if these Translations be not sincere, they are eloquent enough, and they have that clearness which makes them pleasing to the Reader.  
The Works of Rufinus' own Composition, are these.  
Two Books of Ecclesiastical History, which he hath added to the Translation of Eusebius his Books; wherein he continues the History of the Church, to the Death of Theodosius the Emperor. These Books are dedicated to Chromatius of Aquileia, and were written at the same time that Alaric, King of the Goths, wasted Italy. They were Translated into Greek by Gelasius of Caesarea. They are pretty well written, but there are many Historical faults 
l There are many Historical faults.] These are some of them. He supposes that Athanasius hide himself for six years after he was condemned by the Council of Tyre. He perverts the Order of Time in the History of S. Athanasius. He showeth but little favour to S. Gregory Nazianzen, and S. Basil. He saith that S. Hilary was Excommunicated, which is false: And he confounds the Time, when he says, That S. Hilary was Banished after the Council of Milan. There are several other faults of the same nature; notwithstanding which, it is a very useful Work, because he is the first that has unfolded and put in order the History of that time.   
A Discourse to prove, that Origen's Books have been falsified; published at Rome in 397, with the Translation of Origen's Book of Principles, and of Pamphilus' Apology.  
Two Books against S. Jerom's Apology, entitled Invectives.  
In the former, to justify his Doctrine against the Accusations of S. Jerom, he produces that Creed, and that Doctrine which he had learned at Aquileia above Thirty years before, from Chromatius, Jovinian and Eusebius; he observeth, that in his Church they did not only profess in their Creed to believe the Resurrection of the Flesh, carnis resurrectionem; but that they added, of this Flesh, hujus carnis resurrectionem. To the end, saith he, that making the Sign of the Cross upon our Brother, as is usually done at the end of the Creed, we may make a public profession, that we believe the Resurrection of the same Flesh which we now touch. He uses this Confession for his Justification against S. Jerom, from the Accusation of being in an error in the point of the Resurrection of the Flesh, and of not believing that Man should rise again with his whole Flesh. He affirms, that he is wrongfully accused of that Error; for his Opinion is, that the whole Body shall rise again with its Members; but that it shall be glorious and immortal, and shall be no more subject to Corruption, and other infirmities of mortal and corruptible Flesh.  
After this he answers what was objected against him, that he entertained Heretical Opinions concerning the Trinity. He shows, that his Doctrine in that point cannot be suspected of Error: That if through inadvertency he hath let pass in the Translation of Origen's Principles, any passage wherein he seems to say that the Son sees not the Father, and that the Holy Ghost sees not the Son, he should not for all that be accused of Error, since in so many places he professes the contrary: That if they had charitably warned him of it, he would have either blotted out or altered it, as he had done the others, which he found to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church, concerning the Trinity. He complains also, that Paulinianus had poisoned the Translation of that place, making him say, That it was neither impious or absurd to say that the Son sees not the Father; whereas he had only said, That he would afterwards give a reason of the Sense, in which it might be said, That the Person of the Father was invisible.  
After that he repelleth all S. Jerom's reproachful Allegations, declaring that S. Jerom himself had formerly commended Origen, Translated his Works, and that in his Commentaries there were the same Errors concerning the Nature of the Flesh, when risen again; the Preexistence of Souls, and the end of the Torments of the Devils, and the Damned; for which Reason he found fault that Origen's Books were Translated. This he showeth by long Extracts out of different Commentaries of this Father.  
The Second Book of Rufinus' Invective is concerning the personal Reproaches which he utters against S. Jerom. First he charges him with tearing the Reputation of Christians of all States and Conditions, in his Book of Virginity, and with blaming their Manners at such a rate, that Pagans and Apostates enquired diligently after that Book, to make use of it against the Church. Secondly, he accuses him of Perjury, because after a solemn Oath to read the Books of profane Authors no more, he ceased not to read and make use of them in his Works: Particularly he takes notice of a passage in his Treatise of Virginity, wherein he pretends that S. Jerom spoke of God after an irreverent manner. He laughs at S. Jerom, for boasting that he was Didymus' Disciple, for having had one Month's Conversation with him. He jests upon him for taking as his Teachers, Porphyry the Philosopher, and Barrabas the Jew. He quoteth several places of his Writings, to prove, that he not only commended the Erudition and Learning of Origen, but that he approved his Doctrine also. He accuseth him of striking out of his Chronicon, what he had said before in favour of Melania. He reproveth him for the low esteem he had of the Septuagint. He finds fault with his contemptuous rejecting the Story of their 70 Cells. He blames him for not owning the History of Susanna for Canonical. Lastly, he makes it Criminal in S. Jerom to Translate the Bible anew. This Invective is written with much address and vehemence. He composed it in the Year 399.  
Sometime after he writ his Apology to Pope Anastasius; wherein having expounded his belief of the Trinity, the Resurrection, the last Judgement, and the Torment of Eternal fire for the Devils, in a very Catholic manner; he declares that he was uncertain of the Origination of Souls, having observed that Ecclesiastical Authors were not agreed upon that Subject; That some, with Tertullian and Lactantius, believed that they were form with the Bodies; That others, as Origen, were of opinion, that they were created with the World, and that God infused them into Bodies; and Lastly, That others affirmed that God both created and placed them in the Bodies at the same time; and so, not knowing which of these Opinions was the truest, he remitted the decision to God, not being able to be positive concerning any more than what the Church teaches, That God is the Creator of Souls and Bodies.  
Having thus given an account of his Doctrine, he justifies himself of the Objections made against him for Translating Origen's Books. He saith, that it is very plain, that it was Envy only that made them condemn that Undertaking; That if there is any thing displeasing in the Author, the Translator is not to be charged therewith, who has barely delivered the Sense of the Author. That he had prevented the inconveniency that might have happened, by striking out the Errors which he conceived to have been added in Origen's Books; That he had given notice of it in his Preface; so that they were much to blame to accuse and calumniate him upon that Subject: For, saith he, when will Simplicity and Innocency be secured against Envy and Slandering, if they be not upon this occasion? I neither justify nor approve Origen, but I Translated him, and so did many others before me; I am the last, and that at the request of my friends. If such a Translation is not acceptable, be it so, I will Translate no more. He concludes, by assuring the Pope, That he neither has, nor ever had any other Sentiments than these he hath now declared, and which are those of the Church's of Rome, Alexandria and Aquileia; telling him withal, That such as through Envy or Jealousy against their Brethren, do occasion Scandals and Divisions, shall give an account at the Judgment-seat of God.  
The Exposition of the Creed directed to Laurentius, which is found amongst the Works of S. Cyprian, and of S. Jerom, is likewise Rufinus' Work. Gennadius who was one of the most zealous Defenders of this Author, saith he hath done extremely well in this piece, and that all other Expositions of the Creed are not to be compared with it; and indeed it would be hard to find a more complete Treatise upon the Creed than this.  
He observes in the beginning, the difficulty of that Undertaking, because it was very dangerous to speak of Mysteries; That some famous Authors had already written, but very succinctly upon that Subject: That Photinus had chosen that way to establish his Heresy: but his design was to expound the Creed with simplicity, by keeping to the very terms of the Scripture, so to supply what had been omitted by those that writ before him. Then he declares, that the Apostles had Conference together to compose the Creed, before they divided, that so they might teach all whom they should convert by the same common Creed; That it is called Symbolum, either because it is the result of a Conference betwixt several Persons, or because it is the Mark of distinction, whereby Christians are known. Afterwards he examines all the Articles, and observes the several ways of repeating them in different Churches. He clears their Sense in a very plain manner, and confirms it by the most opposite passages in the Holy Scripture. In explaining the Article of the Catholic Church, he gives a Catalogue of the Canonical Books, of the Old and New Testament, and admits into the Canon of the Old Testament, none but the Books owned by the Hebrews: But he says, That there are other Books read in Churches, which are not made use of to confirm Articles of Faith, and he calls them Ecclesiastical Books. These Books in the Old Testament are; Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, the Maccabees, and in the New Testament, the Book of Hermas, and S. Peter's Judgement. He observes further upon the same Article, that there is but one Church: and in few words he condemns most of the Sects that have separated from it; He enlarges much upon the last Article concerning the Resurrection of the Body, observing again in this place, that the Church of Aquileia had added, of this Body, and that they made the sign of the Cross in the Conclusion of the Creed.  
The Exposition of Jacob's Blessing is the first Book that is Printed under Rufinus' Name, in the Collection of his Works. This Treatise was written at Paulinus' request; which made Isidore to attribute it to Paulinus, tho' it be composed by Rufinus, as Gennadius assures us: It is divided into two Books. In the first he explains Judah's Blessing, and in the second, that of the rest of Jacob's Children. He particularly keeps to the Historical Sense, without neglecting either the Mystical or the Moral: He shows, That this Patriarch's Prophecies are fulfilled, either in the Church, or in the Jewish Tribes.  
He follows the same method in his Commentaries upon the Prophets Hosea, Joel and Amos. These Commentaries are clear and neat: He expounds his Text after an elegant but natural way without entangling himself with Allegories, hard Questions, or long Digressions. He tells us in the Preface, That he had made some Commentaries upon Solomon's Books, and that he designed to do the like upon all the lesser Prophets. He desires the Reader to take Notice, That he made use of thelast Translation which is conformable to the Hebrew Text, but that he had but little help from other Men's Works in his Commentaries. For, saith he, the Latins seem to have been agreed to write nothing upon the Minor Prophets. Some Greek and Syrian Authors indeed have endeavoured to expound their Prophecies; and I confess I have read upon those Books some Commentaries of S. John Bishop of Constantinople; but, his Custom was, he composed them rather for Exhortations to his Auditors, than for Expositions of the Scripture Text. Origen after his peculiar way, entertained his Readers with delightful Allegories, but takes no pains to give the Historical Sense; which is the only thing that is solid. S. Jerom, a Man of vast Parts, and throughly learned, hath written Commentaries upon those Prophets, but he so much insisted upon the Jewish Traditions, that he took no pains to find out the Sense of the Prophecies by their Events. So that his Commentaries are wholly made up, either of Origen's Allegories, or of Jewish Traditions. This is Rufinus his Judgement of others; and it must be confessed, that he hath avoided what he reproves in the Commentaries of others, and that his is more useful for the understanding of the Historical Sense of the Prophecies. It is strange that Gennadius should make no mention of these Commentaries; but the Style and the Circumstances sufficiently discover them to be composed by Rufinus: Tho' some have doubted it.  
We have only now to speak of the Commentaries upon the Seventy five first Psalms, which were Printed by themselves at Lions, in the Year 1570. but they cannot belong to Rufinus, because there are whole Periods taken out of S. Augustin's Commentaries upon the Psalms 
m There are whole Periods taken out of S. Augustin' s Commentaries upon the Psalms.] This is particularly remarkable upon the 1st. Psal. ver. 1. Psal. 3d. ver. 1. Psal. ●th. ver. 1. Upon the Ninth Psalm there is a whole Period which beginneth, Prima persecutio, taken almost word for word out of S. Augustin's Commentary upon the Third Psalm. The Author says, That he lived in a time, when no Heresies appeared, which shows that this is the Work of a new Compiler. , and out of S. Gregory's Morals. Gennadius speaks of several Letters of Piety written by Rufinus, among which he gives the first place to those that are written to Proba, but they are not now extant.  
It must be acknowedged, That Rufinus, tho' very ill used by S. Jerom, was one of the ablest Men of his time: Perhaps he had not so much Learning as S. Jerom, but his Temper was better and less violent. He doth not write so good Latin, but his Style is more even. It cannot be denied, but that the Latin Church is obliged to him for the knowledge of the most considerable among the Greek Authors; and particularly of Church-History. Tho' he was accused of divers Errors, yet he was convicted of none, and he justified himself sufficiently of the reproachful Objections made against him. He defended Origen, but that was by rejecting the Errors Fathered upon him. The only Thing he may be thought to have been guilty of, not upon the Score of his own Writings, but by the Testimony of the Authors that have spoken of him, is that he was Pelagius' Tutor. But perhaps the Disciples Errors may have been imputed to the Master, tho' he never taught them. However it cannot be said, That he divided from the Church upon that occasion, or that these Errors were obstinately maintained by him. And so, in my Opinion, it is very unjust for modern Writers, to blemish the Memory of him, and use him, as if he had been one of the greatest Heretics in the World. We should not mind all the Accusations wherewith S. Jerom loaded him in the heat of their Quarrel: but rather imitate the Modesty of Pope Gelasius, who gives him the Character of an Holy Man; Rufinus vir religiosus. Tho' he confesses, That S. Jerom was in the right when he reproved him, for what he said concerning Man's freewill.  
The Works of this Author have been collected into one Volume in Folio, and Printed at Paris ●y Sonnius in 1580. They forgot to insert the two Invectives, and the Apology to Pope Anastasius, with the letter concerning the falsifying of Origen's Books, which are in the last Volume of S. Jerom's Works. His Translations are in the ancient Latin Editions of those Greek Authors, which were made public before new Translations were made.   

SOPHRONIUS.  
SOPHRONIUS a Man of great Erudition, says his Friend S. Jerom, in his Book of Famous Men, written when he was little more than a Child, the Praise of Bethlehem, and not long 
Sophronius.  ago composed an excellent Treatise of the ruin of Serapis: He translated also into Greek, my Treatise of Virginity to Eustochium, and the Life of Hilarion the Hermit: He likewise turned into Greek the Latin Translation of the Psalms, and Prophets, which I made from the Hebrew Text. The Greek Translation of the Book of Famous Men, is also attributed to him. There is another Sophronius Bishop of Jerusalem, who lived under the Emperor Heraclius about the year 636, to whom is ascribed a small Treatise of the Labours and Travels of S. Peter, and of S. Paul: It is a miserable business not worth mentioning.   

SEVERUS SULPICIUS.  
SEVERUS SULPICIUS, 
a Severus Sulpicius.] Gennadius saith, That Sulpicius was his Surname; and S. Gregory of Tours, lib. de vit. S. Mart. c. 1. & l. ●0. Hist. Franc. c. 31. calleth him as we do Severus Sulpicius: but in his Letters he calls himself Sulpicius Severus. But sometimes the Surname is put before the Proper name. Most of the Ancients call him only Sulpicius. [Sulpicius was the Name of his Family; the Emperor Galba was of the Sulpician Family: Severus was his cognomen, as Cicero to Tully, and Crispus to Sallust; so that in Strictness his Name is Sulpicius Severus, not Severus Sulpicius; his Praenomen, which went always first, is not known: In Gennadius' time, the Roman way of naming Persons was almost wholly out of use, excepting some few of the Descendants of the Old Roman Families; and therefore one is not strictly to take those words Cognomento Sulpicius, as if Severus were the Name of the Family and not Sulpicius.  Priest of Again 
b Priest of Agen.] He saith in the first Dialogue c. 20. that he was of Aquitain, and in hi● History l. 2. He calleth Phaebadius Bishop of Age● his Bishop. They were mistaken who confounds him with one Sulpicius Bishop of Bourges, who lived above 190 years afterwards under King Gontran: all the Ancients allow to this Sulpicius no other Quality, besides that of Priest.] , famous for the Nobility of his Extraction, the Fineness of his Parts, and the Holiness of his Life, was eminent in the times of 
Severus Sulpicius.  S. Jerom, and Rufinus, he was S. Martin's Disciple, whose Life he writ; He was an intimate Friend of Paulinus Bishop of Nola, to whom he writ several Letters. This Man speaking of Severus' Conversion in one of his Letters, saith, That it was altogether extraordinary and miraculous; Because he had at once shaken off the Yoke of sin, and broken the Bands of Flesh and Blood, in the flower of his Age; and at a time when he was famous at the Bar, when neither Riches, nor a Licence to enjoy Pleasures after Marriage, nor his Youth could turn him out of the Way of Virtue, to engage in the broad and easy Path of worldly Men: That he despised Wealth and Glory to follow Jesus Christ, and preferred the preaching of Fishermen, before all the pieces of Ciceronian Eloquence, and all the Books of fine Learning: However, he shown his Eloquence in the Writings which he composed after his Conversion.  
The chief of these Works is his Sacred History divided into two Books, which contains an Abridgement of what remarkable things happened in the History of the Jews, and of the Church, from the Creation of the World, to the Consulship of Stilico, and Aurelianus, that is, to the Year of Jesus Christ 400, written with great Skill. He wrote also S. Martin's Life, three Letters concerning the Death, and Virtues of that Saint, and three Dialogues betwixt Gallus and Posthumianus, whereof the first is concerning the Miracles of the Eastern Monks, and the two others about S. Martin's Virtues. Gennadius saith, That he writ some pious Letters besides to his Sister, two Letters to S. Paulinus, that were common in his time, not to speak of several others, which were not published because they were intermixed with Domestic Affairs. F. Dachery in the Fifth Volume of his Spicilegium, hath published us five Letters of Severus Sulpicius to his Sister, and Baluzius hath likewise published two in the First Volume of his Miscellanea. The others are not yet published.  
Gennadius affirms, That Sulpicius Severus towards the latter end of his Life, was surprised by the Pelagians, but that afterwards having acknowledged the Error, which he was fallen into, by too great a desire of speaking, he kept Silence all the rest of his days, that he might repair his Fault. Guibertus' Abbot of Gemblours, seems to question the matter of Fact. But Gennadius his Testimony is not to be questioned in such a matter: Sulpicius Severus lived till towards the Year 420.  
This Author is eloquent, his Writings are pure and polished, he writ with great Brevity, and great Clearness, wherein he excelled Sallust whom he imitated. His is the best written Historical Abridgement that we have, and yet he is not very exact, but commits Faults against the truth of History, especially of the Ecclesiastical. He is very credulous of Miracles, and approves the Dreams of the Ancients about the Reign of a Thousand years, about Antichrist, whom he thought to be Nero, about the time of the World's end, and about the Sons of Men that had to do with the Women. He passes over the Church History from Jesus Christ, to the Fourth Century, very lightly; he saith very little of the Arians, but he enlargeth much upon the Priscillianists, and from him we learn more of them than from all the Authors besides.  
The Life of S. Martin is written with the same Purity as his History; but in a more diffuse and agreeable manner. The Dialogues are composed with so much Art and Exactness, that one can never be weary of reading them, and particularly the first, where Posthumianus relates several particulars of the Eastern Monks. He speaks there of the Troubles that were in Egypt, and Palestine, about Origen's Books, and makes a most wise and moderate Judgement of them, and tho' he does not wholly excuse Origen; Yet he does not approve of that Severity, which the Bishop of Alexandria exercised against those that defended him. He bewails the misfortune of the Church to be disturbed with things of so small Importance. He commends S. Jerom without entirely applauding his Conduct. He quotes a Jest of a good Priest of the Coast of Africa, who refused to take Money offered him by Posthumianus, saying, That Gold did rather destroy the Church than edify it.  
The Works of Sulpicius Severus, which Lazius had published full of Faults, were revised and corrected by Giselinus, who Printed them with his own Notes, and with Galesinius' at Antwerp, in the Year 1574. Sigonius made a new Edition of them with new Notes, Printed at Bononia in 1581., and at Francfort in 1593. The History was printed with Drusius' at Franker in 1607. There is an Edition by Elzevir at Amsterdam in 1635. And we have him entire with the Notes of several learned Men, Printed at Amsterdam, by Hornius his care in 1647, and 1654. These are the principal Editions of Sulpicius Severus, to say nothing of the Collections, into which his Works have been inserted.  
In speaking of Sulpicius Severus who writ S. Martin's Life, it is worth observing that a Creed is ascribed to this Saint, but it is very uncertain, whether he be the Author of it, tho' it is very ancient.   

Saint PAULINUS.  
SAint PAULINUS, called also Pontius, and Meropius, descended from an illustrious Family of Roman Senators, was born at Bourdeaux about the Year 453. He was directed in 
Paulinus.  his Studies by the famous Ausonius; he studied with so much Assiduity the best of the Latin Authors, that he got a stile very like theirs. He advanced afterwards to the most considerable Offices of the Empire. Ausonius says that Paulinus was Consul along with him, but his Name being not found in the Fasti consulares, it is probable that he obtained that Dignity only in the Room of some other Person, who died in the Office, and perhaps in the Year 378, after the Death of Valens. He married Therasia a rich Woman, by whom he got a great Estate, The Happiness that a Person so powerful and rich as he was, might have enjoyed, was much disturbed by abundance of Businesses, which made him recollect himself, and resolve to be converted. and to retire into Spain with his Wife Therasia, who had contributed much to make him take this Resolution. He was baptised by Delphinus Bishop of Bourdeaux some time before his retreat, in the Year 389. He dwelled Four years in Spain, where he embraced voluntary Poverty, selling his Goods by degrees to give them to the Poor. The Inhabitants of Barcelona, where he dwelled conceived such Esteem for him, that they caused him to be ordained Priest upon Christmas-day, tho' he thought not of it. S. Paulinus perceiving that he could not overcome the People's Resolution, after a long resistance, yielded to be ordained, upon condition that he should not be obliged to remain in Barcelona, because his Design was to withdraw to Nola. This Ordination was performed in 393, and the next Year, he left Spain to go into Italy. In his way he saw S. Ambrose at Florence, who shown him some Marks of Respect: at Rome he was kindly received both by Persons of Quality, and by the People: but Pope Siricius, and the Clergy were jealous of him, which made him leave that Town quickly, and repair to Nola, where he dwelled in a Country house half a League from the Town; having lived there Sixteen years with his Wife Therasia, in the Study and Exercises of a Monastical Life, he was chosen and ordained Bishop of Nola in 409. The beginning of his Promotion was disturbed by the Incursions of the Goths, who took the City of Nola; this Assault being over, he enjoyed his Bishopric peaceably to his dying day, in the Year 431. We read in S. Gregory's Dialogues, that he yielded himself to be a Captive in Africa voluntarily, to deliver a Widow's Son that was taken by the Vandals: but this Action which did not agree, either with the Circumstances, or the time of S. Paulinus' Life, is looked upon by the Learned as a Fable, as several others are, which may be found in S. Gregory's Dialogues.  
There was a new Edition lately made of this Father's Poems and Letters, wherein they are set very exactly in a Chronological Order.  
The first Letter is written by Paulinus to Sulpicius Severus, sometime after he was ordained a Priest; there he exhorteth Sulpicius Severus to continue in that sort of Life, which he had embraced, without being disturbed at the Discourses of the Men of the World that blamed him. He invites him to come to him at Barcelona, and acquaints him after what manner he was ordained Priest. Upon Christmas-day, saith he, the People obliged me to receive the Order of Priesthood, against my Will: not that I have any Aversion to that Dignity; on the contrary, I could wish to have began at the Porter's order to come into the Clergy: but as my Design looked another way, so I was surprised and established at that new Order of the Divine Providence. I submitted myself to Christ's Yoke, and am now engaged in a Ministry beyond my Merit and my Strength ..... I can hardly yet comprehend the heavy weight of that Dignity: I tremble when I consider the Importance of that Office, being conscious to myself of my own weakness: but he that giveth Wisdom to the Simple, and causeth sucking Babes to sing his Praises, is able to accomplish his work in me, to give me his Grace, and make me worthy, whom he has called when I was unworthy. He addeth, That he took Orders upon this condition, that he should not be tied to the Church of Barcelona, so that he consecrated himself to the Holy Ministry, without being bound to the Service of any particular Church. He invites him at last not to put off his Journey, but to come to him before Easter.  
The Second Letter to Amandus a Priest, afterwards Bishop of Bourdeaux is written likewise concerning that Ordination, at the same time with the first. He entreats him to give him Advice and necessary Instructions, for the worthy discharging of his Ministry.  
The Third to Alypius Bishop in Africa, was written immediately after his Arrival at Nola, in the Autumn of the Year 394. He commends there S. Augustin's Books which Alypius had sent him; he sends him Eusebius his Chronicon, and tells him, That he was very desirous to know the particulars of his Life: and at the latter end of the Letter, he says, That he sent him a Loaf as a Token of their Union, and a Figure of the Trinity, adding, That he shall make an Eulogy, of that Bread when he receives it, that is, That in receiving it he shall bless it, as he says in the following Letter to S. Augustin. It was the Custom of that time, especially with S. Paulinus thus to send Bread as a mark of Union: See the 1st. 4th. 45th. and 46th. Letters. S. Augustin in the 34th. Letter speaks likewise of a Loaf, which he sent to Paulinus, and makes use of the same expression; The Bread, saith he, which we send unto you, shall be made a subject of Blessing, by the Charity wherewith you shall receive it. UBERIOR BENEDICTIO FIET DILECTIONE ACCIPIENTIS VESTRAE BENIGNITATIS.  
The Fourth is written to S. Augustin; he commends his Five Books against the Manichees which Alypius had sent him: It is full of Expressions, to show how greatly he esteemed S. Augustin, of whom he craves advice for his Behaviour: both these Letters were written in Autumn, in the Year 394, as appears by the Sixth. S. Augustin answers this last by the 27th. Letter of the last Edition, which is there in the Italic Letter.  
S. Paulinus' Fifth Letter is directed to Sulpicius Severus, wherein he returns him Thanks for the Testimonies of Love that he had received from him: He exalts his Conversion; and comparing it with his own, shows that it was more surprising and wonderful. There he also speaks of his Distemper, and of the Envy which the Roman Clergy bore to all men, of any Reputation either for their Holiness or their Piety: and allegeth this as a Reason of his withdrawing far from Rome; He opposes Pope Siricius his proud Behaviour towards him, Papae urbici superba duritia, to that Charity wherewith both the Bishops and Clergy of Campania, had entertained him by their frequent Visits, and to that of the African Bishops, who had sent on purpose to know how he did.  
The Sixth Letter is written to S. Augustin in the Year 395, wherein he expresseth how impatient he was to receive some Letters from him.  
The following Letter is an Answer of S. Augustin's which is the Thirty first of his Letters, written in 396. He sends Paulinus word of his Promotion to be a Bishop.  
Paulinus having received this Letter, acquaints Romanianus by the Seventh, with his great joy for that News.  
In the Eighth he exhorteth Licentius Romanianus his Son, in Prose and in Verse, to leave the World and give himself too God. These Letters are of the Year 396.  
In the Eleventh of the following Year, as is supposed, he urges Severus Sulpicius to come to see him.  
The Twelfth to Amandus is one of the most excellent of all S. Paulinus his Letters. There he very elegantly explains the Degrees of Man's Fall, and of the Redemption by Jesus Christ, observing that God had preserved Holiness in the posterity of Seth; that in the time of the Flood, The Spirit of Holiness rested in one only righteous Man, who was then the Redeemer of Mankind, and a Type of the Redemption through Christ: That after the Flood men returning to Corruption, God chose Abraham to be the Father of the Faithful, of whom should come the everlasting King, and that at last all mankind being so corrupted with Vice, that hardly any Remedy could be hoped for; the same Lord who form Man, came to restore him by the same power by which he had created him: That he made himself Man to be a Mediator betwixt God and Men: That he was humble, and had chosen the vile things in this World to confound the Proud, the Learned and the mighty things of the Age: And at last he died and risen again, to destroy Death in us, and restore Immortality. These are the main Points explained very exactly by S. Paulinus in that Letter. At the latter end he takes notice that there is both Humility, and a laudable Pride. That Pride, saith he, is to be approved, which makes us despise the World, and neglect whatsoever seemeth great handsome and pleasing to the Eyes of Men, apply ourselves only to heavenly things, and stoop to nothing but God's Commandments, etc. on the other side, That that Humility is to be condemned, which hath not Faith for its Foundatition, but only such a Littleness of mind as serves for lying, and is an Enemy to truth, which makes us lose our Liberty, and become the Slaves of Vice; which mingles Wine with Water, That is, to say, which weakens the pure truth, by a base Complaceny. MEND ACII FAMULA VERITATIS INIMICA MISCENS AQUA VINUM, ID EST, VERITATIS MERUM AQUOSO ADULATONIS ENERVANS.  
The Thirteenth is a Letter of Consolation to Pammachius upon the Death of Paulina his Wife in 397, wherein having exhorted him to stop his Tears, and moderate his Sorrow, he commends his great Charity to the poor of the City of Rome.  
In the Fourteenth and Fifteenth to Delphinus, and Amandus, S. Paulinus testifies his joy for Delphinus' Recovery, who had been dangerously Sick, giving him thanks for the Service he had done to Basilius the Priest. In the first upon occasion of Delphinus his Sickness, he saith, That the Afflictions of the Righteous are profitable. 1. For the Exercise of their Virtue, 2. To keep them from Pride. 3. To imprint in them the fear of God's Justice, which will grievously punish the Impious, since it deals so severely with the Righteous.  
The Sixteenth Letter to Jovius, is an excellent Discourse of Providence. It is placed in 399.  
In the Seventeenth to Severus Sulpicius, he complains that he came not to see him, neither met him at Rome, whither he was gone to celebrate the Feast of the Apostles S. Peter, and S. Paul; He exhorts him to come into that Country, to Honour S. Foelix the Martyr. This Letter was written by S. Paulinus at the latter end of the Year 399, after a Recovery from Sickness.  
The Eighteenth is written to Victricius Bishop of Roven, he sent it by Paschasius his Deacon whom he found at Rome, and had brought to Nola. Having excused himself for detaining him so long, he makes a Panegyric upon Victricius, describing the Torments which he had suffered for the Faith of Jesus Christ. This Letter is of the same Date with the foregoing.  
The Three following to Delphinus Bishop of Bourdeaux, were sent in the Year 400, by Cardamas an Exorcist, who came to visit him from that Bishop.  
In the First, he shows his gratitude for the Love which that Bishop had for him: He owns himself to be one of that Bishop's planting, praying him that he would cultivate the same Plant by his Prayers, and water it with his Counsels. In the Second, he gives him▪ Notice of the Tokens of love and respect that had been showed him by Anastasius Bishop of Rome, and Veneris Bishop of Milan. At last having commended Cardamas, he expounds the beginning of S. John's Gospel.  
In the Twenty second to Severus, He describeth the Luxury, and Effeminateness of the Men of the World, and exalteth the Frugality of the Monks, in very elegant and proper words.  
Here is a very pleasant Letter from Severus to Paulinus, wherein he recommends a Cook to him, affirming that he was very fit for him, knowing exactly well how to dress a Dish of Beans, and Lettuces, and one that would destroy as many Potherbs as any Man he ever saw.  
S. Paulinus made this Cook called Victor welcome, being so highly commended, and Paulinus was so well pleased with him, that he makes his Panegyric in the Twenty third Letter commending him, because he cut his Hair perfectly well. He speaks of the use of Hair, and from thence takes opportunity to give an Allegorical exposition of the Histories of Samson and Mary Magdalen.  
Sulpicius Severus had written S. Paulinus a Letter wherein he commended that Saint, for distributing his Estate to the Poor. S. Paulinus answers him, That it is but a small thing to renounce this World's wealth, except one also denies himself; and that a Man may quit the Goods of this World hearty, without parting with them altogether. He treateth afterwards of the Conditions of Evangelical poverty, and the dangers and temptations that attend a Spiritual life. Both these Letters are supposed to have been written about the latter end of the Year 400.  
The Twenty fifth Letter is addressed to a Person of Quality, whom he exhorts to quit the World, and advises him not to defer his Conversion.  
In the Twenty sixth Letter he praises a Monk named Sebastian, and a Deacon named Benedictus, upon their having worthily discharged their Duties. These two Letters are in the Ninth Tome of S. Jerom's Works, among those falsely attributed to him. They seem to have been written in the Year 401.  
The Twenty seventh Letter to Severus Sulpicius contains nothing considerable.  
The Twenty eighth directed to the same, is something more useful; there are several passages of Scripture applied to Jesus Christ with much wit and dexterity. He writes, that he sent to him by Victor, (whom he commends again in this place,) his Panegyric of Theodosius the Emperor, and his Verses in commendation of S. Foelix the Martyr: Both these Letters are believed to be of the Year 401.  
By the Twenty ninth, he thanks Severus for a Suit of Camel's Hair which he had sent him; judging, that he thereby intended to let him understand the need he had of Penance, and that in exchange he sent him a Suit of Lamb's Wool which Melania had given him; whereupon he takes occasion to commend that famous Widow, who lately passed through Nola. If this Letter was written in the same Year that Melania returned from Jerusalem, as he that writ the Notes upon it supposes, than it is of the Year 397, and not of 402, as he affirms: But there is no proof that it is of the same Year.  
Sulpicius Severus had desired to have S. Paulinus' Picture. The Saint refuses to give it, and calls his Request a piece of Folly: And this puts him upon discoursing in the Thirtieth Letter of the inward and the outward Man; it is thought to be of 402. There he draws a wonderful Picture of Man's Heart; this is one excellent passage of it, much admired of S. Augustin in his 186th. Epistle. How should I dare give you my Picture, that am altogether like the Earthly Man, and by my Actions represent the Carnal Man? Shame presseth me on every side. I am ashamed to have my Picture drawn as I am, and I dare not have it made otherwise. I hate what I am, and I am not what I would be. But what will it avail me, wretched Man, to hate Vice, and love Virtue, since I am what I hate, and my laziness hinders me from endeavouring to do what I love? I find myself at variance with myself, and am torn by an intestine War. The Flesh fights against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the Flesh. The Law of the Body opposes the Law of the Spirit. Woe is me, because I have not taken away the taste of the poisoned Tree, by that of the saving Cross. The poison communicated to all Men from our first Parent by his Sin, abideth yet in me.  
About the same time Severus asked S. Paulinus to send him some Ashes of the Martyrs, to consecrate a Church: S. Paulinus having none, sent him a Bit of the true Cross, which Melania had brought from Jerusalem, with a Design to send it to Bassula, Severus his Mother-in-Law. This precious Relic was locked up in a Golden Box. Upon Occasion of this Present, he writes the History of the Invention of the Holy Cross. He says that Adrianus the Emperor caused a Temple to Jupiter to be built in the place where Christ suffered, and one to Adonis in Bethlehem to blot out the Memory, both of Christ's Birth and Passion: That these Temples stood till the time of Constantine: That the Empress Helena destroyed the Temples and Idols of false Deities, and erected Churches in those places; and that in one of them the Prints of Christ's Feet when he ascended up to Heaven were visible upon the Sand. That after this the Empress, desirous to find out where the Cross of Christ lay, sent for Christians and Jews, to learn of them the Place where it might have been hid, and that when she was showed the Place, she caused the Ground to be opened, and contrary to all men's Expectation, having dug deep, they found three Crosses planted in the Ground, as formerly; that the Joy of finding what they sought after, was much abated by the Difficulty of Discovering which of the three was the Cross of Christ, but that in this uncertainty it came into the Empress' Mind to bring thither a dead Corpse; being persuaded that Jesus Christ would manifest by the Resurrection of that Man which of these three Crosses was his. The thing being immediately done, the Body which had been laid upon the two others (of the Thiefs) to no purpose, returned to Life, as soon as the Cross of Christ touched him. He adds, That this Cross does not diminish, though Chips are constantly cut off from it.  
In the Thirty second Letter to Severus, there are Verses concerning a Picture which Severus Sulpicius had placed in a Church of his own Building, which represented S. Martin and S. Paulinus. The latter out of Humility saith, that S. Martin represented innocent Persons; but he represented Sinners. He likewise makes a Description in Verse, of the Church which he was building at Nola; and writ Inscriptions for both Churches. Here is a Description of the Churches that were built at that time. Both these Letters are of the year 403. or thereabouts.  
The following Letter to Alethius, hath nothing worth taking Notice of: but they have joined with it a Treatise directed to the same Alethius, which is one of the most Excellent Pieces in Antiquity, concerning Almsdeeds. It is entitled, of Ecclesiastical Treasure; because he shows there, that the greatest Treasure that a Man can get, and the best Gain that he can make, is to give Alms: It is Lending to God, who payeth great Use for it, and who gave Wealth to the Rich upon no other Account than that they might communicate to the Poor; as he hath made the Poor and Destitute, that the Rich might not want Opportunity of exercising Mercy and Charity. This small Treatise is full of such Notions about the Excellency and Necessity of Alms. It is believed that this Treatise was sent to Alethius, by Victor, with the foregoing Letter in 403.  
In the Thirty fifth, and Thirty sixth Letters to Delphinus and Amandus, he recommends to their Prayers the Soul of his Brother, whom he had formerly baptised, desiring them not to forget it. Delphinus being dead in 404. as appears by S. Paulinus' Twenty seventh Poem. The Date of this Letter cannot be set backwarder.  
Victricius Bishop of Roven, having been at Rome, and Paulinus not being able to see him, this Saint writ him the Thirty seventh Letter to tell him that his Sins must needs have been the Cause of his being deprived of that Happiness; and there commends the Faith and Watchfulness of that Bishop: This Letter was written after Victricius' Journey into Italy, in the Year 404.  
In the Thirty eighth to Aper, S. Paulinus exalts that Man's Conversion, exhorting him to rejoice rather than be sad, because the World hates and despises that sort of Life which he had embraced; charging him to serve God with the same Zeal that he had served the World. This Letter is supposed to be of the Year 404.  
Aper and his Wife Amanda having declared to S. Paulinus, that they were obliged to take care of their Estate, because of the Lands belonging to their Children; he answereth them, that they ought to be persuaded that the Divine Providence had left them that Care for the Exercise of their Virtue. He saith further, that a man may advance towards Perfection by the Exercise of Country-Business, and learn to improve his Soul by the manner of tilling Ground. Here one may find an excellent Comparison of Agriculture, with the spiritual Life, and an ingenious Allegory upon those four kinds of Beasts that eat up the Fruits of the Earth, spoken of by the Prophet Joel, which he applies to passions of the Soul.  
In the fortieth Letter S. Paulinus answereth very modestly to the Letter sent him by Sanctus and Amandus; he treateth there of the great need he had to bewail his Sins, and applieth to this Subject what is in the Hundred and first Psalm, concerning the Pelican, the Owl, and the Sparrow.  
The Forty first, to Sanctus, is a Treatise of Christian Watchfulness, upon the Parable of the Ten Virgins.  
In the Forty second, to Florentius Bishop of Cahors, he thanketh this Bishop for the Honour he had done him in writing to him, assuring him of his Friendship; he commendeth him and desireth his Prayers. That Letter is full of Noble Expressions, to extol the Dignity and Merits of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, saith he, is that Rock containing that Spring of living Water, which we happily find not far from us, when we are very thirsty in this World: This is it that refreshes us, and keeps us from being consumed by the Heat of Lust. This is the Rock upon which standeth that House that shall never fall. This is the Rock which having been opened at the Side cast out Water and Blood, to make us taste of two wholesome Fountains, the Water of Grace, and the Blood of the Sacrament, which proves at the same time both the Spring and the Price of our Salvation. These last Letters are of the year 405.  
The Forty third is written to Desiderius, who desired an Exposition of the Benedictions of the Patriarches; he answers him, that he is better able to expound them himself, than he, of whom he desireth the Exposition. He only gives by the buy, an Explication of the Parable of the Withered Figtree. He sent this Letter in 406. by Victor, lately recovered of a long and dangerous sickness. He gave him likewise two Notes which he had written long before, with a Letter to Severus, not now extant. Desiderius his Request gave him Occasion to require it of Rufinus, who gave him that Satisfaction. The Letters he writ upon that Subject are among Rufinus' Works, and among these the Forty sixth and Forty seventh, were written in 408.  
In the Forty fourth he admires the Spirit of Onction and Piety which he finds in Aper's Letters. Then he commends the Virtues of his Wife, and wishes that her Children may be well brought up.  
In the Forty fifth, to S. Augustin, S. Paulinus returns him Thanks for the Book that Quintus had given him at Rome, as from him. Afterwards he commends Melania, then in Affliction for the Loss of her only Son: Upon Occasion of whose Death, he discourseth of the Felicity which the Saints shall enjoy after the Resurrection. He observes that all their Employment shall be then to praise God everlastingly, and to give him continual Thanks. This Letter was put into the hands of Quintus an African Deacon, who came into Italy in the Year 408. S. Paulinus' Letter is of the 20th of May following, as he observes in the Body of the Letter.  
The Forty eighth Letter is a Fragment of an Epistle, quoted by S. Gregory of Tours, in which S. Paulinus opposes to the Disorders and Impieties of the Age, the Sanctity and Religion of some Bishops, as of Exuperius of Tolouse, of Simplicius of Vienna, of Amandus of Bourdeaux, of Diogenianus of Albi, of Dynamius of Angoulesme, of Verecundus of Clermont, of Alethius of Cahors, and of Pegasius of Perigueux. Since those times there have been some Ages wherein the Manners of the Laity might have been opposed to the Disorders of Churchmen.  
The Forty ninth Letter to Macarius contains the History of a Pilot Catechumen, who happening to be alone in a Ship loaded with Corn, which a Storm had blown off of the Port of Sardinia, was saved Miraculously by S. Foelix the Martyr's Protection: and having been several days at Sea, at last came safe to Land upon the Coasts of Abruzzo. This Letter may be called S. Paulinus' Masterpiece. It were difficult to make a more agreeable Description, and a more natural Draught, than this which he makes, of all the Circumstances of that Story. He concludes from thence, that undoubtedly the Saints secure us in time of need. He was a Bishop when he writ it; and so it could not be before the Year 410.  
In the fiftieth to S. Augustin, S. Paulinus proposes to him several Difficulties upon several places of the Scripture, to which S. Augustin answereth by the hundred and forty ninth, written in 414. since S. Paulinus' Letter was written some time before. The Date of the fifty first to Eucherius is not known; for he was yet in the Monastery of Lerins, out of which he did not withdraw till 426. It is a Letter of Christian Compliments, such as are all those of S. Paulinus.  
There remains only the Passion of S. Genesius, Martyr of Arles, which bears S. Paulinus his Name, and is sufficiently like his Style, though some have doubted whether he was the Author of it.  
After these Letters are thirty two pieces of Poetry; fifteen of them are concerning S. Foelix the Martyr, and the others upon different Subjects, upon which I need not enlarge.  
We have not his Epitome, in Verse, of a Book of the History of the Kings, commended by Ausonius; nor his Panegyric upon Theodosius the Emperor, spoken of in S. Jerom, ep. 13. in Cassiodorus l. 2. Instit. divin. in Gennadius and Trithemius, and mentioned by S. Paulinus in his twenty eighth Letter. We have lost likewise some of his Letters to his Friends, which are mentioned in those that we have, and all those which he writ to his Sister concerning the Contempt of the World, reckoned by Gennadius among this Father's Works. The same Author speaks likewise of a Treatise of Repentance, and of the Praise of Martyrs, which he affirms to be the chiefest of his Works, and an Office of the Sacrament. As to the Collection of Hymns mentioned likewise by him, that perhaps did not differ from the Hymns we have in honour of S. Foelix. S. Augustin witnesseth in the thirty first Letter, that S. Paulinus was writing something against Pagans. S. Gregory of Tours citeth a Letter, not now extant, which mentions the Relics of S. Gervasius and S. Protasius. Lastly, S. Paulinus tells us in his forty sixth Epistle, that he had translated some of the Works of S. Clemens Romanus. It is likely, that while he was Bishop he made some Sermons, but whether they were not collected, or whether they have been lost, certain it is that we have none of them.  
The Letter to Marcelia is written in S. Paulinus' Style, but it doth not well agree with the History of that famous Widow; for the Author of that Letter writes to her as to a person newly converted: whereas it is certain that she was converted long before S. Paulinus. It may be that the Lady to whom it is directed was another of the same Name.  
The Letter to Celancia, attributed likewise to S. Paulinus, is of a Style not very different from his, yet not altogether the same, and he turns the Scripture after another manner. It is certainly of an ancient Author, who lived before Paganism was utterly destroyed, and after the Reign of Jovian.  
The Poem, whereby the Author exhorts his Wife to consecrate herself to God, is more elegant and better written than those of S. Paulinus. It does not agree to him, because at the time when it was written, the West was all in a Confusion, that is, in the year 407. It was not necessary that he should exhort his Wife to be converted, and to lead a Christian Life, seeing she had lived so a long time. Four Manuscripts ascribe that Poem to Prosper.  
The Poem, immediately following, is a Paraphrase upon what S. Bernard hath written in honour of the Name of Jesus, and so is far younger than S. Paulinus, though it seems to many to be ancient. It is not necessary to observe, that the Life of S. Ambrose is written by another Paulinus.  
The six Books of S. Martin's Life, ascribed to S. Paulinus, cannot be his, because in the second he is cited as a third Person, and he that wrote them mentions Perpetuus, sixth Bishop of Tours after S. Martin, who was not ordained till towards the latter end of the fifth Century, long after the Death of S. Paulinus, Bishop of Nola. There is in the Rules of Benedictus A●●anensis an Answer to this Question; What ought to be the Monk's Penance, which is attributed to Paulinus, but though it be Eloquent, yet it is not believed to have been written by the Bishop of Nola.  
The Writings of S. Paulinus are composed with a great deal of Art and Elegance, his way of speaking is close and clear, his Terms are pure and choice, his Discourse sententious and lively: He excites the Attention of his Readers and keeps them awake. He passes insensibly from one thing to another, all hangs well together, one Sentence depending upon the other, and the end of one Thought is the beginning of the next. S. Jerom advised him, upon his Conversion, to learn the holy Scripture and to make use of it. He made great use of that Counsel; for after that he made it so familiar to him, that in all his Discourses he inserts a vast Number of Passages of Scripture, and adapts them to his Subject, by giving them often a Sense very different from their natural one. They are as so many precious Stones, set in, and so curiously wrought that they raise the Discourse and give it a new Lustre. Yet it must be confessed that he doth it too often, and that his Allusions and Allegories are sometimes too far fetched. He turns things agreeably and finely: His Letters are pleasant and cheerful, they move, and they divert, rather than instruct. It is hard to judge, saith S. Augustin, whether they have more Sweetness or Fire, more Fruitfulness or Light. They soften and give Heat at the same time, they strengthen and mollify. Yet it must be owned that his Notions are not always solid and exact; and often please because of a false Lustre. He often plays with Words, and uses several Childish Allegories. He is excellent in his Draughts and Descriptions. He doth not penetrate into Dogmatical Matters, nor carry points of Morality very far, but only points at them superficially. All his Writings are short, but they are many, and all carefully composed. Ausonius' highly commends his Poems, yet can they not pass for perfect in that kind, especially those which he made after his Conversion. He understood Greek but indifferently, and was very little conversant with History or the Sciences. He was esteemed, beloved, and caressed by all the great Men of that Age, of what party soever they were, and he kept Correspondency with them without falling out with any. We may say, with Cardinal Perron, that he was the Delight of his time. He led a retired and very frugal Life, yet without great Austerity. He was the Admiration of his own Age by Reason of his voluntary Poverty, and his Bestowing his great Estate upon the Poor.  
He was very pious, and had a very tender Conscience. One finds in all his Letters the Character of an humble, modest and meek Spirit, he was much affected with the Sense of his own Weakness, and the Necessity of God's Help. He had much Devotion for the Saints, was inclinable to believe miraculous Stories, and to reverence Relics.  
The first Edition of this Author's Works was made at Paris by Badius in the year 1516. The second was printed at Colen, by the Care of Gravius. After that they were inserted into the Orthodoxographa, and the Bibliothecae Patrum. Rosweidus caused them to be printed at Antwerp in 1622. but at last there was an Edition of them in quarto at Paris. It is to be wished, that the Booksellers who printed it had taken as much care to have it upon good Paper and in a fair Character as he that took care of the Edition did to render it Correct and Useful. He hath divided it into two Volumes; in the former are the Letters and Poems, generally owned to belong to S. Paulinus, which are set down separately according to the Order of Time. He hath revised and corrected the Letters and the Poems by several Manuscripts. He hath added some new Letters, some he hath divided into two, and in some places he hath made one of two.  
The second Volume contains the doubtful Works, Notes upon the Epistles and Poems that are in the first Volume; the Testimonies both of Ancient and Modern Authors concerning S. Paulinus, with a new Account of this Saints Life, very large, and taken out of his own Writings: Seven Dissertations, whereof the two first are to justify the Chronological Order, wherein he hath set the Letters and the Poems. The three following contain the Lives of Sulpicius Severus, Alethius, Victricius, and Aper, to whom S. Paulinus writ most of his Letters. The sixth is concerning S. Paulinus his Works, which are either lost or dubious, or supposititious. The last contains an Examination of the History of S. Paulinus his Captivity. After this comes a Catalogue of various Readins, and several very useful Tables. There is a French Translation of S. Paulinus, his Letters preparing, which will be useful and diverting.   

PELAGIUS.  
PELAGIUS, an English Monk, 
a Pelagius, an English Monk.] S. Augustin, Ep. 106. Marius Mercator, S. Prosper in his Chronicon, and in the Poem of ungrateful Men, call him Britonem, or Britannum. S. Augustin in several places gives him the Quality of Monk. He was of the Monastery of Bangor in England, not in Ireland. He began to publish his Error in Rome towards the latter end of the fourth Century, if Marius Mercator may be believed.  Rufinus' Disciple, Head of the Heresy called by his 
Pelagius.  Name, hath his place amongst Ecclesiastical Authors, because of some Books that he hath written, of which we have spoken already. His Treatises are a Commentary upon S. Paul's Epistles 
b A Commentary upon S. Paul ' s Epistles.] S. Augustin and Marius Mercator speak of his Commentaries, and the latter observes that he composed them before the taking of Rome, which happened in the year 410. , attributed to S. Jerom 
c Attributed to S. Jerom.] Some question whether this Commentary be the same which S. Augustin quoteth under Pelagius his Name. 1. Because that among S. Ambrose's Works there is also a Pelagian Commentary upon S. Paul's Epistles. 2. Because all the passages cited by S. Augustin out of Pelagius' Commentaries are not to be found there, or at least they are not there in the same Terms. The former of these two Reasons is very weak, it being possible that a Pelagian Author might write Commentaries upon S. Paul, different from Pelagius'. The second would be of some weight, if in that Commentary attributed to S. Jerom, there were not most of the passages quoted by S. Augustin. For in the first place, S. Augustin in the 16th chapter of Pelagius his Acts, saith, that that Heretic had expounded these Words of the 9th chapter of the Romans, Neque volentis, neque currentis est Dei; by saying that S. Paul spoke thus by way of Interrogation, Voce interrogantis & redarguentis. This very Exposition, and these very Words are in the Commentary we are now speaking of. z. S. Augustin, in the 3d Book of the Merits of Sins, ch. 12. saith, that Pelagius expounding that place of the 7th Chapter of the Epistle to the Corinthians, Sanctificatus est vir fidelis, observes that there were several Examples of believing Women who had converted their unbelieving Husbands. The same Remark is in this Commentary. 3. S. Augustin, in the same Book, chap. 4. saith, that Pelagius tells us upon these Words, Rom. 5. Quae est form●futuri, that they may be understood several ways: the same thing is mentioned in this Commentary: But what puts the matter out of doubt, is that Marius Mercator in his Commentaries, citys a long Passage out of Pelagius' Commentaries, which is found entire in this. It is true that S. Augustin in the 3d Book of the Merits of Sins, chap. 2. produces an Argument against Original Sin which is not in this Commentary, and that he quotes in the 3d chap. a place taken notice of by Marius Mercator, which likewise is not in this Commentary ascribed to S. Jerom; but those places may possibly have been blotted out by some Catholics. . The Letter to Demetrias 
d The Letter to Demetrias.] It is certainly Pelagius'. See what is said of it in the Account of S. Jerom.  and some others, in the last Volume of S. Jerom's Works. A Treatise concerning the power of Nature, refuted by S. Augustin in the Book of Nature and of Grace. Several Books about freewill; part whereof S. Augustin refuteth in the Book of the Grace of Jesus Christ; and a Confession of Faith, directed to Pope Innocent 
e The Confession of Faith directed to Pope Innocent.] This Confession of Faith was delivered to Zosimus Successor to Innocent, who sent it to the African Bishops.  which is in S. Jerom, in S. Augustin, and in the second Volume of Councils of the last Edition, pag. 1563. This Author's Style is dry, flat, and barren. He was not learned, but he was a Man of good Sense: His Reflections are short and judicious.   

COELESTIUS.  
COELESTIUS, Pelagius his Countryman and Disciple 
a Coelestius, Pelagius his Countryman and Disciple.] S. Jerom says that he was of Scotland or Ireland; that he was a Disciple of Pelagius, and afterwards Head of the Pelagians. Marius Mercator says that he was of a good Family, and born an Eunuch, and wanted no Learning. , was guilty of the same Errors; yea, he carried them farther, and maintained them with greater Boldness. He was 
Coelestius.  of a subtle and cunning Temper 
b He was of a subtle and cunning Temper.] S. Jerom in his Letter to Ctesiphon observes that his Disciples said that he went over the Thorns of Logic. He professeth to despise him much, and calleth him ignorant Calumniator, in his Preface upon Jeremy. But S. Augustin, in his Book to Boniface, Chap. 3. takes notice that he had a great deal of Wit. . He included his whole Doctrine in six propositions, which Hilary of Syracuse sent to S. Augustin, who refutes them in the Eighty ninth Epistle. They are related likewise by Marius Mercator; and were condemned in the Synod of Palestine where, Pelagius himself was constrained to Anathematise them. S. Augustin published, and withal answered eight Definitions, or Reasonings of this Author. He presented a kind of Confession of Faith to Pope Zosimus, out of which S. Augustin produces some Fragments in the fifth, sixth, and twenty third Chapters of the second Book of Grace, and Original Sin.   

NICEAS.  
THE Account which Gennadius gives of this Author is this. Niceas, Bishop of some Town in Romania, hath written after a plain and easy manner, six Books of Instructions 
Niceas.  for those that were preparing for Baptism. The First is concerning the Dispositions of Catechumen, who desired to be baptised. The Second of the Errors of the Gentiles. He observes that in his time they put into the number of the Gods one Melchidius, a Housekeeper, because of his Liberality; and one Gadarius, a Peasant, because of his Strength. The Third Book is of Faith in one only God. The Fourth is against Calculating of Nativities. The Fifth is concerning the Creed. The Sixth concerning the Victim of the Paschal Lamb. The same Author writ a Letter to a Virgin that was fallen into Sin. Which Discourse may serve for an Exhortation to all those that commit Sin. This Author lived about the beginning of the Fifth Century. And this is all that, we know of him.   

OLYMPIUS.  
OLYMPIUS, a Bishop, and a Spaniard by Birth, hath written a Doctrinal Treatise against those that ascribe Sin to Nature, and not to freewill: Where he shows, That not by Nature, 
Olympius.  but by Disobedience, Evil was mingled with our Nature. This Bishop was present at the Council of Toledo in 405. S. Augustin commends him for a Man of great repute, in the First Book against Julianus, Chap. 3d. and 7th. and he quoteth his Writings in the 2d. Chapter of the same Work.   

BACHIARIUS.  
BACHIARIUS, a Christian Philosopher, saith Gennadius, who was desirous wholly to disengage himself from the World, and to fix his Thoughts entirely upon God; and therefore 
Bachiarius.  often changed his Habitation that he might be the less in love with any. It is said that he writ several small Books. I have read but One, concerning Faith, directed to the Bishop of Rome, wherein he applauds himself for his way of living; affirming, That it was not the fear of Men, that made him choose a Pilgrim's life, but that he might imitate Abraham when he left his Country, and parted with his Kindred. There is in the Bibliotheca Patrum a Letter of this Author's directed to Bishop Januarius, written about a Monk, who had abused a Nun. The Bishop to whom he writes, would receive him no more, nor admit him to Penance: Bachiarius telleth him, that such Severity is contrary to the Scripture, and exhorteth the Monk to quit the Nun whom he had abused, and do Penance. This is a learned Letter, and well written; there are many happy Applications of both the Ceremonies and the Histories of the Old Testament. Ivo Carnutensis, Epist. 64. mentions another Letter of this Author's upon Solomon's latter end.   

SABBATIUS.  
SABBATIUS, a Bishop in Gaul, at the request of a Virgin that was Consecrated to God, whose Name was Secunda, wrote a Book of Faith against Martion, Valentinus, Aëtius, and 
Sabbatius.  Eunomius; wherein he demonstrates both by Reason and Testimonies of Holy Scripture, That there is but one only God who made Heaven and Earth out of nothing: He proves also that Jesus Christ was very Man, having had a real Body, subject to the same infirmities with ours, to the necessity of Eating and Drinking, to Weariness, Sorrow, Sufferings and Death. He opposes these Truths to the Errors of Martion and Valentinus, who admitted two Principles, and affirmed that Jesus Christ had only the Similitude of Flesh: He showeth against Aëtius and Eunomius, That the Father and the Son are not two different Natures, nor two Divinities, but that they have but one and the same Essence; That the Son proceedeth from the Father, and yet is coeternal with him. This is what Gennadius saith of this Author, whom he places among those who flourished in the beginning of the Fifth Century.   

ISAAC.  
THis ISAAC is mentioned by none but Gennadius: He ranks him among the Authors that lived in the beginning of the Fifth Century, and says, that he writ a Book of the Trinity 
Isaac.  and the Incarnation; whose dark Reasonings and intricate Discourses show that he owned Three Persons in one and the same Divinity; yet so, as that each of them had something proper and peculiar, which the others had not: Viz. That it was peculiar to the Father to be without beginning, and to be the Original of the rest: That it was the Property of the Son to be begotten, and yet neither created nor posterior to him that begot him: And Lastly, That the Property of the Holy Ghost was, that though he was neither created nor begotten, yet he proceeded from another: And, as to the Incarnation, he wrote so, as that it appeared that he owned two Natures in one and the same Person. Sirmondus' published this Book from a Manuscript in Pithaus' Library, which tells us that this Author had been a Jew; for this Treatise is entitled of Isaac's Faith, who had been a Jew. It contains those things whereof Gennadius hath made an Extract: There are very subtle Reasonings upon the Mysteries of the Trinity and of the Incarnation.   

PAULUS OROSIUS.  
PAULUS OROSIUS, a Spanish Priest of Tarracon, S. Augustin's Disciple, flourished under the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius. 
Paulus Orosius.   
S. Augustin sent him into Palestine in the Year 415, to desire S. Jerom's Opinion concerning the Original of the Soul: He brought from thence S. Steven's Relics. The City of Rome having been taken in the Year 410, by Alaric, King of the Goths, the Heathens, willing to render the Christians odious, accused them of being the cause of that misfortune, and of all the other calamities that oppressed the Roman Empire. To defend them against that reproach, Paulus Orosius, at S. Augustin's request, undertook to write the History of the greatest Events that occurred from Jesus Christ to his own Time, to show that great Calamities had happened from time to time in the World, and that the Roman Empire had never been so free as since the Nativity of Jesus Christ. This Work is entitled Hormesta in some Manuscripts, and is cited under that Name by some Authors; the Original and Explication of which Title is very uncertain. It is a kind of Universal History, divided into Seven Books, which may be of some use. It is not ill written, but not exact. It has many faults against History and against Chronology. He had not read the Greek Historians, and easily credited whatsoever might help his Subject, without examining whether it was well attested or not.  
This Author hath written besides a small Treatise, entitled, An Apology for freewill against Pelagius, which was Printed with his History in the Colen Edition of the Year 1582. By a mistake they inserted several Chapters of S. Augustin's Treatise of Nature and Grace, which were separated by Andreas Schottus in his Edition of it, in the Bibliotheca Patrum.  
There is also, among S. Augustin's Works, before the Treatise against the Priscillianists and Origenists, a Letter of Orosius to S. Augustin concerning these Heretics.  
Some, upon the credit of certain Manuscripts, ascribe to him a Commentary upon the Book of Canticles, which is amongst Origen's Works, and a Treatise of Illustrious Men; but this was because they put Orosius' Name for Honorius'.  
S. Augustin in his 166th. Letter, saith, That Orosius had great liveliness of spirit, a wonderful facility of speaking, and a servant zeal. Vigil ing●nio, promptus eloquio, flagrans study. His Style is close, and his Language pure enough.  
Orosius' History was Printed at Paris in 1506, by Petit. The Apology for freewill was Printed by itself at Louvain in 1558. The best Edition of both these Works, is that of Colen, of the Year 1582. The latter is found in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and the former in the Collections of Historians.   

LUCIANUS, AVITUS, EVODIUS, SEVERUS.  
THese four Authors are to be joined with Orosius, because they writ concerning a particular Circumstance of his Life, that related to the Relics of S. Steven. 
Lucianus, Avitus, Evodias, S●veras.   
The First is a Grecian Priest, one Lucianus, who writ an History of the finding of S. Steven's Relics: His Book was Translated into Latin by Avitus, a Spanish Priest, Orosius' friend, the Second of those Authors we are now speaking of. The Third is Evodius, Bishop of Uzala, in Africa, One of the Five that writ to Innocent the First, the 95th. Letter in S. Augustin; he wrote a small Treatise concerning the Miracles of S. Steven's Relics, which Orosius had brought into the West. He is likewise the Author of a small Treatise of Faith, or the Unity of the Trinity, against the Manichees, which is in the Eighth Volume of S. Augustin's Works, as Sirmondus proves upon the credit of MSS. S. Augustin mentions Evodius' Book, touching S. Steven's Miracles, in the 8th, Chapt. 1. 22. Of the City of God; and Sigebert placeth Evodius amongst the Ecclesiastical Writers.  
The last Author here named, is one Severus, a Bishop of the Island Minorca, who wrote a Circular Letter of the Jew's Conversion in that Island; and of the Miracles wrought in that place, by S. Steven's Relics, which Orosius left there.  
Lucianus' Book and Avitus' Letter, are printed by Surius upon the Third day of August.  
Both these Books, attributed to Evodius, are none of his, since they do not bear his Name as the Author, but only because they are directed to him. Baronius published Severus' Letter from a MS. in the Vatican Library. These Relations are so incredible, that were they not authorized by the Testimonies of S. Augustin and Gennadius, we should scarce give any credit to them. They are all at the end of the Seventh Volume of the new Edition of S. Augustin.   

MARCELLUS MEMORIALIS.  
THis Author wrote the Acts of the Conference held at Carthage, betwixt the Catholics and the Donatists, in the Year 1411. Part of them were printed by Papirius Massonus, and printed 
Marcellus Memorialis.  with Optatus, and in the last Collection of the Councils; but Baluzius printed them more exactly in his new Collection of Councils.   

EUSEBIUS.  
THis Eusebius is not much known. Gennadius doth not tell us whence he was, nor what he was; but only observes, that he writ a Treatise of the Mystery of the Cross, and of the Constancy 
Eusebius.  which the Apostles, and particularly S. Peter, had, by virtue of the Cross. He places this Author among those that flourished in the beginning of the Fifth Century.   

URSINUS.  
URSINUS the Monk wrote a Treatise against those who affirm, That Heretics are to be rebaptized; wherein he teacheth, That those ought not to be baptised again, who were baptised 
Ursinus.  in the Name of Jesus Christ, or the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost; though they that baptised them were in an error, because it is enough to have been baptised either in the Name of Christ, or in the Name of the Trinity, to give a right to receive the Imposition of hands from the Bishop. This Treatise is among S. Cyprian's Works; I am apt to believe that the Author of it is more ancient, than to agree to this place.   

MACARIUS.  
GEnnadius mentions one Macarius a Monk, who writ a Treatise against Astrologers in Rome; Wherein, saith he, he sought the help of the Scripture by the labours of those of the East. This 
Macarius.  Macarius is he, probably, to whom Rufinus addresses his Apology, and his Translation of the Books of Origen's Principles; of whom S. Jerom saith in his Second Apology: Had you not returned from the East, this able Man would yet have been among the Astrologers. His Book is not extant.   

HELIODORUS.  
HELIODORUS, a Priest of Antioch, wrote an excellent Book of Virginity, grounded upon Scripture-testimonies. Gennadius, Chap. 29. 
Heliodorus.    

PAULUS.  
PAULUS, a Bishop (saith the same Gennadius, Chap. 31.) wrote a small Treatise of Repentance; wherein he maintains, That Sinners are not so to afflict themselves for their Sins, 
Paulus.  as to fall into despair.   

HELVIDIUS and VIGILANTIUS.  
HEre are two Heretics refuted by S. Jerom, reckoned by Gennadius amongst the Ecclesiastical Writers. Helvidius, saith he, Chap. 32. Auxentius his Disciple, an imitator of Symmachus, 
Helvidius and Vigilantius.  writ a Book that shows some Zeal for Religion, but an indiscreet one: His Style and Arguments are very intricate. He citys several passages of Scripture, whence he concludes, That the Virgin Mary having brought forth Jesus Christ, had other Children by Joseph, that were called the Lord's brethren. S. Jerom confuted that Error, and writ a Treatise full of Testimonies out of the Scriptures against this Author.  
Vigilantius, a Priest, Originally of Gaul, a Parish-priest, in the Diocese of Barcelona in Spain, hath written likewise some Treatises, whereby he shows his Zeal for Religion; but he was deceived with Ambition, and an Opinion of himself, because he had a fine Style. Not being well versed in the Scriptures, he made a very bad Exposition of Daniel's Visions, publishing several impertinent things, wherefore he is numbered amongst Heretics. S. Jerom answered him likewise.   

St. AUGUSTIN.  
ST. AUGUSTIN was born at Tagasta, a City of Numidia, in the Reign of Constantius, the 13th. of November, in the Year 354. which had for Consuls the Emperor himself the 
St. Augustin.  Seventh time, and Gallus Caesar the Third. St. Augustin's Father, an ordinary Citizen of that Town, was called Patricius; and his Mother, a very virtuous Woman, was named Monica. This holy Woman took care to instill into her Son the Principles of the Christian Religion, and placed him among the Catechumen: so that falling dangerously sick, he earnestly desired to be Baptised; but the violence of the Distemper abating, it was put off to another time. His Father being yet Unbaptised, and wanting that Sense of Religion that his Mother had, intended only to promote his Son in the World; and though he was not very Rich, yet he spared nothing to instruct and give him Learning: He made him learn the Rudiments of Grammar at Tagasta; and then sent him to Madaura, to study Humanity-Learning. This Child had no mind to Study, and particularly hated the Greek Tongue; but his love for the Poets, made him first take a pleasure in it. At Sixteen Years of Age, having gone through his Humanity-Course, his Father took him from Madaura, and sent him to Carthage to learn Rhetoric; but wanting a Fond for this necessary Expense for some time, St. Augustin tarried a whole Year at Tagasta; where Idleness disordered him. He went away at the latter end of the Year 371. for Carthage, where he applied himself to study Rhetoric, with much Application and Success. In the mean while his Father died, quickly after he was baptised. The reading of Cicero's Hortensius, inspired St. Augustin with a love of Wisdom: But not finding there the Name of Jesus Christ, which he had printed in his Heart from his Infancy, he betook himself to the reading of the Holy Scripture: But meeting not there with the flowers of profane Eloquence, he could not relish it, and so suffered himself to be led away by the Manichees. Being Nineteen Years old, he returned to Tagasta; where he taught Grammar, and frequented the Barr. This Exercise having fitted him for some noble Employment, he went to Carthage, at the Age of Twenty five, about the latter end of the Year 379. where he taught Rhetoric with Applause. He was still engaged in the Manichaean Errors; but he began to be better informed, by a Conference which he had with Faustus, about the Year 383. The Insolence of the Carthaginian Scholars, made him resolve to go to Rome, though against his Mother's Will, who desired either to keep him there, or to go with him. Being come to Rome, he fell sick in the House of a Manichees where he lodged: Being recovered, he got some Scholars about him; but finding that most part of them were so base, to go away without Paying, he sought to settle somewhere else. The Inhabitants of Milan having sent to Symmachus, the Praefect of the City, desiring that he would find a Rhetorick-Professor for them, St. Augustin procured himself to be Chosen for that Employment. Being in Milan, he was so wrought upon by St. Ambrose's Discourses, that he resolved to be converted, and quit the Sect of the Manichees: He discovered this Design to his Mother, who came to him to Milan. Plato's Books confirmed him in his Resolution. His Conversation with Simplicianus and Petilian did much further his Conversion; and the reading of St. Paul's Epistles brought this great Work to Perfection, in the 32d. year of his Age. Before the Vacation, in the year 386. he stayed only a few Days, to make an end of his Public Lectures, which he was to read before the Vacation: Which no sooner came, but he withdrew to Verecundus his House; where he betook himself seriously to studying of the Truth, and to fit himself for Baptism; which he received at Easter, in the year 387. having utterly renounced his Profession. Afterwards, he resolved to return into his own Country; and having tarried some time at Rome; he embarked at Ostia, where his Mother died. However, he continued his Voyage, and arrived in Africa towards the end of the year 388. He went through Carthage, where he lodged in a Magistrate's House, named Innocent; who was miraculously cured, as he gives the Account, in the 8th. Chap. of the 22d. Book of The City of God. He went to dwell at Tagasta,; where he abode three years, living in common with some of his Friends, exercising himself by Fast, Prayers, and other Works of Piety, and applying himself Day and Night to the Meditation of the Law of God. The Fame of his Piety was so great, that as all that designed to embrace Spiritual Life, addressed themselves to him: Among the rest, a Person of Quality in Hippo, who was willing to give up himself to God, desired to entertain him, and to bring him to that Town. St. Augustin did not find himself disposed to follow his Advice: yet God did not permit his Journey to prove in vain; for Valerius, Bishop of Hippo, having proposed to the People to choose a Priest whom that Church stood in need of, he chose St. Augustin, when he did not think of it; and he Ordained him, against his Will, about the beginning of the year 391. St. Augustin immediately retired to prepare himself for the worthy discharging of the Sacerdotal Function, and begged of Valerius time till Easter: In which space, he established a Monastery, or Community of Persons that had all things Common, renouncing the Property of any thing. Valerius, who designed that St. Augustin should preach in his room, permitted him to do it in his Presence, contrary to the Custom of the African Churches. This did not please some of his Brethren; but he excused it, by the Usage of the Eastern Churches, and the need he had that some body should preach the Word of God in his place; because he being a Greek, could not do it so well in Latin. This Custom was found so reasonable, that several Bishops in Africa followed his Example; admitting Priests to Preach in their Presence: yea they did St. Augustin the Honour, to make him Speak in a General Council of Africa, held at Carthage, in the year 393. where he Expounded the Creed, in the Presence of the Bishops; who conceived so great an Esteem of his Learning, that they judged him worthy of a more excellent Dignity. But Valerius fearing lest a Person so necessary for the Government of his Diocese, should be taken away from him, resolved to make him his Co-adjutor; and accordingly, two years after, he caused him to be Ordained Bishop of Hippo, by Megalius, Bishop of Calama, than Primate of Numidia, in the year 395. With much difficulty St. Augustin consented to that Ordination, though he did not then know, as he afterwards declared, that it was contrary to the Laws of the Church, and to a Canon of the Council of Nice, which forbids the Crdaining Two Bishops in the same Church. I shall not now give any Account of what he did and wrote whilst he was Bishop, because that will come in, in the Abridgement of his Works: Neither will I enlarge upon the Praises which may be given him, nor upon his Holiness and his Virtues, which were known and admired by all the World, both before and after his Death. This is no part of my Design; besides, the Name only of St. Augustin, is the greatest Commendation that can be given him; and whatsoever may be said after that, can serve only to lessen the Opinion Men have conceived of his rare Merit, and his great Piety. He died as Holily as he had lived, the 28th. day of August, 430. aged Seventy six Years, with Grief to see his Country Invaded by the Vandals; and the City, whereof he was Bishop, Besieged for several Months.  
St. Augustin's Works make up several Volumes, wherein they are divided according to that order which was judged to be most natural. We shall follow that which is observed in the last Edition, set forth by the Benedictines of St. Germane.  

The First TOME of St. Augustin's Works.  
THE First Volume containeth the Works which he wrote before he was a Priest; with his Retractations and Confessions: which serve as Prefaces to his Works; because the First giveth 
Tome I.  an Account of his Writings, and is useful to understand the most difficult places of his Works; and the Second discovers his Genius, and takes notice of the principal Circumstances of his Life.  
The Book of Retractations, is a Critical Review of his Works. He tells you there the Title, and sets down the first Words of them: He gives a Catalogue according to the Time, and he observes upon what Occasion, and wherefore he writ them: he tells the Subject and the Design which he had in composing them: he clears those places which seem to be obscure: he softens those which he thinks are too hard, gives a good Sense to such as seem capable of having a bad one, and rectifies them where he thinks that he erred from the Truth. In one word; He confesseth ingenuously the Errors or Mistakes which he committed. The Preface to this Work is very humble: He says, That his Design is, to review his Works with the Severity of a Censor, and to reprove his own Faults himself; following therein the Apostle's Advice, who saith, That if we judge ourselves, we should not be judged of the Lord. That he is frighted with those words of the Wiseman, That it is difficult to avoid committing Faults in much speaking. That he is not terrified with the great number of his Writings; since none can be said to Write or Speak too much, when he Speaks and Writes only things that are necessary: but he is afraid, lest there should be in his Writings many false things, or at least, unprofitable ones. That if now being Old, he thinketh not himself free from Error, it is impossible but that he must have committed Faults when he was Young, either in Speaking or in Writing; and so much the rather, because he was then obliged to Speak often. That therefore he is resolved to judge himself, according to the Rules of Jesus Christ, his Master, whose Judgements he desires to avoid.  
The Body of this Work is divided into Two Books. In the former, he reviseth the Works which he writ before he was Bishop: And in the latter, he speaketh of those which he composed afterwards, to the Year 427. which is the time when he made his Book of Retractations. I need say no more at present, because in discoursing of each of them, I shall mention what St. Augustin hath observed in his Retractations.  
His Confessions are an excellent Picture of his Life; he draweth himself with lively and natural Shapes, representing his Infancy, his Youth, and Conversion, very critically. He discovers both his Vices, and his Virtues, showing plainly the inward Bend of his Heart; with the several Motions wherewith he was agitated: As he speaks to God, so he often lifts up his Spirit towards him, and intermixes his Narration with Prayers, Instructions, and Reflections. He tells us himself, That he would have us view him in that Book, as in a Looking-Glass that represents him to the Life; and that his Design in the Writing of it, was to Praise both the Justice, and the Mercy of God, with Respect to the Good and Evil which he had done, and to lift up his Heart, and Spirit to God. That this is the Effect that it produced in him when he composed it, and that which it produceth now, when he readeth it. Others (saith he) may have what Opinion of it they please; but I know that several Pious Persons have loved my Confessions very much, and do 
St. Augustin. Tom 〈◊〉▪  love them still. As indeed, all spiritual Persons have ever since read that Work with Delight and Admiration. This Book is not full of whimsical Imaginations, and, empty, obscure useless Spiritualities, as most Works of this Nature are: It contains, on the contrary, excellent Prayers; sublime Notions of the Greatness, Wisdom, Goodness, and Providence of God; solid Reflections upon the Vanity, Weakness, and Corruption of Man; proper Remedies for his Misery, and Darkness; and most useful Instructions to further him in a spiritual Life. In one word, It may be said, that of all spiritual Books, there is none more sublime or stronger than this. Yet there are some Notions too Metaphysical, above the reach of some devout Men; and there appeareth too great an Affectation of Eloquence: There is, perhaps, too much Wit; and Heat, and not enough of Meekness, and Simplicity.  
St. Augustin's Confessions are divided into Thirteen Books; whereof the Ten first treat of his Actions, and the Three last contain Reflections upon the beginning of Genesis. In the First Book, after an excellent Prayer to God, he describeth his Infancy, discovering the Sins he committed at that time, as well as the evil Inclinations that were in him. He represents, with all the beauty, and exactness imaginable, the things that are incident to Children; their Motions of Joy, and Sorrow, their Jealousy before they can speak, how hardly they learn to speak; their aversion to Study, their love of Play, and the fear of Chastisement. He charges himself with loving the Study of Fables, and Poetical Fictions; and hating the Principles of Grammar, and particularly the Greek Tongue, tho' these Things were infinitely more profitable, than those Fables, whereof he discovers the danger. He says, That being fallen dangerously Sick, he desired to be Baptised; but coming to have some Ease, they deferred it, fearing he might defile himself again with new Crimes: Because (saith he) the Sins committed after Baptism, are greater, and more dangerous, than such as are committed before.  
In the Second, he gins to describe the Disorders of his Youth; he says, That being returned to his Father's House at Sixteen years of Age, he gave himself to debauchery, notwithstanding his Mother's Admonitions; That he was guilty of Theft, by robbing an Appletree in a Neighbour's Orchard with his Companions, with several Reflections upon the Motives that put him upon that Action.  
In the Third he confesseth, That at Carthage, whither he was gone to finish his Studies; he was transported with the fire of Lust. He laments the love which he had for Stage-Plays and Public Shows, and the Pleasure he found when they affected him at any time with Passion. He declares afterwards, That he read one of Cicero's Books, Entitled Hortensius, that inspired him with the love of Wisdom; but not finding in that Book the Name of Jesus Christ, which remained engraven in his Heart, and which he had as it were sucked in with his Milk, he applied himself to the Holy Scripture; but that having read it with a Spirit of Pride, he relished it not, because of the plainness of its Style; and then he harkened to the Dreams of the Manichees, who promised to bring him to the Knowledge of the Truth. He reputes their Errors, and speaks with great tenderness of the Prayers which his Mother made, and the Tears that she shed for his Conversion.  
He continued however Nine years in that Heresy, being deceived, and endeavouring to deceive others. He taught Rhetoric at Tagasta. There he lost one of his intimate Friends, whose Death grieved him exceedingly; whereof he describeth the Excess in the Fourth Book, where he says many fine Things concerning true and counterfeit Friendship. There he mentions the Treatise of Comeliness and Beauty, which he made at Twenty five years of Age; and gives an Account how easily he came to understand Aristotle's Categories. And he shows the Unprofitableness of Learning.  
In the Fifth he describes the degrees by which he came to be delivered from the Manichaean Heresy, how he discovered Faustus his Ignorance who was the Head of that Heresy. He adds, That having taught Rhetoric at Carthage, he went to Rome with a design to follow there the same Profession; but having been disheartened by the unhandsome usage of the Scholars, who refused to pay their Masters, he obtained of Symmachus the place of Rhetorick-Professor at Milan, where he heard St. Ambrose Preach, who perfectly disabused him of the Errors of the Manichees, and made him resolve absolutely to quit that Sect, and become a Catechumen.  
He goeth on in the Sixth Book, to describe the Progress of his Conversion; which was much furthered by the Prayers and Admonitions of his Mother S. Monica, who came to find him at Milan, and contracted a strict Friendship with St. Ambrose. He observes, That this Holy Bishop kept her from carrying Meat to the Graves of the Martyrs, as she used to do in her own Country. He describeth the Manners of two of his good Friends, Alypius and Nebridius, and the Agitations that were caused in himself by the knowledge of his Miseries, and the design which he had to alter his course of Life.  
In the Seventh Book, he declares his Condition in the 31st year of his Age, how much he was yet in the dark as to the Nature of God, and the Spring of Evil: how he was perfectly weaned from Judicial Astrology, by hearing of the History of two Children that were born at the same moment of time, whose lot proved quite different: And lastly, by what degrees he rid himself of his Prejudices, and came to the knowledge of God, though he had not as yet those thoughts of Jesus Christ, which he ought to have had.  
He declares, That he found the Divinity of the Word in the Books of the Platonists, but not his Incarnation: And afterwards comparing the Books of those Philosophers with the Books of the Holy Scripture, which he began to read, he observeth that the former had made him more knowing, but also more presumptuous. Whereas the others instructed him in true Humility, and in the way which Men ought to follow to obtain Salvation.  
At last he comes in the Eighth Book to the best Passage of his Life, to that which happened in the Two and thirtieth year of his Age, which was his Conversion. First of all he was wrought upon by a Conference which he had with a holy Old Man, Simplicianus, who related to him the Conversion of a famous Rhetorick-Professor named Victorinus. He was further moved by the Story which Po●itiunus told him of another Conversion. And at last feeling himself agitated, and distracted, by several contrary thoughts, he withdrew into a Garden, where he heard a Voice from Heaven, commanding him, to open St. Paul's Epistles; whereof he had no sooner read some Lines, but he found himself wholly converted, and freed from the Agitations which till then had troubled him: Nothing can be more noble than the Description which he makes in that Book, of the Combats and Agitations which that man feels that is engaged in Vice, and hath form a design of being converted to God.  
St. Augustin was no sooner converted, but he resolved to leave his Profession. The Vacation being come, he retired to the Countryhouse of one of his Friends called Verecundus, to prepare himself for Baptism, which he received at Easter with Alypius, and his Son Adeodatus, whom he had by a Concubine. This he relateth in the Ninth Book, where he discourseth again of the Death of Verecundus, and Nebridius, and Adeodatus, which happened shortly after his Baptism; He speaketh likewise, of the Original of the Singing in the Church of Milan, that was established by St. Ambrose, when he was persecuted by Justina an Arian Princess; concerning the discovering of the Bodies of the Martyrs, St. Gervasius and St. Protasius, and of the Miracles done at the time of their Translation; of the discourse he had with his Mother S. Monica, about the Felicities of the other Life, and of the Death of that holy Widow which happened at Ostia, when he was returning into Africa; of her Burial; of the Prayers that were made for her; and of the Sacrifice which was offered. He concludes this Book by recommending her to the Prayers of those that shall read his Confessions.  
Having set forth in the foregoing Books what he was before his Conversion, he showeth in the Tenth what he was at the time of his writing. He finds that his Conscience gave an unquestionable Testimony of his love to God. He explains the Reasons that oblige Men to love God, reckoning up all the Faculties of his Soul that can lead him to know God, especially Memory, whereof he makes a wonderful Description: He says, amongst other things, that it serves to teach us many things, which entered not into the Mind by the Senses, and that it may lift us up to God. He occasionally speaks of Happiness, and of the Idea that Men have of God; afterwards he examineth himself about the three main Passions of Man, the love of Pleasures, of Knowledge, and of Glory. He sincerely confesseth what was his disposition with respect to these Passions, prescribing at the same time excellent Rules, to keep ourselves from them. Lastly, He discovers the knowledge of the true Mediator, and of the Graces which he merited for us.  
The Three last Books are about less sensible Matters: He waves the History of his Life to speak of the love which he had for the Sacred Books, and of the Knowledge that God had given him of them; which to show, he undertakes to explain the beginning of Genesis, upon which occasion he starts several very subtle Questions.  
In the Eleventh, he refuteth those that asked, what God was doing before he created the World, and how God on a sudden form the design of creating any thing; whereupon he enters into a long Discourse concerning the Nature of Time.  
In the Twelfth Book he treateth of the first Matter. He pretends that by the Heavens and the Earth, which God is said to have created in the beginning, we are to understand spiritual Substances, and the shapeless Matter of corporeal things; that the Scripture speaking of the Creation of these two sorts of Being's, makes no mention of days; because there is no time with respect to them. He affirms, That whatsoever he hath said concerning the World's Creation cannot be denied, though the beginning of Genesis were otherwise expounded, because these are undoubted Truths. He treateth here of the different Explications which may be made of the Holy Scripture, affirming, That there is sufficient reason to believe, that the Canonical Authors foresaw all the Truths that might be drawn from their words, and though they had not foreseen these Truths, yet the Holy Ghost foresaw them: Whence he seems to conclude, that we are not to reject any sense that may be given to the holy Scripture, provided it is conformable to the Truth.  
At last, having admired the Goodness of God, who standing in no need of the Creatures, had given them not only a Being, but also all the Perfections of that Being; he discovereth in the last Book the Mystery of the Trinity in the first words of Genesis, and even the Personal Property of the Holy Ghost; which gives him an admirable opportunity of describing the Actions of Charity in ourselves. He concludes with a curious Allegory upon the beginning of Genesis, and finds in the Creation the System and Oeconomy of whatsoever God hath done for the Establishment of his Church, and the Sanctification of Men; the only end which he proposed to himself in all his Works.  
St. Augustin placeth the Books of Confessions before those against Faustus, which were written about the Year 400, in his Retractations, from whence we may conclude, that these were both written about the same time.  
After these two, which serve, as we have said, for a Preface to all St. Augustin's Works, you find in this first Volume, the Books that St. Augustin writ in his Youth, before he was a Priest, in the same order in which they were written.  
The three Books against the Academici, are the first after the Treatise of Beauty and Comeliness, which is lost. He composed them in the Year 386, in his solitude, when he prepared himself for Baptism. They are written in imitation of Cicero, in the form of a Dialogue, and directed to Romanianus his Countryman, whom he adviseth to Study Philosophy. The dispute beginneth betwixt Licentius Son to Romanianus, and Trygetius; after them Alypius and St. Augustin begin to speak.  
Having observed in the first Book, that the good things of Fortune do not render men happy, he exhorts Romanianus to the Study of Wisdom, whose sweetness he then tasted. He afterwards gives an Account of three Conferences which Licentius and Trygetius had had about Happiness. Licentius held with the Academici, That to be happy it was enough to seek after the Truth; but Trygetius pretended, That it was necessary to know it perfectly; both being agreed, That Wisdom is that which makes Men happy, they begin to dispute about the definition of Wisdom. Trygetius gives several, all disapproved by Licentius, who asserts, That Wisdom consisted not only in Knowledge, but also in the pursuit of the Truth: whereupon St. Augustin concludes, That since we cannot be happy without knowing and enquiring after the Truth, our only application should be to seek for it.  
In the Second Book, having again exhorted Romanianus to the Study of Philosophy, he sets down three other Conferences, wherein Alypius produces the several Opinions of both the Ancient and Modern Academics. And because the latter said, That some things were probable, though the Truth was not known, they laughed at that Opinion, it being impossible, say they, to know whether a thing is like the Truth, without knowing the Truth itself. And this very thing obligeth Men to inquire the more carefully after likely and probable things, according to the Principles of the Academics.  
The Third Book gins with Reflections upon Fortune. St. Augustin shows, That the Goods of Fortune are of no use to get Wisdom: and that the Wise Man ought at least to know Wisdom, refuting withal, the Principles both of Cicero, and of the other Academics, who affirmed; That we know nothing, and that nothing ought to be asserted. He blames the damnable Maxim of those who permitted Men to follow every thing that seemed probable, without being certain of any thing. He shows the dangerous Consequences of such Principles, and endeavours to prove that neither the ancient Academics, nor Cicero himself, were of that Opinion.  
These three Books are written with all imaginable Elegance and Purity: The Method and Reasonings are just: The Matter treated of is well cleared and made intelligible for all Men; it is beautified with agreeable Suppositions and pleasant Stories. It may be said, That these Dialogues are not much inferior to Tully's for stile, but much above them for the exactness and solidity of the Arguments and Notions. In his Retractations he findeth fault with several places in them, which seemed not to him sufficiently to savour of Christianity, but might be born with in a Philosophical Work.  
The Book of a Happy Life, or, of Felicity, is a Work of the same Nature, written by St. Augustin at the same time, in the 33d. year of his Age. It is dedicated to Manlius Theodorus, whom he had known at Milan. In the beginning he makes a distinction of three sorts of Persons. Some to avoid the Troubles of this Life, fly into Harbour as soon as they come to the use of Reason, that they may live quietly. Others on the contrary, having been a while engaged in the Storms of this Life, carried away with Passions, Pleasures, or Glory, find themselves happily driven into Harbour by some Storm. The third sort are they, who in the midst of Storms and Tempests, have always had an eye to some Star, with a design to return into Harbour. The most dangerous Rock to be feared in this Navigation, is that of Vainglory, which we meet with at the first setting out, and where it is difficult to avoid Shipwreck. These Reflections St. Augustin applies to himself, and saith, That at Twenty five Years of Age, having conceived a strong Passion for Philosophy, by reading of Tully's Hortensius, he resolved to give up himself to that Study: but that having been some time wrapped up with the dark Clouds of the Errors of the Manichees, which hide from him the Star that should have guided him: At last that mist was dissipated. That the Academics had long detained him in the midst of the Sea, in a continual Agitation; but he had now discovered a lucky Star that shown him the Truth, by the Discourses, both of St. Ambrose, and Theodorus, to whom he writeth, That the love both of Pleasure, and of Glory, had for sometime detained him; but, in the end, he weighed all his Anchors to come into Port.  
After this fair beginning, he acquaints Theodorus with a Discourse, which he supposeth to be held upon the 15th of November, his Birthday, with his Mother, his Brother, his Son, his Cousins, and his Two Disciples, Trygetius and Licentius, who appeared already in the foregoing Dialogues. That they might enter upon the Matter the sooner, St. Augustin introduces them agreed in this Point, That Man being made up of Body, and Soul, the Soul is to be fed as well as the Body, because it hath equal need of Nourishment. After this he propounds the subject of their Conference, saying, That since all Men desire to be happy, it is certain, that all that want what they would have, are not happy; but he asketh, Whether they be happy that have what they desire? St. Austin's Mother having answered, That they are happy, if that which they desire be good, Si bona, inquit, velit & habeat, beatus est: He replies immediately, That she had found out the greatest Secret in Philosophy; Ipsam prorsus, mater, arcem Philosophiae tenuisti. Upon these Principles, he shows, in the Three Dialogues of this Book, That true Felicity consists in the Knowledge of God: For, in the first place, the Goods of Fortune cannot make us happy, since we cannot have them when we would. The Academics cannot be happy in their enquiry after Truth, since they have not what they would find; but they that seek God are happy, because they no sooner seek to him, but he gins to show them Mercy. All those whose Souls want any thing, are not happy: None but God can fill the Soul; therefore none but God can make us happy: None is happy without Wisdom; And can Wisdom be had without God? Is there any other Wisdom than that which cometh from him? Is he not Wisdom and Truth?  
He concludes with Exhorting those to whom he speaks, to seek after God, that they may come to the perfect Knowledge of him, wherein consists the Sovereign Felicity of Life, and the true Happiness of the Soul. He corrects this Passage in his Retractations, observing that Man cannot be entirely and perfectly happy in this Life; because he cannot know God perfectly, till he comes to the other World.  
St. Austin treateth of Providence in his Two Books of Order: Showing, That all good, and evil Things come to pass, according to the Order of divine Providence. These Books are written Dialogue wise: In the First, he discourses of Providence in general; in the Second, he gins to inquire, What Order is; but immediately digresses to speak of the Love of Glory: And his Mother coming in, he puts an end to the Conference; showing, That Women should not be forbidden to Study Wisdom.  
In the Third Dialogue, which gins the Second Book, St. Augustin clears several particular Difficulties, about the Order of Providence. He inquires what it is to be with God, and in God's Order; in what Sense a wise Man may be said to abide with God, and to be immovable: He maintains, That foolish, and wicked Actions come into the Order of Providence, because they have their Use for the good of the Universe, and manifest God's Justice.  
In the Fourth Dialogue he proves, That God was always Just, tho' there was no occasion for the exercise of his Justice before there were wicked Men: That Evil was introduced against God's Order; but that the Justice of God submitted it to its Orders. Having bandied these Metaphysical Questions, he enters upon Morals; exhorting his Disciples to follow God's Order, both in their Behaviour, and in their Studies. He says, Men ought to live after the following Pattern. 'Tis necessary (saith he) for young Men to avoid Debauches, and Excess; to despise gay clothes, and rich Attire; to be careful not to lose their time, either at Play, or unprofitable Recreations; not to be Idle, or Sleepy; to be free from Jealousy, Envy, and Ambition; in one word, not to suffer themselves to be transported by any violent Passion: They should be persuaded, That love of Riches, is the worst Poison that can infect their Hearts. They ought to do nothing, either with Cowardice, or with Rashness. If they are offended, let them refrain their Anger. They ought to correct all Vices, but to hate no Body; not to be too severe, or too yielding. Let their Reproofs be always for a good End; and their Meekness never Authorise Vice: Let them look upon all that are committed to their Charge, as their own: Let them serve others without Affectation of Dominion; and when they become Masters, let them still be willing to serve: Let them carefully avoid making Enemies; and if they have any, let them bear with them patiently, and endeavour to be quickly reconciled: In all their Business with others, and their whole Behaviour; let them observe that Maxim of the Law of Nature: Do not that to others, which you would not have done to you. Let them not meddle with Public Affairs, except they are very capable▪ and study to get Friends in what Employment soever they be; take a delight in serving those that deserve it, even when they least look for it: Let them live orderly, honour God, think of him and seek him by Faith, Hope, and Charity.  
Having thus given Precepts for the Manners of Youth, he prescribeth Rules for their Studies. He saith, That Learning is got by Authority and Reason; and, That there is a Twofold Authority, that of God, and that of Men. These may deceive us; but God never affirmeth any thing but what is True. He treateth afterwards of Reason; and having given a Definition of it, he shows, That all Learning is nothing but Reason occupied in the consideration of different Objects. He draws up a Catalogue of all the Sciences, and gives a short Account, both of the object and use of each of them: From thence he passes to the Knowledge of the Soul, and of God; wherein he places true Wisdom, and concludes his Discourse with an Exhortation to Virtue.  
His Two Books of Soliloquies, were likewise written by S. Augustin in his Retirement, about the beginning of the Year 387. His Design is to grow more perfect in the Knowledge, both of God and his own Soul. To this end, after an excellent Prayer to God, he examines his Reason, and makes it return Answers. In the first Book he treateth, particularly, of the necessary Dispositions in the Soul, to deserve the Knowledge of God. He teaches, That it arrives to that Knowledge by Faith, Hope, and Charity, and by turning away the Heart, and Thoughts from Earthly Things, to seek and love nothing but God. At the latter end, he falls upon the Question of the Immortality of the Soul▪ which he prosecutes in the Second Book. He concludes, That the Soul is Immortal, because it is the Habitation of Truth, which is Eternal: Which puts him upon making several Reflections, both upon Truth and Falsehood. This lact Volume is not complete, as S. Augustin himself observes in his Retractations; where he corrects some faulty Expressions that he used at a time when he was not throughly instructed in Religion.  
Sometime after the Books of Soliloquies, St. Augustin being returned to Milan▪ writ the Book Of the Immortality of the Soul: Which is (saith he in his Retractations) as a Memorial which I made to complete my Soliloquies, that were imperfect: But I know not how it came to be Public against my Will; so that it is now amongst my Works. This Book (addeth he) is so dark in the beginning, both by reason of the Expressions, and the brevity of the Reasonings, that it wearieth the Reader; and requires so great an Attention, that I can scarce understand it myself with much Application. The reading of it will discover, that it is rather Memoirs, than a finished Work. He has Collected several, dry, barren Arguments, to prove the Immortality of the Soul.  
These are some of his Principles. Knowledge is Eternal; wherefore the Soul, which is the Seat of Knowledge, is Immortal. Reason, and the Soul, are all one; but Reason is Immutable and Eternal. Matter cannot be annihilated, let it be divided never so much; yet it abideth. And, Who can believe the Soul to be in a worse Condition? Nothing can create itself, and nothing can annihilate itself. Life is the Essence of the Soul; therefore it cannot be deprived of it. The Soul is not the Disposition of the Parts of the Body; seeing the more we endeavour to abstract it from Sense, the more easily we comprehend Things: Neither can it be changed into a Body; for were this Change possible, it must be either because the Soul is willing, or because it may be forced to it by the Body; but both these Notions are equally absurd. These are the Principles, whereupon St. Austin enlargeth in this Treatise, and which he applies to his purpose with great subtlety, and fineness. This Book is a convincing Evidence of his Skill in Logic.  
The following Treatise is Entitled, Of the Quantity of the Soul: It is placed here, because it treateth of the same Matter with the foregoing; for, according to the order of time, it ought to be placed after that Of the Manners of the Church, as St. Augustin observes in his Retractations. He gives this Account of this Treatise Of the Quantity of the Soul, writ whilst he was in that City (Rome.) A Dialogue, wherein I raise several Questions concerning the Soul, viz. What is its Original; What its Nature; Whether it is extended; Why it was united with the Body; What alterations happen to it, either when it comes into, or goeth out of the Body. But, because I undertook to Examine with exactness and curiosity, Whether it was extended; designing to show, That it is not, after the manner of Bodies, though it is some great Thing. This only Question hath given the Name to the whole Book; which therefore hath been Entitled, Of the Quantity of the Soul. Evodius is the Person whom St. Augustin introduceth, speaking in this Dialogue; as he says in the 101st. Letter: And so i● was a Mistake, to put in the common Editions, the Name of Adeodatus, which is not found in the Ancient Manuscripts; and with much Reason they have restored the Name of Evodius in the Last Edition. This Man propounds to St. Augustin Six Questions: The First, Whence is the Soul? St. Augustin answereth, That this Question may be taken two ways; Where is the Habitation of the Soul? And, What is the Matter it is made of? Evodius' desiring to have both these Questions cleared to him, he saith, That the Habitation of the Soul is God, who created it. As for the Nature thereof, he declares, That he can neither Name nor Explain it, because it hath nothing like Corporeal Being's; and that it is single in its kind. Evodius' his Second Question, is, What is the Quality of the Soul? St. Augustin answereth, That it is like God. The Third Question proposed by Evodius, concerns the Quantity of the Soul: St. Augustin affirms, That the Soul hath no Quantity, if by Quantity be understood Corporeal Extension; but that it hath, if by that Term is meant spiritual Greatness, Strength, and Power. St. Augustin, here discusses the Question of the Soul's Extension with care; and shows, by several Reasons, that it hath no Corporeal Dimensions. He distinguishes Men's Souls from those of Beasts; and grants to the Latter, Sense without Reason: Afterwards, he reckons up the excellent Qualities of Man's Soul, which he reduces to Seven Heads; whence he concludes, That of all Creatures, Man's Soul is that which comes nearest to the Nature of God. With this he endeth this Treatise, without meddling with the other Three Questions proposed by Evodius, viz. The Fourth, Why the Soul was united with the Body. The Fifth, What it is at the entrance into the Body: And the Sixth, What becomes of it when it goes out of it. This Treatise was composed by St. Augustin, in 388.  
St. Augustin having left his Retirement, and being come back to Milan in the Year 381. began to write Treatises upon the Sciences, as he tells us in his Retractations. He could finish none but a Treatise of Grammar; but he began several others of Logic, Rhetoric, Geometry, Arithmetic, and Philosophy. He did not know himself, what was become of these Discourses, when he composed his Retractations. At the same time he began, also, the Six Books of Music; which he completed after his return into Africa, about the Year 389. In the First Book he speaks of Music in general: In the Second, of Syllables, and Feet: In the Three following, he discourses of Measure, Harmony, and Verses: In the Last he shows, That Music ought to raise up the Mind, and Heart, to a Divine, and Heavenly Harmony.  
St. Augustin's Discourse of a Master, was written about the Year 395. It is a Dialogue betwixt himself, and his Son Adeodatus; wherein he shows, That it is not by Men's Words that we receive Instruction, but from the eternal Truth, viz. Jesus Christ the Word of God, who informeth us inwardly of all Truth.  
The First of the Three Books of freewill, was composed at Rome, in 387. and the Two others in Africa, in 395. In the First, St. Augustin resolves that hard Question, touching the original of Evil: And having explained what it is to do Evil, he shows, That all manner of Evil comes from the freewill, which readily followeth the Suggestions of Lust; adding, That our Will makes us either happy, or unhappy: That if we are not happy, though we desire to be so, it is because we will not live conformably to the Law of God; without which, it is impossible to be Happy.  
In the Second Book, the Difficulty alleged by Evodius, Why God hath left in Man a Liberty of Sinning, which is so prejudicial to him, hath started these Three other Questions. How we are sure that there is a God? Doth all Good come from him? Is the Will free to do Good, as well as Evil? St. Augustin clears all these Difficulties, proving, That Freewill was given for a good End, and that we received it of God; that there is a Being more perfect than our Soul; that this Being is Truth itself, Goodness, Wisdom itself; that every good and perfect Thing cometh from it; and that Freewill is to be reckoned among the good Things. That there are Three sorts of Goods: The greatest are the Virtues that make us live Well; the Ideas of Corporeal Objects, without which we cannot live Well, are the least, and the Power of the Soul are the middle Ones: That the First cannot be abused; but both the Second, and the Last may be put to ill Uses: That Freewill is of the Number of these middle Goods. When the Will adheres to the sovereign Good, it renders Man Happy; but when it departeth from that, to cleave to other Objects, than Man becometh Criminal, and so Unhappy. Wherhfore neither the Will, nor the Objects it embraceth, are Evil; but it is a Separation from God, that makes all Evil, and Sin; but God is not the Author of this Separation. From whence then is this Principle of Aversion? This St. Augustin clears in the Third Book. It is not Natural, since it is Guilty: It is Free, and Voluntary; and it is enough to say, That we may choose, whether we will follow it, or no, to justify God's Justice: But, how can this Liberty agree with the foreknowledge of God? Nothing is more easy, according to St. Augustin, in this Place. We are Free when we do what we please: But Prescience doth not take away our Will; on the contrary it supposes it, since it is a Knowledge of our Will. But are not the Creature's Faults to be imputed to the Creator? Why did he not make it impeccable? Had not Men been more perfect, if they had been created at first in the same condition with the Angels, and the glorified Saints that cannot be separated from the love of God? But St. Augustin replies, Doth it therefore follow, That because we may conceive a more Perfect State, therefore God was obliged to create us in that State? Should we not rather believe that he had his Reasons why he did not create us more Perfect? There are several sorts of Perfections. If the State of a Creature, that enjoyeth God, makes Sovereign Felicity; then the State of a Creature that is subject to Sin, which liveth in hope of recovering the Happiness which it lost, is also in God's Order, and exceedingly above that of a Creature that lies under the necessity of sinning eternally. The Condition of these last, is the worst of all; and yet God cannot be accused of Injustice, for giving a Being to Creatures which he knew would be eternally miserable: He is not the Cause of their Sin: That Being which he gave them, is still a Perfection; their Sins and their Misery contribute to the Perfection of the Universe, and to exalt the Justice of God by the Punishment of their Sins. What then is the Cause of Sins? There is none but the Will itself, which freely and knowingly inclineth to do Evil. For if Sin, could not be resisted, it were impossible to know or to avoid it; and then there would be no Sin. Wherefore then doth God punish Sins of Ignorance? How cometh it to pass that he blameth those Actions that are done out of Necessity? What mean those words of the Apostle, I do not the Good that I would, but the evil that I would not? All that, saith St. Augustin, is spoken of Men born since Mankind was condemned to Death, because of the First Man's Sin. For were this Natural to Man, and not a Punishment for his Sin; it is certain, there would be no Sin of Ignorance nor Necessity: But when we speak here of Liberty, we speak of that which Man had when God created him.  
Here St. Augustin answers the greatest Objection that can be urged against Original Sin: Though, say they, both Adam and Eve have sinned, yet what had we done, wretched Persons that we are, to be thus abandoned to Ignorance and to Lust? Must we therefore be deprived of the knowledge of the Precepts of Righteousness? and when we begin to know them, Must we see ourselves under a kind of Necessity not to keep them, by reason of the resistance of Lust? St. Augustin confesseth, That this Complaint were just, if Men were under an impossibility of overcoming their Ignorance and Lust. But God being present every where to call his Creature to his Service, to teach him what he ought to believe, to Comfort him in his hopes, to confirm him in his Love, to help his Endeavours, and to hear his Prayers; man cannot complain, That that is imputed to him which he is unavoidably ignorant of; but than that he must blame himself, if he neglects to seek after that which he knows not. It is none of his fault, that he cannot use his broken Members; but he is guilty if he despiseth the Physician that proffers to cure him: for none can be ignorant that Man may profitably seek for the Knowledge of what he knows not, and which he thinks to be necessary: And it is well enough known that Men ought humbly to acknowledge their Weakness, to obtain Help. In a word, If Men do that which is Evil out of Ignorance, or if it so happens, that they cannot do the Good which they would, there is Sin in that; because it is in consequence of the First Man's Sin committed with full liberty. This first Sin deserved the following.  
There remained yet a considerable Difficulty, Why the Innocent Soul becometh subject unto Sin by its Union with the Body? To explain this, St. Augustin mentions four several Opinions concerning the Original of Souls. The First is, That the Soul is form from the Parents. The Second is, That God creates new ones at men's Birth. The Third is, That Souls being created beforehand, God causeth them to enter their respective Bodies. The Fourth is, That they come down into the Bodies of their own accord: Now, he judging all these Opinions equally probable, and that it was as yet undecided, he endeavoureth to prove, that a Reason may be given for Original Sin, what Opinion soever one holds of the Original of the Soul.  
He cometh at last to that particular Difficulty concerning the Children that die as soon as they are born. As for those that have received Baptism, though without knowledge, he saith, That it is Piously and Justly believed (for these are the terms he makes use of Satis p●● recteque Creditur) that the Faith of those who present the Child to be baptised, supplies for that of the Child: As to the Pain and Sorrow which they suffer, having not deserved them by their Sins, St. Augustin saith, That God hath his Ends in permitting their Sufferings, and that perhaps he will recompense them for these Sufferings, as the Church believeth of the holy Innocents' killed by Herod, who are reckoned among the Martyrs; having thus salved these Difficulties, he makes other useless Queries concerning the Sin of Adam.  
St. Augustin observes in his Retractations, that he designed nothing in these Books, but to oppose their Opinion, who deny the original of Evil to be from freewill; pretending that if this were true, God must be the Author of it, introducing thereby an Eternal and Immutable Subsistency o Evil; That he did not enlarge upon it, nor treat of Predestination or Grace, whereby God prepares the Wills of Men, that they might make good use of their Liberty. Yet, when there was occasion to speak of it, he says something by the by, without making any stop to defend it. Wherefore Pelagius and the Pelagians, alleged several Expressions in favour of freewill, which St. Augustin had used in his Books: But St. Augustin shows, That what he said of freewill, is consistent enough with his System of Grace, and that he established all the Principles of it: This he proves by Passages taken out of these Books, where he affirms, That every good thing comes from God, and that Man cannot be delivered from Ignorance, and the necessity of Sinning, but by God's help.  
The two Books upon Genesis against the Manichees, were composed by St. Augustin after his return into Africa, about the Year 389. There he refuteth those impertinent Objections which the Manichees made concerning the Three first Chapters of Genesis, by giving a reasonable Exposition of them. He insists most upon the literal sense; but sometimes he goes out of the way, and only gives an Allegorical one. As St. Augustin designed to benefit all Men by this Book; and particularly, to inform the common People that were abused by the Manichees, so he writ it with all the clearness and simplicity he could: In his Retractations, he explaineth some Passages that were misconstrued by the Pelagians; especially two, one against the Necessity of Grace, and the other against Original Sin.  
The Books of the Manners of the Church, and of the Manichees, were composed at Rome by St. Augustin, soon after his Baptism, about the Year 387. as himself witnesseth in his Retractations. It is very probable that he revised them after his return into Africa, seeing he mentions them in the first of those Treatises lately named. His design was to confound the Insolence and Vanity of the Manichees, who gloried in a vain Temperance; and under that Pretence, exalted themselves above the Catholics: Wherefore in these two Books he shows the opposition of the true Christian's Manners, to those of the Manichees; proving how much the counterfeit Virtues which these made their boast of, were inferior to the real Virtue of Christ's Disciples.  
In the Book of the Manners of the Church, he layeth down, as the first ground of Morality, That God alone is the Sovereign Good of our Souls; from which truth, he infers, That all things must have respect to God, and that we are to love him above all things; and proves this first Principle of Christian Ethics by Testimonies of the Old and New Testament. He shows, That all the Virtues are but so many different Expressions of this Love; That Temperance is that love, which keeps itself pure and uncorrupt for God: Fortitude, is a love that endureth all things with ease, for God's sake: Justice is a love that serveth God only, and by reason of that, procures Good to all Creatures that are subjected to him: Prudence is a love which has a light, to distinguish that which may help to bring us to God, from that which may hinder us in that way; even the love of our Neighbour is not a Virtue, but so far as it relates to God. He alone that loveth God, is capable of loving himself and his Neighbour, as he ought to do. This Reflection giveth St. Augustin an Opportunity of speaking of the Duties of Society, and of what Christians own one to another. Lastly, as Examples do often affect more than Precepts; so he produces several Precedents of virtuous Men in the Church, that he may raise a higher Notion of the Manners of the Catholics. He sets forth the Examples of Hermits, Monks, and Nuns, who have quite severed themselves from the World, to spend their Lives in constant Abstinence, and in Exercises of Piety. He adds the Example of several virtuous ecclesiastics, and of many holy Prelates, who kept themselves pure in the midst of a corrupt Age; and of an infinite Number of Christians, that led most exemplary Lives. He concludes this Book, by showing, That the Examples of Evil Catholics can be no pretence for Heretics to separate from the Church; and that the Notions of the Manichees touching Marriage, are contrary to those of the Apostles.  
He observeth much the same Method in his Book of the Manners of the Manichees: He gins it by refuting their Doctrine about the Nature and Original of Good and Evil: Afterwards he discovers their impious and superstitious Practices, in such a manner as renders them ridiculous and abominable; and then gives a relation of the Disorders whereof the greatest part of that Sect had been Convicted.  
The Book of true Religion, is the last of those which St. Augustin writ before he was a Priest; He therefore made it about the Year 390. there he shows both the Excellencies and the Duties of the true Religion; That the Christian Religion is the only true one: and he refutes the Errors of other Religions, and particularly of the Manichees concerning the two Natures. He speaks of Jesus Christ's Religion, in that lofty manner, as giveth a very high Notion of it. I shall give an Analysis of his Principles. Religion is the only thing that can guide us to the Truth, to Virtue and Happiness. The Heathen Philosophers acknowledge the Falsehood of the popular Religion, and yet approve the same by their outward worship. Since the Establishment of Christianity, none can doubt but that it is the Religion which ought to be followed. Plato himself would have owned it, seeing that the loftiest Maxims of Philosophy, concerning the Divinity, and the necessity of Purifying the Soul, whereof he despaired of persuading the People, are not only Preached throughout the Earth, but also embraced and followed by an infinite number of Persons. The Philosophers must needs know God upon this occasion, and give place to him that did this Miracle. Neither Curiosity, nor Vainglory ought to keep them from acknowledging the difference between the Proud Conjectures of a few Philosophers, and the Publication of a Doctrine that Cures the Soul, and reforms the Errors of all Nations. Religion is not to be sought for either among the Philosophers, since they approve by their Actions, the same Worship which they condemn in their Writings; nor among the Heretics, who have no share in the Sacraments of the Church; nor among Schismatics, who have separated themselves from the Church; nor among the Jews, who expect from God none but Temporal and Transitory Rewards; but only in the Church universally dispersed throughout the Earth, which makes use of the Errors of others for its own Good. The Church makes use of the Pagans, as the Matter of her Works; Of Heretics, as a Proof of the Purity of her Doctrine; Of schismatics, as a Mark of her Stability; and of the Jews, as an Evidence of her Excellency: And so she inviteth the Heathen, thrusts out Heretics, forsakes Schismatics, goes before the Jews, and yet she openeth to all an entrance into the Mysteries, and a door of Grace, either by forming the Faith of the former, or by reforming the Errors of the latter, or by causing the last to return into her Bosom, or admitting the others into the Society of her Children. As for carnal Christians, she beareth with them for a time, as Straw which is serviceable to the Wheat upon the Floor; and because every one is either Straw or Wheat, according to the Motions of his Will, she suffers those that are in Sin or in Error till they are Accused, or till they undertake to defend their false Opinions with obstinate Animosity. But such as are cut off from the Church, do either return by Penance, or being carried away by a mischievous Liberty, they give up themselves to Vice; or they make a Schism, or frame an Heresy. Yea, very often God's Providence permits some virtuous Christians to be put out of the Communion of the Church, by Tumults and Disturbances excited against them by carnal Persons: but this Separation is not imputed unto them, and God notwithstanding crowneth them in secret, when they bear with that Injury patiently, without making a Schism from the Church, or setting up any new Heresy; Such Examples, saith St. Augustin, seem rare, but yet there are some, and more than can be believed. Having thus rejected the false Religions, he concludes, That we must hold to that of Christ, and to that Church which is Catholic; and which is so called, not only by her own Children, but also by her very Enemies. The first Ground of this Religion is History and Prophecy, which discovers to us the Oeconomy that God's Providence hath made use of in process of times for the Salvation of Men. That after this Belief, we ought to purify our Hearts, to render them capable of knowing the Trinity, the Incarnation, and other Articles of the Creed. That Heresies serve to clear the Mysteries. After this, he discourseth of the Soul; showing after what manner it becometh, as it were, Earthly and Carnal by loving the Body; and how it gets out of that Unhappy State, by turning to God and overcoming disorderly Affections by the Grace of God. He treateth of the Nature and Fall of Angels. He shows, That Sin must be voluntary; That Death, Weakness, and Pain, are Punishments for Sin; and yet are not unprofitable, because they wean us from Corporeal Things: He resumes his Discourse of the Mystery of the Incarnation, and saith, That God's Bounty towards Men, never appeared so much as in that Mystery; That the Word of God of the same Substance and Coeternal with the Father, vouchsafed to make himself Man like unto us, to deliver us from our Sins: That he hath used no force or violence to draw us to himself; That he hath manifested himself to be God by Miracles, and Man by his Sufferings; That he hath appointed his Example for a Remedy against all the disorderly Passions of Men; That his Life is a continual Instruction, and his Resurrection, an Evidence that we may hope to be one day delivered from all sorts of Evils; That he hath taken off the Veil from the Figures of the Old Law; That he hath abolished the Ceremonial Ordinances, with which the Jews were overladen; That he hath instituted few Sacraments indeed, but very wholesome ones to preserve Society in his Church; That he hath perfected our Morals, by increasing the number of Precepts, but that at the same time he hath given Men strength to practise them. He treateth here of the Nature and Original of Evil, showing that it is not a Corporeal Substance, but consists in a vicious adhaesion of the Will to Corporeal Being's. He runs through the several Conditions of Men, and the Means to find out Remedies for all their Distempers. He discovereth the Use that is to be made both of Authority and Reason to cure Man, and applieth both to take him off from the Creature. He hath several curious Speculations upon the Knowledge and the Affections of Men; and particularly he examines the three principal Passions, Pleasure, Ambition and Curiosity, and layeth down very profitable Precepts for Piety and Manners. He recommends the Reading of the holy Scripture, distinguishing the several Explications, and giving some Rules for the understanding of it. The whole Work is concluded with an Exhortation to all Men to embrace the True Religion.  
In his Retractations he maketh some Remarks upon this Treatise; most of them are of small consequence; these are some of the most important. He had said, That Sin was so necessarily Voluntary, that an Action could not be Sin, if it was not Voluntary. He justifies this Assertion in his Retractations: but he adds, That Sins committed through Ignorance or Lust, are in some sort Voluntary, because they cannot be committed without Will: and that even Original Sin is Voluntary, in this sense, because it was the Will of the First Man, that made it Hereditary to all his Posterity. He observeth likewise, upon what he had said, That Jesus Christ had done nothing by Violence, but only used Counsels and Exhortations: That he did not then reflect upon the Action of Jesus Christ, when he drove the Merchants out of the Temple with Scourges, that came thither to Buy and Sell; but saith he, That cannot be looked upon as a violent Action: Sed quid hoc aut quantum est? Upon what he had said, That Miracles were ceased in his time, lest Men should still cleave to Sensible Things, and their Minds be too much accustomed to them; he noteth, That these words are not to be taken strictly, seeing that Miracles are still wrought in the Church, and that himself had seen some at Milan.  
The Rule, which is the last Piece of this Tome, is indeed St. Augustin's; but he wrote if for Nuns, and not for Monks. Some body took it out of the 109th. Epistle, and fitted it for Men. This Alteration has been long made.  
As they have placed by themselves, at the latter end of each Tome, those Pieces which are none of St. Augustin's, and yet have some relation to those contained in that Volume; so at the end of this, there are the Treatises of Grammar, Logic, Categories and Rhetoric, that were attributed to St. Augustin in the former Editions; perhaps, because he saith himself, in his Retractations, That he had began some Treatises upon those Sciences: but his Discourses were written in the form of Dialogues, and like that of Music; where he makes use of that Science, to raise up the Mind of Man to his Creator; but these are neither Dialogue-wise, nor fit to lift up men's Minds towards God. The Manner how they are written, and the Methods observed in them, are very different from those of St. Augustin. In a word, There are in those Treatises several Observations unworthy of that Father, and contrary to his Opinions. The Discourse of Grammar, gins indeed with the same words that St. Augustin hath noted in his Retractations; but they have been added, and are not to be found in the Manuscripts.  
The Author of the Book of Categories, has a great Esteem for Aristotle's Philosophy; and saith, That he could scare understand his Book of Categories with Themistius his help: Whereas St. Augustin, who had no great Esteem for Aristotle's Philosophy, assureth us, That he understood his Categories, without Labour, and without a Tutor. The Name of Adeodatus, that was inserted into the Printed Copies, is not found in the Manuscripts.  
The Monastic Rules, which are at the latter end of this Volume, are rejected with Common Consent. The last, wherein St. Benedict's Rule is quoted, is, if we believe Holstenius, written by A●lredus Rievallensis, an Abbot in England, who flourished in the Twelfth Century; and indeed it is in the Catalogue of this Author's Works, published [by Bale,] in the Second Century of English Writers: part of it is among St. Anselm's Works.   

The SECOND TOME.  
THE Second Tome of St. Augustin's Works, containeth his Letters; which do not only represent 
Tome II.  the Genius and Character of that holy Father, but contain also very important Points of Doctrine, Discipline and Morality. In the last Edition, they are placed according to the Order of Time; for which Arguments are brought in a Preface. They are divided into Four Classes. The First contains those which he writ before he was Bishop, from the Year 386. to 395. In the Second, are those which he writ from the Year 396. to the time when the Catholic Bishops had a Conference at Carthage with the Donatists, and the breaking out of the Pelagian Heresy in Africa, that is, to the Year 410. The Third comprehends those that were written from the Year 411. to the end of his Life, that is, to 430. And the Fourth contains those whereof the time is not justly known, though they were certainly written after he was 
St. Augustin. Tome II.  made Bishop. There are Two hundred and seventy in all. The Benedictines have taken away some Treatises, which were put among the Letters; and they have added those which he Answered. And lastly, Some are added, that were not published before.  
The thirteen or fourteen first are about Philosophical Matters that St. Augustin used to discourse about with his Friends, when he was first Converted.  
The First was written by St. Augustin to Hermogenianus, about the latter end of the Year 380. concerning the Books that he wrote against the Academics. He tells him what his Aim was in writing them, and asketh his Advice about what he had said concerning those Philosophers. About the latter end of the Third Book, he commends the Academics, and saith, That he was so far from Condemning them, that he had Imitated them. He blameth the false Academics of his own time, and calleth them stupid who believed the Soul to be Corporeal. He concludes, with saying, That he flattered not himself with triumphing over the Academics, as Hermogenianus said; but that he thought himself happy, for being above despair of finding the Truth, which is the Food of the Soul; and that he had thereby broken that troublesome Chain which hindered him from fastening, as one may say, to the Breasts of the True Philosophy.  
In the Second Letter, to Zenobius, he testifies his Sorrow for his being Absent, and his Impatience to see him again, that they might resolve a Question which he had begun to examine. This Letter was written the same time with the foregoing.  
The Third, to Nebridius, is about his Books of Soliloquies, composed in the beginning of the year 387. He speaketh there of his Happiness of having attained to the Knowledge of some particular Truths, and particularly of those concerning our Nature; confessing withal, That he was ignorant of many things. Among things unknown to Man, he proposeth these: Why the World is of such Bigness? or rather, How big it is? Why it is where it is, rather than any where else? He observes, That Bodies may be infinitely divided; and, That there is no Quantity but may be both infinitely increased and diminished: That it is not so with Numbers, which may be infinitely increased, but not diminished proportionably, seeing there is nothing below Unity.  
In the next, directed to the same, and written about the same time, St. Augustin acquaints him with the Progress that he had made in the Knowledge of the Truth, during the time of his Retirement. We have not the other Letters, which he writ at that time to Nebridius, as appears by the Ninth Book of Confessions.  
The Fifth and Sixth, are Letters written in Africa, by Nebridius, to St. Augustin, about the end of the Year 388. or the beginning of 389. In the First, Nebridius pitieth St. Austin, that he was interrupted in the Contemplation of the Truth by other Businesses. And in the Seeond, he tells him his Notion, That Memory cannot act without Imagination; and, That the Imagination draws her Images of Things from itself, and not from the Senses. St. Augustin resolves both these Questions in the Seventh Letter. To the former, he answereth, That we remember things which cannot be represented by Sensible Ideas: whence he concludes, That there is a Memory independent upon the Imagination. To the latter, That there are Three sorts of Images or Phantoms, in our Imagination; that some are transmitted by the Senses, and these represent such things as we have seen and felt. That the Second, that are form by Imagination, represent such things as we never saw; and which, perhaps, are not, but which we fancy, or suppose to be, or to have been: And that the last arise from the Consideration of some Speculative Truths, as Numbers and Dimensions. That without doubt, the first sort do not proceed from Sense; but we must grant, that the Second have their Original from Sense, since they represent nothing but what is true. That the last, though they seem to spring from the Reasons and Principles of Sciences, which lead not into Error, yet are false; because they represent Spiritual Things, as if they were Corporeal and Extended. Whence he concludes, That the Soul doth not imagine the things that it does not see, and that it doth not feel, but either by lessening or by increasing the Images of what it hath seen or felt.  
The following Letters, to the Thirteenth, are directed to Nebridius, though the Years are not precisely known: it is certain, that they were written before St. Augustin was Ordained, because Nebridius died before that time. In the Eighth, Nebridius asketh St. Augustin, How Daemons can make us Dream? St. Augustin answers him in the Ninth, That they do it, by stirring those Parts of the Body which can make an Impression upon the Soul, after the same manner as Musical Instruments excite in us certain Thoughts, Passions and Affections. In the Tenth, St. Augustin proposes to Nebridius, To live together retired: And he setteth forth the Advantages of Solitude. In the Eleventh, he endeavours to explain that Question in Divinity, How the Three Persons being inseparable, the Son alone was made Man? Having diligently studied how to answer it, he tells Nebridius, That the understanding of Mysteries, is got only by Piety: That this is the surest way to compass it, and therefore that Men ought chief to give up themselves to the Practice thereof. He had also handled that Question in the Twelfth Letter, but it is imperfect. In the Thirteenth, he advises Nebridius not to think any longer, that the Soul hath another thinner Body than that which we see, it being impossible to resolve that Question, since our Senses cannot discern such a Body, and Reason cannot discover any such thing to us.  
In the Fourteenth, he answers Two other Questions proposed by Nebridius. The First, concerning the Sun; which is of small importance, and hath no difficulty. The Second deserves more Reflection: Nebridius asks St. Augustin, Whether the Knowledge of God, includeth not only a general Idea of Mankind, but also an Idea of every Man in particular? St. Augustin answereth, That in the Creation, God had only a Prospect of the general Idea of Mankind; but yet that there is in God a particular Idea of every Man. He clears his Answer by this Example: The Idea of an Angle, is one single Notion, as well as that of a Square: so when I design to make an Angle, one only Idea offers itself; and yet when I go about to describe a Square, I must have in my Mind the Notion of Four Angles joined together: Even so each Man was Form after the particular Idea of a Man; but in the Creation of People, it is no longer the particular Idea of one Man, but the general Idea of many seen and conceived all at once. This is refined Metaphysics.  
The Fifteenth Letter is written to Romanianus; to whom St. Augustin promiseth his Book of The True Religion, which he finished not long before he was Ordained Priest. Which proves, That this Letter was written about the Year 390. He exhorts Romanianus to renounce the Cares of the World, and to seek after solid and lasting Goods.  
The Sixteenth Letter, is, a Discourse written by Maximus, a Grammarian of Madaura, who disputeth against the Christian Religion. He owns, That there is but One Sovereign Being; and One only God; but pretends, That it is the same God whom the Heathen worship under several Names, which signify his several Attributes. He cannot endure, that in the Christian. Religion, they should prefer Martyrs of obscure and strange Names, before those Immortal Gods whose Names are so famous. He desires of St. Austin to let him know who that particular God is, whom the Christians suppose to be present in secret and retired places.  
St. Augustin answereth this in the Seventeenth Letter, discovering the Falsehood of this Pagans Raillery, by other Raillery's that are more Spiritual. At the latter end of his Letter, he declares, That among Christians and Catholics the Dead are not adored: And, That no Divine Honours are done to any Creature, but only to God, who created all things. Thief Letters were written before the Worship of the Gods was prohibited by the Imperial-Law of the Year 391. whilst St. Augustin was retired at Tagasta, near Madaura, and before he was a Priest, namely, about the Year 390.  
It is believed, that the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Letters, were written before St. Augustin was Ordained Priest; because he gives himself no Title in the Inscription, and because they seem more florid than those which he wrote after he was in Orders. The Eighteenth is directed to Coelestin●●s. There he distinguishes Being's into Three Natures: The First Movable in Place and Time, and that's Body: The Second Movable in Time, but not in Place, and that is the Soul: And the Third is immovable in Time and Place▪ and this is God. The First is incapable either of Happiness or Unhappiness: The Last is essentially Happy: The Middle Being is Unhappy when it cleaveth to the Being's of the First sort, but Happy when it carries itself to the Supreme Being. In the Nineteenth Letter, he exhorteth Caius, to whom he sendeth his Works, to continue in those good Dispositions of Mind wherein he left him. In the Twentieth, he giveth Antoninus' Thanks for his Love, and for the good Opinion he had of him; with excellent Instructions, desiring the Conversion of his whole Family.  
St. Austin was Ordained Priest by Valerius, Bishop of Hippo, who being a Greek, and not able to speak Latin fluently enough to Preach to the People, cast his Eyes upon St. Augustin to Preach in his room. St. Augustin being sensible how hard it was to discharge the Duties of that Station, entreateth Valerius, in the Twenty first Letter, to let him withdraw for a time, that he might fit himself, by Study and Prayer, for the Employment which he had laid upon him. This Letter is very instructive for those that are to be promoted to Ecclesiastical Dignities: It gins with this curious Reflection; That there is nothing more acceptable, especially at this time, than the Dignity of a Priest, a Bishop and a Deacon; nothing more pleasant and easy than the Exercise of these Offices, when Men will do things only of Course, and flatter others in their Disorders: But on the other side, That there is nothing more mischievous, pernicious and damnable before God. On the contrary, nothing is more glorious and happy in God's account; but at the same time, nothing more difficult, painful and dangerous, especially at this time, than the Exercise of those Functions, when Men resolve to discharge them according to the Rules of that holy Warfare which we profess to follow. He declareth, That though he wept very hearty on the Day of his Ordination, foreseeing the Dangers he was exposed unto; yet he did not then know his Weakness so well as he has done since.  
He observes, That he was Ordained, when he thought to have taken some time to study the Scriptures. He begs time till Easter, to prepare himself for Preaching, by Study and Prayer. This Letter was written about the beginning of the Year 391.  
The T●enty second, to Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, was written the following Year. St. Augustin laments the Feasts which they made in Church-Yards, and at the Martyr's Graves, under pretence of Religion, desiring Aurelius to give Order about them. He observes, That of the Three Vices condemned by St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans, namely, Drunkenness, Uncleanness and Discord, they seemed to punish but One in the Church, that was, Uncleanness: That the others were tolerated; yea, they thought to honour the Martyrs by their Drunkenness: That this Abuse was never in the Churches of Italy, or else it had been reform by the Care and Vigilancy of their Bishops; and that his Bishop wanted neither Zeal, nor Knowledge, to correct it in his Diocese: but that this Disorder was so rooted, that he thought there was no hope to see it abolished, but by the Authority of a Council. That if any particular Church was to do it, that of Carthage ought to begin. Yet, that such Abuses were not to be opposed by sharpness, roughness, or imperiousness; that Instructions were to be used, rather than Commands; and Counsels, rather than Threaten: That if there be need of Threaten, they must be used in a lamenting manner, and only such as are found in Scripture; not to inspire them by Words, with the fear of Ecclesiastical Power, but with a Dread of the Divine Vengeance. And since the People was persuaded, That these Feasts were not only to the Honour of the Martyrs, but also gave ease to the Dead, he would have the Offerings, made in the Church for the Dead, to be done modestly, without Pomp and Affectation. He would not have them sold, but that the Money that was offered, should be immediately distributed to the Poor. Afterwards he reproves the Quarrels and Enmities betwixt the African Clergy.  
The Twenty third Letter was written by St. Augustin, during his being a Priest, but what Year, is unknown. It is directed to a Donati●▪ Bishop, called Maximinus, who had Rebaptised a Deacon of the Church that was become a Donatist. St. Augustin having been informed, That this Bishop did not do Things like the other Donatists, prayeth him to let him know the Truth, and exhorts him, either to declare himself a Catholic, if he were not in that Point of the other Donatists' Opinion; or to hold a Conference with him about his Separation from the Catholic Church.  
The 24th. and 25th. are Two Letters of Paulinus to Alypius, and to St. Augustin, written in the Year 394.  
The 26th is a Letter from St. Augustin, to his old Disciple▪ Licentius; wherein he exhorts him to despise the World, making use of the Verses which Licentius had Dedicated to him. It was written after St. Paulinus, and St. Augustin were acquainted, about the Year 395.  
The 27th. is an Answer from St. Augus●in, to St. Paulinus, written the same Year.  
The 28th. to St. Jerom, was the beginning of their Quarrel. St. Augustin adviseth him rather to Translate into Latin the best of the Greek Authors, than to make a New Translation of the Scripture upon the Hebrew Text. He beginneth also the Dispute, about that Place, to the Galatians, which speaks of St. Peter's Dissembling; reproving St. Jerom for approving an officious Lye. This Letter was written in the Year 395.  
The 29th. lately Published by the Benedictines from a Manuscript in the Library at St. Cross, is directed to Alypius, than Bishop of Tagasta. There St. Augustin acquaints him, how he had, at last, compassed his Design of putting down, in the Church of Hippo, those Feasts that they were wont to make in the Church upon the Festival Days of the Martyrs: He repeats the Arguments that he used in his Sermons upon that Subject, that so Alypius might take the same Course, to abolish the same Abuse in his own Church. St. Augustin was but Priest, when he writ this Letter, and Alypius was newly chosen Bishop; which shows that it was written in the Year 395.  
The 30th. is a Letter of St. Paulinus', written to St. Augustin before he was Bishop. These are all the Letters of the First Class.   

The Second Class.  
THE Second Class containeth the Letters written by St. Augustin, from the time of his being made Bishop, to the Conference at Carthage, before the breaking out of the Pelagian Heresy in Africa, that is from the Year of our Lord 396, to 410.  
The First of the Letter, which is the 31st. written at the beginning of the Year 396. shortly after his Ordination, is directed to Paulinus. He thanks him for his Second Letters; and takes notice, That he was ordained Coadjutor to Valerius in the Bishopric of Hippo, and invites him to come over into Africa.  
The 32d. is Paulinus' Answer.  
The 33d. is to Proculianus, a Donatist Bishop at Hippo. St. Augustin being informed, That he designed to clear his Doubts by a Conference with him, offereth it to him, that they might agree, and put an end to the Schism. This Letter was written soon after he was made Bishop, Valerius being yet alive.  
The 34th. was written, not long after the former: There he complaineth to Eusebius, That Proculianus, a Donatist Bishop at Hippo, to whom the foregoing Letter was directed, had admitted into his Sect, and▪ Rebaptised a young Man, that used to beat his Mother, and threatened to kill her; declaring, towards the end, That he was ready to confer amicably with him, about the pretended Reasons of their Separation.  
This Eusebius, who, in all Probability, was a Man of Note, that sided with the Donatists, having returned St. Augustin this Answer, That he would be no Judge betwixt Bishops; this Saint writ to him again, by the 35th. Letter, That he might be on that occasion, where there was no need of Judging; but only to know, Whether it was by Proculianus his Order, that the young Man was Rebaptised; and, Whether he would enter upon a Conference? He Complains likewise, That the same Bishop had received, and rebaptized a Sub-Deacon of the Church of Ispana; who being accused of having an infamous Commerce with some Virgins that were consecrated to God, was gone over to the Donatists to avoid the Chastisement which he deserved; and ever since led a scandalous Life. St. Augustin takes notice, that he dealt not so with those that proffered to come into the Church: If they be found guilty of any Crime; they are not admitted, but upon Condition t●at they submit themselves to the humiliation of Penance. He shows how abominable this Custom of the Donatists was, to persuade such as were to be chastised for their Disordets, to come over to them, and be Re baptised▪ At last he t●lls Eusebius, That if, by this means, he doth not obtain an Answer from Proculianus, he will cause these Things to be notifis▪ d to him, formally by a public Officer: He speaks, beside, of a Donatist Priest, who had been troublesome to one of the Church's Tenants; and of a Woman of that Party that had affronted him.  
The thirty sixth Letter to Casulanus, concerning Saturday's Fast, seems to have been written before St. Ambrose's Death, of whom he speaketh, as holding still the See of Milan; whereby it appears, that it belongs to the Year 396, or 397. There he refuteth the Writing of a certain Roman, who had asserted, That all Men were obliged to fast on Saturdays, according to the Practice of the Church of Rome. St. Augustin lay▪ down this Rule, That in those Things, where the Scripture hath determined nothing certain, the Customs received among Christians, or settled by our Ancestors, are to be instead of a Law, and no Contests aught to be admitted about such Matters. Afterwards he examineth the Writing which Casulanus sent him, and shows▪ that it is made up of false Suppositions, and unconcluding Consequences. Having answered this Writing, he explains his own Notion, saying, That he finds indeed, that Fasting is enjoined in the Gospel, and in the Writings of the Apostles: but that neither Jesus Christ, nor the Apostles, ever appointed the days wherein we should fast, nor the days in which we ought to forbear. That he thinks it more convenient not to fast upon the Saturday; and yet whether we fast or fast not, we ought to maintain Peace; and this Precept of the Apostle is to be observed, Let not him that eateth, condemn him that eateth not; neither let him that eateth not, condemn him that eateth. That there is no great Inconvenience in observing the Saturday's Fast, since the Church of Rome observes it as well as some other Churches: But it would prove a great Scandal to fast upon Sundays; especially, since the Manichees affect to command their Disciples to fast upon that day: That notwithstanding, it were pardonable to fast upon Sunday, for those who are able to carry Fasting so far, as to be more than a week without eating, that so they draw nearer to the Fast of Forty Days. St. Augustin saith, that some have done it, and that he was informed, That a certain Person had continued fasting full Forty Days. This is hard to be believed, yet St Augustin saith, that he heard it from credible Persons. Having refuted the Reasons of the Manichees, who affirming, That Sunday is to be kept as a Fast; he saith, that the Church observes fasting upon Wednesdays and Fridays; because the Jews resolved upon Wednesday to put Christ to Death, and Executed it upon Friday. That on Saturday, the Body of Jesus Christ having rested in the Grave, gave occasion to some to forbear fasting on that day, to mark thereby the resting of Christ's Flesh; and that others fast upon it, because of that Humiliation of our Saviour: but that the former Celebrate that Fast once only, on the Saturday before Easter, to renew the Remembrance of the Disciple's Sorrow. All these Notions having but little Solidity, he concludes with an excellent Rule which St. Ambrose had taught him upon that Subject: For having asked his Opinion, concerning his Mother's Scruple, who being at Milan, doubted whether she ought to observe Saturday's Fast, according to the Custom of her own Church, or according to the Custom of the Church of Milan, that observed no Fast on that day. This Holy Bishop answered him, Let her do as I do. When I am here, I do not fast upon Saturdays; when I am at Rome, I fast upon that day: and so in what Church soever you are, keep to its Customs, if you mean to scandalise no body, or to be scandalised at no body. But because he was then in Africa, and that among the Churches of the same Country, and even among the Christians of the same Church, some fasted upon Saturdays, and others not, St. Augustin saith, That we must conform ourselves to those that bear Rule over the People; and so he adviseth him to whom he writeth, not to resist his Bishop in that Case, but to do as he did.  
The Thirty seventh Letter to Simplicianus, is a Preface to the Books that he Dedicated to that Bishop that were written in 397.  
In the Thirty eighth to Profuturus, St. Augustin being sick, recommends himself to his Prayers, and desires to know what Bishop succeeded in the Primacy of Numidia, after the death of Megalius Bishop of Calama, who had been dead Twenty days. In the Council of Carthage, assembled in August, 397. Crescentianus wrote, that he was Primate of Numidia. Thus, the death of Megalius happening some time before, serves to fix the date of this Letter. There are two excellent Notions of Morality; the one of Patience, and the other against Anger. The former is this: Tho' I susfer, yet I am well, because I am as God would have me to be, for when we will not what he wills, 'tis we that are in the fault, and not he, who can neither do, nor permit any thing but what is just. The latter is equally valuable: It is incomparably better to shut the door of our Heart against just Anger when it offers to come in, than to give it entrance, being uncertain whether we can turn it out again, when we find it growing from a Thread to a Beam.  
The Th●●ty ninth Letter, is a Note from St. Jerom, who recommends Praes●●ius, and presents his Service to Alypius. It is written in the Year 397.  
The Fortieth from St. Augustin to St. Jerom, is about their Disagreement, concerning St. Peter's Action. St. Augustin also desires to know the Title of his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, and exhorts him to make a Collection of Origen's Errors, and of those of other Heretics.  
The Forty first Letter written in Alypius and St. Augustin's Name, to Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, commending that Bishop for preferring the good of the Church, before the Honour of the Episcopal Order; by permitting, contrary to Custom, that Priests should Preach God's Word in his presence. This Letter was written within few Years after St. Augustin was a Bishop.  
The Forty second, is a Note from St. Augustin to St. Paulinus, never before Published, entreating him to write to him, and to send him his Book against the Gentiles. It is of the latter end of the Year 397.  
The Forty third, and forty fourth Letters to Glorius Eleusius, give an Account of a Conference, which St. Augustin held in the City of Tubursica, with some Donatists, in the Year 397, or 398. as it is proved in the Preface to the Letters. In the first, he produces the Judgements that were given against the Donatists: He justifies Caecilians Innocency, and shows, that those who condemned him, were suspected Judges; and that the Authors of the Donatist Schism, were guilty of the Crime which they charged upon others. He adds, That it was to no purpose to impute to the Church the pretended Crimes of the dead; since the Church may tolerate wicked men, without ceasing to be a Church. That the Donatists themselves suffer among them very disorderly Persons; that Maximianus had caused Primianus to be condemned, as Majorinus had formerly procured a Sentence against Caecilian, by caballing and Intrigue: That the Sect of the Donatists being limited within Africa, and having no Communion with the Churches that were dispersed throughout the World, cannot be the Catholic Church. In this Letter, there is that famous Sentence concerning the Authority of Councils. Let us suppose, that Pope Miltiades, and the other Bishops, who gave Judgement with him, have not judged right, than we may have recourse to a Plenary Council of the whole Church, in which the cause of the Donatists ought to be debated again with those that judged it, and their Sentence reversed, if it shall be found that they have given a wrong Judgement.  
The Second Letter contains a particular Conference of St. Augustin with Fortuniusa Donatist Bishop, which was spent in Reproaches on both sides, for the Villainies that were committed on both sides, without meddling with the main Question, of the Schism. St. Augustin requested, that the Dispute might be ended in a greater Assembly, and in what place they pleased, where Christians of all Parties might meet. In this Letter, there is an Account of a Letter of the false Council of Sardica, of Eastern Bishops; which Fortunius quoted, because it was directed to Donatus: St. Augustin not knowing the Story, was perplexed; but finding that St. Athanasius was condemned in that Letter, he did not mind it.  
The Forty fifth Letter, is a Note to Paulinus, written a Year after the foregoing, in 398.  
The Forty sixth, from Publicola to St. Augustin, contains several Cases of Conscience, which this Lord proposed concerning the Oath, whereby they obliged the Barbarians to swear by their Gods, That they would preserve the Fruits of the ground faithfully, which they would not otherwise have preserved, had they not been bound by that Oath: About the use of Meats, and other Things offered to Idols; and concerning the kill of one that assaults, or robs us.  
In the next, St. Augustin endeavours to decide the Qustions proposed by Publicola, concerning those Matters. Upon the first he saith, That that Oath ought not to be required of the Barbarians, but that use may be made of them, after they have taken it; and he that uses their Service, hath no share in the Oath. that those that swear by false Gods, are doubly guilty, if they keep not their Oath, both of an abominable Oath, and of Perjury. As to things offered to Idols he answereth Publicola upon several Particulars, as that there is no danger in making use of the Meats offered to them, when it is not known, and it is too nice a scruple to forbear the use of those things which have been applied to profane uses, if it be not done with respect to that. To the Last Query he saith, That no man ought to kill any Man, upon any Account whatsoever; except perhaps, says he, Soldiers, or such as are obliged to it by the Duties of some public Office. But that we are not forbidden to secure ourselves against the Violences of others, by making use of Walls, and, That if a Thief be killed or wounded with the Wall falling upon him, or he falling from the Wall, the thing is not to be imputed to him that built the Wall. This Letter was written before the Temples of Idols were quite demolished, in 399.  
In the Forty eighth Letter to Eudoxius, Abbot of a Monastery in the Island of Capraria, St. Augustin exhorteth both him and his Monks to make good use of the Quiet they enjoyed, that so they might be ready to leave it whensoever the Church should have need of them. This Letter is supposed to have been writ in the Year 398.  
In the 49th. He asketh of Honoratus a Donatist Bishop, a Reason, Why the Catholic Church, which ought to be Universal over the whole Earth, came to be limited to Africa, and was not where to be found but among the Donatists? The time of this Letter is not very certain.  
The ●0th. Letter to the Principal Persons of the Colony of Suffectum, is a Complaint upon the account of a Murder of 60 Christians whom they Massacred, because their Hercules was taken away; He jests upon them, promising to have another made for them: But he concludes with these upbraiding words, But do you also restore to us that great number of our Brethren, whose Lives you have taken away; for if we restore to you your Hercules, it is reasonable you should restore the● to us. Baronius thinketh that this Massacre happened upon occasion of an Edict made against Idolatry in 399. But the Translator of St. Augustin's Letters, affirms, That this is none of his, for two Reasons; First, Because he thinks it is Impertinent; Secondly, Because it is not written in St. Augustin's Style. I am much of his mind as to the Second Point, but I cannot allow the First; for though this Letter does not seem to be grave enough for such a Subject, yet the Raillery is sharp, which sometimes is more effectual than a Pathetical Discourse. However it is ancient, and of St. Augustin's time.  
In the 51st, Letter, St. Augustin objects to Crispinus, a Donatist Bishop at Calama, the Dissension between the Primianists, and the Maximianists, as an Answer to what the Donatists urged against the Church. It was written after the Death of Optatus Gildonianus in 399, and before that of Praetextatus, who died in 400, when St. Augustin wrote his Books against Parmenianus.  
In the 52d. He exhorts Severinus, his Kinsman, to forsake the Donatists, and to come into the Catholic Church. It may be of the same time with the foregoing.  
The 53d. is written in St. Augustin's Name, and of two of his Colleagues, Fortunatus and Alypius, to Generosus, a Catholic of Constantina; and contains an Answer to a Letter written by a Donatist Priest to this Man, to seduce him; wherein he pretends to have received an Order by an Angel from Heaven, to oblige him to embrace the Donatist's Party.  
St. Augustin proves in that Letter, That the Donatist's Party cannot be the true Church. 1. Because they have no Succession of Bishops from the Apostles. To prove this, he produces the Succession of the Bishops of Rome, from St. Peter to Anastasius. 2. He quoteth the Acts of Minutius Felix, which show, That Silvianus the Predecessor of a Donatist Bishop of Cirta was a Traditor. 3. He urges all the Determinations that had been made against the Donatists. 4. He confesses, That there may be wicked Men in the Church, and urges against the Donatists the Dissensions between the Primianists, and the Maximianists.  
The 54th. and 55th. Letters to Januarius, are mentioned in St. Augustin's Detractations; where they are placed among the Books that were written about the Year 400: They contain several very useful Decisions about Church-Discipline: He layeth it down at first as a Principal Matter, That Jesus Christ, whose yoke is easy, his burden light, hath instituted but few Sacraments; the observation whereof is as Easie, as the Wonders which they represent to us, are Sublime. Such is Baptism, the Communion of his Body and Blood, and other things which the Scripture enjoins us to observe, excepting those that belong to Moses' Law. But as to those that are observed by Tradition, being not written, if they be universally observed, we ought to look upon them as settled either by the Apostles themselves, or by General Councils, whose Authority is very great in the Church; as the Annual Celebration of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ, and of the coming of the Holy Ghost, and of other things of this Nature, which are generally observed through the whole Church. As to those that are variously observed in divers places, as Fasting upon Saturdays, which is practised in some places, and in others not, Communicating every Day, or only upon certain Days; offering daily or only upon Sundays and Saturdays: There is a Liberty for those Things, and for all others of the like Nature. And there is no better Rule for a Wise and Prudent Christian, than to follow what he seethe practised in the Church where he is. For what is clearly seen to be neither against Faith, nor good Manners, aught to be indifferently received; and the good of a Society requireth, That Men should hold to what they find established among those with whom they live. He gives an Account of what he had heard St. Ambrose say in that case; and having laid down this Rule as the Ground of all that he was to say, he speaks particularly of frequent Communion; That some believe, That it is good to Communicate daily; but to do it more worthily, certain Days are to be set apart, in which they live after a purer and more reserved manner: Others, on the contrary judge, That when Men are not Guilty of those Sins for which Penance is enjoined, and themselves forbidden to come to the Communion of the Body of Jesus Christ; that they ought to come daily to the Eucharist, as a Remedy to preserve them still. He reconcileth these two, by adding a third Advice; in which he exhorts them both to Peace, and leaves it to every one, to act according as he shall be guided by the light both of Faith and of Piety, since neither of them Profane the Body of Christ; but on the contrary strive to honour it. He proposes the Examples of Zacchaeus and the Centurion, whereof the one presently received Jesus Christ with Joy into his House; and the other, judged not himself worthy, that he should come under his Roof.  
Secondly, St. Augustin saith, That a Traveller ought to observe the Customs of the Place where he is, and not require those of his own Country. Thus when a Man comes into a Country where they Fast upon Thursdays in Lent; he ought to Fast with them, though they Fast not in his Country; for fear of disturbing the Peace by unprofitable Disputes.  
These Principles being laid down, he answereth Januarius his Questions. The First is about the Hour of Offering upon the Holy Thursday, Whether it should be done in the Morning or in the Evening? Or, Whether we ought to Fast and not to Offer till after Supper; because it is said, That it was after Supper that Jes●● Christ took Bread; or, whether we ought not to Sup till the Offering be over? St. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ That this is one of those things which are neither settled by Scripture, nor 〈◊〉 observed throughout the Church; and so every one is to follow the Custom of his own Church, there being nothing of either side inconsistent either with Faith or Good Manners; and that Alterations, though Useful in themselves, cause Disturbances: That Christ's Example is no Law in this case, otherwise the whole Church is in an Error to enjoin the receiving the Eucharist fasting, which the Apostles first received after Supper; but that since it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, out of reverence to so great a Sacrament, that the Body of Jesus Christ should be received into Christian's Mouths before any other Meat: and therefore this Custom is observed throughout the World. And yet some others believing upon good Grounds. That for a more exact Commemoration of Christ's Death, it was convenient to offer and receive once a Year upon Holy Thursday▪ after Eating: This Custom can no more be Condemned, than that of Bathing upon that Day; neither are they to blame that Fast and bath not; wherefore the Sacrifice is offered twice, once in the Morning for these last, and once in the Evening for the first.  
In the Second Letter to Januarius, which is the 5●th. St. Augustin goeth on to treat of the Ceremonies of the Church: Showing, Why Easter is always celebrated after the Fourteenth Day of the Moon in March; Why Christ would rise again the Third Day, and the next Day after the Sabbath; What signifieth the Day of Christ's Crucifixion, and that in which his Body remained in the Grave, and that of his Resurrection; Why Lent is kept before the Resurrection; Why the Holy Ghost came down the Fiftieth Day after the Resurrection, with many other things, whereof he gives Mystical Reasons, very edifying and very proper to show how both our Saviour's Death and Resurrection ought to operate upon us.  
He adds several things concerning the Ceremonies of the Church: He observes, That Lent is kept throughout the whole Church, as well as the Solemnity of the Holy Days which were designed for those that are newly Baptised: That the Custom of Singing Hallelujah from Easter to Whitsuntide is not general; because, though it is Sung every where at that time; yet in some Churches it is Sung at other times also. As to the Praying Standing at the same time, he durst not affirm it to be an universal Custom. The Washing of Feet was not constantly used every where. He approves of Singing in the Church, though it was not universally established. He Condemns those that introduce new Customs, if they are useless; and deolares how much he is troubled, to see those Wholesome Things neglected which the Church prescribes; and that all is full of Humane Institutions. He affirms, That endeavour should be used, to abolish all sorts of things, which are neither Expressed in Scripture, nor Enjoined by Councils, nor Confirmed by the universal Practice of the Church; but are done after different manners, according to the difference of Places, though no reason can be showed why they were at first established. For, saith he, though it doth not ●●●ear that they are contrary to the Faith, yet it is sufficient to make us reject them; That they are servile Customs and Burdens to our Holy Religion: And which from that Liberty, wherein God's Mercy hath established it, prescribing but few Sacraments; the design and Virtue whereof are clearly Manifest, make it fall into a kind of Slavery, worse than that of the Jews▪ But as the Church encloseth much Straw, so it is forced to tolerate many things, yet without doing, or approving, yea without palliating, what it finds to be contrary to Faith or Good Manners. He afterwards blameth those who through Superstition abstain from certain Meats; and those who, that they may know what they have to do, will at all Adventures open the Book of the Gospel out of a Superstitious Custom. Lastly, He tells Januarius, That all Knowledge must have respect to Charity, which is the only end of all our Actions.  
The 56th. and 57th. Letters were written to Celer, before the Conference at Carthage. He exhorts him to the Study of the Holy Scriptures, and to forsake the Donatist.  
In the 58th. He applauds Pammachius, a Senator, for causing his Vassals that were Donatists to return to the Church. It seems to have been written at the latter end of 401▪ and sent by the Legates of the Council of Carthage the same Year.  
The 59th. Is an Answer to Victorinus a Bishop; who writ to him, to come to a Council which he was then calling. He saith, That he could not be there, because he was indisposed; and besides, he would not have gone otherwise, upon the account of his Letter; because Xantippus Bishop of Tagosa, pretended to the Primacy, which ought first to be determined. It appears by the 65th. Letter, that Xantippus was in the right, and that he was acknowledged Primate in 402. which shows that this Letter was written in 401. Now to understand this Letter, and all the rest of St. Augustin's, that speak of Primacy or Metropolitical Rights, we are to observe, That this Right belonged not in Africa to the Dignity of Towns, but to the Seniority of the Bishops.  
In the 60th. St. Augustin acquaints Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, That Donatus and his Brother had left a Monastery against his will; and that such falls being ordinary to Men of that Profession, those do the Clergy an Injury, who admit Deserters from Monasteries into the Church again. That an ill Monk is so far from making a good Churchman, that on the contrary, it is hard to make a good Churchman of a good Monk; because, though there may be Purity enough on the one side, yet there is often want of Instruction on the other; or at least some other Imperfections which may make him unworthy of coming into the Church. Yet Aurelius had ordained Donatus, supposing that he had left the Monastery, by  
St. Augustin's order, before that Canon was made; whereby it was forbidden to ordain a Monk of another Diocese. Wherefore St. Augustin writes to Donatus, That he was at liberty, to do what he pleased, if he was not acted by a Spirit of Pride: But as to his Brother, who was the cause of his desertion, You know, saith St. Augustin, what I think of it, but I have nothing to say to you as to that matter; for I dare not contradict the Opinions of so Wise and Charitable a Man as you are, and whom I ought to reverence so much. The Canon mentioned in that Letter, is that of the Council held the 13th. of September 401. and it is in the African Code, Chap. 80. which shows, That the Letter was written soon after.  
The 61st. is written to Theodorus, to assure the Donatist Clergy, That if they returned to the Church, they should be admitted to the same Rank and Dignity, which they held before in their own Party. St. Augustin promises it solemnly and with an Oath. He confesseth, That there was no Evil in the Donatists, but only their Separation from the Church: That their Baptism, their Ordination, their Vows and all their Sacraments were good; though unprofitable to them whilst they wanted Charity.  
Both the following Letters directed to Severus, Bishop of Milevis, are written about a Clerk, called Timothy, who had sworn, That he would never leave Severus, though he was of the Church of Hippo, and had performed the Office of Reader in that Diocese. St. Augustin pretends, That the Oath which this Priest had taken, being disapproved by his Bishop, and not received by him with whom he had Sworn to abide, did not oblige him, nor free him from the Obligation which he was under to remain in that Church to which he belonged. Yet he dealt very civilly with Severius; and though he caused Timothy to be ordained Sub-Deacon at Susanna, which belonged to the Diocese of Hippo, yet he sent him back to Severus, that he might have no occasion to complain of him. It was upon this occasion, probably, that a Canon was made in the Council of Milevis, of the 27th. of September, 402. whereby a Bishop is forbidden to detain a Clerk, who had performed the Office of Reader in another Diocese.  
In the 64th. Letter to Quintianus, he exliorts him not to be Impatient, because Aurelius deferred to give Judgement in his Cause; declaring, That he could not admit him to his Communion before▪ Aurelius had admitted him to his; advising him, likewise, not to suffer the Apocryphal Books to be read in his Church; and Answers the Complaint that was made against St. Augustin, for receiving into his Monastery, Persons of another Diocese, against the Canon of the Council of Carthage, that was held in the Year 401.  
In the 65th Letter, St. Augustin acquaints Xantippus, Primate of Numidia, That he had given Judgement against Abundantius the Priest, who was convicted of staying, and eating upon a Fastday in the House of a Woman of ill Reputation. He saith farther, That he had admonished him, and assured him, That according to the Canon of the Council of Carthage, in 401. he might, within the Year, have his Cause examined again: but he declares to Xantippus, That what Judgement soever, might intervene in his behalf, yet he would never trust him with a Church in his Jurisdiction. It is observed in that Letter, that Easter Day, in that Year, wherein it was written, happened upon the 6th. of April, which is an infallible Proof, That this Letter was written in the Year 402.  
In the 66th. St. Augustin upbraideth Crispinus, a Donatist Bishop at Calama, because he rebaptized those of Mappalia, whom with Threaten, he had forced to embrace his Communion. It appears by the Second Book against Petilianus, written in 402, that this happened not long before that same Year.  
The 67th. and 68th. are Letters which St. Augustin, and St. Jerom writ to one another, in the Year 402.  
In the 69th. both Alypius, and St. Augustin, exhort Castorius to fill up the Bishopric of Vagae or Bagadia, which was then vacant by the Demission of his Brother Maximian; who, for Quietness sake, being obliged to quit the Bishopric, had generously done it, as appears likewise by a Canon of the Council of Milevis, in the Year 402. which is the 88th. in the African Code.  
The 71st. 72d. 73d. 74th. and 75th. of St. Augustin, to St. Jerom, and of St. Jerom, to St. Augustin, are about that Dispute that was between them: Of which we gave an Account in the Abridgement of St. Jerom's Works.  
The 76th. Is an Exhortation, in the Church's Name, to all Donatists, which contains the most prevailing Motives to make them return to the Church. It was written after the Donatist Bishops had refused a Conference that was offered, in pursuance of the Order of the general Council of Africa, in the Year 403.  
The 77th. and 78th are concerning a Scandal that happened in the Church of Hippo. One Spes of St. Augustin's Monastery, had been accused of Uncleanness, by Boniface, a Priest. This Man charged the Crime upon the Priest; affirming, That he was the guilty Person. St. Augustin finding no Proof to Convict either of them, remited the Judgement to God. But Sp●s desiring to come into the Clergy; and being denied by St. Augustin, insisted, That if he might not be admitted, because he had been accused, neither was Boniface to continue in the Order of Priesthood. St. Augustin thought fit to oblige them both, to go to the Grave of St. Felix of Nola, that God might be pleased to discover the Truth by some Miracle. Now he intended, that this should be kept Secret: but the Thing taking vent, St. Augustin wrote about it to the Clergy of Hippo, and to Two private Men, That none ought to be disturbed at the Scandals happening in the Church; That no Man should be rashly Condemned; That there was no 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Condemned nor 〈◊〉 before 〈…〉 〈◊〉 to let the Name of 〈◊〉 be 〈…〉 〈◊〉 convenient, not to scandalise the 〈…〉 but little to Boniface, not to have his 〈…〉, if the Impurity of his Conscience did 〈…〉.  
〈…〉 Priest, who is thought to be that Felix with whom St. Angustin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 whom he challenges to Answer that Difficulty 〈…〉 Fortunatus.  
〈…〉. 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him to explain more clearly than he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How it may be known what that is which God ●…th of us, since we are 〈…〉 This was written in the Year 405.  
The Eighty 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 of Compliment, from St. Jerom to St. Augustin, concerning the Dispute that was betwixt them. He exhorts him to give over such Questions, and to exercise himself about the Scriptures.  
The Fighty second, is the last of St. Augustin's Letters to St. Jerom, about their Contests. He insists especially upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians; having de●●red, That 〈◊〉 valued 〈◊〉 but Canonical Books so far, as to believe that the Authors of them were never deceived: And as for other Authors, how holy soever they might be, he doth not think▪ that what they say is a Rule to him, because they believed it to be true; out that 〈◊〉 dependeth no further upon them, than the Reasons and Authorities of Canonical Books, which they lean upon, persuade him that their Assertions are conformable to Truth. Having laid down this Principle, he proves, That St. Paul's correcting of St. Peter was serious: because St. Paul saith it in his Epistle to the Galatians; at the beginning of which, he declares, that he ly●● not; and takes God to witness what he saith. He endeavours to answer St. Jerom's chief Reason, grounded upon this, That it is incredible, that St. Paul would reprove in St. Peter what he did himself, by showing that the Circumstances were very different. He maintains, That the Ceremonies of the Law being of themselves indifferent, neither good nor bad, the Use of them becomes good or bad, according to Times and Occasions: That they were necessary to the 〈◊〉, before. Christ came: That they signified, That he being come, it was not convenient immediately to forbid them, as Sacrilegious, and that it was sufficient to let them die, and go out of themselves; but that they were now neither to be looked upon nor practised. as necessary 〈◊〉 solvation: That St. Peter's Fearfulness having made him observe Legal Ceremonies▪ in such Circumstances as might have persuaded others that he believed them necessary, St. Paul was in the right, to accuse him of not walking uprightly, according to the Truth of the Gospel, and to oblige the Gentiles to Judaize; whereas St. Paul could not be reproached with the 〈◊〉 Fault, since he had kept them, only to show that they were not to be condemned, as C●…inal Superstitions▪ And yet, That it is not now permitted to observe these Ceremonies, under any 〈◊〉, o● for any purpose whatsoever, he does not examine the case of an officious Lie, and doth not decide whether it is permitted to tell a Lie at any time. He leaves to every Man to take what Side he pleases, provided that this be believed and laid down as an unalterable Principle, That there is no Lie in the Authors of the holy Scriptures. He sets St. Cyprian and St. Ambrose against the Authors that St. Jerom had alleged to justify his Opinion; but chief he citeth St. Paul against them, who saith and declares at the beginning of his Epistle, That he lies not; and, That God is Witness of the Truth of what he affirms. He concludes his Argument with a Compliment, and Expressions of the high Esteem and Respect that he had for St. Jerom: He approves of his Translations of the Scripture, pr●…sing withal some Objections concerning the Correction of the Hebrew Text, representing the difficulty of having his new Translation publicly read to People who were accustomed to that from the Septuagint, which was authorised by the Apostles themselves, who made use of it.  
The Argument of the Eighty third Letter, as it is explained by the Translator, is this; The Men of Thiana having renounced the Donatists' Schism, they wanted a Priest to govern them: One Honoratus was Chosen, and for that purpose taken out of the Monastery at Tagasta, and was Ordained Priest of Thiana. The Custom was, That those who entered into Monasteries, did begin with parting with all they had, for the benefit of the Poor, or of the Monastery itself: That if any offered to come in, that was not yet in a Condition to dispose of his Estate, they refused him not, provided he was sincerely resolved to execute the Order as soon as he could. Honoratus was in this Condition, and Owner of his Estate when he was Ordained Priest of Thiana. The Question was, Who should have this Estate? The Men of Thi●… pretended to have it by the Rule of those Times: That the Goods of such as were Ordained Priests of any Church, should be converted to the Use of that Church. Alypius, on the contrary, pretended, That Honoratus' Estate belonged to the Monastery of Tagasta; and was afraid, that if the Church of Thiana had it, and it were looked upon as Honoratus' Estate, that Example would serve for a Pretence to those that should come into Monasteries, to defer the parting with their Estates; wherefore his Opinion was, That at least they should divide it, and that the Church of Thiana should have but half. St. Augustin tells him, That he was not of that mind, but desireth him to Sign the Letter which he had written to the Church of Thiana; whereby he utterly renounced all Pretensions upon Honoratus' Estate; and he proffers to return Half of it to the Monastery of Tagasta, when any considerable Donation should be conferred upon the Monastery of Hippo. This Letter is placed in the Year 405.  
In the Eighty fourth Letter, he excuses himself towards Novatus, (who is supposed to be the Bishop of Sitifi, that was present at the Conference in Carthage,) for detaining lucilius the Deacon, his Brother, because he understood and spoke the Punic Language well; the Use whereof being common at Sitifi, and not at Hippo, it was easy for Novatus to find a Churchman in those Parts, to Preach in that Tongue; whereas St. Augustin could not so readily meet with such a One in his Country. Thus is this Letter to be understood, as the Translator oberveth, after a very Learned Man. It seems to belong to the same Year as the foregoing.  
In the Eighty fifth, St. Augustin reproves Paul of Catagnae, for parting with his own Estate when he was made a Bishop, that he might abuse the Revenue of his Church, to live more at ease; telling him, That so long as he liveth thus, he will not communicate with him. In this Letter there is this excellent Advice; Non est Episcopatus artificium transigendae vitae fallable: Episcopacy ought not to be looked upon as an Establishment, or a Means to procure the deceitful Pleasures of this Life. This Paul being dead before the Year 408. as is plain by the Ninety sixth Letter, this Letter must have been written about the Year 405.  
In the Eighty sixth, he soliciteth Caecilian, Governor of Numidia, to restrain the Donatists about Hippo, as he had done in other Places under his Government. It was written after the Edict oh Honorius, of the Year 403. before Caecilianus was created Praefectus Praetorio, in the Year 409.  
In the Eighty seventh Letter, that was written about the same time, St. Augustin presses Emeritus, a Donatist Bishop at Caesarea, to tell the Reasons which made him separate from the Church; and refuteth those which he used to allege.  
The Eighty eighth was written by St. Augustin, in the Name of the Clergy of Hippo, to Januarius, a Donatist Bishop, after the Donatists' Deputies, that were sent in 406. to the Emperors, were rejected. It contains several Complaints against the Violences of some Donatist Clerks; and the authentic Acts of what happened in Constantine's time, concerning the business of the Donatists. About the end of the Letter, they propose a Conference.  
The Eighty ninth Letter, to Festus, is much upon the same Subject. St. Augustin gins, by justifying the Emperor's Edicts against the Donatists: Then he relates the Original of that Schism, and the Judgements whereby it was condemned. He proves, That the Donatists had no Grounds for their Separation, nor for Rebaptising Catholics. Lastly, He giveth Festus notice, That the People about Hippo still persisted in the Schism, notwithstanding his Letters, and continued their Violences.  
The Ninetieth Letter is from an Heathen, one Nectarius, who interceded with St. Augustin for his Fellow-Citizens that dwelled at Calama, who had sacrificed to Idols, contrary to the Emperor's Inhibitions, and offered Violence to some Christians. The Reason that this Pagan uses to prevail with St. Augustin, is, That it is the Duty of a Bishop to do nothing but Good to Mankind: Not to meddle with their Affairs, unless it be to make them better, and to intercede with God to pardon their Faults. Baronius is of Opinion, That this Letter was written immediately after the Laws of 399. In the last Edition it is placed in the Year 408. and what is said there of the Laws newly published, is applied to the Law of the 24th. of November, 407. directed to Curtius; which is the 19th. of the 10th. Title of the 16th. Book of the Theodosian Code.  
The next Letter is St. Augustin's Answer to Nectarius; whereby he exhorts him to turn Christian; promising, That though the Violences of those at Calama had proceeded very far, yet he would contribute, as much as the Interest of public Security would permit, to have them treated gently. He owns and approves the Maxim which he alleged concerning Episcopal Meekness; yet he asserts, That there must be Examples: The most guilty cannot be spared: That Christians do not desire to see them punished out of Revenge, but Charity obligeth them to provide for the future; yet however, they do not desire the Death of those that abused them, they desire only their Conversion: And they are but little concerned for the Losses which they sustained, but they seek after their Souls. This is (saith he in the Conclusion of his Letter) what we are seeking with the Price of our Blood: This is that Harvest which we would make plentiful at Calama; or at least, that what happened in that place, might not hinder us to make it any where else.  
In the Ninety second, to Italica, a Lady, he comforts her upon the Death of her Husband; telling her, That God cannot be seen, either in this World or in the next, with bodily Eyes. This Letter is before the Ninety ninth, directed to the same Lady, which is written in 408.  
The Ninety third, to Vincentius, a Donatist Bishop, containeth several Reasons to show that Secular Authority, and the Severity of the Laws, may be used against Schismatics, to oblige them to return into the Church. One of the chiefest, is, The Usefulness and the good Effects which the Terror of the Imperial Laws had produced, since they caused the Conversion of several whole Cities.  
St. Augustin confesses. That this Reason affected him most; That by such Examples his Colleagues brought him to their Opinions: That it was his Opinion formerly, That no Man ought to be forced: That Words only were to be used; for otherwise they could make none but counterfeit Catholics: But that having withstood all Reasons, he finally yielded to Experience. That the Laws had brought back those that continued in the Schism, only by Interest, Fear, Negligence, or other Considerations of the same Nature. Afterwards, he exhorts Vincentius to return to the Church; showing, That the true Church is that which is spread throughout the Earth. He Answers what the Donatists objected, to prove that it might be comprehended within a small number of Righteous Men; He shows, That it must necessarily be mixed with both bad and good; And at last, declares against Rebaptising. This Letter was written about the Year 408.  
The 94th. Letter, is by St. Paulinus Bishop of Nola; and the 95th. is St. Augustin's Answer to that of Paulinus. He discourseth of the Nature of Bodies after the Resurrection; and of that of Angels. It is incertain whether they have Bo●…s, or whether they are pure Spirits. These Letters are of the Year 408.  
The 96th. Letter, is an Excellent Example; showing, How little Bishops in St. Augustin's time, were given to Interest. Paulus Bishop of Catagnae, had bought an Estate in the Church's Name, with a Sum which he recovered; though he had Surrendered his own Estate for what he owed to the Royal Treasure. Boniface his Successor, not willing to benefit himself by that Fraud, declared the thing as it was; choosing either to have nothing, or to receive the whole from the Emperor's Liberality, rather than keep a thing gotten by Fraud. St. Augustin writeth this Letter to Olympius, Surveyor of the Buildings, to obtain by his means this Gratification from the Emperor, in the behalf of Boniface. Olympius not being in that Employment before the Death of Stilico, which happened in August 408, this Letter cannot have been written till towards the latter end of that Year. To the same Magistrate, and at the same time, was the following written; whereby he prayeth him to see the Laws maintained that were Published in Africa, in the time of Stilico his Predecessor; and to let the Church's Enemies know, That these Laws having been Enacted freely by the Emperor himself, they were in full force after Stilico's Death.  
In the 98th. to Boniface, St. Augustin resolves a Question that was made to him by that Bishop, namely, How the Faith of Parents can serve for their Children that are admitted to Baptism, though the incredulity of Parents can be no Prejudice to their Children, when they offer them to Daemons. St. Augustin Answers, That it is most certain, that after a Child is born, he partakes no longer of other Men's Sins; but before, he is partaker of Adam's Sin, from which he is delivered by the Operation of the Holy Ghost in the Sacrament of Baptism. That Water represents outwardly, both the Mystery and Grace, but the Holy Spirit produces the Effect. That neither the Faith of Parents, nor yet of Godfathers is the cause of this Grace; but the Prayer of the whole Church, that begets Christ in each Member. In which sense, the Godfathers Answer for the Child, that he believes, and resolves to live Christianly, because he receiveth the Sacrament of Faith, and of Conversion to God. He explains this last Notion by several Examples, and among the rest he allegeth that of the Eucharist, saying, That as the Sacrament of Christ's Body, is in some sort the Body of Christ; so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith itself; and in this sense it is said, That whosoever hath the Sacrament of Faith, hath Faith itself. This Comparison would not be very Just, if St. Augustin did not consider something else in the Eucharist, besides the external and sensible part.  
The 99th. is written to the Lady Italica, on the occasion of the first Siege of Rome, by Alaricus in 408.  
In the 100dth. Letter, St. Augustin intreateth Donatus, Proconsul of Africa, to restrain the Donatists; but not to punish them with Death. And having expressed himself with the most Pathetical terms that can be used to oblige him to Meekness, he concludes with these curious words: It is a more troublesome than profitable Labour, to compel Men to forsake a great Evil, rather by Force, than by Instruction. This Letter was written at the time when they published new Edicts against the Donatists in 408.  
The 101st. Letter to Memorius a Bishop, was joined to the Sixth Book of his Treatise of Music, which St. Augustin sent by itself to that Bishop, because he could not find his other Books upon the same Subject, that Memorius desired. This Memorius was Father to Julianus, who writ afterwards against St. Augustin, who was now a Deacon. St. Augustin gives him great Commendations in that Letter.  
The 102d. is placed in the Retractations, amongst the Books composed before the Year 411. There St. Augustin answereth Six Questions proposed by an Heathen to a Priest called Deogratias.  
The First is, concerning the Resurrection; Whether that which is promised to us, shall be like that of Jesus Christ, or like that of Lazarus; And whether after the Resurrection, Men shall be Subject to the Infirmities and Necessities of the Flesh. St. Augustin answereth, That our Resurrection shall be like that of Jesus Christ, and that after the Resurrection, we shall be freed from all cares and inconveniencies of corruptible Flesh.  
The Second Question is, If none can be Saved but by Jesus Christ, what is become of those that died before his coming? What is become of so many Millions of Souls, against whom nothing can be objected, since Christ had not yet appeared among Men? Why did not the Saviour come sooner? Let it not be said, that the Jewish Law supplied that want; for there was already an infinite number of Men upon Earth, when it was given, and yet it was neither known, nor practised but in a small corner of the World.  
St. Augustin having showed, That the Pagans were not less perplexed, with that Question, than the Christians, answers, That Jesus Christ being the Word of God, who Governed the World from the beginning, all those that knew him, and lived according to his Precepts, might be saved by the Faith which they had, that he was in God, and should come upon the Earth. He adds, That Jesus Christ would not appear in the World, and cause his Doctrine to be Preached, but at such a time, and in such Places, where he knew, that there were those who should believe in him; and that he foresaw, that in all other Places, or at any other Times, Men would be such as they have been, though the Gospel had been Preached to them. This Notion was very favourable to the Semipelagians, and they failed not to make use of it; as appears by Hilary's Letter to St. Augustin. But this Father answered them in the 9 Chap. of the Book of the Predestination of the Saints; That he did make use of the Word Foreknowledge only, because he thought it was sufficient to convince the Infidelity of the Pagans who made this Objection; and therefore he omitted to speak of that which is hid within God's Counsels of the Motives of that Dispensation: And so when he said, That Jesus Christ would not show himself, nor cause his Doctrine to be Preached but in those places, and at such a time, he knew those Persons lived, who should believe in him: It is as if he had said, That Jesus Christ did not show himself unto Men, nor suffer his Doctrine to be Preached, but in those places and at that time, when he knew, that those should live who were Elected before the Creation. He expounds again in the same place, what he had said in this Letter: That the Christian Religion never failed of being Preached to those that were worthy; and, that if it failed any, it was because they were not worthy of it. Saying, That he had not declared his Opinion concerning that which renders Men worthy, whether it is the Grace of Jesus Christ, or their own Will.  
This is the Third Question: Why should they condemn Victims, Incense and Sacrifices, seeing that from the beginning God was honoured after this manner; and that he is represented as having need of the First-Fruits of the Earth?  
Answ. God hath no need either of our Offerings, or our Sacrifices. The Service we yield to him turns to our own profit, and not to his. At all times Sacrifices have been offered to God, but they ought only to have been offered to the true God. The Sacrifices that are offered to Creatures are Sacrileges. Both the Sacrifices and the Sacraments of the Old Law are changed, and this Alteration was foretold. The New Testament is established upon the Sacrifice of the Highpriest; that is, upon the Effusion of the Blood of Christ himself; and now all Christians offer a Sacrifice that is suitable to the Manifestation of the New Covenant.  
The Fourth Question is concerning the Eternity of Punishments; against which this Maxim of the Gospel was objected; With what measure ye meet, it shall be measured to you. Every measure, say they, is limited to a certain space of time; What mean then those Threaten of Eternal Sufferings?  
St. Augustin shows, That this Question is idle and unworthy of a Philosopher; That it is impertinent to say that all measures are limited by a certain space of time, since there are other measures, besides those of time; That it is a common Saying, That a Man shall be dealt withal, as he dealeth with others, though he receiveth not precisely the same Treatment; That these words of Jesus Christ, It shall be measured unto you, after the same manner that ye measure unto others; signify only, That Men shall be Punished or Rewarded, by the same Will which made them do Good or Evil to others; that is, by the remorse of their own Consciences; That Sins and Punishments are not measured by time, but by the quality of the Will; That the Punishment of Sin is eternal; because, as the Sinner desired to enjoy Pleasure for ever, it is just that he should be Punished for it for ever.  
The Fifth Question was not difficult to solve. It was supposed that Solomon had said, That there was no Son of God. St. Augustin answers, That Solomon never said it, but the contrary.  
The Last, is a Serious Answer to the Jests of the Heathens, about the History of Ionas.  
The 103d. Letter, is a second Letter of Nectarius of Calama, who reneweth the same Request that he made in the 90th. for Pardon of his Heathen Countrymen, who had misused the Christians.  
The 104th. is an Answer of St. Augustin, where he particularly refuteth the Opinion of the Stoics, concerning the Equality of Sins. St. Augustin received Nectarius his Letter upon the 27th. of March 409. and it is probable that he returned an Answer instantly.  
The 105th. is an Exhortation to the Donatists. After he had justified the Severity of the Imperial Laws, he examines the ordinary Points of Controversy that were in dispute with those Schismatics; Proving, 1. That the Validity of Baptism dependeth not upon the holiness of the Minister. 2. That the Catholic Church cannot be confined to the Donatists. 3. That the Wicked, who were tolerated in the Catholic Church, could not hinder it from being the true Church.  
In the 106th. St. Augustin intreateth Macrobius, a Donatist Bishop at Hippo, not to Re-baptize a Sub-deacon that was gone over to their Party. St. Augustin gave this Letter to Maximus and Theodorus, who delivered it into Macrobius his own hands; who made them no Answer, but that he could not refuse to give the Faith to them that came to him; which Answer, they returned to this Saint by the 107th. Letter. St. Augustin immediately set Pen to Paper to reprove that behaviour of the Donatists, as he doth by the 108th Letter; wherein he proves, That Baptism is not to be repeated, alleging chief the Example of the Donatists themselves, who approved the 〈◊〉 of the Maximianists, whom themselves had condemned and put out of their Communion. The time of this Dispute with Macrobius, is not very certain; yet it is supposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉.  
The 1●9th. is a Letter of Compliment written to St. Augustin by Severus Bishop of Milevis, wherein he ●●●●s of the Pleasure that he found in reading his Works. He gives him high Commendations, especially for his love towards God and towards his Neighbour. St. Augustin answers him by the 110th, in a very modest and civil manner. The time of these Letters is not well known.  
The 111th. is a Consolatory Epistle, to Victorianus the Priest, concerning those Miseries which the Barbarians, who then wasted both Italy and Spain in the Year 409. caused a great number of holy Persons and Virgins consecrated to God to Suffer.  
In the 112th. Letter, St. Augustin exhorteth Donatus, who was leaving the Proconsulship, in 410, to renounce the Pomp's of the World, and to follow Jesus Christ, and to bring back to the Communion of the Church, those that had any Dependency upon him.  
The 113th. is a Letter of Recommendation to Cresconius, concerning Frumentius his Business, who was taken out of the Sanctuary of a Church, whither he was fled to secure himself from the Pursuit of one of whom he Rent a Forest.  
The Three following Letters are about the same Business. St. Augustin citys a Law that was made by Honorius the Emperor, the 21st. of January, 410. so that these Letters were written after that Year.  
The 117th. is a Note from Dioscorus, to which he joins several Questions to St. Augustin, taken out of Cicero's Dialogues. St. Augustin Answers him in the next, That it is unworthy of a Bishop to spend time in explaining such kind of Questions. He treateth afterwards of the Design which Men ought to have in their Studies, and of the chiefest Good. He Rejects the Philosopher's Opinions upon that Subject; and shows, That God is the chiefest Good. He exhorteth Dioscorus to study Christian Philosophy, discovering the Blindness and the Errors of the Heathen Philosophers. St. Augustin speaking in this Letter of the Heretics he was to Dispute with, saith nothing of the Pelagians; which makes it probable, that it was written before the Year 411. but it could not be written long before, because he declares there, that he was growing Grey.  
The 119th. containeth Consentius his Questions concerning the Mystery of the Trinity. And the 120th. containeth St. Augustin's Answers, who expounds the Faith, touching that Mystery. He treateth there of Faith, and Understanding.  
The 121st. Letter is written by St. Paulinus, who proposes to St. Augustin some Questions upon certain Passages of the Psams, of St. Paul's Epistles, and the Gospels.  
In the 122d. St. Augustin excuseth himself to his Clergy, and People, because he was obliged to be absent. He exhorts them to diminish nothing of what they were wont to do for the Poor. This Letter was written in the Year 410. when Alaric took Rome. I suppose also, that St. Jerom hinted at the Calamity, in Enigmatical Terms, in the following Letter, which is the last of the Second Class of St. Augustin's Letters.   

The Third Class.  
THE Letters of the Third Class are all those that St. Augustin writ from the Year 411. to the end of his Life.  
The First, which is the 124th. is directed to Albina, old Melania's Daughter, to Pinianus, and to the younger Melania, who had retired into Sicily, and from thence into Africa, after the Death of Rufinus, in the Year 411. and were come to Tagasta, when St. Augustin wrote this Letter; whereby he excuseth himself, that the Condition of the Church at Hippo, rather than the Severity of the Winter, hindered him from coming to them.  
Pinianus being come to Hippo, to see St. Augustin, as he was celebrating the Holy Mysteries, the People demanded, that he should be ordained Priest, and obliged him to Swear, That he should not leave the Town of Hippo; and that, if he took Orders, he would be ordained no where, but at Hippo. Albina, and her Children, complained of that Violence; believing, that the Men of Hippo had no other Design in doing so, but to fix in their Church so Rich a Man as Pinianus was; pretending, that the Oath forced upon him was not binding. St. Augustin writes to Alypius, the 125th. Letter, to justify both himself, and his People, of the Suspicions entertained of him upon that Subject, praying Alypius to remove them. He speaketh afterwards of Pinianus his Oath, and of the Obligation to keep it; whereupon, he layeth down the following Principles about the Matter of Oaths. First, That none ought to Swear to a Thing forbidden, whatsoever Fear he may be in of Death if he Sweareth not; and that he ought rather to suffer Death. 2. That when a Man has Sworn, by constraint, to a lawful Thing, he is bound to Discharge it; and cannot dispense himself from it, without being guilty of Perjury. 3. That the Bond of an Oath is performed, not when we do what is signified by the Letter, or the Terms, wherein the Oath is expressed, but when we observe what the Imposer of the Oath expects, if it be known when the Oath is taken: and so a Man may be Perjured in keeping what is signified by the Terms of the Oath, if he defeats the Expectation of him to whom the Oath is made; and that, on the contrary, this being done, there is no Perjury, though the Letter of the Oath is not observed in its proper Sense. From whence he concludes, That though Pinianus is not bound to abide at Hippo, as if that City were made a Prison for him; yet he is obliged, by his Oath, to dwell there as an Inhabitant, with Liberty to go and come, but not to go away never to return.  
In the following Letter to Albina, St. Augustin justifies himself from the Accusation that was made against his People, for detaining Pinianus out of Covetousness. He saith, That such Imputations reflect upon him, because he is Administrator of the Church's Goods, whereas the People neither disposes of, nor profits by them. Wherefore, to clear himself absolutely, he is obliged to make Oath, and to take God to witness, as he doth in this Letter, That the Administration of the Church's Goods is a Charge to him. He discourses again of the Validity of Pinianus his Oath, and of the Obligation he lay under to execute it.  
The 127th. to Armentarius, and Paulina his Wife, was written soon after Rome was taken. He exhorts them not to regard this present Life; showing also, how much they were obliged to keep the Vow of Continency, which they had made. This Letter is full of most Excellent Thoughts against the Love of the World, and of Life. Among other things, he particularly takes notice, That if, to prolong this Transitory Life, Men are not afraid to take so much Pains, to undergo so many Dangers, and Losses, much more ought they to expose themselves, for that Life which is Eternal: That all the Pains we take in this Life, to prevent Death, tend to nothing else but to keep us in Misery; that we constantly avoid the present Death; that we may be exposed to the Fear of all possible Ones. What (saith he) do not those Men endure, whom the Physicians force to endure, Fire, and the Knife; and, What is the Consequence of so many Pains? Is it to escape Death? No! but to die a little later. The Pains are certain, but the preserving of Life is uncertain; and very often the Patient dies in those Torments, to which he exposes himself for fear of Death; and choosing to suffer not to die, instead of choosing to die to prevent suffering, it happens that they meet with Death in the midst of those Sufferings, which they choose to undergo to avoid it▪ But the greatest Evil, and the most to be abhorred, is, That to lengthen this wretched Life a little, we displease God who is the spring of true Life.▪ Besides, tho' such a miserable Life, as this is, could continue for ever, yet were it not to be compared with an happy Life, tho' never so short. In the mean time, the love of this Life, as short as miserable, makes us lose a Life that is not only Happy, but Eternal; tho' in that very Life, which we so unhappily love, we seek for nothing but what we may be secure of in the other, and which the love of this makes us lose. For what do we love, by loving a Life so wretched, and so short? It is not the misery of it, since we desire to be happy, nor the shortness of it, since we fear to see the end. We love it therefore, only because it is Life; and this alone, makes us love it, tho' short and miserable. From these Principles he concludes, That we should love nothing but eternal Life; shake off all Clogs, and Cares of present Things; cleave solely to Jesus Christ, to whom we should have our Recourse, as to the chief Physician, who alone is able to ease our Pains, and satisfy our Desires.  
The 128th. Letter, is a Declaration of the Catholic Bishops to Marcellinus. The Emperor's Commissioner, appointed to be at the Conference betwixt the Catholic Bishops, and the Donatists, by which Declaration they submit themselves to all the Conditions of the Order, given by Marcellinus; and give their consent, That in case the Donatist Bishops yield in the Conference, and be convicted of Schism, yet they should be maintained in their Dignity; so that in the Places, where there was a Bishop of each Communion, they should Govern jointly, till the Death of the one; or that both should give up, and a Third be chosen: And, that though they granted this Advantage to the Donatists, yet they made no Conditions for themselves, but were contented to lose their Dignity, if the Donatists had the better in the Conference.  
Marcellinus, by his Order, had appointed a certain Number of Bishops of each Party, to be at the Conference; but the Donatists desiring to be all there, made a Solemn Declaration. The Catholic Bishops gave their Consent by the 129th. Letter. The time of these Two last cannot be doubted, seeing they relate to the Conference at Carthage, appointed the 14th. of October, 410. and began the 1st of June, 411.  
The 130th. is directed to the illustrious and pious Lady Proba Falconia, the Widow of Probus, Praefectus Praetorio, and Consul in 371. who withdrew into Africa after the taking of Rome. This Holy Widow having desired St. Augustin to write to her concerning Prayer, this Saint gives her, by this Letter, excellent Instructions about the manner how we ought to Pray, and the necessary Disposition to do it well. He discourses there of the Contempt of Riches, of renouncing the World, of that true Happiness which ought to be prayed for, and of love of our Neighbour. He proves, That true Praying is from the Heart. He explains in few Words, the Lord's Prayer; showing; That it contains what we are to Pray for. He observes that we may desire to be delivered from Pain, Sickness, and Afflictions; but that we are not to desire with impatience, nor to think that God regards us not, when we obtain not that ease which we desire. This Letter is full of very Christian and Sublime Maxims, and Notions, very useful for Pious Persons.  
The 131st. to the same Lady, hath nothing Remarkable; he thanks her for enquiring after his Health.  
In the 132d. Letter, St. Augustin exhorts Volusian, to whom it is written, to read the Scriptures, and to propose to him those Difficulties which he shall meet with.  
In the 133d. Letter, St. Augustin entreateth. Marcellinus not to punish those Donatists with Death, who had confessed their Crimes by Torture; and to have respect, in the Choice of Punishments, to that Meekness which the Church professeth to exercise towards all Men.  
The next Letter contains the like Entreaties to the Proconsul, Apringius. Both these were written after the Imperial Law against the Donatists was enacted in 412.  
By the 135th. Volusianus desires a Solution of the Difficulties proposed against the Christian Religion, which centred all in this Objection, How God should so humble himself as to become Man? With this Letter came another from Marcellinus, which is the 136th. wherein he desireth St. Augustin, to answer the Questions made by Volusianus; adding some other Objections of the Enemies of the Christian Religion. They said, That God had abolished the Old Law, either out of Inconstancy, or because he was weary of it. That the Doctrine of the Gospel was contrary to States; and that the Christian Emperors had done great Dis-service to the Affairs of the Commonwealth.  
St. Augustin in the 137th. answereth Volusianus his Questions. He lays down this Rule at First, That though there are such Deep Things in the Scripture, that a Man may daily make new Discoveries, how Learned and Quick soever he be; yet it is not difficult to arrive to the Knowledge of what is necessary to be known to be Saved. Afterward, he answereth Volusianus his Question concerning the Incarnation; showing, That though the Word was made Man; yet he did not give over the Care of Things upon Earth, nor ceased to be every where, and to Govern all Things: That the Union of the Soul with the Body, which daily happeneth, is not less difficult to be comprehended than that of God with Man; which happened but once to save Men from their Sins. Here he lays down very powerful Arguments, to persuade Men to believe the Incarnation of Jesus Christ; as, The Original of the People of Israel; God's Deal with them; his choosing them to be his beloved People; the Laws and Ceremonies of the Old Testament, which had all a relation to Jesus Christ; the Predictions of the Prophets; the Life, Actions, and the Death of Christ; the Establishment of the Church; its Increase, and Preservation; the greatness and sublimity of the Morals that were taught in it; the plain Style of the Scripture, which makes it accessable to all Mankind, though there are such Depths, as few Minds can penetrate, and other such Considerations which are sufficient to prove the Truth of the Christian Religion.  
In the following Letter, St. Augustin replies to the Objections made by Marcellinus: The First is about the Alteration of the Old Law, which they imputed either to Envy, or to Inconstancy in God. St. Augustin saith, That God is unchangeable in all that concerns himself; and, that as he hath given Precepts, and Ordinances for the Good of Man, so it is for the same End that he sometimes changeth them; as he judgeth it may be more convenient for them.  
The Second Objection, proposed by Marcellinus, seems more difficult. They accused Christ's Doctrine, as inconsistent with the Wellbeing of the State; because it forbids rendering Evil for Evil; Commands turning the other Cheek; giving the Cloak also to them that offer to take our Coats; and to go Two Miles with him that forceth us to go one. These Precepts say they, are contrary to the Practice of Commonwealths: For who is he that will suffer his Enemy to take away his Goods? Who doth not seek to return Evil for Evil to Barbarians, who come to lay the Provinces of the Empire waste?  
St. Augustin refutes this Objection; showing, that this Maxim here looked upon as contrary to the good of the State, was a Maxim of the Old Romans, who thought it worthy of their Greatness, and profitable for the Commonwealth to forgive Injuries: That Cicero exalting Caesar for a great Prince, commendeth him for his readiness to forgive Injuries: That such Things are read with Admiration in Profane Writings, whilst they are despised in Christian Books, where they are more Plainly, and more nobly expressed. He proves afterwards, That these Divine Books are so far from being contrary to the Happiness of Governments, that they are most proper to maintain Peace and Concord: That however, they are not to be understood literally; and that we are not absolutely forbidden to defend ourselves, or to punish Crimes; but only, that Men should not act by a Principle of Revenge, but with a Design to do good to him that offends us: So that these Precepts of Jesus Christ, have respect to the Disposition of the Heart, rather than to what is done outwardly, and tend only but to preserve Patience, and Charity in their Hearts, leaving us the Liberty to do what we think may conduce most to the Advantage of those to whom we desire to do Good.  
Having alleged both Christ's and St. Paul's Example, to justify such a Carriage; he adds, That this hinders not the Execution of Justice against Evil Doers, provided it be done with a Spirit of Charity: That War itself may be managed with the same Spirit, when Men desire to Conquer, with a Design to do Good to the Vanquished, and keep them from doing Hurt. Then he answereth Marcellinus' last Objection; showing, That the Christian Emperors ought not to be charged with the decay of the Empire; the Heathen themselves having confessed, that their own Manners, and the Vices of the Romans, were the main Causes of it. He showeth, likewise, how Contemptible the Juggle of Apollonius, and Apuleius were, in comparison of the Miracles of Christ, and his Apostles.  
The 139th. Letter is likewise directed to the same Marcellinus, but upon another Subject. He speaks of Publishing the Acts of the Conference at Carthage: He earnestly conjures him to hinder the Donatists, that were cast into Prison, from being put to Death. He mentions his Books of Baptism; His Abridgement of the Conference of Carthage; A Letter to the Donatists; Two foregoing Letters; and that which follows, directed to Honoratus: Whereby it appears, that all these Discourses belong to the Year 412.  
The 140th. Letter, is this just now mentioned, directed to Honoratus, and written concerning Five Questions. He treats of Grace, of the New Covenant, and of the Design of Christ's Incarnation. He observes, at first, that every Man hath a Soul endued with Reason; but very different Uses are made of it. Some use their Reason with no other prospect but to please their Senses; others on the contrary, seek after those good things which concern their Soul, and which are of a Nature above their own. The Soul may make a good use of Temporal Happiness, but that is only when it is applied to the Service of the Creator: for all Substances being good in their Nature; it is a good thing to use them in order, and not thereby to oppose the Order of the Creator: And the ill use which Men make of good things, doth not hinder the good use, which God knows how to make, even of evil ones. For his Justice by Punishing, brings into order those whose Injustice put them out of order by Sin. God granted this Temporal Felicity in the Old Covenant, which neither promised, nor afforded any but Temporal Advantages; but at the same time he revealed the New Covenant, whereof the Old was but a Figure; Tho' but a small number of Saints have taken notice of it, and even these, though Ministers of the Old Covenant, belonged to the New. But in the fullness of time, the Word of God was united with Man to be a Light to the Nations, and those that received it, became the Children of God, not Children by Nature as Jesus Christ is, but Children by Adoption and Grace. It is he that taught us to despise the things of this Life, and to value none but those which we shall enjoy in the other. This is the Oeconomy of the New Covenant, which St. Augustin explains at large in this Letter. He proveth it by the Exposition of the 22d. Psalms, which gins with these words, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Which was the Subject of Honoratus' first Question. He insists chief upon showing, That Christians ought not to put their Trust and Confidence in the good things of this World; but to love and seek after that only which concerns the next. This is almost the sole design of this Letter, to justify that the love of Spiritual and Eternal Blessings is the only aim of the New Covenant; To the same purpose he expounds also the beginning of St. John's Gospel; the Parable of the ten Wise and ten Foolish Virgins; these words of St. Paul, Eph. 3. I pray God that being firmly settled, rooted and grounded in love, you may be able to comprehend with all Saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth; and what is said in the Gospel concerning utter Darkness, which were the Subject of Honoratus' five Questions. This Man was but a Catechumen, and yet St. Augustin sets before him the most sublime and the highest things of the Christian Religion; and yet when he speaks of the Eucharist, he doth not clearly explain it; but only tells him, That he shall know after Baptism, in what time, and after what manner it is offered: But he declareth plainly enough what he believed concerning the Eucharist, saying, That Proud Men who come to the Lord's Table, do indeed receive his Body and Blood, and adore it, but they are not fed therewith; because they imitate him not, and though they eat it, yet they refuse to become poor as he was. At the latter end of his Letter, he speaketh against those who put their Confidence in their own Strength, and not in the Grace of Jesus Christ. This is in short what St. Augustin treats of in this Letter, which may be looked upon as a Treatise, as he says himself in the Conclusion, and in his Retractations; where he places it amongst his entire Discourses.  
The 141st. is a Synodical Epistle of an Assembly of Catholic Bishops held at Cirta, directed to all the Donatists, whereby they are exhorted to return into the Church; Their Bishops having been so solemnly confounded and convicted in the Conference at Carthage, of which he gives a short Abridgement in that Letter. It bears Date the 14th. of June 412.  
The next Letter to Saturninus, Euphratus, and the Clergy newly returned into the Unity of the Church, is of the same time. St. Augustin Congratulates their reunion, endeavours to confirm them in the good Resolution they had taken, and exhorts them to discharge their Ministry faithfully.  
In the 143d. Letter, St. Augustin answereth a Question proposed to him by Marcellinus, to whom it is written: namely, where the Magicians of Egypt could find Water to turn into Blood, when Moses had turned all the Water that was there already. He saith, That this Question may be answered two ways; either by saying, That they took Water out of the Sea; or, by supposing, That the Plagues of Egypt had their Effect only where Egyptians were, but not where the Children of Israel dwelled. Having thus dis-entangled himself of the Question, he explains some Passages of his Books concerning freewill, and the Original of Souls. He confesses, That his Writings having been written with Precipitation, some faults could not but creep in. He sincerely acknowledgeth, That even in Writing he perceived faults, and that he corrects and reproves them, being far from hiding or defending them. He saith, That he is not like those, who through excessive love of themselves, and to cover their own Errors, would leave others in theirs; That he would not have his best Friends to say, That he was not mistaken. He wisely observeth, That none ought to approve the Commendation given by Cicero to one, That he never uttered one word which he wished afterwards he had not spoken. This says he, belongeth to a Mad man, rather than to a Wise man; This cannot be applied but to Divine Persons, by whom the Holy Ghost hath spoken. He confesses, That he is still uncertain concerning the Origin of our Souls; because neither Scripture nor Reason have determined the Point. He further saith, That Scripture and Reason cannot be contrary to one another; That if Reason seems to be contrary to the Scripture, it is a false Light, it is not right Reason. That if what is drawn from Scripture, is found directly opposed to clear Reason; there must be a misunderstanding of the Scripture. Lastly, He refutes Volusianus, who would hardly believe what he had writ to him, that the Blessed Virgin could conceive Jesus Christ, and remain a Virgin still: This Letter is of the Year 412. for it is written after the 139th. and there St. Augustin Answers a Letter of Marcellinus, brought by Boniface, who was with Marcellinus when St. Augustin writ the 139th. Letter.  
In the 144th. Letter, St. Augustin Congratulates the Men of Cirta, who returned to the Church exhorting them to give God thanks for it, as being the effect of his Mercy. He saith, That the Change of those who quit a Debauched Life to lead a better, without giving up themselves to God; as that of Polemon was, ought however to be looked upon as God's Work. For, saith he, nothing but the height of Pride and of Ingratitude, can imagine that the Beauty of the Body, Strength, and Health are God's Gifts; and that Chastity, which makes the Beauty of the Soul, can be the work of Man. Whence he concludes, That the Conversion of those to whom he writ, is much the rather the Work of God's Mercy. He exhorts them to acknowledge it. To God, saith he, you are to give Thanks; fear him if you will be kept from falling, love him if you intent to go forward. DEUM TIMETE NE DEFICIATIS, AMATE UT PROFICIATIS. This Letter was written after the Conference at Carthage.  
The 145th. to Anastasius comprehendeth most of St. Augustin's Principles of Justification, for having observed that the World is more to be feared when it fawns upon us, than when it torments us, he layeth down these following Principles, 1. That the love of earthly Goods cannot be totally laid aside in this Life, and it will always have a share in our best Actions. 2. That the Will of Man cannot be called Free, without the assistance of Grace. 3. That the Law serveth to make us know our Impotency, that we may have our recourse to Grace. That Sin is not overcome whilst Men forbear it merely for fear of Punishment. For, saith he, though Men go not so far as to the outward Action, yet the secret Desire of doing Evil, in the heart, which is restrained only by the fear of Punishment, is a Tyrant that keeps us in Slavery, And thus it may be said, That whosoever abstaineth from Sin, only for the dread of Suffering, is not altogether an Enemy to Sin; because he is not perfectly in love with Righteousness; and that Sin is not properly hated, but proportionably as Righteousness is loved. INIMICUS ERGO EST JUSTITIAE QUI POENAE TIMORE NON PECCAT▪ TANTUM PORRO QUISQUE PECCATUM ODIT, QUANTUM JUSTITIAM DILIGIT. 5. That the love of Righteousness ought to go further than the love of Sin; because it should proceed so far as that all the Mischief which can thereby befall our Bodies, may not hinder us from practising our Duty; and so nothing may separate us from the love of Jesus Christ, and Righteousness. 6. It is the Holy Ghost who poureth that Charity into our Hearts; we have it not of ourselves, and when we find ourselves destitute of it, we must, Ask, Seek, and Knock; addressing ourselves to God by Prayer. This Letter was written about the time that the Pelagian Heresy began to be known in Africa, in 413.  
The following, which is a Letter of Thanks to Pelagius, is likewise about the same time, as St. Augustin observes in the 26th. Chap. of the Book of the Acts of Pelagius. He having already heard that this Man opposed the Grace of Jesus Christ, he hints at some thing of it in this Letter; wishing, That God would give him such Grace as might make him good always; praying him, That he would beg of God to make him such, as he believed him to be already; adding in the end of the Letter, I pray God, my Dear Brother, that he would be pleased to make you acceptable in his sight.  
St. Augustin in his Retractations, mentions the two following Letters; The 147th. to Pauli●●, and the 148th. to Fortunatianus Bishop of Sicca, and placeth them after the Books composed in 412. And indeed, this Bishop of Sicca, who was at the Conference of Carthage, died in 413. and Urbanus succeeded him, and was deputed that very Year to go to Rome. St. Augustin proves in both those Letters, That God cannot be seen with bodily Eyes. In the former, he explains, What it is to see God; How he is seen; Who they are that have seen him; and, Who shall see him hereafter.  
The 149th. is an Answer of St. Augustin, to the Questions proposed by St. Paulinus, in the 121st. Letter, about some Passages of Scripture; He critically examines the Difficulties that were raised about St. Paul's Epistles, and gives a Rational Account of them. This Letter was written about the Year 414. after the Promotion of Urbanus to the Bishopric of Sicca.  
The 150th. is written to Proba, and to her Daughter Juliana; He wishes them joy, That Demetrias, Juliana's Daughter, had consecrated herself to God in vowing Virginity. It is full of noble Expressions, in Commendation of Virginity.  
Count Marcellinus, who presided at the Conference of Carthage, was Executed in the Year 413. at Carthage, with his Brother Apringius, by order of Count Marinus, being Accused of abetting Heraclianus his Rebellion: St. Augustin being his Friend, and knowing his Innocency, used all his Endeavours to hinder that Judgement; and was sensibly affected for the Death of those innocent Persons. A great Lord, one Caecilian, St. Augustin's Friend, and an Enemy to the two Brothers, being at Carthage the same time when this Judgement was given, was suspected to have had a hand in it; and St. Augustin having forborn writing to him for some time, this Lord thought that he had also conceived the same Suspicion; wherefore he wrote to St. Augustin about it. To this Letter St. Augustin returns an Answer in the 151st. wherein he represents, both the Cruelty and Injustice of Marinus' Judgement, and what had made the World believe that Caecilian had a hand in it. Yet he professes not to believe it, considering what he had written to justify himself; but he exhorts him to renounce all manner of Friendship with Marinus. Afterwards he makes a Panegyric upon these two Brethren without naming them, and particularly of Marcellinus; giving an Account of the edifying Discourses he made in the Prison: This is a remarkable thing. St. Augustin declares, That having been to visit him in the Prison, he demanded of him, whether he had ever committed any Sin for which he ought to have done Penance; and that Marcellinus made him this Answer, That he took to witness those Sacraments which that hand brought him, that neither before nor after Marriage, he ever touched any Woman, but his own Wife. This Passage teaches us, That Pastors were careful to visit Prisoners, to assist, and carry the Sacraments to them, and enjoined them Penance when they found them guilty of great Sins; and there is no doubt, but that after Penance they also gave them Absolution, when they feared that they should be Condemned to Die; but upon condition, that if they escaped Death they should fulfil their Penance. At last, St. Augustin sets Marcellinus his Innocence against the Cruelty and unworthiness of Marinus' Action, whom he describes as a very ill man, who had Sacrificed those two innocent Persons to please the Donatists. He again advises Caecilian to abhor that Action, and to conceive such an Indignation against him that committed it, as might oblige him to a Penance proportionable to the greatness of his Crime. At last, he tells him, That being of such an Age, and of such Probity, he ought no longer to continue a Catechumen. Marcellinus, who had been so barbarously used by Marinus, was justified at Court. St. Augustin saith, That there was not so much as need of a Pardon from the Emperor, and had not Marinus hastened the Judgement against Marcellinus, without waiting for the Bishop's Answer, who was sent to the Emperor to solicit his Pardon, he had been acquitted; and accordingly, Marinus was disgraced, and the Memory of Marcellinus honoured by the Emperor Honorius, who by a Law of the Third of August 414. Registered in the Theodosian Code, B. 16. Tit. 5. L. 55. confirms all that he had done against the Donatists, and gives him the Title of Marcellinus of Glorious Memory.  
The 152d. Letter is from Macedonius, Lieutenant of Africa, who desires to know of St. Augustin, whether Religion permits Bishops to make Applications to Judges to obtain favour for Enemies, as they did at that time, and as St. Augustin often did of Macedonius. This Magistrate could hardly believe that Religion authorised that Practice; Seeing that God doth so severely forbidden Sin, that a Man is not admitted to Penance after the first time; and that it seems to be a countenancing of Crimes when we show an unwillingness to have them punished.  
St. Augustin in the 153d. Letter, answereth, That Bishops intercede for Criminals, because they hope they may amend: They abhor the Crime, but they pity the Criminals: That Repentance having no place but in this Life, there is reason to intercede for the Guilty, lest by this finite Punishment which ends their life, they may fall into a Punishment that shall never end. So that none can doubt but that Religion approveth that Practice, since God himself, in whom is no Injustice; who seethe what every Man is, and what he ought to be, and cannot be mistaken in his Judgements, causeth his Sun to rise upon the bad as well as upon the good, and by his long forbearance invites Sinners to Repentance. That when Bishops by their Intercessions, have rescued any from the severity of the Judges, they put him to do Penance, that the Crime may not remain unpunished. For, saith he, a true Penitent hath no other prospect, than that the Evil which he hath done may be punished. That if there be any Persons whose Malice is so great, that after Penance, and being reconciled and admitted to the Holy Mysteries, they relapse into their Disorders, and sometimes into greater; then indeed, the Church admits them no more to do Penance, lest a Remedy, (which is so much the more profitable, that it is least exposed to the contempt of Sinners) should lose its Virtue, if it become more common: But yet, we despair not, of their Salvation, which they may obtain through God's Mercy, by being converted and altering their Life. Afterwards, St. Augustin allegeth several Reasons in Equity, and several Examples, to show, That we are not forbidden to intercede for Criminals; and that all Men ought to be inclined to Meekness and Pity. The principal Consideration which he makes use of, is the State of Man in this Life, which cannot be without Sin. For, saith he, Though the Sins which we commit, after the general abolishment in Baptism, are not of the same quality with those for which Men are separated from the Altar; yet they must be expiated, not by a barren Sorrow, but by a Sacrifice of the Works of Mercy.  
St. Augustin acknowledgeth, That the Sovereign Power of Princes; the Power of Life and Death, and the dread of Punishments, are all necessary to restrain Wicked Men, and the Terror which these things strike into the Hearts of Men, is of great advantage, not only to the good, who by this means live securely among the wicked, but even to the wicked themselves; because whilst their Hands are tied by the fear of Punishment, their Hearts may call upon God, and turn from Evil to Good: For (saith he) they are not good Men, because they abstain from Evil through fear of Suffering; for Fear does not make Men Good, but only the Love of Righteousness.  
He tells us further, That upon some occasions, it is Mercy to Punish; and in others, Cruelty to Forgive: Sicut enim est aliquando misericordia puniens, ita est crudelitas parcens. He speaketh at last, of Restoring Stoin Goods, or such as are ill gotten: And concerning these, he saith, (1.) That it is a Mockery, not to do Penance; not to restore, when it is in our power, the Goods that are gotten by those Crimes for which we pretend to do Penance. (2.) That though a Judge may, without Injustice, appoint Punishments to oblige a Thief to make Restitution; yet one may intercede for him, not to prevent restoring what is taken away, since we bind them to it by the dread of God's Judgements, and debarr them from the Communion till they have done it; but only by way of preventing unnecessary Cruelty against a Man that is supposed not to be in a capacity of making Restitution, or not fully convicted of the Theft. (3.) That when we have not evident Proofs that such a one is possessed of our Goods, it is better to hazard losing them, though perhaps he is guilty, but denies it, than to torment and put him to Death, perhaps unjustly, if he hath them not. An excellent Caveat to teach Masters not to be too forward to seize upon their Servants, merely upon Suspicion. (4.) That Lawyers may take Money for their Advice in a just Cause, but not Judges to do Justice, nor Witnesses to give Testimony to Truth: and that both are exceedingly guilty when they take Money; the one for an Unjust Sentence, and the other for a False Witness. (5.) That Lawyers having taken Money ●o defend an ill Cause, or to blind the Judge, are obliged to make Restitution, as well as the Witnesses or Officers, who exact Fees beyond what belong to their Places. (6.) That Estates gotten by Stealth, False Accusation, or Oppression, aught to be restored; and that it is not enough, to bestow them upon the Poor. (7.) That in some sense it may be said, That wicked Men have Nothing, but that All things belong to the Faithful. For (saith St. Augustin) whatsoever we have which we have no Right to, belongs to another, and we have Right to nothing but what we justly possess; and we possess nothing justly, but what we possess as we ought: and all that we possess not as we ought, is another's; and we possess nothing as we ought, if we make not good use of it▪ So that wicked Men never possess any thing as they ought; and good Men enjoy it so much the more justly, because they love it less. Strange Consequences would follow from this Position, had not St. Augustin added this Restriction immediately; But their Iniquity is tolerated, who possess not this World's Goods as they ought; yea, Laws are established to secure their Possession; and are called Civil Laws, because that by them Civil Society is preserved; not by obliging them to use those Goods as they ought, but by preventing their abusing them for the Oppression of others .... Yet we have respect to these Humane and Temporal Laws; and our Intercessions never go so far, as to hinder the restoring of what is ill gotten, according to the Laws.  
The 154th. Letter is from Macedonius; who sendeth St. Augustin word, That he had done what he desired; and, That he had read the Three First Books of The City of God, which St. Augustin sent him.  
St. Augustin answers him in the 155th. wherein he discourses of Happiness; showing, That God is the Spring of a happy Life, and that true Virtue consists in the Love of God: Virtue (saith he) is nothing else but the love of what ought to be loved: To know how to make a good Choice, is called Prudence; not to be turned away from it, for any Evil, by Pleasure or Pride, is called Fortitude, Temperance and Justice. Thus God is the chiefest Good: so that to love any other thing more, or as much as him, is not to love ourselves; for our Condition is so much the more happy, as we approach with greater violence towards that which is best.  
These four Letters were written immediately after St. Augustin had composed his three first Books of The City of God; which were completed in 413. before the Fourth and the Fifth, which were published in 415.  
The 156th. Letter was written from Syracuse, by one Hilary; who desireth St. Augustin to let him know what he should think of certain Propositions, set forth by some at Syracuse; That it is in Man's power to keep himself pure from all Sin; That it is easy for him, if he please, to keep the Commands of God; That Men are born without Sin, and by consequence, that it is inconsistent with the Justice of God, that Children dying before Baptism, should perish; That rich Men cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, without renouncing their Riches, and selling all they have, and giving it to the Poor; And that whilst they keep them, all the good Works they may do, according to God's Law, will profit them nothing: And lastly, That we ought to Swear in no case. He asketh further, Whether the Church without spot or wrinkle, spoken of by St. Paul, is that to which we now belong, or that which we hope to make up one day with the blessed in Heaven. This Hilary, of Syracuse, is very like that Hilary who joined with St. Prosper to refute the Semi-Pelagians, and who writ to St. Augustin the 226th. Letter; both were Laymen, since St. Augustin calleth them Sons: They were both great Enemies of the Pelagians, Disciples and great Admirers of St. Augustin: The Style of both Letters seems to be the same, which makes it probable that they were both written by the same Person.  
Be that as it will, in the next St. Augustin answereth the Questions proposed in this Letter; which gave him opportunity to treat at large of Original Sin; Of the Corruption of our Nature; Of Justification, and of the Grace of Jesus Christ: And to prove against the Pelagians, (1.) That no Man can be free from Sin in this Life. (2) That no Man can fulfil the Law without the Grace of Jesus Christ, which is obtained by Labour and by Prayer. (3.) That Grace doth not take away Liberty; because the Will of Man is by so much the more free, as it is the more subject to Christ's Grace, and delivered from the Dominion of Sin: We should not think that freewill is destroyed, because it needeth such Helps; on the contrary, it supposes that it subsists still, when we say that it hath need of help. (4.) That we learn of St. Paul, That all the Children of Adam are born in sin; and perish eternally, if they are not sanctified by the Grace of Baptism. Here he refuteth the Pelagians very fully; who answered, That Sin was not from Adam, but by Imitation: And he enlargeth upon the Opposition which St. Paul makes between Adam and Jesus Christ; between the Condemnation caused by the Old Man because of Sin, and the Justification which the New Man worketh in us by his Grace. Having handled these Points, he speaks occasionally against Coelestius, who had been both accused and convicted of those Errors which St. Augustin had lately refuted. Afterwards this Saint discourses against another Pelagian Error concerning Manners; and proveth, (1.) That to be saved, Men need not part with their whole Estate, and reduce themselves to entire Poverty. And lastly, he observes, That the Church here below consists both of Good and Bad. He adds further, concerning Swearing, That Men should avoid Swearing as much as possibly they can: That it is best, not to Swear at all; no, not in Truth; because those that are used to Swearing, are every moment upon the brink of Perjury: That it is a most dangerous thing to play with Oaths; but the surest way, is, never to Swear, and use only Yea and Nay. St. Jerom mentions this Letter in his Dialogue, written in the Year 415. and speaks of it as a Discourse newly published. It was read in the Council of Palestine, assembled in July, 415. as St. Augustin observes in the Book of The Acts of Pelagius, chap. 11. which shows that it was written in the Year 414.  
The Subject of the 158th. Letter is as followeth; Evodius, Bishop of Uzala, having given an Account of a Young Man's happy Death, who had led a most holy Life, and had appeared to some after his Death; proposes some Questions to St. Augustin about such Apparitions, and asks, Whether the Soul hath not a Body after Death? We ought not to forget that this Bishop, speaking of that Young Man's Death, observes, That in his Sickness he repeated Psalms, and in his Agony he made the Sign of the Cross upon his Forehead: That they buried him honourably, and for Three Days together Hymns were sung upon his Grave, and on the Third Day they offered the Sacrifice of our Redemption. At the latter end of this Letter, Evodius asks St. Augustin some other Questions about the difference betwixt God's and Man's Wisdom.  
St. Augustin answers that Bishop in the 159th. and tells him, That this Question requireth much Labour and Study to resolve all the Difficulties that may be in it. But to let him know his Opinion in one word, He did not believe that the Soul did go out of the Body with a Body: That as to Visions and Apparitions, nothing can be said, without deciding after what manner an infinite number of different Ideas are raised in our Souls: which is a thing very hard to be comprehended; though it is certain, that such Representations are neither Corporeal Motions, nor Corporeal Qualities. He refers Evodius to what he had said concerning that Matter, in his Book upon Genesis; and contents himself to tell him what happened to Gennadius, a Physician at Carthage; who doubting whether there was another Life, was convinced of it by a Young Man that appeared to him in a Dream; and made him apprehend, that since he did both hear and see him, though his Eyes were shut, and had no use of his Ears, that even so after Death, though he should have no bodily Eyes, yet he should see, and feel, and live.  
The 160th. and 161st. are both by Evodius. In the first, he asketh St. Augustin what God is? and what is Reason? And in the Second, he desireth him to explain a Passage in his 137th. Letter to Volusianus.  
St. Augustin answereth both by the 162d. Wherein he tells Evodius, That he had not Time enough to answer those Questions, but he had already resolved several of them, in his Books of the Trinity; Of freewill; Of the Quantity of the Soul; and, Of True Religion. He confirms what he had said in the 159th. Letter, touching a Soul separated from the Body; and about Apparitions. And at last justifieth what he had said of the Incarnation to Volusianus; If a Reason could be given of that Mystery, then would it cease to be Wonderful: Were there an Example of it, it would not be Singular.  
Though St. Augustin had signified to Evodius, That he was not at leisure to answer such sort of Questions; yet this Man proposes two more in his 163d. Letter: The former, concerning the Original of Christ's Soul; and the other, about a difficult Passage in St. Peter's Epistle, where it is said, That Jesus Christ preached in the Spirit to the Spirits in Prison; which some time were disobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah.  
St. Augustin resolveth both these Questions in the 164th. Letter: And beginning with the latter, he saith, (1.) That no Man can doubt of Christ's Descent into Hell. (2.) That he did not deliver all Men from thence, but only such as he judged worthy to be delivered. (3) That almost the whole Church believes that Jesus Christ delivered our First Father; and some others think, That he brought out the other Patriarches and the Prophets: But that it is more probable that these righteous Men were not in Hell, but in another Place, called Abraham's Bosom. (4) That those just Men who were raised again when Christ died, did take again their Bodies to die a second time. (5.) In cannot be said, That Jesus Christ preached the Gospel in the other World, to those that were Incredulous in this Life. (6.) That that Passage of St. Peter, is not to be understood of the Spirits or Souls detained in Hell; but of the Spirits who lived in the days of Noah, whom the Word did then enlighten: So that St. Peter's meaning, in St. Augustin's Opinion, is not, that Christ descended into Hell, to preach the Gospel to those who believed not, in Noah's time; but that Jesus Christ dying for us, was raised again by the same Spirit by whom he formerly preached, or by which he formerly instructed Unbelievers, in the days when Noah prepared the Ark, whilst God's Patience waited and invited them to Repentance. (7.) That Christ's Birth was not defiled with Sin; and though he took in the Womb of a Virgin true Humane Flesh, yet was it not sinful Flesh, because Lust had no hand in forming of that Flesh. This brings him insensibly to the other Question, about the Original of the Soul. St. Augustin is still to seek about that Subject, and dareth not declare for any of the four Opinions that divided the Christians at that time, but clearly disowns the Notion, That for the Punishment of some Sins committed in another Life, the Soul is cast into the Body, as into a Prison: But maintains, That it is certain that Christ's Soul was not subject either to the Death of Sin, or to Condemnation. All these Letters of Evodius, and these Answers of St. Augustin, were written not long after one another, after that to Volusianus, in the Year 414.  
The 165th. is a Letter of St. Jerom to Marcellinus and Anapsychia: Wherein this Father having related the several Opinions about the Origination of the Soul, adviseth them to address themselves to St. Augustin, if they desired to know more. It is visible, that this was written before the former; because it is directed to Count Marcellinus, who was executed in 413. but it is placed here, because of its relation with the following Letter of St. Augustin, which is a Treatise upon the Soul's Original, dedicated to St. Jerom, and sent to him by Orosius, in the Year 415.  
St. Augustin having observed, That the Soul cannot be called a Body, if by Body be understood an extended Substance; though it might be termed Corporeal in another sense, if this Term be taken at large to signify Substance in general: he proposes then to St. Jerom the several Opinions concerning the Soul's Original; starting some Difficulties upon that which St. Jerom seemed to approve best; yet it is that which we now hold, That Souls are created and put into our Bodies at the Birth of each Person. He insists particularly upon this, That it is difficult to make that consist with Original Sin, and with what the Church believes concerning Children that die without Baptism; and so he asketh of St. Jerom a Solution of these Objections, having answered the Reasons alleged against that Opinion which seemed most probable to St. Augustin. He takes notice, That the Innocents' were honoured in the Church, as Martyrs.  
The next Letter to St. Jerom, upon these words of St. James, ch. 2. v. 10. He that transgresses in one point, is guilty of all, was written immediately after the foregoing, as St. Augustin observes in his Retractations. He desireth St. Jerom to explain that Passage to him; and himself giveth an Explication of it, which he submits to St. Jerom's Judgement. He examineth the Stoics Opinions, who taught, That all Sins were equal; and that of the Philosophers, who affirmed, That it was impossible to have any one Virtue, without being endowed with all. Having bandied these Questions on both Sides, he concludes, That though it were true, That One Virtue could not be alone; yet it would not follow, That All Sins were equal: But however, it is not true, That all Virtues must necessarily be joined together: because Virtue being no other thing than the love of what one ought to love, a Man may have more or less of this Love; for no Man can attain to perfect Charity in this Life. This being supposed, he saith, That whosoever transgresseth the Law in One Point, is guilty of breaking the Whole; because Sin is against Charity, and Charity is the fulfilling of the Law. But from hence it doth not follow that all Sins are equal; because that though every Sin violates Charity, upon which the Law dependeth; yet that hinders not but that a Man is more or less guilty, according as the Sins he commits are greater or less. In a word, There is more or less Sin in us, according as there is more or less Charity; and we shall never be perfect in Charity, before we are delivered from the weakness of this mortal Flesh. Lastly, We ought not to despise small Sins, or daily Faults; but ask God Pardon for them, and blot them out by constant Prayers, and good Works. Whosoever should neglect to expiate them; and who thinking himself over-righteous, should ask of God to be judged without Mercy, would doubtless come to Christ's judgment-seat overwhelmed with Sins that would weigh him down, and would find no Mercy.  
The 168th. is a Letter of Thanks, which both Timasius and James return to St. Augustin, for his Book of Nature and Grace, composed in 415. which was dedicated to them.  
In the 169th. St. Augustin answereth Evodius about two Questions which that Bishop had put to him; one concerning the Trinity; and the other about the Dove, under whose Shape the Holy Ghost appeared; and there he explains the Faith of the Church, concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation, very clearly and exactly. This Letter is of the same Year with the Book of Nature and Grace; that is, in 415.  
The next Letter, in St. Augustin's and Alypius' Name, is upon the same Subject: There they instruct Maximus the Physician, who was newly converted from the Arian Heresy; and exhort him to reduce those to the Faith whom he had led into Error.  
The next is a Note from St. Augustin, and Alypius, to Peregrinus, a Bishop; whereby they desire him to give them an Account of what Success their Letter to Maximus had; and not to be offended at the length of their Letter, because they used to write such to those Persons, whom they esteemed most. This Peregrinus not being made Bishop before the Year 413. it is likely both these Letters were not written before 415.  
The 172d. is an Answer of St. Jerom to St. Augustin's 166th. and 167th. Letters. There he commendeth what St. Augustin had writ, and excuseth himself from making any Answer. This Letter was brought by Orosius, in 416.  
The 173d. is directed to Donatus, a Donatist Priest, of the Town of Carthagena, in the Diocese of Hippo, who having been informed, That there was an Order to Arrest, and to carry him to Church, had purposed to throw himself into a Well. St. Augustin shows him, in this Letter, the Excess of his Folly; proving, That it is just to force them to do Good that are bend to do Evil. This Letter was written after the Conference at Carthage.  
The 174th. Letter of St. Augustin to Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, was sent with his Book of the Trinity, completed in 410.  
The 175th. to Pope Innocent I. is not a particular Letter of St. Augustin's, but a Synodical Epistle of the Council assembled at Carthage in 416. whereby the Bishops of that Council, to the Number of 68 inform the Pope of what they had done in the Council against Pelagius, and Coelestius: How Orosius having delivered them the Letters of Heros, and Lazarus, against Pelagius, and Coelestius, after they had revised what they had done before at Carthage, Five Years since, against Coelestius, they had again Anathematised their Errors, to reclaim those that started them, from that Extravagancy; or, at the least, to Cure such as were infected already, and to preserve such as might be infected, in process of time, from the Contagion. They make the Pope acquainted with it, that so the Authority of the See of Rome, being joined with the Judgement of the African Bishops, might secure the Salvation of many, and call back, into the right way, those that had gone astray. They refute afterwards, the Principal Errors of the Pelagians, against Grace, and Original Sin. They add, That though Pelagius had been justly acquitted in the Council of Palestine, yet now the growing Error, that over-spreads the Church, aught to be Anathematised. Lastly, That though both Pelagius, and Coelestius, seem to disown their Errors, and have undertaken to deny that they ever owned them, and to affirm, that the Writings objected to them, are none of theirs; yet anathemas ought to be pronounced against any one who dares teach, and aver, That the natural Strength of Man, is sufficient to avoid Sin, and to accomplish God's Commandments▪ And that dares affirm, That Children need not be delivered from Perdition, by the Baptism of Jesus Christ; or, that they can have a share, in eternal Life, without that Sacrament.  
The 176th. is likewise a Synodical Letter of the Council of Milevis, made up of 60 Numidian Bishops, and Assembled at the same time with the foregoing. They exhort Pope Innocent to use his Authority, to Condemn that new Heresy which was an Enemy of the Grace of Jesus Christ. They accuse Coelestius, and Pelagius, as the Authors of it; yet hoping that they will renounce their Errors.  
Besides these Two Letters, St. Augustin writ a particular one in the Name of the Bishops, Aurelius, Alypius, Evodius, and Possidius, his Colleagues, and familiar Friends; wherein he represents to him, That Pelagius having lived long at Rome, it was a thing of great Consequence there, to Condemn plainly the Error which he taught; and, that it were convenient to send for Pelagius, to examine him, and oblige him to make such a Confession of Faith, as might not be capable of an ill Explication; and to anathematise the Errors that were found in his Books. They refute likewise the Pelagian Doctrine, explaining the Difference betwixt the Law, and Grace; and showing the Necessity of the Latter to fulfil the Commandments.  
St. Augustin wrote again upon the same Subject, and about the same time, the 178th. Letter to Hilary, supposed to be Bishop of Narbon; and the 179th. to John of Jerusalem, to whom he sendeth his Book of Nature, and Grace, with that of Pelagius, desiring, in exchange, The Ecclesiastical Acts; whereby it appeared, That Pelagius had been Justified; he means, the Acts of the Council of Diospolis. All these Letters are written in 416. Orosius being come back again, who brought from Palestine, into Africa, Heros', and Lazarus' Letters against Pelagius.  
The 180th. to Oceanus a Gentleman of Rome, is also of the same time. This Man had embraced St. Jerom's Opinion about the Origination of Souls, and concerning an officious Lye. St. Augustin shows him, in few Words, the Difficulties that attend St. Jerom's Opinion, about the Origination of Souls, with the difference betwixt Tropes, or Metaphors, and Lying. He observes, That St. Jerom, with whom he had had a Dispute about that Subject, had altered his Mind in his Dialogue against Pelagius. He desireth Oceanus to send him a Treatise of that Father, whereof Orosius had spoken to him, and wherein he treated of the Resurrection of the Flesh.  
The 181st. 182d. 183d. and 184th. Letters, are Pope Innocent's Answers to those of the African Bishops; whereby he approves, and confirms all that was done in Africa, against Pelagius, and Coelestius; they are of the Year 417.  
The 185th. Letter, is amongst those Discourses that St. Augustin mentions in his Retractations, where he calls it the Book of the Correction of the Donatists, against those who found fault, that the Imperial Laws were put in Execution to make them return into the Church. He directs it to Bonifacius a Tribune, and afterwards Count in Africa.  
Having showed there the difference betwixt the Arian Heresy, and the Donatists' Schism, he proves, That keeping within the Rules of Christian Moderation, the terror of the Laws may be used to reduce Heretics to the Church. He speaketh at large of the Cruelties which the Donatists, and particularly the Circumcellians exercised against the Catholics. He refutes all the Reasons then alleged at large; which Reasons were now made use of, to persuade Men, that Heretics are not to be reclaimed from their Errors, by Force, or Punishments. He says some Things concerning Penance, and Remission of Sins: That Baptism blots cut all Sins; and that, by Penance, they may also be remitted; and, That if the Church hath ordained, That none of those, who have been under Penance, shall be admitted into the Clergy, or kept in it, this is only for the upholding of Discipline, lest some should do Penance, out of Pride, with a Design to obtain Ecclesiastical Dignities; not that she would cast Criminals into Despair, how Guilty soever they be,▪ but that this Method is altered upon those Occasions, where the Business is not only to secure the Salvation of some particular Men, but to deliver whole Nations from Death. In which Circumstances, the Church hath remitted much of the Severity of her Discipline, to find a Remedy for greater Evils and for this very Reason, she dealeth thus with the Donatists: That she is satisfied if they expiate their Sin of Separation by as bitter Grief as was that of St. Peter; and she preserveth their Rank and Dignity among the Clergy. That the Church practised this, when whole Nations were to be reclaimed from Error, or Heresy: That Lucifer Calaritanus was looked upon as a Schismatic, for being of another Opinion: That the Sin of the Holy Ghost is not Error, or Blasphemy, since it would thence follow, that no Heretic ought to be admitted to Penance, or obtain Remission of his Sin; and that, by this, no other thing can be understood but final Impenitency. St. Augustin observes, in his Retractations that he wrote this Letter at the same time that he composed the Book of The Acts of Pelagius, in 417.  
The 186th. Letter of St. Augustin, is written to Paulinus, Bishop of Nola; not to Boniface, as it is entitled in some Manuscripts; siince it is quoted as directed to Paulinus, in the Book of the Gift of Perseverance, Ch. 21. and by St. Prosper, Ch. 43. against Cassianus his Conferences. And indeed, St. Augustin quotes a Passage out of a Letter, from the Person to whom he wrote, which is found in the 8th. Letter of St. Paulinus ' to Sulpitius' Severus. This whereof we now speak, is written in the Names of St. Augustin, and Alypius, who was an intimate Friend of St. Paulinus, against Pelagius, whom this Saint had in great Esteem. In this Letter St. Augustin layeth open all his Principles, concerning Grace, and Predestination, and refuteth Pelagius his Notions. He gins with the Relation of what had been done against him in Africa, and sends Copies of it to St. Paulinus. Then he layeth down these Positions, That the Grace of Jesus Christ, that is necessary to enable us to do Good, is altogether of Free Gift; That God showeth Mercy to whom he pleaseth; That he takes whom he thinks fit, out of the Mass of Corruption, into which Mankind is fallen, through Adam's Sin. He insisteth, particularly, upon the Example of Infants, whereof some are saved through God's Mercy, and others damned, because of Original Sin. He refutes Pelagius' Opinion, touching the State of Infants, whom he supposes to be in a middle State between Heaven, and Hell, which he calleth Eternal Life. He proves, That freewill does not consist in an Indifference, to Good or Evil; for it is inclined to Evil, and cannot do Good, without the assistance of the Grace of God. He tells St. Paulinus, that Pelagius maintained the contrary in his former Books, that afterwards he seems to have retracted his Errors in the Council of Diospolis, whereof he had received the Acts; and then he dissembled again sometimes, confessing the Necessity of Grace, and often affirming, That the Will had Power of itself to abstain from Sin: So that God's Assistance, in his Opinion, was afforded us over and above, to enable us to do that which is good with the greater Ease. These are the Opinions refuted by St. Augustin in this Letter, where he urges a Passage from a Letter, written by St. Paulinus, to convince him, that he ought to reject them, and condemn Pelagius.  
The next Letter to Dardanus, is a Didactical Treatise, mentioned by Saint Augustin in his Retractations. There he shows how God is said to be Omnipresent, upon occasion of Two Questions, which Dardanus had proposed to him: The one upon these Words of Jesus Christ to the good Thief, This Day thou shalt be with me in Paradise; and the other, Whether Children have any Notion of God in the Womb. The former Difficulty is grounded upon this, That the humane Nature of Christ was not in Paradise immediately after his Death, because his Soul descended into Hell, and his Body was laid in the Grave. St. Augustin saith, That the Soul of Jesus Christ, may be said to have been in the same Place where the Souls of the Righteous were, which may be called Paradise. But he thinks it more probable, That this is meant of Christ's Divinity, which never ceased to be in Paradise. This puts St. Augustin upon treating of God's Immensity, whereof he speaketh after a very high manner; showing, That we ought not to conceive of it, as of a Corporeal Extension. He discourseth, likewise, of the particular manner, how God dwelleth in the Saints, and in Baptised Infants that do not yet know him. And this leads him to the Second Question, about the Knowledge of Children that are yet in their Mother's Womb. He affirms, That they have no knowledge, no, not after their Birth, and that the Holy Ghost dwelleth in them, and they know it not; whereupon he enlargeth upon Justification that is wrought by Regeneration, and speaketh of Birth in Sin, the Necessity of Baptismal Grace, and of Faith in Jesus Christ. It is evident by St. Augustin's Retractations, That this Letter was written in the Year 417. It is directed to the Praefect of Gaul, to whom St. Jerom wrote also a Letter.  
The 188th. Letter to Juliana, the Mother of Demetrias, is a warning given to that holy Widow by St. Augustin and Alypius, not to suffer herself to be surprised by the hidden Poison in the Letter to Demetrias, whereof they did not yet know Pelagius to be the Author. He shows her, That this Letter ascribeth all to freewill; whereas the Principle of Christian Piety is to attribute all to God.  
In the 189th. St. Augustin lays down several very useful and edifying Rules to Boniface, to live Christianly in the Profession of Arms; recommending to him, above all things, Charity towards God, and towards his Neighbour; as the Foundation of all Virtues. He shows, That to be a Soldier is no unlawful Profession, and that a Soldier may be a good Christian, if he be desirous of Peace, and goes to War with no other design but that of procuring it. And that Necessity alone ought to put him upon taking away his Enemy's Life, and that his own Will ought not to have any hand in it. That he ought to do no Injustice nor Violence, nor get Wealth by wicked means. At last, he advises him to remember, That every good thing cometh from God: It is not certainly known in what Year this Letter was written.  
The 190th. to Optatus contains St. Augustin's Opinions touching the Original of the Soul. First of all he supposes Original Sin as an indubitable thing; Then he saith, That whereas he had written; that we may without danger be ignorant of the Soul's Extraction, it is with this Proviso, that we certainly hold, 1. That it is not of God's Substance, but a Creature. 2. That it is a Spirit, and not a Body. 3. That it is not placed in the Body for a Punishment of Sins committed in another Life. He saith afterwards. That no Man can be justified but by Faith in Jesus Christ, and that it was that Faith which justified the Patriarches. He enlargeth also upon the free Predestination of God's Elect, which is the choice that God made of them to take them by his Grace out of the mass of Perdition, and upon the eternal Death of Children dying before Baptism. Lastly, He endeavours to prove, That if we reject Tertullian's gross Opinion, who supposed the Soul to be Corporeal, the Notion of the Propagation of Souls agreeth best with Original Sin, though it hath some Difficulties. He observes, That it was the most general Opinion in the West, and he believes it more probable, than that of constant Creation; yet he dares not decide any thing upon this Matter, neither will he condemn the Pelagians for holding this latter Opinion; But because they draw from it a Consequence against Original Sin, he speaks of the Condemnation of Pelagius' Doctrine by the Popes, Innocent and Zosimus, and quotes a Letter of the latter which is not extant: St. Augustin writ this Letter at Caesarea, where he dwelled some time after the Council of Carthage, in the Year 418. There are these two curious Sentences: The first, We make ourselves unworthy of Knowledge, if we desire that others should believe that we know them, when we are ignorant of them. The second, It is rashness to decide by Conjecture what Reason doth not discover, and what the Holy Scripture doth not clearly teach.  
In the 191st. Letter, St. Augustin congratulates Sixtus the Priest, afterwards Bishop of Rome, who was suspected to have been a favourer of the Pelagians, because he declared himself for Grace. He desireth him to beware of those, who not daring to set forth their Doctrine openly, did notwithstanding sow it secretly; praying him to reclaim those with Meekness, whom Fear kept in deep silence, but preserved still the same Venom in their Hearts.  
In the 192d. he entertaineth Coelestinus the Deacon, afterwards Bishop of Rome, with the Duties of Christian Charity. He saith, That this Virtue is not of the Nature of those Things which cease to be after performance; for the more a Man performs Actions of Charity, the more Charitable he is. That no Man ought to want this Duty towards his Friends, since all Men are obliged to exercise it towards their Enemies: That Charity towards Enemies, is the way to make them Friends: for it makes us desire that they should become virtuous, which they cannot be, unless they be in Charity with those that wish them so much good, even the same Charity that others have for them. That it is not with Charity as it is with Money: for the less we think to be reimbursed, the more we love those that we give Money to; whereas the more desirous we are that those should prove Charitable towards us, to whom we show Charity, the more we love them. One may plainly see that this Letter is a Christian Compliment wittily written. It was sent at the same time with the two next to Albinus, after St. Augustin's return to Hippo, whither he did not come till the 20th of September of the Year 418. for it appeareth by the Acts of the Conference which he had with Emeritus, that he was then in Mauritania.  
The 193d. Letter lately Published out of a Manuscript, is directed to Mercator, who is thought to be the same that writ against Pelagius and the Nestorians. St. Augustin having excused himself, that he had not given him an Answer sooner, by reason of his Journey into Mauritania, shows him here, That since the Pelagians own that Children in Baptism believe through other Men's Faith, they may own likewise, That Original Sin is remitted to them, by reason of others believing. He addeth some proofs, of their being born in Sin; and that they cannot enjoy Eternal Life without being Baptised. He holds Death to be a Punishment for Sin, and answereth the Objection of some Pelagians; who, to prove the contrary, alleged the Examples of Enoch and Elias, who died not. St. Augustin answereth, That it is probable that they shall die some time or other; but if they die not, it is by the special grace of God, who is able to remit the Punishment of Sin no less than Sin itself. This Objection raises another that is better grounded: How can the Penalty of Sin remain, after the Sin is remitted? St. Augustin doth not resolve it here, but refers us to his Book of Infant-Baptism. What followeth concerning the Resurrection, is taken out of St. Augustin's Answers to Dulcitius his Objections.  
The next, which is the Second Letter to Sixtus Presbyter of Rome, was written some time after the former; He relates there the Pelagian Errors, which he refutes by confirming the contrary Doctrine. These Errors are, 1. That freewill can do no Good without God's help. 2. That God were Unjust, if he showed Mercy to some and not to others. 3. That God doth indeed afford help, but that is only to Merit. 4. That Faith, which is the beginning of Justification, depends upon men's freewill. St. Augustin opposes to these Opinions St. Pawles. Doctrine in the Epistle to the Romans; from which he concludes, That all Men are in the State of Perdition, and that God gives his Grace, and showeth Mercy to whom he pleaseth; He oweth it to none, and they that receive it not, cannot accuse him of Injustice, since they are condemned either for Original Sin, or for those which they have added besides; That he grants not this Grace to Merit, since there are no Merits previous to Grace; That he hardeneth the Heart, not by inspiring Malice, but by withdrawing his Grace. These are the Maxims laid down by St. Augustin in this Letter, and which he confirms by the Example of Children dying either before or after Baptism, as it pleaseth God; and by what St. Paul saith in the Epistle to the Romans, of Jacob's Predestination, and Esau's Reprobation.  
The 195th. is a Note of S. Jerom's to St. Augustin, wherein he calls him Happy, because he was hated by Heretics for refuting them; and had in Veneration by Catholics, for defending the Doctrine of the Church.  
In the 196th. to Asellicus, St. Augustin having proved, That it is not lawful for Christians to observe the Jewish Laws and Ceremonies, treats of the Usefulness and Effects of the Law, and of the Necessity of Grace against the Pelagians. Donatus was Primate of Numidia when this Letter was written; he was in that Station in the Council of Carthage in 418, and the Pelagians were Condemned already.  
The 197th. Letter is directed to Hesychius Bishop of Salona. St. Augustin endeavoureth to undeceive that Bishop, who fancied that the End of the World was at hand, showing, That that time is unknown to Men. He doth not believe it to be very near, because the Gospel had not yet been Preached throughout the whole Earth. Towards the latter end, he disapproves the fanciful Opinion of a certain Man, whom St. Jerom in his Commentary upon the Prophet Daniel, had accused of rashness, for affirming, That Daniel's Weeks related to the last, and not to the first coming of Jesus Christ.  
Hesychius returns this Answer to St. Augustin in the 198th. Letter, That though none knoweth either the Day or the Hour of the last Judgement, yet we may know whether it be far off, by the Signs, which Jesus Christ told us should precede his appearing; but however, it is an act of Piety to look for it, as near at hand. He answereth what St. Augustin had said, That the Gospel not having been Preached all the Earth over, it was not likely that the Day of Judgement should happen so soon. He answers it, I say, by showing that the Apostle St. Paul had looked upon that Prophecy as already fulfilled; and at last approveth of their Opinion, who believed that the Weeks spoken of by Daniel, were not yet fulfilled. One of the Reasons this Bishop grounded his Opinion upon, is that Jesus Christ foretelleth the Destruction of Jerusalem, and the End of the World at once: And he assures him, That the Son of Man will be at hand, when Jerusalem is destroyed.  
St. Augustin having received this Letter, writes back to Hesychius the 199th. Letter; wherein, after a long Discourse upon this Principle of Morality, That without enquiring when Christ shall come, we ought rather be ready to receive him when he cometh: He saith, That no place of Scripture doth mark the time of the Last Judgement, nor teaches whether it be near or far off. He refutes the Inferences which Hesychius had drawn from some Passages of Scripture; and shows, That Daniel's Weeks cannot be understood of Christ's last coming: And at last he distinguisheth in the Prophecies in the 24th. Ch. of St. Matthew's Gospel, and in the 13th. Ch. of St. Mark, what concerns the Destruction of Jerusalem, from that which relates to the End of the World; and clears the Circumstances of those Predictions. Finally, he concludes, That we should have a care not to be mistaken upon that Question. That none is mistaken, but when he thinks he knows, and affirms what he knows not. He represents the Disposition of three sorts of Persons who wait for the Appearance of Jesus Christ; One believeth, That he will shortly come; The other thinks, That it will be a great while first; And the third confesses, That he doth not know whether he will come sooner or later. He saith thereupon, That the Notion of his coming quickly, is more according to our Wishes; but it is most dangerous if we should be deceived. He on the contrary, who believes, That Jesus Christ will not come so soon, but yet believeth, hopeth, and desireth his coming, cannot be deceived, but his Error will turn to his Comfort: As for the Third, who owneth that he knows nothing of it, he wishes for what the first promiseth, and if ready to bear patiently what the other puts him in fear of, and asserts Nothing, is out of danger of being deceived. Experience hath taught us, That the Condition of the last is best, and to be embraced of all Men, until the Day of Judgement comes. These three Letters in all probability belong to the Year 418. or 419.  
St. Augustin wrote the 200●th▪ Letter to Count Valerius, about his Books of Concupiscence and Matrimony, which he sent unto him after he had finished them in 418.  
The 201st. is an Order from the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius, directed to Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, whereby they enjoin him, to let all the Bishops know. That they must subscribe the Condemnation of Pelagius and Coelestius, whom they had expelled out of Rome; and that as many as through impious obstinacy should refuse to do it, should be deprived of their Dignities, Banished for ever out of their Cities, and Excluded from the Communion of the Church. This Letter is dated the 8th. of June 419. At the latter end it is observed, That another like this was directed to St. Augustin, which shows, That the respect which the Emperors paid to the Dignity of the Church of Carthage, they paid likewise to the Merit and high Reputation of St. Augustin.  
The 202d. is a Letter of St. Jerom's to Alypius and St. Augustin, expressing his joy for their Victory over Pelagius and Coelestius; and excusing himself for not having yet refuted the Books of one Anianus, a Pelagian. It is the same Anianus who translated some of St. Chrysostom's Homilies, and dedicated them to Orontius, a Pelagian Bishop, condemned in the Council of Ephesus. Bede mentions a Letter of this Author directed to Evangelus, where he gives to those of St. Augustin's Party the name of Traducians'.  
By the 203d. Letter, St. Augustin exhorteth Largus to despise the Goods of this Life, whereof he knew the Vanity by his own Experience, and to profit by the Mischiefs that happened to him. This Largus was yet Proconsul in Africa in 419. This Letter seems to have been written in 420. after his being recalled.  
In the 204th. to Duicitius, St. Augustiii shows, That he had already fully answered the Donatists, and laments the fury of those Wretches that murdered themselves, when they could do the Catholics not further harm. Upon this occasion he treateth of Murder, and shows, That it is not lawful for a Man to kill himself, nor any other that was desirous of Death; He Answers the Case of Razias, which is well told in the Maccabees, and was looked upon as a noble and generous Action, but not approved by him as Wise and Virtuous. This Letter was written in Gaudentius' time, and composed in 420.  
The 205th. Letter to Consentius, contains the Explication of some Difficulties about the Nature of glorified Bodies. Consentius had asked St. Augustin, whether our Saviour's Body, hath now Flesh and Bones, with the same parts and features which he had upon Earth. St. Augustin resolveth this question, saying, That Christ's Body is altogether such in Heaven as it was upon Earth, when he left it to ascend intoHeaven, and that it appeareth by the Gospel, that he had Hands and Feet, Flesh and Bones, as well after as before the Resurrection: That no mention is made of his Blood, and it is not convenient to engage too far in those Matters, for fear of entering upon other very hard Questions, such as these; If there is Blood, is not there also Phlegm, Choler, or Melancholy, since the mixture of these four Humours make up the Temper of Humane Bodies: Yet St. Augustin denieth not but that these Humours may be in glorified Bodies; but that we ought to have a care of believing them alterable and corruptible; whereupon he undertakes to show by the Testimony of St. Paul, that glorified Bodies shall be incorruptible and freed from all corporeal and earthly qualities. Consentius had asked likewise, whether those that had been baptised and died without Penance for Sins committed after Baptism, should obtain Remission of them in a certain time. St. Augustin remits him to his Treatise of Faith and Good Works, where he had handled that Question. Lastly, Consentius desired to know, Whether God's breathing upon Adam was his Soul. St. Augustin answers, That it was either his Soul, or that which produced it; but we must be sure not to believe that the Soul is any part of God. Consentius to whom this Letter is written, is the same to whom St. Augustin dedicated his Treatise of Lying, composed in 420. It is probable, that, if this Letter be of the same time, it was written after his Book of Faith and Good Works, which was made in 413.  
The 206th. is a Letter of Recommendation to Count Valerius in the behalf of Bishop Felix.  
The next, is that which St. Augustin writ to Bishop Claudius, when he sent him his Books against Julianus, published after St. Jerom's Death in 421.  
In the 208th. St. Augustin exhorts the Virgin Felicia, newly returned to the Church from the Donatist's Party, and Scandalised by some Bishop's disorders; to continue always in the bosom of the Catholic Church, notwithstanding all those Scandals where she was afflicted. And this gave occasion to his Discourse of Good and Evil Pastors. It is thought, that the occasion of this Letter, was the Scandal given by Antonius' Bishop of Fussala, mentioned in the following Letter, supposed to have been written in the end of the Year 422. but that is uncertain.  
It is equally uncertain that the next Letter to Pope Celestine is written by St. Augustin; some Critics doubt it, 1. Because the Style of this Letter is not, as they pretend, perfectly like that of the other Letters of St. Augustin. 2. Because it is found but in one only Manuscript of the Vatican Library, which is not above 200 Years old. 3. Because St. Augustin seems to speak there after a low manner, and unworthy of his wont Courage. 4. Because it seemeth not to agree with the Opinions of St. Augustin, nor of the other Africans, about Appeals. 5. Because Celestine could not threaten then to send Clerks into Africa, to see his Judgements executed, as he doth in this Letter; because Affairs in Africa were then in great Disorder, and the Emperors had not much Authority in those Provinces that were 〈◊〉 by a Tyrant. Yet it must be confessed, That this Letter agrees exceeding well to the Customs and Manners of the African Church in St. Augustin's time and has a Character of Sincerity. However, If this Letter be truly St. Augustin's he writ it in the beginning of Coelestine's Pontificat, since he gins it with congratulating his Promotion, which was compassed without Intrigues or Division. He speaks afterwards of Antonius his Business, whom he had ordained Bishop of Fussala, a Town in the Diocese of Hippo, where no Bishop had been before. This Man was brought up in St. Augustin's Monastery, and looked upon by him as a Man of great Probity: but seeing himself exalted to such a Dignity, he gave way to his Passions, lived disorderly, and greatly vexed the People that were under his Jurisdiction: being accused before the Provincial Council, he could not be convicted of the Sin of Uncleanness that was laid to his Charge; but it appeared that he had oppressed and tyrannised over the People intolerably: Thus the Judges finding not sufficient cause utterly to deprive him, and being withal unwilling his Fault should pass without Punishment, left him the quality of Bishop, upon condition that he should not perform the Functions thereof, nor have any Authority over a People whom he had used so unjustly.  
To hinder the Execution of this Judgement, Antonins appealed to the Pope, who pretended a Right to receive Appeals from the Judgements of the African Bishops, though these contested his Right. This happened at a time, when they had bound themselves to see the Canons of the Council of Sardica, which the Pope had alleged, as the Canons of the Council of Nice, executed with this Proviso, Till they were assured that they were actually made by the Council of Nice. Antonius therefore obtained of Boniface a Letter, enjoining that he should be restored, if he had truly stated his Case. He returned triumphing with that Letter. But the African Bishops regarded it not: And being threatened, that the Civil Authority should be made use of to make them observe the Pope's Orders, St. Augustin took upon himself to write this Letter to Celestine, wherein he intreateth him by the Blood of Jesus Christ, and by St. Peter's Memory; who forbade the Pastors of the Church to exercise Dominion; not to suffer things to go to that extremity: telling him, That his Heart was so set upon that Business, That he would renounce his Bishopric, if Antonius was restored at Fussala. He was not restored; and we learn by the 224th. Letter, That his Diocese was immediately dependant upon St. Augustin, though afterwards we meet with a Bishop of that place.  
Antonius' flattered himself with these hopes, either that they would have degraded him from the Episcopal Dignity, or have left him in the Bishopric. St. Augustin affirms on the contrary, That there are Examples of Judgements given, or approved by the Holy Apostolic See, whereby Bishops were Punished, without being absolutely degraded: He citeth three of the latest; That of Priscus Bishop of the Province of Mauritania Caesariensis, who was suffered to continue in his Bishopric, being only barred from the Metropolitan Dignity, to which his Seniority might have promoted him in his turn; That of Victor, Bishop of the same Province, who was likewise excluded the right of Primacy, and with whom no other Bishop did communicate in his Diocese; And that of Bishop Laurentius, with whom they proceeded as they had done with Antonius of Fussala. St. Augustin might have alleged besides, those Canons which allow to Bishops the Rank and Honour of their Dignity, and yet deprive them both of the Function and Jurisdiction.  
In the 210th Letter St. Augustin instructeth Felicitas and Rusticus how the Evils of this Life are to be endured, and gives them Rules for brotherly Correction. It is probable, that the occasion of Writing upon this Subject, was the Dissension which happened among the Virgins consecrated to God, spoken of in the following Letter, about their Superior, whom the Nuns designed to change. St. Augustin having reproved them for it, and exhorted them to Peace and Obedience, prescribeth them a most wise and prudent Rule of Life. This Letter was written after the Death of St. Augustin's Sister, who governed that Monastery at the time when most of the Donatists were reunited, in 424.  
The 212th. is a Letter of Recommendation to Quintianus, in the behalf of an holy Widow named Galla, and of her Daughter Simpliciola, who carried about with them the Relics of the Martyr St. Stephen.  
After this Letter, comes the Act made at Hippo, upon the 14th. of September, 426. in the Church of Peace: whereby St. Augustin chooseth Heraclius the Priest to be his Successor and Co-adjutor, yet without admitting him into Bishop's Orders; and the People approve his Choice with their Acclamations.  
The Occasion of the 214th. Letter is this: St. Augustin having been informed by two Brethren of the Monastery at Adrumetum, that there had been some Disputes among the Monks of that Convent, about Grace and freewill; because, some willing to establish the Doctrine of Grace, went so far as to deny freewill: whereas the others acknowledging freewill, did confess notwithstanding, that it was assisted by the help of the Grace of Jesus Christ; approves of the latter Opinion; affirming, That he taught no other Doctrine, in his Letter to Saint Sixtus.  
He again handleth the same Matter in the next Letter, directed to Valentinus, Abbot of the Monastery at Adrumetum, and to the Brethren of the same Monastery. He joined to this Letter his Book of Grace and freewill, which he sent at the same time to instruct them.  
Valentinus answered St. Augustin in the 216th. Letter: wherein, after he had thanked him for his Letters, he gives him an Account how that Disturbance happened in his Monastery, by the Imprudence of five or six that were offended at those Discourses of St. Augustin, which Florus had brought from Uzala to their Convent. That Evodius, Bishop of Uzala, not being able to satisfy them, they came to him: That this Visit had produced a good Effect, seeing it brought to their Monastery such holy Instructions as his were, and had confirmed them in their Belief touching Grace and freewill. These Letters are of the Year 426.  
The 217th. Letter of St. Augustin is written to Vitalis, to undeceive him of those Notions which he had then taken up; namely, That the Beginning of Faith was not a Gift of God, but the mere Product of Man's Will. St. Augustin refutes this Opinion, by the Prayers of the Church; by St. Cyprian's Testimony, in his Book of The Lord's Prayer; and by several other Passages of Scripture. Afterwards he explains the difference betwixt the Law and Grace; proving, That the True Grace of Jesus Christ, doth not consist in Natural Helps, or in External Graces. At last he proposes Twelve Articles; wherein he comprehends whatsoever he thinks necessary to be believed concerning Grace. The Twelve Articles are these:  
I. We know, That before Men were born into this World, they had no other wherein they did either Good or Evil .... But descending from Adam according to the Flesh, they partake, by their Birth, of the Poison of that ancient Death which he became subject to by his Sin; and that they are not delivered from Eternal Death, except they are regenerated in Jesus Christ through his Grace.  
II. We know, That the Grace of God is not given upon the account of any Merit, either to Infants, or to Men that are come to the Age of Reason.  
III. We know, That Grace is an Assistance afforded for evert Action, to those that have attained to the Age of Reason.  
iv We know, That it is not given to all Men; and that those to whom it is given, receive it, without having deserved it by their Works, or by their Will; which appears particularly in Infants.  
V We know, That it is out of God's mere Mercy, that it is given to those to whom it is given.  
VI We know, That it is by a just Judgement of God, that it is not given to those to whom it is not given.  
VII. We know, That we shall all appear before the Judgment-Seat of Jesus Christ, that every one may receive either Reward or Punishment according to what he shall have done in the Body, and not according to what he should have done had he lived longer.  
VIII. We know, That Infants shall not receive Recompense or Punishment, but according to what they shall have done in the Body; that is, whilst they were in the Body; that is, according as some have been regenerate, and others not.  
IX. We know, That Eternal Happiness is insured to all those that die in Jesus Christ; and that nothing is imputed to them of what they might have done, had they been alive.  
X. We know, That as many as Believe in God, Believe willingly, and by an Action of their free Will.  
XI. We know, That we ought to pray unto God for those that Believe not, that they would Believe.  
XII. We know, That whensoever any of these embraces the Faith, we are to give God Thanks sincerely, and from the bottom of our Hearts, as being an Effect of his Mercy, and that when we do it as we are wont to do, we perform a Duty incumbent upon us:  
These are the Twelve fundamental Points of St. Augustin's Doctrine of Grace; to the which he restrains the Faith of the Catholic Church about that Matter. He applieth them likewise to his particular Dispute with Vitalis, to know whether Grace goes before, or only followeth the Will; that is, Whether Grace be given us, because we will have it? as Vitalis affirms: Or, Whether the Will itself is not a thing which God worketh in us by his Grace? as St. Augustin pretends that it followeth upon the Twelve Principles which he lays down. To show this, the rest of this Letter is taken up; wherein he concludes, That the Beginning of Faith, Conversion, and a good Mind, comes from God, and not from freewill. This Letter, in all probability, is one of the last of St. Augustin's Works concerning Grace.  
In the 218th. Letter St. Augustin exhorts one Palatinus to persevere and to proceed in Piety, and not to trust to his own Strength. This likewise is one of the last of St. Augustin's Letters.  
The 219th. is a Letter written in the Names of Aurelius, St. Augustin, and Florentius, Bishops in Africa, to Proculus and Cilinnius, Bishops in Gaul, concerning Leporius the Monk; who having been expelled out of the Diocese of Marseilles, because of his Errors about the Incarnation, made a Retractation of them in Africa; which was drawn up by St. Augustin, and sent to the Gallican Bishops with this Letter; whereby they entreat the Bishops to whom they writ, to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he had 〈◊〉 th●s● Errors for 〈◊〉 they had expelled him. This Letter was written after the Books of Correction and Grace.  
The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; who being married again after the death of his fo●mer W●●● was engaged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Business, and had committed very considerable ●aul●● St. Augustin adviseth him by this Letter, to Contain, if he could persuade his Wife to con●en● to it; an● to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his Authority, only to do good. This Letter is full of excellent instructions for Men of the World.  
〈◊〉, a Deacon of C●●th●ge, deals St. Augustin, by the 221st. Letter, to draw up a Catalogue of Heresies. St. Augustin excuses himself from doing it, in the 2●2d. The Deacon having again urged it by the 223d. he promises him in the 224th. to do it when he is at leisure. These Letters were written after his Book of Retractations, in 428.  
The 225th. Letter is St. Prosper's▪ whereby he gives St. Augustin notice, That several Christians of Marseilles having seen his Works against the Pelagians, had believed, That what he taught concerning the Vocation of the Elect, was contrary to the Doctrine of the Fathers; and that they were more averse to his Notions, when they had read his Book of Co●●●cti●● and Grace. Then he relateh their Opinions, and saith, (1.) That they indeed acknowledge that all Men have sinned in Adam; and that our Salvation is not the Product of our Works, but of Grace, that works the same by the means of Regeneration: But they hold, That the Propitiation made by the Blood of Jesus Christ, is offered to all Men without Exception; so that as many as will embrace the Faith, and be Baptised, may obtain Salvation. (2.) That before the Creation, God by his Foreknowledge, did know those that should Believe, and who with the succour of that Grace enabling them to preserve that Faith which they had once embraced, should maintain the same unto the end▪ and that he had predestinated them to his Eternal Kingdom, foreseeing that after he had freely called them, they would make themselves worthy of his Election, and end their Life holily. (3.) That God calls all Men to the Faith, and to good Works, by his Instructions; and that Salvation is the Reward of those that are willing to do good. (4.) That whatsoever is said of the Decree of God's Will, touching the Call of Men, whereby it is said that the Elect have been separated from the Reprobate, is fit for nothing but to inspire Men with Despondency, Idleness, Negligence and Lukewarmness; because it seems to no purpose to work, if the Reprobate cannot be saved, nor the Elect be damned. (5.) That thereby all Virtues are destroyed. (6.) That this Doctrine doth establish, under the Name of Predestination, a fatal and unavoidable Necessity, or forceth Men to say that Mankind were created of different Natures. (7.) That what is alleged out of the Epistle to the Romans, to prove, That Grace doth prevent the Merits of the Elect, was never understood in this sense by any Ecclesiastical Author. (8.) That some reduce that Grace which prevents our Merits, to the natural Faculties of freewill, and of Reason; by the good use whereof we arrive to that Grace which makes us to be regenerated in Jesus Christ. (9) That God hath indeed resolved to communicate his Grace only to those that are Regenerate; but that all are called to partake of that saving Gift, whether it be by the Natural Law, or by the Preaching of the Gospel. (10.) That Men are as much disposed to Good as Evil: That the Spirit and the Will may equally turn to Evil; and, That Obedience or Disobedience to God's Command, wholly depends upon our Liberty. (11.) That Infants dying before the Use of Reason, are either saved or damned, according to what God foresees that they would have been, had they come to the Age of Acting and Deserving. (12.) That the same is to be said of the Nations which God hath not enlightened with the Light that is necessary to Salvation▪. These are most of the Points of the Semipelagians Doctrine, and of the Objections which they made against that of St. Augustin. St. Prosper intreateth him by this Letter to refute these Persons Opinions, and to clear the Difficulties proposed by them, telling him, That Hilary Bishop of Arles, a considerable Man, and much addicted to the Study of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Matters; and who did much admire and approve St. Augustin's Doctrine in all other things, could not relish his Principles about the Decree of the Vocation of the Elect.  
This is not that Hilary, who had been St. Augustin's Disciple, who writ at the same time with Prosper to St. Augustin upon the same Subject.  
This Letter is the 226th. therein he gives a more particular Account than St. Prosper had done, of those Points of St. Augustin's Doctrine, that disturbed the Priests of Marseilles, of the Objections which they made, and of their Answers to those Passages of Scripture that were quoted by St. Augustin; which may be all reduced to these four Propositions. 1. That Man may believe, and desire to be healed, by the strength of his own freewill. 2. That when he is gone so far, God never denieth him his Grace. 3. That Election and Reprobation are Consequences of God's Prescience, whereby he sees the Good or the Evil which Men shall do, or should have done if they had lived. 4. That Grace is not effectual of itself, and what help soever God affords to those that are Predestinated; it is still in their own Power either to make use of, or to reject it. Both these Letters were written in 429. after Hilary's promotion to the Bishopric of Arles. St. Augustin answered them by his Books of the Predestination of the Saints, and of the Gift of Perseverance.  
The 227th. to the holy old Man Alypius, is written upon the Conversion of two Pagans who had been baptised at Easter; The Name of the one, was Gabinianus; the other was a Physician called Dioscorus, for whom God had wrought several Miracles, related by St. Augustin in this Letter. It is here placed among those that were written in 429. but the Date of it is uncertain.  
The Date of the next to Honoratus is certain by Possidius' Testimony, who quotes it in the Life of St. Augustin; and affirms, That he writ it about the latter end of his Life; when the Vandals were almost Masters of Africa. He examines the Question in this Letter, Whether Priests, Clerks, and Bishops, may fly and forsake their Flocks in time of Persecution? St. Augustin affirms, That there are but two Occasions upon which they are permitted so to do. 1. If the Persecutors designed Mischief to some particular Pastors by name, because than it is profitable, even for the Good of the Church, for them to flee, and leave the others quiet. 2. When the Ministers of Jesus Christ meet with none that have need of their Ministry. In all other Cases, Pastors are obliged to watch over the Flock which Christ hath committed to them; neither can they forsake it without a Crime. This St. Augustin excellently proves in this Letter, and in terms dictated by the Fire of his fervent Charity, and with Reasons supported by a Zeal altogether Divine. He represents the desolation of a Town which is like to be taken; and the Necessity of the presence of Christ's Ministers. In such occasions, saith he, What flocking is there to the Church of Persons of all Ages and Sexes; whereof, some require Baptism, others Reconciliation, others to be put under Penance, and all crave comfort. If then no Ministers are to be found. What misfortune is that for such as go out of this Life, being Unregenerate, or not loosed? What Grief is it to their Kindred, if they be Faithful, that they cannot hope to see them with them in everlasting rest? What Cries, what Lamentations, nay, what Imprecations from some, to see themselves without Ministers, and without Sacraments? If on the contrary, Ministers have proved Faithful, in not forsaking their People; they are helpful to all the World, according to the Abilities which it hath pleased God to endue them with; Some are baptised, others are reconciled; none is deprived of the Communion of the Lord's-Body. All are comforted, fortified, and exhorted to implore by fervent Prayers the Assistance of the Mercy of God. This Passage is very remarkable, since it shows what was the Church's Opinion at all times concerning the Necessity of Sacraments.  
St. Augustin handleth two other Questions upon the same Subject: The First, Whether it be lawful for Pastors to flee in such Calamities, that they may preserve themselves for the Service of the Church in more peaceable times. He saith, That they may do it if there be other Ministers, to supply their places, and who are necessary to the Church. The Second, if it happens that the Persecution were only against the Pastors, in this case they may flee; and whether is better, That the Church should want them by their going away, or be deprived of them by their Death? St. Augustin answers, That this Supposition is very extraordinary; That it seldom happens, that they aim only at Churchmen; That in this case they might hid themselves. It is to be presumed, That as all the Laity shall not perish, so some of the Clergy may escape. That it were to be wished, that in such occasions some should fly, and others remain; Then it would be a fine thing, if among Ministers there should be a Dispute, who should stay behind, that the Church might not be forsaken. That to decide this Difference, it should be convenient to cast Lots, that none might go about to free himself from the necessity of staying, under pretence of being more necessary for the Church than others.  
He concludes with these words, We do what Jesus Christ, either Permits or Commands, if we withdraw when there are other Ministers to serve the Church. But when by our flight Christ's Sheep are deprived of the Food that is to sustain the life of their Souls, than we are hirelings.  
The 229th. Letter is directed to Count Darius, who was sent into Africa to treat of Peace. St. Augustin wishes him Joy of that Employ. The Count gives him Thanks by the 230th. Letter, and prayeth him to send him his Book of Confessions. This Saint satisfies him by the 231st. Letter, wherein he treateth occasionally of the love of Praise. He saith thereupon, 1. That Men ought not to desire Praises for that which is not praiseworthy in them. 2. That they should not propose to themselves as the end of their good Actions, to get Commendations from Men. 3. Yet they may desire the Praises of Men, for the sake of those very Men, because the Praises given to them, are profitable for others. 4. That such as find not in themselves those Virtues for which they are commended, aught to be ashamed that they are not what they are thought to be, and what they should be indeed; and this may make them desire to become such. 5. That on the contrary, if there be in them something of that which is commended, they are to give God thanks for it, and be glad to see that others have an esteem for Virtue. Towards the end of the Letter, he speaks of Prosperity and Adversity. The Caresses, saith he, of this World are more dangerous than its Persecutions, unless we look upon the Rest which we may enjoy here, as a means to make us lead a quiet and a peaceable Life in all Godliness and Honesty. This the Apostle commands us to ask of God: for if the heart be not full of Charity and Piety, rest and ease from the troubles of Life is but Perdition: and serves only as an Instrument or Provocation to Lust. If therefore we desire to lead a quiet Life, let it be only upon this account, that we may the better practise both Piety and Charity. These Letters are supposed to have been written about the latter end of St. Augustin's Life.   

The Fourth Class.  
THE Last Class of St. Augustin's Epistles, containeth those whose Date is not well known.  
The First of these is the 232d. Letter, in answer to the Inhabitants of Madaura, whereof the greater Part were yet Idolaters. He exhorts them to embrace the Christian Religion; and to induce them to it, he mentions the dreadfulness of the Last Judgement, which he proves shall infallibly come, because the other Prophecies are fulfilled: He also saith something concerning the Mystery of the Trinity, and that of the Incarnation. This Letter was probably written some time after the Edict Published by Honorius in the Year 399. against the Temples.  
The 233d. Letter, is a Challenge from St. Augustin to a Philosopher, one Longinianus, to oblige him to give an Account in Writing after what manner he believed, that God was to be Worshipped; and what he thought of Jesus Christ.  
Longinianus answers St. Augustin in the 234th. Letter; and saith, according to Plato's Principles, That the way to come to God, is to live Well, and to get the Favour of the inferior Gods by Propitiatory Sacrifices, that we may come to the Supreme Creator. As for Jesus Christ, he answereth, That he can say nothing of him, because he knew him not.  
St. Augustin desireth Longinianus to explain himself about what he had said, That the Way to come to God was to live Well, and to purify ourselves by Expiations and Sacrifices; he asketh him, Whether it be the same Thing, or Two different Things. This is in the 235th Letter.  
By the 236th. he gives Deuterius notice, That he had degraded, and expelled a Deacon, one Victorinus, convicted of being a Manichee, though he was but a Hearer among them, and not one of those they call Elect. He speaks of the difference which they made betwixt those Two sorts of Persons; and he speaks of their principal Errors.  
In the 237th. Letter, he opposes the Dreams of the Manichees, and Priscillianists, concerning the Apocryphal Books; and ridicules the fantastical Interpretations, which they made of the Canonical Books.  
The 238th. is a Relation of a Conference that St. Augustin had about the Mystery of the Trinity, with an Arian, called Pascentius. The Three following Letters directed to this Arian, carry on the same Dispute.  
The 242d. is also written to Elpidius, an Arian, to whom he showeth, That the Son of God is equal to his Father.  
In the 243d. St. Augustin exhorts Laetus, who having quitted the World, was tempted to return to it: He exhorts him, I say, to persevere in his former Resolution; and not to suffer his tenderness for his Relations, to weaken his Courage. He shows, in this Letter, That the renouncing of all Things to follow Christ, aught to proceed so far, as to leave Father and Mother, to serve God.  
The 244th. is a Letter of Consolation to Chrysinus, for a Loss which he had sustained.  
In the 245th. to Possidius, St. Augustin speaks, with great moderation, of Woman's Dresses: He thinks, That fine clothes ought not to be forbidden to Married Women, who are obliged to please their Husbands; but he would not have them Paint, or Wash, to make them appear fairer, or fresher, because it is not probable, that their Husbands should desire to be thus deceived; for the true Ornament of Christians, of both Sexes, is neither deceitful Painting, nor Gold, nor precious Stuffs, but Purity of Manners. Lastly, he prohibits those Superstitious Dress, which they used to render a kind of Homage to Daemons. He tells Possidius, That he would not advise him to ordain a Man that had been Baptised among the Donatists.  
The 246th. Letter to Lampadius, is against those who accuse Fate for the Faults which they commit themselves.  
By the 247th. Letter, St. Augustin reproves one Romulus, a Rich Man, that would make his Debtors to pay twice; pretending, That they had paid his Receiver in his Wrong.  
The 248th. to Sebastianus, is concerning that Sorrow which affects the Righteous, because of the impiety of the Wicked.  
In the 249th. St. Augustin Comforteth Restitutus the Deacon, who could hardly bear with the Disorders of ill Christians; and instructs him to keep Peace with the Wicked.  
The 250th. Letter is very considerable. There St. Augustin resolveth a very nice Question: Whether a whole Family, or Community, may be Excommunicated for the Sin of one Member. It is directed to a young Bishop, called Auxilius, who had Excommunicated one Classicianus, with his whole Family, because he came to the Church to demand certain Persons who had taken Sanctuary there, after he had, by a false Oath, profaned the Sanctity of the Gospel. He asks that Bishop, What Reason he could have for so doing; and how the Son can be Excommunicated for the Father's Sin, the Wife for her Husband's, and the Servant for his Master's, yea the Children that are yet unborn: Excommunication being not a Punishment which falls upon the Body, but an Effect of the Power given to Christ's Ministers, to bind and to lose, which properly concerns the Soul. St. Augustin confesses, That this Bishop might ground his Proceeding upon the Example of some great Bishops, who had Anathematised whole Families for one particular Person's Sin. But he affirms, That they could hardly justify their Action, and that he never durst do it himself. Yet he addeth, rather in Jest, than Earnest, that he is ready to hear his Reasons, Your Youth (saith he) and the shortness of the time that you have been Bishop, will not hinder me from hearing your Reasons. I am ready to learn of you, how young soever you be; though the Grey Heirs that I wear, and all the Experience I may have got by those many Years that I have been Bishop, give me some small Authority over you. After that, he Aggravates the Injustice of that Pretence which might prove the Loss of a Soul for want of Baptism, through the Impossibility to which the Sentence of Excommunication reduced those that were Excommunicated, from having recourse to the Sacraments. Wherefore he exhorteth Auxilius to revoke a Sentence, wherein Anger had a greater share than Justice; and so much the rather, because he, against whom it was pronounced, had no ways deserved it.  
In the next Letter, St. Augustin sendeth Word to Classicianus, That he will propose that Question in a Council; that he was much concerned at Auxilius his Behaviour, especially because it might happen, that some might die without Baptism; that he will also cause to be examined there, if need be, this Question; Whether those ought not to be Excommunicated who deal unfaithfully with their Securities; and that, if it should be requisite, he would write to the See of Rome about it, that so what was to be done in such Occasions, might be settled with general Consent. But he sticks not to affirm, That an unjust Excommunication is of greater Prejudice to him that pronounces it, than to him against whom it is pronounced; forasmuch as the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in the Saints, never puts any to Pain who deserves it not: For if Charity is neither rash, nor hasty, What shall we say of him that diffuseth it into our Hearts?  
The 251st. Letter was written by St. Augustin to Pancarius, concerning one Secundinus a Priest, that was accused before him. He tells Pancarius, That he will receive the Accusations of Catholics, but not of Heretics; and prays him not to suffer any Disorder to be committed in that Priest's House.  
The Four following Letters were written about a Virgin that was an Orphan, who was committed to the Church's Trust. St. Augustin declares, in these Letters, That he takes all the Care of her that may be; and that he will not marry her, without her consent, to a Catholic; and that he was looking out for an advantageous Match for her.  
The 256th. is an Answer of St. Augustin's to Christinus, who desired, That he would write to him, to exhort him to give himself too God.  
The 257th. is a Letter of Compliment to Orontius.  
In the 258th. he Congratulates Martianus for being a Catechumen, exhorting him speedily to receive Baptism.  
The 259th. was written to reclaim a very lewd Man, one Cornelius, from his evil Way; and adviseth him to imitate his Wife, who lately deceased; upon whom St. Augustin promiseth to write a Panegyric, if he will follow her Virtue.  
By the next, Audax desireth St. Augustin to write longer than he used to do, and concludes with Four Verses in his Commendation. St. Augustin excuseth himself for his great Business, advising him to read his Works, and to come and see him. That's the Subject of the 261st. Letter.  
In the 262d. St. Augustin reproves one Ecdicia, a Lady, severely; who (unknown to her Husband, whom she had brought to consent to live in Continence with her) had distributed his whole Estate to the Poor, and put on a Widow's Habit. He enjoins her to make her Husband Satisfaction; who, out of Anger for his Wife's Behaviour, lived disorderly. This Letter is full of excellent Instructions for married Wives, teaching them not to give their Husbands any occasion of Discontent, by indiscreet Devotion.  
The 263d. is a Letter of Consolation to Sapida; who having wrought a Garment for her Brother Timothy, and he dying, desired, for her Comfort, that St. Augustin would wear it. St. Augustin thanks her; but wishes her to seek in the Scripture some more solid Consolations.  
In the 264th. he comforteth a Lady called Maxima, who beheld with Grief, and Disturbance, her Country infected with Errors.  
The 265th. to Seleuciana, is a Refutation of the Enthusiastical Notions of a certain Novatian, concerning Baptism, and St. Peter's Repentance. He affirmeth, in the First place, That St. Peter was Baptised as well as the other Apostles: That it is an Error to say, That he had not received the Baptism of Water before his Sin, though he had not yet received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost; yea, he thinks it probable, That the Apostles were Baptised by Christ himself. He saith, Secondly, That when it is said, that St. Peter did Penance, we are not to think that he did as they do in the Church, who are properly called Penitents. Thirdly, he distinguishes Two sorts of Penance, that which goeth before Baptism, and that which cometh after; when after Baptism Men have committed any of those Sins, for which they ought to be Excommunicated, and cut off from the Altar, after which they are reconciled if they deserve it: And this sort is the Penance of those to whom is properly given in the Church the Name of Penitents. Besides these two sorts, They admit also a daily Penance of those very Faithful, that live in Piety and Humility; whereby they Petition, and obtain the forgiveness of light, but Customary Sins, which Humane Frailty makes us fall into; and which, saith he, we ought to expiate continually, l●st we be overwhelmed with their Number.  
In the 266th. Letter, St. Augustin offers to Florentina, a Virgin, to explain all the Difficulties which she should desire to have cleared.  
The 267th. is a Pious Letter to Fabiola; wherein he rejoiceth, because she bore the Exile of this Life with difficulty.  
St. Augustin having borrowed a Sum of Money to pay the Debt of one Fascius, who retired into the Church, being pursued by his Creditors; intreateth his People in the 268th. Letter, to make a Gathering, that he might repay that Summ.  
By the 269th. St. Augustin intreateth Bishop Nobilius to excuse him, because he could not be present at the Consecration of a new Church, to which that Bishop had invited him.  
The last, is a Letter directed to St. Augustin, but the Author of it is not known. By it, he that wrote it, complaineth to St. Augustin, That he had not met him with Bishop Severus in the City of Leges, where he hoped to find him.  
To these Letters, we ought to add the Fragment of a Letter of St. Augustin to Maximus, which the Benedictines have taken out of Primasius his Commentary upon the Revelations, and placed at the latter end of the Second Tome in their Edition. This Fragment contains several Rules concerning the degrees of Christian Perfection.  
It is manifest by these Extracts from St. Augustin's Letters, That they are an inexhaustible Spring of Principles, Rules, Precepts and Maxims upon the Articles of our Faith, and the Discipline of the Church upon Christian Morals, and the Government of Life: For which Reason, I insisted the longer upon them, and drew the Extracts at large, there being hardly one that deserves not particular Attention, and where there is not some fine stroke to be taken notice of. I intent to discourse more briefly of the rest of this Father's Works.  
The Addition of Spurious Pieces annexed to this Volume, is not very large.  
There are at first Thirteen Letters or Notes under the Names of St. Augustin to Boniface, and of Boniface to St. Augustin; containing several Passages taken out of St. Augustin's Genuine Letters, and several things may be observed, which do not agree with the History of that time: They are composed by one who had a mind to exercise his Pen with that Fiction.  
We need not speak here of Pelagius his Letter to Demetrias, which is after these to Boniface.  
The two next, whereof the one is entitled, St. Cyril of Jerusalem's Letter to St. Augustin concerning the Virtues of St. Jerom: And the other, St. Augustin' s Answer to St. Cyril about St. Jerom's Miracles; discover their Imposture by their very Title; as is observed, in another place; since St. Cyril of Jerusalem died long before St. Jerom.  
Lastly, St. Augustin's Dispute with Pascentius, that was formerly placed among the Letters, Number 178. is very rightly placed by the Benedictines among the Spurious Books. It is certain by the 238th. Letter, That St. Augustin had a Conference with Pascentius; but nothing like that which is mentioned in this Letter. For he observes, 1. That he could not obtain, that what was said on both sides, should be committed to Writing, but every thing is written in this Conference and inserted into the Public Acts. In the former, no body Presided; in this, there is a Judge called Laurentius. That whereof St. Augustin speaks, was held at Carthage; This is supposed to have been at Hippo. Both Possidius and St. Augustin mention one Conference with Pascentius; but this supposeth that they had had a Dispute before. The Character of both the Persons introduced speaking in this, is nothing like either St. Augustin's or Pascentius'. This is but a cold Dispute, and there is little said to the purpose. The Answers made for St. Augustin are weak, and the Objections attributed to Pascentius, have nothing of that Fire and Rage which Possidius taxeth him with. The Style of those Answers, supposed to be St. Augustin's, comes not near that of this Saint, either in his Letters or in his Conferences. There are terms and manners of Expression, which he never used, and which do not belong to that time. In a word, This Treatise is found in no Manuscripts annexed to St. Augustin's Works or Letters. These Reasons sufficiently prove, That this Work is not a Conference which St. Augustin really had with Pascentius, but a Dialogue composed by some other Author. Now we know none to whom it may be more properly ascribed, than to Vigilius Tapsensis, who composed several Dialogues of that sort under the Names of several great Men.   

The THIRD TOME.  
THE Third Tome of the New Edition of St. Augustin, containeth his Treatises upon the Holy Scripture, which in the former Editions were dispersed in other Volumes. 
St. Augustin. Tome III.   
The Benedictines have placed the Books of Christian Doctrine first, which may serve in stead of a Preface to St. Augustin's Commentaries upon the Holy Scripture; because they contain such Precepts and Rules as he thought were to be observed, both for the understanding and the explaining of the Scriptures: He began this Work soon after he was Consecrated, about the Year 397. but he stopped at the 36th. Chapter of the Third Book; and afterwards added the rest of this Book with the Fourth in 426. as he says himself in his Retractations; where he makes two Remarks upon that Work. 1. That it is not certain, as he affirmed, That the Wisdom of Solomon was written by Jesus the Son of Syrach, the Author of Ecclesiasticus. 2. That when he saith, That the Old Testament containeth 44 Books, he used that word in the sense of the Church; though St. Paul seems to understand by the Old Testament no more than the Law given upon Mount Sinai; He confesseth likewise, That he committed a Fault of memory, in quoting one of St. Ambrose's Books for another.  
In the Preface to this Work, he answereth three sorts of Persons who might find fault with it; Some, because they did not understand it; Others, because they could not make use of the Precepts and Rules which he gives to understand, and to expound the Scripture; and the last, because they understand and expound the Holy Scripture without making use of his Rules, only by the light of the Holy Ghost. He tells the First and Second, That it is not his fault if they want Understanding or Light. And the Third, That they ought not to judge of others by themselves, since God hath not granted the same Gifts to all Men: and that we should tempt him, if we neglected those Humane means which God affords us to understand the Holy Scripture, under pretence that he can give us that knowledge, without either Study or Labour.  
The design of this Book is, as we have observed, to give Rules and Precepts, both to Understand and to Explain the Holy Scripture. These two divide the whole Work. He treateth in the Three first Books of the Understanding of the Scripture; and in the last, of the way to Expound it, and make it intelligible to others.  
The First Book contains lose Reflections and general Principles. He observes at first, That all Knowledge is either of Signs or of Things; and that Things are expressed by Signs. He distinguisheth two sorts of Things; some which we may enjoy, and others which we are only to use. The three Persons of the Divinity, are the only Thing we are to enjoy. They are that ineffable God, whom we look upon as the Supreme Being, as the immutable Wisdom to be preferred before all Things; to know him, we must Purify our Minds: And to teach us this, the Wisdom of God was incarnate; it is that which Cures Man of his Distempers, Weaknesses, and Blindness. He confirmed our Faith by his Resurrection and Ascension; and he increases and upholdeth it by the Hope of Reward, the Fear of Punishment, and by the Expectation of the Last Judgement. He hath established a Church, to which he hath granted necessary Gifts and Graces to lead Men to their Heavenly Country. He gave it Keys to bind Sinners, and to lose them that are Penitent. As for created Being's, we are not permitted to enjoy them; that is to say, to esteem them as our Ultimate End; but we may use them, and they ought to be loved with respect to God. Thus we are to love both ourselves and our Neighbour. The Scripture commands us not to love ourselves; we are but too prone to this naturally, but it enjoins us to love our Neighbour. The whole Law centres in this twofold Charity, which makes us love God above all things, and our Neighbour as ourselves. Our Charity towards our Neighbour ought to be regulated: We must not love Sinners as Sinners, but as Men; and though we are more strictly obliged to secure those that are near to us, whether by Kindred or Friendship, yet we ought to love all Men alike, because they are our Neighbours; even Angels are to be comprehended under this general Name. St. Augustin having laid down these Principles, saith, That the double Precept of Charity, is to be a Rule for the understanding of the Holy Scriptures. That any sense that hath no relation to Charity, is not certainly the true sense; but on the contrary, every sense which hath respect to it, is useful; though not always conformable to the Writer's intention; and yet we should endeavour not to departed from their particular meaning. He saith, in the last place, That the understanding of the Scripture is comprised in Faith, Hope, and Charity; So that a Christian who is endued with these three Virtues, hath no absolute need of the Scripture for himself; but only for the Instruction of others: Yea, That several Persons live very Christian Lives in their Solitude without the help of the Sacred Books. He concludes from all that he hath said in this Book, That whosoever is throughly persuaded, that the Scripture is that Charity which proceedeth out of a pure Heart, of a good Conscience and Faith unfeigned, may without fear betake himself to the reading of the Holy Scripture.  
In the Second Book, he comes to the Knowledge of Signs; and having given the Definition, and Divisions of them, he observes, That Words hold the First place among Signs. He shows how the Sound of Words is form, and how the variety of Tongues was introduced into the World. He supposes that the Scripture is not plain every where; and that there is need of Application to understand it; that the most Skilful meet with Difficulties; that the Allegories and Figures, there to be met with, sometimes render it dark; but commonly what is obscure in one place, is cleared in another; and so the Holy Ghost feeds the Hungry with what is clear, and prevents their being nauseated by exercising them with what is obscure. He showeth, at last, by what Degrees we may attain to the perfect Knowledge of the Wisdom, contained in the Holy Scripture. These Degrees are, The Fear of God, Piety, Knowledge, Courage, Counsel, and Purity of Heart. Afterwards followeth a Catalogue of the Canonical Books, 
* By these Words our Author means, That St. Augustin's Canon of S. S. was the same with that now received in the Church of Rome: But that does not appear from St. Augustin's Words; for of those Books which the Church of England condemns as Apocryphal, he names none but Tobith, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees. By the Book of Esdras, he does not mean those which we call by that name, but the Books of Ezrah, and Nehemiah, which he mentions no where else, and which were never disputed in the Church; and it is uncertain, whether he owned those Additions to the Book of Esther, that are now received in the, Church of Rome.  the very same with ours. The Rule he makes use of to distinguish them, is this. I desire (saith he) that to know the Canonical Books, the Authority of the greatest part of the Catholic Church may be observed, and particularly of those that have Apostolical Sees, or which have had the Happiness of receiving the Epistles of the Apostles. But among the Canonical Books, those that are received by all Churches, must be preferred before those which are rejected by some. Again, among those we should pay a greater regard to those which are acknowledged by a great number of Churches, and by the most considerable, than to such as are admitted only by few Churches, and those of no great Authority. And if some have been received by the greater Number of Churches, and rejected by those that have greater Authority; though it is hard to meet with such, yet they ought to be put in the same Rank, and to obtain the same Authority. He adviseth all Pious Persons, that fear God, and seek to know his Will, to read all the Canonical Books, to draw from them Precepts for Manners, and Rules of Faith, and at last, he furnisheth them with the means to arrive to the understanding of hard and obscure Passages. The First is the Knowledge of that Language, wherein those Books were written. The Second is to consult and compare the several Translations, whereof some serve to explain the rest. Among the Translations, he prefers the Vulgar Latin, as being more literal, and clearer: And among the Greek Versions, he adheres to the Septuagint, to which he ascribes much Authority. He doth not decide, Whether the Seventy composed it separately, every one in his Cell by God's Inspiration, or by conferring together. But he affirms, That however it was composed, it ought to be followed, and preferred even before the Hebrew Text, because it is not credible, that they made this alteration, without a secret Assistance of the Holy Spirit, for the good of the Church. As to the Books of the New Testament, he saith, That, without doubt, the Latin Translation is to be Corrected by the Greek Copies.  
The Third Thing which St. Augustin looks upon as necessary for the understanding of the Scripture, is the Knowledge of Things signified; as the Nature of Animals, Plants, Herbs, and of other Things which are made use of in Comparisons and Figures in Holy Scripture. He lays great weight upon the Knowledge of Numbers, and Music, which he pretends to be of great use: And he would not have Profane Sciences neglected; provided, that such as are False, and Superstitious, be laid aside; and particularly, judicial Astrology, and Magic. He reckoneth Painting, and Mythology, among those Things whose Knowledge is Superfluous; but he shows the usefulness of History, Mechanics, Logic, Rhetoric, and other Sciences, provided that a good Use be made of them, that Men depend not too much upon them, nor be lifted up because of them, but that both Charity, and Humility, be preserved as the Two Keys, without which the Holy Scripture cannot be understood.  
The Third Book lays down Rules to clear those Difficulties that arise from the different Senses, in which a Discourse may be taken; as for instance, when the Parts of a Discourse are distinguished by Points, and Commas, which variously placed, altar the Sense. St. Augustin would have Men refer themselves, in such cases, to the Rule of Faith, and reject that Distinction which makes an Heretical Sense: That if both Senses be Catholic, that is to be followed, which agreeth best with the connexion of the Discourse; and last of all, if both agree with the Text, than we may follow that which seems most probable. He applies the same Rules to determine the pronunciation, and signification of undetermined Terms: At last he desireth, that Men should consult the original Text.  
There is much more difficulty, when the Words are taken in a Metaphorical, and Figurative Sense; then we must have a care how we understand them in a Proper, and Natural Sense. The Jews were for a long time, Slaves to this literal Meaning. The Gentiles likewise were Slaves to unprofitable Ceremonies. But Christians deliver the Jews, by discovering to them the Truths that were hid under the Letter, and they set the Gentiles at Liberty, by utterly rejecting their profane Ceremonies. Themselves are charged but with a small Number of Signs easily practised, whose Signification is very Majestical, and their Observation very Pure. Christ himself instituted them, and the Apostles taught the Church the Knowledge of them: Such are the Sacrament of Baptism, and the Celebration of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  
After this, St. Augustin goes to the necessary Rules, whereby we may distinguish the proper Sense from the Figurative. The First, and most general is, That whatsoever cannot be made to agree, either with Purity of Manners, or with the Truth of Faith, when 'tis understood according to the Letter, must necessarily have a Figurative Sense. But we are not to judge of what may be Pure, or True, according to the Prejudices, either of Custom, or Opinion, but only by the Rules of Faith, and Charity, because the Holy Scripture teacheth nothing but Charity, and condemns nothing but Lust.  
Neither must those Opinions, and Actions, be taken in a Figurative Sense, which seem to imply a kind of Cruelty, which in Scripture, is ascribed either to God, or to Righteous Men, when they are made use of against the Lusts of carnal Men. But a Word, or an Action which is absolutely unjust, and that cannot be excused by any Circumstance, when it is attributed to God, or to those whose Sanctity is commended in Scripture, must necessarily be expounded by a Figure. This Rule takes place in Things that are expressed in the Form of a Command. If the Letter forbids a Crime, and enjoins a good Thing, there is no Figure; but, on the contrary, if it seems to command a Crime, and forbidden a Virtue, it is a Figure. It often happeneth, that such as are in a more perfect State, do understand Figuratively, what is said of a State less Perfect; but let those Men consider, that there are Precepts for all Men in general, and some that relate to each State in particular. He adds, That we should not believe, that since the Coming of Jesus Christ, those Things can be observed, which were either permitted, or prescribed only for the time of the Old Law, though at that time, they were to be taken in their proper Sense. He instanceth in the Polygamy of the Patriarches, because they lived Holily in Marriage, with a prospect of having Children; and he confidently preferreth that State, before that of such Men, who having but one Wife, abuse Matrimony to satisfy their brutish Lust.  
Finally, it must be confessed, That when the Scripture mentions great Men's Faults, we may not only seek there for a Figurative Sense, but also for Instruction in the Historical Sense, because their Fall teaches the Holiest Men, not to be lifted up through Presumption.  
St. Augustin addeth, besides the following Observations, that the same Figurative Expression sometimes signifies Two different Things, and sometimes contrary Things. That a dark Place of Scripture ought to be explained by those that are clearer; and that Reasonings may likewise be used to clear it: But it is safer to have recourse to other Passages of Scripture; and that the same Passage may have several Significations equally good. He concludes with the Seven Rules of Tychonius, the Donatist; but they are very far from the good Sense, and the Usefulness of St. Augustin's: They discover great Subtlety; but it is very difficult to apply them.  
In the last Book of Christian Doctrine, St. Augustin shows how to Expound the Holy Scripture for the benefit of others. He says at first, That they were not to expect Rhetorical Rules upon that Subject from him; which though they are not useless, yet since they may be found in other places, they ought not to be introduced into this Work; He enlargeth however upon the Qualifications of a Christian Orator. He shows, That it were an Error to think, that Truth cannot make use of Rhetorical Ornaments to refute Error; so that he would have christian's study to speak Eloquently. He adviseth young Men to learn the Precepts and Rules of Art; but as for Men in Years, his Opinion is, That they should only read Books that are well written, and frame their Discourses after their Pattern, without regarding the Precepts of Art, which are of little use. The Design of a Preacher who expounds the Holy Scripture, who sets forth God's Word, who defends the Faith, and opposes Errors, should be to teach that which is Good, and to persuade others to departed from that which is Evil; to bring over those of contrary Opinions, to quicken the Sloathfnl, to instruct the Ignorant, to soften, and convert hardened Sinners.  
When the Question is only how to instruct the Ignorant, it is enough to declare the Doctrine of the Church; but if Gain-sayers are to be persuaded, it must be established by solid Arguments: And Lastly, If Men's Hearts are to be moved, there is need of Prayers, Reproaches, Threaten, Exhortations, and other Figures proper to affect them. Such as want Eloquence to excel in these Things, aught to make up their Discourses with Passages, and Expressions out of Holy Scripture. He proves by several Examples, That there is much Eloquence in the Holy Write; yet he would not have a Preacher imitate that Obscureness which is to be met with in some Passages of the Holy Scripture, but charges him, above all things, to be clear; not to content himself to please with agreeable Notions, but to inform by solid Instructions. As the Matter which a Preacher treateth of is high, so he ought never to lose his Gravity, though he may alter his Style according to the variety of Subjects. St. Augustin produces Examples, both out of the Holy Scripture, and out of the Fathers, of Three kinds of Eloquence; showing, at the same time, upon what Occasions, and to what Subjects they are to be applied. Lastly, Having laid down several useful Rules to complete a Preacher, he advises him, above all, to prepare himself by Prayer, and to be sure that his Life be answerable to his Sermons. He blames not those who Preach Sermons composed by others, when they cannot make Sermons themselves.  
After this Treatise of Christian Doctrine, follows St. Augustin's Writings upon the Holy Scripture.  
The First is his imperfect Book upon Genesis. It is the First, not only according to the Order of the Books of the Holy Scripture, but also according to that of its Composition. St. Augustin wrote it in Africa in the Year 393. before he was Bishop. He designed to prove against the Manichees, That the History of Genesis, taken literally, was no ridiculous thing, as they pretended: But he confesses; That being not well instructed in those Matters, he found this Undertaking to be above his strength; which obliged him to stop in the way, even before he had finished the First Book, which remained imperfect. He was once resolved utterly to suppress it; but he thought it more convenient to leave it as a monument of his First Inquiries upon the Holy Scripture, and he added some Periods to it. He gins this Book with an Account of the Doctrine of the Church, concerning the Trinity, and the Incarnation. He adds against the Manichees, That Sin is none of God's Creatures, but that it consists in the Abuse of freewill. Afterwards he distinguishes Four Senses of the Scripture: The Historical, which takes place when a Relation is made of Matters of Fact, as they happened: The Allegorical, which explaineth what is spoken by Figures: The Analogical, when the Old and New Testament are compared together, and their Agreement is justified: And the Aetiological, whereby Reasons are given of the Actions and Discourses that are related in the Holy Scripture.  
This being supposed, he undertakes to Explain the History of the Creation, set forth in the beginning of Genesis. He frames Difficulties upon every Word, and makes several Objections to himself, but often answers them not; or if he doth, his Answers are not commonly very just, nor sufficient to satisfy the least scrupulous. This Work endeth at Man's Creation.  
He pursues very near the same Method in the Twelve following Books upon Genesis, which he writ when he was Bishop: They were begun in 401. and completed in 415. He explains the Text of Genesis from the beginning, to that place where it is said that Adam was driven out of Paradise. He examines the Words, and starts an infinite number of Questions: some he answers, but most are left unresolved. He often gives Mystical and Moral Solutions, which are not very literal. He discourses likewise by the buy, of several common places, concerning the Nature both of Angels, and of the Soul; the Fall of Angels, and that of Man; concerning the Mysteries of the Number Six; concerning Hell and Paradise, Visions, and several other Subjects which he meets with in his way.  
The Seven Books of the Ways of Speaking, in the seven first Books of the Bible, which follow this Work we have now spoken of, is a Critical Treatise; wherein St. Augustin explaineth several Ways of Speaking that are peculiar to these Books, and which ordinarily are not met with in others. This Work is of the Year 419.  
In making these Remarks upon the Ways of Speech, in these Seven First Books of the Bible, he finds several Difficulties about the things themselves, which he collecteth in the Form of Questions, which he proposeth to himself; whereof he gives a Solution in few words, though without going to the depth. This is both the Subject and the Method of the Seven following Books: where he takes a short view of the principal Difficulties that he met with in the Pentateuch, in the Book of Joshua, and in that of Judges. This is a very curious and useful Work. There he does not recede from the literal Sense, as in his other Treatises, but makes very learned and judicious Remarks, which serve very much to clear the Text of the Bible.  
The Notes upon Job are a very imperfect Work. St. Augustin had writ them in the Margin of a Copy of the Book of Job; from which some body took them, and compiled them into a Book by themselves: which makes him say, That he knew not whether it was to be called his Work or theirs who had thus collected and reduced them. He findeth there much Obscurity, proceeding from their great Brevity, and because they added some Notes to those words of the Text to which they do not refer. In one word: He found so many Faults in that Work, that he had suppressed it, had he not known that there were several Copies of it abroad. This is the Account which he gives of it in the 13th. Chapter of the Second Book of his Retractations. Yet this Treatise is not so contemptible; it is a kind of Paraphrase, or literal Explication of the Book of Job, which explains it, and discovers such Notions as may be further improved.  
The Looking-glass taken out of the Scripture, is neither a Commentary, nor a particular Work upon the Scripture, but barely a Collection of Passages out of the Old and New Testament, containing Precepts and Instructions for Manners. Possidius affirms, That St. Augustin wrote a Book of this Nature, and Cassiodorus recommends the reading of it. It is not certain whether this is that which St. Augustin wrote. The Preface is in his Style, but in the Body of the Book the Scriptures are cited according to St. Jerom's Translation. Perhaps the Text used by St. Augustin was changed, and the more common Version was put in the room of it: For I can hardly believe that St. Augustin would quit his Old Translation, to make a constant use of St. Jerom's. Father Vignier hath also published A Looking-glass taken out of Scripture, attributed to St. Augustin: But this relates to Doctrine, more than to Manners; which doth not agree with what Possidius saith of St. Augustin's.  
These are all St. Augustin's Treatises upon the Old Testament, which make up the First Part of the Third Tome. The Second contains Treatises upon the New Testament, and gins with a Harmony betwixt the Four Gospels divided into Four Books.  
In the First, having spoken of the Number, Authority, and of the Style of the Gospels, he refuteth those who refuse to give Credit to the Gospel, because it was not written by Jesus Christ himself, but by his Disciples, whom they suppose to have receded from their Master's Doctrine, that so they might persuade the World that he was God, and thereby destroy the Worship of the Gods. He observes, That Two of the Four Evangelists were Apostles, St. Matthew and St. John; and Two were not, St. Mark and St. Luke; that so none might say, that there was a difference betwixt those who had seen with their Eyes Christ's Actions, and those who wrote them upon the Relation of those who had seen them. He addeth, That other Men's Works, who undertook to write the History of Christ, were not received by the Church as Canonical; because the Authors of these Histories were not to be believed, having stuffed their Works with false Relations, and Errors, contrary to the Rule of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, and to sound Doctrine. He believes, That the Four Gospels were composed in the same Order as we see them in at present: That St. Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew, and the others in Greek: That each Evangelist hath observed a particular Order, yet without obliging himself not to speak any thing that had been spoken by another: That St. Matthew designed particularly to give an Account of Christ's Royal Descent, and to represent him according to that Humane Life which he led among Men: That St. Mark did little else but abridge St. Matthew: That St. Luke applied himself to set forth Christ's Priesthood; which is the reason why he doth not reckon his Genealogy from King David, by Solomon, as St. Matthew doth, but by Nathan: and for the same reason, he takes notice, That the Virgin Mary was akin to Elizabeth, who was of the Sacerdotal Race, and Wife to Zacharias the Priest. Lastly, That St. John taketh his Subject above Christ's Humane Actions, to speak of his Divinity, and to discover the Equality of the Word with his Father: So that it may be said, that the Three First Evangelists are more for the Active Life, and St. John for Contemplation. After this, St. Augustin makes Application of the Four Beasts in the Revelations to the Four Evangelists; and having made these Remarks, he answereth those who found fault that Christ had written nothing. He proposes to them the Examples of Socrates, Pythagoras, and of the wisest Heathen, who left to their Disciples the care of committing to Writing both their Doctrine and their Instructions. He shows, That Christ cannot be said to have written Magical Books, or that he approved the Worship of False Deities. He particularly enlargeth upon this last Head, showing, That the Apostle's Doctrine, touching the Worshipping of One only God, is conformable to that of the Prophets, who foretell, That the Messiah should preach the same upon Earth, and that it should be published and received throughout the World. The Three other Books, are a Harmony of the Evangelists. In the Second and Third, he followeth the Text of St. Matthew's Gospel, and compareth the three other Gospels with that. In the last, he takes notice of what the three other Evangelists have peculiar to themselves. He doth not only compare the Text of the Evangelists, but makes them agree together, and resolves the seeming Difficulties and Contrarieties that are betwixt them, as to the Order and Manner of their relating both of the Words and Actions of Jesus Christ. This Work was very difficult and laborious, and it was finished by St. Augustin with great exactness. It was composed about the Year 400.  
After this Treatise, we find in this Volume the two Books of St. Augustin, upon the Sermon of Christ in the Mount, written about the Year 393. They contain Moral Reflections, with Instructions and Precepts contained in Christ's Sermon, recorded by St. Matthew in the 5th. 6th. and 7th. Chapters of his Gospel. St. Augustin likewise clears the Difficulties that he meets with in the Letter of the Text. Among the Passages of this Treatise which he reviseth in his Retractations, there are Two of Consequence: The former, is, about the Divorce allowed by Jesus Christ, in case of Fornication. He had extended what is said of Fornication, to all those Crimes that set us at a distance from God. Here he retracteth this Opinion, and confesseth, That this Notion is not very certain. He saith also, That it is a very hard Question, Whether a Man may Marry another Wife, having been Divorced from a former? The Second Point of any importance, taken notice of in his Retractations, is, touching an Expression he had used when he spoke of Jesus Christ: He had called him Homo Dominicus: He disapproves that Term, though he had read it in Ecclesiastical Writers. He retracts likewise what he had said, That the Sin unto Death, was Envy against our Brother: with some other Explications that were not very just. However, the Treatise itself is very instructive, and very useful: It contains several Moral Precepts, which may be of very great Use. In the Second Book, he explains the Lord's Prayer.  
Both the Books of Questions upon some Passages of St. Matthew's and St. Luke's Gospels, were composed by St. Augustin with great precipitation, to satisfy the Requests of a Person that read the Gospel. Most of his Answers are either Mystical or Moral Explications. He places this Book in his Retractations, among those which he writ about the Year 400. and takes notice of some Faults of Inadvertency. The First Book is upon St. Matthew's Gospel. The Second, upon that of St. Luke. He makes no mention of the Seventeen following Questions upon St. Matthew's Gospel, neither are they mentioned in the best Editions of the Catalogue of St. Augustin's Works, made by Possidius: which gives us reason to doubt whether they are St. Augustin's, though Rhabanus hath quoted them under his Name, and though they are written in a Style very much like his.  
The 124 Treatises upon St. John's Gospel are of a very different Nature from the former; they are Homilies preached by St. Augustin to his People, wherein he followeth the Text of St. John, and draws important Instructions from it upon the principal Points both of Doctrine and Morality. He attacks three sorts of Heretics principally; the Arians, the Donatists, and the Pelagians. He maintains against the First, the Divinity and Consubstantiality of the Word. He oftens refutes the Reasons alleged by the Second to justify their Separation, and earnestly exhorts them to reunite themselves with the Church; and proves against the last, the necessity of Christ's Grace, and the free Predestination of the Elect. These are the principal Subjects treated of in these Homilies, which he preached after the Pelagian Heresy broke out, before the Destruction of the Donatists Schi●●, some time after they had found St. Steven's Body, as he affirms in the 120th. Sermon; which makes us conjecture that they are the Sermons which he preached to his People in the Years 416. and 417. For he began with them about the end of Winter, towards February, in the Year 416. as appears by the beginning of the Sixth: He continued them in Lent, as it is observed in the 10th. and 11th. They were interrupted during Easter holidays. After the holidays he undertook the Exposition of St. John's Epistle, and then prosecuted his Gospel. He had got but to the 27th. Homily, about the Feast of St. Laurence, and so could not finish these Sermons before the next Year.  
St. Augustin's Ten Homilies upon St. John's Epistle, interrupted, as we said just now, the course of those which he composed upon the Gospel. He gives notice of it himself in his Preface; where he observes, That having been obliged by the Solemnity of those Festivals, wherein particular Lessons are yearly recited, to interrupt the course of his Explications upon St. John's Gospel; before he returned to it, he thought it convenient to Expound, during those seven or eight Days, the Epistle of the same Evangelist, that was most agreeable to that joyful Time, because it speaks of nothing but Charity. St. Augustin, in his Homilies, makes excellent Reflections upon this Virtue. He observes, That Fear brings in Charity, but that Charity drives away Fear. He distinguisheth two sorts of Fear; that which is conceived by a dread of Punishment, which goes before Charity; and that which he calleth a Chaste Fear, which consists in the Fear of Losing Charity. He explaineth these two sorts of Fear, by the different Dispositions of two Women, whereof the one loveth her Husband, and the other hateth him, though both Fear him. There are other excellent Instructions in these Homilies of St. Augustin, concerning the Love of God and our Neighbour. He speaks also occasionally, concerning Grace and the Church: And expounds these words of Christ to St. Peter, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, of the Faith whereof St. Peter had immediately before made Profession.  
St. Augustin composed at Carthage, in 394. his Exposition of several Passages of the Epistle to the Romans, in Answer to the Difficulties that were proposed to him. He had not then perfectly found his System of Grace, which made him let slip some Explications different from some which he hath given since: And this very thing gave Occasion for his Remarks upon this Book, in his Retractations, where he corrects what he had said, whereby some might be made to believe, That the Beginning of Faith cometh from Man, and not from the Grace of Jesus Christ.  
He undertook also at the same time a larger Commentary upon this whole Epistle; which would have been prodigiously large, since the single Exposition of the Salutation with which St. Paul gins the Epistle, makes up a whole Book. True it is, that he makes there a Digression of several Pages, upon an incidental Question concerning the Sin against the Holy Ghost, which he thinks to be final Impenitency; but both the Extent and the Difficulty of that Work made him give it over: however, he left that Book, and entitled it, The Beginning of an Exposition upon the Epistle to the Romans.  
At the same time likewise he made a continued Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians, wherein he contents himself with clearing the whole Text, with Explications and Reflections, without departing from his Subject by long Digressions.  
The Addition at the latter end of this Volume, containeth several Discourses upon the Scripture, which are none of St. Augustin's.  
The First is entitled, Of the Miracles of the Holy Scripture, contained in the Old and New Testament. One needs only read one or two Periods of this Work, to be convinced that it is not St. Augustin's; so different is the Style thereof from that of this Father: The Author thereof seems to have been either an Englishman or an Irishman. He speaks of the Flowing and Ebbing of the Sea upon the Coasts of the British Islands; and to express the same, he makes use of Terms that were usual in Bede's time, he fixes the time where he lived in the 4th. Chapter of the 2d, Book; and speaking of those Islands, he shows, That he wrote after the Year 660. This Work is divided into Three Books: The First contains the Miracles related in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. The Second, Those that are contained in the Books of the Prophets, And the Last, Those that are mentioned in the New Testament. It is ill written, and of very little use.  
The small Discourse of the Benedictions of the Patriarch Jacob, belongs not to St. Augustin but is a Fragment of Alcuinus' Questions upon Genesis; who took part of it from the Questions upon Genesis, and part from the Morals of St. Gregory, This very Book is found in the 3d. Book of the Commentary upon Genesis, attributed to St. Eucherius, Bishop of Lions.  
We have observed already, speaking of the Works of Hilary the Deacon, in the Second Volume of this Bibliotheca, that the Questions upon the Old and the New Testament, are not St. Augustin's; and the Conjectures, for which they were ascribed to Hilary the Deacon, were there set down: He that desires more Arguments to prove, That they are not St. Augustin's, should read the First Part of the Benedictines Preface to this Treatise. It remains only, That we take notice with them, That in all probability these Questions are not at all written by the same Author. In some Manuscripts there are only the 127 Questions, which were published at first; others have 151. but in these, there are not all those that are in the first Manuscript; and among the rest the 44th. and the 115th. which afforded Conjectures concerning the Age and the Country of their Author. This makes it difficult to affirm any thing certainly concerning the Author of these Questions.  
The Explication of the Apocalypse, which is the last Book that is added to this Volume of St. Augustin, is a Collection of Notes upon the Revelations, taken out of the Commentaries of Victorinus, Primasius, and Bede, and disposed into the Form of Homilies. Those that thought that this was the Commentary of Tychonius the Donatist, upon the Revelations, did not take notice that it was so far from containing things favourable to the Donatists' Sect; That on the contrary, it refutes their Errors, and particularly that of Rebaptisation, in the Sixth Homily upon the Revelations, Vers. 11. Neither do we find here, those Expositions which Bede mentions as written by Tychonius; nor the long Dissertation, to prove, That the Angels spoken of in the Revelations, are those Churches which Tychonius had inserted into his Commentary; as St. Augustin observes in the Thirtieth Chapter of the Third Book of Christian Doctrine.   

The FOURTH TOME.  
THE Fourth Tome of St. Augustin's Works contains This Father's Explications upon the 
Tome IU.  Psalms; which make too large a Book, to be comprised in one Volume with his other Commentaries upon the Holy Scripture. He composed them not in that order wherein we find them, but some at one time, and others at another; and not all after the same manner. Some are Commentaries written in his Study, and the others, which make by far the greater number, are Discourses made to his People. Cassiodore observes, That in his time they were divided into Fifteen Decades; this division is not observed at present, and it is not likely that St. Augustin made it. St. Augustin understanding no Hebrew, followed the Latin Translations made from the Greek Version of the Septuagint, to the Text whereof he often refers. In some of these Explications, and particularly, in those that were not written to the People, as the Thirteen first, he only makes Allegorical Notes upon the Text of the Psalms; but in the rest, he is either very diffuse, and enlargeth much upon Reflections that are not very solid, or else he goeth from his Subject by long Digressions. He professes to explain the Letter, but his literal sense is almost always Spiritual or Moral. If he clears any term, or insists upon the Signification of any word, it is always to extract an Allegory, or something Moral from it. He brings all to Jesus Christ, to the Mysteries of our Religion, and to the Church. The Recompenses and Blessings mentioned in the Psalms, are always in his opinion, Spiritual Recompenses and Eternal Blessings. He often gives several senses of the same place, and very frequently makes a digression against the Schism, or the Heresies of his own time; He is full of useless Allusions, ill-grounded Subtleties, and improbable Allegories. His very Moral Thoughts are seldom such as might have been naturally inferred from the Scripture Text; but ordinarily such far-fetched Notions as could never fall into the Mind of any Man that should read the Text.  
Yet here and there one may meet with lively and fervent Exhortations, which raised his People; and profitable Instructions upon the most important Truths of Religion. So that though this Work cannot pass for a good Commentary upon the Psalms, yet it may be looked upon as a wonderful Collection of Christian and Moral Notions; and if it be of no great use for those that inquire after the literal sense of the Scripture; yet it will prove very Profitable to Preachers, who desire to fit their Minds with necessary Thoughts and Rules to help them to discharge well that part of their Ministry.   

The FIFTH TOME.  
MOst of St. Augustin's Sermons being Homilies upon the Scripture, they are with a great 
Tome V.  deal of Reason brought in to make up this Volume, which follows immediately after St. Augustin's Commentaries upon the Holy Scripture. They had hitherto been in great confusion, because new Collections of them were still Printed, as new Sermons were discovered. There was a great number of Supposititious or Doubtful ones among the True; most Editions were full of Faults, so that it was necessary, that Persons so exact, learned, and versed in such Matters as these Benedictines are, should undertake to set them in order, to distinguish St. Augustin's from those that are Supposititious, and to Correct the Text from the best and ancientest Manuscripts. This they have performed most happily in the Fifth Tome, which containeth all St. Augustin's Sermons, placed in very good order, and divided into five Classes.  
The First containeth 183 Sermons upon several Passages both of the Old and New Testament.  
The Second is made up of 88 Sermons upon the great Festivals of the Year.  
In the Third are 69 upon the Festivals of the Saints.  
The Fourth comprehendeth 23 upon various Subjects, as, The Love of God, Fear, Penance, Contempt of the World, Behaviour of the Clergy, Peace and Concord, Resurrection from the 
St. Augustin. Tome V.  Dead, etc.  
The last Classis is composed of such Sermons, as cannot be certainly affirmed to be St. Augustin's, though there is no certainty that they are none of his; among these, there are some of which we have more reason to doubt, which are Printed in a smaller Character; there are not above 31 of them.  
They have also added at the latter end, Fragments of some other Sermons of St. Augustin's, which are taken out of the Collections of Eugyppius, Bede, Florus, and John a Deacon of the Church of Rome: Another Fragment, of the Sermon upon the Ascension, and a Sermon of Heraclius, a Disciple of St. Augustin's.  
The Addition contains 317 Spurious Sermons, divided into four Classes, according to the order observed in the true ones; At the Head of each, is a very exact Critic; Several of them are restored to Caesarius their true Author; Some are found to belong to Rhabanus, and some others are taken out of Origen's Homilies, or out of the Works of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Maximus, St. Leo, Faustus, St. Gregory, Alcuinus, and Ivo Carnutensis.  
St. Augustin's Sermons are written neither Artificially nor Methodically, They are not regular Orations composed of all their Parts; They are familiar Discourses, spoken without much Preparation; Most of them are very short, and made up of concise Sentences and Phrases; He doth not go to the depth of Points either of Doctrine or Morality, as the Greek Fathers do, but contents himself to speak of them succinctly, and in few words. Interrogations, Antitheses, and Quibbles, are almost all the Figures that he beautifies his Discourse withal; He doth not assert the Truth strongly, nor inculcate it Pathetically; but barely proposes it with agreeable Expressions, and impresses it with some pleasant Thoughts. This kind of Eloquence is much inferior to that of the Greek Orators, but it may be that it relished best with the Men of St. Augustin's Age, and agreed with the Genius of the Africans; who not only admired his Sermons, but were moved by them. It would not be so now, and I question whether a Sermon of St. Augustin's preached in our Pulpits would draw many Auditors: Yet it must be confessed, That few Latin Preachers are to be compared with him, and that if he be much inferior to the St. Basils', or the St. Chrysostom's, he is much above the St. Maximus', the St. Chrysologus', and several other Latins that came after him. I shall not enter into particulars upon his Sermons, which were both a tedious and an endless Work.   

The SIXTH TOME.  
THE Sixth Tome of St. Augustin's Works contains his Dogmatical Books, upon several 
Tome VI.  Points both of Morality, and Discipline: He gins with some small Treatises, containing Answers to several Questions upon various Subjects.  
The First, Is a Collection of Answers to 83 Questions, which he resolved, after his return into Africa, about the Year 388. and which he Collected after he was a Bishop. These are the Resolutions contained in those 83 Questions, with most of the Principles from whence they are taken:  
I. The Soul is not of its self, nor by its self; since it is not essentially the Truth.  
II. God did not make Man like himself. He is not good by Nature, but by Will; therefore he must be free.  
III. If a Wise Man's Advice never makes another man worse than he was before, Is it credible, That God should make Men more wicked?  
IU. What then may be the Cause of Man's Wickedness? We must seek for it, either in himself, or in others, or in nothing: Consider it well, and you will find, That the Will of Man is the Cause of his Depravation.  
V Animals have no Knowledge, and therefore cannot be Happy.  
VI All Corporeal and Spiritual Being's, have a Perfection which makes their Essence: Evil hath none; therefore it is no Being.  
VII. Sometimes we confound the Soul with the Spirit, and sometimes we distinguish them: when the Actions of Man that are common to him with Beasts, are attributed to his Soul, the Spirit cannot be meant by that term; for Beasts have no Reason: and Reason is a necessary Adjunct of a Spirit.  
VIII. The Soul hath no other Motion besides its Will and its Actions; It makes the Body change its place, but changes not herself.  
IX. Our Senses only acquaint us with those Things that are in a perpetual change; Therefore they cannot give us the Knowledge of Eternal and immovable Truth.  
X. Whatsoever hath any Perfection cometh from God: Bodies have; Therefore God is the Author of them.  
XI. Jesus Christ was Man; but he is Born of a Virgin: Who can doubt then of his being come to save both Sexes?  
XII. God may be present, indeed; yet a defiled Soul cannot see him: This Notion is not St. Augustin's, but an Heathen's called Fonteius; who was afterwards Baptised, and died a 
St. Augustin. Tome VI.  Christian; as St. Augustin assures us in his Retractations.  
XIII. Man can tame and dress a Beast; but do we find that Beasts can do the same to Man?  
XIV. If Christ's Body had been but a Phantom, Christ had deceived us; but he is not capable of so doing.  
XV. The Spirit of Man comprehends itself; and knows no infinite Perfection in itself: wherefore it is finite.  
XVI. The Time past, is no more; The Future is not yet: Every thing is present with God.  
XVII. There should be three Causes of a Creature; That which gives it a Being; That which gives it such a sort of Being; and that which gives it a Love to its Being: Therefore the Cause of it is a Trinity. This Argument is not the most convincing.  
XVIII. In Eternity, there is neither time past nor to come, all is present.  
XIX. God is not where, and comprehends all things, without being the place of any thing; for he could not be in a place, nor be a place, without being Corporeal.  
XX. Since God is the Author of Being, he cannot be the Author of what tends to nothing. Evil tends to nothing; therefore God is not the Author of Evil.  
XXI. The only reason why we need any thing, is a defect in ourselves; God therefore needs nothing.  
XXII. Man is wise, because he partaketh of wisdom; but God is wise through Wisdom itself. It is the same in all other Perfections.  
XXIII. If any thing should happen in the World by chance, than there would be no longer Prudence; but there is a necessity of Prudence: for all Being's are perfect, but can no further be so, than as they participate of the Goodness and Perfection of God. God and Man are the Authors of all that is done in the World. Good and Evil depend upon our own Wills.  
XXIV. It was the part of Wisdom to show that the most shameful Death is not to be feared: And that's one of the Reasons for which Christ endured such a one.  
XXV. There are Sins of Weakness, Ignorance and Malice; Weakness is contrary to the Strength of God, Ignorance to his Wisdom, and Malice to his Goodness: Thus whosoever knows what God's Strength and Wisdom are, may know which are Venial Sins: And whosoever knows God's Goodness, knoweth also what, those Sins are which deserve to be punished both in this World and in the next. This well understood, aught to be a Rule whereby to judge what sort of Sinners should be obliged to do Public Penance, though they confess their Sins. Yet this Rule is very general and very equivocal.  
XXVI. God makes use of the Wi●ked both to punish and to help. Afflictions are an Exercise to the Righteous, and a Punishment to the Wicked. Rest and Peace corrupt the Wicked, and sanctify the Righteous. God makes use of Men to accomplish the designs of his Providence, though they know it not. We act ourselves when we follow God's Commandments; but in all other things God guides us by the Springs of his Providence; and we have no share in the Events.  
XXVII. We should not ask why God would create the World, that were to seek after a Cause of that which is the Cause of all things.  
XXVIII. When it is said, Seek those things that are above; the meaning is, those things that are great and sublime by their excellency.  
XXIX. Man may make use of all things, but he ought only to enjoy God; and the use which he makes of all things, aught to have a Relation to God. Whosoever uses the Creatures otherwise, abuses them.  
XXX. This Question is not St. Augustin's; it is a definition of Virtue out of Tully.  
XXXI. Whosoever conceiveth a thing, conceives it as it is; and he who conceives it not as it is, doth not conceive it at all: There are no different degrees of Conception.  
XXXII. We are afraid of losing what we love: and we are afraid that we shall not obtain what we desire: If we desire to be without fear, How can we fear that we shall not be freed from fear?  
XXXIII. Men should not desire precisely to be free from fear, because rash and stupid Men are without fear: we should have a reason why we are not afraid.  
XXXIV. We ought to love what we possess, No man can know and love Happiness, without being happy: Happiness therefore is an eternal love and knowledge of a good thing which cannot be taken away from us.  
XXXV. To preserve and increase Charity, we must oppose and lessen Lust. This is to be begun by impressing a Dread of God's Judgements, to destroy the habit of Sin: After that, we ought to discover both the Beauty and Excellency of Virtue, to manifest the difference betwixt the Old and the New Man; to propose Christ's Life as an Example; to make use of his Exhortations, Instructions, and Promises; to consider the vast number of those that followed and imitated him; to set forth the Virtues both of Saints and of Martyrs, as Patterns; and at last, to oppose Pride and Ambition, and to inspire the fear and the love of God.  
I omit the following Questions, because they are obscure, and contain nothing remarkable.  
The XLVth. Is against Judicial Astrology.  
The XLVth. Is concerning Plato's Ideas.  
The XLVIIIth. Is expressed in these terms. We believe Three sorts of Things. The First, Are such Things as are believed, and not conceived, as History. The Second, Are both believed and conceived at the same time; as the reasonings of Men. The Third, Are Things believed but not conceived at that time, though they are conceived afterwards; Such are Divine Instructions, which are conceived by none but those that have Pure Hearts.  
In the LI. Question, He explains in what sense it is said, That Man was created after God's Image and Similitude: And in the LII. he prove● That what is said in Genesis, That it repent God to have made Man, is not to be understood literally.  
In the LIII. He justifies the Command which God gave the Jews to borrow of the Egyptians rich Vessels to carry them away; ●y saying, That God made use of them to Punish the Egyptians: But that from thence it cannot be inferred, That Men may deceive, because the People of Israel was not capable of Evangelical Perfection.  
The Resolutions of the following Questions, are Mystical and Moral Explications of several Passages both of the Old and of the New Testament.  
The LXXX. Is against the Error of the Apollinarists.  
The two Books of Questions directed to Simplicianus Bishop of Milan, who succeeded St. Ambrose in the Year 397. are the first which St. Augustin writ, after he was made a Bishop. In the first, he discourseth upon two Passages of the Epistle to the Romans, upon what is said, Ch. 7. of the man, who being under the Law, doth not what the Law requireth: And upon what is written in the 9th. Chapter, of Jacob's being called, and Esau's being rejected. He proves in this First Book with great strength, the Necessity of Grace to every Good Work, even for the beginning of Faith, and a Free Call. He saith himself, both in his Book of Predestination, and in that of the Gift of Perseverance, That he began then to see clearly into those Matters which he had not taken right in his former Books. Yet he understands the first Passage in the Romans, of a man under the Law, who is yet without Grace; whereas he believed afterwards, that it was rather to be understood of that man, who being Spiritual in his Superior part, finds himself carnal, by the desires and motions of the Inferior.  
The Second Book contains the Resolution of Five Questions, about particular Passages in the Old Testament. The First is, of what Spirit that which is said in the First Book of Kings, That the Spirit of God entered into Saul, is to be understood. Whether it was the Holy Ghost, or the Evil Spirit, wherewith he was possessed afterwards? After several Reflections and Digressions, St. Augustin concludes, That it must be understood of the Spirit of God; and that Saul was filled at first with the Spirit of God for a time, and afterwards was possessed with an evil Spirit. Yea, he thinks, That Saul had a Spirit of Prophecy at the time when he persecuted David, and he proves, That this Gift of the Holy Ghost may be found in Wicked Men.  
The Second Question is upon those words attributed to God in the First Book of Kings, Ch. 15. It repenteth me that I have set up Saul. How God's Repenting can agree with his Prescience? St. Augustin answers, That the Repentance ascribed to God, is not accompanied with regret, as that of Men is; it is only an Alteration of Will. This Question puts him upon discoursing of God's Knowledge.  
The Third Question is about the Story of the Witch of Endor. St. Augustin does not decide whether it was the Soul of Samuel, or a Phantom that appeared to Saul; he thinks the latter to be more probable.  
Both the other Questions are about two Passages in the Books of Kings, which have not much difficulty.  
The last is concerning the Spirit of Error, whereby God permitted King Ahab to be deceived.  
Dulcitius, a Tribune in Africa, having proposed Eight Questions to St. Augustin, about some Matters which he had already treated of, he Collected in this Book, which he sent in Answer to his Questions, what he had said in his other Works.  
The First Question was, Whether the Baptised that die in Sin, shall at any time be delivered from Damnation? St. Augustin answereth, No; and expounds a Passage of St. Paul, 1 Cor. Ch. 3. v. 11. where he speaks of the Fire which is to Purify the Faithful, by consuming the Evil which they shall have built upon the sound Foundation of Faith. He understandeth by Fire, that Affliction in this Life which Purifies the Faithful from light Sins. He adds, That we may believe, that some such thing is done also in the other Life, towards those who die before they are cleansed from those light Sins: But he affirms, That none can believe without Impiety, that this can be applied to such as die with the guilt of those Sins that exclude Men from the Kingdom of God. This Answer is taken out of his Book of Faith.  
The Second Question of Works, hath great relation to the former. It was demanded, Whether the Oblations and Prayers that are made for the Dead avail them any thing? St. Augustin Answers what he had said already in his Book concerning the Care that ought to be taken of the Dead, That the Oblations and Prayers are profitable to those who deserved in their Life-time, that Prayers should avail them. He addeth what he had said in his Enchiridion to Laurentius, That in all that time, between Death and the last Resurrection, the Souls shall be detained in secret and hidden places, where they shall either enjoy Rest, or suffer Pain, according as they have deserved, when they were in the World: That Souls in that Condition, are refreshed by the Piety of the Living: when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is offered for them, or Alms are given in the Church in their behalf. But, saith he, That availeth only them, who in their Life-time deserved by their Actions, that these things should be available to them, when they are out of the World ...... Thus when the Sacrifices of the Altar are offered, or Alms given for all the Dead that were baptised, they become Thanksgivings for them that were extremely Good; They are Intercessions for those that were not great Sinners: And if these things do not ease those that were very wicked, yet they Administer Comfort to the Living.  
The Third Question is, Whether all Men shall Die before the Day of Judgement? St. Augustin answereth, no; according to what he had said before in the 193d. Letter to Mercator; He confesses, That this is a difficult Question.  
The other Five Questions are upon some hard Passages of Scripture; He repeats those Explications which he had given in his other Books. This Book was Composed after the Enchiridion that was written in 421. and before the Book of Retractations written in 427. Which shows, That it must necessarily belong to the Years between; yet the Date of Easter of the Year wherein this Book was written, which is at the beginning, should regularly fall in the Year 430, or 419. wherefore there must have been a Mistake in the cipher.  
The small Treatise concerning the belief of those things which are not conceived, is placed again in this Volume, among the Treatises that are really St. Augustin's; though the Louvain Doctors after Erasmus, had put it among the Spurious Books. St. Augustin does not mention it in his Retractations; but he doth in the 231st. Letter to Count Darius; and it is written in his Style, and is very worthy of him. He shows there, That many things are believed, though they are not seen. He particularly urges the Example of Friendship, and good Wishes which are believed without being seen. Whence he concludes, That if that Faith is taken away, which makes us believe things that we see not, Society would be utterly overthrown. He confesseth, That to believe a thing, we ought to have some Marks that such thing is: But he affirms, That we believe not in Jesus Christ, without sufficient Proofs of his Authority; That the Church alone is a constant and visible Proof of the Truth of his Doctrine; since we see that accomplished which Christ and the Prophets▪ Foretold. That none can doubt of the Truth of the Prophetical Books, since the Jews, who were the Christians great Enemies, preserved them; who also are unquestionable Witnesses of their Antiquity. He concludes this Discourse with a short Exhortation to the New Christians, to keep the Faith of the Church inviolable. What is said in the 10th. Chapter concerning the demolishing of the Temples, shows, That this Treatise was Written, and Composed after Honorius his Law, that was dated in 399.  
It has been observed already, That St. Augustin being yet but a Priest, expounded the Creed in a Council of African Bishops assembled at Hippo. This Discourse which he afterwards put in Writing, as he declares in his Retractations, contains an exact Exposition of the Articles of the Creed. We have it here entitled, Of Faith and the Creed.  
In the Book of Faith and Good Works, St. Augustin refutes several Errors which he had read in some Books that had been sent to him. There it was affirmed, 1. That all were to be admitted to Baptism who desired to be baptised, without any Examination. 2. That it was sufficient to instruct them in the Articles of Faith, though they were not taught the Rules of Manners till after they had received the Sacrament. 3. That what Crime soever a baptised Christian might commit, and in what Condition soever he might die, yet he should be infallibly saved, after he had passed through the Fire. St. Augustin declares against the first Proposition, That though the Wicked are to be tolerated in the Church, yet Correction was not to be neglected, nor the Discipline of the Church suffered to relax. He confesses however, That Sinners ought to be reproved with Meekness and Charity. Against the Second Proposition, he teacheth, That Sinners who persevered in their Wickedness, were by no means to be admitted to Baptism: Showing, That the Holy Scripture requireth Repentance before Baptism; That St. John gave Precepts concerning Manners to those which he baptised; and that this is the Temper of the Church, which appointed the Times and Ceremonies observed by the Catechumen, for no other end, but▪ to be sure, that they are well-disposed to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Lastly of all, St. Augustin proves against the Third Error; That whosoever dieth in the State of Mortal Sin, without Repentance, is eternally Damned: And he Answers the place of St. Paul, that was alleged to prove the contrary. This Treatise was Composed in 413. after the Book of the Spirit and the Letter. Garnerius supposeth, That St. Jerom is the Person whom St. Augustin disputes with in this Book. But he cannot suspect that Father as guilty of either the first or the second Error: And it is altogether unlikely that it should be St. Jerom whom St. Augustin refuteth concerning the third.  
The Enchiridion, or Treatise of Faith, Hope, and Charity, was written at the Request of Laurentius, a great Lord of Rome, and Brother to Dulcitius; who had desired St. Augustin, to send him a small Book, containing a● Abridgement of the Christian Religion. To satisfy him, St. Augustin dedicated to him this Book; wherein he reduceth all Religion to the Virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity, because a Man knoweth all that is comprised in Religion, when he knows what is to be Believed, what is to be Hoped for, and what is to be Loved. He explains what is to be Believed, by keeping to the Method of the Creed, refuting the Errors, and Heresies that are contrary to the Doctrine of the Church, without naming their Authors. He layeth down also most excellent Maxims, such as these: That Faith does not stop at a curious Inquiry after Natural Things; That Errors of Right are more dangerous than Errors of Fact; That a●● 〈…〉 some Things, which it signifies little w●●●her they are 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 H● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon Original Sin; upon the Fall of M●●● and Angels; upon the 〈◊〉 of a 〈◊〉 of Baptism, and Grace; upon the Distinction of Venial and 〈◊〉 S●●s; upon the Eternity, and the Inequality of the Pains of the Da●●ed, upon the Ex●… of the Will of God to save Men; upon Freewill; and upon the State of Souls till the Day of Judgement. Having thus explained what concerns Faith, he comes to Hope; and he ●●●th, That Christians ●●●ght to Hope in God alone; and that whatsoever we Hope for, is comprehended in the Lord's Prayer, upon which he makes some Reflections. Lastly, he treateth of Charity; without which he pretends, That no Man can be Rig●…eous. To which he 〈◊〉 all the 〈◊〉 of God, and Advices of the Gospel. This Book was written after St. Jerom's Death, who died in 420. as is plain by the 87th Chapter, where St. Augustin speaks of him as one dead.  
The Book, entitled, The C●●b●● of a Christian, has much the same Design with the foregoing▪ St. Augustin composed i● 〈◊〉 after he was a Bishop, in a plain Style, that it might be the more proper to instill the Doctrine, and Precepts of Christian Religion into those Christians who were not Skilful in the Latin Tongue. He exhorts them, at first, to fight against the Devil: Then he shows, Th●● Men get the Victory over him, when they overcome their Passions, and bring their Bodies under Subjection; which is only done by submitting to God, to whom every Creature ought to be subject, either Willingly, or out of Necessity. He adds, That in this Combat, Man is armed with Faith, and with the Assistances which Christ me●●●ed for us by his Death. At last, he runs through the Articles of the Creed, and refutes the contrary Heresies.  
The Book of Instruction for these that have no Knowledge of our Religion, was written at the Request of a Deacon of Carthage, who desired of St. Augustin, Rules, and a Method to Ca●e●●i●e his People acceptably, and usefully. The Father comforts him at the beginning, upon his being, very often, not pleased with his own Discourses, since it sometimes happens, that a Discourse which displeases the Speaker, is very acceptable to the Hearers. He adviseth him to teach them cheerfully, and not to be tired with it; and then furnishes him with Rules how to instruct them right in their Religion. He saith, in the first place, That perfect Instruction should begin at the Creation of, the World, and end with the present Age of the Church: B●● for this, there is no need of learning by heart, or reciting all the Books of the Bible; one needs only choose the best, the most admirable, and most diverting Passages. He layeth down, in the second place, his usual Rule, That every thing ought to be referred to Charity▪ That Care must be taken, that the Auditor may believe what is spoken; Hope what he Believes, and Love what he Hopes for. And he would have him inspired with a wholesome Fear of God's Judgements, and kept from all prospects of temporal Interest, and Advantage that he might have by being a Christian. He observes, That the same Method is not to be followed with the Learned, as with the Ignorant; and he lays down very prudent Rules how they are to be dealt withal. He shows what Things commonly ti●● the Heare●●; and he gives excellent Remedies how they may be avoided; and at last, makes Two instructive Speeches, one pretty long, the other shorter, but composed with a great deal of Art, to serve for an Example, or Pattern of such Instructions, as aught to be given. This Treatise shows, That to instruct Men well in Religion, is an harder Task than most Men imagine; and that the Method, formerly used, was nobler, and larger, than that which is now observed. This Book is of the Year 400, or thereabouts.  
Though St. Augustin does not mention his Treatise of Continency in the Review of his Works, yet he owns it in the 262d. Epistle; and Possidius reckons it among his Works. This Book is a Discourse upon these Words of the 140th. Psalm. Set a Watch, O Lord, before my Mouth, and keep the Doors of my Lips. O let not my Heart be inclined to any evil Thing; let me not be occupied in ungodly Works, with the Men that work Wickedness. He shows, That true Continency consists in suppressing one's Passions; and he recommends the Necessity of Grace to overcome them. He speaks against the Proud who excuse their Sins, and particularly against the Manichees, who charged their Sins upon an evil Nature that was in them. This Sermon is thought to be of the Year 395. or thereabouts.  
Both the following Treatises are written against the Error of Jovinian. This Enemy of Virginity had drawn aside several Roman▪ Virgins from their Design of continuing so, and persuaded them to marry; saying to them, Are you better than Susanna, or Anna, or so many other Holy Women? Though Jovinian's Opinion was rejected at Rome, yet this Heretic's Disciples gave out, That none could refute him without condemning Marriage. To undeceive those that were of this Opinion, St. Augustin writ a Book, entitled, Of the Advantage of Matrimony, before he undertook to speak of the Excellency of Virginity. Wherein he saith first, That the Union betwixt the Husband and the Wife, is the most Ancient, and the most Natural. After that, he examineth a Question, rather Curious, than Useful, namely, How Men could have had Children, had they persisted in the State of Innocence. He observes a fourfold Advantage in Marriage: The Society of both Sexes, the Procreation of Children, the good Use of Lust, which is regulated by a Prospect of having Children, and the Fidelity which Husband and Wife preserve towards each other. He saith, That every Union between a Woman and a Man, is not Marriage. He doth not think, That this Name is to be given to that Union, whose aim was only to satisfy their brutish Passion, if they endeavoured to prevent their having Children. He declares, That Man guilty of Adultery, who should abuse a Virgin, when he has a Design of Marrying another: As for the Young Woman, he judgeth her guilty of Sin, but not of Adultery, if she is true to that Man, and Designs not to marry when he leaveth her: Nay, he prefers her before several married Women, who abuse Matrimony by their Intemperance. He doth not excuse from venial Sin, either the Man, or the Woman, who have another Prospect in Marriage, than the begetting of Children. In a word, he distinguishes Three Things in Marriage: The Fidelity which married Persons own one to the other, which is of natural Right; the Procreation of Children, which ought to be the end of Marriage; and the Sacrament, ●r mysterious Signification, which makes it indissoluble: For which Reason he determines, That though humane Laws permit a Man to marry again, when he is divorced from a former Wife, yet it is not Lawful for Christians, to whom St. Paul forbids it. He concludes, That Marriage is of itself a good Thing, but one of those good Things which we should not look after, but in order to a greater Good, or to avoid a great Evil. That before Christ, the most Continent might marry to multiply that People from whom the Messiah, was to be born; but now, as many as are able to contain, do well not to marry. That for this Reason, Men were permitted formerly to have several Wives, and never Women to have several Husbands, but now no Man is to have more than one Wife. That the Gospel-Purity is so great in this Point, That a Deacon was not to be ordained, who had ever had more than one Wife. He approves their Opinion, who understand this Maxim in its whole Extent, and without Restriction, as St. Jerom doth by excepting those who contracted a former Marriage before Baptism: For, saith he, Baptism doth indeed remit Sins; but here the Question is not concerning a Sin. And as a young Woman that hath been defiled when she was a Catechumen, cannot be consecrated as a Virgin after Baptism, even so it hath been thought reasonable, that the Man who hath had more than one Wife, whether before, or after Baptism, should be looked upon as wanting one necessary Qualification for Orders.  
In answer to Jovinian's Objection, he distinguishes the Habit from the Action of Virtue: This being Premised, he saith, That the old Patriarches had an Habit of Continency, but did not practise it, because it was not convenient to do it in their time; and so, when the Question is put to a Man that is not married, Are you more perfect than Abraham? he aught to answer, No; but Virginity is more perfect than conjugal Chastity: Now Abraham was endued with both these Virtues; for he had the Habit of Continency, and exercised conjugal Chastity. He adds, That Persons are to be distinguished from Virtues: One Person may have one Virtue in a higher Degree than another, and yet be less Holy, because he hath not other Virtues in the same Degree. Thus a disobedient Virgin is less to be esteemed than a married Woman, with the Virtue of Obedience. Last of all, he exhorts Virgin's not to be lifted up, because of the Excellency of their Condition, but to be constant in Humility.  
The Book Of Holy Virginity, came out presently after that Of the Advantage of Matrimony. St. Augustin shows there, That Virginity is one of the most excellent Gifts of God, and that Humility is necessary to preserve it. He exalteth the Excellency of Virgins consecrated to God, by the Example of the Virginity of the Mother of God, who, according to him, had made a Vow of Continency before the Angel appeared to her. He refutes those that condemn Matrimony, and those that compare it with Celibacy. He does not think that Virginity is of Command, but of Advice: It should not be chosen as a thing necessary to Salvation, but as a state of greater Perfection. And this he proves by several Passages of Scripture, and explains a Passage of St. Paul, from which some concluded, that he recommended Virginity merely upon account of the Advantage of this present Life. He asserts also, That Virgins shall have a particular Reward in Heaven. At last, he exhorts them to Humility; proposing several convincing Reasons, and powerful Motives, to inspire them with it. Then he recommends to them, above all things, the Love of their Divine Spouse, and speaks of him in a very moving manner: Behold (saith he to them) the Beauty of your Spouse! Think that he is Equal with his Father, and yet he was willing to submit himself to his Mother: He is a King in Heaven, and a Slave upon Earth: He is the Creator of all things, and yet he ranked himself among the Creatures. Consider both the Greatness and the Beauty of that which the Proud look upon with Contempt: Behold with the Eyes of Faith the Wounds which he received upon the Cross, the Blood of the dying God, who is the Price of our Redemption, and the Cause of our Salvation ... He seeketh only the inward Beauty of your Soul: He gave you the power to become his Daughters: He desires not the Handsomeness of the Body, but Purity of Manners. None can deceive him, nor make him be jealous of you; and you may love him without fear of ever displeasing him upon account of false Suspicions. Both this and the foregoing Books were written in the Year 401.  
They did well to join unto this the Book that treats Of the Advantages of Widowhood, which Erasmus and others had inconsiderately rejected, as a Work that was none of St. Augustin's. St. Augustin, indeed, takes no notice of it in his Retractations; but that's not to be wondered at, because it is only a Letter to Juliana, which Possidius put into his Catalogue. 
* [Who this Philo is, I don't know; it seems to be a Fault of the Press: Philo Carpathius, mentioned in the last Volume, died several Years before St. Augustin wrote this Letter to Juliana.]  Philo and Bede quote it as St. Augustin's; and in the 15th. Chapter some other Pieces of St. Augustin's are quoted. This Book is an Instruction for Widows. He asserts there, That Widowhood is to be preferred before Marriage: Yet he doth not condemn Second Marriages, nor Third and Fourth; but only says, That it is a great Crime to Marry after the Vow of Virginity; though he judges those Marriages to be good and valid, and blames those who look upon them as adulterous. The Practice of the Church at that time was, To put them under Penance who Married after vowing Virginity; but their Marriages were not yet declared void, as is plain by the Sixteenth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and by several other Testimonies of the Ancients. The rest of this Letter is full of Instructions to Juliana, and her Daughter Demetrias, who had already made Profession of Virginity, as it is observed in the 19th. Chapter: And so this small Treatise is of the Year 414. He bids them beware of the Pelagian Errors.  
In both the Books Of Marriages which cannot be excused from Adultery, St. Augustin handleth this nice and Difficult Question, Whether it be lawful either for the Man or the Woman to Marry after Divorce on the Account of Fornication? Pollentius, to whom these Books are directed, believed, That the Exception of the Case of Adultery, which we find in St. Matthew's Gospel, was no less to be understood of a Permission to Marry again, than of a Separation of Bodies: so that a Husband might not only leave his adulterous Wife, but also take another when he was divorced from the first. St. Augustin affirms on the contrary, That a Woman thus divorced, ought never to Marry again, no more than the Husband who caused her to be divorced. This whole Dispute depends upon the Sense of that Passage in St. Matthew, which excepteth the cause of Fornication; and upon that of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 7. which saith, That the Bond of Matrimony is indissoluble but by the Husband's Death; and that if the Wife is married to another while he liveth, she committeth Adultery. St. Augustin enlarges much upon the Sense of these two Passages. He endeavours to make the first to agree with his Opinion, which he groundeth especially upon the second. He answereth Pollentius' Arguments, and uses several Reasonings, upon the Matter. He confesses in his Retractations, That he had not yet cleared that Point, but that there are some considerable Difficulties besides, though he had given Light enough to resolve them.  
He further explaineth in the 1st. Book, another Passage in the same Epistle of St. Paul, concerning the Dissolution of Marriage between Infidels. Pollentius held, That St. Paul absolutely forbids Believing Husbands to put away their Unbelieving Wives: Whereas St. Augustin affirms, That it is only an Advice that he gives them, Not to use the liberty they have to Separate. He concludes this Book with another Question concerning the Catechumen, who fall into such Diseases as take away their Speech and Knowledge, Whether they should be Baptised or no? He saith, That they ought to be Baptised; though he doth not condemn those that dare not hazard the Sacrament: And he goes so far, as to declare, That in such Cases those very Catechumen may be Baptised, who are known to be in a habit of Sin, and who ought not to be admitted to Baptism at another time. He adds, That Penitents are to be dealt withal after the same manner, and they should not be suffered to Die before they are Reconciled. In the 2d. Book, he treateth more at large than in the First, Of the Indissolubility of Marriage's, and examines several Questions upon that Subject. He concludes with an Exhortation to Husbands that have left their Wives, to live in Continency; alleging the Example of Churchmen, who abstain so religiously, though they often were forced to take that Profession upon them against their Wills. The rank which St. Augustin sets these two Books in, in his Retractations, shows that he composed them in the Year 419.  
The two next Books are concerning Lying. There St. Augustin handleth this Question, which was very famous in his time, Whether a Lie may be used upon some Occasions? He confesseth in the 1st. Book, entitled, Of Lying, and written in 395. That this is a perplexing Question, often disturbing Consciences; and that there seem to be some Occasions, when in Civility; and sometimes, out of Charity, officious Lies may be lawful. He says that he will forthwith examine the Question, that he may find out some Light in so obscure a Matter; and that at last he will declare for the Truth; being persuaded, That though he were mistaken in so doing, yet his Mistake would prove less dangerous; because Error can never do less mischief, than when Men are deceived by a great Love of the Truth, and by opposing Falsehood with too much Zeal.  
After this Preface, he defines what Lying is. He confesses, That Ironies are not Lies; That every Untruth which a Man may speak, is not a Lie, if Men believe that what they say is True: and, That to Lie, is to speak what we do not think, with a design to deceive. Whereupon he examines this subtle Question, Whether a Man speaking what he knoweth to be false, because he is sure that he to whom he speaks will not believe it, tells a Lie? And on the other side, Whether a Man that speaketh a Truth, with a design to deceive him whom he speaks to, because he knows that he will not believe him, is free from Lying? St. Augustin saith, That neither of these can be taxed with Lying; because the one designed to persuade the Truth, by telling an Untruth; and the other spoke the Truth, to persuade a Falsity: but neither can be excused from Imprudence and Rashness. Then he comes to the Question which he proposed to himself, Whether a Man might Lie upon some Occasions? Those that held the Affirmative, alleged several Examples of Lies, which seem to be both approved and commended in the Old Testament, and added a Reason from Common Sense. Should any one (said they) flee to your House for shelter, and it is in your power to save him from Death, by telling a Lie, would you see him unjustly murdered, rather than tell a Lie? If a sick Man asketh you a Question about something that he must not know; yea, supposing that he will be the worse if you give him no Answer; would you then utter a Truth that might occasion Death? or will you keep silence, when you may ease him by telling a charitable Lie? St. Augustin Opposes to these Reasons those Passages of Holy Scripture which forbidden Lying without restriction, and then answereth the Examples out of the Old Testament; That the Righteous who seem to have Lied, did not intent that what they said should be understood in the usual sense, but that by a Prophetical Spirit they meant to discover those things that were signified by those Figures; as for other Persons which are not in the number of the Righteous, the Holy Scripture never approves their Actions, but by comparing it with a greater Evil. He affirms, That there is no Example of Lying in the New Testament, and endeavours to answer the Inferences which they pretend to draw from the Instances of the Dispute betwixt St. Peter and St. Barnabas, and betwixt St. Peter and St. Paul, as well as from the Circumcising of Timothy. Lastly, That he might put an End to all the Reasons alleged from Necessity or Advantage, he maintains, That we must never do Evil, what Advantage soever we may get by it: That so the whole Question is, Whether Lying be Evil or no? And not, Whether it is sometimes Profitable? Whence he concludes, That no Lie is to be told, either to preserve our Chastity or our Life, or for the Good of others, or for any other reason whatsoever; no, not for the Eternal Salvation of our Neighbour, because that Sin cannot be imputed to a Man, which he cannot prevent but by committing himself another Sin. To explain what he had said more at large, he reckons up Eight sorts of Lies; and having laid this down for a Rule, That we must depend altogether upon Gospel-Precepts, he enlargeth upon those that make against Lying.  
The Second Book against Lying, is written upon the same Principles, but long after the First; for St. Augustin wrote it in 420, at the Request of Consentius, who asked him, Whether it was not lawful to make use of Lies, to discover the Priscillianists, who concealed their Error by Lying, and horrid Execrations? St. Augustin condemns not only the Practice of the Priscillianists, but also the Zeal of the Catholics, who made use of Lies to discover the Men of that Sect. He positively condemns the Catholics Action, who feigned themselves Priscillianists, more than that of the Priscillianists, who feigned themselves Catholics. From hence he takes an opportunity to enter upon the general Question concerning Lying; and he affirms, That it is never allowed upon any Pretence whatsoever; because whatsoever is Sin in its own Nature, can never be rectified by any good Intention. He shows, by the Examples of David, and Lot, that we are not always to imitate the Actions of Righteous Men. He excuseth Abraham, and Isaac from Lying. As for Jacob's Action, he saith, it was no Lie, but a Mystery: That there is no Example of any Lie in the New Testament, because Tropes, Parables, and Figures, cannot be called Lies, no more than what is said of Jesus Christ; that in his Discourse with the Pilgrims, who went to Emmaus, he made as though he would have gone further; that we are no more to imitate Thamar's Lie, than Judas Fornication; that God rewarded not the Lie of the Egyptian Midwives, but their Compassion towards the Israelites Children. The same must be said of Rahab's Action. In one word; These Examples of Lies taken out of the Old Testament, are no Lies, or if they be, they cannot be excused. Lastly, Whatsoever Pretence they may have, Men are never permitted to betray the Truth for any Advantage, how great soever it may be, because they are never allowed to sin. And indeed, as St. Augustin observes once again, It is a very dangerous thing to allow Lying upon some occasions, because this Maxim may be stretched too far, and upon the same Principles, Perjury, and Blasphemy may in time be allowed.  
St. Augustin confesses, in his Retractations, that both these Treatises are very intricate; and that he had a Design himself to suppress them.  
The Book Of the Business of Monks, is an excellent satire against some Monks, who thought themselves exempted from working with their Hands, because Christ hath said, That we should take no care for the Morrow, and so contented themselves with Praying, Reading, and Singing. St. Augustin opposes to them both the Example, and the Authority of St. Paul, who plainly says, That whosoever will not Work, ought not to Eat. He refutes the false Distinctions which they made to shift it of. He proves, That the true Sense of that Passage of the Gospel which they quoted, did not exempt Men from Working, but only banished the Ingratitude of worldly Men; that to labour with ones Hands is not inconsistent with Prayer; that it is so far from being unworthy of the Monastical State, that it is part of it: For, saith he, if a Rich Man makes himself a Monk, what can there be more perfect, than having quitted great Estates, to be obliged to Labour to get Necessaries. And if this new Convert be Poor, and of mean Condition, would not that be a criminal Nicety, to desire to live more at Ease in a Monastery, than he did before in the World? Afterwards he draws the Picture of those idle Monks, whom he calls Hypocrites in Monastical Habits, with whom the Devil hath overspread the World. They travel (saith he) from Province to Province, without any Mission; they have no fixed Habitation, and abide in no place; they continually alter their Station: Some carry Relics about, (if they be Relics,) and make an Advantage of them: Others take much upon them, by reason of their Habit and Profession: Some say they are going to see their Kindred, who, as they have heard, dwell in such a Country: But they all beg, and take it ill if you give them not, either to supply the Wants of such a Poverty as enricheth them, or to Recompense a seeming and counterfeit Honesty. EXIGUNT AUT SUMPTUS LUCROSAE EGESTATIS AUT SIMULATAE PRETIUM SANCTITATIS. Lastly, St. Augustin compares his own Condition with that of the Monks; affirming, That he would choose the Life of a Regular Monastery, to work at certain hours with his Hands, and to have others for Prayer and pious Reading, rather than to be subject to the Fatigues of Office, and to be continually entangled with the secular Businesses of other Men. Towards the latter end, he laughs at the fancy of those Monks who would never cut their Hair. Nothing is more pleasant than the Answer which they made to that Passage of the Apostle, where he forbids Men to let their Hair grow. This (said they) is spoken for Ordinary Men, but not for those that have made themselves Eunuches for the Kingdom of Heaven. St. Augustin makes Sport with that ridiculous Notion of the Monks; showing them, That they are Men as well as others. This Book is in the Retractations, among those that were written about the Year 400.  
The next Book is concerning the Predictions of Daemons; wherein St. Augustin explains how they may Imagine and Foretell things, and how they often Mistake: showing at the same time, That Religion permits us not to Consult with them. He supposes that Daemons have very subtle Bodies. This small Treatise was composed in an Easter-Week, of some of the Years betwixt 406, and 411.  
The Book of the Care which they ought to have of the Dead, was written to answer that Question which St. Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, had proposed to St. Augustin in the Year 421. namely, Whether a dead Man was any thing the better for being buried in the Church of some holy Martyr. To this Question is added another, To what purpose are the Church's Prayers for the Dead, seeing that according to the Apostle's Maxim, All Men shall be judged according to what they have done in this Life? St. Augustin answereth, That the Book of Maccabees establishes the Custom of Praying for the Dead; and, That though nothing of it were found in the Old Testament, yet the Custom of the Church is sufficient to authorise that Practice, which is done in the Administration of the Eucharist. He is persuaded, That the Honour of Burial doth neither Good nor Hurt to the Soul of the dead Person; but yet that this Duty is to be paid to the Dead, as a Testimony of the Respect which is due to the Memory of pious Persons: That to be buried in a Martyr's Church, doth nothing of itself; but it serves to put the Faithful in mind of Praying for the Dead, because the Devotion for the Martyr increaseth the Fervency of Prayer. But that commonly the Care of decent Burial proceeds from the Respect which Men have for the Body: That Martyrs had Reason to lay aside that Care: That the Scripture commends those that are careful to bury the Dead, because it is a Token o● their Tenderness and Affection towards their Brethren. St. Augustin speaks afterwards concerning Apparitions of the Dead, by Dreams or otherwise; and having mentioned several Examples, he examineth how they come to pass. He thinks it more rational, to attribute them to the working of Angels, who form those Ideas in the Imagination, than to the Souls of the Dead. He does not believe that they are present, or that they take any notice at that time of the things that are done, but that they are acquainted with them afterwards, either by Angels, or by the Souls of those that are dead; or last of all, by the Inspiration of God. And by this last means, he believes that the Martyrs come to know the Necessities of the Faithful, and to hear their Prayers. He does not question but Martyrs help the Living; but he knows not whether they do it by themselves, or whether God doth it by Angels, at their Request. He confesseth, That we cannot know by which of these means, or whether by both, the Martyrs work Miracles.  
He concludes, That of all that is done for the Dead, nothing availeth them where they are but the Offering of the Eucharist, Prayers and Almsdeeds: That these things are not useful to all, but only to such as deserved in their life-time, to reap Benefit by them after their death: That however, these things are performed for all Christians that were Baptised, because we cannot distinguish who shall be the better for it or not: That it is better that they should be superfluous to some, than that they should be wanting to others: That these Duties are with Reason more exactly performed for our Friends and Kindred, that we may receive the same Assistance from our other Relations: That the Decency of Burial availeth nothing to the Salvation of the Dead, but it is a Duty of Humanity which is not to be neglected.  
The Discourse of Patience, is one of those that St. Augustin mentions in the 231st. Letter. He treateth there of that Virtue rather Dogmatically than Pathetically. He takes notice at first, That God's Patience is of another nature from that of Men, because he cannot suffer. Then he distinguishes True Patience, which is a Virtue, from the Counterfeit, which is a Vice. Ambitious Men, Covetous, Luxurious Men, and Robbers, endure patiently extremity of Pain and Misery; yet want the Virtue of Patience, because they suffer upon an ill account. None but such as Suffer for a good Cause, can be said to be truly Patiented. But if wicked Men endure all things for the Goods of this World, What ought not the Righteous to suffer for Eternal Life? Then he proposes the Examples both of Job and of the Martyrs; to the which he opposes the Impatience of the Donatists, who killed themselves, that they might be accounted Martyrs; showing, That Self-murder is a greater Sin than Murdering of another; For (saith he) a Parricide is more guilty than a manslayer, because he kills a Person that is nearer to him than other Men: By the same reason, he must be thought the greater Sinner who kills himself, because none are so near to us as ourselves. Lastly, He maintains, That True Patience is not from our own strength, but from God's help; because true Patience is grounded upon Charity, which is the Gift of God. This puts St. Augustin upon discoursing of Grace, and proving that it is not given to our Merits; but that it prevents them, and goeth before Faith itself, which is the beginning of all good Works. This short Discourse was written about the Year 418.  
Of the Four following Sermons upon the Creed, there is none but the first which comes near St. Augustin's Style, as it is observed in the Preface. It contains a clear and succinct Explication of the Articles of the Creed. He saith, upon the Article of the Church, That there is but one only true Catholic Church, which opposes all Heresies, and can never be overcome. Upon the Article of the Forgiveness of Sins, he distinguisheth two sorts of Sins, Light and Great Sins; Baptism remitteth both. After Baptism, Light Sins, from which no man can be absolutely free, are remitted by the Lord's Prayer: But great Sins, as Adultery, and other Enormous Crimes, cannot be remitted but by an humbling Penance. In this Creed we find the Article of Everlasting Life, which gives Grounds of Suspicion, that this Discourse is none of St. Augustin's; because this Article is not in the Book of Faith, and the Creed, which is certainly his.  
The Benedictines have Reason to Print the Three other Sermons upon the same Subject, in a small Character, and to observe as they do, that they are written in a very different Style from St. Augustin's; yet they believe them to be ancient, and written by some Disciple of St. Augustin, during the Vandals Persecution against the Catholics, which is mentioned in the Second Sermon.  
They likewise put into the same rank Three other Sermons, which they believe to belong to the same Author; The Sermon of the Fourth Day of the Week, Or, Of the Dressing of the Lord's Vineyard; A Discourse concerning the Flood, and the Sermon of the Time of the Barbarian's Persecution; which they have also Printed in a small Character.  
They have left the Sermon of the New Song under St. Augustin's Name; but they say in the Preface, That they doubted whether it was his. They might have passed the same Censure of the Sermon of Discipline, and that of the Usefulness of Fasting; which I cannot find to be any more than the others of S. Augustin's Style: Nay, I scarce believe, That the Sermon of the taking of the City of Rome, which is the last in this Volume, is truly St. Augustin's; yet every man is left to judge as he pleases, that shall read it.  
The Treatises which you find in the Supplement, are certainly none of St. Augustin's: The Benedictines have made an exact Critic of them in their Prefaces, and have Collected all that could be said or guessed at concerning their Authors.  
The first is a Collection of One and twenty Questions, gathered without any Order by a very Ignorant Author. Most of them are about Philosophical Matters, and composed of Extracts out of several of St. Augustin's Books.  
The Sixty five following Questions and Answers, which are found in some Manuscripts under Orosius' and St. Augustin's Names, are in a better order than the former, and concerning more Theological Matters; but they are Extracts out of several Passages: The first Twelve are taken out of a Treatise falsely attributed to St. Augustin, Concerning the Trinity and Unity of God. Most of them that follow, are Extracts out of St. Eucherius. Some are out of St. Augustin's Treatise upon Genesis. They end with a Citation of a Passage of St. Augustin against those who desire to be Bishops, that they might Command, taken out of the 19th. Chapter of the 19th. Book of the City of God; which is quoted as of a Father ancienter than himself: One of the Fathers, saith he, hath said very elegantly, against those that desire to Command: Let those, saith he, who would Command rather than Serve others, know, that they are not Bishops.  
The Book of Faith to Peter, belongs to St. Fulgentius, to whom it is ascribed in a Manuscript of Corby, above One thousand Years old, as well as in another later. It is cited under his Name by Ratramnus, in his Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ. Both Isidore, and Honorius of Autun, do likewise mention a Treatise of St. Fulgentius, containing the Rule of Faith; which is not different from this.  
The Book of the Spirit and Soul, which is a Collection of Passages from several Authors, is attributed to Hugo de S. Victore by Trithemius, and by Vincentius Bellovacensis, and Printed among this Author's Works. Yet the great number of Extracts taken out of the very Works of Hugo de S. Victore makes it questionable, whether it be his. St. Thomas ascribes it to a Cistercian Monk. The Benedictines believe that it was written by Alcherus, a Friend of Isaac's, Abbot of Stella, to whom this Man directed a Letter of the Soul. In the Bibliotheca Cisterciana, it is attributed to Isaac, and it is observed that he published it under Alcherus' Name; but it is not likely that Abbot Isaac would insert a part of his own Letter into this Treatise.  
The Treatise of Friendship is an Epitome, or rather an Extract out of the Treatise of Aelredus Rievallensis, which is found among that Author's Works.  
The Book of the Substance of Love, is made up of two small Treatises among the Works of Hugo de S. Victore. That of the Love of God, is a Collection of Passages of this same Author's, out of St. Bernard, and St. Anselm Vincentius Bellovacensis citys it under Peter Comestor's Name.  
The Soliloquies that are here, are not those of St. Augustin, which are in the first Volume of his Works: These are made up out of Passages of the Soliloquies and Confessions of St. Augustin, and the Books of Hugo de S. Victore. There is the first Chapter of the Fourth Lateran Council held in the Year 1198.  
It is proved in the Preface to the Book of Meditations, that they cannot be St. Augustin's. Many of them are attributed to St. Anselm; but the Benedictines have proved, That they are rather written by John Abbot of Fescamp, who lived in the time of the Emperor Henry III. to whose Widow he directs a Letter, published by Father Mabillon in the first Volume of his Analecta, from another Manuscript of the Abbey of St. Arnoul of Metz, where this Treatise of Meditations is mentioned, part whereof is found in the same Manuscript.  
The following Treatise of the Contrition of the Heart, is taken out of the Meditations attributed to St. Anselm.  
The Manual is Composed likewise of Extracts out of St. Anselm's Works, and St. Bernard's, Hugoes de S. Victore, and Alcuinus; there are also some Passages of St. Augustin, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory, and of Isidore of Sevill. Part of this Book is in the next Book, entitled the Looking-Glass: Another part of it is the Extract of a Prayer which is in the Manuscript of Corby, which containeth the Works of Abbot John.  
The Looking-Glass makes a part of the Confession of Faith, which Chiffletius published under Alcuinus' Name, yet it is Composed of Passages out of Alcuinus' own Works.  
The next Book is entitled, The Looking-Glass of a Sinner. The Author citeth a Sentence of Odo Cluniacensis, in Commendation of St. Martin. He useth the term of Prebend, and he hath taken some places out of the Prayer of Hugo de S. Victore, out of the Book of the Spirit and Soul already mentioned, and out of the Book of Conscience, ascribed to St. Bernard. The Book of the threefold Habitation is of the same nature; and there are the same Notions. It is very likely that all these Treatises of Piety belong to the same Author.  
The Book entitled, The Ladder of Paradise, attributed to St. Bernard, and entitled in his Works, the Ladder of the Cloister; or, a Treatise how to Pray; is written by Guigo [or Guido] Carthusianus, as appears by the Letter that serves for a Preface, taken out of the Manuscript of the Carthusian House in Colen.  
Honorius of Autun, in his Book of Luminaries, mentions a Book which he had written, entitled, Of the Knowledge of Life; or, Of the true Life. This here bears the same Title, and has the Style and Genius of this Author; as is proved in the Preface.  
The Book of a Christian Life, was formerly restored by Holstenius, to one Fastidius, a Britain, who is the true Author of it; as we learn not only by the ancient Manuscript belonging to the Monastery of Mount-Cassin, by which Holstenius Printed it at Rome, in 1633. but also by the Authority of Gennadius, who ascribes it to him, and who observes that this Author was a Britain.  
In this Book there are several Footsteps of Pelagius' Errors; he lived much about the same time.  
The Book of Wholesome Instructions, is here restored upon the Credit of an ancient Manuscript, in the Library of M. Colbert, to Paulinus Patriarch of Aquileia; who lived about the latter end of the 
* [This seems to be a mistake of the Press: this Paulinus, or as it is in the French Paulus, was Contemporary with Charles the Great, assisted at the Council of Francfort, and died, according to Dr. Cave, in the Year 804.]  Ninth Century.  
The Author of the Book, Of the Twelve Abuses of the Age, is not known; it is as wrongfully attributed to St. Augustin as to St. Cyprian: only it is observed in the Preface, That this Book is quoted by Ionas Bishop of Orleans, who was ancienter than Hincmar, who writ a Book bearing the same Title, different from that mentioned by Flodoardus: Pamelius found a Manuscript, having in the Margin the Name of Eurard, instead of St. Augustin; but this Eurard is not known.  
They did not Print the two Treatises of the Seven deadly Sins, and of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, which F. Vignier published under St. Augustin's Name, in the First Part of his Supplement, because they are amongst the Works of Hugo de S. Victore.  
The Treatise of the Conflict betwixt Virtues and Vices was first ascribed to St. Augustin, then to St. Leo, then to St. Ambrose, and at last to Isidore of Sevill: but here it is restored to its true Author Ambrose Autpertus, a Benedictine Monk [of the Monastery of St. Vincent] upon the Vultarnus near Benevente. This Treatise is mentioned in his Life, which is in the Acts of the Benedictines, Age III. at the Year 778. The Style of this Treatise is very like that of this Author's Commentary upon the Revelations.  
Of the same Nature is the Book of Sobriety and Charity, and the Author of it is unknown. There Drunkenness is particularly reproved. This Book is well enough written, and seemeth to me to be ancient.  
The Benedictines prove in their Preface to the Book of true and false Repentance, That this Book has not St. Augustin's Style, though it hath been cited under his Name by Gratian, by the Master of the Sentences, Petrus Blesensis, and several others.  
The Treatise of Antichrist, is likewise among the Works ' of Alcuinus and Rabanus. Rupertus citys it without naming the Author. The Manuscripts attribute it to Alcuinus, and it agrees well enough with his other Writings. It contains several Circumstances relating to Antichrist, and the End of the World, which he describeth with as much Confidence as if he had learned it by Revelation.  
After this Treatise comes a Prayer, or rather an Imprecation out of several Verses of the Psalms. It is entitled in a Manuscript of the King's Library, The Psalter of Pope John, made at Vienna. John the XXIId. is thought to be the Man meant by that Title.  
The following Treatise upon the Magnificat, is a Fragment of the Treatise of Hugo de S. Victore, upon this Hymn.  
That of the Virgin's Assumption, is a Sermon of some Author of the Twelfth Century, or thereabouts; which teacheth that the Blessed Virgin is in Heaven, both Soul and Body.  
Both the Discourses concerning Visiting the Sick, contain useful Rules to teach Priests how they should behave themselves towards Sick Persons; but they are very late. Both the Discourses of the Comfort for the Dead, are of the same Nature, and it may be of the same Author.  
The Treatise of Christian Behaviour is a Collection of Notions taken out of St. Eloi or Eligius Bishop of Noyon, and Caesarius. The Discourse upon the Creed, is likewise a Collection of Remarks drawn out of Rufinus, Caesarius, St. Gregory, Ivo Carnutensis, and others. The Sermon upon Easter-Eve, about the Paschal-Lamb, and that upon the 
* [What this Book upon the 41st. Sermon should be, I cannot tell; it is false Printed in all probability, but not having this Benedictine Edition of St. Augustin by me, I could not alter it.]  41st. Sermon, are among the Books falsely attributed to St. Jerom.  
The three Sermons to the Novices, concerning Unction, Baptism, and washing of the Feet, are not like St. Augustin's Writings, though they are attributed to him in very ancient Manuscripts.  
The Treatise of the Creation of the first Man, is inserted entire into the Book of the Spirit and the Soul. It is among St. Ambrose's Works, entitled a Treatise of the Dignity of the first Man; and among Alcuinus' it is entitled, Thoughts of the Blessed Albinus a Levite, upon these words of Genesis, Let us make Man after our own Image.  
The Sermon of the Vanity of this present Age, is inserted into the Treatise of Christian Behaviour, The Author of the Sermon upon the contempt of the World is not known. That about the Advantage of Discipline belongs to Valerianus Cemeliensis: It is not known who was the Author of the Sermons of Obedience, Humility, Prayer, Alms, and that of the Generality of Alms-deeds. The small Discourse of the Twelve Prayers spoken of in the 21st. Chapter of the Revelations, belongs perhaps to Amatus a Monk, of Mount-Cassin, or rather an Extract of Bede's Commentary upon that Passage in the Revelations.  
Finally, The Sermons to the Brethren that live in the Wilderness, are the Work of some Modern Monk, who was so imprudent as to publish them under St. Augustin's Name, though it be as clear as the day, that they are not of this Father. Baronius observes, That they were Composed by an Impostor, and that they are full of Fables, Falsities, and Lies. Bellarmin saith, That the Style of them is Childish, Course, and Barbarous. There are several Passages out of St. Augustin, Caesarius and St. Gregory. It is probable, that the Author was a Fleming.   

The SEVENTH TOME.  
THE Seventh Volume contains St. Augustin's great Work of the City of God. He undertook 
Tom. VII.  it about the Year 413. after the taking of Rome by Alaric King of the Goths, to refute the Heathens who attributed that Misfortune to the Christian Religion. This Work held him several Years, by reason of many intervening Businesses which he could not put off; so that he did not finish it before the Year 426. It is divided into Two and twenty Books, whereof the first Five refute those who believe that the worship of the Gods is necessary for the good of the World; and affirmed, That all the Mischiefs lately happened, proceeded from no other cause, but the abolishing of that Religion. The next Five are against those who confessing that the same Calamities have been in all Ages; yet pretend that the worship of the Heathen Divinities was profitable to a future Life. Thus the Ten first Books are to Answer both those Chimerical Opinions, which are contrary to the Christian Religion. But lest they should reproach him with having refuted the Opinions of others, without establishing the Christian Religion, the other part of this Work is allotted to that purpose, and it consists of Twelve Books, though he sometimes establisheth our belief in the former Ten, and so in the Twelve others he sometimes correcteth the Errors of our Adversaries. In the Four first of these Twelve, he describes, The Original of the two Cities; the one of God, and the other of the World. In the Four next, their Progress; And in the Four last, their Ends: And so, though all the 22. Books do equally treat of both Cities, yet this Work has its Name from the better, and they are commonly called, The Books of the City of God. This is the Account which St. Augustin gives, both of the Subject and of the Occasion of these Books in his Retractations. Let us now examine more particularly what is most remarkable in each Book; for it is a Work made up of a great variety of very learned and very curious things.  
In the First Book, he shows, That instead of imputing to the Christians, the Desolation and the taking of Rome, the Heathen aught rather to ascribe to the special favour of Jesus Christ, That the Barbarians, only out of reverence to his Name, spared all those that had retired into the Churches. He pretends, That there are no Examples in the Wars of the Heathen, to show That the Enemies who spoilt a Town taken by Storm, spared those who took Sanctuary in the Temples of their Gods. This puts St. Augustin upon ask, why this Favour of God was extended to those Ungodly Men that fled into the Churches, who feigned themselves to be Christians; and why the good were involved in the same Mischief with the wicked. He confesses, That both the Good and the Evil Things of this World are common both to Good and Evil Men; but the difference consists in the Use which they make of them. He observes, That perhaps good Men probably are punished with the wicked, because they took no care to reprove 
St. Augustin. I●me VII.  and to correct them; and that however, good Men lose nothing by losing the good things of this World; That a Christian ought to be easily comforted for want of Burial, seeing that this doth him neither good nor hurt: And he comforteth the Virgins that had been ravished in that disorder; showing, That they lost neither the Chastity of the Soul, nor the Purity of the Body: He excuseth those that killed themselves, rather than endure that dishonour. But he shows at the same time, That this Action so much admired by the Heathen, is contrary both to Reason, and to the Laws of Nature; and that it is never lawful to kill ourselves upon any account whatsoever. He answers the Examples of some holy Women who threw themselves into the River, to escape the Violence of those that would have ravished them. He saith, That they might have been induced to that, by the Spirit of God, as Samson was. He concludes with a Description of the Depravation of the Romans, and the Disorders of their Manners, at that time.  
In the Second Book he affirms, That the corruption of Manners, which is the greatest of Mischiefs, was always reigning in Rome; and that the Gods they Worshipped, were so far from prescribing them Laws, for the Reformation of their Manners, that on the contrary, they encouraged them to Vice, by their Examples, and by the Ceremonies that were used in their Worship.  
In the Third Book he goes back as far as the Siege of Troy, and then takes a view of the principal Events which happened to the People of Rome, to convince the most Stubborn, That their Gods preserved them not from the same Disasters and Calamities, which the Heathen now imputed to the Christian Religion.  
In the Fourth Book he shows, That the increase of the Roman Empire can be attributed neither to all the Divinities which they adored, nor to any one in particular: That however, no Empire is to be called Happy, which is increased only by War, as the Roman Empire was: That great Empires, without Justice, were but great Robberies; and that the true God alone, is the sole Dispenser of the Kingdoms of the Earth.  
He prosecuteth the same Subject in the Fifth Book; and proves, in the beginning, That the greatness of Empires depends not upon Chance, nor upon a particular Conjunction of the Stars: Which gives him occasion to speak of Destiny, and to refute judicial Astrology at large. He acknowledges a Destiny, if by this Term is meant a series, and concatenation of all Causes, which God foresaw from all Eternity; but he advises Men rather not to use that word which may have an ill Sense. He endeavours to make God's Foreknowledge, and the infallibility of those Events, which he foresees, to agree with Man's freewill. Then from this Disposition of Things, he comes to inquire into the Causes of the Roman Victories, and he meets with none more probable than their Honesty. He confesses, That God rewarded their moral Virtues with those sorts of Recompenses; adding, That thereby God made the Inhabitants of the eternal City, to know what Recompense they were to expect for their Christian Virtues. Since the counterfeit Virtues of the Heathen were so well rewarded, that he set this Example before their Eyes, to teach them how much they ought to be in love with their Heavenly Country for an immortal Life, since the Inhabitants of an Earthly Country were so much in love with it, for an humane, and a mortal Glory; and how hard they were to Labour for that Heavenly Country, since the Romans had taken such great Pains for their Earthly One. He examineth afterwards, wherein consists the true Happiness of Christian Kings, and Princes: And he shows, That they are not Happy for having reigned long, for dying in Peace, and leaving their Children successors of their Crowns, nor for the Victories which they obtained, because such Advantages are common to them with ungodly Kings: But that Christian Princes are said to be Happy, when they set up Justice, when in the midst of the Praises that are given them, and the Honours that are paid unto them, they are not swelled with Pride, when they submit their Power to the Sovereign Power of God, and use it to make his Worship to flourish. When they fear, love, and worship God; when they prefer, before this which they now enjoy, that wherein they are not afraid to meet with any Competitors; when they are slow to Punish, and ready to Forgive; when they punish only for the good of the Public, and not to satisfy their Revenge; and when they forgive purely that Men may be Corrected, and not that Crimes may be Countenanced; when being obliged to use Severity, they temper it with some Actions of Meekness, or Clemency; when they are so much the more temperate in their Pleasures, by how much they have a greater Liberty to exceed; when they affect to Command their Passions, rather than all the Nations of the World, and they do all these Things, not out of Vainglory, but to obtain eternal Happiness; and, in short, when they are careful to offer unto God, for their Sins, the Sacrifice of Humility, Mercy, and Prayer. These, saith St. Augustin, are the Christian Princes whom we call Happy: Happy even in this World by Experience, and really Happy, when what we look for, shall come. Finally, he proposes the Examples of some Christian Emperors, and particularly of Constantine, and Theodosius, whose Greatness, and Prosperities, he extols and sets forth.  
In the Sixth Book, St. Augustin proves by the Authority of Varro, that, the fabulous Divinity of the Heathen is ridiculous; he makes the same Conclusion concerning their civil Theology, and grounds what he saith of it upon Seneca's Authority.  
He goes on in the Seventh, to discover the Falsehood of the Heathen civil Theology; showing, That their chiefest Divinities, or select Gods, do not deserve to be called Gods; and that the Christian's God alone governs the World.  
The Eighth Book refutes the natural Theology of their Philosophers: He prefers the Platonists before all other Philosophers, and owns that they knew the True God; showing withal, that they were deceived by honouring Daemons, as subaltern Deities, and Mediators betwixt God, and Men: He shows, That the Christians never committed this Mistake; and that they are so far from adoring the Daemons, which are evil Spirits, that they do not worship the Angels, nor the Holy Martyrs; that they do indeed Honour, and Reverence them as the Servants of God, but that they did not build Temples for them, nor consecrate Priests, nor offer Sacrifices unto them. For, saith he, who among Christians ever saw a Priest before an Altar, consecrated to God, upon the Body of a Martyr, say in his Prayer, Peter, Paul, or Cyprian, I offer you this Sacrifice? It is offered to God, though it be upon the Monuments of Martyrs; and these Ceremonies were appointed to be performed upon their Monuments, for no other end, but to give the True God Thanks for the Victories which they had obtained, and at the same time, to stir up Christians to imitate their Courage, and to make themselves worthy to have a share in their Crowns, and Rewards: So that all the Acts of Piety, and Religion, which are done at the Tombs of the Holy Martyrs, are Honours paid to their Memory, and not Sacrifices offered to them as Divinities.  
But forasmuch as they owned Two sorts of Daemons, some good, and some bad, St. Augustin examines that Distinction in the next Book, where he shows by the Principles both of Apuleius, and of the Chief of Heathenish Authors, that all Daemons are Evil. Whence he concludes, That they cannot be Mediators between God, and Men. He doth not believe, That Angels deserve that Title, affirming, That it belongeth to none but Jesus Christ alone.  
In the Tenth Book he treateth at large of Angel Worship: He saith, That they are Creatures, whose Felicity is all in God; that they worship God, and their Desire is, that all Men would worship him; that they require of us, neither Adoration, nor Sacrifices; and that God doth not expect from us Sacrifices, like those of the Heathen, but a Sarcifice of Union, such as the Church celebrates in the Eucharist, and which the Faithful know: That the Miracles which were wrought by the interposition of Angels, (not of Daemons, whose Prodigies are nothing but illusions:) These Miracles, I say, were wrought by God's Power, to make himself known unto Men: That the invisible God becomes visible by the ministry of his Angels, whom he made use of to deliver his Law to the World: That it is so true, that no Sacrifice is to be offered to any but God; that Jesus Christ, as Man, would be made a Sacrifice himself, and not receive one from any Body else: That God alone can purify Men of their Sins, as the Platonists themselves acknowledge, that so it was necessary that God should be made Man to be a true Mediator: That the just Men, under the old Law, were not Saved, but by Faith in this Mediator: That Pride alone keeps the Platonists from owning the Incarnation: That the Soul is not Coeternal with God, as they imagine: And Lastly, That the Means of delivering, the Soul which they sought after to so little purpose, is nothing but the Christian Religion.  
In the 11th. Book, St. Augustin finds the Original of both Cities, in the diversity of Angels; which gives him occasion to treat of the Creation of the visible World, which was immediately preceded by that of the invisible, that is of the Angels whom he created all in a State of Righteousness, from which some are fallen through their own fault. He makes some digressions to speak of the Trinity, and of several Circumstances of the Creation of the World.  
Having proved in the 12th. That the difference of good, and evil Angels doth not proceed from their Nature, but from their Will, because God created nothing but what was both Good, and Perfect. He comes to discourse of Mankind; and proves, That Men are not from Eternity, but that God created Man in time: And he mentions something, concerning the Fall of the First Man, whereof he speaks more at large in the 13th. Book, where he shows, That the death, both of Body and Soul, was the Consequence, and the Punishment of Adam's Fall. There one may meet with several curious Notions concerning Death; and several Reflections upon the Resurrection, and the Quality of glorified Bodies. He goes on in the 14th. Book, to speak of the Fall of the First Man, and of the lamentable Consequences that attended it, and particularly of irregular Desires, and shameful Passions. He inquires, Whether the First Man was subject to Passions, and how he could Sin, being free from them. Lastly, He asketh several Questions, rather nice, than necessary, how Men should have had Children in the Earthly Paradise, had they continued in the State of Innocence.  
The Fifteenth Book is the first of those wherein he examineth the Progress of both the Cities: He finds the History of it in the Old Testament, where he shows who were the Citizens of both those Cities. This Book prosecutes this History from the Creation, to the Flood. On the one side, we see Abel, and Isaac, and on the other Cain, and Esau: And both these Cities may be taken notice of in the Marriages of the Sons of God, with the Daughters of Men. The Church is represented by Noah's Ark. There are in this Book curious Allegories, and several Reflections upon the History of Genesis. Amongst other Things, he examines the length of the Lives of the First Patriarches; and the Difference betwixt the Translation of the Septuagint, and the Hebrew Text, about the Number of the Generations.  
In the 16th. Book he carries on the History of both Cities, from Noah to Abraham, and from Abraham to the Kings of Israel. He doth not find that the Scripture takes notice of any that served God from Noah to Abraham. He speaks of the Posterity of the Children of Noah, of the Confounding of Languages, of the Antiquity of the Hebrew Tongue, and of the Multiplication of Mankind. He questions whether there be Antipodes. In the rest of the Book he clears the History of Abraham, and of his Posterity, which is explained with relation to the City of God.  
In the 17th. taking a View of the History both of the Kings and of the Prophets, he relates and expounds the Prophecies which are in the Books of Kings, in the Psalms, and in the Books of Solomon, which relate to Christ or his Church.  
Now as he had quitted the History of the City of the World, when he was come to Abraham, so he resumeth it in the beginning of the 18th. Book; which contains an Abridgement of the History of the Principal Monarchies in the World, the times whereof he makes to agree with the History of the Bible; and he omits not to speak of the Fabulous Histories, and of the Metamorphoses. Afterwards, he quotes the Sibylline Oracles; but he insists most upon the Predictions of the Prophets, which he produces in all their Particulars. He speaks also of the Books of the Maccabees: and having made some Reflections upon the Authority of the History of the Canonical Books, and of the Translation of the LXX. he describeth in few words the Fall of the Jewish Empire; and so he comes to the Nativity of Jesus Christ, the Dispersion of the Jews, the Settlement of the Church, the Persecutions and Heresies which immediately followed. St. Augustin makes very ingenious Reflections upon all these Articles; and concludes this Book, by showing, That the End of the World is Unknown; and he refutes a false Prediction which the Heathens published, That the Christian Religion should last but Three hundred sixty five Years.  
The 19th. Book treateth of the End of both Cities: Each one aims at the chiefest Good; but the Inhabitants of the Terrestrial know so little of it, that their Philosophers, the Wisest among them, could never agree wherein it consisted. Varro reckoneth Two hundred eighty eight different Opinions of Philosophers about it. The Christian Religion discovers the Falsity of all those Opinions, by letting Man know, That he cannot be Happy in this Life, but only in Hope; because he cannot enjoy here Peace and perfect Tranquillity.  
The 20th. Book contains a Description of the Last Judgement, of the Renewing of the World, of the Resurrection, and of the Heavenly Jerusalem.  
The 21st. treateth of the End of the Earthly City, and represents the Horror of the Torments of Daemons and Damned Men, and of the Eternal Fire of Hell. St. Augustin refutes the vain Reasons of those that doubt of it; and the Fancy of some, who affirmed, That those Torments should have an End, and that Men should be kept from them by the Intercession of the Saints, by the Use of Sacraments, and by Almsdeeds.  
The Last Book is, concerning the Happiness which the Saints shall enjoy to Eternity. The main End which St. Augustin aims at there, is, To prove the Probability of Man's Resurrection. His chief Reason is grounded upon Christ's Resurrection; attested by such credible Witnesses, that none can rationally doubt of it, the truth thereof having been confirmed by so many Miracles. But because Unbelievers demanded why Miracles were not still wrought, St. Augustin mentions several that were done in his time, which he pretends to be very certain, and very well attested. He speaks again of the Condition of Glorified Bodies, and Crowns his Work with an excellent Pourtraicture of the Happiness of the Saints. How great (saith he) will be that Felicity that shall be disturbed with no Evil, and where no other Business shall be followed but singing the Praises of God, who shall be all in all? ... There will be found True Glory, where there is neither Error nor Flattery. There is True Honour; since it it is refused to none that deserve it, and it is not given to any that deserve it not; yea, where no Unworthy Person shall pretend to it, because there shall be none there but such as are Worthy. There will be True Peace, where a Man shall suffer nothing either from himself, or from other Men. He that is the Author of Virtue, shall himself be the Reward of it; because there is nothing better than Herald He shall be the End of our Desires, whom we shall See to be without End, whom we shall Love without Disgust, and Praise without Weariness. This Employment will be common to all Men, as well as Eternal Life; but it is impossible to know what degree of Glory shall be proportionable to each Man's Merit; and yet it is certain, that there is a great difference betwixt the Happiness of the one and of the other. But one of the great Advantages of that City, will be, That none shall envy those whom he shall see to be Above him .... Every one shall enjoy a Happiness, some greater, and others less; but every one shall have this Gift, Not to desire a greater than what he has. And we are not to imagine that Men shall be there without freewill, because they cannot take pleasure in Sin. For he will be so much the more Free, who shall be delivered from the Pleasure of Sinning, so as to take an unalterable Pleasure in not Sinning any more .... Wherefore, all the Inhabitants of this divine City shall have a Will perfectly Free, exempt from all Evil, filled with all manner of Good, enjoying without intermission the Delights of an Immortal Joy, without remembrance either of his Faults or of his Miseries, otherwise than to bless their Deliverer for the same.  
They have left out in this Edition the Commentaries both of Ludovicus Vives, and of Leonardus Coquaeus; which exceeded the Text of St. Augustin by much, and which served but little to understand it, though otherwise full of Learning and Erudition.  
These Books of St. Augustin are very pleasant, for the surprising variety of the things which he hath brought in to serve his purpose, so as all to tend to the same end. Their Learning is generally admired; yet they contain nothing but what is taken out of Cicero, Varro, Seneca, and other profane Authors, whose Works were common enough in those days; and one may say, that there is nothing very curious or elaborate; and in some places he is not exact, and he does not directly resolve most of the Difficulties which he proposes both upon the Text, and upon the History of the Books of the Bible. He discusses very useless Questions, and sometimes makes use of Reasons too weak to persuade those that would doubt of what he intends to prove; yet for all that, this is a most excellent Book: What I most admire in it, is, the Management of the whole Work, the judicious Reflections which he makes upon the Opinions therein related, and the great Principles of Morality which he layeth down upon Occasion.  
At the latter end of this Volume there are some Letters which have some relation to what St. Augustin saith in the 8th. Chapter of the last Book of the Miracles that were done in his time. The First is one of Avitus, upon the Translation of a Letter written by Lucianus, concerning the Discovering of St. Stephen's Body. With this Translation, they have added another Tract, translated out of Greek by Anastasius the Library-Keeper, about another Discovery of St. Stephen's Relics at Constantinople. They have likewise placed their Bishop Severus' Letter, touching the Miracles happened in the Island Minorca, at the appearing of St. Stephen's Relics for the Conversion of the Jews: And two Books ascribed to Evodius, Bishop of Uzala, concerning St. Stephen's Miracles; which have been mentioned already.   

The EIGHTH TOME.  
THE Eighth Volume of St. Augustin's Works, contains his Writings against Heretics, excepting those that are against both the Donatists and the Pelagians, which make up two 
Tom. VIII  distinct Volumes. It gins with the small Treatise of Heresies, composed in the Year 428. at the Request of Quodvultdeus, a Deacon, to whom it is directed.  
This Writing was to have had Two Parts: The First, concerning the Heresies raised from Jesus Christ's to St. Augustin's time. He promised to examine, in the Second, what it is that makes a Man an Heretic. This Second should naturally have been the First; because that to know the Heresies that have broken out since Jesus Christ's time, it is necessary to know what is Heresy. But St. Augustin finding this Question hard to be resolved, began with the other that was more easy, and never undertook the Second. Therefore this Treatise is only a very succinct Catalogue of the Names of Heretical Sects, and of their principal Errors. It beginneth with the Symonians, and endeth with the Pelagians, and containeth Eighty eight Heresies: it is by no means exact, and one shall hardly find any thing there which is not taken out of St. Epiphanius and Philastrius.  
The Treatise against the Jews, is a Sermon in which St. Augustin proves by the Prophecies, That the Jewish Law was to have an End; That it was to be changed into a New Law; and, That God would reject the Jews, to call the Gentiles.  
These Two short Treatises are followed by St. Augustin's Writings against the Manichees; which are set down in the first place, because those Heretics opposed the first Principles of the Christian Religion. The First of all, is that of the Usefulness of Faith, which St. Augustin composed sometime after he was Ordained Priest, in the Year 391. to reclaim his Friend Honoratus from the Errors of the Manichees, wherein he had been engaged as well as St. Augustin; because those Heretics had put him in hope, That without making use of Authority, they should discover the Truth to him by the Light of Reason, and by this one only mean bring him to the Knowledge of God, and deliver him from all sorts of Errors. St. Augustin having showed the difference betwixt the Author of a Heresy, and a Person surprised with it afterwards, doth at first justify the Old Testament; showing, That it agreeth exactly with the New, in the History, Morals and Allegories; and that the Church puts such a sense upon it, which the Manichees themselves cannot condemn. He overthroweth the Manichees Principle; proving, That we must Believe before we Know-worth To this end, he supposes certain Persons having no Religion, and seeking to be instructed in the True, to be like those who should inquire after a Master to teach them Rhetoric or Philosophy. Afterwards he observes, That the only Party which these Persons are to embrace at first, is to side with those who are commonly and generally approved: That it is great Rashness in those who are incapable of themselves to judge of things, to departed from the Common Voice; to prefer the Judgement of some particular Men, before that of the Multitude. So that it is most rational, since one Party or other is to be embraced, to side with the Catholic Church, especially because it forbids not those that come into her to inquire after the Truth. It saith indeed, That we ought to Believe: But it hath an Authority so to 
St. Augustin. Tom. VIII  do; for no Man can Believe, but he must be persuaded, That He in whom he believeth, is worthy of Credit; and this makes the difference betwixt a Wise and a Credulous Man. But had it not been better to give convincing Reasons of Things? No; for all Men are not capable of Reason, and some things cannot be understood without the help of a Divine Light. It is very dangerous to follow those who promise to make us comprehend all things; because they often boast of knowing what they are ignorant of, and often make us believe so too. And very shameful is that Condition, for Two Reasons: First, Because such a Person takes no more Pains to learn, being falsely persuaded of his Knowledge: And, Secondly, Because that an inconsiderate readiness to judge of a thing, is a Mark of a weak Understanding. Reason makes us apprehend things, Authority makes us believe, but Error persuades us to affirm rashly that which is false. Upon these Principles St. Augustin proves the Necessity of Faith, in Matters of Civil Life, as much as in Matters of Wisdom: For in the first place, the Whole of Humane Society is grounded upon the Belief of some certain Things. As for Example: The Honour we render to our Parents, is grounded merely upon our Belief, That they are the Persons from whom we received Life. Secondly, There is no getting of Wisdom, without consulting with Wise Men. But how shall we know these Wise Men, except we trust Others? For unless we are Wise ourselves, we can never know True Wisdom. Wherhfore, we must Believe, to seek after Religion: For did we not believe that there is such a thing, why should we seek for it? All Heretics own that we must believe in Jesus Christ: But what Motives have we to believe Jesus Christ's Authority? Are they not the same with those that make us believe the Church? Are they not the Miracles, the Sanctity both of the Doctrine and of the Morals, the Publishing of the Gospel, the Blood of Martyrs, and some other Proofs of this nature, which establish the Authority of the Church no less than that of Jesus Christ? Therefore St. Augustin concludes thus, Why should we make any difficulty to throw ourselves into the Arms of that Church which hath always maintained herself by the Succession of Bishops in Apostolic Sees, in spite of all the Endeavours of Heretics condemned by her, or by People's Faith, or by the Decisions of Councils, or by the Authority of Miracles? It is either a matchless Impiety, or a very indiscreet Arrogancy, not to acknowledge her Doctrine for a Rule of our Faith. For if the Spirit of Man cannot attain unto Wisdom, and so to Salvation, but by Faith directing our Reason; is it not to be Ungrateful, and neglect the Succour proffered by God, to resist so weighty an Authority? And truly, if any Science, though common and easy, cannot be learned without a Teacher; it is Presumption, in the highest degree, to refuse to learn the Sense of the Sacred Books from those that understand them; and to condemn them, without hearing what they say.  
After this First Book against the Foundation of the Manichaean Heresy, St. Augustin composed the Book Of the Two Souls, against one principal Error of those Heretics; asserting, That there were Two Souls in each Man; a Good one, of a Divine Substance, the cause of all that is Good in us; and an Evil one, of the nature of Darkness, proper to the Flesh, which is the Principle of all disorderly Motions, and of all the Evil that we do. St. Augustin proves in this Book, First, That the Soul being a Spirit and Life, is more perfect than Corporeal Light, which the Manichees believe to come from God. Secondly, That there is no Nature or Substance naturally Evil; and that Evil consists only in the Abuse of our Liberty. Some Passages in this Book attribute much to freewill; nay, there are some which may not agree well with the Doctrine of Grace, and of Original Sin, which St. Augustin correcteth in his Retractations.  
There was at that time in Hippo a Priest, one Fortunatus, a Famous Manichee, who had seduced many Inhabitants of that City. The Catholics engaged St. Augustin, in a Conference with him. What was said on both Sides, was set down in Writing by Notaries, and that Act preserved among St. Augustin's Writings. The Dispute lasted but two Days; and the Questions that were disputed about, were of Nature, and the Original of Evil. St. Augustin affirms, That Evil proceeds from the Abuse of freewill. The Manichee pretends, That there is an Evil Nature Coeternal with God. In the first day's Conference the Manichee defended himself well enough; but he could not Answer St. Augustin's Objections next day, and was obliged to say, That he would confer about them with the Heads of his Sect. The Shame of being Confuted in that Conference, obliged him to leave Hippo. This Conference is dated the 26th. of August, under the Second Consulship of Arcadius and Rufinus, in the Year 392.  
About that time, St. Augustin met with some Works of one Adimantus, who had been a Disciple of Manichaeus, written against the Law and the Prophets; which he affirmed to contain things contrary to the Precepts of the Gospel and of the Apostles. He undertook to Answer the Objections of that Heretic, and to Justify the Agreement betwixt those Passages of the Old and New Testament which he had produced, as being contrary. This Book is of the Year 394.  
St. Augustin having refuted the Disciple, undertakes the Master, and Answereth the Letter which he called, The Epistle of Foundation: showing, That Manichaeus set forth in it nothing but Falshods and Absurdities. He lays down, at first, the Reasons for his adhering to the Church, in these Terms: Not to speak (saith he) of that Wisdom and Understanding which few Men apprehend in this Life, several Motives keep me in the Bosom of the Catholic Church; The general Consent of Nations and People, an Authority grounded upon Miracles, upheld by Hope, perfected with Charity, and confirmed by Antiquity; the Succession of Bishops from St. Peter to our time; and the Name of the Catholic Church, which is so peculiar to the True Church, that though all Heretics call themselves Catholics, yet when you ask, in any Country whatsoever, where Catholics meet, they dare not show the Place of their Assemblies. These are powerful Motives which keep a faithful Man within the Pale of the Church, though he be not yet arrived to a perfect understanding of the Truth. But among you Manichees, that have none of these Reasons either to invite or to keep me, I hear none but vain Promises, to make me understand the Truth clearly. I confess, That did you perform it, I ought to prefer an evident Truth, which none can doubt of, before all the Motives that make me keep to the Catholic Church. But so long as you do only promise, and not give this Knowledge, you shall not shake that Trust which I have in the Catholic Church, which is grounded upon such powerful Reasons and Motives. He examines afterwards the Principles contained in Manichaeus' Letter; and proves, That he not only fails in the Demonstration of what he affirmeth, but that he is contrary even to Reason and Common S●nce. This Book is placed in the Retractations, among the Books composed 'bout the Year 397.  
The most considerable of all St. Augustin's Works against the Manichees, is, his Treatise against Faustus, divided into Three and thirty Disputes or Arguments; wherein he writes down the Text of this Manichees Books, which contained most part of the Blasphemies and Impieties of those Heretics, against both the Old and the New Testament: which St. Augustin strongly and solidly refutes. This Work was completed about the Year 400. and sent to St. Jerom in 404.  
The next Book contains the Acts of a Conference which St. Augustin had at Hippo, in December, 404. with a Manichee, one Felix. The Dispute lasted three Days, but we have a Relation but of what happened in the two last Conferences. In the Conclusion of the latter, the Manichee was Converted, and Anathematised Manichaeus.  
In the same Year, St. Augustin composed a Treatise Of the Nature of Good, against the Manichees: wherein he shows, That God is of an Immutable Nature: That he hath created all other Being's, whether Spiritual or Corporeal, which are all good in their Nature: That Evil proceedeth only from the Abuse of freewill: That the Manichees call Evil Good, and Good Evil.  
The Book against Secundinus, is properly an Answer of St. Augustin's to that Manichees, who had exhorted him by a Letter, never to encounter with the Manichees, of whose Opinion himself had been formerly; and he had also urged him to return to their Sect. St. Augustin gives him the Reasons of his Conversion, and discovers some of Manichaeus' Errors.  
The following Treatise is against a Heretic who was worse than the Manichees, who in a distinct Treatise asserted, That God did not make the World, nor give the Law. St. Augustin refuteth him, under the Name of The Adversary of the Law and the Prophets, in two Books bearing that Title, composed about the Year 420.  
Orosius having consulted St. Augustin, in 415. about the Impieties of the Priscillianists, and some Errors of Origen's Disciples, St. Augustin answered him in a Book directed to him, entitled, Against the Priscillianists and Origenists. In this small Treatise he rejects these Errors: 1. That the Soul is of a Divine Nature. 2. That the Torments both of the Daemons and of Damned Men shall have an end. 3. That the Reign of Jesus Christ will not be Eternal. 4. That both Angels and Souls are Purified in this World. 5. That the Stars are Animated. 6. That Angels commit Sins.  
The rest of St. Augustin's Treatises contained in this Volume are against the Arians.  
The First is an Answer to a Discourse of an Arian, containing a great many Objections against the Divinity of the Son of God, and of the Holy Ghost. This Discourse was made the next Year after the Conference with Emeritus, held in 417.  
Next to this Treatise, are, The Conference with Maximinus, and Two Books against that Arian Bishop. The Conference was held at Hippo, in the Year 428. whither Maximinus was sent by Count Sigisvultdeus. In the Conference were several Discourses on both Sides; but Maximinus having said many more things than St. Augustin, and spoken last, he bragged that he had got the Victory: which obliged this Saint to recollect all that had been said in the Conference, and to refute Maximinus' last Arguments, which he had not had time to answer.  
St. Austin's Books of the Trinity, are rather a Dogmatical Treatise, concerning that Mystery, than Polemical Writings against Heretics; for he insisteth not so much upon refuting their Reasons, or establishing the Doctrines of the Church, as upon subtle Reasonings, to expound and clear this Mystery. He began them in the Year 400. and finished them in 416. The First Book gins with a Preface containing very important Reflections. He observes, at first, That Men have Three false Notions of the Divinity; that some conceive of God as a Corporeal Substance, attributing to him Corporeal Properties; that others have such an Idea of him, as they have of their Souls, and of other Spirits; and so they ascribe to him the like Imperfections, as Repenting, Forgetting, and Remembering,; and that others entertain such a Notion of God, as may have nothing Common with a Creature; and so they conceive none but Chimerical Ideas of him. The Holy Scripture condescends to Men's Weakness, ascribing often such Things to God, as belong properly to Bodies, or imperfect Spirits; and seldom makes use of Terms peculiar to God, because it is very difficult to know, in this Life, the Substance, or Essence of the divine Nature perfectly. But because some Persons desire to be informed about this Matter, and ask how Three divine Persons make one and the same Essence, he undertakes two things in this Work: First, To show, That the Scripture teaches us such Doctrine; and then to raise the Mind, as far as it is capable in this Life, to the knowledge of this Mystery.  
He proves the First Point in the first Seven Books.  
In the First, he establishes, by Passages of Scripture, the Unity, and the Equality of the Three Divine Persons; and explains the principal Places that were urged by the Arians, against the Divinity of Jesus Christ. The main Rule which he makes use of, is That Jesus Christ being one only Person, made up of Two Natures, what is said of the humane Nature should be distinguished from that which is spoken of the Divine.  
In the Second, he confirmeth the former Rule, and layeth down another. That the Scripture speaks things of the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which are not spoken of the Father, to show, That they receive their Essence from the Father: As when 'tis said, That the Son doth nothing of himself; that he receiveth Life from the Father. This, saith St. Augustin, doth not show, That the Son is of a different Nature from the Father, but only, that the Son receiveth his Substance from the Father. And by this Rule, he explains the mission of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. He speaks also of Apparitions; wherein he pretends, That not one single Person, but the whole Trinity, hath either spoken, or operated.  
This last Question is the Subject of his Third Book; wherein he examines, Whether God, in his Apparitions, form Creatures to make himself known unto Men by them; or, Whether th●se Apparitions were by the Ministry of Angels, who made use of Bodies to accomplish them. He concludes, in favour of the latter Opinion, rejecting the former, which had been held by all the Fathers before him.  
The Fourth is about Christ's Incarnation, whereby God hath manifested how much he loved us. The Word was made Flesh, to deliver us from the Darkness wherein we lay, to purify our Hearts, and Minds. His Death delivered us from Two kinds of Death; from that of the Body, by restoring Immortality to us; and from that of the Soul, by washing us from our Sins. Here he makes a Digression, concerning the perfection of the Number Six, which is neither very solid, nor much to the Purpose. He discourses afterwards of the wonderful Effects of Christ's Mediation; and shows, at last, That the Humiliation of the Son of God, by his Incarnation, hinders him not from being equal with his Father, according to the Divine Nature.  
In the Fifth Book, He refutes the Sophisms of Heretics against the Mystery of the Trinity.  
In the Sixth, He considers in what sense the Son is called the Wisdom and Power of the Father: Whether the Father be Wise of himself; or, Whether he is only the Father of Wisdom. He puts off the Decision of that Question, and treats again of the Unity and Equality of the Father, of the Son, and of the H. Ghost.  
In the Seventh Book he resolves the Question proposed in the Sixth, showing that the Father is not only the Father of Power and of Wisdom, but that he hath in himself both Power and Wisdom; and that all the Three Persons of the Trinity are Wise and Powerful by the same Power and Wisdom, because they have but one Godhead. Afterwards he explains in what sense God is said to have but one Essence and Three Persons; or, according to the Greeks, three Hypostases.  
Having proved in the Eighth Book that the Three Persons together are not greater than any one alone, he enters upon the Second Part of his Work by exhorting Men to raise up themselves to the Knowledge of God, through Charity, wherein he finds a kind of Trinity.  
In the Ninth, He endeavoureth to find a Trinity in Man, who was created after the Image of God; he findeth there a Spirit, a Knowledge of himself, and a Love wherewith he loves himself: these three Things are equal among themselves, and make but one Essence. This is according to S. Augustin, an Image of the Trinity. Memory, Understanding, and Will, furnish him with another, which he believes is clearer and more like. He explains it in the Tenth Book. He finds some resemblances even in the outward Man, in the inward Senses, in Knowledge and Wisdom: and these are the Subjects of the following Books.  
He concludeth at last, in the Fifteenth Book, That though we have here below several Representations of the Trinity, yet we should not seek for it, but in immutable and eternal Things, and that we cannot see it in this Life, but by a Figure, and Enigmatically: And thus he pretends, That we have an Idea of the Generation of the Word, by the production of the Word of our Understanding, and an Idea of the proceeding of the Holy Ghost, by the Love that proceeds from the Will. But he confesseth, That these Notions are very imperfect; and that there is an infinite Difference betwixt these Comparisons, and the Mystery of the Trinity.  
The Treatise of the Five Heresies, or rather the Sermon preached against Five sorts of Enemies to the Christians, Heathens, Jews, Manichees, Sabellians, and Arians, which the Louvain Doctors had ascribed to St. Augustin, though Erasmus doubted of it, is thrown in this Edition, amongst the supposititious Treatises. And this was done with a great deal of Reason; for the Style thereof is very different from St. Augustin's: And the Author of that Sermon preached it, when Arianism was the predominant Religion in Africa, as appears by the 6th. and 7th. Chapters; which shows, That St. Augustin is not the Author of it, but some other African who lived at the time of the Vandal's Persecution. The Sermon of the Creed against the Heathens, Jews, and Arians, is also of the same time, and probably of the same Author.  
The Suit betwixt the Church, and the Synagogue, is the Work of some Lawyer, who tried to Exercise himself, in making the Church to condemn the Synagogue, after the same manner that a Judge condemns a Malefactor.  
The Book of Faith, against the Manichees, is restored to Evodius of Uzala, upon the Authority of ancient Manuscripts, and the different Style.  
The following Memorial, of the manner of admitting the Manichees, that were converted into the Churth, is very Ancient; and, in all probability, it is an Order of some Council of Africa.  
The Book of the Unity of the Trinity, is here restored to Vigilius Tapsensis, the true Author, who citeth it himself in the Preface to his Books, against Varimadus, to whom it is attributed in an ancient Copy.  
Both the Books of the Incarnation of the Word, are taken, as it is observed, out of the Translation of Origen's Principles by Rufinus.  
The Treatise of the Unity, and Trinity of God, is made up of Extracts out of several Passages of St. Augustin's Works, both Genuine, and Spurious.  
The Book of the Essence of the Divinity, which is likewise attributed to St. Ambrose, St. Jerom, St. Anselm, and Bonaventure, is partly taken out of a Book, written by St. Eucherius.  
The Dialogue of the Unity of the Holy Trinity, was found in Two Manuscripts, Eight Hundred Years old; in one of them it is ascribed to St. Augustin, yet it is clearly written in a different Style from his.  
The Book of Ecclesiastical Maxims, aught to be quite expunged out of St. Augustin's Works, to which it hath no relation; yet it is quoted under that Holy Father's Name, by the Master of the Sentences; and it beareth his Name in several Manuscripts. Trithemius ascribes it to Alcuinus; and Gratian citeth it under the Name of Paterus: But the vulgar Opinion is, That Gennadius writ it, to whom it is attributed by Algerus, Walafridus Strabo, the Master of the Sentences, and Thomas Aquinas in several Places. It is likewise cited, under his Name, in several MSS. This Book contains an Abridgement of the principal Articles of Religion. It is evident, That the Author thereof was not of St. Augustin's Opinion, concerning Grace, and freewill. They have left out some Articles which had been inserted after the 21st. and taken out of St. Coelestine's Epistles to the Bishops of Gaul, of the Council of Carthage, and that of Orange.   

The NINTH TOME.  
THE Ninth Volume of St. Augustin's Works, containeth his Treatises against the Donatists. 
Tom. IX.   
The First is a Hymn which St. Augustin composed in vulgar, and popular Terms, to teach the most unlearned the State of the Question betwixt the Catholics, and the Donatists, and to exhort these to a Reunion with the Catholics. This Writing, which consists but of Two Leaves, is proper, as St. Augustin himself observes, for none but very ordinary People.  
In 393. he wrote a Book against Donatus his Epistle; and in 398. Two Books against the Donatists: But both these Treatises are lost.  
We are therefore to begin St. Augustin's Works against the Donatists, from the Three Books against the Epistle of Parmenianus, who succeeded Donatus in the See of Carthage. There he refutes the Letter which that Schismatic wrote to Tychonius, wherein he accused the whole Church of being defiled, for communicating with Persons that were guilty of several Crimes. St. Augustin having proved, That Caecilian, and the greatest part of the others, who were accused by the Donatists, had been declared Innocent; addeth, That though the Crimes, whereof they accused particular Men, were proved, yet the Church would still be the true Church, tho' she had not cut them off from her Communion because she is made up of good and bad Men, and that even these may be tolerated for Peace sake. These Books were composed about the Year 400. We must not forget to observe, That there is in this Edition, chap. 3d. of the First Book, a very important Correction of a Passage which had much perplexed Historians. S. Augustin speaks there of the Roman Council which condemned the Donatists: and they made him say in the common Editions, and in most Manuscripts, that this Council consisted of Two Hundred Bishops. Usque adeo dementes sunt homines, ut ducentos judices, apud quos victi sunt, victis litigatoribus credat: and because this was not sense, they added against the Authority of the MSS. esse postponendos. It being certain that S. Augustin speaketh in this Place of the Council of Rome, and that there met but 19 Bishops; they thought that 19 were to be put instead of 200. But the restoration made here upon the Credit of the Vatican Manuscript, resolves all the Difficulty, and clears the Sense, without adding any thing. Neither 19 nor 200, are mentioned in the Text. Thus it runs, Usque adea dementes sunt homines, ut CONTRA judices victis litigatoribus credat. It appears at the first sight, that this is the true Sense, which all the Conjectures 
St. Augustin. Tome IX.  of the Learned could not find out. They took the Contra, made short with Two C. C. for the cipher of 200, and they had writ ducentos instead of this cipher at all Adventures; and because the Text was then not Sense, the Louvain Doctors added Esse Postponendos after Credat. One single Manuscript discovers presently those Mistakes, and gives the true Sense. And now let Men say, That there is no need of comparing the Authors to be published with ancient Manuscripts. But to return to our Subject.  
The Seven Books Of Baptism were composed by St. Augustin at the same time. 〈◊〉 undertakes there to refute the Donatists, who used St. Cyprian's Authority, to defend their Opinion concerning the Nullity of Baptism administered by Heretics. He shows, That if that Saint seems to favour them in that Point, yet his Practice and Doctrine condemned their Separation. He refutes also the Reasons which that Saint and his Colleagues urged to prove, That those were to be rebaptized, who had been baptised by Heretics. There he handleth several Questions touching the Necessity, Validity, Effect, and other Circumstances of Baptism.  
After the Books Of Baptism, St. Augustin placeth a Treatise which he composed against a certain Book brought by Centurius from the Donatists. But that Discourse is lost: And so immediately after the Books of Baptism, follow Three Books against a Letter of Petilianus Bishop of the Donatists at Cirta. The First of these Books is written in the form of a Letter to the Church: Therein he refutes the First Part of Petilianus' Letter. But having received afterwards the whole Letter, he thought himself obliged to answer every Proposition by itself. Whilst this was doing, Petilianus having seen the Letter that St. Augustin writ at first, returned an Answer; to which, St. Augustin opposed a Third Book, wherein without insisting upon Petilianus' reproachful Language, he discovers the weakness of the Answers that he brought in defence of his Party. The First of these Books, which is rather a Letter than a Book, was composed about the Year 400. both the others are of 402.  
The next Book is likewise written against Petilianus, and is entitled in the Manuscripts, A Letter from St. Augustin to the Catholics concerning the Sect of the Donatists: And Possidius seems to have mentioned it under this Title, in the Third Article of his Index. It is likewise cited under this Title, and ascribed to St. Augustin in the Fifth Council, Collat. 5. Yet St. Augustin does not mention it in his Retractations. It may be answered, That this Book being written in the form of a Letter, he reserved to speak of it in the other part of his Retractations, which was to contain his Sermons and Letters. And yet we see that St. Augustin speaks of Dogmatical Treatises that were long, though composed in the form of Letters, in this Part; so that it is unlikely that he should have forgot to mention this, when he spoke of his other Letters against Petilianus. The Benedictines have made some other Observations upon this Treatise, which may make us doubt whether it is St. Augustin's, or no. They observe, That the Salutation in the beginning, Salus quae in Christo est, is extraordinary, and that St. Augustin never used it. They find improper forms of Speech, Transitions, Figures and Expressions, not very elegant, which do not agree to St. Augustin's Style. Nay, besides they take notice of a Point of Doctrine different from St. Augustin's. For the Author of this Book teaches in the 13th. Chapter, That the Separation of the Ten Tribes from Judah, was no Heresy; but St. Augustin affirms in the 23d. Epistle, and in his First Book against Cresconius, Chapter 31st. That the Samaritans made a Schism, a Sect, and an Heresy. And lastly, They have Collected some Passages of Scripture which are not of that Translation, which St. Augustin uses in other places. They add. That the Author of this Book, Chapter 24th. doubts whether the Water that issued out of our Saviour's Side, was a figure of Baptism; which St. Augustin sets down for a certain Truth in several places of his Writings.  
These Objections are not unanswerable: St. Augustin hath not mentioned all his Works in his Retractations, and particularly, those that are in the form of Letters. We have already taken notice of some that he has omitted. This is found in Possidius' Catalogue, and the Author declares in the beginning, That he had written already against Petilianus' Letter; The Style, indeed, is not so Elegant as of some other of St. Augustin's Works; but it is no wonder, because it is a Letter that was to be seen and understood by all Mankind. For the same reason, the Hymn against the Donatists might be rejected, which is much flatter, and containing more barbarous Expressions. The Salutation agrees very well to the Subject, and is not unworthy of St. Augustin: And if he never used it in other places, it doth not follow that he should forbear it in this. When St. Augustin reckoned the Samaritans among the Heretical Jews, he did not speak of the ancient Inhabitants of Samaria, immediately after the division of the Tribes, but of the later Samaritans, who were real Heretics among the Jews. Lastly, It is no extraordinary thing for St. Augustin to cite some places of Scripture in other terms than he had used in other places; or that he should doubt here of some things, whereof he speaks more affirmatively at other times.  
Though these Answers should not be sufficient to remove all suspicion, yet it is certain, That this Book was written in St. Augustin's time; and all that can be said is, That it might have been drawn up by some of his Friends, and directed in his Name to the Donatists. It was written in 402. after the Second Book against Petilianus, and before the Third; It is a new Challenge which he sendeth to this Bishop to defend his own Party, and to show that the true Church is on his side. He describes the Marks of the true Church, and proves, That they do not agree with the Donatists' Party, but with that of the Catholics; and then answereth those Passages which the Donatists urged for themselves, and the Accusations which they form against the Church.  
One Cresconius, a Grammarian, of the Donatists' Party, undertook to defend Petilianus against St. Augustin's first Writing. As soon as he saw his Letter, he refuted it in three Books, and retorted upon him all his Arguments, by retorting in a Fourth Book the business of the Maximianists. These Books were written about the Year 406.  
Here should have been placed Three other Treatises against the Donatists, which he mentions in his Retractations, but they are lost. These were, A Book of Proofs and Testimonies against the Donatists; A Treatise against a Donatist; And an Advice to the Donatists about the Business of the Maximianists.  
The Book of one Baptism, against Petilianus, was written after the Conference at Carthage. The Principal Question treated of by St. Augustin, is concerning the Validity of Baptism administered by Heretics.  
St. Augustin being willing to Publish an Account of the Conference of Carthage, wrote a Breviary of what was said in the three Days Conference, in 412.  
He wrote a Book likewise directed to the Donatists, with the same Design; wherein he makes several Reflections upon the Conference of Carthage, that he might perfectly undeceive that Party, and show that they were seduced and deceived by their Bishops. He likewise answereth their Cavils against the Judgement of Marcellinus. This Book is of the Year 413.  
The Treatise to Emeritus a Donatist Bishop, who was one of the principal Defenders of that Party in the Conference at Carthage, is lost. St. Augustin had collected there the main Points, wherein they had been baffled, as he says, in the 49th. Chapter of the Second Book of his Retractations. After this he went to Caesarea, a City of Mauritania, where he met with Emeritus, before whom he Preached a Sermon to persuade him to reconcile himself to the Church; but not prevailing by this means, he held a Conference with him, about those things which had been done in the Conference at Carthage; and then pressed him so hard upon the Quarrel of the Maximianists, that Emeritus had nothing to say: This Conference was held in the presence of the Bishops, Clergy, and People, the 20th. of September 413. or 418. for the Manuscripts do not well agree about the Consul's Names.  
At last, Gaudentius one of the Seven Donatist Bishops who defended their Party in the Conference at Carthage, being pressed by the Threaten of Dulcitius, writ two Letters, which St. Augustin answers in his First Book against this Donatist Bishop; which is particularly to justify the severity exercised towards them. Gaudentius willing to answer something, wrote a Discourse; wherein, without meddling with the Contest betwixt them, he justified his Party, and calumniated the Church. St. Augustin answereth this Treatise in the Second Book. Both these Books of St. Augustin are of the Year 420.  
There is a Sermon attributed to St. Augustin, concerning one Rusticianus, a Sub-deacon, who was rebaptized by the Donatists, and then Ordained Deacon; but this Discourse does not agree to St. Augustin, as it is proved in the Preface. This Volume ends with a Catalogue of St. Augustin's Works against the Donatists, which are in the other Volumes of St. Augustin's Works. We have not spoken particularly of the Matters handled by St. Augustin, in every Book against the Donatists; because he commonly repeateth the same Arguments, and so we should have been obliged to say often the same things, and for which Reason it was put off to this place; that so I might give an Abridgement of his Doctrine, and a Breviary of his chief Reasons all at once.  
It has been observed already, That the Donatists began their Schism by a Separation of some African Bishops, who accused Caecilian of several Crimes, whereof they had been convicted themselves. Though they had been condemned in the Council of Rome, in that of Arles, and at last by Constantine's Judgement, yet they remained firm to their own Opinions, and would by no means be reconciled to the Church. Their Party also was much strengthened by the great number of Bishops whom they ordained, almost in every Church of Africa, and by the Multitudes of People whom they drew after them: So that in St. Augustin's time, their Party was very near as strong in Africa, as that of the Catholics. But they held no Communion with all the other Churches in the World, which acknowledged Caecilian, his Successors, and those of that Party, for the true Church.  
The Donatists in their own defence affirmed, That Caecilian, Felix of Aptungiss, who ordained him, Miltiades that absolved him, and several others of his Brethren, having been convicted of certain Crimes, aught to be deposed and expelled out of the Church; That their Crime made them cease to be Members of the Church, which ought to be pure and without blemish; That as many as defended them and had Communicated with them, were become Accessaries to their Crime by approving it; and that so, not only the Churches of Africa, but even all the other Churches in the World, which held Communion with the Churches of Caecilians Party, having been defiled, ceased to be Parts of the true Church of Jesus Christ, that was then reduced to the small number of those who would not partake with Prevaricators; but kept themselves in the Primitive Purity. Besides this, They charged the Church with another great Crime, as they esteemed it; which was, That they made Application to the Emperor's Authority to Persecute their Party; and that they caused several Violences to be exercised against them. Now, they persisting in the Opinion of St. Cyprian, and of the ancient Bishops of Africa; who held, That Baptism by Heretics and Schismatics was invalid, and aught to be renewed; a necessary Consequence of their Principles, was the Rebaptising of the Catholics that came over to their Party.  
These are the Grounds on which the Schism of the Donatists stood.  
There were two ways to deal with them; either by denying the Matter of Fact, or by opposing the Matter of Right: Those who first writ against the Donatists, insisted most upon the Matter of Fact; that is, The Justification of Caecilian, Felix of Aptungiss, and the rest. Neither doth St. Augustin omit this; for he often proves Caecilians Innocency, by the Judgements given in his behalf; First, At Rome, by Pope Miltiades, and other Bishops; Secondly, In the Council of Arles; and at last, By the Judgement of Constantine. He adds, as an absolute Justification, the consent of all the Churches in the World, which had approved and followed the Judgement of those Councils. He likewise produces the Acts that were made to justify Felix of Aptungiss: He defends Miltiades and Hosius, against the Calumnies laid upon them. And shows at last, That the Donatists had no Proofs of what they alleged against the Catholic Bishops. But he doth not think this to be the main Point, and therefore he passes to the Matter of Right, and maintains, That though Caecilian, and the rest of his Brethren, had been guilty of the Crimes laid to their Charge; yet that was not a sufficient Ground for a Separation from the Church; and that the Church did not cease to be the Church, because it Communicated with wicked Men, since either she did not know them; or else, she bore with them to preserve Peace: which brings him to that great Question, Whether the Church here below is made up only of Saints and Righteous Men, or composed of Good and Bad. St. Augustin affirms, That there was always in the Church Chaff and Corn; that is, both good and wicked Men; and that such will be to the Day of Judgement, which shall divide the good from the bad; That sometimes the number of the latter exceeds that of the former; That many cannot be driven out of the Church, because they are not known, and because it is convenient to tolerate some for quietness sake, to prevent a Schism which might be occasioned by cutting off from the Communion those Persons who might draw along with them several of the Faithful; That it is great rashness to condemn all the Churches in the World, for the Crime of one or two; That the Catholic Church ought to be diffused over the whole Earth, and not confined to a small part of the World, as in a Corner of Africa. Here St. Augustin triumphs over his Adversaries, proving by Prophecies, and other Passages both of the Old and New Testament, That the Catholic Church was to have a considerable Extent.  
These are properly the main Points in Controversy betwixt the Church and the Donatists; but there are other Secundary Questions.  
The First, is concerning the Persecutions, which the Donatists imputed to the Church as a Crime. St. Augustin defends the Church very Modestly, either by disapproving such Violences, or by showing that it was lawful to make use of the Imperial Laws, and of some sort of Severity to bring the Donatists back to the bosom of the Church. He chargeth them likewise with the same things; objecting the Cruelties, Violences, Sacrileges and Murders committed by those of their Party called Circumcellians, and authorized thereunto by Optatus Gildonianus.  
The other accessary Question, which St. Augustin looks upon as a principal one, is about the Validity of the Baptism of Heretics. St. Augustin needed only to prove that his Party was the true Church, and so Condemn by a necessary Consequence the Donatists, for Rebaptising those that had been baptised before by Catholics, since it was agreed on both sides, that the Baptism of the true Church was valid. But St. Augustin undertook besides, to prove the validity of the Baptism of Heretics and Schismatics; And that though his Party were not the Church, yet the Donatists were not to baptise them a second time. He confesses, That St. Cyprian, and most of the African Bishops in his time were of a contrary opinion; That Agrippinus his Predecessor, had appointed Heretics to be Rebaptised; That St. Cyprian and the Councils held in Africa at that time, confirmed Agrippinus' Decree; That this Question remained long undecided, or rather variously decided in divers places. But that at last the thing was decided in a Plenary Council of the whole Church, (in all likelihood he means that of Arles) and that after such Determination, it was not permitted to doubt, because the Provincial or National Councils must give place to the Authority of Plenary Councils. That St. Cyprian was to be excused for not taking the right side of so hard a Question, which was not yet cleared or decided, and so much the rather, because he defended his own Opinion without making a Schism, and with the Spirit of Peace and Unity: However, That the Letters and Writings of the Saints were not to be relied upon, as the Apostles Epistles, and the other Books of the Holy Scripture.  
Now to explain St. Augustin's Opinion touching Baptism more particularly, we are to observe as he doth, That Baptism may be said to be of two sorts; The one administered in the Name of the Trinity, that is, by invoking of the Trinity; and the other performed without naming the Three Divine Persons. The latter, St. Augustin confesses to be null; but affirms the other to be valid, whosoever he be that administers it. So that it matters not who baptizeth, provided that Baptism be in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Two things are likewise to be distinguished in Baptism, the Sacrament, and the Effect of the Sacrament: The Sacrament is found in those that are baptised by Heretics; but because they have not Faith, they are deprived of the Effect: For, that Baptism may be complete, both as a Sacrament, and as to its Effect, the Sacrament must be entire; that is, the Person must be baptised outwardly in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and he that receives must believe and be converted. The Sacrament is often found without Faith, and Faith without the Sacrament. Children have the Sacrament without Faith. The good Thief had Faith without the Sacrament. God supplies in Children the Faith they want, and he supplied in the good Thief the Sacrament which he could not receive. But when either of these is wanting, by the Man's own Fault, he cannot be excused; and he receiveth not the Effect of Baptism. When the Sacrament is found without Faith, and without Conversion, it is not necessary to be reiterated: It is sufficient only to supply what is wanting; as when one is already converted, it is enough to receive the Sacrament. The difference lieth in this, That the Adult cannot be saved without Faith and Conversion, though they may be saved without the Sacrament, if so be that they do not want it through Contempt or Neglect, but because they lay under an impossibility of receiving it.  
From these Principles, St. Augustin draws the following Conclusions: 1. That Baptism conferred by Heretics in the Name of the Trinity, is good and valid as it is a Sacrament, and ought not to be repeated. 2. That neither the Minister's Faith, as to Religion, nor his Sanctity avail any thing to the Validity of Baptism. 3. That it is God, and not the Minister who gives the Holy Spirit, and worketh the Remission of Sins. 4. That Baptism produces this Effect, but in them alone that are well-disposed by Faith and Conversion of the Heart. 5. That the Prayers of the Church, which consists of Saints and Righteous Men; supplies the Actual Faith, which Children cannot have. 6. That the Adult who have Faith and are Converted, may be saved without actual receiving of the Sacrament, but not without the Sacramental Vow.  
As for some other Questions which might be made about Baptism administered by Infidels, or some impious Persons that are Excommunicated or in jest. St. Augustin saith, in the Seventh Book of Baptism, Chap. 53d. thus, It is asked, saith he, whether that Baptism is to be approved, which is administered by an unbaptised Person, who out of Curiosity hath learned the way of baptising among Christians? It is asked further, Whether it be necessary for the Validity of Baptism that he, who either administers or receives it, be sincere? And if they should be only in jest, Whether Baptism ought to be administered again in the Church? Whether Baptism conferred in Derision, as that would be, which should be administered by a Comedian, might be accounted Valid? Whether it is more Criminal to receive Baptism in jest in the Church, or to receive it with the same Spirit, in Heresy or Schism? Whether Baptism administered by an Actor, may become Valid, when he that receives it is well-disposed.  
St. Augustin answers to these and suchlike Questions, That the securest way is to return no Answer to Questions that never were decided in any Council, General, or National. But he adds, Should any man, meeting with me at such Council, ask my Advice about these Questions, and that it were my turn to declare my Opinion, having not heard other men's Opinions, which I might prefer before mine own, and if I perceived in myself the same Dispositions that I am now in, I should without difficulty acknowledge, That they all receive Baptism truly in any place whatsoever, and by whomsoever administered, if on their part they receive it with Faith, and with Sincerity. I am apt also to believe, That such as receive Baptism in the Church, or in what is supposed to be the Church, are truly baptised as to the Sacramental part of the Action whatsoever be their intention. But as for Baptism administered and received out of the Church, in Raillery, Contempt, and to make Sport; I could not approve the same without a Revelation.  
These are St. Augustin's Opinions concerning the Validity or Invalidity of Baptism. As to the Answers which he makes to the Arguments of St. Cyprian, and the other Bishops of his Opinion, they are grounded for the most part upon the Comparison between concealed Heretics and Evil Ministers, with known Heretics and Schismatics. For since the Baptism of the former is Valid and not to be renewed; why should not the same thing be said of the latter, since all the Reasons that are alleged for the nullity of the Baptism of Heretics may also belong to Evil Ministers? It is said, for example, That to give the Holy Ghost one must have it; That Heretics have it not; and consequently that they cannot give it. Why may we not reason after the same manner concerning Baptism conferred by concealed Heretics, or by wicked Priests? Have they the Holy Ghost to give? Thus St. Augustin overthrows the Reasons and Testimonies brought in by St. Cyprian and his Colleagues against the Validity of the Baptism of Heretics, by showing, That whilst they prove too much, they prove nothing.  
But his great Argument to destroy the Donatists, which he particularly insisteth upon in his last Book against Cresconius, is an Argument taken from their Conduct in a Schism that was risen up amongst themselves, betwixt Maximianus, upheld by some other Bishops of their Sect, and Primianus another Bishop of their Party at Carthage; They accused one another of several Crimes, and condemned one another; but Primianus' Party being the stronger, prevailed and held a Plenary Council at Bagais, wherein they condemned Maximianus, and his Adherents, in very reproachful terms, and got this Judgement to be confirmed by the Emperor's Letters. Now, according to the Donatists' Principles, Persons thus Condemned were out of the Church; all that Communicated with them were out of the Church; all whom they baptised, were to be baptised again. And yet the Primianists behaved themselves quite otherwise; for they kept Communion with some of the condemned Bishops, and owned them for lawful Bishops; they acknowledged those that were Baptised by the Maxim ianists, to be truly Baptised; and they admitted into their Communion those that were of the Maximianists Party. St. Augustin compares this their Conduct, with their Behaviour towards the Scripture and the Universal Church; and by that Argument convinceth them, That it was only Prejudice and Obstinacy which kept them in their Separation from the Church.  
The Supplement that is added to this Ninth Volume, contains not only the Book against Fulgentius the Donatist, falsely attributed to St. Augustin, concerning which the Censure of the Louvain Doctors, and of Vindingus, set before it, may be consulted; but also Extracts from ancient Pieces concerning the History of the Donatists, taken out of Optatus, Eusebius, St. Augustin, the Conference at Carthage, the Councils of Carthage, and the Imperial Laws against the Donatists. And that all that St. Augustin writ against the Donatists might be published together, they copied out what he said in the Conference of Carthage. This Collection is the more useful, because there are considerable Restitutions of several Passages of Optatus, from a Manuscript in the Library at St. Germains des Prez. Here is one of the principal. There is a Passage in the First Book of Optatus, where it is said, That Eunomius and Olympius were sent into Africa to Ordain a Bishop, and to Degrade Caecilian and Optatus: Utremotis duobus unum ordinarent! This Passage obliged Albaspinaeus to affirm, That Donatus of Casae Nigrae had been Bishop of Carthage. He likewise draws from it great Advantages in favour of the Church of Rome: yet this Period is not in the St. Germains Copy, and it signifies nothing either for that which goes before, or for that which comes after. If we read the Passage, we may judge: Tunc duo Episcopi ad Africam missi sunt, Eunomius, & Olympius. Venerunt, & apud Carthaginem fuerunt per dies quadraginta, vel quinquaginta, ut pronunciarent ubi esset Catholica. Hoc seditiosa pars Donati fieri passa non est. This Place is clear and plain: whereas, if this Period be inserted, Ut remotis duobus unum ordinarent, the sense is altered, and it will be contradictory. There is likewise, some Lines before, another Restitution, which is confirmed by St. Augustin's Testimony, in the Conference at Carthage. Donatus petiit, ut ei reverti licuisset, & nec ad Carthaginem accederet. Whereas they read before, Ut ei reverti Carthaginem contingeret. In the Extract out of the Third Book of Optatus, they distinguish Three Persecutions against the Donatists; and the Governors are named by whose Orders they were raised. This is not to be found in the ordinary Editions of Optatus. I shall not mention several other Corrections, which may make us wish that a new entire Edition of this Author were undertaken.   

The TENTH TOME.  
THE Tenth Volume, not yet Printed, is intended for the Books which St. Augustin composed 
Tom. X.  against the Pelagians.  
The Three Books Of Merits and Remission of Sins, wherein he treats of Infant-Baptism, directed to Marcellinus, aught to be set in the first place; for till then he had not undertaken the Pelagians, except in his Sermons, or in Conversation, (as he takes notice in his Retractations.) He writ these in the Year 412. in Answer to the Pelagians Questions which Count Marcellinus had sent to him at Carthage. He speaks there particularly of Infant-Baptism, as necessary to remit Original Sin; and of the necessity of the Grace of Jesus Christ, which justifies us, or maketh us righteous; though whilst we are in this Life, we cannot so perfectly accomplish God's Law, but that we are obliged to say in our daily Prayers, Forgive us our Sins. These are the principal Truths opposed by the Pelagians. St. Augustin refutes them without naming the Authors, and speaks of Pelagius in good Terms; because several Persons had a great Esteem for his Virtue: And he had not yet set forth his Doctrine in his own Name, being contented to propose it in other men's Names, in his Commentaries upon St. Paul. St. Augustin, in the last Book, refutes the Explications which he had given of those Passages of the Apostle that speak of Original Sin.  
Count Marcellinus having received these Three Books from St. Augustin, sent him word back again, That he had found a Passage which puzzled him; St. Augustin had said, That with the help of Grace, Man might live without Sin; though none was yet arrived to that Perfection in this Life, and that none would ever arrive to it. Marcellinus asked St. Augustin how he could affirm this to be possible, if there were no Examples of it. To satisfy him about that Question, St. Augustin wrote the Book Of the Spirit and of the Letter: Yet he doth not examine this Question to the bottom; but having answered in very few words, That God can do many things which he doth not, he boldly attacks those who durst affirm, That a Man may fulfil the Commandments, be Just and Virtuous, without the succour of Christ's Grace. He grounds these Reasonings upon that place of St. Paul, The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. By the Letter, he understandeth the Law and the Commandments, which are unprofitable without the help of Grace, which is the Spring of Faith, of Righteousness, Holiness, and all Christian Virtues. This Book is of the Year 413.  
In the Year 414. two young Monks, Timasius and James, having been undeceived by St. Augustin, as to the Pelagian Errors, sent to him one of Pelagius' Books; wherein he pleaded for the Strength of Nature, to the Prejudice of Christ's Grace. St. Augustin immediately engaged to write against it, and composed upon that Subject the Book Of Nature and of Grace: 
St. Augustin. Tome X.  wherein he defends the Grace of Jesus Christ, without Prejudice to Nature, which is delivered and regulated by Grace. He explains in this Treatise his Principles concerning the Fall of Humane Nature, and the Necessity of Grace to be Justified; yet he spares Pelagius' Name.  
But this Monk having afterwards discovered his Opinions, was cited by Heros, Bishop of Arles, and by Lazarus, Bishop of Aix, to a Council of Fourteen Bishops, held at Diospolis, in Palestine, in the Year 415. wherein he was declared Catholic in the absence of his Accusers, having made a show of condemning the Errors whereof he was accused. St. Augustin fearing lest Men should believe that the Council had approved his Doctrine, wrote a Book, entitled, Of the Acts of Pelagius: wherein he declares how Things were carried; and discovers at the same time, that Pelagius had imposed upon the Fathers of the Council, by professing a Doctrine which he had opposed in his Writings. This Book is of the Year 416, or 417. Pelagius made use of the same Artifice to persuade Albinus, Pinianus and Melania, that he did not maintain the Errors he was accused of, by Anathematising them in appearance. Coelestius also deceived Pope Zosimus by the same Fraud, by presenting unto him a Sergeant Catholic Confession. These Cheats St. Augustin discovers and refutes in the Treatise Of Christ's Grace, and in that Of Original Sin; wherein he shows that these Confessions of Faith are captious and deceitful. These Treatises are of the Beginning of the Year 418. It is probable also that it was at that same time that St. Augustin writ the small Treatise Of the Perfection of Righteousness, against Coelestius: where he Answers the Objections and Difficulties proposed by this Man, under the Name of, Definitions against the Opinion of the Catholics, who affirmed, That there never was, nor ever should be a Man that could attain to that Perfection, of passing his whole Life without Offending God: St. Augustin maintains, That God does not grant this Grace even to the greatest Saints; and so that it is ridiculous to believe that Man can compass this by the sole strength of his freewill, as Pelagius and Coelestius imagined. He does not mention this Book in his Retractations, bu● St. Prosper quotes it several times.  
The First Book Of Marriage and Concupiscence, was composed about the latter end of the Year 418. There St. Augustin Answereth one of the most malicious of the Pelagian Objections against Original Sin. If Concupiscence (said they) is Evil, and an Effect of Sin; if all Children are Born in Sin, how comes Matrimony to be approved, which is the Effect and Spring of this Sin? St. Augustin handleth this nice Question very cunningly, by showing, That though Lust be a Defect, and a Consequence of the First Man's Sin, which remaineth even in the Baptised; yet Conjugal Chastity is to be approved, which makes a good use of an evil thing. He occasionally discourseth of several Questions about Marriage, which he had treated of in other Books. This Book is dedicated to Count Valerius, into whose hands the Letter that contained this Objection fell.  
Julianus, an Italian Bishop, a Man of Wit, having read this Book, he was resolved to signalise himself, by writing Four Books against this Treatise of St. Augustin. This Father having seen some Extracts of them, that were directed to Valerius, Answered them in the Second Book Of Marriages and Concupiscence, written in 419.  
Some time after, he received the Four whole Books of Julianus. In reading of them, he perceived that the Extracts sent to him were not very faithfully drawn; which determined him to undertake another Work to Answer them fully. It is divided into Six Books. In the two first he opposes the Testimonies of the Holy Fathers who died in the Communion of the Church, to Julianus' Calumnies, who had accused St. Augustin of Approving the Manichaean Doctrine; because he had taught, That all Men inherited Original Sin from Adam; which is remitted not only in those of riper Years, but even in Children, by the Grace of Baptism. And for this he allegeth some Passages out of St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Rheticius Bishop of Autun, Olympius a Bishop in Spain, St. Hilary of Poitiers, and St. Ambrose, which prove, That Man is Born in Sin, and is Cleansed by Baptism. But because Julianus appealed to the Greek Fathers. St. Augustin produceth likewise the Testimonies of St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Basil, together with the Judgement of the Bishops of Palestine, who condemned Pelagius. He Answereth a Passage of St. Chrysostom which Julianus had cited, and quotes several other Passages out of this Father, which suppose Original Sin. Having thus strengthened his Opinion with these Great men's Authority, he likewise recriminates upon Julianus for publishing such Principles as favoured of the Heresy of the Manichees; and with this he concludes the First Book.  
In the Second Book, he refuteth the chief Arguments of the Pelagians, against original Sin, by the Authorities of the Fathers; showing, That in their Writings they prevented and resolved those very Objections, which the Pelagians did so much depend upon. Having collected a great Number of Passages upon that subject, he saith, That their Authority is so much the more considerable, because they had said these Things without prejudice, before the Pelagian Heresy broke out, following therein the Sense of the Church. We have showed, saith he, directing his Speech to the Pelagians, by invincible Authorities, That the Holy Bishops, who lived before us, taught the same Faith which we maintain, and overthrew the Arguments which you make use of, not only in their Discourses, but in their Writings also— We have showed you their Opinions, which are very particular, and clear: It is not their Power, but God's who made them his Holy Temples, which you ought to Fear. They judged our Cause, at a time, when they could not be suspected either of favouring, or hating either Party; they had neither relation to, nor affection for the one, or the other; they were angry neither with you, nor us; neither you, nor we, could move them to Pity. They preserved the Doctrine which they found in the Church, and they taught what they had Learned: They delivered to their Children what they received of their Fathers. We had not yet referred our Cause to them, and yet they gave judgement on our side; neither of us were known to them, and yet they pronounced in our behalf; we had not had any Dispute with you, and they declared the Right to be on our side.▪ Those Bishops were Learned, Just, and Wise; they strongly defended the Truth against Innovations; and none can say, that they wanted Wit, Knowledge, or Freedom. Should a Council be assembled from all Parts of the World, it were hard to find such a Number of Bishops of that importance; neither did they all live at the same time. They are the choice of the greatest Men whom God gave to his Church in several Ages. Their Testimonies are collected in a Book, which may come to your Hands. The more you should wish to have them for your Judges, if you defended the Faith of the Church, the more ought you to fear them when you oppose it. I hope that their Testimonies will cure your Blindness, as I wish it; but if you continue obstinate in your Error, which God forbidden, you are no more to look for a tribunal to justify you, but those wonderful Defenders of the Truth to accuse you, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Rheticius, Olympius, St. Hilary, St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Innocent, and St. Jerom, with all those that communicated with them, that is to say the whole Church. If you run to that excess of Folly, you must be answered by defending the Faith of these great Men, as the Gospel itself is defended against ungodly Men, and the Enemies of Religion. This he doth in the Four next Books, which contain the Answer to Julianus his Four Books. There he treateth particularly of original Sin, of Concupiscence, of the falsehood of the Virtues of the Heathens, of the necessity of Baptism, and of Grace; and answereth all that Julianus had said against what he had set down in his Book of Matrimony, and Concupiscence. I do not believe that these Books were finished before the Year 424.  
Before he had written them, Pope Boniface sent him two Letters of the Pelagians: the one of Julianus written to Boniface himself; and the other, in the Name of Eighteen Bishops of the same Opinion which had been sent to Thessalonica. St. Augustin having received them, immediately wrote four Books to refute them, which he directed to Pope Boniface. In the beginning of the First, to get that Pope's good Will, he thanks him for the Love which he shown towards him, and for the courteous manner wherewith he received his Brother Alypius of Tagasta; he compliments him upon the Dignity of his See, and tells him, That tho' all Bishops are obliged to watch for the Defence of Christ's Flock, he was yet more particularly engaged to do it, because he was in a more Eminent Place. Afterwards he answers Julianus' Calumnies, and proves, that the Catholics did not deny freewill; that they do not condemn Marriage, nor the lawful Procreation of Children; that they do not condemn the Saints of the old Testament, neither do they say, That the Apostles were defiled through disorderly Desires, and explains in what Sense St. Paul said he was carnal. But they maintain, That Man cannot be Righteous without Grace; that Children are born in Sin; that the involuntary Motions of Concupiscence, are an Effect of Sin; that the Grace of Jesus Christ doth not only help Man to do Good when he is willing, but makes him willing to do it; that the Saints of the Old Testament, were only justified by Faith in Jesus Christ; that Baptism is not only necessary to Children, to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but also to obtain a share in Life eternal, out of which they are excluded by original Sin alone.  
In the Two next Books, he refutes almost the same Calumnies contained in the other Letter of the Pelagians: The Two First are about freewill, and Marriage. St. Augustin adds nothing to what he had said in the foregoing Book. In the Third, they taxed the Catholics with introducing Fatality. St. Augustin shows the difference betwixt Grace and Fate. In the Fourth, they accused them of maintaining, That the Law was not given to Justify Man, but to render him more Sinful. St. Augustin tells them, That they did not understand the Opinion of the Church, in that Point; that the Law was given to teach what ought to be done, but that it is Grace which makes us obey the Law; and so the Law doth indeed show what Righteousness is, but doth not make us practise it. Fifthly, They upbraided the Catholics with believing, That Baptism did not remit all Sins; so that Men continued partly God's Children, and partly the Children of the Devil. St. Augustin replies, That Baptism doth indeed remit all Sins, but it doth not cure Nature of its Weaknesses, and Imperfections▪ That the Righteous may, and do Sin often, without becoming therefore the Children of the Devil, because there is no Man so Righteous as that he sinneth not. The Sixth Calumny is concerning the Old Testament. St. Augustin answereth, That the Righteous who lived under the Old Testament, were justified through the Grace of the New; whereof the Old was only the Figure. The Seventh is, that the Apostles, and Prophets were not perfectly Holy, but only less criminal than others. St. Augustin answers, That they were truly Righteous through Faith, and Charity, but they had not all the perfection of Virtue, which now they have in the other Life. He utterly rejects the Ninth Calumny, whereby they accused the Catholics of saying, That Jesus Christ had been subject to Sin. The Tenth Calumny was expressed in these Terms: They affirm, That Men shall begin in the next Life, to practise the Commandments, which they did not practise in this. St. Augustin opposes it; showing, That they put an ill Construction upon a Catholic Truth; which is, That the Virtue, and the Righteousness of Men, shall only be perfect in the next Life.  
In the last Book, St. Augustin refutes the Pelagian Doctrines; and shows, That under pretence of commending Nature, Marriage, Freewill, the Law, and the Saints of the Old Testament, they advanced very dangerous Errors, to which he opposes several Testimonies of St. Cyprian, and of St. Ambrose.  
The Book of Grace, and freewill, was written by St. Augustin in the Year 427. upon a Dispute which happened in the Monastery of Adrumetum, against those who fearing, lest by the Doctrine of Grace, Freewill should be denied, do indeed deny Grace by defending Freewill, because they suppose that Grace is given according to Merit. This last Error St. Augustin chief opposes in this Book; showing, That the beginning both of Faith, and good Resolutions, is an effect of Grace.  
The reading of this Book did not settle Peace among those Monks: For there was an Objection proposed, which was obvious enough to every Man's understanding. If no Man can do Good, without the Grace of God, and this Grace cannot be merited, no Man is to be reproved, or corrected for not doing his Duty, since it is not in his Power to do it, because he wants Grace, and cannot deserve it. St. Augustin perceiving the Difficulty of this Objection, for the Solution thereof, composed the Book of Correction, and Grace, wherein, without retracting any thing of what he had formerly said, he affirms, That Admonition is to be used: 1. Because it may happen, that God will touch the Heart of him that is reproved. 2. Because Sinners sin voluntarily, and without Compulsion; and that they cannot complain that God hath denied them his Grace, or the Gift of Perseverance, since he owes his Grace to no body. He does not content himself with Answering the Objection; but further explains and confirms his Principles, by showing the difference betwixt the Grace of Adam in the State of Innocence, and that which is necessary to Man in the state of fallen Nature. He speaks also of the Gift of Perseverance, which is not granted unto all; and of the Power of Grace, and the free Predestination of the Elect.  
He again insisteth upon the same Matter, and upon the same Principles, in both the Books which he writ in answer to Hilary's, and Prosper's Letters. The First is of the Predestination of the Saints, and the Second of the Gift of Perseverance: Wherein he demonstrates, That the beginning of Faith, and good Purposes, is the Gift of God; and that so, our Predestination, or Vocation, does not depend upon our Merits. The Second Book concerns the Gift of Perseverance, which he shows to depend equally upon God, as the beginning of our Conversion. St. Augustin composed these Treatises in the Year 429.  
St. Augustin's last Effort against the Pelagians, fell upon Julianus his old Adversary; who, to maintain the Quarrel he had begun, composed Eight Books against St. Augustin's Second Book Of Matrimony, and Concupiscence. St. Augustin having received Five of them from Alypius, undertook to write against them, and was engaged about the Fourth, when he writ the ●●4th. Letter to Quodvultdeus, in the Year 428. It is probable, that Alypius sent him the other Three, but St. Augustin answered but Six; and this Work remains imperfect, as Possidius affirms. The Six Books of St. Augustin were published by F. Vignier, from a Manuscript of the Abbey of Clervaux, which, in all probability, will be revised and corrected in a new Edition from some other Manuscripts. These Books are written by way of Dialogue: There St. Augustin produces Julianus' own Terms, and Answers them plainly, and in few Words.  
We referred to speak of St. Augustin's Four Treatises Of the original of the Soul, to this place, because they were not written properly against the Pelagians, though St. Augustin handleth there some Questions that have some relation to the Dispute betwixt them: Therefore I think that it had been more proper to have set them at the end of the Sixth Volume, than in this place. The occasion and subject of these Four Books is this.  
A Priest of the Province of Mauritania Caesariensis, one Victor, who was Surnamed Vincentius, from a Donatist Bishop, Successor to Victor of that Name, whose Memory that Priest who had been a Donatist, did reverence very much: This Priest, I say, having met in the House of one Peter, a Spanish Priest, with a Writing of St. Augustin's, wherein this Saint had set down his usual Doubts about the Soul's Original, wrote two Books against him, which he directed to Peter himself. He affirmed in that Book, That nothing was easier than the decision of that Question, and that he was sure that God did every moment create new Souls; but added to this Principle several erroneous Consequences: He confessed, indeed, That the Soul was no part of God's Substance; but he would not say that he created it of nothing; He asserted, That it had a Body, and so that Man was made up of a gross Body, of a Soul that was a more subtle Body, and of a Spirit. He said, That the Soul deserved to be placed in the Body, to contract some Pollution by conversing with Flesh; but that it was also Purified by the Flesh. That those Children whom God predestinated to Baptism, were saved though they were not baptised; That their Souls went into Paradise until the Day of Judgement, and that after the Resurrection they should enter into the Kingdom of Heaven: That Sacrifices were to be offered for them: And last of all, That the reason why some were Saved and others Damned, was the knowledge which God had of the Good or Evil which they should have done, if they had lived. These Notions being very dangerous, and Vincentius having maintained them with a great deal of Wit and Eloquence; when St. Augustin had received these Books from Renatus, a Monk of Caesarea, he thought himself obliged to Answer them.  
He wrote therefore a Treatise to this Renatus, who had sent them; wherein he refuteth the particular Opinions beforenamed: and among the rest, That of children's Salvation who die without Baptism; He showeth, That they cannot be saved but by that Sacrament; and that the Eucharist is not to be offered for those that died before the Use of Reason, and unbaptised: For, saith he, The Body of Jesus Christ is not to be offered but for such as are Members of Jesus Christ; But none can be a Member of Jesus Christ, but by Baptism in Jesus Christ; or by dying for Jesus Christ; Nisi Baptismate in Christo, aut morte pro Christo. He answereth the Example of the good Thief, in whom Faith supplied Baptism; and that of Dinocrates' Brother to St. Perpetua, a Child of Seven Years of Age, to whom God granted Salvation, through the Prayers of that Saint, as it is related in the Acts of her Martyrdom. As to this latter Example, St. Augustin saith at first, That being not taken out of a Canonical Book, he can ground no Doctrine upon it, and that it is uncertain whether that Child was baptised or no.  
After this, he answers Vincentius' Notion, That Children were either Saved or Damned, for the Good or Evil which they would have done, if they had lived; This, he says, is a foolish Opinion: For, how can a Person be punished or recompensed, for Evil or Good Actions which are not, and which shall never be? were this true, no Man that is baptised can be secure; for who knows whether he should not have Apostatised, had he lived? And how can this be made to agree with what the Scripture saith of a Man that is taken away, lest the Wickedness of his Sin should corrupt him. Having refuted Vincentius' false Consequences, he shows, That those Passages of Scripture which he allegeth to prove the daily Creation of Souls, do indeed prove nothing, and that he takes almost all of them in a wrong sense; yet he condemns not this Opinion, provided that Testimonies of Scripture be not abused to prove it, and that nothing be alleged contrary to the Doctrine of the Church to uphold it: provided likewise that it be not said, 1. That God created sinful Souls. 2. That Children dying before Baptism, are saved. 3. That Souls sinned before their entrance into Bodies. 4. That they are punished for future Sins that shall never be.  
St. Augustin was not contented to write this Book to Renatus; but he writ besides, a second Treatise upon the same Subject, to Peter the Spanish Priest, who had given the occasion of this Controversy, to disabuse him concerning Vincentius' Opinions.  
And last of all, he dedicates two Books to Vincentius himself. In the first, he refuteth these Errors, which he reduces to these Eleven Propositions: 1. That the Soul is not created of Nothing. 2. That God creates Souls in infinitum. 3. That the Soul loses its Merit by being united with the Body. 4. That it is renewed by the same Flesh, which caused it to lose its Merit. 5. That it deserved to be sinful, before it entered into the Body. 6. That original Sin is remitted in Children that die without Baptism. 7. That some Children whom God hath predestinated to be baptised, do not receive that Sacrament. 8. That one may say of them, He was taken away, lest Wickedness should corrupt him. 9 That there are Habitations for them in the Kingdom of Heaven. 10. That the Eucharist ought to be offered for them. 11. That their Souls go into Paradise after Death; and that after the Resurrection they shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.  
In the Second, St. Augustin defends those things which Vincentius found fault with in his Book: They are Three. 1. His Doubts of the Original of the Soul. 2. His denying it to be a Body. 3. That he distinguished not the Soul from the Spirit. He said, touching the first Point, Is it credible that a Man does not know himself? if that be, Wherein doth he differ from Beasts? St. Augustin answers, That Man ought to confess his Ignorance, not only as to what relates to the Divinity, but also as to many things that concern his Body and Soul: And he produces several Examples of them. Upon the Second, his Question was, What the Soul is, if it be not a Body? but as he confessed at the same time that God is not a Body; St. Augustin asketh him the same Questions concerning the Nature of God, which he had started about the Nature of the Soul. He refuteth their Opinion who believed the Soul to be Corporeal, and particularly Vincentius' fancy, That the Soul being entered into the Body, was diffused into all the Parts, and by a kind of Congelation, had received the figure thereof. He answers the Argument which Vincentius had raised out of the Parable of Dives and Lazarus, and from Apparitions; observing, That the Soul feels and represents Bodies, though it be not a Body, and though there be no Body present. As for what is said of Lazarus' Finger, and of the parts of a Soul; he retorts the Argument upon Vincentius, because he spoke likewise of the Finger of God, and Scripture ascribes Members to him, though he be a mere Spirit.  
At last, St. Augustin saith to the last Point, That when the Spirit is distinguished from the Soul, the word Spirit is taken in a special manner for Intelligence or Understanding; but not for Spirit, as it is a Nature opposed to Body. Lastly, He exhorteth Victor to lay aside the Surname of Vincentius; because, being entered into the Church, he could no longer, without condemning himself, look upon Vincentius as a Saint, who died a Donatist. These Treatises were composed in 419.  
Though the main Points treated of in St. Augustin's Works against the Pelagians have been mentioned already: yea, it will not be amiss, to give here a general view of his Doctrine. God created the First Man in a state of Innocence, Holiness, and Grace. He was subject neither to the Necessity of Dying, nor to Sicknesses, nor Pain, nor the Motions of Lust, nor Ignorance, nor any of the Inconveniencies of Life, or the Imperfections of Nature, which are the Consequences and Effect of his Sin. His freewill was entire, and weakened with nothing. It was perfectly indifferent to do either Good or Evil, though it could not do good without the help of Grace; but this Grace which God afforded him, was entirely subjected to his freewill: It was a help without which he could not do good; but it did not make him do good. Such was the Condition of the First Man, like that of the Angels before their Sin. Such would have been the Condition of his Posterity, had he continued in that Happy state; but having offended God by his Disobedience, he, and all his Posterity are become subject unto Death, Pain, Sicknesses, Punishments; and what is worse, to Ignorance and Lust, that is to say, to Extravagant Motions which are within us, whether we will, or no. But what is yet more incomprehensible, all his Descendants begotten in the ordinary way, are born in Sin; They all contract the Sin which we call Original, which makes Children the Objects of God's Wrath, and infallibly Damns them, except they are regenerated by Baptism. Baptism doth indeed take away the stain of Sin, but it doth not remove the Punishment, and the Consequences of Sin. Concupiscence, Ignorance, Inclination to Sin, Weaknesses, and other Punishments for Sin, abide still during the whole course of this Mortal Life. freewill is not extinguished, but it hath not so much strength, and stands in need of powerful assistance to do good. The Grace which it needs to act, is not only that help without which it could neither will nor do that which is good; but also such an assistance as makes it both will and do it infallibly: This Grace is necessary not barely to accomplish entirely what is good, and to continue therein; but it is even necessary to begin Faith, for Prayer, and for the first Motions of Conversion. Yet it bereaves us not of our liberty, because we do not keep the Commandments, but as far as we are willing. It worketh this Will in us, without Violence or Compulsion: for God constraineth no Man to do either good or evil; but to do good the Will must be succoured by Grace, which doth not deprive it of its Liberty: and this Grace is not granted to Merit, but is absolutely free. Since the First Man's Sin, the whole mass of Mankind was corrupt, condemned, and subject to Death. God by free Grace and Mercy takes out of this mass of Corruption whom he pleases, leaving the rest in that condition, out of that Justice which none can find fault with; for what is Man that he should dispute it with God? Doth the Earthen Vessel say to the Potter that framed it, Why hast thou made me thus? However, it may be truly said, That all Men may be saved if they will; if they be not, they can only accuse their own perverse Will, whereby they resist the Call of God. There are some Graces which he refuseth not to Reprobates, wherewith they might do good if they would. To some, he gives the Knowledge of his Law, and they despise it; He inspires into others a desire of being Converted, and they reject it; Some he excites to Prayer, but they neglect to do it; He speaks to the Hearts of several, who harden themselves, that they may not hearken unto his Voice; He overcomes the hardness of some for a time, converting them by an Effectual Grace, who plunge themselves again in Vice. In a word, how strong and powerful soever the Grace is which he gives, yet it may be said in some sense, that Man may always resist it, though he doth not actually do it. God does not grant this Grace to all Men, not only because he oweth it to none; but also because some make themselves unworthy of it: for to say nothing of Children who die before the use of Reason, who are either damned because of Original Sin, or saved by the Grace of Baptism, the Adult who have not the gift of Perseverance, have made themselves unworthy of it, either through their own Sins, or by the Contempt which they have cast upon God's Vocation; or by the Opposition they have made to inward Grace; or lastly, by falling again into the state of Sin, from which God delivered them in his Mercy. And so no Man can either excuse himself or accuse the Justice of God, because every one receiveth what he deserved; every one is rewarded or punished, according to the good or the evil which he hath done, by his Will which co-operates with the most effectual Grace.  
The Effect of this Grace, according to St. Augustin, is to make us in love with that which is good; it is a pleasure which draws our heart towards good things, and enables us to keep the Commandments; without this Grace, there is no Action meritorious. The fear of Punishment, though merely servile, is good and profitable, because it regulates the inward Man, but it does not render us Righteous before God. We shall never perfectly accomplish the Precept of loving God in this Life, because we shall never love him so perfectly as in the next: And though through God's Grace, a Man may absolutely avoid all Sin in this Life; yet it never did, nor shall ever happen that a mere Man (excepting the Blessed Virgin, of whom St. Augustin would not have us to speak, when Sin is mentioned) passed through this Life without Sin: For this reason, the most righteous say daily, Lord remit us our Debts; that is, our Sins; But these are not mortal Sins, which bereave the Soul of Righteousness and Holiness; they are venial and daily Sins, which are indeed against God's Law, but do not utterly destroy Charity.  
St. Augustin's Principles concerning Predestination and Reprobation, do exactly agree with his Opinion touching Grace. Both those Decrees, according to him, suppose the foreknowledge of Original Sin, and of the Corruption of the whole mass of Mankind. If God would suffer all Men to remain there, none could complain of that severity, seeing they are all guilty and doomed to Damnation, because of the Sin of the First Man. But God resolved from all Eternity, to deliver some whom he had chosen out of pure Mercy, without any regard to their future Merits; and from all Eternity he prepared for them that were thus chosen, those Gifts and Graces which are necessary, to save them infallibly; and these he bestows upon them in time. All those therefore, that are of the number of the Elect, hear the Gospel and believe, and persevere in the Faith working out by Love, to the end of their lives. If they chance to wander from the right way, they return, and repent of their Sins: and it is certain that they shall all die in the Grace of Jesus Christ.  
Reprobation is not like Predestination; God doth not positively cast away any Man; he predestinateth none to Damnation; he only knows those that are left in that mass of Perdition, and are not of the happy number of those whom he will deliver through Mercy. These Wretches are at last Condemned, either because of Original Sin which is not remitted to them, and such are the Children that die without receiving Baptism, or for the Sins which by their freewill they have added to the first Sin; or, because they wanted Faith and Righteousness; or lastly, because they did not persevere unto the end.  
This is an Abridgement of St. Augustin's Doctrine, which is set down in his Books against the Pelagians, and in several other places of his Works.  
The Supplement to this Volume, containeth for the most part Writings that serve to justify St. Augustin's Doctrine of Predestination and of Grace, and some other Treatises upon the same Subject, attributed to St. Augustin; the Authors whereof are not well known. St. Prospers Four Books, in Defence of St. Augustin, are of the first sort; to which they have added his Epigram, in Commendation of the same Father.  
Coelestine's Letter, the Capitulars that follow it, and the Canons of the Council of Orange, are likewise Illustrious Approbations of St. Augustin's Doctrine. Here one might add several other Treatises about Grace, written upon occasion of those Contests raised concerning St. Augustin's Opinion; such as the Letter of the African Bishops that were banished into Sardinia; The Canons of the Council of Valentia; with the Treatises of Florus, Lupus, Remigius of Auxerre, Ratramnus, and several other Authors who writ of these Matters in the Ninth Century.  
The other Works contained in this Addition do not bear the Names of any Authors. The First is a considerable Treatise, divided into Six Books, and entitled, Hypognosticôn; Or, Reflections and Notes against the Pelagians and Coelestians. The Author sets down the main Doctrines of the Pelagians in their own words, and then confutes them Although this Book is conformable to St. Augustin's Doctrine, yet it hath not his Style. That Father among the Benedictines, who chief looks after the New Edition of St. Augustin, having given me notice, That he thought it might be Marius Mercator's; I have examined it, and found that his Conjecture is not ill grounded. For, in the First place, That Work is of an ancient Author, who both lived and writ at the same time with Pelagius and Coelestius, and he was of St. Augustin's Opinion; this agrees with Marius Mercator. 2. Marius Mercator usually gives his Treatises the same Title with this; for so he entitled his Writing against Julianus. 3. The Form of this Treatise is perfectly like that of his other Treatises: he lays down there the very Terms of his Adversaries, and then refutes them with Notes and Reflections. 4. Having compared this Treatise with others of Marius Mercator, and particularly with his Book against Julianus, I found the Style to be the same: One may meet with the same Terms repeated again, the same Figures, the same Liveliness, the same Turn, and the same Expressions. Lastly, St. Augustin, in the 193d. Letter, to Marius Mercator, in 418. affirms, That this Man had written a Book full of Scripture-Testimonies against the new Heretics: and this can belong to no other of Mercator's Treatises, but agrees perfectly with this. These are the Conjectures which I thought of, and I doubt not but the Benedictines will bring several others much stronger; in the mean time, these may be sufficient to make their Conjecture very probable.  
The Book Of Predestination and Grace, which is among St. Augustin's Works, under the Name of an incertain and suspicious Author, is attributed by Sirmondus to St. Fulgentius, and Printed under his Name among this Father's Works. We shall examine whether it be his, when we come to St. Fulgentius. However, this small Discourse of Predestination agrees neither with the Style nor with the Doctrine of St. Augustin.  
These are all this Father's Works. His Life will be added in another Volume, with the Testimonies of the Ancients concerning him, the Commendations that have been given him, and very large and useful Tables.  
Though we have given a sufficient Account both of St. Augustin's Character and Genius, in speaking of his Works; yet it is convenient to say something of them here in general. He was a Man of great Extent, great Exactness, and great force of Mind. His Reasonings were very strong. His ordinary Method is, to lay down extensive Principles, from which he draws an infinite number of Consequences: so that all the Points of his Doctrine have a great Connexion one with another. He argued more upon most of the Mysteries of our Religion, than any Author before him. He starts several Questions never thought of before, and resolves many of them by the mere Strength of his Wit.. He often left the Notions of his Predecessors, to follow a Path wholly new, whether in Expounding the Scriptures, or in Opinions of Divinity. That may be said of him, as to Divinity, what Cicero said of himself, as to Philosophy, That he was Magnus Opiniator; that is, that he advanced several Opinions that were only probable. But St. Augustin doth it modestly, and with much Prudence, without pretending to oblige others to embrace his Opinions without Examination: whereas, when the Question is about the Doctrine of the Church, he proposes and maintains it stoutly, and as strongly opposes its Opposers. He had much less Learning than Wit; for he understood not the Languages, neither had he read the Ancients much. He wrote with greater Facility and Clearness, than Politeness and Elegancy. Though he had taught Rhetoric, yet either he was not Master of the Eloquence of the Orators, or he neglected it: nay, his Expressions are not always pure; for he often uses unproper and barbarous Words. He often uses little strokes of Wit, and plays with Words. He repeats the same things, and insists upon the same Arguments in hundreds of places. He dwells long upon the same Thought; to which he gives several turns, and enlarges frequently upon common places. He treated of infinite numbers of Things, by laying down Principles; and framed (if we may so say) the Body of Divinity for all the Latin Fathers that came after him. They have not only taken out of his Books the Principles they make use of, but often they have only copied them. The Councils have borrowed his Words to express their Decisions. In short, Peter Lombard, in the Twelfth Century, going about to compose an Epitome of the whole Body of Divinity, did little else but Collect Passages out of St. Augustin. And though Thomas Aquinas, and other Schoolmen, followed another Method; yet, for the most part, they have stuck to S. Augustin's Principles, whereupon they erected their Theological Opinions.  
After this, no Man needs wonder that his Works were so much looked after formerly, and so many times published since Printing was invented. The Edition of St. Augustin's Works was one of the first considerable Things that Printers committed to the Press. Amerbachius undertook it in 1495. This Gothick Edition was followed by that of Basil, in Nine Volumes, in the Year 1506. and by that of Paris, in 1515. with long Lines, published in 1528. and in 1526. which is the fairest for its Character. The Editions of Guillard and Chevallon, which came out not long after, are likewise pretty fair ones.  
In 1571. Two came out; the one in Paris, by Morellus; and the other at Lions: The Doctors of Louvain having carefully Revised St. Augustin's Works, caused them to be Printed at Antwerp, in 1577. The following Editions are only new Impressions of this. The first and the fairest was done at Paris, 1586. and was followed by those of the Years 1609, 1614, 1626., 1635, 1652. not to mention that at Venice in 1584. that at Colen, in 1616. and the last Edition at Lions. Now they having Printed, from time to time, several Treatises of St. Augustin that were not in the former Editions, Father Vignier thought fit to collect them into a Body, that might serve for a Supplement to all the Editions of St. Augustin. He joined to it the imperfect Treatise against Julianus, and some Sermons which had not been Printed before, and published them all in Two Volumes, in Folio, at Paris, in 1655. This Labour becomes useless by the last Edition of St. Augustin, which excelleth and effaces all the foregoing Editions.    

ZOSIMUS.  
POpe Innocent I. dying the 12th. of March, 417. Zosimus was promoted into his Place upon the 18th. of the same Month. Though he sat but One Year, Nine Months, and some 
Z●simus.  Days in the Roman See, yet he very much exerted his Authority in the Disputes which he had with the Bishops both of Africa and Gaul. This appears by his Letters, which we are now to discourse of according to the Order wherein they ought to be placed. To understand those which concern Africa, we are to know, That Coelestius, Pelagius' Disciple, having been condemned in the Council of Carthage, assembled in 412. thought it convenient to appeal to the Pope, contrary to the Order and Custom of that Time. The Africans did not much trouble themselves about that Appeal; neither did he much value it himself; for without taking it out, he went to Ephesus, where he found means to be Ordained Priest. Some Years after he came to Constantinople; from whence he was Expelled by Atticus, who discovered his Error, and writ against him to Thessalonica, to Carthage, and into Asia. That happened at the same time that Zosimus was raise to the Popedom. Coelestius being informed of it, came immediately to Rome, to prepossess this new Pope, and to ingratiate himself with him, by making him a Judge in his Cause. And indeed, Zosimus finding this a fit Opportunity to promote his Design of Increasing his Authority, and drawing to himself the Appeals of Causes judged in other places, he failed not to hearken to Coelestius, and to admit him to justify himself. He left all other Businesses, to stick particularly to this. He made Coelestius appear in St. Clement's Church; examined the Heads of the Accusation that was form against him. He caused him to make a Confession of Faith, whereby he disowned the Errors which Heros and Lazarus had laid to his Charge. He enquired after the Qualifications of those Accusers; whom he found (as he saith) to have been wrongfully Ordained, Expelled out of their Bishoprics, and separated from the Communion of the rest. Zosimus, though much prepossessed in Coelestius' behalf, yet durst not give Judgement in his Case without writing to the African Bishops; but he did it after such manner as sufficiently discovered how much he favoured him: For after he had writ all this that we have said, he declares, That if Coelestius' Accusers came not to Rome within Two Months, to Convict him of maintaining other Opinions than those which he then professed, he should take it for granted that he was Innocent. At the latter end, he declares all these Questions to be only vain Subtleties, and unprofitable Contests, which rather destroy than edify; and are Effects of an imprudent Curiosity, and of too great an itch of Speaking and Writing. This Letter was written about July, in the Year 417.  
After the writing of this Letter, Zosimus received one from Prailus, Bishop of Jerusalem, in Coelestius' behalf, with Pelagius' Confession of Faith. This News, the Absence of the Accusers, and the Silence of the Africans, who returned no Answer to his Letter, confirmed him in the Judgement which he had made of Coelestius' Doctrine. He deals with their Accusers, as with most unworthy Persons. He upbraids Lazarus, as one that made it his practice to accuse the Innocent; and as one that had been condemned by Proculus, Bishop of Marseilles, in a Synod at Turin, for having falsely and calumniously accused Britius, Bishop of Tours. He adds, That having been Ordained Bishop of Aix, some time after, by the Favour of Constantine the Tyrant, he retained the Shadow of the Priesthood so long as the Power of that Tyrant lasted. As for Heros, he reproacheth him for following the same Party, and for doing Violence. Afterwards, he tells the African Bishops, That they were to blame, in being so easily persuaded upon the Word of those Accusers; and makes no scruple of declaring Pelagius and Coelestius Innocent, seeing their Accusers had not appeared.  
Zosimus' First Letter was carried by Basiliscus, a Subdeacon, who cited Paulinus to the Pope's Tribunal; but he did not concern himself to appear: And the African Bishops were not at all moved by Zosimus' Pretention; on the contrary, they stood by the Judgement which they had given firmly; which also had been confirmed by his Predecessor. They told him plainly, That this Cause being born in Africa, and judged there, Coelestius could not Appeal, nor he take Cognizance of it. Lastly, They made a Protestation, to prevent Zosimus pronouncing Judgement by default in the behalf of Coelestius and Pelagius: Yea, they went further, for without waiting for the Pope's Judgement, they confirmed what they had done, and condemned the Doctrine of Pelagius and Coelestius anew. Having taken this Precaution, they writ again to Zosimus, and sent him all the Acts of what had been done in Africa against Coelestius: showing him at the same time, That it was not enough to oblige Pelagius and Coelestius to approve in general what was in Pope Innocent's Letter, but that they ought to be made to acknowledge particularly all the Catholic Truths that were contrary to their Errors.  
Zosimus having received these Letters, with the Advertisements of the Africans who had likewise written to Court about the business, durst not go any further, and was contented to assert his Authority, by writing to them, That though he had power to judge all Causes, and none had any right to reform his Judgements, yet he would do nothing without communicating it unto them: That he was surprised, that they should write to him as if they had been persuaded that he had given credit to all that Coelestius had said to him: That he had not proceeded so fast; because too much Deliberation cannot be used, when a Supreme Judgement is to be pronounced: and, That after the first Letter which he received from them, he left all in the same Condition that it was before. This Letter, of the 19th. of March, 418. is the Tenth in the usual Order of Zosimus' Letters.  
It appears by this, that the Pope began to alter his Mind, concerning Coelestius, and to mistrust his Sincerity. But he was fully convinced of his Double-dealing, when the time of Judgement came: for having caused him to be cited to come and condemn the Six Articles that were laid to his Charge clearly, if he would be absolved of the Judgement that was given against him in Africa, he not only refused to appear, but fled from Rome. Zosimus, provoked to see himself deceived, wrote to all the Bishops a long Letter, wherein he condemned Coelestius' Articles, and Pelagius' Writings. This Letter is not all extant, but only some Fragments of it produced by St. Augustin and Marius Mercator. It was very long, and contained the whole History of this Affair. He gave this Judgement after April, in the Year 418.  
Zosimus had likewise some Contests with the Bishops of Gaul. The Churches of Arles and Vienna had long disputed the Right of Primacy, over the Provinces of Gallia Narbonensis, and Viennensis. This Contest had been laid a-sleep for some time by a Decree of the Council at Turin, which ordained, That in Expectation of an absolute Decision of that Quarrel, both Churches should enjoy the Right of Metropolis over the Churches that were near to each of them. But Zosimus was no sooner promoted to the Popedom, but he declares for Patroclus, Bishop of Arles; and granted him by his Letter all that he could wish for: For he gave him, in the first place, the Right of giving Form Letters to all the ecclesiastics of Gaul that would come to Rome; forbidding absolutely that any should go out of Gaul without that sort of Letters from him, whereby it appeared what they were, and whence they came. This Privilege did belong to the Church of Arles; as indeed Zosimus saith, That he granted it not to Patroclus, because of his Church, but for his Deserts. Meritorum ejus Contemplatione. The second Advantage which Zosimus would have Patroclus enjoy, was annexed to the Dignity of his Church, and concerns the Metropolitical Rights which he ordains him to have over the Province of Gallia Viennensis, and both the Narbonenses, which implies the Right of Ordaining all the Bishops of those Provinces.  
Lastly, Zosimus annexed to the Bishopric of Arles, all the Parishes and Territories which formerly belonged to it. He added, That all the Contests that should arise in the Provinces of Gallia Viennensis, and Narbonensis, were to be carried to the Bishop of Arles; except the Business was of Consequence; in which case, he affirmed it necessary, That he should examine the same himself at Rome: Nisi magnitudo causae nostrum desideret examen. He observes besides in that Letter, That Trophimus was sent to Arles by the See of Rome, and that through his means the Gauls received the Faith of Jesus Christ. This Letter was written soon after the Promotion of Pope Zosimus, the 20th. of March, of the Year 417. It is the Fifth in the common Editions.  
About the latter end of that Year he writ Two more; wherein he confirms the Metropolitical Rights to the Church of Arles; rejecting even with Scorn the Canon of the Council at Turin, and condemning Proculus of Marseilles, and Simplicius of Vienna, who opposed his Design. In both those Letters he grounds the Primacy of the Church of Arles upon its being founded by Trophimus, who was sent from the See of Rome. These Letters are the Seventh and the Eighth. The former is directed to the Bishops of Gallia Viennensis; and the second, to Narbonensis; and the latter to Hilary of Narbon, who maintained, That to him belonged the Ordinations of the Bishops of the first Narbonensis. Both these Letters are dated the 27th. of September, 417.  
He that most opposed Patroclus, was Proculus. Bishop of Marseilles, who constantly Ordained Bishops in his Province, norwithstanding the Pope's Prohibitions. Zosimus undertook him, and cited him to Rome. But he not much regarding that Citation, continued to maintain his Rights, and to Ordain, as he had done before. This brought upon him a Condemnation from Zo●…, who writ against him, not only to Patroclus, but also to the People of Marseilles, That they should Expel him out of his Bishopric. His Ninth Letter, to Patroclus, is upon this Subject, September 27th. 417. And the Eleventh, to the same, written March 2d. 418. and the Twelfth, to the People of Marseilles, dated on the same day. Yet notwithstanding the Pope's Judgement and Threaten, Proculus remained peaceable Possessor of his Bishopric; and was always acknowledged Lawful Bishop, not only by the Gallican, but also by the African Bishops. And St. Jerom tells us, in his Letter to Rusticus, That this Proculus of Marseilles, who was used so ill by the Popes, was a most Holy and Learned Bishop.  
The Grudge which Zosimus bore to Proculus, made him Condemn likewise two Bishops Ordained by him, called Ursus and Tuentius,; against whom he writ a Circular Letter to the Bishops of Africa, Gaul and Spain; it is the Seventh, dated September 20th. 417. He saith of these two Persons whom Proculus had Ordained, That they had been both Condemned. The first by Proculus himself, and the second by other Bishops: That this Man, after his Condemnation, came to Rome; where he did Penance, and adjured the Errors of the Priscillianists. He reproaches Proculus for regarding neither his Judgement, nor the Judgement of others. He speaks also against Lazarus, whom Proculus Ordained Bishop of Aix, who had assisted at the Ordination of Ursus and Tuentius. He declares, That those Ordinations were Illegitimate, having been performed in prejudice of the Bishop of Arles, who alone had the Right to Ordain in the Provinces of Narbon and Vienna. Lastly, He advises the Bishops of Gaul, Spain and Africa, not to own either Ursus or Tuentius for Bishops, and not to communicate with them.  
By these Letters one plainly sees the Reason why Zosimus did so much desire to invalidate the Judgement given against Coelestius and Pelagius. Their Accusers were Heros and Lazarus; Patroclus' Adversaries, and Friends of Proculus of Marseilles. He openly declared for Patroclus. He eagerly prosecuted Proculus and his Adherents. He would have been glad to find Matter of Condem●tion against Heros and Lazarus, by causing them to be looked upon as False Accusers. Perhaps this is the only thing that made him favour Coelestius and Pelagius at first: But since both of them were convicted of Heresy by the Bishops of Africa, The Love of Truth prevailed in him, over the secret Satisfaction which he would have had by the Condemnation of Heros and Lazarus.  
We have three Letters besides ascribed to Zosimus, which do not seem to have had any relation to either of these Affairs we have now spoken of.  
The First is directed to Hesychius, Bishop of Salona; to whom he prescribes with much Imperiousness, and with a very Commanding Tone, the Distances which he should cause to be observed between the Sacred Orders. The Date is of February, 418.  
The Second is directed to the Clergy of Ravenna. He speaketh there against those who durst go to Court to Complain against him: telling the Clergy of Ravenna, That they were Excommunicated. The Letter is of the 2d. of October, of the same Year.  
The Last, if it be true, is directed to the Bishops of the Province of Byzacena in Africa; and not to the Bishops of Byzantia, as it is in the common Title. There he blames those Bishops for admitting Laymen to Judge Churchmen. It is dated Novemb. 14th. 418. But it is very probable that it is Supposititious, because it is of a very different Style from the rest.  
Zosimus writes purely, and nobly. He speaks with Vigour, and Authority, and turns every thing to his own Advantage. He discerneth the weak side of his Adversaries, and omits nothing that can do them Hurt. In a word, He writes like a Man throughly skilled in Business, who●knows the strong, and the weak side of every Thing, and the exact Management of Affairs.   

BONIFACE I.  
AFter the Death of Pope Zosimus, the Church of Rome was divided about the Election of his Successor. The Archdeacon Eulalius, who aspired to the Bishopric of Rome, shut himself up in the Church of the Lateran, with part of the People, some Priests, and some 
Boniface I.  Deacons, and made them choose him in Zosimus' room. On the other side, a great Number of Priests, several Bishops, and part of the People, being assembled in the Church of Theodora, elected Boniface. Both were ordained. Eulalius was ordained by some Bishops, among whom was the Bishop of Ostia, who used to ordain the Bishop of Rome. Boniface was likewise ordained by a great Number of Bishops, and went to take Possession of St. Peter's Church.  
Symmachus, Governor of Rome, having tried in vain to make them agree, writ to the Emperor Honorius about it. In his Letter of the 29th. of December, 418. he speaks in Eulalius' behalf, and judges Boniface to be in the wrong. The Emperor believing his Relation, sent him word immediately, That he should expel Boniface, and uphold Eulalius. The Governor having received this Order, sent for Boniface to acquaint him with it, but he would not come to him; so that the Governor sent to him, to signify the Emperor's Order, and kept him from returning into the City. The Bishops, Priests, and the People that sided with Boniface, wrote immediately to the Emperor, to entreat him, that he would order both Eulalius, and Boniface, to go to Court, that their Cause might there be judged. To satisfy them, the Emperor sent to Symmachus an Order of the 30th. of January 419. signifying, That he should enjoin Boniface, and Eulalius, to be at Ravenna, about the 6th. of February. Honorius convened some Bishops thither to judge of their Cause; and that they might not be suspected of favouring any one side, he commanded, That none of those who had ordained either of them, should be a Judge in the case. The Bishops that were chosen to judge this Cause being divided, the Emperor put off the Judgement till May, and forbade Eulalius, and Boniface, to go to Rome; and sent thither Achilleus, Bishop of Spoleto, to perform the Episcopal Functions, during the Easter holidays. In which time he prepared a numerous Synod, and invited the Bishops both of Africa, and Gaul; but Eulalius could not endure that Delay, and spoiled his business by his impatience: For whether he disinherited his Right, or whether he was of a restless temper, he returned to Rome the 16th. of March, and would have stayed there, notwithstanding the Emperor's Orders, which obliged Symmachus to use Violence to drive him out of Rome, and the Emperor having been informed of his Disobedience, waited for no other Judgement, but caused Boniface to be put in possession, in the beginning of April 419.  
One of the First Things that Boniface did, was to write to the Emperor, to entreat him to make an Edict, to prevent, for the future, the Intrigues, and Cabals that were made use of to get the Bishopric of Rome. This Letter bears Date the First of July. To cut off the Root of these Divisions, Honorius ordained, That if ever Two Men should be ordained Bishops of Rome, that neither should remain in Possession, but that both the Clergy, and People should choose a Third.  
Boniface's Second Letter, aught to go before this now mentioned, if the order of their Dates were observed, since this is of the 13th. of June 419. It is directed to Patroclus, and to the other Bishops of the Seven Provinces of Gaul, concerning Maximus Bishop of Valence, who was accused, by the Clergy of that City, who had carried their Accusation directly to the Pope, in. all probability about the Contests which had been in that Province, concerning the Right of Primacy. Boniface accuses that Bishop, not only for refusing to appear at Rome to plead for himself, but for avoiding to appear before Provincial Synods, to which he was remitted by the Popes his Predecessors. Yet he declares, That he would not condemn him, because he ought to have been judged in his own Province: Wherefore he desireth them to call a Council before the First of November, that he might appear there to make his own defence to the Accusations form against him; adding, That if he refused to appear, he should hope no longer, that his absence could put a stop to his Condemnation. For, saith he, it is a shrewd Mark of a Man's Gild, who, when he is accused, and has so many occasions of clearing himself, yet neglects to make use of them.  
Boniface's Third Letter to Hilary, Bishop of Narbonna, of the 2d. of February 422. overthrows all that Zosimus had done in the behalf of the Church of Arles. For upon the Complaint of the Inhabitants of Lodevae, a City of Gallia Narbonensis Prima, against Patroclus, Bishop of Arles, for ordaining a Bishop without consulting with the Metropolitan, he declares, That it was an. Action against the Canons of the Council of Nice, which he could not patiently bear with, because he was obliged to maintain the Canons. Wherefore he sends word to the Bishop of Narbon, That if that Church be of his Provence, he should go to that City, and there perform a lawful Ordination, and put a stop to the Bishop of Arles' Presumption, who undertook beyond the Bounds of his Jurisdiction. Lastly, He ordaineth, That for the future, every Province shall be subject to its own Metropolitan. Nothing can be more contrary than the Opinions of Zosimus, and Boniface, concerning the Dignity, and Jurisdiction of the Church of Arles. Zosimus is persuaded, That the Bishop of Arles ought to ordain all the Bishops of Seven Provinces; and Boniface declares, That that is a violation of the Canons. The former saith, That the Bishop of Arles is the sole Metropolitan; and the latter affirmeth, That none can be Metropolitan of Two Provinces. Zosimus is of Opinion, That the Pretensions of Hilary, of Narbon, and of the other Metropolitans of the Seven Provinces, that they have a Right to ordain the Bishops of their respective Provinces, are extremely rash. On the contrary, Boniface maintains, That it is a well-grounded Right; and that the Pretention of the Church of Arles to ordain in those Provinces, is a breach upon the Canons, to which opposition must be made. The one forbids Hilary of Narbon, to ordain the Bishops of his Province, when he asks it of him: The other enjoins him to do it without ask. Can there be a greater contrariety of Opinions betwixt Popes, who succeeded each other immediately. This made St. Leo say in the Epistle to the Bishops of Provincia Viennensis, That the See of Rome had taken away from Patroclus what it had given him, by a more just Sentence, than that by which it was granted. ID IPSUM QUOD PATROCLO A SEED APOSTOLICA TEMPORALITER VIDEBATUR ESSE CONCESSUM, POSTMODUM ESSE SENTENTIA MELIORE SUBLATUM. Is it because those Pope's thought themselves absolute Masters of these Things? If so, Why should they allege the Canons, and profess to observe them? Is it because they believed that Privileges attended the Persons of Bishops, and not their Churches? Wherefore then did Zosimus exalt the Dignity, and Antiquity of the Church of Arles so high, because it was founded by Trophimus? We are therefore to conclude, That there is no other Reason of that contrariety, besides the difference of the Opinions of the Two Popes: But which of the Two was in the Right, and which in the Wrong, is a great Business to be decided, which we shall find afterwards sharply debated in the time of St. Leo. In the mean time we may observe, That the common Right was on Boniface's side, and that we do not see any Privilege authentic enough, or any Custom sufficiently established, whereby we should allow to the Church of Arles, what Zosimus grants to it. There are besides Five of this Pope's Letters to Ruffus' Bishop of Thessalonica, and to the Bishops of Illyricum recorded in the Council that was assembled under Boniface II. in 531. Boniface I. was peaceable Possessor of the See of Rome until the Year 423. though there were still some Christians of Eulalius' Party.   

SYNESIUS.  
SYNESIUS, originally of Cyrene, a City of Pentapolis, a Platonic Philosopher, and Disciple of the famous Hypatia, having spent part of his Life in worldly Employments, 
Synesius.  was converted, and chosen Bishop of Ptolemais in the Year 420. He was hardly brought to accept of that Office, which seemed to him to be contrary to that Philosophical Life, wherein he had lived till then: Neither could he resolve to leave his Wife; nor was he yet fully persuaded of all the Articles of the Christian Religion. He believed that Souls were created before Bodies, and could not conceive that the World was to have an end: He did not believe the Resurrection of the Dead, as it is believed in the Church; imagining, That what is said in the Scripture, had some mystical, and secret Sense. He urges these Reasons in his 105th. Letter, to prevent their ordaining him Bishop. Baronius thinks, That he did not really hold such Opinions, but that he feigned to have them to avoid the Episcopal Function. But this Conjecture is not at all probable, because he affirms with an Oath, that he expressed his real Sense: Wherefore it is better to say with the Ancients, that Synesius' Merit, and the need which the Churches of Africa stood in of his Protection in a most difficult time, superseded these Considerations, in hopes that being ordained Bishop, he would submit his Opinions to those of the Church. It is related in the Pratum Spirituale, that when he was Bishop, a very remarkable Thing happened to him; which shows, That he had altered his Opinion, concerning the Resurrection of Bodies. A Heathen Philosopher, one Evagrius, Synesius' old Friend, came to Cyrene. Synesius used all his Endeavours to convert him. After several Solicitations to that purpose, this Philosopher declared to him at last, That the Resurrection of the Body was one of those Things which he was most displeased with in the Christian Religion. Synesius affirmed, That whatsoever the Christians taught was true, and never left him, till he had Converted, and Baptised him. This Man, sometime after his Baptism, having given Synesius a Sum of Money to distribute to the Poor, demanded a Bond to repay it him again in the next Life. Synesius readily gave him one. The Philosopher kept it, and some time before his Death, commanded his Children to put it into his Coffin. Three Days after, he appeared to Synesius in the Night, and bade him come to his Grave, and take his Bond, because he was paid; and to assure him of it, he had signed a Discharge with his own Hand. Synesius not knowing that his Children had put the Bond in his Coffin, having sent for them, and learned of them how the business had been carried, telling them withal what had happened, went to this Man's Grave, with his Clergy, and the chief Men of the Town, and caused the Coffin to be opened; where they found the Bond, with a Receipt newly written in Evagrius' own Hand at the Bottom. The Author of the Pratum Spirituale, relates this History, as having learned it of Leontius of Apamea, who came to Alexandria, in the time of the Patriarch Eulogius, to be Ordained Bishop of Cyrene; adding, That that Man certified, That this Bond was still kept in the Vestry of the Church of Cyrene. This may give some Credit to a Story which would deserve none, were it solely grounded upon the Testimony of the Author of the Pratum Spirituale, who is known to be of no great Authority. However, Evagrius and Photius affirm, That Synesius was no sooner Ordained Bishop, but he yielded to the Opinion of the Church, concerning the Resurrection.  
Synesius' Treatises are Philosophical Discourses, written with great nobleness and loftiness. The Catalogue of them is as follows,  
A Discourse of reigning well, spoken in the presence of the Emperor Arcadius about the Year 398. when he was Deputy of his own Province that was wasted by the Barbarians Incursions, to obtain some Succours, and some ●ase of the Emperor. Synesius speaks there of Government with a wonderful freedom, and declaims openly against Courtiers, against the Luxury and Ambition of Princes. He lays down most excellent Instructions for Kings; He shows what are the truly Royal Virtues, and the Qualities of a good Prince. And discovers at last the spring of the Empire's Misfortunes, which was the Credit and Power that was given some time since to the Goths in the Affairs of the Empire. He composed at the same time another Discourse directed to P●…ius, to whom he sent Astronomical Tables which he had made. This Discourse contains a Commendation of Philosophy, and particularly of Astronomy, with a Description of the Work which he sent.  
The Book ●ntituled Dion Prusaeus, gins with the Praises of that great Man, mentioned in Philostratus. There Synesius justifies himself against those that blamed him for applying himself to the Study of Philological Learning, and against such as found fault that the Books he made use of were not very exact. He shows with great Eloquence, That the Study of the fine Learning of Poetry and Rhetoric is of very great Use, and not unworthy of a Philosopher. Afterwards he strongly opposes the second Calumny; proving, That it is sometimes good for the exercise of a Man's Parts to use Copies that are not so very Correct.  
The Praise of Baldness, is one of the most Ingenious of all Synesius' Works; and though the Matter seems not to afford much of itself, yet he enlarges and beautifies it with variety of wonderful Reasons and Figures.  
The two Books of Providence contain, the History, or rather the Romance of two Brothers, Kings of Egypt, called Osiris and Tytion. It is thought that he describes under those borrowed Names, the State of the Empire in his time.  
In the Book of Dreams, there are several curious Observations upon the Original, Virtue, and Significations of Dreams.  
Synesius' Letters are written with inimitable Eloquence, Pureness, and Dexterity: They are full of Historical Passages, Sublime Notions, Fine Railleries', Moral Reflections, and Pious Expressions. There are 155. of them: We shall speak of those only that relate to Religion, and the Church's Affairs, which are but very few.  
To this may be referred what he saith in the Fourth Letter of a Shipwreck; He observes, That their Pilot was a Jew, who quitted the Helm on the Saturday's-Eve after Sunset, and that he could not be persuaded to take it again, what Threaten soever were used, till the Ship was in an unavoidable Danger of perishing. This Letter is of the beginning of the Year 410.  
In the 5th. Letter directed to certain Priests, he Exhorts them to prosecute the Eunomians, and to hinder their Meetings; yet so, that it might appear, that they had no design upon their Estates.  
In the 9th. he commends a Letter that was written by Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria.  
In the 11th. he declares, How unwilling he was to be made a Bishop, and prays God who called him to that State, to give him strength to discharge the Duties of it with Applause and recommends himself to the Priests and People's Prayers both Public and Private.  
In the 12th. he exhorts a Priest and a Bishop called Cyril, to return to the Church from which they had been divided for a time; affirming, That Theophilus, their common Father, had admitted them if he had been alive. This Letter was written after Theophilus' Death, which happened in October 412.  
The 13th. is an Epistle written from Alexandria; wherein he assigns the Day to his Clergy when they were to observe the Feast of Easter: The Day there set agrees with the Year 412.  
Andronicus Governor of Pentapolis, a cruel Man, exercised several Violences against the People. Synesius, who was of a meek and merciful temper, used all his Endeavours to hinder that Man's Cruelties, and to help those Wretches whom he tormented. Among the rest, he succoured a Man of Quality, Andronicus' Enemy, whom that inexorable Governor persecuted without any Cause. That charitable Action provoked him, and made him utter in his Anger these Impious words: That that Unfortunate Man fled to the Church in vain, and that no Man should be taken out of Andronicus ' s hands, though he held Jesus Christ by the feet. Synesius having heard this Blasphemy, excommunicated him in a Synod held in the Year 411, and with him Thoas, the Chief Minister of all his Cruelties, with his whole Family. After this Excommunication, he pronounced a Discourse against him, which is the 57th. of his Letters. There he describes that Governor's Cruelty; He speaks of his own former Life, and with what reluctancy he accepted the Bishopric; He bewails the deplorable Condition of his Country, declaring, That he was altogether unfit to manage a Business of that Nature; wherefore he entreats his Brethren, either to choose one in his room, or give him a Colleague that was versed in Business.  
In the 58th. Letter, he gives Notice to all Bishops in the Name of the Church of Ptolemais, That an Excommunication was pronounced against Andronicus, declaring, That they ought to shut their Church-Doors against him and all his Accomplices; That if any Man receives him, not regarding the Sentence of a small Church, he breaks the Unity of the Church, and that he will have no fellowship with him.  
Andronicus struck with that Excommunication, seemed to be sorry for his Fault, and promised to do Penance. Synesius knowing his humour, did not think fit to admit him; but the other ancienter Bishops were not of that Opinion, and judged that the Excommunication was to be suspended; and that they should forbear sending the Letter that declared him Excommunicated, having taken his word, That thenceforth he should not offer the like Violences. But this Governor, instead of keeping his Promise, was more Cruel than ever; So that Synesius published the Excommunication that had been pronounced, and wrote to the Bishops to give an Account of the Governor's relapse in the 72d. Letter. He makes another Description of this Governor's Violences in the 79th. But at last this cruel Man received the Punishment of his Cruelties, and was dealt withal as he had dealt with others. Synesius charitably pitied his Condition, as he observes in the 89th. Letter to Theophilus.  
In the 66th. Synesius maliciously asks Theophilus, How he should entertain Alexander, who had been ordained by St. Chrysostom, Bishop of Basinopolis in Bythinia; giving him to understand at the same time, That he approved not of his Behaviour towards those who sided with that holy Patriarch of Constantinople. He readily tells Theophilus, That he reverenced his Memory; and, That at least Men ought not to hate an Enemy when he is dead. He adds, That Theophilus himself had writ to Atticus, exhorting him to admit into his Communion those of St. Chrysostom's Party. That as for this, Alexander who was born at Cyrene, formerly a Monk, then raised to the Dignity of a Deacon, and a Priest, and at last ordained Bishop of Basinopolis by St. John Chrysostom, that he was withdrawn into his own Country. Synesius durst not admit him to the Communion, nor to partake of the Church's Prayers; but he received him privately into his House, and shown him much Friendship, it being his Custom so to deal with all guilty Persons. He entreats Theophilus to answer him plainly and clearly, whether he should look upon Alexander as a Bishop, or no? This Letter is of the latter end of the Year 410. or the beginning of 411.  
The 57th. to the same Theophilus, contains several remarkable Points of Discipline; showing the Power of the Bishop of Alexandria over all Egypt. He had appointed Synesius to compose some Disputes among the Bishops of Pentapolis, and in this Letter Synesius gives him an exact account of what he had done. There were in Pentapolis two Villages, Palebiscus and Hidrax, near Libya. Both these had formerly been Subject to the Bishop of Erythra the nearest City. Since that under Orion Bishop of Erythra, an Easy Man; the Inhabitants of both these Villages had caused a Young Man, Syderius by Name, to be ordained their Bishop, who had served in Valens' Army, that they might have a Man of Courage to protect them; without observing the Formalities requisite in a Legal Ordination, for he was ordained by one only Bishop, and without the Approbation of the Bishop of Alexandria. But this happening when the Heretical Factions were formidable, they forbore the Severity of the Laws: And St. Athanasius caused Syderius to be translated to Ptolemais; but towards the latter end of his Life, he returned to his former Church. After his Death, Palebiscus and Hydrax were reduced to their former dependency upon the Bishop of Erythra; the Inhabitants of those Places being willing, according to the Bishop of Alexandria's Letters, to own Paulus of Erythra, for their Bishop. Since that, Theophilus upon the Information of some particular Men, offered to give them a Bishop, and gave Synesius a Commission to go and ordain him. He being come to the Village, found the People resolved to have no other Bishop but Paul, and could never bring them to consent that he should ordain a particular Bishop. He writ all this to Theophilus, and insinuates; That though the Inhabitants of those Villages were ready to obey, if he would absolutely impose a Bishop upon them; yet it was not convenient to do it.  
There was another Business also to be decided at Hydrax. In this Town there was a Castle situate upon an Hill, whereunto belonged a great enclosure, which might have yielded a good income, if they rebuilt the Walls which had been thrown down with an Earthquake. The dispute about it was betwixt Dioscorus Bishop of Dardania, and Paulus of Erythra: The latter to take Possession, consecrated there a Chapel, and alleged, That that place had been long since consecrated. Synesius having examined the case, found that formerly Public Prayers had been made in that Castle during the Barbarians Incursions. But he thought that this was not sufficient to make the place Sacred, because that by the same Reason, all others would prove Consecrated places, wherein Public Prayers, and Holy Mysteries had been celebrated in time of War. As for the Chapel, it was proved that Paul had consecrated it to make himself Master of the Place. Synesius declared, That it was an ill Example, to make use of the Church's Prayers, of the Holy Table, and of the Mystical Veil, to invade another Man's Estate. And so far from looking upon that Chapel as consecrated, he made no Scruple of declaring it to be common. For, saith he, we are to distinguish Superstition from true Religion. Superstition is a Vice adorned with the Name of Virtue; but Wisdom makes us discover it to be a third sort of Impiety: And so I do not think that there is any Sanctity in a thing unjustly undertaken; neither do I regard the Consecration that is alleged. It is not with Christians as with Heathens. They do not imagine that their God is made to come down with Words and Ceremonies; They require a pure Heart, and free from Passions: And when Wrath or Anger causes Ministers to act, they do not believe that the Holy Ghost accompanies their Motions. Paul did not refuse to take away the Chapel, but since Synesius urged to have it done, he presented a Petition full of Invectives against Dioscorus, but he soon confessed his Fault and begged Pardon. Then Dioscorus, who would yield nothing whilst Paul disputed it, proposed of himself to come to an Agreement with Paul about that Castle, and so exchanged it, with some Lands hard by, for some other Lands which Paul gave him in another place, which lay more convenient for him, though of less Value. Synesius gave Theophilus an account of all this, and commended Dioscorus for relieving the Poor of Alexandria.  
A Third Business that Synesius had order to compose, was a Quarrel betwixt two private Persons, Jason and Lamponianus; The latter being accused to have Slandered the other, chose rather to confess, than to be convicted, and was required to do Penance, and to separate from the Assemblies of the Faithful. The People requested that he might be Absolved. Synesius referred the Matter to the Bishop of Alexandria, and only gave order to the Priests to admit him to the Communion of the Church, if he should be in danger of Death: For, saith he, as much as in me lies, I will take Care that no man shall die bound with Ecclesiastical Bonds. He adds, That Absolution should not be granted in case of Necessity, but upon this Condition, That if he Recover, he shall be in the same State as before. Lamponianus was indebted to the Church One hundred forty seven Crowns of the Poor's Money, which he had lost by some Misfortune, which he promised to pay; but required time to Work, that he might get that Summ.  
Synesius writ again to Theophilus about some Abuses that were practised in those Parts. Bishops accused one another of Ill Behaviour, rather to make the Governors get Money, than because they had any Grounds for so doing. Synesius prays him to make an Order directed to him, whereby that Abuse might be forbidden; but without reproving any particularly, that it might not appear that he had accused them. He saith, That with such an Order, he would put a stop to that Infamy of Bishops. For, saith he, God forbidden that I should say, the Infamy of the Church. He observes, That this will turn to greater Advantage for the Accusers, than for the Accused, because they shall be delivered from a greater Evil, since it is a greater Evil to do injury, than to suffer; because the one comes from ourselves, and the other concerns other Men. The last thing which Synesius acquaints Theophilus withal, is concerning certain Bishops, who quitted their Bishoprics without being expelled, to go from Church to Church, to receive there the Honour's due to their Character. His Opinion is, That they should not be received, nor Precedency given them; that they might be obliged to return to their Churches. And thus, he thinks, those aught to be dealt withal in Public; as to what should be done privately, he waits for an Answer to the Letter he writ to Theophilus, concerning Alexander, which is that now mentioned; He concludes this Letter with these very humble words: Pray to God for me, and you shall Pray for a poor for lorn Man who wants all things; and needs help, not daring to address to God for himself; for I perceive that every thing is against me, since I undertook to Minister at the Altar, who am laden with Sins; who was brought up out of the Church, and followed all my life-time a Profession different from this. This Letter is of the Year 411.  
In the 76th. Letter Synesius recommends to Theophilus, Antonius, who had been chosen Bishop of Olbiata, a Town of his Province, and was going to Alexandria, to be ordained by Theophilus, according to the Custom of that time.  
The 95th was written by Synesius, Seven Months after he was made Bishop; He expresses, with what difficulty he accepted of the Office, and begs of God Grace to discharge it well.  
The 105th. is that famous Letter which he writ to his Brother, when he was chosen Bishop of Cyrene; wherein he sets down the Reasons that kept him from being promoted to that Dignity. The rest of the Letters contain nothing that is remarkable touching Religion.  
We have but two Homilies of Synesius which are not entire. The First is the beginning of a Homily upon God's Law, of which he understandeth what is said in the 75th. Psalms, In the Hand of the Lord there is a Cup, etc.  
The Second is likewise imperfect. It is the Fragment of a Sermon preached upon Easter-Eve. Both these Fragments show, That Synesius did not excel in this kind so much as he did in others; yet he was Eloquent, and composed Pieces of Rhetoric very well; as appears by his Discourse concerning the Ruin of his Province; And by his Panegyric upon Anysius, which come after the two Homilies now mentioned; but there is a particular sort of Eloquence necessary for the Pulpit, which he seems not to have had. He had a better genius for Hymns; We have Ten of his which are very excellent, in which there are some Platonic Principles concerning the Trinity. This Author ascribes much to God's Help, and to the Grace of Jesus Christ, which he requires us to ask by fervent Prayer, that we may be delivered from those Passions and disorderly Desires of Lust, wherewith we are transported. We have lost a Philosophical Work of his, Entitled, Cynegeticks, mentioned in the 153d. Letter.  
Synesius' Style, according to Photius' Judgement, is great and lofty, but something Poetical.  
He chief excelleth in Narratives and Descriptions. He varies the Matters which he treats of, with long Prefaces, and frequent Digressions. He makes them agreeable by excellent Passages out of Histories and Fables, and by the best Thoughts of the Profane Poets. His Philosophy hath nothing harsh or disgusting. He has found a way to render it pleasant and easy. He seems to have designed only to recreate, when he discovers the main Points of Wisdom. The Reader is brought insensibly to the Knowledge of most Important Truths, when he thought to read only pleasant Relations. He observes in his first Letter, That he writ two sorts of Books, some of the most refined Philosophy, and others Rhetorical Pieces; but that they are easily known to be all written by the same Person, who applies himself sometimes to serious things, and sometimes to pleasant ones.— And indeed, it maintains every where the same Character. His Philosophical Works are adorned with Rhetorical and Poetical Figures, and his Pieces of Eloquence are supported with Philosophical Thoughts. He had a thorough Knowledge of Plato's Writings, and from that Fountain, he drew the noblest and the sublimest Notions in the old Philosophy, concerning the Knowledge of the Supreme Being, and Principles of Morality. He wrote but little touching our Religion, and he was far from understanding it so well as he did Plato's Philosophy. Yet one may see by his Letters that he was a very Wise, Prudent and good Bishop. He avoided Business as much as he could; but when he was engaged, he acted very dexterously, and brought every thing to a good issue. His Behaviour was accompanied with great Freedom and Uprightness of Heart. He wanted neither Courage nor meekness, as there was occasion. His endeavours to avoid being a Bishop, and his manner of speaking of himself, show his great Humility. The Year of his Death is not known.  
The Book of Dreams was Printed in Greek and Latin, Translated by Ficinus, at Venice in 1497. and at Lions in 1541. In 1553. Turnebus published most of his Works in Greek. The Letters were Printed in Greek at Venice in 1499. at Basle in 1558. and at Paris in 1605. with Turnebus' Translation. The Hymns were likewise Printed in 1590. with the Poems of St. Gregory Nazianzen, and those of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Reprinted in 1603. in Latin by Portus. In 1653. Janus Cornarius translated most of Synesius' Works, and his Translation was Printed at Basle in 1560. The Discourse of Government of the same Translation, was Printed by itself at Francfort in 1583.  
At last, Petavius having reviewed and translated a new all Synesius' Works, caused them to be Printed in Greek and Latin at Paris by Morellus in 1612. With Nicephorus' Notes and Commentary upon the Book of Dreams. This Edition was corrected and augmented in 1640. wherein Synesius' Works are joined with St. Cyril's Catechetical Lectures.   

POLYCHRONIUS.  
POLYCHRONIUS Bishop of Apamea, Brother of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, and Disciple of Diodorus of Tarsus, writ some Commentaries upon Job and Ezekiel; whereof you 
Polychronius.  may find some Fragments in the Greek Catenae, and in St. John Damascen, if any Credit may be given to that sort of Quotations. There are Spurious Acts of St. Sixtus with Polychronius, dated after his Death. He lived about the latter End of the Fourth Century.    

Councils Assembled, From the Beginning of the FIFTH CENTURY, To the YEAR 430.  

The Canons of a Council, supposed to have been held at Rome under Pope Innocent I.  
SIRMONDUS hath published some Regulations, written in the Name of a Synod at 
Spurious Council of Rome, under Innocent I.  Rome, to the Bishops of Gaul; which are certainly ancient, though it be unknown to what time they are to be referred: but because they appeared to Sirmondus to be written in the Style of St. Innocent's Letters, he believed they might belong to this Pope however, they are placed immediately after his Letters, and these are the Contents of them.  
After a short Preface, in the two first Canons, according to Sirmondus' Distinction, they speak of those Virgin's Penance, who having solemnly put on the Veil, and received the Priest's Benediction, commit Incest, or contract prohibited Marriages; it is ordained, That they shall do several Years Penance, to bewail their Fault. Penance is likewise imposed upon those that made the single Vow of Virginity, though they made no solemn Profession, nor received the Veil; when they happen to Marry, or suffer themselves to be taken away. The Third Canon, is, concerning the Sanctity of Bishops, of Priests, and of Deacons: they are told, That they ought to give Example to the People; That they are obliged to remain Unmarried: and several Reasons are alleged for it. Priests and Bishops (say they) are to preach Continence to the People: With what Confidence shall they do this, if they keep it not themselves? They are obliged to offer frequently the Holy Sacrifice, to Baptise, Consecrate and Administer: To do it with the greater Reverence, they must be chaste both in Body and Spirit. In the Fourth, those seem to be excluded out of the Clergy, that have born any Secular Offices.  
In the Fifth Canon, it is observed, That the Church of Rome doth not admit to Sacred Orders those who defiled the Sanctity of their Baptism by any carnal Sin. In the Sixth, other Bishops are exhorted to follow the Custom of that of Rome: because that as there is but One Faith in the Church, so there should be but One Discipline.  
It is observed in the Seventh Canon, That Priests and Deacons may administer Baptism in the Easter holidays, in Parishes, in the presence of the Bishop, in whose Name they administer it at that time: but when Necessity obliges them to Baptise at any other time, that must be done by the Priest, and not by the Deacon.  
The Eighth Canon, about the Benediction of the Holy Oil, is very obscure. It is probable, that all that is said there, amounts to no more than, That there is no need o● several Persons to Bless it. The Ninth declares, That it is not lawful now, as it was under the Old Law, to Marry a Brother's Wife, nor to keep Concubines with a Wife.  
The Tenth forbids those to be ordained Bishops, that have exercised Secular Functions, though they were Chosen by the People: because their Approbation is of force, only when they choose one worthy of that Office.  
The Eleventh Canon speaks very ambiguously concerning a Man's Marrying his Uncle's Wife; or an Aunt's Marrying with the Son of her Husband's Brother.  
The Twelfth appoints, That a Bishop should be chosen out of the Clergy.  
The Thirteenth declares, That those who go from one Church to another, shall be deprived of their Office.  
The Fourteenth contains that Order so often repeated in the Canons, That a Clerk deposed by his own Bishop, is not to be admitted. This Order is defended in very strong Terms, and established upon very good Reasons. If another Bishop's Clerk is not permitted to do the Functions of his Ministry, except he brought his Dimissory Letters; how much rather is it forbidden to receive and admit to the Communion a Clerk condemned by his own Bishop. This would be to partake of another Man's Sin; to offer Injury to a Brother, and suspect him without ground to have done Unjustly.  
The Fifteenth Canon confirms and renews the Law of the Council of Nice, touching the Ordination of Bishops by the Metropolitan, and the Bishops of the Province; and forbids Bishops to meddle with those Ordinations that belong not to them.  
The Sixteenth is, against the Abuse of those Bishops who had Ordained some Laymen that had been Excommunicated by their own Bishop.   

The Council of Milevis.  
THis Council was assembled at Milevis, a City of Africa, the 26th. of October, 402. It is 
Council of Mileuls, 〈◊〉 ccccii.  one of those the Africans called General; that is, it was not composed of Bishops only of one Province, but of Deputies from all the Provinces of Africa. Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, presided there. The Bishops confirmed at first what had been done in the last Councils of Hippo and Carthage; and then made some New Orders about some particular Contests among the African Bishops.  
The First is concerning the Precedency of the Older Bishops. Having justified the Equity of following the ancient Order, according to the established Custom of Africa, it was ordained, to prevent the Contests that might happen upon that Subject, That they should keep Two Lists, which they called Matricula's, or Archives of all the Bishops of Numidia; the one to be preserved in the City of the chief See; that is, in Carthage, or in that City whose Bishop was Metropolitan by Seniority: and the other in the Civil Metropolis; that is, in Constantina. This Order seems to have been made upon the Occasion of that Contest betwixt Victorinus and Xantippus, Bishops of the Province of Numidia, who both pretended to the Primacy of that Province, as appears by St. Augustin's 59th. Letter.  
The Second Canon is, touching the Accusation form against Quodvultdeus, Bishop of Centuria. His Accuser presented himself to the Synod, and caused Quodvultdeus to be asked, Whether he would have his Cause debated in the Council. The Bishop consented at first; but the next day he was of another mind, and retired. The Bishops ordered, That he should not be admitted to the Communion of the other Bishops, till his Business was decided, yet without depriving him of his Bishopric; because they thought it unjust to do it before his Cause was judged.  
The next Order was, concerning Maximianus, Bishop of Vaga, who offered to quit his Bishopric for the good of the Church, (as it is observed in St. Augustin's 69th. Letter.) The Council ordained, That a Letter should be sent both to him, and to his People, to oblige him to withdraw; and, That the People should choose another.  
The Fourth Canon is likewise to prevent Contests about the Seniority of the Bishops; enjoining the Bishops Ordained in Africa, to take Testimonial-Letters of those that Ordained them; marking both the Day and the Year of their Ordination.  
The Last Canon forbids any Man to be admitted into the Clergy of one Church, who performed the Duty of a Reader in another.  
These Canons are in the Code of the African Church, from the Eighty sixth, etc. to the Ninetieth inclusively.   

Of the Councils held by St. Chrysostom at Constantinople and at Ephesus, in the Years 400, and 401. 
Councils at Constantinople and Ephesus, by St. Chrysostom, cccc, & cccci.   
BOth these Councils examined the Accusations brought by Eusebius of Valentinople, against Antoninus' Bishop of Ephesus. The History of them is in the Life of St. Chrysostom, (pag. 8.) of this Volume.   

A Council assembled in the Year 403. in a Suburb of Chalcedon, called, The Oak, in which St. Chrysostom was Condemned.  
THe History of this Synod is likewise in the Life of St. Chrysostom, (pag. 9) It is taken 
Council at the Oak, against St. Chrysostom, cccciii.  out of Palladius, and out of the Abridgement of the Acts of this Council, quoted by Photius, Cod. 59th. of his Bibliotheca.   

The Council of Carthage, in the Year 403.  
UPON the Three and twentieth Day of August, in the Year 403. was held at Carthage a 
Council of Carthage, cccciii.  general Council of Africa, wherein the Bishops that had been sent to the Churches beyond the Seas, about the Donatists' Business, having reported what they had found, and the Excuses of those Provinces that had sent no Deputies being allowed, a Command was laid upon the Catholic Bishops of each City, to send a sort of a Summons to the Donatist Bishops of the same Cities, to oblige them to enter upon a Conference. And that this might be done uniformly, they prescribed a Form for this Act, which should be made in the Presence of public Officers. Wherefore the Bishops of this Council desired, That the Proconsul Septimius, would send word to the Officers to help them in the Business, and to give them authentic Acts of those Summons. This Petition is registered in the Acts of the Third Conference at Carthage, in the 183 Ch. of the Third Day.   

The Council of Carthage, in the Year 404.  
THe Donatist Bishops having answered these Summons of the Catholic Bishops, only with 
Council of Carthage cccciv.  Violences and Threaten, the Catholics assembled in a Council held the next Year upon the 25th. of June, deputed Theasius, and Evodius, to the Emperors, to obtain from them such Orders, as might prevent the Violences which the Circumcellians exercised against the Catholics; and to Petition at the same time, that Theodosius' Law, which imposes Ten pounds' Penalty upon such as ordained Heretics, or admitted them into their Assemblies, might take place against those who should detain the Protestations of Catholics; and that the Law might be renewed which disabled Heretics either to give, or receive Legacies. These were the Contents of the Memorials, given to both those deputed Bishops. Aurelius had a Commission to write to the Emperors in the Name of all the Bishops; and they also charged him to write to the Judges, till the Deputies were come back to obtain of them some Protection for the Church; and he is desired to write to the Bishop of Rome about it.   

The Council of Carthage, in the Year 405.  
THIS Council, assembled upon the 21st. of August, made no general Canons for Africa, 
Council of Carthage ccccv.  but only regulated some particular Businesses, which the Collector of the African Code hath expressed in these Terms. It was ordained in this Council, That all the Provinces should send their Deputies to the general Council. Deputies were sent with a Letter to Mizonius, to let him know, That he might send Deputies with all Freedom. It was thought fit to write to the Judges, to entreat them, That they would use their Endeavours to reconcile the Donatists, and the Catholics, as had been already done at Carthage. And they were to write to the Emperor, to thank him for excluding the Donatists. But Pope Innocent having declared in his Letter which was read in the Council, That it was not convenient to send Bishops beyond the Seas, his Advice was approved, and they sent only Clerks of the Church of Carthage, to return the Thanks of the African Bishops.   

The Council of Carthage, in the Year 407.  
THIS Council, assembled upon the 13th. of June, made a great many very useful Regulations. 
Council of Carthage, ccccvii.   
The Council of Hippo ordained, That a general Council of Africa should Yearly be held at Carthage. This discharges the Bishops of that annual Fatigue; and leaves it to the Prudence of the Bishop of Carthage, to call one, when, and where he thought fit. This is the substance of the First Canon of this Synod, which is the 95th. of the African Code. The Second ordains, That whoever appeals from an Ecclesiastical Judgement, may choose such Judges as he shall think fit, with the Consent of his Accuser; and that, from their Judgement, there shall be no Appeal.  
After this, they admitted the Deputies of the Provinces, and ordered, That Five Men should be appointed to see the Canons put in Execution.  
The Third ordains, That Vincentius, and Fortunatianus, who were deputed to the Emperor, should ask leave to nominate Advocates from among those that were actually in the Service of the Church, that they might have Power to maintain the Church's Interests, and to go in to the Judge's Courts, as the Bishops did, and make such Remonstrances as they should think necessary.  
They discoursed of the Deputies Power at Court; and it was judged convenient, not to prescribe to them what they should say there. The Deputies of the Province of Mauritania Caesariensis complained, That enquiry having been made after Primosus to cite him to the Council, he could not be found.  
The Fourth Canon, which is the 98th. in the African Code, forbids the establishing of Bishops in those Cities that had none before, without the Authority of a Metropolitan, and of a Council of the whole Province.  
In the next, The People that are reconciled to the Church, and had a Bishop before their Reconciliation, are allowed either to choose one, or to submit themselves to the nearest Catholic Bishop. For those who had no Bishop before, they are subjected to that Bishop who converted them, if that Conversion happened before the Emperor's Law was enacted; but if since, than they must have their dependence upon their natural Bishop.  
In the Sixth Canon, Judges are nominated to examine the Business of certain Deputies, who came not to the Synod, according to their Primate's Order.  
In the Seventh, it is resolved to write to Pope Innocent about the Dispute betwixt the Church of Rome, and that of Alexandria, that so both those Churches might be at peace, and keep a good Correspondence with each other.  
The Eighth Canon forbids divorced Persons to be married to others. This Regulation is there judged to be conformable to the Law of the Gospel, and to the Decision of the Apostle St. Paul. But since the civil Laws gave leave to the Husband, to marry after putting away his Wife, it is said, That the Emperor should be entreated to make another Law against that Custom.  
The Ninth Canon prohibits the use of other public Prayers, Prefaces, or Recommendations, or the practising of another Form of laying on of Hands, besides those which are approved by the Councils, and composed by Men of known Piety.  
By the Tenth, those are to be degraded from the Honour of Priesthood, that should desire of the Emperor to be tried by Secular Judges, but they are not restrained from desiring of him to be tried by Ecclesiastical ones.  
The Eleventh provides, That those shall be absolutely degraded, who having been Excommunicated in Africa, repaired to remote Churches, to be admitted to Communion.  
The Twelfth and last Canon, which is the 106th. in the African Code, appoints, That such Clerks, or Bishops as desire to go to Court, shall be obliged to take testimonial Letters of their respective Bishop, or Metropolitan, directed to the Bishop of Rome, and containing the Reasons that bring them thither, that so the Bishop of Rome might grant them another Letter to go to the Court. It does not permit that Bishop, who had a Letter to go to Rome only, to have one from the Pope, to go to Court, except a new Business should happen, which he should acquaint the Bishop of Rome withal, and which should be mentioned in the Letter that he should give him. It is provided likewise, That in that sort of Letters, shall be set down the Day of Easter for that Year, that they may not want Date, or the Easter of the Year past, if that of the present is not exactly known.   

Two Councils of Carthage, in the Year 408.  
THE former of these Councils is of the 14th. of June, 408. All that is said of it in the 
Two Councils of Carthage, ccccviij.  African Code, is, That Fortunatianus was made Deputy against the Heathens, and the Heretics.  
The latter is of the 12th. of October. There they deputed the Bishops Restitutus, and Florentius to Court, to ask for Succour against the Heathens, and Heretics, at the same time that Severus, and Macarius were Executed, and Theasius, Evodius, and Victor were Murdered upon their Account.   

The Council of Carthage, in the Year 409.  
THIS Council assembled upon the 13th. of June, is not a general Council, but 
Council of Carthage, ccccix.  a particular one. There it was declared, That one Bishop alone could not give Judgement.   

The Council of Carthage, in the Year 410.  
UPON the Twelfth of June 410. a Council assembled at Carthage, deputed Five 
Council of Carthage, ccccx.  Bishops to the Emperor, upon occasion of a Law of Valentinian, which granted Liberty of Conscience, that it might not prejudice the Laws made against the Heretics of Africa.   

The Council of Ptolemais.  
ANDRONICUS, Governor of Pentapolis, guilty of great Oppression, and Injustice, 
Council of Ptolemais, in ccccxi.  which he exercised in that Province, was Excommunicated by a Synod of Bishops held at Ptolemais. There Synesius made a Speech against him. But this Governor having asked Pardon, and promised to behave himself otherwise, the publishing of the Sentence of the Synod was suspended. There is an Account of this Matter in the Abridgement of the 57th 58th. and 72d. Letters of Synesius. Mention is made also of Assemblies of some Bishops, in the 67th. Letter of the same Author.   

The Conference at Carthage.  
THE Catholic Bishops had often demanded, ever since the Year 403. a Conference with 
Conference of Carthage, in ccccxi.  the Donatist Bishops, to examine the Reasons which these pretended for their Separation from the Church in an amicable manner. The Donatist Bishops had constantly refused it, till the Year 406. and then consented to have one. They caused this Design to be authorized by an Order of the Emperor Honorius, dispatched at Ravenna the 14th. of October 410. Count Marcellinus was nominated Precedent; and for the Execution of that Order, Two Rules were made; the one to appoint the Day of the Conference, and the other to fix the manner of Proceed, and to oblige the Bishops of both sides, to declare whether they accepted of it.  
The Conference began at Carthage upon the First Day of June 411. The Donatist Bishops met there to the Number of 278. and the Catholics were 286.  
Marcellinus ordered, That Seven Bishops of each Party should be chosen to speak, of whom the chiefest of the Catholics were St. Augustin, and Alypius, and that besides these, Seven should be named to assist as Councillors, and Four to overlook, that the Notaries should faithfully set down what should be said. He commanded also, That every one should set his Hand to what he asserted; and that whatsoever was done should be communicated to the People. He ordered, That the Thirty Six deputed Bishops should be admitted into the Place of the Conference. But the Donatists would be all there; and the Catholics were contented, that their Eighteen Deputies only should be present.  
The First Day was spent in personal Contests, concerning the Bishop's Qualifications. Marcellinus confessed at First, That it was above his capacity to be a judge of that Cause; and that it should rather be decided by those, of whose Disputes he undertook to judge. He caused the Emperor's Letter to be read, whereby he was appointed to be Judge. He promises them not to judge of any thing that should not be clearly proved by either Party. He gave the Donatists leave to choose one to be judge with him of that Cause.  
Nothing Remarkable was done in the Second Meeting on the 3d. of June. The Donatists having desired time to examine the Acts of the First, Marcellinus granted it to them, and adjourned the Conference to the Eighth Day of that Month.  
An Accident happened about the manner of their Session. Marcellinus having desired the Bishops to sit down, the Donatists pretended, That it was forbidden by Scripture. The Catholic Bishops would not keep their Seats, while the Donatist Bishops were standing. Marcellinus, out of Respect to the Bishops, caused his Seat to be taken away.  
In the Eighth Day of the Third Session, the Donatists disputed long about the Qualities of Opposers, and Defenders. But at last, St. Augustin obliged them to come to the main Question, which was, Where was the Catholic Church? The Donatists confessed, That that was it, which was spread throughout the whole Earth; and so they had only now to examine Which Party was united with the Churches of other Parts of the World: And in this Point, the Catholics had the upper hand. To divert the Question, the Donatists desired, That the Acts which they had in their Hands might be read: And so they entered upon the Examination of Caecilians case. They presented a Memorial, wherein they affirmed, That the F●ults of every particular Member, infected a whole Community; and consequently, that Caecilian being guilty, the Catholics were in the wrong for keeping with him, and that they had a sufficient Reason to divide from him. This was the Point in Question. St. Augustin answered it fully, proving out of Holy Scripture, that the Church upon Earth will always consist of good and evil Members. He confirmed that Proposition by St. Cyprian's Authority, and urged the Donatists' Example against themselves, alleging their Behaviour towards the Maximianists. After this, St. Augustin concludes, That though Caecilian had been guilty, yet that argued nothing against the Cause of the Church.  
Yet Marcellinus would have it examined, Whether he was really Guilty: His Innocence was proved, as well as that of Felix of Aptungiss, who ordained him by Acts of the Judgements given in their behalf, whereby they had been pronounced guiltless of the Crimes laid to their Charge.  
The Fourth Conference being ended, and the Bishops of both sides withdrawn, Marcellinus gave Judgement for the Catholics, whom he declared Conquerors; and the Bishops being called in, he read it to them.   

The Council of Cirta, or Zerta.  
THIS Council was assembled at Cirta, or rather Zerta, in June 412. The Council writ a 
Council of Cirta, in ccccx●j.  Synodical Letter, to refute the false Rumours which the Donatists had spread abroad concerning the Conference at Carthage. This Letter is the 141st. amongst St. Augustin's Letters.   

The First Council of Carthage, against Coelestius.  
COELESTIUS came from Rome, to Carthage, with a Design to be there ordained 
Council I. of Carthage against Coelestius, in ccccxj.  Priest in the Year 411. But his Error being discovered by Paulinus the Deacon, who formerly had been a Reader in the Church of Milan, he was put off to a Council of Carthage, held about the latter end of the Year 411, or the beginning of 412. by Aurelius' Bishop of Carthage. He was particularly asked, Whether he believed original Sin. He would never acknowledge it as a matter of Faith; and affirmed, before the Council, that several Catholics held, That Children were not born in Sin, but in the same State wherein Adam was, before he had offended God. The Bishops of this Council being not able to make him alter his Opinion, Excommunicated him, and he was forced to leave Africa. St. Augustin relates some Fragments of the Acts of this Council, in the Second Book of Grace, and Original Sin. Marius Mercator hath also written the History of that Council.   

The Conference of Jerusalem.  
PELAGIUS, Coelestius' Tutor, being retired into Palestine, was well received by John 
Conference of Jerusalem, in ccccxv.  of Jerusalem, who had protected Rufinus, whose Disciple Pelagius was: But Paulus Orosius being then in that Country, and being well acquainted with Pelagius, and Coelestius' Errors, with the judgements given against the latter, and with the Writings both of St. Jerom, and of St. Augustin against them, accused Pelagius in a Synod, or rather in a Conference held at Jerusalem the 30th. of July, in the Year 415. in the presence of John, Bishop of that City, who caused Pelagius though a Layman, to come in, and shown him much Respect. Orosius having opposed to him both St. Jerom, and St. Augustin's Authority, it was little regarded. He then accused him of believing, That Man may be without Sin. John of Jerusalem affirmed, That if he maintained that Man could be free from Sin, without God's Help, that was indeed impious, but since he acknowledged that Man needeth divine Succour, he could not be accused: And he asked Orosius, whether he would deny the Assistance of God. Orosius professed, that he did not, and anathematised all those that said it; but he saw, that they understood not one another, and that the Interpreter was not Faithful; so that he was obliged to say, That Pelagius was an Heretic; and that they ought to send him to those Judges that understood Latin; and that John having declared himself, his Protector could not be his Judge. After several Altercations it was agreed, that they should write to Pope Innocent about it. In the mean time, Orosius coming to John, Bishop of Jerusalem, Seven and forty Days after, was called by him Heretic, and Blasphemer; having affirmed, That Man could not be without Sin, no not with God's Grace. Orosius gives an Account of this whole Matter, in his Apology; which certainly, is an Ancient Monument.   

The Council of Diospolis.  
HEROS, and Lazarus, Two Bishops of Gaul, who had been obliged to quit, the one the 
Council of Diospolis, in ccccxviij.  Bishopric of Arles, and the other, that of Aix, and to retire into the East, joined with Orosius, to accuse Pelagius; and drew up a Petition, containing the Errors whereof they accused him, which they pretended to be taken out of his Books, and maintained by Coelestius his Disciple. This Accusation was preferred to a Synod of Fourteen Bishops, held at Diospolis, anciently called Lydda, a City of Palestine. Eulogius of Caesarea was Precedent, and John of Jerusalem held the Second Place. Though they were absent, yet their Petition was read; (for one of them was very sick at that time) and they questioned Pelagius about the Errors alleged against him. This Man answered all the Heads of his Accusation, by disowning all the Errors imputed to him, or by giving a Catholic Sense in appearance, to what either Coelestius, or himself had asserted. Whereupon, the Synod absolved him, as having sufficiently answered the Charge of his Adversaries. St. Augustin produces the Acts of this Council, in the Book of Pelagius' Acts; and there is an Abridgement of them in his 106th. Letter. He makes use also, of the Authority of the Fathers of this Council against Julianus. St. Prosper likewise quotes the Fathers of this Council with high commendation, for condemning Pelagius' Errors. Yet St. Jerom calleth this Council, a Pitiful Assembly, because they suffered themselves to be imposed upon by Pelagius' Dissimulation.   

A Second Council of Carthage against Pelagius and Coelestius. The Council of Milevis against the same.  
HEros and Lazarus were not contented to accuse Pelagius before the Council of Diospolis, but 
Counc. II. of Carthage, and of Milevis, against Pelagius and Coelestius in ccccxuj  they gave Orosius Letters directed to the Bishops of Africa; who, as they well knew, were less favourable to Coelestius and Pelagius. These without receiving those Letters, assembled both at Carthage, and at Milevis; where they condemned the Opinions attributed to Coelestius and Pelagius, and decreed, That the Authors of such Doctrines were to be Anathematised, unless they condemned their Errors very clearly. The Bishops of both these Councils writ to Pope Innocent, to authorise their Decision by the Concurrence of the See of Rome: Their Letters were followed by another from five Bishops, who writ by themselves to the Pope about the same Subject. These Letters are the 175th. 176th. and the 177th. among St. Augustin's Letters. The Pope answered them, and approved the Judgement of the African Bishops; as appears by his Letters dated the 25th. of January 417.   

The Council of Carthage, held about the latter end of the Year 417.  
THe Bishops of Africa having received Zosimus' Letter, assembled about the latter end of 
Council of Carthage in ccccxvij.  the Year 417. to deliberate about what they should do. They answered him immediately, That he was to blame, for offering to retract the Cause of Pelagius and Coelestius, which had been judged, and protested against whatsoever he might do in their behalf, without hearing them. This Letter is not extant, but it is mentioned in the 3d. Letter which Zosimus writ to them. After the first step, they collected all that had been done against Coelestius; and having confirmed the same, they sent it to Pope Zosimus by the Subdeacon Marcellinus: and further, they deputed Bishop Vindemi●lis to carry it to Court. To this Synod must be referred what Prosper saith in his Chronicon upon the Year 418. and elsewhere, That it consisted of Two hundred and fourteen Bishops. They wrote a long Letter to the Pope; wherein they complained, That he did too easily believe Coelestius; telling him, That he should have been obliged to revoke his Errors by Name. They discovered the Evasions which he used to elude the difficulty, by equivocal Terms. They sent him a Memorial of those Errors, whereof they were to exact of him a clear and precise Condemnation; and exhorted him to maintain what was done by his Predecessor. Father Quesnel believes, not without probability, That in this Synod were concluded the Nine Canons concerning Grace; which are commonly ascribed to the Council of Milevis. But if they were proposed in this Council, they were not concluded upon nor subscribed till that which was Assembled in May next Year, to which the Code of African Canons attribute them. The Endeavours of the Africans had good Success; for the Emperor Honorius made an Edict against Pelagius and Coelestius, the last day of April, 418. And shortly after, Pope Zosimus published, as we have said, his Sentence against them.   

The Council of Carthage in the Year 418.  
THe African Bishops willing to confirm what they had done against Pelagius and Coelestius, 
Council of Carthage in ccccxviij.  Assembled upon the First day of May of the Year 418. and made Eight Canons against the Pelagian Errors, and some other Orders about the Business of the Donatists.  
The First pronounceth an Anathema against any who dares affirm, That Adam was created Mortal; so that he must have died, whether he had sinned or not, because his Death was not an Effect of Sin, but a Law of Nature.  
The Second likewise declares an Anathema against such as deny, That Children ought to be baptised as soon as they are Born; or such as own that they may be baptised, and yet affirm, That they are born without Original Sin.  
In some places there is a Third Canon, which is an Addition to this; wherein those that affirm That there is a particular place, where Children dead without Baptism do live happily, are condemned; and to this Notion is opposed what our Saviour saith, That none can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, except he be regenerate of Water and the Holy Spirit. Photius citeth this Canon in his Collection. It is found in another Manuscript, and in the Code of the Romish Church, published by Father Quesnel. And lastly, St. Augustin seems to own it, when he says, That the difference which the Pelagians made betwixt Eternal Life and the Kingdom of Heaven, had been condemned in an African Council; yet this Canon is not found in the ancient Code of the African Church. The Collectors of this Canon have not owned it, and in the Chapters about Grace attributed to Pope Celestine, the 3d, 4th, and 5th. Canons are cited, which should be the 4th, 5th, and 6th, if this were the Third. Perhaps this Canon was added, or looked upon as an Explication of the foregoing.  
The Third Canon in the common Editions pronounces Anathema against all that should say, That the Grace which justifies Man through Jesus Christ our Lord, doth only remit Sins committed; but that it is not given to secure Man that he may Sin no more.  
The Fourth expounds the Nature of this Grace, by condemning those who should say, That it doth no further help us, than as it gives us the knowledge of what we ought to do, but not by enabling us to fulfil the Commandments, which it gives us the knowledge of.  
The Fifth is against those that hold, That Grace is given only that we may do that which is good with less difficulty; because one may absolutely accomplish the Commandments by the Power of his freewill, without the help of Grace.  
The Sixth declares, That St. John did not say merely out of Humility; If we say that we have no Sin, we deceive ourselves.  
The contrary Truth is confirmed in the Seventh Canon, by these words of the Lord's Prayer, Forgive us our Trespasses, etc. And they are condemned who affirm, That the Righteous do not say this Prayer for themselves, but for others.  
In the Eighth there is a Condemnation of another way of eluding the force of these words, by saying, That the Righteous pray out of Humility, but not truly. It is said, That God would never endure that Man who in his Prayers should lie not only to Men, but to God himself; by ask with his Mouth, That God would forgive his Sins, and saying in his Heart that he had none.  
After these Eight Canons concerning Grace, some Orders are set down.  
The First, Is to reform the Fifth Canon of the Council of Carthage in the Year 407. whereby it was Enacted, That those Bishops who converted any Donatists, should have the Jurisdiction over them. This Order having bred some Disputes, it was thought fit here to reform it; and it is enjoined, That in what place soever any Donatists are reconciled, they shall be of the same Diocese with the Catholics of that place.  
When there were two Bishops in the same place, namely, The ancient Catholic and the reconciled Donatist, it might occasion several Difficulties, which the Council prevents in the next Canon, which enjoins, That the junior Bishop shall make a division of those places where there were many Catholics and Donatists, and that the signior shall have his choice. That if there is but one place where the Catholics and Donatists were intermixed, that Place shall belong to that Bishop of the two, the place of whose residence is the nearest; That if they prove equally distant, the Choice shall be left to the People. And if the ancient Catholics desire to have their own Bishop, and the reconciled, him they had before, than the Majority of voices shall carry it; but if they be equal, than the senior shall have the Precedency. Lastly, If the Places cannot be equally divided; As for example, if the number of Divisions should be odd, then two equal Divisions shall be made, and the Place over and above shall bedisposed of, as is said just before.  
In the Third Rule it is provided, That whosoever hath enjoyed a place Three Years, shall remain in quiet Possession, if there be a Bishop in the Church of that Diocese, where naturally he ought to have been.  
The Fourth is against those Bishops who violently took Possession of the Jurisdiction of such places as they pretended to be of their Dioceses, without having the matter in Dispute adjudged by Bishops.  
The First ordains, That those that shall neglect to procure the Reunion of places dependent from their Dioceses, shall be put in mind of it by the Neighbouring Bishops; That if they are not converted within Six Months after such Admonition, they shall belong to the Diocese of that Bishop that can convert them; if it appears that the Bishop of the place hath neglected it. It is added, That if a Contest happens betwixt two Bishops of different Provinces, the Metropolitan of the Province where the place in dispute is situated shall appoint Judges, or the Parties shall choose one, or three.  
This gives occasion for renewing the Canon, which forbids any Appeal to be made from the judgement of Judges thus chosen.  
It is enacted by the Seventh Order, That a Bishop neglecting to reconcile the Donatists that are in his Diocese, shall be admonished, and if they be not reconciled in Six Months, they shall not communicate with him until he hath reconciled them. Provided always, That he who had the execution of the Emperor's Orders was in his Province.  
It is added in the Eighth, That if it be proved, that any Bishop affirmed that these Donatists were come into the Communion of the Church, and it was not so, he shall lose his Bishopric.  
The Ninth enjoins, That if the Priests, Deacons, and other Clerks, complain of their Bishop's Judgements, they shall be judged by the Neighbouring Bishops, with the consent of their own; That if they appeal from this Judgement, it must be to the Council of Africa, and it Excommunicates those that shall make their Appeals to Judges beyond the Seas.  
The Tenth contains an Exception from that Prohibition of veiling a Virgin before the Age of Five and twenty, when being in danger of Death, she desires it, or her Parents for her.  
Lastly, That they might not too long detain the Bishops out of their Dioceses, they chose three out of each Province, and gave them Power to order all things with Aurelius, who is desired to Subscribe the Canons and Rules now mentioned; which were also Subscribed by all the Bishops.   

Of the Council of Tella, or Zella, and of some other Councils of Africa.  
AMong the African Councils, is reckoned one held the 22d. of February in the Year 418. at 
Council of Telia, or Zella etc. in ccccxvi●j.  Tella or Zella; whereof a Decree is produced which confirms the Fourth Letter attributed to Pope Syricius, and under whose Name some Canons are found in the Collection of Ferrandus the Deacon. They do not agree about the Name of the place where this Council was celebrated. It is said in the beginning, That it was Assembled at Tella; some think that it should be Zella▪ instead of Tella; because some Canons are quoted under that Name by Ferrandus.  
Sirmondus thinks that we should read Telepta, because Donatianus of Telepta presided; yet all Editions constantly call this the Council of Tella, and we read in the Notitia, of the Pro-consular Province of Africa, that there was a City called Tella in that Province, which was a Bishops See. This City differs from Telepta, and from Zella, which were in the Province of Byzacena. And though Ferrandus citeth Canons under the Name of a Council of Tella and Zella, yet it doth not follow, that he believed it to be the same Council; on the contrary, it is probable, that the Canons Registered in his Collection under different Names, were made by different Councils.  
But it is very likely, as Father Quesnel hath observed, That both the Council of Tella, and the Canons Registered in Ferrandus under that Name, are Supposititious.  
For, First, Tella being a City of the Proconsular Province, what likelihood is there that a Council of the Province of Byzacena should be called there? and that Donatianus the Metropolitan of Byzacena should Preside in it?  
Secondly, Is it credible, That a numerous Council should be Assembled in February, at a time that a General Synod of Africa was Summoned for the Month of May?  
Thirdly, Wherefore do they suppose that the Legates of the Proconsular Province should assist at a Council of the Province of Byzacena?  
Fourthly, This Council is supposed to have been Assembled to receive the Fourth Letter of Pope Syricius. This Letter is Spurious as we have showed, and though it were not, How unlikely is it, that the Africans would go about to confirm it so late? Is there any Example of their so doing? What reason had they to do it? Why should they make use of the Pope's Letter written several Years before to make Regulations by?  
In the Fifth place, Some of the Canons in Ferrandus' Collection, under the Name of the Council of Tella do not suit with the African Customs. That in the 6th. Ch. forbids ONE Bishop alone to ordain another Bishop, except the Bishop of Rome. The African Bishops had been far enough from approving this Exception so contrary to the Canons, and to Custom. The others are taken out of Syricius' Epistle against the Africans pertinaciousness, who did not own the Canons of other Churches, except those of the Council of Nice, and such as had been made in African Councils. As for the other Canons cited under the Name of the Council of Tella, or Zella, they may be true, and it is probable that they are of another Council; namely, Those that are in the 3d. 16th. 65th. 68th. and 218th. Chapters. The others are in the 4th. 6th. 30th. 138th 174th. Chapters.  
There is mention in this Council, of another Council held at Thisdry, under whose Name there are two Canons in Ferrandus the Deacon's Collection, Ch. 76th, and 77th. In this Collection there are likewise some Canons of other African Councils, of which we have no other knowledge. The Learned Baluzius collected them in his new Collection of such Councils as were omitted in the preceding Collections. Vol. 1. Page 366. and 367.   

Councils of Carthage in the Years 418. and 419. Concerning the Cause of Apiarius.  
URbanus Bishop of Sicca, a City of Mauritania Coesariensis, and formerly St. Augustin's Disciple, 
Councils of Carthage concerning Apiarius, in ccccxviij & ccccxix.  did both degrade and excommunicate Apiarius, a Presbyter, as one that had been unlawfully ordained. This man repaired to Pope Zosimus, who received him kindly, and admitted him to the Communion. This Pope's action, contrary to the Rules of the Church, that forbidden Bishops to receive those Clerks that are excommunicated by their Brethren, amazed the African Bishops. But Zosimus seeking an opportunity to extend his Dominion and increase his Authority, would not let this occasion slip. Wherefore he sent Legates into Africa, a Bishop called Faustinus, and two Priests, Asellius and Philip; not only to cause Apiarius to be restored, but also to make them admit of the Canons of the Council of Sardica, concerning the Appeals of Bishops to the See of Rome, and the Judgements of Clerks.  
The Africans seeing that the Pope undertook to protect Apiarius, judged it more convenient to accommodate the business; and so they found this Medium, to put him out of the Church of Sicca, and give him leave to do the Functions of his Order any where else. But before they came to a conclusion, suspecting that Zosimus' Legates were not come into Africa without some Design, they urged them to give an account of their Commission. At first they would have made some Proposals of their own; but the Africans without hesitation, desired to see the Writings of their Commission, and so they were obliged to read the Memorial of their Instructions; which contained four Heads. The First was, touching Appeals to the See of Rome. The Second, To hinder Bishops from going to Court. The Third, That Priests should be permitted to have their Causes examined by Neighbouring Bishops. By the Fourth they were commanded, either to Excommunicate Urbanus Bishop of Sicca, or to cite him to Rome, except he retracted what he had done. The Second Head admitted no Dispute; because the African Bishops had already enacted, That neither Bishops nor Priests should go to Court. They answered the Fourth, by composing the business as we have said; so that only the First and the Third remained to be decided, and they were of great consequence. The Pope's Legates alleged to support their Pretensions, the Canons of the Council of Sardica, which allow Appeals to the See of Rome for Bishops condemned by a Provincial Synod, and permit a Clerk condemned by his own Bishop, to appeal to the Bishops of the Neighbouring Provinces.  
Though the Africans had no knowledge of these Canons, yet because the Pope's Legates positively urged them, they promised, out of the respect they paid to that Council, to observe the Canons, until they were informed whether they were belonging to the Council of Nice, or no. This was their resolution in the first Council held about that business at Carthage in Autumn of the Year 418. which they acquainted Zosimus withal.  
After this Pope's Death, The Bishops of Africa being assembled in an Universal Synod at Carthage the 23d. day of May, to the number of 217. Faustinus the Pope's Legate sitting in that Synod, next after Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, and Valentinus Metropolitan of Numidia, and Asellius and Philippus the Priests after the Bishops, the Canons of the Council of Nice were read, as they had the Copies of them on both sides. The Africans not finding in their Code the Canons which the Pope's Legates affirmed to have been enacted by the Council of Nice, Alypius proposed, That they should send Deputies to the Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, to clear this dispute, by taking Copies of the true Acts of the Council of Nice: This Advice was approved, and they concluded, that in the mean time they should observe the Contents of those Canons: And they resolved to write to Pope Boniface about what they had done, and to pray him to write to the Eastern Patriarches; That this Point might be cleared. This being done, they repeated the Creed and the Twenty Canons of the Council of Nice, according to the Copy which Caecilian Bishop of Carthage, had brought from that Council whereat he assisted. They added to these, Three and thirty other Canons conformable to those of the Council of Nice. The First is only an Advertisement of Aurelius, concerning the Canons of the Council of Nice. The Second is a Confession of the Holy Trinity. The Third confirms the Rule of the Council of Carthage of the Year 401. concerning the Celibacy of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. It is said, That their Ministry obligeth them to it. Faustinus confirms this Order in the Fourth Canon. The Fifth is against the Covetousness of the Clergy, that usurp upon their Brethren. The Sixth reneweth the Law which forbids the Priests to consecrate the holy Chrism, and to reconcile Penitents publicly, and to consecrate Virgins. The Eighth gives a Priest leave to reconcile Penitents in cases of necessity. The Ninth provides that the Accusation of one that is guilty of any Crime shall not be admitted against a Bishop. The next is against either Bishops or Priests, who receive a Person excommunicated by his Bishop, without his consent.  
Both the Tenth and the Eleventh pronounce an Anathema against those Priests, who being reproved by their Bishops, are so bold as to raise an Altar against an Altar, or make a Schism.  
The Twelfth settleth the necessary number of Judges, to decide Ecclesiastical Causes. A Bishop is to be judged by Twelve Bishops; A Priest, by Six Bishops, with his respective Bishop; and a Deacon, by Three only. The Thirteenth Canon reneweth the ancient Laws about Bishop's Ordinations; namely, That a Bishop cannot be ordained without the Primate's consent; and that three Bishops at the least must be present at the Ordination. In the Fourteenth, there is an Exception of the Twelfth for the Province of Tripoli, where there were few Bishops, declaring, That in this Province a Priest may be judged by Five Bishops, and a Deacon by Two: and for the same reason, they say, That one Deputy may serve.  
To maintain Ecclesiastical Authority among Clerks, The Fifteenth forbids them to make their Complaints before Civil Judges, when they are cited before Ecclesiastical ones; and in case they do, though they get the better, yet they must be deposed, if it be a Criminal business; and if it be a Civil Matter, they shall lose what they have got. It was also provided by these Canons, That if the Sentence of the first Ecclesiastical Judges, was reversed by a Superior Judgement; yet this shall do no Prejudice to the former Judges, except they are convicted of having given Judgement out of Passion or Favour. It is added, That there can be no Appeal from chosen Judges, though they were fewer in Number than is appointed. Lastly, Priest's Children are forbidden to exhibit Public Spectacles, or to be present at any; They declare also, That the same aught to be forbidden all Christians.  
The Sixteenth forbids Bishops, Priests, and Deacons to be Farmers, Attorneys, or to get their Living by any sordid Commerce. Readers are obliged to Marry when they come to the Age of Puberty, or to make a Vow of Continency. Clerks are not to take Use for Money Lent. They will not have Deacons to be ordained, nor Virgins consecrated before they are Five and twenty Years old. Lastly, Deacons are forbidden to Salute the People; That is, to speak to the People in Reading, as Bishops were wont to do in Preaching.  
The 17th. grants to the Province of Silesia, that had been separated from Numidia, the Right of having a Primate, or Metropolitan, but dependent upon the Primate of Numidia. The 18th. enjoins, That Bishops Ordaining either Bishops or Clerks, shall make them understand the Canons. It forbids the giving the Eucharist to the Dead, and renews the Order of the Council of Nice, about the Celebration of Provincial Councils.  
The 19th. ordains, That whosoever accuses a Bishop, must do it before his Metropolitan; who shall cite him to appear within a Month before him, and before the Judges whom he hath chosen: That in the mean time the Bishop shall not be suspended from the Communion: That if at the Month's end he gives good Reasons for his not appearing, he shall have another Month; but if he doth not appear at his second Summons, he shall be suspended from the Communion until he hath justified himself: and, That if afterwards he comes not to the Universal Council, he shall be looked upon as having condemned himself: That the Accuser is not to be kept from Communicating, if he appears upon all Set-days; but upon his withdrawing, he shall be suspended, but yet so as not to hinder his Prosecution. Lastly, They forbidden the admitting of a noted Person to form an Accusation, except it be concerning his particular Interest. The 20th. gives Rules for the Judgement of Priests and Deacons; but other Clerks are left to the sole Judgement of the Bishop.  
The 21st. forbids clergymen's Sons to Marry Heretical or Heathenish Wives. The 22d. hinders Clerks to give their Estates to Heretics, though they were their Parents. The 23d. forbids Bishops to go out of Africa without leave from the Metropolitan of their respective Province, from whom they are to receive a form Letter, or a Letter of Recommendation. The 24th. prohibits the Reading of any other besides Canonical Books in the Church, whereof the Catalogue there set down agrees with that of the Council of Trent. It is noted at the latter end of this Canon, That the Contents thereof are to be notified to Boniface, and the Bishops of Italy, that they may confirm it: and that the African Church hath learned from her Father's Tradition, That the Books expressed in that Catalogue, aught to be read in the Church. The 25th. confirms the Law of Celibacy, for the Superior Orders; and it extends it to Subdeacons, but other Clerks are left at their liberty.  
The 26th. forbids the Selling the Goods of the Church, or of Bishops, without the Metropolitan's leave, unless there be an urgent Necessity; in which case they are to advise with the nearest Bishops.  
The 27th. provides, That Priests and Deacons. shall not be put to public Penance; and, That such as were rebaptized, shall not be promoted to the Priesthood. The 28th. forbids those Priests and Deacons who find fault with the Judgements of their own Bishops, to seek for Judges out of Africa; but they are permitted to have their Cause examined by neighbouring Bishops, but with the Consent of their own Bishop: wherein this Canon differs from that of Sardica, which gave Clerks leave indifferently to choose neighbouring Bishops for their Judges, without seeking for the Consent of their own Bishop.  
The 29th. declares, That he condemneth himself; by suffering himself to be Excommunicated by an Ecclesiastical Judgement, who neglects to appear, and yet doth not forbear Communicating before he is heard. The 30th. saith, That if the Accuser hath some reason to fear any thing in the place where the Accused dwelleth, he may choose a place hard-by to produce his Witnesses.  
The 31st. punishes those Clerks who refuse to be promoted to Superior Orders by their Bishops, by depriving them of the Functions of their Ministry. The 32d. declares, That the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, who being poor when they were Ordained, have afterwards purchased Estates out of the Church's Revenue, aught to be dealt withal like those who detain other men's Estates unlawfully gotten, except they bequeath them to the Church: but they are permitted to do what they please with such Estates as come to them either by Succession or by Donation. Finally, The 33d. and last forbids Priests to Sell the Church's Goods unknown to the Bishops; and the Bishops, without acquainting the Council and their Priests with it: even the Metropolitan is not permitted to usurp what belongs to his Church. This is what was enacted in the First Session of this Council. Afterwards the Canons of former African Councils were read, in the same order in which we see them in the Code of the African Church.  
The last Session of this General Council was upon the 28th. of May, of the same Year. Several Bishops complained, That they were kept there too long, and so desired to return to their Dioceses: wherefore they nominated Deputies of each Province to complete what remained yet to do; but before they separated themselves, they added Six Canons more to the former. The 1st. forbids the receiving the Accusation of an accused Person. In the 2d. they would not have such admitted for Accusers as are Slaves, or Freedmen, nor infamous Persons, as Mimics, or Stage-Players, no more than Heretics and Heathens. In the 3d. it is provided, That if the Accusation consists of several Heads, and the Accuser cannot prove the First, he shall not be suffered to propose the rest.  
The 4th. prescribes the Qualifications of Witnesses, according to what hath been said of Accusers; that is, That whosoever was not qualified to be an Accuser, could not be admitted for a Witness: adding, That the Domestics of an Accuser could not be Witnesses, nor such as were under the Age of Thirteen Years.  
The 5th. provides, That if a Bishop declares that such a Person hath confessed a Crime to him alone, and that Person denies it, and refuses to do Penance; that Bishop ought not to think that Injury is done to him, if the thing is not believed upon his Word, though he saith, That he will not Communicate with that Person, out of a Scruple of Conscience. The next Canon adds, That in this case, if the Bishop will not communicate with that Person, the other Bishops shall not communicate with that Bishop; that so Bishops may not offer to say what they cannot prove. These Canon's show, That Crimes were confessed to Bishops,; and that the Bishops excommunicated Men, and put them to public Penance for those Crimes, though they were secret ones; but that the Bishop could not oblige those outwardly to do public Penance, who had confessed their Crimes secretly to him, unless he had other Proofs to convict them.  
After this, Aurelius concluded the Synod, putting off to the next day the writing to Boniface. All the Bishops subscribed and approved what had been done and read in the Synod.  
The next day they composed the Letter to Boniface; wherein the African Bishops gave him an Account of what had been done about the Memorial of Instructions which Zosimus had given to his Legates; and promised him to see the two Canons of the Council of Sardica executed, concerning the Appeals of the Clergy, and the Judgements thereupon, until they had received out of Greece the true Copies of the Council of Nice; upon Condition, That if these Canons were not there, they would not endure this new Yoke, which seemed to be an Effect of Ambition; and that they should be suffered to enjoy their ancient Privileges.  
These Copies were not long in coming; they received them in November of the same Year, with obliging Letters from St. Cyril, and Atticus of Constantinople; but they did not find the Canons alleged by Zosimus' Legates, but only the Confession of Faith, and the Twenty ordinary Canons. They had no sooner received them, but they sent the same to Pope Boniface.  
This seemed to have put an end to the Dispute; and indeed, it was not spoken of any more in Boniface's time, but it was renewed under the Pontificate of Pope Celestine. For this Apiarius, to whom the African Bishops had showed Kindness for the Pope's sake, instead of behaving himself wisely, gave great occasions of Complaint against him; so that they were obliged to condemn him. He failed not, to procure his Restoration, to apply himself to the same Means that had before proved effectual: he went to Pope Celestine, who received him kindly, and admitted him to Communion: he wrote in his behalf to the African Bishops, and sent Faustinus to procure his Restoration. The African Bishops met to judge him. At first he rejected their Judgement, under pretence of maintaining the Privileges of the See of Rome, and demanded to be admitted to the Communion, since Celestine, to whom he made his Appeal, had admitted him. This Opposition, backed by Faustinus, did not hinder the African Bishops from undertaking the Examination of the Crimes laid to his Charge. At the third time of their Meeting, Apiarius confessed, That he was guilty of the Crimes he was accused of, so that there was no more need of Pleading. But the African Bishops seeing of what Importance it was, to prevent that for the future the African Councils should not be thus imposed upon, they writ a Letter to Pope Celestine. In which having related in what manner Apiarius' Business was concluded, they entreated him earnestly to hearken no more to those that should come from Africa, and not to admit any more to his Communion any Man that was Excommunicated by the African Bishops. For (say they) your Holiness may take notice, That it was so decreed in the Council of Nice; and though mention is made there only of Clergy and Laity, yet there is a great deal more reason to observe this Rule, with respect to Bishops; and it would prove a great Disorder, should your Holiness allow Communion against the Rules to Bishops Excommunicated in their Provinces. Likewise, your Holiness ought to reject those Priests, and other Clergymen who apply themselves to you, to avoid the Punishment which they deserve; so much the rather, because we no where read that the Canons have taken away this Privilege from the African Church; and that according to the Decree of the Council of Nice, the Judgement of Priests, and of other Clerks, belongs to the Metropolitan. For the Fathers of that Council were wise and just enough to see that all-Causes ought to be decided in those very places where they have their birth; and that each Province shall not want the Light of the Holy Spirit, which is necessary to direct and enable them to do Justice to their People; so much the rather, that every one who thinks himself wronged by the Sentences of Judges that are put upon them, may have their recourse to a Synod of that Province, or even to a National Council. Were it not great rashness in any one of us, to believe that God can inspire by his Spirit one single Person to do Justice; and deny the same to a great number of Bishops assembled in a Council? And how can it be imagined, that Judgement given out of the Country, and beyond the Seas, can stand, since it is often impossible to transport Witnesses? They add, That they had sent to Pope Boniface, Coelestine's Predecessor, the true Copies of the Council of Nice, where the Canons alleged by Faustinus are not found. They advise him to send no more Clerks into Africa to see his Judgements executed, lest he should seem to introduce into the Church, which Breathes nothing but Humility, the Pomp and Vanity of the Age; and then they entreat him, not to suffer Faustinus to abide any longer in Africa.   

The Council of Ravenna, in 419.  
THis Council was assembled at Ravenna, in April, 419. by order of Honorius the Emperor, 
Council of Ravenna, in ccccxix.  to judge betwixt Eulalius and Boniface, who disputed about the See of Rome. For since the Bishops could not agree, the Emperor purposed to call another more numerous Council, to which he invited Bishops out of Gaul and Africa. In the mean while it was ordered in this, That Eulalius and Boniface should keep out of Rome; and that Achillaeus, Bishop of Spoleto, should take care of the Church till the Contest was ended. But Eulalius' Precpitation justified Boniface's Right, and was the cause that no other Council met upon that Subject. You may see what was said about it in the Account of Pope Boniface.   

The Council of Carthage, in the Year 420.  
WHat we have said hitherto concerning the Councils of Africa, celebrated in the beginning 
Council of Carthage, in ccccxx.  of the Fifth Century, sufficiently shows, That the Vigilancy of those Bishops made them meet often, and gives reason to conjecture, That Yearly Councils were held at Carthage; but we have not the Acts of all those Councils. Possidius, in St. Augustin's Life, intimates, That in 420. there was a Meeting of Bishops at Carthage, where a young Virgin confessed that she had suffered infamous things from the Manichees. St. Augustin relates the same thing in his Treatise Of Heresies, ch. 46. and the Author called Praedestinatus, hath not forgot to reckon this Meeting among the African Councils; but it may be that it was only an Assembly of Bishops, like that wherein St. Augustin caused Heraclius the Priest to be elected his Successor, which cannot be called a Council.   

The Council of Constantinople, in the Year 426.  
THis Council was assembled by Theodosius' Command, to Ordain Sisinnius Bishop-Elect of Constantinople, 
Council of Constantinople, in ccccxxvi.  in the room of Atticus. Theodorus of Antioch was present, and there condemned the Massalian Heresy by a Synodical Letter: And Neon's Opinion was, That as many as should be convicted of favouring that Sect, should be Expelled, without hope of Readmission, whatsoever Promises they might make. The reason of that extraordinary Severity came from this, That those Heretics made no scruple of Abjuring their Sect, even with the most dreadful Oaths. This Synod is mentioned in the Council of Ephesus, where the Synodical Letter is confirmed, p. 3. Act. 7.   

The Council of Carthage, in the Year 427. against Leporius.  
LEporius, Priest and Monk of Marseilles, embued with Pelagius' Errors, having likewise 
Council of Carthage, against Leporius, in ccccxxvii.  maintained that which Nestorius published not long after, was driven out of Gaul: God's Providence directed him to Africa; where he was undeceived of his Errors by Aurelius and St. Augustin, who most charitably instructed him. After he was fully persuaded of the Truth, they made him subscribe a Confession of Faith; wherein he sharply condemned those Errors which he had published, concerning the Person of Jesus Christ, and made a clear Profession of the Faith of the Church. Aurelius, St. Augustin, and some other Bishops, being assembled, signed that Profession, and wrote a Letter to Proculus of Marseilles, and the other Bishops of that Country; whereby they attested Leporius' Conversion, and entreated them to receive him charitably. This Leporius having been present at the Assembly which St. Augustin called at Hippo, to choose Heraclius for his Successor, held at the latter end of the Year 426, could not be sent back before 427.   

The Council of Constantinople, in the Year 428.  
Nestorius' having been chosen Bishop of Constantinople, in 428. after Sisinnius' Death, Philip, 
Council of Constantinople, in ccccxxvi●i.  an ancient Priest of the Church of Constantinople, found fault with some of Nestorius' Sermons, and refused to Communicate with him. This provoked Nestorius, who caused him to be cited to his Council, and persuaded Coelestius to accuse him. But Philip being come to the Council, and Coelestius not appearing, Philip remained fully justified. This Council is spoken of in the Memorial which St. Cyril gave to Possidonius, and which was carried to Rome.  
We conclude here the former Part of the Third Volume, which gives an Account of the Authors of the Fifth Age of the Church, that we may not enter upon the History of the Council of Ephesus, which we shall speak of in the latter Part.   
The END of the FIRST PART of the THIRD TO ME.   

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORS Mentioned in the Third VOLUME. Giving an Account of their Names, Time of their Birth, their Country and Employments, Time when they Flourished, and the Time of their Deaths.  

EVAGRIUS PONTICUS, A Disciple of the Macarii▪ Deacon of Constantinople. Flourished from the Year 380. to the End of that Century. Died Anno 406  
MARK, The Hermit. Flourished about the end of the Fourth Century.  
SIMPLICIANUS, Bishop of Milan, Successor to St. Ambrose. Flourished at the end of the Fourth Century. Died in 400.  
VIGILIUS, Bishop of Trent. Flourished towards the end of the Fourth Century. Suffered Martyrdom in the Year 400.  
PRUDENTIUS, Of Saragosa. A Christian Poet. Born in the Year 348. Flourished at the end of the Fourth Century. Died in 410.  
DIADOCHUS, Bishop of Photice. Flourished, according to some, at the end of the Fourth, or as others, at the end of the Fifth Century.  
AUDENTIUS, Bishop in Spain. Flourished at the end of the Fourth Century.  
SEVERUS ENDELECHIUS, A Christian Poet. Flourished towards the end of the Fourth Century.  
FLAVIANUS, Bishop of Antioch. Flourished from the Year 380. to the end of that Century. Died in the Year 404.  
St. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, Bishop of Constantinople. Born in 347. Flourished from the Year 370. to the beginning of the next Century. He Preached in 380. and was Ordained Bishop of Constantinople in 398. Was Deposed in 403. and driven away in 404. Died in Exile in the Year 407.  
ANTIOCHUS', Bishop of Ptolemais. A Famous Preacher, about the end of the Fourth Century.  
SEVERIANUS, Bishop of Gabala. Flourished towards the end of the Fourth Century.  
ASTERIUS, Bishop of Amasea. Flourished towards the end of the Fourth Century.  
ANASTASIUS, Bishop of Rome. Ordained in the Year 398. Died in 402.  
CHROMACIUS, Bishop of Aquileia. Flourished towards the end of the Fourth Century.  
GAUDENTIUS, Bishop of Brescia. Ordained in the Year 387. Died towards the Year 410.  
JOHN, Bishop of Jerusalem. Ordained in 387. Died in the Year 416.  
THEOPHILUS, Bishop of Alexandria. Ordained in 395. Died in 412.  
THEODORUS, Bishop of Mopsuestia. Flourished at Antioch, towards the end of the Fourth Century: And was Ordained Bishop in the beginning of the Fifth.  
PALLADIUS, A Monk, and afterwards Bishop of Helenopolis. Flourished, chief at the beginning of the Fifth Century. Died after the Year 421.  
St. INNOCENT I, Bishop of Rome. Ordained in 402. Died in 417.  
St. JEROM. Presbyter. Born in the Year 345. Flourished from the Year 370. to his Death. Died in 420.  
RUFINUS TORANIUS, Presbyter of Aquileia. Flourished from the Year 372. Died in 410.  
SOPHRONIUS, Flourished at the beginning of the Fifth Century.  
SULPICIUS SEVERUS, Presbyter of Agen. Flourished from the Year 380. to 420. Died in 420.  
St. PAULINUS, Bishop of Nola. Baptised in 389. after having been Consul in 378. Ordained Priest in 393. and Bishop in 409. Died in 431.  
PELAGIUS, A British Monk. Published his Errors towards the end of the Fourth Century.  
COELESTIUS, A Britain, Disciple of Pelagius. Taught his Heresy about the beginning of the Fifth Century.  
NICEAS, An Italian Bishop. Flourished about the beginning of the Fifth Century.  
OLYMPIUS, A Bishop in Spain. Flourished about the beginning of the Fifth Century.  
BACCHIARIUS, A Christian Philosopher. Flourished about the beginning of the Fifth Century.  
SABBATIUS, Bishop in Gaul. Flourished about the beginning of the Fifth Century.  
ISAAC, A Converted Jew. Flourished about the beginning of the Fifth Century.  
PAULUS OROSIUS, A Spanish Priest. Flourished under the Emperor's Arcadius and Honorius about the beginning of the Fifth Century.  


LUCIAN, Presbyter.  
AVITUS, Spanish Presbyter.  
EVODIUS, Bishop of Uzala.  
SEVERUS, Bishop of Minorca.  
MARCELLUS, Memorialis▪ EUSEBIUS, URSINUS, Monk.  
MACARIUS, Monk of Rome.  
HELIO DORUS, Presbyter of Antioch.  
PAUL, Bishop.  
HELVIDIUS, VIGILANTIUS, Priest.   Wrote about the beginning of the Fifth Century.  
St. AUGUSTIN, Bishop of Hippo. Born at Tagasta the 13th. of Nou. 354. Was Converted in 387. Ordained Priest in 391. and Bishop in 395. Began to Write in 387. and did not leave off writing till his Death. Died the 28th. of August in the Year 430.  
ZOSIMUS, Bishop of Rome. Ordained in 417. Died in 418.  
BONIFACE I. Bishop of Rome. Ordained in 418. Died in 423.  
SYNESIUS. A Platonic Philosopher. Bishop of Ptolemais. Famous for his Skill in Human Learning, about the end of the Fourth and the beginning of the Fifth Century; and was Elected Bishop in 410. Died after the Year 412.    

A CHRONOLOGICAE TABLE of the COUNCILS held in the Fourth Age of the Church.  
The Figure shows the Year according to the Vulgar Aera.  

THE Synod of Rome under Innocent I. 430  
Council of Milevis, 402  
Councils held at Constantinople & at Ephesus, 400, 401  
Council at the Oak in the Suburbs of Chalcedon, 403  
Council of Carthage, 403  
Council of Carthage, 404  
Council of Carthage, 405  
Council of Carthage, 407  
Two Councils of Carthage, 408  
Council of Carthage, 409  
Council of Carthage, 410  
Council of Ptolemais, 411  
Conference at Carthage, 411  
Council of Zerta, 412  
First Council of Carthage against Coelestius, 412  
Conference at Jerusalem, 415  
Council of Diospolis, 418  
Council of Milevis, 416  
Council of Carthage, 417  
Council of Carthage, 418  
Council of Tella, or Zella, [or as some think Telepta] 418  
The Second Council of Carthage against Coelestius, 416  
Councils of Carthage concerning the Cause of Apiarius, 418, 419  
Council of Ravenna, 419  
Council of Carthage, 420  
Council of Constantinople, 426  
Council of Carthage against Leporius, 427  
Council of Constantinople. 428    

A TABLE of all the Works of the Ecclesiastical Authors mentioned in this Volume.  

EVAGRIUS PONTICUS.  


Genuine BOOKS still Ex●aat.  
Partly of a Gnostical Book and a Practical Book, contained in One hundred and Seventy one Sentences, with Eleven Instructions for Monks; Published by Cotelerius in the Third Tome of the Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae, pag. 68  
A Treatise entitled Antirrheticus, or rather a Summary of that Treatise; published by Bigotius at the end of Palladius.  
The History of Pacho, among the Works of St. Nilus.  
Sentences attributed to St. Nilus, which are found in the Works of that Author, from Page 543. to Page 575.  
Other Sentences, which are at the end of the First Volume of the Bibliothe●● Patrum Gr. Lat.  
A Small Treatise of the Names of God▪ published by Cotelerius in the Second Vol of the Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae, pag. 116.  
Fragments and Sentences of Evagrius, in the Code of Monastic Rules, in the Apophthegms of the Fathers, and in the Ascetical Treasure, published by Possinus.  
Three Fragments quoted out of the Gnostical and Practical Books, produced by Socrates, Book 3. chap. 3. Book 4. chap. 23.   

BOOKS Lost  
The Gnostical, Practical and Antirrhetical Books.  
Six hundred Problems.  
Two Books of Sentences.     

MARK the Hermit.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
Eight Spiritual Discourses in the Bibliotheca Patrum.   

BOOK Lost.  
A Ninth Discourse against the Melchisedecians.     

SIMPLICIANUS.  


Genuine BOOKS still Extant.  
Two Letters, in Saint Augustin.   

BOOK Lost.  
A Letter mentioned by Gennadius.     

VIGILIUS of Trent. Genuine BOOK.  
A Letter concerning the Martyrs, related by Surius at the 23d. of May.   

PRUDENTIUS.  


Genuine BOOKS.  
Psychomachia.  
Cathemerinôn.  
Peristephanôn.  
Apotheosis.  
Hamartigenia.  
Two Books against Symmachus.  
An Abridgement of some Histories of the Old and New Testament.   

BOOKS Lost.  
The Dittochaeon.  
A Commentary upon the Six Days Work.     

DIADOCHUS.  


Genuine BOOKS.  
A Hundred Chapters concerning a Spiritual Life.   

BOOKS Lost.  
Ten Definitions.     

AUDENTIUS. BOOK Lost.  
A Treatise of Faith against Heretics.   

ENDELECHIUS. Genuine BOOK.  
A Bucolick.   

FLAVIANUS. BOOKS Lost.  
Sermons upon different Subjects, whereof Theodoret produces some Fragments.   

St. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM's Works.  


HOMILIES and SERMONS upon the PENTATEUCH.  


Genuine Books still Extant.  
SIxty seven Homilies upon Genesis, Volume I. of the Eton Edition, from Page 1. to 522. and Vol. 2. of Paris, from Page 1. to 725.  
Nine Homilies upon Genesis in the English Edition Vol. 5. from p. 1. to 38. and in the Paris Edit. Vol. 〈◊〉 from p. 725. to 773.  
Two Fragments of Homilies— Upon Adam and Abraham. V 5. Ed. Eton. p. 648. and 653.    


Books Spurious, or Dubious.  
Ten Homilies upon Genesis, English Edition, V 1. p. 39  
Hom. upon Gen. 1. God saw all his Works, etc. Ed. En. V 5. p. 145. Ed. P. V 6. p 18.  
Hom. upon these words, Gen. 1. Let us make man after our own Image, Ed. En. v. 5 p. 645. P. v. 6. p. 24.  
Latin Homilies, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. upon Genesis in the Latin Edition of Lions, V 1. p. 206, etc.  
Hom. upon these words of Abraham, Gen. 24. v. 10. Put thine hand under my thigh, etc. Ed. En. v. 7. p. 565. P. v. 6. p. 30.  
Hom. upon Adam driven out of Paradise, v. 7. Ed. En. p. 37.  
A Sermon upon the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel, upon the Giants and the Flood, v. 7. Ed. En. p. 458.  
Sermon upon Abraham and Isaac, ibid. p. 394.  
Hom. upon the brazen Serpent, Num▪ 21. Ed. En. v. 5. p. 669. P. v. 6. p. 49.  
Another Homily upon the same, Ed. En. v. 7. p. 448.      


Upon the Books of KINGS.  


Genuine BOOKS.  
FIve Sermons concerning the History of Hannah and Samuel, Ed. Eng. v. 5. from p. 50. to 83. and Paris v. 8. from p. 784. to 854.  
Three Sermons of David and Saul; whereof the first is, v. 8. Ed. En. p. 10. And the two others, v. 6. p. 83. and 89. Ed. p. 841. 854. 864.  
A Sermon upon the History of Elijah and the Widow of Sarepta, 1 Kings 18. Ed. En. v. 8. p. 261. P. v. 5. p. 636.    


BOOKS Spurious.  
Several Sermons upon divers places of the Books of Kings, upon David and Goliab, Ed. L. v. 1. p. 243.  
A Sermon upon the words of David, 2 Kings 7. ibid. p. 244.  
A Sermon upon Absalon, ibid. p. 245.  
Sermon upon Elijah in Latin, ibid. p. 246. and in Greek, v. 6. p. 128. Ed. P.  
Another Sermon upon the same, Ed. L. p. 248.  
A Sermon of the Ascension of Elijah, Ed. L. v. 1. p. 248.  
A Sermon upon Naaman, p. 249.  
A Sermon of Elisha, p. 250.  
A Sermon upon Rachel and her Children, Ed. En. v. 1. p. 317.  
Upon Jordan, ibid. p. 41.  
Four Greek Sermons upon Job, Ed. Eton v. 5. p. 949. P. v. 6. p. 76.  
Five other Latin Sermons upon Job, Ed. L. p. 261.  
A Sermon upon Job, ibid. 265.  
A Sermon upon Job and upon Abraham, p. 267.      


Upon the PSALMS.  


Genuine BOOKS.  
SIxty Homilies upon Psal. 3d, etc. to the 13th. and upon the 41st. and 42d. and so to the 50th. upon the 100dth. and 108th. and so on to the 117th. and from the 119th. to the end, v. 1. Ed. Eng. from p. 522. to 1016, and Vol. 8. p. 1. and 5. Ed. P. v. 3. p. 1. to 551.  
An Homily upon Psal. 13. Ed. P. v. 3. p. 833.  
Two Homilies upon the Title of the 50th. Psal. Ed. Eton. v. 1. p. 692. Ed. P. v. 3. p. 846. and 862.   

BOOKS Spurious.  
Two Latin Prefaces upon the Psalms, Ed. L. v. 1. p. 269. and 270.  
A Discourse of the Usefulness of the Psalms, p. 272. ibid.  
An Homily upon Psal. 1. in Greek, v. 5. Ed. Eng. p. 677. In Latin, Ed. L. v. 1. p. 273.  
An Homily upon the 9th. Psalms, Ed. L. p. 313. upon the 14th. p. 323. upon the 22d. 24, 25, 26. 29. 33. 37, 38, 39 40. 42. 68 71. 84. 90. 93. 95. 96. ibid.  
An Homily upon Psal. 4. Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 431.  
The Homilies upon Psal. 51st. 95th. 100dth. Ed. Eng. v. 1. p. 9 11. and following, Ed. P. v. 3. p. 884.  
Hom. upon Psalm 101st, etc. to 107th. and the Exposition of the 119th. Ed. Eng. v. 1. p. 92.  
Upon the words of Psal. 75. Vo●… & Reddi●e, etc. v. 7. Ed. Eng. p. 260.  
An Homily upon these words of Psal. 38. Man disquieteth himself in vain, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 508. Ed. P. v. 6. p. 114.  
An Homily upon these words of Psal. 121st. Fiat pax in virtute tua, etc. Ed. L. v. 1. p. 483.  
An Homily upon Psal. 92. Dominus regnavit, etc. v. 5. Ed. Eton. p. 680.  
Homily upon these words of the 92d. Psal. Elevaverunt flumina, etc. Eng. Ed. v. 7. p. 256.  
Upon the other words of Psal. 94. Venite, etc. ibid. p. 561.  
Upon Psal. 139. Eripe me, Domine, etc. p. 347. ibid.      


Upon the Books of WISDOM. Spurious.  
UPon these words of the Third Chap. of Wisdom, They seemed as dead to the eyes of Fools.— Ed. L. v. 1. p. 555.    


Upon the PROPHETS.  


Genuine BOOKS.  
A Sermon of the obscureness of Prophecies, Ed. En. v. 6. p. 649. Ed. P. v. 3. p. 799.  
A Sermon of the obscurity of the Old Testament, Ed. En. v. 6. p. 658. P. v. 3. p. 813.  
A Commentary upon the first Seven Chapters of Isaiah, Ed. En. v. 5. p. 100 P. v. 3. p. 554, etc. 〈◊〉 Five Homilies upon the 6th. Chapter of Isaiah, Ed. En. v. 5. p. 127, etc. to 155. Ed. P. v. 3. p. 723. to 762.  
An Homily upon the Seraphim, upon a passage of the 45th. Chapter of Isaiah, verse 7. Ed. En. v. 5. p. 155. and 160. P. v. 3. p. 763. 776.  
An Homily upon Jeremiah, Ch. 10. v. 23. Ed. En. v. 5. p. 168. P. v. 3. p. 789.   

BOOKS Spurious.  
A Sermon upon these words of Is. Ch. 1. If you will hear me, ye shall eat the good things of the Earth, Ed. L. v. 1. p. 598.  
A Sermon upon Isai. Chap. 9 ibid. p. 613.  
A Sermon upon these words, Isai. Chapter 42d. Sing unto the Lord, Ed. L. v. 1. p. 614.  
An Homily upon the Seals of the Books spoken of, Isai. Chap. 46. v. 3. Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 689. P. v. 6. p. 138.  
A Sermon upon Isai. Ch. 62d. of the coming of Jesus Christ. Ed. L. v. 1. p. 615.  
An Homily upon Jerem. Ed. L. v. 1. p. 616.  
A Greek Homily upon Susanna, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 703. Ed. P. v. 6. p. 141.  
A Latin Sermon of Susanna, Ed. L. v. 1. p. 617.  
An Homily of the three Young Men in the fiery furnace of Babylon, Ed. En. v. 5. p. 698. P. v. 6. p. 148.  
Homilies upon these words of the 6th. Chapter of Zachar. Excevir oriens, Ed. L. p. 619.      


Homilies upon whole BOOKS of the New Testament.  


Genuine BOOKS.  
FOurscore and Ten Homilies upon St. Matthew, Ed. En. v. 2. from p. 1. to 555. Ed. P. v. 1. in N. T.  
Eighty seven Homilies upon St. John, v. 2. Ed. En. p. 555. v. 2. Ed. P. in N. T.  
Fifty and four Homilies upon the Acts, Ed. En. v. 4. p. 607.  
Thirty two Homilies upon the Epistle to the Romans, Ed. En. v. 3. p. 1. Ed. P. v. 3. in N. T.  
Forty four Homilies upon the First Epistle to the Corinthians with a Preface, and Thirty upon the Second, Edit. En. v. 3. 243. Edit. P. v. 5. in N. T.  
A Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians, Ed. En. v. 3. p. 763. and Ed. P. v. 5. in N. T. p. 776.  
Four and twenty Homilies upon the Epistle to the Ephesians, Ed. En. v. 3. p. 763. Ed. P. v. 5. in N. T. p. 864.  
Fifteen Homilies upon the Epistle to the Philippians, Ed. En. v. 4. p. 1. Ed. P. in N. T. v. 6. p. 1.  
Twelve Homilies upon the Epist. to the Colossians, Ed. En. v. 4. p. 89. Ed. P. v. 5. in N. T. p. 147.  
Eighteen Homilies upon 1 Thess. and Five upon the Second, Ed. En. v. 4. p. 161. Ed. P. v. 6. in N. T. p. 262.  
Eighteen Homilies upon 1 Tim. with a Preface, and Ten upon the Second, Ed. Eton. v. 4. p. 249. Ed. P. in N. T. v. 6. p. 402.  
Six Homilies upon the Epistle to Titus, Ed. En. v. 4. p. 381. Ed. P. in N. T. v. 6. p. 619.  
Three Homilies upon the Ep. to Philemon, Ed. En. v. 4. p. 411. Ed. P. in N. T. v. 6. p. 770.  
Four and thirty Homilies upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, Ed. Eton. v. 4. p. 427. Ed. P. in N. T. v. 6. p. 692. which are said to have been Collected after his Death, by a Presbyter of his Acquaintance.   

Books Spurious.  
An imperfect Commentary upon St. Matth. Ed. P. v. 2. in N. T. from p. 3. to 196.  
Seven and twenty Latin Homilies upon St. Matthew, whereof the 13th. and 17th. are among St. Chrysologus' Works, Ed. L. v. 2. p. 465, etc. to p. 502.  
Fourteen Homilies in Latin upon St. Mark, ibid. from p. 513. to p. 551.  
Six Homilies upon the Gospel of St. Luke, p. 519. 529. and that of Zaccheus, p. 551.  
Five Homilies upon St. John, p. 164, etc.      


Distinct Sermons upon particular Texts of the New Testament.  


Genuine Books.  
A Sermon upon the Man that was sick of the Palsy, spoken of in St. Matth. ch. 9 vol. 5. Ed. P. p. 814.  
An Homily upon St. Matth. ch. 13. v. 7. Enter in at the strait gate, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 175. Ed. P. v. 5. p. 125.  
An Homily upon the Parable of the Servant who owed Ten thousand Talents, Matth. ch. 18. Ed. En. v. 5. p. 196. Ed. P. v. 5. p. 1.  
An Homily upon St. Matth. ch. 26. v. 39 Father, if it be possible, etc. Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 203. Ed. P. v. 5. p. 114.  
Five Sermons upon the Parable of Dives and Lazarus, Luk. 16. Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 196. 220. 234. 242. 253. Ed. P. v. 5. p. 18, etc.  
An Homily upon the History of the impotent Man, related, John ch. 5. v. 3. Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 264. Ed. P. v. 5. p. 102.  
An Homily of the Usefulness of reading the Holy Scripture upon the beginning of the Acts, Ed. Eng. v. 8. p. 111. P. v. 5. p. 582.  
An Homily upon the Title to the Acts, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 274. P. v. 5. p. 151.  
An Homily why the Book of the Acts is read in the time of Pentecost, Ed. P. v. 5. p. 831.  
An Homily upon St. Paul's Conversion, and changing of his Name, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 282. P. v. 5. p. 164.  
An Homily upon the beginning of Ch. 9 of the Acts, Ed. Eng. v. 8. p. 60. P. v. 5. p. 544.  
An Homily upon the Inscription of the Altar at Athens, To the unknown God, Acts Ch. 17. Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 722. P. v. 5. p. 556.  
An Homily upon changing the Name of Saul into that of Paul, Ed. P. v. 5. p. 850.  
An Homily upon Rom. 5. of glorying in Tribulations, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 292. P. v. 5. p. 180.  
An Homily upon these words, Rom. 8. All things work together for good to those that love God, etc. Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 299. P. v. 5. p. 192.  
An Homily upon the words Ch. 12. of the Rom. If your Enemy hunger, Ed. Eton. v. 5. p. 304. P. v. 5. p. 199.  
Two Homilies upon Rom. Ch. 16. Salute Priscilla, etc. Ed. Eton. v. 5. p. 314. and 321. P. v. 5. p. 216. and 226.  
An Homily upon the beginning of 1 Cor. Ch. 1. ed. eng. v. 8. 111. P. v. 5. p. 568.  
An Homily upon these words, ch. 7. 1 Cor. Let every one have his Wife, etc. Ed. Eton. v. 5. p. 330. ed. P. v. 5. p. 240.  
An Homily upon Chap. 7. 1 Cor. about the Bill of Divorce, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 337. ed. P. v. 5. p. 251.  
An Homily upon these words, Ch. 10. 1 Cor: I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant, etc. ed. eng. v. 5. p. 343. ed. P. v. 5. p. 260.  
An Homily upon these words, Ch. 11. 1 Cor. It is convenient that there be Heresies, ed. Eton. v. 5. p. 362. ed. P: v. 5. p. 273.  
Three Homilies upon 2 Cor. ch. 4. Having the same spirit of Faith, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 368. P. v. 5. p. 296.  
An Homily upon these words, Ch. 11. 2. Cor: Would to God you would bear with my folly a little, ed. eng: v. 5. p. 392. P. v. 5. p. 332.  
An Homily upon these words, Ch. 2. Gal. I withstood him to his face, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 398. P. v. 5. p. 705.  
An Homily upon these words, Ch. 1. to the Philip. whether Christ be preached under a pretence, or in truth, etc. ed. eng. v. 5. p. 410. P. v. 5. p. 343.  
An Homily upon that Ch. 4. 1 Thess. Concerning the dead, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 418. P. v. 5. p. 375.  
An Homily upon these words, 1 Tim. Chap. 5. Let a Widow be chosen above sixty years, etc. ed. eng. v. 5. p. 425. P. v. 5. p. 387.   

Books Spurious.  
A Sermon upon Herod and the Innocents', Matth. Ch. 2. Ed. Eton. vol. 7. p. 318.  
A ●ermon upon these words of the Devil to Jesus Christ, If thou be'st the Son of God cast thyself down; which is attributed to St. Ephrem in some Manuscripts, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 301.  
A Sermon upon these words, Matth. ch. 6. Take heed ye do not your Alms before men, etc. Ed. En. v. 7. p. 486.  
A Sermon upon St. Matth. ch. 7. v. 14, and 15. and upon the Lord's Prayer, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 183. Ed. P. v. 5. p. 137.  
A Sermon upon these words of Jesus Christ, in St. Matth. ch. 6. See that you do not your Alms before men, etc. Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 488. Ed. P. v. 6. p. 523.  
A Sermon upon the Woman that had an Issue of Blood, Matth. ch. 9 Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 816. Ed. P. v. 6. p. 533.  
A Sermon upon these words of St. Matth. ch. 13 The Jews consulted together, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p: 752. Ed. P. v. 6. p. 385.  
Three Sermons upon the Transfiguration, Matth. ch. 17. ed. eng. v. 7. p. 332. 339. 345.  
A Sermon upon the Woman of Cana, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 771. ed. P. v. 6. p. 295.  
A Sermon upon the Parable of an Housholder and his Workmen, Matth. 20. ed. eng. v. 5. p. 508. ed. P. v. 6. p. 539.  
A Sermon upon the withered Figtree, ed. eng. v. 7. p. 252. ed. P. v. 6. p. 552.  
A Sermon upon these words of Jesus Christ, Matth. ch. 18. Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, etc. ed. eng. v. 7. p. 268.  
An Homily upon Matth. ch. 21. By what authority do ye, etc. published by Cotelerius.  
A Sermon upon the Ten foolish Virgins, Matth. 25. ed. eng. v. 7. p. 554. ed. P. v. 6. p. 589.  
A Sermon upon St. Peter's denial, Matth. ch. 26. ed. eng. v. 7. p. 275. ed. P. v. 6. p. 626.  
An Homily upon these words, Matth. 26. The Pharisees consulted together to destroy Jesus, ed. eng. v. 7. p. 326.  
Homilies upon the Women that brought Spices to the Sepulchre of Jesus Christ, ed. Eton. v. 5. p. 740.  
A Sermon upon these words of St. Luke, Caesar Augustus made a Decree that all the World should be taxed, Ed. Eton. v. 5. p. 715. ed. P. v. 6. p. 503.  
A Sermon upon Zacharias' Vision, and Elizabeth's Conception. Ed. Eton, v. 7. p. 340. Ed. P. v. 6. p. 412.  
An Homily upon the Centurion, v. 7. ed. Eton, p. 403.  
An Homily upon the resurrection of the Widow's Son at Naim, ed. Eton. v. 7. p. 439.  
A Sermon upon the publican Woman, whose repentance is recorded in St. Luk. Ch. 7. ed. eng. v. 7. p. 440. ed. P. v 6. p. 395.  
An Homily upon the parable of Seeds, Luk. 8. ed. eng. v. 7. p. 409.  
An Homily of the Pharisee and the Banquet, Luk. 11. Ed. En. v. 7. p. 280. Ed. P. v. 6. p. 560.  
Two other sermons upon the same Subject, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 357. and 376.  
Two Sermons upon the Parable of a man fallen among Thiefs, Luk. 10. Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 387. and 506.  
An Homily upon these words, Luk. 12. I came to bring War, etc. Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 478  
An Homily upon the Groat, Luk. 15. Ed. Eton. v. 7. p. 418.  
An Homily of the Prodigal Son, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 539. Ed. P. v. 6. p. 369.  
An Homily upon the Parable of Lazarus and Dives, Luk. 16. Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 728. Ed. P. v. 6. p. 564.  
A Sermon upon the Parable of the unjust Steward, Luk. 16. Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 433.  
An Homily of the Publican and the Pharisee, Luk. 18. Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 233. Ed. P. v. 6. p. 569.  
Another Sermon upon the same Subject, Ed. En. v. 7. p. 462.  
An Homily upon Zaccheus, Ed. Eton. v. 7. p. 403.  
An Homily of the Blind man and Zaccheus, Luk. 18. Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 731. Ed. P. v. 6. p. 675.  
An Homily upon the first words of St. John's Gospel; In the beginning was the Word, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 745. Ed. P. v. 6. p. 235.  
A Sermon upon the Marriage in Cana of Galilee, John ch. 2. Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 284. Ed. P. v. 6. p. 256.  
An Homily upon John, ch. 11. v. 47. The Jews assembled their Counsel, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 532.  
An Homily upon what Jesus Christ saith of the Shepherd, John ch. 10. Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 984. Ed. P. v. 6. p. 265.  
An Homily upon Christ's coming to Jerusalem, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 369.  
A Sermon upon Lazarus' resurrection in John, ch. 11. Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 270. Ed. P. v. 5. p. 146.  
Four Homilies upon the same Subject, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 320. 524. 528. 530.  
An Homily upon the Woman of Samaria, John 4. Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 42. P. v. 6. p. 409.  
Another Homily upon the same Subject, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 374.  
An Homily of the man sick of a Palsy, John 5. Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 414.  
An Homily of the man born Blind, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 761. P. v. 6. p. 432.  
A Sermon upon these words of St. John, ch. 7. v. 24. Judge not according to outward appearance, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 272.  
An Homily upon these words Romans, ch. 7. v. 15. The good that I would I do not, etc. Ed. Eton. v. 5. p. 789.  
An Homily upon these words, 2 Cor. ch. 12. My grace is sufficient, Ed. Eton. v. 5. p. 799. P. v. 6. p. 340.  
An Homily upon these words of the Epistle to the Hebrews, If we Sin wilfully, there remaineth no more Oblation, etc. Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 772. It is a Fragment of the 20th. and 15th. Homilies upon the Epistle to the Hebrews.      


Sermons upon some Points of Doctrine.  


Genuine BOOKS.  
Fix Sermons against the Jews, ed. eng. v. 6. p. 312, etc. P. v. 1. p. 385, etc.  
An Homily of the Resurrection of the Dead, Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 703. Ed. P. v. 5. p. 440:  
Sermons concerning the Pleasures of another Life, Ed. Eton, v. 8. p. 71. P. v. 5. p. 647.  
Five Sermons of the incomprehensible Nature of God against the Anomaeans, Preached at Antioch, Ed. Eton, v. 6. p. 389, etc. Ed. P. v. 1. p. 294.  
A sixth, Preached at Constantinople, Ed. Eton, v. 6. p. 434. P. v. 1. 698.  
A Sermon of Consubstantiality, Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 425. Ed. P. v. 1. p. 360.  
A Sermon concerning the Request of the Mother of Zebedee's Children, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 206. P. v. 1. p. 374.  
An Homily concerning the Prayers of Jesus Christ, Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 714. P. v. 5. p. 595.  
Two Sermons; One against those who affirm, that the Devil rules things here below; and the other, against such as ask, Why God did not destroy him? Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 680, and 690. P. v. 1. p. 285, and v. 5. p. 689.   

Books Spurious.  
A Discourse upon the Apostle's Creed, Ed. Eton, vol. 5. p. 287.  
A Sermon to Catechumen, Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 971.  
A Sermon directed to the Neophytes, ibid.  
Another Sermon to those that are to be Baptised, ibid. p. 851.  
A Discourse of the Trinity, Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 955. P. v. 6. p. 189.  
A Sermon of the Holy Ghost, Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 729. P. v. 6. p. 204.  
An Homily to prove that there is but one Lawgiver, in the Old and New Covenant. Ed. A. v. 5. p. 622. P. v. 6. p. 1.  
Five Homilies of Providence and Destiny, Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 563.  
A Sermon concerning Faith, and the Law of Nature, Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 837. P. v. 6. p. 177.  
A Sermon against Heretics, Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 979.  
A Latin Sermon upon the Assembly of Angels Ed. A. v. 5. p. 997.      


Sermons upon several Subjects.  


Genuine Books.  
AN Homily when he was designed Priest. Ed. Eton, v. 6. p. 443. P. v. 4. p. 834.  
One and twenty Homilies of Statues, Ed. Eton, v. 6. p. 447, etc. P. v. 1. p. 1, etc. to these must be joined the 22d. concerning Enmity, which followeth in both Editions.  
Sermons against the Superstition of New-years-day, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 355. P. v. 1. p. 264.  
An Homily of Baptism to those who are to be baptised, ed. Eton, v. 6. p. 851. P. v. 1. p. 705.  
The first Discourse upon Eutrcpius, ed. eng. v. 8. p. 67. P. v. 3 p. 666.  
One Sermon before he was Banished, and another after his Return, ed. P. v. 4. p. 842. and 848. Eton, v. 7. p. 941. and 943.  
A Sermon in Commendation of Diodorus, published by Bigotius.  
A Sermon after his Return out of Asia, ed. eng. v. 7. p. 944.  
A Sermon concerning his Reconciliation with Severianus, ed. Eton, v. 7. p. 947, and 948.  
A Sermon after the withdrawing of Gainas. v. 5. ed. P. p. 895. ed. eng. v. 7. p. 936.  
Two Sermons after his Return from Exile, v. 5. ed. P. p. 91.   

Books Spurious.  
Fifty nine Homilies upon several Subjects, which follow after those of Statues. Collections out of several Passages of St. Chrysostom, ed. L. v. 5. p. 75. ad. p 188. v. 5.  
A Sermon concerning false Prophets, ed. Eton, v. 7. p. 41. P. v. 6. p. 473.  
A Sermon upon the beginning of the Year, v. 5. ed. P. p. 820.  
A Discourse of the Circus. ed. eng. v. 6. p 974. P. v. 6. p. 489.  
Against those that fell asleep upon Whitsunday, ed. eng. v. 6. p. 858.  
A Sermon upon the Drought that was among the Inhabitants of Theophania, ed. A. v. 7. p. 352.      


Moral Sermons.  


Genuine Books.  
AN Homily of Penance, ed. Eton, v. 7. p. 943.  
The first Homily Entitled in the Eton Edition, of Fasting, v. 6. p. 824, P. v. 1. p. 579.  
The 2d. and 3d. are lost.  
The 4th. ed. eng. v. 6. p. 798. P. v. 1. p. 588.  
The 5th. ed. eng. v. 6. p. 769. P. v. 1. p. 596.  
The 6th. ed. eng. v. 6. p. 78. P. v. 4. p. 487.  
The 7th. is lost.  
The 8th. is the 2d. of Fasting in the English Edition, v. 6. p. 830. ed. P. v. 1. p. 612.  
The 9th. ed. eng. v. 6. p. 779. P. v. 5. p. 887.  
The 10th. ed. eng. v. 6. p. 763. P. v. 1. p. 623.  
The 11th. ed. eng. v. 6. p. 693. P. v. 5. p. 632.  
There is another Sermon concerning the Conduct of Life, which is Entitled, Of Penance, ed. Eton, v. 6. p. 804. which was Printed more exact by F. Combesis, with a Translation at Paris, in 1645.  
The Sermon concerning anathemas, ed. eng. v. 6. p. 439. ed. P. v. 1. p. 803.  
A Discourse of Repentance, and of the Eucharist, ed. eng. v. 6. p. 790. ed. P. v. 5. p. 488.  
Two Discourses of Prayer, ed. A. v. 6. p. 754. ed. P. v. 1. p. 145.  
Two Sermons of Alms-deeds and Hospitality, ed. eng. v. 5. P. 113. and 123. ed. P. v. 3. p. 689 and 712.  
Another Sermon of Alms, ed. Eton, v. 6. p. 816. ed. P. v. 6. p. 283.  
A Sermon against Gluttony, falsely Entitled, The 6th. Discourse, concerning Providence, ed. Eton, v. 6. p. 879. P. v. 1. p. 740.  
A Sermon against Laziness, ed. Eton, v. 6. p. 844. ed. P. v. 2. p. 882.  
A Discourse of Meekness, ed. Eton, v. 6. p. 740. P. v. 5. p. 538.  
A Sermon concerning the Choice of a Wife, ed. Eton, v. 8. p. 80. P. v. 5. p. 355.  
Two Homilies against those that Fast at Easter, and with the Jews, ed. Eton, v. 6. p. 366. and 377. P. v. 5. p. 608, and 630.  
An Homily against Despair, ed. Eton, v. 8. p. 75. P. v. 5. p. 654.  
A Sermon against discovering our Brethren's Faults, ed. eng. v. 6. p. 695. P. v. 5 p 662.  
A Sermon showing that we should not Preach to please, ed. eng. v. 8. p. 93. P. v. 5. p. 674.   

Books Spurious.  
Three Sermons of Penance, ed. Eton, v. 6. p. 905.  
Another Sermon of Penance, ed. eng. v. 7. p. 282.  
An Homily of Repentance and Continency, by John the Faster, ed. Eton, v. 7. p. 641. P. v. 1. p. 809.  
A Sermon of Prayer, ed. eng. v. 7. p. 476.  
An Homily against Hypocrisy, ed. Eton, v. 7. p. 297. P. v. 6. p. 529.  
A Sermon of Fasting, ed. eng. v. 7. p. 428.  
A Sermon of Fasting, and of almsgiving, ed. eng. v. 6 p. 883. P. v. 6. p. 635.  
Several Sermons of Fasting, ed. eng. v. 7. p. 428. p. 466. P. 469. p. 470. p. 509. p. 510.  
A Sermon of Alms-deeds, ed. eng. v. 7. p. 520.  
Several Homilies about Providence, Riches, and Poverty, ed. L. v. 5. from p. 582. to p. 598.  
A Sermon against Swearing, ibid. p. 599.  
A Sermon against those that live in Pleasures, ibid. p. 600. and 601.  
That none should mourn excessively for the Dead, ed. eng. v. 6. p. 943.  
A Sermon of Faith, Hope, and Charity, ed. eng. v. 7. p. 288. 293. 295. 299. 522.  
Spiritual Admonitions, ed. Eton, v. 7. p. 481.  
Two Homilies of spiritual Warfare, ed. L. v. 5. p. 294. and 296.  
A Sermon of Discipline, ibid. p. 297.  
A Sermon of Virtue, ibid. 298.  
A Sermon to show that we should be more careful of the Salvation of the Soul, than of the health of the Body, ed. eng. v. 6. p. 893.  
A Sermon of the Salvation of the Soul, ibid. v. 6. p. 968.  
A Sermon of Patience, etc. ed. eng. v. 7. p. 435.  
A Sermon to prove that a Disciple of Jesus Christ must be meek, ed. eng. v. 6. p. 903. P. v. 6. p. 468.  
Sermons of Charity and Meekness, ed. eng. v. 6. P. 742. 750.  
Other Moral Sermons, which are Collections out of St. Chrysostom, ibid. v. 5. p. 313. to 375.  
A Sermon to show, That whosoever hath received any Gift of God, aught to impart the same to others, ed. eng. v. 7. p. 42.  
A Sermon against those that accuse Priests of living at ease, taken out of St. Chrysostom's Homilies, out of the 9th. upon the Ep. to the Philip. and out of the Homilies, upon the Ep. to Tim. and to Titus, ed. Eton, v. 6. p. 896.  
A Discourse against those that abused Virgins Consecrated to God, ed. eng. v. 6. p. 976.      


Sermons upon Festival Days.  


Genuine Books.  
AN Homily upon Christmas, ed. Eton, v. 5. p51 1. P. v. 5. p. 417.  
A Sermon of Jesus Christ's Nativity, ed. Eton, v. 5. p. 846. P. v. 6. p. 493.  
An Homily of Christ's Baptism, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 523. P. v. 1. p. 275.  
A Sermon upon the Holy Week, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 540. P. v. 3. p. 712.  
An Homily about Judas' Treason, Preached upon Holy Thursday, ed. A. v. 5. p. 547. P. v. 5. p. 406.  
An Homily upon Christ's Passion, ed. Eton, v. 5. p. 663. P. v. 5. p. 431.  
An Homily concerning the Cross and the Thief, ed. Eton, v. 5. p. 567. P. v. 1. p. 437.  
An Homily of Christ's Resurrection, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 581. P. v. 5. p. 447.  
A Sermon upon Easter, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 885. P. v. 6. p. 641.  
A Sermon upon the Ascension, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 595. P. v. 5. p. 457.  
Four Sermons upon the Ascension, P. v. 6. p. 448, etc.  
Two Sermons upon Pentecost, ed. Eton, v. 5. p. 602. and 611. P. v. 5. p. 468. and 481.   

Spurious Books.  
An Homily upon the Annunciation, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 889. P. v. 6. p. 350.  
Sermons upon the same Subject, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 515. 237. 247.  
A Sermon upon Christmas, v. 5. Edit. Eng. p. 843.  
Three other Sermons upon the same Festival, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 307. 367. 400.  
Two Sermons upon the Theophany, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 350. and p. 388. P. v. 6. p. 252. and p. 361.  
An Homily of Circumcision, and concerning Simeon, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 872. P. v. 6. p. 245.  
A Sermon upon the Epiphany, which is also attributed to St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, ed. eng. v. 7. p. 657.  
An Homily upon Mid-Lent, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 876.  
An Homily of Judas his Treason, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 893.  
An Homily upon Good-Friday, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 906. P. v. 6. p. 403.  
An Homily upon the Good Thief, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 910.  
A Sermon upon the Passion, ed. eng. v. 7. p. 459.  
A Sermon concerning the Cross, ed. eng. v. 7. p. 502. P. v. 6. p. 288.  
A second Sermon upon the same Subject, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 868. P. v. 6. p. 611.  
A third Sermon, ed. eng. v. 7. p. 864. P. v. 6. p. 620.  
A fourth, about the Worship of the Cross, ed. eng. v. 7. p. 493. P. v. 6. p. 611.  
A Sermon of the Exaltation of the Cross, ed. eng. v. 7. p. 661. written by Pantaleon the Monk.  
An Homily upon Palm-Sunday, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 882.  
A Sermon of the Resurrection, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 592. P. v. 6. p. 442.  
Another Sermon upon Christ's Resurrection, ed. eng. v. 7. p. 264. 506.  
An Homily upon Easter, v. 5. ed. Eton, p. 148.  
Seven Discourses upon the Fast of Easter, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 977.  
Sermons upon Ascension and Whitsunday, ibid.  
Sermons upon Ascension, ed. Eton, v. 7. p. 330. P. 424. p. 466.  
An Homily on Whitsunday, ed. Eton, v. 5. p. 976. P. v. 6. p. 227.  
An Homily between Easter and Whitsunday, ed. Eton, v. 7. p. 372.  
An Homily upon the Feast of Pentecost, ed. Eton. v. 7. p. 582.  
An Homily on Christ's second coming, ed. Eton, v. 5. p. 782. P. v. 6. p. 651.      


Sermons upon the Saints.  


Genuine BOOKS.  
A Panegyric upon all the Saints, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 618. P. v. 5. p. 685.  
A Panegyric upon all the holy Martyrs, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 614. P. v. 1. p. 792.  
An Homily concerning the Martyrs, Ed. P. v. 5. p. 860.  
A Fragment of an Homily in praise of Abraham, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 653. P. v. 1. p. 799.  
Three Homilies upon the Maccabees, and their Mother, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 640. 633. 637. P. v. 1. p. 516. 552. 556.  
A Discourse of St. Peter and Elias, Ed. Eng. v. 8. p. 18. P. v. 1. p. 758.  
Seven Homilies in praise of St. Paul, Ed. Eton, v. 8. p. 33. P. v. 5. p. 492.  
A Panegyric upon St. Ignatius, Ed. Eton, v. 5. p. 498. P. v. 1. p. 508.  
A Panegyric upon St. Meletius Bishop of Antioch, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 537. P. v. 1. p. 323.  
Panegyric upon St. Babylas, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 438. P. v. 1. p. 641.  
A Panegyric upon St. Philogonius, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 505. P. v. 1. p. 551.  
Panegyric upon St. Eustatbius, ed. eng. v. 5. p. 628. P. v. 1. p. 571.  
A Sermon upon the S S. Domnina, Bere●●ce & Prosdoce, ed. Eton, v. 5. p. 473. P. v. 1. p. 557.  
An Homily upon St. Pelagia, Ed. Eton, v. 5. p. 482 P. v. 1. p. 491.  
A Sermon upon S. Romanus, Martyr of Antioch, Ed. Eton, v. 5. p. 488. P. v. 1. p. 508.  
A Sermon upon S. Barlaam, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 493. P. v. 1. p. 785.  
A Sermon upon S. S. Juventinus and Maximus Martyrs, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 533. P. v. 1. p. 485.  
Panegyric upon S. Lucian Martyr, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 529. P. v. 1. p. 530.  
Panegyric upon Julian Martyr, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 621. P. v. 1. p. 535.  
An Homily upon the Egyptian Martyrs, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 519. P. v. 1. p. 770.  
Panegyric upon S. Phocas, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 826. P. v. 1. p. 775.  
Panegyric upon S. Thecla, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 943. P. v. 1. p. 785.  
An Homily upon S. Bassus, Edit. P. v. 5. p. 869.  
A Panegyric upon S. Drosis, Edit. P. v. 5. p. 877.   

Books Spurious.  
A Sermon concerning Joseph and Chastity, Ed. Eton, v. 5. p. 656. P. v. 6. p. 134.  
A Discourse about Elias the Prophet, Ed. Eton, v. 5. p. 672. P. v. 6. p. 128.  
Upon S. John's Conception, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 831. P. v. 6. p. 516.  
A Sermon upon S. John, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 531. P. v. 6. p. 311.  
Two Sermons upon S. John the Baptist and Herodias, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 545. and 549. P. v. 6. p. 281. 379.  
Two other Sermons upon S. John, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 531. and 533.  
A Sermon upon the Twelve Apostles, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 995. P. v. 6. p. 320.  
An Homily upon S. Peter and S. Paul, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 995. P. v. 6. p. 315.  
A Sermon of S. Thomas, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 837. P. v. 5. p. 324.  
Another Sermon upon S. Thomas, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 575.  
A Sermon upon S. Stephen, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 864. P. v. 6. p. 328.  
Another Sermon upon the same, Ed. Eng. v. 9 p. 871.  
Three others, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 579.  
A Panegyric upon S. John the Evangelist, Ed. P. v. 6. p. 605.  
Two other Sermons upon S. John the Evangelist, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 342. 344.  
A second Sermon upon S. Romanus, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 840. P. v. 1. p. 546.      


St. Chrysostom's Treatises.  


Genuine BOOKS.  
A Book against the Gentiles, Ed. Eng. v. 5. p. 442. P. v. 1. p. 647.  
A Writing against Jews and Gentiles, to prove that Jesus Christ is God, Ed. A. v. 6. p. 622. P. v. 5. p. 725.  
A Treatise against those who find fault with a Monastic Life, Edit. Eton, v. 6. p. 161. P. v. 4. p. 355.  
A Comparison betwixt a Monk and a King, Ed. Eton, v. 7. p. 230. P. v. 4. p. 449.  
A Treatise against such as will be scandalised without a cause, Edit. Eng. v. 7. p. 1. P. v. 5. p. 756.  
Two Discourses to Theodorus, the second ought to be placed first, Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 55. P. v. 4. p. 545.  
Six Books of the Priesthood, Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 1. P. v. 4. p. 1.  
A Treatise of Compunction of heart to Demetrius, Ed. Eton, v. 6. p. 138. P. v. 4. p. 98.  
Two Books of Compunction of heart to Stelechius, Ed. Eton, v. 6. p. 151. P. v. 4. p. 121.  
Three Books of Divine Providence to Stagirius, Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 84. P. v. 4. p. 1. 7.  
A Treatise of Virginity, Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 244. P. v. 4. p. 275.  
Two Discourses against women's dwelling with Clergymen, Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 214. and 230. P. v. 4. p. 225. and 247.  
Another Discourse showing, That a Clergyman ought not to use jesting, Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 963. P. v. 6. p. 594.  
Two Discourses to a Young Widow, Ed. Eng. v. 6. p. 296. and 304. P. v. 4. p. 456. and 469.  
A Treatise to show that no man can be offended but by himself, Edit. Eng. v. 7. p. 36. P. v. 4. p. 498.  
Two Letters to Pope Innocent, Ed. P. v. 4. p. 593. and 599.  
A Letter concerning his Persecution to the Priests and Bishops cast into Prison. Edit. P. p. 600.  
Two hundred forty two Letters to Olympias and others, Ed. Eng. v. 7. p. 51. to p. 205. P. v. 4. p. 603, etc. to p. 834.  
A Letter to Caesarius a Monk, Printed by itself;   

Spurious Book.  
Liturgy, Edition Eton, v. 6. p. 983. P. v. 4. p. 522.  
Edit. Eng. and Eton, signifies Sir Henry Savile's Edition in Greek; P. is Paris Edition in Greek and Latin; L. is the Lion's Edition, only in Latin.       

ANTIOCHUS'.  


Genuine Books.  
A Fragment produced by Theodoret, in his Second Dialogue.  
Other Fragments produced by Gelasius in the Book of the two Natures.   

Books Lost.  
A Discourse against Covetousness.  
A Sermon upon the Parable of the Man that was Born Blind, and several other Homilies.     

SEVERIANUS.  


Genuine Books.  
A Sermon on the Seals, another upon the brazen Serpent, & several others which are found among St. Chrysostom's.  
Six Sermons of the Creation of the World.  
Two Fragments produced by Gelasius and some others, drawn from the Catenae upon the Scripture.   

Books Lost.  
A Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians.  
A Treatise upon the Feast of the Baptism and Epiphany of Jesus Christ.  
A Discourse against Novatus, and several Sermons.     

ASTERIUS.  


Genuine Books.  
Eleven Sermons on different Subjects.  
Extracts of several others related by Photius.  
Three Homilies upon the Psalms, published by Cotelerius; if they are really his.   

Books Lost.  
Several other Sermons.     

ANASTASIUS.  


Genuine Book.  
A Letter to John of Jerusalem.   

Books Lost.  
A Synodical Letter against Origen.  
A Letter to Rufinus.  
A Letter to Venerius.  
A Treatise of the Incarnation.   

Supposititious Books.  
Two Letters, one to the Bishops of Germany and Burgundy, and the other to Nectarius.     

CHROMACIUS.  


Genuine Book.  
A Discourse upon the Beatitudes.   

Books Lost.  
Commentaries upon the whole Gospel of St. Matthew.  
Several Sermons.   

Supposititious Book.  
Letter of Chromacius to St. Jerom, upon the Martyrology.     

GAUDENTIUS. Genuine Books.  
Nineteen Sermons.  
Four small Treatises.  
The Life of St. Philastrius.   

JOHN of Jerusalem.  


Book Lost.  
An Apologetic against his Enemies.   

Supposititious Book.  
Treatise to Caprasius of the Institution of Monks.     

THEOPHILUS of Alexandria.  


Genuine Books.  
Three Paschal Letters, among the Works of St. Jerom.  
Three other Letters, ibid.  
Some Greek Fragments of other Paschal Letters, related by Theodoret and the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.  
Another Fragment of his Treatise against Origen, and two Fragments of a Treatise addressed to the Monks of Scitha.  
Five Canonical Letters.   

Books Lost.  
A Treatise against Origen.  
A Treatise against the Anthropomorphites.  
A Cycle of the Feast of Easter.  
A Treatise to the Monks of Scitha, written against St. John Chrysostom.  
Two first Paschal Letters, and the Sixth.     

THEODORUS of Mopsuestia.  
* Vide the Catalogue of his Works in his Life.   

PALLADIUS. Genuine Books.  
— Historia Lausiaca.  
Life of St. John Chrysostom, written perhaps by another Palladius.   

INNOCENT I. Genuine Works.  
Thirty four Letters, whereof the Thirtieth is Supposititious.   

St. JEROM.  


Genuine Books still Extant.  
Forty nine Letters of Exhortation, Instruction or Commendation, with the Lives of St. Paul the Hermit, St. Hilarion and Malchus contained in the first Tome of his Works.  
A Treatise against Helvidius.  
Two Books against Jovinian.  
An Apology for those Books addressed to Pammachius.  
An Apologetical Letter to Domnion and Pammachius.  
A Letter and Treatise against Vigilantius.  
A Letter to Marcelia against Montanus.  
A Letter to Riparius against Vigilantius.  
A Letter to Apronius against the Origenists.  
Two Letters to Damasus upon the Hypostases.  
A Dialogue against the Luciferians.  
A Letter to Avitus, concerning the Errors of Origen.  
A Translation of the Letter of St. Epiphanius to John of Jerusalem.  
A Letter to Pammachius against the Errors of John of Jerusalem.  
A Letter to Theophilus against the same.  
A Letter to Rufinus.  
Three Books of Apology against Rufinus.  
A Letter to Ctesiphon, and Three Books of Dialogues against the Pelagians.  
Three Letters to Theophilus.  
A Letter against Vigilantius.  
Some other Letters on divers Subjects of Doctrine, particularly to St. Augustin.  
A Treatise of the best manner of Translating.  
Fifty Critical Letters or thereabouts, upon the Holy Scriptures.  
A Book of the Names of Countries and Cities mentioned in the Bible.  
An Explication of the Proper Names of the Hebrews.  
An Explication of the Hebrew Alphabet and Jewish Traditions.  
Letters to Minerius and Paulinus.  
A Treatise of Illustrious Men, or of Ecclesiastical Writers.  
A Latin Version of the Text of the Bible from the Septuagint.  
A New Version from the Hebrew Text.  
Eighteen Books of Commentaries upon Isaiah.  
Six Books upon Jeremiah.  
Fourteen Books upon Ezekiel.  
One Book upon Daniel.  
A Commentary upon Ecclesiastes, and upon the Twelve minor Prophets.  
A Harmony of the Four Gospels.  
Four Books of Notes upon the Gospel of St. Matthew.  
Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul to the Galatians, to the Eph●sians, to Titus, and to Philemon.  
A Translation of the Book of Di●ymus, concerning the Holy Ghost.  
A Translation of some Homilies of Origer.  
A Translation of Eusebius' Chronicon.   

Books Lost.  
Annotations upon the Psalms.  
A Commentary upon the Tenth Psalm, and upon the Six following.  
A Treatise upon the Book of Job.  
A Treatise of Heresies.  
A Treatise of the Resurrection.  
A Letter to Antius.  
Annotations upon the Prophets.   

Supposititious Books.  
Questions, upon the Chronicles, and upon the Books of Kings.  
An Explication of the Names of Countries and Cities spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles.  
A Commentary upon the Lamentations of Jeremiah.  
A Book of Annotations upon St. Mark.  
A Commentary upon the Psalms.  
A Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul.  
A Letter to Demetrias.  
Letters and Treatises in the last Tome, upon which there is a Censure passed at the end of the Account of St. Jerom's Works in this Volume.     

RUFINUS.  


Genuine Books.  
Translations of the Works of several Authors, of which there is a Catalogue in Rufinus' Life.  
Two Books of Ecclesiastical History.  
A Discourse concerning the Falsification of the Books of Origen.  
A Book of Invectives against St. Jerom.  
An Apology, to Pope Anastasius.  
An Explication of the Creed.  
An Explication of the Benedictions of Jacob.  
A Commentary upon the Prophets, Hosea, Joel, and Amos.   

Books Lost.  
Several Letters, and some Translations.   

Supposititious Book.  
A Commentary upon the Seventy five First Psalms.     

SOPHRONIUS.  


Genuine Book.  
A Version into Greek of St. Jerom's Treatise of Illustrious Men.   

Books Lost.  
An Elegy on Bethlehem.  
A Discourse of the Ruin of Serapis.  
A Translation of St. Jerom's Treatise of Virginity.  
A Translation of the Latin Version of the Psalms and the Prophets, made by St. Jerom.     

SULPICIUS SEVERUS.  


Genuine Books.  
An Abridgement of Sacred History divided into two Books.  
The Life of St. Martin.  
Three Letters concerning the Virtues and Death of that Saint.  
Three Dialogues.  
Seven Letters.   

Books Lost.  
Several Letters of Piety.     

St. PAULINUS.  


Genuine Books.  
Fifty Letters of Doctrine and Piety.  
The Passion of St. Genesius.  
Thirty two Pieces of Poetry.   

Books Lost.  
An Abridgement of the History of the Kings.  
A Panegyric upon Theodosius.  
A Letter to his Sister, of the Contempt of the World; and some others.  
A Treatise of Penance, and of the Praise of Martyrs.  
Offices upon the Sacraments.     

PELAGIUS.  


Genuine Books.  
A Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul attributed to St. Jerom.  
A Letter to Demetrias, and some others, in the last Tome of St. Jerom.  
A Confession of Faith, to Pope Innocent.  
Fragments of a Treatise of the Power of Nature, and freewill, in St. Augustin.   

Books Lost.  
A Treatise of the Power of Nature.  
Several Books concerning freewill.     

COELESTIUS. Genuine Books.  
Six Propositions.  
Eight Definitions or Reasonings.  
A Profession of Faith, to Pope Zosimus, of which we have only some Fragments.   

NICEAS. Books Lost.  
Six Books of Instructions.  
A Treatise addressed to a Virgin fallen into Sin.   

OLYMPIUS. Book Lost.  
A Treatise of the Beginning and Nature of Sin.   

BACHIARIUS.  


Genuine Work.  
A Letter concerning the Penance of a Monk.   

Books Lost.  
A Treatise of Faith.  
A Discourse concerning the End of Solomen's Life.     

SABBATIUS. Book Lost.  
A Treatise of Faith.   

ISAAC. Genuine Book.  
A Treatise concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation.   

PAULUS OROSIUS. Genuine Book.  
An Universal History▪ entitled Hormesta.   

LUCIAN. Genuine BOOK.  
The History of the Invention of the Relics of St. Stephen.   

AVITUS. Genuine BOOK.  
A Translation of the Book of Lucian, of the Invention of the Relics of St. Stephen.   

EVODIUS.  


Genuine BOOK.  
A Treatise of Faith or of the Unity of the Trinity, among the Works of St. Augustine.   

Supposititious BOOKS.  
Two Books of the Miracles of St. Stephen's Relics.     

SEVERUS. Genuine WORK.  
A Letter of the Conversion of the Jews in the Island of Minorca, made by the Miracles of the Relics of St. Stephen.   

MARCELLUS MEMORIALIS. Genuine BOOK.  
The Acts of the Conference of Carthage.   

EUSEBIUS. BOOK Lost.  
A Treatise of the Mystery of the Cross.   

URSINUS. Genuine BOOK.  
A Treatise concerning the Rebaptising of those Baptised by Heretics.   

MACARIUS. BOOK Lost.  
A Treatise against Astrologers.   

HELIODORUS. BOOK Lost.  
A Treatise of Virginity.   

PAULUS. BOOK Lost.  
A Treatise of Penance.   

HELVIDIUS. BOOK Lost.  
A Treatise against the Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, refused by St. Jerom.   

VIGILANTIUS. WORKS Lost.  
Some Treatises of the Discipline of the Church.   

St. AUGUSTINE.  


TOME I.  


Genuine WORKS.  
Two Books entitled of Retractations.  
Thirteen Books of Confessions.  
Three Books against the Academics.  
A Treatise of Blessedness.  
Two Books of Order.  
Two Books of Soliloquies.  
A Treatise of the Immortality of the Soul.  
A Treatise of the Quantity of the Soul.  
A Treatise of Music, divided into six Books.  
The Book Of a Master.  
Three Books of freewill.  
Two Books upon Genesis against the Manichees.  
A Book of the True Religion.  
The Rule.    


WORKS Lost.  
A Treatise of Beauty and Knowledge.  
Treatises of Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric, Geometry, Arithmetic and Philosophy.    


Supposititious BOOKS.  
Treatises of Grammar.  
Of Logic.  
Of Categories.  
Of Rhetoric.  
Monastic Rules.      


TOME II.  


Genuine WORKS.  
Two Hundred and Seventy Letters, divided into four Classes.  
The first contains the Letters written from the time of his Conversion to his Ordination, from the year 386. to the year 395. in Number thirty.  
The second contains the Letters written to the year 410. in Number 92.  
The third, the Letters written between that time and his Death, to the Number of 109.  
The last Class contains the Letters to which there are no dates; in Number 39   

Supposititious WORKS.  
Thirteen Letters of St. Augustin to Boniface, and of Boniface to St. Augustin.  
A Letter to Demetrias.  
A Letter of St. Augustin to St. Cyril.  
A Dispute with Pascentius.      


TOME III. Which Contains the Treatises upon Scripture.  


Genuine.  
Four Books of Christian Doctrine.  
An imperfect Work upon Genesis.  
Twelve Books upon Genesis.  
●…ical Books of the ways of speaking used in the 〈…〉 Books of the Bible.  
〈◊〉 B●●ks of Questions upon the same Books.  
●…s upon Job.  
T●… 〈◊〉 glass.  
A ●…f the Harmony of the Gospels, divided into ●…s.  
A ●…ry upon the Sermon of Jesus Christ upon ●….  
〈…〉 Questions upon the Gospel of St. Matth. 〈…〉 whether this Book be Genuine.  
A 〈…〉 twenty four Treatises upon the Gospel of 〈…〉  
●…es upon the first Epistle of St. John.  
●…cation of several places of the Epistle to the ●…s.  
●…ct Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans  
A continued Commentary upon the Epistle to the Gala●…s.   

Supposititious.  
T●…tise of the Miracles in the Scripture, divided into 〈◊〉 Books.  
A Discourse of the Benedictions of the Patriarch Jacob.  
Q●…s upon the Old and New Testament.  
An Explication of the Revelation.      


TOME IU. Genuine.  
An Explication of the Psalms.    


TOME V.  


Genuine.  
An Hundred eighty three Sermons, upon several passages of the Old and New Testament.  
Fig●ty eight Sermons upon the great Festivals of the Year.  
Sixty nine upon the Festivals of the Saints.  
Twenty three upon divers Subjects.  
Fragments of the Sermons of St. Augustin.   

Supposititious.  
The last Class of Sermons which contains those that are dubious.  
The Addition which contains three hundred and seventeen supposititious Sermons.      


TOME VI Which Contains the Dogmatical Works.  


Genuine.  
Answers to eighty three Questions.  
Two Books of Questions to Simplicianus.  
Answers to Eight Questions of Dulcitius.  
A Treatise o● the Belief of things that we know nothing of.  
An Explication of the Creed.  
A Treatise of Faith and good Works.  
The Manual to Laurentius.  
The Combat of a Christian.  
The Book of Instruction.  
A Treatise of Continence.  
A Treatise of the advantages of Marriage.  
A Treatise of the Holy Virginity.  
A Treatise of the advantages of Widowhood.  
Two Books concerning those Marriages, which cannot be excused of Adultery.  
A Book concerning Lying.  
A Treatise against Lying.  
A Treatise of the Labour of Monks.  
A Treatise against the Predictions of the Devil.  
A Treatise of the care we ought to have for the dead.  
A Treatise of Patience.  
A Sermon upon the Creed.   

Supposititious.  
Three Sermons on the Creed.  
A Sermon of the fourth Day of Passion Week.  
A Discourse concerning the Deluge.  
A Sermon upon the Persecution of the Barbarians.  
A Sermon upon the new Canticle.  
A Sermon of the Discipline and Usefulness of fasting.  
A Sermon upon the taking of Rome.  
A Collection of Twenty one Questions.  
Sixty five Questions.  
A Book of Faith to Peter.  
A Book of the Spirit, and of the Soul.  
A Treatise of Friendship.  
A Book of the Substance of Love.  
A Book of the Love of God.  
Soliloquies.  
A Book of Meditations.  
A Treatise of Contrition of Heart.  
The Manual.  
The Looking-glass.  
The Looking-glass of a Sinner.  
The Ladder of Paradise.  
A Treatise of the knowledge of Life.  
A Book of the Christian Life.  
A Book of wholesome Instructions.  
A Book of the twelve Abuses of the Age.  
The Combat of Virtues and Vices.  
A Book of Sobriety and Charity.  
A Book of true and false Repentance.  
A Treatise of Antichrist.  
A Treatise upon the Magnificat.  
A Treatise of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin.  
A Discourse concerning the Visitation of the Sick.  
Some Sermons.  
Sermon to the Brother's Hermits.      


TOME VII. Genuine.  
Twenty two Books of the City of God.    


TOM VIII. Contains his Writings against Heretics.  


Genuine.  
A Treatise of Heresies to Quodvultdeus.  
A Treatise against the Jews.  
A Treatise of the Usefulness of Faith.  
A Treatise of two Souls.  
A Conference with Fortunatus.  
A Treatise against Adimantus.  
A Treatise against the Epistle of the foundation of the Manichees.  
Thirty three Books against Faustus a Manichee.  
A Conference with Felix.  
A Treatise of the Nature of Good.  
A Book against Secundinus.  
Two Books against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets.  
A Treatise against the Priscillianists and the Origenists.  
An Answer to a Discourse of an Arian.  
A Conference against Maximinus.  
Fifteen Books of the Trinity.   

Supposititious.  
A Discourse of five Heresies.  
A Trial between the Church and the Synagogue.  
The Book of Faith.  
A Memorial of the manner of Receiving the Manichees.  
A Book of the Unity of the Trinity.  
A Treatise of the Essence of the Divinity.  
A Dialogue of the Unity of the Holy Trinity.  
A Book of Ecclesiastical Doctrines.      


TOME IX. Contains the Treatises against the Donatists.  


Genuine.  
A Hymn against the Donatists.  
Three Books against the Epistle of Parmenian.  
Seven Books of Baptism.  
Three Books against Petilianus.  
A Letter to the Catholics against Petilianus.  
Four Books against Cresconius.  
A Book of one Baptism against Petilianus.  
An Abridgement of the Conference of Carthage.  
A Discourse addressed to the Donatists after the Conference of Carthage.  
A Conference with Emeritus.  
Two Books against Gaudentius.   

WORKS Lost.  
A Book against the Epistle of Donatus.  
Two Books against the Donatists.  
A Book against Centurius.  
A Book of the Proofs and Testimonies against the Donatists.  
A Treatise against a Donatist.  
Advertisements to the Donatists.  
A Discourse addressed to Emeritus.   

Supposititious.  
A Sermon concerning Rusticianus.  
A Book against Fulgentius.      


TOME X. Contains the Treatises against the Pelagians.  


Genuine.  
Three Books of Merits, and of the Remission of Sins.  
A Book of the Spirit, and of the Letter.  
A Treatise of Nature and Grace.  
A Book of the Acts of Pelagius.  
A Treatise of the Grace of Jesus Christ.  
A Treatise of Original Sin.  
A Treatise of the Perfection of Justice.  
Two Books of Marriage and of Concupiscence.  
Six Books against Julian.  
Four Books to Boniface.  
A Book of Grace and freewill.  
A Treatise of Correction and Grace.  
A Treatise of the Predestination of the Saints.  
A Treatise of the Gift of Perseverance.  
Six Books of the second Work against Julian.  
Four Treatises of the Origin of the Soul.   

Supposititious.  
A Treatise, entitled Hypognosticon.  
A Treatise of Predestination and Grace.  
A Treatise of Predestination.       

ZOSIMUS. Genuine WORKS.  
The First Letter to the Africans.  
The Second Letter to the Africans.  
The Third Letter to the Africans.  
A Fragment of a Letter to all the Bishops against Coelestius and Pelagius.  
A Letter to the Bishops of Gaul of the Privileges of the Church of Arles.  
A Letter to the Bishops of Gallia Viennensis, and Gallia Narbonensis.  
A Letter to Hilary of Narbon.  
Two Letters to Patroclus.  
A Letter to the People of Marseilles.  
A Circular Letter against Ursus and Tuentius.  
A Letter to Hesychius, Bishop of Salona.  
A Letter to the Clergy of Ravenna.  
A Letter to the Bishops of Byzacena very doubtful.   

BONIFACE I. Genuine WORKS.  
A Letter to the Emperor.  
A Letter to Patroclus, and to the Bishops of the Seven Provinces of the Gauls.  
Letters to Hiary of Narbon.   

SYNESIUS.  


Genuine BOOKS.  
A Discourse of the manner of Reigning well.  
A Discourse to Poeonius.  
A Book, entitled Dion Prusaeus.  
A Panegyric upon Baldness.  
Two Books of Providence.  
A Discourse of Dreams.  
One hundred and fifty Letters.   

WORKS lost.  
Cynegeticks.      

A Table of the Acts, Professions of Faith, and Canons of the Councils, mentioned in this Volume.  
Councils. Years held in. Acts, Professions of Faith, and Canons. Of Rome. under Innocent.  A Preface and sixteen Canons. O● M●●●vis. 402 Five Canons. Of Constantinople and of Ephesus. 400 & 401 Acts of this Council in Palladius. In the Suburbs of Chalcedon. 403 Acts of this Council, an Abridgement of them in Photius. O● Carthage. 403 Acts, related in the Acts of the 3d. Conference of Carthage. Of Carthage. 404 Acts of this Council in the Code of the Canons of Africa. Of Carthage. 405 An Abridgement of the Acts in the same Code. Of Carthage. 407 Twelve Canons in the same Code. Of Carthage. 408 Deputations mentioned in the African Code. Another of the same Year.   Of Carthage. 409 A Declaration in the African Code. Of Carthage. 410 Deputation, ibid. Of Ptolemais. 411 See the 67th. Letter of Synesius. Of Carthage. 411 Acts. Of Zerta. 412 The 141st. Letter among those of St. Augustin. First of Carthage against Coelestius. 411 Fragment of the Acts of this Council in St. Augustin, Book 2. Of Nature and of Grace. Conference of Jerusalem. 415 Acts. Of Diospolis. 418 Acts, in St. Augustin, in the Book of the Acts of Pelagius. Second of Carthage against Coelestius and Pelagius. 416  Of Milevis. 416 Letters, 175th. 176th. and 177th amongst those of St. Augustin. Of Carthage. 417 Letter to Zosimus, and a Collection of some pieces. Of Carthage. 418 Eight Canons against the Errors of Pelagius, and Ten Canons concerning Discipline. Of Tella or Zella. 418 Some Canons. Of Carthage concerning Apiarius, in the Year. 418 Acts. Letter to Zosimus. Another in 419  Of Ravenna. 419 Acts, Thirty three Canons, six other Canons, Letters to Boniface, and to Celestine. Of Carthage in the Year. 420  Of Constantinople. 426 A Synodical Letter. Of Carthage against Leporius. 427 Profession of Faith, and Letter to the Bishops of Gaul. Of Constantinople. 428    

A Table of all the Writings of the Ecclesiastical Authors mentioned in this Volume, according to the Order of their Arguments.  

Treatises for the Christian Religion against the Pagans and Jews.  
ST. Chrysostom's Treatise against the Gentiles.  
Prudentius' two Books against Symmachus.  
St. Chrysostom's six Sermons against the Jews.  
A Discourse against the Jews and Gentiles.  
St. Augustin's Book of the true Religion, and of the manners of the Church.  
— His twenty two Books of the City of God.  
— His Treatise against the Jews.  
— His Letters 16th. 17th, 91st, 232d, 233d, 234th. 235th.   

Treatises against Heretics.  
St. Augustin's Treatise of Heresies.  


MANICHEES.  
St. Augustin's two Books upon Genesis against the Manichees.  
— His Book of the Manners of the Church, and of the Manners of the Manichees.  
— Of the Usefulness of Faith.  
— Of Two Souls.  
— Conference with Fortunatus and Felix.  
— Against Adimantus.  
— Against the Epistle of the Foundation of the Manichees.  
— Against Faustus, Thirty three Books.  
— Of the Nature of Good.  
— Against Secundinus.  
— Against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets. Two Books.  
— Letters 79th. and 236th.    


ORIGENISTS.  
Anastasius' Letter to John of Jerusalem, and a fragment of a Synodical Letter of his against Origen.  
John of Jerusalem his Apology.  
Theophilus' Paschal Letters.  
St. Jerom's Apologetic to Domnion and Pammachius.  
— Letters to Apronius and Avitus against the Errors of Origen.  
— His three Books of Apology against Rufinus.  
〈◊〉 Invectives of Rufinus against St. Jerom.  
— His Apology to Pope Anast●sius.  
〈…〉 Augustin's Freatise against the Origenists and Pris●….  
— His 237th Letter against the Priscillianists.  
— His 265th. Letter against the Novatians.    


ARIANS.  
〈…〉 Jerom's Treatise against Helvidius.  
— His two Books against Jovinian, with his Apology to Pammachius.  
— His Treatise against Vigilantius, and two Books against the same.  
— Dialogue against the Lucif●rians.  
〈…〉 Augustin's Answer to the Discourse of an Arian.  
— His Conference against Maximinus.  
— His Letters 238th. 239th, 240th, 241st, and 242d.    


PELAGIANS.  
〈…〉 Jer●●'s Letter to C●esiphon, and three Books of Dialogues against the Pelagians.  
〈…〉 A●gustin's Treatise against the Pelagians, contained in the tenth Tome of his Works, whereof see the Catalogue in the preceding Table.  
— His Letter 140th. and others noted in the Table of Letters, disposed according to their Arguments by the Benedictines.  
〈◊〉 of the Council of Carthage of the Year 4●8.  
Acts of the Council of Diospolis, of the Conference of Jerusalem, and of the Councils of Carthage and Mile●… against Pelagius and Coelestius.    


DONATISTS.  
St. Augustin's Treatises against the Donatists, contained in the ninth Tome of his Works. See the Catalogue as above.  
— His other Treatises and Letters against the same Heretics; whereof there is a Table at the end of the ninth Tome.  
— His Letter 23d. and others marked by the Benedictines in the Table of Letters.     

Treatises upon the Articles of Religion.  
St. Chrysostom's six Discourses, of the incomprehensible Nature of God.  
— His Treatise of the Divine Providence to Stagyrius.  
— Treatise of Virginity.  
●…us's Explication of the Creed.  
The Confe●sions of Faith of Pelagius and Coelestius.  
St. Augustin's Treatises of the true Religion, and the Manners of the Church.  
— his explication of the Creed.  
— Manual to Laurentius.  
— Discourse of the Instruction of the Ignorant.  
— Discourse of the Belief of things we cannot comprehend.  
— Treatise of Faith and Good Works.  
— Treatise of the Usefulness of Faith.  
— Letters upon d●vers Articles of Religion, marked in the Catalogue of the Benedictines.  
— his Books of Retractations.  


Upon the Trinity.  
St. Jerom's two Letters to Damasks upon the Hypostases.  
St. Chrysostom's Sermon concerning the Consubstantiality.  
A Treatise of Isaac a 〈…〉 〈◊〉 upon the Trinity and the 〈◊〉.  
St. Augustin's fifteen Books upon the Trinity.    


Upon the Incarnation.  
Fragments of Homilies of Flavianus and Antiochus, produced by Theodoret.  
Fragments of Theodorus Mopsuestenus.  
St. Chrysostome's Letter to Caesarius against the Errors of Apollina●is, where also the Eucharist is spoken of.    


Upon different Subjects.  
St. Chrysostom's Homily concerning the Resurrection of the Dead.  
— his Sermon concerning Daemons.  
St. Paulinus' Twelfth and Forty second Letters concerning the Fall of Man and the Merits of Jesus Christ.  
St. Augustin's Books against the Academics.  
— his Treatise of Blessedness.  
— Treatise of Immortality, and of the quantity of the Soul.  
— Discourse of Music.  
— Book of a Master.  
— Three Books of Free will.  
— Answers to several Questions.  
— Answers to the Questions of Simplicianus, and Dulcitius.  
— Two Discourses against Lying.  
— Another Discourse concerning the P●…diction of Daemons.  
— Four Books concerning the Origination of the Soul.     

Treatises concerning the Discipline of the Church.  
The Canonical and Paschal Letters of Theophilus.  
The Letters of Pope Innocent I.  
Some of St. Chrysostom's Sermons upon the chief Feasts of the Year.  
St. Chrysostom's Defence of a Monastic Life.  
— Comparison between a Monk and a King.  
— Books of the Priesthood.  
— Two Discourses to Theodoru●.  
— Three Treatises of Compunction of heart.  
— Treatise of Virginity.  
— Two Discourses against Woman's cohabiting with Clerks.  
— Discourse to a Nun against Raillery.  
— Two Discourses to a Young Widow.  
— Homily of Anathema and some others of his.  
St. Jerom's Letters contained in the first Tome of his Works.  
— Treatises against Jovinian and Vigilantius.  
Several Letters of St. Paulinus, and particularly the 1st. 2d. 45th. 46th. 22d. 23d. 26th. 29th. 30th. 32d. 38th.  
Letter of Bachiarius concerning Penance.  
Ursinus' Treatise against the Reiteration of Baptism conferred by Heretics.  
St. Augustin's Treatises concerning Continence and the benefits of Marriage, of Holy Virginity, of the advantages of Widowhood, of adulterous Marriages, of the labour of Monks, and of the care they ought to have for the Dead.  
— his Answers to the Questions of Dulcitius.  
— Letters marked in the Table of the Benedictins.  
The Letter of Pope Zosimus and Pope Boniface I.  
Synesius' Letters, and particularly the 5th. 9th. 11th. 12th. 13th. 57th. 58th. 79th. 89th. 66th. 67th. 76th. 95th. and 105th.   

Canons of the Councils related at the end of this Volume. Books of Morality and Piety.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fragments of Books of Evagrius Ponticus.  
●…urses of Mark the Hermit.  
〈…〉 Psychomachia, Cathemerinon, and Hamar●…  
〈…〉 Hundred Chapters of a Spiritual Life.  
〈…〉 among the Works of St. Chrysostom.  
〈…〉 〈◊〉 Sermons with the Extracts of Pho●…  
●…ks.  
●…tters contained in the first Tome of ●…ks.  
〈…〉 ●●●mons, whereof see the Catalogue in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈…〉 〈◊〉 discourses of Piety and Morality, see the Ca 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
— the 〈◊〉 part of his Letters.  
〈…〉 Seven Letters  
— ●… part of the Letters of St. Paulinus, 〈…〉 〈◊〉. 13th. 22d. 23d. 30th. 32d.  
〈…〉 〈◊〉 to A●●thius, entitled the Eccle●… 〈…〉  
〈…〉 〈◊〉 ●o C●lancia attributed to St. Pau●…  
— ●… Thirty two Poems.  
〈…〉 Demetriàs, and some others in St. 〈…〉  
●…s.  
●…manners of the Church.  
〈…〉  
— B●… 〈…〉 religion.  
— most part of ●●s Sermons▪ chief those of the ●…. ●●ird, and 〈◊〉 Cl●…s.  
— Tre●… of 〈◊〉 and Good Works.  
〈…〉 manual ●o L●…ius.  
— ●… Com●…at.  
— 〈◊〉 of Patience.  
〈…〉 Letters, mentioned in the Table of the ●….  
〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 〈◊〉, particularly, that of the 〈◊〉 of well 〈◊〉, and those concerning Pro●…  
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 particularly the 95th.   

〈…〉 and Discourses upon the Holy Scripture. BOOKS of Criticism.  
〈◊〉 is T●…se of the best manner of Translating.  
— his Book of the Names of Countries and Cities spoken of 〈◊〉 Scripture.  
— Explication of the proper Names of the Hebrews.  
— Explication of the Hebrew Alphabet.  
— Book of the Tradition of the Jews.  
— ●… Letters upon divers critical Questions ●….  
— ●… to Minerius and Paulinus.  
— Ver●…s of the Text of the Bible from the Sep●…t and from the Hebrew.  
— ●… Harmony of the four Gospels.  
St. Chrysosio●…'s Homily upon the beginning of the Acts, of the Usefulness of reading the Holy Scripture, and 〈◊〉 others.  
St. ●●gust●●'s four 〈◊〉 of the Christian Doctrine.  
— his 〈◊〉 ●…ks, of particular ways of speaking, used in 〈◊〉 ●…en 〈◊〉 Books of the Bible, and Questions upo● 〈◊〉 same Books.  
— ●… 〈◊〉 Scripture.  
— ●… 〈◊〉 the Gospels.  
— ●…s 143d. 137th. and 132d.  
Books upo●●…e Scriptures.  
See the Catalogue of St. Chrysostom's Works.   

Upon the Old Testament.  
Six Sermons of Severianus upon the Creation of World.  
An Imperfect Work of St. Augustin's upon Genesis.  
St. Augustin's twelve Books upon Genesis.  
— Explication of all the Psalms.  
Asterius' three Homilies upon the Psalms.  
Explication of the Benedictions of Jacob.  
St. Jerom's Commentaries upon Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ekiel, Daniel, and upon the twelve minor Prophets.  
Rufinus' Commentaries upon the Prophets Hosea, Jo and Amos.  
St. Augustin's Notes upon Job.   

Upon the New Testament.  
St Jerom's Notes upon the Gospel of St. Matthew.  
St. Augustin's Commentary upon Christ's Sermon in 〈◊〉 Mount.  
— Questions upon St. Matthew's and St. Luke's Gosp●…  
— Seventeen other Questions upon St. Matt●… Gospel.  
— A Hundred twenty four Treatises or Homilies up on St. John's Gospel.  
Chromacius' Discourse upon the Beatitudes.  
St. Jerom's Commentaries upon St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Titus and Philemon.  
Pelagius' Commentary upon all St. Paul's Epistles, attributed to St. Jerom.  
St. Augustin's Explications of several passages in the Epistle to the Romans.  
— Imperfect Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans.  
— Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians.  
— Ten Homilies upon the first Epistle of St. John.  
— Hundred eighty three Sermons upon several passag●… in the Old and New Testament.  
— Several Letters, noted in the Catalogue of the B●nedictines.   

Historical Treatises.  
Vigilius of Trent his Letter concerning Martyrs.  
Prudentius' Abridgement of the History of the Old and New Testament.  
— Hymns of Crowns.  
Palladius' Historia La●siaca.  
— Life of St. John Chrysostom.  
St. Jerom's Lives of St. Paul the Hermit, St. Hila●… and Malchus.  
— Treatises of Illustrious Men, with Sophronius' Version.  
— Translation of, and Supplement to Eusebius' Chronicle.  
St. Chrysostom's Panegyrics of the Saints, whereof see the Catalogue in the Table.  
— Letters to Pope Innocent and some others.  
Rufinus' two Books of Ecclesiastical History.  
A Disc. concerning the falsification of the Books of Orig●n.  
Sulpicius Severus' Abridgement of sacred History.  
— Life of St. Martin.  
— Dialogue concerning the Virtues of that Saint.  
— Another Dialogue of the Lives of the Eastern Monks.  
Paulinus' Passion of St. Genesius.  
— Letter 49th. and Poems upon St. Felix.  
Paulus Orosius' Universal History.  
Hist. of the Invention of St. Stephen's Relics made by Lucian, and Translated by Avitus.  
Severus' Letter concerning the Miracles wrought by St. Stephen's Relics in the Isle of Minorca.  
Acts of the Conference of Carthage digested by Marcellus Memorialis.  
Some Serm. of St. Augustin, upon the Feasts of the Saints.  
St. Augustin's Treatise of Heresies.  
— Historical Letters, marked in the Catalogue of the Benedictines.  
Acts of the Councils, mentioned at the end of this Volume.    

A General INDEX. Of the Principal Matters contained in the Third Volume.  

A  
ABnegation. To renounce the Riches of this World, unless we renounce ourselves signifies little .....  
Absolution. Not to be granted to Penitents in danger of Death, but upon condition that if they recover their Health, they shall continue in a State of Penance 214  
Acacius of Beroea, Enemy to S. Chrysostom, 9 Received a Letter of Communion from Pope Innocent, with a Charge not to continue his Hatred to that Saint, 11. This Letter is the Nineteenth among those of that Pope 70  
Afflictions. Their Usefulness, 17. They are the Portion of the Saints, 30, 47. God often permits the most Just and Holy Men to be Afflicted with Poverty and Diseases 59  
Alexander, who succeeded Porphyry in the Bishopric of Antioch, was the First among the Eastern Bishops, that put S. Chrysostom's Name into the Diptyches, 11. The Fifteenth Letter of Innocent I. is addressed to him 69  
Alms, 18. Their Effects, 40. As the water of Baptism extinguisheth the Fire of Hell, so the abundance of Alms extinguishes the Fire of Lust which remains after Baptism, or at least hinders it from enflaming 60  
Ammonius an Egyptian Monk 8  
Anastasius Pope, succeeded Siricius, 58. Condemned the Books and Person of Origen, ibid.  
Anathema, Not to be pronounced upon light occasions against any, nor any rashly to be Condemned 21  
Andragathius, Master in Philosophy to S. John Chrysostom 7  
Angels. Their Creation, 189. They have Care over Men, Assist at the Divine Mysteries, and every one of the Faithful hath his Guardian Angel, 35. Why Moses did not speak of their Creation 53  
Antiochus Bishop of Ptolemais, in Phoenicia, 52  
Antoninus Bishop of Ephesus, Exarch of all Asia, accused in a Council held at Constantinople 8  
Apparition of the Dead 155  
Arms. The Profession of Arms is not forbid, 159  
Arsacius, Brother to Nectarius, ordained Bishop of Constantinople, in place of S. John Chrysostom, in Exile 10  
Asterius Bishop of Amasea a City in Pontus 53  
Attention necessary in Prayer 44  
Atticus Successor to Arsacius in the See of Constantinople, during the Exile of S. John Chrysostom 11  
Audentius a Bishop in Spain 5  
St. Augustin, Born at Tagasta a City of Numidia, 125. Learns Grammar there, and Studies Humanity at Madaura, and Rhetoric at Carthage, ibid. Returns to Tagasta, where he taught Grammar and frequented the Bar, ibid. He taught Rhetoric at Carthage, is engaged in the Errors of the Manichees, from thence he went to Rome, and after to Milan, making the same Profession, ibid. He there renounced the Errors of the Manichees, and having received Baptism, returned to Hippo, where against his Will he was ordained Priest by Valerius, ibid. The same Bishop made him his Co-adjutor, and he was ordained Bishop by the Primate of Numidia, 126. Dies in his own City, while it was besieged by the Vandals, ibid. A Critical Disquisition upon his Works, ibid. His Genius 206, 207.  
Avitus a Priest of Spain, Friend to Paulus Orosius. 122   

B  
Bachiarius, a Christian Philosopher. 121  
Balls. No Enemies so dangerous, as Nocturnal Divertisements, Balls, music-meetings, and pernicious Dance 46  
Baptism. We receive by Baptism, not only Pardon and Remission of our sins, but also the Grace of the Holy Ghost, and several other spiritual Gifts, 36. It matters not who Baptises, provided it be in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost 198  
Basil, Friend of S. Chrysostom 7  
Basilina, Mother of the Emperor Julian 8  
Benefices. The Goods of the Church are the Patrimony of the Poor 7  
Bishop. Qualities which are necessary to him, 28, 29. He ought to be Learned, 29. His only Care ought to be to please God, ibid. The Glory of a Bishop, is to relieve the necessities of the Poor, 77. He ought to be an Example to his whole Church, ibid. They ought to be judged by those of their Province, 9 The Infamy of Bishops is not the Infamy of the Church, 214. They ought to be an Example to the people 215  
Boniface I. Successor to Pope Zosimus 210  
Bonosus, an ancient Companion of S. Jerom 74  
Bread, a Mark of Union.   

C  
Canon's, It is not permitted to a Bishop to be ignorant of them 69  
Carterius, Superior of the Monks in the Suburbs of Antioch 7  
Coelestius, Companion and Disciple of Pelagius, 120. condemned in the Synod of Carthage, 207  
Coelibacy of the Clergy 85  
Charity ought to be the sole end of all our Actions, 142. The Duties of Christian Charity cannot diminish; and the more we perform, the more we have to do 159  
Children. A Father that brings up his Son ill is more cruel than if he had put him to Death 47  
Chromacius, Bishop of Aquileia 58  
S. John Chrysostom, Native of Antioch, 6. Baptised by Meletius, 7. Hides himself and fly to avoid being Ordained Bishop, ibid. Ordained Deacon by Meletius, and Priest by Flavianus, ibid. Elected Bishop of Constantinople, and ordain▪ d by Theophilus' Bishop of Alexandria his Enemy, ibid. His strict Discipline caused him to be hated, ibid. His pastoral Vigilance, ibid. Reunites the Eastern and Western Churches, 8. Assembles a Synod at Ephesus, ibid. The Empress Eudoxia enraged against him, urges Theophilus to come to Constantinople, 9 He holds a Synod in the Suburbs of Chalcedon against S. Chrysostom, who refuses to be judged by that Council, his Enemies being the principal Judges, ibid. He was there deposed, ibid. The Emperor order him to be banished, and he was accordingly conducted to a little City in Bythinia, 10. His return to Constantinople, ibid. Another Discontent of Eudoxia, ibid. A new Council confirms the first Sentence of Deposition against this Saint, ibid. Violences, and Edicts against S. Chrysostom, ibid. He Surrenders himself into the hands of those that had Orders to Arrest him, and is conducted to Nice, and from thence to Cucusus, the place of his Exile, ibid. Calamities at Constantinople, after the removal of S. Chrysostom, ibid. He writes to Pope Innocent, and to the Bishops of the West to implore their help, 11. The Pope sends him Letters of Communion, ibid. And also obtains Letters from Honorius to his Brother Arcadius in his Favour, ibid. Violence offered to the Persons that brought those Letters, ibid. S. Chrysostom removed from Cucusus to Pityus, a City upon the Euxin Sea, and dies in this Journey, ibid. Peace restored after his Death, 12. Critical Remarks upon his Works ibid.  
The Church consists not in the Walls of it, but in the Holy Union with the Members of Jesus Christ, 13. It's perpetuity is an invincible proof of the truth of Religion, 34. The Church mixes the good with the bad, till the day of Judgement 198  
Clinics, Those who receive Baptism in their Bed, at the point of Death 36  
Comedies. It is a kind of Adultery to go to Comedies 46  
Communion. The forgetting of Injuries and Reconciliation, is a condition Essentially necessary to the worthy receiving the Sacrament, 21. The Revengeful is as unworthy of the Holy Communion, as the Blasphemer and Adulterer, 41. Disposition for worthy receiving 43  
Council of Carthage, of the Year 403 P. 218  
Council of Carthage, of the Year 404 ibid.  
Council of Carthage, of the Year 405 ibid.  
Council of Carthage, of the Year 407 ibid.  
Two Councils of Carthage, of the Year 408 p. 219  
Council of Carthage, of the Year 409 ibid.  
Council of Carthage, in the Year 410 ibid.  
The First Council of Carthage, against Coelestius in the Year 412, p. 221  
Council of Carthage, in the Year 417 p. 222  
Councils of Carthage, in the Year 418 ibid.  
Council of Carthange, in the Years 418, and 419, concerning the Cause of Apiarius 224  
Council of Carthage, in the Year 420  
Council of Carthage, in the Year 427 against Leporius  
Council in the Suburbs of Chalcedon at the Oak in 403 p. 217  
Council of Cirta, or Zerta, in the Year 412, p. 221  
Councils held by S. Chrysostom at Constantinople, and at Ephesus, in 400, and 401 p. 217  
Council of Constantinople, in the Year 426  
Council of Constantinople, in the Year 428  
Council of Diospolis in the Year 418 p. 221  
Council of Milevis held in the Year 402 p. 217  
Council of Milevis against Coelestius and Pelagius, in the Year 416 p. 222  
Council of Ptolemais, in Pentapolis, in the Year 411 p. 220  
Council of Ravenna, in the Year 419  
Council of Tella, or Zella, etc. of the Year 418 p. 224  
Concupiscence, and an Inclination to evil, are the Consequents of the Sin of the first Man 35  
Conference of Carthage, in the Year 411 p. 220  
Conference of Jerusalem, in the Year 415 p. 221  
Continence. True Continence consists in the suppressing all the Passions 180  
Conversion. It is never too late to be converted 78  
Correction, Ecclesiastical Princes have submitted to it, as well as others of the Faithful 38  
Covetousness a kind of Idolatry, 45. Consists in the desire of having more than we ought to have. Other Vices diminish in time, but Covetousness increases as we grow in years 55  
Custom is a bad Reason where it is sinful 17  
Customs of Churches ought to be observed, 82, 139 141  
Cross. The Efficacy of the Sign of the Cross 5  
Curiosity will not make us discover Mysteries, but it will make us lose the Faith, that must carry us to Salvation, and eternal Life 60   

D  
DEad. Oblations for the Dead received in the Church, 138. When the Eucharist is administered, or Alms made for all the Dead that have been baptised, they are Thanksgivings for those that have been extremely Good; they are Intercessions for those that have not been great Sinners; and as for those that have been very bad; if these things bring no Comfort to them, they serve at least for Consolation to the living, 178, 179. The Dead not to be lamented, but to rejoice that they have left this unhappy Life, to enjoy an eternal Blessed one, 48. Their Relations ought to give Alms for them 38  
Death. A Christian instead of fearing aught to desire it 48  
Decentius Bishop of Eugubium, a City of Umbria in Italy 67  
Devotion. Women ought not to give any cause of Discontent to their Husbands, by an indiscreet Devotion 167  
Diadochus Bishop of Photice, a City of the ancient Epirus 5  
Diadorus, Superior of the Monks in the Suburbs of Antioch 7  
Dioscorus, a Monk of Egypt 8  
Divinity, impossible to define it 2  
Donatus, S. Jerom's Master 73  
Drunkenness is of all Vices the most dangerous, and the most to be hated 45   

E  
ecclesiastics, their Dignity, 75, 76, their Duties, ibid. Their Habits 77  
Education of Children, 79. Mother's are not less charged with the Education of Children than Fathers, 12, 18. Education of Daughters, 78, 80  
S. Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus, a great Enemy to Origen 9  
Evagrius, Three of that Name, Evagrius Ponticus, Evagrius of Antioch, Evagrius Scholasticus 1  
Eucharist. Sacrament, 105. Eucharist explained, 59, 60. Disposition fit to partake of it, ibid. To receive it Fasting, 142. Dispositions requisite to worthy Communicating 37  
Eudoxia, Empress of Constantinople, enraged against S. Chrysostom 9, 10  
Evodius, Bishop of Uzala in Africa 122  
Eusebius, Bishop of Valentinople in Asia 8  
Eusebius, Father of S. Jerom. 73  
Eusebius, an Ecclesiastical Author of the Fifth Century. 123  
Euthymius, a Monk of Egypt 8  
Excommunication unjust, does more Injury to him, that Pronounces it; than to him against whom, it is pronounced 167  
Exuperius, Bishop of Tholouse, to whom Innocent I. addresses his Third Letter 68   

F  
FAITH. The beginnings of Faith, of Conversion, and of good Inclinations come from God and not from our freewill, 163. Faith stops not at a curious search into Natural things, 179. The beginning of Faith and of Good Desires is the Effect of Grace, 203. We ought to believe that God is, what he hath Revealed to us himself. We must not examine his Actions with a Rebellious Spirit, but admire them with Faith and Submission 60  
The Falls of Great Men should teach the most holy, not to be Presumptuous 171  
Fast. It is a great Scandal to Fast on the Lord's Day, 139. Fast of Lent, 20. Fasting aught to be accompanied with Abstinence from Vice, 53. Fasting consists not in a simple abstaining from Meats, but also in abstaining from Sins, and the Practice of Virtues, 42. It concerns not the Mouth alone, but the Ears, the Hands, the Feet, and all the parts of the Body, ibid. It consists not only in the retrenching our Meals, but in the reforming the Manners, ibid. We may have a reason for not Fasting, but there can be none for not correcting a vicious habit, ibid.  
Fear causes Charity to enter, but Charity drives out Fear 174  
Flavianus, a Priest of Antioch, Successor to Meletius in the Bishopric of that City 6  
Florentius, Bishop of Tivoli, to whom Innocent I. addressed his Eighth Letter 69  
Frequent Communion 141  
freewill. Vide Will in W.  
Friends. Whom we ought to choose 41   

G  
GAmes of chance are the occasions of Blasphemies, Anger, Injuries, and all sorts of Crimes 46  
Gaudentius, Bishop of Brescia, 59 The Life of S. Philastrius his Predecessor attributed to him ibid.  
Genesis is the Foundation and Source of all the Truths which are in the Law and the Prophets 53  
Gerontius, Bishop of Nicomedia, driven from his See 8  
God. To think of the Glory of God in all things, 43. God alone is the Sovereign good of our Souls, 133, 148. God is the Source of a Happy Life, and true Virtue consists in the Love of God, 154. True Blessedness consists in the knowledge of God, 130. The Apparitions of God are made by the Ministering Angels, who make use of Bodies to make those Apparitions 194  
Goods. We ought to consider all that we have received, as not belonging to us, 54. Men are not the Masters but the Dispenser's of their Goods 55  
Grace of God. Man cannot be delivered from Ignorance and the Necessity of Sinning, but by the assistance of God, 133. The Grace of Jesus Christ necessary to make us good, is entirely free, 158. Twelve Articles which comprehend all that we are obliged to believe concerning Grace 163  
Grace of Jesus Christ. Reasons of the Necessity of it, 71, 91. To implore it by fervent Prayer 215  
Greatness, is like Shadows and Phantoms which disappear after they have diverted us a very short time. They are as Flowers that whither away of a sudden at once after having spent their lustre 55   

H  
HAbits. God hath given to Man Wool and Flax, to defend him from the Injuries of the Wether 54  
Hatred is as an Executioner that tears the bowels of those that harbour it 41  
Heliodorus, Priest of Antioch 123  
Helvidius, Heretic, Disciple of Auxentius 124  
Heraclides, Deacon, ordained Bishop of Ephesus 8  
Heraclides, ordained Bishop of Ephesus by S. Chrysostom, deposed in the Council held against that Saint 9  
Heretics. Those that return to the Bosom of the Church are put under Penance, after they had quitted it to enter into a Sect of Heretics, 70. The example of some ill Catholics cannot serve as a pretence to Heretics to separate themselves from the Church 134  
Historia Lausiaca, vide in L.  
Honours. How fine a Figure soever we make in this World, the end is always the Grave, which buries all men in eternal oblivion 55  
Humility. The greatest Action we can do and the most pleasing to God, is to have low thoughts of ourselves, 44. Humility unblamable, that hath not Faith for its foundation  
Hypaepae, a City of Asia 8   

I  
JEsus Christ. His Divinity 16, 19  
John of Jerusalem, Successor to S. Cyril in the Bishopric of that City, was a great Defender of the Books, Opinions and Partisans of Origen, 61. His Quarrel with S. Epiphanius, ibid.  
S. Jerom, his Birth, Education and Studies, 73, 74. Passes into the East, ibid. Receives the Order of Priesthood at Antioch, ibid. Goes to Bethlehem, ibid. Came to Constantinople, and from thence to Rome, ibid. Returns to Bethlehem, where the Ladies Paula, Eustochium and Melania, came to him, 75. His Death, ibid. Censure upon his Works, ibid. his Character 103  
Impenitence Final, is what we are to understand by the Sin against the Holy Ghost 158, 174  
The Incarnation. If we could give a Reason for this Mystery, it would no more be wonderful; if an example were to be found of such a thing, it would not be singular 155  
Injuries. That we ought not to revenge them, nor condemn those that have offered them to us, but consider them as a punishment for our sins 3  
Injustice. It is not a less virtuous thing to suffer Injustice patiently than to give Alms 13  
S. Innocent I. Successor to P. Anastasius 67  
Interstices that ought to be observed in the conferring of Holy Orders 209  
Invention of the Holy Cross  
Joannites, a Name given by the Enemies of S. John Chrysostom to those who remained firm to that Saint during his Persecution 10  
Isaac, A Christian Author, once a Jew 121  
The Just, God permits them to be afflicted for three Reasons; 1. To correct them; 2. To purify them; 3. To try them: and this severity he exercises against them is the severity of a Father 59  
Justice. It is not Fear that renders us good, but the Love of Justice 54  
Justification. We cannot be Justified but by Faith in Jesus Christ 159  
Justina Empress favoured the Arians, and persecuted S. Ambrose 59   

K  
KINGS; Wherein their Happiness consists 188   

L  
LAusiaca Historia written by Palladius, and addressed to one Lausus 66  
Libanius, S. Chrysostom's Master in Rhetoric 7  
Liberty. Evil consists in the ill use of our Liberty 192, 193  
Life. The present Life being nothing but a Journey, a Train of Miseries, a Banishment from our Country, we should be most miserable if it had not an end 48  
Lord's-day, and Festivals, should be spent in Exercises of Devotion 38  
Love of God is a strong fixing the heart on God, which makes us despise all that is not of God 39  
Lucian, a Priest of Greece 122  
Lucian Bishop of Signi, to whom the Twentieth Letter of S. Innocent is Addressed 70  
Lying, is to say a thing which we think not, with design to abuse, 182. We ought not to tell a Lie neither for our Life, or for any other Reason whatsoever, 183. Tropes, Parables and Figures are not Lies ibid.  
Lust. To preserve and increase Charity, we ought to oppose and weaken Lust 177   

M  
Macarius', a Monk 123  
Manners, that young People ought to have 130  
Mark the Hermit, not he that lived under the Emperor Leo 2  
Marcellus Memorialis 123  
Marriage, what ought to be the end of Marriage among Christians, and of the Duties of married People, 17. A Second Marriage cannot be lawful, if the first Wife is not dead 69  
Martinianus, Bishop in Macedonia, to whom the Twenty-first Letter of S. Innocent I. is directed 70  
Martyrs, not only the Patterns of Virtue, but the Accusers of Vices, 56. Those that are Afflicted, have recourse to them, ibid. They Implore with confidence their Intercession, ibid. The best way of Honouring them is by Imitating their Virtues 18  
Masters ought to Treat their Servants with sweetness and goodness, considering them as their Brothers, and that they are made of the same Mould with themselves, that they have the same Creator, the same Nature, etc. 57  
Christian Maxims established by S. Chrysostom in his Sermons 48  
Mediator. That quality belongs only to Jesus Christ 189  
Megalius, Bishop of Calamia, Primate of Numidia 126  
Melchisedechian Heretics 3  
Metropolitan. Each Province must submit to its Metropolitan 211  
Miracles are wrought by the Power of God, 189. A Christian Life and good Works more to be esteemed than the Gift of working Miracles 16  
S. Monica, the Mother of S. Augustin, died at Ostia 128  
Monks. The Monastic state, 79, 114. The Labour of the hands one part of the Monastic state, 183. Counterfeit Monks are Hypocrites, whom the Devil sends abroad into the World clad in the Monastic Weeds ibid.  
Moses. In what Sense he was a Prophet in the History of the Creation of the World 53  
Montanists, their Errorrs 85  
Music ought to Elevate the Heart and Mind to a Celestial and Divine Harmony 131  
Mysteries. We ought not to penetrate into them by humane Reason, but aught to be content with what the Scripture says of them 17, 35   

N  
NIceas, Bishop in Romania 120  
Nicholas, a Monk 3   

O  
DIvine Offices against those that neglect them to go to Comedies and Public Shows 12.  
Necessity of Assisting at them 13, 38  
Olympius, Bishop, Originally of Spain 120  
Ordinations. Those who make Ordinations against the prescribed Rules, shall themselves be Deprived of the Sacerdotal Dignity as well as those they have Ordained 71  
Origen, his Errors, 66. Three Monks of Egypt, Sir-named the Long-brothers, condemned by Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, for refusing to Sign the Condemnation of Origen, 8. The Accusations form against them, were Caluminous. 9 S. Epiphanius, Bishop in Cyprus, prepossessed by Theophilus, came to Constantinople to Excommunicate them, ibid. But having reflected upon it, desisted ibid.  
The true Ornament of a Christian is Purity of Life 166   

P  
PAcon, Hermit, his History 2  
Pagans; Their Theology is ridiculous 189  
Palladius, Originally of Galatia, Ordained Bishop of Helenopolis; from whence he passed to the Bishopric of Aspuna in Galatia, 66. A friend to Rufinus, a Defender of Origen, a Partisan of Pelagius, and Enemy to S. Jerom ibid.  
Pamsophius, Bishop of Nicomedia, in the place of Gerontius 8  
Pardon of Enemies 16  
Patience, and Pardon of our Enemies, 13, 16. No Good comparable to that of Patience 32  
Patricius, Father to S. Augustin 125  
Paul, Bishop of Heraclea, Precedent of the Council where S. Chrysostom was Deposed 9  
Paulus Orosius, a Priest of Spain, of the City of Tarragon 122  
Paul, a Bishop, Author of a Treatise of Repentance 123  
S. Paulinus, Native of Bourdeaux, Disciple to Ausonius, retired into Spain with his Wife Therasia, and was made Priest at Barcelona against his will. He parted from thence for Italy, and Retired to Nola, whereof he was ordained Bishop, and died there, 113. His Works, 113, to 117, etc. His Genius 118  
Paulinianus, Brother to S. Jerom, Ordained by S. Epiphanius 61  
Pelagius, an English Monk, Disciple to Rufinus, and chief of the Heresy that bears his Name, 119. Attacked by S. Jerom. Errors of this Heretic 91  
Pelagians, their Errors, 159, 160. Abridgement of the Doctrine of S. Augustin against them 204, 205  
Penitents should not die without the Peace of the Church 182, 214  
Penance useful at all times, 2. The Necessity and Conditions of a real Penance, 31, 32. God considers not the Length, but the Fervour of it, 37. Conditions of it, 38. The true Penitent hath nothing in his view but to leave no Evil unpunished that he hath committed, 153. To judge of a Penance, we must have regard to the Labour, Sighs and Tears of the Penitent, and forgive him his Sin, when he hath made a proportionable satisfaction, 68 Penance is not useful but when he that changes his Resolution can correct his past Life; and Regret and Grief for Sins past can be of no great use when they are not in a state of doing nor practising Virtue 54  
Public Penance. Those that have been put to public Penance, cannot be afterwards admitted into the Clergy 70, 71  
Persecution. Whether it be permitted to Priests, to Clerks or Bishops to fly and abandon their Flocks in time of Persecution? 165. The Caresses of this World are often more dangerous than Persecutions ibid.  
S. Peter, Chief of the Body of the Apostles, etc. 16  
Phocas Martyr, a Native of Synope, and a Gardener by Profession 56  
Piety. The Principle of Christian Piety is to bring all things to God 159  
Pilgrimages, the chief intention we ought to have in making Pilgrimages, is the assisting the Poor 38, 85  
Platonists knew the true God 189  
Polychronius, Bishop of Apamea 215  
The Pope ought to maintain the Canons 210  
Porphyrius Elected Bishop of Antioch in place of Flavianus 10  
Poverty, of great advantage to those that know how to make good use of it 40  
Power Ecclesiastical and Civil; their Difference 14  
Prayer. Application is necessary to him that prays, etc. 14. Prayer quenches the Desires of the Flesh, the Love of Riches, and removes from the Minds of Men the Thoughts of Glory and Vanity, 57 It ought to be preferred before any other Work, 3. Common-prayer is an excellent Harmony proceeding from the Concord of Charity, 38. God often does not immediately grant us what we ask, that he may excite our Ardency 44  
Prayer for the Dead 116  
The Praises of Men, how to be received, 165. Excessive Commendations give as much Remorse to the Conscience as Sins, when we find not in ourselves the Virtues there commended ibid. & 25  
Preachers. The Obligations they are under, 16. What ought to be their End, 171. In what manner they ought to preach the Word of God 77  
Priests, the Respect which is due to them, 12, 14, 46. Disorderly Priests to respect their Character, 46, 47. Priesthood; Excellence of its Dignity 14  
Pride. The more good we do, the less we ought to boast, 44. That Pride is commendable which makes us Despise the World, and all that appears great in the Eyes of Men 114  
Priscillianists; their Errors 193  
Probability, a Damnable Maxim 129  
Solemn Processions instituted at Constantinople by S. John Chrysostom 8  
Prophecies, their Obscurity when taken away 14  
Providence. In following the Commandments of God we act, but in all the rest God conducts us by the motions of his Providence, without our having any part in the Events, 177  
Prudence. The Prudence of a Man not to be judged of by the number of his Years 27  
Prudentius, Born at Saragossa in 348 5   

Q  
Quartodecimani, Heretics so called 8   

R  
REligion of Jesus Christ, 78. Efficacy of the Religion of Jesus Christ 5  
Relics. The Remembrance of the Actions of Saints, and the Combats of Martyrs, is one of the most powerful Motives we can make use of, to carry Christians to Piety and Virtue; and it is for this Reason, that their Relics are preserved, etc. 56. It is in Honour of the Martyrs that we preserve their Relics with Veneration, 56. Relics and Invocation of Saints, ibid. and 85  
The Renouncing of all things to follow Jesus Christ, aught to go even to the leaving Father and Mother for the Service of God 166  
Repast. Prayer before and after 12  
Reprimands. Their Usefulness 17, 19  
Restitutions. We are obliged to restore Goods gotten by Theft, Rapine and Oppression, to those from whom they were taken; and it is not enough to give it to the Poor 154  
Resurrection of Bodies 211  
Rheticius Bishop of Autun wrote a Commentary upon the Canticles 78  
Rich Men are only Dispenser's of their Goods for the Assistance of the Poor, 40. God has not given them Wealth, but that they might impart to the Poor, and he hath also made the Poor and Miserable, that Rich Men might have an opportunity to exercise their Pity and Charity 116  
Riches are not forbidden, provided we make good use of them, 41. It is impossible to gather great Wealth without Sin 54  
Rufinus Presbyter, Condemned as a Heretic by Pope Anastasius, 58. Contemporary with S. Jerom, 107. Embraced a Monastic Life, and went afterwards to Jerusalem, ibid. having translated the Works of Origen, he became his Defender, ibid. Returned to Rome, ibid. Die, ibid. his Works, ibid. and 108. his Genius 108, 110   

S  
SAbbatius, Bishop in Gaul 121  
Saints. The Happiness they will enjoy after the Resurrection, They help us in our Necessities, 117. A Description of their Felicity 190  
Scandal. That we must always keep ourselves in the Bosom of the Church, notwithstanding the Scandals we may be afflicted with 161  
Schismatics. Their good Works are useless 143  
The Holy Scripture, and Reason cannot ever be contrary, 152. Charity and Humility are the two Keys without which we cannot understand the Holy Scripture, 170. The reading of it recommended, 79, 80, 81, 95, 135. The Usefulness of that Reading, 18, 39 It's Simplicity 103  
Secundus, Father to S. John Chrysostom 6  
Semipelagians. Principal points of the Doctrine 164  
Serapion S. John Chrysostom's Deacon 8  
Servants, ought readily, and with a good Will obey their Masters 57  
Severianus Bishop of Gabala, in Coelesyria, 8, 75. S. Chrysostom made him Preach at Constantinople, during his Journey into Asia, ibid. S. Chrysostom being returned drove him out, ibid. The Empress causes him to return, and reconciles him outwardly with S. Chrysostom, ibid. His Works ibid.  
Severus Endelechius 5  
Severus Bishop of the Isle of Minorca 122  
Simony. Six Bishops deposed for giving Money to be Ordained 8  
Simplicianus Bishop of Milan 3  
Sin. We are ourselves the Authors of our Sins, 6. Sin is the only thing that a Christian ought to Fear, 20, 32. Nothing but Sin that makes us truly miserable, 32. Sins committed after Baptism, are greater and more dangerous, than those committed before, 127. When a Man is fallen into one Sin, he is very often led on by this first Crime into all sorts of Iniquities, 56. We hate Sin in proportion as we love Justice 152  
Sisinnius Martyr. His Relics sent to Milan 4  
Solitude; The Advantages of it, 76. Excellency of a solitary Life 30  
Sophronius, Friend to S. Jerom 111  
The Soul. Its Habitation is in God, who hath created it, 131. made in the likeness of God, ibid. hath not Corporeal Dimension, ibid. not a part of God, 161. Errors of the Pelagians, concerning the Creation of Souls 204  
Sulpicius Severus Priest of Again, a Disciple of S. Martin, and Friend of Paulinus Bishop of Nola, 111. His Genius 112  
Superstition is a Vice that sets itself off with the Name of Virtue 214  
Swearing. It is most dangerous to make a Jest of Swearing, and the surest way is never to swear at all 155  
Synesius, Originally of Cyrene, Bishop of Ptolemais, 211. Catalogue of the Treatises which he wrote, 212. his Genius 215  
Roman Synod under Innocent I. 216   

T  
TApers lighted in Churches 85  
The Tavern is filled with Impiety and Intemperance 46  
Temptations. We must resist the Temptations of the Devil in this World 44  
Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia, Condemned with his Writings long after his Death, in the Fifth Council, by the Contrivance of the Emperor Justinian 64  
Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, 7. Chrysostom's Enemy, 9 Even after his Death, 11. Successor to Timotheus, 62. Finished the ruin of Idolatry in his own City, ibid. his Character 63  
Traditions of the Church 86  
Trinity impossible to be explained 2  
Truth; the Enquiry after it can only render a Man happy, 129. It is never permitted to betray Truth 183   

V  
Vainglory corrupts, and renders the best Actions Useless; as Prayer, Fasting and Alms 57  
Valerius Bishop of Hippo 125  
Victricius Bishop of Rouen: S. Innocent I. directs his Second Letter to him 68  
Christian Vigilance. Temptations are useful, provided we are always upon our Guard, and that we have continually a Watch over ourselves 44  
Vigilantius' Priest, a Native of Gaul 124  
Vigilius●… Five of the Name, 1. Vigilius of Africa. 2. Vigilius the Deacon, 3. Vigilius Bishop of Tapsus in Africa, 4. Vigilius Bishop of Brescia. 5. Vigilius a Bishop at the Council of aged 3  
Vigilius Bishop of Trent, Martyr under the Consulship of Stilico ibid.  
Virgins that Mary after having made a Vow of Chastity 216  
Virginity: What must be done to preserve it, 81. the Advantages of it, 84. Though Parents may inspire into their Children, the Love of Virginity; yet they cannot oblige them to make a Vow of perpetual Continency, 60. Virginity as much above Marriage, as Heaven is above the Earth, 31. Virginity signifies nothing, if it be not joined with Charity and Meekness 17  
Ursinus a Monk 123   

W  
WAtchfulness, vide Vigilance  
War. How we may make War like a good Christian 159  
Widowhood. Though Second Marriages are not forbidden, it is Nevertheless much better to continue in Widowhood, 31. The State of Widowhood is to be preferred to that of Marriage 182  
freewill. The Will is inclined to Evil, and cannot do Good, without the Assistance of the Grace of God, 158. Sin consists in the ill Use of our freewill 172  
Works. The Error of those that believe they shall be justified by their Works 2   
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 4. Lin. 9 from bottom of the Text, read Second, the Petition. P. 5. l. 6. after Augustus' Age, add, His Thoughts are just enough, and worthy of a good Christian: He has some things elegantly written, which are read with pleasure. P. 12. l. ult. r. Hymn. P. 15. note Col. 1. l. 16. from bot. r. positively says so. P. 17. l. 20. deal justifying. P. 20. l. l. from bot. for 10th. r. 17th. P. 23. l. 17. from bot. r. Fragments of it. Ibid. l. 13. from bot. r. not unworthy. P. 24. l. 38. after consecrated to God, add P. 976. Sermonto Catechumen. P. 25. not. col. 1. l. 3. from bot. for which r. what. P. 38. l. 1. for after r. alter. P. 49. l. 10. from bot. for Book r. principal Books. P. 50. l. 21. from bot. r. printed at Paris. P. 55. l. 7. from bot. for First r. Fifth. P. 60. l. 42. deal by the buy. P. 61. l. ult. for supposed r. supposititious. P. 63. l. 2. from bot. r. that came first, provided it could. P. 64. l. 20. from bot. r. Fortune, is put for. P. 65. l. 6. for Ease r. Freedom. P. 71. l. 8. for the consequence r. a continuation. P. 78. l. 32. deal since. Ibid. l. 7. from bot. r. obliged if they would do it well, to have. P. 79. l. 10. for wary r. heavy. P. 86. l. 41. r. an enumeration. P. 90. l. 37. deal that. P. 9●. l. 39 r. Dignity in a manner. P. 125. l. 12. from bot. r. that all that designed to embrace a Spiritual. P. 131. l. 30. r. Soul. I writ whilst I was in that City, a Dialogue. P. 138. l. 19 from bot. for the Letter r. these Letters. P. 144. l. 36. for to oblige r. of obliging. P. 150. l. 10. from bot. deal but. P. 153. l. 15. from bot. for that it is r. by how much it is. P. 161. l. 10. from bot. r. whereat. P. 174. l. 32. for found r. form. P. 184. l. 6. r. his Episcopal Office.  

Proper Names Mistaken.  
MElania (p. 1.) for Melanius. Pulmannus (p. 5.) for Putmannus. Severianus (p. 6.) for Severnus. Isidore for Isiodore Passim. C●tel●lerius for Cotelierius Passim. Eustathius (p. 21.) for Eustachius. Armenos (p. 33.) for Armenios'. Mopsuestia for Mopsuesta Passim. Apulia (p. 72.) for Apuleia. Asella (p. 81.) for Acella. Vercell● (p. 83.) for Vercelle. Patavionensis (p. 84.) for Patarionensis. Tanis (p. 92.) for Tunis. Euphratas (p. 151.) for Euphratus.  
Smaller mistakes, which are not very numerous, are left to the Readers Candour.    

A NEW HISTORY OF Ecclesiastical Writers: Containing an ACCOUNT Of the LIVES and WRITINGS of the PRIMITIVE FATHERS; A Judicious Abridgement AND A Catalogue of all their WORKS; WITH Censures Determining the GENUINE and SPURIOUS: AND A Judgement upon their Style and Doctrine: Also their various Editions. Together with A Compendious History of the COUNCILS. Written in FRENCH By Lewis Ellies du PIN, Doctor of the SORBON.  
VOLUME the FOURTH, Containing the AUTHORS that Flourished in the latter part of the FIFTH CENTURY.  
LONDON: Printed by Edw. Jones, for Abel Swal and Tim. Child, at the Unicorn at the West-End of St. Paul's Churchyard, MDC XCIII.   

The CONTENTS of the Fourth Volume.  

Of the Lives and Writings of the Ecclesiastical Authors that Flourished towards the latter End of the Fifth Century, viz.  
ATticus Bishop of Constantinople. 1  
Tichonius. 2  
Leporius. 2  
Isidore Pelusiota. 3  
John Cassian. 9  
Nilus, Abbot. 17  
The Author of the Professions of Faith, attributed to Ruffinus. 20  
Possidius. 21  
Uranius. 22  
Pope Celestine. 23  
St. Cyril of Alexandria. 27  
Marius Mercator. 35  
Anianus. 37  
Julian, a Pelagian. 38  
Nestorius, Heretic. 40  
John of Antioch, Acacius of Beraea, Paul of Emisa. 43  
Bishops of Nectorius ' s Party. 44  
Eutherius Tyanaeus. 45  
Theodotus of Ancyra. 46  
Catholic Bishops of St. Cyril ' s Party. 47  
Pope Sixtus III. 47  
Proclus Bishop of Constantinople. 48  
Capreolus Bishop of Carthage. 49  
Antoninus Honoratus Bishop of Constantina in Africa. 49  
Victor of Antioch. 50  
Victorinus of Marseilles. 50  
Caelius Sedulius. 50  
Philippus Sidaetes. 51  
Philostorgius. 52  
Nonnus. 52  
Socrates Scholasticus. 53  
Sozomen. 54  
Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus. 55  
Andreas Samosatenus. 80  
Helladius Bishop of Tarsus, Maximinus' Bishop of Anazarbus, and Irenaeus Bishop in Phoenicia. 80  
Pope Leo I. 81  
Hilary of Arles. 111  
Vicentius Lirinensis. 114  
Eucherius of Lions. 117  
Petrus Chrysologus. 119  
Maximus Bishop of Turin. 120  
Valerianus Cemeliensis. 121  
Victor Cartennensis. 121  
S. Prosper. 122  
The Author of the Book of the Vocation of the Gentiles, and of the Epistle to Demetrias. 128  
Flavianus and other Bishops who wrote Letters and Memoirs concerning the Affair of Eutyches. 138  
Several Lett. of different Bishops. 138  
Basil of Selucia. 139  
Timotheus Aelurus. 141  
Chrysippus, Presbyter of Jerusalem. 141  
Vigilius the Deacon. 142  
Fastidius Priscus. 142  
Dracontius. 142  
Eudocia Empress, and Proba Falconia. 142  
Tyrsius Rufus Asterius. 143  
Petronius Bishop of Bononia. 144  
Constantine or Constantius. 144  
Philip, Presbyter, Disciple of St. Jerome. 144  
Siagrius. 144  
Isaac, Presbyter of Antioch. 145  
Simeon Stylites, Senior. 145  
Moschimus or Mochimus. 145  
Asclepius, Peter and Paul. 145  
Salvian. 146  
Arnobius, Junior. 148  
Honoratus Bishop of Marseilles. 148  
Salonius and Veranus. 149  
Paulinus of Perigueux. 149  
Musaeus, Presbyt. of Marseilles. 149  
Vincentius, Presbyter. 149  
Syrus of Alexandria. 149  
Samuel, Presbyter of Edessa. 150  
Claudianus Mamertus. 150  
Pastor. 153  
Voconius. 153  
Eutropius. 153  
Evagrius. 153  
Timothy. 153  
Eustathius. 153  
Theodulus, Presbyter of Coelesyria. 154  
Eugenius of Carthage. 154  
Cerealis, an African Bishop. 154  
Servus Dei. 154  
Idacius. 155  
Victorius of Acquitain. 155  
Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople. 156  
Antipater of Bostra. 156  
Hilarius or Hilary Bishop of Rome. 157  
Simplicius Bishop of Rome. 159  
Faustus Reiensis. 161  
Ruricius, Desiderius, and some others. 166  
Apollinaris Sidonius, Bishop of Clermont. 166  
John Talaia or Talaida. 169  
John, Presbyter of Antioch. 169  
John Aegeates. 169  
Victor Vitensis. 170  
Vigilius Tapsensis. 170  
Felix III. Bishop of Rome. 172  
The Author of the Memoirs concerning the Affair of Acacius. 175  
Gelasius I 175  
Anastasius II. 181  
Pascasius, Deacon of the Church of Rome. 182  
Julianus Pomerius. 183  
Gennadius of Marseilles. 185  
Nemesius and Aeneas Gazaeus. 187  
Gelasius Cyzicenus. 187  
The Author of the Books attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite. 188   

The Councils held from the Year 430. to the End of the Fifth Century.  
OF the First Council of Ephesus: And of the other Assembly of Bishops, touching the Affair of Nestorius, which were precedent to, or followed after this Council. 191  
The Council of Chalcedon, and other precedent Coun-Councils. 218  
The Council of Ries, held in 439. 243  
The First Council of Orange. 243  
The Council of Vasio. 246  
The Second Council of Arles. 246  
The Council of Anjou. 247  
The Third Council of Arles. 248  
The Council of Constantinople in the year 459. 248.  
The Letter of Lupus Bishop of Troy's, and Euphronius Bishop of Augustodunum, to Thalassius Bishop of Anjou. 248  
The Council of Tours. 248  
The Council of Vennes. 249  
The Council of Rome under Pope Hilarius. 249    

An Alphabetical Table of the Ecclesiastical Authors contained in this Second Part of the Third Tome.  

A.  
ACacius of Beraea. 43  
Acacius of Melitina. 47  
Acacius of Constantinople. 138  
Aegeates. 169  
Aeneas Gazaeus. 187  
Agapetus. 138  
Alexander of Hierapolis. 44  
Alypius. 47  
Anastasius. 181  
Anatolius 138  
Andrew of Samosata. 80  
Anianus. 37  
Antipater of Bostra. 156  
Antoninus Honoratus. 49  
Apollinaris Sidonius. 166  
Arnobius, Junior. 148  
Asclepius. 145  
Asterius. 143  
Athanasius. 138  
Atticus. 1  
Author of the Confessions of Faith attributed to Rufinus. 20  
Author of the Books of the Vocation, and the Gentiles, and Epistle to Demetrias. 128  
Author of the Memoir about the Affair of Acacius. 175  
Author of the Books attributed to Dionysius. 188   

B.  
Basil of Seleucia. 139  
Bassianus. 138   

C.  
Capreolus. 49  
Cassian. 9  
S. Celestine. 22  
Cerealis. 155  
Charisius. 47  
Chrysippus. 141  
Constantine. 144  
St. Cyrill, Patr. of Alexandria. 27   

D.  
Desiderius. 166  
Dorotheus. 44  
Dracontius. 142   

E.  
Evagrius. 153  
S. Eucherius. 117  
Eudocia. 142  
Eugenius. 153  
Eusebius of Doryloeum. 138  
Eustathius. 153  
Eutherius. 44  
Eutropius. 153  
Eutyches. 138   

F.  
Falconi●. 142  
Fastidius. 142  
Faustus. 161  
Foelix III. 172  
Flavian. 138   

G.  
Gelasius I. 175  
Gelasius Cyzicenus. 187  
Gennadius of Constantinople. 156  
Gennadius of Marseilles. 185   

H.  
Helladius of Tarsus. 80  
S. Hilarius Bishop of Arles. III  
Hilarus, or Hilarius, Pope. 157  
Honoratus. 148   

I.  
Ibas.  
Idacius. 155  
John Bishop of Antioch. 43  
John Priest of Antioch. 169  
Irenaeus. 80  
Isaac. 145  
Ischyrion. 138  
Isidore Palusiota. 2  
Julian of Coos. 138  
Julian of Eclana. 38  
Julianus Pomerius. 183   

L.  
S. Leo. 81  
Leontius. 138  
Leporius. 3  
Lupus.   

M.  
Marius Mercator. 35  
Mamertus. 150  
Maximus of Turin. 120  
Maximian. 47  
Maximin of Anazarbum. 80  
Meletius of Mopsuesta. 44  
Memnon. 47  
Mochimus. 145  
Musaeus. 149   

N.  
Nemesins. 187  
Nestorius. 40  
S. Nilus. 17  
Nonnus. 52   

P.  
Paschasius, the Deacon. 182  
Paschasinus. 138  
Pastor. 153  
Paulus Emesenus. 44  
Paul. 145  
Paulinus. 149  
Petronius. 144  
Philippus Sidaetes. 51  
Philippus. 144  
Philostorgius. 52  
Photius of Tyre. 138  
Petrus Chrysologus. 119  
Petrus. 145  
Petrus Fullo. 138  
Possidius. 21  
Proclus. 48  
S. Prosper. 122  
Proterius. 138   

R.  
Rheginus.  
Ruricius. 166  
Rusticus. 138   

S.  
Salonius. 149  
Salvian. 146  
Samuel. 150  
Sedulius. 50  
Servus Dei. 154  
Siagrius. 144  
Simeon Stylites. 145  
Simplicius. 159  
Sixtus III. 47  
Socrates. 53  
Sozomen. 54  
Syrus. 149   

T.  
Talaia. 169  
Theodoret. 55  
Theodotus. 46  
Theodulus. 154  
Theotimus. 138  
Tichonius. 2  
Timotheus Aelurus. 141  
Timotheus. 153   

V.  
Valerian. 121  
Veranus. 149  
Victor of Antioch. 50  
Victor of Cartenna. 121  
Victor Vitensis. 170  
Victorinus of Marseilles. 50  
Victorius. 155  
Vigilius, the Deacon. 142  
Vigilius Tapsensis. 170  
Vincentius. 149  
S. Vincentius Lirinensis. 114  
Vitalis. 138  
Voconius. 153  
Uranius. 22    

An Alphabetical Table of the Councils.  
A Council at 

ALexandria against Nestorius. 194  
Anazarbum. 208  
A●jou. 247  
Antioch, by the Eastern Bishop. 204  
Antioch, about the Peace. 205  
Antioch in 436. 112  
Antioch, about the Business of Sabinian. 240  
Arles II. 246  
Arles III. 248  
Arles iv in 463. 158   

B.  
Berytus. 236   

C.  
Chalcedon, to Confer with the Eastern Bishop. 202  
Chalcedon. General. 218  
Constantinople in Favour of Bassian. 239  
Constantinople, under Flavian against Eutyches. 219  
Constantinople II. 228  
Constant. III. in 459. 248  
Carthage under Hunnericus. 170  
Cilicia. 211   

E.  
Ephesus. General. 119  
Ephesus under Dioscorus. 226   

O.  
Orange I. 243   

R.  
Rises. 243  
Rome 

under Celestine. 193  
under S. Leo. 228  
under S. Hilary. 249  
under Faelix. 172, 173  
under Gelasius. 181, 182     

T.  
Tarsus by the East. Bishop. 204  
Tours. 248   

V.  
Vasio. 246  
Vennes. † 249     

BIBLIOTHECA PATRUM: OR, A NEW HISTORY OF Ecclesiastical Writers. TOME III. PART II.  
CONTAINING An Account of the LIVES and WRITINGS of the Primitive FATHERS, that Flourished in the latter Part of the Fifth Century of Christianity, with Censures upon all their BOOKS, determining which are Genuine, and which Spurious.  

ATTICUS Bishop of Constantinople.  
ARSACIUS, the Brother of Nectarius, who had been put into the See of Constantinople, in the Place of S. Chrysostom being dead in the Year of his Ordination, Atticus 
Atticus.  a Monk of Armenia, after some Contests 
* Within sixteen Months and some odd Days. Altero post anno. Socr. , was chosen to fill that See. He entered upon it in the Year 406. and enjoyed it peaceably until the Year 427. in which he died. Socrates, who had a very particular Esteem for this Bishop, has described him to us as a Man competently learned, but very wise and prudent, endued with abundance of Piety, Meekness and Charity, who not only took care of the Orthodox, but also won over the Heretics by his courteous and taking Behaviour. He adds; That while he was a Priest he got his Sermons by Heart; and that, after he was a Bishop, he accustomed himself to speak ex tempore, but that his Discourses were not beautiful enough to gain the Applause of the People, nor to deserve to be put in Writing. So true is it that a Discourse must be studied with an Intent to please. Nevertheless he helped forward the Conversion of many Persons, and very much increased the Church. His Liberality contributed much towards it; for the People are much better disposed to hear and believe their Pastor, when they see that he provides as well for their Temporal as Spiritual Wants, and at the same time he dispenses to them the Bread of Life to nourish their Souls, he also gives them liberally that by which they may procure Nourishment for their Bodies: And this he did, not only to the poor of his own Diocese, but likewise to Strangers. Socrates, in the Seventh Book of his History, Chap 25. recites a Letter which Atticus wrote to Calliopius a Priest of Nice; wherein he tells him, That he had sent him Three hundred Crowns, to relieve the Necessities of the Poor of the City of Nice. He admonishes him, at the same time, to bestow his Charity upon the modest 
Qui peter● erubescunt.  Poor, and to give them nothing who made a Trade of Begging: He would not have him, in this Distribution, to have any Regard to Religion: And recommends it to him, to give that which is necessary to support Life, to all that are in Want, not excepting such as are of a different Religion. Socrates' further relates some Answers of this Bishop, in favour of the Novatians; but since this Historian was a Friend to that Party, his Testimony is a little to be suspected: However that be, the Answers that are attributed to him are very moderate, for when one said unto him, That he ought not to suffer the Meetings of the Novatians in the Cities: He answered, Do you not know how much they suffered for the Faith under the Emperor's Constantius and Valens? They are Witnesses, beyond Exception, of the Truth of our Doctrine, for having separated themselves a long time from the Church, they are found to have the same Faith with us. He commended Asclepiades, an Ancient Bishop of the Novatians, that he had undergone that Charge for the space of Fifty Years: And he said to this Bishop, I praise Novatus, but cannot approve of the Novatians. Asclepiades having demanded of him the Explication of this Paradox; he replied, Novatus denied not Communion but only to those who had fallen into Idolatry during the Persecution; I have done the same thing myself; but I cannot approve of the Novatians, who exclude the Laity from Communion for trivial Sins. Asclepiades answered him; That besides Idolatry, there were many other Mortal Sins, for which the Church deposeth the Clergy for ever: And that the Novatians did also excommunicate the Laity for ever, who had committed those Sins, leaving the Power of Pardoning them to God only. Socrates tells us further. That Atticus foretold his own Death to Calliopius; and that he did die indeed, according to his own Prediction, in the Year 427. in the beginning of October. Besides this Letter, of which we have just now spoken, Theodoret, in his Second Dialogue, citys a Fragment of a Letter to Eupsychius, concerning the Incarnation. He wrote also a Letter to S. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, To persuade him to put S. Chrysostom's Name in the 
* Ecclesiastical Tables, wherein the Names of the Living and Dead Saints were written; and out of which they were read, and solemnly commemorated at the public Prayers, to show respect to them, and Communion with them.  Diptyches, as we understand by the Answer which S. Cyril made to him, related in the Fourth Book of Facundus; by whom we are informed, That Atticus was as moderate as S. Cyril was angry upon that account. We have Atticus' Letter and S. Cyril's Answer to it among the Epistles of the latter. These Fragments of the Writings of Atticus make it evident, That Socrates hath passed a sound Judgement of his Character, Style, and Temper. Gennadius says, That he had made an excellent Book concerning Faith and Virginity, dedicated to the Princesses, the Daughters of Arcadius; in which he condemns the Error of Nestorius beforehand. S. Cyril citys a Passage of it in his Book to the Empresses; which is also repeated, with another, in the Council of Ephesus; although Vincentius doth not reckon Atticus among those who were alleged for Witnesses of the Faith of the Church in the Council of Ephesus, and says, That these Passages are not to be found in some Manuscripts of that Council.   

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

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

S. ISIDORE of Damiata.  
ISIDORE, 
a A Priest.] All the Ancients give him no other Title; and it doth not appear by his Letters that he had any other.  a Priest 
b Of Damiata.] Ephrem in Photius, c. 228. saith, That he was born at Alexandria; nevertheless it may be said, That he was of Damiata. because he retreated into a place near that City, as appears by his Letters.  of Damiata, 
† Anciently called Pelusium, whence he is usually styled Pelusiota, by Authors.  a City in Egypt, situated upon the Mouth of the River 
S. Isidore Pelusiota.  Nilus, flourished in the Reign of Theodosius the Younger. 
c He embraced a Monastic State.] His Letters make it evident enough, and Evagrius, l. 1. c. 15. of his History, assures us of it in the same Terms that we have used.  He embraced a Monastic State, and spent his whole Life in mortifying his Body, by continual Abstinence, and in nourishing his Soul with Meditation upon Celestial Doctrines, insomuch that it may be said of him, That he lived an Angel's Life upon Earth, and that he was a Living Picture of a Monastic and Contemplative Life. He was in so great Reputation for his Piety, Doctrine and Eloquence, that the Greeks gave him the Surname of 
a Famous] So Evagrius calls him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Whose Fame is spread far, as the Poet says. They that make use of this passage to prove that he made Poems, understand it i●●. Ephrem gives him a like Epithet.  Famous. Facundus reports, That he had written two thousand Letters. Suidas attributes to him three thousand upon the Holy Scripture, and five thousand upon different Subjects. Nicephorus also reckons ten thousand; but it is almost incredible that he should write so great a number: But however that be, we have no more than 2012. and there are no more 
Dr. Cave, 2013.  extant in the most ancient Manuscripts. He had composed some other Works. 
b He speaks himself of a Trea●●●e of Fate against the Gentiles.] Suidas says, That he had composed some other Works. He citys the Treatise of Fate, in Let. 253. lib. 3. I do not believe it a distinct Treatise from that against the Gentiles, cited in the 137th. and 228th. Letters of the second Book, because what is said in those Places respects the same matter.  He speaks himself of a Treatise of Fate, against the Gentiles. Evagrius makes mention of some Writings of Isidorus to S. Cyril, but it may be he intends the two Letters which he wrote to him, which are still extant, and which are recited by Facundus. By them we are taught, That he was yet alive in the Time of the Council of Ephesus, but he was then very old. The Greek and Latin Church celebrate his Memory on the fourth Day of February.  
The Epistles of this Author are all Laconic, that is to say, (as he himself explains it, after S. Gregory Nazianzen) They contain a great many things in a few Words. In writing them he follows the Rule which he gives in the one hundred fifty third Letter of the first Book. He there observes, That they ought not to be void of all sort of Ornament; nor on the other side too curiously polished. The first Defect puts into them such a dryness and baseness of Style, that they are thereby rendered over-burdensome to the Reader; but the other makes them weak and ridiculous, and therefore they ought to have so much Ornament as is necessary to render them grateful and profitable. And this he hath marvellously well performed in all his Letters, for they are written with a great deal of Wit and Elegance, and yet there is not the least appearance of affectation or constraint. His Expressions are fine and delicate, nevertheless he hath not departed from the most natural way of speaking of things. There are no ambiguities nor false Propositions to be found in them, but they are full of ingenuity and acuteness which runs equally through all of them. Lastly, It may be said of him, That he hath found out the Secret so much searched after by others, of mingling Profit and Pleasure together. In truth, though he hath many Letters upon Critical Questions, relating to several Places of H. Scripture, and whatsoever is of greatest subtlety in the explication of other Mysteries, yet he wants not Expressions to render them very grateful and acceptable to the Reader. But yet he hath joined Knowledge and Learning with the Elegancy and Politeness of his Language; and his Letters are a Collection of an infinite number of Common Places in Divinity, very well treated of and cleared. In them we may find a great many Texts of the Old and New Testament explained, and applied to different Subjects. This is the most common Argument of these Letters. Some there are, wherein he explains and illustrates the Mysteries and Doctrines of our Religion; in others he makes Remarks upon the Discipline of the Church: In the greatest part of them he propounds and confirms the great Principles of Christian Morality, and teaches in many of them the Rules and principal Maxims of a Spiritual Life. Sometimes he gives lively Instructions, sometimes also he utters smart Reproofs, and more often Charitable Advice. He spares no Man; he speaks with Freedom, Steddiness and Authority, not only to the ignorant Laity, or the Monk's subject to his Government, but also to Kings themselves, great Lords, Magistrates, and to Bishops of Sees, to whom he was subject. He opposes Vice wherever he finds it. He gives sharp Reprimands to all disorderly and vicious Persons, of whatsoever Condition they be. He applieth himself to the Persons themselves, and never dissembles what he thinks of them. He not only flatters no Person in their Vices, but he makes use of no cunning Evasions to sweeten his Admonitions. He tells them plainly and severely what he thinks. He represents to them their Irregularities with all the Candour and Cogency possible, and presses them vigorously to forsake them. He commends very seldom, but, when he doth, it is in a way that is not mean, and that cannot puff up with foolish Pride. This in general is the subject of S. Isidore's Epistles, let us consider them in particular.  

Of the Letters of S. Isidore upon the Holy Scripture.  
The greatest and best part of S. Isidore's Letters, are upon several Texts of Holy Scripture. There is hardly a Book, as well of the Old as of the New Testament, of which he doth not explain several Texts. He often recommends the Reading of Holy Scripture, and gives excellent Rules for the good Use and true Understanding of it.  
He requires, That every one that attempts to read it, should prepare himself, by purifying his Heart, and purging it from Passions and Vice, l. 4. 133. That in reading it all-a-long he should not only endeavour to comprehend the Sense, but labour earnestly to believe and practise what it teacheth, l. 4. 33. He adds, That we must read it with a great deal of Reverence, and not seek to dive into the incomprehensible Mysteries, l. 1. 24. That God hath, with much Reason, ordered That there should be in Holy Scripture some things very plain, and other places very obscure, as a mark of his Wisdom and Providence; for if all of it were clear, what would Man have to stir up his Attention? And if all of it were obscure, how would it be possible to understand it? That which is evident explains that which is obscure; and altho' some Places may still remain obscure, yet there is one great Advantage to be drawn from them, which is to debase Man's Pride, l. 4. 82. He also observes, in several places, That the Holy Scripture is written in such a Style, as is to be preferred before all other Authors: For, saith he, the affected Eloquence of Heathen Writers serves only to gratify their Vanity, contributes nothing to Instruction; but the Style of Scripture is plain and natural, and very proper to instruct and inform the ignorant in the greatest Truths, l. 4. 61, 79, 140. He that undertakes to explain Holy Scripture, must have a grave and free elocution, and a Mind filled with Piety and Goodness. He must take the Sense of it, and not impose his own upon it, nor offer Violence to the Words of Scripture, that he may explain them agreeably to his own Fancy, l. 3. 292. He must not take little pieces by themselves, and put that Sense upon them that first comes into his Head, but he must weigh every Word, examine the Context, the Subject of which it treats, and why it was written so, l. 3. 136. Those that maintain, That all that is in the Old Testament hath a respect to Jesus Christ are mistaken, and do an Injury to Religion, by imposing upon the Words of Scripture a farfetched Sense, which doth not agree to it, that it may have a relation every where to Jesus Christ. We must content ourselves to apply that only to him which is apparently spoken of him, and not constrain ourselves to attribute that to him which doth not relate to him; for those who would find Jesus Christ in those Places where he is not spoken of, give an occasion to the Unbelievers to doubt of those where he is. Genesis is the first and principal of Moses' Books, because it is necessary before a Law be established, that the Power and Authority of the Lawgiver be made known, and the Rewards which he will give to those that keep his Commandments, and the Punishments which he will inflict upon those that break them, be discovered: Both of which are laid down in the History of Genesis, l. 4. 176. In reading the three Books of Solomon, we must begin with the Proverbs, proceed next to Ecclesiastes, and end with the Canticles: And that for this Reason. The First of these Books teaches us Moral Virtues; the Second shows us the Vanity and Falsehood of worldly things; and the Third inspires us with the Love of Spiritual Things, and represents the Happiness of that Soul, that is in possession of them. If we should read the Canticles first, we might be apt to believe that it speaks of a Carnal and Terrestrial Love, but when we are fitted for the reading of this Book by the two other, there is no fear that we shall have any such Thoughts, for the Mind being furnished with Moral Precepts, and loosened from earthly things, easily understands that the good Things and Beauties which that Book inspires us with the love of, are altogether Spiritual.  
Although the Explications which S. Isidore gives to the greatest part of the Texts of Holy Scripture, upon which he makes any Reflections, do rather respect Morality and Piety than the literal Sense of Scripture, yet that hinders not but that he sometimes discusses and resolves Critical Questions. As for example, He inquires into the beginning of Daniel's seventy Weeks, and explains the History of that Prophecy, l. 3. 89. He observes, upon the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, That the Virgin was of the Tribe of Judah as well as Joseph, l. 1. 7, 478 He proves, That the Text of the Gospel of S. Matthew, ch. 1. 20. Joseph knew her not, i. e. Marry, till she had brought forth her firstborn son, doth not prove that Joseph knew Mary after her Delivery: Whereupon he produces a great many Examples taken out of Scripture, by which he shows, That the Particle until doth not signify that the thing was done afterward, but on the contrary it denotes that it never was. He adds, That Jesus Christ upon the Cross recommended the Virgin to S. John, because that Apostle was a Virgin, l. 1. 18. He asserts, That the Meat that S. John the Baptist did eat in the Wilderness called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were not, as is commonly believed, Grasshoppers, or a sort of Creatures like Snails, but the Tops of Plants or Herbs, l. 1. 132. The Sabbath, called in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the second Sabbath, Luke 6. 1. after the first, hath always seemed a Place hard to be understood. S. Isidore gives an Explication of it natural enough: He saith, That it is the first Day of Unleavened Bread, which followed the Feast of the Passover. This was the second Sabbath, or second Festival after the first, on which the Passover was celebrated, l. 3. 110. The three Days and three Nights which Jesus Christ is said to remain in the Sepulchre, are very hard to find out: S. Isidore gives two explications to solve it: According to the first, Jesus Christ having been crucified on Friday at Noon, we ought to count the first Day from that Hour to the Time when the Earth was covered with miraculous Darkness: This Darkness may very well pass for the first Night. The Darkness being over and gone, about three or four a Clock in the Afternoon, the Day returned; which may be called the second Day. The second Night was from Friday to Saturday. The third Day is Saturday. The third Night is from Saturday to Sunday. This first Explication is not at all natural, not only because it gives the Name of Night to the miraculous Darkness, but because the Question is not about the Time that was spent after Jesus Christ was fastened to the Cross to the Resurrection, but about the Time that his Body was in the Sepulchre. We must then rely upon the second: The first Day is Friday, the second Saturday and the third Sunday, in the Morning of which Jesus Christ risen from the Dead: These three are not whole Days, but ordinarily the Beginning and End of Days are taken for whole Days, when many are reckoned together. As for example, If it be said to a Prisoner on Friday in the Evening, Within three Days you shall come out of Prison; it is meant, That he shall come out on Sunday, because whether it be in the Morning or Evening, it is true in some Sense to say, That he hath been three Days in Prison. As for the three Nights, it will be more difficult to find them out: We can count but two, and they are from Friday to Saturday, and from Saturday to Sunday. There is neither beginning nor end of the third Night; but neither is it necessary, because when Jesus Christ said, That he should be three Days and three Nights in the Bowels of the Earth, as Ionas was three Days and three Nights in the Belly of the Whale, it ought not to be understood literally, it being the usual way of speaking among the Jews, not to distinguish the Night from the Day. It is sufficient to prove the Truth of the Prophecy, That Jesus Christ was as long in the Sepulchre as Ionas was in the Belly of the Whale, l. 4. 114. l. 2. 212. There is a Place which hath much perplexed all our Interpreters. 'Tis that in which S. Paul speaks of Baptism for the Dead. S. Isidore resolves this Difficulty after a very intelligible and rational manner. To be baptised for the Dead, saith he, is to be baptised into the Hopes of being changed into an incorruptible State, l. 1. 221. Some have taken great Pains to know, What S. Paul means, and what we are to understand in the Creed by the Quick and the Dead, which shall be judged at the last Day. S. Isidore tells us, That it is either the Body and the Soul, or perhaps the Good and the Sinner, or rather those who shall be then alive, and those who shall be dead before, l. 1. 221. Several Authors have confounded Philip, one of the seven first Deacons, who baptised the Eunuch of Queen Candace, with S. Philip the Apostle. S. Isidore is not guilty of that Mistake, but distinguishes the two Philips, l. 1. 447. The curious enquirers after the Greek Antiquities, have taken much Pains to know the Original of the Altar erected to the Honour of the unknown God, of which mention is made in the Acts: Some affirm, saith he, That the Athenians having required assistance of the Lacedæmonians, their Messenger was stopped near a Mountain of Parthenia, by a Ghost, who commanded him to return home, and bid the Athenians be of good Courage; for they should have no need of the Help of the Lacedæmonians, he would assist them: That the Athenians, after this, having obtained the Victory, built an Altar to that Unknown God, which had given them that Advice, and had helped them. Others say, That the City of Athens being afflicted with a Raging Pestilence, the Athenians having invoked all their other Gods, to no purpose, bethought themselves to build an Altar to the Unknown God, and immediately the Plague was stayed, l. 4. 69. There are a great number of other of S. Isidore's Letters upon several Texts of Holy Scripture: But as a Proof of his Acuteness and Ability to interpret Holy Scripture, it is sufficient to observe, That he gives ten Explications of one Text of S. Paul, l. 4. 129. And that in one Letter, of a few Lines, he explains eight several Texts of Scripture, l. 4. 112. so ready and familiar was it to him. He sometimes unfolds those Texts which the Heretics did abuse to uphold their Errors, and maintains against their false Glosses those Texts which the Orthodox alleged. He often enlarges upon such Maxims of Piety and Principles of Morality as are contained in those Texts of Holy Scripture which he quotes. He likewise very commonly explains it in a Spiritual Sense, that he may raise out of it some Moral Observations and useful Instructions.   

Of his Letters of Doctrine.  
Although S. Isidore hath not professedly treated of any Doctrine of Religion, yet in many of his Letters we find them very strongly confirmed and proved. He shows, That the Heathen Religion hath evident Marks of Falsehood, l. 1. 95. l. 4. 27, 29, 30, etc. And that Christianity hath all the Signs of Truth, and opposes those who accuse it of Novelty, l. 2. 46. He affirms, That if we do but compare the Holy Scriptures with the Heathen-writers, we may soon discern on which side the true Religion is, l. 1. 21. That the former contain sublime Truths, which beget Reverence, whereas the latter are full of Fables and despicable Fooleries and Cheats, l. 2. 4, 5. Among the Proofs of the Christian Religion he forgets not to insert that of the confirmation of the Gospel by Miracles, and the destruction of Paganism, l. 1. 271. He confutes the Jews in several places, not only by demonstrating, That the Prophecies of the Messiah are fulfilled in Jesus Christ, but also by confirming the truth of the Conception of Jesus Christ in the Womb of the Virgin, l. 1. 141. l. 4. 17. He proves, That God hath created Angels, Men and all Being's, l. 1. 343. That all Things are overruled by Providence, and not by the influences of the Stars, or by Fate, l. 3. 135, 154, 191. That Things do not come to pass, because God foreknows them or foretells them, but God foreknows and foretells them because they will so happen, l. 1. 56. He explains the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation in so many Letters, that it is needless to cite them all. Among others, these are worthy of our Consideration about the Trinity, l. 1. 67, 138, 139, 327. l. 4. 99 About the Incarnation, l. 1. 323, 403. He confutes the Error of the Arrians, l. 1. 246, 353. l. 4. 31, 334. and of the Sabellians, l. 3. 247. He proves the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, l. 1. 20, 60, 97, 109, 499, 500, etc. He condemns the Error of the Nestorians, and shows that the name of the Mother of God ought to be given to the Virgin Mary, l. 1. 54. He also opposes those, who confounded the two Natures, as well as the Manichees, who asserted, That the Flesh which appeared in Jesus Christ, was a mere Phantom, l. 1. 124, 323, 102, 303. He refutes the Marcionites, l. 1. 11. the Manichees, l. 4. 13. the Montanists, l. 1. 242. to the 246. and the Novatians, l. 1. 100, 338. He maintains the perpetual Virginity of Mary, both before and after her Conception, l. 1. 23. He is of Opinion, That Jesus Christ came out of her Womb, as well as out of the Sepulchre, without opening the Passage, l. 1. 404. He proves the Soul to be Immortal, l. 3. 295. l. 4. 125. But he confutes the Doctrine of Origen about the eternal Praeexistence of Souls, l. 4. 163. He also disproves the Opinion of those who believed, That the Soul is part of the Substance of God himself, l. 4. 124. He shows, That the Resurrection of the Body is certain, but the manner of it and time, is uncertain, l. 1. 284. l. 2. 43. He holds, That after the Resurrection, the Bodies of the damned shall be Spiritual, as well as the Bodies of the blessed; that is to say, as he explains it, active, and of the nature of the Air. He believes, That the damned shall be punished in different manners, according to the difference of their Sins, l. 4. 42. He defends the freedom of Man's Will, l. 1. 271, 303, 352, 363, etc. He allows, That Grace is necessary to perform that which is good, but he will have Man on his part to use his diligence and labour, that Grace may be operative. The Nature of Man, saith he, hath received several Graces which it is in Man's power to make good use of. Man's labour must concur with Grace, as the Industry of Sailors is helpful to the prosperous Winds. It is of God's Providence that our help comes, but we must also join our endeavours with it, l. 2. 2. We are ourselves, saith he in another Letter, the cause of our own Damnation, and Jesus Christ is the cause of our Salvation; for it is he that hath justified us by Baptism, who hath delivered us from the Punishments we have deserved, and hath enriched us with his Gifts; but all his Graces will be of no advantage to us, if we do not what we are able to do on our part, l. 2. 61. Man, saith he in another place, stands in need of the divine Assistance to accomplish those very things, which seem to be in his Power; but that Grace is never wanting to those, who on their part do what they are able; for if the Divine Providence excites, and stirs up those, who have no desire to do good, with what reason can it deny necessary helps for doing good to those, whose Will is well inclined, and do what they are able? l. 4. 171. Nevertheless, Man must not attribute the good he doth to himself, but must refer all to the Grace of God, otherwise his best Actions will be of no use to him, l. 2. 265, 242. In sum, no Man lives upon Earth, and sins not, l. 1. 435. S. Isidore delivers himself upon the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, in a way altogether conformable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the present Church. The Baptism of Infants, saith he, doth not only wash them from their natural Pollution, caused by the Sin of Adam, but it also conferrs Graces: It not only obliterates the Sin of those that receive it, but also makes them God's adopted Children, l. 3. 195. The Veil, that covers the Sacramental Elements, doth undoubtedly overspread the Body of Jesus Christ, l. 1. 123. And the Holy Spirit turns the Wine into the Blood of Jesus Christ, l. 1. 314. The scandalous Life of Ministers, their Sins and Impieties do not hinder the effect of the Sacraments which they administer, l. 1. 120. l. 2. 37, 52. l. 3. 34, 394. He approves of the Honour which is given to the Martyrs, and the respect which is bestowed on their Relics. He disallows not the presenting of Offerings at their Altars in honour of them; but the principal respect, which we can give them, is to imitate their Lives, l. 1. 55. l. 2. 89. He prefers a single Life before Marriage, l. 2. 133. He observes, That the Polygamy of the ancient Patriarches was then very excusable, because it was necessary that they should have a numerous Posterity; but it may not be now used as a pretence to cover our Incontinence. We will conclude with the Idea and Definition which he gives the Catholic Church: The Faithful, saith he, dispersed throughout the whole World, make up the Body of the Universal Church; every particular Church is a Member of it, l. 4. 103. This Universal Church hath often been assaulted, but it never was, nor ever shall be utterly extinct, l. 3. 5.   

Letters concerning the Discipline of the Church.  
In the Letters of S. Isidore there are a great many important things worthy of our Observation touching the Discipline of the Church. He condemns Simony in an infinite number of them, l. 1. 26, 29, 30, 45, 106, 111, 119, 120, 136, 145, 158, 315. l. 2. 125. l. 3. 17, etc. He taxes all those Exactions which were used upon the account of Ordinations, with this Crime. He condemns, in several places, those who ambitiously sought for Bishoprics. He reminds the Priests about the Administration of the Sacrament of Penance, that they have Power to bind as well as lose; That they neither may nor aught to lose those, who bring no Medicine for their Sins, and who do not endure a Penance proportionable to the greatness of their Crimes. He advertiseth them, That they ought to be Ministers of Jesus Christ, and not Fellow-Criminals; That they are Intercessors with God and not absolute Judges; That they are Mediators and not Masters, l. 3. 260. He tells the Deacons, That they are the Bishop's Eye, and that they ought to be very careful in the management of the Church's Revenue, l. 1. 19 He order all Ecclesiastical Persons to carry themselves modestly, and avoid the familiarity, converse and sight of Women, l. 1. 89. l. 2. 284, 278. l. 3. 11, 66. He requires them to be subject to Princes, and pay them Tribute, l. 1. 48. He observes, That in the Apostle's time the Christians had no Churches, but that in his time they were become very sumptuous and fine, l. 2. 246. He blames the Bishop of Damiata for having built a stately Church, with the Money which he had scraped together by selling Ordinations, and other Exactions of the People. He tells him, That it is to build Zion by Blood, and establish Jerusalem by Iniquity; as it is said in the Prophet Micah; That a Sacrifice made up of another Man's Substance, is an Horror and an Abomination to the Lord. He advises him to give over building that Church at the expense of the People, if he would not have that lofty Temple convince him of Injustice before God, and be a Monument, that shall cry eternally against him, and which shall require the restitution of what he hath taken from the Poor, and Vengeance for oppressing of them, l. 1. 37. We find also some Ceremonies of the Church taken notice of in S. Isidore's Letters. In his time the Bishop wished Peace to the People, and the Congregation answered, And with you also, l. 1. 122. The Deacons which ministered at the Altar wore a Linen Vestment, and the Bishops had a kind of Cloak made of Woollen, which covered their Neck and Shoulders, which they put off when the Gospel began to be read. The first of these Habits, according to Isidore, denotes the Humility of Jesus Christ; and the second, represented the wand'ring Sheep, which the good Shepherd brings home upon his Shoulders, l. 2. 246. The Custom than was to allow Women to sing in the Church; but S. Isidore says, That they had abused that practice, by causing themselves to be admired for the sweetness and harmony of their Voice, and were no less blame-worthy, than if they sang profane Songs, and that they ought to be forbidden singing in the Church for the future, l. 1. 90. Divorce was only allowed in case of Adultery. The Reason which S. Isidore gives for it, is this, That Adultery is the only Sin by which conjugal Faith is violated, and which brings into a Family the Children of Strangers, l. 2. 376. He could not bear those who asserted, That Comedies might be of good use to beget a detestation of Vice, and make Men more virtuous. The aim and design of Comedians, saith he, is clear contrary; and their Art hath no other end, than to hurt and corrupt Manners, l. 3. 336. Those, who are pleased to see counterfeit Passions represented, ordinarily become passionate; it is then necessary to keep from going to Comedies; for it is easier to avoid the occasion, and to oppose the first approaches of Vice, than to stop the course of it, when it is once begun, l. 5. 433. He says, That a Person condemned by his Bishop ought no where to be received into Communion; but he observes, That altho' this were the regular course, yet many Bishops of his time had neglected it; and that was the reason, that the good Bishops dare not take upon them to correct their disorderly and vicious Clergy.   

Letters of Pious Advice and Instruction.  
There never was in the Church a more strict, or free Censor of Manners than S. Isidore of Damiata. The Church of Damiata was then governed by a Bishop, called Eusebius, who sought his own advantage more than that of Jesus Christ. Although S. Isidore looked upon him as his Superior, yet he was not afraid of violating the respect due to him, by telling him with all the freedom imaginable, That he did not lead a Life as became a Bishop. He made no scruple to reprove him for his Vices, to write of them to his Friends, to discover them to the public, that he might make him ashamed of them, and to lament the unhappiness of the Church of Damiata in having such a Bishop. In his other Letters, he speaks the same things for the most part; sometimes he accuses him of selling Ordinations, sometimes he reproves his Covetousness, sometimes he taxes his Pride and Ambition, and sometimes he suspects him to be guilty of living disorderly. In a word, he gives him every where the Character of a Bishop altogether unworthy of his Ministry. He hath no more regard to the reputation of his inferior Ministers. His archdeacon Pansophius, and his Steward, called Maro, are taxed with the Crimes of Simony and unjust Exactions. The Monks, Zosimus and Palladius meet with no better Treatment; he describes them as Debauchees who led a lewd and disorderly Life. Another Priest, called Martinianus, who after the Death of Eusebius strove to get himself ordained into his place, is also accused of many Crimes by Isidore. He wrote also of him to S. Cyril to hinder him from ordaining him Bishop of Damiata. If we will take the pains to read the Letters which he hath written to the Persons already named, and to his Friends upon the same Subject, we shall find therein excellent Instructions for all Bishops. Particularly we may see against those that Hunt after Bishoprics, l. 1. 23, 28, 104. l. 2. 127. and many others against the Bishops, who confer Ordinations for Money, l. 1. 26, 29. and others which we have cited in speaking of Simony. Against proud and covetous Bishops, and who make not a good use of the Revenues of the Church, l. 1. 38, 44, 57, 215. Against their lording and tyrannical Humour, l. 2. 208, 209. He describes the excellency of the Priesthood, l. 2. 200. and prefers it before the temporal Government; because Bishops govern the Soul, whereas Princes have Power only over the Body. He speaks, in several places, of the necessary Qualifications of a Bishop, and of the difficulty that there is in discharging that Ministry well, l. 1. 104, 151. l. 3. 216, 259. l. 4. 213. 145. He admonishes those that desire to be Bishops, that they ought to purify themselves before they undertake to purify others, l. 2. 65. He thinks, That there are two Things absolutely necessary for a Bishop, Eloquence and Holiness of Life; that if these two go not together, 'tis impossible that a Bishop should do any good in his Place, l. 1. 44. l. 2. 235. l. 3. 259. That Gravity, and a Constancy in his Actions, ought also to be joined with these two Virtues, l. 1. 319. l. 2. 290.  
But S. Isidore did not only use such Admonitions and Reproofs towards his own Bishop and Clergy to amend them, but also he dealt in the same manner with S. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, in writing to him about the Troubles that happened at the Council of Ephesus. He accuses him for acting too rashly and fiercely, and tells him, that many of those who were assembled at Ephesus, boldly asserted, That he sought more to be avenged of his Enemy, than settle the Orthodox Truth. He is, say they, a true Nephew of Theophilus, he hath the same Spirit and Behaviour; and as this last thundered out his Fury against the Blessed John, his Nephew hath done the same, altho' there be a great deal of difference between the Persons accused, l. 1. 310. He wrote to him after the same fashion in another Letter. The Examples of Holy Scripture, saith he, create in me such an horror as obliges me to write to you. For whether I look upon myself as your Father (as you call me) I am afraid lest if I do not admonish you, I should be punished as the Highpriest Eli was, for having not reproved his Sons. But if I consider myself rather as your Son, upon the Account of S. Mark, whom you represent, the punishment of Jonathan, who was slain, because he did not hinder his Father from consulting the Witch of Endor, is a Warning to me. Wherefore, to avoid my own and your Condemnation, I am obliged to admonish you to lay aside the Disputes now on foot, and not engage the Church of Christ in a particular and domestic Quarrel, and so raise a perpetual Schism in the Church under the pretence of Religion, l. 1. 370.  
It was the Grief that S. Isidore had, to see the Orthodox Bishops divided among themselves, that made him speak thus. He imagined that S. Cyril's Rashness was the Cause of it. He thought that he sought to revenge an old Quarrel: And it appears likewise, that he suspected him, not to have a thorough-sound Opinion about the Incarnation, l. 1. 323. But, afterwards, being better informed, he approved his Doctrine, and exhorted him to continue steadfast in it, and not contradict himself, as it appears by Letter, 324. l. 1. S. Isidore wrote not only to S. Cyril, to endeavour a Pacification between the Bishops of the Council of Ephesus, but thought himself obliged to write to the Emperor Theodosius. He advised him to go himself to Ephesus, to appease the Troubles; and admonishes him, Not to espouse the Animosities of either Side, nor suffer his own Officers to intermeddle with Matters of Doctrine, l. 1. 311. Thus did S. Isidore, without leaving his Retirement, engage himself in the greatest Affairs of the Church, and joined with the Prayers, which he made to God for the Peace of his Church, the most effectual Counsels and Advice.  
So that he was none of those Monks who were contented to bewail their own Sins, and pray to God for others in secret, and who remain in perpetual Silence, without concerning themselves with what happens, or having any Commerce with other Men. He found out a way to join the Love of Solitude with the Knowledge of what happens in the World; Piety and Silence with Charitable Advice and Admonitions; Mental Recollection with a continual Observation of other's Actions: And, to speak in one Word, all the Exercises of a Monastic Life, with the Care and Vigilance of a Pastor. There were no Persons, of whatsoever State and Condition they were, but he gave them Advice and Instructions about their Employments and Duties. We have already seen after what manner he gave them to Bishops and Ecclesiastical Persons, let us now take a view of some of them, which he gives to the Laity.  
Advice to Kings. If you will obtain the Eternal and Incorruptible Kingdom, which God will give to those who govern well here below, as a Reward, you must make use of your Power with Moderation and Goodness, and liberally dispense your Riches to the Poor; for 'tis not a Prince's Power that saves him, but his Justice, Goodness and Piety: He cannot avoid being counted an Idolater, if he unjustly hoards up his Temporal Riches, without distributing them to the Poor, l. 1. 35. to Theodosius.  
Advice to Magistrates and Governors. They ought to think with themselves, That the Time of exercising their Offices is short; That Life itself is not of long continuance; That the Rewards or Torments of another World are Eternal; That they ought to Administer Justice freely to all the World, use their Authority with gentleness, and give no Man a just Ground of Complaint, l. 1. 31, 47, 48, 133, 165, 191, 208, 290.  
Advice to Courtiers. Not to misuse the Favour of their Prince, but to employ it for the Good and Safety of the People, and to imitate Daniel, l. 1. 36, 47, 48.  
Advice to Soldiers. Not to take too much upon them, to do no Violence nor Injustice, etc. l. 1. 40, 78, 297, 327.  
Advice to Subjects. Jesus Christ submitted himself to the Laws of the Emperors, and paid Tribute, to teach us Obedience to Kings, and not to exempt ourselves from paying their Deuce, upon the Pretence of Poverty, l. 1. 206, 408.  
Advice to Women. If they would be commended as Judith, Susanna or S. Thecla, they must imitate the Virtues of those Illustrious Women, l. 1. 187. That Christian Women should modestly apparel themselves, and that they should not use the Adorn and Finery of the Women of the World. Upon this occasion he relates a remarkable Story of a Young Woman, who coming into the Sight of a Young Man, who was extremely in Love with her, cured him of that fond Passion, by presenting herself before him with her Heir cropped, and her Head covered with Ashes, l. 2. 53, 145. He recommends Modesty also to them, but more especially to Widows, l. 1. 179.  
Advice to Parents. Concerning the Education of their Children, l. 1. 316.  
Advice to those that take the Holy Sacrament with a defiled Conscience, l. 1. 170.  
Advice to Sinners. The most perfect State is not to sin, but it is good to repent when we have sinned, and to rise again, as soon as may be, from our Fall. Since you are fallen from your first Estate, which is above your Strength, have a care that you do not neglect the second means of gaining your Salvation, and take heed that Despair do not entirely ruin you, l. 1. 381. l. 2. 160. l. 3. 62. Yet the Hopes of Pardon ought not to encourage us in Sin, for it is much easier to preserve Innocency than to restore it, forasmuch as some Scar always remains after the Cure, and it can never be recovered but with much Pain, l. 3. 157.  
Advice to a Physician, who lived wickedly. You profess a Science which requires a great deal of Prudence and Wisdom, but you have a Spirit of Contradiction; you cure small Wounds for others, but do not heal your own Distempers, which are very great and dangerous: If you will be a True Physician, begin to cure your own diseased Soul, l. 1. 391, 437.  
There are an infinite number of such like Instructions in the Letters of S. Isidore. They are full of Maxims of Piety and the Rules of a Spiritual Life. He, in several Places of them, recommends Charity, Humility, Vigilance, Holiness, Modesty, Sobriety, Patience, Contempt of the World, Repentance, Labour, Prayer, and other Christian Virtues, of which he teaches the Practical Part. He renders the contrary Vices detestable, and propounds fit Remedies for us to apply to them. He principally inveighs against Three Vices very common in his Time, Ambition, Covetousness and Intemperance. Lastly, All his Letters are full of most solid and profitable Christian Maxims: This is an excellent one, which he often repeats; Our Lives must correspond with our Words, and we ought to practise ourselves what we teach others, for it is not enough to say, but we must do what we say.   

Letters concerning the Discipline and Life of the Monks.  
As S. Isidore professed a Monastic Life, so 'tis to the Monks that the greatest part of his Instructions, which we have already spoken of, are directed. He extols a Monastic State in general, l. 1. Let. 129. and gives the Description of a true Monk, l. 1. 200, 298, 308, 319. He makes that estate to consist principally in two things; In Retiredness and Obedience, l. 1. 1. The Apparel of the Monks, according to him, aught to be like S. John Baptist's; that is to say, Of Hair, and their Food ought to be nothing but Herbs: But if they are not able to undergo so great Austerities, they ought to live in that Way which the Bishop commands them, and follow the Rules which he shall prescribe them, l. 1. 5, 74, They ought not to live as they list, but put themselves under the Government of some Superior, l. 1. 193, 260. They ought not to concern themselves with worldly Affairs, nor maintain any Trade or Commerce with the World, l. 1. 25, 75, 92, 220. When any Man hath once embraced a Monastic Life, he ought to persevere with Zeal, l. 1. 91, 110. Inconstant and fickle Monks are blame-worthy, l. 1. 41, 173, 314, 318. They ought not to be allowed to live in Idleness, but they must be employed and labour, l. 1. 49. They may not read the Books of Profane Authors, nor affect to speak or declaim elegantly, l. 1. 62, 64. I omit to speak of the Practice of such Christian Virtues as he recommends to them, and of those Vices which he reproves in some Monks of his Time, because that were to repeat what we have already said.  
What we have spoken of S. Isidore of Damiata, may suffice to inform us of his Style and Person: Nothing remains more to be spoken of, but the Editions of these Letters, which I shall do in a few Words. The three first Books were translated into Latin by the Abbot Billius, and printed after his Death in Greek and Latin, at Paris in 1585. with a Collection of the excellent Observations of that Learned Man, as well upon S. Isidore as upon other Greek Fathers. Ritterhusius added a Fourth Book to these, and caused it to be printed with [the other Three, and] his own large Notes [upon all the Four Books] by Commelinus [at Heidelberg] in 1605. The Jesuit Schottus joined a Fifth Book to them, which was printed in Greek at Antwerp in 1623., in Latin at Rome in 1624. and in Greek and Latin [illustrated with Notes, Glosses and Arguments] at Frank fort in 1629. They are all collected into one Volume, and printed in the last Edition at Paris, in 1638.    

JOANNES CASSIANUS.  
JOANNES CASSIANUS, a Native of Scythia 
a A Native of Scythia.] Gennadius says plainly, That he was a Scythian. M. Holstenius and F. Norris endeavour to prove that he was a Frenchman; and this they pretend to do from ch. 1. conf. 24. but that Place doth not prove what they assert, nor destroy the Testimony of Gennadius, which is of great weight. Photius says, That he was a Roman, but he means it of the Place of his Abode, and the Tongue he wrote in. Honorius calls him an African, perhaps because he thought Scythia was in Africa. Some say he was a Native of Scythia and born at Carthage, but this is without Ground. What some say, That he wrote too elegantly in Latin to be a Greek, is not to be regarded. It is very possible that a Greek, living among the Latins, might write Latin as well as he hath done: Besides, he lived in an Age, when almost all Learned Men were skilled in both Tongues. , having devoted himself to God in his Childhood, withdrew himself into the Monastery of Bethlehem 
b He withdrew himself into the Monastery of Bethlehem.] He says so himself in the Preface of his Institutions, dedicated to Castor; where speaking of his First Exercise in that Monastery; he says, A pueritia nostra constituti. ; afterward, being 
J. Cassian.  desirous to attain the utmost perfection of a Religious Life, he departed from thence, with another Monk named Germanus, with whom he had contracted an intimate Friendship, to go into Egypt and Thebais, to see the Solitaries and Monks of that Country, and gather some Advantage by their Example and Instructions. Having lived Seven Years 
c Having lived seven Years] In his First Conference, ch. 1. he tells us, That it was the Desire he had to visit the Monks, and profit by their Instructions, that made him undertake that Voyage: Germanus, with whom he traveled, had been longer in the Monastery than he; they always were very intimate. He relates, in his Conferences, the principal Discourses which they had with the most Spiritual Religious all-a-long their Voyage, and the Places whither they went, in the seventeenth Conf. ch. 31. He says, That at the end of seven Years they performed their Promise, which they had made, of returning to the Monastery; and then went into the Desert of Scythia.  in that Country, and conferred with the most Spiritual and most eminent Abbots of those Quarters, they returned to their Monastery, as they had obliged themselves; and having discharged this Duty to their Ancient Brethren, they went from thence into the the Desert of Scythia. It is probable, that the Contentions of the Monks of Egypt with the Bishop of Alexandria forced them, as well as many others, to retreat to Constantinople: But however that be, it is certain that they were at Constantinople when S. Chrysostom was banished, and that they were sent to Rome to carry the Letters of the Clergy of that City thither; containing Complaints of the Violence which had been used against their Bishop, as we read in the Life of S. Chrysostom, written by Palladius. Germanus the Priest, saith he, and Cassian the Deacon, Persons of eminent Piety, who were for S. Chrysostom, came after Palladius, and brought Letters from all the Clergy of Constantinople, relating, how that their Church had suffered intolerable Oppression and Tyranny, their Bishop having been driven out by Force, etc. S. Innocent returning an Answer to this Letter, says also, That it was brought by Germanus the Priest and Cassian. It cannot rationally be said, That this Cassian is a distinct Person from this of whom we are speaking, since he not only bears the same Name, and hath a Companion of the same Name, but also because we understand by Cassian himself, That he was the Scholar of S. Chrysostom. Gennadius also takes notice, That he was ordained by that Holy Bishop. Afterward he was promoted to the Order of Priesthood, it is likely in the West, and never returned again into the East. But however that be, it is out of doubt that he spent the latter part of his Life at Marseille; where he founded two Monasteries, one for Men and another for Virgins: There he composed all the Works which he left us. He died under the Empire of Theodosius and Valentinian, about the Year Four hundred and forty. The first of his Works is his Institutio Monachorum, i. e. Instruction of Monks, divided into Twelve Books: The first Four which 
De institutis Coenobiorum.  treat of the Habit and way of Living used by the Monks of Egypt, are looked upon by Gennadius and Photius as a distinct Treatise. The Eight last are so many Precepts against the Eight Capital Sins; nevertheless, it appears by the Preface and the sequel, that Cassian intended these two Parts for one entire Work only. This Treatise is dedicated to Castor Bishop of Apta; who desiring to model the Monasteries in his Province, like to the Egyptian, requested Cassian, who had conversed a long time with those Monks, to lay down a Platform of their way of Living; to be, as it were, a Pattern▪ for the Western Monks. In the First he speaks of the Habits of the Egyptian Monks, and describes them much after this Manner. Their Habit was merely to cover their Nakedness, and secure them against the Injuries of the Wether: It had nothing extraordinary either in the Colour or Fashion, lest the singularity of it should give them an occasion to be Proud. They wore a Girdle about their Loins, and a Cowle upon their Heads. Their Linen Coats had short Sleeves, which reached no further than their Elbows, the other part of their Arm was naked. They had over their Habit a kind of Scapular, and a little short Cloak, which came down no further than the Shoulders. They had also a kind of Safeguard of Leather, which they used in bad Wether. They carried a Staff. They wore no Shoes. They had only single Breeches to save themselves from Heat and Cold, and those also they put off when they went to Celebrate, or Receive the Holy Sacrament.  
In the 2d. Book, Cassian, to obviate the great diversity which was in the Monasteries touching the Multitude of Psalms, which were sung at Divine Service, relates the usages of the Monks of Egypt and Thebais. First, he observes, That these Monks at their entrance into the Monastery, forsook all things, laboured with their Hands, and lived in obedience. He than speaks of the Divine Offices of the Monks of Egypt and Thebais: They recited their Evening-Service, and their Night-Service, the 12 Psalms. On Saturday and Sunday they read two Lessons, which, during the whole Lent, were both taken out of the New Testament: On other days, one out of the Old, and another out of the New Testament. At the end of every Psalm they made a pause, and all the Monks rising up, made a Prayer with themselves; then they cast themselves flat on the Ground, and being risen again, they made another short Prayer, without singing the Gloria Patri, as is the custom in the West. The Psalms were not sung by the Monks in a Choir, but one of them sung them, and the rest, sitting in silence, hearkened to him; now and then he made stops, that they might lift up their Hearts to God. Divine Service being ended, they betook themselves to their Cells modestly and silently, and went to their Labours there. They who committed any Fault, were excluded the Service, and it was not allowed any other to pray for them. They did not kneel down, nor Fast from Saturday-evening to Sunday-evening, nor from Easter to Whitsuntide, following the ancient Custom of the Church.  
In the 3d. Book he speaks of the Offices of the third, sixth and ninth Hours, in every of which they recited 3 Psalms. The first Office which Cassian calls the Matins, was not used in Egypt; but he tells us, That it was newly settled not only in the West, but also in his Monastery of Bethlehem. They that came to the Church, which he calls an Oratory, after the first Psalm was ended, did not enter at all, but stayed at the door till the rest came out, and then cast themselves flat on the Ground to beg pardon for their Sloth. In the Night-service it was allowed to go in, till the end of the second Psalm. Besides these Offices there were Vigils on Friday-night to Saturday, in which they rehearsed three Anthems and three Psalms. They never Fast in the East on Saturday, as they do at Rome. Cassian thinks, That this Fast was appointed at Rome, because S. Peter fasted to prepare himself for the encounter with Simon Magus; but he adds, That such a Custom ought not to be established upon that Example. On Sunday they celebrated but one Mass only, to which they joined the Offices of the Third and Sixth: They recited some Psalms before and after Dinner. At Supper, they contented themselves to make a short Prayer, because that was an extraordinary and unusual Meal among the Monks.  
The 4th. Book contains the Qualifications required in that Person, who desires to be admitted into a Monastery. He that offers himself for this end, must remain at the Gate, and beseech the Monks many times to receive him. He must give Proofs of his Patience, Humility and Contempt of the World, and be tried with Denials and Affronts. They by no means will allow that he give his Estate to the Monastery into which he goes, for fear that afterward it should give him an occasion to exalt himself above the other Monks. They make him to lay aside his former Garb, and the Abbot must give him another, to show him that he ought to be entirely stripped of all. Nor will they immediately after admit him into their Society. They put him with an old Monk into an Apartment near the Gate, where they receive Guests; and when he hath served him a long while, they put him under the government of another Senior, who hath the care of Novices; there they teach him to subdue his Passions and renounce his own Will. They oblige him to reveal all his Thoughts to this Senior, and exercise him with the meanest Works, to try his Obedience. They give him no other Food but boiled Herbs, with a little Salt: But Cassian observes, that this austerity in Eating is not practicable in the West. These Holy Monks are so subject to the sound of the Bell, that they are obliged to leave whatsoever Work they are about, to go whither it calls them, altho' it be a Letter. They can possess nothing of their own. They make them do Penance for the least Faults. They read in the Hall at Dinnertime. It is forbidden them to eat any where but in the Hall. They wait upon each other at Table. Lastly, they perform a blind obedience to their Superior, who commands them to do things which seem impossible. Cassian relates some Examples which seem incredible, and it would be dangerous to imitate.  
This is the Subject of the Four first Books of Cassian's Institutions, which Gennadius and Photius have looked upon as a distinct Work from the Eight last. And, indeed, these are upon another Subject. He teaches us, in them, to resist the Eight principal Vices, with which Men are tempted, (viz.) Gluttony, Uncleanness, Covetousness, Anger, Sorrow, Trouble, Vainglory and Pride. In every Book he gives us the definition of these Vices, shows us the pernicious effects of them, propounds Examples to confirm it, how much they ought to be detested. He prescribes Rules for the contrary Virtues, and teaches us fit Remedies to defend ourselves from them. He maintains, That without Grace Man can do no good thing, nor resist any Temptation; but he believes, That this Grace is given to all that use their endeavours.  
But Cassian doth not think it enough to propound the Life of the Egyptian Monks as an Example to the Western, and propose Methods of resisting the most ordinary Temptations. He hath also collected the Instructions, which he had heard from the Mouths of the most Illustrious Abbots of those Deserts, in the Conferences he had with them. Cassian hath made 24 Books of these, which he entitles, Collations or Conferences. The Ten first are dedicated to Leontius Bishop of 
* Forum Julii.  Frejus, and Helladius the Precedent of the Abbey built by Castor, who was dead. The First and Second contain the-Discourses of Moses, Abbot of the Desert of 
† Scetis, Soz.  Schete, in which, having spoken in general of the end of a Monastic Life, and the means of arriving at the end, he treats of the Spirit of Prudence. In the Third, the Abbot Paphnutius explains in what Particulars the forsaking of the World consists. Germanus the Companion of Cassian having put some Questions to him touching the abilities of the freewill, he speaks of the necessity of Grace, even for the beginning of Faith. In the Fourth the Abbot Daniel shows of what use Temptations and the Motions of Concupiscence are. He teaches us the means to resist them; always owning, That without Grace all humane Attempts and Industry are to no purpose. In the Fifth, Serapion discovers the Eight principal Vices, and teaches us fit Remedies to be applied against them. In the Sixth, a Monk, who had a Cell between the Deserts of Scythia and Nitria, endeavouring to explain the Question which Cassian had propounded, Why God did permit that the Monks be taken and put to Death by the Arabians? treats of the Happiness of the Death of the Saints. The Abbot Serenus explains in the Seventh Conference the various Temptations of the Devils, and the Stratagems which they make use of to draw the Soul of Man into Sin. They cannot force or constrain it, but they stir it up to evil. They do not certainly know the secret Thoughts of Man, but guess at them by the Motions of the Body. Every evil Spirit is appointed to excite some passion, they know one another's designs to do Man a mischief, yet they cannot possess him without the Divine Permission: The Virtue of the Cross drives them away. They could not possess men's Bodies, if they had not gotten some footing in the Soul, or God did not permit them to enter to punish some Fault. It is better to be tormented in our Bodies by the Devil, than to have the Soul subject to his power by Vice. We ought to pity the Case of such as are tormented by Devils; Serenus thinks it not reasonable, that they should be deprived wholly of the Communion, which is contrary to the ancient discipline of the Church. Lastly, he makes some Observations upon the nature and differences of Devils, but he handles this Matter more largely in the 18th. Conference, where he speaks of the fall of Devils and the Sin of the first Man. He believes, That the Devils have subtle airy Bodies, and every Man hath a good and a bad Angel. In the Two following Conferences is related the Discourse of the Abbot Isaac upon Prayer. This Holy Man having taught us how we must prepare ourselves for Prayer, distinguishing it into 4 sorts as the Apostle S. Paul doth, Supplications, Prayers, Intercessions and giving of Thanks, he shows for what Persons every one of these Prayers is necessary, and the fittest Seasons when we need them. He afterward expounds the Lord's Prayer, and from thence passes to private Prayers, which proceed from the bottom of the Heart, which are often accompanied with Tears, and an assurance of being certainly heard. The Second Conference is prefaced with a relation of the Troubles raised among the Monks by the Paschal Letters of Theophilus, written against the Error of the Anthropomorphites. Cassian tells us, That the greatest part of the ancient Monks explaining these Words of Genesis in a gross sense, Let us make Man in our Image and in our Likeness, imagined, That God had a Body like ours, and so did represent him to themselves in their Prayers.  
The Bishop of Alexandria had a Custom of publishing on what day Easter should be celebrated every Year. And this he ordinarily did on the Feast of Epiphany; upon which, according to his Remark, they kept not only the Festival of Christ's Baptism, but also his Nativity in Egypt. Having given notice in his Church, in his Sermon, he made it known to the Churches and Monasteries of Egypt by his Letters, which were called, Paschal Letters. Theophilus having taken an occasion to write in one of these Letters against the Error of these Monks, they were extremely disturbed at it; and all the Monks of the Monastery of Schete, except Paphnutius, treated their Archbishop as an Heretic, and undertook to confute his Letter. These good Monks had accustomed themselves to represent God in the figure of a Man, and they could not free themselves from this Imagination, which was so strongly engraved in their Minds, that an old Man named Serapion, (who was convinced of his Error by the Abbot Paphnutius) and a certain Deacon of Cappadocia called Photinus, going to Prayers, and not representing God to himself in a bodily Shape, as before, fell to Weeping and Crying, Oh miserable Man that I am! They have taken away my God, insomuch that I know not how to adore and pray unto him more! This having passed after the first Conference which Cassian and Germanus had had with the Abbot Isaac, they thought at their return to find him full of the fancy of the Abbot Serapion, and asked him, What he would do, since so holy a Man was fallen into so gross an Error? The Abbot Isaac having answered them, That that Error was a Relic of Paganism which the Devil still preserved in the Minds of many ignorant Persons; adds, That those that are perfect and well instructed have no such thing for the object of their Prayers, the only end of which is spiritual Love, which hath nothing carnal. Afterward he recommends a very useful practice to them, which is to say every moment and in all the actions of Life, this short Prayer of the Psalmist, O God, haste thee to help me, make haste, O Lord, to deliver me. He speaks in the Last place of the way to avoid distractions, and to restrain the Thoughts from wand'ring.  
The Seven following Conferences are dedicated to Honoratus the Abbot of 
* Lerina, an ●●●and, adjoining to France.  Lerins, who was after ordained Bishop of 
† Massilia.  Marseilles in 426.  
The Three first contain the Discourses of the Abbot Chaeremon. In the First he treats of the State of Perfection, and the way to attain it: Charity is the principal. In the Second he speaks of Chastity, and the means of obtaining it. The third is that famous Conference of the Protection of the Divine Assistance, wherein he treats of Grace and freewill. These are the Principles, which Cassian lays down in it under the Name of the Abbot Chaeremon. 1. He supposes that Grace is the source not only of our good Actions, but also of our good Thoughts. He adds, That this Grace is always present with us, and sometimes goes before the beginning of our good desires, but always follows them: That the freewill is much impaired by the Sin of the first Man, but is not utterly extinguished: That there remain in us some knowledge of Goodness and Seeds of Virtue: That Grace is given to perfect this Knowledge, and strengthen these Beginnings: That altho' Man can naturally choose good, yet he hath need of Grace to accomplish it: That this Grace goes sometimes before the desires and first motions of the Will, but most commonly follows them: That these two things being usually mixed together, it is hard for us to know whether God shows us Mercy, because we have good inclinations in our Hearts, or where God's Mercy is precedent to those Motions: That it is safest to say, That sometimes Grace inclines the Will to good, as it did in the Conversion of S. Paul and S. Matthew, but there are some Occasions when it follows it, as it happened in the Conversion of Zacchaeus, and the good Thief: That Man may of himself have a desire to be converted, and of the beginnings of Repentance and Faith: That he may Pray, seek a Cure, send for the Physician, resist Temptation; but he can't be cured, he can't be just, he can't be perfect, and he can't be a perfect Conqueror without Grace: That this Grace is a Free-gift, altho' God never denies it to those that are laborious on their part: That we ought not to believe that no good proceeds from Man: The good we do depends partly on Grace and partly on freewill. These are the Principles which Cassian delivers in his 13th Conference under the Name of the Abbot Chaeremon, which have given Prosper an occasion to write against him, in defence of S. Austin's Doctrine, which Cassian seemed to oppose in this Conference.  
The 14th. Conference is a Discourse of the Abbot Nestorius touching Knowledge and spiritual Sciences. The 15th. is another of his Discourses about the Miracles done by the Anchorets. Having discoursed upon them for some time, he makes two Reflections, (viz.) one is, That Humility is to be preterred before the Power of doing Miracles: The other is, That it is more for our advantage to banish Vice from our Hearts, than Devils from the Bodies of others.  
The 16th. is a Discourse of the Abbot Joseph about Friendship grounded upon Charity, Humility, Kindness and Christian Patience. In the 17th. the same Abbot desiring to persuade Germanus and Cassian not to return to their Monastery in Palestine, although they had promised it undertakes to demonstrate by several Examples taken out of Scripture, that it is sometimes lawful and profitable to lie. The Seven last are written to four Abbots after the Ordination, and yet before the Death of Honoratus, that is to say, between the Years 426, and 429.  
The 1st. which is the 18th. speaks of the several sorts of Monks; the Abbot Piammon is made to speak it. He distinguishes the Monks into three sorts: 1. Coenobites, who live in 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  common under an Abbot, imitating the Life of the Apostles. 2. Anohorets, who after they have been instructed and educated in the Monasteries, withdraw into the Deserts. The Authors of this Order, were S. Paul the Hermit and S. Anthony. And 3. Sarahaites, who pretended to retire from the World and joined themselves together by two or three in a Company, to live after their own Humour, not being subject to any Man. He looks upon these last as a corruption of the Monastic State rather than a distinct Order. He adds to these a 4th. sort of Monks, made of those who not being able to endure the Monastic Life in a Convent, retreated alone into certain Cells to live more at liberty. This Discourse concludes with some Instructions about Humility and Patience, and against Envy. The Abbot John who speaks in the following Conference, having been an Anchoret, had betaken himself to a Monastery. It was therefore demanded of him which of the two Orders was to be preferred? He thought the Life of the Coenobites to be best for those, who are not absolutely perfect; and he shows, that none but those who have attained to a degree of eminent Perfection, are capable of living an Hermite's Life.  
The 20th. Conference is a Disourse of the Abbot Pinuphius about true Repentance. It consists in his Judgement in never committing those Sins of which we repent, or which our Consciences accuse us of: Also we ought to believe, That our Sins are pardoned when we have renounced our Passions and our Desires of this World. It is good for a Man to call to mind his Sins at the beginning of Repentance, but he must afterward forget them. There are many other ways of blotting out Sin besides by Baptism and Martyrdom; Charity Sorrow Confession, almsgiving, Prayers, etc. are means of obtaining Remission. If we are ashamed to confess our Sins to Men, it is sufficient to acknowledge them before God; which ought to be understood of ordinary Sins. When our greater Sins are remitted, and we feel no more the Motions nor Desires to commit them, we must quite forget them. But we must not do so with little Sins, into which we fall every day; and therefore must repent of them daily.  
The 21st. Conference is the Abbot Theonas'. He describes his own Conversion, and relates, how he left his Wife against her Will to retire himself into a Monastery. But Cassian is careful to advertise us, That he doth not propound this Example as lawful to be imitated. Lastly, the Question is put, Why the Monks observe no Fasting-days from Easter to Whitsuntide? For resolution of this Question, he lays it down, That Fasting is in itself a thing indifferent, and not always convenient to be used; and maintains, That it is an Apostolic Tradition not to fast in those days of Joy. This Question gives an occasion for another, Why Lent, in some places, is kept six Weeks, in others seven, since neither way, if we take away Saturday and Sunday, it is not of forty days continuance? Theonas answers, That the 36 days of Lent contained in the 6 weeks, make the tenth part of the Year which is Holy to God. That those whose Lent is seven weeks long, have 36 Fasting-days, without counting Saturdays and Sundays, because the Fast of the Holy Saturday, which they continue without interruption to Easter-Sunday, may well pass for two: That those, who keep a six weeks Lent only, fast on Saturday. In sum, That that time is called Quadragesima, altho' we Fast but 36 days, because Moses, Elias and Jesus Christ fasted 40 days: That the Perfect are not tied to this Law, which was ordained for those only who spend all their Lives in Pleasure and Delights, that being forced by a Law they may at least spend that time in God's Service. But as to those who give their Life entirely to God, this Law was not intended for them, they are freed from paying these Tithes. Upon this ground, he affirms, That there was no Lent observed in the Primitive Church, and that it was established for no other reason but because of the negligence of the Faithful. Lastly, Theonas concludes, That it is Love that makes the Precepts of the Gospel lighter and easier to be born than those of the Law. About the end, Germanus asks him, Why those, who fast much, do find themselves often troubled with the Temptations of the Flesh? The resolution of this Question is put off to the next Conference, where he treats of Nocturnal Pollutions, which happen either through immoderate Eating, or through Negligence, or lastly, by the craft of the Devil. These last are no Sin: and if the judgement of this Abbot may be followed, they need not hinder us from approaching the Holy Sacrament altho' we ought to receive it not without much dread, and believing ourselves unworthy: That we must be truly Holy, that we may approach it; but it is not necessary to be without Sin, because than no Body may receive it, since none but Jesus Christ is free from all Sin. In the 23d. Conference the same Abbot explains this Text of S. Paul, The good that I would, I do not; and the evil that I would not, that I do; and some other places of like nature. He holds, That we must understand them of S. Paul and the Apostles, and not of Sinners. For the explication of them, he says, That the Good which Man cannot do, is absolute Perfection, and a total freedom from Sin. He adds, That those that aim at a State of Perfection often fall themselves, drawn away by the motions of the Flesh and Passions, and therefore acknowledge the necessity of Grace. He owns, That Concupiscence is an effect of Adam's Sin, which hath brought Mankind into Bondage. That Jesus Christ came to deliver him from it, and that he hath done it, by restoring him again his Liberty entire, and not by clogging it. That although we have the knowledge of Goodness, and desire spiritual and celestial Goods, the Flesh often pulls us down to the Earth, and fills us with earthly desires, which do not indeed hurry good Men into enormous Sins, but yet makes them fall into venial Sins, and so the most Holy and Just Men do truly call themselves Sinners, and desire of God every day the pardon of their Offences. That it is almost impossible to avoid all Sin even in our Prayers, either through distraction or carelessness; but yet these Sins ought not to discourage us from receiving the Communion. Germanus and Cassian having declared to the Holy Old Man Abraham, that they had a desire to return into their own Country, alleging that they might do much good there both by their Example and Exhortation. This Holy Abbot diverts them from this Design, and tells them plainly, that it was nothing but an hankering Mind, that they had to the World. He than enlarges upon the necessity of retirement, and an entire separation from the World. He speaks also of the Mortification of the Senses, and Lusts of the Flesh, which renders Jesus Christ's Yoke pleasant and easy to be born. He confesses, That we must allow ourselves sometimes Recreation. Lastly, he proves, That those who have renounced the World entirely, enjoy Riches, Pleasures and Honour, infinitely more real and substantial than those that Worldings enjoy, and that so the Promise of Jesus Christ, which gives all those, who leave any thing for him, hopes of receiving an hundred fold, is accomplished in them, even in this present World.  
Cassian having finished this Work before the Year 429. was resolved to continue silent, and writ no more; but he was over-persuaded by S. Leo, who was then Archdeacon of Rome, to write a Treatise upon the Incarnation, against the Heresy of Nestorius, which then began to spread itself; in which he confutes the first Sermon of Nestorius. This Work is divided into seven Books. In the First, having compared Heresy to an Hydra, he makes a Catalogue of the principal Heresies: And, insisting upon the Pelagian Heresy, he observes, That the Error of those who hold, That it was not a God, but a Man that was born of the Virgin Mary, was taken from the Principles of the Pelagians. Leporius was the first Author of that Erroneous Doctrine, and preached it to the French, but retracted it in Africa. In the Second and Third Book he proves, That Jesus Christ is God and Man, and the Virgin may be called the Mother of God. In the Fourth he endeavours to show, That there is but only one Hypostasis or Person in Jesus Christ. In the Fifth he comes to a close Examination of the Error of Nestorius: He confutes his Theses, and shows, That the Union of the Two Natures in one Person alone, makes it lawful to attribute to the Person of Jesus Christ, whatsoever agree to both Natures. In the Last Place he proves, That the Union of the two Natures is not a Moral Union only, nor a Dwelling of the Divinity in the Human Nature as in a Temple, as Nestorius' asserts; but it is a real Union of the two Natures in one Person. In the Sixth he falls upon Nestorius with the Creed of the Church of Antioch, where he was brought up, taught and baptised. Some have needlessly enquired, by what Council of Antioch that Creed was made. Cassian speaks of the Creed which was usually recited in the Church of Antioch, and not of a Creed composed by any Council of Antioch. But we must not forget here what Cassian observes, That the Creed (
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to join together, etc.  Symbolum) is so called, because it is a short Collection of all the Doctrine contained in Holy Scripture. He urges Nestorius extremely with the Authority of the Creed of his Church, which contained the Faith which he had embraced when he was baptised, and which he had always professed. If you were, saith he to him, an Arrian, or a Sabellian, and I could not use your own Creed against you, I would then convince you by the Authority of the Testimonies of Holy Scripture, by the Words of the Law, and by the Truth of the Creed acknowledged by all the World. I would tell you, That tho' you had neither Sense nor Judgement, you ought to yield to the Consent of all Mankind, and that it is unreasonable to prefer the Opinions of some particular Men before the Faith of the Church. That Faith, say I, which having been taught by Jesus Christ, and preached by the Apostles, aught to be received as the Word and Law of God. If I should deal thus with you, what would you say? what would you answer? You could certainly have no other Evasion, but to say, I was not brought up in this Faith, I was not so instructed, my Parents, my Masters taught me otherwise, I have heard another thing in my Church, I have learned another Creed, into which I was baptised: I live in that Faith of which I have made Profession from my Baptism. You would think that you had brought a very strong Argument against the Truth upon this Occasion. And I must freely own, 'Tis the best Defence that can be used in a bad Cause. It discovers at least the Original of the Error: And this Disposition were excusable if it were not accompanied with Obstinacy. If you were of the same Opinions which you had imbibed in your Infancy, we ought to make use of Arguments and Persuasions to bring you from your Error rather than severity to punish what is passed; but, being born, as you were, in an Orthodox City, instructed in the Catholic Faith, and baptised with a true Baptism, we must not deal with you as an Arian or a Sabellian. I have no more to say but this, Fellow the Instructions you have received of your Parents, depart not from the Truth of the Creed which you have learned, remain firm in the Faith which you have professed in your Baptism.  
'Tis the Faith of this Creed which hath gained you admittance to Baptism; 'tis by that that you have been regenerated; 'tis by this Faith that you have received the Eucharist and the Lord's Supper. Lastly, I speak it with Sorrow, 'Tis that which hath raised you to the Holy Ministry, to be a Deacon and Priest, and made you capable of the Episcopal Dignity. What have you done? Into what a sad Condition have you cast yourself? By losing the Faith of the Creed, you have lost all; the Sacraments of your Priesthood and Episcopacy are grounded upon the Truth of the Creed. One of these two things you must do; either you must confess, That he is God that is born of a Virgin, and so detest your Error; or if you will not make such a Confession, you must renounce your Priesthood, there's no middle way; if you have been Orthodox, you are now an Apostate; and if you are at present Orthodox, how can you be a Deacon, Priest or Bishop? Why were you so long in an Error? Why did you stay so long without contradicting others? Lastly, he exhorts Nestorius to reflect upon himself, to acknowledge his Error, to make Profession of the Faith into which he was baptised, and have recourse to the Sacraments, That they may regenerate him by Repentance (they are Cassian's very Words) as they have heretofore begat him by Baptism. With this Discourse he mingles Arguments against the Error of Nestorius, whom he undertakes to confute in the last Book, by answering the Objections which he proposed, and by alleging the Testimonies of the Greek and Latin Church against him. He concludes with a Lamentation of the miserable Condition of Constantinople, exhorting the Faithful of that Church to continue steadfast in the Orthodox Faith, which had been so learnedly and eloquently explained to them by S. Chrysostom. He seems to be much troubled for the Misery of that Church. Although I am very little known, saith he, am of no worth, and dare not rank myself with the great Bishop of Constantinople, nor assume the Title of a Master, I have the Zeal and Affection of a Scholar, having been Ordained and Presented to God by S. John of blessed Memory. And altho' I am far distant from the Body of that Church, yet I am united in Heart and Spirit, which makes me to sympathise in her Grief and Sufferings, and pour out myself in Complaints and Lamentations. This and the foregoing Place teach us, That this Treatise of Cassian's was composed before the Deposition of Nestorius, or at least before it was known in the West. They also give us ground to conjecture, That the Reason why S. Leo imposed this Task upon him, to write against Nestorius, was this, That being known at Constantinople to be S. Chrysostom's Scholar, his Work might have more Weight, and be more effectual than if any other had written on the same Subject.  
The Institutions of Cassian, saith the learned Photius, are very useful, especially for those who have embraced a Monastic Life. It may likewise be said, That they have something so Powerful and Divine, that the Monasteries which observe that Rule are flourishing, and make themselves eminent for their singular Virtues; but they that do not observe it have much-a-do to uphold themselves, and are always near a Dissolution: And indeed of all the Rules for Monks there are none in my Judgement that are more Useful, Spiritual, and tend more to Perfection and true Devotion. He meddles not with Actions and Observances of little consequence. He insists upon Substantials, and the Ends of a Monastic Life, by explaining the principal Virtues, which they ought to practise, and discovering the most dangerous Temptations in which they are likely to be engaged, and by giving them Rules to avoid and resist them. He never delivers his own private Thoughts and Imaginations about it, but he makes Observations and delivers Rules and Maxims taken out of Holy Scripture, and backed with an infinite Number of Holy Testimonies. This is it that makes them generally esteemed by all those who have written of a Religious and Spiritual Life. His Conferences themselves, although they be in my Opinion much inferior to his Institutions, have been commonly read by the Monks. S. Benedict, Cassiodorus, S. Joannes Climacus, Rabanus, S. Gregory, Petrus Damianus, S. Dominick, S. Thomas, and some other Founders of Orders, have recommended the Reading of them. Nevertheless, this very Work, so much praised, commended and esteemed by these Holy Men, hath been strongly opposed by S. Prosper, in a Book made on purpose, as containing Opinions contrary to the Doctrine of S. Austin concerning Grace, and the Strength of the freewill. It is easy to judge, because we have said, That 'tis the Thirteenth Conference which he principally disputes against. It is true, Cassian doth not deliver these Principles in his own Name. The Abbot Chaeremon pronounces them, but it is lost Labour to make use of that Excuse to defend Cassian; for as Prosper observes, 'Tis Cassian that makes him speak, and who relates this Discourse, and sufficiently evidences that he approves and fully follows the Opinion of that Abbot. Besides, it is certain that Cassian was one of the Clergy of Marseille, who discovered, That S. Austin in defending the Church's Cause against the Pelagians, had pushed things too far. This was the Reason that induced Pope Gelasius to reckon the Works of Cassian among the Apocryphal Books. Some affirm, That he changed his Opinion, otherwise S. Leo would not have invited him to write against Nestorius: But this is a Conjecture for which they bring no Reason, and which doth not appear probable in the least. Cassian finished his Conferences in 429. He wrote his Books of the Incarnation in 430. Is it credible, that he could be brought from his Error in so small a Time? Have we any Recantation extant? Doth S. Prosper any where mention it? Is it spoken of in any Author? But, say they, Is it likely that S. Leo would entreat a Man who was in an Error, and who had published an Heresy, to write in the Defence of the Church? This Objection would have some probability, if the Opinion of Cassian concerning Grace had been looked upon as a Condemned Heresy: And if Cassian, and those that were of the same Judgement with him, had been declared Heretics. But S. Prosper himself owns, That there was no such thing; but, on the other hand, that those who did not fully approve of S. Austin's Doctrine were in the Church and of the Church, were eminent Men, preferred to the Church-Dignities, endued with much Learning, and made a great show of Virtue and Piety; that they were generally esteemed and acknowledged virtuous Men: That Cassian was a Man of Worth and Learning. Lastly, That these Persons not being severed from the Church, we ought to bear with their Judgement, and not despair of their Amendment. This is what S. Prosper himself speaks of Cassian, and those who were of the same Sentiments. After all this, may we count them for Heretics, since their greatest Adversary owns that they were not so? So that nothing hinders but that S. Leo might desire Cassian to write against Nestorius, although Cassian were always of the same Opinion which he delivered and approved in his Conferences. Nothing hinders but that we may give him the Title of Blessed and Saint, which several Authors have freely bestowed on him, and which seems to be acknowledged at Marseille.  
The Style of Cassian's Books is suitable to the things that he treats of, if we believe Photius; for, besides the Elegancy, it is very fit to insinuate into the Mind the Maxims which he propounds, and also to persuade Men to follow them: He order the whole with so much Art and Prudence, that the Second Book, i. e. the Eight last Books of Institutions contain not only Moral Instructions, but also fit Motives to allure to Virtue, and to terrify and affright, so as to stir Men up to Repentance. All that have spoken of Cassian agree, That he had a very free Elocution: But there is nothing Lofty nor Great in his Style. He wrote in Latin, as it appears both by the Style and his Prefaces. There is some probability that his Works were translated into Greek, since Photius had read them, and does not say that they were written in Latin. S. Eucherius abridged them, as Gennadius observes in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, ch. 63. After him Victor, an African, undertook to take out what was contrary to the Doctrine of S. Austin, and add to it what he thought wanting in it. Cassiodorus is witness of this Fact, and says, That he expected this Book; which, perhaps, was the cause that Ado attributed this Correction of Cassian to him. We find the Extracts of Cassian in the Fourth Book of the Lives of the Fathers, published by Rosweid, but it is not known who was the Collector of them.  
The Twelve Books of Institutions were printed at Lions in 1516. And with the Paraphrases of Dionysius Carthusianus, at Basil in 1559. And at Colen in 1540 His Conferences also were published at Basil in 1559. And his Seven Books of the Incarnation reprinted in 1571. Ciacconius procured them to be printed all together, the First Edition is at Rome in 1590. [1580. It was also printed at Rome in 1611. in Octavo.] The Second at Lions in 1606. Cucquius, a Divine of Louvain put out a New Edition of them at Antwerp in 1578. Since Alardus Gazaeus, a Benedictine Monk of the Abbey of S. Vaast at Arra, caused them to be printed with long Commentaries [of his own and others.] The First Impression was made at Douai in 1616. [Two Volumes in Octavo,] the Second at Arras in 1628. [Folio,] the Third at Paris in 1642. by Conterenus.   

S. NILUS.  
S. NILUS, a Governor of Constantinople, and Scholar of S. Chrysostom, having withdrawn himself from the World, from living with his Wife, with his Son Theodulus, betook himself to a Solitary Life, in the Desert of Sinai. He suffered there an inhuman 
S. Nilus.  Persecution by the Incursions of the Barbarians; who put to Death many of those Monks, and carried his Son Theodulus captive. He flourished under the Emperors Arcadius and Theodosius, and lived to the Empire of Marcian; in the beginning of which he died, about the Year 451. 
a He died about the Year 451.] It is certain, that he lived under Arcadius; and that he was likewise a Recluse from that Time, since he wrote two Letters to that Emperor, about the Banishment of S. Chrysostom, which happened in 405. which are Letter 279. lib. 3. and 265. lib. 2. He must needs be pretty ancient, since he had been Governor of Constantinople. He was about Fifty Years Old when the Monastery of Sinai was afflicted by the Incursions of the Barbarians, as he himself says. Now this must needs happen about the Year 410, or 411. He could not then live to the Empire of Mauricius, which did not begin till the Year 583. Wherefore we must correct the Menologies, where it is said, That he lived under, or, to the Empire of Maurice, and put the Name of Marcian instead of that of Maurice. Allatius affirms, That he lived in the Sixth Age, because in Let. 70. lib. 1. directed to Tribunus Zozarius, he proves, That the Kingdom of the Jews is destroyed for ever, because there have passed Five hundred Years since the Death of Jesus Christ, and yet it hath not been reestablished, nor have the Jews had any Help. But S. Nilus doth not precisely say, that the Five hundredth Year was passed, but that it drew near; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is to say, Lo! it draws ap●ce to Five hundred Years. Four hundred Years are quite passed, and we are going on in the Fifth Age. We have placed this Author after Isidore and Cassian, because he hath written upon the same Matters. .  
The Works of this Holy Religious Man, known and esteemed by the Ancients, have been printed several Times, as well by themselves as in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and not long since were published in Greek and Latin, by the Care of Suarez, at Rome [1673.]  
The First is a Treatise of the Monastic Life, which had been translated already by Zinus, and was printed at Venice, with some other Works of the same Author, anno 1657. and since put into the Bibliotheca Patrum. S. Nilus, in this Tract, reproves the Vices and Disorders of the Monks of his Time, which he describes in a very smart manner. He condemns those who were ambitious to be Superiors and Governors of others, not having acquired by long Exercise such Virtues as were necessary to discharge that Office well. He also gives them many very useful Precepts and Instructions, which he delivers by Allegories. He exhorts the Religious to renounce their Estates wholly, and all worldly Pleasures, and to practise the Virtues that are becoming Monks, recommending in an especial manner Retirement and Solitude. This Treatise is written with much Fervour and Acuteness, and is full of very Judicious Observations. What he says in the beginning concerning the Rise, Perfection and Decay of the Monastic State, is well worth our Consideration. Having showed, That neither the Heathens nor the Jews had any true Philosophers nor perfect Sages; That Jesus Christ is the First who manifested to Men the true way of Virtue and Wisdom, and that the Apostles and First Christians imitated their Master in all things, and following his Steps, have given us Examples of a most Wise and Regular Life and Conversation. He Adds, That the Zeal of Christians, who should follow that Example, being cooled, some Persons have taken up a Resolution to abandon the perplexing Business of the World, and the Tumults of the Cities, to retire themselves in Solitude; that these Persons have exactly imitated the Apostles, in curbing their Passions and renouncing the Riches and Pleasures of the World, in contenting themselves with mere Necessaries, in living in great Union, and having all things in Common; but that at length this Profession, so Holy in the Original, had degenerated by degrees, and was now become clear another thing. That the present Professors of it disgraced their State, and the Memory of their Predecessors by their Disorders and Irregularities.  
The Second Treatise dedicated to the Monk Agathius, is entitled Peristeria, from the name of a noble Lady, whom Agathius had propounded to S. Nilus, as an eminent Example of Virtue and Piety, in an Age which he affirmed to be as Corrupt as his. This Treatise contains in it several moral Considerations about Temperance, Humility, Prayer, Contempt of the World, and the Obligation of doing Alms. He describes the miserable condition of the Worldly-minded Man, when he comes to the Point of Death. He advises them that are Rich, to distribute to the Poor their Estates, rather than Bequeath or Leave them to their Heirs. He bewails the Misery of those, who being at the Point of Death, think of nothing but Worldly Business. He derides the Folly of those Persons, who give the Poor Legacies after their Death, but enjoy their Estates as long as they live, without bestowing any thing on them. He inveighs against the Luxury, Covetousness and Injustice of the Rich Men of his Time. The rest of his Discourse is about the Life of Good Men, and the Temptations, Persecutions and Misfortunes, which they must endure. And he gives us several Famous Examples of this, taken from the Old and New Testament.  
The Third Treatise of S. Nilus, is a Discourse of Voluntary Poverty, dedicated to a certain Deaconess of the Church of Ancyra, called Magna. It treats at large on the Happiness of those who have forsaken their worldly Possessions for the Service of God. He commends that Estate, and recites many Passages of Holy Scripture in praise of it, but many of them do not at all prove what he designs. He also recommends Obedience, Concord and Humility.  
The Following Discourse is a Sermon of Morality; whose Subject is no special Matter, and in which there is nothing remarkable.  
The Manual of Epictetus, which follows in the Roman Edition, is nothing like the Works of S. Nilus. He that published this Edition affirms, That this Manual was extracted out of Epictetus' Works by S. Nilus; but he brings no Proof of it: And Simplicius assures us, That it was Arian that made this Manual. We have already observed, That the Book called Pach●, and another Dogmatical Discourse, belong to Evagrius Ponticus.  
The Treatise which gins at Page 377. is upon this Question, viz. Whether the Life of the Anchorites or Hermit's, which S. Nilus also calls Hesicasts or Quietists, who dwell in Solitude, is to be preferred before the Life of th●se Religious who dwell in Cities. This is a very Curious Question, about which the Judgement of the Spiritual Men is much divided. S. Nilus takes the affirmative for the Hermit's, but many others, as he confesses were of a contrary Opinion. There are Reasons of both sides: They who prefer the Religious who live in Communities in Cities before the Anchorites, say; That they have more Worth, because they meet with more Opposition, whereas they that live in Solitude, being at Queit, and not subject to Temptation, have not so much Virtue. S. Nilus answers to this Reason, which seemed very plausible; That there are as many Temptations in Solitude as in Cities, and that the Reason why some Persons argue so, is, because they mind outward Sins only, not considering that there are infinite Temptations and Spiritual Sins, which encounter us as well in Privacy as Cities. The Reason which S. Nilus brings for his Opinion is, That those who are in Cities are exposed to Danger, and can with more difficulty preserve their Virtue, being continually assaulted with irregular Passions and Motions. He supports this Opinion with Comparisons and Examples.  
The 
* Tractatus Asceticu.  First Treatise to Eulogius is a Discourse of an uncertain Argument, which contains useful Counsel and Advice for Monks. The 
† De vitiis, quae sunt virtutibus opposita.  Second is an Opposition of Vices to Virtues.  
The Treatise of the Eight Vices is of the same Nature. There are two that bear that Title, both attributed to S. Nilus: The First is that which is meant here, which was translated by Zinus, and hath been published by F. Combefis and M. Bigotius; who hath joined to it a very ancient Version, which he found at Florence. The other Treatise, which is translated into Latin by Billius, among the Works of S. John Damascene, hath been published by Cotelierius in Greek, in his Last Volume of the Monuments of the Greek Church. I believe that the First is the Original of S. Nilus, and that this Last was made by some other, who hath taken his Sense and Expressions from this Saint and several others.  
To these Treatises may be joined the Discourse of Evil Thoughts, or of the Temptations of the Devil; where he prescribes the Means of conquering them. Photius makes mention of a Treatise of S. Nilus concerning Prayer, divided into One hundred fifty and three Chapters or Sentences: They are very useful Directions or Maxims to learn to pray well. They were put out in Latin by Turrian. The greatest part of the Sentences, from page 543, to 575. are rather Evagrius' than S. Nilus', or perhaps both of them; for these ancient Monks had such particular Sentences and Thoughts, which they would often repeat, which were common to them with many others. Moreover, the greatest part of these Collections of Sentences, for the use of the Monks, were made by mean and obscure Monks, who writing down the Sentences which they had learned from their Masters, or taken from their Works, did put, in one Collection, the Sentences and Maxims of several Persons, insomuch that we cannot tell exactly to what Author the greatest part of these Sentences belong. There are also in the Bibliotheca Patrum Two hundred twenty nine Sentences in Greek and Latin attributed to S. Nilus, which are of the same nature with those beforementioned, published by Turrian, and printed at Florence in 1578. in Greek, and at Antwerp in 1590. in Latin, and in several other Places, as at Colen, Basil, Hamburg in 1614 at Naples in 1604. with the Commentaries of Paul Minerva, a Dominican, who attributes these Sentences to another Nilus, a Bishop and Martyr, but he gives us no proof of it. This Volume of S. Nilus' Treatises concludes with a Sermon of this Author's upon these Words of the Gospel, But now he that hath a Scrip let him take it, etc. To which may be added some large Fragments of Two Sermons upon the Feast of Easter, and Three other Sermons upon Pentecost, recited by Photius in the Two hundred seventy and sixth Volume of his Bibliotheca.  
These are all the Works of S. Nilus' contained in the Edition printed at Rome in 1683. [1673.] To which we must add the Seven Narrations of the Persecutions of the Monks of Sinai, published by F. Poussinus, and printed at Paris in 1639 [Quarto,] with a Discourse of the same Author, in the praise of one named Albinianus. There is a Commentary upon the 
Albianus a Monk of Nitria. Cave.  Canticles, which is said to be taken out of S. Nilus, Gregory Nyssen and Maximus, but these sort of Works are of no great Authority. S. Nilus hath written a Book Of Contrition, of which he speaks in the Eleventh Epistle of the Third Book of his Letters: And he observes, in the beginning of his Book Of Repentance, That he had spent some Labour upon the Psalms. Sixtus Senensis saith, That he made a Commentary upon Job, but I can find no Body else that makes mention of it. There are also some other Treatises about the Monastic Life, in the Libraries, bearing S. Nilus' Name, which are not yet published, as the Manual of Repentance, The Monk's Dial, etc. The Seventh Council, Act. 4. citys some of his Letters, which the Iconoclasts had alleged for themselves. Some of his Sentences also are to be seen in the Scala Paradisi of S. John Climacus, and in other modern Greek Authors.  
Only the Letters of S. Nilus remain to be spoken of, which are very numerous. F. Poussinus hath published 335, [355. Cave] of them out of the Florentine Library, which were printed in Greek and Latin in Quarto [at Paris] in 1657. And since that Time Allatius hath put out a far greater number from the Manuscripts of the Vatican Library. He hath divided them into Four Books, turned them into Latin, and caused them to be printed at Rome, in Folio, anno 1668. [with a Dissertation of Nilus.]  
The greatest part of these Letters are Papers, which contain Moral Sentences, Precepts, Instructions, Reproofs, and Explications of the Doctrines of the Church, and of some Texts of Holy Scripture. They are written with much Ingenuity; the Sentences are Witty and Noble, and the Style is very fine. He speaks to the Persons of Quality, and Dignitaries of the Church, tho' his Superiors, with a great deal of Freedom. He instructs his Inferiors with much Love: He reproves Sinners with a Constancy that hath nothing sharp and cruel: He says nothing disagreeable to the Condition of the Person to whom he writes, or to the things he treats of. He is serious when he ought to be so: He derides handsomely when the Subject requires it: He uses pleasant or smart Terms, according as the Persons are with whom he has to do. In a Word; He never recedes from the Character which he ought to have, but all-a-long a free Air and a wonderful Readiness of Speech is discernible in him. There are a great many of his Letters which manifest his Learning and Knowledge. He explains the Mysteries of Religion very elegantly. He confutes the Heretics neatly. He relates ancient Histories, and gives very Spiritual Explications to some Places of Scripture. He makes many curious and solid Remarks. Lastly, it may be said, That his Letters are as a Magazine, of an infinite number of excellent and fine Thoughts upon all sorts of Subjects. He explains the Mysteries of the Trinity against the Arians and Macedonians; and of the Incarnation, against the Apollinarists, in several of his Letters. In some of them he derides the Error of the Valentinians: In others he scoffs at the Vanity of Paganism. He saith, in the Forty fourth Epistle of the First Book, That the Bread and the Wine of the Sacrament, after the Words of the Priest, are no longer common 
* Not common but holy Bread, because still Bread and Wine.  Bread and Wine, but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. He adds, in the One hundred forty and fourth Letter, That the Christians were nourished with this Body and Blood: He commands them to receive it in a state of Holiness; and to show with what Reverence it ought to be approached. He tells us in the Two hundred ninety and fourth Letter of the same Book, That S. Chrysostom, celebrating the Divine Mysteries, saw the Angels assisting the Bishops, Priests and Deacons at the Distribution of the adorable Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. He often recommends Penance. In the Two hundred forty and third Letter of the Third Book, he admonishes a Priest not to deal too roughly with a Person who had confessed his Sin publicly; and advises him to give him Absolution, not requiring any other Penance; not that he thought that he ought always so to deal with Offenders, for, on the contrary, he acknowledges that it is good and necessary for a Sinner to fast, watch, to lie on the Ground, to cover himself with Sackcloth and Ashes; and, Lastly, to perform rigorous Penance: But he requires that it be remitted for the sake of those who are not able to endure those Austerities, and that Absolution be given them immediately after the Confession of their Crime. He observes, upon that occasion, That a Priest ought to be active, to plant the Vine of the Lord, and slack to pluck it up. He dislikes the cruel Treatment of Sinners, lest thereby they be driven to Despair. In the One hundred and ninetieth Letter of the Second Book, he reproves a Bishop who would not receive Heretics into the Church: And to render him inexcusable, he relates a Story, which he says happened in the Apostles Time to one Carpus a Bishop, who having used too much Rigour toward the Younger sort, who had sinned, was rebuked miraculously. He speaks of the Usefulness of the Sign of the Cross, and commands Christians to make it often, in Letter Eighty seven Book One, and in Letter Three hundred and four, Book Two. In Letter Sixty four, Book Four, inscribed to Olympiodorus, and recited in the Second Council of Nice, he blames this Lord, That he had caused the Shapes of Beasts and other strange Figures to be painted upon the Walls of the Church. He tells him, That we may only paint the Cross in the Chancel, and round the Church place Pictures of the History of the Old and New Testament, that those that cannot read may learn the History of the Bible. The Iconoclasts had falsified this Passage; and whereas it is said in that place. That we may paint Pictures, they put instead of it, We must white-over the Walls of the Church. The Last Letter contains the Relation of a Miracle done by the intercession of a Martyr called Plato, who freed the Son of a certain Monk of Mount Sinai from the Captivity he was in; an History which proves that the Intercession and Invocation of Saints was in use at that Time. I have forgotten to observe what S. Nilus maintains in Letters Two hundred sixty and nine and Two hundred and seventy, Book One; That Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, was always a Virgin, before, after and in her Delivery. He exhorts Men to labour, yet acknowledges, That all our Labour is of no use, without the Assistance of God. These are the principal Points of Doctrine which may be gathered out of S. Nilus' Letters. There are an infinite Number of Moral Points, which it would be too long to recite particularly. It may suffice to say, that he commends Charity, Peace, Vigilance, Mortifications, Watch, Obedience, Humility, Almsgivings, and other Christian Virtues. He gives also many useful Counsels to those who profess a Religious Life, and who may be very serviceable to Superiors; as also to those who are charged with the Government of others: Read upon this Subject, Letter Three hundred and three, Book Three; and Letter One, Book Four. In several Places he extols the State and Condition of the Monks, and observes very well, in Letter One, That Princes and great Personages are obliged to desire the Help of their Prayers to obtain the Graces they stand in need of. Among all the Excellencies that we have taken notice of in S. Nilus' Letters, there are some false Notions, forced Allegories, impertinent Comparisons, and Apocryphal Stories. This, for example, is laughed at by S. Jerom, and that with good reason. He says, in Letter Two, Book One, That Palestine was the Place of Adam's Habitation; that he died in Mount Calvary; and that from thence it had that Name; for Men wondering to see a bare Skull in that Place, called the Place Calvary. S. Jerom says fitly; That that Explication is plausible, and pleases credulous People, but is by no means true. Favorabilis interpretatio, & mulcens aurem populi, non tamen vera: Yet Origen, S. Ambrose and S. Epiphanius, in Haer. 46. agree to it. But S. Jerom's Opinion, who assures us, That 'twas the Place of Execution of Malefactors, is much more probable.   

The Author of the Confessions of Faith, attributed to RUFINUS.  
F. SIRMONDUS published, in 1650. a long Confession of Faith, which bears the Name of Rufinus, and which Joannes Diaconus hath attributed to him, that was a Priest 
The Author of the Confessions of Faith, etc.  of Aquileia. But this learned Jesuit, at the same Time, assures us, That it cannot be his, because it expressly contradicts the Doctrine of Origen, which Rufinus never condemned. In the Manuscripts of the Abbey of Corby, Pelagius is said to be the Author of that Writing which he published under Rufinus' Name.  
F. Garner hath also put out since another Confession of Faith, much shorter than the former, made up of Twelve anathemas, which is found at the beginning of the Collection of Pieces composed by Marius Mercator. This also condemns the Opinions of Origen, and particularly that of the Pre-existence of Souls, which the Priest of Aquileia never would condemn: So that this cannot be Rufinus of Aquileia's, no more than the former. Nevertheless it appears to be him to whom it is commonly attributed, and not another Rufinus, as F. Garner affirms. 1. Because the Author, who hath preserved it, hath put it at the end of Anastasius' Letter to Rufinus of Aquileia. 2. Because the same Author tells us, That it is this Rufinus which is spoken of in Anastasius' Letter by this Title, Incipit fides ejusdem Rufini: Here gins the Sum of Rufinus' s Faith. 3. Because it is said of the Author of that Confession of Faith, That he held and defended heretofore the Doctrines which he now condemns. This agrees to Rufinus, who had defended the Opinions of Origen. 4. Because the Opinions of Origen condemned in that Confession of Faith, are the very same that Rufinus is accused to have held, and about which he defends himself in his Apology to Pope Anastasius, and in his Invectives against S. Jerom. It is true, he doth not condemn them in those Places, as it is noted in that Profession of Faith; nor will I ascertain you that it is infallibly Rufinus' of Aquileia, but I say it belongs to him to whom it is attributed; for I am apt to believe, That it is a Form of Confession of Faith which Pope Anastasius made for Rufinus of Aquileia to sign.  
As to the First Confession of Faith, 'tis certainly the Work of some Pelagian, for he directly opposes Original Sin: He maintains, That Infants are born without Sin: That they are not baptised for the Remission of that Sin, since they are innocent, and that those that die without Baptism are not condemned to Eternal Torments. He owns, That the First Man had not died if he had not sinned; but he affirms that he was created Mortal, and that Death, Griefs and Pains, which are the effects of Sin, are profitable for Man; which comes very near the Opinion of Julian, whom F. Garner makes the Author of the Translation of this Writing, for it is noted at the end, That it was translated out of Greek into Latin. This proves to us, That the Author of this Confession was a Greek, or at least, that it was made in the East. We can say nothing more of the Author of this Confession.  
F. Garner affirms, That it is certainly one Rufinus', altho' it be not the Priest's of Aquilcia, but another Rufinus, whom he believes to be he that was Pelagius' Master, of whom Coelestius speaks in the Council of Carthage; That he had heard of Rusinus the Holy Priest, who maintained at Rome with Pammachius, That the Sin of the first Man did not descend to his Posterity. It hath ever been thought that this Rufinus was the Priest of Aquileia; and indeed S. Jerom says in several Places, That Rufinus was the forerunner of Pelagius and his Adherents. But F. Garner maintains, That it is another Rufinus of whom Coelestius speaks; and he says likewise, That it is he that S. Jerom sent to Rome in the Time when he had the Contests with Rufinus of Aquileia, of whom this last complains in his Apology to Pope Anastasius.  
There is no doubt but that this Rufinus condemned the Opinions of Origen, and that he contended with the Priest of Aquileia, because he defended them: But we do not see that he maintained the Doctrine of Pelagius touching Original Sin. Let us consider the Reasons which F. Garner brings, to show that the Master of Pelagius and Coelestius is a different Person from the famous Rufinus of Aquileia. 1. The Master of Pelagius was a Syrian, but the Priest of Aquileia was an Italian, according to the Testimony of M. Mercator. 2. This same Author speaks of the Master of Pelagius, as a Man little known, one Rufinus, saith he. 3. The Priest of Aquileia came to Rome under Syricius; The Master of Pelagius came not till the Popedom of Anastasius, according to the Testimony of the same Author. 4. The Master of Pelagius sojourned with Pammachius; the Priest of Aquileia was none of this great Man's Friends; but on the contrary it was Pammachius that put S. Jerom upon writing against Rusinus. 5. The Master of Pelagius taught at Rome, That there was no such thing as Original Sin; the Priest of Aquileia was gone when this Doctrine was preached. 6. When S. Jerom accuses the Priest of Aquileia of being the Forerunner of Pelagius, he speaks of no other Doctrines but those of Apathy and Sinlesness. 7. Paulinus, who disputed against Coelestius, in the Council of Carthage, doth not retort upon him, That that Rufinus, whom he cited, had been condemned, which he undoubtedly would have done, if he had heard him speak o● the Priest of Aquileia. 8. Coelestius speaks of Rufinus, as then alive; the Priest of Aquileia was then dead. 9 Lastly, Rufinus, cited by Coelestius, was in the Communion of the Church; the Priest of Aquileia was excommunicated from it. These Reasons are not incapable of Reply, and it may be said that many of them are too subtle.  
That which amazeth me most is that which Coelestius says, That Rufinus, who denied Original Sin, abode with Pammachius; for what likelihood is there that he should lodge with one of his greatest Adversaries, and one of the best Friends of S. Jerom? The rest are weaker; for Rufinus having dwelled in Palestine for near Thirty Years, and coming from that Country, when he taught his Doctrine to Pelagius, Marius Mercator might say, That he was a Syrian, and that he first brought that Doctrine to Rome; and so much the rather, because this Author had a Design to demonstrate that this Doctrine came from the East. It is true that Rufinus came to Rome at the end of the Popedom of Syricius in 397. but he stayed there some time in the Popedom of Anastasius. Coelestius doth not say, That he, of whom he speaks, was then alive. If Paulinus did not object his Condemnation, if he passed for a Man, who died in the Communion of the Church, it was because he was not looked upon in afric as an Heretic, or an excommunicate Person. There is then nothing of Difficulty in any of the Objections, but concerning the abode with Pammachius, but perhaps Coelestius was mistaken, or Rufinus was after reconciled to Pammachius. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied but that the Opinion of F. Garner hath much probability in it. For this cause I have set down his Reasons, that it may be left to the Reader to judge.   

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

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

S. CELESTINE.  
ST. CELESTINE was chosen Bishop of Rome after the Death of Boniface, in the beginning of * November, in 423. This Election was made without contending and 
S. Celestine  division; and he governed the Church of Rome peaceably, till April anno 432. The Business of Nest●rius, and the assembling the Council of Ephesus have made his Popedom famous, and 
Septemb. 16.  given him occasion to write several Letters, of which we shall defer to speak, till we come to the History of the Council of Ephes●s, where they have a more fit Place; so that we have nothing more to speak of here, save Three Letters, which have no relation to the Business of Nestorius.  
The First was written in 431. after the Death of S. Austin, and is addressed, To Venerius Bishop of Milan, Leontius Bishop of ●●esus, and some other of their neighbouring French Bishops, who tolerated and also favoured those who opposed some of the Opinions of S. Austin, concerning Predestination and Grace: S. Prosper and Hilarius, Scholars of S. Austin, and close Adherents to his Doctrine, finding themselves the weaker Side among the French, went to Rome, to complain to Pope Celestine; That the Priests of their Country were suffered to raise Disputes and Divisions in the French Church, and to Maintain, That S. Austin and his Scholars had promoted Opinions contrary to the Truth. Celestine blames the Bishops, Who ought, saith he, to hinder these Disputes, and not allow these Persons to take upon them to teach: That the Silence which the Bishops kept, upon this occasion, might pass for a kind of Approbation: That it was enough to declare their own Opinions, not to suffer others to speak; so that upon such like occasions Silence is a strong Presumption, because the Truth could not but oppose itself to Error, if Error itself did not please: Lastly, That the Bishops themselves were guilty of the Error which they favoured by their Connivance and remaining in Silence. He admonishes the Bishops, in the next Place, To reprove those who ve●●ed their new Doctrines, contrary to the Opinions of S. Austin. Let them not be permitted, saith he, to speak for the future according to their own Fancy: Let not Novelty be so bold as to oppose Antiquity: Let those unquiet Spirits not trouble the Peace of the Church: 'Tis your Business to keep your Churches quiet. Let those Priests know, That they ought to be subject to you: Let those that do not teach the Truth, know, That they ought to learn, and not pretend to teach. What Power have you in your Churches, if they are Masters to teach what they please? But it is no Wonder, adds S. Celestine, if they are not afraid to attempt such things against the Living, since they dare assault the Memory of our Brethren after their Death. We have always had S. Austin, of blessed Memory, in our Communion, whose Life and Merit is very well known; his Fame hath not received the least Blemish, and his Knowledge is so well known, that my Predecessors have looked upon him as one of the most excellent Doctors of the Church. All Orthodox Christians have ever thought well of him; he hath been generally honoured and reverenced through the whole World. Resist therefore the Enemies of his Memory, whose Number increaseth every Day. Suffer not those Religious Persons who defend him to be afflicted and persecuted: He that is attacked by such a Novelty, suffers in the Cause of the Universal Church. Show, That those that displease us displease you; which you will appear to us to do, if having imposed Silence upon such Offenders, you cause that there be no future Complaints upon this Account.  
To this Letter of S. Celestine is usually joined a Collection of the Decisions of the Popes, Coelestine's Predecessors, and of the Councils of Africa, upon the principal Points touching Grace and freewill, entitled, The Authorities or Sentences of the ancient Bishops of the Holy Apostolic See, concerning Grace and freewill. It is also called, Rules of the Holy Apostolic See: But the most common Name which is given it, is, Articles or Aphorisms about Grace. This Writing is cited under the Name of S. Celestine, in the beginning of the Sixth Age; for Dionys●● Exiguus hath put it into his Collection, among the Decrees of this Pope: And Petrus Diaconus, writing to S. Fulgentius about the Year 519. citys a Passage of it, as taken out of the Decrees of this Pope. Cresconius Bishop of afric, who wrote toward the end of the same Age, attributes it also to S. Celestine. And ever since it hath always been cited under the Name of this Pope, as by the Church of Lion; by 〈◊〉, by Lupus of Ferrara, by Remigi●s of Lions, by 〈◊〉, and many others. It is very probable, that it is this Collection of Testimonies, of which Pope Hormis●●●s speaks in his Letter to Possessor, written in 520, where he says, That tho' it is easily known, what is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching Grace and Man's freewill, by the Writings of S. Austin, yet ●e hath more express and plain Articles in his Church-Registry, which he will send him, to whom he writes, if he hath them not, and thinks it necessary.  
These Authorities seem to prove very strongly, That this Collection is the Work of Pope Celestine. Yet this Opinion is opposed by so many Conjectures, that almost all the Critics in these 〈◊〉 times have abandoned i●. 〈◊〉. It is affirmed, That these Aphorisms are not of the same Style with the Epistle of S. C●lestine▪ 2. This Epistle, concluding with these words, Deus vos ●ncolumes custodiat. Fratres ch●rissimi. The Lord preserve you in Safety, dear Brethren. Although S. Celestine doth not say, That he added nothing more, yet it is not credible that these Articles were any part of it or were added by way of Postscript. 3. The Author of these Sentences doth not speak as in Pope, he doth not give his Judgement or Advice wit● Authority: He declares, That he had no other design but to collect the Judgements of the Bishops of the Holy See, or of the African Councils, which the Holy See had made hers by he● Approbation. 4. Speaking of the Popes, he always calls them the Bishops of the Holy Apost●… See, without giving them the Name of his Predecessors, which no Bishop of Rome would have omitted. 5. S. Prosper bringing the Decisions of the Pope's concerning Grace and freewill against Cassian, citys ●itly S. Coelestine's ●●tter, but says nothing of these Sentences? Is it credible that he would have forgot them, if they were this Popes? This was a most decretory piece. Photius and Vi●centius Lirinensi● make mention of this Letter of S. Celestine, but speak nothing of the Aphorisms of Grace. Besides; Is it credible, that Vincentius Lirinensis would have cited S. Coelestine's Letter for the defence of the Semi-pelagian Party, if this Pope had condemn ned them so manifestly? 6. If we consider the manner how these Aphorisms are▪ inserted in the Dionysian Code, we shall easily guests, that he did not attribute them to Pope Celestine, as some think; for altho' he puts them at the end of his Letter, yet he distinguishes them by this Title: Here begin the Authorities of the Bishops of the Holy See▪ concerning Grace. And the same Remark is added to the end, ●ero ends, etc. These are the Conjectures which may balance the Authorities which seem to prove that this Collection is S. Coelestine's. And by these have the Critics been obliged to search out some other Author of them, than this Pope, and having found none to whom this Work agrees better than S. Prosper, many have confidently attributed it to him, altho' they have neither MSS. nor ancient Author for them. It is true, that they quote a Passage of Hincmarus, taken out of a Book he made against this Expression, Trina Deitas, The threefold Godhead, where he says, that S. Prosper by the Order of S. Celestine did confute and overthrow the Heresy which began to spread among the French, as well by the Authority of Scripture as by the Doctrine of S. Austin. They suppose, that it is of this Writing that Hincmarus speaks, and conclude from thence, That it was S. Prosper that wrote it by the Order of S. Celestine. But this Proof doth not seem to me to be solid: 1. Because Hincmarus could not be a very good Author of a fact of this nature. 2. Because the same Hincmarus attributes the Aphorisms to S. Celestine. 3. Because 'tis not certain, that the Work spoken of in that place is the Collection of Authorities, nor is it indeed certain that he speaks of any particular Work. 4. If he speaks of any particular 'tis likely to be some other, for what he says of it, That S. Prosper did overthrow the Heresy which began to spread among the French, by the Authority of Holy Scripture and the Doctrine of S. Austin, doth not agree to our Aphorisms, in which the Author contents himself to relate the Decisions of the Popes and Councils, without disputing with the Enemies of S. Austin, and where not so much as one Passage of S. Austin is alleged. But say they, it can't be said, that any other Work of S. Prosper was written by the Order of Celestine. It appears by his Works themselves that he wrote them as a private Author, and as a Person who defended the Doctrines he thought true, without condemning any Man. It cannot therefore be said, That it was by the Order of the Pope, and as Hincmarus says, Ex delegatione Pontificis, by the Pope's Commission, that he wrote them. There is none but the Aphorisms that it agrees to; he speaks therefore of these. This is the sum of the Objection. They confirm it by a Passage of S. Prosper taken out of his Answers to the Objections of Vincentius, where he says, That he recites the very words of the Faith and Opinions, which he defended against the ●elagians by the Authority of the Holy See. Propositis sigillatim sexd●cim capitulis sub unoquoque eorum Sensus nostri & Fidei, quam contr● Pelagianos ex Apostolicae S●dis Auctoritate defendimus, verba ponemus; Having propounded sixteen Heads severally, we will set down under every one of them the words of our Sense and Faith, which we have defended by the Authority of the Holy See. Which refers, say they▪ to the Aphorisms of Grace written against the Pelagians. It may be answered to all this, That they take the words of Hincmarus too strictly, and perhaps S. Prosper's too. The first never affirmed, That S. Prosper had an express Command from S. Celestine to write some particular Work about Grace. His meaning only is, That this Pope had approved what he wrote for the defence of S. Austin's Doctrine; and this is evident from S. Coelestine's own Letter. S. Prosper boasts so of defending S. Austin's Doctrine by the Authority of the Holy See, because he was certain, That it was approved by the Holy See, and that the Semi-pelagians would destroy the Principles which he had 〈◊〉 against the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not necessary to ●●derstand the Passage of the 〈◊〉 of the Answer 〈◊〉 the Objections of 〈◊〉, of any preceding work. It refers 〈…〉 Work of the Answer to Vincentius, as the Passage 〈…〉 quoque eorum Sensus 〈…〉 defendimus, 〈…〉 agnoscant impiarum profanarumque opinionum nullum 〈…〉 blasphemy 〈…〉 debere puniri; Having 〈…〉 down under every one of them the words of our Sense and Faith, which we have defended by the Authori●● of the Holy See, that they who will 〈…〉 in reading these things, may openly acknowledge, That there are 〈…〉 and profane Opinions in our Hearts, and may judge those Blasphemies which they se● condemned in our Confession, worthy to be punished in the Inventors of them. The 〈◊〉 of this Discourse makes it evident, that when 〈…〉 against the Pelagians by the Authority of the Holy See, he speaks of the 〈◊〉 things, which he says in his Answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not of those, which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of 〈◊〉 another Work. He doth not send his 〈◊〉 to what he hath written elsewhere, but he exhorts him to read the Answers which he 〈◊〉 to the Objections of 〈◊〉, to know what is the true Doctrine approved by the Holy See which S. Austin ●…. It must be confessed then, That there is no probability that he speaks in that place of the Aphorisms attributed to S. Celestine.  
But they bring yet other 〈◊〉 to fasten 〈◊〉 ●pon S. Prosper. They say, That 'tis his 〈◊〉; That no Person, at that time, had a 〈◊〉 opportunity to make this Collection than S. Prosper, That 'tis his Doctrine, and lastly, That there is so great an agreement between the Opinions and Expressions of the Author of these Aphorisms and S. Prosper's, that 'tis hard not to acknowledge him the Author of them. A●● this a Modern Critic pretends to prove, by comparing the Aphorisms wi●h 〈◊〉 Passages of S. Prosper's Works. F. Quesnel also finding in S. Leo's Works some Expressions like to those which are met with in these Aphorisms, scrup●es not to attribute them to this Father 
* [And therefore hath printed them at the beginning of his Edition of S. Leo's Works at Paris, 1675] ; which 〈◊〉 how the Judgements of Learned Men do sometimes differ about the 〈◊〉 of Style. These two Critics, who had both of them read S. Leo, S. Prosper and the Aphorisms well, the one finds no two things more like than the Style of the Aphorisms and S. Prosper's; the other can find no resemblance between them, and thinks he perceives some Lines more like in S. Leo's Works. They both produce Words and Expressions of their Author like those of the 〈◊〉. But to speak the Truth, it is very ●ard in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and incoherent a Work, as these Aphorisms are, to find out the Author certainly by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Style.  
As for my 〈◊〉, I have much a do to leave the Testimony of the Ancients, who attribute the Aphorisms, to Pope Celestine. It is certain, that they relate to his Letter, That they were framed at the same time, and evidently given to S. Prosper; and from that time there hath been a Copy of them preserved in the Registry of Rome; That an hundred years after they were quoted under 〈◊〉 Name of this Pope, and have ever since continued under his Name to this our Age.  
But perhaps it may be said, That it was not S. Celestine that composed them himself, but he caused them to be framed, either by S. Prosper, who was the Pope's Secretary, as some say, or S. Leo, whom the Office of Archdeacon of the Church of Rome, seems to have engaged in that Business. But these are bare Conjectures, which not being supported with the Testimony of any Author worthy of Credit, cannot be of any great weight. And, besides, if it were true, that S. Celestine himself did not compose these Aphorisms, but caused them to be framed by some other, yet they may lawfully be attributed to him always, since it is confessed, That they were framed by his Order; That he approved them, and sent them with his Letter; and lastly, That he caused them to be put into the Registry of the Church of Rome, as an Authentic Monument of his Doctrine.  
The Reasons which they allege to show the contrary, prove well enough, that these Aphorisms are no part of this Pope's Letter, nor are a solemn definition of the Roman Bishop; but they do not evince, that they are not Precepts of Instruction composed by this Pope, or at least by his order, upon the account of which he wrote his Letter, and perhaps sent them with it. This is most probable in this Matter.  
S. Prosper and S. Hilary seeing that the Doctrine of S. Austin was openly opposed in France, and that he was accused of going too far, went to Rome to implore the Pope S. Celestine to take it into his Protection. The Pope did two things: The First was to write to the Bishops, that he might oblige them to stop the Discourse of those that defamed the Doctrine of S. Austin. The Second was, to make a Collection of the Principles approved by the Authority of the Holy See, that he might draw some Consequences from them against those who did not approve S. Austin's Doctrine, although▪ they condemned Coelestius and Pelagius, and professed to hold the Decisions of the Holy See against their Error.  
The First of these Articles imports, That all Men have lost their Innocency in the Person of Adam, and their natural ability of doing good, and that no Man can be delivered out of this profound Abyss of Perdition by the strength of his freewill, if he be not raised by the Grace of the God of Mercy.  
The Second imports, That no Man is good of himself, if God, who is only good, doth not communicate his goodness to him.  
The Third is, That no Man can conquer the Temptations of the Devil and the Motions of the Flesh, if he doth not receive continual assistance from God, and if he have not the Gift of Perseverance: Which ought to be understood also of those who have been renewed by the Grace of Baptism.  
The Fourth is, That no Man knows how to make good use of his freewill, but by the Grace of Jesus Christ. These three Articles are confirmed by the Testimony of S. Innocent.  
The Fifth is, That all the Good righteous Men do aught to be referred to the Glory of God, because no Man can please him but by the Gifts of his Grace. Pope Zosimus and the Council of Africa have also delivered this Maxim.  
The Sixth is, That God acts after such a manner in the freewill of Man, that the Holy Thoughts, Pious Intentions, and all the good Motions of his Will proceed from him. Pope Zosimus also suggests this Principle.  
The Seventh Aphorism contains the Decrees of the Council of Carthage, which hath determined the absolute necessity of Grace to do good.  
The Eighth makes use of the Prayers of the Church, to show, That all the good that we do from the first Motion of Conversion to our final Perseverance, is the effect of the Grace of Jesus Christ.  
The Ninth shows, That the Exorcisms and Sufflations which the Church useth before Baptism, to drive away evil Spirits, are a clear proof of the necessity of Grace to deliver us from the Tyranny of the Devil.  
He concludes these Principles, That God is the Author of all the good Motions, good Actions, and all the Virtues by which we tend to him from the beginning of the Faith, insomuch that he goes before all our Deserts, and makes us will and do that which is good.  
He adds, That the Divine Assistance doth not deprive us of our freewill, but it delivers it, and dispels its former darkness; of crooked and perverse it makes it right, of distempered it renders it sound, and instead of Ignorance and Error it implants Wisdom and Prudence. For the Goodness of God is so great, saith he, That he is willing to look upon his own Gifts as our Merits, and to give an eternal Reward for those good Works, of which he is the Author. He makes us to will and to do what pleaseth him, and he leaves not those Grace's useless, which he hath wrought in us. Lastly, he declares, That in respect of the deep and perplexing Difficulties, which may arise from the Questions which have been form and have been treated on by those who have opposed the Heretics, he dare not really contemn them, but that he thought it not necessary to stay there, because it is sufficient to acknowledge the Grace of Jesus Christ, to the Efficacy and Merit of which all the good which we do aught to be attributed, it is sufficient to hold whatsoever is conformable to the definitions of the Holy See, which he believes so true, that he scruples not to assure us, That whatever is contrary to these Rules is not Catholic and true Doctrine.  
It may be demanded what the Author of these Aphorisms means by these deep and perplexing Difficulties. Some affirm, That they are Questions which relate to the efficacy of Grace and gratuitous Predestination. But it seems evident to me that the Author of these Aphorisms lays down the first Doctrine in many of his Articles, and supposes the other, which makes me to think that he means some other Questions, which S. Austin hath disputed on in his Works against the Pelagians; as when he asks, Wherein consisteth Original Sin? After what manner is it propagated to the Posterity of Adam? What is the Original of the Soul? What is the Punishment of Children which die unbaptised? In what consisteth Concupiscence? and many other Difficulties of that Nature, which have been treated on by S. Austin. I do not affirm for all that, That the efficacy of Grace and gratuitous Predestination are Articles of Faith, and I believe we may truly enough own, That the Author of these Aphorisms did look upon them as implicitly contained (if I may use that Term) in the Decisions of the Popes and Councils of Africa. Besides, it being certain, as it is, That the Adversaries of the Doctrine of S. Austin did principally oppose those two points, this Author, whose purpose it was to confute them, could not but maintain that Doctrine. To be convinced of this, we need only read the Objections of Vincent, and the Answers of S. Prosper, which will discover that all the Objections of the Adversaries of S. Austin de●…lve themselves upon these two Points, and that his Scholars maintain them, as having a necessary relation to the Doctrine of the Holy See, against the Pelagians.  
The Second Letter of S. Celestine ought to be set before this, of which we have already spoken, since it was written in the Year 428. It is directed to the Bishops of the Provinces of Vienna and Narbonne. He tells them in the beginning of this Letter, That he could wish that he had cause to rejoice with them for the good Order he did observe in their Churches, rather than be obliged, as he is, to tell them the Grief that he hath, because they did things contrary to the Discipline of the Church; but being appointed by God to watch over his Church, he is obliged by his Charge to restrain all evil Practices, and order what ought to be observed; for his Pastoral Care ought to have no Bounds, but is extended to all Places, where the Name of Jesus Christ is known.  
The First Practice which he reproves, is that of some Bishops, who apparelled themselves after a particular manner, in wearing a Cloak and a Girdle. The thing seems in itself to be indifferent, but S. Coeestine finds the finest Arguments in the World to condemn that Usage. We must, saith he, make ourselves remarkable for our Wisdom, Prudence and Purity, not by our Garo and Clothing. We must teach the Faithful, and give them a good Example by our Lives, and not impose upon them by outward Shows. We ought not to seek how to please their Eyes, but to fill their Minds with Divine Precepts. Nevertheless he doth not blame those who clothed themselves so in the Places where such a Custom was settled, but those who through a Superstitious Affectation would change and alter the manner of Clothing which was then in use.  
The Second Disorder concerns the Administration of Penance. There were among the French some severe Rules of the ancient Church Discipline, which obliged them to deny Absolution to Sinners, who requested it at the Point of Death: S. Celestine condemns that Rigour, and maintains that they ought not to deny Absolution to Sinners at any time, when they demand it.  
The Third respects the Qualifications of those who may be ordained Bishops: S. Celestine complains, That Laymen were made Bishops, not having passed through the inferior Orders. Which, though it was contrary to the Rule, and against all Reason; yet he adds, That they were contented to ordain Laymen, but it happened likewise, that they did choose such Persons for Bishops as were guilty of open Crimes. He gives an Example of one named Daniel, who having been Head of a Monastery of Virgins in the East, was come to retire himself in France. All the Monastery, where he lived, accused him of scandalous Crimes, and sent the Informations of them to S. Celestine, who dispatched a Letter by Fortunatus the Deacon to the Bishop of Arles, in which he summoned this Man to his Council, to answer to the Heads of Accusation brought against him. But at the same time that the Pope cited him, he was ordained Bishop. S. Celestine discovers how much that Business troubled him: He blames him that had ordained him, and scruples not to say, That he had lost his Episcopal Dignity himself, by bestowing it upon a Person so unworthy. Lastly, he exhorts the Bishops, to whom he writes, To observe the Discipline of the Church exactly, which was not unknown to them, because many among them had lived sometime at Rome. But to put them in mind, he prescribes them some Laws, which he thought most necessary.  
The First, That every Province should suffer itself to be governed by its Metropolitan, and that no Bishop attempt any thing out of his own Province.  
The Second, That when a Bishop is to be chosen, the Clergy of the same Church, whose Deserts are known, and who have already merited well, be preferred before Clergymen, who are Strangers and unknown.  
The Third, That a Bishop be not imposed upon any Persons against their Consent, but that the Votes and Agreement of the Clergy, People and Magistrates be followed.  
The Fourth, That no Clergyman be chosen out of another Diocese, when there is any in the same Church which may fitly be ordained.  
The Fifth, That none be ordained Bishop who hath been married twice, nor hath married a Widow; which he ordains as a Rule not only for the future, but he requires, That the Ordinations already made, in prejudice of this Law, be looked upon as unlawful Ordinations, which may not be allowed in Force.  
As to that Daniel, whom we mentioned above, he commands, That he shall be separated from the Communion of the Bishops, until he be freed from his Accusation before him. And as to the Bishop of Marseille, who was accused of being an Accessary in the Death of his Brother, he leaves the Judgement of him to the Bishops, to whom he directed that Letter.  
The Third Letter of S. Celestine, written to the Bishops of Apulia and Calabria, gins with a general Advertisement to all Bishops; which imports that it is not allowable for any Bishop to be ignorant of, nor do any thing contrary to the Laws of the Church; for, saith he, In what a Case shall we be, if Liberty be allowed to private Men to change the Form of the Holy Decrees, according to the Will and Fancy of the People?  
Upon this Ground he forbids them to ordain ●uch Laymen Bishops as the People demand. He advises the Bishops, not to follow the People's Judgement in this, but to oppose themselves courageously against what they desire, when 'tis contrary to the Rules. This Letter is dated, July 19th. in the Year 429.  
This Pope writes in an earnest and close way. His Style is full of Sentences and intricate.   

S. CYRIL Patriarch of Alexandria.  
S. CYRIL, Nephew 
a Nephew.] Socrays, l. 7. c. 5. Theodoret. l. 5. c. 35. Isidore of Damiata, l. 1. ep. 310. Alypius, in a Letter which he wrote to him, 〈◊〉. 3. Con●. p. 788. say, That Theophilus was his Uncle. Nicephorus thinks it was by his Father's-side, but Facundus, c. 2. l. 4. and Epiphanius scholasticus hist. trip. c. 25. say, That S. Cyril was his consobritus, i. e. the Son of Theophilus' Sister.  of Thcophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, was ordained in his Place 
b Ordained in his Place.] After the Death of Theophilus, which happened Octob. 13. 412. There was a great Contest about the Election, some stood for Timotheus the archdeacon, others named S. Cyril; this last carried it, although the 
* Abudatius dux militum Aegypti.  Captain of the Army in Egypt was against him. , three Days after his Death, Octob. 16. anno 412. The Bishop of Alexandria had already 
S. Cyril of Alexandria  gotten a great Authority and Power in the City, and exercised it with a great deal of Majesty: S. Cyril was so far from remitting any thing of this Authority, that he sought all Opportunities to confirm and enlarge it. He was no sooner made Bishop but he banished the Novatians, and deprived their Bishop Theopemptus of all he had. A little Time after, the Jews having committed some Outrages upon the Christians of Alexandria, S. Cyril having put himself at the Head of his People, went to assault the Synagogues of the Jews, took them away from them, and drove them out of the City, and suffered their Estates to be plundered by the Christians. This Action much displeased Orestes, Governor of the City, who was already much troubled to see that the Bishop of Alexandria: had an Authority, which extremely lessened the governor's. This began to put all things in Confusion, and rendered them professed Enemies. They had each of them their Party, and as the People of Alexandria are naturally very seditious, this Division caused frequent Skirmishes in the City. One Day, as Orestes went in his Coach, he was encompassed with Five hundred Monks, who sallied out of the Monasteries, to revenge the Quarrel of their Bishop; they pursued him, wounded him with the Blow of a Stone, and had slain him, if his Guards had not come to his Assistance, and the People had not stopped their Fury. Orestes caused one of these Monks to be apprehended, named Ammonius, and examined him upon the Rack, with so great Severity, that he died in the Torments. S. Cyril honoured him as a Saint, and publicly commended his Zeal and Constancy. There was at that Time in Alexandria a famous Heathen Philosophess, named Hypatia, whose Feign was spread so far, that they came from all parts to see her, and consult her. Now because Orestes went often to see her, it was imagined, that it was she that cherished him in the Aversion which he had toward the Bishop. Some of the Seditious, headed by a certain Reader 
* Named Petrus. , set upon her, as she returned home, dragged her through the Streets, and cut her in a Thousand Pieces. This Story is not only related by Socrates, but is also attested by Damascius, who, in the Life of Isidore, the Philosopher, describes the tragical Death of this Illustrious Woman, and accuseth S. Cyril to be the Author of it. But we must not believe that Historian. S. Cyril was no ways concerned in her Death. They were some Seditious Persons, who took the Opportunity of the Division between him and Orestes, to commit this cruel and bloody Murder.  
The Contest with Nestorius was that which made S. Cyril so very eminent: This Bishop of Constantinople having delivered in his Sermons, That we ought not to give the Virgin Mary the Name of Mother of God, gave great Scandal in the Church; some of his Homilies being brought into Egypt, and there causing great Disturbances among the Monks. S. Cyril wrote a Letter to them; in which he maintained, That the Virgin Mary aught to be called the Mother of God. Nestorius' knowing that S. Cyril had written against him, declared openly. That he looked upon him as his Enemy, and would not have Communion with him. S. Cyril wrote a very courteous Letter to him, yet without approbation of his Doctrine. Nestorius also returned him a civil Answer, but without retracting his Opinions. They also wrote two other Letters to each other, wherein they disputed of the Question in Controversy, but without coming to an Agreement; yet these Writings which passed pro and con between them exasperated their Spirits. The Business was brought before S. Celestine. S. Cyril, fortified with his own Authority, proceeded against Nestorius, and composed Twelve anathemas against his Doctrine; which became a fresh Subject of Contest. The Eastern Bishops disapproved them. Lastly, the Quarrel grew so great that a General Council at Ephesus was forced to be called, to quench the Flame. S. Cyril presided in it, and was much crossed in his Designs: But this is not the place to write that History, which shall be found at the End of this Tome. We must here betake ourselves to S. Cyril's Works. They have been collected together, and printed in Greek and Latin at Paris, in 1538. in Six great Volumes in Folio, by the Care of Johannes Aubertus, Prebendary of 
† Laon.  Laudunum, Precedent of the College of the same Name, and Regius Professor.  
The First contains Seventeen Books, of the Adoration and the Worship of God in Spirit and 
a Theatm.  Truth Translated by Antonius Agellius, a 
* [One of the Order of the Theatins, a Sect of Priests in great credit in Clem. vi●'s time.]  Theatin Priest of Naples; who caused them to be printed at Lions and Rome, and his Books called Glaphyra, or a curious and elegant Commentary upon the Five Books of Moses, which are Translated by the Jesuit Schottus [and printed by themselves at Antwerp 1618.]  
The 17 Books of God's Worship in Spirit, are composed in form of a Dialogue. The design of this Work is to show, That all the Law of Moses; as well-as-the Precepts, and all the Ceremonies which it prescribes, being understood aright, relate to the adoration of God in Spirit and in Truth, which the Gospel hath 〈◊〉. To prove this Proposition, he seeks out all the Allegories in the Histories of the Old Testament. In the first Book he shows, That that which happened to Ad●●, Abraham and 〈◊〉, teaches Men how they fall into Sin, and a●●er what manner they may raise themselves again. The Pleasure which allures them, is figured by the Woman, by the delights of 〈◊〉, by earthly good Things: The Grace of our Saviour by the calling of 〈◊〉, by the Pro●ection which God vouchsafed Lot, by the care which he takes of his People; lastly, Repentance, light from Sin, love of Virtue by the Actions of the ancient Parriarches. In the Second and Third, he makes use of several places of the Law to show, That the Fall of Man could not be repaired but by the coming of Jesus Christ, That he alone can deliver him from the l●…table Consequents of Sin, which are Death, the tyranny of the Devil, an inclination to Evil and Concupiscence. Lastly, That he alone can redeem and justify Man. He finds Baptism and Redemption by Jesus Christ figured in many places of the Law and Prophets. In the Fourth, he uses the Exhortations, Promises and Threaten laid down in the Law, to incline Christians whom Jesus Christ hath redeemed, to follow their Callings, renounce Vice and embrace Virtue. In the Fifth he affirms, That the Constancy and Courage of the Ancients in suffering Evils and opposing their Enemies, is a figure of the Strength and Vigour with which Christians ought to nesist their Vices and irregular Passions. In the Sixth he demonstrates, That the Law commands the Worship and Love of one God only, and that it hath condemned all Superstitions and Profaneness contrary to that Worship. In the Two following Books, he also prescribes Charity towards our Brethren and Love towards our Neighbour. In the Ninth and Tenth he finds infinite resemblances between the Tabernacle and the Church. The Priesthood of the Old Law, the Consecration of the High Priests, the Sacerdotal Vestments, the Ministry of the Levites, etc. furnish him with abundance of Matter for Allegories, which he treats of in the Three following Books. The Profane and Unclean Persons under the Law, who were shut out of the Tabernacle and Temple, are the figure of Sinners, which ought to be expelled out of Churches, and do teach us, That none but those that are pure may present themselves before God. Clean and Unclean Beasts are the subject of some Allegoties: These are the subject of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Books. Lastly, The Obligations and Sacrifices of the Law are Types of the Spiritual Obligations which we ought to offer to God; and the solemn Festivals of the Jews denote to us the Celestial Rewards: This is the subject of the Two last Books. It is easy to judge, by what we have said, how mystical a Work this is, and how full of allegorical and unusual Explications. He must needs have an inexhaustible Fund of them to furnish out Seventeen Books, so long as these are, which are all-a-long carried on with continual Allegories.  
His 
* [Printed alone in Lat. at Paris, in 1605. and in Greek and Latin, by A. Schottus, at Antwerp in 1618.]  Glaphyra upon the Pentateuch are not less full of Mystical Notions: In them he refers to Jesus Christ and his Church all that is said in the Pentateuch. There is not any History, Circumstance or Precept which he applies not to Jesus Christ or the New Testament. These sorts of Commentaries are of little use, for they help nothing towards the literal Explication, they teach little Morality, they prove no Doctrine, all passes into Metaphysical Considerations and abstract Comparisons, which are not proper either to convince Unbelievers, or edify the Faithful.  
The long Commentary upon Isaiah, which is contained in the Second Tome, is much more rational: S. Cyril therein applies himself to the literal Sense of this Prophet, and doth not digress so much from the Natural Sense, to find out Jesus Christ, because the Prophecy of Isaiah agrees more naturally to him. This Commentary is divided into Six Parts. The same Judgement may be given upon the Commentary upon the Twelve Prophets; in which also he sets himself to the literal Explication, so that there is a great deal of difference between the Commentaries of this Father upon the Prophets, and his Writings upon the Pentateuch. M. Simon doth not think so, but having spoken of the Commentaries of this Father upon the Pentateuch, as a Work purely allegorical, he adds, That he passes over in silence his Commentaries upon the Prophet Isaiah, because this Father is very uniform in his Method. But whosoever will give himself the trouble to read any Place of his Commentaries upon Genesis and Exodus, and compare them with some other Place of his Commentary upon Isaiah or the Minor Prophets, he will find in them a very considerable difference.  
The Commentaries upon the Gospel of S. John, which make up the Fourth Tome, do explain also the Letter and Connexion of the Gospel; but he now and then intermixes with it some Theological Questions. And because those which concern the Trinity, come in naturally in the Gospel of S. John, he ordinarily treats of them in proving the Divinity, Consubstantiality and Equality of the Son of God. He also speaks of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, and observes that it proceeds from the Son, and takes his Nature of the Son. Sometimes he proves, that the Law was Figurative, and that Salvation and Grace are passed from the Jews to the Gentiles. There is also a Chapter in it about Liberty and Man. These are the principal Points he treats of. This Commentary is very long, and divided into Twelve Books. We have only some Fragments of the Seventh and Eighth. The Fifth and Sixth are not extant in this, no more than in the preceding Editions. But Jodo●us Clictovaeus, a Doctor of Paris, who hath translated this Commentary of S. Cyril, hath composed Four Books, to supply those that are wanting; which hath given occasion to some Authors to quote them as S. Cyril's: It is true, that they are almost all taken out of the ancient Fathers, but 'twas 
* [But he affixed them to S. Cyril, as the Fathers, and not made by himself.]  Clictovaeus that collected them, not S. Cyril.  
The Fifth Tome of S. Cyril's Works, hath Two Parts, which make Two Volumes. The First contains his Thesaurus, and Dialogues upon the Trinity and Incarnation, and the Second is made up of his Homilies and Letters.  
His Thesaurus is a Work upon the Trinity, in which he lays down Thirty five Propositions about the Divinity and Consubstantiality of the Son and Holy Spirit; which he proves exactly after the manner of the Schools, by Texts of Scripture, upheld and supported by Arguments and Syllogisms in Form, which he uses to subdue the Arians and Eunomians, and to retort upon them those Testimonies of Holy Scripture, which they commonly alleged. He propounds their Objections in the same manner, and answers them with the like Subtleties.  
Georgius Trapezuntius hath published a very imperfect Version, or rather a Latin Abridgement of this Book; in which he hath taken out, changed and added several things, and quite inverted the Order of S. Cyril. But since Vulcanius Brugen●●s hath made a faithful Translation, which was published at Basil in 1576. There can be no doubt that this Work is S. Cyril's, since Photius had read it, and described it to be such as we have in the 136th. Volume of his Bibliotheca.  
S. Thomas often quotes a Passage in favour of the Court of Rome, as being taken out of the Second Book of S. Cyril's Thesaurus, which is not to be found entire in that Work: But we need only to read it, and we shall be satisfied that there was never any such, nor ever could be found there. This is the famous Passage, as he citys it: We must remain as Members in our Head, in the Apostolic Throne of the Roman Bishops, from whom we ought to request whatsoever is necessary to be believed and held, having a particular Respect for him, and enquiring of him about all Things, because it belongs to him to reprove, correct, order, dispose things, lose in his stead, who hath founded him, and given him a fullness of Power, him alone ●●d not any other, to whom all the Faithful are obliged by Divine Right to be subject, and whom the Princes of the World should obey. Who of all the Greek or Latin Fathers ever spoke thus? Who of them ever flattered the Bishop of Rome at this rate? But how is it possible for it to enter into the Thesaurus of S. Cyril, which is nothing else but a contexture of Texts and Arguments upon the Trinity? What coherence hath our pretended Passage with that Subject? What doth this Phrase mean, That we may remain as Members in our Head, which 〈◊〉 the Apostolic Throne of the Roman Bishops? Did ever any Author speak any thing like it? To whom doth he speak these Words? And of whom are they spoken, That we may remain Members, etc. Are they the Bishops of Egypt that speak them? Can it find a Place in a Theological Treatise of one Father only?  
S. Thomas is the First that cited this Passage; and we know with how much carelessness, and with how little Judgement he quotes the Works of the Fathers. It likewise appears, that he had never seen S. Cyril's Thesaurus, because he quotes the Second Book of that Work, which was never divided into Books. Urban iv hath alleged it after S. Thomas, but upon the Credit of that Author. In the Council of Florence S. Cyril's Thesaurus is quoted in general, but when it was seasonable to produce this Passage, there is nothing said of it. All this makes it evident, That neither this Passage nor any other like it, cited by the same S. Thomas, in his Catena upon S. Matthew, as being in S. Cyril's Thesaurus, which is not found there no more than the former, are not, nor can be this Father's, nor are taken out of his Thesaurus. I wonder that F. Labbe should so openly profess himself a Defender of these two supposititious Passages.  
The Style of S. Cyril's Dialogues is not so rough and scholastic as that of the foregoing Book. There are Seven of them upon the Trinity, and Two upon the Incarnation. He proves in these last, That Jesus Christ is one only Person, made up of the Humane and Divine Nature. At the end of this Volume we find some clear Resolutions upon the Mystery of the Incarnation, where he Answers the Objections which were propounded to him. Photius speaks of this little Book, in the One hundred sixty and ninth Volume of his Bibliotheca.  
To this Treatise may be joined, a Discourse of the Orthodox Faith to Theodosius; the Treatise addressed to the Empresses, the Sermon which is annexed to it, which are in the Second Part of this Tome: In them he proves, That Jesus Christ is God, and that all the Properties of the Divine Nature may be attributed to him. To prove this he makes use of a great number of Texts of Holy Scripture, and the Testimonies of some Fathers. These Treatises are also in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus.  
Paschal Homilies are not peculiar to S. Cyril. It was the Custom of the Bishops of Alexandria, whom the Council of Nice had particularly charged with the care of publishing Easter-day; I say, It was the Custom to declare it in Alexandria by a solemn Discourse. Theophil●s, S. Cyril's Predecessor had made that Usage very famous, and S. Cyril kept it up with a great deal of Splendour, so that so long as he was Bishop, there passed no● a Year but there was a Sermon●, at the end of which he gave notice of the beginning of Lent, and of Easter-day. Of the Thirty which he made we have Twenty nine. The ordinary subject of these Sermons was the Use and Advantage of Fasting, and the way how Christians ought to ●it themselves for the celebration of Festivals. In them also he sometimes exhorts the Faithful to join almsgiving and Charity, with Fasting. He speaks in some of them of double-mindedness. In ●…y of them he treats of the Trinity and Incarnation, against the Arians and ●●torians. He sometimes speaks also against the Jews and Idolaters. These Sermons are flat and tedious; they are nothing else, almost, but a contexture of Texts of Scripture, which he mingles with mystical Explications.  
There are also here some other Discourses of this Father, which are for the most part against the ●●ror of Nestorius. The First and Second are entirely upon that Subject. They were preached at Ephesus. The Third is a small Discourse, which he made after the Sermon of Paul, Bishop of Emesa, about the Time that the Oriental and Egyptian Bishops were reconciled to each other. The Fourth and Fifth are two Sermons, preached at Ephesus against Nestorius. The Sixth is against John Bishop of Antioch. The Seventh is a Discourse, which he delivered also at Ephesus, when he was imprisoned. The Eighth is upon the Transfiguration. The Ninth upon the Lord's Supper: In this he speaks very strongly for the Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, as well as in his Commentary upon S. John's Gospel. The Tenth is a Discourse in praise of the Virgin Mary, preached at Ephesus. The Eleventh upon the Feast of the Purification. The Twelfth upon the Feast of Tabernacles. The Last is upon the Day of Judgement. These Sermons are written in a close Style, and more sententious than the former. They are full of Points, Allusions and Jinglings of Words. There is also a short one upon the Incarnation, which is extant in Latin only.  
Almost all his Letters concern the History of the Council of Ephesus, and the Disputes which S. Cyril had with John Bishop of Antioch, and the other Eastern Bishops; for which Reason it is that we intent to speak of them, when we come to treat of the Council of Ephesus. where they are inserted. Nevertheless, there are Five or Six at the end, which relate to other Matters. The First is the Letter of Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople to S. Cyril; wherein he exhorts him to put the Name of S. Chrysostom into the Diptyches, among the Bishops that died in the Communion of the Church, as he had done by the Example of Alexander Bishop of Antioch. S. Cyril returns him answer, That he disapproved his Action, being contrary to the Decrees of the Council of Nice, and that John, Bishop of Constantinople, having been degraded in his life-time, by the Judgement of the Church, he could not put him among the Bishops in the Communion of the Church, after his Death: That what he had done had given great Offence in all the Provinces of Egypt. He takes notice, that they were counted but Six, viz. Egypt, Augustamnicum, Arcadia, Thebais, Libya and Pentapolis. The Third of the Letters, of which we are speaking, is written to Domnus Bishop of Antioch. Athanasius, Bishop of a City belonging to the Patriarchate of Antioch, although far distant from that City, being offended by some of his Clergy, who would expel the Stewards out of his Church, against his Consent, made his Complaint to a Synod held in Constantinople, where S. Cyril was: But since Athanasius was not subject to the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of that Synod, they would not judge of his Cause. But S. Cyril wrote in his behalf to Domnus, relating to him the Trouble which this Bishop unjustly suffered, and desiring him to constitute Judges, who might summon the Stewards accused, and their Accusers, and condemn the Guilty. He tells him, That the Metropolitan was mistrusted by the Bishop, and that the City, of which he was Bishop, was far from Antioch. These Circumstances are remarkable, for otherwise the Judgement of it did in the first Place appertain to the Metropolitan, or if he were excepted against, to the Patriarch. In this Example we see, 1. The Authority of Patriarches over their Patriarchate. 2. The Antiquity of making such Persons Judges as were near to the Accused and Accusers. 3. How exactly the Bishops of one Patriarchate kept themselves within the Bounds of their own Jurisdiction, without meddling in other's. 4. That this Caution did not hinder them from helping Persons afflicted and persecuted, which fled to them, but yet only by Intercessions for them, without attempting any thing contrary to the Laws of the Church.  
The next Letter, written to the same Domnus, furnishes us with another Proof of this Episcopal Charity. Another Bishop, belonging to the Patriarchate of Antioch, named Petrus, was deprived of the Government of his Church, and likewise plundered of all his Goods. This Bishop, who was very aged, complained heavily of this Condemnation, and maintained that he was unjustly thrust out of all: Domnus writing to S. Cyril and Proclus, gave this Prelate the Name of a Religious and Holy Bishop. S. Cyril takes occasion from hence to write in his Favour, and show Domnus, That if this Bishop deserved to be deprived of his Church, he also deserved to lose the Name of Bishop. He than admonishes Domnus to pacify the Complaints of this Bishop, and to suffer him to appear before him and his Suffragan-Bishops, to be judged there according to the Custom. He desires him also to give him the Liberty to reject those Bishops, which may be suspected by him; for, saith he, although we do not believe that any Bishop is an Enemy to his Brethren; nevertheless, to remove all Pretences of Complaint against the Sentence, which shall be given, it is convenient, that those whom he suspects should withdraw themselves. As to the Money that had been taken from him, S. Cyril thinks, it ought to be restored to him, for Two Reasons: 1. Because he ought not to be deprived after such a manner. 2. Because it is an Abuse to demand an Account, as they do, of the Revenues of the Church, of the Bishops: It is sufficient that they cannot dispose either of the precious Vessels or Lands. The management of the Revenues ought wholly to be trusted to them. Lastly, whereas it might be said, That this Bishop had given a Writing, in which he had renounced his Claim to his Church, and so was not to be received again; S. Cyril answers, That he did not give it voluntarily, but it was extorted from him by Force and Threaten; and since it was so, such Acts of Abjuration ought not to be regarded, nor ought Bishops to be suffered to give them; for if they are worthy of their Ministry, they ought not to renounce it; if they are not worthy, they ought not to be deprived by a Renunciation, but by a Canonical Sentence.  
The last Letter contains a Prescription, directed to the Bishops of Libya and Pentapolis, to prevent a Disorder, which the Monks of Thebais complained of. Some Persons, newly married, had a desire to be ordained Clerks or Priests, and the Bishops very easily admitted them, without obliging them to renounce their Marriage: Others who had been expelled out of the Monasteries for their Debaucheries, found means also to get themselves ordained, and then got into Monasteries again, where they would celebrate the Holy Sacraments, and perform the Sacred Functions of the Ministry; which occasioned so great Scandal, that those that knew them would neither be present, nor communicate at their Ministration. S. Cyril, to put a Stop to this Scandal, ordered, That every Bishop, before he ordaineth a Clergyman, shall inform himself of his Life, If he be married or not, How long since, and How long he hath departed from his Wife; Whether he hath not been driven out by his Bishop, or expelled some Monastery; And that he shall not ordain him, unless he find his Conversation unblameable; for, saith he, This is the only way of discharging our Duty, and preventing that the Holy and Venerable Mysteries be not profaned by the Impurities of the Ministers. He adds a Rule concerning those, who being separated from the Church, or Catechumen, fall into a mortal Disease; and orders, that according to the Custom they should be allowed the Communion and Baptism. This Tome concludes with a Letter of S. Cyril's to the Bishops of Africa, when he sent them an Authentic Copy of the Canons of the Council of Nice.  
The Sixth Tome gins with the Five Books against Nestorius; in which he confutes what Nestorius had written against the Name of the Mother of God, given to the Virgin, and against other such like Expressions. He recites Nestorius' Words, and in answering to them labours to convince him of Error and Imposture. Of Error, because he divides Jesus Christ into Two, and denies the Union of the Two Natures in One Person only: Of Imposture, in attributing to the Orthodox such Opinions as they never thought on, accusing them of Teaching, That the Two Natures in Jesus Christ are mingled and confounded, and that the Divinity is made subject to Humane Infirmities. He maintains, That the two Natures remain in Jesus Christ without Mixture or Confusion, but are united in so strict an Union, that what only agrees to God may be predicated of Man, and what agrees only to Man, of God; altho' the Properties of the Humanity may not be attributed to the Godhead, nor the Attributes of the Godhead to the Manhood.  
Next to this Treatise follow the Writings made by S. Cyril for the Defence of his Twelve anathemas. The First contains an Explication of the Twelve Propositions; in which he rejects the bad Sense that might be put on them. The Second is an Apology for the Anathema against the Objections of the Oriental Bishops. The Third is an Answer to what Theodoret had written against these anathemas. Lastly, The Apology of S. Cyril to Theodosius is put here; but we shall speak more largely elsewhere of these Treatises.  
The Books against the Emperor Julian ought to have gone before these we have spoken of, because 'tis one of S. Cyril's principal Works: It is dedicated to Theodosius the Emperor, and divided into Ten Books.  
In the First he proves, by the Testimony of the ancient Historians and most learned Philosophers, That the Jews Religion is much more ancient and rational than the Greeks: That the History of Moses is true, and that the Greeks have taken all their best Expressions out of the Jews Books. In the next Place he undertakes to confute the Books of Julian closely, and answer all his Objections. He recites them at length, and then answers them. It seems he confuted only the First Book, in which that Apostate assaults the Christian Religion in general. He gins with a Comparison of the Jewish and Heathen Religion, and of the Books of Moses and Plato, and extols his Philosophy above the Laws of that Prophet. Next, he opposes the Christian Religion, and propounds some trivial Objections against the History of the Gospel. Lastly, he makes use of the Jewish Religion and Books to overthrow the Christian Religion. The Objections which he brings are weak and idle, but he makes them look well by the fine and pleasant Management of them. S. Cyril discovers the Weakness of them, and disperses them entirely. He also often opposes the Heathen Religion, and establishes the Christian. This Work is written with a great deal of Elegancy, but it is nothing so finely written as Julians although it be very learned and solid.  
The Treatise 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is written against those silly and dull-witted Monks; who ass●…, That these Words of Genesis, Let us make man in our image, and in our likeness, aught to be unders●●●● of Man's Body, because they did not conceive that there was any Spiritual Essence, but imagined that God himself was Corporeal. S. Cyril wrote to Coelosyrius, in the Letter which is set before the Body of this Work, to stop the Course of this impertinent Docri●e, and to ●●●bid the Monks to argue about a Matter so far above the reach of their Understandings. He 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Monks also, who thought that the Eucharist had no virtue to sanctify, when it w●● kept from One Day to Another. He condemns also the Monks, who did not follow their Labours, ●pretending that they gave themselves wholly to Prayers, and so used a Pretence of Piety to defend their Sloth and Idleness: He asks them, Whether they are more perfect than the 〈◊〉? and whether they would enjoy a more Happy Condition than they? He tells them, That the Church doth not receive them, who live as they do; that it is good for Solitari●● to pray continually, but that ought not to hinder their Labours, that they be not chargeable to others. Lastly, He admonishes Coelosyrius not to suffer the Meletians to receive the Sacrament among the Orthodox, if they have not abandoned their own Sect, to unite themselves with the Church, and have not given evident Signs of their Conversion.  
S. Cyril commands Coelosyrius to publish these Rules in the Monasteries of Mount Calamon, where some Monks were infected with these Errors. At the same time he sent him a Treatise, in which he answers the Objections which these Monks propounded, and solves the Difficulties which they had cunningly framed: Nevertheless he observes, That it is hard to resolve these kinds of abstruse and subtle Questions, and that all that can be done is only to bring such Conjectures as may in some Measure satisfy.  
The First is concerning the Breath of Life, which God breathed into Adam, after he had form him: Is it his Soul, or a Breath different from the Soul? Is it a Part of the Divine Essence, or some created Being? S. Cyril maintains, That 'tis not the Soul of Man, nor any Creature, but it is the Holy Spirit itself which is given Man for his Sanctification. This Opinion is not very probable.  
It is demanded in the Second Question, How Man was created in the Image of God? S. Cyril answers, By the Holy Spirit, for by Sin he hath lost that Similitude, and hath recovered it again by Jesus Christ.  
The Third is, Whether the Angels were made in the Image of God? S. Cyril affirms it.  
In the Fourth, It is enquired, Whether there be any difference between the Image and Likeness of God, and he saith that there is none.  
The Fifth is upon an abstracted Conceit, viz. Whether Man is the Image of God, or the Image of the Image of God the Father, that is to say, of the Word. He answers, That he is the Image of the three Persons of the Godhead.  
In the Sixth it is demanded, Whether the Souls of the Blessed receive any Perfection? S. Cyril Answers, That it will not have a more perfect Nature, but it will act more perfectly, because it will be delivered from Concupiscence, Ignorance and Vice, and be filled with the Holy Spirit.  
The Seventh Question is, Why all Men are subject to Death and Sin, upon the account of Adam's Transgression, and why all those who are purified and sanctified by Jesus Christ, do not communicate the Fruits of their Sanctification to their Posterity? S. Cyril answers, That we are not punished as having sinned with the first Man, but because he being become Mortal by his Sin, hath transferred that Curse to all his Posterity: That Jesus Christ hath redeemed and delivered us all from Death, but that no Man, though he be sanctified, can communicate that Sanctification to his Posterity, because it comes from Jesus Christ, who only sanctifies us. 'Tis by Jesus Christ that every Man receives Remission of his Sins, and 'tis by him that all Men in general are delivered from Death.  
In the Eighth Question it is enquired, Whether, when Ezekiel saw the Bones of the dead to be joined together, and resume the Form of a Man; Whether it was, I say, a real Resurrection, or only a Figure of the general Resurrection? S. Cyril is for the latter.  
The Ninth is, Whether Jesus Christ added any thing to the Flesh of Man, when he was united to it? S. Cyril answers, That Jesus Christ, by his Incarnation, hath granted several Graces to the Humane Nature; That he hath restored to Man the Image and Likeness of God, which was defaced by Sin; That he hath revived the Divine Characters of Justice and Holiness, and perfected them; That Adam had Ability and Freedom to do good, but he was defective in his Actions and the Effect, whereas those who live in Jesus Christ are Just and Holy in the Effect, and in their Actions.  
In the Tenth he teacheth, That by the assistance of God we may repulse and weaken the Motions of Concupiscence, but cannot root them out in this Life.  
In the Eleventh he maintains, That the Holy Sacrament must not be celebrated but in the Churches of the Orthodox, and they that do otherwise break the Law.  
The Twelfth Question is very Metaphysical; It is demanded, Whether God can make that which hath happened, not to be? Whether he can make a common Harlot to have been always a Virgin? S. Cyril says, That we must not set Bounds to the Power of God, but neither may we attribute to him a Power of doing things Absurd and Contradictory, and that it is good not to move such sort of Questions: That, in Sum, God cannot make that which hath happened, not to have happened; or a common Prostitute to have always been a Virgin, because he cannot make a Lie the Truth; yet it is not a sign of his Impotency, but an effect of his Perfection.  
The Thirteenth is against those who dare affirm, That Jesus Christ, as God, was ignorant of the Day of Judgement. S. Cyril proves, That that cannot be, because under this Title he hath created all things; he is the Counsel and Will of the Father, and knows all his Purposes: From hence he concludes, That when it is said, That he knoweth not the Day of Judgement, it ought to be understood of Jesus Christ, considered as Man, because under that Title he is subject to all the Imperfections of humane Nature, Sin only excepted.  
The Fourteenth, How this Sentence ought to be understood; The Word was made Flesh: By the Word Flesh S. Cyril says, the Scripture understands the whole Man; as when it is said in the Prophets, That God pours out his Spirit upon all Flesh; and all Flesh shall see the Salvation of God.  
The Fifteenth is against those who assert, That every Man receives his Reward immediately after his Death, before the Resurrection; and to prove it they make use of the Parable of Lazarus and Dives. S. Cyril maintains, That the Judgement ought not to be passed till after the Resurrection; and that it is absurd to say, That the Good or Sinners have received their Reward already: And that what is said of Lazarus and Dives is a Parable, which signifies only, that Merciless Rich Men shall one Day be grievously punished. This doth not at all agree with the particular Judgement and Blessedness of Souls after Death.  
The Sixteenth, How the Angels, if they have no Bodies, can have any Carnal Knowledge of Women, as it is said in Genesis? S. Cyril answers, That they are not Angels, which are spoken of in Genesis, but the Posterity of Enos, who had Commerce with the Daughters of Cain: And for this Reason it is that Four Interpreters, who have translated this Place after the LXX. have rendered it, Sons of the Mighty, or Princes, and not Sons of God; That, in Sum, it is a great Weakness, to think, That the Angels can have Children.  
The Seventeenth and Eighteenth are against those who affirm, That the Person of the Son being made Man, and descending to the Earth, was not united to his Father, nor did inhabit in Heaven.  
In the Nineteenth S. Cyril explains his Opinion about the Incarnation, and holds, That it may be said, That the Flesh of Jesus Christ did Miracles, because the Word, and Man being united in the same Person, and in the Son only, both the Divine and Humane Operations may be attributed to him.  
In the Twentieth it is said, That Jesus Christ is ascended into Heaven, with the Flesh, which was united to him; but for all that, it cannot be said that the Body of Jesus Christ was mingled with the Trinity.  
In the Twenty first he treats also of this nice Question, In what Sense the Flesh of Jesus Christ may be said to do Miracles? and explains it by this Example; although it be the Soul that moves the Body in all its Operations, yet we call it the Action of the Body, as well as of the Soul. The same ●…ay be said of the Miracles which the Word doth by his Humanity.  
In the Twenty second he says, That the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ was subject to Sin certainly, because he came to deliver Man from Sin.  
The Twenty third Question is this, Why the Word was not made Man at the beginning of the World? Why stayed he till these last Times? S. Cyril answers, That he acted the part of a good Physician, who does not undertake the Cure of a Disease in its beginning, but waits till the Disease plainly discovers itself. So did the Word wait till the Sins and Wickedness of Man had fully manifested themselves.  
The Twenty fourth imports, That the Head of the Infernal Dragon shall not be entirely broken till after the Resurrection. This puts me in mind of the Title of a very fantastical Book, A Treatise of the broken Head of the Infernal Dragon. I believe the Author had not read this Place of S. Cyril.  
The Twenty fifth is a very obscure Comparison, between the Flame that appeared to Moses in the Flaming-Bush, and the Mystery of the Incarnation.  
In the Twenty seventh he saith, That Zacharias was slain between the Temple and the Altar, for suffering Mary to enter into that Place, where the Virgins only had a Right to enter.  
The last explains, in a few Words, the Causes of the Joy, which the Angels shown at the Birth of Jesus Christ.  
The following Treatise, about the Holy Trinity, is written by an Author more modern than S. Cyril, although it comes very near his Doctrine, and his Method, and Principles, but it is easy to discern that he lived after the Rise of the Heresy of the Monothelites, for he throughly discusses this Question, Whether there are Two Wills and Two Operations in Jesus Christ. He confutes those that hold the contrary, and explains the Sense of the Ancients, who taught, That there was in Jesus Christ but one incarnate Nature, and one Operation as God-man.  
The Collection of Expositions upon the Old Testament is not wholly taken out of the Works of S. Cyril only, but also of S. Maximus, and several other Interpreters: So that it must not be looked upon as S. Cyril's Work.  
Balthazar Corderius published 19 Homilies upon Jeremiah, printed at Antwerp (in Greek and Latin) in 1648 [Octavo] which bear the name of S. Cyril 
* [But are found to be Origen's. Care.] . As for the Moral Fables put out by the same Author in 1631. under the name of S. Cyril, they belong to a Latin Author. The 16 Books upon Leviticus, which were heretofore among S. Cyril's Works, are Origen's. It is nothing to the purpose, that some have doubted, whether the Treatise of the Adoration in Spirit be S. Cyril's, since it is his Style, and Photius attributes it to him. Nor is there greater reason to doubt of the Letter to Coelosyrius, nor of the other Works of which we have spoken.  
He made Commentaries upon all the Prophets, but they were never yet printed. His Commentary upon S. Matthew, cited several times in the 6th. and 7th. General Councils, and that upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, cited by Theodoret, are lost. If we may believe Cassiodorus, he made Commentaries upon all the Books of Holy Scripture. Gennadius mentions two Treatises of S. Cyril's, which we have not, viz. A Treatise of the Defect of the Synagogue; And a Book of Faith against the Heretics. The same Author assures us, That he composed divers Treatises upon various Subjects, and a great number of Homilies, which the Grecian Bishops got by Heart to preach to the People. So that tho' the Works of S. Cyril, which we now have, make up at present 7 great Volumes, yet we should have several others, if we had all that he hath written. It is very wonderful, That a Bishop of so great a See as that of Alexandria, busied with so many Affairs, and engaged in so great a Contest as that with the Eastern Bishops was, should have time to compose so many Works. But S. Cyril was wonderfully ready at Composing, and applied himself to a way of Writing, which it is easy to furnish out, for either he copied out Texts of Scripture, or made large Discourses, or expounded Allegories. It is easy to make great Works of this Nature in a little time, especially, when we bestow no time to polish our Discourse nor keep it within certain bounds, and we resign up our Hand and Pen entirely to all the Notions that come into our Heads. After this manner did S. Cyril write, and he was so much accustomed to this way of Writing, that he had, as Photius observes, a Style altogether particular, which seemed contrary to others, and in which he extremely neglected the exactness and cadency of his Expressions. He had a Subtle and Metaphysical Genius, and readily spoke the finest Logic. His Wit was very proper for subtle Questions, which he had to do with upon the Mystery of the Incarnation. He held the See of Alexandria 32 years, and died in 444.  
There were divers Collections of S. Cyril's Works in Latin, before the Edition in Greek and Latin at Paris, Anno 1638 
* [By the care of Johannes Aubertus, in Tom. 7.] . The First was at Basil in [1546. in 4 Tom. by Georgius Trapezuntius, and again, in] 1566. The Second, at Paris [by Gentian Harvett in 2 Tom.] in 1573. The Third, by Sonnius at Paris in 1605, which is the largest. There are several of his Treatises printed by themselves in Greek and Latin, as the Treatise of the Worship of God in Spirit and Truth, published by Agellius, and printed at Rome in 1588. That of the Orthodox Faith in Greek and Latin by Beza in 1570. His Writing against the Anthropomorphites, put out by Vulcanius, and printed at Amsterdam in 1605. The Commentaries upon the 12 small Prophets [in Greek and Latin] at Ingolstadt in 
† 1605. Cav.  1607. The Treatise against Nestorius in Greek and Latin by Agellius at Rome 
* 1608. Cav.  in 1607. The Books against Julian in Greek and Latin by Borbonius at Paris, in 1630. Some small Tracts in Greek by Meursius. His Paschal Homilies by Andrew Salmatias at Antwerp, in 1618. The Book of the Trinity in Greek and Latin, by Wegelinus at Ausburg in 1604, and 1608. And several Letters and Treatises among the Councils.  
There is a Lexicon, and a Treatise of Animals, which bears the Name of Cyril, but it is certainly some other Cyril, not the Patriarch of Alexandria.   

MARIUS MERCATOR.  
THis Author remained a long time in obscurity. The ancient and modern▪ Composers of Bibliotheca's have spoken nothing of him. His Works have been but lately recovered. 
Marius Mercator.  He began to write in S. Austin's Life-time, who assures us in his 193d. Letter, written in 418. That M. Mercator, to whom it is directed, had made a Treatise against the New Heretics; that is to say, against the Pelagians. S. Austin speaks of him, as a Man of Worth and Learning. It is probable he was an Italian 
a An Italian.] F. Garner was of that Opinion, but the conjecture upon which it was grounded, was weak. F. Gerberon thought he was an African, and M. Baluzius was of this Mind. The whole Letter of S. Austin, published by the Benedictins, clears the Matter. For it appears by the beginning that M. Mercator lived at Rome with S. Sixtus and Celestine, to whom S. Austin wrote at the same time the two foregoing Letters, which he sent with this last by the same Bearer. , and he seems to have been but a mere Layman 
b A mere Layman.] He was neither Bishop nor Priest when S. Austin writ his Letter to him, for he gives him no Title of Honour, tho' he calls him his Son. Nor was he any thing more when he presented his Memoir to the Council of Ephesus. Lastly, in his Book to the Priest Pientius, he speaks as a Man inferior to him to whom he wrote. Tu quoque, venerande Presbyter Pienti, jussisti, parui imperatis. Thou also, O Reverend Priest Pientius, hast commanded, and I have obeyed. .  
This Man was one of the most zealous Adversaries of the Heretics of his time, and especially of the Pelagians, whom he pursued vigorously, publishing Memoirs against them, and Collections of Pieces to discover their Errors, and bring them to Condemnation.  
The first Work which he composed, was a Discourse against the Opinions of the Pelagians, in which he hath collected several Texts of Holy Scripture, as S. Austin tells us in his 193d. Letter. We have not this Work unless it be the Hypognosticon, which bears the name of S. Austin, as we have guessed in the first part of this Tome of our Bibliotheca, p. 256.  
The Second is an Historical Commentary against Coelestius, which he first made in Greek to 
Commonitorium super nomen C●lest●i. Dr. Cave.  publish at Constantinople, and which he presented to the Emperor Theodosius, Anno 429 
c Anno 429.]▪ All this is taken from the Title of this Memoir. Nevertheless there is a doubt concerning the year, for it is not manifest whether it were in 429. that this Memoir was presented or translated. But he speaks in the Body of the Work of Theodoret Bishop of Antioch, who died in 428. as a Bishop deceased; and in the Title itself he speaks of the condemnation of Coelestius in the Council of Ephesus, as a thing done; which proves plainly, that he translated it in the year 431.  that he might inform the Eastern Christians of the Condemnation of Coelestius and his Followers. The Title of this Commentary discovers the time, occasion, and the effect of it. Thus it is expressed; A Copy of the Commentary, which Mercator published in Greek against Coelestius, and which he not only gave to the Church of Constantinople, and disposed to several Persons of Piety, but also presented to the Emperor Theodosius in the Consulship of Florentius and Dionysius, and which he afterward translated out of the Greek into Latin; which Commentary having discovered the Errors of Coelestius, was the Cause that Julian, and his Companions who defended them, were banished from Constantinople as well as Coelestius, by the Emperor's Edict, and afterward condemned in the Council of Ephesus, by the Judgements of 275 Bishops.  
This Commentary is an Abridgement of the History of the Condemnation of the Heresy of Pelagius. Mercator tells us therein, That Coelestius, a Scholar of Pelagius, being come from Rome, where he had been almost 20 years, went to Carthage, where he was accused by Paulinus a Deacon of S. Ambrose, of several Errors, contained in 6 Articles, which he transcribes; That the Bishops of afric had condemned them in a Synod, and had enjoined Coelestius to Anathematise them; That he thought it convenient to appeal to the Bishop of Rome, but neglecting to prosecute the Appeal, he came to Ephesus, where he procured himself to be ordained Priest; That from thence he passed to Constantinople in the time of Atticus, but being known, he was driven from thence by that Bishop, who wrote circular Letters against him; That Coelestius seeing himself thus thrust out, went to Pope Zosimus, and pretending to condemn the Articles which were charged upon him, he obtained Letters in his favour directed to the Bishops of afric. But these Bishops having given Zosimus information in writing of all that had passed, Coelestius, who would not perform what he had promised, durst not appear before Zosimus again, and so withdrew himself from Rome. Whereupon Zosimus condemned him by a long Writing, which contained the Articles of Coelestius, and all the Story of his Condemnation. Mercator next speaks of the Errors of Pelagius, Master of Coelestius, which he relates in the very words of Pelagius taken out of his Commentary upon S. Paul's Epistles. He adds, That these Errors having been condemned by Zosimus' Letter sent into all parts, and confirmed by the Consent and Subscriptions of the Bishops of other Countries. Julian and his Associates who would not sign them were banished out of Italy by the Imperial Law, and deposed by the decrees of the Synods, and that some of them having acknowledged their Error were received and confirmed by the Holy See.  
Mercator adds, That Pelagius and Coelestius had been already condemned by Innocent, Zosimus' Predecessor; and to prove it, he goes back to the Original of the cause of the Pelagians. Pelagius, saith he, retired into Palestine after the taking of Rome. His Writings falling into the Hands of some Bishops, they found many things in them contrary to the Catholic Faith, and they sent them into Africa, where they were read and examined in three Councils, who wrote them to the Holy See. The Bishop of Rome condemned these Books, and excommunicated Pelagius and Coelestius. Pelagius was also accused to a Synod held at Jerusalem, but he escaped the Condemnation which he deserved by deceiving the Bishops with his Subtletics and Shifts. He was condemned in a second Synod, wherein Theodotus Bishop of Antioch was Precedent, as the Letter written in the Name of this Bishop, and Prailus Bishop of Jerusalem, convinces us. He than recites the particular Errors of Pelagius condemned in this Synod, and ends his Commentary with an earnest request to Julian and his Adherents to condemn Pelagius and Coelestius, who have been convicted of so many Errors.  
The third Work of M. Mercator is another Commentary against the same Heretics written after the death of S. Austin. In it he describes the Original of the Error of Pelagius, of which he makes some Syrians, and principally Theodorus of Mopsuesta, the Authors. He adds, That Rufinus who was a Syrian also, who brought it first to Rome, not daring to publish it there, taught it to Pelagius 
* [A Welshman.]  an English Monk, who inserted it in his Commentaries upon S. Paul. That Coelestius, a Person of Quality and Wit, but who was born an Eunuch, had joined himself to Pelagius, and had comprised his Doctrine in 6 Articles, which he dispersed among the People. That altho' his Errors had been condemned, Julian had undertaken to defend them in large Books, to which S. Austin had opposed long and effectual Answers. That after he had read these Works, he had also made some short Observations upon the Writings of Julian, which he had collected and made public to satisfy the desire of Pientius the Priest. He chief opposes 4 Errors of Julian in it. 1. That Concupiscence is not the consequent or effect of the Sin of the first Man, but it is natural to Man. 2. That Death entered into the World by the Sin of Adam, but that it passed upon other Men only, because they imitate the Sin of Adam. 3. That the Sin of the first Man hath not descended to his Posterity. 4. That Baptism pardons the Sins of those who have them; and as for Infants that have none, it perfects their Natures by the Gifts of Grace. M. Mercator recites the Passages of Julian, where he expressly lays down these Propositions, and then confutes them by close Notes, in which he mixes sharp and biting Expressions against Julian. He passes not over any suspicious Sentence; and whereas he uses the word Innovation for Renovation, he blames him for it, tho' S. Austin hath made use of both. He observes, that the Orthodox do not assert, That Sin is natural to Man, but that Original Sin cleaves to the corrupted Nature of Man. He shows him, That he contradicts himself in saying, That Death passed upon all for Adam's Sin, and yet it hath Dominion over them only who imitate his Transgression. Lastly, he proves by all that is said in Holy Scripture concerning the Redemption of Jesus Christ and of Baptism, that it necessarily supposes, That all Men, yea, Infants themselves, are in Sin, before they are renewed and regenerated by that Sacrament.  
M. Mercator is not contented to oppose the Authority of the Church against Julian and the Pelagians, but he also brings the Testimony of Nestorius against them, who received them so well, and wrote in their favour to Pope Celestine, and sent a consolatory Letter to Coelestius. Next he produces with the 3 Letters of Nestorius written for them, the Extracts of 4 Sermons preached by that Bishop in the presence of the Pelagians, wherein he affirmed, 1. That the fall of Adam hath been the cause of all the Miseries to which the nature of Man is subject, and of the bondage by which it hath been brought under the Tyranny of Satan. 2. That Jesus Christ is come to redeem Man from his Sins, to blot out the Handwriting that was against him, and set him at liberty. 3. That it is by the Sacrament of Baptism that he works these things, and that Catechumen are always subject to the Curse of Sin, till they have received this Sacrament. The Third of these Sermons is in Greek among the Works of S. Chrysostom, of Savil's Edition, Tom. 7. And F. Garner hath caused it to be printed with the Extracts of Marius Mercator.  
But because Julian might brag, That Theodorus of Mopsuesta Bishop of Cilicia was for him, M. Mercator undertakes to show, That this Bishop had Heretical Opinions about the Incarnation. And to prove it, he translates a Creed attributed to Theodorus of Mopsuesta; and at the end annexes an Observation, showing, That the Doctrine contained in that Creed is Heretical; and that it supposed, That Jesus Christ is made of two Natures, and not of two Natures united in one and the same Person. He confutes that Error, and proves the Doctrine of the Church by Texts of Holy Scripture.  
He demonstrates also in another Writing the agreement there is between the Error of Nestorius and of Paulus Samosatenus.  
And for the more full Conviction of Nestorius and his Followers, he rehearses long Extracts of Nestorius' 5 Sermons, a Letter to S. Cyril, and the Extracts of his Books, and he opposes to them the two Letters of S. Cyril to Nestorius, and a third Letter of the same Person to the Clergy of Constantinople.  
He also examines the Aphorisms of Nestorius opposed to S. Cyril's, and when he hath confuted them in order, he delivers briefly the Faith of the Church concerning the Incarnation, and discovers the different Errors of those that have opposed it. For the confirmation of what he was about to propound, he produces out of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, whatsoever is most direct and convincing against the Heresy of Nestorius. He joins to this a Translation of S. Cyril's two Apologies made for the defence of his Anathema against the Orientals. He endeavours to render the Doctrine and Person of Theodoret odious, by reciting the Extracts of his Treatises and Letters. He treats him as an Heretic and a wicked Man, altho'he owns, That he did at last approve of S. Cyril's Doctrine, tho'he would not condemn Nestorins. He relates a Fragment of the Council against Domnus of Antioch, where Theodoret is accused to have spoken against the Memory of S. Cyril, saying, That the Egyptian Heresy was buried with him. And from hence he concludes, That Theodoret ought to be condemned as well as Theodorus and Nestotius. And to convince Theodorus of Error and Heresy, he recites some Fragments of his Books against S. Austin, to which he joins some Extracts out of his Master Diodorus. He accuseth Ibas Bishop of Edessa to have published this Blasphemy; I do not envy Jesus Christ his Divinity, because I can become so as well as he, for he is of the same nature with myself. He quotes a Passage taken out of a Sermon of this Author, which contains nothing like it. He adds to all this, an Extract of a Sermon of Eutherius Bishop of Tyana, which he affirms to have been of the same Judgement with Nestorius, and concludes this Collection with a Reflection against the Nestorians and Eutychians, which are two contrary Heresies equally rejected by the Orthodox. He hath brought against both of them some Testimonies taken out of the Sermons of John Bishop of Tomi, a Province of Scythia, but they are not to be found at present in the Collection of Mercator's Works. This Conclusion discovers, That this Collection of Pieces was made after the Heresy of the Eutychians was known by that Name, i. e. after the Council of Chalcedon, which was held in 451. Nevertheless the reproachful manner, after which he speaks of Theodoret, who was received in that Council, would make us believe, That this Collection was compiled some time before, but that we know that there were always some Persons, who would never forgive Theodoret for quarrelling with S. Cyril.  
There is also at the end of Marius a Translation of these following Pieces. The Letter of Nestorius to S. Celestine, a Synodical Letter of S. Cyril against Nestorius, and the Scholia of the same Father upon the Incarnation against Nestorius. These Pieces ought to be joined to the preceding.  
M. Mercator is no very eloquent Author, nor indeed does such Works as he composed require much Eloquence: It is enough in such sort of Memoirs and Collections, that they be exact and faithful. He translated the Greek elegantly and faithfully. His Style is not intricate, but hath nothing noble or lofty, and degenerates into Childishness, when he undertakes to confute others of his own Head. His Collection hath been of great Use in the Latin Church; and we see that Facundus and Pelagius the Second have used his Translation.  
There are Two Manuscripts of the Works of this Author, the one in the Vatican, the other in the Library of the Church of 
* Caesaromagus, Bellovacum, a City of Picardy in France.  Beauvais. F. Labbe printed the Historical Commentary of M. Mercator first, in his Edition of the Councils [Tom. 2.]. and designed to have published the rest of the Works of that Author; But dying before he had performed his Promise, F. Garner, his Fellow- Jesuit, published them [with his own large and learned Commentaries, at Paris] in 1673. But he has changed the Order, in which his Works were put, in the Two Manuscripts, hath added many other Pieces to them, and increased the Bulk of the Volume much, by long Notes, and a great number of Dissertations upon the History of the Pelagians and Nestorians.  
At the same Time F. Gerberon, a Benedictine, put out, under the borrowed Name of Rigberius, the Commentary against Julian, the Translation of 
† Creed, Dr. Cave.  the Sermon of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, with his Preface, the two Letters against Nestorius; and the Treatise of a Nestorian, he did not put in the First Historical Memoir, because it was printed already in the Second Tome of the Councils, by F. Labbe. This Edition of M. Mercator is very small, in Twelves, Printed at Brussels in 1673. His Notes are not so long as F. Garner's, but they are full as useful and learned.  
It is easy to see that these Editions were defective, for F. Garner's was not so much an Edition of M. Mercator, as a great Commentary upon the History of the Pelagians and Nestorians; F. Gerberon's contained but a small part of his Works: Besides, neither of them had consulted the Manuscripts exactly, F. Garner contenting himself to follow that of Beauvais, and F. Gerberon that of the Vatican. These Reasons induced M. Baluzius, who hath taken so much Pains all his Life-time, to clear and restore the Ecclesiastical Antiquities, to publish a new Edition of Mercator's Works, in which he printed the Text, as it is in these two Manuscripts beforementioned, and explains, by short Notes, those Places which have any Difficulty in them, without digressing into common Places upon the History or Doctrine of the Heretics, which are spoken of in M. Mercator's Works. This Edition was put out at Paris in 1684. by Francis Mugvet, in Octavo.   

ANIANUS.  
ANIANUS, a Latin Author, a Deacon of a City called Celeda 
a Of a City called Celeda.] S. Jerom in ep. 79. to S. Austin, calls him Celedensis. It is not known where this City is; some think that it is Celene, a City of Campania. We have still a Letter of S. Jerom's to Mark Bishop of Celeda. , was one of the Defenders of Pelagius 
b Of the Defenders of Pelagius.] Jansenius affirms, That he was Pelagius himself, who took the Name of Anianus; but this Conjecture is false. The Prefaces to the Translation of S. Chrysostom's Homilies, make it evident, that Anianus is a real Author. S. Jerom speaks the like of him, and says, That he defends the Blasphemies of another Person, that is to say, of Pelagius. It is true that he defends in his Work such Doctrines, as he would not acknowledge in the Synod of Diospolis; but there must needs be some Defect in the Text of S. Jerom, Quicquid enim in illa miserabili Synodo Diospolitana dixisse se denegat, in hoc Opere profitetur: Whatsoever he denied in the wretched Synod of Diospolis, that he had said, he asserts in this Work. We ought to add, or understand, the Name of Pelagius, and read, Pelagius dixisse se denegat: Pelagius denies that he had said Pelagius was a Priest. The Author of the Books against S. Jerom, and of the Translation of S. Chrysostom's Sermons, was a Deacon only: Nor is there more reason to confound him, as Baronius has done, with Valerian or Julian. . S. Jerom tells us, That he wrote Books against his Letter to Ctesiphon; in which he maintains, by large Discourses, the Doctrines which Pelagius taught. He translated Fifteen Homilies of S. Chrysostom, viz. the Eight First upon S. Matthew, and seven Sermons of the Praises of S. Paul; and hath put, at the Beginning of these Translations, Two Letters, the One to Orontius, the Other to Evangelus: In which he declares himself openly against the Scholars of S. Austin, to whom he gives the Name of Traducians'. The Ancient Translation of S. Chrysostom's Homily to the 
* Novices.  Neophytes, which was made, as S. Austin observes, in his First Book against Julian, ch. 6. by a Scholar of Pelagius, may be attributed to him. This Author was well skilled in Greek, and wrote Latin well enough: S. Jerom accuses him for using Jingling Words, verbis tinnulis & emendicatis: This appears chief in the two Letters, which serve as a Preface to the Translation of S. Chrysostom's Homilies. He flourished in the Beginning of the Fifth Age; but we must not confound him, as Sigibert hath done, with him that wrote the Theodosian Code, in the Time of Alaricus, at the beginning of the Sixth Age.   

JULIAN.  
JULIAN, born in Apulia 
a Born in Apulia.] S. Austin, lib. 6. op. imperf. c. 18. Non enim quia te Apulia genuit: Because Apulia brought thee forth. Fulgentius says, That he was a Person of Quality.  about the Year 386. the Son of Memor or Memorius, 
b Memorius. S. Austin, in let. 30. Paulinus in the Epitaph of Julian, M. Mercator. This last upbraids Julian, as unworthy to be the Son of Memor and Julienna, and treats him as a Bastard. He also observes, That he had two Sisters. The Ancients do not tell us of what City Memorius was Bishop. , who is thought to have been Bishop of Capua and Julienna, married the Daughter of Aemilius, [Bishop of Beneventum,] named Ja. Afterward he became a Clergyman. He was a Deacon when S. Austin wrote his Thirtieth Letter to his Father: Where he gives a Commendation of Father and Son. He was ordained 
c Ordained.] M. Mercator says, That it was S. Innocent that ordained him. In 408. he was no more than a Deacon. He was young, but it is probable that he was Ordained before 416. for Innocent died in 417.  in 416. by Pope Innocent, Bishop of Eclane 
d Of Eclane.] Some have read Celane, but it is Eclane. The Testimony of Mercator fully determines this Point of History. This City was near the Lake Ampsanctus, between Campania and Apulia, distant from Beneventum about Twenty Miles: It is called at this Time Fringent. , a City situate between Campania and Apulia. So long as this Pope lived Julian did not discover his Opinions, but soon after his Death he declared himself for the Doctrine of Coelestius and Pelagius. Gennadius assures us, That before this he passed for one of the most learned Doctors of the Church, but he doth not take notice of any of his Works in particular, and 'tis not certain that he had then composed any. However that be, we have none of his Works but what might have been composed before he declared himself against S. Austin; But we have considerable Fragments of the Writings which he made against the Church.  
In the Popedom of Zosimus he began to maintain the Opinions of Coelestius, in his Discourses which he held at Rome. He then set himself to cry down, by Writing, the Doctrine of S. Austin, and the Church, concerning Original Sin.  
The First thing he did was, to write in his own Name to Pope Zosimus. We have some Fragments of this Letter in M. Mercator. Not long after he addressed a Second Letter to him, in the Form of a Profession of Faith, written in the Name of Ten Bishops of that Age: F. Garner hath put out this. Julian owns, That he was the Author of it, as well as of that which was directed in the Name of the same Bishops, to Rufinus Bishop of Thessalonica. 'Tis this which S. Austin recites, in his Three last Books to Bonifacius. These Letters were written in 418.  
The First Book of S. Austin, concerning Concupiscence and Marriage, falling into the Hands of Julian, he wrote, in 419. Four Books, dedicated to Turbantius, against the First Book of S. Austin. A little after he was banished out of Italy, by the Force of the Emperor's Edict, and was compelled to retire into the East. He went into Cilicia, to find Theodorus of Mopsuesta; and there made, if we may believe M. Mercator, Eight Books, dedicated to Florus, Bishop of Beneventum, against the Second Book of S. Austin, concerning Concupiscence and Marriage. Sometime after he withdrew from Cilicia, and, if we give credit to what Mercator says, he was condemned, after his Departure, in a Synod of the Province of Cilicia. It may be, he returned into Italy, but being again banished from thence, he retreated to Constantinople; where he was rejected by Atticus, and afterward by Sisinnius. But Nestorius, a Scholar of Theodorus, being chosen Bishop of Constantinople, favoured them, and sent two Letters in their behalf to Celestine. At this Time it was that M. Mercator presented his Memoir against Coelestius, Julian, and his Companions; and obtained thus much by his Solicitations, that they were banished from Constantinople. They went to the Council of Ephesus, where they were received by John Bishop of Antioch: But the Council condemned them, and confirmed all that had been done against them in the West; so that Julian always remained excluded from the Church, and banished from Italy. He used his utmost Endeavours to gain Entrance into them under Pope Sixtus, but all in vain. Gennadius says, That he died under Valentinian, i. e. before the Year 455. after he had given all his Estate to the Poor, to relieve them by that means in a Famine, and so drew over several Persons to his Party. Some hold, That he was in Sicily, where he spent the last part of his Life in teaching a School, and that this Inscription was put on his Tomb.  Here lieth in Peace JULIAN an Orthodox Bishop. 
Which Epitaph was to be seen in the Ninth Age. These are the Works of Julian, of which we are now coming to speak.  
Some Fragments of the Letter to Zosimus, in M. Mercator, lib. subn. c. 6. n. 10. etc. 9 n. 3. He owns, in these Fragments, That Death entered into the World by the Sin of Adam. A long Profession of Faith, published by Father Garner, in Dissert. 5. Par. 1. of the Works of M. Mercator. This Profession of Faith hath Four Parts. The First contains the Articles of the Creed explained; among which he placeth the Necessity of Baptism for all Ages. The Second is an Abridgement of his Doctrine about Grace and freewill: Which may be reduced to Five Propositions. 1. That Man is absolutely free, to do Good or Evil. 2. That to do Good, he hath need of Grace, but that Grace is never wanting to him. 3. That the Nature of Man is good and perfect. 4. That there is no such thing as natural Sin, or by whatever Name else it may be called. 5. That the just Men of the Old Testament were justified by their Works, and by Faith in Jesus Christ. The Third Part rejects the Errors of the Arians, Sabellians, Eunomians, Macedonians, Apollinarists and Novatians, to whom are joined the Jovinianists, such as assert, That Man, justified by Baptism can never sin. Next, he comes to the Manichees, with whose Errors he confounds the Doctrine of the Orthodox, which he exposes after an odious Fashion. They, saith he, who defend natural Sin, affirm, That the Devil is the Author of Marriages; That Children that are born of them are Children of the Devil; That all Men are born in his possession; That the Son of God did not begin to pour down his Graces upon Men but from the time of his Incarnation; That Sins are not entirely forgiven by Baptism; That the Saints of the Old Testament are dead in a State of Sin; That Man is necessitated to Sin; That Sin cannot be avoided, even with Grace. Lastly, he condemns the gross Errors of the Pelagians, viz. Those, who said, That Men can avoid Sin without the help of God; That Infants ought not to be baptised, or that other Terms ought to be used in baptising them; That they, who are born of baptised Parents, have no need of the Grace of Baptism; That Mankind died not by Adam, and is not raised by Jesus Christ. In the last part, the Bishops, in whose name this Profession was written, declare to Zosimus, That if he still persists to molest them, they will appeal to a fuller Synod; That they could not sign a condemnation passed against the absent, but were ready to suffer the worst rather than forsake Justice and Truth. He ends with a Passage of S. Chrysostom's Sermon to the Novices.  
The Letter of Julian and other Bishop● to Rufi●us of Thessalonica, is recited almost entire in the 3 last Books of S. Austin to Boniface. It contained the Heads of the Accusations, which we have delivered in speaking of that Treatise of S. Austin.  
The first Book to Turbantius is recited entire in the second Book of S. Austin of Marriage and Concupiscence. There are ●ragments of 3 other Books in the 6 Books of S. Austin against Julian. Lastly, all the 5 Books of Julian to Florus, are copied out whole in the 6 Books of S. Austin's imperfect Work.  
Beda makes mention also of three Books of Julian, 
* This is a kind of Prefatory Discourse to the Commentary upon Canticles, and so not a distinct Book.  A Treatise of Love, A Commentary upon the Canticles, and, A Book of 
† De b●no Constantiae.  Constancy. It appears by the Fragments which Beda hath taken out of those Works, That he delivers the same Principles in them, as in his other Books; That we are absolutely free to do good or evil; That the love of Man inclines him naturally to do good; and, That Man is not born in Sin. He citys in his Last Book a little Treatise of S. Chrysostom, which bears this Title, No Man is Hure but by himself.  
Lastly, some attribute to Julian the Translation of the Profession of Faith, which bears the Name of Rufinus, but they bring no proof of it.   

NESTORIUS.  
NESTORIUS' born at Germanicia a City of Syria, brought up and baptised at Antioch, withdrew himself into the Monastery of Euprepius, which was in the Suburbs of that 
Nestorius.  City. He was ordained Priest by Theodorus, and in a little time acquired a very great Reputation by his way of living and by his Sermons. Sisinnius Archbishop of Constantinople being dead in 4●7. the Ambition which the Clergy of that City had to obtain the Government of that Church, made the Emperor resolve not to suffer any of them to be chosen Bishops, and to cause a Clergyman of some other Church to be chosen, notwithstanding the Pains that were taken to procure it by some, for Philip [of Sida], and by others, for Proclus. He cast his Eyes upon Nestorius, chose him 
* It seems absurd, when 'tis said, the People desired others. And S●crates says, That Sisinnius was chosen by consent oral but not Nestorius; for he was chosen rather against, than by the consent of all.  by common consent, caused him to come from Antioch, and 3 Months after his Election he was ordained, and put in possession of the See of Constantinople in the Month of April in the year 
† A great Mistake in Chronology for Atticus died Octob. 427. Sisinnius was Archbishop almost 2 years as Socrates tells us, l. 7. c. 28. Nestorius' was ordained 〈◊〉 Months after Sisinnius' death, so that he could not be in possession of the Patriarchate till near 430. and yet Dr. 〈◊〉 ag●…s 〈◊〉 Du●in.  428.  
In his first Sermon, which he made in the presence of the Emperor, he declared the design he had to make War with the Heretics, speaking boldly to the Emperor; Sir, Free the Earth from Heretics, and I will give you Heaven; join in the War against them with me, and I will assist you against the Persians. Although the hatred which many of the People had for the Heretics, made them approve of this Discourse; yet the wiser sort, saith Socrates, condemned the Pride and Fierceness of it, and were amazed to see a Man before he had tasted, as he says, the Water of the City, declare, That he would persecute those who were not of his Opinion. These Threaten were followed with a suitable effect; for 5 days after his Consecration, he attempted to demolish the Church where the Arians, tho' secretly, celebrated their Assemblies, and reduced them to so great despair, that they set it on F●●● themselves, which being consumed, the Flame took the Neighbouring Houses. This Fire stirred up an unusual Disorder, and from that time he was called, An Incendiary. He did all he could to vex the Novatians, but the Emperor stopped his Fury. He exercised also so great Severities against those People of Asia, Lydia and Caria, who kept the Feast of Easter upon the xiv day of the Moon, that many Murders happened by them at Miletum and Sardis. He persecuted also the Macedonians, and took their Churches from them. He did not spare so much as the Pelagians; but at length prevailed with the Emperor to make a Law against all Heretics. He brought the Memory of S. Chrysostom into Veneration. He lived in a very regular and strict manner, and applied himself diligently to the Duties of his Ministry. In a word, he might have passed for a great Saint, if he had not engaged himself to maintain an Opinion, which made him condemned as an Heretic. Which came this way to pass.  
He had brought from Antioch a Priest called Anastasius, for whom he had a very particular esteem, and whom he made use of in all Affairs of Importance. This Anastasius preaching one day in the Church, ventured to say, Let no Man call Mary the Mother of God; Marry w●● a Woman, and God cannot be born of a Woman. This Proposition gave great offence among the People, who accused this Priest of Impiety. A Bishop called Dorotheus confirmed the Opinion of Anastasius, by saying Anathema to all that call the Virgin the Mother of God; and Nestorius himself, discoursing upon this Question in his Sermons, took his Priest's part, and always rejected the Name of the Mother of God.  
The People being accustomed to hear this Expression, were much inflamed against their Bishop, being persuaded. That he revived the Error of Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus, and believed, That Jesus Christ was a mere Man. The Monks declared themselves openly against him, and separated themselves from his Communion. The People, and some more, considering Men followed their Example, insomuch that in a short time the Church of Constantinople was in a strange confusion; a Monk preached against his Bishop, Eusebius, afterward Bishop of Dorylaeum, made a solemn protestation against his Doctrine. Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum did preach 3 Sermons against him; and all the ancient Clergy of Constantinople opposed Nestorius; yet he still maintained what he had delivered, and made several Sermons more upon that Subject. His Party made a Collection of them, and sent them into Egypt, which falling into the Hands of the Monks of those Parts, raised Disputes among them. This obliged S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, to write a large Letter to them, in which, having acknowledged, That he had much rather not meddle with such subtle Questions, which are above the reach of humane Understanding, he declares against Nestorius' Opinion; and shows, by several Reasons, That the Virgin Mary may be called the Mother of God. Nestorius' having seen this Writing of S. Cyril's, which was dispersed up and down Constantinople, and much confirmed his adverse Party, complained greatly of this carriage of S. Cyril. But he excused himself in a Letter written to Nestorius, exhorting him to confess, That the Virgin Mary may be called the Mother of God. Nestorius answered him with much Civility, but did not approve of that Term. S. Cyril wrote a second Letter to him, to which Nestorius returned an Answer, but did not fully approve of S. Cyril's Expressions about the Incarnation. He likewise wrote against the Letter, which S. Cyril had sent to the Monks of Egypt, altho' Anastasius declared at Constantinople, That he held nothing which was not in that writing of S. Cyril; since he himself owned, That no Council had used the Term of the Mother of God. I will not in this place relate what passed in the Consequence of this Business; how it was carried to the Council of Ephesus; after what manner Nestorius behaved himself there; how he was condemned, and what was the Conclusion; because I shall be obliged to do this in speaking of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus. I shall content myself to observe, That after the sentence of this Council, Nestorius never durst return to Constantinople, but hide himself in his ancient Monastery at Antioch, from whence he was taken four years after, in 435. by the Emperor's Order, and banished to Oasit. But the Barbarians having taken and destroyed that City, he was obliged to go into Thebais to the City of Panopolis, where he was not suffered to remain long; yea, he was so often removed from place to place, that he died in his Journey, being mortally bruised by a fall. Evagrius, who relates these Accidents, tells us, that he met with an Author who assured him, That before Nestorius died, his Tongue was eaten with Worms, as a punishment of the Blasphemies which it had uttered. But he brings no confirmation of this Circumstance, which may well be thought an invention of this Anonymous Author, because it was commonly supposed, That all Heretics had a Tragical end.  
Nestorius' had a great freedom of Speech, and Gennadius assures us, That he had composed a great number of Treatises and Discourses before he came to Constantinople. We have none of these first; but there remain a great number of Fragments of his Sermons preached at Constantinople, and some whole Sermons also, with some Letters and other Works; of which this is the Catalogue.  
A Fragment of his first Sermon that he preached at Constantinople, recited by Socrates, lib. 7. chap. 29. of his History.  
Some Latin Fragments of 4 Sermons preached at Constantinople before Julian and the other Pelagian Bishops, in which he delivers Principles contrary to their Errors. These Fragments are recited in Latin by M. Mercator in F. Garner's Edition, Part 1. pag. 73. and in M. Baluzius', pag. 119. The third is perfect in Greek among the Works of S. Chrysostom, Tom. 7. of Savil's Edition, p. 301. and with a Latin Translation in M. Mercator by F. Garner, pag. 85. Part 1.  
The first Sermon which he made to maintain what Anastasius the Priest had asserted, is translated whole almost by M. Mercator, and confuted by Cassian.  
He preached several other Sermons upon the Mystery of the Incarnation, of which a Collection was made at the same time. Out of this Collection the Orthodox took several Extracts to discover his Doctrine. And for this reason it is that when they cite them, they ordinarily set down the Sheet. We have 4 Collections of these Extracts. The 1st. is that which was presented to the Council of Ephesus by Petrus Diaconus, Act. 1. Conc. tom. 3. p. 520. The 2d. is M. Mercator's, where the Extracts are only in Latin in Baluzius' Edition, p. 109. The 3d. is taken out of S. Cyril's Books of Contradictions against Nestorius; and the last is composed of the Extracts of Nestorius, recited in the other Works of S. Cyril. F. Garner hath taken the pains to have these Collections printed in the 2d. part of his Edition of M. Mercator from p. 95. to p. 112. He hath also attempted to restore these Sermons by putting these Extracts together, and by adding other Fragments to them, to bring them into their natural Order.  
After the Sermon of Providence he hath put that De Theognosia or of the knowledge of God, which he frames out of several Passages quoted by S. Cyril, and in the Council of Ephesus, Part 2. pag. 8. These follow.  
Some Fragments of a Sermon against the Macedonians and Arians, taken out of the Books of S. Cyril and the Extracts of the Council of Ephesus. This Sermon is cited by Arnobius Junior, in his Dispute against Serapion, which may convince F. Garner that he hath put two Sermons into one. So hard is it to put these Fragments exactly together.  
A Sermon of the Incarnation against Prechis. It is recited in Latin by M. Mercator in the Edit. of F. Garn. par. 2. pag. 26. of Baluz. p. 70.  
Another Sermon against the same Person taken out of the Extracts of S. Cyril, and of the Council of Ephesus, by F. Garn. p. 29.  
Another Sermon upon these words, Consider Jesus Christ the Apostle and Highpriest of our Profession, ibid. p. 30.  
A Sermon against those, who upon the account of the Union of the two Natures in Jesus Christ do render the Godhead Mortal, or the Manhood Divine. This is a large Treatise rehearsed entire in Latin by M. Mercator, of which also we have some Extracts in S. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus, in F. Garn. Edit. p. 34. Baluz. p. 56.  
A Fragment of a Sermon upon Judas against the Heretics taken out of S. Cyril's Books against Nestorius, and M. Mercator's Collection of Fragments, by F. Garn. p. 65.  
A Fragment of a Sermon upon these words of Jesus Christ in S. Matth. c. 5. v. 23. If thou hast aught against thy Brother; taken out of the Council of Ephesus and M. Mercator's Collection, p. 66. ibid.  
A Fragment of a Sermon against the Macedonians, recited in the Council of Ephesus, and translated by M. Mercator, ibid. p. 67.  
Another Fragment of Sermons recited in the Council of Ephesus and by M. Mercator, of F. Garn. Ed. p. 68 of Baluz. 109. etc.  
A Sermon of Nestorius when he had received S. Coelestine's Letter, and the Bill of Complaint which was made by S. Cyril, translated and recited entire by M. Mercator in the Edit. of F. Farn, p. 85. and of Baluz. p. 74.  
Another Sermon preached the next Sunday, recited also in Latin by M. Mercator, of F. Garn. Ed. p. 93. of Baluz. p. 87.  
The Fragments of two Sermons taken out of the Collection, Entitled, Of the Illustrious Institution, recited in the 6th. Council, Tom. 6. of the Councils, pag. 318.  
These are all his Sermons. His others Works are,  
His first Letter to S. Cyril in Greek and Latin in the Council of Ephesus, part 1. ch. 7. pag. 316.  
The second Letter to S. Cyril, ibid. ch. 9 p. 321.  
Two Latin Letters to S. Celestine, ibid. ch. 16, and 17. pag. 349, and 351. and in M. Mercator of F. Garner's Edit. part 1. pag. 65.  
A Letter to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, of which there is a Fragment in the 6th. Council, pag. 319.  
A Consolatory Letter in Latin to Coelestius related by M. Mercator in F. Garner's Edition, part 1. pag. 71. Baluz. p. 65.  
The Anathematisms of Nestorius opposed to those of S. Cyril in the Acts of the Councils of Ephesus, part 1. ch. 29. p. 424.  
The Letter of Nestorius to John Bishop of Antioch before the Council of Ephesus, in Lupus' Collection, p. 15. with a Sermon at the same time, ibid. p. 17.  
The Declaration of Nestorius, wherein he puts a good sense upon what he had delivered in his Sermons, ibid. p. 23.  
His Letter to the Emperor concerning what passed at Ephesus in the beginning of the Council, ibid. pag. 30.  
A Letter of Nestorius to Scholasticus the Emperor's Eunuch, written from Ephesus, ibid. 43. These 4 last Letters are also in M. Baluzius' new Collection of Councils, and in the last Tome of Theodoret of F. Garner's Edition.  
A Letter to the Praefectus-Praetorio of Antioch, about the order he had received, commanding him to retire into his Monastery, ibid. pag. 68  
Three Letters of Nestorius written in his Banishment, of which Evagrius recites some Fragments in lib. 1. of his History, ch. 7.  
If we inquire diligently into these Writings, to know what was Nestorius' Doctrine about the Incarnation, we shall find, 1. That he rejected the Error of Ebion, Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus, and elegantly condemns the Error of those who dare affirm, That Jesus Christ was but a mere Man. 2. He maintains in express Terms, That the Word was united to the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ, and that this Union was most intimate and strict. 3. That these two Natures being united together make but one Christ, one Son only, and likewise one Person only made up of two Natures. 4. That the Properties of the Humane and Divine Nature may be attributed to this Person; and that it may be said, That Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin, that he suffered and died; but he always denied that it might be said, That God was born, suffered or died; and herein consisted his Error, for by reason of the Hypostatick Union of the Divine and Humane Nature, the Properties of the two Natures, of which it is compounded, may not only be affirmed of the Person, but it may also be said, That God is born, hath suffered and is dead; and that the Man ought to be adored, is become immortal, impassable, etc. altho' it cannot be said, That the Divinity is born, is dead, or hath suffered; or that the Manhood may be worshipped, is immortal or impassable.  
Nestorius' did not only reject the last Expressions, used by the Eutychians and Apollinarists, but he rejected the first, which usage had introduced into the Church, and would not own that it might be said upon the Account of the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature in Jesus Christ that God is born, hath suffered or is dead. From this Principle it follows, That he must reject the Term of the Mother of God; for if it may not be said, That God is born, it can't be said, That the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. He owned, That she might be called the Mother of Christ, i. e. of the Person made up of the two Natures, but he could not understand, how she could be called the Mother of God.  
This Term, as we have seen, was the original of the Quarrel. It was in use in the Church, and all the World was offended to hear it condemned by Nestorius and his Followers. The People immediately believe●▪ That he did not acknowledge the Godhead in Jesus Christ, since he would not endure that his Mother should be called the Mother of God. But the more Learned knew well enough, That his Error consisted not in that Point, but in this; That by condemning this Expression, he destroyed the Union of the two Natures in one Person only, and seemed to allow of a moral Union only between them. The comparisons which he made use of, did incline them to believe that he was of that Opinion; for he said, That the Humanity was in Jesus Christ, the Temple, the Habit, the Veil of the Divinity; and compared the Union of the two Natures to the Union of Husband and Wife. Whence they concluded, That he allowed of no other Union between the two Natures, but an Union of Operation and Will, and not a real, substantial Union, notwithstanding the Protestations he made, That there was but one Christ, and but one Person. It is true, That Nestorius' obstinacy in rejecting the term of the Mother of God, and other Expressions of like Nature, which are consequent upon the substantial Union of the Two Natures, made Men think that he did not acknowledge the Hypostatick Union of the Two Natures, although he never durst affirm but that there were Two Persons really distinct in Jesus Christ, nor openly discover that he allowed only a Moral Union between the Two Natures. He likewise declared, That the Terms of the Mother of God disturbed him, upon no other account, but because he believed that they established the Error of Arius and Apollinarius, who confounded the Two Natures. But in that he was mistaken, and his Obstinacy in refusing to approve an innocent Term, and to receive the Expressions which confirmed the Union of the Two Natures in one Person, were a lawful and a sufficient ground tocondemn him, and a Proof of his evil Intention. This his Friend, John Bishop of Antioch, confesses in the Letter, in which he exhorts him to receive the Term of The Mother of God: Where he tells him, That though he was persuaded that his Doctrine was Orthodox, his obstinate refusal to acknowledge that the Virgin is the Mother of God, might give cause to suspect that he was in an Error. Nor can we doubt but this Bishop did at length acknowledge that Nestorius was in an Error, and that his Obstinacy deserved Punishment, since he forsook him, and would not suffer him in his Diocese. Theodorct defended him a long time, but he was at last forced to condemn him, as we shall see in the sequel: And indeed what possibility was there to defend him, when his most intimate Friends acknowledged him to be blame-worthy.  
The Fragments of Nestorius' Works confirm the Judgement which the Ancients have given of his Style and Disposition. It appears, by what we have said, that he spoke with Freedom and Elegancy; but that his Genius was mean, which had little Loftiness or Nobleness of Wit. All the Grace of his Sermons consisted in Descriptions, Metaphors and Apostrophe's, which are dry and insipid. In sum, they are very good Sense, and the Notions seem very rational, his Error excepted. He had but little Learning or Knowledge, but what he knew he set it out to the greatest Advantage.   

JOHN▪ Bishop of Antioch, ACACIUS of Beraea, and PAUL of Emesa.  
THEODOTUS, Bishop of Antioch, being dead, in 427, had for his Successor one named John, who was not known till after his Ordination, upon the occasion of the 
John Bishop of Antioch, etc.  Contest which he had with the Orientals, against S. Cyril of Alexandria. He was summoned to the Council, but came not at the Day appointed; and finding that S. Cyril had held a Council without him, he called another Council of the Bishops of his Party, condemned S. Cyril, and excommunicated the Bishops who had, with him, condemned Nestorius, undertook his Defence, and persisted till the end of the Council in this Resolution, so that the East and Egypt were some time divided: But at last Peace was made, and the Eastern Bishops abandoned Nestorius, and professed the Orthodox Faith, yet would not approve the Anathema of S. Cyril. All this gave John Bishop of Antioch occasion to write several Letters. We have some of them in Greek and Latin, in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, and several other in Latin, in the Collection of F. Lupus. There is also one of his Sermons in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, p. 375.  
Acacius, Bishop of Beraea, was also one of the principal Defenders of the Eastern Party. He was elder 
a He was elder.] He was the Scholar of the famous Anchorite Asteri●●, and had for a very long Time professed a Monastic Life, in a Monastery, in a Village near Antioch. He was ordained Bishop in the Year 378, and died in the Year 436.  than John Bishop of Antioch, and had a great share in all that passed in that Business; but he always loved Peace. During the Council of Ephesus, he abode at Constantinople, where he did the Eastern Bishops no harm; for 'twas he that advised the Emperor to confirm the Deposition of Cyril and Nestorius. After the Council, during the great Dissensions, S. Cyril never durst break with him. It was to him that he sued to make up a Peace. He composed the Propositions, and at length brought it to a Conclusion. We have One of his Letters to S. Cyril, in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, Tom. 3. of the Councils, p. 382. and Two Letters to the Bishop of Alexandria in F. Lupus' Collection, p. 109, and 188.  
Paul Bishop of Emesa, who supplied the Place of Acacius in the Council of Ephesus, was also very inclinable to Peace: 'Twas he that concluded it with S. Cyril, who prepared the Form of Faith which was to be approved on both Sides, and who made Two Sermons upon the Peace. We have these Monuments in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, Tom. 3. of the Councils, p. 1089, and 1096, and a Letter of his to Anatolius, in the Collection of F. Lupus.   

The Bishops of Nestorius' Party.  
THere were other Bishops, who were more addicted to the Party and Doctrine of Nestorius than those of whom we have already spoken, who would by no means hear of a Peace, 
Bishops of Nestorius' Party.  and whom the Egyptians would not have included in it. Because we have some of their Letters, we will take notice of them in this Place.  
Meletius of Mopsuesta, Successor of Theodorus, who was deposed in the Council of Ephesus, and banished. We have eleven of his Letters in the Collection of F. Lupus. Dorotheus, Bishop of Martianople, deposed in the same Council, and expelled out of the Council of Constantinople: There are Four Letters of his in the same Collection. Alexander Bishop of Hierapol●●, the Author of Four and twenty Letters, which are found in the same Collection. Zenobius Bishop of Zephyria in Cilicia, and some other Bishops, of whom we will speak afterward, who would never be comprehended in the Peace, and therefore were deposed and banished.   

EUTHERIUS Bishop of Tyana.  
EUTHERIUS Bishop of Tyana, of all the Bishops of the Party of Nestorius, hath left us the most considerable Monument. It is a Work which hath gone a long 
Eutherius Tyanaeus.  Time under the Name of Athanasius, which Photius attributes to Theodoret; but M. Mercator, who is more to be credited than Photius, citys it under the Name of Euthenius of Tyana. In the First Place, he describes, in the most odious manner, the Persecutions, which he pretends were prepared for those of his Party to suffer. These are his Words: It is said that our Enemies will not content themselves to go on in their, old Courses, to work the Ruin of the Simple and Unwary, but that they have a Design boldly to attempt whatever they please, being supported by the Authority of the Sovereign Power, that they will force others to be of their Opinions: That they will require Obedience to their Commands immediately, and deliver them to Justice that do not perform them; that they will bring them to Punishment, brand some with Disgrace and banish others; that they will frame false Accusations against them, and deprive them thereupon of their Dignities and Offices. I do not mention the Bonds, Prisons, Disgraces and Torments which they shall suffer, and the tragical Sights of those which they will put to Death. And that which is most to be lamented is this, That the Bishops are the Authors of this Tragedy. O profane Compulsion! O intolerable Justice! When they begin to celebrate the Holy Mysteries, or to teach the People, they have in their Mouth this heavenly Speech, Peace be with you all. Nothing is so urgently commanded in Holy Scripture as Gentleness and Kindness; Why then do they condemn us without taking Cognizance of our Cause? Why do they reject that which they do not know to be false? Why do they give the Name of Force to their Outrages? Why do they conceal their Cruelty under the Shadow of false Zeal? Why do they cover their detestable Politics with the Name of Wisdom? What Tragedian is there that can describe these Things in a Style doleful enough? The Lamentations of Jeremiah would not suffice to describe so great Evils.  
From hence we may see, that it is not a late Invention, for Persons who are not willing to forsake their Errors, to make those Charitable Severities which are made use of to recover them, to pass for insupportable Violences and unheard of Cruelties; by aggravating them and representing them in such an odious manner, as is proper to stir up Indignation.  
The Principles which he lays down in the following Part, are very agreeable with those of the Protestants. In the First Article he opposes those, who will have it determined, where the Truth is, by the Judgement of the greater Number. Jesus Christ saith, he is the Truth (as Tertullian hath a long Time since affirmed) and 'tis he that we ought to consult. This being so, are they not to be pitied who judge of the Force and Authority of a Doctrine only by the Number of those who approve it; without considering that our Lord Jesus Christ chose ignorant and poor Men, whom he made use of to convert all the World. He required, that Millions of Men should yield themselves up to the Doctrines of these Twelve. Thus hath the Truth always triumphed, although it were among the smallest Number, and whosoever he be, that despairing to prove what he affirms to be true, flies to the Authority of the Multitude, he confesses himself vanquished. The great Number may affright, but cannot persuade: There are but few that shall be saved. S. Stephen, Phineas, Lot and Noah had the Multitude against them; yet who had not rather be on their Side than on that, which did oppose them? 'Tis not, saith the same Author, that I bear not a due respect to the Multitude; but it is to that which proves what it teacheth, and not to that which will not suffer us to examine and search out the Truth: 'Tis to that which doth not condemn with Severity, but correct with Gentleness; not to that which loves Novelties, but to that which preserves the Truth, which they have received from their Ancestors. But what is this Multitude which you object against me? It is the Throng of Men corrupted by Flatteries and Prisons: 'Tis the Number of ignorant Men, who have no Understanding to guide them: It is a crowd of weak and fearful Men, who suffer themselves to be conquered: They are the Souls which prefer the Pleasures that Sin affords us in this Life, which are momentary, before Eternal Life and Glory: So that when you object to me this Multitude, to gain Credit to a Lie, you do but discover the extent of Wickedness, and the great Number of the Miserable.  
The Second Chapter is of like Nature with this First. In it he opposes those who maintain, That it is needless to search the Holy Scripture that we may know what we ought to believe, either because it is sufficient for every one to believe what his own Reason teacheth him; or, because in searching for the Truth in Scripture, we meet with more Obscurity and Uncertainty. Our Author cannot approve of this Advice: He saith, That being persuaded of the Truth of the Mysteries, and trusting in the Help of Jesus Christ, who hath promised to those who seek after the Truth that they shall certainly find it, he seeks after the Truth in the manner that he ought, he shall find it without mistaking, that he puts himself into a Condition of proving what he teacheth, of instructing the Faithful, confuting Heretics, and convincing himself of the Truth, and confirming the Doctrines, so as none can doubt of them. Would you have me, saith he, neglect the Study of Holy Scripture? whence then will you have Knowledge necessary to support your Faith? It is dangerous for this Life to be ignorant of the Roman Laws, and 'tis no less dangerous for another Life to be ignorant of the Oracles of our Heavenly King. The Scripture is the Nourishment of the Soul: Suffer not then the inward Man to die with Hunger, by depriving him of the Word of God. There are too too many who inflict mortal Wounds upon the Soul; suffer them to seek Medicines for their Maladies and Griefs.  
But there are, say you, things which pass our Understand: I own it, but the Scripture teaches us, That we must search, and that there are things that we cannot comprehend: And as it would be a kind of Impiety to desire to throughly comprehend it, so it is to have a kind of Contempt for the Divine Truths, to lay aside wholly the search into them: Every one ought to know what it is he adores, as it is written, We know what we worship: But it is a Madness to inquire how much? After what manner? By what Means, and where we must adore him? In sum, they who discourage others from reading and studying the Holy Scripture, under a Pretence, That they ought not to dive into Things too profound, do it because they are afraid that they should be convinced of their Errors by it. So when they find themselves pressed by convincing Testimonies of Holy Scripture, they give a Sense clear contrary to the Words; and if they find but one Word which can be brought to their Opinion, although it be nothing to the Sense of the Place, they must use it as an invincible Demonstration. We must own that these Principles are not ill, although Men may offend in the Application they make of them.  
In the other Chapters he answers the Objections which the Egyptians made against the Eastern Bishops, and opposes some of their Expressions; such as these: The Word hath suffered in an impassable manner: The Word hath suffered in the Flesh. He hath delivered several Expressions agreeable to those of Nestorius.  
In sum. He hath written with much Elegancy and Reason. This Work is a Doctrinal Treatise, and not a Collection of Sermons. It is in Tom. 2. of Athanasius' Works under the Name of that Father, and since it hath been printed at the end of Tom. 5. of Theodoret's Works put out by F. Garner [at Paris in 1684.] There are also some of this Bishop's Letters in F. Lupus' Collection.   

THEODOTUS Bishop of Ancyra.  
THEODOTUS Bishop of Ancyra a City of Galatia, whom Gennadius calleth Theodorus, was one of the greatest Adversaries of Nestorius. He was present at the Council of Ephesus, 
Theodotus of Ancyra.  where he courageously delivered his Opinion against him. Gennadius says, That he made a Treatise on purpose to confute him, and that that Work was very Logical, but that it was not sufficiently grounded upon the Authority of Holy Scriptures, but lays down several Arguments before he comes to Scripture-proofs. This description agrees well to the two Sermons of Theodotus upon the Feast of the Nativity, preached in the Council of Ephesus, and which are recited in the Acts of that Council, where he proves, by several Arguments, That Jesus Christ is God and Man, and that it is truly said, That God is born of a Virgin.  
There is also a 3d. Sermon preached at Ephesus upon S. John's day, where he likewise speaks against the Error of Nestorius. The beginning of it is remarkable, wherein he compares a Bishop to a Physician, Error to a Disease; And says, that as a Physician cuts off putrefied and gangrened Members to prevent the spreading of the Disease into the other parts; so Bishops are obliged to cut off the Members of the Church, but yet they ought not to do it but with regret, and in cases of necessity, when there is no other remedy left sufficient, and proper to effect the Cure.  
He hath also a 4th. Treatise upon the same Subject, which was published [at Paris] in 1675. [in Twelves] by F. Combefis out of a MS. copied by Holstenius 
* [It had been published by Card. Barberinus at Rome in 1669. Octavo.] . It bears this Title, An Exposition of the Nicene Creed, but it is a confutation of Nestorius grounded upon the Nicene Creed. In it he makes mention of 3 Books, which he had written concerning the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.  
The Iconoclasts having quoted a Testimony of Theodotus Bishop of Ancyra against Images, Epiphanius maintained in the 7th. Council, Act 6. That that place was supposititious. And to prove it invincibly, he says, That he had collected all the Works of that Author, but never met with the Passage which they alleged. And then gives us the following Catalogue of them, viz. Six Books against Nestorius dedicated to Lausus: The Exposition of the Nicene Creed: A Sermon upon the Feast of the Nativity: Another upon the Purification: Another upon Elias and the Widow: Another upon S. Peter and S. John: Another upon the Lame Man, who lay at the Gate of the Temple: Another upon him that had received the Talents: And, lastly, upon the two blind Men. Although Epiphanius makes mention here of several of Theodotus' Works which we have not, yet we cannot say, that he forgot none. Nicephorus attributes to him a Sermon upon the Virgin and S. Simeon. Some think, That it is the 4th. Sermon among Amphilochius', which bears his Name in a MS. in Cardinal Mazarini's Library. F. Combefis who published Theodotus' Exposition upon the Nicene Creed, assures us, That he had 4 Sermons more of this Author, and, among others, that upon the Purification of the Virgin Mary cited by Epiphanius.  
The Style of this Author is short and concise, full of subtle Interrogations and cogent Arguments. He speaks like a Logician or Controvertist, rather than like an Orator or Preacher. There is nothing very remarkable in his Writings, but we may observe in them a great deal of Artifice and Subtlety.   

The Orthodox Bishops of S. Cyril's Party.  
THese Bishops of S. Cyril's Party have written in the defence of the Church.  
Acacius Bishop of Melitene made a Sermon in the Council of Ephesus, which is in the 
Orthodox Bishops of S. Cyril's Party.  Acts of the Council, Tom. 3. of the Counc. p. 839. and wrote a Letter to S. Cyril, which is in F. Lupus' Collection.  
Memnon Bishop of Ephesus hath written a Letter to the Council of Constantinople, which is found in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, p. 762.  
Rheginus Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus made a Discourse in the Council upon the deposition of Nestorius, ibid. p. 577.  
Maximian chosen in his place, wrote a Letter to S. Cyril, which is also in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, p. 1061.  
Lastly, To these Bishops may be joined two Priests, the one called Alipius a Priest of Constantinople, who wrote a Letter to S. Cyril, which is recited in the Acts of the Council, p. 785. and Charisius a Priest of the Church of Philadelphia, who presented a Petition to the Council of Ephesus, with a Form of Faith recited in the Acts of the Council, p. 673.   

S. SIXTUS III.  
SIXTUS, a Priest of the Church of Rome, was a long time one of the greatest Ornaments of the Roman Clergy. We understand by the two Letters which S. Austin wrote to him 
S. Sixtus III.  in 418. that he was a Protector of Pelagius and his Adherents, who therefore had given out a Report, That he was of their Opinion; but when they were condemned by Zosimus, he was one of the first that pronounced an Anathema against them: That he wrote a short Letter to Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, in which he assures him, That he was not of Pelagius' Sentiments; and that he afterward made a larger Book, in which he explained his Opinions more amply, which were consonant to those of the Bishops of Africa, and contrary to the Errors of the Pelagians. We have neither this Letter nor this Writing, but this Story, and the manner in which S. Austin writes to Sixtus, show us sufficiently how he was already looked upon in the Church of Rome. So that it is no wonder, that after the Death of S. Celestine, which happened in 432. he succeeded him in the See of Rome. The Eastern Churches were then divided about the Condemnation of Nestorius. S. Cyril and the Egyptian Bishops maintained what was done against him. John Bishop of Antioch and the other Oriental Bishops would not receive him, they excommunicated and condemned one another, and the Church was in danger of falling into a lamentable Schism, if the Prudence of S. Sixtus had not contributed to the Peace, which was concluded in the time of his Popedom. S. Cyril sent two Bishops to Rome in the Name of the Council, to incline the Pope to approve what he had done, and to declar● himself openly against the Orientals. These two Bishops, called Hermogenes and Lampelius, at their arrival found S. Celestine dead, and Sixtus in his place. This Pope graciously received these Messengers, approved what was said in the Council of Antioch concerning the Faith, and the Condemnation of Nestorius. But asto John Bishop of Antioch and the Orientals, he ordered, That if they would acknowledge and approve the Faith of the Council, they ought to be received. This he wrote to S. Cyril and the other Bishops in two Letters, which M. Cotelierius hath published in Greek and Latin, in his 1st. Tom of the Monuments of the Greek Church, p. 42, and 44. And Mr. Baluzius hath put them in his new Collection of th● Councils, p. 658.  
These Letters had very good success and prepared their Minds for Peace. As soon as it was concluded, S. Cyril sent S. Sixtus the News of it, who shown a great deal of Joy at it, and immediately wrote to S. Cyril and John Bishop of Antioch, to assure them, That he did join with them in their Reunion. We have these two Letters at the end of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, p. 1175, and 1178. He wrote to S. Cyril, that at that time when he was much troubled for the condition of the Eastern Churches, he was greatly pleased to hear by his Letters, That all the Members of the Church were again united in one Body, excepting him only who was the Cause of all the Mischief; That he had imparted this good News to the Bishops of his Synod which was assembled upon his Birthday. He adds, That John Bishop of Antioch had never followed the Errors and Blasphemies of Nestorius; That he had only suspended his Judgement, and that he ought to rejoice that he had at last declared himself for the right side; That it was an excellent Work to bring over so great Bishops, and that he thought it well done by himself, that he had not acted rashly in that Affair, but had waited till the Vine of Jes●s Christ brought forth useful and pleasant Fruit: That S. Cyril ought entirely to forget the Injuries which the Oriental Bishops had done him in pronouncing the Sentence of Condemnation against him; That he had suffered undeservedly to render the Truth victorious. Lastly, he tells him, That he expected that the Clergy of John Bishop of Antioch's Party should write to him.  
He shows the same Joy to John Bishop of Antioch, and discovers the same displeasure against Nestorius. He praises him, That he made an elegant Profession of the Faith of the Church, and rejected Novelty to apply himself to the ancient Doctrine.  
Although▪ these two Letters are both dated the same day, which is Sep●. 15. 433. yet the Letter to John ought to bear date some days after the Letter of S. Cyril.  
The 3d. Letter to the Oriental Bishops ascribed to S. Sixtus is an evident Forgery made up of Passages taken out of the 8th. Council of Toledo, S. Gregory the Great, Foelix III. Adrian, the Theodosian and Justinian Codes, and it is in great part in the 3d. Epistle attributed to Fabian, which is the Work of Isidorus Mercator, as well as this. This Let●er is written about an Accusation, which it pretends was brought against S. Sixtus by Bassus, who had been Consul, from which he was cleared in a Synod, and Bassus was condemned. This Story is related in the Pontifical, and we have the pretended Acts of that Council, but the very reading of them will fully satisfy us of their Falsehood. They have the same date with the Letter, that is to say, they are dated in the year 440, some days after S. Sixtus' Death. Although the Author of the Pontifical places this Accusation in the 11th. year of S. Sixtus' Popedom, the Name of one of the Consuls is changed. The Acts themselves are nothing but an heap of Impertinencies and Fables. The Acts of the Condemnation of one Polychronius pretended to be Bishop of Jerusalem, given at Rome, is of the same stamp. There was no Bishop of that Name at that time. The date of these Acts agrees with the Pontificate of Leo, and yet they say he was condemned under Sixtus. They speak also of a Siege of Jerusalem, which is imaginary. But if all these things did not, the reading of these Acts would discover the Forgery.  
We must not then give any Credit to the Acts of the Condemnation of Bassus. We are not sure that ever he accused S. Sixtus III. this Fact not being related by any credible Author; so that it is probable, that the whole Story is fabulous. Sixtus III. died in the Month of March, in the year 440.   

PROCLUS.  
PROCLUS was yet very young when he was made a Reader of the Church of Constantinople. The Ecclesiastical Offices did not hinder him from following his Studies, and 
Proclus.  especially applying himself to Rhetoric. He was afterward Secretary to Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, by whom he was ordained both Deacon and Priest. After whose Death some pitched upon him to succeed him, but the Votes of the People were for Sisinnius, who ordained Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum. The Inhabitants of that City not being willing to accept of him, because they would not so apparently acknowledge the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constantinople, he was forced to continue at Constantinople, where he got a great reputation by his Preaching. After the death of Sisinnius, he had again many Votes for him. But to appease the Heats which were among the Clergy of Constantinople, it was resolved to choose Nestorius a Priest of Antioch. After his Deposition, Proclus was propounded a third time to be Bishop of Constantinople, and he had been elected, if some Persons of great credit had not represented it as contrary to the Canons, which forbidden the Translations of Bishops. Wherefore he was rejected that time also, and Maximian was chosen; but at last he arrived at that Dignity, to which he had been designed so many times, and was ordained Bishop of Constantinople after the death of Maximian, Anno 434. in the Month of April. He enjoyed that See peaceably to his death, which happened in 446.  
The Sermons of this Author have been published at Rome, by Vincent Riccard in Greek and Latin, in 1630. and were inserted by F. Combefis in the first Tome of his Auctuarium to the Biblioth. Patrum, [at Paris in 1648.]  
There are 20 of them, The 1st, 5th, 6th. are upon the Virgin Mary. In it he extols almost only her Title of the Mother of God. The 2d. and 3d. are upon the Incarnation. The 4th. is upon the Nativity of Jesus Christ: This is near akin to the 2d. Sermon of Theodotus Bishop of Ancyra. The 7th. is upon the Theophany, or the Baptism of Jesus Christ, which is in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus. The 8th. upon the Transfiguration of our Saviour. The 9th. upon the Feast of Tabernacles. The 10th, upon Holy Thursday, and against Covetousness. The 11th. upon the Passion. The 12th. upon the Resurrection. The 13th. 14th, and 15th. upon the Passover. The 16th. upon Pentecost. The 17th. upon S. Steven the Protomartyr. The 18th. is a Panegyric upon S. Paul. The 19th. is on S. Andrew. The last, is a Latin Fragment of a Sermon in the Praise of S. Chrysostom.  
These Sermons are written in a concise and sententious Style, full of Antitheses, Interrogations, Exclamations and Points. The Notions are studied and subtle, but are of little Use and Instruction. He speaks the same thing an hundred several ways, and gives it abundance of different turns. This sort of composure requires a great deal of Labour and Application, and manifests the Wit and Liveliness of the Speaker. But it is of little use to the Auditors; it diverts them, and sometimes delights them, so long as they hear this studied Discourse, but ordinarily they go away from it, neither more knowing nor better affected; and they are scarce gone, but they forget all that has been said to them; for these pleasant ways of speaking, which delight us only for the Curiousness and Delicacy, make not any impression upon the Mind nor Heart, and leave nothing behind them but a general Reminiscence, that they were much pleased with what they heard, but know not why. This is a true Character of Proclus' Sermons, who was mighty successful in this kind. By this he shows what he could have done, if he had made choice of a better Style, or had had the good luck to have lived in a time when Men had better Judgements.   

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

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

VICTOR of Antioch.  
THis VICTOR, a Priest of Antioch, hath made a Commentary upon the Gospel of 
Victor of Antioch.  S. Mark, which hath been translated into Latin, and published by Peltanus. It is thought this Author lived in the beginning of the Fifth Age 
* And accordingly Dr. Cave places him, in A. C. 401. , or towards the End of the Fourth, for he says, upon the Thirteenth Chapter of S. Mark, That in his Time some Remains of the Temple of Jerusalem were to be seen. He says also in the same Place, That there were yet some Christians, who put off Baptism to the End of their Life. In the next Chapter he speaks of the Heresy of the Novatians, as of a Sect then in being.  
He observes in his Preface, That several Authors had written upon the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. John; That very few had bestowed their Labours upon S. Luke, but he could never meet with any that had written upon S. Mark, although he had exactly run over the Catalogues of the Works of the Ancients. He adds, That for this Reason he took up the Resolution to collect what the Doctors of the Church had observed upon divers Places of this Gospel, and compose a short Explication upon it. He says afterward, That S. Mark was also called John, and that his Mother was that Mary, with whom the Disciples abode at Jerusalem, of whom mention is made in the Acts. That it was he who accompanied S. Barnabas, and afterward joined himself with S. Peter: That he wrote his Gospel at Rome, at the Desire of the Faithful of that City. S. Matthew had written his Gospel some time before.  
This is what this Author says of S. Mark in the Preface of his Commentary. In his Commentary he applies himself to the Explication of the Letter and History, which he clears by very solid and judicious Notes and Observations. This Commentary was printed with that of Titus Bostrensis upon S. Luke, at Ingolstadt in 1580. and put into the Bibliotheca Patrum [Tom. 4.]   

VICTOR of Marseille.  
CLAUDIUS' MARIUS VICTOR, or Victorinus, a Rhetorician at 
Victor of Marseille.  Marseille, hath made a Commentary upon Genesis, beginning at the Creation, and ending at the Death of Abraham. It was divided into Three Books, dedicated to his Son Aetherius. It is evident that it was composed by a Christian, and an Orthodox Person: But since profane Learning was the principal Employment of this Author, and he was not instructed by any able Teacher in the Knowledge of Holy Scripture, this Work was very weak. He died under the Empire of Theodosius and Valentinian. This is taken out of Gennadius, Chap. 60. The Work of this Author, which is extant 
* It also is printed by itself at Paris in 1560. in Octavo.  in the Bibliotheca Patrum [Tom. 8.] is a Poem in Latin Heroics, and contains a Narration of the History of G●…s to the Death of Abraham. The Style of it is harsh, and the Verses are rough, but the Sense is Noble, and the History very well explained. There are at the end of it some Verses of the same Author, against the Corruption of the Manners of his Time.   

SEDULIUS.  
COELIUS SEDUIUS 
* By Nation a Scotchman , a Christian Poet, composed, under the Empire of Theodosius II. and Valentinian III. about the Year 430. an Heroic Poem, of the Life 
Sedulius.  of Jesus Christ: It is entitled, Opus Paschale, A Paschal Work, because that Jesus Christ is our Passover. It is divided into Five Books; The First gins at the Creation of the World, and runs through the most remarkable Histories of the Old Testament. The Three others contain the Life of Jesus Christ. This Work is dedicated to an Abbot called Macedonius. It hath been reviewed and published by 
† Consul in 494.  Turcius Asterius. Arator, Cassiodorus, Fortunatus and Gregorius Turonensis, mention it as an excellent Poem. He put it himself afterward into Prose, [and adding it to the former Four in Verse, made the Work to contain Five Books;] we have them both, with an Acrostic Hymn, which contains the Life of Jesus Christ in short. This Author had a Genius, the Style of his Poem is Noble and Great, his Notions are Poetical, and his Verses very passable. It is not necessary to advertise [the Reader,] that this Sedulius is different from him who made the Commentary upon all S. Paul's Epistles, which is nothing properly but an Extract of the Commentaries of others. Since he quotes Authors much later than the Poet Sedulius, and among others S. Gregory the Pope, and Venerable Bede. It is evident that he lived a long Time after. This is he who was an Englishman and Co-temporary with Bede.  
The Poem of Sedulius hath been printed by Aldus Manutius in 1502. at Basil [in 1528, 1534. and with the Notes of Antonius Nebrissensis] in 1541. and ●●th been put into the Bibliotheca Pa●●●m [Tom. 6.]   

PHILIPPUS SIDETA.  
THis is the Relation which Socrates gives us of this Author, and the Judgement he passes on him: PHILIP of SIDE, a City of Pamphylia, boasted▪ That 
Philippus Sideta.  he was the Father of Troilus the Sophist, a Native of the same City. Being but a Deacon, he conversed much with S. Chrysostom, and was afterwards ordained Priest. He was very laborious and diligent in the Studies of good Learning, and had made a great Collection of Books of all sorts. He composed several Works in an Asiatic Style, for he confuted the Books of Julian, and composed the History of Christianity, divided into Thirty Books: Each Book was parted into divers Sections, insomuch that there were in all near a Tho●s●●d. The Argument of every Section is as large as the Section itself. He gave this Book the Name of a Christian History, and not of an Ecclesiastical History, and collected in this Work many Curious and Learned Observations that he might seem a great Philosopher. He speaks often of Theorems of Geometry, Astronomy, Arithmetic and Music. He spends much Time and Pains in describing Islands, Mountains, Trees and several other things of little Importance: By these Means he hath made his Book very great, and, in my Judgement, useless, both to the Ignorant and Learned; for the Ignorant take no notice of the Ornaments of this Discourse, and the Learned condemn the vain Repetitions: Nevertheless, let every one give what Judgement he pleases of this Work. All that I shall say of it is this, That he inverts the Order of Time; for after he has related what passed in the Time of Theodosius, he ascends to the Time of Athanasius, and there often changes the natural Order of things.  
Because he hoped to have been ordained Bishop of Constantinople in the room of Atticus, he takes the Liberty, in his History, to rail against the Ordination of Sisinnius, who was preferred before him, and reports very scandalous things of those who Chose and Ordained him.  
Photius, who had read some part of this Work of Philip of Side, says much the same Things of it, and passes the same Judgement upon it, in Code 35. of his Bibliotheca. I have read, saith he, the Work of Philip of Side, entitled, The Christian History, which gins at the Creation of the World, and goes on as far as the Story of Moses. Sometimes he treats of Things very short, and sometimes more copiously. The First Book contains Twenty four Sections, and the Twenty three others a like Number. These are all we have seen. He is full of Words, but they are neither pleasant nor elegant; but on the contrary are flat, and soon ●ire the Reader. We find in it a greater Show of Learning than Profit. He puts in many things into his History, which are impertinent. Insomuch that he that sees this Work, would never call it an History, but a Miscellaneous Treatise, he makes so many needless Digressions. He was Con-temporary with Sisinnius and Proclus Bishops of Constantinople: He often speaks against the Former, in his History, being displeased, because being in the same Dignity, and in the same Church, Sisinnius was preferred to the Patriarchate before him, although he thought himself more Eloquent than he. The Judgement which these Authors give of this Work, may make us not to be troubled much at the loss of it. [Niceph. Callistus quotes a Fragment of it.]   

PHILOSTORGIUS.  
PHILOSTORGIUS, born in Cappado●ia, about the Year 388, the Son of Carterius and Eulampia, undertook to write an Ecclesiastical History, but being brought up in 
Philostorgius.  Arianism, and engaged in the 〈◊〉 Party 
a Hence called Atheus. , his Work is rather a Panegyric of these Heretics, than an History: Therein he openly declares against the Orthodox, he slanders them, blames them, and abuses them all-a-long it; on the contrary, he praises, at a venture, all the Arian Party. Aetius, according to him, was the greatest Man that ever was: He and Eunomius were the Restorers of the Faith. Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, Theophilus Bishop of the Indies, and several Arian Bishops, are the Saints that have done Miracles. In it the Semi-Arians meet with little better Treatment than the Catholics. He blames the Deportment of Eudoxus, and describes Acacius, as a cunning Impostor. S. Gregory Nazianzen is the only Person of the Orthodox whom the doth not abuse. He cannot likewise forbear commending S. Basil's Eloquence. In sum, he is full of Falsities, Lies and Calumnies against the Orthodox Bishops; and he hath written with so much partiality that we cannot safely believe any thing he says: Yet there are many things that may be useful to the Church. He gives several Examples of God's Providence. He commends Fasting and Continency. He approves of the Worship of Martyrs, and the Relics of Saints. He says, That the First Book of Macchabees is of greater Authority than the Second. He wholly rejects the Third. His Style is pleasant and elaborate. He makes use of Poetical Expressions and choice Words very fitly. He is very happy in applying of Tropes and Emphatical Words; which would render his Discourse very fine and pleasing, if he used them moderately, and did not run the hazard of extraordinary and forced Expressions, which make it dull and flat. His Discourse is set out with so great variety of Figures, that it becomes thereby obscure and tedious. He hath, very often, very proper and Significant Words.  
His History is divided into Twelve Books; it gins with the Controversy between Arius and Alexander, that is to say, in 320. and ends at the Time when Theodosius the younger admitted Valentinian III. into a Share of the Imperial Government with him, who was the Son of Placidia and Constantius, about the Year 425. Every Book gins with One of the Letters of his own Name.  
This History of Philostorgius was had in so great Detestation among the Orthodox, that 'tis no wonder it has not been preserved entire to our Times: But we have an Abridgement of it in Photius, and some Extracts taken out of Suidas and other Authors. Jacobus Gothofredus, a learned Lawyer, first published them, with his Translation and large Notes. This Book was printed at Geneva in 1634 
* 1643. Quarto, Dr. Cave. . Since, Mr. Valesius having reviewed this Abridgement by the Manuscripts, and corrected the Text in several Places, hath caused it to be printed with the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret and E●●grius [at Paris in 1673.]   

NONNUS.  
NONNUS, a Christian Poet, of the City of Panopolis in Egypt, is reckoned among the Authors of the Fifth Age, though it be not exactly known at what Time he flourished 
* Dr. Cave places him A. D. 410. . 
Nonnus.  All that can be said is, That he lived after S. Gregory Nazianzen, but is more ancient than Justinian, since Agathi●●, who lived in the Time of this Emperor, quotes him in his Fourth Book of the Gothick Wars. His Style and Manners are suitable to the Authors of the Fourth Age. He hath made a Paraphrase upon S. John's Gospel in Verse, in a swelling and lofty Style. Aldur Manutius first published the Greek Text, in the beginning of the former Age, [in 1508. at Rome:] Several Versions have been since made of it, which were printed with the Text, at Lions in 1590. at Frankfurt 1541, and at Heidelberg in 1596. Heinsius having spent much Pains upon this Work put out a new Edition of it [with his own Exercitations upon it] at 
† At Leyden, Dr. Cave.  Amsterdam in 1627. There was also another Edition at Paris by Cramoisy in 1623. 'Tis also in the Bibliotheca Patrum, printed [at Paris] in 1624. [It was also printed at Leyden in 1598. in Octavo, with Nansius' Notes.]  
This Author also hath composed another Poem in the same Style, but upon a very different Subject. It is divided into Forty eight Books, called Dionysiacks, containing the fabulous Expeditions of Bacchus [written while he was an Heathen, printed in Greek at Antwerp in 1569. in Quarto, in Greek and Latin at Hanover in 1605. in Octavo, among the Greek Poets at Geneva in 1606. and with Cunaeus and Scaliger's Notes at Hanover in 1610.]   

SOCRATES.  
SOCRATES was born at Constantinople in the beginning of the Empire of Theodosius. He studied Grammar under the two famous Grammarians Helladius and Ammonius, who 
Socrates.  had withdrawn themselves from Alexandria to Constantinople. After he had finished his Studies, and for some time had professed the Law, he undertook to write the Ecclesiastical History, from the year 309, where Eusebius ends, and continues it to the year 440. He there relates, in 7 Books, the great Events which happened in the Church from the Conversion of Constanti●e. This History is written, as Mr. Valesius observes, with a great deal of Judgement and Exactness. His Exactness appears, in his being industrious to consult the Original Records, the Bishop's Letters, the Writings of the Authors of his own time, of which he often gives us an Extract in his History. He is also careful to set down exactly the Succession of Bishops, and the years in which every thing was transacted, and he describes them by the Consuls and Olympiads. His Judgement appears in the Reflections and Observations, which he makes now and then, which are very judicious and impartial. We may see in the 22d. Chap. of the 5th. Book an Example of the diligent Inquiry he had made about the Discipline of the Church. He 〈◊〉 treats of the Dispute on what day the Feast of Easter should be celebrated, and remarks very judiciously, That there was no just reason to dispute a thing of so little Consequence with so much heat; That it was not necessary to follow the custom of the Jews; That the Apostles had no general Rule for the keeping of Festivals, but they were brought into the Church by use only; That they had left no Law concerning the time when Easter should be celebrated, and that it was only for the sake of the History that it is related, that Jesus Christ was crucified in the Feast of Unleavened Bread; That the Apostles did not trouble themselves to make any Orders about holidays, but their only design was to teach Faith and Virtue; That the Apostles having decreed nothing concerning the celebration of Easter, it is no wonder if the Churches did not unanimously agree about it; After he hath brought down the Quarrel from Victor to the Council of Nice, he adds some Heads about the different Ceremonies of the Church. He finds great Differences about the Lent-Fast. The Romans, saith he, content themselves to Fast 3 Weeks, Saturday and Sunday excepted. The Christians of ●●●yria and Achaia, as also those of Egypt, fast 7 Weeks before Easter, and have given the Name of Lent to all that space of time. Others begin 7 Weeks before, but Fast no more than 3 Weeks, each consisting of 5 Days, leaving out 2 Fortnight's in which they do not Fast at all; and yet they also call their Fast by the Name of Lent. Nor is there only a disagreement about the number of Fasting-days, but also about the Abstinence itself. For some eat no living Creature, others eat nothing but Fish, others admit of Fowls, which were created out of the Waters, as it is said in Genesis. Some abstain from the Fruits of Trees and Eggs. There are some that eat nothing but Bread, others abstain from that also. Lastly, there are some who allow themselves not to eat till after 3 a Clock in the Afternoon, but they make no difficulty to eat all sorts of Meat. There are an infinite number of like Practices, differing in different Churches, of which each labours to give a Reason. There is no less difference about the days for the solemn Assemblies of the Faithful. All Churches, excepting those of Rome and Alexandria, celebrate the Holy Mysteries on Saturday. The People of Egypt and Thebais have their Meetings on the same day, but they do not receive the Eucharist as the others; for after they have feasted themselves, they communicate in the Evening. At Alexandria they meet on Wednesday and Saturday to hear the Holy Scripture read, and to perform the Divine Worship, but they do not receive the Sacrament. In this Church of Alexandria likewise they choose their Singers and Readers promiscuously out of the Catechumen or Faithful. In Thessaly, if a Clergyman, who is Married, lies with his Wife after Ordination, they deprive him of his Office. In the East, the Clerks and Bishops themselves abstain from their Wives, but it is of their own Accord, and without being obliged to it by any Law; and there are many who have had Children by their Wives, while they were Bishops. It is said, That Heliodorus Bishop of ●rica, who when he was young made some Amorous Books, was the Author of this Custom, which hath obtained not only in Thessaly, but also in Macedonia and Achaia. In Thessaly they baptise upon Easter-day only. At Antioch the Site of the Church is contrary to others, the Altar not being turned toward the East, but toward the West. In Thessaly and at Jerusalem, as soon as the Lamps are lighted, they betake themselves to their Prayers. At C●sarea in Cappacocia, and in the Isle of Cyprus, the Bishops and Priests at the same time interpret Holy Scriptures. Lastly, it is hard to find any two Churches exactly agreeing in their Ceremonies. The Priests do not Preach at Alexandria. This Custom began in the time of Arius, who troubled the Church by his Sermons. They Fast every Saturday at Rome. The cause of these differences, and many others proceeds from the Customs established at several times by the Bishops, which being received and authorized by their Successors, have obtained the force of a Law.  
It may be that Socrates is mistaken in some of these Articles, and that he hath taken the Error of some particular for the practice of the Universal Church; but this is a sign that he was curious, and that he had made very exact Observations and Disquisitions touching the Discipline of the Church. He had at first compose● the two first▪ Books of his History upon the Credit of Rufinus, but afterwards having discovered by reading the Works of S. Athanasius, that that Historian had omitted the principal Circumstances of the Persecution, which that vasiant Defender of Christ's Divinity had suffered, he amended the two first Books. As for the five last, he composed them as well upon the Credit of Rufinus and some other Authors, as from the Records of the Church, and the relation of those that had been Witnesses of the things, or from what he had seen himself. But all this hath not secured him from falling sometimes into very considerable ●●●its, as when he confounds Maximian with Maximin; when he assures us, That there were Bishops condemned in the Council of Nice for having refused to approve the Confession of Faith, although it appears by a Letter of the Council clearly. That there were but two, viz. The●●● and Sec●ndus, when he attributes the three Confessions of Sirmiam to the same Council, altho' they were made by three several Councils, and he hath committed some other Faults of less Consequence.  
It cannot be denied but he speaks very well of the Novatians, and that he had a great kindness for that Sect, for he is curious in making a Catalogue of their Bishops; he commends them, relates what they have said and done, and owns that he hath a particular esteem for them. In his Opinion Novatian is a Martyr, and the Novatians are a very Religious People▪ who have not altered the Faith, their Practices and Customs are not to be slighted, and the greatest part of Men reject them for no other reason, but because they are Lovers of a loose● Church discipline. This is all that persuades the World that Socrates was a Novatian. Notwithstanding this he always gives us the Name of the Church and the Orthodox; he reckons the Novatians among the Schis●naticks, l. 6. c. 20. and 23. which makes it apparent, that he was not a through Novatian, although he had a good Opinion of their Sect. and did believe perhaps that they might be saved; being persuaded, as he was that they had preserved the ancient Discipline, and that the difference which was between them and the Orthodox. was not in Marters of Faith.  
The Style of Socrates is plain and easy. He hath nothing of an Orator, and keeps himself within the bounds of a single Narration, which is not adorned with the Elegancies usual among Historians, but which hath nothing in it obscure or intricate. He produces long Quotations to prove the Matters of Fact, which he relates. The same Authors who translated the History of Eusebius, have also translated Socrates and Sozomen's; for which reason it is to no purpose to repeat their Versions and Editions in this place.   

SOZOMEN.  
HErmias Sozomenus lived at the same time with Socrates, was of the same Profession, and undertook a Work of the same Nature. He was of a good Family, a Native of a City in 
Sozomen.  Palestine, called Bethesia near Gaza. His Grandfather having been converted by a Miracle of Hilarion's, applied himself to the study of Holy Scripture, and conversed very much with the Monks of his own Country. Sozomen was brought up among them, and had imbibed, a very great esteem for that Order. This he plainly discovers in his History, where he gives an high commendation of a Monastic Life, and enlarges himself very much upon the Actions and Manner of living used among those Solitaries. This is almost all that is considerable, which he addeth to the History of Socrates, for he gins and ends at the same time. I say, that that's all he hath added, because I am persuaded that he wrote after Socrates. For besides that he was then a Lawyer, when he composed his History, and by consequence was younger than Socrates, who had left off that Profession, it is visible enough that he follows the Relation of Socrates, to which he adds or changes some things now and then; also he is ordinarily put after Socrates. These Additions have made his History larger, and obliged him to divide it into 9 Books.  
His Style is more ●orid and elegant than Socrates', but he is not so judicious an Author. He hath inserted some things into his History, which are not agreeable to it. He is guilty of all the same Faults, that Socrates is, and is himself fallen into more gross ones. As when he says, That Pope Julius not being able to go to the Council of Nice by reason of his ●●eat. Age, he sent Vito and Vincentius; although 'tis certain that that Council was held under Pope Sylvester. He confounds the Ordination of Gregory by the Church of Alexandria, with the Intrusion of George. He hath been very negligent in setting down the Catalogues of the Bishops of the great Sees. He hath placed Romanus in the number of the Patriarches of A●ti●c● although he was no more than a Deacon. He makes the Popedom of Julius to last 25 years, whereas it continued but Fifteen Years, and puts his Death after Gallus', although it happened Two Years before. I omit to speak of many more Faults in this Author. His History is dedicated to Theodosius the Younger.   

THEODORITUS.  
THEODORITUS was born at Antioch, in the Year 386. His Birth was accompanied with Miracles before and after, which he himself relates in his Religious 
Theodoret.  History: For, if we may believe him, his Mother was cured of an incurable Disease, which she had in her Eye, by a Monk called Peter. It was by the Prayers of another Religious 
* Historia Religiosa, or Philotheus.  Man, called Macedonius, that God granted her to conceive a Son, and bring him into the World: And it was by the Prayers of the First of these Two Holy Monks that she was preserved from Death, after her Delivery. Her Husband and Son felt also the Effects of the Deserts of this Holy Man, being often healed of their Distempers by the touching of his Girdle.  
After so great Favours, which God had shown to this Infant, who can in the least doubt but that his Parents ought to devote him to God, who had given him to them 
a Devote him to God, etc.] Hence he was called Theodoret, either because he was given by God, or devoted to God. Eustathius and Suidas observe, That we ought to read and pronounce his Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Theodorit, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Theodoret. The Ancients call him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Manuscripts writ him so; notwithstanding Usage hath corrupted the Latin Name, and made him called Theodoret. The more Learned indeed call him always Theodorit, but if we should call him Theodorit in the French, it would not be known what we mean. The Greeks do not give him the Name of Saint, because he hath written against S. Cyril, and the Fifth Council hath imprinted a Mark of Disgrace upon his Memory. ? His Mother had engaged herself to it, when the Holy Anchorite promised her a Son; which she performed by putting him into the Monastery of S. Euprepius, when he was but Seven Years old; where he learned the Sciences, Religion and Piety. He had for his Master Theodorus of Mopsuesta, and S. John Chrysostom, and for his Fellow-Scholars John, afterwards Bishop of Antioch, and Nestorius, who was not long after preferred to the See of Constantinople. The Bishops of Antioch having knowledge of his Learning and Virtue, admitted him into Holy Orders; yet did he not, upon that account, change either his Habitation or manner of Life, but found out a way to reconcile the Exercises of a Religious Life with the Function of a Clergyman. After the Death of his Father and Mother, he distributed his whole Inheritance to the Poor, reserving nothing at all of it to himself.  
The Bishopric of Cyrus being become vacant, about the Year of Christ 420 
b About the Year 420.] In his Letter 81. to Nomus the Consul, he says, He had then been Bishop, Twenty five Years. He sets down the same Time in his Eightieth Letter to Eutrechius. Nomus was Consul in 445. Out of which, if we take 25 Years, the remainder will be 420. But in the 113th Letter, written to S. Leo, after the Conventicle of Ephesus, in 449, he saith, There were 26 Years since he was Bishop. This will prove but only, that he was so in 423. The Difference is of small consequence. . The Bishop of Antioch ordained Theodoret against his Will, and sent him to govern that Church. Cyrus is a City of Syria, in the Province of Euphratesia, which was a Country unpleasant and barren, but very populous: There were Eight hundred Villages which were subject to that Bishopric. The Inhabitants commonly spoke the Syriack Tongue, few of them understood Greek, they were almost all poor, rude and barbarous; many of them were engaged in profane Superstitions, or in such gross Errors, as rendered them more like Heathens than, Christians. The Learning and Worth of Theodoret seemed to qualify him for a greater See; yet he remained in this, and discharged all the Offices of a good Bishop. He cleared his Diocese from Barbarism and from Errors, which were predominant among them. He converted Eight Villages, infected with the Heresy of the Marcionites, and planted the true Faith in two other Towns, where there was none but Arians and Eunomians. In a word, he utterly extirpated Heresy out of his Diocese, yet not without much Labour, and running the Hazard of his Life, for it cost him sometimes some of his Blood, being often pursued with Showers of Stones, and almost killed by the Infidels; so that in him we have the Picture of a good Shepherd, who layeth down his Life for the Sheep. But the goodness of Theodoret extended itself much further. He prevented the Churches of Phoenicia from falling into Error; and being called to Anti●ch by the Patriarch of that great See, he preached there with Applause and Benefit. Let no Man think that he courted this Employment, or sought an Opportunity to leave his Diocese, to reside in a more civilised City. He went not to Antioch but with regret, in obedience to the Commands of his Patriarches, and the Laws of the Church; which condemn a Bishop who comes not to the Synod of his Patriarch, when he is cited thither: Yea, he was so exact in that Point, that he assures us, That he had the good Luck, not to leave his Diocese to go to Antioch, above Five or Six times under Three Patriarches, viz. under Theodotus, John and Domnus, and that by their express Order only. He governed his People with so much gentleness that he gained the Love of all the World. All the Time that he was Bishop he never had any Suit at Law with any Person: No Man brought an Action against him, nor did he the like against any Man. He was so very careless of his own Gain, that he kept nothing for himself but some plain Garments, with which he was clothed. Neither he himself nor his Domestics would receive any thing of any Man: Neither himself nor his Clergy did ever appear at the Judgement Seats. He employed but a very small part of the Church-Revenues to maintain himself very frugally, and gave the rest to the Poor, or employed it for the erecting some public Buildings, necessary for the City of Cyrus. He set up Cloisters, raised Two Bridges, repaired the Baths, and conveyed Water, by a Conduit, into the City. He requested of the Empress Pulcheria, That she would release the Inhabitants of the Country of Cyrus from a Tribute, which was very grievous to them. He provided a Physician for the City. In fine, he laid out all he had for the common Good. He was not only a Benefactor to his own People, but his Charity extended itself to Strangers: A Lady of Carthage, named Mary, who had been taken and sold by the Vandals, being brought to Cyrus, tasted the Effects of his Kindness, for he fed her at the Expense of the Church, and having purchased her Liberty, sent her home to her Father. He relieved also another Woman, who had been forced to make her escape out of afric and leave all her Estate there, and recommended her to other Bishops his Neighbours. As he had been brought up among the Monks, so he had a very particular Love for the Solitaries; he went often to visit them, recommended himself to their Prayers, and shown that he had a very great Regard and Respect for them. He celebrated the Holy Mysteries by the Hands of his Deacon, in favour of Maris the Monk, who had been Twenty seven Years in Solitude, without being present at the Celebration of the Sacrifice; but this was a particular Act of Theodoret. Nevertheless, we must consider the manner how he managed himself in the Affairs of the Church and Religion, in which he had a greater Share than any other Bishop of his Time.  
Although John Patriarch of Antioch appeared at the Head of the Eastern Bishops, yet it may be said, That the whole Party were principally swayed by the Counsels of Theodoret, who was, as it were, the Soul and Spirit of it. It was by his Counsel that John wrote at first to Nestorius, to receive the Term of The Mother of God. It was he that undertook to confute the Anathematisms of S. Cyril, and accused them of Heresy. In the Council of Ephesus he was one of the most earnest Defenders of the Party of the Orientals, and he held a considerable Place among the Deputies, which they sent to the Court, where he maintained their Cause with Courage. Being returned from Antioch, he exasperated things more, by causing them to confirm what they had done against S. Cyril and Memnon, and by composing Five Books against S. Cyril. When a Pacification was propounded, he acknowledged indeed, That the Letter, which S. Cyril had written, contained Orthodox Doctrine, but he would have them condemn his Anathematisms, and not be obliged by any means to subscribe the Condemnation of Nestorius.  
When a Peace was concluded between John Patriarch of Antioch, and S. Cyril, he was displeased that Nestorius was forsaken. He opposed the Peace for some Time, but at last entered into it, and wrote a very obliging Letter to S. Cyril, wherein he praised his Treatise, De Capro Emissario, Of the Escape Goat: He received Thanks from that Bishop, and ever after they had a Correspondence by Letters, and after his Death he quotes him, with much Honour, among the Fathers of the Church. I am very sensible, that some Men, moved by the Testimony of Liberatus, pretend, that Theodoret made a Third Party different from both the Orientals and S. Cyril, which he calls by the Name of Acephali, but it is a false Assertion, which confutes itself, since there never were any other Acephali known but those who were in the Error of Eutyches. Besides, It appears, by the very Confession of Theodoret, writing to Dioscorus, and by the Course of his History, that he was joined in Communion not only with the Eastern, but also the Western and Egyptian Bishops. Nevertheless, there was always a certain Antipathy between the Eastern and the Egyptian Bishops, and principally between Theodoret and S. Cyril. They had some Difference upon the account of the Remembrance of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, and they always continued in a kind of Defiance one of another. The Death of S. Cyril did not put an end to the Quarrel, for Dioscorus, his Successor, declared himself openly against Theodoret, and caused him to be excommunicated in his Church, through the Accusation of certain Monks come from the East: But Domnus Bishop of Antioch stood up in his Defence: Flavian Bishop of Constantinople, acknowledged him to be an Orthodox Bishop: But Dioscorus having the Authority to call a General Assembly at Ephesus, in which he did what he pleased; he therein deposed Theodoret, in his Absence, and without Hearing, after he had been forbidden by the Emperor to go to the Synod. Theodoret seeing no Body that could defend him in the East, Domnus having subscribed his Condemnation, and Flavian being dead, after he had been unjustly deposed by the Synod of Dioscorus: He seeing, I say, himself unlikely to find any Support strong enough in the Eastern Church, had recourse to Pope Leo, besought his Help, and consulted him, Whether he thought him obliged to yield to the Sentence, that had been pronounced against him, and desired him at the same Time to demand a new Synod, and he wrote himself to Patricius Anatolius to endeavour to obtain it of the Emperor. S. Leo having no regard to the Judgement of Dioscorus, received his Deputies favourably, and continued Communion with him. He demanded, That all things should remain in the same state that they were before the Judgement of Dioscorus; and that he would hold a General Council to re-examine the Case of Flavianus and Eutyches. He could not obtain this of Theodosius, but Marcian, his Successor, had regard to their Remonstrances, and assembled a General Council at Chalcedon, where Theodoret was present. In the First Session the Imperial Commissioners said, That Theodoret might enter; the Bishops of Egypt; Illyria and Palestine were against it; the Eastern Bishops on the contrary, and those that were subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, maintained, That he ought to be received; and cried out, That the Egyptians ought to be turned out. After great Clamours on both Sides; it was allowed that Theodoret should take his Seat in the Synod, in consideration that S. Leo had admitted him into his Communion, and judged him worthy of his Bishopric. This was ordained only for the present, and without Prejudice to either Party, and with an entire Reservation of their Actions, upon the Heads of Accusation, which they had propounded one against the other. This Business was brought to a Determination in the Eighth Session of the Council, in which a Definitive Sentence was passed in favour of Theodoret. Here is a particular account how the whole Business was transacted. Some Bishops (it is probable they were the Egyptian Bishops, who were the Accusers of Theodoret) required that he should pronounce Anathema against Nestorius. Theodoret answered, That he had presented Petitions to the Emperor and S. Leo. The Bishops replied, That there was no need to read any thing more, let him but pronounce Anathema against Nestorius. Theodoret returned Answer, That (praised be God) he had always been nourished, and brought up in the true Faith by very Orthodox Persons; That he had always taught the Orthodox Faith; That he did condemn Nestorius, Eutyches, and all other Persons, who held any Opinions that were not found. Those Bishops, that were not his Friends, would not be satisfied with this Declaration, but still required, That he should pronounce distinctly Anathema against Nestorius, against his Doctrine and Followers. Theodoret answered, That above all things he desired, that they would be persuaded that he had no Design of staying in a great City, that he was not ambitious of Honours, and that he was not come thither for that End; That he was come merely to clear himself from that Calumny, which they had nourished of him, and to justify himself to be Orthodox; That he did pronounce Anathema against Nestorius, Eutyches, and all other Persons, who believed that there were Two Sons of God. The Bishops here interrupted him, and pressed him to say Anathema to Nestorius, and to those of his Judgement. Theodoret, who was afraid that by condemning Nestorius clearly and absolutely, he should seem to disapprove the Opinions of the Egyptians, whom he thought Eutychians, answered, That he would not say Anathema to Nestorius till he had made a profession of what he believed. As he began to say, I believe then, he was interrupted by his Adversaries, who cried out tumultuously, He is an Heretic, He is a Nestorian, away with this Heretic. Theodoret seeing himself born down by tumultuous Cries, was obliged to pronounce Anathema against Nestorius, and all those who did not confess that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God, or who divided the only Son of God into two. He adds, That he did subscribe the Form of Faith, and S. Leo's Letter, and that he was of the same Judgement. Then the Imperial Commissioners, accepting his Speech; declared that there remained nothing more of Difficulty, in reference to the Person of Theodoret, since he had pronounced Anathema to Nestorius, had been received by S. Leo, had subscribed the Form of Faith agreed upon by the Council, and the Letter of S. Leo, and that the Council had no more to do but to confirm Pope Leo's Act by their Judgement. After this Declaration all the Bishops cried out, Theodoret is worthy to hold his See: And after many other Acclamations of that nature, the chief of them gave their Voices separately, and all the others followed their Judgements, insomuch that the Commissioners pronounced, That, according to the Judgement of the Holy Council, Theodoret should remain in the possession of the Church of Cyrus. He returned thither soon after the Council, and passed the rest of his Life in quiet, composing his Commentaries upon the Holy Scriptures. He died in peace, in the beginning of the Reign of the Emperor Leo, in 457, or 458. in the Seventieth or Eightieth Year of his Age. But his Enemies, after his Death, revived the Accusations, That they had form against him in his Life-time, and contrary to the Judgement of the Council of Chalcedon, used all their Endeavours to obscure his Memory. The Ringleaders of this Faction designed it against the Council itself, and did not attack the Memory of Theodoret with any other Design, but that they might give a Blow to the Council itself. But they had insensibly drawn over many Orthodox persons to their Opinion, and being upheld by the Authority of Justinian the Emperor, they brought about their Undertaking, by causing his Writings to be condemned in the Council, which they account the Fifth General Council. But notwithstanding the Judgement of this Council, many of the Orthodox have always defended, and do still defend his Person and Writings. But this is not a convenient Place to treat of this Matter, of which I shall speak afterward. This sufficeth to have advertised you, That Theodoret met with as bad Usage, almost, after his Death, as he had while he lived.  
Of all the Fathers, who have composed Works of different kinds, Theodoret is one of those who hath been very lucky in every one of them. There are some who have been excellent Writers in Matters of Controversy, but bad Interpreters. Others have been good Historians, but naughty Divines. Some have good success in Morality, who have no skill in Doctrinal Points. Those, who have applied themselves to confute the Pagan Religion by their own Principles and Authors, have ordinarily little knowledge in the Mysteries of our Religion. Lastly, It is very rare for those, who have addicted themselves to Works of Piety, to be good Critics. Theodoret had all these Qualities, and it may be said, That he hath equally deserved the Name of a good Interpreter, Divine, Historian, Writer of Controversies, Apologist for Religion, and Author of Works of Piety. But he hath principally excelled in his Composures upon the Holy Scripture. He hath outdone almost all other Commentators in that kind according to the Judgement of the learned Photius. His Language, saith the same Author, is very proper for a Commentary; for he explains in proper and significant Terms whatsoever is obscure and difficult in the Text, and renders the Mind more fit to read and understand it, by the pleasantness and elegancy of his Discourse. He doth not weary his Reader by long Digressions, but on the contrary he labours to instruct him ingeniously, clearly and methodically in every thing that seems hard. He never departs from the Purity and Elegancy of the Attic Tongue, if there be nothing that obliges him to speak of abstruse Matters, to which the Ears are not accustomed. For it is certain, That he passes over nothing that needs Explication, and it is almost impossible to find any Interpreter who unfolds all manner of Difficulties better, and leaves fewer things obscure. We may find many others who speak elegantly, and explain clearly, but we shall scarcely find any who have written well, and who have forgotten nothing which hath need of Illustration, without being too diffuse, nor without running out into Digressions, at least, such as are not absolutely necessary for clearing the Matter in Hand. Nevertheless this is what Theodoret has observed in all his Commentaries upon Holy Scripture, in which he hath wondrously well opened the Text by his Labour and diligent Search.  
There are two sorts of Works of Theodoret upon Holy Scripture. The one is by way of Question and Answer, the other is a Commentary, wherein he followeth the words of the Text. The eight first Books of the Bible, that is to say, the Pentateuch of Moses, the Books of Joshua, Judges and Ruth; the Books of Kings and Chronicles are explained after the first manner, the other are expounded by Commentaries.  
The first of these Works is entitled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is translated thus; Of some select doubtful Questions of Holy Scripture; but may be better translated, Select Questions upon the difficult places of Holy Scripture. It is written by way of Questions and Answers. The Question propounds the difficulty, and the Answer resolves it. This is the last of the Works of Theodoret. He composed it at the desire of Hypatius, as he tells him in the Preface, where he observes, That there were two sorts of Persons who raise difficulties out of the Holy Scriptures; the one do it with a wicked intent, to find in the Holy Scriptures Falsities or Contradictions; but others do it with a design to inform themselves, and learn that which they demand. Theodoret undertakes to stop the Mouth of the former, by making it appear, That there is neither Falsity nor Contradiction in Holy Scripture, and to content the latter by satisfying all their Doubts, so that the intent of this Work is not so much to explain the Literal Sense of Holy Scripture, as to answer the Scruples that might rise in the Mind by reading the Text.  
There are some of the Questions which are very useless, and which do not naturally come into the Mind. As for Example, he demands in the first Question, Why the Author of the Pentateuch did not make a Discourse upon the Being and Nature of God, before he spoke of the Creation? Few Men would make that Doubt. Theodoret says, That he condescended to the Weakness of those he had to instruct in speaking first of the Creatures which they knew, that he might make known the Creator to them, for he hath sufficiently discovered the Eternity, Wisdom and Bounty of that Being, in composing a History of the Creation; and lastly, because he spoke to Persons who had already some Idea of him, since Moses had spoken already in Egypt in his Name, and had taught them that he is what he is, a Name that signifies his Eternity. The following Questions are concerning the Angels. He pretends, That Moses hath not spoken of their Creation for fear they should be taken for Gods. He teaches, That they are created and finite Being's; That they keep their place in the Universe; That they are appointed to defend the People and Nations; and likewise, That every Person hath his Guardian Angel; That they were created at the same time with the World, tho' it may be said, That their Creation was before that of Heaven and Earth. After these Preliminary Questions, which serve only for the explication of the Text, he resolves others that serve to clear the Text. One of the Principal is upon these words. The Spirit of God moved upon the Face of the Waters, Some, saith he, believe, That it is the Holy Spirit who animated the Waters, and made them fruitful; but I am of Opinion, That it is the Air, which is called in this place the Spirit of God. For having said, That God created the Heaven and Earth, and made mention also of the Waters under the Name of the Abyss, he ought necessarily to speak of the Air, which is extended upon the Surface of the Waters even to the Heaven. And it is for that reason that he makes use of the Term, it moved, which shows the Nature of the Air. Theodoret propounds also a multitude of other Questions that are curious, such as these that follow: Whether there be one only Heaven, or many? He seems to admit of no more than two. He is not contented to give Solutions of his own, but sometimes he relates other men's, as upon that famous Text of Genesis, where it is said, That Man was made in the Image and Likeness of God. He citys some Passages out of Diodorus, Theodorus of Mopsuesta and Origen, to prove that it ought to be understood of the Soul of Man, and he quotes them also, tho' but seldom, upon some other Questions, if yet these Citations have not been added to the Text of Theodoret, which is so much the more probable, because they are not to be found in the Manuscript of the King's Library. That he may give the true sense of Scripture, he hath recourse often to the Versions of the ancient Greek Translators, and likewise to the Hebrew Text, which he read in the Hexapla of Origen, and in the Interpretation of Hebrew words by that Father. He doth not at all search into the Allegories, but applies himself to the explication of the Letter and the History, and ordinarily he pitches upon the most plain and natural sense. As for Example, when he explains what is meant by the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he thinks it enough to say that these Names were given them upon the account of the Effects which they produced, That the one preserved Life, and the other made Man to know what Sin was. To make it evident why our first Parents were not ashamed of their Nakedness, he saith, That they were like Infants being not yet defiled with Sin. In sum, That Custom did take away or diminish Shame, as we see in Seamen, who being accustomed to be Naked, are not in the least ashamed when they strip themselves; and as it is the fashion in Baths, without which it would make some Impression. He believes not, That Man was created Immortal; but he says, That God did not pass the Sentence of Death upon him till after he had sinned, That he might beget in him a greater hatred of Sin. He saith, That Adam being driven out of Paradise, was sent into a place not much distant from it, that the sight of the place might put him in mind of his Sin. He quotes Theodorus, who thought, that by the Cherubims which were placed at the Gate of Paradise, they ought not to understand Angels, nor any Spiritual Essences, but Apparitions and Phantoms, which had the shape of Ghastly Creatures. He doubts not, but that Enoch was translated alive into some place to preach the Resurrection, but that no Man ought to trouble himself to know where it is. The Sons of God of whom it is said, That they had familiarity with the Daughters of Men, are not, according to the Judgement of Theodoret, Angels, but the Posterity of Seth, who married themselves to the Daughters of the Generation of Cain, of whom were born those great Men to whom they gave the Names of Giants. The reason why the first Patriarches lived so long a time, was. That Mankind might be multiplied, and for that reason it was, That they married so many Women. In the Questions upon Exodus, he maintains, That it was God and not an Angel which appeared to Moses in the Flaming Bush. He enlarges himself much upon these words, The Lord hardened the Heart of Pharaoh, that he might prove, that it was Pharaoh himself that hardened his own Heart, against all the Admonitions and Chastisements of God, who treated him with Goodness and Mercy in sparing him. And in explaining in what sense God may be said to harden his Heart, he brings this familiar Example: The Sun is said to melt Wax and harden Clay, altho' there is but one Virtue only in it, which is to make hot; by the same Goodness and Patience of God, two contrary Effects are wrought, the one is profitable to some, and the other renders others guilty; which is as much as to say, That it converts some and hardens others. As Jesus Christ hath declared in his Gospel, when he says that he came, That those that see not, might see; and that they which see, might be made blind. The design of Jesus Christ was not to make those blind, who could see, for he wills, That all Men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, but he notes by this what happened. For Man being a free Agent, they who have believed secure their Salvation; but on the contrary, they who believe not, are themselves the Authors of their own Damnation. It is in this sense that Judas, who could see as he was an Apostle, became blind; 'tis in this sense also that S. Paul, who was blind, received his sight; 'tis in this sense likewise, that the Jews are blinded and the Gentiles see; yet the World may not be deprived of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, because some Men make an ill use of it. Although Theodoret seldom expounds any Allegories, he cannot avoid doing it sometimes. In speaking of the Jewish Passover, he there discovers the Relation it has to the new Law, which he unfolds in a very natural way. The Sacrifices and Ceremonies of the old Law afford him Subjects of Allegory in his Questions upon Leviticus. He also refers many to Morality, and draws Instructions for men's manners out of the greatest part of the Ordinances of Leviticus and the Book of Numbers. He hath made many such like Reflections in his Questions upon Deuteronomy. He confines himself more to the Historical and Literal sense in his Questions upon Joshua, Judges and Ruth, which make up the Octateuch, and in those which he hath composed upon the 4 Books of Kings and 2 Books of Chronicles. These last are a second part of his Work, and have a special Preface, in which he observes after what manner the Books of Kings and Chronicles were composed. These are his own Words. There were, saith he, many Prophets who have left us no Books, and whose Names we learn out of the History of the Chronicles. Every one of these Prophets wrote ordinarily what happened in their time. For this reason it is, that the first Book of the Kings is called by the Hebrews and Syrians, The Prophecy of Samuel. We need only to read it, and we shall be convinced of the Truth of this. They, then, that composed the Books of Kings, wrote them a long time after from these ancient Memoirs. For how could they that lived in the time of Saul or David, writ that which happened afterward under Hezekiah and Josiah? How could they relate the War of Nabuchadnezzar, the Siege of Jerusalem, the Captivity of the People and the Death of Nabuchadnezzar? It is then visible, That every Prophet wrote what passed in his time, and that others making a Collection of their Memoirs have composed the Books of Kings? And after these, came other Historiographers, who made a Collection of what the first had forgotten, of which they composed the two Books of Chronicles. This is the manner in which Theodoret thinks, That the Books of Kings and Chronicles were composed. We will not stay longer to speak in particular of those Questions which may be easily run over. The Translation of the Questions upon the Octateuch was made by Johannes Picus Precedent of the Inquests of the Parliament of Paris, who first published them in 1558, at Paris.] Gentian Harvet Canon of Rheims, translated the Questions upon the Chronicles and Kings.  
The Commentary of Theodoret upon all the Psalms is an excellent Work. He saith in the Preface, That he had always a design to bestow his Labour upon the Book of Psalms, it being a Book which of all the Books of the Bible is most in use among the most pious Persons, and principally among the Religious. That the Psalms being continually in the Mouths of the Faithful that sing them, it would be a thing of great advantage to make them easy to be understood, that they might receive a double benefit by their Prayers. That this reason had caused him to take up a Resolution to begin his Commentaries upon Holy Scripture with that Book; but his Friends having demanded of him some Commentaries upon other Books of Holy Scripture, he was obliged to satisfy them, before he composed this Commentary. In sum, That it ought not to be imagined that his Labour would be unprofitable, because others had written before him upon the same Subject 
d Others had written before him, etc.] Those, whom he hints by the by without naming them, are, Apollinarius, whose Commentaries were full of Allegories; Theodorus of Mopsuesta, who was too much pleased with the Explications of the Jews; and S. Chrysostom, whose Commentaries are too large. , that having read many Commentaries, he did find some of them full of tedious Allegories; and others did so much apply the Prophecies to the Histories of their own time, that they seemed rather to be made for Jews thanChristians: That he had endeavoured to avoid the two opposite Extremes by referring to the ancient Histories, what at present agreed to them, and not applying to other Persons (as the Jews do to cover their own Infidelity) the Prophecies that are to be understood of JesusChrist, and what is spoken in the Psalms concerning theChurch and the Preaching of theGospel: That he had avoided the prolixity of others, and had gathered into a few words what was profitable: That he first gave the subject of every Psalm, and then proceeded to the Interpretation of the Text: That we ought to know above all things, that a Prophecy is not designed only to fortel what shall happen, but also to be an History of what is present and past, since Moses hath written an History of the Creation not from the Records of Men, but by the Inspiration of the Spirit, that he therein declares the things that happened in his time, as the Plagues of Pharaoh, and the Manna: And, lastly, That he hath foretold things to come, as the coming of Jesus Christ, the dispersion of the Jews, and salvation of the Gentiles: That David also, who is the first that wrote after Moses, speaks of the Benefits that God had bestowed upon Men a long time before, and foretells what should come to pass in after Ages: That his Psalms do not only contain Predictions, but Instructions and Precepts: That he sometimes lays down Morals and sometimes Doctrine: That he sometimes bewails the calamities of the Jews, and in other places promises Salvation to the Gentiles: But that he foretells the Sufferings and Resurrection of Jesus Christ in so many places and so many ways, that whosoever reads them with attention will find them easily: That some did believe, That David was not the Author of all the Psalms, but there were some that belonged to other Persons: And in this sense they explained the Inscriptions, and attributed some to Jeduthun, others to Ethan, and others to the Sons of Care and Children of Asaph, whom the History of the Chronicles tells us, were Prophets. As for me, saith he, I will affirm nothing concerning it: For what is it to me, whether all, or only some part of them be David's, since it is evident, that they were all written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost? We know that David was a Prophet, and that the History of the Chronicles gives the Name of Prophets to the other. Now the Office of a Prophet is to speak as the Spirit gives him utterance; as it is written in the Psalms, My Tongue is as the Pen of a ready Writer. Nevertheless he thinks it safest to follow the Judgement of the greatest number, who attribute them to David. He speaks then of the Inscriptions of the Psalms, and says, It is great rashness either to reject them wholly or to change them, since they have been received in the time of Ptolemy, translated by the LXX, together with the Holy Text which had been reveiwed and confirmed by Ezra. He undertakes afterwards to give the meaning of them. The word Diapsalma according to some, notes an Intermission of the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit; according to others, a change of the Prophecy; and in others Judgement, a different Psalm. Aquila hath translated the Hebrew word Ever, a Particle, which in that place signifies a connexion of that which follows with what went before. But Theodoret, after he hath related the different Opinions of others, will not recede from the Translation of the LXX and will have it that the word Diapsalma denotes the change of the Song, altho' he will not have this Explication received as absolutely certain, confessing, That none can know the true sense of that Term, but he who composed the Psalms, and he to whom it shall please God to reveal it. He in the last place observes, That the Psalms are not ranked according to the order of time in which they were made, since there are some of the latter Psalms, which relate to the Histories, which went before those of which he speaks in the former. As for Example, the 3d. is upon Absolom, and the 141st. upon Saul. He believes, that the disorder is not David's, but theirs, who have disposed the Psalms into the form they now are.  
F. Garner▪ hath published in his Supplement, which he made to the Works of Theodoret, another Preface upon the Psalms attributed to Theodoret, but it is evident that 'tis none of his, since the Author therein promotes things which do not agree with what Theodoret says in this last. There are likewise some Fragments of his Commentary upon the Psalms, recited by him in it, which belong to some more Modern Author, who quotes the words of Theodoret's Commentary, and adds to it other Authors, or his own proper Opinions.  
Theodoret follows in his Commentary the Method which he hath prescribed in his Preface. He expounds, in few words, the sense of every Verse of the Psalms. After he hath shown the differences of the Versions of Theodotion, Symmachus and Aquila, and sometimes also of the Hebrew Text, he explains the sense of the words, and applies them to the History or Prophecy to which they relate. This Commentary hath been translated by Antonius Caraffa, and dedicated to the Cardinal of the same Name.  
The Explication of the Song of Songs is the last Book of the first Tome of Theodoret's Works. It is certain that he had written upon this Book of Holy Scripture, since he says expressly so in his Preface upon the Psalms; by which it appears, That the Commentary upon the Canticles was his first Work upon the Bible. But there is some reason to doubt whether this Commentary, which has been translated by Zinus, is really Theodoret's. These Conjectures seem to prove, that it is not his. 1. The Author of the Commentary saith in the Preface, That he had an abundance of Business in the City, in the Field, in the Army; and that he had the charge of both Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs. This doth not in the least agree to Theodoret, who had passed all his Life in a Monastery, and who never concerned himself in any Affairs of War. 2. He speaks of S. Chrysostom as a Person then alive. John, saith he, who hath to this present time enlightened all the World by the torrent of his Eloquence. 3. He confutes very strenuously the Opinion of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, for whom Theodoret always had much respect. It may also be objected, That these Commentaries are longer than Theodoret's; That this Commentary is not cited in the Catena's, as the other Comments of Theodoret are; That the only Passage which is cited, as being a Commentary of Theodoret in one of his Works, is not found in this Commentary; and that Theodoret doth not quote this Book to justify the Purity of his Faith, altho' it was extremely suitable to prove it. On the other side there are some Reasons, which seem to prove it evidently enough, That this Work is Theodoret's. 1. It bears the Name of Theodoret in two MSS. which Zinus and F. Sirmondus used. 2. Pelagius II. or rather S. Gregory, in his Letter to the Bishops of Illyria, saith, That Theodoret hath reproved the Opinion of Theodorus of Mopsuesta in his Paraphrase upon the Book of Canticles, by concealing his Name, which is all that the Author of the Preface to this Commentary hath done. But there is still something more: Pelagius II. citys the words of this Preface, as being Theodoret's, insomuch, that it is not to be doubted, but that in the time of this Pope, this very Commentary was looked upon to be certainly Theodoret's. 3. The Author of this Commentary in his Preface explains a Text of Ezekiel, where Jerusalem is compared to a Lewd Woman, after the same manner that Theodoret expounds it in his Commentary upon that Prophet. 4. This Commentary is very like the other Commentaries of Theodoret; it is the same way of Exposition, and the same Style. Lastly, the Conjectures which are brought to prove, That this Commentary is not his, do not appear very convincing. The first, which seems to be the strongest, is of little Consequence. For Theodoret having composed this Work, when he was first made a Bishop, he was then busied in many Affairs both Ecclesiastical and Civil; and it may be Military, because the Disorders which his Diocese was in, forced him to implore the help of the Magistrates and Governors to protect him from the Assaults of the Rabble, which he underwent several times, as the History of his Life informs us. It may also be understood of the Wars, which his Country was then threatened with. The second Objection would be unanswerable, if it were certain, That the Author spoke of S. Chrysostom as a Person then living, and of the Sermons which he preached viva voce. But what he says, may very well be understood of the Writings of that Father. It is of his written Sermons, and not of his Preach viva voce, that it may be said that they enlightened the whole Earth. For his Writings had been dispersed through all the World, his Preach had gone no further than those, who were there where he preached. As to Theodorus of Mopsuesta, the Author of that Commentary shows, That he had a respect for him in not mentioning his Name. It is true. That he smartly reproves his Opinion about the signification of the Song of Songs. But why should not Theodoret do so, not being of his Judgement, since he could not follow him without abandoning all the other Fathers, and rendering his Commentary which he was about to compose wholly useless? He doth not spare him more in his Preface upon the Psalms. For 'tis ●e which ●e attacks without naming him, when he says, That some Commen●… had explained the Psalms after a Judaical manner. The other Conjectures are o● no force at all, Theodoret is a little 〈◊〉 large in this Commentary than in some others, but not more than in that which he made upon the Prophet Daniel; and these two Works being the first 〈◊〉 of his Labour, 'tis no wonder, if they are not so compact. In sum, his character and manner of expounding Holy Scripture are very discernible in it. The Authority of the Catena's is of no great weight, for we know that the Names of the Fathers are sometimes confounded in them, and often the best sort of Expositions are omitted. It is easy to put the name of Theodoret for Theodore. In fine, Theodoret hath not alleged all the places, which might be brought to justify him, but only the principal. So that there is nothing to prove, that this Commentary upon the Canticles is not his, and the proofs which are produced to confirm it, are much stronger than those which are made use of to overthrow it. The Preface is Theodoret's Style, and like his other Prefaces. After he hath spoken of his various Businesses, and implored the Illumination of the Holy Spirit, he speaks in general of the subject of this Book. He confutes those who understand it of the Love of Solomon with Pharaoh's Daughter▪ or the Shunamite, and opposes to the Persons of this Opinion, not only the Authority of Holy Fathers who have ranked this Book among the divinely inspired Writings, and have judged it worthy to be received in the Church as such; but also the Testimony of the Holy Spirit itself, which inspired Ezra to revive the Books of the Holy Scripture which had been burnt in Manasses' time, and entirely lost in the Captivity. Now the Song of Songs is one of those Books, which Ezra hath written without the help of any Copy by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost only. And how could he do this, if it contained nothing in it but a description of the passionate Love of a Creature? It is not then without reason saith he, that the Holy Fathers have reckoned it among the Sacred Volumes, and many of them have explained it in their Commentaries, or cited it with great Praise in their Writings? For not only Eusebius of Palestine, Origen of Egypt, the glorious Martyr S. Cyprian, and some other Fathers besides, who were more ancient and nearer to the Apostles, but also those who have since gained credit to the Church, have acknowledged this Book for a Divine Work. S. Basil explaining the beginning of the Proverbs, both the S. Gregory's, one of whom was the Brother, the other the Friend of S. Basil; Diodorus, that excellent Defender of the true Religion; John, whose Discourses do instruct the whole World at this present, and all that have followed them are of this Judgement. Is it lawful to contemn these great Men to follow private Opinions? Is it reasonable to forsake the Testimony of the Holy Spirit to hearken to the Surmises of Men? But lest it should be thought, adds Theodoret, that we are not solicitous to undeceive our Adversaries; being contented, that we are ourselves persuaded of the Truth, Let us see what it is that might cause them to fall into the Error, and endeavour to cure it by Remedies taken out of Holy Scripture. In reading of this Book, and finding therein these words, Perfumes, Lilies, Fruits, Kisses, Lettuces, Eyes, Thighs, and many other Expressions of that Nature, they have stopped at the Letter, without diving into the hidden and spiritual Sense. But they ought to consider, that in the Old Testament there are many figurative Expressions, which have a clear different sense from that which the Terms do properly and naturally signify. As for Example, in Ezek. c. 17. 3. the King of Babylon is described by an Eagle, his Power by the Wings of that Bird, and his Armies by the Talons. Jerusalem is there called Lebanon, the Cedars are the Inhabitants. Nor do the Christians only thus expound this Text, but the Jews themselves. In the Prophet Zechariah, c. 11. 1. Jerusalem is also understood under the name of Lebanon, the King of Babylon under that of Fire, the Cedars are the Nobles and great Men, the Pines are those of a middle condition; there are an infinite number of such like Expressions. But to use an Example which hath a nearer resemblance to the subject we are upon; God addressing himself to the Nation of the Jews, speaks to it, as to a Woman, and uses the same Terms that Solomon doth. Read but Ezek. 16. and you'll find there Breasts, Thighs, Hands, Nostrils, Ears. He speaks also there of Beauty, Love, Embraces, which things nevertheless ought not to be understood according to the Letter. There are like places in Jeremiah, Isaiah, and in all the other Prophets. We do nothing extraordinary then when we understand the Song of Songs spiritually; and so much the rather, because the Apostles have expounded who is the Bridegroom and the Spouse spoken of in this Book. Jesus Christ himself is called the Bridegroom, the Spouse is his Church, her Companions are the Souls which are not yet perfect enough to be Spouses of Jesus Christ; they that converse with the Bridegroom are either the Prophets or Apostles, or rather the Angels. Lastly, Theodoret observes, That the 3 Books of Solomon are as so many Degrees of ascent to Perfection; That the Proverbs teach Morality, Ecclesiastes the vanity of worldly Things, and the Canticles the Mystical Union of Christ and his Church, and that's the reason that this Book is put in the last place. He believes, That Solomon hath learned a part of what he says from the Books of his Father, who hath given an Idea of it in Psalm 44. He will not that this Book be put into the hands of young and weak People; and he says, That none ought to be allowed to read it, but such as have a good Wit, and can comprehend the spiritual and hidden sense. Lastly, he admonishes us, That he hath taken many things out of the Works of the Fathers, which have written before him, yet does not account himself a Thief, for that because it is a Privilege allowed to those that succeed them, to make use of what they have said. He tells us, That he added many things; That he abridged what was too long, and enlarged what seemed too short in others. He makes a Conclusion with a Petition to those who enjoy his Labours without any Toil, that they would pray for him in recompense; and if they find not his Commentary very exact, he requests them to accept, at least, his Labour in good part, and amend what they find wanting in it. This Preface alone gives sufficient Evidence that this Work is Theodoret's. It is divided into Four Books. He explains the Text with respect to the Sense, as he had observed in the Preface.  
Theodoret hath also made Commentaries upon all the Prophets, as he declares it in his 82. Letter to Eusebius, Bishop of Ancyra. We want none of them but that upon Isaiah, of which we have some Fragments taken out of the Catena's, collected by F. Sirmondus: But although much Credit is not to be given to Writings of that Sort, I see no cause to fear but what he hath taken from them is Theodoret's. As to the Commentaries upon Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets, they are all entire in Greek and Latin, in the Second Volume of Theodoret's Works. The Commentary upon Daniel was composed first in 426. The Comment on Ezekiel was next. The Explication of the Twelve Minor Prophets followed this. This was no sooner ended but he undertook to explain Isaiah: And after he had finished that, he wrote upon Jeremiah, and concluded all his Works upon the Prophets, with the Explication of the Lamentations, as he himself tells us at the End of his Commentary upon that Holy Book. In this Commentary he keeps to his ordinary Method, explaining in a few Words, very clearly and intelligibly, the Literal and Historical Sense of the Holy Text, without departing from it through Allegories or Moral Digressions. The Translation of the Comment upon Jeremiah, was made by Picus, Precedent of the Inquests: Upon Ezekiel and Daniel, by Gabius: And upon the Twelve Minor Prophets, by one named Aegidius of Albiga, [or Albigensis.]  
The Commentary upon all the Epistles of S. Paul, excels all the Commentaries of Theodoret for their Solidity and Elegancy: He therein explains the Text of that Apostle in a very plain and natural way: He composed it after the Council of Ephesus. Theodorus of Mopsuesta and S. J. Chrysostom having already made excellent Commentaries upon those Epistles, it might seem inconsiderately done to undertake to make a new one: This Theodoret himself excuses in his Preface; and after he hath, according to his usual Custom, invoked the Assistance of God's Holy Spirit, he owns, That he hath done nothing, almost, but abridged the Commentaries of others. He next observes the Order, in which, he believes, that the Epistles of S. Paul were composed; for he doth not think that they are ranked according to the Order they were written. This Commentary is literal. He follows exactly the Explications of S. Chrysostom, which he does no more, often, than abridge, by cutting off the Moral Observations. This Commentary is the First Work of the Third Tome. It hath been translated by Gentianus Harvet.  
The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, which is divided into Five Books, is a kind of Supplement to Socrates and Sozomen, as being written after theirs 
a After theirs.] Cassiodorus, Theodorus Lector and Photius, name Theodoret last of these Three Ecclesiastical Authors. Theodoret corrects some of their Errors; he clears the History of S. Athanasius, and relates a great many things which concern the ●astern Church, which the other Two Authors had not reported; particularly what concerns Meletius, Fl●vi●n, Eusebi●● of Samosata, and other Oriental Bishops. This seems to be the meaning of that which he hath written in the beginning, That his Design is to write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the remaining part of Ecclesiastical History, although it may be understood of the Continuation of Eusebius. , about the Year 450 
b About the Year 450.] Theodoret, in his 82d. Letter to Eusebius, written in the Year 445. making a Catalogue of his Works, doth not mention his History. It is manifest that he wrote it after the Council of Ephesus, since he speaks, l. 5. c. 36. of the Translation of the Relics of S. Ch●ysostom, made in 438. He speaks of the Contests which were raised in the Church about the Incarnation, and seems to take notice of the Doctrines of Eu●yches, l. 5. c. 3. He wrote it before the Death of Theodosius, which happened on July 29. 450. because he speaks of that Emperor, as then reigning, l. 5. c. 36. In the same Book, c. 35. he counts Thirty Years from the Martyrdom of Abdas, which is put in 420. . He hath not brought it down to that Time It gins where Eusebius ends, i. e. at the Rise of the Arian Heresy, in 322 or 323, and ends in 428 
c Ends in 428.] Gennadius saith, that he continued it to the Time of the Emperor Leo, and that he had done it in Ten Books; This would make us believe that we have lost the Five last; but there is no likelihood that he hath composed more than Five. He declares in the End of his Fifth Book, That he hath ended his History there. Ev●grius saith, in the beginning of his, That the History of Theodoret ends at the Empire of Theodosius the Younger, at the Time of the Death of Theodorus, and just when Sisinnius was made Bishop. Photius says the same thing. Lastly, No Man ever saw these five last Books. It is true, that Theodorus, in his Collections, 〈◊〉. 2. citys Theodoret in the Business of Petrus Mongus and Calendion. S. John Damascene, in his Third Book of Images, citys some Places of the History of Theodoret which are not to be found there; but they are mistaken, for by their account Theodoret must have lived till he was an hundred Years old. Their Words have given occasion to some to conjecture, That there was another Theodoret, the Author of an History, younger; and F. Garner pret●nds that it was a Bishop of Alindes in Cari●, who assisted at the Council of Constantinople under Men●as: But this seems to me very doubtful; we had better say, that these two Authors, who in other Matters are not exact, are mistaken in this. , before the beginning of the Heresy of Nestorius. Photius thinks the Style of Theodoret's History much more agreeable to his Matter than So●omen and Socrates': For it is, saith he, clear and sublime, and hath nothing Superstuous▪ But he useth too bold Metaphors, which are sometimes altogether extravagant. He hath had no great Care to observe the Years in which those Things happened which he relates, but he hath taken pains to collect and copy out, in his History, Original Pieces, as the Letters of the Synods, Emperors and Bishops, and hath made mention of some remarkable Circumstances which Socrates and Sozomen have not spoken of. He gives us a more exact History of the Arians than they do. He describes many Particulars, which those two Historians have taken no notice of, and he discovers many things concerning the Churches and Bishops of Anticch which had remained in Oblivion, if he had not preserved the Memory of them. He hath committed some Faults 
d Some Faults.] Here are some Examples of them: He places the Death of Ari●s among the Circumstances of the Council of Nice, l. 1. c. 14. He makes Eusebius of Nicomedia successor to Alexander in the See of A●ti●c●, ibid. c. 16. He relates the Election of Eusebius of C●sare●, to fill the See of Antioch, after the Death of E●l●lius, c. 21. He makes S. At●anasius's Exile to continue Five Months longer than it did, l. 2. c. 1. He fixes the Ordination of S. Ambrose in the beginning of Valentinian, altho' it did not happen till 370. l. 4. c. 5. He commits a like Fault almost in relating the Sedition of Anti●●h, after the Murder of Thessalo●ica. He mistakes in the Number of the Bishops of the Council of Sardica. He counts 250. l. 2. c. 7. when they were no more than 170. He confounds the Siege which the Persians laid before Nisibis in 350▪ with that which they laid there in 359, l. 5. c. 3. He says, That Paulinus refused the Agreement which Meletius offered him, as it appears by the Letters of the Bishops of Italy, l. 4. c. 30. He is also mistaken ch. 8. ibid. where he hath written, That Maximus was Ordained Bishop of Constantinople by Timo●heus, whenas it was his Successor Peter that ordained him. ; but Baronius being prejudiced against him, reproves some Places of Theodoret's History, where that Father hath not at all departed from the Truth 
e Baronius being prejudiced, etc.] Theodoret puts the Deposition of Eust●thi●s Bishop of Antioch in 330. Baronius reproves him, but he is mistaken, for Eusebius confirms the Opinion of Theodoret. Baronius accuses him further, for being too Favourable to Meletius and Flavian, but 'tis rather the Cardinal, who was too much incensed against them. . Yet this is much more tolerable than to accuse him, as a Modern Author does, That he hath composed his History for no other end but to abuse the Orthodox, and to make a Comparison between Nestorius and S. Athanasius, and S. Chrysostom, and between S. Cyril, and Eusebius of Nicodemia and Theophilus. There appears no such thing in Theodoret's History, but, on the contrary, he shows a great Aversion to all Heresies, a great Zeal for Religion, a great Love for the Church, and a great Respect for all the Holy Bishops, who have defended the Faith, and a great Esteem for all Men who lived well. This History hath been printed in Greek at Basil, 1536 
* [1535. Dr. Cave.] . Eight Years after Rob. Stevens printed it at Paris [with the other Ecclesiastical Historians, in Greek]. F. Sirmondus hath put it in the Second Volume of his Edition of Theodoret's Works. And lastly, M. Valesius caused it to be printed, after he had corrected and compared it with the Manuscripts, according to his usual Exactness. There are Five different Translations into Latin. 1. By Epiphanius Scholasticus, which Cassiodorus makes use of in his Tripartite History. 2. By Camerarius, printed in 1537. 3. By Christophorson. 4. By F. Sirmondus. The Last by M. Valesius, which is the best and most exact. M. Precedent Causinus hath turned the History of Theodoret out of the Greek into French, setting a learned Preface before it; in which he defends his Memory against those that have attacked it. This Moderation is much more commendable than the Passion of another Author, who seems to have diligently read Theodoret only to disparage him, to represent his most innocent Actions ill, and to interpret what he hath spoken orthodoxly in a bad Sense.  
The History, entitled Philotheus, or 
* [Historia Religi●sa, Dr. Cave.]  the Monastic Life, contains the Life and Praises of Thirty famous Eastern Monks, whom Theodoret had seen, or whose Actions and Virtue he had learned of those that had seen them. He composed it about the Year 440. The famous James of Nisibis is the first, who lived a great part of his Life in the Mountains, having no Retreat in the Winter but Caves and Dens, nor any other Shelter in Summer but the Woods. He fed upon nothing but Herbs, or the Fruits of wild Trees, nor had other Clothing than the Skins of Beasts. After he had passed some Years in that Solitude, he was obliged to leave it, against his Will, to take care of the Church of Nisibis, of which he had been chosen Bishop; but this Change made no alteration in his Way of Living, nor caused him to lay aside his Austerities. He did a great number of Miracles, but that which is remarkable in them, that Theodoret relates, is this▪ That they have all a good End, either to punish Sin, or to convince of the Truth. He punished the Impudence of certain Virgins, who discovered themselves before him, in making the Fountain dry where they washed their Linen, and by making their Hair white. He made the Injustice of a Judge's Sentence manifest, and caused him to revoke it. Certain Beggars bringing one of their Companions, who pretended himself dead, that they might gain some Alms upon the account of Burying him, and addressing themselves to S. James of Nisibis, he bestowed an Alms on them, and betook himself to his Prayers for that pretended dead Man. But God so permitted it, that he died indeed, insomuch that after this Holy Man was gone from them his Companions were astonished to see that he answered them no more: Immediately they returned to him again, by whose Prayers their Cheat had been so severely punished, and confessed their Fault to him. He pardoned them, and restored the Dead Man to Life by his Prayers. Theodoret also attributes the sudden Death of Arius the Heretic to his Prayers. But he is mistaken in speaking that of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, which agreed only to Alexander Bishop of Constantinople. The last Miracle that Theodoret relates is of the wonderful Preservation of the City Nisibis, which was near being taken by Sapores King of Persia.  
The Second Monk, of which he speaks in that History, is Julianus Sabas, a Monk of Osreene, who lived a long Time in a Den, eating nothing but a little course Bread, made of Millet, and that but once a Week. All his Delight was to sing Psalms. Many Persons resorted to him in the Desert, and submitted themselves to his Discipline; insomuch that in a little Time he had a great many Religious Persons under his Conduct; who all remained in that Cave, and had no other Room but a little Pantry to keep the Herbs in, which they eat. He sent them every Morning Two by Two into the Desert, and commanded them to rehearse by Turns Fifteen Psalms of David. He that rehearsed them stood up, the other heard them upon his Knees. In the Evening they all returned again to the Cave; and after they had rested themselves a little, they again sang Praises to God. Theodoret relates many Miracles of Julianus, and insists particularly upon the Voyage he made to Antioch, under the Emperor Valens, at the request of Acacius Bishop of Beraea, to confirm the Orthodox of Antioch against the Arians.  
Marcian descended of a Noble Family of the City of Cyrus, retired into the Desert. He did eat every Day, about Evening, a quarter of a Pound of Bread, accounting it more convenient to eat every Day, without ever fully satisfying his Hunger, than to fast many Days, and afterward eat his Fill. He had for his Scholars Eusebius and Agapetus. The first had the Government of many Religious Persons, who withdrew themselves into the same Solitude, where he was. The latter went to Apamaea, and there made also many Monks. It appears by the Histories which Theodoret relates of Marcian, That he had an holy Mind. He did what he could to conceal the Miracles he wrought, and did less than he could have done. When these Five Bishops, viz. Flavian of Antioch, Acacius of Beraea, Eusebius of Chalcis, Isidorus of Cyrus, and Theodorus of Hierapolis came to visit him, he remained a long time silent, and when they were urgent with him to talk with them, he said, God himself speaks to us every Day, both by his Creatures and by the Holy Scriptures; he admonishes us what we ought to do, he threatens and exhorts us, but we do not profit thereby; how then can the Discourses of Marcian be of any Advantage? He would not ever endure that these Bishops should ordain him. Another Monk, named Avitus, being come to see him, after he had entertained him a long Time, he caused Supper to be got ready, after the 
* [3 a Clock in the Afternoon.]  Ninth Hour, and invited the Solitary to eat with him. This Hermit told him, that it was his Custom not to eat till the Sun was down; and that he sometime stayed Two or Three Days without eating. Marcian desired him, for once, to wave that Custom, for his sake, because being of a weak Body, he was not able to stay till the Sun was down. This Request prevailing nothing with Avitus, he sat him down to Supper, saying, That he was very sorry that Avitus had taken so much Pains to visit a Person so intemperate. Avitus having answered him, That he would rather eat of his Meat than suffer him to speak in that manner. He says unto him, We have no Custom more than you to eat before the Sun is down, but we are sensible that Charity ought to be preferred before Fasting, for that is commanded, but Fasting is left to our own Liberty. Now we ought to prefer the Law of God before any private Institutions. He engaged another Monk called Abraham, to follow the Discipline decreed by the Council of Nice, concerning the Celebration of Easter. He hated all Heretics, but most of all the Apollinarists, Sabellians and Euchaitae. Having understood that many Persons had built Oratories to inter their Bodies therein, after their Death, he engaged his Scholar Eusebius, by an Oath, to bury him in a Place, where no Body knew for a long Time where he was. Eusebius executed his Order faithfully, and no Body knew where the Body of this Holy Monk was, till after all the other Oratories were consecrated by the Relics of the Martyrs.  
In the Fourth Chapter Theodoret describes the Virtues of Eusebius, and his Colleague Marcian, and of their Scholars, who had dwelled near Antioch.  
In the Fifth he describes the Life of Publius, a Native of the City Zeugma, the Head of many Monks, which he caused to take up their Abode in the same Monastery. As his Society was made up of Greeks and Syrians, he made the Divine Service to be sung in Greek and Syriack. Theodoret also speaks in this Chapter of Theotimus and Aphthonius, the Successors of Publius.  
The History of Old Simeon is full of extraordinary Events. He conducted the Jews by the Lions; he put out a Fire sent from Heaven, which had taken a Village. He undertook a Voyage from Mount Sinai; by the way he found a Man in a Cave, who had dwelled there a long Time, and was fed by a Lion, which brought him Dates: Simeon continued a whole Week in Prayer upon Mount Sinai, without taking any Food, after which he heard a Voice which bade him eat, and he found Three Apples, which he did eat. Being returned he built Monasteries. Palladius, the Friend of Simeon, made a dead Man tell him who slew him.  
Aphra●tes the Persian, professed a Monastic Life, but spent great part of his Life at Antioch, in opposing the Arians. It seems very strange that he performed a Miracle, to cu●● the Emperor's Horse, by giving him Water to drink, on which he had made the Sign of the Cross, and rubbing his Belly with consecrated Oil.  
Petrus, a Native of Galatia, lived Fourscore and nineteen Years, and passed Ninety two of them in the Exercises of a Monastic Life: His first Years he spent in his own Country, and came into Palestine to worship Jesus Christ, in the very Place where he died for us. From thence he went to Antioch, where he shut himself up in a Tomb, drinking nothing but Water, and eating Bread only, and that but once in Two Days. He freed many that were possessed with Devils, and healed many diseased; among others, the Mother of Theodoret, who was troubled with a Distemper in her Eyes, after he had advised her no more to adorn or paint herself. He cured her also of a dangerous Sickness, which she had after Childbearing.  
Theodosius, a Monk of Cilicia, was forced, by the Excursions of the Barbarians, to retreat to Antioch. The most remarkable Things in his Life are his continual Labours and Mortifications. He was interred in the Tomb of Aphra●tes, and had for his Disciple Helladius, who after he had passed Sixty Years in the Exercises of a Monastic Life, was Ordained Bishop of Tarsus.  
Romanus imitated the Life of Theodosius. He abode near Antioch, lived upon nothing but Bread and Water, loaded himself with Chains, lying on the bare Ground. He was a very pious Man, and did many Miracles.  
Zeno, an Officer of the Emperor Valens, forsook the Court, to pass his Life in a Tomb near Antioch, without Fire, without a Bed, without Household Goods. He came on Festivals and Sundays to the Church, and there heard the Instructions of the Bishops, and approached the Holy Table. He disposed one part of his Estate to the Poor, while he was alive, and left the rest to Alexander his Bishop, to be distributed as he pleased.  
Macedonius the Monk lived Forty Years in Solitude, near Antioch, eating nothing but Barley-bread. Towards the end of his Life he began to eat ordinary Bread, fearing to render an account to God concerning his Death, if he did not do whatsoever was necessary for the Preservation of Life. Flavian having caused him to come to Antioch, upon pretence of an Accusation, ordained him Priest without his Knowledge. When the Mass was over, some Body telling him of it, he was very angry with all that assisted, but chief with Flavian, so that they had much-a-do to pacify him: And, on the next Lord's Day, when they invited him to come to the Feast, he replied to those that came to entreat him, Would you make me a Priest the second Time: They had a great deal of Trouble to persuade him that it could not be done again, and it was a long Time before he would come to Antioch. For all this Simplicity he was not wanting, in his Endeavours, to prevent the Execution of those Orders, which the Emperor had given against the People of Antioch, being provoked that they had beaten down his Statue. That which he says thereupon to the Captain, who was to execute the Orders, is very Divine. We can easily enough, said he, raise those brazen Statues again which we have beaten down, but 'tis not in the Emperor's Power to raise the Dead: Can it then be reasonable for him to destroy the Images of the Living God for Statues of Brass and Copper? Theodoret afterwards relates many Miracles of this Monk.  
Theodoret passes over in silence a great number of other Monks at Antioch, that he may speak of those of his own Country, Cyrus. The First is Maisymas, whom he makes Governor of a small Borough. He never changed his Habit, contenting himself to stitch the Pieces on to it again, as it was torn. It is said, That he had Two Vessels, one of Corn, the other of Oil, which were never empty, although he was always giving out of them to the Poor.  
Acepsimas was an Hermit of the same Province, who passed Sixty Years in one Cell, without seeing or speaking to any Man. They carried him Lentils and Water, which he took through a Hole, made slooping that no Man might see him. He used sometimes in the Night to go out to seek Water; one Day he was met by a Shepherd, who believing him to be a Wolf, fling Stones at him, but his Hand and the Boughs kept them off from him. Another Time a certain Person had the Curiosity to get upon a Tree, that he might see what this Hermit did in his Cell, but he became suddenly lame in half his Body, and could not be recovered till the Tree was cut down by his means. Acepsimas having foreseen his own Death, opened his Cell Fifty Days before his Death, and suffered himself to be seen of all that would visit him. His Bishop being come to him, ordained him Priest, by imposing his Hands upon him in his Cell. He suffered him, because he had but a few Days to live. There was also in the same Country an Hermit, eminent for Virtue, called Maro, who did a great many Miracles, and was the Author of the Monastic Life, in the Country of Cyrus. But he was not more admirable than Holy Abraham, who converted a Village, and was afterwards ordained Bishop of Carrae, without lessening at all the Austerities or Practices of the Monastic Life. His Reputation for Holiness was so great, that the Emperor sent for him to Constantinople. He propounds also Examples of singular Virtue, in Three Hermit's of the same Region, Eusebius, Salamanus and Maris. This last having been a long Time absent from the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries, desired Theodoret to celebrate them; he did so, and causing the Holy Vessels to be brought, he ●●ffered the Holy Sacrifice by the Hands of the ●…ons, who ministered to him at the Altar.  
All those whom Theodoret hath spoken of hitherto, were dead when he wrote; these Ten which follow were yet alive, He enlarges upon the Life of a certain Monk called James, who was one of his Friends. He recounts many Apparitions which the Devil made use of 〈◊〉 trouble him. There is in that Place a very remarkable thing concerning Relics: Theodores had received, with a great deal of respect, some Relics, which were said to be S. john Baptist's, the Apostles and Prophets. This Hermit doubting whether those which were reported to be S. John Baptist's, were not some Martyrs of that Name, would not receive them with the other: He was thereupon reproved, in a Vision, and saw S. John Baptists, who assured him that they were his; and the desired Theodoret to bring them to him.  
I pass over some other Monks, of whom Theodoret speaks in the following Chapters to come to the famous S. Simeon Stylites, whose Life Theodoret hath written with a great deal of exactness. He was of Cilicia, and had kept Sheep in his Youth; but being at Church one Day, and there having heard the Gospel, where it is said, Blessed are they that mourn, he withdrew himself into the Monastery of Eusebius Am●nianits, but because he used such wondered Austerity, which the other Religious Men could not undergo, they expelled him. He retired into a Cistern, from whence they fetched him, repenting that they had driven him out so: But he did not continue with them long, but he went to a Village called Telmessus, where he shut himself up in a little House. He was desirous to pass the Lent without Eating or Drinking; and having proposed it to Bassus, who was preferred to the Office of visiting many other Churches, he gave him Advice not to undertake a thing which might be the Cause of his Death: Notwithstanding, he shut himself up, with Ten Loaves and a Pitcher of Water, and passed Forty Days without touching them; and when Bassus being returned at the End of the Time, came to him, he found all the Loaves whole and the Pitcher full, and Simeon lying on the Ground, senseless: After he had moistened and washed his Mouth with a Sponge, he gave him the Sacrament, by which being strengthened, he raised himself up, and came to eating again by little and little, yet from that Time he passed all other Lents without eating. He remained Three Years in his Cell, and then removed from thence to the Top of a Mountain, where he tied himself with a Chain of Thirty Cubits long: But Meletius, or rather some other Bishop of Antioch (for Theodoret must needs be mistaken, Meletius being dead a long Time before) telling him, that he need not to cumber himself with the Chain, he broke it, yet did not go from the Place to which he had confined himself. His Fame having drawn an infinite number of People of all Nations to come to see him, and to be very earnestly desirous to touch him, he thought upon this Device; that he might avoid the Multitude, to get up upon a Pillar; instantly he was upon one of Ten Cubits, afterwards he raised it to Twelve, then to Twenty two, and presently after, says Theodoret, he is on a Pillar of Thirty six Cubits high Theodoret approves of such a Life, which appeared extraordinary, and which some disallowed, although an infinite Number of Men highly reverenced him, and came in Multitudes to receive his Blessing. He gave them Instructions, composed the Differences that were among them, foretold what should befall them, and often wrought Miracles. He ordinarily continued his Prayers till the Ninth Hour, and did not admit any to Audience who came to see him, till after that Hour. Lastly, he took care of the Affairs of the Church, opposed the Jews and Heretics, wrote to Emperors, Governors and Bishops, to admonish them of their Duty.  
If this manner of Living, by remaining in the Posture of standing upon a Mountain for so many Years, seem incredible, that of Two other Hermit's, who shut themselves up in Places, where they were forced to continue always stooping, and bowed down, is not less admirable. This Posture, in my Judgement, is more inconvenient than that of Stylites. The Two Monks which used this Posture were Baradatus and Thalalaeus. Theodoret writes their Lives in the Twenty seventh and Twenty eighth Chapters. He makes an end with proposing the Examples of certain Women, who had embraced a Monastic Life. Marana and Cyra dwelled in a Cell near Beraea, if we may call that Place a Cell, which was enclosed with Four Walls, without any Covering, where they passed their Life in the Injury of the Wether. They wore long Garments, which covered all their Bodies, and were loaden with Chains. Domnina made her a little House in a Garden; she was covered with Haircloth, went every Day to Church, and eat nothing but Lentils. Theodoret saith, That in his Time there were a great number of Virgins consecrated to God, not only in the East but in Egypt, Palestine, Asia, Pontus and Europe, who either lived in common or by themselves, practising the Exercises of a Monastic Life. That in Egypt there were Monasteries, which had Five thousand Monks in them. He concludes his Book with a Request to those, whose Lives he hath written, not to contemn him, though he comes short of their Virtue, that he might have also a share in their Glory. A Modern Author accuses this Opinion of Rashness, Impatience and Arrogance, but I do not believe that he can find many Persons that have so little Equity, as he hath showed himself to have, in judging after this manner.  
This History ●…ins m●●y Things very remarkable concerning the Discipline of that Time. By it we may see, That there was a great deal of Honour given to the Saints; That they w●●e invoked; That Men expected help by their Prayers; That their Relics were sought after with great e●…ss; That they believed very easily in them; That they attributed a great deal of V●…e to them; That they did many Miracles, and were very credulous; That th●y were 〈◊〉 pe●…ed that the Saints enjoyed Eternal Happiness imme●tely after their Dea●●; T●…r they were with Jesus Christ and his Angels; That they prayed for the Dead; That they vi●… the Ho●y P●●ces, as M●… Si●●i, and the Ho●y Land. As to the Monks and Hermits, it appears that they practised excessive Austerities: It was most ●…ry with them not to eat, but a very 〈◊〉 Bread, to drink nothing but Water, to fast all their Lives, and that sometimes many Days together, to be exposed to all the Injuries of the Air, to load themselves with Chains, to make long and tedious Journeys, to put themselves into unnatural and inconvenient Po●●ures, 〈◊〉 ●●e on the bare Ground, to be clothed with course and unseemly Garments, to wear Hair Clothe, to have neither Bed nor Table, nor any other Householdstuff, to pray continually, to ●ortify all the Senses, to abstain from all Pleasures, to keep Silence, to shut themselves up in a narrow Place, to stand or bow down always, etc. But among these Austerities, there is nothing spoken of Whipping; it seems this was not used, unless for the Punishment of Monks, who had offended. There were few of the Monks that were in Holy Orders. They had a great Antipathy against that Dignity, insomuch that some Bishops conferred it on them against their Consent: Nevertheless, many were brought out of their Privacy and their Monasteries, to be raised to the Episcopal Seat: Usually when they were Bishops, they kept the same way of Living. Some Monks were a longtime without hea●ing the Mass, preferring a continual Retreat, before the Presence at the Holy Sacrifice; others came every Sunday to Church. This History of Theodoret is written in a swelling Style, rather in the Form of a Dialogue than an History. He often compares the Anchorites with the Patriarches and Prophets.  
Although the Epistles of Theodoret be placed at the End of the Third Volume, after his Treatise called Philotheus, yet we shall speak to them, when we have treated of the Works, which make up the Fourth Volume. The First is a Work which he hath named 
* [This Book was printed by itself in Greek, at Rome, in 1547. In Greek and Latin, with Beumler's Note, at Zurich in 1593. In Greek at Leips. in 1568.]  Eranistes or Polymorphus, because he intends to write against certain Persons, whose Error was deduced from the Principles of many Sects of Heretics, wholly different from each other. Although the Heresy of Eutyches was not yet broken out, when he composed this Work, for it was made before the Year 448 
a Before the Year 448.] Theodoret speaks of this Treatise, in his Sixteenth Letter to Irenaeus, and Eighty third to Dioscorus. The First was written in 448. and the Second in 449. before Dioscorus was condemned; it was then precedent to these two Letters, but yet was made after the Death of S. Cyril, whom he there citys among the Fathers, whose Authorities he produces, and in the Time when the Quarrel, which broke out upon the Account of Eutyches, began to be form. , yet he there assaults the Opinions which that Monk maintained, and which were common in Egypt and many Monasteries. He holds, That they come near the Impiety of Simon Magus, Cerdo and Martion, in attributing to Jesus Christ the Divine Essence only: That they departed not far from the Principles of Valentinus and Bardesanes, in asserting, That the Divine Essence did only pass through the Virgin, without taking any thing of her Nature. And lastly, That they said with Apollinarius, That there was but one Nature in Jesus Christ. These are the Doctrines which he attacks in the Three Dialogues, which make this Treatise. He shows, in the First, That the Divinity of the Word hath not been changed. In the Second, That the Union of the Divine with the Humane Nature is made without any Confusion of the Two Natures. In the last, That the Divinity of the Son remained impassable. This is that which hath made him give to each of these Dialogues a a Title agreeable to its Subject. The First is named Immutable, the Second without Confusion, the Third Impossible. He ends with a Fourth Part, wherein he propounds many Arguments against the Three Errors which he opposes.  
In the First Dialogue, after he hath distinguished between Substance and Hypostasis, and shown, that Hypostasis in the Usage of the Church denotes a Person; he examines in what Sense the Word was made Flesh, and makes it appear, that it cannot reasonably be said, That the Divinity hath been changed into the Nature of Flesh. He overthrows this Error by Texts of Holy Scripture, out of which he makes very subtle Arguments, and by express Testimonies of Holy Fathers of the Church, from S. Ignatius to S. Chrysostom. He adjoins also some Passages of Apollinarius, which the Force of the Truth had w●…g from him, in explaining this Text of the Gospel, the Word was made Flesh, after an Orthodox manner.  
In the Second he makes use of the same Arguments, to prove that the Two Natures which are united in Jesus Christ remain distinst without Confusion or Mixture. He produces several Examples, to explain after what manner the Two Natures are united, without being mingled and Confused; and a great number of Testimonies of Holy Scripture, which prove that the Qualities and Proprieties of the Humane Nature are preserved entire in Jesus Christ, even after the Resurrection. He afterward produces the Tradition of the Greek and Latin Fathers, among whom he quotes Theophilus and S. Cyril.  
In fine, he shows in the last Dialogue, that it can't be said, That the Word hath suffered, although we add, likewise in the Flesh 〈◊〉 because although it be true, That Jesus Christ hath suffered according to the Humane Nature, yet those Sufferings may not be attributed to the Divinity. He maintains, That the Scripture never attributes the Sufferings to the Word of God, but only to the Person of Jesus Christ. He joins also the Tradition of the Fathers to his Authorities and Arguments.  
The last part of this Work is a Collection of very strong Arguments, which he uses utterly to beat down the 3 Errors which he hath resisted in the Dialogues.  
The Style of this Work is clear and plain. Theodoret explains in it many obscure Difficulties in a very intelligible and grateful way. He propounds his Arguments in a good Order, and conceals not the Exceptions or Reasons of his Adversary, but forces him out of his last hold, and at length brings him over to the Truth, after such a manner as that he seems compelled to it by the Proofs which he hath urged against him. He nevertheless sometimes uses Texts of Scripture improperly, and draws from them far-fetched Consequences; brings Comparisons not always just, Proofs not over solid, and Reasonings not very convincing. The Tradition of the Fathers which he alleges against the 3 Errors he opposes, are of very great force. The Passages he relates are decisive, and very well chosen.  
The Doctrine which he confirms, is as Orthodox, as that which he opposes is contrary to the Faith of the Church. And, in my Judgement, they do him a great deal of wrong, who pretend, that he designs to introduce Nestorianisin, and that he allows only a moral Union of the two Natures in Jesus Christ. On the contrary, there is hardly a Page in which he doth not acknowledge, That the Word was made Man; That Jesus Christ is both God and Man; That the two Natures are united in one only Person; That there is but one Christ, one Son. But, say they, Theodoret, in his last Dialogue, rejects such Expressions as are consequent upon the Hypostatick Union, for he is against the Phrases; God hath suffered, God is dead, God is risen; which are most true in the sense of the Orthodox. It is then truly said, That he opposes, at least indirectly, the Hypostatick Union. But if they consider well, Theodoret rejects not these Expressions but in the bad sense that they are capable of, and as they understand them of the Divine Nature itself. He opposes these Expressions in the Reduplicative sense, God hath suffered as God; and in the abstract Terms, The Divine Nature, the Divinity hath suffered. But he owns, That the Person, who hath suffered, was God, altho' he could not suffer as God, but as Man. Jesus Christ, saith he, is not a mere Man, he is both God and Man. We have often made Profession of it, but he hath suffered as Man, not as God. This is the Doctrine of Theodoret in his Dialogues. It is so true, that this Work was of Orthodox Principles, that the most zealous of his Party found fault, that he had cited Theophilus and S. Cyril, but had not mentioned Diodorus and Theodorus of Mopsuesta, so that theodoret was obliged to justify himself in this point, which he did in his 16th. Letter to Ire●…s; wherein he tells us, That he did it not because he was not willing to make use of any Witnesses suspected by his Adversaries. Also Theodoret alleges that Book in his Letter to Dioscorus, as a proof of the purity of his Faith, and of the respect that he bore to the Memory of Theophilus and S. Cyril. Had he been well advised to quote S. Cyril with so much Commendation, if he had opposed his Opinions as Heretical? In sum, there never were any but Eutychians, who have condemned this Work of Theodoret. 'Twas by their Craft, that Theodosius banished him by his Edict, in which he approves the Doctrines and Outrages, that Dioscorus and Eutyches had set on foot in the shame Council of Ephesus. But the Emperor Marcian revoked that Decree, and tho' afterwards they quarrelled with Theodoret upon the Account of the Writings which he composed against S. Cyril, yet we never saw him attacked for his Dialogues.  
The 5 Books of Heretical Fables 
* [These Books have been printed alone in ●reek at Rome in 1●●8. , are a no less Authentic Proof of the Learning, than Faith of Theodoret. He composed them sometime after the Council of Chalcedon at the desire of Sporatius an Officer of the Emperor, who was Consul in 452. He gives us in 5 Books, an Abstract of the Doctrines of the Heretics, to which he opposes in the last an Abridgement of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Church.  
The first Book contains an History of the Heresies, which have opposed the Divinity, by admitting many first Causes. All the Heretics believed, That the Son of God took the Humane Nature in appearance only. He gins with Simon and ends with the Manichees. In the 2d. he speaks of those who did truly acknowledge, That there was but one first Cause, but make Jesus Christ to pass for a mere Man. This Sect of Heretics gins with Ebion, and ends with Marcellus of Ancyra and Photinus. The 3d. Book contains the History of those Heretics, who had other Errors, such as the Nicolaitans, Montanists and Novatians. The 4th. Book describes the new Heresies of Arius, Eunomius, and ends with those of Nestorius and Eutyches. It is doubted, Whether the Chapter, which concerns Nestorius, where that Heretic is so much inveighed against, be really Theodoret's. F. Garner believes, That it is a forged Piece, and brings many plausible Conjectures to prove it. He saith, first, that if we compare what the Author of this Chapter says of Nestorius with what Theodoret hath written of him, we shall be convinced that it can't be his; for Theodoret hath always excused Nestorius, he hath always spoken honourably of him, he never condemns him but with regret. On the contrary, the Author of this Chapter declares himself against him, and treats him with all possible Severity. If you will believe him, Nestorius was an Instrument of the Devil, and the scourge of Egypt, he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divinity and Humanity of the only begotten Son of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was an Hypocrite, who studied nothing 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and get the Affections of the People by a show of Religion. He was 〈◊〉 sooner 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 Power in the Imperial City, but he changed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into a 〈◊〉 Government, and abusing his Power by an unbridled Liberty, he made known the Impiety of his Heart, and pronounced publicly horri● Blasphemies 〈◊〉 the Son of God, In a word, he was a Man who had blotted out of his Memory the 〈◊〉 of the Apostles and their Holy Successors.  
Secondly, the Author of this Chapter 〈◊〉 contrary to Theodoret, not only touching the Doctrine of Nestorius, but also about the 〈◊〉 of his Life. The Author of this Fragment says, That he knows not what was the 〈◊〉 of Nestorius. Theodoret knew well, that he had been the Scholar of Theod●●us. He saith further, That Nestorius had changed his Abode before he came to Antioch. Theodoret knew that he had lived in the Monastery of S. Euprepius, and likewise, That he had been baptised at 〈◊〉. He adds, That Nestorius had shown in the beginning of his Episcopacy, after what manner he ought to manage himself, and speaks of him as a contemptible Man, Theodoret, on the other side, speaks of him always as a very Learned and Holy Personage.  
Thirdly, Theodoret having promised, That all the Heresies of which he hath spoken in the former Books, should be confuted by him in the 5th, doth not count the Nestorians among those Heretics, who were in an Error concerning the Incarnation.  
Fourthly, this Chapter seems not to be 〈◊〉 Style. It is swelling, figurative, full of aggravations. The beginning seems to be nothing to the purpose, and disagreeable to the following part of the History.  
Fifthly, this Chapter is taken out of the Letter to Sporatius, which contains, besides this History, a long refutation of the Doctrines of Nestori●●. Now this Letter is an evident piece of Forgery, for, 1. 'Tis a Writing which hath no form of a Letter, as being without beginning or end. 2. Why should Theodoret write a Letter to Sporatius at that time, when he dedicated a Book of Heresies to him? 3. The Author of this piece directs his Speech to Nestorius, but uses the Phrases of S. Gregory Naz. ●4. 'Tis not Theodoret's Style. 5. 'Tis quoted by no ancient Author. 'Tis then a forged piece, from whence in all probability the whole History of Nestorius is taken, and put into the Book of Heretical Fables, where Theodoret has not spoken of that Heresy. Some Person seeing that he ended his Work with the Heresy of Eutyches, and that he had said nothing of Nestorius', thought he might take that place, which bore the Name of the same Author, to make a kind of Supplement to the Books of Heretical Fables.  
Lastly, if this Fragment and the Letter to Sporatius were Genuine, how comes it to pass, that it was 〈◊〉 alleged by those that defended his Memory at the time of the 5th. Council? Why did not Facundus and Liberius cite it? How is it, That S. Gregory being desirous to prove, in his Letter, that he wrote in the name of Pelagius II. to the Bishops of Istria, That Theodoret had been Orthodox in his Opinions ever since the Council of Chalcedon, hath brought no Arguments so Authentic as this would have been? These are the Conjectures which seem to be very strong; notwithstanding 'tis very hard to believe, That this Chapter should be added to the Text of Theodoret, and so much the rather, because Leontius, Photius, and the Abbot Theodorus acknowledged it to be Genuine, and these two last have produced it likewise to justify him. The Conjectures which are alleged against the truth of this Passage, are not sufficient wholly to determine it. The first were of some consequence, if that Work had been written before the Council of Chalcedon, but since it is certain, that it was written after Theodoret had solemnly cursed Nestorius, it might be well enough that he changed his disposition in relation to him. 'Tis certain, That as favourable as he had been to him, he disliked him, because he never would acknowledge the name of the Mother of God, which the Ancients had given the Virgin. Since he hath cited S. Cyril as one of the Fathers of the Church, altho' he had at other times condemned him, why might he not also blame Nestorius after he had heretofore commended him? The different disposition that he was in, made him speak differently. It was the Interest of Theodoret, after he had anathematised Nestorius, to describe him in that sort as he doth in his Treatise of Heresies, as it was before for his honour to excuse him as well as he could. As to the difference of Circumstances which is observed between that which is said of the Life of Nestorius in that place, and what Theodoret says, 'tis a thing that deserves no stay upon it, 'tis so easily solved. When he says here that he knows not what was his first Education, he speaks not of the time when he was under the Instruction of Theodore; but of his first Instructions that he received from his Parents. And altho' he knew, That he had abode in the Monastery of S. Euprepius, he could not know the Journeys he had made before he came thither to retire. As to that which he says of his Temper and Government, he never speaks elsewhere to the contrary. He hath spoken some things more honourably of him, in other places he excuses him; here he blames him and speaks of him as others, either because he had changed his Opinion in reference to him, or because he thought himself obliged to speak so that he might free himself from the suspicion, that some had against him, or to make it appear, that he did sincerely anathematise him.  
The third Conjecture is weaker than all the rest. Theodoret in his last Book doth not name all the Heresies, of which he had spoken in the former. He contents himself to lay down the Principles which are contrary to their Errors. Among those Principles, there are things as well against the Heresy of Nestorius as against the Errors of other Heretics. He speaks not against the Heresy of Eutyches in this last Book, altho' he hath ranked it among the Heresies in the first Book. The Style of this place is not so different from Theodoret's, as he imagines, but on the contrary it may be said, That it hath a great similitude and likeness to the other Chapters of that Work. The 5th. Objection shows us well enough, That it is incongruous to make a Letter to Sporatius into a Chapter of Theodoret's Treatise of Heresies, which was dedicated to Sporatius. But this doth not prove, That this Chapter is supposititious, nor that it hath been taken out of that forged Letter. But on the other side, 'tis probable, That 'tis through Mistake, that the name of a Letter is given to an Extract taken out of a Treatise of Theodoret to Sporatius, to which a Discourse taken out of some other Work of Theodoret's was joined. So that it may be said, That this Chapter of the Book of Heresies is genuine, and that it was this which gave an occasion to forge the Letter of Theodoret to Sporatius. A Conclusion drawn from a negative Argument is not very convincing. The Defenders of Theodoret have not cited all the places which might be alleged in his Justification, and we have not all that was then said for him. S. Gregory did not know all his Works. It is sufficient that we see, that at length this place has been cited by Authors worthy of Credit, as an undoubted Work of this Father.  
I will not undertake to relate in this place what Theodoret hath spoken in particular of every Heresy; for than I must transcribe all his Treatise. He hath related the Errors of the Heretics in a way very short, clear and easy. He hath gathered what he says touching the Ancient Heretics out of S. Justin, S. Irenaeus, S. Clemens of Alex. Origen, Eusebius of Palestine and Phoenicia, Adamantius, Rhodon, Titus, Diodorus and Georgius. These are the Authors which he citys in his Preface. He speaks nothing of Epiphanius, nor of the Latin Authors which have written an History of Heresies. He is more exact and judicious than they, yet he is not without some Faults. He hath not put the Pelagians nor Origenists in his List of Heretics. He observes at the end of his 3d. Book, that the greatest part of the ancient Heresies were of short continuance, that they had but few Followers, that they spread themselves but into few Provinces, and that there was scarce any Man that made Profession of them; whereas, all the World was full of Christians, who made Profession of the Orthodox Faith according to the Promise, which God had made to his Church.  
The last Book contains an Explication of the Faith of the Church opposite to the Errors of the Heretics, of which this is the sum. There is but one first cause of all things, viz. God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This God is eternal, simple and incorporeal, infinitely good and just, omniscient and almighty. The Son is begotten of the Father before all Worlds. He is not created, but equal to his Father and of the same Substance, eternal and almighty as well as he. The Holy Spirit received his Existence from the Father. He is neither created nor begotten, but he is God, and of the same nature with the Father and the Son. These three Persons are no more than one and the same God, who hath created Heaven and Earth, Matter itself, and all the Being's which are in the World. The Angels also are Creatures. But we must not think that they are of a carnal Nature like ours, nor subject to the same Passions. They are Immortal and Spiritual. God hath created Millions of them. Their Business is to sing the Praises of God; yet he believes that there are some who are charged with the care of Nations and particular Men. The Devils are not Sinners by Nature. God created them in a state wherein they might do good or evil. They fell voluntarily into Sin, through Pride, and God punished them for their Sin by casting them from their first Estate. Man is also the Work of God, who hath form him by his Almighty Hand; he is made up of a Body, and a Spiritual and Reasonable Soul, which is Immortal; God created it when the Body was form. All things are governed by Divine Providence; we are not ruled by Destiny. There are three sorts of things in the World, which are worthy of Consideration; real good things, which consist in Virtue, real Evils which consist in Vices, and things indifferent, which may be good or evil-according as we make use of them, as Riches and Poverty, Prosperity and Adversity, Health and Sickness. If we may believe Theodoret, the Goods and Evils of the first sort are in our Power; he holds, That it is in our Power to be Virtuous or Sinners; but as to all other things, God disposeth of them as he pleaseth, for Reasons to us unknown. The Word of God, his only Son, was made Man to restore our decayed Nature, and as the whole Man had sinned, he assumed our Nature entire. He did not take a Body to cover his Divinity, but a Soul and Body like to ours, nor did he put off that Nature at his Resurrection. He came to teach Men a more perfect Law than that of Moses, but yet not contrary to it in the least. Baptism came in place of the Jewish Washings. This Ordinance, which is of marvellous Virtue, was not established for the remission of Sins past only, but also to make us hope for the good things promised, by making us Partakers of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and rendering us the Children of God, Heirs of his Kingdom, and coheirs with Jesus Christ: For Baptism is not only a Razor (as I may say) to cut off Sins past: For if that were so, why should we baptise Children in their Infancy, says Theodoret here, who have nothing of Sin? (This is Pelagianism, if he doth not understand it of actual Sins.) This Sacrament of Baptism gives us the hopes of the Resurrection, which we expect. The Soul is not raised, that shall only be reunited to its Body, which shall be form anew. The Unbelievers shall be raised from the Dead, as well as Believers, the Sinner as well as the Just. All Men shall receive at the day of Judgement, either a Reward of their Ve●…, or a Punishment for their Sins. The Reward of the Saints shall have nothing temporal or pe●●shing in it. It consists in the enjoyment of Eternal Goods. Christ's millenary Reign is a Fable. This Eternal Life is free from Temptation and Sin, and full of ineffable Joy. Before all t●is, shall the coming of Jesus Christ in Glory be, which shall follow the coming of Antichrist.  
Theodoret after he hath spoken of that which concerns the Faith of the Creed, passeth to the Articles which relate to men's manners. The first is of Virginity. God hath not commanded it, but yet he gives it such Commendation as it deserves, that he may encourage Men to embrace it. Marriage is not forbidden, but the end of it ought to be for the Procreation of Children. Second Marriages are not prohibited neither, but Fornication and all other Uncleannesses are condemned by the Evangelical Law.  
Theodoret goes on next to Repentance, and after he hath observed, That the Scripture doth not only forbid Sin, but also affords a Remedy for the Cure of those, who have committed it, by exhorting to Repentance; he faith, That there is also a Medicine for Sins committed after Baptism, but that they cannot be cured as before, by Faith alone, we must make use of Tears, Weeping, Groans, Fast, Prayers, and a Satisfaction proportionable to the greatness of the Sin, that we have committed. And as to those, who are not so disposed, the Church doth not despair of them, but admits them to Communion. These, saith he, are the Laws of the Church about Repentance. Lastly, as concerning Abstinence, the Church doth not forbid the use of Wine and Flesh as some Heretics do, but leaves us at Liberty, that they that will may Abstain. She obliges no Man to embrace a Monastic Life, but that is entirely free. These are the Articles of Doctrine of the Church, which Theodoret opposes to the Errors of the Heretics, and which he proves by express Testimonies of Holy Scripture excellently well chosen.  
In speaking of Providence, he refers us to what he hath said in the ten Books which he hath written upon that Subject. He citys them also in his Commentary upon the 67th. Psalms, and speaks of them in his 133d. and 182d. Letters. This makes it evident, That although the Discourses of Providence are put after the Treatise of Heretical Fables, yet they were composed a long time before about the year 433. These are the Discourses or Sermons which he recited probably at Antioch. In the five first he proves a Providence by the admirable Position of the Heavenly Bodies, by the wonderful Order of the Elements, by the Contexture of the Parts of Man's Body, by the invention of Arts, and by the dominion of Man over the Beasts. In the 6th. 7th. and 8th. he answers some Objections which may be made against Providence, by showing, That Poverty, Bondage and other Misfortunes, to which Men and even the Just, are subject, have Profit in them. In the 9th. he shows, That the practice of Virtue is not unprofitable, altho' very often it is not recompensed in this World, because it shall be rewarded in another Life. In the last, after he hath observed, That God hath always loved, and taken care of all Men; he shows, That this Love appears plainly in the Incarnation of the Son of God, and all that Jesus Christ hath done for them. These Discourses are written with a great deal of Generosity and Eloquence. They have been published by Majoranus [at Rome] in 1545. and translated by Gualther [at Tigur.] in 1546. [Afterward at Paris, 1630. in Octavo, Dr. Cave.]  
There is not less Eloquence and much more Learning in the 12 Discourses concerning the 
* [De curandis affectionibus Graeco●um. Dr. Cave.]  Cure of the false Opinions of the Heathens, where he proves the truth of our Religion, and vinces the Heathens of Falsehood, by comparing them together. Theodoret undertook this Work to satisfy some Objections which had been made to him. He speaks of it in his Letter to Renatus, and in that which he wrote to S. Leo, and he puts them among those Books, which he had composed before the year 438. He therein speaks of the Law of the Emperor, in which he had commanded that the Temples should be demolished, pursuant to a Law of Theodosius promulgated in 426. So that this Work was framed in some of the following years. It is divided into 12 Discourses, of which Theodoret himself hath made an Abridgement. The first is of the Credulity of the Christians and Ignorance of the Apostles. Theodoret proves both of them are unjustly imputed to the Christians, as a proof of the Falsehood of their Religion; That the wisest Persons have not always been those who have had most Eloquence and Learning; That the Greeks have been taught that Wisdom by the Barbarians; That Plato had acknowledged, That the greatest Philosophers were not always those, who were most skilful in Arts and Sciences; That it was not true, that the Christians believed rashly and without proof; That the Heathen Philosophers required Faith, and that they themselves had yielded Faith to the Poets; That they had acknowledged, that Faith was necessary in order to Knowledge; yea, that there was no part of Knowledge but required some sort of Faith in order to it.  
In the second, after he hath examined the Opinions of the Heathen Philosophers concerning the beginning of the World, he makes it appear, that what Moses hath said of it, is much more rational than all that the Philosophers have imagined; and that Plato had taken all that he hath spoken so▪ well upon that subject, out of the Books of Moses.  
In the Third he compares that which the Greeks have written concerning their Petty-Gods, with what the Christians have said of Spiritual Creatures, Angels and Demons; and makes it clear, by that Comparison, that the Doctrine of Christians is as wise and rational as the Heathens is impious and ridiculous.  
In the Fourth he shows, That what the Christians believe of the Creation of the World, is far more reasonable than what Plato and the other Philosophers have taught of it.  
In the Fifth he speaks of the Nature of Man; and after he hath laid down what the Christians and Greeks think of it, he shows the Difference between Light and Darkness, Ignorance and Error.  
In the Sixth he discourses of Providence; for, saith he, it was just, after I had spoken of God and the Creatures, to say something of Providence, in Refutation of the Impiety of Diagoras, the Blasphemies of Epicurus, and the Fabulous Sentiments of Aristotle, by confirming the Doctrine of Plato and Plotinus upon that Subject, and by proving, from Reasons, drawn from Nature and the Frame of the World, that the Providence of God is manifested in all Creatures.  
In the Seventh Discourse he condemns the Sacrifices of the Heathen, and makes use of the Testimonies of the Prophets, to prove that the Ceremonies of the old Law were intended for Persons unperfect only.  
In the Eighth he undertakes to defend the Honour which the Christians give the Martyrs, showing, by the Testimonies of the Philosophers, Poets and Historians, that the Greeks have honoured the Memory of Eminent Men, by offering Sacrifices to them after their Death, and by bestowing on them the Qualities of Gods, Demigods and Heroes, although the greatest part of them had been Infamous and Criminals: And this he does to give a clearer Demonstration that the Christians did honour their Martyrs far more deservedly. He makes a Comparison between the Heathen Lawgivers and the Apostles, which is the Subject of the Ninth Discourse.  
In the Tenth he compares the Predictions of the Greeks with the Prophecies of the Jews, and by that Comparison demonstrates, that the one promoted Falsehood and Absurdities, whereas the other had foretold nothing but what is true and reasonable.  
In the Eleventh he relates what both Heathens and Christians have said concerning the End of the World, and the Last Judgement.  
Lastly, in the Twelfth Discourse he shows, That the Life of the Apostles, and of those who have imitated them, is far above the Life of other Men.  
In these Discourses there is a great deal of Learning; Theodoret quotes above an hundred Heathen Authors in them: They are written with a great deal of Art and Eloquence, and may not give Place in any thing to all the Works of Antiquity, composed for the Defence of Religion. They are translated by Acciaolus, who printed his Version at Paris in 1519. Silburgius hath published them since in Greek [and Latin, at Heidelberg 1592. in Folio, with his own Notes, full of most useful and excellent Learning, Cave.]  
The Addition, which is at the End of this Fourth Tome of the Works of Theodoret, doth not contain forged Pieces, but certain Treatises that have not yet been put in order. The First is a Discourse of Charity, which is a kind of a Conclusion of his History of Religion; in which he extols the Charity and Love that the Martyrs of the Old and New Testament had shown in their Sufferings.  
The Discourse which carries the Name of a Letter to Sporatius, is not a Letter, but a Fragment of the Treatise of Heresies, to which is joined an Explication of the Mystery of the Incarnation. We will put the Letter to John bishop of Germanicia to the other Letters of Theodoret, and will elsewhere speak of the Confutation of S. Cyril's Anathematisms, as also of the Discourse that he made at Chalcedon against S. Cyril, when he was Deputy for the Oriental Bishops, after the Council of Ephesus. We have one of th●se Discourses entire, in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, and some Fragments of Three other, in the Acts of the Fifth Council.  
Theodoret being returned to Antioch, after the Council of Ephesus, composed Five other Books against S. Cyril. M. Mercator hath given us some Extracts of them in Latin, and F. Garner hath published some Fragments of them in Greek. Photius, in the Forty sixth Book of his Bibliotheca, makes mention of Twenty seven Books of Theodoret against several Propositions. The Twenty last are Eutherius' of Tyana, as we have learned of M. Mercator. F. Garner believes, That the Seven First Books are the Work against S. Cyril, but, for my part, I rather believe them another Treatise of the Incarnation, which he often speaks of. For, 1. The Work of S. Cyril was divided into Five Books, this into Seven. 2. Photius, without doubt, would have observed, That these Discourses were against S. Cyril. 3. The subject of these Discourses does not agree, in the least, with the Treatise against S. Cyril. The First, saith Photius, is against those, that say, That the Word and Humanity make up but one Nature, and who attribute the Sufferings to the Divinity. The Second sets upon the same Errors very strongly, by Testimonies of Scripture. The Third is about the same Subject. The Fourth contains the Opinions of the Holy Fathers about the Incarnation of Jesus Christ our Saviour. The Fifth gathers together the Opinions of the Heretics, and shows that they are near-a-kin to their Error, who will not acknowledge Two Natures in Jesus Christ. The Sixth shows, That there is but one Jesus Christ. The Seventh is instead of a Letter.  
Theodoret, ●n the Catalogue, which himself made of his Works, 〈◊〉 other Treatises, which he had composed against the Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarists and Marcionites, but these Works are irrecoverably lost 
a Irrecoverably lost.] F. Garner pretends, That these are the Dialogues in S. Athanasius, but it is more probable that they are Maximus'. See what we have already said in the Notes, upon the Works of S. Athanasius, Vol. 2. , as also the Treatise against the Jews, and 
* [Responsiones ad quaesita Magorum.]  the Answer to the Questions of the Persian Magis; nor have we his 
† [Opus m●●●icum, sive de Mysteriorum▪ idei expositione, l. 12.]  Book of Mysteries, to which he re●e●●s his Readers, when he is speaking of Baptism, in his last Book of Heretical Fables, and of which he makes mention in the Places where he gives a Catalogue of his Works, nor the Book of Theology. It seems likewise, that all these Works were not known to those who have spoken of Theodoret, for neither Photius, nor Gennadius, nor Nicephorus, nor Hebediesu, who have made Catalogues of Theodoret's Works, have made mention of them. He had also made an Apology for Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodorus of Mopsuesta, which the Author last named, calls the Apology of the Fathers. Theodores gives an hint of them in one of his Letters, and some Fragments are to be found in the Fifth Council. Photius hath preserved large Extracts of the Five Discourses, compiled in the Commendation of S. Chrysostom. He observes, That he had made a greater Number, but he had never seen any but these Five: That the one Part of the First Discourse seems to respect another Subject; but, in the latter Part, he tells us, How S. Chrysostom was made Bishop, the Design he had to restore the Priesthood to its Ancient Splendour, the Discourse he made against the C●inites, his Sermons which he preached for the good of the State, the Envy that they had against him, the manner how he was driven out, and sent into Exile, and other Circumstances of the Life of this great Saint. He saith, That the Second Sermon being but short, contained very little of his Praise, but the Third, which was much superior to the others, in the choiceness of Words and Notions, surpassed the Bounds of a Panegyric. The Fifth and Sixth finish the Description of his Virtues.  
Photius relates these long Extracts, but they are in a Style wholly different from Theodoret's. They are nothing but Antitheses, Jinglings of Words, abrupt Phrases, childish Notions, and nothing like Theodoret's Style, which is grave, masculine and serious. 'Tis not the same with the Sermon upon the Nativity of S. John Baptist, published by F. Garner, which is like enough to Theodoret's Style. Hebediesu attributes to Theodoret a Book against Origen, but he hath not spoken of it in any other Place, and 'tis very unlikely that he hath written any thing against that Author. There is a Manuscript, where a Book of Asceticks, printed under the Name of Maximus, carries Theodoret's Name, but it is rather the former's.  
We have deferred to speak of the Letters of Theodoret till this Place, because they are very proper to represent the History of his Life, and give us a true Idea of his Conduct, so as we ordinarily conclude with a Description of the Authors. We have judged that we cannot do this better of Theodret than by drawing it from his Letters, where he ingenuously discovers his Opinions and Notions. There we may see the Obligations he had, the Motives by which he acted, the Disposition he was of, the Virtues and Failings which he had.  
These Letters are of Two Sorts: The One concern the Disputes which he had, through his whole Life, with the Bishops of Egypt: Others are Familiar Letters, written about private Affairs. The First of these may be referred to Three Classes; the First is made up of those which were written before and in the Time of the Ephesine Council; the Second of such as were written during the Time that the Peace between the Oriental Bishops and the Egyptians was i● making, till it was agreed on: And the Third contains those which were written from the Time he began to be troubled afresh, until his Absolution pronounced in the Council of Chalcedon.  
Since we shall be obliged to speak of these Letters in particular, when we shall lay down the History of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, we shall content ourselves to observe only their Number in this Place, and what may be deduced from thence, to make known the Disposition of Theodoret.  
The First Class contains but a very small Number of Letters, especially if we do not attribute to Theodoret all the Letters which were written from Ephesus in the Name of the Eastern Bishops. The First is the Letter which he wrote to John Bishop of Antioch, when he sent him the Confutation of S. Cyril's Twelve Chapters, in the Year 431. This we have in Greek and Latin; but of all the others only the Latin Version. M. Mercator hath preserved a Fragment of a Letter, which Theodoret wrote from Ephesus to Andrew Bishop of Samosata▪ There is also a Letter in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, written from Chalcedon to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and Four or Five others in the Collection of Lupus, written before the Affair of the Peace began to be spoken off. It is evident by these Letters that Theodoret was extremely incensed against the Twelve Chapters, because he thinks them Heretical, defends Nestorius, accounts him Orthodox and unjustly condemned, and was persuaded that S. Cyril and Memnon had been justly condemned. In a Word, he maintains all that was done by the Oriental Bishops, and disapproves whatsoever S. Cyril and the Council ●ad done.  
The Second Class contains no other Letters, almost, but those which have been lately published by F. Lupus, out of a Manuscript of the Library of Monte Cassino, which comprehends a great Number of Letters of the Oriental Bishops, but all in Latin. These are all taken out of a Collection, which had been formerly made by Count Irenaeus, who assisted at the Council of Ephesus in the room of the Emperor, and was after a Bishop in Phoenicia. As he was one of the most zealous Favourers of Nestorius, he had gathered all the Letters together, which might countenance him; and drew Consequences from them to maintain his Party. This Book was entitled A Tragedy, because he pretends to show, That the Condemnation of Nestorius was but a bloody Scene exhibited to the World. We have already seen that Isidore of Damiata, and Eutherius of Tyana had given that Name to what was done in the Council of Ephesus. The Ancient Author, who hath taken out of him these Letters, which he hath inserted in his Collection, hath set down in some Places the Reflections of Irenaeus. The Design of this Author hath been to justify Theodoret, and to show, That since all the Letters are certainly his, he cannot be accused of Heresy, because it appears, That he always acknowledged the Letter which S. Cyril wrote to procure Unity, to be Catholic Doctrine, and that he never defended Nestorius but in Matter of Fact, believing him of the same Judgement.  
Although we have these Letters only upon the Faith of this Author, and in one Manuscript, which the Romanists likewise are careful to conceal, ever since F. Lupus made use of it, it may be, because it contains some Pieces, which are not favourable to the Pretensions of the Court of Rome; yet it is not to be doubted but that they are Ancient: For, 1. We find in this Collection those which are in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, and of the Third Council, and of which M. Mercator recites some Fragments. 2. They contain such particular Facts, and accompanied with such Circumstances, and which have such a natural Relation to the rest of the History of the Council of Ephesus, that it is impossible that they should be devised by an Impostor. 3. The principal Matters, which they discover, are confirmed by other undoubted Records, although they are not sufficiently explained and cleared but by these Letters. Lastly, It cannot be doubted but they are taken out of the Collection of Irenaeus. The Terms, which are cited, make it evident, that this Work is not forged. Now Irenaeus lived in the very Time of the Controversy, and was a Witness of all that had passed, so that these Letters are very Ancient. It may be objected, That Irenaeus, being of the Novatians Party, might forge those Letters of Theodoret in their Favour: But what likelihood is there that he should have the Boldness to do it, in a Time, in which it was so easy a Matter to convince him of the Imposture. There are more than Thirty Letters in this Collection, which bear the Name of Theodoret. I will not here speak of every one in particular, because I will not repeat the same thing over twice, I will content myself to relate the Consequences which may be drawn from them.  
First of all, They show that Theodoret, did always approve the Doctrine contained in S. Cyril's Letter, written about the Reconcilement: He looked upon it to speak the Truth, as a kind of Recantation of the Doctrine contained in the Twelve Chapters, but he thought it Orthodox, although Nestorius, Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and some others, found Fault with it.  
II. At first he shown a great deal of Averseness to receive S. Cyril into his Communion, for though he believed that he professed Orthodox Doctrine, and revoked his pretended Errors, yet he could not bring himself to a Reconciliation, with a Person, whom he thought to be the Author of all his Troubles: Nevertheless, he passed it over at length, and offered to Communicate with him, provided that he should not be obliged to pronounce Nestorius' accursed, and that all the Bishops of the Eastern Party might be restored.  
III. Having heard that the Peace was concluded, without mention of their Restauration, That Nestorius was forsaken, and that Paul Bishop of Emesa had cursed him, he joined himself with Alexander of Hierapolis, and many other Bishops, who would have nothing to do with that Agreement, and who separated themselves from John of Antioch, because he had made it.  
iv Being Solicited by John Bishop of Antioch to yield himself, and pressed to it by his Monks, who were afraid that he would be driven out of his Bishopric, he entered a Conference about it with John Bishop of Antioch, and consented to receive S. Cyril into his Communion, nevertheless, without cursing Nestorius, and exhorted the other Bishops to do the same soon after. He wrote Letters to S. Cyril, and received Letters from him, but he did not entirely put off the good Opinion he had of Nestorius and his most zealous Adherents; and although he dare not stand up in their Defence ever after, yet he seems always to have some Compassion for them, and also a secret Grudge against S. Cyril, and the Bishops of Egypt, who envied him, both in his Life-time and after his Decease. S. Cyril himself complains of his Behaviour, if the Letter which is found in the Vatican Manuscript, and which F. Garner has printed, be really his. And Theodoret, for his part, bespatters the Memory of S. Cyril, in as bloody a Letter as can be written: If it be of him that he speaks, in that which is recited in the Fifth Council, and if that Letter be not forged; but this we shall examine elsewhere: Yet we must observe, That F. G●r●●● hath published a Letter of Theodoret's, to John of Antioch, in Greek and Latin, which had been before printed by Le● Allatius and C●telierius; in which he approves the Form of Agreement as very Orthodox.  
The Third Class of Th●●d●ret's Letters, which are Historical, is contained in the Greek and Latin Collection of his Letters, which F. Sirmondus hath published at the End of the Third Tome of his Works.  
The Sixtieth Letter may be reckoned the First, according to the Order of Time, which was written to Di●s●●rus, newly preferred to the See of Alexandria, after the Death of S. Cyril, which happened in 444. This Letter is a proof that the Reconciliation of Theodoret with the Egyptians was sincere, and that he did not intent to trouble the Peace of the Church. Nevertheless he was Accused to the Emperor, the next Year, by those that favoured the Error of Eutyches, of troubling the Peace of the Church, by holding frequent Assemblies at Antioch, instead of residing in his own Diocese. Under this pretence they obtained an Order from the Emperor, in which he strictly enjoined Theodoret to remain in his own City Cyrus, and not stir from thence. This Order was showed him by Count Rufus, and he immediately Obeyed it. Yet he wrote in his own defence to Patricius Anatolius, to the Praefect Eutrechius, and to the Consul Nonius. These Letters are the Seventy Ninth, Eighty, and Eighty One. He therein shows, That it was very unjust to give Credit to the Accusations of his Enemies without hearing him; That he has always lived a blameless Life; That no Man complained of him in his own Country; That he was not troubled that he was confined to the City Cyrus, but on the contrary, there was no place of Dwelling more pleasing to him; but this grieved him, That he was constrained to it by the Order of the Emperor, because it would give an occasion to the People of his Diocese to slight his Instructions; That he was wrongfully Accused of having held frequent Assemblies at Antioch, since he never came thither but when he was Summoned by his Patriarch; That he had done nothing but what was according to the Canons and Discipline of the Church; That he had lived and discharged all the parts of his Ministry without fault; That all his Crime was, that he Lamented the Miseries of the Phoenician Churches; That he was ready to be Judged by a Council of Bishops, and that in the presence of the most Illustrious Magistrates.  
The Enemies of Theodoret were not satisfied to have accused his Behaviour, but they would render his Faith suspected, and to this end published in Alexandria, that he taught, that there were Two Sons of God. This obliged him to write his Eighty Second Letter to Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra, wherein he declares, that he was so far from that Error, that when he discovered some of the Fathers of the Nicene Council to incline to a Division of the Two Natures, he was much troubled, because he knew, that the excessive use, they made of it, had given occasion to that Error. And for fear, addeth he, that it should be thought, that it is fear, which makes me now speak in this manner, let those who would inform themselves fully of my Opinion, read the Works which I have composed, either before the Council of Ephesus, or within these Twelve Years last passed, which if they examine, and judge of my Opinions by them, they will find, that I have no other.  
The Accusation, which Theodoret endeavours to clear himself of in this Letter, was greedily received by Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, who besides the old Controversy of the Egyptians, had another private Quarrel with Theodoret about the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria. He wrote to Domnus, who had succeeded John in the See of Antioch, that it was told him, that Theodoret Preaching publicly at Antioch, had divided the Person of Jesus Christ into Two. Theodoret having seen this Letter, which was given to him in the Seventh Year of the Pontificate of Domnus, in 447, he wrote the Eighty Third Letter to Dioscorus, wherein he complains, that Dioscorus had given Credit to the Testimony of a few Persons so easily. He opposes to their Testimony the infinite number of those who had heard the Sermons which he Preached at Antioch in Twenty Six Years time under Three Archbishops, without incurring blame from any person for that matter. He professes to follow the judgement of the Fathers, to defend the Doctrine of the Nicene Council, and to acknowledge but One Jesus Christ the Son of God, as he did confess but One Father, and One Holy Ghost. He proves this Truth likewise, and shows, That tho' there are Two Natures in Jesus Christ, there is nevertheless but One Jesus Christ, to whom the Proprieties of the Two Natures agree. He adds, That he hath taken this Doctrine out of the Writings of S. Alexander, S. Athanasius, and S. Basil, and that his Writings make it appear, that he made use of the Books of Theophilus, and S. Cyril, to confute the Errors of those, that say, That One of the Two Natures hath been changed into the other; That he hath written to S. Cyril, and that that Saint received his Letters; That he hath read and admired his Books against Julian; That he wrote to him upon that Subject, and that he yet hath the Answer which he made S. Cyril. He than desires Dioscorus not to hearken to his Calumniators, nor to reject him from his Communion; and after he hath Cited his Books as Authentic Witnesses of the Purity of his Faith, he concludes with this Protestation, If any one refuseth to confess, that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, or says, that Jesus Christ our Lord is but a mere Man, or divides him into Two, he, who is the only Son of God, and the first Born of every Creature, Let him lose all the hope which he hath in God. Although Theodoret seemed to have fully justified himself by this Letter, nevertheless Dioscorus gave not over his Enterprise, and instead of rejecting the Calumnies which were so ill grounded, he called together his Accusers, caused them publicly to pronounce him Accursed, and did the same himself. When Theodoret heard it, he implored the help of other Bishops, but particularly Flavian Bishop of Constantinople. The Letter which he wrote to him is the Eighty Sixth. After he hath related the Attempt of Dioscorus, he says, that he heard, that that Bishop of Alexandria had sent some of his Bishops to Constantinople, hoping to raise great Commotions against him, but he put his Confidence chief in God, since he is Assaulted upon the account of the true Faith, and next in the protection of Flavian, whom he prays to maintain the Orthodox Faith, and vindicate the Canons, which were slighted. For, saith he, the Fathers of the Council held at Constantinople, following the determination of the Nicene Council, have distinguished the bounds of Dioceses, expressly forbidding the Bishops of one Diocese to eńcroach upon the Rights of another. They ordered the Bishop of Alexandria not to concern himself but in Egypt only, and have left to others the Government of their own Dioceses. But Dioscorus contemning these Laws, boasts that his See is S. Mark's, that he may assume the Rights that do not belong to him. We might oppose to him, that the Church of Antioch was the See of S. Peter, the Prince and Head of the Apostles. But we do not regard the Dignity of the See, we know and keep within the bounds of Humility which the Apostles have taught us. Theodoret says further to engage Flavian on his side, that Dioscorus had hated him ever since he consented to the Rules made in the time of Proclus, in favour of the See of Constantinople. He wrote also Letters to Domnus Bishop of Antioch, to the Bishops of Cilicia, and to many Officers of the Emperor's Court, whom he fills with Complaints. We may see upon this subject the Eighty Third Letter, and the following to the One Hundred and Tenth.  
But all his endeavours were to no purpose; he became every Day more and more odious to the Emperor, and the main thing that was sought, was an occasion to ruin him. This was thought a very fit One, to Depose Irenaeus, whom he had Ordained Bishop of Phoenicia. Two Faults were found with that Ordination. The first was, That Irenaeus was a Nestorian, and did not believe that the Virgin ought to be called the Mother of God. The other was, That he had been Twice Married. The Emperor wrote to Domnus to Depose him. Theodoret tells him in his Hundred and Tenth Letter, that he could not do it without an Offence against God, because he had Ordained him pursuant to the Declaration of the Bishops of Phoenicia, who had judged him worthy to be a Bishop for his rare Virtues; and as to that charge, That he had been Twice Married, he had passed by the ordinary Rules according to the Example of Alexander Bishop of Antioch, who with Acacius Bishop of Beraea had Ordained Diogenes, a Man Twice Married, and of Prailus Bishop of Jerusalem, who also had Ordained Domnus Bishop of Caesarea, altho' he was Twice Married. That, in fine, Proclus had approved the Ordination of Irenaeus, and the Bishops of Pontus, Palestine, and Cappadocia, had acknowledged him, and that no Man had ever called in Question the Validity of it; That it was unjust after this to condemn him; That Domnus ought to represent these things to the Emperor; That he could nevertheless Answer otherwise, if he judged it fit; That as to himself, he expected to suffer the utmost; That he believed in the last place, that the best Expedient were to wait the Answer of the Bishops of Palestine, to write unanimously to Constantinople. He wrote at the same time the Third Letter to Irenaeus, wherein he signifies to him obscurely, that he ought not to withdraw himself, if he were not forced to it.  
But another Business was brought upon the Stage against Theodoret; he was accused, that he had evil-intreated and unjustly condemned the Accusers of Ibas. He defends himself against that Accusation in the Hundred and Eleventh Letter to Anatolius, by telling him, that he was none of the Judges, being detained at Cyrus by the Emperor's Order; That he had no part in that Judgement, but that Domnus had done his Duty in reviewing their Affair, not only as to the Judgement of Ibas, but also of Simeon Bishop of Amida, to the end that their Cause might be judged by Two different Metropolitans. He complains, that in all other Countries the Bishops were at ease, and that no regard was had to any but the Eastern Bishops; That whatsoever their Malicious Adversaries could invent against them, was hearkened to. That as to himself, there was less reason to Accuse him than any other, since he had kept himself quietly in his own Diocese according to the Emperor's Order, and that he had not assisted at Two Ordinations made in his Province. He adds, That if he were not detained by the Emperor's Order, he would retire altogether for the remaining part of his Life.  
The Calling of a Council at Ephesus under Dioscorus affrighted Theodoret. He foresaw easily enough, that he could hope for nothing from a Synod, where Dioscorus his Adversary presided, and ruled all. Also when Domnus sent him the Letter of the Convocation, which was directed to him, he signifies to him by his Hundred and Twelfth Letter, the Fear he had, that this Synod would have but a very bad issue, if God did not disappoint the designs of Men, for tho' the Council of Nice had condemned Arius, and the Bishops of his Party had consented to his Condemnation, yet they had continued in their Impeity, and troubled the Church for many Years; That he feared yet worse of this present Synod, because the other Dioceses did not discover the Poison of the Twelve Chapters, and that only considering the Reputation of him that composed them, this was the Cause, that they suspected no ill in them; That he did not doubt but that his Successor would do what in him lay to have them confirmed in a Second Council: For having already pronounced, saith he, Anathema against those who would not approve them, what will he not do at the head of a Council? But saith he, further to Domnus, be it well known to you, that none of those Bishops who have espied the Heresy that is co●●●ed in those propositions, will ever give their Approbation of them, altho' the number of them that should Ordain it be as great again. We have already resisted them, altho' many Bishops had approved them at Ephesus, nor did we communicate with the Author of them, till he had declared his consent plainly to that Explanation of the Faith, which we had presented to him without mentioning the Twelve Chapters. He proves afterwards by Authentic Records, that the Bishops of the East had always condemned them, and exhorts Domnus not to forsake the Faith of his Ancestors, and not to receive a strange Doctrine. It is plain, that this Letter was written a little before the Council in 449.  
The Council of Ephesus did worse than Theodoret had foretold, for it approved the Doctrine of Euryches, rejected the Faith of the Church, condemned Flavian, and pronounced a Sentence of Deposition against Theodoret without hearing him, or citing him. But he in many Leters made it appear immediately, that he was unjustly Condemned by them.  
The largest and most considerable, is, that which he wrote to S. Leo, to whom he made his Appeal in this Urgent Necessity, it is the Hundred and Thirteenth Letter. After he hath Complimented him about his Primacy, the Greatness and Prerogatives of his Church, and the Purity of his Doctrine, explained in his excellent Letter to Flavian. He describes the Injustice that Dioscorus had committed, not only as to Flavian, but also as to himself, in Deposing him so irregularly; that is to say, in his absence, without having cited him Judicially, without questioning him, without having ordered his Process, and after he had caused him to make Excuses of coming to the Council. He next proves his own Innocence chief, by the unblamable manner in which he had managed the Government of his Diocese. Lastly, He implores the help and protection of S. Leo, and prays him to send for him to Rome, that he may Justify by his Writings, that his Doctrine is throughly conformable to that of the Roman Church. But above all things, he beseeches him to let him know, whether he ought to yield to that unjust Sentence, that he would wait his Advice thereupon, and if he thought it best for him to abide there, he will do it freely, that he will be troublesome to no Man, any more, but wait patiently the Just Judgement of God, that as for himself, he valued his own Reputation but little, but that he was afraid of giving scandal, and being an occasion of falling to the Weak, who believing his Doctrine Heretical might fall into Error.  
He wrote at the same time to Renatus, a Priest of the Church of Rome, to desire him to put forward his proposition, with his Bishop, of Assembling a Council in his Church, promising to submit himself to his Judgement, be it what it will. He also quotes his own Writings as an Authentic Proof of the Truth of his Faith. This is the Hundred and Sixteenth Letter.  
The Hundred and Seventeenth Letter is directed to the Bishop of Florence, if we follow the Title, but the Body of the Letter makes it appear, that it was written to many Bishops, or to the whole Clergy. He represents to them the Injustice that was done him, and implores their Assistance. He makes the like Complaints to the Archdeacon of Rome, by the Hundred and Eighteenth Letter, and to Anatolius Patricius by the Hundred and Nineteenth, and Hundred Twenty First Letters, to Uranius Bishop of Emesa in the Hundred Twenty Third, and Hundred Twenty Fourth Letters, to Bishop Timothy by the Hundred and Thirtieth Letter, to Ibas Bishop of Edessa by the Hundred Thirty Second Letter, to John Bishop of Germanicia by the Hundred Thirty Third, and Hundred Forty Seventh Letters, and many others. All these Letters were written towards the end of the Year 449, or at the beginning of the Year 450, from the Monastery whither he had retired. The Hundred Twenty Fifth, Hundred Forty Fourth, Hundred Forty Fifth, and Hundred Forty Sixth, are Explications of the Faith written at the same time, and from the same place; as also the Hundred Twenty Sixth Letter to Sabinian Bishop of the Pareni, who having been deposed in the Council of Ephesus, was retreated. Theodoret commends him for his Valour.  
At the end of this Year the Face of things was changed by the Death of Theodosius. Marcian who Succeed him, made the Judgement of the Council of Ephesus, held under Dioscorus, to be void, and restored Theodoret who had been driven out of Cyrus. He then wrote many Letters to his Friends, either to complain of them who had forsaken him, as he doth in the Hundred Thirty Fourth, and Hundred Thirty Fifth; or to return them thanks who had assisted him, and opposed his Enemies, as he doth in the Hundred Thirty Seventh, Hundred and Forty, Hundred and Forty One, Hundred Forty Two, and Hundred Forty Three, or to make them some part of a means, and pray them to obtain it of the Emperor, that a new Council might be called to settle the Peace of the Church, and uphold the Orthodox Faith. This is what he desires of Anatolius in the Hundred Thirty Eighth Letter, and Asparus the Consul, in the Hundred Thirty Ninth Letter.  
These are the principal Letters of Theodoret, the other, which contain nothing Historical, are either Letters of Rejoicing upon some Festival, or Letters of Consolation, Thanks, Recommendation, and Congratulation to his Friends. The Twenty Ninth, and the following Letters, recommend the Orthodox Banished from Carthage in 442. The Forty Second, and Four following, are written to obtain the discharge of a Sum which was demanded of his Country, the payment of which was solicited by a Wicked Excommunicated Bishop. The Seventy Seventh, and Seventy Eighth, show to the Bishops of Armenia, near adjoining to Persia, what they ought to do in time of Persecution. Theodoret in all his Letters discovers a great deal of Piety, Charity, and Humility; these have all the Qualifications which ●ender Letters valuable, for they are Short, Plain, Neat, Elegant, Civil, Pleasant, full of Matter, Wit, and Holiness.  
There is no necessity of making a further Description of Theodoret; what we have related of his Life, the Judgement which we have passed upon all his Works in particular, and what we have spoken of his Letters, are sufficient to give a full Idea of his Conversation, Learning, and Eloquence.  
As to his Doctrine, we shall have frequent occasion to speak of it. Notwithstanding we see by his Conduct hitherto, that tho' he defended the Person of Nestorius, he never maintained his Errors; he always professed his belief of One Jesus Christ, God and Man in One Person; he never divided, but only distinguished the Two Natures; he never disapproved the Term of the Mother of God, and gave advice to Nestorius and Irenaeus to use it▪ This is true, that he never would approve the Chapters of S. Cyril, but it was, because he thought they contained in them that Error which was after maintained by Eutyches. In fine, he Explains in so many places of his Works, the Doctrine of the Incarnation in so Orthodox and Exact Terms; that he cannot be accused of Error in that point without a great deal of Injustice. S. Cyril hath accused him of being in that Error, but he also accuses all the Oriental Bishops of the same, which after he acknowledged to be Orthodox, after they had signed the Confession of Faith, which was made in order to the Peace, which because Theodoret approved, he ought to be accounted Orthodox. The Eastern Bishops were not obliged to approve of the 12 Chapters of S. Cyril to be accounted Orthodox; why then should Theodoret be obliged to do it? M. Mercator rails on Theodoret, and finds Errors in his Books against S. Cyril: But the very places, which he citys, justify him, and 'tis only by Consequences, which Theodoret disowns, and which do not follow from his Principles, that M. Mercator extracts his Errors. As to the Authors which lived in the time of the 5th. Council, or since that time, they ought not to be alleged, because we know, That they were Parties in this Cause, or followed the Judgement of the 5th. Council, of which we shall speak hereafter. If we desire to know the Defenders of Theodoret, we shall find Men worthy of Credit, John Bishop of Antioch, all the Bishops of the East, all his Hearers at Antioch, are so many Witnesses of the Purity of his Faith. S. L●● was an Apologist for him, and the Emperor Marcian declared him Innocent. The Council of Chalcedon owned him for a Bishop, and did not oblige him to any retractation, but only to say Anathema to Nestorius. Many other Authors might be produced, which defended him against Calumny. But his best Defence are his Writings themselves, his Protestations, Declarations, Explanations of Faith, which cannot be accused of Heresy without condemning also the Letter of S. Leo to Flavian, the Writings of the most Orthodox Fathers, and the Forms of Doctrine which the Church of God hath always used.  
I will not stay any longer to speak of the particular Opinions which are attributed to Theodoret. Every one knows, That he wasof the Judgement of the Greeks touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost. The Controversy upon the Passages of the Eucharist are too famous and too common to be unknown. It would be to no purpose to repeat in this place what hath been so often insisted upon. He is accused of being a Pelagian, and that he knew nothing of Original Sin. But this is certain, That he was not of Pelagian Principles, since he owns, That Death, our propensity to evil, Concupiscence, are the effects of the Sin of the first Man. He also often acknowledgeth the necessity of the Grace of Jesus Christ, and begs his Assistance. But he is not of the Principles of S. Austin concerning the nature of Original Sin and Efficacy of Grace. He follows those of S. Chrysostom, to whose Opinion he joins himself.  
We have spoken of the principal Editions of the Works of Theodoret in particular. The first Collection which was made of them, was made up of Versions only. It was printed at Collen in 1573. and at Paris 1608. [also at Collen 1567., 1617.] F. Sirmondus hath printed these Collections in Greek with the Latin by the side. This Edition is disposed into 4▪ ●ol. in Folio, printed at Paris in 1642. F. Garner a little while since hath added a 5th. Vol. printed in 1684. This last contains, besides the pieces of Theodoret which we have spoken of, 4 Dissertations of F. Garner, upon the Life, Works and Doctrine of Theodoret, whom he inveighs much against. The Dialogues of Maximus, upon the Trinity, which he attributes to Theodoret, a Dissertation upon the 5th. Council, the Collection of Pieces which F. Lupus had printed in 1682. A Treatise of Eutherius of Tyana, which was among the Works of S. Athanasius, and the different Readins of the Treatise of Theodoret against the Gentiles, collected by Ursinus.   

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

HELLADIUS Bishop of Tarsus, MAXIMINUS' Bishop of Anazarbum, and IRENAEUS Bishop of Phoenicia.  
HELLADIUS Bishop of Tarsus, the Metropolis of the upper Cilicia, was deposed in the first Council of Ephesus. S. Cyril would not suffer him to be included in the Peace, 
Helladius Bishop of Tarsus, etc.  and he himself was as averse to it. He resisted a long time, but at last he yielded. He hath 
[6. Dr. Cave.]  7 Letters in 〈◊〉 's Collection.  
Maximinus, Bishop of A●●zal●●●, Metropolitan of the lower Cilicia, he stood out longer than Helladius; but at last seeing himself molested with the Emperor's Order● he followed his Example, he and all the Bishops of his Province. We have the Synodal Letters which he wrote pro and con, with three or four other Letters upon the same Subject in 〈◊〉 's Collection.  
Count Irenaeus, who was present at the Council of Ephesus in the place of the Emperor in ●●ality of a Commissioner, was afterward chosen Bishop of 〈◊〉 by the Bishops of that Province; and ordained by 〈◊〉 in 444. He did not enjoy that Bishopric long▪ being deposed in 448. by the Emperor's Co●●and. We have made an Extract of Theodo●et's Letter, where he speaks of the defects of his Ordination; and of another Letter, wherein that Father exhorts him to own▪ That the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God, but all in vain. He was too close linked to the Doctrine of Nest●rius to change. This firm adherence appears by the Work which he entitled▪ 〈◊〉▪ The Tragedy in which he hath written strongly in his own Defence and condemned noy only S. Cyril and the Egyptians, but also John Bishop of Antioch, and all the Bishops of the East, who had joined in the Peace, commending none but those, who through unheard of 〈◊〉, remained in a separation from the Church. We have already observed▪ That 〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉 hath published a Collection of that ancient Author, who hath translated and copied a part of the Letters, which he had gathered in that Work▪ and some 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉▪   

S. LEO.  
ST. Leo 
a S. Leo.] It is commonly believed, That he was a T●scan. F. Quesnel thinks rather that he was a Roman, because he himself calls the City of Rome his Country, Ep 27. S. Prosper, in his Chronicon, says the same thing. It is true, that in the ordinary Editions of the Pontifical, 'tis said, he was a Tuscan. But there are 2 MSS wherein 'tis said, he was a Roman. However that be, he was brought up and educated at Rome. , after he had gotten himself Repute among the Clergy of Rome 
b Repute among the Clergy, etc.] He carried Zosimus' Letter to Aurelius, when he was but an Acolyi●●●, as appears by the 1●1st. Letter of S. Austin to Sixtus. He was archdeacon under Pope Celestine; the Books of Cassian, concerning the Incarnation, written in 420. at the desire of S. Leo, then archdeacon, are a plain proof of it. In 439. he got himself a great Name by appearing against the Pelagians, as it is noted in S. Prosper's Chronicon. , under the Pontificate of S. Celestine and S. Sixtus, in quality of an archdeacon, was chosen 
S. Leo.  Bishop of Rome after the death of the latter 
c Was chosen, etc.] After the same manner doth S. Prosper describe S. Leo's Election. , which happened Apr. 1. in the year 440. He was sent into France to procure a reconciliation between Aetius and Albinus [two chief Captains of the Roman Army.] While he was there, Deputies were sent from Rome to him, to carry him the News of his Election, and to hasten his return to Rome where he was ordained 40 days after the death of his Predecessor. He maintained his Dignity with so much Splendour, Vigilance and Authority, that he rendered himself more famous in the Church than any of the Popes which had been before him, even from S. Peter. He not only had a special care of the Church of Rome, and those Churches which were subject to his Metropolis, but he extended his Pastoral Vigilance over all the Churches of the East and West. He maintained the ancient Doctrine, opposed Heresies, upheld the Ecclesiastical Discipline, renewed and confirmed the ancient Canons, enlarged the Grandeur and Authority of his See, and manfully defended the Rights of it. There was no Affair almost transacted in the Church in the time of his Pontificate, in which he had not a great share. We do not mention them here, because his Letters teach us them in particular. He died in the 21st. year of his Prelacy, in the year 461. 
d In the year 461. according to the Vulgar Aera.] The day is not certain. An ancient Calendar, which is in the 10th. Tom of M. Luke D' Ac●eri's Spicilegium, places the death of S. Leo on Octob. 30. Marianus Scotus places it on June 28. His Memory is celebrated on that day in several Martyrologies and Ecclesiastical Offices. His Festival is commonly on April 11. .  
This Pope is deservedly ranked among the Fathers of the Church, because tho' we have no great Treatises under his Name, his Sermons and Letters are very useful Works. We will begin to make the Extract of his Letters, which contain a great number of very important Points of Doctrine, History, Morality and Discipline.  
But before we enter upon the particular discussion of the Letters, it is convenient to examine the Conjecture of a Modern Critic, who asserts, That the Letters attributed to S. Leo are the Work of S. Prosper. This Conjecture is principally upheld by the Testimony of Gennadius, who speaking of S. Prosper, saith, Epistolae quoque Papae Leonis adversus Eutychem de vera Christi Incarnatione, ad diversos datae, & ab ipso dictatae dicuntur aut creduntur. The Epistles also of Pope Leo against Eutyches, written to several Persons, about the Incarnation of Christ, are said or believed to be dictated or published by him. These words are found exactly in Marcellinus' Chronicon in the Consulship of Vivian and Foelix; and 'tis from hence, that Ado Viennensis hath taken that Passage, as Honorius Augustodunensis and Trithemius have taken it from Gennadius. But Ado gives S. Prosper the Title of a Secretary Notarius to S. Leo. 'Tis from the Testimonies of these Authors that M. Anthelmi takes the boldness to assert this Paradox, That all the Letters of S. Leo were written by S. Prosper. For confirmation, he compares the Letter of S. Leo to Flavian, and that directed to the Bishop of Aquileja, with some places of S. Prosper's Works, and thinks that he finds an entire conformity of Style in them. He adds, That S. Jerom was Secretary to Pope Damasus, and that he made Answer to such as consulted any thing of him in the name of that Pope. And so S. Gregory, when he was a Deacon, was Secretary to Pelagius II. and it is credible, that all the Popes wrote nothing almost themselves, but had Secretaries to write for them. These are the Conjectures upon which M. Anthelmi grounds himself, but they are too weak to prove what he asserts.  
For first of all, the whole frame of this Argument is supported by a mere Hear-say, related by Gennadius, who was not himself really of that Opinion; for speaking before of Pope Leo, chap. 70. he attributes to him, in express Terms, the Letter to Flavian, and says nothing of his other Works, insomuch, that he could not have put him in the number of Ecclesiastical Writers, but because he thought this Letter was of his Writing. Now when an Author speaks affirmatively in one place, and in another reports it upon Hear-say only, his Judgement is to be gathered from the place, where he speaks of his own Head, and not from that wherein he speaks according to the common Opinion.  
Secondly, 'Tis not certain that these words in chap. 84. Epistolae quoque Leonis, etc. The Epistles likewise of S. Leo, etc. are Gennadius': But on the contrary, 'tis probable, that they have been added. To be convinced of this, we need but cast our Eyes upon chap. 84. and we may soon see what is Gennadius', and what●is added. For after that Gennadius hath spoken of the Works of S. Prosper in such a manner as made it evident, That he did not approve what he had written about Grace, some Body hath added; This Prosper hath been the Defender of S. Austin' s Books als● against the Heretics, who were Enemies to the Grace of Jesus Christ. This is plainly an Addition to the Text of Gennadius. These words which are now in Question follow this Addition, and are a part of it; for, 1. If they were Gennadius', they would be joined to his Text, and would not follow this Addition. 2. The way in which this Phrase is expressed, Epistolae quoque Leon●s etc. shows, That it hath a relation to the preceding Addition, and that it hath nothing to do with the Text of Gennadius. It gins with these words, Epistolae quoque. The word qu●q●● refers to the preceding Addition, Hic etiam Prosper, and cannot be joined with the Genuine Text, Quae enim vere Cassiani & Prosperi de gratia & libero arbitrio sententiae fu●runt, i● aliquibus contrariae sibi inveniuntur. The Opinions of Cassian and Prosper of Grace and freewill, are contrary the one to the other in some things. Who would say after this, The Epistles of S. Leo also, & c? It is then certain, That this last Phrase hath relation to the Precedent, where he speaks with dislike of the Semi-Pelagians. So that it is not certainly Gennadius'; 'tis an Addition no Man can doubt. And what can we say of the other?  
But whence comes this Addition? Whence was it taken? It is no hard Matter to guests, since the same words are to be found in Marcellinus' Chronicon. From hence some Person took them to add them here to the Text of Gennadius, chap. 84. One of these two must be, Either that Marcellinus hath taken this place from Gennadius, or some Body hath taken this Passage out of Marcellinus to add it to the Text of Gennadius. The first is very unlikely: Marcellinus doth not use to copy out Gennadius. We must then hold the latter, and so much the rather, because there are other Conjectures to prove, That this Passage is an Addition to the Text of Gennadius, and there is nothing to prove, That it hath been added to Marcellinus.  
This being so, all the proofs of M. Anthelmi are resolved into a common Rumour which was current in the time of Marcellinus, who lived an Hundred Years after Leo. For as for Ado, 'tis visible enough, That he hath taken all he says from Marcellinus; and besides, an Author of the 9th. Age is of no great Authority. And the same I say of Honorius of Augustodowm, and Trithemius, who have copied the Addition, which had been made to chap. 84. out of Gennadius' Book.  
There is likewise very great probability, That the Title of Secretary or Notary, which Ado hath given to Prosper, is grounded upon nothing but what he had read in Marcellinus' Chronicon. For from whence should he know, that S. Prosper had the Title? But if it were certain, That he had the quality of Notarius in the time of S. Leo, it doth not follow that he made the Letters of that Pope. The Notaries, in the time of S. Leo, were not those who composed the Letters, but those who kept them, carried them, published them, and kept the Registers of the Ecclesiastical Affairs. We read, in the 25th. Epistle of S. Leo, That Dulcitius the Notary, was sent to the 2d. Council of Ephesus, to write the Acts of it. Dionysius, who was sent to Constantinople to carry the Letters of S. Leo, Ep. 46. is called, Romanae Ecclesiae Notarius. Tiburtius, Secretary of the Church of Rome, signed the Letter to Flavian, under that Title. Tiburtius Notarius, etc. I Tiburtius, the Notary, by the Command of my Reverend Lord the Pope have published. These were the Offices of a Notary. Also, altho' it were certain, That S. Prosper was a Notary of the Church of Rome, it would not follow, That he hath composed the Letters of S. Leo. And, likewise, if we follow the Correction, That M. the Abbot Anthelmi hath made in the Chronicon of Ado, by 2 MSS. in M. Colbert's Library; this Author doth not say, That S. Prosper, as he was a Notary, hath written the Letters of S. Leo, but only that he set them out, a quo editae creduntur.  
The Example of the Office of S. Jerom with Pope Damasus, doth not prove, That S. Prosper hath performed the same Office with S. Leo. There have been Popes, who have written for themselves; there are others, who have made use of the help of others, not being of sufficient Abilities to write. For Example, Pelagius II. had need of the assistance of S. Gregory; but who will say, That S. Gregory, being made Bishop, used another to write his Letters?  
Nor is there any conformity of Style between the Letters of S. Leo and the Works of S. Prosper, as is pretended by M. Abbot Anthelmi, but this is that in which he least of all agrees with him. The Comparisons and Parallels which he makes, show indeed, That they agree in some Terms, which all that treat of these Matters do commonly use, and which are taken from S. Austin in a Thousand places. But this will never for all that persuade them, who have any Judgement, That the Style of S. Leo's and S. Prosper's Writings, are the same. And let any Man read but a little of each, and he will find a considerable difference, and be convinced, That S. Leo had a loftiness of Expression, which S. Prosper was not able to attain, and a readiness in Writing and Speaking, which raised him above the help of a Secretary. Lastly, The Style of his Letters is so like that of his Sermons, that it cannot be doubted but that they are the same Authors. Now who is there, even at this day, that is so inconsiderate as to say, That S. Leo's Sermons are not his? It is true, That M. Abbot Anthelmi also thinks, That S. Prosper had an hand in them; but this is another Paradox more extraordinary than the former, and is not supported by the Testimony of any Author, and which he cannot make good, as we shall show afterwards. But let us return to S. Leo's Letters, and follow the Order of Time, according to which they are disposed by F. Quesnct.  
The First is directed to the Bishops of Mauritania Casariensis, which was probably written before Gonsericus, King of the Vandals, had conquered that Province, which happened after the Death of Valentinian, who died in 455 
a In 455.] It is not probable that it was written in 458. as ●●●●●ius and ●londel are of Opinion, because Rome was sacked by the Vindals. S. 〈◊〉 had Business enough to watch over his own Ohurch, without troubling his Thoughts about the condition of others. It is very likely that Maurit●ia was still under the Dominion of the Empire, because otherwise he could not have received the News so ●●sily, no● have written thither. He says, indeed, That that Province was at war with the Barbarians, but he doth not say that it was entirely subdued. F. Quesnel thinks, That this Letter was written in 442. One thing may make it doubtful, which is, That he speaks of the Decrees which he had made already, to hinder Laymen from being raised to the First, Second or Third Degree of the Clergy, which is pretended to have relation to ●●ist. 12. to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica, where he 〈◊〉 him to prefer Laymen to the Episcopal Dignity: But, besides that he speaks not in that Place of the Second or Third Degree of the Clergy, but only of Bishops, he might make this Decree in are-ther Letter. F. Quesnel grounds himself upon this, That Potentius might well be one of the Bishops of afric, who having been exposed to the M●r●y of the Winds by the Vandals, were driven a shore at Naplas: but this is not beyond Controversy, all that can be said is this, That this Letter was written before the Year 455. . This Letter contains Directions how to reform the Disorders which were committed in Africa, in the Ordination of Bishops. Bishop ●o●entius, whom S. Leo had sent into Africa to get Information of it, and to let him know if it were true that the Bishoprics there were so ill bestowed, had given him an Account, That for the most part the Churches were governed by Persons unworthy of the Name of a Bishop; that they were raised to that Dignity either by Bribery or popular Faction. S. Leo immediately wrote to them, as well to testify his own Grief, which he had for their Disorders, as to prescribe them Means to reform them. First, he shows, That 'tis prejudicial to the People's Salvation, to place over them Pastors unworthy of their Office, and that in doing it they were so far from comforting them, that they made their Case more dangerous. He Superadds, That though he found some who were Ordained by Sedition or Bribery, worthy of their Office, yet the Example was of ill Consequence, and that it is very improbable that that should end well which had a bad Beginning.  
He observes in the Second Article, That if they are obliged to take care, that they do not mistake in the Election of all, that are admitted into the Clergy, that nothing be done in the Church of God, which is not in Order, they are much more obliged to choose Persons of Worth to rule over others. Upon this occasion he quotes a Text of S. Paul's, wherein he gives Timothy charge to lay Hands suddenly on no Man: What is it, saith he, to lay hands suddenly on no Man, but to confer Priests Orders upon Persons whose Worth we are ignorant of, before they are of fit Age; before we have had Time to try them; before they have approved themselves fit by their Industry, and have given some Signs of their Knowledge and Experience?  
After these general Rules he speaks particularly of the Conditions necessary for entering into Holy Orders. The First is, not to have above One Wife, and she not to be a Widow, The Second, to have passed all the Inferior Orders, and to have exercised them for some Time. After he hath proved the Necessity of these two Conditions in the Third and Fourth Articles, he commands, in the Fifth, the Bishops to whom he wrote to deprive them of their Bishopric, who were found to have had Two Wives, or had married a Widow: But as to them whose Ordination was not Faulty, but upon this account, because they were made Bishops immediately of Laics, he permits them to keep their Bishoprics, telling them, That he did it only by a kind of Indulgence, and without prejudicing the Holy See, the Decrees of his Predecessors, or his own, by which it is forbidden to promote any Person to the First, Second or Third Degree of the Clorgy, who have not arrived at these Dignities by the ordinary Ways, declaring to them, that for the future he intended that those Rules should be strictly observed.  
He comes at last to the Affairs, in which he was personally concerned: A Novatian Bishop, called Donatus, had been converted with all his People. S. Leo suffered him to keep his Bishopric, but required him to send a Profession of his Faith to him; in which he condemns the Errors of the Novatians, and professes the Faith of the Church. He exacted the same thing of Maximus, who had been before a Donatist, and had after been made a Bishop of a Layman. As to Aggarus and Tiberianus, who had been ordained Bishops, being before but mere Laymen, and that with a great Uproar, he enjoined the Bishops of afric to inform themselves exactly of all that had passed at their Ordination, and to write to him of it. This is what respects the Ordination of Bishops.  
He speaks, in the Eighth Article of the Virgins who had been deflowered by the Barbarians, and advises them, not to compare themselves with those that had yet their Virginity, because▪ although they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Sin, yet they ought to bewal the Loss they had suffered. He 〈◊〉 the Bishops, at l●st to 〈◊〉 to his Advice, and observe the Holy 〈◊〉.  
The Second Article, in the ordinary Editions, is not put in this Edition, because it is not to be 〈◊〉 in the best Manuscripts and hath no Connexion with the precedent Article, insomuch that this is a Supposititious Passage, which is none of S. L●●'s 
f It is 〈◊〉 Supposititious Passige, which is 〈◊〉 of S. Leo's.] This Article is found in the Collection of Dionysius Exiguus, where the Sixth. Seventh and Eighth are not to be found▪ But these are in Four Ancient Manuscripts, where the Second is not. Mer●●'s Editions of the Councils in 1524, and 1525. agree with these last Manuscripts, which are the ancientest and best. It cannot be said that S. Leo hath repeated the some thing in one and the same Letter▪ in two different Articles, about Virgins; either than the Second or Eighth Article must be added: Now 'tis most probable that it is the Second. For, 〈◊〉. It is not to be 〈◊〉 in the most Ancient Manuscripta 2. It gins with the Conclusion of the same Letter: 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. This supposeth That the Letter is finished, when at this is but the Second Article of the Letter; and he speaks afterwards of many other Things, contained in P●●e●tius's Relation. 3. F. Quesuel, says, That that which is discoursed of in these Articles doth not agree with the Condition the Church of Africa was then in. It is not probable that in the Perfecution, where in the Church was, they could ordain Bishops in the Boroughs. 4. He maintains, that '●is not Leo's Style, that the Words Diocese for P●●ish, Sp●c●●lius & propensius eommoveri, damnum proprii bonoris evadere, Episcopali● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were not S. Leo's, nor so much as used in his Time. 5. 〈◊〉 hath not put this Article into his Collection, although he hath omitted nothing that might say or the Right of Appeals to the Holy See. 6. 'Tis likely that it hath been added to the ancient Collection of Dlo●y●i●s Exiguus, for the Title is differently expressed from that of the others; that the titles at the beginning of the Letter, and Index are different. Lastly, Cres●●●ius, who follows the Code of Dionysius Exiguus, and hath inserted it in his Collection, hath put nothing of that Letter in it. These Reasons have made F. Quesuel to conjecture, That this Fragment hath been added in the Co●e of Di●●y●●us Exiguus, by the same Person that hath added the Letters of Pope Hilary and his Successors▪ as far as Gregory II. , or if it be his, 'tis a Fragment of some other Letter unfitly in●erted in this 〈◊〉 It contains a Prohibition of Ordaining Bishops in the Villages or Castles, and an Advertisement to the Virgins that had been defiled by the Barbarians, That they ought not 〈◊〉 reckon themselves, according to the Judgement of the Author of this Fragment, neither among the Widows nor Virgins. Lastly, He there in speaks of a Bishop of afric, called Lupicinus, who had been excommunicated in afric notwithstanding the Appeal which he had made to Rome, and in whose Place they had ordained another Bishop, before the Pope had given Judgement. This shows, that the Bishops of afric retained their Liberty about Appeals for a long time, and did not recede from their Rights in the least, when this Letter was written by S. Leo, 〈◊〉 by some other Pope.  
The Second Letter is written about the Year 442 
g In 442.] The Question which I Rusticus propounded to S. Leo, proves, That he wrote in a time when the Christians were much distressed by the Barbarians. F. Sirmondus hath referred this to the Eruptions of the Hu●●s into France, under the conduct of Attilas; F. Quesnel to the taking of berthage and the Desolation of Africa by Gensericus, in 450. This Opinion is confirmed by the Eighteenth Question; wherein he speaketh of the Christians of Africa and Mauritania. , to Rustieus Bishop of Nar●●nne. This Bishop se●●● his Archdeacon Her●●es to S. Leo, to p●●pose several Questions to him touching Discipline, and communicate to him his Proceed against Two Priests, who were under his Jurisdiction, who had withdrawn themselves before their Judgement was pronounced: S. Leo leaves it to his Discretion to censure them as he thought 〈◊〉; and exhorts him only to do what he was able to recall them again to the good way by treating them with Gentleness. He afterward diverts him from his Purpose to leave his Bishopric, and pass the remaining part of his Life in a Retreat. At last he answers several Questions, which that Bishop had put to him. I shall in this Place relate the Answers of this Pope.  
In the First Place he declares, That they who have not been either chosen by the Clergy, or desired by the People, not ordained by the Bishops of the Province, 〈◊〉 with the Consent of the Metropolitan, may not be accounted Bishops, and that they ought not to be allowed the Dignity, which they have not received: Nevertheless, if he finds that these false Bishops have Ordained Clerks in the Churches by the consent of such as 〈◊〉, that is to say the Bishops of these Churches, their Ordination may be approvid of, upon condition that they continue in these Churches; but aught to be looked upon as Null, if they have not been fixed in one Church not approved by a Lawful Authority.  
In the second he says, That it is not allowable to put a Priest or a Deacon to do public Penance, although he desires it and if he find himself guilty of any Crime, he ought to retire himself, and do Penance in pri●a●e. This Rule of S. Leo is contrary to the Ancient Discipline of many Churches, and to the Canons of the First Council of Orange, and the Second of A●les.  
In the Third, He orders. That the Ministers of the Altar, That is, the Deacons, and Subdeacons, as it appears by his Letter to Anastasius of Thessalonica, should be subject to the Law of Continence, as well as the Bishops and Priests. He adds, That being Laics or Readers they may be married and have Children, but being arrived at the Sacred Ministry of the Altars, 'tis not to be permitted them; That their Marriage ought to be changed from Carnal to Spiritual, that so they may neither forsake their Wives, nor have any Carnal Knowledge of them. S. Leo is the first who hath extended the Law of Celibacy to Subdeacons. His Predecessors S. Siricius and S. Innocent, speak of none but Deacons. The Usage of the Church of France was contrary in the very Time of S. Leo, as it appears by the Canons of the First Council of Orange, the Second of Arles and Anjou, where only Deacons were obliged to Continence; for the Decnee of the Council of Orange was only for the future. It cost a great deal of Trouble to bring the Deacons to a Submission to that Law, seeing that the Bishops were forced to renew it often. It was afterwards enlarged to the Subdeacons in some Churches, as appears by the Councils of Venice and Agatha, but that Discipline was not general in all Churches of France, as we learn by the Letter of Lupus of Troy's [Tricassinus] and Euphronius of Autun▪ [Augustodunensis] ●o Thalasius Bishop of Anjou.  
In the Fourth he declares, That a Clergyman, who gives his Daughter in Marriage to one that hath a Concubine, ought not to be treated as if he had given her to a Person already married, because Concubines cannot be counted lawful Wives, nor the familiar Commerce with them Marriage; at least, they are not free, endowed nor joined together by public Marriage.  
In the Fifth he saith, That the Daughters of those Parents, who have married them to Persons that have Concubines, do not sin in dwelling with those to whom they are married.  
In the Sixth, That it is not the Sin of Adultery, but a virtuous Action, for a Man to cast off his Concubine, that he may live only with his Wife. The Concubines, which are spoken of in this Place, are Slaves, with whom Men lived as with their Wives, without having any Commerce with others, although they were not solemnly married to them.  
In the Seventh he saith, That they are much to be blamed for their Negligence, I who attend Dying Persons, to require Repentance of them, but do not insist upon it, when they are returned to Health again; That they ought not to give over wholly their Design, but bring them by frequent Exhortations to perform that which Necessity obliged them to require; because we ought to despair of no Man so long as he is in this World, and it often happens that Men do that in their riper Age which they have deferred through Distrust.  
In the Eighth, That those that die after they have undergone their Penance, without being reconciled, aught to be left to the Judgement of God, and no signs of Communion be allowed them. This Practice was contrary to that of the African, French and Spanish Churches.  
In the Ninth he speaks of those who having demanded Penance, when Afflictions lay upon them, would not undergo it when they were mitigated. He saith, That it may be this Disposition doth not proceed from a Contempt of Repentance, but from a fear of Sinning, and that it must not be denied them, if they request it a second Time.  
In the Tenth he saith, That a Penitent ought not to go to Law before the Secular Judges, but before the Ecclesiastical only, because he ought to abstain from such Things as are permitted.  
In the Eleventh he saith, That although it is nothing but the Nature of Gain that excuseth o● condemneth Trading, yet it is most convenient for a Penitent wholly to forbear it, because it is hard to avoid Sin in Commerce, either on the part of the Seller, or on the part of the Buyer.  
In the Twelfth he observes, That it is contrary to the Laws of the Church, to become a Soldier after a Man hath done Penance.  
In the Thirteenth he says, That he could wish that those who have done Penance when they were Boys, would not marry; yet he excuses young Men who do it, when it is to avoid Incontinency.  
In the Fourteenth he orders, That the Monks, who have married, or listed themselves for Soldiers, should be made to do Penance, because they cannot leave that Profession without Sin, when they have once embraced it, but are obliged to perform their Vows.  
In the Fifteenth he condemns the Virgins, who married after they had voluntarily put on the Habit of Virgins, and embraced Virginity, although they were not yet consecrated.  
In the Sixteenth and Seventeenth he affirms, That they must be baptised anew who have not any Proof that they have been already baptised, although they remember that they have been heretofore in the Church.  
In the Eighteenth he saith, That it is sufficient to lay Hands upon, and call upon the Holy Spirit, over those that do remember that they have been baptised, but know not in what Sect.  
In the Nineteenth, and Last, he saith, That those Infants, who after Baptism have Lived among the Heathen, aught to be put to public Penance, if they have worshipped Idols, or committed Sins; but it is sufficient to purge them by Imposition of Hands, and Fasting▪ before 〈…〉  
It 〈…〉 of these Questions ha●e been determi●●● by the 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which 〈◊〉 Bishop of 〈◊〉 was Precedent 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That 〈◊〉 Bishop● of 〈◊〉 who was evil affected to that Bishop, ●●d rather ●ave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop of Rome, than to the Councils of his Province; but th●se Decisions of S. Leo 〈…〉 the Customs of the Church of France, as we have ●●●served, 〈◊〉 may be 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of those Councils.  
The Third Letter of S. Leo is directed to the Bishops of 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 and other Provinces, Da●ed October the 〈◊〉 in the Year 443. S. Leo Observes in the beginning of this Letter, That as the Order of the Churches was a Joy to him, so he was troubled when any thing was done contrary to the Canons and Discipline of the Church. He adds, That if the Bishops did not restrain the disorders with all possible diligence, since they are appointed to watch 〈◊〉 the Fl●ck of Jesus Christ, they are inexcusable; t● suffer, that the Body of the Church, which they ought to keep in Purity, should be de●●●ed and corrupted with Dissensions, is a great 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 annex●s to this Ad●…ion these following Canons.  
In the First he forbids, That such Persons be not received into the Clergy, as are Sla●es, as also Farmers, o● Su●…s, or any other, who depend in any manner soever upon Masters, at least, that th●se upon whom they depend, do not require it: He gives Two Reasons for this Prohibition; The First, Because the Sacred Ministry is as it were made Contemptible by such sole of Persons; And the Second is, Because it doth an Injury to their Mistresses. Pope 〈◊〉 allows the contrary, in respect of the Farmers, in his Ninth Epistle.  
In the Second Ca●●n he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ordinations of Persons, that have been twice Married, and commands, by virtue of his Apostolical Authorities, that they be hindered from doing the Offices of their Ministry, reserving to himself the Cognizance of the Cause of such as bring some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in; and that no Man might pretend Ignorance▪ although▪ 'tis not sufferable for a Bishop to be I●…ant of what is ordered by the Canons) he tells them, He had sent this Letter by Three Bishops, which may be a reason to think, that it was written in a Synod.  
The Third and Fourth Canons are against Usurers. These are the first, which forbidden Usury 〈◊〉 Lay▪ Men. In the last Canon 〈◊〉 declares, That those that will not Obey these Decrees, shall be deprived of their Dignities, and they that will not Conform to the Discipline of the Church of Rome, shall have no part in her Communion. Lastly, He commands them to keep the 〈◊〉 and Ordinances of his 〈◊〉, but especially of Pope Innocent. Those, saith he, which have been promulged about the Order of the Church, and 〈◊〉 Discipline. Qu● de Ecclesiasticis ordinibus, & Canonum promulgata sunt disciplin●s. For so it ought to be read, as it is in the MSS. and no● Ordi●●●●, as it is in some Editions. Hinoma●us reads promulgata, and m●th Amplifies this passage in Opus●●●●, 33. Ch. 10. This Letter was sent to the Bishops of It all subject to the Church of Rome, as their Metropolis, and therefore 'tis no wonder if S. Leo speaks to them with so much Authority.  
The Fourth Letter to 〈◊〉 Bishop of Thessalonica, is taken out of the Acts of the Council of Rome, under 〈◊〉 TWO, which is to be found in H●●●●●nius's Collection. In this Letter S. Leo makes Anastasius his Deputy in Illyria, imitating therein the Example of S●●●cius, who had first granted that 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉, and he exhorts him to imitate his Predecessor, and ●o have a 〈◊〉 of the Churches which he committed to his charge. Above all, he recommends to him, That he cause the Canons about the Ordination of Bishops to be observed, and that he oppose the Election of Persons who have been Twice Married, especially when they have Married the first Wife before Baptism. He would not have him suffer the Metropolitans of Illyria to Ordain any Bishop without his appr●●ation, nor themselves to be 〈◊〉 but by himself▪ He charges the Bishops to come to the Synods which he shall call, to Judge in common what concerns the Discipline of the Church; and de●●res him, That if there happen any cause of great consequence which they could not determine, he would give him an account of it, that the Holy See might decide it according to the Ancient Custom▪ Whereupon he Observes, That he entrusted him with his Authority, in such manner nevertheless, as that he reserved to himself those Causes which could not be ended in the Province, or in which there should be an Appeal to the Holy See. He Admonishes Anastasius to make known all these Orders to all the Bishops, that they may have no ground of Excuse, if they did not put them in practice, and that he had written to the Metropolitans, that they ought to acknowledge him the Deputy of the Holy See. In the conclusion, he reproves the fault of some Bishops, who Ordained Priests and Deacons upon other Days than Sundays, an Usage, which he says, was contrary to the Canons and Tradition of the Fathers. This Letter is Dated January the 11th, 444.  
The Fifth Letter, which is directed to the Metropolitans of I●●yrin, is that which he mentions in the foregoing. S. Leo Exhorts them to take care that the Canons be not broken, and tells them, That he had made Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, his Deputy, that they might Obey him in those things which concern the Discipline of the Church. He sends them at the same time some of the Rules which he wrote in the foregoing Letter, and repeats them in this.  
The Sixth Letter is superscribed to a Bishop of Aquilcia, his Name is not found in any MSS. nor in the more Ancient Editions. In the latter Editions the Name of Nicetas is put before it, without any other reason, but only, because there is another Letter of S. Leo's that bears the Title of Nicetas Bishop of Aquileia. But since there is also one to Januarius Bishop of the same See, there is nothing that can determine to which of these Two this Letter belongs, but only the time when it was written. That which is directed to Nicetas bears Date in the Year 458, and that to Januarius in 447. This of which we are now speaking is not far from 447, for S. Leo therein speaks against the Pelagians, whom he opposed in the beginning of his Pontificate; at the same time, when he attacked the Manichees, as the Author of the Book of Predictions and Promises attributed to S. Prosper, shows in Chap. 6. Now it is certain, that it was in 444, that he set upon the Manichees. And consequently it must be to Januarius, and not Nicetas, to whom this Letter was written. In it S. Leo tells film, That he had heard, by the relation of Septimius, that some Priests, Deacons, and other Ecclesiastical Persons, who had been engaged in the Heresy of Pelagius, or Coelestius, had been admitted to the Communion of the Church in their Province, without being required to condemn their Error expressly. Insomuch, that while the Shepherds slept, the Wolves have entered into the Fold of Jesus Christ, without laying aside their Cruel Disposition. That they had likewise done a thing which the Canons and Constitutions of the Church do not allow the most Innocent, in leaving the Church, where they had been admitted Clerks, to go to other Churches. That their design was by this means to corrupt many Churches, by hiding the Heresy, with which they were infected, under the show of Communion to which they had been received, without being obliged to any Profession of Faith. To remedy this disorder, he enjoins the Bishop to whom he wrote, To call a Synod, and to compel all his Clergy to Condemn openly the Authors of their Heresy, and to make a Confession in writing, That they do firmly hold all the Synodical Decrees made for the Extirpation of that Heresy, and confirmed by the Authority of the Apostolic See. He adds, That great care ought to be had, that they make use of no obscure, or ambiguous Terms, because he knows them to be so deceitful, that if they can avoid the Condemning any Branch of their Errors by that means, they will put themselves under any disguise. That One of their principal Artifices is, when they pretend to condemn all their Doctrines, and renounce them sincerely, to slide in this pernicious Maxim, That Grace is given according to Deserts. That that Opinion is contrary to the Apostles Doctrine, who Teaches us, That Grace, which is not given without Merit, is not Grace, and that the disposition to Goodworks is also an effect of the Grace of Jesus Christ, which is the beginning of Righteousness, the Source and Original of our Merits. That when they say on the contrary, that Natural Industry must go before it, their design is to insinuate by it, that our Nature hath not been impaired by Original Sin. Then he Exhorts Januarius to beware, lest his People raise new Scandals by obliging them to purge themselves from all manner of suspicion, upon pain of being driven out of the Church. He Admonishes him also about the end, That he should not suffer the Priests, Deacons, or other of the Clergy, to pass from one Church to another at their own pleasure, but force them to continue in that Church wherein they have been once ordained. Lastly, He discovers to him the Obligation that all Bishops are under, to see that the Canons be observed, because if they do not do it, they keep up the Disorders of their Inferiors by their Gentleness, and increase the Evil by not using the Remedies sufficient to cure them.  
The following Letter to Septimius Bishop of Altinum, (now Torzello) a City of the Patriarchate of Venice, is upon the same subject with the former, and contains the same things in short. This, and the Fourteenth to Januarius, are written much about the same time, but this applies to the Pelagians in particular, what is said in the Fourteenth in general against Heretics and Schismatics, that they ought not to be received, till they have Abjured their Errors, and Condemned the Authors of them. Besides this, the Letter to Septimius doth only repeat what had been said in the First Letter to Januarius concerning those Clerks, who leave their Church to go to another; whereas in the Fourteenth he speaks nothing of this Change, but he Order, That those Clerks who are Converted, aught to look upon it as a great favour, that they are allowed to continue in the Clergy in which they are, provided, that they have not been Baptised Twice, and they may not hope to be raised to any higher Dignity. The Seventh hath no Date, the Fourteenth is Dated December the 29th, or June the 24th, Anno 447. It was Entitled to Julian in the vulgar Editions. But Dionysius Minor, Cresconius, Hincmarus, and all the MSS. carry the Name of Januarius Bishop of Aquileia. There are Three other Letters which bear the Name of S. Leo, very like for the subject. The First and Second, that is to say, the Sixth and Seventh, contain nothing but the same thing exactly, but the one is a great deal longer than the other. The Seventh and Fourteenth are not so like in the subject, but they are much more so in the terms, or rather they are the same thing, a few Lines excepted. Which made F. Norris believe, That they were really Two Copies of the same Letter sent to Two different Bishops. But that Conjecture doth not seem possible to be defended; for besides, that the sense of the last part of these Two Letters is wholly different, it cannot be of the Pelagians of whom he speaks in the latter, but in general of all Heretics and Schismatics, and particularly of the Donatists, who caused themselves to be Rebaptised. It cannot then be said, that these Two Letters are Two Copies of the same Letter, they are certainly Two different 〈◊〉▪ ●or is it likely that S. L●●▪ who had so great a facility of Writing▪ ●●●uld be ●●●ught so 〈◊〉, as I may say, as to Copy 〈◊〉 his own Writings himself, Word 〈◊〉 Word, ●●d to follow the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one of his Letters to Write another to a distinct Person upon a different subject? This is not at all Credible. 'Tis more probable, That one of these 〈◊〉 Letters i● 〈◊〉, but which of the Two is disputable. Father Qu●s●●l thinks 'tis the Seventh, and his Adversary 〈◊〉 that it is the Fourteenth. Let us consider their Reasons.  
F. 〈◊〉 proves, That the 14th. is Authentic, by the Testimony of Dionysius Exiguus and Cresconius, who have inserted it in their Collections of Hincmarus who hath cited this Letter, and by the Authority of the more Ancient MSS. On the contrary, he rejects the 7th. which is not in the Ancient Collections, but in Isidore's only, by these Conjectures: The most valid is taken from this Term, Metropolitan of the Province of Venice, which is to be found in this Letter, which is not in the 14th. We shall never find, says he, That the Metropolitan of the Province of Venice was ever spoken of, before the City of Venice was made an Episcopal See, and what Sense can that Expression have, when Venice was not the Metropolis of any Province, and the Province itself was not called Venice, but Istria? The Bishop of Aquileia was never called Metropolitan of the Province of Venice, but of the Province of Istria, and the Bishops of that Country, Bishops of Istria, and not of the Venetian Province. Photius, in the 54th. Code of his Bibliotheca, says well, That Septimius had written to S. Leo against the Heresy of the Nestorians (he means of the Pelagians, for they were known in the East under the name of the Nestorians only) who would exalt themselves; but he says not That S. Leo had sent a Letter to Septimius.  
The Adversary of F. Quesnel doth not oppose the Proofs, by which the 14th. Letter is upheld, but he makes it his Business to relate such Conjectures as prove it Supposititious, and Answers to those which F. Quesnel hath brought against the 7th. He says then, against the 14th. 1. That the Conclusion is not answerable to the beginning; That it is an unshapen Monster; for in the beginning S. Leo commends the Zeal of the Person to whom he writes, and at the end threatens him, if he neglects to have his Decrees put in practice. 2. That this Conclusion is taken word for word out of the 6th. Letter of S. Leo to the same Januarius; That nevertheless it is all that is different almost in this Letter from that which is directed to Septimius. Now what prohability is there, That S. Leo should use the same Conclusion in two distinct Letters written to the same Person. 3. It is probable, That the Terms, which are in the 14th▪ Letter and not in the 7th. have been added. 4. That the 6th. Letter to Januarius confirms the 7th. It is certain, That Septimius had written to S. Leo, concerning the Pelagians, which is also confirmed by the Testimony of Photius. There is then a greater probability, That the Letter, which is written to him upon that Subject, is Genuine, than another Letter to Januarius concerning the Donatists. For when we have two Writings, one of which is certainly forged, and we find one to have relation to the Circumstances of the History of the time, and the other none at all; we ought to uphold the former rather than the latter.  
These are the Arguments which M. the Abbot of Anthelmi brings against the 14th. Letter. Next he answers to those which F. Quesnel hath offered against the 7th. Letter, since there is none but that which respects the Metropolitan of Venice, which appeared strong to us; we will not stay to discuss the other. M. Abbot Anthelmi is sensible of the force of it. And, first, he endeavours to elude it, by saying, That among the Records of the Ancients, the Names of Venice and Istria are to be found. Whereupon he quotes two Inscriptions, and the 25th. Letter of S. Ambrose to the Church of Vercellae, wherein he speaks of the Provinces of Liguria, Ae●ilia and Venice. But distrusting this first Answer, he says, That the Name of Venice, in this Letter, is evidently added or changed for Istria. And he endeavours to discover after what manner this change might be made, but he doth not prove it by the Authority of any MSS. that it hath been done; yet this is all that he hath brought to prove it. This is what he saith on both sides concerning the Authenticness of these two Letters. Altho' it doth not belong to me to judge between two Persons, so judicious as these two Critics are, nevertheless I cannot but give my Opinion concerning these Letters, yet upon this condition, That it be not reckoned of any great Worth.  
The Authority of the Collections of Dionysius Exiguus and Cresconius, seem to me to prove the Authenticness of the 14th. Letter, to which 'tis hard not to yield assent. It is true, we have rejected some parts of the first Letter, altho' they are in the Collection of Dionysius Exiguus. But 'tis because we had a lawful Reason to doubt, whether they were there heretofore, and because Cresconius had not put them in his Collection, and because they are not to be found in the Ancient MSS. and because they are evidently added. It is certain, That Dionysius hath recited that Letter, Cresconius hath followed him, the MSS. agree, and there is nothing that proves the Letter Supposititious, for the Conjectures of M. Abbot Anthelmi do not seem strong enough.  
The first is grounded upon this Supposition, That the last words of that Letter are directly applied to Januarius, but this is not altogether so, for they may as well relate to other Bishops. Furthermore, these words are not so sharp, but S. Leo might make use of them to awaken and increase the Zeal of the Bishop to whom he wrote.  
The 2d. is not at all more concluding. It is not very unusual for the same Man to write 〈◊〉 different Letters after the same manner, and to repeat the same sentence in two different ●●aces. S. Le●'s Letters afford us many Examples of it. Read but the ●●th. and 13●th. Let●…, and you will find there 6 or 7 Chapters transcribed out of the one into the other▪ Besides, 〈◊〉 Conclusion of these two Letters is perhaps a form of Threatening which th● Pope's ordinarily used. But however that be, it is not less ●…able to S. L●●, to take this 〈◊〉 out of his 6th. Letter, than to Pope Adrian 〈◊〉 to take the whole 〈◊〉 Chapter of this 〈◊〉 Letter, and inse●● it into his 97th. Letter.  
The third is the very point about which all the Contest is. F. Que●… holds, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i● over and above in the 14th. Letter is no Addition but what comes naturally in with the Text; and that it is the 17th. Letter which is defective. Let the Readeer judge. The sense of the 2d. part is quite different. The Order, which is found in the 14th. Letter, by which it is forhidden to promote converted Clergy men to any higher degree, is certainly ancient 〈◊〉 bears a mark of Veneration, and is expressed in Terms suitable to S. Leo. This is in my Judgement, of great weight.  
The last Conjecture of M. Abbot Anthelmi, al●●o ' he thinks it able to determine the Poi●● yet doth not seem to me to be altogether so. The Forgers of Writings do often take occasion to counterfeit Books from some circumstance of Chronology. They think not upon new Notions, nor of Affairs very lately transacted, but they ordinarily derive them from the Anc●en●●. It was much easier for an Imposter to forge a Letter of S. Leo to Septimius, by taking the History of the 6th. Letter, and the Terms of the 14th. than to produce one wholly from his own Fancy.  
The Conjectures which F. Quesnel hath alleged against the Letter to Septimius, are not altogether decisive; but if we must necessarily assert, That one of the two Letters is forged, and the other genuine, I shall readily conclude in favour of the 14th. And must, withal, acknowledge, That the Objection taken from these words, Ad Metropolitanum Episco●… Venetiae, is almost unanswerable; a like Example cannot be produced. The word Venetia, in the singular Number, is not where to be found, nor Provincia Venetiae, but Lig●…, Aemiliae Venetiar●mque parts. In fine, It was never heard, That the Bishop of Aquilei● was called Metropolitanum Venetiae Provinciae. It is not likely, That this place hath been added or changed, since the Letter was written. The Abbot Anthelmi supposeth, That the precedent Letter, in many MSS. was entitled, Ad Metropolitanum Provinciae Venetiae, and that that gave an occasion to the Notary, who saw that the precedent Letter was spoken of in this, to change Istriae into Venetiae upon the credit of the Title only. But there are only two MSS. wherein this Letter is so superscribed. In all the other, it is only directed to the Bishop of Aquileia, and yet we find in the Letter to Septimius, Metropolitanum Provinciae Venetiae. It is then far more probable, That it was the 7th. Letter, which gave occasion to entitle the 6th. so, in some MSS. than that the mere Title of the 6th. Letter should be the cause, that the Text of the 7th. hath been corrupted. But we have stayed too long upon a Critical Point of little Importance.  
The 8th. Letter of S. Leo is dated Jan. 30. 444. In many MSS. it is directed to the Bishops of several Provinces. In one, to the Bishops of Sicily, but commonly to the Bishops of Italy. S. Leo writes, in this Letter, That he had found out, and convinced many Manichees of their Error in the City of Rome; That he received such of them to Penance, as acknowledged their Sin, and the rest he had banished according to the Edicts of the Emperors. He exhorts those to whom he writes, to be Vigilant, as good Pastors, to discover those, who might lurk in their Dioceses.  
The 9th. Letter to the Bishops of the Province of Vienna had never been published, had it not been found in a MSS. in the Library of the Abbey of Fleury. It is a very dubious piece, as F. Quesnel shows in his Notes, for, 〈◊〉. The date, by the Consuls, is apparently false. Valentinian had been Consul 4 times in 435. but never had Avienus for his Colleague, who was not Consul till 450. S. Leo was not yet Pope, when the first was Consul, and Hilarius Bishop of Arles, to whom this Letter was written, was dead, when the latter was Consul. But the date may be amended, by putting it under the Consulship of Valentinian, the 6th. time, and of Nomius. 2. The Style of this Letter is altogether different from S. Leo's. 3. We find therein the name of Archbishop, which the Latin Authors did not use at that time. 4. Nor is it probable, That S. Leo did write two Letters to the same Bishops, at the same time, and upon the same subject; and the 10th. being certainly S. Leo's, this aught to be accounted a Forgery. 'Tis very short. He therein revokes the Privileges granted to the Church of Arles, because Hilarius had refused to submit to his Judgement, and restored them to the Church of Vienna.  
The 10th. Letter to the Bishops of that Province, is about the difference between Hilarius Bishop of Arles and S. Leo. For the full understanding of which▪ we must observe, 1. That there had been a Contest, a long time, between the Bishops of Vienna and the Bishop of Arles, about the Rights of the Metropolis in the Province of Vienna. 2. That the Council of Taurinum, to appease this Quarrel, had ordained, That whosoever, of the two, could prove, that his City was the Civil Metropolis, should enjoy the Right of the Ecclesiastical Metropolitan of all the Province; but that, in the mean while, each should have, for Suffragans, the Bishops which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop 〈◊〉) That the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 which belongs to the Province of N●…, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of that Province. 4. That Hilarius, Bishop of Arles, desitous to maintain the Right of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 given to his 〈◊〉, went 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and light upon a Bishop called 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I 〈◊〉 to a Widow, and who had had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This Bishop went 〈◊〉 Rome, and there 〈◊〉 of the judgement given against 〈◊〉 by 〈…〉 5. That 〈◊〉▪ Bishop of Arles, followed him, and after he had 〈◊〉 the Church of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. P●●l, 〈◊〉 p●ay to these Apo●… there, he went to S. Le●, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him not to trouble the Churches. He made his Complaints concerning the French Bishops, who, after they had been deservedly con●… in France, 〈◊〉, notwithstanding, allowed to assist at the Holy Sacrament in the City of 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 des●…d 〈…〉 to his Pre●…sions, declaring to him, at the same 〈◊〉, That he was not 〈◊〉 to accuse 〈◊〉 adversary, but ●…ly to make his Protestations and 〈◊〉, and that did not please 〈◊〉, he would would home, as 〈◊〉 really did, when he saw, That S. Leo called a Synod to b●ing the Ma●… to Trial. 6. That after his Departure, S. L●● absolved and restored him to his See.  
Upon this occasion, and in this juncture of Affairs did this Pope write in 445. to the Bishop● of the Province of Vi●●n●, this better of which we are speaking. He gins with an 〈◊〉 of the Apostolic Se●, and says, That he had been consulted very often by the French Bishops, and had disannulled and confirmed their Judiciary Sentences, which had been ●●●ught to him by appeal. He complains, That Hi●●ry had disturbed the Peace and Union of the Churches; That he had endeavoured to make the Bishops of the Seven Provinces subject to his Authority, without submitting to S. Peter's whom he had resisted and lessened, being puffed up with a Spirit of Pride. He 〈◊〉, That having examined the Cause of Celidonius, he found him really Innocent of what he was accused, and therefore had made void the Sentence, which had been given against him, which nevertheless he would have ratified, if what was alleged had been true.  
He speaks afterward of the Cause of another Bishop of the Province of Vienna, named Projectus: He complains, That Hi●●●y would have ordained, in his Place, a Person who had been chosen neither by the People, nor Clergy, nor Nobility. He demands why S. Hilary did intermeddle with the Ordinations of another Province. He reproves his Departure from Rome, and at length declares, That he had ordained that Projectus should remain in his See.  
He than commands the Bishops to ordain Canonically, in pursuance of the Election of the People or Clergy, and that every one of them keep within their own Bounds. He condemns Hilary for carrying along with him armed Men in ordaining or driving out Bishops: He forbids him the calling of Synods, and declares him deprived not only of his Right of Primacy, which he had pretended to, but also of the Right of Metropolis in the Province of Vienna, which he had usurped. He will not have him ordain, and declares him fallen away from the Communion of the Apostolic See. He brings here an excellent Rule about Excommunication; We must not, saith he, easily excommunicate any, nor ought it to be inflicted upon any at the Humour of every peevish Bishop, but we ought to use that Means to punish a great Crime. He adds, That none may be Excommunicated but the Guilty, not they that have no Part in the Action.  
He exhorts the Bishops, to whom he wrote, to put in execution what he had commanded: He makes them take notice, That he did not assume to himself the Ordinations of their Churches, but preserved them from the Encroachments of Hilary. Lastly, He forbids them calling a Synod, of more than one Province, without the Consent of Leontius an Ancient Bishop (he doth not tell us of what see, but in the Life of Honoratus, written by Hilary Bishop of Arles, there is one Leontius Bishop of Frejus [Forum Jul●●, a City in Provence] spoken of) S. Leo, by this, gives him the Primacy for a Time, upon the account of his Age, but yet wholly by the Leave and Approbation of the Bishops of France, si vobis placet, and without diminishing the Rights of the Metropolitans.  
It remains that we observe, That neither Hilary Bishop of Arles, nor the Bishops of France did give place to S. Leo, and that this Pope continued firm to his Opinion, although Hilary sent Two Deputies to him to appease him. This is evident by the Letter of Auxiliaris, Governor of Rome, recited by H●norat●s; in which he tells this Saint, That he hath spoken with Pope Leo, and Adds: In reading this you will be stirred, for you are always the same, and in the same Resolution. He advises him to soften his Terms, because, saith he, Roman Ears are tender.  
Upon this account it was that the Pope, labouring with all his Might to have his Decrees put in execution, obtained an Edict of the Emperor Justinian, which he sent after this Letter; by which the Emperor declares, That the Primacy of the Apostolic See ought not to be lessened, being built upon the Merits of S. Peter, and confirmed by the Authority of the Councils. He blames Hilary Bishop of Arles, for having arrogated the Ordinations to himself that did not belong to him, and having deposed Bishops unjustly. He commands, That the Sentence given against him by the Holy See, which ought to take place without the Imperial Authority; be executed, that no Man oppose it, and that there be no Disturbances in the Churches for the future. He ordains, That for ever hereafter, neither the French Bishops, nor the Bishops of other Provinces, shall undertake any thing hereafter, without the Authority of the Bishop of Rome; That all that he orders shall be acknowledged for a Law; and that the Bishops, which he shall cite, shall be compelled by the Governor to come to Rome. This Edict, which is contrary to the Canons, and also to the Decrees of the Council of Sardica, hath no place here. It is dated the 6th of June, in 445.  
The Eleventh Letter to Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, was written, certainly, some Time after the Ordination of that Bishop, and consequently in 445. S. Leo having spoken of the Union and Agreement that there ought to be between the Church of Rome and Alexandria; because the First was founded by S. Peter, and the Second by S. Mark his Scholar: He exhorts Dioscorus to observe that which was practised in the Church of Rome, touching the Times of Ordinations, which ought not to be conferred on all Days indifferently, but only on Saturday-night, just before the Lord's Day, which may be looked upon as belonging to the Lord's Day. He would have them, who celebrate Ordination, to be Fasting, and that they continue the Fast of Saturday upon the Lord's Day; that is to say, That since they begin to fast all Day on Saturday, they do not eat till the Evening of the Lord's Day, after the Ordination is ended; so we ought to understand S. Leo's Words. This Explication is confirmed by Urban II. in the Council of Clermont in the Year 1095. where speaking of Ordinations. he says, Et tunc protrahatur jejunium usque ad crastinum, ut magis appareat in die dominico ordines fieri. And then let the Fast be lengthened till the Morrow, that it may be the more apparent that Orders are conferred on the Lord's Day.  
In the Second Part of this Letter he advises him to observe the Custom of the Church of Rome; which was to reiterate the Holy Communion, when so great Numbers come to the Church upon solemn Festivals, that all those that come cannot enter. It was evidently the same, who began the Sacrament again, for the Bishop ordinarily administered it, and it was not allowed to a Priest to offer in the presence of a Bishop. He wrote this Letter to Dioscorus, by Possidonius a Deacon of Alexandria, who is evidently the same that S. Cyril sent to S. Celestine; for S. Leo witnesses, That he had often been present at the Ordinations and Processions of Rome.  
The Twelfth Letter is to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica, and although the Date of it be not well known, yet it is referred to this Year. S. Leo in this Letter lays some Faults to the Charge of this Bishop, and prescribes him some Rules, which he would have him observe. He tells him, That he and his Predecessors being made his Deputy, he ought to execute that Charge with Moderation, and suspend the Judgement of Matters of Consequence, and which have some Difficulty, to make Report of them to the Holy See. He tells him, That he must act with Gentleness and Charity, principally in reproving Bishops, and that he must rather amend them by Kindness than Severity. He afterward objects some Faults against him, not directly laying them to his Charge. They, saith he, who seek their own Interest more than that of Jesus Christ, take no Care how they manage Affairs; they depart from the Laws of Charity; they love rather to Rule than to Advise; the Honour pleaseth them, when it raiseth them, and they abuse the Title which hath been given them for the Preservation of Peace. He adds, That it is a Grief to him, that he is forced to use such Terms, but he thinks himself in Fault, when he knows, That he, whom he hath made his Deputy, is departed from the Laws which he hath given him. He than tells him, That the Reason of this Imputation is the Severity which he hath used towards Atticus Metropolitan of Epirus, because he had not appeared at the Synod, to which he had been summoned. He tells him, That although he were Blame-worthy, yet he had not Power to condemn him, without waiting for the Judgement of the Holy See; because being but Deputy, he was assumed, in partem sollicitudinis, non in plenitudinem potestatis; To share in his Care, not exercise the same Authority.  
He appoints, in the Second Canon, that Metropolitans should preserve the Rights which are granted them by the Canons.  
In the Third he says, That such Persons may not be chosen for Bishops, as are Laymen, or Novices, or twice married, or have married Widows. In the old Edition it is, Sed nec qui viduam copularit; Neither he that marrieth a Widow: It ought to be read, Qui unam vel habeat vel habuerit, sed quam sibi viduam copularit; He that hath or shall have but only one Wife, but whom he married when she was a Widow. F. Quesnel hath thus corrected it, following the Authority of the Collections of Councils.  
In the Fourth Canon he commands the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, to live unmarried, and observes, That the Use of Marriage was not allowed to Subdeacons'. Nevertheless, S. Gregory, lib. 2. Regist. Ep. 42. says, That it was too hard to refuse it to the latter.  
In the 〈◊〉 Canon he saith that he ought to be made a Bishop, who is chosen by the 〈◊〉 and People. He gives Power to the Metropolitan, in case that their Judgements be divided, to prefer him who is of greatest Worth, and hath most Votes: But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forbids him making any Person a Bishop, whom the People would not have.  
In the Sixth Canon he judges it very fit, that the Metropolitan should write to his Vicar concerning the Election, that it may be confirmed by his Judgement, and so, after the Death of the Metropolitan, he wills that the Bishops of the Province should assemble themselves and choose one of the Priests or Deacons of the Vacant Church, and that they give an Account of their Election to his Vicar, that he may confirm it: He commands him, notwithstanding, to return a speedy Answer; Sicut enim, saith he, Just as electiones nullis volumus dilationibus fatigari, ita nihil permittimus te ignorante praesumi; For as we will not have due Elections to be disturbed with Delays, so we do not allow that any thing be presumed on without your Knowledge.  
In the Seventh Canon he appoints, according to the Nicene Council, That two Synods be held every Year in each Province. He requires that if there be any Cause among the Bishops, accused of Crimes, which cannot be determined in the Provincial Synod, it should be made known to his Vicar, and, if he could not end it, he should write to the Holy See.  
In the Eighth he declares, That he that would go from one Church to another, out of Contempt of his own, shall be deprived both of that he would have, and of that he hath. Ut nec illis praesideat, quos per avaritiam concupivit, nec illis quos per superbiam sprevit. That he may not preside over those whom he through Covetousness hath desired, not those whom through Pride he hath contemned. S. Leo in this follows the Canon of the Council of Sardica; but those of Nice and Chalcedon permitted them to continue in their First Church.  
In the Ninth he forbids the Bishops to receive or invite the Clergy of another Church. He will so have it, That if a Clerk, being come out of his own Diocese, abide in the same Province, he should be compelled to return to his own Church by the Metropolitan; and if he be out of the Province, by the Vicar of the Holy See.  
In the Tenth he enjoins him to observe a great deal of Moderation, in calling his Brethren together. He requires, That if it be necessary to convene a Synod about some weighty Affair, he would constrain no more than Two Bishops of each Province to come to it, and those such as the Metropolitan should choose; and that he should keep them no longer than Five Days.  
In the last he commands Anastasius, That if in any Thing he found his Judgement different from his Brethren's, that he should write to him before he did any thing, that all things might be done with Unity and Concord. He observes, That although the Dignity of Bishops be common (for so it ought to be read, Etsi dignitas communis, non est tamen ordo generalis) their Order is different; that although the Apostles were equal, yet a Primacy was always given to one only: That, according to this Platform, the Distinction of Bishops is form; and it hath been provided, That all should not assume to themselves all sorts of Rights. For this Reason it is that Metropolitical Bishops have greater Authority than other Bishops; that in great Cities there are those that have a greater Charge: And, that, Lastly, the Care of the Universal Church belongs to the See of S. Peter, that all the Churches may agree with their Head: That he must not take it ill to have one above him, who is himself above others, but he ought to obey the rather, as he desires others should obey him, and as he would not bear an heavy Yoke himself, he must not impose it upon others.  
It is to be observed, That S. Leo wrote this Letter to a Bishop of Thessalonica, whom he had made his Vicar in the Diocese of Illyria, which he had a Mind to add to his Patriarchate, and govern it with the same Authority that he did the Suburban Provinces.  
The Thirteenth Letter directed to the Metropolitans of Achaia, is taken out of the Collection of Holstenius. It is Dated January the 6th, 446. S. Leo tells them how Joyful he was at the Receipt of their Letters, understanding thereby, that they approved of what he had done, in committing the Care of the Churches of Illyria to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica. He Admonishes them, That if there arise any Controversies among the Bishops of that Country, which cannot be decided in the Province, they ought to be brought before him, and determined by his Judgement, but if they are of very great consequence, and cannot be ended in the Provinces, nor accommodated by the Mediation of the Bishop of Thessalonica, the Bishops of the Provinces must come to a Synod, which he will call, and Two or Three Bishops at least of each Province must be present at it. He than Reproves the Metropolitan of Achaia, because he had Ordained many contrary to the Canons of the Church, and particularly had not long before made a Person Bishop of Thespiae, who was unknown to the Inhabitants, and whom they were against. He thereupon forbids Metropolitans to Ordain such Persons as they thought good of, Bishops, without waiting for the consent of the People and Clergy, and enjoins them to accept him who shall be chosen by the common consent of all the City. Lastly, He requires them to Observe the Canons, which forbidden a Bishop to take a Clerk of another Bishop, if he do not show Letters from his own Bishop, that he is willing to let him have him. He looks upon this point of Discipline as being very useful to uphold Agreement and Peace among Bishops.  
We have already spoken to the Fourteenth Letter written to Januarius Bishop of Aquileia.  
The Fifteenth Letter written to Turribius, is of July the 21st, 447. S. Leo therein commends that Bishop, that he had care to give him notice, that the Abominable Heresy of the Priscillianists began to spring up afresh in Spain. He also calls it the Sect of the Priscillianists, because, he says, it was an heap of detestable Errors, and most filthy Superstitions.  
He adds, That that Heresy hath been Condemned by the Church as often as it hath appeared, and that the Magistrates themselves have had so great an Hatred for that detestable Sect, that they have used the severity of the Laws against them, punishing the Author and principal Abetters with Death. And that not without Reason, because they saw that all Laws, Divine and Humane, would be subverted, and the Civil Society disturbed, if such Persons, who divulged so detestable Errors, were suffered to live. That this severity had been used a long time together with the Lenity of the Church, because, tho' the Church being contented with the Judgement of her Bishops, avoids all Sanguinary Punishments, yet it is helped by the Edicts of Princes, which cause them, that fear Temporal Penalties, to have recourse sometimes to Spiritual Remedies. S. Leo in the next place relates the Sixteen Articles, in which Turribius makes the Doctrine of the Priscillianists to consist; and shows us, that they contain so many Impieties. The Articles are these, 1. That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are only One Person. 2. That there comes from the Essence of God, Virtues, that is to say, Spiritual Being's, which proceed from his Essence. 3. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God only, because he was Born of the Virgin Mary. 4. That they Fast on Christ's Nativity, and Sundays. 5. That the Soul is from the Divine Essence. 6. That Devils were never good by their Nature; that they were not Created by God, but they were Form out of the Chaos, and Darkness. 7. That Marriage is forbidden, and that Generation is a detestable thing. 8. That the Bodies of Men are made by the Devil, and that they shall not rise from the Dead. 9 That the Children of the Promise are Born of Women, but are Conceived by the Holy Ghost. 10. That the Souls of Men have their abode in Heaven, before they are enclosed in their Bodies, and that they are thrust into them upon the account of their Sins which they have committed heretofore. 11. That the Stars and Constellations govern all things by an inevitable Fate. 12. That the Body and Soul are subject to certain Powers, those that Govern the Soul are called Patriarches, and those that Rule the parts of the Body, are Stars. 13. That the whole Body of the Canonical Scriptures is contained under the Name of the Patriarches, which denote the Twelve Virtues which restore and illuminate the inner Man. 14. That our Bodies are subject to the Stars and Constellations. 15. S. Leo Observes, That they have corrupted the Books of Scripture, and make use of Apocryphal Works full of Errors; That the Bishops ought to take them from them and burn them, altho' they bear the Names of the Apostles, and have some show of Piety, because they ordinarily have an hidden Poison in them, and lead Men into Error. In the 16th. Article S. Leo prohibits the Book that Dictinius had composed, being a Priscillianist. He also speaks of their Infamous Mysteries, like to those of the Manichees, whom he had made to acknowledge their Crime. Lastly, He condemns those Bishops, who are in those Errors, which he before observed, or rather, who did not oppose them, and would not curse them.  
In fine, As to that which Turribius hath Noted to S. Leo, that some of the Orthodox did doubt, Whether the Flesh of Jesus Christ was really in the Sepulchre, during the time that his Soul went down into Hell? He Answers, That he wondered that any Christian should doubt of that Truth, since it is plain by the Testimony of Holy Scripture, that the Body of Jesus Christ was Buried, and was raised again from the Dead. He concludes, That it is necessary that a Council be called in Spain in some convenient place, where the Bishops of the Neighbouring Provinces may be present, and there examine, if there be any Bishop who holds these Errors which he hath related, and if any be found, they must be Excommunicated, because it is not to be endured, that they who ought to Preach the Faith to others, should have the boldness themselves to dispute against the Creed and Gospel. He says, That he hath written to the Bishops of the Provinces of Spain to Assemble a National Council and that it belongs to him, to whom he writes, to cause it to be put in execution; but if that cannot be done, the Bishops of Gallaecia should at least meet. He leaves the care of calling the Council not only to Turribius, but also to Idacius, and Caeponius, to which Two Bishops Turribius wrote a Letter which he sent a little after along with that which S. Leo wrote to him. That Bishop shows therein his Grief which he was in, to find his Country infected with so many Errors, and commands them not to suffer the Christians to read such Apocryphal Books, as the Acts of S. Andrew, S. John, S. Thomas, and the Book entitled, The Memoirs of the Apostles.  
The Sixteenth Letter to the Bishops of Sicily is Dated October the 21st, 447. S. Leo in it reproves the Custom of the Churches of Sicily, in Administering Baptism upon the Feast of Epiphany, and says, That no Man ought to be Baptised, but upon the Feasts of Passover and Pentecost, according to the Custom of the Church of Rome, which he would have them to understand, that they are obliged to follow, because they were Ordained by the Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●heir 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 he 〈◊〉 not as yet given them notice of it, hoping they would 〈◊〉 ●hi● 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 t●en prove●; That they ought to observe certain tunes for the Celebration of the Mysteries of Religion; That the Feast of Easter is the most proper time for the administration of Baptism, because that is the time when those Mysteries are remembered, which are represented by Baptism; That the Feast of Pentecost may also be joined with it; That th●se who 〈◊〉 Sickness, or Absence, could not receive the Sacrament of Baptism at Easter, might not be deprived at 〈◊〉 of the Grace which it conferrs, and which the Holy Spirit pours ou● upon the Faithful; That the Apostles themselves have Authorized this Usage; but that there is no other Feast on which Baptism can be Administered after a solemn manner, because, 〈◊〉 we c●●ght to give a due respect to all the Festivals which are appointed for the Honour of God, yet we must keep the Mystical Representation of that Sacrament; That this Law nevertheless doth not ●inder from succouring those at all times which are in danger of Death; That those, who respect the Feast of Epiphany, as a fit Season for the Administration of Baptism, because Jesus Christ upon that Day received the Baptism of John, aught to consider, that there is a great deal of difference between the Baptism of John, and that of Jesus Christ, and tha● this last was not Instituted till the Side of Jesus Christ was opened, and there came from thence Blood and Water. This was the reason that S. Leo defended the Custom of the Church of Rome, to which he endeavoured to oblige the Bishops of Sicily, who were in his Patriarchate, and commanded them to send every Year Three Bishops to the Synod which he did hold at Rome the 29th. of September.  
There is another Letter to the same Bishops, Dated the next Day in which this last was written, wherein upon the Complaints of the Clergy of Two Churches of Sicily, who had accused their Bishops for squandring away the Revenues of their Churches, he forbids the Bishops, That they do not give, pawn, change, or sell the Goods of their Churches, unless it be for the advantage of the Church, and with the advice of all the Clergy. But for fear lest the Priests and Deacons should agree with their Bishop to make away the church-good, he forbids them, upon pain of Excommunication, to do any thing of that Nature, because it is Just, saith he, That not only the Bishops, but all Ecclesiastical Persons, should preserve the Revenues of the Church, and unreasonable, that the Goods given by the Faithful for the Salvation of their Souls, should be embezzled, or consumed.  
Father Quesnel doubts, whether this Letter be S. Leo's, being induced to it by these Conjectures, 1. It is not found in any MSS. under the Name of S. Leo, Vossius having met with it in a MS. of Cardinal Sirlit's, hath Printed it under S. Leo's Name, upon the account of the Date. 2. 'Tis not this Pope's Style, and there are in it many Expressions 
a Expressions.] Of which these are some Examples, Ab omni Episc●porum usurp●tione resecare, Ecclesi● nuditatem deplorare, querim●niarum causam defer, exemplum fiat imitabile, diversis modis alienare, co●●iventiam in Ecclesiae dam●● miscere. All the Letter is written after a dry and barren way.  which he never uses. 3. What probability is there, that S. Leo would write to the same Bishops Two different Letters, Two Days together? could he not have written in the former what is in this latter? 4. The Abuse which is reproved in this Letter, doth not in the least agree with the times of S. Leo, and the Discipline which is therein Established hath yet less resemblance. Who will believe, that in the time of S. Leo, it was allowed to a Bishop to Alienate the Goods of the Church with the consent of his Clergy only? 5. The Author of this Letter imposeth this Penalty upon the Clergy, who Abuse the Goods of the Church, To be deprived both of their Office, and the Communion of the Church. In S. Leo's time they never joined these Two Punishments together. These Conjectures are certainly very probable, and make me of F. Quesnel's Judgement, who thought this Letter forged, or at least, that it is another Leo's, and the Names of the Consuls have been added to it. This last is so much the more probable, because it is cited by Gratian under the Name of Pope Leo the 12th. Quaest 2. cap. 52. sine ex●●ptione.  
The Eighteenth Letter is written to Dorus, Bishop of Beneventum, and dated the 8th. of March, in the Year 448. He reproves that Bishop, for having disturbed the whole Order of Priests, by preferring a younger Priest before the more aged. He commands, That the more Ancient should t●ke their Places, unless it were those Two who had consented, That the Person, of whom he speaks in this Letter, should be preferred before them, tho' they were Elder than he.  
The Nineteenth Letter, dated James 1. 448. is an Answer to a Letter that Eutyches had written to S. Leo before he was condemned by Flavian. He had told him, That some Persons did revive the Nestorian Errors again. S. Leo returns him Answer, That he commended his Care; and tells him, That he would provide a sure Remedy, when he should be informed more at large, who they are that have attempted it.  
The following Letters, for the most part, concern the Affair of Eutyches, and the History of the Councils of Constantinople under Flavian, of Ephesus under Dioscorus, and of Chalceden. We shall put off speaking of these, till we shall make a particular Relation of that Affair. We shall satisfy ourselves to speak, in this place, of those that have no reference to it.  
Of this sort is the Thirty Sixth Letter to the Bishops of the Province of Arles. He congratulates them, for that according to the desire of the Clergy, Nobility and People, they had, with one consent, ordained Ravennius Bishop of Arles, in the room of Hilarius; whom he calls a Bishop of blessed Memory. This Letter is dated Aug. 449.  
The Thirty Seventh Letter is written to Ravennius, to congratulate his Promotion to the Bishopric of Arles. He tells him. That he was much rejoiced at it, not only for his own sake; but upon the Account of the Church of Arles; for it is an Honour, as well as an Advantage to the Faithful, to have a Bishop who can help them, and give them an Example. He says, That he hath heretofore experienced his Moderation (Ravennius having been sent to Rome heretofore by Hilarius, his Predecessor.) He exhorts him to join Authority with that Moderation, to mingle Justice with Lenity, to avoid Pride, to love Humility, and to keep himself within the bounds prescribed by the Laws of the Church. Lastly, he desires him to inform him often of his Government.  
The following Letter is also directed to Ravennius, to whom he wrote about a, Vagabond named, Petronianus; who, being in France, boasted himself to be a Deacon of the Church of Rome. He gives him notice, That he was a Cheat, and desires him to write to all the Bishops of his Province, That they should not receive him into Communion. It is dated the 26th. of Aug. 449. but it is not very certain, that it is really S. Leo's.  
The Bishops of the Province of Arles having received a Letter from S. Leo, concerning the Ordination of Ravennius, thought that they had a favourable opportunity given them of obtaining of S. Leo, a restitution of the Rights belonging to the Metropolis of Arles. They preferred a kind of Petition to him, in which, after they had shown what respect they owed to the Holy See, and thanked S. Leo for the approbation he had given to their Election of Ravennius, they prayed him to restore the Privileges of the Church of Arles, which had been diminished by S. Leo's last Declarations. To prove the Prerogatives of that Church, they allege, 1. The Antiquity of the Church of Arles, which, they say, was founded by Trophimus, to whom they attribute the first planting of Religion in the Province of France called Narbonne. They observe, That Trophimus was sent by the Apostle S. Peter, which ought to be understood according to the ordinary manner of Speaking used at that time, by the Bishops of Rome, Successors of S. Peter and the Apostles. 2. They confirm the Dignity of the Church of Arles by the Privileges, which the Popes themselves had granted to it. 3. As also by the Privileges which the Emperors Constantine, Valentinian and Honorius, had bestowed upon the City of Arles. 4. They alleged, That the Bishop of Arles was in the present possession of three Provinces adjoining to Vienna, as subject to his Care; and besides these, which he governed by his own Authority, he had the Inspection over all France, as Apostolic Vicar, to enforce them to observe the Rules of the Church. Moved, by these Reasons, they entreated him to render to the Church of Arles all his Prerogatives.  
The 50th. Letter to the Bishops of the same Province, is an Answer to the precedent Petision, or the Judgement which S. Leo gives upon their Demand. After he hath declared the Joy, that he did conceive for the kindness which the French Bishops had for Ravennius, he says, That the Bishop of Vienna had prevented him from granting their Petition, having sent Letters and Deputies to complain, That the Bishop of Arles had ordained the Bishop of Vasio. He adds, That having considered the Reasons, on both sides, he had found, That the Cities of Arles and Vienna, having always been very famous, had disputed about their Church-Privileges; That sometimes one was Superior, and sometimes the other got uppermost; so that he must not leave the Church of Vienna without any Prerogative, especially since he had lately honoured it with the Power which he had taken away from Hilarius Bishop of Arles. He therefore grants him four Suffragan-Bishops, which are Valentia, Tarentum, Geneva and Gratianople, and leaves the other under the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Arles, who will be, as we require him, saith he, so great a Friend of Peace and Concord, that he will not think that taken from him that is given to his Brother.  
The Fifty First Letter is directed to Ravennius. He sends to him his Letter to Flavian; and exhorts him to get himself a Name in the beginning of his Episcopacy, by defending the Catholic Faith, about the Incarnation. 'Tis dated May 5. 450.  
The Seventy Sixth Letter is also written to the same Bishop, but upon another Subject. He gives him notice on what day the Feast of Passover was to be celebrated in the year 452. and commands him to publish it to all the French; which shows, That he acknowledged him his Vicar among the French.  
This Letter is followed by a Letter of Ceretius, Salonius and Veranus, French Bishops, in which they thank S. Leo, That he had sent them his Letter to Flavian, and pray him to review and correct the Copy, which they had taken of it. This Letter is not so considerable as the next to it, which is a Synodical Letter of a French Council to Pope Leo, to thank him for sending them his Letter to Flavian. The name of Ravennius is in the beginning of it, which may make us think, That the Synod was held at Arles. The Subscriptions show, That it was composed by 44 Bishops out of the 7 French Provinces. These Bishops, after they have excused themselves, That they gave him an Answer no sooner, because they could not meet together, say, That they received S. Leo's Letter as a sum of Faith; That many of them acknowledged the Doctrine which they had received by Tradition to be contained in it, and some of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inst●… by ●…ing of it. They 〈◊〉 S. L●… in the most obliging 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to●…y; That next to God the ●aith 〈◊〉 are beholding to him for the ●…y of there Faith.  
They Add, That they had also 〈◊〉 to the Emperor upon the same Subject, to testify to him the Zeal which why ●…or the Faith, by following the Example of the Pope, but that having received News from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they believed that it would be unprofitable. They call the Emperor S. L●…'s Son, F●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In fine, they writ, That they never cease to give God Thanks, that he hath given a Bishop of so much Holiness and Faith to the Apostolic Church, from whence comes the Origin and Source of our Religion: Apostolicae Sedi, unde ●…'s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 orig●… 〈◊〉. They pray to God to preserve him a long Time in that see. They make an End by saying, That although they come short of his Merit, yet they have the same Faith, ●…s 〈◊〉, pari side, and that they are ready to defend it and die for it. This Letter is full of Expressions very respectful to the Holy See, and very obliging to the Person of S. Leo.  
S. Leo also answers them in a courteous Manner, in Letter 77. He therein accepts their Excuse, commends their Faith, explain the Errore of the Nestorians and Eutyches. He lets them know, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heretic hath been condemned in a Synod of 600 Bishops, who confirmed the Catholic and Apostolic Faith. He ●…es, That the Catholic Faith may not be changed; That it may be assaulted by its Enemies, but that such Opposition rendered it more illustrious. He says, That the Synod hath approved the Letter which he had written, and had condemned Dioscorus. Lastly, 〈◊〉 earnestly entreats them to give God Thanks, to pray for the happy R●… of them who were gone to the Council: And he desires them to let the Bishops of Spain know what had passed in the East.  
This Letter is followed by a Letter of Eusebius, Bishop of Milan, to S. Leo, in which that Bishop signifies to him the Joy that 〈◊〉 had for the Return of the Western Bishops, who had been present at the Council of Chalcedon, and assures S. Leo, That his Letter to Flavian hath been read and approved in the Council of Milan, where also the Error of Eutyches was condemned.  
The following Letters are in the Council of Chalcedon. In Letter 78. to Marcian, after having congratuled the Council of Chalcedon, he blames the Ambition of Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who ●…ted those Rights that did not belong to him. He was willing, That the City of Constantinople should be equal to Rome; but he says, It must not be so in the Churches; That there is no solid Foundation, but that Rock which Jesus Christ hath laid for the Foundation of his Church; That Anatolius cannot prove, That his Church is an Apostolic See; That the Privileges of Churches cannot be overthrown by any other way, being established by the Canons of the Fathers, and fixed by the Decrees of the Council of Nice; That he is obliged, by his Office, to see them executed, and he should be much to blame if he should suffer them to be broken. He than exhorts the Emperor to desire Anatolius to desist from the Right he pretends to and to which the Legates of the Holy See opposed themselves, and if he will not, to make use of his Authority to keep him in order, and hinder him from encroaching upon the Rights of other Bishops. This Letter is dated April 22. in the year 452.  
He repeats the same things in the 79th. to the Empress Pulcheria, which is of the same date. In it he observes particularly, That Anatolius had obtained the Bishopric of Constantinople through the favour of the Empress, and through his consent, Pietatis vestrae beneficio, & pietatis meae assensu. He had also said before in the precedent Letter, That he owed his Bishopric to the kindness of the Emperor, Vestro beneficio. He urges also the Canons of the Council of Nice against the pretences of Anatolius, and declares, That he doth cancel and make void, by the Authority of S. Peter, all the Constitutions which are contrary to the Laws established in the Council of Nice.  
He represents the same things to Anatolius in the 80th. Letter. He therein commends his Faith, but condemns his Pretensions. He finds fault with him, That he ordained the Bishop of Antioch, and was willing to break the Decrees of the Council of Nice, by making the Church of Alexandria to lose the second place, and that of Antioch the third, and by depriving the Metropolitans in his Jurisdiction of the Rights and Honours which they had. He accuses him of endeavouring to make use of the Council, which was called for the suppressing of Heresy, to further his own Ambition. He assures him, That no Synod can hurt what the Council of Nice hath done, and that the Legates of the Holy See had reason to oppose his Attempts. He exhorts him, at length, to keep himself within the bounds of Humility and Christian Charity, and not give any further occasion of Scandal in the Church of Jesus Christ. He tells him, That he may not elevate himself upon the account of some pretended Constitutions of the Bishops made 60 years since, which were never sent to the Holy See, and have never been executed. He forbids him disturbing the Metropolitans about their ancient Rights, and he declares, That he intends that the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch should remain in possession of their ancient Order. This Letter is also dated the same day.  
S. Leo hath not contented himself with writing so strongly against the pretensions of Anatolius, but in his 81st. Letter written some days after the former, he commands Julian, Bishop of Coos, who had the charge of his Affairs in the East, not to consent to Anatolius' pretences. And since Julian had written to him in his Favour, he tells him, That tho' he had a very great respect for him, yet he will never do any thing upon his Recommendation, which is contrary to the Rules of the Church. He adds, That Anatolius ought to be throughly satisfied, That by his Suffrage he had been raised to the Bishopric of Constantinople, without obliging him to break the Laws of the Church in favour of his Ambition. He commands Julian to have a greater regard to the order of the Universal Church, than the personal Friendship of Anatolius, and not desire a favour of him, which he cannot obtain, without making him that requests it, and him that should grant it, guilty of a great sin.  
The 82d. Letter is directed to Rusticus, Ravennius, Venerius and other French Bishops. S. Leo relates the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, and sends them a Copy of the Sentence which Paschasius and Lucentius had pronounced in the Council of Chalcedon. It follows this Letter, but is something different from that which is found in the Council of Chalcedon.  
The 83d. Letter is directed to Theodorus Bishop of Frejus, and dated June 10. Anno 452. S. Leo having been consulted by this Bishop, without communicating it to his Metropolitan, he admonisheth him, That he ought first of all to address himself to him for the obtaining an Explication of his Difficulties, and if he were also ignorant of the Solution, they might join together to consult the Holy See, because there ought to be no question made, saith he, of any things which concern the general observation of all the Churches, without the Authority of the Primates, i. e. the Metropolitans. Notwithstanding, he doth not forbear to instruct this Bishop about that which he demanded of him, concerning the discipline of the Church towards Penitents. He says, That Repentance is the only Remedy for Sins committed after Baptism; That Jesus Christ hath given power to Priests to impose Penance upon Sinners, and to admit them when they are purified by a proportionable satisfaction; to admit them, I say, to the participation of the Sacrament by the door of Reconciliation. He adds, That Jesus Christ comes between the action of the Priest, as I may, insomuch, That if the effect follow the action, we must believe, that it is by the Virtue of the Holy Spirit; That if any Penitent die before reconciliation, he can't be reconciled after Death, but must be left to the Judgement of God; but he assures us, That it is very profitable and necessary, that Sins be remitted before the day of Death, by the Prayer of the Priest. He will not have reconciliation denied to those who demand Penance, when they see them in danger of death, but he admonishes Sinners not to trust or depend upon that Pardon, nor put off their Repentance till the hour of death. He saith, That it is a sufficient Reason to grant reconciliation to those, who are in manifest Danger, that they show their desires of it by some Signs, or there are some to witness that they have required it. Lastly, He commands this Bishop to inform his Metropolitan of these Answers.  
The 84th. Letter is written to the Emperor Marcian. S. Leo in the first place congratulates the re-establishment of the Catholic Doctrine. He than signifies to him, That he had had some suspicion of Anatolius, and upon that account it was that he had not, for some time, sent him Letters of Communion, but in consideration of the Emperor's Testimony, and the Profession of Faith which he had made, he had received him to his Communion, yet having advertised him, That he would not communicate with those who had persecuted Flavian, and that the Defender of the Eutychian Party should be deposed; That he was throughly satisfied, by his Letter, in which he signifies to him what had been decided in his Synod, but that he was surprised to hear, That after he had begun so well, he had deposed Aetius the Archdeacon, who was always an opposer of the Eutychians, to put into his place Andrew an Eutychian; which was done with so great Precipitancy, that he was ordained upon a Friday, contrary to the common Usage and to Apostolic Tradition, and that in degrading the former, they had given him the charge of the Coemetery, condemning him by that means to a kind of Exile. He prays the Emperor to take Aetius into his Protection, and to compel Anatolius to revoke what he had done. This Letter is of March 10. 453.  
He wrote also at the same time the 85th. Letter to the Empress Pulcheria. It is upon the same Subject, and contains almost the same things. He therein observes, That tho' Andrew had abjured the Error of the Eutychians, yet he ought not to be preferred before those who have always preserved the Faith in Purity.  
He wrote also the next Day the following Letter about the same business to Julian Bishop of Coos his Agent in the East. It appears by that Letter, That Anatolius had taken away the Arch-Deaconry from Aetius, by Ordaining him Priest (for a Priest not being capable of an Arch-Deaconry) under the pretence of raising him to a greater Dignity, he had really deprived him of the Office of Archdeacon, which was more Honourable. S. Leo complains of these proceed, and so much the more, because he had put a Person that favoured the Eutychians into his place. He commands Julian to observe diligently, in the Name of the Holy Apostolic See, what passes in the East, and speak freely to the Emperor about those things that respect the good of the Church. He would have him write to him about such matters as may administer Debates. He enjoins him to reprove Anatolius smartly, because he had put an Heretical Archdeacon into the place of an Orthodox One. He accuses this Patriarch of having no Zeal for the Faith. He desires Julian to let him know, what it was that disturbed the Monks of Palestine, whether they are Eutychians, or whether they are at odds with their Bishop Juvenal, because he is a favourer of that Party. He observes, That they ought to be punished according to the Nature of their fault; for there is a great deal of difference, saith he, between opposing the Faith, and being a little too hot for the Faith. He requires him also to give him intelligence of the Monks of Egypt, and the Affairs of Alexandria. In the last place he tells him, That he had not received the Form of Faith which he had sent him. It is not known what Form of Faith this is which S. Leo speaks of in this place, and which Julian sent him. F. Sirmondus hath Published One, which he pretends is this, but F. Chiffletius assures us, That he found it in that MS. of F. Sirmondus attributed to Alcuinus. F. Quesuel believes, That the Form of Faith which Julian sent to S. Leo, was nothing else, but the definition of Faith, which is in the Fifth Action of the Council of Chalcedon. S. Leo also desires Julian to send him a Translation of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon at large, which were not understood at Rome, because they were written in Greek.  
The Eighty Seventh Letter is directed to the Bishops who were present at the Council of Chalcedon. In it S. Leo approves of the Decisions of that Council concerning Matters of Faith, but declares at the same time, that he will never consent to what hath been done there contrary to the Canons of the Council of Nice. This Letter bears Date March the 21st. 453.  
S. Leo was obliged to write it for the satisfaction of the Emperor, who had required him to give his approbation plainly to that which had been defined in the Council of Chalcedon, for fear, lest he should take an occasion to oppose the Council, because the Pope would not acknowledge the Rights which he had granted to Anatolius. This S. Leo himself Testifies in the following Letter to Julian of Coos, wherein he praises the Zeal of the Emperor, and Empress, who had restrained the Insolence of some Monks. He also tells him, That the Emperor haing privately bid him to Admonish the Empress, he wrote presently to her, and he desires him to let him know what was the effect of his Letter, and if in short she hath approved of his Doctrine, or rather, S. Athanasius, Theophilus, and S. Cyril's.  
As to the business of Aetius, he says, That he much Commiserated his Affliction, but he thought he must bear it patiently, for fear he seem to carry things too high. In fine, he tells him, That Anatolius persisted in his Claim, and that he understood by the Messenger that brought him the News of the Ordination of the Bishop of Thessalonica, that he would make the Bishops of Illyria to subscribe it. For this reason it was that he did not write to them, altho' Julian had desired him to do it, because he knew by that, that he would not be amended by it. He sends him Two Copies of the precedent Letter, the one by itself, the other at the end of the Letter, which was written to Anatolius, that he might give that to the Emperor which he thought most convenient.  
In the Eighty Ninth he writes to the Emperor about that which he required of him, to give his Approbation of what the Council of Chalcedon had defined concerning the Faith. He assures him, That he had approved it already when he wrote to Anatolius, but that that Bishop would not Publish his Letter, because he therein reproves his Ambition. He thanks God, that he had given them an Emperor who knew how to join the Priestly Vigour and Royal Power together. Perhaps you will wonder at this Expression, but as F. Quesnel has already observed, there are many such in S. Leo's Letters. Constantine assumes to himself the Title of an Outward Bishop of the Church. The Fathers of the Councils of Chalcedon, and of Constantinople, under Flavian, have not scrupled in their Acclamations of Praise to the Emperors, to give them the Title of Bishop. S. Leo also commends Marcian, because he took upon him to maintain the Decrees of the Council of Nice, and that he had suppressed the Commotions of the Monks. Lastly, He assures him, That he had declared his Judgement of the Council of Chalcedon in obedience to his Command. He says a little after the same things to Pulcheria in the Ninetieth Letter, Dated March the 21st. 453.  
In the Ninety First written to Julian Bishop of Coos, he tells him, That he had omitted nothing that he was able to do for the defence of the Church's Cause; That it belongs to the Emperor to suppress the Disturbers of Church and State. He adds, That the Bishops ought not to allow the Monks to Preach, and therefore he wondered, that Thalassius, who was Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, had given that Liberty, to one George, who was fallen from the Monastic State by his Irregularities. He says, That he will write to him according to his Duty, if Julian judges it convenient. Lastly, He exhorts him to do his utmost endeavour, that the Emperor do hinder the Heretics from troubling the Peace of the Church. This Letter is Dated April the 9th, in the same Year.  
The Ninety Second Letter to Maximus Bishop of Antioch treats of several things. He observes in the first place, That the Catholic Faith keeps the Mean between the Two Extremes of Nestorius, and Eutyches. He Admonishes Maximus to be vigilant over the Churches of the East, but more especially over those, which the Council of Nice had entrusted him withal, to prevent that Heresy be not established in them. And that he might be able to do this with the greater Authority, he advises him to maintain the Rights, which the Council of Nice had allowed his Church, and preserve to himself the third place. That he will easily gain his ends, by doing so, because it is impossible, that the Order established by the Inviolable Canons of the Council of Nice should be overthrown; That Ambition might prompt to make a Change as it already hath happened in the Council, where Juvenal endeavoured to usurp the Primary of Palestine, and attempted to ground his Pretensions upon some supposititious Writings, and that S. Cyril being afraid of that Enterprise, had written to him, but that whatsoever Constitutions were made thereupon against those of the Council of Nice, whensoever a more numerous Council should meet, it would not, nor aught to be valid; That if his Legates had consented to any Decree of the Council of Chalcedon, which did not concern Doctrine, he declared it null, because he had sent them for no other end but to defend the Faith of the Church against Heresies; That all that had been handled in the Synods of Bishops, except what concerned the Faith, may not be received, if it do not agree with the Decrees of the Council of Nice; That he will see, by the Copy of the Letter written to Anatolius, how vigorously he defends the Council of Nice. Lastly, he advertiseth Maximus to prohibit the Monks and Lay-Men from Preaching, and so much the more because it belongs to the Bishops only to do it. This Letter is of the 10th. of June.  
In the Ninety Third Letter to Theodoret, he, in the first place, testifies the Joy which he had when he understood by the Legates which he had sent to the Council of Chalcedon, That the Catholic Faith had triumphed over the Errors of the Nestorians and Eutychians, and that the Council had confirmed by its Judgement, which was not subject to amendment, the Doctrines which he had asserted. These words are very remarkable, because they evidently prove to us, That there is no Judgement but that of an Universal Council, which may not be reexamined, and that the Judgement of the Pope himself is subject to amendment. This was it that made him add, That he was not troubled, that some People would not accept the Judgement which he had given, to evidence that the acknowledgement which the other Sees had made of his Supremacy, as given to him by God, was not mere Flattery. That the Opposition which the Truth had met withal upon that occasion, was the cause of some good, because the Divine Favours are more thankfully acknowledged, when they are obtained with difficulty, and God's Providence brings us to the fruition of Good by a kind of Evil. That the Truth is made clearer, and upholds itself with the greater strength, when the examination confirms, that Faith which we have been taught; and that lastly, the Grandeur of the Priestly Dignity shows itself best, when we respect the Authority of the Bishops that are most highly promoted; yet with a Proviso, that we do not in any wise encroach upon the Privileges of such as are inferior to them. Afterward he invites Theodoret to rejoice with him at the Victory which the Truth had obtained. He sets himself against the Outrages which Dioscorus had committed. He tells Theodoret, That he must equally avoid the Errors of Nestorius and Eutyches. He thanks God, That he hath been freed from all manner of Suspicion; and at last, exhorts him to be watchful for the Defence of the Faith of the Church, and not permit either Laymen or Monks to become Preachers. This Letter is dared June 12.  
The Ninety Fourth Letter to the Emperor Marcian, is about a difficult Controversy which was in the Church, concerning the day on which Easter should be kept in the year 455. S. Leo says, That the Ancient Fathers had imposed that Task upon the Bishop of Alexandria to find out the Feast of Easter every year, and to make it known to the Apostolic See, that he might give notice of it to the far distant Churches. That Theophilus had made a Calendar for an Hundred years, beginning at the year 380. but that the Passover in the 76th. year, i. e. in the year of Jesus Christ 455, is appointed upon an extraordinary day, and too much advanced in the Month of April. He beseeches Marcian to command, That an exact Calculation be made, that all Churches may celebrate this Feast at the same time. The following Letter to Julia● is upon the same Subject. Both are of June 16. This last, in the ordinary Editions, is directed to Eudoxia. But the manner of writing, and MSS. prove to us, That it was really written to Julian.  
The Ninety Sixth Letter is addressed to the Empress Eudoxia. In it he exhorts her to make use of her Authority to compel some Monks of Palestine to submit themselves to the Council of Chalcedon.  
In the Ninety Seventh Letter to the Monks of Palestine, he explains the Opinions which he had asserted in his Letter to Flavian, and evinces, That his Doctrine is clear contrary to the Error of Nestorius, as well as that of Eutyches.  
In his Ninety Eighth Letter, he desires Julian to give him an exact Account of the News of what happened at Constantinople, and to take effectual care that the Canons be observed. It is dated June 25. 453.  
The Ninety Ninth bears date Jan. 9 following. He gives the Emperor Thanks for appeasing the Troubles of Palestine, and restoring Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, to his See again.  
The following Letter to Julian is of the same date. In it he shows much Joy, That the Monks of Palestine had acknowledged their Error, and that Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, was restored. He adds, That Proterius, Bishop of Alexandria, [Successor of Dioscorus, who was deposed] did write him a Letter, in which he makes known to him the Purity of his Doctrine. He speaks of the difference between himself and this Bishop, about the Celebration of Easter, in the year 455. He says, That he hath approved nothing in the Council of Chalcedon but what concerns the Faith, and was much pleased that Aetius had been found Innocent.  
In the Hundred and First Letter to Marcian, S. Leo assures this Emperor, That he will freely be reconciled to Anatolius, and for that end had already written to him, if his Letters, which he hath sent him, had had any effect, or he had answered them; yet if he will submit himself to the Canon's, and renounce his ambitious Pretensions, he would instantly receive him to his Communion. This Letter bears date, March the 9th.  
The following Letter to Julian is of the same date. He lets him know, That he had received a Letter from Proterius, in which he shows himself well principleed in the Faith; but because he was extremely troubled with the Faction of the Eutychians, who having made a corrupt Translation of S. Leo's Letter to Flavian, would persuade Men, That it favoured the Error of Nestorius; he desires Julian to cause it to be translated into Greek, and send it to Alexandria, sealed with the Emperor's Signet. He commands him to get knowledge of the Emperor's Answer about the day on which the Feast of Easter is to be kept the next year, and send him word of it, because the time of sending the Circular Letters for the Passover is at hand.  
The Hundred and Third Letter is written to Proterius Bishop of Alexandria. S. Leo discovers to that Bishop, the Joy which he had conceived, when he understood, by his Epistle, That he is of an Orthodox Judgement, and that the Church of Alexandria hath received of S. Mark, the Scholar of S. Peter, the same Faith which the Romans have received of his Master. He exhorts Proterius carefully to defend this Faith. He adds, That he hath taught no new Doctrine in his Letter to Flavian, nor departed from the Rule of Faith received from his Ancestors; and if Dioscorus had done the same, he would not have separated from the Church, since he had the Works of S. Athanasius, the Sermons of Theophilus and S. Cyril, which ought to have encouraged him to resist the Error of Eutyches. He advertises Proterius, That he must carefully avoid speaking any thing, which may come near the Opinions of Nestorius; and that in teaching the People, he must let them know, That he vents nothing new, but teaches what the Holy Fathers have unanimously preached, and to convince them of it, it is not sufficient to say so, but it is convenient to prove it, by bringing and explaining their Authorities, to which he may join his Letter.  
In fine, S. Leo says, That he applies himself to Antiquity, as well in Matters of Discipline as Faith, and for this reason it is, That he hath opposed them, who through their Ambition would rob the Church of Alexandria of her Privileges, and Metropolitans of their Rights. He advises Proterius to uphold the Customs which were in use in the time of his Predecessors; To keep the Bishops, who according to the ancient Canons, are subject to the Church of Alexandria, close to their Duty, by obliging them to be present at his Synod at the appointed times, or when there is some Business that requires their presence. This Letter is of March 10. 454. It hath never been published.  
To this Letter the Epistle of Proterius, Bishop of Alexandria, to S. Leo touching the Feast of Easter in the year 455. is joined. He was of a contrary Judgement to the Pope, who at length yielded to the Opinion of Proterius. Those that are curious Inquirers after the Accounts which were then made, to find out the day on which Easter was to be kept every year, may find much satisfaction in it. About the end, he cautions S. Leo, That he should not venture to have this Letter turned into Latin, because it is very hard for Men that do not understand it well, to express exactly, in Latin, a Matter so hard and intricate as this is.  
The Hundred and Fourth Letter to the Emperor Marcian, is of the same date with the Hundred and Third to Proterius, and contains almost the same things. S. Leo therein commends Proterius, because he had approved his Letter to Flavian. He says, That some Heretics had falsified it, and desires the Emperor to cause it to be turned into Greek and sent to Alexandria.  
The Hundred and Fifth to the same bears date the 15th. of April following. In it he promises the Emperor to be reconciled to Anatolius, provided that he would desist from his Pretensions. He desires his Majesty to banish Eutyches further, because he divulged his Doctrines in the place of his Exile. He thanks him for sending a Person to Alexandria, that he might inform himself exactly of the time, when Easter must be celebrated.  
The Letter of Anatolius to S. Leo is taken out of Holstenius' Collection. In it he complains that S. Leo had given over writing to him, and declares, That the Letters which he had written to others about him, had increased his trouble. He tells him, That he desired nothing more than to give him satisfaction, and that having seen a Letter which S. Leo wrote to the Emperor, he had immediately performed what he desired of him for the good of the Church; That he had preferred Aetius to an honourable Office among the Clergy, tho' not to be an Archdeacon, as appears by the following Letter; That he had expelled Andrew out of the Church, altho' he had made him Archdeacon, for no reason but that he came to that Dignity, by reason of his Age; That he had also put from the Communion of the Church, those who had been of the Eutychian Party, altho' they had satisfied him by their Subscriptions and Declarations, and that he would not receive them, till he had known from him, what he ought to do. He earnestly entreats him to write to him. Lastly, he protests, that as to the Dignity, which the Council of Chalcedon hath granted him in favour of the See of the Church of Constantinople, he had not any hand in it, but it was the Clergy of Constantinople which desired it, and the Eastern Bishops, who had caused it to be ordained; that as for himself he had not concerned himself in it, but had always lived▪ in such a manner, as could give no just Cause to think that he was ambitious or forward in such Attempts. The Body of this Letter is written in Latin, but the words are in the Greek Character.  
S. Leo answers this Epistle in his Hundred and Sixth, and tells Anatolius, That it is not for lack of kindness, that he had desisted from writing to him, but being obliged to oppose himself against those things which he acted contrary to the Canons, he had received no Answer from him. He commends him, that he hath composed the Business about Aetius, and turned Andrew out of the Arch-Deaconry. He informs him, That he may receive him, and ordain him Priest, yea him, and all that have been engaged in the Eutychian Party, if they do profess publicly, in writing, that they condemn the Heresies of Eutyches and Nestorius, but that he ought not to make any Person Archdeacon, who hath ever been engaged in those Sects. He was not at all satisfied with the Excuse made by Anatolius, about the Prerogatives given to the See of Constantinople, by the Council of Chalcedon; for he says, That the Clergy could not do it without his consent. Notwithstanding, he was glad to see him so well disposed to give over that Enterprise, and exhorts him to do it forthwith. This Letter is dated May 29. 454.  
The Hundred and Seventh Letter to the Emperor Marcian is upon the same Subject. He shows him, That he hath returned an Answer to Anatolius; That this Bishop ought to attribute the Interruption of Commerce by Letters, which had been between them, to nothing but his own silence; That he did not doubt, but that it was the Emperor who had disposed him thus to amend himself; That he doth not reconcile himself to him but upon Condition that he abandons his Pretensions, which he hath contrary to the Canons of the Church, and will be watchful to discover close Heretics; that he may drive them out by the Assistance of the Imperial Authority, that it is easy, by that means, to extinguish the other Heresies entirely, since Palestine was already returned, and Egypt began to acknowledge him; That he was much pleased with that which he had done in favour of Aetius, and desires him to hearken to what Julian hath to communicate to him. Lastly, he requires him to prohibit the Monk Carosus from dispersing his Error in Constantinople as he hath done.  
He wrote also another Letter to the Emperor at the same time, in which he thanks him for the Inquiry he had made, to let him know Easter-day. He assures him, That he had received Proterius' Letters, and that he will follow his Judgement, altho' he is not persuaded of the Reason, yet for Peace and Unity sake. Lastly, he prays the Emperor, That the 
* [Oeconomi.]  Receivers of the Church of Constantinople might not give up their Accounts before the secular Judges, but leave it according to the ancient Custom to the Bishop's Court.  
The Hundred and Ninth Letter is a circular Letter to the Bishops of France and Spain, in which he gives them notice, That the Feast of Easter, in the next year, shall be kept upon the 22d. of April. It is dated July 28. Anno. 454.  
The Hundred and Tenth is written to Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem. In it he declares his Joy, that this Bishop, having condemned the Error of Eutyches, was again settled in his See. He exhorts him to defend the Faith of the Church about the Incarnation, of which the Holy Places, which are in his Bishopric, are a convincing Proof. He explains the Catholic Doctrine, and tells him, That he will find it proved by Testimonies of Holy Scripture, in his Letter to Flavian. This Letter bears date September 4th.  
The Hundred and Eleventh Letter is an Answer to Julians, wherein he had sent him the News of Dioscorus' death. He tells him, That he hopes that it will render the Conversion of many more easy. He commands him to manage the Inclinations of the Emperor well, and to instruct him, what he may do for the good of the Church, because he knew that this Prince is persuaded, That he never acts so much for the good of his Empire, as when he procures the good of the Church. He puts Julian in mind to let him know, what condition the Church of Alexandria is in.  
The Hundred and Twelfth, Hundred and Thirteenth and Hundred and Fourteenth Letters of S. Leo are written in 455. In the first he thanks the Emperor Marcian for the care he had taken, to have it plainly settled on what day Easter ought to be celebrated; and assures him, That he submits to the Judgement of the Bishop of Alexandria, and that he hath followed it in the Letters which he hath written to all the Bishops of the West, to give them notice of the day of that Feast. He also thanks the Emperor for expelling Carosus and Dorothaeus from their Monasteries. In the second, he makes answer to Julian's Letter, who had written to him, That Carosus had professed the Orthodox Faith, but was yet at variance with Anatolius; That John was sent into Egypt to restore the Faith, and settle Peace there. He desires Julian to let him know what success he shall have there, and tells him, That he is much troubled for the condition of the Bishop of Antioch, if what his Accusers say, be true. He adds, That he hath so great confidence in the Piety of the Emperor, that he doth not doubt but that he will hinder the establishment of Heresy. In the 114th. he exhorts Anatolius to labour with all his Might to extinguish the remainders of the Heresy. The last of these Letters is dated March 13.  
We have nothing more of that year nor the next, because Rome having been taken by the Vandals, S. Leo was so busy about the Affairs of his own Church, he had no leisure to take care of others. Besides, that in the trouble he then was, it was hard to send or receive Letters from distant Countries. But as soon as he began to be a little at rest, he then began afresh to give Marks of his Pastoral Care and Vigilance over the Church.  
The Hundred and Fifteenth Letter to the Emperor Leo, dated June 9 Anno 457. is the first. He prays the Emperor to protect the Faith, and not permit the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon to be questioned, particularly at Alexandria, where, according to the account he had received from Anatolius, it was strongly opposed.  
To him also he directs the following Letter of July 11. S. Leo praises him, because he was troubled to see the Church of Alexandria reduced to so lamentable a Condition through the Outrage of the Heretics; That the Emperor Marcian was taken out of the World, just when he was using Remedies for it; but (God be praised) he had left a Son, from whom the Orthodox Religion might expect the same protection; That he had written to him for that reason; That he ought to join with him in endeavouring to maintain the Decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, and prays him to let him know what he could do with him thereupon.  
The Hundred and Seventeenth is of the same date; In it he tells Julian, That he wondered he did not write to him; but being informed, by Anatolius' Letter, that he was gone to Alexandria, he had written to the Emperor to pray him to restore Peace to that Church; and to Anatolius, that he should use his Interest with the Emperor upon that Subject. He commands him to join his Solicitations with Anatolius, to uphold the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, and ordain an Orthodox Bishop at Alexandria in the place of Proterius.  
The Hundred and Eighteenth Letter, dated Aug. 23, 457. is directed to Basilius' Bishop of Antioch. In the beginning he complains, That this Bishop had not given him notice of his Ordination: He exhorts him to join with him, and other Bishops that are Orthodox, to defend the Catholic Faith with Courage, because he is persuaded, That the Emperor and Lords of the Court will not undertake to innovate any thing, when they see the Orthodox Bishops firm and united.  
In the Hundred and Nineteenth Letter he exhorts Euxithius Bishop of Thessalonica, and Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, to be resolute, and not suffer that any Council be assembled to disannul what hath been done in the Council of Chalcedon. He sent these Letters to Julian and Aetius, that they might deliver them to the Metropolitans to whom they are directed, and by that means all the Bishops may know it. This appears by the 120th. and 121st. Letters.  
In the Hundred and Twenty Second Letter he congratulates the Emperor Leo, that he declared himself for the Council of Chalcedon, and exhorts him to further the Peace of the Church. This Letter is dated Sept. 1. 457.  
He comforts the Bishops of Egypt, who had been banished from their Churches for the Orthodox Doctrine in the following Letter. This is of Octob. 11.  
The Hundred and Twenty Fourth Letter is to Anatolius. After he hath thanked him for his care in writing to him the News, he exhorts him to oppose the Temptations of Heretics vigorously, but he reproves him for suffering the Clergy of Constantinople to have Commerce with the Enemies of the Catholic Faith. This Letter is dated the 11th. or 14th. of October.  
In the Hundred and Twenty Fifth Letter to the Emperor Leo, he endeavours to show the Emperor, That he ought not to revive again the Questions about the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and that he ought to hold to the decision of the Council of Chalcedon. He exhorts him to apply Remedies to the Distempers of the Church of Alexandria, and not suffer the Enemies of the true Faith to thrust themselves into the Government of that Church; That having received Petitions from both Heretics and Catholics, he easily discerned to which of them he ought to lend his Assistance, since on the Heretics part there is nothing but Violence and Sacrilege, who have put to death an Innocent Bishop, casting his Ashes into the Air, overturning the Altars, laying open the Mysteries to Parricides and Wicked Men, casting down the Oblation, and destroying the Holy Oil; That after all this they had the boldness to demand a Council; That the Emperor ought not to suffer this Impudence, but rescue the Church of Alexandria from the Oppression in which it was; That he had sent him a Letter treating of Matters of Faith, to instruct him fully in the Doctrine of the Church. Lastly, he complains, That some of the Clergy in Constantinople held Heretical Opinions. He accuses Anatolius of Negligence in not punishing them, and exhorts the Emperor to banish them out of the City. He recommends to him the Bishop Julian, and Aetius the Priest. This Letter is dated Decemb. 1.  
In the Hundred and Twenty Sixth Letter he desires Anatolius to join with him in persuading the Emperor to maintain the Decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, oppose the Heretics, and restore the Peace of the Church of Alexandria. He tells him, That he was very Joyful to hear, that there were but four Bishops of Egypt who were guilty of the same Crime with Timotheus, and who were of his Party; That he must do his endeavour to help the other Bishops of Egypt, who are under Persecution, and assist those who are withdrawn to Constantinople; That their Presence is very necessary to divert the Emperor from calling a new Synod. He admonishes him not to suffer Atticus and Andrew, two Clergymen of Constantinople, to persist in their speaking against the Council of Chalcedon. He likewise makes smart Reflections upon him for suffering them.  
In the One hundred twenty seventh he comforts the Orthodox Bishops of Egypt, who had retired to Constantinople. Anatolius bore the Reflections which S. Leo made upon him, with a sort of Disturbance. Atticus the Priest, whom S. Leo had branded, sought to justify himself, by sending some Writings, which he pretended to be Orthodox, but S. Leo was not satisfied with that, but insisted upon it, that he would plainly condemn the Error and Person of Eutyches, and sign the Profession of Faith made by the Council of Chalcedon. This Letter is dated in March 458.  
The One hundred twenty ninth Letter of S. Leo to Nicetas, or rather to Niceas, Bishop of Aquileia, is dated March 21. in the same Year. The First and Principal Question which he treats of in this Letter is this, viz. Whether those Women, who in the Captivity or Absence of their Husbands, whom they thought dead, having been married to others, ought to return to their First Husbands, if perchance they return again? He answers, That they are obliged to it, if their First Husbands demand them again, although their Second Husbands have not sinned in marrying them. And he at the same Time orders, That those Women be Excommunicated, who would not return to them.  
The Second Question is concerning those who have eaten Meats offered to Idols, being urged to it through Hunger, or constrained through Fear. He says, That they must be cleansed by Penance, which ought to be considered not so much in respect of the length of Time, as of the Sincerity of Grief. He orders, That they do the same to those who have been baptised a Second Time, either by Force, or because they have been engaged in the Heretical Factions. He wisely observes, That the Time for Penance ought to be ordered according to the Devotion, Age or Profession of the Penitents. In fine, as to those Persons who have been baptised but once, but by the Heretics, he says, That they ought to be Confirmed by the Imposition of Hands, with Invocation of the Holy Spirit. Sola invocatione Spiritus Sancti, per Impositionem Manuum Confirmandi.  
In the One hundred and thirtieth Letter he comforts the Bishops of Egypt, who were retired to Constantinople, and advises them not to suffer those Matters to be disputed afresh, which were decided in the Council of Chalcedon. This Letter is dated March 21.  
The One hundred thirty first is of the same Date. He exhorts the Clergy of Constantinople to continue steadfast in the Faith, and separate themselves from the Heretics; and he admonishes them, That they ought not to suffer Atticus and Andrew to remain in the Church, if they will not make Profession in Writing of the Faith of the Council of Chalcedon.  
The next Day he wrote to the Emperor the One hundred thirty and second Letter, in which he declareth to him, That he ought not to suffer the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon to be brought under Examination a second Time; That he could neither Communicate with Heretics, nor departed from the Decisions of the Synod; That he will send the Legates of the Holy See, as he hath desired; That he doth it not to enter into Dispute about that which hath already been decided, but only to clear it, and make it known.  
In the One hundred thirty third Letter, to the same Emperor, dated Aug. 17. He writes to him, That he had sent Two Bishops, to require him, in his Name, to take Care of the Peace of the Church, maintain the Faith, and not suffer the Definitions of the Council of Chalcedon to be called in question. He enlarges chief upon the latter, showing, that if once it be allowed to dispute continually, and use Logical and Rhetorical Arguments in the Explication of the Mysteries there will never be an end. That Jesus Christ hath evidently proved that he would not have these Arts made use of, since he had not chosen Philosophers or Orators to preach his Gospel, but poor Fishermen, lest the heavenly Doctrine, which is so powerful, should be thought to need the Help of Humane Eloquence: That the Arguments of Rhetoric appear so much the more, by how much the Things that are treated on are the more obscure and uncertain, and accounted true because they are defended with more Wit and Eloquence, but that the Gospel of Jesus Christ hath no need of that Artifice, because the Doctrine of Truth is clear in itself, and that no Man seeks what is pleasing to the Ear, when he desires only to know what he ought to believe. Next he explains, in a few Words, the Doctrine established in the Council of Chalcedon. He bewails the Outrage committed against the Person of the Bishop of Alexandria. He requires no Punishment, but hopes that the Authors of it would amend, and suffer Penance for their Sin. In fine, he recommends to him his Legates, which he sent to him, not to enter any Dispute, but to represent to him what must be done for the Maintenance of the Faith, and Restauration of the Church's Peace. He prays him to send an Orthodox Bishop to Alexandria, and re-settle the Bishops of Egypt, which have been forced away by the Heretics. This excellent Letter is one of those which F. Quesnel hath lately published. Prudens 
* [Trica●●●nus.] , Bishop of Troy's, hath copied out a part of it in his Book against Joannes Scotus. Vigilius and Pelagius II. have also cited it, and Facundus hath produced a Passage of it.  
The One hundred thirty fourth Letter is a Discourse against the Error of Eutyches. S. Leo relates therein first of all the Errors of the Heretics about the Mystery of the Incarnation. He proves, That the Council of Nice hath confounded them altogether. He demonstrates, That it was necessary for the Reconciliation of Man to God, that Jesus Christ, should be God and Man, and the Divine and Humane Nature should be united in one Person. He proves afterwards by many Reasons, confirmed by Testimonies of Holy Scriptures, That these Two Natures are really and truly in Jesus Christ: This, in the last Place, he makes good by the Authority of the Holy Fathers, of whom he produces many Passages. In a Word, he proves and explains the Mystery of the Incarnation in a clear, noble and sublime manner, without involving himself in School Subtleties.  
The One hundred thirty Fifth Letter is written to Neonas Bishop of Ravenna (for so it ought to be read, and not Legio.) F. Quesnel thinks it was written in the Year 458 
a Thinks it to be written in 458.] He affirms, That there is a Fault in the Date of the Consulship, and that we must read Majorian for Marcian. 1. Because all the Letters of S. Leo, written in 451. under the Consulship of Marcian and Adelphius, carry all the Name of Adelphius; and indeed when S. Leo mentions but one Consul, 'tis always the Western one which he names. 2. It is there Consulatu, but S. Leo never sets it down so, but Consul or Consulibus. 3. Because it is evident by the Letter, that it is written on the occasion of a Question raised upon the account of some Persons who had been carried Captives by the Barbarians, and were lately returned into the Province of Ravenna, their Country. In 451. there was no Invasion of the Barbarians in Italy, it could not be before 452. that A●●ilas laid waste the Country of Ravenna. This Letter then must be written some Years after. . although it be dated in the Consulship of Marcian. S. Leo, in this Letter, resolves a difficult Question, which had been proposed in a Synod, viz. Where they who were carried Captive in their Infancy, before they had any Use of Reason, not knowing whether they have been baptised or no, must be baptised? He concludes, That they need not fear to baptise them, since they have no proofs that they have been, but if they know that they have been baptised, though it were by Heretics, they must not be then baptised. This Letter shows, That Baptism upon condition was not in use at that Time.  
In the One hundred thirty sixth Letter, directed to the Bishops of Campania, Picenum and Samnium, S. Leo reproves those Persons who baptised without Necessity upon the Festivals consecrated to the Martyrs. He forbids the Celebration of Baptism upon any other Days besides the Feasts of Easter and Pentecost, at left if no Danger or Peril oblige to a speedy Administration of that Sacrament. He also opposes the Practice of some, who caused Offenders to recite publicly the Sins which they had committed, and says, That it is sufficient to discover them in private Confessions to the Priests; and although it seems to be a commendable Action that Men should expose themselves to Shame through fear of God's Judgement, yet since it is possible to have Sins, which they that have committed them dare not often even publish them; therefore this Custom must be entirely abolished, for fear of frighting Men from the Remedy of Penance, lest they should discover those Crimes to their Enemies, for which they may be punished by Civil Justice. It is enough to confess his Sin first to God, and then to the Priest, who ought to pray to God for the Remission of the Sins of Penitents, that by this means Sinners will be more easily drawn to Repentance, when they are sure that the Sins, of which they confess themselves guilty shall not be made public. This Letter bears date March 6. 459.  
In the One hundred thirty seventh Letter S. Leo congratulates the Emperor Leo for having put Timotheus Aelurus out of the See of Alexandria, and exhorts him to take care that some Orthodox Person, worthy of that See, be chosen into his Place, assuring him, that though Timotheus should return from his Errors, and profess the Catholic Faith, yet his Crimes render him unworthy of being restored. This Letter is dated June 460.  
The One hundred thirty eighth Letter, of the same Date, is written to Gennadius Bishop of Constantinople. He complains that he permitted Timotheus to come to Constantinople. He advises Gennadius not to communicate with him, and to put him out of all Hopes of recovering his Bishopric, by ordaining some Person of Merit in his Place.  
This was put in execution, for a little after Timotheus, surnamed Solofaciolus [or Basilicus,] who was an Orthodox Person, was put into the See of Alexandria. S. Leo wrote to him, to congratulate his Election, and to exhort him to oppose the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches. This Letter is the One hundred thirty ninth, and dated April 18. 460. He wrote also the One hundred and fortieth Letter, at the same Time, to the Clergy of Alexandria; in which he exhorts them to Peace, and encourages them to maintain the Faith which had been taught them by the Orthodox Bishops of Alexandria, without any Variation, For the Truth, saith he, which is Simple and One, receives not Change. He admonishes him to bring over and receive to Repentance those who are in an Error.  
S. Leo a little after (viz. September 1.) congratulates the Bishops of Egypt, that they had an Orthodox Patriarch, and exhorts them to labour after a reunion of Minds, and the Conversion of those who were engaged in Heresy. This Letter is the One hundred forty first, and the last of S. Leo's Letters, in this new Edition, augmented with Thirty Letters.  
S. Leo hath written many other Letters besides; Pelagius in his One hundred and eleventh Letter, to the Bishops of Istria, citys Two Fragments of a Letter of S. Leo, to Basil: One of these Fragments is found in the One hundred thirty and third Letter, to the Emperor Leo, the other is not to be met with; so that this must be either that S. Leo hath repeated the same thing in Two Letters, or Pelagius is mistaken in his Quotation. The same Pope citys also a Fragment of a Letter of S. Leo's, to the Archdeacon Aetius, which is not to be found among those we have.  
S. L●● had given his Legates some Memorandums in Writing, when he sent them to the Council of Chalcedon, of which Boniface read a part in the Sixteenth Action of that Council. F. Quesnel hath collected these Fragments, at the End of the Letters, and joined to them a Letter of Julian Bishop of Coos to the Emperor Leo; in which this Bishop answers the Emperor, who had desired Advice from him and other Bishops about the preferring of Timotheus, surnamed Aelurus, and about the Council of Chalcedon: He answers him, I say, That Timotheus ought not to be accounted a Bishop, and that he ought to be expelled from the See of Alexandria, which he had invaded, and that he ought to keep to the Decision of the Council of C●aloedou, and maintain its Decrees.  
There is mention made in S. Leo's own Letters, and some other Records, of several other Letters written by or to S. Leo, of which we have no Fragments. F. Quesnel hath made an exact Catalogue of them, at the End of his Notes upon S. Leo's Letters, to which we may have recourse▪ There also we may see the Inscriptions of Nineteen or Twenty Letters of S. Leo, of which we have not one Word more remaining.  
He hath left out a Letter which was heretofore reckoned the Eighty eighth of S. Leo's Letters, to the Bishops of Germany and France, touching the Office of the Chorepiscopi; but he hath proved in a Dissertation, purposely made on that Subject, that that Letter is certainly supposititious 
a Certainly Supposititious.] The Reasons which he alleges are convincing: These are the principal of them. 1. This Letter is not in the Ancient Manuscripts, but only in those which are later than Isidore's Collection. 2. The Ancients have not cited it: It is not in any Collection of Canons before S. Isidore's. 3. The Style is different from Leo's: It doth not come up to his Elegancy: S. Leo's would not have been so barren upon so good a Subject. 4. In the Title the Name of a Bishop of the Roman Church is given to this Saint, whereas he never assumed any other but that of a Bishop of the Church of Rome, or of the City, or Orthodox Church of the City of Rome. 5. This Letter is copied Word for Word out of the Second Council of Sevil, except the first part of it, which is impertinent. 6. It contains Rules contrary to the Usage of the Church of Rome; as for instance, this, by which it is forbidden a Priest to enter into the Baptistery, or to baptise in the presence of a Bishop. It will be said, perhaps, That in a Canon of the Council of Sevil it is said, That these Prohibitions were made by the Holy See, which agrees very well with S ●e●'s Letters. But this may be answered, 〈◊〉▪ That this concerns not S. Leo more than any other Bishop of Rome. 2. That these Words are not in ●oaysas's Edition. It may be further objected, That Leo III. in his Letter to the French Bishops▪ writing against the Chorepiscopi, quotes the Decrees of S. Leo▪ but it is not this Letter which he citys, but the Letter to Rusticus, which lays down the Principles against the Ordination of Chorepiscopi. The Councils of Paris, Meldae and Metae citys the Decrees of Damasus, Innocent and Leo to prove, that the Episcopal Functions which the Chorepiscopi did perform were of no worth: But this doth not prove that these Popes have written any thing in particular against the Chorepiscopi. But although it were true that the Authors of the Eighth and Ninth Age had cited the Letter, under Examination, under the Name of S. Leo, it would not follow that it were really his: Perhaps 'tis Leo iii. This is what F. Quesnel says upon this Letter in his eleventh Dissertation.  and taken out of the Canons of the Second Council of Sevil, held anno 619. which forbids▪ in the same Terms those Offices to Priests which this Canon does to the Chorepiscopi; neither hath he ranked in the Number of S. Leo's Epistles, that which was formerly counted the Ninety Sixth Letter, because 'tis not this Pope's, but a Synodical Letter, written in the Name of S. Leo 
* [Leo Bitu●●cen●●s.  Bishop of Bourges, Victurius 
† Cenomanum vidunum.  Bishop of Man's, Eustochius 
* Caesarodunum Turones.]  Bishop of Tours, and some other Bishops in the Churches of the Third Province of Lions (a), which is that of Tours.  
From the Letters we will come to his Sermons, but we must first examine the Conjectures upon which M. Anthelmi grounds himself, in attributing them to S. Prosper. The First is the Likeness of Style, which he pretends is to be found between the Writings of S. Prosper and the Sermons, which are said to be S. Leo's. He thinks that he meets in several Places of them not only with Words but also Phrases, Sentences, Expressions, and particular Modes of Speech proper to S. Prosper, and produces many Examples, which he says are sufficient to determine the Point. The Second Proof is from an ancient Manuscript of Nine hundred Years old, written in the Saxon Character, which was heretofore in the Library of M. Thuanus, and at present is in M. Colbert's; where the Anniversary of the Fourth Year of the Exaltation of S. Leo ●ears the Name of S. Prosper, according to an Ancient Inscription. There are also in the Manuscript two other Sermons attributed to S. Leo; the one is of Collection and almsgiving, and the other upon the Fast of the Tenth Month, which are the Tenth and Sixteenth in F. Quesnel's Edition of S. Leo's Sermons. The old Title of these Sermons doth not carry the Name of S. Leo in the Manuscript, but it hath been added by a later Hand: From whence he concludes, That these Two Sermons as well as the former, are S. Prosper's, and not S. Leo's. 
(b) The Third Province of Lions.] This Letter was falsely directed to the Bishops of Thrace, for the Bishops named in the Title are French Bishops. It was Ecclesiarum quae sunt intr● Provincial ter●iam constitutae; some Scribe, not knowing what was meant by Ter●ia, put Thracia instead of it.  He brings for a Third Proof▪ That neither G●…dius nor Pope Gelasius, who speak of S. Leo's Letter to Flavian, do ●ake the least mention of his Sermons, no more than Anastasius Bibliothecarius, who speaks of the Actions of this Pope. It is said also, That in those Times the Bishops preached Sermons made by others: That Gennadius assures us, That Salvian had composed many for Bishops, and says the same thing of Honoratus. That if Bishops did make use of the Sermons of a Priest and 
* [Salvian was no Boishp. Du Pin mistakes Gennadius' words. See C●ve in Salvian.]  Bishop of Marseilles, and desired them of 'em, 'tis very credible that they should apply 'emselves too S. Leo (whose Reputation was very great) for them. Now S. Leo being busied with so many Affairs▪ 'tis not likely that he could compose them himself, and if so, who should he choose to do it for him but S. Prosper, who was his Secretary, and was sufficiently qualified to make good Sermons? And that it was these he sent to the Bishops under the Name of S. Leo. This is the Opinion of the Abbot Anthelmi upon the Sermons which bear the Name of S. Leo, and the Conjectures upon which he Builds it.  
But altho' I have no small esteem of the worth of this Author, yet I cannot but say, that this whole frame appears to me a mere Chimaera, and the proofs which he brings are extremely weak; for what probability is there, that other Bishops should address themselves to S. Leo to make Sermons for them? It is visible enough, That the Bishops of Rome have otherwise been consulted about the affairs of the Church, but whoever said, that they were desired to make Sermons? Is there any example of it? Salvian made Sermons for some Bishops, and Honoratus' Homilies were used by others, but what is this to the Bishop of Rome? M. Anthelmi supposes that he was burdened with so many affairs, and encumbered with so much business, that he had not leisure to write Letters. And is it Credible▪ That they did address themselves to him to have Sermons? Or, That he should contrive to have them made and published in his Name? Further, it is discernible, That S. Leo's Sermons were composed by S. Leo for his own People, and Preached in his own Church 
a Preached in his own Church.] It is evident that the ●our first Sermons upon the Anniverssaries of S. Leo's Exaltation to the Pontificate, are proper to this Pope, and were Preached at Rome. They cannot agree to any other Bishop, or any other Church. There are also in these Sermons some things which none could fitly speak but S. Leo. The Sermons upon the Collects are built upon the usage of the Church of Rome. The end of the Sermons upon the Monthly Fasts, prove invincibly, that they were Preached at Rome; for could he otherwise say, Sabbato apud Be●tum Pe●●um Vigilias celebr●mus. The Fifth of Fasting contains a particular Fast of S. Leo's. The ●ent-Sermo●s relate to the Usage of the Church of Rome. The 80th. and 81st. upon the Feast of S. Peter and S. Paul, cannot be for any other Church, but for that of Rome, no more than that for the Feast of St. Peter's Chair. Lastly, They have all the Character of the Bishop of Rome speaking to his People. There is very little of them which could be Preached by any other Bishop, in any other Church.  'Twas only for S. Leo that they were made, and for no other Bishops. But say some, Sozomen assures us in his Ecclesiastical History, l. 7. c. 19 That in the Church of Rome, neither the Bishop, nor any in his stead, Preached to the People, as if this remark of Sozomen ought to be followed. Do they not know, that even they, that maintain this▪ as M. Valesius hath done, own that S. Leo did not conform to that Custom. So clear it is, That he Preached himself to the People: But yet it is not probable, that what Sozomen says in that place, was ever true, or he must be understood in another sense, for who can imagine, that in so flourishing and orderly a Church as that of Rome was, the Bishop should neglect his principal Duty, and suffer his Flock to be without Feeding? Besides, S. Leo tells us in several places of his Sermons 
b In several places of his Sermons.] Sermon III. of the Epiphany. Tamen u● nostri ●ihil de●i● of●●cii, loqui de ead●m festivities, quod D●●i●●● do●●●●●i●, audebo. Serm 7. de Pass. c. 10. De s●●vi●●te quam debeo. Serm. 2. de Resurrect. c. 1. Repos●●●● v●s co●suetudinis debitum. Serm. 82. in Nat. Macc. he says of S. Six●●s, that he was, Magnificus Senator p●●ietum, sed magnificentior aedi●ica●●r anim●rum— ●●●tilit●tibus institution●● ejus etiam in ipso fru●●●●●● devo●a posteritas, & ●abi●ando quod condidit, & faciendo quod do●uit.  That he did nothing new in Preaching, but followed the settled Custom, and in the Eighty Second Sermon he observes particularly, that his Predecessor S. Sixtus had made some public Instructions. And do we not learn from S. Ambrose, that Liberius 
* [Valesius says, Non erat Sermo ad Popuium sed exhortatio ad Marcelli●am. No pu lick Sermon, but a private A mo●ition. But this is only to maintain his assertion, for the F. says, Populus convenerit, nemo ●mpastus recedet, ●nd for that end goes on Preaching, Amb. lib. 3. de Virgin. in ipso limb ●●e.  made a Sermon upon the occasion of Marcellina's Vowing Virginity in the Church of S. Peter on the Feast of the Nativity? This is sufficient to make it appear, that Sozomen's Observation is false, or aught to be understood in another sense. But however that be, no Man dare extend it as far as S. Leo's time, because 'tis manifest beyond all contradiction, that the Sermons which bear his Name, were composed for the People of Rome, and Preached before them. So that there is nothing more Fictitious, than the System of M. Abbot Anthelmi? But perhaps tho' S. Leo Preached them, yet he did not make▪ them himself? Can a Bishop in so much business as he was, have time to make his Sermons? Is it not more likely that S. Prosper made them? This supposition is not so absurd as the former, but yet not much better grounded? Why might not S. Leo have had time enough to compose such short Sermons as his are? The chief Duty of a Bishop is to instruct his People, and it-being especially appropriated to him, as S. Leo himself saith in his Letters to Maximus and Theodoret, it is evident, that he ought to prefer this Employment before all others. S. Leo was Eloquent, and spoke readily, he needed no very long time to make his Sermons. He Preached apparently without much preparation: Afterwards, They wrote his Sermons either in the time he Preached them, or he dictated them himself. But supposing that S. Leo had caused them to be made, he did certainly make use of some other Pen, than S. Prosper's, for they are of a more sublime Style than the Works of that Author. The Style of this last is Plain and Doctrinal, not at all Florid, as the Sermons and Letters, of S. Leo are. That Jingling and Rhyming Cadence so proper to S. Leo, is very rarely to be found in S. Prosper. This it is that we must judge the likeness of Style by, and not because the same Words, or Thoughts, are by chance found in Two Authors. And yet this is all that proves the parallels of M. Abbot Anthelmi. And if any Persons will give themselves the trouble to compare the places, which he alleges, they'll see that there is no likeness of Style between the passages of one Author, and the other, altho' they meet with the same words. And further, Altho' there were some little conformity of Style between the Writings of S. Prosper, and S. Leo, yet have we not much greater reason to say, That S. Prosper hath imitated his Master whom be often heard speak and preach, whose Sermons he read, and perhaps copied out to keep them, In Scrinio Romanae Ecclesiae, In the Registry of the Roman Church, it being supposed that he was a Notary of the Roman Church?  
As to the Saxon MS. as it contains no more than Three Sermons, whatsoever Authority we allow it, it ought to make us doubt of no more than Three Sermons, for this doubt ought not to reach to others, which are always attributed to S. Leo in all the MSS. and never to S. Prosper. But notwithstanding these Three Sermons are not to be found, save in this MS. only, where the first is attributed to S. Prosper, yet the Style and Matter do evince that they are S. Leo's, and cannot be S. Prosper's. This, is the Judgement, which the Learned M. Faber; whose is this MS. gives of it, and which he sent to Vossius Provost of Tongres to add them to his Edition of S. Leo. See what this great Man saith in his Letter to Vossius; p. 113. and 114. of his Works, Hearing that Michael Sonnius Bookseller hath a Correspondence with you by Letters, and that he expects shortly your Edition of S. Leo ' s Works, I thought that I might do you a kindness in sending you Three Sermons of this Father Copied out of an Ancient MS. that you might add them, if they have escaped your Observation. I have sent you them at first, that you might see whether they are among those that you have. And since you have made Answer to Sonnius, that they are not there, I do send you them so much the more freely, because I observe in them, as I think the Eloquence of that Father, the roundness of his Periods, and that compact Style, which is peculiar to him. That which is attributed to S. Prosper, doth evidently belong to the same Author as the others, as is proved by the Agreement in the Style, and because he speaks of himself as Bishop of Rome, for tho' indeed some say, that S. Leo made use of S. Prosper, yet I shall never be persuaded, that so Eloquent a Pope as S. Leo was, hath Craved the Pen of another, and Preached to his People the Sermons that another made. M. Anthelmi must pardon me, if I prefer M. Faber's Judgement before his, and if without relying upon the Authority of that MS. we acknowledge the first Sermon to be S. Leo's. But why doth it bear S. Prosper's Name in that Ancient MS? Do we not know, that there is a great confusion in the most Ancient MSS. about the Titles of Sermons, and that often they are very faulty? Witness the Two Ancient MSS. a Thousand Years old, of which F. Mabillon speaks in the Preface to S. Maximus' Homilies, Mus. Ital. T. 1. P. 4. where the Homilies of S. Maximus bear the Name of S. Austin. We need not then wonder, if a Sermon of S. Leo's carries the Name of S. Prosper in a MS. of 900 Years old. And yet this doth not prove that it is this Fathers, nor that he hath put it under his own Name, because it was known even then, that S. Prosper made S. Leo's Sermons, or that it was Copied out of a Manuscript, wherein the Sermons of S. Leo were attributed to S. Prosper. M. Abbot Anthelmi owns, That in the time of S. Prosper, the Sermons which were made for S. Leo, did bear the Name of that Pope. Why then was the Name of S. Prosper affixed to them Three Hundred Years after? Whence did he that wrote the Manuscript learn that they were S. Prosper's? Why had not all his other Sermons the same luck? What necessity is there for amending all other Manuscripts by this, wherein there are no more than Three of S. Leo's Sermons? The Transcriber might easily mistake, he might Copy the first Sermon from a Manuscript which had been S. Prosper's, or written by S. Prosper, and take the Name of him that wrote the Manuscript, or the Person's, whose it was, for the Name of the Author. He might find this Sermon at the end of S. Prosper's Works, and so attribute it of his own head to S. Prosper? However that he, it often happens, that we find in the most Ancient Manuscripts the Sermons of S. Maximus, and S. Caesarius, under the Name of S. Austin, and Ambrose, which in our time have been restored to their true Authors, upon the account of the mere agreement of Style with the other Sermons of S. Maximus, and Caesarius, and without the Authority of any Manuscript? And why may we not do the same to the Sermon of S. Leo? A Negative Argument taken from the silence of Gennadius, Gelasius, and Anastasius, is of little consequence. Gennadius often passes over in silence many excellent pieces of those Authors of whom he speaks. Gelasius had no design to speak of his Sermons, and Anastasius never uses to mention the Writings of Popes. We must then leave S. Leo in possession of his Sermons.  
The Four First are Discourses upon his own Promotion to the See of the Roman Church. The First was Preached, according to some, a Year after, according to others, on the Day of his Ordination, but it is more probable, that it was on the Octave after it, for he speaks of his Election as lately passed, and of some time that came between, and yet he signifies, that he did not Preach it upon the same Day that he was Ordained, but recurrente per suum ordinem Die, quo 〈◊〉 ●…s Episto●… offici●… 〈◊〉 ●…re principiu●…, The same Day ●…ing in its course, on which the Lord was pleased to give a beginning to my Episcopal Charge, which agrees very well to the ●…e. He gives God thanks in this Sermon, for the favours which he hath received of 〈◊〉, and more especially, That he had permitted him to return again to Rome, after a long absence, to Govern that Church. He declares to his People the grateful sense he had of their goodwill to him, in choosing him their Bishop, beyond his desert. He desires them to help him by their Prayers, that he may govern the Church in Peace. He assures them, That he will always have that Day in great Honour, in which he was advanced to his See, because, although he ought to tremble by reason of his unworthiness, yet 〈◊〉 was obliged to rejoice in the favour which God had shown him, hoping, that he, who hath permitted him to be put into a Charge of so great Weight, will help him to undergo it, and give him strength that he may not ●…t under the Burden of that Dignity. Lastly, He testifies the Joy that he hath to see the Bishops his Brethren assembled, and makes them to hope, that S. Peter is with them, and that he governs that Church in the Person of his Successor.  
In the Second Discourse Preached a Year after his Ordination, he says, That tho' all Bishops ought to give God the Honour of their Ministry, yet he had greater reason than any Body else to Attribute it wholly to the Divine Mercy, when he considers on the one hand his own Weakness, and on the other, the Excellency of his Ministry. That the very thoughts of it made him tremble, because nothing is more to be feared, than Labour by the Weak, g●… Dignity by Mean Persons, and an Office by Men of no desert. Labour fragili, sublimit●…●●●mist, dig●… non ●…l. That nevertheless he doth not despair, nor is faint-hearted, because he puts his Trust in him who works in, and by Man. That the Psalm, which they are about to sing, is very proper to humble 〈◊〉 Bishop, and to give all the Glory to Jesus Christ; that it speaks of Melchisedeck an Eternal Priest, whose Parents are not known, which is a Type of the New Law, and the practice of the Church, which bestows not the Priesthood upon Persons of Quality, or of a particular Family, nor by Succession, but chooses such Men as the Holy Spirit hath fitted for it, insomuch that it is not the Prerogative of Birth that qualifies for the Sacerdotal Unction, but 'tis the Heavenly Grace that makes Bishops. That the Church is still governed by Jesus Christ, who hath given to S. Peter the Apostolic Power. That that Apostle never forsakes his Church, but continues to be the Foundation of it; that his Authority and Power still lives in his Successors, and that it is to him that that little good which he doth in his Charge is to be attributed. That it is S. Peter also that he ought to Extol upon that Day, that it is the Feast of that Apostle; That the Bishops his Brethren were assembled not so much to Honour him, as S. Peter, who is not only Bishop of the Roman Church, but the Head of all the Churches in the World. Upon this Account he Exhorts the Christians of the Church of Rome to excel the Christians of all other Churches in the World in Virtue.  
In the Third Discourse upon the same subject, after he hath shown that all Christians ought to join in that Feast, because all are in some measure Priests to God, having received the Unction of the Holy Spirit, which makes them in a sense Priests, he speaks of the Prerogatives granted to S. Peter, and he adds, That the Right of that Power hath passed to all the Primates of the Church, but it is not without good reason, that God spoke that to One, which belongs to all, because in choosing S. Peter to entrust with his Power, he hath made him the Prototype of all Bishops, and that this privilege granted to S. Peter meets in all those who Judge according to the Justice of that Apostle. That as all the Apostles and Bishops have received the Keys in the Person of S. Peter, so likewise it was for all the Apostles, and all the Bishops, that Jesus Christ hath Prayed, when he Prayed in particular for S. Peter, That his Faith fail not. Lastly, That S. Peter doth still take care of his Church, and tho' he doth not refuse to assist all the Christians in the World, yet it is to be believed, that he helps in a particular manner those of the Church of Rome, whom he hath preferred, and among whom his Body is Buried.  
The Fourth Sermon is almost spent upon the same matters. After he hath proved, that all the good that we do, aught to be referred to God, he demonstrates, that the higher Men are promoted in the Church, the more they ought to fear; That all Bishops must give an Account of their Flocks; That all Churches having recourse to the Holy Apostolic See God requires of his Bishop such an Universal Charity, as he hath commanded S. Peter to have; That it would be impo●…le for him to discharge so great an Office well, and that he must infallibly faint under the Burden, if Jesus Christ, who is an Eternal Priest after the Order of Melchisedeck, did not by his Divine Assistance continually aid and assist his Church. That this Anniversary Festival was not appointed for Pride, and Vanity, but to give Jesus Christ upon that Day the Honour of what he doth in the Person of his Minister, and to Celebrate the Memory of S. Peter, who never ceaseth to preside over the Holy See, and hath transmitted to his Successors the same Constancy which he hath received from Jesus Christ; That it is to him that we are obliged for that small Power which remains yet in the Church of Roman. For, saith he, if God hath granted to the Martyrs as a recompense of their sufferings, and to make known their deserts: If he hath granted them, I say, an Ability to relieve Men in Distress, restore Health to the Sick, and cast out Devils out of the Bodies of such as are possessed, and to heal all manner of Diseases, who can be so Ignorant, or so Repining, against the Glory of S. Peter, as to assert, That there is any part of the Church which is 〈◊〉 governed by his Care, or strengthened by his Help? He concludes, That if all the Church acknowledge itself obliged to S. Peter, the Roman Church ought more especially to 〈◊〉 all ●●●ens of the respect which it hath for him, and make all thankful acknowledgements 〈◊〉 his Bounty; That it is to this Apostle, that all the Honour and Respect which is this Day given to his Successor is directed and intended.  
The Six following Sermons, are upon the Collections, or Contributions, which were made for the Poor upon some Sundays in the Year. They are very short, and much commend almsgiving to us, and show, that Gatherings for the Poor are derived to us from Apostolic Practice.  
Next there are Nineteen Sermons upon the Fast of the Tenth Month, that is, upon the Emberweek in the Month of September. He observes, That the Ember-Fasts were appointed to Teach us, That there is no time which ought not to be employed in the doing of Good Works; That this Fast in September was Instituted to give God thanks for the Fruits of the Earth, which they had just gathered in, and put us in mind of bestowing a part of those things which God hath given us, to the Poor, by abstaining from them ourselves. That the New Law doth not discharge Men from the obligation of Fasting, but on the contrary, the Fasts which it prescribes, are of longer continuance than those of the Jews; That the Apostles commanded it; That Fasting is of great advantage, but it ought to be accompanied with other Christian Virtues, and chief, Charity to our Neighbours; That Almsgiving, Prayer, and Fasting, are efficacious means to obtain remission of Sins, that when we give Alms, we lend our Money to God upon Usury; That such Usury is allowed, but 'tis not permitted under any pretence whatsoever to lend to Men upon Usuries.  
The Ten Sermons upon the Nativity, contain in them more of Doctrine, than Morality. In them he explains the Mystery of the Incarnation, confutes the Errors of the Heretics who have opposed it, and adds to the Doctrine some Moral Considerations.  
The Eight Sermons upon the Epiphany, contain some Considerations upon the circumstances of that Mystery.  
In the Twelve Lent-Sermons he speaks of the Institution and Benefit of Fasting. He believes, That it was appointed principally to make Expiation for Sins, and do Penance for their Sins; That the Catechumen are obliged to it, as well as the Faithful; That Virtues must be joined with the due Observation of Fasting, and chief Almsgiving, and forgiveness of Enemies; That the whole Lent, and above all, the last Days of it, aught to be used to prepare ourselves for the Feast of Easter.  
In the Nineteen following Sermons he explains the Mystery, Fruit, Effects and Circumstances of the Passion of our Saviour.  
He hath Two Sermons upon the Resurrection, Two upon the Ascension of Jesus Christ, and Three upon the Pentecost. In these last he proves the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, in the second he takes notice of some Circumstances of the Heresy of Manes.  
The Four next Sermons are upon the Ember-days immediately after Whitsuntide, which follows that Feast, saith S. Leo, That the Graces bestowed by Virtue of those Mysteries may be preserved by that means. He speaks in these Sermons of the Benefit of Fasting.  
The Sermon upon the Feast of S. Peter and S. Paul is looked upon, and that with a great deal of Reason as one of the best Sermons of S. Leo. He shows, in the beginning of it, That tho' this Feast be common to all the Churches in the World, it is reasonable that it should be celebrated with the greatest Solemnity in the City of Rome, where these two Apostles have manifested the Light of the Gospel, and where they received the Crown of Martyrdom. He describes the manner how Religion was first settled at Rome, and how that City, which was the chief City of the Empire, became the principal Church in the World. He extols the Zeal of S. Peter who came thither first of all to preach the Faith. He equals S. Paul 〈◊〉 S. Peter in desert, and says. That these two Apostles were as the two Eyes of the Body of the C●…, of which Jesus Christ is the Head; That their Call, Travails and End, made them e●…. He concludes saying, That he doth not doubt but that these two glorious Apostles do endeavour, by their Prayers, to move our Lord to Mercy.  
There was heretofore another Sermon upon this Feast, but F. Quesnel hath rejected it in his Appendix, because all of it, except the beginning, is taken out of the 3d. Sermon of S. Leo, ●●on the Anniversary of his advancement to the Popedom.  
The following Sermon is on the Octavo of the preceding Feast, if we may believe the Title: 〈◊〉 it appears by the Body of the Sermon, That it was made upon another Subject, and apparently at another time after that Rome was freed from the Vandals. S. Leo therein condemns the Romani●… Superstition, who after they were delivered by the help of the Saints and the Mercy of God, did celebrate their 
* [Ludi Circenses, in honour of Neptune, or as others, of Juno, Minerud, & Jupiter.]  Cirque-shews with a great deal of Pomp and State.  
The Eighty Second Sermon is upon the Feast of the 7 Macchabees, which was joined to the ●east of the Dedication of some Roman Church. He exhorts the Faithful to imitate these Generous Martyrs in conquering the Persecutions of their Spiritual Enemies. He highly praises the Person that had built the Church, which was dedicated, and takes an occasion to admonish the Christians, That they ought to build a Spiritual Temple in themselves.  
S. Leo makes an Observation in the beginning of his Panegyric of S. Laurence, That the Martyrs are those, who have most exactly imitated the Charity of Jesus Christ; That our Lord in dying for us hath redeemed us, and that the Martyrs show us by their death, that we ought not to fear Tortures; That among all the Martyrs, there is none that was more cruelly Persecuted, and shown more Constancy than S. Laurence; That as he was a Minister of the Sacraments, the Persecutor was animated by a double Motive, and put on by two different Passions. Being Covetous of Money, and an Enemy to the true Religion, his Avarice put him upon seizing the Treasures of the Church, and his Impiety upon destroying the Christian Religion. He could not make S. Laurence deliver up the Treasures of the Church, but he must at the same time make him renounce his Religion. He demands of him then the place where the Treasures of the Church were? Our Saint shows him the Flocks of Poor which were maintained and clothed out of the Church's Revenues. The Tyrant being disappointed of his hopes, was all in a fury, and prepared the most cruel Torments; and after he had torn and mangled his Body with many Blows, he broiled his Body upon a Grid-Iron. But the more cruel his Tortures were, the greater was the Glory of this Martyr: So that Rome hath been as famous for the Martyrdom of S. Laurence, as Jerusalem for S. Stephen. We hope, adds this Father, that we shall be helped by his Prayers and his Intercession.  
The Nine following Sermons are upon the Summer Ember-days. He exhorts the Faithful to Fasting, and shows the Advantage of it, and requires them always to join Fasting and Abstinence together. He recommends the Love of God.  
The Ninety Third Sermon is against the Error of Eutyches. The Ninety Fourth contains some Reflections upon the Mystery of the Incarnation upon the occasion of the Transfiguration of our Lord. In the Ninety Fifth he explains the Degrees of Blessedness, set down in the Sermon of Jesus Christ upon the Mount. The Ninety Sixth upon the Feast of S. Peter's Chair is newly published out of a Manuscript of the King's Library. It is S. Leo's Style.  
F. Quesnel observes, in this place, That there are many Prayers in the Missal and Roman Pontifical, which are S. Leo's Style. In this number he puts the Prefaces of the Mass, and hence he adds two of them, the one for the Mass of Consecration of Bishops, the other for the Ordination of a Priest, with a Prayer of the Archdeacon to the Bishop, upon the reconciling of Penitents. These Pieces are taken out of the Pontifical, but 'tis not certain that they are S. Leo's.  
The Appendix contains 3 Sermons falsely attributed to S. Leo, and 2 others made up of little pieces taken out of this Father. The 1st. is upon S. Vincent. The 2d. upon the Nativity of our Lord. The 3d. upon the Ascension. The 4th. upon the Feast of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul; and the Last is a Treatise against the Errors of Eutyches and other Heretics.  
We do not here speak of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles, the short Heads about Grace and freewill, nor of the Epistle to Demetrias, Works which Father Quesnel hath put under S. Leo's Name in the beginning of his Works, because we will allow a Chapter by itself for the Examination, whether they are S. Leo's or not.  
The Style of S. Leo is polite and over-elegant. His Discourse is made up of Periods, whose Parts are well distinguished and measured. He has a Rhyming Cadence of words, which is very wonderful; it is swelled with noble Epithets, fit Appositions, suitable Antitheses and admirable end of Periods; this renders it pleasant to the Ear, and that sets such a lustre upon it as is dazzling and ravishing. But this Style not being natural, is found sometime intricate and obscure, and keeps the Reader or Hearer in suspense. The Elegancy of these sort of Discourses arises from nothing but the ranging of the words, which makes a wonderful Cadence. If we will alter it, and express the same sense in other words, we shall perceive no such Beauty as we admired before. Nevertheless S. Leo's sense is very good; he is exact in Points of Doctrine, and very skilful in Discipline, but he is not very full of Moral Points; he treats of them very dryly, in a way that rather diverts than affects. He was zealous for the Rights and Privileges of his See, and sought all opportunities of advancing and enlarging them as much as possible. This design is very apparent in all his Writings, but we must own that he used his Power with a great deal of Meckness and Moderation, being persuaded, That the only use of it was to provide that the Laws of the Church he duly observed, and that nothing be commanded or allowed contrary to the Decrees of the Councils. These were his Principles. He greatened his Authority, but it was for Edification, and never for Destruction. He had a great Veneration for Emperors and Kings. He meddled not with Civil Affairs. Lastly, it may be said, That the Church of Rome never had more Grandeur and less Pride than in this Pope's time. The Bishop of Rome was never more honoured, more considerable and respected than in this Pope's time, and yet he never carried himself with more Humility, Wisdom, Sweetness and Charity.  
The first Edition of S. Leo's Works was composed by John Andrew, Bishop of the Isle of Corsica, and printed at Venice in 1485. This Edition was Reprinted in 1505. by Portesius. This had but a few of his Letters. But the Collections of Merlin and Crabbe, afford us a greater number. Canisius undertook a new Edition of S. Leo's Works, which he published at Collen in 1546, and 1547. Surius made another in 1561. This was followed by another of the Canons of S. Martin of Louvain in 1575., and 1578. and at Antwerp in 1583. The Letters of S. Leo are inserted in the Collection of the Decretals and Councils. In 1614, and 1618. the Works of S. Leo were Printed with the Homilies of S. Maximus and S. Chrysologus [at Paris], and afterwards Reprinted several times at Lions, [viz. 1633, 1651, and 1671.] and at Paris.  
But all these Editions are not comparable to the last, which F. Quesnel, a Priest of the Oratory, hath published. It was printed at Paris by Coignard in 1675. He hath published 31 Sermons never before printed, and reviewed the Works already public, by a great number of MSS. from which he hath taken very considerable Amendments. It is divided into 2 Tomes, in Quarto. The 1st. contains S. Leo's Sermons and Letters, with the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles, the Aphorisms of Grace attributed to S. Celestine, and the Epistle to Demetras, which he pretends to be S. Leo's. He hath ranked his Sermons and Works in a better Order, and hath separated his Supposititious Works from his Genuine. This Tome ends with the Life of Hilary Bishop of Arles, written by Honoratus. The 2d. Tom contains an ancient Book of Canons and Constitutions of the Popes, which F. Quesnel holds to be that which the Church of Rome used heretofore; six Dissertations upon Matters that have relation to the Works he was about to publish, and very learned and useful Notes upon S. Leo's Letters. Altho' his Dissertations seem to be something long, and contain some things which seem remote from the Works of this Father, yet they are written with so much Reason, and are so full of Learning, that no Man will be troubled to have them joined with the Works of this Father. The Industry of the Printer, the Beauty of the Character, and Correctness of the Edition, are answerable to the Learning of him who had the care of it.   

S. HILARY Bishop of Arles.  
HONORATUS Bishop of Marseille, whom we think to be the Author of the ancient Life of Hilary Bishop of Arles, hath written it with so much Exactness, that we cannot be mistaken in following him. He speaks nothing of his noble Extraction and Country, 
S. Hilary of Arles.  imitating therein S. Hilary himself, who made no account of those Privileges. He passes over in silence what was very worthy of observation in his Youth concerning his Studies, the Acuteness and Vigour of Wit, his Proficiency in the Sciences, being persuaded, That it is needless to enlarge upon those things, in writing the Life of a Person so Virtuous as S. Hilary.  
In the next place he relates after what manner Honoratus Abbot of 
* [Lerina, an Ille of France.]  Lerins left his Society, and went into his Country to find out S. Hilary, that he might convert him. He describes the opposition he met withal at first from S. Hilary, the Arguments which he made use of to move him, the disturbance S. Hilary himself was in, and at last, how being touched by Grace, which changeth the Will, he took up a resolution to withdraw himself from the World. Having sold his Estate to his Brother, he gave the price of it to the Poor, or disposed of it for the Subsistence of the Monks, and then retreated into the Isle of Lerins. Sometime after Honoratus having been chosen Bishop of Arles, S. Hilary went with him thither; but the Love of retreat soon recalled him to his ancient Privacy. Two years after, in 429. Honoratus being ready to pass out of this Life into a better, sent for his dear Son Hilary to do the last Offices for him; whom, as he was about to return, the Governor Cassius cast his Eyes upon, to make him Successor to Honoratus, and his Choice was unanimously approved by all, wherefore he detained him, and, tho' against his Will, ordained him Bishop of Arles.  
This Dignity, which often corrupts others, did only increase his Holiness and Zeal. He founded a Society of the Clergy, which he trained up to Godliness, by Imitation and Example. He taught them, by his own Practice, to contemn the World, to neglect the Body, to subdue it by Fasting and Mortifications, to suppress Sin, to live Hardly, to Journey on Foot, to Eat and Drink just no more than Necessity requires, to undergo hard Labour, to meditate on the Law of God, to relieve the Poor and Widows, and be good Examples to all the World. He sold the Ornaments of the Church to redeem Captives, insomuch that he was forced to use Chalices and Pattens of Glass. He expended the Offerings of the People for the Redemption of the Members of Jesus Christ, not reserving any thing for himself. He had a special regard for the Holy Monks. He was extremely humble, and yet he was inflexible in respect of the Proud, and terrible to Persons Haughty, and puffed up with their own Grandeur. This is an eminent Instance of his Constancy and Inflexibleness. The Governor of the City having done many Injuries, he often admonished him of them in private, but since the Governor valued it not▪ on a day, when he came into the Church with his Guards, while S. Hilary was Preaching, he broke off his Sermon saying, That he ought not to hear the Word of God in public, who is not bettered by private Instructions. His Sermons were Eloquent, and adorned with curious Sentences. He employed the Spiritual Sword of the Word of God to cut off Heresies. On the Fasting-days he preached to the People even till Night, and that with so much Delight, that they almost forgot they had need of Eating. When he was to speak to the Ignorant, he used such Language as was suitable to their Capacities. But when he saw learned Persons come to hear him, he elevated himself, and made himself so much admired, that 2 Bishops of that time, called Sy●●i●● and Eusebi●●, Persons very well known by their Writings, going one day into his Church as he was Preaching, did own, That there was something Extraordinary and Divine in his Discourses. When he had once begun, he would never make an end, if the Sign, which was given him to tell when it was time to conclude, had not made him give over, His Discourses were so elegant▪ that a learned Poet of his time proclaimed publicly, That if S. Austin had lived after S. Hil●ry, he would have been accounted inferior to him. The Works which he hath left us, are an evident Proof of his Eloquence, viz. The Life of Ho●oratus. His Homilies upon all the Festivals of the year, his Exposition of the Creed, a great number of Letters, and his Poems written ●ith a great deal of Wit. If what I say of his Eloquence, saith Honoratus, be not credible, sure Eucherius will be regarded, who having received his Book in Verse and Prose, wro●e back again to him▪ That there was in it an equal Portion of Wit and Eloquence; yea, let them believe Auxiliaris, a Roman Orator▪ who commends his Letters as Pieces excellently written. He had so ready a Wi●, that he could Read, Compose, Dictate and Writ with his own Hand at the same time. 'Tis wonderful, but it is authorized by the Testimony of the Poet Edesius, who himself saw it. His Table was so Frugal, that he never durst invite any Body to it. He sought all Opportunities of being serviceable to the Public. Being at the Salt-pits, he invented and made some Engines himself, or certain Instruments to make some Wares, which would remove themselves conveniently and easily. He rose at Midnight, went 8 or 10 Miles on Foot, officiated every day at Divine Service, and made very long Sermons. When he imposed Penance on Offenders (which he did ordinarily on the Lord's day) they came to hear him in Throngs. All that were present poured forth Tears, and being astonished at the Judgements of God, and alured by the Promises, they sent out such strong▪ Cries and Sighs▪ That all the Place was filled with the noise of them. Who ever better displayed the Rigour of God's Judgements? Who ever more lively represented the Torments of Hell? Who ever made Sinners more sensible of the Enormities of their Crimes? After his Exhortation was ended, he received the first Supplications with Tears, and confirmed by Prayer the Fruit of Repentance stirred up by his Exhortations. He cast out Devils from the Bodies of such as were possessed, by making them renounce their Sins publicly. When he saw his People go out of the Church after the Gospel was read, he kept them b●ck, by telling them, You may easily go from hence, but you cannot go from Hell.  
Who can express, saith Honoratus, how much good his Visitations did in the French Churches? He often went to see S. German, with whom he made an enquiry into the Life and Manners of the Clergy. While he was with him a certain Bishop, named Celedonius, was accused before him, because he had married a Widow before he was ordained, which is forbidden by the Canons, and the Authority of the Holy See: Some added, That he had been present at the Trial and Condemnation of Criminals. The Case being discussed with all the fairness imaginable, and the Witnesses heard, he pronounced, That he whom the Holy Canons deprived of his Priesthood, aught to forsake it of himself. He resolved with himself to go to Rome; he complains, That he had been condemned with too much Severity. S. Hilary understanding this puts himself immediately upon his Journey to go to Rome; the Coldness of the Season, the Height of the Alps, and other Troubles in the Journey, could not take off the Edge of his Zeal; he conquered them all, and went to Rome on Foot; after having paid his Devotion to the Tombs of the Apostles and Martyrs, he went to S. Leo, gave him all due Respect and Veneration, and humbly besought him that he would make no Alteration in the ordinary Discipline of the Church: He complained, That those Bishops who had been condemned in France were permitted to exercise their Ministry at Rome, which was a great Scandal, and aught to be rectified by him: As for himself, he says, He came not to assist at their Their Trial or Condemnation, but only to pay his Respects; and what he said was by way of Protestation, not Accusation, and if he would not hearken to him, he would not be further troublesome about it.  
Nor was he more bold and courageous in his Words than Actions: He proved, that he very little valued the Menances of Rome, for he stiffly maintained what he had done, yielded to no Man, would never communicate with those whom he had condemned, and seeing that he could not make the Romans understand Reason, he went home again. Being returned, he neglected nothing that might appease the Pope's Mind; he first of all sent Ravennius the Priest, who afterward was his Successor, and then deputed the 
* [Priests, Dr. Cave.]  Bishops Nectarius and Constantius, to negotiate his Affair with the Pope; he gave them long Instructions, but found no acceptance. It is worth our Pains to read what Auxiliaris▪ the Praefect of Rome [who was also employed to pacify the Pope] wrote to our Saint: I have received, according to my Duty, the Bishops Constantius and Nectarius, who are come hither on your behalf. I have often discoursed with them about your Constancy and Contempt of the World. I have also spoken of your Business to Pope Leo: I do not doubt but here you will be a little astonished, since you are always firm, and in the same Purposes, not being transported with excessive Anger or Joy; I do not believe but that you must suspect some part of the World to be governed by Pride, but Men do not easily endure that others should speak their Opinions freely of them, besides, the Roman Ears are very Nice, that they will not suffer any thing that doth not please them. I am of Opinion, that if you would become more mild, you would gain much by it. Grant me this, and remove those little Clouds by the small Change of a Calm. S. Hilary did nothing of it, but seeing that no great Success was to be hoped for by that Negotiation, he gave himself wholly to Prayer and Labour, and passed the rest of his Days in continual Austerities. Some Hours before his Death he called together his Society, and having made a very affectionate Discourse to them, he resigned his Soul to God, anno 454. We have related the Life of this Bishop at length, as it is written by Honoratus Bishop of Marseille, because it contains many very important Points of Discipline, and discovers the Disposition and Character of S. Hilary. We have also in it an enumeration of the Works of S Hilary: We have nothing of them at present but the Life of Honoratus, a Letter to Eucherius, and a Poem upon the Beginning of Genesis. F. Quesnel▪ hath collected these Three Pieces, and caused them to be printed at the End of S. Leo's Works. 
* [The Life of Honoratus was put out by Genebrard, and printed at Paris 1578. Octavo. 'Tis also in Surius, and in Bib●. Patr. Tom. 7. with the other Two.]  The Life of Honoratus had already been published by Bollandus. It doth not at all come short of the Idea which Honoratus hath given us of the Wit and Eloquence of S. Hilary.  
He says, in the Beginning, That he had a great Conflict in his Mind, and though he took great Delight in celebrating the Memory of S. Honoratus; yet on the other Hand, he was much troubled to think that he had lost a Person for whom he had so great a Love. Talem reminisci●dulce est, tali carere supplicium. After he hath amplified this Notion, he observeth, That it is dangerous to praise a Man before his Death: But he cannot praise good Men too much, when they are departed into another Life, because, besides that the Praises which we bestow upon them cannot be suspected of Flattery, they tend much to the Edification of the Church, and may be of good Use to the Faithful: God is praised in his Saints, because all their Worth and Excellency ought to be imputed to the Author of Grace. He adds, That he is not afraid that any Man will think he speaks too favourably of S. Honoratus, because nothing can be said of him, which doth not come far short of his Merit and Virtues. That he was very sensible that he had not Wit and Eloquence enough to undertake to write upon a Subject, which requires the Eloquence of the most accomplished Orators of Antiquity, but that the Respect and Kindness which he had for him, engaged him to satisfy their Desires, hoping that the Deserts of that Saint would put Life into his Discourse, and revive the meanness of it.  
The Custom of such Authors as write Panegyrics, is to begin with the Commendations of the Country and Parentage of him, upon whom they make them, that the Glory of his Ancestors may supply the Defects of his Virtues. But as for us Christians, we are all but one in Jesus Christ, the greatest Nobility among us is to be the Children of God; he is the most glorious and greatest who hath the meanest Conceit of his noble Extraction. These Reasons kept S. Hilary from enlarging upon the Honours and great Offices which had been in the Family of Honoratus, and among others the Consulship which the World looks upon as one of the most eminent Dignities. He gins his Encomium of him with the Praise of his Christian Virtues and Spiritual Regeneration, the Tractableness of his Infancy, Modesty of his Youth, the Regularity of his Conversation, and Life in his Youth; but above all, the Earnestness with which he desired and demanded Baptism, against the Will and Consent of his Parents, and the Care he had, after he had received it, to keep himself Harmless and undefiled, by avoiding all occasions of Sin, resisting Temptations, and shunning the Pleasures of the World. He often said to himself, This worldly Life pleaseth us, but it deludes us: This Consideration made him often resolve to renounce a worldly Life wholly: This enduc'd him to cut off his Hair, wear a course Habit, and mortify his Body with Labour. This Change stirred up his Father and nearest Relations against him, but he opposed them, and continued to live an austere Life: His Example prevailed so much with his elder Brother, named Venantius, that he embraced the same way of Living. The Reputation of their Holiness spread itself soon through all the World, and attracted the Praise and Admiration of all Men: This made them take up a Resolution to forsake their Country, and find out a Retreat; they took with them a certain old Man named Caprasius, and went into several Places to live in Solitude, but for all this their Reputation discovered them. They took Ship, intending to go by Sea into the East, but Venantius being dead by the way, in Achaia, Honoratus returned into Italy, and at length retired into the Isle of Lerins, there to pass his Life in the Exercises of a Monastic Life. This engaged him to enter into Holy Orders, which he had ever before avoided; and when many Persons came to find him out, that they might live under his Conduct, he built a Monastery, took care to govern the Religious, and ruled them with all the Kindness and Prudence possible. S. Hilary commends his Discretion, chief his Care to provide for the Necessities of the Religious, his kind Entertainment of Strangers, his liberal Distribution of Alms, and his Love for all the World. He also relates what great Pains he took to convert him, and after what manner he caught him. He proceeds, in the next Place, to his Episcopal Virtues, upon which, nevertheless, he doth not enlarge so much as he might have done, because they were sufficiently known to the Christians of Arles. He observes, notwithstanding the greatness of his Vigilance and Charity, how he mixed Severity with Mildness, after what manner he took care of his Flock, with what Vehemency he reproved Vice, how he settled Peace and Concord in the Church. He adds, That he did not make use of his Power for Terror, but he governed his Flock with Love; and that during the Time that he was Bishop, the Church grew in Grace but decreased in Riches, because he distributed those Treasures which his Predecessors had gathered together, and for a long Time lay useless, reserving no more than what was just necessary for his Subsistence, of which likewise he would retrench a part, if there were need of it.  
In fine, S. Honoratus, being impaired with Labours and Austerities, fell into a languishing Distemper, which nevertheless did not hinder him from executing his Priestly Office. He preached in the Church upon the Feast of Epiphany, anno 429. but his Disease being increased, took him away within Eight or Nine Days after. He shown a great deal of Constancy and Courage in the Extremity of his Sickness; S. Hilary, who was present at his Death, relates here many exemplary Circumstances. He describes also his Funeral Solemnity; and after he hath made a short Relation of his Virtues, and equalled him with the Martyrs, he ends his Discourse with an Address to him, To pray him to remember him and his People, and to be their Patron and Intercessor with God.  
His Poem upon the Beginning of Genesis is much inferior to the Life of Honoratus in Beauty and Elegancy. It is full of Faults against the Rules of Pros●dia; it contains nothing noble or remarkable in it.  
The Letter of Hilarius Bishop of Arles to S. Eucherius, is a small Ticket, in which he tells him, That he had run over the Books of Constitutions, which he sent him, and desires to send him one of his Children, to whom he had given such excellent Precepts. This shows the Intimacy and Friendship there was between Hilary Bishop of Arles and S. Eucherius. It appears also by the Writings of this Latter, who speaks very honourably of him, and hath dedicated his Book, Of the Praise of a Monastic Life, to him. Constantius, the Author of the Life of S. German, Julianus, Pomerius, Sidonius, Apollinaris, and all other Authors of that Time, speak of him as a very Holy Man. S. Prosper, who did not like well of him, because he was not altogether of S. Austin's Opinion about Grace, nevertheless, in his Letter to S. Austin speaks of him as a Person of great Authority, and very well versed in all spiritual Knowledge, and owns that he was a Man of excellent Worth. In his Chronicon he joins him with S. Eucherius, and says, That they both consummated an eminent Life by an Holy Death. Lastly, although S. Leo had great Quarrels with him, and spoke very ill of him in his Life-time, yet he could not refrain speaking honourably of him after his Death. The only thing that he can be reproached with is, that he did not follow S. Austin's Opinion about Grace, and having favoured, or at least being one of the principal Patrons of the Semi-Pelagians: But at that Time the most Learned and Holy Persons of France were of that Opinion. This was the Doctrine of the Monks of Lerins, with whom S. Hilary lived; yea, this was the Doctrine held by the Bishops and all the Clergy of the Provinces of Vienna and Narbonne. Those that maintained this Opinion were not looked upon as Heretics, unless it were by the zealous Followers of S. Austin: It is no wonder then that S. Leo does not reproach him with it. I have forgotten to observe, That S. Hilary was present at, and subscribed first, the Councils of Ries in 439. and Orange in 441.   

S. VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS.  
VINCENTIUS, a Frenchman by Nation, after he had spent some part of his Life among the Troubles, Commotions and Waves of the World 
* [Being a Soldier.] , through the Impulse of the Holy 
Vincentius Lirinensis.  Spirit, retreated, as he himself says, Into the Haven of Religion; O Happy and Safe Haven for all the World: And having gotten Shelter against the Storms of Pride, and the Vanity of the World, to retire the remaining▪ Part of his Days, and offer to God the continual Sacrifices of Humiliation, that he might avoid the Sufferings of this Life, and the Flames of the Life to come. The Place of his Retreat was the famous Monastery of the Isle of Lerins, so famous for so many Persons eminent for Doctrine and Piety, which it hath produced for the Church: Vinoentius the Priest was none of the least Ornaments of it: S. Eucherius, who tells us, That he was the Brother of Lupus Bishop of Troy's, compares him, for the Fervency of his Devotion, to the brightness of a sparkling Diamond, interno gemmam splendore perspicuam: And in another place commends his Learning and Eloquence. Gennadius assures us, That he was well skilled in the Holy Scriptures, and very well versed in the Discipline of the Church.  
He hath composed an excellent Treatise against the Heretics, in which he hath given very infallible Rules and convincing Principles to distinguish Error from Truth, and the Sects of 〈◊〉 Heretics from the Catholic Church. But his Humility made him conceal his Name, and he published his Treatise under the Title of a 
* Admonition, as Gennadius's Commonitorium, Voss. Cave.  Commentary made by Peregrinus against the Heretics. It was divided into two parts, but the 2d. being lost, he contented himself to make an Abridgement of it.  
He proposes to himself, in this Commentary, to gather the Principles of the ancient Fathers against the Heretics. He tells us, in the Preface, That it was the Usefulness of the Work itself; the time and the place that he lived in, and his Profession, that engaged him to undertake this Work. The time, because all things here below being carried on with such a swiftness, it is reasonable that we should snatch up something that may stand us in stead in another Life, and so much the rather because the terrible expecting of the last Judgement (which he thought ●igh at hand, because that the Barbarians had made so great a Progress into the Empire) ought to stir up the Zeal of the Faithful for Religion, and the Malice of the Heretics ought to oblige the Orthodox to stand upon their Guard. The place also was very suitable for such a Work, because, being distant from the noise and crowd of the Cities, retired in a private Village, and shut up in the Cloisters of a Monastery, he was able, without Distraction, to do that which is said in the Psalm, Attend ye, and see, that I am your God. last, no Employment can be more agreeable to a religious Life, which he professed. He therefore undertakes 
* [Vossius in his Hi●●. Pel. prove, him a Semi- Pelagian from some places of this Treatise, as also of his Objections against S. Austin.]  to write rather as an Historian than an Author, what he hath learned from the Ancients, and they have entrusted to their Posterity. He advertiseth us, That his design was not to collect all, but only to offer to our observation what there is most necessary.  
Entering then upon his Matter, he saith, That he hath learned from many Learned and Holy Persons, That the means to avoid Heresy, and adhere steadfastly to the true Faith, is to ground themselves upon two Foundations, 1. Upon the Authority of Holy Scripture. 2. Upon the Tradition of the Catholic Church. But perhaps some will demand, saith he, the Canon of the Holy Books being perfect and sufficient of itself to settle all Religion; why is it necessary to join the Authority of the Church with it? He answers, 'Tis because Holy Scripture having a sublime sense, is differently explained; one understands it after this manner, and another after that, insomuch, that there are almost as many Opinions about the true meaning of it, as there are Persons. Novatian understands it one way, and Photinus another. It is necessary then altogether upon the account of the subtle Evasions of so many Heretics of several sorts, in interpreting Scripture to take the sense of the Catholic Church for our Rule. But yet we must be careful to choose out of those Doctrines, which we find in the Church, such as have always been believed in all places, and by all true Christians; for there is indeed nothing truly and properly Catholic, as the Name in its full signification doth denote, but what comprehends all in general. Now it will be so if we follow Antiquity, unanimous Consent and Universality. We shall follow Universality, if we believe no other Doctrine true, but that which is taught in all Churches, dispersed through the whole World. We shall follow Antiquity, if we depart not from the Judgement of our Ancestors and Fathers. Lastly, we shall follow unanimous Consent, if we adhere to the Opinions of all, or of almost all the Ancients. But what shall an Orthodox Christian do if some part of the Church apostatise from the Faith of the whole Body of the Church? There is nothing to be done but to prefer the Doctrine of the whole Body that is sound, before the Error of a rotten and putrefyed Member. But what if some new Error is ready to spread itself, I do not say, over a small part, but almost over all the Church? We must then be sure to cleave close to Antiquity, which cannot be corrupted with Novelty. In fine, if among the Ancients we find one or two Persons, or perhaps a City or Province in an Error, we must prefer the Decrees of the ancient and universal Church before the Rashness or Ignorance of some Particulars. But if there arise any Question, to which we cannot find a Parallel Case, we must then consult the Judgements of the Ancients, and compare together what those Authors have said at several times, and in distinct places, who being in the Communion of the Church may be esteemed Teachers worthy of Credit, and not only to rely upon what one or two have said, but what they all have held, written and taught unanimously, clearly, and without contradicting themselves at any time. To these Rules Vincentius Lirinensis had added these Examples. The Example of the Donatists he uses to prove, That we ought to keep to the Universality; that of the Arians, That we must cleave to Antiquity and reject Novelty. The Opinion of S. Cyprian about the Rebaptisation of Heretics, he makes use of to show, That we must not always follow the Sentiments of one particular Ancient, but we may be Heretics in maintaining the Doctrine which one Orthodox Doctor hath taught, wherefore we must depend upon Consent and unanimous Agreement.  
Photinus, Apollinaris and Nestorius, are also brought for Examples of Heretics, who were unfortunately mistaken by departing from the Tradition of the Catholic Church. The Fall of Origen and Tertullian may be a Warning to all Christians how they lean upon the Authority, or Reputation, or Learning of any private Person, and forsake the Doctrine of the Universal Church. Vincentius Lirinensis after he hath enlarged, as much as was possible, upon these Examples, returns to his Principles, and maintains, That we ought to keep ourselves to the ancient Rule of Faith, and ought not at any time to seek after or propagate any new Doctrine in the Church; That they who suffer any new Doctrine, hitherto unknown, to be taught, are Deceivers; That Men may labour to explain and clear the Ancient Faith well, but may not teach any thing new; they may have a way of expressing Matters, but no new Subjects. Cum dicas 〈◊〉, non dic●● 〈◊〉. But may some say, how is it, that the Faith may not be improved or perfected? Certainly it may be, but it cannot be changed. The Church grows in Knowledge, Understanding and Wisdom, but it always ho●●s the same Doctrines, neither taking from them nor adding to them. Things may be made 〈◊〉 evident, receive greater Light, and be better distinguished, but they remain always in the same Fullness, Perfection and Nature: Antiquity may be polished or perfected, but we must always keep the s●me Foundation. And truly the Church hath done nothing else in the Councils, but maintained the ancient Faith against the Innovation of Heretics. It obliges us to believe more explicitly what we have already believed, and teach that, with more Power, which we have heretofore taught, and defend with greater care, what we have already defended. In fine, it gives us an express definition in writing of that, which it hath received from its Ancestors by Tradition. The Heretics, on the contrary, have broached new Doctrines, and made use of the Holy Scripture to gain reception of them. Vincentius Lirinensis brings several Examples. In the next place he considers after what manner we ought to consult and compare the Opinions of the Ancient Fathers, and brings for an Example, in the 2d. part of his Commentary, the Proceed of the Council of Ephesus against Nestorius, but because that part was lost, he contented himself in giving us an Abridgement, making a Summary of the Principles, which he had laid down in his Work. But we must not forget, that Vincentius Lirinensis owns, That there are two occasions, upon which these excellent Rules concerning Tradition are not of so great use. 1. When Questions of very small Consequence, which do not concern the Rule of Faith, are under Debate, or Questions, which serve for the Foundation of Christian Doctrine. 2. When we have to deal with Heresies which are of a long standing; for, saith he, 'tis not convenient to oppose all Heresies by Tradition only, but only such as are newly risen up, as soon as they appear, and before they have corrupted the ancient Records; for when they are once throughly settled and grown old, this Argument becomes weak, because they have had, as I may say, time to cover themselves with an appearance of Antiquity. So that we must content ourselves to confute them by Scripture, or avoid them as Sects condemned and disproved by the ancient Councils of the Catholic Church.  
It is very probable that this Author is the same with him, who propounded the Objections, or rather Questions against S. Austin's Doctrine concerning Grace, which S. Prosper hath answered. There are likewise some places in that little Treatise in which he seems to quarrel with the rigid Scholars of S. Austin. But be that as it will, he was in a Country and in a Monastery, where he did not think himself obliged to addict himself to S. Austin's Opinions, whatsoever esteem he had for him. And perhaps it is for that reason, that he hath laid it down so fir●ly, that we ought not to submit to the Authority of one Father alone, but to the unanimous consent of many. Nevertheless he condemns Pelagius and Julian, and there is no Objection to be made against the Rules, which he gave to discern the Doctrines of Faith from Heresy, Error and Opinion, since they are the same, which the Church hath always observed, the Holy Fathers have laid down in their Writings, and S. Austin himself hath given in many places. Vincentius Lirinensis did no more but collect, enlarge, and put those Rules in order which he found in the Church, and ●e hath done it with much Faithfulness, Clearness and Eloquence. He composed this Treatise 3 years after the Council of Ephesus in 434. He died in the Reign of Theodosius and Valentin●…, he is acknowledged for a Saint in the Roman Martyrology, and his Memory is celebrated 〈◊〉 the 24th. of May. This little Tract hath been printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum [Tom 7.] and in several Collections of Authors, at Basil in 1528. [at Collen 1569. with Costerius' Notes] at Paris in 1569. and in 1586. which Edition is reviewed by Peter Pitthaeus. [at Collen it was Reprinted with Costerius' Notes in 1613, Twelve.] Fillesachus hath 〈◊〉 on it, and had it Printed 1619. [in Quarto.] It was Printed at Lions, with a Controve●…l Treatise in 1622. Lastly, M. Balusius published it with Salvian, 1663. [whose Edition was Reprinted at Paris, 1669. in Octavo. It was also Printed at Cambridge in 1687, Twelve.]   

S. EUCHERIUS.  
ST. EUCHERIUS, after he had had two Sons, called Salonius and Veranus 
* [Veranius. Cave.]  withdrew himself into the Isle of Lerins, and was afterward made Bishop of Lions. We have 
S. Eucherius.  some of his Works. The first is a Book written in Praise of the Desert, or of Solitude, dedicated to S. Hilary afterward Bishop of Arles, in the time that he left Honoratus to return to the Solitude of Lerins, that is to say, about the year 428. He hath collected, in that little Treatise, a great number of Arguments to raise Men's good Opinion of a Solitary Life. The Desert is the Temple of God. In the Desert God is found. The earthly Paradise is the Figure of it. Moses saw God in the Desert. The People of Israel were delivered by passing through the Desert. The Red-Sea opened itself to give them a free Passage into the Desert, and afterward closed again to prevent their return from thence. In the Desert they were nourished with the Heavenly Food, and quenched their Thirst with the miraculous Water. In the Desert they received the Law. David was preserved in the Desert. Elias, Elisha, and the Prophets dwelled in Deserts. Jesus Christ was baptised in the Desert. There it was that Angels ministered unto him, where he fed 5000 Men. It was upon a Mountain in the Wilderness, that his Glory appeared. He prayed in the Desert. The Saints retired themselves into the Desert. The Habitation of Deserts is to be preferred before all others; there God is more easily found, there we converse more familiarly with him, there we live more quietly and free from Temptations. The Praises of Deserts in general are attended by the particular Commendations of the Desert of Lerins. That is a sweet Place full of Fountains, overspread with Herbs, abounding with most pleasant Flowers, grateful as well to the Eyes as Smell, an abode fit for Honoratus, who first founded the Monasteries, and had Maximus for his Successor; blessed Lupus, his Brother Vincentius, and Reverend Caprasius, and many other Holy Old Men, who dwelled in separate Cells, have made the Life of the Egyptian Monks to flourish among us. Lastly, After he hath spoken of their Virtues, he congratulates Hilarius, That he was returned again to such a Charming and Delightful Dwelling.  
The Second Work is a 
* [Epistola de contemptu mundi, & saecularis Philosophiae, Dr. Cave.]  Treatise of the Contempt of the World, dedicated to his Kinsman, called Valerian, who was of an Illustrious Family, to exhort him to fly from the World. He represents to him the two principal Duties incumbent upon Man. 1. To know and worship God. 2. To take Care of the Salvation of his Soul. That these Two Duties are inseparable, because no Man can be careful of his Soul unless he worship God, nor honour God, unless he take care of his Soul: That it is more reasonable to be solicitous for the Safety of our Souls than our Bodies, because the Life of the Soul is Eternal, whereas the Life of the Body must have an end; and for that Reason we must labour in this Life for Eternity: That it is easy to obtain the Eternal Happiness which we desire, provided that we contemn this miserable Life: That the World hath Two principal Attractives to allure us to it, Riches and Honour, but that we ought to tread them both under our Feet: That Riches are ordinarily the Causes of Injustice, that they are uncertain, that we must necessarily leave them at our Death: That Honours are common to the Good and Evil, that Fortune hath her flittings, and nothing is stable and permanent but true Piety: That the true Honours and Riches are celestial: That it is impossible to make a serious Reflection upon the shortness of Life and the necessity of Death, but we must think that these are not the only good Things for our Salvation: That we ought not to follow the Examples of those who lead a worldly Life, but to propound to themselves the Lives of them who renounce the World that they may lead a truly Christian Life, although they were Persons of Quality, and might have enjoyed Honours and Riches. S. Clemens, S. Greg. Thaumaturgus, S. Basil, S. Greg. Nazianzen, S. Paulinus of Nola, S. Hilary Bishop of Arles and Petronius, are those whom S. Eucherius propounds to Valerian; he mentions the excellent Orators who renounced the Honours which they might have hoped for in the World, yet laid aside all their Glory to write for Religion, such as Lactantius, Minutius Foelix, S. Cyprian, S. Hilary, S. J. Chrysostom and S. Ambrose. He propounds to him also the Examples of Holy Kings. Lastly, He makes use of the whole Frame of Nature, and all the Visible World, to prove that the only Employment of Man ought to be to honour the Creator of all Things. After all these Considerations he discovers to him the Vanity of all Philosophical Knowledge, and shows him that there is no true Wisdom taught, nor any true Happiness to be found but in the Religion of Jesus Christ. This Writing is dated in the 1085th. Year from the first Building of Rome, which is the 432. of our common Aera. These Two Treatises are written in a Style very Clean and Elegant, the Matter is Spiritual, and the manner of handling it very agreeable. It may be said that these little Books are not inferior in the Politeness and Purity of Language to the Works of those Authors who lived in those Ages, when Language was in greater Purity. They have been printed distinctly at Antwerp in 1621. [This Treatise to Valerian was printed at Basil, with Erasmus' Notes; who commends it to us as one of the most elegant Pieces of Antiquity, anno 1520 and 1531. It was also published by Rosoeidus, with Notes, at Antwerp 1620. together with the former, in the Praise of Solitude, which Genebrard put out at Paris 1578.]  
His other Treatises are not so Profitable nor so Elegant as the former by a great deal. His Treatise of 
* [De formulis spiritualis intelligentie, Cave.]  Spiritual Terms and Phrases, directed to Veranus, is a Collection of Mystical and Spiritual Reflections upon the Terms and Expressions of Holy Scriptures, in which there is very little Solidity. His first Book of Instructions contains the Explication of several Questions, which he proposes to himself out of the Old and New Testament. Some of them are very well resolved, and we may find in them some very good Remarks. The Second Book contains, 1. The Explication of the Hebrew Names. 2. The Signification of some Hebrew Terms, which are often met withal in the Bible, such as Amen, Hall●…, etc. 3. The Explication of some special Phrases. 4. An Explication of the Names of Nations, Cities and Rivers which are not known. 5. Of the Hebrew Months and Festivals. 6. The Names of Idols. 7. The Explication of their Habits and Clothing. 8. Of Birds and Beasts. 9 A Comparison of the Jewish Weights and Measures with those of the Greeks and Latins, and the Signification of some Greek Names. The Usefulness and Worth of this Critical Work may be easily known, but the composing of it is very hard. S. Eucherius hath not examined these Things throughly, but contents himself to give the Meaning of every Thing in short, without troubling himself to prove them. He hath taken the greatest part of what he discourseth of, out of several Authors: He discusses them very often well enough, but he is mistaken in many Places. Gennadius makes mention of these Books.  
The Commentaries upon Genesis, and the Books of Kings, which go under the Name of S. Eucherius, cannot be his, because the Author himself tells us upon Chap. xxii. of the Third Book of Kings, that he lived under the Popedom of S. Gregory, at the Time when he sent S. Austin and S. Paulinus into England. He also quotes Cassiodorus, and copies out often the Comments of S. Gregory, which evidently prove that these Books do carry a False Name.  
The History of the Sufferings of S. Mauritius and the other Thebaean Martyrs, related by Surius, on the 22d. of Septemb. and printed by itself [at Ingolstadt] in 1617. by the Care of P. Steward, is not the Style of our S. Eucherius: It may better be accounted another S. Eucherius', who was present at the Fourth Council of Arles, in 524, and at the Second Council of Orange, in 529. for he of whom we now speak was dead in 454. as is noted in Prosper's Chronicon.  
We have neither his Abridgement of Cassian, nor some other Works concerning a Monastic Life, which Gennadius makes mention of. As to the Homilies of which S. Mamertus speaks, some think that some of those which bear the Name of Eusebius Emesenus are his, which it may not be amiss to examine in this Place. We have often spoke of them already, but did not throughly determine it, because we had not throughly examined it, but it is a convenient Time to do it. We find, at the first Sight, 145 of them upon all the Sundays and Holydays in the Year, which all the Manuscripts of Montecassino and the Vatican restore to 
* [Vulgo Bruno Astensis.]  Bruno Bishop of Signi. The Agreement of the Style of these Homilies with the other Treatises of that Author, leave no place to doubt but that they are really his. Thus we see already the great Number of Sermons attributed to S. Eucherius much lessened. The others are certainly, as I have already observed, some one or several French Authors. There are some of the Sermons, as that of Maximus Regensis, that cannot be composed but by a Person who lived in the Time when the Monastery of Lerins flourished. We find in the Life of S. Hilary, written by Honoratus Bishop of Marseille, That there was at that Time a Bishop of France called Eusebius, who made a great many Sermons: This is confirmed by the Verses of Helman, Scholar of Rabanus, who reckons Caesarius and Eusebius among the famous Bishops of France. All these Homilies therefore might well be attributed to him; but this cannot be, because we find some made by Caesarius, others by Maximus Bishop of Ries, and lastly by Faustus Regensis; which proves that 'tis a Collection of Sermons, compiled by the Clergy of the Monastery of Lerins, which bear perhaps the Name of Eusebius, because these Monks had a Custom of Concealing themselves under an Appeliative Name, so that the Sermons of Eusebius seem to import nothing else, than the Sermons of a Pious Person. Perhaps this Title was given to these Sermons because the Author was not known, or because those who composed them would not name them otherwise, according to the Custom of Lerins. For this Reason it is that Vincentius of Lerins took the Name of Peregrinus in his Commentary, Salvian of Timotheus; and it may be 'tis for the same Reason that the Life of S. Hilary Bishop of Arles, composed by Honoratus, bears the Name of Reverend.  
There are also some of these Sermons made by Caesarius Bishop of Arles, who penned a vast number of Sermons, and sent them every way to the Bishops, that they might have them preached in their Churches. Salvian also composed some for the Bishops, insomuch that the great Number of Sermon-makers, who lived at that Time, have bred much Confusion among their Sermons, which are almost all alike, which hath been much increased by the Copyers. Nevertheless, let us pass our Conjectures upon them.  
It is certain that the Panegyric of S. Maximus belongs to Faustus Regensis, to whom it is attributed by Dinamius, who composed the Life of this Holy Abbot. In it he marks, That the Monastery of Lerins had yielded two Bishops to the City of Ries: The First was Maximus, who was an Honour to it, but of the Second it ought to be ashamed. It is plain, That it is Faustus who speaks so through Humility. It is also evident, That the Sermon upon the Death of Honoratus was Preached at Lerins before the Monks of that Monastery, which makes it Credible, that it was also Faustus'. Now these Sermons being in the same Style with the foregoing, we esteem them to be the same Authors, viz. The 1st, and 2d, Homily upon the Nativity, the 1st upon Epiphany, the 2d, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th, upon the Feast of Easter; that upon the good Thief; the 2d about the Ascension, the Panegyrics of S. Elphodius, S. Alexander, S. Genesius, S. Romanus, and all the Sermons Published lately under the Name of Eusebius, some of which bear the Name of Faustinus. Among the Sermons of S. Caesarius Bishop of Arles, the 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th Sermons to the Monks, and an Exhortation to the People, are really his. We also Attribute to him the 2d, 3d, and 4th Homilies upon Epiphany, the 1st upon Lent, the 2d upon the Creed, the 1st, 3d, and 7th, upon Easter, the 1st upon Ascension, that of Pentecost, the Two Homilies upon S. John, S. Peter, and S. Paul, that upon the Maccabees, the Discourse upon the Trinity, Two Sermons upon S. Matthew.  
All the Discourses to the Monks seem to be the same Authors, so that if there be any of Caesarius Bishop of Arles, they are all his; perhaps, they are Maximus', or Faustus', for their Works are confounded. To these we must add the Sermon to the Penitents, and the Five subsequent, which are very like Caesarius'. The Fourth Sermon upon Easter is Maximus Regensis', and it may be there are some other Sermons his. The first Sermon upon the Creed is likely to be Hilary's Bishop of Arles, who made a Discourse upon that subject, as we understand by Honoratus. But indeed it is not worthy of him. The Sermon of S. Blandinus was made by some Bishop of Lions, probably Eucherius, 'tis his Style. The Homily upon Easter bears the Name of Isidore, in a Manuscript of the Abbey of S. Germane. Indeed it is a Modern composure, for it treats of the Eucharist. S. Thomas hath taken out of it the subject of his Prose. The Homily upon the Litanies agrees exceeding well to S. Mamertus, Author of the Rogation-Days. The Sermon upon the Repentance of the Ninevites seems to be the same Authors. The Sermon upon S. Stephen is altogether unlike to the other, it is probable, that it is a Translation of some Greek Sermon, but that is not certain. These are my Conjectures upon the Sermons Published under the Name of Eusebius. I confess, they are not absolutely certain, but there is so great disorder and confusion among these Sermons in the Manuscripts, and the Authors did follow the Copies, and imitate them so ordinarily at that time, that it is hard to speak any thing more certain.   

PETRUS CHRYSOLOGUS.  
PETRUS, who was surnamed Chrysologus, was a Native of 
* [Anciently called, Forum Cornelii.]  Imola. He was taught, and admitted into the Clergy by S. Cornelius' Bishop of that City, as he Notes in his 165 
Petrus Chrysologus.  Sermon. Some are of Opinion, That being at Rome with his Bishop, at that time when the Clergy and People of Ravenna had sent their Deputies to desire a Bishop of Sixtus III, than Pope, he was chosen by that Pope to fill that vacant See, as he had been warned in a Dream by S. Peter, and Apollinaris the first Bishop of the See of Ravenna; but this is a groundless Story, being related by no Credible Author. It is only certain that P. Chrysologus was chosen, and Ordained about that time Bishop of Ravenna. He governed that Church several Years. There is a Letter of S. Leo's written to Neonas his Successor, which was heretofore the 37th, and is at present the 135, which is thought to be written in 451, in the Consulship of Martian and Adelphius 
* [Dr. Cave follows this Opinion.] . This supposeth that P. Chrysologus was Dead in 449. But F. Quesnel having proved in his Notes upon that Letter, that it is rather written in 458, some few Years more may be allowed for the continuance of this Saint in his Episcopal Charge, yet not to carry it so far as the Year 500, nor confound him with that Petrus who lived under Theodoricus.  
Trithemius says, That this Bishop composed several Sermons, or Homilies, for the People, a Letter to Eutyches, which beginneth with these words, I have read with grief, and some other Letters. We have 176 Sermons, and the Letter to Eutyches.  
These Sermons are very short. In them he explains the Text of Holy Scripture in few words, but in a way very pleasing, and makes short Moral Reflections upon them. The Parables, and Miracles, of Jesus Christ, are the chief Subjects of his Sermons. In some of them he Treats of Fasting, almsgiving, Vigilance, Patience, and some other Christian Virtues. He hath also several upon the Great Feasts, with some Panegyrics of Saints. S. Chrysologus hath found out the way to join extreme Brevity, and very great Elegance together, in his discourses. His Style is made up of short Sentences, and Phrases, which have a natural sequence and connexion one with another; the words are very fit, and the sense is simple and natural. It hath nothing swelling, or forced. His descriptions are clear and easy. But for all this, there is nothing great enough, sublime enough, nor eloquent enough to entitle him justly to the Surname of Chrysologus, of which he is possessed; we see no extraordinary Motives; we meet with nothing that quickens, or affects much; we find no Truth enforcing consent, only Doctrines explained at large. All that can be said is this, His Relations are pleasant, and his Moral Discourses represent very well to the Mind what we ought to do, but make no impression upon the Heart, nor are able to change the Will.  
The Sermons of this Author have been Collected together above Nine Hundred Years, by Foelix Bishop of Ravenna, who lived in the Year 702, or 708. F. Oudin proves it in his Advertisement, that he found them in Three Manuscripts. They have been Printed since at Collen in 1541, 1607, [1618.] and 1678, [Quarto] at Parn in 1585., at Antwerp in 1618., at Lions in [1633] 1636, at Bologne in 1643. This Edition is the best. They are also to be found in Bibliotheca Patrum, [Tom. VII.] and with S. Leo's Works at Paris in 1614, and 1670.  
The Epistle to Eutyches was written after that Monk had been Condemned by Flavian. S. Chrysologus tells him, That he read with sorrow his sad Letter; for if the Peace of the Church, the Agreement of the Clergy, and the Quiet of the People, cause Joy in Heaven; on the contrary, Divisions ought to beget Sadness, and Grief; especially, when they proceed from so lamentable a cause, as that was, for which he separated from his Bishop. He adds, That the Church had been free from Controversies for Thirty Years; That Origen and Nestorius had fallen into Error by Reasoning upon the ineffable Mystery of the Incarnation. That it was a shame for Priests to be Ignorant of that which the Magis Acknowledged and Adored; That when Jesus came into the World, Glory to God was Sung, and it is strange at present, that all the World Bow at the Name of Jesus, that he should be Ignorant of the Reason of it. He saith afterward with the Apostle, That tho' we have known Jesus Christ according to the Flesh, yet now we know him no more; That it becomes us not to be very inquisitive, and that we ought to honour, respect, wait upon our Judge, and not dispute about his Title. This is, saith he, what may be answered to your Letter in a few words. I would have sent you a longer Answer, if our Brother Flavian had not sent me some Instruments about what passed in your Cause. You say, That his Judgement ought not to stand, because he made whom he thought fit to be Judges, but how should we know that, since we neither heard, nor saw them? We should be unjust Arbitrators, if we should determine in favour of one Party, before we hear the other. In sum, We Exhort you, my most honoured Brother, to submit to what hath been written by the Bishop of Rome, because S. Peter, who lived and presided in his See, Teaches the True Faith to those that inquire after it. As for us, we dare not, for the Love we have to Peace and Truth, concern ourselves either to hear or judge Causes without the consent of the Bishop of Rome. Gerard Vossius, who hath Published this Letter in Greek and Latin among several other pieces, at the end of S. Greg. Thaumaturgus at Mentz, in 1604, [in 1603, Cave] tells us, That there are two Manuscripts in the Vatican, where this Letter ends at these words, This is what I thought fit to Answer at present to your Letter. And indeed, It is likely that the Letter ends at that place, and that what follows hath been added afterward to raise the Authority of the Church of Rome. It is nevertheless to be found in the Manuscripts of Cardinal Sirlet, and it is Printed also in the first part of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, and in the ordinary Editions of S. Chrysologus.   

MAXIMUS TAURINENSIS.  
MAXIMUS Bishop of Turin flourished under the Empire of Honorius, and Theodosius the younger. He Lived to the Year 465, since in that Year we find him at a Synod at Rome 
Maximus Taurinensis.  held under Pope Hilarius. Gennadius saith, That he applied himself to the Holy Scripture, and that he was able to make an Extompore Homily to the People. We have several of his Homilies, which are the greatest part of them cited by Gennadius. There are some upon the Feasts of the Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, Easter, and Pentecost, for the Two Sundays in Advent, Ash-Wedncsday, for Palm-Sunday, for the Passion-Week. There are also some for the Saint's-Days, viz. for S. Stephen, S. John Baptist, S. Peter, S. Paul, S. Larwence, S. Cyprian, S. Eusebius of Verceille, S. Michael, and the Martyrs of Turin. There is one upon the Creed, another upon Watchfulness, another upon that Custom of giving Thanks after Meat, Two against Covetousness, Two more upon almsgiving, a Discourse upon the Eclipse of the Moon, and a Sermon upon these words of Isaiah, Thy Wine is mixed with Water. In all there are Sixty Three of them. Several others are mingled among the Sermons of S. Austin, and S. Ambrose, for it is apparent, that they are not those Fathers, but this Bishops. For besides, that they are for the most part taken notice of by Gennadius, they are of the same Style. It is likely, that there are also others among the Sermons of the Latin Fathers which ought to be restored to this Father. His Sermons are short and weak, they have neither Ornament, Beauty, nor Lostiness, the Style of them is mean, and the Sense ordinary, they contain nothing in them very remarkable. They have been Printed at Cologne in 1535, at Antwerp 1618., at Rome in 1564, and 1572, at Paris in 1614, and 1623., with the Works of S. Leo, and in the Bibliotheca Patrum, [Tome VI Part 1.] [At Lyons in 1633, and again at Cologne in 1678, with Chrysologus' Homilies joined to them.] F. Mabillon in the First part of his Musaeum Italicum hath Published Twelve Homilies of S. Maximus', which he thought to be new, but they had been Printed Three times before among the Works of S. Ambrose.   

VALERIAN.  
VALERIANUS or VALERUS, Bishop of 
a Cemele.] Cemele, Celle or Comelle, was the Capital City of the Vediantians, a People of the Sea-Alps. It was a long time the Seat of a Bishop. S. Leo joined it to the Castle of Nicaea, which hath been a Bishop's See since, Cemele being destroyed, so that there are no Remainders of it.  Cemele, a City of the Sea-Alps, an Ancient Bishopric, subject to the Metropolis of Ambrun, flourished in the Popedom 
Valerian.  of S. Leo. We have a Letter of this Pope's to the Bishops of France, in the Inscription of which we find the Name of Valerian, and a Letter of the Bishops of France, in the Subscription of which we find it also. He was present at the Council of Ries in 439. at the 3d. Council of Arles in 455, to which he was summoned by Ravennius, to determine the difference between Theodorus Bishop of Frejus, and Faustus Abbot of Lerins. He took the part of Faustus and the Monastery of Lerins, of which he was once a Monk. We have 20 Homilies of this Author, and one Letter to the Monks. The 1st. is of the Usefulness of Discipline. The 2d. and 3d. is of the narrow way to Salvation. The 4th. is upon the obligation of paying of Vows, and giving to God what is promised. The 5th. is of the Abuse of the Tongue: The 6th. is of idle Words, wherein he blames vain Talk, Detraction, Raillery, Songs, and whatsoever tends not to the Edification of our Neighbour. The 7th. 8th. and 9th. are upon the obligation that lies upon Men to be Charitable. He requires, among other things, That Christian Charity should extend itself to all the World, excepting no Man. The 10th. is an elegant satire upon the Life of Parasites. The 11th. teaches the Faithful to humble themselves, by acknowledging, That they are beholding to God for all the good they do, yet he maintains, That Man contributes to it by his freewill: But as it would be ridiculous in a Soldier to attribute the Victory to himself, altho' he fought in it, so it would be a foolish thing for a Christian to arrogate to himself the Honour of the good he does by the Assistance of the Holy Spirit. We must give God the Praise of all our Labours, because they belong to him. The 12th. and 13th. are about the Love of Enemies and the Benefit of Peace. The 14th. is concerning the necessity and conditions of Christian Humility. The following Three are upon the Advantages of Martyrdom. The 18th. is in Honour of the 7 Macchabees. The 19th. opposes the Disorders of those who follow their Debaucheries upon the Sundays in Lent, under pretence that it is allowed not to Fast upon those days. Valerian exhorts the Christians to keep up the Lent-discipline even upon those days, and not run to any Excess. The last Homily is against Covetousness. The Letter to the Monks is a very little thing.  
The Style of these Homilies is not lofty, but plain and without Ornament, yet perspicuous and familiar. It hath neither Allegories nor Clinks of Words, nor harsh Figures. They are moral Discourses, very useful, where we may find very edifying Instructions and profitable Maxims. The Opinions of the Monks of Lerins and Priests of Marseille about Grace and freewill, are scattered up and down his Sermons. He holds a necessity of Grace in order to doing good, but gives Man an absolute Liberty. He supposes, That the beginning may proceed from him, and that God never denies Grace for the Accomplishment. This Author was published [at Paris] in 1612. [Octavo.] by F. Sirmondus, and after Printed [at Lyons] in 1623. [1633.] with the Works of S. Leo. [They are in Bibl. Patrum, Tom VIII.]   

VICTOR CARTENNENSIS.  
VICTOR Bishop of Cartenna, a City of Mauritania, wrote a Treatise against the Arians, which he caused the Orthodox to present to King Gensericus, as the Preface 
Victor Cartennensis.  makes me think. He also composed a Tract upon the Repentance of the Publican, wherein he lays down Rules for Penitents about the manner how they may live conformable to the mind of Holy Scripture. He sent also a Book to one named Basil, in which he comforts him for the Death of his Son by the Hopes of the Resurrection. This Work is full of solid Instructions. Lastly, he hath composed many Homilies, which have been carefully kept, and divided into several Books by those who have been diligent to collect Works of Piety. Let the Reader consider what Gennadius saith of this Author. We have none of his Works under his own Name, but there is among the Works of S. Basil a Latin Treatise, entitled, Consolation in Adversity, which hath also been put among the Works of S. Eucherius, which in all likelihood is that which Gennadius speaks off. Because it was written to Basil, 'twas thought S. Basil's, but 'tis plain it belongs to a Latin Author, and what Gennadius speaks of Victor's Treatise, agrees to this, for therein he speaks of the Resurrection, and the Book is full of Authorities and Examples of Holy Scripture. There is also a Treatise of Repentance among the Works of S. Ambrose, which is certainly Victor's, for it ends with these words, Remember Victor in your Prayers. This, together with the Testimony of Gennadius, puts it out of all doubt, that this Treatise of Repentance is Victor's of Cartenna. But F. Labbe observes, That in two ancient MSS. this Tract is attributed to Victor Bishop of 
* [Tunnua in Africa. Cave.]  Tunna, Author of the Chronicon, and not Victor of Cartenna. Nevertheless I believe 'tis more likely to be this Victor's; for, 1. Gennadius assures us, That this last made a Book of Repentance. 2. That he prescribes Rules of Repentance in it conformable to Holy Scripture, which absolutely agrees to this Book, for he gives very useful Rules and Instructions to Penitents, which he confirms by several Texts of Holy Scripture. Lastly, this Treatise is in the same Style, and written after the same manner as the Treatise of Consolation to Basil, which can't be attributed to any other Victor but this. We have nothing particular of these two Books. In the Discourse of Consolation he demonstrates, by Examples taken out of Holy Scripture, That God permits Men to be oppressed by Misfortunes and Afflictions, either to punish them for their Faults, or to try them, or to heal them of their Sins and Passions, yea, for what Reason soever he sends them, 'tis always for our good. He derides the Opinion of those who afflict themselves for their Diseases, or for the loss of their Members, because they imagine that they shall be raised in the same condition that they died, One-eyed, Lame or Leprous, etc. This is a silly Thought, the Resurrection shall deliver us from all our Maladies. In the Treatise of Repentance he exhorts Sinners to acknowledge their Sin before God, desire Pardon of him, to be touched with sincere Regret, and to do Penance. He discourages no Man, but invites the greatest Sinners to Repentance. He confirms all he says with Testimonies and Examples of Holy Scripture, as in the other Treatise.   

S. PROSPER.  
PROSPER of Ries in Aquitain, altho' he was a mere Layman 
a Prosper of Rises, altho' he was a mere Layman.] He was neither a Priest nor Clergyman, when he wrote to S. Austin, as appears by his Letter. In his Letter to Rufinus and the People of Geneva, he assumes to himself the Title neither of Bishop nor Priest. All the Ancients who have spoken of him, give him neither of these Titles. Victorius Aquitanus, in the Preface of his Chronicon, having given Eusebius the Title of Bishop, and Jerom of Priest, calls S. Prosper, Vir venerabilis, a Reverend Person. This was written a little after S. Prosper's death. Pope Gelasius gives him no other Title but Vir religiosissimus, altho' he calls Austin Bishop, and Jerom Priest. Gennadius, who never omits the Titles of the Authors he speaks of, says of S. Prosper only, That he was Homo Aquitanicae regionis. S. Fulgentius in his Book to Mo●imus, ch. 30. Prosper Vir eruditus. Marcellinus and Ado, in their Chronica, call him also, Hominem Aquitanicae regionis. Hincmarus, Florus, Prudentius, Rabinus, never give him the Title of Bishop or Priest. None but Honorius Augustodunensis, or rather some Ignorant Scribe, hath called him, Episcopum Aquitanicae regionis, by changing Homo into Episcopus. Trithemius makes him Bishop of Ries, but that cannot be, because Maximus was Bishop there in S. Prosper's Life-time, and he had for his Immediate Successor, Faustus, who outlived S. Prosper. This appears by Sidonius' Eucharistical Poem, dedicated to Faustus, where he says, That Faustus succeeded Maximus twice; once in the Abbacy of the Monastery of Lerins, another time in the Bishopric of Ries. It is ridiculous to say▪ that he was of Rhegium in Italy. There were two Prosper's Bishops in France, but one was Bishop of Orleans, to whom Sidonius' 15th. Letter of his 8th. Book is directed, and the other subscribed the Councils of Vaison and Carpeniras'.  did yet concern himself in Theological Questions, and was one of the most zealous Defenders of S. Austin's 
S. Prosper.  Doctrine. He wrote a Letter to him in 429. which is among S. Austin's Epistles, in which he propounds to him the Objections which the Priests of Marseille made against his Doctrine, and declares to him their Opinions, and prays him to answer their Objections, and confute their Opinions. S. Austin satisfied him by writing his Books of the Saints Predestination, and of the Gift of Perseverance.  
The Letter of S. Prosper to Rufinus concerning Grace and freewill, was also written in S. Austin's Life-time. Who this Rufinus was is not known, but it appears by the beginning of that Letter, that he had been much disturbed at the Reports, which the Enemies of S. Austin's Doctrine had spread abroad to cry it down, and wished, That upon this occasion it might be cleared. S. Prosper, desirous to satisfy him fully, explains to him, what were the Reports which the Enemies of S. Austin's Doctrine had divulged, and upon what account they did it. He saith then, that one of the Fundamental Errors of the Pelagians is, That Grace is bestowed according to Deserts, and that they made use of this Principle to revive their Doctrines. That at first they had maintained openly, That Man may fully perform a good Action by the proper strength of his own freewill, without the Assistance of Grace. But this Opinion being visibly contrary to sound Doctrine, and having been condemned by all Orthodox Christians; they had owned, That Grace was necessary for the beginning, continuance, and final perseverance in Goodness, but yet had withal declared, That by it they understood nothing else but a certain general Grace, which makes use of the Freedom of the Will, and which informs and convinces the Mind by Exhortations, by the Law, by Instruction, by Contemplation upon the Creatures, by Miracles, and by the Fear of God's Judgements: Grace which hath no other Operation than to admonish a Man of his Duty, and which differs not from the Law, and that Preaching which teacheth all Men, insomuch, That they who desire to believe, need no other helps to believing, and by believing they receive Justification upon the account of the deserts of their Faith and freewill. Whence it follows, That Grace is given according to Man's Merit, and consequently is no more Grace. That this cunning design of the Children of Darkness had been discovered by the Judgement of the Eastern-Bishops, by the Authority of the Holy See, and by the Vigilance of the African Bishops; That S. Austin, who was then, saith S. Prosper, one of the most excellent Bishops, Praecipua portio Domini Sacerdotum, had fully confuted it in his Books of Controversy, and entirely vanquished that Heresy; but that he did hear, That there were some Christians, in France, which spread abroad scandalous Speeches against his Doctrine and Writings, daring to aver, That it destroyed Man's freewill, and under the Name of Grace introduced a fatal necessity, and that he would make us believe, that Man is compounded of two different Natures: That if it were so, they ought to appear openly against it, and publicly confute these Errors by writing, and not disperse them secretly against a Person, whose Doctrine, concerning Grace agreed so well with that of the Church of Rome and afric, yea, and of all Orthodox Christians in the World. That the cause, why these Persons acted in this manner, was, That they could not endure what had been opposed against those things, which in their Conferences they had started against S. Austin's Doctrine; That they knew well enough that if they came to produce their Maxims in any Council, a great number of S. Austin's Writings would be objected against them, which would evidently prove that we ought to attribute all the Glory of the Good we do to the Grace of Jesus Christ, and not in the least to the freedom of our Wills. In sum, That he hoped through the Mercy of God, that he would not for ever deprive those of his Illumination, whom at present he permitted to forsake Christian Humility, that they might follow the bent of their own Wills. The Error of these Persons consists in asserting, That our Virtues and Holy Lives spring from Nature, or if they proceed from Grace, it had been preceded by some good Action or Election of the Will which had deserved it. S. Prosper undertakes to confute this Opinion, by proving from Testimonies of Holy Scripture, that since the Fall of Man, the freewill hath no Power to do any good, or to deserve any thing, unless assisted by the Grace of Jesus Christ; and that all Men being fallen into a state of Perdition, through the sin of Adam, nothing but the gratuitous Mercy of God could deliver them. To prove this Doctrine, he brings the Example of Children who die Unbaptised, and of those Nations to whom the Gospel hath not been Preached. He adds, That Grace doth not destroy freewill, but that it restores and changes it: That of itself it can do nothing but Evil, and all the Work it doth, tends to Man's Destruction: That Grace cures it, and makes it act and think otherwise; but he teaches, at the same time, that its Recovery proceeds not from himself, but from his Physician. Lastly, S. Prosper refells the Calumny with which they had blackened the Doctrine of S. Austin, by accusing it of introducing a Fatality, and admitting two Natures in Man. He maintains, That he never asserted any thing like to those Errors; That neither himself nor his Scholars hold, That any thing happens through Fate, but they assure us, that all is ordered and ruled by Divine Providence; That they allow not two Natures in Man, the one good, and the other bad, but only one Nature, which having been created perfect, is fallen from that Perfection by the sin of the first Man, and is become subject to Eternal Death; but Jesus Christ hath restored it by a second Creation, and secured its Liberty by preventing it and helping it continually. He concludes, by exhorting him, to whom he wrote, to read carefully S. Austin's Works, if he desired to be well instructed in the sound Doctrine concerning the Grace of Jesus Christ.  
But the Adversaries of S. Austin were not contented to divulge scandalous Reports against his Doctrine, but they set down in writing the pernicious Consequences, which they thought might be drawn from it. Vincentius, who was perhaps the famous Monk of Lerins, of whom we have spoken, put out sixteen erroneous Propositions, which he pretends to be maintained by S. Austin and his Scholars. This obliged S. Prosper to deliver S. Austin's and his Scholar's Judgement upon every one of his Propositions.  
Objection I. That our Lord Jesus Christ did not die for the Salvation and Redemption of all Mankind.  
S. Prosper answers, That it is a true Assertion that Jesus Christ died for all Men, because he assumed that Nature which is common to all Men, that he offered up himself upon the Account of all Men, and that he hath paid a Price sufficient for their Redemption. But nevertheless all Men have not a part in that Redemption, but those only who have been regenerated by Baptismal Grace, and are become the Members of Jesus Christ.  
Objection II. That God will not save all Men, altho' they desire to be saved.  
S. Prosper Answers, That it may be said, That God desires the Salvation of all Men, although there be some that shall not be saved, for Reasons known only to himself; That those that perish, perish through their own fault, but they who are saved, are saved by the Grace of Jesus Christ.  
Objection III. That God created one part of Mankind to damn them Eternally.  
He Answers, That God creates no Man to Damnation. The sin of the first Man hath damned many, but God created them not to be damned, but to be Men. He denies not his Concourse for the multiplying of Mankind. He rewards many for the good that is done by them, and he punishes, in others, the Vices that he sees them guilty of.  
Objection IU. That one part of Mankind is created to do the Will of the Devil.  
His Answer is, That God created no Man to do the Will of the Devil, but every Man is made a Captive of the Devil, by reason of the sin of the first Man.  
Objection V That God is the Author of Evil, since he is the Author of our perverse Will, and hath created us of such a Nature as cannot but sin.  
He replies, This Objection is also grounded upon the Doctrine of Original Sin. God hath created Nature, but Sin, which is contrary to Nature, hath been introduced by the Apostasy of Adam.  
Objection VI That Man's free Will is like the Devils, which cannot do any good.  
He answers, All the difference is, that God sometimes converts, through his Mercy, some of the vilest Sinners, but the Devils are passed all hopes of Repentance.  
Objection VII. That God will not have a great number of Christians to be saved, nor gives them a desire so to be.  
His Answer is, They, that desire not to be saved, cannot be saved; but 'tis not the Will of God that makes them not desire it, but on the contrary, 'tis that which stirs up the Wills of them that desire it. God forsakes no Man that forsakes him not, and very often converts those who have forsaken him.  
The Three Objections and Answers which follow, are bottomed upon the same Principles with the former.  
The seven last are some Difficulties about Predestination, which come all to one Head almost, viz. If God hath predestined some to Salvation, and others to Damnation; this Predestination is the cause of all the Evil that is done, and all the Faithful, who are decreed to Damnation, shall necessarily be damned whatsoever they do. The general Answer to these Objections is this, That God hath not predestined the sin of any Man. He knew from all Eternity the sins which should be committed, and hath decreed the punishment of sins, but not the sins themselves. He damns the Wicked and Impenitent, but he makes them not either Wicked or Impenitent. It is true, he gives them not the Gift of Righteousness or Repentance, but neither is he obliged to do it. It is one thing to deny a Gift, and another to be the Cause of Evil. There is a great deal of difference between not lifting up a Person fallen, and casting him down. God compels no Man to commit sin, yet he is not obliged to pardon every Criminal.  
These Answers of S. Prosper did not satisfy the Persons against whom they were written, but they took an occasion from them to form some new ones, which seemed to be grounded upon his Answers themselves, and upon the Doctrine of the Writings of S. Austin, who was then dead. They are reducible to fifteen.  
Objection I. That Predestination is a kind of Fatality, which necessitating Men to do Evil, damns them Infallibly.  
S. Prosper Answers, That all Orthodox Christians acknowledged Predestination; That none yet owned a fatal necessity of Sinning; That Predestination is not the cause of sin, nor of the Inclination to sin, which proceeds from the Offence of the first Man, from which no Man is delivered but by the Grace of Jesus Christ, which God hath prepared and decreed from all Eternity.  
Objection II. That Baptism doth not take away Original Sin from those who are not Predestined.  
He answers, Every Man that is Baptised, being endued with Faith, obtains Remission not only of Original Sin, but of all those Sins, which he hath freely committed; but if he falls into Sin after Baptism, and dies in his Sins, he shall be damned for the Crimes which have followed Baptism; and that God having fore-known them from Eternity, hath never chosen nor predestined that Man to Salvation.  
Objection III. That it is unprofitable for them who are not predestined to live an Holy Life after their Baptism, because they are reserved till they fall into Sin, and shall not be taken out of the World till that happens to them.  
To this he replies, That these Persons fall not into any Sin, because they are not predestined; but they are not predestined, because God hath foreseen that they would fall into these Sins: If God doth not take them out of the World while they are in a good Estate, it ought to be referred to the Judgements of God, which are unknown to us, but are never unjust; God preserves them, not that he may entrap them into their own Destruction, 'tis his Grace which is the Cause of their Preservation, 'tis their own Fault if they perish.  
Objection IU. That God doth not call all Men to Grace.  
The Answer is, He calls all those to it to whom the Gospel is preached; but how can it be said, That they are called to it who have never heard speaking of the Gospel.  
Objection V That of those, who are called, some are called that they may believe, and others that they may not believe.  
He replies, If by Vocation we understand the Preaching of the Gospel, 'tis the same Gospel that is preached, every where, and by consequent all are equally called: But if we consider the Effect of that Preaching produced in the Hearts of Men, some reject it by reason of their Infidelity, which arises from their sinful Wills, and others receive the Gospel, being inwardly enlightened by God's Grace.  
Objection VI That freewill doth nothing, Predestination doth all.  
He Answers, This is not so, freewill without Grace is unable to do Good, but being assisted by Grace it doth Good. It is Madness to say, That Predestination doth of itself work Good or Evil in Men.  
Objection VII. That the Faithful, who are regenerated in Jesus Christ, do not receive the Gift of Perseverance, because they have not been separated from the Mass of Perdition by the Eternal Decree of God.  
He Answers, It is through their own Will that they fall into Sin, and 'tis because that God hath foreseen it, that he hath not separated them from the Mass of Perdition by his Eternal Decree. It is true, he hath not given them the Grace of Perseverance, but he was not at all obliged to give it to them.  
Objection VIII. That God will not have all Men to be saved, but only a small Number of the Elect.  
Answer. If the Will of God to save Men were so general, why did he for so many Ages together leave Men in Blindness? Why suffers he Infants to die before Baptism? Nevertheless it is truly said, That God will save all Men, because there is nothing which he hath not made known to them either by the Gospel or the Law, or by Nature, 'tis from Men themselves that their Infidelity proceeds, their Faith is the Gift of God.  
Objection IX. That Jesus Christ was not crucified for the Redemption of all the World.  
Answer. Jesus Christ hath taken the Nature of all Men, but that they may be saved they must become the Members of Jesus Christ.  
Objection X. That God withholds the Preaching of the Gospel from some, lest they should believe and be saved.  
Answer. That if the Gospel hath been preached to all the World, it is not true that God hath withheld the Knowledge of it from any: But if there be any Men that have not heard it preached, we must own, that it is done through the secret Judgement of God, which we ought not to find Fault with, because we cannot understand it.  
Objection XI. That God compels Men to Sin by his Omnipotency.  
Answer. No Orthodox Christian ever held this Maxim: On the contrary, when we read, That God hath hardened Sinners, and given them up to their Irregular Desires, we say, That they have deserved it for their Sins.  
Objection XII. That God takes away the Gift of Obedience from those Persons that live well.  
Answer. This could not have been proposed but by those who confound the Prescience and Will of God together; he knows Good and Evil, but wills nothing but Good; he takes away from no Man the Gift of Obedience, because he hath not predestined them, but he hath not predestinated them, because he foresaw that they would not continue in their Obedience to the End of their Lives.  
Objection XIII. That God hath created Men for other Ends than for Eternal Life, viz. to adorn the World, and to be serviceable to each other.  
Answer. God hath not created them that they should be damned; they damn themselves by their Impieties, but this hinders not but that they may for all this be profitable to the World.  
Objection XIV. That those that do not believe, do not believe because God hath ordained it from all Eternity.  
Answer. God foresaw it, but he hath neither ordained nor predestinated it.  
Objection XV. That Prescience and Predestination are the same thing.  
Answer. God hath foreseen and predestinated all Things that are Good at the same Time, because he knows them, and is the Author of them, but he hath foreseen and yet not predestinated Evil.  
S. Prosper, after he hath thus explained the Doctrine of the Church, condemns in Fifteen Propositions the Fifteen Errors which had been objected against the Scholars of S. Austin.  

* [Camil●●● and Theodorus.]  Two Priests of Geneva 
† [Gen●a▪ Cave. Voss.]  did also find Fault with some Propositions in the Books of the Predestination of Saints and Perseverance, written by S. Austin, and sent the Places which disturbed them, to S. Prosper. This Saint Relates them, and Clears them in the Answer which he makes to them; wherein he maintains the same Truth, That Grace is a mere gratuitous Gift; That the Beginning of Faith is the Effect of the Grace and Mercy of God; That this Grace is not given to all; and, That we cannot do any Good without its Help.  
Of all the Books that were written against S. Austin's Principles, there was none that was in so much Esteem as the Conferences of Cassi●●. That Author, in the Thirteenth Conference, under the Name of the Abbot Char●…, lays down Maxims quite cont●a●y to S. Austin's. S. Prosper, who had already opposed him 〈◊〉 voce▪ 
* This Book was printed alone at Leyden, 1606. and at Arras 1628.]  attacked him by Writing; after the Death of S. Austin and Pope Celestine, under the Popedom of Sixtus. Cass●an had asserted, as we have said, That the beginning of our good 〈◊〉 and Faith proceed sometimes from ourselves, and sometimes from Grace; That 〈◊〉 have in us some Seeds of V●rtues; That our Free▪ will can na●●nally incline itself to G●… That Grace sometimes prevents it, and that sometimes its Motions anticipate th●●● of Gr●…. S. Prosper maintains, That these Principles are the Consequences of the Errors of the Pelagians; That it follows from hence, That Grace is given according to every Man's M●●i●s, and that Nanire is not impaired by Adam's Sin; That they have been condemned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●●ose Synods, which had condemned the Pelagian Errors, and in the Letters which the Popes had written against them, and that S. Austin had entirely vanquished them in his Writings.  
The Poem called, De Ingrate, Of the 
† [So he calls the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, as being ungrateful in denying that Grace which God so freely bestows on Men.]  Ungrateful, is the most excellent Piece which S. Prosper composed about Grace. In this Poem, af●er he hath showed wherein consists the Heresy of Pelagius, and in what manner it hath been confuted by S. Austin, whom he highly extols, he saith, That there were some Christians who endeavour to revive that Heresy, by teaching, That Man's freewill can incline itself indifferently to Good or Evil. He makes the Pelagians to come to his Help, who exhort Persons to receive them, since they approve their Sentiments. He represents the Troubles and Perplexity they are in, and shows that the Pelagians have a Right to require Admission into the Church, or else they must be driven out who have espoused the same Principles. He afterwards confutes the principal Points of the Pelagian Heresy, condemned by the Church, which he reduces to Three Heads. That Man is born entirely innocent, That he can live in this World without Sin, and▪ That Grace is given according to Merit. He in the next Place shows the Doctrine of those whom he resists, which he also refers to Three Heads. That God calls all the World by his Grace, which every one follows or rejects by his freewill; That the Strength of Grace assists his Abilities, and teacheth him to love Virtue; That it is in the Power of Man to persevere in Goodness, because God never refuseth his Assistance to those that are inclined to Good. S. Prosper holds the contrary, That the Grace of Jesus Christ is not given to all, and he demonstrates it by the Example of the Infidels, who have never heard the Gospel preached, and because if God would save all the World, all the World would be saved; That it cannot be said, That although God would save all Men, yet they shall not be saved, because they will not; because, saith S. Prosper, it would then follow, That the Effect of the Divine Will would depend upon the Humane Will, and that God would help a Person in vain, if he would not be helped: That Grace doth not depend so upon Freedom; That it is not merely of the Nature of the Law, which makes us know Good, but it converts the Soul and Mind; That without this Grace the Law, Gospel and Nature were useless; That it plants Faith in our Souls; That it is not only necessary, as his Enemies themselves do unanimously confess, to acquire a perfect Righteousness and Perseverance in Goodness, but also for the Beginning of Faith, which is a mere gratuitous Gift, which cannot be deserved. This he proves by the Example of those who having lived in all manner of Vices, have been saved by Baptism, which they have received at the Hour of Death: That the Error of those who attribute the Will and Desire of Believing to freewill, relapse into the Errors of the Pelagians, by giving that Power to the freewill, which hath been lost by the Sin of the First Man; That they make God himself unjust, in saying, That the Death of the Body hath passed upon the Posterity of Adam, which hath not been infected with his Sin. Then he confutes the Objections and Complaints of the Semipelagians, which are reducible to Two. 1, That the Freedom of Man's will is utterly destroyed by holding, That Man, of himself, is not able to do any thing but Evil. S. Prosper answers to this Objection, That the Sin of the First Man hath reduced us to that Necessity, but that we are not by that Means deprived of our Liberty, which always subsists, but which declines infallibly to evil, when it is left to its own proper Strength, but to good, when it is helped by Grace, which restores us to our first Dignity; That this Grace is the Original of all our Deserts; That the Example of Infants, of whom some receive Baptism and others are debarred from it, makes it appear that it is merely gratuitous, and that God gives to whom he pleases only. The Second Objection is this, That if the Grace of Living well were not given to all Men, those who have not received it are not to be blamed for living ill. S. Prosper also answers, That this Objection could not be proposed, but by Persons that did not acknowledge Original Sin, because all Men being by that Sin become subject to Condemnation, and having deserved to be abandoned for their own Offences, God would not have been unjust if he did not show Mercy to any Man: That we must not search into the Reasons why he doth it to one and not unto another, because that is a Secret which God hath thought fit to conceal from us in this Life, as he does many others.  
Lastly, He compares the Sentiments of those whom he confutes with the Principles of the Pelagians, which directly oppose the Grace of Jesus Christ; He owns that they seem to condemn their Principal Errors, by acknowledging that Adam's Sin hath made us Mortal, that, no Man can obtain Eternal Life without Baptism, and that Children are washed from their Sin by this Sacrament, but that they still follow their Principles, in asserting, That Nature hath yet in itself Force enough to choose the True Good, and that the Saints, confirmed in Virtue, may resist the Devil by their own Strength, God leaving them to themselves to give them a greater Opportunity of meriting; That we ought to have these Opinions in Abomination, and must acknowledge that Sin hath made so great a Wound in our Nature that it is not able so much as to desire the Recovery of them from God, not being sensible of its own Misery; That the Gifts of Nature serve only to make us proud, and give us no manner of Power to choose that which is really Good; That if it were not so, Jesus Christ would die in vain; That the Necessity there was that a God should die to save Mankind, aught to inform us how deep our Wound was; That the Faithful who are engrafted into Jesus Christ, aught to acknowledge that they can do nothing without him. He maintains, That it is foolish to imagine, that if the Saints have done no good Actions by the Strength of their own Freedom, they deserve no Reward; That on the contrary all our Confidence ought to be in God, and that our Virtue is so much the more worthy of Reward, as it is the more fixed on Jesus Christ; That Christian Humility obliges us to acknowledge, that we cannot do any good in this Valley of Tears, but by the Grace of Jesus Christ, which doth not destroy, but restores our Freedom, yet after such a manner, as that all the Good it doth aught to be attributed to Grace, and not to it; That, in the last Place, it doth not countenance our Negligence, nor hinder Men from pursuing after Virtue, since on the contrary we cannot do a virtuous Action without this Grace.  
These are the Books of S. Prosper, which he purposely composed for the Defence of S. Austin's Doctrine, concerning Grace. He maintains the Principles of this Saint, but he mollifies them, at least as to the Terms, especially about the Subject of Predestination to Glory and of Reprobation, which he supposes to be built upon the Foresight of Man's Goodworks, as the Schools speak. He speaks also of the Universal Desire of God to save all Men, after a very moderate manner. But he departs not from S. Austin's Principles, as to the Fall of Man, the Necessity of Grace, the Weakness of Man's Will, as also the Beginning of Faith and Conversion, and the Efficacy by which it works upon Men's Hearts.  
Indeed he hath no other Divinity that what he hath taken out of S. Austin, it was that he might acquaint himself the better with the Principles of this Father, that he made an Abridgement of Divinity, made up of certain Extracts, taken out of the Works of this Father. He puts some of his Sentences in Verse. We have yet these Two Works among the Books of S. Prosper; The one is entitled, 
* [These were printed alone at Helmstadt, anno 1613.]  Sentences gathered by S. Prosper from the Works of S. Austin, and the other a Book of Epigrams, composed of S. Austin's Sentences: There are 
† [98. Cave.]  97.  
He consulted no other Author but S. Austin in composing his Commentaries upon the Scriptures, as appears by his Commentary upon the Fifty last Psalms, in which he follows the Explications of S. Austin so exactly, that he doth nothing almost but abridge him, and put him into other Words.  
The Two Epigrams which he hath composed against 
* [In obtrectatorem, Cauc.]  the Adversaries of S. Austin, are also a Mark of the Esteem he had for that Father. I see no Reason to take from S. Prosper the Epitaph upon the Nestorian and Pelagian Heresies: But there is not the like Grounds for the Poem upon Providence, which contains Principles concerning Grace, directly opposite to what S. Prosper lays down in his Poem of Ungrateful Persons, for the Author of the Poem about Providence maintains, That Man since the Fall into Sin hath still some Ability to do good; That the Will goes before Grace; That the Good and Sinners are equally tempted and assisted, and that which makes the Righteous Men so glorious, is, that they resist, whereas the Sinner yields to them. These are the very Opinions which S. Prosper opposes in his Poem of Ungrateful Persons, and in his other Works: For though we should suppose with M. Abbot Anthelmi, that S. Prosper sought for mollifying Terms, yet we cannot think that he proceeded so far as to deliver that for Truth which he had formerly confuted; besides, the Style of this Poem differs much from the Poem of Ungrateful Persons. The Author wrote after the Vandals broke in upon the Empire.  
The Poem of An Husband to his Wife, which bears Paulinus' Name, doth in many Manuscripts bear S. Prosper's Name, and Bede says 'tis his.  
The Book of Promises and Predictions is not S. Prosper's, for the Author is an African, and the Style of this Work is very different from S. Prosper's other Works. Nevertheless it is attributed by Cassiodorus to S. Prosper, but either it is another's of the same Name, or in the time of Cassiodorus this Work was falsely attributed to S. Prosper, either because it was conformable to his Doctrine, or perhaps because S. Prosper Published it in the West. But however that be▪ it cannot be our Authors. The end and design of the Book is to make a Collection of the Promises and Prophecies contained in Holy Scripture, and to show which of them are already fulfilled, and which were yet to be accomplished hereafter.  
The Two Books concerning a Contemplative Life is manifestly Julian Pomerius', of which we shall speak hereafter, [Printed alone 1487, and at Col. 1536, Octavo].  
There remains nothing now but the Chronicon, Gennadius assures us, That S. Prosper had made a Chronicon from the beginning of the World, down to the Death of Valentinian, and the taking of Rome by Gensericus King of the Vandals. Victorius, Cassiodorus, and S. Isidore of Sevil, and many other Authors make mention of it. So that we cannot doubt, but that S. Prosper hath composed a Chronicon. The first, which appeared under S. Prosper's Name, was an Addition to the Second Part of Eusebius' Chronicon, augmented by S. Jerom, which gins at the Death of Valens, and ends at the Year 455. This hath been since augmented 10 Years more in the Edition, which M. Chiffletius hath Published in his First Tome of his Collection of the French Historians. This is the very same which F. Labbe hath Published entire in his First Tome of his Bibliotheca Manuscripta. It gins at the Creation of the World, and ends at the Year 455. But M. Pitthaeus hath Published another which gins and ends at the same Year, which bears S. Prosper's Name, but he gives it the Name of Tiro, which might make us think it some other Author's. Some believe that the First is S. Prosper's, and that the Second is not. Some others think that neither of them is his, others, that both are his. In my Judgement the most probable Opinion is, That the Chronicon Published by F. Labbe is the Genuine Chronicon of S. Prosper, and that M. Pitthaeus' is the same Chronicon, to which some other Person hath made an Addition. For to think, That there were Two Authors of the same Name, and at the same time, who have made Two Chronicon's which begin and end at the same Year, is very improbable to me.  
F. Sirmondus hath Published a little Book entitled, 
* [Confessio Fidei. Cave. Printed alone, Paris, 1619.]  The Confession of S. Prosper, 'Tis a small Book of little consequence, and unworthy of this Father. He made also a Paschal Table, but we have it not.  
Trithemius places among the Works of S. Prosper a Summary of Three Hundred Questions, but he seems to me to mean his Book of Maxims taken out of S. Austin, which perhaps was much larger than now it is. And indeed, This Book gins with the same words which Trithemius citys as the beginning of the Summary of S. Prosper. He also attributes to him a Treatise of Famous Men, The History of the taking of Rome, and some Letters. But since Trithemius doth not say, That he ever saw these Works, and he is not very Ancient, we c●●not much depend upon his Testimony concerning them.  
The Chronicon of S. Prosper Teaches us, That he survived the Year 455, and Victorius writing his Paschal Rule in 457, speaking of him, as a Person then Dead, makes the time of his Death evident to us.  
Gennadius says, That S. Prosper's Style is Scholastic, and that there is great force in what he says. Nervosus Assertionibus. He treats of very difficult matters with much subtlety and clearness. He imitated S. Austin, but was more concise. His Discourse is neither Beautified nor Pompous, but Masculine and Vigorous.  
These are the chief Editions of this Father's Works, 1. At Lions in 1539, Folio. 2. At Louvain in 1566, [Quarto.] 3. More large and correct at Douai in 1577, [Octavo.] But some prefer the Edition at Cologne in 1609, Octavo. These works are also Printed with S. Leo's at Paris in 1671, and several times since. [Besides these Editions they were Printed at Cologne in 1565, Quarto. And 1618., Octavo. At Lions 1639. And in Biblioth. Patrum, Tom VIII. P. 1.]   

Of the Author of the Books, Of the Calling of the Gentiles, And, Of the Epistle to Demetrias.  
THE Author of the Books, Of the Calling of the Gentiles, hath been a long time sought after by the Learned. At first they were attributed to S. Ambrose, upon the Authority of 
The Author of the Books, Of the calling of the Gentiles, etc.  some Manuscripts; but that Opinion was soon abandoned, when it was considered, that not only the Pelagian Heresy is therein spoken of, which sprang up after the Death of S. Ambrose, but also the Contest which arose in the Church about the Doctrine, which S. Austin had maintained in opposing those Heretics. Afterwards they were imputed to S. Prosper, because they were found under his Name in some 
* [Very ancient MSS. as one in the Library of the Monks of Louvain, another in Card. Cambray's Library, and a third in the Library of the Abbey of ●oniff. at Namur. Voss.]  Manuscripts, and had great Affinity with the Questions of which he treats. But many Critics say, This is also a mistake, and that they are not this Fathers, some because the Style is different from his, others because their Doctrine is contrary to this. Yet since there is no Manuscript to be found, wherein they are attributed to any other Authors, they set themselves to guessing. Some, as Latius, and Vossius, have judged them that Hilary's who wrote to S. Austin, which some have confounded with Hilary Bishop of Arles. Others, as Erasmus, have believed them to be Eucherius', and find them much like his Style. Lastly, F. Quesnel ventures to assert, That they are S. Leo's, having discovered, as he imagines, an exact agreement in the Style and Doctrine of these Two Books, and S. Leo's Works. He seems to have sufficiently proved these Two points, and many Persons are of his Opinion; but M. Abbot Anthelmi hath contradicted it, making a long dissertation on purpose to beat down that Opinion, and at last returns to the common Opinion, and maintains, that these Books are S. Prosper's.  
Of all these Opinions none deserve Examination, but those which attribute this Book to S. Prosper, or S. Leo, all the other are manifestly false, or groundless. S. Ambrose cannot be the Author, because he was Dead when these Questions were under debate. The Style of these Books, and of Eucherius' Works, is not so exactly alike, as that they can be attributed to that Author upon that ground only. They cannot be Hilary Bishop of Arles, who was not of S. Austin's Opinion about Grace, but rather of their Judgement who are opposed in that Work. Neither Hilary's Bishop of Syracuse, nor Hilary's who was the Companion of S. Prosper, (if these Two are Two distinct Persons,) since the Style of those Letters, which they have written to S. Austin, has no resemblance to the Author's of this Book. Nor can they rationally be said to be 
* V●ssius seems to think it the most probable conjecture, that these Books are Prosper's of Orleans, and Dr. Cave is fully of his Opinion.]  Prosper's Bishop of Orleans, since he was so far from being able to write a Treatise of this Nature, that he was forced to desire Sidonius Apollinaris to write the Life of Anianus his Predecessor, not thinking himself Learned enough to undertake to do it himself. Nor last, Are they 
* [Dr. Cave and Vossius make this the same with Prosper of Orleans.]  S. Prosper's, who subscribed the Councils of Carpentoractum in 527, and Vasio in 529, because the Work Of the Calling of the Gentiles, is cited under the Name of this Author by Pope Gelasius in his small Tracts against the Pelagians, for this Pope being Dead in 496, there is no probability that he should cite an Author that Lived till 529.  
The main Question then, which will deserve our Inquiry, is reduced to this, Whether this Work be S. Prosper's, or S. Leo's, or some other Author's which is unknown to us. Let us consider the Reasons alleged on both sides.  
First, than it is pleaded for S. Prosper, That this Treatise bears the Name of this Father in many Manuscripts; That Hincmarus in his Book of Predestination, citys it under the Name of S. Prosper; That the Doctrine of this Treatise is very conformable to the Doctrine of this Father; that the Style is very like his, and that the same Expressions are very often met with in them. As for Example, S. Prosper saith in his Poem, That Rome being become the Head-Church in the World, hath made herself Mistress by Religion of all that which she could not Conquer by her Arms. The Author of the Book, Of the Calling of the Gentiles, hath the same Expression, and uttered almost in the same Words, Ch. 16. lib. 2. S. Prosper in the Eighth Sentence of his Book of Answers to the French, saith, That God hath chosen all the World out of all the World, Ex toto mundo totus mundus eligitur. There is a parallel Expression in the First Book Of the Calling of the Gentiles, Ch. 9 De toto mundo totus mundus liberatus. S. Prosper in his Poem relates, among the Examples of the unsearchable Judgements of God, the differences which are to be found among Men upon the account of their Natural Endowments. The Author of the Book Of the Vocation of the Gentiles, has a like Comparison, lib. 1. ch. 14. Lastly, S. Prosper, and this Author, allege the same Examples of Infants that Die unbaptised, of Infidels that are Converted at the point of Death, and several others to prove the same things.  
M. Anthelmi, who hath undertaken to defend that Opinion, which seemed to be cried down among the Critics, urgeth these Proofs more amply, and adds also some others, taken from the Agreement of Style, Expressions, and Opinions, of which he produces large Parallels, and at length adds to them the Testimony of Photius, who speaking of the Writings of the Western Bishops against the Pelagians in Vol. 54. of his Bibliotheca, says, That Prosper made some Books at Rome against some Pelagians in the Popedom of Leo, and after that this Pope suppressed them, by the Advice which he had received from Septimius, that they would raise new stirs and contests again. What Photius says in this place, cannot agree to the other Works of S. Prosper, which were written before the Pontificate of S. Leo. 'Tis then of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, of which Photius speaks in this place.  
They who maintain the contrary, That these Books are not S. Prosper's, say first, That the Style is very different from the Works of this Father. This is the Judgement which the most Learned Critics of our Age have given of them, Latius, Erasinus, Vossius, Grotius, and many other excellent Critics, and very accurate discerners of such things, have been of that Opinion. And indeed the Style of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, is much more Eloquent, Accurate, and Elaborate, than S. Prosper's, the Sentences are shorter, the Parts of it more equal, and better proportioned, there are more Oppositions and Antitheses both in Words and Sense; there are many more Rhimes, and it is discernible, that the Author of these Books delights to make use of them, whereas they are not to be met with in S. Prosper's Works, but in such places as they seem to come of themselves.  
2. The manner in which the Author of the Book Of the Calling of the Gentiles, handles the matter he takes in hand, doth not agree to S. Prosper, who openly declares himself always against the Adversaries of S. Austin, praises that Father, stands up in his defence highly, alleges his Authority, and makes use of his Words. The Author of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, doth not use the same way. He professes himself disengaged, and addicted to neither Party, who has no design to oppose any Man, but is desirous to compose matters, to go in the middle way, that he may bring both sides to an Agreement, and find out the Truth, without encountering any Man. He never speaks of S. Austin, nor citys any of his Works. Lastly, He speaks of that Contest, as a Person who had no share in it. He delivers his Thoughts, as a Man who would try himself, and give his Judgement upon a famous Question, but would not enter into any dispute concerning it.  
3. The time when the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles was written, makes it evident, that they cannot be S. Prosper's. The Author says in the beginning, That 'tis a great while since the Patro●● of freewill and Grace began the Controversy. Inter defenseres liberi arbitrii & pradicatores gratia Dei, magna dudum & difficilis vertitur quaestio, etc. And a little after, De hac compugnantia opinionum 〈◊〉 quaerere, etc. This beginning proves Two things, 1. That this Question was not a new one, but had been formerly moved. 2. That this Author had not written before of that matter. So that it could not be S. Prosper, for 'tis certain he had written upon that Subject in S. Austin's Life time, and immediately after his Death, 'twas a fresh Author, who was willing to clear that Question, and to settle Peace in the Church.  
4. The Author of the Book Of the Calling of the Gentiles, carries the matter better than S. Prosper, for altho' he seems to agree in the substance of the Doctrine, yet he explains it in other words. He allows of a general Grace given to all Men. It is true, That by that Grace he understands nothing but our Natural Abilities, but S. Prosper never gives the Name of Grace to those Abilities. The Author of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, imparts it to Infants who Die without Baptism, S. Prosper on the contrary seems to exclude them from the calling to Grace, in his Fourth Answer to the Objections of the French. Lastly, This Author doth not accord with S. Prosper in the several ways of Arguing and Explaining himself.  
Before we go any further, we must examine the Answers which M. Anthelmi gives to the Reasons which we have alleged. He says, in the first place, That the Doctrine of S. Prosper, and the Book of the Calling of the Gentiles is the same; That F. Quesnel did acknowledge it himself, and confuted F. Norris, who believed the contrary, which is true as to the substance of the Doctrine. But we hold, That this Author's manner of Expression is different from that which S. Prosper always useth. We own, That the Author of the Books of the Calling, sometimes takes the word Grace in the same sense, that S. Prosper does for the real Grace of Jesus Christ; but we maintain, That he hath also given the Name of Grace to Natural Gifts; and in that sense it is that he asserts, That it is common to all Men. Now we shall never find, That S. Prosper hath taken it in that sense. He owns this thing, he saith, That God hath always had a care of Men; That he hath called them by the Law, by the Light of Nature, and by the Preaching of the Gospel; but he hath not given the name of Grace to these sort of Advertisements. M. Anthelmi brings no Example of it. All that he proves, is, That S. Prosper hath acknowledged, That the Light of Nature is common to all Men; and that the Providence of God is over all Men, but that is not the thing he has in hand: He ought to prove, That S. Prosper hath given the Name of Grace to the concurrence of God's general Providence, that is to say, to the Light of Nature, Knowledge of the Law and Preaching of the Gospel, etc. But M. Abbot Anthelmi does not cite so much as one Passage, where it is used in that sense. For that which comes nearest it in the 139th. Page of his Work, where he speaks of the power of Grace, and of the means of knowing God by Nature, proves nothing, because S. Prosper hath not given the name of Grace to those exterior means; he only asserts, That whatsoever mean God useth outwardly, 'tis always his Grace which inwardly attracteth. So that M. Abbot Anthelmi is at length obliged to own, That there is some difference between the way in which the Author of the Books of the Calling treats of the Questions of Grace, and that in which S. Prosper hath handled them in his Works. But he pretends, That he conceals himself by this means; That he hath published it without his Name; That he hath disguised his Opinions; That he hath suppressed the name of S. Austin his Master that he might defend his Doctrine more cunningly; That he hath gone a new way to work, and 'tis for that reason that he makes a show as if he had never written; That he hath well enough demeaned himself in his other Works, and that he hath moderated the Principles of S. Austin; That having promised to write no more, he was forced to take such a way as he might not be known; That he had likewise disguised his Style, but was forced to do it by the manner in which he had undertaken to compose this Treatise.  
I leave the Reader to judge of the solidity of these Answers, and shall content myself to observe, That if it be allowed, by Conjectures of this sort, to evade such Reasons as we have alleged, there is no Critical Argument, how strong soever it be, which may not this way be easily overthrown. Why doth M. Anthelmi say, That S. Prosper conceals and disguises himself in that Work? How knows he that he did not put it out in his own Name? If it be so, what proof hath he that it is his? The Authority of Manuscripts, upon which he leans so much, will make nothing for him, if it be certain, That in S. Prosper's time this Work bore no name, and that it continued so a long time after in the time of Pope Gelasius. Why should S. Prosper disguise his Opinions? Why should be forbear to speak with that Liberty and Constancy, with which he always maintained S. Austin's Doctrines? Is it credible, that he was ashamed to use the name of that Person for whom he had so great a respect? Although he hath carefully, in his Works, rejected the bad sense which might be put upon the Expressions of that Father, and hath delivered them in a more favourable way, yet he always openly maintained them, he always stood up against his Opposers, as against Persons who were certainly in an Error. Lastly, tho' he purposely disguised his Style, yet it is not likely that he could do it with so good success, for really the Style of this Work is more curious, florid and noble than S. Prosper's Works are. It is not possible to disguise his Style so. Men degenerate when they sergeant, and when Men go out of their natural way, all that they produce is deformed and imperfect. It is very hard to find out so many Rhymes, and so exactly frame his Periods, when he is not accustomed to it. Nor do I see, how the manner of composure of this Writing did oblige S. Prosper to change his Style. Lastly, All that M. Anthelmi says against these Reasons, which are brought to prove, That the Book of the Calling of the Gentiles is not S. Prosper's, is grounded upon Suppositions, of which he hath not the least shadow of proof.  
Let us now see if the Reasons which are given to fasten them upon S. Prosper be more sound. They may all be reduced to three Heads. The Authority of Manuscripts and Hincmarus, the agreement in Doctrine, and the likeness of the Styles.  
As to the first Reason, which is the only one, wherein we really agree; these Manuscripts are not more eminent than those wherein the Books De Vita Contemplativa, of the Contemplative Life, made by Julian Pomerius, are attributed to S. Prosper, and the Authority of Hincmarus is not more to be regarded than that of the French Councils of above 800 years old, who have cited the Books of the Contemplative Life under the name of S. Prosper. It is well known, That Hincmarus doth often quote Books under the name of those Fathers, who were not the Authors of them, as the Hypomnesticon under the name of S. Austin; The Book of Predestination and Grace, under the name of the same Father; The Book of the hardening of Pharaoh ' s Heart, under the name of S. Jerom; The Commentary of Hilary the Deacon upon S. Paul ' s Epistles, under the name of S. Ambrose; And the Poem of Providence, under the name of S. Prosper. But to return to the Manuscripts of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles; the five Manuscripts of the Vatican. Of these five, the most ancient is thought to be above a Thousand years old, and another also is very ancient, which both bear S. Ambrose's name; the three other, of which the oldest is not above 800 years old, bear S. Prosper's name. There must needs be also other Manuscripts, where they bear the name of S. Ambrose, since they were all along Printed under the name of this Father, before the year 1566. It seems then, That if we will hold to the Authority of the most Ancient Manuscripts, we must attribute them to S. Ambrose. M. Anthelmi ought to prove, according to his Hypothesis, That the first Manuscripts of these Books were without name, since S. Prosper's design was to conceal himself. Whence know we, That they who first prefixed S. Prosper's name to these Books, had sufficient information that they were his? Is it not most likely, that finding this Book without a name, the agreement of the Matter and the Doctrine, inclined them to put S. Prosper's name before them? And that others more Ignorant, tho' more Ancient, have also been not so lucky in setting S. Ambrose's name before them. This difference shows, That the Manuscripts are not to be depended upon, and that the imagination of the Transcribers, is the cause that these Books bear these Titles in the Manuscripts.  
As to the agreement of Style, we have already answered it, and showed, That altho' in the main, the Author of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles, be of the same Opinion with S. Prosper, yet he expresses himself in a different way; and that he keeps a Method which S. Prosper never observed. Let any Person but read a little, a few Periods of both, the Style is our strongest Argument, the difference is easy to be perceived. All the Tables of M. Anthelmi don't at all deter me, nor give me cause to change my mind. In all the agreement of Style, there is nothing to be found, but some words which were in common use at that time. It would be very hard also not to meet with the same Terms in two Authors that treat of the same matter; nor is it at all surprising to meet with the same Sense, and the like Expressions. If we would search S. Austin's Works, as diligently as M. Anthelmi hath taken the pains to do S. Prosper's, I do not question, but we might have as good success in comparing the Phrases of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles with his; and there are also Parallel Places, where the Sentences of S. Prosper, which he compares with those of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles, are taken out of S. Austin, or are found in the same Terms in the Works of that Father. But it is needless to go to Particulars, because notwithstanding all those long and tedious Parallels, the difference between the Style of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles and S. Prosper's Works, is easy to be perceived, for the reason which we have already several times repeated.  
We have now no more to do but to examine the Conjectures by which F. Quesnel hath been induced to attribute the Work of the Calling of the Gentiles to S. Leo. His principal, or rather his only Argument is the agreement of Style, which he thinks he hath found between this Work and S. Leo's Writings. For having read the Works of this Father over and over again, and rendered his Style familiar to him, he acknowledged him, as he says, in the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles. He perceived immediately his Modes of Speech, his pleasant Words, his Transitions, his Figures, his Fancy, his exact Periods, his rhyming Cadences, his Apostrophes, his Interrogations and Paraphrases. And coming afterward more strictly to examine this Work, he found, 1. That the time did very well agree to S. Leo's Age, who might have composed it under the Popedom of Sixtus, the Contests about Grace having already been very much agitated. 2. That the Country of this Author did also suit with S. Leo; That he was not an African, since he never quotes S. Austin; That 'tis not likely that he was a French Man, Gennadius not having mentioned him; That he is rather an Italian. The Purity of his Style shows it, and this is confirmed by a Testimony out of Chap. 33. Lib. 2. where he say●, The Barbarians coming to the Assistance of the Romans, have received that Religion in our Country, which they could never have come to the knowledge of in their own; which signifies, That the City of Rome was the Country of this Author. To this we may add, That these Books were never cited in Africa; That they were never seen in France, till the ninth Age, whereas we find them cited in 496, by Pope Gelasius, as a Work known and received at Rome. 3. This Author citys the Holy Scriptures after S. Leo's manner. They both of them use S. Jer●m's Version, they cite the same Texts, and use them in a particular way. 4. They express their Doctrine about Grace after the same manner. They both acknowledge a general Grace, and call the Elements and Creatures, the Leaves and Volumes, wherein the Eternal Law is written. 5. They have often the same Thoughts. They speak alike of the foundation of the Church of Rome, That God hath chosen it to be the Head-Church of the World, and that he permitted the Roman Empire to be extended over all the Earth, that Religion might enlarge itself the more easily, and that it hath entered into those places where the Roman Empire had gained no Power. Compare Chap. 1. Serm 1. of S. Peter and S. Paul in S. Leo, with Chap. 16. Lib. 2. of the Calling of the Gentiles. They both say, That S. Peter hath taken his Soundness and Constancy from the principal Rock, S. Leo, A principali Petra soliditatem & virti tis traxit & nominis. The Author of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles, Lib. 2. Chap. 28. Ab illa principali Petra communionem & virtutis sumpsit & nominis; the same Fancy, Stile and Expression. 6. The Style of the Book of the Calling of the Gentiles, is exactly like S. Leo. We have already observed, That it is Elegant and Polite, full of Antitheses and Rhymes; that his Sentences are proportioned and divided into equal Parts, which is, as we have noted, the Description of S. Leo's Style. 7. Not only the Style is very exactly alike, but they use often the same Words, and that peculiar ones. We may see a large List of them, p. 375. of the Second Tome of Father Quesnel's Edition. He joins to it, in the following Pages, a comparison of many Phrases, and thinks that by this he hath invincibly proved, That the Work Of the Calling of the Gentiles is Saint Leo's.  
But his Adversary undertakes to prove Two Things against him,  

1. That all his Conjectures are weak.  
2. That there are Arguments which clearly show, and put it out of question, That the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles are not S. Leo's.   
But since it is needless to enter upon a Discussion of the First, if the Last be well proved, therefore I will begin with the Latter.  
Let us then take a View of the Reasons which do invincibly prove, according to M. Anthelmi, that S. Leo is not the Author of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles. The First is taken from the Friendship that was between S. Leo and Cassian: Is it credible that he would desire Cassian to write in the Name of the Church against Nestorius, as he did, and would have had so much Respect for him, if he had thought him in an Error? And would he have written the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, against his Doctrine, if he had known that he had forsaken it, as F. Quesnel maintains? I believe that he hath no Proofs, and that it is not probable that Cassian changed his Opinion. I own that S. Leo was one of his Friends, but this is no Proof that he was of his Judgement, nor can any Man be invincibly convinced thereby that he did not write the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles: All his Days he did write against his best Friends, when he found them not of his Opinion: All that he could do for his Friend was to direct him, not to attack him directly, to treat him mildly, and instruct him rather than oppose him. Now this is what the Author of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles does; The Differences between S. Austin's Scholars and their Adversaries were never looked upon as Heretical. S. Prosper, though he was zealous for S. Austin's Doctrines, yet owns that those whom he opposed were Orthodox Christians, and aught for all that to be reckoned in the Church. The Author of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, speaks in a more moderate way and account of those Contests, as about some hard Questions, which were debated among found Christians. Cassian and the rest of his Party defended their Sentiments with much Calmness, without Passion or Obstinacy: All which evinceth that S. Leo might very well make use of Cassian to write against the Nestorians, and yet some Time after make these Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, in which he differs from him about Grace.  
But at least, says M. Anthelmi for the Second Reason, he would have preserved some Respect for Cassian and his Scholars, he would not call their Disputes, Calumniosa certamina, Mere Scold; he would not have accused them of making Objections full of Calumnies, of denying things impiously, of being presumptuous and ignorant, of laying Snares to deceive, of making impudent Complaints, and of having deceitful Intentions; yet these Terms are dispersed up and down the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, and applied to them who do not give enough to Grace.  
It is answered, That S. Leo respects Cassian enough in not naming him, in not confuting him expressly, in only speaking in general against those who attribute too much to freewill, in handling this Question as a Person not engaged to any Party, in not declaring himself highly against them. As to the harsh Words which he alleges, they fall not upon Cassian or his Scholars, but upon the erroneous Consequences which may be drawn from their Principles; besides, they are nor so abusive and reproachful as is supposed 
a So Abusive as is supposed.] Calumniosa certamina doth not signify, in this Place, Disputes which are filled with Calumnies, for the Word Calumnia in Cicero and other good Authors, doth not always signify Calumnia, in that Sense we use the Word, but sometimes Subtlety and Cavilling, Craft and Wittiness, etc. Qui saepe optimas causas ingenii calumnia ●udificare solet. Calumniari signifies also to produce false Quotations, or abuse wrongfully; so that Calumniosa certamina, signify subtle Disputes, full of Wranglings. And Calumniose objiciunt, imports, they object falsely. This Author takes it thus, Chap. xv. where calumniari justitiae occultae is to complain causelessly of the Secret Justice of God: And Chap. xvii. he that murmured against the Good Man of the House, who gave as much to him that came last to labour as to the first, is called a Calumniator. S. Leo also uses this Word in the same Sense, in Serm. 25. ch. 2. where calumniae quaestionum signify Subtleties: And in Serm. 58. ch. 6. ancilla Sacerdotis calumniante, that is exprobran●e. In Serm. 59 ch. 2. de terrenis calumniantur, that is, objiciunt; and in ch. 1. of the same Serm. calumniose & mi●aci●er conclamarunt. These Words impie diffitentur, and others, have not so harsh a Signification in Latin as in French. It is ordinary with those that defend Grace, to accuse those who attribute any Desert to the freewill, of Presumption, Pride, Confidence, etc. The Author of the Books Of the Vocation of the Gentiles doth it with more Moderation than others, but he cannot forbear it altogether. .  
The Third Argument is unanswerable in M. Anthelmi's Judgement: He hath been convinced by it, and it ought to satisfy every Man almost. It is this, saith he, If S. Leo being yet but a Deacon, had so strongly opposed the Semi-Pelagians, it is not credible that he would have let them alone all the Time he was Pope; It was a vile and strange thing, that he should do nothing against them, and so much the rather, because during the Time of his Popedom that Party was honoured and preferred. His Successor Hilarius made Faustus, the Head of them, Precedent of a Council at Rome. If it be said, That S. Leo dissembled and connived at those Errors, than we do not rightly give him the Title of a Declared Enemy of the Heretics; and an undaunted Defender of the Truth. He is compared to the Lion of the Tribe of Judah to no purpose; because he opposed the Pelagians with so much Zeal, why should he neglect to encounter the Semi-Pelagians, if he had been of the Mind of the Author of the Books Of the Calling, and believed with him, that they revived the Errors of Pelagius? Would not S. Prosper his Secretary, a grand Enemy of the Semi-Pelagians, have stirred up his Zeal against them? I much doubt whether these fine Declamations can pass for invincible and unanswerable Proofs with any Man of Wit. The Author of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, hath not treated the Defenders of freewill as Heretics. He rejects their Opinion as a particular Person. Let us then suppose that S. Leo is the Author of it, what Necessity had he, that being raised to the Popedom, he should condemn them under the Title of Pope, as Formal Heretics? Though he believed, That the Opinions which he confuted in these Books were Heretical, yet why should he persecute those Persons who held them in silence, without being positive in asserting them, or combining into a Sect or Party? I do not see that there was any Dispute upon that Subject under his Pontificate; the Contest did not begin a fresh till a long Time after: Let him tell us what occasion S. Leo had to condemn the Semi-Pelagians? Were they ever brought before his Tribunal? Did any Person write to him against them? Did they publish any Books to maintain their Opinions during his Pontificate? There is not the least proof of all this. But some of that Party were honoured and preferred, they were made Abbots and Bishops in France, S. Leo ought not to have suffered it: As if in those Times there had been any need of the Pope's Bulls to be made a Bishop: But his Successor Hilarius made Faustus of Ries, who was head of that Party, Precedent of a Council at Rome (he is mistaken in construing the Word Praesidere, for it doth not signify to preside, but only to be present, Praesidente Fratrum numerose Concilio, a numerous Assembly of the Brethren being present.) Can it hence be gathered, that S. Leo favoured the Semi-Pelagians? I do not believe that many would draw such a Conclusion from it, although Faustus was present at a Council in Rome, yet he had then written no Book, wherein he declared against S. Austin's Doctrines? He did not do this till a long Time after; and although it had been already composed, it could not be inferred from thence that he had Pope Hilary's Approbation of it, and much less that S. Leo his Predecessor was a Favourer of him. But that which looks more surprising is this, That M. Anthelmi did not take notice that all these Arguments are quite overthrown by that One Example of S. Prosper, for he perceives not that this Father wrote nothing against those who are called Semi-Pelagians, after his Book against Cassian, which was published before S. Leo was Pope. If it were true that they were active under this Pope, why was he silent himself, or at least why did he not attack them openly, as he did heretofore? Why did he not use his Interest against them? Why did he not accuse them to S. Leo? If this sort of Reasoning be not allowable in respect of S. Prosper, why doth M. Anthelmi enforce it, in respect of S. Leo? We may near as well conclude, That S. Prosper never wrote any thing against the Semi-Pelagians.  
The Argument which is taken from the Testimony of Pope Gelasius, who citys the Author of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, under the Name of a Doctor of the Church, without naming it, seems more plausible than the former, for if this Work were S. Leo's how could Gelasius be ignorant of it? Or knowing it, what Reason could he have to conceal his Name? But this Objection only proves, That his Work was without a Name, as I see all the World agrees, and then all the Question will be, To know if it is not S. Leo's, who composed it, without putting his Name to it? The Reasons of F. Quesnel seem to make this Opinion very probable; let us now see what Answers are given, since we are already certain that there is no Argument to show, that these Books cannot be S. Leo's. His Adversary contents himself to prove, That S. Prosper uses S. Jerom's Version as well as S. Leo, and that sometimes also he uses the Ancient Version, and thinks that thus he hath answered the strongest Argument. I will not stay here to examine which of the two hath Injury or Reason on his Side, I will only confine myself to the Argument about the Agreement of Style, in which M. Anthelmi yields to his Adversary, since he owns, That 'tis the Agreement of Style of the Epistles and Sermons of S. Leo with the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, that makes him attribute those Books to S. Prosper. This Concession is very favourable to F. Quesnel, for it being very certain that the Sermons and Epistles which bear the Name of S. Leo are that Fathers; but not so, that the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles are S. Prosper's; if it be necessary that these Works must both of them belong to one and the same Author, it is much more reasonable to attribute the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles to S. Leo, than to fix the Epistles and Sermons of S. Leo upon S. Prosper. F. Alexander and F. Oudin pretend that there is some Difference of Style, and that there are not in S. Leo so many Rhymes and Figures, nor such a Cadence: But they seem not to have taken sufficient notice of it, for if there be any Difference 'tis inconsiderable.  
From all that we have hitherto said concerning the Author Of the Calling of the Gentiles, we may conclude, 1. That this Book did at first appear without the Name of the Author. 2. That it was made since the Year 430, and before 496. 3. That in the Time of Pope Gelasius, the Work was known, but it was then without Name. 4. That since it hath born the Name of S. Ambrose in some Manuscripts, and of S. Prosper in others. 5. That 'tis certainly none of S. Ambrose's. 6. That there is no probability that 'tis S. Prosper's. 7. That the Author having hitherto been always unknown, 'tis hard to know now whose it is. 8. That if we judge by the manner of treating of Things, and by the Agreement of Style, S. Leo stands fairest for it. 9 That there is nothing to prove that this Work is not his. Nothing more can be expected but that it be positively asserted to be S. Leo's: But that I dare not do upon the mere Conformity of Style, although, I confess, it renders F. Quesnel's Opinion extremely probable.  
I have given no Answer to the Testimony of Photius alleged by M. Anthelmi, but it is nothing to our Purpose. It appears that that Author had a very confused Knowledge of the History of the Pelagians, and that the Differences about S. Austin's Doctrine were not formed till after his Death. What he says concerning S. Prosper, That he opposed the Remnants of the Pelagians, under the Pontificate of S. Leo, is wholly imaginary. He had heard say, That S. Prosper had written about Grace, and thought he attacked the Pelagians; and knowing by Septimius' Letter, and S. Leo's to Januarius Bishop of Aquileia, That they had raised some Commotions under the Pontificate of this Pope, he thought that it was at this Time that S. Prosper had opposed them, and so much the rather, because he knew that S. Prosper was then at Rome: But it is discernible enough that Photius speaks all this by mere guess, and as a Person so remote both in Time and Place, as that he had not an exact History, but contrived this Model of his own. But yet, were it true, that S. Prosper had written against the Pelagians in the Popedom of S. Leo, 'tis a mere Surmise to apply it to the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, which are not written against the Pelagians. How knows he that Photius speaks of these Books? Is it not possible that S. Prosper might compose some other Books against the Pelagians at that Time, which are not come to us? But there is no room, as we have already said, to bottom upon this Passage of Photius, who himself doth not assert this, but merely by Conjecture.  
But we have insisted too much upon the Criticism of this Work, an extract of it will be more useful, and less tedious. The Author in the beginning propounds the Question, which he designs to handle in these words. There is a great and difficult Question moved a long time since, between the Patrons of freewill, and the Preachers of Grace, viz. Whether God Wills that all Men should be saved? And because that cannot be denied, it is further demanded, Why the Will of the Almighty is not always accomplished? If it be said, That it depends upon the Will of Man, this seems to exclude Grace which is no more a Free-gift, but a Debt, if it be bestowed according to desert. It is further enquired, Why that Gift, without which no Man can be saved, is not given to all by him, who desires the Salvation of all Men? The design of the Author is to resolve these Questions, and to effect this, he proposes to himself to Treat, First of all, Of the Motions of the Will, against those who imagine, that they deny all Freedom who Preach up Grace, not observing, that they may as well accuse them of denying Grace, when they suppose, that it doth not go before, but only accompanies the Will. For if we take away the Will, where is the Original of Virtue? And if we do not acknowledge Grace, where is the Cause of Merit? He than distinguishes Three sorts of Wills, the Sensual, Animal, and Spiritual; the Animal is in Infants, the Sensual in Men without Grace, the Spiritual is the Will of those Men who Act by Grace. He distinguishes also Two sorts of Graces, 1. General Graces, which are nothing else but the exterior helps, as the Elements, Nature, the Law, the Preaching of the Gospel; and, 2. Special Grace. The first is useless without the latter, which doth not destroy Nature, but restore it, doth not take away Freedom, but enables it to act. Without it there is no good, all that Men do is evil. The light of Nature is not sufficient to believe, Faith is the Gift of Grace, it is Grace which increaseth it, 'tis Grace which preserves it.  
Having laid down these Principles, he gives Four Rules for the Explaining of such general Expressions of Holy Scripture, as concern the Salvation of Men. 1. That the Holy Scripture speaking of the Good and Evil, the Elect and Reprobate, uses such general terms in speaking of these Two sorts of Persons, as if it would comprehend all Men in particular under this Universal Expression. 2. That the Scripture speaking of the Men of one and the same Nation, useth such general terms, altho' it intends to speak some time of the Elect, and sometime of the Reprobate. 3d. Rule, That the Scripture speaks of Men of divers times, as if they were the same Men, and of the same time. The 4th. That the word, All, is often taken for all sorts of Persons of all Ages, Sects, and Countries, and that it is in this sense, that these words of the Apostle may be understood, God will have all Men to be saved.  
As to the general Prayers of the Church, he observes, that that's the reason of Praying for all Men, but that these Prayers are not heard with respect to every particular, altho' they be with regard to others; that the reason of this difference depends on the secret Judgements of God, and that it cannot be said, that it is the Merit of the Will which is the cause of this distinction; That Grace is given to the Good, and denied to Sinners; That the Examples of Infants, and of such Wicked Men as are Converted at the Hour of Death, prove the contrary. In fine, That Grace is an Act of the Divine Liberality; That we ought not to inquire into the Reason, why God gives it to some, and denies it to others? Why he chooseth some, and doth not choose others; That this Question is unsearchable, and that we ought not to have recourse to freewill for the Explication of it.  
After he hath rejected in the first Book that which was the subject of the Contest, he finds out Three Truths, which he Establishes in the Second: 1. That God Wills that all Men should be Saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth. 2. That we cannot come to that knowledge, but by Grace, and that Merits contribute nothing to it. 3. That the Mind of Man cannot comprehend the Judgements of God. Let us now see the Consequences which he draws from these Principles, That we cannot give the Reason, why he puts off the Calling of some, and gives not his Special Grace to all those whom he Calls. That all Men have had a part in the general Calling, the Gentiles by Nature, the Jews by the Law, but they who have pleased God have been separated from others by Faith and Grace, which altho' more rare and secret, was not denied in the first times. That at present, 'tis not equally disposed to all the World; That those to whom it is given have not Merited it; That he that hath received it must expect all his growth and proficiency from the same Grace; That nevertheless Man doth Merit by persevering, because he hath power to fall away; That one convincing Proof, That Men are beholding to God's Special Grace for their Conversion, and not to their Natural Goodness, is this, That since the Flood God hath continually Called Men by Miracles, Signs, and Prophecies, and that nevertheless no Man hath turned himself: That on the contrary, The Apostles have Converted all the World by their Preaching: Were Men better in the times of the Apostles, than before? Nay, Do we not know, that Iniquity than was greater? This is it that shows the Efficacy of Grace. That when it is said, That Jesus Christ Died for all Men, i. e. for all Nations, it was for that end that God had permitted that the Roman Empire was so very much enlarged, that the Christian Religion might spread itself the more easily; that it so happened, and that Rome was become more Glorious by Religion, than Temporal Power, Amplior arce Religionis, quam solio potestatis; That all other Nations have been, or will be, Called every one in their time; That in the Old Testament the Grace of Jesus Christ was hidden from the Gentiles, and yet it is not a whit less true, to say, That God will have all Men to be Saved in all times. But if God will have all Men Saved, Why are so many Damned? Our Author Answers. 1. That that is a Question which depends upon the secret Judgements of God, which are unsearchable to Men. 2. That all Men deserve Damnation upon the account of Original Sin. 3. That no Man may complain that he Dies too soon, because it is the property of Humane Nature ever since Adam sinned to be subject to Death. 4. That God exempts from this general Misery those whom he pleaseth, and that he by that means moderates the Punishment which all the Posterity of Adam have deserved; That others cannot complain, that God hath not delivered them out of a State of Damnation, because he owes that Grace to no Man. 5. That he hath imparted to all Men certain general Graces, which consist, as we have said, in outward helps; That Infants themselves are not deprived of it, because God hath given them to their Parents, who ought to be serviceable to them to procure them Salvation; That it is true, that beside this general Grace, there is a special Grace, both for the Adult, and for Infants, who are of the Number of the Elect, but God owes it to no Man. 6. That this special Grace doth not exclude the Will, or consent of Man, but produces it in him, makes him to Will, Believe, and Love; That it doth not nevertheless take away the changableness of the Will, for if it did then no Man could fall; That those that will, and do come, are called by this Grace, and they that do not come, resist it by their own Will; That those that Perish are inexcusable, and those that are Saved have no cause of boasting of their own Abilities. 7. That in all times there have been general Graces for all the World, and special for the Just; That among these last some have more, some less, yet no Man may complain of the Mercy of God, since he owes nothing to any Man. Nor can we more reasonably complain of his Justice, since all that Perish deserve Damnation. 8. That the particular Election of some doth not render our Labour, Prayers, or Goodworks, needless, because God hath ordained them from all Eternity, because this Grace is given for Prayer, and because Election is perfected by Prayer, and Goodworks. 9 That it ought not to be said of any Man, before he is Dead, that he shall certainly be of the Number of the Elect, and that we ought not to despair of any Man's Salvation, because the more Holy may yield to Temptation, and the greatest Sinners be Converted; That the Church also in her Prayers giving thanks for those, who have embraced the Faith, requests perseverance for them, and implores God's Mercy for Infidels, that they may turn from their ways and live.  
After what we have said of the Author of the Books Of the Calling of the Gentiles, it is not necessary to enlarge much upon that which concerns the Author Of the Epistle to Demetrias, since all Critics agree, that it belongs to the same Author. Indeed they produce no other proofs but the conformity of Style, but that seems sufficient to determine these Two Works to the same Author.  
F. Quesnel brings some Reason's proper to prove it S. Leo's. 1. He says, That the Scripture is Quoted, as in S. Leo's Works, sometimes according to S. Jerom's Translation, and sometimes according to the Ancient Vulgar. 2. He produces many Sentences Of the Epistle to Demetrias, which are found in S. Leo's Works. He finds the same comparisons and applications of Scripture, etc. 3. He marks out the very words of S. Leo. 4. He saith, There is no probability, that the Epistle to Demetrias was composed by an African; that a Man of that Country, mentioning his Religion, would not have forgotten to tell, how much S. Austin had been helpful to it, and that the Style agrees better to a Roman than an African, and because he promotes the Authority of the Church of Rome, in maintaining that the Holy See hath given an Example to all the Churches of the World, by Condemning Pelagius. 5. That there was an intimate acquaintance between S. Leo and Demetrias; That it is related in Platina, and the Roman Breviary, That he persuaded her to Build a Church upon some Lands that belonged to her, and Dedicate it to S. Stephen. In sum, That there is no ground to attribute this Work to S. Prosper; That the Style is altogether different from that Father's; That the Inscription of the Letter in the Printed Books, Prosper Episcopus Sacrae Virgini Demetriadi, Prosper the Bishop to the Holy Virgin Demetrias, is apparently added, since S. Prosper never was a Bishop. That the Author Of the Epistle to Demetrias speaks not of S. Austin, altho' he had often occasion to do it, which S. Prosper would not have omitted. Lastly, He seems to say, That the Church of Rome was the first that Condemned Pelagius, but S. Prosper gives this Honour to the Bishops of Africa. These are the special Reasons of F. Quesnel.  
M. Anthelmi on the other side maintains, That this Letter is S. Prosper's, and to prove it, compares several long pieces of this Letter with S. Prosper's Writings, but they do not seem to be more lucky about this Piece, than about the former Books, but we leave this to the Judgement of those who will take the pains to examine them. In the next place, he undertakes to overthrow the last Argument of F. Quesnel, taken from the difference of which he speaks, concerning the order of time in which Pelagius was Condemned in Africa and Rome. He thereupon makes a long discourse, which it is not necessary for us to enter upon, nor discuss, since S. Prosper hath said in a place of his Poem, 
— Pestem subeuntem prima recidit  
Sedes Roma Petri;—  We must understand by this word, Prima, either the first in Dignity, or the first according to the order of time; and so much the rather of the latter, because in another place of his Poem, and in his Book against Cassian, he places the Sentence of the Africans after Zosimus'. But the proof is not worth our trouble, we must own 'tis one of the least, and will tarry on it no longer. Nor can we say, that the Argument taken from the Familiarity between S. Leo, and Demetrias, is very sound; but yet M. Abbot Anthelmi doth not confute it solidly, by pretending that Demetrias who is spoken of in Anastasius, Platina, and the Roman Breviary, is distinct from Demetrias. The Epithet, Ancilla Dei, The Handmaid of the Lord, doth suit as well to a Virgin, as a Married Woman; the taking away the Letters from the end is according to the usage of the Latins, who follow that Termination. Lastly, Paulus Diaconus calls the Foundress of S. Stephen's Church, Demetrias. But why do we stay so long upon Trifles? It is more profitable, and more to the purpose, to examine whether the Letter to Demetrias be written against those Priests of Marseille, and against those other Christians, who tho' they Condemned the Heresy of Pelagius, would not agree to all the Principles of S. Austin, or whether he speaks only of the Pelagians. Although it be commonly thought that the Author of this Letter opposes the first as well as the last, yet I am of the Opinion of a Learned Person who discovered this to me. That that which is said in this Letter, Ch. 10. of some Persons, who pretending to deny all other Doctrines of Pelagius, yet retained this. That Grace is given according to Merits, is meant of some moderate and counterfeit Pelagians, as S. Leo observes in his Sixth Letter, where he speaks plainly of the Pelagians. For in both places it is said, That these Persons had retained this Maxim with a design to revive all the other Pelagian Errors, and to overturn the Doctrine of Original Sin, which they owned among the Orthodox, but denied among those of their own Party. Cum inter nostros Originalis peccati vulnera faterentur, inter suos tamen hoc tenere ostenderent, Quod primorum hominum pravaricatio solis imitatoribus obfuit. This does not agree neither to the Priests of Marseille, nor to those other Persons who did not approve all the Principles of S. Austin, for they did sincerely Condemn them who denied Original Sin, they were no Party, nor had any Alliance with the Pelagians. They were then the Pelagians in disguise, which the Author of this Letter to Demetrias speaks of in his Letter; and the Sixth Letter of S. Leo teaches us, That there were many in the Popedom of this Pope, who made false professions of the Faith, and with a design of reviving all their Errors, by putting some of them in disguise. S. Prosper says in his Chronicon, That Julian used his utmost endeavours to gain admission into the Communion of the Church, by pretending to renounce his Errors, but S. Leo hindered S. Sixtus from receiving him. And it is no wonder that the Author of the Letter of which we speak, wrote to Demetrias against the Pelagians, because Pelagius had heretofore written to that Virgin, and she was acquainted with Julian, and might have a Familiarity with some of his Friends.  
The Author of this Letter in the first place commends her Noble Birth and Virtue; he observes by the buy, that there is no true Virtue without Charity, and the Love of God, which ought to be the Motive of our Actions. Then he speaks of Humility, first towards Men, and next towards God. This last consists in acknowledging sincerely, and wholly, the Grace of Jesus Christ. He asserts, That Pride was the Origin of the Pelagian Heresy, and 'tis Pride that makes some hold that Maxim so fast; That Grace is given according to Merits, a Maxim which is made use of to revive the other Pelagian Errors; That Christian Humility makes us confess, that no Man hath any hopes of Salvation, unless Regenerate in Jesus Christ; That it teaches us to give all Glory to him; That it makes us acknowledge, that without Grace we can do no good thing; That it makes us own, that the Operation of Grace is not prevented by the Will; That the Commandments are given to us, that we may fly to it for help, without which we cannot perform them; That Pride, which corrupts our best Actions, is much to be feared; That Humility subjects Man to God; That we ought not to trust in our own Merits; That no good comes from ourselves, no not so much as a Prayer. Lastly, That all Goodworks, and all Virtues comes from God. These are the Principles laid down and explained in this Letter.  
We have already spoken of the 
* [Capitula de gr●tia.]  Aphorisms of Grace. F. Quesnel, and M. Abbot Anthelmi, do both agree, that they belong to the same Author, but the one attributes them to S. Prosper, the other to S. Leo, they both ground themselves upon the Conformity of Style. But it seems to me very hard to judge upon a piece which is so short as this is. We have already spoken our Opinion, and leave it to the more curious Critics to examine thoroughly. Let those who are more bold than we are, positively determine to whom these Treatises ought to be attributed. As for us, we content ourselves in matters of this nature, to speak what seems to us most probable, believing that none can go further than probability: Also we confute others without passion, and will not take it ill, that others confute us. Nos sequimur probabilia, nec ultra id quod verisimile est, progredi possumus, & refellere sine pertinacia, & refelli sine iracundia parati sumus. Cic. Tuscul. Quaest lib. 2. It is needless to repeat in this place, what we have said of the Style of the Books, Of the Calling of the Gentiles, and The Epistle to D●metrias. It is only worth our Observation, That whosoever is the Author of them, he wa● a very Learned Man, of a solid Judgement, a fine and delicate Wit, and that understood well the matter he treated of. And although it were very obscure and intricate, yet he explains and clears it with so much Elegancy, and so good a Method, that he makes it both pleasant to read, and easy to understand. He dissolves the great Difficulties, and moderates the Doctrines which appear most rigorous, and illustrates those things which seem hard to attain. These Treatises have been Printed with the Works of S. Ambrose, and S. Prosper. And F. Quesnel hath Published a new Edition of them under the Name of S. Leo, as we have already several times observed.   

FLAVIAN, and several other Bishops, who wrote the Letters or Records about the Affair of Eu●yches.  
IF we would place in the number of Ecclesiastical Authors those Bishops who have written Letters, or presented petitione in the Councils, we might reckon Flavian, who was Patriarch 
Flavian, and several other Bishops, etc.  of Constantinople f●om the year 446. to 449. among them. He hath written three Letters against Eu●yches, of which the two 〈◊〉 [Inscribed to P. Leo] are recited in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, and the first hath been printed by M. Cotelerius in his 1st. Tom of the Monuments of the Greek Church. We might also put in Anatolius, Flavian's Successor, who hath one Letter to to Emperor Leo, among the Acts of the Councils, and another to Pope Leo among the L●●ter● of this last. Eusebius, Bishop of Dorilaeum; the principal Accuser of Eutyches, would obtain his place upon the 〈◊〉 of two Petitions, which he presented against him to the Synods of Constantinople and Chaloedon, or upon the Account of the Letter he wrote to Marcian. We must also place here ●●hanasius, Priest of Alexandria, and Ischyrion, and Theodorus Deacon of that Church, who presented Petitions against Dioscorus. Photius, Bishop of Tyre, may also be placed here, upon the account of a Petition, which he presented to the Council for the maintaining the Rights of his Bishopric. Agapetus, Lucian, Theotimus, Vitalis, and some others, who wrote to the Emperor Leo, the Letters set down at the end of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, p. 904. unless they are omitted 
a Unless they are omitted.] Great part of this Letter is recited in the Council of Chalcedon, Tom. 4. of the Councils, p. 661. . Here also we may enter 〈◊〉 a Priest of Edessa, whose Letter to Maris the Persian, made so great a noise, We might also mention Eutyches the Monk, Head of that Party, and Bassianus Bishop of E●asa [afterward of Ephesus] upon the account of the Petitions which they presented in their ow● defence. But those; who have composed such sort of Works as these, do not deserve the name of Authors, and we shall speak enough of them, in relating the History of the Councils. We shall also find there two Letters of Acacius Bishop of Constantinople, the one to Simplicius, the other to Petrus Fullo, and there we shall speak of the Letter of this last, which we have not, as well as of the Letter of Petrus Mongus to Acacius.   

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

BASILIUS' Bishop of Seleucia.  
BASIL, Bishop of Seleucia, a City of Isauria, flourished in the time of the Contest of Eutyches. He was present at the Council of Constantinople, held under Flavian in 448. 
Basilius of Seleucia.  and at the Council of Chalcedon, where after he had begged Pardon for what he had done in the Council of Ephesus held under Dioscorus, he was restored, and believed as others.  
We have at this day 
* [Dr. Cave reckons 43, viz. 17 upon the old, and 26 upon the new Testament]  40 Homilies of this Bishop. Photius had seen but 15 of them, but the other being of the same Style and Coherence, it cannot be doubted but that they are the same Authors.  
The first of these Homilies is upon the first words of Genesis, In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. It seems to have been preached at the beginning of the solemn Fast of Lent. He therein describes very elegantly the Production of all Creatures, and the admirable Order of the Universe. Speaking of the Creation of Man, he observes, That the words which the Scripture uses, being in the Plural Number, Let us make Man in our Image, is an Argument of a Trinity of Persons. He makes the Likeness of Man, with God, to consist in this, that he considers upon the Heavens, but doth his Works upon Earth, and that he establisheth Government and Laws.  
In the 2d. Homily he explains more particularly the Creation of Man, and the Formation of Woman.  
In the 3d. he describes the Estate of Adam in the Earthly Paradise, and his unlucky and miserable fall. He had an absolute freedom. He might take all sorts of innocent Pleasures, because Pleasure was not then infectious and deadly: All the Creatures were subject to him, he could make use of them without Sinning, except one Fruit only. But the Devil envying his Happiness took on him the Form of a Serpent, and persuaded the Woman to eat the forbidden Fruit. She gave it to her Husband, and they immediately knew that they were naked. God called them, upbraided them with their Disobedience, and condemned them to different Punishments, both them and their Posterity; but he must not, for all that, despair of his Salvation. Jesus Christ is come to cure Man of that old Wound. He hath brought Medicines contrary to those things, which were the cause of his Fall. He opposeth Solitude to Paradise, Fasting to Delights, the Trophy of the Cross to the Deceit of the Devil; a Virgin conceiving without the Curse of Sin, to the first Woman; a Child born of a Virgin, and free from the old Disease, to the miserable Children of Adam. The new Adam is entered again into Paradise, from whence the first was driven; and from thence he sends forth his Darts to wound the Serpent.  
Cain and Abel are the subject of the 4th. Homily. Moses sets down their History as a dreadful Example, to teach Men to love Virtue and hate Vice. The Stories of the old Testament have all no other end. This teaches us, That God debaseth himself to Men; That he accepts their Sacrifices, tho' he hath no need of them to instruct them, who offer them to him, and that he hath care of good Men after their Death. Abel is the first just Man slain wrongfully. The Vengeance, which God inflicted upon his Death, gives cause to hope for a Resurrection. Cain is the first Child of Eve, a wicked Man, an Enemy of Nature, whose Crimes and Punishments are there painted in a lively manner.  
The 5th. Homily is concerning Noab and the Flood. 'Twas Man's sins that brought it upon him; he delayed it as long as he could; he admonished them several times; he invited them to Repentance; but Men not growing better by his Admonitions, were all overwhelmed with a Deluge, except Noah and his Family, who were saved in the Ark. The Wood, which was the instrument of Man's Destruction in Adam, was the Instrument of their safety in the times of Noah.  
The 6th. is also about some Question, which might be made concerning the Deluge. He observes there, That the Sons of God, of whom 'tis said, that they had Commerce with the Daughters of Men, are not the Angels, but the Posterity of Seth, who had Commerce with the Race of Cain. He gives the reason of the difference of Clean and Unclean Beasts. He saith, That God commanded it, that he might make the Jews afraid to eat of those Creatures which they were forbidden to eat; as also, that they might not adore them. He believes, That Noah was not obliged to hunt after all those Creatures that went into the Ark with him, and catch them, but that they came thither of themselves. He teaches us to admire Noah's Dexterity in building the Ark, and the Providence of God in the course of the Flood.  
In the 7th. he propounds to our observation the ready Obedience of Abraham, and the blind submission which he yielded to the Command of God in preparing himself to sacrifice his Son. He describes this History in a very affecting manner.  
The 8th. gives us the perfect History of Joseph, and makes a faithful Description of his Virtues.  
The 9th. manifests to us the Providence of God in the Life of Moses.  
The 10th. compares Elisha to Jesus Christ, and the Son of the Shunamite, raised from the dead by that Prophet, with the Gentiles.  
The 11th. contains some Reflections upon the Life of the Prophet Elias.  
In the 12th. Basil uses the History of J●…, and the Conversion of the Ninevites, to prove how great the mer●● and goodness of God 〈◊〉 towards Sinners.  
In the 13th. he explains the resemblances of Ionas to Jesus Christ.  
The 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th. are upon King David. In the three first he extols the special Favours, which God bestowed upon that 〈◊〉 King. In the ●●st he discourses of his Sin and of his Repentance.  
In the 18th. he endeavours to create a 〈◊〉 of the Action of Herod and Herodias.  
The 19th. is upon the History of the C●…on.  
The 20th. is upon the Woman of Canaan.  
The 21st. is upon the Healing of the Lame Man, who lay at the Gate of the Temple.  
The 22d. is upon the Storm appeased by Jesus Christ.  
The 23d. is upon the Cure of him that was 〈◊〉 with the Legion of Devils.  
The 24th. is upon those words of the Mother of Zebedee's Children, Grant that these my two Sons may fit, the one on thy Right Hand, and the other on thy Left in thy Kingdom.  
The 25th. is upon these words of Jesus Christ to the Apostles, Whom do Men say that I am.  
The 26th. is upon these other words of our Saviour, I am the Goodshepherd.  
The 27th. is against the Festival, and shows of the Olympic Games.  
The 28th. is upon these words of Jesus Christ, Except ye be Converted, and become as little Children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Wherein he treats of Humility.  
The 29th. is upon these other words, Come unto me all ye that labour, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  
The 30th. is upon these, Fellow me, and I will make you Fishers of Men.  
The 31st. is upon what Jesus Christ says, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be betrayed into the hands of Sinners, etc.  
The 32d. is upon that Prayer of Jesus Christ to his Father, Father, if it be possible, let this Cup pass from me.  
The 33d. is upon the Miracle of the 5000 Men Fed with the Five Loaves, related in S. Matth. 14.  
The 34th. is upon the Question which John's Disciples put to Jesus Christ, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?  
The 35th. is upon the Parable of the Pharisee and Publican.  
The 36th. is upon the Two Blind Men cured by Jesus Christ.  
The 37th. is upon the Bloody Murder of the Infants, which he describes in a very Elegant and Passionate manner.  
In the 38th. he proves by the Prophecies, and particularly by Daniel's, that the Messiah is come, and that it is Jesus Christ. He fixes the beginning of the 70 Weeks at the rebuilding of Jerusalem by Cyrus, the Birth of Jesus Christ in the 29th. Year of the Reign of Augustus, his Death in the 19th. Year of Tiberius, and so counts 483 Years from the first Year of Cyrus to the Ascension of Christ into Heaven, which make 69 Weeks of Years. The 70th, ends the Ninth Year of the Emperor Caius, under whom the War began. This Writing is rather a Treatise than an Homily.  
The 39th. is upon the Annunciation of the Virgin. In it he Extols the Dignity of the Mother of God, and stirs up our Admiration of the Mystery of the Incarnation.  
The Last is upon the Transfiguration of our Lord. F. Combefis hath [Printed at Paris in 1656, Octavo] Published an Homily upon S. Stephen, which bears the Name of this Author.  
As to the Style, and manner of Writing, which this Author uses, Photius gives this Judgement of them. His Discourse, saith he, is figurative, and lofty. He observes, as much as any Man whatsoever, an even Cadence. He hath joined Clearness and Pleasure together, but his Tropes and Figures are very troublesome. By these he wearies his Hearer always, and creates in him a bad Opinion of himself, as a Person Ignorant, how to make Art and Nature accord, and keep just measures to cut off Superfluities. Nevertheless we must own, That altho' he hath a great Number of Figures, yet he keeps up his Style very well, and his Discourse very rarely dwindles into flat Allusions. Nor doth it render him obscure, because he illustrates his Discourse by the distinction of the Parts, and Periods, and by the Elegancy of his Expressions, clears up the difficulties in the Figures. But the great number of his Figures takes away the grace of it, and so much the more, because they are used too roughly, and the Artifice of them is not sufficiently concealed.  
Photius adds, That it was that Basil who was the Friend of S. Chrysostom, rather than Basil the Great, but he is mistaken in this. (It is perhaps neither of them, as we have observed elsewhere). But he is not deceived in what he says further, That in his Sermons he follows the footsteps of S. Chrysostom, and that he hath taken his sense from his Discourses, especially as to what relates to the Explication of Scripture. Photius hath well done to make this restriction, for 'tis in that particular only that he imitates S. Chrysostom. The Homilies of this Patriarch of Constantinople have Two Parts, as we have already Noted. In the first he Explains the Scripture according to the Letter, and joins to it some Moral Reflections. In the Second he takes in hand some Moral Doctrine, which he handles very largely. Basil of Seleucia meddles not with the last part, but contents himself to imitate the first, but has not performed it so naturally as S. Chrysostom. Photius also tells us, That Basil of Seleucia had written the Life of the Eminent Martyr S. Thecla in Verse. We have at this Day one in Prose, which is attributed to Basil of Seleucia. But there is no Proof that it is his; it doth not resemble his Style, and it seems to have been compiled by some more Modern Greek. [Pantinus Published it in Greek and Latin, at Antwerp, 1608.]  
The Homilies of Basil of Seleucia were Printed in Greek at Heydelberg in the Year 1596. In Greek and Latin with Dausquius' Version and Notes at the same place, 1604. This Edition, with the Life of S. Thecla, in Greek and Latin, Translated by Pantinus, is put into the Collection of Greek Fathers made at Paris in 
* [cave. 1622.]  1621., which contains the Works of S. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Macarius, and Basil of Seleucia, with a small Commentary upon the Canonical Epistles attributed to Zonaras. F. Combefis hath Printed a Translation of these Homilies in his Latin Ecclesiastes of Greek Authors Printed in 1674. He pretends to have Corrected many faults of the Translator, but if he hath rendered some places more agreeably to the Greek Text, he hath Translated others more Barbarously, and made them harder to be understood. He hath also Published the Sermon upon S. Stephen. These Works also are to be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum.  
[Dr. Cave mentions a Treatise of this Authors, Entitled; A Demonstration of the coming of Christ against the Jews, Published by Turrian at Ingolstadt, 1616, Octavo, and in Greek in Dausquius's-Edition, which this Author hath omitted.]   

TIMOTHEUS AELURUS.  
PROTERIUS Bishop of Alexandria being slain in 457, 
* [By Timotheus and his Accomplices.]  by the People of Alexandria, Timotheus Aelurus 
† [Caused, himself to be Ordained.]  was seized on by the People, and Ordained in his Place by 
* [Two Bishops, but deposed. As. Eva.]  
Timotheus Aelurus.  One Bishop only: And since he could not maintain his Ordination, but by siding with the People, he condemned all those who had communicated with Proterius, as Nestorians. Some Time after, that he might justify himself to the Emperor Leo, he sent an Apology to him, in which he endeavours to confirm his Heresy, by the Quotations of the Holy Fathers, understood in a wrong Sense, making the Bishop of Rome, the Bishops that were present at the Council of Chalcedon, and all the Western Bishops to pass for Nestorians: But missing of his Design, which he had to deceive the Emperor, he was banished to Gangra. Gennadius says, That he translated the Book of this Arch-Heretick into Latin, who was alive when he wrote his Book of Ecclesiastical Authors; but we have neither the Original nor Translation.   

CHRYSIPPUS.  
THE Time when CHRYSIPPUS, a Priest of Jerusalem lived, is not certainly known, yet it is most probable that he flourished in the Fifth Age. We find in the 
Chrysippus.  Bibliotheca Patrum a 
* [It is extant in Ducaeus' Auctuarium, Tom. 2. p. 424, in Gr. and Latin.  Sermon in Commendation of the Virgin, under his Name, which contains many extraordinary Praises of her, like to those used in the Litanies. Photius tells us in the 171st. Volume of his Bibliotheca, That he had found in a Book, where was a Treatise of 
† Eustratius. Cave.  Eustathius, a Priest of Constantinople, concerning the estate of Souls after Death; a Piece, where it was related, That Gamaliel, and Nicodemus, who was his Father-in-Law (as it is there said) were baptised by S. John, and did suffer Martyrdom. He adds, That this History was attributed to Chrysippus, a Priest of Jerusalem, who in his 
* Some Fragments of it are found in Eustratius' Treatise above cited.]  Panegyric of Theodorus Martyr, makes mention of Lucian a Priest of the same Church, and that this last lived in the Time that John was Bishop of Jerusalem, to whom Gamaliel had related this Story, and shown him the Place where the Relics of S. Stephen and Nicodemus were, which, being found, had done many Miracles.   

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

FASTIDIUS PRISCUS.  
FASTIDIUS PRISCUS, an English Author, hath written to a certain Woman Named Fatalis, one Treatise concerning the Christian Life, and another 
* [De viduitate colend.]  of Widowhood. 
Fastidius Priscus.  His Doctrine is sound, and worthy of Esteem. This is what Gennadius informs us of this Author. Some have made him Bishop of London, but do not prove it. He lived in the Fifth Age under Theodosius and Honorius. We have his Book of the Christian Life among the Works of S. Austin [Tom. IX. P. 888]. It hath been restored to him through the Credit of an Ancient Manuscript Printed by itself by Holstenius in 1663., [at Rome.] 
* [Dr. Cave thinks they are but one Treatise, and that Gennadius hath distinguished them falsely.]  The other Treatise is lost.  
The Book of the Christian Life is directed to a Widow. He first of all derives the Name of Christian from the Unction of the Holy Spirit. He tells us, That all that bear that Name ought to imitate Jesus Christ. He than gives us a Reason, why God bears with Sinners, and afflicts the Good. He Explains the Principal Duties of a Christian, Love of God, Love of our Neighbour, and Goodworks, without which he shows, that none can be saved. He at last describes the Virtues of a true Christian, and Exhorts the Widow to whom he writes to lead a Life conformable to that which he had drawn up. This Treatise is written in a very mean Style. It hath more Piety and Plainness, than Eloquence and Loftiness. In some places he seems to favour the Opinions of Pelagius.   

DRACONTIUS.  
DRACONTIUS, a Spanish Priest, who lived in the time of Theodosius the Younger, hath composed an Heroic Poem upon the Six Days of the Creation, and an Elegy to 
Dracontius.  the Emperor. There is nothing remarkable in that Work. It is written in a very Barbarous Style. S. Isidore and S. Ildefonsus of Toledo speak of this Author. The Poem is extant in the Biblioth. Patrum [Tom. 9 P. 724], and F. Sirmondus hath Printed it with the Elegy [at Paris] in 1619, Octacto 
* [It is also in Fabritius' collection of Poets, and in Appendic●●●●nean●, p. 83●.]  at the end of Eugenius of Toledo, who reviewed this Work, and put it in the condition that now it is.   

EUDOCIA the Empress, and PROBA FALCONIA.  
WHO would expect to see the Names of Women among the Number of Ecclesiastical Authors? In all times indeed there have been Learned Women, but yet very few 
Eudocia, & Proba Falconia.  durst meddle with Divinity. It is more strange to see an Empress so employed, and nothing is more wonderful, (as the Learned Photius observes upon this occasion) than to see a Princess, amidst the soft and charming delights of a Court, to compose Books. This Woman of whom we are now speaking, was the Daughter of Leontius an Athenian Philosopher, and Wife of Theodosius the Younger. She composed a Paraphrase upon the Eight first Books of the Bible in Greek Heroics. Photius assures us in the 183 Codex of his Bibliotheca, that it was an Excellent Work, and not inferior to any other of that Nature in the Elegancy of the Verse. But by confining herself too strictly to the Rules of Translation, she hath transgressed the Rules of Art. Nevertheless many approve of it, and affirm, that Translation ought to be so managed. She is not studious to please the Ears of the Younger sort, as Poets usually do, by allowing themselves the Liberty of changing Truths into Fables. She doth not divert her Readers by tedious digressions from the subject treated on▪ but follows her Text with so much Exactness and Fidelity, that they that read her Work, will be well satisfied with it. She preserves the same sense entirely in the same manner as it is written, without adding to it, or taking from it, and uses as much as possible such words as come nearest the Original. At the end of every Book she shows in Two Verses, that she was the Author of it.  
The same Photius adds in the following Volume, That she had composed in the same Style a Paraphrase upon the Prophecies of Daniel and Zachary, and Three Books in commendation of 
* [Not S. Cyprian of Carthage, but another C●prian, a Roman.]  S. Cyprian the Martyr. The First contains the Life of S. Justina, the Artifices which Cyprian made use of to defile her, his Conversion and Ordination. The Life of Cyprian is related in the Second; and in the Third, the Martyrdom of S. Cyprian, which happened under Dioclesian. There are many things in this History which seem not to be certain. It supposes that Cyprian was Bishop of Antioch, whereas there was none of that Name there in the time of Dioclesian. I pass over many other things in silence, that are related by Photius, but are very improbable, and unlikely to be true.  
We have none of these Works of Eudocia, but there is Printed under her Name, An History of the Life of Jesus Christ, written in Heroic Verses taken out of Homer, that is to say, there is not one Verse, which is not a piece of Homer's Poems. Upon which account it is, that they are called Centones Homerici, Verses made up of Fragments of Homer.  
Zonara's, and Cedrenus say, That Pelagius Patricius, whom the Emperor Zeno put to Death, had composed a Work which bore the same Title, and indeed in the Catalogue of the Library of Heidelberg, this Book is attributed to one Patricius, who is there through mistake called a Priest. There is also in the same place an Epigram of Eudocia's upon the same Poem. The first Greek Editions of Aldus and Stephanus in the Year 1554, and 1578, have no Author's Name. Photius, who speaks of Eudocia's other works, makes no mention of this. All which would make me believe, that 'tis not hers, but Pelagius', and that 'tis imputed to her for no other Reason, but because she had commended it in an Epigram, which was in the beginning of it.  
There is a Latin Work of the same Nature, attributed to Proba Falconia, the Wife of Anicius Probus, who also hath made an History of the Life of Jesus Christ, framed out of pieces of Virgil's Poems. It was Printed at Collen in 1601, at Lions in 1516, at Franckfort in 1541, and at Paris in 1578. These Two Works are also put in the Bibliath. Patr. [Tom. V.] S. Jer●m in his Letter to Paulinus says, that he had seen these Poems made up of 
* [Centone Homerici 〈◊〉 Virgiliani.]  pieces of Homer, and Virgil, but he shows no great liking to them, and indeed, these sort of Works cannot be very excellent, but are rather an Indication of the Author's Memory and Labour, than the fineness of their Wit, or the strength of their Fancy.  
Proba Falconia flourished about the Year 
* [371. Dr▪ Cave.]  430. Eudocia was Married to the Emperor about the Year 421, and Died in 460, Zonaras tells us, That she fell into disgrace about a ●●vial matter. The Emperor having sent her an Apple of an extraordinary bigness, she gave it to Paulinus, who was highly in favour with her upon the account of his Learning; he not knowing where she had it, presented it to the Emperor, who seeing the Empress a little while after, asked her, What she had done with the Apple? She fearing, lest her Husband should grow suspicious of her, if she should say she had given it Paulinus, affirmed, with an Oath, that she had Eaten it. This made the Emperor believe, that she had not an Innocent Familiarity with Paulinus, especially seeing her so much Abashed, when he shown it to her. Whereupon he forced her to departed from him. She went to Jerusalem, where she spent her time in Building of Churches, and did not return till after her Husband's Death. This is the History, or rather, the Fable reported by Zonaras.   


* Turcius, Dr. Cave.]  TYRSIUS RUFUS ASTERIUS.  
TYRSIUS RUFUS ASTERIUS, who was Consul in 449, reveiwed and published Sedulius' Poems. Some have thought him the Author also of a Book, called, A 
Tyrsius Rusus Afterius.  Comparison of the Old and New Testament, written also in Verse, but others attribute it to the same Sedulius. It is an Elegy, which contains in the First Verse of every Strophe some History of the Old Testament, and in the Second, an Application is made of it to some part of the New. It is written in a very clear and smooth Style.   

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

CONSTANTINUS, or CONSTANTIUS.  
THIS Author was a Priest of Lions, who wrote the Life of S. German Bishop of Antisiod●rum, recited by Surius on July the 31st. 
Constantinus, or Constantius.    

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

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

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

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

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

ASCLEPIUS, PETER, and PAUL.  
WE have nothing concerning these Three Authors, but what Gennadius relates in Ch. 73, 74, and 75, of his Book of the Ecclesiastical Writers of his time, viz. 
Asclepius, Peter and Paul.   
Asclepius the African, a Bishop of a small Town in the Territory of Baya, wrote against the Arians. He is also at this Day said to write against the Donatists. He is reputed to have taught excellently well Extempore.  
Peter, a Priest of the Church of Edessa, an Eminent Orator, hath written Treatises upon several Subjects, and made Psalms in Verse, in imitation of S. Ephrem the Deacon.  
Paul, a Priest born in Pannonia, so far as I can guests by his Writings, hath written to a Noble Virgin, Named Constantia, Two Books Of the preservation of Virginity; and some Treatises Of the Contempt of the World, The way to lead a Christian Life, and amend our Manners. His Style is mean, but seasoned with Divine Elegancy. He makes mention of Jovinian the Heretic, the great Lover of Carnal Pleasures, whose Life was so devoid of Chastity, and Temperance, that he Died in the midst of a Sumptuous Banquet, or as others report, while he was writing of Love-Letters.   

SALVIAN.  
SALVIAN, a Priest of Marseille, very well skilled in Divine and Profane Sciences, Master of Bishops 
a Of Bishops.] Salonius and Veranus are ordinarily added, but there are several MSS, where they are not found. It is so read in Honorius Augustodunensis, but it is an evident Addition, for who sees not, that there is no sense in the Text of Gennadius, if it be read so. These are his words, Salvianus divina & humana literatura instructus, &, ut absque invidia loquar, Magister Episcoporum. This is good and complete sense. But what does he mean to say after this, Sanctorum Salonii & Verani? Was it a thing to be envied, to be Master of these Two Bishops? No surely, But it was to be Master of Bishops, and to make Sermons for them, as we learned by what follows, Homilias scripsit Episcopis multas, for so it ought to be read, and not Episcopus. , hath written several Works in a clear and elaborate 
b Elaborate.] Scholastico Sermone, is a Term which was used at that time to express a Polite and Elaborate Discourse.  Style. These Books 
Salvian.  I have read, saith Gennadius, Three Books Of the advantages of a Single Life, to Marcellus the Priest; Four Books Against Covetousness; Five Books Upon the Judgement; And another Book to Salonius 
c To Salonius.] It is in Gennadius, Pro eorum merito satisfactionis, which is very obscure. M. Baluzius reads it, Pro eorum praemio satisfaciendo, which is not much plainer. I believe it ought to be read, De praesenti judicio & de merito satisfactionis ad Salonium Libros VIII. ; A Book to Claudian, containing, An Explication of the latter part of Ecclesiastes 
d Ecclesiastes.] It is Ecclesiasticus in Gennadius, but it is a mistake. It ought to be read, Ecclesiastes, as Ado observes in his Chronicon. . A Book of Letters; And A Treatise, in Heroic Verse, upon the beginning of Genesis, in imitation of the Greeks. He hath also composed several Homilies for the use of some Bishops, and so many Discourses upon the Sacrament, that I cannot remember them all. He was yet living, and enjoyed an happy Old Age, when Gennadius wrote this of him about the Year 495. It is commonly believed, That we have none of Salvian's Works, of which Gennadius speaks, but it is very probable, that the Eight Books Of the Government of God, and of his Judgements, are the Five Books to Salonius; And the Four Books Of Covetousness, are the Four Books to the Catholic Church. As for the rest, they are not extant.  
In the First he undertakes to settle the belief of God's Providence, and to prove that it is every where present, Governing, and Judging all. This he shows in the Two first Books by Reason, Example, and Authority. After he hath laid this firm Foundation, upon which he builds his whole Edifice of Providence, he propounds this great Question: How it comes to pass, if this be true, that the Barbarians, and Heathens, are more happy than Christians, and that among Christians the Good are more Unfortunate very often than Sinners? In the first place he cuts the Knot, by saying, That he might Answer, That he is Ignorant of the reason, and that it belongs not to him to unfold the hidden Counsels of God, nor give a reason of his unsearchable Judgements; that it is sufficient for Christians, that the Holy Scripture hath clearly taught this point, insomuch, that they cannot doubt of it; That they ought to content themselves with what the Apostle says, That in this World we must suffer Persecutions. But because many believe, that worldly good things are due to them, as a reward of their Faith, he saith first of all, That there are very few Men that can truly pretend, that they have Faith, and are through-Christians. We are made Christians, saith he, by the Law, by the Prophets, by the Gospel, by Baptism, and by Chrism. Now what Man is there that lives conformably to this Calling? Who is there that observes the Commands of Christ in the literal sense? Who loves his Enemies hearty? Who utterly forsakes all? Who bears Injuries patiently? etc. False Oaths, Murders, Lusts, and many other Sins reign in the World.  
His way of handling this subject convinceth us, that his main end was to declaim against the Manners of his Age, which he doth in all the rest of this Work. He therein describes with all the Strength and Elegancy possible, the most common Irregularities. He inveighs particularly against the Uncleanness of the Theatres, and Profane Sights. He gives a terrible description of the Corrupt Manners of the People, and especially the Africans; and ●e affirms, That as great as the Calamities of afric, and other parts of the Empire of Rome, were, in being made a Prey to the Barbarians, they were nothing like to those Punishments and Chastisements which the Crimes of Men deserved. In this Work he speaks of the taking of Carthage by Gensericus, which happened in 439, and of the War of Lotharius against the Visigoths in the same Year, as of things newly done, which helps us to fix the time when these Books were written.  
The Four Books of Salvian, Dedicated to the Catholic Church under the Name of Timothy, contain a satire against Rich, and Covetous Men, and some important Precepts about the Obligation of giving Alms. He bewails in the beginning, the general Corruption of Christians. That blessed time of the Primitive Church is gone and passed, saith he, That time wherein all that believed in Jesus Christ did freely offer the Corruptible Goods of this Life to obtain Eternal Riches in Heaven, changing the possession of the things of this Life for the hopes of the good things of another, and purchasing immortal Riches with present Poverty. But now Covetousness, Lust; Theft, and other Vices which accompany them, such as Envyings, Hatred, Enmities, Roughness, Lasciviousness, Drunkenness, have come in their place, the Vices of the Church are increased as much as the Members. The Number of Christians is greater, but their Faith is less, for where is now the singular Beauty of all her Members? Where is the time wherein every one minded not his own things. Further, Having described the eager desires which the Christians of his time had to gather great Riches, he confutes the plausible Reasons, and ordinary Pretences, which the Rich Men made use of to excuse their desires of Wealth. The first, says he, are those that say, That the Love which they bear to their Children obliges them to gather Wealth, and get Riches, as if it were impossible to love their Children without being Rich. Must Avarice be the Bond and Knot of Kindness? If this be so, I must not condemn Covetousness, but that Love which inclines you to it. How so, Do you condemn the Affection which Fathers have for their Children? I am so far from that, that I say, That we must Love them above all things, but we must Love them as God commands us, by giving them a good Christian Education, and making them Rich in Virtue and Piety. Salvian after he hath rejected this foolish pretence, by which Rich Men attempt to cover their desire, proves, That it is not allowed to Men to make such use of their Riches as they please; That they are but Stewards of what God hath given them, and he will require an account of the Management, and use they have made of it, and condemn them to Eternal Flames for the misuse; That it is dangerous to put off our Conversion, or Alms to the Poor, till we come to Die, because there is a great likelihood, that we do not abstain from Sin out of choice, but because we cannot do otherwise; That Alms-deeds are of no use to them who live ill, and hope to buy off their Sins by the Legacies which they give at their last Gasp, but may be very helpful to those, who, having fallen through frailty or ignorance, are really touched with a sincere Repentance, when they know their fault; That he can say nothing of those who continue in their Vices to the last Moment; That he can promise them nothing; That it were Cruelty indeed to forsake them altogether, and hinder them from applying the last Remedies, but it would be also rash to promise any thing, seeing they offer themselves so late to be cured; That all the Remedies that can be used to cure their Sins, is nothing but almsgiving, which must then be applied to them; That they ought to be advised to offer their Wealth for the deliverance of their Soul, but to do it with Tears, Grief, and Sorrow, because God doth not regard the Offering so much, as the disposition of the Heart of him that Offereth; That also when they Offer their substance to God, they must do it not with the Confidence of a Person that brings a Present, but with the Humility of a Debtor who would pay what he owes.  
Salvian having thus shown in the first Book, That Sinners are obliged to give Alms, he demonstrates in the Second, That this Obligation reaches to the Righteous also. 1. Because there is none of all those many Benefits of Nature, or Grace, which we are not beholding to God for, and more especially, for the Death of Jesus Christ. But are then the Widow, Virgin Consecrated to God, the Monk, and Clergyman, obliged to give all their Goods to the Poor? Did not the Law permit the Holy Men to preserve their Estates? The Law, saith Salvian, was perfected by the Gospel, all that was allowed then is not so now. Under the Law there was more liberty, Eating of Flesh was then commended to us, but now Abstinence is wholly Preached up; there were few Fasting-Days, now all our Life is a continued Fast. Revenge was then lawful, but now we must suffer, etc. Let any Man read the Precepts of the Gospel. The Apostle will not have a Widow to live in Pleasures and Delights, how can it then be permitted her to be Rich? Such Virgins as give but a part of their Goods are Fools, for the Lamp goes out because there is not Oil enough. It is needless to demonstrate, that Clergymen, and Bishops, are obliged to reserve nothing of their Goods to themselves, since it is their part to give an Example to the Ignorant Christians, whom they ought as much to surpass in Devotion, as they do in Degree and Dignity. For the highest place in the Priestly Office, without great worth, is nothing else but a Title given to an Office, Dignity to an unworthy Person, and as a Precious Stone in the Dirt. The Levites of the Old Law had nothing of their own; with how much greater reason is it forbidden to the Ministers of the New Law to possess Riches, and leave them to their Heirs. Jesus Christ doth not advise 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 doth others, 〈…〉 Gold, or Silver. The 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 obliged 〈◊〉 others to 〈◊〉 them 〈◊〉, because 'tis their State and 〈…〉 Sins, we must give them to 〈…〉 of Life▪ I grant we may, says 〈…〉, and cut off all Super●… We 〈…〉 getting Riches, or increasing them, or be troubled in keeping them. Lastly, Some Goods, which we have in this Life, must be distributed 〈…〉 not 〈◊〉 run to the last 〈…〉 I have children may some say, (here gins Word●'s Third 〈…〉 for their Salvation. But if 〈◊〉 the Affection of Parents, who leave their Children something to live on, be 〈…〉 their collateral Heirs, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Rich Men? Oh unhappy Men, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you are full of Carking 〈…〉 when you are Dead, and do not think upon 〈…〉, before God's 〈◊〉, the Devils attend you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you Eternally, and you are thinking on the Pleasures which your Heirs will have in enjoying the 〈◊〉 which you have gotten. I do not speak this to 〈◊〉 Christians altogether from leaving any thing on their lawful Heirs, Heirs, but to Teach them above all things to take care of 〈◊〉 Salvation. There are some cases in which it is not only justly allowable to leave in their Heirs, 〈◊〉 it were the greatest Injustice not to do it. As for Example, If a Man leaves his Father, or Mother, 〈◊〉, or Wife, 〈◊〉 Necessity, if he hath Poor Friends, he is obliged to leave them something, and so much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if they are Dedicated to God, although we now do just the contrary, and Fathers leave none of their Children less than those they have offered to God. But why is it necessary to give to the Religious, 〈◊〉 say▪ How, Must they be forced to beg their Bread, because they are Religious? It true, That That they need not the things of this World, but no thanks to their Parents, that they are not in ●ant. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Hardness would reduce them to it, if they had not other helps. You will demand What g●●d would it do them to have an equal share of their Father's Estate with their 〈◊〉? I Answer, That it would be useful to maintain the others Religious, to impart to those that have nothing; that their Charity may make them not to have it soon, but may be more happy in having had it. Why do you reduce them to Poverty against their w●●●s 〈◊〉 Suffer them to embrace Poverty voluntarily, to choose it out of Devotion, without obliging them to endure it through Necessity. There are some that think it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leave the Pro●… to their Religious Children: This is a kind of Impiety, and Infidelity, says 〈◊〉, For besides that the propriety of their Goods belongs to their Children, this is a way found out to provide for their Children without giving any thing to God. They would have the Holy Monks Live in Riches, but Die in Poverty. In fine, 〈…〉 much against that Abuse, which is become a kind of Law among us. To leave nothing to the Religious, or only an Allowance for Life; he spends the rest of this Book, and all the Fourth in proving, That Men are obliged at their Death to leave a part of their Estate to be employed in ●ions Uses. Salvian citys one place of these Books in his Fourth Book Of the Government of God, which shows, that they were written before the Year 440. He also gives the reason of the Title of these Books in his Letter written to Sal●…, where he says, 1. That he Dedicated them to the whole Church, because the disorders were general. 〈◊〉 That he concealed his own Name for Two Reasons, for fear it should be 〈◊〉 occasion of Pride, and upon the account of that small Authority, and Esteem he had, lest they should hurt the important Truths contained in his Work. 3. That he chose the Name of Ti●…, according to S. Luke's Example, who ●ook Theophilus', because that Name may agree to all Men that Honour God, and that being fearful of telling a Lie, he assumed a Name which agreed to the design of the Work composed for the Honour of God. But that it was needless curiosity to search after the Author, because he was not willing to be known. There are besides these Eight Letters of Salvian's, which are all written with a great deal of Elegancy. The best of them is that which is written to his Wife's 
a Hypatius.  Father and 
b Palladia  Mother, in his own, their 
c Quieta.  Daughter's, and their 
d Auspicio●a.  little Daughter's Name, to appease the Anger in which their Mother and Father were, because they were retreated, and had Consecrated themselves to God.  
It is not necessary to commend the Beauty and Elegancy of Salvian's Style; it is sufficiently known to all that have but a little smattering of Learning. It would be hard to find a more near, beautiful, smooth, and pleasant Discourse. He is not so diffusive, but he is more diverting, and full of Instructions, than Lactantius; and he proves what he asserts by Texts of Scripture, which he alleges much to his purpose, and which come up very well to the Subject in hand. He makes very Natural Descriptions of Vices to create Hatred of them, he produces very plausible Reasons to induce Men to forsake them, and he confutes solidly and ingeniously the idle pre●…es which they made use of to defend their pursuit of the World. His Morals are strict without being unreasonable, but he lays down some Principles a little too largely, and which he cannot maintain in their strict sense, but it is the common fault of 〈◊〉 that are too rigid Censors of Manners, and it is hard to inveigh strongly against a Vice, a●d not fall into the contrary Extreme.  
There are Three Books of Questions, [Printed with Salvian at Basil, and elsewhere,] to reconcile some places of the Old and New Testament together. Some attribute them to Salvian, but 'tis certain they are not his. [They are commonly imputed to Julian Bishop of Toledo].  
The Works of Salvian have been Printed in the former Age in several places, as at Basil in 1530, [with the Notes of Alexander Brassicanus in Folio] at Paris in 1570, and in 1575., at Rome by Manutius in 1564. M. Pitthaeus reviewed them by several Manuscripts, and put out a new Edition at Paris in 1580. After him Ritterhusius caused them to be reprinted in 1611, [at Altorf in 2 Vol. Octavo] to which he added long Comments. Pitthaeus' Edition was again Printed in 1645, [and in 1640 at Paris]. Lastly, M. Baluzius having reviewed them by Four Manuscripts, published them with short Notes. This Edition which is the last, and the best, was Printed for Muguet in 1663., [at Paris, where it was reprinted again in 1669, Octavo. Besides these Editions they were Printed at Norimberg in 1623., at Rovan in 1627., Twelve, with Brassicanus his Notes. At Oxford in 1633, with the aforesaid Notes].   

ARNOBIUS, junior.  
THE Author of the Commentary upon the Psalms Dedicated to Laurentius, or rather Leontius, and Rusticus, commonly bears the Name of Arnobius. It is hard to say, Whether 
Arnobius, junior.  it be the true Name of this Author, or some feigned Name; but however that be, we must not confound him with Arnobins' the Apologist for Religion, this last having lived after the Heresy of Pelagius, in the time when there were such hot Disputes about Predestination. He took part, and ranked himself on the side of the Priests of Marseille, against the Scholars of S. Austin, which makes me think he was a French Man brought up in the Monastery of Lerins. The Bishops to whom he writes are without doubt Leontius of Arles, and Rusticus Bishop of Forum-Julii. It appears by what he says upon the 105th Psalm, that he was in the Priesthood.  
His Commentary is extremely short. He applieth himself to the Allegorical Sense, and refers all the Text of the Psalms to Jesus Christ, and his Church. He doth it with a great deal of Wit and Elegancy, and mixes now and then some Moral Observations, but his chief design is to find in the Psalms the whole Oeconomy of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and particularly the benefits of the Redemption. He seems to favour the Error of Pelagius in his Commentary upon the 50th Psalm, where he says, That Man is born Subject to the Sentence passed upon Adam, without partaking in his Sin. Qui nascitur, sententiam Adae habet, peccatum vero non habet. Nevertheless he acknowledges, That the Nature of Man is decayed through the Sin of the First-Man. He owns the effects of Original-Sin, and the Necessity of Redemption; and he observes all along, that we can do nothing without the Divine help; That it is he that delivers us from our Irregular Motions, who instills into us the knowledge of Good, who makes us love it and practise it. He goes yet further, and will not have Man attribute any Goodwork to himself, nor presume upon the strength of his freewill, because the Will, says he, upon Psalm 117, may be overpowered, but God cannot. The Freedom of Man cannot say, I have Conquered my Enemies, for no Man ever overcame either his visible, or invisible Enemies, without the help of God. To God than we own our Victory, his Almighty Arm works that little Goodness that we have in us, he hath the power of Life and Death, he makes us sing his Divine Praises. But altho' he extols the strength of Grace so much, yet he opposes those that Teach Predestination, or as he says on Psalm 109, those that have Predestined some to Good, and others to Evil, and deny freewill. He maintains, That Grace doth not expel Freedom, but that we may request, pray, knock at the Gate for it, and God will not deny his Grace to those Persons who do so. That there is an Universal preventing Grace, which Jesus Christ hath diffused upon all Men, which goes before all their desires, and by the help of which they have recourse to God for his Special Graces. That their Freedom is not utterly destroyed, but yet they must impute all the Good they do to God. God commands nothing impossible. Men never are guilty of Sin, but when they have no Will to do that thing which they are able to do. God never rejects them who have recourse to him. Read the Commentaries upon Psalm 37, 77, 91, 109, 117, 118, and 146. In his Commentary upon the 138th Psalm he opposes the Novatian Heresy. In the 139th Psalm he notes, That Excommunication is to terrify, not destroy, because it excludes from Eternal Life. He adds, That Heretics can have no place in the Kingdom of Heaven. because they corrupt the Word of God; and he says further, That Bishops who have no care to feed their Flock with this Divine Word, shall be punished in the same manner. He speaks of Guardian-Angels in his Commentary upon the 37th Psalm, and asserts. That they withdraw themselves from Men, when they run into Sin.  
This Commentary is not the Style of the Ancient Arnobius, nor written with so much clearness as it might, but yet the Style is not bad. [It hath been Printed alone at Basil in 1522, and by Erasmus at Cologne in 1532, Octavo, and more correct at Paris in 1639. 'Tis extant also in Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 8.]  
We have also under the Name of Arnobius a Dialogue about the Trinity and Incarnation, [first Printed by Fevardentius, at the end of his Edition of S. Irenaeus, at Cologne in 1596, and since with all Irenaeus' Works. 'Tis also in Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 8.] and some Notes upon the Gospel; [Printed at Basil in 1543, Octavo, and reviewed and amended by Schottus, at Paris in 1639.]   

HONORATUS, Bishop of Marseille.  
GENNADIUS says, That this Bishop was Eloquent, and that he had an excellent faculty of making Sermons Extempore, for being filled with the Fear of God, and well skilled in Ecclesiastical Matters, as soon as he opened his Mouth Divine Instructions flowed 
Honoratus of Marseille.  from it, as from a Magazine. He composed several Homilies, in which he set himself especially to Explain the Mysteries of Religion, and Confute the Heretics. The People and Clergy came in throngs to hear him, and the other Bishops desired him often to come and Preach in their Churches. Pope Gelasius acknowledges under his Hand, That he was sound in the Faith, and shows the great Esteem he had for him in a Letter. He composed the Lives of the Saints for the Edification of the Faithful, and chief insists upon the Life of S. Hilary, to whom he was obliged for his Education. He often joined devoutly with his People in the Litanies, to implore the Mercy of God. This is what Gennadius, or some other Author of the same time, says, in Commendation of Honoratus. I say, Gennadius, or some other Author, because this Clause is not to be found in some Manuscripts of Gennadius' Treatise of Ecclesiastical Authors, and it seems not to be his Style. But however that be, it is not to be doubted, but that it was written by some Author of that time.  
We have the Life of S. Hilary Bishop of Arles, but it is questionable, whether it be Honoratus', because in the Manuscript of the Church of Arles, where it is found, 'tis attributed to Reverentius, Hilary's Successor. There never was a Bishop of Arles of that Name, but perhaps the Name of Ravennius who was immediate Successor to Hilary, was intended. Now it is evident, that this Life cannot be his, since the Author says, that Ravennius was sent to Rome by S. Hilary, and that afterward he was his Successor. It is certain, that it was written by one of S. Hilary's Scholars, and why should it not be Honoratus, since it is manifest he wrote one, and this is very worthy of him? It is excellently well written, and full of very useful Maxims. There is nothing in it Mean, or Childish, and the Marks of Truth and Sincerity are visible quite through it, it gives us a full Idea of S. Hilary's Person, and lays before us a Platform of a Life becoming a Bishop. The Author proves what he says by the Testimonies of those who had seen and written to S. Hilary. He recites their very words, as also S. Hilary's. Lastly, It may be said, That it must needs be he that wrote the Lives of the Saints. I say no more here, because I have made an Extract of it, when I spoke of Hilary Bishop of Arles. [It is Extant in Surius on May the 5th.]   

SALONIUS and VERANUS.  
SALONIUS and VERANUS, the Sons of S. Eucherius, were brought up in the Monastery of Lerins, under the Government of Honoratus, and Hilary, and instructed afterward 
Salonius & Veranus.  by Vincentius, and Salvian. They were Bishops in France, but it is not well known of what City 
a It is not well known, etc.] There is no doubt but that they were Bishops, Salvian says, That after they had been his Scholars they became Masters of the Church. Gennadius also says, That they were Bishops, and the Letter written to S. Leo, as well as the Answer of Pope Hilarius are Authentic Testimonies of their Dignity, but none of the Ancients have taken notice of what City they were Bishops. Sidonius Apollinaris in Letter 15. Lib. 7. directed to Salonius, tells us, That they Inhabited a Country near Vienna, which makes some think, that Salonius was Bishop of Vienna, but he was not then Bishop when Sidonius wrote that Letter to him. Ado, who hath made a Catalogue of the Bishops of Vienna, doth not put Salonius among them. Others have believed Salonius and Veranus Bishops of Lions successively, after their Father S. Eucherius. This Opinion is grounded upon the Catalogues of the Bishops of Lions, which are manifestly faulty, for after Eucherius, his Sons Salonius and Veranus are placed, and after them Desiderius who was Bishop of Vienna, and not of Lions. Besides, Salonius subscribed the Council of Orange in 441, as a Bishop, where S. Eucherius was present. Wherefore he was Bishop of some other City in his Father's life-time. The 4th Letter of Pope Hilary informs us, That Veranus had written in favour of Ingenuus Archbishop of Ambrun, in the Province of the Sea- Alps, and that he was in Commission for the affairs that concerned the Bishoprics of that Province, which gives reason to conjecture that he was a Bishop of that Province. This agrees also with an Ancient MS. of the Monastery of Lerins, where Veranus, who is entitled Bishop of Vincium, is reckoned among the Saints of that Monastery. This is the Judgement of Baralis in his Chronology of Lerins, where he attributes the same Bishopric to Veranus. It is probable, that Salonius was Bishop of the same Province, as well as Ceretius, since they have all three written to S. Leo together, and they seem to have done it distinctly from the other French Bishops, for fear only lest they should prejudice the Rights of their Metropolitan, and their Province, by joining with other Bishops, who would have them depend on them. It is likewise very probable, that Salonius was Bishop of Geneva, and 'tis of him that it is observed in Usuardus' Martyrology, on Septemb. the 28th. Civitate Januis Sancti Salonii Episcopi & Confessoris; And in other Martyrologies, Geneva Civitate depositio Sancti Salonii. This Name hath been altered in Bede's Martyrology, and hath been made Solomon. Of Salonius is made Salomus, as we find in some Manuscripts, and Salomus hath been changed into Solomon, as it is in the Roman Martyrology. Genua, or Januis, is taken for Gennes, and that is Geneva. In the Subscriptions of the Council of Lions, held in 570, under King Guntheram, we find Episcopus Ecclesiae Genevensis. If that Subscription be true, there must have been Two Bishops of Geneva of the same Name. There was also at that time another Salonius Bishop of Ambrun famous for his Crimes. , but it is very probable, that they were Bishops in the Province of the Alps, bordering upon the Mediterranean Sea, of which Ambrun was the Metropolis. They wrote with Ceretius a Letter to S. Leo, to thank him for sending them a Copy of his Letter written to Flavian. Their Letter is found among S. Leo's Letters. Veranus wrote also to this Pope in defence of the Rights of Ingenuus Archbishop of 
* Ebredunum.  Ambrun, and received an Answer from Hilary, S. Leo's Successor. Salonius was present at the Council of Orange held in 441, and Veranus was Commissioned by Pope Hilary to put S. Leo's Orders in execution, touching the Uniting the Castle of Nyssa to the Church of Cemele. We have under the Name of Salonius an Explication of the Proverbs of Solomon in the form of a Dialogue between himself and his Brother Veranus, which clears by Question and Answer the Text of this Book of Solomon. He hath also a Mystical Exposition [of the Book of Ecclesiastes] composed in the same way. The Style of these Dialogues is plain, and neat, the greatest part of his Explications are inclining to Morality. [They are extant in Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 8.]   

PAULINUS PETROCORIUS.  
THERE are many Paulinus' in this Age, for besides the Bishop of Nola, and Paulinus Scholar of S. Ambrose, Bishop of Biterrae, who wrote a Letter, of which Idacius makes 
Paulinus Petrocorius  mention in his Chronicon upon the Year 420, there was also Paulinus Nephew of Ausonius, the Author of a Poem of Thanksgiving to Ausonius, and this Paulinus who hath made Six Books in Verse concerning the Life and Miracles of S. Martin. In the Manuscripts he is called Petricordius, i. e. of Perigueux (as it is now called). F. Sirmondus affirms, that it is Petrocorius, and that Petrocorium signifies Besancon, and so thinks that this Paulinus is that Rhetorician who dwelled in that City, of whom Sidonius Apollinaris speaks, L. 28. Ep. 11. But this Conjecture is not well supported. This Poem hath nothing Elegant nor Sublime in it, the Terms are Harsh and Barbarous, and the Verses are pitiful, and Story very troublesome. [It is Published by Juret at Paris in 1585., under the Name of Paulinus of Nola, and in the Biblioth. Patr. Printed at Paris. In his own Name it hath been Printed at Leipsick in 1686, Octavo, and Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 6.]   

MUSAEUS.  
MUSAEUS, or MUSSAEUS, a Priest of Marseille, was a Man mighty in the Holy Scriptures, who by continual Exercise had accustomed himself to find out unusual senses 
Musaeus.  of it, and make very pertinent Applications. His Style was very Polite. At the desire of Venerius Bishop of Milan, he selected out of Scripture [They are extant in Bern. Guido] proper Lessons for all the Festivals of the Year, with Responses and Psalms suitable to the time, and to the Lessons. The Necessity of this Work is generally acknowledged by all Readers, because when they make use of it, it prevents confusion and delay, and is of great use in instructing the People, and rendering the Solemnisation of the Feast more Venerable. He hath also composed and directed to Eustathius that Holy Man's Successor, a great and Elegant Treatise of the Sacraments, divided for conveniency sake into many parts, according to the different Offices, Times, Lessons, and Psalms, which are sung in the Church, but which all along inclines us to Pray to God, and thank him for his Benefits.  
This Work shows him to be a Man of great Sense, and very Polite Eloquence. 'Tis said also that he Preached some Homilies, [they are lost, Dr. Cave,] which are, as I understand, in some Pious Men's Hands, but I have never read them. He Died in the Reign of the Emperors Leo and Majorian, i. e. about the Year 460. This is what Gennadius tells us of this Author in Ch. 79. of his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers.   

VINCENTIUS.  
VINCENTIUS, a Priest of France, but distinct from Vincent the Monk of Lerins, was very well versed in Scripture, and had acquired an Ability of Reading and Writing in a 
Vincentius.  very Elegant Style. He hath written a Commentary upon the Psalms; I have heard him read to Cannatus something of this Work in the presence of that Servant of God, and he promised us, that if God gave him Strength and Health, he would do the like upon the whole Psalter. We have taken all this from Gennadius. He places this Author immediately after Musaeus.   

SYRUS.  
SYRUS, or Cyrus of Alexandria, a Physician by Profession. Of a Philosopher he became a Monk. He knew exactly how to Write well. He composed a Treatise against Nestorius, 
Syrus.  and confuted him with a great deal of Strength and Eloquence, but he was carried too far against him, and opposed him rather by Syllogisms, than by Testimonies of Scripture. He also declined to the Judgement of Timotheus, and thought himself not obliged to follow the Council of Chalcedon's definition, which ties to believe, that there are Two Natures in Jesus Christ after the Incarnation. He flourished under the Emperor Leo. This is taken out of Gennadius, Ch. 81. for we have not the Treatise itself.   

SAMUEL.  
THE Relation which Gennadius gives of this Author, is this: He saith, That Samuel▪ a Priest of the Church of Edessa, wrote in the Syrian Tongue several Books against the 
Samuel.  Enemies of the Church, principally against the Nestorians, Eutychians, and Tim●theans, all different Heretics▪ which he hath often described as a Beast with Three Heads, and confutes them by the Doctrine of the Church, and the Authority of Holy Scripture, demonstrating against the Nestorians, That the Word is God-Man, and not a mere Man born of the Virgin; against the Eutychians, That God took real Flesh in the Womb of the Virgin, that he had it not from Heaven, and that his Flesh was not form out of condensed Air; and against the Timotheans; That the Word was made Flesh, but so, that he retained his Substance, as well as the Humanity, its Nature. He was made One Person by the Union, and by the mixture of the Two Natures. He is said to be yet at Constantinople, for it was in the beginning of the Empire of Anthemius, that I heard this news of him, and his Works. Anthemius began his Reign in the Year of Christ 467.   

CLAUDIANUS MAMERTUS.  
CLAUDIANUS MAMERIUS, a Priest of the Church of Vienna, and Brother of the Bishop of that City, commended by Sidonius Apollinaris, hath composed Three Books 
Claudianus Mamertus.  Of the State, or Nature of the Soul, which are found in Biblioth. Patr. [Tom. 6.] Gennadius informs us, That he wrote some other Treatises, and that he is the Author of the Hymn upon the Passion, which gins with these Words, Pang Lingua Gloriosi, which others attribute to Venantius Fortunatus; but besides that Gennadius, and the Ancient Scholiast, restore it to Claudius Mamertus, it likewise appears that this is that Hymn which Sidonius extols in Ep. 3. Lib. 4.  
The Books of the Nature of the Soul are a confutation of Faustus Reiensis, who had made a little Book, in which he maintained, That God only is Incorporeal, and that all Creatures, and the Soul of Man itself, are Corporeal. To prove this, he brings the Authority of S. Jerom, and Cassian. Afterwards he makes use of several Reasons. The Soul, says he, is in a place, it hath its dimensions. It is therefore Corporeal. Its Thoughts and Fancy can extend themselves to things far distant, but its Substance is enclosed in the Body, for 'tis that which animates it, and gives it Life. So long as Lazarus' Soul was in his Body, he Lived, but as soon as it was departed from it, he Died, and he received a new Life when Jesus Christ made his Soul return again to his Body. The same may be said of the Soul of Jesus Christ. In a word, how can it be said, That a Substance which is contained in the Flesh, which preserves the Life of it, and that Dies by the separation, is not in a place? If the Soul hath not a determinate place, how can it be said that the Souls of Sinners are in Hell, and of Just Men in Heaven? What is that Chaos that separates them? Why are not they also happy? Are not also the Angels in a determinate place? Are not they said to ascend, and descend? Lastly, If any Creature be not in a place, it must be said to be every where. Now nothing is in all places but God. These are the Reasonings, which Faustus of Ries uses in that little Book, which he Published without putting his Name to it, as Mamertus upbraids him in the beginning of his Confutation. He knew not whose it was, or at least doth not say he did. 'Tis from Gennadius that we learn that it was Faustus' of Ries.  
It is evident by Mamertus' Answer, That we have not that Writing perfect, for in the first part he had asserted, That the Divinity suffered in Jesus Christ, not in its own Nature, but by a Compassionate Sense. This Mamertus confutes in the first place, showing, That that Expression is false and new, because it cannot be said in any sense, that the Divinity of Jesus Christ hath endured Grief, altho' it may be asserted by reason of the Unity of the Two Natures in One Person, that God suffered. In the next place he proves, That the Soul is Incorporeal, because it was made in the Image of God. He confesses, that all things that are invisible, are not Spiritual, and gives for an Example of it, the Judgement of the Senses, which is invisible, but he asserts, That the Bodily Sense is of the same Nature with the Elements, whereas the Soul doth not depend upon them, nor was form out of them, but enlivens the matter. To confute the Objections of the Book which he undertakes to Answer, he says, That every thing that is incorporeal is not uncreated; That the Angels have Bodies really, but they have also a Spirit and Soul. He maintains, That S. Jerom, and the Philosophers likewise, were of the same Opinion, when they held. That Men after the Resurrection would be exactly like the Angels, because they would have a Body as thin and subtle as theirs, and a Soul. He wonders, that any Christians should be so very dull as to imagine, that they shall see God with their Bodily Eyes. Having made some such like Observations, he comes to the great difficulty. The Soul is in the Body, it is in a place, Ergo, 'Tis extended, and consequently Corporeal. He demands of his Adversary, in what part of the Body it is. Is it in the whole, and in every part? If it be in all the Body, why doth it exercise its thoughts in one place only o● If it may be divided into parts, why doth it not lose its strength when my Member is cut off? This he says to entangle his Enemy. But he must Answer the difficulty, and for the perfect resolution of it he distinguishes Motion into Three sorts, 〈◊〉, Local● 〈◊〉 that which is performed in no place. The First agrees to God only, the Second to Co●… Creatures, and the Last is that which is proper to Spiritual Creatures. God wills always the same thing, this is a Stable Motion; A Body moves from one place to another, this is a Local Motion; The Soul chooses a thing, and again refuses it, sometimes Hates, sometimes Hates, is sometimes Humble, sometimes Proud, sometimes Me●●y, sometimes Sad, etc. These are the Motions of a Creature which are not Local; The effects 〈◊〉 perceived in a place, but they are not done in a place. As for example, If a Man thinks upon a Mathematical Figure, and to write some Name, his Soul contemplates the Immutable Idaea's of these things, his Arm and Hand writes them on the Paper by a Local Motion. 'Tis not his Soul that is Locally moved, but without it his Arm could not perform so regular Motions. You will say, perhaps, That it is that part of the Soul which is in the Arm that is Locally moved; if that be so, than the Soul is divisible. Now that can't be, for all things that can be divided, may be handled by parts, and act according to their parts. Now the Soul acts all together in all its Motions, it has neither length, nor breadth▪ no● height▪ it is neither moved upwards, nor downwards, nor in a circle; it hath neither inward nor outward parts; it thinks, perceives, and imagines, in all its substance; it is all Understanding, Sense, and Imagination; and in a word, we may Name the Quality of the Soul, but no Man knows how to express the Quantity of it. Wherefore 'tis neither extended, nor in a place.  
Having thus settled the Nature of the Soul of Man, he shows how it differs from the Soul of Beasts, and Plants. The main difference is this, That these last have no knowledge. The Beasts may have the Images of Bodies impressed on their Brain, but they know them not, nor know the things themselves, whereas the Soul of Man knows things Corporeal by the Body, and Spiritual without a Body; sometime it doth not apply itself to things which make an impression upon its Body. I read, another hears me, and understands what I read, but I myself, if my Mind be elsewhere, know not what I have read. My Soul is present to make me perceive the Letters, but not to make me understand what I read.  
But may some say, The Substance of the Soul is one thing, its Operation is another. You are mistaken in confounding the Thoughts of the Soul with the Substance of the Soul. The Soul is sometimes without Thoughts; Besides, when the Soul thinks, 'tis in the Body, and by the Body that it thinks. They are the Corporeal Images of Objects that make it think, and it would never remember any thing if these Images were not impressed upon the Brain. This is as far as the difficulty can be urged. But Mamertus gives such an Answer as leaves no intricacy behind it. The Soul, saith he, is not different from the Thoughts, altho' the things, upon which the Soul thinks, are different from the Soul itself. It is not true, that the Soul is at any time without thoughts; it can very easily change its thoughts, but to be without is impossible, and it is wholly there where its thoughts are fixed, because it is all thought. You are mistaken in distinguishing the powers of the Soul from the Soul itself; altho' it be accidental to it to think upon this or that Object, yet its Essence is, That it is a thinking Substance. The same is to be said of the Will, it is by accident that it chooses this, or that, but its Substance is to Will. It is all Thought, all Will, all Love. It is said of God, that he is Love, but he is Essentially Love, Essentially Loving that which is Good. The Soul is also Love, but such a Love as can incline itself to God, or the Creatures, to Good, or Evil. But upon whatsoever Object it is fixed, it is always truly said, that the Soul is all Love, no such thing can be found in the Body. Now to prove, That the Thoughts of the Soul do not depend on the Body, and are not Corporeal, our Author makes use of some Examples in Geometry. We conceive, saith he, what a Point, Line, Circle, and perfect Triangle is; Can the Corporeal Figures of these things be represented? They never have been, and never will be. Yet the Soul conceives them, and knows the properties of them. The Soul knows its Thoughts, its Desires, its Love. Is this done by any Corporeal Image? No certainly, It is the inward Truth, which speaks to it, which makes it understand, that the Thought is distinct from the Speech. Lastly, The Soul inquires after God, knows him, hath it any image of the Divine Nature but itself?  
These are the Principles which Mamertus hath laid down in his First Book concerning the Substance of the Soul. I have added nothing, but kept myself almost always to his Words, which I think fit to remark, because his Philosophy hath so great a resemblance to the Meditations of a Famous Modern Philosopher, that I may seem to have this rather from him, than Mamertus, or at least, that I have put some new Air upon it. But 'tis no such thing, 'tis the Truth itself, which causes this Agreement between Two Philosophers. They had both of them rational and exact Minds, they followed the same train of Thoughts, and having freed themselves from all Natural and Childish Prejudices, they found out the true Nature of the Soul, and the Adequate Idea of a Spiritual Substance. The only difference between them is, that Mamertus enlarges upon, proves, and throughly discusses those Principles, which this Modern Philosopher contents himself to propound as Truths well enough known. He doth not rely upon what he hath said in his First Book, but confirms his Arguments in the Second and Third Book. In the Second he examines more at large, what he had asserted in the First, That the Soul had neither Weight nor Measure according to Quantity, but according to Quality. He proves this to be the Opinion of the Heathen Philosophers, the greatest part of whom he maintains to have thought the Soul Incorporeal. He adds the Testimony of the Ecclesiastical Writers, and citys in particular S. Ambrose, and S. Austin, S. Jerom. He owns, That S. Hilarius Pictaviensis did not favour his Opinion, because he hath written, that all Creatures were Corporeal, and believed that Jesus Christ had not suffered. Yet in his defence saith, That he did extinguish the Crime by the Virtue of Confession, and tho' these places of his Writings might be reproved, yet that did lessen his Worth. He Quotes S. Eucherius with Applause, and speaks Contemptibly of his Adversaries. Lastly, He proves the Soul to be an Immortal Spirit from Texts of Holy Scripture.  
In the last Book he explains the other difficulties that still remained. It was Objected, That the Soul is contained in the Body, and consequently, is in a place. He demands how it can be, that the Soul should be in the Body, and yet penetrate all parts of the Body. Is it without, and not within? Or is it within, and not without? Or is it within, and without? It is harder to resolve, than to understand, how a Spirit can move a Body Locally, altho' it be not Locally in the Body. But how, may some say, can the Soul be in a place, and not be there Locally? I Ask you, Whether the World be in a place▪ or not? If you say, That it is in a place, you will be obliged to tell, what that place is. Is it in the World, or not? If it be out of the World, where is it? You are then obliged to hold, that the World is infinite, or say, that it is in no place. But how, say they, that the Soul of Jesus Christ departed from his Body after his Death, if it were not in his Body as in its place? If this be a good consequence, saith Mamertus, we must also assert, That the Divinity of Jesus Christ was also in his Body as in a place, because it was no longer united to the Body of Jesus Christ. The Angels have Bodies, by which they become Visible. The Devils have one, by which they suffer. These Bodies are not borrowed, but their own proper Bodies, yet they have also Spiritual Souls. Lastly, To resolve the last Objection, That the Souls of the Wicked are in Hell, and the Souls of the Just in Heaven, he says, If this aught to be understood of different places, how could Abraham and Dives hear and talk to one another? How could he see Lazarus in Abraham's Bosom? Hell and Paradise ought not to be thought different places, but different conditions. The Just and the Unjust may be Locally in the same place, but their state is not at all altered. The Soul sees things Incorporeal, which are not Locally present with it, yet discerns not things Corporeal, which are united to it, when it cannot make use of the Bodily Eyes to see them. Nothing is more nearly joined to the Soul, than the Heart, Bowels, or the Brain, and yet doth it see them?  
But some may say, That the Soul is Corporeal in the Eyes of God, but Spiritual in its own Eyes. This is a false distinction, saith our Author, for either it is Spiritual, or Corporeal. If it be Spiritual, God knows it to be such; if it be Corporeal, it knows its self to be such, as it really is.  
And what is the Conclusion of the whole? That Man is compounded of Two Substances, the one Spiritual, the other Corporeal; the one Immortal, the other Mortal, that is, a Soul and a Body. This is also the Conclusion of Claudianus Mamertus, who at the end of his Treatise had summed up all he hath said in these Ten Principles following.  
I. God is Incorporeal; the Soul of Man is the Image of God, which it could not be, if it were not Spiritual.  
II. Whatsoever is not in a place is Incorporeal: The Soul is the Life of the Body; this Life is equally in all, and every part of the Body. Therefore the Soul is in no place.  
III. The Soul thinks, and its Nature is to think; thinking is an Incorporeal thing, and is in no place, Ergo, the Soul is Incorporeal.  
iv The Will is of the Substance of the Soul, all the Soul wills, it is all Will; the Will is not a Body, Ergo, the Soul is not a Body.  
V The Memory is not in a place, it is not extended; the great number of things which it remembers, doth not make it bigger, nor the small number lessen it; it remembers Corporeal things after an Incorporeal manner. The whole Soul remembers, 'tis all Memory, Ergo, it is not a Body.  
VI The Body cannot be smitten but in that place only that is affected; the Soul feels all at once, when any part of the Body is touched, Ergo, this Sensation is in no place, and by consequence is Spiritual as well as the Soul that feels.  
VII. The Body neither draws near to, nor departs from God; it approaches to, or removes from other Bodies. Now the Soul draws near to, or departs from God; it comes not near, or goes far from Bodies Locally, Ergo, it is not a Body.  
VIII. The Body moves in a place, and changes its place. The Soul moves not itself after that manner, Ergo, it is not a Body.  
IX. Body's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. T●e Soul hath none of these ●…▪  
X. All Bodies have several sides▪ the ri●ht side, the left side, the upper side, the under side▪ 〈…〉 the b●ck side▪ all this doth not ag●●e to the Soul, Erg●, ●t is Incorporeal.  
This Book is Dedicated to Sidonian Apo●●inari●, who recompenses the great Honour Ma●… did him▪ ●y the la●ge 〈◊〉 he gives the Author, and his Wo●k. He prefers him abo●● all the Wri●… of that time▪ He commends him as the most able Philosopher▪ and 〈…〉 w●●ch was th●n ●●ong the Christians. He says, That he was an absolute Ma●… of all the Sciences; that the P●●ity of his Language equalled, or surpassed Terence'●, V●rr●'s▪ Pli●●'s▪ 〈◊〉▪ Tha● he knew ●ow to ●se terms of Logic Eloquently; That ●is sho●t and concise way of W●iting contained the most deep Learning in a few Sentences, and he expressed the greatest T●●●h● in 〈◊〉 few W●●ds. That his Style was not swelled with empty Hyperboles, and did not degenerate into a Con●●mp●ible Flatness. In fine, He scruples no● to compare him wit● the 〈◊〉 ●…nt Philosophers, most Eloquent Orators, and most Learned Fathers of the Church. He Judges, saith he, like Pythagoras, he Divides like Socrates, he 〈◊〉 like Pl●to, ●e Puzzles like Arist●●le, he Delights▪ like Aeschi●es, he stirs up the Pa●●ions like De●●sthenes, he Diver●s with a pleasing Variety like Hortensius, he Embroils like Cethegus▪ ●e Ex●ite● like Curi●, he Appeases like F●bius, he Feigns like Crassus, he Dissembles like Caes●r, ●e Advises like Cato, he Dissuades like Appius, he Persuades like Cicero. And if 〈◊〉 will compare him to the Fathers of the Church, he Instructs like S. Jerom, he overthrows E●●o● 〈◊〉 Lactantius, he maintains the Truth like S. Austin, he Elevates himself like S. Hilary▪ he speaks also as fluently, and as intelligibly▪ as S. Chrysostom, he Reproves like S. Ba●il, he Comforts like S. Gregory Nazianzen, he is Copious like Orosius, and as Urgent ●s Rufinus, he relates a Story as well as Eusebius, he Excites as S. Eucherius, he Stirs up like Paulinus, he Holds up as S. Ambrose.  
Although all these Commendations are excessive, yet we must own, that this Treatise of Mamertus▪ is very well written, and that he hath joined a great deal of Elegancy with his great Acuteness, and that he handles the most Metaphysical Questions with all the clearness and pleasantness poss●ble. B●t that which is most worthy of Commendation in him, is the fitness of his Arguments, and subtlety of his Wit, by which he hath discovered and explained such very abstruse Tr●ths, as most others have hardly so much as taken notice of.  
Sidonius also commends a Poem of Mamertus', and gives it these praises. It is, says he, Solid, Witty, Pleasant, Lofty, and far excelling all sorts of Verses of that Nature, as well for the Elegancy of the Poetry, as for the Truth of the History. It is plainly the Hymn Of the Passion, which gins with Pang Lingua Gloriosi, of which he speaks, as the following description of it sufficiently evidences. He speaks as highly of it as possible, and wonderfully e●●olls its Beauty. And indeed it is no marvel, being an Orator, and Mamertus' special Friend. The last of these Qualities taught him to spy out those Excellencies in Mamertus' Books, which others would not perceive, and the first gave him freedom and easiness to render them both Admirable and Credible to others.  
No fit Person could have been pitched upon to make his Epitaph, so well hath he acquitted himself, and hath not omitted any Epithet which could well be bestowed upon him, [as you may see,  

Germani Decus, & Dolour Mamerti,  
Mira●tum Unica Gemma Episcoporum,  
Hoc dat Cespite membra Claudianus,  
Triplex Bibliotheca quo Magistro,  
Romana, Attica, Christiana▪ fulsit,  
Qua● tota Monachus virente in aevo,  
Secreta bibit Institutione,  
Orator, Dialecticus, Poeta,  
Tractator, Geometra, Musicusque,  
Doctus solvere vincla quaestionum,  
Et Verbi gladio secare Sectas,  
Si quae Catholicam fidem lacessunt.]   
The Honour and Grief of his Brother. The Pearl of Bishops. A Threefold Library, Greek, Latin, and Christian. He hath joined Divinity with Profane Sciences. An Orator, Logician, Poet, Writer, Geometrician, Musician. Expert in resolving Difficulties, opposing Heresies, and in composing Hymns and Psalms in Honour of our Saviour.  
Although he was but a Priest, he performed the Office of a Bishop, his Brother had the Honour, but he had the Burden of a Bishopric. Thus much Friendship, and a Poetic Faculty, enabled Sidonius to speak of Mamertus his Friend, who had certainly a large share of those Accomplishments which he attributes to him, tho' it may be he possessed them not in so excellent a degree, as he describes him. We have also a Poem of his, wherein he shows, That Christian Poets ought to abandon Profane Subjects, and sing Sacred Histories, and Holy Things.   

PASTOR.  
PASTOR the Bishop hath Composed a little Book in the form of a Creed, which contains in Sentences all that a Christian ought to believe. Among the Errors, which he condemns, 
Pastor.  without Naming the First Teachers of them, he accurseth the Priscillianists with their Head. It is Cum ipso Auctoris Nomine, with the very Name of the Author: I believe, it should be Praetermisso Autoris Nomine, The Author's Name being left out.   

VOCONIUS.  
VOconius, as Gennadius calls him, or Buconius, according to Honorius, and Trithemius, Bishop of Castellanum a City of Mauritania has Written against the Enemies of the Church, Jews, 
Voconius.  Arians, and other Heretics. He hath also composed an Excellent Work upon the Sacraments, and other Religious Mysteries.   

EUTROPIUS.  
EUtropius the Priest hath written two Letters to two Sisters, very Devout Servants of J. C. who had been disinherited by their Parents, [for their Love to Religion, and Vowing a Single 
Eutropius  Life] in which he Comforts them for that loss. These Letters are written with a great deal of Wit and Elegancy. In them he makes use not only of Reasons, but also Testimonies of Holy Scripture to comfort them. This is what Gennadius says of this Author, whom we must beware not to confound with Eutropius, who has made the Abridgement of [the Roman] History. This of whom we are speaking, was the Scholar of Saint Austin.   

EVAGRIUS.  
THis Evagrius, a distinct Person from Evagrius of Pontus, is by Gennadius reckoned among the Ecclesiastical Writers of the V Age. He atrributes to him a Disputation between a Jew 
Evagrius  named Simon, and a Christian called Theophilus, which was very well known in his time, but is now lost.   

TIMOTHEUS.  
TImotheus the Bishop hath written a Book of the Nativity of our Lord, according to the Flesh, 
Timotheus.  which he believes to have happened on the Feast of Epiphany, as Gennadius informs us Chapter 58.   

EUSTATHIUS.  
THis Eustathius hath Translated Nine of St. Basil's Homilies upon the beginning of Genesis into Latin, and Dedicated his Translation to his Sister Syncletica, who was a Deaconess. Cassiodorus 
Eustathius.  says, That his Version equals the Original in Elegancy. Sedulius commends this Syncletica in the Preface to his Book of Easter. Junilius, Cassidorus, Bede, and Sigibertus mention this Translation, which is to be found among the Latin Works of St. Basil.   

THEODULUS.  
THeodulus, a Priest in Caelosyria is said to have Written many Works. Gennadius tells us Chapter 91. That he had never seen but one of his Books, which he Composed about the agreement 
Theodulus.  of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament against those ancient Heretics, who observing a difference between the Commands and Ceremonies, held; That the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the New. He shows, That it was by a Dispensation of Providence, that GOD had given to the Jews by Moses, a Law encumbered with Ceremonies and Judicial Statutes, and to us another by Jesus Christ, made up of Sacred Mysteries and Promises of future Good things; but for all this we must not look upon them as distinct; that it was the same Spirit that dictated them, and the same Author that established them, and that the Old Law, which brings Death, being observed in the Literal Sense, bestows Life being understood Spiritually. This Author died three Years since, under the Empire of Zeno. Zeno ended in 490. Gennadius wrote in 493. There is in the Bibliothecâ Patrum, [Tom. 8.] a Commentary upon St. Paul's Epistles, which bears the Name of Theodulus, but it can't be his, because it speaks of Aecumenius and Photius, who lived a long time after. It is an Abridgement of Aecumenius' Catena.   

EUGENIUS.  
EUgenius Bishop of Carthage and Confessor, being summoned by Hunnericus King of the Vandals to explain the Faith of the Church, and the true signification of the Word, Consubstantial, 
Eugenius.  made a Treatise of the Faith, approved by all the Bishops, and all the Orthodox Confessors of Africa, Mauritania, Sardinia, and Corsica, in which he confirms the true Faith, not only by the Authorities of the Scripture, but also by several passages of the Fathers. This Book was presented by his Fellow Bishop, when he was in Banishment, because he had so freely confessed the Faith as a Good Pastor. He left behind him some Letters to his Flock to strengthen them in the Faith, into which they were Baptised. He also sent in Writing the disputes, which he had had with the Arian Bishop by Proxy, and conveyed them to Hunnericus by the Steward of his Household. He also offered a Petition in form of an Apology to that Prince, endeavouring to obtain Peace for the Christians. He is said to be yet alive, and to continue his Service to the Church, by confirming the Faithful. The Treatise of Eugenius to Hunnericus is found in the third Book of the History of Victor Vitensis; [as also in Tom. 4. of the Councils, and in Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 8.] and Gregory in his second Book of his History of France recites one of his Letters written to the Church of Carthage.   

CEREALIS.  
CErealis, an African 
* Episcopus Castulensis, vel. Castello ripensis. C.  Bishop, being required by Maximinian a Bishop of the Arians in afric, to explain and confirm the Catholic Faith by a few Texts of Holy Scripture, 
Cerealis.  having implored the Divine Assistance, gave a Satisfactory Answer to his Demand, by propounding a clear proof of the Faith of the Church, not only in a few Texts of Scripture, as Maximinian had demanded of him, but also in a greater number, taken out of the Old and New Testament, and made one Book of them. This Writing is in the Biblioth. Patr. [Tom. 8. and in the Haeresiologia, Printed at Basil in 1556.]   

SERVUS DEI.  
THe Bishop Servus Dei hath Written against those that say, That Jesus Christ did not see his Father in this Life with his bodily Eyes, until after his Resurrection from the Dead and Ascension, 
Servus Dei.  when he was translated into the Glory of his Father; and that that Vision was the Reward of his Sufferings. He shows, I say, against these Opinions as well by Testimonies of Holy Scripture, as by Rational Argument; That our Lord Jesus Christ did always see the Father and Holy Spirit with his bodily Eyes, from the very time of his Conception by the Holy Ghost, and Birth of ●…e Virgin; and that this Privilege was granted him upon the account of the intimate Union that 〈◊〉 was between the Humane and Divine Nature. This is all Gennadius saith of this Author. Th● Common Opinion of Divines is, That the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ did always enjoy 〈◊〉 clear Vision of God, which they call the Beatific Vision; but they do not believe, that he saw 〈◊〉 with his bodily Eyes. The Vision of God is Spiritual, in which the bodily Eyes have no share. It is also Questioned, whether they may not be able to do it, through the infinite power of God. If 〈◊〉 Author believed, that Jesus Christ saw the Divine Nature with his bodily Eyes, he must be very gross in his conceptions. Saint Austin had confuted him long before, but it may be he will say, as the Schoolmen do, and understand by the Bodily Eyes, the Humane intellectual faculty in Jesus C●●ist.   

IDACIUS.  
IDacius of Lan●ecum in Gall●●ia, Bishop of Augusti-Lucus 
a Of Augusti-Lueus.] He observes in the Preface, that he was bo●n ex Leonicâ Civitate, and was Bishop in ●●llicia, and says likewise, That he was preferred to t●… dignity in the third year of Val●●tinian III. but doth not tell us of what City. They who speak of him, have supposed that he was Bishop of the same City where he was born, but what he notes upon the 310 Olympiad, that he was taken in the Church, which he had called aquae Flaviensis, when Augusti-Lucus was pillaged, shows, that he was Bishop of that City, for Aquae Fl●viae, is not a Bishopric but a Church subject to Augusti-Lucus. Saint Leo speaks of this Bishop in his Letter to Turribius, or rather to the Synod of Gallicia, heretofore the 93, now the 15th; and he gives him an Answer in the following Letter.  the Metropolis of the same Province, hath made a Chronicle, in which he continues St. Jeromes to his own time. It begins at the 
alias Hidatius.  first Year of Theodos●us the Great, and ends at the Eleventh Year of the Reign of Le●, and contains the History, or rather a Chronicle of 86 Years, from the Year 381, to 467. To the Year 437 it is made up of the Writings and Histories of others, but from that time of his own observations. In this Chronicle he sets down the most considerable Events of the Empire, the Years, and Alterations of the Emperors, the Names and Years of the Popedom of the Bishop of Rome, and part●…larly the Ecclesiastical and Profane History of his own Country. He makes use of three Epoch●'s; The first is of the Years of the World according to Eusebius; the Second is the Spanish Aera▪ which gins 37 Years before the Nativity of Christ, and the last is of the Olmpiads, which he brings lower than Socrates, who makes them to end in 440. We may see there the Years of the Emp●●●●s▪ This Chronicle is in a rough and barbarous stile but easy enough to be understood. Cana●…▪ and Scaliger had Printed some fragments of it, but F. Sirmondus hath Published it entire in 1619, [〈◊〉 at Parit] out of a MS. in the Jesuits Library of the College of Clermont, which came from 〈◊〉. It had been already Printed at Rome before him, since 'tis inserted in Eusebius' Chronicon.  
〈◊〉. Sirmondus' found in the same MS a very exact Computation of Years by the Consuls, which gins with the Year 269, and ends at 423. It is thought to belong to the same Idacius, not only because it is in the same MS, but because they are very like to one another in style and Chronology. F. Labbe hath also Published the same since, under the name of Idacius, but much enlarged; for they begin at the Consulship of Brutus and Collatinus, which was in the 245 Year from the builing of Ro●●, and ends in the second Consulship of Anthemius, that is to say, at the Year 468, where also 〈◊〉 's Chronicle ends. [Both are extant in Biblioth. Patr. Tom. VII.]   

VICTORIUS.  
VIctorius born at Lemovicum a City of Aquitain, an exact Chronologer, made in the Year 457 at the desire of Hilary, then archdeacon, and after Bishop of Rome, a New Paschal 
alias Victorinus.  Cycle wonderfully curious. It was for 532 Years, because according to his Calculation, at the end of that time Easter-day ought to fall upon the same day of the Month, and of the Moon, on which it happened in the Year of the Death of Jesus Christ. Bucherius the Jesuit published this Cycle in 1634, [in Fol. at Antwerp,] Corrected it in many places, and Explained it by a learned Commentary. He hath put before it a Letter of Hilary to Victorius, and a Preface of his own. This Author was the first among the Christians, who made use of the space of 19 Years for the Cycle of the Moon. 
* Now called the Golden Number.  His Cycle gins at the Year 73, which is the 28 of the Common account, and ends at the Year 559 of the same Aera inclusively. It contains 8 Columns. In the first are the names of the Coss. In the second are set down the Numbers of the Years of his Revolution. In the third are observed the Leapyears. The fourth shows upon what day of the Week the first day of every Year falls, which is instead of the Dominical Letter, that was not yet found out. The fifth notes how old the Moon was upon the same day, this is instead of the Epact. The sixth shows, on what day Easter-day falls. The seventh discovers the Age of the Moon on that day. The last contains the Indications. Bucherius hath added the Golden Number, and hath marked in another Table by the side of Years of the World, according to Eusebius, the Years of the Vulgar Aera, the Cycles of the Moon and Sun, the Years of the Epocha of the Building of Rome according to Varo, the true Order of the Consulships, and the Years of the Roman Emperors. This Cycle hath been very famous. The fourth Council of Orleans held in 541, Decreed, That all Bishops should make use of it in ordering the Celebration of Easter. It is commended by Gennadius, Cassiod●rus, Gregory Bishop of Tours, S. Isidore of Sivil, and many others. We know nothing particular of the Life of the Author of it.   

GENNADIUS, Patriarch of CONSTANTINOPLE.  
GEnnadius was Chosen Patriarch of Constantinople in the room of Anat●lius, in the Year 458. He Nominated one Marcian, who had been heretofore a Montanist, to be Receiver of the 
Gennadius.  Church of Constantinople. This was that Receiver, if we may believe The●dorus, who ordered, That the Clergy of every Church, should distribute among themselves the Oblations made to their Church, whereas before they belonged to the Patriarchal Church. But it was not only the Receiver of Gennadius, that made this Reformation in the Church of C●●stantinople. This Patriarch also laboured much in it. He held in 459 a Synod, in which he revived the Decrees made against Simoniacal Persons. He made also a Law, that no Priest should be ordained who could not say the Psalter by Heart. 'Twas in his time, that Studius built the Monastery of the 
* The Watching Monks because one 3d part of them was always serving God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Acaemetae at Constantinople, and Dedicated it to S. John [Baptist.] Gennadius died in the Year 471. He had been advertised of his Death sometime before by a Ghost, which appeared to him, while he was at Prayers in the Church by Night, and foretold him the great trouble that should befall his Church after his Death. Gennadius, a Priest of Marseille reckons this Patriarch among the Ecclesiastical Writers, and says, that he had an Elegant Style, and a brisk Wit, that he was grown very Learned by R●●ding the Ancients, that he had composed a Literal Comment upon Daniel, and that he had made some Homilies. We have none of his Works, but there are preserved only two fragments of this Ge●●adius, the one recited by Facundus, Lib. 2. c. 4. and the other by Leontius in his Treatise of Common places about the Original of Souls. We do not know out of what Book the first is taken. It is a Declamation against St. Cyril, which seems to be taken out of a Letter written against St. Cyrils' 12 Chapters. Unhappy I, saith he, who live in a time, when the Church is afflicted with so great Evils? Alas! Alas! for from whence doth it proceed but from hence in the time, wherein we ar●… How much have I heard of the Blasphemies of Cyril of Egypt? woe to the Scourge of Alexandria, This is the Second. Can we sufficiently lament it, that he hath been corrupted himself, and that he hath corrupted others? He hath cast forth all manner of Blasphemies against the Holy Fathers, the Apostles, yea against Jesus Christ himself. He destroys the Humane Nature, that the Word a●…med from us, and for us, and would make that Nature subject to Sufferings that is impossible. Facundus also recites the beginning of the Confutation of the first of St. Cyril's Chapters, wherein he shows as much passion. Gennadius must needs write this when he was very Young, in the time of those hot contests between Saint Cyril, and the Oriental Bishops.  
The second Passage of Gennadius is taken out of the Second Book to Parthenius; it is cited by Leontius in his Common-places about the Original of the Soul. We do not here speak of the Letter against Simoniacal Persons, because it is a Synodical Letter, which shall be found among the Acts of the Councils.   

ANTIPATER of Bostra.  
THis Author flourished about the end of the Fifth Age. He wrote a 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Confutation of Eusebius' Apology for Origen, divided into several discourses. A Fragment of it is cited in the Acts of the second Council of Nice, Act. V Tom. 7. Of the Councils, p. 367, where he owns, that Eusebius was very skilful to write History; but maintains, that he was not expert in handling Doctrinals. He blames him for defending the Opinion of Origen, concerning the Preexistence of Souls, and the Subjection of the Son of God in respect of his Father, Leo Allatius mentions a Sermon of this Author's upon Saint John Baptist. Diatriba. de Simeon. p. 89.   

HILARUS or HILARIUS, Bishop of Rome.  
HIlarus, or rather Hilarius 
a Or rather Hilarius.] He is commonly called Hilarus, and so his Name is found written in the ancient Marble Inscriptions. He is named in St. Leo's Letters, and in that of Nicholas first, to the Emperor Michael. Hilarius Marcellinus in his Chronicon calls him after the same manner. 'Tis probable, that he is called Hilarus corruptly only.  an Archdeacon of the Church of Rome in the Popedom of St. Leo, was one of the Legates, which this Pope sent into the East about the affair of Eutyches. 
Hilarus.  He was present in that quality in the Sham-Council of Ephesus, and because he would not consent to the Condemnation of Flavian, he made his escape into Italy. It was at this time, that he wrote his first Letter to Pulcheria the Empress, in which he lets her know, that the Pope, and all the Western Bishops disallowed all that was done in the Council. He remained in the Office of an Archdeacon till the Death of St. Leo. We have a Letter of his Written in 457 to Victorius, in which he desires the resolution of such difficulties, as arose about Easter-day. This Letter, as we have said, is at the beginning of Victorius' Paschal Cycle.  
Arch-Deacons having had a share in the Government of the Church, it hath been thought, that no fit Person could be chosen to succeed the Bishop than they: Upon which account it is, that they have ordinarily been pitched upon. Hence it was, that after the Death of Saint Leo, Hilarius was chosen into his place. He was ordained November 17. in the year 461. We have a Letter of his to Leontius Bishop of Arles, dated Jan. 25. Anno. 462, wherein he tells him of his Election, and desires him to let all the Bishops of his Country know it, that they may join their Prayers with his for the good of the Universal Church. This Letter is unfitly put in the 5th place, since it is dated before any that Hilary wrote, when he was Bishop. He therein put him in mind, that those who are observers of Tradition, are sensible what respect hath been given all along to St. Peter and his See. Leontius, to whom this Letter is written, before he received it, had written a Letter to Pope Hilary, which he sent by Pappolus, seeking the Pope's favour, that he might procure his own Settlement in all those Rights, which St. Leo had attempted to take from the Bishop of Arles. Hilary returned him a very obliging Answer, telling him, That he had w●…ten to him already, doing thereby as the Ordinary Custom, and Mutual Charity required of him. ●e sent him likewise a Copy of the preceding Letter, to show him, that he had not been defective 〈◊〉 is Duty. He tells him, That he hoped to have a frequent Correspondence with him by Letter, and promises, that he will observe the Canons, and use his utmost power to cause others to observe them, and to procure the Peace and Agreement of all the Bishops. This Letter, which is the Fifth, is without date, but it seems to be written soon after the former.  
Hilarius soon gave proof of his Care and Vigilance. A Person named Hermes, a Man Unworthy of the Priesthood, had procured himself to be ordained Bishop of Biterrae, and being thrust out of that Bishopric, he Usurped the Diocese of Narbon. The Pope having intelligence of it, wrote first to Leontius to inform him of that affair; this appeareth by the 7th Letter, dated Nou. 3. 462. He soon after propounded it to a Council of Rome held in November in 462, at which Faustus, and Auxanius two French Bishops were present. It was resolved in this Council, that the Usurpation of Hermes was disorderly, and therefore they deprived him of the Right of Ordaining Bishops of his Province, which was granted to the Bishop of Uzetia during his Life. Pope Hilary sent this Decree to the Bishops of the Provinces of Vienna, Lions, the two Provinces of Narbon, and the Province of the Sea-Alps, and at the same time exhorts them by the eighth Letter to hold Councils every Year, which should be Summoned by Leontius Bishop of Arles. He adds also in that Letter, That no Bishop nor Clergyman, may go out of his Province without having the Letters of his Metropolitan; and in case he will not grant him them through hatred or enmity to him, He may address himself to the Bishop of Arles, who shall not give any leave but upon good reasons. He declares further, that upon the complaint of the Bishop of Arles, who had Complained that his Predecessor had left the Church's subject to him to others, he had communicated that business to them, that they might examine it. In fine, he admonishes them not to suffer the goods of the Church to be alienated, if the alienation be not allowed of by a Council. This Letter bears date December 3. 462.  
The Rights which Pope Hilary was about to restore, in favour of the Bishop of Arles, seemed to receive some Check by the attempt of Marcian Bishop of Vienna. There had been for a long time a Contest between the Bishops of Vienna, and Arles, about their Prerogative. The Popes had sometimes favoured the one, and sometimes the other. Saint Leo, who had at first very much opposed the pretensions of the Bishop of Arles, upon the account of his displeasure, which he had against Hilary, was afterward reconciled to him; and had ordered by his 51 Letters, that the Archbishop of Vienna should content himself with having the Rights of a Metropolitan over four Cities, viz. Valentia, Tarantesta, Geneva, and Gratianople, and that all the other Cities should be subject to the Metropolis of Arles. Saint Mamertus, whether it was that he would not obey this order, or that he thought that Leontius would not take it ill, ordained a Bishop of Dia. Pope Hilary having heard of it by an Officer, wrote immediately to Leontius, blaming him for not giving him notice of this action, and commanded him to have the matter examined in a Synod; and give him a relation of it in a Synodal Letter. The Letter of Hilary to Leontius is the Ninth, and is dated Octob. 10. Anno. 463.  
Leontius, and the Bishops assembled in his Synod, returned answer to Pope Hilary, that it was true, that Mamertus had ordained a Bishop of Dia. But it appears by the Pope's answer, that they spoke of that action with much moderation, not showing themselves troubled at all at it. The Pope did not take it in the same manner, but looked upon it as an Unpardonable crime. He accused St. Mamertus of Pride, Presumption, Treachery, and a Sinful attempt, and threatened to deprive him of all his Privileges, and out him of all the Right he had over his four Churches, if he did maintain what he had done as Lawful, and persisted to do the like for the future. And as to the Bishop of D●●, whom he had ordained, he enjoined him to accept the Confirmation of Leontius Bishop of Arles, who ought regularly to have ordained him, and gave Ver●●us a Commission to deliver these Orders forthwith, and see that they be put in Execution. All this is contained in the fourth Letter of this Pope sent to Leontius, and the other Bishops of his Synod, which is dated Feb. 24. Anno. 464. He wrote also a little time after another Letter to the Bishop of the Provinces of Vienna, Lion, Narbonne, the Paenine-Alpes, in which he repeats and confirms, what he had said in his former Letter, for the upholding the Rights of the Church of Arles, and orders the Bishops of those Provinces to come to the Synods, to which they shall be called by the Bishop of Arles.  
In the Year 465, the Church of Rome had the Honour to be consulted by Ascanius' Bishop of Tarraco, and other Bishops of his Province, who wrote two Letters to Hilary, about two important Matters which fell out in their Countries. They speak in both of them with a great deal of Respect and Submission to the Holy See. In the first, having told him, that they resorted to him as to the Successor of St. Peter, whose Primacy ought to be feared, and loved by all Christians. Cujus Vicarii principatus, sicut emine●, est ●etue●dus 〈◊〉 omnibus & ●mandus; to receive found Answers from a place, where things are not judged of erno●●ou●ly, or with prejudice; but after a truly Episcopal deliberation, I say, after this compliment, they tell him, that Silv●●●s Bishop of Calaguris, which is a City of their Province farthest dist●nt from the Metropolis, ●●d ventured to ordain a Bishop in a certain City against the Consent of the People, and 〈◊〉 take a Priest of another Bishop, and make him Bishop against his Will. That the Bishop of Casar●●gusta had opposed these his undertake, and had caused the Neighbouring Bishops to separate from him, but that had not reduced him, he continued in his Obstinacy, and Schism. Whereupon they desire the Pope to Command them, what he thought fit to be done by them upon this occasion, that being assisted by his Authority and Counsel, they might know how they ought to deal with the Bishop who ordained, and the Bishop who was ordained. The 2d Letter from the same Bishop is about another business; it gins also with a Compliment to the Pope, and goes on with a Request, which these Bishops made to him to confirm the Choice, which they had made of Bishop Irenaeus, to fill up the See of Barcino, which was vacant by the death of Nundinarius. They show him that they followed the judgement of his Predecessor in so doing, who had named him for his Successor, and had also the approbation of the People and Clergy, and that they had considered the good of that Church. They added, that they had complained to him sometime since, of the attempts of Sylvanus, but had received no Answer, and therefore desired him to give them an Answer of all together.  
These Letters being delivered to him at the time, when he had assembled the Bishops at Rome for the Anniversary Solemnity of 〈◊〉 Exaltation, he read them in a full Counsel, and the Bishops discovered by their Acclamation and Consent, that they condemned the actions of Sylvamis, and did not approve of the Ordination of Irenaeus, because it was performed contrary to the Rules of the Church. 1. Because it was never allowed any Bishop to choose his Successor. 2. Because Irenaeus being Bishop of another Church, could not be Translated to Barcino. This being decreed after this manner, the Pope wrote two Letters, one to Ascanius, and the Bishop of the Province of Tarrraco, and the other particularly to Ascanius; in which he declares, pursuent to the Judgement of his Colleagues, and the determination of the Canons, that Sylvanus had offended in celebrating Ordinations without the Authority and consent of the Bishop of Tarraco h's Metropolitan; that Irenaeus ought to relinquish the Church of Barcino, and that Ascanius ought to ordain some other Person, every way fitly qualified for that See; That as to those Bishop's th●t had been ordained without his Consent, he might let them alone, if they have not been twice Married, or have not Married a Widow; That he should take special Care, that there be not two Bishops in one and the same Church; That he ought not to ordain any ignorant or lame Person, no more than those that have done Penance; That he ought not to hearken so much to the Prayers of the People, as to departed from the Will of God, or the Laws of the Church to please them. Lastly, he subjoins that if Irenaeus will not quit the See of Barcino, he deserves to be wholly deprived of the Episcopal Dignity. This Council was held in the Month of November, Anno. 465, and the Pope's Letters are Written at the end of December in the same Year.  
Ingenuus Bishop of 
* Ambrun  Ebre●●umim, who was present at this Council of Rome, reminded Pope Hilary, that what he had ordained at the Request of Auxanius in the Council held Anno. 462. and confirmed in another in 464, was prejudicial to the Metropolitical Right, which he claimed in the Province of the Sea-Alpes. The Pope respecting this his Remonstrance, wrote to Leontius, Veranus, and Victurus, French Bishops to regulate this matter according to the Laws of the Church, and the Constitutions of his Predecessor, not having regard to those Declarations, which have been obtained of him fraudulently, when they are found opposite to the Holy Canons and Decrees of his Predecessors. Wherefore he confirmed the Metropolitical Right of the Bishop of Ebredunum, and Ordained, that what had been Decreed by St. Leo touching the Bishoprics of Cemele and Nice, should be exactly observed. So that it was the Ambition of the Bishops that gave the Pope's an Opportunity of Greatning their own Authority every day, and making them subject to him, by favouring the Pretensions sometimes of the one, and sometimes of the other. The Style of Pope Hilary is not so florid as St. Leo's, but it is Elegant, and easy to be understood. He was very knowing in the Laws and Discipline of the Church, and enlarged his Authority to make them observed. As we have not observed the Common Order of his Letters, but placed them according to time, it is convenient to compare Ours, with the Ancient, as in this Table.  
I. The Letter to the Empress Pulcheria, Written Anno. 451. In the Acts of the Council of Chalce●…, Part 1. Chap. 24. II. The Letter to Victorius, Written Anno. 456. At the beginning of Victorius' Paschal Cycle. The Ancient Figures. III. The Letter to Leontius Bishop of Arles, Written Jan. 25. Anno. 462 V. iv Another Letter to the same Person, Written a little after. VI V A Third Letter to the same Person about the affair of Hermes, Written Nou. 3. Anno. 462. VII. VI A Letter to the Bishops of the Provinces of Vienna, Lion, both Narbonns, and the Paenine-Alpes upon the same Subject, Decem. 3. 462. VIII. VII. A Fourth Letter to Leontius about the business of St. Mamertus, Oct. 10. 463. IX. VIII. A Letter to the Bishops Victurius, Ingenuus, Idatius, etc. about the same business, February 24. 464. XI. IX. A Letter to the Bishops of the Provinces of Vienna, Lion, both Narbonns, and Alps, upon the same Subject, Written sometime after the former. X. X. A Letter to the Bishops of the Province of Tarraco, about the Ordination of Irenaeus, dated January 3. 465, II. XI. A Letter to Ascanius Bishop of Tarraco, upon the same Subject, Written at the same time. III. XII. A Letter to Leontius, Veranus, and Victurus, about the business of Ingenuus Bishop of Ebredunum, Written in the same year. iv   

SIMPLICIUS, Bishop of Rome.  
SImplicius was chosen Pope in September, Anno. 467, and governed the Church of Rome 15 Years and some Months. He was very full of business all the time of his Popedom; the Church, 
Simplicius, Bishop of Rome.  and Empire having been subject to great Revolutions; for on the one hand the Western Empire miserably Harassed, ended in the Person of Augustulus, and Odoacer an Arian Prince, King of the Heruli, possessed himself of that Empire. On the other hand Zeno the Eastern Emperor, was first dethroned by Basiliscus, who declared himself against the Council of Chalcedon; and Zeno being restored always privately favoured the Eutychians, and stirred up great troubles in the Church upon that Account. Nor were other Kingdoms better governed, the Goths, who were Arians, had made themselves Masters of Spain. Gensericus also, an Arian, King of the Vandals, exercised his Tyranny over the People, and against the Church of afric. The Churches of Antioch and Alexandria, were become a Prey to the Ambitions. Lastly, The Bishops of Constantinople and Rome, began to disagree. But notwithstanding all these Troubles and Confusions, Simplicius did vigorously maintain the discipline of the Church in all places, and upheld his own Rights with Courage. His Letters are an Authentic proof of it.  
The first is directed to Zeno Bishop of Sevil in Spain. He gives him the Title of Vicar of the Holy See, that he might have the greater Authority to hinder, that the Apostolic Laws and Decrees of the Holy Fathers be not any ways violated.  
The Second is directed to John Bishop of Ravenna. He closely reproves this Bishop, because he had made one Named Gregory Bishop of a Church without his consent, and by force. He orders, That he shall be Bishop of Modena, and not be subject to the Bishop of Ravenna; and that if he had any Business, he should bring it directly to the Holy See. He desires the grant of the possession of the Inheritance of a certain Sum in the Bishopric of Bononia, during his Life, upon Condition, that the Property of it shall remain to the Church of Ravenna. He threatens John, to oblige him to the Execution of his Orders; he tells him, that he deserved to lose the Privilege he hath abused, and that he will handle him with great Severity, if he doth not Obey what he hath Commanded. Lastly, He reminds him, that if he shall dare to do the like hereafter, and Ordain either Bishop, or Priest, or Deacon against their Will, he will deprive him of the right of Ordaining in the Province of Ravenna, and Aemilia. This Letter is dated June 29. Anno. 482.  
Simplicius had already used Gaudentius Bishop of Assisium very severely, because he had celebrated Ordinations contrary to the Rules, and entirely deprived him of the right of Ordaining; and had given the power of Ordaining in the Church of that Bishop to one of his Colleagues, called Severus. He also took from him the Administration of the Revenues, because he had made a bad use of them, leaving him no more than a fourth part, and expending the other three in Building, nourishing the Poor and Strangers, and for the maintenance of the Clergy, and ordering him to restore the three parts, which he had received during the three years past, and to oblige them to whom he had given the Church goods, to quit them. The Letter which contains this Decree is dated Novem. 29. in 475. It is directed to Florentius, Aequitius, and Severus, and placed the third among Simplicius' Letters.  
The fourth sent to the Emperor Zeno, dated Jan. 10. 476. is Written against Timotheus Ael●●us, who having permission to go from the place of his Exile, after he had endeavoured to thrust himself again into the See of Alexandria, came to Constantinople, where he was very active to establish his Doctrine, gathered him a party, and celebrated the Holy Mystery also clandestinely. Simplicius exhorts the Emperor Zeno not to suffer this Disorder, and to imitate the zeal of his Predecessors Marcian and Leo, to maintain the Faith of the Incarnation, contained in the Letters of St. Leo, which had been approved by the Council of Chalcedon, to reject all such errors as have been condemned, to hinder that they be not revived, and certain Truths be not brought into dispute, to take care that an Orthodox Person be ordained Bishop of Alexandria, and Timotheus the Ringleader of the Heretics be banished from Constantinople.  
At the same time he wrote a Letter, to Acacius, which is his Fifth, in which he congratulates him, that he did not suffer Timotheus Aelurus to be received into Communion at Constantinople, and desires him to oppose the Proposal of calling a New Council, because a Council ought not to be assembled, but only when some new Error springs up, and it is something difficult to find out the Truth. But this is not the Present Case, since the Question hath been judged, and determined clearly in the Council of Chalcedon, which hath been approved by all the World. Simplicius sent a Copy of this Letter to the Emperor, with a Copy of St. Leo's Letter to Flavian.  
He repeats the same Admonitions in his sixth Letter to Acacius, and in another Letter directed to the same Bishop, which hath been published by Holstenius. It is dated the same time. In it he particularly advises Acacius to request the Emperor to grant his Edict for the Banishment of those who shall be ordained by Timotheus, and implore him to include Peter and Paul in it, of whom one was Banished to Ephesus, the other to Antioch; as also Anthony, one of the Principals of the Party, and John who was ordained Bishop of Apimea.  
He commends in the 7th Letter the Courage of the Clergy and Monks of Constantinople, who would not receive Timotheus, and shows them that they ought not to hearken to him, since he hath been several times condemned. All these Letters bear the same Date.  
The Emperor Zeno was immediately put to flight by Basiliscus, who invaded his Throne. He declared himself openly for Timotheus, but his Kingdom was not of long duration. Zeno was reestablished within ten Months after. As soon as Simplicius heard of it, he testified to him the Joy he had for his Restauration, and exhorts him to maintain the Faith of his Predecessors, and the Doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon, and to depose Timotheus Aelurus from the See of Alexandria; and settle in it again a Lawful and an Orthodox Bishop. This Letter bears date Oct. 8. 477.  
Zeno being moved by his admonitions went about to expel Timotheus, but his Death prevented, that this Usurper did not suffer the punishment which he deserved. He poisoned hsmself, if we believe Liberatus. After his Death, Petrus Mongus endeavoured to make himself Bishop of that See: But Timotheus Salophaciolus an Orthodox Bishop was settled in it. This Acacius Bishop of Constantinople informs Simplicius of by the Letter which goes before Letter 9 of this Pope.  
In this Simplicius shows how much he rejoiced at the establishment of Timotheus, and prays him to take care to carry himself unblamably, because he had taken Notice of some failings in him, when he was obliged to rehearse the Name of Dioscorus at the Altar. This Letter is dated March 13. 478  
He wrote also the same time, the 10 Letter to the Emperor Zeno, in which he thanks him for settling Timotheus, and prays him to eject entirely P. Mongus.  
In the next Letter to Acacius, he tells him, that Timotheus had excused himself for reciting the Name of Dioscorus at the Altar, and that he was satisfied by him as to that particular.  
In the 12th, He also desires the Emperor Zeno to defend Timotheus; and Banish Petrus Mongus, and in the thirteenth Letter he Commands Acacius to contribute his Assistance in it. These Letters are dated Oct. 478  
The Church of Antioch was in no less disturbances, than that of Alexandria. Petrus Surnamed Fullo, having slain Stephen, who was the Lawful Bishop, got possession of it by force. The Emperor Zeno did not let this Crime go unpunished, but made those seditious Persons suffer the Punishment they deserved, and Banished Petrus Fullo. But because the Spirits of the People were extremely heated, he thought it would be hard to get a Bishop Ordained quietly in the City of Antioch; he resolved to have the Ordination performed at Constantinople by Acacius. Pope Simplicius believed, as indeed it might well enough be, that it was only Pretence, and that the Bishop of Constantinople would by this means enlarge his Jurisdiction over the East, though the Emperor wrote to him, that it should be so for this once only, and that for the future the Bishop of Antioch should be Ordained according to the Custom, by an Eastern Synod. The Pope makes Answer to him by Letter 14, dated Ju. 22. 479, in which having commended his Justice, which he had Executed in punishing those who had Murdered the Bishop of Antioch, he tells him, That this Mischief would never have happened, if he had followed his Counsels, and banished out of the Empire, as he had written to him, Petrus Mongus, and the other Enemies of the Faith, and disturbers of the Public Peace. Lastly, He approves the Ordination of the Bishop of Antioch made by Acacius, but upon Condition that the Bishop of Constantinople shall not attempt the like for the future, and the Bishop of Antioch shall be Ordained by the Bishops of his own Country, according to the Ancient Custom. He says almost the same thing to Acacius in the next Letter.  
He, whom Acacius had Ordained Bishop of Antioch, died in 482, in the third Year of his Pontisicate; and Calendion was Ordained in his place. 'Twas Acacius himself who Ordained him if we may believe the Record of the Acts of the Condemnation of Acacius. However that be, it is evident, That Calendion had his Ordination approved by a Council of Eastern Bishops. This did plainly displease Acacius, who was never friends with this Patriarch.  
At the same time Timotheus, Bishop of Alexandria. being dead, John Talaia was chosen in his palace, and wrote to Pope Simplicius, under the Title of the Bishop of Alexandria: But the Emperor told him at the same time, That he was a perjured Person, and unworthy of the Priesthood. This hindered the Pope for some time from acknowledging him; but when he understood, that he had designed to put in P. Mongus into that See, against whom he had written several Letters, he opposed him with all his force, and received John Talaia, who escaped into the West. All these things were done with the Consent of Acacius, or at least without his Opposition. This made Simplicius, after he had written Letter 16. in favour of Calendion, to urge him earnestly in Letter 17, and 18. to oppose the attempts of P. Mongus, and to represent them to the Emperor, that he may not continue in the possession of the See of Alexandria. These Letters are dated Anno. 482. This was the Cause and beginning of the Discontent, which the Holy See had against Acacius, which broke out fully under Faelix the Successor of Simplicius. [These Epistles are extant among the Councils, Tom. IU. p. 1067.   

FAUSTUS, Bishop of 
* Reium Rhegium.  Rises.  
Faustus' 
a An Englishman, or Britain.] Avitus in his 4th Letter, says, that he was ortu Britannus, habitatione Riensis. Sidonius Epist. 9 l. 9 writing to Faustus says Britannis tuis. Facundus calls him a Frenchman in his Book against Martion, Faustus Gallus; but he evidently respected the place he dwelled in. F. Sirmondus says, that he was of the Province of Aremorica. I am rather of Usher's judgement, who thinks him an Englishman.  an Englishman, or Britain, a Priest, and Monk of Lerins, was chosen Abbot of that Monastery, when St. Maximus removed to the Government of the Church of Ries. While 
Faustus, Bishop of Ries.  he was Abbot there, he had a Controversy with Theodorus Bishop of Frejus, about the Exemption which was decreed in the Council of Arles, which is called the III, held in 455, which Ordained, That the Bishop should perform all Ordinations, confirm Novices, if there be any in the Abbey; and that no strange Clergymen should be admitted but with his Consent, but that the Care of the Laymen of the Monastery belongs to the Abbot; That the Bishop hath no Jurisdiction over them, and that he cannot Ordain any one without consent of the Abbot. After the Death of Maximus, Faustus was chosen to fill his place: So that he was his Successor twice, once in his Abbacy, and the second time in his Bishopric. This gave occasion to Sidonius to address these Verses to him,  

— Fuerit Quis Maximus ille  
Urbem tu cujus, Monachosque Antistes, & Abbas  
Bis Successor agis.—   
He was present at the Council of Rome, held under Pope Hilary in 462. Being returned into France he composed several Books, Governed the Church unblamably, lived a very Holy Life, was Commended and Honoured by the Greatest Men of his time; and died at last in Peace, and in the Communion of the Church.  
Gennadius gives us a Part of the Catalogue of this Author's Works: He hath Written (saith he) on the Occasion of Explaining the Creed, a Book concerning the Holy Spirit; wherein he proves agreeably to the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, that he is of the same Substance with the Father and the Son, and is as well Eternal as both the other Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity. He hath also Composed an Excellent Work about Saving Grace, in which he teacheth, that the Grace of God always allures, precedes, and assists our Will, and that all the reward which our freewill obtains by its Labour, is not merited by it, but is the Gift of Grace. I have read also, (saith the same Person) a little Book of his written against the Arians and Macedonians, in which he shows, That the three Persons of the Trinity are of the same Essence; and another Treatise against those, who say, That there are Incorporeal Creatures, in which he pretends to prove by Testimonies of Holy Scriptures, and by the Authority of the Holy Fathers, that we ought to believe Nothing Incorporeal but God only. There is one of his Letters written in form of a Book dedicated to a certain Deacon called Gratus, who having departed from the Orthodox Faith, went over to the Nestorian Heresy. He advertiseth him in that Letter, that we must not say, that the Virgin hath brought forth a Man into the World, who afterward became a God; but that she hath brought forth a true God in a true Man. There are other Works of his, which I do not speak of, because I have not read them. It is known, and his Discourses make it plain, that he was an able Preacher. He hath written since a Letter to Faelix, the Praefectus-Praetorio, a Person descended of the Patricii, and Son of a Consul, in which he exhorts him to Piety. This Writing is very suitable for those who will fit themselves for sincere Penance.  
We have still some of those Works of which Gennadius makes mention, but he doth not speak of his Letter to Lucidus the Priest, who was the occasion of writing his two Books of freewill, and Grace. This Priest was a stiff defender of St. Austin's Doctrine about Grace and Predestination, and did evidently carry his Principles too far, or at least delivered them in too harsh terms. The greatest part of French Bishops were then of a very contrary Judgement, and Faustus was one of the greatest Opposers of that Doctrine. Having had several Conferences with Lucidus, but not being able to make any Change in him, he sent this Letter, of which we are speaking, to him, to oblige him to change his Opinion. In the beginning he says, That Charity made him undertake to endeavour by the Assistance of God, to recover his Brother from the Error, into which he was unwarily fallen, rather than Excommunicate him as some Bishops designed to do. He than puts him in mind, that in speaking of Grace and Man's Obedience, we must be very Cautious, that we fall into neither o● the Extremes; That we must not separate Grace and Humane Industry; That we must a●●ot Pelagius, and detest those that believe, that Man may be among the Number of the Elect without labouring for Salvation. He sets down some anathemas which he would have him Pronounce. The first is against the Doctrine of Pelagius, who believes that Man is born without Sin; that he hath no need of the Assistance of Grace, but he may be saved by his own Works. The Second Anathema is for all those who dare assert, that Man, who having been Baptised hath made Profession of Faith in Jesus Christ, falling into Sin is Damned upon the account of Original Sin. The third Anathema is to him, who affirms that the Prescience 〈◊〉 God is the Cause of Damnation. The fourth is to all those that say, that he which Perisheth, hath not received a sufficient strength and ability to save himself, which ought to be understood of Persons Baptised, or of an Heathen, who Lived at a time when he might have believed, and would not. The fifth is to all those, who hold that a Vessel of Dishonour, cannot be made a Vessel of Honour. The sixth and last, is to him that shall assert, that Jesus Christ is not Dead for all Men, and will not that all Men should be saved. He adds, that he will bring Testimonies to prove these Orthodox Truths, and overthrow the Errors, whenever he pleases to come to him, or he shall be summoned before the Bishops. In sum, he assures him with confidence and truth, that he that Perishes by his fault, might be saved by Grace, if he had obeyed it by his Labour, which ought to follow Grace; and that he that is saved by Grace, may fall by his Negligence and Fault. So that to fix an exact Medium, he joins the Labour of a Voluntary Service to Grace, without which we are nothing; but he excludes Pride and Presumption, which may creep in upon the account of our Labours, knowing that it is our Duty to do what we can. He calls upon him to declare his Opinions thereupon, advertising him, that if he will not follow the true Doctrine, he will deserve to be banished from the Church, in whose bosom he hopes that he abides. Lastly, he adds, that he keeps a Copy of this Letter to make it appear, if it be necessary, in the Assembly of Bishops, which 
* were to  must meet; and exhorts Lucidus too Subscribe it, or to abandon fairly and clearly in Writing, the Errors, which it condemns.  
Although we find at the end of this Letter the Subscriptions of several Bishops; It is nevertheless true, as F. Sirmondus thinks, that it is no bodies but Faustus'; and that it is he only, that wrote it in his own Name: Also from the time of Hincmarus, it hath been Subscribed by none but him, as in the best MSS. and particularly in that which Canisius used.  
It is then certain, that it is not the Letter of a Council, but he speaks of a Council to be held soon after, to which Lucidus was to be cited, if he persisted in his own Error; but this Good Priest being come to the Council, soon yielded to the Opinions of Faustus and his Colleagues, and did not satisfy himself to pronounce the anathemas set down in his Letter; but he likewise added it against other Propositions, and directed his Letter, or rather Retraction, to Leontius Bishop of Arles, and Twenty four other Bishops, who had made up a Council, where they compelled Lucius to Recant; for he saith, that he made that Retractation juxta praedicandi recentia Statuta Concilii; and he Condemns with these Bishops,  
I. Him that asserts, That we must not join the Labour of Humane Obedience to the Grace of God.  
II. Him that saith, That since the Sin of the First Man, the freewill of Man is entirely lost.  
III. Him that affirms, That Our Saviour Jesus Christ died not for all Men.  
iv Him that says, That the foreknowledge of God forced Man, and Damns by Violence, and that those that are Damned, are so by the Will of God.  
V Those that say, That they that Sin after Baptism die in Adam.  
VI Those that Teach, That some are Destined to Death, and others Predestined to Life. The Bishops of the Council of Valentia seem to have determined since the contrary to this Proposition in the third Canon; where they deliver, that they boldly own and assert a Predestination of the Elect to Life, and of Sinners to Death.  
VII. He condemns the Doctrine of those who teach, That from Adam to Jesus Christ, none among the Heathens hoping in the Coming of Jesus Christ, were saved by the First Grace, i. e. by the Law of Nature, because they have lost their freewill in Adam.  
VIII. Those who affirm, That the Patriarches and Prophets, and the great Saints before the Redemption, have their habitation in Paradise.  
He adds afterwards some Propositions, contrary to the Foregoing, He saith then,  
1. That he acknowledgeth the Grace of God; but after such a manner as that he joins Man's endeavour and Labour with it.  
2. That he doth not say. That the freewill is lost, but only that it is weakened and impai●ed▪ and that he that is Said might have been Damned, and he that is Damned, might have been Saved.  
3. That Our Saviour out of the Riches of his Goodness hath tasted Death for every Man.  
4. That he desireth not the Death of him that dyeth, but is rich unto all that call upon him.  
5. He professes that Jesus Christ died for the Wicked, and for those, who have been Damned contrary to his Will.  
6. He confesseth also, that according to the disposition and order of Ages▪ some have been Saved by the Law of Moses, and others by the Law of Nature, which God hath written 〈◊〉 the Hearts of all Men, by the hope of the coming▪ of Jesus Christ. It is very hard to salve▪ this Proposition as well as the Condemnation in the Seventh, if we understand it Literally, since none but Pelagius hath dared to affirm, That Men have been saved by the Law of Moses and by Nature. But Faustus and others understand it plainly in another sense, i. e. That the Law▪ and Nature have contributed to their Salvation: And for this reason it is, that Lucidus adds. That no Man can be purged from Original Sin, but by the Intercession of the blood of Jesus Christ▪ ●n the last place, He acknowledges Hellfire, and Unquenchable ●●ames are prepared for those who have Committed heinous Crimes; because they continue in their Sin, they are justly condemned to Punishment, which they also deserve that do not believe these truths. The Letter concludes with these words, Orate pro me, Sancti & Apostolici Patres, etc. O Holy and Apostolic▪ Fathers, pray for me: I Lucidus the Priest have Subscribed this Epistle with my own Hand; and I affirm all that is affirmed in it, and condemn all that is condemned in it.  
The Bishops of the Council of Arles appointed Faustus Bishop of Ries to write upon this Subject, as he tells us in the Preface to his Treatise of freewill and Grace, Dedicated to Leontrus Bishop of Arles. These are his Words. You have done, O my Blessed Father, a great deal of good to all the French Churches, in assembling a Council of Bishops to condemn the Error of Predestination. But methinks you have not sufficiently provided for your reputation, in commanding me to put in order, and set down in Writing what was said in your Conferences; for I am sensible of my inabilities to perform it as it ought to be. The honourable judgement which your Charity hath passed upon my abilities, hath caused you to make a Choice of which you have Reason to repent. At the end of this Preface, that after this Work was finished, the Council of Lions had ordered something to be added to it.  
F. Sirmondus concludes from these Records, That the Council of Arles was held about the year 475, consisting of 30 French Bishops▪ against the Predestinarians Heresy, which began in the time of St. Austin, and had its Original in the Monastery of Adrumetum; from whence it passed into France, where it was opposed by Hilary and Prosper, and condemned by Celestine; That it was supported by St. Austin's Writings not rightly understood, as is observed in the Chronicon of Tiro Prosper and Sigibert, opposed by the Author of the Book of Heresies. Entitled Praedestinatus, and by Arnobius Junior; ranked among the Heresies by Gennadius at the end of St. Austin's Book; revived in the Ninth Age by Gotteschalci, and confuted at the same time by Rabanus and Hincmarus. That Lucidus, who was engaged in this Heresy, was summoned to the Council of Arles, where this Question was disputed; and he was ordered by this Council to make the Recantation of which we have already spoken That Eaustus in his Books of Grace doth only deliver the Judgement of this Council; That his Work was afterward approved in another Council of Lions; that this Bishop is of very Orthodox Sentiments, and is still honoured as a Saint; and that Joannes Maxentius, and Gotteschalci do wrongfully inveigh so much against him. This is almost all that F. Sirmondus saith about this matter, in his History of the Predestinarians.  
But on the other side some able Divines maintain, that this Heresy is a mere Chimaera, and a Calumny which the Semi-Pelagians made use of to blacken the Scholars of St. Austin: That there were no Predestinarians in the time of S. Austin; That the Monks of Adrumetum who are made the first Authors of this Heresy, never thought of any such thing, but that all the contest, that was among them, proceeded from hence, that they were not rightly understood; That Cresconius and Faelix had accused Florus of denying freewill, and the Judgement which God will render to every Man according to their Works, because they did not well understand his Sentiments, and that indeed St. Austin, who upon the relation of these two Monks, had believed that Florus was in an Error, having heard him himself, found, that he had not a false Opinion touching Grace, and that it was not he, that deserved reproof, but they, who did not understand him, when he explained his Judgement. That as to the Controversy, which arose among the French some time after; it is evident, that they are not the Predestinarians, which St. Prosper and Hilary oppose, but the Enemies of the Doctrine of St. Austin, who imputed to his Scholars the same Doctrines, which were attributed to the Predestinarians. The Authors alleged for the justification of this Heresy are much to be suspected. The first is Tiro Prosper, an Author of little Credit, who says, that this Heresy is not taken out of St. Austin's books not rightly understood, as Sigibert hath corrected it, but out of St. Austin himself, q●● ab Augustino accepisse dicitur initium, which proves, that he that inserted this place in St. Prosper's Chronicon was an Enemy to St. Austin. Predestinatus is an Author full of faults and Pelagian Errors. The same may be said of Arnobius, who doth not acknowledge Original Sin. Gennadius was a Learned man, but well known to be a favourer of the Semi-Pelagians. As for Paustus, 'tis certain he was their head; That Gelasius hath condemned his Books. That St. Fulgentius hath confuted them in 7 Books, approved by the Council of Sard●…; That Caesarius hath written against his Doctrines in a Book approved by Pope Faelix; That Pope H●rmisd●● hath rejected the●; That Petrus 〈◊〉 hath pronounced Anathema against him; That the Head of a Sect so often condemned, ought not to be looked upon as a Saint; That he was in another very dangerous Error, maintaining, that all Creatures are Corporeal; That all that he says of the Council of Arles, and the approbation given to his Books by the Council of Lions, is not true; or that the Authority of these Councils is of little consequence, since they were made of Semi-Pelagian Bishops. Lastly, that this Ancient Calumny against the Scholars of St. Austin being Re●… in the 9th Age, the Church of Lions maintained that this Heresy of the ●…stinarians wa● a Chimaera; That there never was any such Heretics, or to be sure, 〈◊〉 in his time. If we now pass from Authority to Reason, and come to examine the Doctrines, the pretended Errors, which are fastened upon the Predestinarians, are the very same, which the S●…-Pelagians upbraided the Scholars of St. Austin withal, as it is easy to see by comparing them with the Objections of Vincentius the French, and Priests of Genova, which Saint Prosper hath fully answered.  
This is the Sum of what is said on both sides on this Subject. 'Tis not for us to judge between so knowing Persons as F. Sirmondus and his Adversaries, in a matter of this Concernment. Non nostrum inter vo● 〈◊〉 comp●●ere lights. We freely own, that both have reason on their side. Et Vitula 〈◊〉 dignus, & hic. etc. But we take ourselves obliged to say on the contrary, that neither of them have hit upon the right, and their prejudice hath made them judge of things not as they are, but as they thought they ought to be. Now that which seems to us to be most probable in this business, is this. The Books which St. Austin wrote against the Pelagians, being published made different impressions upon the minds of the Orthodox. They confessed all, that he had reason to maintain Original Sin, and the Necessity of Grace, in order to Salvation; but after that for the confutation of the Pelagians, he had raised subtle and nice Questions, spoken in a way different from the greatest part of the Fathers, that went before him, and laid down Principles about the way in which Grace is given, and operates in the heart of Man, about Predestination, and the Calling of the Elect, so uncommon before his time, as he himself owns, and which he was himself ignorant before he was wholly engaged in this dispute. These Matters being extremely abstract and difficult, put those to a great deal of pains, who lived in his time. And from that time they were the Original of Quarrels, Division, and Hatred among the Orthodox, and have been so ever since, as often as they have been revived. Cassian, the Priests of Marseille, Hilary Bishop of Arles, Vincentius Lerinensis, and the greatest part of the French could not entirely approve the Doctrine of St. Austin, being persuaded that it was too rigorous, and that bad consequences might be drawn from it. This appears by the Letters of St. Prosper and St. Hilary, written to St. Austin about that Matter. It is probable, that some unskilful Persons, who had not Wit enough to understand throughly the true Sentiments of St. Austin, nor Sagacity enough to find out the agreement between them and that which we ought to believe, concerning the freedom of Man and the Necessity of good Works, have given an occasion of drawing these pernicious Consequences; either because they came very near them, or because they were not interpreted right. And indeed we must own it, and St. Austin himself confesses as much, that it is necessary to use great circumspection in explaining Vocation and Predestination, according to his Principles, in such a manner as may incline us neither to negligence nor despair. This was it which raised the Dispute in the Monastery of Adrumetum. Florus having brought thither from Uzel the Writings of St. Austin concerning Grace, and explaining his Doctrine in a very corpse manner, had given the Monk's ground to believe that he denied freewill, and that Justice by which God must render to every Man according to his Works. Valentinus the Precedent of that Monastery was forced to permit two of the Monks, named Crisconius and Faelix, to go to St. Austin, and propound their Scruples to him, which they did. They persuaded him that there were some Monks, in their Monastery which denied freewill. Wherefore he wrote the 
* It is the 46th Ep. in Trob. Edition.  224th Letter to free them from that Error, and show them how his Principles are made to accord with Man's freewill. Afterward having spoken to Florus, he declares that this Monk had not interpreted him aright, or did not well understand him; wherefore he made a Book on purpose to reconcile Grace and freewill together. But his Explication not yet satisfying these Monks, he wrote his Book 
* De Correptione, & Gratia.  of Correction and Grace, to Answer their Principal Objection. We know not what effect this Book wrought among the Monks of Adrumetum; but it did not content the Priests of Marseille, but on the contrary their doubts were increased by the reading of it. Saint Prosper and Hilarius sent St. Austin word of it, and wrote him what were the Principles of these Persons. We have related them in making the extract of their Epistles, which are 225, 226, among St. Austin's. This Saint endeavours to explain these Opinions in his Books of the Predestination of Saints, and of the gift of Perseverance; but the more he explained himself, the less his Principles pleased the French; and the more they were persuaded, that he denied freewill and introduced a Fatal Necessity. This was the Rumour that was current among the French about the Subject of these Books. They also made an abundance of Objections against his Doctrine. These Objections consisted in Erroneous Opinions, which they imputed to him, in pernicious Consequences, which they pretended to follow from his Doctrine, and in odious Interpretations of some of his Opinions. His Death did not put an end to this Controversy, but to the Contrary augmented it. Saint Prosper, who had declared for his Doctrine, defended it by public Writings, and answered the Objections, which were proposed against it. On the other side, his Adversaries extolled those Priests, who opposed St. Austin's Doctrine, and accused his Scholars of Error; insomuch that St. Prosper and Hilary, being badly used among the French were forced to appeal to Saint Celestine, who wrote to the French Bishops to enjoin those Priest's Silence, and not endure them to disgrace the Memory of St. Austin. Nevertheless this did not appease the Disputes; they still continued, and were managed with more heat and passion. Althô neither of them were separated from the Church; yet they began to use each other cruelly. Saint Prosper accuses his Adversaries of reviving the Errors of the Pelagians about Grace, and calls them Ingrateful and Presumptuous. And these on the contrary called their Adversaries Predestinarians, upon the Account of the Errors which they imputed to them, and which some maintained, perhaps for want of rightly understanding things, or of well explaining themselves. The strongest party among the French was that, which was not of St. Austin's Opinion. Faustus was not the only Enemy, which those which they called Predestinarians, had; the greatest Part of the French Bishops were, as we have said, of the same Sentiments. We must not wonder then, if they held a Council at Arles in 475, against these pretended Predestinarians; if they made Lucidus to Retract, charged Faustus to write against this Error; and if they approved his Book afterward in another Council. These are Matters of Fact, too well confirmed to be called in question; but this doth not really prove, that there was an Heresy of Predestinarians at that time, no more than that these Bishops were Heretics; it only proves that there were then disputes about Grace; that as is usual in the heat of Dispute, both parties carried things too high, and that as those, who held the Doctrine of St. Austin, not explaining themselves well, gave occasion to others to impute Errors to them; so these on their side afforded them a cause against them, by condemning St. Austin's Opinions. It is true, that both of them accused each other of Heresy and Error; but we must not trust to such sort of Accusations, propounded by Persons suspected on both sides. For all the Authors who speak of the Heresy of the Predestinarians, are much to be suspected as a sufficient proof, because they are on the Contrary Party; And they that accuse Faustus of Heresy, and those of his Party, do it only because they opposed some of St. Austin's Principles, not regarding that at the time, when he Wrote, he might do it without being accounted an Heretic; and that several Fathers before and after St. Austin have spoken and thought as he did, without being accused for Heretics for it. His two Books of Grace and firee-will are written with a great deal of Moderation and Caution; He rejects most plainly and sincerely the Errors of Pelagius; He acknowledges Original Sin, and the necessity of Grace to do well, and obtain Salvation; He owns, that the freewill is much weakened since the Sin of Adam; but he maintains, that there remains some slender knowledge of good, some seeds of Virtue; that we can know, and desire to do good with the assistance of Grace, and cannot do it without it, but that God denies his Grace to no Man; That the Labour of Man accompanies this Grace, and that he must obey his motions; That God knows from all Eternity the Good and Evil, which all Men shall do; that he foresees all their Actions, and the end they will have, but he Predestines no Man to Salvation or Damnation. He thereupon sets down all the Texts which are alleged for Predestination and Grace, and expounds them according to his own Opinions. These are the Contents of these two Books, which are to say truly, an Explication of those Propositions only, which are delivered in his Letter to Lucidus. Many Orthodox Authors have written and spoken thus, and there is nothing in them but may be defended; but althô there were something to be reproved, he ought not for all that to be used as an Heretic, much less be made the Ringleader of Heresy, since there hath not been any thing designed thereupon. I will not pursue this History further, because we shall have occasion to speak hereafter of the Renovation of these Disputes, which were never managed without Noise and Heat. And indeed two Reasons seem to make it unavoidable. 1. The Subtlety and Depth of these Questions, wherein Humane Understanding is easily lost. 2. The Consequences which each draw from the Principles of their Adversaries, of which some seem to inspire Men with Pride and Presumption, and the other to cast them into Negligence and Despair. But if we would consult our own Reason a little, we shall see on both sides so many Depths, Precipices, and Rocks, as would make us tremble. So that it were better and more advantageous to the Church of God, and every Christian, to live in Peace and Silence, and not desire to dive into such impenetrable Secrets, to hold that for a certain Maxim, that we ought to beg the Divine Assistance continually; but at the same time to work out our own Salvation with fear and trembling. But 'tis time to return to Faustus' Works. We have also a Letter to Gratus, wherein he confutes the Errors of Nestorius, and lays down the manner, how the Orthodox should speak concerning the Person of Jesus Christ. We have also a small Tract, wherein he Explains, how that Son, who is begotten of the Father, is of the Substance with the Father, and Coeternal. To this he adds an Explication of what he had said in his Letter to Gratus, that God did not suffer by the Senses, but only by a kind of Compassion. The last Question which he treats of in this Writing, is of the Nature of the Soul, he maintains, that it, and all Creatures are Corporeal. Gennadius hath divided this Treatise into two Parts, and speaks of the last as a distinct Treatise. This is that, which Mamertus endeavours the Confutation of.  
The Letter▪ to 〈◊〉, which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is yet preserved, but we have not the Treatise of the Holy 〈◊〉 of which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; nor another Treatise, Composed by way of Dialogue, comme 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; But we have two discourses to the Monks, some other among the 〈◊〉, which bear the 〈◊〉 of Eusebius Emesenus, and a Letter to one named 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he answers some Questions which he had proposed to him. The first is concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those who are at the point of Death. Faustus' answers, that that is very uncertain. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, Whether the Faith in the Trinity be sufficient for Salvation? 〈◊〉 answers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 it be accompanied with Good Works; and althô they have been Baptised, yet if they 〈◊〉 one of the three 〈◊〉 Sins, Sacrilege, Murder, and Adultery, they shall be Damned Eternally, if they do not make an Atonement by Penance. The Last is about the Nature of the Soul, and Punishments after Death. Faustus holds the Soul to be 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 Corporeal; and Eternal Punishments, but more or less severe according to the greatness of 〈◊〉. He hath also five Letters to Ruricius, but they contain nothing remarkable in them.  
The Style of Faustus is plain, easy, and clear, full of Antitheses and Rhymes. His Notions and Arguments are very rational and apposite. He is full of Spiritual Maxims, and Moral Precepts. One part of his Works, which we have already spoken of was in the Old Bibliotheca Patrum, Canisius hath published the Rest. They are all in the last Biblioth. Patr. [Tom. 8. p. 523.] Printed at Lions.   

RURICIUS, DESIDERIUS, and some Others.  
WE have a Collection of 64 Letters of Ruricius Bishop of Lemovicum, who lived about the end of this Age, and died at the beginning of the Next; of 14 Letters 
Ruricius, Desiderius, etc.  of Desiderius Bishop of Cadurcum, and some other Letters Written to these two Bishops by some of their Colleagues; but they are Ordinary Letters pleasantly Written, which contain nothing remarkable in them. We may find them in Canisius, and in the last Bibliotheca Patrum, Printed at Lions.   

APOLLINARIS SIDONIUS, Bishop of Clermont.  
C. Sollius Ap. Sidonius, descended of an Illustrious Family, whose Father and Grandfather had been Praefecti-Praetorio's among the French, was born at Lions about the Year 430. 
Ap. Sidonius, Bishop of Clermont.  He was brought up with Care, performed his Studies under the most excellent Masters of that time, and became very skilful in all parts of Learning, but especially in Poetry. He Married Papianilla, the Daughter of Avitus, who from a French Praefect was raised to the Imperial Throne after the Death of Maximus. But Majorianus, whom Leo had taken to be a Partner with him in the Empire, forced him to lay down his Crown, and came to besiege the City of Lions, where Sidonius had shut up himself. The City being taken, he fell into the hands of his Enemy, but the reputation of his Learning made him his Friend; so that he received all the Favours from him, which he could desire, or hope for; and as a grateful acknowledgement of them he made a Panegyric in his Honour, which was so well taken, that he Erected Sidonius' Statue in the City of Rome. The Emperor Anthemius did more honourably requite the Panegyric, which Sidonius made in his Honour, by making him Governor of the City of Rome, and afterward raised him to the Dignity of a Patrician; but he soon quitted his Secular employments to follow the Calling or God, who called him to the Government of the Church. The See of Clermont being Vacant in 472, by the Death of Eparchius, Sidonius who was no more than a Layman as yet, was chosen to take his Place without competition. Immediately he applied himself to those Studies, which were most agreeable to his Ministry, or which he performed all the Offices with all the Care and Prudence possible. The reputation of his Wisdom was so much confirmed, that being Summoned to the City of Bourges, whose See was Vacant, all the Bishops that were there, did with one consent refer the Election of the Bishop to him. He appointed Simplicius, and his Choice was approved, and followed by all the World. He had a truly Pastoral Charity for all the Poor of his Diocese; He distributed all his Estate to them, and sold also all his Plate for their Relief; which being done without the knowledge of his Wife, she was forced to redeem it. He maintained at his own Charge, with the help of his Wife's Brother Ecdicius, more than 4000 Burgundians, who were Banished out of their own Country. He often went his Visitations in his Diocese, and was one of the first of the French Bishops, who introduced into his Church the use of Rogations, which were then newly appointed by Mamertus Bishop of Vienna.  
Clermont being besieged by the Goths, he encouraged the People to stand upon their defence, and would never consent to the Surrender of the City; insomuch, that when it was delivered up, he was forced to fly out of it, but was soon restored, and continued to govern his Church, as he did before. Some time after he was assaulted by two Priests, who deprived him of the Government of his Church; but one of them coming to a Miserable end, Sidonius was again se●…led with Honour at the end of the Year. He died in Peace, Aug. 21. Anno. 
* 482. Dr. la.  487, after he had been Bishop 15 years, and had lived 66 Years. His Festival is kept upon the same day in the Church of Clermont, where his Memory is in great veneration. Before his Death he Nominated Aprunculus for his Successor, who having been heretofore Bishop of Langres was forced to retreat.  
Of all the Writers of that time there was none more Learned, or that wrote more Elegantly either in Prose or Verse, than Sidonius; from whence it is, that Cl. Mamertus calls him the most Eminent of the Eloquent, the most Skilful of all the Learned Men of his Age, and the Restorer of the Ancient Eloquence. His Writings confirm this honourable Censure, for they are full of ingenuity and vigour; His Notions are curious, grateful, and well handled; He hath such plenty and variety of Subjects, as is very Surprising and Charming; He uses proper, significant, and extraordinary Words, and sometimes mixes some that are not true Latin; He hath many flights of Wit; His Discourses are truly Epistolar, i. e. Concise, Pleasant, full of Points, and diverting Fancies; He is excellent in his Descriptions and Draughts, which are the principal Ornaments of his Writings: Nevertheless his Style is too lofty and subtle for his Sense, and he offends, as I may say, in being too Witty. This great subtlety, together with his profound Learning makes him sometimes obscure, and hard to be understood. He ventures at some Expressions, Metaphors, and Comparisons, which not many in the World can relish. He had a very Poetical Wit, and ready faculty of making Verses, of which he composed many Extempore; but he never bestowed the pains to polish and perfect them. He wrote several small Treatises in Prose and Verse, but he preserved them only that he thought fittest to be left to Posterity. He Collected himself Nine Books of Letters; He had began an History of Attilas' Wars, but he left it unfinished, and therefore would not have it Published; His principal Poems are three Panegyrics upon three Emperors, Avitus, Majorianus, and Anthemius: The other are a Collection of Poems upon particular Subjects directed to his Friends.  
His Letters are full of infinite points of Learning, and Profane History. There are very few of them, wherein he speaks of Religion; yet there are some from which we may draw observations of the Discipline then in use. So in Letter 24. l. 4. he describes the Bishop of Tholouse called Maximus, to whom he went to desire him to give a Friend of his a longer time for the payment of a Sum, which his Friends Father had borrowed of Maximus before he was Bishop. He says, that having known him heretofore, he found him wholly changed, that his Clothing, Countenance, and Discourse savoured of nothing but Modesty and Piety; that he had short Hair and a long Beard; that his Householdstuff was plain; that he hath nothing but Wooden Benches, Stuff Curtains, a Bed without Feathers, and a Table without a Carpet, and that the ordinary food of his Family was Pulse more than Flesh. Sidonius being surprised to see so great an Alteration in him, asked him of what profession he was, whether he were a Monk, a Clerk, or a Penitent; and he answered him, That lately he had been made a Bishop against his Will. This teaches us, that the Life, Habit, and Householdstuff of a Bishop ought to be like a Monks, and a Penitents. He ought to do that out of Humility, which others are obliged to do by their Profession and Condition. This Bishop forgave the Interest, which amounted to as much again as the Principal, and gave his Debtor time to pay him, joining Mercy with Humility.  
Sidonius teaches us in Lett. 14. Lib. 5. and Lett. 1. L. 6. that the Rogations were instituted by Mamertus Bishop of Vienna. 'Tis to no purpose to say, that they were appointed before, and that he only restored them; for Sidonius says positively, that it was St. Mamertus, qui primus invenit, instituit, invexit. Processions indeed were used before, but there was no determinate time for them, and they were performed indevoutly, seldom, and very negligently. They were intermingled with Feasting, and never performed but to procure Rain or Fair Wether, Vagae, tepentes, infrequentesque atque ut ita dicam, oscitabundae supplicationes, quae saepe interpellantum prandiorum obicibus hebetabantur. But St. Mamertus fixed the time, and manner of them, and commanded them to join Fasting, Prayers, singing of Psalms and Lamentations with them. According to the example of St. Mamertus the Church of Clermont, and several others took up the same Custom, which in a short time spread into all the Churches of the World.  
He observes in Lett. 17. Lib, 5. That the Annual Festivals of the Saints were kept with very great Solemnity; That the People flocked to the Church in throngs before Day; that they light up a great many Tapers; that the Monks and Clerks sung the Vigils in two Quires; and that about Noon they Celebrated the Mass.  
The Discourse which he made at the Election of the Bishop of Bourges, recited afterward in Lett. 9 Lib. 7. demonstrates, how weighty an affair it is to have the choice of a Bishop devolved on him; and how hard it is to Content all the World. If I nominate a Monk, saith he, it will be said that he is fit to make an Abbot, and not a Bishop; If I choose an humble Person, they will fear, lest he should be contemptible. On the contrary, if I take a Courageous and Resolute Person, they will accuse him of being Proud; if I pitch upon a Learned Man, they will say immediately, that he will be Arrogant; if he be a Person of mean Learning, they will de● ride his Ignorance; if I name a severe Man, they will look upon him as a Cruel Man; if he be Mild, they will blame his easiness, etc. If I choose a Clergy Man, they that are above him, will despise him, and they that are inferior to him, will envy him. Age and Antiquity among the Clergy are the only things almost that are considered at present; as if the number of years that they have been in the Clergy, did confer worth upon those that have none, and as if it were a sufficient qualification for the Priesthood to have lived long, though they have not lived well. There are Ecclesiastical Persons, who having been all their lives careless of the discharge of their Ministerial Function, ready to answer, accustomed to make idle Discourses, heads of Parties and Factions, defective in Charity, always wavering, always envious, yet contend for a Bishopric at the end of their lives, and desire to Govern others at an age wherein they have need to be Governed themselves. But since this discourse might displease the Clergy of the Church to whom he spoke, he cunningly appeased them, by saying, that his design was not to blame many for the ambition of a few, but by naming no Man particularly, those, who took offence at what he said, would discover their disposition; That there were several in that Church that deserved to be Bishops, but all that were worthy of it, could not be. Having thus disposed their minds to approve his Choice, which he was about to make, he swore by the Name of the Holy Spirit, that he was not swayed by any Humane Consideration, by Money or Favour to proceed in it, and then declared, that he had fixed his Eyes upon Simplicius, who was the Clerk of that Church, whom he Commended: And since they had all sworn, that they would submit to his Judgement in the Election, he pronounced in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that it was Simplicius, who ought to be Bishop of Bourges, and Metropolitan of his Province. This is all that is observable in Sidonius' Letters concerning the Discipline of the Church. They also discover to us the Names of many Bishops of that time, to whom these Letters are directed, and which are all called Popes, according to the Custom of that time.  
The Learned Savaron published the Works of this Author in the last year of the former Age, 
* Printed at Paris in 4 to, and after at Hanover in 1617., 80.  cleared from a great number of Faults, and enriched with many very Learned Notes, which make the Text very plain, and Contain in them several very Useful and Curious Remarks. To undertake a New Edition after so Learned a Man, as no body seemed to desire it, so it might be looked upon as a thing needless and inconsiderate. Yet his did not much discourage F. Sirmondus, who had taken much pains upon this Author, before the Work of Savaron appeared, from putting out his Labours, by causing Sidonius' Works to be Printed [at Paris] in 1614 [8 vo.] which have given an ample proof of the excellency of his Understanding, and depth of his Learning; for althô there seemed nothing to have escaped the exact observation of Savaron, yet F. Sirmondus hath found many things fit to be taken notice of and explained, which Savaron had passed over; and hath made such Rational, Learned, Curious, and well-chosen Notes, that they far excel Savaron's in Judgement of all the World almost. Nevertheless 'tis good to have both the Editions and it were to be wished, that one were put out with the Notes of both these Learned Men. Since the Death of Sirmondus his Sidonius hath been Reprinted with some augmentations. This Edition was by Cramoisy in 4 to, in the Year 1652. There is also found at the end of it a Catalogue of Sirmondus' Works. [Besides the forementioned Editions of Sidonius' Works, we have also others viz. at Basil in 1542, 4 to, with the [Commentary of Joan. Bapt. Pius, which being Revised by Elias Vietus was Printed at Lions in 1552, 8vo. They are also Printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum. Tom. VI p. 1075.]   

JOANNES TALAIA, or TALAIDA.  
JOannes Talaia, or Talaida, a Monk of Teb●●ma, was chosen Bishop of Alexandria in 481. Immediately after his Ordination he wrote Letters of Communion to Simplicius Bishop of 
J. Talaia  Rome, and Calendion; but he omitted to write to Acacius Bishop of Constantinople. Acacius being offended at these proceed, stirred up the Emperor Zeno against him, accusing him as guilty of Perjury, and a Favourer of Hillus; insomuch, that he was forced to fly into Italy a little after his Election. Since he could not return to his own Bishopric, the Church of Nola was committed to his Care and Government. Photius mentions an Apology, which he wrote to Gelasius Bishop of Rome; in which he condemns not only the Heresy of Pelagius, but also Pelagius Caelestius, and Julian, who succeeded them in that Sect. We have not this Work. It was composed about the Year 492.   

JOHN, a Priest of Antioch.  
John, who of a Grammarian was made a Priest of Antioch, hath written, saith Gennadius, against 
John, a Priest of Antioch.  those that maintain, that we ought to Worship Jesus Christ, as having only one Nature, and that acknowledge but one Nature in his Person. In it he opposes some Propositions of St. Cyril. He says, that he spoke them inconsiderately against the Nestorians; but they confirm, and help to uphold the Error of the Timotheans, which he himself says impertinently, and groundlessly, according to the Testimony of Gennadius: He was alive when Gennadius wrote this. He made Sermons Ex tempore, and without any Preparation. We have not any thing of his Writing remaining.   

JOANNES AEGEATES. 
J. Aegeates.   
JOannes Aegeates 
* Called also Segregatus  a Nestorian Priest hath composed a Church-History, which gins at the Empire of Theodosius the younger, when Nestorius divulged his Heresy, and was deposed; and ends with the Empire of Zeno, and the Deposition of Petrus Fullo. The style of this Author was Noble and Florid. He relates the 3d general Council held at Ephesus, and that of the other Council held at the same place under Dioscorus, to which they give the name of an Assembly of Thiefs, but yet this Author makes it an Holy Synod; and Dioscorus and his Companions Saints. He also made the History of the Council of Chalcedon, but it was full of Abuses and Calumnies. The same John Aegeates hath also written a Book on purpose against the Council of Chalcedon, he had promised 10 Books, but Photius, from whom we have taken all this, had never seen but five; which begin, as we have said, with Nestorius, and ended at the Deposition of P. Fullo. We have nothing of them, but only some Fragments recited in the Second Council of Nice, Tom. 7. of the Councils, p. 369. and in the Collections of Theodorus, L. 2. p. 563.   

VICTOR VITENSIS.  
VIctor Bishop of Vita, a City of Baza●eum, rather than of Utica, 
a Rather than of Utica.] The ordinary Editions give him the Title of Bishop of Utica, but it is through an Error, because Utica is better known than Vita, for in the best MSS. he is named Vitensis. In an ancient Edition put out by the care of Rhenanus in 1541; he is also called Vitensis, as well as in another, which is at the end of an Old Book of Rufinus' Church-History, and in the Epistle Dedicatory of the Collection of St. Austin's Sermons, Printed at Louvain in 1504 He could not have been Bishop of Utica; for when the Bishops were banished Africa, Florentinus was Bishop of that City, as appears.  a City of the Proconsular 
Victor Vitensis.  Province, hath Written an History of the Persecution of the Orthodox of afric under Gensericus and Hunnericus, Kings of the Vandals. This Persecution began in the Year 427, when Gensericus went into afric with Twenty four thousand Persons, as well Men, as Women and Children. He made strange Devastations in that Country, and laid it all waist by Murders, Plunders, and Flames. He chief fell upon the Churches and Monastries, which he destroyed with Fire and Sword. He slew a great number of Bishops and Clergymen; after he had put them to a thousand Tortures, that he might force them to discover the Treasure of the Church. Having made himself Master of all the Provinces of Africa in a short time; He besieged Carthage, and having taken it, he Banished the Bishops and Clergy, possessed himself of their Churches. He banished also the greatest part of the Bishops of other Churches. He passed from thence into Italy; took and Sacked the City of Rome in 455. Being returned into afric grown Proud and Insolent, with the thoughts of his Victory, he continued to afflict the Churches of that Country; and to Persecute the Orthodox with greater Cruelty than ever: This Persecution continued 37 Years. After his Death his Son Hunnericus did at first use them with more lenity, having granted at the request of the Emperor Zeno, and the Empress Placidia, that they should ordain an Orthodox Bishop at Carthage, upon condition that the Arian Bishops should have liberty of using their Worship in the City of the Empire. This Condition was never performed, but yet they ordained Eugenius Bishop of Carthage. But the Arians soon raised a cruel Persecution against the Catholics, and sent them an Edict, in which it was commanded, That Eugenius, and the Orthodox Bishops should come to Carthage to confer with the Bishops of the Vandals, about their Doctrine. This order being showed Eugenius, he made Answer, That the Bishops of other Provinces ought to be cited to this Conference, because it being the common concern of all the Orthodox Church, it was reasonable that the Bishops of the whole World should be present at it; and especially the Bishop of the Church of Rome, who was the Head of other Churches. Nevertheless, being constrained to appear, he did so, and after some contests, he read the Confession of Faith, which he had already prepared. But this conference was but a Pretence, which they made use of to Persecute the Orthodox. King Hunnericus published an Edict against them, which contained the same punishments against the Orthodox, which the Orthodox Emperors had decreed by their Edicts against the Arians. He shut up the Churches of the Orthodox, which he gave to the Arians; and banished the Orthodox Bishops to the Isleof Corsica. They were in Number 466, of which 88 died at Carthage, and the rest were conveyed to the Isle Corsica. This was followed by an horrible Persecution against the Orthodox, upon whom they laid infinite Torments. Such was the deplorable estate of the African Churches at that time, which had been heretofore most flourishing and glorious. Victor of Vita, who was a sharer in this Persecution hath described it in five Books, in a very plain and affecting Style. This Work hath been Printed in several Collections, and Published at Dijon in 1664. by F. Chiffletius, with the Works of Vigilius Tapsensis, [at Colen, in 1535, at Paris in 1541, by the care of B. Rhenanus, at Paris, in 1569, 8vo. at the end of Optatus Milevitanus, with Baldwin's Notes, as also in the Bibliothecâ Patrum. Tom. 8. p. 675.]   

VIGILIUS TAPSENSIS.  
VIgilius Bishop of Thapsus, a City in the Province of Bazacium in Africa, was one of those who was banished Africa by King Hunnericus 
a Under King Hunnericus.] He is cited by Theodulphus as a Bishop of Africa, and in an Ancient MS. of the Work against Eutyches. The City of Tapsus is named for the Place of his Bishopric. His Name is found in the Catalogue of the African Bishops, composed at that very time. He is the last, and by consequence the youngest of the Bishops of the Province of Byzacceum. . As he lived in a time, when Africa was under the Government of the Arians, and the East infected with the Errors of the 
Vigilius Tapsensis.  Nestorians and Eutychians; he applied himself diligently to oppose these three Heresies, but he did it ordinarily under the Name of those Fathers of the Church, who had lived before him, either because by suppressing his own Name he might avoid Persecution, or because his Works would be of great weight, and have a better effect, being put out under the Name of such illustrious Persons. Wherefore he published under the Name of St. Athanasius twelve Books upon the Trinity, by way of Dialogue; a Treatise against an Arian called Varimadus, under the Name of Idacius Clarus; a Book against Faelicianus the Arian under the Name of St. Austin. He hath also made two Conferences, in which he brings in Athanasius disputing against Arius before a Judge, whom he calls Probus, who gives Sentence for Athanasius. There are two Editions of these Conferences. The first, which is the most ordinary, is divided into two Books, wherein all the Dispute is managed between Athanasius and Arrius; but he brings into it 
* This Edition was put out by Cassander at Collen, in 1675.  in the Second Edition, which is larger than the First, and divided into three Parts, I say, he brings in Sabellius and Photius. It cannot be doubted, but that this Last Work belongs to Vigilius Tapsensis since he citys it in his five Books against Eutyches, which are the only Work he hath published under his own Name. In this Work he confutes the Eutychian Doctrine, by Scripture, and the Testimony of the Fathers of the Church. He defends St. Leo's Letter, and the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon, against the Objections of those Heretics. He observes by the by, that the Custom of Universal and Orthodox Councils, is to make new Decisions against New Heresies, without meddling with what hath been determined in former Councils, which remains in full force and vigour. There is also a place in the third Book worthy our Notice, wherein he says, that the Christians have received by Jesus Christ, the abundance of Corn, Wine, and Oil, promised to the Posterity of Esau; having been Consecrated by the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and by the Holy Chrism. Corporis, & Sanguinis Christi & Chrismatis ejus Mysterio consecratis.  
This Author wrote well enough for his time; His Discourse is plain, and Natural, without being base and childish, He unfolds the Mysteries of our Religion with much Elegancy; He proves them very solidly; He discovers the Opinions of the Heretics with great Sagacity, and confutes them very subtly, forcing them out of their strong holds. He had read the Writings of the Fathers, but knew little of the Ecclesiastical History; and therefore for want of an exact knowledge of it he hath committed several mistakes.  
The five Books against Eutyches bearing the Name of Vigilius, have always been Printed under his Name both in the Collections, which have been made of those who have opposed the Heretics, and in the Orthodoxographers, and Bibliothecae Patrum; but they are very unfitly attributed to Vigilius Bishop of Trent. They have also been printed by themselves at Basil, in 1539. Cassander hath caused them to be Printed since at Collen [in 1575., 8vo.] with the Dialogues against Arius; which he restored first of all to this Author; And lastly, Josias Simlorus had them Printed again [at Basil, in 1571.] with some other Treatises against the Eurychians.  
The twelve Books of the Trinity have been Printed among the Works of St. Athanasius, whose Name they bear [at Heidelburg, in 1601. 
* And at Paris in 1627.  but they were soon known to belong to a Latin Author. F. Sirmondus having found them in a MS. of the Abbey of St. Flurii (which is now in the Library of the Jesuits College) after the five Books of Vigilius against Eutyches, and his Dispute against Arius, as being the same Authors, hath observed in his Notes upon Theodulphus, [Printed with that Author at Paris in 1646, 8vo.] that this Author, and Hincmarus have been quoted under the Name of Athanasius. Yet they were Vigilius' of Tapsus. His Judgement hath been followed by all the Learned, and is confirmed by the Authority of several MSS. where they are joined with the Conference against Arius, and by the Testimony of the Preface of the Books against Varimadus, where the Author alludes to these two Books. F. Chiffletius hath also restored the Treatise of the Trinity against Faelicianus, attributed to St. Austin to him, because he found them in the MSS, with the Works of Vigilius, and they are of the same style. The three Books against Varimadus bear the name of Idacius; but Vigilius discovers himself to be the Author of it in the second Book of his Conferences against Arius.  
Lastly, F. Chiffletius attributes to him a Treatise of F. against Palladius, which is Printed in St. Ambrose, and among the Works of St. Gregory Nazianzen's; but he doth not sufficiently prove, that this Work is Vigilius' of Thapsus.  
The same Author is of Opinion, That the Acts of the Council of Aquileia are also the invention of Vigilius of Thapsus; but in that he is mistaken, as we have already shown. Yet the Creed which is attributed to Athanasius, may with much more Reason be attributed to Vigilius. [The abovementioned Works of Vigilius of Thapsus have been Collected into one Volume, by F. Chiffletius, and Printed with his Notes at Dijon, in 1664. 4to, and have been since put into the Bibliotheca Patrum. Tom. 8. p. 722.]   

FAELIX III. Bishop of Rome.  
CAelius Faelix was ordained Bishop of Rome in the beginning of the Year 483. A little time after his Ordination he held a Council at Rome, in which John Talaia, who being 
Faelix III Bishop of Rome.  banished from Alexandria, by the Authority of Acacius Bishop of Constantinople, was fled into the West, presented a Petition to him, in which were contained several heads of accusation against Acacius. This obliged Faelix to send to the Emperor, Vitalis Bishop of Trent, and Misenus Bishop of Cumae to request him to cause the Council of Chalcedon to be Confirmed, to Banish Petrus the Heretic from the See of Alexandria, and compel Acacius to condemn Peter, and to answer to the things of which he was accused. Faelix gave two Letters to his Legates, the one directed to Acacius, the other to the Emperor. In both of them he is very urgent to have Peter expelled from Alexandria. In the Letter to Acacius, he earnestly exhorts that Bishop to free himself from the suspicions which might be had against him; and to use his Interest with the Emperor to bring them to an end, and upbraids him for want of Zeal in this Affair, and his dissimulation or allowance given to this Heretic. In the Letter to the Emperor, he boldly tells him, that he ought not to suffer an Heretic condemned a long time since, and banished by his own Edicts, to remain in possession of the See of Alexandria. Vitalis, and Misenus parted with these Letters and Instructions. While they were in their Voyage, cyril Abbot of the 
* An Order of Monks.  Acaemetae wrote to Faelix, that there were daily Innovations against the Orthodox Faith; and that he ought to be so much the quicker in providing some remedy against them. Faelix having received this News wrote to his Legates, that they should do nothing without the advice and approbation of this cyril, and sent them a Letter Subscribed to the Emperor, wherein he tells him of the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon, and writes to him about the Persecution of the Orthodox in Africa. We have neither of the Letters, which Evagrius mentions. The Legates being arrived at Abydos 
a Abydos.] Anastasius Bibliothecarius says, that they were seized at Heraclea; but Theophanes assures us, that it was at Abydos.  were seized by the Guards, who took away their Papers, and put them into Prison. They had orders not to communicate with the Adherents of Petrus Mongus, nor Acacius, who was joined with him: But the Emperor first made use of threaten to force them to it, but not prevailing that way, he tried them by Kindness and Promises, and gained their Consent to communicate with Petrus Mongus and Acacius, upon Condition nevertheless, that it should be no prejudice to the Merits of the Cause, which they entirely referred to the Judgement of Holy See. Upon this Promise they received the Sacrament with Acacius, and with the Deputies of P. Mongus. The more Zealous of the Orthodox immediately made Protestations against the Action; One they fastened upon the clothes of the Legates with an Hook, the other they sent them in a Book; and a third in a Basket of Herbs. Vitalis and Mesenus having sped so ill, departed to go again into Italy. But they had with them an Advocate of Rome named Faelix, who was forced to stay behind, being taken Sick at Constantinople. This Man, because he would not conform to the Example of the Legates, was cruelly handled by Acacius. Vitalis and Misenus being returned to Rome, found, that the Acaemetae Monks had already given a Relation of what had passed, and had likewise sent one of their Monks called Simeon, to give the Pope an Account of it. Faelix called a Council of Sixty Seven Bishops, where they appeared to give an account of their Embassage; and brought the Letters of Zeno and Acacius full of Invectives against John Talaia, and the Praises of Peter. They laboured to excuse themselves, by saying, that they had forced them and surprised them, and they knew not that they had Communicated with Peter Bishop of Alexandria. But Simeon proved it to their Faces, that they knew what they did, and that they never would hearken to the Orthodox, which came to them. Silvanus, who had been at Constantinople with them, confirmed the Deposition of Simeon; Insomuch, that Vitalis and Misenus being Convicted of acting contrary to the Orders they had received, were Deposed and Excommunicated. They next Examined the Conduct of Acacius, and Condemned him with Petrus Mongus. This Judgement was passed July 28. Anno. 484.  
Faelix gave Notice of this Sentence to Acacius, by his 6th Letter, wherein he tells him, that being found guilty of divers Crimes, of breaking the Canons of the Council of Nice, of Usurping the Jurisdiction of those Provinces that were not subject to him, of having not only received into his Communion, but also preferred to the Episcopal Dignity, Heretics, whom he had heretofore condemned, such as that John, whom he made Bishop of Tyre, although he was not received at Apemaea by the Orthodox, and has been since expelled out of Antioch; such was also the Deacon Numerius, who was Deposed, whom yet he raised to the dignity of the Priesthood. Besides this, he stood Convicted of having placed Petrus Mongus upon the Throne of St. Mark, and received him into his Communion; of having corrupted Vitalis and Misenus to gain their consent to what he desired, instead of obeying and following the Commands, which they had been enjoined on the part of the Holy See; and by refusing to answer to the heads of the accusation, which John had drawn up against him, he seemed to acknowledge them; That he had since contemned the Deacon Faelix, and Communicated with the Heretics, and that he did persist in it; so that he did not deserve to be ranked among those that he received to his Communion, and that by this Sentence he declared him to be deprived of his Priesthood, and the Communion of the Catholic Church, fallen from the Rights of the Priestly Office, Condemned by the Judgement of Holy Spirit and his Apostolic Authority, and bound for ever with Cords of an Anathema. Nunquamque Anathematis Vinculis exuendus. Besides this Letter, there is a kind of a short Declaration against Acacius, in which Faelix declares him deprived of his Priesthood, for having not obeyed the Admonitions of the Holy See, and Imprisoned his Legates; and forbids all Men whatsoever communicating with him, under the Penalty of an Anathema.  
He wrote also to the Emperor Zeno the Ninth Letter, in which having complained of the ill Usage that his Legates had met with, he tells him that he had Deposed them, and Deprived them of Communion, for having consented to what Acacius had desired of them. He assures him, that he will never Communicate with Peter, and that he gives him the Liberty to choose the Communion of St. Peter, or Peter Bishop of Alexandria; That he hath also condemned Acacius for being in Communion with Heretics, and he hoped that the Piety of the Emperor will incline him to suffer the Laws of the Church to be Executed; That he ought to hold this for a certainty, that as God hath entrusted the Sovereignty of things Temporal to Princes, so he hath made the Ministers of the Church Ministers of Spiritual things; and that when the Cause of God is in ●and, the Will of Kings ought to submit to the Ministers of Jesus Christ; that they ought to Learn Holy things of them, and not to meddle with the Office of Teaching others, to follow the Decisions of the Church, and not take upon him to prescribe Laws. This Letter is dated Aug. 1. Anno. 484. Lastly, He lets us know by his 10th Letter to the Clergy, and People of Constantinople, the Judgement passed against Acacius, that they may not too own him for their Bishop, but separate themselves from his Communion.  
Tutus the Advocate of the Church of Rome was commanded to carry the Sentence against Acacius, and to declare it to him. He discharged his Commission by fastening it to his Priestly Habit, when he was Celebrating the Holy Mysteries, and by publishing the Declaration made against him; but afterward suffering himself to be corrupted by Maronas he Communicated with Acacius, Faelix having convicted him of it by his own Letter, he put him out of his Advocate's Office, and declared him Excommunicated. He signifies it to the Monks of Constantinople by his Eleventh Letter, and advises them to sever from their Communities those who would Communicate with Acacius; permitting them notwithstanding to receive those, who had been constrained to do it by Violence, and did testify their sorrow for it.  
But notwithstanding all the endeavours that Faelix used, his Sentence remained without Execution, nor did he write again to the Emperor so long as Acacius Lived; but after his Death he thought he had gotten a favourable Opportunity to have his Sentence Executed. Flavitus, who was ordained in his place, hoping to be united to the Holy See, wrote to Faelix a Letter, wherein he much extols the dignity of the See of Rome, and made profession of the Orthodox Faith. The first thing that the Pope did, before he received them to his Communion, was to demand of them whether they Condemned Acacius and Peter. Since they refused to do it, he declared to them, that he would not receive them to Communion, unless they would promise him never to recite the Names of Acacius and Petrus in the Holy Mysteries. The Deputies of Flavitus having answered, That they had no order about that, the Pope resolved to write to Zeno and Flavitus, to obtain of them to grant them what he demanded. The Letters are the 12th and 13th. He did all he could to defend himself against the reproaches, which might be cast on him, by acting in this matter with Authority, Rigour, and Resolution. He assures them, that he carried himself so only to perform his Duty, and do nothing against his own Conscience; He tells them that he desired nothing so much as a Reunion with the Church of Constantinople, and that the two Rome's should be at a perfect agreement, but Union could never be obtained by violating the Laws of the Church; That the Council of Chalcedon having condemned Eutyches and Dioscorus, he could not, without contempt of its Authority, receive Timotheus and Petrus, who were of the same Opinions; and that Acacius having received Peter into his Communion after he had himself Condemned him, had showed himself so great a Dissembler, that he deserved the same Punishment; That Peter had manifested no signs of Conversion, but though he had done it, he ought not to be acknowledged as a Bishop, but only received as a Mere Laic. These are the principal Matters which Faelix wrote in these two Letters, which are the most Eloquent that ever were Written by any Pope. He had commanded them a little before by his 14th Letter written during the Vacancy of the See of Constantinople, to Thalassius Abbot of the Monks called Acaemetae at Constantinople, who where entirely Devoted to the Holy See, not to receive the Bishop of Constantinople, nor any other into their Communion, that were not received by the Holy See. 'Twas also certainly in the same Vacancy, that he wrote the 15th Letter to Bishop Vetranio, in which after he hath spoken of the Division of the Church of Constantinople and Rome; and shown that it was only in Obedience to the Council of Chalcedon, that he hath condemned Acacius, that he might not seem to join with the Heretics as he had done; He desires him to use his utmost interest with the Emperor, to gain his consent, that the Names of Acacius and Petrus might be blotted out of the Catalogue of Bishops, and by this means the Churches of Constantinople may be reunited. These four Letters are dated in the Year 490.  
We have not spoken of the three Letters in Greek and Latin, written about the Affair of Petrus Fullo, who usurped the See of the Church of Antioch, of which two were sent to that pretended Bishop, and the other to the Emperor; being of the Opinion of the Learned M. Valesius, that these three Letters were forged by some Greek, as well as the other Letters written to Petrus Fullo under the Name of several Bishops, and produced, as some pretend, at the Council of Rome held under Foelix in 483, recited in the fourth Tome of the Councils, Pag. 1098, etc. For, 1. All these Letters were written Originally in Greek, and since translated into Latin, as it appears by the Style, which is Barbarous, as well as because there are two different Versions of them. 2. All these Letters are in the same Style, although they were written in the Name of the Bishop of different Countries. 3. They are written in a way unworthy of the Bishops of that time. Those that are attributed to Foelix, differ much from the Letters of that Pope. The Sentence which he pronounces against Petrus Fullo is ridiculous. 4. The Names of the greatest part of the Bishops which writ to Petrus Fullo, are unknown; for who ever heard of Faustus of Apollonia, of Pamphilus of Abydos, of Asclepiades of Trall●, of Antheon of Arsinoë, of Quintianus of Ascalon, and Justin of Sicily? Why should these Bishops, of private and inconsiderable Churches, undertake to write to Petrus Fullo? Have we any Examples like it? 5. 'Tis not true, that Petrus Fullo was condemned in a Synod of Constantinople, and another at Rome in 483. He had been so under Pope Simplicius, but since we have nothing spoken of him. He did not begin to re-establish himself again till 484. when Calendion was deposed; and therefore 'tis not likely that they would condemn him without Necessity.  
I believe also, That the two Forms of Citation to summon Acacius, which are supposed to have been given to Vitalis and Misenus in the Council of Rome held in 483. are a Forgery; for it appears by the first Letter of Foelix to Acacius, that when he sent Vitalis and Misenus, he had no design of calling Acacius to Rome, and of proceeding against him: He expected only, that he should free himself from the Accusations drawn up against him, by Letter; and he required nothing else but that he would do what he could with the Emperor to make him deprive Petrus Mongus, not knowing that he had received him to his Communion.  
Lastly, I am persuaded, that the Letter supposed to have been written by the Council of Rome against Acacius to the Clergy, and Monks of Bythinia, is also a supposititious Piece. It hath given occasion to M. Valesius to maintain, That there was in that Year two Councils held at Rome against Acacius, and two Excommunications pronounced against that Bishop, the one in a Council of 67 Bishops held July the 28th, and the other in a Synod of 42 Bishops held August the first following. 'Tis true, that so much is intimated in that Letter, but this is the thing that makes it suspected, because these two Condemnations are spoken, of in no place else. Nevertheless, if this second Condemnation were true, Foelix would certainly have mentioned it in those Letters that he wrote afterward against Acacius both in his Life-time, and after his Death: He that with so much Diligence sought out all the Reasons which could be brought against Acacius, would he have forgotten the Authority of the second Synod? Would he have passed over this second Condemnation? 'Tis so much the less credible, because it is founded upon a new fault, for having, say they, deposed Calendion, and put Peter Fullo in his place. Would Foelix have neglected to have urged this Reason for the Condemnation of Acacius, being so very plausible an one? Yet he speaks nothing of it in all these Letters. The same Day on which this Council is supposed to be held, Foelix wrote the Sentence, which he would have to be signified to Acacius, wherein he exactly relates all the Reasons of his Condemnation, but speaks nothing at all of this, which would have been one of the principal and strongest. There is therefore no Reason to believe that he was condemned upon that account. Besides, what likelihood is there, that there should be two Councils held at Rome in so little a time? Let them not say, that they are two different Sessions of the same Council, for they are under two different Bishops. Lastly, The Ancient Record concerning the Affair of Acacius, which relates exactly all the Circumstances of his Condemnation, speaks of only one, which went before the attempt which he made of putting Petrus Fullo into the See of Constantinople.  
We cannot then maintain this Letter written in the Name of the Synod of Rome to the Monks and Clergy of Bythinia, at least as to the second Part; for it is to be taken Notice of, that it hath two Parts. The first is a Relation of the Condemnation of Acacius, as we have already said, which is authorized by Foelix's Letters. The second contains the other Condemnation of Acacius, for having restored Petrus Fullo, which doth not all agree with the History. Nor are either of the Parts in the Style of Pope Foelix, but more especially the last, which is written after an impertinent manner, and contains the forbid Praises of Pope Foelix, calling him Caput nostrum, Papa & Archiepiscopus; Our Head, Pope, and Archbishop; Terms, which were never used in that Age. In an ancient MS. this Letter is dated Octob. 485. This date is evidently false, for 'tis said, That he sent this Sentence by Tutus the Advocate. Now the Voyage of Tutus was in 484. He had not that Title in 485. I spare to mention a great number of places in that Letter, which are such pitiful stuff, that it is impossible to believe that it is a Work written at that time.  
But the like cannot be said of Foelix's seventh Letter, concerning those who have been rebaptized by the Arians. In the ordinary Inscriptions it is directed to all Bishops: But I believe that we ought to follow the MS of Justellus, where it is directed to the Bishops of Sicily. In this Letter he orders what the Penance of those Persons shall be, who have suffered themselves to be Baptised by the Arians. 1. He observes, that there is a great deal of difference between such as were forced to do it, and those that have done it voluntarily. 2. He asserts, That all those who have been Baptised, aught to do Penance, and submit themselves to Fasting, Tears, and other Acts of Penance. 3. That the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, who have been rebaptized, aught to undergo Penance as long as they live, be de●… the Ecclesiastical Assemblies, and be excluded the Prayers even of the Catechumen themselves; and that all the favour that can be granted them, is to receive them into Lay-Communion at the point of Death. 4. He imposes upon the other Clergy, Monks, and Virgins devoted to God, who have also suffered themselves to be rebaptized, twelve Years Penance, three among the Hearers, seven among the Penitents, and two among the Consistents, upon Condition nevertheless, that if they happen to be in danger of Death, they shall be relieved either by the Bishop, who imposed the Penance, or by some other Bishop, or by a Priest. 5. He ordains, That as to those young Children, whom their Age may excuse, it shall suffice to keep them some time subject to the Imposition of Hands without enjoining them Penance. 6. He ordains no more than a three Years. Penance for the Clergy, Monks and Lay-Men, who have been rebaptized by force or subtlety, not having consented to it: But he lays it down as a General Rule, That none of those who have been Baptised; or rebaptized by Heretics, should be admitted to Sacred Orders. Lastly, He forbids the Bishops and Priests to receive to Communion the Clergy, or mere Laics of another Diocese, or Parish, unless they have the Testimonial Letters from their Bishop or Priest. This Letter is dated March 15. Anno 488. We have nothing to observe about the eighth Letter to Zeno Bishop of Sivil, which is nothing but a Recommendation of a certain Person called Terintianus, who had told him of the Welfare of that Bishop. The Letters of this Pope are written in a noble, cogent, and pleasant Style.   

The Author of the Memoir concerning the Affair of ACACIUS.  
THIS Memoir was composed two Years after the Condemnation of Acacius by Foelix; that is to say, in 486. It contains an Abridgement of what passed in the Cause of 
The Author of the Memoir.  Acacius, from his Condemnation to Acacius'. The things related in it are done very exactly, and in few Words. It discovers a great number of particular Circumstances, which we can find no where else: We may there see the Troubles with which the Church was vexed for 40 Years together, and the frequent Revolutions which happened to the great Sees of the Eastern Churches, and many other accidents, which it would have been hard to have picked up, if we had not an Author of that time, who hath related them distinctly. It is not certainly known, who composed this Memoir. F. Sirmondus found it in a MS. with S. Leo's Letters. It was without all doubt composed by the Order of this Pope.   

GELASIUS I.  
GElasius 
† An African, Son of Valerius, Successor of Foelix III.  was Ordained Bishop of Rome in the 
* Febr. 7.  beginning of the Year 492. and Governed that Church four Years, eight Months, and some Days. Some time after his Ordination, 
Gelasius I.  Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople wrote a Letter to him, in which he complains that he had not sent him a Letter of Communion according to the Ancient Custom: And having assured him, That he held the Orthodox Faith, he prayed him to conform himself to the Eastern Churches. Gelasius returned this Answer thereupon, That it was true, that it was the ancient Custom of the Holy See, that as soon as any Person was Ordained Bishop of Rome, he imparted his Election to his Colleagues by Letters of Communion; but he dare not give that Mark of Union to such Persons, as preferred Communion with Heretics before that of the Holy See. That the Letter which he now writes to him, ought not to be taken as a Mark of Communion, but only as an Effect of that general Charity, which Christianity obliges us to have for all the World. As to the Conformity, which he desires of him, he could not yield to it, without departing from the Truth. That as for those who have been Baptised, and Ordained by Acacius, he allows them to act in that manner, which Euphemius hath prescribed in his Letter, but he cannot consent to their putting Acacius' Name among those, who are in Communion with the Church. That though that Bishop never Espoused any Heretical Opinions, yet he hath rendered himself blame-worthy by receiving Heretics into his Communion: That 〈◊〉 having been condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, Timotheus and Petrus, who were of the ●●me Judgement with that Heretic, aught to be looked upon as subject to the same Co●…, as also all those that are united with them, so that it is not sufficient for Euphe●… to con●… 〈◊〉, and to declare himself Orthodox, unless be condemn them, who are of the same Sentiments, or co●●●unicate with them: That without this he can never come to a 〈◊〉 Reconciliation with him. Euphemius had told him in his Letter. That he was very ready to 〈◊〉 him in this Matter, but he could not do it without offending the People of Constantinople, and therefore desired him to send such Persons as he thought best of. Whereupon Gelasius answers him, That it is the People's Duty to follow their Pastor, and the Pastor's to Govern his People; and if his Flock 〈◊〉 not his Voice, It will give less heed to another Pastor, whom it suspects. Lastly, He citys him before the Tribunal of Jesus Christ, where he says it will be known, whether he be in the fault, or no, in so acting. This is the Sum of Gelasius' first Letter.  
The second is a Circular Letter to the Bishop of Illyria, which contains a Profession, or Declaration of his Doctrine, wherein he condemns the Errors of the Eutychians, and establisheth the Distinction of the two Natures. He also tells them, How joyful he was to see them follow the Sentence passed against Acacius by his Predecessor, and pronounce Anathema against that Bishop.  
The third is another Circular Letter to the Bishop of Dardania, in which he exhorts them to condemn the Eutychians, and all that communicate with them. They satisfy him in their answer, which goes before this Letter.  
In the fourth Letter directed to Faustus, the Ambassador of Theodoricus at Constantinople, he complains of the Obstinacy of the Greeks in the business of Acacius; and because they desired him to pardon him, he says, That he could not pardon a Man who died out of the Communion of the Church; nor absolve him from his Excommunication after his Death, because he had no Precedent for such an Action. And whereas Euphemius had said, That Acacius could not be condemned by the Bishop of Rome only; he answers, That having been condemned by the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon, and his Predecessor having done no more but put the Decree of that Council in Execution, he could not disallow of his Condemnation, because it was not only permitted to the Bishop of the Holy Apostolic See, but also to all Bishops, to withdraw themselves from their Communion, who embrace an Heresy condemned by the Church: That it is to no purpose to object the Canons, since the very Canons themselves refer the Examinations of the Appeals of all Churches to the Holy See, so that there can be no Appeal from his Judgement: That Timotheus, Peter of Antioch, Paul, and several other Bishops, had been condemned by the Authority of the Holy See only, with the Approbation of Acacius himself, who executed the Sentences against them. Lastly, He accuses the Greeks, who alleged the Canons in defence of their Carriage of breaking the Canons; and maintains, That Acacius hath transgressed them in many Particulars.  
The fifth Letter to Honorius a Bishop in Dalmatia, was written by Gelasius, about the News which he had heard, That the Heresy of Pelagius was sprung up again in Dalmatia. He exhorts that Bishop to oppose it vigorously. This Admonition much surprised him, and he could not but discover it to the Pope, who answers him in his sixth Letter, That he ought not to find fault with his Pastoral Care and Vigilance.  
The seventh Letter is directed to the Bishop of Picenum. Gelasius wrote it against an 
* Seneca, Senex delirus.  Old Man, who revived the Errors of Pelagius, by teaching, That there was no Original Sin: That Children that die Unbaptised, are not damned: And that Man may be happy, avoid Sin, and do good without Grace, which is bestowed on him for his Merits sake. Gelasius having confuted these Errors at large, accuseth this Priest also for permitting the Monks to dwell with the Consecrated Virgins, and much condemns him for it. For, saith he, if the Mind of those, who have no converse with Women, is often troubled with unclean thoughts, what a deep Impression will the presence of Women make upon the Minds of them, who see them continually? Wherefore he forbids this abuse, and threatens to punish those, who shall hereafter tolerate it. This Letter is dated Nou. 1. 493.  
The eighth Letter of Gelasius is addressed to the Emperor 
* Who succeeded Zeno.  Anastasius. After he hath excused himself for not writing to him before, and declared what Zeal and Affection he hath to serve him, he exhorts him to follow the Judgement of the Holy See, by causing the Memory of Acacius to be condemned. In this Letter there are many other things remarkable, but nothing more than what he says concerning the Distinction between the Priesthood and the Royal Authority. There are two sorts of Power, saith he, which exercise a Sovereignty over all the World, the Sacred Authority of the Bishops, and the Authority of Kings. The Charge of Bishops is so much the greater, because they must give an Account at the Day of Judgement of the Actions of Kings. You know, Sir, that although you are Supreme, and your Dignity excels all others; yet you are obliged to submit yourselves to the Authority of those that Minister about Holy Things: That you require of them the Principles of your Salvation, and aught to follow the Rules, which they prescribe for the receiving of the Sacraments, and disposing Ecclesiastical Matters. For if the Bishops being persuaded, that God hath given you a Sovereign Power over Things Temporal, yield Obedience to your Civil Laws, without opposing your Power in Temporal Matters; with how great Reverence ought you to be subject in Spiritual Things to those, who are set apart for the Distribution of the Holy Sacraments? And if all the Faithful aught to submit themselves in general to all the Bishops, which discharge their Office well; with how much greater Reason ought they to yield to the Bishop of the Holy See, whom God hath made the 
* First in Order & Dignity, not in Power or Sovereignty.  First among the Bishops, and the Church hath always acknowledged him for such?  
The ninth Letter to the Bishop of Lucania, Samnium and Sicily, contains many necessary Rules for the Ministers of the Church The Wars and Troubles of Italy had brought the Churches of that Country to such a miserable Condition, that many of them had no Ministers in so much that they were forced to pass by the ordinary Forms, and dispense with the strict Observation of the Canons: But lest they should abuse this Indulgence, Gelasius gives them these following Rules.  
I. He order them to observe the Ancient Canons, unless some urgent necess●●y oblige the Churches to dispense with them. He allows them to confer Holy Orders upon the Monks provided there be no Canonical Impediment in them, viz. That they have not heretofore been guilty of any Enormous Crimes; Have not been twice Married, nor have Married a Widow; That they have no bodily defects; be not Servants nor engaged in any public or private Office, if they have some Learning, without which they cannot obtain the degree of a Porter. And if any of the Monks have all these Qualifications, he may be immediately made a Reader, Notary, or Advocate, and three Months after an Acolythus, especially if he be of full Age: After the end of six Months he may be Ordained a Sub-Deacon; and if he behaves himself well and prudently, and leads a good Life, he shall be made a Deacon at the end of nine Months, and a Priest at the end of the Year.  
II. Gelasius tells them, That if they admit a Layman into the Clergy, they must examine him so much the more in the abovementioned Particulars; and more especially concerning his Life and Manners, left under the pretence of the Necessity, which they have of Ministers, they fill the Clergy with vicious Persons. To be the better assured of their Carriage, he requires them to wait six Months after the Year is out, before they be Ordained Priests. But because this space of 18 Months was not sufficient, according to the ancient Canons, Gelasius. declares, That he shortened the time for the sake of those Churches that wanted Ministers; but in others, and in these very Churches, when a sufficient Number of Clerks shall be again established, the ancient Canons shall be observed in the greatest strictness.  
III. He forbids the Bishop to Consecrate Churches new-built without necessary Abilities, and not to meddle with the Clergy of their Colleagues.  
iv He forbids them to exact any thing for Baptism, or Confirmation; or to demand any thing of such as are newly Baptised.  
V He commands the Priests not to raise themselves above their Order, nor to undertake to make the Chrism, nor Confirm, nor Bless, nor perform any other Sacred Office in the Presence of the Bishop, nor to sit down by him, nor to Officiate before him without his permission. He puts them in mind, That they have no Power to Ordain a Sub-Deacon, or an Acolythus, without a Bishop.  
VI He enjoins the Deacons to keep themselves within the Bounds of their Ministry, forbidding them to perform any Offices that belong to the Priests, or to Baptise, unless in case of necessity, without a Priest, or Bishop. He adds in the  
VII Rule, That they ought not to rank themselves with the Priests, nor distribute the Body of Jesus Christ in the Presence of the Bishops or Priests.  
Having thus recommended the exact Observation of the Canons, he forbids them Baptising at any other time but at Easter and Pentecost, unless the Person to be Baptised be in danger of Death. He also forbids them to Ordain any, unless in the Ember-Weeks, Mid-Lent, Holy Saturday in the Evening; and he thinks, that no case can oblige them to Ordain a Priest or Deacon at any other times. As to the Virgins he says, That they ought not to be Consecrated, and Veiled; but on the Epiphany, Easter, or on the Feast of the Apostles. He forbids them Consecrating a Widow. He will not allow them to Ordain, or admit into their Monasteries a Slave, or any Person that lives in a servile Condition. He forbids Clergymen to follow Trades, or use any scandalous Employments. Afterwards he repeats the ancient Canons concerning the Qualifications of such Persons, as they ought to Ordain. They ought to be Learned, have no bodily defects, not be Eunuches, nor guilty of any Crimes; to be of a sound Mind, to be but once Married. He sentences them who have been Ordained for Money to be put out of the Clergy. He order them to endure Penance all their Lives, who have corrupted a consecrated Virgin; and only allows them to receive Absolution at the point of Death, if they have done Penance. He threatens those Clergymen who go from one Church to another. As for those Widows, who Mary after they have vowed a single Life, he doth not impose public Penance upon them, but he thinks it sufficient to admonish them of the fault that they have committed. He complains of them, who have consecrated Churches without the allowance of the Holy See, and have given them the Name of such Persons as died not in the Faith. Lastly, He is much displeased that Women Ministered at the Altar in some places.  
Having spoken after this manner of the Degrees of the Clergy, and of their Duties, he treats of the Revenues of the Church. He will have them divided into four parts; whereof one is for the Bishop; the other for the Clergy; the third for the Poor; and the fourth for the Buildings. He adds, That the Bishop ought not to diminish the Clergies part, nor the Clergy the Bishops, and that the Bishop ought to employ that part faithfully, which is set apart for the Buildings of the Church without converting it to his own Advantage; but he must make it appear, what use be makes of it. And as to that part, which is allotted the Poor, although ●e must one Day give an account to God, yet he ought also to give proof of his faithful Management of it. G●… concludes with an ●…ction to all the Clergy to give him Intelligence of those, who shall do contrary to these Rules. This Letter bea●● date March 10. Anno 494.  
The 〈◊〉 Letter to the Bishops of Sicily is dated in March of the same Year. He speaks therein of the Use the Bishops ought to make of their Revenues for the relief of the Poor, and maintenance of Ministers: And adds, That the Goods, of which the Churches have been in possession for 30 Years past, do belong to them according to the Civil Laws, and are looked upon as the Revenues of the Church.  
The 11th Letter to the Bishops of Dardania and ●…a, is about the business of Acacius. He commends their Zeal which they had shown in 〈◊〉 part with the Holy See, and not imitating the Bishop of Thessalonica, who sided with the Bishop of Constantinople, and would not condemn Acacius. He declares him to be separated from the Communion of the Church of Rome; and maintains, That Acacius being dead out of that Communion, cannot be absolved after his Death. It is dated Aug. 2. 494.  
The following Letter to the Bishop of Arles, is a Letter of Communion, by which Gelasius acquaints him with his Preferment to the Holy See; and tells him, That he desires to live in the United Communion of the Bishops of France. The date of this Letter is Aug. 19 Anno 494.  
The 13th Letter ditected to the Bishops of Dardania, is a kind of Manifesto; in which Gela●… proves, That Acacius hath been lawfully and judicially condemned by the Holy See. His principal Reason is this, That the Bishop of Rome hath done nothing but executed the Decree of the Council of Chalcedon, which principally belongs to the Holy See. That there was no need of a new Synod, since the Matter having been already determined, Acacius hath condemned himself by joining himself to Persons condemned. In the next place he relates the business of Acacius, after what manner the Holy See having discovered, that he favoured Petrus Mongus, had admonished him several times of it, but he had never given any satisfaction to it: That having been accused by John Bishop of Alexandria, Bishop of the second See, and cited before the first See of the World, he would neither appear himself, nor send any other Person to appear for him; How he had likewise corrupted the Legates of the Holy See, and persisted to communicate with Heretics: That having written to the Holy See against John, he would not condescend to accuse him judicially there: That he, who was Bishop of a small See, had refused to do that which he saw the Bishop of the second See to do: That after this refusal, the Holy See by executing the Council of Chalcodon, had condemned him: That Timotheus, Aelurus, and Petrus Mongus, had been condemned in the same manner by the Judgement of the Holy See only: That the Holy Church of Rome hath right to judge all others, since the Canons allow Appeals to his Judgement from all parts of the World: That after this Judgement he neither had, nor could be absolved by any Synod: That the Holy See can absolve such Persons as have been condemned by the Synods, as it absolved heretofore St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostom, and lately Flavian: That on the contrary it had condemned Dioscorus, and rejected his Synod: That there are good and bad Councils: That an unlawful Council is that, which doth any thing contrary to Holy Scripture, the Doctrine of the Fathers, and the Decrees of the Church; and which the whole Church, and chief the Holy See, doth not approve; And a lawful Synod is that which judgeth according to Scripture, the Tradition of the Fathers, and the Ecclesiastical Laws which all the Church receiveth, and the Holy See approveth: That a Synod of this sort cannot be found fault with; And such was the Council of Chalcedon which condemneth Eutyches and his Followers: That all those that approve the Doctrine of this Heretic, or communicate with those that approve him, although they be Bishops assembled in a Synod, are involved in the same Condemnation: That there is no need of another Synod to condemn them, 'tis enough to put the Council of Chalcedon in Execution, which is all the Holy See hath done in this Affair: That Acacius had done well in other Matters, but had thrust out John the Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria, and put into his place, which he had made void by his own Authority, Petrus Mongus an Heretic, whom he himself had condemned; that he also deprived Calendion Bishop of the third See, to put in his place Petrus Fullo a notorious Heretic: That he had not called a Synod to do these things, nor to remove such Orthodox Bishops: That he had arrogated to himself such Prerogatives as did not belong to him: That he could not say, That he was forced by the Emperor to do these things, since he had stoutly resisted the Emperors Basiliscus and Zeno upon other occasions: That this last did boast that he did nothing in all this Affair without the Council of Acacius: That it was certain, that Acacius did not endeavour to hinder the Emperor from troubling the Orthodox, as he was obliged: That he ought not to exalt himself the more because he was Bishop of the Royal City, because that doth not give a Sovereign Title, since there were several other Cities, which were Imperial Seats, as Ravenna, 
* M●diolanum.  Milan, Sermium, which had not for all that any such Prerogatives: That the Church of Constantinople was not to compare with those of Alexandria and Antioch, because not only it was not a Patriarchal See, but because it had not the Dignity of a Metropolis: That the presence of the Emperor, and the Praeeminency of the City, ought not to impart any Ecclesiastical Dignity to him: That the Emperor Marcian, who had done his utmost to procure him such Prerogatives as were not due to him, had himself acknowledged, that St. Leo had reason to oppose it: That Anatolius, who endeavoured to enlarge his Rights, was forced to abandon them: That although it were the Emperor, who had deprived John of Alexandria and Calendion, Acacius ought to have opposed 〈◊〉, and not stir him up against them: That although it were true, that the first had blotted out the Name of the Emperor, and the other had told him a Lie, yet he ought not to deprive them before they were convicted, and condemned by a Synod. These are some of the Reasons which Gelasius propounds in this Manifesto.  
The 14th Letter is a Fragment of another Memoir; containing the Acts which might serve to justify the Condemnation of Acacius. We have still a Letter of Simplicius to Acacius, wherein this Pope advises him not to suffer P. Mongus to be received into Communion, before he hath done Penance; and then, to admit him only into the rank of Laymen: As also a Fragment of a Letter of Pope Foelix to the Emperor Zeno, against the same Mongus; a Letter of Acacius against Tim. Ae●●rus, and P. Mongus, with some Reflections of Gelasius upon this Last piece.  
The 15th is a Manifesto to the Eastern Bishops, which contains almost the same things with the 13th Letter.  
The Letters taken out of the Collection of Canons of Cardinal Deus-dedit are Commissions about different Affairs. The First, for the Ordination of a Priest in a New Parish. The Second, for the Ordination of a Deacon. The Third, is about the affair of those Clergymen of Nola, who were disobedient to their Bishop, who had been sent to the Pope by Theodoricus. The Fourth, is for the Restauration of the Worship of God in a Church, where it had been discontinued, because there were no Revenues. The Fifth, is a Commission to inspect the ill Management of a Bishop, who was accused of converting the Goods of the Church to his own use. The 〈◊〉 is to inquire into the Murder of a Christian Slave, and into an Insolence offered to a Bishop. The Seventh, is an Order to separate such Persons from Communion, as have wronged the Church. The Eighth is an Injunction to a Bishop to restore a Chalice which his Predecessor 〈◊〉 taken from another Church. The Ninth i● against those Bishops, which encroach upon the Jurisdiction of their Brethren. This imports; that the Metropolitan shall ordain all the Bishops of his Province; and that the Bishops of the Province shall ordain the Metropolitan.  
The Last contains an Abrictgment of some of the Rules laid down in the 13th. To these Letters may be joined the Letter to Rusticus [Lugdunensis] Published in F. Dacherius in Tom. V of his Specilegi●…. In which he thanks that Bishop of Lions for his assistance, and relates how much trouble he had in the business of Acacius; but this Letter doth not seem to me to be Gelasius' Style.  
But Pope Gelasius hath not only written Letters, but also hath composed some small Treatises. We have already observed that several of these Letters may pass for Works, Memoirs, or Manifesto's. Of this Nature is his Treatise De Anathematis Vin●●lo. He gins it with an Answer to the Objection of those, who complained, that he urged the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon in the business of Acacius too much; but would not consent to the Privileges which the Council had granted to the Bishop of Constantinople. He answers, that all the Church embraced such definitions of this Council as were consonant to Holy Scripture, to the Tradition of the Holy Fathers, and the Decrees of the Church concerning the Orthodox Truth, and the Common Faith of all the Church. But as to other things therein treated of, which the Holy See gave no Person Commission to meddle with, to which the Legates of the Holy See oppose themselves, and which the Holy See never would approve of; which Anatolius himself had abandoned, by referring them to the Approbation of the Holy See; and which are contrary to the Privileges of the Universal Church, he never would in any wise defend them.  
After this he discourses of Excommunication and Absolution. He acknowledges that all Sinners may be absolved in this Life if they do Repent, and althô it be said in the Sentence given against Acacius, that he shall never be loosed from the Curse pronounced against him, this ought not to be understood, but in case he do not Repent; for if that be done in this Life, he may be Pardoned; but if he go on, and Die in that estate, he cannot be Absolved. That the Judgement of Absolution, which the Emperor had caused to be pronounced in favour of Peter of Alexandria, was void, being done by his own Authority contrary to the Canons of the Church, and without the Consent of the Bishop of the Holy See, by whose authority he had been Condemned,  
The second Treatise of Gelasius is a Discourse against Andromachus a Roman Senator, and 
* Caeterosque Romanus.  other Persons, who endeavoured to restore the Lupercalia at Rome, which were at that time utterly Abolished, Superstitiously believing that the Diseases, with which the City was then afflicted, proceeded from the neglect of those Sacrifices. This Pope smartly reproves those who were of this Opinion, and proves, they are unworthy of the Name and Profession of Christians; That they commit a Spiritual Adultery, and fall into a kind of Idolatry, which deserves a separation from the Body of Christ, and severe Penance. In sum, That their Opinion was a foolish and groundless Imagination, because the Lupercalia were not appointed to avert Diseases, but to make Women Fruitful, as T. Luvius relates in the second Decad of his History; That the Plague, and other Distempers were as Common, when the Lupercalia were Celebrated, as they are now; and if Rome be afflicted with Diseases, the Plague, Barrenness, etc. it ought to be imputed to the corrupt and disorderly manners of the Inhabitants; That if the Lupercalia have any thing Divine, they ought to be Celebrated with the same Ceremonies, and in the same manner that they were heretofore; and what Man is there that will be guilty of such shameless Impudence? That they were a Remnant of Paganism, which was the reason that they were Abolished; and though indeed they remained in use a long time under the Christian Emperors; yet it doth not follow from thence, that they ought always to be preserved, for all Superstitions could not be abolished at once, but by little and little. Lastly, He tells them, that a 〈◊〉 Christian cannot, nor aught to do it. And althô his Predecessors did tolerate it, they had some reasons which hindered them from abolishing them, but yet he doubts not but that they did endeavour it.  
The third Treatise was composed 
* D. Cave Entitles it Dicta adversus Pelagianam Haeresin.  against this Doctrine of the Pelagians, that Men may pass their Life without Sin. He proves the contrary by several Reasons grounded upon the Testimonies of Holy Scripture. In it also he explains, in what sense St. Paul says, That the Children of the Faithful are Holy, and the believing Wife sanctifieth the unbelieving Husband.  
But the most eminent Treatise of Gelasius is his Treatise against Eutyches and Nestorius [concerning the two Natures in Jesus Christ] The Critics at first doubted whether it belonged to this Pope, and 
* The Popish Writers are generally of Baronius judgement, because there is a clear testimony against Transubstantiation in this Book. Dr. Cave  Baronius affirms it with greater Confidence than any, that it is not his, but Gelasius Cyzicenus', and Bellarmine followeth his Judgement. The Conjectures which they bring, seem to have some resemblance of truth, if we consider them alone. They are as follows, 1. The Author of this Treatise quotes the Greek Fathers only, and never mentions the Latins; now what probability is there, that Pope Gelasius would not allege St. Jerom, St. Ambrose, St. Austin, and St. Leo. 2. He numbers Eusebius Caesariensis among the Orthodox Doctors. Now Gelasius thought him an Arian, and puts his Books among the Apocryphal. 3. The Treatise of Gelasius against Eutyches was a large Work, according to the testimony of Gennadius; this that we have is a small Tract. These Reasons seem to prove, that 'tis not probable, that it is Pope Gelasius'. On the other hand, there are no Objections against Gelasius Cyzicenus, all things concur to attribute it to him, for the time and name agree; there is no other Gelasius to whom it can be attributed, the Style of this Book is very like that of the History of the Council of Nice, written by Gelasius Cyzicenus. Lastly, The Author of that History says, in the Preface, that he hath written against the Eutychians, and commends Eusebius in the Body of his Work. All this makes it sufficiently evident, that this Work belongs to Gelasius Cyzicenus, rather than Gelasius Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless there want not convincing proofs, to evince, that it is really the Work of this Latter. For first, It is found in the MSS. joined with the Letters of this Pope. Second, St. Fulgentius, who is a Witness beyond exception, citys it as Pope Gelasius' [Lib. de 5. quest. apud Ferrand. Diac. c. 18.] and John II. uses the Testimony of this Author, as Pope Gelasius' [in Epist. ad Avie●●m.] Thirdly, Gennasius 
* De Scrip. c. 94.  assures us, that this Pope made a large Treatise against Eutyches and Nestorius. This agrees to this Book, which bears the same Title, and is very considerable; for though it be not a great Work in itself, 'tis a great Volume in Gennadius' sense. We ought not to wonder, that he doth not quote the Latin Authors, being engaged with the Greeks, against whom he might very well use the Authority of Eusebius Caesariensis. Lastly, The Style of this Treatise demonstrates plainly, that it is Pope Gelasius'. In it he shows, that there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, united in one Person, and that these two Natures have retained their Properties. This truth is proved in the first part by the Authority of Holy Scripture, and in the second by the Testimonies of the Greek Fathers. About the end of the first part we meet with a passage about the Eucharist, exactly like Theodoret's [This Treatise hath been Printed at Basil in 1528, in Antidoto adversus Haereses, and at Tigur. 1571. 'Tis also extant in Biblioth. Pat. Tom. 8. p. 699.]  
This Pope had made also some other Treatises upon different subjects, and some Hymns in imitation of St. Ambrose, of which Gennadius makes mention; but we have no more of his than the Works abovementioned.  
Besides these Works, which are his alone, the Decree concerning the Apocryphal and Canonical Books composed, or rather approved by a Council of 70 Bishops, held at Rome in 494, may also be attributed to him, for indeed 
* Dr. Cave thinks them not the Work of Gelasius. 1. Because it doth not bear his name in the ancientest Editions. 2. Because some Books arecited in it, which were not then Written, or unknown as Sedulius' Paschal Work, a Treatise de Revelatione Capitis S. Baptistae, etc. 3. It contains many absurd things in it, unbecoming the Judgement of Gelasius, and a Synod, etc.  'tis the Work of Gelasius. This Decree contains first of all a Catalogue of such Books, as the Church of Rome acknowledges to be Canonical both in the O. and N. Testament, like to the Decree of the Council of Trent, save that he reckons but one Book of the Macchabees. Next he establisheth the Authority of the Church of Rome, and its Primacy, which according to him was not before confirmed ●y any Synodical Decree, but only by the words of Jesus Christ to Saint Peter, to whom St. Paul was joined, and with whom he suffered Martyrdom under Nero; insomuch, that these two Apostles have Consecrated the Church of Rome, and by their Presence and Martyrdom given it a pre-eminence above all other Churches. So that the first See of the Churches of the World is Rome, and the second Alexandria, the third Antioch, where St. Peter abode before he came to Rome.  
After this Declaration comes a Catalogue of the Councils, and the Books which are received by the Church of Rome, viz. The four first General Councils, and other Synods received, and authorized in the Church. The Works of St. Cyprian, St. Gregory Nazianzene, St. Basil, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. John of Constantinople, St. Theophilus of Alexandria, St. Austin, St. Jerom, St. Prosper, the Letter of St. Leo to Flavian, and all the Treatises of the Orthodox Fathers that died in the Communion of the Church, and the Decretals of the Popes. As for the Acts of the Martyrs he observes, that although he did not doubt of the truth of them, nevertheless the Church of Rome doth not read them, because the Authors of them are not known, and there are some of them forged by the ignorant Men and Infidels, and others full of falsehood, such as are the Acts of St. Quiritius, St. Julitta, St. George, and several others. Nevertheless it receives the lives of St. Paul, St. Arsenius, St. Hilarian, and other Holy Men; but it is only because they are written by St. Jerom. The Acts of St. Silvester are read in some Churches, althô the Author be not known. The Stories of the finding of the Cross, and of John Baptist's Head, are Modern Relations which some Christians read, but when such sort of Works fall into our hands, we must then follow the Apostles direction, who teaches us to try all things, and make use only of that which is good. He commends some works of Ruffinus and Origen, although he will not leave the Judgement which St. Jerom gives of them, nor approve what he hath condemned in them; He doth not wholly reject the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Caesariensis, because it relates many Important matters, although he condemns the Praises, which he gives of Origen. He commends the History of Orosius, Sedulius' Paschal Work, and the Poem of Juvencus.  
Lastly, He sets down a Catalogue of some of those Apocryphal Works, which the Church rejecteth. After the Acts of the Council of Ariminum, he places the false Gospels, and other Apocryphal Books of Holy Scripture, the Works of Heretics, and of some Orthodox Authors, who have departed from the Doctrines of the Church in some things, such as Eusebius, Tertullian, Lactantius, Africanus, Commodianus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Arnobius, Tichonius, Cassianus, Victorinus Petavionensis, and Faustus Reiensis.  
In the next year this Pope held another Council, [of 55 Bishops at Rome,] where Misenus the Legate of his Predecessor, who had been Excommunicated for Communicating with Acacius, was absolved, having humbly begged Pardon for his fault.  
This is all we have been able to Collect of Pope Gelasius. He was a subtle and intelligent Man who much enlarged his Authority. He Wrote well, but obscurely. He is guilty of much false Reasoning, and often supposes those things for certain, which never were done. He was very skilful and knowing in the Customs and Usages of the Church of Rome. He loved Order and Discipline, and joined Prudence and Courage with them both. He gave an ample demonstration of it in the business of Acacius, which he maintained against all opposition, and would not remit any thing for Peace sake, which he might easily have procured, if he had not so severely insisted upon the Condemnation of Acacius. By which it appears, that the Popes were sometimes a little too stiff and resolute; for although Acacius had been more blame-worthy, than indeed he was, yet the Pope ought to have more mildly dealt with him for Peace-sake, and not to have persecuted with so much rigour the Memory of a Bishop, whose Sentiments were Orthodox, and whose Fault seems to have been nothing but this, that he was not careful to please the Bishop of Rome, and was too submissive to the Will of his Prince. [He is also thought to be the 
Addition.  Author of the Codex Sacramentarius, which is a Collection of such Forms of public Prayers and Administration of Sacraments, as were in use in the Church of Rome in his time, which he digested into one Volume, putting them into a good Order, and adding much of his own. This Book lay hid for many Ages, but at last falling into the hands of Paulus Petavius, it was published at Rome, in 1680, 4to. And not long after it was Reprinted with some other ancient Liturgies at Paris in 1685, 4to, by the Care of F. Mabillon.]   

ANASTASIUS II. 
Anastasius II.   
ANastasius II. Succeeded Pope Gelasius, and was Ordained Bishop of Rome, 
* Sept. 15.  Nou. 28. Anno. 496. The first thing he did was to write to the 
† Anastasius.  Emperor, to endeavour the Reunion of the Church. He exhorts him therefore in the first 
** This Letter is in Tom. 4. of Councils. p. 1278.  Letter, and earnestly entreats him to hinder that the Name of Acacius, which gave so much offence, should not be recited in the Church, and by that means procure the Church's Peace. At the same time he advertiseth him, that this would not derogate from the validity of the Ordinations, which Acacius hath conferred, or Baptisms, which he hath administered, because the Holy Spirit works by evil Ministers; and Sinners, who administer the Sacraments, hurt none but themselves, n●…r do hinder the effect of the Sacraments.  
Anastasius sent 
* Germanus Bishop of Capua, and Cresconius, Bishop of Tuder.  two Legates to Constantinople to Negotiate the Peace, and at the same time Festus a Senator of Rome went about some public affairs. There was also then at Constantinople a Priest and another Clergyman, Deputies for the Church of Alexandria, who being desirous of a Reunion with the Church of Rome, presented a 
† It is extant in Tom. 4. p. 1283. of the Councils.  Memoir to the Pope's Legates and Festus, wherein they deliver themselves to this Effect; That the Churches of Rome founded by St. Peter, and of Alexandria planted by St. Mark, have always had the same Faith and Doctrine, and were so firmly united, that when any Councils were held in the East, the Bishop of Rome made choice of the Bishop of Alexandria to act in his stead, and hold his place in them; but there began a Division between these two Churches in the time of St. Leo, because his Letter against the Impious Heretic Eutyches being falsified by Theodoret, and some other Bishops of the Nestorian Party, who Translated it into Greek, and by the Authority of that Corrupt Translation, had maintained the Doctrine of Nestorius, had given the Church of Alexandria occasion to think, that the Church of Rome was of that Opinion, and upon that account to separate from her Communion; On the other side the Bishop of Rome being persuaded that the Egyptians opposed the Doctrine, which he had received from the Apostles, had also separated them from his Communion; That they had sent Deputies to Rome to justify, that their Church had no other Sentiments than those of the Fathers of the Council of Nice; but there was then at Rome a certain Man of their Country, an ●…my to the truth, by whose means they were denied Reception and Audience; Insomuch that they returned without effecting any thing, but they understood since by Photinus a Deacon of the Church of Thessalonica, who was sent by his Bishop to Pope Anastasius, that this Pope did not approve of the Additions and Alterations, which had been made in the Version of St. Leo's Letter; That the Legates of this Pope, sent to Constantinople, having assured them of the same thing, they implored them to receive their Confession of Faith; that if it were found agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, these two Churches might be Reunited. In this Confession of Faith, having asserted with most serious Protestations, that they did receive the Doctrine of the three first General Councils, and the anathemas of St. Cyril, without mentioning the fourth Council: They confess, that Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the Father according to the Divine Nature, and with us according to the Humane; that there is but one Son; that the Actions and Sufferings of Jesus Christ are proper to one Son only. They condemn those that divide or confound the Natures, or introduce a mere Phantom, because in the Incarnation there is no multiplication of Sons, and the Trinity of the Persons in the Godhead still remains, although one of the Divine Persons be Incarnate. They pronounce an Anathema against Nestorius and Eutyches. But they declare, that the Doctrine of Dioscorus, Timotheus, and Petrus, their Patriarches was such, as that they do still follow it, and are ready to justify it. Lastly, They conjure the Pope's Legates to present this Confession of Faith to him, that he may approve it, and receive them into his Communion. Festus also was Commissioned by the Emperor to negotiate the Reunion of the Church of Constantinople; and he promised to sway Anastasius the Pope to Subscribe Zeno's Henoticon. But when he came to Rome Anastasius was dead; having been in the See of the Church of Rome but two years wanting six days.  
There is another 
* It is extant in Tom. 4. Council. p. 1278.  Letter of Anastasius to Lewis the French King, wherein he congratulates his Conversion to Christianity. Lastly, M. Baluzius in Tom. 1. of his new Collections of Councils hath published some fragments of a Letter of Anastasius to Ursicinus upon the Incarnation. Platina says, that he wrote some Books De Trinitate, De Libero arbitrio, de Regulis Fidei adversus Pelagianam Haeresin, and many Sermons, but we know not upon what grounds. The Letters of this Pope are full of Moral Observations and Applications of Texts of Holy Scripture.   

PASCHASIUS, a Deacon of the Church of Rome.  
THIS Deacon flourished in the Popedom of Anastasius, and Symachus, under this last he 
Paschasius, a Deacon of Rome.  favoured the Party of Laurentius the Antipope; and some hold, that he was put into Purgatory upon that Account, where Germanus Bishop of Capua saw his Soul, if we may believe the Relation which St. Gregory gives us in his Dialogues. He made two Books concerning the Godhead of the Holy Spirit, 
* Against Macedonius.  commended by St. Gregory, in which he hath not omitted any Material proof, which the Holy Scripture affords us to prove the Godhead of the Holy Spirit. This Treatise is Written in a very good Method, and with much Elegancy. It hath been Printed at Collen in 1539 [8vo. and at Helmstadt in 1613.] and put into the Biblioth. Patr. [Tom. 8. p. 806.] Some think, that it is to this Paschasius, that Eugippius hath Dedicated the Life of St. Severinus.   

JULIANUS POMERIUS.  
JUlianus Pomerius, a Native of Mauritania, and Ordained a Priest in France, lived about the end of the fifth Age. He composed a Treatise by way of Dialogue between Julian a Bishop, 
Julianus Pomerius.  and Verus a Priest, 
* Dr. Cave takes them for an Abridgement of Nemesius ' s 8 Books Dé Animâ.  about the Nature and Qualities of the Soul, divided into eight Books. In the first he tells us, what the Soul is, and in what sense it is said to be made in the Image of God. In the second he examines whether it be Corporeal, or Incorporeal. In the third, he inquires how the Soul of the first Man was made. In the fourth, he discusses this Question, Whether the Soul, which is about to be infused into the Body, be created anew, and without Sin, or whether it be generated by the Soul of the Parent? And whether being so derived by Propagation from the Soul of the first Man, it draws Original Sin from him? The fifth contains a short repetition of the Matters treated on in the fourth, with some Questions and Distinctions, such as this, Whether the Faculty, or Power of the Soul depends only on the Will? The sixth, inquires, From whence proceeds the Opposition between the Flesh and the Spirit, spoken of by St. Paul. The seventh is about the difference between the Life, and Death, and Resurrection of the Flesh and Soul. The eighth, explains the Prophecies concerning such things as shall happen at the end of the World, and contains an Explication of some Questions proposed about the Resurrection. This Treatise is very Logical and Metaphysical, it teaches us, as Tertullian had done before, That the Soul is Corporeal.  
This Author hath written another Treatise, dedicated to a Person named Principius, about the contempt of Worldly Things; as also a Book of Instructions for Virgins: Three Books 
* De vitâ contemplatiuâ, sive de futurae Vitae contemplatione, Vel, de actuali conversatione. Dr. Cave.  of the contemplative, and active Life; and another Treatise of Virtues and Vices. This is all that is spoken of this Author by Gennadius and Isidore in their Catalogues of Ecclesiastical Writers.  
We have none of these Works but his three Books of the Contemplative Life, which have been 
† They were also printed alone under Prosper' s Name at Colen in 1536. 8●. and before in 1487.  printed among S. Prosper's Works, under whose Name they have been commonly quoted for above 800. Years, but the disagreement of Style proves that they are not his, and the Testimonies of the two Catalogues abovementioned oblige us to attribute them to Julianus Pomerius, under whose Name they are found in several MSS. We have long since cited an ancient MS. of M. De Montchal Archbishop of Toulouse.  
F. Quesnel hath added another MS. in the Abbey of Trappe; and we have heard, that there is a very ancient one in the Library of the Chapterhouse of Beauvais; where these three Books of a Contemplative Life bear the Name of Julian Pomerius, the true Author of them. In the first Book, having described the Happiness of the Saints, who enjoy the full Contemplation of the Godhead in Heaven, which the most Holy Men never have had in this Life, and shown the difference between a Contemplative and Active Life, he exhorts the Bishops and Priests to betake themselves to a Contemplative Life, sequestering themselves from the Affairs, and Business of the World, and applying themselves wholly to the Study of Holy Scripture. This gives him an Occasion to write against those Bishops, whose greatest care it was to increase their Estates and Dignities; Who placed their only Felicity in the enjoyment of Worldly Pleasurés; Who seek their own Glory more than Jesus Christ's; Who have greater care of their Honour, than Conscience; and who place nothing of their Happiness in the hopes of the good things of another Life. He excuses himself here, that he undertakes to publish the Irregularities of his Superiors, but still goes on speaking smartly against ignorant and vicious Bishops, who neglencted the Care of their Flock; Who are not at all troubled at the Crimes which they see committed by Sinners, nor pleased with the good Actions done in their Diocese; Who are very little affected with the sense of good or evil; Who are filled with the love of the World, living in Pleasures and Debaucheries, transported with Ambition, full of Injustice; dare not preach up contempt of the World, Temperance, a solitary Life, Meekness, Charity, Justice, nor other Christian Virtues, which they themselves do not practise. In the next place he shows, That it is not allowable for a Bishop to leave his Church to acquire his own Ease, or to live at Liberty; that he ought to reform his Life, and become an Example to his Flock, instructing them as well by his Manners as his Words; that he is obliged to reprove Sinners severely. Lastly, he gives a Description of a good and wicked Bishop and Preacher.  
He describes a wicked Bishop in this manner: He is One that seeks after Honours, Preferments, and Riches, not that he may put them to a good use, but that he may live more at his Ease, be more honoured, feared and respected; Who chief aims to gratify his Passions, confirm his Authority, every himself, and enjoy his Pleasures; Who avoids the laborious and despisable parts of his Office, but is rejoiced at the pleasant and honourable; Who tolerates Vice, and Honours Sinners with his Friendship; yea, applauds their Crimes for fear of offending them. To these Bishops he applies the words of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chap. 34. woe to the Shepherds of Israel, etc. He directs, I say, these terrible words of the Prophet to these Bishops, who have no care of their Flock; who think upon nothing but how to get the Milk, and the Wool; that is to say, the Oblations and Tithes, with which they every themselves; Who do not cure the Sick, nor strengthen the Weak, nor bring back the stray Sheep into the Ways of Salvation; Who seek not those that are lost, as good Shepherds ought to do, nor comfort those that despair of the Pardon of their Sins; Who never show their Authority unless it be in domineering tyrannically over their People, etc.  
On the contrary, he draws the Character of such good Bishops, as the Doctrine of the Apostles requires them to be, thus; They are such as convert Sinners to God by their Preaching and Example; Are very humble, and free from Pride and Imperiousness; Who treat alliche Members of their Flock with the same Love and Kindness; Who heal the Wounds of their sick People with mild, but effectual Remedies; Who bear with the Incurable patiently; Who in their Preaching seek not their own Glory, but the Glory of Jesus Christ; Who employ not their Discourses and Actions to obtain Favour, or Thanks of Men, but who give God all the Honour that they bestow on them, because it is he that lives, and preaches in the Bishops; Who avoid Praises and Commendations; Who comfort the Afflicted, nourish the Poor, clothe the Naked, redeem Captives, lodge Strangers; Who bring those that err into the way of Truth; Promise Salvation to those that despair; Quicken the Zeal of those who are going in the right way; Hasten those that linger; And who, lastly, discharge well all the Functions of their Ministry. These are the true Successors of the Apostles, the true Ministers of Jesus Christ and his Church, the Oracles of the Holy Spirit; Such Pastors as these appease the Anger of God against his People, and instruct the People in the Knowledge of God. They defend the Faith of the Church by their Writings, and are ready to seal it with their Blood. last, They hold themselves fast to God only, in whom alone they put their trust.  
The difference between a good and a bad Preacher he thus lays down: The Life of a Preacher of Jesus Christ ought to be answerable to his Doctrine; He ought to Preach as well by his Manners as Words; He ought not to raise his own Esteem by an Affectation of Eloquence, or placing his chiefest care in the Elegancy of his Expressions. He must not seek ●o please the People, nor gain himself Applauses from them, but his main aim is to affect them, and convert them, He must weep himself if he will make his Auditors to weep. A plain, grave, and easy Discourse will work better effect than the most studied and curious pieces of Eloquence. There is a great deal of difference between a Declaimer and a Preacher: A Declaimer useth the utmost strength of his Eloquence to gain Reputation; The Preacher seeks the Glory of Jesus Christ by explaining his Doctrine in a familiar Discourse. The Declaimer handles trifling Matters with choice and curious Words; The Preacher on the contrary elevates the plainness of his Discourse by the Nobleness and Grandeur of the Sense. The Declaimer endeavours to hid the Deformity of his Invention by the Fineness of his Discourse; but the Preacher mollifies and sweetens the harshness of his Words by the Beauty of his Notions: The one places all his Honour in the applause of the People, and the other in their Virtue. The Declaimer speaks plausibly, but his Speech is fruitless: The Preacher makes use of an ordinary Discourse, but he instructs those that will attend to it, because he corrupts not his Reason with the affectation of seeming Eloquence.  
The second Book is about the Duties of an Active Life. The Author therein explains, how we must reprove, and bear with Sinners. He affirms that the most Holy Bishops are sometimes forced to tolerate Sinners, either because they foresee that Reproofs and Chastisements will but harden them, or because their Sins are hid. As to those, who come to confess their Sins to your Pastors, as Sick-Men come to show their Wounds to the Physicians, they should labour to cure them immediately, and apply fit Remedies to them without flattering them, or assuring them that they are cured, when they are not. As to those whose Crimes are manifest before Confession, if we cannot heal them by gentle Medicines, we must apply to them the Fire of Reproof; and if that effect nothing, but they continue in their irregular Lives, they must be separated by the Sword of Excommunication as putrified Members, lest they corrupt others by theia evil example: But as to those, whose Sins are altogether secret, being neither discovered by the Confession of the Sinners themselves, nor the Testimony of others, if they do not amend, as they have God for a Witness, so also they shall have God for their Avenger. For though they may escape the Judgement of Men, yet since they continue in their Sin, they shall be condemned to Eternal Torments, at least if they do not judge themselves, and revenge their Sin upon themselves by a very severe Punishment, for so they may change Eternal into Temporal Punishments, and by the Tears which flow from a wounded Heart, extinguish the burning of Eternal Flames. Lastly, As to those who are in the Ecclesiastic State, they are mistaken, if they imagine, that they may remain in the Communion of the Church, and in their Ministry, because they deceive Men by concealing their Sins, because unless they be such small Sins as we cannot avoid, and for which we daily beg of God in the Lord's Prayer, That he would forgive us our Debts, they ought to be free from all such Crimes as being committed render Men obnoxious to Civil Justice: That as to those that have committed them, but dare not confess them for fear of being Excommunicated, they are guilty of a great fault in Communicating, because they feign themselves innocent before Men, and through an intolerable contempt of the Judgements of God, are ashamed to withdraw themselves from the Altar. On the contrary, they, who not being convicted of Sin, do acknowledge and confess it, or at least, not discovering it to any Man, keep themselves from the Sacrament, and withdraw themselves from the Altar, at which they Ministered, not out of Courage, but Duty, bewailing their Sin in Secret, they may reconcile themselves to God by Repentance, appease his Anger, and render themselves worthy of the Heavenly City, and of Eternal Happiness.  
In the next place, the Author goes on to show how lose Bishops ought to be from the desires of Worldly Riches. He maintains, that those that enter into the Clergy, aught to renounce their Estates, fell all, and give to the Poor, contenting themselves with the Revenues of the Church, which they ought not to possess as their own, being only properly the Managers of them; That they ought to think the Revenues of the Church to be the Vows of the Faithful, the atonement for Sins, and the Patrimony of the Poor. So that they ought not to appropriate them to themselves, as properly belonging to them, but to distribute them to the Poor, as a Trust belonging to them; That the Ministers of the Church have no right to them, but under the title of Poverty, and if they are Rich otherwise, and yet live of the Revenues of the Church, they rob the Poor; That they, who suppose, that these Revenues of the Church are a reward for their Service, deceive themselves by expecting Temporal Rewards for that, which deserves Eternal; That those, who have an Estate, aught to be so far from living at the Charge of the Church, that they ought to impart their Incomes to the Church, without being in the least proud of it. These Precepts, saith our Author, may appear hard. And I own it, but 'tis to them that have no mind to observe them, for to those that are willing to keep them, nothing is more easy, for practice will soon make them so: for what difficulty is there in contenting themselves with the Revenues of the Church, when they have enough to maintain them, or to forsake their own Estates, when the Church allows them a sufficient maintenance? These are indeed good Rules, but very rarely put in practice. Julian Pomerius confirms them, by showing how all Christians, but principally Clergymen, aught to despise Riches.  
The last part of this Book is concerning the Abstinence and Temperance of the Clergy. He shows how necessary this Virtue is, and how dangerous the contrary Vice. He makes Temperance to consist in two things, viz. in neither Eating, nor Drinking more than is necessary, and in not seeking out exquisite Dainties and Liquors. He tells us at the end, that we must break our Fast for our Hosts sake.  
The last Book treats of Virtues and Vices in particular. He therein discovers the pernicious effects of Pride, Covetousness, Envy, and Boasting. He speaks very largely of Charity, of the four Cardinal Virtues, Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude, and Justice. This Book is full of definitions, and divisions of Virtues and Vices, Natural descriptions of them, and very profitable Maxims.  
The Discourse of this Author is not excellent for the Elegancy of the Expressions, but for the acuteness and neatness of the Notions.   

GENNADIUS.  
GEnnadius, a Priest of Marseille, did himself make a Catalogue of his own Works, at the 
Gennadius.  end of his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers. I have Written, saith he, eight Books against all the Heresies, six Books against Nestorius, three Books against Pelagius. A Treatise concerning the Millennium, and St. John's Revelation. 
* It is a continuation of St. Jerom's Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers from 392; where St. Jerom left off to 495, and therefore has been Printed with it at Basil, in 1528, 4to; at Colen, in 1580; at Helmstadt, in 1612, 4to; and at Antwerp 1639.  A Book of the Ecclesiastical Writers; and a Treatise of the Doctrine I hold, and believe, sent to Pope Gelasius. We have nothing of his but the two last. It is needless to speak of the first here, because we have Copied it out wholly in this Volume. The Last, which bears this Title at present, Of the Doctrines of the Church, hath gone a long time under the Name of St. Austin, although the Authors of this Age have told us, that it is Gennadius', and it carries his Name in some ancient MSS. See what we have already said, when we spoke of the Additions to the 8th Tome of St. Austin's Works. It is Composed in the form of a Confession of Faith; but in delivering the Orthodox truths he rejects the Contrary Errors, and Names the Maintainers of them. The five first Articles are about the Trinity, and Incarnation; the four following upon the Resurrection. In these last, he rejects the fabulous Opinion of the Millennaries, and the Errors of Origen and Diodorus, and proves that there shall be but one Resurrection of the Flesh, which shall be real, though incorruptible. He thinks, that it may be said, that those, who shall be found alive at the day of Judgement, shall not Die, but shall only be Changed, but it can't be asserted without an Error, that the Torments of the Devils or Wicked Men shall one day have an end. He is of Opinion, that none but God is Spiritual; that all Creatures are Corporeal, although Intellectual Creatures are Immortal. He rejects the Opinion of Origen about the Pre-existence of Souls, as also of those that hold that they are produced by generation. He says, that God Creates, and at the same time infuses them into the Body. He asserts, that only the Soul of Man exists separately from the Body; that Man is made up of a Soul and Body, but there is no difference of Substance in him. He holds that Man was Created free, but by Sin he hath lost the strength of that liberty; but yet he has not quite lost the power of choosing Good, and refusing Evil, and to seek after his own Salvation, because God exhorts him, stirs him up, and encourages him to do it. So that the beginning of Man's Salvation proceeds from his freewill strengthened by Grace, because he can freely yield to its Inspiration, but it is the Gift of God to be able to attain the end we desire; that it depends upon our Labour, and the assistance of God, that we do not fall from the state of Grace, and when we do fall, we ought to impute it to our own negligence, and the viciousness of the Will.  
He passes next to the Sacraments, and affirms, That there is but one Baptism, and that we must not Baptise them again, who have been Baptised by Heretics, with the Invocation of the Name of the Trinity; but they, who have not been Baptised in the Name of the Trinity, aught to be Rebaptised, because such a Baptism is not true. He neither commends nor blames the practice of those, who received the Sacrament every day. But he exhorts and requires them to receive the Sacrament every Sunday, provided they are not linked to any Sin; for those who are accustomed to any Sin, are rather leaden by the guilt, than purged from it by the Sacrament, but yet he that finds himself averse from Sin, may receive the Sacrament, although he hath Sinned, which he understands, as himself says, of him, who hath not committed any grievous, or heinous Sins; for whosoever hath committed any of these sort of Sins after Baptism, he exhorts him to testify his sorrow for them, by performing public Penance, and so be restored to the Communion of the Church by the Absolution of the Priest, if he will not subject himself to Condemnation by receiving of the Sacrament. Not that I deny, that Heinous Sins can be 
* Pardoned.  remitted by a Private Repentance; but than it must be done by an entire change of the Custom of Living, by a continual sorrow for them, and not receiving the Sacrament, till they had made a thorough Reformation, and live altogether otherwise than they have done.  
True Repentance, is not to be guilty again of that which we have Repent of, and real satisfaction consists in eradicating Sin, and never more exposing ourselves to Temptations.  
In the 25 
* D. Cave is of Opinion that 30 Articles of this work, viz. from Art. 22. to Art. 51 are not Gennadius', but composed by some other hand after Gennadius' Death.  Article he affirms, That we ought not to expect any thing Earthly in our Happiness, and that the Millennary Reign of Christ is a mere Chimaera.  
The other Articles are nothing but Explications of the precedent, or concern the Discipline of the Church. He speaks also of Grace and freewill in Art. 26, where he says, that no Man tends to Salvation, unless he be called to it, and that none that are called can it obtain but by the help of God: that none obtains this assistance but he that prays for it; that God wills not that any should Perish; that he only permits it, that he may not injure Man's Freedom. He adds in Art. 27, and those that follow, that God did not create Sin; that Men commit it by their Freedom; That this proves that only God is immutable; That the Angels have voluntary persevered in goodness; That Marriage is good, when it is used for the procreation of Children, or to avoid Fornication; That Celibacy, when it is preserved with a design to serve God, is a very advantageous State, and Virginity is also most excellent; That it is Lawful to eat of all sorts of Meats, but it is convenient to abstain from some and preserve Temperance; That it is credible that Mary the Mother of God did always remain a Virgin; That we ought not to believe, that at the Day of Judgement, the Elements shall be destroyed, but only changed; That the Resurrection shall not quite take away the difference of Sexes; That the Souls of the Righteous go to Heaven as soon as they depart from their Bodies, and then expect perfect Happiness; but the Souls of Sinners are kept in Hell where they wait their Punishment; That the Flesh of Man is not Naturally Evil; That the Devil doth not know the Secret Thoughts of Man, but guesses at them only by the Motions of the Body; That he is not always the Author of Evil Thoughts though God be always of Good ones; That he never enters the Soul, but is united and joined to it; That the Miracles and Wonders which Wicked Men do, doth not make them more Holy or better Men; That there is no Righteous Man that Sins not, but for all that he continues Righteous; That no Unbaptized Person can be saved, and therefore Catechumen obtain not Eterternal Life, unless they have suffered Martyrdom, because all the Mysteries of Baptism are accomplished by Martyrdom; for he that is Baptised, professes his Faith in Jesus Christ before his Bishop; He that suffers Martyrdom, doth it before his Pesecutors. After this Confession the Catechumen is either plunged in, or sprinkled with the Water; the Martyr is either sprinkled with his own Blood, or cast into the Fire. The Person Baptised receives the Holy Spirit by the Imposition of the Bishop's Hands, the Martyr is an Instrument of the Holy Spirit, which moves, and speaks in him. The Person Baptised partakes of, and remembers the Death of Christ, by receiving the Sacrament; the Martyr dies with Jesus Christ. The Baptised person renounces the World, the Martyr abandons Life. All Sins are pardoned by Baptism, and blotted out by Martyrdom; This comparison we have thought fit to recite at large for the excellency of it. Let us now return to the other Articles of Gennadius, not yet spoken of. They almost all concern Discipline or Morality; That Repentance can procure Pardon of Sins, yea even for those who defer it, till they are at the point of Death; That the Sacrament ought not to be administered with Water only, but with Wine mingled with Water; That it is good to Honour the Relics of Saints, and to go to the Churches which bear their Names, as to places appointed for Prayer to God; That Persons twice Married ought not to be Ordained; nor such as have kept a Concubine▪ not such as have Married a Widow, or a Lewd Woman, nor the Lame, nor Usurers, or Stage-Players; nor those who have done Public Penance; nor Fools, nor Daemoniacks, nor Simonists. That the Clergy may keep their Estates, if they do it, that they may distribute the Yearly Revenues to the Poor, but it is better to give it them all together; That Easter may not be kept till the Vernal Aequinox be past, and the full Moon be over.  
These are all the Articles contained in 
* This Book hath been Printed by itself with the Learned Notes of Elmenhorstius at Hamburgh, 1614, 4to.  this Treatise of Gennadius. There is more Learning than Judgement in this Work; for in it Gennadius delivers many Erroneous Doctrines, propounds mere Opinions, as Articles of Faith, and condemns many Orthodox Truths. This Treatise of Gennadius, and his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, do evidently prove, that he was not of Saint Austin's Judgement concerning Grace and freewill, but of Faustus of Ries, and that he approved of his Opinion, concerning the Nature of the Soul, and of all Creatures. His style is plain, clear, elegant and clean. I forgot to observe, that he hath added to Saint Austin's Treatises of Heresies, four new Heresies, viz. The Predestinarians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and Timotheans. This Addition is found under Gennadius' Name, in a MS. of St. Victor's Library, at the end of St. Austin's Book, and Hincmarus citys it under the Name of this Author.   

NEMESIUS, AENEAS GAZAEUS. 
Nemesius, Aeneas Gazaeus.   
IT is probable, that these 
* Yet Dr. Cave places them very far asunder, viz. Nemesius in 380, and Aen. Gazaeus in 487.  two Christian Philosophers lived about the end of the fifth Age. The first is Nemesius, who is commonly reputed Bishop of Emesa. He hath made a Treatise of the Nature of Man, divided into 45 Chapters, which some attribute to St. Gregory Nyssene. In it he confutes the Manichees, Apollinarists, and Eunomians; but he confirms the Opinion of Origen concerning the Pre-existence of Souls. This Treatise is full of general and Metaphysical Propositions and Divisions, which are of little use to discover the Nature of Man particularly. He maintains, that Angels are Spiritual, and that the Humane Nature is absolutely free. This Treatise was first Translated by Valla, whose Version was Printed in 1535, and since by Elle-bodius: The same Version was Printed with the Greek by Plantin [at Antwerp] in 1565, and inserted in the Biblioth. Patr. [Printed at Paris] in 1624.; and in the following Editions, [more correct, with useful Notes at Oxford in 1671, 8vo.]  
The Work of Aeneas Gazaeus concerning the Immortality of the Soul, and the Resurrection, is not so abstract as Nemesius'. It is a 
* Entitled Theophrastus.  Dialogue, wherein he treats of the Immortality of the Soul of Man, and the Resurrection of the Body; but he mixes his discourse, that it may be more pleasing, with many inquiries into the Opinions of the Philosophers, and with an abundance of Curious Stories. He believes that God creates Souls to infuse them into Bodies, and that the number of them, though fixed and certain, yet is known to none but God; that Souls are sensible of nothing without Bodies; that Man is very free; that the Bodies shall rise in the same form that they had in this World; that Devils assume the form of Deadmen to trouble the Living; That the Relics of the Martyrs make the Devil to fly; That there are many Miracles done by the Prayers of Good Men; That Dead Men have been raised, etc. This Author wrote about the end of the Fifth Age; for about the end of his Treatise he speaks of the Persecution of the Vandals against the Orthodox, as a thing that lately happened. His Treatise was Translated by Ambrose Camaldulensis [and Printed at Basil in 1516,] and put into the Biblioth. Patr. [at Paris in 1624.,] and Printed since in Greek and Latin, [by Wolphius at Basil in 1560.] Translated by Casp. Barthius, and Printed at Lipswich [in 1658, 4to.] with Zacharias Bishop of Mitylene, who was another Christian Philosopher, but more Modern, [for he flourished about 536.]   

GELASIUS CYZICENUS. 
Gelasius Cyzicenus   
THE Preface of the History of the Council of Nice, which bears Gelasius' Name, discovers to us, that this Author was of Cyzicum, and that he lived toward the end of the fifth Age; for he says, That his Father was a Priest of that Church, and that the Persecution of the Emperor 
* Basiliscus deposed Zeno Ann. 476. & Reigned not quite two Years. He was an Arian, and therefore persecuted the Orthodox.  Basiliscus against the Orthodox gave him an occasion of writing this Work. He thought at first that all his business had been to Copy out the Ancient Acts of the Council of Nice, which heretofore had belonged to Dalmatius, Bishop of Cyzicum, and which were fallen into his Father's Hands: But not finding them perfect, he was forced to add several things to them related by several Authors, but chief by Eusebius Caesariensis and Rufinus, whom he makes a Roman Priest, and whom he says falsely to have been present at that Council. And indeed this History is nothing almost but a Collection of Treatises, and pieces taken out of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. That which is not taken out of these Authors, is either dubious, or manifestly false, as all that is related from Chap. 11. to Chap. 24. of the second Book. about the Disputes of the Philosophers upon the Trinity, and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. It is manifest, that these Disputes are a mere Fiction; and 'tis certain, that the Question concerning the Divinity of the Holy Spirit was not moved in the Council of Nice. There are many other faults in his History. There is neither Order in his Relation, nor Exactness in his Observations, nor Elegancy in his Expressions, nor Judgement in the choice of Things, nor good Sense in his Sentences. So that this Historian must be accounted a bad Compiler, who hath collected without any Judgement whatsoever he found concerning the Council of Nice, whether bad or good, not examining whether it were true or false. Which being so, 'tis no wonder that he hath said, That Hosius supplied the place of the Bishop of Rome in the Council of Nice, and that it was he that called that Council, though both are contrary to the Testimonies of the Letters of the Council itself, and of the Authors that lived at that time. This Work is divided into three Books; the two first contain the History of the Council, the third is made up of three Letters of the Emperor Constantine. It hath been published in Greek and Latin by Robert Balforeus, [a Scotchman, with his own Notes] and printed at Paris by Morellus, with some Works of Theodorus a Priest of Raithu in the Year 1595. [1599 ca] and in 1604. by Commelinus. Since it hath been put into the Councils of Rome, in Binius' second Edition, as also in Louvre's, and the last Editions. It would be better to leave it wholly out in the first Edition of the Councils, that shall be hereafter published   

The Author of the Books Attributed to S. DIONYSIUS 
The Authors of the Books attributed to S. Dionysius the Areopagite.  the Areopagite.  
THis is a fit time to speak of the Books attributed to S. Dionysius the Areopagite: For 
* Dallée's Opinion comes near our Authors; but Dr. Cave and the Learned Bishop of Chester Dr. Pearson, place him sooner, viz. about the Year 362.  since they first appeared in the beginning of the sixth Age, it is very probable that they were composed at the end of the fifth. We will not repeat here, what we have said in the first Part of this History, but content ourselves to observe whatever is most useful in them.  
The Book of the Celestial Hierarchy is full of Metaphysical Remarks about the Number and Distinction of Angels. He divides them into three Hierarchies, and nine Orders, to which he appropriates different Names and Offices. But in all that he says upon this Subject, there is nothing either solid, or profitable.  
His Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy is more useful, because they teach us after what manner the Sacraments were administered in the Church in the time of this Author. Let us begin with Baptism. The Bishop having preached, and instructed the Catechumen, he sends for him into the Congregation of the Faithful, where he recites with all the Church an Hymn taken out of Holy Scripture; and having kissed the Holy Table, he goes to the Catechumen, and demands of him, Why he is come thither? He having answered him, Because he loves God, and believes the Truths which he hath heard of him; The Bishop gives him a Description of the Christian Life, and then asks him, If he will live after this manner? After he hath promised it, he lays his Hands on him, and orders the Priests to write down the Name of this Man, and of the Person that hath answered for him. When this is done, he goes on to rehearse some sacred Prayers; when they are finished, he causes him to be stripped by his Deacons, and having caused him to turn, and stretch forth his Hands toward the West, he commands him to breathe three times against Satan, and to make the ordinary Renunciations (viz. of the World, Flesh and Devil) three times. Then he turns him to the East, and causing him to lift up his Hands towards Heaven, he enjoins him to profess, that he believes all that Jesus Christ hath taught, and whatsoever is contained in the Holy Scriptures. This being done, he causes him to rehearse the Confession of Faith three times: Then he makes some Prayers, blesses him, and lays his Hands on him. Then the Deacons strip him quite, and the Priests bring the Oil of the Holy Unction, and the Bishop having begun to anoint him, by making the Sign of the Cross thrice upon him, he leaves it to the Priests to anoint his whole Body. From thence he brings him to the Sacred Font, and having sanctified the Water by the Invocation of the Holy Spirit, and having consecrated it by putting in Oil in the form of a Cross three times, while they recite some Prophecies, he commands them to bring him to the place where he is to be Baptised. The Priests call him, and his Godfather by their Names: They bring him to the Bishop, who takes him by the Hand, and the Priests having read his Name, he dips him three times in the Water, and invokes the Name of the Holy Trinity every time as he goes into, and come out of the Water. When this is done, the Priests carry him away, and lead him to his Godfather. After he has put on his clothes, they conduct him again to the Bishop, who having anointed him with that Oil, which renders Men Holy, he commands him to receive the Sacrament, which hath a particular Power to perfect Holiness.  
Thus this Author describes the Ceremonies of Baptism; and then makes some Mystical Observations upon them, which we shall pass over, that we may come to what he says about the Eucharist, which he calls the most perfect of all the Sacraments. He says, That we have Reason to give it the Name of Communion 
‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , by way of Eminence, because this is the Sacrament which unites more particularly; and that it is for this Reason that it is not permitted to execute any Function in the Hierarchy, unless it be consummated by the Communion. After this Reflection he returns to the manner of the Ceremony, and says, That the Bishop being returned to the Altar, sings some Psalms, and all the Clergy sing with him. Then the Deacons read the Holy Scriptures; and when they have done reading, they put out the Catechumen, 
* Lunatics. Persons at certain seasons vexed with unclean Spirits. These were kept from the Sacrament, though Baptised, ob mentis inconstantiam, for the levity and inconstancy of their Minds.  Enurgumeni, and Penitents, and leave none in the Church, but such as are worthy to behold the Holy Mysteries, and Communicate: That some of the Deacons remain at the Doors of the Church, which are fast shut, and others are employed in the Church; That the chief, and most eminent Deacons, carry the Bread and Cup to the Altar with the Priests, after all the Clergy have sang Praises to God: That the Bishop prays with them, and pronounces Peace to all the Faithful, who kiss each other. Then they recite the Hymn called 
† The use of this Hymn in the Sacrament, proves the Author to have lived after 445, when it was first appointed by the Synod of Vasio to be universally used. Hosp. ex P. Diacono, etc. Durandus makes Sixtus I. the Institutor of it. Du Rat.  the Trisagion. After the Priests and Bishops have washed their Hands, the Bishop comes alone to the middle of the Altar, having about him the Priests, and some of the Deacons; and having praised the Works of God, they consummate these most Divine Mysteries, and place before their Eyes the things which they have praised, when they set the Signs upon the Altar. Having then shown these Holy and Divine Gifts, he Communicates, and invites all the rest to participate with him. The Communion is concluded with Hymns of Praise and Thanksgiving.  
The 
† Holy Office of Confirmation.  Sacrament of Unction comes next the Holy Eucharist; and as they put out the several Ranks of the less-perfect during the Consecration of the Eucharist, so also, when the Bishop consecrates the Oil, the Temple is perfumed with the Odours, and with the Incense: And after they have rehearsed the Psalms, and read the Scriptures, the Bishop takes the Oil, and puts it under the Altar; and while they sing the Prophetical Hymns, he finishes the Ceremonies of its Consecration. He afterward makes use of it almost in all the Episcopal Functions.  
From the Sacraments he comes to the Ordination of the several Degrees of the Clergy. The Bishop is the first, and chief, it belongs to him alone to Ordain and Consecrate the Oil. The Priests are subject to the Bishop, but partake of the Priestly Functions, and have their particular Offices. They show the Effects of their Power in the Holy Signs and Sacraments, which they show to those, that draw near to them, and then make them Partakers of the Holy Mysteries, and Sacred Communion. The Order of Deacons is to prepare, and single out such Persons as may be allowed to approach the Holy Mysteries.  
The Ceremonies used in the Ordination of these several Orders, are these. The Bishop presents himself upon his Knees before the Altar, bearing the Holy Bible upon his Head, and another Bishop layeth his Hands on him, and Consecrates him by Prayer. When a Priest is Consecrated, he also knelt upon both his Knees before the Altar, and the Bishop lays his Right Hand upon him, making Prayers. The Deacons bend but one Knee before the Altar, and in the mean time the Bishop puts his Hands upon them, and Consecrates them also with the ordinary Prayers. He also signs every one of them with the Cross, gives them some Instructions, and concludes by giving them the Kiss of Peace, which they receive not only of the Bishop, but of all the Clergy. So that the Bishops, Priests and Deacons have this in common in their Ordination, to present themselves before the Altar, kneel and receive the Imposition of the Bishop's Hands, the Sign of the Cross, Instruction, and a Kiss. The Bishops have this peculiar to them, that the Holy Bible is laid upon their Head, and the Deacons bend but one Knee.  
As there are several Orders of the Clergy, so there are also several Degrees among the Laity. He distinguishes them into three sorts: 1. Catechumen, which are not as yet cleansed. 2. Penitents, who having lost their Innocency, have need of Purifying. The Deacons are employed to perfect, and purify these two Ranks of Christians, that they may make them fit to behold, and partake of the Sacraments from which they are excluded. The 3d is, Harmless and Chaste People, who are admitted to the Holy Communion.  
But the most excellent Estate among the Laics is the Holy Monks, which our Ancestors called Ascetae, or Monks, because of their solitary and contemplative Life, which unites them to God. Upon this account another sort of Consecration is honoured, which is not indeed performed by the Bishop, but by the Holy Priests after this manner. The Priest standing before the Altar rehearses those Prayers, which use to be said at the Consecration of a Monk. The Person to be Consecrated is standing behind him, for he neither knelt, nor has the Bible put on his Head, but he is only near the Priest, who recites the Prayer. When that is finished, he goes to him that is initiated, and asks him, Whether he forsakes not only a Worldly Life but also all Hankering after the World? He tells him, what a perfect Life he embraces, and assures him, that he must excel the Life of all ordinary Christians. And when he hath promised to do all that he requires of him, the Priest having made the Sign of the Cross upon him, cuts off his Hair, invoking the Holy Trinity, gives him another Habit; and having embraced him, and caused all the Pious Persons there present to embrace him, he gives him the Communion.  
Lastly, As to the State of the Dead, they, who have lived well, being come to the end of their Race, they know more clearly after their Death, and see nearer at hand that Eternal Happiness, which they are sure one Day to be possessed of; the very thoughts of which fills them with inexpressible Joy. The Relations of the Dead share in this Joy, praising and giving Thanks to God in their Prayers, because he died a Conqueror of this World, they carry his Body to the Bishop, who receives it, and performs the usual Ceremonies about it in this manner. Having assembled the Clergy, if the Dead Person were in Orders, he places his Body before the Altar, and gins to pray to God, and give Thanks unto him: But if he were a Monk, or Layman, they place him at the Door of the Church, and makes a solemn Prayer about him. Then the Deacons having recited the Promises of the Resurrection delivered to us in Holy Scripture, they sing those Psalms, which have relation to it. The chief Deacon then dismisses the Catechumen, and then commemorates those, who have died a Religious Death, among whom he puts the Name of the Person lately deceased, and exhorts all the Faithful to beg of God an Happy End. The Bishop then drawing near to him, makes some very pious Prayers over him; which being done, he embraceth him, and all that are present do the same: Then he anoints him with Oil; and having prayed for all present, they carry his Body into a Sacred Place, and there Inter it among the Bodies of the other Saints. One of the Prayers, which the Bishop makes to God, is this: That God would forgive the Dead Person those Sins, which he hath committed through Human frailty, and enstate him in the Light of the Living: That he would conduct him into the Bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the place where there is neither Grief, nor Tears, nor Sorrow. These were Ceremonies of the Church used at that time at the Interment of the Dead. Our Author in his Reflections puts this Objection: If every Man be rewarded according to his Deserts, what need is there of Prayer for the Dead? Of what use are they to the Wicked? And why do we pray for the Just? He answers, That it is certain, that Prayers are useful to those only who die well: But as in this Life, when we have good Designs and Intentions, we may be helped, and assisted by the Prayers of the Righteous, and this is an ordinary means of obtaining Grace, without which we often come short of it; even so the Bishop, who is the Interpreter of the Divine Oracles, and the Angel of the Lord of Hosts, who knows that the Justice of God weighs all things in an equal Balance, and pardons those faults, which Men commit through frailty, and so much the more, because no Man is free from them, prays to God that it may be so; Not that he doubts at all of the Goodness of God, but he begs this favour with the greater confidence, because he is assured, that it shall not be denied him. And for this reason it is, that he doth not pray for those, who have not been Baptised, nor for Sinners, not only because 'tis not lawful to do it, and because he being only an Interpreter of the Divine Will, he cannot without great rashness beg that which God will not grant, but also because his Request being unreasonable, he cannot hope to obtain it. Lastly, His Prayer is rather an Interpretation of the Divine Will, a Declaration of his Goodness, a Promise and Assurance of what shall happen to the Deceased, rather than a Petition for a thing uncertain. After the same manner the Bishops Excommunicating Sinners are Interpreters of the Will of God, and do only separate them from the Communion, whom God hath already condemned: For we ought to believe, that if they do it unjustly, or through Passion, the Justice of God prosecutes their Actions.  
This Treatise concludes with a Remark upon Infant-Baptism. The Author observes, That many Persons, Strangers to our Religion, derided and ridiculed that Custom of making others to promise for them. He answers, That the Bishop to whom this was said, aught to have answered pleasingly, and shown first, That there are several things, for which we know not the reason, although there are some, and those known to the Angels, but some are known to none but God himself: That in Baptising Infants we do no more, than what we have learned, and received by Tradition from our Forefathers: That Children being well Educated, becoming Righteous and Holy Men, the Church hath thought fit to Baptise them, committing them to some Baptised Person to Educare and Instruct them, who ought to take care of him, as his Father in Jesus Christ, for whose Salvation he must answer to him. For this Reason it is, that the Bishop demands of this Person, If he renounces, etc. that by that act he may oblige him to persuade this Infant, and teach him, when he comes to the use of Reason, to renounce those things which he hath promised to renounce by him. Lastly, The Bishop gives the Holy Sacrament to Infants, that they may be brought up Christianly, and may live a Life conformable to the Holiness of the Sacraments which they have received.  
This is all that is most useful in this Author. I will not stay to make an Extract of his Treatises of the Divine Names, and Of Mystic Theology, nor of his Letters; because these Works being full of Metaphysical and Platonic Notions, it would be hard to draw any thing that is pleasing, or useful out of them. [The several Editions of this Author's Books are set down in Vol. I. of this History under Dionys. Areop.] to which the Reader is referred.    

The History of the COUNCILS. Held from the Year 430, to the End of the Fifth Age.  

Of the I. Council of Ephesus.  
And of the other Assemblies of Bishops touching the Affair 
The first Council of Ephesus.  of Nestorius, which were precedent to, or followed after this Council.  
ABout the end of the Year 428, Nestorius' Bishop of Constantinople, having permitted his 
Cyril Ep. ad Caelest. 1. p. Con. Ep. c. 14. Socr. l. 7. c. 32. In Mar. Mercator and in the Acts of the Council.  Priest Anastasius, and Dorothaeus a Bishop to Preach arrogantly, That the Virgin Mary ought not to be called the Mother of God, and having himself maintained the same Opinion in several of his Sermons, brought a great deal of trouble into his Church. The People being much offended at this Doctrine risen against their Bishop; Eusebius afterward Bishop of Dorylaeum, and some others of the Clergy published a Protestation against him, wherein they declared him an Heretic, and accused him of reviving the Error of Paulus Samosatenus; the Priests also taught the Contrary Doctrine. Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum Preached against Nestorius' Opinions, but without naming him. Lastly, The Clergy, the Monks, and People combined against Nestorius; but on the other-side Nestorius and his party stoutly maintained what they had asserted, and still preached the same Doctrine; and being upheld by the Authority of the Prince, they cruelly handled those that opposed their Designs.  
This Dispute soon spread itself into Egypt, whither Nestorius' Party had sent a Collection of his Sermons. The Monks of Egypt were the first that moved these subtle questions, and debated them among themselves. St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, who was of the Contrary Judgement, perceiving 
Act. conc. p. 1. c. 33. Act. conc. p. 1. c. 2. 1. p. of the Con. c. 12.  that several of them defended the Party of Nestorius, wrote a large Letter to these Monks, in which having admonished them, that it were much better not to meddle with such abstracted Questions, which cannot be of any advantage; he declares himself against the Doctrine of Nestorius without naming him, proving by several Reasons, that the Virgin Mary aught to be called the Mother of God. This Letter being seen at Constantinople angered Nestorius, who ordered a certain Person named Photius to answer it, and gave out a Report that St. Cyril governed his Church badly, that he affected a Tyrannical Power, stirred up Sedition against the Emperor's Officers, and was a Maintainer of the Manichees.  
Nestorius' Letters were carried to Rome. St. Celestine, and the Bishops of Italy wrote to Saint Cyril, to know whether they were Nestorius' or not. Nestorius' seeing, that St. Cyril declared himself openly against him, complained much of his Carriage, and resolved to have no Commerce 
Conc. p. 1. c. 6.  with him for the future. St. Cyril to pacify him, wrote a Letter to him, wherein he tells that he was grieved to hear, that he was angry with him for the Letter, which he wrote to the Monks of Egypt; but he ought to consider, that it was not that Letter, that had raised such disturbances in the Church, but the Papers which went about under his Name, that had caused so great a Scandal; that some Persons would not call Jesus Christ God, but the Organ and Instrument of the Divinity; that it was this that obliged him to write; That he had been sent to from Rome, to know, who was the Author of those Writings; that all the West was in an Uproar about them; that he might appease the disturbances by explaining himself, and retracting what was attributed to him; that he ought not to refuse to give the Virgin Mary the title of the Mother of God, because by this means he would restore the Church's Peace.  
This Letter was carried to Nestorius by one of S. Cyril's Priests, who was very urgent with him for an answer to it. He gave him one, but without an Explication of his Doctrine, and telling 
p. 1. c. 7.  St. Cyril, that though he had acted contrary to the Rules of Brotherly Charity, yet he would forget it, and did by this Letter give him the tokens of Union and Peace.  
Saint Cyril having informed Nestorius, that his Writings were carried as far as Rome, and that they met with an unwelcome reception there, Nestorius thought it his Duty to write to St. Celestine about it. And to do it the more handsomely, he took an Occasion to write to him about four Pelagian Bishops, Julian, Florus, Orontius, and Fabius, who had fled to Constantinople, and had presented their Petitions to the Emperor, in which they complained of the ill usage they had received in the West. He assures the Pope, that he had answered them according to his Office and 
p. 1. c. 16.  Duty, although he was not informed of their Case; but that he ought to make it clear, that they may have no cause to importunt the Emperor. and 〈◊〉 him up 〈◊〉 have compassion on them; for if it be true, that they were Condemned f●● endeavouring to ma●… a new Sect, they deserved no manner of Pity. He adds, that having found at Constantinople some Persons who corrupted the Orthodox Faith, he laboured to recover them by 〈◊〉 means, although their Heresy came very near Arius and Apollinar●…s, for they confounded and mixed the two Natures in Jesus Christ, making the Divine Nature to be born of Mary, and the Flesh of Jesus Christ to be changed into his Godhead; that upon this ground they gave the Virgin the Mother of Christ, the Title of the Mother of God; that this term, although it be improper, might be endured upon the account of the Union of the Word with the Manhood, if it be not understood of the Divine Nature, and if we do not suppose, that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of the Word of God, which is intolerable. He sent this Letter with the Copies of his Sermons by Antiochus.  
Saint Cyril not being satisfied with Nestorius' answer, wrote another Letter to him, wherein he delivers to him his own and the Church's Doctrine. And to gain the greater Credit to his 
p. 1. c. 3.  Explication, he grounded it upon the Creed made by the Nicene Council, where it is said, That the only Son of God begotten of his Father from all Eternity, came down from Heaven, was made Man, suffered, risen again from the Dead, and is ascended into Heaven. He says that we ought to be contented with this Decision, and believe, that the Word of God was Incarnate, and was made Man; That he saith not, that the Nature of the Word was changed into Flesh, nor the Flesh into the Nature of the Word, but that the Word was United by an Hypostatick Union to the Manhood; insomuch, that the same Jesus Christ is both the Son of God, and Son of Man, yet without any confusion of the Natures; That it may not be said, that the Virgin hath brought forth a Man into the World, into whom the Godhead is since descended; but that from the instant of his Conception the Godhead was United to the Manhood; insomuch, that it may be said, that God is born according to the Flesh, and in the same sense that he hath suffered, and is dead, not as though the Word hath suffered in him, but because the Body, which he assumed, hath suffered, and was laid in the Sepulchre. In fine, that it is in this sense that we say, that the Virgin is the Mother of God, because she brought into the World the Body of Jesus Christ, to which the Godhead is Hypostatically United. Saint Cyril having thus explained himself, exhorts Nestorius to embrace these Sentiments, that he may preserve the Peace of the Church, and an uninterrupted Union among the Bishops.  
This Letter raised the Dispute. Nestorius' was highly offended, and in his answer to it accuses 
p. 1. c. 9  St. Cyril of putting a false interpretation upon the words of the Council of Nice, and broaching several Errors. He says, that he Explains the Council of Nice ill, because this Council doth not say, that the Word was born, suffered or is Dead, but it says this of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, words which equally agree to the Humanity and Divinity. He commends St. Cyril for acknowledging the distinction of the two Natures in Jesus Christ; but he accuses him of destroying this truth consequentially, and making the Godhead passable and mortal. He owns the Union of the two Natures, but he holds, that upon the account of that Union we may not attribute to either of them the Qualities that belong to the other only; and he affirms, that as often as the Scripture speaks of the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ, it appropriates them to the Humane, and never to the Divine Nature. Lastly, He tells him, that he hath been surprised by the Clergy, infected with the Heresy of the Manichees, who were at Constantinople, and had been deposed in a Synod for it.  
Upon this occasion it was, that the Adherents of Nestorius published the Book, which Photius wrote against St. Cyril's Letters to the Monks, with another Piece bearing this Title, Against those, who upon the Account of the Union debase the Godhead of the Son by Deifying the Manhood. These Writings were sent to St. Cyril by Buphas Martyrius a Deacon of Alexandria, and Saint Cyril's Agent at Constantinople.  
Nevertheless Anastasius the Priest pretended not to disapprove wholly of St. Cyril's Letter to the Monks, and alleged this Reason, that he confessed in that Letter that no Council had mentioned 
Act 1. p. c. 12.  the term of the Mother of God. Saint Cyril being afraid that those of his Party who were at Constantinople, should be ensnared by this Artifice, wrote a large Letter upon that subject, wherein he labours to prove that Nestorius and his party divided Jesus Christ into two Persons. He advises them to give this reply to those that accuse them of troubling the Church, and not submitting to their Bishop. That 'tis their Bishop that is the cause of this trouble and scandal, because he teaches strange Doctrine. In the next place he complains of his behaviour towards him, and of the Calumnies they made use of to defame him. He says, that he is ready to defend himself before any Judicature, but yet he was not against Peace, provided the Orthodox Faith be secured. Lastly, He tells them that he had sent them again the Petition, which they had sent to him, but he had changed and mollified the terms, lest Nestorius should say that he had accused him before the Emperor; That in that which he had framed, he had rejected Nestorius, as being his Enemy; He desires them to present this Petition if need be, and says, that it Nestorius goes on still to persecute him, he will send some Wise and Prudent Persons to de●end his own and the Church's cause, being resolved to suffer the utmost rather than abandon it. He wrote also at the same time two Letters to justify himself, that he had engaged in this affair against Nestorius, because he thought himself obliged to do it for the defence of the Faith. He says, that 'twas not 
p. 1. c. 10. 11.  he, but Nestorius that was the Cause of the trouble, and that 'twas not he, but Nestorius that had hindered, that Peace was not again restored to the Church.  
Nestorius not receiving an Answer from Pope Celestine, wrote another Letter to him, in which he earnestly desires him to give him an answer about the Case of those Bishops, of whom he wrote to him. He speaks also of those pretended Heretics, who confounded the two Natures in Jesus Christ, and attributed to the Manhood that which agrees only to the Divine Nature, and to the Godhead that which belongs to the humane Nature only. This Letter was carried to Rome by Count Valerius.  
Celestine had not returned an Answer to Nestorius' first Letter, because he thought it necessary to Translate and Examine the Sermons, which he sent him. It is probable, that this task was imposed upon Cassian, and indeed, the Books of this Author against Nestorius were made about this time and are written as we have observed, against one of Nestorius' first Sermons. Saint Cyril suspecting that Nestorius might have written to Rome, sent Possidonius thither with a Letter, 
p. 1. c. ●4.  in which he relates all that had passed to that time in the business of Nestorius. About the end of the Letter, he tells S. Celestine, that he did wait for his Judgement to determine, whether he should receive Nestorius to Communion, which for that reason he had neither hitherto granted him, nor absolutely refused. Lastly, He exhorts him to let them know his Opinion in the East, that all the Churches might be United, and join together in one and the same Doctrine.  
With this Letter he sent some Papers, which contained the principal heads of Nestorius' Doctrine. Besides this he gave Possidonius a Paper of Instructions, which is published by M. Balugius, in which he lays down Nestorius ' Doctrine after this manner. The Doctrine, or rather the 
Nou. Col. Conc. tom. 1. p. 378.  Heresy of Nestorius is, to believe, That the Word of God foreseeing, that the Person, who was to be Born of Mary, should be Holy and Great, did therefore make choice of him to make him to be born of a Virgin, and bestowed such Graces upon him, as that he was rightly called the Son of God, Our Lord, and Christ; that he made him Die for us, and then raised him from the Dead; that this word was Incarnate, because he always was with the Man, as he also had been with the Prophets, but in a more special manner. That Nestorius confessed, that he was with him in the Womb of the Virgin, but he will not acknowledge that he was a God by Nature, but he was called so upon the account of the extraordinary favour which God had always showed him, and that it was the Man that died and risen again. After this manner S. Cyril delivers Nostorius' Doctrine; which being done, he thus explains his own. We believe and confess, that the Word of God is Immortal, yea Life itself; but he became Flesh, and being united with a Body, 
* enlivened.  animated with a Rational Soul, suffered in the Flesh, as the Scripture says, and because his Body suffered, we say, that he hath suffered, although he be of a Nature 
* impossible.  incapable of sufferings; and because his Body is risen, we say, He is risen. But Nestorius is not of that Judgement, for he says, that it is the Man, who is raised, and that it is the body of the Man, which is offered to Us in the Holy Sacrament. We believe on the Contrary, that it is the Flesh and Blood of the Word, that giveth life to all things. He says afterward, that Nestorius had suborned Caelestius to accuse Philip of being a Manichee, but Caelestius not daring to appear, Nestorius had found out another pretence, and Deposed Philip for having Celebrated the Sacrament in his House, although all the Clergy of Constantinople said, that it was a thing ordinarily done, as often as occasion required.  
Possidonius departed to go to Rome with these Instructions, but had order not to deliver Saint Cyril's Letter to the Pope, unless he understood, that Nestorius' Letter was come to his Hands.  
Before Passidonius was arrived at Rome S. Cyril wrote to Acacius Bishop of Beraea, that his Friend 
p. 1. c. 22.  Nestorius had given Scandal to all the Church, by suffering Dorotheus to deny, that the Virgin was the Mother of God, and maintaining that Doctrine. And that because he would not abet that error, Nestorius had declared himself against him, and filled the World with Calumnies against his Reputation. He tells Acacius, that he was sorry that such a subtle and difficult Question had e'er been started and Preached to the People, for which Moral Discourses and Instructions were much more suitable. Acacius answered, that he approved of this Judgement of Saint Cyril, and that he was as throughly persuaded as himself, that such things ought not to be disputed; but he advised him not to reprove, with so much passion, a word, which Dorotheus had 
Ibid c. 23.  spoken unawares and inconsiderately, for fear of embroiling the Church, and desires him to appease this Quarrel by his Silence, intimating to him, that it was the Opinion also of John Bishop of Antioch.  
Possidonius being arrived at Rome, Pope Celestine who had received Instructions from both sides, 
1. A Council at Rome.  had assembled a Council in August, Anno. 430, in which after they had read, and examined Nestorius' Writings, his Letters, and S. Cyril's; they disapproved Nestorius', and approved Saint Cyril's Doctrine. We have a fragment of the Acts of this Council, related in Arnobius' con●e●erence with Serapion, which contains some part of St. Caelestine's Judgement, where some Passages of St. Ambrose, St. Hilary and D●…sus are cited to prove, that it may be said, that the Son of God was born of a Virgin, that God was made Man; and that there is but one Son of God. They did not think it ●●t in this Council to condemn Nestorius presently; They ordered, that it should be signified to him, that if within ten days after Notice of this Sentence he did not condemn the New Doctrine, which he had introduced, and did not approve the Doctrine of the Churches of Rome and Alexandria, yea, of the Universal Church, he should be Deposed and Deprived of the Communion of the Church; and they also declared, that all the Clergy and Laity, who had separated from Nestorius, since he taught this Doctrine, were not Excommunicate.  
In order to the Execution of the Decree of this Synod, Pope Celestine wrote to S. Cyril, and by his Letter gave him Commission to Execute in his stead, as having his Authority, and being his place, the Sentence given against Nestorius. He wrote also a Letter to Nestorius, in which he opposes his Doctrine; tells him, that the Bishops of whom he spoke in his Letter, are Pelagians, 
Act. Conc. p. 1. c. 15. Ibid. c. 18.  who were condemned because they would not acknowledge Original Sin, and gives him Notice of the Judgement given against him, declaring to him at the same time that he had commissioned S. Cyril to execute it in his Name. He also certified the Clergy of Constantinople of it, as also the Bishops of the Chief Sees, as John Bishop of Antioch, Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, and Flavian Bishop or Philipopolis, to whom he sent a Circular Letter. These Letters 
Ibid. c. 19  are all dated Aug. 17. Anno. 430. 
Ibid. c. 20   
Saint Cyril before he would do any thing against Nestorius wrote a Letter to John Bishop of Antioch, and John Bishop of Jerusalem, to let them know how things had passed in the West, and exhorting them to join with him either to make Nestorius change his Opinion, or execute the 
Ibid. c. 21. 24.  Judgement passed against him by the Western Bishop, if he persisted in it.  
John Bishop of Antioch having received S. Cyril and Caelestine's Letters, and having communicated them to six Bishops, which were then present with him, of whom Theodoret was one, foreseeing the trouble which Nestorius would raise, exhorted him by a Letter which he wrote on purpose, giving him all the marks of Friendship, not to wonder at S. Caelestine's and S. Cyril's Letters, but yet not to slight this affair, and advised him not to reject the term of the Mother of God, which several Holy Men had already made use of; and so much the rather, because this Dispute had already 
Ibid. c. 25.  created great disturbances in the Church, and was likely to make greater, because he saw, that the West, Egypt, and perhaps Macedonia, were determined to separate themselves, unless they were satisfied about it; That heretofore Theodorus of Mopsuesta had recanted the way of Expressions which he had used publicly, that he might not give an occasion of Scandal. Lastly, He says, that he did not invite him to make a shameful Retractation, but knowing that several Persons had heard him say, that he did not reject the Good Sense which might be given to this term, The Mother of God, and that he would willingly call her by that Name, if some Persons of Authority in the Church were of that Judgement; He exhorts him to use it, since no Ecclesiastical Author had condemned it, and several had used it. Nestorius' answered John Bishop of Antioch, that 
Collect. of Lupus. c. 3.  many abusing the term of the Mother of God, and others not being willing to call the Virgin by any other term than the Mother of Man, he thought it safest to choose the term of the Mother of Christ.  
Notwithstanding this, Saint Cyril called a Council in November, Anno. 430. in Egypt. In it they resolved upon the Execution of the Judgement pronounced by the Western Bishops against 
2. A Council in Egypt.  Nestorius, and they deputed four of them to signify it to him, with a Synodical Letter, that in case he did not revoke his Errors, and profess the Doctrine of the Church within the time prescribed by S. Caelestine's Letter, he should be degraded from his Priesthood. This Letter is dated Nou. 3. Anno. 430. Saint Cyril joined to it a Confession of Faith, which he would have him make, and his twelve famous anathemas.  
The Confession of Faith, which he propounded 〈◊〉 him, was that of the Council of Nice, to which he added an Explication of the Doctrine of the Church concerning the Incarnation more at large, to this Effect, That the Son of God was made Man, and born of a Virgin, yet without any change of the Natures, either of the Flesh into the Godhead, or of the Divine Nature into the Manhood, without any alteration or mixture; yet so, as that the Word being united with the Manhood by an Hypostatick Union, makes but one Christ; That we may not divide the two Natures, nor look upon them as united merely by an Union of Dignity, Authority, or Affection; That we may not say, that he dwells in the Son of Mary as in another Man, nor call Jesus Christ a Man carrying a God; nor use these Expressions, nor any like them, I honour him who is invested with the Divine Nature, for his sake, who hath invested him with it; I adore the Invisible because of the Visible, etc. But we must acknowledge, that the Son of God hath suffered in his Visible Flesh, that he is Sacrificed for us, is Dead; and Lastly, That the Virgin having brought forth a God hypostatically United with the Manhood, aught to be Called the Mother of God. This long Confession of Faith (for the Articles which we have mentioned, are laid down at large) is attended with twelve anathemas. 
S. Cyril's twelve anathemas.   
The First is against him that doth not confess, that the Person, who in Isaiah is called Emanuel, i. e. Jesus Christ, is a true God, and that the Virgin is upon that account the Mother of God; because she brought into the World the Word incarnate according to the Flesh.  
The Second is against him that doth not acknowledge, that the Word of the Father being hypostatically United to the Flesh makes one Jesus Christ with his Flesh, and that he is altogether God and Man.  
The Third is against him, that divideth the Natures after the Union, or allows them only an Union of Dignity, Authority, and Power, and not a natural Union.  
The Fourth is against those, who attribute that which is spoken of Christ in Holy Scripture, to God or Man separately.  
The Fifth is against him, who calls Jesus Christ, a Man bearing-God, and not a true God, and the Natural Son of God, because being Incarnate he partakes of the same Flesh and Blood with us.  
The Sixth is against him that asserts, that the Word of God is the God of Christ.  
The Seventh is against him, who says, that Jesus Christ, as he was Man, was moved by the Word, and was clothed with his Glory, as being a Person distinct from him.  
The Eighth is against him who asserts, that we ought to Worship the Manhood with the Word, and will not give the same Adoration to Immanuel, i. e. to the Word Incarnate.  
The Ninth is against him who says, that Jesus Christ did Miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not by his own.  
The Tenth is against him, who affirms, that it is not the Word that is our Highpriest and Apostle, who was Sacrificed for us, but it is the Man, who died for himself, and for us.  
The Eleventh is against him who denies, that the Flesh was the Living Flesh of the Word, but the Flesh of the Man united with the Godhead by a Moral Union, because it dwells, and inhabits in it.  
The Twelfth is against him, who will not say, that the Word hath suffered truly in his Flesh, and that he died, and risen again according to the Flesh.  
About this time also S. Cyril wrote his three Treatises about the Incarnation. One of which he dedicated to the Emperor, and the other two to the Empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria, in which 
1. p. Act. Conc. c. 3, 4, 5.  he explains, and proves his Doctrine at large.  
Before the Sentence of Celestine, and S. cyril's Letter were signified to Nestorius, he foreseeing the Storm, which was about to fall upon him, desired Theodosius, that he would call a Council. And since his Anger against the Monks of Constantinople, who were not of his Party, increased 
Ibid. c. 20.  every Day more and more, they also petitioned, That a Council might be assembled, and in the sequel addressed the Emperor, praying him, That the Governor of Constantinople would restrain the Outrages committed against them, till the Matter were determined by a Council. Theodosius seeing, that a Council was desired by both sides, and believing it necessary to appease the Troubles of the Church, appointed it at Ephesus on Pentecost in the following Year. The Circular Letter, which he wrote to invite the Chief Metropolitans to it, bears date Nou. 19 Anno 430. In it 
Ibid. c. 31.  he says, that it was his Duty to provide for the Peace and Welfare of the Church, to hinder, that it be not troubled with Schisms and Divisions, to provide that Religion be preserved in its Purity, and that the Clergy and Bishop live an unblameable Life. In this Letter he doth not allege any particular Reason, which he called this Council, but only tells the Bishops, That it was for the Good of the Church, and that they that did not come to it, could not be excused neither before God nor Men.  
The Fame of S. Austin induced the Emperor to require him in particular; and for that end wrote to him, although he was a Bishop but of a small City: But the Emperor's Letters not being received in Africa till about Easter, Anno 431. S. Austin was then dead, and the other African Bishop being encompassed with so many Enemies, could not come to the Council.  
The Emperor wrote a Letter particularly to S. Cyril, to tell him, That he looked upon him as 
Ibid. c. 31. (32.)  the Author of this Trouble, and therefore commanded him peremptorily to be present at the Council. He also particularly blamed him for disturbing the Church, creating Divisions in the Royal Family by writing to the Empresses severally, for meddling with an Affair that nothing concerned him; for acting imperiously, and imprudently.  
Nestorius also wrote to S. Celestine against S. Cyril, and informs him, That Theodosius had appointed 
In Marius Mercator.  a General Council, and prays him to accommodate the Differences which were between those, who called the Virgin the Mother of God, and those who would give her no other Title than the Mother of a Man, by calling her the Mother of Christ.  
In the mean while the four Bishops, deputed by the Council of Alexandria to signify to Nestorius the Judgement passed against him by the Synod of Rome, arrived at Constantinople, and delivered the Letter of the Council into his own Hands in the presence of his Clergy, Decemb. 7. Anno 430. which was the Lordsday. He put off their Answer till the next Day; but when he saw what it contained, he would see them no more, but still continued to Preach after the same manner as he had done before. He sent John Bishop of Antioch a Copy of the Letter, Confession of Faith, and 12 anathemas of S. Cyril's, and desired him to set some Person to write against them, and himself opposed 12 other anathemas to them.  
In the First, he pronounces Anathema against him that says, That he that is called Immanuel in Scripture, is a God only, and not a God dwelling with us; that is to say, United to our Nature, which he took of Mary, against him that calls the Virgin the Mother of God, and not of Immanuel, or that says, That the Word is changed into Flesh.  
The Second, i● against them that said, That by the Union of the Word and Flesh, the Godhead hath received some alteration or that it is united to the Flesh in part only; or that saith, That the Godhead and Manhood in Jesus Christ are of the same Nature.  
The Third, is against those who said, That Jesus Christ is one Son only made of two Natures, without any Mixture.  
The Fourth, is against them who take that which is spoken concerning the Person of Jesus Christ in Scripture, as agreeing to one Nature only, and so attribute the Sufferings to the Word of God.  
The Fifth, is against those who dare affirm, That there is but one Jesus Christ according to Nature.  
The Sixth, is against him who gives the Word, who was Incarnate, any other Name than that of Christ, or who makes the Nature of Man to be Uncreated, as that of the Word is.  
The Seventh, is against him that saith, That the Person, who was born of Mary, is the only Son of God, and are not contented to say, That he became the Son of God by an Union with the only Son of God.  
The Eighth, is against him who believes, That we must honour the Form of a Servant for itself, and not because it is United with the Nature of the Word.  
The Ninth, is against him that saith, That the Form of a Man in Jesus Christ, is Consubstantial with the Holy Spirit; and, That it had not the Power of doing Miracles by the Union that it had with the Word.  
The Tenth, is against them who affirm, That the Word was sacrificed, and suffered for us, and not Immanuel.  
The Eleventh, is against them who said, That the Flesh of Jesus Christ is enlivening of its own Nature as it is Flesh.  
The Twelfth, is against them, who attribute to the Word the Sufferings of the Flesh of Jesus Christ.  
These anathemas of Nestorius being published at Constantinople, were confuted by Marius Mercator, 
Coll. of Lupus, ch. 4.  and John Bishop of Antioch caused Andrew Bishop of Samosata, and Theodoret to write against S. Cyril's. He wrote also himself Circular Letters to condemn them.  
The time for the assembling of the Council drawing nigh, the Bishops began their Journey to present themselves at Ephesus. S. Cyril went with almost 50 Bishops of Egypt; and being landed at Rhodes, he wrote the News of it to his Clergy and People. He arrived at Ephesus five or six 
Act. Conc. p. 1. c. 33. and 34.  Days before Pentecost, which was that Year upon June 7. Nestorius also came about the same time with 10 Bishops. Juvenal also arrived with some Bishops of Palestine. But John Bishop of Antioch, who was obliged to assemble his Bishops to Antioch, who were almost 12 Days Journey distant from thence, and had above 30 Days Journey by the Land thither, could not get there so soon. He 
Ibid. c. 36  wrote a Letter of Excuse to S. Cyril, and assured him, that he would be at Ephesus within five or six Days.  
The Emperor sent Count Candidian to the Council, that he might assist at it in his stead; not to meddle with Questions or Controversies, which concerned the Faith, but to drive away the Monks and Laity, which came to Ephesus in throngs, and might raise Disturbances there; To maintain the Order and Freedom of the Council without suffering any Heats or Contests; To hinder the Bishops from going from Ephesus to Court, or elsewhere; And to oblige them to define and determine the Questions in debate before they started any others. And this did the Letter 
Ibid. c. 35  sent to the Council declare to be the substance of his Commission, wherein 'tis also said, that shall not bring any Criminal, or Pecuniary against the Bishops of the Council, neither in the Council, nor before the Judges of Ephesus; And that he hath permitted Count Irenaeus, Nestorius' Friend, to accompany him, nevertheless without allowing him any Share in the Commission granted to Candidian.  
Fifteen Days being passed from the Day appointed for the Synod, the Eastern Bishops having 
Coll. of Lupus, ch. 7.  also sent two Bishops, who had assured them, that the rest would soon be there, and that they would not take it ill, if the Council began without them. Saint Cyril, and Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, and the Bishops of Egypt and Asia, met in the Great Church of S. Mary, Ju. 22. althô the Legates of the Holy See were not yet come; and notwithstanding the Opposition of 68 Bishops, who required them to stay till the arrival of the Eastern and Western Bishops. Saint 
Coll. of Lupus, ch. 7.  Cyril was Precedent of this Council. We shall examine by and by, whether it was in his own, or in the Pope's Name. The Number of Bishops, if we may believe what they have written themselves, was near 200. The Orientals count but 50 out of Egypt, 30 Asian Bishops, and some others. The Subscriptions make it 
* Credible.  evident, that there were 160 who signed it, because there were some of those, who at first opposed the holding of the Council, who did nevertheless join in it.  
After Peter the Chief Notary had in a few Words declared the Cause of the calling of this Council, they made him read the Emperor's Circular Letter sent to the Metropolitans. Afterward 
Act. I.  Memnon having observed, that there had sixteen Days passed since the day fixed by the Emperor's Letter; Saint Cyril said, that it was high time to begin the Council, and required that such Papers should be read as were useful for that end, and chief, Candidian's Commission, which he had already perused; 'tis true, but he said after, that he did it against his Will, and to know the Emperor's mind only, and not to begin the Council. But he demanded, that they should stay till the Eastern Bishops were arrived, saying, that it was the Emperor's design to make it a general 
† Coll. of Lupus. c. 9  Council, and not a particular and separate Assembly. But because they had no regard to his advice, he retreated, and immediately entered his Protestation against the Council.  
Saint Cyril and the other Bishops did not give over their Proceed; and Theodorus Bishop of Ancyra having represented it as a thing necessary, to 
* Cite.  call Nestorius before they read any thing, three Bishops arose, and said, That Yesterday they had been with Nestorius, and the six or seven Bishops which were with him, and that they had advised them to come to the Council; but they could get no other answer from them, but this, That they would think of it, and would come to it, if they judged it convenient: Wherefore they sent others with a Summons in Writing to cite him to the Council. Florentius the Tribune, being accompanied with a Clerk of Nestorius' answered them, That he will come to the Council when all the Bishops are met. These Bishops having reported this answer to the Council, they sent other Bishops to cite him the third time, according to the Canons, but they were not suffered to enter into Nestorius' House, and they could get no other reason from the Guards that were at his Gate, but this, That they had Order to keep any Person from entering that came from the Synod. This being reported to the Council, they began to enter upon the Discussion of their business. And after they had rehearsed the Nicene Creed, they read S. Cyril's second Letter to Nestorius, which was unanimously approved by them; The answer of Nestorius to it being also read, was rejected, and they pronounced an Anathema against it, and the Author of in They caused also S. Caelestine's Letter, S. Cyril's third Letter, and his anathemas to be read. Then they heard the Testimony of Theodotus of Ancyra, who deposed, that since he was at Ephesus, he had heard Nestorius say, That it was an Impious Assertion, to say, That a God could be an Infant of two or three Months Old. Acacius also, Bishop of Melitina, averred that he heard one of the Bishops, which were of Nestorius' company say, That be that suffered for us, was a distinct Person from the Word. After these Testimonies, they produced many passages of the ancient Fathers, and several pieces of Nestorius' Writings. They also read the Letter of Capreolus Bishop of Carthage, brought by Bessulas his Deacon; wherein he tells the Council, that the state of the African Church was such, that he could not call a Synod to choose Deputies for the Council; and that they were so beset with their Enemies, that it was impossible for them to get to it; That the Emperor's Letter came not to them till Easter, and if they had had free passage, they could not have got to the Council so soon; so that he was contented to send his Deacon Bessulas with a Letter of Excuse, but did conjure them not to suffer any Novelty to Creep into the Church, and to confirm the ancient Doctrine, and the Catholic Faith.  
The Council judging Nestorius sufficiently convicted by these Records, which they had read, pronounced Sentence against him in these words: The Most Impious Heretic Nestorius refusing to appear at our Citation, and not suffering the Holy Bishops, which we sent to him, to enter into his House, we were obliged to examine his Cause; and having convicted him of dispersing and teaching an Impious Doctrine, as hath been proved, as well by his Letters, and other Writings, as by the Sermons which he hath Preached in this Metropolis, which hath been confirmed by sufficient. Testimonies, we have been forced, according to the Letter of S. Celestine Bishop of Rome, to pronounce against him this heavy Sentence, which we cannot do but with grief; Our Lord Jesus Christ, against whom Nestorius hath Blasphemed, declares him by this Synod deprived of his Episcopal Dignity, and separated from the Communion of the 
* Sacradotal, or Priestly.  Episcopal Order.  
So that Nestorius was cited twice in one Day, his Cause examined, his Letters and Writings read and rejected, the Letters and Writings of S. Cyril approved, Witnesses heard, and the Condemnation of Nestorius pronounced by 200 Bishops, or thereabouts, at one Session only. It is true, it lasted a long time, for S. Cyril observes in a Letter, that they met very early in the Morning, and made an end very late by Candle-light.  
The next day the Sentence pronounced against Nestorius by the Synod was signified to him, by 
Sancta Synodus. In Epheso coacta. Nestorio, Novo Judae.  a Letter from the Council. In the Direction of it he is called, Another Judas. As soon as this was done, they wrote in the name of the Synod to the Emperor, and Clergy of Constantinople. Saint Cyril wrote also in his own Name to the Clergy of Constantinople, and Alexandria, and sent the Emperor the Acts of the Council.  
Nestorius' was not idle on his part, but wrote a Letter to the Emperor in his own Name, and in the Name of 16 Bishops, who signed his Letter, that being come to Ephesus, according to the Orders of the Emperor to be present at the Council, he waited for the Bishops, who were to come thither from all parts, and particularly for the Bishop of Antioch, and the Metropolitans of his Diocese; as also for the Bishops that were come out of Italy and Sicily. But perceiving that the Egyptians were very impatient under this delay, believing that they did it out of design, they had offered to come to the Synod, if Count Candidian would cite them to it, but he would not do it, because he had heard that John Bishop of Antioch, and the Eastern Bishops would soon come. Nevertheless the Bishops of Egypt and Asia, would hold a Council alone, and had filled the City with trouble; That Memnon Bishop of this City had granted them the Great Church for this tumultuous Assembly to meet in, although he had denied them the Licence to go into S. John's Church. He desires the Emperor to give Orders, that they be not wronged and abused, and that they Celebrate a Lawful Council, not allowing any Monk or Layman, nor any Bishop not Summoned to be present at it, but only two of the most Eminent and Learned, chosen out of every Province, or if he did not think it 〈◊〉, to permit them to return 〈◊〉 again 〈◊〉. Candidian also sent the Emperor a Relation of 〈◊〉 had passed, much like the Account Nestorius had given him; He also gave the Council Notice, that be had written to him, and made his Declaration against the meeting of the Council● and Ordered, that they should wait for the arrival of John Bishop of Antioch.  
Five days after the Deposition of Nestorius, John Bishop of Antioch, and the other Eastern Bishops arrived. They were but 26, which being joined with the 10 Bishops which were with 
Collect. of Lupus. c. 15. 28.  Nestorius, made but 36 in all, if we believe S. Cyril's Relation. Nevertheless in the Subscriptions of their Letters we find more than 50 set down by their Names, and the Names of their Cities. The Council sent some Bishops to meet John Bishop of Antioch, and desired him not to Communicate with Nestorius, who was deposed. But John Bishop of Antioch was so far from harkening to them, that as soon as he arrived, he held a Council 
* In his Inn.  in the place of his Abode. Here Candidian declared, that he had done all he could to hinder the Bishops, who were assembled with Cyril and Memnon, from doing any thing before the coming of the Eastern Bishops; That they had required of him, that they might read the Emperor's Letters, saying, They knew not the Emperor's Orders that he had done it against his Will merely to prevent any Sedition, but at his departure he had admonished them to do nothing rashly; but not having regard to his advice, they had done what they pleased; after they had driven him out of the Council, and refused to hear the Bishops which Nestorius had sent to them. He then read the Emperor's Letter, and when that was done, John Bishop of Antioch demandad, if he done any thing more. He said, That they had Deposed Nestorius, and had published and fastened up his Deposition. John Bishop of Antioch went on, and asked him, If it were done regularly; if Nestorius were present, and Convected; or whether he was Condemned without being heard. Candidian answered, that it was all transacted without Examination, and contrary to the Rules. Candidian having given this Testimony, he went out. The Bishops accused Memnon of shutting up the Churches against them, and S. Cyril of reviving the Error of Arius and Nestorius in his twelve Chapters. Upon this Accusation they pronounce the Sentence of Deposition against S. Cyril and Memnon; and Excommunicated all those who had Communion with them, till they should confess the Faith of the Council of Nice without adding any thing to it; pronouncing Anathema against S. Cyril's Chapters, and obeying the Emperor's Orders, who Commanded them to examine this Question without tumult and noise. This Sentence was signified to the Bishops, against whom it was given; and because they minded it not, they protested against Cyril and Memnon, because they still held a Council after they were deposed, and contrary to the prohibition of Candidian. These Bishops immediately sent the Emperor word by Writing what they had done. There were two remarkable Circumstances in this Letter. The first, That S. Cyril had written to John Bishop of Antioch two days before the beginning of the Synod, that he would stay till he came. The Second, That they could not get thither sooner, because of the length and tiresomness of the Voyage, which they were forced to make by Land. They wrote also to the Clergy, Senate, and People of Constantinople, to the Empresses, and to the People of Hierapolis.  
The Relation of Candidian being received at Constantinople first, Theodosius ordered, that all that had been done by S. Cyril's Synod, should be looked upon as Null and Void, and that the whole Council should proceed to a new Judgement; forbidding the Bishops to go from Ephesus, till he had sent some of his Officers to the Synod to know how things had passed there. This is the Subject of the Emperor's Letter, dated June 19, brought to Ephesus by Palladius. This was signified to the Bishops of both sides. Saint Cyril, and the Bishops of his Party answered, that Candidian had not given a true Relation of things to the Emperor, and desired him to send for him to Constantinople with five Bishops of the Council, that he might be informed of the truth of all their Proceed. This Letter was not subscribed by all the Bishops, because Palladius, who was to carry it, was very urgent to be gone.  
John Bishop of Antioch, and the Bishops of his Party wrote also by this Palladius to the Emperor; and having related all that had passed a second time, they prayed him, that only two Bishops out of every Province should be allowed to be at the Synod with their Metropolitan. They also complained, that the Church of S. John had been shut against them; insomuch that they were forced to pray abroad, and had been abused in their return. Lastly, They humbly implore the Emperor to remove Cyril and Memnon, the heads of this Persecution from Ephesus. A little after they sent Count Irenaeus, to whom they give another Relation against Saint Cyril, concerning the Violence, which they pretend he had done them, by keeping them out of S. Paul's Church, by throwing of Stones at them. They also gave him Letters to the Governor of Constantinople, and to the Officers of the Emperor, that they would maintain their Cause. Nestorius' wrote also in his own Name to an Eunuch of the Emperor, that he did not refuse to call the Virgin Mary, The Mother of God, provided that they would condemn the Error of Apollinaris, which is maintained by S. Cyril.  
July 10. Philip and Arcadius Legates of the Church of Rome, arrived at Ephesus, and joining themselves with S. Cyril and his Synod, according to their Instructions, by which they were ordered 
Act. 11.  to act in conjunction with him, they held a Session the same Day, in which they read S. Coelestine's Letter, dated May 8. first in Latin, and after in Greek, which shows us, that 'twas the Custom to read the Letters of the Holy See in the Tongue wherein they were written. The Substance of it was this, that the Holy Spirit is present in Synods, and all Bishops being the Apostles Successors are obliged to maintain and defend the Doctrine, which they have received from them, and to imitate the Zeal and Vigilance of their Predecessors; that they ought to have the same Spirit as they have but one Faith; that the Question in hand obliges them to arm themselves with a fresh Zeal, because the Person of Jesus Christ is endangered by it; That he hopes, that He, who hath united the Synagogue, and the Church, will reunite the Minds of Christians, restore the Church's Peace, and make the Truth and Ancient Faith to Triumph; He exhorts them to continue in that Love so much commended by S. John, whose Relics they have among them; that they Ought to pray to God with one Heart and Voice, that he would direct them by the Light of his Holy Spirit, and give them Courage to defend the Word of God zealously, and procure the Peace of the Church. Lastly, He tells them, that he sent them the Bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and Philip a Priest, to be present at all the transactions of the Council, and put in execution what he had already ordained. After this Letter was read, the Legates of S. Celestine demanded, that they would communicate to them the Acts of what was already done, which was granted them. We find at the end of this Act two other Letters of S. Caelestine's, the one of which is directed to Theodosius, and the other to S. Cyril. He exhorts the former to protect the ancient Faith, and he answers to the Latter who had consulted him, whether he might still receive Nestorius, the time which he had fixed for his Retractation, being passed; He answers him, I say, That We must always receive a Sinner, whensoever he returns, and that We must endeavour to appease the troubles raised in the Church. He tells him likewise, that he earnestly desired, that Nestorius might repent, and that he may be again received. These two Letters bear date, the one May 7. and the other May 15.  
The next day they met, to read over again the Acts of the first Session of Council to Caelestine's 
Act. III.  Legates. When they heard them, they approved them, gave their Judgement against Nestorius, and subscribed his Condemnation. When this was done, they framed a Letter to the Emperor, wherein they tell him, that the Legates of the Bishop of Rome had assured them, that all the Western Churches agreed with them in their Doctrine, and had condemned with them the Doctrine and Person of Nestorius. So that this Matter being thus ended as the Emperor desired it for the benefit of the Church, and of the Faith, they desired him to give them leave to withdraw, to secure them from the Persecution they were threatened with, and suffer them to ordain a Bishop at Constantinople in the room of Nestorius. They wrote at the same time to the Clergy and People of Constantinople, to exhort them to put some Person into the See of Constantinople in the place of Nestorius, lately Deposed by the Council for his Impious Doctrine.  
The Judgement of Nestorius being thus finished, Cyril and Memnon cast about them how they 
Act IU.  might provide against the Sentence of Deposition pronounced against them by the Eastern Bishops. The Council therefore being assembled the fourth time, on July 16th Cyril and Memnon presented a Petition against John Bishop of Antioch, wherein they say, That the Council being assembled in the City of Ephesus to confirm the Faith of the Church, and to condemn the Heresy lately invented by Nestorius, had acted Regularly, and in the usual forms; That they had cited Nestorius' three times to render a Reason of his Doctrine; but this Heretic refusing to appear, the Council had attentively examined his Writings, and had Condemned him according to the Rules of the Church-discipline; That after this Judgement given, and an Account of it sent to the Emperor, John Bishop of Antioch had come to Ephesus, where he Assembled himself with the Bishops of Nestorius' Opinion, of whom some were Deposed, and others were Bishops only in Name, having no See, and that in this Assembly, which had no Authority to judge any Man, he deliberately pronounced a Sentence of Deposition against them, although he could not do it, the Bishop, whom he principally pretended to judge, being in a See Superior to his own. But yet although he might have undertaken this Judgement, yet he ought to have followed the Canons and Rules of the Church, to have admonished them, and cited them before the Council; but contemning all these Rules, he had rashly and inconsiderately, pronounced a Sentence of Deposition against them, immediately after his arrival, without letting them know for what reason he condemned them; That it was a matter of consequence not to suffer the Laws of the Church to be despised; That one Bishop dared to do such things to another, who ought to have the precedence; That he would not dare to attempt the like against the meanest Person of the Clergy; These Considerations forced them to desite the Council to Summon John and his Associates, to give an Account of their behaviour before the Synod. Hesychius, Juvenal's Deacon read this Petition, and Juvenal presided upon this Occasion, because S. Cyril taking upon him the Person of an Accuser, could not preside in it, nor his Notary give his Opinion in it.  
The Synod having respect to the Demand of S. Cyril and Memnon, sent twice some Bishops to John Bishop of Antioch, and the Bishops of his Party, but they were not suffered to enter; and the only Answer which was made them, was, that they would not have any thing to do with Persons which they had Excommunicated. Then the Council pronounced, that all that had been done against Cyril and Memnon, was Null, and ordered, that John Bishop of Antioch should be cited a third time, and if he did not appear, he should be condemned.  
The same Day John caused an Abusive Libel to be fastened in a public Place, not only against Cyril and Memnon, but also against all the Bishops of their Council, declaring Cyril and Memnon Deposed for Heresy, and the other Bishop's Excommunicate for favouring them, till they should forsake them, and reunite themselves with the Eastern Bishops.  
The next Day the Council being assembled again, S. Cyril made his Report concerning the Libel of John Bishop of Antioch, and declared that he Condemned Arius, Apollinaris, and the other Heretics, as well as Nestorius, and the Followers of Pelagius and Caelestius. Whereupon he required that John Bishop of Antioch should be cited the third time. And they sent three Bishops and a Notary to him. John Bishop of Antioch received them by his Archdeacon, who would, have given them a Paper as from the Council, but they declared that they came not to receive any 
Act V.  Paper, but to cite John Bishop of Antioch. This Archdeacon went to tell his Bishop so, and being returned, presented them again with his Paper; and because they would not receive it, he said to them, Let No body come from you, and we will send No body from our side; we have sent our Resolutions to the Emperor, and we wait his Orders, to know what we shall do. The Bishop insisting upon it, and desiring him to hear what the Synod had given them in Charge to say, He answered, You have refused to receive the Paper which I have tendered to you, and I will not hear the Orders of your Synod. This being said, he withdrew himself. The Bishops told Asphalius and Alexander the Priest the Reason of their coming, and then returned to give the Synod a Relation of the whole Matter, who declared John Bishop of Antioch, and the 36 Bishops his Adherents to be separated from the Communion of the Church, and then gave the Emperor an Account of what they had done, praying him to confirm it by his Authority, and consent to all that they had done. They also wrote a Synodical Letter to S. Celestine, in which they relate all that had passed at Ephesus; and tell him, That they had read and approved his Synodical Decrees against the Paelagians and Caelestians in the Council. He sent him also a Copy of the Acts of the Council. This Act was concluded with a Sermon preached by S. Cyril at Ephesus, against John Bishop of Antioch.  
The Eastern Bishops on their side wrote to the Emperor, that Cyril and Memnon having been Deposed by their Synod, could not be absolved by Bishops Excommunicated; and they prayed the Emperor to send for them to Constantinople, or at lest to Nicomedia, and not to permit any Metropolitan to bring more than two Bishops of his Province, because a great Multitude is only fit to cause disturbance; That their Adversaries had brought with them a great number of Bishops, contrary to the Intentions and Orders of the Emperor; That as for themselves they had obeyed them exactly, by bringing only three Bishops out of each Province, and had sent no Bishop to Court, as their adversaries had done, but contented themselves with writing to him, because they would not disobey his Orders. They sent this Letter by Count Ireraeus.  
The 6th Session of the Council was held July 22. Because the Eastern Bishops accused the Bishops of the Council of introducing another Creed, besides that of the Council of Nice, they read 
Act VI.  it in this Session, declared their approbation of it in general, and owned that it contained a Sound and Orthodox Doctrine. But they added, that several Persons, who pretended to acknowledge it, putting false Interpretations upon it, they had been forced to produce the Testimonies of the Holy Fathers, to discover the true meaning of it. Then they read over again the Testimonies of the Fathers, which they had quoted already at the Condemnation of Nestorius. This done, that they might fasten the Reproach which was laid upon them, upon their Adversaries themselves, they caused Charisius a Priest, and a Steward of the Church of Philadelphia, to present a Petition apainst one James a Priest, a Friend of Nestorius, accusing him for making the Quartodecimans, who returned to the Communion of the Church, to sign a Confession of Faith different from the Nicene Creed, and full of Heresy. He alleged that form of Faith, which M. Mercator attributes to Theodorus of Mopsuesta, although there be not the least word spoken of it in that Session, that, among other things, maintains, That the Holy Spirit hath not derived his Subsistence from the Son, that we Adore the Son of Man in Jesus Christ, because of its inseparable Union with the Word; That there is but one Son, which is the Word, to whom the Manhood being inseparably joined, partakes of his Dignity, and is called God, and Lord after a particular manner. This Creed, and the Names of those that signed it being read, the Council made this famous Declaration. That it is not allowable to any Person whatsoever, to Allege, Writ, or make a Different Creed from that which was made by the Holy Fathers Assembled at Nice; and that all those, who are so audacious as to make, or allege, or offer any other to be signed by such, as turn themselves, or are converted to the Church, whether they be Jews, Pagans, or Heretics, if they be Bishops or Clergymen, they shall be degraded from their Dignity; and if they are Laymen, they shall be accursed. Then they read the Extracts of Nestorius, and Peter the Chief-Notary observed, that he owned, that he was the first that had spoken in that manner. This Act concluded with a Sermon of S. Cyril.  
The Council having nothing more to regulate concerning Doctrine. In the 7th Action, which was held July ult. (It is in the Acts Pridie Calendarum Sept. but it ought to be read Pridic Calend. 
Act VII.  Aug. for this day was passed before Count John arrived, and S. Cyril was seized) they discussed matters of Discipline. Rheginus, Zeno, and Evagrius Bishops of Cyprus presented a Petition to the Council against the Bishops of Antioch, complaining that the Bishops of Antioch endeavoured to make the Bishops of the Isle of Cyprus subject to their Jurisdiction, and that the Bishop of Constantia, Metropolitan of Cyprus, being lately Dead, the Bishop of Antioch had obtained Letters from Dionysius the Perfect, directed to Theodorus Governor of the Isle, prohibiting them from Ordaining a Bishop in that City without the Permission of the Council of Ephesus. These two Letters were read, and the Bishops of Cyprus having shown, that it was the design of John Bishop of Antioch, to Ordain the Bishop of Constantia, they asked them if it were the Custom; and being answered, that it was never practised, the Synod ordered, That according to the Canons of the Council of Nice, the Bishops of Cyprus should enjoy their Ancient Rights, and Ordan the Bishop of Constantia, according to their Ancient Custom. On the occasion of this business they made this general Rule, That the Ancient Custom should be observed in all the Provinces, and that no Bishop should attempt to bring under his Jurisdiction, a Province which hath not heretofore been subject to him, nor his Predecessors, and that if any one hath endeavoured it, or hath kept any Province by force, he shall be forced to resign it, and restore it to him to whom it belongs, that the Canons be not Violated, and Haughtiness of Worldly Power may not creep into the Church, under the pretence of the Priesthood, and so we lose the Liberty, which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us by his Blood; He who is the Saviour of all Men.  
In this Act they also made six Canons, which contain nothing extraordinary concerning Discipline. In them they order only, That the Bishops which are, or shall be joined to Nestorius, shall be Deposed. They Decree the same Punishment against those that embrace the Doctrine of Nestorius or Caelestius, or that Communicate with Persons Excommunicated or Deposed, or who shall Contemn or Abuse that which is done by the Synod. On the otherside, they restored them who have been Excommunicated or Deposed by Nestorius: And they enjoined all the Clergy, not to obey those Bishops who have or shall embrace the Nestorian Party.  
The Synod also in this Act granted a Letter in favour of Eustatius, who having been Ordained Metropolitan of Pamphylia; and finding himself oppressed with troubles, was brought by some Cunning Intrigue to give a Writing, wherein he renounced it. The Council ordered, that althô Theodorus had been Ordained in his place, yet he should enjoy the Name and Dignity of a Bishop. Nevertheless with this Charge, that he should not Ordain, nor Administer Sacraments by his own Authority in any Church.  
In the same Act they confirmed the Synodical Decree of Sisinnius, against the Messalians or Euchitaes, and Ordained, that they who would not Subscribe the Form of the Faith composed by this Synod, should be Excommunicated or Deposed. They also defend their Book, concerning an Ascetiek or Monastic Life.  
Lastly, Euprepius of Byza, and Arcadiople, and Cyril Bishop of Cele, desired them to preserve the Ancient Custom of the Province of Europe, in which one Bishop had several Cities in his Diocese. The Council Ordained, that there should be no Innovations in this Case, but the Churches should still be Governed as they were heretofore.  
While these things were transacting at Ephesus, it was strongly debated at Constantinople, what they should do, about what had passed on both sides there. The Lot of all was, as I may say, in the Emperor's hands, and the Success of the Council depended upon the Resolutions taken at Court. The Council sent three Bishops to him, the Eastern Bishops contented themselves to send Count Irenaeus only. He arrived there but three days after the Deputies of the Council, who had prepared their minds to favour them. But when Irenaeus was come, he appeared before the Emperor in the presence of the Deputies of the Council, and did so much that he had almost persuaded the Emperor to think, that the Synod held by S. Cyril ought not to be accounted a Lawful Council; so that he had almost confirmed the Decrees of the Eastern Bishops, and Banished S. Cyril. But John, the Emperor's Physician, and a Friend of S. Cyril being come in, quite changed the state of things by engaging the greatest part of the Ministers, some of whom were of an Opinion, that what was done on both sides, was Lawful; others thought, that it was necessary to declare all Null, and to send for some Bishops, who were unconcerned, to examine the Matters of Faith, and all that passed at Ephesus. In this difficulty Theodosius took their part who approved of the Deposition of Nestorius, as also of S. Cyril and Memnon; upon the account of Factious Combining, and conspiring one against another; being persuaded, that as to what concerned the Faith, that had all Orthodox Sentiments, and all agreed in the Doctrine of the Nicene Council. In this he followed the Judgement of Acacius of Beraea, who wrote it to the Synod. The Emperor being thus determined, he wrote to the Bishops of the Council, and sent Count John to put this Order in Execution; and to reunite all the Bishops in one Council, having removed Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon.  
John was no sooner come to Ephesus, but he commanded the Bishops of both Parties to come to him at his Inn. John, Bishop of Antioch, and Nestorius came thither, accompanied with the Bishops of his Party, and S. Cyril with his. There was none but Memnon who was missing. Immediately there arose a contest among them. The Egyptian Bishops maintained that Nestorius ought not to be present at the Reading of the Emperor's Letter, and that S. Cyril ought, but John Bishop of Antioch, and his Party held the contrary. This Dispute having continued a long time, Count John compelled Nestorius and S. Cyril to withdraw: And then he read the Emperor's Letter to the other Bishops; and told them, that it was the Emperor's Will, that Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon should be Deposed. John Bishop of Antioch's Party consented to it, but the others maintained, that S. Cyril and Memnon ought not to be looked upon as Deposed. Count John to prevent the trouble that was likely to ensue, committed Nestorius to the Custody of Count Candidian, and S. Cyril to Count James', and sent Memnon word of his Sentence of Deposition; and having sent for him, also put him in Custody to Count James, and then gave the Emperor an Account of what he had done; telling him, That the Minds of the Bishops seemed so much exasperated one against another, that he could find no means to reconcile them.  
The Eastern Bishops gave Count John a Letter to send to the Emperor. In it they desired; that he would 〈◊〉 S. Cyril's 12 Chapters, and that he would be contented to have the Nicene Creed without any Additions signed by them. They wwrote also to Acacius, and sent a Synodical Letter to the Clergy and People of Antioch, wherein they bragged that it was reported, that all they had done was confirmed by the Emperor's Authority. These Letters are in Lupus' Collection, Chapt. 17, 18, and 19  
The Bishops of the Council on their part wrote also to the Emperor, to complain of his Sentence, and to assure him, that they wondered at his Religion, who was persuaded that S. Cyril and Memnon had been justly Condemned. They told him at the same time, that they would not communicate with the Eastern Bishops, unless they would condemn Nestorius, and earnestly besought him to release S. Cyril and Memnon; and that he would get information of the whole affair from Persons unsuspected. They wrote also to the Bishops which were at Constantinople, and to the Clergy of that Church, complaining of the ill Usage they met withal, and that they underwent many hardships by being kept at Ephesus. Wherefore they desired them to pray the Emperor to free them from that Prison, and to remove them to Constantinople, or send them home to their own Churches again. They represent the sad condition that they were in, in the Memoir, which they sent to the Abbot Dalmatius. Saint Cyril also wrote himself to the Clergy, and People of Constantinople, and to the three Egyptian Bishops residing there. The Letter of the Council with the Relation was carried by 
* A trusty Person in the Habit of a Beggar.  a Beggar in 
† Which was made of an Hollow Read.  his Staff; this was delivered to Dalmatius, who was an Abbot in great reputation for Sanctity, who presented it to the Emperor, to whom he was well known. He also read the Letter of the Council to the People of Constantinople, and the People cried out Anathema to Nestorius. The Clergy of Constantinople presented a Petition to the Emperor, in the behalf of S. Cyril and Memnon. Dalmatius, and the Bishops who were at Constantinople, gave the Council an Account of what they had done by Letter. In fine, the Emperor resolved, and Ordered. That they should send some Bishops of both sides to Constantinople, that the Affair might be terminated by the cognizance of the Cause. There were eight Deputed by each side. On the Councils side, Philip a Priest, the Pope's Legate, with these Bishops, Arcadius, who was also a Legate for the Holy See, Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, Flavian Bishop of Phillippi, Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Theodotus Bishop of Ancyra, Acacius Bishop of Melitina, and Euoptius Bishop of Ptolemais. The Commission which the Council gave them, was, That they should demand the Restauration of S. Cyril and Memnon; and that they should not re unite with John, and the Bishops of his Party, till they had Subscribed the Condemnation of Nestorius, begged Pardon for what they had done, and S. Cyril and Memnon were restored. With these Instructions the Council gave them a Letter to the Emperor, for the justification of S. Cyril and the Council. The Eastern Bishops sent also eight Deputies, viz. John Bishop of Antioch, John Bishop of Damascus, Himerius Bishop of Nicomedia, Paul Bishop of Emesa, Macarius Bishop of Laodicea, Apringius Bishop of Chalcis, and Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus, 
† Helladius Bishop of Tarsus was, perhaps, the 8th Bishop for the Eastern.  They were left at Liberty to act as they saw convenient, but they recommended it to them to endeavour to make S. Cyril's twelve Chapters should be rejected as Heretical. The Emperor, a little after, gave a Second Order, commanding, That Nestorius should withdraw into his Monastery, and that Cyril and Memnon should continue in restraint till their Cause was examined. The Praefect wrote to Nestorius, that he might retire to his Monastery, and that he had taken Order, that he should be furnished with Carriages. Nestorius' received this Order with a seeming Joy, and told the Praefect, That he accounted this Order of the Emperor a Kindness, believing nothing more honourable than to be forced to retreat for the defence of Religion; but he prayed him to take effectual care, that the Emperor do condemn S. Cyril's Chapters by his Public Letters. This Retirement of Nestorius discovered, that there was no hopes of his Restauration, as that the Cause of the others was yet dubious.  
The Deputies arrived at Chalcedon about the end of August, where they received an Order to stay, for they could not come to Constantinople because of the disturbances which the Monks raised. From hence the Deputies of the Eastern Bishops sent a Petition to the Emperor, wherein they desired, that he would not allow any other Confession of Faith, but that of the Council of Nice; and that he would be Judge of the Contests between them, and that they might set down their Reasons on both sides in Writing; Or at least, if he were not at leisure to examine this affair, that he would dismiss all the Bishops to their Dioceses. They complained also, in this Memoir, of the attempts of Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, upon Phoenicia and Arabia. But they said, that they would not have any thing done against him for Peace sake, and for fear of troubling the Church with Personal Contests.  
The Emperor a little after came to his Countryhouse near Chalcedon, and sent for the Deputies 
Sept. 4.  to him, and heard them with an abundance of Patience. The Legates for the Eastern Bishops thought they had an Advantage: And therefore spoke against S. Cyril's Chapters, and accused Acacius of having said, that the Godhead was passable; and did so much by their Insinuations, that the Emperor and his Council seemed favourable to them. The Bishops of S. Cyril's Party spoke more modestly, and contented themselves to entreat the Emperor to send for S. Cyril, that he may give an Account himself both of his Faith and Conduct. The Emperor propounding it to both sides, to deliver him their Judgement in Writing, the Deputies for the Eastern Bishops said, That they had no other Confession of Faith, but that of the Nicene Council, wherefore they Signed that, and presented it to him. They wrote all that had passed to the Bishops of their Party, who in their Answer show the great Joy that they had for the good Success they were likely to have; telling them, that their Adversaries domineered as before, Judged, Caused, sent their Sentences of Deposition every where, Ordained Bishops, and disturbed the Churches. They exhort their Deputies to oppose Novel Opinions courageously, and to insist upon the Condemnation of S. Cyril's Chapters. They joined to this Letter a Petition to the Emperor in which they give him thanks for his favourable reception of their Deputies, and implore him not to suffer them, who are Condemned for nothing but rejecting S, Cyril's Heretical Chapters, to remain under Condemnation.  
While both Parties waited for the Success of this Affair, Men's minds were much divided at Constantinople; the People heard the Eastern Bishops very favourably; They Preached and Prayed not in the Churches, for they could not be admitted into them, but in an House; On the contrary, the Clergy and Monks were very much exasperated against them. The Emperor, who had at first favoured them, began by little and little to be disaffected to them. He propounded it to them to receive Cyril and Memnon, but they would not agree to that Proposition; and when they attempted to speak to him of Nestorius, he would not suffer them: His Council was absolutely engaged. Acacius Bishop of Beraea in a Letter Printed in Lupus' Collection, Ch. 41, accuses Saint Cyril of changing the Judgement of the Court, by bribing the Eunuch Scholasticus with Money; and says, That this Eunuch being Dead, and having left a great deal of Money, the Emperor found an Account of several Sums of Gold received of S. Cyril, which were conveyed to him by Paul S. Cyril's Nephew. But we have little reason to believe what Acacius Bishop of Beraea says, because he was none of S. Cyril's Friend: But 'tis ever manifest, that the Emperor changed his mind in a very short time, and resolved all on the sudden to have another Bishop Ordained at Constantinople. Wherefore he carried the Deputies of the Council along with him to Constantinople, that they might Ordain a Bishop. The Deputies of the Eastern Bishops hearing this, sent a Petition to the Emperor, in which having accused their Adversaries of Rebelling always against the Orders of the Emperor; they tell him, that being Summoned to Chalcedon, they had requested first of all, that they would keep close to the Nicene Creed, and reject the Heretical Chapters of S. Cyril; that being cited a second time, they were ordered to discourse of those things that were in Controversy; and as they prepared themselves for this Dispute, they heard, that his Majesty was returned, and had carried along with him to Constantinople the Deposed and Excommunicated Bishops, to make them celebrate the Sacraments, and Ordain a Bishop, and had left them at Chalcedon, them, who had never attempted any thing but for the defence of the Faith; That they thought themselves obliged to tell him, that if he allowed Heretics to Ordain a Bishop at Constantinople, before their Doctrines were Examined, he would infallibly create a Schism, because it will never be endured; That Communion be kept with Heretics, and that not only the Eastern, but also all the Churches of the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, Thracia, Illyria, and Italy, will never admit of the Heretical Doctrine of Cyril.  
The only answer that the Emperor gave them, was, That he permitted them, and the other Bishops that were at Ephesus, to return to their Dioceses. As soon as they received this Order, they presented a third Petition, in which they speak with a great deal of Freedom. They complain, That having been cited to confirm the Faith of their Ancestors, they were kept at Chalcedon, and sent back again without doing any thing; that he had favoured them who had ever been rebellious against his Orders, and so had raised these Troubles; That he ought to think, that the Eastern Bishops are his Subjects as well as others; That he ought to protect the Faith into which he had been Baptised, and for which the Martyrs have poured out their Blood; That Faith, with which he had conquered the Barbarians, and which was necessary to subdue afric; That the Church would be rend in pieces, if he suffered S. Cyril's Doctrine to be settled; That they were obliged to put him in mind, how much he would offend God, if he suffered persons of Heretical Opinions to perform the Offices of Priests; That they were much troubled to see, that the greatest part of the People, who are now of Orthodox Sentiments, will by this means be infected with Heresy; That their Duty obliged them to admonish him of these things; and to pray him earnestly to put them in order; That if he did it not, they had discharged their Conscience, and do protest against them that this fault may not fall upon them. This Petition did not change the Emperor's mind, insomuch that they were forced to beg of him themselves that he would permit them to withdraw, which they obtained. At their departure they wrote to the Eastern Bishops, how things had passed.  
The Result of the Emperor's Judgement was, That Nestorius was justly deposed; That S. Cyril and Memnon should keep their Sees; That all the Bishops should return again to their Churches; That neither of them both are Heretics; And that they should be exhorted to reunite. These are the Contents of the Emperor's Letter to the Bishops assembled at Ephesus, published by M. Cotelerius, and put by M. Baluzius into his Collection of Councils. The Emperor tells them, That desiring nothing so much as the Peace of the Church, he had done his utmost endeavour to hinder their Disagreement, and to reunite them again; but not being able to bring that about, nor to make them hold a Conference about the Doctrines of Faith, he had ordered, that the Eastern Bishops should return into their own Country, that S. Cyril should go to Alexandria again, and that Memnon should remain at Ephesus; and that as long as he lived, he would not condemn the Eastern Bishops, they not being convicted of any Error, and no Body caring to enter the Lists with them. That if they desired Peace, they might write to him; but if they yet stood out; they had nothing to do but to return home. Thus the Council of Ephesus ended. S. Cyril returned to Alexandria; and arrived there Octob. 30. Nestorius' retired into the Monastery of Euprepius at Antioch; and Octob. 25. Maximian was Ordained in his place by the Bishops, which were at Constantinople, four Months after the Deposition of Nestorius. This Maximian was a Monk, who was thought worthy to be made a Priest, and was accounted a very pious Man, though not learned. The Synod which Ordained him, communicated it to the Bishops of Epirus, to S. Celestine and S. Cyril. He wrote also himself to these two last. The Emperor wrote for him to the Pope. S. Cyril returned an Answer to the Synod, and Maximian. Celestine wrote four Letters, the first to the Emperor, the second to the Synod that Ordained Maximian, the third to Maximian, and the last to the Clergy of Constantinople. He shown much Joy that Nestorius was condemned, and said that he earnestly desired that Peace might be restored. He prays the Emperor chief to endeavour it. These Letters are dated March 25. Anno 432.  
The Deputies of the Eastern Bishops, who were at Chalcedon, wrote also before their departure to Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, to engage Illyria. This Bishop was not at the Council of Ephesus, but on the one side Flavian Bishop of Philippi had assumed the Title of his Deputy, so on the part of the Eastern Bishops Julian Bishop of Sardica sat in the Council, and had received a Letter from Rufus, who recommended the defence of the Faith of the Council of Nice to him, and not to suffer any Novelty to be introduced. The Deputies of the Eastern Bishops made use of this Opportunity to write to Rufus, that they have resisted the Doctrine of S. Cyril's Chapters, and would not consent that any thing should be added to the Nicene Creed: That they had for this Reason condemned S. Cyril and Memnon; the one as an Heretic, and the other as a Favourer of Heresy, and have Excommunicated those, who defend them till they should condemn S. Cyril's Chapters, and profess the Faith of the Nicene Council: That all the Lenity, which they had used, could do no good with them, but still these Bishops continued to maintain these Heretical Doctrines, and therefore had made themselves subject to the punishment inflicted by the Canons, and particularly by the fourth Canon of the Council of Antioch. Then they accused S. Cyril for being of the Judgement of Arius and Apollinaris, and attributing that to the Godhead of Jesus Christ, which is said of his Humane Nature. As for themselves, they say, that they are resolved to hold to the Doctrine of the Council of Nice, and to follow the Faith of the Holy Fathers: That this is the Judgement not only of the Eastern Bishops, but also of the Asian Churches, and it is not to be doubted but that the Italians will oppose the Novelties, which they endeavour to bring in. They also accuse S. Cyril and Memnon for breaking the Canons by Communicating with Excommunicated Persons, and with the Followers of Pelagius and Caelestius, and the Euchitae, or Enthusiasts. They pray them therefore not to receive S. Cyril and his Adherents to his Communion, nor to receive their Letter.  
The end of the Council did not at all conduce to the Peace of the Church, but on the contrary the Minds of Men appeared more discontented than ever, and the Eastern Bishops, who had had the worst of it, sought to revenge themselves. In their return they wrote to Theodotus Bishop of 
Collect. Lupus, c. 38. ibid. c. 66, 136, 141, 174, 201. Ibid. & Socr. l. 7. c. 34. Liberat. in brov. c. 6. Coll. of Lupus, c. 39  Ancyra against the Letters of the Bishops of the Council. At Tarsus they confirmed what they had done, and deposed not only S. Cyril and Memnon, but also six of the Deputies of the Council of Ephesus, viz. Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, Flavian Bishop of Philippi, Firmus Bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus Bishop of Ancyra, Acacius Bishop of Miletene, and Euoptius Bishop of Ptolemais. Afterward being come into the East, they met again at Antioch, confirmed what they had done a second time, and from thence wrote to the Emperor, That they held no other Faith than that of the Nicene Council; That they abhorred S. Cyril's Chapters, and earnestly besought him to provide, that they be not taught in any of the Churches. Theodoret wrote also in his own Name to the People of Constantinople, which were well affected to their Party, to confirm them in the Opinions which he had heretofore taught them, and to prove themselves innocent from the Errors laid to their charge, by professing that there is but One Christ, and by opposing S. Cyril's Sentiments, as being the same with the Apollinarians. There was in the farthest part of the East a certain Bishop, who was of S. Cyril's Judgement: It was Rabulas Bishop of Edessa, whose Zeal carried him so far, that he not only condemned Nestorius, but also publicly pronounced Anathema against Theodorus of Mopsuesta, and all that were not of S. Cyril's Judgement. Being of these Principles, he persecuted those, who would not come over to his Opinion, who fled to the other Bishops. Andrew Bishop of Samosata hereupon consulted with Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and 
Ibid. c. 43. Ibid. c. 44.  shown him, that it was necessary to declare himself. This was the reason that made John Bishop of Antioch, and some other of the Eastern Bishops, to write to the Bishop of Osroene, that they should not communicate with Rabulas, till being summoned before them, they had pardoned him upon his making Satisfaction, or he had been punished according to the Rigour of the Laws.  
But as the Party of Cyril were ill used in the East, so those of the Nestorian Party, and the Eastern Bishops met with no better usage in Asia, Cappadocia and Thracia. Maximian chosen Bishop of Constantinople, who began already to exercise his Jurisdiction over the Churches of those Dioceses, would have himself acknowledged by all the Bishops, and deprived them, who would not communicate with him. Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, the Metropolis of Cappadocia Prima, came to Tyana, and Ordained a Bishop in the place of Eutherius; but he getting some help, forced him, whom Firmus had Ordained, to renounce his Ordination. They also attempted to depose Dorotheus Metropolitan of Martianople, and Ordain Saturninus in his place. They also endeavoured to deprive Helladius Bishop of Tarsus, because he would not put the Name of Maximian into the Diptychs. Lastly, All places were full of Deposed and Exiled Bishops, and the Church was in terrible Trouble and Confusion. 
Ibid. c. 45. Ibid. c. 46. Ibid. c. 48. Ibid. c. 49. 3 Part of the Counc. of Ephesus, c. 24.   
The Emperor Theodosius being desirous to remedy these Disorders, which increased daily, wrote to John Bishop of Antioch, That he might put an end to these by signing the Condemnation of Nestorius, and pronouncing Anathema to his Doctrine, and by this means all this Trouble would cease: That S. Cyril, S. Celestine, and the other Bishops would communicate with him; and that this may be brought to pass, he commanded him to come to Nicomedia with some of his Clergy only, assuring him, that S. Cyril had also Orders to be there, and that he had told them, that they should not come to Court, till they were reconciled; and had procured Peace to the Church by their Reunion. He forbids them in the mean while to attempt either to dispossess, or ordain any Bishop. The Emperor wrote to S. simeon Stylites, and Acacius Bishop of Beraea, that the one 
C. 25. Ib. Collect. of Lupus, c. 51. 52.  should labour to procure the Peace of the Church by his Prayers, and the other by his Care. This Letter was written in the beginning of the Year 432. The Count Aristolaus was sent to execute these Orders, and wrote to John Bishop of Antioch to come to Nicomedia. John suspected that the design was to carry him from thence to Constantinople, and therefore being unwilling to do any thing without the advice of his Brethren, he wrote to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, That if 
Ibid. 50.  it were in his Power to go, or not, it was necessary to deliberate together, what they should answer; and if he were carried away by force, he ought at least to take his leave: That he was too weak to undertake so great a Journey: That he was afraid they would make some attempt upon his Life by the way. Then he desires Alexander to come to the Synod, which was shortly to meet at Cyrus, according to the Custom, that they might take Resolutions together what they should do. He adds, That the Propositions which they had brought, were more impious; That S. Cyril's Chapters had some appearance at least of Error, but at present they demanded no more than to condemn them that taught that there were two Natures in Jesus Christ.  
Aristolaus used no compulsion to carry John Bishop of Antioch: But finding him inclinable to 
Ibid. c. 53. c. 58. c. 62.  Peace, suffered him to call a Synod, which was held at Antioch, where they declared that they would remain steadfast to the Faith of the Council of Nice, which needed no Explication; That they understood it in the sense, in which S. Athanasius had explained it in his Letter to Epictetus, and that they rejected the Letters, Chapters, and other Decisions lately made, as being only fit to raise Disturbances.  
They made also five other Propositions, but this was the principal, and all the Eastern Bishops resolved for the Peace of the Church to receive S. Cyril to their Communion, if he did approve this Proposition, provided that they were not obliged to subscribe the Condemnation of Nestorius. This was the Judgement not only of John Bishop of Antioch, but also of Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, 
C. 58. 62.  Theodoret, Andrew Bishop of Samosata, and other Zealous Defenders of the Nestorian Party. Acacius Bishop of Beraea was commissioned to make this Proposition to Aristoläus, that he might communicate it to S. Cyril. This Count went immediately to Alexandria, and made this Proposition to S. Cyril, who would not accept the Proposition of the Eastern Bishops, but on the contrary in his Letter to Acacius insisted upon it, That he not only could never reject that, which had been done at Ephesus against the Blasphemies of Nestorius, but likewise that he could not unite again with the Eastern Bishops, unless they would condemn Nestorius and his Doctrine, and treat him with disgrace as an Heretic. Nevertheless to give the Eastern Bishops some Satisfaction, he pronounced Anathema against the Errors of Arius and Apollinaris, and declares that he believes That the Body of Jesus Christ is animated with a Rational Soul; That he allows not of any Confusion, Conversion or Mixture between the two Natures of Jesus Christ; That he confesses, that the Godhead is impassable, but holds, That Jesus Christ, the Son of God, hath suffered according to the Flesh for us. He adds, That his twelve Chapters were only designed to oppose Nestorius' Errors; and when the Peace is made, he will easily satisfy any Objections, which they can form against them.  
This Letter being delivered to Acacius of Beraea, with another from Aristoläus, which was brought by Maximus, sent on purpose from Alexandria about this Affair, Acacius also having afterward received two other Letters from S. Cyril, and one from the Bishop of Rome, as also a second 
P. 3. c. 26.  Letter from the Emperor, all which exhorted him to further the Peace of the Church; he sent to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and Theodoret, a Copy of S. Cyril's Letter; and wrote to them at the same time, That he thought that they ought to be contented with this Explication, which was very exact, and conformable to their Sentiments, and that he prayed them to approve the Answer which John Bishop of Antioch, and the other Bishops assembled at Antioch, gave S. Cyril, and the Conditions of Peace to which they would agree. Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and Theodoret, were of different Judgements about the Letters of S. Cyril, yet they both agreed that they ought not to conclude a Peace upon this Condition alone. Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis took notice, 
C. 57, 58, 59, 60.  that the Letter of S. Cyril contained also some Errors, and maintained that the Word ought to be thought only to have suffered according to the Flesh. Theodoret on the contrary believed it Orthodox, and looked upon it as a tacit Retractation of the Doctrine of the twelve Chapters, although there were some terms intricate and obscure: But he much disapproved S. Cyril's Conduct in rejecting the Proposition, which had been offered by the Bishops of the Council of Antioch, and he thought it impossible to make any Peace so long as S. Cyril would oblige them to sign the Condemnation of Nestorius. He was very willing, that they should condemn those in general, who affirm, that Jesus Christ is a mere Man, who divide Jesus Christ into two Sons, or deny his Godhead; but he could not endure to condemn a Person, whom he thought to be of Orthodox Sentiments, at the same time, that he approved of sound Doctrine. Andrew Bishop of Samosata, Maximus Bishop of Anazarbum, Helladius Bishop of Tarsus, Eutherius Bishop of Tyana, were of the 
c. 60, 61. In Lupus' Collection from c. 54 to c. 74.  same Judgement with Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis; and although they were averse from the Proposition of Peace made by S. Cyril, yet they would not agree to Theodoret's. This is seen by the Letters which these Bishops wrote one to another, and to Acacius Bishop of Beraea, Mediator of the Peace.  
John Bishop of Antioch, who earnestly desired a Peace, being troubled to see these impediments on both sides, thought, that the best way to remove them, was to send a Bishop, being persuaded, that things would be cleared by a conference, and that an accommodation might more easily be effected viuâ voee, than by Writing; besides, by this means the more Zealous would not be obliged to Subscribe any thing, and yet would be comprehended in the Peace. Therefore he chose Paul Bishop of Emesa, who had Subscribed for Acacius Bishop of Beraea in their Council of Ephesus, to undergo this Charge. He wrote also at the same time to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, that he ought to yield; That the Objections which he made were very subtle; That it was not a time to dispute Philosophically, but to redress the troubles of the Church, and the pressing dangers with which it was threatened; That Archilaus Bishop of Euphratesia was likely to be condemned to bear a great Fine.  
Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, could not agree to this Proposition, and took that very ill which John had written to him. Dorotheus Bishop of Martianople approved of their sending Paul Bishop 
c. 77. 138 c. 78.  of Emesa; but he particularly recommended it to them, that they should oblige them to Subscribe, That there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, without Confusion or Mixture.  
John Bishop of Antioch gave Paul Bishop of Emesa a Letter for S. Cyril, in which he tells him, That his Twelve Chapters were the Source and Original of the Division; but his Letter to Acacius 
c. 80.  had made them clear, and corrected, what was amiss in them; That it needed no further Explication, and that if the Peace were once concluded, they might explain themselves better. He was pleased, that S. Cyril approved of S. Athanasius' Letter to Epictetus, and says, That that alone was sufficient to discover the true Sense of the Doctrine of the Council of Nice.  
Paul Bishop of Emesa being come to Alexandria, having had one conference with S. Cyril about what passed at Ephesus, delivered the Letter of John Bishop of Antioch to him, who was much displeased with him for it; because it revived the complaints, which were made against the twelve Chapters, and reflected upon what was done in the Council of Nice. Nevertheless the Emperor was intent upon a Peace, and resolved to have one at any rare. Paul Bishop of Emesa, a Subtle and Prudent Man, excused the Letter of John Bishop of Antioch, and said, That he had no design to offend S. Cyril, and that it ought not to be any hindrance to the Union. Saint Cyril insisted upon the Condemnation of Nestorius, and Paul Bishop of Emesa satisfied him by acknowledging that Nestorius had been justly Deposed, and that Maximian was a Lawful Bishop, 
Act of the Counc. 3. p. c. 82.  and giving him a Declaration of it in Writing. Paul Bishop of Emesa having Subscribed it, requested, that he would be contented with his Subscription, as done in the name of all the Eastern Bishops. But S. Cyril required, that John also should Subscribe a certain Writing, which he would send him. Paul Bishop of Emesa demanded also, That the Bishops deposed by Maximian should be restored, viz. Helladius of Tarsus, Eutherius of Tyana, Himerius of Nicomedia, and Dorotheus of Martianople, but S. Cyril would not give his consent to it. 
c. 85.   
Nevertheless the common report at Constantinople was, That S. Cyril had retracted his Opinions, and done all that the Eastern Bishops required of him; Insomuch that S. Cyril was obliged to relate the whole transaction to his Legates; How he had obliged Paul to sign the Condemnation of Nestorius, before he communicated with him, and how he had not sent a Letter of Communion to John Bishop of Antioch, but upon condition, that before it be given him he should sign a Writing, which he did send him, containing the Condemnation of Nestorius.  
John Bishop of Antioch deferring his answer for some time, S. Cyril was something troubled, fearing lest his Deputies should have given his Letter of Communion to John Bishop of Antioch, 
c. 202, 203.  before he had Signed the Condemnation of Nestorius. Epiphanius the Archdeacon, and Coadjutor of S. Cyril, wrote about it to Maximian, and earnestly entreated him to see that their design be put in Execution, and to persuade the Emperor to compel John Bishop of Antioch to Subscribe against Nestorius, and command, that no mention be made of him for the future.  
John Bishop of Antioch having received S. Cyril's Letter, returned him an answer, and changing something in the form of Faith, which S. Cyril had sent him, said, That without adding any 
p. 3. Act. of the Counc. 30.  thing to the Confession of Faith made by the Council of Nice, unless by way of Explication and Declaration; He confessed, that Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Son of God, was perfect God and perfect Man, having a Body, and a reasonable Soul, born of his Father from all Eternity, according to his Godhead, born of the Virgin in time according to his Manhood, consubstantial with the Father according to the 
* N. B.  Divinity; because he hath united the two Natures after such a manner, as that they are but One Christ, One Son, One Lord. And in this Sense of the Union without mixture it may be said, That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, because the Word was Incarnate, was made Flesh, and was United in the Moment of his Conception to the Body, which he took from her. And as to the terms attributed to Our Lord in the Gospels and Writings of the Apostles; some of which, Divines make common, as agreeing to the Person only, and others they apply separately upon the account of the distinction of the two Natures, and apply some to the Divine, and others to the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ.  
Having given his approbation of this Faith, he declares, that for Peace sake, and to take away all occasion of Scandal, he did acknowledge that Nestorius was justly Deposed; That he condemned the Novel-Expressions, which they endeavoured to introduce; That he approved the Ordination of Maximian, and he Communicated with all the Orthodox Bishops.  
This Letter being carried to Alexandria, S. Cyril did readily unite himself with John Bishop of Antioch; and to satisfy John Bishop of Antioch, and the Eastern Bishops for his part, he wrote them a Letter, in which having declared how joyful he was at this Reunion, and approved their Confession of Faith; He condemns the Errors they had accused him of, and acknowledged, that there is not either Mixture, or Confusion, or Conversion of the two Natures; That the Nature of the Word is neither diminished, nor become passable. He approves of Athanasius' Opinion, but he observes, that there are two Editions, wherein the Letter to Epictetus hath been Corrupted. Paul Bishop of Emesa, and S. Cyril, being thus agreed in the main, Paul Bishop of Emesa made a Sermon 
Act. of the Conc. p. 3. c. 31. 32.  Dec. 25. 432. in which having explained his Doctrine about the Incarnation, and confessed that he believed the Virgin the Mother of God, he was interrupted by the Acclamations of the People; So that he Preached the remaining part on Jan. 1. following, and S. Cyril approved Paul Bishop of Emesa's Discourse in a short Sermon.  
John Bishop of Antioch having received this News with this Letter of S. Cyril, he wrote Circular 
Coll. of Lupus. c. 2.  Letters to the Eastern Bishops; in which he tells them, That S. Cyril had made a plain Confession of the Orthodox Faith, approved the form of Faith which he had sent him, and had freed himself from the Errors with which he was accused, and had removed all Objections against him; That by this means, all the Churches were again United in one Communion. He exhorts all the Bishops to join in this Peace, and says, That they that stand out, will discover, that they have acted not through Zeal for the Faith, but through Passion. He sent them with this Letter a Copy of his Letter to S. Cyril, and of S. Cyril's to him. John Bishop of Antioch 
c. 86.  wrote also particularly to Theodoret, before Paul Bishop of Emesa was returned. Lastly, He sent a Letter of Communion in his own Name, and in the Name of the Eastern Bishops, to S. Sixtus, 
3. p. Act of the Cou. c. 27.  S. Cyril, and Maximian, in which he assures them, that he approved of the Deposition of Nestorius, condemned his Impious Doctrine, and consented to the Ordination of Maximian; and S. Cyril on his part wrote to Maximian, S. Sixtus, and John Bishop of Antioch. While these things passed in the East, S. Sixtus Bishop of Rome, who succeeded S. Celestine, had ordered things in the same manner almost at Rome, having approved of what the Council had done against Nestorius, yet without coming to any disagreement with John Bishop of Antioch, and the Eastern Bishops, and exhorting S. Cyril to endeavour after Peace, and to receive them, if they would approve of the Orthodox Faith.  
Since there were always some Persons, who carried themselves with Passion, or indiscreet Zeal, this Peace was not generally approved. Saint Cyril was accused by some of being too remiss; insomuch, that he was forced to justify himself by several Letters, and to demonstrate, that the Confession of the Eastern Bishops was Orthodox. This is the Subject of his Letters to Acacius Bishop of Melitine, to Eulogius, to Donatus, and Maximus, who refused to communicate with John, and the other Eastern Bishops.  
This Agreement of John Bishop of Antioch displeased a great many of his Brethren. Theodoret, who was one of the most moderate of that Party, did not at first disapprove the Conditions of the Peace, not knowing, that they exacted the Condemnation of Nestorius, but he wrote to John 
Collect. of Lupus. c. 87. & 88 c. 91, 95. c. 90, 92, 94, 95. c. 96. c. 97. c. 95. c. 97.  Bishop of Antioch, that he ought not to conclude a Peace, till those who had been deprived were restored. He wrote also the same to Theosebus, and several other Bishops. John Bishop of Antioch wrote about it to the Emperor, to satisfy him. But Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, Andrew Bishop of Samosata, Melitus Bishop of Mopsuesta, declared from the beginning, That they disapproved of this Peace, and reproved two things chief in it, viz. The Condemnation of Nestorius, and the approbation of the term, The Mother of God without any Explication. Theodoret likewise knowing, that he had condemned Nestorius, disallowed the Agreement, and joined with Andrew of Samosata, and Alexander of Hierapolis. He invited them to come to Zeugma to deliberate about what was fit for them to do, Alexander would not go, but answered, That such a Meeting was needless; That 'twas evident, that S. Cyril was more to be blamed than ever; That he required that Nestorius should be peremptorily condemned, but would not condemn the three Chapters. He complains of the proceed of John Bishop of Antioch, and accuses him of having betrayed his Faith, and condemned an Innocent Person. Andrew Bishop of Samosata was more 
c. 100 c. 101.  moderate, and advised Alexander to agree, without requiring S. Cyril to condemn his twelve Chapters, since it sufficeth, That he hath made profession of the Orthodox Faith, and we must use some condescension for the benefit of Peace. But Alexander absolutely refused, and declared, That he would not communicate with S. Cyril, nor with those who joined with him. Andrew Bishop of Samosata, and John Bishop of Germanicia had much ado to bring him to any accommodation, 
c. 105, 106.  for he told them, he took this Proposition ill, and condemned their carriage. Maximian Bishop of Anazarbus told them. That 〈◊〉 was also very much surprised at their proceed. Thedoret was willing to come to an Agreement, for he thought S. Cyril's Confession was Orthodox, but he would not give up Ne●…. He wrote his Opinion to Helladius Bishop of Tarsus, and the People of Constantinople. Helladius Bishop of Ta●●us, Eutherius Bishop of Tyana, and the Bishops of Cilicia met at 〈◊〉; there they confirmed the Condemnation of S. Cyril, and Excommunicated those who had received him to their Communion, till he should condemn his Chapters, as 
c. 110.  they had agreed the first time they were Assembled. After they had taken these Resolutions they wrote to S. Sixtus, that S. Cyril hath taught the Heresy of Apollinaris in his twelve Chapters, 
c. 111, 112, 113 c. 114.  which was condemned at Rome by Pope D●●asus; that he hath condemned Nestorius at Ephesus unjustly, and on the contrary S. Cyril and Me●… were justly Deposed; that the Emperor having convened the Bishops of both Parties, their Adversaries would not enter into a Conference with them about the points of Faith; that they taught Errors, and falsely imposed them upon those that were not of their Judgement; That John Bishop of Antioch had himself condemned S. Cyril's Chapters, but hath since prevaricated by receiving S. Cyril and Mamnon to Communion; that he alone hath absolved them from the Anathema pronounced against them by several Bishops; and not content with this, he condemned Nestorius, and all that he hath asserted, as Impious, without marking any particular. They pray the Pope to inform himself of these things, and to assist them; That they would pour out floods of Tears at his Feet, if the fear of those Wolves, which are ready to enter into their Flocks, did not constrain them to continue with them, and watch over them.  
It was to no purpose for them to think to engage the Pope to them, for knowing the Peace he had approved the Conditions, Sept. 15. 433, and had written about them to S. Cyril, and John Bishop of Antioch.  
John Bishop of Antioch being angry, because Alexander and some other Bishops of the East and Asia, not only refused to be included in the Peace, but separated themselves from him upon that 
c. 123.  Account; after he had written to them several times, he implored the help of the Imperial Authority, to force them to submit to his Will. Proclus having been Ordained Bishop of Constantinople in the room of Maximian, in the beginning of the Year 434, he took that occasion, writing about that Ordination to the Perfect Taurus, to desire him to assist him with his Authority against the Bishops, who refused to join in Communion with him. He sent also to Constantinople one named Verius, who obtained an Edict against them from the Emperor, directed to Domitian the 
c. 123, 124. c. 140. c. 126.  Questor. John Bishop of Antioch certified Alexander in particular of the Emperor's will, telling him, that he would not allow any of the Bishops to come to Constantinople. The Letter was delivered to Alexander by one of the Emperor's Officers, but he would not receive it; but hearing It read only he promised to obey the Emperor's Orders. Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and the Bishops of Euphratesia, whose Metropolitan he was, wrote a Circular Letter to all the Bishops of Syria, the 
c. 127.  two Cilicia's and of Cappadocia Secunda, in which they complain of John Bishop of Antioch, as well because he hath condemned Nestorius, as because of the troubles he involved them in, and his daily attempts against them. Alexander in signing this Letter, discovers, that it was a year since he communicated with him, which shows, that it was written in 434. Helladius Bishop of 
c. 130.  Tarsus, Metropolitan of the upper Cilicia, and four Bishops of the same Province answered them, That they had a design to call a Synod, but being hindered by the approaching Festival, they comforted them by advising them to have recourse to their Prayers. Meletius Bishop of Mopsuesta, 
c. 131.  and the Bishops of the Lower Cilicia comforted them also by a Letter, and exhorted them to remain steadfast. But Alexander Bishop of Apimaea wrote to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, that 
c. 132.  he desired to speak with him, certainly that he might persuade him to the Peace; but not being able to come to Hierapolis by reason of the Feast, he prayed him to come to some Monastery half way to meet him. All these Writings would not keep them from persecuting the Bishops, who would not communicate with John Bishop of Antioch. Theodoret complains in a Letter written to the Governor of his Country, That they had stirred up Tumults in his Diocese, that they had 
c. 133.  thrust out Abibus Bishop of Dolechia, and had ordained in his place a Priest called Athanasius, who had been heretofore convicted of a Wicked Life; that they had also Ordained in another Church one Named Marinian known to be a Debauched Man, and that this Ordination had been made contrary to the Canons, without the Authority of the Metropolitan, by strange Bishops. That they had hindered Athanasius from entering the Church of Dolechia, and made him promise upon Oath, that he would not accept of it, but that he had not long after possessed himself of it, without any regard had to his Oaths.  
Abibus being thus deprived, presented a Petition to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and to Theodorus, a Bishop of his Province, wherein he complains that he had been driven out of his See by 
c. 135.  force, and declared, That he had never voluntarily quitted his Bishopric, as they had divulged. These Bishops wrote to the Empresses against those violences, which John Bishop of Antioch used against those that would not be of his Judgement. They complain, that he had ordained two Bishops in their Province contrary to the Canons; and that he had put one into a Church which was in the Diocese of Hierapolis. They implore these Princes to obtain of the Emperor to forbid these Ordinations contrary to the rules, and allow the Bishops in their Province to Celebrate them according to their Custom, and to leave the Church of S. Sergius to depend upon the Bishopric of Hierapolis  
Nevertheless, there came a second Order from the Court to Titus a Count and Imperial Vicar, and sent in the Emperor's Name by Count Dionysius, Master of the Horse, who enjoined him to bid Helladius Bishop of Tarsus, Maximian Bishop of Anazarbum, Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and Theodoret, to return to the Communion of John Bishop of Antioch, upon the penalty of being immediately deprived of their Churches. Helladius wrote about it to Melitius Bishop of Mopsuesta, 
C. 142. C. 143. C. 144. C. 145. C. 146.  and desired to know what he should do; Melitius answered him, That he ought to remain steadfast. Theodoret also wrote about it to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and tells him, That as for himself, he was not afraid of his Menaces, and that he was willing to retire; but his Monks had much disturbed him, by representing it to him as his Duty not to be against the Peace, and that they had proposed it to him to go to Gindarus, where they would procure John Bishop of Antioch that they might discourse of an Agreement; That he had yielded to this Proposition, but had refused to go to Antioch.  
Alexander answered him, That he was resolved never to communicate with Cyril: That what had been commanded since from Constantinople, confirmed him in that Resolution: That though all the Dead should rise to persuade him the contrary, he would do nothing: That he was ready to leave his Bishopric, and had already done it, had not he feared he should pass for a Deserter, and a Coward for forsaking his Flock. Theodoret answered, That he seemed to be acted with too much passion: That he ought to condescend 
C. 148.  so far as he might safely without approving any thing that is not true. That he ought to examine the Synodical Letter of John Bishop of Antioch, and S. Cyril; and if they found it Orthodox, they might communicate with S. Cyril, nevertheless not approving what had been done at Ephesus: That he had heard, that he brought this Proposition out of the East: That Proclus Bishop of Constantinople was of sound Principles: That Hilladius and Eutherius had told him so: That he could wish, that they could meet with John Bishop of Antioch at some distance from Antioch, on condition, that those whom he hath unduly Ordained, should be excluded: That he was troubled that John Bishop of Antioch having in his Letter made Confession of the Orthodox Faith, had condemned Nestorius, who had no other Opinions than those which John did explain: That that which comforted him, was, That he had not absolutely condemned his Doctrine, but particular all that he had said, or written against the Doctrine of the Apostles.  
Alexander replied, That he did not separate from John Bishop of Antioch upon the account of the Ordinations, which that Patriarch had unfitly made, but because he hath betrayed his Faith, and communicated with an Heretic: That he was resolved not to communicate with any of those, who held Communion with S. Cyril, although they should condemn his Chapters. And to show to what an height the 
C. 149.  Bishop of Constantinople had driven things, he sent him the beginning of his Synodical Letter, where he speaks of the Seditions which sprung from the corrupt Seeds of Nestorius' Doctrine.  
Theodoret did not yield to this Counsel, but on the contrary he thought himself obliged to admonish 
C. 151.  his Metropolitan Alexander friendly, That it was necessary to consider upon a Peace; That he saw the Churches would certainly be ruined; That their Flocks would become a Prey to Wolves; That he was afraid that they must give an Account to God for being backward to it; That by comparing the Advantage of Peace with the Disadvantages that might redound to the Church, he found it would lose more by holding out, than by a small Compliance.  
But Alexander, who was never to be wrought upon, gave him an angry Answer, That he would 
C. 151.  not have him write any more to him about it. And for an Answer to Theodoret's Maxim, he told him, That the only way to compare the Benefit and Damage that might be done, is to choose the part that Truth is on: That Deprivation, Banishment, Death, and Disgraceful Revile of Men, are nothing to Eternal Torments: That he did not wonder that Theodoret inclined to a Peace, being persuaded that S. Cyril was Orthodox; But as for him, who thought him an Heretic, he could not communicate with him. Whereupon he citys the Examples of Meletius Bishop of Constantinople, Eusebius Bishop of Samosata, of Barsus, and of many other Bishops, who have been deposed because they would not communicate with Heretics. He sent him a Letter from Parthenius a Priest, who assured him, that Nestorius' Adversaries had not at all altered their Mind.  
Theodoret seeing that there was no way to change the Resolution of his Metropolitan, consulted 
C. 157. 159.  his own Affairs alone; and going to Antioch, entered into Communion with John, but without any Subscription, or Approbation of the Condemnation of Nestorius, to whom he wrote a Letter to excuse himself, as also to Helladius Bishop of Tarsus. The Bishops of Cilicia Secunda followed his 
C. 163. C. 160. etc.  Example, and wrote a Synodical Letter to John Bishop of Antioch, in which they acknowledged, That his Letter to S. Cyril was Orthodox; That they had separated themselves from him out of a suspicion that S. Cyril's Chapters were Heretical, but their fear was taken away by that Exposition of Faith. The Bishops of Cilicia Prima and Isauna yielded also, but they could never alter the inflexible Resolution of Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis. Theodoret himself wrote again to him, and to his Friends, to persuade him, but he answered his Letters with anger, and sharp Reflections, showing always an unconquerable Resolution and Obstinacy. Meletius Bishop of Mopsuesta was the only Man of the Cilician Bishops that imitated him. John Bishop of Antioch deposed, and ordained in his place Chromatius, and presented a Petition to the Emperor to persuade him to remove 
C. 176.  him from his See.  
But they behaved themselves better towards Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis. Theodoret having done what he could to bring him over, even by desiring Nestorius to write to him, interceded for him to John Bishop of Antioch, and desired him to let him alone, showing him, that it would be of no ill consequence, nor prejudice his Cause, because he would be quiet, whereas if he provoked him, 'twould cause more trouble. But John Bishop of Antioch, who was resolved to make all the Eastern Bishop's subject to him, wrote to Alexander by Count Titus, and Dionysius Master of the Horse, That they had born patiently hitherto in respect to him; but if he did still continue in his Resolution not to communicate with John of Antioch, they could not wait any longer, nor dissemble. He answered with his ordinary stiffness, That he could not communicate with a Bishop who had received Heretics to his Communion, and that he was willing to go without any noise or stir whether they pleased. 
C. 180. etc.  After this, Titus gave Orders to Libianus Judge of Euphratesia to expel Alexander, if he still remained in his Resolution, and to put in his place such a Person as the Synod of Bishops should Ordain. This Order being made known to Alexander, he retreated, and Libianus telling Titus, that 
C. 185.  he had executed his Orders, represents to him, and John Bishop of Antioch, the Affliction that the Church of Hierapolis was in, having lost their Bishop, and prayed them to have some regard to it.  
John Bishop of Antioch wrote hereupon to the Clergy, and People of Hierapolis. That he had 
C. 186.  used all manner of ways to convert their Bishop Alexander; That he had prayed, and solicited him several times not to hinder the Peace by his obstivate refusal; And that he was yet willing to receive him, if he would comply, and enter into Communion with him. Lastly, They thrust out, and banished all the Bishops, which refused to communicate with John of Antioch. Irenaens hath given us a Catalogue 
C. 190.  of them, after he hath related the Order, which was given against him, and against another called Photius, Adherents of Nestorius: Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, banished to Phamosis in Egypt, where there are Mines: Abibus Bishop of Dolochia, who was one of the first that was driven out of his Diocese, and another ordained in his place by John Bishop of Antioch: Dorotheus Bishop of Martianople, Metropolitan of Moesia, who was sent to Caesarea in Cappadocia: Valeanius and Eudocius, Bishops of the Province of Moesia, subject to the Metropolis of Dorotheus, who withdrew themselves voluntarily from the Churches: Meletius Bishop of Mopsuesta, Bishop of Cilicia Secunda, banished to Melitina, a City of Armenia, where Acacius Bishop of that City made him suffer much: Zenobius Bishop of Zaphyria in Cilicia Prima, who left his Church in the same manner, and was afterward banished to Tiberias, from whom he was also driven: Anastasius Bishop of Tenedos, Pausianus Bishop of Hypate, Basil Metropolitan of Larissa in Thessalia, Julian Bishop of Sardica, who retreated themselves, and suffered much: Theosebus' Bishop of Chios, who died in his own Church, and would never communicate with those who had received S. Cyril: Acilinus Bishop of Barbalissa, who was expelled from his Bishopric for refusing to communicate with John, but he was after reunited to him without the condemning of Nestorius: Maximinus Bishop of Demetrias in Thessaly, who separated himself immediately after the Condemnation of Nestorius. Thus ended the long and boisterous Contest between the Eastern Bishops, which lasted two Years complete after the Peace made between B. of Antioch and S. Cyril. Lastly, Nestorius, who was the Author and Subject of all these Troubles, was himself last of all sacrificed to it, being removed from his Monastery, and banished to Oasis by the Emperor's Edict published in 435. and by another Edict in August in the same Year: His Books were condemned to be burnt, and all Persons forbidden to read them.  
Peace seemed by this means to be restored to the Church, all the Bishops being of the same Communion, but there still remained some Seeds of Division in men's Minds. The Eastern Bishops 
C. 192.  had a secret Grudge against the Egyptian, and the Egyptians could not endure the Eastern. They suspected one another guilty of Heresy, the one were always persuaded that S. Cyril's Chapters were Heretical, and the others thought them Orthodox. Besides, several Eastern Bishops had not condemned Nestorius, and were not inclined to condemn him, thinking him innocent. Nevertheless one of the Conditions of the Peace was, That they should curse Nestorius. Lastly, Some of those who Signed the Deposition of Nestorius, would not add any thing against his Doctrine, saying, That the Emperor exacted no more of them, and to communicate with the Patriarches. Thus the Bishops of Cilicia Prima explained themselves in the Letter that they wrote to the Emperor in the presence of Aristolaus. But this did not content S. Cyril, and therefore he sent Beronicianus Bishop of Tyre to beg of the Emperor, That he would by his Edict force all the Bishops not only to condemn the Person of Nestorius, but also to condemn his Impious Doctrines, and at the same time to confess that there is but one Son only, who ought not to be divided into 
C. 194.  two, born of God after an ineffable manner before all time, and born of the Virgin in time according to the Flesh. That in this sense she is the Mother of God, because one and the same Person is God and Man both, the Word being Incarnate without Confusion, or mixture; and that this Word is passable in the Humane Nature, although he be impassable in the Divine. This Edict was sent to Aristolaus, who presented it to the Bishops of Cilicia Prima, and the Eastern Bishops. Acacius Bishop of Meletine having heard that S. Cyril obtained this Edict, congratulated him for it by a Letter, and advised him to send some zealous and faithful Persons with Aristolaus, who might compel all the Bishops to condemn the Doctrines of Nestorius, and Theodorus, and those who affirm, That there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, which act distinctly, and that plainly, and without Ambiguities, because he had seen some Nostorians in Germanicia, who by asserting. That there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, introduced two Persons, and two Sons, separating the two Natures, and making them to act distinctly.  
At the same time S. Cyril wrote a Letter to John Bishop of Antioch, in which he tells him, That it was said, That some Eastern Bishops, who seemed to condemn Nestorius, and to curse his Doctrine, did yet revive his Errors. He assures him, That he did not believe it, but he prayed him, That if there were any such, he should take notice of them, and confute them. He thought, that it was not sufficient for all that to condemn Nestorius, and his Doctrines, because they might evade it, by saying, That they condemned him for nothing but because he would not 
C. 165. C. 209. and 210.  give the Virgin Mary the Name of the Mother of God; but when they curse Nestorius and his Doctrine, they must profess the Faith contained in the Edict beforementioned. He wrote also to Aristolaus not to permit those, who do not confess this Faith, to continue in the Priesthood, and Clergy. He wrote to John Bishop of Antioch, and Aristolaus, particularly against Theodoret, having heard by a Priest named Daniel, that he had not condemned the Person or Doctrine of Nestorius. He tells another Bishop also named Mosaeus, that the Abbot Maximus accused him of having asserted the Blasphemies of Nestorius.  
John Bishop of Antioch having received this Edict of the Emperor, was surprised, that the Eastern 
C. 169.  Bishops having so manifestly condemned Nestorius and his Doctrine, and given so great proofs of the soundness of their Faith, should yet be suspected, and a new Confession of Faith be exactof them. He wrote to Proclus Bishop of Constantinople, That this was very unjust dealing; That they would neither add any thing, nor take from the Nicene Creed; That they understood it as the Fathers of both the Eastern and Western Churches had explained it; That they rejected the Heretics that had corrupted it; That this may suffice for their Justification, although it was needless, having done four Years since all that was desired of them, at the time when Paul Bishop of Emosa came out of Egypt. That he could not imagine for what reason they sought out new matter of quarrel; That the Bishops of the Provinces adjoining to the Sea, of Phoenicia, Cilicia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Osroëne, Euphratesia, and the Lower Syria, are of the same Judgement, and have approved what they have done; That he prayed him to prevent those new Troubles, and to suffer the Eastern and Asian Churches to have some respite, and to protect them against the Heathens, Jews, and some Nestorians of Cilicia, who yet held out their Opposition. He wrote the same thing to S. Cyril, who replied to his Letter, That he rejoiced to see him in so good a Mind, and 
Collect. of Lupus, C. 207.  that he desired nothing so much as to see Union and Peace in the Church, and to see those Scandals to cease, which John Bishop of Antioch had once suppressed, and he would endeavour fully to extinguish for the future.  
By this he seemed to let the Eastern Bishops to be quiet hereafter, but there were some troublesome unquiet Spirits, who raised a new contest, which troubled the Church a long time. Some of the Clergy and Monks of Antioch seeing that they could not create any further Disturbances to the Bishops about the business of Nestorius, because there was no discourse of him or his Writings, which had been plainly condemned, noised it abroad, that they revived the same Errors under the Name of Diodorus of Tarsus, and Theodorus of Mopsuesta, whose Writings they intended to publish. Hereupon they wrote a large Letter, which they sent to S. Cyril. At the 
C. 206.  same time the Abbot Maximus, who dwelled at Antioch, disgraced the Eastern Bishops, saying, That they were all Nestorians; that they pretended to approve of the Nicene Creed, but they put what sense they pleased upon it. Theodotus Bishop of Ancyra, Acacius Bishop of Melitina, and Rabulas 
Collect. of Lupus, C. 199, 200.  Bishop of Edessa, who were the most Zealous against the Nestorians, declared themselves first against the Writings of Theodotus Bishop of Mopsuesta. Rabulas and Acacius wrote a Circular Letter to the Bishops of Armenia, to oblige them to reject the Books of Theodorus, which they had translated into their own Language. The Bishops of Armenia being met upon that account, addressed themselves to Proclus Bishop of Constantinople, to know what they should do upon the occasion, and sent two Priests with the Letters of Acacius and Rabulas, and the Books of Theodorus. Proclus having received these Pieces, composed a Writing, entitled, An Epistle to the Armenians, in which he explains the Doctrine of the Church concerning the Incarnation, affirming, That to avoid all Ambiguities, we ought to confess, that One Person of the Holy Trinity was Incarnate. To this Writing he joined such Propositions as he thought Heretical, or at least suspected of Heresy, which were extracted out of Theodorus' Books, but he did not name him. He sent this Writing to John Bishop of Antioch by his Deacon Theodotus. The Bishops of the East being met at Antioch, read this Work of Proclus there, approved it, subscribed it, and sent it to him, but did not condemn the Extracts of Theodorus' Books. S. Cyril having received this Piece of Proclus by Basilius the Deacon, the Letter of the Bishops of Armenia, and the Extracts of Theodorus' Books, declared himself openly against the Works of the Latter, and wrote to the Emperor, Not to suffer them to be approved; and to John Bishop of Antioch, That he should condemn them. Acacius Bishop of Melitina wrote also to John Bishop of Antioch, against the Writings of Theodorus. The Abbot Maximus, who was the principal Author of these new Broils, had put the Name of Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuesta, and Diodorus, at the Head of those Extracts which S. Proclus had annexed to his Letter, and would have the Eastern Bishops to curse Theodorus. The Monks of Armenia took the pains to dispose these Extracts over all the Eastern parts; and going from City to City, boldly declared. That they ought to condemn them, and curse the Author of them.  
John Bishop of Antioch complained of this first to Proclus and S. Cyril; assuring them, that the Eastern Bishops would rather separate than condemn the Memory of Theodorus. Whereupon S. Cyril wrote to Proclus, That though he believed the Works of Theodorus to be full of Impieties and Blasphemies, yet he thought it more convenient for Peace sake, and to prevent a separation of the Eastern Bishops not to speak of him, chief because he died in the Communion of the Church. Proclus wrote on his part to Maximus, that he disapproved his Carriage, that he ought to be obedient to his Bishop, and not trouble the East; and that he would send his Deacon back again, when his Writing is Signed, and the Propositions annexed at the end of it, be rejected.  
John Bishop of Antioch, and the Eastern Bishops, could not hold their Peace, seeing the Memory of a Bishop who was of so great reputation among them to be assaulted. Being assembled therefore at Antioch in 436, or 437, they wrote three Letters for the defence of Theodorus, the one to the Emperor Theodosius, the other to Proclus Bishop of Constantinople, and the third to S. Cyril.  
In the Letter to Theodosius; they humbly represent to this Emperor; that it is unjust and prejudicial to the Church to quarrel at the Writings or Memory of Theodorus; that this great Man 
Facund. l. 2. c. 2.  for five years together was a professed Enemy and Opposer of Heresy; That he was commended, admired by all the World, and highly esteemed by Theodosius the Great; That he was the Scholar of Flavian and S. Chrysostom; That having Written a great deal, it is likely he may have 
Ibid. l. 8. c. 3, 5. l. 11. c. 14.  some Expressions which may give some ground for the Accusations brought against him; That the Ancient Fathers have used the same Modes of speaking, which are reproved in the Works of Theodorus. Lastly, That those, who bring this Accusation are troublesome Persons, who are delighted in nothing but disturbances and confusion.  
In the Letter to Proclus they commend his Book, blame those that were the Authors of the Division, who accuse their Bishops, and not content to raise Sedition against the Living, desire to do it against the Dead, and make their attempts to condemn Theodorus. Theodorus, who in his Life-time never received any reproof, who was always commended, and esteemed by the Emperor and Bishops, who ever opposed himself against the Heresies, and wrote 10000 Volumes to confute them. They conclude this Letter by maintaining, that we may find an infinite number of such like passages, as those of Theodorus, in Ignatius, Eustathius, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, Flavian, Diodorus, S. John, Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and Atticus. From whence they infer, that if we condemn Theodorus, we must also do the same to them, because there is none of them out of which the like passages may not be taken, especially, if we sever them from what goes before, and follows after, as they have done in those that are extracted from the Writings of Theodorus.  
Lastly, in the Letter to S. Cyril they say, that being Assembled upon the account of Proclus' Letter, they thought it needless to enter into a new contest concerning the Writings of Theodorus, 
Fac. l. 1. c. 1. l. 8. c. 4, 5. l. 11. c. 1. 8.  all things being at peace; That it is possible that there may be in the Works of that Author some places, which are capable of an ill sense; but there were others, where he delivers his Judgement plainly in a very Orthodox manner; That we may meet with the like Expressions in the Holy Fathers; particularly in S. Athanasius, Theophilus. and Proclus' Letter; That it is very dangerous to blemish the Memory of a Man, who served and defended the Church for several Years; and so much the more, because by condemning him we must involve several of the Fathers in the same Fate; That 'twas this that made the Defenders or Nestorius so victorious, who were amazed to see themselves cursed with the such Bishops as died in the Communion of the Church, and in so great esteem; That Theodorus having opposed the Heretics was obliged to reject their Errors more plainly; and to make use of such terms, as might seem to favour the Opposite Errors.  
The Emperor made answer to John and his Synod, That he had heard by Proclus what a stir some Persons began to make in the East, and exhorts him to provide for the Peace, and encounter 
Collect. of Lupus. c. 29.  those who are the promoters of the Disturbance; That his Intention is, that all those that are under his Government, should live in Peace, and chief the Church; That they might be confident of this, and therefore be more active to further and secure the Peace of the Church.  
Proclus also gave them a very civil Answer, declaring to them, That when he wrote his Book, he had no design to condemn Theodorus; That his Deacon Theodorus had no Order to do it, and 
Facund. l. 8. c. 22.  that he was contented to reject these Propositions, which seemed to him False or Erroneous, without naming the Authors.  
Lastly, Although S. Cyril openly declared himself against the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, yet he wrote to John Bishop of Antioch, as he had before done to Proclus; That he approved, that for the Peace of the Church, they should content themselves to condemn the false Propositions taken out of the Books of Theodorus, without meddling with his Memory. This Letter is recited in the Fifth Council, where it is accused of Falsehood, because they pretend, that it doth not 
Act Conc. 5. Coll. 5.  agree with the other Letters of S. Cyril; but if they consider them well, they are not contrary to this. In it he condemns the Writings of Theodorus and Diodorus, and reproves those that commend the Doctrine of these Authors, but he doth not pronounce Anathema against their Persons; on the contrary, in his Letter to Proclus, he is of the same Opinion as in this. It cannot be proved, that he changed his Judgement, or that he ever was against the Peace, in which he had engaged himself.  
We would here make an end of the Council of Ephesus, but before we pass to the History of the Council of Chalcedon, it is necessary to add something by way of Illustration upon such points of the History, as do admit of some difficulty.  
And first, It is demanded, who it was, that called the Council of Ephesus? It is evident, that it was Theodosius the Younger. The Cardinals Baronius and Bellarmine both agree in this, but they pretend that this Emperor did it by the Pope's Authority, and following his Judgement and Advice. This supposition is groundless, and indeed it is easy to prove by the course of the History, that it was impossible, that the Emperor should take the Pope's Advice, when he called the Council. Saint Celestine having examined the Cause of Nestorius referred to his Council by both Parties, wrote to S. Cyril, that he should certify Nestorius, That if he did not change his Opinion, within ten Days after the Declaration of this Sentence to him, that he was Exccommunicated and Deposed, and that they would put another Person in his place. This Letter is dated Aug. 11. Anno. 430. The Pope speaks nothing here of celebrating a Council, but on the contrary he supposeth it needless to call one, and that it was not yet mentioned.  
The Pope's Letter was carried to Alexandria by Possidonius. Saint Cyril called a Council of Bishops there, to signify the Pope's Judgement to Nestorius. The Letter of the Synod is dated Novem. 3. of the same year. The Letter for the assembling the Council of Ephesus bears date Nou. 19 By this 'tis evident that the Emperor had not resolved to call this Council, till he knew what the Synod of Alexandria had decreed. Now it is manifest, that it was not possible in so small a time as passed between the holding of this Council, and the Date of his Letter, to write to Rome, and receive Advice from thence. Therefore the Council of Ephesus was called by the Emperor, and the Pope knew nothing of it, the Pope having passed his Judgement before. Yea, moreover it seems, that the Emperor's design in calling the Council was to weaken or rectify the Pope's Sentence. Lastly, the Pope was called to it, as other Bishops, and he acknowledges in his Letter written to Theodosius, That it was the Emperor who ordered the calling of a Synod.  
The Question concerning the Presidency is of greater difficulty. It is beyond Controversy that S. Cyril did preside in this Council, but some inquire, whether it was in the quality of Legate of the Holy See, or in his own Name. It is certain, that the Pope had entrusted him wholly with the Execution of the Sentence which he had given against Nestorius; but it doth not appear in the least, that he had any Commission to assist at, or Preside over the Council of Ephesus in his Name; but on the contrary, he sent his Legates on purpose to it, who had strict orders to do nothing but with the concurrence of S. Cyril; but he doth not say, that S. Cyril shall assist with them at the Council in his Name, nor that he continues the same power to him, which he lately gave for this purpose. And indeed, in the relation which the Council gives the Emperor, the time, which went before the Council is distinguished from that which followed; and it is said, that S. Celestine had Commissioned S. Cyril before the Council, but after he sent the Bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and the Deacon Philip, on purpose to supply his place in the Council.  
Nevertheless S. Cyril in the Subscriptions of the First, Second, and Third Action, takes the Title of The Deputy of Celestine. Liberatus and Evagrius gives him also the same Title. Some pretend, that it hath been added to the Subscription by some Scribe, or that it ought to be understood of the time which went before the Council. I rather believe, that S. Cyril having born that title before the Council, held it in the Council itself, though he had it not then; but it doth not follow from thence that he presided in the Pope's Name, or in the Quality of his Deputy, for if he had presided under that Title, it is certain, that upon his default the other Legates of the Pope ought to have presided in his place, and had the first Seat. Now 'tis evident, That not they, but Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem presided in the Fourth and Fifth Action, in which Saint Cyril became a Petitioner. Wherefore 'twas not under the Title of Legate to the Pope, that S. Cyril presided, since in his absence Juvenal was preferred before the Pope's Legates; 'Twas because he was the first of the Patriarches, who were present in Person at the Council.  
There are several Objections made against the Nature of this Council, and the management of it. Some say, that it ought to be accounted no better than a tumultuous and rash Assembly, where all things were carried by passion and noise, and not for an Ecumenical Council. That S. Cyril held it against the consent of the Commissioners, whom the Emperor sent to call them together; That not only Nestorius and his Party, but also several other Orthodox Bishops opposed it; That he scorned to wait for the Eastern Bishops, who would have soon arrived, and who desired him to wait for them; That he did not stay for the Legates of the Holy See, nor any of the Western Bishops; That his Synod was made up of the Egyptian Bishops, and some Bishops of Asia, who were wholly devoted to his Will; That it was he that did all, and ordered all in the Council. Although he was Nestorius' Enemy, and one whom he had objected against for his Judge, because he looked upon him as his Enemy; Had not Nestorius therefore the same reason to Object against him? The manner in which he acted against Nestorius, and the rashness he was guilty of in condemning him, make it Credible, that he was animated by nothing but Passion. He caused Nestorius to be Summoned twice in a day. Nestorius' Answered, That he was ready to appear when the Eastern and Western Bishops were come, and the Council was full; That they refused not to be Judged, but he would not be judged by his Enemies only; These excuses appeared Reasonable. St. Chrysostom alleged the like to exempt him from appearing before the Synod of Theophilus. Nevertheless S. Cyril imitating his Uncle and Predecessor Theophilus, accepted the Accusation, proceeded against him, and was the first that gave his Voice against him, and caused him to be Condemned. This S. Isidore of Damaita reproved S. Cyril for telling him, That several Persons laughed at him, and at the Tragedy which he had Acted at Ephesus; That it was said openly that he sought nothing but revenge upon his Enemy; That in this he imitated his Uncle Theophilus; and although there was a great deal of difference between the Person accused, the carriage of the Accusers was much the same; That he had better have been quiet, and not revenged his private quarrels at the expense of the Church, and so raise an eternal discord among Christians, under a pretence of Piety. These are the very words of Isidore, which he speaks to him in kindness. Gennadius Bishop of Constantinople compares this conduct of S. Cyril's to Theophilus', and calls him the second Scourge of Alexandria. The Proceed in the Judgement seem to prove it more clearly, that S. Cyril and the Bishops of his Party were hurried by Passion; That they greatly aimed at the Condemnation of Nestorius, and were afraid of nothing more than of the coming of the Eastern Bishops, for fear they should not be able to do what they pleased; for in their first Session they cited Nestorius twice, read the Testimonies of the Fathers, S. Cyril's Letters and twelve Chapters, Nestorius' Writings, and all gave their Judgements. Was ever any business concluded with so much haste; The least matter of this nature require an whole Session. How could they throughly examine S. Cyril's 12 Propositions in so small a time, which need so much Explication, and have caused so many disputes? How could they compare so many passages of Nestorius' Sermons, with what went before and came after to find the true Sense? How could they be sure of the Judgement of the Ancient Fathers in so short a time? All these things required a long and serious Examination for several days together; but the Bishops of the Council were afraid that they should not finish it at one Session, and therefore sat close to it from Morning to Night, to judge this matter only for fear that things should happen otherwise, if they should stay till to morrow. The Sentence which they caused to be delivered to Nestorius, was made up of such Words, which discover the Passion they were in. To Nestorius another Judas. Was it not enough to Condemn and Depose him, but they must insult over him with abusive Words. Lastly, This Council was so far from bringing Peace, that it brought nothing but trouble, divisions, and scandals, in to the Church of Jesus Christ, so that that may be said of this Council with a great deal more truth, which S. Gregory of Nazianzene said of the Councils of his time. That he never saw an Assembly of of Bishops that had a good and happy Conclusion; That they always increased the Distemper rather than cured it; That the obstinate Contests, and the ambition of Overcoming and Domineering, which ordinarily reigns among them, renders them prejudicial, and ordinarily they, who are concerned to judge others are moved thereto by ill-will, rather than by a design to restrain the faults of others. This seems to agree to the Council of Ephesus better than any other Assembly of Bishops. The History of the Troubles that followed this Council, makes this sufficiently evident, and we may say, that these Troubles were not appeased, but because the Transactions of this Council were buried in silence, These are the Objections which may be made against the form of the Council of Ephesus: I have neither dissembled them, nor weakened them, that I may show, that nothing which can be said on this Argument is unanswerable. At present I shall offer these Answers to the former Objections, viz.  
The Council of Ephesus was called in the Usual forms. The Bishops of all Countries of the Roman Empire were summoned to it. The Days appointed being come, the Bishops who were come to the City, where it was to be held, waited some days after; They did not begin it, till they knew, that the Men whom they waited for, would soon arrive, and that they were willing that the Council should be begun without them; That though several Bishops were not at first of that Opinion, and therefore opposed it, yet they yielded at last, and were present at the Council; That there remained no more than ten with Nestorius; That the Emperor's Commissioner having read the Letter for the Calling of the Council, had done his Duty, and after that was free for the Bishops to meet; That though the Pope's Legates were not come, yet it was Lawful to begin the Council without them, since the day appointed for the beginning of it was over; That these Legates having read what was done in their absence had approved it; That John Bishop of Antioch, and the other Eastern Bishops ought to have come to the Council according to their Summons; That they might have Read and Examined a New what had passed, and ought not to have made a Schism, or separated upon that account; That though they did judge Nestorius at one Session, and in one Day, he must blame himself for it, because he would not appear; That he deserved to be Condemned for his Obstinacy; That it was evident, that he had denied, that the Virgin Mary might be called The Mother of God, and that he used such Expressions as seemed to divide the Person of Jesus Christ into two; That he was cited three times according to the Order of the Canons; That it was not necessary by the Laws of the Church to perform these Citations on several days; That it was Zeal and not Passion that made Saint Cyril to act so; That although he had had some differences with Nestorius, that was no just impediment, that he might not be his Judge in the Council, especially discussing a matter of Faith; That in the business of S. Chrysostom there was nothing meddled with that concerned the Faith; That it was not a General Council, but a private Synod called together by the contentious humour of Theophilus; That S. Isidore and Gennadius were mistaken through the false Reports that S. Cyril's Enemies had spread abroad of him; That afterward they themselves acknowledged the Falsehood of them; That there were in the Council many Bishops of Macedonia, Epirus, Achaia, Thracia, and Thessaly, which could not be said to be devoted to the Egyptian Faction; That Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, and the other Bishops of Palestine could not be suspected of holding Intelligence with them; That it is not credible that Memnon was so much Master of the Asian Bishops as to make them to yield to his Will against Justice and Innocence; That Judgement was pronounced after cognizance of the Cause; That they read the Nicene Creed, and examined the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers of the Church; to which, because Nestorius' Opinions were evidently contrary, they Condemned him; That it is very rare to find a longer time allowed in any of the Ancient Council for the Examination of a single point of Faith; That they did neither approve nor examine S. Cyril's twelve Chapters, because the Question was not about them; but only to inquire whether Nestorius had Preached any Errors, and whether he deserved to be Condemned; That they never after meddled with it; That on the Contrary his Condemnation was approved by almost all Orthodox Bishops; That the Doctrine which the Council condemned as his was unanimously rejected by all the World; That the troubles which followed the Council, proceeded from nothing but the Headiness of the Eastern Bishops, who would at first right or wrong maintain their bad proceed; That they have been happily appeased by the Peace, in which they have followed the Judgement of the Council, concerning the Person and Doctrine of Nestorius. Lastly, That the following Councils, and the Universal Church have received the Council of Ephesus, and have acknowledge it for a General Council.  
From the Form let us come to the Matter itself. Was Nestorius in an Error? Had S. Cyril delivered nothing contrary to the truth? Did not his twelve Chapters contain in them the Errors of Arius, or Apollinaris? or at least, the same Error which was after maintained by Eutyches? Were not the Eastern Bishops of Nestorius' Judgement? If John Bishop of Antioch were not, yet were not Theodoret, Andrew of Samosata, Hilladius Bishop of Tarsus, Eutherius Bishop of Tyana, and above all, Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and all the Bishops who were Expelled and Deposed with him, because they would not Subscribe the Condemnation of Nestorius? Lastly, Was there none of S. Cyril's side in the Error opposite to Nestorius'? As for Nestorius, we have already shown wherein his Error consisted, and proved, that there was a lawful ground of Condemning him, because though he pretended to acknowledge the intimate Union of the two Natures in Jesus Christ, yet he would not consent to the true Consequences, which followed from that Union, and made use himself of such comparisons and expressions, as did plainly intimate a Moral Union only. His obstinate rejection of the term of The Mother of God, and other expressions commonly used in the Church, as for Example. That God was born, suffered, and died, etc. His way in which he Explained the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, saying, That God inhabited in Man as in a Temple, that he was Clothed with the Manhood, that he was joined to the Man, that he beheld himself in the Manhood, as in a Looking-glass; The comparisons that he made of the Union of the Humane and Divine Nature in Jesus Christ, to the Union of Man and Wife, of the Spirit and Soul in a Righteous Man, and several other ways of speaking of the like nature, to which he was so much addicted, that he shown an aversion for those that signified the Natural and Substantial Union of the two Natures, were evidences that he not sincerely allow of such an Union. And although there had been no other reason besides the Scandal which he gave by speaking after such manner as might make Men believe, that he was in the Error of Photinus, or Paulus Samosatenus, that had been enough to condemn him, if he would not change those Expressions, and conform to those of the Church. Now it was so in this case; for when they speak to the People, who were accustomed to hear these Words, God was born, God is dead, etc. when they discoursed of Jesus Christ, and told them that these Propositions were false and unsufferable, they immediately imagined that they denied Jesus Christ to be God, and by this means it was that the Nestorian Preachers, and their Friends, raised so great a Scandal among the Faithful at Constantinople. At first they thought him of the Opinion of Paulus Samosatenus; but the thing being better examined, they knew, that his Error was more subtle. Saint Cyril himself acknowledged it, and owned that it were better not to meddle with this Question. But because Nestorius' persisted still to give offence to the People, and to speak in a way contrary to the Church, and would not change it, they were forced to condemn him. John Bishop of Antioch, and his best Friends, who thought him of Orthodox sentiments disapproved his manner of speaking, and advised him to alter them, and own, that the Virgin might be called the Mother of God. He would not do it at first, but at last he did it, but too slowly, and after such a manner as shown that he did it not hearty. He was therefore justly Condemned? But did not his Adversary also deserve the same Fate? Was not he of Arius and Apollinaris' Opinion, or at least of Eutyches'? Did not his twelve famous Chapters contain some Errors? Had not the Eastern Bishop's reason to reject them? Did the Council of Ephesus do well to approve them?  
As to the Opinions of S. Cyril, he hath explained himself too clearly to be suspected as guilty of the Errors of Arius and Apollinaris. He hath so often expressly rejected them, and hath removed the Accusation so fully, that it can't be said, that he hath approved the Errors of these two Heretics, by denying with the one of them, that Jesus Christ hath a Soul, and with the other, that his Soul was destitute of Understanding and Reason. Nor can we with greater truth say, that he hath confounded the two Natures in the Person of Jesus Christ; or that he allows of a change of one Nature into another, since he hath always distinguished the two Natures, and rejected the Error of those, who say, That they are changed, or confounded, or mixed. He distinguishes them so elegantly in his Second Letter to Nestorius, that ●e was forced to own in his Answer to him, that he allows a distinction of the two Natures, that he acknowledged, that the Word had not his Original from the Virgin, and that it was not possible that the Word should suffer. He always confessed this Doctrine, when the dispute was at the hottest. Lastly, When he made Peace with the Eastern Bishops, he made no scruple to acknowledge the two Natures in Jesus Christ, united in one Person; insomuch that John Bishop of Antioch, Theodoret, and almost all the Eastern Bishops, have owned, that his Letter and Doctrine were Orthodox. But although it is manifest that S. Cyril was of Orthodox Sentiments, yet we must own, that it hath happened to him, as it hath to all others almost who suffer themselves to be transported with Passion in Disputes, that is to say, by opposing an Error so earnestly, he seems to incline to the contrary; for having opposed those Persons, who divided the two Natures, he used such Expressions to denote the Union, as gave occasion to believe, that they were confounded. This Facundus Bishop of Hermianum wisely observes. S. Cyril, saith he, having undertaken to oppose Nestorius, who divided Jesus Christ into two, that he might reject this Error more fully and plainly, made choice of all such terms, as are most proper to express the Union of the two Natures whereas the Ancient Fathers, writing against Apollinaris, who confounded them, laboured most to express their distinction. But we ought not to think for all that, that S. Cyril disowns the difference of the two Natures, or that the Ancients denied the Unity of the Person.  
The difference of the Contests made them speak differently. The Expressions, which comes nearest the Opinion of the Eutychians, and which is chief urged, is this, One Incarnate Nature. S. Cyril uses it often, and they affirm, That he is the first of the Fathers that hath mentioned it: For though it is said, that he took it out of S. Athanasius, yet it is very probable, that the Writings attributed to Athanasius, out of which S. Cyril is pretended to have taken it, is rather Apollinaris' than this Father's, as the Orthodox have since found out, and maintained against the Severians. This Expression seems directly contrary to the Faith of the Church, which believes two Natures in Jesus Christ, and was displeased not only with the Eastern Bishops, but with S. Isidore of Damiata, who wrote to S. Cyril, that he ought not to use it, because by saying One Nature, he excludes the Two. Nevertheless, S. Cyril and Egyptions used it commonly, and preferred it before others. Eutyches and his Friends have since looked upon it as the Foundation of their Doctrine, and Flavian himself comes near it in his Apologitical Letter to the Emperor. The Council of Chalcedon would not make use of it, and the Eastern Bishops rejected it. But the Egyptian Bishops having showed them that it was S. Cyril's, they dare not condemn it. Several Greek Authors have used it since, but it is seldom found in the Latin Fathers, and there are very few Divines which have approved of it. There are divers senses given to this Expression: Some say, that S. Cyril means by this word Nature, the Person, and that he uses these terms promiscuously, as it appears in his Defence of his eighth Chapter, where he says, That Jesus Christ is one Person, or Nature; that is, One Hypostasis. In this sense, there is no difficulty in this Proposition, but the true sense of S. Cyril is not, that there is but One Nature in Jesus Christ, but that the Nature of the Word was Incarnate: For he never says plainly, That there is but One Nature in Jesus Christ; but, that there is but One Nature of the Word which is Incarnate; and having said that, he explains how it being Incarnate was united to the Manhood. Thus S. Cyril explains himself in several places, but chief in his Letters to Succosius and Acacius. He acknowledges indeed that the Humane and Divine Nature are distinct in the Person of Jesus Christ; but for fear that distinction should be abused, and they should divide these two Natures into two Persons, he affected to use a term which signified this Union without denoting any division; which he did, not only to oppose the Nestorians the most strongly, but to satisfy the most zealous of his own Party, who could not endure to hear of two Natures in Jesus Christ, and who were displeased that it was approved in the Confession of Faith made by the Western Bishops.  
As to the Chapters of S. Cyril, which made so much noise, we must own, that these twelve Propositions were very subtle, and that some of them might be badly construed. This S. Cyril himself was convinced of; but 'tis not true, that they are not as well capable of a good sense. He explained them in such a manner, as might satisfy the Eastern Bishops. They were read in the Council of Ephesus, but they were approved by Name, as his second Letter to Nestorius was. When the Peace was concluded, the Eastern Bishops were not obliged to subscribe nor approve them, nor did they require it of S. Cyril to retract them. They were not spoken of in the Council of Chalcedon, nor was Theodoret obliged to recant what he had written against S. Cyril's Chapters. They read also in this Council Ibas' Letter, where it is said, That the Eastern Bishops believed S. Cyril an Heretic, before he had explained his Chapters. All this proves, that the twelve Chapters of S. Cyril were never made a part of the Faith of the Church, and that the Eastern Bishops are not to be condemned for opposing and rejecting them. Nor can we reasonably believe them guilty of any Errors in their carriage as to Nestorius. It is evident, that they thought him of Orthodox Sentiments, and at the very time when they stuck closest to him, they plainly rejected the Errors that were attributed to him. They also advised him from the very first to approve the term of the Mother of God; and shown him, that in one sense it might be said, That the Son of God, who was born before all Ages, was also born of Mary. But nothing better proves, that the Eastern Bishops never departed from the Orthodox Truth, than the Objections which they made against S. Cyril's twelve Chapters; for though they condemned the Expression of this Father, they acknowledged, That there was but one Person in Jesus Christ, and owned that the two Natures are united in a very strict Union, and cannot be divided or separated, but they oppose any confusion, mixture or change of the two Natures, Errors which they thought to lie couched in S. Cyril's twelve Chapters. They always professed the same Doctrine both in and after the Council of Ephesus. They always protested that they acknowledged but one Christ, perfect God, and perfect Man, and that the two Natures were united in one Person. When the Peace was making, there was no Controversy about the Confession of Faith, they agreed without any trouble with S. Cyril in that, who acknowledged that they never were in Nestorius' Errors, though they had been before accused of it. Theodoret himself, who was one of the most furious against S. Cyril's twelve Chapters, had no sooner seen his first Letter, but he owned it to be Orthodox. All the difficulty which can be raised here, is as to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, Eutherius Bishop of Tyana, and some other Bishops who would not be comprehended in the Peace, or yielded to it only by force. But we must own, that these Bishops themselves did seemingly profess the Orthodox Faith; and though they found fault with S. Cyril's Exposition of the Faith, 'twas not because they denied the Union of the two Natures in one Person, but because they were afraid that there was some term which made it suspectous, that there was but one Nature in Jesus Christ. They never defended the Doctrine attributed to Nestorius, but maintained that Nestorius had no other than what they thought Orthodox. 'Twas a Question of Fact, and not of Right, that divided them. But their Obstinacy and Separation gave occasion to suspect, that they were of Nestorius' Opinion, or at least was sufficient to make them to be condemned as Disturbers of the Peace, and Schismatics.  
Lastly, The chief Subject of these Contests which were raised between the Egyptian and Eastern Bishops at this Juncture, may be said to proceed from hence, that they attributed the quality of the Divine and Humane Natures, which were in the Person of Jesus Christ after different manners: For the Eastern Bishops could hardly understand, how the Qualities of the Humane Nature could be attributed to the Divine, and the Properties of the Divine Nature to the Humane; and the Egyptians urged this Communication of Terms to an excess, as has not since been followed.  
'Tis for this Reason, that the Eastern Bishops being desirous to take away all matter of Contest, have annexed to the end of their Confession of Faith: We know, that as to those Qualities which Holy Scripture attributes to our Lord, there are some, which great Divines have made common to both Natures, as agreeing to one and the same Person; and there are others which they attribute to the two Natures severally, referring to the Divinity of Jesus Christ those, which are more sublime, and to the Humanity of those, that are more mean, and unworthy of the Divine Nature.  
We have seen that Nestorius would never allow it to be said, that God is born, dead, or hath suffered, but would suffer them to be said of Christ. The Eastern Bishops also would very hardly 
* Admit of.  allow these Expressions, and desired that some softer terms might be added to explain them. S. Cyril and the Egyptians used them upon all Occasions; they scrupled not to say, The Immortal is dead, Life is dead, God is crucified, Humane Flesh is become the Giver of Life, and to be adored: Yea, some of them, as Acacius Bishop of Melitina, maintained this Expression, That the Word was born, died, hath suffered, and applied it to the Divinity, or Divine Nature of Jesus Christ. This was the Original of the greatest part of the Disputes, which reigned in this Age, which we are now speaking of, and in the next. This was the Cause of the misunderstanding between the Eastern and Egyptian Bishops, The pretence of their Division, and the Subject of their Contests.   

THE HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL of CHALCEDON, 
The Council of Chalcedon.  and other Precedent Councils.  
ALthough all the Eastern Patriarches seemed to be agreed about the Contests, which had so long troubled them, yet private Persons were not united in their Opinions, and 
Cyril. Ep. ad Coelest. 1. p. Conc. Ep. c. 14. Socr. l. 7. c. 3. 2.  several there were on both sides that stirred up Divisions in both the Churches. Among the Easterns there were some secret Nestorians, who sought by any means to revenge the Disposition of Nestorius; and among the Egyptians there were others, that carried the Union of the two Natures too far, making but one of the two, and could not endure any should acknowledge two after the Union. The Monks especially were of that Opinion, published it every where, and condemned all those that would not embrace it. After the Deposition of Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Alexandria were united; but because the Interest of these two Sees were different, they did not continue Friends long. The Bishop of Constantinople would have the second place among the Patriarches, and rule over the Dioceses of Asia and Pontus; the Bishop of Alexander disputed his Claim, yet himself aimed to bring one part of the East under his Jurisdiction. The Bishop of Antioch did not much regard the Preference of the Bishop of Constantinople, but he would not submit to the Bishop of Alexandria, nor endure him to take away his Provinces from him. These things being controverted in 439, between Proclus Patriarch of Constantinople, Theodoret in place of John Bishop of Antioch, and the Deacon Dioscorus, Deputy for the Patriarch of Alexandria, an Order was made among them, That the Canons of the Councils of Nice and Constantinople should be observed; That the Bishop of Alexandria should be confined to Egypt; That the Eastern Bishop should exercise his Jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches only hereafter, and not concern himself hereafter with the Affairs of the Dioceses of Asia and Pontus; and that the Bishops of Constantinople should have the second place according to the Canon of the Council of Constantinople. Dioscorus opposed this Regulation with all his Power, and accused Theodoret of having betrayed upon this Occasion the Interests of the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch, but he had the management of the Bishop of the Imperial City, who was in great favour at Court, and might much advantage or hurt the Eastern Bishops.  
Rabulas Bishop of Edessa, who was one of the violent Enemies of the Memory of Theodorus, and the most Zealous Defender of the manner of speaking used by the Egyptians, being dead, Ibas a Priest was put in his place, who was of the just contrary Judgement, and was suspected to be a Nestorian. Rabulas having left in his Church several Persons of the same Opinion, who could not endure any Expressions, which looked like Theodorus' or Nestorius', he did never enjoy any quiet. They had accused him already, while he was yet but Priest, and while John Bishop of Antioch was yet alive, of defending the Nestorian Principles, refusing to subscribe Proclus' Writing, and to condemn the Propositions of Theodorus annexed to it, but on the contrary, translating them into Syriack, and dispersing them in the East. Proclus, before whom he was accused, had sent him to John Bishop of Antioch, but the business went no further, either because his Accusers would not prosecute him before John Bishop of Antioch, who was not a Favourer of them, or because John Bishop of Antioch had stifled the matter. When Ibas was made Bishop, they revived these 
Con●. Chal Act. 10.  old Accusations; Samuel, Cyrus, Maras, and Eulogiûs, Priests of his Church, whom he had Excommunicated, accused him to Domnus who succeeded John, and presented a Petition to him, accusing him of being a Nestorian. Domnus ordered him to appear to justify himself; but because it was in Lent, he put off the hearing him, till after the Feast was over, and yet ordered him to absolve these Priests from the Excommunication, Ib●● permitted Domnus his Governor to do with him, as he pleased; and Domnus absolved them from their Excommunication, because of the Feast, but upon Condition, that they should not go from Antioch, because the Cause was not determined; and in case they went from thence before the business was ended, they should be liable to greater Punishment. Maras and Eulogius stayed, but the other two went to Constantinople to accuse Ibas, and to procure him other Judges. Domnus having called a Synod after the Feast asked the two Priests, which stayed at Antioch about them; and knowing of them, that their Fellows were gone to Constantinople, declared them false Accusers; and that they were justly Excommunicated, and that by their flight they had rendered themselves more blame-worthy. This Judgement was subscribed by twelve Bishops. Nevertheless Dioscorus, who Succeeded S. Cyril in 444, revived the old Quarrel between the Egyptian and the Eastern Bishops, and endeavoured to destroy the principal Bishops of their party. In this enterprise he was assisted and maintained by Eutyches, a Priest, and Abbot of the Monastery of Constantinople, who had great interest at Court. This Monk was always one of the most Zealous of the Egyptian Party, who stuck close to the most rigid Expressions of S. Cyril, but carried things higher than he, and absolutely refused to say, that there were two Natures in Jesus Christ. He accused his Adversaries of being of Nestorius' Opinions, and they again reproved them for being Apollinarians. The Greatest part of the Eastern Monks were of Eutyches' judgement, and accused their Bishops for being Nestorians. And because they were in favour at Court, and some of these Bishop were suspected to be Nestorians, they easily obtained an Edicts against them. Theodoret suffered more than any Man else by it, as we have seen Irenaeus was Deposed, but justly. They appointed Judges for Ibas, and troubled several other Bishops suspected to be Nestorians. They laboured also to go further, and under the pretence, that the Eastern Bishops were defenders of the Memory of Theodorus and Diodorus, they would involve than all in the same Condemnation. Domnus and the Eastern Bishops opposing this attempt, wrote to the Emperor Theodosius, that Eutyches revived the Error of Apollinaris; That he corrupted the Doctrine of the Church touching the Mystery of the Incarnation, asserting, That the Humane and Divine Nature of Jesus Christ are but one, and attributing the Sufferings to the Godhead; That he Cursed Diodorus and Theodorus, with a design to maintain those Errors, those two Pillars of the Church, who had maintained the truth against the Heretics of their time, and had been commended and esteemed by the great Men of their Age. Eutyches to revenge himself upon these his Accusers wrote to the Pope S. Leo, that the Error of Eutyches was revived by a private Faction. He dare not accuse the Bishop of Antioch, and the other Eastern Bishops by name; but it is easy to see that he means them. Saint Leo commends his Zeal, but would not openly declare himself against the Persons whom Eutyches accused, not knowing particularly who they were. Saint Leo's answer bears date June 1. 448.  
The Judgement of Eutyches did legally belong to 
* Bishop of Constantinople.  Flavian, who was his Bishop. This Patriarch was engaged for his own Interest to uphold the Eastern Church against the Egyptian, because the Bishops of Alexandria contended with him about the Prerogatives and Privileges, which 
Conc. Chalced. Act. 1. p. 150. etc. Council of Constantinople, Act. 1.  he pretended to, whereas the Bishop of Antioch, and the Eastern Church had yielded to them. Wherefore it happened, that in the Council assembled at Constantinople, Nou. 448. to examine the Sentence given by Florentius Bishop of Sardis, Metropolitan of the Province of Lydia against two 
† John & Cossinius.  Bishop's subject to his Jurisdiction; Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum brought an Accusation against Eutyches, and presented his Petition to the Council Nou. 8. in which he requests, that Eutyches might be Summoned before the Synod, to answer to such Accusations as he had to make against him; alleging, that he was ready to prove, that he held Heretical Opinions about the Mystery of the Incarnation. This Petition being read in the Council, Flavian said, That this Accusation surprised him, but that Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, aught to go to Eutyches, and confer with him about his Doctrine; and if he found him Heretical in his principles, than the Synod might cite him. Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum answered, That he was heretofore intimate with him, That he had admonished him several times, but could not work any change in him. Flavian urged him several times to speak with him again, but he would do nothing, but more importuned them to cite Eutyches. Whereupon the Council ordered, that he should be Summoned; and they sent John a Priest and Advocate, and Andrew a Deacon to Communicate to him the Petition presented against him; and to tell him, That he must come to the Council.  
In the Second Action, which was on Nou. 12. Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, to free himself from 
Act. 2.  all suspicion of Nestorianism, desired that the two first Letters of S. Cyril to Nestorius, and his Letter to John Bishop of Antioch might be read. Flavian, Eusebtus Bishop of Dorylaeum, and all the other Bishops approved the Doctrine contained in their Letters, and the greatest part of them added, that it was conformable to the Faith of the Nicene Council.  
In the third Action held Nou. 15. John and Andrew related to the Council, that they had been 
Act. 3.  with Eutyches at his Monastery; That they had read to him the Petition presented against him, and had given him a Copy of it, and had cited him before the Synod; but he answered them, That he had made a Resolution a long time ago never to go out of his Monastery, but to abide in it as in a Tomb; That he prayed them to assure the Council, that Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum had been his Enemy along time, and had invented this Accusation to ruin him; That he was ready to consent to the Confession of Faith made by the Fathers assembled at Ephesus and Nice, and subscribe their Expressions; but if they were mistaken in any thing, he would not reprove it, nor did he intent to give his approbation of it; That he did keep close to the Scripture, as being more certain than the Explications of the Fathers; That after the Incarnation of the Word he did adore Jesus Christ, as God Incarnate and made Man; That he read a Book to to them, where these things were, and afterwards rejected the Propositions of which he was accused, and among the rest this, that the Word had brought his Flesh from Heaven; That he owned, that he was perfect God, and perfect Man born of the Virgin, without having a Flesh consubstantial with ours; and that he was made up of two Natures Hypostatically united. This Relation of John and Andrew was confirmed by testimony of one Athanasius of Seleucia. Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum said to the Council, That what he had already related was sufficient to discover the Opinion of Eutyches, but he again entreated the Synod to cite him a second time. They sent therefore to him two Priests, named Mamas and Theophilus, giving them an Order in Writing directed to Eutyches in the name of the Synod, in which he was Commanded to come and defend himself against the Accusations of Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum; and they threatened him, if he did not come, to judge him according to the severity of the Canons, as a Person, who was afraid to be convicted, and therefore fled from Justice, because the excuse which he alleged, that he had resolved not to go out of his Monastery, was not sufficient, the Accusation being of that Nature. After the departure of the Priests, who carried this Order to Eutyches, Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum said, that this Monk did all he could to make trouble; that he had sent into all the Monasteries a form of Faith to have it signed there: Abraamius the Priest deposed, that Asterius told him, that the Abbot Immanuel had received one in the name of Eutyches, and because he assured them, that he also had sent it to other Monasteries, they nominated two Priests and two Deacons to go and get a true information of it in all the Monasteries. Mamas and Theophilus, whom they had sent to Eutyches, being returned, reported, That being arrived at his Monastery, they found the Monks at the Gate, and that they told them, that they came to speak with their Abbot, that as the Deputies of his Bishop and of the Synod they desired to speak with him; but the Monks answered, that he was Sick; That he could not speak with them; and that they might tell them the occasion of their coming, and what they desired of him; That they insisted upon it, that they must speak with him in Person, and that they had a Letter from the Synod directed to him; That these Monks being gone in sent out another Monk, called Eleusinius, who told them, That he was come to them instead of their Abbot, who was Sick; That they had insisted and demanded, whether Eutyches would receive them or not? That these words much affrighted these Monks; but to pacify them, they bid them not trouble themselves, for they brought nothing that need disturb them, but could tell them the subject of the Letter of the Synod, was to cite him a second time, that he should come and give answer to the Accusation brought against him by Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum; That the Monks entering in again told Eutyches of it, who immediately caused them to be brought in; That they delivered their Summons to him from the Synod, and that after he had read it, he told them, That he had made a solemn Resolution a long time since never to go out of his Monastery; That they still urged him to yield Obedience to the Synod, but he always refused it, and had given them a Writing subscribed by his own Hand to present to the Council. They ordered him to be cited the third time the next Day, which was Octob. 17. and framed the Instrument of his Citation, which they gave to Memnon 
* Sexton, or Church Clerk.  the Sacristan, and two Deacons to deliver it to him.  
The next day Eutyches sent Abraamius the Priest with three Deacons belonging to his Monastery to Flavian, to excuse his not coming to the Council by reason of his Sickness. Flavian 
Act. IU.  hearing this excuse, said it was reasonable to put off this business till he was well. Abraamius telling them, that he had a Commission to Answer for him, if they did put any Questions to him. Flavian replied, That the Person accused aught to answer for himself; That he did not urge him; That he would give him all the time he desired; That he might be assured, that he should find all the Bishops of his Synod to be his Brethren and Friends; That several Persons had taken offence at the things that Eutyches had vented; That he ought to clear himself of the Accusation, or make satisfaction for it; That he had heretofore been a stout Champion for the truth against Nestorius; That it was necessary that he should speak for himself; and if he hath delivered any Error, he ought not to be ashamed to retract it; That if he owned it and would condemn it, the Synod was ready to forgive him, upon Condition that he would never teach the like for the future; In sum, That he had known him a long time, and had a great respect for him, but could not but hearken to so Zealous an Accuser; that he had desired him several times to lay down this Accusation, but could not prevail; That he desired not the destruction of the Monasteries; That he wished for nothing so much as to preserve Peace and Union. This Conference is reckoned for the fourth Act of the Council: Nevertheless, it was not with all the Assembly of Bishops, but only between Flavian, and the Messengers from Eutyches,  
The next day being Wednesday Nou. 17. the Bishops being again met, Memnon, who had been 
Act. V.  sent by the Council to Summon Eutyches a third time, said, That he had answered him; That he had sent Abraamius to Flavian and the Synod, to 
* agree.  consent in his Name to all that had been decreed by the Holy Fathers assembled at Nice and Ephesus, and to all that S. Cyril had spoken. Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum answered, that that was not the Question, whether he consented to them now, or no, but what he had done heretofore? That he was accused for having taught Heretical Doctrines; That he had Witnesses of it; That he had admonished him of it several times; That 'tis not sufficient for him now to say, that he approves sound Doctrine; That he ought to be convicted of the Errors he hath Taught, and afterwards retract them, and give full satisfaction. Memnon added to his Relation, that having urged Eutyches to come himself, he said, That he had sent Abraamius to obtain some time of Flavian and the Synod; That he expected their Answers, and desired only the rest of the Week; That on Monday next he would come to the Synod and give them Satisfaction. This Report being confirmed by the other Deputies, they gave audience to those whom they had sent to the Monasteries, to inquire whether Eutyches had sent any Forms of Faith to be signed by them; And they said, that the Abbot's Martin and Fa●stus had received a Writing in Eutyches' Name, but they would not Subscribe it; That the Abbot Job had heard that the Bishop of Constantinople would soon bring them one to sign; That Immanuel and Abraam had received no Writing in Eutyches' Name. Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum insisted, that they had enough to condemn Eutyches, but nevertheless consented, that he should be allowed the time he desired, and defer his Judgement to Monday, November 24.  
In the mean time he laboured to get all things ready for his business; and in the Synod held 
Act. VI  on Saturnay Nou. 22, he desired them to Summon such Persons before the Council as were necessary for the Conviction of Eutyches, viz. Narses the Priest, and his Coadjutor, the Abbot Maximus his Friend, Constantinus a Deacon, and Eutyches' Chancellor, and Eleusinius a Deacon of his Monastery, that the truth might be laid open before them. And they gave Eusebius leave to Summon them Afterward he shown, That Mamas and Theophilus had not given a Faithful Report of what they had heard Eutyches say, and requested, that they be obliged to speak the truth of what they heard upon Oath. Mamas was absent, but Theophilus was there, and owned, that Eutyches had asked them in the Presence of Narses, Maximus, and other Monks, in what place of Scripture the two Natures were spoken of; who of the Fathers had said, That the Word of God had two Natures; That they had answered, Show us in what place of Scripture the term Con-substantial is mentioned; that he answered them. That it was not in Scripture but in the Expositions of Faith made by the Fathers; That Mamas replied, That the Holy Fathers also had acknowledged the two Natures in Jesus Christ; That continuing his Speech he enquired of Eutyches whether Jesus Christ were perfect God and perfect Man; That he owned it, whereupon he concluded that Jesus Christ was made up of two perfect Natures; But Eutyches answered them, God forbidden that I should say, that Jesus Christ is made up of two Natures, or that I should give the Godhead the Name of a Nature. Let them depose me if they please, yet I will die in the Faith which I have received from my Fathers. Then Theophilus excused himself for not relating these things at first, because he was not sent upon that account, but to Summon Eutyches only. Mamas being also suddenly returned excused himself also after the same manner, and said, That what Theophilus had deposed was true.  
The Day on which Eutyches had promised to be present at the Council, being come, Eusebius 
Act. VII.  Bishop of Dorylaeum first appeared. Then they sent to search for Eutyches in the Church, and about the Bishop's Palace, and after much enquiry John a Priest and Advocate of the Church, came to tell them, That he had met with a Troop of Soldiers, Monks, and Guards, that would not suffer him to escape their hands, but upon condition that he would go with them; that there was the Grand Silentiary of the Palace, who demanded entrance, as coming from the Emperor. They suffered him to come in immediately with Eutyches, and he delivered to the Council the Emperor's Letter, which imported, that his Majesty, desirous to uphold the Peace of the Church, and the Faith of the Nicene Council, which was confirmed at Ephesus by the Bishops who condemned Nestorius, and to hinder any Scandal from rising in the Church of Jesus Christ, had nominated Florentius Patricius, who was a Person of known Faith and Honesty, to be presrnt at the Synod, because they debated upon a matter of Faith, while the Letter was reading, there were several Acclamations made in the Praise of the Emperor. The Council testified their Approbation of the Emperor's Choice in naming Florentius, and were well pleased he should be at the Council. They asked Eutyches whether he was willing with it, who answered That he would agree to any thing that pleased the Council, and that he left himself entirely to the Bishops. They prayed the Grand Silentiary to put Florentius in mind of it, and when he was come, they read over again the Acts of the Council. When they came to a place of Saint Cyril, where it was said, that there is an Union of the two Natures in Jesus Christ; Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum interrupted them, and told them, that Eutyches did not consent to that truth. Florentius desired that Eutyches might be interrogated about it, but Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum fearing that he would own it, desired them to make an end of reading the Acts, and said, That it ought not to be any prejudice to him, although he should now acknowledge this truth, since it is evident, that he hath denied it. He discovered, That he was afraid of him, and that with reason, because he was Poor and of no Credit, whereas Eutyches was Rich and in great Credit, and had threatened him to cause him to be banished to Oasis. Flavian promising him faithfully that Eutyches' Confession should be no disadvantage to him; Eusebius then asked him, if he confessed the Union of the two Natures. Eutyches said Yea. Eusebius pressed him further, and asked him, if he acknowledged two Natures in Jesus Christ after the Incarnation, and whether he owned that Jesus Christ was of the same substance with other Men according to the Flesh. Eutyches answered, That he came not to Dispute, but to deliver his Judgement which was set down in the Paper, which was in the Hand, which he entreated them to read, Flavian bid him read it himself, and because he said he could not, they bid him declare his Opinion with his Mouth. Wherefore he said, that he Worshipped the Father as the Son, and the Son as the Father, and the Holy Ghost as the Father and the Son; That he acknowledged that he dwelled with us in the Flesh, having taken Flesh of the Virgin, and he was really Incarnate for our Salvation. Flavian asked him, if he believed that Jesus Christ was con-substantial with the Father according to his Divinity, and with us according to his Humanity. Eutyches answered, That he had delivered his Judgement, and they need not ask him further about it. Flavian demanded if he agreed, that Jesus Christ was of two Natures. He answered, That he would not dispute about the Nature of his Master and Lord. Flavian further asked him, if he believed him of the same Substance with us, according to the Humanity. He replied, that hitherto he had never asserted that the body of Jesus Christ was of the same Substance with ours, but that the Virgins was. But because they urged him further, showing him, that if the body of the Virgin was of the same Substance with ours, and Jesus Christ assumed his body of the Virgin, the body of Jesus Christ was also of the same Substance with ours. He answered, that since others affirmed it, he was very willing to assert it, but hitherto he had called it the body of God. Lastly, Florentius bid him speak plainly, whether Jesus Christ after the Incarnation was of two Natures? He answered boldly, that before the Union there was two Natures, but after the Union he acknowledged but one, The Synod required him to Curse this Doctrine. He answered, that he would be willing to submit to the Judgement of the Council, but he could not Curse the contrary Opinion, because if he did it he should Curse the Holy Fathers. They urged him to pronounce them Accursed, who would acknowledge but one Nature in Jesus Christ after the Incarnation, but he stoutly maintained that he would not do it, because it was the judgement of S. Cyril and S. Athanasius. When they saw, that he stuck at this, the Synod pronounced him deprived of his Priesthood, of the Communion of the Church, and the Office of Abbot; and ordered, that all those, who should accompany with him, and assemble with him, should be Excommunicated, as well as those who should espouse his Sentiments. This Sentence was signed by 29 Bishops, and 24 Abbots.  
Eutyches having heard this Sentence pronounced against him thought it best to appeal to a Council, where the Patriarches of Rome, Alexander, and Jerusalem, the Bishop of Thessalonica, and several other Bishops should be present. But he did not make this Appeal publicly, and in the presence of the Synod; but the Assembly being dissolved, and after the Sentence pronounced against him, he wrote immediately to Pope Leo, that Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum having a design to ruin him, and to disturb the Church, had presented a Petition to Flavian, and some other Bishops who were met at Constantinople, in which he accused him for being an Heretic; That being Summoned to Answer to the Accusation, although his Age and Sickness ought to have excused him, yet he had been forced to appear, knowing well enough that they had combined together to destroy him; That he had immediately presented a Confession of his Faith in Writing, Subscribed with his own hand; That Flavian had not, nor would receive it, nor cause it to be read, but had urged him to confess, that there were two Natures in Jesus Christ, and to pronounce them accursed that would not; That being unwilling to add any thing to the Faith of the Council of Nice, and knowing that Julius, Faelix, S. Athanasius, and S. Gregory rejected the two Natures, he dared not to discourse of the Nature of the Word of God, who in the last days came down into the Womb of the Virgin without any change in himself, in such manner as he pleased, and that he knew, that he was not a Man in show only; that he would not Curse the Fathers, and that he had required them to write to his Holiness, and leave it to him to Judge him, promising to submit to his Determination; That the Synod not regarding these Propositions had dissolved themselves, and had published a Sentence of Deposition against him; That they had contrived a long time against him by the Faction, insomuch that he was in great danger, if he had not been taken away by the Guards; That they had forced all the Abbots to subscribe against him, and being desirous to justify himself before the People by reciting his Creed, they had hindered him, that they might make him pass altogether for an Heretic; That in this condition he fled to S. Leo for help, whom he knew to be Zealous for the Faith, and to hate all Faction and Contest; That he assured him, that he brought in no Innovations concerning the Faith, and had been taught from the beginning of the Church; That he condemned Apollinaris, Valenti●●s, Manes, Nestorius, and all those who affirm, that the Flesh of Jesus Christ descended from Heaven, and was not assumed in the Womb of the Virgin. He requests, that setting aside that which had been done against him through Faction and Combination, that it be not prejudicial to him, S. Leo would give his Judgement about the point of Doctrine in contest; That he would forbid them for the future to speak abusively of him, to thrust him out of the number of the Orthodox, and that he would not endure that a Person who hath passed 70 Years in the exercise of Continence and Chastity, be overwhelmed at the end of his Life. He annexed to the end of this Letter the Petition of Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, and the Confession of Faith which he had made in the Council, with the Testimonies of the Holy Fathers against the two Natures. There is also at the end of this Letter a Confession of Faith made by Eutyches, in which he professes to hold to the Definitions of the Councils of Ephesus and Nice, of S. Cyril and other Fathers of the Church, and pronounce Anathema against Nestorius and Apollinaris, and against all those who affirm, that the Flesh of Jesus Christ came down from Heaven, holding that the Word of God came down from Heaven without Flesh, and took Flesh in the Womb of the Virgin of the very Flesh of the Virgin. So that he, that from Eternity was perfect God, is become perfect Man in time. We find also in the same place a Letter attributed to Julius, which affirms, that we ought not to say, That there are two Natures in Jesus Christ after their Union, and that as Man, although he be made up of a Soul and a Body, is but one Nature, in like manner though the Divinity and Humanity be in Jesus Christ, they are nevertheless but one Nature. It is probable, that this Letter is forged under the Name of Julius, as the Letters attributed to Faelix, and S. Athanasius upon the same subject.  
But Eutyches did not content himself to write to the Pope, he besought the Emperor to call a 
The Second Synod of Constantinople.  general Council for the determination of his Cause, and prayed him, that in the mean while he would have the Acts of the Judgement given against him by Flavian to be revived, maintaining that things were not carried as they are related in those Acts. From this time the Emperor resolved to Assemble a General Council, and in the mean while he assembled the Bishops residing in Constantinople, to examine the Acts of the Council under Flavian before them and the Parties concerned. This Synod met Apr. 1. in the Baptistery of the Great Church. It consisted of 30 Bishops out of the Dioceses of Asia, Pontus, the East, and Thracia, of whom 10 or 12 were present at the former Synod. Thelasius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia was the first. Patricius Florentius held the chief place in it as Judge, and the Tribune Macedonius, a Notary, and Master of Request ordered it. He, when the Bishops were entered, Ordered, That those, who were sent in the stead of Eutyches should be admitted. Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum said, That if he defended himself by Proxy, he would retire. Macedonius having answered, That the Emperor would have it so, Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum desired the Bishops to declare, if they were willing it should so be. Melipthongus Bishop of Juliopolis said, That he thought that the Person accused aught to come in Person, especially if the cause in Examination were of any consequence, and that the Emperor had determined to hold an Universal Council, to which all matters of consequence ought to be reserved. Macedonius having been inquired of by Florentius, what commands he had received from the Emperor about it, said, That the Emperor understanding that Eutyches was Condemned, would have the Acts of his Condemnation read over, in the presence of those whom Eutyches had sent in his stead to the Synod, that both Parties might be satisfied in what was related. Patricius hereupon called in Constantinus, Eleusinius, and Constantius, who were sent on Eutyches behalf, and Macedonius have placed the Gospel in the middle of the Synod; would have obliged the Bishops to take an Oath, that they would speak truly, if things were transacted so as they are set down in the Acts. But Basilius Bishop of Seleucia said, That the Bishops were never obliged to take an Oath upon the like Occasion, that Jesus Christ forbids us to Swear that being before the Altars, having the fear of God before their Eyes, and their Conscience to observe them, they would speak the whole truth so far as they could remember. Wherefore they ordered Aëtius a Deacon and Notary, to produce the Authentic Acts, at first he was unwilling, but Flavian and the Bishops having consented to it, he brought them forth; Constantius the Monk produced also a Copy of theirs. There was no difficulty about the two first Actions. They made several brangles about the answers of Eutyches, which done't deserve to be related. But when they came to the Condemnation, Constantine said, That Eutyches had appealed to a Council of the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica, and that they had not inserted that appeal into their Acts. Basil Bishop of Seleucia said, That he had heard him say at that time; that they propounded it to him to confess that there were two Natures in Jesus Christ; That if the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria would command him to do it, he would say it: but he never heard him appeal from the Sentence. Flavian maintained, That Eutyches had not appealed in the Council, but the Synod being dissolved, as he ascended on high, Patricius had told him, That Eutyches did appeal from it. Florentius said, That the business was thus carried. Julianus and Seleucius testified, that none of the Bishops had heard that he appealed from it.  
Eutyches invented another trick to weaken the Authority of the Acts. He desired, that the Grand Silentiary might hear them, who being sent to Flavian's Synod, might know much of what passed there. The Emperor granted his request, and Commanded the Grand Silentiary to take the deposition of Martial, a Count, and Great Master of the Imperial Palace. He appeared before him with Macedonius the Notary. and Master of Requests Apr. 27. and declared, that being sent to meet Flavian by the Emperor, to tell him, that Patricius Florentius had Commission to sit in the Synod, that he held in his Episcopal Palace at Constantinople; Flavian answered, That it was needless for Florentius to give himself that trouble, because the business was already decreed, and Eutyches was condemned because he did not appear after the second Citation, and that then they shown him a Paper, where his Condemnation was written; and that before the Synod was Assembled, Macedonius deposed, That being come from the Council where they had reviewed the Acts of the Synod, Asterius, a Priest and Notary, met him, and told him, That Abraamius and the Notaries had changed some places in the Acts; and fearing lest they should discover the fraud, he was forced to tell him, that it was done without his knowledge or consent.  
It was about this time that Flavian was obliged to make a Confession of his Faith to the Emperor, which is recited in the first part of this Council, in which he professes to follow the Holy Scripture, and Expositions of Faith, made by the Holy Fathers assembled at the Council of Nice, of the 125 Fathers assembled at Constantinople, and those who assembled at Ephesus under S. Cyril, and to teach that there is but one Jesus Christ born of God from all Eternity, according to his Divine Nature, and born of the Virgin in time according to his Humane, perfect God, and perfect 
c. 5.  Man, made up of a Soul and Body of the same Substance with God, as to his Divine Nature, and with his Mother, according to the Flesh, made up of two Natures united in one Person. That he doth not refuse to say, That there is one Nature of the Word, provided that it be acknowledged to be Incarnate and made Man, because our Lord Jesus Christ is of two Natures. That he pronounces them Accursed, that affirm, That there is two Sons, or two Persons, and particularly Nestorius. This was the Substance of the Form of Faith, Signed by Flavian, and presented to confute the Calumnies of those who hated and envied him.  
S. Leo having received a Petition from Eutyches, and a Letter from the Emperor, wrote a Letter to Flavian, in which he tells him, That he greatly wondered that he had not written to him about 
Ep. 20. Act of the Counc. c. 2.  the disturbance that happened in his Church, nor had given him an Account of what had passed; that he had received a Petition from Eutyches, who complained, That he was unjustly deprived of Communion notwithstanding the Appeal, which he interposed in the Council; but they had no regard to it; That he saw not with what Justice they could condemn him, yet he desired nothing to be done, till he had full information of every thing; That they ought to have showed some Innovation that Eutyches had made against the Ancient Doctrine, for which he deserved to be dealt so rigorously with; That he had sent him a Person of Credit, and a faithful Relation of what had passed, because the Lenity of the Church, and the Piety of the Emperor, inclined him to wish earnestly for Peace, and to ●nduce them that are in an Error to acknowledge it, and amend it; That he did not think it a very hard thing to compose things, because Eutyches had already declared, That he was ready to Recant, if he was found to have Taught any Error. This Letter bears date Febr. 18, An. 449.  
At the same time he wrote also a Letter to Theodosius, in which having highly extolled the Emperor's Piety, he tells him, That he had not yet been able to learn for what Reason Flavian had condemned 
Ep. 21. in the Acts of the Council, c. 3.  Eutyches; That he had received a Writing from Eutyches, in which he complained, That he had been unjustly condemned, although he had never departed from the Faith of the Council of Nice; That the Petition of Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, of which Eutyches had sent him a Copy, had not given him a sufficient insight into it, because he had not distinctly set down the thing which he reproved in his Doctrine; That he had Written to Flavian to send a full and faithful Relation of the Affair, and he made no question but that he would do it.  
We have two Letters of Flavian to St. Leo. In the first, which he wrote to him when he sent him the Acts of the Council of Constantinople, he Accuses Eutyches for reviving the Errors of 
Act. II. Counc. iv 1. Part, after Ep. 80. of S. Leo, & t. 1 Monum. Eccl. Graec. p. 50.  Valentinus, and Martion, by holding that there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ; that the Properties of the two Natures were mixed together, and that the Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ was not of the same substance with ours; that Eutyches had been Accused by Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, and was convicted of this Error, as he may learn by the Acts annexed to this Letter; that since Eutyches, instead of Repenting, had disturbed the Church by Publishing abusive Libels, and Presenting to the Emperor arrogant Petitions, full of Falsehoods, and Injuries, breaking all Laws by it; that it was not true that he had presented an Appeal to the Council to deceive him; that he prayed him to act upon this occasion as became his Priestly Dignity, to make this business, which concerns all the Churches, his own, to approve the Condemnation of Eutyches so regularly performed, to confirm the Pious inclinations of the Emperor; and so much the more, because this Affair needs nothing but his Help and Protection; that by this means Peace may soon be restored, Troubles cease, and he lay aside the thoughts of a Council, which he is about to Convene, which can only bring further trouble to the Church.  
In the 2d Written some time after, having showed what grief he was in for the Impiety of Eutyches, he Accuses of the Errors him of which he had spoken in the first, and prays S. Leo to 
Acts of the Council, p. 1. c. 6. Ep. 22.  make known his Condemnation to all the Bishop's subject to the See of Rome, for fear lest any one not being informed of it, should Write to him, or Communicate with him.  
S. Leo having received the first of these two Letters from Flavian, tells him that he commended the Zeal which he had shown for the Faith, and that he would not suffer him to be troubled, nor Eutyches to persist in his Impiety. This Letter is dated May 21. 449. He was of the Opinion at first, as well as Flavian, That it was not necessary to Assemble a General Council, at least in the East, and to prevent it, prayed Theodosius to call one in Italy, But before the Emperor had received this Letter, he had appointed a Council at the humble Request of Dioscorus Bishop of 
Ep. 23.  Alexandria, for the Re-examination of the business of Eutyches. S. Leo having notice of it, and being Summoned to it, as other Bishops were, nominated 3 Legates to send into the East, Julius Bishop of Putebli, Renatus a Priest, and Hilarius a Deacon, with Dulcitius a Notary; he gave them several Letters, which are Dated June 13.  
The first was that famous Letter directed to Flavian, in which he Explains with so much Accuracy the Mystery of the Incarnation. In it he distinguishes two Births of the Son of God, and 
Ep. 24.  two Natures in Jesus Christ, whose Properties subsist distinctly, although they be united in one and the same Person. He maintains that the Word hath assumed our Nature, and all the Properties of it, Sin only excepted. In it he proves that he hath a true Flesh like ours. He rejects the Confession of Faith made by Eutyches, because, says he, 'tis absurd to say, That the Son in the Incarnation is of two Natures, and impious to maintain, That after the Incarnation he hath but one. He acknowledges that he was justly Condemned, and yet was willing to show him some Mercy if he would confess his fault, and eondemn viva voce, and in Writing the Errors which he had published.  
The second was written to Julian Bishop of Coos, who had been present at the Judgement given 
Ep. 25.  against Eutyches, and had written about it to S. Leo. In it he speaks passionately against Eutyches, calling him an Impudent Old man; he accuses him for reviving the Errors of Valentinus, Apollinaris, and Manichaeus. He proves that there is no change, nor a confusion made in the two Natures in Jesus Christ. He observes, that it follows from Eutyches' Confession of Faith, that the Soul of Jesus Christ was united with the Godhead before it assumed a Body in the Womb of the Virgin Mary, and that the Body of Jesus Christ was created out of Nothing. Lastly, He maintains against Eutyches, That although Jesus Christ had some particular Privileges, as to be Born, and Conceived of a Virgin by the Power of the Holy Ghost, and not to be subject to the motions of Concupiscence, nor Sin, yet he hath a Body and Soul of the same Nature with ours, and endued with the same Properties.  
The third is directed to Theodosius. He tells him, That he had sent his Legates to be present at 
Ep. 26.  the Council in his stead, which he had called at Ephesus, and assure him at the same time, that Eutyches was apparently in an Error.  
The fourth Letter of the same Date is directed to the Empress Pulcheria. He commendeth 
Ep. 27.  her Zeal for the defence of the Faith; explains the Mystery of the Incarnation to her; condemns the obstinacy of Eutyches; complains that the Emperor had appointed the Council upon a day too near, because the Bishops of Italy had too little time from the 12th of May, on which they received the News of it, to the 1st of August, which was the day appointed for the Meeting of the Synod at Ephesus, to prepare for, and finish such a Journey. T●at the Emperor had thought that he ought to be present in Person, but although he had had some Precedent for it, which he had not, the present Conjuncture will not permit him to leave Rome. Lastly, He shows of what Importance this Question was, and prays him to take care that Eutyches' Impiety be Condemned by pardoning him if he Recant it.  
The fifth Letter of S. Leo is directed to the Abbots of Constantinople; he tells them, that he 
Ep. 28.  condemns the Errors of Eutyches, and hoped that he would acknowledge it.  
The sixth is directed to the Council itself; In it he opposes Eutyches by the Confession of 
Ep. 29.  S. Peter, who acknowledged that Jesus Christ was the Christ the Son of the Living God. He exhorts the Fathers of the Council to suppress the Error, and to reduce those that are in it.  
There are also two Letters of the same date, of which one is addressed to Pulcheria, the other 
Ep. 30, 31, 32, 33.  to Julian of Coos; as also another to Flavian, dated June 17, and another June 20, to Theodosius. He repeats the same things in them.  
The Emperor Theodosius also wrote several Letters about the Council. The first is about the Calling of it, dated May 30, directed to the Patriarches and Exarches, in which he order them to be at Ephesus, Aug. 1. with the Metropolitans, and so many of the Bishops of their Jurisdiction as they would choose, except Theodoret, who was Prohibited to come thither, unless the Council should Summon him.  
The second is a private Letter to Dioscorus, dated May 15, in which he gives him Notice, That he would have the Abbot Barsumas present at the Council, as a Deputy for the Eastern Abbots, who complained that they were used hardly by their Bishops, who were favourers of Nestorius' Party. The third is an Order to Barsumas to be present at the Council. It is dated the day before the former Letter.  
The fourth is an Order directed to Elpidius to come to the Council with Eulogius, a Tribune and Notary, to prevent that there be no Tumults there. In it he Orders that the Bishops, who have been Judges of Eutyches, should be present at it, but have no power to Consult, nor right to Vote, but shall wait upon the Judgement of the other Bishops, because they Re-examine what they have Judged. He forbids them to meddle with any Civil Affairs, lest that which concerns the Faith be not throughly decided.  
The fifth is an Order to the Proconsul of Asia, to afford Elpidius all necessary Assistance. The sixth is a Letter to the Bishops of the Council, in which he tells them, That he wished that they had had no cause of going from their Churches and leaving their Ministerial Functions, and to spare themselves the trouble of so long a Voyage, but Flavian having moved a Question concerning the Faith, by accusing the Abbot Eutyches, after he had done what he could to appease the Contest, but to no purpose, by persuading Flavian to keep close to the Nicene Creed, he thought that there was no other way to decide this Question but by assembling a Council, that they might examine all that had passed, utterly extirpate the Error, and expel all those out of the Church who would revive the Heresy of Nestorius.  
The seventh is a private Letter to Dioscorus, in which he gives him the Precedence of the Bishops, and the Chief Authority in the Council, not only upon the Account of Theodoret, whom he commanded to be Excluded out of it, but upon the Account of some other Bishops whom he suspected to favour the Sentiments of Nestorius. He takes notice also, that he was persuaded that juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, and Thalassius, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and the other Orthodox Bishops, would join with him; and he was unwilling, that they who would add or change any thing that had been Established at Nice or Ephesus, should have any Authority in this Synod.  
It is easy to perceive by these Letters that the Court favoured Eutyches, and the Egyptian Party, and declared itself openly for them against Flavian and the Eastern Bishops: It was Chrysaphius the eunuch, who for a long time had born a good Affection to the Egyptians, who was a great Friend to Eutyches, who Baptised him, and a particular Enemy to Flavian, who would not give him Money for his Ordination. It was, I say, this Chrysaphius who had misguided the Emperor's Piety, with whom he had a great Interest and Favour.  
The Council began Aug. 8. An. 449. It was made up of 130 Bishops out of the Dioceses of Egypt, the East ●…acia, Pontus and Asia: Dioscorus of Alexandria was Precedent of it by the 
The Council of Ephesus under Dioscorus.  Emperor's Order. Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, appeared there in the Name of the Party; The Bishop-Legat of the Pope, held the second place in it. It is not certain whither it was Julian Bishop of Coos, or Julius' Bishop of Puteoli, who held this place; The Greek Acts of the Council bear the Name of Julian, which is also met with in the ordinary Edition of the Latin Translation, but the MSS. of the Old Translation, reviewed by Rusticus, read it Julius, and not Julianus. It is certain by S. Leo's Letters, that he sent Julius, Bishop of Puteoli, with Hilarius the Deacon, and Renatus the Priest, to supply his place in the Council: Now the Author of the Memoir about the Affair of Acacius assures us, That Renatus died in his Journey at the Isle of Delos; and that Julius, Bishop of Puteoli, assisted in the Name of the Pope at the Council of Ephesus. Evagrius says also in his History, That Julius, Bishop of Puteoli, assisted in the Pope's room at the Council of Ephesus. In the Acts of the Council there is no mention of Renatus the Priest, which confirms the Testimony of the Author of the Memoir about the Affair of Acacius, and proves, That it was he, and not Julius 〈◊〉 ●utebli, that died in the way. It is true there is a Letter of Theodoret Written after the Cou●… Renatus the Priest, but either Theodoret knew not of his Death, or the Superscription is altered, for 'tis not probable that Hilarius the Deacon, and Dulcitius the Notary, should be Named in the Acts of the Council, and Renatus the Priest not be spoken of if he had been at it, and the Testimony of the Memoir of Acacius, who was almost con-temporary, is of great weight. The Greek Text of the Acts of the Council ought not to create any doubts, for we know that the Greeks often corrupt the Latin Names, and the Name of Julian being more common among them than that of Julius, they put the first instead of the last. The MSS. of the Old Translation in Latin, made when the Memory of the Council was yet fresh, and when the true Name of the Pope's Legate, who assisted at this Council, was well known, serve to Rectify the Greek Text. Juvenal had the third place in the Council before Domnus Bishop of Antioch, who was allotted the fourth Seat. Flavian was reckoned in the fifth place, which was very extraordinary in the Council of Chalcedon. Steven, Bishop of Ephesus, was the sixth in Order; and Thalassius, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia was next to him, and was ranked among the Patriarches, as we have seen in the Emperor's Letters to Dioscorus.  
John, the Chief Notary, having declared to the Bishops, That the Emperor had caused them to meet, to Examine a Controversy of Faith disputed between Flavian and Eutyches, utterly to Extirpate Heresy, and to confirm the Faith Established by the Fathers of the Council of Nice, and Explained by those of the Council of Ephesus, Read the Letter for the Calling of the Council. Then the Bishop-Legat made some excuses for S. Leo, that he did not come in person to the Council, as he had been desired by the Emperor, because there was no Precedent that it had ever been done in any Council. He required them to receive and read his Letter, in which he explained the Doctrine of the Church. They did not read this Letter, but the Emperors, and after several Acclamations, in which they commended the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, they called Eutyches before them, who presented a Confession of Faith, in which he recited the Nicene Creed, professed to Live and Die without making any alteration in it, by changing, or adding to it; as also in the Doctrine of S. Cyril, approved by the Council of Ephesus. In it he pronounced Anathema against Manes, Valentinus, Apollinaris, and Nestorius, and against all Heretics, beginning with Simon M. and particularly against those who maintain that the Flesh of Jesus Christ came down from Heaven. Having read this Confession of Faith, he complained, That though he was of this Judgement, yet Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, had unjustly accused him before Flavian, and the other Bishops, who were at Constantinople about their private Affairs; That he had presented abusive Petitions against him, in which he treated him as an Heretic, although he alleged no proof of it; believing, that Flavian having cited him to the Council, would condemn him because he did not appear. That when he appeared, Flavian would not suffer him to read his Confession of Faith; And though he declared, That he had no other Sentiments than those of the Fathers of the Council of Nice, and Ephesus, yet they read a Sentence of Condemnation given against him, not regarding the Appeal, which he interposed, and made to a General Council. That after this Condemnation Flavian had caused him to be accounted for an Heretic, and had made several Bishops and Monks to subscribe against him, although above all things he ought to have Written to all the Bishops to whose Judgement he had appealed; That seeing himself thus persecuted, he had informed the Patriarches, and Emperor, after what manner things had been carried, and had requested that the Proceed of Flavian should be Examined in the Council. When Eutyches had thus spoken, Flavian requested that Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, his Accuser, should be called in, but Elpidius would not suffer him to be admitted, and said, That he had done the Office of an Accuser before the first Judge, and that now the Judges themselves were to answer for the Judgement; that the Council was met to Judge the Judges themselves, and examine the Judgement which they had given, and not to furnish out a new Accusation; so that it was sufficient to read over again the Acts of the Council of Constantinople. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, and several other Bishops, were of that Opinion, but the Pope's Legates demanded that S. Leo's Letter should be read before the Acts. Eutyches said, That the Legates were suspected by him, because ever since their arrival they had abode with Flavian, who received them Friends, and gave them Presents; so that he desired the Council, that if they demanded any unjust thing against him, it might not be prejudicial to him. Dioscorus, Precedent of the Council, concluded, that the Acts of the Condemnation of Eutyches should be read without more ado. They read them all along with the acknowledgement that had been made of them at Constantinople. When these Acts were read, the Bishops declared, That Eutyches having always professed the Faith of the Fathers of the Council of Nice, and Ephesus, was Orthodox, and had been unjustly Condemned.  
The Monks of the Monastery of Eutyches afterwards presented a Petition against Flavian, in which they complain, That this Bishop having unjustly Condemned their Abbot, because he would not approve, as he had done, Errors contrary to the Faith of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, had sent Theodotus a Priest to them, who enjoined them not to obey their Abbot, to have no Society with him, and not permit him to have the Management of the Revenue of the Monastery; that the Altar, which Flavian himself had Consecrated for them six months since, had remained without a Sacrament; that they were still themselves bound by that unjust Sentence; that some of their Brethren were dead without receiving the Sacrament; that they had always strictly followed the Orders of a Monastic life according to their Rule, but had been deprived of their Sacraments; that they had passed the Festivals of the Nativity, Epiphany and Easter, and continued 9 months in that Estate, but Flavian had no Mercy on them; that they prayed the Synod to have some pity on their Misery, restore them to the Communion, and to judge him with rigour who had passed that unjust Sentence upon them. This Petition was Subscribed by 1 Priest, 10 Deacons, 3 Subdeacons, and 21 Ordinary Monks. They questioned them about their Faith, who answering, That they received the Faith of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, the Faith of S. Athanasius, S. Gregory, and S. Cyril, and that they agreed to the Confession of Faith that Eutyches had read, they declared them Absolved, and they received them to Communion.  
Lastly, They read the sixth Action of the [former] Council of Ephesus, that they might get a pretence to condemn Flavian, and when it was read, and approved by the Bishops, Dioscorus declared, That Flavian, and Eusebins' Bishop of Dorylaeum, having been the Cause of a Universal Scandal, endeavouring to add to the Faith of the Council of Nice, contrary to the Prohibition of the Council of Ephesus, aught to be Deposed. His Opinion was followed by Juvenal, Domnus, Thalassius, and the Bishops, who Signed the Condemnation of Flavian, and Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum. While Dioscorus gave his Judgement, Flavian said aloud, That he rejected him; and Hilary the Deacon said, That he opposed the Sentence of Dioscorus. Some of the Bishops contradicted it, others cast themselves at Dioscorus feet, begging of him to spare Flavian, but they were compelled by the threats of the Soldiers, whom they had admitted, to subscribe the Acts of the Council. The next day Dioscorus Deposed Ibas Bishop of Edessa, being accused of having spoken this Blasphemy, That he envied not Jesus Christ the Title of God, because he could himself become such, if he pleased. Nor did they spare Theodoret, although he was denied the Liberty of coming to defend himself. The reason of his Condemnation was, That he had written against S. Cyrils' Chapters, and had heretofore taken Nestorius' part. Labinianus Bishop of Paros, was also Deposed; and lastly, Tho. Domnus, Bishop of Antioch, had Signed the Condemnation of Flavian, and consented to all that Dioscorus desired, yet he was also condemned under a pretence, that he had heretofore written a Letter to Dioscorus against S. Cyril's 12 Chapters. Dioscorus made use of the opportunity of his absence from the Council, upon the account of some indisposition which took him suddenly. Flavian Appealed from this Judgement given against him by ●he Synod. The Reasons for his Appeal were these, That they would not hear his Defence; That Dioscorus had been an absolute Commander in it to order what he pleased; That all things passed by force and contrary to the Canons; That they had forced the Bishops by Threats to Subscribe; That they would not read S. Leo's Letter; That no regard was had to the refusal which he made against Dioscorus, nor to the opposition made by the Pope's Legates. This Appeal was presented to the Pope's Legates, but it was referred to a General and Free Council, and there to be Prosecuted. This appears by the Letters and Carriage of S. Leo, who in pursuit of this Appeal did not concern himself with the Judgement of Flavian's Cause before his own Tribunal, but importuned the Emperor to call a Council of the Eastern and Western Bishops, to make void the Judgement given at Ephesus against all sort of Justice and Equity. Dioscorus, and those of his Faction, being provoked by this Appeal, set upon Flavian with a design to banish him, and did it with so much violence, that he died a little time after. 'Tis probable that having received several blows on his Feet when he was apprehended, and afterward being hardly used in his Journey by those that carried him into Banishment, he died a little after he came there of the ill usage and blows he had received. Thus Liberatus and Evagrius relate his Death, and this shows, that it was not without Reason that Dioscorus was accused in the Council of Chalcedon of having been the Cause of Flaviau's Death, because though he did not himself smite him, yet it was by his order that he was so badly used. Anatolius was ordained in the place of Flavian, Maximus of Donnus, Nonnus of Ibas, and Athanasius of Sabanian. They ordained none in the place of Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus, and Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, for they were only thrust out of their Dioceses. The first desired help of the Pope. They did not spare the very Legates of S. Leo, who were the only persons who shown any Courage for the defence of the Innocent. They were apprehended, but Hilary found out a way of escape, and having passed through many dangers they got safe to Rome. During these transactions, S. Leo was much perplexed about the success of this Affair. He knew 
Ep. 35.  that Eutyches was very considerable at Court, and that Dioscorus and the Egyptian Bishops favoured him, and was afraid that they would not have that respect to his Letter and Legates that they ought. Flavian's silence increased his Grief, and he could not but let him know it. As soon as he understood by Hilarius the Deacon how things went, he called a Council, and wrote to the Emperor Theodosius in his own and Brethren's Name, That the Council, which he had caused to be held at Ephesus, had depraved the Purity of the Faith, and Discipline of the Church; That 
Ep. 39  all things were carried according to the Humour of Dioscorus, who had allowed the Bishops no Liberty, and who had made them pass a very unjust Sentence. He conjured his Majesty by the name of the Holy Trinity to leave all things in the same state that they were before the assembling of this Council, until he could call a Council of a greater number of Bishops from all parts of the World. He says, that all the Churches, and all the Western Bishops did implore him with Tears and Sighs, that since the Legates of the Holy See have opposed it, and Flavian presented them with an Appeal, his Majesty would call a General Council in Italy, which may either wholly remove or mitigate the Causes of the discontent; insomuch that there may remain no Scruples about the Faith, nor any Division contrary to Charity, by summoning the Bishops of the Eastern Provinces to this Council. He adds, that 'tis unavoidable after an Appeal put in, and also conformable to the Laws established in the Council of Nice. They are the Canons of the Council of Sardica that he means, and uses to show, that in the Case of an Appeal a Synod ought to be called to examine the Cause already judged; and not to show that he had a right himself to review 
Ep. 40. Ep. 41.  it. This Letter is dated Octob. 13.  
He repeats the same Complaints and Requests, in another of the 15th of the same Month. He also addresses himself to Pulcheria, to obtain what he desired by her means. In the mean time he comforts Flavian, telling him, That he will not omit any thing for the defence of the 
Ep. 42.  Common Cause, and exhorts him to suffer patiently. He congratulates the Bishop of Thessalonica, because he was not at the Council of Ephesus, and admonishes him to continue in Communion 
Ep. 43.  with Flavian. Lastly, He exhorts the People and Clergy, and Abbots at Constantinople to be still united with Flavian; and explains to them what they ought to believe concerning the Incarnation 
Ep. 44, 45, 46, 47.  of Jesus Christ, by rejecting the Sentiments of Eutyches. In fine, He brought it to pass that the Emperor Valentinian, and the Empresses Placidia and Eudoxia did join with the Western Bishops to entreat Theodosius to suffer a General Council to be held in Italy. We have the Letters they wrote to Theodosius, in which they much extol the Authority of the Holy See, and insist much upon Flavian's Appeal. But Theodosius gave this Answer to these Letters, That he had assembled 
Ep. 50.  a Council at Ephesus, where the thing had been examined and judged; That Flavian was found Guilty and therefore was condemned, and that 'twas needless, nay impossible to do 
Ep. 54, etc.  any thing more, Saint Leo also wrote about it to Pulcheria, and made her write to him by the Empress Placidia. He refused to communicate with Anatolius, and renewed his suit afresh in beginning of the next Year, that he would hold a Council in Italy; He sent Legates also into the East to demand it, but could not effect any things as long as Theodosius lived. Marcian, who 
Marcian  succeeded him in the year 450, entered upon the Throne with another Opinion, because 
* [Theodosius's Sister.]  Pulcheria, by whose Marriage he was advanced to that Dignity, had a great Veneration for the Bishops of Rome. So that the four Legates which S. Leo had sent, being arrived at Constantinople, a little after the Death of Theodosius, were very kindly received there. Anatolius foreseeing that it would not be for his advantage to continue in Communion with Dioscorus, and maintain his separation from S. Leo's, sought all means to join with the Latter, and to procure, that he should acknowledge him Lawfully ordained, although it was done by Dioscorus, and he had been put into the place of a Bishop unjustly, and violently deposed. He made use of his Interest with the Emperor and Empress to bring this about, and that he might himself engage S. Leo's favour, and persuade him of the Purity of his Faith, he called a Council of such Bishops as were then at Constantinople, and invited the Pope's Legates to be present at it. In it he caused S. Leo's Letter to 
Council of Constantinople. Act. Abundii apud. Bar. ad Anno 449. & Act. 4. Conc. Ch.  Flavian to be read, with the Testimonies of the Greek and Latin Fathers, and caused all the Bishops to sign it, pronounced Anathema against Nestorius and Eutyches, and condemned their Doctrine, sent the Letter of S. Leo to the Metropolitans, that they should sign it, and that they should cause all the Bishops of their Provinces to sign it. In this Synod they also decreed that the Bishops who were fallen into an Error by approving the Acts of the Council of Ephesus under Dioscorus, and had separated themselves from the Communion of the Church, should have Communion with no Church but their own, and be deprived of the Communion of other Bishops. The Pope's Legates proposed it to him to blot out the Names of Dioscorus and Juvenal out of the Diptychs.  
Anatolius having celebrated this Council sent Deputies to S. Leo, to assure him of the Purity of his Doctrine, and communicated to him what they had proposed in the Council. The Emperor Marcian, and the Empress Pulcheria, wrote to S. Leo, and she tells him, That they intended soon to celebrate a Council in the East, and desired him to send the Western Bishops to it. She adds that she had caused the Body of Flavian to be brought to Constantinople, where they Interred it honourably in the Apostles Church, which was the ordinary burying place of the Bishops of Constantinople, and had given those Bishops who were banished upon the Account of the Council of Ephesus, leave to return to their own Dioceses.  
Saint Leo thanked the Emperor and Empress for the Protection they had afforded to the Faith, 
Ep. 58, 59, 60.  he received Anatolius with Joy, acknowledged him for a Lawful Bishop, allowed him to receive those Bishops to the Communion of the Church, who being forced to give place to the Violence used in the Council of Ephesus, were sorry for what they had done, and confessed the Faith of the Church. As to Dioscorus, Juvenal; and Eustathius Bishop of Berytus, he bids Anatolius to consult with his Legates about it, and to do as they should judge Convenient, provided it be not prejudicial to the Memory of Flavian 〈◊〉 That as to himself he thought it Unjust to put the Name of his Persecutors among the number of the Bishops of the Church, so long as they remain in their Error, and it seemed reasonable to him either to punish them for their perfidiousness, or make them acknowledge their fault. Lastly, He recommends to him Julian of Coos, Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, and those of the Clergy, who have always been favourers of Flavian. He wrote particularly to Julian B. of Coos, that he ought not to receive those Bishops, who had assisted at the 
Ep. 61.  Council of Ephesus under Dioscorus, till they condemn what they have done, and that they should punish those who persist in it. These Letters are dated, April 13. 451.  
The Emperor Marcian and S. Leo were both of the same mind as to the calling of a Synod, but S. Leo desired, that it might meet in Italy; but the Emperor peremptorily resolved it should be in the East, Nevertheless he sent Lucentius a Bishop, and Basil a Priest, into the East, to endeavour to reconcile the Bishops. but he wrote at the same time, that he thought it more convenient 
Ep. 62, 63, 64, 65, 66.  to put off the Council a while upon the Account of the Wars. He commanded his Legates to act warily, and with the Concurrence of Anatolius, and to receive none to their Communion but such as profess the Doctrine of the Church distinctly and plainly. As to the Heads of the Party, he meddle not with their Cause, but in the mean while he forbids them to recite their Name at the Altar, nor receive them to Communion. He thanks the Emperor and Empress for restoring the Exiled Bishops, and honouring the Memory of Flavian, and prayed them to Depose Eutyches, and put an Orthodox Abbot into his Monastery. Lastly, He advises Julian Bishop of Coos. to join with his Legates in endeavouring to utterly extirpate the remainders of Heresy. Two Eastern Priests suspected of Heresy fled at the same time to Rome. The Pope being well assured 
Ep. 67.  of their Judgement, and having made them condemn the Errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, sent them back again Absolved, and recommended them to Anatolius.  
While S. Leo thought to restore the Affairs of the Church without a Council, Marcian appointed one at Nice Sept, 1. Saint Leo having received the News of it, sent Bonifacius a Priest to it, and gave order to Pascasimus Bishop of Lilybaeum to go thither also in his Name with the Legates he had sent, and Julian Bishop of Coos. He wrote about the calling of this Council to the Emperor 
Ep. 69, 70, 71.  Anatolius, and Julian Bishop of Coos.  
In these Letters he tells them that he was troubled, that they had appointed a Council, That he thought it better to defer it till some fit time; Yet he says, That he sends Pascasinus Bishop of Lilybaeum, and Boniface the Priest, that they may assist in his stead at the Council with Julian Bishop of Coos. He desires likewise, that the Emperor would grant the Presidence to Pascasimus.  
He also wrote a Letter to the Bishops of the Council, in which having excused himself, because he did not come to the Council by reason of the Custom, he tells them that he sent Pascasinus and Lucentius Bishops, and the Priests Boniface and Basil to assist in his place at the Council. He exhorts them to suppress the Deputies of those, who oppose the Faith of the Incarnation, which he hath explained in his Letter to Flavian, and to redress the grievances of the Church by restoring the Bishops condemned for the Faith, and by condemning Eutyches and his Followers, without mentioning what hath been done against Nestorius by the first Council of Ephesus. This 
Ep. 73.  Letter is dated June 27. There is also another of the same date addressed to the Emperor Marcian, in which he observes, That the Council ought not to innovate any thing, nor bring any question of Faith into Contest, but to keep themselves close to the Faith of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, and condemn the Errors of Nestorius and Eutyches. By another Letter dated 
Ep. 74.  July 19, he desires the same thing of him, and recommends his Legates to him.  
Lastly, He wrote to Pulcheria, that he had sent his Legates to the Council, although he wished 
Ep. 75.  that it had been held in Italy. He observes, That they ought to act in it with a great deal of Moderation, and not imitate the Violence used in the Council of Dioscorus. He adds, That he did so in receiving to Communion such, as having fallen through Cowardice had acknowledged their fault. He thought likewise, that they ought to pardon the Heads of the Party, but he would not have them received rashly, without giving evident signs of their sincere Repentance.  
The first of September, which was the day appointed for the beginning of the Council, being come, several Bishops came to Nice, where it was to sit. Having stayed there some days, and hearing nothing from the Emperor, they wrote to him to pray him to suffer the Council to begin; The Emperor returned them this Answer. That the Legates of the Holy See had thought it convenient, that he should be there in person, and that his affairs having not hitherto, nor yet permitting him to go to Ephesus, he desired them to come to Chalcedon, where they should hold the Council. This place was suspected by some, because it was to be feared, that Eutyches, who had a strong party in those quarters, would raise some Sedition. They discovered to the Emperor the ground of their Fear, but he assured them. That he would take care that they should have no disturbance, and exhorted them to come immediately. The Bishops having received this Letter came cheerfully to Chalcedon, where the Council met the first time Octob. 8. Anno. 451.  
This Council was held in the Great Church of S. Euphemia, the Emperor's Commissioned-Officers, and the Counsellors of State being present, who were to direct all their motions, and 
The Coun-of Chalcedon.  were set in the middle of the Council, near the Rails of the Altar. On the Lefthand were the Bishops Pascasinus and Lucentius, and the Priest Boniface the Pope's Legate, than Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, and after him Maximus Bishop of Antioch; Thalassius Bishop of Caesarea, Stephan Bishop of Ephesus, and all the Bishops of the Eastern Dioceses, except those of Palestine with the Bishops of the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, of which those that we have named, were Exarches, or Patriarches. Upon their Right-Hand were Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, Quintillus Bishop of Heraclea in Macedonia, who supplied the place of the Bishop of Thessalonica, Peter Bishop of Corinth, with the Egyptian Bishops Illyria and Palestine. The Holy Gospels were in the midst. The number of the Bishops is commonly reckoned 630. And indeed, S. Leo in his 77 Epistle to the French Bishops, saith, That the Synod consisted of 600 Bishops or thereabouts. Liberatus and Photius reckon 630, yet there are but 350, or thereabouts, named in the Acts of the Council, and 'tis very unlikely, that there should be above 600 Bishops assembled out of the Dioceses of the Greek Church. The Testimony of S. Leo doth not undoubtedly prove it, because the number of 600 in Latin is ordinarily taken for a considerable number. This might give some reason for the mistake, or there might be some confusion in the Figures. But however that be, 'tis certain that this Council was made up of a greater number of Bishops than any of the Precedent Councils.  
The first Meeting of the Council was on the 8th of October. The first thing that Pascasinus the Pope's Legate did, was to demand, that Dioscorus might not sit in the Council, saying, That 
Act. I.  they were ordered by S. Leo, Bishop of the Church of Rome, which is the Head of other Churches, to hinder him from sitting in the Council, and that if he did, they declared, That they would withdraw. We must observe, that they spoke in Latin, and an Interpreter explaied what they said to the Council. The Commissioners asked them, what they had to object against him. The Legates insisted upon it, that he was to give an Account of the Judgement he had given without Authority, and contrary to the will of the Holy See, that he was accused, and could not be a Judge. The Commissioners ordered him to come forth into the middle as a Person accused. Immediately his Accuser Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum appeared, and required that his Petition should be read. Saying with Tears in his Eyes, that he had been unjustly condemned as well as Flavian, whom Dioscorus had put to Death. The Sum of the Petition was this, That in the Council held a little while since at Ephesus, Dioscorus had attempted several things contrary to Justice, and the Faith, by upholding Eutyches, who was Accused and Condemned for Heresy, and by condemning the Orthodox Bishops; That he prayed the Council to Command him to answer to the Accusations, which he was ready to prove against him. Dioscorus made this Defence for himself, that Flavian had been condemned in a Council called by the Authority of the Emperor, and desired them to read the Acts. Eusebius agreed to it. Dioscorus changing his mind prayed the Council to Examine before all things else, such things as concerned the Faith. The Commissioners ordered, That he should answer the Accusations brought against him, and that the Acts of the Council should be read as he had required. Whereupon they read the Emperor Theodosius' Letter for the appointment of the Council of Ephesus, and the Acts of that Council, in which the Acts of the Council of Constantinople under Flavian were inserted. This was the Cause of several Interruptions in the Council.  
The first was about Theodoret, whom Theodosius had forbidden to come to the Council of Ephesus. The Commissioners demanded that he should be admitted, because S. Leo had acknowledged him for a Lawful Bishop, and the Emperor Martian had ordered him to be present at the Council. The Bishops of Egypt, Illyria, and Palestine opposed it. Hereupon several tumultuous Acclamations were made of each side. Lastly, The Judges ordered, that he should come in as an Accuser, and should stand in the middle, provided, that it were not prejudicial to the Rights of either Party. When he entered, the Acclamations of both sides were redoubled; Some cried out, That he was Deposed from his See, others accused him for being a Nestorian. The Eastern Bishops cried out against Dioscorus, and the Egyptians and they against the Eastern Bishops. This continued a long time, and the Synod had turned into a confused Rout, if the Commissioners had nor suppressed the Popular Cries by telling the Bishops, That it was unbecoming them to act thus, and then making them to go on in reading Theodosius' Letters, and the Acts of the Council of Ephesus. The reading of these Papers discovered, that Dioscorus would not suffer Saint Leo's Letter to be read in the Synod, although it was twice requested of him. They accused Dioscorus for having falsified the Acts, and made the Bishops to sign a Blank-Paper, and that by force, compassing them in with Soldiers, who threatened them. They said, that Eutyches had indeed owned that the Flesh of Jesus Christ did not come from Heaven, but that he would not say whence it was. They disputed some time about the Union, and distinction of the two Na-natures'. The Eastern Bishops confessed, that they had done ill in signing the Deposition of Flavian, they said Unanimously, That they had all offended, and therefore desired Pardon. They examined, why they would not suffer Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum to come into the Council of Ephesus. Whereupon Dioscorus complained, that they had admitted Theodoret into the Council of Chalcedon. When they read the Judgement of Dioscorus against Flavian, the Eastern Bishops all cried out, Anathema to Dioscorus, and disapproved the Condemnation of Flavian, and Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum. The Commissioners concluded, that since it appeared by the Acts which they had read, and by the Confession likewise of those who had the chief places in the Council of Ephesus, that Flavian and Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum had been unjustly Condemned, it was just, that not only Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, but also Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, Thalassius Bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius Bishop Ancyra, Eustathius Bishop of Berytus, and Basil Bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, who had presided in the Council of Ephesus with Authority, should bear the same Punishment, and be declared unworthy of their Episcopal Office, according to the Holy Canons. The Bishops of the East and Illyria, approved of this Sentence. The Judges then said, That the Bishops ought now to declare what their Faith is, and to be assured, that the Emperor followed the Faith of the Councils of Nice and Constantinople, the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, Hilary, and the two Letters of S. Cyril, read and confirmed in the first Council of Ephesus; and that S. Leo had written a Letter to Flavian against Eutyches, which contained an Exposition of the Catholic Faith.  
The Second Action in the Greek Copies at present is that which treats of the Faith. Evagrius 
Act. II.  and Facundus make it the Third, and put that which concerns the Deposition of Dioscorus in the Second place. Liberatus on the other hand follows the common order. The ancient MS in the Church of Paris agrees with Evagrius; but Rusticus the Deacon, who reviewed the ancient Translation of the Council of Chalcedon by several MSS. about the middle of the Fifth Age, assures us, that that in the Monastery of the Acaemetae Monks follows the Order of Liberatus. So that if we consider the Authorities of others it is hard to determine the Order of these two Acts, because there are on both sides testimonies equally Ancient and Credible. The Date, which might clear this difficulty, is not certain. The Act of the Condemnation of Dioscorus is dated the Third of the Ideses, that is to say, the 13th day of October. That wherein the Faith is treated of in the Greek, and most of the Latin MSS, is dated the Sixth of the Ideses, which is the 10th of October, but the MS of the Church of Paris says only, Sub die Idus Octobris, before the Ideses of October, without mentioning the Day, so that it may be the 14th. The Fourth Session, which sets down the date of the First, does not clear this any thing more, for in the Translation it is the Sixth of the Ideses of October, and in the Greek the First of the Ideses. In the first Act the Commissioners deferred the Question of Faith the first Day. The Act where the Faith was treated of speaks of that, wherein the Absolution of the Flavian was handled, as preceding it. It is said about the end, that five days after they will meet to treat of the Doctrine of S. Leo's Letter, which was done on the 17th, in the 4th Act.  
Lastly, The Bishops of Illyria at the conclusion of the Action, which is commonly thought to be the Second, desire, that Dioscorus might be brought into the Synod again, and restored to his Church. Dioscorum Synodo Dioscorum Ecclesiis. Now would they have done it, if his Deposition had been pronounced in the Council, and signed by themselves. These Reasons seem to render the Common Order to be most probable. But on the other side Dioscorus being cited before the Council in the Session wherein he was Deposed, answered twice, That in the first Session the Commissioners of the Emperor were present, and that they Summoned him to a Second Session, where they were not. It is then very hard to know the true order of these two Sessions.  
However that be, we will not remove the Act, wherein the Question concerning the Faith was debated, from the second place. The same Commissioners and Bishops who were present at the first Action, were also at this, and in the same order, except those who had been declared unworthy of the Priesthood in the first Action. The Commissioners having represented, that what concerned the Judgement of Flavian and Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, being judged in the former Session, they ought to take the subject of our Faith into Examination; because that was the principal matter for which the Council was Assembled; That the Emperor had no other Faith than that of the Council of Nice; all the Bishops declared that they had no other, and that they would not undertake to explain it, nor add any thing to it. Cecropius said, that to confute the Error of Eutyches S. Leo's Letter was sufficient. The Bishops said, That they would follow it, and Subscribe it. The Commissioners said, That it was necessary that the Patriarches should choose one or two of the Bishops of their Dioceses who were most Learned, that they might treat and agree concerning the Faith. All the Bishops said, That they would not endure any new Exposition of Faith in Writing, because they had a Canon that forbade it. Florentius Bishop of Sardis shown, That it was no easy thing to make an Exposition of Faith so quickly, and demanded time for it. Cecropius required that they should read the Nicene Creed, and Saint Leo's Letter. The Judges ordered it should be so, wherefore they read the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed. Saint Cyril's Second Letter to Nestorius, his Letter of Union to John Bishop of Antioch, S. Leo's Letter to Flavian, and the passages of the Fathers annexed to it. All the Bishops by their reiterated Acclamations approved the Creeds of Nice and Constantinople. The Bishops of Illyria and Constantinople scrupled some places in S. Leo's Letter, but to satisfy them they proved that there were the like in S. Cyril's Writings. This made them all consent, and all the Synod approved S. Leo's Letter. But since there were some Bishops who had some further Objections about it, they put off the Action five days longer, that they might make the point clearer; and they desired Anatolius to choose out some Bishops from among them, who had signed this Letter, who were most able to explain it to the rest. This Action was ended with Acclamations, in which the Eastern Bishop's desired pardon for them of their side, and the Banishment of Dioscorus. On the contrary the Illyrians demanded that he should be still continued in his Church, and have a place in the Synod.  
In the Third Action October 13. the Bishops being assembled without the Commissioners, Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum presented a New Petition against Dioscorus, accusing him to be of the 
Act. III.  same Opinion with Eutyches, to have condemned Flavian unjustly, for putting into the Acts of his Council such things as were never spoken, and for forcing the Bishops to sign a Blank Paper. Whereupon he besought the Council to declare all that was done in the Synod of Ephesus under Dioscorus, Null, and to pronounce an Anathema against Eutyches. He prayed the Council to Summon Dioscorus to appear before them. The Archdeacon Actius said, that he had been with Dioscorus and the other condemned Bishops; That Dioscorus had answered, that they were the Guards which had hindered him from coming to the Council. They sought for him abroad, and because they could not find him, they sent to cite him. He answered them that went, That he was under Guard, and they must ask them if they would let him go; That in their return they had met with the Master of the Offices, and returning again with him to bring Dioscorus, He answered them, That upon second Thoughts he had resolved not to go to the Synod, lest the Judges should be forced to examine again what they had resolved. They told him, That they did not call him to weaken what had been decreed, but only to invite him to the Council. Having refused to go they summoned him a Second time, but he replied, That he was Sick, and that he would not go to the Synod, unless the Commissioners were there. He demanded whether Juvenal, Thalassius, and Eustathius were also Summoned thither. They said, That it did not concern him that Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum had accused him only, and as to what he required, that the Commissioners should be present, that was needless, because it was a Matter purely Ecclesiastical, where the Commissioners or Laymen ought not to assist. Nevertheless he still refused to go. They resolved to cite him a Third time. In the mean time Aetius told the Council that there were at the Door some Clergymen and Laymen of Alexandria, who desired to be permitted to prefer their Complaints against Dioscorus. They received them, and read their Petitions.  
The first was Theodorus' a Deacon of Alexandria, who complained, that Dioscorus thrust him out of the Clergy without Cause, not bringing any Accusation, nor forming any Complaint against him. He accused him for being an Enemy to all S. Cyril's Relations, for having used them ill, for being of Origen's Opinions, for being guilty of Murder, Theft, making Disturbances and Debaucheries, for having impelled 10 Egyptian Bishops to sign an Excommunication against S. Leo, and offered to prove all these Facts.  
The second was Ischyrions, who also accused Dioscorus for having exercised several Cruelties, plundering Houses, rooting up Trees, forcing private Men from their Estates, for buying the Corn, which the Emperor sent to the Churches of Lybia to make bread for the Holy Sacrament, and to support the Poor and Strangers, for disposing certain moneys which 
* Peristeria a Noble Lady.  a Lady left to the Poor and Hospitals of Egypt, to scandalous Persons, for familiarly conversing with 
† But more particularly Pansophia, a scandalous Harlot.  Lewd Women. He added, that Dioscorus had thrust him out of the Clergy for no Cause, although he had done much service for the Church of Alexandria in S. Cyril's time, he was one of his Friends; and had caused the Monks to, burn his House; Lastly, That he had sent a Company of Churchmen to apprehend him, who had slain him, had he not fled from them; That he had seized on him in Alexandria, and shut him up in an Hospital, where he endeavoured also to destroy him.  
The third Petition was presented by Athanasius, S. Cyril's Nephew. He accused Dioscorus for deposed him and his Brother, for causing them to be hardly used at Constantinople by Chrysaphius, and to buy their Liberty of him very dearly: That they had been forced to borrow Money at Use, which had ruined them: That his Brother being dead, he was left alone overwhelmed with Debts: That Dioscorus to complete his ruin had seized upon an House at Alexandria, which was all he had, to make it a Church: That he had thrown him out of the Clergy, and forbidden any Person giving him relief: That he had despoiled him of all his Estate, and of what belonged to his Brother's Children, and had reduced them to Beggary.  
The fourth Petition was of a Layman called Sophronius, who accused Dioscorus not only for not executing the Orders, which the Emperor had directed to him against an Officer of Alexandria, who had carried away his Wife, but also of sending his Deacon to pillage his Estate, and forcing him to fly. The same Sophronius likewise declared, that he was ready to prove, that Dioscorus had uttered Blasphemies against the Trinity, and endeavoured to make himself Supreme over the Province of Egypt. Then they deputed certain Persons to summon him the third time to come and answer, as well to the Accusations of Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, as to other fresh Accusations. The Bishops, who summoned him, shown him among other things, that he was obliged to go and clear himself of the Accusations form against him, because the Misdemeanours of the Bishops turning to the general disgrace of the Clergy, he ought to free the Church from it, and if that which they laid to his Charge were false, he ought to justify himself, and convince the World of his Innocency. Dioscorus gave them no other answer than this, That he had nothing more to say, that was new.  
When they had certified the Council, that Dioscorus would not come to it, Pascasinus asked, What Punishment he had deserved? The Bishops said, That he had offended against the Canons. Then the Pope's Legates declared, That it was evident as well by the Examinations made in the first Assembly, as by what had already passed in this, that he had attempted several things contrary to the Order and Discipline of the Church: First, in that he had absolved the Priest Eutyches by his own Authority, who had been condemned by Flavian his Bishop: That the Holy See had pardoned the other Bishops, who had been forced to do the same, but since had submitted themselves to the Council, but that it ought not to deal so with Dioscorus, because he obstinately persisted in his fault: That he had committed no small Crime in not suffering S. Leo's Letter to be read in the Council of Ephesus: That this notwithstanding, they were ready to use him with the same Lenity as other Bishops, but since he continued in his Obstinacy, dared to Excommunicate S. Leo, and would not appear before the Synod, being summoned three times, although he was accused of very great Crimes, and had received Persons deposed and excommunicated into his Communion. For these Causes, says the Legates, Leo Archbishop of Old Rome, doth by us, and by the Synod, with the Authority of S. Peter, who is the Rock and Foundation of the Church, and the Ground of Faith, Depose him from his Episcopal Dignity, and declare him unworthy of the Priesthood. And let all the Council judge now, what ought to be done with Dioscorus according to the Orders of the Holy Canons. Anatolius, Maximus Bishop of Antioch, and all the other Bishops following Pascasinus' Sentence, gave one after another their Votes for the Deposition of Dioscorus, and confirmed them with the Seal. Then the Council sent to the Emperor an Account of their Proceed, in which they deliver the same Motives for the Condemnation of Dioscorus, which are mentioned in Pascasinus' Sentence. They also sent another Relation of them to Pulcheria the Empress. Then they certified Dioscorus of the Judgement pronounced against him; they published it by a private Writing to the Clergy of Alexandria, and by a public Edict to all the People of Chalcedon and Constantinople.  
The Commissioners were present at the fourth Session held Octob. 17. They began it with 
Act IU.  reading the Judgement pronounced by the Commissioners in the First Action; they also read that which was said in the Second, about deferring the Exposition of Faith. The Commissioners demanded of the Council, What they had decreed concerning the Faith? The Pope's Legates said, That they had no other Doctrine or Faith to deliver, than that, which was contained in the Creed of Nice and Constantinople, in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, and in S. Leo's Letter, which agreed exactly with the Doctrine of these Councils. All the Bishops declared that they believed the Doctrine of S. Leo's Letter to be conformable to the Faith of the Nicene Fathers, and also those of Constantinople and Ephesus. Some of those who were most scrupulous, declared that in their Judgement S. Leo's Legates had removed all Difficulties, in saying, That the Terms of S. Leo's Letter did not imply any Division in the Person of Jesus Christ. There was a good Bishop of the Province of Lycaonia, who thought good to speak thus; That his Country had always been free from Controversies, and had always remained in the Faith of the Fathers with simplicity; and that if any Persons did contradict S. Leo's Exposition of Faith, he should be very little concerned; but as to himself he believed as the Fathers of the Councils of Nice and Constantinople believed. When all the Bishops had given their Opinions particularly, they made several Acclamations in common for the Confirmation of what they had said, and desired that the 
* Juvenal of Jerusalem. Thalassius of Caesarea. Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra. Eustathius of Berytus. Basilius of Seleucia.  five Bishops who had been deposed by the Council, and deprived, should be restored, because they had signed as well as others, and were of the same Judgement. The Commissioners answered, That they had spoken to the Emperor for them, and that they ought to wait for his Answer; and that as to the rest, they should give an Account to God for the Deposition of Dioscorus, which they had done without the Concurrence of the Emperor, or his Commissioners, for the Restauration of the five Bishops whom they demanded, and of all which they had done. All the Bishops cried out several times, that Dioscorus had been justly Deposed.  
They waited some time for the Emperor's Answer; but at last he sent the Bishops of the Council word, That he left them to their own Liberty to do as they thought fit with the five Bishops deposed in their first Session, viz. Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Basil of Seleucia, and Eustathius of Berytus. The Council required, that they should be admitted, and the Commissioners ordered it so. After they were come in, they declared them Orthodox, and received them into their number. The Commissioners then informed the Council, that some Bishops of Egypt had presented a Petition to the Emperor the day before, in which they explained their Doctrine. They admitted them, and read their Petition, where it was contained, That they had no other Faith than that which they received from the beginning of the Church from the Evangelist S. Mark, and were taught by S. Peter the Martyr, and their Holy Fathers Athanasius, Theophilus, and S. Cyril; That they held the Faith of the Fathers of the Council of Nice, and that of S. Athanasius, and that they Anathematised all the Heresies of Arius, Eunomius Mani●…, and 〈◊〉, and of those, who affirm, That the Flesh of Jesus Christ came down from Heaven, or that he did not assume it in the Womb of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, as all other Men do. This Petition was signed by 30 Bishops of Egypt.  
The Bishops of the Council were offended, that they had not condemned Eutyches, not approved S. Leo's Letter. They demanded by several Acclamations, that they should pronounce an Anathema to Nestorius, and Subscribe S. Leo's Letter. They declared that they did condemn Eutyches, and approve S. Leo's Letter, but could not Subscribe any thing unless they had a Patriarch. They demonstrated in a very affecting way, that it was not Lawful for them to do any thing without him; that if they signed any thing, they should be torn in pieces in their own Country. The Bishops did not much regard these excuses, but cried out incessantly against them. But the Commissioners being more Moderate, declared, That since the impediment which kept the Egyptian Bishops from Subscribing, was not that they were of a different Judgement, but only a Custom establshed among them; by which they were forbidden to do any thing without the Consent and Order of their Patriarch; and that they desired to be born with no longer than till they had one. It was just and reasonable, that nothing should be done against them, till they had a Patriarch ordained, and therefore should remain at Constantinople till that time. Pascasimus consent ●ed to this Proposition, upon Condition, that they would give security not to go from Constantinople, till they had a Patriarch. The Commissioners ordered, That they should give security for it, or at least, should engage themselves to it by an Oath.  
Then the Monks of Egypt were brought in, who had presented a Petition to the Emperor, to beg of him, that they might not be compelled to sign any thing. They met with a bad Reception, and some body espying among them Bursumas, they cried out, that it was he that slew Flavian, that it was he that commanded he should be put to Death. They presented another Petition to the Synod, in which they required, that Dioscorus, and the Bishops of his party should come to the Synod; That they would annul all things that had been done against him, and declared, That if they did not do it, they would separate themselves from the Bishops of the Council. When this Petition was read, the Archdeacon Aëtius read the 5th Canon of the Council of Antioch against such Monks as did cause any Schism. Then they Questioned them about their Faith. They protested, That they held the Faith of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, but would not Anathematise Eutyches.  
Other Monks presented a Petition against the former, and declared, That they condemned them, desiring leave to punish them who would not Subscribe. They then asked Carosus and Doroth●us, who were the heads of those obstinate Monks, but they boldly affirmed, That they would neither sign S. Leo's Letter, nor condemn Eutyches. They gave them two or three days to consider what they would do.  
After this Action there was a Private Session, Octob. 20. against Carosus and Dorothaeus, to whom they had given two or three days time; and another of the same day about a difference that happened between Eustathius Bishop of Berytus, and Photius Bishop of Tyre. Neither Evagrius, nor Liberatus make mention of these two Sessions, nor do we meet with them in the Old Translations of the Council, not that they are not real, for there is mention made of the Judgement given by the Council about the affair of Photius in the 10th Action; but because they concerned private matters of small Consequence, or such as had no relation to the Council, for that which respects Carosus, Dorothaeus, and Barsumas, and the other Monks, contains nothing remarkable. They had time given them only till Nou. 15. to consult whether they would submit themselves to the Council, which time being passed, if they would not do it, they declare them deprived of their places, and Excommunicated.  
The Action concerning the difference between Photius Bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius of Berytus is more considerable, but it had no relation to the business for which the Council was called; and for that reason it is, that Evagrius and Liberatus have not spoken of it, and that it is not described in several Copies of the Council. The subject of this Action was this. The Emperor had made the City of Berytus into a Metropolis, this gave Eustathius an Occasion to assume the title of a Metropolitan likewise, and to seize upon the Cities of the Province, which before were subject to the Metropolis of Tyre. He also made Photius Bishop of Tyre consent to this encroachment, and Subscribe an Instrument, although against his will. Photius desired to be released from this Obligation, got the Emperor's Letter for that purpose, and presented his Petition to the Council, in which he prayed, that what he had done might not be prejudicial to him, but setting it aside, be established in his Ancient Rights and Privileges. Eustathius asked Photius, whether he would have this business treated on according to the Formalities of the Emperor's Council, or according to the Laws of the Church. Photius answered, That he addressed himself to the Emperor to obtain the Ancient Rights, which the Church of Tyre hath enjoyed, yet he did not reject the Laws of the Church. The Commissioners ordered, That they should determine this business by the Canons, and the Bishops were of the same Opinion. Photius accused Eustathius for having taken 
* Biblon, Botrys, Tripoli, Orthosias, Arias, Antarad●n.  six Cities from him, and prayed them, that they would restore them to him. Eustathius made this Defence, that it had been so decreed by a Synod held at Constantinople, whose Constitution he had brought them signed by Anatolius, and Maximus Bishop of Antioch. He added, That he had never requested the Emperor to make his City a Metropolis; but it was the Custom for the Emperor to make Metropolis', that it was not he that divided the Provinces, but the Council; and that since the Letter of S. Leo being lately come to Constantinople, a Synod of Bishops assembled in that City had sent it to other Bishops that they might sign it; there was the same reason for the Letter, which had put him in possession of the rights of his Metropolis. Photius complained, That while he was celebrating Ordinations in his Province according to the Ancient Custom they had sent him a Mandate in which they Excommunicated him; so that he remained Excommunicated for 126 Days. Anatolius, whom this Charge concerned, said, That Photius having done things contrary to the Usage and Order of the Church had been Excommunicated by a Synod at Constantinople. Hereupon the Commissioners demanded if it were allowable for Anatolius to send a Writ of Excommunication to Photius, and deprive him of his Suffragans; and lastly, Whether they ought to give the Assembly of Bishops met at Constantinople the Name of a Synod. On this last head one of the Bishops said, with the consent of all, That the Name of a Synod might be attributed to an Assembly of that Nature, and that those who were aggrieved, might apply themselves to it to obtain Justice. But whereas it was objected, that Photius was not present, all the Bishops were of that Opinion, that they could not condemn a Person absent. An●tolius also made a very good Defence for himself upon the first head, but could not justify himself as to the second, and a Bishop reproved him for acting contrary to the Laws of the Roman Empire by condemning the Absent▪ Photius desired them to maintain the Ancient Laws of the Church. All the Bishops answered, That his Request was reasonable, and that the Canon ought to remain in full force. They read the fourth Canon of the Council of Nice concerning the power of a Metropolitan, to ordain Bishops by their Brethren of the same Province. The Commissioners demanded, whether the Bishops of the Province had assisted at the Ordinations of Eustatbius. He answered, That since he had enjoyed the right of a Metropolitan, he had always called the Bishops to all the Ordinations that he had made. The Commissioners asked, if according to the Canons there could be two Metropolitans who had right to ordain in one Province. The Council answered, That there ought to be but one according to the Canons of the Council of Nice. Then the Commissioners adjudged the Right to Photius in all the Province of Phoenicia Prima, and forbade Eustathius to extend the Pragmatick-Sanction of Emperors to it. The Council approved this determination; the main difficulty was concerning the Bishops Ordained by both of them. Whereupon the Council judged, that those whom Photius had Ordained, should continue Bishop, although Eustathius had ranked them among the Priests. All the Bishops were of his Opinion. Lastly, 
* Bishop of Sebastopolis.  Cecropius put the Council in mind, that to prevent such complaints and troubles for the future, they should decree, That the Letters obtained of the Emperor in what Province soever it be, should not be prejudicial to the Canons, or Ancient Discipline. The Synod, and the Commissioners judged that it ought to be so.  
The next Meeting, which is counted the Fifth, was held Octob. 22. The Commissioners caused 
Act. V.  the Confession of Faith, which was composed the day before to be read; the greatest part of the Bishops approved of it, but the Pope's Legates, and some of the Bishops of the East opposed it. The former did it so Zealously, that they desired that they might return home if they would not keep themselves wholly to S. Leo's Letter. This raised several Acclamations among them, who would have it received. The Commissioners were in some doubts concerning it, because Dioscorus had condemned Flavian, because he said, That there were two Natures in Jesus Christ, and this definition did not distinctly say so, but only that the Union was made of two Natures. Anotalius said, that Dioscorus was not condemned for any point of Faith; but because he had Excommunicated S. Leo, and would not come to the Synod. The Legates of the Holy See persisted in their Opposition to this Novel definition of Faith▪ saying, That it was needless, and was defective in several things, but others maintained strongly, that it was Necessary and Perfect, and the Commissioners said, That they ought to give the Emperor an Account, and wait for his Orders about it. He then ordered, that they should choose six Bishops out of the Bishopric of Asia, three out of Pontus, three out of Asia, three out of Thracia, and as many out of Illyria, that they being assembled in the Chapel of the Church of S. Euphemia, may compose a Formula or Confession of Faith, or that every one should declare his Doctrine by his Metropolitan, and added, That if the Bishops would satisfy him about it, he would make them hold a Council in the West. When this Order was come, the Bishops who desired that the definition of Faith which had been read should be approved, made many Acclamations. The Commissioners said, That it seemed necessary to add to it according to the Definition of S. Leo, that there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, united without Change, Confusion, or Separation.  
Having received these Preparatives, the Bishops, chosen to compose a Confession of Faith, went into the Chapel, and having finished it brought it to the Council. It contained an Approbation of the Creed of Nice and Constantinople, of S. Cyril's Synodical Letters to Nestorius and the Eastern Bishops, and S. Leo's Letter. After which they add, That following these Writings of the Holy Fathers, they did believe in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, perfect God and perfect Man, Consubstantial with God as to his Divinity, and with Man according to his Humanity, in whom there are two Natures united without Change, Division, or Separation, so that the Properties of the two Natures do subsist in, and agree to One and the same Person, who is not divided into two, but is One Jesus Christ as it is said in the Nicene Creed. This Confession of Faith concludes with a Declaration, That those Persons are Deposed and Accursed, who 〈◊〉 da●e ●o 〈◊〉▪ or propose any other Creed, than that of this Council. This Confessio●● of 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 approved by all the World.  
〈◊〉. ●5. The Empe●●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came 〈◊〉 Person to the Council. He told the Bishops that his in●ent i● calling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preserve the Faith in its purity, and to condemn Error; That he came to this Sy●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 show his Authority, but only to provi●e for their Peace, according to the 〈◊〉 o● 〈◊〉▪ That he had no other design but to procure a firm Union among all 〈◊〉 Subjects in the 〈◊〉 ●aith, and that those disturbances which have been raised some 
Act VI.  years ●●nce by the Cove●… and Passion of several Persons▪ should be appeased wholly by this Council. Af●er sever●● Applauses given him, Actius read th● Confession of Faith, which had been already approved and ●●●●ed by all the Bishop●▪ which appeared more numerous in this Session than any other. Several Metropolitans signed it in their own and in the Name of the Bishops of their Province, whose Names they set down, and that's the reason that the number of the Bishops of the Council of Ch●lced●● amounts to so many; although, if we count the number of Bishops named in this place, of whom above One hundred were absent, it comes to no●more than 470. Then the Bishops began some loud Acclamations again, but the Emperor p●t 〈◊〉 stop to them by wishing good Success to their Assembly, and declaring, That whosoever shall celebrated any public Assemblies about Religion, etc. stir up any troubles by his Disputes, shall be thrust out ●f the Imperial City, if he be a Layman; and Deposed, if he be a Clergyman.  
The Matter of Faith being determined in this manner, he required the Synod to approve some Regulations which he had made, and which he thought more for the honour of the Synod to confirm by the Authority of the Bishops, than to make them himself by a Law.  
The first was this, That although they were to be had in great esteem, who live a Monastic Life, yet because some persons, under a pretence of embracing Monkery, disturb the Church and the Public Peace, it shall be forbidden any Church to build a Monastery in any City, without the permission of the Bishop, and the 〈◊〉 of the L●nds on which it is built. That the Monks should be subject to their Bishop▪ and content themselves with Fasting and Prayer, without concerning themselves either with Civil or Ecclesiastical Affairs, unless they are called to it by the Bishop of the City. Lastly, That Monks should not be allowed to receive Slaves into their Monasteries, nor any Persons obliged to the Service of another, without the consent of those to whom they belong.  

* This Regulation is wanting in Baronius, and Longus.  The second was to forbid the Clergy to hold farms, or be Managers of Civil Affairs, yet they were not prohibited to take care of the Revenue of the Church, if their Bishop ordered them to do it.  
The third was, That it should not be allowed a Clergyman of one Church to leave it, and officiate in another; but e●ery one shall be obliged to continue in the Church, to which he was at first appointed. And if any Bishop hereafter shall receive the Clerk of another Bishop, he shall be Excommunicated with the Clerk he hath received. All the Bishops approved of these Constitutions, and gave their Blessing to the Emperor.  
Lastly, The Emperor said, Th●t in respect to S. Euphemia and the Council, he did bestow upon the City of Chalcedon the title of a Metropolis, nevertheless not encroaching upon the rights of the City of Nicomedia. The Bishops having approved it, requested, That they might have leave to departed home; but the Emperor desired them to stay three or four Days longer to complete Regulations. Evagrius says, That in the following Session they made other Canons; and indeed, there are some MSS, of Ancient Versions, wherein there are some Canons made after the Sixth Session. But Liberatus places the Canons in the Fifth Session, as they were in the Greek Copies. The MS. of the Church▪ of Paris, wherein there are some Canons after the Sixth Session may well be thought to have been disordered, and the Canons put out of the Natural place▪ for we read at the end of the 14th Action. Explicit Actio XIV. The 14th Action is ended. Incipit XVI. The 16th beginneth. An evident proof that one Action is omitted, which can be no other than the 15th.  
The Contest between Maximus Bishop of Antioch, and Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, is certainly the first which was discussed Octob. 26. It continued not long, but was determined by the 
Act VII.  Council with the Consent of both parties. They left both the Phaenicia's and Arabia to the Bishop of Antioch, and the three Palestines to the Bishop of Jerusalem.  
The same Day, but at another Session, they finally determined the cause of Theodoret, as we have already said in the life of that Author. 
Act VIII   
In another Session on the same Day, they entered upon the business of Ibas, who had been condemned 
Act IX.  in the Council of Ephesus under Dioscorus. He pleaded, that he was Innocent; and as a proof of it, he alleged the Judgement given by Photius Bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius Bishop of Berytus, who were put in Commission by the Emperor to judge of his Cause. They read the Judgement of those Bishops, by which he was proved to be of Orthodox Sentiments; and to be reconciled with his Accusers by those Bishops; to have publicly Anathematised Nestorius to satisfy those, who had taken Offence at some of his Discourses; and also promised to forget what had passed, and not to be severe against those who had accused him of Managing the Revenues of the Church by Stewards, according to the Custom of the Church of Antioch.  
The next day they went on in the same business; They read the Acts of the Synod held at Berytus, in which he was accused of several Crimes, viz. Theft, Simony, and Bribery, and that he did affirm, that he envied not Jesus Christ the Name of God, because he could become one. But his Accusers not being able to produce any Witnesses, nor any proof to convict him of these things, they wrangled some time about his reproving a Clergyman for affirming, That our Life is dead. But he cleared himself by saying to him, that he spoke it, as if he understood by our Life the Godhead; that it was not true, that the Life is dead, but if he understood the enlivened Flesh of Jesus Christ, it was true. They accused him also of speaking against S. Cyril; and having cursed him, he answered, That before he was united with the Eastern Bishops, he had rejected his Chapters, and had condemned him, in which he was not more blame-worthy than the rest of the Eastern Bishops: But since the Union he had communicated with him, and had never condemned him. They produced his Letter to Maris the Persian, which proved nothing more. In it he condemned S. Cyril's Chapters, and praiseth the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, but he approved of the Peace and Union made with S. Cyril after he had explained himself. On his behalf he caused a Letter from the Clergy of Edessa to be read, attesting, that they had never heard him speak any thing like that which they accused him of. When they had read these Acts, they would have had that which was done against Ibas in the Council of Ephesus under Dioscorus read, but the Legates said, that it was needless to read any thing of this Council; that the Bishop of Rome had declared all that was done in it void, except the Ordination of Maximus Bishop of Antioch, whom S. Leo had received to his Communion; that they ought to Petition the Emperor to make a Law, forbidding any further mention of this Council. The principal of the Bishops were of the same Opinion, and all the other consented by their Acclamations. Then they returned to the business of Ibas, and he was declared Orthodox upon the Account of his Letter, and the Acts which had been read: But because there had been another Bishop Ordained in his Place, it was left to Maximus his Metropolitan to do as he thought sit. His Judgement was, that Nonnus should hold the Title of Bishop, till he should examine his Ordination by the Bishops of his Diocese. The Commissioners approved the Judgement of the Synod.  
At the end of this Session is put a private Action concerning Domnus Patriarch of Antioch, who 
Act X.  had been deposed by Dioscorus. 'Tis but a short Relation, and extant in Latin only, which was found by Rusticus in a Manuscript of Patricius Julianus. F. Quesnell thinks it a Forgery. M. Baluzius on the contrary maintains, that it is Genuine. Before we examine their Reasons; we will speak of the Subject of it. It bears date Nou. 26. In it Maximus Petitions, That they would have some pity upon Domnus, who was not long since Bishop of Antioch, and grant him a certain Stipend out of the Revenues of his Church. The Pope's Legates answered, That S. Leo having confirmed the Ordination of Maximus, they thought it sufficient to do for Domnus, to leave it to Maximus to allow him a competent Maintenance out of the Revenues of his Church; that he ought to content himself for the future with such a Competency, and to be quiet. Anatolius, Juvenal, and the other Bishops commended Maximus for his Kindness, and the Commissioners concluded with the Bishops, that Domnus should be allowed something out of the Revenues of the Church of Antioch; but they left it wholly to the Discretion and Bounty of Maximus to give him what he pleased.  
But for the better understanding of this part of the History, we must know, that Domnus was taken out of a Monastery by his Uncle John Bishop of Antioch; and after he had been some time with him, he succeeded him. The Author of the Life of S. Euthemius saith, That this Saint had foretold a long time before what should befall him, that he should leave his Monastery, that he should succeed his Uncle, but that he should be deprived through the Tribulation of wicked Men, who would make use of his Simplicity and Ignorance to seduce him. Whether this Prediction were true, or not, it is certain, that all this befell him, for he succeeded his Uncle, and afterward was deposed by Dioscorus, not being ware of his Designs. The Author of the Life of Euthemius saith, That he returned to his Monastery, being very much troubled that he ever went from it; and did ever bewail it in all the rest of his Life. It is indubitable that he never recovered his See, and that the Ordination of Maximus, who was Ordained in his place, was held good. We shown in the foregoing Action, that it was the only thing that the Council approved, because they said that S. Leo had acknowledged him for a Bishop. But why was Domnus, of all the Bishops who were condemned by the false Council of Ephesus, the only one excepted? Why did they approve of Maximus' Ordination? How could it hold good, while Domnus was alive? What Reason could they have to confirm the Condemnation of Domnus? He indeed condemned Flavian, but several others did it as well as he. Two things only can be alleged in Answer to these Objections: viz. Either that he was dead when the Council of Chalcedon was held, or that he renounced his Bishopric, and voluntarily resigned his place to Maximus, preferring a retirement and solitary Life before the Troubles of the World, and the Episcopal Charge, as the Author of the Life of Euthemius writes.  
F. Quesnel affirms, That he was dead, when the Council of Chalcedon was held; and consequently maintains, that this Action which we have related is forged. The Arguments which he uses are these:  
1. It is not where extant in Greek, and the Latin Version hath been found by Rusticus only in the MS. of the Lady Juliana: It is not to be met with in any of the MSS. in the Monastery of the Acaemetae, nor in any others, which he had reviewed. It is not in the MS. of Probus, nor of the Queen of Sueden, nor that at Paris.  
2. No Ancient Author hath made mention of it, though they had occasion to speak of it. It seems a good conclusion from the silence of Evagrius, that there was no Copy of this Action at Antioch; and because Liberatus counts but 16 Sessions of this Council, that it was neither in afric, Rome, or Alexandria, from whence he took the Latin Version of the Council of Chalcedon; and and lastly, from the Confession of Rusticus, who citys only the MS. of the Lady of Juliana, although he had seen the MSS. of Rome, Chalcedon, Alexandria and Constantinople. So that all the proof of this Action depends upon the Authority of one MS. only, of which we know nothing but by the report of Rusticus, who being engaged among the party of those, who could not approve the Condemnation of the three Chapters, was obliged to make it appear, that Domnus was not condemned after his Death, but in his Life-time.  
3. This pretended Action hath no fixed place; Rusticus puts it after the seventh Action, but it bears date with the 10th, after which it is now usually placed.  
4. Justinian, and the fifth Council assure us, that the Council of Chalcedon condemned Domnus after his Death for having written against S. Cyril's Chapters. This Testimony seems positive. F. Quesnel also proves, that Domnus was dead before the Council of Chalcedon, because S. Leo speaks not of him, and because in the 14th Action Athanasius of Paros speaks of him as dead, saying, The Bishop of Antioch that then was, was his Enemy. And in the Edict of Theodosius, it is said, That he was Bishop of Antioch. If he had been alive, why did he not come to the Council? Why did not his Friends speak for him? Why did they not join him with the other Bishops who were deposed for signing the Deposition of Flavian, but restored by this Council? M. Baluzius also furnishes F. Quesnel with a full Testimony from Eutychus, who says that Domnus died the next Year after the Council of Ephesus.  
5. The Style of this Piece discovers the Imposture, which is full of Soloecisms, and Barbarous Words. In it the Bishop of Rome is called plain Pope, without any addition of Honour or Respect.  
6. It is much easier to justify the Action of S. Leo, and the Council of Chalcedon, in approving the Ordination of Maximus, by supposing that Domnus was dead, than alive; for in this last case, it seems unjust to maintain an Intrusion against a lawful Bishop. F. Quesnel alleges several other Reasons in a Dissertation made on purpose upon this Subject, but these are the principal, and to me the strongest.  
M. Baluzius answers to these Objections, That there are several genuine Pieces, of which we have only Translations, and that the MS. of the Lady Juliana is of very great Authority, since Rusticus assures us, that it was very ancient in his time. That Rusticus cannot be justly charged with Falsehood, nor Ignorance; that 'tis no wonder that the Action concerning Domnus hath no fixed place, since the same hath happened to the Action about Photius and Eustathius; that the testimony of Justinian and the fifth Council is of no worth, because they have alleged several false things, and there is nothing in the Acts of the Council against Domnus. That the silence of Evagrius and Liberatus prove no more, than that this Action was not found in the Copies which they used. That it is no wonder that Domnus was not restored, nor that no Man required that he should, since he desired it not, but preferred retirement in his Monastery before an Episcopal Charge. That when speaking of Domnus, it is said, that he was a Bishop, it is not meant that he was dead, but only that he was not then, what he had once been, a Bishop. That it ought not to seem strange that the Style of this Translation is Barbarous, since the like Barbarisms are met with in other Versions, and the plain Name of Pope for the Bishop of Rome is found in some places of the Council of Chalcedon. But the strongest Argument made use of by M. Baluzius, to prove that this Action is genuine, besides the Authority of the Lady Juliana's MS. is, that in the 10th Action Steven Bishop of Ephesus says, after Paschasinus and Anatolius, that the Ordination of Maximus was approved by S. Leo, and the Synod. It seems that this relates to the Action concerning Domnus. But this seems something impertinent. 'Tis sufficient, that S. Leo and the Council did acknowledge Maximus for a lawful Bishop, to ground this Assertion upon. It is not necessary that they should speak of Domnus. These are the Reasons of the two most able Critics of our time about the Action of Domnus. Let every one follow which of these Opinions seems most probable to him.  
The 11th and 12th Action are about one Business, though upon two several Days. In them the Council examined the difference between Steven and Bassianus, who both of them pretended 
Act XI. and XII.  to be Bishops of Ephesus. First, they read the Petition of Bassianus addressed to the Emperor, in which he represents it to him, how ill he had been used, that he was taken from his Church by force, plundered of his Estate, and many of his People slain by the virtue of the blows. He prayed the Emperor to allow him to go to the Council, and secure him against any Violence. In the Council Bassianus declared, that Steven had been the Ringleader of this unjust force. Steven being summoned to answer to this Accusation, objected to Bassianus, that he had not been Ordained at Ephesus, but that he had intruded into the vacant Church by the help of a seditious Troop; that being afterward thrust out, he himself was Ordained by four Bishops of Asia, with the consent of the Clergy and People of Ephesus; that he had been 50 Years a Clergyman of that Church. Bassianus affirmed, that he had been Canonically Ordained; that when he was but a Youth, he had founded an Hospital of 70 Beds for sick Men; that Memnon Bishop of Ephesus bearing him a Grudge, had Ordained him Bishop of Evasa, although he was not willing to accept it, and to force him to it, he had so cruelly used him before the Altar for three hours together, that the Altar and the Holy Gospels were covered with Blood; that after this he remained at Ephesus, and would not go to the Church, of which he had been Ordained Bishop, nor did he ever see it; that Memnon being dead, Basilius was Ordained in his place in a Council of the Province, who being informed that Bassian had been made Bishop of Evasa by force, sent another Bishop thither, to whom he granted Communion, and the Title of Bishop; that after the Death of Basilius, the People, Clergy and Bishops, of whom Olympius, now present at the Council, was one, had placed him in the See of Ephesus; that the Emperor had confirmed his Ordination; that when he was at Constantinople, he had communicated with Proclus, who sent him a Synodical Letter; that he had enjoyed his Bishopric peaceably four Years, had Ordained 10 Bishops, and many Clerks; that one Day after the Celebration of the Holy Sacrament, they seized upon him, and pulling off his Episcopal Vestments, put them upon Steven. Steven retorted, that Bassian had been deprived by a Synod with the consent of S. Leo, Flavian, and the Patriarches of Alexandria and Antioch; that the Emperor had sent the Silentiary Eustathius to be informed of the Wrongs, which he was accused to have done to the Poor; that he never was Ordained Bishop of Ephesus; and if he were four Years in possession of it, 'twas as an Usurper, not as a lawful Bishop. Bassian replied, That he had been duly Ordained Bishop of the Church of Evasa, but had never been there. He desired them to take Cognizance of the Violence, Steven on his part desired them to read the Canons, which forbidden one Bishop Ordained for any certain Church to enter upon another. Leontius read the 16 and 17 Canons of the Council of Antioch, which were the 95 and 96 in the Book they then used. They then prayed Olympius to tell them how things had passed. He then said, That after the Death of Basil, being entreated by the Clergy to come to Ephesus to Ordain a Bishop, he went thither supposing to meet some other Bishops there; that after he had waited three Days, he said to the Clergy, who were come to meet him, that he could do nothing alone; that the Canons of the Church did not permit him to Ordain a Bishop, but especially of so great a Metropolis; that as he spoke this, there came a throng of People, which took him up, and carried both him and Bassian to the Church, where he enthroned him. They then demanded of the Clergy, Whether Proclus had received Bassianus? Theophilus, a Priest of the Church, answered, That he had owned him, communicated with him, gave him a Synodical Letter, and put his Name in the Diptychs. They asked Steven, How Bassian had been put out of the Bishopric of Ephesus? He answered, That the Bishop of Alexandria had made inquiry into it by the Emperor's Order; that S. Leo had declared by his Letter, that he ought not to be a Bishop; that afterward the Silentiary came to examine his Management, and had condemned him; that it was not Steven that had solicited him to it; that they had made him a Bishop, when he had no thoughts of it; and that, lastly, it was a matter concluded upon. Bassian complained of his force used against him, he said, That Steven came to communicate with him, when he seized upon him, and then imprisoned him three Months; that Steven was Ordained by the same Bishops that Ordained him. Then they heard the Clergy of Ephesus, who testified, that they had used Violence to Bassian. The Bishops at first determined in his Favour, but the Commissioners said, that they thought it most just that neither of them should be Bishop of Ephesus. Bassian, because he had got into possession by force, and without observing the Rules prescribed by the Canons, Steven, because he was Ordained by a Club, and by unlawful ways. The Bishops agreed to this Sentence, and confirmed it the next Day, and ordered a third Person to be Ordained Bishop of Ephesus. The Commissioners concluded the Matter so, yet allowing Bassian and Steven two hundred Nobles apiece, to be paid them out of the Revenues of the Church for a Pension towards their Maintenance. Bassian desired that they would restore what had been taken from him. The Commissioners replied, That if any thing had been taken from him, it should be restored when he should make a sufficient proof of it in Justice. These two Actions, according to Evagrius, and the ancient Version, make but one. Liberatus distinguishes them, but he confounds the second of them with the following Action.  
This was also upon Octob. 30. The Bishop of Nicomedia presented a Petition against Anastasius 
Act XIII.  Bishop of Nice, in which he accused him of disturbing the Province of Bythinia by changing the ordinary form, and invading the Churches belonging to his Jurisdiction. Anastasius on the other side affirmed, that the Bishop of Nicomedia had taken away some Churches that did of right belong unto him, and was in possession of them. To prove this he alleged, that Julian had made the City of Nice a Metropolis, that ever since the Church of Basinople, about which the main Controversy was, had been under the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Nice; that S. John chrysostom had written to the Bishop of Nice to come to Basinople, to regulate that Church, as being subject to his Authority; that he could prove, that the Bishops of Basinople have been Ordained usually at Nice. Eunomius maintained the contrary. They read the fourth Canon of the Council of Nice, which forbids Bishops to Ordain without their Metropolitan. Anastasius Bishop of Nice contended, that he did enjoy that right; and to prove it, he produced the Letters Patents of the Emperors Valentinian and Valens, which confirmed the right of a Metropolis to the City of Nice, upon condition, that it should be subject to the Judge of Bythinia, and without any prejudice to the Rights of other Cities. Eunomius read others of the same Emperors, which signified, that the Honour and Title of Metropolis granted to Nice should do no injury to the Rights of others. The Commissioners judged, that the Emperor's Letters importing that the Title of Metropolis granted to the City of Nice, should not hurt the Right of other Cities, and chief of the City of Nicomedia, they ought to observe the Decree of the Council of Nice, which forbids, that there should be more than one Metropolitan in one Province. The Bishops were of the same Opinion, and declared, that the Ordinations of the Province of Bythinia ought to belong to the Bishop of Nicomedia. Aetius the Archdeacon of Constantinople moved it, that the Contest between the Bishops of Nicomedia and Nice ought not to prejudice the Rights of his Patriarch, who ought to Ordain at Basinople, or at least that no Ordination should be celebrated there without his permission. The Bishops made no other answer but this, that the Canons ought to be observed. The Commissioners finally determined, that the Bishop of Nicomedia should have Authority over all the Churches of Bythinia, and that the Bishop of Nice should only have the Title of Metropolitan, and should be subject to the Bishop of Nicomedia; and as to the Rights of the Church of Constantinople, they would speak of that in its place.  
In the following Session, which was held Octob. ult. they read the Petition of Bishop Sabinian, 
Act XIV  relating, that he had been Ordained Bishop of Paros by the Metropolitan, and Bishops of the Province in the room of Athanasius, who was deprived, because he being accused of great Crimes, and summoned to Judgement, he dare not appear; that nevertheless the Council of Ephesus under Dioscorus had sent for Athanasius, who challenged his Bishopric. Athanasius made his Defence, saying, that a good while since his Cause had been examined by S. Cyril and Proclus, who wrote in his behalf to Domnus, and had a promise from him, that he would satisfy them, but after S. Cyril's death he altered his mind, and had summoned him to Judgement; that he answered him, that if he would keep to S. Cyril's and Proclus' Letters he would appear, otherwise he would not obey his Summons. He requested that Proclus' and S. Cyril's Letters might be read, which shown, that Athanasius complained of what he had suffered from his Clergy, who had forced him from his Bishopric; that they had presumed to turn out, or make Stewards according to their Humour, to put their Bishops Name out of the Diptychs, and make many other insufferable attempts; that Domnus ought to hinder this disorder, or if that City were too far distant from Antioch, to name Commissioners about the Places to look into it, because the Metropolitan was suspected by him. Domnus had already appointed for one Commissioner Panolbius Bishop of Hierapolis, a Friend of Athanasius', but he would not appear before him, on the other side he refused by a Writing delivered to him to forsake his Bishopric. John the Successor of Panolbius cited Athanasius also. Lastly, Domnus himself cited him to his Council, but in stead of appearing, he went and solicited S. Cyril and Proclus, and having represented his case otherwise than it was, he obtained the Letters of them, of which we have spoken. Then Domnus again summoned him before a Council assembled at Antioch, where the Clergy of Paros appeared to accuse him, the Bishops of the Synod condemned him. This was proved to the Council of Chalcedon by the reading of the Acts of the said Council.  
The Commissioners then determined, that Athanasius having been deposed according to form, Sabinian had been duly Ordained, and Athanasius not rightly restored by Dioscorus; that nevertheless Maximus ought to examine in a Synod within eight Months the Accusations which are laid to his Charge, or may be brought against him; and if he be convinced of the Crimes imputed to him, he should not only be deposed, but punished according to Law: But on the other side, if they do not furnish out a Process, and convict him within the time limited, he shall continue Bishop of Paros, and Sabinian shall enjoy the Name and Title of Bishop, and shall be maintained at the Expense of the Church.  
The 15th Session in the ordinary Editions, and according to Liberatus, contains the Canons of the Council. 
Act XV.   
The I commands, that the Canons made by preceding Councils be observed.  
The TWO enjoins, that if any Bishop Ordain for Money, or sells the Gifts of the Spirit, which are invaluable, whether it be a Bishop that is Ordained for filthy Lucre, or a Priest, or a 
* Chorepiscopus.  Suffragan Bishop, or a Deacon, or any other Clergyman, or a Steward, or an Advocate, he shall be deposed, who is proved to have done it, and the Person Ordained; and if any Person be a Procurer of it for Gain, he shall be deposed, if he be a Clergyman, and excommunicated, if he be a Monk, or Layman.  
The III forbids Bishops, Clergymen or Monks to hire Farms, or engage themselves in worldly Affairs, unless the Law obliges to be Guardians, or the Bishops charge them with the Administration of the Church, or to take care of the Widows and Orphans, and such Persons as stand in need of the Relief of the Church.  
The IV Canon concerning the Monks is the same with the sixth Session.  
The V revives the Ancient Canons against those Clergymen, who remove from one City to another.  
The VI forbids the Ordination of any Clergyman absolutely and without a Church-Title; that is to say, who is not set apart for the service of some Church, either in the City or Country, or of some Chapel or Monastery; and declares those Ordinations void that are celebrated otherwise: And forbids them that are so Ordained to do the Functions of their Ministry, that they may conceal them from disgrace that have Ordained them.  
The VII forbids those, that have been Ordained, or are made Monks, to leave their Stations, and declares them excommunicate that do it.  
The VIII enjoins the Clergy that belong to Monasteries, and Chapels of Martyrs, to be subject to their Bishops.  
The IX forbids those Clergymen who have any differences with other Clergymen to apply themselves to any other Judicature, than the Bishops, or them who are appointed Judges by them, and commands, That if any Clergyman have any thing against his Bishop, he should address himself to a Provincial Synod, or if he hath any thing to do with his Metropolitan, he shall go to the Exarch of the Diocese.  
The X shows, That it is forbidden a Clergyman to be entitled to two Churches at one time, to that, in which he was Ordained, and that, to which he is removed; and that those who do it, shall be obliged to return to their Church, or if they remain in the Church to which they are removed, they shall have nothing of the Revenue of the Church which they have left, nor of the Hospitals of that Church.  
The XI makes a distinction between Letters of Recommendation, which are given to Persons Suspected and Unknown, and Letters of Communion, which are given to Persons well known. It declares, that these last ought to be given to the Poor.  
The XII forbids Bishops to divide their Provinces by obtaining Letters Patents from the Emperor to raise their City to the title of a Metropolis, and declares, that the Bishops of those Cities, who have been raised to their Dignity by their Prince's Letters, should have the Honour and Title only of a Metropolitan, but none of the right of a real Metropolitan.  
XIII shows, That they will not receive strange and unknown Clergymen without Commendatory Letters from their Bishops.  
The XIV forbids Readers and Singers to Marry Heretical Wives, and obliges them that have Married such to bring their Children to the Church to be Baptised, and to bring them up in the Faith of the Church.  
The XV forbids the Ordination of a Deaconess before 40 years of Age, and without strict Examination; and declares, That if she shall Marry after she hath been some time in the Service of the Church, she shall be Excommunicated with her Husband.  
The XVI tells us, That it is not permitted Virgins, which are devoted to God to Marry; That they, who have done so, shall be Excommunicated, that nevertheless the Bishop of the place may treat them with such Lenity and Mildness as he thinks fit.  
The XVII That the Churches or Parishes should remain under the Jurisdiction of those Bishops who are in possession of them, especially if they have been so for 30 years past; but if within 30 Years passed there hath been any dispute about them, it shall be permitted to refer themselves to the Provincial Synod, or if it be a Bishop who is injured by his Metropolitan, he may have recourse to 
* The Patriarch.  the Bishop of his Diocese, or the Bishop of Constantinople. Lastly, If the Emperor changes the condition of a City by his Authority, the order of the Parish Churches shall follow the Civil Constitution.  
The XVIII forbidden Clergymen and Monks to make Conspiracies, Cabals, or Factions against their Bishop.  
The XIX revives the Decree of the Council of Nice for the holding of Provincial Councils twice a Year.  
The XX forbids Bishops taking Clergymen from other Bishops.  
The XXI Commands, That it be examined what manner of Persons they are that accuse Bishops, or other Churchmen, before their Accusation be received.  
The XXII shows, That it is not lawful for the Clergy to seize upon the Estate of their Bishops after he is Dead.  
XXIII order the Advocates of the Church of Constantinople to bid the strange Monks that came into that City without leave from their Bishop, to departed from thence.  
The XXIV That the places, where any Monastery hath been built, should always be set apart for that use.  
The XXV enjoins Metropolitans to celebrate Ordinations three Months after the Death of a Bishop, and in the mean time to take care of the Revenues of the Church by the Stewards.  
The XXVI enjoins every Bishop to have a Steward of the Revenues of his Church.  
The XXVIII deposes, or Excommunicates those, who take away Women by force under a pretence of Marrying them, and those, who pretend to defend them.  
The XXVIII Canon grants to the Church of the City of Constantinople, which is called new Rome, the same Privileges with Old Rome, because this City is the second City in the World. It also adjudges to it besides this the Jurisdiction over the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, and over the Churches which are out of the bounds of the Emperor, and a right to ordain Metropolitans in the Provinces of these Dioceses.  
The XXIX Canon is a repetition of what had been said before by Pascasinus and Anatolius, that it is Sacrilege to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Priest, because, when a Bishop deserves to be Deprived of his Bishopric, he is not worthy to be a Priest, at least if he be not unjustly Deposed.  
The XXX is also a repetition of what had been ordered upon the Account of the Egyptian Bishops, who would not sign the Condemnation of Nestorius.  
Upon serious consideration we shall find, that these 30 Canons are only an Explication of the three Canons of the 6th Session, or Decrees made in the Council upon several occasions, which some made a 16th Action; but others have put in this place because the following action informs us, that the 28th. Canon was made the Day before. As for myself I much doubt whether this Collection of Canons was made in any Session of the Council, and do rather believe that they were composed since, and taken out of the several Actions. 'Tis easy to find the places.  
Nou. 1. (For though this Action be ordinarily dated Octob. 28, 'tis a fault, which is not in the MS of Dijon, which is an Original) the Pope's Legates complained that after they and the Commissioners were departed, the Bishops had made several Orders contrary to the Canons and Discipline of the Church; They required, that they should be read over again. Before they were read Aetius the Archdeacon said, That the Custom of Synods was, to make other Constitutions after they had decided what concerns the Faith; that being about to do it for the Church of Constantinople, they had prayed the Legates to be present, but they refused, with which having acquainted the Commissioners they had ordered the Council to do what they thought convenient; that they had deliberated freely, and had done nothing clancularly. They then read the Canon concerning the Patriarch of Constantinople. Pascasinus in the first place said, that they had surprised the Bishops by making them Subscribe the Decrees which they had no knowledge of. All the Bishops said, That it was not so, that no body was compelled, and every one knew what he did. Lucentius then complained, that they had despised the Canons of the Council of Nice, by preferring the Decrees of a Council held 150 years after, before them. He caused the Order to be read, which they had received from S. Leo, commanding to oppose those Bishops, who took too much upon them, upon the account of the Splendour of their Sees, and hinder them from attempting any thing. The Commissioners ordered the Canons to be read on both sides. Pascasinus read the 6th Canon of Nice, with an Addition prefixed, which asserted, That the Church of Rome hath always had a Primacy. Aëtius read it without the Addition with the Canon of the Council of Constantinople. They demanded if the Bishops of Asia and Pontus had voluntarily signed the Decree in question, and they answered, Yes, and that the Bishop of Constantinople was in possession of the Right of Ordinations among them; But Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra answered, That although he had Signed it, and was not willing to oppose the general consent, yet it is true that he was Ordained at Gungra; That he did not seek to perform those Ordinations; That all that he desired was, that nothing should be exacted of the Bishops at their Ordinations. They made answer, That it was forbidden by the Canons, that the Altars were pure. Eusebius answered, That he did not fear any such thing of Anatolius, but no Man was Immortal. Anatolius asked him who ordained him, He said, That by misfortune he was at Constantinople and Proclus had Ordained him.  
Lastly, The Commissioners published the Result of the Acts and Depositions, which had been made, that the Bishop of Rome should have the Primacy and chief Honour; That the Bishop of Constantinople should enjoy the same Prerogatives of Honour, and had right to Ordain in the Sees of the Metropolis', in the Dioceses of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus, such Persons as should be chosen by the Clergy, People, and Nobles; That they were to give him Notice of this Election, and know whether he desired the Person that was chosen should come to him to be Ordained at Constantinople, or whether he would allow him to be Ordained in the Province; That it was also likely that the Metropolitans had a Right to Ordain the Bishops of the Province according to the Custom, without the leave of the Bishop of Constantinople: All the Bishops approved of this Resolution. The Legates of the Pope were the only Persons which said, That they ought not to debase the Holy See so much in their presence; They demanded, that they would put out of the Acts that which had passed the day before to the prejudice of the Ecclesiastical Constitutions; or if they would not, their Opposition might be annexed to the Acts, that they might make their report of it to him that Governs the Apostolic See, who is the first Bishop of the World, who may judge himself of the Injury done to his See, and of the Subverting of the Canons. Notwithstanding this Opposition, the Bishops declared, That they would go on, and the Commissioners, without any regard to what was said by the Pope's Legates, said, That all the Synod had given their Approbation to their Determination.  
All things being thus decreed, the Fathers of the Council made a long discourse to the Emperor, in which having commended his Zeal and Piety, as well as S. Leo's Doctrine and Holiness, they related what had passed in the Council, they Explained the Faith of the Church about the Incarnation, approved S. Leo's Letter, and opposed the Doctrine of Eutyches. They wrote also to S. Leo what had been done in the Council, and prayed him to consent to what they had decreed in favour of the Church of Constantinople. The Emperor made two Edicts to prevent all Opposition to the Synod. He confirmed the Council of Chalcedon; and invallidated by an Edict all that had been done against Flavian. He gave a check to the boldness of the Monks of Alexandria and Palestine, who would have thrust out Juvenal from his See, and put one Theodosius in his place. He gave order to punish this last.  
I do not pursue the Story of the Troubles, raised after the Death of Martian, about the Council of Chalcedon, because it would draw me too far from my Subject. I shall only observe, that the Emperor Leo having consulted the Church about this Difference, they held several Councils in the Provinces, who wrote those Letters to the Emperor, which make up that Collection called Codex Encyclicus, which is reckoned the Third Part of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon.   

Of the COUNCIL of RIES, Held in 439.  
WE were not willing to interrupt the Connexion of the History of the Councils of 
The Council of Ries.  Chalcedon and Ephesus, because these two Councils have a near Relation one to another. We will now resume our discourse of the private Councils.  
The Council of Ries in France, and not Rhegium in Italy was called to Examine the Ordination of Armentarius, who had been Ordained Bishop of Ebredunum. This Armentarius was a Young Man, but a Person of Quality, who being led by the Advice of his Friends, was Ordained Bishop of Ebredunum by two Bishops, without the consent of the Bishops of the Province, or of the Metropolitan; but afterward acknowledging his fault withdrew himself, renounced his Episcopal Charge, and desired that his Name might be razed out of the number of the Bishops of Ebredunum. Hilarius Bishop of Arles, and twelve other Bishops of France were present at this Council. They declared, That the Ordination of Armentarius was Null, according to the Canons; That the two Bishops who performed it, and who begged pardon for their fault, should for the future never be present at any Synod, or Ordination. As to Armentarius, that they might be favourable to him, they granted him, according to the Eighth Canon of the Council of Nice, that he should have the Title of a Suffragan Bishop, or to enjoy the Communion granted to Strangers, but upon Condition. 1. That he shall dwell in some other Province than that of the Sea-Alpes; and if he returns thither, he shall be liable to all the punishments his Action deserves. 2. That if he be met in any place that is not Public, he shall claim no other place, nor title, than what his Quality in the World gives him. 3. That he shall have no power to Ordain any Clergyman, nor Celebrate the Sacrament in any Church whatsoever, unless any be given to him out of Charity. 4. That it shall not be lawful for any Bishop to give place to him, as the more ancient. 5. That he shall not do any Office at a distance from the Church assigned him, and shall only have a Right to confirm Novices, and celebrate Sacraments before the Priests. They granted him also power to pronounce the Blessings in the Church; which Priests only have in private places, to consecrate Virgins in the Church, wherein he shall acknowledge himself Inferior to Bishops, but Superior to Priests. That if he changes his Church, he shall not be received in the second, unless he renounce the first. As to the Ministers which he hath Ordained, the Bishop of Ebredunum shall be left at Liberty, whether he will own them, or reject them.  
For prevention of the like disorder for the Future, they forbidden any Bishop going to a vacant Church, unless it be the next Neighbouring Bishop, who ought to go as a Visitor to order all things at the Bishop's interment, that is to say, till the 7th day after his decease, but must afterward immediately withdraw himself; and waste the Order of the Metropolitan to come thither with other Bishops: strictly forbidding all other Bishops to enter upon a Vacant Church, unless they are invited by the Letters of the Metropolitan. Then they revived the fifth Canon of the Council of Nice concerning Provincial Councils.   

The I COUNCIL of ORANGE.  
THIS Council was held Anno. 441. at Orange, or near that City. Hilarius Bishop of 
The first Council of Orange.  Arles was Precedent in it, and sixteen other Bishops assisted at it.  
In the first Canon of this Council it is Ordained, That Priests might confirm in the absence of the Bishops, such Heretics, as being in danger of Death desire admission into the Church, by Chrism and Blessing of them.  
The second Canon, which is not without reason put in the first place in most MSS, hath been the subject of a famous contest between Aurelius and F. Sirmondus. For the better understanding of it we must fix upon the true reading of it. The Negative Particle which we meet with in some Editions, but not in others, makes a clean different sense. In the Old Edition of Merlin it is read at the end of this Canon, Sed ut necessaria habeatur repititia Chrismatio; Crabb, and Binius have observed in the Margin among the different Readins, non Necessaria in stead of Necessaria. Lastly, F. Sirmondus hath inserted in the Text the Negative Particle upon the Credit of several MSS, and the Authority of Isidorus. By considering the preceding part of the Canon it is easy to know, that we must add this Negative Particle. This is the Translation of it Word for Word: None of the Ministers, who are entrusted with the power to Baptise, aught to Administer it without having the Chrism, because we have a Custom among us to anoint with the Chrism but once; but if any Person be not anointed with the Chrism at his Baptism upon the account of some urgent necessity, the Priest shall admonish him of it in his Confirmation, for we have but one Blessing of Chrism likewise. After these Words come those which are the subject of the Contest. 
a This Clause Longus sets down thus, Non praejudicantes cuiquam hoc dicimus, sed ut necessaria habeatur Chrismatio. Which seems full as agreeable if not more to the Custom of the Gallican Church, than our Authors reading; for the Negative Particle is made necessary only because of the word repitita, which is omitted in this reading, and I think it the best.  Non ut praejudicans, sed ut non necessaria; Or, Necesiaria habeatur repitita Chrismatio. Now it is easy to see by the preceding Words, that the sense requires the Negative Particle, without which the Canon would contradict itself. And now having fixed the Reading of the Canon, it is necessary for the Explication of it to observe that in the beginning of the Church Baptism was always accompanied with Chrism and Imposition of Hands, as appears evidently by Tertulliam; but that afterwards, when they began to separate Imposition of Hand, or Confirmation from Baptism, there were different usages of Confirmation or Unction. Some joined it with Baptism, others with Impositions, and some others repeated it. In the Church of Rome there was a double Unction as is evident from S. Innocent's Letter I but the Churches of France followed a quite different Custom as appears by this Canon, which proves, that they used but One Unction which was joined with Baptism, and did not repeat it at Confirmation; but when it was omitted in Baptism they Administered it at Confimation. This is the true sense of the Canon.  
In the third Canon it is ordered, That those, who find themselves dangerously sick, when they are under Penance, shall be received into Communion, without the Imposition of Hands, in token of their Reconciliation; but if they recover, they shall still continue in a state of Penance, till they have completed it, and then shall be received to Communion by Imposition of Hands, as Persons reconciled. This Communion without Imposition of Hands in token of Reconciliation, is in the judgement of some, the Eucharist without Absolution; according to others a private Absolution without the Eucharist. I rather think that this Communion consisted in nothing but in some bare marks, which the Church gave to show, that they received the Sick Person into her Communion, without giving him Absolution. This Canon must be Explained by the Canons of other Councils, because the Bishops who made it, say, That they grant this Communion according to the definitions of the Holy Fathers, who have called this Communion a Viaticum, which relates to the 13th Canon of the Council of Nice, where it is said, That they shall give dying Persons their last Viaticum, as the most Necessary thing, which makes it evident, that the Communion of the Church is only meant. This is the Reason, that the Council adds, that when they desire the Eucharist, the Bishop shall not give it them, till he hath examined the Disposition of him that demands it, which shows, That the Church did grant to Penitents, who were at the point of Death, the Communion of the Church, without giving them the Sacrament, with an Injunction to perform their Penance, when they are recovered.  
In the fourth Canon it is decreed, That if a Clergyman shall desire to undergo Penance, he shall not be denied. This was Ordained, because it was forbidden by several Canons of the Church to put the Clergy to public Penance. This Council excepts those who desire it themselves through Devotion, or otherwise.  
In the fifth it is declared, That they ought not to deliver up those, who fly to the Churches for security; but they ought to be as in an Asylum, because of the respect which is due to that Holy place.  
The sixth is against those who detained the Bond-Servants of Clergymen in their Service, by way of Reprisal, instead of their own, who were fled into the Church.  
The seventh is against those, who used them whom the Church had made free, as Slaves.  
The eighth forbids a Bishop to Ordain a Clergyman, who dwells in another Diocese. It order him to make him continue sometime in his Diocese, and then not to ordain him till he hath first consulted his own Bishop.  
In the ninth it saith, That if a Bishop hath Ordained any Persons belonging to another Church if he hath nothing to object against them, he ought either to send them back again, or obtain leave of their own Bishops.  
The tenth shows, That if a Bishop hath built a Church in the Territories of another Bishop for his own profit or conveniency, after he hath obtained leave of the Bishop of the place, who ought not to refuse him, he ought to reserve the Consecration of it to the Bishop of the place, who shall grant to the Bishop that built the Church, a liberty of Ordaining such persons Clerks to serve there as he shall present to him, or of approving such persons, who are already Ordained, as he shall choose. Lastly, He adds, That if any Layman build a Church he ought not to take any other Bishop to Consecrate it, than the Bishop of the Place. That which is said in this Canon concerning a Bishop that hath built a Church in another's Territories, that he shall present or choose the Clerks, whom he is bound to Ordain, or approve for the service of that Church, may discover to us the Original of Patronages. It appears plain enough, that the Bishop who builds a Church in another's Territories hath right to the Presentation; but it doth not appear, that it held good to the Successors in the Bishopric, or to those in his Family.  
The 11th Canon forbids Bishops to receive Persons Excommunicate by the Bishop before he hath reconciled them, and it orders that the Examination of the Justice or Injustice of their Excommunication shall be reserved to the next Synod.  
In the 12th Canon the Bishops of this Council declared, that they ought to baptise or accept their Repentance, who have lost their Senses on a sudden, provided that they do give, or have given any Marks that they did earnestly desire it.  
In the 13th it is said, that we must grant to the Insensible, Quaecunque p●etatis sunt, which is not clear: 'Tis not probable that it means the Eucharist. I rather think it to be meant of pious Assistance, and some other Ceremonies. Timotheus of Alexandria observes Can. 13. that we may pray for a Fool that hath slain himself.  
The 14th Canon prescribes, that the Energumeni should be accepted to the Communion, who do what they can to cure themselves, and who are guided by the Counsels and Admonitions of their Clergy, because the Sacrament can fortify them against the Assaults of the Devil, and purify them.  
In the 15th it is Ordained, that the poffessed Catechumen be baptised.  
The 16th forbids conferring Orders upon such Persons as have been openly troubled with an Evil Spirit, and deprives those of their Function, to whom it happens after their Ordination.  
The 17th is almost unintelligible: Thus it is, Cum Capsa & Calix Offerendus è & admixtione Eueharistiae consecrandus. We must offer the Chalice with the Patin, and Consecrate it by mingling the Eucharist. The only sense it is capable of is this, that when they Consecrate the Chalice, or * Plate, they must celebrate the Sacrament in those Vessels.  
The 18th commands, that the Gospels be read hereafter to the Catechumen in all Churches.  
The 19th imports, that the Catechumen shall not be suffered to go into the Baptistery.  
The 20th, that it shall not be allowed them to receive the Benediction with the Faithful, no not in Domestic or private Prayers; and they shall be admonished to come by themselves to receive the Blessing, and the Sign of the Cross.  
In the 21st it is decreed, that if two Bishops Ordain a Bishop alone without the concurrence of other Bishops, if the Bishop were Ordained against his Will, he shall be put into the place of one of them who Ordained him, and another shall be Ordained in the place of the other Bishop; but if he that was Ordained was voluntarily Ordained, he also shall be deposed.  
The 22d orders, that for the future no Married Persons shall be Ordained Deacons, unless they make a profession of living in Chastity.  
The 23d orders, that if it be found out that one of those Deacons do not abstain from his Wife, he shall be deprived.  
The 24th excepts from this Law, those who have been Ordained heretofore. The only Penalty it inflicts on them is, that they cannot obtain any higher Orders.  
The 25th appoints, that such Persons as have been twice Married, although never so worthy, shall be admitted to no other Orders than that of a Sub-Deacon.  
The 26th forbids the Ordinations of Deaconesses for the future, and orders those that are already Ordained to receive the Blessing with the mere Laics. Nevertheless the Council of Nice ranks them among the Clergy, Can. 19 De Deaconessis, & omnibus qui in Clero censentur. S. Epiphanius witnesses, that they were Ordained, and the Council of Chalcedon says it expressly, Can. 15. as well as the Council of Epa●●a, Can. 21. and Justinian's Novels, Chap. 6.  
The 27th Canon is concerning Widows professing Chastity, the Council requires, that it be done before the Bishop, and that it be discovered by their Widows-Garments, or by a kind of Veil put upon them, as it is the Roman Custom, and is decreed by the Council of Toledo, Can. 4. and by the Council of Carthage, Can. 104.  
The Council of Orange adds, that the Ravishers of these Widows, and such as broke their Profession, shall be punished.  
The 28th Canon Ordains, that such as break their Vow of Virginity, whether Men or Women, shall be made to do Penance.  
In the 29th Canon the Bishops of the Council confirm the Decrees, that they had made, and require that they be observed by themselves, and their Brethren. They reprove them that neither come themselves, nor send their Deputies in their stead to the Provincial Synods, which ought to be held twice a Year. They give notice of the next Council, and charge Hilary to give notice of the time to those Bishops that were absent.  
The last Canon appoints, that if a Bishop lose his Senses, or 
* Speech.  Tongue, it shall not be lawful for his Priests to perform the Episcopal Functions in his presence, but he shall send for a Bishop, who shall perform the Episcopal Functions in his Church.   

The COUNCIL of VASIO.  
THIS Council is much like the precedent, held at Vasio in 442. It made X Canons.  
The I imports, that the French Bishops need not be examined before they be received 
The Council of Vasio.  to the Communion, it is sufficient that it be not known they are excommunicated.  
The TWO commands, that the Oblations of such Penitents, as dying suddenly could not receive the Sacraments of the Church; should be received and accepted, and their Memory ought to be celebrated at the Altar, since if they had lived, they ought not to be kept from the Eucharist.  
The III orders, that the Priests or Ministers should every Year desire the Chrism of their own Bishop about the Feast of Easter, and either go themselves to fetch it, or send their Sub-Deacon for it, [if necessary business will not permit them to go.]  
The IV is, that they shall be expelled the Church as Infidels, who keep back those Legacies which dying Persons have bequeathed to the Church.  
The V is, that if any Person doth not submit to the Sentence of his Bishop, he shall have relief, from a Synod.  
In the VI it is proved by the Testimony of the first Letter to S. Clement, that Christians ought not to hold any familiar Correspondence with the Enemies of Religion.  
The VII, to prevent too much rashness in condemning the Guilty, enjoins the Bishops to be gentle, although they believe that a Person hath deserved to be separated from the Church for a time, and content themselves at the entreaty of others to reprove, and threaten him; and if they think any Person to deserve Condemnation for a great Crime, they ought to consider, that they should do it, as being their Accusers.  
The VIII Canon imports, that if a Bishop knows the Crime of another, but cannot prove it, he ought not to divulge it, but only to endeavour by private reproof to amend him, whom he believes to be guilty. But if he prove obstinate, and will not reform, the Bishop may by his own Authority separate him from his Communion, although he continue in Communion with others that know not of it.  
The IX and X Canons were made to prevent, that such Persons as have out of Charity taken upon them the care and charge of Foundlings, should not be deterred from so great a piece of Charity through fear of being proceeded against by Law, as it often happens, and being accused to have stolen them. The Council decreed according to the Law of Honorius, that they who find out-cast Children, should give notice of it to the Church; and that there may be no cheat about it, the Council adds, that it shall be published at the Altar on Sunday, that an out-cast Child is found, that if any Person shall own it within 10 Days, it shall be restored, but afterward such a Demand shall not be received, or allowed. I do not speak of the other Synod held under Hilary Bishop of Arles against Proclus and Chelidonius, because we have nothing more of them, than what is said in the Life of that Author.   

The TWO COUNCIL of ARLES.  
THIS Council was held at Arles some time after the Council of Vasio, we have 56 Canons made by this Council, of which this is the Summary.  
1. A Novice must not be chosen to be Ordained a Deacon, or Priest. 
The TWO Council of Arles.   
2. No Man may be made a Priest, who is Married, unless he will renounce the use of Marriage, which they call by the Name of Conversion.  
3. A Person in Holy Orders above a Deacon, ought not to cohabit with any other Woman beside his Grandmother, his Daughter, his Niece, or Wife.  
4. He ought not to get any Woman into his Chamber, whether bond or free.  
5. A Bishop must not be Ordained without his Metropolitan, or his Letter, nor unless there be at least three Bishops present, and the others be summoned; and if there be any difference among them about it, the Metropolitan shall follow the plurality of Voices in the Election.  
6. A Bishop Ordained without the consent of his Metropolitan, ought not be a Bishop.  
7. They, who not being able to subdue the Lusts of the Flesh, have made themselves Eunuches, ought not to be received into the Clergy.  
8. He that receives a Person Excommunicate shall give an account before a Council.  
9 A Novation may not be received to Communion unless he renounce his Error.  
10 and 11. The 11 Canon of the Council of Nice shall be observed against them that fall into Idolatry.  
12. They that die in the state of Penance, shall be received to Communion, and their Oblations received.  
13. Clergymen shall not leave their Churches upon any Account whatsoever; and if it be found that one remaining in another Church be Ordained by the Bishop of that Church without the consent of his own Bishop, that Ordination shall be void, and null.  
14. If a Clergyman puts out Money to Usury, or farmeth of another, or does any scandalous business, he shall be deposed and excommunicated.  
15. That a Deacon ought not to sit down in the Church, or distribute the Sacrament in the presence of a Priest; if he doth, he shall be degraded.  
16. That the Paulianists and Photinians ought to be baptised.  
17. As to the Bonosiaci, who baptise as well as the Arians in the Name of the Trinity, it is sufficient to admit them into the Church by Chrism, and Imposition of Hands.  
18. The Synod shall meet according as the Bishop of Arles pleases to command.  
19 They that shall absent themselves, or go away before the Council is ended, shall be separated from the Communion of the other Bishops.  
20. Stage-Players and Comedians shall be kept from the Sacrament, as long as they act.  
21. A Penitent may not Marry, or keep any suspicious Company.  
22. Persons Married may not be put into a state of Penance.  
23. If a Bishop neglect to root out such Superstitions as are found in his Diocese, he is guilty before God; and if the Author of them doth not amend, he shall not come to the Sacrament.  
24. They that bring false Accusations against their Brethren for capital Crimes, shall be debarred of Communion till Death, if they do not make a satisfaction proportionable to the greatness of their Crime.  
25. They, who having made Profession of Religion, do after apostatise from it, and do not fly to Repentance as a Remedy, shall not receive the Sacrament till they have done it, and shall never be admitted into the Number of the Clergy.  
26. Such Heretics, as at the point of Death desire to become Orthodox, shall be confirmed by a Priest in the absence of the Bishop by Blessing and Chrism.  
27. Ministers who have Power to baptise, shall never be without Chrism, because it is a Custom among the French Bishops to give the Chrism but only once according to the Order of the Synod. This confirms the sense which we have given to the second Canon of the Council of Orange.  
The following Canons as far as the 47th, contain the same Constitutions with those of the Council of Orange. The 47, 48, and 51, are the 4, 5, and 10, of the Council of Vasio.  
The 49 imports, that if any Person be excluded from the Sacrament by the Bishop's Authority, he ought to be deprived of the Company, and familiarity of the People, as well as of the Clergy.  
The 50 is, that they who live in hatred one against another publicly, aught to be separated from the Communion, till they be reconciled one to another.  
The 52 is against those who Mary, after they have vowed Virginity.  
The 53 is, that a Master is not responsible, if a Servant kill himself.  
The 55 establishes a new way of choosing a Bishop, ordering that to avoid Ambition and Simony, the Bishops should name three Persons, of whom the Clergy and People should choose one.  
The 56, that no Person shall attempt any thing against the great Synod of the Metropolitan.   

The COUNCIL of ANJOU.  
THIS Council was assembled Anno 433. on Sept. 25. to Ordain Thalassius Bishop of Anjou. There was but seven Bishops with Thalassius. After he was Ordained they made twelve 
Concilium Andegavense.  Canons.  
The first forbids Clergymen to bring their Differences before the Secular Judges, or to go out of their Church without the permission of their Bishop.  
The second commands Deacons to give due respect to the Priests.  
The third forbids all Encroachments and Oppressions.  
The fourth, that the Clergy should not dwell with Women.  
The fifth decrees, that they shall be treated very severely, who forsake their state of Penance, or Virginity.  
The sixth is against Adulteries.  
The seventh and eighth are against those clerks or Monks, who forsake their sacred Functions in the Church, or their Monastic.  
The ninth forbids Bishop's Ordaining a Clergyman that belongs to another Bishop.  
The tenth is very obscure, the sense of it can hardly be found out.  
The 11th Ordains, that no Person shall be Ordained a Deacon or Priest, who hath had more than one Wife.  
The 12th Decrees, that all Persons who will be converted shall be received to Penance, and shall be granted Absolution according to the Discretion of the Bishop.   

The III COUNCIL of ARLES.  
THIS Council was assembled about the Year 455. Octob. 30. to determine the difference which was between Faustus' Abbot of Lerins, and Theodorus Bishop of Forum. July, about the Privileges of the Monastery of Lerins. Here it was decreed that the Clergy, who Minister at the Altar, should be Ordained by Theodorus only, or by him whom he Commissions, that they shall receive the Chrism from him: If there be any Novices, he shall confirm them, and they shall not admit strange Clergymen to the Sacrament but by his Order, but all the Laymen of the Monastery should be subject to the Abbot only, and the Bishops shall not be concerned with them, nor shall Ordain any of them against the consent of the Abbot.   

The COUNCIL of CONSTANTINOPLE, An. 459.  
THIS Council held under Gennadius [Patriarch of Constantinople] hath made an excellent Canon against Simony. It was made upon 82 Bishops, whose Subscriptions M. Baluzius hath published.   

The Letter of Lupus Bishop of 
* Tricasium.  Troy's, and Euphronius Bishop of Augustodunum to Thalassius Bishop of Anjou.  
THIS Letter contains, 1. Rules concerning the different ways of celebrating the Vigils of the Festivals. 2. About the Clergy, that have been twice Married. They say, that it may be tolerated in the Lesser Orders as high as a Porter, but Exorcists, and Subdeacons, ought not to have been twice Married. 3. They say, that it were better for the Clergy to abstain from Marriage, but in this they must follow the Custom of the Churches. As to the Exorcists, and Subdeacons, they must not be suffered to Marry a second time; that in the Church of Augustodunum none of the Clergy, not the Porters themselves are allowed it. 4. That the Subdeacons may receive the Kiss of Peace in the Sanctuary, but not at the Altar, to which they are not to approach, but when they give Palls to the Deacon.   

The COUNCIL of 
* Turonum.  TOURS.  
THIS Council was held in the time of Perpetuus Bishop of Tours in 461. The Archbishop of 
* Buturigum.  Bourges and 
† Rotomagus.  Roven were present at it with six other Bishops. The 1 and 2 Canons recommends a single Life to the Bishops, Priests and Deacons. The 3. forbids them to dwell with Women. The 4. prohibits the Clergy, who might Marry, to Marry Widows. The 5. condemns those, that desert Ecclesiastical Functions. The 6, those that abuse the Virgins devoted to God. The 7. is against Manslayers. The 8. is against those, who forsake the state of Penance, which they have once entered upon. The 10. is against unlawful Ordinations. The 11. is against those, who leave their Churches with the leave of their Bishops. The 12. against those Clergy, who go without their Bishop's Letters. The 13. forbids Usury to Clergymen.   

The COUNCIL of VENNES.  
THIS Council was soon after the Council of Tours. There were only five Bishops of the Province of Tours, who were assembled with Perpetuus their Metropolitan at Venice to 
The Council of Vennes.  Ordain a Bishop there. They made 16 Canons. They revived the Decrees made in the former Synods against Manslayers, c. 1. Against such Penitents as forsake their Penance, c. 3. Against such consecrated Virgins as desert their condition, c. 4. Against Clergymen and Monks that go out of their Bishopric, c. 5, 6. Or who go before Secular Judges, c. 9 Against Bishops, who Ordain the Clergy of other Bishops, c. 10.  
There are also some other special Canons, as the 2d, which Excommunicates those, who Mary other Wives after the Divorce of the former, unless it be for Adultery. The 7th, which forbids the Monks to have separate Cells, unless they be very eminent for Virtue, or are sickly, and also upon condition that they remain within the Precinct of their Monastery, and under the Authority of the Abbot. The 8th, which prohibits Abbots that they have not several Monasteries, or Dwellings. The 11th, which forbids Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, who are not allowed to Marry, to frequent Banquet and Meetings, where they sing Amorous Songs, and show indecent Postures, for fear that those Eyes and Ears, which are set apart for the hearing of Holy Things, be not polluted with obscene Sights or Words. The 12th forbids all Clergymen going to the Jewish Feasts. The 13th orders that Clergymen, who are drunk, should be punished by separating them thirty Days, or some other bodily punishment. The 14th, that a Clergyman being in the City, who without a lawful Excuse absents himself from Divine Service, shall be separated from the Church-Communion seven Days. The 15th, that there shall be one way only of celebrating Divine Service, and singing in all the Province. The 16th, that such Persons shall be excluded from the Church, as pretend to prophesy, and foretell things, whether it be by Auguries, or other Superstitious Ceremonies, (called The Saints Lots,) or by any other way whatsoever. The Council dedicated these Canons to Thalassius Bishop of Anjou, and to Victorius.   

The Council of ROME under Pope Hilarius.  
THIS Council consisted of 48 Bishops. They approved of the Ancient Canons concerning the Qualifications as such as may be Ordained, confirmed by Pope Hilarius. These Constitutions 
The Council of Rome.  are common, and often repeated, that a Person twice Married, or ignorant, or that had done public Penance, shall not be Ordained. They add, that a Bishop newly Ordained, shall reform what his Predecessor hath done amiss. Lastly, the last Canon forbids Bishops choosing their Successor against the abuse which was then common in Spain.  
It hath been our Custom at the end of every Tome to give an Abridgement of the Doctrine, Discipline and Morality of the Age, which we have treated of in it; but things are so clear, and so often repeated in this Fifth Age, that it is needless to repeat them here, having spoken so often of them, being well assured, that they who will take the pains to read the Two Parts of this Volume with any Attention, will have a very true Idea of the Doctrine, Discipline, and Morality taught and practised in this Age.  
[The Councils have been published by Binius in 4 Vol. Fol. at Colen in 1606. 1618. and in 10 Vol. at Paris 1636. and by Father Labbé and Cossartius in 18 Vol. at Paris 1672. in Fol. at large. Fr. Longus à Conolano, put out an Abridgement of the Councils in Folio, with his own Notes at Antw. 1623.]    

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORS CONTAINED In the Second Part of the Third Volume of the New History of Ecclesiastical Writers.  

ATTICUS, PAtriarch of Constantinople, Ordained 406. Died in 427.  
TICHONIUS, A Donatist, He flourished in the time of Rufinus and S. Austin.  
LEPORIUS, A Monk, Retracted his Errors after the Year 429.  
ISIDORUS, A Priest of Darniata, Flourished from the beginning of the Fifth Age, till towards the Year 435.  
J. CASSIANUS, A Monk and Abbot, Born about the Year 370. Flourished in the beginning of the Fifth Age, Died according to some 430. according to others in 440.  
S. NILUS A Monk, Born about the Year 406. Flourished in the beginning of the Fifth Age, Died in the Year 451.  
The AUTHOR Of the Confessions of Faith attributed to Rufinus, He lived in the beginning of the Fifth Age.  
POSSIDIUS A Deacon, In the beginning of the Fifth Age.  
URANIUS A Priest, About the middle of the Fifth Age.  
S. CELESTINE Bishop of Rome, Chosen Anno 423. Died Anno 432.  
S. CYRIL, Patriarch of Alexandria, Ordained Octob. 16. Anno 412. Died in 444.  
M. MERCATOR A Layman, Flourished about the Year 430.  
ANIANUS, A Deacon of Celeda, Flourished about the same time.  
JULIANUS Bishop of Eclane, Born Anno 386. Ordained in 416. Wrote under the Pontificat of Zosimus, Died in 455.  
NESTORIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, Ordained in 428. Deposed in 431. Died about 440.  
JOHN, Patriarch of Antioch, Flourished from the Year 427. Died Anno 439.  
ACACIUS, Bishop of Beraea, Flourished at the end of the Fourth Age, and beginning of the Fifth Age, Ordained Bishop in 378. Died in 436.  


MELETIUS, Bishop of Mopsuesta.  
DOROTHAEUS, Bishop of Martianople.  
ALEXANDER, Bishop of Hierapolis.  
ZENOBIUS, Bishop of Zephyria.   Flourished about the Year 430. Deposed and Banished in 435.  
EUTHERIUS Of Tyana, Flourished about the same time. He died in the possession of his See.  
THEODOTUS Bishop of Ancyra, Flourished about the Year 430.  


ACACIUS, Bishop of Melitine.  
MEMNON, Bishop of Ephesus.  
RHEGINUS, Bishop of Constantia.   Flourished about the same time.  
MAXIMIANUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, Ordained about the end of the Year 431. Died in 434.  
SIXTUS III. Bishop of Rome, Ordained in 432. Died, Mar. 440.  
PROCLUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, Flourished in the beginning of the Fifth Age, and Ordained Bishop in 434. Died in 446.  
CAPREOLUS, Bishop of Carthage, succeeded S. Augustin in 431.  
A. HONORATUS, Bishop of Constantina in Africa, Flourished about the Year 440.  
VICTOR, A Priest of Antioch, He lived about the middle of the Fifth Age.  
VICTORINUS, A Rhetorician of Marseilles, About the same time.  
CAEL. SEDULIUS. A Christian Poet. Wrote his Poem in 430.  
PHILIPPUS, Bishop of Syda. He flourished from the year 440.  
PHILOSTORGIUS, An Historian, Born about the year 388, flourished about the middle of the Fifth Age.  
NONNUS, A Poet. He Lived in the Fifth Age.  
SOCRATES. A Schoolman, Lawyer, and Historian, Born about the year 380, flourished about the 440.  
HERMIAS SOZOMENUS, A Lawyer, Schoolman, and Historian. Flourished about the middle of the Fifth Age, and wrote some time after Socrates.  
THEODORET, Bishop of Cyrus. Born in 386, Ordained in 420, Dyed in 457.  
ANDREW, Bishop of Samosata. Flourished at the same time with Theodoret, Dyed before the Year 450.  


HELLADIUS, Bishop of Tarsus.  
MAXIMINUS, Bishop of Anazarbum.   Flourished about the same time.  
IRAENEUS, A Count, and afterward a Bishop in Phoenicia. He was present at the Council of Ephesus in the Quality of a Count, and was Ordained a Bishop in 444, banished in 448, Dyed about the Year 460.  
S. LEO, Bishop of Rome. Archdeacon of Rome in the Popedom of S. Sixtus, Ordained Bishop in May 440, Dyed in 461.  
S. HILARIUS, Bishop of Arles. Ordained Bishop in 429, Dyed in 454.  
S. VINCENTIUS, A Monk of Lerins. Wrote his Treatise in 434.  
S. EUCHERIUS, A Monk of Lerins. Flourished about the Year 440, Dyed in 454.  
S. PETRUS, Surnamed  
CHRYSOLOGUS, Bishop of Ravenna, Ordained in the Popedom of S. Sixtus, Dyed about the Year 450, before 458.  
MAXIMUS, Bishop of Turin. Flourished in the Empire of Honorius, and Theodosius the Younger, Dyed about the Year 465.  
VALERIANUS, or VALERIUS. Bishop of Cemele in the Sea-Alpes. He was at the Councils of France in 439, and 455.  
VICTOR, Bishop of Cartena in Africa. Flourished about the Year 440, in the time of the Persecution of Gensericus King of the Vandals.  
S. PROSPER, Of Aquitain, Flourished after the Year 430. Dyed in 456.  
The AUTHOR Of the Books of the Calling of the Gentiles, and of the Epistle to Demetrias. He wrote about the Year 440.  
FLAVIANUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, Ordained in 446, Dyed in 451.  
ANATOLIUS, Flavian's Successor in the same See, Ordained in 451, Dyed in 458.  
Several AUTHORS Of Petitions, and Letters for, and against Eutyches, In the time, and after the Council of Chalcedon.  


PASCHASINUS, Bishop of Lylibaeum.  
JULIAN, Bishop of Coos,   Flourished in the time of the Council of Chalcedon.  
BISILIUS, Bishop of Seleucia. He was present at the Council of Constantinople under Flavian, and at the Council of Chalcedon,  
TIMOTHEUS AELURUS, Bishop of Alexandria, Ordained in 457.  
CHRYSIPPUS, Bishop of Jerusalem. Flourished at the end of the Fifth Age.  
VIGILIUS, A Deacon. About the end of the Fifth Age.  
FASTIDIUS PRISCUS. According to some, Bishop of London. About the end of the Fifth Age.  
DRACONTIUS, A Priest of Spain. About the end of the Fifth Age.  
EUDOCIA, An Empress, Under the Empire of Theodosius, Junior. Dyed in the Year 460.  
PROBA FALCONIA, Wife of Anicius Probus, Flourished about 430.  
TURCIUS RUFUS ASTERIUS, A Consul. Flourished about the Year 450.  
PETRONIUS, Bishop of Bononia, Flourished about the same time. Dyed in the Reign of Theodosius and Valentinian.  
CONSTANTINUS, or CONSTANTIUS, A Priest of Lions. About the end of the Fifth Age.  
PHILIP, A Priest, Scholar of S. Jerom. Flourished about the Year 450. Dyed in the Empire of Marcian.  
SIAGRIUS, Towards the end of Fifth Age.  
ISAAC. A Priest of the Church of Antioch. About the end of the Fifth Age.  
S. SIMEON, Stylites, i. e. a Monk Dwelling on a Pillar. Famous about the middle of the Fifth Age.  
MOCHIMUS, or MOSCHIMUS, Steward of the Church of Hierapolis, and Priest of the Church of Antioch. About the end of the Fifth Age.  


ASCLEPIUS, A Bishop of a small Burrough of Africa in the Region of Bai●.  
PETRUS, A Priest of the Church of Edessa.  
PAULUS, A Priest of Pannonid.   Flourished about the end of the Fifth Age.  
SALVIAN, A Priest of Marseille. Flourished the 50 last Years of the Fifth Age. Dyed at the end of the Fifth Age.  
ARNOBIUS, The Younger. About the end of the Fifth Age.  
HONORATUS, Bishop of Marseille. About the end of the 5th Age.  


SALONIUS, Bishop of Geneva.  
VERANUS, Bishop of Venice.   Sons of Eucherius, Flourished about the end of the 5th Age.  
PAULINUS, Petricorus, or Petricordus. Towards the end of the Fifth Age.  
MUSAEUS, A Priest of Marseille. Dyed about the Year 460.  
VINCENTIUS, A French Priest. About the end of the Fifth Age,  
SYRUS, or CYRUS, A Physician, Philosopher, and Monk of Alexand●ia. About the end of the Fifth Age.  
SAMUEL, A Priest of the Church of Edessa. Flourished just at the end of the Fifth Age.  
CLAUDIANUS MAMERTUS, A Priest of the Church of Vienna. About the end of the Fifth Age.  
PASTOR, A Bishop. At the same time.  
VOCONIUS, Bishop of Castellanum in Mauritania. At the same time.  
EUTROPIUS, A Priest. At the same time.  
EVAGRIUS, At the same time.  
TIMOTHEUS, A Bishop. At the same time.  
EUSTATHIUS, At the same time.  
THEODULUS, A Priest of Caelosyria.  
EUGENIUS, Bishop of Garthage, and Confessor. Ordained about the Year 465.  
CEREALIS, Bishop of afric. Flourished in the Persecution of Hunnericus.  
SERVUS-DEI A Bishop. About the end of the Fifth Age.  
IDACIUS, Of Lamecum in Gallicia, Bishop of Lucus. Wrote in 457.  
VICTORIUS. Born at Lemovicum. Wrote in 457.  
GENNADIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, Ordained in 458. Dyed in 471.  
ANTIPATER, Of Bostra. Flourished toward the end of the Fifth Age.  
HILARUS, or HILARIUS, Bishop of Rome. Archdeacon under S. Leo, Ordained Bishop Nou. 17. 461. Dyed in 467.  
SIMPLICIUS, Bishop of Rome. Ordained in 467. Dyed in 483.  
FAUSTUS, An Englishman, a Priest, Monk, and Abbot of Lerins, and after Bishop of Ries. Flourished after the Year 450. Died at the end of the Fifth Age.  


RURICIUS, Bishop of Lemovicum,  
DIDIERUS, Bishop of Cadurcum.   Towards the end of the Fifth Age.  
C. SOLLIUS APOLLINARIS SIDONIUS, Bishop of Clermont. Born in the Year 430. Ordained in 472. Died, Aug. 21. 487.  
JOANNES TELAIA, or TELAIDA, A Monk of Tabenna, and afterward a Bishop of Alexandria. Ordained in 481. Died toward the end of the Fifth Age, or the beginning of the Sixth.  
JOHN, A Grammarian, and Priest of Antioch. Flourished toward the end of the Fifth Age.  
JOHN AEGEATES, A Nestorian Priest. He wrote toward the end of the Fifth Age.  
VICTOR, Bishop of Vita, i● the Province of Byzaceum in Africa. He wrote toward the end of the Fifth Age.  
VIGILIUS, Bishop of Thapsus in the Province of Byzaceum.  
FAELIX III. Bishop of Rome. Ordained in 483. Died in 492.  
The AUTHOR Of the Memoir concerning the Affair of Acacius. Wrote in 486.  
GELASIUS, Bishop of Rome. Ordained in 492. Died in 496.  
ANASTASIUS TWO, Bishop of Rome. Was Ordained, November 28. 496. Died in 498.  
PASCHASIUS, A Deacon of the Church of Rome. Flourished under the Popedom of Anastasius, and Symmachus.  
JULIANUS POMERIUS, Born in Mauritania, but a Priest in France. At the end of the Fifth Age.  
GENNADIUS, A Priest of Marseilles. At the end of the fifth Age.  


NEMESIUS, A Christian/ Philosopher, according to some Bishop of Emesa.  
AENAEAS GAZAEUS, A Christian Phisosopher.   At the end of the Fifth Age.  
GELASIUS, Of Cyzicum. At the end of the Fifth Age.  
The AUTHOR, Of the Books attributed to Saint Dionysius the Areopagite. Wrote towards the end of the Fifth Age, or in the beginning of the Sixth.    

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE COUNCILS Spoken of in this Volume.  

THE Council of Rome under Celestine, held in 430.  
The Council held at Alexandria in November the same Year.  
The General Council held at Ephesus, in 431.  
A Conference between the Eastern and Egyptian Bishops at Chalcedon in 431.  
A Synod held at Tarsus by the Eastern Bishops, about the end of the same year.  
At Antioch some time after.  
At Antioch against Rabulas.  
At Antioch about the peace, the same year.  
An Assembly at Anazarbum in 433.  
A Council of the Bishops of Cilicia in 435.  
A Council at Antioch in 436.  
A Council at Ries, in 439.  
The I Council of Orange, in 441.  
The Council of Vasio, in 442.  
The TWO Council of Arles a little after.  
The Council of Domnus against Sabinian in 446.  
The Council of Proclus in favour of Bassianus, in 447.  
A Council at Constantinople, in 448.  
A Synod at Berytus concerning Ibas.  
A TWO Council held at Constantinople the same Year, or the next.  
The Council of Ephesus under Dioscorus, in 449.  
A Council at Rome under S. Leo, in 449.  
A Council at Constantinople under Anatolius, in 449, or 50.  
The General Council of Chalcedon, in 451.  
The Council of Anjou, in 453.  
The III Council of Arles, in 455.  
A Conference at Carthage between the Orthodox, and Arian Bishops, in 456.  
A Council at Constantinople, in 459.  
The Letter of Lupus Bishop of Troy's, and Euphonius Bishop of Augustodinum about the same time.  
The Council of Tours in 461.  
A Council at Venice a little after.  
A Council at Rome under Hilarius, in 462.  
A Synod at Arles in 463.  
A Council at Rome in 465.  
A Council of 67. Bishops held at Rome under Faelix III. against Acacius, July 28. 484.  
Another Council at Rome August 1. in the same Year.  
A Council at Rome under Pope Gelasius, in 494,  
A Council called for the absolution of Misenus, in 495.    

A TABLE of the Works of the Ecclesiastical Authors mentioned in the Second Part of the III Volume of this New History of Ecclesiastical Writers.  

ATTICUS Bishop of Constantinople,  


His WORKS which we have.  
HIS Letter to S. Cyril.  
A Fragment of his Treatise of Faith, cited by S. Cyril, and in the Council of Ephesus.  
A Fragment of his Letter to Eupsychius cited by Theodoret.  
His Letter to Calliopius recited by Socrates in his History, Lib. 7. Chap. 25.  
The Answers of this Bishop in favour of the Novatians recited by Socrater.    


WORKS l●st.  
Several Sermons, and some Letters.  
A Treatise of Faith, and Virginity, dedicated to the Princesses the Daughters of Arcadius.     

TICHONIUS,  


His Genuine WORKS which we have.  
His Books of the VII Rules for the Explication of Holy Scripture.    


His WORKS lost.  
Three Books of the Intestine War.  
A Narration of divers Causes.  
A Treatise upon the Apocalypse.     

LEPORIUS, His Genuine WORKS which we have.  
His Book of R●●ractations.   

S. ISIDORE the Palu●iote. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Two Thousand, and 12 Letters upon different Subjects.   

JOANNES CASSIANUS. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
His Institutions of Monks, in 12 Books.  
His 24 Collations, or Conferences.  
Seven Books about the Incarnation.   

S. NILUS,  


His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
A Treatise of the Monastic Life.  
A Treatise entitled Peristeria, dedicated to the Monk Agathius.  
A Discourse of Voluntary Poverty dedicated to Magna the Deaconness.  
A Moral Discourse.  
A Comparison between the Life of the Anchorites, and other Monks.  
Two Treatises to Eulogius.  
A Treatise of the eight Vices, published by F. Combefis.  
A Discourse of Evil Thoughts.  
His Sentences.  
A Sermon upon these words of the Gospel, But he that now hath a Scrip, let him take it.  
Some Fragments of two Sermons upon the Feast of E●ster, and of three upon Whitsuntide, received by Photius, God. 276.  
Seven Narrations of the Persecutions of the Monks of Sinai.  
A Discourse in praise of Albinianus.  
Several Letters.    


WORKS lost.  
A Treatise of Compunction.  
A Commentary upon the Psalms.  
Several Sentences, and some Letters.    


Supposititious WORKS.  
The Manuel of Epictetus.  
Pachon. A Dogmatical Discourse.  
Several Sentences.     

The Author of the Professions of Faith attributed to RUFFINUS. WORKS extant.  
Two Confessions of Faith, the one published by F. Sirmondus, the other by F. Garner.   

POSSIDIUS the Deacon. His Genuine WORK.  
The Life of S. Austin.   

URANIUS. His Genuine WORK.  
The Life of S. Paulinus.   

S. CELESTINE Pope. His Genuine WORKS.  
A Letter against the Pelagians.  
Aphorisms of Grace composed by his Order.  
A Letter to the Bishops of the Provinces of Vienna and Narbon.  
A Letter to the Bishops of Apulia and Calabria.  
Letters concerning the Affair of Nestorius.   

S. CYRIL Bishop of Alexandria.  


His Genuine WORKS.  
17 Books of the Worship of God in Spirit and Truth.  
A Book against the Emperor Julian in 10 Parts.  
Glaphyra, or a Curious and Elegant Commentary upon the Pentateuch.  
A Commentary upon Isaiah.  
A Commentary upon the Twelve Minor Prophets.  
A Commentary on S. John's Gospel, divided into Twelve Books. We have only some Fragments of the Seventh and Eighth.  
A Treatise called Thesaurus.  
Seven Dialogues of the Trinity, and Two on the Incarnation.  
A Discourse of the Orthodox Faith to Theodosius the Emperor.  
A Writing to the Empresses.  
Five Books against Nestorius.  
His Twelve Chapters, and their Defence.  
His Apology to Theodosius.  
His Letters and Sermons against Nestorius.  
A Treatise against the Anthropomorphites.  
His Paschal Homilies, and other Sermons.  
Several Letters.  
His Answers to the Questions of certain Monks.    


WORKS lost.  
His Commentaries upon the Prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel.  
A Commentary on S. Matthew.  
A Treatise about the failure of the Synagogue.  
A Book of Faith. Divers Treatises.    


Suppositious WORKS.  
A Treatise about the Trinity.  
A Collection of Moral Explications.     

MARIUS MERCATOR.  


His Genuine WORKS.  
His first Memoir against the Pelagians.  
His second Memoir against the same Heretics.  
Observations on the Writings of Julian.  
A Book against Nestorius, to prove the Conformity of his Doctrine with P. Samosatenus'.  
A Treatise against Nestorius' 12 Chapters.  
A Translation and Collection of several Pieces.    


WORKS lost.  
A Treatise against the Pelagians mentioned by S. Austin.     

ANIANUS. A Genuine WORK.  
A Translation of 15 or 16 of S. Chrysostom's Homilies.   

JULIANUS.  


His Genuine WORKS.  
A Fragment of a Letter to Pope Zosimus, recited by Marius Mercator.  
A Profession of Faith to Pope Zosimus.  
Another Confession of Faith to Rufinus Bishop of Thessalonica.  
The first of his four Books to Turbantius against the first Books of S. Austin of Marriage and Concupiscence. Some Fragments of the three other Books.  
Eight other Books against the second Book of the same Work, the first five of which are in S. Austin's imperfect Work.  
A Fragment of the three other Books in Bede.    


WORKS lost.  
Some, that he composed before he declared himself against S. Austin.  
A Letter to Pope Zosimus.  
His three last Books to Turbantius.  
His three last to Florus. A Treatise of Love.  
A Commentary upon the Canticles.  
A Book concerning Constancy.     

NESTORIUS.  


His Genuine WORKS.  
A Sentence taken out of his first Sermon preached at Constantinople, quoted by Socrates.  
Fragments of his Sermons.  
Two Letters to S. Cyril.  
Two Letters to S. Celestine.  
A Letter to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis.  
The 12 Chapters of Nestorius' contrary to S. Cyril's.  
A Letter to John Bishop of Antioch.  
A Declaration of his Opinions.  
A Letter to the Emperor.  
A Letter to the Emperor's Eunuch.  
Another to the Praefectus-Praeterio.  
Some Fragments of Letters written in his Exile, recited by Evagrius, l. 1. c. 7.    


WORKS lost.  
Some Sermons preached at Antioch.  
His entire Sermons preached at Constantinople.     

JOHN Bishop of Antioch. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Some Letters in Greek and Latin in the Acts of the Council at Ephesus, and 15 in Latin in the Collection of F. Lupus.  
One of his Homilies in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus.   

ACACIUS Bishop of Beraea. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
A Letter in Greek and Latin in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus.  
Two Letters in Lupus' Collection.   

PAULUS Bishop of Emesa. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Two Homilies about the Peace between the Eastern and Egyptian Bishops.  
A Letter in Latin.   

MELETIUS Bishop of Mopsuesta. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Eleven Letters in F. Lupus' Collection.   

DOROTHEUS Bishop of Martianople. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Four Letters. Ibid.   

ALEXANDER Bishop of Hierapolis. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
24 Letters. Ibid.   

EUTHERIUS Bishop of Tyana. His Genuine WORKS.  
A Work entitled, The Tragedy.  
Several Letters in Lupus' Collection.   

THEODOTUS Bishop of Ancyra.  


His Genuine WORKS.  
Two Sermons upon Christ's Nativity.  
A Sermon preached upon S. John's Day.  
A Discourse upon the Nicene Creed.    


WORKS lost.  
Six Books against Nestorius dedicated to Lausus.  
A Sermon upon Candlemass-Day.  
A Sermon upon Elias and the Widow.  
Another upon S. Peter and S. John.  
Another upon the lame Man laid at the Gate of the Temple.  
Another upon the Servant that received the Talon.  
Another upon the two blind Men.  
A Sermon upon the Virgin and S. Simeon.     

ACACIUS Bishop of Meletina. His Genuine WORKS.  
An Homily, and a Letter.   

MEMNON.  
A Letter.   

RHEGINUS.  
A Discourse in the Council of Ephesus.   

MAXIMIAN.  
A Letter to S. Cyril.   

ALIPIUS and CARISIUS.  
Two Petitions in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus.   

S. SIXTUS III.  


His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Two Letters to S. Cyril, before he knew of the Peace, published by M. Cotelerius.  
Two Letters after he had heard of it, the one to John Bishop of Antioch, and the other to S. Cyril.    


Supposititious WORKS.  
A Letter to the Eastern Bishops.  
The Acts of the Council about the Accusation brought against Sixtus by Bassus.  
The Council held by Polychronius.     

PROCLUS. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
20 Sermons.   

CAPREOLUS. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
A Letter to the Council of Ephesus.  
A Treatise upon the Incarnation.   

ANTONINUS HONORATUS. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
A Consolatory Letter to Arcadius.   

VICTOR Bishop of Antioch. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
A Commentary upon S. Mark.   

VICTORINUS of Marseilles. His Genuine WORK.  
A Poem upon the History of Genesis.   

CAELIUS SEDULIUS. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
A Poem upon the Life of Jesus Christ, called, A Paschal Work. The same Work in Prose.   

PHILIP SEDETES. WORKS lost.  
A Book against Julian's Books.  
The History of Christianity divided into 30 Books.   

PHILOSTORGIUS.  


His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Some Extracts of his History recited by Ptrotius.    


A WORK lost.  
An History divided into 12 Books.     

NONNUS. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
A Paraphrase in Greek Verse upon the Gospel of S. John. His Dionysiacks.   

SOCRATES. His Genuine WORK.  
His Ecclesiastical History divided into seven Books.   

SOZOMEN. His Genuine WORK.  
His Ecclesiastical History divided into nine Books.   

THEODORET.  


His Genuine WORKS.  
A Commentary by way of Question and Answer upon the eight first Books of the Bible.  
A Commentary upon all the Psalms.  
An Explication upon the Canticles.  
Commentaries upon Jeremy, Ezekiel, Daniel, the 12 small Prophets, and S. Paul's Epistles.  
His Ecclesiastical History divided in five Books.  
His History, entitled, Philotheus, or, Of the Monastic Life.  
Eranistes, or Polymorphus, contained in three Dialogues.  
Five Books of Heretical Tables.  
10 Discourses of Providence.  
12 Books about the Cure of the false Opinions of the Heathens.  
A Discourse of Charity.  
A Sermon upon S. John published by F. Gamen.  
A Letter to Sporatius, or rather a Fragment of his Treatise of Heresies.  
A Letter to John Bishop of Germanicia.  
A Confutation of S. Cyril's twelve Chapters.  
Some Fragments of his Books against S. Cyril.  
Some Letters in the time of the Council of Ephesus.  
Some Letters in the time of Negotiating the Peace in Latin in Lupus' Collection.  
Letters written after the Peace to his Death.    


WORKS lost.  
A Commentary on Isaiah.  
Five Books against S. Cyril.  
A Treatise upon the Incarnation.  
Several Treatises against the Arians, Macedenians, Apollinarists, Marcionites and Jews.  
An Answer to the Questions of the Persian Magis.  
A Mystical Book.  
An Apology for Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus, and for Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuesta.    


Supposititious WORKS.  
A Preface upon the Psalms.  
Some Fragments of a Commentary upon the Psalms.  
Five Sermons in the praise of S. Chrysostom, of which Photius gives us some Extracts.     

ANDREW Bishop of Samosata.  


His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
A Confutation of S. Cyril's Chapters.  
Nine Letters in Lupus' Collection.    


A WORK lost.  
A Reply to S. Cyril's Answer to his Confutation of his twelve Chapters.     

HALLADIUS Bishop of Tarsus. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Seven Letters in Lupus' Collection.   

MAXIMINUS' Bishop of Anazarbum. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Some Letters in Lupus' Collection.   

IRENAEUS. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Some Extracts of his Work, entitled, A Tragedy.   

S. LEO.  


His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
141 Letters, and 96 Sermons.    


WORKS lost.  
Several Letters, and some Sermons.    


Supposititious WORKS.  
The seventh Letter to Septimius, and ninth to the Bishops of Vienna, are doubtful.  
Those Letters, which were heretofore the 88th, and 96th.  
Three Sermons.     

HILARY Bishop of Arles.  


His Genuine WORKS.  
The Life of Honoratus Bishop of Arles.  
A Poem upon Genesis.  
A Letter to S. Eucherius.    


WORKS lost.  
His Homilies upon all the Festivals.  
An Exposition of the Creed.  
Several Letters.  
His Poetical Works.     

S. VINCENTIUS LERINENSIS.  


His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
A Memoir against the Heresies.  
Objections against S. Austin's Doctrine.    


A. WORK lost.  
The second part of his Memoir against the Heresies.     

S. EUCHERIUS.  


His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
A Treatise in praise of Solitude  
A Treatise of the Contempt of the World.  
A Treatise of Spiritual Forms dedicated to Verenus.  
Two Books of Instructions, and S. Blandina's Sermons.    


WORKS lost.  
An Abridgement of Cassian. Several Sermons.    


Supposititious WORKS.  
A Commentary upon Genesis, and the Book of Kings.  
The History of S. Maurice's Sufferings.     

MAXIMUS Bishop of Turin. His Genuine WORKS.  
Several Homilies.   

VALERIANUS CEMELIENSIS. His Genuine WORKS.  
20 Homilies, and one Letter to the Monks.   

VICTOR CARTENNENSIS.  


His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Comfort in Adversity among the Works of S. Basil.  
A Treatise of Repentance in S. Ambrose.    


WORKS lost.  
A Treatise against the Arians, several Homilies.  
A Discourse about the Publicans Repentance.     

S. PROSPER.  


His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
A Letter to S. Austin.  
Another to Rufinus.  
An Answer to Vincentius' Objections.  
An Answer to some new Objections against S. Austin's Doctrine.  
An Answer to the Propositions extracted by the Priests of Geneva.  
A Book against the Collator.  
A Poem De ingratis.  
Two Epigrams against the Adversaries of S. Austin.  
Some Sentences of S. Austin in Verse.  
Other Sentences in Prose.  
A Commentary on the 50 last Psalms.  
His Chronicon published by F. Labbé.    


Supposititious WORKS.  
A Poem concerning Providence.  
A Poem in the Name of an Husband to his Wife.  
His Book of Divine Promises and Predictions.  
Two Books of a Contemplative Life.  
S. Prosper's Confession,  
The Chronicon, published by F. Pithaeus: An Unknown Author of S. Prosper's time, or thereabouts.   

Ancient WORKS, though not S. Prospers.  
Two Books of the Vocation of the Gentiles.  
The Epistle to Demetrias.     

FLAVIAN His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Three Letters against Eutyches.   

ANATOLIUS. His Genuine WOKRS, etc.  
A Letter to the Emperor Leo. Another to S. Leo.   

EUSEBIUS, Bishop of Dorylaeum. His Genuine WORKS.  
Two Petitions and a Letter.   

IBAS. His Genuine WORK.  
His Letter to Maris the Persian.   

PASCHASIUS, Bishop of Lilibeum.  
A Letter concerning the Passoever.   

JULIAN, Bishop of Coos. His Genuine WORK, etc.  
A Letter to S. Leo.   

PROTERIUS, Bishop of Alexandria. His Genuine WORK, etc.  
A Letter concerning the Passover.   

LEO BITURICENSIS. His Genuine WORK, etc.  
A Letter to S. Leo.   

RUSTICUS. His Genuine WORK, etc.  
A Letter to S. Eucherius.   

LUPUS TRICASSINUS. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Two Letters.   

LEONTIUS, Bishop of Arles. His Genuine WORK, etc.  
A Letter to Pope Hilarius.   

BASIL of Seleucia. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Forty Homilies.   

TIMOTHEUS AELUROS. A WORK lost.  
A Writing to the Emperor Leo.   

CHRYSIPPUS.  


His Genuine WORK, etc.  
A Sermon in Praise of the Virgin.   

WORKS lost.  
The History of Gamaliel, and Nicodemus.  
A Panegyric upon Theodorus.     

VIGILIUS. His Genuine WORK, etc.  
A Rule for the Monks in Holstenius' Collection. Part 1. p. 89.   

FASTIDIUS PRISCUS. His Genuine WORK, etc.  
A Treatise of the Christian Life.   

DRACONCIUS. His Genuine WORK, etc.  
A Poem upon the Six Days of the Creation.   

EUDOCIA.  


Her Genuine WORK, etc.  
An Epigram, called Centones Homenici.    


WORKS lost.  
A Paraphrase upon the eight first Books of the Bible.  
A Paraphrase upon the Prophecy of Daniel and Zachary.  
Three Books on praise of Cyprian the Martyr.    


A Supposititious WORK.  
Homer ' Cento's.     

PROBA FALCONIA. Her Genuine WORKS.  
Virgil's Cento's.   

TYRSIUS RUFUS ASTERIUS. His Genuine WORK, etc.  
A Conference in Verse about the Old and New Testament.   

PETRONIUS. WORKS lost.  
The Lives of the Egyptian Fathers.  
A Treatise about the Ordination of a Bishop.   

CONSTANTIUS. His Genuine WORK, etc.  
The Life of S. German, Bishop of Antisiodorum.   

PHILIPPUS. WORKS lost.  
A Commentary on Job. His Letters to his Friends.   

SIAGRIUS. WORKS lost.  
A Treatise about the Faith in the Trinity. Another Treatise of Faith, and the Rules of Faith.   

ISAAC.  


WORSE lost.  
See the Catalogue p. 213, 214.    


A Supposititious WOKR.  
A Treatise of the contempt of the World, which is the Work of another Isaac more Modern.     

S. SIMEON STYLITES. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
A short Discourse, and some Letters.   

MOCHIMUS. A WORK lost.  
A Treatise against Eutyches.   

ASCLEPIUS. WORKS lost.  
Some Writings against the Arians and Donatists.   

PETRUS. WORKS l●st.  
Treatises upon different Subjects.  
Psalms in Verse.   

PAUL. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Two Books of Virginity.  
His Treatises of the contempt of the World.  
Of the Institution of a Christian Life, or the Correcting of Manners.   

SALVIAN.  


His Genuine WORKS.  
Eight Books of the Government of God and of Judgement.  
Four Books of the Catholic Church under the Name of Timotheus.    


WORKS lost.  
Three Books of the advantages of Virginity.  
A Book to Claudian upon the end of Ecclesiastes  
A Book of Letters. Several Homilies.  
A Treatise in Hexameter Verse, upon the Hexa ëmeron.  
A great number of Discourses on the Sacrament.    


Supposititious WORKS.  
Three Books of Questions to reconcile the Old and New Testament.     

ARNOBIUS Junior. His Genuine WORK, etc.  
A Commentary upon the Psalms.   

HONORATUS, Bishop of Marseilles.  


His Genuine WORK.  
The Life of S. Hilary Bishop of Arles, under the name of Reverentius.    


WORKS lost.  
The Lives of the Saints, and several Homilies.     

SALONIUS and VERANUS. Genuine WORKS.  
A Letter to S. Leo. A Mystical Exposition.  
An Explication of Solomon's Proverbs.   

PAULINUS of Perigueux. His Genuine WORKS.  
Six Books of the Life and Miracles of S. Martin.   

MUSAEUS. A WORK lost.  
A Treatise upon the Sacraments.   

VINCENTIUS. A WORK lost.  
A Commentary upon the Psalms.   

SYRUS. A WORK lost.  
A Treatise against Nestorius.   

SAMUEL. WORKS lost.  
His Treatises against the Nestorians and Eutychians.   

CLAUDIANUS MAMERTUS. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Three Books of the Nature of the Soul.  
The Hymn. Pang Lingua.   

PASTOR. A WORK lost.  
A Treatise in the form of a Creed, containing the Articles of Faith.   

VOCONIUS. A WORK lost.  
A Treatise against the Enemies of the Church.   

EUTROPIUS. WORKS lost.  
Two Consolatory Letters to two Sisters disinherited.   

EVAGRIUS. A WORK lost.  
A Disputation, betwixt a Jew and a Christian.   

TIMOTHEUS. A WORK lost.  
A Treatise upon the Nativity of Our Lord.   

EUSTATHIUS. His Genuine WORK, etc.  
A Translation of 9 Homilies of S. Basil upon the Hexaëmeron.   

THEODULUS. WORKS lost.  
Several Works, and particularly a Concordance of the Old and New Testament.   

EUGENIUS. His Genuine WORK.  
A Confession of Faith, and a Petition to Hunnericus.   

CEREALIS. A Genuine WORK.  
A Confession of Faith.   

SERVUS-DEI. A WORK lost.  
A Treatise about seeing God with our bodily Eyes.   

IDACIUS. His Genuine WOKRS, etc.  
A Chronicon from the Year 381, to 467.  
A Calendar of the Consuls from Anno. 245. to 468.   

VICTORIUS. A Genuine WORK, etc.  
The Paschal Cycle.   

GENNADIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople. His WORKS lost.  
A Literal Commentary upon Daniel.  
Some Homilies. A Treatise to Parthenius.  
Another Treatise cited by Facundus.   

ANTIPATER of Bostra. A WORK lost.  
A Confutation of Eusebius' Defence of Origen.   

HILARY Bishop of Rome. His Genuine WORK, etc.  
Twelve Letters.   

SIMPLICIUS Bishop of Rome. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Eighteen Letters.   

FAUSTUS' Bishop of Rises.  


His Genuine WORKS.  
A Letter to Lucidus the Priest.  
A Treatise of Grace and freewill to Leontius Bishop of Arles.  
A Letter to Gratus.  
A Treatise concerning the Generation of the Son, the Incarnation, and of the Nature of the Soul.  
A Letter to Felix.  
Two Discourses to the Monks.  
Some other Discourses.  
A Letter to Paulinus.  
Five Letters to Ruricius.    


WORKS lost.  
A Treatise about the Spirit.  
Another Treatise in form of a Dialogue.     

RURICIUS and DESIDERIUS. Genuine WORKS.  
Some Letters.   

APOLLINARIS SIDONIUS.  
Three Panegyrics  
A Collection of Poems.  
Letters divided into several Books.   

JOANNES TALAIDA. A WORK lost.  
An Apology addressed to Gelasius.   

JOHN, a Priest of Antioch. A WORK lost.  
A Treatise against those that assert, that there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ.   

JOANNES AEGEATES, A WORK lost.  
His Ecclesiastical History beginning at the Deposition of Nestorius, and ending at that of Peter Fullo.   

VICTOR VITENSIS. His Genuine WORK, etc.  
The History of the Persecution of the Vandals.   

VIGILIUS TAPSENSIS. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
12 Books of the Trinity.  
A Writing against Varimadus.  
A Treatise against Falicianus.  
Two Conferences between Arius and Athanasius.  
Five Books against Eutyches.  
A Treatise of Faith against Palladius.   

FAELIX III. Bishop of Rome.  


His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Fifteen Letters.    


Supposititious WORKS.  
Three Letters in Greek.  
Two Writs to Summon Acacius.  
A Letter of a Council in Rome to the Clergy and Monks of Bythinia.     

An Unknown AUTHOR who wrote in 486. A Genuine WOKK, etc.  
A Memoir about the Affair of Acacius.   

GELASIUS I.  
Fifteen Letters.  
Some Formula's or Commissions.  
A Letter to Rusticus.  
A Treatise upon the binding power of an Anathema.  
A Discourse against Andromachus about the Lupercalia.  
A Treatise against the Pelagians.  
A Treatise against Eutyches and Nestorius.  
His judgement upon Apocryphal Books.  


WORKS lost.  
Other Treatises upon several Subjects.  
Some Hymns.     

ANASTASIUS II. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
A Letter to the Emperor  
A Letter to Lewis King of France.  
Some Fragments of a Letter to Ursicinus.   

PASCHASIUS the Deacon. His Genuine WORKS, etc.  
Three Books of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit.   

JULIAN POMERIUS.  


His Genuine WORKS.  
Three Books of the Contemplative, and Active Life.    


WORKS lost.  
A Dialogue of the Nature of the Soul, divided into Eight Books,  
A Treatise to Principius about the contempt of Worldly things.  
A Treatise about the Institution of Virgins.  
A Treatise of Virtues and Vices.     

GENNADIUS a Priest of Marseille.  


His Genuine WORKS. etc.  
A Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Writers.  
A Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Doctrine.    


WORKS lost.  
Eight Books against all the Heresies.  
Six Books against Nestorius.  
Three Books against Pelagius.  
A Treatise of the Millennium, and the Apocalypse of S. John.     

NEMESIUS. His Genuine WORK.  
A Treatise of the Nature of Man.   

AENAEAS GAZAEUS. His Genuine WORK, etc.  
A Treatise of the Immortality of the Soul, and of the Resurrection.   

GELASIUS CYZECENUS. His Genuine WORK, etc.  
The History of the Council of Nice.   

AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. Who lived about the end of the Fifth, or beginning of the Sixth Age, and wrote some Books under the Name of Dionysius the Areopagite.  
Of the Celestial Hierarchy.  
Of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.  
Of the Names of God.  
Of Mystical Divinity.  
Some Letters.    

A TABLE Of the Acts, Letters and Canons of the COUNCILS Spoken of in this Volume.  
The Councils of Rome under S. Celestine in 430. 
S. Caeletine's Letters.  〈◊〉 Council held at Alexandria in the same Year. 


The Letters of the Council against Nestorius his Anathematisms, and Confession of Faith.  
The General Council of Ephesus.  
The Acts of this Council.  
The Synods of the Eastern Bishops which followed it.  
The Letters of the Bishops of these Synods.    The Council of Ries in 439. 
The Condemnation of Armentarius.  The First Council of Orange. 
Thirty Canons.  The Council of Vasio in 442. 
Ten Canons.  The Second Council of Arles. 
Fifty Six Canons.  The Council of Domnus against Sabinian. 
The Acts are lost.  The Council of Proclus in favour of Bassianus. 
The Acts are lost.  The Council of Constantinople in 448. 
The Acts are recited in the Council of Chalcedon.  Another Assembly at Constantinople. 
The Acts of it are also in the Council of Chalcedon.  The Council of Ephesus under Dioscorus. 
The Acts of it are also in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon.  The Council of Rome under S. Leo. 
Letters written in the Name of the Council by S. Leo.  The Council of Constantinople under Anatolius. 
A Letter written to S. Leo, lost.  The Council of Chalcedon. 
The Acts of this Council, in which were XVI Sessions, and XX Canons. The Session concerning Domnus is Dubious.  The Council of Constantinople under Gennadius. 
A Constitution against Simony.  The Council of Tours in 461. 
Thirteen Canons.  The Council of Venice. 
Sixteen Canons.  The Councils of Rome under Pope Hilary. 
See the Letters of this Pope.  The Council of Rome under Foelix. 
See also the Letters of this Pope.  A Council at Rome under Gelasius in 494. 
The Decree concerning Apocryphal Books.  A Council under the same in 495. 
The Acts of the Absolution of Misenus.  Supposititious Councils. 
The Acts of the Council of Rome about the Accusation of Bassus against S. Sixtus, and of the Council of Jerusalem under Polychronius.    

A TABLE of the Works of the Ecclesiastical Writers, who died since the Year 430, disposed according to the Order of the Matters they treat of.  

Treatises about the Truth of Religion, against the Heathens and Jews.  
THE Letters of S. Isidore Pelusiota.  
17 Letters of S. Cyril, concerning the Worship of God in Spirit and in Truth.  
A Confutation of Julian's Books against the Christian Religion.  
12 Discourses of Theodoret concerning the Cure of the Heathens False Opinions.  
10 Discourses of Providence.  
Vincentius Lerinensis his Memoir.   

Treatises of the Trinity.  
S. Isidore's Letters. S. Cyrils, Thesaurus, Eugenius, and Cerealis' Confession of Faith.  
Fausius. Of the Generation of the Son.  
12 Books of the Trinity, by Vigilius Tapsensis.  
His Writings against Varimadus, Faelician, and Palladius. His Conferences between Arius, and Athanasius.  
Paschasius of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit.   

Treatises upon the Incarnation.  
Leporius' Retractations.  
S. Isidore's Letters.  
7 Books of Cassian upon the Incarnation.  
The Greatest part of S. Cyril's Works.  
Theodotus' Sermons. Proclus' Sermons.  
A Treatise of Capreolus.  
Theodoret's Writings, and Letters.  
The Writings of Andrew Bishop of Samosata.  
The Letters of several Eastern Bishops in the Collections published by F. Lupus.  
The Writings of Eutherius of Tyana.  
S. Leo's Letter to Flavian, and some others.  
Faustus' Letter to Gratus, and Faelix.  
The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon and Ephesus, with the Letter and Pieces written on that Subject.  
The Encyclical Code.   

Treatises about Grace and Freewill.  
S. Caelestine's Letter and Aphorisms.  
Some of S. Leo's Letters.  
Marius' Mercators Treatises.  
Julian's Treatises. S. Prosper's Works.  
The Treatise of the Vocation of the Gentiles, and the Epistle to Demetrias.  
The Works of Faustus Reiensis.   

About the Nature of the Soul.  
Three Books of Claudianus Mamertus.  
Faustus' Treatise upon the same Subject.  
Nemesius' Treatise of the Nature of Man.  
A Treatise of the Immortality of the Soul, by Aeneas Gazaeus.   

Treatises upon several points of Loctrine.  
S. Isidore's Letters.  
The Confessions of Faith attributed ●o Rufinus.  
Sentences taken out of S. Austin, by S. Prosper.  
Gennadius' Treatise of Ecclesiastical Doctrines.  
The Treatises concerning the Name of God, and the Celestial Hierarch attributed to S. Dionysius.   

Treatises against Heretics.  
Theodoret's last Book of Heretical Fables  
Vincentius Lerinensis' Memoir.  


Against the Nestorians.  
Three Books of Cassian upon the Incarnation.  
The greatest part of S. Cyril's Books.  
M. Mercator's Memoirs and Collections.  
Extracts of Nestorius' Sermons, and other Vritings.   

Against the Pelagians.  
S. Caelestine's Letter and Aphorisms, about Gr●ce.  
M. Mercator's Treatises.  
Julian's Treatises for the Pelagians.  
S. Prosper's Works.  
Pope Gelasius' Treatise against the Pelagians.   

Against the Eutychians.  
Theodoret's Eranistes.  
His Chapters against S. Cyril.  
Vigilius Taps. 5 Books against Eutyches.  
P. Gelasius' Treatise against Eutyches and Nestorius.     

Books concerning Discipline.  
Atticus' Letter to Calliopius. S. Isidore's Letters  
S. Caelestine's Letter to the Bishops of the Provinces of Vienna, and Narbon.  
Other Letters of his to the Bishops of Apulia, and Calabria.  
Some of S. Cyril's Letters.  
Some of Theodoret's.  
The greatest part of S. Leo's Letters.  
Salvian's Books to the Catholic Church.  
The Letters of the Bishops Hilary, Simplicius, Faelix III. and Gelasius.  
Sidonius' Letters, which we have abridged.  
P. Gelasius' Treatise of the binding power of an Anathema.  
The Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy attributed to Diomysius.  
The Acts of the Council of Ephesus, and chief that which is said in the first Action, about the manner of proceeding against Nestorius, with the Decrees, and six Canons made in the 7th Action.  
The Decrees of the Council of Ries.  
30 Canons of the Council of Orange.  
10 Canons of the Council of Vasio.  
56 Canons of the TWO Council of Arles.  
The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, and chief the Actions of Carosus and Dorotheus, the Decrees made in the 7, 8, 9, and following Sessions, and particularly in the 15th, which contains 30 Canons.  
The Constitution of the Council of Constantinople under Gennadius concerning Simony.  
13 Canons of the Council of Tours.  
16 Canons of the Councils of Venice.  
The Councils of Rome under the Bishops Hilari us, Simplicius, and Gelasius.   

Critical Works upon the Scripture, and other Ecclesiastical Writings.  
Tictionius' 7 Rules for the Explication of the Scriptures.  
S. Isidore's Letters upon the Scripture.  
Theodoret's Prefaces to his Commentaries.  
The two first Chapters of the Writing of Eutherius of Tyana.  
S. Eucherius' Treatise of Spiritual Forms.  
Gelasius' Treatise of Apocryphal Books.  
Gennadius of Ecclesiastical Writers.  
Gelasius' Decree concerning the Canonical and Apocryphal Books.   

Commentaries upon the Holy Scripture. Upon GENESIS.  
S. Cyril's Glaphyra.  
Theodoret's Commentary on the Penteteuch, and the three following Books.   

Upon the PSALMS.  
Theodoret's Commentaries.  
S. Prosper's Commentary upon the 50 last Psalms.  
Arnobius Junior, Commentary on the Psalms.   

On the Books of SOLOMON.  
Salonius and Veranus' Explication of the Proverbs of Solomon, and mystical Explication.   

Upon the PRROPHETS.  
S. Cyril's Commentary upon Isaiah, and the 12 Minor Prophets.  
Theodoret's Commentary upon all the Prophet's great and small, except Isaiah.   

Upon the EVANGELISTS.  
Victor of Antioch's Commentary on Mark.  
S. Cyril's Commentary upon S. John's Gospel.   

Upon S. PAUL's Epistle.  
Theodoret's Commentaries upon all S. Paul's Epistles.   

Historical Books.  
Cassian's Conferences.  
S. Nilus' Relation of the Persecution of the Monks of Mount Sinai.  
Possidius' Life of S. Austin.  
Uramius' Life of Paulinus.  
M. Mercator's Memoirs against the Pelagians and Nestorians, as also the Pieces collected by him.  
The Fragments of Philostorgius' Church History.  
The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret.  
The History, Entitled, Philotheus.  
Theodoret's four first Books of Heretical Fables. 

His Letter to Sporatius.  
Several other Letters of his.    
Irenaeus' Tragedy, of which we have some Fragments.  
Hilary Bishop of Arles' Life of Honoratus.  
S. Prosper's Chronicon.  
Constantius' Life of S. German.  
Paulinus' six Books of the Light and Miracles of S. Austin.  
Idacius' Chronicon and Calendar of the Coss.  
Victor Vitens●s's History of the Persecution of the Vandals.  
Victorius' Paschal Cycle.  
The Memoir about the Affair of Acacius.  
The History of the Council of Nice, by Gelasius Cyzicenus.  
The Acts of the Councils of Chalcedon and Ephesus, and other pieces which concern them  
The Book of Circular Letters.   

POEMS.  
Victorinus' Poem upon the Hexaemeron.  
Sedulius' Poem upon the Life of Jesus Christ.  
Nonnus' Paraphrase of the Gospel of S. John.  
Hilary Bishop of Arles Poem upon the Hexaemeron.  
Dracontius' Poem upon the same.  
Homer's Cento's. Virgil's Cento's.  
Asterius' Comparison of the Old and New Testament.  
Mamertus' Hymn. Pang Lingua.  
Sidonius' Panegyric, and other Poems.   

Books of PIETY, MORALITY, and DIVINITY.  
S. Isidore's Letters. S. Nilus' Treatises.  
Cassians Institutions of the Monks and Conferences.  
The Consolatory Letters of Antoninus and Honoratus.  
S, Leo's Sermons.  
S. Eucherius' Treatise in praise of Solitude. 

His Treatise of the Contempt of the World.    
Two Books of Instructions.  
The Homilies of Maximus of Turin, and Valerian Cemeliensis.  
Victor Cartennensis' comfort in Adversity. 

His Treatise of Repentance.    
The Sermons of Basil of Seleucia.  
A Treatise of the Christian Life, by Fastidius Priscus.  
Salvian's Works.  
Julian Pomerius' Books of the Contemplative and Active Life.   

Books concerning a Monastic Life.  
S. Isidore's Letters. Cassians Institutions of Monks, and his Conferences. S. Nilus' Works. Theodoret's Philotheus, or Religious History.  
S. Eucherius concerning Solitude, and contempt of the World.  
Rules for Monks, by Vigilius the Deacon.    

An INDEX of the Principal Matters contained in this FOURTH VOLUME.  

A.  
ABEL, the first just Man slain unjustly, 139 S. Abraham, a Monk of great Piety, a Discourse of this holy Man's, p. 14, 66 He desires Theodoret to celebrate the Sacrament in his Cell, 66. He was Ordained Bishop of Car, ibid.  
Absolution, after what manner, and in what cases it is to be administered, 16, 19, 26.  
Acacius, a Favourer of Timotheus Aelurus, and Petrus Mongus, 160. He contended about it with Simplicius, ibid. Pope Foelix proceeded against him, and condemned him, 172, etc. Gelasius would not celebrate his Memory, 176, etc. An History of the Differences Acacius had with these Popes, ibid.  
Acacius of Berea, his Letters, 44. He Negotiates for a Peace, 205, etc.  
Acacius of Melitina, a Bishop of S. Cyril's Party. His Letter to him, 47. See the History of the Council of Ephesus.  
Acaemetae, the Monastery of the Acaemetae at what time it was founded at Constantinople, 156.  
Acepsimas, a Monk, his Life, 66.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Explication of this word, 4.  
Acts of the Martyrs, they were not received by the Church of Rome, 180.  
Ad●m, his Fall repaired by Jesus Christ, 139.  
Ado● of Vienna, he give S. Prosper the Title of S. Leo's Secretary, 81.  
Aeneas Gazaeus, his Opinion about the Nature and Original of the Soul, 187.  
Aëtius, the Archdeacon, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 105.  
Agapetus, his Letter to Leo the Emperor about the Affair of Eutyches, 138.  
Aggarus, ordained Bishop from a mere Layman, 83  
Agathius, a Monk, 17.  
Alexander of Hierapolis, the number of his Letters, his resistance to the Peace, and exile, 207, etc.  
Alexandria the See of S. Mark, 77. The Bishop of that City was enjoined to give Notice on what Day Easter should be kept, 12, 99  
Altino, now Torzillo, a City in the Patriarchate of Venice, 87.  
Alypuis, a Priest of Constantinople of S. Cyril's Party. His Letter to that Saint, 47.  
Ambrun, the Metropolis of the Sea-Alps, 149.  
Ammonius, a famous Grammarian, 53.  
Ammonius, a Monk, hanged by the Command of Orestes Governor of Alexandria, 27.  
Anchorites, a curious Question about them, 18.  
Anastasius, a Priest of Antioch, Nestorius' Friend. His Sermon against the Holy Virgin, 40.  
Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica. The Advice he gave to S. Leo, 91, 92.  
Anastasius TWO Pope, his Life and Letters, 181, etc.  
Anatolius, Flavian's Successo●● his Letters, 138. Ordained Patriarch of Constantinople, 228. The Differences between him and S. Leo, 96, 97, 99 He comes over to S. Leo's Judgement, 228.  
Anatolius, a Patrician, 76, 78.  
Ancyra, a City of Galatia, 46.  
Andrew Bishop of Samosata, Theodoret's Friend. His Writings and Letters, 80. His Death, ibid.  
Andrew, an Eutychian, 97, 103.  
Anjou, a Council held in that City, Anno 453. the Number and Abridgement of these Canons, 247  
Angels, their Distinction according to the Author of the Books of the Hierarchy, 188.  
Anianus a Deacon, a Judgement upon this Author's Translations, 38. A different Person from him that wrote the Theodosian Code, ibid.  
Anthelmi, his Opinion of S. Leo's Sermons refuted, 105, 106.  
Anthropomorphites Heretics, 12, 32.  
Antioch, S. Peter's See, 77.  
Antipater of Bostra, a Censure upon this Author's Work, 156.  
Antiquity, to be followed as well in Matters of Discipline as Faith, 100  
Antoninus Honoratus, Bishop of Constantina in  
afric, his Letter about the Persecution, 49.  
Aphraates, a Miracle wrought by him in curing an Horse▪ 66.  
Apocryphal Books rejected by Gelasius, 181.  
Apollinaris Sidonius, Bishop of Ciermont, his Life, Disposition and Writings, 166, etc.  
Apostles, their Life is above the Lives of other Men, 73.  
Arcadius, by whom banished for the Faith, 49.  
Arles, the Church by whom founded, 95. the Privileges of the Church of Arles by whom revoked, and restored to the Church of Vienna, 89. The second Council held in that City. The Number and Abridgement of its Canons, 246.  
Armentarius, the Sentence given against him by the Council of Ries, being unduly Ordained Bishop of Ambrun.  
Arnobius Junior, a different Person from Arnobius the Apologist, 148. his Doctrine and Writings, 148. he did not believe Original Sin, ibid.  
Arsacius Patriarch of Constantinople, S. Chrysostom's Successor, 1.  
Asclepiades a Novatian Bishop, 2.  
Asclepius his Writings against the Heretics, 145  
Asparus, a Consul, 78.  
Assemblies of the Christians, on different Days in distinct Churches, 53.  
Athanasius, a Priest, his Petition against Eutyches, 138.  
Atticus Patriarch of Constantinople, his Life, Disposition and Writings, 1, 2.  
Atticus, a Priest, 103.  
S. Austin, his Memory honoured by the Church of Rome, 22.  
Avienus, Consul, 89.  
Advice, to Bishops and to Christians of all conditions, 89.  
almsgiving. Of Priests helps forward, the possession of the People, 2. to be given to modest poor, ibid. not to be bestowed on professed Beggars, ibid. to be given to the poor of any Religion, ibid. The Commendation of Almsgiving, 27. all Christians are obliged to it, and therefore are instructed about it, 147. Sinners as well as Good Men are obliged to it, ibid.  
Aurelius' Bishop of Carthage, 47.  
Altar, Built at Athens to the Unkown God. Some conjectures of S. Isidore about it. 5.  
Author of the Books of the Vocation of the Gentiles, and the Epistle to Demetrias, 128, etc.  
Author of the Confessions of Faith attributed to Rufinus. Some Author's Opinions about this Work, 20.  
Author of the Memoir concerning the affair of Acacius. This Name is not known, 175.  
Authority. Civil and Spiritual, they are two distinct powers, the one hath no Jurisdiction over the other, 110  
Auxiliares, a Roman Orator, 112, 178.  
Asylum, a Privilege of Churches, 244.   

B  
BAptism, Baptism for the Dead in S. Paul, what it is, 5. The Effects of Baptism, 6. Infant-Baptism, ib. The day for Baptism, 53, It's use, 71. It came in stead of the Jewish Washings, ibid. At what time it ought to be administered, 94. Some Questions about Baptism, 104. How it ought to be used with those that have been Baptised, and Rebaptised by Heretics, 85, etc. They ought to be Rebaptised who can't prove that they have been Baptised already, ib. They ought not to be Rebaptised who can remember that they have been Baptised, tho' they can't tell by what Sect, ib. Solemn Baptism S. Leo affirms ought not to be administered on the Feast of Epiphany, 93, nor on any other Festivals, besides Easter and Pentecost, 104. The Necessity of Baptism, 20. They are not to be Rebaptised, who have been Baptised in the Name of the Trinity, 186. The Ceremonies and Effects of Baptism, ib. Reasons for Infant-Baptism, 190. When it is to be reiterated, 247.  
Baradatus and Thalalaeus Monks, who were always bowed down and shut up, 67.  
Bardesanes, an Heretic 68  
Basilius, Bishop of Antioch, 102.  
Basil, Bishop of Seleucia, His Life, 139. His Homilies and their Abridgement, ibid. A Censure upon his Style and manner of Writing, 140. The Edition of his Homilies, 141.  
Bassianus Bishop of Evasa, his Petition in his own defence, 138.  
Bassianus, The difference between him and Stephen, who both pretend to the Bishopric of Ephesus, determined in the Council of Chalcedon, 238.  
Bassus, His accusation of Sixtus III. a Fable, 48.  
Beasts, difference between the clean and unclean, 139  
Bishops, their duty to teach in the Churches, 22. They ought to observe the Canons, 26. the names of the Bishops of the Nestorian party, 44. the names of the Orthodox Bishops of S. Cyril's side, 47, must not be such as have had two Wives, or have Married a Widow, 83. the Ancient right of the African Bishops, 84. subject to the Law of Continence, ibid. ought not be Married to two Wives, 87, aught to go to the Synods, ib. ought to observe the Canons, ibid. Canons about Bishops 91, etc. He that goes from one Church to another, contemning his own, shall be deprived of both, ib. are all equal in what sense, 92. ought not to pawn the Goods of their Church, 94, a description of good and evil Bishops, 183, etc. The Virtues of Bishops, 185. they ought not to receive or ordain the Clergy of other Bishops, 236, nor Usurp their Churches, ibid.  
Bruno, Bishop of Signi, 118.   

C  
CAnticles, the Authority and meaning of that Book. 61. acknowledged to be Divine by the Fathers, 62, 63. not to be read by Young and Illiterate persons ib. Chalcedon, a general Council held in 451, in that City, 37, 230.  
Calliopius, a Priest of Nice, 2.  
Caprasius, a Monk of Lerins, 117.  
Capreolus Bishop of Carthage, Successor of Aurelius, He sent his Deputy to the Council of Ephesus, 49, and wrote a small Treatise against Nestorius, ib.  
Carosus a Monk, 101.  
Cartenna, a City of Mountania, 121.  
Carthage, by whom, and at what time taken, 147.  
Cassian, his Conferences, 11, etc.  
Catechumen, the Gospel ought to be read to them, 245. they ought not to go into the Baptistery, nor be with the Faithful, ibid.  
Causes of greater consequence to be determined before whom, 92.  
S, Celestine, his Life and Writings, 22. where the Aphorisms of Grace are his, 22, etc. Nestorius, and wrote to S. Cyril and John Bishop of Antioch, 194. his Letters after the Council of Ephesus, 204, his Death, 47.  
Caelestius a Scholar of Pelagius, 35.  
Caelibacy preferred before Marriage, 6. Different practices of Churches concerning the Caelibacy of the Clergy, 53. It was extended to Deacons and Subdeacons, tho' not in all Churches, 85, 91. Caelebacy enjoined Deacons for the future, 245.  
Celidonins, a French Bishop condemned by Hilary Bishop of Arles, 90.  
Cerealis, his Confession of Faith, 154.  
Ceremonies of the old Law were intended only for Men in an Imperfect State, 73.  
Caesarius Bishop of Arles, Author of a great many Sermons, 118.  
Charesius, a Priest of the Church of Philadelphia, he presented a Petition and Confession of Faith to the Council of Ephesus, 47.  
Charity, the Effects of it, 13.  
Cheremon, an Abbot, 12.  
Children, how to bring them up, 147.  
Chrism, the Priests receive it of the Bishop, and make use of it, 243.  
Christians, their Doctrine about the Creation of the World is more reasonable, than that of the Heathens, 72.  
Chrysippus, a Priest of Jerusalem, a Sermon of his upon the Virgin, 141.  
Church-Catholick, the Idea and definition of it, 6. some Ceremonies of the Church explained, ib. it abhors sanguinary punishments, 93. a Church not to be built by exactions from the People, 6. Situation of Churches different 53. cannot give, pawn, change, or sell the Goods of the Church, 94.  
Church of Rome, prerogatives granted to it by the Emperor, 91. and is certainly the first.  
Cimele, a City of the Sea-Alps, an old Bishopric, 121.  
Claudianus Mamertus, a Priest of the Church of Vienna. an abridgement of his treatise of the Soul, 150, etc.  
Clergymen ought to be Men of Worth, 83. Rules for them, 85. they ought not to leave the Church where they have been Ordained, 87. nor go from one Church to another, ibid. A Bishop ought not to take the Clergy of another Bishop, 92. a Point of discipline concerning the Clergy, ib. they may not hold Forms, 236. ought not to be Ordained without a title to some Church, and may not have two, 240. ought not to contend with any but before his Bishop, 241. Rules for the Lives of the Clergy, 247, etc. ought not be present at Marriages, or Feasts, 249.  
Cloak, a Bishop's Ornament, 6.  
Caelius Sedulius, a Christian Poet. An Abridgement of his Poem upon the Life of Jesus Christ, 50. his temper, ibid. a different Person from him who made a Comment upon all S. Paul's Epistles, ibid. the Edition of his Poem, 51.  
Collections for the Poor from Apostolic Tradition, 109  
Comedies forbidden, 7.  
Comedians, their Art noxious, and a corrupter of Manners, ibid. they are condemned, 247.  
Council of Constantinop'e under Flavian, 219.  
Council of Ephesus under Dioscorus, the unjust Proceed of that Council against Theodoret, 77.  
Council of Chalcedon, its Authority, 102. the History of things that preceded it, and for what it was called together, 218, etc.  
Council, the absolute Authority of a general Council, 99  
Council of Ephesus, History of this Council, 196, etc. An History of what passed after it until the Bishops returned to their Dioceses, 200. the trouble consequent upon it, 201, etc. the Negotiation for Peace, and its conclusion, 205. several opposed, 207. they were banished, and expelled, 210. the renewing of the Contest between the Egyptian and Eastern Bishops, ibid. who called it, 212. who was Precedent, 213. Objections against this Council answered, ibid.  
Councils Provincial, the Decree of the Council of Ephesus for the holding of Provincial Councils, revived in the Council of Chalcedon, 241.  
Concupiscence, is an effect of Sin, 13. cannot be eradicated in this Life, ibid.  
Concubine, Concubines and Wives forbidden, 85. it is a virtuous action and not Adultery to forsake them, ib.  
Confession, it ought to be made to a Priest in private, and Sinners ought not to be obliged to confess in public, 104. How such as confess their Sins are to be dealt with, 185. Confession of secret sins, ibid.  
Constantine, or Constantius, a Priest of the Church of Lions, the Author of the Life of S. German Bishop of Amisiodonum, 144.  
Constantinople, the raising of that See, 76, 77. the Prerogatives of that Church opposed by S. Leo, 96. the rights granted to the Church of Constantinople by the Council of Chalcedon, notwithstanding the Opposition of the Pope's Legates, 241. a Council held in this City in 459. against Simony, 248.  
S. Cornelius Bishop of Imola, 119.  
Causin the Precedent, his Translation of Theodoret into French, with a Learned Preface, 64.  
Creation, of the first Man, what the Breath of Life is, which was inspired into him by God, 32. how he was made in the Image of God, ibid. how he became mortal, ibid.  
Creed, what we are to understand by the Quick and the Dead in the Apostles Creed, 4. a Rule of Faith, 14. It is not permitted to make a new Creed, nor add any thing to the Nicene Creed, 200, 226, 232.  
S. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, for what and by whom reproved, 7. his Life and Writings, 27, etc. Gennadius judges amiss of S. Cyril, 156. he opposes Nestorius, 191, etc. wrote against him to Rome, 193. condemned him in a Synod of Egypt, 194. was present and presided in his own name in the Council of Ephesus. See the History of the Council particularly, p. 213. and the foll. about the Presidency. He was condemned by the Eastern Bishops, though absent from the Council. V History, of the Council of Ephesus. He was apprehended by the Emperor's Order, but at length dismissed and sent into his Bishopric, ibid. S. Cyril's Doctrine justified, 215. his Chapters ambiguous, 216. his Disposition, 34. his Death, ibid.   

D.  
DAmiata, a City of Egypt, 2.  
Daniel, an Abbot, 11.  
Dead, Ceremonies used at their Interment, 190. Prayers for them how used, ibid.  
Deluge, the cause of it, 139.  
Demetrias, the Epistle to Demetrias whose, 136.  
Devils, their Nature corporeal according to Cassian, 12. they cannot constrain or force the Soul of Man to sin, ibid. they know not Man's thoughts, but only guests at them, 11. where we may communicate with Persons possessed, 12. they are not Sinners in their Nature, 71.  
Dionysius, Books falsely attributed to him, 188.  
Desert, a fine Description of a Desert by S. Eucherius, 117.  
Diviners, Excommunicated, 248.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Explication of it, 4.  
Deaconness, none to be Ordained until they be 40. Years old, 241. Deaconnesses, their Ordination allowed, and defended, 245.  
Deacons, are the Bishop's Eye, 6. not to be put to public Penance, 84. not subject to the Law of Continence, ibid. what respect they own to the Priests, 247. when obliged to Caelibacy, 245, 248.  
Diapsalma, what it is, 60.  
Dictinius his Books forbidden, 93.  
Diogenes, his Ordination by Alexander Bishop of Antioch, though he had two Wives, 77.  
Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, Theodoret's Enemy, 76, etc.  
Discipline of the Church, Canons about it, 85, etc.  
Divorce not allowed but upon the account of Adultery, 7.  
Domnus Bishop of Antioch, a Defender of Theodoret, 56. History of him, 237. The Action of the Council of Chalcedon about Domnus, ibid. etc.  
Donatus, a Novatian Bishop, converted with his People, 83.  
Donec, until, explained, 4.  
Dorotheus Bishop of Martianople, a Bishop of the Nestorian Party, deposed in the Council of Ephesus, and thrust out of Constantinople; the number of his Letters, 44. V the History of the Council of Ephesus.  
Dorotheus a Monk, 101.  
Dorus Bishop of Beneventum, 94.  
Dracontius a Spanish Priest, a Censure upon his Poem, 142.   

E.  
EClane, a City situate between Campania and Apulia, 38.  
Easter, the Day when it ought to be kept, 53. the fittest time of administering Baptism, 93. the Differences about the Feast of Easter in the Year 455, 99, 101. Differences about the Day on which the Easter ought to be celebrated, 157.  
Edesius, a Poet, 112.  
Election, a new way of electing Bishops, 247.  
Emberweek, why appointed, 109, etc.  
Emperors, called Bishops by some Councils, 98.  
Evagrius, the Author of a Dispute against a Jew, 153 a different Person from Evagrius Ponticus, ibid.  
The Eucharist, the Veil that covers the Eucharist covers the Body of Jesus Christ, 6. It is the Body and Blood of Christ, 19 the Ceremonies used at the Celebration of it, 189. Qualifications necessary for receiving of it, 186.  
S. Eucherius, his Life and Writings, 117. his Style and Genius, ibid. his Death, 118. the Books that go under his Name, are not his, ibid. S. Blandina's Sermon is apparently his, 119.  
S. Eucherius, another holy Man of the same Name, different from the Bishop of Lions, 118.  
Eudocia the Empress, her Writings, 142. a remarkable accident concerning her, 143.  
Eugenius Bishop of Carthage, his Confession, 154.  
Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople, his Endeavours to reunite with Gelasius, 175.  
Euphronius Bishop of Augustodunum, 85.  
S. Euprepius, a Monk, 40.  
Eusebius Bishop of Damiata, reproved by S. Isidore of the same City, 7.  
Eusebius, a Monk, 66.  
Eusebius, Bishop of Ancyra, 76.  
Eusebius, Bishop of Milan, 96.  
Eusebius, a French Bishop, Author of a great Number of Sermons, 118.  
Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, the Accuser of Eutyches, was condemned by Dioscorus, but absolved by the Council of Chalcedon. V the History of the Council of Chalcedon, an Enemy to Nestorius, 41. his Petitions, 138  
Eusebius, the true Author of the Sermons attributed to Eusebius Bishop of Emesa, 118, 119.  
Eustathius, his Translation of S. Basil's Homilies, 153.  
Eutherius of Tyana, his Writings, 44. his opposition to the Peace, 208. he yielded at last. V the Council of Ephesus.  
Eutrychius, the Praefect.  
Eutropius a Priest, a different Person from him that made the Abridgement of the History, his Letters, 153  
Eutyches, what was his Heresy, 68 his Doctrine approved by the Council of Ephesus, 78. condemned in a Synod of 600 Bishops, 96. his Petition in his own Defence, 138. what it was, and what it effected, 219 the Relation of his Heresy and Condemnation. V the History of the Council of Chalcedon.  
Euxitheus, Bishop of Thessalonica, S. Leo did write to him, 102.  
Excommunication, not for small things, 90. None but the Guilty aught to be Excommunicated, ib. we ought not to accompany with Persons Excommunicated, 201 Persons excommunicated ought not to be received by the Bishop, 245, 247. we must use it moderately, 246.   

F.  
FAith, An Abridgement of Faith, 71. necessity of Faith, 72. Rules and Principles of the Catholic Faith, 115. the beginning of it is a free Gift, 126. it may be perfected, but cannot be changed, 226, 231.  
Fastidius, his Description of a Christian Life, 142.  
Fasting, on Saturday why appointed in the Church of Rome, 10, 11. why the Monks fast not from Easter to Whitsuntide, 13. on holy Saturday, ibid. Lent-Fast, its original and use, ibid. the advantage of Fasting, ibid. 109. Differences about the Lent-Fast, 53, 54.  
Faustus' Bishop of Ries his Life, Works and Doctrine, 161. his Letter to Lucidus, 162. his Doctrine about Grace and freewill is tolerable, 165.  
Festivals of Saints celebrated very solemnly, 167.  
Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, he owned Theodoret from an Orthodox Bishop, 56. He condemned Eutyches, and was himself condemned by Dioscorus, and afterward banished. V the History of the Council of Constantinople and Chalcedon. His Letters.  
Freedom, the Church can grant.   

G.  
GElasius Bishop of Rome, his Life, Actions and Letters, 175. etc. He would not celebrate the Memory of Acacius, ibid.  
Gelasius of Cyzicum, a Judgement upon the Work of this Author, 188, 189.  
Genealogy of Jesus Christ, 4.  
Genesis, the first Book of Moses, and why, ibid.  
Gennadius Patriarch of Constantinople, his Life, 156. his Writings, Style and Genius, ibid. his Death, of which he was admonished by a Ghost, ibid.  
Gennadius a Priest of Marseilles, his Life, Writings and Doctrine, 185, etc.  
Gensericus King of the Vandals, at what time he conquered Mauritania Caesariensis, 83.  
Germanus, a Priest, sent from Constantinople to Rome, for the defence of S. Chrysostom, 10. the Companion of Cassian, 11.  
God his Nature, 71, etc.  
Grace, Humane Endeavours must be joined with Grace assisting, 6. its necessity to perform that which is good, ibid. 12. the Judgement of the Church of Rome about Grace, 79. 'Tis a pernicious and condamnable Maxim, That Grace is given according to Merits, 87. The Opinion of S. Austin about Grace rejected by the French Bishops, 114, 116, 123, 165. rejected by the Councils of Arles and Lions, 163. maintained by S. Prosper, 122, etc.  
Grace and freewill, the Danger there is of being confounded in Questions about Grace and freewill, 165. The Opinion of Gennadius about Grace and freewill, 185, 186.   

H.  
HAbits of Churchmen not different from those of the Laity, 26.  
Happiness not perfect till after the Resurrection, 33.  
Heliodorus Bishop of Tricae, 53.  
Helladius a Monk, Ordained Bishop of Tarsus, 66. deposed in the first Council of Ephesus, 80. the Number of his Letters, ibid.  
Heretics, Principles how to refute them, 115, etc.  
Hermes, procured himself to be Ordained Bishop of Biterrae, 157. seized on the Bishopric of Narbonne, ibid. punished for that attempt, ibid.  
Hermogenes Bishop, why, and by whom sent to the Pope, 47.  
Hesycasts, or Quietists, why called so, 18.  
Hierarchy Ecclesiastical. See the Description of it by the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 188.  
Hilary Bishop of Arles, his Life and Writings, 111. his Virtues, ibid. his Controversy about his Metropolis and Primacy, 89. complaints to S. Leo against him, 90. S. Leo speaks well of him after his Death, 95. his carriage and constancy, 112. the Editions of his Works, 113. his Commendation of Honoratus, ibid. A Censure on his Poem, and Letter to S. Eucherius, 114. he was at the Councils of Ries and Orange, ibid. his Contention with S. Leo, ibid.  
Hilarus, or Hilarius Bishop of Rome, his Life, Actions and Letters, 157.  
Honoratus Bishop of Marseilles, his Life and Virtues, 113.  
Honoratus Abbot of Lerins, afterwards ordained Bishop of Marseilles, 12. thought to be the Author of the old Life of Hilary Bishop of Arles, 111. his Praise, Life and Writings, 148.  
Honorius Bishop of Augustodimum, 81.  
Humility to be preferred before a power of doing of Miracles, 13.  
Humericus King of the Vandals, 154.  
Hypacca, an Heathen Philosopher, 27.   

I.  
JAmes of Nisibis, his Life and Miracles, 64.  
Januarius Bishop of Aquileia, 93.  
Ibas Bishop of Edessa, accused of having spoken Blasphemy against Jesus Christ, 37. His Letter to Maris the Persian, 138. accused and absolved by Domnus, 219. the Judgement of the Councils about the Person and Doctrine of Ibas, 236.  
Idacius Bishop of Lucus in Gallicia, his Chronicon, and his Fasts, 155.  
S. John Baptist his Food, 4.  
John an Abbot, his judgement about the Life of the Monks and Hermits, 13.  
John Cassian, his Life and Writings, 9 his Temper and style, 16. the Editions of his Works, ibid.  
S. John Chrysostom, his Memory honoured by Atticus, disrespected by S. Cyril, 30.  
John Bishop of Tomi, his Sermons not extant, 37.  
John a Priest of Antioch, his writings against S. Cyril, 169.  
John Bishop of Antioch, Successor of Theodoret's Letters, 43. what he did in the Council of Ephesus, and afterward, v. the History of that Council. He advised Nestorius no longer to maintain obstinately that the Virgin Mary aught to be called the Mother of God, 194, he upheld Nestorius, 197, condemned S. Cyril, ibid. concluded the Peace, 206.  
John Bishop of Ravenna, he ordained a Bishop against his will, and was reproved for it by the Bishop Simplicius, 159.  
John Talaia, his Fortune and Writings, 161, 169.  
John Aegeates, his History, 169.  
Jerusalem, the Privileges of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem decreed in the Council of Chalcedon, 236.  
Jesus Christ, the computation of his three days continuance in the Sepulchre explained, 4. he is our Passover, 50.  
Images, 1●.  
Incarnation, 5. there is but one person in J. C. 14. Questions about the Incarnation, 32, 33. an Explication of this Mystery, and a confutation of the Errors of those who confound the two Natures, 68, 69. a Treatise composed by Gelasius 〈◊〉 against Eutyches and Nestorius about the Incarnation, 180. a Treatise of Paschasius about the Incarnation, 182.  
Ingenuus Bishop of Ambrun defends the rights of his Metropolis, 149.  
Idiots how to be used, 247.  
Invocation of Saints, 19  
Joseph an Abbot, his Discourse, 13.  
Jovinian an Heretic, an approver of all sorts of pleasures and delights, 145. how he died, ibid.  
Irenaeus, his Ordination, 77. Deposition, 80. his Letters and Collections of pieces, ibid.  
Irenaeus Bishop of Barcelona, 158. his Ordination declared unlawful, ib.  
Isaac an Abbot, 12.  
Isaac a Priest of Antioch, a Catalogue of his works, 145  
S. Isidore of Damiata, his Life, praise, and writings, 〈◊〉. the censure and abridgement of his Letters; 3. his Rules for the right understanding of Scripture, ib. his Letters of Doctrine, 5. and discipline of the Church, 6. of Advice, Admonition, Instruction and Piety, 7. of Discipline and a Monastic Life, 9  
Ischyrion, a Deacon of Alexandria, his Petitions against Dioscorus, 138.  
Judgement, Day of Judgement, 30, 186.  
Judgements of Bishops, how a Patriarch ought to Judge a Bishop, 30.  
Judgements of the Churchmen by the Synods of the Province, 92.  
Julian Bishop of Eclana, condemned and confuted, 36. his Fate, Doctrine, and Writings, 38, etc. his Death, 39 the translation of the Confession of Faith attributed to Rufinus, is said to be his, 40.  
Julian Sabas, his Life and Miracles, 65.  
Julian Bishop of Coos, S. Leo's Letter to him, 99 102. whether it be his or Julius' of Patcoli, who was at the Council of Chalcedon, 226.  
Julian Pomerius, his Life and Writings, 183.  
Justinian's Edict in favour of the Holy See, 90, 91.  
Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, 98, 99, 102.   

L.  
LAymen ought not to Preach, 99  
Lampelius a Bishop, why sent to the Pope by S. Cyril, 47.  
S. Laurence, a Panegyric upon him, 110.  
Lent why called Quadragessima, 13. there was no Lent in the Primitive Church, ibid. differences about the Lent-Fast, 53. the profit of this Fast, 109. Catechumen as well as the Faithful are obliged to observe it, ibid.  
S. Leo his Nativity, Life, and Election, 81. his Letters concerning the affair of Eutyches, and the Council of Chalcedon, and the part he had. See the History of this Council. This Pope's Letters defended against M. Abbot Anthelmi, 81, etc. an Abridgement of his Letters, 83. his Letter superscribed to the Germane and French Bishops is forged, 105. S. Leo's Sermons Vindicated, ib. the Summary of his Sermons, 107, etc. a Judgement on his style, 110. the Edition of his Works, ibid., whether he be Author of the Books of the Vocation of the Gentiles, and the Epistle to Demetrias, ib. his Death, 81.  
Leo the Emperor, 102, 105.  
Leo, an Athenian Philosopher, Father of Eudocca, 142.  
Leontius Bishop of Forum, July, 22.  
Leontius an Ancient Bishop, 90.  
Leontius Bishop of Arles wrote to Pope Hilary, and Hilary answered him, 157. this Pope favoured him, ibid., etc.  
Leporius his Recantation of the Errors of Pelagius, and Nestorius, 2.  
Lerins, a description of it, 17. sixteen erroneous Propositions of a Famous Monk of Lerins, which he pretends to be maintained by S. Austin and his Scholars, 123.  
Letters, a Character of Letters, 3.  
Letters, Paschal written by Theophilus, 12.  
Letters of Piety described, 19 several Letters of several Bishops, and their Names, 138.  
Letter of three Bishops, the Contents of it, 248.  
Letters of Commendation and Communion, 241.  
Life Eternal, is exempted from Temptation and Sin, 72.  
Life Christian, what Example we ought to propose to ourselves to lead a Christian Life, 117.  
Lemovicum, a City of Aquitain, 155.  
Lotharius, his War against the Visigoths, 147.  
Law, the new Law frees not Men from Fasting, 109  
Lupus Bishop of Troy's, 85.  
Lucian wrote to the Emperor, 138.  
Lugo a City, and Metropolis of Gallicia, 155.  
Lupicinus Bishop of Africa, 84.   

M.  
THE Macchabees, their Praise, 109.  
Macedonius, his retirement and austerities, 66. he was Ordained Priest against his will, and without his knowledge, ib. his Constancy, ibid.  
Magna, Deaconess of that Church of Ancyra, 18.  
Maysimas a Monk of Cyrus, his Austerities, 66.  
S. Mamertus, Ordained a Bishop at Dia, 158. Popé Hilary was displeased at it, ib. the Author of Rogations, 119, 167.  
Manichees, found out, and converted by S. Leo, 89.  
Man, two principal Duties of Man towards God, 117.  
Marana and Cyra Women, their way of living, 67.  
Mark, the Name and Acts of this Evangelist, 50.  
Martian a Monk, his Life, austerities, and discourses, 65. he would not have his Burial place known, for fear they should build an Oratory over it, ibid.  
Martian, Theodosius' Successor, nulls the Decrees of the Council of Ephesus, 78, defends Theodoret, 79.  
Marriage, the end of it, 72. whether Women Married during the Captivity of their first Husbands are obliged to return to them again, 103. the use of it not forbidden, 186. Second Marriage not forbidden, 72.  
Marry, her perpetual Virginity, 5.  
Marry, a Lady of Carthage, taken and sold by the Vandals, was helped by Theodoret, 56.  
Maris, an action of Theodoret in favour of this Monk, 66.  
Marius Mercator, who he was, and what he wrote, 35. a Judgement upon his Style, 37. the Edition of his Works, ib.  
Maro, Steward of the Church of Damiata reproved by S. Isidore, 7.  
Maro a Monk, the Author of the Monastic Life in the Country of Cyrus, did many Miracles, 66.  
Martinian, a Priest accused of many Crimes by S. Isidore, 7.  
Martyrs, what Reverence given to their Relics, 6. the honour which ought to be given them, 73. the true way of honouring them, 7.  
Mass, the custom of the Church of Rome of beginning Mass again, and upon what occasion, 91.  
Maximus, a Layman and Donatist, made a Bishop, 83.  
Maximus Bishop of Antioch, S. Leo's Letter to him, 98.  
Maximus Bishop of Turin, a Criticism upon his Sermons, 120. his style, ibid.  
Maximus ordained in the room of Domnus, 228.  
Maximus, a contest between him and John Bishop of Jerusalem, 236.  
Maximian, his Letter to S. Cyril, 47.  
Maximin, Bishop of Anazarbum, a Nestorian, deposed in the Council of Ephesus, he wrote 3 Letters, 80.  
Maximin of Anazarbum, Metropolitan of the lesser Cilicia, he wrote Synodal Letters and some others, ib.  
Meats offered to Idols, they who eat them aught to do Penance, 103.  
Meletius Bishop of Mopsuesta, the number of his Letters, 44. his Opposition to the Peace. v. History of the Council of Ephesus.  
Memnon Bishop of Ephesus, his Letter 47. his actions in the Council of Ephesus. v. the History of that Council.  
Memors or Memorius, thought to have been Bishop of Capua, Father of Julian, 38.  
Metropolis, the differences between the Bishops of Vienna and Arles about the right of Metropolies, 89.  
Metropolitan hath the right of Ordaining the Bishops of his Province, 157. the rights of a Metropolitan, 235. Provinces ought not to be divided, and there ought to be but one Metropolitan in a Province, 240.  
Metropolitans, S. Leo preserved their Rights of Ordaining in their Province and of calling a Council, 90. they ought to preserve their ancient Rights, 91. they have greater authority than other Bishops, 92. ought not to ordain Bishops without the consent of their People and Clergy, ib.  
The Millennary Reign is a Fable, 72.  
Ministers, their scandalous Lives hinders not the effects of the Sacraments, 6.  
Mracles, it is better to be humble and Virtuous than do Miracles, 13.  
Mochimus, a Priest of Antioch, his Treatise against Eutyches, 145.  
Monks, the manners and discipline of Monks, 9, 10. several sorts of them, 13. a description of their Habits, 10. the manner of Living used by the Monks of Thebais, ib. their way of celebrating Divine-Service, ib. the Qualifications necessary for making a Monk, 11. the practices and austerities of a Religious Life, 67, 68 Monks that Mary, subjected to Penance, 85. ought not to preach, 98, 99 no more than Laymen, ibid. Parents ought to give their Estates to those Children, whom they have made Monks, 147. the exemption of the Monks of Lerins determined by the Council of Arles, 248. the condition of Monks, and their Ceremonies of their Consecration, 189. they are subject to their Bishops 241. ought not to leave their state, ib. they are exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Bishops, ib. ought not to have Cells by themselves, 342.  
Morses. Abbot of Scete, his Discourses, 11.  
Multitude, their Judgement not always to be followed, 44, 45.  
Musaeus or Mussaeus, a Priest of Marseille, a censure upon his writings, 149.   

N.  
NAture, there are not two different Natures in Man, 123.  
Nemesius, his Opinion about the nature and duration of the Soul, 187.  
Neonas Bishop of Ravenna, S Leo's Letter to him, 104  
Nestorius Abbot, his discourse about Spiritual knowledge, and the Miracles of the Anchorites, 13.  
Nestorius, his Birth, Baptism, and Education, 40. by whom ordained Priest, ib. his Election and Ordination to the See of Constantinople, ib. his first Sermon before the Emperor approved and disapproved, ibid. he attempts to beat down the Church of the Arians, who set it on Fire ib. he persecuted the Heretics, and caused the Emperor to make a Law against them, 41. why he was condemned as an Heretic, ib. his contest with Cyril, ib. he went into his Monastery at Antioch after his Condemnation at the Council of Ephesus, ib. he was banished to Oasis, ibid. a Catalogue of his Works, ib. his Doctrine, 42. his Judgement upon his style and Character, 43. the beginning of the Nestorian Heresy, 191. the course of this Affair, ib. Nestorius' Letters, Writings, and Sermons, ib. his Condemnation at Rome, 194. and at Ephesus, 197. he defends himself, ib. is forced to retire, 204. is forsaken by John Bishop of Antioch, 207. wherein his error consisted, 215, 217.  
Nice, the Council of Nice was held under Silvester, and not Julius, 54. the contest of the City of Nice for the right of a Metropolis, 239.  
Nicetas, or Niceas Bishop of Aquileia, S. Leo's Letter to him, 103.  
S. Nilus, his Life, Writings, and Death, 17. and the Edition of his Works, ib. his Genius, 19  
Nisibis, by whom Besieged, and by whom preserved, 64, 65.  
Nonnus, a Christian Poet, his Genius, a description of his Works, and the Edition of them, 52.  
Novatus, the Opinion of Novatus and the Novatians about the Pacification, 2, 3.  
Novatians, Socrates' judgement concerning them, 54.   

O.  
ORange, a Council held in that City in 441, the number and abridgement of its Canon, 243, 247.  
Ordinations, the Qualifications of such a person as may be chosen Bishop, 27. cautions to be observed in Ordinations, 83. the condition of such as are ordained Bishops, ib. Persons twice Married, and Slaves ought not to be admitted into Holy Orders, 86. Times for Ordination, 91, at what time, and on what day they ought to be celebrated, ib. a Priest ought to say the Psalter by heart, 156. Ceremonies of Ordination, 189. S. Hilaries rules about Ordination, 158. no Man may be ordained against his consent, 159. the Penalties inflicted upon Bishops for ordaining against the Canons, ib. the Qualifications of a Bishop, 167. several Rules about Ordination made by Pope Gelasius, 177. the Qualifications of Bishops and Ministers, ib. Ordinations ought to be celebrated three Months after the Death of the Bishop, 176. Ordinations without the Metropolitan, by two Bishops only, are unlawful, 242, 246. a Canon concerning Ordinations, 247, 248, 249.  
Orders, conditions necessary for entering into Holy Orders, 83.  
Orestes, Governor of Alexandria, he quarrels with S. Cyril, 27. is assaulted and wounded by the Monks, ib.  
Origen, his Opinion concerning the Pre-existence of the Soul from Eternity, confuted, 5.   

P.  
PEace, the Bishop wisheth Peace in the Sacrament, and all the People answer, and unto thee also, 6.  
Palladius a Monk, ill used by S. Isidore, 7.  
Panopolis, a City of Thebais, 41.  
Panople, a City of Egypt, 52.  
Pansophius, the Archdeacon, accused of many Crimes by S. Isidore, 7.  
Paphnucius the Abbot, 11, 12.  
Pope, his Judgement subject to correction, but not the Judgement of a General Council, 99  
Paschasius a Deacon of Rome, his Writings, 182.  
Pastor, his Writings upon the Creed, 152.  
Patronage, the Original of it, 244.  
S. Paul, an Explication of his words, The Evil which I hate that do I, 14.  
Paul, Bishop of Emesa, his Negotiations and Sermons, 43, 44.  
Paul Bishop of Pannonia, a censure of his Writings and Style, 146.  
Paulinus Bishop of Perigueux, a censure of his Writings, 149.  
Paulinus', several of that name in the same Age, ib.  
Pelagius, the History of his, and his followers Condemnation, 35, etc.  
Pelagius a Patrician, put to Death by the Emperor Zeno, 143. a Work attributed to him, ibid.  
Pelagians condemned and found out by the care of S. Leo, 87. condemned also by Gelasuis I. 176.  
Penance, the Properties of true Repentance, 13. it ought not to be denied them that desire it, 26. conditions required to perform it aright, 72. Penance ought to be proportioned to the greatness of the Crime, ib. Clergymen ought not to be put to public Penance according to S. Leo, but they may according to the Council of France, 84. it ought not to be refused at the point of Death, 85. yet may not be denied them that desire it, ib. a Penitent ought not to plead nor trade, ibid. they that die without being reconciled to the Church ought to be left to the Judgement of God, but not be received into Communion, ib. the Discipline of the Church concerning Penance, 97. it ought to be proportioned to Devotion and Age, etc. 103. a custom concerning Penance, 104. the Administration of Penance, 184. public Penance necessary for great Sinners, 186. Clergymen may be put upon public Penance if they deserve it, 244. to what public Penance obliges us. The punishment of those that leave it, 247. Penance granted to dying Persons that desire it, and with what conditions, 244, 245, 247.  
Persecution, in matters of Doctrine condemned by Eutherius Bishop of Tyana, 44.  
Petronius, Author of some Lives of the Egyptian Fathers, 144.  
Petronianus, S. Leo's Letter to him dubious, 95.  
Philip, the Deacon and Apostle confounded often by many, 5.  
Philip Sidetes, a censure of his History, 51.  
Philip, a Scholar of S. Jerom, his Moral Letters, 144.  
Philostorgius, an Historian, his Impious Doctrine, 52. the Falsehoods he hath taught, ib. the profitable observations he hath made, ibid. a Character of his History, ib. the Editions of his Works, ibid.  
Photinus, a Deacon of Cappadocia, informs Serapion of his Error, 12.  
Photius, his Judgement upon Cassian's institutions, 15.  
Photius Bishop of Tyre, his Petition for the rights of his Bishopric, 138. his dispute with Eustathius in the Council of Chalcedon, 234.  
Piammon, an Abbot, 13.  
Peter a Monk, his Life and Miracles, 65, 66.  
S. Peter, the Keys were given to all Bishops in the person of S. Peter, 108.  
S. Petrus Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna, his Life and Writings, 119, the Editions of his Works, 120.  
Petrus Mongus, his Letter to Acacius, 138.  
Petrus, a Priest of the Church of Edessa, his Quality and Writings, 146.  
Piety, that only is stable and firm, 117.  
Pinuphius Abbot, his discourse of Repentance, 13.  
Plato, he hath taken out of Moses all that he speaks about the Original of the World, 72.  
Pollutions, the causes of Night Pollutions, 13.  
Polygamy, of the Ancient Patriarches why pardonable, 6.  
Possidius, a censure upon the Life of S. Austin, composed by this Deacon, 21.  
Potentus a Bishop, why sent into Africa by S. Leo, 83  
Prailus Bishop of Jerusalem, Ordained Domnus although a Person twice Married, 77.  
Practices, different Practices of the Church, 53.  
Predestinations, where there be any, 165.  
Predestination, Objections and Answers about— 124.  
Preachers, the difference between good and bad, 184.  
Preaching reserved to Bishops only in some Churches, 53.  
Priesthood, to be preferred before Civil Powers, 7.  
Priest's ought not to be put to public Penance, 84. are subject to the Laws of Continency, ibid. the Duties of Priests in the Administration of the Sacrament of Penance, 6.  
Provision. Things do not come to pass before God foresees them, but he foresees them because they will come to pass, 5.  
Prayers, four sorts of Prayers, 12.  
Priscillianists, their Sect called A Jaques, 93. their Errors described by S. Leo, ibid. The Author of this Sect punished with Death, ibid.  
Proba Falconia, her Poem upon the Life of Christ, and the Judgement which S. Jerom gave of it, 143.  
Proclus, how he was Ordained Bishop of Constantinople, 48. the Number and Description of his Sermons, ibid. his Volume, 211.  
Projectus a French Bishop, condemned by Hilary Bishop of Arles, 90.  
Prophets, what their Office is, 60. they have foretell nothing but what is true and reasonable, 73.  
S. Prosper, his Life, Doctrine and Writings, 122. he is not the Author of the Book of the Vocation of the Gentiles, nor of the Epistle to Demetrias, 128.  
Proterius Bish of Alexandria, killed by the People, 141  
Providence, 72, 127, 146.  
Provinces Suburbican, 92.  
Prudens Bishop of Troy's, 103.  
Psalms, their Profit, 59, etc.  
Publius, the Society which he established, 65.  
Pulcheria the Empress, 96, 97, 98.   

R.  
RAbulas Bishop of Edessa, his Zeal for the Egyptian Bishops, 211, 218. condemned by the Bishops, 204  
Rape, Ravishers Excommunicated, 241, 245.  
Ravennius, Ordained Bishop of Arles, 94, etc.  
Religion Christian, the Truth proved, 572. Heathen confuted, ibid.  
Relics, a Monk doubts where true, 67.  
Resurrection, 5, 187. certain, but not as to the manner and time, 5.  
Renatus a Priest of the Church of Rome, Theodoret's Letter to him, 78.  
Revenues of the Church, how, what use the Bishops should make of them, 159, 177, 185. Clergy that have Estates ought not to live of them, ibid. 187. they may not take the Bishop's Revenue, aught to be managed by a Steward, ibid. 241.  
Rheginus Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, he was on S. Cyril's side. His Discourse in the Council of Ephesus about the Deposition of Nestorius, 47.  
Riches, the cause of Injustice ordinarily, 117.  
Rises, a Council held in that City in 439. about the business of Armentarius, the History of it, 243.  
Romanus a Monk, his way of living, 66.  
Rome, as famous for the Martyrdom of S. Laurence as Jerusalem for S. Stephen's, 110. A Council held in this City under Pope Hilarius, 249.  
Rufinus, where he, which is the Author of the Doctrine of Pelagius, and made the Confessions of Faith, be the Priest of Aquileia, 20.  
Rufinus Bishop of Samosata, he was present at the Council of Chalcedon, 80.  
Rufus a Count, he carried the Order to Theodoret to stay at Cyrus, and not to go from thence, 76.  
Rusticus a French Bishop, S. Leo's Letter to him, 97.  
Rusticus Bishop of Narbonn, S. Leo advises him not to relinquish his Bishopric, 84.   

S.  
Sabbath, what is the meaning of the second Sabbath after the first, 4.  
Sabinian Bishop of Paros, his Cause, 240.  
Saints, Honour to Saints and their Relics, 6, 187. the Honour and Invocation of Saints, 68  
Salamanus, a Monk of great Virtue, 66.  
Solomon, in what order to read his Books, 4.  
Salonius, where he was Bishop, 149. his Writings, ibid.  
Salvian, a Priest of Marseille, his Life and Writings, 146. his Style and Genius, 147. the Edition of his Works, 148.  
Samuel, the Abridgement of his Works, 150.  
Sarabaites, who, 13.  
Holy Scriptures, Dispositions necessary for the profitable reading of it, 3. it is full of Light and Obscurities, ibid. its Style is plain and natural, 4. the Qualifications of him that undertakes to explain them, ib. the manner of explaining them well, 5. several places of Scripture explained. ibid. the best way of Commenting, 58. we must use them to prove Doctrines of Faith, 45. the Books of Scripture which have been lost, 59 Rules for the understanding of Holy Scripture, 115.  
Sedulius, a Censure upon his Poem, 51.  
Seleucia, a City of Isauria, 139.  
Semi-Pelagians their Complaints, 126.  
Septimus d'altimo, S. ●eo's Letter to him, 87.  
Serapsori an Abbot, 12.  
Serenus an Abbot, his Discourse about the Temptations of the Devils, 11.  
Servus-Dei, his Treatise of the sight of God, 154, 155.  
Service Divine, one way of celebrating in a Province, 249.  
Siagrius, who he was, and his Writings, 144.  
Seas, four Apostolic Sees, 180.  
Simplicius Pope, his Life and Letters, 159.  
Simeon the Aged, his Miracles, 65.  
S. Simeon Stylites his Life, and by whom written, 67. his Letters, 145.  
Simeon Bishop of Armda, 77.  
Simony forbidden, 6. condemned in the Council of Chalcedon, and in another at Constantinople, 141.  
Sixtus III. his Life and Letters, 47. he wished for Peace between S. Cyril and the Eastern Bishops, and rejoiced when 'twas made, 47. his Letters about the Affair of Nestorius, and John Bishop of Antioch, 207. his Death, 48, 81.  
Socrates, who, 53. his History, ibid. etc.  
Solitaries, their Austerities. V Monks, 67, 68  
Solitude, the Happiness of it, 117.  
Sons of God, how we are to understand that Text, where it is said, That they went down to the Daughters of Men, 139.  
Soul. It is not a part of the Divine Substance, 5. the Immortality of the Soul, ibid. the Preexistence of Souls opposed, ibid. its Nature, 150. Proofs of the Immortality and Spirituality of the Soul, 151. etc. The Opinions of Nemesius and Aeneas Gazaeus about the Nature and Original of the Soul, 187. Faustus and Gennadius thought it Corporeal, although it be Immortal, 166, 185, 186. Other Opinions of Gennadius about the Original of the Soul, 185.  
Sozomen, his Life, and a Censure upon his History, 54.  
Subdeacons' obliged to Caelibacy, 85.  
Stewards of Churches not to give account to Ecclesiastical Judges, 101.  
Syda a City of Pamphilia, 51.  
Syrus, wrote against Nestorius, 149.   

T.  
TEmples, Christians had none in the Apostles time, since they have been very Magnificent, 6. a lofty Church built at the expense of the Poor is a sin, ibid.  
Temptations, divers Temptations of the Devil, 11.  
Testament Old, what is the end of all the Stories of the Old Testament, 139.  
Text, the holy Text burnt in the time of Manasses, 48. revived and restored by Esdras, 6●, 62.  
Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuesta, the rise of the Disputes about his Doctrine and Person, 211.  
Theodorus, Deacon of Alexandria, his Petitions against Dioscorus, 138.  
Theodorus Bishop of Forum-Julii, S. Leo's Letter to him, 97.  
Theodoret his miraculous Birth, 55. his Life, ibid. Divers Sentences given against him, ibid. his Works, 58. an honourable Opinion of his Commentaries, ib. the Defence of his Person and Doctrine, 64. his Character, and a Judgement of him, 58. the part which he bore in the Differences among the Eastern Bishops in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. V the Histories of these Councils.  
Theodoret, S. Leo congratulates his Absolution, 99  
Theodosius a Monk, his Austerities, 66.  
Theodosius the Emperor his Death, 78.  
Theodotus of Ancyra, his Life and Works, 46. See also the History of the Council of Ephesus.  
Theodulus, the Son of Nilus, 17.  
Theodulus, his Judgement about the Law, 154.  
Theonas an Abbot, 13.  
Theopemptus a Novatian Bishop, deposed by S. Cyril, 27  
Thechimus wrote to the Emperor Leo, 138.  
Thessalonica, the Right and Privileges of that Bishop, 86. they ought not to abuse it, 91, 92.  
Tichonius, a Donarist Author, 2.  
Timotheus, surnamed Salophaciolus, Ordained Bishop of Alexandria, 104.  
Timotheus, his Book about the Nativity of Jesus Christ, 153.  
Timotheus Aelurus, by whom expelled from the See of Alexandria, 104. his Doctrine and Writings, 141. the attempts he made to recover that See, 160. Simplician strongly opposed him, ibid. etc.  
Tours a Council held in that City in 462. The number and abridgement of its Canons.  
Translations of Bishops forbidden, 92.  
The Trinity, 5.  
Tumbius' Bishop, S. Leo wrote to him, 93.  
Tiberianus, Ordained Bishop, being but a mere Layman, 83.  
Tyrsius Rufus Asterius, his Writings, 143.   

V  
VAsio, a Council held in that City in 442. the Number and Abridgement of the Canons, 246.  
Valentinus, an Heretic, 68  
Valentinian the Emperor his Death, 83.  
Valentinian the Consul, 89.  
Valerian Bishop of Cemele, the number of his Writings, 121. his Temper, ibid. the Editions of his Works, 1. ibid.  
Venerius' Bishop of Milan, 21.  
Venerius a Bishop in France, 97.  
Vennes, a Council held in that City, a little time after that at Tours. The Number and Abridgement of the Canons, 249.  
Victor Bishop of Antioch, his Commentary on S. Mark 50.  
Victor Cartennensis, a Censure on his Works, 121, 122.  
Victor Vitensis, his History, 170. Death, ibid.  
Victorinus Bishop of Marseille, 50. his Temper, ibid.  
Victorius his Paschal Cycle, 155.  
Virgins, defiled by the Barbarians, aught to be humbled for it though they be innocent, 83. Virgins, who have taken the habit, though they are not consecrated, yet if they Mary they are blame-worthy, 85. Virgins who have vowed Virginity, excommunicated if they Marry, 241. they are obliged to keep it, 245. 247, 248.  
Vigilius, his Rules for Monks, 142.  
Vigilius of Tapsus, his Works under borrowed Names, 170, 171.  
Vincentius Lirinensis, his Doctrine and Principles explained, 115. his Death, 116. he is accounted a Saint in the Roman Martyrologies, ibid. the Edition of his Works, ibid. another distinct from Vincentius of Lerins a Priest, 149.  
Virginity-Perpetual, of the Blessed Mary the Mother of God, 45. not commanded by God, but commended, 19 an excellent estate, 186.  
Vision of God, whither granted to our bodily Eyes, 154  
Vitalis and Constantius, Christians of Spain, consult Capreolus Bishop of Carthage, a Remark upon that Consolation, 49.  
Vitalis wrote to the Emperor, 138.  
Voconius, or Buconius Bishop of Castellanum, his Writings, 153.  
Vocation of the Gentiles, the Author of it, 128, etc.  
Unction in Baptism, 188. the Custom of the Church of France, not to repeat it at Confirmation, 243, 247.  
Uranius his Life of Paulinus, 22.  
Uranius Bishop of Emesa, 78.  
Usury, forbidden to the Laity by S. Leo, 86. not to be allowed upon any account whatsoever, 109. forbidden to the Clergy, 246.   

W.  
WHipping was not part of the Discipline of the Ancient Monks, 68  
Widows profess Virginity, 245.  
Will-Free, Cassian's Judgement about the agreement of freewill with Grace, 11, 12.  
Women sang heretofore in the Church, S. Isidore's advice about that Custom, 6.  
Women Married in the Captivity or absence of their Husbands, whom they thought to be dead, under what Obligations, 103.  
Wood, the Instrument of Man's ruin in Adam, and of his Salvation in Christ, 139.  
World, it's two principal Attractives, 1●7. contempt of it, ibid.  
Worship of God, in what manner God ought to be Worshipped, 27, 28.   

Z.  
ZEno, an Officer of Valens, retired into solitude, 66. he lived in a Tomb, after he had given his Goods to the Poor, ibid.  
Zosimus a Monk, ill used by Isidore of Damiata, 7.  
Zosimus Pope, he wrote Letters in favour of Caelestius, 35.    

ERRATA to the Fourth Volume.  
PAge 12. Line 55. where read whether. l. 59 deal of. p. 19 l. 38. add † before nourished in the Text and because in the Margin. p. 26. l. 23. r. not contented. p. 28. l. 34, 35. Obligations r. Oblations. p. 29. l. 48. any other r. another. p. 42. l. 22. r. F. Garn. p. 45. l. 53. r. Understanding. l. 55. it r. them. p. 72. l. 48. r. convinces. p. 86. l. 22. Mistress' r. Masters. p. 91. l. 7. deal hereafter. p. 97. l. 26. r. as I may say. p. 104. l. 11. where r. whither. p. 117. l. 44. themselves r. ourselves. p. 128. l. 49. this r. his. p. 132. l. 51. r. accounts. p. 133. in the Note, l. 5. Calumnia r. Calumny. p. 139. l. 42. r. God delayed. p. 151. l. 14. r. did not lessen. p. 154. l. 22. 25. r. Bishops. p. 156. l. 2. deal of, and l. 4. r. Varro. p. 158. l. 15. and 47. r. Bishops. p. 162. l. 47. r. Retractations. l. 55. r. Forces. p. 163. l. 32. after Preface add he says. p. 164. l. 10. r. made up. p. 165. l. 47. designed r. defined. p. 167. in Margin r. Dr. Cave. p. 167. l. 40. hath r. had. p. 171. l. 50. F. r. Faith. p. 173. l. 40. after Orthodox Faith, add, and sent it to him by some of his Clergy. p. 186. l. 31. r. can Obtain it. l. 35. r. voluntarily. p. 189. l. 17. in Margin. Note. Du Rat. r. Durandi Rationale. p. 194. l. 22. r. Bishops. p. 199. l. 23. r. of the Council. p. 200. l. 10. r. Bishops. l. 14. r. Priests. p. 202. l. 47. r. and that. p. 203. l. 3. r. Judged Causes. p. 204. l. 9 from bottom, r. Bishops. p. 205. l. 7. r. end to these troubles. p. 206. l. after Bishop, add, to S. Cyril. p. 209. l. 10. after Antioch, r. to come. l. 17. they r. he. l. 25. r. particulary. l. 7. from bottom, r. Deposed him. p. 210. l. 24. the r. their. p. 212. l. 28. from the bottom, deal the. p. 214. p. 217. l. 14. r. Suspicious. p. 218. l. 17. and p. 222. l. 29. Alexander r. Alexandria. p. 221. l. ult. r. in his hand. p. 223. l. 5. r. he is. l. 11. revived r. reviewed. p. 224. l. 23 from bottom, after Council r. as he told him. l. 17. r. accuses him of the Errors of which. l. 6. Putebli r. Puteoli. p. 227. l. 20. Tho. Domnus, r. though Domnus. l. 21. r. Libinianus. p. 231. l. 38. deal the. p. 235. l. 28. r. the Emperors. p. 236. l. 6. Constantinople, r. Constantine. l. 27. from bott. r. the Regulations. p. 237. l. 2. deal to him. l. 26. tribulation, r. Craft. p. 240. l. 16. from bot. r. Obliges them. p. 243. l. 3. from bott. repetitia, r. repitita. p. 245. l. 21. è. r. est. p. 248. l. 16. r. by 82. p. 249. l. 3. Venice, r. Vennes. l. 17. deal not. l. 14. from bott. as r. of l. 2. Conolano, r. Coriolano.   

A Catalogue of some Books lately Printed and to be Sold by Abel Swal and Tim. Child, at the Unicorn at the West End of St. Paul's Churchyard.  

SAncti Justini Martyris Opera omnia, item Athenagoras. Theophilus ad Autolicum Tatiani Oratio, & Hermias, Graec. Latin. Cum Annotationibus & indicibus necessariis. Juxta Edit. Optim. Paris. Folio.  
Q. Septinii Florent. Tertulliani Opera ad vetustis. Exemp. fidem sedulo emandata, diligentia Nic. Rigaltii, cum ejusdem Annotationibus integris & varior commentariis, argumenta & notas de novo adject. Lutetiae Paris. Folio.  
S. Caecil Cypriani Opera Recognita & illustrata per Joannem Oxoniensem Episcop. Accedunt Annales Cyprianici per Joannem Cestriensem. Itemque huic Editioni annexae sunt Dissertationes Cyprianicae ab Henrico Dodwello, Folio  
Clementis Alexandrii Opera Graecè & Latinè quae Extant. post D. Heinsii Recens. & Doctiss. Annot. accedunt Emendation. Frider. Sylburgi. Juxta Edit. Paris. Folio.  
Joan. Launoii Epistolae Omnes, octo partibus comprehensae nunc demum simul Editae. Accesserunt huic Editioni, Indices quatuor, etc. Cantabr. Folio.  
S. Patrum qui Temporibus Apostolorum Floruerunt St. Barnabae, Hermae, Sr. Clementis, S. Ignatii & Polycarpi Opera. Gr. Lat. cum notis J. Bapt. Cotellerii. Cui subjicitus Joan. Pearsoni Vindiciae Ignatii, etc. Folio. Now in the Press, of which a more particular Account will shortly be given.  
Ludou. Ellies du Pin de Antiqua Ecclesiae Disciplina Dissertationes Historicae, Quarto.  
Edmundi Richerii Doct. Paris. de Potestate Ecclesiae in Rebus.  
Temporalibus Libri IV. Nunquam ante hâc Editi. Quarto.  
Phillippi a Limborch de Veritate Religionis Christianae Amica Collatio cum Erudito Judaeo, Quarto.  
Novum Jesus Christi Testamentum interpret Sebastiano Castellione. Addita sunt loca parallela S. Script. Octavo. Amst.  
Novum D. N. J. C. Testamentum à Sebastiano Castellione Latin redditum. Duodecimo.  
Novum Testamentum Gr. in quo selecti versiculi 1900, continens omnes voces N. Test. asteriscis notantur. Auctore Johan. Leusden. Amst. Duodecimo.   

Books lately Printed at London for Abel Swal and Tim. Child.  
JAcobi Rohaulti Tractatus Physicus, Latin donatus par Theo. Bonetum. cum Amadversion. Antonii ●e Grand. Cui accessit ejusdem Rohaulti de Arte Mechanica Tractatus Mathematicus è Gallico Sermone Latinè factus; multis Figuris aeneis illustr. 8vo.  
Justi Lipsii Roma illustrata, sive Antiquitatum Romanarum Breviarium, & Georgii Fabricii Veteris Romae cum nova Collatio. ex nova recensione Ant. Thysii. Cui accesserunt in hac Editione Justi Lipsii Tractatus peculiares, de Scripturá, Pecuniâ, Nominibus, Conviviis, Censu & Anno, Veterum Romanorum. Cum figuris aeneis. Octavo.   

Et Authores Classici subsequentes, cum Interpretatione & notis juxta Edition. Parisiens. ad Usum Delphini. viz.  
CAii Julii Caesaris quae Extant, interpretatione & notis illustravit Joan. Goduinus Professor Regius, in usum Delphini. Octavo.  
Q. Horatij Flacci Poemata, interpretatione & notis illustravit Petrus Rodelins. Octavo.  
Cornelius Nepos de Vita Excellentium Imperatorum, cum Interpretatione & Notis Nicolai Courtin. Octavo.  
P. Virgilii Maronis Opera, Interpretatione & Notis illustravit Carolus Ruaeus. Octavo.  
P. Terentii Afri Comaediae, cum Interpretatione & Notis Nicolai Cami.   

Et sub Praelo.  
Titus Lucretius Carus de Naturâ Rerum, interpretatione & Notis illustrat. Curâ Tho. Creech Oxon. Coll. Omn. Anim. Socius. 8vo.  
C. Valerii Catulli Sex. Aur. Propertii & Albii Tibuli Opera Omnia, Interpretatione & Notis illustravit Phil. Silvius, Octavo.  
C. Crispi Sallustii Opera, Interpretatione & Notis illustravit D. Crispinus. Octavo.  
Eutropii Breviarium Historiae Romanae ab Urbe Condita ad Annum ejusdem Urbis MCXIX. interpr. & Notis illustr. Anna Tanaquil. Fabri Filia. Octavo.   

Theatrum Scotiae: Containing the Prospects of their Majesty's Castles and Palaces; together with those of the most considerable Towns and Colleges, the Ruins of many Ancient Abbeys, Churches and Convents in the Kingdom of Scotland; all very truly drawn and very finely Engraven on Copper, and Printed on Royal-Paper: With a short Description of each place. By John Sleezer, Captain of the Artillery Company, and Surveyor of their Majesty's Stores in Scotland, Vol. 1. Folio.   

Some Books now in the PRESS.  
CAmden's Britania, newly Translated into English, with large and very considerable Additions, viz. Mr. Selden's and other Eminent Persons Notes and Corrections: an Account of the Discoveries that have been made since Mr. Camden's Death; drawn from the Printed Histories of particular Counties and the MSS. Collections of divers curious Persons: An Account of the Seats of the Nobility, of the Universities, Colleges, Schools, Coins, and Buildings of England, etc. With large Sheetmaps of every County, containing all the Towns and Villages, with the Roads exactly marked out, and the Degrees of Longitude and Latitude: All new Engraven by the best Workmen according to the best and last Survey, and Corrected by Mr. Robert Morden. Folio.  
Novum Testamentum J. C. Graecè, cum Difficiliorum Verbor. resolute. Opera Caroli Hool. (sub Praelo.)  
The Comedies of Terence, Englished by several Hands, will be Published at Michaelmas-Term, 1693.  
Horace made English after the manner of Monsieur D'Acier in Prose, with his Notes Translated, Corrected and Improved by several Hands.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Anacreontis Teli carmina, plurimis quibus hactenus mendis purgavit Metra restituit, notisque, illustravit Wilhel.  
Baxterus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Subjiciuntur etiam aliorum Anacreontica Carmina una cum duobus Odariis antiquae Poetriae Sapphus. Nec non Anacreontis Vita & Interpretat. Latin.   
FINIS.   

A NEW HISTORY OF Ecclesiastical Writers: Containing an ACCOUNT Of the LIVES and WRITINGS of the PRIMITIVE FATHERS; A Judicious Abridgement AND A Catalogue of all their WORKS; WITH Censures Determining the GENUINE and SPURIOUS: AND A Judgement upon their Style and Doctrine: Also their various Editions. Together with A Compendious History of the COUNCILS. Written in FRENCH By Lewis Ellies du PIN, Doctor of the SORBON.  
VOLUME the FIFTH, Containing the AUTHORS that Flourished in the SIXTH CENTURY.  
LONDON: Printed by F. Collins for Abel Swal and Cim. Child, at the Unicorn at the West-End of St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCXCIII.   

The CONTENTS of the Fifth Volume.  

Of the Lives and Writings of the Ecclesiastical Authors that Flourished in the Sixth Century, viz.  

SYmmachus Bishop of Rome. 1  
Avitus Bishop of Vienna. 4  
Ennodius Bishop of Milan. 7  
Hormisdas Bishop of Rome. 11  
Fulgentius. 13  
Eugippius. 21  
Ferrandus, Deacon. 22  
Joannes Maxentius. 23  
Trifolius. 24  
Adrian. ibid.  
Laurence. 25  
Marcellinus Comes. ibid.  
Aegidius or Giles, Abbot. ibid.  
Orentius Bishop of Elvira. 26  
F. A. M. T. Severinus Boetius. ibid.  
Epiphanius Scholasticus. 27  
Theodorus, Reader in the Church of Constantinople. ibid.  
Severus. ibid.  
John of Scythopolis. 28  
Basil of Silicia. ibid.  
John I. Bishop of Rome. 29  
Felix IV. Bishop of Rome. ibid.  
Boniface II. Bishop of Rome. 30  
John II. Bishop of Rome. 30  
Agapetus Bishop of Rome. 31  
St. Ephrem, Patriarch of Antioch. 33  
Procopius Gazaeus. 35  
An Anonymous Author of an Explication of the Octateuch. 35  
Jobius, Monk. 36  
Justinian the Emperor. 37  
Dionysius Exiguus. 42  
Cassiodorus. 43  
St. Benedict. 44  
Silverius Bishop of Rome. 46  
Vigilius Bishop of Rome. 47  
Caesarius Bishop of Arles. 49  
Pontianus. ibid.  
Leo Archbishop of Sens. 50  
Trojanus Bishop of Saintes. ibid.  
Nicetius Bishop of Triers. ibid.  
Aurelianus Bishop of Arles. ibid.  
Tetradius. 51  
Arator. ibid.  
Justinian, and ibid.  
Justus, Bishops in Spain. ibid.  
Aprigius Bishop in Portugal. ibid.  
Aretas, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. 52  
Zacharias Bishop of Mitylene. ibid.  
Cyril of Scythopolis. ibid.  
Facundus Hermianensis. ibid.  
Victor of Capua. 55  
Rusticus, Deacon of the Church of Rome. 56  
Primasius. ibid.  
Junilius. 57  
Liberatus, archdeacon of the Church of Carthage. 58  
Victor Tununensis. ibid.  
Paulus Silentiarius. ibid.  
Pelagius I. Bishop of Rome. ibid.  
Agnellus 59  
Leontius, Monk. 60  
Venantius Honorius Fortunatus. 61  
Bandonninia. 62  
Germanus Bishop of Paris. ibid.  
Martin Bishop of Braga. ibid.  
Paschasius, Deacon. 62  
Joannes Scholasticus, Patriarch of Constantinople. 63  
Gregorius Turonensis. ibid.  
Gildas Badonicus, surnamed the Wise. ibid.  
Evantius Bishop of Vienna. 64  
Ferreolus. ibid.  
●…us and Chrysippus. ibid.  
Pelagius II. Bishop of Rome. 65  
Eulogius of Alexandria. 66  
John the Faster. 67  
John Abbot of Biclarum. ibid.  
Anastasius Sinaita Bishop of Antioch. ibid.  
Evagrius Scholasticus. 69  
Joannes Climacus. ibid.  
John Abbot of Raithu. 72  
Gregory the Great. ibid.  
Paterius. 103  
Leander Bishop of Sevil. ibid.  
Licinianus and Severus Bishops in Spain. 104  
Dinamius. ibid.  
Eutropius Bishop of Valentia. 105  
Maximus Bishop of Saragosa. ibid.  
Eustratius, Priest of Constantinople. ibid.  
Andronicianus. 106  
Lucius Charinus. ibid.  
Metrodorus. ibid.  
Heraclian Bishop of Chalcedon. ibid.  
Leontius Bishop of Arabissa. 107    

COUNCILS Held in the Sixth Century.  

COuncils of Rome under Pope Symmachus. 108  
Council of Agatha 110  
The first Council of Orleans. 113  
Council of Torraco 114  
Council of Gerunda. 115  
Council of Epaone. 116  
The first Council of Lions. 117  
Council of Lerida, or Ilerda. 118  
Council of Valentia. 119  
The fourth Council of Arles. ibid.  
The Council of the Bishops of Africa held at Carthage under Boniface Bishop of that City in the Year 525 119  
The second Council of Orange. 121  
The second Council of Vasio. ibid.  
Council of Rome under Boniface II. 122  
The second Council of Toledo. 123  
A Conference held at Constantinople between the Catholics and Severians. ibid.  
The second Council of Orleans. 125  
Council of Clermont in Auvergn, in the Year 535. 126  
The third Council of Orleans. 127  
Council of Barcelona held in the Year 540. 128  
The fourth Council of Orleans. 129  
The fifth Council of Orleans. 130  
The Council of Arvernia under King Theodbertus. 131  
Council of Tutella. ibid.  
Council of Constantinople under Mennas, held in the Year 536. 131  
Council of Constantinople, commonly the fifth General Council. 135  
The fifth Council of Arles. 147  
The second Council of Paris. ibid.  
The third Council of Paris. ibid.  
Edict of Clotharius. 148  
The first Council of Bracara. ibid.  
Council held at Santones. 149  
The second Council of Lions. ibid.  
The second Council of Tours. ibid.  
The second Council of Bracara. 151  
The fourth Council of Paris. ibid.  
The fifth Council of Paris. 152  
The Synod of Antisiodorum. ibid.  
The first Council of Mascon. 153  
The third Council of Lions. 154  
The second Council of Valentia. ibid.  
The second Council of Mascon. ibid.  
The third Council of Toledo. 155  
The Council of Narbo. 156  
The first Council of Sevil. 157  
Council in Avernia. 158  
Council of Poitiers. ibid.  
Council of Metz. 159  
Assembly of Bishops at Nanterra. 160  
Council of Saragossa. ibid.  
Council of Toledo, held in the twelfth year of Reccaredus, the 597th of Christ. 161  
Council of Osca, or Huesca, a City of the Province of Torraco, held under the same King in the year 598. 161  
Council of Barcelona under the same King, held in 599. ibid.    

An ALPHABETICAL TABLE of the Author's Names and Councils in this Volume.  

A  
ADrian. 24  
Agapetus. 31  
Council of Agatha. 110  
Agnellus. 59  
Anastasius Sinaita. 67  
Andronicianus. 105  
The Anonymous Author of the Explication of the Octateuch. 35  
Synod of Antisiodorum. 152  
Aprigius. 51  
Arator. ibid.  
Aretas. 52  
Council of Arles IV. 119  
Council of Arles V. 147  
Avitus Bishop of Vienna. 4  
Aurelianus. 50  
Council of Arvernia. 131  
Council of Avernia. 158   

B  
BAndoninia. 62  
Council of Barcelona in 540. 128  
Council of Barcelona in 599. 161  
Basil of Cilicia. 28  
St. Benedict 44  
Boethius 26  
Boniface II. 30  
Council of Bracara I. 148  
Council of Bracara II. 151   

C  
CAssiodorus 43  
Caesarius. 49  
Chrysippus. 64  
Councils of the Bishops of Africa held at Carthage under Boniface Bishop of that City. 119  
Edict of Clotharis. 148  
Council of Clermont in Auvergne. 126  
Conference of the Catholics with the Severians. 123  
Cyrillus of Scythopolis. 52  
Council of Constantinople under Mennas. 131  
Council of Constantinople II. which is called the fifth General. 135   

D  
DIonysius Exiguus. 42  
Dinamius. 104   

E  
ENnodius. 7  
Council of Epaone. 116  
St. Ephrem. 33  
Epiphanius Scholasticus. 27  
Evagrius. 69  
Evantius 64  
Eugippius. 21  
Eulogius. 66  
Eustratius. 105  
Eutropius. ibid.   

F  
FA●…. 52  
Felix IV. 29  
Ferran●…s. 22  
Ferreclus. 64  
For●…us. 61  
St. F●●gentius. 13   

G  
St. GErmannus. 62  
Gildas. 63  
Giles, Abbot. 25  
Council of Gerunda. 115  
Gregory of Tours. 63  
St. Gregory the Great. 72   

H  
HEracleanus. 106  
History of the Council of Constantinople under M●nnas. 131  
Hormisd●●. 11   

I  
JOhn I. Bishop of Rome. 29  
John II. Bishop of Rome. 30  
St. Joannes Climacus. 69  
John of Biclarum. 67  
John of Raithu. 72  
John of Scythopolis. 28  
John the Faster. 67  
Joannes Maxentius. 23  
Joannes Sch●●asticus. 63  
Jobius, Monk. 36  
Junilius. 57  
Justinian and Justus. 51  
Justinian. 37   

L  
LAurence. 25  
Leander. 103  
Leo. 50  
Leontius, Monk. 60  
Leontius, Bishop. 107  
Council of Lerida, or Ilerda. 118  
Liberatus. 58  
Licini●…s. 104  
Lucius Charinus. 106  
Council I. of Lions. 117  
Council II. of Lions. 149  
Council III. of Lions. 154   

M  
MArcellinus. 25  
Martin of Braga. 62  
Council I. of Mascon. 153  
Council II. of Mascon. 154  
Maximus. 105  
Metrodorus. 106  
Council of Metz. 159   

N  
NIcetius. 50  
Assemblies of Bishops at Nanterra. 160  
Council of Narbo. 156   

O  
Councils of Orange II. 121  
Orentius. 26  
Council I. of Orleans. 113  
Council II. of Orleans. 125  
Council III. of Orleans. 127  
Council iv of Orleans. 129  
Council V of Orleans. 130  
Council of Osca, or Huesca. 161   

P  
Councils II. of Paris. 147  
Council III. of Paris. ibid.  
Council iv of Paris. 151  
Council V of Paris. 152  
Pasc●acius. 62  
Paterius. 103  
Paulus Silentiarius. 58  
Pelagius I 58  
Pelagius II. 65  
Council of Poitiers. 158  
Pontianus. 49  
Primasius. 56  
Procopius Gazaeus. 35   

R  
COuncils of Rome under Pope Symmachus. 108  
Council of Rome under Boniface II. 122  
Rusticus. 56   

S  
Councils of Saintones. 149  
Council of S●●agossa. 160  
Sedatus. 64  
Severus. 27  
Severus Bishop in Spain. 104  
Council I. of Sevil. 157  
Pope Silverus. 46  
Symmachus. 1   

T  
Councils of Tarrago. 114  
Tetradius. 51  
Theodorus. 27  
Council II. of Toledo. 123  
Council III. of Toledo. 155  
Council of Toledo in 597. 161  
Council II. of Tours. 149  
Trifolius. 24  
Trojanus. 50  
Council of Tutella. 131   

V  
Councils II. of Vaiso. 121  
Council of Valentia. 119  
Council II. of Valentia. 154  
Victor of Capua. 55  
Victor Tunnuensis. 58  
Pope Vigilius. 47   

Z  
ZAcharias. 52     

BIBLIOTHECA PATRUM: OR, A NEW HISTORY OF Ecclesiastical Writers. TOME IU.  
CONTAINING An Account of the LIVES and WRITINGS of the Primitive FATHERS, that Flourished in the Sixth Century of Christianity, with Censures upon all their BOOKS, determining which are Genuine and which Spurious.  

Pope SYMMACHUS.  
AFTER the Death of Pope Anastasius, which happened at the end of the Year 498, there was a fierce contention in the Church of Rome between Laurentius and Symmachus, which 
Pope Symmachus.  of them two was duly promoted to that See. Symmachus, who was Deacon, was chosen and ordained by the far greater number, but Festus a Roman Senator, who had promised the Emperor Anastasius, that his Edict of Agreement with the Bishop of Rome should be signed, procured Laurentius to be chosen and ordained. This Schism divided the Church and the City of Rome, and the most eminent both of the Clergy and the Senate took part with one of these two Bishops: but at length both Parties agreed to wait upon King Theodoric at Ravenna for his Decision in the case, which was this, That He should continue Bishop of Rome who had been first chosen, and should be found to have the far greater number of Voices for him. Symmachus had the advantage of Laurentius on both these Accounts, and so was confirmed in the possession of the Holy See; and he ordained Laurentius Bishop of Nocera, if we may believe Anastasius. At the beginning of the next Year he called a Council, wherein he made a Canon against the ways of soliciting men's voices, which were then used for obtaining the Papal Dignity: But those who opposed the Ordinance of Symmachus, seeing him possessed of the Holy See against their mind, used all their endeavours to turn him out of it; for which end they charged him with many Crimes, they stirred up a part of the People and Senate against him, and caused a Petition to be presented to King Theodoric, that he would appoint a Delegate to re-hear the Cause. He named Peter Bishop of Altinas, who deposed the Pope from the Government of his Diocese, and deprived him of the Possessions of the Church. This Division was the cause of so great disorders in Rome, that from words they came many times to blows, and every day produced fight and murders: Many ecclesiastics were beaten to death, Virgins were rob, and driven away from their habitation, many Laymen were wounded or killed; insomuch that not only the Church but also the City of Rome suffered very much by this Schism. King Theodoric being desirous to put an end to these disorders, called a Council; wherein the Bishops being possessed with a good Opinion of Pope Symmachus, would not enter upon the examination of the particula Articles alleged against him, but only declared him Innocent before his Accusers, of the Crimes that were laid to his Charge: And they prevailed so far by their Importunity, that the King was satisfied with this Sentence, and both the People and the Senate who had been, very much irritated against Sym●…chus, were 〈◊〉, and acknowledged him for Pope. Yet some of the discontented Party still remained, who 〈◊〉 a Writing against this Synod, and spread their Calumnies, forged against Symmachus, as far as the East: The Emperor Anastasius objected them to him, which obliged Symmachus to write a Letter to him for his own Vindication: But notwithstanding these Efforts of his Enemies, he continued in peaceab●● possession of the Holy See until the Year 514, wherein he died.  
The first Letter of this Pope is written to Aeoni● Bishop of Ar●es, which is dated Septemb. 29. in the Year 500 In this Letter he dec●ares, that his Predecessor had unjustly taken away from the Bishop of Arles the Right of Ordaining Bishops to some Churches, and given it to the Bishop of Vienna, contrary to the Custom and the Canons of his Predecessors. Upon this occasion he says, That the Priesthood being one and indivisible, altho' it be administered by many Bishops, the Successors can make no Innovation contrary to the Canons of their Predecessors; and moreover, That it is of great importance to Religion, that no difference of Judgement should appear among the Bishops, and chief among the Bishops of the Church of Rome: from whence he concludes, That Aeon●us should follow the ancient Custom in Ordaining Bishops, and that the New Canon of Anastasius ought not to take pl●ce.  
The second Letter written to the same Bishop ought to be placed before the former, not only because of the Date, which is written Octob. 30. 499. but also because it is a Citation of the Bishop of Vienna to come and defend his pretended Right, which ought to precede the Judgement given against him which is contained in the first Letter. There is also a third Letter on the same Subject written to Avitus Bishop of Vienna, Octob. 13. 501. published in the fifth Tome of the Spicilegium of Luc Dachera, and is there reckoned the twelfth, wherein he answers that Bishop, and tells him, That the Judgement he had given should be no ways prejudicial to him, if he could prove that the Canon made by his Predecessor was useful, although it was not regular; because what is done for a just cause is not against the Law, and one may departed from the Rigour of the Law for the Good of the Church, since the Law itself would have excepted such a case if it could have foreseen it; and he adds, That it would be ofttimes cruel to adhere to the Letter of the Law, when the strict observation of it is found prejudicial to the Church, because the Laws were made to serve the Church, and not to do it any prejudice. After this he exhorts the Bishop of Vienna to produce his Reasons and Defence in a Letter to himself.  
At last in the Year 502 he ended this Difference by confirming the Canon made about this matter by S. Leo, who had subjected Valentia, Tarentasia, Geneva and Grenoble to the Bishop of Vienna, and left the other Churches under the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Arles. Caesarius was at Rome when this Canon was made, as appears by the ninth Letter dated Novemb. 13th. in the Year 502. But let us return to the former Letters.  
The third is a Letter of Compliment to Patricius Liberius upon the Election of a Bishop of Aquileia. It is dated Octob. 15. in the Year 499, but the Date appears to be added: this is the first Letter of the fifth Book of Ennodius, and it may be that he composed it for this Pope.  
The fourth is not a Letter of Symmachus to Laurentius of Milan, as the Title supposes; but it is the third part of the Rhetoric of Ennodius of Pavia. Any one may be satisfied by reading it, that it was never a Letter.  
The Letter or Memorial of Caesarius Bishop of Arles, contains four Requests which he made to Pope Symmachus. In the first he remonstrates to him, that among the Gauls the Possessions of the Church were easily alienated, from whence it came to pass, that the Goods designed for relieving the Necessities of the Poor were daily diminished: He prays that this Alienation may be wholly forbidden by the Authority of the Holy See, except what shall be thought convenient to be given to the Monasteries. He requests in the second place, that it may be declared also, that the Judges and Governors of Provinces cannot be appointed until they have been tried a long time before. 3. He desires that it may be forbidden to marry the Widows who have wore a Religious Habit for a long time, and the Virgins who have been for many years in Monasteries. 4. He requests that care may be taken to hinder all Canvasing and giving of Bribes for obtaining a Bishopric.  
The Pope answers these Requests in the following Letter of Novemb. 6th, which is the fifth, and says, That although the Ecclesiastical Canons have provided for these things which he desires, yet it is good to renew them. 1st, Then he forbids the Alienation of the Possessions of the Church by any Contract, and upon any pretence whatsoever; but yet he allows some part of them to be given to Clergymen, to Monasteries, and to Strangers who are in necessity, provided always, that they shall only enjoy the Profits of them during their Life. 2. He threatens those with the rigour of the Canons who endeavour to promote themselves to the Priesthood by promising to give away the Possessions of the Church. 3. He ordains that Laymen shall observe the Times appointed by the Canons, before they be promoted to the Priesthood. 4. He declares that he abhors those who ravish Widows or Virgins consecrated to God, and that he condemns even those who marry them, although they who are married mean well. He ordains that such shall be cast ou● of the Communion of the Church, and he forbids Widows who have lived a long while unmarried, and Virgins who have been a considerable time in Monasteries, to marry, 5. He forbids all Solicitations and Promises which are made for Promotion to a Bishopric.  
The sixth Letter of Symmachus is his Apology, wherein he vindicates himself from the Crimes charged upon him by the Emperor Anastasius. In it he writes to this Emperor with great boldness, and shows him, that he ought not to take in ill part his Answer to the Reproaches spoken against him; That if he be considered in the quality of Roman Emperor, he ought to hear patiently the Messages of the People, and even of the Barbarians; and if he be considered as a Christian Prince, he ought to hear the voice of the Bishop of the Apostolic See: That for his own part he could not dissemble these Calumnies, although he ought to bear with them; and that it was even the Interest of the Emperor to have the falsehood of them discovered, that the scandal might be removed. He taketh the whole City of Rome to witness, that he was no Manichean, and that he had never warped from the Faith he had received in the Church of Rome since he first left Paganism. He accuses the Emperor in his turn of being an Eutychian, or at least of favouring the Eutychians and communicating with them: He reproves him for despising the Authority of the Holy See, and of the Bishop who was Successor to St. Peter. He maintains that his Dignity is higher than that of the Emperor. Let us compare, says he to him, the Dignity of a Bishop with that of an Emperor. There is as great difference between them, as between the things of this Earth, whereof the latter has the administration, and the things of Heaven, whereof the former is the Dispenser. O Prince! you receive Baptism from the Bishop, he gives you the Sacraments, you desire of him Prayers, you wait for his Blessing, and you address yourself to him, that you may be put under Penance. In a word, you govern the Affairs of Men, and he dispenses the Blessings of Heaven. Wherefore the Office of a Bishop is at least equal, if not superior to yours. After this he proposes, That as the Emperor would undoubtedly make him lose his Dignity, if he could prove the Articles of Accusation alleged against him; So he should hazard the loss of his if he could not prove it. He admonishes him to remember that he is a Man, and that he can no ways avoid the discussion of this Cause before the Tribunal of God; That 'tis true, due respect ought to be paid to Secular Powers, but then they ought not to be obeyed when they desire such things as are contrary to the Laws of God: in fine, That if Obedience is due to Superior Powers, it is chief due to those that are Spiritual. Honour God in us, says he, and we will honour him in you; but if you have no respect for God, you cannot claim that privilege from him whose Laws you despise. You say, adds he, that I have Excommunicated you with the Consent of the Senate; In this I have done nothing but followed the righteous Example of my Predecessors. You say that the Senate has evil entreated you: If you think that you are abused by exhorting you to separate from Heretics, can it be said that you would have treated us well, when you would have forced us to join with Heretics; You say that what Acacius has done does not at all concern you; If it be so, trouble yourself no more about him, join no more with his followers. If you do not this, it is not we that Excommunicate you, but yourself, by joining yourself to one that is Excommunicated. He concludes with a smart Remonstrance, wherein he exhorts the Emperor to return to the Communion of the Holy See, and to separate from the Enemies of the Truth and the Church.  
The seventh Letter is the fourteenth Epistle of the eleventh Book of Ennodius' Letters. It may be he wrote it in the Pope's Name.  
The eighth Letter of Symmachus is addressed to the Orientalists, wherein he does earnestly exhort them to suffer all sorts of Persecutions, rather than communicate with the Complices and Followers of Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy, Peter of Foulon and Acacius. This Letter is dated Octob. 8. in the Year 512.  
The ninth Letter is a Letter of the Orientalists to Pope Symmachus. They pray him to put an end to that Schism which had now continued many years upon the account of Acacius' Disobedience. They remonstrate to him that their Faith is Orthodox, that they condemn the Errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, and those of their Followers, that they approve the Council of Chalcedon; That those who separated from the Communion of others upon the account of Acacius' affair, did not take sufficient care of the Flock of Jesus Christ. That on the contrary, those who overlooked that formality, had made Churches for the Public Good; that both the one and the other are Orthodox, and that he ought not to refuse Communion to either of them. To prove that they were Catholics in their Judgement, they propose an Exposition of their Faith, wherein they do clearly reject the Errors of the Nestorians and Eutychians.  
We have already spoken of the tenth Letter which is the Definitive Sentence that passed about the difference between the Churches of Arles and Vienna.  
In the eleventh he confirms to the Bishop of Arles, upon the Request of that Bishop presented to him, the Right of Citing the Bishops of Gaul and Spain to the Synods that were necessary to be held for Judging of Ecclesiastical Matters. He order him to give an account to the Holy See of those Causes which should want his Authority to determine them.  
The twelfth Letter wherein it is supposed that Pope Symmachus gave the Pallium to the Bishop of Laurea in Pannonia, appears to me to be a Forgery: It is not where cited; it is taken from a place of little authority; the style is different from that of the other Letters, and does plainly discover that it is very late. In short, it is stuffed with thoughts so mean and impertinent, that it cannot be attributed to any man of sense. You need only read it to be convinced of the Truth of what we say, and that it is a suppositious Piece.  
The style of Symmachus' Letters is harsh, but it has smartness and vehemence.   

AVITUS Bishop of Vienna. 
Avitus Bishop of Vienna.   
SExtus Alcimus Ecditius Avitus Son to the Senator Isychius, and Brother to Apollinaris Bishop of Valentia, was promoted in the beginning of the Sixth Century to the Episcopal See of the Church of Vienna, which his Father had also governed for some years. This Bishop laboured very much in the Conversion of the Arians, held many Conferences with Gondeband King of the Burgundians who was an Arian, converted his Son Sigismond, and vigorously opposed the Heretics of his time. Dr. Cave says, he converted King, Gondeband to the Catholic Faith, and made him publicly profess it, when he endeavoured to conceal it from his Subjects, Hist. Lit. p. 372. He wrote also in defence of Pope Symmachus, he presided in a Council held at Epaon in 517, he died in 523; he wrote Letters, Sermons and Poems. His Letters are the most curious and most beautiful of all his Works, and they are in number 87.  
The first is addressed to Gondeband King of the Burgundians. In it he first explains two places of the Gospel, and takes occasion from the former to remark that the word Mass is used in Churches, in Palaces and Courts, to dismiss the People. Afterward he proves that the Holy Spirit is not a Creature, and that the Breath of Life which God breathed into the first man, is not the very Substance of the Holy Spirit.  
In the second Letter, addressed to the same Prince, he treats of the Incarnation, and opposes the Errors of Nestorius and Eutyches; but he was so ill informed of their History, that he attributes to the latter the Error of the former, although it be perfectly contrary to his Opinions.  
In the following Letter he appears to be no better informed of the Transactions in the East which happened in his own time; for there he accuses the Bishop of Constantinople of having cut off, in the year preceding, these words from the Trisagion, O thou that was crucified for us, have pity upon us; and he defends this Expression as being very ancient. Now it's certain that it was Peter of Foulon who had added these words to the Trisagion a little while before; and the Bishop of Constantinople was so far from cutting them off, that on the contrary he approved this addition, and caused the Trisagion to be sung after this manner; which caused a Tumult in the Church of Constantinople, mentioned by Avitus who is mistaken in attributing the Disorder to the cutting off of these words, which had not happened but because they were added.  
In the fourth Letter he examines two places in the Writings of Faustus Bishop of Regium. One is about a very short Penance which is done at the point of Death; and the other is about the unprofitableness of Faith without good Works. Avitus maintains, in speaking of the former, That it's false and very harsh to affirm that the Penance which is granted at the point of Death, does not at all profit a man: But he confesses, that if those who have received it relapse afterward into their former Debauchery, it was unprofitable to them, and that hereby they render themselves unworthy of the Communion. Nevertheless he does not think that they can be obliged to renounce altogether the use of Marriage. After this he remarks upon the second place of Faustus, That it cannot be said that Faith without Works is altogether unprofitable, since Infants are justified by Faith without Works; and That the Faith of Adult Persons is commonly accompanied with Good Works.  
In the sixth Letter addressed to Victorius Bishop of Grenoble, Avitus maintains, That it is never lawful for Catholics to use the Altars, Oratories, or Churches of Heretics. He procured this Prohibition to be made in the Council of Epaon, although the contrary had been established in the first Council of Orleans.  
The seventh Letter is written to the Patriarch of Constantinople, wherein he congratulates his Reconciliation to the Bishop of Rome. This Patriarch was John of Cappadocia, who was reconciled to Pope Hormisdas in the year 519.  
In the eighth Letter he praises Eustorgius Bishop of Milan for his Charity to the Captive Gauls, whom he had caused to be redeemed.  
In the ninth he recommends to Caesarius Bishop of Arles, a Foreign Bishop, called Maximianus, who was come into his Country to find there an able Physician, who could cure him of a distemper in his eyes wherewith he was afflicted. There are two things remarkable in this Letter; the first is, That a Catholic Bishop, in whatsoever place he is, ought not to pass for a Stranger: the second is, That a Bishop is obliged to take care of his health, that he may be capable of discharging his Episcopal Function.  
The tenth Letter is from Apollinaris Bishop of Valentia, Brother to Avitus, wherein he acquaints him with a Dream which he had in his sleep, on the night of the Anniversary of their Sister's death. He takes this Dream for an Admonition which his Sister gave him that he should do her this service, and informs his Brother of it; who answers him in the next Letter, That he had discharged this Duty at Vienna, and that the Fault he committed in forgetting it was very pardonable.  
The fourteenth Letter is from Victorius Bishop of Grenoble, who had consulted Avitus his Metropolitan, what he should do as to a Man called Vincomalus, who had espoused the Sister of his Wife deceased, and lived with her afterwards for many years. He asks Avitus what Penance he should impose upon them, and whether or no he ought to part them. Avitus answers him, That he ought not to suffer this Disorder, but should enjoin them to part from one another, and also Excommunicate them if they continued in this way of Living, until they obeyed, and did public Penance for the Fault. Vincomalus coming after this to wait upon Avitus, endeavoured to excuse his Fault by the length of time which he had lived with this Woman; but Avitus gave him to understand, That this Circumstance did rather aggravate then any ways diminish his Fault, and made him promise to part with this Woman immediately. And after he had extorted this Promise from him, he wrote to Victorius, that he should dissolve this unhappy Marriage by an innocent Divorce, that nevertheless he should punish this Man according to the utmost rigour of the Canons; and in the mean time he should not altogether trust his Word, nor pardon him but upon the Security of those who had interceded for him: That he should advise him to do Penance, but not impose it upon him against his will.  
The seventeenth Letter is addressed to the Priest Viventiolus, who was afterwards Bishop of Lions. He exhorts him to take upon him the Government of the Monastery of St. Claude, and wishes him a higher Preferment. This Letter is without an end, and the next is without a beginning; it may be there were some between them which are wholly lost. 'Tis not known to whom the last is written: Father Sirmondus thinks that it is to Pope Symmachus. He tells him, That although there be some Relics of the Holy Cross, yet he ought to desire them of the Bishop of Jerusalem, who keeps this precious Depositum in its purity.  
The nineteenth is a short Note from King Gondebaud to Avitus, wherein he puts a Question to him about two passages in Scripture. Avitus answers him in the twentieth Letter.  
The one and twentieth is addressed to Sigismond the Son of Gondebaud, wherein he speaks of a Conference which he had with his Father about Religion.  
In the three and twentieth Avitus thanks the Bishop of Jerusalem for the Relics of the Holy Cross which he had sent into his Country. This Letter gins with this fine Compliment. Your Apostolical Eminence exercises the Primacy which God has granted you, and means to show, not only by his Prerogatives, but also by his Merits, that he holds the first place in the Universal Church. Some may think that this Letter is addressed to the Bishop of Rome, but the Title and Body of the Letter do plainly discover that it is to the Bishop of Jerusalem.  
The four and twentieth Letter is addressed to Stephen Bishop of Lions, about a Donatist who was in his Country. Avitus advises him to labour after the Conversion of this Man, to hinder this Error from taking root among the Gauls; and acquaints him, That he ought to receive this Donatist by Imposition of Hands, since it is certain that he had received the Unction of the holy Chrysm with Baptism. In the Churches of the Gauls they made use sometimes of Chrysm to receive Heretics, as appears by many Examples related by Gregory of Tours. But probably it was not used, save only to those who had not received it at their Baptism, as this passage of Avitus invincibly proves.  
In the five and twentieth Letter he promises his Brother Apollinaris, to be present at the Dedication of a Church, and commends the charitable Gifts that were designed for the Poor at this Feast.  
The six and twentieth Letter is addressed to a Bishop whose Name is not known. Avitus rebukes him for his easiness in discovering our Mysteries to the Enemies of Religion. He proves afterwards that an Heretical Bishop, who is converted, may be promoted to the Dignity of the Priesthood in the Church, provided there be nothing in his Life or Manners which hinders it. For why, says he, may not he govern the Flock of Jesus Christ, who has acknowledged that the Sheep which he fed were not the Sheep of Jesus Christ? Why may not he be promoted to the Priesthood among us, who has quitted that which he had for love of the Truth? Let him become of a Layman a true Bishop, who of a false Bishop which he was, was willing to become a Layman.  
The following Letter was written by Avitus under the Name of King Sigismond to Pope Symmachus. It is an acknowledgement which he made to the Pope for the Relics he had sent him, praying him at the same time to give him some other Relics. This Letter is filled with high Compliments to the Pope, to whom he gives the Title of Bishop of the Universal Church.  
In the eight and twentieth Letter addressed to King Gondebaud, he proves by express places of Scripture, That Jesus Christ did subsist in his Divinity before he was made Man. Florus the Deacon called this Letter a Treatise of Divinity.  
The one and thirtieth Letter to Faustus and Symmachus, who were the two chief Senators of Rome, was written by Avitus in the Name of the Bishops of France on the behalf of Pope Symmachus, who had been acquitted in a Synod held at Rome by the order of Theodoric King of Italy. Avitus takes it very ill, that a Council had undertaken to judge the Pope. He maintains that the Bishops ought to assist, but not judge him, because there is neither Law nor Reasons which allows Inferiors to judge him who is above them: And he adds, That if any call in question the validity of the Ordination of one Pope, it would seem that not the Bishop but Episcopacy itself were in danger; At si Papa Urbis Romae vocatur in dubium, Episcopatus jam videbitur, non Episcopus, vacillare. 'Tis difficult to understand what Avitus means by this, for what if one Pope fall into Idolatry or Heresy; if he become a Simoniac, and commit many enormous Crimes, is the Apostolic See ever the less worthy of Honour upon that account? May not this Pope be reform without endangering Episcopacy? Avitus did not sufficiently reflect upon what he said, and the Honour which he had for the Holy See, made him propose such Maxims as are not only very difficult to prove, but which are even confuted by the authentic Examples of Antiquity.  
Avitus testifies also his respect for the Pope in the six and thirtieth Letter, to Senarius a Minister of King Theodoric, where he says, That the Laws of Synods enjoin the Bishops to have recourse to the Bishop of Rome, as Members to their Head, in those things which concern the state of the Catholic Church; that therefore he had written to Pope Hormisdas to know the success of his Embassy into the East, and did wait for his Answer about it. He prays Senarius also to communicate to him the Particulars of that Affair. In the next Letter he desires of Peter Bishop of Ravenna to know what News there is.  
The Letter which he wrote upon this Subject to Pope Hormisdas is among the Letters of this Pope. Father Sirmondus hath placed it in the last place among Avitus' and subjoined an Answer to it; whereby it appears that Hormisdas was not satisfied with the Greeks. We shall speak more of this when we come to give an account of the Life and Letters of this Pope.  
In the eight and thirtieth Letter Avitus speaks of one of his Writings which he had found again, and dedicates it to Apollinaris the Son of the famous Sidonius.  
The nine and thirtieth is written to King Gondebaud about a Slave who had detained a Depositum. Avitus had removed the cause from the Church of Vienna to that of Lions, where Process should have been made against him. This Slave confessed that he had this Depositum, but he accused Avitus of bidding him detain it. Avitus purged himself of this Accusation with much Modesty and Submission, testifying to the King, that he was ready to do whatsoever he would. The small Possessions, says he, which belong to my Church, and even those which belong to all our Churches, are at your service, 'tis you that have given or preserved them to us.  
The one and fortieth Letter to King Clovis is very remarkable. Aritus congratulates this King upon his Baptism, and describes the pomp and advantages of it. This Letter informs us that he was baptised on Christmas night.  
In the nine and fortieth Letter he speaks boldly against a Man who hath deflowered a Maid, and declares that he could not receive him until he had done Penance; that it was in vain for him to threaten that he would cite him to Rome, and accuse him of having Children; for this threatening should not any ways hinder him in doing his duty. He adds, That if he does not submit to a voluntary Penance, he shall be cast into Prison, and not be suffered any longer to live so licentiously.  
There is nothing very remarkable in the other Letters of Avitus: they are for the most part written to invite Bishops to be present at some Festival Solemnity.  
Avitus had composed many Homilies whereof he himself made a Collection; but there is none of them remaining, except one entire Homily upon the Rogation days. In it he relates the Origine and Institution of this Solemnity. The Province of Vienna being afflicted by Earthquakes and continual Tempests, and the Fire taking hold of the great Church on Easter-Eve, St. Mamertus stopped it by his Prayers, and from thence he took occasion to appoint these Rogation-days, for giving thanks to God, and preventing the like Calamities for the future. He chose for this Solemnity three days between Easter and Ascension, and made solemn Processions on these days. The other Churches of the Gauls followed the example of the Church of Vienna, and used Prayers at the same time, and after the same manner. Avitus reckons it to be one of the greatest Advantages of this Institution, that then all the faithful joined together to bewail their sins, and to beg pardon of the Lord. He composed also other Homilies upon the Rogation-days, whereof we have not now so much as any extracts. Father Sirmondus relates afterwards the Titles of eight Sermons of Avitus which were preached at the Dedications of Churches, and are taken from an ancient Manuscript of the Bibliothick of Mr. de Thou, where are also some Fragments to be seen. He hath also found in Gregory of Tours and Agobardus some Extracts of the Conference of Avitus with King Gondebaud; but the most considerable Fragments of the Works of this Author, are those which he hath taken from the Explication of St. Paul's Epistles written by Florus a Deacon of the Church of Lions.  
The Works from which these Fragments were taken are the Books against the Arians, and against those who say that the Flesh of Christ was nothing but a Phantism, two Sermons upon Easter, three Sermons upon the three Rogation-days, one Sermon upon the Ascension of Christ, one upon Whitsunday, one upon the Cup of the Lord's Supper, a Discourse upon the Creed, a Sermon upon the Ordination of a Bishop, a Homily upon Ionas, another upon the Ascension of Elias, one upon the Passion of Jesus Christ, a Sermon at the Dedication of the Church of St. Michael, and a Sermon upon King Ezechias.  
Avitus composed also many pieces in Verse, but he himself could not find them to make a Collection of them, as he testifies in his Letter to Apollinaris; so that he could only publish the five Poems which he had made upon the History of Moses; viz. upon the Creation of the World, upon the Fall of Man, upon the Sentence which God pronounced against him, upon the Deluge, and upon the Passage through the Red-Sea: To which he added afterwards a Poem in Praise of Virginity, addressed to his Sister. There are also found in the Bibliothicks other Poems upon the Continuation of the History of the Old Testament, which go under the Name of Avitus, and may well enough be his, although Gregory of Touris, and St. Isidore of Sevil mention only six Poems which we now have. Howsoever this be, these Works are neither beautiful nor useful.  
The style of Avitus is harsh, obscure and intricate. He had Wit enough, but little of greatness and elevation of Mind; he was moderately Learned, and never failed as to his Integrity and good Intentions.  
The Poems of Avitus have been already, printed by themselves at Francfurt in 1507 at Collen and Paris in 1508. and 1509. at Lions in 1536. and in the Bibliothicks of the Fathers; but Father Sirmondus is the first who published his other Works. He caused them to be printed at Paris by Cramoisy in 1643. with Notes well worth the reading.  
Since this time Luc d'Achery hath published, in the fifth Tomb of his Spicilegium, the Conference which Avitus had with the Arian Bishops in the presence of King Gondebaud. Here follow the Contents 
Ennodius Bishop of Pavia.  of it: Avitus Bishop of Vienna, Aeonius of Arles, Apollinaris of Marseilles, the Bishop of Valentia, and some others, being present at the Feast of St. Justus, to which they had been invited by Stephen, went from thence to the Court of King Gondebaud, at Sabiniacum. Avitus proposed to him a Conference with the Arian Bishops. The King told him with a stern Countenance, If your Religion be good, why do not you hinder the King of the Franks, your Sovereign, from making War upon me. Avitus answered, That he did not know the Reasons which his Prince had to make War upon him; butif he would submit to the Law of God, he did not doubt to obtain a Peace for him. The King answered, That he did acknowledge the Law of God, but he would not acknowledge three Gods. Avitus gave him to understand, that the Catholics do not acknowledge but one God only; and then he fell prostrate at his Feet. The next day the King told them, That his Bishops were ready to enter into a Conference with them; but that it must not be held before the People, but only in his presence, and before such Senators as he should choose. To Morrow is appointed for the day. The same Night the Lessons were read which mentioned the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, and of the Jews, which was a bad Omen. When the time for the Conference was come, the Bishops of both Parties were present at the Place appointed. Avitus explained the Faith of the Church about the Mystery of the Trinity, and proved it by Testimonies of the Holy Scripture. Boniface being the Arian Bishop that was to speak, answered nothing to Avitus' Discourse, but only proposed many subtle and entangling Questions about the Mystery of the Trinity, and then broke forth into reproachful Language. The King respited the Answer of Boniface till to morrow. An Officer called Aredius, would have persuaded the Catholics to retire, telling them, That this sort of Conferences did nothing but exasperate men's minds. Bishop Stephen answered him, That on the contrary, it was the only means to clear up the truth, and to reconcile men to one another, and bring them to a good understanding. But notwithstanding this Admonition, the Catholic Bishops entered into the Place. King Gondebaud seeing them, came to meet them, and spoke reproachfully of the King of the Franks, whom he accused of soliciting his Brother against him. The Bishops answered him, That the way to make Peace was to agree about the Faith, and that they themselves would be Mediators for it; and then every one took his place. Avitus being desirous to wipe off the Calumnies of Boniface, who had accused the Catholics of worshipping many Gods, proved that the Catholics acknowledged one God only. Boniface instead of answering, continued still to reproach them. The King seeing that this would not put an end to the difference, risen up with indignation. Avitus insisted, that he should either answer his Reasons, or yield: But to show clearly on whose side the Truth was, he proposed, That he should go immediately to the Monument of St. Justus, and ask the Saint about the truth of the one and the other's Belief, and then report what he had said. The King approved this Proposal, but the Arians refused it, saying, They would not do as Saul did, who had recourse to Charms and Divination, that the Scripture was sufficient for them, which was much more powerful than all other means. The King going away, carried with him to his Chamber Stephen and Avitus, and bidding them farewel, he embraced them, and entreated them to pray to God for him: Which discovered to them, says the Author of this Relation, what a perplexity he was in. But because the heavenly Father had not drawn him, he could not come to the Son, that this word of truth might be fulfilled, 'Tis not he that willeth, nor he that runneth, but God that showeth mercy. After this day many Arians were converted, and baptised some days after, and God exalted our Faith by the Intercession of St. Justus. These are the very words of the Acts of this Conference.   

ENNODIUS Bishop of PAVIA.  
Magnus' Felix Ennodius, descended of an illustrious Family among the Gauls 
a Descended of an illustrious Family among the gaul's] says in many places of his Works, that his Parents were Gauls. He was a Kinsman to the greatest Lords in his time; as to Faustus, ●oetius, Avienus, Olybrius, Senarius, Florianus, etc. , was born in Italy 
b In Italy] 'Tis certain that he passed his first years in Italy. , in the Year 473 
c In the Year 473.] In the Panegyric which he made upon Theodoric, he declares that he was sixteen years old when that King entered into Italy in the Year 489. . Having lost at the Age of Sixteen an Aunt, who gave him Maintenance and Education, he was reduced to low Circumstances in the World, but by marriage to a rich Fortune he was restored to a plentiful Estate. He enjoyed for some time the Advantages and Pleasures which Riches afford, but knowing the danger of them, he resolved to lead a more Christian Life. He entered into Orders with the consent of his wife, who for her part embraced a chaste and religious Life. 'Twas at this time that he became famous for his Letters and other Writings. He was chosen to make a Panegyric upon King Theodoric, and undertook the Defence of the Council of Rome which acquitted Pope Symmachus. For his Merits he was promoted to the See of Pavia about the Year 510 
d About the Year 510] Father Labbe says that he was made Bishop of Pavia in 490, but this cannot be, since he was not then seventeeen years old. He was not yet Bishop when his Book was approved in the Synod of Rome in 503, for the Title of Bishop is not given him. . After this he was made choice of to endeavour the Reunion of the Eastern to the Western Church: Upon which occasion he made two Journeys into the East; the first in the Year 515, with Fortunatus' Bishop of Catana, and the second in 517, with Peregrinus Bishop of Misena. These Journeys had not the success which he desired, but they discovered his Prudence and Courage: For the Emperor Anastasius did all he could to seduce or corrupt him, but not being able to compass his design, after many affronts, at last he caused him to put to Sea in an old rotten Vessel, and forbade all persons to suffer him to land at any Port of Greece, whereby he was exposed to manifest danger. Nevertheless he arrived safe in Italy, and returned to Pavia, where he died a little time after, on the first day of August in the Year 521, aged 48 years.  
There are many Writings of this Author which have no relation to Ecclesiastical Matters. Among his 297 Letters which are divided into nine Books, there are but very few from whence any weighty observation can be made about the Doctrine or Discipline of the Church. The fourteenth Letter of the second Book is one of this number. It is written to the Christians of afric, whom he comforts under the Persecution which they had suffered for a long time, and the loss of their Bishops. Fear not, says he to them, because you see yourselves destitute of Bishops; you have amongst you him who is both the Highpriest and the Sacrifice, who seeketh not honours, but hearts. The Confession of the Martyrs is more honourable than the Episcopal Dignity. Many times favour promotes persons of little merit to the Episcopal Throne, but nothing but Grace can confer the honourable Title of a Confessor. He acquaints them afterwards, that he had sent them the Relics of the Martyrs S Nazarius and S. Romanus, which they had desired. This Letter is among those of Symmachus, and 'tis very probable that it was written by Ennodius in this Pope's name.  
The nineteenth Letter of the same Bishop is also remarkable. There he rejects the Opinion of one who had affirmed that Man has no liberty to choose any thing but evil; he calls this a Schismatical Proposition, and one that borders upon Blasphemy. For what kind of liberty would it be to will nothing but what deserves punishment? and how can it be said that one has a choice, when there is but one side to take? If this were so, the Laws of God would be unjust: for how can he oblige us to do good, after he hath taken from us the desire and power to do it? What means then this passage of St. Paul, which gives testimony to freewill; To will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not? Is not this the meaning of it: I can choose the good way, but presently I leave it, unless Grace assist me? No body doubts but the Author of Grace opens to us the way of Righteousness by his Assistance; no body condems this Doctrine; for Grace leads good men, and prevents their good actions. 'Tis Jesus Christ that calls us, and invites us to Salvation by his Exhortations, when he says unto us, Come my Children, harken unto me; but if our Free will does not obey his Admonitions, if our Industry does not follow his Commands, we throw ourselves headlong into Hell, without being constrained to it by any necessity. We own therefore our Vocation to Grace; 'tis Grace that leads us to Life by secret ways, unless we resist it, but 'tis by our own choice that we follow that which is good where it's showed unto us. These are the Sentiments of Ennodius about Grace, which come near to those of Faustus and the Priests of Marseilles, and which do not agree with those of St. Augustine and his Disciples.  
Although there be some Christian thoughts in the other Letters of Ennodius, yet we have found nothing in them remarkable enough to be related here: His Panegyric of King Theodoric does not at all concern Ecclesiastical Matters, but only profane History.  
His Apology for the Council which acquitted Pope Symmachus, was written by Ennodius against a Paper made by the Enemies of this Pope, entitled, Against the Synod which pronounced an absurd Sentence of Absolution.  
This Paper was written with very much Artifice. He opposed the Authority of this Council; 1. Because the King had not summoned all the Bishops, and all those who came there had not consented to this Absolution: he adds, that those who were the Accusers of Symmachus were excluded, and could not be heard, and that those who were at the Synod, had confessed that they were old and weak. Secondly, Because the Bishops of this Council had not followed the Intention of King Theodoric, and durst contest his Right to call a Council. Thirdly, Because this Council had asserted a false Proposition, viz. That there is no remedy for the Disorders of Popes; as if it were one of the Privileges of the Successors of St. Peter to have an unbounded licence to sin. Fourthly, Because this Proposition of the Council, That the Pope cannot be judged by his Inferiors, is very dangerous; for if this were so, it were needless to call a Council, and the Council being called should not cite the Pope, not bring his Accusers before them; nay, the Pope himself ought not to come there, nor approve the meeting of this Synod as he had done. Fifthly, Because that the Pope, after he had presented himself before the Council to be judged, went away, and would not come there again, although he was cited four times, which was a sign that he had abandoned his Defence. In fine, he says that they could not Absolve him unless he had answered the Accusations that were laid to his Charge. Sixthly, Because that this Council had advanced false Doctrine, viz. That the Councils ought to be summoned by the Pope; for, says he, the Provincial Synods which are held every year without consulting the Pope, are a convincing evidence of the falsehood of this Doctrine. Seventhly, Because the King having named a Deligate for the Church of Rome, he had acknowledged that the Pope's administration might be reform, and that he had no reason to complain, since he himself had appointed Delegates for other Churches.  
Ennodius answers these Objections with much subtlety: First, That it was not necessary to call all the Bishops to this Synod, and that it was false that those who were not present at it, were against Pope Symmachus; that it was ridiculous to make the Bishops of the Councils pass for Fools and Sots, because they had said they were weak in Body; that they would not hear the Accusers of Symmachus, because the Persons produced could not be admitted to give testimony against Bishops according to the Canons. Secondly, That the Bishops had reason to declare to King Theodoric, that the Council ought to be called by his Authority, because in effect he had this Prerogative. Thirdly, That the Pope had no need of Reformation, because he that was promoted to this Dignity was holy, and God would not suffer, that he who held a place so eminent, should be corrupted. Fourthly, That although in strictness the Pope could not be judged by a Council, yet he had voluntarily subjected himself to its Judgement. Fifthly, That he had not withdrawn himself from it, but because he could not come to it more freely. Sixthly, That it was true, Provincial Councils might assemble without the consent of the Pope, but not a Council whose business it was to judge the Pope himself. Seventhly, That the King was surprised in naming a Delegate, who neglected the chief Duties of Piety in discharging that Office; That the Pope had a right to name one for other Churches, but not to name one for his own, because God would have the Causes of other men determined by the Judgement of Men; but as to the Successors of St. Peter, they are only subject to the Judgement of God. Ennodius concludes his Answers with three Prosopopeia's. In the first he brings in St. Peter speaking, who exhorts the Romans to obey Symmachus, and putan end to the Schism. In the second he brings in St. Paul speaking, who thunders against the Schismatics. And lastly, Rome Christian comes upon the Stage, who gives also her Suffrage in favour of Symmachus, and for the benefit of Peace. I leave it to others to compare together the Objections and Answers contained in this Apology of Ennodius: But I do not think that there are many who will pass this Proposition, That a Man being promoted to the Papacy becomes holy, and that this Dignity either finds or makes him such. 'Tis a Paradox which may be overthrown by many contrary Examples. Yet Ennodius had no other way to exempt the Pope from the Jurisdiction of a Council, and in effect there is no other way to do it; for it is against Order, that there should be no Remedy to hinder the excesses and exorbitances of the first Bishop of the Church: and therefore if all men be agreed that this way is indefensible, and that the Popes may be corrupted and disorderly, is it not necessary that a Council should be able to remedy this Inconvenience; and how can this be done unless it has a Right to judge the Pope?  
The Life of St. Epiphanius Bishop of Pavia, and that of St. Anthony Monk of Lerina, contain not any thing very remarkable, no more than the Prayer of Ennodius about himself, or his Eucharistic upon his own Life. The instructive Exhortation written in Prose and Verse, is a Book of Morality about the Virtues and Sciences. In another Book he praises the Canon lately made, viz. That all the Bishops should have a Clergyman dwelling with them, to be a witness of all their actions, that all occasion of suspicion may be removed. This Canon was indeed new, but the Custom was more ancient. This sort of Clergymen are called by the Greeks Syncelli, and by Ennodius Cellulani.  
Ennodius is also the Author of some Formularies, as of that of the Manumission of Gerontius, Slave to one named Agapetus, and of two Benedictions of Easter Wax-Candles, and of the Prayers before and after Mess.  
Among Ennodius' Pieces of Rhetoric, there are six upon Sacred Subjects: The first upon the Day of the Promotion of Laurentius to the Bishopric of Milan; the second upon the Dedication of a Church of the Apostles; the third upon the Election of a Coadjutor; the fourth upon the Dedication of a Church; the fifth in behalf of a Bishop who takes possession of his See; the sixth in behalf of the Catholic Councils against the Eastern Heretics. There is nothing at all remarkable in these Writings. The other Pieces of Rhetoric are upon profane Subjects, as well as all the Epigrams, and the greater part of his Poems: Some Hymns indeed are to be excepted, of which it were needless here to give a Catalogue.  
The Style of Ennodius is obscure, yet he has a vigorous and lively Imagination; but his Reasonings are not good. Some of his Works had been printed apart, but all of them were collected together and published by Schottus and Father Sirmondus, who caused them to be printed within a year one of another, viz. Schottus at Tournay in 1610. and Father Sirmondus at Paris in 1611. His Edition is very correct, to which he has added Notes that explain the Names and Qualities of the Persons mentioned in Ennodius, and contain many Observations very useful for clearing up the History of that time. At Basil almost all his Works were published amongst the Orthodoxographra, in the Year 1569. Cave Hist. lit. p. 390.   

HORMISDAS. 
Hormisdas   
POpe Symmachus dying in the Month of July, in the Year 514, some days after Hormisdas was chosen in his Room. His Pontificat, which lasted nine years and some days, was famous for the great Negotiations which he managed for the Re●…n of the Eastern and Western Churches, which had all the success that could be expected, for the Holy See obtained at last of the Greeks the Condemnation of A●…, which they had refused to grant for so many years before. The Abridgement of his Letters will show us the series and particulars of that History.  
The first is addressed to St. Remegius Archbishop of Rheims, who had written to him upon his Promotion to the Popedom. He thanks him, and appoints him his Vicar in the Kingdom of Clovis; he empowers him to take care that the Canons be put in execution, and to call Synods of all the Bishops in the Kingdom, as oft as any business should require them to meet. 'Tis plain that this Letter was written by Hormisdas within a little while after his Promotion. Dr. Cave says that this Letter is manifestly supposititious because in it Hormisdas congratulates Clovis, whom he calls Ludovicus, as being lately baptised by Remigius: But Clovis was baptised in the Year 496, and died in the Year 509, at least in 511, before Horsmisdas was made Pope. Hist. Lit. p. 392, 393.  
In the same year Vitalianus, General of the Cavalry to the Emperor Anastasius, risen up in Arms against him, and came with his Army towards Constantinople: He made Religion the pretence of his Revolt, and declared that he had taken Arms for no other reason but to protect the Catholics, and to restore Macedonius to the See of Constantinople. The Emperor was forced to make Peace with him, upon condition that a Council should be called to regulate the Affairs of the Church by the Advice of the Bishop of Rome. This obliged the Emperor to write to Pope Hormisdas; to pray him that he would be Mediator for pacifying these Commotions, and that he would labour to restore the Unity of the Church. He observes in this Letter that the harshness of former Popes, his Predecessors, had hindered him from writing to them, but his Reputation for goodness had invited him to have recourse to the See of St. Peter. But the true reason of his doing so, was his own Interest. This Letter was sent Jan. 12. and received April the 1st, in the Year 515.  
In answer to this Letter, the Pope tells him, That he thanks God, who had moved the Emperor to write to him, after he had kept silence so long, and that he rejoiced in the hope he had to see the Church of Jesus Christ in Peace and Union. He shows how advantageous it will be to the Church, and wishes it may quickly be finished. He desires to know for what reason he would have a Council called. This Letter, which is the second to Anastasius, is dated April 4th, in the Year 515.  
Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica, wrote also to the Pope, exhorting him to labour for the Peace of the Church, and declares to him that he wishes the Heretics were condemned, and that all due Respect and Honour were paid to the Holy See. The Pope in his Answer commends his Zeal, and exhorts him to contribute his endeavours towards the Re union of the Churches. Dorotheus' Letter is placed before the third Letter of Hormisdas, which is an Answer to it.  
The Emperor designed precisely the time and place where he would have the Council held, in a particular Letter which he wrote to the Pope, wherein he tells him, That the Council should be held at Heraclea, about some Differences concerning the Faith which were risen in Scythia. He prays him to come there with some Bishops of the Churches committed to his care. This Pope judged it not convenient to go to the Council nor to send thither; but he sent as Deputies into the East Ennodius and Fortunatus Bishops, with Venantius a Priest, Vitalis a Deacon, and a Secretary. He gave them a Memorial of Instructions as to what they should do, which contains, That when they came to Greece, if the Bishops came, to meet them, they should receive them; That if they invited them to a Feast they should not go, but answer them, That they must first c●…icate at the Holy Table, before they communicated with them at the ordinary Meals. That they should receive nothing from the Bishops; That when they arrived at Constantinople, they should retire whether the Emperor should order them. That they should not suffer themselves to be seen by any body but those that came in his Name. Nevertheless, That after they had Audience of the Emp●…, they might receive the Orthodox of their Communion who should come to visit them; That when they presented his Let●… to the Emperor, they should tell him, That the Pope his Father saluted him, that be prayed to God every day for him, and recommended his Empire to the Intercessions of St. Pete● and St. Paul; That they should speak of nothing till the Pope's Letter was read: That after this they should acquaint the Emperor, that they had a Letter to Vitalianus, who had sent two Deputies to the Pope by the permission of the Emperor; That they should not deliver it into the hands of the Emperor, but if he should desire it of them, they should tell him that they had orders to deliver it to none but Vitalianus, and assure him that it contained nothing but what concerns the Peace of the Church: That if any one should speak to them of a Council, they should say, that they must hold to the Letter of St. Leo, and the Council of Chalcedon: That in case it were answered, that the Eastern Bishops had acknowledged them, they should say, Why then do they differ from them? That if they were pressed to communicate with the Emperor, since he had acknowledged the Doctrine established in the Council of Chalcedon, they should remonstrate, that they did not decline the Emperor, but prayed him to procure the Peace of the Church, by declaring his Sentiments in a Public Act, and then they should be ready to receive all the Orthodox; That when once this matter was so ordered, the Pope himself would not refuse to be present at a Council, if it were necessary: That if they should be pressed to bear company with the Bishop of Constantinople in his time of waiting, they should answer that they were come for the Peace of the Church; That this was a private business, which should be ordered when the Reunion of the Bishops was finished: That they had heard it said, that there were two pretended who pretended to be Bishops of Constantinople: That if the Emperor should tell them, Must I then at the time of waiting be without a Bishop? they should answer, that he might choose one who acknowledged the Orthodox Faith, and the Constitutions of the Holy See, so long as this Cause was undecided: That if any Libels of Accusation were given in against some Bishops, these must be reserved to the Judgement of the Holy See: That if the Emperor should grant a Declaration acknowledging the Council of Chalcedon, that one of the Deputies should carry it to be signed by the Provinces: That they should not suffer themselves to be presented to the Emperor by Timotheus, who held then the See of Constantinople; That if he were present at their Audiences they should desire to be heard alone by themselves. After this Memorial follows the Form, in which he would have the Declaration of the Emperor and the Bishops drawn up, the Substance whereof is this, That they receive the Council of Chalcedon, and the Letter of St. Leo, and that they Anathematise Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus and their followers, as Timotheus Aelurus, Peter Mongus and others, together with Acacius and Peter of Antioch. He gives his Legates also charge to bring to Rome the banished Bishops who were accused of Heresy, and to desire that those may be restored who hold communion with the Holy See, and that the judging of those who had persecuted the Catholic Bishops might be referred to the Holy See.  
The Pope, who had written in the fourth Letter to the Emperor, that he would send Deputies to him, gave them with this Memorial a Letter for the Emperor, wherein he declares to him, That however it were a new thing that the Bishop of Rome should be summoned to a Council out of his own City, yet he would gladly be present at it, provided that before it were held, the Synod of Chalcedon, and the Letter of St. Leo were approved, and the Heretics anathematised. This Letter is the fifth, Dated Aug. 11. 515.  
The Emperor received the Pope's Deputies graciously, and informed him by Letter, That they were witnesses of the Orthodoxy of his Faith, assuring him that he received the Council of Chalcedon, and the Letter of St. Leo, and did in every thing agree with him, except what concerned the Anathema pronounced against Acacius, which must be suppressed if he minded to restore Peace and Union between the Eastern and Western Churches. And he did not only write this Letter to the Pope, but he sent him also two Deputies to assure him of the sincerity of his Faith, and the desire he had to procure the Peace of the Church. He wrote also by these Deputies to the Senate, that they would dispose the mind of the King and the Pope to this Reunion.  
The Pope wrote back to the Emperor, That he was very much inclined to Peace, and exhorted him to conclude it, by causing the Heretics and Heresy to be condemned, without speaking to him of Acacius in particular. But the Senate observed to him, that the Condemnation of this Bishop was the only obstacle to Peace. And so it was indeed; for the Orientalists would never pass the Sentence of Condemnation against him, and so the Deputies of the Pope withdrew, without doing any thing. Nevertheless many Bishops of Thrace, Dardania and Pannonia joined with the Pope, but above all John Bishop of Nicopolis, Metropolitan of Epirus, and his Suffragans, who wrote to Hormisdas, and sent a Deputy to him, who should entirely be at his Devotion. He sent back to them a Confession of Faith which they approved. You have here the Letter of this John to the Pope, the Answer of the Pope, which is his fifth Letter, the Synodical Letter of the Council of Epirus, and the Answer of the Pope, which is his eighth Letter; another Letter to John of Nicopolis in particular, which is the ninth, with the Confession of Faith, and a Memorial of Instructions given to the Deacon who carried it. Avitus Bishop of Vienna desired of the Pope to know the News of the success of this Deputation. The Pope acquaints him with it in his tenth Letter. All this was translated in the Year 516.  
Although the first Deputation of Pope Hormisdas had not the success that was hoped for, yet he sent a second time to the Emperor the same Ennodius, with Peregrinus Bishop of Misena in Campania. He gave them a Letter wherein he earnestly pressed the Emperor to condemn Acacius, and plainly told him that there was no Peace to be hoped for without this. His chief reason is, because it is not sufficient to reject the Error, and condemn those that are the Authors of it, but they must also condemn their Followers and Abettors. This Letter, which is the eleventh, is dated the third day of April, in the Year 517.  
At the same time, and by the same Deputies, he addressed the twelfth Letter to Timotheus, who was possessed of the See of Constantinople, and the thirteenth to all the Oriental Bishops that were divided from his Communion, exhorting them to do what he desired. He wrote also the fourteenth to the Bishops of his Communion, and gives them to understand, that he had sent a second Embassy to labour for a Peace. There is another particular Letter to Possessor a Bishop of Afric, who had been forced to retire to Constantinople, which is the fifteenth, wherein Hormisdas praises the constancy of this Bishop. And in the sixteenth Letter, sent at the same time, he exhorts the People, Monks, and the Clergy of Constantinople, to separate from the Heretics. These Letters are all of one and the same Date.  
After the departure of E●…odius and Peregrinus, there came a Deacon from the Church of Nicopolis, to acquaint the Pope. That the Bishop of Thessalonica was very angry with the Bishop of Nicopolis, for writing to the Pope and persecuted him cruelly, because he had not written to him upon his Ordination; who prayed the Pope to settle this Affair, or else he would be forced to write to him. The Pope wrote to his Deputies that they should assist this Bishop, and sent them also a Memorial of the Method they should use for that end, when they arrived at Thessalonica. He wrote also to the Emperor, recommending to him John of Nicopolis, and exhorted this Bishop to suffer with constancy, and reproved sharply Dorotheus of Thessalonica for using him after this manner. These Letters are the 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22th, all dated April 12. in the Year 517.  
At the same time the Emperor wrote a note to the Pope, wherein he complained of his being too inflexible. On the other side the Monks of the second Province of Syria complained to the Pope that the Emperor suffered the Eutychians to abuse them and begged his assistance in a Petition signed by them all. The Pope in his Answer comforts them, and exhorts them to persevere in suffering for the Faith. This is the three and twentieth Letter which is in Greek and Latin in the Council of Constantinople held under Mennas.  
The 24th and 25th Letters concern another Affair. John Bishop of Terragona had come into Italy, and desired of the Pope some Orders for the Churches of Spain. The Pope sent him a Circular Letter, and appointed him his Vicar in Spain, to see the Canons put in Execution there, and to give an account to the Holy See of the Ecclesiastical Affairs of that Kingdom, but without encroaching upon the Rights of Metropolitans. The Orders contained in the Letter to the Bishops of Spain are, 1. That none of the Laity should be ordained Bishops unless they continued the due time among the Clergy. 2. That Ordinations should be neither bought nor sold. 3. That Provincial Councils should be held twice in a year, or at lest once. These two Letters are rather of the year 517. than the year 521.  
In the 26th Letter Hormisdas appoints Salustius, Bishop of Sevil, his Vicar in the Province of Retica and in Portugal, and gives him power to call together the Bishops of these Provinces, to determine their Differences, and to see the Canons observed, upon condition that he should give notice to the Holy See of every thing that he should order.  
The Emperor Justinius, who succeeded Anastasius in the year 518, immediately acquainted the Pope with the News of his Exaltation, and the Pope returned him a very civil Answer, signifying to him, That he doubted not but the Peace of the Church would be restored under his Reign. And indeed the Emperor set about it presently, and wrote to the Pope, That the Bishop of Constantinople, and the other Eastern Bishops, had held a Synod at Constantinople, and declared unto him, that they earnestly desired to be remitted to the Western Church, and that he thought it would be convenient for the Pope to send Legates into the East for concluding a Peace.  
The Pope commends the Zeal of this Prince for Peace, but withal tells him that it could not be concluded, unless the Name of Acacius were expunged out of the List of Catholic Bishops.  
John Bishop of Constantinople had already sent a Confession of Faith, wherein he acknowledged the Decision of the Council of Chalcedon; but the Pope was not satisfied with it, and refused to receive him into his Communion, until he should raze the Name of Acacius out of the Dyptiches.  
In the Year 519, the Pope sent a third time his Legates into the East, but with a strict Charge that they should conclude no Treaty of Peace, unless the Memory of Acacius were condemned. There were five Legates, two Bishops, Germanus Bishop of Capua and John, one Priest called Blandus, and two Deacons, Felix and Dioscorus. He sent by them many Letters addressed to the Emperor, to Justinian, to John Bishop of Constantinople, to the Clergy, and to the People of that City, to the Empress, and to the Principal Officers of the Emperor. These are the Letters from the 30th to the 41th. These Legates were well received in the East, and John of Constantinople did all that they desired, in condemning Acacius by a Writing. The Bishop of Thessalonica and the Bishops of his Patriarchate followed his Example. The Pope understanding this, received them into his Communion, and testified his Joy upon this occasion, and exhorted him to cause the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch to do as much, and desired the Restauration of three Bishops, who had been deposed and turned out of the Churches, because they were the first who returned to the Communion of the Roman Church. In the mean time the Bishop of Thessalonica altered his Resolution, and would not afterwards sign the Confession of Faith that was brought from the West, nor the Condemnation of Acacius. But on the contrary published his Resentment against John of 
* Baronius calls him Joan. Catholicus.  Constantinople so far, that he stirred up the People to fall upon him, who wounded him so grievously, that he died of his wounds. There were also some Commotions at Ephesus, but the Emperor pacified them. And in order to the Reunion of the Church of Antioch, he caused a Priest, called Paul, to be chosen Bishop of that See, who had been ordained at Constantinople: But the Monks of Scythia, who would have it affirmed, That one of the Persons of the Trinity was crucified, went to Rome, to maintain their Proposition there, which they could not make the Pope's Legates relish well. Hormisdas' detained the Monks for some time, but afterwards he drove them out of Rome. Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica, who had caused John of Nicopolis to be killed, was seized; and the Pope's Legates desired that he might be sent to Rome to be judged there, but he was carried to Heraclea, from whence he was suffered to go away. He wrote afterwards to the Pope in his own Vindication; but the Pope ordered him to come to Rome that his Cause might be examined there. As to the three other Bishops for whom the Pope had written, Justinian answered, That as to Elias, he could not be restored, as long as he was living who had been Ordained in his room; but as to Thomas and Nicostratus, 
S Fulgentius.  they should be restored whenever the Peace was fully concluded. John of Constantinople being dead, one named Epiphanius was chosen in his room in the Year 520, who was Ordained according to Custom by the neighbouring Bishops. They gave notice to the Pope of it, who approved his Ordination, but complained that they had neither written, nor sent Deputies to him; as also that they had not restored the three Bishops for whom he had interceded. Epiphanius presently satisfied the Pope, by writing to him an Account of his Faith, and assuring him that he agreed in all things with the Roman Church. He wrote also another Letter to him, and sent him a Chalice of Gold adorned with precious Stones, a Patten, and another Chalice of Silver and two Veils. There remained only two things which hindered a perfect Peace; The first was the question, Whether it might be said, that One Person of the Trinity was crucified; and the second was the Opposition which the Clergy of the East made to the Condemnation of some of their Bishops. The Emperor Justinus wrote about it to the Pope, and sent him the Petition that had been presented to him by the Clergy of Jerusalem and Antioch. He declared also to the Pope, that he wished he would not condemn this Proposition, One Person of the Trinity was crucified, and that he would be satisfied with expunging the Name of Acacius out of the Dyptiches, and not desire that it should also be razed out from among the Bishops who had communicated with him. The Pope did not clearly explain his mind, neither about the one nor the other of these Propositions, being afraid of proceeding too far. In the mean time Paul of Antioch, who was an Enemy to this Proposition, One Person of the Trinity was crucified, having displeased the People of his Church, and being accused of many Crimes, was forced to abdicate his Bishopric; and the Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople informed the Pope of it. This is an Abridgement of the subject matter of the Letters of Hormisdas, and the other Pieces which are joined with them. There are reckoned in all eighty Letters of this Pope. There is something remarkable in the 70th Letter written to Possessor a Bishop of afric, which I could not observe before, because it has no Relation to the Affairs of the East. It concerns the Writings of Faustus of Ries, about which he had been consulted by the Bishop to whom he writes. He answers him, That those Writings are not received no more than the Writings of other Authors who are not ranked among the Fathers. That the Catholic Doctrines, and the number of Books authorised, was described by the Holy Fathers, to prevent any one from giving his Opinion according to his Fancy. That it was needless to handle such Questions as were not of the number of those which the Church had decided, and that our Faith ought to be bounded by the Dogmes contained in the Canonical Books, in the Synodical Decisions, and in the Doctrine taught by the Fathers. These are the Principles truly Theological which are well noted by this Pope. After this Remark, there is a kind of an Addition and Exception, Nevertheless, says he, if you would know what the Church of Rome, i. e. the Catholic Church, teaches and believes concerning Grace and freewill, although it may be learned from divers Writings of St. Austin, and chief from his Letter to Hilary and Prosper: Nevertheless, there are some formal Heads about it in the Archives of our Church, which I will send you if you have them not, and which you should believe as necessary, although it is easy to learn what one ought to believe about it, by reflecting upon the words of the Apostle St. Paul.  
Hormisdas had a great deal of prudence, boldness, and policy; His Letters are well enough written, although they smell of the Barbarisms of his Age. His Epistles are printed Concil. 12. Tom. 4. p. 1291. Cave Hist. Lit. p. 379.   

St. FULGENTIUS.  
GOrdianus a Senator of Carthage, being forced to fly into Italy for safety, during the Persecution of Gensericus King of the Vandals, bad two Children who returned into afric: And they being forced away from Carthage, settled at Telepta, a City in the Province of Byzacena. One of them called Claudius was the Father of St. Fulgentius, who was born about the Year 464; his Mother, called Mariana, by good luck continued a Widow, and put her Son to learn Greek, who became very skilful in that Tongue. Assoon as he was capable of an Employ, he was made Procurator, or Receiver of the Revenues of his Province. But this Employment displeased him, because of the rigour he was forced to use, for levying the Taxes upon the People, and therefore he resolved to retire from the World, and lead a Religious Life. This Design he communicated to a holy Bishop called Faustus, who had withdrawn from a Monastery near his Bishopric; and he put it in execution, notwithstanding the tears and dissuasives of his Mother. He put himself under the discipline of this good Bishop, but the Persecution parting them, he went into another Monastery, where there was an Abbot called Felix, who made him his Colleague. The Incursions of the Moors scattered the Religious of this Monastery, and they retired into the Country of Sicca, thinking to find there a place of Refuge; but an Arian Priest, called Felix, caused the Abbot Felix and St. Fulgentius to be imprisoned, and would not allow them their liberty until their Bodies were torn with whips. St. Fulgentius took then a Resolution to go into Egypt, to improve himself by the example of the Monks of that Country; and having embarked upon this design, he arrived at Syracuse, where the Bishop Eulalius dissuaded him from making this Voyage, because the Monks of the East had separated from the Communion of Rome. He cons●●●ed also a Bishop of afric, who had retired into Sicily who advised him to return to his own Country, after he had made a Journey to Rome.  
King Theodorick was then in the City, when he arrived there, which was in the Year 500 After he had paid his Devoirs to the Sepulchers of the Apostles, he returned into his own Country, where he built a Monastery.  
Afric was then under the Dominion of Thrasimond King of the Vandals, and Arian and a cruel Enemy to the Catholics. He had forbidden to Ordain Catholic Bishops in the room of those that died; but the Bishops of afric had taken up a Resolution to Ordain them in spite of the Prince's Prohibition. St. Fulgentius knowing this, and fearing lest he should be Ordained, hide himself till such time as he understood that the Ordinations were over. But when he appeared the Bishopric of Ruspa was vacant, and he was Ordained Bishop of that See against his will in the Year 504, or 508. Being made Bishop, he changed neither his Habit nor manner of Living, but used the same Austerities or Abstineace as before; he still loved the Monks, and delighted to retire into a Monastery, when the discharge of his Sacerdotal Function allowed him any time of respite. Afterwards he had the same Fate with all the Catholic Bishops of afric, whom King Thrasimond banished into the Isle of Sardinia. Although he was not the most ancient among them, yet he was considered as their Head; for they made use of his Pen and his Wit for writing and taking Resolutions. So great was his Reputation, that King Thrasimon● had the Curiosity to see and hear him; and having sent for him to Carthage, he proposed to him a great many Difficulties, which he resolved in such a manner as satisfied the King: But because he confirmed the Catholics, and converted many Arians, their Bishop at Carthage prayed the King to send him back again to Sardinia. Thrasimond dying in the Year 522, his Son Hildericus recalled the Catholic Bishops, whereof St. Fulgentius was one, at whose return there was great Joy. He returned to his Bishopric, governed his Clergy, admitted many Monks into Orders, and continued to lead an Exemplary Life. At this time he gave an excellent example of Humility, in refusing to be preferred before a Bishop who said he was more ancient than Fulgentius, although this preference was approved in a Council. He died the last day of the Year 529, according to some, or 533, according to others.  
The first Treatise of St. Fulgentius, according to order of time, is an Answer to ten Objections of the Arians. Probably he wrote it at the time when he was at Carthage, by the Order of King Thrasimond, in answer to the Objections which the Arians proposed against the Eternity and Equality of the Son. The Objections are short, obscure, and ill-digested; on the contrary the Answers are long and methodical.  
The three Books to King Thrasimond he composed about the same time, in Answer to a long Discourse which this King had sent him by one of his Officers, who had orders to withdraw immediately, and desire of him an Answer. When the King pressed him to answer it, without returning it back to him, although he had scarce leisure to run over some pages of it, yet he refuted in three Books what he could remember of it. In the first he proves, that there are in Jesus Christ two perfect Natures united into one Person; and chief he endeavours to refute that Error of the Arians, whereby they affirmed, that Jesus Christ had no Soul, but the Divinity to him supplied the place of one. In the second he proves the Immensity of the Son of God. In the last he returns to the Mystery of the Incarnation, and shows the union and reality of the two Natures in One Person only; and he explains the difficulties which may be started about the terms that he uses to express this Union.  
This Discourse was refuted by an Arian Bishop named Pinta; but St. Fulgentius presently wrote an Answer against him, wherein he showed, says the Author of his Life, That his Adversaries were overthrown by his first Discourse, and that the Objections they made against him were vain. We have a Writing which goes under the Name of St. Fulgentius, and under the Title of an Answer to Pinta; but the Critics observe that it is none of St. Fulgentius'. For, 1. The Treatise which this Author opposes is not an Answer to three Books of St. Fulgentius, which he addressed to King Thrasimond, but quite another Work. 2. The name of Pinta is not found in any part of the Book. 3. The Style is different from that of St. Fulgentius. 4. He makes use of another Version of the Bible. 5. It appears that the Author of this Treatise was not well skilled in Greek, since he says, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies unus; but St. Fulgentius, who was perfectly Master of this Tongue, could not be guilty of so gross a fault.  
St. Fulgentius being sent back to Sardinia, he composed there three Books in Answer to the Questions of his Friend Monimus: The first was concerning the Opinion of St. Austin of the Predestination of God to Evil, or Damnation. St. Fulgentius explains this in the whole first Book, where he makes it appear, that according to the passages of Scripture, and the Opinion of St. Austin, God does not predestinate bad men to Evil or Sin, since he predestinates them only to what they should do, but that he predestinates them to the Pain or Punishment which they had deserved by their sins: That he prevents good men to save them, but as to the wicked, he finds them worthy of Damnation from themselves: That the beginning of the Vocation, Justification, and Glorification of the Elect, are the effects of Predestination; but the same cannot be said of the sins of the Reprobrate which he foresees, but does not predestinate; but after he has foreseen them, he predestinates the Punishment that is to follow them.  
The second Question of Monimus, is concerning the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, viz. Whether it be offered to God the Father only, as some of the Fathers seemed to affirm. This furnished an Argument to the Arians, who endeavoured to prove by it, that Jesus Christ is not God. In refuting them, St. Fulgentius proves at the beginning of the second Book, that the Sacrifices of the Old and New Testament were offered to the Son and Holy Spirit as well as to the Father, and that although the Father only is named, yet all the Trinity ought to be comprehended under his Name. Afterwards he explains a third Question, How the Mission of the Holy Ghost is desired to consummate that Sacrifice which is offered to the whole Trinity. And first he shows that the mission of the Holy Ghost is not contrary to his Immensity; that ofttimes under the Name of the Holy Spirit is to be understood his Gifts, and the effects which he produces, and not his Person: That when at the Sacrifice of the Mess the Holy Spirit is desired to descend, than we pray for Charity, Peace and Union, which are the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and the whole Trinity.  
The last Question of Monimus is about the Explication of what St. Paul says, That Virginity is a matter of Counsel, and not of Command; and about Fulgentius' comparing it to the two pence of Supererogation. Upon this Subject he relates the different Opinions of St. Ambrose, St. Austin and Optatus, and shows that it is a matter of small importance, after what manner the two pence of Supererogation be understood.  
In the last Book he treats of the true sense of these words, The Word was with God, and answers the impertinent Difficulties which the Arians started about this passage.  
The Books about Remission of Sins, are in answer to another Question proposed to St. Fulgentius by Euthymius; viz. Who those are to whom God pardons sins in this life, and whether he pardons them only in this life. St. Fulgentius shows in the first Book, That none can obtain remission of sins, nor be saved, who is out of the Church, and that none of those who are in the Church can obtain pardon, unless he be truly Converted, and cease to commit sin, and to love the Creature, so as to set his heart upon it.  
In the second Book he proves by many Reasons founded upon passages of the Holy Scripture, That there is no remission of sins to be obtained but in this life, and that all those who die in a bad estate, shall be damned without any mercy: Which gives us to understand that he speaks only of mortal sins which deserve damnation.  
But Fulgentius' words are general, That all those who die in a bad estate shall be damned; which will not admit of this distinction, but do plainly overthrow the Doctrine of Purgatory: for whatever a man's sins be in which he dies unrepented of and unpardoned, he dies in a bad estate. But Fulgentius could not have said, that every one who dies in this state shall be damned without mercy, had he believed a Purgatory, into which many are thrown, who die in a bad estate, for their venial sins unpardoned. And this general sense of the words is confirmed by what he says, in his Treatise of Faith addressed to Peter, That there is no state wherein a man can deserve well, but only during this life; and, That those who die in a good state shall be happy for ever, and others, i. e. (those who die in a bad estate) shall be condemned to eternal punishment; where he plainly asserts two different states only after this Life, without any mention of a third, which is now believed to be Purgatory by the Roman Church. And to the same purpose he tells us in his Answer to the Questions proposed by Ferrandus, That it is unprofitable to baptise the dead, because the Soul cannot obtain remission of its sins after it is gone out of the Body, and Flesh alone is not capable of sin; which Argument were of no force, if the Soul might obtain after this Life remission of venial sins by the Pains of Purgatory; for than it might be profitable to baptise the Dead for obtaining the pardon of these sins, and delivering Souls out of Purgatory.  
The most part of the Letters of St. Fulgentius were written in the time of his Exile. The first is addressed to Proba, who was descended of the illustrious Family of the Anicians. There he extols Virginity, and shows how necessary it is that it should be joined with Humility; and he gives also many useful Instructions to a Christian Virgin.  
He addressed also another Letter to her concerning Prayer and Compunction of heart; wherein he recommends particularly this last Virtue. He compoed also at the desire of this Virgin two Treatises concerning Prayer and Fasting, which are now lost.  
In another Letter he comforts a Roman Lady called Galla, who was thought to be the Daughter of Symmachus; and understanding that she was resolved to live a Widow, he entertains her with a description of the happiness of that state, and the manner in which she should live.  
He wrote to Theodorus a Roman Senator, to confirm him in the design he had taken up of quitting his Secular Employments to dedicate himself to God, and informs him that this Conversion was owing to the Grace of Jesus Christ.  
The Letter concerning the Conjugal Duty and the Vow, is upon a particular case. Some had asked Fulgentius, Whether a married Person was obliged to keep a Vow of Continence. For resolving this Question. St. Fulgentius makes many Observations concerning the use of Marriage, and the Obligation of Vows. He remarks upon the first Head, That the use of Marriage is allowed, when it is intended for the procreation of Children; but when it has no other end but pleasure, although it is not a Crime like Adultery, yet it is always a small sin, which is blotted out by Prayer and good Works. As to the Vow, he says, That there is no doubt but by it an Obligation is contracted to do the thing which was vowed. But he maintains, That the Vow of Continence made by one of the married Persons, cannot oblige the other, nor dispense with that Person who made the Vow for paying the Conjugal Duty to the other, at least unless both parties had concurred in making the Vow. Having laid down these Principles, he concludes, That if the Persons who wrote to him, had both made a Vow of Continence, than they were obliged to keep it; and that if they found themselves tempted by Carnal Desires, they should humbly pray to God to give them Grace to resist them; but if only one of the two had made the Vow of Continence, that party was obliged to pay the Conjugal Duty to the other, who had not made it. He concludes with some Reflections upon the Duties of married Persons, and chief upon the Education of their Children.  
In the Letter to the Abbot Eugippius, he treats very largely of the Advantages of Charity, and the Love of our Neighbour. He thanks him for his Present, and acquaints him that he had sent him his Letters to Monimus.  
St. Fulgentius wrote, at the desire of Junilius, who was one of his Friends, a Letter about Penance to an unknown Woman, called Venantia. There he shows, That remission of sins, committed after Baptism, may be obtained in this Life, provided one be sincerely penitent. From whence he concludes that these sinners ought not to despair, but neither ought they to hope without striving and doing of Penance.  
The Treatile of Faith addressed to Donatus, contains an exact Explication of the Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.  
We have already spoken of the Question started by the Monks of Scythia upon this Proposition, One of the Trinity did suffer, which they would maintain to be Catholic, and oblige others to acknowledge it for such. Their Faction was very powerful in the East, and they had their Complices in the West. They had sent, as we have already observed, Deputies to Rome, to maintain their Opinions there, and Peter the Deacon was at the Head of them. These Deputies not finding that footing in the Church of Rome which they expected, thought fit to consult the Bishops of afric which were banished to the Isle of Sardinia: And therefore in the Year 521 they addressed to them a Writing, wherein they declared their Belief concerning the Incarnation and Grace, and founded it upon the Testimonies of the Fathers.  
As to the Incarnation, they acknowledged two Natures in Jesus Christ, united into one Person only, without confusion and mixture. They reject the Sentiment of those who professing to believe one Nature Incarnate in Jesus Christ, do not receive the Decision of the Council of Chalcedon, or who admitting two Natures, would not say that there is but one Nature of the Word Incarnate. From these Principles they conclude, That the Virgin is truly the Mother of God; That the Union of the two Natures is essential and natural; That the Person of Jesus Christ is composed of two Natures without any change happening to him; That the Trinity continues the Trinity still, though one of the Persons of this Trinity was Incarnate; That his Flesh is not become a part of the Trinity, but is become the Flesh of one Person of the Trinity. From whence it comes to pass, that one may say, That one of the Trinity suffered and was crucified in his Flesh and not in his Divinity; that it was not Man who was made God, but God who was made Man. They profess to receive the four first General Councils, and the Letters of St. Leo, and to condemn the Errors of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, and of all those whom the Apostolic See had regularly condemned.  
As to Grace they follow the Principles of St. Austin, and declare that they believe that the first Man was created without Concupiscence, and with a perfect liberty to do good and evil, and that by falling into sin he was changed both in his Body and his Soul; that he lost his own Liberty, and became a Slave to sin; that since that time all men are born in sin; that nothing but the Grace of Jesus Christ can deliver us from sin; that without this, we can neither think nor desire that which is good; that Grace worketh in us to do, not by any necessitating violence, but by the sweet inspiration of the Holy Spirit; that no Man can say, 'Tis in my power to believe if I will, since Faith is the gift of God, who worketh in us to believe and to will; that the passage of the Apostle, which says, God would have all Mankind to be saved, ought not to be objected against this Doctrine, to prove that nothing hinders us to be saved if we will: For if this were so, there would be no necessity to have recourse to the unsearchable Judgements of God for explaining the reason why one is called, and another not; that if God would effectually have saved the whole World, he should have wrought in Tyre and Sidon those Miracles which were done in Chorazin and Bethsaida, since he knew, that if they had been wrought in these two former Cities, their Inhabitants would have repent; that the beginning of good Thoughts, the consent of the Will to do good, cometh to us from God, who produces them in us by his Holy Spirit. They cite for proof of these Principles, some passages of St. Basil, of the Pope's St. Innocent and St. Celestin, and of the Council of afric. They conclude with Anathematising Pelagius, Celestius and Julianus, and those who are of their Opinion, together with the Books of Faustus about Predestination. This Confession of Faith is signed by Peter a Deacon, John and Leontius Monks, and by another John a Reader. They pray the Bishops of Afric to approve their Exposition of Faith, that so being supported by their Authority, they may be able to stop the mouth of those who disgrace them.  
The Bishops of Afric employed St. Fulgentius to write them an Answer; and their Letter bears the names of fifteen Bishops only, who did not only approve in this Letter all the Points of the Confession of Faith, which we have just now explained; but did also enlarge and confirm them, without excepting so much as that Proposition, One Person of the Trinity did suffer. They enlarged very much upon the Proofs of Original Sin, the Necessity of Grace for the beginning of Fa●th, upon its Efficacy, upon the Insufficiency of freewill to do good. They confess that Grace does not destroy our freewill, but they maintain that our freewill, which without Grace is not sufficient to do any thing but sin, is delivered from this Bondage by Grace, which sets us truly at liberty. They confess also that in some sense it may be said, that Nature has power to believe and to do good, because Faith and Charity are proper for Human Nature, and Man was created only to believe and do good; but that since the Fall, he cannot have Faith, nor do good unless God give him the power, as the Soul gives Life to the Body which is capable of being animated. That when the Apostle says, Ther● are some People who do by nature what the Law commands, this is to be understood of Faithful People and such as were Converted; That neither the knowledge of God nor Faith will avail us any thing without Charity; that the Law of Nature does not deliver us from sin without Grace; that it must be referred to the incomprehensible Judgements of God, that he does not effectually will all Men to believe; that it is sufficient for us to acknowledge with humility his Mercy wholly gratuitous in those who are saved, and not to doubt his Justice as to those who are damned; that those who understand this passage of St. Paul, That God would have all Men to be saved, so as to make a Man's Salvation depend upon his own Will, are grossly mistaken; that the example of Infants dying without Baptism, who are condemned to Eternal Punishment (for this is the term which Fulgentius uses) without committing any voluntary sin, does confound them: That therefore the words of the Apostle are to be understood in this sense, that no man is saved but by the Will of God, because he cannot prevent the fulfilling of God's Will, neither can the effect of it be hindered by the malice of Men; and that 'tis certain, that all those whom God would have saved are infallibly saved; that it may also be said, that by all men are to be understood, all men who are to be saved; that oftentimes in Scripture all the World is taken for a part of Mankind. Lastly, That God who created Man, hath provided for him by the Decree, by which he predestined him, Faith, Justification, Perseverance and Glory, and whosoever does not acknowledge the Truth of this Predestination shall not be of the number of the Elect, nor have any share in that Salvation; That notwithstanding the Faithful ought constantly to pray, and to have Charity for these Persons, that God would give them his Grace to enlighten them, and to make the Word fruitful in them; for in vain does the Word of God strike our Ears, if God does not open our Understanding by his Grace. Thus ends this Answer of the Bishops of Afric, which is worthy of the Faithful Disciples of St. Austin.  
The Books of Faustus against these Principles were published at Constantinople, and because they made a great noise these Monks sent them to St. Fulgentius, who wrote seven Books to refute them. This Work is not printed: Father Vignerus of the Oratory had a Manuscript of it, but since his Death it is not known what is become of it. St. Fulgentius had finished it before he was called back into Afric.  
When he was upon his return thither, he wrote upon the same subject, and according to the same Principles, three Books of Predestination and Grace, addressed to John the Priest, and Venerius a Deacon. He shows in the first Book, That Predestination is purely gratuitous, and that it does not depend upon the prospect of Men's Merits. The example of Infants is one of his strongest Proofs. But whereas some save themselves by saying, That God permits them to receive, or not to receive Baptism, according to the knowledge of the good or evil which he foresaw they should have done if they had lived, he rejects this Solution, and this middle Science.  
In the second Book he confesses, that the Good and Evil have a freewill; but he maintains that it is aided and improved in good Men by Grace, and that it is weakened and punished in the bad; that it is God who converts us, and worketh in us to will that which is good; that 'tis he who gives us the design and will to pray; that the Will of Man always follows the grace of God which precedes it. Towards the end he confutes the Opinion of his Adversaries, who affirmed, That the Vessels of honour and dishonour mentioned by the Apostle, are not the Predestinate and the Reprobate; but the Vessels of dishonour are the Poor, the Monks and ecclesiastics; and the Vessels of honour are the Noble, the Rich and the Potentates of this World. He proves that this Exposition is false; and hereupon he says, That in this World there is no Dignity in the Church above that of a Bishop, nor in Secular Affairs above that of a Christian Emperor; but all the Bishops and Emperors are not Vessels of Mercy, but only those who acquit themselves well in their Offices. A Bishop, says he, shall not be saved, because he is a Bishop, but he shall be saved, if he watch over his Flock, if he preach the Word in season and out of season, if he reproves sinners, if he uses to them Entreaties and Rebukes with all kind of patience and meekness; if he has not the spirit of domineering and pride; if, according to the Command of the Apostle, he serves for an Example to all his Flock: So likewise an Emperor is not a Vessel of Mercy destined to Glory, because he has the Sovereign Power, but he shall be, if he live in the Orthodox Faith; if being possessed of true Humility, he makes his Royal Dignity subservient to Religion; if he loves rather to serve God with fear, then to command his People with pride; if he moderates his severity by a spirit of meekness, if his power is accompanied with goodness, if he would rather be loved then feared, if he minds nothing but the good of his Subjects, if h● loves Justice without forgetting Mercy, if he remembers, in all his Actions, that he is a Son of the Church, and that he ought to employ his power for its quiet and peace: For this Honour for the Church makes the Emperor's greater and more glorious, than all their Battles and Victories.  
In the third Book he returns to Predestination, and having affirmed that it is gratuitous, that Vocation, Justification and Glory are its effects; that it is infallible and certain, that the number of the Predestined is determined, and that it is impossible to add too, or take away any from them; he answers this great Objection, That if this were so, we ought then neither to pray nor watch, but follow our own Wills, since if we are of the number of the predestined, we shall infallibly be saved; and if we are not, we cannot be saved. He says, That this Objection is like that of those to whom God should promise a long Life, when they infer from this promise, that they will no more take those things that are necessary to maintain this Life. He adds, That as the love of Life makes him to whom this promise is made, seek for those things which are necessary to maintain it; so the Grace which God has prepared for us by his Predestination, does infallibly make us watch, pray and labour. Afterwards he enlarges upon this Passage, God would have all men to be saved, and is of Opinion that the true sense of it is, That God would have some Men of all Nations, Ages and Conditions saved, and not that he wills the Salvation of every Man in particular, since he would not make himself known to such Men as would have believed in him, if he had made himself known unto them. From hence he passes to consider the difference between the state of the first Man and ours. The first Man was perfectly and fully free, he had no inclination to evil, and he had the power to do good by the assistance of that Grace, which he could use or not use. But since sin entered, the liberty of Man's Will is depraved, and his freewill is become a Slave to sin, and he has need of a powerful preventing Grace to deliver him from the unhappy necessity of sinning, and to render him victorious over Temptations.  
Lastly, He treats of the Origine of Souls, whether they be created and put into the Body, or produced by other Souls. He follows and approves the Modesty of St. Austin, who treating of this Question, left it undecided. He shows what Difficulties there are to reconcile the first Opinion with the belief of Original Sin; and the second with the manner of propagating Mankind. And so without determining any thing upon the Question, he says only, That we must believe that the Soul is not a Body but a Spirit, that it is not a part of the very Substance of God, but a Creature; that it is not put into the Body as a Prison for sins that are past, but that it is put into the Body by the appointment of God to animate it, and that being united to the Flesh, it contracts Original Sin, from which it is purified by Baptism. He refutes in a few words these Errors, and those who asserted them.  
St. Fulgentius wrote also a Letter in the Name of the Bishops of Afric to John and Venerius, to whom he addressed these two Books. This Letter contains the same Principles and the same Doctrine about Grace and Predestination. There they observe, that God permits some Persons to exalt freewill above Grace, the better to discover the power of this Grace, which is not known when it is not received, and the great struggle that arises then, because without it no Truth can be known, neither is there any Light to discover it. After this Preface he proposes and maintains the following Propositions; 1. That Predestination is purely gratuitous, and that this Decree is not made upon foresight of Men's Merits. 2. That Infants, who die after they are baptised, are saved by the mere Mercy of Jesus Christ, and that those who die without Baptism are condemned upon the account of Original Sin. 3. That those who believe this Grace is given to all, are not Catholics in their Sentiments, since not only all men have not Faith, but there are even whole Nations who never heard of the Gospel. 4. That it may be said, that Man is saved by Grace, and by his Good Works, provided it be confessed that the Grace and Mercy of God prevents the Will of Man, and works in him to will. 5. That all those whom God would have saved are predestined, because the Almighty Will of God does always take effect, his Power can never be defeated. 6. That the freewill which was sound and entire in the first Man, is become weak by sin, but is improved and strengthened by Grace. 7. That the Question concerning the Origine of Souls must not be ventilated, or it must be treated of without bitterness; but that there is no doubt that Souls do contract Original Sin. They cite at the end of this Letter a passage of Pope Hormisdas in favour of St. Austin, and praise the Books of Fulgentius about Predestination and Grace, and those which he wrote against Faustus.  
We have nothing now remaining, but some Fragments of the Ten Books of St. Fulgentius against a famous Arian, called Fabianus.  
The first Book was entitled, Of the most High, the Comforter, of the Titles of Ambassador, Doctor and Judge. There he proved that these Titles agreed to the Father and the Son.  
In the second Book he showed that the Functions of Sighing, Desiring and Praying, which are attributed to the Holy Spirit, are not contrary to his Divinity.  
In the third he proved that Immensity agreed to the three Divine Persons.  
In the fourth, that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are equally adorable. He distinguishes the Worship of Latria from that of Dulia; the first agrees to God only, and the second may be given to Creatures. He speaks also of the Properties which belong to each Divine Person.  
The fifth Book was about the Title of Image which is given to the Son of God, where he proves that he is so the Image of God as to be also of the same Nature.  
In the sixth he proves that the Son is eternal as well as the Father.  
The seventh establishes the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.  
The eighth was about the Mission of the Holy Spirit.  
The ninth is concerning the Invocation of the three Divine Persons; where he demonstrates that the Son and the Holy Spirit are to be Invocated as well as the Father; That Sacrifices are to be offered to the Son and Holy Spirit as to the Father, and that the like Thanksgiving is paid unto ●●m.  
The tenth was about a Writing upon the Apostle's Creed; where he observes that it was so called, either because it is a Compact, or because it is an Abridgement of the Christian Doctrine. After this he proves that what in the Creed is attributed to the Father, agrees to the whole Trinity.  
The Treatise addressed to Victor is upon the same Subject, and written at the same time. There he refutes the Discourse of a Priest named Fastidiosus, who having quitted a Religious Profession and the Priestly Office to lead a licentious Life, had also abandoned the Faith by turning Arian. St. Fulgentius proves in this Treatise the Divinity of the Son, and explains how it may be said, That the Word only is Incarnate.  
The time is not certainly known when the Treatise of the Faith was written, which is addressed to a Layman called Peter, who having a design to make a Journey to Jerusalem, desired before his departure, to have an Instruction containing the Articles of Faith, that he might know what he ought to believe. St. Fulgentius explained to him, first, what he ought to believe concerning the Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation: And then he told him that all Being's, both Spiritual and Corporeal, are the Work of God who created them; that Spiritual and Intelligent Being's were to subsist eternally by the Will of God; that the Angels being created free, and having power by the Grace of God to merit their Happiness, or else to fall from it by their sin, one part of them had perished, and the other part was confirmed in the Love of God, which they could never lose any more: That the first Man, who had been created perfectly free, had fallen into sin, and so subjected all Mankind to death and sin; That God had delivered many of them by his Grace, by the help of which they were enabled to live well, and to obtain eternal Life; That there is no state wherein a Man can deserve well, but only during the time of this Life, but as long as a Man lives upon this Earth, there is always space for Repentance; That this Repentance is unprofitable to those that are out of the Church; That all Men shall rise one day, and those who shall die in a good state shall be happy for ever, and others shall be condemned to eternal punishment; That a Man comes to the Kingdom of Heaven by means of the Sacraments which Jesus Christ has instituted; That none can obtain Salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism, except those who shed their Blood in the Church for Jesus Christ; That he who has received Baptism out of the Church has received this Sacrament, and if he returns into the Church he ought not to be rebaptised, but his Baptism will profit him nothing if he continues out of the Church, or if he lives ill after he has been received into the Church; That those who live well ought continually to do Works of Mercy, to expiate those sins which even the Just commit every day; That to avoid them, the humble Servants of Jesus Christ, eat Marriage, and abstain from eating Meat and drinking Wine; Not that they think that 'tis forbidden to use Marriage, to eat Meat and drink Wine; but because they are persuaded that Virginity is to be preferred before Marriage, and that Abstinence restrains a Man from sin; That neither second nor third Marriages are forbidden, and that excess in the use of Marriage is a Venial sin, but to those who have made a Vow of Continence, Marriage is a great Crime. Afterwards he reduces this Doctrine to forty Heads, which he thinks are to be believed. There was a long Article added at the end of this Treatise, which is cut off, by the Authority of some ancient Manuscript, wherein it is not to be found; and there is so much the more reason for it, because it is plain that this Treatise was concluded before the fortieth Article; and this Chapter has no relation to the preceding.  
St. Fulgentius explains also the principal Points of our Faith in the Treatise of the Trinity addressed to Felix, who had also desired to be instructed, that he might be able to answer the Heretics with whom he conversed. And in the Treatise of the Incarnation to Scarilus; who had prayed him to clear up a Question which had been proposed at Table, Whether or no it might be said that the Father, or the Divine Nature was Incarnate. After he has gone over other Mysteries upon occasion of this Question, he handles another which was also proposed at the same time, viz. Whether God created all Animals: He says, 'Tis certain that God created all things; that at the time of the Creation he form all the living Creatures which the Earth and the Water produce; and as to those which are engendered out of the Corruption of Flesh and Fruit, he made them not in the first six days Creation, but he created those things out of which they were one day to be formed.  
The Questions which were proposed to him by Ferrandus a Deacon, are more useful and more rational. A godly Man having an Ethiopian Servant, caused him to be well instructed in our Religion, and put him among the number of the Catechumen; after he had continued there his time, and learned the Creed, he was placed among those who were to be baptised at Easter: The ordinary Exorcisms were used to him, he renounced solemnly the Devil, pronounced the Creed, and received the Exposition of the Lord's Prayer: When he was ready to be baptised, he was seized with a violent Fever, which brought his Life into danger; but Easter-day being near, his Baptism was put off to that day; and then he was carried to the Church in such a Condition, that he had no knowledge, nor speech, nor motion, nor sense. Yet he was baptised, though he could not answer himself. A little time after this he died, without knowing that he had received Baptism. This History gives occasion to three Questions: The first is, Whether Baptism administered to an Adult Person, who neither knows any thing, nor can speak and answer himself, does put him in a state of Salvation. The second is, Whether he had been saved, though he had not received Baptism. The third is, Why we do not baptise the Dead, whose Faith and Piety were well known while they lived.  
St. Fulgentius, in answer to these Questions, proves first, That Baptism without Faith availeth nothing to the Adult. 2. That Children receiving the Sacrament receive the Grace of Faith. This being premised, he determines, That the Faith of this Slave having preceded his Baptism, there is no doubt but he received the effect of Baptism, because he had both Faith and the Sacrament, but that it would have been in vain to have had Faith without receiving the Sacrament, for than he could not be saved; and that it is unprofitable to baptise the dead, because the Soul cannot obtain remission of its sin after it is gone out of the Body, and the Flesh alone is not capable of sin. After these Answers, he says in general, That the Canons have justly ordained to baptise the sick, although they cannot themselves give an account of their Faith, provided there be Witnesses who answer for their willingness. Lastly, He inquires whether a person that has been baptised, and dies without receiving the Eucharist, can be saved; Jesus Christ having said, That he who eateth not my Flesh, and drinketh not my Blood, hath no life in him. To which he answers affirmatively, That by Baptism we become the Members of Jesus Christ, and so by this means we are partakers of his Flesh. He citys a passage out of a Sermon of St. Austin, who explains thus the words of Jesus Christ in John chap. 6. of the necessity of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood.  
There is another Writing of St. Fulgentius in Answer to five Questions from the same Deacon Ferrandus: The first, to know whether the Three Persons of the Trinity can be separated. St. Fulgentius answers, That they cannot; and proves that all the Attributes which agree to One, agree to the Others, except the relative Properties of the Persons, which necessarily denote the Union of one with the other.  
The second is to know whether it may be said, that the Divinity of Jesus Christ suffered or died, as it is said, That a God suffered, a Man died, etc. St. Fulgentius maintains that this Expression cannot be condemned; and endeavours to justify it, by the Testimonies of St. Leo, Galasius, and St. Ambrose.  
The third Question is, Whether the Soul of Jesus Christ did perfectly know the Divinity. St. Fulgentius is very confused upon this Question, which he decides by saying, That it knew the Divinity perfectly, but not so as the Divinity knows itself; that it knows as much, but not after the same manner as the Divinity itself; that the Soul of Jesus Christ knows fully the Divinity, but it is not the Divinity.  
The fourth Question is, Why it is said in the Prayers of the Church, That the Son reigneth with the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost; which expression may make a Man think, that the Holy Spirit does not reign as the Father and the Son, but only unites them in their Reign. St. Fulgentius answers, That we pray to the Father through the Son, because the Son is the Priest and the Sacrifice, and that the Unity of the Holy Spirit denotes the Unity of Nature with the Father and the Son.  
The fifth Question is, How St. Luke is to be understood when he speaks of the last Supper of Jesus Christ, that he took the Cup and gave it to his Disciples; that he took the Bread and said, This is my Body; and that afterwards taking the Cup, he said, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood: Was it the same Chalice which was given both times, or two different Chalices. St. Fulgentius answers, That according to some it was only one Chalice given but once, and that St. Luke in the first place says, by way of anticipation, that he distributed it to his Disciples. That according to others, it was one and the same Chalice given two several times. He confesses that both these senses are Catholic, but he approves the last, and finds a great many Mysteries in this double distribution of the Cup. Nevertheless the first sense is more natural, and the only true sense according to the Letter.  
The last Work of St. Fulgentius is his Treatise to Reginus, who had proposed two Questions to him. He answers the first, viz. Whether the Flesh of Jesus Christ was corruptible, or incorruptible, as some affirmed. He answers, I say, that the Flesh of Jesus Christ was not corruptible, if by Corruption be understood Sin; but it was corruptible, if this be understood of alteration and sensible Corruption,  
Death hindered St. Fulgentius from answering the second Question of Reginius. Ferrandus the Deacon took upon him to write this Answer.  
The knowledge, zeal, and easy way of speaking which St. Fulgentius was Master of, will not suffer us to doubt but he wrote many Sermons; but there are but very few of those that go under his Name that are worthy of him. In the last Edition of his Works there are but ten which can be his; and also in the Preface the Sermon of St. Vincent is rejected, as being full of Allusions unworthy of St. Fulgentius. Here follow the Titles of the Sermons; 1. Of the Stewards. 2. Of the two Births. 3. Of St. Stephen the first Martyr. 4. Of the Epiphany, or of the Murder of the Innocents', and Adoration of the Wisemen. 5. Of Charity towards God and our Neighbour. 6. Of St. Cyprian the Martyr. 7. Of the good Thief. I doubt very much whether this be St. Fulgentius' as well as the eighth upon Whitsunday. The ninth is that of St. Vincent rejected in the Preface. The tenth is upon the words of the Prophet Micah, I will teach thee, O Man, what is good. This has much of the Air of St. Fulgentius. The second upon the Purification is certainly not his; for this Festival is later than the Age of St. Fulgentius. The other Sermons are not St. Fulgentius', and therefore are justly thrown back to the end of the Book. 
Eugippius.   
These are all which we have at present of the Works of St. Fulgentius. We have lost his true Treatise against Pinta, his Conference with King Thrasimond, his Book of the Holy Spirit to Abragilas, his Letter to the Catholics of Carthage, two Treatises of Fasting and Prayer, two Letters written to Stephanias in the Name of the Bishops of Sardinia, a Letter to a Bishop, wherein he asserts, That Christian Meekness obliges us not to deliver up a guilty Person to a Secular Judge, the whole ten Books to Fabianus, and the seven against Faustus. The ancient Author of his Life makes mention of these Works.  
The Treatise of Predestination and Grace, whatever Theophilus Raynaudus says of it, is none of St. Fulgentius', for it has neither his Style, nor manner of Writing about Grace. The Author of this Book did not fully comprehend the subject matter of it, and had no certain Principles; some times he asserts such Doctrines as are agreeable to those of Cassianus; and some times he adheres to the Doctrine of St. Austin. In fine, he is very far from that Clearness and Copiousness which is found in the Writings of St. Fulgentius: yet this is the Work of an ancient Author.  
St. Fulgentius did not only follow the Doctrine of St. Austin, but he also imitated his Style. His Words indeed are not so pure, but then he is not so much given to play with Words. He had a quick and subtle Spirit which easily comprehended things, set them in a good Light, and explained them copiously, which may appear unpleasant to those who read his Works. He repeats often the same things in different words, and turn the Questions a thousand different ways. He loved Thorny and Scholastical Questions, and used them sometimes in Mysteries. He knew well the Holy Scriptures, and had read much the Works of the Fathers, and particularly those of St. Austin.  
One part of the Works of St. Fulgentius was printed at Basil in 1556, 1566, and 1587.; at Antwerp in 1574, at Collen in 1618.  
F. Theophilus Raynaudus has published them since enlarged with some Treatises. They have also been printed at Lions with the Works of the other Fathers in 1633, and 1652, and in 1671. F. Sirmondus published some of them in 1622, and in 1643. Camerarius in 1634, and F. Chiffletius in 1656, and in 1649. But lately all his Works were gathered together in one Volume in quarto, printed at Paris by Desprez in 1684. They were reviewed by many Manuscripts, the differences whereof are noted in the Margin, or at the end of the Book. He that published them cannot be accused of the common Fault which those that make Editions are guilty of, viz. that they make too long Notes, for he has made none at all throughout the whole Book. It appears also by the Preface, which is done by another Author, that he did not place the Works in that Order, which should have been observed in making this Edition. Nevertheless, it is exact and correct enough, and it will be easy, if the Book be printed a second time, to enrich it with some Notes, and to put the Works in a better Order.   

EUGIPPIUS.  
EUgippius or Egippius, Abbot of Villa Lucullana in the Country of Naples, wrote to Paschasius the Deacon, a Book concerning the Life of St. Severinus. He composed also a Rule for the Monastery of this Saint, which he left him at his death. This is what Isidore of Sevil says of him. Probably this is the same Eugippius of whom Cassiodorus gives the following Testimony in his Book of Divine Learning, ch. 23. You must read the Works of the blessed Priest Eugippius which we have seen. This man was not very learned, but he was filled with the knowledge of the Holy Scripture. He dedicated to his Mother Proba, a Collection taken out of the Works of St. Austin, wherein he made Extracts of this Father's Sentiments and Thoughts, whereof he composed one Book only, divided into 338 Chapters. 'Tis certain that this Book is very useful, since he has collected with great exactness into one Book, what can hardly be found in a whole Library. Sigebert of Gemblours does also mention this Work; but he says that this Eugippius, who is the Author of it, lived it the time of Pelagius the Second, and of the Emperor Tiberius Constantine, i. e. about the end of the fifth Age. This made some Authors think, that he is different from the Author of the Life of St. Severinus, whom Isidore of Sevil places under the Empire of Anastasius, and under the Consulship of Importunus in 511. But it is easy to perceive that it is an Error of Sigebertus, since the Author of the Collection of the Thoughts of St. Austin was more ancient than Cassiodorus, and his Book was composed when Cassiodorus wrote his Book of Divine Learning. 'Tis very probable therefore that it is the same, and that there is no difference between him to whom St. Fulgentius, and him to whom Ferrandus wrote, as Trithemius has observed.  
The Life of St. Severinus was published in part by Bollandus, and is published entire among the Works of Velserus. The Collection of Passages out of St. Austin was printed at Basil in 1542, and at Venice in 1543.   

FERRANDUS a Deacon. 
Ferrandus a Deacon.   
FErrandus Deacon of the Church of Carthage, surnamed Fulgentius, the Friend and Contemporary of St. Fulgentius, composed some Books.  
The most considerable is a Collection of the Canons of Councils, for restoring Discipline in the Church of Afric. 'Tis something probable that he composed it, when the Catholic Bishops were called back by King Hildericus. However this be, it is one of the first and most ancient Collections of Canons among the Latins. It is made up of 232 Canons, which are not related at their full length, but only by way of Extract and Compend. They are taken from the Councils of Afric, or from those of Ancyra, of Laodicea, of Nice, of Antioch, of Gangra, and Sardica.  
We have already spoken of two Letters of this Deacon written to St. Fulgentius, wherein he proposes to him the Questions which this St. resolves. We have also observed, that St. Fulgentius dying before he answered the second of the two Questions which Count Reginus proposed to him, Ferrandus was charged with writing an Answer to him. Reginus asked in the second Question, After what manner a Captain should behave himself to live Christianly. Ferrandus gave him seven Rules about it, which he thought sufficient to make a Soldier a Spiritual Man and a good Christian. The first is to acknowledge the Grace of Jesus Christ as necessary to every action. The second is to make his Life serve for an Example to his Soldiers. The third is, not to wish for Command, but that he may do good. The fourth, to love the Commonwealth as himself. The fifth, to prefer things Spiritual and Divine to things Earthly. The sixth, not to exercise Justice with too great rigour and severity. The seventh, to remember that he is a Christian. These seven Rules he explains at great length. This Treatise may be very useful and instructive to Men of Arms. It was written a little while after the death of St. Fulgentius.  
The Letters of Ferrandus to Scholasticus Severus, and Anatolius Deacon of the Roman Church, are both written upon the same Subject. There he defends that Proposition which made so great a noise in the East, A, or One Person of the Trinity did suffer. The principal Reason on which he grounds it, is, That it is undeniable that Jesus Christ was A, or One Person of the Trinity, and that he suffered; and therefore it may be said, that One of the Persons of the Trinity suffered; that 'tis good nevertheless to add, that he suffered in the Flesh which he took. He thinks also that it may be said, using this Precaution, that the Divinity suffered.  
He wrote a great Letter to Eugippius about the Trinity, but there is nothing remaining of it except the beginning.  
Ferrandus was one of the first who declared in Writing against the Condemnation of the three Chapters, and particularly against the Condemnation of the Letter of Ibas. Being consulted upon this Subject by Pelagius, and Anatolius a Deacon of Rome, he answered them that he did not agree to the Condemnation of the Letter of Ibas, which was approved in the Council of Chalcedon; that this was to impeach the Authority of this Council; that if what had been there done was thus repealed, it was to be feared, the like might be done to the Decisions of the Council of Nice: That General Councils, and chief those which the Roman Church approved, had an Authority next to that of the Canonical Books; Secundae autoritatis locum post Canonicos libros tenent; and that we are no less obliged to obey them then to believe the Holy Scripture. In short, that we ought not to condemn those Persons who died in the Communion of the Church; and that as we cannot absolve those who died under Excommunication, so neither can we Excommunicate those who are dead: That it may be lawful for particular Persons to say and write their Judgement, but they ought not to oblige others to subscribe to it, not to embrace it with a blind submission, since this is a Privilege peculiar to the Canonical Books and the Decisions of General Councils.  
The Life of St. Fulgentius is also attributed to Ferrandus, which was certainly written by an Author cotemporary, and a Disciple of this Saint. It is like enough to his Style, and is found in the Manuscript joined with the Works of Ferrandus: Yet it seems to be written by one who had been a longer time, and lived more constantly with Fulgentius then the Deacon Ferrandus. There has been printed under the Name of Ferrandus a Letter addressed to St. Anselm; but the distance of time between the one and the other, sufficiently discovers the falsehood of it. The three first Books of Vigilius of Tapsa have been also attributed to him, but against all reason.  
The Style of this Author is simple enough and clear; his Phrases are not long but they are full of Quibbles and continued Allusion. 〈◊〉 Achilles Tutius was the first who published a part of Ferrandus' Works in 1518. Mr. Pitheus has since published the Collection of Canons, and F. Sirmondus the two Letters to Fulgentius. The Life of this Saint is in Bollandus. In fine, F. Chiffletius has collected, reviewed and published all the Tracts of Ferrandus the Deacon which were printed at Dijon in quarto, in 1649. His Edition was followed in the last Bibliotheque of the Fathers.   

JOHN MAXENTIUS. 
John Maxentius.   
THE Monks of Scythia, who maintained that it was necessary to say, That One of the Persons of the Trinity was crucified, had for their Champion an Abbot called John Maxentius, who defended their Party very vigorously. 'Tis not well known from whence he was, whether he was from Scythia, or from some other Province of the East 
* By the East here is to be understood the Empire of the East, whereof Scythia was one Province. , or whether he was from the West. The Party whom he defends, would make us believe that he was one of the Monks of Scythia; but his Style discovers that he was born, or at least that he had his Education in the West. I can easily believe that it was so indeed, but then he traveled into the East, where he settled among the Monks of Scythia.  
He hath written many Discourses in defence of the Party, and the Opinions of these Monks. He drew up a Petition, which they presented to the Legates of Pope Hormisdas, wherein they complained, that they were accused of adding something to the Faith, because they maintained the Decision of the Council of Chalcedon by the Judgement of the Fathers. They confess that nothing can be added to the Catholic Faith, because nothing but what is imperfect is liable to addition; But they maintained that it's not forbidden to explain and clear it up by such terms as the Fathers used. They bring for an instance of this St. Cyril and St. Leo, who added to the Creed the Explications of the Fathers, to discover the true sense of it. They say that they have done the same for maintaining the Council of Chalcedon against those who accused it of condemning the Faith of the Fathers. They joined with this Remonstrance a Confession of Faith, wherein they explain their Sentiments about the Mystery of the Incarnation, and reject the Errors of Nestorius, Eutyches and their Followers, and endeavour to show that we ought to say, That One Person of the Trinity was crucified, and to confirm this Expression by the Testimonies of the Fathers: But there is scarce any except Proclus who used it. They add afterwards a Confession of their Doctrine concerning Grace, the Substance whereof is this; That Adam was created a perfect Man; that he was neither mortal or immortal, but capable of becoming either the one or the other; That he had a perfect liberty of Power and Will to do good or evil, but falling into sin, he had lost the Life of the Soul, as well as that of the Body, and that his sin descended upon all his Posterity: That upon this account Children are baptised, not only to make them the Children of God by Adoption, or to render them worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven (as the Disciples of Pelagius, Celestius and Theodorus of Mopsuestia taught) but also that they may obtain remission of Original Sin which deserves eternal Death; That none can recover himself from this Fall, nor be saved, but by the Grace of Jesus Christ: That freewill, since the entrance of sin, has, of itself, no other power but that of choosing some carnal good and pleasure, and that it can neither desire, nor will, nor do any thing for eternal Life, but by the Operation of the Holy Spirit: That they condemn on the one side those who say that sin is Natural, or that it's a Substance; and on the other side, they detest those who affirm, against the Doctrine of St. Paul, That it is in us to Will, but it is God that finishe● the Work.  
The Monks of Scythia receiving no satisfaction, as we have said, from the Legates of the Pope, came to Rome; but they were not much better received by Pope Hormisdas. They continued there more than a year by the order of this Pope, but finding means to withdraw, they fixed up before their departure, twelve Anathematisms, which contained in Substance the Doctrine comprised in their Confession of Faith. And as it is the custom of those who are persecuted and accused of Heresy, about subtle Questions, to make many Declarations and Confessions of Faith, we have also a Confession of Faith made by John Maxentius, together with an Explication of the manner in which the two Natures are united in the Person of Jesus Christ.  
After their Departure Pope Hormisdas being very angry with them, wrote to Possessor a Bishop of Afric, That he had done all that lay in his power to cure these Monks of their Error, but could not compass his design; that he found them turbulent and Enemies to Peace; that they sought only to dispute upon new Questions, and that they were so proud that they would have all the Earth enslaved to their Imaginations; That they were wont to spread unjust Reports, to feign Calumnies, to hate the Church, to stir up Seditions, and to maintain their Opinion with obstinacy; That they had a mind also to stir up the People, and sow their Tares at Rome. He adds to what we have now said, that which we have already reported concerning the Books of Fausius. John Maxentius having undertaken to answer this Letter which was published to the World, took upon him to say, That it could not be Hormisdas', and that it was not the Work of a Pastor of the Church, but of its Enemies, being stuffed with nothing but falsehoods, errors, contradictions and reproaches. Nevertheless he objects to Hormisdas, that he has not given a positive answer to the Monks of Scythia, although the Letter which he treats of gins with this Maxim. That it's reasonable that those who are consulted should give an Answer to those who consult them. Afterwards he accuses the Author of this Letter of being an Heretic, and a favourer of the Nestorians. He accuses of the same Heresy Dioscorus the Pope's Legate, and the Bishop Possessor, to whom this Letter is written, because they were Enemies to those who affirm that One Person of the Trinity suffered. He defends this Expression stoutly, and proves that this Letter cannot be Pope Hormisdas', because the Doctrine of the Monks of Scythia is condemned in it as Heretical, although the Pope, after he had entertained them many times, and known that it was their Doctrine, had not excluded them from his Communion for the space of fourteen Months that they continued at Rome. From whence he concludes, that this Letter was supposititious, or that the Pope was corrupted by Dioscorus; but whether this Letter was his, or another's, that the Author of it is a Heretic. Afterwards he justifies the Doctrine and Behaviour of the Monks of Scythia, and refutes the Objections which are made against them in this Letter. He maintains that the Monks did not retire from Rome of their own accord, and that they were not driven away by the People, but that the Pope being subject to Human Infirmity, understanding that Dioscorus was returning, had caused them to be forced out of Rome by his Wardens 
* They were a sort of Officers chosen by the Pope out of the Clergy, to defend and take care of the Patrimony of the Roman Church. , although he had promised to hear them in an Ecclesiastical Assembly, when Dioscorus should return. As to what was said in this Letter concerning the Books of Faustus, he observes that the Author should condemn them as Heretical, and not only say that the Church had not received them; but because he approved the Doctrine of St. Austin, he compares it with that of Faustus, endeavouring to prove that it's Heretical contrary to that of St. Austin, and agreeable to that of Pelagius. This he does to confound those who defended the Books of Faustus as Catholic, of which number was Possessor Bishop of Afric.  
The same John Maxentius wrote a Discourse against the Acephali, who said that there was but One Nature in Jesus Christ after the Union; and a Dialogue against the Nestorians, divided into two Books. In the last of them he proves stoutly, that it may be said that One Person of the Trinity did suffer. These Works, and others whereof we have now spoken, are to be found in the Bibliothicks of the Fathers. The Style of this Author is pure enough; he wrote with much clearness and strength.   

TRIFOLIUS.  
ALL that is known of this Author is, that he was a Priest, that he lived at the beginning of the sixth Age, for his Country is altogether unknown. There was a Letter of his addressed to 
Trifolius.  Faustus a Roman Senator, against John one of the Monks of Scythia, who was come from Constantinople to Rome. There he refutes their Opinion, and maintains that this Doctrine, One of the Trinity suffered, did spring from the Error of Arius, and that it agreed with all Heresies. He advises this Senator to shun all Expressions which are not in the Decisions of the four Councils, nor in the Writings of the Fathers approved by these four Councils, such as the Letter of St. Athanasius to Epictetus, the Letters of St. Cyril to John of Antioch, and those of St. Leo. He handles the Question with much subtlety; and to prove that this Expression ought not to be used, One of the Trinity suffered, he grounds his Argument upon this, That the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three, but one God only in three Persons: Now when one of the Trinity is named, it seems as if it were said, One of three Gods. Perhaps this Equivocation may be removed, by saying, One of the Persons of the Trinity did suffer; but then they fall into another Inconvenience, because this Expression may make a man think that the Divinity did suffer; and if it be added, In the Flesh, the two Natures seem to be confounded. He citys against these Expressions a place out of the Session of the Council of Chalcedon against Carosus and Dorotheus, a Passage out of a Letter of St. Cyril to John, and another out of a Letter of St. Leo to the Emperor Marcianus. He rejects the Testimony of Proclus, and maintains that his Letter is falsified.  
This Letter being imperfect at the end, was published by Labbee, from the sheets of Sirmondus, Concil. Tom. 4. p. 1590. as Dr. Cave says, Hist. Lit. p. 396.   

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

LAURENTIUS. 
Laurentius.   
LAurentius Bishop of Novaria lived at the beginning of the sixth Age: He wrote a Discourse which Trithemius calls A Book of two Times, of that which passed from Adam until Jesus Christ, and of that which shall continue from Jesus Christ to the end of the World. This Work indeed gins with the distinction of these two Times, but Penance is the Subject of it: It has been printed under the Name of a Homily upon Penance, yet it is not a Homily.  
The same Author wrote some Homilies: There is one in the Bibliotheque of the Father's concerning Alms, and Father Mabillon has published one about the Cananean Woman in the second Tome of his Analecta. The Style of this Author is very simple.  
Some think that this Laurentius is the Archbishop of Milan, whom Ennodius praises, but there is no certain proofs of it, and the Translation from the Bishopric of Novaria to the Archbishopric of Milan, which must necessarily be supposed, renders the thing very improbable.   

MARCELLINUS.  
COunt Marcellinus wrote a Continuation of the Chronicon of St. Jerom unto the Year 535 for what follows in the Chronicon under his Name is another Authors, as appears by the Preface. He wrote 
Marcellinus.  also four Books of Geography which are mentioned by Cassiodorus. He would not deserve to be ranked among Ecclesiastical Writers, if he had not in his Chronicon wrote some things which concern the History of the Church. These following Particulars are the principal things in it; The Ordination of St. Gregory Nazianzen; the Councils of Constantinople, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon; The Death and Elegy of St. Jerom, the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople; The Banishment and Deposition of St. John Chrysostom, the Percecution of the Christians in Persia, the Discovery of the Head of St. John Baptist, the Persecution of the Christians in Afric, the Division of the Eastern and Western Churches, the Tumults in the Church of Constantinople for this Form of Faith, One Person of the Trinity suffered, and some other particular Remarks.  
It was first published by Sconhovius, containing only the Chronicon continued to 535; the following part of it was published by Pemvinius, as if it had been Marcellinus' without any Note of distinction. Besides this Edition of Sch●●hovius, this Chronicon was published at Paris 1546, in Octavo, and 1575., at Heidelberg 1588. and at the end of Eusebius' Chronicon at Leyden, 1606. and Amsterdam 1658. At last Sirmondus published both the Chronicon more correct, and a much larger Appendix of an ancient Writer, from a very old Manuscript at Paris 1619, in Octavo, from whence it was taken, and inserted into the Bibliotheque of the Fathers, Tom. 9 p. 517. Marcellinus wrote also, as Cassiodorus testifies, chap. 17, 25. of Divine Learning, two Books of the Qualities of Times, and Positions of Places, and as many more of the Cities of Constantinople and Jerusalem: But both these Works are lost. Cave Hist. Lit. p. 406.   

AEGIDIUS, or GILES the Abbot.  
GILES an Abbot of Gallia Narbonensis flourished at the beginning of the sixth Age. He is the Author of a Letter, and a Confession of Faith which is in the first Tome of the Gallic Councils 
Giles the Abbot.  published by Father Sirmondus.   

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

BOETIUS.  
THe illustrious Names of Flavius Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus Boetius, which this Author bears, are a Testimony of the Nobility of his Extraction: He was chosen Consul in 487, and 
Boetius.  510, and had the Joy to see his two Children promoted to this Dignity in the Year 522. But a little after he fell from the most happy state that can be imagined into the depth of Misery: For being accused of having a Design to restore the Authority of the Senate and Roman Republic, he was deprived of all his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sent 〈◊〉 to Pavia, and killed in his Prison by Order of King 〈◊〉. This deadly Accident happened in 524.  
Bo●●ius was very 〈◊〉 in the Ar●● and Sciences, and particularly in the Philosophy of the Ancients. He 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉, and wrote Commentaries upon them, and composed some 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 and Geometry.  
Of all his Books of Philosophy 〈◊〉 is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has any Relation to Christianity, viz. his Excellent▪ 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Consolation of philosophy which he wrote in Prison. It is a Conference which he 〈◊〉 that he had with Philosophy, which comforts him in his Misery. It is written partly in Prose and partly in Verse, and divided into five Books.  
The first 〈◊〉 the Complaints of 〈◊〉▪ and the miserable state to which he was reduced.  
In the second Philosophy, for his Consolation, 〈◊〉 such Motives as are less effectual, by showing him that he has 〈◊〉 cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of F●… which had been so long favourable to him.  
In the same Book he proves, That Supreme Napp●… does not consist, in those things of which he was deprived, and that God 〈◊〉 in the Sovereign Go●….  
Having proved in the fourth Book▪ That 〈◊〉 but good men are happy, and that the wicked are always miserable▪ ●he Discourses of Providence and Destiny, and inquires into the Reasons why God per●… the Wicked to enjoy a 〈◊〉 Happiness, and the good to suffer Pain.  
In the fifth ●he 〈◊〉 of Chance, of 〈◊〉, and the manner of reconciling freewill with the Prescience of God. Boetius makes her say, That Prescience is not at all destroyed by freewill, because although every thing that God foresees does necessarily come to pass, yet it had not been foreseen, but that it was to come to pass by a Choice perfectly free.  
Although Boetius was not a Clergyman by Profession, yet he wrote some Theological Books.  
He wrote a Treatise of the two Natures in Jesus Christ, upon occasion of a Question that had been started about a place in the Council of Chalcedon, wherein this Proposition of Eutyches is condemned, That Jesus Christ is of two Natures, but he does not subsist in two Natures. Boetius at first could hardly understand the difference between these two Expressions; but afterwards meditating more upon it, he found that this Proposition was really the Principle of the Errors of Eutyches. This engaged him to refute the Error of 〈◊〉, and to explain after what manner the two Natures are united in one Person only. He 〈◊〉 use of A●…'s Philosophy to explain the terms of Substance and Person, and handles this matter in a very subtle and scholastical manner.  
His Treatise of the Trinity to Symmachus is no less full of Philosophical terms and Metaphisical subtleties, as well as his Letter to John the Deacon of Rome upon this Question, viz. Whether the Father, Son and Holy Spirit can be affirmed substantially of the Divinity; i. e. whether it can be said, The Father is the Divinity, etc. Boetius seems to be the first who explained our Mysteries by Aristotle's Philosophy, and made use of that Method which the Schoolmen so greedily have embraced.  
I say nothing of his other Works, because they are about matters purely profane. They were collected and printed at Bafil by Henry the Son of Peter, in the Year 1546. This Author wrote purely enough, and does not much favour of the Barbarism of his Age: But the Scholastical terms which he uses, and the subtlety of the Questions which he handles, render him obscure and tedious. His Work of the Consolation of Philsophy is free from this fault; It is a Work worthy of a more refined Age, and may pass for a Masterpiece in its kind.   

EPIPHANIUS SCHOLASTICUS.  
CAssiodorus made this Man, whom he thought very Eloquent, translate the Ecclesiastical Histories 
Epiphanius Scholastieus.  of Socrates, Sozomen and Theodores, That eloquent Greece, says he, may not insult over us and boast that they have anything which we have not. This Version is faithful enough, but it favours very much of ●he Barbarism of the Age in which this Translator wrote.  
[He translated also the Commentaries of Didymus upon Solomon's Proverbs, and the seven Canonical Epistles, and the Commentaries of Epipha●ius the Cyprian upon Canticles, and perhaps many other Books. But all these Versions are lost. Only the Version which he made at the desire of Cassiodorus, of the Condex Encyclious, or a Collection of Synodical Epistles to Leo the Emperor in Defence of the Council of Chalcedon, is extant, Conc. Tome 4. p. 891. and has been published more correct by Baluzius, in his new Collection of Councils, Paris 1683. fol. Cave Hist. Lit. 387.]   

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

SEVERUS.  
SEverus born at Sozopolis, a City of Pisidia, was Head of the Monks of Palestine, and of the Sect of Acephali: he was made Bishop of Antioch in 513, and forced away from it in 519. He 
Severus.  wrote some Treatises in the form of Letters, whereof we find some Fragments cited in the third Council of Constantinople, taken from a second Letter to Oecumenius, from a Letter to Paul, from a Synodical Letter to Anthimus, and from a Letter to Theodosius. He maintains that there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ, and condemns the Decision of the Council of Chalcedon, and the Letter of St. Leo.  
[He wrote several other Letters mentioned by Evagrius, and some Homilies and Commentaries▪ upon Scripture, frequently mentioned in the Greek Ca●ena's, Cave p. 390.]   

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

BASIL of Cilicia.  
HEre follows what we learn from Pho●ius of the Life and Works of this Author. This Basil, says he, was, as he himself assured me, a Priest of the Church of Antioch at the time that Flavianus 
Basil of Cilicia.  governed that See under the Reign of 〈◊〉. I have read his Ecclesiastical History, which gins at the Death of Simplicius Bishop of Rome, who wrote to Acacius of Constantinople, that he should not Communicate with Peter surnamed Mongus, who then corrupted the Church of Alexandria, to which See he was promoted, and publicly condemned the Council of Chalcedon. Acacius at first was against him, but afterwards he was 〈◊〉 of his Enemies, which made him be looked upon as a Heretic by many, and deposed by the Romans. This Affair was newly began under the Reign of Zeno. But to return to our Author; He gins his History with this Disturbance, and concludes it with the Death of Anastasius, and the Coronation of Justinus. He observes that he had also written two other Books of History, whereof the first gins at the Reign of Marcianus, and ends at that of Zeno, with which he gins the second, and there is a third, which gins at the Reign of Justinus. The Style of this Historian is not polite, and very unequal. He relates the Letters which the Bishops wrote one to another, for proof of the Matters which he asserts; and this makes his Volume of a prodigious thickness, because one single History of little consequence fills many pages, and his Na●… is 〈◊〉 ●●ort, and obscured by long Interruptions.  
He wrote also a T●… against John of Scythopolis, whom he calls a Caviller, and loads with many Reproaches: He accuses him of being a Ma●…ean, of reducing Lent to three Weeks, of permitting one to eat Birds in that tune of observing Pagan Ceremonies, of being too much addicted to his Pleasures, of not waiting for the Communion till the Sacrifice was ended, but taking the Holy Mysteries immediately after the Gospel, that he might go the sooner to his Repast. This Treatise was stuffed with all kind of Invectives, and divided into sixteen Books. The first thirteen are Dialogues against the first Book of John of Scythopolis: The three last are a continued Discourse against the second and third Book of the same Author.  
Photius gives a particular Account of the Subject of each of these Books, whose general design was to oppose the Union of the two Natures, and the Expressions made use of in that Age to denote them. To this end he employs several passages of Scripture about which he cavils. Although he was of Nestorius' Opinion, yet he never names him, but he commends Diodorus of Tarsus, and Theodorus of Mopsuestia. He does not openly condemn St. Cyril, but he says, that he against whom he wrote, grounds his Doctrine chief upon the Chapters of this Patriarch of Alexandria, and particularly upon the twelfth. This Work was Dedicated to one named Leontius: It is written in a very mean style, and is full of Faults; but it contains many Sophisms and Arguments which discover that this Author was well versed in this sort of Subtleties.   

JOHN the First, Bishop of Rome. 
John I. Bishop of Rome.   
JOHN, surnamed Catelin, a Tuscan by Nation, and the Son of Constantius, was promoted to the See of Rome in the Month of August of the Year 523, which was the 31th of the Reign of Theodoric in Italy, and the sixth of the Empire of Justinus. This Emperor having a desire to extirpate Arianism in the East, ordered that the Churches which the Arians possessed should be taken from them, and given to the Catholic Bishops who consecrated them. The Arians having complained to King Theodoric, who was of their Sect, threatened that he would treat the Catholics of Italy after the same manner, if Justinus did not recall his Order. He thought that the best way to make these Threaten successful, was to send the Bishop of Rome to desire this Favour of the Emperor, that so the Catholic Churches of Italy might be preserved from Ruin. John went thither, tho much against his Will, with some Senators of Rome; and Anastasius the Library-keeper says, That he was received at Constantinople very honourably, and obtained of the Emperor the Revocation of this Order in favour of the Churches of Italy. Nevertheless there is a Letter attributed to this Pope, which supposes that he was so far from making this Request to the Emperor, that he himself contributed to the Execution of the Order, which this Prince had published, and Consecrated some Churches of the Arians for the Catholics; and Gregory of Tours says, That he was imprisoned for having consecrated some Churches of the Arians. This makes Baronius believe, that John advised the Emperor Justinus not to agree to that which he came to desire of him in the Name of the King of Italy, and that in imitation of the famous Regulus, he sacrificed himself, and exposed his Church to the danger of destruction, rather than he would desire any thing which was contrary to the Welfare of the Universal Church. I cannot tell whether such a Zeal is not indiscreet; but this I know, that there is no proof that John used it after this manner: For the Letter just now mentioned is supposititious, as we shall show; and Gregory of Tours does not say, that John fell into disgrace with Theodoric, for having consecrated the Churches of the Arians in the East, but for doing it in the West. However this be, John and his Colleagues having returned, were very ill received by King Theodoric, who cast them into Prison at Ravenna, where John died the 27th day of May in the Year 526.  
The two Letters attributed to this Pope are both supposititious: The first, which is said to be addressed to an Archbishop called Zacharias, is composed of the words of the Letters of Innocent, Zosimus, Symmachus and Theodoric. The Date of the Consuls in it is false; It is the Style and the Work of Mercator.  
The second, addressed to the Bishops of Italy, exhorting them to Consecrate the Churches of the Arians, as was done in the East, has the same marks of Falsehood. The Date of the Consuls is false. It gins with some Scraps of the Letters of St. Leo, and the rest is a hotchpotch of passages out of the second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, according to the Vulgar Version. In fine, this Letter is contrary to History, to Ingenuity and good Sense: To History, because Anastasius assures us, that John performed this Embassy; to Ingenuity, because John should not have undertaken this Negotiation, if he had a mind to desire of Justinus that which was contrary to his Trust. In fine, It is contrary to good Sense; for nothing can be more ridiculous than this Inference, I have consecrated the Churches of the Arians in the East under a Christian Emperor who desired it; Therefore you ought to consecrate them in Italy in spite of an Arian Prince, who will be provoked by so doing utterly to destroy the Catholic Churches. A delicate Consequence!   

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

BONIFACE the Second, Bishop of Rome. 
Bonif. II. Bishop of Rome.   
BOniface the second of that Name, the first Pope of the Nation of the Goths, was promoted to the Holy See under the Reign of King Alaricus on the fourteenth day of October in the Year 529. At the same time one part of the Clergy chose Dioscorus, who was formerly one of the Deputies sent into the East by Hormisdas. Boniface was Ordained in the Church of Julius, and Dioscorus in that of Constantine. But this last died the twelfth day of November. Boniface seeing himself left in sole possession, used his utmost endeavours to bring over those who had been of the other Party; he threatened them with an Anathema, and forced them to subscribe. He called together the Clergy, and condemned the Memory of Dioscorus, accusing him of Simony. He proceeded yet further, and, as if it were not enough for him to be secured of the Holy See for himself, he would also appoint himself a Successor; and having called a Synod, he engaged the Bishops and Clergy by Oath, and under their Hands, that they should choose and ordain in his room the Deacon Vigilius after his Death. This being against the Canons, he himself acknowledged publicly his Fault, and burned the Writing which he extorted from them.  
To this Pope there is attributed a Letter to Eulalius Bishop of Alexandria, wherein he writes to him, that the Bishop of Carthage was reunited to the Church of Rome, supposing that he had been separated from it ever since the time of Aurelius. But, as little as is known of the History of these times, this Piece appears to be supposititious: For every one knows, that Aurelius and his Colleagues were always closely united to the Church of Rome, and that their Successors did never separate from it. Besides that there never was any Eulalius Bishop of Alexandria, and that the Impost or who contrived this Letter, supposes it written under the Empire of Justin, who was dead before Boniface was promoted to the Holy See. But though he had not so plainly failed in History, it were easy to discover his Imposture, by observing that this Letter is composed of Passages taken out of the Letters of St. Leo, Hormisdas, and even out of the Letter of St. Gregory, who was not promoted to the See of Rome, till many years after Boniface.  
This Letter therefore is the Work of an Impostor, as well as that Libel of this Eulalius, wherein he Excommunicates all his Predecessors, and all his Successors, and all those who shall infringe the Privileges of the Roman Church: For excepting this impertinent passage, the rest of this Writing is taken out of St. Gregory and Hormisdas. The Date of the Consuls agrees to a year wherein Boniface was dead.  
The only true Letter of Boniface is that which is addressed to Caesarius of Arles, who had written to his Predecessor against the Opinion of some Bishops of the Gauls, who said that the beginning of Faith should be attributed to Nature and not to Grace, and at the same time had prayed, for the removing of all difficulties, that it might be confirmed by the Authority of the Holy See, That Faith and the first Motions of the Will to that which is good, were inspired by preventing Grace. Boniface answers him, That it is a manifest Truth, that we can neither desire, nor begin any Good, nor have Faith, but by the Grace of Jesus Christ. He commends the Bishops of France who had approved this Doctrine, and hopes that others would submit to it. This Letter is dated the 25th of January, under the Consulship of Lampadius and Orestes, in the Year 530. The Date of it shows that Boniface was promoted to the Holy See in the Year 529, and that Felix had the Pontificat a year less than is noted in Anastasius. In the Year 531, Boniface held a Council about the Petition of Stephen Bishop of Larissa, concerning the Rights of the Popes of Illyricum. We shall speak of it hereafter in the Acts of this Council. [His Epistles are printed Concil. Tom. 4. p. 1684. Cave p. 402.]   

JOHN the Second, Bishop of Rome.  
JOHN surnamed Mercurius, a Roman by Nation, the Son of Prejectus, was Ordained Bishop of Rome on the 22th of January, in the Year 532, and governed this Church two Years and some 
John II. Bishop of Rome.  Months. Immediately after his Promotion, the Emperor Justinian wrote him a Letter, which he sent by two Bishops called Hypatius and Demetrius, wherein, after he has testified his Respect for the Holy See, he informs him, that some Persons would not believe that Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, who was born of Mary, and who was crucified, is one of the Persons of the Trinity, which gave just cause of Suspicion that they were of Nestorius' Judgement. He adds a Confession of Faith wherein he inserts this Expression, That the Son of God, who was born of Mary, and was crucified, is one of the Persons of the Trinity: And lastly, he prays the Pope to write Letters to himself, and to the Patriarch of Constantinople, declaring that he received them into his Communion, and all those who professed this Faith, and that he condemned those that did not approve of it.  
The Pope answers him, that he commends his Zeal for Religion, and the Respect he testified 
Agapetus Bishop of Rome.  for the Holy See; that he approved his Doctrine and the Confession of Faith which he had sent, and that he looked upon these as separate from the Church who would not receive it, and chief Cyrus who had been sent to Rome on the behalf of the Monks Acaemetae. Some have doubted of the Truth of these two Letters; but there is no reason to reject them, and they are both acknowledged by those that wrote them, and by those who spoke of them, viz. by John in his Letter to the Senators, and the Emperor in his Constitution to Epiphanius of Constantinople. The Emperor's Letter is dated in the Year 533, and the Pope's in the next year. At the same time the Pope wrote a Letter, or rather a Discourse to the Roman Senators, wherein he declares that he approved this Proposition, That Jesus Christ who suffered is one of the Persons of the Trinity. He brings some Passages of the Fathers to justify this Expression, and admonished them, that they ought not to communicate with the Monks Acaemetae, who are of another Opinion.  
The same Pope wrote three Letters about the Affair of Contumeliosus Bishop of Regium, who was accused and convicted of Uncleanness. The first is to the Bishops of the Gauls, to whom he writes, That they ought not to suffer this Bishop to perform any part of the Sacerdotal Function, and that they ought to shut him up in a Monastery, and name a Deputy to his Church, who shall there barely celebrate the Holy Mysteries, without Ordaining any Clergymen, or disposing of the Patrimony of the Church. He allows him to present his Request to the Bishops, that he may be admitted to do Penance by acknowledging his Fault. The second is written to the Clergy of Regium, wherein he acquaints them that he thought it convenient to send them a Deputy, that he left the care and ordering of these things to the Bishop of Arles. The third is to Caesarius of Arles, wherein he testifies his sorrow that a Bishop was found Guilty of such Crimes as Contumeliosus was convicted of; but he thinks it convenient, that as to him the rigour of the Canons should be observed, by Deposing him and sending him to a Monastery. At the same time he recommends to him that he should send a Deputy to his Church, until a Bishop could be Ordained for it. He sent with this Letter a Memorial containing the Canons against the Bishops condemned by the Synod of the Province, viz. The 7th Canon of the Epistle of Siricius to Himerius, the 25th and 29th of the Apostolic Canons, and the 4th and 15th of the Council of Antioch, and the 9th of Nice.  
I have not said any thing of the first Letter attributed to this Pope, and addressed to Valerius, because it is the Work of Mercator. There are found in it some Scraps of the Writings of Itachius and St. Leo; the style is different from that of the true Letters of this Pope, and the date of the Consuls is false. [All the six Epistles are printed Conc. Tom. 4. p. 1741. whereof the first to Valerius is rejected by Labbee as spurious, Cave p. 404.]   

AGAPETUS Bishop of Rome.  
AGapetus born at Rome, and the Son of Gordianus, succeeded to John the second about the end of the Year 534, but he was not a whole Year in that See, and stayed but a little while at Rome. Immediately after his Ordination he abolished the Anathema, which Boniface had extorted from the Bishops and Priests against the Memory of Dioscorus, and caused it to be burnt. Justinian, who managed extremely the Holy See, wrote to him upon his Promotion, and sent his Letter by the Priest Heraclius. After he had used the ordinary Compliments in his Letter, he declares to him that he thought it very convenient for bringing back the Arians into the Church, to maintain them in the Dignities they had in the Church, where they were among their own Sect, and not to exclude them from rising to a higher station. He writes to him also about the Cause of Stephen Bishop of Larissa, who had implored the Aid of the Holy See under the Pontificat of Boniface, against the Sentence passed against him by Epiphanius of Constantinople, and desires him to make the Bishop of Justinianea his Vicar in Illyricum. The Pope answers the Emperor's Compliments very civilly, and praises his Zeal for the Reunion of the Arians; but he does not approve, that the New-converts should be continued in their Dignities, nor that they should be permitted to rise to higher.  
As to the Affair of Stephen, he says, That he takes no other part but that which is for the Defence of Innocence and Justice; that what the Holy See did about that Affair, proceeded from a Zeal it has always had to maintain its Rights, and to reserve to itself the Cognizance of the Affairs that concern the whole Church. That because the Emperor consented that this Cause should be instructed by the Legates of the Holy See, he would send them a Power; That he was willing at his desire to receive Achilles into his Communion, who had been ordained in the room of Stephen, but that he could not allow him to exercise the Sacerdotal Function, until he had seen the Informations which the Legates should make: That although the Emperor would excuse Epiphanius for Ordaining him, because he did it by his Order, yet he should acknowledge that he was blame-worthy, since he ought to press him earnestly with the duty which on this occasion belonged to the Dignity of the Holy See, and so much the more, because he had to do with a Prince who espoused its Interests. In fine, he tells him, That he would inform him by his Legates of the Resolution he had taken about the City of Justinianea, and the Title of Vicar of the Holy See, which he would bestow upon the Bishop of that City. This Letter is dated Octob. 15. in the Year 534.  
At this time Bellisarius, General of the Army to the Emperor Justinian, made great progress against Theodatus King of Italy. He was already become Master of Dalmatia and Sicily, and was ready to pass the next Compagne in Italy. Theodatus thought that the most effectual way to put a stop to his violent Motions, was to interest the Pope, the Senate and the People of Rome in his quarrel. He threatened them therefore that they should all be put to the point of the Sword, unless they obtained of Justinian a Cessation of Arms. The Pope Agapetus was entrusted with this Embassy. When he arrived at Constantinople, the Emperor sent some Persons to Compliment him in his Name, and to carry him a Letter in which he had inserted the Letter and Confession of Faith which he had sent to John. The Pope's Answer was, That he commended his Piety, that he approved his Doctrine, and condemned those that were not of his Judgement, but then withal he signified to him, that it did not belong to Laymen to make Confessions of Faith. Afterwards he had Audience of the Emperor, and declared his Commission; but he could not prevail with him to stop the Course of his Victories. But if the Embassy of Agapetus had not the Success which might be expected for the Affairs of Italy, yet it did great Service to the Church. For there was then in the See of Constantinople one named Anthimus, formerly Bishop of Trebizonde, whom the Empress Theodora had promoted to that Dignity: This Man in his Judgement was an Eutychian, and a Disciple of Severus, who was then the Chief of them. Agapetus having discovered that he was of this Judgement, would not communicate with him, although he was pressed to do it by the Emperor and Empress. He declared also, that a Stranger as he was, being Bishop of another Church, could not continue in the See of Constantinople, and that all which he could do out of respect to the Empress, was to suffer him to return to his former Church, if he should give assurance in writing that he was Orthodox in his Judgement. Agapetus held firm to this, and neither the Threaten nor the Promises of the Empress could move him. Anthimus on his part being unwilling to do what the Pope required, he declared him an Heretic and unworthy of the Priesthood, and Ordained Mennas in his room. This was done with the consent of the Emperor, who acknowledged that Anthimus was not Orthodox, and therefore abandoned him; and he himself chose Mennas, as appears by the Letter, wherein Agapetus gives notice of this Alteration to Peter of Jerusalem, and the other Bishops of the East, related in the Acts of the Council under Mennas.  
When this was done, Agapetus prepared to departed, resolving to leave the Deacon Pelagius as Surrogate for Constantinople; but God otherwise disposed of him by death, for he died before his departure at the end of the Year 535.  
There are also four Letters of Agapetus which have no relation to the Affairs of the East, but to those of the Churches of Afric, and the Gauls.  
The first is an Answer to the Synodical Letter, which Reparatus Bishop of Carthage, and the other Bishops of Afric, in number 227, had written to John the Second, the Predecessor of Agapetus. They acquaint him in this Letter (which is found among the Letters of this Pope) that desiring to restore the ancient Custom, which the violence of Persecution had interrupted for almost a hundred years, they had assembled a General Council of Afric in the Church of Faustus at Carthage, from whence Hunnericus had formerly driven them; That in this Council they had first read the Canons of the Nicene Council, and then considered of the manner wherein they should receive the Arian Bishops that should be converted, whether they should continue them in their Office, or only receive them to Lay-Communion: That all thought it reasonable in the first place to consult him about this Question, being fully persuaded, that the Holy See would give them such an Answer about it, as they would approve with an unanimous Consent: That so far as they could judge by what the Bishops had already declared, their Opinion was, not to continue them in their Dignities at their Readmission; but yet they thought not fit to publish their Judgement, till they had known what was the Custom and Advice of the Holy See in such a Case: That they had sent the Deacon Liberatus to him, to be informed of the late Transactions, and at the same time to discharge the Duty they owed unto him. They consult him also about this other Question, Whether those should be admitted into Holy Orders, who had received Baptism when they were Infants from the hands of the Arians: And, lastly, they pray that the Bishops, Priests or Clergymen of Afric, who should pass beyond Sea without a Letter of Credence, should be treated as Heretics.  
This Letter being delivered to Agapetus, the Successor of St. John, he declared to them in his Answer, That the Holy See had sympathised with them in their Affliction, and commends them for remembering their Duty to it, and addressing to him for Counsel. After this he answers their Inquiries, That they ought not to suffer those who return from Heresy, to continue in Ecclesiastical Dignities, or promote them to any; but he thought it convenient, that they should partake of the Revenues of the Church that were settled for the Subsistence of the Clergy. He determines also, that their desire, as to the Clergy who went out of Afric, should be observed, as a necessary Precaution to oblige them to stay in their Churches, and to hinder them from being Vagabonds.  
Before the Letter of the African Bishops was sent, Reparatus having received the News of the death of John, and the Ordination of Agapetus, wrote a Letter to him in his own Name, to congratulate his Promotion to the Pontificate, and to recommend his Concerns to him. Agapetus answered this Letter in particular, and acknowledged the Pre-eminence of the Bishop of Carthage above 
St. Ephrem Patriarch of Antioch.  all the other Bishops of Afric. Both these Letters of Agapetus are dated the ninth of September: In the last the Consulship is marked thus, Post Consulatum Paulini viri clarissimi; After the Consulship of Paulinus a most famous Man. This was in the Year 535, but it is more probable that this Letter was written at the beginning of the Pontificate of Agapetus, before his Journey to Constantinople, and so it must be read, Paulino V C. Cos. which was in the Year 534.  
The third of the Letters that we now speak of, is addressed to Caesarius of Arles, who had prayed him to give some of the Revenues of his Church for Relief of the Poor. Agapetus answers him, that he was very well inclined to grant his Petition for the Relief of the Poor; but that the express Constitutions of the Fathers did so strictly forbidden Bishops to alienate the Revenues of their Churches, under any pretence whatsoever, that it was impossible for him to transgress them; that he thought, he would not take it ill, that he had not violated the ancient Canons, and that he prayed him to believe he did not refuse through Covetousness, or for his own Profit, but only because he was obliged, out of respect to the Judgement of God, to observe inviolably what was ordained by the Authority of a Council, and to convince him, he sent to him the Canon by which this was ordained.  
The second Letter addressed to the same Caesarius, concerns the Affair of Contumeliosus. This Bishop being condemned, had appealed to Rome. The Pope had appointed Judges upon the Places, yet the Bishops of the Gauls caused their own Judgement to be put in Execution. The Pope wrote to Caesarius, that it would be better to suspend the Execution, till his Cause were decided anew, or at least to permit him to withdraw, and not to shut him up in a Religious House. He ordains that his Goods should be restored to him, but that he should not dispose of the Revenues of the Church, nor be permitted to celebrate Mess; that the archdeacon of his Church should be named as Deputy in his room, who should have the Administration of Affairs until he was sentenced; on condition that the first Judgement given against him should be no wise prejudicial to him, and that no consideration should be had of it in the second. These Letters are dated the 18th day of August in the Year 535. There may be a fault in the Date of the Consulship.  
I say nothing of a Letter of Agapetus to Anthimus, because it is a Piece taken out of the 97th Epistle of St. Leo, according to the Custom of Isidore. [All the seven Epistles are published Concil. Tom. 4. p. 1789. There is also another Letter to Peter the Patriarch of Jerusalem, concerning the Deposition of Anthimus, Gr. Lat. in the Act. 1. of the Council of Constantinople under Mennas, Conc. Tom. 5. p. 47. Cave p. 407.]   

St. EPHREM Patriarch of Antioch.  
ST. Ephrem, although a Syrian by Nation, understood perfectly the Greek Tongue. After he had passed thro' Secular Offices, he arrived at the Dignity of a Count in the East, and was promoted to the See of the Church of Antioch, about the Year 526. He signalised himself chief by the great Alms he gave. He composed many Treatises, of which three Volumes fell into the hands of Photius, who assures us, That all the Works of this Author were written in Defence of the Doctrine of the Church, and of the Holy Council of Chalcedon. The same Author makes long Extracts out of those which he had seen.  
The first is a Collection of divers Pieces, whereof the first is a Letter addressed to Zenobius Scholasticus of Emesa, who was infected with the Error of the Acephali. St. Ephrem there defends the Letter of St. Leo, and the use of the Trisagion. He observes in the first place, that the Orientalists attribute to Jesus Christ, this Epithet in praise of him, Holy, holy, holy, and then they add, who was crucified for us; whereas those of Constantinople and the West refers this Epithet to the Trinity, and therefore cannot add, who were crucified, because the three Divine Persons cannot be subject to Sufferings: That in many Churches of Europe, instead of these words, Who were crucified for us, are put these other words, Holy Trinity, have pity on us. He adds, That according to these two different senses, this Expression may be used or not used, but that the Heretics Acephali having abused it, he thought fit not to use it at all. After this Remark he undertakes the Defence of St. Leo's Letter; and observes, that we must not compare what St. Leo says, when he speaks of the Incarnation, with what the Fathers say when they speak of the Divinity, but with those places where they speak of the Incarnation. He proves afterwards, that St. Leo in this Letter acknowledged the two Natures in the Union of one Person only, and plainly condemned the Error of Nestorius. In the second Chapter he proves, that the Expressions which this Pope used to denote the difference of the Natures and Operations, were agreeable to those of the Greek Fathers, and even to the Doctrine of St. Cyril. In the third he proves, that the Articles which are added to note the distinction of the two Natures, do not signify that there are two Persons in Jesus Christ, but only two Natures united with an inseparable Union. In the fourth and fifth he defends some particular Expressions of St. Leo, by comparing them with the modes of speaking, used by the other Fathers, which are altogether like them.  
This Letter to Zenobius was followed with many others: There is one to the Emperor Justinian, wherein he commended this Prince for being Religions; another concerning the Monks who lived in the Desert, wherein he gives good 〈◊〉 of his Piety. In the third he maintains that the Acts of the Sy●… Decision of A●… contain nothing contrary to Faith. The fourth was written to Anthimus himself, after 〈◊〉 was passed against him: He does not dissemble his Approbation of Condemning him; but he declares thee he would have him received, though with very much Precaution. There is a fifth Letter to Domiti●…, about the manner in which the two Natures are united in Jesus Christ; and a sixth to Syneleti●… of Tarsus, wherein he explains the Judgement of the Fathers about the Union of the two Natures. The seventh was addressed to Anthimus Bishop of Trebizonde against the Error of Eutyches; wherein he p●●ises Justinian as a most Catholic Prince. The eighth was to one Persa●…, called Barses, wherein be explains the Mystery of the Trinity and the Incarnation by the Scripture. The ninth was addressed to the Monks who desired to be undeceived of the Errors which they held, by showing them from Testimonies of the Fathers, that the Actions of the two Natures are found in one Person only. This Letter was followed with the Synodical Letter of a Council held by St. Ephrem, against Syncleticus Bishop of Tarsus, and against the Monk Stephen his Chaplain, who was accused of the Eutychian Errors: In it is explained this famous Maxim of St. Cyril, That there is but one Nature of the Word Incarnate, by saying, that he used the Word Nature, for that of Person: There it is noted that Syncleticus did make Confession of the true Faith before the end of the Council. There was after this a Letter to Magnus' Bishop of Berraea, wherein St. Ephrem justifies the Doctrine of the fourth General Council, that Jesus Christ was composed of two Natures, and proves that this Expression, That there is but one Nature of the Word Incarnate, was used against those who separated the two Natures, but not against those who distinguished them, though they were united in one and the same Person. There was another Letter to the Monk Eunoius, about Corruption and Immortality, wherein he proves that Immortality was a Perfection of our Nature before its Fall, and that Corruption was an Imperfection. After these Letters follow seven Sermons: The first upon the Festival of the Prophets; the second upon the Feast Christmas; the third upon the Fasts of the Year; the fourth about the Instruction of Catechumen; the fifth about the Feast of St. Michael, which was preached at Daphne, the Suburbs of Antioch; the sixth about Lent; the seventh about a Sunday of Lent; the eighth to the Novices in the four first days of their Baptism. This is what is contained in the first Volume of St. Ephrem's Works, which fell into the hands of Photius.  
The second contains four Treatises. In the first he explains the sense of St. Cyril in his Letter to Successus, wherein he opposes the Heresy of the Severians: In the second he answers Anatolius Scholasticus, about those things wherein he desired to be instructed. The third was an Apology for the Council of Chalcedon, addressed to two Monks of Cilicia, called Domnus and John; and the fourth, An Admonition to the Monks of the East, who were entangled in the Errors of the Severians. Photius makes long Extracts out of these four Treatises. The Extract out of the first is about the Union and Distinction of the two Natures in Jesus Christ, which he confirms by the Testimonies of St. Cyril and other Fathers. The Extracts out of the second inform us, that Anatolius had proposed five Heads of Questions to St. Ephrem: The first, Whether Jesus Christ is yet in Flesh. 2. How he being descended from the Children of Adam could be Immortal. 3. What proof there is that the Apostle St. John is yet alive. 4. How Adam, being created Immortal, could be ignorant of what was useful for him. 5. What is meant by these words of God, Behold, Adam is become like one of us. As to the first Question, he proves by many Passages of Scripture, that Jesus Christ has still his Flesh. As to the second he says, That whether it be affirmed that Adam was created Mortal or Immortal, 'tis certain that the death of the Body and Soul was the effect of the Sin which he committed by his freewill; and that though Adam by his Nature was not Immortal, yet he had not died unless he had finned. To the third he answers, That he knew by Tradition that St. John was not dead, no more than Elias and Enoch, and that this Consequence might be inferred from the words of Jesus Christ concerning him in his Gospel, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to you? That it cannot be concluded from thence that he was Immortal, but that he was reserved for the Day of Judgement: That if Eusebius has noted the number of the years that he lived, this is to be understood of the years that he was upon Earth: That the Acts of the Life of this holy Apostle make it credible, that he disappeared all on a sudden: Nevertheless, he says that this Question does not concern the Faith; but that it is always profitable in this kind of Questions to take the better side. Upon the fourth Question, he says, that we must not wonder, that Adam, though immortal, did not know what was useful for him, since the same thing happened to the bad Angels. As to the last Question, he says, that these words, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, are an Irony which God uses to upbraid the Man for his Sottishness, or that God speaks according to the false imagination of Adam, to cover him with shame.  
The Extracts out of the third Book are Citations out of many Works of the Fathers, to show that the Decision of the Council of Chalcedon, which recognizes two Natures in Jesus Christ is not new, but the ancient Doctrine of the Church. He citys, besides the Authors that are known, as St. Peter of Alexandria, St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the St. Gregory's of Neocaesarea, Nazianzum and Nyssa, Amphilochius, St. Ambrose and St. Chrysostom, St. Epiphanius, Proclus and Paul of Emesa, Atticus of Constantinople, St. Cyril of Alexandria; he citys, I say, besides these Authors, the Books of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, a Book of Hilary about Faith and Unity, one Cyriacus Bishop of Paphos, who, as he says, was one of the Fathers of the Council of Nice, the supposititious 
Procopius of Gaza.  Letters of Pope Julius, and one named Erecthius. Of these Authors there are but five who made use of this Expression, There is but one Nature of the Word Incarnate, who are Gregory of Neocaesarea, St. Athanasius, Julius, St. Cyril, and Erecthius. He shows that the sense wherein this manner of speaking aught to be taken, does not exclude the two Natures, since they themselves acknowledged them.  
He goes on in the Extracts of the fourth Book to quote passages of the Fathers, to prove that the Divinity and Humanity of Jesus Christ are two different Natures. Among these last he citys St. Ephrem of Syria, a Letter of Simeon, and of Baradanus to Basil of Antioch, and another Letter of the same to the Emperor Leo, and a Letter of James to Basil the Bishop.  
Photius neither says any thing, nor makes any Extracts out of the third Volume of St. Ephrem, so that we have no knowledge of it. What Photius says and relates out of the two former, gives us a great Idea of this Author, and informs us, that he had read many of the Works of the Fathers, and that he reasoned very well about the Mysteries of our Religion. He died in the Year 544.   

PROCOPIUS of Gaza.  
PRocopius the Sophist of Gaza lived in the sixth Age: He applied himself earnestly to the study of the Commentators upon the Holy Scripture, and made a Collection of all that they had written upon the Octateuque, copying out their very words. But this work being of a prodigious thickness, he abridged it, and put it in order, suppressing what he found said by many, and so made a continued Commentary, made up of the Expositions of the ancient Commentators, yet without naming them. His Commentary upon Genesis and the Pentateuque is very large, and chief upon Genesis: What he wrote upon the Books of Kings and Chronicles is very short; and indeed they are, properly speaking, nothing but Scholia, wherein he reports the different Translations of the Text, and explains the sense of the Words. Perhaps these Scholia are only an Extract out of his Work: For Photius assures us, that the Commentaries of this Author were very copious, and written after one and the same manner. However this be, the Commentary upon Isaiah is very long; wherein he relates the Text entire, notes the difference of Versions, and explains every word in particular.  
This Commentator confines himself sufficiently to the literal sense; he remarks carefully the differences of the Greek Versions, and even those of the Hebrew Text. He enlarges also upon the History, and sometimes upon the Morality: He touches but little upon Allegory; but sometimes he insists upon little things, and upon the Exposition of those words which are clear of themselves, and do not need any Interpretation. Photius thinks his style very polite, but too rhetorical for a Commentator.  
The Version of his Commentary upon the Octateuque was made by Clauserus from a Manuscript of the Library of Ausburg, and printed at Basle in 1555. in Fol. with his Notes upon the Books of Kings and Chronicles. In 1620, Meursius caused to be printed at Amsterdam in Quarto his Scholia upon the Books of Kings and Chronicles in Greek and Latin. In fine, in 1580, Carterius published the Commentary of Procopius upon Isaiah, from a Manuscript of the Cardinal of Rochefoucault. This Work is printed at Paris in Greek, and Latin over against it, and is very carefully done.   

The Anonymous Author of an Exposition of the Octateuque.  
THis Author, who is mentioned by Photius in the 36th Volume of his Bibliotheque, lived under the Empire of Justinus. He had composed a Book, entitled, The Book of Christians, or An Exposition 
The Anonymous Author of an Exposition of the Octateuque.  of the Octateuque, dedicated to one named Pamphilus. The style of this Work was mean, and the Syntax of it not extraordinary. He has proposed many Parodoxes altogether indefensible, which are more like Tales and Fables than any thing that is serious. Here follow some of them: That the Heaven and the Earth are not of around figure, but the Heaven is in the form of a Vault or an Arch: That the Earth is longer one way, and that its Extremities touch the Heaven; That all the Stars are in Motion, and that the Angels move them; with several other things of this Nature. He speaks also of Genesis and Exodus, but as it were by the by. He dwells a long time upon the Description of the Tabernacle; he runs thro' the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles; he says that the Sun is as big 
The Monk Jobitus.  as the two Climates, that the Angels are not in Heaven, but above the Firmament, and amongst us; That Jesus Christ ascending into the Heavens, stayed between the Heavens and the Firmament, that this is the place which is called the Kingdom of Heaven. These are some part of the Absurdities which this Author asserts: His Work was divided into Twelve Books. We have none of them now remaining, and what we have now said, shows sufficiently, how little reason we have to regret the loss of them.   

The Monk Jobius.  
THis is also an Author of the sixth Age, out of whom Photius has preserved long and excellent Extracts. The Monk Jobius wrote a Treatise of the Word Incarnate, divided into nine Books and 45 Chapters, upon those matters which were disputed in this Age concerning the Mystery of the Incarnation. Photius remarks, that he treated the Questions largely enough, but he gave not very good Solutions of them, contenting himself with what might probably satisfy, without searching deeply into the Truth; That his Doctrine was very Orthodox, both in this Work, and in what he wrote against Severus; that he was well-skilled and versed in the Holy Scripture, and that he undertook to write this Treatise at the desire of an honourable Person. This is what Photius observes in general upon this Work, of which he afterwards gives an Abridgement.  
The first and second Book were for the Explication of this Question, Why is the Son made Man, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Reason that he gives for it is, That the Son bears the Name of the Image of the Father, and of his Reason, and that from these Titles it was reasonable that he should come to reform the Image of Man, and restore to him that Reason which he had lost. He thinks that the Birth of Jesus Christ in a Stable among Oxen and Asses, the Parable of the Nets cast into the Sea which took all sorts of Fish, the Piece of Silver which was found by St. Peter in a Fish, the Entrance of Jesus Christ into Jerusalem upon an Ass, and the Gift of Tongues, are Figures of this Truth. After this Preface, which appears not very grave, nor worthy of the matter he handles, In the third Book, which gins at the ninth Chapter, he gives another Reason why the Son of God was made Man: And that is, because it was reasonable, that he who created and formed Man, should create him anew, and reform him: Now though the Father and the Holy Spirit created Man as well as the Son, yet the Creation is attributed to the Son, and 'tis said, that by him the Father made all things. He demands afterwards, Why Redemption was not made by an Angel or a Man. And upon this Question he says, That Men have tried many times to bring Salvation to Men, but with all they could do, they were not capable of saving one single Nation, how much more than was it impossible for them to redeem all Mankind, and to chain up the Devil who was become their Master. That no mere Man could do it, because none of them is free from sin: That neither did this agree to an Angel, to whom it did not belong to lead Spiritual Powers in triumph: That One being of the same Nature with the Rest, could not bring them into subjection; and that if St. Michael, disputing with the Devil about the Body of Moses, durst not bring a railing Accusation against him, how much lefs could an Angel make us Children by Adoption. From this Question he passes to another, Why God did not redeem Men by his Divinity without making himself Man. He answers; That God having not done it, we should believe that he ought not to have done it. This is the best Answer, or rather the only reasonable one; and this being proposed all the other become needless. In this place he shows, that though God be Almighty, yet there are some things which he cannot do, because it would be a defect or imperfection to do them. He says moreover, That the Redemption of Mankind was a more excellent thing than his Creation, and that it is a more particular sign of the Love of God to us. He adds, That it was fit the Word should be made Man, for our Salvation, since all other means had been ineffectual. But, one may say, Why did he permit that Man should become wicked? why did he not create him necessarily good? If this had been so, he would have had no freewill, and consequently he could have deserved nothing. Why did not he make him, may one say, like the Angels? This could not have been an advantage to Man, answers our Author, because God did not save the Angels who sinned. But we easily fall into sin. Yes, says he, and we rise again easily, God having left to Man a thousand ways whereby he may do Penance and save himself. He proposes to himself another very important Question, Why God made Man of two Parts of a different Nature? But he answers not this Question very well; for he only relates some passages of the Fathers, and says, That the Terrestrial Substance must have been adorned with the Union of a Spiritual Substance. He inquires, Why the Word was made Man; and he gives three Reasons for it. The first is, That he might give us an Example of Virtue. The second is, To deliver us from the Bondage of Sin. The third, To blot out Original Sin, and restore us to the state in which we were before Sin. He remarks that in the Trinity, the Father is considered as the first Cause, the Son as the acting Cause, and the Holy Spirit as that which perfects: That for this reason the Catechumen are seven days in a white Habit; that they are first baptised, and then anointed 
Justinian  with Oil, and lastly made partakers of the precious Blood before the Bread be given them; and upon this Subject he makes very mystical Reflections. Afterwards he gives three Reasons why Moses does not speak of the Creation of Angels. The first is, Because he wrote only for Men. The second, Because he would make God known by the visible Creatures. The third is, Lest it should be thought that the Angels created the World. He maintains that the Angels were not known till after the Promises which God made to Abraham. The fourth and fifth Book contain only two Chapters, wherein he endeavours to prove, That it was more convenient that the Son should be made Man then the Father. The sixth, which gins at the 22th Chapter, contains the Question, Why the Titles of Creator, Redeemer and Judge are attributed to the Son? He says, That they agree well enough to all the three Persons, but by way of excellence they are appropriated to the Son. He discourses of the Order of the Persons of the Trinity, and of the Title Holy, which is given to each Person. He citys upon this Subject St. Gregory Nazianzen, and the Books attributed to St. Denys the Areopagite.  
In the seventh Book he observes three Changes of the World: The first from Idolatry to the Knowledge of one God by the Law; The second from the Law to the Gospel, which Reveals the Son and the Holy Spirit; And the third, which gives a perfect Knowledge of the Trinity in another Life. Upon this occasion he handles many Questions concerning the Names of the Father and the Son: He gives many Reasons why the Son was not Incarnate from the beginning of the World. He speaks of the knowledge of the Trinity which the Blessed shall have in another Life, of the Obscurity of the Old Testament, and the Mysteries which it covers under the Letter of the Law.  
In the eighth he handles two Scholastical Questions: The first is, If it be a good proof, that there is in God one Person of the Word, because God cannot be without Reason, why will it not follow from hence, that there is in this Word another Word, and so in infinitum. Photius remarks, That he endeavours to answer this Objection thirteen manner of ways, but that they are weak, and though they may satisfy such Persons as are pious and religious, yet they afford matter of raillery to those who are of a contrary Disposition. In effect, these kind of Questions and Arguments can never produce any good Effects, but expose Religion to the Contempt of great Wits, and the Scoffs of the Impious. The other Question is no more useful, although it be at present more common: 'Tis demanded, Why the Son and the Holy Spirit, proceeding both from the Father, the one is called the Son, and the other the Holy Spirit; and why they have not both the Title of the Son? He could find no other Answer to this Question, but that this is the Custom, and that Men express, as they can, the Differences of the Divine Persons, although they comprehend them not. This Answer is ingenuous, very wise and reasonable.  
In the ninth Book he treats of the Dignity and Graces of the Angels and Men compared together; and applies to them the Parable of the Prodigal Child. After this he inquires, How it can be that Jesus Christ should die for all, since there was an infinite number of Men dead before his Coming? He answers to this Question, That Jesus Christ preached the Gospel to the Dead, and that all those who have lived well, and believed in him, are saved. He enlarges here very much upon the Explication of another passage of Jesus Christ, I came not to call the Righteous, but Sinners to Repentance. After this he treats also of the state wherein Angels and Man were created, of the Fall of the one and the other; of the Reasons for which God redeemed Man, and not the Angels, etc. This is enough to discover to us that the Work of this Author was not very useful; that he delighted to start difficult and intricate Questions; that he gives extraordinary Senses to passages of Scripture; that he maintains Propositions which are indefensible: In a word, that we ought not much to regret the loss of his Work, whereof the Extracts related by Photius are but too long, and very tedious.   

JUSTINIAN.  
THe Emperor Justinian may be justly ranked amongst Ecclesiastical Writers, for never Prince did meddle so much with what concerns the Affairs of the Church, nor make so many Constitutions and Laws upon this Subject. He was persuaded that it was the Duty of an Emperor, and for the good of the State, to have a particular care of the Church, to defend its Faith, to regulate External Discipline, and to employ the Civil Laws and the Temporal Power to preserve in it Order and Peace. Upon this account he did not only make a Collection of the Laws made by the Princes, his Predecessors, about Ecclesiastical Discipline, but he added many to them.  
Here follows the Catalogue and the Substance of them.  
The third Novel regulates the number of the Clergy of the great Church of Constantinople, and fixes it to 60 Priests, 100 Deacons, 40 Diaconesses, 90 Subdeacons, 110 Readers, 25 Chanters, and 100 Porters. It contains also, That it shall not be lawful for Clergymen to remove from a lesser Church to a greater, and that the Possessions of the Church shall be employed for the maintenance of the Poor, and other pious Works.  
The fifth Novel contains Regulations concerning the Monks and the Monasteries; That a Monastery shall not be built until the Bishop comes to the place, to Consecrate the Ground where it is to be built, by Prayer and fixing a Cross in it: That the Habit of a Monk must not be given to those who present themselves immediately after they are entered into the Monastery; but that they ought to continue Probationers for three years in their Secular Habit; that during this time it shall be lawful for those who redeem them as Slaves to take them back again, and not after this time is past; That the Monks ought to abide and lie in one and the same place, except the Anchorets and Hesycastes, who have attained a great perfection. That a Monk who quits his Monastery shall lose all his Riches that he had at his entrance into it, which shall belong henceforth to the Monastery. That a Man or a Woman who enter into a Monastery, may dispose of their Possessions before they enter into it; but if they enter into it without disposing of them, their Possessions belong to the Monastery, except the fourth part, which belongs to Children, or the Portion of a Daughter if she be married, and except that which they might have given. That if any Person abandon his Monastery to go into the Militia, he cannot enter into any but that of the Judges of the Provinces. That if a Monk go from one Monastery to another, his Possessions shall remain with the first Monastery. That the Abbots ought not to receive the Monks of another Monastery. That if a Monk enter into Orders he is forbidden to marry. That the Bishop must choose an Abbot without respect to his Age, but only to his Merit.  
The sixth Novel is about the Qualifications which those Persons ought to have who are Ordained. It contains, That he who would be ordained Bishop, should be of a good Life and good Reputation; That he should be one that was never engaged in the Military Service of the Governors or the Palace: That an ignorant Layman ought not to be promoted all on a sudden to this Dignity: That he must be one who was never married but once, and also one who was not espoused to a Widow; that he must have been for some time a Monk or a Clergyman; that he must be one who did not purchase his Ordination: That if any oppose his Ordination, and make any Objection against him, the Accusation shall be examined before he be Ordained: That a Bishop cannot be longer than one year out of his Diocese, upon any pretence for any Business whatsoever: That none can come to Court unless he be permitted by his Metropolitan; or if he be a Metropolitan by the Patriarch; and that he cannot desire Audience of the Emperor, unless he give an account to the Patriarch of Constantinople, or to the Surrogates of the Diocese whereof he is, of the occasion of his Journey.  
That the same Precautions shall be observed proportionably in the Ordination of inferior Clergymen: That such shall be chosen as are able Men, of a good Life, who have not been married but once, who have no Concubine, and are not espoused to a Widow-woman.  
That Diaconesses shall be Ordained only of Virgins, or of Widows who were never married but once, and who have passed the fiftieth year of their Age. That if it happen that any younger are Ordained, they shall enter into a Monastery: That as to others, they shall dwell alone, or only with their Father, their Son, or their Brethren.  
That 'tis forbidden, not only for Priests and Deacons; but also to Subdeacons and Readers, to quit their Station, under pain of serving in the Militia.  
That there shall not be too great a number of Clergymen.  
The seventh Novel contains many Regulations for preventing the Alienations or Prejudicial Exchanges of the Possessions of the Church.  
The eight grants to the Bishop of Justinianaea, being the place of Justinian's Birth, the title of Metropolitan, and also of Archbishop or Exarch of the two Dacia's, of the second Maesia, of Dordania, of the Province of Prevala, of the second Macedonia, and of the second Pannonia.  
The vast number of useless Clergymen was so great a charge to the Churches and People, and it was so difficult to prevent it, that Justinian was forced to make another Novel, wherein he forbids to Ordain Clergymen for the great Church in the room of those who die, willing them to take of those who are supernumerary in the other Churches. This Novel is the sixteenth.  
The 22th is of Marriages. There Justinian treats first of the Causes, of the Dissolution of Marriages. He distinguishes them into two sorts. The first are those which he calls ex bona gratia, because it is to be presumed that both Parties are willing. 1. When one of the two who are joined together makes a Vow of Chastity. 2. When the Husband is impotent for the space of three years. 3. When he is a Captive, or absent for the space of five years, without hearing any tidings of him, but not when he is a Slave, or condemned to the Mines, or exiled and banished for ever. 4. That nevertheless, if a Woman be espoused who is found to be a Slave, the Marriage shall be null for the future, unless he was her Master who married her as a Freewoman, in which case she shall continue free. 5. Constantine had permitted a Woman, whose Husband had been four years in the Wars without writing to her, or giving her any Marks of his Affection, to marry another.  
Justinian repeals this Law, and ordains that a Woman cannot marry again till the end of ten years, and also till she has solicited her Husband to return, and presented her Petition to his Captain or his Colonel, whereby it may be evident that he has no mind to return to his Wife.  
These are the Causes of the Dissolution of Marriages which Justinian calls ex bona gratia.  
The other Causes are those which are Rigorous: As, if a Man or a Woman are convicted of Adultery, or Murder, or Poisoning or Theft, or Treason, or Robbery, or any other Crime; and if it happen that the Woman is found guilty of these Crimes, she shall continue five years without being capable of marrying again; and also if it be she who convicts her Husband of them, she shall at least continue one year before her second Marriage. Justinian adds also three Causes for which Women may be Divorced; If they make themselves Miscarry; If they bathe with other Men; If they speak of Marriage to others while their Husband is alive. The other Titles of this Novel concerns Civil Effects.  
The 40th Novel permits the Church of the Resurrection at Jerusalem to sell the Houses which it had in the City.  
The 42th is the Edict against Anthimus, Severus, Peter and Zoaras, related in the fifth Council.  
The 43th grants to the great Church 1100 Shops free from Taxes, and deprives all others of the same Privilege.  
The 46th is of the Alienation of the Possessions of the Church, and of the Payment of Debts.  
The 55th confirms the preceding, and permits the Exchanges of Possessions, and the long Leases of Lands among the Churches.  
The 56th forbids to exact any thing for the Registering of Letters of Ordination, but it allows to receive what had been the Custom to pay for it in the great Church.  
In the 57th its Ordained, That when Clergymen quit the Church which they serve, others shall be put in their places, who shall enjoy the Revenues. In it 'tis forbidden that Founders should place Clergymen in the Churches by their own Authority; only they are allowed the Right of presenting them to the Bishop.  
The 58th forbids the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries in private Houses.  
The 59th regulates Ecclesiastical Fees, chief for Funerals.  
The 65th contains a particular Order about the Revenues of the Churches of Mysia.  
The 67th forbids to make Chapels without the Bishops ' leave. It order those who build them to furnish them with things necessary: It forbids Bishops to forsake their Churches, and regulates the manner of making Alienations of the Possessions of the Church.  
The 76th is an Interpretation of the Law which forbids Monks to dispose of their Possessions, in favour of those who were entered into a Religious House before this Law was published.  
The 77th allows to Bishops the Knowledge and Decision of the Causes which concern Religious Men and Women.  
The 81st exempts him from Paternal Power who is made a Bishop.  
The 83d ordains, That if any one has any Civil Affair with a Clergyman, he shall first apply himself to his Bishop: That if the Bishop cannot be Judge of it, either because of the nature of the Business, or for some other Difficulty, than he may apply himself to the Judges: That if it be a Criminal Cause, than the Civil Judges shall take Cognizance of it; and if they judge the Party accused to be guilty, than he shall be Degraded by his Bishop before he be Condemned by the Secular Judge: That if it be an Ecclesiastical Fault, which deserves only an Ecclesiastical Penalty, the Cognizance of it shall belong to the Bishop only.  
The 86th Empowers the Bishops to oblige the Judges to do Justice to Parties, and also to judge them when the Judges are suspected.  
The 111th grants the Prescription of forty years to Churches.  
The 117th contains the Reasons for which a Divorce may be granted. A Man may divorce his Wife, if she has conspired against the State, if she is convicted of Adultery, if she has attempted her Husband's Life, if she has dwelled or washed with Strangers against her Husband's will, if she be present at Public Sports in spite of him. The Woman may also be parted from her Husband, if he be a Criminal to the State, if he has attempted her Life, if he would have prostituted her, if he cohabits with other Women after his Wife has admonished him to forsake their Company. He forbids the Dissolution of Marriages which are made with the Consent of both Parties, unless it be for a reasonable Cause, as to preserve Chastity. Justinian repeals here what he had Ordained concerning Persons who were in the Army, and Ordains, That it shall never be lawful for a Woman to marry again, unless she has sufficient Proof or Witnesses, whereby it may appear that her Husband is dead.  
The 120th contains many Orders concerning the Revenues of the Church.  
The 123th is one of those which contains most Regulations of Ecclesiastical Discipline. The first concerns the Ordination of Bishops. Justinian ordains, That the Clergy and Great Men should choose three Persons, after they have taken an Oath upon the Holy Gospels, that they shall not make this Election with respect to any Promise or Gift, or to favour their Friend: That these three Persons must be capable, and have the necessary Qualifications; that they must at least be 35 years old: That they may choose of those who are in Public Offices, Curialis aut Officialis, provided they have been 15 years in a Monastery, and even one of the Laity, on condition that he shall not be ordained Bishop till he has been three years in Inferior Orders. He allows, That if three Persons cannot be found who have the necessary qualifications, that they choose one or two of them. He adds, That it these to whom the Election belongs, do not choose in six months' time, he that has a Right to Ordain the Bishop may do it, by choosing one Person who has the necessary qualifications: When any of the Persons chosen is accused, his Cause ought to be heard, and 'tis forbidden to Ordain him until he has purged himself from the Accusation. 'tis forbidden to offer, or give any thing for the Election or Ordination; But a Bishop is allowed to give his Estate, or part of it, to his Church. 'Tis allo allowed to Patriarches or Metropolitans to take a certain Sum of those who are Ordained, provided it exceed not that which it is the Custom to give, and that is here expressly set down. The following Titles contain divers Privileges of Bishops, as deliverance from Bondage, exemption from Tutelage and public Offices, discharging them from the Obligation to appear before Judges to make Oath, and exempting them from the Jurisdiction of Secular Judges: After which Bishops are forbidden to abandon their Churches. 'Tis ordained, That Archbishops and Patriarches shall hold Synods once or twice in a year.  
As to what concerns the Clergy, the Novel forbids to Ordain them unless they have studied, and understand their Religion, and be of a good Life. They must have no Concubine, nor Natural Children, but they must be Virgins, or such as are married only once to one Woman. Those who are ordained Priests ought to be 30 years old, the Deacons and Subdeacons 23, the Clerks 18, and the Deaconesses 40 years old. If any Person be accused who is designed for the Clergy, before he is Ordained, he must be cleared from this Accusation. If he who is to be Ordained, has not a Wife, then, before he is Ordained, he must engage to live in Celibacy; but he who Ordains a Deacon, or Sub-deacon, may permit him to marry after his Ordination. That if a Priest, or Deacon, or Sub-deacon happen to espouse a Woman after his Ordination, he is to be turned out from the Clergy. That a Reader may marry, but if he contract a second Marriage, or espouse a Widow, he cannot ascend to a higher Dignity among the Clergy. 'Tis forbidden to Ordain those as Clerks, who are engaged in Offices for the Public, Curialis aut Officialis, at least unless they have been 15 years' Monks. That if any marry after they have been among the Clergy, they shall return to their first Condition. 'Tis forbidden also to give any thing for Ordinations or Benefices. If a Slave be Ordained with the consent of his Master, he becomes free; if it be without his Master's knowledge, he may redeem him in a year; but however this be, if he be of the Clergy, he shall be restored to his Master. When any Person found'st a Chapel, and endows it with Revenues necessary for the Maintenance of the Clergy, it is allowed to Him and his Heirs to name the Clergy that shall serve in it, and those whom he names aught to be Ordained, if they be worthy and capable, if not, the Bishop may place there such as he shall judge more worthy. Liberty is given to all Clergymen to dispose of their Estates: Penalties are appointed against all those who bear false witness. 'Tis ordered that those who have any business against a Clergyman, a Monk, a Deaconess, a Religious Man or Woman, do first apply themselves to the Bishop who shall judge them; if the Parties acquiesce in his Judgement, it shall be put in execution; if not, the matter shall be examined before a Secular Judge. If he confirms the Bishop's Sentence, there shall lie no further Appeal, but if his Sentence be different, there shall be room for an Appeal. If it be a Criminal Cause, and the Bishop has been informed of it, he shall Degrade the guilty Person, and after that the Secular Judge shall Condemn him. If a Civil Judge has been informed of it, he shall communicate the Informations to the Bishop. If the Informations be found just, and the Party accused be convicted, he shall degrade him.  
As to the Bishops, and the Differences which they may have with their Brethren, or their Clergy, these aught to be brought before the Metropolitan or the Patriarch.  
The following Chapters order, when, after what manner, and before whom the Bishops and Surrogates which are at Constantinople, may be appointed. 'Tis forbidden to prosecute the Bishops or Clergymen who are sent about the Affairs of their Churches. Justinian order the Monks or Religious Persons not to go out of their Monastery for any Civil Affairs; but they must have a Proctor. He does absolutely forbid Clergymen to keep strange Women, or Deaconesses to dwell with Men: He forbids any, under the severest Penalties, to disturb Divine Service in the Church, or in the Processions, which he order not to be made without the Bishop and his Clergy.  
The rest of the Novel concerns Monks. The Abbot ought to be chosen by all the Monks: The Habit ought not to be given to any who is presented to become a Religious Person, till after three years: The Monks should dwell all in one and the same place, except the Old or Infirm, who may have separate Cells. The same thing shall be observed in the Convents of the Nuns: The Monasteries of Men and Women shall be parted. The Nuns have liberty to choose a Priest or a Deacon, to carry to them the Responses, or to administer to them the Communion; the Bishop shall approve him if he be found of a good Life; Nay, if they should choose one who is neither Priest nor Deacon, who is found worthy of this, Ministry, the Bishop shall Ordain him; but these Clergymen are forbidden to continue in the Monastery. Justinian ordains also in favour of the Religious Men and Women, that such things as shall be given them, or left them as Legacies, on condition that they marry, or in case they have Children, shall be entirely their own. He declares that the Possessions of any one that enters into a Monastery do of right belong to the Monastery, except in the case of Legitimate Children, if they have any. He regulates the manner in which the Goods of a Man and his Wife shall be distributed, when one of the two, who are joined together by Marriage, or both of them▪ enter into a Monastery. He takes from Fathers and Mothers the power of di●…eriting their Children who enter into Monasteries: He order that the Monks who go out of their Monastery shall be punished by the Bishop. He enacts most severe Penalties against those who carry away Religious Persons. In fine, he forbids Laymen and Stage-Players to take the Habit of a Religious Man or Woman.  
The Novel 131 contains the following Chapters.  
In the first, 'tis ordained that the four first Councils shall be received.  
In the second, the first place is given to the Pope of Rome, and the second to the Patriarch of Constantinople.  
The third grants to the Archbishop of Justinianaea, Jurisdiction over the Churches of Dacia, Mysia, Dardania and Pannonia.  
The fourth renews the ancient Rights and Privileges of the Church of C●rthage.  
The fifth exempts the Possessions of the Church from extraordinary Taxes.  
The sixth grants the Prescription of 40 years to the Churches.  
The seventh contains, that he who has begun to build a Church or Chappel, shall be obliged to finish it.  
The eighth forbids the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries in private places.  
The ninth Ordains, that a Legacy, given to God, shall belong to the Church of the House of the Testator: If it be to a Chapel without naming it, that the Legacy shall be given to the Poorest of the same place.  
The tenth obliges Heirs to perform his Will, who by his Testament founded a Chapel or Hospital.  
The 11th empowers the Bishop to see pious Legacies paid.  
The 12th repeals the Falcidian Law, as to what concerns pious Legacies, and Orders, that the Goods of the Deceased shall be employed for paying these Legacies.  
The 13th forbids the Bishops to dispose by Will of the Goods they have got since they were made Bishops.  
The 14th forbids Heretics to buy the Possessions of the Church, or to build Churches; and particularly, to sell to Heretics those▪ Possessions where there is a Church or Chappel built.  
The 15th places those in the Rank of Tutors, who are Overseers to the Hospitals of Children.  
The 133th Novel repeats the Regulations which are made in the foregoing, wherein Monks are forbidden to dwell apart, to have any thing peculiar to themselves, and to go out of their Monastery. It adds to these, That the Abbot shall place at the Gate of the Monastery ancient Monks of known Probity, who shall hinder the Monks from going out without leave, and Secular Persons from entering in: That he shall not suffer his Monks to go out to walk, and that he shall carry them all with him to Divine Service, and after they shall return to the Monastery, they shall employ themselves in praising God, and reading the Holy Scripture: That he shall not suffer Women to enter into the Monasteries of Men, nor Men into those of Women, upon any pretence whatsoever, no not though they be Brethren or Sisters: There is no Case excepted but that of burying in the Monasteries of Women; for than it is allowed that Men shall enter into them to make the Graves, but the Religious shall not appear before them, only the Abbess and the Woman-Porter shall be present to receive them, and shall make them go out assoon as they have finished their Work. Those who are to take care of Monasteries are enjoined to see that Order and Discipline be maintained in them. 'Tis ordered that those who manage the Affairs of Women, and carry the Communion to them, should be Aged, and of an Exemplary Life. The Religious Women are forbidden to speak to them; but they must address themselves to the Abbess, who has leave to come and speak to them at the Gate. The rest of the Novel concerns the Chastisement of the Religious who do not their duty; if their Fault be slight, they shall be admonished, and a short Penance shall be imposed upon them; if it▪ be greater, a long Penance shall be enjoined them; if they be incorrigible they shall be turned out. If a Monk shall be found at a Public House, he shall be delivered into the hands of the Wardens, who shall chastise him, and deliver him into the hands of his Abbot.  
The 137th Novel is concerning Ordinations. After a Preface, wherein Justinian▪ declares the Obligation that lay upon him to see the Canons observed, and of what importance it was, that those who are Ordained, should be worthy of this Dignity, he order that the Ordination shall be made after this following manner. When a Bishop must be ordained, the Clergy and chief Men of the City, shall meet together, and choose three Persons who have the necessary Qualifications: That a Confession of Faith shall be given to them in writing; that the Forms of the Obligation of Baptism, and the other Prayers, shall be repeated unto them; That if any allege any Crime against those who are chosen, the Accusations shall be examined; that if the Accuser do not convict him of it, or do not appear at the Trial, he shall be Deposed, if a Clergyman; and severely punished if a Layman. After this Justinian renews the Order which enjoins Provincial Councils to be 〈◊〉 but he reduces them to one only in a year▪ in the Month of June or September. He Ordains, That all Causes shall be heard in this Council, which concern the Faith, or Discipline, or the Persons of Bishops, of Priests, of Deacons, of other Clergymen, of Abbots and Monks. He enjoins also, that▪ without staying for the time of the Councils when any of those Persons are accused, the 〈◊〉 shall take 〈◊〉 of t●● 〈…〉 ●g●inst ●he Metropolitan▪ the Metropolitan shall judge of t●●t 〈◊〉 〈…〉 ●●d the B●●●op of that which concerns the Clergy and Abbots. 
Di●… Exiguns▪  He 〈…〉 the People with a ●oud Voice, and after 〈…〉 of the Oblation and the Prayers of Baptism. In fine, he commands the Governors of Provinces to take in hand the Execution of these Orders, and to constrain the Bishops to hold Synods.  
The 140th Novel restores the ancient C●●tom, whereby married Persons were allowed to separate, with the Consent of one another without any other Form●….  
The 146th Novel allows the Jews to read the Bible in the Hebrew, and in Latin according to the 〈◊〉, bu● 〈◊〉 them to use any other Greek Version but that of the Septuagint. It Ordains also that those of the Sect of the Sadducees, who teach that there is no Judgement nor Resurrection, shall not be pe●…●o ●o●d any Assembly.  
Besides these Novels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which regulate almost all the Discipline of the Church in his time, we have also of his a Letter and Confession of Faith in Latin, which he sent to Pope John, and 〈◊〉 〈…〉 Ag●…, of which we have already spoken, another Letter to the fifth Council, and two Letters concerning an Enquiry, to know whether the name of Theodorus of Mopsuesta was in the Dypti●… registered 〈◊〉 the Act● of the fifth Council. [His Novels were printed by themselves ●n Greek by 〈◊〉, at Paris in 1553, oct●vo, by Schringer●● ibid. 1558. Gr. Lat. at 〈◊〉 15●●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ 399.]  
We have in Greek and Latin his Treatise and Letter against the Errors of Origen, the Confession of Faith in opposition to the th●ee Chapters, and a particular Letter against Theod●rus of Mopsuesta, without including his Edict against Anthimus, that are printed in the Council under Menn●●, which makes the 41th Novel. We shall have occasion to speak of these Monuments, when we give the History of the fifth Council.  
We must not imagine that Justinian co●po●'d these Acts and Treatises himself, who, if we may believe Suid●, had little o● no Learning. But it must be confessed, that the Persons whom he employed, were very learned, and understood very well the Discipline of the Church and the Canons; that they wrote in such a manner, as was very worthy of the Majesty of a Prince; for there is nothing better dictated then the Laws, the Edicts, and Letters which go under the name of Justinian: In them you may see the marks of Gravity, Wisdom and Majesty, which are not to be found in the Laws of other Princes. This Emperor begun his Reign in 527, and died in 565.   

DIONYSIUS EXIGUUS.  
DI●…, surnamed Exigu●●, was born in Sc●thia, a Monk by Profession, flourished after the beginning of the sixth Age, till the Ye●r 540: He understood very well Greek and Latin, and had also studied the Holy Scripture. Cassi●dorus, who conversed with him, wrote his Panegyric in the 23th Chapter of his Book of Divine Learning. At the desire of Stephen Bishop of Salenae, he made a Collection of C●●on● that were ●●●ely translated, which contains, besides these which were in the Code of the Universal Church, the 50 first Canons of the Apostles, those of the Council of Sa●dic●, and 138 Canons of the Councils of Afric. This Code of Canons was approved and received by the Church of R●m●, according to the Testimony of Cassiodorus, and by the Church of France and other Latin Churc●e●, according to that of Hinemarus. It was printed by the care of Mr. Justel in 1628., with a Vers●on of the Letter of St. Cyril, and of the Council of Alexandria against Nestorius, which is also the Translation of Di●nysius Exigu●●. This Work being finished, he thought fit to join with them the 〈◊〉 of the Popes, and therefore made a Collection of them, which gins with those of Siricius, which are the ●●rst, and ends with those of Anasta●ius: There has been since added to them ●●ose of Hilary, Simplici●●, Felix and other Popes down to St. Gregory. This second Collection w●● inserted by 〈◊〉 into his Bibli●theea of Canon Law. At the beginning of this Collection there are the Epi●tles of Popes, a Letter of the Author addressed to Julianus a Priest by the Title of St. Anasta●●a▪ wherein he praise● Pope Gelasius.  
This Diony●●●● Exig●●s was the first who introduced the way of counting the years from the Birth of Je●●● Christ, an● who fixed it according to the Epecha of the vulgar Aera, which is not therefore the ●rue one. He wrote also two Letters upon E●ster in 525, and 526, which were published by Father octavius', and by Bucherius, and made a Cycle of 95 years. F. Mabi●…on published a Letter of h●● written to E●gippius, about the Translation which he made of a Book of Gregory Nyssen, concerning the Creation of Man, p. 2. A●…ct. p. 1.  
〈◊〉 assures that he understood the Greek so perfectly, that casting his Eyes upon a Greek Book he could read it in Latin, and a Latin Book in Greek. This Talon of his makes it very probable that he Translated Greek Books well. Yet we have nothing under his Name but the Versions of the Canons, the Version of the Letter of St. Cyril, the Version of a Letter of Pr●terius about Easter, the Version of the Life of St. Pachomius, the Version of a Discourse and two Letters of Proclus, and the Version of the Treatise of St. Gregory Nyssen about the Creation of Man. There is also 
Cassiodorus  attributed to him the Translation of the History of the Invention of St. John Baptist's Head, written by the Abbot Marcellus. He gives the sense faithfully and intelligibly, but his words are not always well chosen.   

CASSIODORUS.  
MArcus Aurelius Cassiodorus, a Senator, descended of an illustrious Family, born at Squillaca a City of Calabria, about the Year 470, was promoted to the chief Offices at Court, by Odoacer King of the Herculi. This King being vanquished by Theodoric King of the Goths, Cassiodorus had no less Reputation in the Court of this last Prince, then of the former. He was made Governor of Calabria, and afterwards preferred many times to the Dignity of Questor, Master of the Palace, Profect Praetorio, and was made Consul in 514. He was most powerful at the Court of the Kings Theodoricus, Atharicus and Vitiges. Although he was in the Court of those Arian Princes, yet he never departed from the Catholic Faith, but united the Title of a Good Christian with that of an Honourable Person and a Great Magistrate. At the Age of 69 or 70, desiring to think more seriously of his Salvation, he retired from Court and founded the Monastery of Vivarium in his own Country. Father Garretus, who published his Works, h●s taken great pains, and made a formal Dissertation on purpose to prove that he followed the Rule of St. Benedict; but it is a question about which few People will trouble themselves. However this be, Cassiodorus governed this Monastery for the space of 20 years; and there he died in peace, being aged 90 years.  
The Works of this Author are considerable, but there are many of them which are not about Ecclesiastical Matters. They are all collected together in the last Edition made at Rouen in 1679.  
The first Tome contains all the Letters and Public Acts which he dedicated when he was in Offices. This Work is entitled, Divers Letters, collected together by Cassiodorus himself, and divided into twelve Books. The five first contain the Letters which he wrote in the name of King Theodoric, and under his Reign; the sixth and seventh contain divers Forms; the eighth, ninth and tenth contain the Letters written in the Names of the Kings Athalaricus, Theodatus, and Vitiges; the two last contain the Letters which he wrote when he was Perfect Praetorio. There are some of them written to all sorts of Persons, and about all kind of Affairs, so that they contain a wonderful variety of rare and curious things. They are all well written, full of good Sense, and very good Morality.  
The Tripartite History is not properly the Work of Cassiodorus. Epiphanius Scholasticus translated into Latin the three Greek Historians, Socrates, Sozomon, and Theodoret; but as these Authors wrote the History of the same Time, so in reading them there is often found a Repetition of the same things: And Cassiodorus made out of these three one Body of History, by extracting out of every one what he says in particular, and avoiding the Repetition of what is said by more than one.  
The Chronicon of Cassiodorus is very fuccinct, and contains only the Names of Consuls, and the principal Transactions: It is not very exact for Chronology.  
He wrote the History of the Goths, but there remains nothing now but a little Abridgement of this Work made by Jornandes.  
These are the Works contained in the first Tome of Cassiodorus.  
The first Work of the second is his Commentary upon the Psalms, which he wrote in his Monastery. He says himself in the Presace, That having renounced Secular Business and the Cares of the World, and begun to taste the sweetness of the Psalms, he was wholly addicted to the reading of this Book; and finding in them some dark places, he had recourse to the Commentary of St. Austin, wherein he found an infinite abundance of matter, and that he himself had added some later Discoveries. After this Commendation of the Psalms, and observing that they are sung to the Office of the Night and the Morning, at the first, third, sixth, ninth hour, and at Vespers, he proposes some general Remarks upon the Psalms. 1. He inquires what is Prophecy, and defines it, A way of speaking of Divine Things with Majesty and Truth by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 2. He says, That the Names of Persons that are at the beginning of the Psalms, are not the Names of the Authors, but of those who were to sing them, and to play upon Instruments. 3. That the Title in finem, To the End signifies that the Psalm has relation to Jesus Christ. 4. That the Psalter is properly an Instrument of Music in the form of a D. That it may be applied to all Songs that are played upon this Instrument, and that it agrees in a particular manner to David's Work. 5. That a sweet and harmonious sound is properly called a Psalm, but a Song is a singing with the Voice, and when the Voice accompanies the instrument, than it is called a Psalm Song. 6. That a Pause is rather a mark of dist●●ction and change of the Person, according to the Opinion of St. Austin, 
S. Benedict  than a Continuation according to that of St. Jerom. 7. That the Psalms are but one Book divided into five parts. 8. That Jesus Christ is there represented both as God and as Man, and as God-man. 9 That in his Commentary he will first explain the Title of the Psalm, and then divide it into parts, and after that discover the literal and spiritual sense of it; and then he will declare the design of it, and lastly give the Sum of the whole Psalm, or dispute against some Error. 10. He speaks of the Eloquence and Usefulness of the Psalms. 11. He praises the Church. In fine, he divides the Psalter into twelve parts, which he applies to the twelve states of Jesus Christ. These are the Prolegomena of Cassiodorus to his Commentary upon the Psalms. His Commentary is very large, he has taken many things, not only out of St. Austin, but also out of the other Fathers: It contains much Morality.  
The Commentary upon the Canticles is none of Cassiodorus', although it goes under his Name in some Manuscripts, since the Author of this Commentary quotes the words of St. Gregory the Great, besides that this Commentary has not the style of Cassiodorus.  
He wrote Commentaries upon the Epittles of St. Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Revelation, but they are now lost.  
It cannot be expressed, how many useful things are contained in his Treatise of the Institution to Divine Learning, or an Instruction for Learning Theology. He observes, in the Preface, that being troubled that there should be Masters for Human Learning, and Schools founded for teaching it, but none for Divine Learning, he had endeavoured, with the help of Agapetus, to found Schools of Theology at Rome, as there had been formerly at Alexandria, and in his time at Nisibis: But the War hindering him of Success in his Design, he thought it his duty to write these Books, as an Introduction to the Study of Theology. He would have the Holy Scripture studied in the first place, beginning at the Psalms, and then the Reading of the Fathers to follow. After he has spoken of the Commentaries of the Fathers, upon the Books of the Bible, and of their Writings, he mentions the four General Councils. Afterwards he gives an account of the different divisions of the Books of Scripture; he speaks of the Hebrew Text and the Versions: from thence he passes to the Ecclesiastical Historians and Latin Fathers. He adds Remarks about the Order wherein the Holy Scripture is to be read, about the Observations which may be made use of about the necessity of understanding Cosmography, about the study of Human Learning, about Orthography and the Sciences.  
The Treatises of Cassiodorus about the Sciences and Liberal Arts concern not Ecclesiastical Matters: that of the Soul has a nearer relation to the Dogmes of the Church. There he maintains, that the Soul is spiritual, that God created it, that it is immortal, and that it has no quantity nor extension. Having spoken of the Powers of the Soul, he says that it contracts Original Gild, from which it is not delivered but by Baptism, and that during this Life it is capable of Virtues and Vices. Lastly, he says, that the Soul being separated from the Body by Death, is no more capable of doing Good or Evil, nor subject to the Infirmities of this Life; but that it expects either with Joy or Sorrow the Time of the General Judgement, at which it receives the reward of its good Actions, or the punishment due to its Crimes 
* In these words Cassiodorus plainly asserts, that there are only two different states after this Life, the one of a joyful, and the other of a sorrowful expectation of a future Judgement, and that these two states are immutable, since good Souls are reserved with Joy, and wicked Souls with Sorrow to the Sentence of the last Day: And so they plainly exclude the Romish Purgatory, which is a state of Sorrow after this Life from which some Souls are delivered at last, to a state of endless Joy. . And then having described the Happiness of Paradise, he concludes with an excellent Prayer.  
The style of Cassiodorus is of a middle size; he writes cleanly enough for his time: He is full of Sentences and very useful Moral thoughts.  
The Works of Cassiodorus which had been printed separately, were all collected together by the ca●e of Father Garetus, of the Congregation of St. Maurus, and printed at Rouen in 1679.   

St. BENEDICT.  
Although St. Benedict is more considerable among the Monks, then among Ecclesiastical Writers, yet he is ranked among these also. He was born in the Province of Nursia, about the year 480. He was carried very young to Rome, from whence he retired to Sublacum, which is forty miles from Rome, where he shut himself up in a frightful Cave. There he continued for three years, without acquainting any body but St. Romanus, who let him down Bread by the help of a Rope: Being afterwards known, the Monks of a neighbouring Monastery chose him for their Abbot. But he not agreeing with their way of Living, retired to his Desert, where many Persons came to him, and desired to put themselves under his Conduct; insomuch that in a short time, he built twelve Monasteries in this place. From thence he passed in the Year 529, to the Mount Cassinus, where he laid down solid Foundations of an Order; which in a little time spread itself over all Europe. There is a difference about the time of his Death, and his Disciples look upon this as a very important Question. As to us, it does not so nearly concern us as to insist upon it, and therefore we will suppose with Father Mabillon, that he died in 543, or with the Author of the Treatise concerning the Hemina, in 547. St. Gregory in his Dialogues wrote the Life of this Saint, which is full of Miracles very extraordinary. I shall not stay here to relate them, nor to inquire into the truth of them, this being no part of my Province.  
The Rule of St. Benedict is the only Work that is truly his. St. Gregory thinks it better written and more prudent than all the rest, Sermone luculentam, Discretione praecipuam? 'Tis divided into 77 Chapters. St. Benedict there distinguishes four sorts of Monks; the Caenobites, who live in a Monastery, under the Government of an Abbot; the Anchorets, who having learned the Exercises of a Monastic Life in a Monastery, retire alone into the Deserts; the Sarabaites, who dwell two or three in the same Cell; and the Gyrovagis, who go from Monastery to Monastery, without staying in any place: He condemns these two kinds of Monks, and chief the last; and without insisting upon what concerns the Anchorets, he composes his Rule only for the Caenobites. There he speaks first of the Qualifications which an Abbot ought to have, after what manner he should serve for an Example to his Monks, and treat them all alike well, without showing more affection to one than another; how he should reprove, and even punish those who commit Faults. He proposes to them afterwards many Christian and Spiritual Maxims; he recommends to them Obedience, Silence and Humility; he notes the Hours for Divine Service by Day and Night, and the order and manner of repeating it. After this he speaks of the Punishments which should be inflicted on those who offend: The first is Excommunication, or a Separation from the Fellowship of the Brethren, whether at Table, or at Prayers; the second is, the Chastisement of those with Rods, whom the Excommunication cannot reform; and the last is the Expulsion out of the Monastery. Nevertheless he permits a Brother to be received three times who is turned out for his Faults, provided he promise to amend. He orders, That the Monks have all things in common, and that every thing be at the disposal of the Abbot and under the care of the Steward; that in the distribution of things necessary for Maintenance, no respect is to be had to the Quality, but to the Weakness of the Brethren: He enjoins the Brethren to serve in the Kitchen and Refectory by turns. He requires, that special care be taken of the Infirm, of Children, and Old Men; he appoints the Hours and the quantity of Meat and Drink; and Penances for lesser faults: He recommends to them Labour, and notes the hours for it; he provides for the Entertainment of Strangers; he forbids the Monks to receive Presents or Letters from their Kinsfolk: He leaves the Abbots at liberty to give Habits to their Religious proportioned to the temper of the place where they are; yet he thinks that 'tis sufficient in temperate Places to give them a Cowle, a Tunique, and a Scapulary. He would not have the Monks complain of the colour or coarsness of these Habits; but that they should take such as are given them, and such as are to be had in the Province where they are. The following manner wherein he would have one received who presents himself for admission into the Monastery, is very rude. He must patiently suffer for four or five days the Repulses and Rebuffs of a Porter; after this he must be put for some days into the Chamber of the Guests, where an ancient Man will come to speak to him, and to represent to him that which is the rudest thing in all the Rule: If he be obstinate the whole shall be read to him, but if he promise to observe it, he shall be admitted into the Chamber of the Novices, where he shall be tried: At the end of six Months the Rule must be read over to him again, and if he be obstinate after this, it shall yet be read over to him at the end of four Months: But then if he promise to observe it, he shall be admitted, after he is given to understand that he can no more go out of the Monastery. 'Tis necessary also that he promise in the Oratory, before God and his Saints, and in the presence of all the World to change his Life, and continue steadfast in that Change; but first he must be required to make this Promise, and to Subscribe this Demand with his Hand, or if he cannot write, another must write for him, and he must set his Mark to it. That if he has any Means, he must give them all away before he makes Profession, either to the Poor, or to the Monastery, without reserving any thing to himself. If they be Parents who present a young Child, they must make the same Promise for him, and engage to give him nothing as his own proper Goods. As to the Priests which are presented, St. Benedict would not have them easily received; yet if they be importunate, they may be received upon condition that they will observe the Rule. Yet to them shall be granted the first places after the Abbot, the Power of giving Benedictions, and of Overseeing Divine Service. As to Monks that are Strangers, they shall be received as Guests if they desire to tarry, and provided they be found to have lived well while they were among the Guests, they shall be admitted, and the Abbot may also bestow upon them an honourable place: But if it be observed that they did not behave themselves well, they shall not only be denied Admission, but also be desired to withdraw. If the Abbot pleases, he may choose any one of his Monks to be Ordained Priest or Deacon, but this shall not exempt them from the Rule, nor from attending upon the Service of the Altar: He shall continue in the same station, unless the Abbot will bestow upon him a higher. The Degree among the Religious is reckoned from the day that they enter into the Monastery. St. Benedict speaks here also of the Qualifications which the Abbot ought to have, and of those of the Prior, and of the Duty of the Porter. He forbids the Religious to go forth without the leave of the Abbot: Those that go out, should at their going forth recommend themselves to his Prayers, and at their Return, they should lie prostrate on the Ground during the time of Divine Service: He recommends to the 
Pope Silverius.  Monks to be respectful and meek to one another. Lastly, he declares that his Rule contains only the first Elements of a Religious and Spiritual Life and that the Books of the Fathers contain it in perfection.  
There are several Disputes about the understanding of some places in this Rule, which I leave to the Disciples of St. Benedict, who take them for a matter of great moment: The Public, which is much less concerned about them, will eastly dispense with me for not relating them; for I do not think that the World will much trouble themselves to know, whether the Hemina mentioned by St. Benedict, be the half quart of Paris or St. Denis; whether the word Communion be always taken in the Rule of St. Benedict for the signs of Charity and Union, or if it be taken in some places for the Eucharist; whether the word Mess do signify there in some places what we understand by it at present, or whether it be always taken for the End or Duration of Divine Service, etc. There are not many besides the Disciples of St. Benedict, to whom these Questions can appear important. The common People are not concerned in them, and the Learned who are not of the Order, will employ their Curiosity and Learning upon other Subjects.  
There are also attributed to St. Benedict a Letter to St. Remigius, a Sermon upon the Death of St. Placidai, a Discourse upon the Departure of St. Maurus, a Letter to the same Saint, an Order of the Monastic Life; but none of these Pieces is St. benedict's.   

Pope SILVERIUS.  
THe News of the Death of Agapetus, which happened, as we have said, at Constantinople, being carried to Rome, Silverius the Son of Pope Hormisdas, was cohosen in his room. Anastasius affirms that this Election was not free, and that King Theodatus forced the Clergy to choose Silverius. He alleges also that he gave Money to the Prince to get himself chosen: But Liberatus, an Author more ancient and more credible than Anastasius, supposes that this Election was Canonical; and 'tis very probable that this Calumny against Silverius was invented to justify the Intrusion of Vigilius. However this be, 'tis certain that Silverius was acknowledged by the Clergy and People as lawful Bishop of Rome.  
Bellisarius was then at Rome with a powerful Army, and having taken the City of Naples, he advanced towards Rome. The Goths deposed King Theodatus, and placed in his room a brave Captain called Vitiges. He not finding himself strong enough to oppose Bellisarius, went out of Rome, and retired to Ravenna. The Romans informed Bellisarius of this, and received him into Rome, according to the Pope's Advice. He entered into it victoriously in the Month of December, in the Year 536. But Vitiges returned quickly with an Army of 150000 Men, and laid Siege to Rome, which lasted a year and some days. The Pope Silverius having been chosen under a King of the Goths, and perhaps by his Interest, was suspected at the Court of the Greek Emperor: besides this, he had declared against Anthimus and the Asephali, whom the Empress Theodora maintained. The Deacon Vigilius remained at Constantinople after the Death of Agapetus, who had for a long time aspired to the Bishopric, and made use of this Occasion to get himself promoted to it. He promised the Empress, that if she would make him Pope he would receive Theodosius, Anthimus, and Severus into his Communion, and that he would approve their Doctrine. The Empress not only promised to make him Pope, but also offered him Money if he would do what she desired. Vigilius having given the Empress all the Assurances that she could wish, departed with a secret Order addressed to Bellisarius to make him successful in his Design. Vigilius being come into Italy, found all things well prepared for him; the Siege of Rome was raised when he arrived there; but during the Siege Silverius was suspected to hold Correspondence with the Goths, and so he was rendered odious for refusing expressly to except the Empresses Proposals of receiving Anthimus. Thus Vigilius having delivered to Bellisarius the Order which he brought, and having promised him two hundred pieces of Gold over and above the seven hundred which he was to give him, found no great difficulty to persuade him to drive away Silverius. For accomplishing this he made use of two Pretences, which we have already hinted, he caused him to come before him, and accused him of writing to the Goths, and pressed him to approve Anthimus. There wanted not Forgers who counterfeited a Letter written in the Name of Silverius to the King of the Goths, to deliver up the City of Rome to him, nor false Witnesses who deposed that he had this design. Bellisarius caused to bring Silverius before him, and solicited him to satisfy the Empress, by approving the Doctrine of Anthimus, and then sent him back again. Silverius refusing to hearken to this Proposal, he caused him to be brought a second time into his Palace, and discovered to him what he was accused of: but having sworn to him that he should have liberty to go away, he was not seized. He was sent for the third time, and after his entrance the Wife of Bellisarius upbraided him with his perfidiousness, and immediately he was stripped of his Sacerdotal Habit, and his Clergy were told that he was Deposed; and an Order was sent to 
The Pope Vigilius.  them to choose Vigilius in his room. Silverius was presently banished to Patava, a City of the Province of Lyria. When he was arrived in this City, the Bishop animated with Zeal for Justice, went to wait upon the Emperor, and remonstrated to him, That it was a thing which ●…ed to Heaven for vengeance, that the Bishop of a See so considerable as that of Rome, should be unjustly turned out. Justinian, who had no hand in this Negotiation, ordered that Silverius should be sent back into Italy, and that the Letter should be examined which he was charged to have written, that if it was found to be none of his, he should be restored to his See; but if it was found to be his, he should have the Title of a simple Bishop of some City. The Empress sent immediately Pelagius into Italy to hinder the return of Silverius. But the Order of the Emperor was executed so much the more easily, because Vigilius had failed in his Promise, both to the Empress, in not doing what she defined, and to Bellisarius, in not giving the Money which he had promised. So Silverius was carried back to Italy, but it was only to increase his misery; for Vigilius fearing to be forced away from the Throne which he had invaded, performed the Promises which he had made, on condition that Silverius should be delivered into his hands. This was put in execution, he was delivered to the Guards of Vigilius, and he was banished into the Isles of Pontienna and Pandataria, which were over against the Mount Cirrellus, where he died of Famine in great misery, if we may believe Liberatus. Procopius in his Secret History seems to insinuate that he was killed by one named Eugenius, a Man devoted to Antonina the Wife of Bellisarius: but what Procopius says may be understood, not of the Death of Silverius, but rather of his Accusation or Apprehension.  
The Letters attributed to Silverius are feigned upon his History.  
The first wherein 'tis supposed that he upbraids Vigilius with his Crime, and that he condemns him, is dated under Prince Basil. Now there was not one of this Name in the time of the Pontificat of Silverius; and besides this it is Mercator's style, full of Barbarisms and Phrases of other Popes. In short, it cannot agree with the History, because 'tis supposed in it, that Silverius after his Deposition assembled a Council, wherein he Anathematised Vigilius, which has not the least probability.  
The Letter of Amator Bishop of Autun to Silverius, sent with the Presents which this Bishop is supposed to make unto him, is also a Forgery, as well as the Answer of Silverius to this Letter: Both the one and the other are Mercator's style, and have the same Marks of Forgery with the other Letters forged by this Impostor.   

The Pope VIGILIUS.  
Although Vigilius was promoted to the See of Rome by a way altogether unjust, yet he continued in the possession of it after the Death of Silverius, and was acknowledged for a lawful Pope, without proceeding to a new Election, or even confirming that which had been made. The Conduct which he had observed during his Pontificat, answered well enough to its unhappy beginning. He had at first approved the Doctrine of Anthimus, and that of the Acephali, to satisfy the Empress: but the fear of being turned out by the People of Rome, whom he hated, made him quickly recall this approbation; yet he did not by this gain the hearts of the Romans. They could not endure an Usurper, who having been the cause of the death of their lawful Bishop, would abuse them also: they accused him also of having killed his Secretary with a blow of his fist, and of having whipped his Sister's Son till he died. The Empress, who was not satisfied with him, because he had gone back from his word, sent Anthimus to Rome with an Order to bring him into Greece; and at his departure the People gave him all sorts of Imprecations. He was sometime in the Isle of Sicily, and arrived not at Constantinople until the 20th of January of the Year 547. The Affair of the three Chapters was then warmly disputed in the East: and Vigilius having learned in Sicily that they were condemned without his Concurrence, at first was very much troubled at it: He testified his discontent after his Arrival at Constantinople, but he quickly yielded to the Menaces and Entreaties of the Empress. Yet he would not grant all that was desired of him, and proposed a General Council, thinking by that to gain time, without discontenting any body. Notwithstanding this, Justinian published an Edict: Vigilius opposed it briskly, and thundered a Sentence of Excommunication against Theodorus of Caesarea, the Author of this Edict, and of Suspension against Mennas. He withstood the Condemnation of the three Chapters which was resolved upon in the fifth Council; he suffered himself to be banished rather than subscribe to it: Nevertheless, not being guided by Zeal for the Truth, but by his own Caprice, or Interest, he quickly condemned them after an Authentical manner, that he might return into Italy. During his absence Rome was taken and sacked in 547, by Totila, and retaken in 553 by Narses General of Justinian's Army. The Romans being set at liberty, demanded their Bishop again, who had been absent now for many years. Justinian offered them to send him back again to them, or if they had rather, to permit them to Ordain the Archdeacon Pelagius. They prayed him to send them Vigilius, pro●…g to him that they would choose Pelagius after his Death. Justinian granted him to them. Vigilius ●…ed in Sicily in 555; Pelagius his Successor was suspected to have contributed to his Death, but he purged himself by Oath upon the holy Gospels and the Cross.  
We have already observed, that Vigilius, to get ●…rius into his hands, had consented to all that the Empress desired by receiving into his Co●… the Bishops of the Faction of the Acephali, and approving their Doctrine, Liberatus relates the Letter which he wrote to them, and assures us, that it was accompanied with a Confession of Faith, wherein he condemns those who distinguished, the two Natures in Jesus Christ, and made Profession of believing one Christ only composed of two Natures; pronouncing an Anathema against ●…se who admit two Forms in Jesus Christ, who did not acknowledge, that the Miracles and Sufferings belonged to one and the same Christ, and did not own that the Word suffered, and particularly against Paulus of Samosata, Dioscorus, Theodorus and Theodoret. Baronius and Binius endeavour to make incredible, that this was not Vigilius'; but Liberatus is more to be believed than they, and Vigilius was certainly capable of doing it.  
The second Letter of Vigilius addressed to Eucherius, is that of the first day of March in the Year 538. He answers this Bishop about certain A●…es concerning which he had consulted him. 1. He condemns those who under pretence of Ab●…ence superstitiously refrain from eating any Meat, thinking it forbidden, and evil in itself. 2. He order the Canons of the H. See to be observed, concerning the solemn Administration of Baptism; and reproves those who cut off the Particle, And, in the Gloria Patri, between the Son and the H. Spirit, singing, Gloria Patri & Filio Spiritus Sancto, instead of, & Spiritus Sancto. 3. He says that he had sent to him who writes the Ecclesiastical Canons taken out of the Archives of the Church of Rome, made with respect to those, who having been baptised in the Church, were rebaptised by the Arians when they returned to the Church. He adds, that nevertheless, their Penance may be diminished, in proportion to their fervour; but that they must not be received by that Imposition of Hands, which is used to cause the Holy Spirit to descend, but by that which is used to reconcile Penitents. 4. He thinks that a Church must not be Consecrated anew, which is rebuilt upon the same Foundations, but that it is sufficient to celebrate Mess in it. This Consecration was made by throwing Holy Water upon it; for to show that it was not necessary to consecrate it anew, he uses this Expression, Nihil Judicamus officere, si per eam minime aqua benedicta jactetur. 5. He fixes the Day of the Feast of Easter approaching; he says that Divine Service is performed after the same manner in all the Feasts, that some Chapters only are added, which agree either to the Mysteries, or to the Saint whose Feast it is: He sends Relics to him to whom he writes. Here this Letter should end, for he declares that he had answered all the Demands of this Bishop, and makes him a Compliment wherewith it was usual to conclude a Letter: Yet there are in it two other Articles, which have no relation to the preceding, nor any connexion with the remainder of the Letter. The first condemns the Priests who name not the three Persons in administering Baptism; the second is about the Primacy of the Church of Rome. It affirms, that there is no doubt but the Roman Church is the Foundation, Form and Principle of all the Churches, because though all the Apostles were chosen after the same manner, yet St. Peter had the Pre-eminence above the other; which made him be called Cephas, because he is the Head and Prince of the other Apostles; that therefore the Church of Rome has the Primacy among all the Churches, and that 'tis necessary, that the Causes which concern the Persons of Bishops, or the important Affairs of the Church, should be communicated to him, and that the Appeals of these Causes should be reserved to him. 'Tis very probable that these two Articles are added.  
In the third Letter Vigilius makes Answer to Caesarius Bishop of Arles, about King Theodebert's Consulting him concerning the Penance which should be imposed upon one who had married his Brother's Wife. Vigilius had already written to the King, that this Crime could not be expiated but by a great Penance: But because 'tis convenient that the Penance should be regulated by the Bishops upon the place, since none but they can know the condition of the Penitent, he commits this care to Caesarius, with whom he leaves full power to regulate the Time and Order of this Penance: But he admonishes him to require, that he commit no more such things for the future, and to hinder him and her, who were thus married, from dwelling together.  
The fourth Letter is addressed to Justinian; There he praises the Piety and Faith of this Emperor, who had written to him, that he would inviolably adhere to the Faith established in the four General Councils, and in the Letters of St. Celestin and St. Leo. He testifies to him that he is of the same Judgement, and that he approves what his Predecessors Hormisdas, John and Agapetus had done against the Heretics, and that he condemns the Persons whom they had condemned. He recommends it to this Prince, that he would maintain the Privileges of the See of Rome, which could not be attacked without violating, as one may say, the Faith.  
In the following Letter he congratulates Mennas for being of the same Judgement: This is dated Sept. 17th, 540.  
The sixth, seventh and eighth Letters are addressed to Auxanius Bishop of Arles. In the first he grants him the Pallium: In the second he makes him his Vicar in the Kingdom of Childebert, and annexes two Prerogatives to this Title. The first is to examine and judge the Causes of the Bishops of this Kingdom, provided notwithstanding, that if any Causes of Faith or of difficult Matters happens they shall be reserved to the Decision of the Holy See. The second is, that no Bishop shall go out of his Country, without taking Literae Formatae from him. He exhorts him afterwards 
Caesarius Bishop of Arles  to pray for Justinian, and to preserve the Peace and good Understanding between King Childeber: and the Emperor.  
In the third Letter to Auxanius, Vigilius commissions him to Judge the Affair of Pretextatus. The first of these Letters is dated Octob. 18th, 543, and the other two May 22th, 545. The same day he wrote a fourth to the Bishops of the Kingdom of Childebert, and to those who were accustomed to receive their Consecration from the Bishop of Arles, wherein he gives them to understand that he had made Auxanius his Vicar, and sets forth the Rights which he had granted him.  
After the death of Auxanius, he gave the same Title and the same Privileges to his Successor Aurelianus, as appears by the Letters ten and eleven, written in 546.  
The other Letters and Treatises of Vigilius having a relation to the History of the fifth Council, of which they make a part, we shall reserve them to be spoken of upon that Head.   

CAESARIUS Bishop of Arles.  
CAesarius born at Chalons upon the River Sun, a Monk and Abbot of Lerina, and afterwards Bishop of Arles, was one of the most famous Bishops of France in his time. He was honoured with divers Letters from the Popes, who made him their Vicar. He assisted at many Councils of France, in which he caused very excellent and useful Canons to be made. He governed the See of Arles from the Year 501, to the Year 543. He is mentioned in Gennadius' Book of Ecclesiastical Writers; but 'tis certain that this place was added: For besides that, it is not found in some Editions, and many Manuscripts of Gennadius, 'tis evident that Caesarius was not yet Bishop of Arles, when Gennadius wrote this Book: Yet this Chapter being written by an ancient Author, we may give credit to what he says in it, that Caesarius composed some Books very useful for Monks. Sigibert of Gemblours calls them Homilies proper for the Monastical Life. We have many Homilies which go under his Name, which are published in the Bibliotheque of the Fathers, in the Collection of M. Baluzius, and among the Sermons of St. Austin. Some of them perhaps are none of his, and 'tis certain that several places are added in them: But these Homilies are not Discourses to Monks, but Sermons to the People. He composed a very great number of them, not only to serve for Preaching in his own Church, which he did very often Morning and Evening; but also to send them to his Brethren of France, Italy and Spain, that they might use them for the Instruction of their People: From hence it is, that a great number of them are restored to him in the last Edition of St. Austin's Sermons. He oftentimes transcribed the Sermons of others, and chief those of St. Austin.  
He founded a Monastery of Nuns at Arles, whereof his Sister Caesaria was Abbess: He drew up a Rule for them which is in the Collection of Benedict of Aniane, where is found also a Discourse exhorting them to Chastity; a Letter which he wrote to the Abbess, about the manner of governing her Nuns, and the Testament of this Bishop. His Life was written by his Disciple Cyprianus, by the Priest Messianus, and by the Deacon Stephen. These Lives are extant in the first Benedictine Age; but I question whether they be altogether genuine, and such as they were made by their first Authors. The Author who placed his Name in Gennadius, attributes to him a Collection of Passages out of the Holy Scripture and the Fathers about Grace, which is approved by Pope Felix; which is to be understood of the Canons of the second Council of Orange, at which Caesarius assisted.   

PONTIANUS.  
THis Bishop wrote a Letter to Justinian, wherein he praises his Zeal and Piety, and remonstrates to him, that he thought he could not condemn Theodorus, the Writings of Theodoret and the Letter of Ibas, because he had not seen their Writings, and though he should see them, and find in 
Pontianus.  them things worthy of Condemnation, yet he could not condemn the Authors that died in the Communion of the Church: That he was afraid lest under the pretence of condemning these Authors, they should revive the Heresy of Eutyches. Lastly, he informs him that he could not make war with the dead, who are judged by a Judge, from whose Judgement there lies no Appeal; and prays him not to persecute and put to death those who are alive, to force them to condemn some that 
Leo Archbishop of Sens.  are dead. This Letter is in the Councils Tome 5. p. 324.   

LEO Archbishop of Sens.  
THe Bishops have always been jealous of their Jurisdiction, and vigorously opposed the dismemberings which the Princes would make of the Parts of their Diocese: This Archbishop of Sens may serve for an example of this. King Childebert would establish a Bishop in the City of Melodunum which was in his Kingdom, though it belonged to the Diocese of Sens. Leo wrote to him a Civil Letter in defence of his Rights, and to hinder the Erection of this Bishopric: He represents to him, that this could not be done without the consent of King Theodebert, that it was contrary to the Ecclesiastical Canons; that he ought not to suffer the Peace which was among the Bishops to be disturbed by his Order, and that some of the People should be withdrawn from under the Jurisdiction of their Bishop, that he could not allege as a Pretence for erecting this new Bishopric of Melodunum, that the Bishop of Sens could not make his Visitation there, because the ways were stopped up; since there was nothing to hinder the Bishop of Sens to go thither, or send his Deputy. Lastly, he declares, that whosoever shall Ordain a Bishop at Melodunum without his Consent, unless it were ordered by the Pope, or in a Synod, shall be excluded from his Communion, as well as he who shall be Ordained. This Letter is written under the Reign of Theodebert, which begun in 535 and ended in 548.   

TROJANUS Bishop of Santones.  
THis Bishop wrote a Letter to Evemerus, or Eumerius Bishop of Nantes, who had consulted him, Whether he ought to Baptise a Person who did not remember that he was baptised: He answers 
Trojanus Bishop of Santones.  him, That he ought to baptise all those who did not remember that they were baptised, or had no proof that they had been baptised.   

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

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

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

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

JUSTINIANUS and JUSTUS Bishops of Spain,  
ISidore of Sevil observes it as a thing extraordinary, that there were in Spain, under the Reign of Theodius, i. e. toward the Year 535, four Brethren born of the same Mother, all four Bishops, 
Justinianus and Justus Bishops of Spain.  and all four Writers.  
The first is Justinian Bishop of Valentia, who wrote a Treatise containing divers Answers to the Questions of Rusticus; The first concerning the Holy Spirit; the second against the followers of Bonosus, who believed that Jesus Christ was an Adoptive Son, and not the Natural Son of God; the third about the Baptism of Jesus Christ, to show that it is not lawful to reiterate it; the fourth, about the Distinction between John's Baptism, and that of Jesus Christ; the fifth to prove that the Son is invisible as the Father.  
The second was Justus Bishop of Urgellum, who published a little Commentary upon the Canticles, wherein he explains in a few words, and very clearly, the Allegorical sense of this Book of Holy Scripture.  
The two other Brethren were called Hebrides and Elpides; but it is not known where they were Bishops, and what is the subject of their Writings. We have not now the Work of Justinian, but only that of Justus upon the Canticles. St. Isidore has given a sound Judgement of it: In it he expounds very succinctly and clearly the Canticles, by applying it to Jesus Christ and his Church. There are two Letters of the same Bishop in the fifth Tome of the Spicilegium of Luc Dachery, the first whereof is supposititious.   

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

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

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

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

FACUNDUS.  
FAcundus Bishop of Hermiana, a City of the Province of Byracena in Afric, being at Constantinople at the time when Justinian would extort from the Bishops the Condemnation of the three 
Facundus.  Chapters, wrote a Book in Defence of them before Vigilius arrived at Constantinople. When this Pope was come, Facundus assisted at the Conference which was held upon this Subject; and being afterwards obliged to give his Opinion in Writing, he made Extracts out of his own Book in great haste, the Emperor not allowing him but seven days to give his Opinion, though there happened two of them to be Festivals. This Facundus himself informs us, in the Preface of his twelve Books written in Defence of the three Chapters.  
In the first he handles many Questions concerning the Mystery of the Incarnation. In the first place he commends the Confession of Faith which Justinian had published in the Year 533, and approves also of this Expression, One of the Trinity was crucified; after this he remarks, that the three Chapters were invented by the Eutychians to weaken the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon; That the Origenians, to revenge themselves on those who had Condemned them, were joined with the Eutychians, and not daring openly to attack the Council of Chalcedon, they had consulted to procure the Condemnation of the Letter of Ibas, which was approved in this Council, that they might indirectly Condemn the Bishops that were present at it; That, in short, it was not necessary, for rejecting the Error of the Nestorians, to Condemn the three Chapters, but it was sufficient to say, that One of the Trinity suffered, and that the Virgin was the Mother of God: That there are some Catholics, who would not have it said, That one of the Trinity, but, One of the Persons of the Trinity suffered: That notwithstanding both the one and the other of these Propositions is capable of a good sense, but the last does not formally enough exclude the Error of the Nestorians. Here he remarks, en passant, that when 'tis said in Scripture, that Baptism was administered by the Apostles in the Name of Jesus Christ, this aught to be understood only by way of Opposition to the Baptism of the Jews, and not so as to exclude the Invocation of the other Persons. Afterward he shows that we ought to say, that the Virgin is truly and properly the Mother of God, and that it may also be said, that God is the Father of a crucified Man, without inferring from thence, that the Divinity was born of a Virgin, or that it was crucified. He proves also against the Eutychians, that there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, and not only One Nature compounded as they affirm. He explains the Passages of Julius and St. Cyril, which they make use of to give Authority to their Sentiment, by proving that these two Bishops acknowledged two Natures in Jesus Christ. He bushes these things yet further, by maintaining that those who admit but one compounded Nature, favoured the Sentiment of Nestorius, because they cannot say that this Nature was of the same Substance with that of the Eternal Father, which is most Simple, from whence it follows, that the Person of Jesus Christ is not of the same Substance with the Father. In fine, he observes, that the difference between the Union of the Soul and Body, and that of the Divine and Human Nature in Jesus Christ, consists in this, That the Soul and Body are united into one and the same Nature, whereas the Divine, and Human Nature are united into One Person only.  
Facundus having discovered the Purity of his Faith in the first Book, undertakes in the second the Defence of the three Chapters. That he may do this the more freely, he supposes that the Writing against the three Chapters, which goes under the Name of Justinian, is none of his, but that it was composed by the Enemies of the Council of Chalcedon. He cries out, that it were needless to discuss the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, who died a long while ago in the Communion of the Church; that his Memory is struck at for no other reason, but because he was commended in the Letter of Ibas, approved in the Council of Chalcedon; but then he was also commended and approved, while he was alive, by the Fathers of the Church, as by John Chrysostom, by St. Gregory Nazianzen, by John of Antioch, by Domnus, and even by a Synod of Oriental Bishops held at Antioch; That the Writings of Theodoret, and the Letter of Ibas would not be condemned, but only to lessen the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon; and that the chief reason why the Letter of Ibas is attacked, is, because it clearly distinguishes the two Natures in the Person of Jesus Christ: That the reason which they make use of for condemning it, Because St. Cyril is abused in it, is a vain pretence, since they say nothing of Gennadius of Constantinople, and Isidore, who have spoken much worse of this Father: That, in short, they cannot condemn this Letter of Ibas, because the Council of Chalcedon, having examined it, did not think it convenient to condemn it; and so much the rather, since St. Leo, and the Synodical Assemblies of the Eastern Churches, had declared that nothing must be added to the Decisions of this Council: That it was needless to wait for the Judgement of Vigilius, since he could not departed from the Sentiments of his Predecessor, having received his Sovereign Power for Edification, and not for Destruction, and he had no Power against the Truth, but only for the Truth.  
In the third Book he defends particularly Theodorus of Mopsuesta. In the first place he remarks, That he cannot be condemned without accusing the Council of Chalcedon, or St. Leo, of Error or Negligence. After this he maintains, That the Doctrine of this Bishop was very Orthodox, and that he condemned the Error of Paulus of Samosata and Nestorius; and he proves from his Writings that he rejected these Errors. He asserts that the Creed which is attributed to him, and was condemned in the Council of Ephesus, is none of his. He gives a good Sense to the Passages which are alleged to prove that he was in an Error; he defends him also against that Accusation, That he had subverted the Prophecies of Jesus Christ.  
In the fourth Book he maintains, That we ought not to follow the Judgement of St. Cyril about the Condemnation of Theodorus, since what he says against St. Chrysostom and Diodorus of Tarsus is not approved. He shows that the Eastern Patriarches acknowledged at first sight, that the Condemnation of the three Chapters was invented only to lessen the Council of Chalcedon. He complains, That notwithstanding they had signed it, and cowardly surrendered themselves to the Will of the Prince; he remarks, that Vigilius would not consent to it, and that the greater part of the Western Churches opposed it.  
The fifth Book is about the Letter of Ibas: He pretends to prove, That the Council of Chalcedon approved it, that Ibas never denied his writing of it: He affirms as to Theodoret, That he had a Seat in the Council, before the Condemnation of Dioscorus and Eutyches: He shows that St. Leo approved all that was done in the Council, except what concerned the Pretention of the Patriarch of Constantinople: From whence he concludes, That after so solemn an Approbation by the Council and the Pope, 'tis not lawful to condemn this Letter.  
He goes further in the sixth and seventh Book, wherein he undertakes to justify the Judgement of the Council, by showing that the Letter of Ibas contains no Heresy, and that he acknowledged two Natures and one Person in Jesus Christ. He confesses, that in it he condemned St. Cyril and excused Nestorius: But he maintains, That this was by a mistake of the matter of Fact, that the Council did not think it their duty to condemn him for this as an Heretic: That it cannot be charged upon him as a Crime, that he praised Theodorus of Mopsuesta, since St. Chrysostom and St. Gregory Nazianzen had also praised him.  
In the eighth Book he defends Theodorus, first, by showing that the Holy Fathers and the Eastern Bishops used Expressions like to those of Theodorus; that 'tis false that Proclus pr●scribed him; that the Eastern Bishops wrote to Theodosius and St. Cyril, that he must not be condemned; that Theodosius approved their Judgement; that Domnus Bishop of Antioch praised him, and declared that we must not blacken the memory of those Persons who died in the Communion of the Church; that the Fathers and Bishops of his Time praised and esteemed him, that St. Cyril is the only Father who condemned him, but his Judgement ought not to be preferred before all the others.  
In the ninth Book he undertakes to justify Theodorus by his Writings, and to prove that be believed that Jesus Christ was God, and that he acknowledged in him two Natures united in One Person only: He explains some Expressions of this Author, which may appear harsh: He lays it down for a Rule, that we must interpret obscure and ambiguous Places by those that are clear and evident.  
In the tenth Book he shows, That though some places were to be blamed in the Writings of Theodorus, yet the Council had done well not to condemn him, either because these places had not come to their knowledge, or because they were capable of a good sense, or lastly, because it may be believed that they were added by his Enemies: That though it were evident that he was in an Error, yet he ought not to be condemned as an Heretic, since he was not obstinate in it, and had shown himself to be of a tractable spirit, by retracting what he had affirmed: That though he had been more culpable, yet Ibas might praise him for what he had written well: That though he had been accused Judicially in the Council, yet he could not be condemned since he died in the Peace and Communion of the Church: That Athanasius was not condemned for defending Dionysius of Alexandria; that it is yet more easy to defend Theodorus of Mopsuesta; That the Council had as much right to excuse Theodorus, as St. Basil had to explain the passages of Gregory Thaumaturgus, or St. Hilary to interpret the Expressions of the Councils of Antioch and Sirmium. Lastly, he reprehends four things in the Anathema pronounced against Theodorus of Mopsuesta, against his Doctrine and those of his Opinion. 1. That a Person is anathematised who died in the Communion of the Church. 2. That in anathematising him, all those who approved him are anathematised. 3. That all his Dogmes in general are condemned. 4. That they do not only condemn those who are of his Opinion, but those who have been of it.  
In the eleventh Book he shows, That the ancient Fathers used many Expressions altogether like those of Theodorus of Mopsuesta: He produces their passages, and argues very much upon them, He observes, that the Expressions of the Fathers ought to be taken in a good sense, and what being less exact escaped them aught to be pardoned. He shows that many of these Expressions are in St. Cyril, which are blamed in Theodorus.  
In the last Book he shows at first, That there is a great deal of difference between those Heretics that are separated from the Church, and even those that lie concealed and are obstinate, and those Catholics who are in an Error thro' Ignorance, or want of understanding things perfectly well, and who continue in an entire submission to the Church. From whence he concludes, That though Theodorus had been in an Error, yet he could not be condemned as a Heretic, since he was not only never separated from the Church, but also had signified very much his teachable temper and submission to it. He remonstrates, That it belongs to Princes to submit in Matters of Faith, and that they ought not to ascribe to themselves what pertains to the Bishops: He proves this by the Examples of the Emperors Marcianus and Leo, to whom he opposes the Example of the Emperor Zeno. He concludes with an Exhortation to the Emperor to renounce the Error wherein he was engaged, and proposes to him the Example of the Great Theodosius.  
There is a famous passage in the ninth Book about the Eucharist, which seems not to favour the Real Presence: For to excuse Theodorus, who had called Jesus Christ an Adopted Son, he maintains, that this Name may be given him, because he had received the Sacrament or Sign of Adoption, which may be called the Adoption itself; as 'tis said, That the Faithful in receiving the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, receive his Body and his Blood; not that the Bread is properly his Body, and the Cup his Blood, but because they contain in them the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 
* This is a notable place against Transubstantiation which Du Pin found too hot for his handling, or else he had never sent us to another for satisfaction, after he had so clearly proposed the Argument of Facundus in its full force. .  
I shall not stay to Answer this, nor to examine the true sense of this passage, nor to show that it may agree very well with the Real Presence, because this has been already done by able Writers of Controversy, and particularly by the Author of the Perpetuity, who has forgot nothing that could be said upon this Subject. Every one may consult him.  
Facundus having so stoutly defended the three Chapters, did not change his Judgement like Vigilius, on the contrary, he was one of those who continued steadfast unto the end, and chose rather to suffer Banishment, than sign the Condemnation of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, the Writings of Theodoret, and the Letter of Ibas. But that which was most to be blamed in their Conduct, was▪ That they did not only disallow this Subscription, but they also separated from the Communion of those who had subscribed.  
When the passages of St. Austin were objected to them, who had very often repeated, That we must suffer the Wicked to be in the Church, and not separate from it upon their account; Facundus 
Victor of Capua.  undertakes ●o answer this in a writing addressed to Mocianus or Mucianus, who was one of those that had a great value for these passages, and who compared to the Donatists, those Christians, who separated from the Communion of the Church for the Affair of the three Chapters. Facundus asserts in this Writing, That there is a great deal of difference between them and the Donatists: That there was no Controversy in the time of the Donatists but concerning Separation and Schism, but now the Question is concerning Faith; That the Example of the Condemnation of Acacius, clearly justified their Separation from Communion with those who favoured Heretics; That those who sign the Condemnation of the three Chapters, join with Heretics, condemn the Council of Chalcedon, Anathematise the Holy-fathers' of the Church, and so separate themselves from its Communion; That it is not the Church of Afric which makes the Separation, but it only refuses to communicate with such Persons as were themselves separate from the Communion of the Church. Afterwards he relates what passed upon the Condemnation of the three Chapters: He blames the Constitution which Vigilius had made in favour of the three Chapters: And lastly, he maintains that the Bishops of Afric in separating from those who had signed the three Chapters, imitated the Conduct which Hilary and St. Jerom● observed towards the Arians.  
He handles also the same Question in a Letter published by Father D'Achery in the third Tome of his Spicilegium: He affirms that those who condemn the three Chapters, are either Heretics, or the the Successors of Heretics; Heretics, if they have unjustly condemned them; the Successors of Heretics, if they did it justly, since their Fathers and Predecessors did not condemn them; and that by condemning the Letter of Ibas, they approve the Doctrine of the Acephali, and reject that of the two Natures in Jesus Christ: From these Principles he concludes that they are Heretics. He adds, That they usurp a Judgement over the Dead which pertains to God only: He accuses them of changing their Sentiment every moment, by suffering themselves to be corrupted by Presents, or the Hopes of Preferment. Afterwards he presses those who sign the Condemnation of the three Chapters, to show the Acts of the Council where Theodorus was condemned, as these are shown by which it appears that he was approved. He demands of them, Whether the Council of Chalcedon is Orthodox or no: If they say that it is, he affirms that they are Heretics, because they condemn that which it approves: If they say that it is not, by this they presently declare themselves to be Heretics. He maintains, That those who are joined to these who condemn the three Chapters are as faulty as they, and that they separate from the Church by Communicating with Heretics; that if they do not approve them in words, yet they approve them in Deeds; That 'tis true, Nothing is to be preferred before Peace, but then, the Authors of the Condemnation of the three Chapters, are they who have broken the Peace, and that nothing ●inders the Re-establishment of it but their adhering to this Condemnation.  
This is what remains of the Works of Facundus. He writes with great eagerness, he turns things with much Art and Eloquence: He does often make Judicious Remarks, and use solid Arguments; but his Zeal and Eagerness transports him some times too far, and carries him to make false Reflections, and bad Inferences. He had read very well the Treatises of the Fathers about the Incarnation, and knew very well the History of the Disputes which the Explication of this Mystery had raised in the Church. Baronius had seen the Books of this Author, in a Manuscript of the Vatican Library, and took many things out of them. Since that F. Sirmondus published them in the Year 1629, according to a Copy taken from that Manuscript. They have been printed also since, together with Optatus in 1676.   

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

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

PRIMASIUS.  
PRimasius Bishop of A●ru●ettum, a City in the Province of Byracena, was at Constantinople, at the time when the fifth Council was held. C●…odorus assures us, That he wrote a Commentary 
Primasius.  upon the Revelations, divided into five Books. This Work was printed at Basil in 1544, and at Lions in 1543, together with a Commentary upon all the Epistles of St. Paul. These Works are Collections of Extracts out of the Fathers, and Commentators. In the Commentary upon St. Paul, he copies oftentimes that which goes under the Name of St. Jerom.  
St. Isidore of Sevil says nothing of these Comme●… but he informs us that Primasius wrote three Books of Heresies addressed to Fortunatus, wherein he explains what St. Austin had left imperfect in his Book of Heresies, showing in the first Book what it is that makes a Heretic. In the second and third, by what Heretics may be known. Some Learned Men think that the Book which F. 〈◊〉 has published under the Name of Predesti●…, because it had no Title in his Manuscript, i● the Work of 〈◊〉. This Opinion is not only founded upon a bare Conjecture, but upon the Authority of a Manuscript of this Treatise, found in Germany by F. Mabillon, which bears the Name of 〈◊〉. This seems to be a concluding Argument; but yet if it be well considered what 〈◊〉 says of the Book of Pr●…, and withal we attend to the Doctrine of the Author, ●…led 〈◊〉, it will appear that this cannot be: For the Book written by Primasius, was not, according to Isidore, a Catalogue of Heresies, but it was a Treatise, wherein he undertook to resolve the Question which St. Austin proposed to himself, and which he designed to handle in the second Part of his Book of Heresies, viz. Wherein consists Heresy, and how it may be known when a Person is a Heretic. Now there is not a word said of this Question in the Treatise published by Father Sirmondus under the Name of Predestinatus. 'Tis divided into three Parts, but the first is a Catalogue of Heresies; the second is a Treatise composed under the Name of St. Austin by a pretended Predestinarian; the third is a Confutation of this Treatise: This is wholly different from the Subject of that whereof Isidorus speaks.  
Moreover, Primasius was a faithful Disciple of the Doctrine of St. Austin, as appears by his Commentaries; but this Author on the contrary is one of his greatest Enemies; and in some places he afferts Doctrines which are altogether Pelagian. 'Tis very probable therefore, that some half learned Man knowing that Primasius had written a Treatise of Heresies, divided into three Parts, and finding 〈◊〉 Anonymous Author upon the same Subject, which was also divided into three Parts, made no scruple to put the Name of this Bishop to it.   

JUNILIUS. 
Junilius.   
JUnilius a Bishop of Afric, addressed to him of whom we spoke last, a Treatise of the Parts of the Divine Law, which is a kind of Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scripture. Cassiodorus mentions it. The Author says that he had this Work from one Persanus, named Paul, who had studied at Nisibis, where there was a Public School for teaching the Holy Scripture. The Reflections of this Author are very Judicious and Methodical. Here follows an Abridgement of it: The Knowledge of the Scripture consists of two Parts; The first concerns the Surface or the Diction of the Scripture; the second concerns the things themselves which the Scripture teaches us. The first Part contains five things; the Nature of the Book, its Authority, its Author, the Manner wherein it is written, and the Order wherein it ought to be placed. There are in it five kinds of Books; History, which is the Relation of things past; of which kind the Author reckons but seventeen Canonical Books in the Old and New Testament, and rejects as Apocryphal, not only the Books of Maccabees and that of Judith, but also the two Books of Chronicles, the Book of Job, the two Books of Esdras, and the Book of Esther. Prophecy is the second kind of Books in the Holy Scripture; which he defines, A Declaration of things past, present, or future. Of this kind he finds seventeen Books in both the Testaments, and observes that the Orientalists reject the Apocalypse. The third manner of writing is the Proverbial Manner, which he defines, A figurative way of speaking, which intends something else to be understood then what it signifies, and contains Advices for the present time. The Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and the Wisdom of Syrach, i. e. Ecclesiasticus, are of this kind; to these may be added the Book of Wisdom and the Canticles: Allegory pertains to this kind, which is taken either from a Metaphor, or a Comparison, or a Parable, or from a Proverbial way of Speaking. Lastly, the last Manner is that of mere Instruction, the Epistles of St. Paul are of this kind.  
As to the Authority of Scripture, he observes, That there are Books of a perfect Authority, and others of a less perfects, and others last which are of none at all.  
The Authors of these Books are known, either by their Titles, or by the beginning of their Works. Moses is the Author of the Pentateuque, Joshua of the Book which goes under his Name, Samuel of the first Book of the Kings. There are Books in it whose Authors are altogether unknown, as the Book of Judges, of Ruth, and the last Book of Kings.  
Among these Books, there are some written in Verse, as the Psalms, the Book of Job, and some places of the Prophets; and others in Prose.  
The Order of the Books of Scripture is not different from ours.  
This is what concerns the External Surface of the Scripture: As to the Substance of the things which it teaches, the Author observes that there are in it some Names that agree to the Essence, and others to the Persons of the Trinity; and among these there are some which precisely denote them, and others only consequentially, because they signify the Operations which are attributed to them: He gives Examples of them, and shows what is common to the three Persons, and what is particular to each. Lastly he speaks of the Attributes which agree to God.  
In the second Book he makes a particular Ennumeration of what the Scripture teaches concerning the Creatures, and explains after what manner God governs them: From thence he passes to what concerns the World to come. He treats of the Figures of the Law, and the fulfilling of Prophecies concerning Jesus Christ. Lastly, he inquires, How it may be proved, that the Books of our Religion are Divinely inspired: And he answers, That it may be known by the Truth of them itself, by the Order of Things, by the admirable Agreement of Precepts, by the Simplicity and Purity wherewith they are written: That to these Characters we must add the Qualities of those that wrote them, and who preached the Doctrine which they contain, because it was not possible, without the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that Men should write of Divine things, that simple Men should write of things so Sublime, that Men so ignorant and plain should discover Truths so great and Subtle; That the success of their Preaching was also a proof of the Truth of their Doctrine: For how was it possible, that Persons so despicable should Convert the whole World, Reform the Doctrines of the Philosophers, and Confound their Adversaries, without the Assistance of a visible Protection from God. Lastly, That the Accomplishment of Prophecies, and the Miracles which produced a Belief of our Religion, were convincing Proofs of its Truth; and that if at present no Miracles are wrought, it is because there is no need of them, because the Establishment of this Religion is a Miracle more than sufficient to prove it.  
This is what is most useful in this Treatise, which is to be found in the Bibliotheques of the Fathers.   

LIBERATUS. 
Liberatus.   
LIberatus a Deacon of the Church of Carthage, and a Defender of the three Chapters, is the Author of an Historical Memorial of the Contests that arose about the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches. He gins with the Ordination of Nestorius, and ends at the fifth Council, i. e. in 553. This Memorial therefore was not written by Liberatus, till after the Year 560. It contains some very useful particulars of this History, which are not where else to be found, and Extracts of the Authentic Acts to justify what he affirms. This Work was published by F. Garner in 1675. It is also in the fifth Tome of the last Collection of the Councils.   

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

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

PELAGIUS the First.  
PElagius, after he had been a long time at Constantinople, returned into Italy with Pope Vigilius, and was Ordained, after the death of this Pope, by two Bishops, in the presence of a Priest of 
Pelagius I.  the Church of Ostia. This extraordinary Ordination, and the suspicion that went about of him, that he had been the cause of the death of his Predecessor, induced many to separate from his Communion, and brought upon him the hatred of the People. To purge himself he mounted into a Chair, after a solemn Procession from the Church of St. Pancratius to that of St. Peter, and swore upon the Holy Evangelists and the Cross, That he was no wise guilty of that whereof he was accused; the People were satisfied with this Oath, and with the Prohibition he made against giving Money for Ordinations.  
Although there was nothing remarkable that happened in the Church during the Pontificat of this Pope, which lasted almost five years, yet he has written many Letters.  
The first, addressed to Vigilius, is a supposititious Piece, made up of Passages patched together, which are taken out of St. Leo, Itachius, the date whereof is false.  
The second is addressed to Count Narses; He prays him to assist Peter the Priest, and the Deacon Projectus, whom he had sent to Prosecute two Bishops of Italy, who disturbed the Order of the Churches, and would appropriate to themselves all the Ecclesiastical Revenues.  
In the third he exhorts the same Count to employ the Authority which his Office gave him, for correcting and punishing the Bishops of Istria, Liguria, and the Country of Venice, who had separated 
Agnellus.  from the other Churches, for the Affair of the three Chapters. He remarks, That if they had any Complaints to make against the Decision of the Council of Constantinople, they should send Deputies to the Holy See, and not rend in pieces the Body of Christ by their Separation.  
In the fourth Letter he inveighs vehemently against the same Bishops for their boldness in excommunicating Narses. He exhorts him to employ his Authority for punishing Euphrasius, who was guilty of Murder, and an Incestuous Adultery. He counsels him to drive the Obstinate out of the Province, and to send the Authors of this Schism to the Emperor, and chief him who was in the See of Aquileia, who being, says he, a Schismatic, aught to have neither the Name nor Dignity of a Bishop.  
He recommends it also to Narses, by another Letter, to send the Bishops of Aquileia and Milan to the Emperor with a strong Guard, because the first was incapable of being Bishop by his irregular Ordination, and the second ought to be punished for Ordaining after such a manner.  
The sixth Letter of Pelagius is addressed to the Bishops of Tuscany, who would also separate from the other Churches for the Affair of the three Chapters: He remonstrates to them what a Crime it is to break the Peace of the Church, and make a Schism. He declares to them that he professes the Faith of the four first Councils, and the Doctrine contained in the Letter of St. Leo; and he admonishes them, if they have yet any scruple, to come to him that they may have it resolved. This Letter is dated Febr. 16. 556.  
The seventh Letter is this Pope's Confession of Faith addressed to the whole Church, wherein he declares, That he has a Veneration for the four first Councils, and that he will never undertake to lessen the Authority of their Decisions about the Faith, that he follows and approves the Canons which were received by the Church of Rome: That he is ready to Vindicate the Letters which his Predecessors, beginning at Celestine, and ending at Agapetus, had written in Defence of the Faith and the Authority of the four first Councils; That he Condemns those whom they have condemned, and Receives those whom they have received, even Theodoret and Ibas, whom he believes to be Orthodox.  
The nine following Letters are written to Sabandus Bishop of Arles, or to Childebert King of France: In these Letters he sends to Childebert his Confession of Faith: He grants the Pallium and the Office of Vicar to Sapandus; he prays Childebert to maintain this Bishop in his Rights, and complains that he would have him judged by another Bishop. He prays that the Revenues of the Church of Rome that are in France, may be employed for buying Garments to the Poor, and that they may be sent to him. There are also the Fragments of some other Letters of Pelagius, written to several Persons: The first are about the Ordination of Paulinus Bishop of Aquilcia, made by the Bishop of Milan: He confesses that the Bishops of these two Sees have mutually ordained one another; but he affirms that this Ordination was made in that City whose See was vacant. He rejects the Ordination of Paulinus, because it was at Milan, against the Will of the Holy See, and the Order of the Emperor. He remarks, That even during the Wars between the Goths and Franks, the Ordination of the Bishop of Milan had been stopped, until he received Orders from the Emperor. In the third he declares, That 'twas a year before he Ordained him who was chosen Bishop of Syracuse, because he was married and had Children; but because those of Syracuse would not choose another, he thought fit to pass it by, after he had promised to him, that he would neither directly nor indirectly take any part of the Possessions of the Church, nor leave any thing to his Children or Heirs. The other Letters concern particular Affairs, as the Foundations of Churches. He remarks, That for building a Church they should choose a Place where no Body has been buried.   

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

LEONTIUS. 
Leontius.   
LEontius, a Native of Constantinople, was an Advocate, and afterwards a Monk in the Laura of St. Sabas; he lived till about the end of the sixth Century, for he reckons Eulogius amongst the Bishops of Alexandria, who held this See from the Year 581, to the Year 604. He is different from Leontius Byracenus, who is mentioned in the Life of St. Sabas, and St. Quiriacus; for this Leontius was an Origenian, and defended the Doctrines of Theodorus of Mopsuesta: But he on the contrary declared openly against Origen and Theodorus.  
The first contains an Abridgement of the History of our Faith, short Remarks upon the Doctrines of Arius, Sabellius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, an Exposition of the Faith of the Church about the Trinity and Incarnation, and the distinction of Nature and Personality.  
The second contains a Catalogue of the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, agreeable to that of the Jews, and of those of the New agreeable to ours, and general Proofs of the Coming of the Messiah.  
The third contains a List of the Fathers, who lived from the Birth of Jesus Christ until Constantine, and also of some of those who flourished since. He speaks also there of the Principal Heresies which arose in that space of time.  
In the fourth Action he inquires into the Origine of the Heresies of Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches, and continues this History down to the Condemnation of Dioscorus.  
The fifth Action relates the Controversies that arose in the Church, upon occasion of the Council of Chalcedon, which were settled by the Authority of the Emperor, and renewed again by the Question of the Corruptibility and Incorruptibility of Jesus Christ, to which the Agn●…tae and Tritheites succeeded.  
The four following Actions contain Answers to the Objections which were made against the Council of Chalcedon: The first answers the Historical Difficulties, the second the Reasoning Part, and the third the Authorities of the Fathers. The last explains the Passages of the Council, which were alleged to prove that the Council favoured the Doctrines of Nestorius.  
The tenth Action is against the Gaianites, the Agnoetes and Origenists.  
The same Author has also written three Books against the Error of Nestorius and Eutyches. The first is entitled, A Confutation of the contrary Figments of Nestorius and Eutyches, concerning the Divinity and Humanity of Jesus Christ. He proves against Eutyches, that there are two Natures, and against Nestorius, that there is but one Hypostasis, or Person in Jesus Christ: He explains in what sense St. Cyril could say that there is but one Nature of the Word Incarnate; and proves what he affirms by Reasons and the Authorities of the Fathers.  
The second Book is against the Error of those who maintained that the Body of Jesus Christ was incorruptible before his Resurrection: 'Tis composed of two Parts; the first is a Dialogue of one that is Orthodox with one engaged in that Error; and the second is a Collection of the Authorities of the Fathers, to which he prefixes the Books ascribed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite.  
In the third Book he descovers the Artifices which the Nestorians of his time made use of for disguising their Sentiments. He says, That at first they feign themselves to be no wise concerned for the Memory of Diodorus of Tarsus, and Theodorus of Mopsuesta, that they make a show of approving the Council of Chalcedon, that they cause the Books of their Authors to be read, that they entice Men with fait Promises, that they make a faint of condemning Nestorius, that they make no scruple to communicate with Catholics, and even to take the Communion with them, for, say they, the Bread which is offered to represent Jesus Christ, has always a greater Blessing than common Bread, or that which the Philomarianites offer in the Name of 
* This passage plainly contradicts Transubstantiation by saying that it is Bread which is offered, after consecration, to represent Jesus Christ and comparing it with common Bread; and though it be spoken by a Heretic, yet it is not censured neither by Leontius here who writes severely against all his particular Errors, nor by any other Catholic Writer, which shows that it was a Doctrine then commonly received, or at least it was not thought a dangerous Error, and much less a Heresy.  Mary. After this he is transported to Invectives against the Memory of Theodorus. He accuses him of being one whom St. John Chrysostom exhorts to do Penance for his want of Moderation, of having corrupted the Scripture by his Commentaries, of endeavouring to usurp the See of the Church of Tarsus, if he had not been hindered by Theophilus; of having condemned the Name of the Mother of God; of scoffing at the Writings of the Fathers; of giving a mean and low sense to the Scripture, altogether unworthy of the Holy Spirit; of speaking ill of Job, and rejecting the Canonical Epistles; of having interpreted the Psalms after a Jewish manner, by applying them all to the History of the Time, and referring but three of them to Jesus Christ; of interpreting the Canticles of Carnal Amours; of rejecting the Books of Esdras and the Chron●oles; of making another Creed then that of Nice; of making a new Mess; of not believing the last Judgement; of denying Original Sin; of saying with the Manichees, that Darkness was a Substance; of affirming that Antichrist should be annihilated; of affirming that many Events came by Chance; and lastly to load him with Impiety, of affirming that Jesus Christ was a mere Man, and yet that he ought to be adored. After this Leontius quotes some passages taken from the Writings of Theodorus, to prove that he maintained the same Doctrines which were 
Fortunatus.  taught by Nestorius.  
The same Author wrote a Treatise to prove, That the Letters alleged by the Eutychians under the Names of Gregory Thaumaturgus, Julius, and St. Athanasius, were supposititious. This he endeavours to prove by showing the Agreement between some Expressions of this Heretic and his Disciples, and those that are in these Letters. This Argument is not very convincing, for the Fathers may possibly use the same Expressions with Apollinaris and his Disciples, though in another sense.  
There is also a Treatise of his by way of Dialogue, which contains the Objections of the Acephali, and the Answers which may be given them; a Collection of Propositions against those who deny that there are two Natures in Jesus Christ after the Union, and a Sermon on the Festival which is celebrated between Easter and Whitsunday. There are also in the Manuscripts some other Treatises of this Author, as a Treatise of the two Natures against the Monophysites, and a Disputation against an Arian Philosopher. The Treatise of Sects was printed in Greek at Basle 1570, in Octavo, and in Latin translated by Leuvenclavius, with the Embassy of Alexis Commenus; and it has been since inserted into the first Addition to the Bibliotheque of the Fathers. The other Treatises have been published in Latin by Canisius, and put into the last Bibliotheque of the Fathers printed at Lions, the greatest and largest Collection of the Fathers that ever was made. The Sermon upon the Festival between Easter and Whitsunday was published in Greek by Father Combes●s, in the first Addition to the Bibliotheque of the Fathers, with another Sermon upon the same Subject, written by another Leontius Bishop of Cyprus, which is quoted in the seventh Council, Act 4. He of whom we have now spoken, had a very subtle Wit, but not very sublime; he was moderately learned and much prejudiced; his style is mean, and not at all pleasant.   

FORTUNATUS.  
VEnantius Honorius Fortunatus was born in Italy, and after he had studied at Ravenna, he settled in France. He was Ordained Priest of the Church of Poitiers towards the Year 565, and some time after Bishop of the same Church. He lived till the beginning of the next Age, and was an intimate Friend to Gregory of Tours. The principal Works of this Author are written in Verse. He wrote four Books of the Life of St. Martinus, addressed to Gregory of Tours his intimate Friend, in acknowledgement for the Cure he had received of a Distemper in his Eyes, by rubbing them with the Oil of a Lamp lighted before the Sepulchre of this Saint, and eleven Books of different Poems.  
The first contains the Description of many Churches, and the Praises of Leontius Bishop of Bourdeaux.  
The second the Hymns upon the Cross, and among them the Pang lingua, and the Vexilla regis, which are his, the Verses in the Praise of the Clergy of Paris, with a Description of the Church of that City, and Verses to the Honour of many Saints.  
The third contains Letters to Euphronius Bishop of Tours, and to Felix Bishop of Nantes, a Description of the Church of Nantes, and Verses addressed to many Bishops.  
The fourth Book is a Collection of Epitaphs; to which are joined a Letter to Avitus Bishop of Clermont, and a Poem upon the Conversion of the Jews, a Letter to Siagrius Bishop of Autun, which accompanies a Piece of Poetry upon the Life of Jesus Christ, wherein he is tied up to a certain number of Words and Letters. Lastly, this Book contains many Papers of Verses.  
The fifth and sixth are for the most part written upon profane Subjects.  
In the seventh, among other Pieces, there is an excellent Description of the Assembly of the Saints in Heaven: There he notes the Country where each of the Apostles was in his time believed to die.  
That which is most remarkable in the eighth is the Pieces addressed to Chilperic, and the Epigrams upon the Actions of St. Martin.  
The tenth is made up of many Papers to the Princess Radegondes.  
The eleventh is not yet printed.  
Besides these Poetical Works, Fortunatus wrote also in Prose the Lives of many Saints, as the Monk Himonius affirms. There are many of them among those which have been collected by Surius and Bellandus; and among others, the Lives of St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Albinus of Angers, St. Germanus of Paris, St. Medardus of Noyon, St. Radegondes, St. Maurilius of Angers, St. Remigius of Rheims, St. Marcellus of Paris, St. Amandus of Rhodes.  
Fortunatus' passed in his own time for an excellent Orator and a good Poet, and not without reason; for he did not only excel all the other Poets of his Age, but he came near to those of a better, not only for the Truth, but the Purity of his Expressions, not for the Beauty of his Verse, but for the Poetical turn he gave it, and the wonderful easiness wherewith he wrote in Verse. 
Bandoninia.   
His Poetical Works were printed at Mayence in 1603, and in 1616, and inserted into the Bibliotheques of the Fathers: But these Editions were very imperfect. F. Labbee has promised a more large and correct Edition of them, which is said to be all ready for the Press.   

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

St. GERMANUS Bishop of Paris.  
WE have an excellent Letter of this Holy Bishop written to Queen Brunechildes, wherein he exhorts her very smartly, and withal very respectfully, to hinder King Sigibert from making 
St. Germanus Bishop of Paris.  War upon King Chilperic: In the Title he assumes the Name of a Preacher. It is published in the fifth Tome of the Councils, p. 923.   

MARTINUS of Bracara.  
MArtinus, who was born in Italy, came into Gallaecia, where he was Abbot of Dumes, and afterward Bishop of Bracara: He flourished in the time of Miro, or Theodomirus, King of the Suevi, 
Martinus of Bracara.  and Athanildes' King of the Goths in Spain. He converted many of the Suevi, held Councils at Bracara in 572, and died in 580.  
The Principal Ecclesiastical Work of this Bishop, is a Collection of the Canons of the Greek Church, which he took the pains to translate himself into Latin, finding that the former Translations were not faithful. It contains 84 Canons or Chapters, whereof 68 concern Ecclesiastical Men.  
The manner of living virtuously, a Treatise of the four Cardinal Virtues, attribute to Seneca under the N●me of a Book of Manners, is this Bishops. The Version of some Sentences of the Greek Monks, collected by an unknown Author, is also attributed to him.   

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

JOANNES SCHOLASTICUS 
Joannes Scholasticus Patriarch of Constantinople.  Patriarch of Constantinople.  
John surnamed Scholasticus, because he had followed for some time the Bar, was Ordained Priest of the Church of Antioch, and had the Commission of a Surrogate to the Church of Constantinople. He was put in the place of Eutycheus Patriarch of Constantinople, who had been turned out by Justinian, and governed this Church till the Year 578. After his death Eutychius was restored.  
This Author made a Collection of the Canons, which were disposed according to the Order of the Matters, and another Collection of Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws, and Chapters. His Works are printed in the Bibliotheca Juris published by Justellus.   

GREGORY of Tours.  
GEorgius Florentius Gregorius Bishop of Tours, was descended of an Illustrious Family of Arvernia, and the Son of Florentius Brother of Gullus Bishop of Clermont. He succeeded Euphronius Bishop of 
Gregory of Tours.  Tours in the Year 574.  
The principal Work of Gregory is his History of France, divided into ten Books. In the first, having made a Confession of his Faith, and given a Scheme or Abridgement of Ecclesiastical History from the beginning of the World, he relates the Origine of Christianity among the Gauls, by Photinus' Bishop of Lions, and the famous Mission of seven Bishops sent in time of the Emperor Decius, viz. St. Saterninus to Tholouse, St. Gatianus to Tours, St. Trophimus to Arle●, St. Paul to Narbonna, St. Denis to Paris, St. Stremonius to Clermont, and St. Martial to Lemovicum. He concludes this Book with the death of St. Martin, and in those that follow he continues the Ecclesiastical and Profane History of the Gauls and Franks until his own time, i. e. until the Year 596. Fredegarius has since added to it an eleventh Book, wherein he has continued the History to the Reign of Charlemain.  
He wrote also eight other Books, concerning the Miracles or the Lives of the Saints. In the first he relates the Miracles of Jesus Christ, the Apostles and Martyrs: In the second he recounts many Miracles of St. Justin, who was martyred in Arvernia. The four following Books contain many Miracles of St. Martin of Tours; the seventh contains the Lives of some Holy Monks; entitled, The Lives of the Fathers, at the end whereof is a Letter concerning the History of the seven Sleepers: And the last is concerning the Glory or the Miracles of some holy Confessors. He himself mentions his Works, which were printed at Paris in 1640.  
Besides this, he wrote a Commentary upon the Psalms, and composed a Treatise De Cursibus Ecclesiasticis, or The Divine Offices: The Lives of some Saints are also attributed to him. He speaks of a Preface which he had prefixed to a Treatise of Messes written by Sidonius. Sigibert says that he composed his History of France in the way of an Epitome, and made a Chronicon.  
This Author had reason to confess himself that his style was rude and rustical; which ought not to be taken for a Figure, but a sincere Confession of the thing as it is: His style is low and mean, his words are harsh. He was credulous and simple as to the matter of Miracles, and vented boldly such Histories as are uncertain or fabulous. But notwithstanding this his History is very useful, and contains many things of great consequence. He died in the Year 596.   

GILDAS.  
GIldas, to whom is given the Name of Wise, was born in England in the Year 520, which was fatal to the Saxons, for the Battle fought by Arthur King of the Britons, near the Mountain of Badon; which made this Author be surnamed Badonicus, to distinguish him from another Gildas elder 
Gildas.  than he, surnamed the Albanian. He was the Disciple of Istutus the Abbot of Morgan, and was made Abbot of Bangor, and founded a Monastery at Venetia in Britain.  
In the Year 564 he wrote a Lamentation for the Miseries of England, with a severe Reprimand to the Members of that Kingdom. In this Work he describes rather by weeping then declaiming, 
Evantius.  as he himself says, the former and later Miseries of poor England. He speaks freely against its Dissolution of Manners, without sparing Kings, against the Crimes from which it was delivered after a terrible manner. He uses the words of the Prophets to terrify them, and afterwards addresses his Discourse particularly to the Clergy, and makes a most hideous Representation of their Manners. England, says he, has Bishops enough, but they are either Fools, or Ministers to the Passions of Great or unchaste Men: It has Clergy enough, but for the most part they are all wicked and whoremongers: They have only the Name of Pastors, and are at the bottom Wolves prepared to kill the Souls of their Sheep: They never think of doing good to the People, but only how to fill their Bellies; they seek for Churches, but it is only out of a greedy desire of filthy gain; they teach the People, but at the same time they give them bad Examples; they very seldom offer Sacrifice, and never go to the Altar with a clean Heart; they flatter the People in their Crimes, and seek only to satisfy their Passions; they very seldom speak the Truth, they despise the Poor, and make Court to Riches; they canvas for, and purchase Ecclesiastical Offices, etc. After he has given this frightful Portraiture of the Clergy of England, he proposes to them the Examples of St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp: He uses the words of the Prophets and Apostles for reproving them, and upbraiding them with their Vices. He concludes with a Prayer to God to preserve the small number of good Pastors that was left.  
This is the only true Work of Gildas, for the ridiculous Predictions that are attributed to him are a pure Forgery; and there is no Probability that he composed the Comedy called Aulularia, although it goes under his Name in some Manuscripts. There are found in the Manuscripts of England, some Manuscripts that go under the Name of Gildas, which may be rather his than the former. His style is pure enough for his Age. He spoke with extraordinary earnestness, and unparallelled freedom. He died in 570.   

EVANTIUS.  
EVantius or Evantus, Bishop of Vienna, whose Name is among the Subscriptions of the first Council of Mascon in 582, of the third of Lions in 583, of the third of Valentia in 584, and of the second of Mascon in 585, passes for the Author of a Letter, written against those who believed that the Blood of Animals is impure, although their Flesh be not so. There he maintains that we may eat of the Blood of Beasts, and that it is a Jewish Superstition to abstain from it. Nevertheless 'tis certain that the whole Church continued a long time in this Abstinence, and the Greek Church even to this day. The Letter of Evantius was published by Canisius, Tom. 5. Lect. Antiq. and placed at the end of the sixth Tome of the Bibliotheque of the Fathers at Collen, and in the last Bibliotheque at Lions.   

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

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

PELAGIUS the Second. 
Pelag. II.   
I Do not reckon in the number of Ecclesiastical Writers, the Pope's John the Third, nor Benedict the First although to each of them there is attributed a Letter; one concerning the Suffragans, and the other concerning the Trinity, because all the Critics are agreed that these two Pieces are the Works of Isidorus. I proceed therefore to Pelagius the Second, who was promoted to the See of the Church of Rome in 577, and filled it till the beginning of the Year 590: For although the first, second, eighth and ninth Letters ascribed to the same Pope, are also the Work of the same Impostor, yet the same cannot be said of the others.  
The third is taken out of the Life of St. Gregory, written by John the Deacon; It is addressed to St. Gregory, who was then also Deacon, and was at Constantinople, to put him in mind to solicit the Emperor to send Succours into Italy against the Lombard's. This Letter is dated October the 4th, 584.  
In the fourth to Aunacarius' Bishop of Auxerra, he praises the Piety of the Kings of France: He declares to him, that he hopes they were so far from joining with the Lombard's, that they would send Relief to Italy and the Romans: He prays Aunacarius to exhort them to do it, and sends him some Relics. He had written a former Letter to this Bishop, wherein he congratulates him upon the state of the Church of France: This Letter is the last, although it precede that which we have now spoken of: For it is dated in the fith Year of the Empire of Tiberius, which is 582, and the other is dated October the 5th, in the seventh Year of Tiberius, which is 584.  
The fifth Letter is addressed to Elias Bishop of Aquileia, and to the Bishops of Istria, who had separated from the Church of Rome about the Affair of the three Chapters. 1. In it he recommends to them the Authority of the Holy See. 2. He declares that he holds the Faith and Doctrine decreed by the four General Councils, and contained in the Letter of St. Leo. 3. He reproves Elias and his Adherents for separating from the Church. 4. He proves to them by passages of Scripture the necessity of being united to the Church, and of living in peace with their Brethren. 5. He exhorts them earnestly to reunite themselves to the other Churches.  
The sixth Letter of Pelagius, addressed to the same Persons, is written upon the same Subject. He presses them yet more earnestly to reconcile themselves to the Church; But because they chief grounded themselves upon what the Council of Chalcedon, which was approved by St. Leo, had done, therefore he proves to them, that this Pope did not approve what the Council had decreed about the Faith, and that he was persuaded, that what concerned the Persons ought to be re-examined. He alleges to them passages out of St. Austin and St. Cyprian, to convince them, that their Separation from the Church put them out of the way of Salvation. In fine, he exhorts them to send Deputies to Rome, to explain themselves, and treat of a Reunion, or to assemble at Ravenna, to enter upon a Conference there.  
These Letters not prevailing with the Bishop of Aquileia, and his Brethren, to return to the Church, Pelagius sent to them a third Letter larger than the former: It was written by St. Gregory, who was yet but a Deacon. There he represents to these Bishops the Evils which cause the Schism and Division; and afterwards resutes the Reasons which induced them to believe that Justinian had violated the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon, by causing the three Chapters to be condemned. He maintains that St. Leo did only approve the Articles of Faith defined by this Council, and that perhaps he was deceived as to Matter of Fact. He answers to the Opposition that was made by Vigilius of the Occidentalists, That it was no wonder, if the Latins, who did not perfectly understand Greek, found it difficult to know the Errors of those Authors who were thought worthy of Condemnation. But distrusting this Answer, he brings the Example of St. Peter to excuse the Conduct of Vigilius; and says. That if this Holy Apostle changed his Opinion and Behaviour about the Observation of the Jewish Ceremonies, it was not so much to be blamed in Vigilius, that he had changed his Judgement and Conduct in the Affair of the three Chapters. This Comparison is of little force, but that which follows has yet less,— Do we not read, says he, that God himself changes his Designs? He uses afterwards the Testimony of St. Austin, to show that the Dead may be anathematised. After this, he proceeds to the Examination of the three Chapters: He relates the passages of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, which appear most agreeable to the Error of Nestorius, and the Testimonies of the Holy Fathers who condemn it. He shows, That the Letter of Ibas, reproaches St. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus, and that it favours the Error of Nestorius. He adds, That the Bishops of the Council of Chalcedon did not approve it; and that though they had done it, yet the Matters of Faith ending in the sixth Action of this Council, what was done afterwards had not the same Authority. Lastly, he says, about the third Chapter, That all the Writings of Theodoret, are not condemned, but only those which are composed against St. Cyril. In fine, in answer to the favourable Testimonies which John of Antioch may have given to Theodorus, he observes, That the Fathers oftentimes praise Heretics, and quotes particularly those who commend Origen. He concludes with exhorting the Bishops of Istria, to reconcile themselves to the other Orthodox Bishops, and prays God to inspire them with the desire and love of Peace, to which he exhorts them.  
These are the true Letters of Pelagius; In the three last the style of Gregory, who succeeded him, may be discerned. 
Eulogius.   
There are in Ivo of Chartres, and in Gratian some Decrees attributed to Pelagius, which are printed in the fifth Tome of the Councils, p. 954, 955, and 956. They appear to me to be ancient and genuine.  
In the first he wishes that Monks may not be chosen for a Guard to the Church, because the discharge of that Office is very different from the Monkish Life. A Monk should live in quiet, and employ himself in Prayer and Working with his Hands; all which are very remote from his Employment, who is entrusted with the Affairs of the Church: And therefore it is more convenient to promote an old Monk to the Priesthood, then to make him one of the Guards.  
In the second he allows, That a Man may be ordained Deacon, who having left his Wife, had Children by a Maidservant without espousing her, although it be against the Laws and the Canons, merely upon the account of the want of such as were disposed to be Clergymen. He ordains also, That this Maidservant shall be put into a Monastery to make there Profession of Continence.  
The third is about the Election of a Bishop.  
The fourth forbids the Bishops of Sicily to exact more than two shillings of the Parishes of Sicily.  
The fifth and sixth require that ecclesiastics should still be judged by Ecclesiastical Judges, according to the Civil Laws.   

EULOGIUS.  
EUlogius, who sat in the See of the Church of Alexandria from the Year 581, to the Year 608, was well versed in Ecclesiastical Matters, and wrote many Books. The Bibliotheque of Photius has preserved to us the Memory and Arguments of them. In Vol. 182 and 208, he speaks of six Books of this Author against Novatus, or rather against Novatian; but the Greeks always confound these two Persons, and were very little informed in their History. This appears by what this Author relates. He says that Novatus was Arch deacon of the Church of Rome under Pope Cornelius; that he was to succeed him according to the custom of that Church; that Cornelius having observed that Novatus was too proud, and discovered that he had a Design upon his Life, had Ordained him Priest, on purpose to take from him all hopes of arriving at the Bishopric of Rome: That he in revenge, had taken occasion to separate from him, because Cornelius admitted to the Communion of the Holy Mysteries those who had fallen into Crimes, after they had been punished with a Penance proportionable to the greatness of their Sin; That he accused him of receiving Sinners, and that he, became the Head of a Party, who were called Cathari or Puritan.  
Eulogius opposes this Allegation of Novatus in the four first Books of his Work. In the fifth he defends the Veneration due to the Relics of the Saints, which the greater part of the Novatians of Alexandria could not approve. In the last he opposes the Writings of the Novatians, and particularly that which was entitled, The Dispute of Bishop Novatus, a Work very contemptible for its manner of writing and the Matters contained in it: For it relates, that under the Empire of Decius, the Officer Perennius had forced many Christians, by the violence of Torments, to worship Idols: That Macedonius Bishop of Rome had sacrificed, and was followed in so doing by nine Priests of the Church of Rome; That Novatus was the only Person who refused, and upon this occasion he recites what he had answered to the Judge. 'Tis pretended that many Bishops joined with Novatus, and separated from those who had fallen into Idolatry; and lastly, that the Bishops of Alexandria did not acknowledge him for Bishop. Eulogius refutes these Fables in his third Book. Photius assures us, That the style of this Author is indifferently exact as to words, but altogether barbarous as to construction, but that his Work is useful; that he explains very well the passages of Scripture which fully confute the Error of his Adversaries; and lastly, that it is pleasant and persuasive.  
He speaks also of some other Works of Eulogius in Vol. 225, and 226. The first is a Treatise divided into two Books, which contain an Apology for the Letter of St. Leo, and the Accusation of Timothy and Severus who had accused him. He shows that these Heretics calumniate this holy Pope, and charge him with such Doctrines as he never held, by taking out some words out of the places where they were, and cutting off that which might serve to justify them. This is proved at large in the Extract related by Photius, Vol. 225.  
He did undertake the Defence of St. Leo in another Work, against Theodosius and Severus, wherein he also explains the sense of this Expression of St. Cyril, That there is but one Nature of the Word Incarnate.  
Lastly, Photius speaks also of an Invective which this Author wrote against one of the Disciples of Theodosius and the Gaianites, wherein he shows that the Agreement they had made amongst themselves, was fals● and indefensible, because it tended only to oppose the Truth. There was also in this Tome a Letter which Eulogius wrote, when he was yet a Priest, to Eutychius Archbishop of 
John the Faster.  Constantinople, which contains an Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.   

JOHN the Faster.  
John of Cappadocia, surnamed the Faster, upon the account of his great Abstinence, was Ordained Bishop of Constantinople, in the Year 28, and governed that Church until the Year 596. St. Isidore of Sevil assures us, That he wrote a Letter about Baptism to his Predecessor Leander, wherein he said nothing that was new, but only collected and repeated the Opinions of his Ancestors, about the three Dippings. He composed also some Homilies, which perhaps are among those of St. Chrysostom; That about Penance is the most famous. Father Morinus has published two Penitential Books of this Bishop. He was not a Man of a very sublime Wit, but he was one of great Piety and Charity; and loved Order and Discipline. He was sharply reproved by St. Gregory for taking upon him the name of Ecumenical Patriarch, because this Pope looked upon this Title as a sign of Ambition, although in the sense of the Greeks it was innocent, and signified nothing less than St. Gregory thought.  
The Greeks perhaps reproved this Bishop more justly, for contributing to the Relaxation of Discipline by moderating the Rigour of the Canons: This is objected to him by the Bishops of a Council held in the time of Alex●s Comnenus; yet it does not appear that he fell into any Excess of Relaxation; for he only permitted the time of Penance to be shortened, in favour of those who were more servant, and appeared more contrite▪   

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

ANASTASIUS SINAITA.  
ANastasius a Monk of Mount Sin●, ascended the Throne of the Church of Ancioch, in the Year 561. He was forced from it, and banished in the Year 572, by the Emperor Justinus the 
Anastasius Sinaita.  Younger; but at last he was restored under the Emperor Mauricius in the Year 595. He died about the Year 599. He had another for his Successor, who went under the same Name, which gave occasion to confound them. 'Twas the first of these two who was the Author of some Treatises. The first and most assured Work of his, is a Treatise, entitled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or a Guide to the True Way, written against the Acephali. Anastasius gins this Book, which was composed for an Instruction about the Faith, with laying down some Maxims and Rules, which the Faithful aught to follow for their good Conduct, and to prevent Falling into Error. These Rules are useful and rational. Here follows the Translation of them.  
'Tis necessary for a Man, above all things, to lead a pure and innocent Life, and to have the Holy Spirit in him: After this, he must know the Definitions that are most necessary, and have an exact Knowledge of the Doctrines of his Adversaries, and read their Writings, that he may be able to oppose them and confound them from themselves: He must not amuse himself with disputing about the Faith every moment against the first Comer, but read the whole Scripture with a Spirit of Submission and Fear, with simplicity of Heart, and without crafty Designs; he must not desire to conceive what surpasses our Understanding, or to distinguish that which is to be understood literally from that which is a Metaphor: He must be persuaded that the Church has Traditions about these things which are not in the Holy Scripture; as for instance, That one ought to be fasting when he receives the Holy Eucharist; that he should turn towards the East in the time of Prayer; that the Mother of Christ continued a Virgin, after she had brought forth a Child; that she brought forth Christ in a Cave. Besides this, he must accustom himself to two ways of Disputing against the Heretics; one by proposing the passages of Holy Scripture, and another by making use of the Proofs drawn from the thing itself. This last way of Disputing is solid, (if we may believe him) and more effectual; for 'tis easy to corrupt the sense of the words of Scripture, and to oppose an●ther passage of it, as the Heretics and Jews do every day: 'Tis better therefore to make use of Internal Proofs. 'Tis necessary to be skilled in Chronology, to know at what time the Father lived and when such and such a Here●●● arose. He must take good heed, le●t when his Adversary is nonplussed, and cannot answer, he make a transition to another Question. 'Tis convenient before the Dispute to require of his Adversary an Oath, that he will say nothing against his Conscience; and also to purge yourself from all the Suspicions he may have of you, by condemning the Errors that may be charged upon you. He must tell the M●●●physites, that he must not insist upon the Council of Chalcedon, but engage to dispute from the more ancient Fathers, whom they themselves acknowledge for Catholics. He must observe that the M●●●physites may be reprehended from the Oblation of the Chalice because they offer only 
* Here the Cup is called Wine after Consecration.  Wine without any mixture of Water.  
Anastasius the Si●●ita, having laid down these Maxims, practices according to them in his Work: For having said that the Catholics acknowledge two Wills and two sorts of Operations in Jesus Christ, in the second Chapter he gives many Definitions of Terms which he uses for explaining the Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. In the third Chapter he describes the Dogmes which a Catholic should reject. In the fourth he explains the Oeco●… of the Incarnation. In the fifth he approves the five first General Councils. In the sixth he discovers the Original of the Error of Severus. In the seventh he refutes it by the Testimony of the Fathers; and in those that follow he opposes it with many Arguments, and relates what was said in the Conferences which were held with the Theodosians. He objects to himself the Testimonies upon which they founded their Doctrine, and the Arguments they made use of, which he relates in their own words. He answers them first by Reason, and then alleges the Passages of the Fathers, which may serve for an answer to them. In refuting the Gaianites, he makes them say, That the Eucharist is the Body, and not only a Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ. The Orthodox confesses and confirms this Proposition, and and from thence concludes that the Body of Jesus Christ was corruptible before his Passion, since the Eucharist, which is the Body of Jesus Christ, is subject to Corruption. This Work is very confused, 'tis a kind of Rhapsody of divers Conferences, but there is very much Scholastic Subtlety in it. 'Tis apparent that Sc●●lia have been added to it, which are inserted into the Text, and 'tis no less probable, that the Work has been interpolated in some places.  
The eleven Books of Anagogical Considerations about the Creation of the World, are more coherent and better written; but they are filled with Thoughts so mystical and remote from the Litteral Sense, that it cannot but be tedious to read them. [Mr. Alix published the twelfth Book of these Anagogical Contemplations, which had been hitherto suppressed, in Greek and Latin at London, 1682. Cave p. 420.]  
There are five Dogmatical Discourses of the same Author: The first is about the Trinity; the second about the Immensity of the Divine Nature, which can have no bounds; the third about the Incarnation; the fourth about the Corruptibility and Incorruptibility of Jesus Christ; and the last about his Resurrection. These Discourses contain many Scholastical Arguments.  
F. Combefis has given us six Sermons, in the first Tome of the Addition to the Bibliotheque of the Fathers. The first and second is about the Annunciation of the Virgin; the third about the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ; the fourth about the Holy Communion, where he speaks of the Dispositions that are necessary for a worthy Communicant, and for assisting him at the Holy Sacrifice, and also of the Ceremonies and Prayers of the Oblation; the fifth and sixth are upon the sixth Psalm of David: [The C●●pendi●●● Institution of the Faith is also reckoned to be his, which was published by Beza of Vezeli●c●●, Gr. Lat. with five D●alogues about the Trinity, under the Name of St. Athanasius, 1570, and is to be found under the Name of St. Cyril in some Editions of the Bibliotheca Patrum, Cave p. 420.]  
There remains only 154 Questions upon the Holy Scripture: There is no doubt, but these, such as they are at present, cannot be Ana●●asius's of Sina, since the Author there quotes the Canons of the Council, held in the Palace of the Emperor after the sixth Council, the Works of St. Maximus, St. John Climac●●, of John Mosch●s, of 〈◊〉; and of Nicephorus; besides that he reckons 700 years from C●●stantine's time to his own. The Je●●ite Gr●●ser●s answers, That these places have been added, but 'tis much more probable that this is the Work of another Author. Gentianus Herv●●us, who published them first, published them under the Name of Anastasius of Nice. There were two of this Name in Antiquity, the one was present at the Council of Chalcedon, and the other at the fifth Council. The Remark that we have made, proves, that they can be neither the one's nor the other's. 'Tis manifest, that it is a Work of some Modern Greek, to which the Name of Anastasius Sinaita is prefixed by mistake; for in the Greek Manuscript 'tis entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or A Guide to the True Way. Now 'tis evident, that the Work of Anastasius Sinaita which goes under this Title, 
Evagrius.  has nothing like these Questions.  
The Guide to the True Way of Anastasius Sinaita, was published in Greek and Latin by Gretserus. The five Dogmatical Discourses, are found in Greek in the Manuscripts of Germany; but they have been printed only in Latin, translated by Tilmanus. The Author of the Version of the Anagogical Questions is not known: They are cited by Glycas. [The Book of his De Oeconomia Christi, is extant in the Arundelian Library in a Greek Manuscript at Gresham-Colledge, Cave p. 420.] The Questions upon the Scripture were published in Greek and Latin by Gretserus. There are also some other Manuscript Works, as a Sermon upon his Enthronization in the See of Antioch, cited by Nicephorus, another upon his Restauration quoted by the same Author. [These two, together with the Treatise against Philoponus, are reckoned by Dr. Cave among his Works that are lost, Cave p. 421.] The Answers to the Monks of Scythia, a Treatise of the Rule of a Good Life, two Books of the Structure of Man, a Mystical Contemplation upon the Passion of Jesus Christ. Nicephorus quotes also a Treatise of the same Person against the Book of one Severianus, called John Philoponus, which was entitled, The Arbitrator or Judge concerning the Union of the Natures in Jesus Christ. Turrianus has taken from thence a Fragment which is published by Gretserus in the Preface. [Besides all these, there are several other/ Tracts of his not yet published, which are said by Labbee to be extant in the Royal Library at Paris, Nou. Biblioth. MSS. par. 2. p. 82. and two Sermons of his which are said by Possevinus to be extant in the Vatican Library, Cave p. 420, 421.] The style of this Author is very indifferent; It is Scholastical, dry, barren and tedious.   

EVAGRIUS.  
EVagrius was born at Epiphania, a City of the second Province of Syria, under the Empire of Justinian, about the Year 536: After he had studied, he followed the Bar, and was a professed Advocate at Antioch. This was the occasion of giving him the Name of Scholasticus, for than they were called so who pleaded at the Bar. He was made Treasurer and Secretary for the Province by the Emperor Tiberius. He composed six Books of Ecclesiastical History, which begin where Theodoret, Socrates and Sozomen end, i. e. at the Year 439, and end at the twelfth Year of Mauritius, which is 594, according to the Vulgar Aera.  
This History is very large and exact enough. He relates Matter of Fact from the Authority of the Acts and Historians of the time. The style is not unpleasant: It has an elegance and politeness in the Judgement of Photius, although there be some times superfluous words in his Discourse. He does often also make Digressions and Relations which are not agreeable to his Design; and he seems to be more versed in Profane then Ecclesiastical History: But he has one Advantage above the Ecclesiastical Historians that went before him, that there is no occasion to upbraid him with being engaged in some Sect, or with falling into some Error about the Faith or Discipline of the Church.  
Robert Stephens published the Original Greek of this Historian from one Manuscript only of the King's Library. Valesius revised it since by two Manuscripts, and has made a new Version of it, after those of Musculus and Christopherson. [Besides this History, he wrote two other Pieces which are lost, viz. two Books of Epistles, Orations, etc. and a Panegyrical Oration to Mauricius the Emperor upon the Birth of Theodosius; both which are mentioned by himself towards the latter end of his History, Cave p. 433, 434.]   

St. JOHN CLIMACUS.  
ST. John surnamed Climacus, because of his Work, entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. a Scale, was born about the Year 525. The ancient Author of his Life tells us, That he could not certainly affirm in what place it pleased God he should be born, nor in what Country he was educated. The Title of 
St. John Climacus.  Sholasticus, which some Authors give him, would make us believe that he had sometime frequented the Bar, but having retired from the World at the Age of sixteen years, there is no probability that he followed the Profession of an Advocate. The place of his Retreat upon Mount Sina, is famous for the great number of Monks which dwell there: He himself entered not into a Monastery, but put himself under the Conduct of an ancient Hermit, called Martyrius: He continued nineteen years with this holy old Man in an humble and faithful Obedience to him. After his death St. John retired into the Solitude of Thola, about five Miles from the Church which was upon Mount Sina, whither he came on Sundays and Saturdays to a assist at Divine Service, and to receive the Communion. There was a Solitary who put himself under his Conduct. Towards the end of the sixth Age he was chosen Abbot of the Monks of Mount Sina, and governed this Monastery for some years; but finding himself near his End, he quitted the Government of this Monastery, and retired into the Solitude, leaving his Brother Georgius in his room. He died of a great Age at the beginning of the next Century. While he was Abbot, he composed his Scale of the Cloister, at the desire of John Abbot of Raithu. This Book was very famous among the Greeks, but the Latins had no knowledge of it, for the space of 600 years.  
This Scale contains 30 Degrees, which are so many Christian and Religious Virtues, which the Author explains by holy Maxims, and teaches the Practice of them by wi●e Counsels.  
The first is of Renouncing the World; the second of the Abaracting from the Things of the World; the third of Pilgrimage, or a Retreat out of the World. To these three Degrees he subjoins some Reflections, to show that we must not give credit to Dreams, affirming that the Devil makes use of them to deceive the Solitary.  
The fourth Degree is of Obedience. He thinks that it is one of the Effects of this Virtue, that a Monk should confess his sins to his Superior, who is the true and proper Judge, and to him only: He would also have a Monk ready to Confess them to all the World, if his Superior does order him. Upon this Occasion he relates the public Penance of a Robber, who publicly confessed most enormous sins, by the Order of an Abbot of a Monastery near the City of Alexandria, whither he had retired. From hence he takes occasion to describe the admirable Virtues of the Monks of this Monastery, and the Penance of one named Isidore, whom this Abbot had obliged to kneel down before all those who should enter into the Monastery, and to continue this Practice for the space of seven whole years. He relates also many other Examples of the Patience, Humility, and Obedience practised by the Monks of this Monastery, whom this Abbot humbled either by sharp Rebukes, or rude Treatment, although they had not deserved them. But nothing is more horrible than the Examples of Penance which our Saint relates in this Degree, and the next which is of Penance, and the Representation he makes of the Monastery of Penitents, which was but one mile distant from that of which we have now spoken, and governed by the same Abbot; it was called The Prison, and it did really resemble a Prison for its darkness, its stench and filthiness. In it were shut up many Monks, who having fallen into some Crimes, desired to be shut up there, that they might expiate their Crimes by voluntary Torments, which exceeded all that can be imagined. Some passed Nights and Days standing exposed to the Injuries of the Wether, others were bound and manacled, others had their Feet in Fetters, others were lying upon Ashes; Some were beating their Breast with their Fist, others were tearing their Face: They had all a sadness visible in their Countenance; some made dreadful Lamentations, others shed abundance of Tears, the greatness of Grief hindered others from speaking, and they are almost nothing at all. Lastly, having practised all these kind of the Austerities during their Life, they desired that after their Death the honour of Burial should be denied them.  
The sixth Degree is of the Meditation of Death. After he has made some Reflections upon the Usefulness of this Practice, he proposes some Examples of the wonderful Effects it has had upon the Minds of some Hermits.  
The seventh is of the Grief of Penance, and the Necessity of Tears. There he relates as a great wonder, the History of a Solitary, who on the Eve of his death, had a Rapture, wherein he imagined, that he saw Men who demanded an Account of his Life; to whom he answered with a loud voice, telling them what he had done, and what he had not done.  
The eighth Degree is of Meekness which should overcome Anger. There he describes the deadly Effects of this Poison, and prescribes Means for subduing it.  
The ninth teaches the Solitaries to forget Reproaches.  
The tenth condemns Evil-speaking and rash Judging.  
The eleventh recommends Silence.  
The twelfth is against Lying.  
The thirteenth blames Envy and Sloth, and chief that which a Man is guilty of in the time of Prayer.  
The fourteenth dissuades from Intemperance.  
The fifteenth contains the Praises of Chastity. There he shows the Consequence of this Virtue, and the Enormity of the Crime which is opposite to it. He observes that it is more punished in the Church than Heresy itself; he condemns it even to the Motions of Lust which happen in the time of sleep. He prescribes for a Remedy, that they should cloth themselves with Sackcloth, and cover themselves with Ashes, that they should pass the night standing, that they should suffer hunger and thirst, that they should lodge in the Tombs, and be humble and charitable.  
The sixteenth Degree opposes Covetousness, which is there called a Monster with many Heads, the Tyrant of our Souls, the Daughter of Infidelity, etc. Voluntary Poverty is taught in the second part of this Degree.  
The seventeenth Degree is the Insensibility of Holy and Religious Things, into which Religious Persons often fall.  
The eighteenth Degree exhorts Christians to take heed of sleep, which creeps upon them chief in the time of Prayer. There he speaks of the usefulness of Common Prayers.  
The nineteenth is of Corporal and Spiritual Vigilance.  
The twentieth is against deceitful Vanities.  
The one and twentieth discovers the Disorders which Vainglory produces.  
The two and twentieth makes a particular Enumeration of the deadly Effects of Pride.  
The three and twentieth teaches to oppose blasphemous and impious Thoughts which the Devil suggests, in the time of Holy Actions, to the Monks.  
The four and twentieth teaches Mildness and Simplicity.  
The five and twentieth unfolds the Advantages of Humility.  
The six and twentieth gives Instructions for discerning between Good and Evil, Virtue and Vice, between good and evil Thoughts, and gives Rules for a good Conduct in the Spiritual Life.  
The seven and twentieth is of the Sacred Repose of Body and Soul which the Solitary enjoy. This Degree contains many Mystical Thoughts. St. John Climacus observes at the beginning, that the Solitary and Hermetical Life, although it be more perfect, yet it is not suitable to all the World. He defines the Repose of the Body a state of Tranquillity and Peace, wherein all Motions, and all the Corporeal Senses are subject to Reason; and the Repose of the Soul a Serenity of Mind, and calm Meditation, which is exempted from all distraction, and inviolable by Spiritual Thiefs who are the Devils. He that is arrived at this state, rejects all evil Thoughts which are presented to his Mind; he has no need to be instructed by Discourse, since he is taught by his own Actions; he is not only free from disturbance by the Commotion of his Passions, but he does not so much as know it. He knows the true depth of our Mysteries, without diving into them by Human reasoning. He never ceases to pray and sing praises to God: He has no Care or Anxiety about his Temporal Subsistence; he feels no Emotion by any sensible Object. Lastly, he is possessed with the Love of the most Holy God, which entirely employs him.  
The rest of this Degree contains the Praise of an Hermitical Lfe, which St. John Climacus believed to be more excellent than any other, and Precepts for Living well in Solitude.  
The eight and twentieth is of the Necessity of Prayer, and the Dispositions we ought to bring to it.  
The nine and twentieth is of the perfect Tranquillity of a Soul emancipated from Passions, and adorned with all sorts of Virtues.  
The thirtieth is of Faith, Hope and Charity, which are the Foundation and Bond of all Christian Virtues.  
St. John Clymachus joins to this Book which is for all Monks, a particular Letter to the Abbot of Raithu, about the Qualifications and Dispositions of a Pastor, or rather of a Superior and Abbot, and about the manner wherein he should behave himself towards his Monks.  
The Thoughts of St. John Climacus are more sublime, more solid, and more just than those of the greater part of Ascetical Authors; His style is close and elegant: He writes with much brevity, and includes many Thoughts in a few words: He speaks by Sentences and Aphorisms. He proposes his Thoughts in a figurative way, and inserts many Allusions, many Passages of Scripture, divers Allegories of the History of the Old Testament, some rare Examples, some Parables and Histories, into his Discourse. This kind of writing renders it obscure, insomuch that his Work stands in need of an Explication. John Abbot of Raithu was the first who composed and published Expositions upon this Author, which are collected together in the Bibliotheque of the Fathers. Afterward Elias the Metropolitan of Crete, wrote Commentaries upon St. John Climacus, as he had done upon St. Gregory Nazienzen: The Manuscripts are found in many Libraries. Dionysius of Chartres did also make Commentaries upon the Scale; in which there is an old Version of the Scale of St. John Climacus before that of Ambrose of Camaldulum. This was printed at Venice in 1531, and 1569. A Doctor of Flanders caused it to be reprinted at Collen in 1583, together with new Explications at the end of every Degree. Lastly, Matthew Raderus▪ the Jesuit made a new Version of the Works of St. John Climacus, which was printed with the Greek at Paris in 1633. There are besides this many Manuscripts of this Author in Libraries, which may be useful for making a more correct Edition. It has been often translated into the Vulgar Tongue: There is a Translation of it into Italian, printed at Venice in 1585. another in the Vulgar Greek by Margunius, printed at Venice in 1590. In our time Mr. Arnaud d' Andilly has made a French Translation of it, which he has reformed and rectified by many Manuscripts in a second Edition. There are added to it considerable Explications, into which he has inserted a good part of the Commentaries of Elias of Crete, and the Life of St. John Climacus, taken out of two ancient Authors who had written it in Greek, whereof the one was a Monk of his Time, and the other an Abbot of the Monastery of Raithu, called Daniel.   

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

St. GREGORY.  
ST. Gregory was of an Illustrious Family of Rome: His Father was Grandchild to Pope Felix the Second, the Son of Gordia●… and Sylvia: He studied at Rome with very good Success; his quality 
St. Gregory  and merit procured him to be quickly preserved to the Office of Governor of the City of Rome. After the death of his Father, he concecrated himself to the Service of God, and gave all his Possessions for building and 〈◊〉 Ministeries. He caused six to be built in Sicily, and one at Rome, whither he himself retired. Pelagius the Second ordained him Deacon in 582, and drew him forth from his Retreat 〈◊〉 him to 〈◊〉, in the quality of a Surrogate, to the Court of the Emperor Tiberius. He had not much 〈◊〉, neither did he stay long there: There is only a Conference mentioned which he had with the 〈◊〉 Eutychius, wherein he maintains against him, That the Bodies of the Blessed after the Resurrection, shall not be of the Nature of Air or Wind, but shall be palpable and solid by their Nature, although miraculously subtle.  
He returned to Rome after the death of Tiberius in 586, where he was employed as Secretary to Pope Pelagius. This Pope dying, the Clergy and People chose St. Gregory to fill his place. The Emperors were greatly concerned, that none should be promoted to the Holy See who was contrary to them, and therefore they permitted 〈◊〉 him who was chosen to be Ordained, till they had approved the Election. St. Gregory who s●un'd 〈◊〉 Dignity as much as others seek it, wrote a Letter to the Emperor Mauritius, 〈◊〉 he 〈◊〉 prays him not to consent to his Election, and to order that they quickly proceed to make another. The Governor of Rome detained this Letter, and secured the Person of St. Gregory, For seas 〈◊〉 ●e should fly away, and send to the Emperor the Act, wherein he had been chosen Bishop of Rome. ●…ritius who knew St. Gregory particularly well, was very glad at this Election, and ordered that he should be quickly consecrated.  
Rome was the afflicted 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 Disease, whereof Pelagius died, and which killed so great a number of People, 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 was almost ●…'d into a Desert. During the Vacancy of the See St. Gregory exhorted the People to make 〈◊〉▪ i. e. Public Processions of all the Inhabitants divided into seven Ch●●rs. Sometime after St. Gregory got out of Rome by concealing himself in a Basket, to deceive the G●…ds that were set at the Gates for hindering his Escape, and went and hid himself in a Cave in the middle of a Wood; but being discovered he was Consecrated and Promoted to the See of Rome, on the third of September 590.  
Immediately after his Promotion, he made a Public Profession of his Faith, and wrote Synodical Letter's to the Eastern Pat●…: In them he 〈◊〉 the Title of the Servant of the Servants of God, in opposition to the 〈◊〉 Titles which the other Patriarches assumed. He regulated the singing and the Service of the Church of Rome, reformed his Clergy, and put the City in very good order.  
A●… he was of a very weak Constitution, and subject to many Diseases, yet he endured with Courage the Fatigues and Labours of the Bishop●…, and discharged all the Duties of his Function: He took care of the Temporal and Spiri●●●l Welfare of his Sheep. He concerned himself in the Defence of the City of Rome against the Lombard's, and relieved the People with his great Alms, for which he employed all the Revenue of St. Peter's Patrimony.  
But he took particular care of the Clergy and Bishops of Italy and Sicily, who depended more immediately upon the Bishop of 〈◊〉 than others. Assoon as he understood that any Church was vacant, he sent a Deputy to it, and caused a Bishop to be immediately chosen, and himself Ordained, or caused him who was chosen to be Ordained. He quickly applied a Remedy to the Disorders which happened in the Churches, and suffered not any Disorder in them. Besides the particular Care which St. Gregory had of his own Church, and of those that more nearly concerned him, he applied himself also to the Affairs of the Universal Church. On the one side he used all his Endeavours for quenching that Flame which was kindled about the Affair of the three Chapters in the Church: On the other side he laboured to deliver Afric from the Schism of the Donatists, and to re-establish there the Regulations of the Canons. He did often vigorously oppose the 
* He calls this Title, Proud, Heretical, Blasphemous, Antichristian, and Diabolical, Cave p. 430. which shows how far the Pope of Rome was then from assuming an Universal Supremacy over the Church.  Title of Universal Patriarch, which the Patriarches of Constantinople assumed to themselves: His Care extended to the most distant places, and even to the most barbarous Nations. He sent the Monk Austin and his Companions to the English to Convert that People. He suffered not even the Jews to live in quiet, but solicited the Superior Powers against them: But he had a particular Consideration of the Bishops his Colleagues, he comforted them in their Afflictions, congratulated them and exhorted them upon occasion, and rebuked them also freely and briskly for their Faults. He honoured their Merit with the Ornament of the Pallium, which he sent to them Gratis and freely, and delighted to relieve and protect them in all kind of Rencounters. He watched continually for the maintenance of Discipline every where; he persecuted Vices and Disorders wheresoever they happened, and would not suffer any Simony in the Church of Jesus Christ. In a word, he used his utmost endeavours to have the Canons inviolably observed in all the Churches of the World, being persuaded, that in this consisted all the Power and Authority which the Primacy of his See gave him.  
All these different Employments did not hinder him from writing many Books. When he was at Constantinople he begun the Morals upon Job, at the desire of Leander Bishop of Sevil, who was then there, and with whom he contracted an intimate Friendship. The Pastoral was the first Book which he wrote after his Ordination, in Answer to the Calumny which John Bishop of Ravenna had raised against him, because he refused the Bishopric with so much stiffness. His Pastoral Office obliged him to make many Homilies; we have those which he composed upon Ezekiel, and forty upon the Gospels. The Dialogues were the Product of the Retirements which he made from time to time.  
But before we enter upon a particular Enumeration of these Works, we must give an Abridgement of his Letters, which contain an infinite number of important Points concerning the Discipline of the Church. These are commonly ranked according to the order of their Dates, and distributed into the Method of fourteen Indictions, which answers to the years of St. Gregory's Pontificat, beginning at the Month of September in the Year 590, which is the ninth Indiction, and ending at the Month of March of the seventh Indiction of the Cycle, according to the Indictions of the Year 604, of the Vulgar Aera, which is the time of St. Gregory's death. These Letters have been since divided into twelve Books, each of which contain an Indiction, except the second and seventh, which comprehends two of them. The number of Letters amounts to 840, or thereabouts. Since there are many of these Letters which concern the same Points of Discipline, we shall not follow the order of Time, but give an account of them under certain principal Heads.  

Concerning Baptism.  
ST. Gregory proves, That Baptism does truly and perfectly pardon sins; that it does not only in appearance expiate them, as some think, but it really remits them, although it leave the Man subject to Passions, Book 9 Epistle 39 He approves the Opinion of Leander Bishop of Sevil, who remarked, that it was indifferent to use three Dippings in Baptism, or one only. He adds, that we must follow the Custom of the Church where we are, Lib. 1. Ep. 41.  
He would have no Body forced to receive Baptism. Ibid. Ep. 45.  
He permits Baptism to be given to the Jews, on Sunday or a Festival, if they cannot conveniently wait till Easter, after they have been made to observe a Fast of forty days: But if they be willing to wait till Easter, his Opinion is that they should not be baptised before, Lib. 7. Ep. 24.  
As to the Validity of the Baptism of Heretics, and the manner of receiving them into the Church, he says as it follows here, when he was consulted by Quirinus and the Catholics of Iberia, That according to the Tradition of the Church, those who have been baptised by Heretics in the Name of the Trinity, are received into the Church, either by Unction with Chrysm, or by Imposition of Hands, or by a bare Profession of the Faith: That in the West the Arians are received into the Church by laying Hands upon them; that in the East this is done by Unction with Chrysm; that the Manophysites and other Heretics are received there by making only a sincere Profession of the Catholic Faith: That the Bonosians, who did not believe in Jesus Christ, and the Cataphrygians who did not believe as they should in the Holy Ghost, but thought Montanus to be him, and the Heretics like them, are baptised when they re-enter into the Church, the Baptism which they have received not being true, since it was not given in the Name of the Trinity, Book 9 Ep. 61.  
The Monks must not be Sponsors, B. 3. Ep. 40.  
When it is uncertain whether a Person has been baptised or confirmed, we must baptise or confirm them, rather than suffer them to perish in this doubt, B. 12. Ep. 32.   

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

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

About Penance.  
ST. Gregory has written a Letter expressly against those who believed, that after a Penance of three years, one might take his ease, and commit the same Crimes with impunity. There he lays down this excellent Maxim, That true Penance does not only consist in bewailing sins past, but in abstaining from them for the future. Poenitentia est co●…ssa flere, & iterum plangenda declinare.  
The Clergy who had committed any Crimes, were put under Penance, and shut up in Monasteries, to receive there Corporal Punishment, B. 1. Ep. 18. B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 28. B. 3. Ep. 9  
A Clergyman, who being deposed, did perform the Duties of his Function, was to be put under Penance all the rest of his Life: yet it was lawful for the Bishop to receive him to Lay-Communion after a long Penance, B. 4. Ep. 5.  
A Clergyman falling into sin, and being put under Penance, can never hope to enter again into the Clergy, B. 1. Ep. 18, & 43. B. 3. Ep. 26.  
There is not the same reason of an Abbot who is a Priest, who after his Penance, may be restored to his Dignity of Abbot, but not to that of Priest, B. 4. Ep. 4. One who is only an Abbot, and not a Priest, shall continue deposed for ever, Ib. Ep. 16. A Priest deposed may be made an Abbot, and have the Care of Monasteries, Ib. Ep. 17.   

About the Indissolvableness of Marriage.  
ST. Gregory proves in the 39th Epistle of the 9th Book, that Marriages are not dissolved by the Entrance of one of the married Persons into a Religious House, although Human Laws permit the Man to part from his Wife, or the Woman from her Husband, for that end that they may go into a Monastery. He adds in the 44th Letter of the same Book, where he handles also the same Question, That the Law of God does not allow a Man to forsake his Wife for any Cause but that of Adultery. Nevertheless he permits married Persons to part from one another, that they may enter into a Religious House, when this is done with the consent of both Parties, B. 5. Ep. 49. B. 9 Ep. 39  
In the 32 Letter of Book 8. he determines a particular Case about this Subject. A married Woman had parted from her Husband, and was become a Nun, because she suspected him of Adultery; but she could not convict him of it, and the married Man purged himself by Oath, affirming that he was not guilty. Hereupon the Woman returned to him, which moved her Bishop to Excommunicate her and all her Family. St. Gregory wrote to this Bishop, That he must immediately restore her Family to Communion; and as to the Woman, he must not suffer her to continue a long time Excommunicate, if it were notorious, that she had no Proofs that her Husband had committed Adultery, and if the Suspicion she had of him was removed by his Oath.   

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

Concerning the Elections and Ordinations of Bishops.  
ST. Gregory does not meddle with choosing the Bishops of the Churches depending upon his Metropolis, but leaves the Clergy and People the Liberty of Election; and when they have chosen one, if he be found worthy, he Ordains him: But if he be found incapable, he order them to choose another, B. 8. Ep. 18. B. 3. Ep. 2. B. 6. Ep. 38. B. 1. Ep. 56, 57 B. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 18. B. 8. Ep. 18, 34. B. 12. Ep. 6.  
He does not assume to himself the Ordinations of the Bishops which were not his Suffragans, but he would have them Ordained by those to whom it belongs, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep 29, 30, 31. B. 11. Ep. 57 When there are no fit Persons found upon the place, he allows the Clergy and People to send Deputies to Rome, to choose one of the Clergy of Italy, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 15. B. 11. Ep. 14. When Persons cannot be found that are every way fit, he allows of such as are indifferently good, B. 4. Ep. 19 When there is a Contest between the Clergy and the People, as happened at the Election of a Bishop of Syracuse, when the People chose one Person, and the Clergy chose another, he orders, That they should both come to Rome, and that he shall be preferred, who best deserves this Dignity, B. 4. Ep. 47. He would have the Opinion of those who are absent asked, if they be of the Nobility, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 29, 30, 31. Tho he does not meddle with Elections, yet he sometimes excludes those who are chosen, as he did Maximus out of the Bishopric of Salonae, B. 3. Ep. 15. and sometimes he proposes Persons whom he thinks well qualified, B. 3. Ep. 15. He describes to the Electors the Qualifications he ought to have whom they choose, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 29. & B. 4. Ep. 47. He approves of the Elections made by way of Compromise, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 35.  
These following are the excellent Rules which St. Gregory prescribes about the Choice of Bishops. The Electors should examine his Life whom they are about to choose, as far as by Law they can: They should not be partial, either for Favour, Solicitation, or Money, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 26. B. 11. Ep. 19 They should not consider their own particular Profit, but only the Glory of God and the Good of his Church, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 29. B. 4. Ep. 47. They must deny the Bishopric to those who seek after it, and give it to those that eat it, B. 6. Ep. 4. They must prefer those that are of the Clergy of the Church before others, B. 1. Ep. 56. B. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 19 B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 25.  
They must not choose a Layman B. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 19 ibid. Ind. 2. Ep. 111, 114, 115. B. 3. Ep. 39 B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 112, 115. B. 11. Ep. 16. They must reject those who solicit for a Bishopric, B. 11. Ep. 19 They must not choose a Person too old, B. 12. Ep. 6. nor one of the younger sort, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 47, & 48.  
They must not choose, nor Ordain Bigamists, nor those who have espoused Widows, nor those who are ignorant of Learning, nor those who have any notable defect in their Body, nor those who have done public Penance, nor those who have any Personal Obligation to another Office, nor Strangers that are unknown, B. 2. Ep. 25.  
He that is Ordained Priest should know the Psalter, Book 4. Epistle 45.  
St. Gregory declares, That Re-ordination is forbidden as much as Rebaptisation, B. 2. Ep. 32. They must not Ordain an archdeacon or Deacon of another Church, without the leave of his Bishop, B. 4. Ep. 19 B. 12. Ep. 16.   

Of the Authority and Usefulness of Councils.  
ST. Gregory had a very particular Veneration for the Decrees and Canons of General Councils, that are received in the Church, and seems to be persuaded that he could not meddle with them. He was no sooner promoted to the Pontificat, but he solemnly declared in his Letter to the Patriarches, That he reveered the four first General Councils, as he did the four Gospels; and that he had also a great respect for the fifth General Council, B. Ep. 24. He repeats the same thing in Book 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 10.  
He acknowledges the Necessity of Provincial Councils for maintaining Discipline and Judging of Bishops, B. 1. Ep. 1. 33. 16. 72, 82. B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 47. B. 3. Ep. 9 Ep. 8. B. 7. Ind. 11. Ep. 70, 111, 112. B. 12. Ep. 32. The Metropolitan aught to assemble them, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 47 & 48. The Roman Church does not receive the Canons of the Council of Constantinople, B. 6. Ep. 31. He wrote to the Bishops of France to Call a Council for Regulating their Discipline, B. 7. Ind. 112. Ep. 111.   

Of the Primacy and Rights of the Bishop of Rome.  
THe Holy See, according to St. Gregory, does not use its Authority, but only to punish Vice: Thus all the Bishops are subject to it, from the very moment that they commit any Fault; but Humility makes all the Bishops e val, when there is no Fault which obliges the Holy See to exercise its Authority, B. 7. Ind. 11. Ep. 65.  
The Primacy of the Pope gives him no Right to reverse the ancient Canons, nor the Privileges and Rights of other Bishops, B. 2. Ep. 37. These following are his own words, Absit ut Statuta Majorum, à Consacerdotibus meis in qualibet Ecclesia infringam, quia mihi injuriam facio, si fratrum meorum jura perturbo. De Ecclesiasticis vero Privilegiis, hoc vestra fraternitas, post habita dubitatione, teneat, quia sicut nostra defendimus, ita singulis quibusque Ecclesiis, sua jura servamus: i. e. God forbidden that I should infringe the Decrees of our Ancestors made by our Fellow-Bishops in any Church, for I do myself an Injury if I disturb the Rights of my Brethren: And as to Ecclesiastical Privileges you may firmly believe, Brother, without the least doubt, that as we defend our own, so we reserve to every Church their own Rights.  
The Bishops of Rome refused to take upon them the Title of Universal Patriarch of the Church, which was given them by the Council of Chalcedon, lest they should seem to encroach upon the Rights of other Bishops, B. 4. Ep. 32. B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 30.  
St. Gregory wrote to Eulogius the Patriarch of Alexandria, who had acquainted him with what he had commanded him; that he should not any more use this term of Commanding, for he knew (says Gregory to him) what it meant, and what was meant by his Brethren, that they were his Brethren by their Dignity, and his Fathers by their merit, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 30.   

Of the Apostolic Sees.  
EUlogius Patriarch of Alexandria, had written many things to St. Gregory in favour of the See of St. Peter; St. Gregory observes to him in his Answer, that they were the more grateful to him, because they were written by one, who sits also in the Chair of St. Peter himself, and that he had done an Honour to himself, by endeavouring to do one to the See of Rome: That he should know, that the Church was solidly founded upon the Firmness of the Prince of the Apostles, from whence he had his Name of Peter, and that to him, the Truth itself said, I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; to whom he also said, when you are Converted, strengthen your Brethren: without forgetting these other words, Simon, Son of Jona, lovest thou me? feed my sheep: That upon this account, though there were many Apostles, yet there was but one See of the Prince of the Apostles, which was raised in Authority above the rest, because of the Primacy which he founded: That this See is in three places, at Rome, the place where he finished his Course; at Alexandria, whether he sent his Evangelist St. Mark to supply the place; and at Antioch, where he continued seven years; but that these three Sees are but one See, which belongs to St. Peter, on which three Bishops now sit, which are in effect but one, in him who prayed, That they may be one, as I am in the Father, and the Father in me, B. 6. Ep. 37.   

The Form of Ecclesiastical Decisions.  
HEre follow the principal Rules observed by St. Gregory in Ecclesiastical Decisions.  
He Judged in the first place the Bishops of Italy, Sicily, and the Neighbouring Isles, which immediately depended upon Rome as their Metropolis; as for Example, he citys Januarius Bishop of Calaris, to Rome, to come and purge himself of the Accusation charged upon him, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 36.  
He causes the Bishop of Syracuse to come to Rome, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 12.  
He citys Maximus Bishop of Salone, B. 5. Ep. 3, & 25.  
Having deposed the Bishop of Naples, he writes to the Clergy and People of that City to choose another Bishop in his room, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 3.  
He requires his 
* The Defensores of St. Peter's Patrimony were certain Officers appointed by Popes in the Provinces, for maintaining and taking care of the Patrimony of the Roman Church; which Officers were afterwards appointed for Parochial Churches, and are now called Churchwardens, Spelm. Gloss.  Warden in Sicily to send to Rome the Bishop of Messina, and his Accusers, B. 11. Ep. 32 & 33.  
The Bishops of the Vicariate of Rome were obliged to come every year to his Synod: As to those of Sicily, they came thither once in three years, and St. Gregory assures them, that he will be satisfied if they come but once in five years, B. 6. Ep. 19  
Yet to facilitate the dispatch of Affairs, he makes Maximian Bishop of Syracuse, his Legate into Sicily, to whom he gives Power to judge of smaller Affairs, on condition that he should reserve to him such as were of greater Consequence. He Commissions the Bishop of Syracuse, and four other Bishops, to judge the Cause of Mellitus Bishop of the Isle of Malta, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 63. As to the other Bishops of the West, who did not depend upon his Metropolis, he would have them judged by a Synod of the Province, without an Appeal to the Holy See. He affirms, that a Bishop of Afric should be judged by a Synod held in Afric, B. 1. Ep. 82. He remits Paulinus of Tegesta, to the Judgement of Columbus, B. 10. Ep. 32.  
He affirms, That a Bishop ought never to be Deposed till his Cause has been first heard in a Synod, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 8 & 9 In case of an Appeal, or where recourse is had to the Holy See, he commonly commissions Judges upon the place: whereof here follow some Instances.  
Florentius Bishop of Epidaurus, which is now Ragousa, had been condemned by his Metropolitan, without being judged or convicted in any Synod; but St. Gregory declares that his Deposition ought not to take place, but the Cause ought to be re-heard and decided in a Council. He commissions Antonius to be present at this Decision, B. 1. Ind. 4. Ep. 8 & 9  
He remits to Columbus Bishop of Numidia, the Judgement of two Bishops of Afric, B. 5. Ep. 36. B. 10 Ep. 32.  
He Commissions one of his Wardens at Rome, to draw up a Process and Judge the Bishop of Malaga, B. 11. Ep. 52 & 53.  
The Judgement of this Deacon is related in the Letter 55, wherein he declares by virtue of his Commission, that Januarius Bishop of Malaga was unjustly forced away: He nulls all that had been done against him, although it was null in itself: He ordains, that the other Bishops who were guilty of this bold Invasion of another's Right, shall be shut up in a Monastery, to do Penance there; that he who was Ordained in the room of Januarius, shall remain deprived of the Priesthood, and all Ecclesiastical Orders, and that Januarius shall re-enter upon the Possession of his Bishopric. This Deacon pronounced the Sentence, in the presence of the four Gospels, and according to the Memorial of the Imperial Laws, about the Decisions of Bishops.  
St. Gregory remits to the Bishop of Vienna the Judgement of an Abbot of Cesena, who was forsaken by his Bishop, B. 12. Ep. 1.  
He Commissions Sigibert Bishop of Autun, to determine the Differences between the Bishop of Turin and Tarentasia about the Parishes of their Diocese, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 120 & 121.  
He pretends also to have a Right of Reviewing the Causes which were decided in the East, even after an Appeal.  
The Affair of Hadrian Bishop of Thebes in Thessaly is too remarkable to be passed over here in silence. This Bishop had been condemned by the Bishop of Larissa, upon a Civil Affair, and he had brought his Appeal; but having recourse to the Emperors, he was sent back to be judged before the Bishop of Corinth; yet he was afterward forced to acquiesce in the Judgement of the Bishop of Larissa. Some time after, two Deacons who had been deposed, one for his Uncleanness, and the other for Embezelling the Revenues of the Church, accused Hadrian of suffering a Deacon of an ill Life, although he knew of his Disorders, and of suffering Infants to die without Baptism. The Bishop of Larissa condemned him now for a Criminal Affair as he had done before for a Civil Matter; be appealed from this Sentence; the Emperors caused the Informations to be communicated to Honoratus a Deacon, who found none of these things true which they charged upon Hadrian. Yet his Cause was remitted to the Metropolitan of the first Justinienna, Primate of Illyria, and Vicar of the Holy See. This Bishop, without ex●…ing the Cause judicially, confirmed the Sentence of the Bishop of Larissa upon the 〈◊〉 of some Witnesses, who declared that they had heard from the Deacon Demetrius the things which were charged upon Hadrian, although this Deacon denied it so stiffly that he could not be made to confess it by putting him to the Torture. Hadrian had recourse to St. Gregory, who nulled the proceed at Larissa and those of the Bishop of the first 〈◊〉, as contrary to the Laws and the Canons, and as null in themselves, even though there had not been any Appeal. He cuts off the Bishop of Justin●… from Com●… for thirty days, threatens to Excommunicate him of Larissa, takes from him all his Jurisdiction over the Bishop of Thebes, order him to restore the Effects of the Church of Thebes, and remits the Cause in his own right only to his Residents at Constantinople, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 6. & 7.  
He believed also that the Holy See could call Causes of great Consequence to Rome, and judge them. Thus he judged and acquirred at Rome John a Priest of Chalcedon who was accused of Heresy, and condemned by the Bishop of Constantinople▪ B. 5. Ep. 15 & 16. And he alleges this Example to prove to the Bishop of 〈◊〉 th●… he could examine and judge at Rome the Cause of Claudus the Abbot, who had a Difference with the Church of Ravenna, B 5. Ep. 24. He acquits also a Priest of Isauria, who was accused of Heresy, B. 5. Ep 64. But he rarely made use of his Jurisdiction. And the Metropolitans 〈◊〉 it with him. Paul a Bishop of Afric came to Rome to purge himself: Witnesses are sent thither who are 〈◊〉 insufficient. Paul desires to be sent back to Constantinople, the Pope allows him to go thither with two Bishops, B. 6. Ep. 2.  
As to the ordinary Causes between the 〈◊〉 Clergy of the Bishoprics depending upon the Metropolis of Rome, he left them to the Decision of the Bishops, and would not have his Wardens to meddle in them, nor to diminish the Jurisdiction of the Ordinary. For, says he, if we do not preserve the Jurisdiction of each Bishop, we 〈◊〉 the Order of the Church which we should maintain. Nam si unicuique Epise●… sua jurisdictio non 〈◊〉, quid aliu● agitur, nisi ut per nos, per quos Ecclesiasticus ordo custo●… debuit, 〈◊〉, B. 9 Ep. 32. Yet he punished a Priest of a Parish in the Diocese of another Bishop, B. 2. Ep. 16.  
As to the Informations about the Disorders committed in the Person of a Bishop, he observes that they should be made by a Clergyman together with the Judge, B. 2 Ind. 11. Ep. 1. He would not have a Bishop detained a long time in Prison. He says that he must be Deposed if he be guilty, or set at Liberty if he be innocent, B. 1. Ep. 32. The Custom for a Man to purge himself by Oath when there was no Conviction of him, was in use in the time of St. Gregory, which he approves and makes use of, B. 2. Ep. 23. B. 9 Ep. 12.   

Against the Title of Universal Patriarch.  
ST. Gregory does not only oppose this Title in the Patriarch of Constantinople, but he maintains also that it cannot agree to any other Bishop, and that the Bishop of Rome neither ought nor can assume it. John the younger Patriarch of Constantinople, had taken upon him this Title in a Council held in 586, in the time of Pope Pelagius. which obliged this Pope to null the Acts of this Council. St. Gregory wrote of it also to this Patriarch; but this made no impression on him, and John would not abandon this fine Title, B. 4. Ep. 36. St. Gregory addressed himself to the Emperor Mauritius, and exhorted him earnestly to employ his Authority for redressing this Abuse, and to force him who assumed this Title to quit it. He remonstrates to him in his Letter, That although Jesus Christ had committed to St. Peter the Care of all his Church, yet he was not called Universal Apostle: That the Title of Universal Bishop is against the Rules of the Gospel, and the Appointment of the Canons; that there cannot be an Universal Bishop, but the Authority of all the other will be destroyed or diminished: That if the Bishop of Constantinople were Universal Bishop, and it should happen that he should fall into Heresy, it might be said, that the Universal Church was fallen into destruction: That the Council of Chalcedon had offered this Title to St. Leo, but neither he nor his Successors would accept it, lest by giving something peculiar to one Bishop only, they should take away the Rights which belong to all the Bishops: That it belongs to the Emperor, to reduce by his Authority him who despises the Canons, and does injury to the Universal Church by assuming this singular Name, B. 4. Ep. 32. These Remonstrances had no effect; for the Emperor would not meddle in this Affair, and had even authorized John the younger, and therefore the Pope complained of it to the Empress, Ep. 34. of the same Book. He wrote also to other Patriarches, who were, it seems, concerned to oppose this new Title: But they did not take the Matter so heinously as St. Gregory, and suffered the Patriarch of Constantinople to enjoy this Title, which did them no prejudice. Nay, Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch, had the boldness to remonstrate to St. Gregory, that he must not be angry for a Matter of so little consequence: But St. Gregory gave him to understand, that he did not take the Matter to be so Cyriacus succeeding to John in the See of Constantinople, continued to assume the same Title, yet he wrote to St. Gregory, immediately after his Promotion. This Pope would not refuse his Letter; but he gave him notice that he should quit that Ambitious Title of Universal Patriarch, if he would prevent a Rupture between them, and wrote to the Emperor, that his Legate should not Communicate with Cyriacus till he had parted with this vain Title, B. 6. Ep. 4. & 5. 23, 24, 25, 28, 30 & 31. He exhorts the Bishop of Thessalonica not to approve this Title, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 70. Yet Cyriacus would not quit it, and St. Gregory was also obliged to write to him about the end of his Pontificat, B. 11. Ep. 43.   

Of the Rights and Authority of the Metropolitans.  
ST. Gregory desires, that in Afric a Primate should be chosen, rather with respect to his Merit then the Dignity of the See, and that he should reside in a City, B. 1. Ep. 72. Yet he permits the Bishops of Numidia to observe their ancient Customs, even as to the appointing of Primates, provided notwithstanding, that they suffer none who have been Donatists to ascend to that Dignity, B. 11. Ep. 75.  
St. Gregory in naming his Deputies, preserves the Rights of Metropolitans: Singulis quibusave Metropolitis, secundum priscam consuetudinem, proprio bonore servato, B. 4. Ep. 50. i. e. Saving to each Metropolitan, his peculiar honour, according to ancient Custom.   

About the Pallium.  
ST. Gregory sent the Pallium to many Bishops.  
To Anastasius of Antioch, B. 1. Ep. 27.  
To him of Ravenna, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 77. B. 4. Ep. 54.  
To him of Salonae B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 130. He threatens to deprive him of it, B. 2. Ep. 14.  
To Leander Bishop of Sevil, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 126.  
To Siagrius of Autun, B. 7. Ind. 〈◊〉. Ep. 5. Ind. 2. Ep. 113.  
To the Bishop of Milan, B. 3. Ep. 1.  
To the Bishop of Messina, B. 5. Ep. 8.  
To the Bishop of Arles, B. 4. Ep. 50.  
To the Bishop of Corinth, B. 4. Ep. 55.  
The Form of sending the Pallium, B. 5. Ep. 8.  
He had a Difference with the Bishop of Ravenna, about the time wherein he should wear it: This Bishop pretended that he ought to put it on in the Vestry, in the presence of all the Clergy, and wear it in Procession; but the Pope would not have him to put it on till after the Clergy were gone forth, and that he should wear it in other places besides in the Church and at the Altar, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 53 & 55. Yet he permits him to wear it in some Processions, B. 4. Ep. 11 & 15. But he being not satisfied with this, had a mind to wear it whenever he pleased at the Ceremonies; and therefore St. Gregory informs him by his Notary Carlonus, after what manner it should be used, B. 5. Ep. 33.  
He gives it to the Bishop of Arles, on Condition that he should wear it only at the Altar, B. 3.  
He would not give it to Desiderius, because he could not prove, as he had affirmed, that his Church had formerly enjoyed Apostolical Privileges, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 117.  
He would not give it to the Bishop of Autun, until it had been desired for him in the Queen's Name, and the Bishops and the Emperor had consented to it, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 5. There he observes, That the Custom is to give it only to Bishops of noted Merit, who desire it importunately.   

About the Title of Cardinal.  
THe Title and Name of Cardinal with St. Gregory, signifies nothing but what is Titular. As for instance, He permits the People of Naples to make Bishop Paul, who was their Deputy, Cardinal of their Church, if they thought fit, B. 2. Ep. 6 & 7. Ib. Ep. 9 He speaks of a Presbyter Cardinal in an Oratory. He recommends the Church of Calaria, to the Bishop of Urbinum, during the absence and sickness of its Bishop, and prays him to take care of it, as he was the proper and Cardinal Bishop, Cardinalem & proprium, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 24 & 25. He makes the Bishops of ruin'd Churches, Cardinal Bishops of other Churches, B. 1. Ep. 77. B. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 25 & 26. B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 13 & 14. A Deacon who had not been made Cardinal, aught to come after those who had been Ordained Cardinals, although they were younger than he, B. 1. Ep. 79. i. e. A Deacon Ordained without a Title, has not the place, until the day whereon he is made Titular. A Presbyter Cardinal of a Church of Populania in Tuscany is a Titular Priest of that Church, B. 1. Ep. 15.   

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

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

Of the Functions of Arch-deacons, Deacons, Subdeacons, and other Clergymen.  
THe Officers of Bishops ought to be Clergymen, B. 4. Ep. 4. An archdeacon is answerable for the Movables of the Church, B. 1. Ep. 10. The Title of archdeacon was so considerable, that a Bishop having a design to be revenged upon an archdeacon, would Ordain a Priest against his Mind, on purpose to turn him out of his place. St. Gregory concerned himself against this Bishop, and threatened to deprive him of the Pallium, and depose him, if he did not restore the archdeacon, B. 1. Ep. 19 B. 2. Ep. 14, 15, 17, 37.  
St. Gregory grants to an archdeacon of Gap the use of the 
* Dalmatica is a long white Garment, without sleeves, set off with Purpleknaps. Spelm. Gloss.  Dalmatica, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 112.  
St. Gregory in a Synod forbids to put the Deacons upon singing in the Church: They should be employed in the Service of the Altar, and the Distribution of Alms. The Subdeacons should sing the Psalms and read the Lessons, and the Inferior Orders should not be employed in these Functions but in case of necessity, B. 4. Ep. 44.  
The Vidame was an Officer who took care of the Revenues of the Bishop of Rome, B. 1. Ep. 11. There is frequent mention in the Epistles of St. Gregory, of the Defensores, i. e. Wardens, who were the Clerks that took care of the Patrimony of the Roman Church.   

Of the Use of Ecclesiastical Revenues.  
THe Revenues of Churches ought to be divided into four Parts, whereof one is for the Clergy, and another for the Poor; and the two other parts ought to be subdivided into three, whereof one shall be for the maintenance of the Church, the other for the Bishop, and the last for the wants of particular Persons, B. 4. Ep. 42.  
That part which is for the Poor aught to be taken out of the new Purchases, as well as out of the old Possessions, B. 3. Ep. 11. B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 8. B. 11. Ep. 49. That part which is for the Clergy ought to be distributed indifferently among them, B. 7. Ind. 10. Ep. 8.  
The Letter 51 of B. 8. contains many Articles of an Agreement made between the Clergy of Panormum and their Bishop, which the Pope confirms, and in consequence thereof, ordered the Bishop, first. To distribute a full fourth part of the Revenues of his Church among all the Clergy, proportionable to their Merit, Office, and the Labour of each. Secondly, To give them the fourth part of the Offerings of the Faithful, whether they be in Money, or other Presents. Thirdly, To detain only the Remainder of the Movables for himself, and to unite all the unmoveable Purchases to the Possessions of the Church. Fourthly, To Commission a Receiver of the Revenues with the Consent of the Elders and the Clergy, Seniorum & Cleri, who shall give an Account every year, that all occasion of suspicion may be cut off. Fifthly, To permit the Clergy to take up their Provision of Wine at a reasonable price upon the Credit of the Church. Sixthly, To take care to remove illgotten Goods, and to use only honest ways of getting. Lastly, He exhorts him not to believe lightly what shall be told him against his Clergy, not to proceed against them with Passion, but only by Canonical ways.  
The Bishop cannot by Testament dispose of the Possessions of the Church, nor of the Purchases made while he was Bishop, B. 5. Ep. 1.  
The Revenues of the Church ought to be employed for the Assistance of the Poor, without reserving any thing for the future by a dangerous Precaution, B. 8. Ep. 20.  
In the extreme necessity of the Poor, the sacred Vessels, and that which serves for Ministering in holy Things, aught to be sold, but all the ready Money must be first disbursed, B. 6. Ep. 13, 35, 66.  
The Rights or the Church must be maintained, the Possessions which belong to it must be defended and recovered; but this must not be done with all the Rigour that's possible: 'Twere even better to lose something, and abandon a part of the Revenues of the Church, then to be the Cause of Ruin to the Poor, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 23. when there is room for doubting, whether the Goods belong to the Church, or no, 'tis best to yield.  
The Governors of Hospitals give an account of their Revenues to the Bishop, B. 3. Ep. 24.  
It belongs to the Bishop to take care of these Revenues, B. 3. Ep. 24. B. 8. Ep. 20. When he cannot do it by himself he must appoint a Steward for it, B. 11. Ep. 57   

Of the Patrimony of St. Peter.  
IN the time of St. Gregory the Church of Rome had many Possessions in Lands, not only in Italy and Sicily, but also in France, in Dalmatia, in Illyricum, etc. These Possessions were called The Patrimony of St. Peter: they were managed and administered by the Persons called Defensores, i. e. Wardens, who gave an account of them. St. Gregory employed the Revenues of these Patrimonies in Works of Piety: he desired that his Rights might not be exacted with Rigour, nor any new Taxes imposed. His Wardens had their Prerogatives and Jurisdictions. In Gaul they inspected the Chapels and Abbeys. These things may be proved by many Letters. See B. 1. Ep. 1, 2, 23, 37, 38, 39, 42, 44, 58. B. 2. Ep. 1. Ind. 10, 17. Ind. 11. Ep. 17, 33. B. 5. Ep. 5, 6, 10. B. 9 Ep. 65. In this last he speaks of the Right of inspecting Chapels and Abbeys.   

Of the Celibacy of Clergymen.  
ST. Gregory took it ill that the Subdeacons of Sicily were obliged to abstain from their Wives, according to the Custom of the Church of Rome. This Law appeared to him harsh and unreasonable, because they found not Continence established by any Law for them, and they were not obliged to keep it before they were Ordained, he feared lest something worse should happen if this yoke were imposed upon them. He orders that none shall be Ordained for the future who do not promise to live in Continence. He declares that those who have observed the Prohibitions made three years ago deserve to be commended; but he would not have those Deposed who had broken them, although he forbids to promote them to Holy Orders.  
He declares in Letter 34 of Book 3. That he will put in Execution the Order of the Pope his Predecessor, about the Continence of the Subdeacons, and that those who are married shall be obliged to abstain from it, or else to forsake the Service of the Altar. He would not have the Wives punished of those who desired rather to quit the Service then renounce them, nor the Women hindered from marrying again after their death. He orders that for the future no Sub-deacon shall be made who is not obliged before hand to observe Celibacy.  
He enjoins the Bishop of Tarentum who had a Concubine, voluntarily to resign the Bishopric, and to do a reasonable Penance, if he had kept Company with her since he was a Bishop, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 4.  
He forbade Clergymen very severely to keep strange Women in their Houses, and also exhorted them not to keep those which are excepted by the Canons, B. 1. Ep. 50. B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 39 B. 3. Ep. 26. B. 11. Ep. 42 & 43.  
He implores the Authority of the Prince against disorderly Clergymen who kept Women in their Houses, B. 9 Ep. 64.  
He forbids to Ordain a Deacon Bishop who had a very young Daughter, by whose Age it manifestly appeared that he had not long observed Continence, B. 8. Ep. 11.   

Against Simony.  
ST. Gregory forbids to take any thing for Ordinations, for Marriages, and for admission into a Religion's House, or for any Ecclesiastical Office, B. 3. Ep. 24. B. 4. Ep. 44, 55, 56. B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 110. Or even for Burial, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 4. except what the Kinsmen or Heirs offer voluntarily for the Light, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 56.  
He forbids the Bishops of Sicily to take any thing above the usual Rate for the Confirmation of Infants, pro confirmandis Infantibus, B. 11. Ep. 22. nor for the Funeral, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 4.  
He was so afraid left it should be thought that he exacted any thing from the Suffragan Bishops, that he would not suffer the Churches to send him the Annual Presents according to Custom, B. 1. Ep. 64.  
Simony was very common in his time in the East and in Greece, B. 5. Ep. 11. B. 4. Ep. 55. B. 9 Ep. 40. B. 11. Ep. 48. In Sicily, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 4, 56. In Afric, B. 10. Ep. 32. But chief in the Gauls, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 111, & 114, 115. B. 9 Ep. 49, 50, 51. and the following Letters. He wrote earnestly to Bishops and Kings, that they would put a stop to this Disorder, by forbidding it, Ibid.   

Of the Submission due to Princes.  
ST. Gregory gives proof of his Submission to the Orders of the Emperor, in Ep. 62. of Ind. 11. B. 2. Mauritius had directed to him a Law which contained three Articles. By the first it was forbidden to receive those into the Clergy who were engaged in any Public Administration. St. Gregory found no fault with this Article. But as to the second, wherein they were forbidden to enter into a Monastery, he finds it unreasonable, because the Monastery may discharge the Debts of these Persons and make up their Accounts; besides that it's to be presumed that one who desires sincerely to be converted, will take order with his Affairs. Neither does he approve the third Head which forbids those which had been designed for the Militia, to enter into a Monastery. He makes his Remonstrance with a great deal of respect, and declares to the Emperor that he did not suffer this Law to be published, and that herein he had done his duty as a Subject and as a Bishop; as a Subject in obeying his Prince, as a Bishop in making his most humble Remonstrance. Utrobique quod debui exolvi, & Imperatori obedientiam praebui, & pro Deo, quod sensi minime tacui.  
When Phocas invaded the Empire, St. Gregory did not oppose his Exaltation; but on the contrary he acknowledged and even commended him, B. 11. Ep. 45. See also the Memorial which is at the beginning of the same Book.  
In Ep. 127. of Ind. 2. B. 7. 
* This was his submission to Princes that he basely fawned upon Phocas a Parricide and Usurper, and bitterly reproached the Memory of his Liege Lord Mauritius, Cave, p. 431.  He commends the King Recaredus for bringing back his Arian Subjects to the Church, and represents to him the Reward he was to expect for presenting so many Souls to God. He declares to him that he looks upon him in this respect as much above himself: he praises him also for not recalling the Order he had made against the Jews. After he has given him these Commendations, he exhorts him to be circumspect in his behaviour, and recommends to him Humility, Purity, and Moderation.  
Notwithstanding this he did not forbear to write to Princes with boldness, and to make Christian Remonstrances unto them. He exhorts Phocas to relieve the People, B. 11. Ep. 38. He admonishes Kings to remember that they are Men like others, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 62. He represents to them that it was not enough to be a King, but the chief business was to be Pious, B. 5. Ep. 5 & 6. He declares to them that they were obliged to protect the Church and the Faith, B. 2. Ind. 2. Ep. 126. B. 3. Ep. 7, 23. B. 4. Ep. 54. B. 5: Ep. 63. B. 9 Ep. 57, 64. He terrified them by representing to them that the day of Judgement was near at hand, B. 9 Ep. 60. B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 61. and by threatening them with the Plagues of God, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 65.   

Of Ecclesiastical Moderation.  
ST. Gregory declares in Letter 1. of Book 7. That he always abhorred the ways of Cruelty that were used for planting Religion; that, if he had pleased, he could have destroyed the whole Nation of the Lombard's, but that it was not the Spirit of the Church.  
He desires that Justice and Equity may be observed towards the Jews, as well as among Christians, and that no injury may be done unto them. Here follow the Examples of his Moderation. He wrote to Vigilius of Arles, and Theodorus Bishop of Marseilles, That the Jews ought not to be compelled to be baptised, lest the sacred Fonts of Regeneration to a Divine Life by Baptism, should be to them the occasion of a second Death more deadly than the first, B. 1. Ep. 45. He would have them allured by Moderation, B. 1. Ep. 11. He does not approve the Zeal of a Jew newly baptised, who on the next day after his Baptism, thought sit to carry an Image of the Virgin, a Cross, and a white Garment in the Synagogue, to endeavour the Conversion of the Jews, and to take from them the Place of their Assembly. He desires that these things may be removed out of the Synagogue, and that it may be restored to the Jews, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 5.  
He blames the Bishop of Terracina, who had hindered the Jews from celebrating their Festivals in the City, and had driven them out of it, appointing them another Place for holding their Assemblies, B. 1. Ep. 34. He orders that the Price of their Synagogues which they had invaded should be restored unto them, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 59  
He complains of John the Younger, That he had suffered the Priests of Constantinople to be abused, without concerning himself in their Defence: and he adds, that 'tis a thing unheard of to force People by beating them with a stick to receive the Faith: Inaudita est praedicatio, quae verberibus exigit fidem.  
He would have Heretics easily received, B. 1. Ep. 14. And the better to entice such Idolaters as were lately converted, he permits that the Festival days which were wont to be kept near the Churches, should be observed in that Place where they had been accustomed to make their Feasts of Meats offered unto Idols, B. 9 Ep. 71.   

Of the Duties to which Bishops are obliged.  
BIshops are called Pastors upon no other account, but because they ought to labour for the good of their Flocks, B. 3. Ep. 35. B. 4. Ep. 8, 35. A Bishop ought to instruct his People by his Discourse and by his Example, B. 4. Ep. 52, 55. B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 12, 113. B. 12. Ep. 32. B. 10. Ep. 17. B. 11. Ep. 10. He ought to shun the Pomp's and Vanities of this World, and not to place his Honour in External Magnificence, but in the Excellency of his Office. He ought to be candid, modest, meek, sincere, patiented, etc. B. 4. Ep. 15. He ought to make himself beloved and feared, B. 3. Ep. 1. He must not only be Pious and Spiritual, but he must also be Active and Charitable, B. 5. Ep. 29. He must not apply himself to the gaining of Riches, but of Souls, B. 5. Ep. 29. B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 2.  
Bishops are obliged to make Visitations in their Dioceses, to confirm the Children that are baptised, B. 8. Ep. 46. They ought to entertain their Brethren, when they are driven away or banished, B. 1. Ep. 43.  
The Bishop's Officers ought all to be Clergymen, B. 4. Ep. 44. The Laws of the Emperors about the Immunities of the Clergy, B. 11. Ep. 56.  
St. Gregory would not have Bishops teach Human Learning, because than they must praise Jupiter with the same Mouth wherewith they sing the Praises of Jesus Christ. He says also, That this is not suitable for a pious Layman, B. 9 Ep. 48.  
The Bishops who go to Court, aught to have Letters of Leave from the Metropolitan, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 62.  
Bishop's ought to be sober. St. Gregory refutes the Bishop Honoratus, who excused the good Cheer that he made by the Examples of the Feasts of the Patriarches, and the Love-Feasts of the first Christians, B. 2. Ep. 14 & 37.  
The Bishops are obliged to Residence, B. 1 Ep. 64. B. 5. Ep. 23. B. 8. Ep. 11. They ought not to go out of their Diocese, for any Business without the leave of the Metropolitans, B. 7. Ep. 8 62. They ought to dwell within the Bounds of their Diocese, and not to invade the Parishes of another Diocese, upon any pretence whatsoever, B. 12. Ep. 2 & 3. They ought not to abandon their Church in the time of Pestilence, B. 8. Ep 4. B. 4. Ep. 2.   

Of the Penance of Clergymen.  
ST. Gregory was of the mind, That a Clergyman being Deposed, who had performed the Duties of his Function, aught to be deprived of the Communion, and put under Penance all the rest of his Life. Yet he leaves the Bishop at Liberty to grant him Lay-Communion, if he finds him worthy of it after he has finished his Penance, B. 4. Ep. 5. Examples of Clergymen Deposed and put under Penance in Monasteries, are to be seen, B. 1. Ep. 18, 43. B. 3. Ep. 9 B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 28, 40. He threatens a Bishop with it, B. 5. Ep. 23. Clergymen that are fallen into Carnal Sin, can never be restored, B. 1. Ep. 43. B. 3. Ep. 26.  
A Deacon for his Calumnies was condemned to be Deposed, whipped and banished, B. 9 Ep. 66. Another that had deflowered a Maid was shut up in a Monastery, was sentenced to Corporal Punishment, B. 2. Ind. 2. Ep. 40.   

Of Excommunication.  
AGainst those who say that we ought not to fear Excommunications, nor have any regard to them, B. 9 Ep. 39  
St. Gregory declares that Excommunication null, which was pronounced by Laurentius Bishop of Milan against Magnus the Priest, and assures him that he may receive the Communion if he be not guilty of some secret Fault, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 26.  
A Bishop who had pronounced a hasty Sentence of Excommunication against an Abbot, is reproved by St. Gregory, B. 12. Ep. 26, 30. We must not Excommunicate any for slight Causes, or in Passion, B. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 34. B. 12. Ep. 26.  
There aught to be three Admonitions before Excommunication, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 54.  
He who is Excommunicated by his Superior, ought not to be admitted to the Communion, until he is absolved, B. 7. Ind. 2 Ep. 36.   

Rules concerning the Monks.  
ST. Gregory having been a Monk himself, 'tis no wonder that he took a particular care of the Monks during his Pontificat.  
He would have no Person received into the Monasteries before the Age of Eighteen, B. 1. Ep. 41.  
Before any one becomes a Professed Monk, by taking upon him the Monastical Habit, he must first be tried in a Lay-habit, and serve as a Probationer for two years, B. 4. Ep. 44. B. 8. Ep. 23.  
A Monk who abandons his Habit and Profession, should be shut up. St. Gregory would grant no Dispensation in this Case, B. 12. Ep. 20. B. 1. Ep. 33, 40.  
Vagabond Monks ought not to be suffered, B. 1. Ep. 4. B. 6. Ep. 32. B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 36.  
Laymen ought not to be admitted to stay in Monasteries, B. 4. Ep. 1.  
The Clergy who have taken upon them the Monastical Habit, cannot have a place among the Clergy if they quit the Monastical Life, at least unless they be Ordained Priests by their Bishops, B. 1. Ep. 40.  
St. Gregory would not have those chosen for Abbots who are Priests, Deacons, or Clerks of Churches. Neither would he have those who are of the Clergy made Monks, because the Ecclesiastical Order is perfectly different from the Monastical Life, B. 3. Ep. 11. B. 4. Ep. 8.  
But notwithstanding this, some Abbots and Monks were Priests; for St. Gregory writes to many Abbots that were Priests, but they were Ordained in their Convention. As for example, St. Gregory enjoins the Bishop of Panormum to Ordain him Priest whom the Monks should choose to say Mess in their House, B. 5. Ep. 41. Sometimes also in a case of Necessity the Bishop could take the Monks in the Monastery of his Diocese, and advance them to the Priesthood, that he might employ them in his own Church, B. 5. Ep. 27. But the design of the Church was, that those who were of the Clergy, and destined for the Service of the Church, should not be Monks, and that the Monks should not be of the Clergy, because the Monks are obliged to Retirement, which is disturbed by the Service which the Clergy are bound to do to the Church. For this reason St. Gregory would not have the Bishops come to celebrate Public Messes in the Monasteries, B. 5. Ep. 46. But thinks it sufficient that they send thither a Priest, if they would have Messes said there, Ibid. & B. 3. Ep. 18.  
The Monks had not power to make a Will. St. Gregory allows it to one whom he had made an Abbot against his will. This Concession is in B. 9 Ep. 22. The date of the years of Jesus Christ which might make the Truth of it questionable, is not found in the ancient Manuscripts.  
A Monk who cannot labour, aught to be maintained at the expense of his Family, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 1.  
A Monk ought not to go forth alone, because it is to be presumed that he who walketh without a Witness lives not well: Qui fine teste ambulat non recte vivit, B. 10. Ep. 22.  
A Monk ought to have nothing which may be called his own Propriety, B. 1. Ep. 40. B. 5. Ep. 12. B. 10. Ep. 22.   

Of an Abbot.  
HE could not be chosen for an Abbot who had offended against Chastity, or had been put under Penance: wherefore St. Gregory makes void the Election of an Abbot who confessed that he had committed a sin of Uncleanness, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 23.  
The Abbot, as well as the other Monks, is forbidden to go out of the Monastery: he ought to have a Proctor for Civil Affairs, and to give himself wholly to Prayer and Reading, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 3. B. 1. Ep. 47. He who being barely a Monk goes forth without a Companion, is not worthy to be chosen Abbot, B. 10. Ep. 22.  
The Abbot must choose for a Superior him who is immediately next to himself if he be worthy of it, if not, he ought to take one of the Brethren who were last admitted, that so all of them may be encouraged to do well, when they shall see that there is not so great regard had to Age as to merit, B. 6. Ep. 10.  
The Disorders of a Monastery do often proceed from the bad Conduct of a Superior, who is either too mild or too passionate, B. 9 Ep. 42.  
An Abbot ought to have the Qualifications which are suitable to his Dignity, B. 6. Ep. 18. He ought to reform his Monks, B. 6. Ep. 29.  
Bishop's ought not to support the Monks who are disobedient to their Abbots, B. 6. Ep. 32.  
A Stranger ought not to be chosen for Abbot, if there be any in the Monastery fit for the Office, B. 8. Ind. 1. Ep. 18.  
The Abbot ought always to have the first place in the Monastery, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 18.  
The Monks of one Monastery ought not to be sent to reform those of another, nor to Ordain them Clergymen without the Consent of the Abbot; yet if he will not send some to reform neighbouring Monasteries, the Bishops may oblige him to do it, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 18. It belongs to the Abbot to make an Inventory of the Goods of Monasteries, Ibid.   

Of the Exemption of Monasteries.  
ALthough St. Gregory always subjected the Monks to the ordinary Jurisdiction of the Bishop, yet he granted them some Privileges, which neither tended to subvert the Order of the Church, nor to exempt them from Episcopal Jurisdiction, but only to procure them more Repose.  
He exempted the Monastery of Ariminum from the Visitation of the Bishop after the Death of the Abbot, and from the Celebration of Public Messes; but he left to the Bishop the Right of Ordaining him Abbot whom the Monks should choose, B. 4. Ep. 41 & 43. in Ep. 12. of B. 6. He grants the Abbess of the Monastery of Nuns at Marseilles, which is said to be consecrated in honour of St. Cassianus, the following Privileges; That after the Death of the Abbess, no Abbess that is a Stranger shall be set over them, but she whom the Nuns shall choose. 2. That the Abbess shall have the Administration of the Revenue of the Abbey, and neither the Bishop nor any other Person shall meddle with it. 3. That the Bishop shall Celebrate Divine Service there on the day of its Dedication, and that his Chair shall not continue there the rest of the time; but on other days Divine Service shall be performed there by the Priest whom the Bishop shall send thither. 4. That the Bishop in Person shall take Cognizance of the Faults of the Abbess, or the other Nuns.  
In B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 116. which is addressed to the Bishop of Arles, he confirms the Privileges granted by the Holy See to a Monastery of Monks at Arles without specifying them.  
He says in Ep. 12. of B. 1. That the Bishop ought not to hinder the saying of Messes, and burying the Dead in Monasteries.  
He forbids Bishops to be burdensome to Monks, or to exact any thing of them, B. 5. Ep. 28. B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 18, 33.  
He forbids Priests and Secular Clergymen to trouble them, B. 5. Ep. 28. B. 6. Ep. 40. B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 18.  
None but the Bishop has any Jurisdiction over the Monks.   

Of the Uniting of Monasteries.  
ST. Gregory did often Unite a Monastery which was abandoned, to another Monastery, or a Church which was relinquished to a Monastery; but always on condition that the Service should be said in the Church, or in the Monastery united, at the expense of the Monks. See B. 8. Ep. 39 B. 11. Ep. 4. B. 9 Ep. 67, 68   

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

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

The Uniting of Bishoprics.  
Bishoprics were United, either because of the small number of the Inhabitants, or because the City of one of the two Bishoprics was ruined, B. 1. Ep. 8. B. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 31 & 35. B. 5. Ep. 9 B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 20.   

The Translation of Bishops.  
WE have no other Examples of them in St. Gregory, but only of such Bishops whose Churches were ruined or possessed by Enemies: And those he permits to be Suffragans, and even Titular Bishops of other Churches, but on Condition, that if their Churches were restored, or rebuilt, they should return unto them. See under the Title of Cardinal, and chief B. 1. Ep. 77, 79. B. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 22 & 25. Ind. 11. Ep. 13 & 14. A Translation from the See of a Bishop, B. 2. Ind. 1. Ep. 7.  
He gives the Care of a Church to another Bishop, B. 2. Ind. 10. Ep. 13, 38. Ind. 11. Ep. 13.  
He invites the Bishops who had no Bishoprics, to fill those Sees which were vacant, B. 4. Ep. 35.   

Rules concerning Christian Slaves.  
JEws must not be suffered to keep Christian Slaves, although Christians are obliged to pay them the Rents of the Lands which they hire from them, B. 3. Ep. 21. The Law which grants freedom to Jewish Slaves who become Christians, aught to be extended to Pagan Slaves also who are bought by Jews when they become Christians. The Jews have three Months allowed them, after they are bought, to sell them to a Christian, but after this time, if they continue still with them, they shall be set at Liberty, because 'tis to be presumed, since they do not sell them in three months' time, that they have a design to keep them for their own Service, B. 5. Ep. 31. This time is also restrained to the term of forty days after they shall arrive, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 35. St. Gregory prays the Queen Brunehauld to cause forbidden the Jews in her Kingdom to keep Christian Slaves, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 115. A Form of Enfranchising them, B. 5. Ep. 12. The Slaves of Jews who take Sanctuary in the Churches, ought not to be restored unto them, B. 3. Ep. 9   

Of the Veneration due to Relics.  
ST. Gregory had a great Veneration for Relics, particularly for those of St. Peter and St. Paul. He refused to send some of them to the Empress Constantina, assuring her, that they were not to be approached without Terror; that his Predecessor desiring to have some of the Plates touched that were near them, was troubled with Visions, and endeavouring to change something at the Sepulchre of St. Laurence, the Monks and Churchwarden who searched for discovering it, died in ten days time; that the Relics of the Holy Apostles are never given, but only a piece of Stuff or Linen, which has come near their Bodies, is put into a Box, which is sufficient, and has the same effect. Upon this occasion he relates many Stories: He promises her some of the Filings of the Chain of St. Peter, if the Priest who is appointed for filing them could have any, for this File will not take hold, when those who desire them do not deserve to receive them, B. 3. Ep. 30.  
He sent every where some of these Filings enchased in Keys. See B. 1. Ep. 25, 29, & 30. B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 33, 47. B. 5. Ep. 6. B. 6. Ep. 20, 23, 25. B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 34. Ind. 2. Ep. 54. 126. 111. B. 10. Ep. 7. B. 11. Ep. 45. He desires the Relics of other Saints, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 9 He makes use of Relics for Consecrating of Churches, B. 5. Ep. 45, 50. B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 73, 74, 85. B. 9 Ep. 26.   

Of the Use of Images.  
SErenus Bishop of Marseilles, having broken and thrown down the Images of his Church, because he observed that the People adored them, the Pope commends his Zeal that he had hindered him from worshipping them; but he does not take it well that he had broken them, because they serve for Books to those who cannot read, who learn by looking upon them with their eyes, what they cannot discovery by reading of Books. He thinks that he should have let them stand, and only have instructed the People that they should not worship them, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 110.  
Serenus receiving this Letter, doubted whether it was St. Gregory's or no. This first assures him that it was his, and speaks to him of this Action in these very words: We praise you, says he to him, for hindering the People from worshipping of Images, but we rebuke you for breaking of them: Tell me, my Brother, where is the Bishop that ever did th● like? If nothing else could hinder you from doing it, yet ought you not to have refrained for the very singularity of the thing? Should you not have been afraid to make People believe that you thought yourself the only wise and prudent person? There is a great deal of difference between worshipping an Image, and learning whom we ought to worship, by the historical Representation of a Picture; for what the Scripture teaches those who can read, the Picture informs such as have eyes to look upon it. The unlearned see in it what they ought to follow, it is a Book to them who know not a Letter; and therefore it is very useful for Barbarians, for whom you ought to have a particular regard who live amongst them, and not give them offence by an indiscreet Zeal. You ought not to break that which is placed in the Churches, not to be worshipped, but to give Instruction to the Ignorant. Ancient Custom permitted the Pictures of Sacred Histories to be set up in Churches, and your Zeal, if it had been attended with discretion, would never have tore them, nor have occasioned such a Scandal as has driven away a part of your People from your Communion. You ought therefore to call them back again, and declare unto them, that Images ought not to be worshipped, that you would not have broken them, but that you saw the People adore them, and that you will permit them to continue for the future, provided they be made use of only for 
* [This is expressly contrary to the Council of Trent, Sess 25. which declares that Images are to be placed in Churches, and to be worshipped there; and to the common Doctrine of Romish Writers now, who allow at least of Relative Worship to be given them.]  Instruction. Do not forbid Images, but hinder them from being worshipped in any manner whatsoever, and stir up your People to Compunction, and the Adoration of the Holy Trinity, by looking upon the Pictures of Holy Histories. B. 9 Ep. 9   

Of divers Ceremonies of the Church of Rome.  
ST. Gregory having appointed certain new Rites in the Church of Rome, was reproved for it by some of his Friends, who were disgusted with him for following the Customs of the Church of Constantinople, which he designed to humble in every thing. They blamed him chief for four things: 1. For saying Hallelujah at Mess on other days besides Whitsunday. 2. That the Subdeacons were not in their Habit when they performed their Office. 3. For singing Kyrie Eleison, Lord have mercy upon us. 4. For ordering the Lord's Prayer to be repeated, immediately after the Canon of the Mess. St. Gregory answers in general, That in none of these Heads he had followed the Custom of any other particular Church: That as to the Hallelujah, it came from the Church of Jerusalem, from which St Jerom took it and introduced it into the Church of Rome in the time of Pope Damasus: That in obliging the Subdeacons to minister without their Habit, he had renewed an ancient Custom, that had been abrogated by a Pope, whose name be knew not; That the Subdeacons do only wear Linen Albes in the Church of Syracuse, which has received the Customs of the Roman Church its Mother, and not in the Greek Church; That formerly, Kyrie Eleison, was not wont to be said, and at present it is not said after the manner of the Greeks, who repeat it altogether, whereas at Rome the Clergy begin it, and the People respond to it, and as often as they do, Christ eleison is said; which Practice is not used among the Greeks: That in the daily Messes something is omitted of what used to be said at Mess, but then Kyrie eleison, and Christ eleison, is sung for a much longer time. As to what concerns the Lord's Prayer, he adds, That it is used immediately after the Canon, (post Precem) because the Apostles had a custom of Consecrating the Sacrifice of Oblation with this Prayer only, (ad ipsam solummodo Orationem) and that it did not appear to him proper, to repeat over the Oblation, a Prayer which had been made by a Civil Lawyer, and not to repeat over the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, that Prayer which himself composed: And besides, that among the Greeks the Lord's Prayer is pronounced by all the People, but at Rome the Priest only says it, B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 64.  
The Clergy of Rome would not have the Clergy men of the Church of Ravenna to wear the Mappulae: St. Gregory grants the use of them to the Deacons only, while they are administering their Office. The Bishop of Ravenna maintains, that all the Clergymen ought to wear them, B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 55.  
A Song was sung in the Church of Ravenna on the Easter Wax-Candle, B. 9 Ep. 28.  
St. Gregory ordains Processions or Litanies in the time of War, B. 9 Ep. 45.  
He permits Messes to be said in Houses, B. 5. Ep. 42 & 43. The Roman Church had not in his time any other History of the Martyrs but what is in Eusebius. She used only a Catalogue of the holy Martyrs for every day of the year, which noted barely the time and place of their Martyrdom, B. 7. Ind. 1. Ep. 3.  
He forbids to travel on Sunday, but he does not think it unlawful to bathe on that day, when it is done for health, and not for pleasure, B. 11. Ep. 3.   

Of the last Judgement.  
WHensoever there happened any great Revolutions in the World, the Christians were easily persuaded, that the end of the World was approaching: Now St. Gregory had seen some very considerable in his time, and foreseeing the Ruin of the Roman Empire to be very near at hand, which some thought should never be till the end of the World, he became of that Opinion, that the last Judgement was drawing near. This he affirms in many places of his Letters, and chief B. 2. Ind. 11. Ep. 62. B. 3. Ep. 44. B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 128. etc.  
Jesus Christ preached only to those Souls departed who had believed in him, and led a good Life, B. 6. Ep. 15.   

The Letters of St. Gregory against the Defenders of the three Chapters.  
Although the Church of Rome approved the Condemnation of the three Chapters, yet its example was not followed by all the Bishops of Italy. Many did not only persist in their Resolution not to Condemn them, but also separated from the Church of Rome and the other Bishops who had received this Condemnation, or who communicated with the Bishops that had signed it. St. Gregory being concerned to see so many Bishops separate from the Church for a Question of so little Importance, used all his Endeavours to bring them back again by ways of Meekness and Civility. For this end he invited at the beginning of his Pontificat, Severus Bishop of Aquileia, and the other Bishops of Istria who were more obstinate, to come to Rome, there to treat amicably of this Controversy, and promised to remove the Scruples they might have about it. But these Bishops refused to admit of this Accommodation, and maintained their Principle with so much stiffness, that they attributed the Calamities wherewith Italy was then afflicted, to the Condemnation of the three Chapters. The City of Aquileia being afterwards taken by the Lombard's, Severus was forced to retire to Gradus, from whence he was carried by the Emperor's Order to Ravenna, where he condemned the three Chapters: But finding a way to obtain Letters from the Emperor, which forbade to disturb those who defended the three Chapters in the West, he declared himself anew for the defence of them, and so agreed the matter with the Lombard's, that he was restored to Aquileia, where he died. After his death, Agilulphus King of the Lombard's, caused John to be chosen in his room, who was a Defender of the three Chapters; and the Pope being supported by the Exarch, sent Candidian to Gradus for opposing John.  
Many other Bishops of Italy submitted to the Dominion of the Lombard's, who would not approve the Condemnation of the three Chapters; Nay, they had so great an Aversion to those who condemned them, that they separated from the Communion of Constantius Bishop of Milan, whom they suspected to have signed this Condemnation; and Theodolinda Queen of the Lombard's followed their Example. St. Gregory advised this Bishop to hold his peace, and say nothing upon this subject, and told him, that he ought not to affirm that he had not signed them. He wrote also to Theodolinda many Letters, to persuade her that those who condemned the three Chapters, received the Council of Chalcedon. He speaks every where as one that was not too much convinced, either of the Justice, or Necessity of Condemning the three Chapters, but he would not have any to separate from their Communion who did condemn them.   

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

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

The Mission of Austin the Monk and his Colleagues into England.  
THe English having testified their desire to be instructed in the Christian Religion, and the ancient Inhabitants of that Country hating them with so violent a hatred that they would have no Commerce with them, St. Gregory chose some Monks of his own Monastery to be sent into England under the Conduct of Austin their Abbot. These Monks having travelled into Provence, were at first so terrified with the difficulties which they found in this Enterprise, that St. Austin took upon him to return to Rome, to represent them to St. Gregory. This Pope encouraged him, and sent him back with Letters of Recommendation addressed to Theodoricus King of Burgundy, Theodebert King of Austrasia, to Queen Brunehaud their Aunt, to Aurigius a Nobleman, and to the Bishops of Vienna, Arles, Aix, and Autun, in which he exhorted them to favour this laudable Undertaking, B. 5. Ep. 52 etc.  
Austin being returned into France was ordained by the Bishops of 
a St Gregory in Letter 30 of Book 9 Ind. 1. written to Eulogius, says, That he was ordained by the Bishops of Germany to whom he had given leave: Data à me licentiâ à Germaniarum Episcopis, Episcopus factus. Bede assures us that he was ordained by Aetherius ●p. of Arles; he should have said Virgilius ●p. of Arles, or Aetherius ●p. of Lions; for at this time the B. of Arles was called Virgilius, and of Lyons Aetherius. The Authority of B●de made Baronius believe, that there was a fault in the Letter of St. Gregory, and that it should be read Galliarum instead of Germaniarum; Others think that Bede was mistaken, and that according to St. Gregory, Austin was ordained by the Bishops of the Provinces of Germany upon the Rhin●; But 'tis more probable that he intended the Provinces upon the Rouen, to which the Name of Germany was sometimes given; because they were inhabited by the Burgundians, who were originally Germane. We have Examples of this in Sidonius Apollinaris, who calls the Kingdom of Chilperic▪ whereof the Capital City was ●yons, Lugdumensem Germaniam. B 5. Ep. 7. And writing to Siagrius who dwelled at Lions, he praises him for understanding the Language of the Germans, i. e. of the Burgundians, who remained at Lions. St. Austin therefore being ordained by Aetherius Bishop of Lions, St. Gregory might say that he was ordained by the Bishops of Germany.  France, and afterwards passed over into England with forty Missionaries, whereof some were French Priests as well as others Italian Monks. They made a stop at a little Isle, where King Ethelred came to meet them, and after some Conference with them, he permitted them to enter into his Kingdom and his Capital City. After they had learned the Language of the Country, they preached the Faith of Jesus Christ, and Converted in a little time a very great number of these Infidels; insomuch that in one day of Christmas they baptised more than one thousand Persons. St. Gregory having heard this News, communicated it to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria by Letter 30. of Book 7. Ind. 2. And that these auspicious beginnings might be attended also with happy Consequences, he recommended these Missionaries to the Bishops and Kings of France, by the Letters 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 63 of B. 9 He informs St. Austin what he ought to do by Letter 58. He thanks the Queen of England, who was a Christian, and the Daughter of Charibert King of the French, for the Protection she had given to Austin, and exhorts her to finish this Work, B. 9 Ep. 5. 
* [This shows that the first conversion England was not owing to Austin and the Monks sent by Pope Gregory, for many years before their coming, this Queen called ●ertha, was married to King Ethelbert upon Condition that he would suffer her to enjoy the Christian Religion, and to have a Bishop to attend her, whose name was Luidhardus, Bede Hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 25. Malmsbur. de Gestis Reg. Angl. l. 1. c. 1.]  He wrote to the King to congratulate his Conversion, and exhorts him to destroy entirely the Remainders of Paganism in his Kingdom, B. 9 Ep. 59 And lastly, to give the greater credit to Austin, he sent him the Pallium, B. 12. Ep. 15.   

Of some Letters attributed to St. Gregory, which are either uncertain or supposititious.  
HAving made Extracts out of the Letters of St. Gregory, we must here make some remarks upon those Letters which are either to be rejected as supposititious, or whereof there may be some cause to doubt.  
The 54th Letter of the second Ind. of B. 7. addressed to Secundinus a recluse Monk, is either wholly forged, or very much corrupted, although Paul the Deacon has put it in the number of the 54 Letters of St. Gregory which he had collected. For 1. the Discipline which is established in that Letter concerning the Clergy who fell into sins of Uncleanness, is perfectly opposite to that of St. Gregory. We have observed that St. Gregory did not leave them any hope of being restored, nor of discharging the Duties of their Office, and that he affirms it as a thing undoubted, that this was never permitted, and that he cannot allow it, and if he should it would wholly subvert the order of Canonical Discipline. On the contrary, the Author of this Letter undertakes to prove that the Priests and Clergymen, who were fallen into these sins, aught to be restored. 2. The style of one part of this Letter is very different from that of St. Gregory. There it is said that Secundinus asked him, De Sacerdotali Officio post lapsum authoritates resurgendi. And a little after, Dicit sanctitas tua se diversas sententias invenisse, alias resurgendi alias nequaquam posse, etc. Gregory never spoke after such a barbarous manner. 3. There is no coherence nor connexion in the different parts of this Letter, contrary to the custom of St. Gregory. 4. The Manuscripts are very different; of thirty Manuscripts there are but two in which that place is to be found which concerns the Restauration of Clergymen fallen into the sins of Uncleanness; that which concerns Images, and is at the end of the same Letter, is in very few Manuscripts; which proves that these two places at least have been added, neither have they any connexion with the other parts of the Letter.  
The Epistle 31. of Book 10. appears also to me to be very doubtful: It's not a Letter of St. Gregory, but a Declaration of a Schismatical Bishop, signed by him and his Clergy, wherein he promises never to relapse into his Schism, under the Pain of Deprivation and Excommunication. In the Title he speaks of Heresy, and in the body of the Writing he speaks, only of Schism. 2. 'Tis no no where noted to whom this Declaration was made. 3. He promises to St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles, and his Vicar the blessed Gregory; which Form does not appear to be so ancient. 4. He swears by the Holy Gospels, and by the Genius of the Emperors. But the Christians would never swear by the Genius of the Emperors under Pagan Emperors; how then should this Form be authorized under a Christian Emperor in an Oath made by a Bishop for an Affair purely Ecclesiastical? 5. 'Tis said in this Declaration, that it was made under the Consuls; but there had not been any Consuls for a long time before. 6. Lastly, This Form is not found in many Manuscripts.  
The Memorial concerning the Proclamation of the Emperor Phocas, which is at the beginning of B. 11. is a very uncertain Piece, which ought not to be ranked among the Letters of St. Gregory, no more than the following Sermon concerning the Processions which St. Gregory caused to be made in the time of Mortality, which ought to be placed at the beginning of St. Gregory's Pontificat; 'tis found in some Manuscripts before all the Letters.  
The Privilege which is supposed to have been granted to a Hospital of the Church of Autun, founded by Queen Brunehaud, and by Siagrius Bishop of that City, has been placed among the Letters of St. Gregory in B. 11. Num. 10. and it must be confessed that 'tis found in all the Manuscripts: Yet there are strong Reasons for rejecting it; for, 1. John the Deacon makes no mention of it in the Life of St. Gregory. 2. All the Clauses of this pretended. Privilege are so many Proofs of its Forgery. By the first it forbids Kings and Bishops to touch the Goods given to this Monastery, or those which shall be given to it for the future, and leaves the whole Administration of them to the Abbot. By the second he gives the Nomination of the Abbot to the King, and leaves the Approbation of him only to the Monks. By the third he Ordains that this Abbot shall not be Deposed but for a Crime; and if he is accused of it, the Bishop of Autun cannot make Process against him, but with six other Bishops. By the fourth 'tis forbidden to make a Bishop Abbot here. By the fifth the Bishop of Autun is disabled to draw out the Monks of this Hospital, and place them among his Clergy. All these Clauses are exorbitant, contrary to common Right, and to the Discipline established by St. Gregory, who never granted the like Exemptions in the Privileges which he gave: 3. The Penalty that those who shall violate some of the Articles of this Privilege, is contrary both to the spirit of St. Gregory, and the practice of his time. There it is declared, that if any King, Bishop, Judge, or Secular Person violate the Rights of this Privilege, he shall be deprived and degraded from his Dignity, Power, and Honour. St. Gregory never used these terms, and was more cautious then to do it, who did so much recommend Ecclesiastical Moderation, and shown so great Veneration to Princes. 4. The style of this Privilege is very different from that of St. Gregory's Letters.  
The two following Letters are Copies of the same Privilege which is supposed in the first to be granted to Thalassia the Abbess of the Monastery of St. Mary in the City of Autun; and in the second to Lupinus' Priest of a Church of St. Martin in the Suburbs of Autun: which proves also the Forgery of this Action; for what probability is there that St. Gregory should grant three Privileges so extraordinary to three different Communities of one and the same City.  
There is in B. 〈◊〉 31. an Answer of St. Gregory to many Articles about which he had been consulted by Austin the Monk. This Piece is not found in many Manuscripts of the Register of St. Gregory's Epistles, and in the eighth Century it was not in the Archieves of the Church of Rome, where Boniface, Archbishop of Mayence, caused search for it; which forced him to make an Address to Nothelmus Archbishop of Canterbury to ge●a Copy of it. This gave occasion to some to think that this Piece is supposititious; and it must be confessed that some of the Answers are extraordinary enough. Nevertheless it seems that the Authority of Paterius, a Disciple of St. Gregory, leaves no room to doubt whether this Writing be truly his, who relates two passages of it in the Extracts 
In Matth. ch. 25 In Mark ch. 22.  which he made out of the Works of St. Gregory: for it's no ways probable that he should quote a forged Piece, who had been Secretary to St. Gregory. 'Tis no wonder that a Copy of it could not be found at Rome in the time of Boniface; for being written for the English, and sent into England, the Copies of it ought rather to be found in that Kingdom then at Rome: and in effect, this Writing was there very common. Beda transcribes it in his Ecclesiastical History of England, B. 1. c. 27. It's also cited by Egbert Bishop of York, and by Halitgarius a Bishop of Wales: Neither is it true that there was no Copy of it at Rome, since Pope Zachary quotes it in the Roman Council held in the Year 743, c. 15. Since the time of St. Anselm, Isidore, Ivo of Chartres, Gratian and all the Compilers of Conon's and Decretals, have inserted these Answers of St. Gregory into their Collections. I do not believe that this Letter was written by St. Gregory in the Year 598, a little after Austin was Ordained, but rather in the Year 601, when he sent many Letters into England.  
Here follows an Abridgement of the Questions of St. Austin, and the Answers of St. Gregory.  
Question: What use should the Bishops make of the Revenues of the Church?  
Answer. They ought to divide them into four parts. The first is for the Bishop and his Family, that he may exercise Hospitality and entertain Strangers. The second is for the Clergy. The third for the Poor; and the fourth for repairing Churches. He recommends it to St. Austin, to live in common with his Clergy.  
Quest. 2. Whether the ecclesiastics, who have not the Gift of Continence, may marry, and if they do, whether they may return to Secular Affairs?  
Answ. They may marry if they be not engaged in Holy Orders, and such ought not to want subsistence; but they shall be obliged to lead a Life agreeable to the Ecclesiastical state, and to sing the Psalms.  
Quest. 3. Since there is but one and the same Faith, why have Churches different Customs? As for instance, Why is Mess celebrated after one manner in the French Church, and after another in the Church of Rome?  
Answ. Although Austin knows perfectly the Customs of the Church of Rome, yet he shall have liberty to choose in other Churches such Practices as he shall think most pleasing to God, that he may bring them into use in the Church of England.  
Quest. 4. What should the Punishment be of him who robs the Church?  
Answ. This aught to be regulated by the Quality of the Person who commits the Robbery, viz. Whether he has whereupon to subsist, or whether he did it thro' necessity? Some aught to be punished by pecuniary Mulcts, by making them pay the Damage sustained, and the Interest of it: Others ought to be punished in their Bodies; some aught to be punished more severely, others more slightly. But the Church must always use Charity in punishing and design nothing else but the Reformation of him whom it corrects. It ought not to be too rigorous in its Chastisements, nor to make advantage by the Robbery, by exacting more than it has lost.  
Quest. 5. Can two Brothers, having the same Father and Mother, marry two Sisters which are akin to them in a very remote degree?  
Answ. They may, since it is not forbidden in Scripture.  
Quest. 6. To what Degree may the Faithful marry together? May one marry his Stepmother, or the Widow of his Brother?  
Answ. A Roman Law, viz. that of Arcadius and Honorius, Cod. B. 5. T. 4. Leg. 19 permitted Marriages between Cousin-germen: But St. Gregory did not think these Marriages convenient for two Reasons; 1. Because Experience shows, that no Children are born of them. 2. Because the Divine Law forbids them. But 'tis certain that those who are akin to the third or fourth Degree may marry together. 'Tis a great Crime for one to marry his Stepmother; neither is it lawful to marry his Sister-in-law.  
Quest. 7. Must those be parted who have made an unlawful Marriage? Must they be deprived of the Communion?  
Answ. Since there are many English who have contracted this kind of Marriages before their Conversion; therefore when they are converted you must make them understand that this is not lawful, and excite them by the fear of God's Judgement to refrain from it; but you must upon this account interdict them Communion. As to those who are already converted, they must be admonished not to engage in any of this kind of Marriages, and if they do, they must be excluded from the Communion.  
Quest. 8. When there are no neighbouring Bishops who can assemble together, may one Bishop only Ordain another?  
Answ. Austin being at first the only Bishop in England, there was a great necessity that he alone should Ordain Bishops. If any went over to him from Gaul, he was to take them for Witnesses of his Ordination; and when he had Ordained many Bishops in England, he was to call three or four of them to be present at his Ordination.  
Quest. 9 of Austin. After what manner he should deal with the Bishops of the Gauls, and of the ancient Britain's?  
Answ. of St. Gregory. He must know that he has no Authority over the Bishops of the Gauls, and the Bishop of Arles ought to enjoy the Privileges which he had received from his Predecessors; that he ought to confer with him if there be any Disorders to be reformed; that he may also excite him to do his Duty, if he were negligent or inconstant, but that he cannot challenge to himself any Authority among the Gauls. As to the Bishops of Britain, he speaks at another rate: For St. Gregory gives him full Jurisdiction over them, to teach the Ignorant, confirm the Weak, and correct the Disorderly 
* [This was to give Austin what he had no power to grant, like some of his Successors in that See, who very liberally bestowed the Kingdom of England and Ireland upon the King of Spain, and therefore this pretended Jurisdiction of the Pope was vigorously opposed by the British Bishops and Monks in Austin's time, who refused to receive any Romish Customs different from those of their own Church, as appeared by the famous Controversy between them about the time of keeping Easter; and the right of imposing them has been sufficiently disproven by our Writers. Vide Dr. Basire of the Exemption of the British Patriarchate.] .  
There is also a Request of Austin, wherein he desires the Relics of St. Sixtus. The Pope tells him that he had sent them unto him, but he did not look upon them as certain. This Article is not found in the Copies of Bede, nor in many other Manuscripts, and probably it is supposititious.  
Quest. 10. contains many Heads: Whether a Woman big with Child may be baptised? How long it must be after her lying in, before she enter into the Church, and have Carnal dealing with her Husband? Whether it be lawful for a Woman, quae tenetur menstrua consuetudine, to enter into the Church? Whether a married Man may enter into the Church, after the use of marriage, without washing?  
The Answers to these Heads of Questions are as follow. A Woman big with Child may be baptised. A woman that has newly lain in, ought not to be denied Entrance into the Church. A Woman who has newly lain in may be baptised, and her Infant at the very moment of its Birth, if there be danger of death. A Husband ought not to come near his Wife after her lying in, until the Infant be weaned; and if, by an abuse, she do not suckle it herself, he must wait till the time of her Purgation be over. A Woman who has her ordinary Infirmities, ought not to be forbidden to enter into the Church, nor to receive the Communion; but it were better for her to abstain. A Man who has had Carnal Knowledge of his Wife, must wash himself before he enter into the Church, and Communicate.  
Quest. 11. Whether it be lawful to receive the Communion the next day after natural Pollutions.  
Answ. When these Pollutions proceed from the Infirmity of Nature, there is no fear; but when they proceed from eating or drinking too much, they are not altogether innocent; but this faultought not to hinder any from receiving the Communion, nor from celebrating Mess, when it is a Festival at which they must communicate, or when there is no other Priest to celebrate. But if there be other Priests, he who is in this condition ought in humility to abstain from celebrating, and especially if this Pollution was attended with unclean Imaginations. Other Pollutions which proceed from the Thoughts which a Man had while he was waking are yet more Criminal, because these Thoughts are the cause of them; And in unchaste Thoughts we must distinguish three things, the Desire, the Pleasure, and the Consent. When there is only a Desire, there is not as yet any Sin, but when we take Pleasure in such Thoughts, than the Sin gins, and when we consent to them, than the Sin is finished.  
The Letter which is attributed to Felix of Messina, is certainly a supposititious Piece. The Title does not well agree with the Custom of that time; Domino beatissimo & honorabili Sancto Patri Gregorio Papae, Felix vestrae salutis amator. The style of the Letter is affected, and has nothing natural in it. The Author affirms, That Marriages were always forbidden to any within the seventh Degree of Consanguinity, and that the Council of Nice ordained thus; which is manifestly false. Lastly, He speaks of one Benedict Bishop of Syracuse; but he who was at that time in this See, was called John, and there never was a Bishop of Syracuse called Benedict.  
The Authority of the Letter of St. Gregory to Felix, seems to be better founded. For, 1. John the Deacon recites a part of it in the Life of St. Gregory, B. 2. c. 37. Hincmarus, Regino, and the Canonists relates some Passages of it, and it is found in many Manuscripts. Yet there is great probability that it is either altogether forged, or very much corrupted. For, 1. It is placed in Indiction the seventh; but Felix was not at that time Bishop of Messina, for Donus succeeded him in the Year 598. 2. It is made up of Scraps taken out of several places of St. Gregory, and other Authors. The beginning of it is taken from Letter 111, B. 7. Ind. 2. There are allo in it some passages taken out of the fifth Letter of the fourth Book, and out of the Letters 394. 114. 120. of the seventh Book. There is a passage in it copied out of the second Letter falsely attributed to Pope Cornelius, the fifth Canon of the eleventh Council of Toledo, the sixth of the Council of Agda, a passage of the fifth Council of Rome under Symmachus, one Sentence of Isidore of Sevil. The Letter concludes in the same words with Letter 50 of B. 4. So that this Letter must be looked upon as a Rhapsody taken out of many Pieces.  
Lastly, The pretended Privilege of St. Medardus of the Suessions, which is at the end of the Letters, has been so often overthrown, and by such convincing reasons, that I do not think any Man now dare maintain it. The chief Reasons which overthrew it, are these following; 1. It is not found in any Manuscript of St. Gregory, except one of St. Victor, which is not above four hundred years old; and Cardinal Bona attests, that this Privilege is not found in the Archives of the Church of Rome. At first it was printed at the end of St. Gregory's Works, after that it was placed among his Letters in the Edition at Rome, and lastly, it was printed after the Letters. 2. The style 
a The style] The Inscription of it is harsh and unusual: It is addressed pretiosissimis lapidibus merito renitentibus, omnibusque sanctae Dei Ecclesiae membris. Did ever one see the like Address? There the Title of Servus Servorum Dei, is given to St. Gregory: But then the Addition to it is affected, Licet sanctae Romanae sedis Pontificio sublimetur. In the body of the Privilege, there is an infinite number of barbarous and new Expressions, as Suessorum civitas, vitae venerabilis Gairaldus, Dominus Papa Joannes, nostrae filie jugalis Dominus Medardus. Can there be any thing more impertinent than what they make St. Gregory there say? Consensu omnium Romanorum Pontificum, & voluntate totius Senatus Romani Decernimus. Is this capable of any good sense? The Rents and Lands of the Church are called there Mansi, fisci regii. A man must set down this whole Privilege, to make one well understand the Forgery of it; for as many words as there are in it, so many proofs there are of its being supposititious.  of this Privilege smells of the Barbarism of Modern Writers, and the Impertinence of an Impostor.  
The Clauses of this Privilege are not only exorbitant and extraordinary, but also in defensible 
b Indefersible] There the Monks are empowered to ordain their Abbot, and the Abbot to consecrate the holy Chrism, the Challces and the Altars: The Monastery is exempted from all Jurisdiction Secular and Ecclesiastical, except the King's Protection, and the Direction of the Holy See; and that it might more easily hold correspondence with Rome, 'tis said, that Queen Brun●haud gave to the Monastery twenty Manors, and as many Farms along the Alps. 'Tis ordered that all those who shall come to dwell upon the Lands of St. Medardus, shall be delivered from all subjection, and become Slaves to the Virgin; that those who shall take sanctuary there, shall be reputed slaves of the Church. Lastly, exorbitant Privileges are given to the Abbot. .  
It contains many things false and contrary to History 
c Contrary to History] That the Church of St. Medardus, was called formerly the Church of the Virgin, of St. Peter, and St. Stephen; that it was a Monastery in the time of St. Gregory. .  
The Subscriptions discover plainly the Forgery of it. There is found in it the Subscription of King Theodoricus, who was not yet upon the Throne: The Bishops of Carthage are made to sign it, and even those Bishops that were dead. There are ●ound in it two Bishops of one and the same See at the same time; and the Names of Bishops which are different from those, who are known to have been Bishops of these Churches at that time. Lastly, It is a thing unheard, that a Privilege should be signed by so great a number of Bishops 
d By so great a number of Bishops] There St. Gregory signs first: But it was not the custom of Popes then to sign their own Letters; neither is there any Example of it in St. Gregory. The second is Eutherius of Arles: But there was never a Bishop of Arles of that name, and Virgilius was then Bishop: Aetherius was Bishop of Lions: The third is, Gregory Bishop of Portus: And there is another Bishop of Portus, called Felix. The fourth is Andrew of Alba●…; but in 595 it was Homobonus, who signed in the Council of Rome held this year: And there was one Andrew Bishop of this place under Gregory the second. The fifth is Austin Bishop of Canterbury; but he was not yet Bishop, for this Privilege is dated in the year 594 Afterwards there is Sergius Bishop of Praeneste; but at the Roman Council in 595, Proculus was Bishop of this City. In the same year the Bishop of Anania was called Pelagius, and not Peter, as he is here called. Agnellus Bishop of Sutrium governed this See under Gregory the second. Mellitus was not yet Bishop of London, for he was not Ordained till 604. The other Names are taken from the Titles of St Gregory's Letters, or the Subscriptions of the Roman Council in 595, or from the Council held under Gregory the second. Eulogius of Alexandria is among the Bishops that signed: But he never came to Rome, and 'tis no way probable that this Instrument should be carried to him to sign it, which no ways concerned him, no more than it did Dominicus Bishop of Carthage. Among the Bishops of France there is found a Bishop of Bourdeaux called Sutellius: But the Bishop then was Gondegisilas, as appears by St. Gregory of Tours: B. 8. Hist. 2 c. 22. The Archbishop of Rheims was called Romulphus, and not Flavius, as he is here set down. The Bishop of Soissons was called Droctegifilas in 592. Greg. Tur. B. 9▪ c. 37. Ansericus was in the time of the Synod of Rheims under Sonnatius in 630. Lastly, King Theodoricus, whose Subscription is here, was then but two years old, and his Father Childebert was yet alive. There is one Peter who signed, and is said to have sealed this Instrument, whereas at that time no sealing was in use.   
In fine, the Year 594 is used for the date of this L●tter; but we do not see that St. Gregory ever used this date; and that which renders it suspicious is, that the Jurisdiction which is subjoined, answears to the Year 593, and not to 594. All these Reasons prove invincibly the Forgery of this Instrument, which deserved not to be placed among the Works of St. Gregory.  
The Letter which is at the beginning of St. Gregory's Morals on the Book of Job, informs us of his Design in composing this Work, of the method in which he managed it, and how he put it in execution. It is addressed to St. Leander Bishop of Sevil, with whom he had contracted a very close Friendship at Constantinople, when he was there about the Affairs of the Holy See, and when St. Leander was sent thither as Ambassador by the King of the Wisigoths. St. Gregory puts such Confidence in him, that he acquaints him with the disposition of his heart, and the troubles of mind he had endured, and disco verse to him, that though God had inspired him with the desire of Heaven, and he was persuaded, that it was more advantageous to forsake the World, yet he had delayed his Conversion for many years: That nevertheless he was at last delivered from the Entanglements of the World, and retired into the happy Harbour of a Monastery; but he was quickly drawn from thence to enter into Orders, which engaged him anew in Secular Affairs, and obliged him to go to the Court of the Emperor at Constantinople: That nevertheless, he had the comfort to be attended thither by many Monks, with whom he had daily Spiritual Conferences. Then it was that they urged him with much importunity, and St. Leander did even force him to explain to them the Book of Job, after such a manner as they desired, i. e. by subjoyning to the Allegorical Explication of the Historoy a Morality supported by many other Testimonies of Holy Scripture. This was the occasion which moved St. Gregory to undertake this Work. He repeated the beginning of it in the presence of his Monks, and dictated the rest in divers Treatises. Afterwards having more leisure, he added to it many things, cut off some, reduced the whole Work into better Order, and made it uniform, by changing the Discourses and Treatises to the same style. He divided this Work into 35 Books, which were distributed into six Tomes. He confesses that he sometimes neglected the Order and Coherence of the Exposition which he undertook, and applied himself wholly to Contemplation and Morality: But he excuses himself by saying, that whosoever speaks of God, ought necessarily to enlarge upon that which is most instructive and edifying for the Lives of those that hear him, and that he thought it the best method he could observe in his Work, to make a Digression sometimes from its principal subject, when an occasion presented itself of procuring the welfare and advantage of his Neighbour. He adds, that there are some things which he handles in a few words according to the truth of History; other things whose allegorical and figurative senses he inquires after, and others from which he only draws Morality; and lastly, others which he explains with great care in all these three ways. He affirms also, that there are some places which cannot be explained literally, because if they should be taken precisely according to the sense of the words, instead of instructing those who read them, they would misled them into Error, or confirm things that are contradictory. Lastly, he excuses the defects of his Work from his continual Sickness, and declares that he did not hunt after the Ornaments of Rhetoric, to which the Interpreters of Scripture are never obliged. At the conclusion of this Letter, he remarks, that he ordinarily follows the late Version of the Scripture; but yet he takes the liberty, when he thinks it necessary to quote passages, sometimes according to the Old, and sometimes according to the New-Version; and that since the Holy See, over which he presided, used both the one and the other, he also employed them both indifferently, to authorise and confirm what he asserted in his Work.  
In the Preface of this Work having said, that some thought Moses to be the Author of the Book of Job, and others attributed it to the Prophets, he looks upon it as a thing very needless to inquire in what time Job lived, and who wrote his History, since 'tis certain that the Holy Spirit dictated it, although 'tis very probable, that Job himself wrote it. After these few Historical Remarks, he enters upon General Reflections of a Moral Nature, about the Patience of Job, the Afflictions of the Righteous, the Pride of Job's Friends, the Conformity of Job to Jesus Christ. This is what the Preface contains.  
The Body of the Commentary is agreeable to the Idea which he gives of it, i. e. that he does not insist upon the literal Exposition but upon the Allegories and Moralities which he applies to the Text of Job, whereof a great part may be applied to every other place of Holy Scripture. But he does not so much labour to explain the Book of Job, as to amass together in one Work an infinite number of Moral Thoughts. And indeed it must be confessed, that although these Books are not a very good Commentary upon the Book of Job, yet they are a great Magazine of Morality. 'Tis incredible, how many Principles, Rules and proper Instructions are to be found there for all sorts of Persons, Ecclesiastical as well as Secular; for those who converse with the World, as well as for those who live in Retirement, for the Great and for the Small; in a word, for all sorts of States, Ages and Conditions. We shall not here undertake to give a particular account of them, for if we should make Extracts from such kind of Allegorical and Moral Commentaries, our Work would grow infinitely big. This is written with much simplicity and clearness, but it is not so very brisk and sublime: yet it was very much esteemed in the Life-time of St. Gregory, and admired after his Death. We learn from himself, that the Bishops caused it to be read in the Church. or at their Table, although he would not suffer it to be done in modesty, and all those who have spoken of it since his death, have commended it as a most excellent Work. There is a Relation which says, That sometime after his Death, the Original which he had given to 〈◊〉. Leander, being lost in Spain, Tagion Bishop of Saragosa, was deputed in a Council held at Toledo under King Cyndesides, to be sent to Rome to inquire for a Copy of it: That this Bishop being arrived there, and finding no satisfaction from the Pope, who put him off from day to day, pretending it was very difficult to find these Books of St. Gregory, because of the multitude of Volumes that were in the Archieves of Rome; at last this good Bishop went to Prayers in the Church of St. Peter, and there appeared unto him the Apostles St. Peter, St. Paul, and their Successors, and among the rest St. Gregory, who drew near to him, and showed him the Study where the Books were which he enquired after. This Relation which appeared not till about 400 years ago, appears to me of little credit 
a Of little Credit] 'Tis said in this Relation, that St. Leander carried into Spain his Copy of the Books of St. Gregory upon Job: But it appears by the Letters of St. Gregory, that he himself sent it to him. 2. 'Tis no ways probable that the Pope would refuse Tagion a Copy of St. Gregory's Morals. 3. 'Tis also said in this Relation, that Tagion enquired of St. Gregory where St. Austin was, and that he answered him, That he was not among the Successors of St. Peter and St. Paul, whom he came to see, but in a higher place. This Reflection, the Vision, and the whole History smells strong of a Fable. .  
The Pastoral of St. Gregory, or his Book about the Care which Pastors ought to take of their Flocks, was as well received as his Morals. It was no sooner gone out of the hands of St. Gregory, but it was sought for and valued by all those who had a love for Episcopacy. The great Reputation it had got, moved the Emperor Mauritius to desire it of Anatolius a Deacon of the Church of Rome, who was at Constantinople. Assoon as he had a Copy of it, he gave it to Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch, who translated it into Greek. St. Leander desired it of St. Gregory. In fine, this Book quickly spread over all the Churches, and the Bishops looked upon it as their Rule: But chief those of France judged it so necessary, that they ordained in many Synods held in the ninth Age, that the Bishops should be obliged to understand it, and to live according to the Rules prescribed in it: And to the end that this Obligation might the more readily be remembered, it was put into their hand at the time of their Ordination 
b Ordination] The Council of Tours 3d. held under Charlemain in the Year 81●. Can. 3. Nulli Episcopo liceat Canon's, aut librum Pastoralis Curae, à B. Gregirio Papa editum, si fieri potest, ignorare, in quibus se debet unusquisque quasi in quodam speculo, assidue considerare. The Council of Chalons the second held under the same Emperor, ordains, Episcopi Canones intelligant, & librum B. Gregorii De Cura Pastorali, & secundum formam ihidem constitutam, doceant & praedicent. Council the second of Aix la Chapelle under Lewis the Debonair, held in the Year 836, Counc. 4. Convenit Sacerdotali Ministerio scire formam Evangelicam, & Monumenta Apostolica, Canonum Instituta, Norma● Regulae Pastoralis, à sanctissime Pontifice Gregorio editam, ne juxta eundem sanctissimum virum, ab imperitis, quod absit Pastorale Magisterium aliqua temeritate usurpetur, aut vilescat. They used it for Reforming Discipline, at the Council of Mayence, in the Year 813, and in the second Council of Rheims, Can. 10. In the sixth Council of Paris held in 829, 'tis ordained that the Advices which St. Gregory has given in this Pastoral should be exactly followed. .  
'Tis not without reason that this Book is so highly valued in France, for indeed it contains Instructions of great Importance, and very good Rules about the Pastoral Office. 'Tis divided into four Parts. After a Letter to John Bishop of Ravenna, to whom St. Gregory addressed this Book, because he had reproved him for refusing the Priesthood so obstinately; He gins with showing what rashness it was for any one to undertake the Conduct of Souls. who had neither the Capacity nor Knowledge necessary for discharging it well; which he calls the Art of Arts, and Science of Sciences. He deplores the blindness of those who are so unhappy as to seek after Ecclesiastical Offices, under pretence of promoting the Salvation of Souls by their Direction, when indeed they have no other design but to satisfy their own ambitious desire of Honour, of appearing learned and able men, and of being exalted above others. He bemoans the People who are under the Conduct of such ambitious and ignorant men, who can neither instruct them by their Example, nor by word of mouth. He adds, That this Ignorance of Pastors is often a Punishment of their disorderly Life, and that God by a just Judgement suffers their Ignorance to be an occasion of Falling to those who follow them. From those that are Ignorant, he passes to those who have acquired Knowledge by their Industry, but never reduced it into Practice; and on the contrary have defiled their feet by walking in a way unbecoming the Truths which they have learned. He cannot endure those Men who are very forward to teach others that which they never practise, and who are a Scandal to the Church, by a Life perfectly contrary to the Truths which they teach. He would have Pastors to be of such a Disposition as to despise the Glory, the Dignities, and the Prosperity of this World, to fear neither the Terrors nor Threaten of it, to beready to suffer for the Defence of the Truth, and to shun the Pleasures of this Life.  
Although he was persuaded that the Duties of the Pastoral Office wearied the Mind, yet he would not have those Perlons, who are fit to conduct Souls, and may be useful to others by their Doctrine and Example, to prefer their own Ease before the Care of Souls. Upon this Principle he does equally reprove those, whose Humility makes them shun Ecclesiastical Offices, so as obstinately to oppose the Order of Providence, and those who desire them passionately and importunately seek after them. He would have him who has the Qualifications necessary for being a Guide of Souls, to yield when he is urged to accept that Office; and on the contrary, he advises him who is not qualified, never to engage himself, though he were never so much urged to accept the Office. After he has laid down this Maxim, he enlarges upon the particular Qualifications which belong to those who should accept of a Bishopric, and the Defects which should make others decline it.  
In the second Part St. Gregory treats of the Duties of the Pastoral Office, when one is promoted to this Dignity by lawful and canonical ways. He shows that there ought to be a great difference between the Virtue of a Pastor and his People; and that a Pastor ought to have the following Qualifications. That all his Thoughts must be pure, that in Virtue he ought to excel others, that Prudence and Discretion should govern his silence, that his Speech should be useful and edifying, that he should be tender and compassionate to all the World, that he should be sublime in Contemplation, and lowly in Humility, preferring all others above himself, that his Zeal for Justice should prompt him to oppose the Vices of bad Men, that his Employment in external things should diminish nothing of the Care he ought to take of those which are internal, and that the Application he ought to use to such things as concern the Soul, ought not to take him off from the due care of regulating external matters. These are the Qualifications of a true Pastor, on which St. Gregory enlarges in the second Part.  
In the third he treats of the Instructions which Pastors ought to give their Flocks, and applies himself particularly to show, after what manner they ought to be varied, according to the different Qualities and Dispositions of those whom they instruct, whereof some are to be admonished, and others to be instructed. As for example, they must prescribe to Men things more excellent and more difficult to exercise their Virtue, whereas nothing must be enjoined to Women but what is soft and easy: Younger People must be treated more mildly than those that are old; the Poor must be comforted, the Rich must be humbled: The Sorrows of Hell must be represented to those who are merrily disposed, and to those who are sad, the Joys of another Life: Those who are Inferiors must be admonished to be subject, and those who are in high Places, not to be proud: Obedience must be recommended to Servants, and Meekness to Masters: Those who think themselves learned, must be moved to despise their Learning, and the Ignorant must be instructed in true Knowledge. 'Tis good to use sharp Reproofs to those who are impudent, whereas we must seek for mild ways to reclaim those that are modest. The Presumptuous must be abashed and humbled, whereas the Timorous must be exhorted and encouraged. The sick need other Instructions than those that are in health. In a word, a Pastor must proportion his Instructions, Advices, Reptoofs and Exhortations. to the Constitution, the State, the Temper, Inclinations and Customs, to the Virtues and Vices of those to whom he speaks. In this second Part of St. Gregory's Postoral you may find a wonderful diversity of particular Advices, which will be of great use for Confessors, and for all those who are engaged by their Ministry to guide others. After St. Gregory has given these private Instructions, he proceeds to those which concern public Offices, and admonishes Preachers to take good heed, lest they so commend Virtues to their Auditors, as to give them occasion to fall into the contrary Vices. He would have Humility so preached to the Proud, as not to increase the Fear of timorous Persons; the slothful so excited to diligence, as those who are too active may not take occasion to be too eager in business. The Impatient must be so rebuked, as not to inspire negligence into the Slothful. The Covetous must be so exhorted to give liberally, as not to authorise Prodigality. Virginity and a state of Continence must be so praised, as not to give occasion to blame Marriage, nor despise the fruitfulness of married Persons. In fine, his Hearers on the one side are to be excited in such a manner to do good, that on the other side they may not be persuaded to that which is evil. What is more perfect is so to be praised before them, that they take no occasion to despise a lesser Perfection: And they must be so exhorted to be faithful in little things, that they may not imagine these to be sufficient and by this conceit neglect to labour after those that are higher and more sublime. The last thing whereof St. Gregory admonishes Preachers, is, That they should say nothing in their Instructions which is above the Capacity of those who hear them, lest their Mind being too intent, grow weary and disrelish it: But above all he recommends to them, that they instruct the People more by their Example then their Discourses.  
The fourth Part is nothing but a Reflection upon the Obligation which all Pastors have to retire within themselves, and to humble themselves before God, for fear lest they take occasion to grow proud for discharging the Duties of their Office. He ends this Work with this humble Conclusion. You see, my dear Friend, what your childing 〈◊〉 obliged me to write unto you: But while I thus labour to show what manner of Man a True Pastor should be, I do just like a very filthy and ugly Painter, who should represent upon Canvas the figure of a very comely and well-shaped Man: I intrude into the Office of Conducting others to the Port of Perfection, while I myself am tossed with the Floods of my own Passions and Vices. I conjure you therefore to endeavour to support me by the merit of your Prayers, as by a Plank, in the shipwreck of this present Life, that so feeling myself sink in the Waters of the Tempestuous Sea of this World, by the weight of my own Inclinations, your charitable hand may relieve me, and raise me up above the Water?  
The Homilies upon Ezekiel are of the number of those which St. Gregory preached to his People. Nevertheless he reviewed them that he might make them public, about eight years after they were preached. They are addressed to Marinianus Bishop of Ravenna, and divided into two Books. The first contains twelve Homilies upon the three first Chapters of Ezekiel, and upon a part of the fourth. St. Gregory was forced by his urgent Affairs to break off the Course of this Exposition, and therefore he did only explain the Vision of an House built upon a Mountain, which is related in the fortieth Chapter of this Prophet. This afforded him a Subject for ten Homilies, which make the second Book of the Homilies upon Ezekiel. He handles things in these Homilies much after the same manner as he does in his Morals upon Job, although he does not enlarge so much upon them.  
He was also obliged to revise his Homilies upon the Gospels, which he had caused to be read to the People, or had preached himself in the Church, because Copies of them had been distributed as they were either dictated or spoken. The Collection of them is also divided into two Books. The first contains the twenty first Homilies which he dictated to his Secretaries; and the second the twenty last which he preached himself.  
Although there can be no doubt but the Dialogues which go under the name of St. Gregory, are indeed this Pope's, since he himself owns them 
a He himself owns them] In Letter 50 of B. 2. Ind. 11. he desires of Maximian a History of the Abbot Nonnosus, that he may insert them into his Book of the Miracles of the Fathers. In Ch. 7. of B. 1. of his Dialogues, he relates the History of Nonnosus, and says that he learned it from Maximian: And in many of his Homilies you may find the same Histories, which are related in these Dialogues in the same words. , and his Disciples 
b His Disciples] Paterius Secretary to St. Gregory, in the Collection which he made out of this Father's Works, recites a great number of passages taken out of the Dialogues: Some of them also may be seen in the Collection of Yaius Bishop of Saragosa, who lived in 630. Ildefonsus of Toledo ranks this Work amongst St. Gregory's. Hilary of Toledo, Bede, Paul the Deacon, John the Deacon, Hadrian the first, Anastasius the Library-keeper, Alcuinus, Hincmarus, Paschasius, and Prudentius quote it; Photius speaks of it. I say nothing of an infinite number of later Authors. , and the Authors who wrote within a little while after him, do attribute them to him, yet this Work does not appear worthy of the gravity and discretion of this holy Pope, 'tis so full of extraordinary Miracles and Histories almost incredible. 'Tis true he reports them upon the Credit of others, but then he should not so easily believe them, and vent them afterwards for things that are certain. This Work is divided into four Books, written by way of Dialogue between St. Gregory, who relates what he had learned, and Peter the Deacon, who puts Questions to him from time to time about these Histories. The style is no ways sublime, the Histories are there related after a very simple and plain manner, without any art or pleasantness. The Interruptions of Peter are often impertinent, and always insipid. The Histories related in it are many times grounded only upon the Relations of ignorant old Men, or common Reports. Miracles there are so frequent, so extraordinary and often times for matters of small consequence, that 'tis very difficult to believe them all. There are stories in it which can very hardly be reconciled with the Life of those of whom he speaks, as the voluntary imprisonment of Paulinus in Afric. under the King of the Vandals. Visions, Apparitions, Dreams, are there in greater numbers then in any other Author: And therefore St. Gregory confesses, towards the latter end, that the things of another World had been more discovered in his time, then in all the Ages preceding. But I do not believe that any Man will warrant all these Relations. Leaving others therefore to their liberty of judging as they please, I shall say no more about them, but only subjoin here an Abridgement of the greater part of them.  
Honoratus Abbot of a Monastery of Fundi, being present at a Feast, where there was nothing but Meat, made a scruple to eat of it; and while the Guests rallied him, because he was in a place where nothing else was to be had, a Servant went out to draw some water, and brought in a great fish in a Pitcher. The same Abbot by his Prayers stopped a Rock which was ready to fall with great force upon his Monastery. Libertinus his Disciple hindered the Horses of the Goths from passing the River, to make his own Horse come to him: He raised also a dead Infant. A Gardener of this Monastery placed a Serpent in ambuscade against a Robber. The Abbot Equicius, a Founder of many Monasteries, was miraculously delivered from the Temptations of the Flesh, in a Vision, wherein he thought that he was made an Eunuch. A Bishop having brought before him a Monk who was a Magician, he judged him; and after he had watched him for some time, he caused him to be turned out of his Monastery. This Monk confessed that he had many times lifted up into the Air the Cell of St. Equitius, without being able to do him any hurt. A Nun having greedily taken a lettuce in a Garden, without making the sign of the Cross, was possessed with a Devil. St. Equicius dispossessed her, after he had made the Devil confess that he was upon this Lettuce: The Pope having sent to hinder him from Preaching, was admonished in a Dream to permit him. Peter asks upon this occasion, how so great a Pope could be mistaken as to a Person of so eminent Virtue. St. Gregory answers him, That this was not to be wondered at, since all men are liable to mistakes, Fallimur, quia homines sumus, Popes as well as others. Constantius Churchwarden of the Church of St. Stephen at Ancona, having no Oil to light the Lamps, filled them with Water, and after he had kindled the Wicks, they maintained the flame as if the Lamps had been full of Oil. Marcellinus Bishop of that City, exposed himself to the flames of a fire, and by that means stopped it. Nonnosus a Monk of Mount Sina, removed by his Prayers a part of a Rock, to make room for a Garden belonging to his Monastery. A Glass-Lamp being broken, he gathered the little pieces of it together before the Altar, and after he had prayed he found the Lamp entire. The Abbot Anastasius was admonished of his own death, and the death of seven of his Monks, by a Voice which called them one after another. Boniface Bishop of Ferentinum, multiplied Wine, foretold the death of a Beggar, miraculously received pieces of Gold, that he might restore them to his Kinsman, from whom he had taken them to give Alms to the Poor. Fortunatus' Bishop of Tudentinum, chased the Devil out of those who were possessed, restored sight to the Blind, cured a mad Horse, healed a broken Bone, and raised the Dead. A Priest called Severus, raised one from the Dead, that he might have time to do Penance. These are a part of the Miracles contained in the first Book.  
The second Book contains the Life and Miracles of St. Benedict. There he relates after what manner this Saint going out of Rome, was detained some time at Aufidena, where by a Miracle he made a Sieve whole which his Nurse had broken. Afterwards he speaks of his Retirement to Sublacum. He describes the voluntary Punishment which he inflicted upon himself, by rolling himself stark naked for a considerable time upon Thorns to conquer the Temptations of the Flesh. He does not forget to observe, that he being invited into a Monastery, whose Monks had a mind to poison him, broke the Glass wherein the Poison was presented to him, by making the sign of the Cross. He relates many other Miracles of the same nature. A Monk was cured of his Distractions by blows with a stick; a Spring was found upon the top of a Mountain. The Iron of a Spade being cast into a Lake, came up again above the Water, and joined itself to the haft. A Monk of St. Maur walked upon the Water to fetch out brother Placidus who was drowned. A Stone which the Devil had made unmoveable, was easily removed by his Prayers. The seeming flames which were caused by an Idol, were extinguished. A young Monk crushed by the fall of a Wall, was raised to life again. The knowledge of things hidden, and the prediction of things future did never fail him. An Ecclesiastical Person was delivered from a Devil, and afterwards possessed anew, for aspiring to Holy Orders which this Saint had forbidden him. Two hundred Measures of Corn were found at the Gate of a Monastery, at a time when there was great need of it. The Nuns threatened with Excommunication by St. Benedict, who died a little while after, did visibly go out of the Church, when the Deacon ordered those who were Excommunicated to retire; But he took off this Excommunication, and after the Offering was presented for them which be blessed, they were never more seen to go out as before. A young Hennit, who was gone out of a Monastery without leave, dying in his own House was buried, and the next day after his Body was found above ground. His Kinsfolk had recourse to St. Benedict, who gave them the Communion of the Body of our Saviour, and ordered them to put it upon the Breast of the deceased, and then to bury him with it; which being done, he continued after that under ground. A Leper was cured by his Prayers: A Bottle of Oil thrown down from a high place was preserved whole: Sometimes he got Money, and sometimes Oil. He cured an Hermit possessed of a Devil. He loosed a Countryman who was bound fast, only by his own looks. He raised a dead Infant. His Sister, St. Scholastica, raised a furious storm, to force him to lie at her House. He saw his own Soul ascend to Heaven in the shape of a Dove. He had also another Vision wherein he perceived the Soul of Germanus Bishop of Capua, which the Angels carried up to Heaven. He foretold his own Death, which was followed with Miracles.  
The third Book contains the Virtues and Miracles of many Saints of Italy. There it is related that Paulinus Bishop of Nola went into Afric, to render himself a Prisoner to the King of the Vandals, that he might deliver the only Son of a Widow of his own Country; and that he being discovered by a miraculous Vision, did not only obtain his own Deliverance, but also the Deliverance of all the Prisoners of War: That a Horse on which Pope John mounted, would never after carry a Woman, and that this Pope cured a blind Man at Constantinople. That Pope Agapetus healed a lame Man; That Dacius Bishop of Milan delivered a House from Spectres which the Devil made to appear there; That Sabinus Bishop of Lanusa, being blind, knew every thing that passed, and one day his archdeacon having presented to him Poison by a Servant, he would not drink it, but ordered the Servant to drink it; and afterwards having hindered him from doing it, he drunk it off himself, after he had made the sign of the Cross, without receiving any hurt, and ordered the Boy to go and tell him who had given him this Poison, that he should not be Bishop; and indeed the archdeacon died immediately. 'Tis also reported in the same Book, that Andrew Bishop of Fundi, being tempted by a Nun who dwelled in his House, was restrained by an Adventure pleasant enough. A Jew having stopped near the place where formerly the Temple of Apollo at Fundi stood, heard there the Devils give an account to their Prince of what they had done; and among them there was one who boasted, that he had inspired this Temptation into Andrew. This Jew having found out this Bishop, discovered to him what he had heard; which moved this Bishop to turn out of his House, not only this Nun, but also all the other Women, that there might be no occasion for a Temptation. A Bishop of Luca changed the Course of a River, by his own word only: Another stopped the Inundation of the Po by a Letter. Others are preserved from their Enemies, from Serpents, and from Savage Beasts. A Hermit raised one from the dead. A new Nun chased away the Devil. A Rubber was seized at the Sepulchre of a holy Priest. In short, there are many other Miracles of this Nature in this Book: And there he speaks also of some Christians who suffered for the Faith under the Lombard's.  
In the fourth Book he undertakes to treat of the state of the Soul after death, and to refute the Opinion of some, who without separating from the Church, doubted whether the Soul lived after its separation from the Body. There he observes, that 'tis not to be wondered, that Man being born Carnal, and not being able to feel invisible things, should be hardly brought to believe them; that notwithstanding Men must of necessity believe such things as they do not feel: That there are three sorts of Spirits; Spirits which are never united to any Flesh, and Spirits which are united to it, but do not die with it, and Spirits which are united to Flesh, and die with the Body. The Angels are the first sort, the Souls of Men are the second, and the Souls of Beasts are the third. He answers a passage of Ecclesiastes, where 'tis said that Beasts and Men die alike, by affirming that it is a Question proposed by the Author, and not his Decision of it. He adds, that we must not wonder that we do not see the Soul go out of the Body, since it is not seen even in the Body, and that as it discovers itself when it is in the Body by its Motions, so it does also when it is out of the Body by the Miracles of the Saints; that moreover the Eyes of the Body cannot perceive the Soul, since it is invisible, but the Just do purify the Eyes of their Mind. To prove this, he brings the Examples of many, whose Souls have been seen after their death; or of Saints, who have seen at the time of their death, either Jesus Christ, or the Virgin, or some of the Saints. As to the state of Souls after death, he says, that those of the Just, who are perfect, are received into Heaven; that those of them who are not so perfect, are detained in certain Receptacles; and that those of the wicked are thrown into Hell-fire, which torments them, although it be Corporeal. He thinks it no more difficult to explain the manner, whereby it causes pain in the other Life then in this. He believes that the Damned know the Happiness of the Just, and the Blessed the Misery of the Damned. He maintains expressly that there is a Purgatory, for expiating the slight faults of those who have deserved this Grace, by the good Actions which they did in this Life 
* [But this being only a Purgation of light and venial sins, is not such a Purgatory as is asserted by the Council of Trent, Sess 6. Can. 30. which is the temporal pain of mortal sins, whose eternal punishment is remitted. And in other places of his Works, Pope Gregory does expressly deny any change of state after this life, as particularly his Morals on Job l. 8. c. 8. Ed. Bas. where he says, That at the time of death either the good or evil Spirit seizeth upon the Soul, and keeps it with it for ever without any change; and therefore if he be consistent with himself, the Purgation which he speaks of Dial. 4. c. 39 must be consistent with a state of Joy, especially since he adds in that same Chapter, Persons shall be at the day of Judgement, as they were when they went out of this world.] . He observes that many things have been discovered a little while ago which were unknown in Antiquity, concerning the state of Souls after death: The Reason which he gives for it is this, that the end of the World drawing near, the Transactions of the other begin to be discovered. He thinks it probable enough, that Hell is under ground, and that there is but one Fire in it, which burns some more and some less, according to the proportion of the number and heinousness of their Crimes. He proves that the Fire of Hell shall never end. He would not have Credit given to all sorts of Dreams, though he does not doubt but by some of them God reveals things to come. He believes that it is profitable for the dead, who are not accused of Crimes, to be interred in holy Places, because their Sepulchers put the Living in mind to pray to God for them, that among the Prayers which relieve the dead, the Oblation of the holy Sacrifice is the most profitable 
† [In this also Pope Gregory contradicts the Council of Trent, which declares, Sess. 22. c. 2. That this Sacrifice is offered not only for the sins of the living,— but also for those who are dead in Christ, not yet fully purged from their sins. But Pope Gregory supposes those to be in a state of bliss for whom the Oblation was made at the Altar, as appears by the Sacramentry iv Kalend Julii, where the Oblation is first mentioned, and after follows, O. God, who has bestowed the reward of eternal happiness upon the Soul of thy Servant Leo; for such a Soul being in a state of eternal bliss, was certainly fully purged from its sins, though the Sacrifice was offered for it at the Altar] ; but that it is more safe for one to expiate his own Faults by his own Sacrifices and Prayers, while he is in this Life, then to expect the Relief of others after his death: That he must offer up himself while the Host is offered, bewail his sins, and never commit them any more; and lastly, he must pardon others, that he may obtain pardon of his own Faults.  
These are all the Works which are certainly known to be St. Gregory's. For although there have been published for a long time under his Name in the common Editions, the Commentaries upon the Book of Kings, upon the 7 Psalms, and upon the Canticles, yet the Author of the last Edition brings very strong Reasons to prove that they are none of this Fathers. 1. Having caused every where search to be made for the Manuscripts of St. Gregory's Works, he found not any where these Commentaries were to be met with (except the Commentary upon the Canticles, whereof some Manuscripts were found) either joined with the Works of St. Gregory, or apart by themselves. The Commentary upon the Canticles was printed at Paris in 1498, by Remboldus: The Exposition of the seven Penitential Psalms, was also printed by the same Person in 1512. and the Commentary upon the Canticles was published at Venice in 1537. But it is not known from what Manuscript these Works were printed, and there has never been any one since, who has said that he saw it. 2. St. Gregory mentions in his Letters all his other Works, but he says nothing of these. 3. These Commentaries have been unknown to all those who have seen the Works of St. Gregory. Paterius a Disciple of St. Gregory, who made a Collection of Testimonies out of the Works of his Master, has not quoted so much as one which can be taken out of these three Commentaries; and 'tis not credible, but there would have been many passages in them found worthy to be quoted, if he had known them. The same Reflection may be made upon the Work of Taius Bishop of Saragosa, who published in 650 a Collection taken out of the Works of St. Gregory. Al●lfus Monk of Tournay in the Year 1090, compiled another Work out of the Books of St. Gregory, which was more large than those we have already mentioned; 'tis found in Manuscript in the Monastery of Longpont, and neither is there found in it any passage taken out of these Commentaries. To these Authors we may add those who have written since St. Gregory's time upon the Canticles, or the Book of Kings, as Bede, Angelonus a Monk of Luxovium, Rabanus, Rupertus, who have neither quoted, nor transcribed these Commentaries, although it be the Custom of these Authors to quote or transcribe the Writings of the Fathers. Among others, Rabanus observes in the Preface to his Commentary upon the Books of Kings, that he often transcribes passages out of St. Austin and St. Gregory. And indeed he recites many passages taken out of the Works of this Father; but he has not transcribed any thing out of the Commentaries upon the Books of Kings; and yet it was a Work which he might easily have transcribed, and out of which he should have taken many passages. Lastly, the Authors who have given us a Catalogue of the Works of St. Gregory, have said nothing of these three Commentaries. Isidore of Sevil speaks of his Pastoral, of his Morals upon Job, of his Epistles, and at the same time notes, that he had written other Discourses of Morality, Homilies upon all the four Gospels; that this Work was unknown to him: But he says nothing of these Commentaries. Ildefonsus of Toledo mentions all the other Works of St. Gregory, and says nothing of the Commentary upon the Book of Kings, nor the Exposition upon the 7 Psalms. He speaks of a Work upon the Canticles, but it is thought that it was different from that of which we have spoken. Sigebert of Gemblours believes that there were no other Works of St. Gregory, but his Morals, his Homilies upon Ezekiel, forty Homilies upon the Gospels, his Pastoral, his Dialogues, and the Register of his Letters. As to the other Works, he says, that the Romans had burnt them; which Trithemius also affirms of the Commentary of St. Gregory upon the Books of Kings. 'Tis true, St. Gregory informs us himself, B. 10. Ep. 22. that he had made Discourses upon the Proverbs, upon the Canticles, upon the Prophets, upon the Books of Kings, and upon the Heptateuch which the Abbot Claudius had taken in writing as well as he could; that St. Gregory, who had not health enough to write them himself, might enlarge upon these Memoirs when he should have health and leisure; but St. Gregory having read them, and finding that in many places he had not apprehended his sense, caused to bring to him all that he had written. The Author of the last Edition of St. Gregory affirms, that these Discourses of St. Gregory's, collected by the Abbot Claudius, were different from these Commentaries. But I see no reason why we may not say that the Commentaries upon the Books of Kings and the Canticles, are a remnant of this Abbot's Collection. For the Reasons which he brings, prove indeed that St. Gregory did not dictate and compose them in the form wherein they now are, but they do not prove that they are not a part of the Collection of the Abbot Claudius, who did not tie himself up to St. Gregory's manner of writing, but composed this Work suo sensu & stilo, and who also many times did not take the sense of this Father: For this being supposed, 'tis easy to conceive that this Abbot might Collect only a part of the Discourses of St. Gregory upon the Book of Kings, that he wrote them by way of Commentary, whereas they were in the form of Homilies; that he only used the Vulgar Version of the Scripture, though St. Gregory used St. Jerom's. It was also necessary that the style of these Commentaries should be different in some things from St. Gregory's, though 'tis often very like it. And lastly, we must not wonder that the Author some times addresses the Discourse to Monks, since he being an Abbot, and having made this Collection for his Monks, might apply to them what St. Gregory had said to Christians in general. And therefore though St. Gregory did not compose these two Commentaries, it may be said that they are in some sort his Works, since they were made upon what he was heard to say.  
We cannot say the same of the Exposition of the seven Penitential Psalms, which cannot be a Work of St. Gregory's time; for the Author of this Commentary speaks there in three places, in Psal. 5. v. 9 〈◊〉. 26. and in Psal. 27. against an Emperor of his time, whom he accuses of reviving Simony in the Church, of troubling it with a dangerous Schism, of endeavouring to enslave it, of invading what belonged to it, of making himself Lord over the Church of Rome, and attempting to impoly his Power against it. It appears plainly that this can have no relation to Mauritius, nor to Phocas, to whom St. Gregory speaks after a very different manner; but that it agrees to the Controversy between the Emperor Henry the Fourth, and Gregory the Seventh, about Investitures, and to the Character of that Pope. This is therefore either his Work, or the Work of one of his Abetters. The style sufficiently discovers that 'tis neither St. Gregory's the first, nor any of his Disciples.  
It cannot be affirmed that the Antiphonarium and the Sacramentarium of St. Gregory are such now as they were in his time. John the Deacon, who lived 300 years after him, is the first who speaks of his Antiphonarium in B. 2. of his Life, Chap. 6. and he says that a Manuscript of it was preserved at Rome in the Palace of the 〈◊〉. But there is no proof that this Copy was very ancient nor that the Antiphon●riu● which we now have, was perfectly like it; However it be, this Work is of no great importance. The Sacramentary, on the Book of the Office of the Mess, would be more useful, if it were evident that we have it now the same which it was in the time of St. Gregory. But on the contrary, 'tis certain that we have it not in its 〈◊〉, and that many things are added to it; for, it is now a long time since three Authors were 〈◊〉 before it, to distinguish what was St. Gregory's and what was added. The Abbot Grimboldus, the Priest 〈◊〉 Monk of Tours, who lived about the Year 849, and Albina or Alcainus took this care in the Editions which they made of the Sacramentary. But they do not agree among themselves about what is added to it, which shows that they have no certain proof of it, but that they make this distinction only by conjecture. In 1597. Rocca the Pope's Sacristane, published it from a Manuscript at Rome very different from that of Grimboldus which was published by Pamolius. And since that Father, Menardus has caused one to be printed more large than the former, reviewed by many Manuscripts, and chief by an ancient Manuscript which is thought to have been the Missal of St. Eloi, although it contains the Feasts of St. Prix and Leo the Second, who lived since the death of this Bishop. This great variety sufficiently discovers that we have not the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, the very same which he composed. The same Judgement is to be given of the Benedictionaries, which are as different as the Copies of them.  
I shall not stay to refute a fabulous Story related by St. John Damascent, which is famous among the Greeks; That St. Gregory going into a public place, and seeing a Statue of Trajan who was leaping off his Horse to hearken to a Widow, was so moved with the goodness of this Action, that he prayed to God for the repose of his Soul, and obtained his Salvation. This Fable, which had deceived the People and the Devoto's for a time, is now become the Object of Laughter and Contempt to all those who have the least discretion. The Fact of Trajan, upon which it is founded, is not related by any of those who wrote the Roman History. In the time of St. Gregory the ancient Statues were not erected in the public places of Rome, as formerly, and St. Gregory was too much persuaded that damned Infidels had no hopes of Salvation, to be so daring as to ask of God a thing so contrary to his unalterable Laws: And therefore which way soever this Invention of the Modern Greeks be considered, 'tis equally indefensible. From whence it follows also, that we ought to reject a Relation attributed to two Deacons of Rome, taken from a Manuscript of the Vatican Library, and printed at the end of St. Gregory's Letters, wherein 'tis supposed that the Story of the deliverance of Trajan's Soul is true, and that St. Gregory was afflicted with continual sickness; during his Pontificat, for making this extraordinary Petition.  
What we have said of the Works of St. Gregory, sufficiently discovers, that he had a Genius very proper for Morality, and that what he composed was an inexhaustible Fountain of Spiritual and Moral Thoughts: He expresses them after a very noble manner, and commonly includes them rather in grave Periods then witty Sentences. His 〈◊〉 are not very choice, neither is his Composure much laboured, but it is easy, coherent, and always uniform: He has nothing very sublime and lively, but what he says is true and solid. It is full of Common Places, and great Maxims: He is copious, and sometimes too long in the Explications of Morality, and too subtle in his Allegories.  
The Collection of his Works has been printed many times, at Lions in 1516, 1539, 1540, at Paris by John Petit and Remboldus, in 1518. by Che●… in 1523. at R●an in 1521 by Regnaldus; at Paris by 〈◊〉 1542. at east by Frobenius in 1564. at Answers by Plantin in 1572. at Venice in 1583. at Paris by N●ve●… in 1571, and in 1586. These Editions were followed by that of Rome in six Tomes which was begun in 1588., and finished in 1593. From these was made the Edition at Rome in Octavo, 1613. and those of Park in the Years 1605, and 1640.  
The last Edition of the Works of St. Gregory was published at Paris in 1675. It appeared under the Name of Mr. Goussainville a Priest, but 'tis know that Dr. 〈◊〉 took a great deal of pains in it. They had a great number of Manuscripts by which they might review all the Works. They distributed them into three Tomes. The first contains the Morals, the Pastoral, the Homilies upon Ezekiel and upon the Gospels, together with the Lives of St. Gregory, written by Paul and John the Deacons, and the Testimonials of the Ancients. The second Tome contains the Dialognes', the Letters accompanied with long and learned Notes, the Antiphonary, Sacramentary, and the Benedictionary. The third Tome contains the Commentaries upon the Kings, the seven Psalms, and the Canticles, attributed to St. Gregory, together with the Commentaries of Paterius upon the Holy Scripture, taken out of the Works of St. Gregory. The Prefaces which are prefixed at the beginning of each Work, are short, useful, and well-written. The whole Edition is dedicated to my Lord Lovis de Bassompiere then Bishop of Santones; a Prelate who perfectly imitated the ver●●ues of St. Gregory, who practised exactly according to the Rules which this great Pope prescribed to Pastors, and who had all the Qualifications which he requires in Bishops. For after he had passed his first years in Retirement, and lead that part of his Life free from Crimes, wherein the greater part of young People are engaged in worldly Pleasures; he was named when he thought little of it, to the Bishopric of Santones. His design was to refuse it, but being as it were forced to accept of it, he thought of nothing more than discharge his Office: For accomplishing this design, he abandoned the Court and Secular Affairs, to retire into his Diocese, that he might apply himself wholly to the Government of that Flock which Providence had entrusted to him. Afterwards he had favourable opportunities of increasing his Fortune in the World, and of advancement to Churches more 
Paterius.  beneficial and considerable, but he shunned them with the same precipitation that others run after them. He was observed to fly away quickly, at a time when the Affairs of his Diocese obliged him to stay at Paris, because a Report went about, that some had cast an Eye upon him, to give him a place which would engage him to live at a greater distance from his Church, or to accept of another. 'Tis very well known with what prudence he governed his People in the most difficult times, with what Discretion he continued in his Duty of Loyalty to his Prince with what Meekness hereclaimed a great number of Heretics to the Church, with whom his Diocese was filled when he entered into it. All the World did equally experience his Goodness, his Moderation and Easiness. Great Persons had always occasion to praise him for his Civility and Inferior. Persons for his Charity. He distributed his Goods to the Poor with so much Liberality, that oftentimes he reserved nothing to himself. He gave considerable Alms to poor Gentlemen, and to Families that were in want, without letting them know to whom they were obliged for the Relief. He did so industriously conceal the Good that he did, that those who came nearest to him could hardly perceive it; and if it happened that they did discover it, he strictly charged them to tell no body. Sometimes he would feign by a pious fraud, that the Alms which he gave was a Debt, that those who received it might not be ashamed to take it. He never heard any speak of a Quarrel, Difference, on Suit, against any Person in his Diocese but he used his utmost endeavours to accommodate it; and as he was of a sweet and obliging Disposition, and had a brisk and sharp Wit, he did almost always succeed in them to the Content of all Parties. He loved Order and Discipline, yet was never severe or morose. He treated his Priests as his Brethren, and hated an imperious and domineering Spirit. He vigorously maintained the Dignity of Bishops, and could not endure to see it any ways diminished. He defended the Truth, and the Rights of Episcopacy stoutly, but humbly. He would never engage himself into any Party in the Disputes which were managed with so much heat in his Life-time among Divines, and behaved himself with so much Prudence, that both Parties were satisfied with his Conduct. Lastly, at his death, he gave signs of a great Abstraction from the World, and left the Poor his only Heirs. There remains now an illustrious Monument of this great Prelate: 'Tis a Treatise written in the form of a Dialogue, about cutting off some Festivals, printed by his own Order in 1670. He lays down there Principles so solid, and discovers so great strength of Reason and Learning, that I doubt not but all those who read it, will have as great an Idea of his Learning, as those that knew him had of his Holiness. I know that this Digression is a little remote from my Subject; but I hope the Reader will easily pardon me, that I have taken this occasion to do Justice to the Memory of a Prelate who deserves to be famous to future Generations.    

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

St. LEANDER Bishop of Sevil.  
ST. Leander, Son of Severianus of the Province of Carthage in Spain, after he had professed a Monastical Life, was promoted to the Bishopric of Sevil. He had so much Eloquence, so much Address, 
St. Leander Bishop of Sevel.  and Wit and Learning, that he brought back into the bosom of the Church the Goths who were engaged in the Arian Faction. He was sent to Constantinople in the quality of Ambassador from his King to the Emperor Tiberius, where he contracted, a● we have already said, a friendship with St. Gregory. He composed many Works, of which here follows the Catalogue which Isidore has left us. He wrote, says he, 
Licinianus and Severus Bishops of Spain.  in the time of his Journey two Books against Heretical Doctrines, wherein there appeared great knowledge of the Scripture. There he discovers and confounds with great earnestness the Errors of the Arians, by showing what the Church teaches in opposition to them, and wherein it differs from them in its Doctrine and in its Mysteries. He 〈◊〉 also another little Work against the Arians, wherein he relates their Objections, and subjoins Answers to them. He composed also a Treatise addressed to his Sister Florentina, concerning the Instruction of Virgins and Contempt of the World. He was very industrious and careful about the Offices of the Church, for he made two Editions of the Psalms with the Prayers, and composed Songs suitable to the Prayers and the Psalms which are repeated at the Sacrifice. He addressed many Letters to Pope Gregory. There is one about Baptism, another addressed to his Brother, wherein he admonishes him, that he must not fear death; and many familiar Letters to his Friends, which are not written in lofty words, but are made up of spiritual Thoughts. He flourished and died under King Reccaredus. This is what Isidore informs us concerning the Life and Works of St. Leander.  
We have now nothing remaining but his Letter to his Sister Florentina, which is in the third part of the Code of the Rules of Benedict of Aniana: 'Tis a very wise and useful Rule for Nuns. The style of it is concise and short; He affects to speak by way of Sentences, which are adorned with Antitheses, and words whose termination and cadence are the same at every part of a Period. There is also a Harangue of this Saint, about the Conversion of the Goths, which he spoke after the third Council of Toledo, at the end of which it is to be found.   

LICINIANUS and SEVERUS Bishops of Spain.  
THese are two Bishops of Spain mentioned by Isidore in these following words: Licinianus Bishop of Carthage in Spain was learned in the Holy Scripture. We have read some of his Letters; whereof there is one about the Sacrament of Baptism, and many written to Eutropius Bishop of Valentia; but the other Fruits of his Labour and Industry are not come to our hands. He flourished in the time of the Emperor Mauritius; and died at Constantinople, being poisoned by his Enemies.  
Severus Bishop of Malaga, a Friend and Colleague of Licinianus, wrote a little Treatise against Vincentius Bishop of Saragosa, who had deserted the Catholic Faith, and was fallen into the Error of the Arians. He wrote also a Letter of Virginity to his Sister, entitled, The Ring. We know nothing but the Title of it, therefore cannot tell how it is written. He flourished and died under the same Emperor.   

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

EUTROPIUS. 
Eutropius.   
EUtropius Bishop of Valentia in Spain, while he was yet an Abbot of a Monastery, wrote a very useful Letter to the Bishop of Licimanus, of whom we have spoken, wherein he inquires of him, Why the Unction of Chrysm is given to Infants who are baptised. He wrote also a Letter to Peter Bishop of Iturbica, concerning the Distinction of Monks, which contains wholesome Advices, and very useful for them. These are the words of St. Isidore in his Book of Illustrious Men, Chap. 32. The last of these two Letters was published by Holstenius, in the Addition to the Code of the Rules of Benedict of Aniana. It is not entitled, De Distinctione Monachorum, as is noted in the Text of Isidore, which probably is corrupted, but De Districtione Monachorum & ruina Monasteriorum. There he shows that the Monks must be reproved with candour, and obliged to observe their Rule with exactness and rigour. This Letter is written in a very plain style.   

MAXIMUS Bishop of Saragosa.  
THis Bishop was present at the Councils of Barcelona in 590, of Toledo in 610, and of Egara in 614. St. Isidore says, that he composed many Works in Prose and Verse; That he wrote a 
Maximus Bishop of Saragosa.  short History of the Transactions in Spain in the time of the Goths, and that he also wrote many other things which Isidore had never seen.   

EUSTRATIUS Priest of Constantinople.  
WE shall conclude this Age with some Greek Authors, mentioned by Photius, who may be thought to have lived at the same time, although Photius does not distinctly set it down. 
Eustratius Priest of Constantinople.   
The first is Eustratius a Priest of the Church of Constantinople, who wrote a Treatise of the Souls of the Dead, of which Photius gives the following Judgement, in Code 171 of his Bibliotheque.  
His style, says he, is not much to be valued, but his Thoughts are not altogether to be blamed: He is clear in what he says. He proposes to himself three things. First to prove that Souls are Active after their separation from the Body, not only the Souls of the blessed, but generally of all Men, and that they act differently, according to the difference of their Merits: That those who appear in different Forms discover themselves in their Nature, and that 'tis not only the Divine Power which makes them appear invisible shapes, since it is not necessary to 〈◊〉 to the Figures and Representations which are framed by this Power, for the Souls done can by themselves do what pleases God. After he has endeavoured to prove these two Points by passages of holy Scripture and the Fathers, he labours to show that the Sacrifices and Oblations which the Priests make for those who die in the faith of the Church, as well as the Prayers and Alms which are made for them, are profitable to the Salvation and Pardon of their Sins, for whom they are offered: That the Custom is to offer them at the end of three days after Death, in memory of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, at the end of nine days, because Jesus Christ discovered himself to his Disciples on the ninth day after his Resurrection; and lastly, at the end of forty days, because after this number of days Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven. This Work was published by Allatius in his Treatise of Purgatory.   

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

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

METRODORUS.  
THis Author had made a Cycle for the Celebration of the Feast of Easter, consisting of eight and twenty Cycles, nineteen Years a piece; beginning at Dioclesian, and continuing it for the 
Metrodorus.  space of five hundred thirty three years, to 〈◊〉 the Feasts of Easter according to the Calculation of the fourteenth 〈◊〉, although neither the Ancient Church, nor the Modern, says Photius, did always so exactly determine it. He did not know who this Author was, and when he wrote.   

HERACLIANUS Bishop of Chalcedon.  
THis Author composed twenty Books against the Manicheans. His style was concise, free from useless words, sublime, and of a neatness supported by the Majesty of the Expressions, because 
Heraclinus' Bishop of Chalcedon.  he mixed the Attic Dialect with ordinary Discourse. He overthrows the Book which the Manichees call their Gospel, the Treatise of Giants, and their Treasure. He mentions those who had written against these Heretics before him, viz. Egemenius, who had written the Dispute of Archelaus against Manes; Titus, who thinking to refute Manicheus, had written against Addas; George of Laodicea, who had used the same Arguments with Titus; Serapion Bishop of Thumis, and Diodorus of Tarsus, who had opposed the Manicheans in a Work of five and twenty Books, in the seven first whereof he thought to attack their Gospel, although he refuted the Book of Addas, to which they 
Leontius Bishop of Arabissa.  gave the Title of Measures. Heraclianus confirmed in a few words what seemed to him most weak in the Works of these Authors, supplied what appeared to him forgotten, and repeated the best things they had said, adding to them what came into his own mind. This Author was nervous in his Reasons which he improved by the help of other Sciences. He overthrew the Fables of the Manicheans, and refuted solidly their Errors. This Work was addressed to a Christian called Achillius by whom he was desired to refute in public Writings the Heresy of the Manicheans which spread in the World. Photius has noted the Emperor under whom this Author lived, but he is not to be found among those that are printed. His Work is lost; we have taken what we have said out of Photius in Code 85.   

LEONTIUS Bishop of Arabissa.  
PHotius relates in Code 172. a part of this Author's Homily, which was entitled, Of the Creation and of Lazarus. The Fall of Adam, and his Punishment, are there described, to show the necessity of the Incarnation; and the Resurrection of Lazarus is there compared to the Joy which John felt in his Mother's Womb.    

OF THE 
〈…〉 under Pope Symmachus.  COUNCILS HELD In the Sixth Age.  

Of the COUNCILS at ROME under Pope Symmachus.  
THE Pontificat of Pope Symmachus being very much embroiled, he was forced to assemble many Councils.  
Immediately after his Promotion he held one the first day of March in the Year 499. to make Canons, forbidding for the future such Canvassing as were used after the death of Pope Anastasius. This Council was composed of more than sixty Italian Bishops, and as many Priests, who had all their Titles. Five Deacons of Rome were there present, and signed the Regulation of the Council after the Bishops and Priests. It contains, first, That for hindering such frequent Canvassing for the future, as were used by those who had a mind to be promoted to the Bishopric of Rome, which caused a great Scandal to the Church, and Commotions among the People, the Council Orders, That if any Priest, Deacon, or any other Person of the Clergy, shall dare, during the Life of the Pope, to make any Promise in writing for the Pontificat, or give any Notes; or make any Oath about it, or promise his Suffrage by any way whatsoever, or do so much as hold Meet●●●s, to consult about it and make Propositions, he shall be deprived of his Office, and of the Communion of the Church. 2. That if the Pope happen to die suddenly, without being able to look after the Election of a Successor, he shall be Consecrated who shall be chosen with a common Consent, or by the far greater number. 3. That those shall be rewarded who shall discover the Intrigues and Cabals which are used for the Election of a Pope, contrary to the Order of this Council; and that if he who shall discover them had a hand in them, he shall not be molested. These Canons were read by a Notary, and approved by the reiterated Acclamations of all the Fathers of the Council.  
Anastasius, or the Author of the Pontifical which goes under the Name of Damasus, make mention of a second Council of Rome under Symmachus, in which they pretend that this Pope was acquitted by 115 Bishops, and that Peter of Altinum, who was named Visitor, was Condemned, together with Laurentius, who had been Symmachus' Competitor. But we have no Monument of this Synod, neither is it probable that there was such a one, since there is no mention made of it in the Synod, which we are now about to speak of, nor in the Apology of this Synod composed by Ennodius, wherein he would never have failed, for the Defence of Symmachus, to allege the first Judgement that was given in his favour.  
The Synod which is now reckoned the third, was called by the Authority of King Theodoric, in the Year 501, to judge of the Accusations charged upon Symmachus. The Bishops of Emilia, Liguria, and of the Country of Venice, went to Ravenna, and enquired of the King, for what cause he called them together: He answered them, That it had been reported to him, that Symmachus was accused of many horrible Crimes, and that he thought it necessary to examine the matter, and determine in a Council, whether he was guilty of them or no. The Bishops remonstrated that he who was accused should have called a Council himself, because they were persuaded that the Merit and Primacy of St. Peter, and the Decrees of the Holy Councils had appropriated to his See a supereminent Power, and that it was never heard that the Bishop of Rome submitted to the Judgement of his Inferiors.  
The King said, That the Pope himself had consented to the Calling of a Council, and caused the Letter to be shown them, wherein he signified that he desired it. This Conference is, as it were, the first Session of this Synod. When the Bishops were come to Rome, the Pope came the first time to the Assembly, and having testified his Obligation to the King for Calling this Synod, he demanded in the first place, that the Visitor who had been appointed for his Church, contrary to Order, should withdraw, and that all things should be restored to him of which he had been deprived. The Synod found his Demand just, but durst not decide any thing without knowing the Will of the Prince: Whereupon a Remonstrance was sent to him, but he would not look upon it, and ordered that Symmachus should first justify himself, before his Patrimony, and his Churches were restored to him.  
The Synod being assembled a third time in the Chapel of the Palace, it was desired that the Libel might be received, which contained the Articles whereof Symmachus was accused; but here the Council found two Difficulties: The first was, That therein it was alleged, that the Crimes whereof Symmachus was accused, had been proved before the King, which could not be, since he had ordered them to judge of them. The second was, That in this Libel it was desired, that Symmachus should be condemned to give up his Slaves, that so he might be convicted by their Depositions of of the Crimes wherewith he was charged. This Proposition appeared contrary to the Canons of the Civil Laws, since Slaves were not permitted to accuse any Man in a Court of Judicature. These Difficulties retarded the progress of this Affair, but on the other hand the Pope pressed the Decision of it, and said, That he was set upon as he came, by a Multitude who had abused him, as appeared by his Wounds, and that he should have been killed if the King's Officers had not relieved him. This Session passed in confusion, without being able to do any thing. 'Twas resolved to go again and wait upon the King, and inform him how the matter stood. The Deputies at the same time told him, That the Pope had declared, that hitherto he was willing to offer himself to the Judgement of the Synod, but at present it was not safe for him to come thither, after he had been in so great danger of his Life: That the King might do what he pleased in this Case, but the Synod could not force him to come thither according to the Canons of the Councils. The King made Answer, That it concerned the Synod to consider what they had to do; for his part he would not interpose in Ecclesiastical Affairs, but only show all due respect to the Determinations of the Bishops; that he would leave the Bishops at their liberty to decide this Cause, or let it alone, provided they restored Peace to the City of Rome. The Bishops having received his Orders, thought that they had nothing more to do but exhort the Romans to Peace: And for this end they sent Deputies to the Senate which was against Symmachus, and remonstrate to them the dangerous consequences of urging Pope Symmachus to Extremities, and exhorted them to reunite themselves unto him. After which they declared in a fourth and last Session, That Pope Symmachus, the Bishop of the Holy Apostolical See, against whom many Articles of Accusation had been proposed, should be acquitted and discharged from these Accusations in regard of Men (for with respect to God the Judgement of them was left to him) and that he shall freely perform his Office in all the Churches of his Jurisdiction; and that in consequence of the Prince's Declaration, they exhorted all the Faithful to return to his Communion, and embrace Peace, reserving the Judgement of the Justice of this Cause to God. As to his Clergy, who had separated from him, and made a Schism, 'tis ordained, That upon their making satisfaction to him, he shall pardon them, and restore them to their Offices; but that those who for the future should dare to Celebrate in any place without communicating with him, should be Excommunicated and treated as Schismatics.  
This is what is contained in the Acts of this Council, after which follow the Monuments which concern the Council. The first is a Letter of Theodoric to the Council, written after the second Session, dated the ninth of August: The second is another Letter to the same Bishops, written the 28th of the same Month: The third is the Relation of the Council after the third Session, when the Pope had declared that he would come no more to the Council: The fourth is the Answer of Theodoric, wherein he exhorts them to determine the Pope's Affair, but leaving them at liberty to do in it as they should think fit, provided they restored Peace to Rome. This Letter is dated the last of September. The last is a Memorial of Instructions given to him whom the King sent in his Name to the Council. The Dates of these Monuments serve to fix the Epocha's of the four Assemblies we have spoken of. The Council was called about the end of June 501. The Bishops having come by Ravenna, where they saw the King, and held their first Assembly, came to Rome in the Month of July, and held there their second Session. The third Meeting where the Pope was present the second time, was held the first of September. The last was held on the 21th of October, which is the day of the Date of the Acts, or according to another Manuscript on the 13th of the same Month. From whence you may presently perceive why this is called Synodus 〈◊〉 in the Council of Rome, which approved the Discourse which 〈◊〉 written in Defence of this Synod, since it was the fourth Assembly held about 
The Council of Ag●t●●.  this Cause. It is also called P●●n●ris, perhaps because the Bishops carried in it what they had a mind 〈◊〉.  
The Decision of this Synod was differently received: On one side the Enemies of Symmachus blamed it, and wrote a Discourse on purpose to condemn it, where they called it The Synod of the absurd Absolution▪ on the other side, some Bishops thinking that a particular Council of Italian Bishops, had no Power to give a Sentence of Absolution to the Pope, blamed them for doing it, though in very respectful words. The Discourse of Symmachus' Enemies was refuted by E●no●ius, and the Complaint of his Complices, is contained in a Letter which Avitus Bishop of Vienna wrote upon this Subject in his own Name, and in the Name of all the other Bishops of his Country to the Senators of Rome.  
The next year there was held another Council at Rome on the sixth of November, wherein the Pope presided. In it was examined a Decree which was made in the time of the Pope Simplicius. By Basil the Praetorian Pre●ect, who represented also King O●●acer. This Decree contained three Canons: 1. That the Bishop of Rome should not be chosen without the knowledge and consent of the Sovereign. 2. That the Bishops of Rome should be forbidden under the the Penalty of an Anathema, to alienate any part of the Ecclesiastical Revenues, and that if they should make any such Alienation, it should be null and void. 3. That the precious Movables and superfluous Ornaments of Churches should be sold, and the price of them distributed among the Poor.  
The Council blames the first of these Canons by itself; as to the others, it rejects them as an Attempt made by a Layman against Ecclesiastical Authority, and against the Privileges of the Holy See, whose Primacy was subverted by them: But in this Council some Canons were made which amount to the same thing. In it the Pope is forbidden to alienate for ever, or for any certain time, the Possessions of his Church; he is only permitted to lease some Houses whose Repairs were a burden to the Church; The same Prohibition is made to Priests and other Clergymen, even with respect to things that are movable; an Anathema also is pronounced against those who shall consent to these Alienations▪ or accept them, and all Ecclesiastical Persons are permitted to oppose them.  
In the Year 503 there was also a Synod held at Rome, wherein that Discourse is approved, which Ennodius wrote in Defence of the Assembly which absolved Pope Symmachus. In it is confirmed what was done in this Council, and the Sheep are forbidden to Rebel against their Pastor. There also a Canon was made, That a Bishop being deprived of his Possessions before he is Condemned cannot be delated to a Council, until that be restored which was taken from him, and he be restored to the same Condition wherein he was before his Accusation. These Canons being proposed by the Pope, were approved by the Acclamations of the Council, according to the custom of that time.  
The last Council held under Pope Symmachus, was on the last day of September in the Year 504. It pronounced many anathemas and Curses against those who invaded the Possessions of the Church.   

Of the Council of Agatha.  
THis Council was held in the Year 506, on the 10th or 11th of September, under Alaricus King of the Goths, who at that time were Masters of Gallia Aquitanica. Caesarius Bishop of Arles was at the beginning of this Council, together with the Archbishops of Bourdeaux, 
* Augusta Auscorum.  of the Province of Auch, of Burges and Tholouse. The Bishop of Agatha, in whose City the Council was held, followed immediately with eighteen Bishops, seven Priests deputed from as many Bishops, and two Deacons also deputed from two other Bishops. These Prelates being assembled by the permission of Alaricus in the Church of St. Andrew of Agatha, after having prayed for King Alaricus, made many Canons about Discipline.  
The first renews the Prohibitions of the ancient Canons about the Ordinations of Bigamists, and of those who had married Widows. It permits those who are already ordained Priests or Deacons, though they be Bigamists, or married to Widows, to retain the Name of their Order, but deprives them of the Exercise of their Function.  
The second contains, That disobedient Clergymen shall be punished by the Bishop, and that if any be found who through the pride of their Spirit despise the Communion, and neglect to assist at Church, and to do their Office there, they shall be reduced to the Communion of Strangers; provided nevertheless that when they shall do Penance, and be Reform, they shall be matriculated again in the Church, and restored to their Dignity. This Canon is one of those which speaks of the Communion of Strangers, Communio peregrina. I think it was the station which was given to Strangers, who called themselves Clergymen, and could not prove it by their literae formatae: An honourable place was allowed them above the Laity, but under the Clergy of the Church who were of the same Rank. As for Example; If this Stranger called himself a Bishop, he was put below the Bishops who were knownto be such, and above the Priests: If he called himself a Priest, he was placed the last of the Priests, and immediately before the Deacons. According to this Notion it will be easy to conceive what it was to reduce one to the Communion of Strangers.  
In the third Canon it is ordained, That if the Bishops excommunicate any Innocent Persons, or those whose Faults are very slight, and will not receive them, though they importunately desire it, they shall be admonished by the neighbouring Bishops to do it; and if they will not yield to this Advice, the other Bishops may grant the Communion to such Persons, until such time as a Council do meet; lest these Excommunicated Persons happening to die, should increase his sin who Excommunicated them. This is an Exception to the General Rule, which forbids Bishops to receive those who have been Excommunicated by their Brethren.  
The fourth Canon De●lares, That the Clergy or Secular Persons who shall take or retain such things, as are given by Testament, or otherwise, to Churches or Monasteries, shall be separated from the Church, and looked upon as Murderers of the Poor, necatores pauperum.  
The fifth reduces also to the Communion of Strangers, a Clergyman who shall take any thing from the Church.  
The sixth declares, That such things as are given to Bishops by Strangers, aught to be looked upon as the Goods of the Church, because it is to be presumed that those who make these Donations, do it for the good of their Soul, pro redemptione animae suae; and that 'tis just, that as the Bishop enjoys what is given to the Church, so what is given to the Bishop should belong to the Church: Nevertheless it excepts such things as are given in Trust, whether to the Bishop or to the Church.  
The seventh forbids to alienate the Revenues of the Church, and if there be any necessity, that then this shall be proved in the presence of two or three neighbouring Bishops, and attested by their Subscription. Nevertheless it allows the Bishop to give liberty to Slaves, to grant them some little pittance, and to dispose of the Profits of such things as are of little consequence.  
The eighth pronounces Excommunication against a Clergyman who has recourse to a Secular Judge, to cover himself from the Prosecution of his Bishop, and against the Judge who protects him.  
The ninth ordains, That the Laws of the Pope's Innocentius and Siricius about the Celibacy of Priests and Deacons shall be observed.  
The tenth forbids the Clergy to cohabit with, or frequent the Company of strange Women.  
The eleventh forbids them to keep Women that are slaves, or made free, to serve them.  
The twelfth ordains Fasting all the days of Lent except Sundays.  
The thirteenth enjoins, That the Creed shall be taught in the Church to the Catechumen that are Competentes, in the Week before the Sunday of the Resurrection.  
The fourteenth, That the Altars shall be consecrated, not only by the Unction of Chrysm, but also by the Sacerdotal Benediction.  
The fifteenth enjoins Penitents at such time as they desire Penance, to receive Imposition of Hands from the Bishop, and to put a Haircloth upon their Head. It adds, That if they do not cut off their Hair, and change their Habit, they shall be thrown out of the number of the Penitents; that if they do not Penance as they should, they shall not be received to the Communion; that Penance ought not easily to be granted to young People, because of the frailty of their Age, but the Viaticum, i. e. the Absolution must be granted to all in a case of Extremity.  
The sixteenth forbids to ordain Deacons who are not yet five and twenty years old. If those to be Ordained are married, they must not be Ordained, unless Security be given that their Wives are resolved to live in Celibacy, and that they will no more dwell together under the same Roof.  
The seventeenth forbids to Ordain one a Priest before the Age of thirty years.  
The eighteenth declares, That Laymen who do not Communicate at Christmas, Easter, and Whit-sunday, shall not be looked upon as Catholics.  
The nineteenth forbids to give the Veil to Nuns before the Age of forty.  
The twentieth declares, That the Clergy who suffer their Hair to grow, shall be shaved even against their will by the Order of the archdeacon, and enjoins them to have their Shoes and Clothes suitable to their Condition.  
The one and twentieth permits particular Persons to have Chapels in their Country-Houses remote from Parishes, and there to read the Offices of the Festivals, except those of Easter, Christmas, Epiphany, Ascension, Whitsunday, the Nativity of St. John, and the other great Festivals, on which Clergy men are forbidden to read the Service in them, without a particular leave from the Bishop.  
The two and twentieth forbids Curates, and other Ecclesiastical Persons, to alienate the Possessions of the Church which they enjoy.  
The three and twentieth prescribes to the Bishop to observe the Order of Age among the Clergy, except one of them deserves to be humbled, because he will not do what the Bishop commands him: yet it permits him, if he that is most ancient be not so fit for business, to choose him for archdeacon when he shall think most proper for it.  
The four and twentieth renews the ninth Canon of the Council of Vasio, about Infants that are exposed to the wide world.  
The five and twentieth Excommunicates married Persons who part one from another, without proving before the Bishops of the Province, that they had just reason to dissolve their Marriage.  
The six and twentieth is against those who take or retain the Titles of Churches; and besides the Anathema, it condemns them to make Restitution for the Injury which the Church suffers upon the account of having these Titles.  
By the seven and twentieth, 1. It is forbidden to found a Monastery without the consent of the Bishop. 2. 'Tis said, that the Bishop ought not to Ordain Clergymen of vagabond Monks, but only of such as their Abbot shall give a good Testimonial. 3. That an Abbot ought not to receive the Monks of another Monastery, and if he does receive them, they shall be restored to the former Monastery. 4. That if it be necessary to admit a Monk into Holy Orders, the Bishop shall not Ordain him without the Consent of the Abbot.  
The eight and twentieth, That Monasteries of Women shall be distant from those of Men, because of the Temptations of the Devil, and the Discourses of People.  
The nine and twentieth declares, That the Church shall take those that are made free into her Protection.  
The thirtieth Ordains, That the same order shall be observed in Divine Service every where, that after the Ancients, the Bishops or Priests shall say the Collects, that the Hymns shall be sung Evening and Morning, that at the end of Matins and Vespers, some short Chapters shall be read out of the Psalms, and that the People being assembled for Prayer at Night, shall be dismissed with the Bishop's Blessing.  
The one and thirtieth declares, That the Bishops shall employ themselves in reconciling such Persons as have been at variance for a long time, and if they will not be reconciled they shall be Excommunicated.  
The two and thirtieth forbids Clergymen to Accuse any Man before a Secular Judge: It allows him to answer if he be accused, and if it happen that he who accuses him be convicted of Injustice, he shall be separated from the Church.  
The three and thirtieth declares, That when a Bishop, having neither Child nor Grandchild, leaves not his Goods to the Church at his Death, all the Possessions of the Church which he has alienated, aught to be restored; and if he has Children that are Heirs, they ought to indemnify the Church from the Injury that he has done it.  
The four and thirtieth ordains, That the Jews shall be Catechumen for eight Months before they receive Baptism, unless they fall sick.  
The five and thirtieth ordains the Bishops of the Province to be present at the Ordination of Bishops, or at a Synod, when they shall be required by their Metropolitan, unless they be detained by sickness, or by an Order from their Prince.  
The six and thirtieth, That Clergymen who serve the Church shall receive the Recompense due to their Miseries.  
The seven and thirtieth decrees the Penalty of Excommunication against Murderers and false Witnesses.  
The eight and thirtieth forbids Clergymen to go out of their own Diocese, without Letters of Recommendation from their Bishop. The same Prohibition is extended also to Monks, and besides they are threatened with ill treatment, if they be not obedient to this Advice. They are also forbidden to separate from the Monastery, to dwell in particular Cells, unless they be of noted Virtue▪ which has been tried by long labour, or be obliged because of their Infirmity, to abate something of the Austerity of their Rule with the leave of their Abbot; and even in this case their Cells shall be within the compass of the Monastery.  
The nine and thirtieth admonishes Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, to whom it is not lawful to marry, not to be present at Nuptial Feasts, where lewd Songs are sung, and such things done as are unworthy those eyes to behold, which are appointed to look upon the Holy Mysteries.  
The fortieth forbids Christians to eat with Jews.  
The one and fortieth enjoins Ecclesiastical Persons to keep themselves from Drunkenness, and condemns a Clergyman who shall be drunk, to remain thirty days without Communion, or to some Corporal Punishment.  
The two and fortieth forbids any under pain of Excommunication to meddle with Divination and Prediction of things future, whether by the way which is called the Witchcraft of Saints, or after any other manner.  
The three and fortieth forbids to Ordain those who have been under Penance, and deprives those of their Office who shall be Ordained.  
The four and fortieth declares, That it is not lawful for a Priest to give the Blessing to the People or to a Penitent.  
The five and fortieth, That a Bishop may alienate, without assembling his Brethren, some little Pieces of Land, or of a Vineyard, which are of no great Rent, or are very far distant.  
The six and fortieth, That he may also sell the fugitive Slaves who can hardly be kept.  
The seven and fortieth orders Laymen to continue in Church on Sunday in the time of Divine Service, and fordids them to go out before the Blessing, upon pain of being publicly rebuked by the Bishop.  
These 47 
The first Council of Orleans.  Canons are certainly the Council of Agatha's, but the 25 following Canons are not found in the most ancient Manuscripts. They have been printed with the Councils of Spain, after the seventeenth Council of Toledo; yet they are joined with the preceding in many Manuscripts. Hin●marus has cited them as the Council of Agatha's: yet there is no probability that they are, since there are many Regulations in them about the same things which are provided for in the preceding Canons, and the most part of them are taken from the Council of Epaone, which will dispense with us for making Extracts of them here.   

The first Council of Orleans.  
THis Council was assembled by the Order of Clovis in the Year 511. and held at Orleans on the 11th day of July. The Archbishops of Bourdeaux and Bourges, of Auch, Tours and Rohan assisted there with 27 Bishops, and made 31 Canons in this Assembly.  
The first maintains the Right of Sanctuary which the Canons and Roman Laws have granted to Churches, and Bishop's Houses, by declaring that 'tis not lawful to take away Criminals who are fled thither for refuge, and that the Clergymen ought not to deliver them up, unless they have agreed with their Adversary, and assurance be given to them by Oath that no hurt shall be done unto them, but if he who has taken Sanctuary retire of his own accord, and be taken, than the ecclesiastics shall not trouble themselves to demand him back again.  
The second gives an Exception to this Law with respect to Ravishers of Women who fly to these Places for Sanctuary with Women whom they have ravished. If they have taken them away by force and against their Will, immediately the Woman shall be set at Liberty, and the Ravisher shall be made a slave, or obliged to redeem himself; but if the Woman ravished was willing, and the Rape did no Injury but to the Woman's Father, she shall be restored to him, but the Ravisher shall not be reduced to Bondage.  
The third is also about the same Regulation. There 'tis said, That if a Slave has fled for Sanctuary into the Church, he ought to be restored to his Master, who is to make Oath to him, that he will do him no hurt for his going away, and that when a Slave will not go forth, the Master may take him again by force, giving this assurance upon Oath; but if he break his Oath, and do any hurt to his Slave, he shall be separated from the Communion of Christians.  
The fourth forbids to ordain Secular Persons without the King's Order, or leave from a Judge.  
The fifth declares, That the Revenues of Lands given to Churches by the Prince, shall be employed for Repairs of Churches for Entertainment of the Clergy, for the maintenance of the Poor, and for the Redemption of Captives: the Bishops are admonished to take care of these things, and threatened with Excommunication if they do not observe them.  
The sixth declares, That a Layman ought not to be Excommunicated who shall petition against his Bishop, unless he accuse him of some Crime.  
The seventh forbids Abbots, Priests, and other Clergymen to wait upon the Prince without the Bishop's leave, and to desire any Favours of him.  
The eighth enjoins, That if a Bishop Ordains a Slave Priest or Deacon, knowing that he is a Slave, he shall pay double the price of him to his Master; that if he did not know, than those that presented him, or gave Testimonials of him, shall pay this Sum.  
The ninth Declares, That the Deacon or Priest who commits a Capital Crime, aught to be Deposed and Excommunicated.  
The tenth Orders, as to Heretical Clergymen, who are sincere Converts, that the Bishop may place them in such a station as he shall think fit, by giving them the Blessing of Imposition of Hands, and that their Churches shall be Consecrated with the same Ceremonies as are used to those of Catholics.  
The eleventh forbids not only Ecclesiastical Communions, but also feasting between Catholics, and those who having begun Penance, forsake it to lead a worldly Life.  
The twelfth gives leave to a Deacon or Priest who is under Penance, to give Baptism in a case of necessity.  
The thirteenth Ordains, That if the Wife of a Priest or Deacon marry, she shall be punished for her fault, and parted from him whom she has married; and if they will not part, they shall be Excommunicated.  
The fourteenth renews the ancient Canons, which declare that one Moiety of the Offerings which the Faithful make at the Altar, belongs to the Bishop, and that the other Moiety shall be distributed among the Clergy, and that the Bishop shall have the Disposal of the Revenues of Lands.  
The fifteenth adds, That he shall also have the disposal of all that the Faithful offer to Parishes, in Lands, in Vineyards, in Slaves, or in other things, and that the third part of all that is offered at the 
Th● Council of Tarraco.  Altar, shall be given to him.  
The sixteenth orders the Bishop to cloth and maintain the poor, the weak, and all those who cannot earn their Livelihood.  
The seventeenth gives the Bishop Jurisdiction over all the Churches which are built within his Territory.  
The eighteenth forbids a Man to marry his Brother's Widow.  
The nineteenth subjects Abbots to the Jurisdiction of the Bishop; and orders them to come once a year to the place which he shall appoint them. He enjoins the Abbot to fetch back the vagabond Monks who are gone out of his Monastery with all that have been able to get together.  
The twentieth forbids a Monk to make use of his Handkerchief in his Monastery.  
The one and twentieth declares, that a Monk who quits the Monastery and marries, can never enter into Holy Orders.  
The two and twentieth forbids Monks to retire from a Monastery that they may build a Cell, without the leave of the Bishop, and the consent of the Abbot.  
The three and twentieth declares, That if the Bishop gives the Lands of the Church to Clergymen or Mo●●s, to enjoy them for a time, those who do enjoy them cannot acquire any Prescription against the Church.  
The four and twentieth ordains that a Fast of forty days, and not of fifty, shall be observed before Easter.  
The five and twent●eth, That it shall not be lawful for any Citizen to celebrate the Feasts of Easter and Whitsuntide in the Country.  
The six and twentieth, That the People shall not go forth in the time of Divine Service, until it be finished, and they have received the Bishop's Blessing.  
The seven and twentieth, That the Rogations, or Litanies, shall every where be used before Ascension-day, and that during the space of the three days which precede this Feast, besides Fasting and Abstinence, neither Slaves nor Servants shall be obliged to work, that so all the People may assemble together.  
The eight and twentieth, That the Clergy who shall neglect to assist at this Holy Prayer, shall be punished as the Bishop shall judge convenient.  
The nine and twentieth renews the ancient Canons against the Familiarity of Clergymen with strange Women.  
The thirtieth is against those who meddle with Divination.  
The one and thirtieth declares that the Bishop ought to be present on Sunday at Divine Service, in the Church which is nearest to the place where he is, unless he be hindered by some sickness.   

The Council of Tarraco.  
THis Council was assembled at Tarraco on the sixth of November in the Year 516, and consisted of ten Bishops or Archbishops of Spain, who made thirteen Chapters or Canons, whereof here follows an Abridgement.  
The first is, That ecclesiastics or Monks who are obliged to assist their Kinsfolk, shall give them what they stand in need of, and may go and see them; but they shall return after they have saluted them, and make no long stay at their Houses when they go to see them: They shall carry along with them an ancient Person of known probity, to be a witness of their Actions. Whosoever does not observe this Canon, if he be a Clergyman, he shall be deprived of his Office; if he be a Monk, he shall be shut up in a Cell of the Monastery, where he shall live upon Bread and Water.  
The second is, The ecclesiastics who meddle with buying at a cheap rate, that they may sell things at another time when they are dearer, shall be turned out of the Clergy.  
3. An Ecclesiastic who has lent Money, shall take Wine or Corn for his Money at the season, after what manner he pleases: But if he to whom he has lent it, has not wherewithal to pay what he owes him, than he shall be satisfied with receiving what he lent him without any Increase.  
4. Bishops and Priests are forbidden to sit in Judgement on Sunday; they may do it on other days, yet they must not meddle in Criminal Matters.  
5. A Bishop who was not ordained by the Metropolitan himself, but by another Bishop with his leave, aught in two months' time to go and wait upon his Metropolitan.  
6. A Bishop who neglects to come to a Synod, and is not detained by any sickness, aught to be deprived of the Communion of his Brothers until the next Council.  
7. In Country Parishes a Priest and a Deacon shall stay there by turns, each in their week, and on Saturday all the Clergy of these Churches shall be ready to read Divine Service on Sunday: Every 
The Council of Gerunda.  day Matins and Vespers shall be there said also.  
8. The Bishops shall visit every year the Country Churches, shall cause to repair those that are any ways decayed, and take care that Divine Service be read in them.  
9 If any Reader or Porter, will continue with an adulterous Woman, he shall be turned out from among the Clergy.  
In the 10th the Clergy are forbidden to take any thing for the Protection they have given, unless some freewill▪ Offerings be made to them in the Church.  
The 11th forbids Monks to go out of their Monastery, to do the Office of Clergymen, without the leave of their Abbot: It forbids them also to undertake Secular Business, unless it be for the Good of the Monastery, and by the Command of their Abbot.  
The 12th ordains, That after the death of Bishops, an Inventory shall be made of all their Goods, by the Priests and Deacons, and that if any one be found who has taken any thing, he shall be obliged to restore it.  
13. The Metropolitan, when he citys the Bishops to a Council, aught to advertise them to bring thither with them, the Priests of the City of the Country, and the Officers of the Church.   

The Council of Gerunda.  
THis Council which was held at Gerunda on the 18th of June in the Year 517, was composed of the Metropolitan of Tarraco, and six Bishops of that Province, who made ten Canons in this Assembly.  
By the first it is ordained, That the same Order of Celebrating Mass and Divine Sevice which is observed in the Church of the Metropolitan, shall be followed in all the Provinces of Tarraco.  
By the second, That in the Week which follows the Feast of Pentecost, Abstinence shall be used, and Litanies shall be said, from Thursday until Saturday.  
By the third, That the second Litanies shall begin on the first day of November, provided that if that day happen to be Sunday, they shall be put off to Thursday next, and then they shall end on Saturday; and that during this time there shall be Abstinence from Flesh and Wine.  
By the fourth, That Baptism shall be administered only at Easter and Whitsuntide, and that at the other Festivals the sick only shall be baptised, to whom Baptism ought never to be denied at any time whatsoever.  
By the fifth Canon it is ordained, That Children shall be baptised whenever they are presented, if they be sick, or cannot suck the breast.  
By the sixth, All the Orders of Clergymen who are obliged to Celibacy, from Bishops down to Subdeacons, are forbidden to cohabit with their Wives, or if they will dwell with them, they are commanded to have with them one of their Brethren, who can give testimony of their Continence.  
The seventh forbids Clergymen who have no Wives, to keep any of the Female Sex to govern their House, unless it be their Mother or their Sister.  
The eighth forbids to admit any of those into the Clergy, who have had Carnal dealing with a Woman, after the death of their Wife.  
The ninth declares, That if any Person falling sick, desires and receives the Benediction of Penance, which is called the Viaticum, and is given at the receiving of the Communion; and afterwards being in health will not submit to public Penance, That such a Person may be admitted into the Clergy, if he be not convicted of a Crime.  
In the tenth it is ordained, That the Bishop shall recite every day the Lord's Prayer, after Matins and Vespers.   

The Council of Epaone. 
The Counicl of Epaone.   
THis Council was assembled at Epaone by the Letter of Avitus Bishop of Vienna, under the Reign of Sigismond, King of the Burgundians, on the 15th of September in the Year 517. Avitus Bishop of Vienna, Viventiolus Archbishop of Lions, together with 23 Bishops, were present at it: And in it there were made 40 Canons.  
The first contains, That the Bishops who are required by their Metropolitan, to come to the Ordination of a Bishop, shall not fail to be present at it.  
The second and third renew the Canons against the Ordination of Bigamists, and those who have done Penance.  
The fourth forbids ecclesiastics, Priests and Deacons, to keep Dogs and Birds for Hunting and Hawking.  
The fifth forbids the Priests of one Diocese to serve a Church of another Diocese, without the leave of their Bishop.  
The sixth forbids to give the Communion to a Priest or Deacon who travels without a Letter from his Bishop.  
The seventh declares all sale of the Church's Possessions which is made by Priests to be null and void.  
The eighth ordains the same thing with respect to Abbots, and does not allow them so much as to enfranchize Slaves.  
The ninth forbids an Abbot to have two Monasteries under his Government.  
The tenth forbids the New-establishments of Monasteries, or little Congregations, without the leave of the Bishop.  
The eleventh forbids Clergy-men-to cite any before Lay-Judges without the leave of the Bishop; but allows them to defend themselves, if they be cited before them.  
The twelfth declares, That it is not lawful for the Bishop to sell the Possessions of his Church, without the Knowledge of his Metropolitan; and permits him only to make profitable Exchanges.  
The thirteenth declares, That if a Clergyman is convicted of a false Testimony, he shall be looked upon as guilty of a capital Crime.  
The fourteenth ordains, That if the Clergyman of one Church is made Bishop of another, he ought to leave to the former Church all that he had received by way of gift, and not retain any thing but wh●● he purchased for his own use.  
The fifteenth separates from the Communion those Clergymen that shall eat with a Heretical Clergymen, and forbids Laymen even to be present at the Festivals of the Jews.  
The sixteenth permits Priests to relieve Heretics that are sick, who are willing to be converted, by applying to them Chrysm; but if they be in health, the Bishop must perform this Office.  
The seventeenth declares all the Legacies which the Bishop makes of the Church's Possessions to be null and void, unless the Church has received as much profit by his own Possessions.  
The eighteenth, That Clergymen cannot acquire Prescription in the Revenues of the Church which they possess.  
The nineteenth, If an Abbot is accused of Fraud or Negligence, and refuses to stand to the Judgement of the Bishop, he shall be called to an account before the Metropolitan.  
The twentieth forbids Clergymen to visit Women in the Afternoon; yet if there be a necessity of visiting them▪ they may go in company with other Clergymen.  
The one and twentieth forbids to consecrate Widows for Deaconesses, insomuch that if Widows are willing to be converted, i. e. to lead a Religious Life, the Benediction of Penance shall only be given to them.  
The two and twentieth declares, That the Priest or Deacon who commits a capital Crime shall be Deposed, and shut up in a Monastery all the rest of his Life, and that he shall not be admitted to the Communion but in this place only.  
The three and twentieth, That he who having received the Penance forsakes it to lead a Secular Life, cannot enjoy the Communion, until he return to that state of Life which he had embraced.  
The four and twentieth permits Laymen to accuse Clergymen, provided they propose nothing against them but what is true.  
The five and twentieth forbids to place the Relics of Saints in Country Chapels, unless there be Clergy in the Neighbouring Parish who can honour them, by singing in these Chapels from time to time, and forbids also to ordain Clergymen on purpose for these Chapels, unless there be sufficient Provision made for them.  
The six and twentieth ordains, That only Altars of Stone shall be consecrated with Chrysm.  
The seven and twentieth, That Bishops in the Celebration of Divine Service, shall follow the order of the Metropolitan Church. 
The first Council of Lions.   
The eight and twentieth, That if a Bishop die before he has absolved a Person condemned, his Successor may give him Absolution, if he amend his Fault and do Penance.  
The nine and twentieth Canon imports, That the lapsed, i. e. those who after being baptised in the Church, go over to the Sects of Heretics, and formerly were not restored without much difficulty, shall immediately be received after a Penance of two years, provided that they shall fast three days in a year, that they shall frequently come to Church, and that they shall be there among the Penitents, and withdraw with the Catechumen.  
The thirtieth ordains, That those who have contracted Incestuous Marriages shall not be admitted to Penance, unless they be parted. The following Degrees are these within which Incest is committed according to this Council. If any Man marry the Wife of his Brother, the Sister of his Wife, his Stepmother, the Sister of his Uncle on the Father or Mother's side, his Daughter-in-law, or his Cousin-German, and the Issue of a Cousin-German.  
The one and thirtieth renews the Canon of the Council of Ancyra about the Penance of Man● slayers, who can avoid the Punishment enacted by the Civil Laws.  
The two and thirtieth separates from the Church the Wife of a Priest or Deacon, who marries, and him that espouses her, until they be parted.  
The three and thirtieth forbids to make use of the Churches of Heretics, except those which they have taken from Catholics.  
The four and thirtieth imposes two years of Penance upon him that puts his Slave to death by his own Authority.  
The five and thirtieth requires Christians to go and receive the Blessing from their Bishop, on Christmas and Easter-Eve.  
The six and thirtieth, That the Vi●ticum, i. e. the Absolution, shall be refused to no Person at the poin● of death; and that the time of Penance shall be put off to one a dying, but on condition that he shall do it if he return to health.  
The seven and thirtieth forbids to ordain a Layman, who has not been engaged to live religiously, Religione praemissa.  
The eight and thirtieth ordains, That such as are of years, and of known probity, shall be chosen to enter into Nunneries, and that those who shall go there to celebrate Divine Service, shall withdraw immediately after it is ended. Clergymen and young Monks are forbidden to go thither, unless they have some Kinswomen there.  
The nine and thirtieth imports, That a Slave being guilty of some heinous Crime, who takes Sanctuary in the Church, shall be exempted only from Corporal▪ Punishment, and that his Master shall not be obliged to swear that he will not impose upon him extraordinary Labour, or that he will not cut his Hair to make him known.  
The last declares, That the Bishops who will not observe these Canons, shall be guilty both before God and before their Brethren.   

Of first Council of Lions.  
THis Council was at the same time with that of Epaone. It consisted of ten Bishops and the Archbishop of Lions, who were assembled to Judge one S●ephen accused of Incest. He was convicted of it, and condemned by the Synod, together with his Wife Palladia. This being an Affair of great Consequence, and the Court concerning themselves in it. The Bishops made Canons for defending briskly what they had done.  
The first imports, That all the Bishops shall inviolably maintain the Condemnation they had passed against Stephen and against her whom he married, and that they shall use the same course against all those who shall be found guilty of the same Crime.  
The second, That if any one of them shall be persecuted for this Cause, all the other Bishops shall sympathise with him in his Affliction, shall comfort and secure him.  
The third, That if the King continue to refrain from Communion with the Bishops, after he has had time to return to it, they shall all withdraw into Monasteries, until such time as the Prince, being moved with the Prayers of the Saints, grant Peace to the Church▪ and that no● one shall come out of them until Peace be restored to all the rest.  
By the fourth, Bishops are forbidden to attempt any thing upon the Jurisdiction of their Brethren.  
The fifth renews the Prohibitions of aspiring to the Bishopric of a Bishop who is alive, and Excommunicates for ever those, who get themselves ordained in their room, as also those who have any hand in these Ordinations.  
The sixth declares, That those who shall not observe these Canons shall be punished by the Council. 
The Council of Lerida, or Ilerda.  'Tis added at the 〈◊〉▪ That in compliance with the King's Advice, they had allowed Stephen and Palladia to be present at the Pray●●s of the Church▪ until the Prayer which is read after the Gospel. In this Council you may perceive some remains of the Ancient Episcopal Courage.   

The Council of Lerida, or Ilerda.  
THe Council held at Lerida on the eighth of August in the Year 524, under King Theodoric, consisting of nine Bishops, made these following Canons.  
The first forbids Clergymen who serve a● the Altar, and distribute the Blood of Jesus Christ, or who touch the Vessels destined for a holy Ministry, to shed Human Blood, even that of their Enemies. If they do it, they shall be deprived for two years of the Communion, and suspended from the Exercise of their Ministry; and they shall exp●a●● their Fault by Watching, by Fasting, and by Prayers, if they have a mind to be restored; neither shall this be granted, but upon condition that they shall be uncapable of rising to higher Orders: That if in this time of two▪ years they shall be found negligent and slothful in doing Penance, the Bishop shall prolong the time of their Penance.  
The second imposes seven years' Penance upon those Men or Women that murder Infants conceived or born in Adultery. If they be Clergy-m●● they also shall be put under Penance, and shall never be restored again to their Order: They shall only be permitted after seven years to sing in the Quire. But as to those who give drugs for committing these detestable Crimes, 'tis said that they shall not receive the Communion till death.  
The third renews the Canons of the Councils of Agda and Orleans, concerning Monks, and adds to them this Canon, That the Bishop may, with the consent of the Abbot, and for the good of the Church, draw forth Monks out of the Monastery to ordain them Clergymen; that he cannot meddle with the Donations that are made to Monasteries, and yet no Person can under this pretence cause to consecrate a Church under the Title of a Monastery, to hinder it from being entirely at the disposal of the Bishop.  
The fourth imports, That those who continue to live in Incest, shall not be suffered to continue in the Church any longer then till the Catechumen are dismissed, and that no Christian may so much as eat with them.  
The fifth imports, That if those who serve at the Altar fall into a Carnal Sin through Frailty▪ and afterwards give signs of Remorse, it is in the Bishop's Power to restore them quickly, if he 〈◊〉 them truly pierced with hearty Sorrow, or to leave them a long while Excommunicated if they be slothful; But that he shall not restore them, except upon condition, that they shall not be capable of rising to higher Orders, and if they relapse, they shall be separated from the Communion till death.  
The sixth Canon says, That he who has defiled a Widow or a Nun, shall be Excommunicated, and that the Nun also shall be Excommunicated, unless she part from him, in which case she shall be put under public Penance.  
The seventh excludes him for a year from the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord, who has made an Oath never to be reconciled to that Man with whom he had a Suit of Law, and advises to blot ou● his Sin by Aims, by Tea●●, and 〈◊〉 F●●●ing.  
The eighth forbids Clergymen to take out of Church's by force, or to abuse their Slaves or Scholars, when they t●●e shelter there.  
The ninth ordains that those who ha●e bee● rebaptised in Heresy▪ shall be seven years under Penance among the Catechumen, and two years among the Catholics, and that after this time they may partake of the Oblation and the Eucharist.  
The tenth ordains, That those who will no● ret●e from the Church for some Fault, according to the Order of their Bishop, shall continue the longer under ●en●nce.  
The eleventh enjoins the Bishop to punish those Clergymen who fight with any Man, according to the quality of the Person offended.  
The twelfth meddles not with the Ordinations which are already made▪ against the Canons, but only forbids to promote those who are thus ordained to higher Orders. And declares for the future▪ That they shall be Deposed, and that those who ordain them, shall not any more be permitted to make an Ordination.  
The thirteenth rejects the Oblations of Catholics, who give their Children to be baptised▪ by Heretics.  
The fourteenth forbids the Faithful to eat with those Persons who cause themselves to be rebaptised by Heretics.  
The fifteenth renews the ancient Canons against Clergy men who hold familiarity with strange Women; and adds, That those who shall violate them, shall be deprived of the Ministerial Function, 
The Council of Valentia in Spain.  after one or two Admonitions.  
The last Canon is for hindering the mis-employment of the Bishop's Possessions and Effects after his death.   

The Council of Valentia in Spain.  
THis Council was held at Valentia in Spain, in the same year with the preceding, on the third of November. It consisted of nine Prelates, and made six Canons.  
The first ordains, That before the Oblations are brought, and the Catechumen dismissed, the Gospel shall be read after the Lessons of the Apostle, that the Catechumen and Penitents may understand the wholesome Precepts of Jesus Christ.  
The second and third renew the Canons formerly made for preserving the Possessions left by the Bishop.  
The fourth exhorts the Bishops to come quickly to the assistance of their sick Brethren, that they may prepare them for death, and be present at their Funerals. It adds, That if a Bishop happen to die suddenly, when another Bishop is not present at his death, his Body shall be buried, and kept till such time as another Bishop can come to celebrate his Funerals according to Custom.  
The fifth ordains the Punishment of Vagabond Clergymen, who disobey their Bishop, and forsake the Ministry of the Church to which they were fixed.  
The sixth forbids to ordain the Clergyman of another Bishop, or to Ordain any Person who does not promise to continue in the Diocese.   

The fourth Council of Arles.  
ST. Caesarius of Arles, having assembled twelve Bishops, and four Priests deputed from four other Bishops, at this City, to celebrate there the Dedication of the Church of St. Mary, in the Month of June, in the Year 524, they made four Canons. 
The fourth Council of Arles.   
The first orders, That none shall be ordained Deacon before the Age of five and twenty, nor Bishop or Priest before thirty, and that he who is ordained, should for some time after quit a Secular Life.  
The second, That none shall be ordained Bishop of a Layman, unless he has lived for a year an Ecclesiastical Life.  
The third renews again the Prohibition so often repeated, not to ordain a Penitent or a Bigamist.  
The fourth is against the Clergy who forsake their own Diocese, and against those who receive them.   

The Council of the Bishops of Afric held at Carthage under Boniface Bishop of that City, in the Year 525.  
PEace being restored to the Church of Afric by the death of Thrasimund, and the Clemency of his Successor Hildericus, the Bishop of Carthage, Primate of Afric, having resumed his ancient 
The Council of the Bishops of Afric.  Rights, called together a Synod out of all the Provinces of Afric, on the fifth of February in the year 525. After the Letters for calling them together were read in the Council, which were addressed to Missor Primate of Numidia, to the Bishops of the Proconsular and Tripolitan Province, and the Answer of Missor was read, and the Deputies of the Provinces were known, the Order of the Provinces was settled according to the ancient Councils of Afric. The Proconsular was found to be the first, 〈…〉 the Province of 〈◊〉. These Preliminaries being 〈…〉 and the Canons of the ancient. Councils of Afric were read, which were judged most necessary for restoring Discipline.  
The 〈…〉 finding no further matter to treat of which concerned the Good of the Churches in general, the Petition of the Abbot Peter and his Monks was read, who complained that Liberatus Primate of the Province of Byracena, had unjustly Excommunicated them in Synods, though they had done nothing contrary to the Faith or good Manners. The Council resented it highly, that the Primate of Numidia should treat them so harshly. After this they desired to be under the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Carthage, and represented that they had never been subject to the Jurisdiction of the Bishops in their Neighbourhood, and that they never addressed to the Bishops of their Province to have a Priest, but in necessity, and when they waited till the See of Carthage should be filled with a Bishop. Afterward the Letter of Liberatus and the Council of jonce was read, who exhorted the Council to maintain Order and Discipline about those things which the Bishops Po●tianus and Restitutus remonstrated to them. These Bishops had proposed four things; The first concerned the People of three Burroughs of their Provinces▪ The second was against a Bishop of 〈◊〉 Tripolitan Province, whom they pretended to have usurped Jurisdiction over a People that did not belong to him: The third was about the Title of the Letters which were written to the Primate and the Bishops of the Province, and the last about the Affair of Peter. Whe●e●s boniface had already answered their Letter of the sixteenth of December in the preceding year, the Answer was read which he had sent by these two Bishops, which ●ays, That it was difficult to grant them what they desired because nothing can be changed which had been determined in the Councils of Afric; and for the establishing of his Primacy over all the Churches of Afric, he declares to them, That as it belonged to him according to Custom, to publish the day of the Feast of Easter to all the Churches of Afric, they shall be advertised, that the next year this Feast is not be celebrated on the seventh of April.  
The Council consulted of these four Matters. As to the first and second, they were left to be determined according to the Canons of Councils, when fuller Information should be given of the Matters of Fact. As to the third it was said, That there was sufficient Satisfaction given by the Letter of Boniface; So that the fourth was the only thing that was determined here. The Abbot Peter and his Monks presented a new Libel, to show that they ought not to be subject to the Bishops of the Province of Byracena. To this end they say, That their Monastery was never subject to any of these Bishops, which consists of Monks out of all the Provinces of Afric, and even from distant Countries; That the Monastery had been founded by Persons of great Piety, and consecrated by Reparatus Bishop of the Pro●…ar Province; that as long as the Church of Carthage had Bishops, they had always recourse to it, without impairing their Liberty; That they still prayed the Bishop of that City to take care of them, and to deliver them from the Bondage which some would impose upon them; That this was warranted by the Examples of many Monasteries, which were subject to other Bishops than those in whose Territory they were situate: and lastly, That they had Testimonies of the Holy Father's ready who defend the Liberty of Monks. For proof of this they cite two places of St. Austin, but they prove nothing which they allege: To this they subjoin a Letter of Boniface, who permits the Nuns to choose what Priest they would. They allege the Canon made in France concerning the Monastery of Lerius. This is all there is of this Council, for the ●est is not in the Vatican Manuscript from which Holstenius extracted this But in another Manuscript there is found the Decree, which says, That all the Monasteries shall be, as they always have been, free and exempt from the Jurisdiction of Bishops. It appears by the Acts of this Council, that the Monks did not desire to be wholly exempt from the Jurisdiction of Bishops, but that they might have power to choose such a Bishop as they would; nor did they desire that themselves should have, as it were, Episcopal Jurisdiction, to take care of their Monastery, and to send to them Priests and Clergymen. This appears by the Examples of the three Monasteries which they produce, and by the Exemption granted by Boniface to a Nunnery; So that these Examples regarded only their own Persons, and their Monastery, and did not give them any Right or Jurisdiction over any part of the People of the Diocese. In the first Session of this Council there are the Subscriptions of sixty Bishops.   

The second Council of Orange. 
The second Council of Orange.   
CAesarius of Arles, and twelve other Bishops, being present in the year 529, at the Dedication of the Church which Liberius a Nobleman and Perfect of Gauls had caused to be built in the City of Orange, entered into a Conference about the Questions of Grace; and understanding that there were some People who had Sentiments, which seemed not to them altogether Catholic, they thought themselves obliged to approve and publish some Articles, which had been sent to them by the Holy See, extracted out of the Holy Fathers and Councils.  
The first is against those who maintain that the Sin of the first Man made no change but in one part of a Man, viz. his Body, and that it did no hurt to his Soul, but left him as free as he was before, and only made his Body liable to death.  
The second is against those who say that the Sin of Adam hurted himself only, or that nothing but the death of th● Body passed upon his Posterity.  
The third is against those who affirm that Grace is granted upon the Prayers of Men, and deny that Grace is necessary to make us desire it.  
The fourth is against those who say that God waits upon our Will to purify us from our sins, and that he does not by his Spirit make us willing to be purified.  
The fifth is against those who say that the beginning of Faith and the desire to believe is not a Gift of Grace, but is naturally in us.  
The sixth is against those who say that God shows Mercy to those who will, who desire, who do their endeavours, who pray and search, and that they do not know what that Mercy of God is which makes us to will, desire, etc.  
The seventh is against those who believe that Man may have some saving thought for his own Salvation▪ or make some good choice without the aid of the Spirit.  
The eighth is against those who say that some come to the Grace of Baptism by their own freewill, and others by Grace.  
Every one of these Propositions is confirmed by some passage of the Holy Scripture; after which do follow many Sentences of the Fathers, and chief of St. Austin about Grace, which tend all to establish the necessity of Grace to all our good Thoughts and Actions. In the Conclusion they add three Propositions. The first is, That all those who are baptised, may and aught if they will, to labour for their own Salvation. The second, That they do not believe, that God has predestined Men to Damnation, nay, they pronounce an Anathema against those who shall be of this Opinion. The third, That God inspires us by his Grace with the beginning of Faith and Love, and is the Author of our Conversion. These Decrees of this Council are signed not only by the Bishops, but by Liberius a Noble man, and other Persons of Honour.   

The second Council of Vasio.  
CAesarius held also the same year on the fifth of November another Assembly at Vasio, at which were present ten Bishops, who did almost all take the Title of Sinners. Five Canons about Discipline 
The second Council of Vasio.  were made in this Council.  
The first is, That Priests of Parishes shall make the young Readers, who have no Wives, to dwell in the House with them, and that they maintaining them like good Fathers, shall teach them to sing Psalms, and cause them to read and study the Holy Scripture, that so they may prepare them to be fit Persons to succeed them; that nevertheless those who will marry, shall have liberty to do it.  
The second is, That a Priest may preach in his Parish, and if he be sick, the Deacons shall only read some Homilies of the Fathers.  
The third, That Kyrie eleison shall be frequently said at Matins, at Mass, and at Vespers, and that Holy, Holy, Holy, shall be recited at every Mass, even at those of Lent, and of the Dead.  
The fourth, That there shall be a Commemoration of the Name of the Pope, who is in the Holy See.  
The fifth, That. As it was, shall be sung after Glory be to the Father, at the end of all the Prayers.   

The Council of Rome under Boniface the Second. 
The Council of Rome under Boniface the second.   
THe Acts of this Council were published by H●●steni●● from a Manuscript of the Vatican Library. This was an Assembly of four Bishop's and forty Priests of that City, held at Rome in the Month of December in the year 531. to receive and judge of the Complaints of Stephen Bishop of Larissa, Metropolitan of Thessaly, who pretending that he was unjustly deprived and turned out of his Bishopric by Epiphanius Patriarch of Constantinople, implored the aid of the Holy See. In the first Session, which was held the seventh day of December, he presented two Libels addressed to Pope Boniface, wherein 〈◊〉 ●●clares, That he was chosen Bishop of Larissa, after the death of Proclus his Predecessor, by the Election of the People and Clergy, and ordained by the Metropolitan, and by those whose Presence was necessary; that he had the best Testimony of the three whom the People chose; that Probianus Bishop of D●metrias, and all the Bishops of the Province had commended and approved this Choice; that his Clergy and Church had testified themselves to be well-satisfied with his Government; that notwithstanding this the same Probianus Bishop of Demetrias, for what Reasons he cannot tell, together with Anthony the Steward of his Church, and some other Bishops who had signed the Instrument of his Ordination, thought fit to go to Constantinople there to wait upon the Patriarch Epiphanius, whom they had persuaded that his Ordination was contrary to the Canons; That Epiphanius without hearing him, and without any proof of what was alleged against him, had by his Letters suspended him from his Sacerdotal Function, and forbidden the Bishops and Clergy of Thessaly to communicate with him; that these Orders were addressed to the Governor Andrew, who had read and executed them in his absence; that he came also to Thessalonica, where he was to signify them to him; that he had desired to be referred to the Judgement of the Holy Apostolic See, but without any regard to this desire he had been carried by force to Constantinople, where he should have been made Prisoner, if he had not found some Persons to be his Sureties; that Epiphanius having assembled a Synod of Bishops who were at Constantinople, had obliged him to appear there; that he had again desired to be remitted to the Judgement of the Holy See, according to the Custom of his Province; that he had remonstrated, That it was unjust to violate the Authority which Jesus Christ and the Canons had given to the Holy See, and which Custom had authorised; but that these Remonstrances had only irritated Epiphanius, who endeavoured by this means to establish his Jurisdiction over Thessaly; that he had continued the Process against him, and Condemned him, though there was no proof against him; that he had desired that this Sentence might not be executed, until he had acquainted the Holy See with it, but this Remonstrance was very ill received; that his Sentence had been read to him, and after that the Wardens of the Church were appointed for a Guard to him, but some Persons being Sureties for him, they were bound to pay a great Sum of Money if he should go out of Constantinople; that he had fled away, and was come to implore the aid of the Holy See. These two Libels were read in the first Session. Abondantius' Bishop of Demetrias, complained that this Probianus the Accuser of Stephen, had usurped his Church.  
In the second Session, December the ninth, Theodosius Bishop of Echinus in Thessaly, presented a Libel signed by three other Bishops of the same Province, who desired Justice of the Pope, as to the Affair of Stephen their Metropolitan. After it was read he remonstrated, That although the Holy Apostolic See, had the Primacy over all Churches, and Appeals might be made from all Parts to its Jurisdiction, yet he had a particular Jurisdiction over Illyria, which he proved by reading the Letters addressed by the Popes to the Bishop of Thessalonica. There were recited two of Damasus to Ascolius, one of Syricius to Anysius, and another to Rufus, three Letters of Boniface the first to Rufus, two others from the same to the Bishops of Thessaly, a Law of Theodosius, which ordains, That the Bishops of Illyria shall be governed according to the ancient Discipline, a Letter of Celestine to the Bishops of Illyria, four Letters of Sixtus, and many Letters of St. Leo. This is all that remains of the Acts of this Council, and there is no Decision given in this Affair.   

The second Council of Toledo. 
The second Council of Toledo.   
THe Bishop of Toledo, and seven others, held this Council in the Year 531, and made there five Canons.  
The first concerns Infants which the Parents offer to be Clergymen. It ordains that after they shall have cut off their Hair, or shall be placed among those who are to be chosen, they shall be educated in the Church-House in the sight of the Bishop, and under the Conduct of a Tutor: That after they have arrived at the Age of eighteen, they shall be asked in the presence of the Clergy and People, what is their design; and if they promise to observe Chastity, they shall be made Sub deacons' at the Age of twenty: That if they discharge this Ministry well, they shall be promoted to the Office of Deacon at five and twenty; but that good heed shall be taken that they do not marry, or that they keep not company with Women, and that if they be convicted of doing it, they shall be looked upon as Sacrilegious Persons, and turned out of the Church. That as to those who will not oblige themselves to observe Celibacity, they shall be left to their liberty; but that they shall not be promoted to Holy Orders, until such time as they renounce the use of Marriage, after they are arrived at the Age of Maturity.  
The second forbids Bishops to receive or keep Clergymen who forsake their own Church to go elsewhere.  
The third renews the Prohibitions so often made as to Clergymen who keep Women in their Houses, other than their near Kinswomen.  
The fourth is, That those who build Cottages, or plant Vineyards upon the Church-Lands, shall enjoy them during their Life; but that they cannot dispose of them, nor leave them after their death to any Person, unless they be given with a Charge to pay some Services, or certain Rents to the Church.  
The fifth forbids Marriages among Kinsfolk within the prohibited Degrees.  
The Bishops of this Council concluded with threatening Excommunication to that Bishop who shall violate these Canons, with obliging them to come to a Synod when they shall be summoned by the Bishop of Toledo, with thanking King Amalaricus for the leave he had given them to meet together, and with praying God that he may reign for many years.  
After this Council there followed a Letter from Montanus to the Christians of the Territory of Palenza, against the Priests who thought fit to consecrate the Chrysm; wherein after he has proposed to them the Examples of Corab, Dathan and Abiram, of Uzziah and Aza, who were punished for attempting to perform those Offices which did not belong to them, he declares, That since the Canons oblige the Priests of Parishes, to fetch every year a Chrysm, or to send the Churchwarden to receive it of the Bishop, they cannot have the power to Consecrate it themselves. He threatens them therefore with an Anathema, if they undertake for the future to Consecrate it. He forbids them also to call in foreign Bishops to Consecrate the Churches in their Province; and observes, That though all the Churches are united in Jesus Christ by one and the same Bond, yet they must preserve the Privileges of the Provinces, and the Order of the Church; and therefore when there is any Church to be Consecrated, they ought to acquaint him, that the thing may be done either by himself, or by a Bishop of his choosing. Lastly▪ he reproves them for not having asufficient horror of the Sect of the Priscillianists, whom he accuses of many infamous things, which he says are proved in the Letter of Turribius to St. Leo. There is also another Letter from the same Person to Tarribius Governor of this Country, exhorting him to oppose the Disorders which we have mentioned, and to employ his Authority for abolishing these Customs which are contrary to the Discipline of the Church.   

A Conference held at Constantinople between the Catholics and Severians.  
JUstinian being desirous to reconcile the Severians to the Catholics, summoned the Bishops and Priests on both sides in the Year 533, to confer together about their Differences, in the presence 
A Conference between the Catholics and Severians.  of Strategius a Commissioner sent from himself. When they were met together, the Bishop Hypatius made a Speech in behalf of the Catholics. The first day the Severians said, That they had presented their Confession of Faith to the Emperor; and that in it they had explained every thing that might raise any Scruple. Hypatius answered, That they could not approve it, because therein they blamed what was done against Eutyches in the Council of Chalcedon. He desired to know of the Severians, what they thought of Eutyches. They answered, That they believed him to be a Heretic. He replied to them, That if this were so, the Council of Dioscorus had done ill to receive him. They answered▪ That they had received him as a Penitent. Why then, said he to them, do ye condemn him. They confessed that Dioscorus and his Council were then imposed upon. Then, replies Hypatius, the Error of this Universal Council was corrected by another Universal Council. This Council was assembled at Chalcedon.  
The Severians confessed the Principle, but maintained that the Council of Chalcedon had not done what it ought to do. Here ended the first interview.  
In the second the Severians accused the Council of Chalcedon of Novelty, because they had determined that the two Natures in Jesus Christ were distinguished after their Union. They affirm, That we must say with St. Cyril, that he was composed of two Natures, but after the Union there was but one Hypatius asked them, Whether they condemned this Doctrine merely because it appeared to them to be new, or as false. They answered, That they condemned it both as new, and as false, because St. Cyril, St. Athanasius, the Pope's Felix and Julius, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, and St. Dionysius the Areopagite, had declared that there was but one Nature in Jesus Christ after the Union▪ Hypatius answered, That the Writings in which this was found were supposititions, that St. Cyril had taught the contrary, that in the Council of Ephesus, he had not produced any Testimony of the Fathers where it was said, that there was but one Nature in Jesus Christ after his Incarnation.  
The Severians said, Think you then that we have forged or falsified these Writings. Hypatius answered, That he did not accuse them of this Forgery, but that he suspected the ancient Heretics, the Apollinarists, to be guilty of it; that the Nestorians had also falsified the Letter of St. Athanasius to Epictetus. The Severians added, That the same things are found in the Books written by St. Cyril against Diodorus and Theodorus. Hypatius answered, That these Books were also falsified; and whereas his Adversaries insisted upon it, that they could produce ancient Manuscripts taken out of the Archieves of the Church of Alexandria. Hypatius answered, That if they could show such in the time of Proterius, or Timotheus Salophaciolus, they were certainly genuine; but that since that time, the Church of Alexandria having been in the possession of Heretics, they were not obliged to trust to the Monuments which came out of the hands of their Enemies; that they had plainly proved that the Letter attributed to Pope Julius, was the Epistle of Apollinaris written to Dionysius, that Severus and those of his Party would not sign the Confession of Faith, which they say was St. Gregory Thaumaturgus'; and lastly, that the Books attributed to St. Dionysius were forged.  
Here the Severians asked, Why the Council of Chalcedon had not received the Letter of St. Cyril, which contains twelve Chapters, wherein he denies that there are two Subsistences in Jesus Christ. Hypatius answered, That the Council of Chalcedon had not rejected this Letter, but had preferred the other Letter, because it is more clear.  
The Severians urged, That St. Cyril used the word Subsistence for Nature. Hypatius answered, That indeed the ancient Fathers and the Latins confounded them, but the Orientalists distinguished them, and gave the name of Subsistence to the Person; that it is not where found that St. Cyril did ever affirm, that there were three▪ Subsistences in the Trinity. The Severians replied, That in the Letters of St. Cyril approved in the Council of Chalcedon, it was said that Jesus Christ was made up of two Natures, ex duabus Naturis, which signifies, say they, according to his language, that he is one Nature made up of two, ex duabus naturis unam. Hypatius answered them, that this Expression, ex duabus naturis, is so far from signifying what they pretend, that Flavian made use of it; and to prove this, they reci●e the Letter of Fl●… to the Emperor Theodosius.  
The Severians always insisted upon two Testimonies of St. Ceril. Hypatius answered them, That none is obliged to take any thing for a Rule of Faith but the Synodical Letters approved in the Councils, and not what a Father may have said or written upon different Occasions: As, says he, we must be guided by the Decision of the Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem, and not by what every Apostle might write or practise before this common Decision; that in the Letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius, the Union of the two Natures without confusion or mixture was established; that in his Letter to the Orientalists he had approved their Declaration, which clearly contains the distinction of the two Natures after their Union; that it was more reasonable to give credit to these public Letters, then to some private Letters which might easily be corrupted. The Severians did not omit to produce the Letter to Eulogius, and that which is addressed to his Successor, and Hypatius explained them, protesting always that he did not receive them for genuine. After this another Question was debated. The Severians complained that the Names of Councils were put into the Dipryches, they said that this tended only to increase the Division. Hypatius answered that this would do no hurt; that since the Names of particular Bishops were recited in them, it was but just that those of Councils should be placed in them, and that this could offend none but Heretics. The Severians said against the Council of Chalcedon, that it had received Ibas and Theodoret. Hypatius answered that it had not done it till they had pronounced an Anathema against Nestorius: And whereas the Severians alleged that they did it only to deceive them, and that immediately after they relapsed. Hypatius answered, That if they condemn the Council of Chalcedon upon this account, they must also condemn that of Nice, for receiving Eusebius and Theogins; that he did not defend Theodoret but the Council, which had done what they ought to do upon this occasion; that St. Cyril himself had received John of Antioch, and written to Theodoret. The affair of Ibas was more difficult, because he had written a reproachful Letter against St. Cyril. Hypatius answered, 
The second Council of Orleans.  That it was published during the Life of St. Cyril, that this did not hinder them from being reconciled, that it may be thought that this Letter was sorged, that Ibas was not received until he had Anathematised Nestorius; and lastly, that St. Cyril had used less precaution as to Ibas and Theodoret then the Council of Chalcedon, since he had only desired them to consent to the Condemnation of Nestorius, and the Ordination of Maximianus, whereas the Councils of Chalcedon had obliged them to pronounce an Anathema against Nestorius.  
The third Interview was in the presence of the Emperor, who caused Epiphanius the Patriarch of Constantinople to come there. He spoke to them with much mildness, and exhorted them to Peace and Union. The Severians objected to the Catholics, That they denied that Jesus Christ had suffered in his Flesh, and that he was one of the Persons of the Trinity. They explained themselves, and said, That Jesus Christ was passable in his Flesh, and impassable in his Divinity, that one might say, that he suffered in his Flesh according to his Humanity; and that according to his Divinity he was one of the Persons of the Trinity.  
This Conference had the same Conclusion, which commonly all these Conferences have, i. e. That both Parties continued in the same Sentiment, without convincing one another; but which is unusual, these things were handled there without heat, and with much meekness and moderation on both sides. Nevertheless there were some Monks and some Priests of the East and of Syria, who were reconciled to the Catholics. One of the Bishops there present drew up this Relation, whereof we have here given an Abridgement.   

The second Council of Orleans.  
THis Council was assembled at Orleans, by the Order of the Kings of France, Childebert and his Brethren, on the 23th day of June in the Year 533. It was composed of six and twenty Bishops or Archbishops of France, and five Priests deputed from other Bishops. The following Canons were made in it, which are nothing but the old ones renewed.  
The first is, That the Bishop being invited by his Metropolitan to be present at the Ordination of a Bishop, shall not fail to be there without a lawful Excuse.  
The second, That the Metropolitan shall call every year their Suffragans to a Council.  
The third, That the Bishops shall take nothing for Ordinations, nor for any other Office of the Episcopal Function.  
The fourth, That he shall be turned out, who gets himself ordained for Money.  
The fifth, That the Bishop's shall never refuse to go for the Burial of their Brethren, and that they shall take nothing but what is necessary to defray their Expenses.  
The sixth, That the Bishop who comes to Inter his Brother, shall go into the Episcopal House with the Priests, and that he shall cause an Inventory to be made in their Presence of what is there found, leaving it with some Persons whom he can trust, to keep it.  
The seventh, That the Metropolitan chosen by the Bishops of the Province, by the Clergy and the People of the City, shall be ordained by the Bishops of the Province.  
The eighth, That a Deacon who is married, being in Captivity, cannot be restored to his Ministry.  
The ninth, That no Priest shall dwell with Seculars without the leave of the Bishop.  
The tenth, That no Man shall marry his Stepmother.  
The eleventh, That Marriages lawfully contracted cannot be dissolved by the will of the Parties joined, whatsoever Infirmity they allege.  
The twelfth, That no Person shall perform the Vow which he has made of singing and feasting in the Church, because God is rather provoked then pacified by these Vows.  
The thirteenth, That the Abbots, Chaplains, Recluse Monks, and Priests, dare not grant Letters Dimissory to Clergymen.  
The fourteenth, That Clergymen who do not their Duty, or come not to Church, shall be deprived of their Dignity.  
The fifteenth, That the Oblations of the Dead shall be received, although they were killed in the Commission of some Crime, except those who kill themselves.  
The sixteenth, That none shall be ordained Priest or Deacon, who is not well instructed, and does not know how to administer Baptism.  
The seventeenth, That Women who have received the Benediction given to Deacons, contrary to the Canons, shall be turned out of Communion, if it be proved that they marry: Nevertheless, if upon the Bishop's Admonition they cease to cohabit with their Husband, they shall be received into Communion, after they have done Penance.  
The eighteenth, That the Deacon's Blessing shall no more be given to Women.  
The nineteenth, That the Jews shall not espouse Christians, nor the Christians Jews; and that if 
The Council of Clermont in Arvernia, 535.  either of them being married, will not part, they shall be deprived of Communion.  
The twentieth, That those Christians shall be excluded the Church who are concerned in Idolatrous Worship, or who taste of Meats offered to Idols, or who eat the Flesh of Beasts suffocated.  
The one and twentieth, That the Abbots who despise the Orders of Bishops, shall be Excommunicated, till they return from their Disobedience.   

The Council of Clermont in Arvernia, in the Year 535.  
HOnoratus Bishop of Bourges, and fourteen Bishops of France, being assembled at Clermont in Arvernia▪ by th● permission of King Theodebert, on the seventh of November in the Year 535. after they had prayed to God upon their knees for the King, and for the prosperity of his Reign, thought fit to renew some ancient Canons, and to add to them some new ones.  
First, They thought fit to ordain, that all Councils shall begin with what concerns Manners and Discipline, before they propose any other business.  
Secondly, They declare that one ought to rise to the highest degree of Promotion, not by his Ambition, but by his Merits; that Holiness of Life, and not Riches, did render them worthy of this Sacred Ministry, and that they ought to be advanced to this high Dignity, not by the favour of some few, but by the Suffrages of all: That singular care should be taken to choose such Persons as are blameless: That he who is a Bishop must be chosen by the Clergy and the People, and ordained by the Metropolitan of the Province, or with his Consent: That it is unlawful to use the Interest of Grandees, Craft, Promises, Presents, Threaten, and that those who use such ways shall be deprived of the Communion of the Church, whereof they would be Bishops.  
Thirdly, They forbidden to cover dead Corpses with the Altar-Cloth, or any other Linen which is used at the Altar.  
Fourthly, They ordain that Clergymen shall not be supported against their Bishop by the Civil Powers.  
Fifthly, They Excommunicate those who desire of Kings the Possessions of the Church, declaring at the same time that the Gift which the Prince makes of them is null.  
Sixthly, They order those Persons to be excluded Communion and Civil Society, who espouse Jewish Men or Women.  
Seventhly, They forbidden to cover the Body of a Priest with the Veil which covers the Body of Jesus Christ.  
Eighthly, They forbidden to lend the Ornaments of the Church for Marriages.  
Ninthly, To make Jews Judges of Christians.  
Tenthly, They forbidden Bishops to invade the Parishes of their Brethren.  
Eleventhly, They forbidden them to receive and ordain a Clerk of another Diocese, without the leave of his Bishop.  
Twelfthly, They reinforce the Penalty of Excommwication against any Persons who marry within the forbidden Degrees, which are, the Widow of his Brother, his Wive's Sister, her Cousin-German, or the Issue of her Cousin-German, and the Widow of his Uncle.  
Thirteenthly, They oblige Priests and Deacons to live in Celibacy; and in case they be found to keep Company with their Wives, after they are promoted to these Dignities, they ordain that they shall be deprived of them.  
Fourteen, They Excommunicate those who shall retain Goods that are given to Churches.  
Fifthteenthly, They enjoin Priests and Deacons, who are neither in Country-Parishes, nor in the City, but dwell in Country-Houses, or serve Chapels, to come and celebrate the principal Festivals of the year with their Bishop in the City, and chief the Feasts of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide. They exhort also Laymen that can to come.  
Sixteenthly, They renew the Canon so often repeated, whereby Clergymen are forbidden to keep strange Women in their Houses.  
After they had made these Canons, they wrote a Letter to King Theodebert, praying him to suffer the Subjects of another Prince to enjoy peaceably the Lands and Goods which they had in his Kingdom.   

The third Council of Orleans. 
The third Council of Orleans.   
FIve Archbishops, and fourteen Bishops of France, were present at this Council, with the Deputies of some Bishops. It was held on the seventh of May in the Year 538, under the Reign of Childebert. It made three and thirty Canons for restoring the ancient Ecclesiastical Discipline.  
The first concerning the holding of a Synod of the Province.  
The second of the Celibacy of the Clergy, beginning with the Subdeacons.  
The third reserves the Ordination of Metropolitans to a Metropolitan, in the presence of all the Bishops of the Province; and it requires that he be chosen by the Bishops of the Province, with the consent of the Clergy and People of the City, it being fit, that he who is to preside over all should have the Suffrages of all those over whom he is to preside. As to the Bishops of the Province, it ordains that they shall be consecrated by the Metropolitan, and chosen by the Clergy and the People.  
The fourth is the Prohibition so often made to Clergymen of keeping Women in their Houses.  
The fifth entrusts the Bishop with the Power of employing the Goods that are given to Churches in the City, for such uses as he should think most convenient; and ordains that the Possessions belonging to Country-Churches, shall be employed according to custom.  
The sixth forbids to ordain one Deacon before the Age of 25 years, and a Priest before 30, and renews the ancient Canons concerning the Qualifications requisite in those who are ordained, forbidding to ordain those who have been twice married, who have done Penance, who have Corporal Defects, or Fits of Distraction. This Canon declares those who are ordained with these Defects to have fallen from their Dignity, and Suspends those who shall ordain them, from the Exercise of their Ministry for the space of six Months.  
The seventh ordains, That if Clergymen who have been ordained with their own consent, being unmarried, do afterwards marry, they shall be Excommunicated; that if they were ordained against their own will, they shall only be Deposed, and that the Bishop who ordained them shall be suspended for one year. As to the Clergymen who commit Adultery, they shall be shut up in a Monastery all their life time, yet without being deprived of the Communion.  
The eighth is, That Clergymen being Convicted of a false Testimony and of Robbing, shall be degraded without being deprived of the Communion; and that perjured Clergymen shall be put under Penance for the space of two years.  
The ninth forbids to admit those into Orders who have had Concubines.  
The tenth Canon is about Marriage between Persons within the forbidden Degrees. Those shall not be excluded Communion who married their Kinswomen before their Baptism, or who did not know of the Prohibition: But as to those who contracted these Marriages since their Baptism, and knew the Prohibitions, they shall be Excommunicated until they part from one another. These forbidden Degrees are his Father's Widow, his Wife's Daughter, his Brother's Widow, his Wife's Sister, his Cousin-German, or her Issue, his Uncle's Widow.  
The eleventh forbids Clergymen to exempt themselves from the discharge of their Office under any pretence whatsoever, and deprives those who shall do it of the Rewards which are paid to those Clergy who are in the List of those who serve the Churches, Canonicis.  
The twelfth Canon forbids Alienations.  
The thirteenth declares, That the Jews are forbidden to impose such things upon their Christian Slaves, as are contrary to the Religion of Jesus Christ. It forbids Christians to contract Marriages with Jews, and to eat with them.  
The fourteenth ordains that Masses shall begin at the ninth hour, that the Bishop may be present at the Office of Vespers.  
The fifteenth forbids Clergymen to go into the Diocese of their Brethren, to Ordain Clergymen or Consecrate Altars there. If a Bishop undertake to do it, he shall be Suspended from Celebration for one year. The Clergymen who shall be ordained shall be removed, but the Altars shall continue Consecrated. The Clergymen who go to dwell in the Diocese of another Bishop, cannot be promoted to a superior Order; nay, Communion shall be denied to a Priest or Deacon, who have not Letters from their Bishop.  
The sixteenth Excommunicates Ravishers, and those who are ravished, if they consent to dwell with their Ravishers.  
The seventeenth declares, That the Successors of a Bishop cannot recall the Favours done by his Predecessor to Clergymen, but only those which he did himself.  
The eighteenth ordains, That it shall be at the Bishop's disposal to deprive Clergymen of the Ecclesiastical Revenues, to whom the Government of a Monastery belongs, or a Chapel, or another Preferment, because the Revenue of this Preferment ought to satisfy him.  
The nineteenth, That Clergymen being disobedient to the Bishop, shall be deprived of their Ministry, until they have given him Satisfaction. 
The Council of Barcelona in 540.   
The twentieth, That the Clergy-m●n who thinks himself abused by his Bishop, shall have recourse to a Synod.  
The one and twentieth forbids the Cabals of Clergymen.  
The two and twentieth is against those who usurp the Church's Possessions.  
The three and twentieth forbids Abbots, Priests and Deacons to alienate them.  
The four and twentieth says, That the Benediction of Penance should not be granted to Persons who are yet young, nor to married Persons without the consent of both Parties.  
The five and twentieth, That those who abandon the Life of a Penitent to return to a Secular Life, shall be Excommunicated till death.  
The ●ix and twentieth, That the Farmers of Customs or Debtors shall not be ordained until they be discharged.  
The seven and twentieth forbids Deacons and other Clergymen to lend upon Usury.  
The eight and twentieth permits Men to ride on Sundays on Horseback, or in Coach, to dress Victuals, to do what concerns the neatness of the Body or the House; but forbids them to walk in●o the Country.  
The nine and twentieth forbids Laymen to leave Divine Service, before the Lord's Prayer be said, and the Bishop has given the Blessing.  
The thirtieth says, That Jews shall not be suffered to be present with Christians, from Holy Thursday till Easter.  
The one and thirtieth Excommunicates those Judges, who knowing any Heretic to be rebaptized, did not accuse him, and cause him to be punished.  
The two and thirtieth forbids Clergymen to bring an Appeal against any Man before Lay-Judges, and Laymen to bring an Appeal before them against the Clergy, without the Bishop's leave.  
The three and thirtieth is an Imprecation against those who shall not observe these Canons.   

The Council of Barcelona held in the Year 540.  
THis Council consisted only of seven Bishops of the Province, and made but a few Canons, and those so short, that they cannot be abridged. Here they follow whole and entire.  
1. That the fiftieth Psalm shall be sung before the Canticle.  
2. That the Blessing shall be given to the Faithful at Matins as well as Vespers.  
3. That no Clergyman shall suffer his Hair to grow or shave his Beard.  
4. That the Deacons shall not sit down in the Assemblies of Priests.  
5. That in the Absence of the Bishop the Priests shall read the Collects.  
6. That Men under Penance shall have their Hair cut, wear a Religious Habit, and spend their Life in Fasting and Praying.  
7. That Penitents shall not be present at Festivals, that they shall meddle with no business, that they shall only live frugally in their own Houses.  
8. Those who desire Penance being sick, shall receive it of the Bishop, upon condition that if they recover their health, they shall lead the Life of Peni●ents, yet without laying hands upon them again; and that they shall continue separate from Communion, until the Bishop approve of their Behaviour.  
9 The Benediction of the Viaticum is to be given to those that are in danger.  
10. As to Monks, that shall be observed which was ordained by the Council of Chalcedon.   

The fourth Council of Orleans held in the Year 541. 
The fourth Council of Orleans held in the Year 541.   
ONe and forty Archbishops or Bishops of France, were present personally, or by their Deputies at this Council held in the Year 541, which made eight and thirty Canons.  
By the first it is ordained, That the Feast of Easter shall be celebrated every year according to the Table of Victorius, and that the day of celebrating it shall be declared every year on the day of Epiphany.  
By the second it is ordered, That all the Churches shall keep a Lent of forty days, and that they shall not be dispensed with from Fasting on Saturdays, but only on Sundays, except in case of weakness.  
The third forbids the chief Citizens to celebrate the Feast of Easter, and other great Festivals out of the City, and the Assembly of that Church in which the Bishop presides.  
The fourth forbids to offer in the Chalice any thing but Wine mixed with Water.  
By the fifth it is declared, That the Bishop should be regularly ordained in the Church over which he is to preside; but if he cannot, he shall be ordained in the Province in the presence of the Metropolitan, or with his consent, by the Bishops of the Province.  
The sixth ordains Clergymen, who govern Parishes, to receive from the Bishops the Rules and Canons which are necessary for them, that neither they, nor their People may be capable of any excuse thro' Ignorance of them.  
By the seventh, Lords are forbidden to place ecclesiastics in the Chapels belonging to their Lands, unless they be chosen by the Bishop in whose Territory they are situate.  
In the eighth, The manner and length of their Penance who fall into Heresy, is left to the discretion of the Bishop.  
The ninth declares, That the Alienations or Mortgages of Church-Lands made by a Bishop, who leaves nothing of his own Possessions to the Church when he dies, shall be revoked: That notwithstanding, if he set some Slaves at liberty, they shall continue free, provided they shall serve the Church.  
The tenth suspends a Bishop from the Sacerdotal Function, who had ordained a Bigamist, or him that married a Widow: If he does not observe this Suspension, it deprives him of the Communion of other Bishops, until the time of the Synod. Lastly, it ordains, that those who shall be ordained against the Canons shall be degraded.  
The eleventh declares, That the Possessions given out of Piety to Abbeys, Monasteries, or Parishes, shall not be appropriated to Abbots, or Priests, but to the Church, and that they cannot alienate them without the consent of the Bishop in writing.  
The twelfth ordains Bishops to agree amicably among themselves, or before such Arbitrators as they shall choose, as to all Differences which they may have as to Temporalties.  
The thirteenth threatens with Excommunication those who shall force Clergymen, that are in the actual Service of the Church, and whose Names are matriculated, to accept of Public Offices, and declares Bishops, Priests and Deacons exempt from Guardianship.  
The fourteenth enjoins Heirs to pay the Legacies given to the Church, or to Priests.  
The fifteenth Excommunicates those who having received Baptism, eat of Meats offered to Idols.  
The sixteenth Excommunicates those who swear according to the Custom of Pagans upon the Heads of Beasts, by calling upon the Names of Pagan-Gods.  
The seventeenth forbids Priests and Deacons to have a Bed and Chamber common with their Wives.  
The eighteenth declares, That Possessions alienated by Clergymen, shall be recovered by the Bishop, though long Possession may be made use of for a Title.  
The nineteenth preserves to Churches the little Farms that have been given them out of Devotion, even without writing.  
The twentieth forbids to cite Clergymen before Secular Judges▪ without the Bishop's leave, and forbids them to appear there, unless they be accompanied with a Priest, or the archdeacon, or have the permission of a Pastor.  
The one and twentieth is for preserving to Churches the Right of Sanctuary.  
The two and twentieth Excommunicates those who make use of the Civil Authority for marrying Maids against the Will of their Parents.  
The three and twentieth forbids the Slaves of Churches, or of Priests, to commit Outrages and Robberies.  
The four and twentieth declares, That those Slaves are not to be protected who retire into Churches for marrying against their Master's Will.  
The five and twentieth is against those who invade the Possessions of the Church.  
The six and twentieth enjoins Arch-deacons to take care that the Clergy of Parishes in the Lands of great Lords do their duty. 
The fifth Council of Orleans.   
The seven and twentieth renews the thirty Canons of the Council of Ep●… about prohibited degrees.  
The eight and twentieth declares, That the Bishop shall impose such Penance as he shall judge convenient, upon those who are guilty of Murders, though they have got their pardon.  
The nine and twentieth, That Women who shall commit Adultery with Clergymen, shall be put under Penance.  
The thirtieth, That Christian Slaves, who are in the hands of Jews, may be delivered from their Tyranny, when Christians shall be found who are willing to pay the Price at which they are estimated.  
The one and thirtieth declares, That Jews who would persuade their Slaves to become Jews by promising them Liberty, shall lose these Slaves; and that Christians who shall obtain their Liberty upon condition of becoming Jews, shall continue Slaves.  
The two and thirtieth, That the Posterity of Slaves shall be obliged to the Service and Offices under which their Ancestors obtained their Liberty, though it be never so long ago.  
The three and thirtieth▪ That he who would have a Parish in his Land, aught to give a parcel of Ground to it, and to appoint a sufficient number of Clergymen to say Service there.  
The four and thirtieth, That he to whom the Church has given Land to be enjoyed for his life time, cannot dispose of the Profits which he shall make of it, and that his Kindred shall have no share of them.  
The five and thirtieth concerns the Disposals made by Bishops, which leaves their Successors at liberty to approve or reject them; and orders that the time of Prescription shall begin from the day that the Successor is in Possession.  
The six and thirtieth, That the Goods given by the Bishop to a Clergyman of another Church, shall return after his death to the Church to which it belonged.  
The seven and thirtieth ordains, That Synods of the Province shall be held every year.  
The eight and thirtieth is a general Prohibition of violating these Canons.   

The fifth Council of Orleans.  
THis Council was very numerous, and was held in the Year 549; 71 Archbishops or Bishops of France were present at it, who made 24 Canons.  
The first condemns the Sect of Eutyches and other Heretics.  
The second forbids Bishops to Excommunicate for slight Causes.  
The third is against the dwelling of Women with Clergymen.  
The fourth ordains that Clergymen who are obliged to Celibacy, and do not observe it, shall be deposed.  
The fifth forbids Bishops to take or ordain the Clergy of their Brethren.  
The sixth declares, That Slaves shall not be admitted into Orders without the leave of their Masters, and that the Bishops who shall do it, shall give two Slaves for one.  
The seventh, That the Slaves to whom the Masters have granted Liberty, shall be defended and protected by the Church.  
The eighth, That after the death of a Bishop, no other Bishop shall ordain Clergymen, or Consecrate Altars in his Bishopric, and that he shall take nothing of the Goods of the vacant Church, but a handsome Present.  
The ninth, That none shall be promoted to a Bishopric, unless he has lived a Clerical Life for a year at least.  
The tenth, That none shall attain to a Bishopric by Money or Solicitation; but the Metropolitan and Bishops of the Clergy shall consecrate him who shall be chosen by the Clergy and the People, with the consent of the King.  
The eleventh▪ That such a Bishop shall not be set over the People whom they would not have; and that those who shall obtain a Bishopric by Force or Interest, shall be deposed.  
The twelfth, That none shall be ordained Bishop in the room of a Bishop alive, unless he was deposed for a Capital Crime.  
The thirteenth renews the Penalties decreed against those who retain the Goods given to Churches, to Monasteries, or Hospitals.  
The fourteenth is against the Bishops or Clergy who demand the Goods belonging to another Church.  
The fifteenth ordains, That neither the Bishop of Lions, nor his Successors, shall have any share in the Possessions of the Hospital, which King Childebert and the Queen his Wife had founded in this City.  
The sixteenth is against those who would deprive the Church of the Donations which are made to it. 
The Council of Arvernia under King Theodobertus.   
The seventeenth refers to the Metropolitan the Differences between Clergymen and their Bishop, and to a Synod of the Province, the Difference between a Bishop of the Province and his Metropolitan.  
The eighteenth Suspends for the space of six Months, the Bishops who come not to the Synod of the Province, being cited thither by their Metropolitan.  
The nineteenth ordains, That Women who come into a Monastery, shall continue one year without taking the Habit, and three years, if the Monastery be not of the number of those in which they are shut up for their Life-time. After this they may take the Habit, and if after they have taken it, they return into the World, and marry, they shall be Excommunicated, together with those that marry them; but if they part and do Penance, they shall be restored to Communion.  
The twentieth ordains Arch-Deacons to visit the Prisoners every Sunday.  
The one and twentieth ordains Bishops to take care of the Leprous.  
The two and twentieth contains the Canons concerning the Slaves who fly for Refuge into Churches.  
The three and twentieth ordains the holding of the Provincial Synod every year.  
The four and twentieth confirms the preceding Decrees.   

The Council of Arvernia under King Theodobertus.  
THis Council, where ten Bishops were present, confirmed sixteen Canons of the preceding Council.   

The Council of Tutella.  
THis Council was held in the Year 550, by Order of King Theodobertus, because Persons of Quality complained that Nicetius Bishop of Treves had Excommunicated them upon the account of the unlawful Marriages which they had contracted. Mappinius Bishop of Rheims being summoned 
The Council of Tutella.  thither without acquainting him with the reason why it was held, did not think fit to go to it; and having afterward learned the reason why it was called, he wrote a Letter to excuse himself, to Nicetius Bishop of Treves, wherein he approves what Nicetius had done against the married Persons; but he declares himself to be displeased, because instead of writing to him to desire him to come thither, he had caused him to be summoned by an Order from the King.   

The History of the Council of Constantinople under Mennas, held in the Year 536.  
IT rarely happens, that General Councils held about Matters of Faith restore Peace to the Church by their Decrees. Men have so great Inclination to their own Sentiments, and do so hardly endure 
The History of the Council of Constantinople under Mennas, held in the Year 536.  the affront of a Condemnation, that instead of yielding to the Decision given against them, they become more obstinate. They begin to look upon their Judges as Parties, and try all manner of ways, either to prove that they were not condemned, or that their Opinion was not rightly understood, nor their Reasons fairly heard; or lastly, to weaken the Authority of the Decision given against them. The Council of Nice had condemned the Arians, yet how many Disputes followed this Decree? How was the Church tossed with many Commotions. The Council of Ephesus by proscribing Nestorius and the Orientalists, seems rather to have inflamed then appeased the Difference. The seeming Peace that followed was only feigned, for the Fire of Division still raged in Men's minds, which broke forth in a little time after, and set the whole East in Combustion. The Council of Chalcedon having treated of these things with much moderation, and explained them in very intelligible terms, should have reconciled men's minds: Marcianus caused it to be received almost every where; yet this Emperor was no sooner dead, but the troubles of the Church revived again with greater violence than before.  
After the Deposing of Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, who was immediately banished to Gangra, the Emperor gave order to the People and Clergy of Alexandria, to choose one to succeed in his room. The greater part of the People opposed it, and this occasioned a great Sedition, which was not appeased without much difficulty: But at last they were forced to obey, and Proterius was placed upon the Episcopal Throne. But the People of Alexandria being naturally inclined to Sedition, would not permit him peaceably to enjoy this Dignity. The far greater number separated from his Communion, and he was many times in danger of his Life; insomuch that the Emperor appointed Guards to attend him. But the News of the Death of Marcianus was no sooner arrived at Alexandria, but the People taking occasion from the absence of the Governor, chose a Priest of Dioscorus' Faction, called Timotheus Aelurus, and having carried him to the great Church, caused him to be ordained Bishop. At the same time the Seditious went to find out Proterius, who was at the Font, where they run him thro' the Body, and dragged it thro' the Streets, burned it, and threw the Ashes into the Air. This happened three days after the Feast of Easter in the Year 457.  
The Clergy of Alexandria carried their Complaints to the Emperor Leo about this horrid Villainy: The Complices of Timothy presented also their Libel to this Emperor, which tended to destroy what was done by the Council of Chalcedon. The Emperor being unwilling to give the Bishops the Fatigue of coming to a new General Council, did only write a Circular Letter to them to desire their Opinions; and having received their Answers in favour of the Council of Chalcedon, and against Timothy, caused Timotheus Aelurus to be turned out, who was banished to Chorsona, and one called Timothy▪ surnamed Salophaciolus, to be placed in his room. This Bishop lived in Peace under the Reign of Leo and his Successor Zeno: But the Tyrant Basiliscus having invaded the Empire, recalled Timotheus Aelurus to Constantinople, after eighteen years' banishment, and by his persuasion wrote a Circular Letter against the Council of Chalcedon, and the Letter of St. Leo. Not only Timotheus Aelurus signed this Letter, but also Peter Mongus the Patriarch of Antioch and Anastasius. Their example was followed by almost five hundred Bishops. Timotheus Aelurus was restored, and Salophaciolus forced to fly and hid himself in a Monastery. Acacius of Constantinople, and many other Bishops, disapproved the Condemnation of the Council, and Basiliscus himself was forced to recall it by another Circular Letter, because of a Sedition which the Monks had raised at Constantinople.  
Zeno having reascended the Throne, restored the Affairs of the Catholics. Peter was forced away from Antioch: Stephen, and afterwards Calendion, were ordained in his room. Timotheus Aelurus being dead, the People of Alexandria chose Peter Mongus; but Zeno caused him to be turned out, and restored Timotheus Salophaciolus. After his death John Talaia was ordained in his room by those of his Party. But Zeno taking a fancy to restore Peter Mongus, made a Decree of Union, wherein he expounded the Faith of the Incarnation after a Catholic manner, received the Chapters of St. Cyril, acknowledged no other Rule of Faith but the Nicene Creed, and said nothing of the Council of Chalcedon. Peter having signed this Decree was restored to the See of Antioch, and owned by Acacius. But the Holy See and the Western Church would not acknowledge him, and received Talaia who had retired into the West. Upon this occasion they fell out with Acacius, and were much dissatisfied with what the Emperor Zeno had done for the Peace of the Eastern Church. This matter went much further, for they condemned Acacius, as we have already seen, and wholly separated from his Communion. In the mean time Peter Mongus, who had acknowledged the Council of Chalcedon, to reconcile himself to Acacius, did afterwards publicly condemn it, to obtain the good will of the People of Alexandria. Acacius being dead, had Fravitus, and afterwards Euphemius, for his Successors, who having received a Letter from Peter Mongus, wherein he anathematised the Council of Chalcedon, was preparing to condemn this Bishop, if the death of Peter had not prevented him. Athanasius, who succeeded him, and two other Patriarches of Alexandria who followed him, being both called by the name of John, were of the same Judgement. But these last mentioned, made yet a more visible Defection from the Church, by condemning openly the Council of Chalcedon. There were then three Parties in the Church: One received the Council of Chalcedon, another rejected it, and a third held to Zeno's Edict of Agreement, without saying any thing of the Council of Chalcedon. This difference of Opinions divided the Churches. The West separated from the East, and the Eastern Bishops did not agree among themselves. The Egyptians would not communicate with the Bishops of Constantinople, because they approved the Council of Chalcedon. The Emperor Anastasius favoured those who received the Decree of Union, and turned out those who admitted or condemned the Council of Chalcedon. In the mean time he secretly favoured the Enemies of the Council, who had forced away Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch, and Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople. There was then at Constantinople an Egyptian Monk, called Severus, who was a cunning intrigueing Man, he was the chief cause of Deposing these two Patriarches, and found a way to possess himself of the See of Antioch. Assoon as he had usurped it, he wrote a Synodical Letter to all the Bishops of the East, wherein he anathematizes the Council of Chalcedon. This Letter was not received in Palestine, and many Bishops of the Patriarchate of Antioch rejected it, being unwilling to acknowledge Severus for a lawful Bishop. There were also two Bishops of his own Patriarchate, who had the boldness to send him Letters, wherein they declared him Excommunicated and Deposed. In the Year 518 Justinus having succeeded the Emperor Anastasius, gave order to Ireneus to seize Severus, and cause his Tongue to be cut out, but he fled to Alexandria, and Paul a Catholic Bishop was placed in his room.  
The Church of Alexandria had not yet quitted her Opinions; Dioscorus the younger, and Timothy, who succeeded one another, had condemned the Council of Chalcedon. The last of them received Severus favourably, and Julian of Halicarnassus, who had been turned out of his Bishopric upon the same account. Then there arose a Contest among those of this Faction, concerning the Corruptibility or Incorruptibility of the Body of Jesus Christ. A certain Monk asked Severus, whether he believed the Body of Jesus Christ to be incorruptible or corruptible. He answered him, That the Holy Fathers of the Church held it to be corruptible. The same Question being put to Julian of Halicarnassus, he answered quite contrary. These two opposite Answers were followed with Writings on one side and tother, which gave the rise to a Schism among those of this Faction; the one were called Corrupticolae, and the other Phantafiastae. Timothy was of Severus' Opinion, and a Deacon called Themistius made himself Head of the contrary Party.  
In the Year 527, Justinus associated Justinian to himself in the Empire. This Emperor was inclined to maintain the Council of Chalcedon as well as Justinus; but the Empress Theodora was of their Party, who said that the Body of Christ was incorruptible. For maintaining it, after the death of Epiphanius Patriarch of Constantinople, she fetched Anthimus from Trapezus, who was devoted to her Sentiments, and caused Theodosius to be ordained at Alexandria: But the People opposed this Ordination, and chose Gaianus, who was enthroned by that Party which maintained that the Body of Jesus Christ was corruptible. The Empress caused him to be forced away, and restored Theodosius; but the continual Insurrections of the People forced him to retire, and to come to Constantinople, whence he was driven away by the Emperor's order, because he would not acknowledge the Council of Chalcedon, and Paul the Catholic was Ordained in his room by Mennas.  
Within a little time after the Pope Agapetus coming to Constantinople, who was sent by Theodatus King of the Goths, refused to receive Anthimus into his Communion, and endeavoured to force him to retire to Trapezus, and to make a Confession of the Catholic Faith. Anthimus refusing to do it was condemned by Agapetus, who ordained Mennas' Patriarch of Constantinople in the Year 536. Agapetus dying afterwards at Constantinople, Anthimus and his Adherents used all their endeavours to get the Power into their own hands, and while they disturbed the Church by their Seditions, a Council▪ was held at Constantinople in the Year 536. Mennas' Patriarch of Constantinople presided in it, and had at his right hand five Bishops deputed from the Holy See, and seven and twenty other Bishops, and at his left hand three and twenty Bishops more.  
The Deacons deputed from the Holy See, from the Patriarches of Antioch and Jerusalem, and from the Archbishops of Caesarea, Ancyra and Corinth, were present there.  
The first Action or Session was held on the second of May. The Deacon Euphemius, chief of the Notaries, represented that Marianus, Priest and Abbot of the Monastery of St. Dalmatius, the principle Monk of Constantinople, and the Monks of Antioch and Jerusalem, had presented a Libel to the Emperor, who had referred them to the Decision of this Assembly. Mennas' ordered that they should be called in, together with an Ambassador from the Emperor who brought them. He presented to the Council the Libel which the Monks had given to the Emperor, which was read by the Notary Acacius. It contained in substance, That Anthimus, Severus, Peter, Soaras, and those of their Sect, did not only publish their Errors, but stirred up every where Commotions and Seditions, and that being come to Constantinople, they had built Altars and Fonts in the City and Suburbs, in opposition to the true Altars of the Church; That Anthimus, formerly Bishop of Trapezus, being engaged in this Faction of Heretics, endeavoured to invade the See of Constantinople; That he had been forced away from thence by the Pope Agapetus, and by Mennas, who was lawfully ordained; That from that time they had demanded, that he should be obliged to return to Trapezus, after he had declared in writing this disowning of what was done, and had purged himself from the Heresy whereof he was accused, or otherwise that he should be wholly deprived of the Priesthood; That Agapetus had prevented their desire by condemning him, and those of his Sect, and depriving him of the Sacerdotal Dignity, and the Name of a Christian, until he had done Penance; That this Pope being dead, they immediately addressed themselves to the Emperor, to pray him to confirm and execute this Judgement, that the Church might be at peace. After the reading of this Libel, Marianus presented a Memorial to the Council, which contained almost the same things. After this were read the several Instruments of the Process against Anthimus. The first is the Libel which these Monks had presented to Pope Agapetus, against Anthimus, Severus, Zoaras, and the other Acephali, whom they accused of the Eutychian Error, of holding unlawful Assemblies, of reiterating Baptism, of invading the Sees of Catholic Churches, of taking their Churches by force, of erecting Altars and Fonts in contempt of the Catholic Church; particularly they accuse Anthimus of endeavouring to possess himself of the Church of Constantinople. They pray the Pope to oppose these Evils: They tell him, that as St. Peter came from the East to Rome to defeat the Tricks of Simon the Magician, so God had sent him from the West to the East to destroy there the Faction of Anthimus, Severus, and of Zoaras; That he ought, in imitation of what Celestine did to Nestorius, to prescribe a certain term to Anthimus, wherein he shall be bound to present a Writing to the Holy See, to the Pope and to the Patriarch of Constantinople, by which he shall purge himself from all Heresy, and to return to his Bishopric of Trapezus; which time being expired▪ if he did not give satisfaction, than he should be declared to be deprived and unworthy of any Ecclesiastical Dignity, and another should be promoted in his room to the See of Trapezus: Lastly, That in order to the putting a full end to this Commotion, he should desire of the Emperor, that Severus, Peter and Zoaras, and those of their Sect should be turned out of their Church, that they should be forbidden to hold Assemblies, and that their Writings should be burnt in the Fire.  
The second Instrument of the Process against Anthimus, is the Libels which the Eastern Bishops presented to Pope Agapetus, against Anthimus, Peter, Severus and Zoaras, whom they chief accused of reviving the Eutychian Heresy. There they tell a story at length, which was only told overly in the preceding Libel, of one Pers●●us called Isaac, of their Sect, who had tore a piece of Stuff, wherein the Image of the Emperor was painted.  
The third is a Circular Letter of the Pope Agapetus, wherein he declares Anthimus Deposed, his Followers Excommunicated, and Mennas the lawful Bishop of Constantinople.  
After the reading of these Instruments, Deputies were named to give Anthimus notice of what had passed, and to invite him to come within three days to the Council, to give that satisfaction which was to be wished, or to defend himself.  
In the following Session held on the sixth of May, the Deputies declared. That having sought for Anthimus in the places where he dwelled, they could not meet with him. Then-other Deputies were named again to seek for Anthimus, and to cite him to appear within three days.  
This time being expired, an Assembly was held on the tenth of the same Month: The Deputies declared, That having sought for Anthimus both in his City-house and in that which is in the Suburbs, and in the House of Peter formerly Bishop of Apamea, and in the Chapels and Monasteries, they could not meet with him, nor learn the place of his abode. New Deputies were name▪ d again to seek for him, and that he might be utterly disabled to pretend ignorance of what was done, it was declared that notice should be given him by a public Advertisement.  
In the fourth Action held on the one and twentieth of May, after the Deputies had deposed that they could not meet with Anthimus, and that the public Placart had been read by which he was cited, the Council declared him to have fallen from the See of Trapezus, from all Ecclesiastical Dignity, and to be unworthy of the Name of Catholic. Mennas' pronounced the same Sentence for his own part against him. This Judgement was followed with many Acclamations in honour of the Emperor, against Anthimus, Severus, Peter, and Zoaras, and against their Followers.  
In the fifth Action on the fourth of June, Theodorus Commissioner from the Emperor, presented to the Council two Libels, one from Paul of Apamea, and the Bishops of the second Syria, and another from the Monks of Jerusalem, and of the same Province, against Severus who assumed the Title of Bishop of Antioch, against Peter who called himself Bishop of Apamea, and against Zoaras whom they accused of maintaining the Sentiments of Eutyches, and of troubling the Catholic Church. The Monks themselves presented one much larger to the Synod, wherein they describe at greater length the Evils which the Church had suffered by the Acephali, the Blasphemies which they spoke against the Council of Chalcedon, the Outrages and Murders which they had committed, the Re-ordinations and Re-baptizations which they had used, and the disorders of their Life. They pray the Council to anathematise particularly, Severus, Peter, Zoaras, and their Followers. The Opinion of the Bishops of Italy was asked, who said, That they looked upon Severus and Peter as Heretics, according to the Letters of Hormisdas, to Epiphanius Patriarch of Constantinople, which they produced, and which were read in the Council. After this was read the Libel of the Clergy and Monks of Antioch to John the Patriarch of Constantinople against Severus, wherein he was accused of an ill Life, of keeping Communion with no Church, of invading the Church of Antioch by force, of having maintained the Eutychian Errors, and condemning the Council of Chalcedon, of having abused and killed many Monks, not sparing even the Altars and holy Vessels, but breaking the one and melting the other, of appropriating to his own use the Doves of Gold and Silver which were on the Fonts or Altars, of having rob Houses, and pawned the Goods of the Church. This Libel was presented to the Council held at Constantinople in the Year 518, who received also another from the Monks of Constantinople, containing five Heads. The first is, That Euphemius and Macedonius, who had been unjustly forced away from their Sees, and were dead in Exile, were to be ranked among Patriarches▪ and their Names put again into Diptyches. The second, That those who had been turned out of their Sees, and banished upon the account of these two Patriarches, were to be restored. The third, That the Names of the Councils of Nice, of Constantinople and Ephesus, be put into the Diptyches. The fourth, That the Letters of St. Leo, and the Council of Chalcedon be joined to them. The fifth, That what Severus had affirmed against the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon may be rejected. and he himself condemned as a Heretic and a Blasphemer: The Bishops assembled in the Council of Constantinople, approved the Requests contained in this Libel, and desired the Patriarches to join with them, and to pray the Emperor to grant what they desired. Afterwards the Acclamations of the People are recited, which obliged John of Constantinople to declare publicly that he received the Council of Chalcedon, and to place the Names of the four first Councils in the Diptyches, together with those of Euphemius and Macedonius. The Letters also are recited which he wrote upon this occasion to John of Jerusalem, and to Epiphanius of Tyre, and the Answers of these Bishops. The Letter of the last is remarkable, because it specifies many Crimes of Severus. He says, That he had many times anathematised the Council of Chalcedon, that he had received the Clergymen which were Excommunicated by their Bishops, that he had deposed Priests 
The History of the second Council of Constantinople, commonly called the fifth general Council.  who would not consent to his Impieties, that he had ordained Suffragan Bishops, and Titular Priests in Foreign Dioceses; that he had permitted a Bishop to ordain in the Diocese of another; that he had sold away the Goods of the Church of Antioch to enrich himself; that he had moved those who are maintained out of the Ecclesiastical Offerings, to make Schisms and Commotions; Lastly, that he was an Enemy to Peace and Truth. He speaks also of a Priest of his own City, called John, who had the boldness to anathematise the Letter of St. Leo, and the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon; who durst hold unlawful Assemblies, and celebrate forbidden Baptisms, insomuch that there have been seen, which never happened before, two contrary Processions of Persons baptised; who had stirred up Commotions and Seditions, caused a Cross to be stoned, abused a Bishop, and committed many other Outrages. The same things are objected to him in the Letter of the Bishops of the second Syria, which is related in this Council. After this were read the Informations of Peter of Apamea, and the Letter which his own Clergy had written against him to the Bishops of the second Syria, wherein they accuse him of saying to his Readers, who desired to be promoted to Holy Orders, Unless ye hold your peace I will ordain you all Subdeacons, and when the crucified Man shall descend, he shall not pluck you out of my hands; of having made an ill use of the Church; of having baptised a Woman of a bad Life; of holding immodest Discourses in the Church; of entertaining frequently a Comedian Woman in private; of wearing thro' Pride a white Garment as a sign of his Innocence; of spitting upon the Altar in the time of celebrating the Mysteries; of refusing to baptise the Catechumen at the season; of keeping about him a multitude of Women, and committing Crimes with some of them; of persecuting and anathematising the Catholics; Lastly, of establishing the Eutychian Heresy, destroying the true Faith, and subverting Discipline. The Monks of Apamea complained also of the Outrages which he had committed against them. Their Libel was read in the Council, and then the Sentence of Epiphanius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and of his Council, against Severus and Peter, which was followed and confirmed by that of Mennas, and all the Bishops of the Council of Constantinople. Justinian joined his Authority to that of this Council, and ordained by his Edict, That the Sentence of the Council against Anthimus, Severus, Peter, and Zoaras should be executed, forbids them to continue at Constantinople, condemned their Writings to the fire, and forbade all Transcribers to write them for the future, under the Penalty of having their Hand cut off. Lastly, He does most strictly forbid all those who held the Opinions of Nestorius, Eutyches, Severus, or other Heretics, to stir up any Sedition, or give any Disturbance to the Peace of the Church.  
The Patriarch of Jerusalem having received this Law from the Emperor, and a Letter from Mennas, which acquainted him with the Sentence given at Constantinople, assembled his own Council, consisting of the Bishops of the three Palestines, wherein the Condemnation of Anthimus, Severus, Peter and Zoaras was approved.   

The History of the second Council of Constantinople, which is commonly called the fifth General Council.  
THe Commotions wherewith the Eastern Church had been tossed after the Council of Chalcedon, seemed to be appeased by the Deposition of Anthimus, and the Condemnation of Severus. The Bishops of the great Sees were all of one and the same Communion, and professed to follow the Doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon. Egypt, where the Error of the Eutychians had been more deeply rooted then in any other place, was almost wholly recovered from its defection, by the Care of Paul, whom Mennas had ordained Bishop of Alexandria; for this Bishop having obtained Orders of the Emperor, addressed to the Governors and Intendants of the Province, was careful and diligent to drive away all the Heretics, and to cause the Council of Chalcedon to be received in the Churches and Monasteries of Alexandria. 'Tis probable that Elias General of the Militia of Egypt, did not favour Paul's undertaking, which made this Bishop resolve to have him recalled. Psoius Deacon and Steward of the Church of Alexandria, immediately acquainted Elias with the design which Paul had against him. One of the Letters of Psoius falling into the hands of Paul, he resolved to be revenged upon him, to call him to an account for the management of the Church's Possessions, and for this reason prosecuted him before the Governor, called Rhodon. This Magistrate put the Steward in Prison, and caused him to be put to death, some days after, in Prison, at the solicitation of one named Arsenus. The Children and Kinsfolk of Psoius, having desired Justice of the Emperor, he removed Rhodon from the Government of Egypt, and sent Liberius in his room, whom he ordered to inform himself of this Murder. Rhodon was not wanting in his own defence to say, That he put Psoius to death by order of the Bishop Paul; but he had no proof against him: and there was proof that Arsenus was the cause of this Murder. Nevertheless, either because Paul was not fully justified, or because he was accused of other Crimes, he was banished to Gaza, where he was deprived of the Pallium, and deposed by Pelagius Surrogate of the Roman Church, and by three Bishops who ordained Zoilus in his room in the Year 539, or 540.  
Pelagius returning from this Dispatch of Affairs, brought along with him some Monks of Jerusalem. These Monks were called Eulogius, Conon, Cyriacus, and Pancratius. They brought with them some Propositions taken out of Origen's Books, with a design to have them condemned with Origen himself. Pelagius and Mennas' supported their Pretensions, out of a secret Aversion which they had to Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, a great Defender of Origen. Justinian the Emperor being mightily pleased to find this occasion of judging in Ecclesiastical Matters, caused to be presently drawn up a large Declaration against the Errors o● Origen, which he addressed to all the Patriarches. This Edict, which was published in the Year 541, is found after the Acts of the fifth Council, although it should precede them. It gins with these words: We have often earnestly desired to preserve the Christian Faith in its purity, and to maintain the Catholic Church in peace: And this was always our chief and greatest care, being fully persuaded that it is the best means to preserve that Secular Empire which God has given us, to conquer the Enemies of our State, and to feel the happy Effects of the Divine Mercy in another Life. Now though the Enemy of Mankind seeks all occasions to destroy Men, yet the goodness and mercy of God defeats all the Efforts of his Malice, and by confounding his Enemies, preserves his own Flock from the Infection and Desolation which he threatens it. We speak thus, adds the Emperor, because we are told of some Persons who have not the Fear of God before their Eyes, and who have forsaken the Rule of Truth, without which there is no Salvation, by departing from the Doctrine of the Scripture, and of the Doctors of the Catholic Church, who have maintained the Orthodox Faith, and condemned all Heresies, by adhering to Origen, and maintaining his impious Doctrines, like to those of the Arians, Manicheans, and other Heretics. After this Preface Justinian recounts the Errors which he ascribes to Origen. The first is about the Trinity: The second about the Plurality of Worlds: The third about the Preexistence of Souls: The fourth, That the Heavens and Stars are animated: The fifth, That the glorified Bodies shall be of a round Figure: The sixth, That the Torments of the Damned shall have an end. After he has refuted these Errors, he order Mennas' to call an Assembly of Bishops who shall meet at Constantinople, and of Abbots of Monasteries, and to cause them to Anathematise Origen, and the Errors which he had noted before. He forbids for the future to ordain Bishops or Abbots, unless they do the same. He adds, That he has sent Copies of this Letter to Pope Vigilius, and to the Patriarches of Alexandria, of Antioch and Jerusalem. He subjoins to this Letter the Propositions extracted out of Origen, and nine Anathematisms against the preceding Errors, together with a tenth against the Person of Origen.  
He wrote also at the same time another Letter to the Bishops who were to assemble, wherein he exhorts them to read his Letter, to condemn the Errors which he had related in it, and to anathematise Origen, and all those who are of his Judgement in these things.  
Menas having received this Letter called an Assembly at Constantinople, where the Emperor's Orders were exactly obeyed, as appears by the Synod's Letter to the Emperor, reported by Evagrius B. 4. of his Hist. ch. 38.  
Theodorus of Caesarea, out of hatred to whom Pelagius resolved to procure the Condemnation of Origen, thought it his best way to be revenged, to make use of a like Artifice. He was of the Sect of the Acephali, i. e. of the Eutychian Opinions, and an Enemy to the Council of Chalcedon. The Empress Theodora favoured this Party: but the Emperor Justinian would have the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon put in execution, and prepared to publish an Edict against the Acephali. Theodorus of Caesarea, being desirous to avoid this Blow, and at the same time to be revenged for what was done against Origen, represented to Justinian, That it was needless to make an Edict against them, assuring him that they would all be reunited, and approve the Council of Chalcedon, if he would give order to Anathematise Theodorus of Mopsuesta, and his Writings, to condemn the Writings of Theodoret against St. Cyril, and the Letter of Ibas, which was read in the Council of Chalcedon.  
Theodorus of Caesarea had two designs in making this Proposal; The first was to be revenged on those who had procured the Condemnation of Origen, by causing Theodorus of Mopsuesta to be Anathematised also, who had written against him, and was hated of the Origenists. The second was to weaken the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon, by causing those Persons and Writings to be condemned which it seemed to have approved. The Emperor, who did not penetrate into the depth of these Designs, imagining that he might do much good to the Church, in procuring the reconciliation of many Persons, by condemning three dead Writers, whose Reputation was very doubtful, made no scruple to promise Theodorus what he desired. But he fearing lest the Emperor, who was naturally inconstant, should change his Resolution, when he should foresee the Scandal which this Undertaking would produce, did cunningly engage him to publish an Edict, containing a Condemnation of the three Articles we have just now mentioned, which were afterwards so famous under the Name of the three Chapters.  
This Edict was published toward the end of the Year 545, and is related after the Acts of the fifth Council, p. 683. 'Tis entitled, The Emperor Justinian's Confession of Faith against the three Chapters, and addressed to the Assembly of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. 'Tis indeed a very large Exposition of Faith, which the Emperor proposes to all the World, endeavouring to reunite all Sects to the true Faith. First, He explains in a few words the Doctrine of the Church concerning the Trinity; but he enlarges very much upon the Mystery of the Incarnation, which he does very exactly explain, rejecting all the contrary Errors, and chief those of the Nestorians and Eutychians. He subjoins to it Anathematisms for condemning them yet more formally. He pronounces an Anathema against Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius and Eutyches. If he had stopped there his Edict had been very useful, and had not been the cause of any Disturbance. But he adds lastly, three other Anathematisms; one against the Doctrine and Person of Theodorus of Mopsuesta; another against the Writings of Theodoret; and the last against the Letter of Ibas to Maris Persanus. Now since these three last Anathematisms were the moving Cause which made Justinian undertake to publish this Confession of Faith, it is not to be wondered that he endeavours to justify them. First he labours to prove that the Council of Chalcedon did not approve the Letter of Ibas, and that it was impious. Afterwards he proceeds to Theodorus of Mopsuesta; and because many scrupled to Condemn him upon the account of his being dead, he endeavours to show that the Dead may be anathematised. This he proves, 1. Because the Church has many times anathematised Heretics after their death. 2. Because the Council of Constantinople anathematised Arius and Macedonius by name, whom the Council of Nice had not named. 3. Because the Church of Mopsuesta had already removed out of the Diptyches the name of Theodorus. 4. Because Theodorus having taught an impious Doctrine, could not be partaker of the Kingdom of Heaven, and consequently aught to be anathematised. He adds, That Damasus and the Bishops of Sardica had anathematised the Bishops who departed from the Faith of the Nicene Council, the Dead as well as the Living; that the Council of Chalcedon had condemned Domnus after his death, for believing only that he must not speak of the twelve Chapters of St. Cyril; that besides, it was not true that St. Cyril had praised Theodorus of Mopsuesta, but on the contrary, he had condemned him; that though he should have praised him, yet this would no● justify him, since many Fathers have commended Heretics, as St. Athanasius and St. Basil who wrote in praise of Apollinarius, and St. Leo who praised Eutyches, before they knew of their Impiety: That the Letter of St. Gregory Nazianzene to Theodorus, is not to him of Mopsuesta, but to him of Tyana in Cappadocia; Lastly, That the practice of the African Church authorises the Condemnation of the Dead: That St. Austin had declared, That if Caecilian were found guilty of the Crimes whereof he was accused, that he would pronounce an Anathema against him, though he died in the Communion of the Church; and that it was ordained in a Synod of Africa, That the Catholics who should leave their Possessions to a Heretic, should be anathematised even after their death: That Dioscorus had been anathematised by the Roman Church after his death, though he had done nothing contrary to the Faith, but only to the Discipline of the Church: That if an impious Person dying in his Impiety could not be anathematised, than the Anathema pronounced against an innocent Person, if he died under it, could not be revoked; and yet the contrary was very justly practised with respect to St. John Chrysostom.  
Justinian did not only make this Edict, but would have it approved in a Synod of Bishops, and that it might have the more Authority, he caused one to be assembled at Constantinople, to which he addressed the Letter which is in Greek after the Edict of Justinian. In it he testifies, That the Emperors have always taken care to procure the Condemnation of Heresies, and to maintain the Faith and Peace of the Church, by calling Councils. He brings the Examples of Constantine, who had assembled that of Nice, of Theodosius who had called that of Constantinople, of Theodosius the younger, who had convened that of Ephesus against Nestorius, and of Martianus who had Summoned one to be held at Chalcedon. He adds, That since the Celebration of these four Councils, the followers of Nestorius endeavoured to revive his Errors, by defending the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, of Theodoret and Ibas. He exhorts the Bishops to examine them, and to condemn them as impious.  
The Council having received this Letter from the Emperor, made a Decree in these words: The Council of Chalcedon rebuked sharply Theodoret and Ibas, and did not receive them but upon condition that they should condemn their own Writings, together with Theodorus and Nestorius. And we now Condemn the Heretics condemned and excommunicated in the preceding Councils, and together with them Theodorus who was Bishop of Mopsuesta, and his impious Books: We condemn also what Theodoret has written amiss against the true Faith, against the twelve Chapters of St. Cyril, and against the Council of Ephesus for the Defence of Theodorus and Nestorius: We condemn also the Letter which Ibas is said to have written to Maris Persanus, wherein he denies that the Word of God was born of the Virgin Mary the Mother of God▪ and reckons St. Cyril for a Heretic: He accuses the first Synod of Ephesus, as having condemned Nestorius without knowledge of the Cause, etc. He rejects the twelve Chapters of St. Cyril, and defends the Opinions and Writings of Theodorus and Nestorius.  
This is all that now remains of the first Council held in the Year 546 at Constantinople: In it there were other Anathematisms pronounced, which the Bishops were made to▪ sign. Facundus reports one of them in the last Chapter of his fourth Book, wherein an Anathema is denounced against those who shall affirm, That this Decree was made to destroy the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon. This Decision being made without consulting the Bishop of Rome by a Cabal of the Enemies of Agapetus, could not be approved by those who were concerned for the See of Rome. Mennas, who owed all that he had to this See, did not without much difficulty resolve to undertake it, and agree to it; but the Authority of the Emperor had more power with him then the Interest of the Pope. Nevertheless to carry himself fair, between the one and th'other, he says, That he would not sign but upon condition that the Pope would approve what he did, otherwise he would withdraw his Subscription. This was the Answer which he gave to Stephen the Deacon and Surrogate of the Roman Church, who being then at Constantinople, opposed this Condemnation. Zoilus of Alexandria made his Excuse to the Pope, that he was forced to Subscribe. Ephrem of Antiech had resolved not to sign, but that he was threatened to be turned out if he did not. Peter of Jerusalem, who at first declaimed against the Condemnation of the three Chapters, yielded also▪ last, many of the Bishops Protested at their signing, and gave Declarations to the Deacon Stephen, that they did not do it freely. The Deacon Stephen immediately separated from the Communion of Mennas, and his Example was followed by some other Bishops.  
The Pope Vigilius, who was coming to Constantinople, having received in Sicily the News of all that had passed, and being angry that the thing was done so quickly, and that they had not waited for his Coming before the Decree was made, wrote smartly against what was done, praised his Deacon for separating from the Communion of Mennas, and demanded that every thing which had been done in his absence, should be nulled, and threatened to be revenged for this Enterprise, if he did not receive satisfaction. These Threaten were not vain, for being arrived at Constantinople on the twentieth of January in the Year 547, he separated from the Communion of Mennas, and the other Bishops who had signed the Condemnation of the three Chapters. Nevertheless some Months after having gone to Prayers with the Empress, he was reconciled to them, and received Mennas into his Communion, though he continued steadfast in his first Resolution not to condemn the three Chapters. But he had not Constancy enough to resist for a long time the Promises and Threaten of the Empress; for he agreed that the next year an Assembly should be held at Constantinople, wherein he caused Suffrages to be given in writing; and lastly, made a Decree called Judicatum, wherein he condemned the three Chapters, but with this Declaration, that he did not pretend to meddle with the Council of Chalcedon. Facundus and the other Bishops of Afric, as well as those of Illyria and Dalmatia, were much displeased with this Writing of Vigilius, and upon that account separated from his Communion. The Deacons Rusticus and Sebastianus openly attacked his Decision, and every where accused him of violating the Council of Chalcedon. This rumour spreading into Gaul and Italy, Aurelianus of Arles wrote about it to Vigilius, who defended himself in two Letters, wherein he endeavoured to show that he had done nothing against the Council of Chalcedon, and degraded Rusticus and Sebastianus.  
The Emperor, or rather Theodorus of Caesarea, were not satisfied with what the Pope had done. They wished that he had absolutely condemned the three Chapters without mentioning the Council of Chalcedon. The Pope for his part was troubled, that he had brought upon himself the hatred of almost all the Western Bishops. To bring this Affair to some Accommodation, Vigilius proposed to the Emperor to summon a General Council to meet at Constantinople, to which the Bishops of Afric and Illyria should be cited, and in the mean time to leave things in the same state that they were before this Controversy, and for this end he withdrew his Judicatum, and the Subscriptions of the other Bishops, and he resolved that no more should be said of this Affair until the Meeting of the Council. Vigilius thought he had found out a way to put a stop to this Contest; for the Bishops of Afric and Illyria had no Safeconduct to come to Constantinople, where they foresaw that they should be forced to consent to the Will of the Emperor, and they not appearing, Vigilius had a good Excuse for not being present. In the mean time he had by way of Preparation, withdrawn for ever the Writing which had so much displeased the Occidentalists, and was free to take what side he would. But this Artifice did not succeed well, for the Emperor being provoked with the Delays which the Bishops of Afric and Illyria made, and seeing that Vigilius had trapped him, caused an Edict which was made against the three Chapters, and was kept secret till then, to be published at the beginning of the Year 551. Vigilius had presently recourse to the ordinary Weapons of Popes, by declaring those who should receive this Edict to be Excommunicated. He caused the same thing to be done also by Dacus of Milan.  
'Tis easy to conceive the Anger in which Justinian was to see himself treated so harshly: And Vigilius, to shun the Effects of it, retired into the Church of St. Peter. The Emperor sent thither an Officer who would have drawn him forth by force, but the People beat him back, so that Vigilius did not come out till the Emperor had promised him with an Oath that he would do him no hurt. After he had received this Promise he returned into the Palace of Placidia: But finding that they were continually drawing up Indictments, and making Snares for him, he withdrew by night to Chalcedon to the Temple of St. Euphemia. The Emperor sent to him six Senators to persuade him to return, but neither they, nor Peter, the Master of Requests to the Church of Constantinople, could make him resolve to surrender himself to the Will of the Emperor; but on the contrary, he published the Sentence of Excommunication against Theodorus of Caesarea, and of Suspension against Mennas, which he had given six Months before, and sent a Circular Letter wherein he represented the Miseries which he was forced to endure.  
This Firmness of Vigilius astonished his Adversaries, and made them take up a Resolution of handling things with more Moderation. They sent him therefore a Confession of Faith, wherein having approved the Decrees of the first four General Councils, and the Letters of St. Leo, they consent that all the Formularies made for the Condemnation of the three Chapters, should be put into his hands. As to the Reproaches and ill Treatment he might have received, they disallow of them, and ask his pardon for communicating with those whom he had Excommunicated. This Formulary was sent to Vigilius by Mennas, Theodorus of Caesarea, Andrew of Ephesus, Theodorus of Antioch in Pisidia, by Peter of Tarsus, and by many other Bishops, who did all sign it in a distinct Copy.  
Vigilius having thus compassed his Design returned to Constantinople, towards the end of the year 552, where he received a second Confession of Faith, in the name of Eutychius, who succeeded Mennas' lately deceased on the day of Theophany, i. e. on the sixth of January of the year 553. It was also signed by Apollinaris of Antioch, whom the Emperor had placed in the room of Zoilus, either because Zoilus would not sign the Edict of Condemnation of the three Chapters, as is reported in the Chronicle of Victor, or because Paul, to whom Zoilus succeeded, had given Money to the Emperor to remove him, in hopes of being restored to that See, as Procopius thinks in his Secret History. Howsoever it was, Vigilius who complained in his Sentence against Theodorus of the Deposition of Zoilus, and the Appointment of Apollinaris, acknowledges here Apollinaris to be a lawful Bishop by receiving his Confession of Faith; which shows the Inconstancy of this Pope. In short, Domnus the ancient Bishop of Antioch, Elias of Thessalonica, and all the other Bishops of the East, subscribed to this second Confession of Faith, in which they made the like distinction as in the former. In it they professed to adhere inviolably to the Faith decreed in the four first General Councils, and in the Letters of the Popes, and particularly in those of St. Leo; and afterwards they desire, that since it is necessary to decide the Difference about the three Chapters for restoring Peace to the Church, that this Matter may be handled in an Assembly of Bishops where the Pope shall preside, and where things shall be treated of with that Meekness and Moderation which becomes Bishops. Petimus praesidente nobis vestra Beatitudine, sub tranquilitate & Sacerdotali mansuetudine, communi tractatu eadem Capitula in medio proponenda quaeri & conferri, & finem quaestioni imponi.  
The Pope Vigilius accepted this Proposition by his Letter January the sixth of the same year; but he desires that this Council may meet in Italy, or in Sicily, and that the Bishops of Afric, and the other Western Bishops, may be cited to come there. The Emperor not being willing to pass this▪ Article, it was determined that at least he should Summon to the Council those Western Bishops, whom Vigilius should signify to him. In fine, sometime before Easter it was agreed, as Vigilius had said, That an equal number of Eastern and Western Bishops should be summoned to meet and treat of this Affair.  
The Emperor being vexed that the thing was delayed so long, and desiring to determine this Affair to his own advantage, caused the Council to meet on the third of 
a There it is, 4to Nonas, which is the 2d, but it must be corrected according to the Manuscript of Mr. Joly, 30 Nonas, which is the 3d, being a Sunday. This Correction is proved, because the Deputies sent to Vigilius, were sent to him on the day of this Conference, two days before the second Session.  May, in the year 553. Eutychius the Patriarch of Constantinople held the first place in it; after him Apollinaris the Patriarch of Alexandria, Domnus the Patriarch of Antioch, two Bishops deputed from the Bishop of Jerusalem, and 147 Bishops dependants upon these Patriarches 
b So it must be read and understood, in secretario venerabilis Episcopi hujus regiae Civitatis: & Secretarium, is properly the Tribunal of the Patriarch of Constantinople. There were two of them at Constantinople, as is observed by Mr. du Cange, whose death hath afflicted all learned Men, who cannot sufficiently regret so great a loss. .  
All these Bishops being assembled in the Episcopal Praetorium of Constantinople, Diodorus the archdeacon and chief of the Notaries, declared to them, That Theodorus, Gentleman of the Chamber, was sent in the Emperor's name to their Assembly, Eutychius having ordered that he should be admitted, he presented to the Synod a Letter from the Emperor. It was read in the Council. Here follow the Contents of it.  
Justinian intending to prove that the Emperors did always take care to maintain the Faith of the Church in its purity, relates what passed in the four first General Councils by their Authority: Neither does he forget what he had done himself to support the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon, against the Followers of Nestorius and Eutyches, and to drive out of the Churches those who would not receive it. He adds, That a little while ago some Nestorians desiring to insinuate their Doctrine, and not being able to do it under the name of Nestorius, consulted how to do it under the name of Theodorus the Master of Nestorius, who had asserted Blasphemies and Impieties, even greater than that Heretic: That they had also made use of the Writings of Theodoret against St. Cyril, and of the impious Letter of Ibas, which, they say, was approved in the Council of Chalcedon, to cover their Impiety under the name of this Council, their design being to order the matter so, that it shall no more be said, That the Word of God was made Man, and that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. That to put a stop to the progress of this Heresy, he had consulted the Bishops about the three Chapters, and had condemned them; but that some Persons, intending still to maintain them, notwithstanding this Condemnation, he found himself obliged to call this Assembly, that they might 
(c) Silenciers were considerable Officers of the Emperor, who entered into his secret Chamber, which was called Silentium, as who should say, the Gentlemen of the Chamber.  once more declare what their Opinion was about this subject: That Vigilius having come from Rome to Constan●●nople, had carefully examined them, and condemned and anathematised them many times, even in writing. That he had also discovered how firm and steadfast he was in this Judgement, by condemning Rusticus and Sobastianus, who after they had at first received the Constitution which he made upon this subject, did ●e●ract what they had done, and defend the three Chapters: That he had also written upon this subject to Valentinian Bishop of Scythia, and to Aurelian Bishop of the Church of Arles, which is s●y● the Emperor, the first Church of the Gauls: That after they were come to Constantinople, it was agreed with him, that a Council should be assembled to treat of this Affair together: That in consequence of this he had declared to him by his Magistrates, that he should be present at the Assembly of Bishops, to condemn there with the rest the three Chapters; or to defend them if he thought they could be maintained: But he had made Answer, That he would acquaint the Emperor with his thoughts about the three Chapters; That he exhorted them also to treat of this matter in the Synod. He declares afterwards, That he receives the Decrees of the four first General Councils; that he rejects the Errors which did not agree with their Doctrine; that he follows the holy Doctors of the Church, viz. St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, St. Basil, St. gregory N●zianzon, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Ambrose, Theophilus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril, St. Austin, Proc●●s, and St. Leo, and that he approved all that they had written for the Faith against Errors: That he owned for Ca●●oli●●s those who believed what was decreed by the four first General Councils, and ●aught by the Holy Fathers. But since the Heretics, who would vindicate Nestorius, dated to affirm 〈◊〉 the Councils of Chalced●n had approved Theodorus, he exhorts them upon this occasion, to ●●quire what was the Judgement of this Council, and of that at Ephesus; whether they did not anathematise the Creed of Theodorus, and whether he was not already condemned, and his name razed out of the Ecclesiastical Diptyches. He desires them also to examine, Whether we may not anathematise the dead, and whether the Examples of John and Flavianus does not prove that it may be done. In fine, He recommends to them the Examination of the Letter of Ibas, and the writings of Theodoret, and to compare the Doctrine with that of the Council of Chalcedon. He admonishes them above all things, to have nothing before their eyes but the fear of God, and the love of Truth, and to return him an Answer quickly, because when there is a long time taken to answer about a matter of Faith, 'tis a ●●gn that the Person is not well disposed to maintain the Truth: And that moreover, when a Question or Answer about the Faith is handled, we must neither consider who is the first, nor who is the last, but that he who is most ready to answer is most acceptable to God: Which words are plainly written against Vigilius.  
After the reading of this Letter, Theodorus was ordered to go forth; and the Letter of Eutychius to Vigilius, and the Answer of Vigilius to Eutychius were read, wherein the Pope had consented, that a Council should be held about the Affair of the three Chapters, and promised to be present at it. After which three Patriarches were sent Deputies to him, with the most considerable Bishops of the Council, to invite him to come to the Assembly. He answered them, That he could give no Answer to day, because of his Indisposition, but he would acquaint them to morrow what he thought of their Assembly. The Deputies came to report this to the Council, and the matter was delayed till to morrow. This is what passed on the first Collation or Conference of the Council held on the third of May.  
The second Conference was on the eighth of the same Month. The Deputies reported, That being to wait upon Pope Vigilius on the sixth of May to know his Answer, be told them, That he could not assemble with them, because there was a very great number of Eastern Bishops, and he had but a few We●●ern Bishops with him: That they had remonstrated to him, that he had promised and subsoribed that he would be present at their Assembly; that it was not necessary there should be at the Council a considerable number of Western Bishops; that there had been but few in the greater part of the preceding General Councils; that he had with him the Bishops of Afric and Illyria: That notwithstanding this, Vigilius could not resolve to come to their Assembly, but that he had proposed that the three Patriarches should come with a fourth Bishop, who should find with him three Western Bishops, and that they together might regulate these matters: That they had represented to him how indecent it would be, that three Patriarches should have only one Bishop with them, and that eight Bishops alone should make Synodical Decrees, while there was a very great number of them in the Assembly: That having pressed him to answer, he had desired of them twenty days delay, in which time he had promised to discover his mind and will, and if he should not do it, he would follow their Opinion: That they had made answer to him that it was not fit to abuse thus the Patience of the Emperor, and to give Scandal to the People: That now this Cause had continued already for the space of seven years; that they were urged in the Emperor's name to give a speedy Answer; that he ought not to refuse to come to the Assembly to treat there of this Affair with them: That at least he should promise them, that if he did not in twenty days remove the Scandal which he had given in defending the three Chapters, he should not separate from their Communion: That they could not draw from him any other Answer upon this Subject: That they had promised to report these Answers to the Emperor; that having done it, the Emperor had sent with them Magistrates to the Pope.  
These Magistrates appeared here at Council, and declared, That they had twice waited upon Vigilius in the Emperor's Name, and that he had told them, that he had no other Answer to give them, but what they might find at the Council, where he should have liberty to say what he would for the Prohibition of the three Chapters. That Vigilius had often answered them, that he would give his Opinion alone: That they had told him, that he had many times already condemned the three Chapters in private by himself, but the design of the Emperor was, that he should be present at Council, that there the Matter might receive a public decision by common consent. That as to the delay it should be granted him, and even a greater than he had desir▪ d, provided he would promise to treat of this Affair in the public Assembly; but if he would give his Decision in private, the Emperor would also know the private Judgement of other Bishops. That notwithstanding all this, the Pope continued firm in his first Resolution. This Report was confirmed by the Bishops that were deputed, and the Magistrates withdrew after they had exhorted the Bishops to determine this Affair speedily. When they had withdrawn, the Council ordered four Western Bishops to be cited, who were at Constantinople, viz. Primasius of the Province of Byzacena in Afric, Sabinianus and Projectus of Illyria, and Paul the Bishop of the second Justinianea. The first answered, That he would not come to the Synod where the Pope was not; and the others excused themselves because their Archbishop was not there. These Answers being reported to the Synod, it disapproved of their Conduct; and as to Primasius it declared, that they would handle him according to the rigour of the Canons, in due time and place: As to the other three, that they should have leave to go and find out their Archbishop Benenatus, who communicated with the Bishops of the Council, and who had also deputed a Bishop of his Diocese, called Phocas, who was present at the Council. This Matter being thus ordered, they put off the Affair till the morrow.  
They did not again debate the Question about the three Chapters, but only made a Profession, That they do embrace the Faith of the four General Councils, and follow the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers. This is all that there is in the third Conference. They use almost the same words that the Emperor made use of.  
In the fourth Conference held on the twelfth of May, the Examination of the Affair for which the Council was assembled, begun, by the Reading of many Extracts taken out of the Books of Theodorus of Mopsuesta. The Creed was also read which was attributed to him, and is reported in the Council of Ephesus. When this was ended, the Bishops without any further Examination did all cry out, Anathema against the Writings, against the Creed, and against the Person of Theodorus, an Anathema to those who do not Anathematise him. After many Acclamations of this kind, among which it was not forgotten to wish a long Life to the Emperor, it was determined, That though the Blasphemies of Theodorus which they had just now read, were more than sufficient to procure his Condemnation, yet it was convenient to inquire further, what there was against him: which was put off to another Assembly.  
It was held the next day according to some, according to others it was delayed to the seventeenth of the same Month. However this were, in this Session were read the Testimonies which could be found against Theodorus of Mopsuesta. Here follows a Catalogue of them. 1. Extracts out of a Book of St. Cyril against Theodorus. 2. A Libel presented to Proclus of Constantinople, by the Priests and Deacons who called themselves the Deputies of the Churches of Armenia, Perfis, and other Nations, who accuse him of having preached in their Houses Nestorianism. 3. An Extract out of the Answer of Proclus, who condemns sufficiently in general the Error of Nestorius, and blames those who sow bad Doctrines, yet without saying any thing against Theodorus. 4. Five Letters of St. Cyril against Theodorus. 5. An Extract out of the Ecclesiastical History of Hesychius a Priest of Jerusalem, who affirms, That Theodorus of Mopsuesta is he to whom St. Chrysostom wrote two Books, persuading him to forsake his disorderly Courses, who accuses him of being void of all Piety, and denying that the Word was truly Incarnate. 6. Two Laws of the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian against the followers of Nestorius, where Theodorus is joined with this Heretic. 7. A Letter of Theophilus against those who maintain the Heresy of Nestorius, where it was pretended that he speaks of Theodorus. 8. A Letter of St. Gregory Nyssen to Theophilus, against them who writing againg Apollinarius, fall into the Error of Nestorius. 9 Some Extracts out of the Writings of Theodoret, which prove that Theodorus was accused by St. Cyril. 10. An Extract out of the Treatise of St. Cyril against Theodorus, where he commends the diligence of this Author, and condemns his impious Doctrine.  
After this, some Letters of St. Gregory Nazianzen addressed to a Bishop called Theodorus, were examined; and it was proved both by the Letters themselves, and by the Testimony of the Bishops, that they were written to Theodorus of Tyana, and not to Theodorus of Mopsuesta.  
Lastly, This other Question was debated, Whether we may condemn the dead. At first two passages of St. Cyril of an indefinite sense were recited, which proved nothing. But Sextilianus Bishop of Afric, being deputed from Primosus Bishop of Carthage, related many passages of St. Austin to show, that the dead may be condemned, who were not condemned during their life. Afterwards Benignus Bishop of Heraclea, being deputed from the Bishop of Thessalonica, alleged some Examples of this Practice very unlikely; and added, that Theodorus himself had been condemned after his death, by Rambulas Bishopof Edessa.  
This Question being thus decided, a Letter of St. Cyril was examined, which was supposed to be written to John of Antioch, wherein he says, That he ought not to separate from the Communion of Theod●rus; and some pretend that it was convicted of Forgery, by repeating many other Letters of St. Cyril; wherein he does openly condemn Theodorus. To these Testimonies of St. Cyril was added that of Proclus of Constantinople, and the Testimonies of St. Basil, and St. John Chrysostom, which appeared favourable to Theodorus, were evaded, by observing that the Fathers did some times praise Heretics thro' Ignorance.  
One of the chief Monuments inserted into this Conference is an Enquiry made by a Council held in the year 550, to know whether the name of Theodorus of Mopsuesta was in the Diptyches. Here the whole Acts are related, at the beginning of which there are two Letters of the Emperor Justinian; one to John of Anazarbus, wherein he gives him order to call the Synod; and the other to Cosmas Bishop of Mopsuesta, wherein he acquaints him that he had given him this Order. Eight Bishops of the Province were present there, together with John of Justinianople their Metropolitan. The Priests, the elder Inhabitants, and the Churchwardens were sent for. In the first place the Diptyches were demanded of the Churchwarden. He presented those which he now made use of, and two Rolls more ancient. In them were read the names of the Bishops of Mopsuesta, since the Faith of Nice was restored to Mopsuesta. The name of one Theodorus was found in two of these Diptyches, and it was not found in the last. This place of History informs us both of the Succession of Bishops, and of the Form of the Dyptyches. It is expressed in these words: Pro requiescentibus Episcopis Protogene, Zozimo, Olympio, Cyrillo, Thomas, Bassiano, Joanne, Auxentio, Palatino, Jacobo, Theodoro, Simione. Afterwards the Priests and ancient People are asked, and they do all unanimously depose, That they have never heard the name of the old Theodorus read in the Diptyches, but that they do well remember that of Cyril; and that the Theodorus, whose name was in the Diptyches, was another Theodorus of Galatia, who died about three years ago. The Bishops made an Act of these things, and wrote of them to the Emperor, and to the Pope Vigilius.  
This Conference of the fifth Council ended with the reading of the Extracts taken out of the Books of Theodoret, which are thought to favour too much the Error of Nestorius. In them was found a Letter addressed to John of Antioch, which was pretended to be against the Memory of St. Cyril. Some have thought it supposititious, as well because of the sharp style wherein it was written, as because it is probable that St. Cyril did not die till after John. Mr. de Marca thinks that Domnus should be put instead of John; but it is not certain that he speaks of St. Cyril in this Letter; on the contrary, he of whom Theodoret speaks was a Bishop in the Diocese of Antioch. Procurandum, says he to John of Antioch, & oportet tuam sanctitatem hanc suscipere festinantiam, & Jubere Collegio mortuos asportantium, lapidem aliquem maximum & gravissimum sepulchro imponere, ne iterum perveniret.  
The sixth Conference on the nineteenth of May, begun with the reading of the Letter of Ibas to Maris of Persis, written upon occasion of the Differences which were between St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Eastern Bishops. In it he supposes that Nestorius and St. Cyril had fallen into two opposite Errors: That the latter had affirmed there was but one Nature in Jesus Christ, and that Nestorius having denied that the Virgin was the Mother of God, had given occasion to believe that he followed the Sentiment of Paulus Samosatenus: That the Doctrine of the Church is, that there are two Natures and one Person in Jesus Christ. That the Emperor had assembled a Council at Ephesus about the Contests between St. Cyril and Nestorius: That St. Cyril being arrived at Ephesus before John of Antioch and the Orientalists, had procured the condemnation of Nestorius, and the approbation of his 12 Chapters: That John of Antioch and the Orientalists being arrived, had done the quite contrary by condemning the Chapters of St. Cyril, & deposing him, and excommunicating the Bishops who complied with his desires; that both of them had withdrawn without being reconciled; that thus the Eastern Bishops had continued in a Separation from those of the other Dioceses; that this had given a great Scandal to the Church, and that many Bishops under a pretence of being zealous for the Faith, cherished Divisions, and made cruel Wars one upon another; that among the rest a Bishop in their Quarters (of Edessa) whom he calls a Tyrant, had cruelly reproached the Memory of Theodorus, being moved by a secret hatred which he had to him: That the Emperor desiring to put an end to these Commotions, had persuaded John of Antioch to be reconciled to St. Cyril: That he had sent to him Paul Bishop of Emesa, with a Confession of Faith, and an Order to Communicate with him, if he would consent to it; and if he would Anathematise those who said that the Divinity of Jesus Christ had suffered, and that the Divinity and Humanity are in him only one Nature: That God had touched the heart of this Egyptian, that he had satisfied the desires of John of Antioch, and that these two Bishops being reconciled, Peace was restored to the Church. These are the principal Points contained in the Letter of Ibas, which indeed is not written in a very respectful manner towards St. Cyril, but it contains nothing but what is very Orthodox.  
Afterwards was read a Letter of Proclus, wherein it appeared that Ibas had been accused of translating into Syriack, and publishing the Nestorian Propositions which Proclus had condemned, and which he had sent to John of Antioch, that he might be obliged to retract them, and to make a Profession of the Faith of the Church. After the reading of this Letter, Theodorus added, That after the death of John, the same Accusers of Ibas addressed themselves to Domnus his Successor, and that Domnus refusing to hearken to them, they came to wait upon the Emperor and Flavian the Bishop, Successor to Proclus in the See of Constantinople, who had referred this Affair. 'Tis remarkable that this Reference is attributed as well to the Emperor as to the Patriarch. Precibus susceptu, tam divinae re●●rdationis Theodasius, quam Flavianus sanctae memoriae, delegaverlint examinationem, who had referred, I say, the decision of this Accusation to Photius of Tyre, and Eutycbius of Berytus, and appointed for putting this Order in Execution on behalf of the Emperor Damascius, and on behalf of Flavian Eulogius the Deacon, who caused Ibas and his Accusers to appear before the two Bishops that were nominated: That Ibas being accused of taxing St. Cyril and his Chapters of Heresy, and of despising the Council of Ephesus, as having judged without mature Examination of the Matter under consideration, declared, That since the Reconciliation he had never spoken ill of St. Cyril, but only before he was reconciled to John of Antioch. The Judges ordained that Ibas should return to Edessa, and that he should Anathematise Nestorius, and receive the Council of Ephesus as a lawful Council, and of equal Authority with that of Nice: That Ibas refusing to obey this Sentence, was deposed as well as Domnus, and that even Nonnus, who was ordained in his room, was present at the Council of Chalcedon, as a lawful Bishop: That in this Council of Chalcedon his Letter was read, but not at all approved; that on the contrary the decision of Photius and Eustathius was confirmed, who obliged Ibas to make Profession of the contrary to that which was affirmed in his Letter; and that the greater part of the Bishops had received Ibas as a Penitent, in consequence of the Declaration which he had made, that he condemned Nestorius, and was troubled with remorse for the evil he had spoken of St. Cyril. After Theodorus had finished this Relation, than were read the Passages of the Acts of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, wherein they treat of the Faith of the Church about the Incarnation, and after that the Decree of Faith made by the Council of Chalcedon, was compared with some places of the Letter of Ibas, and it was pretended that there were manifest Contradictions between them. Indeed there are such found in that part which concerns the Memory of St. Cyril, and the Authority of the Council of Ephesus, and it may be also in some ways of expression; but as to the substance, the Doctrine is the same. Nevertheless, here the Letter of Ibas was condemned as Heretical and Blasphemous; and this Conference ended with the same kind of Acclamations as the former.  
While the Council was thus preparing to condemn the three Chapters, Pope Vigilius sent his Opinion in Writing to the Emperor, as he had promised: This Act is called Constitutum. After he has related what had passed since it was agreed to hold a Council about the three Chapters, and the Reasons which he had for refusing to be present in the Assembly of the Eastern Bishops, he transcribes sixty Extracts out of the Books of Theodorus, which were condemned in the third Session of this Council, and condemns them in the bad sense which they are capable of. Yet he spares the Person of Theodorus because he died in the Communion of the Church; and pretends that in this he follows the Conduct and Example of St. Cyril, of Proclus, and of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. He maintains that there is a Canon against condemning those who die in Communion; and shows that it is the Practice of the Roman Church, by reciting the Authorities of the Popes, St. Leo and Gelasius, who affirm that we can neither condemn nor absolve the dead. He adds, that the Roman Church had not derogated from this Custom in the Affair of St. Chrysostom, nor in that of Flavianus, since they died in her Communion. He quotes also an Example of Denys of Alexandria, taken out of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, wherein it appears that this Bishop had condemned the Doctrine of Nepos, about the Reign of Jesus Christ on Earth for a thousand years, without meddling with his Person, because he died in the Communion of the Church. As to the Writings of Theoret, he thinks, That since the Council of Chalcedon required nothing more of him, but only to Anathematise Nestorius, it was not convenient for them to do any thing more against him, and that it was sufficient to condemn in general the Writings and Doctrines that favoured the Nestorians and Eutychians, without mentioning the Writings of those Bishops who died in the Communion of the Church. Lastly, That as to Ibas, the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon having received and approved him, after the reading of his Letter, which was Orthodox, although by a mistake in matter of Fact it condemned St. Cyril, his Letter could not be condemned as Heretical, without violating the Decision of that Council. Lastly, Vigilius confirms the Authority of that Council, and exhorts the Emperor to leave things in the same state as that Council left them, without changing or adding any thing to it. He forbids all Persons, by the Authority of the Holy Apostolical See to say or write any thing against what he had now proposed concerning the three Chapters. This Decree was signed by nineteen Bishops, and is dated the fourteenth of May.  
The Emperor, without being stopped by this Decision, caused the Examination of the Affair of the three Chapters to be still continued, and that he might oppose the Authority of Vigilius to Vigilius himself, he caused three Letters of Vigilius to be read in the seventh Conference of this Council, wherein he expressly approved the Condemnation of the three Chapters, and condemned them himself. The first of these three Letters is to Rusticus, and to Sebastianus a Deacon, whom he sharply reproves, because they had blamed his Conduct for having condemned the three Chapters: The second is to Valerian Bishop of Tomi; and the third to Aurelian Bishop of Arles.  
Mr. Baluzius has published from a Manuscript of Mr. Joly two other Letters of the same Pope; addressed to the Emperor and the Empress, wherein he declares that he is no Heretic, and that he never was; that he demands the Rights and Prerogatives due to his See; that he will by no means defend Heretics, and that he Anathematizes the Letter of Ibas, the Writings of Theodoret, and the Person of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, and that he believes there is in Jesus Christ only one Substance, one Person, and one Operation.  
These Letters were produced in the sixth Council at Sess. 13 and 14, but the Pope's Legates accused them of Forgery; and after Examination of the Matter, they were found to be in the Greek Copy of the fifth Council, which was in the Archieves of the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople, but they were not to be found in the Latin Copy, and it appeared that the Patriarch Paul had caused them to be translated and copied out in a new Roll, which he had added to the ancient Version of this Council. Justinian makes mention of these Letters in his Epistle to the fifth Council. Lastly, Facundus and Victor do assure us, That Vigilius had condemned the three Chapters to please the Emperor and Empress, according to his Oath before his Ordination; insomuch that it was looked upon as a thing most evident, that these Letters were Vigilius'. But it is not so certain that they were read and inserted into the fifth Council, and it may be that they were afterwards added. The same Judgement is to be made of the Oath to condemn the three Chapters taken by Vigilius in the presence of Theodorus of Caesarea, and Patricius Cethegus, which is also found in the Manuscript of Mr. Joly, and which Mr. Baluzius has also published, to supply the omission of those who had the care of publishing the Councils, who passed it by, although they had seen the Manuscript of Mr. Joly.  
At the same Conference there was also read by the Emperor's Order, a Letter which was written about some ecclesiastics, who had solemnly carried about in the Church of Cyrus an Image of Theodoret, and had made a Commemoration of him, of Diodorus, of Theodorus and Nestorius. By this Letter the Emperor ordered Hypatius to inform himself of the Matter of Fact, and to inquire whether Sergius Bishop of Cyrus had not approved this proceeding. 'Tis said, that this being found that he had done it, Sergius was turned out of his Church. After the reading of this Letter, the Fathers commended the good Intentions of the Emperor, who shall be, say they, rewarded by the Divine Goodness in another Life, and for which end we offer up our Prayers in this Life. The finishing of the Affair about the three Chapters was put off to another day.  
There is also in the Manuscript of Mr. Joly a Letter of the Emperor against Vigilius, wherein he forbids to place his Name in the Diptyches. This Letter being dated July the fourteenth, is posterior to this Conference which was on the six and twentieth of May, and to the next, which was on the second of June; which proves evidently that the Letter was never read in the Council, but inserted afterwards when it was reduced into Acts.  
In the eighth and last Conference, after they have proved the necessity of Ecclesiastical Assemblies and Conferences for the Decision of Matters of Faith, by the Example of the Apostles, and the four first Councils, they make a Recapitulation in a few words of all that had been done till that time.  
This Recapitulation being ended, they made Profession of receiving the four first General Councils, and of Anathematising the Errors and Persons whom they condemned, and to whom were added the Person and the Writings of Theodorus, the Writings of Theodoret, and the Letter of Ibas, who are Anathematised, together with those who undertake to write in Defence of these three Articles.  
This General Decree was followed with fourteen anathemas against many particular Errors, chief about the Incarnation. The three last contain yet more formally the Condemnation of the three Chapters, whose Defenders are also anathematised.  
Mr. Baluzius has also published fifteen other Anathematisms against the Errors of the Origenians concerning the Souls of Men. If it were evident that these Chapters were made by the fifth General Council, it would be passed all doubt that the Affair of Origen was decided there. But this is a Question which has difficulties on both sides: 'Tis certain that in the eight Conferences of the Council, there is no mention of any other Business but only that of the three Chapters, and that the Affair of Origen was not at all enquired into. Now there is no probability that after these three were held two others Assemblies, as some suppose without any foundation; and it is so much the less probable, because Evagrius, who has made an Abridgement of this Council, says nothing of them in Canon 11. of the eighth Conference, and because Origen is placed in the number of Heretics already condemned, and Theodorus speaks of him in the same manner in Conference 5. But on the other side, the seventh General Council, and all the Greek Historians, do testify, That the Cause of Origen, of Evagrius, and of Didymus, was decided in the fifth Council, and that their Writings were there examined and condemned. Yet 'tis easy to reconcile this apparent Contradiction, by reflecting on what we have said after Liberatus: That in the year 540 the Emperor made an Edict against the Writings of Origen, and caused his Doctrine to be condemned in a Synod held at Constantinople under Mennas. In this Synod it was that the Cause of Origen, of Didymus and Evagrius was examined, and the Acts of this Council being joined to those of the Council held for the Condemnation of the three Chapters, as well as the Acts of the Synod of Mennas against Anthimus, Severus, Peter and Zoaras; what was done by these three Councils, was looked upon as done by one and the same, to which the name of the fifth General Council was given. Photius sufficiently discovers this in his first Letter to Michael Duke of Bulgaria, where 'tis said that Mennas and Eutychius presided one after another in the fifth Council, and that in it the three Chapters were condemned, together with Origine and Didymus, Anthimus, Severus, and Zoaras. The same Condemnations are attributed to the fifth Council in the Profession of the Popes, which is related in the Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, published by Father Garneus. Sophronius the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Synodical Letter to Sergius, which is related in the sixth Council, speaking of the fifth Council, places the Condemnation of Origen and Evagrius, before that of the three Chapters, which discovers that it was done in the preceding Council. Constantinus Pogonatus confirmed the sixth Council, Act 18. Cedrenus and the other Greek Writers follow the same Order. Lastly, Evagrius, and the other Greek Historians, who say that Origen was condemned in the fifth Council, suppose that the Edict of Justinian against Origen was addressed to this Council: Now 'tis certain that this was to the Synod held under Mennas, before that Vigilius was at Constantinople. 'Tis manifest therefore, that what they say of the Condemnation of Origen in the fifth Council, concerns what passed in the Council held in 540 under Mennas, which made a part of the fifth Council. And in effect, Binius observes that he found in a Manuscript Acts of the Council held against Anthimus, entitled, Acta Synodi V Const. and in the Latin Collections, whatsoever concerns these three Synods, is attributed to the fifth General Council, which is said to have been held under Silverius and Vigilius. The same is to be said of the Greek Canons against Origen, which are attributed to the fifth Council in the Title, because they belong to the Council held under Mennas against Origen.  
Vigilius refusing to appear in the Synod, and much more to approve its Decision, was banished by the Emperor's Order, who commanded, as we have already observed, that his Name should be razed out of the Diptyches. But this Pope being always inconstant according to his old want, quickly changed his Opinion and Resolution; For on the eighth of December he wrote a Letter to Eutychius, wherein he blamed the Conduct he had observed, in refusing to be present at the Council, and retracted what he had written in Defence of the three Chapters, which he condemned in very sharp terms, and pronounced an Anathema against those who should defend them. Some thought that this Letter was supposititious, because it is very submissive, and Vigilius speaks in it very much to his own disadvantage. But this Conjecture is very weak. His natural Inconstancy, the state to which he was reduced, the desire he had to come out of Exile, the necessity of satisfying the Emperor, etc. might determine him to write this Letter. Who knows also but it might be suggested to him by Eutychius or Theodorus? Moreover, it contains no sign of Forgery. It was transcribed more than 400 years ago by a Greek Copy from a Manuscript of the Library of the Church of Rome, where it had been kept since the year 753. Besides, it is proved by the Testmonies of Photius, and by a Title which is found in an Ancient Arabic Collection, that Pope Vigilius approved what was done by the fifth General Council about the Affair of the three Chapters. This seems also to be the sense of the Letter of Pope Pelagius to the Bishops of Istria. And moreover, Justinian had never suffered him to return from Banishment, if he had not submitted to his Will. But although the Letter be the first Act of Consent given by Vigilius to the fifth Council, yet it is not the only one: For we have one much longer and more authentic, published a little while ago by Mr. Baluzius from a Manuscript of the Library of Mr. Colbert. It is a most precious and excellent Monument; 'tis dated Febr. 23. in the year 554. 'Tis probable that Vigilius composed it after he was returned from his Banishment. There he recites in the first place the Acts of the fifth Session of the Council of Chalcedon, and the Letter of St. Leo. After this he repeats what passed there upon occasion of the Letter of Ibas, and endeavours to show, against what was established in the preceding Constitution, that the Council believed the Letter of Ibas to be Heretical, and refutes the Reasons which might be alleged to prove the contrary. After he has made a long Dissertation upon this first Chapter, he enlarges much less upon the Condemnation of Theodorus, from which he did not much differ before, and says very little of the Writings of Theodoret. Lastly, He anathematizes Theodorus, the Letter of Ibas, and the Writings of Theodoret, and all those who would maintain them, and declares all that he had done and written himself in their Defence to be null and void.  
This is the last Constitution of Vigilius about the three Chapters. He continued some time after in the East, and died in the year 558, as he was returning to Italy. Pelagius was ordained in his room, whom the Emperor called back from Banishment he had endured for defending the three Chapters, after he had promised to condemn them if he was chosen Pope. The Emperor spared not the other Bishops in the West who would not sign the Condemnation of the three Chapters. He caused Reparatus Bishop of Carthage to be turned out, and Primasius to be ordained in his room, who presently condemned the three Chapters. This Man persecuted the African Bishops who would not communicate with him, and prevailed so far, that he made the greater part of the Africans to consent to it. In Illyria the Bishops were divided in their Opinions. Benenatus Archbishop of Thessalonica, condemned the three Chapters: The greater part of the other Bishops of Illyria defended them, and even separated from the Communion of Benenatus upon this occasion. The Bishops of Italy did not much concern themselves in this Controversy; where only some Deacons and Priests defended the three Chapters, who for the most were banished. The Bishops of Tuscany resisted long enough, as we learn from the sixth Letter of Pelagius. In the Gauls there was none almost but Dacus, the Bishop of Milan, who was concerned in this Affair, and as he had followed Vigilius in defending the three Chapters, so when he saw him abandon the Cause, he yielded: But the Bishops of Istria and Liguria, who were under the Dominion of the Lombard's, fearing no Persecution from the Emperor, maintained the three Chapters with much boldness.  
Thus I have given an account in a few words of every thing almost that was done about the Affair of the three Chapters in the East and in the West: where you may see the Church in a wonderful Confusion for a matter of a very small consequence. For what was the advantage of condemning the three Chapters? and why were they defended with so much stiffness? Those who condemned them, and those who maintained them, made Profession of the same Faith, they acknowledged the same Councils, they protested that they adhered to the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon. Why then did they not live in Peace with one another? Why do they Condemn, why do they Excommunicate, why do they Persecute one another? It had been much better for the Church, if Theodorus had never invented the Condemnation of the three Chapters, and if the Emperor Justinian had never resolved to have them condemned by all the Bishops, whether they would or no: Then the Church had enjoyed a Profound Peace, than many holy Bishops both of the East and West had never been removed from the Government of their Diocese, to attend frivolous Disputes; many great Persons, who were capable of doing very good Service to the Church, had never been banished, persecuted and forced away. Lastly, Then the People had not been scandalised with seeing such a deadly Division in the Church, and so great Animosities among its Pastors. If any ask who were to be blamed at the bottom, those who condemned, or those who defended the three Chapters, it is a Question very intricate, and very difficult to be resolved: For if it was so obscure ●nd knotty at the time when it was debated, with what darkness and difficulties will it not be enveloped now? yet it may be, that we being free from those Passions which disturbed the Minds of Men at that time, may judge of it more sound than they. But besides, that these Passions are not yet extinct, and Prejudice makes us engage with some warmth for the Interest of the Dead, we have not now the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, which caused a great Contest; neither have we a perfect knowledge how the Churches stood effected with respect to Theodoret and Ibas. Nevertheless let us try to say something about it which appears to us most reasonable, without obliging any Person to submit to our Judgement.  
First, As to the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, 'tis certain that they were full of very harsh Expressions, and which seemed to favour the Opinion of those who admitted two Persons in Jesus Christ. But as he wrote before the Condemnation of the Error of Nestorius, it seems that these Expressions should be pardoned him, especially since the like are found in other Authors, and he in other places professed to acknowledge one Person and two Natures in Jesus Christ.  
As to his Person, supposing that his Dogmes were damnable, and that he had asserted manifest Impieties; It may be asked, Whether it were lawful to condemn and anathematise him after his Death, who deceased in the Communion of the Church? 'Tis certain that the Church cannot, properly speaking, condemn nor absolve the Dead; i. e. remove them from, or restore them to the Communion of the Church: For this Communion consisting in the Participation of the Sacraments, and in other Offices which the Faithful do to one another, 'tis impossible to refuse or grant this Communion to the Dead. All that can be done in this Case, is to signify that Respect or Hatred is due to their Memory, by pronouncing an Anathema against them, or by declaring that they were unjustly Anathematised during their Life; by putting their Name into the Diptyches of the Church, or by causing their Name to be blotted out of the Ecclesiastical Tables. There is no doubt but in this sense the Church can Absolve and Condemn the Dead, by restoring them to, or removing them from this kind of Communion, which, properly speaking, is no true Communion. But whether she ought to do it or no, this is not so very clear. The Practice of the Church of Afric was for it, that of the Church of Rome was against it. It seems to be more Human and Natural, not to meddle with the Memory of the Dead, and to leave them all that Reputation wherewith they departed out of this Life: But than is it also just to suffer the Memory of an innocent Person to continue under Reproach, because he was unjustly condemned in his Life-time? Is it fit to suffer a wicked and impious Person to enjoy that Reputation which he never deserved? I think that when the thing is clear and evident, we should declare for the Truth: But in a doubtful Case it is better to leave things as they are.  
As to the Chapter concerning the Letter of Ibas, there is no doubt but that it is reproachful against St. Cyril, and even against the Council of Ephesus; but then we must not condemn it as Heretical upon that account. The Council of Chalcedon did not formally approve it; but tolerated it, and looked upon it as a Proof of the Orthodox Faith of Ibas, since at the same time that he did most oppose St. Cyril, he made this Profession, That there was but one Person and two Natures in Jesus Christ.  
As to the Writings of Theodoret, they ought not to be condemned as Heretical: For though this Author did never approve the Anathematisms of St. Cyril, and had defended the Person of Nestorius; yet he always rejected his Error. And therefore the most that he can be accused of, is his being too partial, his not understanding aright the Sentiment of St. Cyril; but he cannot be accused of being an Heretic. And indeed, if John of Antioch, and the Orientalists, were not obliged to approve the Anathematisms of St. Cyril, if they were not forced to retract what they had said and written before the Union, why is Theodoret treated more harshly. Lastly, The Council of Chalcedon having never required Theodoret to retract his Writings, it was needless to condemn them.  
Nevertheless it must be confessed, That the fifth Council having condemned the three Chapters, and the greatest part of all the Bishops in the World, having subscribed this Condemnation, it was convenient for Peace-sake to agree to it, and that those behaved themselves very ill, who did not only obstinately refuse to subscribe this Condemnation, but also separated from the Communion of those who signed it. For nothing is more to be desired then Peace; and many times it is very fit to sacrifice out private Interests for the Repose and Tranquality of the Church.   

The fifth Council of Arles. 
The fifth Council of Arles.   
SApaudus Bishop of Arles held this Council at the end of June in the year 554, wherein were made seven Canons.  
The first, That in the Province there should be a Conformity, as to the Ceremony of Offerings, to the usage of the Church of Arles.  
The second, That the Monasteries and Jurisdiction over the Monks shall belong to the Bishop in whose Territory the Monasteries are situate.  
The third, That the Abbots shall not remove from their Monastery without leave from their Bishop.  
The fourth, That a Priest cannot Depose a Deacon or a Sub-deacon without the Bishop's knowledge.  
The fifth, That Bishops shall take care of the Nunneries that are in their City, and the Abbess can do nothing against the Rule.  
The sixth, That the Clergy cannot leave the Revenues of the Church in a worse condition than they found them.  
The seventh, That a Bishop shall not Ordain the Clergymen of another Bishop.   

The second Council of Paris in the Year 555.  
THe same Sapaudus held another Council the next year, consisting of six and twenty Bishops, at 
The second Council of Paris 555.  Paris, wherein the Deposition of Saffaracus Bishop of Paris was confirmed.   

The third Council of Paris.  
THe Archbishops of Bourges, of Rouen, and of Bourdeaux were present at this Council, together with thirteen Bishops. It was held under King Childebert towards the year 557. It made ten 
The third Council of Paris.  Canons.  
The first is a long Canon against those who detain the Possessions belonging to the Church.  
The second is against those who invade the Possessions of the Church.  
The third is against those Bishops who seek after the Possessions of another.  
The fourth forbids to marry the Widow of his Brother, his Father, or his Uncle, his Wife's Sister, her Daughter-in-law, her Aunt, the Daughter of her Daughter-in-law, etc.  
The fifth is against those who take away by force, or desire in marriage Virgins consecrated to God.  
The sixth forbids, to desire of the Prince to grant Maids or Widows against the Consent of their Kinsfolk.  
The seventh renews the Prohibition of receiving any Person Excommunicated by his Bishop.  
The eighth forbids to constitute any one Bishop over the People against their will. It Ordains that there shall be a Choice made with perfect freedom by the People and the Clergy; that he shall not be appointed by the Order of the Prince, nor ordained against the Judgement of the Metropolitan.  
The ninth Ordains that the Children of Slaves to whom Liberty has been granted on condition that they pay some Service, shall be obliged to Discharge this Office to which they were designed.  
The tenth is, That these Canons shall be signed by the Bishops.   

The Edict of Clotharius. 
The Edict of Clotharius.   
BY this Edict the King grants to the Bishops the Power of hindering the Execution of unjust Judgements given by the Judges. It forbids any to use his Authority for taking away by force, or marrying Maids and Widows. It forbids also to marry Virgins consecrated to God. It secures to the Church the Donations that are made to it, and grants it Exemption from Taxes. It exempts Clergymen from Public Offices, and confirms all the Grants made to the Church by his Predecessors.   

The first Council of Bracara.  
Lucretius', Metropolitan of Bracara, held this Council of seven Bishops on the first day of May in the year 563, under King Ariamirus. Father L'abbee reckons it the second, but that which he places first is a Forgery. 
The first Council of Bracara.   
The Bishops begun with rejecting the Errors of the Priscilianists, by causing the Letter of St. Leo to Turribius, and the Canons of the first Council of Toledo, to be read; and by making seventeen Propositions against the Errors of Manichaeus and Priscilian. They read afterwards a Letter from the Holy See addressed to Profaturus, and made two and twenty Canons concerning Discipline.  
The first is, That the same way of singing the Matins and Vespers shall be every where observed, and that the private Customs of Monasteries shall not be mixed with the Usage of the Church.  
The second, That on solemn days the same Lessons shall be read.  
The third, That the Bishops shall not salute the People after a different manner from the Priests, and that they shall only say, The Lord be with you; That the People shall answer, And with your Spirit: That this is the Practice of the whole East, which is of Apostolical Tradition.  
The fourth, That in Divine Service that Order shall be observed which Profuturus has received from the Holy See.  
The fifth, That the Usage of the Church of Bracara shall be observed in the Ceremonies of Baptism.  
The sixth, That the Bishops of the Province shall be ranked according to their Antiquity.  
The seventh, That the Revenues of the Church shall be divided into three Parts; That the first shall be for the Bishop, the second for the Clergy, and the third for maintaining the Church and the Light: That the Arch Priest or Archdeacon shall give an account of this last to the Bishop.  
The eighth forbids Bishops to Ordain a Clergyman of another Bishop without his leave in writing.  
The ninth Ordains, That for the future Deacons shall wear their Stole upon their Shoulders, and not hid it under their Tunick, that they may be distinguished from Subdeacons.  
The tenth forbids Readers, who are not Ordained Subdeacons, to carry the holy Vessels.  
The eleventh forbids them to sing in the Church in a Secular Habit, and to suffer their Mustuche's to grow.  
The twelfth declares, That they must not sing any Hymn in the Church but only the Psalms, and Passages of the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament.  
The thirteenth forbids Laymen to enter into the Sanctuary to receive the Communion.  
The fourteenth to remove all suspicion of being Priscilianists, Ordains the Clergymen, who eat no meat, to taste of the Herbs which are boiled with Meat.  
The fifteenth is, That none shall communicate with a Clergyman excommunicated by his Bishop.  
The sixteenth, That no Commemoration shall be made of those who lay violent Hands on themselves, and that their Corpse shall not be conducted to Burial with singing of Psalms: That the same shall be observed as to those who are condemned to death as Criminals.  
The seventeenth, That no Commemoration shall be made, no Psalms shall be sung, for the Catechumen that die without Baptism.  
The eighteenth, That none shall be interred in the Churches, but without them, and round about the Walls.  
The nineteenth forbids Priests to bless the Chrysm, or to consecrate the Altars.  
The twentieth ordains that none shall be promoted to the Priesthood, who has not been at least one year a Reader.  
The one and twentieth, That the Alms of the Faithful, and the Offerings for the Dead, shall be collected by a trusty Clergyman, who shall divide them equally amongst the Clergy once or twice 
The Council held at Santones.  a year.  
The two and twentieth forbids to violate the ancient Canons, and those that are made in this Council.   

The Council held at Santones.  
GRegory of Tours relates that Leontius Archbishop of Bourdeaux, held a Council at Santones, wherein he deposed Emerius, who had taken an Order from King Clotarius, to get himself ordained Bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan. Heraclius was made choice of to succeed him; but Charibertus maintained him who was ordained by his Father's order. This was done in 563.   

The second Council of Lions.  
THis Council was composed of the Archbishops of Lions and Vienna, and twelve Bishops, and was held under the Sons of Clotarius in the year 567. It made six Canons.  
By the first it is ordered, That the Differences of the Bishops of one Province shall be determined 
The second Council of Lions.  by the Judgement of the Metropolitan, and the Bishops of that Province; and that if the Bishops who are at odds be of different Provinces, than two Metropolitans shall accommodate the matter.  
The second orders that all the Donations made to Churches shall continue good, though they be not drawn up with all the Formalities which the Laws require.  
The third declares, That those who take or detain Freemen by force shall be Excommunicated.  
The fourth, That he who is Excommunicated by his Bishop, shall not be received into Communion until he be Absolved.  
The fifth, That Bishops shall not take away from the Clergy the Revenues that are given them by their Predecessors.  
The sixth, That Litanies shall be said in all the Churches and Parishes in the first Week of September, as before Ascension-day.   

The second Council of Tours in the Year 567.  
THis Council was not very numerous, for it consisted only of seven Bishops, and the Archbishops of Tours and Rouen; but it made seven and twenty great Canons. 
The second Council of Tours 567.   
The first renews the Order for holding Provincial Synods twice every year. It decrees Excommunication against those Bishops who shall not come to them when they shall be Summoned.  
The second ordains Bishops, who are at difference, to determine them amicably by Judges which they shall choose.  
These are the words of the third, Ut Corpus Domini in Altari, non imaginario ordine, sed Crucis titulo componatur. To this Canon different senses are given. That which seems to me most natural is, That the Parcels of the Eucharist which are upon the Altar, shall not be ranged according to the fancy of him that Celebrates, but in the form of a Cross, as is to be seen in the ancient rangings of them. Some think that the Council ordains that the Body of Christ shall not be placed upon the Altar in the rank of Images, but under the Cross. This sense does not appear to me so natural.  
The fourth forbids Laymen to place themselves behind the Altar with the Clergy, while the Office is a Reading; but allows them to enter into the Sanctuary, and even the Women to pray in private, and receive the Communion.  
The fifth orders that every Parish shall maintain its own Poor.  
The ●…th, That no Le●… of R●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be received, bad Fo●… the Bishops.  
The seventh, 〈◊〉 the Bishop cannot depose an Abbot, now an Aro●● Priest, without an Assembly of Priests and Abbots.  
The eighth; That a Bishop who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ex●…●…ed, when he was advertised of it, shall be Excommunicated until the meeting of the Synod.  
The ninth forbids to ordain a Britain, or a Roman, in Britain, without the consent of the Metropolitan.  
The tenth renews the Prohibitions so often made to Clergymen of keeping strange Women in their Houses.  
The eleventh ordains that the Bishops, who shall neglect to put this Canon in execution, shall be Excommunicated until the meeting of the ●…od.  
The twelfth, That the Bishop shall live with his Wife as with his Sister, without giving any cause of Suspicion.  
The thirteenth, That the Bishop who has no Wife, shall not suffer any Woman in his House.  
The fourteenth forbids Priests and Monks to take any Person to bed with them. It order that Monks shall not lie two or three in several C●…, but in 〈◊〉 common Hall, where some shall watch while others take their rest.  
The fifteenth is against Monks who go out of their Monastery to marry. 'Tis ordained that they shall be parted and put under Penance.  
The sixteenth forbids to suffer Women to enter within the Precincts of Monasteries.  
The seventeenth regulates the Fasts of Monks. They shall not fast after Easter till Whitsunday, except on the Rogation-days. They shall fast all the Week after Whitsunday. From that time till the first of August they shall fast three times a Week. In this Month they shall not fast, because the Office of Saints is said every day. In the Months of September, October, and November they shall fast three times every Week. In the Month of December they shall fast every day till Christmas. After Christmas until Epiphany they shall not fast, because of the great number of Festivals, except the three first days of January, on which Litanies shall be read for abolishing the Superstitions which the Pagans used on these days. After Epiphany 〈◊〉 Lent they shall fast three times a Week.  
The eighteenth regulates the Divine Service after the following manner. On Festival days six Antiphones shall be said at Matins, with two Psalms to every one of them, i. e. twelve Psalms. In the Month of August the Prayers of the Morning shall be used, manicationes, because this Month is full of Festivals and Offices of Saints. In the Month of September seven Antiphones shall be said, and two Psalms to each of them. In the Month of October eight Antiphones and three Psalms to each. In the Month of November nine Antiphones, and three Psalms to each. In the Month of December ten Antiphones, and three Psalms to each, i. e. thirty Psalms. In the Month of January, February, and until Easter, they shall do as well as they can, but no fewer than twelve Pslams shall be said at least: For if six be said at the sixth hour, and twelve at the Vespers, no less ought to be said at Matins. If any fail to say this number of Psalms at Matins, he shall fast till night with Bread and Water.  
The nineteenth contains the Canons for hindering the Clergy who are obliged to Celibacy, from lying with their Wives.  
The twentieth renews the Penalties appointed by the Canons against those who take away by force or marry Virgins consecrated to God, or who consent to these Marriages.  
The one and twentieth renews the Canons concerning the Degrees of Consanguinity within which it is not lawful to marry.  
The two and twentieth is made against the Superstition of those who honour the Calends of January, against those who offer ●…eat to the Dead on the day of the Feast of St. Peter, and against all those who observe the Ritens and Customs of the Pagans.  
The three and twentieth declares, That although we commonly use in the Service the Hymns of St. Ambrose, yet we may also repeat the Hymns of those Authors that are known.  
The four and five and twentieth contain many Imprecations against those who take or detain the Possessions of the Church.  
The six and twentieth ordains, That the Judges and great Lords shall be Excommunicated who oppress the Poor.  
The seven and twentieth forbids to take any thing for Ordinations.  
The Bishops of the Province of Tours wrote a Letter to the People of this Province, wherein they exhort them to avoid the Miseries wherewith they are threatened, to delay their Marriages, to give the tenth of the Goods in Alms, after the Example of Abraham, and also to set at liberty the tenth part of their Slaves, to pardon one another, and not to suffer any longer Incestuous Marriages.   

The second Council of Bracara in 572. 
The second Council of Bracara 572.   
MArtin Bishop of Bracara presided in this Council, which was composed of twelve Bishops of the Provinces of Gallicia and Luca. After the reading of the Canons of the preceding Council of Bracara, and the Epistle of St. Peter, they made ten Canons.  
By the first they ordain, That the Bishops make their Visitation, examine the Clergy about the manner wherein they administer Baptism, and perform Divine Service, and that they admonish them to use Exorcisms to the Catechumen for the space of twenty days before their Baptism, and to explain the Creed during that time.  
By the second the Bishop is forbidden to demand any more than two shillings for his Synodals, and not to exact the third part of the Offerings, which are designed for the Lights of the Church.  
By the third 'tis forbidden to take any thing for Ordinations.  
By the fourth, To take more than three shillings for the price of Chrysm.  
By the fifth, The Bishops who are invited to Consecrate a Church, are forbidden to exact any Present for the Consecration; but they are permitted to receive what shall be presented to them. At the same time the Bishops are admonished not to Consecrate a Church, unless there be a sufficient foundation for the maintenance of a Light and of the Ministers.  
By the sixth, It is forbidden to suffer any Person to found a Church, upon this Condition, that he shall share the Offerings with those that serve in it.  
By the seventh, It is forbidden to exact any thing for the Baptism of Infants, though they are allowed to receive what is freely offered.  
The eighth declares, That he who shall accuse any of the Clergy of the Crime of Fornication, and cannot prove it, shall be punished with Excommunication.  
The ninth, That the Metropolitan shall give notice of Easter-day to the Bishops of the Province, and that the Bishops and the Clergy having it signified to them, shall publish it to the People towards Christmas after the Gospel, that they may know when Lent will begin: That three days before Litanies or Public Prayers shall be said; and that on the third day after Mass, which shall be said three hours after Noon, the People shall be enjoined to observe Lent, and to bring twenty days before Easter, the Children that are to be baptised, that they may be exorcised.  
The last forbids an Abuse which begun to take footing, of saying the Mass of the Dead after drinking of Wine.   

The fourth Council of Paris.  
THis Council was assembled under King Gontranus, in the year 573, and consisted of nine and twenty Bishops of his Kingdom. Pappolus Bishop of Chartres, brought his Complaints to it, That Aegidius Archbishop of Rheims had ordained a Bishop at Castrodunum, which depended upon 
The fourth Council of Paris.  the Diocese of Chartres, and was neither of the Diocese nor Province of Rheims. This Council wrote to the Archbishop of Rheims, that his Undertaking was not Canonical, and declared to him, that if the Priest Promotus, whom he had ordained, should ever concern himself to do any Episcopal Office in that Church, she should be Excommunicated. They wrote also a Letter to Sigebert against this Enterprise. These Monuments are related in the fifth Tome of the Councils, p. 918. and the following.   

The fifth Council of Paris. 
The fifth Council of Paris.   
WE have nothing now left of this Council: Only Gregory of Tours remarks, That in the second year of the Reign of Childebert, and the sixteenth of Chilperic, which was the 577 of Jesus Christ, many Bishops assembled at Paris about the Affair of Praetextatus, whom Chilperic would have them to condemn, because he had married his Son Meroveus to Queen Brunechildis. These Bishops instead of condemning him, interceded for him: But at last Chilperic forced him to confess that he was guilty of Treason, and banished him. This story may be read at length in Gregory of Tours, Hist. B. 5. c. 19   

The Synod of Antisiodorum.  
THis was not a Council of Bishops, but only a Synodical Assembly of Abbots and Priests of the 
The Synod of Antisiodorum.  Diocese of Tours, held in the year 578, by Aunacharius' Bishop of Tours.  
The five and forty Constitutions which were made in it, are signed by the Bishop, the seven Abbots, the four and thirty Priests, and three Deacons.  
In the first, It is forbidden to play at Pagan Sports with the 
* The words of the Canon are [Vaccula aut Cervulo facere vel strenas diabolicas observare.]  Hart or Heifer, or to give New-years-gifts, after the manner of Pagans, on the first day of January.  
In the second, Priests are enjoined to send Clergy to the Episcopal City to know when Lent gins, and to give notice to the People of the day of Epiphany.  
By the third, It is forbidden to cause Divine Service to be said in private Houses, and to perform Vows by Trees or Fountains, and to suffer any Statues or Figures of Men.  
By the fourth, It is forbidden to use Enchantments, and any ways of foretelling things to come.  
The fifth forbids the Debauchery of the Vigils of St. Martin.  
The sixth ordains the Priests to go fetch holy Chrysm about the middle of Lent; and if he be hindered by sickness, to send thither another Person, and to carry it in a Vessel appointed for that use, covered with a Linen Cloth, with the same respect that is given to Relics.  
The seventh orders, That the Priests shall meet at the City to hold there the Synod in the Month of May, and the Abbots on the first of November.  
The eighth forbids to offer in the Calais any thing but Wine mingled with Water.  
The ninth forbids to make Quires of Singing-women in the Church, and to make Feasts there.  
The tenth declares, That it is not lawful to say two Masses upon the same Altar in the same day.  
The eleventh, That it is not lawful to end the Fast of the Vigils of Easter before two hours within night, because it is not lawful to drink or eat on that day after midnight. The same Rule is to be observed as to the Vigils of Christmas and other great Festivals.  
By the twelfth, It is forbidden to give the Eucharist, or the Kiss of Peace to the Dead, and to wrap up their Bodies in Altar-clothes or Veils.  
The thirteenth forbids the Deacons to cover their shoulders with the Veil or Altar-cloth.  
The fourteenth forbids to Inter any in the Fonts.  
The fifteenth to Inter one dead Body upon another.  
The sixteenth to yoke Oxen, or to do any other such works on Sunday.  
The seventeenth forbids to receive the Offerings of those who have procured their own death, howsoever they have done it.  
The eighteenth forbids to Baptise even Children, except at Easter, unless in a case of urgent Necessity.  
The nineteenth forbids Priests and Deacons to say, to serve, or assist at Mass, after they have eaten.  
The twentieth ordains, That Priests, Deacons, or Subdeacons, who shall have Children, or commit Adultery, shall be deposed.  
The one and twentieth forbids them to lie in the same Bed with their Wives.  
The two and twentieth forbids their Widows to marry again.  
The three and twentieth condemns a Monk who hath committed Adultery, or any other Crime, to be shut up in another Monastery, if his Abbot has not punished him.  
The four and twentieth declares, That it is not lawful for an Abbot or a Monk to marry.  
The five and twentieth forbids them to be Godfathers.  
The six and twentieth condemns an Abbot who suffers Women to enter into his Monastery, to be three Months shut up in another, and to live there upon Bread and Water. 
The first Council of Mascon in 581.   
The following Constitutions forbidden Marriages with Stepmother's, Daughters-in-law, Sisters-in-law, Cousin Germane, Aunts, and other Women.  
The three and four and thirtieth forbidden Priests and Deacons to be present at the place where any are put to the Torture, or to assist in a Judgement of Life and Death.  
The five and thirtieth forbids them to cite another Clergyman before a Secular Judge.  
The six and seven and thirtieth forbidden Women to receive the Eucharist with the naked hand, or to touch the Linen-Cloth which covers the Body of our Lord.  
The eight and nine and thirtieth forbids to communicate or to eat with an excommunicate Person.  
The fortieth forbids Priests to sing or dance at Festivals.  
The one and fortieth forbids Clergymen to prosecute any Person at Law, and orders them to ease themselves from this care by employing Secular Persons.  
The two and fortieth orders Women to have the Dominical for receiving the Communion. Some have thought that this is the Linen upon which they receive the Body of Jesus Christ, being forbidden to receive it with their naked hand, as was declared in Constitution 36. Others think that it is a kind of Veil which covers their head. Whatsoever this be, the Synod declares, That if they have it not, they shall wait till another Sunday to receive the Communion.  
The three and fortieth excommunicates for ae year the Judges, or other Secular Persons, who shall throw any Reproach upon a Clergyman.  
The four and fortieth ordains, That the Seculars, who would not receive the Admonitions of their Archpriests, shall be excommunicated until they yield to the Advice which shall be given them, and pay the Fine which the Prince shall order.  
The five and fortieth is against those who shall not observe these Canons.   

The first Council of Mascon in the Year 581.  
I Say nothing here of some Councils of France, held about private Affairs, which made no Canons, whose History may be seen in Gregory of Tours, because I would not insist upon any but those, whereof some Monuments are still remaining. Those of Mascon are of this number, whereof the first was held in the Month of November in the Year 581.  
The Archbishops of Lions, of Vienna, of Se●s and Bourges, were present there, with seventeen other Bishops of France. They made nineteen Canons.  
The first renews the Prohibition so often made to Clergymen, of keeping strange Women in their Houses.  
The second forbids Clergymen and Seculars to have familiarity with Nuns, and to enter into, or dwell in the House with them, unless there be an evident necessity.  
The third declares, That no Women ought to enter into the Chamber of a Bishop, but in the presence of two Priests, or two Deacons.  
The fourth is against those who detain the Goods given to the Church by the last Will.  
The fifth forbids Clergymen to habit themselves like Seculars.  
The sixth declares, That the Archbishops shall not say Mass without the Pallium.  
The seventh, That the Judge cannot put a Clergyman in Prison, except for a Criminal Cause.  
The eighth forbids Clergymen to cite their Brethren before Secular Judges.  
The ninth ordains, That none shall fast from St. Martin's day to Christmas but three times a week, viz. on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; and that on these days the Canons shall be read.  
The tenth, That Clergymen shall celebrate the Festivals with their Bishop.  
The eleventh ordains, That Clergymen who are obliged to Celibacy, shall be deposed if they violate the Obligation.  
The twelfth, That Virgins consecrated to God, who marry, shall be excommunicated, both they and their Husbands, until death: That if they part, they shall continue under Penance as long as the Bishop shall think fit.  
The thirteenth ordains, That Jews shall not be Judges of Christians, nor receivers of Taxes.  
The fourteenth forbids them, according to the Edict of Childebert, to appear in public from Holy Thursday till Easter-day.  
The fifteenth forbids Christians to eat with Jews.  
The sixteenth declares, That all Christian Slaves who serve Jews, may redeem themselves for a price fixed by the Canon, and that their Masters cannot refuse to set them at liberty, if they pay them the s●●.  
The seventeenth, That those who cause any to give a false Testimony, and to swear falsely against others, shall be excommunicated till death, and those who commit these Crimes shall be declared infamous, 
The third Council of Lions.  and unworthy to be believed in any Testimony.  
The eighteenth ordains, That those who accuse the Innocent to their Prince, shall be deposed if they be Clergymen, or excommunicated if they be Laymen, until they have done Penance.  
The nineteenth concerns a Nun who would give her Patrimony that she might come out of her Monastery, or at least that she might live more freely: She is declared to be excommunicated, and all those who shall make the like Donations, as well as those who accept them upon that condition.   

The third Council of Lions.  
THe Archbishop of Lions, and seven other Prelates of France, were present at this Council, together with some Deputies, in the Year 583, in the Month of May: They made six Canons.  
By the first, Clergymen are forbidden to keep in their Houses strange Women, and those who are obliged to Celibacy are forbidden to have any familiarity with their Wives.  
The second ordains, That care shall be taken to signify in the Letters which are granted to recommend Captives, the day of their date, the Price which is agreed upon, the Necessity of the Captives, and that care shall be taken to authorise them by Subscriptions which cannot be suspected.  
The third decrees Excommunication against the Nuns who go out of their Monastery.  
The fourth renews the Canons against forbidden Marriages.  
The fifth forbids Bishops to celebrate the Feasts of Easter and Christmas any where but in their own Church.  
The sixth ordains Bishops to take care of the Lepers of their Diocese, and to give them something to cloth and maintain them, that they may not run from City to City.   

The second Council of Valentia held in 583.  
THis Council, consisting of seventeen Bishops, made an Act to confirm the Donations made by 
The second Council of Valentia in 583.  King Gontranus, and by the Queen Austegisildis his Wife, and by his Daughters Clodeberga and Clotilda, to the Churches of St. Marcellus and St. Symphorianus, and all the rest.   

The second Council of Mascon held in 585.  
THis Council was very numerous, six Archbishops, and seven and thirty Bishops were present at it in person, together with twenty Deputies from other Bishops, and three Bishops who had not 
The second Council of Mascon in 585.  See. They made twenty Canons.  
The first is an Exhortation to the People for the holy Celebration of Sunday. Let no Person, say they, prosecute any Suit of Law on this day, let none follow their own business, let none yoke Oxen; but let all the World apply themselves to sing the Praises of God: Let those who are near the Churches run thither to shed Tears there; let your eyes and your hands be lifted up to the Lord, etc. Afterwards they decree Penalties against those who break the Sunday, according to the state and condition of the Persons. If he be an Advocate, they order that he shall be driven from the Bar; if he be a Peasant or a Slave, that he receive some blows with a stick; if he be a Monk, that he be excommunicated for six Months. Lastly, they exhort Christians to spend even the night of Sunday in Prayers.  
In the second it is ordained, That the Feast of Easter shall be solemnised, and that all shall refrain from servile Works for the space of six days.  
The third Canon is for hindering the Custom, which begun to grow common, of baptising on all the days of the Martyr's Festivals. They ordain that Children shall be kept till Easter, and that they shall be brought to Church during Lent, that having received Imposition of Hands, and afterwards being anointed with the Holy Oil, they may be regenerated at Easter with the holy Baptism. 
The third Council of Toledo.   
In the fourth it is ordained, That Men and Women shall offer every Sunday Bread and wine at the Altar.  
The fifth declares, That the Divine Laws have granted to Priests and Ministers the tenth of their Possessions; that the Christians have a long time observed these Laws, but that of late for some time they have not been observed: which obliged them to ordain that the Faithful revive this ancient Custom, and give the Tenth to the Ministers of the Altar, which shall be employed either for relieving the Poor, or for redeeming Captives.  
The sixth forbids Priests to celebrate Mass after they have eat and drunk: It ordains also that the remainder of the Eucharist shall be eaten up on Wednesday and Friday after Mass by Children.  
In the seventh, it is ordained upon the Remonstrance of Praetextatus and Papoulus, That the Bishops shall take the Slaves who are set at liberty into their protection, and that they shall be Judges of the Differences which shall arise upon this occasion.  
The eighth ordains, That those who fly to Churches, shall not be taken thence by force; but if the Bishop finds them guilty, he shall give leave to take them away without violating the holiness of the Church.  
In the ninth they declare, That it is not lawful for any Judge to take cognizance of the Causes of a Bishop, and that they ought to be carried to the Metropolitan.  
The tenth forbids to accuse Priests, Deacons, or Subdeacons, before other Judges than Bishops.  
The eleventh recommends Hospitality to Bishops.  
The twelfth does not allow a Judge to proceed against Widows and Orphans, unless they advertise the Bishop.  
The thirteenth forbids Bishops to keep Birds and Dogs for Game.  
The fourteenth is against those who desire of Princes the Possessions of others, that they may invade them without Forms of Law.  
The fifteenth ordains Laymen to show respect to Clergymen, and to salute them if they meet them on Horseback in the way, to light off their Horse and salute them if they meet them on foot.  
The sixteenth forbids the Widows of Subdeacons, Exorcists, and Acolythists to marry again.  
The seventeenth forbids to Inter the Dead upon Bodies that are half rotten.  
The eighteenth threatens those who contract unlawful Marriages.  
The nineteenth forbids Clergymen to be present at the Executions of Criminals.  
The twentieth ordains the Celebration of a Synod every three years, which shall be appointed by the Bishop of Lions and the King in a convenient place.  
After this Council the King Goniranus made an Edict, wherein he ordains the Celebration of Sunday, exhorts the Bishops and Clergy to do their duty, and to lead an exemplary Life, advertises the Judges to punish severely the Breakers of these Laws, and particularly the ecclesiastics, who are obliged to live regularly.   

The third Council of Toledo.  
THe King Beccaredus ordered the Bishops of Spain to meet at Toledo in the beginning of the Month of May, in the Year 589, to restore the Catholic Faith and Discipline. After he had made a short Harangue to them, he caused to be read the Confession of Faith, the Creeds of the Councils of Nice and Constantinople, the Decision of Faith made by the Council of Chalcedon, signed by himself and the Queen. There were also read the Declarations of the Bishops and Priests of the Nation of the Goths, which contained the condemnation of the Errors of the Arians, and the Approbation of the Creeds of the Councils of Nice and Constantinople, and the Decree of the Council of Chalcedon.  
After they had thus re-established the Faith, the Council renewed the ancient Discipline, restored the ancient Canons and the Synodical Letters of Popes in their vigour, and forbade to promote those who are excluded by the Canons to holy Orders. This is contained in the first Canon of this Council.  
The second ordains, that the Creed of Constantinople shall be repeated in all the Churches of Spain.  
The third forbids Bishops to alienate the Possessions of their Churches, yet it leaves to Monasteries and Churches what had been given to them, and permits them also to provide for the Necessities of Strangers and the Poor.  
The fourth permits the Bishop to erect a Parish in a Monastery.  
The fifth renews the Law of Celibacy for Priests and Deacons.  
The sixth is in ●●vour of Slaves set at liberty.  
The seventh ordains Bishops to cause to be read the Holy Scripture at their Table. 
The Council of Narbo in the year 589.   
The eighth forbids, with the consent of King Reccaredus, to demand any Persons belonging to the 
* [Familia fisci, signifies the meeting of those who took care of the Affairs of the Church, and managed its Revenue. Labbee Tom. 5. p. 1025.]  Familia fisci, that were given to the Church.  
The ninth ordains that the Churches of the Arians shall belong to the Bishop in whose Territory they are situate.  
The tenth leaves Widows and Maids at liberty to marry or keep Celibacy, and excommunicates those who shall hinder them from observing their Vow of Chastity.  
The eleventh Canon is against an Abuse which begun to spread in Spain concerning Penance. The Christians desired to be reconciled every time, and as often as they sinned. The Council renews the ancient Discipline about Penance, and ordains that Penances shall be imposed according to the ancient Canons, that the Penitent shall be excluded Communion, and receive oftentimes Imposition of Hands. That he shall not be restored to Communion until the time of making Satisfaction be expired. And lastly, That those who relapse shall be sentenced according to the severity of the ancient Canons.  
The twelfth ordains, That the Priest shall grant no Penance until he has cut off his Hair who desires it, if he be a Man; or if it be a Woman, till she has changed her Habit.  
The thirteenth forbids Clergymen to drag their Brethren before Civil Magistrates.  
The fourteenth forbids Jews to have Wives or Concubines that are Christians, and to keep Slaves that are Christians.  
The fifteenth ordains, That if the Emperor's 
* [Servi fiscales, were such Slaves as were part of the personal estate of the Emperor. Id. Ibid.  Slaves shall cause Churches to be built and endowed, the Bishop shall endeavour to get this Donation confirmed by his Authority.  
The sixteenth enjoins Judges to hinder Idolatrous Practices.  
The seventeenth is against the Fathers or Mothers who put their Children to death.  
The eighteenth ordains, That every year a Council of the Province shall be held, and that the Receivers of the Treasury shall be obliged to be present there; that so the Bishops may examine whether they burden the People too much.  
The nineteenth forbids to build a Church, and to keep in their own hands the management of the Possessions given to it.  
The twentieth forbids Bishops to domineer and tyrannize over the Clergy and Priests of their Diocese.  
The one and twentieth is against Judges and Receivers who burden the Slaves of the Church.  
The two and twentieth forbids to recite any thing but the Psalms at the Funerals of Christians.  
The three and twentieth forbids profane Dances and Songs which are used on Festival days.  
These Canons are confirmed by the King's Edict, and signed by sixty two Bishops, and the Deputies of five more.   

The Council of Narbo in the Year 589.  
REccaredus did also call this Council, which was composed of seven or eight Bishops, who made fifteen Canons.  
The first forbids Clergymen to wear Clothes of Purple.  
The second ordains, That Gloria Patri shall be said at the end of every Psalm; and also that the long Psalms shall be divided into different parts.  
The third forbids ecclesiastics to stand still in public places.  
The fourth forbids any to employ themselves in servile Works on Sunday.  
The fifth ordains, That Clergymen shall keep no Cabals, and that Inferiors shall submit to their Superiors.  
The sixth, That Clergymen who are shut up in Monasteries for their Faults, shall be treated by the Abbot as the Bishop shall order.  
The seventh, That Clergymen who shall be convicted of acting against the Interest of the Church, shall be deposed.  
The eighth, That those who have any ways defrauded the Church, shall be put under Penance for the space of two years.  
The ninth, That Jews shall not be permitted to sing at the burying of the dead.  
The tenth, That Clergymen shall obey their Bishop, and serve the Church to which he sends them, under pain of being deprived of the Revenues and Communion for one year.  
The eleventh, That it is not lawful to ordain an ignorant Priest or Deacon.  
The twelfth, That Subdeacons, Porters, and the other Clergy shall discharge their Offices; and if they neglect, the Subdeacons shall be deprived of their Salary, and the others punished with whipping. 
The first Council of Sevil in 590.   
The thirteenth, That those who keep in their Houses Diviners, shall be excommunicated, and fined; and that the Diviners themselves shall be sold after they have been publicly whipped.  
The fifteenth forbids to keep Thursday as Holiday.   

The first Council of Sevil in 590.  
THis Council was held at Sevil in the fifth year of the Reign of Reccaredus. Leander Bishop of this Metropolis presided in it, and seven of his Suffragans were present at it.  
There is nothing peculiar to this Council now remaining, but a Letter to Pegasus Bishop of Astigis, who could not be present at the Council, probably because he was weak; for neither could he be present at the third Council of Toledo.  
The Bishops being assembled on the fourth day of November, in the principal Church of the City of Sevil, the Deacons of Pegasus presented to them a Memorial, which contained the Names of the Slaves of the Church, which his Predecessor Gaudentius had pretended to set at liberty, or to give to some of his Kinsfolk. The Bishops having consulted upon this occasion, how they are to be disposed of by the Canons, found it thus, That when a Bishop leaves the Possessions which he had in his own Name, to others than his Children or grandchildren, rather than give them to the Church, no regard ought to be had to the Donations or Sales which he made of the Church's Possessions. From this Principle founded upon the sixth Canon of the Council of Agda, they conclude, That if the Church of Pegasus possessed nothing of the Goods or Lands left by Gaudentius, the Slaves ought not to be set at liberty, as he ordered; but if the Church possessed the Means of Gaudentius, they ought to enjoy the liberty which he had granted them. Yet not to use the utmost rigour, they are content, that in case the Bishop left nothing to the Church, to recompense the loss of these Slaves, they should notwithstanding be enfranchised, on condition that they shall continue in the Service of the Church, and in dependence upon it, and that they shall be disabled to give their wages, i. e. what they can earn, to others than their Children, who shall continue also, they and their Posterity, in the same dependence upon the Church; so that the Goods of those who shall die without Heirs, shall return to the Church. And as to the Slaves which this Bishop left as a Legacy to his Kinsfolk, 'tis ordained that the Curch shall take them again, if he has not otherwise made Compensation to it for this loss. This Canon extends to all the Slaves of the Province of Boetica, which are taken away from the Church to which they belong by a like Grant. For it says, That it is against Equity and Religion, that he who lives at the Expense of the Church, and gives nothing to it of his own, shall deprive it of those Gifts that are made by others. The Bishops of this Council advertise also the Bishop of Astigis, that they have thought it convenient for putting in Execution the Canon against Clergymen, who keep strange Women, or Female Slaves in their House, which was renewed a little while ago by the third Council of Toledo, to ordain, That if the Priests, Deacons, or other Clergymen, do not obey the Declaration of their Bishops, the Judges of the Places may take these Women, with the leave and consent of the Bishop, on condition that they never restore them to the Clergymen, under pain of Excommunication. As to the Women, they order, That they shall be given to serve Nunneries.  
It may be that this Council made other Canons besides those which it sent to this Bishop: and indeed Burchardus, and Ibo of Chartres, relate many more under the Name of the Council of Sevil; but their Citations are so so full of Faults, that we cannot trust to their Report.   

The Council in Arvernia. 
The Council of Arvernia.   
GRegory of Tours in the eighth Chapter of the tenth Book of his History, makes mention of an Assembly of Bishops held in the fifteenth year of the Reign of Childebert, and the sixth of Clotharius, held, I say, in the Confines of Arvernia, of Gabali, and Rutenium, against Tetradia the Wife of Eulalius, Countess of Arvernia. This Woman finding herself abused by her Husband, who was a debauched Man, retired by the advice of Virus her Husband's Nephew, with her eldest Son to Desiderius General of the Army of King Chilperic, and hindered almost all the Efforts of Eulalius. This Retreat cost Virus his Life; who was killed by Eulalius. The Wife of Desiderius dying, he made no scruple to marry Tetradia while her Husband was alive, who for his part ravished a Nun. After the death of Desiderius, Eulalius being more concerned for the loss of his Means then his Wife, demanded Restitution to be made of what she had carried away. This Assembly of Bishops ordered, That they should be restored fourfold; and that the Children which she had by Desiderius should be declared Bastards and Adulterous. She was permitted also to return to Arvernia, after she should make Satisfaction, and to re-enter upon the peaceable possession of the Inheritance of her Father. This Woman was gently treated, and a Canon of this Nature may rather pass for an Accommodation than an Ecclesiastical Decision.   

The Council of Poitiers.  
THis Council was assembled for reforming the Disorders of a Monastery of Nuns in this City. This Monastery was founded by Radegonda, and was at first in Subjection to the 
The Council of Poitiers.  Bishop of the place: But under the Reign of Sigebert, Radegonda having brought from the East some Wood of the Holy Cross, and other Relics, to put them into her Monastery, she prayed Marovaeus, than Bishop of Poitiers, that he would be present at this Festival; but this Bishop went into the Country, because he would not be present at this Ceremony. Radegonda prayed King Sigebert to allow her a Bishop for placing these Relics in her Monastery. Euphronius Bishop of Tours did it with great Solemnity. Although Radegonda had reason to be displeased with the Bishop of Poitiers, yet she did all that lay in her power to be reconciled to him; but not being able to compass her design, she fetched from Arles the Rule of St. Caesarius, and put her Monastery under the Protection of the King, because the Bishop would not take care of it. After the death of Radegonda, the Abbess called Leubovera, prayed also the Bishop to take it into his Protection. At first he refused it, but afterwards accepted of it, and took also Letters from King Chilperic, which import that this Monastery should be subject to him, as the other Churches of his Diocese were.  
There were in this Monastery two King's Daughters, Clotilda the Daughter of Charibert, and Basina the Daughter of Chilperic, who had embraced a Religious Life under St. Radegenda. After her death, these two Daughters had not Humility enough to obey an Abbess, who in the Opinion of the World was not equal to them in quality, despising the Remonstrances of their Bishop, whom they suspected, broke the Gates, burst in pieces the Bolts of their Monastery, and went out with forty Nuns, under pretence that the Abbess had abused them. Clotilda went in the first place to Gregory of Tours, who advised her to return, and offered also to go with her, and to find out a way, with Marovaeus' assistance, to reduce their Abbess to reason. She would not follow his advice, and went to Court to wait upon King Gontranus. In the mean time the Nuns that went with her out of the Monastery, led a most licentious Life. Some time after Clotilda and Basina returned to Poitiers, they placed themselves in the Church of St. Hilary, with some wretched Ruffians, and said that they would never return to their Monastery till their Abbess were turned out. One of the Nuns, who continued in the Monastery, being as corrupt as the rest, feigning that she would be shut up in a private Cell, fled out at a Window, and came to them to be a Witness against the Abbess. The Bishop of the place finding himself not strong enough to put a stop to this Disorder, summoned Gondegisilius Bishop of Bourdeaux, Nicasius of Angoulesme, and Saffarius of Petrocera. These Bishops came with the Clergy to the Church of St. Hilary, and threatened these Nuns to Excommunicate them; but they were received with blows of a stick, pushed back, affronted and beaten; so that they were forced to retire, having Excommunicated the Nuns. They wrote to the Bishops of the Kingdom of Gontranus, who approved their Proceed in their Answer, and summoned them to be present with them at a Synod which 
The Council of Metz in the year 590.  should be held at the beginning of November. In the mean time these Nuns continued to commit all sorts of Outrages and Disorders, so that Childebert was forced to send an Officer, called Macon, to hinder them. Marovaeus being afraid of himself, solicited Gondegisilius, and the other Bishops, to remove the Excommunication; but they would do nothing in it. The King Childebert sent a Priest to settle this Affair, but he could not do it. This did nothing but irritate these Nuns, who sent their Ruffians to the Monastery, broke open the Gates, beat and wounded the Nuns, tore the Abesses Clothes, dragged her through the Street, and shut her up in a place, from whence she could not come forth, even on Easter-day. The Bishops renewed the Excommunication pronounced against them, but they cared not for it, and continued their Outrages. At last Childebert and Gontranus were forced to agree among themselves, That the Bishops of both Kingdoms should assemble to judge them, and to give them a strong Force for hindering such Outrages as they had committed. These Bishops being assembled at Poitiers the nine and twentieth year of the Reign of Gontranus, and the fifteenth of Childebert's (which is the thirtieth according to the vulgar Aera) had this Affair under Examination. They heard the Accusations which Basina and Clotilda alleged against the Abbess, and the Defence which the Abbess made for herself. They accused the Abbess of exposing the Nuns to hunger and nakedness, of suffering Men to wash in a bath of the Monastery, of playing at Dice, Tabula, of suffering Contracts of Marriage to be made in the Abbey, of taking the Sacred Ornaments to dress up her Niece. The Abbess answered, That she had always maintained her Nuns as plentifully as the Season would permit; that as to Garments, they had the remainder of them in their Coffers; that she had never suffered strangers to wash in the bath; that if she had played, it was while Radegonda was alive, and that she did not think it was forbidden by the Rule or by the Canons, but if the Bishops should forbid her, she would not do it any more; that she had made no Feasts, but only received and entertained Guests; that she had only received the Earnest of the Espousals of her Niece; that if it was a fault, she would ask pardon; and lastly, that she had not taken any of the Ornaments of the Church, to dress up her Niece. On the other side, Clotilda and Basina were accused of going out of the Monastery, of carrying out with them many Nuns, and of other Crimes and Outrages which we have just now related. This being proved, the Bishops found that the Abbess had committed no Crime for which she deserved to be Deposed, but only some slight Faults, which they exhorted her not to commit again: And as to Basina and Clotilda, they Excommunicated them till they should do Penance, and prayed the Kings not to suffer them to enter again into the Monastery.  
In the Council of Metz, which was held after the decease of King Gontranus, wherein Aegidius Archbishop of Rheims was Deposed as guilty of Treason. Clotilda and Basina asked pardon for their Fault, and they were received into Communion upon the request of King Chilperic. Clotilda returned into the Monastery, and Basina spent the remainder of her Life in a Countryhouse.   

The Council of Metz in the Year 590.  
THis was an Assembly of Bishops which King Childebert called together to Judge Giles Archbishop of Rheims, who was accused of Treason. A Duke called Ennodius was his Accuser; and the first Article of Accusation which he proposed against him, was, that he held Correspondence with King Chilperic, who had always been an Enemy to Childebert. He affirmed also that Chilperic had given him some Lands of his Dominions. Giles confessed that he had always been a Friend to Chilperic, but he maintained at first, that he had done nothing against the Interest of Childebert, and that he had given him the Demains which he possessed. He produced the Grants of them, but they were declared to be forged; for the King denied that he had given him any thing; and Otho the Master of the Requests declared that the Subscription was none of his. After this the Letters of Giles written to Chilperic were produced, and of Chilperic to Giles, wherein there were Invectives against Brunechildis the Queen. Giles denied that he had written the one, or received the other, but he was convicted of both by his own Domestic. The King accused him of being the Author of a Treatise, written for King Chilperic, against Gontranus; and this was proved by the Register of King Chilperic. He was also convicted by the Abbot of St. Remigius, of having received a considerable Sum from King Chilperic. Giles being convicted of these things, and having also acknowledged them to be true, the Bishops desired three days space to give him time to justify himself if he could. When the time was expired, he appeared in great Confusion before the Assembly, and said, Why delay you to judge a Criminal? I acknowledge that I am guilty of Treason, that I have deserved Death, that I was always contrary to the Interest of the King and his Mother, and have caused many Wars, which have brought several places of France to Desolation. The Bishops having heard this Confession from his own Mouth, after they had read the Canons, and obtained the King's Grace for his Life; he was immediately banished to Strasbourg, and Romulfus the Son of Duke Loupus, was placed in his room. Epiphanius Abbot of St. Remegius was also deprived of the Dignity of Abbot. There was found a great quantity of Silver in the Cabinet of this Bishop: What of it came from his Robberies, was put into the Royal Treasury; and what was part of the Church's Revenues, was left to the Church. In this Council Basina and Clotilda asked pardon for their Fault, and were received into Communion.   

The Assembly of Bishops at Nanterra.  
THERE was nothing remarkable in this Assembly, but what was done for solemnising 
The Assembly of Bishops at Nanterra.  the Ceremony of the Baptism of Clotarius, at which Gontranus was Godfather.   

The Council of Caesar Augusta.  
THIS Council was held in the seventh Year of the Rign of Reccaredus, which was the 
The Council of Caesar Augusta.  Year 592, on the last day of October. Arthemius Bishop of Tarraco presided in it; ten other Bishops were present at it, and two Deacons deputed from two other Bishops. They made three considerable Canons.  
In the first it is ordained, That the Arian Priests who are converted, if they give signs of the sincerity of their Conversion, may perform the Office of Priesthood, after they have received anew the Blessings of the Priests, Benedictionem Presbyterii; but those who shall neglect to lead a Regular Life, shall continue degraded from their Order, although they be among the Clergy. The same thing is ordained with respect to Deacons.  
The second ordains, That in whatsoever place Relics are found that come from the Arians, they shall be given to Bishops, that they may be tried by putting them into the fire. Those who shall conceal or retain them, are threatened to be Excommunicated.  
The third ordains, That if Arian Bishops, who are converted, shall Consecrate Churches, before they have received the Benediction, they shall be consecrated anew by a Catholic Bishop.  
After this Council follows a Letter from the Bishops to the Receivers of the Prince's Taxes at Barcelona, wherein they consent, that a certain Tax should be levied upon the Measure of Corn growing on the Church-Lands.   

The Council of Toledo, held in the twelfth Year of the 
The Council of Toledo 597,  Reign of Reccaredus, the Five hundred ninety seventh of Jesus Christ, consisting of thirteen Bishops of Spain, It was National.  
THIS Council made two Canons.  
The first ordains, That Priests or Deacons who shall not observe Continence, shall be degraded from their Ministry, and shut up in a Cloister by the Bishop's Order, that their punishment may serve for an Example to others, and for Penance to themselves.  
The second orders, That the Bishop cannot invade the Revenues of a Church or Chappel built in his Diocese, and that this Revenue shall be given to a Priest who shall serve in it, if the Revenue be sufficient for him; if not, that a Deacon shall be placed there; and if there be not enough to maintain a Deacon, that at least a Porter shall be placed there to keep the Church clean and decent, and to light up the Candles in it at Night before the Relics.   

The Council of Osca, or Huesca, a City of the Province of Tarraco; held under the same King in the Year 598.  
THIS Council made two Canons.  
The first ordains, That the Bishops shall hold an Assembly every Year, of the Abbots, Priests and Deacons of their Diocese, to give them Precepts and Advice about the way and manner 
The Council of Osca in 598.  wherein they ought to live.  
The second, That the Bishops shall carefully examine, Whether the Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, and Clergy live chastely: That if any one is suspected of Incontinence, Information shall be given of it, either by the Deposition of the Clergy, or the Testimony of the Notaries, or by examining the behaviour of the Women, with whom he is said to keep Company, or by any other ways which may be useful to discover this sort of Crimes; that on the one hand, no person may be blackened upon false Reports; and on the other, no Crime may be palliated by false Excuses.   

The Council of Barcelona under the same King held in 599, consisting of twelve Bishops.  
THIS Council made four Canons.  
The first forbids Bishops and Clergymen to take any thing under any pretence, and after any manner whatsoever, for the Ordination of Deacons or Priests, which it calls Benedictio Subdiaconii, 
The Council of Barcelona in 599.  vel Presbyterii; which explains the first Canon of the Council of Sarogoza, which we have before set down, where it is said, That the Arian Priests shall receive Benedictionem Presbyterii, before they can discharge their Office.  
The second forbids Bishops to take any thing as the Price of the Liquor of Holy Chrysm, which they give to Priests for confirming the Novices.  
The third forbids Laymen to enter into Orders, without observing the times prescribed by the Canons, and ordains, That none shall be promoted to Episcopal Orders, who has not passed through the Inferior Orders, though he has obtained the King's Letter, or be chosen by the Clergy, the Bishop, or the People. This Canon prescribes a particular manner of choosing a Bishop, viz. That the People and the Clergy shall choose three Persons to present them to the Metropolitan and Bishops of the Province, who shall consecrate him of the three on whom the Lot shall fall, which shall be done after a Fast.  
The fourth ordains, That if a Virgin, who has renounced the Customs of the World, and promised to observe Continence, or any other person, who has desired of the Priest Benedictionem Poenitentiae, i. e. the Blessing for leading a Religious Life; for this is often called Poenitentia & Conversio; that if any of these Persons, I say, do voluntarily marry, or being taken away by force, will not part from their Ravishers, they shall continue excluded from the Communion of the Faithful, and shall not have so much as the comfort of conversation. This Canon may be also understood literally of Penance, because it was not lawful for Penitents to make use of Marriage, or to marry.   
The End of the Fifth Tome.   

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE Ecclesiastical Writers Which are mentioned in this Volume.  
With the Names of the Authors, their Country and Employment, the time of their Birth, the time when they Flourished, and the time of their Deaths.  

Symmachus Bishop of Rome, ordained in the year 498, died in 514.  
Sextus Alcinus Ecdicius Avitus, the Son of a Roman Senator, and Bishop of Vienna, born about the year 470, flourished in the beginning of the sixth Century, died in 523.  
Magnus Felix Ennodius, descended of an Illustrious Family in Gaul, Bishop of Pavia, born in 437, flourished in the beginning of the sixth Century, ordained Bishop of Pavia in 510, died in 521.  
Hormisdas' Bishop of Rome, ordained in 514, died in 523.  
St. Fulgentius an African, a Monk and Abbot, and afterwards Bishop of Ruspa in Afric, born about the the year 464, flourished at the end of the fith Age, ordained Bishop in 504, or 508, died in 529, or 533.  
Eugippius, or Egippius, Abbot in the Country of Naples, flourished under the Empire of Tiberius Constantine about the end of the fifth Age.  
Ferrandus Deacon of the Church of Carthage, surnamed Fulgentius, flourished in the beginning of the fifth Age.  
John Maxentius, born in the West, and Monk of Scythia, flourished under Pope Hormisdas about the year 523.  
Trifolius a Priest, flourished at the beginning of the sixth Age.  
Adrianus wrote at the beginning of the sixth Age.  
Laurentius Bishop of Novara, lived at the beginning of the sixth Age.  
Count Marcellinus wrote after the year 535.  
Giles Abbot of Gallia Narbonensis, flourished at the beginning of the sixth Age.  
Orentius Bishop of Tarraco, flourished about the year 520.  
Flavius, Anicius, Manlius Torquatus, Severinus Boethius, Roman Consul and Senator, flourished at the end of the fifth Age, and the beginning of the sixth, died in Pavia in 524.  
Epiphanius Scholasticus flourished at the beginning of the sixth Age.  
Theodorus Reader of the Church of Constantinople, flourished about the year 520.  
Severus Patriarch of Antioch, made Bishop of Antioch in 513, and turned out in 519.  
John of Scythopolis an Advocate, flourished at the beginning of the sixth Age.  
Basila Priest of Antioch, and afterwards Bishop of Cilicia, flourished about the year 525.  
John the first Bishop of Rome, surnamed Catiline, a Tuscan by Nation, ordained Bishop of Rome in 523, died in 526.  
Felix IU. Bishop of Rome, ordained in 526, died in 529.  
Boniface II. the first Pope of the Nation of the Goths, ordained in 529, died in 531.  
John II. surnamed Mercurius, Bishop of Rome, ordained at the beginning of 532, died in 534.  
Agapetus Bishop of Rome, ordained in 534, died in 535.  
St. Ephrem, a Count in the East, and afterwards Bishop of Antioch, ordained in 526.  
Procopius of Gaza, flourished about the middle of the sixth Age.  
An Anonymous Author of the Exposition upon the Octateuch, about the same time.  
Jobius a Monk in the East, about the same time.  
Justinian a Christian Emperor, advanced to the Empire in 527, died in 565.  
Dionysius Exiguus a Monk, flourished after 500 till 540.  
Marcus Aurelius Cassiodorus, a Senator, preferred to the chief Offices at Court, Governor of Calabria, Treasurer, Master of the Palace, Praetorian Praefect and Consul, and at last Monk and Abbot, born in Calabria about the year 470, flourished from the beginning of the sixth Age, unto the year 565.  
St. Benedict a Monk and Founder of an order, born about the year 480, was settled upon the Mount ●…sinus, about the year 520, died in 543, or 547.  
Silverius the Son of Pope Hormisdas Bishop of Rome, ordained in 535, turned out in 537, and banished into Patara, brought back in a little time after into Italy, and transported into the Isle of Pontienna, where he died quickly after for grief.  
Vigilius Bishop of Rome▪ invaded the See of Rome in 537, was obliged to go to C●…ople in 547, was banished in ●●4, died in Sicily, as he was returning from banishment in 555.  
Caesarius Monk and Abbot of Lerina, and afterward Bishop of Arles, was born at Cabillo●…, ordained in 501, died in 543.  
Pontianus a Bishop, flourished under the Reign of Justinian.  
〈◊〉 Archbishop of Sens, flourished about 540.  
Trojanus Bishop of Santones about the same time.  
Nicetius Bishop of Treves about the same time.  
Aurelianus Bishop of Arles, flourished about 550.  
Tetradius or Terridius, about the same time.  
Arator Intendant of the Finances to King Ataluricus, wrote under the Pontificate of Justinian.  
Justinian Bishop of Valentia in Spain, and  
Justus Bishop of Urgellum, flourished about the same time.  
Aprigius Bishop of Beia in Portugal, flourished about 540.  
Aretas, the time in which he lived uncertain.  
Zacharia, Bishop of Mitylena, flourished from the year 530, until about the year 560.  
Cyrillus a Monk of Scythopolis, the time is not known in which he flourished.  
Facundus Bishop of Hermiana, flourished about the year 550.  
Victor Bishop of Capua, flourished about the same time.  
Rusticus a Deacon of Rome, about the same time.  
Primasius Bishop of Adrumettam, flourished about 550.  
Junilius a Bishop of Afric, about the same time.  
Liberatus a Deacon of Carthage, wrote about 560.  
Victor Bishop of Tunona in Afric, wrote after 565.  
Paulus Cyrus Silentiarius flourished after 550.  
Pelagius I. Bishop of Rome, ordained in 555, died in 560.  
Agnellus Bishop of Ravenna, ordained in 558, died in 566.  
Leontius first Advocate, and then Monk, flourished about the end of the sixth Age, died at the beginning of the seventh.  
Venantius Honorius Fortunatus, Bishop of Poitiers, ordained Priest in 565, and sometime after Bishop, died at the beginning of the seventh Age.  
Bandoninia a Nun, flourished toward the end of the sixth Age.  
St. Germanus Bishop of Paris, flourished about 560.  
Martinus Abbot of Dumes, and afterward Bishop of Bracara, flourished after 550, and died in 580.  
Paschasius the Deacon flourished at the same, died in 578.  
Joannes Scholasticus Patriarch of Constantinople.  
Georgius Florentius Gregorius Bishop of Tours, ordained in 574, died in 596.  
Gildas surnamed the Wise, Abbot in England, born in 520, flourished about the middle of the sixth Age, and died in 570.  
Evantus or Evantius, Bishop of Vienna, flourished about the end of the sixth Age.  
Ferreolus Bishop of Ucecia, flourished at the same time.  
Sedatus Bishop of Biterrae, flourished at the end of this Age.  
Chrysippus about the same time.  
Pelagius II. Bishop of Rome, ordained in 577, died in 590.  
Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, ordained in 581, died in 608.  
John surnamed the younger, Patriarch of Constantinople, ordained in 585, died in 596.  
John Abbot of Biclarum in Spain, wrote after 590.  
Anastasius Monk of Mount Sina, Patriarch of Antioch ordained in 561, turned out and banished in 572, restored in 595, died in 599.  
Evagrius Scholasticus, born in 536, wrote after 594.  
John surnamed Climacus, a Monk and Abbot, born in 525, retired from the World about 541, and was chosen Abbot about the end of this Age, died at the beginning of the seventh Age.  
John Abbot of Baithu, flourished about the same time.  
St. Gregory the first, surnamed the Great, retired from the World about 580, was ordained Deacon about 582, and Bishop of Rome in 590, died in 604.  
Paterius a Disciple of St. Gregory, and Notary of the Roman Church, flourished about the beginning of the seventh Age.  
St. Leander Bishop of Sevil, flourished at the end of the sixth Age.  
Licinianus Bishop of Carthagena in Spain, at the same time.  
Severus Bishop of Malaga, at the same time.  
Dinamius a Nobleman, flourished at the end of the sixth Age.  
Eutropius Abbot, and afterward Bishop of Valentia in Spain, at the same time.  
Maximus Bishop of Saragosa, flourished about 590, died after 614.  


Eustratius a Priest of Constantinople,  
Andronicianus,  
Lucius Charinus,  
Metrodorus,  
Heraclianus Bishop of Chalcedon  
Leontius Bishop of Arabissa.   The time uncertain.    

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE COUNCILS Held in the Sixth Age, Which are mentioned in this Volume.  
The Figures show the Year in which they were held according to the Vulgar Account.  

THE first Council of Rome under Symmachus held in the year 499  
The second Council under the same, commonly called the third, in 501  
The third Council of Rome under the same 502  
The fourth Council under the same 503  
The fifth Council under the same 504  
Council of Agda under Alaricus King of the Goths 506  
First Council of Orleans held by order of Clovis 511  
Council of Tarraco 516  
Council of Gerunda 517  
Council of Epaone ibid.  
Council I. of Lions ibid.  
Council of Lerida 524  
Council of Valentia in Spain ibid.  
Council iv of Arles ibid.  
Council of the Bishops of Afric held at Carthage under Boniface Bishop of that City 525  
Council II. of Orange 529  
Council II. of Vasio ibid.  
Council of Rome under Boniface II. 531  
Council II. of Toledo ibid.  
Conference of the Catholics with the Severians, held at Constantinople 533  
Council II. of Orleans ibid.  
Council of Clermont 535  
Council of Constantinople under Mennas' 536  
Council III. of Orleans 538  
Council of Barcelona 540  
Council iv of Orleans 541  
Council V of Orleans 549  
Council of Arvernia under King Theodoret ibid.  
Council of Tutella 550  
Council II. of Constantinople, called the fifth General 553  
Council V of Arles 554  
Council II. of Paris 557  
Council I. of Bracara 563  
Council of Santones ibid.  
Council II. of Lions 567  
Council II. of Tours ibid.  
Council II. of Bracara 572  
Council iv of Paris 573  
Council V of Paris 577  
Synod of Antisiodorum 578  
Council I. of Mascon 581  
Council III. of Lions 583  
Council II. of Valentia ibid.  
Council II. of Mascon 585  
Council III. of Toledo 589  
Council of Narbo ibid.  
Council I. of Sevil 590  
Council of Arvernia ibid.  
Council of Poitiers ibid.  
Council of Metz ibid.  
Assembly of Bishops at Nanterra.  
Council of Saragosa 592  
Council of Toledo, National 597  
Council of Osca, or Huesca 598  
Council of Barcelona 599    

A TABLE OF ALL THE WRITINGS OF THE Ecclesiastical Authors Mentioned in this Volume.  

POPE SYMMACHUS.  


Genuine Works still extant.  
Nine Letters.  
Supposititious Works.  
Letters second and fourth, which were Avitus', and the twelfth forged.   

AVITUS Bishop of Vienna.  
Genuine Works.  
Letters 87.  
A Homily upon the Rogations.  
Fragments of some other Homilies, and some Treatises.  
Five Poems upon the History in the beginning of Genesis.  
A Poem of Virginity.  
A Conference with Gundebaldus.   

Books lost.  
A Treatise against the Arians, and against those who say that the Flesh of Jesus Christ is only a Phantom.  
Many Sermons upon different Subjects. Among others,  
Two Sermons about Easter.  
Three Sermons upon the Rogation-days.  
A Sermon upon the Ascension of Jesus Christ.  
A Sermon upon Whitsunday.  
A Sermon upon the Ordination of a Bishop.  
A Homily upon Ionas.  
A Homily upon the Ascension of Elias.  
A Sermon upon the Passion of Jesus Christ.  
A Sermon upon the Dedication of a Church of St. Michael, and upon some other Dedications of Churches.  
A Sermon upon King Ezechias.  
Many Pieces in Verse.   

ENNODIUS Bishop of Pavia.  


Genuine Works.  
297 Letters divided into nine Books.  
A Panegyric upon King Theodoric.  
An Apology for the Council which acquitted Pope Symmachus, against a Writing entitled,  
Against the Synod which pronounced an unjust Absolution.  
The Lives of St. Epiphanius Bishop of Pavia, and St. Anthony Monk of Lerina.  
An Eucharistic upon his own Life.  
A Moral Exhortation, written about the Obligation of Bishops to keep a Clergyman in the House with them, to be witness of all their Actions.  
Some Formularies.  
Two Benedictions of the Easter Wax-Candle.  
Prayers before and after Mass.  
Orations, or Pieces of Rhetoric, among which there are six upon ●…cred Subjects, viz.  
Upon the day of the Promotion of Laurentius to the Bishopric of Milan.  
Upon the Dedication of a Church of the Apostles.  
Upon the Election of a Coadjutor.  
Upon the Dedication of a Church.  
Upon a Bishop when he took possession of his See.  
Against the Heretics in the East.       

HORMISDAS. Genuine Works.  
Letters 80.   

St. FULGENTIUS.  


Genuine Works.  
An Answer to ten Objections of the Arians.  
Three Books to King Thrasimund.  
Three Books addressed to Monimus.  
Two Books of Remission of Sins.  
A Letter to Proba of Virginity.  
Another Letter to the same of Prayer and Compunction of Heart.  
A Letter of Consolation and Instruction to the Widow Galla.  
A Letter to Theodorus upon his Retirement.  
A Letter of Conjugal Duties.  
A Letter to Eugippius about Charity towards our Neighbour.  
A Letter to Venantia about Penance.  
A Treatise to Donatus about the Faith.  
A Letter written in the name of fifteen Bishops of Afric to the Monks of Scythia.  
A Treatise of Predestination and Grace.  
Letters in the name of the Bishops of Afric to John and Venerius.  
A Fragment of some Books about the Trinity against Fabianus.  
A Treatise to Victor about the Divinity of the Word.  
A Treatise of the Faith to Peter.  
A Treatise of the Trinity to Felix.  
A Treatise of the Incarnation to Scarilas.  
Answers to the Questions of Ferrandus the Deacon.  
Another Answer to five Questions from the same.  
A Treatise to Reginus.  
Ten Sermons.   

Books lost.  
A Treatise against Pinta.  
A Conference with King Thrasimund.  
A Book of the Holy Spirit to Abragilas.  
A Letter to the Catholics of Carthage.  
Two Treatises of Fasting and Prayer.  
Two Letters to Stephanias, written in the name of the Bishops of Sardinia.  
A Letter of Ecclesiastical Moderation.  
Ten Books about the Trinity against Fabianus.  
Seven Books of Grace against Faustus.   

Supposititious Works.  
A Treatise against Pinta.  
A Treatise of Predestination and Grace.  
A Sermon of the Purisication.  
Many other Sermons.     

EUGIPPIUS. Genuine Works.  
The Life of St. Severinus.  
A Collection of passages out of St. Austin.   

FERRANDUS the Deacon.  


Genuine Works.  
A Collection of Canons.  
Two Letters to St. Fulgentius.  
An Answer to Reginus.  
Letters to Severus and Anatolius Students of Law.  
A Writing concerning the three Chapters.  
The Life of St. Fulgentius.   

Works lost.  
A Letter to Eugippius about the Trinity.  
A Letter to St. Anselm.  
The three first Books of Vigilius of Tapsa.     

JOHN MAXENTIUS. Genuine Works.  
A Libel to the Legate of Pope Hormisdas.  
A Confession of Faith.  
Twelve Anathematisms.  
Another Confession of Faith, with an Explication.  
An Answer to the Letter of Hormisdas to Possessor.  
A Writing against the Acephali.   

TRIFOLIUS. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to Faustus Bishop of Rome, about this Expression, One of the Trinity suffered.   

ADRIANUS. A genuine Work.  
An Introduction to the Holy Scripture.   

LAURENTIUS. Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of Penance.  
A Sermon of Alms.  
A Sermon about the Woman of Canaan.   

MARCELLINUS. A genuine Work.  
A Chronicon.   

AEGIDDIUS the Abbot. Genuine Works.  
A Letter and Confession of Faith.   

ORENTIUS. A genuine Work.  
An Admonition written in Verse, addressed to the Faithful.   

BOETHIUS. Genuine Works.  
Among the Treatises of Philosophy, there is only that about Consolation which has relation to Christianity.  
A Treatise of the two Natures.  
A Treatise of the Trinity.   

EPIPHANIUS Scholasticus. A genuine Work.  
A Translation of the Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret.   

SEVERUS. Works lost.  
Some Treatises by way of Letter.   

JOHN of Scythopolis. Works lost.  
Twelve Books against Eutyches, Dioscorus, and their Followers.   

BASIL of Cilicia. Works lost.  
An Ecclesiastical History.  
A Treatise against John of Scythopolis, divided into sixteen Books.   

JOHN I. Suppositious Works.  
Two Letters.   

FELIX IU.  


A genuine Work.  
The third Letter to Caesarius.   

Supposititious Works.  
The two first Letters.     

BONIFCE II.  


A genuine Work.  
A Letter to Caesarius.   

A Supposititious Work.  
A Letter to Eulalius.   

JOHN II. Bishop of Rome.  


Genuine Works.  
The second Letter to Justinian.  
A Letter to the Senators concerning the Monk's Acem●tae.  
Three Letters about the Affair of Contumeliosus, with a Memorial.    


A supposititious Work.  
The first Letter to Valerius.     

AGAPETUS Bishop of Rome.  


Genuine Works.  
A Letter to Justinian.  
A Letter to the Bishops of Afric.  
A Letter to Reparatus.  
Two Letters to Caesarius Bishop of Arles.  
A Letter about the Deposition of Anthimus.   

A supposititious Work.  
A Letter to Anthimus.     

St. EPHREM Patriarch of Antioch. Works lost.  
A Collection of divers Pieces against the Eutychians.  
Four Treatises, whereof the first was against the Severians.  
The second about divers Quessions.  
The third an Apology for the Council of Chalcedon.  
And the fourth, an Advertisement to the Monks of the East.     

PROCOPIUS of Gaza. Genuine Works.  
A Commentary upon the Pentateuch.  
Notes upon the Books of Kings and Chronicles.  
A Commentary upon Isaiah.   

AN ANONYMOUS AUTHOR. A Work lost.  
A Book of Christians, or an Exposition upon the Octateuch.   

The Monk JOBIUS. A Work lost.  
A Treatise of the Word Incarnate, divided into nine Books, and five and forty Chapters.   

JUSTINIAN. Genuine Works.  
Many Novels about Ecclesiastical Matters.  
A Letter and Confession of Faith to Pope John.  
A Letter to the fifth Council.  
Two Letters for Informing against Theodorus of Mopsuesta.  
A Treatise of Letters against the Errors of Origen.  
An Edict against Anthimus.   

DIONYSIUS EXIGUUS. Genuine Works.  
A Collection of Canons and Decretals.  
Two Letters about Easter.  
A Letter to Eugippius.  
Translations of the Canons, of the Letter of St. Cyril, of a Letter of Proterius, of the Life of St. Pacomus, of a Discourse, and of two Letters of Proclus, and of the Treatise of St. Gregory Nyssen about the Creation of Man.   

CASSIODORUS.  


Genuine Works.  
Twelve Books of Learning.  
A Tripartite History.  
A Chronicle.  
A Commentary upon the Psalms.  
An Institution to Divine Learning.  
A Treatise of Sciences and Arts.  
A Treatise of the Soul.    


Works lost.  
A History of the Goths.  
A Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul, the Acts, and the Revelation.    


A supposititious Work.  
A Commentary upon the Canticles.     

St. BENEDICT.  


A genuine Work.  
The Rule of St. Benedict.    


Supposititious Works.  
A Letter to St. Remigius.  
Sermons upon the Death of St. Placida.  
A Discourse upon the Departure of St. Maurus.  
A Letter to the same Saint.  
The Order of a Monastic Life.     

SILVERIUS. Supposititious Works.  
A Letter to Vigilius, and another to Amator.   

Pope VIGILIUS. Genuine Works.  
The first Letter to the Bishops that were Acephali.  
The second Letter to Euterius.  
The third to Caesarius Bishop of Arles.  
The fourth to Justinian.  
The fifth to Mennas'.  
The sixth, seventh and eighth to Auxanius Bishop of Arles.  
The ninth to the Bishops of the Kingdom of Childebert.  
The tenth and eleventh to Aurelian Successor to Auxanius.  
The Decree called Judicatum.  
Letters related in the fifth Council.  
A Writing called Constitutum.  
Two Letters published by Mr. Baluzius.  
A Letter to Eutychius.  
A Constitution approving what the fifth Council had done, published by Baluzius.   

CAESARIUS Bishop of Arles. Genuine Works.  
Many Homilies.  
A Rule for Nuns addressed to his Sister.  
A Letter about Chastity.  
A Letter to an Abbess about the Government of her Nuns.  
The Testament of this Bishop.   

PONTIANUS. A genuine Work.  
A Letter to Justinian.   

LEO Archbishop of Sens. A genuine Work.  
A Letter to King Childebert.   

TROJANUS Bishop of Santones. A genuine Work.  
A Letter to Eumerius about Baptism.   

NICETIUS Bishop of Treves. Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of Watching and singing Psalms.  
Two Letters, one to Justinian, and the other to Closd●inda.   

AURELIANUS. Genuine Works.  
Two Rules, one for Nuns, and the other for Monks.   

TETRADIUS. A genuine Work.  
A Rule for Monks and Nuns.   

ARATOR. Genuine Works.  
The History of the Acts of the Apostles in Verse.  
A Letter to Count Partenius.   

JUSTINIAN and JUSTUS Bishops of Spain.  


Genuine Works.  
A Commentary of Justus upon Canticles.  
A Letter of the same.    


A Work lost.  
A Treatise of Justinian upon divers Questions.     

APRIGIUS. A Work lost.  
A Commentary upon the Revelations.   

ARETAS. A genuine Work.  
A Commentary upon the Revelations.   

ZACHARIAS Bishop of Mitylena. Genuine Works.  
A Treatise against the Manichaeans.  
A Dialogue about the Creation of the World.   

CYRILLUS of Scythopolis. A genuine Work.  
The Life of the Abbot Euthimus.   

FACUNDUS. Genuine Works.  
Twelve Books in Defence of the three Chapters.  
A Writing to Amocianus.  
A Letter about the Condemnation of the 3 Chapters.   

VICTOR of Capua.  


A genuine Work.  
The Harmony of the Gospels.    


A Work lost.  
The Paschal Cycle.     

RUSTICUS Deacon of the Roman Church.  


A genuine Work.  
A Treatise by way of Dialogue against the Acephali.    


Works lost.  
A Discourse against the Acephali and Nestorians.  
A Defence of the three Chapters.     

PRIMASIUS.  


Genuine Works.  
A Commentary upon the Revelation.  
A Commentary upon St. Paul.    


A Work lost.  
A Treatise of Heresies.     

JUNILIUS. A genuine Work.  
A Treatise of the parts of the Divine Law.   

LIBERATUS. A genuine Work.  
An Historical Memoire of the Contests that arose about the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches.   

VICTOR of Tunona.  


A genuine Work.  
Part of his Chronicle, beginning at the year 544, and ending at 565.    


A Work lost.  
The beginning of this Chronicle, which began from the Creation of the World.     

PAULUS SILENTIARIUS. A Genuine Work.  
A Poem containing a description of the Temple of Sancta Sophia.   

PELAGIUS I. Genuine Works.  
Sixteen Letters.  
A Fragment of many more.   

AGNELLUS. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to Armenius concerning the Faith.   

LEONTIUS. Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of Sects containing ten Conferences.  
Three Books against the Errors of Euryches.  
A Treatise against the Pieces alleged by the Eutychians.  
A Treatise against the Acephali.  
Some other Treatises in Manuscript.   

FORTUNATUS.  


Genuine Works.  
Four Books of the Life of St. Martin.  
Ten Books of divers Poems.  
The Lives of many Saints.    


A Work lost.  
The eleventh Book of Poems.     

BANDONINIA. A Genuine Work.  
The second Book of the Life of St. Rudegonda.   

St. GERMANUS Bishop of Paris. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to Brunechildis.   

MARTINUS of Bracara. Genuine Works.  
A Collection of Canons.  
The way of living honestly, or a Treatise of the four Cardinal Virtues.  
A Version of some Sentences of Greek Monks.   

PASCASIUS a Deacon. A Genuine Work.  
A Translation of some Questions and Answers of Greek Monks.   

JOANNES SCOLASTICUS. Genuine Works.  
A Collection of Canons.  
A Collection of Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws.   

GREGORY of Tours.  


Genuine Works.  
Ten Books of the History of France.  
Eight Books of Miracles, or the Lives of Saints.  
The Lives of some Saints.    


Works lost.  
A Commentary upon the Psalms.  
A Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Course, or the Divine Offices.  
A Preface to the Book of Masses of Sidonius.  
A Chronicle and Abridgement of History.     

GILDAS.  


A genuine Work.  
A Lamentation for the Miseries of England.    


Supposititious Works.  
Predictions.  
The Comedy entitled Aulularia.     

EVANTIUS. A genuine Work.  
A Letter against those who think that the Blood of Animals is impure.   

FERREOLUS.  


A genuine Work.  
A Rule for the Monks.    


A Work lost.  
A Letter.     

SEDATUS. A genuine Work.  
A Homily of Epiphanius.   

CHRYSIPPUS. A genuine Work.  
A Homily in the praise of the Virgin Mary.   

PELAGIUS II.  


Genuine Works.  
The third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Letters, and some Decrees.    


Supposititious Works.  
The first, second, eighth and ninth Letters.     

EULOGIUS. Works lost.  
Six Books against Novatus.  
Two Books of Apology for the Letter of St. Leo against Timotheus and Severus.  
Another Defence of the same Letter.  
Invectives against Theodosius and the Caianites.   

JOHN the younger.  


Genuine Works.  
A Homily of Penance.  
Two Penitential Books.    


Works lost.  
A Letter to Leander.     

JOHN of Biclarum.  


A genuine Work.  
A Chronicle from the year 566, to 590.    


A Book lost.  
A Rule for his Monks of Biclarum.     

ANASTASIUS SINAITA.  


Genuine Works.  
The Guide of the true Way against the Acephali.  
Books TWO, of Anagogical Considerations about the Creation of the World.  
Five Dogmatical Discourses.  
Six Sermons.  
Divers Manuscript Treatises.    


Supposititious Works.  
154 Questions upon the Scripture.     

EVAGRIUS. Genuine Works.  
Six Books of Ecclesiastical History.   

St. JOHN CLIMACUS. Genuine Works.  
A Scale of the Cloister, containing thirty Degrees.  
A Letter to John Abbot of Raithu.   

JOHN of Raithu. Genuine Works.  
A Letter to St. John Climacus.  
A Commendation and Commentary upon his Scale.   

St. GREGORY I.  


Genuine Works.  
Twelve Books of Letters, which are in number 840, or thereabouts.  
The Questions of St. Austin, and the Answers of St. Gregory.  
Morals upon Job, divided into five and thirty Books, and distributed into six parts.  
Homilies upon Ezechiel.  
Two Books of Homilies upon the Gospels.  
A Dialogue divided into three Books.  
Commentaries upon the Book of Kings and Canticles, collected by the Abbot Claudus.    


Supposititious Works.  
The Letter 54 of the seventh Book.  
The 31st Letter of the tenth Book.  
The Memorial about the Affair of Phocas.  
The Privileges granted to the Churches of Autun.  
The Privilege of St. Medard.  
An Exposition of the seven Penitential Psalms.  
The Antiphonary and the Sacramentary.     

PATERIUS.  


Genuine Works.  
Two Books of Collections of Passages out of St. Gregory upon the Scripture.    


A Book lost.  
A third Book.     

St. LEANDER Bishop of Sevil.  


Genuine Works.  
A Letter to his sister Florentina.  
A Discourse about the Conversion of the Goths.    


Works lost.  
Two Books against Heretics.  
A Treatise against the Arians.  
An Edition of the Psalms.  
Letters to St. Gregory.  
A Letter about Baptism addressed to his Brother.  
Many familiar Letters.     

LICINIANUS and SEVERUS Bishops of Spain. Works lost.  
Letters of Licinianus.  
A Treatise of Severus against Vincentius Bishop of Saragosa.  
Another Treatise of the same about Virginity.   

DINAMIUS. A genuine Work.  
The Life of St. Marius an Abbot.   

EUTROPIUS.  


A genuine Work.  
A Letter concerning the Reformation of Monks.    


A Work lost.  
A Letter about the Unction of those who are biptized.     

MAXIMUS Bishop of Saragosa. Works lost.  
The History of Spain, and some other Treatises in Prose and Verse.   

EUSTRATIUS. A genuive Work.  
A Treatise of the Souls of the Dead.   

ANDRONICIANUS. Works lost.  
Two Books against the Eunomians.   

LUCINIUS CHARINUS. Works lost.  
The Journeys of the Apostles.   

METRODORUS. A Work lost.  
A Paschal Cycle.   

HERACLIANUS Bishop of Chalcedon. Works lost.  
Twenty Books against the Manicheans.   

LEONTIUS Bishop of Arabissa. A Work lost.  
A Homily of the Creation and of Lazarus.    

A TABLE of the CANONS and ACTS of the COUNCILS held in the Sixth Age of the Church.  
The first Council of Rome under Symmachus. 
THe Acts and three Canons for preventing the usual Canvassing at the Election of Popes.  The second Council of Rome under the same. 


The Acts of the Absolution of Symmachus.  
Two Letters of Theodoric to the Council.  
A Relation about King Theodoric made by the Council.  
The Answer of Theodoric.  
A Memorial of Instructions from the Council to the King.    The third Council under Symmachus. 
Acts and a Canon of this Council concerning the Alienations of the Possessions of the Church.  Council of Agda. 
47 Canons, and 25 added, which are none of this Council's.  Council I. of Orleans. 
One and Thirty Canons.  Council of Tarraco. 
Thirteen Canons.  Council of Gerunda. 
Ten Canons.  Council of Epaone. 
Forty Canons.  Council I. of Lions. 
Six Canons.  Council of Lerida. 
Sixteen Canons.  Council of Valentia in Spain. 
Six Canons.  Council iv of Arles. 
Four Canons.  Council of the Bishops of Afric under Boniface Bishop of Carthage. 
Acts concerning the restoring of Discipline and the Exemptions of Monks.  Council II. of Orange. 
Eight Articles concerning Grace, confirmed by passages of Scripture, and a Collection of some Sentences out of the Fathers.  Council II. of Vasio. 
Five Canons.  Council of Rome under Boniface II. 
Acts about the Affair of Stephen Bishop of Larissa.  A Conference at Carthage between the Catholics and Severians. 
Acts of what was said there.  Council II. of Orleans. 
One and twenty Canons.  Council of Clermont in 535. 


Sixteen Canons.  
A Letter to King Theodebert.    Council III. of Orleans. 
Three and Thirty Canons.  Council of Barcelona. 
Ten Canons.  Council iv of Orleans. 
Eight and thirty Canons.  Council V of Orleans. 
Four and twenty Canons.  Council of Arvernia under King Theodoret. 
A Repetition and Confirmation of sixteen Canons in the preceding Council.  Council of Tutella. 
A Letter of Mappinius Bishop of Rheims about this Council.  Council of Constantinople under Mennas. 
Acts of this Council.  Council II. of Constantinople, called the fifth General Council. 
Acts of this Council.  Council V of Arles. 
Seven Canons.  Council II. of Paris 
Acts lost.  Council III. of Paris. 


Ten Canons.  
Edict of Clotarius.    Council I. of Bracara. 
Two and twenty Canons.  Council held at Santones. 
Acts lost.  Council II. of Lions. 
Six Canons.  Council II. of Tours. 


Seven and twenty Canons.  
One Letter.    Council II. of Bracara. 
Ten Canons.  Council V of Paris. 
Acts lost.  Synod of Antisiodorum. 
Five and forty Constitutions.  Council I. of Mascon. 
Nineteen Canons.  Council III. of Lions. 
Six Canons.  Council II. of Valentia. 
Act confirming Donations made to the Church.  Council II. of Mascon. 
Twenty Canons.  Edict of Gontranus. Council III. of Toledo. 


Acts of this Council.  
Three and twenty Canons.  
Edict of the King.    Council of Narbo. 
Fifteen Canons.  Council I. of Sevil. 
A Letter to Pegasus Bishop of Astigis.  Council in Arvernia. 
Acts lost.    

A TABLE OF THE WORKS OF THE Ecclesiastical Writers Of the Sixth Age, According to the Order of their Subject Matter.  

TREATISES IN GENERAL about the Doctrines of Religion.  
A Treatise of Faith addressed to Peter, composed by St. Fulgentius.  
A Treatise on the same Subject, addressed to Felix.  
Confessions of Faith by Maxentius.  
A Confession of Faith of Giles the Abbot.  
A Confession of Faith by Justinian.  
A Treatise by the same against Origen.  
A Treatise of Zacharias against the Manichees.  
A Treatise of the Creation of the World by the same.  
A Letter of Agnellus concerning the Faith.   

Treatises about the Trinity.  
A Letter of Avitus.  
Fragments of some of his Books against the Arians.  
A Conference of his with Gondebaud.  
An Answer to the Objections of the Arians by St. Fulgentius.  
Three Books of the same to King Thrasimund.  
The Answer of Fulgentius to the second Question of Monimus, and the last Book of his to Monimus.  
A Treatise of the Faith by the same.  
A Fragment of the Books of St. Fulgentius, against Fabianus an Arian Heretic.  
A Treatise of the same St. Fulgentius to Victor.  
The Answer of St. Fulgentius to the first and fourth Question of Ferrandus.  
A Treatise of Boethius about the Trinity.  
The first and second Dogmatical Treatises of Anastasius Sinaita.   

Treatises about the Incarnation.  
The second and third Letters of Avitus.  
A Discourse of Ennodius against the Heretics of the East for the Councils.  
Letters of Hormisdas.  
Letters of the Monks of Scythia about this Proposition, One of the Trinity suffered; and the Answer of the Bishops of Afric, composed by St. Fulgentius.  
The Answer of St. Fulgentius to the second and third Question of Ferrandus.  
The Answer to Reginus.  
Letters of Ferrandus to Severus and Anatolius, about this Proposition, One of the Trinity suffered.  
A Writing of his about the three Chapters.  
The Writings of John Maxentius.  
A Letter of Trifolius.  
A Treatise of the two Natures by Boethius.  
The Works of St. Ephrem.  
Fragments of the Treatise of Jobius, about the Word Incarnate.  
Twelve Books of Facundus.  
A Treatise of Rusticus against the Acephali.  
The Works of Leontius.  
An Extract out of the Works of Eulogius, related by Photius.  
The Guide of the true Way by Anastasius Sindita.  
The third, fourth, and fifth Dogmatical Discourses of the same.   

About Grace, Liberty, and Predestination.  
The fourth Book of Avitus.  
The nineteenth Letter of the second Book of Ennodius.  
The beginning of St. Fulgentius' Book to Monimus.  
A Letter of the Monks of Scythia, and the Answer of the Bishops of Afric, composed by St. Fulgentius.  
Three Books of St. Fulgentius about Predestination and Grace.  
A Letter to John and Venerius written by the same, in the name of the Bishops of Afric.  
The latter end of the Treatise about Faith, addressed to Peter.  
Canons of Council 11. of Orange.   

About the Soul.  
Against the Arians.  
A Treatise of Eustratius about the Souls of the Dead.  
A Treatise of the Soul by Cassiodorus.   

TREATISES AGAINST THE HERETICS.  


Against the Arians.  
Fragments of Avitus.  
His Conference.  
Answer to the Objections of the Arians by St. Fulgentius, and other Treatises by the same.    


Against the Eutychians, Acephali, and Severians.  
A Discourse of Ennodius.  
The Writings of John Maxentius.  
The Works of St. Ephrem.  
A Treatise of Jobius.  
A Treatise of Rusticus.  
The Works of Leontius.  
The Guide of Anastasius Sinaita.  
Councils under Mennas, Council V General, etc.    


Against the Pelagians.  
The Writings of St. Fulgentius.  
A Letter of the Monks of Scythia.  
Canons of the Council of Orange.    


Upon this Proposition, One of the Trinity suffered.  
The Letters of Hormisdas.  
The Writings of John Maxentius.  
A Letter of St. Fulgentius, and the Bishops of Afric.  
A Letter of Avitus.  
A Letter of Ferrandus to Severus.  
A Letter of Trifolius.  
Letters of the Popes, etc.    


About the Affair of the three Chapters.  
Letters of the Popes, and chief of Vigilius.  
Acts of the fifth Council.  
The Works of Facundus.  
A Writing of Ferrandus.  
The Edict of Justinian.  
Letters of the Popes, Pelagius and St. Gregory.     

Works of Discipline.  
First, second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh Letters of Symmachus.  
First, fourth and sixth Letters of Avitus. Item the ninth, tenth, fourteenth, seventeenth, three and twentieth, six and twentieth, thirtieth, six and thirtieth, nine and thirtieth, one and fortieth, and nine and fortieth of the same.  
The Homily on the Rogation-days by the same.  
His Homilies upon Dedications.  
The fourteenth Letter of the second Book of Ennodius' Letters.  
The Exhortation of Ennodius about the Obligations of Bishops to keep a Clergyman in their House to be a witness of their Actions.  
Five Discourses by the same.  
The Answer to the second and third Question of Monimus by the same.  
His Letter to Proba.  
His Letter about Conjugal Duties.  
A Collection of Canons by Ferrandus the Deacon.  
The third Letter of John I. addressed to Caesarius.  
A Letter of Boniface to the same.  
Letters of John II.  
Novels of Justinian.  
A Collection of Canons and Decretals by Dionysius Exiguus.  
Letters about Easter by the same.  
The third, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh Letters of Vigilius.  
The Letter of Pontianus to Justinian.  
The Letter of Leo to King Childebert.  
A Treatise of Facundus addressed to Mocianus.  
A Letter by the same.  
Some Letters of Pelagius 1  
Collection of Canons by Martinus of Bracara.  
Collection of Canons by Joannes Scholasticus.  
Collection of Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws by the same.  
A Letter of Evantius, about the lawfulness of eating the Blood of Animals.  
A Letter and Decrees of Pelagius II.  
Penitential Books of John the younger.  
Greater part of the Letters of St. Gregory the Great.  
The Pastoral by the same.  
Canons of the Councils.   

About Baptism.  
Answer of St. Fulgentius to the Questions of Ferrandus▪  
Letter of Trojanus Bishop of Santones to Eumenius.   

About 〈◊〉.  
The 〈…〉  
Two 〈…〉  
A Letter by the same 〈…〉  
The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of J●… 〈◊〉 〈…〉   

WORKS UPON THE HOLY SCRIPTURE.  


Critical Treatises.  
An Introduction to Scripture by Adrianus.  
An Institution of 〈◊〉 to Di●…e Learning.  
Junilius' 〈◊〉 of the P●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divine Law.  
The Harmony of the four Gospels' 〈◊〉 Victor of 〈◊〉.  
Anagogical Considerations by Anastasius Sinaita upon the Creation of the World.    


Commentaries.  
Commentaries upon the P●… and Isaiah, by Procopius of Gaza.  
Scholia upon Kings and Chronicles by the same.  
A Commentary of Cassiod●… upon the Psalms.  
A Commentary upon Canticles falsely attribu●●● to the same.  
The Morals of St. Gregory upon Job.  
His Homilies upon 〈◊〉.  
A Commentary upon Kings and C●…icles by the Abbot Claudius.  
A Collection of Passages out of St. Gregory upon the Scripture, made by Paterius.  
St. Gregory's Homilies upon the Gospels.  
Pri●●sius's Commentary upon St. Paul.  
H●● Commentary upon the Revelation.  
〈◊〉 is Commentary upon the Revelation.    


Historical Works.  
The third, sixth, eighth and ninth Letters of Sy●…chus.  
The 30th Letter of Avitus in behalf of Pope Sy●…chus.  
A Panegyric upon King Theodoric by 〈◊〉.  
Apology for the Council which acquitted Sy●…chus by E●…dius.  
The Life of St. Epiphanius Bishop of P●●i●, and Anthony Monk of Lerina, by the same.  
The Letters of Hormisdas.  
The Life of St. Seurinus by Eugippius.  
Writings of Ferrandus about the three Chapters.  
The Life of St. Fulgentius by Ferrandus.  
A Writing of John M●…ius.  
The Chronicle of Marcellinus.  
Translation of the Histories of Socrates, Soz●… and Theodoret by Epiphanius.  
A History by Theodorus the Reader.  
Letters of John II. about the deposition of Contumeliosus.  
Letters of Agapetus about the Affair of Anthimus, Stephen and Contumeliosus.  
Letters of Justinian to the fifth Council, and his Edict against Anthimus.  
The T●… History of Cassiodorus.  
A Chronicle.  
Letters and Writings of Pope Vigilius, about the Affair of the three Chapters.  
The Testament of C●s●rius of Arles.  
The Life of the Abbot 〈◊〉 by Cyril of Scythopolis.  
Works of Facundus about the Affair of the 〈◊〉 Chapters.  
History of Liberatus.  
Chronicle of Victor.  
Some Letters of Pelagius 1  
Ten Books of the History of France by Gregory of Tours.  
Eight Books of Miracles, or of the L●… of S●….  
The Lives of some S●…  
Letter of 〈◊〉 II. about the Affair of the 〈◊〉 Chapters.  
Six Books of 〈◊〉 's Ecclesiastical History.  
Some Letters of St. Gregory, and his 〈◊〉.  
Life of St. Marius composed by Dinamius.  
Acts of the Councils of Rome held under Sy●…chus.  
Acts of the Council under Boniface Archb. of Carthage.  
Acts of a Council of Rome under Boniface II.  
Acts of the Council of Constantinople under Mennas.  
Acts of the fifth Council.  
History of some other Councils.    


Political Works.  
Five Poems of Avitus upon the beginning of Genesis.  
A Poem of Virginity.  
An Admonition to the Faithful, written by Or●…ius.  
Nicetius' Treatise about Watching and Psalmody.  
H●● two Letters.  
History of the Acts in Verse by Ar●t●●.  
His Letter to Count Parthenius.  
A Description of the Temple of Sancta Sophia by Paulus Silentiarius.  
The Life of St. Martin▪ and other Works by Fortunatus.  
The Life of St. Radeg●●da by Bandoni●ia.    


Moral, Pious and Spiritual Works.  
Letters and Sermons by St. Fulgentius.  
Collection of Passages out of St. Austin by Eugippius.  
A Letter of Ferrandus to Reginus.  
Sermons of Laurentius.  
Sermons of Caesarius of Arles.  
A Letter of St. Germanus to Queen 〈◊〉.  
A Treatise of the Cardinal Virtues by Martin of Bra●….  
Lamentation of Gildas for the Miseries of England.  
Homilies of Sed●… Chrysippus.  
Homilies of Penance by John the younger.  
Six Sermons of Anastasius Sinaita, and particularly of Preparation for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.  
Morals of St. Gregory upon Job.  
Homilies by the same.  
His Pastoral.  
The Lives of Saints. See Historical Works.    


Works about a Monastic Life.  
The Rule of St. Benedict.  
The Rule of Caesarius for Nuns.  
His two Letters.  
The Rules of Aurelianus.  
The Rule of Tetradius.  
Sentences of some Greek Monks, translated by Martin of 〈◊〉, and Paschasius the Deacon.  
The Rule of Ferreolus.  
A Scale of the Cloister by John Climacus.  
His Letter to John Abbot of Raithu.  
A Commentary of John of Raithu upon the Scale of the Cloister, and a Letter to St. John Climacus.  
The Dialogues of St. Gregory, and many of his Letters.  
The Letter of St. Leander to his sister Florentina.  
A Letter of Eutropius about the Reformation of Monks.      

AN Alphabetical INDEX OF THE Principal Matters contained in the Fifth Volume.  

A  
ABbot. Qualities of an Abbot. 85  
Acacius. The Letter of Symmachus against Acacius 3  
Acacius of Constantinople condemned by the Western Bishops 132  
Adrian. Author of an Introduction to Scripture 24  
Adrian Bishop of Thebes. His cause 77  
Africa. A Regulation of the Rank of the Provinces of Africa 119, 120  
Agapetus, Bishop of Rome. His Life and Letters, 31 Came to Constantinople, and Ordained Mennas' 133  
Agnellus. What we know of this Author 59  
Alms. Bishop's obliged to assist the Poor 144  
Altars. Altars of stone only to be consecrated, 116. Consecration of Altars by the Unction of the Chrysm, and by the Sacerdotal Benediction 111  
Anastasius Sinaita. Circumstances of his Life 67. Abridgement of his Extracts 67, 68  
Andrew Bishop of Fundi. His Miracles 99, 100  
Andronicianus. A Treatise against the Eunomians 106  
Anonymous Author upon the Octateuch 35  
Anthimus. Agapetus would not suffer him to be Bishop of Constantinople, 32. Condemned by Agapetus, 133. In the Synod under Mennas his Process was made, and he condemned ibid.  
Aprigius. A Judgement upon the Work of that Author 51  
Arator. Judgement upon his Poems ibid.  
archdeacon. His Dignity and Office 80  
Aretas, Author of a Commentary upon the Revelation, 52  
Arles. Contest between the Bishops of Arles and Vienna concerning Ordinations, 2. Regulated by Pope Symmachus, ibid. Privileges attributed to the Bishop of Arles by Symmachus 3. Pallium & Vicariat granted to the Bishop of Arles by Vigilius 48  
Asylum. Right of Asylum granted to the Church, confirmed with Restrictions, 113. Restrictions upon the Law of Sanctuary 117, 129  
Augustine, Monk. History of his Mission into England 90, 91  
Avitus. His Life, 4. Writings 5. etc.  
Aurelianus. His Rules for Monks. 50  
Austerities. Examples of surprising Austerities 10. etc.   

B  
BAndoninia. A Writing of this young Woman 62  
Baptism. That no Salvation can be attained without the Sacrament of Baptism, except to those that shed their Blood for Jesus Christ, 19 Baptism without Faith signifies nothing to the Adult, 20. It is useless to baptise the Dead, ibid. Faith without Baptism cannot save according to St. Fulgentius, ibid. Baptism sufficeth without the Eucharist, ibid. The Effect of Baptism, 73. It is indifferent to use three Dippings, or one, ibid. It may be given extraordinarily to Jews, ibid. No Person must be forced to receive it, ibid. The Baptism of Heretics valid, if it be given in the name of the Trinity, ibid. In an uncertainty whether one has been baptised or no, he must be baptised, ibid. When it is to be administered to the Adult, and to Children, 115. Children ought to be brought to the Church twenty days before Easter, that they may be Exorcised, 151. Baptism forbidden to be administered but in Easter, 115, 152. Baptism forbidden on Festivals, 154. Baptism given by the Apostles in the Name of the Trinity, 53. A Woman with Child may be baptised, 93. Catechumen must not be prayed for that died without Baptism, 148. Rebaptization forbidden 118  
Basil of Cilicia. Judgement of Photius upon this Author 28  
L. de Bassompiere Bishop of Santones. Praise of that Bishop 102  
Benefices. Plurality of Benefices condemned 116  
St. Benedict. His Life and Miracles, 45, 99 Abridgement of his Rule 45  
Bigamists, Cannot be Ordained, 75. Prohibitions to ordain them, 110 116, 119  
Bishops. The Obligations Bishops are under, 83. Instructions concerning the Obligations of Bishops and Pastors, drawn from the Pastoral of St. Gregory, 97. It is forbidden to Bishops to undertake any thing in prejudice of their Brethren, 118, 119. Humility of Bishops, 98. They ought to have a Clerk with them as witness of their actions, 9 Translation of Bishops 87  
Bishoprics. Union of Bishoprics 86  
Blessedness. In what the Sovereign Happiness consists 26  
Blood. If Christians may eat the Blood of Beasts, and when the Church ceased to forbid it 64  
Boethius. His Life, 26. his Writings ibid.  
Boniface II. His Ordination, 30. Letter that is falsely attributed to him, ibid. Letter to Caesarius genuine. ibid.  
Boniface, Monk, Multiplies Wine 99   

C  
Councils of Cnalcedon defended by Leontius 60  
Cardinal. What that Quality was in the time of St. Gregory 79  
Carthage. Primary and Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Carthage over Africa, 119, 120. Pre-eminence of the Bishop of Carthage 33  
Cassiodorus. His Life and Writings 43  
Celibacy. St. Gregory Ordained that for the future the Subdeacons shall be obliged to Sicily as elsewhere; but he obliged not those that had been Ordained before that Law, 81. The Punishment of the Bishops and Clerks that observe not Celibacy, ibid. Those that are in Orders, are obliged to it 92  
Celibacy of the Clergy. The Laws of Pope Innocent and Siricius confirmed, 111. Clerks obliged to Celibacy are forbidden to cohabit with their Wives 115  
Caesarius. Bishop of Arles. His Life and Writings 49  
Chapels. The Bishop ought to choose the Clerks that serve in them, 129. Arch-deacons ordered to take care of them, 130. The Revenue of them belongs to him that does the Service, 161. Particular Chapels when permitted, and upon what Conditions 111  
Charinus. False History of him 106  
Churches Consecrated by the Arians, aught to be consecrated anew, 160. A Church must not be consecrated that is built on the Foundations of an old one, 48. Consecration of Churches, 86. Divers Regulations in Church Government, 38, 39, etc. Division of the Churches of the East and West. Hormisdas' labours for their Reunion, and sends Deputies to the East with a Memoire of Instruction, 10. The condemnation of Acacius hinders the Union, 11. It is made at last 12  
The Holy Chrism. Ought not to be consecrated by Priests, 123. The Priests must go to fetch it, and bring it with Respect 152  
Clerks. Divers Rules concerning Clerks, 127, 128. They ought to cut their Hair, and be modestly clad. 111. Rank of Seniority ought to be observed among Clerks, ibid. Must not go out of the Diocese without their Bishop's Letter, 112. Clerks are forbid to bear Arms, 118. They are forbid to keep Dogs and Birds for Hunting, 116. If they Travel without their Bishop's Letter they must not be admitted to the Communion, 116. They ought not to have Recourse to the Secular Judge, nor to summon any before him, 111, 112, 116. The Priest shall have care of the young Clerks 122  
Clotilda. A Nun of the Monastery of St. Radegond. Her Excesses reprimanded 158, 159  
Clovis. His Baptism 6  
Columbus Bishop of Numidia. St. Gregory remits an Affair to him 77  
Communion of Strangers. What it is 110, 111  
Councils. Respect due to General Councils, 76. Usefulness of Provincial Councils, ibid. Provincial Councils ought to be held twice a year, 12. May be held without the Pope's consent, 9 The Bishops that come not to the Provincial Councils to be punished 114, 116, 125  
Constantius Sacristan. Lamps light 99  
Contumeliosus Bishop of Regium. The condemnation of him, 31. He appeals to the Holy See, which will have his Cause tried again 33  
Ecclesiastical Course. It is a Divine Office. 63  
Customs of Churches. They are different. It was permitted Austin the Monk to choose those he judged proper to establish in England 92  
Creation. If God created all Creatures, or no 19  
Creed. Why so called, 19 It ought to be taught to the Catechumen 111  
Paschal Cycle, Composed by Victor, 55. by Denys Exiguus, 42. by Metrodorus 106  
Cyrillus of Scythopolis, Author of the Life of St. Euthymus 52   

D  
DAcius Bishop of Milan, drives away Devils 99  
Dead. Prayers and Sacrifices for the dead, 100, 105. It is more certain and profitable to Expiate our Faults in this Life, 100 Prayers and Anniverssaries for the dead, 4. Offerings for the dead, 148. We must not pray for those that put themselves to death, 125, 148. nor for the Catechumen that die without Baptism, ibid. nor for those condemned to death, ibid. for those that die in the commission of any great Crime, 125. If the dead can be Anathematised 137, 141, 146  
Dedication of a Church. Alms made at that Feast 5  
Deacon. Functions of Deacons 80  
Deaconness. It is forbidden to consecrate Widows 116  
Dionysius Exiguus. Catalogue of his Works 42  
Dinamius. Life of St. Marius, 104. Two of that Name, ibid. Two Lives under their Names ibid.  
Dominical. Women must have their Dominical for the Communion, 153. What it is ibid.  
Donatists. There were of them in Africa in the time of St. Gregory 89   

E  
EAst. We must turn to the East to to pray 68  
Easter. When this Feast ought to be celebrated 129  
Elections of Bishops, in what manner they are to be made, 75. Qualities requisite in those that are chosen, ibid. Regulation in the Election of the Pope, 108. If it may be made without the consent of the Sovereign 110  
Emerius deposed, for having taken an Order from the Prince to be made a Bishop 149  
Ennodius Bishop of Pavia. His Life, 7. His Writings, 8. He is sent into the East by Pope Hormisdas, 10, 11  
Epiphanius Scholasticus translated into Latin the History of Socrates, Zozomen, and Theodoret 27  
St. Ephrem. Abstract of his Works 33  
Equicius. Miracles which he wrought 98  
Evagrius. His Ecclesiastical History 69  
Evantus, or Evantius. His Writings 64  
Eucharist. Explication of the Words at the last Supper, This Cup is the new Testament, etc. 20. A difficult Passage of Facundus upon the Eucharist, 54. It is forbidden to offer in the Cup any thing but Wine mixed with Water, 129, 152. It ought to be Celebrated fasting, 152, 155. and must also be Received fasting, 68 If Pollutions hinder Communicating or Celebrating, 93. We are obliged to Communicate at Easter, Christmas, and Whitsuntide, 111. Consecration of the Eucharist by an infirm Bishop, does not hinder its being valid, 74. In what manner the Pieces of the Eucharist are to be disposed on the Altar, 149. Must not be given to the dead 154  
Eugippius. His Life and Writings 21  
Eulogius. Abstract of his Writings 66  
Eustratius. Abstract of his Treatise of the Souls 105  
Eutropius Bishop of Valentia. His Writings ibid.  
Excommunication. Effects and Conditions of Excommunication, 84. It is forbidden to Bishops to Excommunicate upon light Occasions 111, 130   

F  
FAcundus. His Writings 125  
Faith without Works is wholly useless 4  
The Catholic Faith, nothing must be added to it, but it may be explained 23  
Fallibility of M●n and of Pope's 99  
Faustus. His Writings are not received in the Church of Rome 19  
Felix IU. His Life and Letter genuine and supposititious. 29  
Ferrand Deacon. His Life and Writings 22  
Ferreolus Bishop of Ucecia. His Rule and his other Writings 64  
Feasts. Treatise of the Retrenching of Feasts by the late M. de Saintes 103  
Florentius Bishop of Epidaurus, Judged innocent by St. Gregory 77  
Fortunatus, Bishop of Italy, drove away Devils, 99 Catalogue and Judgement of his Poems 61  
St. Fulgentius. His Life, 13. His Writings, 1●. He shuns a Bishopric ibid.   

G  
GAudentius Bishop of Astigis. Question concerning the Slaves of the Church that had been set at liberty 257  
St. Germanus. Letter to Brunehault 62  
Gild●●. Distinction of two Persons of that Name, 63. Writings of the latter called Badonica 64  
Giles, Abbot. Author of a Profession of Faith 25  
Giles of Rheims, Ordained Bishop at Chauteaudun against order, 151. Judged and Condemned in the Synod of Metz 159  
Gloria Patri. Against those that leave out this, and between Son and Holy Ghost 48  
Goods of the Church. Cannot nor ought not to be alienated, ●8, 41, 110, 112. Exception to this Rule, 39, 112. Excommunication against those who Retain them, 111. or the Titles, ibid. Their Alienation forbidden, 77, 116, 118, 123, 129, 147, 156. The Goods of the Church are the Kings, and in what sense 6  
Grace. Sentiments of St. Augustine concerning Grace approved by the Monks of Scythia, and by the Bishops of Africa, 16, 23. By St. Fulgentius in his Writings, 19 Capitula of the Councils of Orange concerning Grace, 121. It is necessary for the beginning of Action, 30. It is necessary to Conversion 7  
St. Gregory. His Family, 72. His Employs, ibid. His Voyage to Constantinople, ibid. His Ordination, ibid. His Conduct and Actions in the Pontificate, ibid. & 104. His Works, 73, etc. His Death, 73. Supposititious Letters attributed to St. Gregory, 91. His Morals, 95. The Pastoral, 96. Homilies, 98. Dialogues, ibid. Other Works dubious or supposititious, 100, 101. An Explication upon the seven Psalms of Gregory VII. 101. Fabulous History concerning the Soul of Trajan, 102. Judgement upon his stile, ibid. Editions of his Works, ibid.— The last Edition, ibid.  
Gregory of Tours. His Works, 63. Judgement upon his stile ibid.  
Gondobald. Conference of Avitus with the Arians in the Presence of the King Gondobald 7   

H  
HAbitation of Clerks with strange Women forbidden 111  
Hallelujah. In what times it is to be sung 88  
Harmony of the Gospels published by Victor 55  
Heraclianus his Treatise against the Manichees 106  
Heretics. Methods to oppose them, 68 How they must be received, 48. If the Arian Bishops that are Converted must be let perform the Functions of their Dignity: The Bishops of Africa and Agapetus were of Opinion not, 32. Clerks that were Heretics, being Converted, may be allowed their station, 113. Those that fall into Heresy after Baptism, received after Penance, 116. It is forbidden to use the Churches of Heretics, 117. Clerks of the Church are forbidden to eat with them, 116. The Priest may apply to them the Chrysm, if being sick they are willing to be converted, 116. Clerks converted may perform the Functions of their Ministry, having received the Benediction, 160. In what Heretics are to be received, 5. An Heretic Bishop who is converted may be raised to the Priesthood, ibid. It is never permitted to the Catholics to make use of the Churches of Heretics 4  
Holy Ghost. Mission of the Holy Ghost explained 15  
Homicides. Penitence imposed on Homicides, 117, 118  
〈◊〉 Abbot of F●●●i. 〈◊〉 ●●ich 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●8  
〈◊〉 Hi● Lif● 10. His L●… ibid.  
Hospitality. A Catholic Bishop in what place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ou●… 〈◊〉 to ●e esteemed a stranger. 14  
H●…, 〈◊〉 Catholic Bishop, dispu●●● against the ●e●erians 124   

I  
JAnuarius Bishop of Calar●● cited to Rome 77  
Januari●● Bishop of Mal●ga unjustly Deposed, and established by the Commissary of St. Gr●g●ry ibid.  
〈◊〉 The Letter of I●● forbidden, ●3. Proofs against him, 142. Judgement upon the Letter 146  
St. 〈◊〉 the Apostle. That he is not dead any more than Eli● and Enoch 34  
Jo●● I. Bishop of Rome. His Ordination, 29. His Legation into the East, ibid. Two supposititious Letters attributed to him ibid.  
John II. His Life and Letters 30  
John of Biclarum. His Writings 67  
Joh● Priest of Chalcedon, Absolved by St. Gregory 78  
St. John Climacus. His Life, 69. Abstract of his Scale 70  
John the Faster. Circumstances of his Life. His Writings 67  
John of Raithu, Friend to St. John Climacus 72  
Joannes Scholastious, of his Ordination, and of his Collection of Cano●s. 63  
John of Scythopolis. Judgement upon his Work 28  
John Talaia. His Ordination 132  
Images. They ought not either to be adored, or beaten down 87  
Incarnation. Doctrine of the Church concerning that Mystery against the Errors of the Nestorians and Eutychians, 60, 68 The Question of the two Natures discussed with the Sev●rians, ●24. Scholastical Explication of that Mystery by Bo●tius, 26. If it may be said that One of the Trinity was crucified, 13, 16, 20, 23, 28, 30, 31, 34, 52. If the Soul of Jesus did perfectly know the Divinity, 20. If we may say that the Father, or the Divine Nature was Incarnate, 20. If the Flesh of Jesus Christ is Corruptible or Incorruptible ibid. Divers Questions concerning the Incarnation 34  
I●●●nts exposed. Precautions concerning them 112  
Intri●guing and Canvasing for Bishoprics forbidden 108  
Last Judgement. It was believed near in St. Gregory's time 89  
Ecclesiastical Judgements. Form of Judgements according to St. Gregory 77  
Junilius. His Writings 57  
Justinian the Emperor. His Edicts and Letters against Origen, and upon the Affair of the three Chapters, 136, 137, 139. Letter of Justinian against Vigilius. 144. He sends a Profession of Faith to John II. 30. He writ also to Ag●petus, 31. Life of Justinian, 37. Novels, or Laws of that Emperor, that concern Religion 37  
Justinian and Justus. The Writings of these two Bishops of Spain. 51   

K  
KYrie El●iso●. Use of that Prayer among the Latins. 88   

L  
LA●… Antipope I. Ordained Bishop of Noc●ra, ibid.  
Another Lawrence. His Writings 25  
St. Leander of Sevil, Friend to St. Gregory. Upon what occasion he knew it, 95. His Life and Writings 103  
Leo. His Letter 50  
Leontius. His Profession, 60. His Writings ibid.  
Leontius of Arabissa, Author of a Homily of the Creation, and of Lazarus 107  
Lent. The Fast of Lent commanded, 111, 114. There aught to be three Litany days before it, 151. The Priest ought to Inform themselves from the Bishop, when it gins 151  
Liberatus. Memorial of this Author 58  
Ljoinianus. Letters of this Bishop of Spain 104  
Liberty is not taken away by the Prescience of God, 26. Man is free to do well or ill 8  
Life. Precepts to lead a Christian Life 68, 70  
Lombard's. Pelagius II. demands Succours against the Lombard's 65  
Lord's-day. It is forbidden to Travel on the Lord's-day, and to bath for Pleasure, 88 To assist at the Divine Office on the Lord's-day, 112. It is forbidden to draw with Oxen, or to do other work on the Lord's-day, 152, 154. Exhortation to Celebrate it holily, 154. A Bishop ought to assist at the Holy Office in the nearest Church to the Place where he is, 114. It is forbidden to ecclesiastics to judge on the Lord's-day ibid.   

M  
MAniche●s, Writings against them 107  
Mappinius Bishop of Rheims complains of Nicetus of Triers. 131  
Marcellinus Author of a Chronicle 25  
Marriage. That Marriage is not forbid, 19 Not even the second or third Marriage, ibid. The indissolvableness of Marriage, 74. A particular Case of a Woman, who being separated for Adultery, was afterwards returned to her Husband, ibid. Lawfully contracted, cannot be dissolved without consent of both, 125. Against married Persons who separate upon light occasions, 112, 125. Causes of the Dissolutions of Marriages according to the Novel of Justinian 39 42. Reasons of Divorce, 39 Degrees forbidden between Kindred, 93, 117, 123, 127, 147. Those to be tolerated that have contracted unlawful Marriage before their Conversion, 93. It is forbidden to demand of the Primean Order to have a young Woman, 147. The Wife of a Deacon or Priest, shall be put to Penance with him she marries till they separate, 113, 117. Incests. Punishment of Stephen accused of Incest, 117, 118. Incests condemned, ibid. Marriage with the Widow of his Brother forbidden, 114, 117. and with his Stepmother, 117. It is not permitted to marry the sister of his Wife, 4, 48. Unlawful Marriages condemned, 131. The Use of Marriage is not permitted, but upon the Prospect of having Children, 15. The Duties of married People, ibid.  
Mary. She-remained a Virgin after she had brought forth 68  
Martin of Bragara. Of his Writings 62  
Martyrology. The Church of Rome had no History of Martyrs in the time of St. Gregory, but only a Catalogue of the Holy Martyrs 88  
Maxentius. His Life and Writings 23  
Maximus of Salonae. His Contest with St. Gregory terminated amicably 90  
Maximus Bishop of Saragossa, Author of several Books 105  
Meats. Against those that forbear Meats through Superstition 48  
Melodunum, Opposition made to the Bishopric intended to be established at Melodunum 50  
Mennas' Patriarch of Constantinople, Ordained by Agapetus, 133. Holds a Council at Constantinople against Anthimus, ibid. Request to Pope Agapetus, and his Letter against Anthimus 134  
Metrodorus. His Paschal Cycle. 106  
Metropolitans. They are Judges of the Causes of the Bishops in their Province. Vide Ecclesiastical Judgements. The Pope's Vicars take not away their Rights, 78. Metropolitants in Africa by right of Antiquity, 79. They ought to be Ordained by the Bishops of the Province, 125, 127, 129. Judges of Causes between Clerks and Bishops, 139. and the differences created in the Province, 149. He alone must take Cognizance of the Causes of Bishops, 155. He hath right to Ordain, and if he doth not Ordain, the Bishop ordained must come to him, 114. In the Divine Office the Metropolitan's Order is to be followed 115  
Mess. Use of that Name, 4. Canons of the Mess and Prayers 88  
Messes in Houses ibid.  
Militia. Instruction to Men of Arms to live Christianly 22  
Extraordinary Miracles. 98  
Monks. Distinction of four sorts of Monks, 66. Rule for Monks, 45. St. Gregory's Regulations concerning Monks, 84. Justinian's Regulations concerning Monk and Monasteries, 38, 40. Rules concerning Monks, 114, 118, 150. They ought not to go out of their Monastery, 115. Not to inhabit in separate Cells, 112. Instructions for Monks, 70. Examples of surprising Austerities, ibid. They ought not to be chosen for being Defenders of the Church, 66. They ought to live in Repose and Solitude, ibid. They may not be Godfathers', 73  
Monks of Africa pretend to be exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Ordinary, and it was adjudged in their favour 120  
Monasteries ought not to be established without the Permission of the Bishop, 116. Regulations concerning Monks and Monasteries, 112. Regulations for Nunneries, 120. Unions of Monasteries 120  
The Holy Mysteries ought not to be celebrated in particular places 39, 41   

N  
NOnnosius, Monk, Transports a Mountain 99  
Nicetius Bishop of Treves, his Writings 50  
Novatus, or Novatian. Remarks of Eulogius against Novatus 66   

O  
OFfice of the Church. The Order of the Office, 111, 112. It is forbidden to go out of the Church till it be done, 114. We must follow the Order of the Metropolitan, 115, 117, 147. The Lord's Prayer ought to be recited in it, 115. Divers Regulations concerning the Divine Office, 118, 121, 127, 128, 148, 150, 152, 156  
Offerings. Half the Offerings belongs to the Bishops, and half to the Clerks, 113. The Bishop has the disposal of what is given, and the third of what is offered at the Altar in the Churches in the Country ibid. & 114.  
Ordinations. In what manner they are to be made, 75. Qualities necessary in order to be Ordained, ibid. Second Ordination forbidden, 76, 117, 118, 125, 127, 130. Regulations of Justinian concerning the Quality of those that are Ordained Bishops, and of their Ordination, 37. etc. Those ought not to be Ordained who promise to give away the Goods of the Church, 2. Laymen must observe the Times regulated by the Canons before they be advanced to the Priesthood, ibid. 162. Intriegueing for being raised to the Priesthood, forbidden, 2. Simoniacal Ordination forbid, 12. Particular manner of choosing a Bishop. Qualities of a Bishop, 162. One single Bishop in case of Necessity may Ordain another, 93. The Metropolitans of Milan and Aquilea do mutually Ordain each other, 59 It is forctidden to Ordain Bigamists, and those that have done Penance, 116. The Bishops of the Province ought to meet in a Synod for the Ordination of a Bishop, 112. It is not permitted to Ordain those that have done Penance, ibid. It is forbidden to Ordain Secular Persons without the Permission of the Prince, 113. Deacons ought not to be Ordained till they be twenty five years old, nor Priests till they be thirty, 119, 127. Other Rules concerning Ordinations, 119. Against ordaining Deacons till they be twenty five years old, 111. and Priests till thirty, ibid. Precautions for disposing of Children that are offered to the Church to be Clerks 123  
Orentius. Author of an Admonition in Verse 26  
Origen. The Condemnation of Origen by Justinian, 136. Anathematisms against Origen, 144. Whether he was Condemned in the fifth Council, ibid.   

P  
PAllium granted to the Bishop of Arles by Vigilius. 48. And by Pelagius I. ●9. To whom and upon what Conditions given by St. Gregory, 79. In what time, and on what occasions to be used, ibid. Archbishops must not say Mass without the Pall 153  
Parishes in the Country. How the Office ought to be performed there, 115. Bishop's ought to visit them ibid.  
Pasca●i●●, Disciple of Martin of Bracaris 62  
Paterius. Collection of the Works of St. Gregory by Paterius 103  
St. Peter's Patrimony. What it was in the time of St. Gregory, and to what use he employed it 8●  
Paul of Al●xandria, accused of Murder, and sent into Exile 135, 136  
Paulus Silentiarius, his Poem containing the Description of the Temple of St. Sophia 58  
St. Paulinus Bishop of Nola. Circumstances of his Life 99  
Pelagius I. His Ordination 58, 145. His Letters, 58, etc.  
Pelagius II. His Ordination, 65. His Letters ibid.  
Penitence, vide Repentance.  
Penitents. Their manner of Living, 128. Penance granted to the sick 128  
Persecution. Consolation to Persons that suffer Persecutions 8  
Peter of Apamea, condemned in the Council under Mennas' 133  
Peter Mongus his History 132  
P●●tianus. Who this Author is, and what he hath written 49  
Power Ecclesiastical and Civil. Distinction of those two Powers, 4. Obedience due to the Ecclesiastical and Civil Powers. The different Chiefs of them ibid.  
●ivil Power. Submission due to Princes by even the Popes themselves, 82. Bishops however must talk to them with freedom, and make Remonstrances to them upon occasion ibid.  
Preaching. Priest's may preach in their Parish. If they are sick the Deacons must only recite the Homilies of the Father's 121  
Predestination. The Sentiment of St. Augustine of Predestination to Damnation, explained by St. Fulgentius, 14. Sentiment of St. Augustine of Predestination to Grace defended by St. Fulgentius 18  
Predestinatus. Primasius is not the Author of that Treatise 56  
Priesthood. It is one and indivisible, though it be exercised by several Bishops 2  
Pretextatus Archbishop of Rouen, accused and banished 152  
Primasius. Of his Writings 56  
Privilege. Privileges of Autun, 91. and St. Medardus supposititious 94  
Processions, or Litanies, ordered in time of War 88  
Pr●c●pius G●r●us. Judgement upon his Commentaries 51  
Pr●●erius Bishop of Alexandria. His Election and Death 132  
Psalms. General Remarks upon the Book of Psalms 44  
Purgatory. Acknowledged and proved by St. Gregory 100   

R  
RHeims. Vicaracy granted to St. Re●● Archbishop of Rheims, by the Pope H●rmisd●s 10  
Relics. The true Crol●, 5. Veneration due to Relics, 87. Filings of the Chains of St. Peter and St. Paul, ibid. Relics used in the Consecration of Churches, ibid. Their Honour defended by Eul●gius, 66. They ought not to be put in Chapels, where they cannot be honoured, 116. Proof of them made by putting them in the fire 160  
Repentance and Penance. Remission of sins not to be obtained but in this Life, and in the Church, 15 and in making a true Repentance, 16. Repentance useless out of the Church, 19 How Remission ought to be demanded, and to whom granted, 111. True Repentance consists in sinning no mor● 74. Rules concerning Repentance, 156. The Benediction of Penance granted to one on his Deathbed, hinders not but that afterwards he must do Penance, 115. It is not permitted to the Priest to give the Benediction to the Penitent, 112. Those that forsake it, punished, 113. Deathbed Repentance not useless to all the World, but serves nothing to those that return to their Irregularities, 4, 5. Penance of Clerks for divers sins, 74, 84, 116, 127 Clerks fallen into the sin of Incontinence, may be restored, 118. Those that abandon Penance excommunicated, 116, 128. Absolution not to berefused to any at Death, 117. The Resolution of a Bishop to make a Man do Penance that had abused a young Woman 6  
Regulation of the Names of the Clergy of England described by Gildas 64  
Ecclesiastical Revenues. Use that ought to be made of them, 81, 92, 113, 148  
Rogati●●s. Institution of Rogations, 6. When and how they ought to be celebrated 114, 115  
Rome. The Jurisdiction of the Holy See over Illyrium established 122  
Bishop of Rome. Primacy of the Church and Bishops of Rome, in what it consists, 76. Authority of the Pope in Ecclesiastical Judgements, ibid. His Authority over the Bishops of the Vicariate, 77. Respectful Terms to the Pope, 5. He is called Bishop of the Universal Church, ibid. He cannot be judged by his Inferiors, according to the Opinion of Avitus, 5. Privileges of the Bishops of Rome inviolable, 48. Privileges of the Pope not to be judged by a Council, if it be not assembled by his Authority, 9 A Paradoxal Proposition, that a Pope became holy ibid.  
Rusticus, Deacon of Rome. Of his Writings and his Opinions 56   

S  
SAbinus Bishop of Lanusa wrought Miracles 99  
Sacrifice of the Altar. It is not only offered to the Father, but to the Word also 15  
Schism of the Church of Rome after the Death of Anastasius, 1. etc. Council of Rome against Schismatics, 108. Another Schism after the death of Felix iv between Boniface and Dioscorus, 30. Another Schism between Silverus and Vigilius 46  
Holy Scripture. Rules and Critical Reflections upon the Canonical Books, 57 Catalogue of the Canonical Books ibid.  
Severus of Antioch. His Ordination and Deposition, 132. He divides the Eutychians, ibid. Anathematised in the Council under Mennas, 133. His Error and his Writings 27  
Severus Priest, raised one dead 99  
Severus Bishop of Malaga, Author of a Treatise against Vincent an Arian 104  
Sees, Apostolic. Their Consideration 78  
Silverus Pope. His Election was made with Freedom, 46. His Persecution and Death, 47. His Letters supposititious ibid.  
Simony. It is forbidden to take any thing for holy things, 161. It is forbid to demand Money for Ordination or other holy things, 125, 151. It is forbidden in all its parts 82  
Slaves. Regulation to hinder Christian Slaves from serving Jews, 87. Regulation concerning the Christian Slaves belonging to Jews, 130. Forbidden to be made Clerks without permission of their Masters ibid.  
Souls. Spiritual Souls, 100 State of the Souls after Death, ibid. Divers apparitions of Souls, ibid. A fabulous History of the Soul of Trajan, 102. Question concerning the Original of Souls undecided, 18. What we ought to believe of the Nature of the Soul, ibid. They act and appear after death, 105  
Stephen of Larissa. Acts of the Council held at Rome upon his Affair, 122. Agapetus would that his Cause be instructed by his Legates 31  
Another Stephen, Accused of Incest, and Condemned by the Council of Lions 117  
Symmachus. His Ordination, 1. Contested by Laurence, ibid. Confirmed, ibid. His Letters, 2, 3.— Accused and absolved, 2. His Apology, 3. Supposititious Letter, 3. His Absolution forbidden by Ennodius, 8. Councils held upon occasion of this Pope, and under him 108   

T  
TEtradius hath written a Rule for Monks 51  
Tetradia. Wife of Eulalius Count of Auvergne. Her History 158  
Theft. In what manner it ought to be punished, 92. Theft in a Clerk punished 111  
Theodorus of Mopsuestia. His Writings defended, 53 Abstracts of his Works alleged against him in the fifth Council, 141. Authorities alleged against him ibid. Inquest made against him, ibid. Accusations and Invectives against his memory 60  
Theodorus the Reader. His Writings 27  
Theodoret. Defence of his Doctrine and his Person, 53. Letter attributed to this Author against St. Cyril, 142. His Writings defended, 146. Concerning an Image of Theodoret carried about with pomp 144  
Theodoricus Labours to appease the Schism of Laurence, 1. He names a Visitor to the Church of Rome 2  
Theology. The true Principles of Divinity 13  
Three Chapters. By whom, and upon what design invented, 131. Condemned by Justinian, ibid. by a Council, 137. Commotions which followed excited by Vigilius, 138. Council held at Constantinople upon that occasion, 139. Justinian's Letter to the Council against the Three Chapters, ibid. The Council send for Vigilius, 140. Examine the Question in his absence, 141. The Transaction of that Affair, 140, etc. to 143. Vigilius defends them by Writing, 143. Judgement of the fifth Council by which they condemned the Three Chapters, 144. Vigilius approves the Condemnation, 145. Pelagius pursues the Execution of this Decree, ibid. Impartial Judgement upon the whole Affair, 145, 146. Defence of the Three Chapters by Facundus, 53. Defence of the Three Chapters, 22. Against the Defenders of the Three Chapters, 89. Admonitions to the Bishops of Istria, who were separated by reason of the Condemnation of the Three Chapters, 65. The Condemnation of the Three Chapters maintained against them, ibid. The Bishops of Istria and others Condemned for separating themselves upon the Affair of the Three Chapters 59  
Timothy Aelurus. His History 132  
Traditions. The Church hath its Traditions which are not in Scripture 68  
Trifolius. His Life and Writings 24  
Trisagion. Addition to the Trisagion 4, 34  
Trinity. Scholastical Explication of this Mystery by Boetius, 26. Divinity of the Three Persons of the Trinity, 18. If the Three Persons of the Trinity are separable, 20. Why we say that the Son Reigns with the Father in the Unity of the Spirit, ibid. Rusticus says that it is uncertain if the Holy Ghost from the Son, 56. Agnellus assures the contrary 59  
Trojanus, Bishop of Saintones. His Letter 50   

V  
VIctor Capuensis. His Writings 55  
Victor Turmonensis. His Chronicle 58  
Vicar. Bishop of Rheims made Vicar of Gallia by Pope Hormisdas, 10. John of Terragone Vicar in Spain by the same, 12. Sulustius of Sevil made Vicar in Portugal, ibid. Vicaracy demanded by Justinian for the Bishop of Justiniana, 31. Granted to the Bishop of Arles by Vigilius, 48. by Pelagius 59  
Vigilius. His Intrigues to make himself Bishop of Rome, 46. He remained Bishop after the death of Silverus, although he were an Intruder, 47. The People's hatred against him, ibid. He goes to Constantinople, where he shows his Inconstancy, ibid. He died in Sicily, 48. His Letters, 48. He defends the Three Chapters, 138, etc. He Condemns them, 138. He quarrels with the Emperor, 138. Excommunicates Theodorus, ibid. Vigilius is sent for to the Council of Constantinople, and refuses to come there, 140. He defends by Writing the Three Chapters, 143. Letters cited by which he Condemned them, ibid. He is sent into Exile, 145. He blames his Conduct, ibid. Approves the Condemnation of the Three Chapters, ibid. His Death ibid.  
Virginity. It is forbidden to marry the Virgins consecrated to God, 2. Compared to the two pence of Supererogation, 15. Ought to be joined with Humility ibid.  
Visitors in the Vacancy of a See 75  
Unction of the Chrysm. If it be permitted to Priests to make it on their Foreheads, 74. Why Infants are anointed with it when they are baptised, 105  
Universal Bishop or Patriarch. John the Faster assumed that Title, 67. St. Gregory reproves him for doing it, and would not take it, 76. Difference between that Pope and the Bishops of Constantinople on that Subject 78  
Bishop of the Universal Church. A Title given to the Pope by Avitus 5  
Vows for evil things ought not to be kept 125  
Usury forbidden to Clerks 114   

Z  
ZAcharias Bishop of Mitylene. A Treatise of that Author 52  
Zearas Condemned in the Council under Mennas, 134   
FINIS.   

Advertisement.  
THe Printer for the first twenty Pages was not ware of the Distinction that was all along made of the Addition and Remarks, by including them in Crotchets [], so that he has in some places mixed them with the Text, viz. P. 4. l. 6. the Sentence [Dr. Cave, etc. P. 9 l. penult. The Sentence [St. Basil, etc. and some of the Citations out of Dr. Cave in other places. Also P. 15. l. 33. the Paragraph [But Fulgentius, etc. should have been in the Margin. Besides which the Reader is desired to correct the following   

ERRATA:  
PAge 1. line 14. for Ordinance read Ordination. p. 4. in several places for Gondeband r. Gondobald. p. 5. l. 6. after should r. not. p. 6. l. 20. for hath r. had. p. 7. l. 1. r. Tom. ibid. l. 2. in the Notes before says add he. p. 11. l. 10. that r. then. ibid. l. 52. translated r. transacted. p. 12. l. 25. Retica r. Baetica. l. 34. remitted r. reunited. l. 50. him r. them. p. 13. l. 17. after desire, add to raze out also the names of the. p. 14. l. 7. from bottom, after God r. as. after or r. of. p. 23. l. 24. or r. nor. p. 24. l. 17. for its Heretical, r. the Doctrine of this bishop is Heretical. p. 27. l. 16. from bott. drawn r. down. p. 42. l. 24. from bott. r. Salona. ibid. l. 19 from bott. r. Hincmarus. ibid. l. 9 from bott. r. Epocha. ibid. l. 4. from bott. after assures r. us. p. 43. l. 9 Herculi r. Heruli. l. 13. Atharicus r. Athalaricus. l. 24. Dedicated r. Dictated. p. 46. l. 46. except r. accept. p. 52. l. 20. & p. 56. l. 16. for Byracena r. Byzacena. p. 59 l. 21. & 31. r. Sabaudus and so elsewhere. p. 60. l. 4. r. Byzacenus. p. 60. after the first Paragraph Incert, This Authors first Work * is his Treatise of the Sects of Heretics, which contains Ten Actions, being the Discourses 〈◊〉 Conferences of the Abbot Theodorus. p. 61. l. 15. r. Comnenus. l. 5. from bott. r. Bollandus. p. 62. l. 7. from bott. before a add or. Ib. r. attributed. l. 6. r. name. p. 63. l. 12. Gullus r. Gallus. l. 17. after in r. the. l. 18. r. Saturninus. p. 65. l. 18. r. fifth. p. 66. l. 6. & 10. Guard r. Wardens. p. 78. l. 20. his r. this. p. 82. place the * after Book in l. 31. p. 84. l. 9 from bott. Convention r. Convent. p. 85. l. 31. to Ordain them r. ought they to be Ordained. p. 86. l. 3. after Monks add B. 7. Ind. 2. Ep. 15. p. 87. l. 7. from bott. him r. them. l. penult. first r. Saint. p. 95. l. 2. Jurisdiction r. Indiction. p. 99 l. 39 be r. he. p. 102. l. 49. r. Goussainville. p. 103. l. 15. came r. were. p. 105. l. 3. after Bishop's deal of. p. 106. l. 3. from bott. r. Egemonius. l. ult. r. Thmuis. p. 109. l. 25. of r. and. p. 110. l. 13. after Simplicius for the (.) r. (,). p. 111 l. ulr. when r. whom. 1. & 46. r. Byzacena. p. 120. l. 42. Lerius r. Lerins. p. 121. l. 3. after of r. the. p. 124. l. 13. after one add (,). p. 143. l. 1. for (.) r. (,). p. 149. l. 3. from bott. after pray r. there. p. 151. l. 3. from bott. she r. he. p. 155. l. 41. r. Reccaredus. p. 157. l. 3. from bott. Ibo r. Ivo. p. 158. l. 37. after quality r. but.   

A NEW HISTORY OF Ecclesiastical Writers: Containing an ACCOUNT of The LIVES and WRITINGS of the PRIMITIVE FATHERS; A Judicious Abridgement, AND A Catalogue of all their WORKS, WITH Censures determining the Genuine and Spurious: AND A Judgement upon their Style and Doctrine: Also their Various EDITIONS. Together with A Compendious History of the COUNCILS. Written in FRENCH By Lewis Ellies du PIN, Doctor of the SORBON.  
VOLUME the SIXTH, Containing the AUTHORS that Flourished in the SEVENTH and EIGHTH CENTURIES.  
LONDON: Printed by H. Clark for Abel▪ Swal and Tim. Child, at the Unicorn at the West-End of St. Paul's Churchyard, MDCXCIII.   

The CONTENTS of the Sixth Volume.  

Of the Lives and Writings of the Ecclesiastical Authors that Flourished in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries, viz.  

Authors of the Seventh Century.  
ISidore of Sevil— 1  
Braulio Bishop of Saragosa— 6  
Columbanus Abbot— ibid.  
Aeleran, Presbyter in Ireland— 9  
Cummianus or Cuminus, Abbot in Ireland 10  
Hesychius Priest of Jerusalem— ibid.  
Eusebius of Thessalonica— 12  
Boniface IV. Bishop of Rome— ibid.  
Deus-dedit Bishop of Rome— 13  
Johannes Philoponus— ibid.  
Theodosius, Monk— ibid.  
Nicias— 14  
Antiochus— ibid.  
John of Thessalonica— ibid.  
Gregory of Antioch— 15  
John Bishop of Saragosa— ibid.  
Justus Bishop of Toledo— ibid.  
Conantius Palentinus— ibid.  
Boniface V— 16  
Modestus Bishop of Jerusalem— ibid.  
George of Alexandria— ibid.  
Honorius.— 17  
Sophronius of Jerusalem— ibid.  
Johannes Moschus— 18  
Georgius Pisides— 20  
Eugenius Bishop of Toledo— 21  
Apollonius, Presbyter of Novara— ibid.  
John iv— ibid.  
Theodorus I.— 22  
Martin I.— ibid.  
Maximus Confessor— 24.  
Anastasius Disciple of Maximus— 28  
Anastasius Apocrisiarius— 29  
Theodosius and Theodorus— ibid.  
Theodorus Abbot of Raithu— ibid.  
Peter of Laodicea— ibid.  
Thalassius— ibid.  
Isaiah Abbot— ibid.  
Theofridus— 30  
Donatus— ibid.  
Vitalianus— ibid.  
Eligius Bishop of Noyon— 31  
Agatho Bishop of Rome— 37  
Leo II.— 38  
Benedict II.— ibid.  
Drepanius Florus— 39  
Ildefonsus Bishop of Toledo— ibid.  
Taio Bishop of Saragosa— 40  
Leontius Bishop in Cyrus— ibid.  
Marculphus— 41  
Cosma of Jerusalem— 42  
Pantaleo— 43  
Julian of Toledo— ibid.  
Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury 45  
Fructuosus— 49  
Ceolphrid Abbot— ibid.  
Aldelm Abbot of Malmsbury— ibid.  
Adamnanus— ibid.  
Aponius— ibid.  
Cresconius— 50  
John Monk— ibid.  
Demetrius Cyzicenus— ibid.  
Joannes Nicaenus— 51  
St. Audoenus or St. Owen.— ibid.   

Authors of the Eighth Century.  
VEnerable Bede— 86  
John Patriarch of Constantinople 92  
Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople ibid.  
Boniface of Mentz— 93  
Gregory II.— 96  
Gregory III.— 97  
Zachary Bishop of Rome— 98  
Andreas Cretensis— 99  
Anastasius Abbot— 102  
Egbert Archbishop of York— ibid.  
St. John Damascene— 103  
Chrodogandus Bishop of Metz— 106  
Stephen II.— 108  
Willibald— 109  
John Patriarch of Jerusalem— ibid.  
Gotteschalcus— 109  
Ambrose Autpertus— 110  
Paul I.— ibid.  
Stephen III.— 112  
Adrian I.— 113  
Paul of Aquileia— 115  
Charles the Great— 116  
Alcuin Deacon of York— 121  
Etherius— 123  
Paulinus of Aquileia— 124  
Theodulphus Bishop of Orleans— ibid.  
Leo III.— ibid.  
Some Greek Authors against the Iconoclastae, viz.  
Tarasius, Epiphanius and Theodosius 125  
Elias Cretensis— ibid.  
George Syncellus and Theophanus ibid.   

Councils held in the Seventh Century.  
A Conference in 601 in England 52  
Assembly of Bps. at Challon in 603 52  
Council of Toledo, under King Gondemare in 610.— 53  
Council of Egara under King Sisebut held in the year 614. ibid.  
Council of Paris V— ibid.  
Council held in France about the same, whereof the Place unknown— 55  
Council of Sevil II.— ibid.  
Council of Rheims under Sonnatius 56  
Council of Toledo iv— 58  
Council of Toledo V held in 636 61  
Council of Toledo VI held in 638 61  
Council of Toledo VII.— 62  
Council of Lateran against the Monothelites, under Martin I.— 63  
Council III. of Constantinople VI General— 66  
Council of chalon on the Saone— 74  
Council of Toledo VIII.— 75  
Council of Toledo IX,— 76  
Council of Toledo X. held in 656 77  
Conference held in Northumberland in 664— 78  
Council of Merida— ibid.  
Council of Autun— 79  
Council of Hereford in England 80  
Council of Toledo XI.— ibid.  
Council of Braga iv— ibid.  
Council of Toledo XII.— 81  
Council of Toledo XIII.— 82  
Council of Toledo XIV— 83  
Council of Toledo XV.— ibid.  
Council of Saragosa.— ibid.  
Council of Toledo XVI.— 84  
Council of Toledo XVII. held in 694 ibid.  
Council holden at Constantinople in 692 called Quinisexta, or Trullo— 85   

Councils held in the Eighth Century.  
Assembly at Berkhamsted in the Kingdom of Kent— 125  
Councils held in England about the affair of Wilfrid— 125  
Council of Rome under Gregory II. 126  
Council of Germany under Carloman ib.  
Council of Lestines— ibid.  
Council of Rome under Pope Zac. ibid.  
Council of Soissons— ibid.  
Council of Rome II. under Zachary 127  
Council of Cloveshaw— ibid.  
Council of Verberie— 129  
Council of Vernenii— 130  
Council of Metz— 131  
Council of Compeign— ibid.  
Council of Nice for Images VII. General, where are also produced the Acts of another Assembly held at Constantinople in 754 against Images; and the Books written in France against these two Councils, together with the Letters of the Pope on on this subject.— 131  
Council of Northumberland— 148  
Council of Aquileia— 149  
Council of Ratisbonne— 150  
Council of Frankfort ibid.  
Council of Rome under P. Leo III, ibid.  
Council of Aix-la-Chappelle against Felix.— 151    

An Alphabetical Table of the Ecclesiastical Writers of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries.  

A.  
ADamannus— 49  
Adelmus— ibid.  
Adrian I.— 113  
Agatho the Pope— 37  
Agatho Deacon of Constantinople  
Alcuinus— 121  
Ambrose Autpertus— 110  
Anastasius S. Maximus Scholar 28  
Anastasius Apocrisiary of Rome 29  
Anastasius—  
Andreas Cretensis 99  
Antiochus— 14  
Apollonius of Novara 21  
Aponius— 49  
Arausius— 15   

B.  
Bede— 86  
Benedict II. 38  
Boniface IV.— 12  
Boniface V.— 16  
Boniface of Mentz 93  
Braulio— 2   

C.  
Ceolfridus— 49  
Charles the Great— 116  
Chrodegand— 106  
S. Columbanus 6  
Conantius— 15  
Conon— 13  
Cosma— 42  
Cresconius— 50  
Cuminus— 10   

D.  
Demetrius Cyzicenus 50  
Donatus— 30  
Drepanius Florus 39   

E.  
Egbert Archbishop of York 102  
Elias Cretensis— 125  
Eligius— 31  
Epiphanius— 125  
Etherius— 123  
Eusebius of Thessalonica 12  
Eugenius— 13  
Eugenius of Toledo ●1   

F.  
Fructuosus.— 49   

G.  
George of Alexandria 16  
George Syncellus— 125  
George Pisides— 20  
Germanus of Constantinople 92  
Gotteschalcus— 109  
Gregory of Antioch— 15  
Gregory II.— 96  
Gregory III.— 97   

H.  
Helladius— 15  
Hesychius— 10  
Honorius.— 17   

I.  
John Damascen— 103  
John Moschus— 18  
John Bishop of Spain 15  
John of Thessalonica ibid.  
John IU. 21  
John the Monk— 50  
John of Nice— 51  
John of Constantinople 92  
John of Jerusalem 109  
Ildephonsus of Toledo 39  
Isaias an Abbot— 29  
Isidore of Sevil— 1  
Julian of Toledo— 43  
Justus— 15   

L.  
Leo II.— 38  
Leo III.— 124  
Leontius— 40   

M.  
Marculphus— 41  
Martin I.— 22  
S. Maximus— 24  
Modestus— 16   

N.  
Nicias— 14  
Nonnitus— 15   

O.  
S. Owen— 51   

P.  
Pantaleo— 40  
Paul I.— 110  
Paul of Aquileia 115  
Paulinus of Hquileia 124  
Philoponus— 13  
Peter of Laodicea— 29   

S.  
Stephen II.— 108  
Stephen III.— 112  
Sophronius— 17   

T.  
Taio— 40  
Tarasius— 125  
Thalassius— 29  
Theodosius— 13  
Theodosius— 29  
Theodosius— 125  
Theodorus— 13  
Theodorus the Pope 22  
Theodorus— 29  
Theodorus of Raithu ibid.  
Theodorus of Canterbury 45  
Theodulphus— 124  
Theofridus— 30  
Theophanes— 125  
Themistius— 13   

V.  
Vitalian.— 30   

W.  
Willibald— 109   

Z.  
Zachary Pope— 98    

An Alphabetical Table of the Councils, held in the 7th and 8th Centuries.  

A.  
AIx-la-Chappelle against Felix Org.— 151  
Aquileia— 149  
Autun— 79   

B.  
Barkamstead— 125  
Braga— 80   

C.  
chalon II.— 52 74  
Clove shaw— 127  
Compagne— 131  
Constantinople III. 66  
Constantinople Quinisext 85  
Constantinople against images 131   

E.  
Egara— 53  
England— 52   

F.  
France— 55  
Frankfort— 150   

G.  
Germany— 126   

H.  
Hereford— 80   

L.  
Lateran under Martin I. 63  
Lestines— 126   

M.  
Merida— 78  
Metz— 131   

N.  
Nice— ibid.  
Northumberland Two 78 148   

P.  
Paris Two— 53   

R.  
Ratisbone— 150  
Rheims— 56  
Rome under Gregory II. 126  
Rome under Zachary Two 126 127  
Rome under Leo III. 150   

S.  
Sarragosa— 83  
Sevil— 55  
Soissons— 126   

T.  
Toledo under Gondemar 53  
Toledo IV.— 58  
— V— 61  
— VI— ibid.  
— VII.— 62  
— VIII— 65  
— IX.— 76  
— X.— 77  
— XI.— 80  
— XII.— 81  
— XIII.— 82  
— XIV.— 83  
— XV.— ibid.  
— XVI.— 84  
— XVII.— ibid.   

V  
Verberie— 129  
Vernevil— 130   

W.  
Worcester— 52     

The AUTHOR'S ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER.  
THE greater the Excellence was of the Ecclesiastical Writers in the fourth and fifth Ages, the more it discovers the weakness of those in the following Centuries: For the former were like great Lights, whose Meridian Splendour darkened the little Lustre, and discovered the defects of the latter. Yet there were some still in the sixth Age who were Men of Merit. St. Gregory is admirable as to what concerns Morality and Discipline: St. Fulgentius and some other Fathers, retained also something of the Sublime Thought of the Ancients, and the Councils of this Age left us very excellent Canons; but it must be confessed that the gust of the Time begun to be depraved. Men pleased themselves with starting a great many unprofitable Questions, with explaining Mysteries by the Principles of Logic, and disputing with Dogmatical stiffness about things of small consequence. Moreover, too great Credulity begun to possess the minds of the more Learned and Wise. There was nothing then heard of, but Miracles, Visions, and Apparitions; the Veneration due to Saints and their Relics was advanced beyond just bounds, and a mighty bustle was made about some very indifferent Ceremonies. Although the Councils continually renewed the Ancient Canons, yet Discipline now grew remiss, and the rigour of the ancient Laws about Penance, was now very much abated. The Riches of the Church begun to be burdensome to it, because its Ministers considered them as their own peculiar Possessions, whereas before they were looked upon only as the Patrimony of the Poor. This obliged the Councils of this Age to make so great a number of Canons about the distribution and preservation of these Possessions; which was a matter wholly new, about which there were never any Canons made before this time. In the Latin Church the obligation to live in Celibacy, was extended as low as to Subdeacons; but to free their behaviour from all suspicion, she was forced to renew very often, and with particular circumstances, the ancient Canons, which forbidden Clergymen to keep strange Women in their Houses. Contests and Canvassing for obtaining Bishoprics were very common, and many were promoted to them, who had neither Knowledge, Merit, nor Capacity. The Church of Rome was thrice disturbed with the Schisms of Anti Popes, and the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch were frequently the Prey of the Ambitious. The Eastern and Western Churches begun to be divided; some Pope's pretended to such Rights and Prerogatives as their Predecessors never thought of, and there wanted not Flatterers, who endeavoured to persuade them, that they were independent upon, and superior to Councils: But the more Holy rejected these false Maxims, and asserted their greatest Glory to consist in maintaining the Laws of the Church.  
Yet it cannot be denied but this Age had also its own peculiar advantages. In it the Doctrine of the Church was explained with all possible exactness; the African Bishops defended the Faith with a Constancy and Boldness equal to that of the Primitive Bishops: The Popes in it showed much Prudence, Conduct and Charity in the most difficult times; and the Eastern Bishops discovered great subtlety and sharpness of Wit in the Disputes they had among themselves, and with the Occidentalists. The Western Councils made very good Laws concerning the Discipline of the Church, which are still observed to this day. They regulated the Ceremonies and Rites of Divine Service, the Degrees of Consanguinity within which 'tis unlawful to contract Marriage, the Qualifications requisite for entering into Orders, the Impediments which render Persons uncapable of receiving them, and many other things of this nature. Lastly, The Monastical Order was perfected in the East by the Laws of the Emperors, and divers pious Writings; and in the West by many Rules, and particularly by that of St. Benedict, whose Order in a littletime spread, not only into Italy, but also into France and England.  
I should here conclude this Advertisement, but that I think myself obliged to precaution the Reader against a Doubt which has been started since the Impression of this Tome against some Authors contained in it, whose Works all the Critics have hitherto received as most authentic Monuments. 'Tis in a Writing, entitled, A Defence of the Letter 〈◊〉 St. Chrysostom to C●sarius, p. 78. He has also, says the Author of this Writing, added ●…over Facundus He has explained his Words agreeably to the Sentiments of the African Church, because he who forged this Work under his Name, would not have it thought that he was of any other Judgement. Yet P. H. was convinced from thence, that it was a forged Piece, though he chose rather to follow for some time the common Opinion, because he must be reserved in declaring who is the genuine Author of a Work. But since I know the original of his Secret and his Proofs, I am willing to make you now my Confident in this particular. Know then, that Facundus, Liberatus, Marius Mercator, Victor of Tunona, Cassiodorus, to whom so many Works are attributed, excepting only his Formularies, the Treatise of the Soul, and his Commentaries upon the Psalms, and Isidore, who is thought to be the Author of the Book of Ecclesiastical Writers: Know then, I say, that all these pretended Africans, Italians, Spaniards, with some others, were born in France, and are not near so old as they are believed to be. I will tell you at some time hereafter the Reasons I have to reckon them among forged Writings.  
If he to whom this Opinion is attributed were an ordinary Person, his Judgement might be despised as not being founded upon any proof: But because P. H. is an Author famous for Learning and Worth, whose Reputation may make some Impression upon the mind of the Reader, it will be convenient to produce the Proofs, upon which the Monuments, which he is said to reject, are founded.  
We shall begin with the Treatise of Illustrious Men, written by Isidore of Sevil, which gives testimony to the truth of the Books of Facundus, and of the Chronicle of Victor of Tunona. Never was Book attested to be genuine by Authors more worthy of credit. The first of them is Braulio Bishop of Saragosa, the Friend and Cotemporary of Isidore: This Bishop surviving him made his Elegy, and the Catalogue of his Works, and there he has reckoned among the rest, The Book of Illustrious Men, to which we have added, says he, what I said just now about it. The authority of the Witness cannot be rejected, nor can his testimony be called in question; the former is unquestionable, and the other has all the Characters of Truth that can be desired. He speaks of the Works of St. Isidore, as one that was very well acquainted with them; He observes that it was at his request that this Author undertook the Book of Etymologies, that he had left it imperfect, and only divided it into Titles: He speaks of Isidore also in such a manner, as sufficiently discovers that he had seen him, and had been his Friend.  
The second Witness for this Book of Isidore of Sevil, is Ildephonsus of Toledo, who may haveseen Isidore; for Isidore died in 636, and Ildephonsus was ordained Bishop in 658. This last wrote a Book of Illustrious Men, in the Preface to which he observes, that he did it to continue the Works of St. Jerom, Gennadius and Isidore. To these two Witnesses may be added Honorius of Autun, who abridged the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, and their Works, and transcribe from St. Jerom in the first Book, from Gennadius in the second, and from Isidore in the third. I do not relate the testimony of the Chronicle of Isidore of Paca concerning this Work, because it is not an unquestionable Monument.  
If we should set aside these Witnesses, and consult the Book itself of Isidore, we must judge very favourably of it; for it has not any mark of Forgery; the stile of it is not different from that of his other Works, it contains nothing but what agrees with History; the Author's mentioned in it are genuine, the greatest part of the Books which it mentions are still extant. It cannot be said to be the Work of an Author born in France, since it appears, that he chief insists upon the Writers of Spain, and that the History and People of that Country are best known to him. He relates also some Particulars concerning the Writers of his own time, which no ways appear to be fabulous, and which could not be known but by an Author of that time and Country. You need only read the last Writers he mentions to be convinced of this. Lastly, the Manuscripts of this Work were found in Spain, from which Garcias published it. There are many of them yet extant; there was one at Coria, into which was inserted by a mistake the Work of another Author, who made a Catalogue of twelve Writers: But the other Manuscripts contain nothing but the Books of Illustrious Men by Isidore and Ildephonsus, with their Names at the beginning. These are all the Proofs that can be had that any Work is genuine.  
It seems that they had never called in question the Authority of Isidore, but that they might have some pretence to reject the Writings of Facundus, and the Chronicle of Victor of Tunona, which are mentioned by Isidore. They saw well enough, that if the Book of Isidore was genuine, they could not doubt but these Monuments were Authentical: And for the same reason they should have carried on their Conjectures to Ildephonsus also; but either they durst not, or they forgot it, and so the Authority of Isidore stands good still, and consquently that of Victor of Tunona and Facundus cannot be questioned. But though we could imagine, that Isidore's Book of Illustrious Men is supposititious, yet I believe they dare not say the same of his Books, called Origines. Now in the last Chapter of the fifth Book of this Work, he mentions the Chronicle of Victor of Tunona. Ado Bishop of Vienna does also mention it in the beginning of his Chronicle, and Otho Frisingensis in his History, Book 5. cap. 4. But that which determines this matter, is this, That John Abbot of Biclarum, an Author of the same time, has continued the Chronicle of Victor of Tunona, as he himself assures us, at the beginning of his Chronicle▪ There are no Witnesses more worthy of credit, than those who give testimony to the Authors who wrote before them upon the same Subjects: For they having carefully enquired about them, speak not at a venture, nor upon the Credit of another. Gennadius gives testimony to St. Jerom by continuing his Work of Illustrious Men, St. Isidore to Gennadius, and Ildephonsus to St. Isidore: St. Jerom also gave testimony to the Chronicle of Eusebius, by continuing it. Prosper followed them, after him came Victor of Tunona, and lastly, John Abbot of Biclarum, who gives testimony to those who preceded him. Honorius of Aut●● and Ado of Vienna, undertake after these Authors to write upon the same Subjects; they follow them, and give testimony to them, as well as those who come after. 'Tis not easy to break this Chain, and to give the Lie to so certain a Tradition. Lastly, If we should refer ourselves wholly to the reading of the Chronicle of Victor of Tunona, we shall find nothing in it, which appears either feigned or fabulous. On the contrary, we find in it the most notable Transactions related with their proper Circumstances, which do perfectly agree with other Histories: There are many things in it which concern the Church of Afric, and particularly Victor of Tunona; and every where there are Marks of Ingenuity and Sincerity, which are not to be met with in the Works of Impostors.  
We have now re-established the Authority of two Witnesses, who Depose in favour of the Books of Facundus; for both Victor and Isidore of Sevil make honourable mention of them. Cassiodorus also speaks of this Author in his Commentary upon Psalm 138. a Work which is excepted out of the number of those which are falsely attributed to Cassiodorus. 'Tis true, he speaks not there of the Twelve Books, but of two others addressed to Justinian, which are probably the same that are mentioned in the Preface of the Twelve. But this testimony however informs us, that there was an African Bishop called Facundus, who dedicated some Works to Justinian; that this Author wrote briskly and subtly, Haereticorum penetrabili subtilitate destructor, a Character which agrees very well to the Twelve Books of his which still remain.  
But without searching for Witnesses, we need only consult the Work itself, to be persuaded that it is serious and genuine, and that it cannot be the Fiction of an Impostor. 'Tis plain, that he who was the Author of it, wrote at such a time, when the Controversy about the three Chapters was very fresh and warmly debated: He speaks of it himself with much heat, as a Person extremely addicted to one side; he appears to be throughly informed of all that passed, and he takes a great deal of pains to gather together every thing that might justify his Cause. His Exhortation alone to the Emperor Justinian, with which he concludes, sufficiently discovers that this Emperor was then alive, and that this Work is not a Fiction: The Preface also confirms the same thing. Lastly, If ever a Work had the Infallible Marks of being genuine, this is certainly such. I know not, whether they had also a design to question the Letter of the same Facundus to Mocianus or Mucianus, but I can assure them that there is the strongest Evidence that this is not the Work of an Impostor. It has the same stile with the Twelve Books, and this stile is peculiar to this Author. There is no Writer that came after him who resembles it; it is an Original in its kind. In a word, it is as clear as the day, that these Works are a Bishops of afric, who was banished into the East, and lived in the time of Justinian, and who was one of the most zealous Defenders of the three Chapters. This Truth cannot be called in question, but you must overturn all the Rules of good Criticism, and render all things liable to doubts. The very same almost is to be said of the Works of Marius Mercator, and Liberatus. 'Tis true the Ancients have not mentioned these Works, but they have such plain Marks of being genuine, and contain some Transactions so particular and remarkable, that no question can be made of Receiving them, upon the credit of the ancient Manuscripts, from which they were published. They have been made use of for clearing up many Points of Ecclesiastical History, which were unknown before these Authors came to light. The learned Critics thought they had made a great Discovery by lighting upon them. Now these Men who reject them would deprive us of all that Light and clearer Knowledge which they have given us, and throw us back into the same Darkness in which we were before. This indeed is not to endeavour the Advancement of Learning.  
As to Cassiodorus, since they acknowledge for genuine the Formularies, the Commentary upon the Psalms, and the Treatise of the Soul, I cannot see how they can reject the other Treatises which we have ascribed to him, which have the same stile, and chief the Book of Divine Learning, which is so perfectly like for Method and Style to his Treatise of the Soul, and where he discovers himself in so many places, that none but he who does wilfully blind himself, can doubt but it is his. To which we may add the Testimonies of Sigibert, of Gemblours, and of other Library-keepers, and the Authority of many very good and ancient Manuscripts.  
The Proofs which we have alleged are more than sufficient to establish the genuineness of those Works, which the Author of The Defence of the Letter of Caesarius, would have us to doubt of, upon the Opinion of P. H. I know not whether it will be confessed by this Learned Man; but this I know, that if he would oppose the Testimonies and Proofs which I have produced, he must draw from the Works themselves Demonstrations to the contrary. Now there is not the least probability, if there were any such thing, that they should have escaped the Notice of Father Sirmondus, Labbee, Garnier, Geberon, and Mr. Baluzius, and so many other able Critics, who have examined these Authors with all possible exactness.  
But the Boldness wherewith he rejects these Monuments, is nothing in comparison of the Judgement which is given of the Works of St. Justin. ['Tis alleged that some heard a little while ago from P. H. that which is not to be found in Mr. Prior, That of all the Works which go under the Name of Justin, there is none but the Dialogue with Tryphon which is truly his, and that all the rest are supposititious.] It was not necessary to seek out this Instance, for proving that P. H. knew some things that are not in Mr. Prior. Many other things might have been produced which had been less liable to beblamed, and many People could rather wish that nothing were said but what is in Mr. Prior, then that such a strange Paradox as this should be asserted. The two Apologies of St. Justin, cited by Eusebius, St. Jerom, and by all the Ancients, being so Authentic and so Famous, that no Person ever doubted of them, what greater Assurance can we have of the Genuineness of the Dialogue with Tryphon, than we have of these two Apologies. It seems to me, that if there were any room for doubting of the one or the other of these two Monuments, one should rather doubt of the Dialogue then of the two Apologies, whereof the one has at the beginning the Name of Justin, and of his Father, and the place of his Birth; and the other does plainly describe him. In it he mentions the Snares that were laid by him for the Philosopher Crescens, who was at last the Cause of his Death; as Tatianus, a Disciple of St. Justin, relates it in his Book to the Gentiles, where he manifestly alludes to the words of St. Justin, and citys also what he had said in this place concerning the Delusions of Demons. Caius, or another ancient Author who wrote against the Ebionites, cited by Eusebius, Book 5. cap. 12. of his History, places St. Justin in the number of the Apologists for Religion, and citys at the same time Tatianus. Lastly, Methodius in his Book of the Resurrection, transcribes what St. Justin had said of his own Country in the beginning of his Apology to Antoninus.  
These are Witnesses as Authentical as can be desired, and there are but few Monuments of Antiquity, for which the same Proofs can be alleged. For the most part men satisfy themselves with the Testimony of Eusebius and St. Jerom, without ascending higher: But here we find witnesses cotemporary, Tatian the Disciple of the Author, of whom the Question is, and two other Authors who followed very quickly after him. If there can be any doubt, whether the Apologies of St. Justin be genuine or no, there is not any Monument in Antiquity which may not be made to pass for supposititious.  
I know that the Author of the Defence adds, That to his knowledge P. H. has very good proofs to show, that these Pieces, together with Aristeas, were contrived at the end of the second Century. These Proofs must be founded either upon the Testimony of the Ancients, or the difference of Style, or upon the Matters of Fact related in these Pieces, which cannot be reconciled to the History of that time. But it does not appear, that he can have any of these Proofs. All ancient Authors make St. Justin the Author of the two Apologies, not one doubts of it, but it passes for a thing most evident among them. Tho there should be some difference between the Dialogue and the Apologies, it were a thing not to be wondered at, since these Works are of different natures: But on the contrary, 'tis plain that the Style and Doctrine of these two Works agree very well together. There remains therefore only the Historical Matters which can be allege d against them; but we have proved that the Emperors named at the beginning of these Apologies, and the Matters of Fact related in them, agree very well with the History of the Time in which St. Justin flourished. Besides, P. H. could not find in the Pieces themselves any Proofs of their Novelty, since he confesses that they were written at the end of the second Age. Upon what grounds therefore can this so new an Opinion be founded, which robs the Church of one of the most excellent Monuments which it has to justify the Antiquity of its Liturgy.  
I shall add no more, and perhaps what I have said may be too much. All the favour which I desire of him who is said to be of that Opinion which I have opposed, is to believe that I have not done it upon any design to offend him, but only upon the account of defending the Works which I think to be most genuine. The Republic of Learning aught to enjoy an entire and perfect Liberty, and the Spirit of Tyranny and Domineering aught to be banished out of it. Whatever Rank some hold in it, we ought never to be offended because others are not of our Opinion, especially when it is new. 'Tis a bad way for any man to defend himself, by treating his Adversary with contempt, by compairing him to Zoilus, and calling himself a Homer. He must bring good Proofs of his Opinion, and refute solidly the reasons of others, without bitterness, passion, and reproach. Thus ought those to do who seek not their own Glory, in attacking the Reputation of others, but only endeavour to find out the Truth, and to maintain Charity.   

IBLIOTHECA PATRUM: OR, A NEW HISTORY OF Ecclesiastical Writers. TOME V.  
CONTAINING An Account of the LIVES and WRITINGS of the Primitive FATHERS, that Flourished in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries of Christianity, with Censures upon all their BOOKS, determining which are Genuine, and which Spurious.  

S. ISIDORE of Sevil.  
S. ISIDORE, the Son of Severianus, and Grandchild of Theodorick, King of Italy, was born at Sevil. He succeeded his Brother S. Leander, in the Bishopric of 
S. Isidore of Sevil.  that City, about the Year 595. He held a Council in 623. and died in 636. having governed the Church of Sevil Forty Years. This Bishop was a Man of great Reading and profound Learning, and has written upon divers Subjects. His Works may be divided into Five Classes. The First comprehending those which concern Arts or Sciences. The Second his Commentaries upon the Scripture. The Third his dogmatical Tracts. The Fourth his Treatises of Church-Discipline. And the last his Works of Morality or Piety.  
The Book of Etymologies, or of Origin's, is the largest of those of the First Class: He wrote it at the Request of Braulio Bishop of 
* [Caesar-Augusta.]  Saragosa; who divided it into Twenty Books, and made up what Isidore had not finished. This Work is an Epitome of all Arts and Sciences; he explains the Terms, lays down the Principles, and shows what is most in use in each of them. What relates to Ecclesiastical Matters is as follows. In the Sixth Book he maketh a Catalogue of the Books of the Old and New Testament: In which he places, in the Fourth Classis of the 
a [Canonical Books— Tobit, Ecclesiasticus.] As the Jews never acknowledged these Books to be Canonical, so neither did the Primitive Church of Christ. S. Cyprian, (or rather Rufinus) in his Tract De Expos. Symb. having reckoned up the 
Cypr. de exp. symb.  Books in Order, which made up the Canon in his Time, and omitting those which were accounted Apocryphal, says, Haec sunt, etc. These are the Books which are received into the Canon by the Church; the other Books (meaning Tobit, etc.) are not Canonical. The same Catalogue of Canonical Writers do Origen in Eusebius Hist. Eccles. l. 6. c. 25. and the Council of Laodicea, c. 59 give 
Conc. Laod. anno 320. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 15, 16. Aug. de civ. Dei, l. 18. c. 36. Hieron. praef. in Macc. Conc. Flor. & Trident.  us: So that there can be no doubt, but for the First Four hundred Years and more, the Canon was exactly the same that we now have. Indeed the Apocryphal Books were read in the Churches of the purer Ages to the Novices and Catechumen (as were also Clemens and Ignatius' Epistles, and Hermes' Book called Pastor,) yea, and some of the later Fathers, as S. Jerom, Austin and Innocent give them very honourable Titles, calling them Sacred, Divine, Canonical; but then they mean not by Canonical as the Church of Rome doth, Canon's Fidei a perfect Rule both for Faith and Manners, but Canon's Morum & Historiae, profitable to Instruction, and to inform Men in the History of the Jewish Church: And so far is this Doctrine of S. Isidore Orthodox in the Judgement of the Church of England, our Mother. Art. 6.]  Canonical Books of the Old Testament, Ecclesiasticus, the Book of Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, and the Two Books of the Maccabees. He distinguisheth Thr●● S●…es of the Scripture, the Historical Moral and Allegorical He speaks of the Authors of the Canonical Books, and of those that have composed. Harmonies of 〈◊〉 Gospels. He reckons up but Four General Councils. He makes a Paschal Cycle. In fine, he treats of the principal Festivals of the Jews and Christians, and of the Administration of the Sacrament. He saith, it is called a Sacrifice, because it is made sacred by a mystical Prayer, in remembrance of the Passion of our Lord. He defin●th 
b [A 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] The 〈◊〉 ●●●y in ●pious and good Sense be said to communicate Sanctifying. Grace and Holiness, 
Conc. Trid. sess. 7. c. 8.  not ex opere operato, as the Church of Rome teacheth, but ex opere opera●tis, being moral Instruments of conferring and conveying the Grace of God to the Souls of all worthy Partakers of them, God being-pleased-by-and-with them, to work Spiritual Graces and Endowments in us, Non propter 〈◊〉 Sacramen●… quae sa●●imus, sed propter vim fidei in Christo, qua illis Communicamus. Not through any virtue in the Sacraments, which we receive, but through Faith in the Receiver.]  〈◊〉 Sacrament, the Sign of an Holy Thing communicating Holiness. He places in that rank Baptism, Chrism, and the Eucharist, which are saith he, Sacraments, because under the Veil of corporeal things, the divine Virtue does secretly operate Salvation. To the Unction he joins the Laying on of Hands, which brings down the Holy Ghost. He speaks of Exorcism. He makes the Apostles Authors of the Creed: which he thinks to have been called a Symbol, because it is the Badge whereby Christians know one another. He speaks of Prayer, of Fasting and of Penance, which, he says, is a voluntary Punishment for ones Sins. He defines Satisfaction, the Exclusion of the Causes and Occasions of Sin, and the Cessation of Sinning. He calls Reconciliation the End of Penance. He distinguisheth two sorts of Exomologesis or Confession, the one of Praise, the other of Sins; and saith, both the one and the other are chief made to God. Lastly, he makes mention of the Rogations or Litanies.  
In the Seventh Book he treats of the Names and Attributes of God: Chap. 1. Of the Son of God, of his Qualities, of his metaphorical and natural Names. Chap. 2. Of the Holy Ghost. Chap. 3. Of the Trinity, and of the appellative and relative Names of the Persons. Chap. 4. Of Angels and their different Orders. Chap. 5. He explains also the Names of the Persons mentioned in the Bible; he gives the Definition of the Patriarches, the Prophets, the Apostles, the Martyrs, the Clerks and Monks.  
In the Eighth Book he speaks of the Church, of Heresy, of the Number of the Sibyls, etc.  
The Three Books of the Differences of Names, or of the proper Signification of Words, written by the same Author, are a grammatical Work; and the Book of the Nature of Things to [King] Sisebut, a Physical Treatise, of which we have nothing here to say.  
To this Classis of S. Isidore's Works may be added his Historical Tracts; which are a Chronological Abridgement, from the beginning of the World down to 
* [To the 17th Year of the Empire of Heraclius, and to the Year 626.]  Heraclius' Empire. An History of the Goths, from the 176th. Year of Christ, to the Year 610. with an Epitome of the History of the Vandals and Sueves. The Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers, which we have defended in the Preface of the preceding Volume, and the Treatise of the Life and Death of certain Saints.  
The Treatises that S. Isidore writ upon the Bible, which may make up the Second Classis of his Works, are these: Some Prolegomena's, wherein he treats of the Authors of the Books of the Old and New Testament, some Annotations upon the Pentateuch, upon Joshua, upon the Books of Kings, and upon Ezra, wherein he maketh some Remarks Literal or Moral, which are often grounded upon Names, which he explains according to his Fancy, or upon Observations of little solidity; a Book of Allegories on the Octateuch, which is a compendious Collection of Allegorical Expositions made by the Fathers before him; and a Commentary upon the Song of Solomon, which he expounds of the Church and of Jesus Christ, with great perspicuity and brevity.  
Of the Dogmatical Tracts of S. Isidore, we have none remaining but two Books against the Jews, written to his Sister 
* [Florentina, Dr. Cave.]  Florentia; in which he hath gathered some Passages of the Holy Scripture to prove our Religion. The First of these two Books is upon the Passion, the Resurrection, the Reign of Christ, and upon the Judgement. The Second is upon the Calling of the Gentiles, and the establishing of the Church: The Proofs he brings are solid, and his Reflections judicious.  
Among his Books of Discipline, that of the [Ecclesiastical or Divine] Offices is the most considerable. It is divided into Two Books: In the First he treats of the Parts and Ceremonies of Divine Service; he confesses, in the Primitive Church, Prayers were read with a plain turn of the Voice, more like pronouncing than singing: He distinguisheth two Sorts of Hymns, those of the Scripture, of which the Holy Ghost is the Author, and those of Men's Composition. He saith, S. Hilarius was the first that made any of them, and that after him S. Ambrose did also compose some, which have been recited in the Church of Milan, and from thence passed down to the other Western Churches. And further says, That S. Ambrose first established the Use of Anthems; and that Responses were invented in Italy. He distinguishes Seven Parts in the 
c [Mass or Canon.] The Word Missa, or Mass, is an old Latin Word, and signifies generally the whole Service 
Ambr. lib: 5. Epist. 33. H●…. in Psal. 65.  of the Church, but more especially the Holy Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood. It was called Missa or demissio, because no Man was suffered to remain in the Church, that could not or would not receive the Sacrament; and therefore such Persons as had a Mind to see and hear, but not receive, were all, without exception, dismissed by the Deacon, after the Sermon was ended, with these Words. Ite, missa est: Go, ye are dismissed: And if any delayed, they were urged to departed by the Deacons and Exorcists, saying aloud, Si quis non communicet, det locum; Whosoever will not receive, let him go out. The Roman Church puts a different Sense upon this Word Mass, understanding by it, that Solemn Service, wherein they do pretend to offer unto God the Body and Blood of his Son, as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins both of the Quick and Dead. Isidore here takes it in the first Sense, calling it, Ordo Precum, i. e. The Form of Prayers: But M. Du Pin, by joining it with the Word Canon (a Word of a much later use, and which signifies in the Roman Church, the Rule or Form of celebrating their Mass) seems to bring it over to the latter, but against the Sense of S. Isidors' of Sevil]  Mass, or the Canon, which he believes was 
d [Established by S. Peter.] But Erroneously; for in the Apostle's time the Holy Sacrament was celebrated without any Ceremonies or Prayers, save that at the Consecration of the Elements, the Priest repeated the Lord's Prayer over them. And this S. Jerom says, was done by the Institution of Christ himself. Dominus docuit Apostolos ut Orationem Dominicam dicerent super Sacrificio Corporis. And Innocent 
Hieron. c●nt. Pelag. l. 3.  III. himself tells us, That S. Peter celebrated the Sacrament at Antioch with three Prayers only. Primus B. Petrus Apostolus Missam Antiochiae dicitur celebr●sse in qua tres tantum Orationes, in primordio nascentis Ecclesiae, dicebantur. So that it is absurd to think S. Peter the Author of so long an Office.]  established by S. Peter. 1. The Admonition to the People, to stir them up to Pray. 2. The Prayer to God, that he would receive the Prayers and Oblations of his People. 3. A Prayer for the Living, who offered the Sacrifice, and 
e 
[Prayers in the Sacrament— for the Dead.] It is evident from some very Ancient Records of the Church, That it was a Custom among the Christians, Ab Antiquo, to pray for the Souls of the Faithful, departed in the dreadful Mysteries. Whether it were decreed by the Apostles themselves, as S. Chrysostom 
Chrys. Hom. 3. in Epist. ad Philip. Nazianz. Orat. 7. in Caes. Ambr. de ob. Val. & Theod. Aug. Confess. l. 9 c. 13. Liturg. in Bur. of the Dead. S. Chrys. Hom. 32. in Mat. Ephrem. lib. de poen. c. 2.  plainly tells us it was, in his Comment on the Philippians, may be a very great doubt, but it is certain it was in use about 200 years after Christ. This is proved from Tertullian, De Monog. c. 10. who thus speaks, Let the Faithful Widow pray for the Soul of her Husband, etc. And to the same Effect in Coron. Mil. c. 3. So also S. Cyprian, Ep. 66. Euseb. de Vit Constant. l. 4. c. 7. and Epiphanius Haer. 3. etc. And this we find practised by many of the most eminent Fathers of the Church. Nazianzen prayed for his Brother Caesarius, Ambrose for the Emperors Valentinian and Theodosius; and S. Austin for his Mother Monica. But all the Prayers made for the Dead, by the first Christians, contained no other Petitions for them, than what are very Warrantable and Pious, and which our Liturgy seems, in a great Measure, to authorise, viz. That God would hasten his Kingdom, and speedily give them a Consummation of Bliss, not imputing to them their Sins in the day of Judgement, to which they joined a thankful Remembrance of their Virtuous and Holy Examples, which they begged Grace to imitate. These, with the Alms to the Poor, which generally accompanied them, were the Oblationes pro Mortuis, spoken of by the Fathers. The Romish Church hath abused this Custom, by praying for Persons who died in their Sins, whom they suppose to be detained in their feigned Purgatory, which is both contrary to the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church; for they acknowledge no such place as Purgatory, nor Remission of Sins after Death.]  
[The Sacrament— a Sacrifice.] The Sacrament was called a Sacrifice by the Primitive Fathers, not because 
S. Chrys. Hom. 17. in Epist. ad Hebr. Iren. l. 4. c. 33. Aug. de. Civ. Dei, l. 10. c. 20. Cypr. Serm. 1. de Eleem. Aug. Ep. 122.  Christ is really Sacrificed for the Sins of the Quick and Dead in those Mysteries, as the Romish Church now useth the Word; but because, 1. It is a Commemoration of Christ's Spiritual Sacrifice. Annunciantes mortem Filii Dei, celeb●…us, saith S. Chrysostóm, incruentum Sacrificium. 2. Because in the Sacrament we offer the Spiritual Sacrifices of Prayers and Praises. 3. Because the Faithful, at this Sacrament, offered their Souls and Bodies a living and acceptable Sacrifice to God. 4. Because, at these Mysteries, the richer Christians brought an Oblation of Bread and Wine, and other Gifts, which were partly spent in this Service, and partly distributed to the Poor for their Relief. Thus the Fathers used the Words Sacrifice figuratively, which now is understood properly, but contrary to this place of Isidore.]   for the Dead. 4. The Prayer for Peace. 5. The Prayer for the sanctifying of the Bread and Wine. 6. The Confirmation of the Sacrament. 7. The Lord's Prayer. The Nicene Creed was also recited, and at last they blessed the People. Then he observeth, That the Communion must be taken Fasting, and that the Sacrifice was offered for the Dead. He speaks of the Office of the Third, the Sixth, the Ninth Hour; of Vespers, Compline, Vigils, Matins, of the principal Festivals of the year, of Lent-Fast, of the Fast on the 22d. of September, of the Fasts on November the 1st. and January the 1st. of the Fasts on Fridays and Saturdays in some Churches. He observes, That, altho' the Custom of the Church was not to Fast from Easter to Whitsunday, some Monks nevertheless did Fast in that Interval out of Devotion. Lastly, he owns, That Churches have different Uses and Practices in many things.  
The 2d. Book of Offices is concerning Ecclesiastical Persons. He says, All that are ordained to serve the Church, are called 
* [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Lot.]  Clerks, because S. Mathias, who was the first ordained by the Apostles, was chosen by Lot; or because all Clerks are also called by Lot to the Lord's Inheritance: Or else, lastly, because the Lord is their Lot and Portion. He puts them in mind, That they ought to live retired from the World, to abstain from Worldly Pleasures, not to go to the Public Shows nor to public Feasts; to follow their Employment without engaging themselves in secular Affairs; not to put Money to Usury; to take no Presents for performing the Functions of their Ministry; to be wise and modest in their Carriage, and reserved in their Talk; not to keep Company with Women; to be Sober, chaste and Constant in Prayer. He distinguisheth two sorts of Clerks; some living under the governance of their Bishop; and others, called 
* [Without an Head or Governor.]  Acephali, which can neither pass for Laics nor ecclesiastics. He taketh notice, That all Clerks had a 
e [Tonsure, and that the Crown of their Head was all Shaved.] 〈◊〉, or cutting the Hair short, was in the purest times of the Church imposed upon the Clergy, as being indecent for them to wear their Hair long, according to the Fashion of those times. The 4th. Council of Carthage, which was held, A. C. 398. decreed, Can. 44. That no Clergyman should wear a long Hair or Beard. Clericus nec C●… nutrias, nec 〈◊〉; but on the other side, Rasure, or making the Crown of the Head bald, by Shaving, was accounted a detestable Ceremony, and much condemned by the Father's Clemens Alex. Optatus 
Clem. A. Paed. l. 1. c. 11. Opt. count. Parm. lib. 2. Jerom, Com. in Ezek. 44. And so Conc. Tolet.  Mel. Jerom, Epiphanim, etc. in the Donatists, and other Heretics, as being forbidden in the Law of God, Ezek. 44. 20. and an Heathenish Ceremony derived from the Priests of I●is and Serapis. Jerom in Ezek. 44. Wherefore, it ought to be looked upon as a corrupt Ceremony, first received by Heretics, but after got into the Church, among other profane Usages in this Superstitious Age.]  Tonsure, and that the Crown of their Head was all shaved, and had only a little Circle of Hair round about the Head, in form of a Crown. Having spoken of Clerks in general, he speaks of all the Orders in particular. As to the Bishops, which he calls Sacerdotes, he says, They are ordained by the Laying on of Hands; That a Man must be 32 years old to be a Bishop, and aught to have always lived single, or to have had but one Wife; That in their Ordination they give them a Staff and a Ring; That they ought to make choice of a Learned and Virtuous Man, and free from Crimes; That a Bishop ought to take care of the Poor, and use Hospitality towards Strangers. He does not forget the Chorepiscopi, whom he calls the Bishop's Deputies. He says, They may ordain Readers, Exorcists and Subdeacons'; but that they cannot ordain Presbyters nor Deacons. He extols the Dignity of Presbyters, by saying, They partake in the Dispensation of the Mysteries with the Bishops; That they preside over Churches as they do; That they consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, and preach the word of God, as they do; but that Ordination is reserved to the Bishops, to maintain the Authority and Splendour of the Priesthood, and to prevent Divisions. Deacons are the Dispenser's of the Mysteries consecrated by the Presbyters; they give the Cup to the Laity, who may not take it from the Altar. Subdeacons' do also handle the Sacred Vessels; also it was decreed, That they also should be bound to Continency. The other Persons of the Clergy are the Readers, the Singers, the Exorcists, the Doorkeepers. There are many kinds of Monks. The Cenobites are they that live in common; the Hermit's they that withdraw into Deserts; the Anchorites they that shut up themselves in Cells: These are the several sorts of good Monks. S. Isidore describes and commends the Life of the Cenobites, than he speaks of Penitents; they cut their Hair, they wear Hair-cloath, they strew Ashes upon their Heads, to put them in mind that they are but Dust, and shall return to Dust. By Penance, Remission of Sins committed after Baptism, tho' never so great, is obtained. Clerks do it before God, others before the Bishop. True Penance consists in the amendment of Life. Afterwards he commends Virgins, and gives them some wholesome Advices; as also Widows and those that are Married, and likewise Catechumen. He gives an Account of the Exorcisms and the Salt [used in them.]  
Then he passeth to other Points, and expounds the Creed, which he believes to have been composed by the Apostles in common, before they dispersed themselves to preach the Gospel. He treats of Baptism, and distinguisheth it into three sorts; the Baptism of Water, the Baptism of Blood, and the Baptism of Tears. He observes, That the Sacrament of Baptism, that it may be valid, must be conferred in the name, and by the Invocation of the three Persons of the Trinity; That it is God that baptizeth and not Man, and therefore that it matters not, whether it be conferred by an Heretic; That Original Sin in Infants is remitted in Baptism, so, that if they should die without it, they should be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven; That Bishops and Presbyters are the Ministers of that Sacrament; That the Holy 
f [Chrism.] Chrism or Unction, was an ancient Rite used in the Jewish Church to denote the conferring of Gifts and Graces on the Persons Anointed, and thence derived to the Christian Church. Our Saviour and his Apostles used it in working their miraculous Cures of the Sick, Jam. 5. 14. Mar. 6. 14. And after Miracles ceased in the Church, it was continued in the Administration of Baptism, to signify (say the Fathers) that the Persons baptised are cut off from the Wild-Olive, and engrafted into Christ the true Olive-tree, and made Partakers of its Fruits and Benefits: 
Ambr. de Sacr. l. 1. c. 2. Dion. Areop. de Hier. Eccl. 〈◊〉. 2.  Or to show, that they were become Champions for Christ, and like the Heathen Athletae, were Anointed for their Spiritual Warfare, or rather to denote their Admission to the great Privileges of Christianity, to be a chosen Generation, a royal Priesthood, an holy Nation (as the Apostle speaks 1 Pet. 2. 9) to which all Persons were designed by Chrism. The same Ceremony was used by the Church in Confirmation, and to the Sick in the beginning of their Sickness, to strengthen and recover them, but not as it is in the Church of Rome, as a Sacramental Viaticum for Persons dying.]  Chrism is given after Baptism, to render the Persons baptised, the Anointed of Jesus Christ; and lastly, That the Bishop lays his Hands upon them, that they may receive the Holy Ghost; That Men do not give it, but pray to God to give it; and that the Bishop only may administer that Sacrament.  
We have a few Letters of S. Isidore; the 1st. and 2d. contain nothing remarkable: The 3d. to Helladius, is concerning Discipline. There he shows, That a Presbyter fallen into the Sin of the Flesh is to be deposed and put to Penance, without any hope of being restored. He teaches the same Doctrine in his Book of Offices; which shows the falsity of another Letter fathered upon him, directed to Massanus, the Author whereof goes about to expound the Canon of the Council of Ancyra, about the deposition of Clerks fallen into the Sin of the Flesh, and to prove it should be understood of those only who do not do Penance, pretending that those that do it, aught to be restored; which Doctrine is so contrary to that of Isidore, that there is no doubt, but that Letter is the Fiction of some Imposter, and perhaps of the famous Isidore Mercator.  
I pass the same Judgement on the 4th. Letter directed to Claudius, wherein the Question of the Procession of the Holy Ghost is handled against the Greeks; on the 5th. directed to Redemptus, in which the question of unleavened and leavened Bread is debated against the same Persons; and on the last to Engenius of Toledo, about the Authority of the Pope. It is visible, these Letters were written in the time of the Quarrel between the Greeks and Latins, which was not begun in the Life of Isidore of Sevil.  
Lastly, we will join to the Works of Discipline, the Rule of the Monks, composed by S. Isidore, accommodated to the use of his Country, and proportioned to the strength of the weaker sort.  
S. Isidore's Learning did not hinder him from being Eminent in Works of Piety, of which he hath left us these, viz. Two Books of Synonyma's or Soliloquies, and a Treatise of the Contempt of the World, which are Discourses supposed to be had in a Man, between his Soul and his Reason, and contain Advices, Instructions, Christian Meditations, Prayers and Sentences of Piety and Remorse. Some body hath made a Collection of some of these Sentences, and Entitled it, The Rule of good Living. To which is added, a Piece, Entitled, The Lamentations of Repentance, with a long and good Prayer about Amendment of Life, and another shorter against Temptations.  
But the most considerable of the moral Works of S. Isidore, is his Collection of Sentences out of S. Gregory's [Morals,] divided into three Books. The 1st. contains some Christian Considerations about the Doctrine of the Creed; The 2d. about Virtues; The 3d. about Temptations, and the Remedies whereby we may be healed and sanctified.  
The Book of the Combat between Vices and Virtues, attributed to S. Austin, to S. Leo, to S. Ambrose, and at last to S. Isidore, is none of theirs, but belongs to Ambrose Auspert, Abbot of S. Vincent of Benevent, as is observed in his Life, tho' Sigebert ascribeth to Isidore a Book bearing the same Title.  
By what we have said of the Works of Isidore, it is plain enough, that this Bishop was well read, but he had not so much Fineness of Wit and Elevation of Mind, there is nothing commendable in his Style but the clearness of it; he is neither Eloquent nor Polite; his own Opinions are often false, and he does not always make a good choice when he borrows of others. He contents himself with a superficial Knowledge, and does not search the bottom of Matters. His Remarks are but trivial, and often mistaken: Nevertheless he was esteemed, in his Age, a Prodigy of Learning, and an Oracle. The Fathers of the 8th. Council of Toledo, give this illustrious Testimony of his Knowledge. The excellent Doctor of our Age, Isidore, the greatest Ornament of the Catholic Church, the last of the Fathers, with regard to the times, but such as may, for his Learning, be compared to the first, the most learned Man of past Ages. Although this Commendation be Hyperbolical, yet it must be confessed, Isidore was a Man of Desert, and that Braulio was in the right, in saying, God seemed to have given him to Spain, and raised him up in that time, to make the Monuments of the Ancients known, and to hinder Men from falling into extreme Barbarity and Rusticity.  
The Works of this Father have been printed at Madrid, in 1599 at Paris, by Sonnius, by the care of La Bigne, in 1580. in 1601. by Father Du Brevil a Benedictin Monk of the Abbey of S. German, who having revised them, made a larger Edition of them, printed by Sonnius. That Edition was Reprinted at Antwerp, in 1617. [in Fol.] Besides that, there are many Tracts printed severally. The Origins have been printed at Basil, in 1577. [in Fol.] with some Annotations of Vulcanius, and in different Collections, [as at Venice in 1483. in Fol. and at Paris, in 1509.] his Offices were printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and in some Collections of Books of Ecclesiastical Rites, [at Rome in 1591. in Fol. and at Paris in 1610.] His Chronicle and Histories were printed at Francfort, in 1605. and 1606. at Hamburg in 1611. at Amsterdam in 1596. [in Octavo.] with Vulcanius' Notes; his Allegories at 
* [Hegenoa.]  Haguenau, in 1529. [Quarto.] his Books against the Jews at Venice, in 1584. The three Books of Sentences, Entitled, De summo Bono, Of the sovereign Good, at Paris in 1538. [at Turin in 1593., Quarto, with Loaysa's Notes.] Father Labbe, in his Bibliotheca of MSS. hath published a History of the Goths and Vandals, larger than that printed among the Works of Isidore. The Book of the Ecclesiastical Writers, was printed in divers Collections of Authors, which have treated of those Matters [at Antwerp in 1639, Fol. at Francfort in 1603. and with Notes at Colen, in 1580. Octavo.]   

BRAULIO, Bishop of Saragosa.  
BRAULIO, Bishop of Saragosa, F●i●●d to Isidore of Sevil, wrote two Letters to him, and made an Encomium upon that Father, containing the Catalogue of his Works, 
Braulio Bishop of Saragosa.  wherein he tells us, That he not only hath set in order, but finished his Treatise of Origins. He wrote also the Life of Aemilianus, a Spanish Hermit, vulgarly called, S. Milan. Moreover the Life of S. Leocadia is attributed to him. He was present in the 4th. 5th. and 6th. Councils of Tobedo, and died in 646. after he had been Bishop 20 years. [His Epistles and Encomium are extant in S. Isidore's Works, and his Life of Aemilianus in Mabillon's Saec. Ben. 1. pag. 205.]   

S. COLUMBANUS.  
S. Columbanus, a Monk of the Monastery of Benchor in Ireland, went into France towards the year, 590. with 12 Monks of his Monastery, and withdrew himself into the Solitude of 
S. Columbanus.  Vosge, near Besancon, where he founded the Monasteries of Luxevil and of Fontaines. After he had governed them 20 years, he was banished by King Theodorick, upon the Motion of Queen Brunehant. After which, he retired into Switzerland, then belonging to the Kingdom of Theodebert, where he preached the Gospel to some Pagans remaining in that Country: But Theodebert being overcome, and taken Prisoner by Theodorick, Columbanus was forced to fly into Italy in the year, 613. where he founded the Monastery of Bobio, and died there in 615.  
The Author of this Saints Life, and Sigebert of Gemblours, say, he was a great Student and a Witty Man; That in his Youth, he composed a Commentary on the Book of Psalms, which was elegantly written; and that he had published many other Works, useful for Prayers and Instruction. They say, The Title of the Commentary on the Psalms is found in an old Catalogue of the Library of S. Gal; but the Work itself is not there. In the Monastery of Luxevil there is a Manuscript Commentary on the Psalms, the Author of which is not known. Some would have it pass, for that of S. Columbanus, but it hath not yet been printed, and we know nothing of it, but from him who hath collected the Works of that Father.  
There are yet extant some of the Poetical Works of S. Columbanus, of which Sigebert maketh mention. The first of them is a Letter to Hunaldus upon the Shortness of Life, and the Vanity of Worldly Goods. The Preface of which gins with the Letters of the name of S. Columbanus, and of him he writes to; so that taking all the first Letters of each Verse, one finds Columbanus Hunaldo. The 2d. is a Letter in short Verses, written to Sedolius; in the end whereof, he taketh notice, That he was come to the 18th. Olympiad, that is, that he was 72 years old at least. The 3d. is an Epigram upon Women. The 4th. is a Poem in Hexameters, Entitled, Monasticon, containing several Precepts of Morality. The last is in Prose upon the Vanity and Misery of this Life.  
But these Works are not comparable to his Rule, which is found in the Collection of Benedictus Ananius. It is full of Wisdom and Instruction; for there he does not content himself to prescribe Rules only, but shows the Excellency and Usefulness of them, and grounds them upon Testimonies of Scripture, or upon some Principle of Morality. He lays down, for the Foundation of his Rule, the Love of God and of our Neighbour as a general Precept, whereupon all the other are superst●●cted.] Then he commends Obedience and Silence. He appoints, That Monks shall eat in the Evening, and shall feed on such plain Meat, as may sustain them without hurt to their Health. He will have them to eat every day, that they may be able to labour to Pray and to read daily. He order them to be content with things absolutely necessary, which are very few; to flee from Wealth and Vanity; to be chaste in their Thoughts as well as in their Actions. That which he appoints concerning the Office which was then called the Course, is somewhat obscure. Yet this he seems to prescribe: That they shall meet together three times in the Night, and three times in the day, to Pray; That in the Office of the day, at each hour they shall say three Psalms at each Office, and some other Prayers; That the Night Office is to be lengthened or shortened, according to the length or shortness of the Nights; That from October to February, they must say in the ordinary Office of the Night, 36 Psalms and 12 Anthems, at three several times, and in the rest of the year 24 Psalms only, with 8 Anthems; but for the Saturday and Sunday night, the Office is made up of 75 Psalms and 25 Anthems in Winter; which number is to be augmented or lessened according as the Night's increase or decrease. He observes, some other Monks perform the Night office at 4 times, and Sing both in Winter and Summer, 12 Psalms in the usual Service, and 36 in the Service of the Saturday and Sunday nights; but he does not approve of that Practice, as being too tiresome in Summer, when the nights are short. Then he recommends to his Monks that Spirit of Discretion, that can discern betwixt Good and Evil; and that Mortification Of Spirit consisting in doing nothing according to Self-will: These are all the Articles of that Rule which were found in the Collection of Bonedictus Ananius. There is another added to it, of the Perfection of a Monk, from a Manuscript of the Monastery of Bobio; but it is evident, That is not the same Author's, but is a Note of some other Monk. Some have thought that we had but one part of S. Columbanus' Rule, because that in the Harmony of the Rules there is one Article of it cited, which is said to be the 33d. of that Abbot's Rule; but this an Error in the Quotation, and it must be taken out of some other Author. After this Rule follows his Penitential, containing a Decree of what Penance is to be imposed upon Monks taken in a Fault, how light soever it may be. It is there supposed, that they must confess it, and then are prescribed Penances for each of those Faults. Some very light ones are punished somewhat severely; one may judge of it by the following Instances: He that shall not say (Amen) at Table, shall have six Lashes; he that shall talk in the Refectory, as many; he that shall not sorbear Coughing at the beginning of a Psalm, shall also be treated after the same manner; and he likewise that shall touch the Chalice with his Teeth, or shall Smile in the time of Divine Service; they that have spoken roughly and frowardly, shall receive fifty Lashes, as well as they that have answered again to their Superior. There are other Penances enjoined besides Whipping; as Fasting, Silence, Separation from the Table, Humiliation. These Penances seem to be more rational, and fit to correct Men than Whipping, and yet they are not the most common and usual.  
There was found in the Manuscript of Bobio with S. Columbanus' Rule and Penitential, some Spiritual Instructions fathered upon this Saint, agreeable enough to the Style of his Rule. They contain some Exhortations to Piety, and a Spiritual Life, fit for Monks, the Titles whereof are as follows. 1. Of the Trinity. 2. Of the Mortification of Vices, and the Acquisition of Virtues. 3. Of the Contempt of the World, and the love of heavenly Things. 4. That we ought to work and labour in this Life, to rest in the next. 5. That this Life should not be called Vita but Via. 6. That this Life is like a Shadow. 7. Of the blindness of those who serve the Flesh and neglect the Spirit. 8. That we ought to tend to our Heavenly Country, the End of this present Life. 9 Of the last Judgement. 10. Of the means of fleeing from the dreadful Wrath of him who is to judge us. 11. Of the Love of God and of our Neighbour. 12. Of Remorse, and of the Vigilancy wherewith we ought to wait for the coming of the Final Judgement. 13. That we must have Recourse to Christ, the Fountain of Life. 14. Several Advices for the Spiritual Life. The 15th. which was not in the Bobio Manuscripts, is of The Fervency wherewith we ought to serve God. There is mention made there of Grace, according to S. Austin's Principles, but it does not seem to be of the same Style with the rest. The 16th. was not in the said Bobio Manuscript neither, but it hath more of S. Columbanus' Style. It is very short, and is entitled, What is that which is and which shall be? In it he compares this Life with that which is to come. The 17th. Instruction is A Discourse of Faustus Bishop of Ries, to some Monks.  
After the 13th. Instruction, in the Bobio Manuscript, there is a small Tract of the Eight principal Vices, which are, Gluttony, Fornication, Covetousness, Wrath, Sorrow, Idleness, Vainglory and Pride, and sets down, in a few Words, some Remedies against these Vices.  
Some produce also some Letters of S. Columbanus, taken out of another Manuscript of Bobio, of the Truth of which Letters there can be no doubt. The 1st. is directed to Boniface Bishop of Rome, the Third or Fourth of that Name. S. Columbanus says, in that Letter, he had already written to the Pope S. Gregory, concerning the Difference between his own Church and that of Rome, about the Day on which Easter ought to be celebrated, and entreats Boniface to let him keep to the Custom he had, of celebrating that Festival, as the Ancients of his Country did, tho' he now lived in France. He propounds the Example of S. Polycarp, and of Anicetus, to show that Men may differ in their Practice about the keeping of Easter, without any Breach of Unity and Peace, and annexes the Canon of the first Council of Constantinople; whereby it is ordered, That Christian People living among barbarous Nations, shall live after their Customs: Which is an Argument, that S. Columbanus was not unacquainted with Ecclesiastical History, and the Canons of the Church. The next Letter is to a Council of French Bishops, assembled upon his account. It is written with a great deal of Wisdom and Elegancy, is very Witty, Judicious and Learned. He thanks them, at first, for having met together about his Concerns, and intimates to them, That he could wish they would meet oftener, and that, according to the Canons, they would hold Councils once or twice in the Year, to put a Stop to the Divisions and Disorders of their Time. He prays to God, That their Meeting may be for the Church's good; and that they would not only treat of the Celebration of Easter, but moreover make all necessary Provisions to restore the Discipline to its former State. He does earnestly press their own Duty upon them, and gives them Lessons of Humility and Charitableness, and then, coming to the matter in hand, he sets forth the Difference between the French and the English Bishops, about the Time of the Celebration of Easter. He observes, That the Western Churches were not agreed upon the Day of that Festival, 〈◊〉 m●ny always 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 Day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moon to the Twentieth, so that when the ●…, ●●ey 〈◊〉 Feast of the Resurrection on the very 〈◊〉 Day, 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Celebration of it to the Sunday 〈◊〉: He 〈◊〉, That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Western Churches, in the Writing he se●ds 〈◊〉, in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tracts directed 〈◊〉 Pope 〈◊〉 and in a Boo● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 But without engaging in that Dis●…, the only pray●… Bishop's 〈◊〉 him 〈◊〉 observe a custom, of which he is not the 〈◊〉, and which is practised 〈◊〉 the Co●●try from 〈◊〉 he come● and entreats the●● 〈◊〉 they would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 live in Peace and in Silence in his Solitude, near the Bones of seventeen of his Brethren, as he 〈◊〉 lived these twelve Years, that he may continue praying for them. He tells 〈◊〉 Th●t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●●●er 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them to comfort poor old Men and 〈◊〉, ●han to trouble and molest them. He adds, That he durst not go to the Council, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be 〈◊〉 to engage in the Dispute, but that he cannot forbear declaring sincerely 〈◊〉, That he gives more Credit to the Tradition of his Country, to the ancient Cycle of Fourscore and four Years, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Anatolius, to Eusebiu● and S. Hierom, than to Victorius 〈◊〉 Testimony, a new Author, who hath written very obscurely: Nevertheless, he would not have them to think, that he says this our of a contentious Spirit, he desires only, that every one might keep his own Custom, and follow his own Tradition. Then he exhorts them to the Practice of Humility and Charity. He makes a Comparison of the Monks and Bishop●, and says, S. Hierom advises these to imitate the Apostles, and those to follow the Holy Fathers, because Clerks and Monks have very different Practices and Obligations; That every one is to follow his Calling, and perform his Duty. He prays to God, That through his free Grace he would cause his Commandments to be kept by all. In the end, he does beseech them to pray to God for him and his Fellows, as they pray for them, and not to look upon them as Strangers, seeing all Christians are Members of one Body.  
It is not known what this Council is, it must have been held towards the Year 600. because it is Twelve Years after S. Columbanus' coming into France, a little before S. Gregory's Death: Some believe it to be the Council held at Challon, upon the River Soane, in the Year 603. in which Arigius Bishop of Lions presided: But perhaps it might be some other Council: For this was assembled about the Business of Desiderius Bishop of Vienna. This Letter is written before the foregoing.  
S. Columbanus' Letter has lately been attributed to S. Gregory, who is mentioned in the Two preceding Letters; There he does very confidently set down the Authorities he depends upon, to show that Easter should always be celebrated by the twentieth of the Moon in March, before the Equinox, and creates the Cycle of Victorius with a great deal of Contempt: And does als● refute Pope Victor's Opinion, That Easter is not to be kept at the same Time with the Jews. He exhorts the Pope to alter his Opinion and Practice about that; and then asks him, Whether he should communicate with those who are ordained Bishops, contrary to the Constitutions and Canons, by Simony, or having committed some Crimes in the Time they were Deacons? In fine, he consults him what is to be done with Monks, who depart from their Monasteries, without their Abbot's Leave, renouncing their Vows. He lets him know, he would gladly have come to Rome to see him. He commends his Pastoral, and prays him to send him some of his Works, and chief those upon Ezekiel. He acquaints him, that he hath perused the Six Books of S. Hierom on that Prophet, but that that Father hath not explained half of it.  
S. Columbanus' Fourth Letter is written to Pope Boniface iv of that Name, upon the Motion of Agilulphus King of Lombardy: By this Letter it appears, That that Prince assisted the Defenders of the Three Chapters, and that he had persuaded S. Columbanus, that there was some cause to suspect the Church of Rome of Error; That the Pope himself was consenting to it, or at least permitted it; That Vigilius died an Heretic; and that the Fifth Council ought to be rejected. S. Columbanus entertaining these Opinions, writes a vehement Letter to Boniface; wherein he exhorts him to watch over his Flock, and condemns Vigilius' want of Vigilancy. He saith, he died an Heretic, and wonders they should put his Name in the List of Catholic Bishops. He exhorts the Pope to clear both himself and his Church from the Suspicion of Heresy, by calling a Council, to make an exact Exposition of the Catholic Faith, and to condemn all those that swerved from it. He believes, that the Fifth Council approved Eutyches' Error, and confounds the Two Natures; and yet he says, at his coming into Italy, they wrote to him, That Communion with Rome ought to be shunned, because they there held Nestorius' Heresy: Which shows, he was not rightly informed of the Fact he wrote of. It had been better for him to have only exhorted the Pope, as he does, to endeavour to suppress the Schism and Division in Italy, about the Business of the Three Chapters, by tolerating those that defended them.  
'Tis said, that S. Columbanus had written some Letters to King Theodorick, but we have none of them. Ionas speaks also of a Letter directed to Clotharius; but it is lost, as well as his Book against the Arians, mentioned in the same Author, his great Treatise of Easter, Two Letters to S. Gregory, and his writing to Arigius upon the same Subject. They say, moreover, He had made a Commentary upon the Gospels, but it is not mentioned in ancient Authors. They ascribe yet to him a little Treatise of Penances for Monks, Clerks and Laics; but it does not seem to me to be his. Father Flemingue, an Irish Franciscan, hath collected the Works of this Father, and printed them at Louvain, in the Year 1667. since which they have been printed in the last Edition of the Bibliotheca Patrum at Lions, with the Works of Two other Irish Writers.  
The First of which is a Tract of S. Aeleran, or Ereran, containing a Mystical and Moral Interpretation of the Names recited in the Genealogy of Christ, which are applied to our Lord's Qualities or Precepts. This Aeleran, surnamed the Wise, was Presbyter; it is said, he also wrote the Life of S. Patrick. There is another Ereran, an Irish Abbot, who wrote a Monastical Rule.  
The Second Tract added to S. Columbanus' Works in this Edition, is a very large Penitential of one Cumianus or Cuminus, an Abbot, in which there are several remarkable Things, and amongst others, That there are twelve principal Means of obtaining Pardon of our Sins, grounded upon Testimonies of the Holy Scripture, viz. 1. Baptism, 2. Charity, 3. almsgiving, 4. Tears, 5. Confession, 6. Mortification of the Flesh and Spirit, 7. Change of Manners, 8. Intercessions of the Just, 9 Faith, 10. Converting of others, 11. Forgiving of Enemies, and 12. Martyrdom. That 
e [Confession of secret Sins and Thoughts— was in use.] Confession of Sins, private and public, to God, is absolutely 
1 Joh. 1. 9  necessary to obtain Pardon of them, and where we have done any 
Mat. 5. 23.  Wrongs or Injuries to Men, we must acknowledge them, and making Restitution, endeavour Reconciliation. And 
Matt. 3. 6.  if still there remain any Doubts and Scruples in our Consciences, it is convenient to discover our Griefs, to the Ministers of God's Word, that we may receive from them Ghostly Counsel and Advice. In these Cases, no doubt, the Confession of 
Cyprian, Serm. de laps. Tertul. de poenitentia. Origen in Ps. 37.  Secret Sins, Thoughts and Desires was ever in use in the Church: But as to that Auricular and Sacramental Confession, which seems to be insinuated in the Words of this Father; as it was not in use in the First Ages of the Church, so can it pretend to no other Ground for the Use of it, than the Lateran Council under Innocent the Third, anno 1215. or the Council of Trent, which is of much later date. Confession of secret Sins was ever approved and used, never generally imposed nor made necessary to Absolution till Popery prevailed.]  Confession of Secret Sins, and even of Thoughts and Desires, was in Use in that Time; that great Crimes were also subjected to long Penances, that lesser Faults were punished with many Days of Penance; that eating of strangled Beasts and of Blood, was as yet forbidden; that the Fast of Lent was commanded; that all kind of Pollutions were punished with Penances; that the 
f [Caelibacy of Clerks— commanded.] Although the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament do no where disallow the Marriage of Priests, but give them an equal Liberty, in that kind, with the Laity, 
Athan. epist. ad Dracon. Socr. hist. eccls. l. 9 c. 38. Tertullian. Jerom. Ambrose.  insomuch that all the Apostles (except S. John) were married Men, as also the greatest part of the Clergy of the first Times: But yet some there were of the most eminent Bishops and most zealous Christians, who having imbibed the Philosopher's Opinions and Prejudices against Marriage, as an Estate in itself unclean, and so troublesome, that it was utterly inconsistent with an Holy and Speculative Life, did ever retain such an Antipathy against it, especially in the Clergy, that they were ever inveighing against them that were married, insomuch that they brought it into a general Dislike. At length a Decree was made against 
Conc. Elib. Can. 33. Socr. hist. eccls. l. 1. c. 8. Conc. Ancy. Can. 9  Priest's Marriage, in the Council of Eliberis, anno 305. Can. 33. And the like was attempted in the first Council of Nice, but was suppressed by the Authority of Paphnutius: And not long after the Canon made at Eliberis was as it were reversed by the Council of Ancyra, Can. 9 Indeed Pope Syricius, anno 380. and Innocent, enforced the same Prohibition in the West, and were seconded by the Second Council of Carthage, but were opposed by the Synods of Agatha and Tyron: So that tho' the Celibacy of the Clergy was commanded and practised in some Churches, especially in the West (to which this Author refers himself) yet it was never universally imposed nor received, especially in the East, till Gregory VII's Time, anno 1074. and then was thought to be established by no Law Ecclesiastical or Divine, and was opposed by the Clergy, unanimously, as a Doctrine of Devils, as S. Paul, 1 Tim. 3. 4. and all good Men esteem it.]  Coelibacy of Superior Clerks, and of professed Monks, was commanded; that it was forbidden to marry on Sunday; that it was wished, that married Persons would abstain from the Use of Marriage three Days before Receiving the Communion; that Men were put to Penance for Bigamy and Usury also; yea, and even those that did not use Hospitality, nor give Alms; that Clerks that did not give their Superfluities to the Poor were Excommunicated; that whosoever did Communicate with an Heretic was Excommunicated; that those that had been ordained by Heretics were re-ordained; that those were rebaptised that had been baptised by such Heretics as had erroneous Opinions about the Trinity; that they put those to Penance, that let the Sacramental Bread or the Cup fall to the Ground, or were guilty of any other Irreverence, at the Receiving of the Sacrament, out of Negligence or by Accident; that among the Greeks they received the Communion every Sunday, and that those that did not Receive for Three Sundays together were excommunicated; but that among the Latins every one had liberty to communicate or not to communicate; that the 
* Vide p. 5. (e).  Sacrifice of theMass was offered for the Dead, and that they did even fast for them; that Women might receive the Sacrament with a black Veil on; that Bishops were permitted to give Confirmation in a Campagne; that a Priest might in one Day say two Masses at the same Altar; that, in Case of Necessity, Confession may be made to God; that the most usual Penances were Fasting, Separation from the Church, entrance into Religious Orders.   

CUMIANUS or CUMINUS.  
THERE are 〈◊〉 Cuminus' in Ireland. This probably is he, of whom there is still ●●tant a Letter to Segenius, Abbot of Hi, published by 
Cumianus, or Cuminus  Bishop Usher, in his 
* [Epistolarum Hibernicaru●… Sylloge.]  Collection of Letters of Irish Men, wherein he would persuade the Irish, That they ought to leave their Custom of keeping Easter, and conform to that of the Roman Church. The Author of the Penitential is of the same Opinion; and therefore may be believed to be the same Man, but it is not known who nor whence he was. Some believe 'tis Cuminus, Abbot of Hi; but it is not likely, seeing the Letter is written to Segenius, who was Abbot of Hi, many Years before this Cuminus took Possession of it. I should rather think 'tis Cuminus, surnamed Fada, that is, the long, Son to King Fiachna, who also is supposed to be Author of an Hymn, which gins with these Words; Celebra Juda festa Christi gaudia. He was born, if one may believe the Annals of that Country, in the Year 592. and died 662. the Letter now mentioned was written about 634.   

HESYCHIUS.  
Author's are much divided about this Author's Age and Profession, whose chief Work is a Commentary upon Leviticus. Cardinal Perron ascribed it to Hesychius, Bishop of 
* [A City in Dalmatia]  Salone, 
Hesychius.  who lived under the Empire of Honorius, in the Time of Pope Zosimus, and of S. Austin, because there is a Letter of that Pope directed to this Hesychius Bishop of Salone, and a Letter of that Bishop to S. Austin. Trithemius and Sixtus Senensis did believe, that this we now speak of, was a Disciple of S. Gregory Nazianzen. Bellarmin, Possevin and Miraeus ascribe the Works, bearing Hesychius' Name, to Hesychius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, to whom the Fourth Letter of the First Book of S. Gregory's Letters is directed. The most common Opinion is, That this Hesychius was a Priest only, and of Jerusalem (but some place him in the Fifth, others in the Seventh Century, which is plain) for, 1. The Author discovers himself to be so, in the Preface and Book which he wrote at Jerusalem 
a Which he wrote at Jerusalem.] These are his Words in the Preface: Deprecare ut fiat oblatio verbi mei acceptabilis, non sol●● in Jerusalem, sed & in omni terra. And in the Sixth Book, Quod manifest at Templum, & civitas haec Jerusalem. And in the Seventh Book, Cognoscis autem ea quae ipsis Judaeis eve●erunt, ex Josephi historia, quorum plurima etiam nunc nostris ad cernendum adjacent visibus. . And, 2. in an old Manuscript of the King's Library, it is observed in the Title, That this Hesychius was of Jerusalem; and the Title of the Letter, which is instead of a Preface, shows he was but a Priest. It is worded thus; To the Deacon Eutychianus, Isychius, a Sinner, Servant of Jesus Christ and Presbyter: Notwithstanding which, he might possibly have been afterward raised to the dignity of Patriarch of Jerusalem; but there are no other Proofs of it, but the Authority of some Manuscripts, and some new Authors, in the Title of which he is called by the Name of Bishop; which is not very convincing: And Photius, who made some Extracts of this Author's Sermons, calls him no other than Presbyter. As for the Time in which he lived, there's no question but he is much later than the Bishop of Salone, seeing he writes against the Eutychians and Nestorians: Nay, he seems to have lived after S. Gregory, because he maketh use of S. Hierom's Translation; but he was before the Ninth Century, because his Commentary is quoted by Amalarius, l. 14. of Divine Offices, c. 36. and by Rabanus, in his Preface upon Leviticus, as well as by Freculphus and Strabo; yea, and before the Eighth, if he be the same which Photius quoteth, as very likely he is: Which makes me think, he lived in the End of the Sixth or in the Beginning of the Seventh Century: It is true, there was one Hesychius, Priest of Jerusalem, in the Fifth Century, in the Time of S. Cyril, mentioned in Euthymius' Life, and in Theophanes' Chronicle; but this does not seem to be so ancient, for in S. Cyril's Time S. Hierom's Translation was not used in the Church. I know, it may be answered, that that Quotation is none of that Author's, but the Translator's, because we have not the Greek Original of that Work: But I am persuaded, it was written in Latin by its Author, who does carefully mark the Differences between the Vulgar Edition and that of the Septuagint, and likewise of the Translations of Aquila and Theodotion, and sometimes quotes the Greek Terms of those Translations, which he renders into Latin. This Commentary is clear and plain, he gives the literal Sense, adding now and then to that Explication, some short Allegorical or Moral Reflections. It is divided into Seven Books. It hath often been observed, That this Author speaks of a Practice of the Church of his Time: That they burned the remainder of the Oblation after the Celebration of the Mysteries, and the Communion of the Faithful.  
In the Bibliotheca Patrum there are Two Homilies in Greek and Latin, upon the Virgin, bearing the Name of Hesychius, Presbyter of Jerusalem.  
Combefis attributes, moreover, to this Author, the second Sermon of S. Gregory of Nyssa, upon Christ's Resurrection; and he proves his Opinion, 1. By the Authority of a Manuscript of the King's Library, where this Sermon is found under Hesychius' Name, Priest of Jerusalem. 2. Because it seems to be of a meaner, more close and dogmatical Style than that of Gregory of Nyssa. Lastly, because it sets down an Opinion directly opposite to that which is brought in the first Sermon on the same subject, bearing also the Name of S. Gregory of Nyssa; for the Author of this supposes, That Christ risen from the Dead on Saturday in the Evening, and gives that Sense to S. Matthew's Words, Vespere autem Sabbathi: Whereas the Author of the second Sermon supposes, That he risen on Sunday Morning, and shows these Words (Vespere autem, Sabbathi, or Sabbathorum) are to be understood thus, When the Week was passed. But if this Homily be Hesychius', it is not his of whom we speak, but his who lived in the Beginning of the Fifth Century. To the End of that Homily Combefis hath added the Fragment of a Place of Hesychius' Harmony of the Gospels, touching the Hour of Christ's Death. Cotelerius hath made an Abridgement of it in the beginning of his Third Volume Of the Monuments of the Greek Church. This Work contains the solutions of several Difficulties about the seeming Contradictions of the Evangelists.  
Hoeschelius hath published, with Adrian's Introduction, the Titles of the Chapters of the Twelve lesser Prophets, and of Isaiah, bearing the Name of Hesychius also. This Work might also be his, who lived in the Fifth Century.  
The Treatise of Temperance and Virtue, dedicated to Theodulus, which contains Two hundred Maxims of the Spiritual Life, is the same Hesychius', for in the Thirty first Maxim of the first hundred, it is observed, That the Author dwelled in a Monastery, and lived under the Conduct of a Superior.  
It is probable likewise that Hesychius' Church-History, a Fragment whereof is quoted about Theodorus Mopsuestenus, in the Fifth Council, Collection V p. 470. and in Justinian's Edict, belongs to the Monk of the Fifth Century.  
Lastly, we may attribute to this the Two Sermons, of which Photius recites some Fragments in the 269th. and 275th. Volumes of his Bibliotheca: The one is taken out of a Sermon upon S. Andrew, and the other out of a Sermon upon S. James, the Lord's Brother: I say the first is taken out of a Sermon upon S. Andrew, tho' in Photius' Title there is the Name of S. Thomas, because the Extract contains really a Commendation of S. Andrew, and there is now extant a Latin Translation of that whole Discourse on S. Andrew, in which Photius' Extracts are found. He says, in that Sermon, That S. Andrew is the first of the Apostles, the first Pillar of the Church, even before S. Peter, the Foundation of the Foundation itself. In the Sermon upon S. James, he says also almost the same Things of that Apostle, calling him, The Prince of Bishops, the Head or Chief of the Apostles, the Top of the Heads themselves, the most shining Lamp, the brightest Star. Thus they always extol the Saint, of whom they speak, above the others. Cotelerius tells us, in his Notes, He had collected many other Manuscript Pieces of this Hesychius, which he would have published, if he could have hoped for a Life long enough.  
There was another Hesychius, Presbyter of Constantinople, mentioned also by Photius in the 51st. Volume of his Bibliotheca. I have read, says he, Four Discourses of Hesychius', Presbyter of Constantinople, upon the Brazen Serpent: The Style of them is full of Ostentation, and calculated to stir up the Passions. He brings in the People of Israel spèaking to Moses, and that Prophet making Speeches to the People. He relates also some Discourses of God to the People, and to Moses, and the Answers of Moses and the People, in the Form of Prayers or Excuses. These Speeches take up the greatest part of his Work, which maketh up a large Volume. That Author was Catholic, as far as one can judge by his Work.  
We have none of those Discourses now, nor any Tract of that Author, but the loss of these Declamations is not very considerable.   

EUSEBIUS, Bishop of Thessalonica.  
THis Bishop having sent to S. Gregory, his Reader Theodorus, with some Writings, he gave 
Eusebius of Thessalonica.  them to a Monk, named Andrew, whom he had formerly been acquainted with, who was shut up in a Monastery of Rome: This Monk, who was of the 
* [Called A●pthart●d●cetae.]  Sect of those who believed Christ's Flesh was always incorruptible falsified them so that it seemed as if this Bishop had advanced some heretical Propositions: But S. Gregory knowing the Genius of that Monk, because he had made some Greek Sermons under his Name, discovered that Fraud, and wrote about it to Eusebius of Thessalonica, as it appears by the 69th Letter of the Ninth Book of that Pope's Letters. Photius tells us, That same Monk had written a Letter to Eusebius, and prayed him, for God's sake, to read it; and that Eusebius having read it, wrote him an Answer, in which he shows him at first, That he knew not how to write, and that he continually committed many Faults; wherein he was so much the more to blame because he forsook his Profession, and disturbed the Privacy which he had embraced, to carry on a Business which he was not at all fit for: He than attacks his Error, and shows first, against him, That the Word Corruption is not only applied to Sin, but the Holy Fathers used it to signify the Dissolution of Bodies. 2. He reproved him, for having maintained, That Christ's Body became incorruptible at the Moment of its Union to the Godhead, an Opinion which was indeed Julians (Bishop of Halicarnassus, turned out of his See by Justinian, for rejecting the Council of Chalcedon) tho' Andrew pretended to write in that Letter against the Errors of Severus and Julian. The 3d. Error he charged that Monk with, was of having said, That Adam's Body, before his Fall, was not created mortal and corruptible, whenas he should have said, That Man in his Nature was mortal and subject to Pain, but should by Grace have been preserved from Death and Sickness, had he not fallen. The 4th. Proposition he found Fault with, in Andrew's Letter, was, That he had written, That the World was incorruptible: He did also confute some more of Andrew's Propositions in that Writing, and exhorted him to a retractation. But this Monk, instead of following that Advice, made presently another Book, to defend his Errors, against which Eusebius wrote ten Books; wherein he showed, That Andrew, out of an intolerable Boldness, had gone about to make a new Exposition of Faith, whereas he should have kept to those made by the Councils; and that he had adulterated and misquoted many Passages of the Fathers. Then he confuted the four principal Errors, he had condemned in his first Writing. He shown the different Senses the Word Corruption is capable of, and how many ways it hath been taken. He cited several Places of the Fathers, for the confuting of those Errors, and laid open the Falsifications of the Places quoted by Andrew. He shown, That Christ was subject to natural, tho' not to vicious Passions, during his abode on the Earth, and that after his Resurrection he is become immortal and impassable. He did not matter the Name of Phthartolatre, that is, worshipper of Corruption, which Andrew gave to the Catholics, and omitted nothing that was necessary to maintain the Doctrine of the Church, and to render that of his Adversary ridiculous. His Style was plain and clear, pure enough, and did not want Judgement. There is nothing of him now extant. This is gathered out of the 162d. Volume of Photius' Bibliotheca.   

BONIFACE IU.  
BONIFACE iv held the Roman See from 607. to 614. Bede says, That in that Pope's Time, Mellitus Bishop of London came to Rome, in the Eighth Year of the Emperor 
Boniface IU.  Phocas, and that he was present at a Council, which this Pope held at Rome, in the Year 610. in February; in which they made some Constitutions for the Church of England. Holstenius hath published a pretended Decree of this Council, wherein it declares, That Monks may be Bishops, and perform the Sacerdotal Functions; and a Letter of this Pope to 
* [O● Ethelbert.]  Athelbert a King of England, in which he declares all those excommunicated that shall hinder the Execution of the Decree now mentioned, even the King's, Athelberts, Successors. These two Monuments seem very suspicious to me. The Style of them is altogether barbarous, and they are filled with impertinent and frivolous Reasons: For instance, he says, It is evident that the State and profession of Monks maketh them fit to be Ministers of the Word of God, seeing they are called Angels, and Angels are Ministers; Which Reasoning is frivolous: but the reason he gives why they are called Angels, is yet more ridiculous. Monks, saith he, are covered▪ like Cherubims, with six Wings, the Cowle that covers their Head, maketh two, the Tunicks Arms make other two, and we may confidently say, the two extremes of the Habit, which covers the Body, are two Wings more. Thus you have the Cherubim's six Wings: This is some Monk's Fancy, rather than the Work of a Council of Bishops, or of a Patriarch.  
The Letter of Pope Deusdedit, Boniface the IV's. Successor, directed to Gordian Bishop of Sevil, is a Monument evidently false. Isidore was Bishop of Sevil from the Year 600. to the Year 636. and Deusdedit held the Holy See in that interval. Thus the very Title does evince the Falsity of that Letter, it being evident that under Deusdedit's Pontificate, there was no Gordian Bishop of Sevil. The Author of that Letter declares, That according to the Decrees of the Holy See, married Persons, which accidentally stood together Sureties for their Children at the Font, aught to be put asunder, and may be married again; which is a gross Error, authorized by no ancient Constitution. In fine, the Style of this Letter is the same with the Pope's other Letters, forged by Isidore.   

JOHN PHILOPONUS.  
JOHN, surnamed Philoponus, that is, Laborious, a Grammarian of Alexandria, of the Sect of the Tritheites, flourished in the beginning of the Seventh Century, and composed several 
John Philoponus.  Books.  
The first is a writing against Jamblichus the Philosopher's Treatise of Idols. That Philosopher had undertaken in that Treatise, to show, That Idols had something heavenly in them, and that the Deity dwelled there; which he proved both from the wonderful Fabric of Images, and the incredible things ascribed to them. Philoponus had refuted the two Parts of that Work with a great deal of Elegancy and Strength. Photius speaks of that work in the 216th. Volume of his Bibliotheca.  
He wrote, moreover a Treatise of the six Days Work against Theodorus Mopsuestenus, dedicated to Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople; wherein he endeavours to demonstrate, That Moses hath related the History of the Creation of the World more plainly and conformably to the Phaenomena's of Nature than any thing Plato said of it. Photius mentions that Treatise in the 43d. Volume of his Bibliotheca, and there is an Extract of it found in the 240th. Volume. It is divided into four Books, published by Corderius, and printed at Viema, in the Year 1630. in Quarto, together with a Tract of the same Author about Easter, whereof there is no mention made in Photius, who speaks of three Works more of the same Author. The first is a Treatise of the Resurrection, wherein he rejected the Resurrection of the Body. The second is a Writing against the 
* [The Council of Chalcedon.] [† His Anal●tica, De generati●ne & Corruption, De anima, De generatione animallum, De met●oris, Physicorum Acroamatica, Printed at Venice in Gr. in 1535, 1551.]  Fourth Council, divided into four Parts; in which he maintains, That the Bishops of that Assembly approved Nestorius' Doctrine. And another Treatise against the Catechetical Discourse of Joannes Scholasticus, Bishop of Constantinople, concerning the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, preached under the Empire of Justin junior. He hath also written several other Philosophical Treatises † upon Aristotle's Books, printed in several Places, and a Treatise against Proclus' Opinion of the Eternity of the World.  
This Author was as pure, pleasing and elegant in his Style, as impious in his Doctrine, and weak in his Reasonings. One may see by his Treatise of Easter, that in his Time the Greeks used Leavened Bread in the Eucharist.   

THEODOSIUS, CONON, EUGENIUS, THEMISTIUS and THEODORUS.  
Philoponus' Treatise of the Resurrection was confuted by Theodosius the Monk, by Conon, Eugenius and Themistius. These three last made a Book, entitled, An Invective, in which 
Theodosius, Conon, Eugenius, Themistius Theodorus.  they treated him as a Man unworthy the Name of a Christian, tho' they agreed with him in not receiving the Council of Chalcedon. This Themistius seems to be that Heretic whose Fragments are found quoted in the sixth Council, who was of the Sect of the Agnoetae, and had written an Apology for S. Theophobius; against which, another Monk, named Theodorus, of the Sect of 
* [Theopaschitae.]  those, who said the Deity had suffered, writ a Book; in which he did refute the four Arguments urged by Themistius, to prove that Christ was subject to Ignorance. Themistius wrote an Answer to that Work, to which Theodorus opposed three other Books. Photius saith, They did both of them write indifferent, clear and strong. See the 23d. 24th. and 108th. Volumes of his Bibliotheca, for we have not now these Works.   

NICIAS.  
HEre is another Adversary of Philoponus; he was called Nicias, and was a Monk: He composed a Book against the Seven Articles of Philoponus, mentioned in his Book, entitled, 
Nicias.  The Arbiter, or, the Judge. His Style was plain and concise, his Answers satisfactory, and all to the purpose. He had also made a Treatise against Severus, and two Books against the Pagans. See Photius in the 50th. Volume of his Bibliotheca.   

ANTIOCHUS'.  
ANTIOCHUS', a Monk of the Monastery of S. Sabas in Palaestina, lived in the beginning of the Seventh Century, when Jerusalem was taken by Chosroes King of Persia, and 
Antiochus.  Palestine pillaged by the Saracens. He hath made a Book, entitled, A Pandect of the Holy Scripture, because it is made up of 190 Moral Discourses; containing Precepts and Maxims upon the principal Duties of a Christian, grounded upon Places of the Holy Scripture. In the 130th. he maketh the Catalogue of Heresies related by S. Epiphanius, to which he adds the Names of the Authors of Heresies, who appeared since. In the End there is a long Prayer, entitled, Exomologesis, to beg of God that he would turn away his Wrath from his People. The Preface speaks of the taking of Jerusalem, and with what Cruelties the Saracens used the Monks of Palaestina. This Treatise is in Greek and Latin, in the first Addition to the Bibliotheca Patrum, and in Latin alone, in the last Bibliotheca, in which they have put the 81st. Discourse, a second Time, under another Title.   

JOHN, Bishop of Thessalonica.  
THIS Bishop, who is quoted in the 7th. Council, hath left us an Homily upon those Women that carried the Perfumes to embalm Christ's Corpse. In that Homily he maketh 
John of Thessalonica.  divers Remarks, to set forth the Circumstances of our Lord's Resurrection: These are some of them. He saith, those Women came the night between the Saturday and Sunday to Christ's Tomb; That Mary, the Mother of James, was the Mother of Christ, so called, because she was Mother-in-Law to James, the Lord's Brother, that is, Joseph's Son by a former Wife; That she that accompanied her, was Mary Magdalen; That they found Christ risen; That the hour of his Resurrection is uncertain; That Mary Magdalen went a second time to Christ's Tomb, with other Women, very early; That she returned thither twice more; That the four Evangelists speak of four different Journeys of the Women to the Tomb; That there are five or six Maries; Marry Magdalen, out of whom Christ had cast seven Devils; Marry, the Mother of James, which is the Virgin-Mother of God, Mother-in-Law to James the Greater; Marry, the Mother of James the Lesser, and of Joses; Marry, the Wife of Cleophas, the Virgin's Sister; and Mary, Martha's and Lazarus' Sister. The distinction of these Maries may have some ground; but the four Journeys to Christ's Tomb, are a conjecture without probability. This Homily had already been published in Greek by Sir H. Savil, among the supposititious Homilies of S. Chrysostom; and Combesis hath published it with a Translation out of a Manuscript, in which it is attributed to John, Bishop of Thessalonica. He had found out one more, upon the Virgin's Assumption, little differing from the Writing attributed to Melito, but he did not judge it worth publishing. In the 7th. Council, Act. 4. are found some Fragments of John of Thessalonica's Dialogues, the first whereof was between a Gentile and a Catholic, and the second between a Jew and a Christian. In the 1st. he proves against the Gentile, That Angels and Souls may be painted, as being corporeal; and in the 2d. he shows, That the 
b [Pictures of Christ and of the Martyrs, which were in use among Christians, are not Idols.] The Charge of Idolatry, being so great a Crime, so stupid a Sin, and so strictly forbidden in Holy Scripture, hath always been denied by the rankest Image-worshippers 
Conc. Nic. 2. An. 788 Conc. Const. sub Copron. An. 754.  among Christians, and that with much seeming detestation. The Fathers of the 2d. Council of Nice, who were strenuous Patrons of Image-worship against the Iconoclasts of that time, did yet disclaim that Charge lately laid upon them by a Council at Constantinople, tho' the Reasons brought to clear themselves of it are very weak and frivolous, as the most learned Bishop of Worcester hath sufficiently evinced. 
Still. Idol. c. 1. p. 68 Sect. 9 etc. Aug. de cons. Evang. l. 1. c., 10. Basil. Orat. in S Barla. Epiph. ad Joan. Hierosol. inter Op. Hieron.  Nor doth the Modern Church, tho' as gross Idolaters as the Heathens themselves, seem to bear any Impeachment more grievous than of Idolatry. And then 'tis no wonder, that this Writer, who perhaps was guilty of the same Sin, should assert, That the Pictures, then in use among Christians, were no Idols. And indeed, as they were used by the Church at first from the year 380, to S. Gregory the Great's time, viz. To represent the History of the Bible to the illiterate and ignorant Laity, or to adorn the Church withal, we do not account them Idols; tho' as the Christians for the first 300 years, and more, would not endure any Pictures in their Churches, witness that zealous Fact of Epiphanius in the Church of Anabathla; so it may reasonably be thought, it was the Foundation of that Image-worship, which soon followed in the more superstitious Ages. And if the Christians, of whom this Bishop speaks, made no other use of them, we acknowledge, That they are not Idols. But if the Pictures of Christ and his Martyrs were worshipped by those Christians of whom he speaks, according to the custom of those times, it will be impossible to excuse them from Idolatry, notwithstanding the distinctions made by the Image-worshippers, between an Image and an Idol; for in Holy Scripture, every Image being bowed 
Isa. 44. 9, 10, 13.  down to and worshipped, tho' but with a relative Worship, is thereby made an Idol.]  Pictures of Christ and of the Martyrs, which were in use among Christians, are not Idols.   

GREGORY of Antioch.  
GREGORY Bishop of Antioch, who sat in that See from the year 572. to the year 608. made a Discourse upon the same Subject; but it is less Dogmatical, and contains nothing 
Gregory of Antioch.  but Prosopopoeia's of Joseph to Pilate, and of Pilate to the Jews; some Reflections of Death speaking to herself, and Complaints of the Women upon Christ's death; some Discourses of the Angel with the Jews and Women, and of Jesus Christ with those Women.   

JOHN, ARAUSIUS, HELLADIUS, JUSTUS, NONNITUS and CONANTIUS, Bishops of Spain.  
JOHN, an Abbot, and afterwards Bishop of Saragosa, Braulio's Brother, flourished towards the year 620. Ildephonsus assures us, That he was well read in the Holy Scripture, and that 
John, Arausius, etc. Bishops of Spain.  he laboured to instruct by his Discourses more than by his Writings; That nevertheless he had elegantly written some Prayers to be sung in Divine Service, and also a Table to find out Easter-day every year. We have nothing now of this Author.  
The same Ildephonsus ranks among Ecclesiastical Authors, Arausius Bishop of Toledo, and his Successor Helladius; but seeing he confesseth, they have writ nothing, it was needless to increase the number of Authors with them. This last, had for his Disciple and Successor, one named Justus, a witty and a worthy Man, who had written a Letter to Richilan, Abbot of the Monastery of Agali, in which he shown him, That he ought not to leave his Flock. These three Bishops governed the Church of Toledo from the year 606, to 634, or 635. This last signed the Council of Toledo, held under Sisenand in the year 633. and was but 3 years' Bishop.  
S. Ildephonsus puts also in the rank of Ecclesiastical Authors Nonnitus, Bishop of Gironde, who lived in the same time, but he speaks of none of his Works.  
He speaks, lastly, of Conantius, Bishop of Palenzo, as of a Man as Prudent and Grave, as Eloquent and Learned; and he saith, he applied himself to regulate the Order of Divine Service; That he had made Hymns to new Tunes, and a Book of Prayers taken out of the Psalms. We have not now those Works.   

BONIFACE V.  
BEDE mentions three Letters of this Pope about the Conversion of the English. The 1st. is directed to Justus, who from Bishop of Rochester became Archbishop of Canterbury, 
Boniface V.  wherein he grants him the Pall, and congratulates him for King Adelvad's Conversion. The 2d. is directed to 
* [King of Northumberland.]  Edwin an English King, wherein he exhorts him to leave Idolatry, to worship the true God, and embrace Christ's Religion. The 3d. is to Queen 
† [Wife of 〈◊〉. Edwin.]  Edelburgh, whom he congratulateth upon her Conversion, and exhorts her to endeavour that of the King her Husband.   

MODESTUS, Bishop of Jerusalem.  
WE have no other Monument of this Author, who flourished towards the year 620. but an Extract of one of his Sermons mentioned by Photius in the 275th. Volume of his Bibliotheca. 
Modestus, Bishop of Jerusalem.  The first is taken out of a Sermon upon the Women of the Gospel, which carried Balm to anoint Christ. He tells us there, That Mary Magdalen, out of whom Christ cast 7 Devils, was a Virgin, and that she suffered Martyrdom at Ephesus, whither she went to S. John the Evangelist, after the Virgin's death. Which shows how far they were then from the Opinion which hath obtained since, That Mary Magdalen is the same with the Woman that was a Sinner, [Luk. 7. 37.] The 2d. Sermon of Modestus, mentioned in Photius, was a Sermon upon the death of the Virgin the Mother of God, which he calls, A Dormitory Sermon, after the manner of the Ancients. Photius speaks of no Extract of it; he only taketh notice, 'tis a long Discourse, containing nothing necessary, and nothing like the former. The 3d. Sermon is upon the Festival of the meeting [of Christ and Simeon] or the presentation of Jesus Christ in the Temple. Photius sets down an Extract of it, in which, the Virtues of Anna, and the Virgin's Purification, are discoursed of Figuratively and Rhetorically.   

GEORGE of Alexandria.  
IT is thought, That George, the Author of S. Chrysostom's Life, was the Bishop of Alexandria, who succeeded S. John the Alms-giver in the year 620, and held that See till 630. 
George of Alexandria  This Life is a great deal larger than that of Palladius, but less faithful, and full of many Untruths. His Style, in the judgement of the learned Photius, is very plain, and somewhat flat. He offends against the Laws of Grammar, and is not exact in the construing of Words. It is needless to make the Extract of this Life, because what it contains more than is in Palladius, and the other ancient Historians, is either false or doubtful. He hath often misrepresented the Matters of Fact, which he relates upon trust from other Authors. He alleges many of them contrary to the Testimonies of S. Chrysostom, and the Authors of his time. He hath counterfeited many Letters, and falsely attributed them to the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius, and Pope Innocent. He confidently asserts, contrary to the truth of History, That this Pope excommunicated the Emperor Honorius and Empress Eudoxia. He hath reported an infinite number of things evidently false. Photius, who made a long Extract of this Life, confesses himself, That he hath said many things contrary to the Truth of History; but he thinks, the Reader may pick out that which is true and useful, and pass by the rest. Methinks it were better and fit to fetch things out of the Originals, than to misspend one's time to read them in those ill Copiers and Plagiaries. This Work was published in Greek by Sir H. Savil. in the last Volume of S. Chrysostom's Works, printed at Eton; together with the Life of the same Father by other later Authors, who copied out this Man's Fictions, and added others to them, after the manner of the modern Greeks.   

HONORIUS.  
POpe HONORIUS, whose Name became so famous by reason of his Condemnation in the 6th Council, was raised to the Pontificate the 13th. of May, 626. and died 
Honorius.  October 11th. 638. Besides the two Letters he hath written to Sergius upon the Question of the two Wills in Christ, which will be spoken of in the Acts of the 5th. Council, where they are inserted, we have some others upon particular Matters. The 1st. is directed to the Exarch Isaeius, to whom he complains, That certain Bishops advised a Lord to forsake Adaluade, the lawful King of the Lombard's, to side with the Tyrant Ariovalde; and he desires him after having restored Adaluade, to send those Bishops to Rome to him, that he may punish them for their Disloyalty. We learn of Paul, the Deacon, That Adaluade was turned out by the Lombard's, because he had lost his Senses, and that Ariovalde was put in his room.  
The Second Letter of Honorius is directed to the Bishops of the Provinces of Venice and Istria. He recommends to them Primogenius whom he had Consecrated to be Archbishop of Grado, and prays them to admit him into the place of him who had been deprived of that Church.  
The Three next Letters are concerning the Question of the Two Wills in Christ.  
The Fifth and Sixth are taken out of Beda; Therein he congratulates Edwin King of Northumberland for his Conversion, he exhorts him to perseverance in the Faith and Piety; he recommends S. Gregory's Works to him for his reading, and tells him, He sends Two Palls to both the Metropolitans of his Kingdom.  
The Sixth ought to be directed to those Two Metropolitans, Named Honorius and Paulinus, the one Archbishop of Canterbury, the other of York. He exhorts them to discharge the Duties of their Ministry worthily, and grants to them, That when either of the Bishops of those Two Sees shall happen to Die, the Survivor may Ordain another in his room.  
Honorius' Two last Letters are taken out of the Collection of Canons of Cardinal Deusdedit. In the First directed to the Bishops of Epirus, he tells them, That he sends them the Pall for Hypatius, whom they had ordained Bishop of Nicopolis; but because he had been suspected of having had a hand in his Predecessor Sotericus' Death, his Will is, that when the time of Peace shall give him leave, he should come to Rome to clear himself by 
i [Oath before S. Peter' s Tomb.] This Action, tho' but a Ceremony in Swearing, yet being intended as a piece of Divine Honour to S. Peter, was an Idolatrous and Sinful Custom which crept in with Saint-Worship.]  Oath before S. Peter's Tomb, from having been any ways accessary to it; and he says, That. Sotericus had thus cleared himself from some Suspicions against him. The Second is directed to Sergius Subdeacon, about a business concerning the Bishop of Cagliari. That Bishop was at variance with certain of his Clerks; the Parties had been cited to Rome; the Bishop had appeared there, and his Clerks being not come thither, the Pope had sent an Advocate from Rome to bring them; but the Governor of Sardinia detained them in afric, to keep them out of the Pope's Jurisdiction, which obliged him to entreat Sergius to sue to the Praefectus Praetorio to do him Justice, by ordering that Governor to send those Clerks to Rome. He transmitted to him at the same time a Copy of Valentinian and Theodosius' Law, to support his pretention.   

SOPHRONIUS.  
SOPHRONIUS of Damascus, Elected Patriarch of Jerusalem in the Year 629, was one of the great opposers of the 
* [A Sect, that held, that there was but One Will in Jesus Christ after the Union of the Two Natures.]  Monothelites; when he was but a Monk he opposed that 
Sophronius.  Error springing up at Alexandria, and did his endeavours to hinder Cyrus from entertaining it. He was the first Patriarch that condemned it, and before he Died, he sent a Bishop to Rome to demand the solemn condemnation of it. Photius in the 231st Volume of his Bibliotheca says, He had perused a Synodal Letter of that Patriarch, directed to Honorius then Governing the Church of Rome, in which he did exactly explain and defend the Doctrine of the Church; That he observed there, that Magnus had been Excommunicated, together with Apollinarius, and that Theodoret had not been Banished out of the Church, tho' he did not agree with St. Cyril; That he distinguished there Two Origen's, the one Elder, the other Surnamed Adamantius, altho' they be really the same; That he mentioned one James of Syria Author of the Sect of the Acephali; That he prayed Honorius, that, in case he had forgotten in his Letter something which he should have said, he would supply it, and amend what he should think amiss in it; That he cited the Testimonies of several Fathers, whereof Photius maketh the Catalogue, to confute those Men's Opinions, who pretended, there was but one Operation in Christ. This is the sum of that Letter, as it is reported by Photius.  
This Patriarch of Jerusalem wrote also another Synodal Letter on the same Subject, directed to Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople, mentioned in the 11th Act of the 6th Council. It contains a long profession of Faith, in which, after a large dissertation upon the Mystery of the Incarnation, and having encountered the Heresies and Errors opposite to the Faith of the Church he 〈◊〉, That the 〈◊〉 Nature's, 〈◊〉 Jesus Christ have each their distinct Operation. He names and condemns 〈◊〉 inf●…e Number of Heretics. He asserts, The Souls to be 〈◊〉 when our Bodies are 〈◊〉, and that we shall rise with the very same Bodies we have. He attributes 〈◊〉 contrary Opinion to 〈◊〉, against whom he proves the Eternity of Pains.  
Besides these Two Dogmatical Monuments, we have Four Sermons Fathered upon Sophronius, the First is o● our Saviour's Birth, wherein the Cruelties of the Saracens, who had invaded the Town of Bethlehem, are mentioned. The Second is a Panegyric of the Angels, full of Praises and Prayers, as also the other Two 
k [Sermons of the Praises of the Cross.] The Cross of Christ was at first a Stumbling Block to the Jews, Foolishness 
1 Cor. 1. 23.  to the Gentiles, and a Reproach to the Christians themselves, who were in derision called the Disciples of a Crucified 
Aug. Ser. 8.  God. To show therefore their Constancy, and Love to their Profession, they did frequently Cross themselves on their Breasts and Foreheads, to testify their sincere Belief, That Jesus who was Crucified was their Saviour, and that they were not ashamed of his Cross. These were the only Crosses, (or Cros●●●gs rather) that were used by the Christians for 300 Years and more after Christ, for 〈◊〉 says, Cr●…es 〈◊〉 ●abemus, 〈◊〉 uptails, We neither have Crosses, nor desire any. But after it pleased God to promise Constantine the Great Victory over his Competitors in the Empire, by making 
Euseb. de vit. Const. lib. 1.  the Sign of the Cross to appear to him in the Air, with this Inscription, In hoc ●igno vinces, which he therefore put immediately into the Imperial Standard to be Adored by all his Soldiers according to the Custom, and was always Victorious with it, it everafter came to be in very great Esteem and Honour 
Aug. in Joan. Tract. 118. Niceph. l. 8. c. 32.  among the Christians. Wooden Crosses were made and placed in the Public Markets, the Sign of the Cross was used in Celebrating the Sacraments, Honourable Titles were given to it by the Fathers, who called it, Signum Fidei, Trophae●● Dominicum, Signum Christi, & Dei. At last in this Superstitious and Idolatrous Age it was admitted into the Church, together with the Images of Christ, and his Saints, Excessive Praises bestowed upon it by this, and other Bishops, in their Sermons, who were Zealous for Image-Worship, and became an Object of Adoration together with them.]  Sermons of the Praises of the Cross. Photius found out the true Style of that Author, when he observed, that he uses extraordinary Terms, and goes skipping along. By this Character it is plain enough, that it is another Sophronius, spoken of by the same Photius in the 5th Volume of his Bibliotheca, in these words, I have read a Book of Sophronius' for S. Basil, against Eunomius; he is more Learned and short than Theodorus; he does not keep close to all that Eunomius hath said, but undertakes to oppose and confute the principal points of Eunomius' Heresy, his Character is to be Peremptory and Decisive, his Style is Free and Plain, yet not Tedious, altho' he be full of Logical Arguments.  
There is a bad piece, Entitled, S. Peter's and S. Paul's Journeys, tho' S. Peter's only be mentioned, attributed to Sophronius of Jerusalem, but 'tis a ridiculous Forgery, not worth mentioning.  
We may more justly attribute to Sophronius of Jerusalem, S. Marry the Aegyptian's Life, Quoted in the 7th Council, Act 4. by S. John Damascene, in his 
l [S. J. Damascene ' s Book of Images.] This Writer, who is reckoned among the Fathers of the Church, and much Quoted by Romish Authors in their Controversy with Protestants, was a Credulous and Superstitious Person, a great Patron of Images, and a Zealous Defender of Image-Worship, and the other Errors which sprang up about his time. Insomuch, that it is no wonder that we meet with Books of such Titles as this under his Name, better becoming an Heathen than a Christian, for which Reason his 
●as. adv. Bar. p. 83.  Writings are of small Esteem with Judicious and Pious Men.]  Book of Images, and by Nicephorus Calist. l. 7. c. 3. In the 7th Council are cited Two fragments of a Discouse of Sophronius' upon S. Cyrus, and S. John, for the Images of Saints. A Book likewise called the Spiritual Meadow, [Limonarium, or Pratum Spirituale,] is attributed to him. He Died in 636.   

JOANNES MOSCHUS.  
THE Author of The Spiritual Meadow, is called Joannes Moschus 
* [Surnamed Eviratus.],  Presbyter and Monk, 
Joannes Moschus.  who having run through the Monasteries of the East, came to Rome with his Scholar Sophronius, believed to be he, we have now spoken of, tho' without any certain proof. He gathered into that Book what he had learned of the Life, Actions, Sentences, and Miracles of the Monks of divers Countries. There he relates many strange Stories and Miracles that deserve little Credit. We shall not stand to relate them, but shall only remark what may be useful to clear the Church-Discipline. He observes in the Third Chapter, There was a Presbyter who did Baptise, and Anoint the Baptised with the Holy Chrism; but that he would have left that Function, because that when he Baptised Women, he felt some Motions troublesome to him. In the 25th he says, That a Friar having pronounced the Words of Consecration upon some Loaves he had brought to Offer upon the Altar, when the Priest offered them, he did not see the Holy Ghost coming down, as it used to do, and that he was warned by an Angel, that those Loaves had been Consecrated before, because that Friar had pronounced in the way the Words of Consecration, and that this Priest forbade them afterwards to suffer any other to learn them, but such as were to offer the Holy Sacrifice, and that no Body should pronounce them, but in the time of the Consecration. In the 26th he reports, That a Monk, to prove there was no Salvation to be had out of the Church, had showed to one of his Brethren engaged in Nostorius' Error, Heretics in a place full of Fire and Filth. In the 27th he says, A Priest would not say Mass, unless he saw the Holy Ghost descending upon the Altar, tho' the Hour of the Celebration of it ought always to be the same. In the 29th he relates, That a Stylite Monk of the Communion of the Catholics, sent to another Stylite of the Sect of the Severians, for a share of his Communion Bread, and that having thrown it into boiling Water, it was presently dissolved, but that having afterwards thrown a particle of the Eucharist of the Catholics into it, the Water cooled, and the Eucharist remained entire, without moistening it. In the 30th he relates another 
m [Miracle of the Eucharist, etc.] It is really very strange to meet with so many Miracles in this Age in the Writers of it, whereas in the Three precedent Centuries we find little or no mention of any. Yea, S. Chrysostom says, Nos Miraculis nequaquam indigemus quae nunc non babemus, etc. As we have no Miracles, so we want none. The Faith having been sufficiently confirmed by Christ and his Apostles, Miracles afterwards became useless, and therefore ceased. But when the Church began to Preach Alterum Evangelium, another Gospel, and such Doctrines 
Gal. 1. 8.  were Imposed and Taught as neither Christ nor his Apostles had ever wrought any one Miracle in Confirmation of, it was thought the readiest way to gain credit to the Imposture, either to feign, or outwardly do some Miracles, which might extort Belief from the Vulgar. To this 
Canus in loc. Theol. l. 11. c. 6.  end did not only Men but Devils conspire together in working Lying Wonders to confirm the Adoration of Images, the Sacrament, Saints Relics, and the like. Strange things were done through the Artifices of Satan by the Martyr's Bones, stranger related by the Preachers in their Sermons, and by Historians in their Legends. Many wholly feigned, others in part, or in show only acted, till Superstition and Idolatry at last was fully Established, and by these Delusions are still upheld in the Church of Rome. Indeed 
Aug. de Civ Dei, l. 22. c. 10.  S. Austin says, That several Miracles were done in his time at the Martyr's Tombs, and by their Relics, but as he something scrupled the Truth of them, so he was willing to let them pass as such, because the Faith was confirmed by them, and there appeared no other end of them but to advance the same Worship that the Church professed. Had they been made a Foundation of Saint-Worship, as afterward they were, he would certainly have rejected as forged, or wrought for a false end and intention, as it is commanded.]  
Deut. 13. 1, 5.  Miracle of the Eucharist, That a Severian having forced his Wife, a Catholic, ●to throw the Communion Bread away, he did see it shining in the Mire, and that Two Days after he had seen an Aethiopian, saying to him, We are both Condemned to the same Torment. In the 44th he says, That a Friar who had been negligent during his Life, was after his Death seen by an Old Man in a great Fire up to the Neck, and telling the Old Man, he was beholden to his Prayers for the favour he enjoyed, of not having his Head also in the Fire. In the 45th he says, A Recluse promised the Devil, he would 
n [Adore the Virgin's Image.] Among the Images of Saints which were admitted into the Church in this Age, and became Objects of Divine Worship, the Image of the Virgin Mary the Mother of God had a chief place. And tho' this Story were true, That the Devil did Tempt a Monk to Abjure the 
Mede's Apost. of lat. times, p. 10, 24.  Worship of the Virgin's Image, which is really a Doctrine of Devils, yet the Artifice of Satan in this Temptation could be no other than this, To Establish that Doctrine as Divine, which he had secretly first brought into practice, by endeavouring openly to extort it from the more Zealous Practisers of it. And so make his Diabolical Delusions pass for Sacred and Divine Truths.]  Adore the Virgin's Image no more, to be delivered from his Temptation, and that he was reproved by his Elder for doing so. In the 47th he relates, That the Virgin having appeared Twice to a Jester, uttering Impious Speeches against her, and having warned him to do so no more, but to no purpose, she appeared to him the Third time, and that having Signed his Hands and Feet with the Sign of the Cross, he found himself, when he awoke without Hands and Feet. In the 79th he observeth, It was the Custom in Constantinople, to keep the Eucharist they received on Holy Thursday, to the Holy Thursday of the next Year; and that a Catholic being Servant to a Severian, having left with his Master the Key of his Chest where he had laid up the Eucharist in a Linen-Cloth, the Master having designed to burn it, because his Servant did not come back, found that the particles of the Eucharist had brought forth Ears of Corn. He relates in the 176th Chapter, That a young Jew finding himself in great extremity in a Desert without Water, and having called for Baptism on those that accompanied him, one of them Baptised him, by throwing Sand on his Head Three times, and saying the usual Words, Such an one is Baptised in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that presently after that Jew found himself better; that afterwards it was debated, whether that Baptism was good and valid, and that at last he was sent to Jordan to be Baptised there, and he that Baptised him was ordained Deacon. In the 196th he relates, That some Children of the Province of Apamea, would needs represent the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries, and that having chosen one of themselves to perform the Office of a Priest, and two others of Deacons, they set some Bread upon a Stone, and that he that acted the Priest did pronounce the Words of Oblation, which he had gotten by Heart, because it was the Custom of his Church, that Children should receive the Communion next after the Clerks, and being for that pretry near the Altar, they overheard the Words of the Holy Sacrifice, which the Priests in some places used to utter aloud, that having thus performed all the Ceremonies before they broke the Bread to give the Communion, Fire came down from Heaven which consumed the Oblation, and the whole Stone whereon it was laid; That the Bishop of the place hearing of it, built a Monastery in that place, and made all those Children Monks. To this Example he adds that reported by Ruffinus, of the Baptism administered by S. Athanasius, who was then but a Child, to some other Childeen, and says, That S. Athanasius believed, those that receive Baptism out of fear, and without Faith, are nevertheless Baptised, tho' Baptism does them no good. In the 207th, There is mention made of Two Angels who stood Sureties for a Girl which had a mind to be Baptised. In the 214th, It is observed, They Baptised in the East on the Day of Epiphany, as well as on Easter-Day, and Whitsunday.  
Such things as these are in that Book, which may be of some use for the Church Discipline. It is moreover full of an infinite Number of Relations, and Miraculous strange Stories, of Apparitions, Revelations, Visions, and Miracles, wrought by those Hermits, whether by foretelling things to come, by discovering Men's Thoughts, healing the Sick, commanding Lions and Wild Beasts, or working extraordinary Feats. Death itself did not hinder them from working Miracles, from the Grave they did speak to the Living, and wrought Miracles in their behalf. Among those wonderful Stories, of little Credit for the most part, there be found inimitable Examples of Virtue, extraordinary Austerities, excessive Fasts, wonderful Poverty, and such a Simplicity and Humility, as would sometimes pass for Sottishness; an immoderate Zeal against Heretics, fierce Conflicts with Devils, and some Witty and Holy Answers. The Style of that Work is low and course. It was Translated into Latin by Ambrose Camaldulensis, and Printed in Greek in the Bibliotheca Patrum 1624. Cotelerius Published at last the Greek of some Chapters which were before wanting, in his Second Volume of Ecclesiastical Monuments.   

GEORGIUS, Surnamed PISIDES.  
GEORGIUS, Deacon and Library-Keeper of the Church of Constantinople, Surnamed Pisides, wrote a Book in jambick Verse upon the Creation of the World, which the Ancients 
Georgius Pisides.  call 
* [Hexaemeron.]  the Six Days Work. He writ also the Life of the Emperor Heraclius, the Persian War, a Panegyric upon the Martyr Anastasius, and another Work entitled Abarica, [or Avarica, being an History of the Avares.]  
We have the first Work of this Author, which is Dedicated to Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople, and another Poem of the Vanity of this Life, together with some fragments taken out of Suidas. He is a better Poet than Divine.  
This is probably the same Georgius who made some Sermons in the praise of the Virgin, Published by F. Combefis, whereof some are upon the Virgin's Conception, and his Mother's; others upon the Virgin's Birth, her Presentation in the Temple, her assisting at the Cross, and at the Sepulchre; they are full of Fables, (taken out of the Apocryphal Book of the Virgin's Birth, falsely fathered upon S. James,) and of extraordinary commendations of the Virgin, and her Parents. They are Declamations full of Descriptions, Exclamations, Rhetorical Figures, and Emphatical Terms, but void of Sense and Reason, and fit for Sport than Instruction. The last of these Sermons is upon S. Cosmus and S. Damian.   

EUGENIUS, Bishop of Toledo.  
EUGENIUS having lived in Solitude, and in the practice of the Monastical Life, near the City of Saragosa, was forced to be Bishop of Toledo, by order from the Prince. Ildephonsus, 
Eugenius, Bishop of Toledo.  who succeeded him in that See, tells us, He wrote a Book of the Trinity, and Two little Books, whereof the one was in Verse of divers measures, the other in Prose; that he had also revised Dracontius' Work on the Creation of the World, and had made it a great deal better than it was, and had added to it the Work of the 7th Day.  
Sirmondus hath Published Eugenius' Poems, containing several pieces on different Subjects. The Style of them is not very Polite, but the Fancies are very Exact and Judicious, and he is full of very Christian Sentiments. Cardinal Aguirre, in his Notitia of the Councils of Spain, promises a Letter of this Eugenius to Protasius, and a new Book of Epigrams that has never been Published.  
He had a Predecessor named Eugenius, whom Ildephonsus ranks also among the Ecclesiastical Writers; but he speaks of none of his Works in particular; nay, he does not say he had written any. Wherefore we shall say nothing of his Life.   

APOLLONIUS, Presbyter of Novara.  
THIS Presbyter hath composed a Poem of the Destruction and Ruin of Jerusalem by Vespasian. His Expressions are Noble, his Terms Poetical, and his Verses have a very 
Apollonius.  sweet Cadence. This Work is divided into Four Books; he is one of the best Christian Poets we have. He makes no difficulty of calling upon the Muses, and to use the Names of Profane Gods.   

JOHN IU.  
THIS Pope did not enjoy the Roman See long, for he was raised to it in 640, and Died in 1641. Anastasius hath preserved in his Collections an Apology which he made for his 
John IU.  Predecessor Honorius, in which he pretends, that that Pope was not in the Error of the Monothelites, who acknowledged but one will in Jesus Christ; and that when he said, there was not Two wills in Christ, he understood it of Two contrary wills, or of the inferior and superior part, that is, of Concupiscence which is contrary to the rational will; but he never meant, that there was but one will only in Christ, consisting of the Divine and the Humane will united into one.  
We have yet Two Letters of this Pope; the First is written to the Irish Abbots in the Name of Hilarius, Archpriest of the Church of Rome, holding the See, during the vacancy, in the place of John, who was Elected, but not Consecrated yet, and of Two other Officers of the Roman Church, the one having the Title of Secretary of State, the other of Councillor. They reprove them for not keeping Easter at the same time with other Churches, and for retaining some Relics of Pelagianism among them.  
The Second Letter is to Isaac of Syracuse. He declares therein, That Monks ought to be permitted to choose, and put into the Churches given them, such Priests as they will, yet with this Proviso, That if they do any thing against the Bishop, they shall be punished by the Synod.   

THEODORUS I.  
AFter John IV's. Death, THEODORUS was chosen in his room, in November, the Year 641. He wrote two Letters, and a Memoir, against Pyrrhus, Patriarch of Constantinople, 
Theodorus I.  who had been deprived, and Paul put in his room. 'Tis to this last Theodorus' first Letter is directed. He sends him Word, That Pyrrhus ought to be condemned and deposed in a Synod, for commending Heraclius, and going about to make a new Profession of Faith. He tells him, That in case he could not get him condemned in his Country, he must only pray the Emperor to cause him to be brought to Rome, and that he will get him judged in a Council. The Second Letter is directed to the Bishops who had ordained Paul. He finds Fault with them for ordaining him before they had deposed Pyrrhus, and for giving him the Title of Most Holy. He takes notice of the Reasons, why he should be condemned; 1. Because he had commended Heraclius; and, 2. Because he had made a new Profession of Faith, contrary to the Apostolic Doctrine, against the Prohibition of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. In the Memoir he exhorts the Eastern Bishops, to preserve the Ancient Faith of the Church, and to reject the Novelties brought in by Pyrrhus, and his Confession of Faith.   

MARTIN I.  
MARTIN I. being ordained Bishop of Rome, in July 649. held, in October following, 
Martin I.  a Council of 105. Bishops against the Monothelites; in which he condemned Sergius and Pyrrhus, who had been formerly Bishops of Constantinople, and Paul, then in Possession of it. At that Time the Emperor Constans sent the Exarch Olympius into Italy, with an order to force the Bishops of Italy to receive the 
* [An Edict put out by the Emperor Constans, at the Desire of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, a Monothelite; whereby it was prohibited to dispute about the Operations and Wills of Christ.  Type published by him. Olympius found the Pope, the Bishops and the Clergy of Italy in a very contrary Disposition, and was forced to enter into Agreement with Martin; but this Exarch being dead, a while after, in Sicily, where he had the Command of an Army against the Saracens, the Emperor sent Theodorus, surnamed Calliopas; who caused Pope Martin to be taken away by Force, in July 653. He remained a whole Year in the Isle of Naxos, and came not to Constantinople till towards the end of 654. from whence he was banished into Chersona, where he died, in 656. in June.  
We have Seventeen Letters of his.  
The First is a Circular Letter, to all Bishops, to let them know, He had condemned the Error of the Monothelites.  
The Second is directed to Amandus' Bishop of Utrecht, who had written to him, That he was so much grieved to see the Disorder of certain Clergymen, who committed the Sin of the Flesh after their Ordination, that he had a mind to leave his Bishopric, to live in Peace and Quietness. He dissuades him from that Design, and advises him to deal with those Sinners with all the Severity that the Canons allow; declaring, That all those that are fallen, after their Ordination, shall remain suspended for ever, and be for ever disabled from performing any Sacerdotal Function: That they shall pass their whole Life in Penance, for the Expiation of their Fault; For, saith he, if we choose persons of innocent Life, to be promoted to Orders, with how much greater Reason should we hinder those who are fallen after their Ordination, from meddling with the Holy Mysteries with defiled Hands, and polluted with Crimes? Let them therefore be deposed for ever, according to the Decrees of the Councils; to the end that the Searcher of Hearts, who will not suffer any of his Sheep to perish, seeing the sincerity of their Repentance, may forgive them at the Day of Judgement. Then he exhorts that Bishop to undergo any manner of Pains, Torments and Toil for the Salvation of his Sheep, and the Service of God. Lastly, he gives him notice, that he hath condemned the Monothelites, in a General Council of his Brethren, and sends him the Acts themselves, to the end he may publish them, and cause them to be received in his Country. He prays him to persuade King Sigebert to send some Bishops to the Holy See, that they may carry home the Acts of that Council, and join with him in the Defence of the Faith.  
The Third is directed to the Emperor Constans, in the Name of the whole Synod. He acquaints him, That he hath condemned the Error of the Monothelites, in a Synod, of which he sends him the Acts.  
The Fourth is to the Bishop of Carthage, and to all the Bishops of Africa. He approves the Confession of Faith they had sent him, and sends them the Acts of the Council.  
In the Fifth he makes John Bishop of Philadelphia, to whom he writes, his Vicar in all the East, giving him Power to make Bishops and Priests in the Churches of the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch, to receive those that will renounce their Error, and to confirm them in their Churches, provided there be no other Canonical Impediment: For, saith he, we ought to be the Defenders, and not Betrayers of the Canons. Thus he will not have him to confirm them, who have chosen themselves, no● those whose Election was not Canonical. He mentions particularly the Election of Macedonius Bishop of Antioch, who was made Bishop in a strange Country, without the Consent of the People, and without a Decree of Election, as well as that of Peter Bishop of Alexandria. He will have them that shall be admitted, not only to abjure the Error of the Monothelites, but moreover to condemn Theodorus▪ Cyrus▪ Sergius; Pyrrhus Paul, and all of the same Opinion with them; to reject the Type, and to make a clear Profession, That they believe two Wills in Christ. He appoints two Bishops, named Theodorus and Antony, with an Abbot, to help him in that Function 〈◊〉 them he directs the three next Letters, to exhort them to join themselves with that Bishop for the Defence of the Faith. In the last he speaks of Stephen, and Eastern Bishop, whom he had also made his Vicar. He explains, that Matter in the next Letter, directed to Pantaleo, in which he complains, That they had accused that Bishop, and hindered him from receiving the Letter which he had sent him, to ordain Priests and Bishops. He repeats also here. That those Bishops ought not to be confirmed, who have been elected in another Town, than that whereof they are Priests or Bishops, and without the Consent of the Bishop or the Metropolitan; thus he declares ●ord all the Ordinations made in Sophronius' Patriarchate, which had not been done by his Authority.  
In the Tenth he recommends his Vicar to a great Lord, named Peter.  
In the Eleventh, to the Church of Jerusalem, he acquaints them with the Condemnation of the Error of the Monothelites, and declares void the Ordinations of Macedonius, Patriarch of Antioch, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria.  
In the Twelfth he declares to Paul of Thessalonica, That he hath excommunicated and deposed him for his Errors.  
In the Thirteenth he acquaints the Church of Thessalonica with Paul's Condemnation, and exhorts them to avoid his Heresy.  
In the Fourteenth, to Theodorus, he relates what passed, when he was violently taken away from Rome. He says, That he coming out of the Constantinian Church, encompassed with Guards, they said in the presence of the Exarch: Anathema to him that believes that Martin did change or will change the least Word in the Faith: Anathema to them that shall not persevere in the Orthodox Faith unto death. That Calliopas hearing this, said, He had no other Faith: that he answered him, He would defend that Faith unto Death; and as for the other things charged on him, he was altogether innocent of them; that he had never writ to the Saracens; that he sent them no money neither, only that he had given some Alms to some Servants of God coming to Rome; that it was false that he had uttered any thing against the Respect due to the Virgin, and that he pronounced Anathema to whosoever did not reverence and adore her. These are the Terms used by him, non honorat atque adorat; but the Term of Adoring is not to be taken strictly, for in the next Letter they make Calliopas say, He was come to adore the Pope, that is, to pay his Respects to him.  
He relates yet the same Story more at large in the Fifteenth Letter, directed to the same Theodorus, where he says, That foreseeing what was to come, he had withdrawn himself and all his Clergy into the Constantinian Church, thus named, because it was the first that Constantine had built, near the Bishop's Palace; that he was there the Saturday, 13th. of June, in the Year 653. when Calliopas came to Rome with an Army; that he sent some of his Clergy to meet him; that Calliopas told them, That he was come to adore the Pope, that is, to pay him his Respects; that, notwithstanding, the next Day, being Sunday, he sent Word, That he was too much tired to come to him; that on Monday he sent word to the Pope by his Secretary, he ought not to call Men together, nor prepare Arms and Stones to defend himself; that Martin shown to them he had sent, that this was false; that he lay sick ever since October, and had set his Bed before the Altar; that about Noon a multitude of armed Men entered into the Church with a great deal of Tumult, and that they broke, at their entering, all the 
a [Tapers in the Church.] As several other Heathen and Jewish Ceremonies were received by the Christians, in compliance with the Jews and Gentiles, that their Conversion might be the more easy: So this of burning of Tapers in their Religious Assemblies. At first they were indeed lighted only at the keeping of their Vigils, to which not Religion but necessity 
Hieron a● Vigilant.  obliged them; but afterward, in Jerom's Time, they were lighted up upon the Tombs of the Martyrs, in honour to them, and in the Eastern Church, were always lighted up at the Reading of the Gospel, and in some Places at the interpreting of it, and that at Noonday. At last it was imposed by Gregory the Great, and confirmed by Sabinian, anno 606. Many 
Balaeus ●ent. 1. Script. Brit. Tertul. in Apolog. Lact. Inst. 〈◊〉. 6. c. 2.  of the Fathers inveighed fiercely against this Custom, in the Massalians or Euchitaes, Curio diem Lucernis infringimus, says Tertullian, Quis jucernas vanas proferre compellit? And so Lactantius, Num mentis compos putandus est, qui datori luminis Candelarum lumen offer● pro munere? But Superstition prevailing in the Church brought in this with other Ceremonies, which, if the most noxious, had been more tolerable.]  Tapers in the Church. Then Calliopas shown an Order from the Emperor, declaring, That Martin was to be turned out of the Holy See, and to be sent to Constantinople, and another Bishop be put in his room. Which says he, was never done; for in the Bishop of Rome's Absence, the archdeacon, the Archpriest, and the principal Secretary do occupy his Place. Martin, unwilling that any Body should be killed for him, yielded himself presently to them, and begged only some of his Clerks to accompany him. Calliopas finding no Resistance, bad Martin come along with them to his Palace, when he obeyed; all his Clergy came to him the next day, and many were ready to g●●●●●g with him; but that same Night, he was violently carried away, without suffering any 〈◊〉 to accompany him, but six Men Servants and a Cook: From th●●●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉, where he stayed one year, at the end of which he was brought to 〈◊〉. This is the Abridgement of what is contained in that L●●●●r.  
The Particulars or Memoir, written under the name of a good 〈◊〉 to the Bishops of the West. He says, That Martin, being come up to that Haven, 〈◊〉 th● Church 〈◊〉 S●. 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of December, he was 〈…〉 the ●●●●ning they took him into a Boat, and carrie● him to the 〈◊〉 of the Courtof ●uard; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 fourscore and thirteen days, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being 〈◊〉 to spe●● to him; That after that space of rimw, he was brought into the Council 〈◊〉 of the Em●… prepared against him, were ordered to appear; they were Soldiers 〈◊〉 Men, who accused him of conspiring with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the Witness they brought against him, and maintained, he was more innocent by far th●n those Witnesses themselves, and all the rest ●hat sided with Oly●pius 〈◊〉 that he came to 〈◊〉 in quality of E●a●●●, that he had the Authority and Power in his Hands, and that they were forced to obey him. A●ter this Tumulruary Information, they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a a, where they stripped him, and loaded him with Chains, dragged him through the Town, and put him in the Prison of the Praetorium, loaden with the Burden of his Chains, and brought to the last extremity. The next day, the Emperor coming to visit Paul of Constantinople, who was ready to die, and acquainting him with what was done, that Bishop touched with a remorse of Conscience, fetched a deep Sigh, and turning him aside, said: Alas! 'Tis to add to the Account I am to give to God. The Emperor ask him, why he said so? Is it not great pity, answered he, Bishops should be thus abused? And he earnestly besought the Emperor to suffer it no longer. After Paul's death, Pyrrhus sought to be restored; but many opposed it, because of the retractation he had made at Rome. They sent to Pope Martin, to ask him about the Passages of that Affair; he answered, That Pyrrhus came voluntarily to Rome's That his Predecessor Theodorus made him welcome; That he was entertained at the cost of the Roman Church, the custom whereof was, to find with Victuals all the Strangers who fled thither. They would have forced him to say, That Pyrrhus had signed his retractation by force; but he declared, he would always speak the Truth. After having stayed 85 days in that Prison, they fetched him out of it, to ba●●sh him to Chersona, where he died the 16th. of September, in the year, 656. having suffered much. He wrote two Letters from that place of his Exile, which are the two last, in which he represents his Wants, and the Poverty he suffered in that Country. He prays his Friend to send him some relief from Rome. For, saith he, if S. Peter feed so many Pilgrims at Rome, it is very mee● he should assist us, who are his Ministers, and suffer so much for the Truth and Religion.  
This Pope's Constancy and Firmness appears in his Letters. They are well written, with Strength and Wisdom; the Style of them is great and noble, and worthy of the Majesty of the Holy See. The third, and the 10 next, are found in Greek and Latin; either he wrote them himself in those two Languages, or they have been translated by some Body of that time.   

S. MAXIMUS.  
MAXIMUS, descended of a noble Family of Constantinople, having been a while chief Secretary of State to the Emperor Heraclius, withdrew himself into the Monastery of 
S. Maximus  Chrysopolis, of which he was Abbot. The fear of the Barbarians Incursions, and the Errors spreading at Constantinople, forced him to fly into Africa, after Heraclius' death, in the year, 641. of the vulgar Aera. There he stoutly opposed the Error of the Monothelites, and prevailed with the Africans, to join themselves with John Bishop of Rome, to condemn their Opinions. It fell out, that Pyrrhus, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Head of that Party, who was banished out of Constantinople, because he was accused of having Poisoned the Emperor Constantine, fled into Africa, where he met with Maximus, with whom he fell into Discourse, and yielded or feigned to yield to his Reasons; and hoping to be restored by the Pope's help, he resolved to go to Rome with Maximus. Being arrived there, he presented an Orthodox Confession of Faith to Pope Theodorus. But hearing afterwards from the Exarch of Ravenna, that the Court was of the Party of the Monothelites, and that he could not be restored, unless he altered his Mind, he retracted his Opinions, and embraced again his first Tenets; which forced Pope Theodorus to condemn him in a Council, in which his Condemnation was signed with Ink, mixed with some of our Lord's Blood.  
Maximus was the Man that did thus stir up the Romans against the Monothelites, and there is no doubt but he had a good share in the Council Pope Martin held at Rome against them; and therefore the Emperor Constans' Anger did equally break out against him, and Pope Martin. They were brought to Constantinople: Maximus appeared often before the Judges, and was condemned to Banishment in the year 655. He was sent into a small Town of Thrace, named Byzias, whither Theodorus, Bishop of Caesarea, went to see him, to oblige him to yield to their Opinion; but when he could not prevail with him, they brought him back to Constantinople; and by a strange Cruelty, after he had suffered much, they cut off the Hand and Tongue of him, and his Disciple Anastasius; then he was sent into Prison in a Castle, called Schemre, where he died, Aug. 13. 662.  
This Father wrote a great many Works. Some of them have been published in divers Collections; but Combefis hath published a good number of them in Greek and Latin in two Volumes, printed at Paris, 1675. At the beginning of these two Volumes is found S. Maximus' Life, written by a Greek, younger than he, but pretty well acquainted with the Affairs of his time, and the Authentic Acts of this holy Man's Persecutions.  
The first part of those Acts contains the verbal Process of what passed at Constantinople in the Emperor's Council, when Maximus was brought thither from Italy. In the first Interrogatory we find the Depositions of Witnesses accusing him of injurious Speeches to the Emperors. He defends himself against them, and maintains against the 4th. Witness, that he was in the right, when he said, That the Emperors, tho' Christians, were not Prelates. For, saith he, he who does not offer upon the Altars does not Baptise, does not give the sacred Unction, does not lay on Hands, does not create Bishops, Priests and Deacons, does not consecrate Altars, does not wear the Sacerdotal Marks nor Habits, cannot be called a Prelate among Christians; therefore, in the Oblation at the Altar, the Emperor is named after the Bishops, the Priests, the Deacons, and the Clerks, in the rank of the Laity. Then they brought in his Disciple, who was accused of being an Origenist; but he purged himself from that Charge, by saying, Anathema to Origen. The same day, towards Evening, two of the Emperor's Officers, examined Maximus about the Conference he had with Pyrrhus in Africa. He related to them what was said in that Conference, and declared to them, he would not communicate with the Church of Constantinople, nor receive the 
* [A Confession of Faith composed by Sergius, and put out by Heraclius as a complete Rule of Faith, whereby the Doctrine of one Will in Christ was established, and imposed upon all.]  Ecthesis nor the Type; and tho' they urged him to communicate with the Bishop of Constantinople, he said, he would not. He was brought again the Saturday following to the Palace of Constantinople, and declared a new, that he did Anathematise the Type, and would not communicate with the Church of Constantinople that received it. He said, in that Interrogatory, he was 75 years old, and his Disciple 37. Next after these first Acts, there be two Letters, the one Greek and Latin, written by Maximus to his Disciple; the other Latin, which is Anastasius' to the Monks of Cagliari. S. Maximus relates, in the first, that they would have forced him to say, That there are two operations in Christ, but that they make but one, because of the Unities, which he would not do. In the second, Anastasius does also reject that Opinion, and protests against the Violence used against them. The second part of the Acts contains the Conference which Theodosius, Bishop of Caesarea, had with Maximus at Byzias, in the Presence of the Emperor's Commissioners; in which Maximus declares to him that he could not communicate with the Church of Constantinople, in regard, she received the Novelties of the Monothelites; Theodosius promised him, That, if he would communicate with the Bishop of Constantinople, they would reject the Type. He maintained, That that was not enough, and that they ought first to receive the Condemnation made by the Synod of Rome, held under Martin. Theodosius replied, That that Council was not valid, as having been assembled without the Emperor's Order. Maximus answered, There were many Synods assembled by the Emperor's Orders, which he did not receive; as those held by Constantius against the Faith of the Nicene Council, and that they did receive that which had deposed Paulus Samosatenus, notwithstanding it was held without the Emperor's Order; that it was ordered by the Nicene Council, That every year, two Councils should be held in the Provinces, without speaking of the Emperor's Orders; and lastly, That which moved them to approve and receive Councils, was the Truth of the Doctrine they established. This brought the Dispute to the Doctrine of the one Operation only. Theodosius undertook to prove it by supposititious Passages of Pope Julius, of S. Athanasius, and of Gregory Thaumaturgus; but Maximus having answered him, they were Apollinarius'; he produced two more, under S. Chrysostom's name, which Maximus maintained to be Nestorius', and proved it immediately. Then he explained a Passage of S. Cyril, after which it came again to be disputed whether they should say, One or Two Operations; and at last Theodosius said, he was ready to sign, That there were Two Natures, Two Wills, and Two Operations in Christ. Maximus replied, It did not belong to him, who was but a Monk, to exact Professions of Faith from Bishops; but that, if they were really of that Mind, they might write about it to the Bishop of Rome; and that though they were agreed in the Doctrine, he could not communicate with them, till they had blotted out of * 
[Diptychs.]  the Sacred Tables, which they recited at the Altar, the Names of those who had been anathematised in the Council of Rome; notwithstanding that he did advise them, That the Emperor should send an Address to the Bishop of Rome, and the Patriarch a Synodical Decree, agreeable to the Orthodox Doctrine. Theodosius promised him, that it should be done; yea, and engaged him, in case he were sent thither, to go along with him. Being agreed about that, they went to Prayers, and 
p [Kissing the Gospels, Cross— to confirm their mutual Promises.] These Ceremonies are also the product of the superstitious Worship which was established in this Age. For the Christians in the purer Ages confirmed their Oaths and Promises, by kissing the Gospels, testifying not only their belief of them, but their fear of falsifying their Words, left they offended the God therein revealed, and incurred the Punishments threatened to Falsehood and Perjury. But when the Christians did as it were deify the Martyrs, Cross and Images, they used the same Ceremony toward the Cross, as having an equal Fear and Reverence for that as for God himself and his Holy Gospel.]  kissed the holy Gospels, the Cross, and the Virgin's Image, and touched them, to confirm their mutual Promises. After that, having discoursed about some Points of Morality, Theodosius asked Maximus, whether they could not say, in a good sense, That there was but one only Will in Christ, by reason of the Union of the two Wills? Maximus affirmed, That they could not. Theodosius, and they that were present, seemed to approve his Sentiment, and the Reasons he gave for it. Having parted good Friends in appearance, the Emperor Constans sent an Order to the Proconsul, Paul, to remove the Abbot Maximus from Byzias, and to bring him to the Monastery of S. Theodorus, near Rhegium. The next day Theodosius came to him, accompanied with two Noblemen, Epiphanius and Troilus. This last asked him, whether he would do what the Emperor should command him? He answered, he would obey his Orders, in all things concerning secular Affairs; but when they told him, it was the Emperor's Will, That he should approve the Type, and if he did do it, they would lead him to the great Church of Constantinople, and receive the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ with him, and own him for their Father. He complained to Theodosius, That they did not make good what they had promised. Theodosius answering, That the Emperor was against it; Maximus declared, That the very invisible Powers could not force him to do what they required of him. This Answer provoked the fury of the Company against him, so that they abused him. But at last Theodosius having appeased the Tumult, Epiphanius asked Maximus, why he dealt with his Prince and Church as Heretics, seeing, they owned two Wills, and two Operations in Christ? Maximus replied, That, if it was so, they should not urge him to sign the Type. Epiphanius answered, That that was done by a kind of Condescension. Maximus maintained stoutly, That they ought to declare aloud and firmly, the Orthodox Faith. Epiphanius asked him, whether he had subscribed a Profession of Faith against them? He said, he had. Hereupon Epiphanius threatened him, which he did not seem to matter much. The next day, the Consul Theodosius delivered him into the Hands of the Soldiers, which brought him to Salembria, and then to Perbera, till at last he was condemned to have his Tongue cut out. Combefis hath added to these Acts, some pieces collected by Anastasius, relating to the Life and Actions of S. Maximus. An Invective made by a certain Monk against the Cruelty used against him, and some Extracts of S. Maximus' Offices, taken out of the Books of the Greek Church.  
The first of S. Maximus' Works is entitled, Questions upon the Holy Scripture, dedicated to Thalassius Presbyter and Abbot. He shows, in the Preface of his Work, That Evil is not an Entity, nor a real Quality, but a defect of the Creature, whereby it swerveth from its ultimate end, that is, from God; from whence he concludes, That all Evil comes from the want of the Knowledge and Love of God, because the only means of Salvation, is to know him, to love and serve him, renouncing the love of the Creatures, the Passions, the Lusts, and the vain Pleasures of this World. This Work contains Answers to 65 Questions. The 1st. is about the nature and use of Passions; the rest about some places of the Scripture. We must not look there for literal Explications of the difficulties that might occur about those places of the Scripture; they are allegorical Explications and mystical Observations upon places of the Scripture, or Questions of Divinity, which he takes an occasion to handle from those places. He made himself some Scholia or Glosses upon his own Work, where he explains some Terms used, and establisheth or clears some Rules and Principles propounded by himself.  
Photius did rightly observe, That this Work is very obscure and tedious to read; That he does so often wander from the Letter and the History, that one cannot keep pace with him; and those only who love Allegories and mystical Speculations, do relish him, and take pleasure in the reading of him.  
The 79 Answers to some other Questions, are shorter, and less obscure than the former, but they are not less stuffed with Explications not at all pertinent to the Letter of the Scripture, and with mystical and moral Thoughts.  
He follows the same Method in the Exposition of the 59th Psalm, as well as in that of the Lord's Prayer, where he loseth himself in his Mystical Speculations.  
The Ascetic Discourse is more plain, 'tis a Dialogue between a Monk and an Abbot, in which the Abbot does instruct the simple Monk in the principal Rules of a Spiritual Life. He shows him, That the Love of God, and the Renouncing of the Creatures, are the Foundation of it; That the Love of our Neighbour is the effect of the Love of God; That Jesus Christ gave us a perfect Example of that Love; That we ought continually to fight against the Temptations of the Flesh and the Devil, mortify our Passions, resist the Motions of Lust, reject Idle or Impure Thoughts, be constant in Prayer, have always the Fear of God before our Eyes. He complains, That the greatest part of Monks lived disorderly, and that their seeming Virtue was but Hypocrisy. He maketh an excellent Prayer to God for their Conversion. And adds, We ought to trust in his Goodness and Mercy, hoping for Salvation from him, which we cannot obtain by ourselves. Photius speaking of this Work, says, It is useful for all Men, and chief for them that lead an Ascetic Life, because there he lays down the means how to become a Citizen of Heaven, by teaching Charitableness, and works of Piety. It must also be confessed, that this Treatise is of the Ascetic Books the most useful, not only for Monks, but all Christians likewise, because it does very well explain the Principles and Fundamentals of the Spiritual Life.  
Maximus added to this Work 400 Spiritual Maxims, which he entitled, Of Charity, because there is many of them about Charity towards God and our Neighbour, in which that Holy Man places the whole Spiritual Life, as being persuaded, all other Virtues and Duties are but Branches and Parts of it. There be sundry of those Maxims containing Precepts and Rules touching the Actions of Life, and those are the most useful; but some of the other contain nothing but Spiritual and Mystical Thoughts. Photius takes notice, that the Style of these Two Works is clearer and more elaborate than any of the rest, and that they cannot be found fault with, unless it be because he did not always make use of the purest terms.  
The Two Hundred Theological and Oeconomical Maxims, contain not only Principles of Divinity, but also Maxims of Morality, and they would deserve, says Photius, to be compared with the Four Hundred Maxims above mentioned, if the great number of Allegories that they are filled with, did not render them more like the Questions to Thalassius. To these Chapters is annexed a Writing to Theopemptus, upon Three Texts of the Gospel, entirely agreeing with the Answers to Thalassius.  
Lastly, That Volume ends with 243 Moral Maxims, taken out of a Manuscript of the Vatican, where they are found under Maximus' Name. They are indeed like enough to the 400 Moral Maxims for Style and Matter.  
The fragment drawn out of a Book, entitled, A Resolution of Sixty Three Doubts, Dedicated to the King of Achrida, now L'Ochrida, by S. Maximus, seems doubtful, because in Maximus' time there was no King at Achrida, which maketh it Credible, 'tis the Work of some later Grecian, who wrote that Work when there were Kings in Bulgaria.  
The Second Volume of S. Maximus' Works comprehends his Theological and Polemical Tracts, with his Letters. The Twenty Five first Tracts are divers Writings, or Answers, all tending to the same end, to show that there be Two perfect Natures, Two Wills, and Two Operations, in Jesus Christ; in them he handles that matter Scholastically and Acutely. Among those Tracts there is one, in which he defends that which he had said, That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.  
The Conference with Pyrrhus is clearer, less cumbered with Scholastical Terms and Reasonings. Therein he relates what was said between them on both sides. The issue was, That Pyrrhus persuaded by his Reasons, that we ought to acknowledge Two Wills, and Two Operations in Christ, went to Rome with him and retracted his Error.  
The Treatise of the Soul is upon another Subject. Therein he Treats of many Questions touching the nature of the Soul; he asserts it to be a Spiritual Substance, distinct from the Body, simple, immortal, and intelligent. These points are handled there in a very dry manner, as a Logician rather than Divine.  
Maximus' Letters are upon divers Subjects. The Five first are upon Moral Points. Therein he does chief recommend the Love of God, and of our Neighbour, tho' renouncing Secular Desires, almsgiving, Retiredness, and Repentance.  
In the 6th he shows the Soul to be Spiritual; And in the 7th, That after Death it keeps its Intellectual and other Faculties.  
The Three next contain some Allegorical and Moral Observations.  
In the 11th, He Exhorts a Superior to deal Charitably with a Nun, which having left the Nunnery, had returned thither to do Penance.  
The 12th, Is a Writing against Severus, in which he Establisheth the distinction of the Two Natures in Christ. He complains in the beginning, that the Empress had written some Letters into afric favouring the Severians. He enquireth into the bottom of the Question of the Two Natures in this Writing. He explains a passage in S. Cyril, and refutes Severus' Error, That the Two Natures became one in Christ. The same Subject is also handled in the next Writing directed to a Lord, named Peter.  
The 14th Letter, which is the 41st piece of this Volume, is also on the Mystery of the Incarnation; but in the end of it he speaks of the Incursions of the Arabians, which spoilt the Frontiers of the Empire.  
The 15th is a Scholastical Tract of the Union and Distinction of the Two Natures in Christ, directed to Conon, a Deacon of Alexandria. To it is joined a Letter directed to the same Deacon, to exhort him to stand up in the defence of the Truth, without being dismayed at the sufferings attending the defence of it.  
The 17th is directed to Julian. It is also about the distinction of the Two Natures.  
The 18th is written in the Name of George, a Nobleman of Africa, to some Nuns of Alexandria, engaged in the Error of the Mon●●helites, to dissuade them from it.  
The 19th is written to Pyrrh●s, before he was Patriarch, and ●ad declared himself openly against the Church. Maximus asks him, How his saying is to be understood, that there was but one Virtue or Operation in Christ.  
The following Letters, to divers private persons, are shorter than the former, and contain nothing but some Moral or Mystical Discourses.  
The Five Dialogues upon the Trinity, which were Published under Athanasius' Name, are here restored to S. Maximus, upon the Authority of the Greek Manuscripts and Authors, which have Quoted them under this Father's Name. We have showed already, that Combefis was in the right, to put them under Maximus' Name, and that they are none of Theodoret's, as F. Garner pretended. After so many Writings of the Ancients upon the Trinity, there is no need to make an Extract of this, where that Mystery is handled after Maximus' Genius Scholastically, and in the form of a Conference.  
Maximus' 
* [Or an Exposition of the Public Liturgy of the Church.]  Mystagogy, are Considerations of the Church-Ceremonies. He says there, That the Church is the Figure and Image of God, the World, Man, and the Soul. That the Introitus of the Mass, is a representation of Christ's entrance into our Souls. That the Lessons signify the Faith of Christians. That the Songs are signs of the Spiritual Joy. That the Gospel figures the Consummation of the World, and the Perfection of Christians. That when the Bishop descends from his Chair, he represents Christ descending from Heaven in the Day of Judgement. That the going out of Catechumen teaches us, that those that have not Faith shall be rejected. That the Doors shut, the Kiss of Peace, the saying of the Creed, are the figures of the perfect Union of Christians. That the Trisagion and the Sanctus are Types of our future Glory, and present Adoption. This whole Book is full of such Allegories.  
Lastly, The last of Maximus' his Works, is a Collection of sundry passages of Ecclesiastical and Profane Authors, set down under different Titles, concerning Virtues, Vices, Women ' Duties, Moral Precepts, and Maxims.  
We have moreover a Comment, or Scholia of Maximus' upon the Books ascribed to the Areopagite, which is Printed with Dionysius' Works. He writ also some Scholia upon S. Gregory Nazianzen, which were Printed at Oxford in 1681. Petavius hath Published a Calendar for Easter, ending in the Year 641, ascribed to Maximus.  
Photius saith, This Author hath extraordinary well turned Periods, but that he often useth Hyperboles and Transpositions, and is not careful at all to speak properly, which renders his Writings obscure and difficult; That he affects a kind of harshness of swelling Style, which renders his Discourse unpleasing and ungrateful to the Ear; That in his Rhetorical Figures he does not make choice of that which is neat and handsome; That he tires out his Reader with his Allegorical and Mystical Explications, so far distant from the Letter, and the truth of History, that one cannot see any coherence between his Answer and the Question; That yet he excels in the Allegorical and Mystical way; and that they who take delight in it, can meet with nothing more accomplished. That his very Letters are not without obscurity, which is the only Epistoler Character he hath kept to; That he is plainer and clearer in his Treatise of Charity, and in his Maxims merely Moral; Lastly, That the Conference with Pyrrhus is of a Style somewhat low, and that he hath not kept the Laws of Logic.  
One may add to this Judgement of Photius, That Maximus handles matters after a mere Scholastical manner; That he Speaks and Reasons as a Logician; That he gives his Definitions, Terms, and Arguments in form; That he maketh use of great big Words, signifying no more than what might be expressed in other terms; That he is acute and close, striketh his Adversaries home, and stands firm to his own Principles; That he was very quick of Apprehension, of Reasoning and Disputing, very free of Speech, Stiff and Firm. He was of the Opinion of the Latins about the procession of the Holy Ghost, Original Sin, Christ's Grace, and the Celibacy of Bishops, and the Greatness and Power of the Roman Church. He had the Monastic Life in high esteem, and was much given to Mystical Thoughts. In a word, He was a Scholastical, Mystical, and Speculative Man.   

ANASTASIUS, Disciple of Maximus.  
ANASTASIUS, Disciple of Maximus, who suffered so much with him for the same cause, wrote a Letter to the Monks of Cagliari against the Monothelites, wherein he refutes 
Anastasius.  those that said, That in Christ there was One and Two Wills, from whence he concluded that they admitted Three. It is in the Collections of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, [Published by Sirmondus at Paris 1620,] and among Maximus' Works. He Died in Exile at Lazica.   

ANASTASIUS, Apocrisiarius of Rome.  
THIS 
* [A Commissary or Chancellor to a Bishop]  Apocrisiarius of Rome suffered also the same Persecutions for the same cause. He wrote a Letter to Theodosius, Presbyter of Gangra, upon S. Maximus' Death. There he 
Anastasius.  Quotes some fragments of the Writings of Hippolytus Bishop of Porto. It is in Anastasius' Collections, and among Maximus' Works.   

THEODOSIUS and THEODORUS.  
THESE Two Brothers made an Historical Memorial of the Life and Conflicts of Anastasius, and the other Champions of the Faith. This is also found among Anastasius' 
Theodosius and Theodorus.  Collections.   

THEODORUS.  
THEODORUS, Presbyter and Abbot of Raithu, to whom Maximus directed his Treatise of the Essence, and Nature, wrote a Tract upon the Incarnation. There he sets 
Theodorus.  down at first the Errors of Manes, Paulus Samosatenus, Apollinarius, Theodorus of Mopsuesta, Nestorius, and Eutyches, about that Mystery. Then he Expounds the Faith of the Church, opposite to those Errors. He shows, How they have been revived by Julian of Halicarnassus, and Severus, to whom he opposed the Father's Testimonies, but we have not now this last part. This Work was Published in Greek and Latin by Beza, and Printed at Geneva in 1576, [Quarto.] Since that time it was inserted with Turrianus' Version in the First Volume of the Auctuarium Biblioth. Patrum. [Tom. I. p. 319.]   

PETER of Laodicea.  
WE know nothing in particular of this Author; of whom we have a short and a bad 
Peter of Laodicea.  Explication of the Lord's Prayer. It is believed he lived in the Seventh Century.   

THALASSIUS, a Monk.  
WE have 400. Moral Maxims or Truths, of this Author's, famous only for his strict Friendship and Concerns with Maximus, to whom he did also propound many Questions 
Thalassius.  upon the Holy Scripture [Printed in Bibliotheca Patrum, Tom. 12.]   

ISAIAH, Abbot.  
ABbot ISAIAH's Precepts are much of the same kind; they are Advices, Considerations and Instructions useful for Monks. It is also thought he lived in this Century. 
Isaiah, Abbot.    

THEOFRIDUS, Abbot.  
TWO Homilies upon Relics are attributed to this Abbot, of whom we know nothing in particular. 
Theofridus    

DONATUS.  
DONATUS, the Son of Valdelenus, Duke of the Country between Mount S. Claude and the Alps, was brought up in this Religious Life by Columbanus, and was afterwards 
Donatus.  made Bishop of Besancon, toward the Year 630. where he founded two Monasteries, the one for Men, the other for Virgins. He made Rules for both.  
That which he made for Monks is in the second part of S. Benedict of Aniana's Rules, and is entitled, Capitula, to serve instead of Advertisements to the Friars of S. Paul and S. Stephen; that is, to the Monks of the Monastery of S. Paul (for the Monastery founded by him, at Besancon, was called so) and to the Canons Regular of the Cathedral Church, which had S. Stephen for its Patron. This Rule contains nothing in it but some particular Advices.  
The other Rules of Donatus, for the Monastery of Nuns founded by his Mother Flavia, is larger, well-penned, and contains very wise Constitutions, taken out of the Rules of S. Caesarius, S. Columbanus and S. Benedict. It is found in the third Part of the Rules of Benedict of Aniana, that Bishop was present at a Council of Challon, upon the River Saone, in the Year 650.   

VITALIANUS.  
VITALIANUS was chosen Bishop of Rome, August 29th. 656. and governed that Church fourteen Years and six Months. He hath left us some Letters. 
Vitalianus.   
The 1st. is directed to the Archbishop of Crect, upon the Bishop of Lappa's Complaint against the Judgement which that Bishop had given against him. Vitalianus saith, He hath examined that Matter in a Council, where the Acts of that Process were exhibited, and that the Bishops acknowledged the Cause had been illegally managed, and that the Bishop of Lappa had been wrongfully condemned: That they were greatly troubled that he had put that Bishop into Prison, and hindered him from coming to Rome, to clear himself: Therefore he declareth null and void all the Proceed of the Council of the Archbishop of Crect, against John Bishop of Lappa: and at the same Time pronounceth that Bishop to be innocent, and, as such, absolveth him. In the 2d. he entreats Vaanus, the Emperor's Officer, to procure that Bishop's Restauration. In the 3d. he order Paul, Archbishop of Crect, to cause his Churches to be given him again. He complains, That a Deacon had married a Wife, since the Time of his being in Orders; and that he did minister in two Churches: He prays him to put a stop to that Disorder, and to follow no longer Eulampius' Counsel, he being a wicked Man, sowing Divisions among them for his own Profit. In the 4th. Letter he desires George, Bishop of Syracuse, to be favourable to John of Lappa, and to endeavour his re-establishment.  
The 5th. Letter, alleged by Bede, is directed to the King of Northumberland, in England. He commends his Zeal, and answers him about the Time of keeping Easter. He promises him to send him a Bishop, when he hath met with one fit for it, and willing to go over into England. He thanks him for his Prayers, and sends him some Relics.  
The 6th. is directed to the Benedictine Monks of Sicily: He acquaints them how grievous it is to him, that their Monasteries and Estates have been spoiled by the Incursions of the Barbarians. He tells them, He sends them some Monks of the Congregation of Mountcassin, and exhorts them to obey them, and to labour with them for the resettling of their Monasteries and Lands.   

S. ELIGIUS.  
S. ELIGIUS, born near the City of Lymoges, a Goldsmith, and Friend of King Dagobert, was ordained Bishop of 
[Noviodunum or Noviomum.]  Noyon in 646. and died in 663. S. Owen, who wrote 
S. Eligius.  his Life, tells us, he made Exhortations to his People every Day, with unwearied Labour; that his Sermons were very short, but they contained important Instructions and wholesome Advices: That Author collected them into one Discourse, containing the most usual Instructions, which Eligius gave to his People: They are for the most part drawn out of S. Caesarius' Sermons, which Bishops did then make use of to preach to their People. This Discourse was printed among S. Austin's Works, and now is in the end of the sixth Volume: 'Tis an Abridgement of the principal Duties of a Christian. In the first place he shows the Obligation laid upon Pastors, to instruct their People. He exhorts them to remember often their baptismal Vows, and to meditate on the last Judgement. He shows them, that it is not enough to bear the Name of a Christian, but that we ought to act and live suitable to it. He endeavours to create in them an Abhorrence of profane Superstitions, and the Relics of Idolatry. Then he gives them sundry wholesome Advices to honour God, to love Enemies, to give Alms, to frequent Divine Service, and Sunday-Sermons, to 
q [Cross themselves often with the Sign of the Cross.] After the Cross was admitted into the Church, and became an Object of Worship, it was accounted of wonderful efficacy to sanctify all things, to cleause and bless our Food, confer Grace, consecrate Sacraments procure Remission of Sins, preserve from the Malice of the Devil, and what not; So that Eligius thought no better Advice could be given to the Christians, than to cross themselves often with the Sign of the Cross, that they might thereby be shielded and defended from all Evils, and sanctified throughout; though the Effect proved it to be but an idle Conceit.]  cross themselves often with the sign of the Cross, to give to the Church the Tenths of their Gain or Possessions, to avoid 
r [Mortal Sins.] i. e. More heinous and notorious Guilts; for tho' no Sin be so venial and trivial, 
Bellarm. de amiss great. & statu p c l. 1. c 4. Matt. 5. 22. 7. 5. 1 Jo. 5. 16. Gal. 3. 10. Ezek. 8. 4. Featly Servant p. 653. Field of the Church. p. 148, 277.  as the Romanists teach with one Consent, as neither to offend God nor deserve Damnation in its own Nature, and so only subject them to temporal Punishments; yet all Protestants disallow a Stoical Parity, and equality of Sins, and hold that some are greater, others less; some unto, others not unto Death: And though every the least Sin be offensive to God, and deserving Damnation in its own Nature, yet they say, some are mortal, others venial. 1. Comparatively, and by God's Favour, as the Sins of the Elect, being committed with Reluctancy, and, without consent, are more pardonable than the Sins of wilful Offenders. 2. Because some Sins exclude not Grace the Root of Remission and Pardon out of the Soul, but others cannot stand with Grace, and so leave the Persons in a state of Wrath and Damnation who are guilty of them.]  Mortal Sins, to watch over their Actions and Words, to despise the World, to repent continually, and never to despair of Salvation, etc. It is observed in this Treatise, that every Christian hath a good Angel to assist him; and when he sins he drives away his good Angel to take a Devil.  
There are Sixteen Homilies more, bearing Eligius' Name; but it is doubted whether they be really his, because they are made up of Passages and Quotations of the Fathers, as of S. Austin, S. Leo, S. Ambrose, Caesarius of Arles, and S. Gregory. These Fathers are likewise cited there, under the Name of Saints and Blessed; S. Benedict is there called, most Blessed and most Holy Father: They say that these Citations are affected; they add, That there be even some Passages of Authors, who wrote since Eligius' Time, as of S. Isidore of Sevil, of Alcuin, of Haymo of Halberstat: From whence they conclude, That these Sermons are the Work of an Author of the Ninth Century: Yet methinks he that composed them first was older than that Time, and many things may easily have been added to them since.  
However, there are yet found in them some remainders of the Ancient Discipline, not to be slighted. This is an Extract of them.  
In the First Sermon, for Christmasday, he shows the Happiness of the Peace, which Christ brought to the Earth, and exhorts his Hearers in the end to Almsgiving. He relates the Story of a Gardener, who being used to bestow what he earned upon the poor, was tempted to keep back part of it, in case he should fall sick; that having thus gathered many Crown-pieces, he got a running Sore in his Foot, which fell into a Gangreen, so that the Surgeon appointed a Day to cut off his Leg, seeing there was no other Remedy; but in the Night, the Gardner coming to himself, and having begged God's Forgiveness, for his not having continued in his Almsgiving, and promised to continue it hereafter, he was miraculously cured, and the Surgeon coming the next Day to cut off his Leg, found him gone abroad.  
The Second Sermon is upon the Purification: After having uttered some Allegories upon that Ceremony of the Jews, he speaks of the use of the Church, to have on that Festival 
s [Tapers light during the Mass, upon the Feast of the Purification.] This Ceremony, tho' not taken from the Sacrifices called Lustrum, as this Author imagines, being offered in the end of February, yet was certainly instituted in imitation of a Festival, celebrated at Rome, either in remembrance of Ceres' search after Proserpin●, or in honour of Febru●, the Mother of Mers, which were both solemnised with Tapers burning in their Hands, by the Romans. These Superstitions the Bishops of the Church very much abhorred, yet because it conduced greatly to the Conversion of the Gentiles, to make as little Alterations in their Ceremonies as possible, therefore did the Heads of the Church institute the same Ceremonies to be used by the Christians on the Feast of the Purification as had been used upon the Calends of February at Rome: And this the learned and judicious Rhenanus on 
Tertul. l. 5. cont. Mar.  Tertullian confidently afferts. Negari non potest Ardentium Cereorum, quos body Christiani die Purificat●e Mariae ex more circumferunt a Februalibus Romanorum sacris Originem sumpsisse. Pertinaci paganismo mutatione subven●um est, quem vei in totum sublatio potius irritasset.  Tapers light, during the Mass; and says, That the Original of this Custom came from the Romans, who having collected the Tribute every fifth Year, offered solemn Sacrifices in the end of February, and kindled Tapers and Torches in the Town; which Ceremony was called Lustrum: That the Church hath changed that Superstition into an Ecclesiastical Ceremony, ordering Tapers to be kindled yearly in the beginning of February, in the Time when S. Simeon took our Lord in his Arms. One must needs be very credulous, to believe this Conjecture, which hath neither Truth nor Likelihood in it.  
The Third Sermon is upon the Fast of Lent; therein he enlargeth upon the good Effects of Fasting.  
The Fourth is on Holy Thursday: He observeth, That on that Day was made the Reconciliation of Public Penitents, guilty of Crimes, which deserved that the Bishop should separate them from the Altar, and then reconcile them: Then he addresseth his Speech to those Penitents, and exhorts them to examine themselves whether they be reconciled to God or not, because it may happen, that although they be reconciled by the Ministry of the Bishop, yet they be not so with God, who alone grants the true Reconciliation: He shows them, that to be truly reconciled, they ought to be, according to the Apostle, new Creatures, purged from the Crimes of the Old Man; That they who continue in their sinful Habits, should not imagine that they can throughly be reconciled, before they have made 
t [Made a Satisfaction proportionable to the greatness of their Sins.] Tho' these Words seem to come up to the Doctrine of Satisfaction, held in the Church of Rome, yet it does not appear that the Fathers of this Age had any other Notion of Satisfaction, than that which was received in the Ages before, which is much different from, and much more Orthodox, than the Popish. We have a Definition of it, p. 2. given by Isidore of Sevil, to this effect: Satisfaction is an Exclusion of the Causes and Occasions of Sin, and a Cessation from Sinning; which is almost the same with S. Austin's Satisfactio est peccatorum 
Aug. de dog. Eccles. c. 54.  causas excindere, & eorum suggestionibus nullum aditum indulgere. This is the Nature of true Repentance, which being proportioned in some measure to the greatness of our Guilts, the more pensive and hearty, by how much our Sins are more heinous and aggravating, is all the Satisfaction that God expects of us, besides a firm Faith and Dependence on the Merits of Jesus Christ. The popish Satisfaction is a clear different thing, as they 
Gregory de Val. to. 4. d. 7. q. 14. So. Drido. Tapper, etc.  define it, thus: It is an equivalent Compensation made to the offended Justice of God for the Injury done unto him by Sin, partly by our Actions, and partly by our Sufferings, whereby we deliver ourselves from Divine Vengeance, and save ourselves from Punishment. A Doctrine unknown to Antiquity! 
Ambr. in Luc. Ser. 46.  Of Tears I read, of Satisfaction I read not, saith S. Ambrose: Yea, Aquinas himself says, To pretend to make a Satisfaction for Sin, is an Injury to Christ's Death: And that this Father was of the same Judgement with Antiquity, the following Words show, If ye repent after a godly sort, and be sincerely desirous to sin no more, ye shall be reconciled by Jesus Christ, and by us his Ministers.]  Satisfaction proportionable to the greatness of their Sins. If saith he, ye repent after a godly sort, and ye be steadfastly purposed and sincerely desirous to sin no more, ye shall be truly reconciled by Jesus Christ and by us, to whom he hath committed the Ministry of Reconciliation. But if you be not in that Disposition, do not flatter yourselves, don't deceive yourselves, for ye cannot deceive God as ye deceive Men; and he who by offending him is become his Enemy, can not otherwise be Friends again with him than by making him Satisfaction. Do not look upon Bishops as the Authors of your Reconciliation, but merely as the Ministers of it: It is Jesus Christ who does invisibly absolve and reconcile Men: as for us, we discharge our Ministry, when we do outwardly and visibly perform the Ceremonies of Reconciliation: Nevertheless, he does comfort those who have not repent throughly, giving them Hope, that provided they forsake their Sins hearty, they may obtain Forgiveness, and be truly reconciled. He adds, That there be several means of expiating our Sins, and obtaining the Remission of them, and he instances in these, a charitable Disposition, almsgiving, Sorrow, Confession of Sins, Mortifying of the Flesh and Spirit, amendment of Life, the Intercession of Holy and Just Men, and the forgiving of Enemies.  
The Fifth Homily is upon the Sacrifice of Isaac, it is very short, and hath nothing remarkable in it.  
The Sixth is also upon Holy Thursday. Therein he exhorts all Christians to Repentance, and to expiate their lighter Faults with Fast, Watch, almsgiving, and other Works of Charity. He warns them not to put off their Repentance till the hour of Death, which often surprises us, when we least think of it, without giving us one moment to bethink ourselves.  
The Seventh is a short Exhortation to the Penitents and Faithful, to give God Thanks for graciously granting them the favour of Reconciliation.  
The Eighth is a long Discourse to the Clergy; the People, and the public Penitents. He exhorts Presbyters, who govern Parishes, to be an Example to the People under their Charge. He recommends to all the Faithful the love of their Neighbour, and the forgiving of Enemies; and exhorts them to purify themselves from light Sins, that they may escape not only the Fire that shall burn the Ungodly for ever; but 
u [That Fire, through which the Righteous, who are not wholly purged from their Sins shall pass in the day of Judgement. The Doctrine of Purgatory which M. Du Pin would seem to build upon this Expression, and another of like Importance, p. 59 taken out of the Works of Julian of Toledo, is not the same with that which is meant by their words, which is no other than what the Fathers before them had held, tho' perhaps not so firmly, as it was believed in these latter Ages. Tertullian, Cyprian and Origen, 
Origen Hom. 14. in Luc. Tertul. de anima, c. 55. 1 Cor. 3. 12.  were of Opinion, That after the Resurrection, before the Saints entered into Glory, they should pass through a Purging Fire, to refine their Souls from their Dross, their Wood, Hay and Stubble before they can become Vessels of Honour fit to obtain a place in the Mansions of Bliss. This seems to be S. Eligius' Opinion here, because; he says, That the Righteous shall pass through a Purging Fire in the day of Judgement. From these Elder Fathers, it passed to S. Jerom and S. Austin, who speak of it as a Conjecture not altogether improbable, 
Hieron. in Isa. l. 18. c. ult August. Enchirid. c. 67, 68, 69. Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 2. c. 26. Aug. de pec. mer. & rem. c. 28. Cypr. ad Dem. Tert. de Bapt. Roffen. assert. Lu●…. Confut. Artic. 18. p. 86.  but yet very uncertain. I think, says S. Jerom, That there is a moderate and gentle Sentence of the Judge concerning the Burning away the Sins of Christians. And S. Austin, If betwixt Death and Judgement the Souls of the Departed be said to suffer a Fire of Transitory Tribulation burning up worldly smaller Faults, I reprove it not, because perhaps 'tis true. So feeble was the Belief of a Purgatory among the Ancients for some hundred Years. And as it was only a probable Opinion at most, so it was never looked upon as a separate State, but only as it were a Purgation in their Passage to Glory; for it was a settled Doctrine in the Primitive Church, That there is no middle Place; That a Man can be any where, but either with the Devil or Christ, in Hell or in Heaven. There are but two Places after this Life, one for the Elect, another for the Reprobate. So that the Popish Purgatory, which is a place of Torment, wherein they that have not perfected their Obedience here, stay to make Satisfaction for their Sins, and then enter into Heaven, was altogether unknown to the Ancients. And indeed this Pol. Virgil and Roffensis acknowledge. Nemo, saith the latter, nunc Orthodoxus dubitat an Purgatorium 〈◊〉, &c, No true Catholic nowadays but believe a Purgatory, altho' there is little or no mention of it in Antiquity; and the Greek Church believes it not to this day. In reality, Purgatory is a Novel Invention as it is now taught, a perfect contrivance for the Church's advantage, never received for a Doctrine till the Council of Florence, Anno 1448.]  that Fire also, through which the Righteous who are not wholly purged from their Sins, shall pass in the day of Judgement. He exhorts also great Sinners to Repent, covering themselves with Hair-cloath, and lifting up their Hands to Heaven, that they may be reconciled by the imposition of the Bishop's hands; and he warns them not to relapse into Sin after Reconciliation. Lastly, he treats of the Ceremonies used by the Church on Holy Thursday, which are, besides the reconciliation of Penitents, 
v [Blessing the Holy Oil, Consecrating the Chris●….] It was a Custom among the Bishops, upon some great Festival, with solemn Prayers and Ceremonies, to consecrate that Oil which the Presbyters used in the Baptism and Confirmation of Children and Others. In some Churches they did it at Easter, and in others, particularly in the French Church, where Eligius was Bishop, upon Holy Thursday; and from the Bishops, the Priests fetched it themselves, or in case of necessity, sent for it for the Service of their Churches.]  the Blessing of the Holy Oils, the consecrating of the Chrism, the Washing of Feet, of Altars, of Sacred Vessels, of the Floor and the Walls of Churches. He speaks clearly of the real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist; and says, That, as Christ was really and substantially born of the Virgin; so likewise 
w [Christians do truly receive under the Mysteries, the Lord's Body and Blood— De veritate Carnis & Sanguinis, tho' 〈◊〉 appearance of the Bread and Wine remain.] This, and such like Expressions, which might be produced in great Numbers from the Books of the Ancients, who unanimously teach, That in the Sacrament is the Body and Blood of Christ. And tho' before the Consecration it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mere Bread and Wine, yet afterward 'tis verily the Body of Christ. Truly his Flesh, truly his Blood, are really no more than the very words of Christ, This is my Body, This is my Blood, and are only true in a figurative Sense, i. e. by a Change of Condition, Sanctification and Usage. In which Sense, the Church of England thus delivers herself in the Catechise, That the Body and Blood of Christ is verily and indeed taken, and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper. For we are so certain, That to eat Christ's Body Spiritually, is to eat him Really, that there is no other way to eat him Really, but by Spiritual Manducation. Christ is as really present Spiritually as Corporeally, and we receive it as well by Faith as by Bodily Eating. There can, therefore, be no Grounds from the Words of this Father to infer a Transubstantiation in the Sacrament, since they may be better understood of the Spiritual Presence. Nay, these Expressions, The appearance of Bread and Wine remain under the Mysteries, plainly show this to be the Sense. They are to the Senses, Bread and Wine; to the Soul, they are really the Body and Blood of Christ; on them we feed by Faith. And thus we must understand the Expression of the same Father, p. 37. seq. ad (w).]  Christians do truly receive under the Mysteries, the Lord's Body and Blood, tho' the appearance of the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because Men would abhor drinking Blood and eating Flesh; but there can be no doubt, but it is verily received. De veritate Carnis & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He confesseth, the Apostles did not receive 〈◊〉 Fasting; but he says, That 〈◊〉 all that, they ought not to find Fault with the Custom of the Universal Church, which requires, That it be always received Fasting; because the Holy Spirit, whereby she is 〈◊〉, in Honour of so great a Sacrament, would have Christ's Body to enter into the Christian's Mouths▪ before any other Meat was received in; and it is upon that Account, that this Practice is observed every where. Lastly, he treats of the Question of frequent Communion, and inquires whether it be good to Communicate every day. Thereupon he says, That there be some Persons, who wish, That they would make choice of those days, in which Men live more Soberly and Godly; but others think, That if they be not guilty of any Sin that deserveth being debarred from the Altar, put to Penance, and then reconciled by the Bishop's Authority, they may come very often to the Sacrament. He leaves every one at his Liberty to do as he shall think best, according to his Godly Motions; and propounds, after S. Austin, the Examples of Zacchaeus and the Centurion. He warns Christians, that, if they exclude themselves from the Eucharist, they shall perish with Hunger; but yet, if they come to it unworthily, they shall Eat and Drink their own Damnation. Lastly, he does vehemently urge great Sinners to Repentance, and to procure their own Separation, from the Altar, by the Judgement of the Bishop; and prays them to consider, That that State of Separation is an Image of the final Judgement, when they see the Just coming to the Eucharist, whilst themselves are excluded from it. In the beginning of that Homily there are some Periods taken out of a Sermon of Caesarius of Arles, but in that time they commonly used that Bishop's Sermons.  
In the Ninth Homily, he exhorts Sinners to cure themselves of their Sins by Repentance.  
In the Tenth, he speaks also of the Ceremonies of the Thursday before Easter, that on that day they set some Prisoners at Liberty.  
The Eleventh Homily is also upon the Thursday before Eastor; he speaks to the Faithful and the Penitents. To the first he recommends Faith and Charity towards God and their Neighbours; on which Virtue he bestows a large Encomium, and recommends the forgiving of Enemies. He speaks of the Practice of the Church, to say every day 
x [Canonical Hours.] The Ancients had their several Hours for Prayer and Devotion both by Day and Night, in imitation of the Apostles. This must be acknowledged on an hands. Tertullian mentions them as of common use among the Christians in his time. 〈◊〉 semper & ●…que & omni tempore orandum est, tamen ●●es 〈◊〉, ut insigniores in 〈◊〉 human 〈◊〉, itae sole●…ores 〈◊〉 in precibus Divinie, quod 〈◊〉 Danielis argumentum ter die Orantis. As Daniel prayed three times a day, so did 
Dan. 6. 10.  the Christians in the first devout times. The same also doth S. Jerom deliver as an 
Hieron. ad Eust●….  Apostolical Tradition. Tria sunt tempora quibus 〈◊〉 flectenda sunt Genus, 〈◊〉 Horam, Sextam & Nonam Ecclesiastica Traditio intelligit Denique 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ Spiritus super Apostolor, sexta 〈◊〉 volens comedere ad Orationem ascendit in Canaculum. Non● P●●rus & Joannes ascen●… in Templum. Wherein S. Jerom tells us, That it was an Ecclesiastical Tradition to 
Act. 2. 1, 15. 10. 9 3. 1.  be observed by the Christians in imitation of the Apostles, to Pray at the Third, Sixth and Ninth Hours. And so also the same Father prescribes Hours of Prayers 
Hieron ad Eustoch. Athan. de Virgin. Basil. Quaest 37.  in the Night, and particularly enjoins Midnight so to be observed. But as their Hours for Prayers were but Three by Day, and Two or Three by Night, so they were for private, not public Devotion, freely and voluntarily performed, not imposed, and being thus used are highly to be approved. But as they have since degenerated into Ceremony and Superstition, and have not only received an Addition of four Hours more to make them up seven; but are imposed on the Priests only in the Ramish Church, and by them are made a Burden 
Pol. Virg. l. 6. c. 2.  or a Task, rather than a Duty; they have been justly abolished by our Reformers; not but that 'tis lawful and commendable, for any pious Persons, to follow the old Apostolic Custom, if they see it helpful to Devotion.]  the Canonical Hours. He stirs up all Christians to Prayer, Fasting and Repentance; he prescribes to Sinners the Confession of their Sins, in order to doing Penance for them; and at last directs his Speech to Penitents, after this manner. To those Persons, saith he, who stand here in a Penitential Habit, with a foul mournful Countenance, their Hair torn and flying abroad, testifying, as far as we can judge by their Actions, That they have lamented their Sins, and mortified in themselves the Vices of the Flesh. He lets them know, they are to understand, That altho' they be 〈◊〉 to receive the Imposition of Hands, nevertheless they ought to be persuaded, they shall not receive the absolution of their Crimes, if the divine Goodness do not pardon them, giving them the Grace of Contrition; because, as S. Gregory saith, the Bishop's Absolution is then only true, when it is agreeable with the Judgement of him, who judges the Secrets of the Hearts, which is figured by the Resurrection of 〈◊〉, whom Christ raised to Life first before he ordered his Disciples to lose him; and thus all Pastors must have a care, to lose and absolve none, but such whose Souls Christ hath quickened again by his Grace. After these words, he invites them to show some Marks of their Conversion; which they having done, by lifting up their Hands to Heaven, he went on in his Discourse, setting forth the effects of true Repentance, which are, to satisfy God, to lament their Sins past, and to commit them no more.  
The 12th. Homily is upon Charity on Holy Thursday.  
The 13th. for the same day. He exhorts all Christians to purge themselves from their daily Sins by Prayer and Almsgiving; and he advertiseth them in the end, That they should not abhor public Penitents, as being great Sinners, because among those that are not doing Penance, there may be some guilty of more grievous Sins. He deploreth the misery of those, who do not confess them, nor do Penance for them.  
In the 14th. he exhorts Christians diligently to prepare themselves, for the worthy receiving of the Eucharist at Easter.  
In the 15th. he speaks again very earnestly of the real Presence. Know ye, my dear Brethren, says he, and firmly believe, That, as the 
* [Vid. Note (w)].  Flesh which Jesus Christ took in the Virgin's Womb, is his true Body, which was offered up for our Salvation; so likewise the Bread which he gave to his Disciples, and which the Priests consecrate daily in the Church, is the true Body of Christ. They are not two Bodies, 'tis the same Body, which is broken and sacrificed. This is Jesus Christ, which is broken and sacrificed, tho' he remains sound and whole. Then he exhorts all Christians, Clerks, Laics and Religious, who perceive themselves guilty of the Sins of Envy, Calumny, Hatred, Fornication and Perjury, to purify themselves on this day, confessing their Iniquity to God. And as to those that have committed greater Crimes, and are doing Penance publicly, he warns them to fall no more into those Sins. He adds, That there be grievous Offenders, whose Crimes are so secret, that they cannot be admitted to do public Penance, That those Offenders are to be excluded from the Church for a while, because that altho' they be not reconciled by the Imposition of Hands, and receive not Absolution, they ought to mortify their Bodies by Works of Repentance, and heal their Souls by good Deeds.  
This would make one think, That public Offences only, were then liable to public Penance, and as to them whose Crimes were altogether secret and hidden, they did only advise them to separate themselves from the Church Assemblies, and to do Penance secretly and privately.  
This appears yet by the 16th Homily; for having exhorted all Christians generally to Repent, and to abstain from grievous Crimes for the future, he directs his Speech to two Persons, whom a public Offence had obliged to do public Penance. He exhorts them, sincerely to lament their Sins, and to commit them no more. In that Homily, there is an unwarrantable Proposition, related under the name of the Wise Man; That it is as great a Crime for a Man to lie with his Wife, as to eat Flesh in Lent. Besides these Homilies, we have a Letter of S. Eligius' among those of Desiderius Bishop of 
* [Of Cadurcum.]  Cahors.  
S. Eligius was an able and learned Man for his time; he had read S. Cyprian, S. Austin, S. Gregory, and some other Latin Fathers, and imitated them. He was a Lover of Ecclesiastical Discipline, and a Follower of the Tradition of those Fathers, as near as the Age, he lived in, could permit. His Sermons are better than those of several other Latin Preachers, both for Matter and Stile.   

AGATHO.  
POPE Agatho may deservedly be ranked among Ecclesiastical Authors, because of the long Letter he writ to the Emperor Constantine, inserted in the Acts of the 6th Council; in 
Agatho.  which he does largely confute the Error of the Monothelites: But we ought not to value much another Letter, ascribed to this Pope, directed to Ethelred, King of the Mercians, to Theodorus of Canterbury, and to the Abbot Sexulphus; which seems to be a Supposititious Piece, made by some English Monk, and contains nothing remarkable. We shall speak of this Pope's first Letter, when we come to treat of the Acts of the 6th Council, and of another Letter written upon the same Subject and the same Occasion, by Datian, Bishop of Pavia, in the name of Mansuetus, Bishop of Milan, which is also among the Acts of this Council. This Pope died the 10th of January, in 682. after he had governed the Church of Rome 3 years, 6 Months, and 25 days.   

LEO II.  
AFTER Agatho's death, Leo II. was chosen in his Room. Constantine the Emperor, hearing of his Election, did immediately write a Letter to him, set down in the end of 
Leo II.  the 6th Council; but Leo was not ordained till August, in the year 682. After the return of John, Bishop of Porto, one of the Legates, whom Agatho had sent to the Council. And some believe, his Ordination was put off till August, in the year following: But it is not likely; for in May, of this year, he did examine and approve in a Synod, the Acts of the 6th Council; and in the end of the same year, sent them into Spain. He died the year after, viz. June 28. 684.  
The Emperor's Letter directed to Leo, wherein he acquaints him, That the Council hath confirmed Pope Agatho's Doctrine, and what was done in the 6th Council, is in the Acts of that Council. Baronius pretends, That these two Letters are Supposititious, but his Conjectures are grounded only upon false dates 
a False dates.] In the Title of the 1st. Letter it is said, That it was sent in December, Indict. X. Agatho was then living; but they must set down some other Month, for it was delivered in June, Indict. X. It is known, That these Titles, before the true Inscriptions, are added. The second Letter hath no date in the Greek, and the date in the Latin is visibly false. In the Body, there is mention made of the X. Indict. of June before; which agreeth very well with our Hypothesis. Leo was chosen in the beginning of 682. Indict. X. In June he receiveth the Acts of the Council, and the Emperor's Letter; he was ordained in August following, and he writes an Answer in the beginning of the next year, Indict. XI. A●●stasius hath turned all topsy-turvy. He says, Agatho was yet living in March 632. that the holy See was vacant one Year, seven Months. If that be true, Leo was not ordained Bishop till October, 683. which cannot be made out. Baronius endeavours moreover to bring into suspicion of Falsehood, Constantine's Letter to Leo, because he says, That he had written of that Matter to Agatho; which is not true, says Baronius, because the Emperor's Letter was not directed to Agatho but to Donus. But it is very easy to answer, That this Letter was written to Agatho, because it was he that received it, and answered it. That which troubles Baronius most of all, is, That Honorius is anathematised in Leo's Letter; but there is no reason for it. , added by some Latin Author, and wanting in the Greek Original, or upon Anastasius' false Chronology.  
Besides these two Letters of Leo II. there are four more that were sent into Spain about the Affair of the 6th Council, the definition whereof was sent into that Kingdom by Peter, Notary of the Church of Rome. The first is directed to all the Spanish Bishops. He acquaints them with what was defined in the general Council, and exhorts them to receive its Definitions. He recommends the same thing in particular, to a certain Bishop called Quiricus, in the second Letter. In the third, he exhorts an Earl, named Simplicius, to endeavour the maintaining of that Doctrine. And in the fourth, he relates to King Ervigius, how the Faith of the Church was confirmed and explained in the 6th Council, and the Heretics condemned; and exhorts him to cause all the Bishops of his Kingdom, to receive and subscribe the definition of that Council. Baronius would bring these Letters also into doubt, because Honorius' name is found therein among the Bishops condemned; but these Conjectures are so weak 
b Conjectures are so ●eak.] There is but one of any difficulty, namely, that it is said in these Letters, That the 6th Council was finished in the IX. Indiction. But the words of the Letter are not to be understood thus; it is merely said there, That the Question about the M●nothelius was ended in a Council held at Constantinople in the 9th Indict. , that it is not worth the while to answer them.   

BENEDICT II.  
BENEDICT II. finished what his Predecessor had begun, by writing to the Notary Peter, who was sent into Spain, to cause the definition of the 6th Council to be subscribed 
Benedict II.  to, and sent him a Copy of the Letter written to King Ervigius by his Predecessor. Leo's Letters, and the definition of the 6th Council, came too late to be delivered to the 13th Council of Toledo; so that the Business was terminated but in the 14th Council, held in that City in 684. in November, where the Faith established by the 6th Council was confirmed. The Authentic Acts of this Council, are an invincible proof of the truth of Leo II. 's and Benedict's Letters against Cardinal Baronius' frivolous Conjectures.   

DREPANIUS FLORUS.  
DREPANIUS, a French Poet, flourished towards the middle of the 7th Century. We have some Poems of his; the 22d, 26th and 27th Psalms put into Verse; the Song 
Drepanius Florus.  of Ananias, Azarias and Misael in the Furnace; an Hymn to S. Michael, an Hymn upon the Paschal Taper; a Letter to Moduin, Bishop of 
* [Augustodunum.]  Autun; upon the reading of the Holy Scripture; a Thanksgiving to one of his Friends, who stood up in his Defence; and a Letter to a Grammarian, to desire him to send him an Answer. His Style is pretty Poetical, he does not use many barbarous Terms, but he does not place them in an order Poetical enough, and uses sometimes words fit only for Prose.   

ILDEPHONSUS, Bishop of Toledo.  
ILDEPHONSUS, a Monk, and afterwards Abbot of the Monastery of Agali, was elected Bishop of Toledo in 658. which was the 9th year of the Reign of King 
* [Recesui●d.]  Recessuinth, 
Ildephons. Bishop of Toledo.  and governed that Church nine Years, and two Months. He made a Book of the Ecclesiastical Writers, for a continuation of Isidorus', to the end whereof Julian, his Successor, added the Catalogue of his Works, after he had made an Encomium upon him, and taken notice of the principal Circumstances of his Life. He hath composed, says he, several Books very well written, and much to be valued. He divided them himself, thus: The first part comprehends the following Tracts, A Writing of his own Weakness, by way of a Prosopopoeia; a Tract of the Virgin Mary's perpetual Virginity against three Infidels; a small Tract upon the Proprieties of the three Divine Persons; another Tract containing Reflections upon his daily Actions; another of Reflections upon Sacred Things; a Book of the Knowledge of Baptism; a Treatise of the advancement of the Spiritual Solitariness, which he joined to the first part of his Works. The second comprehends several Letters written to several Persons, and sometimes under different Names, in which there be many large Answers. The third part was made up of Masses, Hymns and Sermons. The fourth contained many small Works in Prose and Verse; among which there be some Epitaphs and Epigrams. He had moreover begun several other Tracts, which he left imperfect.  
Of all these Tracts there is none left to us, but that of Mary's perpetual Virginity, wherein he asserts, against Jovinian, That she kept her Virginity in her bringing forth; Against Elvidius, That she remained a Virgin after she had brought forth Jesus Christ; And against the Jews, That she Conceived without the loss of her Virginity. He enlargeth upon the Mystery of the Incarnation, and the Godhead of Christ. This Treatise is full of Devout Considerations, with a Preface to it, containing many Pious Thoughts. The Style is Sententious and Concise.  
Some ascribe moreover to Ildephonsus of Toledo, another Treatise of Mary's perpetual Virginity, and 
* [Dr. Cave, VI.]  Twelve Sermons on the Purification, the Birth, and Assumption of the Virgin; but the Style of these Works, which are not mentioned by Julian, is so different from that of Ildephonsus, that we may be assured they belong to another Author. They are written in a more Dogmatical way, and are full of Citations from the Fathers, and of Reasonings. Nay, and there are found in them some passages of Authors that lived after Ildephonsus, as of S. Bernard, of the Author Of the Commentary upon the Seven Penitential Psalms, which is under the Name of S. Gregory, of Ratram, and Paschasius. This Author Teaches, That 
* [The Virgin Mary was Sanctified in her Mother's Womb, and was Born without Original Sin.] It is very probable that this Work, which is falsely attributed to Ildephonsus in Monsieur Du Pin's Judgement, was forged by an Author of a much later Date, since it was the Constant Opinion of the Church for above 1100 Years after Christ, that the Virgin Mary was not only Born in Original Sin, as all other Women are, but was also guilty of many Actual Sins. Austin imputes to her Original Sin, Virgins caro, e●iamsi de peccati propagine 
Aug de Gen. ad lit. l. 10. c. 18. Amb. conc. 6. in Ps. 118. Chrys. Hom. 4● in Matt. Chrys. Hom. 20. in Joan. Lu. 1. 47. Scot in 3 dist. 4. q. 1.  venit, non tamen de peccati propagine concepit, altho' she was Born in Sin, yet she did not Conceive in Sin. And to the same purpose do Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others, speak of her. And in like manner of Actual Sin many of the Fathers in their Comments upon Jo. 2. 3. think her guilty, for it is certain, that our Saviour did Reprove some Fault or Error in her. This Maldonate on John II. part 11. acknowledges, tho' not of their Mind. And indeed the Holy Spirit by her own Mouth gives us an invincible proof of her Sinfulness, inspiring her to Rejoice in God her Saviour, as standing need of him to save her from her Sins, as well as other Women. But in these last Ages of the Church, the Immoderate Veneration given to the Virgin Mary hath produced an Opinion, that Mary was by a singular and extraordinary Privilege preserved from Original Sin. Scotus was the first School-Man that held it, and maintained it in his Disputes, but met with great Opposition in this point, both in the Schools, and Church, and tho' it got ground a little by time, yet it was a Subject of Contest among the Learned till it was fully determined in the Council of Basil, Anno 1439, in which it was Decreed thus, Hitherto a difficult Question hath 
Conc. Basil. Sessio. 36.  been made touching the Conception of the Glorious Virgin; We having seen, and diligently examined the Reasons, do define and declare, That the Doctrine which teaches her never to have been Actually subject to Original Sin, but always free from it, and from all Actual Sin, is to be received and approved, as the most Catholic Doctrine, and it shall not be lawful for any to teach the contrary. This Decree hath been confirmed by Pope Sixtus the IV, and since by the Council of Trent, so that it is now become an Article of Faith in the Roman Church, unless it be with the Dominicans, who are Heretics in this point. And from the Roman Forge it may be reasonably supposed, that this Book came, and perhaps from the Franciscans, who are the most Zealous Patrons of her Immaculate Conception.]  the Virgin was Sanctified in her Mother's Womb, and was Born without Original Sin. He believes, 'Tis upon that account, the Feast of h●r Nativity is kept; but he does not speak of the Conception. He asserts, That she suffered no Pain in her bringing forth. He says, That Jesus Christ came out of the Virgin by penetrating through her Bowels, after the same manner that he came forth out of the Grave by penetration, and charges the opposite Opinion with Heresy. He affirms, That she committed no Sin in her Life. He commends her highly, and looks upon her as the most Excellent of all Creatures. He describes her Assumption in a stately manner; but yet he dares not affirm she ascended into Heaven in Soul and Body; because, tho' that Opinion, says he, be Pious, yet it cannot be affirmed as a certainty, lest we should deliver doubtful Things for unquestionable Truths. Quod licet pium sit credere, a nobis tamen non debet affirmari, ne videamus dubia pro certis recipere. This is what this Author says, whom I believe to be much later than Ildephonsus of Toledo, and to belong to the Ninth Century of the Church. This Opinion is suitable to that of Usuardus, that lived in the same time, who speaking in his Martyrology of the Virgin's Body, says, The Church had rather confess, that she knows not where it is, than teach any thing Apocryphal and Frivolous about it, Plus elegit Sobrietas Ecclesiae cum pietate nescire, quam aliquid frivolum aut Apochryphum docere.  
The Works, bearing Ildephonsus' Name, have been Published by Fevardentius, [at Paris in 1576,] and are extant in the Bibliotheca Patrum, [Tom. 12.] except the Treatise Of Illustrious Men, which was Printed together with those of S. Jerom, Gennadius, and Isidore, [at Antwerp in 1639.]  
Dacherius hath Published in the first Volume of his Spicilegium some Letters of Ildephonsus of Toledo, of Quiricus, and Idatius, Bishops of Barcelona.   

TAIO, or TAGO.  
TAIO, Bishop of Saragosa, flourished about the middle of the 7th Century. He reduced into Five Books, under certain Titles, all that he found in S. Gregory's Works about Divinity, 
Taio.  without mixing with it any Arguments, or Testimonies of the other Fathers, save only of S. Augustin. The First Book of that Collection, Treats of God and his Attributes. The Second, Of the Incarnation, and the Preaching of the Gospel, of Pastors and their Flocks. The Third, Of the divers Orders of the Church, of Virtues and Vices. The Fourth, Of the Judgements of God, of Temptations, and of Sins. And the Fifth, Of Reprobates, of the final Judgement, and the Resurrection. This Collection is 
* [Butler is among Thuanus' MSS.]  not Printed, and it does not seem very necessary to Publish it. Mabillon, from whom we have learned what we have now said of it, hath Published this Author's Letter to Quiricus. The Cardinal of Aguirre promised another Letter of Taio to Eugenius of Toledo.   

LEONTIUS, Bishop in Cyprus.  
LEONTIUS, Bishop of a Town formerly called Naples, now Lemonee, in the Isle of Cyprus, is Honourably Quoted in the 7th Council, Act 4. They produce a long fragment, 
Leontius, Bishop in Cyprus.  which it's said is taken out of the Fifth Book of his Apology for the Christians against the Jews. He maintains there, That neither Crosses nor Images are Worshipped, but only have outward respects paid them, terminating in God and Jesus Christ. It is observed in the same place, That he is the Author of the Life of S. John the Alms-giver, of S. Simeon the simple, and of some other Works, and that he lived under Maurice the Emperor. Combefis hath 
* [In his Auctuarium, p. 681, 702.]  Published Two Homilies of that Author, the one upon the Blessed Simeon, when he received Christ into his Arms, and the other upon the Feast-Day kept between Easter and Whitsunday, on the Wednesday of the Fourth Week after Easter.   

MARCULPHUS.  
THIS Author's Preface, to his Two Books to 
* [Formularum Ecciesiasticarum.]  Forms, shows, that he was a French Monk, and that he made that Work after he was 70 Years old, and Dedicated it to a Bishop 
Marcul. phus.  Named Landericus, but seeing he does not say, of what place he was Bishop, some have thought, it was. Landericus of Paris 
a Some have thought it was Landericus of Paris.] M. Bignon is of that mind, but M. Launoy believes, it is the Bishop of Meaux, and he proves it, 1. Because Marculphus says in his Forms, that in his time there was an infinite number of Monasteries in France: which he pretends cannot agree with Clovis and Dagobert's time, and proves it by Eligius' Life written by S. Owen, l. 1. c. 21. where it is observed, There was not then such a great number of Monasteries in France, and that those that were there, were not very regular. 2. Because in Marculphus there be several manners of Speech, which he pretends were not in use but since Clovis and Dagobert's time. F. Labbe is of Mr. Bignon's Mind, and pretends even to show who that Marculphus is, because in the Life of S. Austrogesilus, Archbishop of Bourges, there is mention made of one Marculphus by Name, who was a Reader during the Life of Austrogesilus, and was afterwards Abbot of that Saints Monastery, in the Suburbs of Bourges. What is said of Marculphus in that place, happened in the time of Etherius of Lions, who was Dead in 601. Marculphus might then be Fifteen, or Twenty Years old, he wrote his Forms being above Seventy Years of Age, which comes up to 560. , who was famous in the Reign of Clovis the Son of Dagobert, towards the Year 660. Others pretend that it is a Bishop of Meaux, who lived in the time of Pepin and Charles the Great, towards the Year 780.  
However, these Forms are of the time of the Second Race of our Kings, for Marculphus having written them about the 70th Year of his Age, and having gathered the Forms in use in the time of his Ancestors, and those but in small number, there can be no doubt, but the most part of them are very Ancient.  
We shall speak here but of those concerning Ecclesiastical Matters.  
The First is the Form of a Privilege granted by a Bishop to a Monastery. It is directed to the Abbot, and the whole Society of the Monastery. Therein he says, That being willing to provide for their Quiet, and conform himself to the Custom, according to which the Monasteries of Lerins, Agaune, Luxevil, and a great number more, enjoy the privilege of Liberty, he made the following Constitutions, to be observed by the Monks, and the Bishops his Successors; That the Monks shall receive Orders from the Bishop; That he shall Bless the Altars in their Church gratis; That he shall every Year give them the Holy Chrism, if they demand it of him; That he shall make him their Abbot that shall be chosen out of themselves, by the unanimous consent of the Society; That he shall in no wise meddle with the Affairs, Persons, or the Revenues, present or to come, belonging to the Monastery; That he shall take nothing of what shall be bestowed upon them, nor of their Offerings made upon their Altars; That he shall not come into their Monastery unless he be called into it; And when he shall be desired to go thither, after the Celebration of the Mysteries, he shall withdraw, to leave them in Peace; That the Abbot shall correct his Monks, and that the Bishop shall not suffer them to be in the City.  
In the Second Form, The King confirms the Exemption granted by the Bishop, particularly as to what concerns the Revenues, and extends the prohibition of Invading them to all sorts of Persons.  
The 3d is a Form, Whereby the King Exempts the Bishop's Lands from the Secular Jurisdiction.  
The 4th is the Confirmation of an Exemption already granted.  
The 5th is a Form directed by the Prince to the Bishops, whereby he enjoins them to Ordain such a Person, chosen by him, with the Bishops and Lords of his Realm, to be Bishop in the room of a Bishop deceased.  
The 6th is an Order of the Prince to a Bishop to Ordain him whom he hath chosen.  
The 7th is a Request of the Inhabitants of a Town to the King, to beseech him to Elect such an one Bishop of their Town. At the foot whereof is the Prince's Order. These Forms do show, That from that time the Kings of France enjoyed the Nomination to Bishoprics, and that Bishops were Ordained by the Metropolitans, without any need to go to Rome.  
The 14th, 15th, and 16th, are Forms of Donations made to some Churches by their Princes.  
The 19th is a Permission of the Prince to make a Man Clerk for the Service of a Church, or a Monastery, and to cut off his Hair.  
The 26th is an Order of the Prince to the Bishop, to give again to a private Man a Farm belonging to him, if not, to send one in his Name into his Court, to give an account of that business.  
The 27th is an Order to the Bishop to reprove an Abbot, or another Clerk, guilty of some Injustice.  
The 35th is a Confirmation of the Privileges of a Monastery.  
The Six first Forms of the Second Book, are Forms of a Donation, or Abandoning of Goods to an Hospital, Monastery, or Church!  
The 30th is the Form of a Private Separation between the Husband and the Wife.  
The 39th is a Form whereby Two Persons give to a Church the propriety of Two Inheritances, belonging to each of them, upon condition, that they shall have the use of them during their Life, and that the Survivor shall enjoy them both.  
The 40th is the Bishop's Consenting to that Deed of Use.  
The 42d is a form of a Letter of one Bishop to another, when he sends him 
* [Some Portions or small pieces of the consecrated Bread, in token of Communion.]  the Eulogies at Easter.  
The 43d is the Bishop's Answer upon the receiving of them.  
The 44th and 45th are forms of Letters of a Bishop to the King, or Queen, or to another Bishop, about Christmas-Day.  
The 46th. 47th. 48th. and 49th. are Forms of Commendatory Letters. The first to recommend one to a Bishop, known. The second to recommend him to an Abbot. The third to recommend to an Abbot a Person desirous to enter into a Monastery. The last to recommend one willing to go in 
z [To go in Pilgrimage to the Tombs of S. Peter and S. Paul the Apostles.] Soon after that Peace was settled in the Church by Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, and sacred Learning and Knowledge began to flourish, several inquisitive Persons, that they might gain a more lively and thorough Knowledge 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Hieron. ep. 154.  of the historical Parts of the Old and New Testament, traveled into the Holy Land, to see the Places so frequently spoken of in the Holy Scriptures, where most of the Matters were transacted. Upon which account it is that S. Jerom, who traveled thither for the same Reason, saith, That it is a Confirmation of our Faith to see the Ground on which Christ's Feet did tread. In imitation of these Men's practices did others travel to Jerusalem out of Devotion soon after, placing much Religion in visiting and worshipping the Places of Christ's bodily Presence. But the Fathers of these Ages sharply reproved this growing Superstition. Heaven (saith S. Jerom) is as near thee at home as at Jerusalem, and why wilt thou travel 
Hieron. ep. 13.  thither, as if Christ were only to be found there. Some make it a part of Religion (saith S. Cyril) to have been at Jerusalem, but Christ never commanded it, and what can justify us, to make that a part of Religion which Christ doth not? All this did not yet so repress it, but after that Image and Saint-worship was brought into the Church, Pilgrimages to the Tombs of Saints and Martyrs became more frequent, and at length were imposed, and encouraged as Meritorious, and procuring Pardon of Sins. Innocent III. granted Pardon of all Sins, to all that went in Pilgrimage to the Holy Land; and Boniface VIII. to all that went to Rome to visit S. Peter and S. Paul's Tomb. Clement VI granted these Pilgrims to Rome a Power to free the Souls of four of their Relations or Friends out of Purgatory, and gave commandment to all the Angels in Heaven, to carry the Souls of such as died in Pilgrimage, to Heaven immediately. Thus Pilgrimages became a necessary part of Religion; and because very gainful to the Popes and their Metropolis, were much encouraged and practised, till the Truth recovered strength again by the Reformation, and by enlightening Men's Minds, put out the Superstitious Conceits of the Flames of Purgatory.]  Pilgrimages to the Tombs of S. Peter and S. Paul the Apostles.  
Among the other ancient Forms of France, which M. Bignon hath published 
* [At Paris in 1613. octavo, and 1666. quarto.] , together with those of Marculphus, there are some more found concerning the Church, as the 11th. which is a Session made to a Church; the 12th. which is a Form of a Commendatory Letter given to Clerks; the 26th. 27th. and 28th. which are Donations to Churches; the 44th. which is a Form of Exemption given by the King to a Monastery of Virgins; the 45th. is a Confirmation of that Privilege.  
Among those which are according to the Roman. Law, there are Forms of Donation to a Church, N. 1, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38. and lastly, in the last Forms, published by M. Bignon, there are also found Forms of Donations to Churches, and Commendatory Letters of Clerks.   

COSMA of Jerusalem.  
SUidas says, That in S. John Damascene's Time flourished COSMA of Jerusalem, a witty, ingenious Man, very skilful in making Hymns and Spiritual Songs, elegantly and learnedly; 
Cosma.  and that they surpassed all that ever was done or shall be done in that kind. We have yet Thirteen of those Hymns upon the principal Festivals of the Year, which are so much the better, because the Sense of them is taken out of the Holy Scripture, and is nobly expressed. In imitation of him one Mark made one upon Holy Saturday, and Theophanes another on the Annunciation of the Virgin.   

PANTALEO.  
THE Name of Pantaleo, a Deacon, and afterwards Presbyter of the Church of Constantinople, is found at the head of four Sermons. The first of the Epiphany. The second 
Pantaleo.  of the 
aa [A Sermon upon the Exaltation of the Cross.] Although it be very uncertain whether this Sermon do belong to Pantaleo, tho' it bears his Name; yet it is probable that the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross had been instituted some Time before, by the Emperor Heraclius I. anno 630. and so 'tis likely enough such a Sermon might be made upon this Feast, by this or some other Father of this Age and Time, as well as others; which were the common Subject of these Centuries.]  Exaltation of the Cross, and the other two upon the Tranfiguration.  
The first is in the Bibliotheca Patrum, printed at Colen. The second was published by Gretser, and the other two by Combefis, who durst not affirm them to be the same Author's. There is nothing remarkable in those Monuments. Possevin says, there were at Constantinople some Sermons of this Author for the whole Year.   

S. JULIAN of Toledo.  
S. JULIAN, Disciple of Eugenius, chosen Archbishop of Toledo in the Year 680. was Precedent in several Councils held in that City, and died in 690. His Successor Felix, 
Julian of Toledo.  having praised his Virtues, sets down the Catalogue of his Books. He wrote, saith he, a Book of the Prognostics of another Life, directed to the Bishop Idatius; in the beginning of which there is a Letter to that Bishop, and a Prayer. This Work is divided into three Books, the first is of the Original of Man's Death. The second of the State of the Souls of the Dead until the Resurrection. The third is of the last Resurrection. He made moreover a Book of Answers, dedicated to the same Person; in which he maintains the Canons and Laws, whereby Christian Slaves are forbidden to serve Infidels. We have also an Apology for the Faith, dedicated to Pope Benedict, and another Apology upon three Articles, upon which the Bishop of Rome seemed to have had some Doubts; a little Tract of the Remedies against Blasphemies, with a Letter to Adrian the Abbot; a Treatise of the Proof of the sixth Age, [or of the coming of Christ] at the beginning thereof there is a Letter to King Ervigius, with a Prayer. This Work is divided into three Books; the first contains the Texts of the Old Testament, showing, without any need of supputation of Years, that the Messiah is come: The second Book shows, by the Apostle's Doctrine, that Christ came in the fullness of Time: The third proves, that the sixth Age, in which the Messiah was to come, is come; There he distinguisheth the five Ages which went before, not by the Years but by the Generations. We have moreover a Collection of his Poetry, containing Hymns, Epitaphs and Epigrams in great number; a Book of Letters; a Collection of Sermons, among which is found a little Writing of the Protection of the House of God, and of those that retire into it; a Book entitled, Of the Contrarieties of the Scripture, divided into two Parts, the first whereof comprehends what relates to the Old Testament, and the second to the New; a Book of History of what happened in France in the Time of King Wamba; a Collection of Sentences, taken out of S. Austin, upon the Psalms; some Extracts of the same Father's Books against Julian; a Treatise of Divine Judgements, taken out of the Scripture, with a Letter to King Ervigius; a Treatise against the Persecutors of those who fly into Churches; a Book of the Masses for the whole Year, divided into four Parts, in which he corrected some which were either corrupted or imperfect, and made new ones; a Book of Prayers for the Festivals of the Church of Toledo, either reform or newly made.  
Of all those Works these only remain:  
The Treatise of the Prognostics, directed to Idatius Bishop of Barcelona, with the Letter and the Prayer: The three Books, to show the sixth Age against the Jews: And the History of the Acts of Wamba in France.  
In the first Book of the Treatise of Prognostics, he treats of Men's Death; he shows it is sin that subjected them to Death, and affirms it is called Mors a Morsu, because the first Man became Mortal, by eating of the Forbidden Fruit. He believes, that, altho' Death be not good, yet it is useful to the Just, and that a sharp Death remits Sins. He examines why Baptism remitting Original Sin, does not free Men from the Law of Death; and he gives two Reasons for it, taken out of S. Austin, and of Julian Pomerius, He believes Angels assist the Just at their Death, and that Devils do then lie in wait for them. He commends the Piety of the Faithful, who take care to do the last Office to their Parents; hereupon he produces some Passages out of S. Austin, about the Sacrifices offered for the Dead, and the Suffrages of Martyrs.  
In the Second, which is of the State of Souls after Death, he says, Those of perfect Christians are immediately carried into a Paradise, where they remain, joyfully waiting for the Resurrection of their Bodies: And that they enjoy in that Place the Happiness and the Knowledge of God. He believes those of them who have some Sins to blot out, are detained for a while; but neither the one not the other do enjoy as perfect a Vision of the Divine Substance, as they shall do after the Resurrection, tho' they do already see God, and reign with Christ: That the Wicked, immediately after Death, are precipitated into Hell, where they undergo endless Torments. He establisheth 
* [Vid. not. (u).]  Purgatory, which he believes to be a real Fire, wherewith Sins remaining at one's Death are expiated in the other World; and that the Time of the Soul's abiding there is proportioned to the number or the grievousness of Sins committed by them. He affirms, That the Souls of the Dead may know one another. He says, The Dead prey for the Living, but not for the Damned; that they know what is done here below; that they pity those they have been acquainted with; that they are earnestly desirous of Men's Salvation; that sometimes they appear to the Living; that the Damned see only some of the Blessed, etc.  
The Third Book is of the Judgement and Resurrection: These are his Opinions. Neither the Time nor the Place of the Final Judgement can be known, nor how long it will last. Jesus Christ shall appear descending from Heaven with Angels, carrying his Cross: At the Sight of him the very Elect shall tremble for fear, and that Fear shall purify them from their Sins; but the ungodly shall be in a strange Confusion. All the Saints shall judge the World, together with Christ. All Men shall rise in a Moment, and shall put on again a true Body and Flesh, but uncorruptible, without Defect, Imperfection or Mutilation, in a perfect Age and perfect Beauty. The Difference of Sexes shall remain, but without Lust, without any need of Food or Raiment. All Children, who had any Life in their Mother's Womb, shall rise again. Angel's shall separate the Good from the Bad; the Consciences of both shall be laid open, the ungodly shall be cast down headlong into real Fires, in which their Bodies shall burn without being consumed; there shall be different Torments, according to the Difference of Crimes; and the Children guilty of Original Sin only, shall suffer the easiest Pain of all; It is needless to ask where that Fire shall be; after the Condemnation the Recompense of the Just shall follow, and then the Heaven and the Earth shall be set on Fire; there will be a New Heaven and a New Earth, where the Saints may dwell, tho' they may also ascend up into the Heavens; they shall then see God as the Angels do see him now; they shall enjoy a Liberty so much the more perfect, as they shall no more be obnoxious to Sin; they shall all be happy, tho' in different Degrees of Happiness; they shall be wholly employed in praising God; they shall place all their Felicity in the perpetual Contemplation and Love of him. These are the Points of Doctrine which Julian gathereth from the Fathers of the Church, for properly this Work is nothing else but a Collection of Passages of the Fathers, chief of S. Augustin, S. Gregory and Julian Pomerius.  
The Treatise against the Jews is more of Julian's Composition. He proves in the first Book That the Signs of the Messias' coming, pointed at in the Old Testament, are come to pass; That the Time set down by Daniel agrees with the coming of Christ; and that after Jerusalem's Destruction the Jews can expect no other Messiah. In the second he shows, by the History of the New Testament, That Jesus Christ is the Messiah, and that the Apostles did convince the Jews of it. In the last he distinguisheth the Ages of the World by the Generations, and shows we are in the sixth Age: The first is from Adam to the Flood; the second from the Flood to Abraham; the third from Abraham to David; the fourth from David until the carrying away into Babylon; the fifth from the carrying away into Babylon to Jesus Christ. He compares the Account of the Years of the Hebrew Text, and of the Septuagint, and prefers the latter, because it was more suitable to his Design, finding by this means 5000 Years run out from the Beginning of the World to Christ's Birth. He extols the Authority of the Version of the Septuagint, and affirms that the Jews have corrupted the Hebrew Text. He adds, That although it were not so, yet the distinction of the Generations shows the fifth Age of the World was run out when Christ came into the World.  
The History of the Acts of Wamba in Gallia, being no Ecclesiastical Work, we will make no Extract of it here, contenting ourselves in observing; that it is found in the first Volume of the Historiographers of France, put out by Du Chesne.  
In the Bibliotheca Patrum of Colen [in 1618.] they have attributed to Julian of Toledo, a Book of Antilogies 
* [at Basil in 1530. at Colen in 1533. octavo]. , or seeming Contrarieties of the Scripture, which had been already printed without the Author's Name; but it was found to be Berthorius', Abbot of Mount Cassin.  
There was also part of a Commentary upon the Prophet Nahum published under Julian's Name: But besides that, there is nothing said of it in Felix's Catalogue, the Style and the manner of the Writing of it, shows plainly enough it belongs to another Author, tho' bearing Julian's Name in the Manuscript upon which Canisius published it.   

THEODORUS of Canterbury.  
THEODORUS, bred a Monk of Tarsus, was ordained Bishop by Pope Vitalian, and sent in 668. into England, to govern the Church of Canterbury. He arrived there Two 
Theodorus of Canterbury.  Years after his departure [staying long in France as he went] and was well entertained by King Egbert, who had sent to Rome to desire a Bishop to be sent to him. He laboured much in the establishing of the Faith and the Church-discipline in England. He held several Councils, made Bishops, founded Monasteries, made Peace between Princes, kept the People in their Duty; and having thus performed all the parts of a good Pastor, during the space of 20 years, he died in 690. being 88 years old.  
He is the First that composed a Penitential among the Latins, made up of Canons, taken out of the Councils of the Greek and Latin Church. This Book was soon spread all over the West, and many undertook to make such like Works, which in process of time became very common and very bad, because every one making Collections of Canons, according to his Fancy; nay, and some inventing them, this kind of Works soon grew full of Absurdities, Contradictions and Errors, favouring Men's Lusts, and authorising Looseness and Remissness in Discipline. We have not now Theodorus' Penitential whole and in its Purity. M. Dacherius published some Fragments of it; and since that Mr. Petit published part of it [at Paris in 1677.] under the name of Theodorus' Penitential; but he confesses, in his Preface, 'tis not the whole Penitential of this Author; and it is credible, that this very part of it was altered, and mingled with several other Canons; for it is not without Errors; Theodorus is cited there as a Third Person, and things are met with there contrary to Theodorus himself 
a To Theodorus himself.] 'Tis not so much a Penitential as a Ritual, composed of several Canons. In the 11th. Chap. it is said, Ergo unam licentiam dedit Theodorus; which shows it is a Compiler that speaks; and having set down a Canon of Theodorus', draws a Conclusion from it. It cannot be said, 'tis Theodorus himself. He might well say, the Ancients prescribed such a time of Penance; but Theodorus did much retrench it. But after having made a Constitution, he would not say; Ergo Theodorus, etc. There are Errors in this Chapter contrary to the Constitutions he made in the Council of Hereford, which are certainly his. What is said in the end, That there is no Reconciliation in his Country, because there is no public Penance, does not agree to the Age Theodorus lived in, nor to the practice of his Church, and several Canons of his Penitential prove the contrary. .  
However, these are the Contents of the First Part, under Fourteen Titles or Chapters.  
The First is of the Church. There it is forbidden to celebrate the Sacrifice in a place, where Infidels have been buried. It is declared, There aught to be no Steps to the Altars, where there be Relics of Saints; That there ought to be a Lamp burning before them every Night, unless the Church be Poor; That 
bb [Frankincense.] This Custom of burning Candles, and offering Incense to the Saints-Images, was derived from the Heathen- Romans, who as Polyd. Virgil tells us, 
Pol. Virg. l. 2. c. 23. Cicer. Offic. l. 3. Lib. Pontif. Bal. in vit. Leonis.  Solebant ad Statuas, thus, & cereos accendere, as Cicero speaks of the Images set up in Honour of Caius Marius. This Ceremony did Pope Leo III. about the year 794. bring into the Church; and commanded, That the Priests should burn Incense at the Altars of the Saints. So great Promoters of Superstition were the Bishops of Rome in those Ages, and so careful Nurses of it have they been ever since, that the same Custom is retained to this day in their Image-worship.]  Frankincense is to be offered on the Festivals of Saints; That it is not lawful for the Laity to recite the Lessons in the Church, nor to say Allelujah; but only to Sing the Psalms and Responses, without Allelujah.  
The Second is of the Church's Rights: It shows, That the Bishop may confirm in the Fields; That the Presbyter may consecrate there; That the Bishop cannot force an Abbot to come to the Synod, without a rational Cause; That the Bishop may judge poor Men's Causes, not exceeding fifty Pence; but if the Sum exceed that, the cognizance of it belongs to the King; That the Bishop may dispense with a Vow, if he judges it fit; That Presbyters only can say Mass, bless the People, and consecrate Crosses; That Presbyters are not bound to pay Tenths; That they ought not to discover their Bishop's Faults; That Men ought not to take the Sacrament from the hand of a Priest, that is not able to read the Lessons and to perform the Ceremonies; That the Presbyters, singing at the Mass, ought not to put off their 
† [A Cope used by the Priests and Deacons, at celebrating Mass.]  Chasuble; That Persons baptised by a Presbyter, that is a Fornicator, are to be rebaptized; That a Presbyter who hath been ordained without being baptised, is to be baptised and re-ordained; and those are to be rebaptized that have been baptised by him (which is a very extraordinary Practice, and contrary to the use of the Latin Church of that time;) That Deacons are not to break the Bread of the Oblation, nor to say the Collect, nor the Dominus Vobiscum, nor the last Prayer; That they cannot impose Penance on a Layman, but they may baptise, bless Meat and Drink; That Monks also, and other Clerks, may bless Meat.  
The Third Title is of Ordinations. It shows, That in a Bishop's Ordination, Mass is to be sung by the Bishop who performs the Ordination; and so likewise in the Ordination of Presbyters and Deacons; but for the Benediction of Monks, it is enough, That the Abbot say Mass; That the Monk is from that time to keep his Head covered with his Cowle during the space of seven days; That in the Eighth, the Abbot shall take it away, as the Presbyter takes away the Veil of Persons newly baptised; That a Presbyter may consecrate an Abbess; but an Abbot ought to be consecrated by a Bishop; That the Greeks do bless the Virgins and Widows after the same manner, but the Latins do not give the Veil to Widows; That among the Greeks, a Presbyter may consecrate a Virgin, reconcile Penitents, consecrate the Oil for Exorcisms, and the Chrism for the Sick, if need be; but at Rome, the Bishop only may do it.  
The Fourth Title is of Baptism. It imports, That Baptism remits Sins; but according to Pope Innocent, it does not wash away the slain of Bigamy, [or second Marriages]; That besides Baptism, Confirmation is necessary to Perfection; That he does not deny, but that Confirmation belongs to the Bishop; but yet that the Chrism was established in the Nicene Council (which is a false Supposition.) That the same Linen Clothes in which the baptised are anointed, may be used many times; That the same Person who was Godfather at Baptism, may be Godfather at the Confirmation, but that it is not the Custom; That a Man unbaptised, cannot be a Godfather; That a Man may stand Surety for a Girl, and a Woman for a Boy; That the baptised may not eat with the Catechumen, much less with the Gentiles.  
The Fifth is of the Mass for the Dead. It imports, That among the Latins, the Monks use to carry the Corpse to Church, to anoint their Breast with the holy Chrism, to say Mass upon them, and then to carry them out to the Grave, and to say a Prayer over them after they are interred, to say Masses for them the 1st. the 3d. and the 30th. day, and at the years end, if they will; That for the Laity, they say Masses the 3d. the 9th. and the 30th. day; That they ought to Fast 7 days for them; That Masses are not to be said for Children, unless they be 7 years old; That tho' S. Denys says, 'Tis a Blasphemy to pray for a wicked Man, yet S. Austin says, The Sacrifice is to be offered for all those that are dead in the Communion of the Church; That Presbyters and Deacons that will not, or ought not to communicate, are not to celebrate.  
The Sixth Chapter is of Abbots, Monks and Monasteries. It is to this effect: The Abbot may withdraw himself with the Bishop's leave; the Abbot's Election belongs to the Monks; the Abbot cannot change his place, without the Bishop's consent, and without leaving a Priest in the Church, where he was, for the Ecclesiastical Ministry. Monk's ought to have no Women with them, and Nuns to have no Men among them. A Monk cannot make a Vow without his Abbot's consent; if he make any, it is null. A Monk, chosen by his Society to be a Presbyter, ought not to leave his Rule; if he grows Proud, he shall be deposed, and become the last. It is at the liberty of Monasteries to receive infirm and weak Persons. It is also free for Monks to wash Lay-men's Feet, unless it be on Holy Thursday. It does not belong to Monks, to impose Penances on the Laity.  
The Seventh Chapter is of women's Functions in the Church or Monastery. They are forbidden covering the Altar with the Corporal, laying the Oblations or the Chalice upon the Altar, standing among the Clerks in the Church, sitting at Meat with Presbyters, imposing Penance: But they are permitted to receive the Eucharist upon a black Veil, according to the use of the Greeks; they may make the Oblations (that is, the Loaves offered upon the Altar) but not according to the practice of the Romans.  
The Eighth Chapter is of the Customs of the Greeks and Latins. These are observed there: On Sunday the Greeks and the Romans do not ride on Horseback nor in a Coach, unless it be to go to Church; they bake no Bread, and do not go to the Bath; the Greeks writ no public Acts; they both set their Slaves to work on Sunday. The Greek Monks have Servants waiting on them; the Latin have none. The Latins eat on Christmas-Eve, after having said Mass at the 9th. Hour. The Greeks do all sup the Evening after the Mass. Both the Greeks and the Latins say, they ought to assist the Sick of the Plague. The Greeks do not give to Swine the Meat of strangled Beasts; the Skin, the Wool and the Horns of them may be taken. One may wash his Head and Feet on Sunday; but the Romans do not follow that practice.  
The Ninth Chapter is of the Irish and Britain's, who differ from the Church about the keeping of Easter and their Tonsure. It is said there, That their Bishops shall be confirmed by the laying on of the hands of a Catholic Bishop; That the Chrism or the Eucharist cannot be given them, except they make Profession to reunite themselves to the Church; and that those are to be baptised who doubt of their Baptism.  
The Tenth is of those who are possessed with the Devil, or kill themselves. If they were godly Men, before they came to be possessed, they may be prayed for; but if this Possession happened to them, after a Despair or some other Passion, they are not to be prayed for. Masses cannot be said for Self-murderers, but they may Pray and give Alms for them: Nevertheless some say Mass for them that killed themselves, being out of their Wits, and having no use of their Reason.  
The Eleventh contains many Questions about married Persons. It is said there, they ought to abstain from the use of Matrimony 3 days before the Communion, 40 days before Easter, 40 days before and after Childbearing; That a Man may leave his Wife guilty of Adultery, and Mary another; and that she may Marry again after two Years Penance: But the Wife cannot leave her Husband, tho' an Adulterer; That a lawful 
* [Marriage- dissolved by the consent of both Parties, or of one to withdraw into a Monastery.] The great Veneration and Honour which the Fathers of these Ages had for a single and a Monastic Life, made them not only to have a mean Opinion of that sacred Institution of God, Marriage, but also approve of very slight Reasons of dissolving it. So apt are Men to make void the Law of God to maintain their own 
Mat. 15. 6.  Traditions, whereas neither Celibacy itself is absolutely necessary for a Monastic Life, many of the Monks in the more 
Athan Ep. ad Drac.  pure Ages being married; nor, if it were, could the consent of one or both Parties dissolve the Bonds of it upon that account, For what God hath so joined together, 
Mat. 19 6.  no Man can put asunder, unless it be for the only Cause allowed by God for Divorce, Adultery.]  Marriage cannot be dissolved, but with the consent of both Parties; but either of them may give his consent, that the other withdraw into a Monastery, and then that the other may Marry again, if he had not been married again before. If a Husband is made a Slave, the Wife may Marry at the years end; That a Deacon's Wife, forsaken by him, is not permitted to Marry; That a Man may Marry again, within one Month after his Wife's death, and a Woman within one year after her Husband's Decease; That a Woman, that hath vowed Widowhood, cannot Marry again; notwithstanding if she should Marry again, it shall be free for the Husband to let her fulfil her Vow or not; That the Bishop may dispense with Vows; That it is free for one baptised to keep or to put away his Wife, being a Pagan. If a Woman forsake her Husband, within five years after he may take another Wife. If she be carried away Captive, he may Marry another; one year after; but if she cometh again, he shall leave this last; That it is lawful among the Greeks to Marry in the Third Degree, and among the Romans in the Fifth only; but Marriages contracted by Persons within the Third or the Fourth degree of Consanguinity, are not disannulled. Parents are bound to bestow their Daughter on him, to whom they have betrothed her, except she be unwilling. Children are in the Power of their Father, till they be 16 years old; but that time being past, they may enter into a Religious Order, and the Father cannot Marry them against their Will. I leave out some other Constitutions less important; as also the 12th Chapter of Slaves, as being now out of date.  
The 13th Chapter is upon different Customs. It is observed therein, that there are Three solemn Fasts in the Year, that is, besides the ordinary Lent, Forty Days before Christmas, and Forty Days after Whitsunday. It is said there, That the Laity are bound to perform their Vows; That Friars may not bear Arms; That one Child may be given in exchange for another to a Monastery; That the Church ought to pay Tribute, if it be the custom; That Tithes are to be given only to the Poor, and Strangers; That he that Fasts for the Dead, does good to himself; but that God alone knows, how it goes with the Dead; That infirm Folks may Eat and Drink at any Hour.  
The 14th Chapter is about the Reconciliation of Penitents. It imports, that the Romans do Reconcile them, intra absidem, (that is to say, near the Altar, in the place which is Railed in,) but that the Greeks do not do so; That the Bishop only maketh the Reconciliation, on Holy-Thursday; but if the Bishop cannot well do it, he may empower a Presbyter to do it. He adds, That in his Province there is no Reconciliation, because there is no Public Penance.  
M. Petit hath joined to this Work some other Collections of Canons, bearing Theodorus' Name. The 1st might be entitled a Penitential, rather than that before mentioned. It is discoursed there first of all, what they ought to do who are enjoined a Penance of One, Two, or Three Years Fasting. 2. What they may do to redeem those Penances, whether by reciting Psalms, or giving Money to the Poor; what number of Psalms they ought to say, or what Sums they ought to bestow. 3. After what manner Penitents are to come before the Bishop to receive Penance. 4. Of the different Penances to be imposed for different Crimes. There one may see some remainders of the Ancient Penance. Penitents did come in the beginning of Lent to the Door of the Metropolitan Church barefooted, covered with Sackcloth, and did cast themselves on the ground. The Archpriests, or the Ministers of Parishes, did receive them there, and enjoined them Penances; then they brought them into the Church, they sung the Seven Psalms, the Bishop laid hands on them, threw Ashes and 
cc [Holy Water.] This Heathen Rite of sprinkling Consecrated Water for the Purging and Purifying of Men, which may seem to have had its Original from the Jewish Law, which prescribes a Water made with the Ashes of an Heifer to purify the Unclean, by sprinkling them therewith, 
Numb. 19 1,— 20.  was so far from being used or approved by the Christians for many Ages, that they abhorred the use of it as a Diabolical Superstition. Theodoret commends a Fact of Valentinian, than Tribune, after Emperor, as most suitable to the Christian practice; That going before the Emperor Julian the Apostate 
Theod. lib. 3. c. 16. Soz. l. 6. c. 6.  into the Temple of Fortune, the Priests sprinkled him as the rest of the Company with Holy Water, which when he espved upon his Garment, he immediately not only cut off that part where it was, but also smote the Priest with his Fist in Anger, saying, He was a Christian, and therefore was defiled, not cleansed by their Holy Water, which shows, that it was not then used among the Christians; but in this 
Aug. Steuch. in Numb. 19  superstitious Age it crept into the Church among other Ceremonies, and is still in use in the Roman Church, as a Purgative from Sin.]  Holy Water on them, covered them with Haircloth, and turned them out of the Church. On Holy Thursday they came again, and having confessed their Sins again, the Bishop Prayed to God to forgive them their Sins, and said some Prayers over them. It was not lawful to receive a Penitent of another Diocese, or Parish, without the leave of the Bishop, or the Ministers. Men were yet put to Penance for Eating things strangled, or Blood of Beasts. Penances were shorter than in former times, but then they were enjoined for very light faults. All others, but Bishops, and Presbyters, were forbidden hearing Confessions, or imposing Penances. The Author of this Collection is different from the former, the Constitutions themselves are different from those in the former Collection. There be some of them which seem to be made since Theodorus' time.  
The Ten Capitules proposed to the Council of Hereford by Theodorus, related by Beda, do certainly belong to this Archbishop of Canterbury, tho' they be not taken out of his Penitential, but out of a Collection of Canons. It is decreed in the first, That Easter shall be kept the Sunday after the 14th Moon in March. In the 2d, Bishops are forbidden to encroach upon the Bishoprics of their Brethren. In the 3d, They are forbidden to molest Monasteries, or to take their Goods from them. The 4th, Is against those Friars who go from one Monastery to another, without their Abbot's leave. The 5th, Against the Clerks, who leave their Bishop. Other Bishops are forbidden to entertain them. The 6th imports, That foreign Bishops and Clerks shall content themselves with the Hospitality used towards them, and shall not perform any Function of their Ministry, without permission from the Bishop of the place. The 7th, Appoints Councils to be kept Twice a Year. The 8th, Forbids Bishops to prefer themselves before others out of Ambition, and enjoins them to follow the time and order of their Ordination. The 9th declares, That it is fit to increase the number of▪ Bishops, according as Believers increase in number. The last Prohibits unlawful Marriages. It forbids Husbands leaving their Wives, except for the cause of Adultery; and orders those that shall leave them to remain unmarried. By this decision it appears, that the former Collection is not wholly Theodorus', because the 10th Chapter contains decisions contrary to this.  
The Capitules Published by M. Dacherius, in the 9th Vol. of his Spicilegium, are the greatest part of them in M. Petit's first Collection: But this Collection is more Faithful and Genuine; for tho' some places thereof may be corrected by the Manuscripts of the first Collection, it must be confessed, that in this Theodorus's Canons are set down in the order observed by Theodorus, and that they are not mixed with so many strange Canons. These are the most remarkable things contained in them. In the 12th it is said, That among the Greeks, the Clergy and the Laity communicate every Sunday: But that among the Latins, it is left to Men's liberty, to communicate, or not; and that those that do not communicate, are not Excommunicated for that. The 35th, Is that famous Article of the Confession. It imports, That it is lawful, in case of necessity, to confess to God alone. Gratian, Burchard, and Ivo Carnutensis, do quote this passage otherwise. Theodorus says in his Penitential, That some say, with the Greeks, Men ought to confess their Sins to God alone: Others believe, they ought to confess them to the Priests; and almost the whole Church is of that mind: That Confession which is made to God blots out Sins, and that which is made to Men teaches us, how they are blotted out. God oftentimes does invisibly heal our Evils, and sometimes he uses the help of Physicians. This differs much from the very words of Theodorus' Penitential, if they be faithfully related in F. Dacherius' Collection.  
M. Petit hath also carefully gathered the Canons cited under Theodorus' Name, in a Collection of the Councils of Spain, in the Penitentials of Egbert of York, and of Beda in the Roman Penitential, and in that of Rabanus, by Regino, Burchard, Ivo Carnutensis, Gratian, and several other Collectors of Canons: But all those Authors have many false Quotations, and so their Authority is not much to be relied upon.  
All this shows, that we have not the true Penitential of Theodorus in its Integrity and Purity; That what Mr. Petit Published under the Title of a Penitential, is nothing less than that; That the Capitules, which he Published also from a Manuscript, which Mr. Faber communicated to him, are not Theodorus' neither; and all the rest of his Collections is taken out of suspicious Monuments. Nevertheless he is to be commended for his diligence and labour, and we are beholden to him, for having gathered together all that bore Theodorus' Name. Spelman found in Cambridge Library a great Penitential ascribed to Theodorus, of which he gives us the Titles. It's to be wished it were Published, that we might see whether it be Theodorus' own Original, or another Collection of Canons.  
Mr. Petit joined to Theodorus' Penitential, an old compilement of Canons, a Collection of divers Monuments about Church Rites, and chief about Penance, taken out of several Manuscripts, and a Collection of several Papers, Constitutions, Bulls, Edicts, Declarations, Privileges, Letters, Confessions, and other pieces, which he hath Published. These Monuments are accompanied with Two Dissertations, the one upon Theodorus' Pastoral Vigilancy, to show, that all Bishops are bound not only to take care of their own Church, but moreover to watch over all the other, to help them in their need; The other upon Penance, in which he pretends to defend Theodorus' Opinion, and to prove against F. Morinus, that, in the Ancient Church, there was no Penance for secret Sins, tho' never so grievous. Yea, and he brings in proofs, tending to show, that there lay no obligation to confess them to Men, nor to submit them to the Ministry of the Church Keys, and that inward Repentance was sufficient to obtain the remission of them. Lastly, He adds some Notes upon his pretended Penitential, wherein he shows a great deal of Learning and Reading. These are the Contents of the Two Volumes in Quarto Printed at Paris by Dezallier in 1679, under the Title of Theodori Poenitentiale.   

FRUCTUOSUS.  
FRUCTUOSUS, the Founder of several Monasteries in Spain, translated from the Bishopric of Dumes to the Archbishopric of Toledo, by the Decree of the 10th Council 
Fructuosus.  of that City, composed Two Rules, the one for the Monastery of Complutum, and the other common for all Monasteries, which is as a Supplement to the former, they are both found one after another in the Second part of the Rules of Benedictus Anianus, [Printed by Hostenius at Paris, 1663.]   

CEOLFRIDE.  
CEOLFRIDE, Abbot of 
* [Then Girvium.]  Jarrao in England, Beda's Tutor, wrote a Letter upon Easter to Naito King of the Picts, which his Disciple preserved us. He flourished toward the 
Ceolfride.  end of the 7th Century, and Died in 720. In that Letter he treats of the several sorts of the Clerk's Tonsure, and of the Celebration of Easter, and confesseth those differences are of small consequence, and that they should not trouble the Peace.   

ADELMUS.  
ADELMUS, Abbot of Malmesbury in England, wrote also a Book concerning Easter, against the custom of the Britain's, and a Book of Virginity in Prose and Verse. We 
Adelmus, or Aldhelmus.  have yet this last Work. That in Prose was Printed by Sonnius in 1576, and inserted in the Bibl. Patrum, that in Verse was Published by Canisius in 1608. In this Tract he gives an Encomium of many Holy Persons, whose Life he describeth.  
This Saint is believed to be he, who was Bishop of Sherborn, who had made a Book of Problems in Verse, in imitation of Symposius, of about a Thousand Verses. But Sigebert, who speaks of these Two Authors, in Two different Chapters, seems to distinguish them. One must not look for Politeness in the Works of this English Man.   

ADAMAN.  
ADAMAN, Abbot of Hue, wrote a Treatise of the places in the Holy Land, taken 
* [From the Mouth of Arculphus, as Dr. Cave.]  out of the Memoirs of Arculphus, a French Bishop, who had Traveled into Palestine. 
Adaman.  He wrote also the Life of S. Columbus his Predecessor. F. Mabillon hath Published those Two Tracts more entire and correct, [in Saec. Benedict. III. p. 2.]   

APONIUS.  
ALTHOUGH it be not precisely known in what time this Author lived, it is probable, he lived about the end of this 7th Century. He made a Commentary upon the 
Aponius.  Song of Songs, in which what is said of the Bride and the Bridegroom, he applied to Christ and his Church. We have Six Books of that Work in the Biblioth. Patr. It is pretty well written, full of Wit and Learning, and one of the best that was made upon that Subject. We have an Abridgement of the rest of that Commentary, made by a Benedictine Abbot: And Angelomus, who lived above 700 Years ago, copied out several places of it in his Commentary upon the Song of Songs, [Printed by itself at Friburg, 1538.]   

CRESCONIUS.  
CRESCONIUS, an African Bishop, flourished towards the end of the 7th Century. 
Cresconius.  He made a Collection of Canons, in Two parts. The First entitled, An Abridgement of the Canon-Law, Contains the Titles pointing to the matters, together with the Citation of the Canons where they are found. The Second contains the Canons themselves, set down in their full length, in the same order that they are Cited in the Abridgement. This is entitled, An Harmony of the Canons, or, A Book of Canons. The Abridgement was Published [are Paris] in 1588., by M. Pitthaeus, from a Manuscript of the Church of Troy's, and since that by M. Altasaranus [at Poictou] in 1630, and by F. Chifflet in 1649. M. Justel and Voellus inserted it also with the whole Harmony, in their Bibliotheca Juris Canonici, [or, A Complete Body of the Canon-Law.]   

JOANNES MONACHUS.  
NO Authors did ever carry the Virgin Mary's Praises farther, than the Greeks of these latter 
Joannes Monachus.  Ages. We have already spoken of Eight Sermons of George Pisides upon that Subject. Here is a Monk, who is probably of the same time, not at all inferior to him in the Declamation, which he made upon the Birth of the Mother of God. He mingles with the Virgin's Commendations some Speeches, which he applies sometimes to S. Anne, sometimes to the Virgin. He brings in the Patriarches, the Prophets, and the Righteous. Yea, and Adam himself acts his part there. If any Body liketh those kind of Discourses, he may consult the Originals; for we are not willing to make Extracts of them. Allatius thinks, this John was Archbishop of Bulgaria. It is not known when he lived.   

DEMETRIUS' CIZICENUS.  
WE have, under this Bishop's Name, a little Writing of the Original and Errors of the 
Demetrius Cizicenus.  Jacobites, in which he says, That the Author of that Sect was a Monk of Syria, named James, Surnamed Tzantzale, who had embraced Eutyches' Error, and Dioscorus' Party; That since the Council of Chalcedon, those among the Syrians, who sided with the Emperor, had been called Melchites, that is to say, Royalists, because 
* [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syr. Rex.]  Melchi in Syriack signifieth King; and those who followed Eutyches' Opinion, took the Name of Jacobites. That these acknowledge, there were Two Natures in Christ before the Union, but they hold there is but one after the Union; and so they suppose either the confusion, or the mixture of the Two Natures, and are condemned as Theopaschitae, because they believe the Godhead did suffer; That they own the Three first Synods only; That when they cross their Foreheads they do it with one Finger only, to signify the Unity of Nature; That because of that they do not cross themselves from the right hand to the left, as others do, but from the left to the right; That they mingle the Oblation with Oil, and matter not much Communicating; That they put no Water into the Cup; That they care very little, whether they do Worship Images, or not, and look upon that as an indifferent thing; That they Eat Flesh in Lent; That they have their peculiar Offices, and have added these words to the Trisagion, Thou that are Crucified for us. There be some among them, who call themselves Chatzizarys. They Worship Crosses, and put Nails into them, to signify that the Godhead suffered: But they differ from the true Jacobites, in that they own Two Natures in Christ, and seem to fall into Nestorius' Error, by saying, That during the Passion there were Two Persons in Christ, the one suffering, and the other beholding the sufferings. They Fast some Days before the time that they leave Eating Flesh. In Lent they Eat Eggs, Milk, and Butter; They offered unleavened Bread; They put no Water into the Cup; They Baptised their Crosses. I have made an exact Extract, or Abridgement, of that small Writing, because it contains some particulars pretty remarkable. It is not known when the Author of it lived. Yet in all probability he is of the 7th or 8th Century.  
Upon what he says, That the Jacobites had their peculiar Offices, it may be observed, that in the Bibliotheca Patrum there is an Order of the Prayers and Ceremonies of the Baptism, and Mass, with some other Prayers for the use of the Syrian Jacobites, which are said to have been prescribed by Severus the Patriarch; that Work is probably of the same time.   

Memoirs of the Schism of the Armenians.  
THE Author of these Memoirs relates the origin of the Schism of the Armenians, how they embraced the Error of the Eutychians, the different Parties that risen up among them, the 
Memoirs.  Councils held among them, the Catholic and Heretic Bishops they had, and several other Particulars relating to them. The Author of these Memoirs belongs to the Eighth Century.   

JOHANNES Nicaenus' Memoirs upon Christ's Birth, directed to Zachary, a Christian of Armenia.  
THIS Author handles this Question; Why the Festival of Christ's Birth is kept on the 25th. day of December; tho' the Constitutions of S. James and the Apostles, appointed 
Johan. Nicaenus' s Memoirs, etc.  that Feast-day on January the 6th, upon which day Christ's Baptism is celebrated. He pretends, that the custom of keeping that Festival on the 6th. of January, came from this, That John Baptist's Disciples, seeing Christ baptised on that day, and having heard, he was then 30 years old, they imagined it was also his Birthday; That S. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, did write of it to Pope Julius, who, grounded upon some of Joseph's Memoirs, in which it was observed, That in the 7th. Month of the Jews, in the Feast of Tabernacles, the Angel had appeared to the Highpriest, and stricken him dumb, until that Elizabeth had brought forth a Son; having cast up the Days and Months, he found that Christ's Birthday fell on the 25th. of December, and established that custom in Rome; That S. Basil was of the same Mind, and wrote to S. Gregory Nazianzen, to procure the approbation of that practice in the Council of Constantinople, but that many would not receive it; That Honorius the Emperor persuaded his Brother to follow the use of Rome in that; That S. Chrysostom had approved it, and with S. Epiphanius had appointed Christmas to be kept on the 25th. of December; That afterwards, this was confirmed into a Synod held in Constantinople, which writ of it to all the Patriarches, who did all embrace this Practice. Much might be said against this historians Observations, which are almost all false. But we must not seek for Exactness nor Truth in the Memoirs of these modern Greeks.   

S. OWEN.  
AUDOENUS or DADO, vulgarly called S. OWEN, who governed the Church of Roven from the year 646, until the year 689. wrote the Life of S. Eligius, Bishop of 
S. Owen.  
* [Noviodunum.]  Noyon, directed to Robert, Bishop of Paris. He relates his Miracles and Life in the two first Books, and in the last, he reproves his Actions Rhetorically.    

COUNCILS Held in the Seventh Century.  

A Conference held in 601. in England, in Worcestershire, between Augustine the Monk, and the British Bishops.  
AUGUSTINE the Monk, had instructed the English, and converted their King Ethelbert; and having a mind to unite the Britain's to the Roman Church, he invited their Bishops 
A Conference held in 601.  and Doctors to a Conference. When they were come to it, he exhorted them to endeavour unanimously the establishment of Religion. These Britain's did not keep Easter at the same day with other Churches, and had several practices differing from them. They stood in the defence of them stoutly; and Augustine, seeing he could not prevail with them to leave them, they say, he proposed to them, to bring a sick Man in, and on either side to pray for his Health, and to follow the Usages and Doctrines of those that should heal him. They brought in a blind Man, and the Britain's having tried in vain to restore him to his Sight, they affirm, that Augustine restored him by his Prayers. This Miracle did shake the Britain's: But they said, they could regulate nothing, without being acquainted with their Brethren's mind, and they required a Synod might be kept, which was granted to them. Seven British Bishops met there, and the ablest Monks of their Monastery of Bangor. Augustine propounded three things to them: 1. To keep Easter the same day with the Roman Church. 2. To baptise according to the practice of the same Church. 3. To Preach the Gospel to the English, promising them the toleration of their other Practices, if they would yield these 3 Points. They would not, and went away very much offended, for that he did not come to meet them, when they came to him. Upon that refusal, Augustine told them, That since they would not have Peace, they should have War; and that they should be slain by those to whom they would not Preach Life. That was executed accordingly. The King of the English declared War against them, and defeated them in a bloody Fight, in which he put to the Sword above 1200 Monks of the Monastery of Bangor, who were come to the Army of the Britain's, to pray for God's assistance upon them. This relation is taken out of the second Book of Beda's Church-history, chap. 2. Sigebert marks the same Facts in his Chronicle; and some Historians do accuse Augustine the Monk of having had a hand in the Massacre of those poor Britain's, who did not deserve such hard usage, by reason they maintained their ancient Customs, and the Liberties of their Churches, without deviating from the Catholic Faith.   

Assembly of Bishops held at 
* [Caballonum.]  Challon, upon the River Saone, in 603.  
THIS Assembly deposed, unjustly, Desiderius, Bishop of Vienna, upon Queen Brunchant's motion, and the earnest suit of Aricius, Archbishop of Lions. 
Assembly of Challon.    

A Council of Toledo, held under King Gondemare, in 610.  
THIS Council was made up of Fifteen Bishops of the Carthaginian Province, who owned the Archbishop of Toledo for their Metropolitan, and promised subjection to him. King 
Council of Toledo.  Gondemare caused this Constitution to be put in execution, and gave out a Declaration, which was subscribed by the Bishops of the other Provinces of Spain, wherein he decreed, That the Bishop of Toledo shall be acknowledged Primate or Metropolitan of the whole Carthaginian Province, and enjoins all the Bishops of this Province to obey him. He observeth there, That the Country of Carpetania is not a Province, but part of the Carthaginian Province; and that as the other Provinces of his Kingdom, viz. Lusitania, Boetica and Tarraconensis, have each of them but one Primate, the Carthaginian likewise must have but one; according to the Canons and the ancient Usage.   

Council of Egara, under King Sisebut, held in the year 614.  
THE Bishops of the Province of Tarraco, confirmed in this Council the Decree made in that of Huesca, concerning the Celibacy of the Clergy. The Town, where it was kept, 
Council of Egara.  was in the Province of Tarraco, but it is unknown, at present, under the name of Egara. M. Baluzius hath made a short Dissertation, in which he asserts, That Egara was in the place, where is now a little Town, named, Terrasse in Catalonia, within 4 or 5 Leagues of Barcelona, in the Bishopric whereof it is found. He proves it, 1. by the Situation of that Castle, which agreeth to that of Egara, which stood between Barcelona and Girona. 2. Because in the ancient Terriers or Maps, Egara and Terracia are spoken of, as standing in the same place. 3. Because in a Letter of Raimondus of Barcelona, of the year 1112. it is observed, That the Parish of Terrasse stands in the place, where the Church of Egara formerly stood.   

Council V of Paris.  
THIS Council met in 615. called by Clotharius the second, then in Possession of the Kingdoms, which did belong to Theodebert and Theoderick; therefore it was made up 
Council V of Paris.  of a great number of Bishops. It is observed in the end of the Canons of this Council, That they had been subscribed by 79 Bishops; but we have not their Names, neither is it certain, whether they were present in it. If this number of Bishops met there, it was the most numerous Council that ever was held in France. It made 15 Canons of great importance.  
By the 1st. it is ordered, That the ancient Canons shall be kept; That for the future, a Bishop being dead, he that shall be chosen by the Metropolitan, who is to ordain him, by the Bishops of the Province, and by the Clergy and the People of the City, shall succeed him; and that Ordinations made either by Force, Faction or Bribery, or without the approbation of the Metropolitan, and the consent of the Clergy and the People, shall be declared null.  
The 2d. Canon forbids Bishops to choose their Successors. It forbids also providing them Successors, unless they be altogether unable to govern their Church and Clergy.  
The 3d. imports, That if a Clerk, of what Quality soever he be, despising his Bishop, have Recourse unto Princes, great Lords, or to some other Protectors, no Body shall receive him before he obtains his Bishop's Pardon: And that if any Body keeps him, after Warning given him from the Bishop, he shall be punished according to the Ecclesiastical Laws.  
The 4th. declares that no 
dd [No Secular Judge shall judge, etc.] The Devotion of the Emperors, in the more serene Times of the Church, when Kings became nursing Fathers to Christianity, granted several Immunities and Privileges to the Clergy. Constantine 
Euseb. hist. ecc. l. 10. c 7 Just. Const. Novel. 79. c. 1. 84. in praefat. & 123. c. 21. Conc. Agathen. c. 32. Rom. 13. 1 Conc. Chalc. c. 9 Conc. Carth. 3. c. 9 Conc. Tolet. 3. c. 13. Conc. Matisc. c. 8.  the Great freed the Church of Carthage from paying Taxes, lest it being impoverished thereby, God's Worship should be interrupted or hindered. And afterward, about the Year 536. Justinian ordained, That in causes merely Civil, the Bishops should hear and determine of the Cases of the Monks and Nuns, as also of all their Clergy, unless the Matters under decision were too difficult for the Bishop: In wh●ch case they were commanded to go to the Civil Judges. These Imperial Grants did the Bishops (as Patrons of the Ecclesiastical Franchises) confirm and establish by several Canons in this and several other Councils; and that the Secular Judges might not dare to break in upon these Privileges, they backed them with anathemas and Excommunications, and so might warrantably enough do, so long as the Laws of the Empire stood in Force: But for the Clergy to stand upon such Exemptions as these, and claim them upon the Account of their Order, as the Clergy of the Romish Communion now doth, is both contrary to Scripture and the Practice of the purer Times of Christianity: For before Justinian's Time the Bishop's ordinary Jurisdiction was but a Power of Enquiry and Restraint for violating and corrupting the Ecclesiastical Discipline.]  Secular Judge shall judge or condemn any Presbyter, Deacon or Clerk, nor any of those that belong to the Church, without acquainting the Bishop with it; and that if any Body attempts to do it, he shall be separated from the Church, till he amends and acknowledges his Fault.  
The 5th. puts the Franchisements of the Church under the Bishop's Protection, and forbids under the Pain of Excommunication, to constrain any belonging to the Church to serve the Public 
ee [Not constrain any Churchmen to serve the Public.] It hath been the Wisdom of all Ages and Nations, but principally 
Diod. Sic Euseb. hist. Eccl. 〈◊〉 10. c. 7.  of the Christian Church, to exempt their Clergy from Public and Civil Employments and Offices, that they might with the greater Care and Diligence attend the Service of God, which this Council endeavours to preserve.] .  
The 6th. orders, That the Revenues given to maintain the Church Fabrics, shall be managed by the Bishops, Presbyters and other Clerks, serving those Churches according to the Intention of the Donor; and that, whosoever shall take away any part of them, he shall be cut off from the Church, till he hath made Restitution.  
By the 7th. all sorts of Persons are forbidden to seize, either by an Order from the Prince, or by Authority from a Judge, or in any other manner whatsoever, on the Estate left by the Bishops, or other Clerks, whether they belong to the Church, or be their own. It is ordered, They shall be kept and preserved by the archdeacon and the Clergy: They are excommunicated that shall. seize on them; and it is said, They are to be looked upon as Murderers of the Poor.  
The 8th. forbids Arch-deacons, yea, and the Bishops themselves, to appropriate to themselves, after the Death of Abbots, Presbyters, and other Clerks, ministering in the Churches, the Movables belonging to them, under pretence of taking them for the Bishop or the Church.  
The 9th. forbids Bishops to challenge to themselves the Goods, Churches, or Clerks of other Bishops, although the Kingdom or Province had been divided; and those that shall do so, it deprives them of those charitable Duties which their Brethren use to pay them, till they have restored what they have taken, and made Restirution of the Fruits.  
The 10th. renews the Constitution made in the second Council of Lions, held in 570. whereby it was ordered, That the last Wills of Bishops, Presbyters and other Clerks, who bequeath Legacies to Churches, shall be executed, tho' their Testament were not in due Form.  
The 11th. Canon renews the Constitution, whereby a Bishop, being at Variance with another Bishop, is bound to apply himself to the Metropolitan; and he that applieth himself to a Secular Judge, is deprived of Communion with the Metropolitan, until he give an account of his Proceeding in the next Synod.  
The 12th. separateth from the Communion, until the Point of Death, such Monks and Nuns as go out of the Monastery, which they had chosen for their Abode, if, being warned of it, they refuse to return: But if they return to it, and make an humble Satisfaction, the Eucharist may be given them.  
The 13th. Canon excommunicates the Virgins or Widows, who do marry, after having put off the Secular Habit, to lead a Religious Life at home.  
The 14th. prohibits Marriage with the Brother's Widow, the Wife's Sister, the Daughters of two Sisters, the Uncle's Widow by the Father's and Mother's Side, and with a Maiden that hath taken a Religious Habit. It excommunicates those that contract such Marriages, till they separate themselves.  
The 15th. imports, That the Jews are not to sue for the Costs of Recovery of Money from Christians; and if any of them should obtain them, he ought to be baptised, with all his Family.  
To this Council is annexed Clotharius' Edict, containing the Confirmation of the foregoing Canons. Nevertheless, there be some of them, to which he hath subjoined Modifications and particular Conditions. To the Canon concerning Bishops' Ordinations, it adds that if the Person elected be found worthy of it, he shall be confirmed by Order from the Prince; and that a Court-Officer may be chosen, if he be a deserving and learned Man. To the Canon forbidding Bishops to go to Court, it adds, They may go thither, to obtain some Favour, and upon what account soever they shall go thither, if they return with the Prince's Letters, they are to be excused. As for the Inhibition of Clerks applying themselves to Secular Judges, it excepts from it Criminal Matters, into which Secular Judges are appointed to inquire, calling the Bishops to them. It excepts likewise Matters concerning the Public, which the Bishop and the Secular Magistrate are appointed Judges of. It adds some other Ordinances about Civil Matters.   

Council held in France, about the same Time as the former, of which the Place is unknown.  
THE same Manuscript, where this Council of Paris is found, contained the Canons of another Council, of which we know neither the Place nor the Year. 
Council in France, etc.   
The 1st. orders the Execution of the Canons of the Council of Paris.  
The 2d. prohibits consecrating Altars in the Places where Corpses are buried.  
The 3d. orders, That Monks shall observe their Rule, and live in common, under the Government of an Abbot or a Superior.  
The 4th. prohibits baptising in Monasteries, celebrating Masses for Secular Persons deceased, and burying the Dead, without the Bishop's Leave.  
The following Canons to the 8th. are wanting, the Manuscript being defective in that Place.  
The 8th. forbids Clerks to have Women in their Houses, excepting their Sister or Aunt.  
The 9th. confirms the Right of Sanctuaries for Churches, and prohibits taking away by force those that fly into Churches.  
The 10th Canon is wanting.  
The 11th. prohibits depriving Abbots or Archpriests of their Ecclesiastical Function, unless they be guilty of some Fault, that deserveth it, as also advancing them to those Dignities, with the Prospect of some Reward: It prohibits, moreover, making a Layman Archpriest.  
The 12th. forbids Presbyters and Deacons to marry, upon pain of being turned out of the Church.  
The 13th. prohibits entertaining those that are excommunicated by their Bishop; and that they may be known, it order the Bishops▪ that excommunicated them, to acquaint the neighbouring Towns and Churches with it.  
The 14th. decrees, That Freemen, having sold or engaged themselves, out of necessity, shall be restored again to their former state, giving back the Price they had taken for their Engagement.  
The 15th. Canon is imperfect: The next are lost; nay, it is not known how many there were of them.   

Council II. of Sevil.  
THIS Council was held under King 
* [Al. Sisebulus, a King of Spain, of the Got●ish Race.]  Sisebut, in November 619. and made up of seven Bishops, of the Province of Batica, the precedent whereof was Isidore Bishop of Sevil. Several 
Council II. of Sevil.  Ecclesiastical Affairs were treated of there, which are related in the Acts of this Council.  
In the 1st. Action was received the Petition presented by Theodulphus, Bishop of Malaga; wherein he complained, That his Diocese, having been spoiled by the Wars, was become a Prey to the neighbouring Bishops, who had invaded it. It is ordered, That all the Churches, formerly belonging to him, shall be restored to him, all Right of Prescription notwithstanding, because none such is to be alleged when Hostilities are the Ground of the Possession.  
In the 2d. Action they named Deputies to compose the Difference between the Bishop of Astigi and that of Corduba, about a Church which they both claimed to belong to their Jurisdiction, and to be within the Limits of their Diocese. The Council orders, That Deputies shall first of all examine the Limits of the Diocese, and then the Possession; and that if it be of thirty Years standing, the Prescription shall take place in the behalf of the Possessor.  
The 3d. Business debated in this Council, is concerning a Clerk of Italica, who having left his own Church, went to that of Corduba. They took from thence the Opportunity to renew the Canons, forbidding Clerks to leave their own Churches to go to others.  
The 4th. Constitution is against the unlawful Ordinations, made at Astigi, where some persons that had married Widows had been ordained Clerks, their Ordinations are declared null, and they are forbidden to be raised to the Order of Deacons.  
In the 5th. place they depose a Presbyter and two Clerks, of the Church of Egabro, who had been irregularly ordained, the Bishop having sore Eyes, had only laid his Hands on them, whilst that a Presbyter did bless them. They declare they would have punished that Presbyter for his boldness, if he h●d been alive still.  
The 6th. Deliberation is, Concerning a Presbyter of Corduba, unjustly condemned by his Bishop: He is restored again, and Bishops are generally forbidden to depose a Priest or a Deacon, unless their Cause was examined in a Council. They are excommunicated, That condemn▪ them without Examination, by a Tyrannical Power, and not by Canonical Authority; or that advance some out of Favour, and debase others out of Hatred or Envy, and condemn them upon light Suspicions. They add, That a Bishop alone may indeed confer the Dignity of a Presbyter or a Deacon; but he alone cannot take it away from them to whom he hath given it. This is an excellent Instruction for Bishops.  
The 7th. Constitution is made about the Permission which Agapius, Bishop of Corduba, had given to some Presbyters, to set up Altars and consecrate Churches, in the Bishop's Absence. The Bishops say, They do not wonder that such a Bishop had granted such Licences, because he was ignorant of the Church-Discipline, having been raised all on a sudden to the Sacerdotal Dignity: But they prohibit that Practice for the future, declaring, That although Presbyters have several Functions common with the Bishops, there be some forbidden them by the Ecclesiastical Laws, such as the Consecration of Priests, Deacons and Virgins, the erection of an Altar, the Blessing of the Unction: That they cannot consecrate an Altar or a Church, nor confer the Holy Ghost by the Imposition of Hands on the baptised, or on Heretic Converts, nor consecrate the Holy Chrism, nor anoint the Forehead of the baptised therewith, nor so much as reconcile a Penitent in a public Mass, nor send Circular Letters: That all these things are forbidden to Presbyters, because they have not the supreme Degree of the Sacerdoral Dignity, which by the Authority of the Canons is appropriated to Bishops only. They add, That Presbyters are not permitted to enter into the Baptistry, nor to baptise before the Bishop, nor to reconcile Penitents without his Order, nor to Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, to Preach, to Bless or Salute the People, in the presence of the Bishop.  
The 8th. Decision is against such a Man of a Church, as having been set at Liberty by his Bishop, became disobedient. It is ordered, He shall be deprived of his Liberty, by reason of his Disobedience.  
The 9th. Constitution imports, That the Stewards of Churches ought not to be chosen out of the Laity, but the Clergy; and that the Bishops shall not manage Church Revenues without the assistance of the Steward.  
The 10th. Constitution confirms the Monasteries founded in the Province of Boetica, and forbids Bishops, upon pain of Excommunication, to seize on their Possessions, and to spoil them.  
The 11th. grants to the Monks the Management of the Estate, belonging to Monasteries, of Religious Women, upon condition that they shall dwell severally; and shall have no familiarity with them, they shall not see them, they shall speak with the Superior only, and that in the Presence of Witnesses.  
The 12th. Business was, The Conversion of a Bishop of Syria, of the Sect of the Acephali, who coming into the Council, and denying there were two Natures in Christ, and maintaining the Godhead was passable in him, was convinced of the Truth, and converted by the Arguments of the 〈◊〉 of this Assembly.  
In the last 〈◊〉 of this Council, it is proved, That there are two Natures in Christ, united in one only Person.  
The Constitutions are subscribed by Isidore Bishop of Sevil, and by the Bishops of Elvira, A●●donia, ●stigi, 〈◊〉, T●c●, Malaga and Corduba. This last, who was charged with Ignorance in the Council, was not Ag●pius but Honorius, who probably did succeed him.   

Council of Rheims, under Sonnatius.  
FLodoard relares, That Sonnatius, Bishop of Rheims, held a Council of about forty Bishops, which made ●●veral Constitutions, whereof he inserted the Extract in his History. 
Council of Rheims.   
By the 1st. it is ordered, that no Body shall appropriate to himself what the Church hath invested him▪ in as Tenant o● Trustee▪ how long soever his Possession be.  
The 2d. forbids the Cabals of Presbyters and Clerks against their Bishops.  
The 3d. cof●●●s the Canons of the Council of Paris, held under Clotharius.  
The 4th. orders, That the Pastors of Churches shall carefully seek out Heretics, to convert them.  
The 5th. prohibits rash Excommunications, and gives to the Provincial Council Authority to judge of the Validity of the Excommunication.  
The 6th. forbids Secular Judges to impose upon Clerks public Taxes, or to lay any Penalty upon them, without the Bishop's Consent. Bishops are enjoined to correct Clerks, and forbidden to admit into the Clergy, without the Princes or the Judge's Leave, those that are entrusted with the Care of the Revenue of the King's Lands.  
The 7th. threatens to excommunicate those that shall violently take from the Church the Criminals fled into it 
ff [The 7th. threatens to excommunicate those that shall violently take from the Church the Criminals fled into it.] The Original of this Privilege, allowed by the Heathens, and afterward by the Christians, to their Temples or Churches, was certainly taken from the Divine Constitution, given to Moses, to erect six Cities 
Numb. 35. 6  of Refuge in the Jewish Nation, though not altogether conformable to it, nor of so beneficial an use; for Moses made the Cities only a Refuge, and that for such Man-slayers alone as had killed their Neighbours unawares; but the Heathens made their Temples, and that for all manner of Wickednesses, for so Livy says of the Asylum erected by Romulus 
Liv. hist. l. 1. dec. 1. Herod. l. 2.  at Rome: Asylum aperuit, quo quisquis perfugerit ab omni noxa liberatus esset: And so Herodotus speaks of Herculeses Asylum at Athens. These Refuge-Temples were afterward much increased among the Heathen, and at length, about the Year 300, came to be in use among the Christians; for they thought it a shame that the Temples of the Heathen Gods should enjoy so great a Privilege, as to be Refuges for 
Theod. & Val. in Const. ad Antioch. Syn. Araus. anno 440. c. 5. Aug. de con. Evang. l. 1. c. 12. Pol. Virgil. l. 3. c. 12.  the Oppressed, and the Christian Temples should be destitute of it: Whereupon they were made such by the Edict of Theodosius and Valentinian, and also by the Canons of the Councils. But although such Grants might be of very good Advantage among Christians, being kept within the Bounds of the first Institution, to be a Protection for the Innocent and Oppressed; yet as they have been, and still are, abused in the Roman and other Churches, being made a Refuge for Murderers, Rebels, and other enormous Criminals, they are grievous both to the Church and all Civil Societies and have been complained of, as such, by many eminent Lights of the Church, in the several Ages of it.] . It orders, That before they be delivered, they shall take an Oath from them, into whose Hands they are delivered; That they shall not put them to Death, nor maim them, nor rack them; and that none shall be suffered to go out, before he hath promised to do Penance for his Crime.  
The 8th. is against them that contract incestuous Marriages: It does excommunicate them, if they do not separate themselves, and declareth that they are to be deprived of their Places and Estates, till they have separated themselves.  
The 9th. declareth, That Men ought to have no Converse with one guilty of wilful Murder, unless he committed it in his own Defence, and does not grant him the Viaticum, that is to say, the Absolution, but only at the Point of Death.  
The 10th. condemns those that keep to themselves the Goods given by their Parents toChurches or Monasteries.  
The 11th. forbids Christians to sell Christian Slaves to the Jews or Pagans.  
The 12th. forbids Clerks to go out of their own Diocese, without Letters from their Bishop.  
The 13th. forbids Bishops to sell or alienate Church-Lands.  
The 14th puts to Penance those that imitate the Superstitions of Pagans.  
The 15th. forbids to receive the Accusations of Slaves, and does not permit an Accuser, who could not prove the first Charge, to allege any other.  
The 16th. excommunicates those that shall seize on church-good, after the Bishop's Death.  
The 17th. is against those that would enslave freeborn persons.  
The 18th. forbids Clerks to go to Law without their Bishop's Consent.  
The 19th. forbids to put in Laymen for Archpriests in Parishes. It permits only to ordain him a Clerk, who is an Elder among the Laity.  
The 20th. Orders, That what shall be bestowed upon the Bishops by Strangers, shall belong to the Church, except those things given be a Feoffment of Trust.  
The 21st. excommunicates those that seize on Church-Lands.  
The 22d. deprives ab Officio, the Bishops who shall break the Holy Vessels, unless it be in extreme Necessity, and to redeem Captives.  
The 23d. prohibits ravishing of Widows or Virgins consecrated to God.  
The 24th. excommunicates Judges, that shall despise the Canons, or violate the Prince's Edict, given at Paris.  
The 25th. imports, That he that is ordained Bishop ought to be a Native, and chosen by the Votes of the People and the Bishops of the Province, and approved by the whole Council; that those that shall not be thus ordained, shall be turned out of their See; and the Bishops that have ordained them, shall be suspended ab Officio, for three Years.  
These are all the Canons of this Council, which was held about 630. There are 21 more attributed to this Council; but it is evident they are much posterior to it: They are not related by Flodoard.   

Council iv of Toledo.  
THis Council was assembled in 633, by King 
* [Siseranda the 22d. King of the Gothish Race.]  Sisenand. The Archbishops of Sevil, Narbon, Merida, Braga, Toledo and Tarragona were present in it, together with 53. of their 
Council iv of Toledo.  Suffragan Bishops, and 7 Presbyters, Bishop's Deputies. The Assembly was held in the Church of Leocadia.  
The Council gins with a larger Confession of Faith than the ordinary Creeds, chief about the Incarnation. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son is established there.  
Then the Bishops declare, That as they have but one Faith, so they judge it fit, that they should have but one Discipline, and observe the same things in the Celebration of Divine Service.  
The 3d. Constitution is concerning Provincial Councils: It decrees, That seeing they cannot easily be assembled twice in the Year, they shall hold one every Year, the 16th. of May, in what Town the Metropolitan shall please to appoint; that all those that have any Matters against the Bishops or the Magistrates, and great Lords, shall bring them to that Tribunal, and what shall be adjudged by the Synod shall be executed by the King's Officer: That in case there be any Matter of Faith, or any Affair concerning the Good of the whole Church, they shall call a general Synod of the Provinces of Spain and France.  
In the 4th. Canon they settle the Form or Order of keeping the Council. In the Morning, the Porters having turned the People out of the Church, must stand at the Door, they are to come in at; that the Bishops are to enter in first, and then the Presbyters, and at last the Deacons they shall stand in need of: That the Bishops shall sit down in the Form of a Circle, and the Presbyters behind them: That the Deacons ought to stand up before the Bishops: That they shall also bring in some Notaries to read or to write. Then the Doors being shut, the Archdeacon shall say aloud, Pray ye: That one of the eldest Bishops shall pray aloud, the rest being prostrate: This Prayer being ended, the archdeacon shall say, Rise up: Then he shall read the Canons, ordering the holding of Provincial Councils; and the Metropolitan shall invite all them that have any Matter, to propound it: That they shall end that which is propounded. before they begin another: That if any of them that are without hath any thing to propound, he shall acquaint the Metropolitan with it, who shall relate it to the Council; that he shall be brought in, freely to propose what he hath to say. That the Council shall not end till all Matters be dispatched, and that none of the Bishops shall go away, before it be finished.  
The 5th. Decrees, That the Metropolitans shall write to one another three Months before the Epiphany, to agree together about the Day on which Easter is to be kept; and then they shall acquaint the Bishops of their Provinces with it, to avoid the Differences which happened in Spain about Easterday, because of the several Tables.  
The 6th. Canon contains a large Passage of S. Gregory, touching the Liberty of Baptising with one or three Immersions, according to the Use of the Place.  
The 7th. Canon determines, That the Passion shall be preached on Good Friday, and the People shall beg aloud the Pardon of their Sins, that the Faithful being purified by the Compunction of Repentance, may celebrate the Resurrection-Sunday, and receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ with a clean and pure Heart.  
The 8th. prohibits breaking the Fast of Good-Friday before Sunset, excepting only Children, Aged and Sick Folks.  
The 9th. orders, That on Easter-eve they shall bless the Lamp and the Taper. Some Churches of France did not observe this Practice, wherefore they are enjoined to observe it for the future.  
In the 10th. they are reproved, who never said the Lord's Prayer but on Sunday. They prove, by the Testimonies of S. Cyprian, S. Hilary and S. Augustin, that this Prayer is to be said every day; and judged this Practice so necessary, that they threaten to depose the Clerks, that shall omit saying that Prayer every Day in their Public or Private Office. This shows, that Clerks did even then recite their Office in private.  
The 11th. Canon prohibits singing Hallelujah during the whole Lent, because it is a Time of Mourning, as well as the Kalends of January, in which they abstain from Flesh, as in Lent to feed only on Fish and Herbs. It is observed, That some did likewise abstain from Drinking Wine: In former Time, Abstinence from Wine was as strictly commanded as Abstinence from Flesh.  
The 12th. Constitution decrees, That the Laudes shall not be said after the Epistle, but after the Gospel. These Laudes are some Verses which they recited before the Offertory.  
The 13th. rejects the Opinion of those, who believed, That the Hymns of Humane Composition, made in the Praise of the Apostles and Martyrs, were not to be recited, as not being drawn out of the Canonical Scriptures, nor authorized by Tradition. They observe, That if it were not lawful to recite any thing in the Divine Service, but what is from the Scripture, they should retrench the most part of the Masses, Prayers, Collects, Recommendations, and most of the Prayers said in the Confirmation.  
The 14th, orders, That the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace shall be sung in the Pulpit, at the Mass, on Sundays and Holy Days.  
The 15th, orders, That, in the End of the Psalms, they shall not only say, Glory be to the Father, but Glory and Honour be to the Father.  
In the 16th, it is observed, That some do not say the Gloria after the Responses, because it is not proper to what was said. Gloria is to be said when the Subject is joyful and cheerful, and the beginning of the Response to be repeated when it is sad and mournful.  
The 17th Canon pronounces Excommunication against them that will not receive the Revelation of S. John, as a Divine Book, or that will not read it in their Churches, from Easter till Whitsunday, in the Time of Divine Service.  
The 18th, orders, That after the reciting of the Lord's Prayer, and the mingling of the Bread with the Wine in the Cup, they shall bless the People before the Distribution of the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood. It says also, That Priests and Deacons ought to receive the Communion at the Altar, the rest of the Clergy in the Choir, and the People without the Quire.  
The 19th, forbids advancing to the Priesthood the following Persons; them that have been convicted of any Crimes, or that having confessed them, have done Penance publicly.  
Them that have been Heretics, or baptised in an Heresy, or rebaptised.  
Them that have made themselves Eunuches, or have lost some of their Limbs.  
Them that have had many Wives, or have married Widows, as also those that have had Concubines.  
Those of a servile Condition.  
Neophytes, Laymen, or those that are entangled in Businesses.  
The Ignorant and Unlearned; those that are not yet 30 Years old, and have not passed through the Ecclesiastical Degrees.  
Them that seek to be ordained by Bribery, or to buy that Dignity.  
Those that are chosen by their Predecessors.  
Those that have not been chosen by the People and the Clergy, nor approved by the Metropolitan and the Provincial Synod.  
That he that hath all these Qualifications, is to be consecrated on a Sunday, by all the Bishops of the Province, or at least by three Bishops, with the Consent of the others, in the Presence and by the Authority of the Metropolitan, and in the Place which he shall choose.  
The 20th, forbids making any persons Deacons before 25. Years of Age, and Presbyters before 30.  
The 21st, recommends to the Bishop a chaste and innocent Life, that they may offer the Sacrifice with Purity, and pray to God for others.  
The 22d, exhorts them, not only to keep a pure Conscience, but moreover, to have a care of their Reputation, and to have always in their Chambers some persons of probity with them, which may bear Witness of it.  
The 23d, enjoins the same thing to the Presbyters and Deacons, that do not live with the Bishop.  
The 24th, commands, That young Clerks shall dwell all together in the same Hall, under the Conduct of an Elder.  
The 25th, Recommends to Bishops the Knowledge of the Holy Scripture and the Canons.  
The 26th, shows, That the Presbyters, put into Parishes, aught to receive from the Bishop a Book, containing the Service of the Church, and instructing them in the manner of administering the Sacraments, and when they come to the Council or in his Visitation, they ought to give an account to the Bishop, how they celebrate Service and administer Baptism.  
The 27th, That the Presbyters and Deacons put into Parishes, are to promise to their Bishop, that they will live regularly and orderly.  
The 28th, That, if a Bishop, a Presbyter, or a Deacon, have been unjustly condemned, and their Innocency be acknowledge in a Second Synod, they cannot be what they were before, till they have received before the Altar, and from the Bishop's hands, the degrees which they were fallen from. If it be a Bishop, he shall receive the Stole, the Ring, and the Staff; If a Priest, the Stole, and the Chasuble; If a Deacon, the Stole, and the Albe; If a Sub-deacon, the Chalice, and the Patine, or Cover of it; and so of the other degrees, which shall receive again what was given them at their Ordination.  
The 29th, is against the Clerks, who consult Diviners, or use Sorcery. It is ordered they shall be deposed, and shut up in Monasteries, to do Penance the rest of their Life.  
The 30th, Forbids Bishops bordering upon the Enemies of the State, to receive any order from Strangers.  
The 31st, Forbids Bishops to be Judges between Princes and their Subjects, who are accused of High-Treason, till they have promised to pardon the guilty.  
The 32d, Warns the Bishops not to suffer the Magistrates and Men of Power to do unjustly, and oppress the Poor, to reprove them, if they perceive them to do so; and when they will not amend, to complain to the King.  
The 33d, Forbids Bishops to take to themselves above the Third part of the Revenues of Churches Founded in their Diocese, tho' it leaves them the whole Administration thereof.  
The 34th, appoints, That between the Bishops of the same Province, Thirty Years possession shall be a valid Title to keep the Churches, which they possess in the Diocese of another, but not between Bishops of different Provinces.  
The 35th, Puts in an Exception as to Churches newly built, and orders, That, altho' the old Church belongs to him who enjoyed it, Thirty Years since, notwithstanding the Church newly built shall belong to the natural Bishop of the place where 'tis built.  
The 36th, Appoints the Bishop to visit every Year the Churches of his Diocese; and if he cannot do it, to commit the doing of it to some Priests and Deacons of known probity.  
The 37th, declares, That Men are bound to pay what they promised to give, for the performing some Ecclesiastical Service.  
The 38th, imports, That seeing Presbyters are bound to assist the Poor, if it fall out, that they who have bequeathed something to some Church, be brought to Misery, they or their Children, that Church is bound to help them.  
The 39th, Forbids Deacons to take place of the Priests, and to place themselves in the highest place of the Choir, whilst the Presbyters stand below.  
The 40th, Forbids Deacons having Two Stoles; yea, and having one of divers Colours, or Embroidered with Gold.  
The 41st, Enjoins all Clerks to shave the whole Crown of their Heads, leaving but a small Tuft of their Hair in the form of a round Circle, or a Crown.  
The 42d and 43d, Forbids Clerks to dwell with Women, not related to them, and only permit them to live with their Mother, Sister, Daughter, and Aunt.  
The 44th, appoints, That Clerks Marrying Widows, Divorced or Debauched Women, shall be separated from them by their Bishop.  
The 45th, That Clerks taking up Arms shall be put to Penance in a Monastery.  
The 46th, That a Clerk found Robbing Sepulchers, shall be Expelled out of the Clergy, and put to Penance for Three Years.  
The 47th declares, That agreeably to King Sisenand's Order, the Council decrees, That Clerks shall be free from all public Offices.  
The 48th, orders, That all Bishops shall have Stewards to manage their Church's Revenue.  
The 49th, imports, That a Monk may be made so by the Devotion of Parents, or his own Profession; That all they that are made Monks by either of these Two ways, shall be obliged to continue Monks, and that they are not permitted to return to the World.  
The 50th, Gives Clerks leave to become Monks.  
The 51st, Forbids Bishops abusing Monks, but it preserveth them the Right which the Canons give them, to exhort Monks to a good Life, to instruct Abbots, and other Officers; and to correct what is done amiss, contrary to the Rule.  
The 52d orders, That Monks leaving their Monastery, to return into the World, shall be Reproved, and put to Penance.  
The 53d, Prohibits that sort of Religious persons, which are neither Clerks, nor Monks; and enjoins Bishops to put them to the choice of either of those professions.  
The 54th, declares, That they, who being in danger of Death, undergo Penance without confessing any particular Sin, but saying only in general, That they are Sinners, may be preferred to the Ecclesiastical State; but it is not so with them who have confessed some grievous Crime.  
The 55th, commands, That those that yielded to undergo Penance, and prepared themselves to do it, shall be obliged to finish it, and shall be constrained by the Bishop to it. But if they leave it, and refuse to take it again, they shall be condemned as Apostates, as also the Virgins or Widows which have put on the Religious Habit, if they return to the World and Marry.  
The 56th, Distinguisheth Two sorts of Widows, some Secular, who do not leave the Secular Habit, and other Religious which take a Religious Habit, and declares, it is not lawful for these to Marry.  
The 57th, Forbids to constrain the Jews to turn, because Conversion ought to be wholly free; yet as for those who were forced to turn under King Sisebut, they will have them bound to continue Christians, because they have received Baptism, the Holy Chrism, and Christ's Body and Blood.  
The 58th, Pronounces Excommunication against those that shall favour, or uphold the Jews against Christians.  
The 59th, orders, According to King Sisenand's advice, those Christians that turned Jews, shall be constrained to return to the Church; and if they have Circumcised their Children, they shall be separated from them.  
The 60th, decrees, That the Children of the Jews shall be taken away from them by force, to be Christianly brought up in Monasteries.  
The 61st, That the Children of the Jews, who are become Christians, shall not be deprived of their Father's Estate, who are condemned for Apostasy.  
The 62d, Enjoins Christians to avoid Commerce with the Jews.  
The 63d, orders, That Christian Women Married with Jews, shall be separated from their Husbands, if they will not be Converted.  
The 64th, That the Testimonies of Christians, that turned Jews, shall not be received.  
The 65th, Forbids the Jews bearing Public Offices.  
The 66th, Forbids them having Christian Slaves.  
The 67th, Forbids the Bishops, who give nothing to the Church, to set at liberty the Slaves of their Churches.  
The following Canons to the 75th, contain some other Constitutions concerning the Slaves and the Freemen, which are now out of date.  
The 75th, and last Canon, is concerning the Fealty due to Kings, and the security of their Persons. The Bishops detest there the Crime of those that violate the Faith they own to their Prince, and make a long discourse to create an abhorrence of it. And to prevent any such thing in Spain, they pronounce a solemn Anathema against all those that shall Conspire against Kings, that shall attempt against their Life, or usurp their Authority; after having repeated that Anathema Thrice, with terrible Execrations, they promise Loyalty and Fidelity to King Sisenand, and his Successors, and at the same time they beseech him to Govern his People with Justice and Piety, not to Judge alone in Criminal Causes, but to cause them to be examined and judged by the ordinary Judges, reserving to himself the Right of Pardoning. They pronounce Anathema against the Kings that should abuse their Authority to do Evil, and exercise a Tyrannical Power. And they do particularly declare, That by the consent of the whole Nation, King 
* [Suintilla.]  Suintilan, who deprived himself of the Kingdom, and laid down his Authority, by confessing his Crimes, is fallen from his Dignity, his Honour, and his Lands, as well as his Wife, his Children, and his Brother.   

Council V of Toledo, held in 636.  
THIS Council was held in the same place with the former, but it was composed but of Twenty Two, or Twenty Three Bishops of several Provinces of Spain. 
Council V of Toledo.   
The first Canon decrees, That Litanies, that is to say, Public Prayers, shall be made Yearly during the space of Three Days, which shall begin the next Day after the 13th of December, yet so, that in case one of the Three Days should happen to be a Sunday, they shall be put off to the next Week.  
The 2d Canon confirms all that was done in the Council held under Sisenand, and decrees, that they shall be subject to King 
* [Suintilla the 2d.]  Cinthila, his Successor.  
The 3d, Pronounceth Anathema against those that shall endeavour to usurp the Crown against the consent of the whole Nation, and without being chosen by the Nobility.  
The 4th, Forbids consulting Diviners about the Death of the Prince.  
The 5th, Prohibits speaking ill of him.  
The 6th, Decrees, That the favours of Princes shall continue and be enjoyed after their Death.  
The 7th, That in all Councils shall be read the Constitution made in the 4th Council for the safety of Kings.  
The 8th, Confirms the Prince's power to grant Favours.  
The 9th, Contains a Thanksgiving to King Cinthila, and some Prayers and Vows in his behalf.  
This Council is backed with King Cinthila's Declaration, confirming the Decree of the Council about the Public Prayers of December, accompanied with Fast, and ordering, that, during that time, there shall be a cessation from Work and Business.   

Council VI of Toledo, of the Year 638.  
THIS is a National Council composed of above Sixty Prelates of Cinthila's Kingdom. They begin with a Confession of Faith pretty long, which is contained in the first 
Council VI of Toledo.  Canon.  
The 2d, Confirms the use of the Litanies, or Public Prayers, appointed in the preceding Council.  
In the 3d, They give the King thanks for driving the Jews out of his Kingdom, and for suffering none but Catholics in it. They order, That the succeeding Kings shall hereafter be bound to take Oath, That they shall Tolerate no Infidels, and pronounceth Anathema against those that shall break that Oath.  
The 4th, Declareth, That persons guilty of Simony are unworthy of being advanced to Holy Orders, and those that shall be found in Orders, to be fallen from their Degree, as well as those that have Ordained them.  
The 5th, Decrees, That those that shall receive any thing of the Church Revenue, shall hold it but by a precarious Title, and shall subscribe an Instrument testifying the same, that they may not plead prescription.  
The 6th, Is against Men, Maidens, and Widows, leaving the Religious Habit, to lead a Secular Life; they are ordered to be shut up in Monasteries.  
In the 7th, the same thing is ordered against those who submitted themselves to public Penance.  
The 8th, Explains a Constitution of S. Gregory's, whereby they suppose he gave leave to a Young Man, who underwent Penance upon fear of Death, to Cohabit with his Wife, till he was come to an Age in which it were easier to live Chastely. They say, that if he, or she, who hath not received Penance, Dieth before he, or she, which submitted to Penance, have practised Continence, it shall not be lawful for the survivor to Marry; but if he, or she, that was not put to Penance survive, he may Marry again.  
The 9th, Ordains, That such as are made Free by the Church, shall at the Death of every Bishop renew the Declaration, that they depend on the Church.  
The 10th, That these Freemen shall do Service to the Church.  
The 11th, Forbids receiving Accusations, before Examination had, whether the Accusers be persons to be allowed of as such.  
The 12th, 13th, and 14th, Are against Rebellious Subjects, and in the behalf of the good Loyal Servants of the Prince.  
The 15th, Maintains the Donations of Princes to Churches.  
The 16th, Provides for the Security of the Life and Estate of King's Children.  
The 17th, Provides for the Safety of the Prince himself, and forbids all attempts against his Person and Crown, as long as he lives; and orders, that after his Death none shall invade the Kingdom by Tyranny, and none but a Noble Goth, and worthy of that Dignity, shall be advanced to the Sovereignty.  
The 18th Canon does yet renew the Inhibition of attempting against the person of the Prince.  
The 19th, Is but a Conclusion of the Council.   

Council VII. of Toledo.  
THIS Council was held in 646, under King 
* [Vidisuindus.]  Chisdavind, and composed of Twenty Five Bishops. 
Council VII. of Toledo.   
The 1st Constitution is against Perfidious and Disloyal Clerks.  
By the 2d, A Bishop, or a Presbyter, is permitted to finish the Celebration of a Mass begun, if he that is Officiating falls ill, and is not able to hold out to the end; but it forbids Presbyters, upon pain of Excommunication, to leave the Holy Mysteries imperfect, or to Celebrate after having taken the least Food.  
The 3d, Renews the Canon of the Council of Valentia, about the Bishop's Funerals.  
The 4th, Is against the greediness of some Bishops of Gallicia, oppressing the Parsons of their Diocese. They are forbidden by that Canon to take above two Pence per Annum of each Church in their Diocese; to bring along with them in their Visitations more than Five persons, and to stay above a Day in any Church.  
The 5th Canon appoints, That Hermits, or Recluses, that are ignorant, or whose Life is not Virtuous enough, shall be shut up in Monasteries; that those only shall be let alone, who are commendable for their Holiness, and that for the future, none shall be admitted to that Profession, but such as have learned the Religious Life in Monasteries.  
The last Canon imports, That the next Neighbouring Suffragans of the Archbishop of Toledo shall come every Month into that Town, except in Vacation, and Vintage-times.   

Council of Lateran against the Monothelites under Martin I.  
THE Mystery of Christ's Incarnation, which since Nestorius' Quarrel, had always afforded matter of dispute between the Bishops, produced a new one in this 7th Century, which for a time divided the Eastern and Western Churches. The business was no more 
Council of Lateran.  about the Question of the Two Natures and One Person in Christ, the Authority of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, which had decided those Two Points, was received by all the Patriarches; and they that would not agree upon those Truths, were looked upon as Heretics, both in the East and the West. But about the Year 620, they stirred up another Question, whether they should say, That there were Two Operations, and Two Wills in Christ, as Two Natures are said to be in him. Theodorus Bishop of 
* [A City of Arabia, Petr●a.]  Pharan was the first, who expressing himself upon that Question, maintained, that the Manhood in Christ was so united to the Word, that, tho' it had its Faculties, it did not Act by itself, but the whole▪ Act was to be ascribed to the Word, which gave it the motion. Cyrus' Bishop of Phasis, embraced that Opinion, and expressed himself about it in the same manner, denying there were Two Operations in Christ, and affirming, that they were reduced to one principal Operation. Not that they denied, that Human Actions and Passions were in Christ; but they affirmed, that they were to be attributed to the Word, as to the principal Mover, whose Instrument only the Man was. As for instance, they confessed, It was the Manhood of Christ that suffered Hunger, and Thirst, and Pain; but they asserted, that Hunger, Thirst, and Pain, were to be ascribed to the Person of the Word. In a word, that the Word was the Author and Mover of all the Operations and Wills of Christ. Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, was of the same mind; and the Emperor Heraclius embraced that Party so much the more willingly, because he believed it to be a means to bring the Jacobites, Severians, and Acephali, back again to the Unity of the Church, by yielding to them part of what they contended for, and to oppose them more easily, by overthrowing the Foundation of one of their strongest Objections. And indeed, having had a Conference in the Year 622 with a Severian Bishop of Armenia, Named Paul, he maintained against him, that there were Two Natures in Christ: But he confessed, that they should acknowledge but One Operation only in him; and the better to confirm that Question, he made a Declaration, directed to Arcadius' Archbishop of Cyprus, against this Paul, and the rest of the Acephali, whereby he did forbid them to say, that there were Two Operations, or Two Wills in Christ.  
In another Conference, which Heraclius had with Athanasius, the Universal Patriarch of the Jacobites in 629. He promised him to make him Patriarch of Antioch, if he would receive the Synod of Chalcedon, and own Two Natures in Christ. But he asked the Emperor, whether they should say, that the Operations of Christ were double, or simple. Hereupon Heraclius consulted Sergius of Constantinople, and Cyrus, who did both agree, that they should own in Christ but one only Deivirile Operation.  
Cyrus' having thus declared himself Head of a Party, was soon transferred from his small Bishopric to the Patriarchate of Alexandria. Being raised up to that See, he reunited the Theodosians, or Jacobites, by Publishing some Articles, among which there was one only Operation Theandrick, or Deivirile, in Christ's Person; that reunion being made in June, 633. Cyrus' acquainted Sergius with it. Sophronius, who was afterwards Patriarch of Jerusalem, opposed it stoutly, and going away from Alexandria, came to Constantinople to Expostulate the matter with Sergius, whom he found in the same Opinion with Cyrus. But this feigning himself to be a Peacemaker, writ to Cyrus to forbear saying, There was One or Two Wills in Jesus Christ, and enjoined the same thing to Sophronius, seeking thus to extinguish that dispute. Sophronius requested a Writing from Sergius upon that Subject, and Sergius gave him a Letter, a copy whereof he sent to Honorius Bishop of Rome, together with the Letter he writ to him about that Question, in which he related to him that dispute, set him down the state of the Question, let him know how he did think fit to proceed in it, to stifle it in its Cradle, and desired him to write to him what he thought of it.  
Honorius Answered him, That he did approve of the Caution he used in it, and the suppressing of the terms of One or of Two Operations, declaring he did own Two Natures in Christ, and yet that he confessed but One Will in him.  
In the mean while, Sophronius, being advanced to the See of Jerusalem, notwithstanding the consent of the other Patriarches, wrote a long Synodical Letter to Sergius, to maintain the Doctrine of the Two Wills, and before he Died he sent Stephen, Bishop of Dora, to Rome, vigorously to defend this Opinion, and to get the contrary Opinion condemned.  
After Honorius' Death, Heraclius the Emperor Published a Declaration entitled, Ecthesis, or, An Exposition of the Faith, in which he enjoined silence about that Question. Sergius, the true Author of that Exposition, approved it, and Died soon after in 639, leaving Pyrrhus for his Successor, who was of the same Opinion.  
It was not so with Honorius' Successors. Severian, who sat but a little while upon the Roman See, refused to approve the Ecthesis, and John iv did plainly condemn it. At last Heraclius died in March 641. his Son Constantine lived but 4 Months, and Constans succeeded him the same year. Then Pyrrhus was expelled, as we have said, out of Constantinople, and Paul put in his place, who was not less zealous for the Party of the Monothelites than Pyrrhus. Pope Theodorus endeavoured to re-establish him, because he had feigned that his Mind was altered, and demanded that the Ecthesis should be abolished: But Constans set out a Declaration [which he called The Type] like that of Heraclius, whereby he did command silence about the question of the two Operations and the two Wills in Christ. This was published at Constantinople in 648. and in the beginning of the next year Pope Theodorus died.  
Martin I. of that Name succeeded him, and was ordained in July: He called a Council at Rome presently, about the question of the two Operations and the two Wills. It was held in Constantine's Church: 10● Bishops of Italy were present at it, among whom were Maximus, Patriarch of Aquileia, Deusdedit, Bishop of Calaris, and a Bishop and a Presbyter, Deputies of the Archbishop of Rave●●●.  
It was finished in 5 Actions, Sessions or Conferences.  
The 1st. was held October 5th. 649. Theophylact, the first of the Notaries, having desired 
Act. I.  Pope Martin, to tell the Assembly the occasion of his calling this Synod, and what the matter was, he said, it was to oppose the Novelties and Errors published by Cyrus, Bishop of Alexandria, and Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, and defended by Pyrrhus and Paul, Successors of Sergius: That 18 Years ago, Cyrus had published 9 Articles in Alexandria, pronouncing Anathema against those that should not hold them, wherein he asserted one Operation only in Christ, as well of his Godhead as of his Manhood; That Sergius had approved this Doctrine in a Letter to Cyrus, and had confirmed it since, by making, under the Emperor Heraclius' name, an Heretical Exposition of Faith. He adds, that it follows from this Doctrine, That there is but one Will and one Nature in Jesus Christ, because the Holy Fathers have acknowledged, that when there was but one Operation, there was also but one Nature. Hereupon he citys the Testimonies of S. Basil, S. Cyril and S. Leo, proving that the two Natures in Jesus Christ have each of them their several Operations. He charges Sergius with having opposed this Doctrine, by setting out Heraclius' Exposition of the Faith, and confirming it by his approbation, and that of other Bishops. As for Pyrrhus and Paul, he says, they have made things worse; the first, by obtruding that Exposition of Faith upon many, whom he drew into his Opinion by Fear or Kindness; That he had indeed renounced that Error, and presented a Retractation to the Holy See; but he soon relapsed into his Heresy. In fine, That Paul had not only maintained this Error in a Letter written to the Holy See, but had also opposed the sound Doctrine by writing; and that, after Sergius' Example, he had moved the Emperor to make a new Exposition of Faith, called the Type, which did overthrow the Doctrine of all the Fathers, by forbidding to profess one or two Wills in Jesus Christ; That he had even ventured to take away the Altar consecrated in the Church of S. Placidia, and hindered the Apocrisiarii of the Roman Church to offer thereon, or to receive the Sacraments; That he had persecuted them and several Bishops, Defenders of the Orthodox Faith, causing some to be banished, others imprisoned, and some abused; That Complaints of these things having been made at several times to the Holy See, and to his Predecessors, they used Letters, Advertisements, Threaten, Protestations, to repress those Novelties, and re-establish the sound Doctrine; but all these means having proved in vain, he did think it necessary to call them together, to the end, that having produced and examined the Writings of those Heretics, and heard the Charges brought against them, they might pass their Judgement for the confirmation of the Faith, and rejecting of Error. Maurus, Bishop of Cesena, and Deusdedit, Deacon of Ravenna, told them, in the Archbishop of Ravenna's name, That having heard the same things from his Apocrisiarii, he designed to come to the Council; but being hindered from coming, he had sent them, as his Representatives, and had given them a Letter, which they required to have read, and inserted in the Acts. It is directed to Martin, to whom he gives the Title of 
gg [Universal Bishop.] This Title, which is here given to M●●tin, Bishop of Rome, doth not import, as is pretended by the Church of Rome, the absolute Supremacy of that Bishop over the whole Church, but only the large extent of his Jurisdiction above all other Bishops, as a great Patr●areh. For we find the like Titles given to the other Patriarches, not only by private Persons and Councils, but even by the Bishops of Rome themselves. For thus the 5th. Council of Constantinople salutes 〈◊〉, and John their Patriarches; ●cumenico Patriarchae, 
Conc. Constantinop. 5. Act. 1. Nic●ph. l. 14. c. 34. Authen. Const. 3.  Joanni— Me●●a. To the Universal Patriarch, John— Me●a●. So Nicephorus calls the Patriarch of Alexandria, Judex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; The Judge of the whole World. And the Emperor Justinian writing to Epiphanius▪ Patriarch of Constantinople, thus superscribes, Epiphani● oeoumenico Patriarchae; To Epiphanius the Universal Patriarch. No● doth the Bishop of Rome himself look upon it so much his own peculiar Title, but that he thinks it due to The●●s●us, Bishop of Constantinople, writing thus, to him: Therasio Generali Patriarchae Adrianus servus servorum Dei; To Therasius the general Patriarch, Adrian the meanest of God's Servants. So evident is it, That this great Title of Universal Bishop imports no such 
Conc. Nicen. 2. Act. 2. Greg Magn. l. 4. Ep. 34.  Pre-eminence as is pretended, and though the Title was commonly used, yet it was thought an Antichristian Usurpation in John Bishop of Constantinople, to assume such a Power and Prerogative to himself.]  Universal Bishop: After having excused himself for not coming in Person to the Council, he declareth, That he rejects the Exposition of Faith, defended by Pyrrhus, and all that was done in confirmation of it; and professeth to believe two Operations and two Wills in Jesus Christ.  
Maximus, Bishop of Aquileia, said, he was also of the same Mind, and believed two Operations in Christ. Deusdedit, Bishop of Calaris, requested that this Matter might be searched to the bottom, and all the Bishops were of that mind.  
This Examination was begun in the second Action, which is of the 8th. of October. Steven, Bishop of Dora, of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, presented a Petition, in which he sets forth, 
Act. II.  That Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus and Paul, have published a new Heresy, teaching, That there was but one Operation and one Will in Christ, both of the Godhead and Manhood; That Sophronius, of blessed Memory, Patriarch of Jerusalem, opposed that Error vigorously, and had made a Writing, in which he alleged an infinite number of the Holy Father's Testimonies, to convince them of Impiety, and to establish the Truth; That before he died, he had made him to promise him upon the Calvary, that he would go to Rome, to solicit the Condemnation of this Error; That he had performed his Promise, notwithstanding all their endeavours to hinder him from it; That he had already demanded it of Theodorus, and did renew his request to the Council.  
Some Greek Presbyters and Monks, who had been a while at Rome, presented also a Petition against Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus and Paul, against the Ecthesis, the Type and the Doctrine of one Operation only, and desired the Council, carefully to examine that Question, and to determine it according to the Doctrine of the Church. Then Sergius' Letter to Theodorus was read, written in 643. wherein this Patriarch, having extolled the Authority of the Holy See, declares, That he follows Pope S. Leo's Doctrine, who taught, That the two Natures do operate in Jesus Christ, but in conjunction one with another; That he does anathematise and condemn all those, that do not hold this Doctrine. The rest of this Action was spent in reading 4 Synodical Letters sent by the African Bishops, against the Monothelite's Exposition of Faith, one whereof is directed to Pope Theodorus, the other to the Emperor, the 3d. to Paul of Constantinople. They allege, in this last, the Testimonies of S. Austin and S. Ambrose, to prove the two Wills. The last Letter is Victor's, Bishop of Carthage, to Theodorus, upon the same Subject.  
In the 3d. Action of the 16th. of October, they produced the Extracts of the Works of 
Act. III.  those who were accused of Error. They begin with those of Theodorus, Bishop of Pharan, who owns many sorts of Operations in Christ, but affirms, They all proceed from the Word, which gives motion to the Body, Soul, and the other Faculties of the humane Nature, as an Instrument which he maketh use of. Martin the First confutes his Opinion, to which he opposes some Testimonies of S. Cyril, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Basil, and the Council of Chalcedon. Cyrus succeeds Theodorus. They read his 7th. Article, wherein he owns two Natures in Jesus Christ, but united in one Christ, who doth that which is divine, and that which is humane by one Theandrick or Deivirile Action, according to 
* [S. Dion▪ Ep. ad Catum.]  S. Denys. They join to this Article, Sergius his Letter to Cyrus, wherein he approves this Doctrine, and congratulates with him, for the reunion of the Theodosians with him. Upon occasion of S. Denies citation, they consulted the original, and they found, that Cyrus and Sergius had changed the Terms of 
* [Novam Deivirilem Operationem, into Unam Deiv. operationem.]  New Will Theandrick, into that of One Will Theandrick. They compared their Expression with Themistius', and they proved, by some Passages of that Heretic, That Severus and he were the first that said, There was but one Deivirile operation in Jesus Christ. They explain the meaning of the Deivirile operation, and they say, 'tis nothing else but two sorts of operations of the same Person, whichyet proceed from two different Natures (viz. God and Man.)  
This being examined, they read the Emperor Heraclius' Exposition of the Faith, known by the Name of Ecthesis, in which he forbids this Expression, That there is one or two Operations in Christ, and commands them to say, That 'tis the same Son thato perates in Christ the divine and humane Operations; that altho' some of the Fathers have said, There is but one Operation, it is better to forbear that Expression, lest it be thought, That they would deny the existence of the two Natures; and that it must not be said neither, That there are two Operations in Christ, because this Expression, being not used by the Fathers, does offend many, who think, they admit two contrary Wills in Christ. To this Ecthesis they add the Acts of Approbation given by Paul and Pyrrhus, and the Letter of Cyrus of Alexandria to Sergius, wherein he commends the Emperor for making that Exposition of Faith.  
In the 4th. Action, held the 19th. of October, Martin gave a short Account of what Cyrus, Sergius and Paul, had done against the Doctrine of the Church; and that he might fully convince 
Act. IU.  Paul, their Successor, of the same Impiety, he caused his Letter to Pope Theodorus to be read, wherein, delivering his Opinion; he says, That he owns one Will in Jesus Christ, only to take away the contrariety of Wills, but does not intent to confound the two Natures: That Christ's Soul, endowed with its Intellect and Faculties, is led and moved by the Will of the Word, which causes it to act and to will as he pleases. He adds, That S. Cyril did deliver this Doctrine, and that Sergius and Honorius did newly teach it; That he stands to their decision, and is wholly of their Mind. Then was read the Emperor's Type, forbidding to speak or dispute about the question of one or two Operations, or of two Wills, that he might secure the Peace of the Church. The Council commends the Emperor's intention, but disproves part of his Edict.  
After they had read over all the Monuments they intended to condemn, they caused the Creeds of the Councils of Nice and Constantinople, and the definitions of Faith of the Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and of the 5th. Council, to be recited.  
In the 5th. Action, held the last day of October, they read the Testimonies of the Greek and Latin Fathers, proving either directly or by consequence, That there are in Christ two Wills 
Act. V.  and two Operations; and, on the other side, they produced some Passages of several Heretics, who had taught but one Will in Christ.  
After that, Maximus of Aquileia, Deusdedit of Calaris, and Martin delivered their Judgements, alleging many Reasons against the opinion of the Monothelites; the whole Council approved it, acknowledging two Operations and two Wills, and made 20 Articles against the Error of the Monothelites, in the 18th. whereof it does anathematise Theodorus, Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and all them that are or shall be of their Opinion.  
Pope Martin published these Decrees by a circular Letter, directed to all the Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, Abbots, Monks, and to the whole Church; and wrote of it particularly to several Bishops, as it may be seen in the Extract of his Letters.  
This Council of Rome provoked Constans against Pope Martin, because this Emperor looked upon this Attempt, and the condemnation of his Type, as a kind of Rebellion, and an encroachment upon his Authority. He caused this Pope to be violently carried away from Rome in 653. and after most cruel usage, banished him to Chersona. After his departure, the Romans chose Eugenius in his room, in September 653. who did not openly consent to the Error of the Monothelites: But his Apocrisiarii were forced to unite themselves with the Monothelites, who altering their Carriage and Expressions, said, That there was in Christ one and two Wills. At first they did say, That there was in Christ but one Operation and one Will; afterwards they would not have Men to speak of one or two Operations, and approved one only Will. The Type imposed silence about that question, both as to the Operations and to the Wills. At last to comply with all, they would have it free for Men to say, That there was in Christ one and two Wills. Peter, who was chosen Patriarch of Constantinople in Pyrrhus' room, who got up again to that See after Paul's death, was of this Judgement, and many followed that Opinion. But, altho' these were different Expressions, yet they came up to the same thing, and did all tend to the same end, which was to tolerate the Doctrine of one Operation and one Will, and to make it run equal with that of the two Operations and the two Wills, so that every one might follow that which he liked best.  
Yet all this condescension did not procure the reunion of the Eastern and Western Churches; for from Pope Theodosius' time they continued divided, and the Popes sent no more Letters of Communion to the Patriarches of the East, nor the Patriarches of the East to the Pope. It was to take away this kind of Schism that the Emperor Constantinus Pogonatus appointed the Third Council of Constantinople, which is reckoned the 6th. General, of which we are going to write the History.   

Council III. of Constantinople, 6th. General.  
COnstantinus Pogonatus appointed this Council, for the reuniting of the Churches of the East and the West, and the final determination of the Question of the two Operations, and the 
Council III. of Constantinople.  two Wills in Christ. He wrote to the Pope a Letter, dated the 12th. of August 678. directed to Donus, whom he supposed still living, and it was delivered to his successor Agatho. This Pope having received the Emperor's Letter, held a Council at Rome, of 125. Bishops of the West, which determined the Doctrine of the two Wills, and confirmed what was done under Martin. There were at this Council, besides the Bishops of Italy, some Deputies of the Churches of France and England. After the holding of this Council, the Deputies of the Holy See, and the Council departed, to go to Constantinople, to carry their Decision. After they were come, the Emperor gave order to the Patriarches, to come to the Council, and also to bring the Bishops of their Patriarchate thither. It begun the thirteenth Year of the Empire of Constantine, in the Year 680. Indiction 9th. in November, and was ended after eighteen Meetings or Sessions, the 16th. of September of the next Year, Indiction 10th. The Emperor had the first Place there, and was present at the eleven first Sessions, and at the last: He was accompanied by the Consuls and Officers. The Patriarches of Constantinople and Antioch were there in person; those of Rome, Alexandria and Jerusalem by their Deputies, and all the Western Bishops by three Bishops sent by the Council of Rome, with several Bishops of the East, whereof the number increased by little and little, as they came to Constantinople; For in the beginning they were but between 30 and 40. and in the end there were found above 160 of them.  
The Acts of the Council began with the Emperor's Letter to Pope Donus; in which he represents to him, his Sorrow to see the Eastern Church divided from the Western: That Theodorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, of blessed Memory, would not send a Synodical Letter to the Holy Se●, according to the Custom, for fear it should nor be received; and that he contented himself to direct a Letter to him, in the Form of an Exhortation: That that Patriarch and Macarius Patriarch of Antioch, being consulted, why the Church was thus divided, seeing all the Bishops received the Definitions of the five General Councils, and the Doctrine of the Fathers, and rejected all Heresies: They answered, the Contest came from some new Expressions, brought in, either out of Ignorance, or out of a Desire of piercing too deep into the unsearchable Works of the Lord: That the Sees of Rome and Constantinople disagreeing about this, they remained divided. He exhorts the Pope not to suffer this Division, about inconsiderable Points, to continue for ever; and invites him to send some able Legates to the Synod, with necessary Instructions and Books, promising he would cause them to be received, and be equally favourable to both Parties. He tells them, he thinks three Men will be enough to hold his Place, with twelve Archbishops or Bishops, in the Name of his Council. He adds, That he had been desired by the Patriarches of Constantinople and Antioch, to give them Leave to take Vitalian's Name out of the Diptychs, and to leave none but that of Honorius, because the Bishops of Rome, his Successors, had differed from the Eastern Churches; but that he would not suffer them to do it: And that he could assure him, that the Names of Honorius and Vitalian were left in the Diptychs.  
There is a second Letter of the Emperor, dated September 10th. 680. directed to George of Constantinople; wherein he order him, immediately to bring the Bishops and Archbishops to Constantinople, and to send Word to Macarius, to bring likewise those of his Synod.  
The third Piece is a Latin Letter of Mansuetus, Bishop of Milan, which he wrote to the Emperor, in the Name of the Synod held at Milan; in which he exhorts him to imitate the Zeal of Constantine the Great, for the Faith; and beginning with Arius' Heresy, and the Nicene Council, he maketh a compendious History of the other Errors, condemned in the five first Councils, held by the Authority of the Christian Emperors: He assures him, that they do hold and maintain the Definitions of those Councils, and the Doctrine of the Holy Orthodox Fathers. To this Letter is annexed their Confession of Faith; in which, having asserted two Natures in Christ, they add, That there be also two natural Wills and two Operations. With these Letters they sent some Deputies from the Pope and the Synod: The Pope sent two Presbyters, named Theodorus and George, and a Deacon named John; and the Bishops of the Council sent three Bishops in their Name to the Synod of Constantinople. When these Deputies were arrived at Constantinople, and had saluted the Emperor, September 10th. 680. he gave an order, directed to George of Constantinople, whom he styles Ecumenical Patriarch, (as he had styled the Pope Ecumenical Pope) wherein he commands him immediately to bring the Archbishops and Bishops to Constantinople, and to send Word to Macarius of Antioch, to bring those of his Synod.  
The first Action of the Council began the the 7th of November 680. in the Emperor's Palace. It is said, he presided in the Assembly, that his Counsellors or Officers were present at it, and 
Act. i.  that the Synod was called by the Emperor's Order. The three Legates of the Pope held the first Place among the Bishops of the Council, George Patriarch of Constantinople the second, the Deputy of the Church of Alexandria the third, Macarius of Antioch the fourth, the Deputy of the Patriarch of Jerusalem the fifth, the Bishops Deputies of the Synod of Rome the sixth; next after them were the Deputies of the Church of Ravenna, and about 32. Bishops, with some Abbots.  
After they were set down, the Legates of the Pope, and of the Synod of the West said, That they were sent by the Pope and the Council of Rome, and that they brought two Letters with them, which they had delivered to the Emperor: That seeing the Difference came from this, That the Patriarches of Constantinople had invented and maintained Novelties, by teaching, That there was but one Will and one Operation in Christ, those of their Party ought to show the Grounds of this new Doctrine. Macarius' answered, in the Name of the Churches of Constantinople and Antioch, That they had invented no Novelties, and did teach nothing but what they had learned from the Holy Fathers, as they are expounded by Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter their Patriarches, by Honorius Pope of Rome, and by Cyrus' Patriarch of Alexandria; That they were ready to defend this Doctrine by the general Synods and the Fathers, whose Authority was owned. The Emperor commanded them to do so, and the Acts of the Reumenical Councils to be brought. Those of the Council of Ephesus were read, and Macarius thinking to have found there a Place favouring his Opinion in S. Cyril's Letter to Theodosius, where Christ's Will is said to be Omnipotent; he would have inferred from thence, that there was but one Will in Christ. But the Western Deputies, some Bishops, and the Judges themselves took notice, That the Will of the Word only was spoken of there, and not the Divine and Human Will in Christ; then they read over the Acts of the Council of Ephesus.  
In the second Session, held the 10th. of November, the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon were read, and when they came to S. Leo's Letter, the Pope's Legates maintained, That there 
Act. i●.  was a Place where that Pope established two Wills and two Operations. Macarius contrariwise affirmed, That the Passage of S. Leo proved only, That there was in Christ one Operation Theandrick.  
In the third, of the 13th. of the same Month, they began to read the Acts of the fifth Council: At the Head of which there was a Discourse written under the Name of Mennas, to Vigilius. The Pope's Legares maintained it to be supposititious, and to have been added a little while ago to the Acts of the fifth Council; which they proved, because Mennas died the 21st. Year of Justinian, and the fifth Council was not held till in the 27th. Year of the same Emperor: And indeed the Judges and the Bishops examining the Sheets which they were 
Act. iii.  reading, they found three prefixed to the beginning without Ciphers, and written by a different Hand. Whereupon they left out that Discourse of Mennas, and set themselves to the reading of the Acts of the fifth Council. In them they found a Letter of Vigilius, in which he asserted one only Operation in Christ; but the Legates denied it to be his, and when they went on in the reading of the Council, they found that in the Definition there was no mention of one Operation. The reading of the Acts of the Council being finished; the Bishops and the Judges declared, That they had not found it defined, that there was but one Operation and one will in Christ.  
The fourth Action was held the 15th. of the same Month: In it the Letters of Agatho, and 
Act. iv.  of the Council of Rome, to the Emperors Constantine, Heraclius and Tiberius, were read. The first contains very large Proofs of the Doctrine of the two Wills, taken out of the Holy Scripture and the Fathers: He does plainly condemn the Monothelites, and particularly Theodorus, Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter: He speaks very respectfully of the Emperors, and very advantageously of his own See: He says, The Apostolic Church of Rome never fell into Error, that it never was depraved by Heresy: That the Fathers and Synods have followed her Decisions, and that his Predecessors have always confirmed their Brethren in the Faith. They might have opposed to him the late Instance of Honorius, who seemed to be as guilty as those he did so severely condemn, and who was not spared in the Council of Constantinople. The Letter of the Roman Council contains a Confession of Faith, in which they acknowledge two Operations and two Wills in Christ: After that they condemn the Doctrine of the Monothelites, and the Bishops condemned in Agatho's Letter; and they approve what was done in the Synod held under Martin I. This Letter is subscribed by 25 Bishops, most of them of Italy; there be some of France also, and Wilfride subscribes in the Name of the Bishops of England. They tell us, That they hoped that Theodorus of Canterbury and several other Bishops, would have come thither, but could not; and that they might be assured that all the Bishops of the West and the North were in the same Opinion, and held the same Faith.  
The fifth Action was held the 7th. of December. Macarius presented two Sheets of Quotations 
Act. v.  of the Fathers, which were read in the Council.  
He presented also a third in the next Action, which was held the 12th. of February. The 
Act. vi.  Emperor ordered all the three Sheets to be sealed with the Seals of the Judges of the Church of Rome, and the Church of Constantinople. The Pope's Deputies maintained, That none of those Testimonies proved one Will or one Operation in Christ; that they had falsified most of them; and that some of them were only to be understood of the Will of the three Persons in the Trinity. They required them to produce the Authentic Books out of which those Passages were taken, that they might lay open the Cheat; and that they might be permitted to peruse the Collection of the Passages they had made, to prove two Wills and two Operations in Christ.  
In the seventh Action of the 13th. of February, of the Year 681. Agatho's Deputies presented 
Act. seven.  a Sheet, containing the Testimonies of the Fathers, confirming the Doctrine of the two Wills. They asked Macarius if he received Agatho's Letter, and the Definition of the Council of Rome. Macarius and George required the Sheet, containing the Passages of the Fathers, might be communicated to them, to compare them with the Originals, which were in the Patriarch of Constantinople's Library.  
In the eighth Action, of the 7th. of March, the Bishop of Constantinople having examined 
Act. viij.  Agatho's Letter, and the Passages of the Fathers, declared that he was of the same Mind with the Pope, and the other Bishops of the West. All the Bishops of his Patriarchate made the same Declarations, except Theodorus Bishop of Melitina; who presented a Memoir in the Name of himself and three Bishops more, of some Officers of the Church of Constantinople, and of Steven a Presbyter and Monk of Antioch; wherein he requested, That neither Party might be condemned, seeing the general Councils had pronounced nothing hitherto about the two Wills. This Memoir was disowned by those in whose Name it was presented, excepting Stephen, the Monk of Antioch. Nevertheless, Constantine told them, That for the full Satisfaction of the Council, they ought to bring a Profession of Faith in the next Action. Hereupon George came near the Emperor, and prayed him, to order Vitalian's Name to be put into the Diptychs again, which had been crossed out, only by reason of the Delay of the Apocrisiarii of Rome, sent to Constantinople. The Emperor ordered it to be done forthwith, and his Order was approved by the Exclamations of the Bishops, who wished him a long Life, as also to Pope Agatho, and to George Patriarch of Constantinople. There remained none but Macarius and those of his Patriarchate, who had not declared themselves: The Council having obliged this Patriarch to deliver his Opinion, he declared, That he did not own two Wills nor two Operations in Christ, but one only Operation and one Will Deivirile. After that Declaration, he was ordered to rise up out of his Place to make answer: Four Bishops of his Patriarchate forsook him, and received Agatho's Letter and Doctrine. They produced two Professions of Faith of Macarius. In the latter, which is the longer, after having explained himself very clearly, about the distinction of the two Natures, he says, it is the same Person that acts and suffers; that it is God that acts and suffers by the Manhood, and according to his divine Will, which only acts in Jesus Christ, it being impossible there should be in him two contrary or like Wills. He adds, for a Proof of his Assertion, that in the celebration of the unbloody Mysteries, in our Churches, we are made Partakers of Christ's Body and Blood, which is not a Man's Flesh, but the quickening Flesh of the Word. He condemns all Heretics till Honorius, Sergius and Paul; which he commends as Teachers of the Truth. Macarius owns in the Council these Professions of Faith, and protests he will suffer himself to be torn in pieces, or thrown into the Sea, rather than own two Wills and two natural Operations in Christ: Then they examined all the Testimonies, which he had alleged, and it was found that he had falsified them; which provoked the Bishop's Indignation against him, insomuch that they deposed him.  
In the next Action, held the eighth of March, they went on in the Examination of the Quorations alleged by Macarius, and received the Declaration of Theodorus of Melitina, and 
Act. ix.  of the Bishops and Clerks that had approved his Memoir; wherein they promised to give a Profession of Faith in the next Action.  
The tenth Action was held the 18th. of March: They read the Father's Testimonies, alleged by Pope Agatho, which were found right quoted. They received also the Profession of 
Act. x.  Faith of the four Bishops, suspected of favouring Macarius' Party.  
In the eleventh Action, which was more numerous than the former, the Deputy of the 
Act. xi.  Church of Jerusalem required, That the Synodical Letter of Sophronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, might be read; which was read: And after that the Writing which Macarius had directed to the Emperor, although, contrary to the Custom, he had sent it to Rome and to Sardinia, before it was read in the Senate. At the end of this Session the Emperor declared, That being called out by State Affairs, he had ordered two Noblemen and two 
* [Persons who had been formerly Consul●.]  Exconsuls' to be present in his stead at the following Sessions, at which he was not in Person, except the last.  
In the twelfth Action, held the 20th of March, they read a long Memoir of Macarius', 
Act. xii.  containing the Letters of the Bishops of his Party. The first is a Letter of Sergius to Cyrus, in which he consults him about the Emperor's Prohibition of admitting two Wills in Christ. He answers him, That Question was not decided by any Council; That S. Cyril and Vigilius own but one Will, yet that the two Wills ought not to be condemned, if it was found that some of the Fathers had spoken of them.  
The second is a Letter of Sergius to Pope Honorius, in which he maintains, That they ought to forbear speaking of one or two Wills.  
The third is Honorius' Answer to the former Letter, which approveth the Suppressing of those Expressions, which he thinks to be new, nothing of them being found in the Scripture, in the Councils, nor in the Fathers. These Letters were examined from the Originals kept at Constantinople, and being found true and genuine, it was ordered that they should be examined in the following Actions. The Judges asked the Emperor, Whether Macarius might be restored, in case he should repent and alter his Mind. The Council required, That by reason of the heady Zeal which he had showed, he should remain deposed, without Hope of Restauration, and be banished; and the Clergy of Antioch desired another Bishop might be put in his room.  
In the thirteenth Session, of the 28th of March, Sergius and Honorius' Letters were read over again. They declared, That this last had wholly followed Sergius' impious Doctrine, 
Act. xiii.  and they anathematised him. The Judges ask, Why they did also condemn Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter and Paul: The Council answered immediately, That their Heresy was manifest, and that Pope Agatho did sufficiently discover it. Nevertheless, it was agreed upon, That their Writings should be examined: Therefore they immediately read two Letters of Cyrus to Sergius, the Capitula he had got the Theodosians to subscribe, some Extracts of his Sermons and of Theodorus', a Writing of Pyrrhus', some Letters of Peter and Paul of Constantinople, proving that those Bishops admitted but one Will and one Operation in Jesus Christ; hereupon the Council declared, That Agatho had justly condemned them, that they also did condemn them, and reject their Errors, and would have their Names blotted out of the Diptychs. As for the Successors of Paul, Thomas, John and Constantine, they read their synodical Letters, and nothing was found in them contrary to the Faith. George, Library-keeper of Constantinople, swore, That they had not put Men to subscribe, that there was but one Operation in Christ, therefore they were absolved. This Action ended with the Reading of the second Letter, directed to Sergius and Cyrus; in which he does equally reject the Opinions of one or of two Wills in Jesus Christ; and intimateth, That Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, promised him to speak no more of two Wills, provided that Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria. would speak no more of one Will.  
In the next place they read three Writings, the one, under the Name of Mennas, to Vigilius, and the other under the Name of Vigilius, to the Emperor Justinian and the Empress 
Act. xiv.  Theodora, which they maintained to be supposititious. George, the keeper of the Rolls, or Library-keeper, brought out a Copy of the fifth Council, in which they were not found. It was made appear, That the M●…thelites had added those Writings, which were not subscribed, as the rest of the Acts of the Council were, and George, a Monk of the Patriarchate of Antioch, who had written them, having owned his own Hand, declared that Stephen, Macarius' Disciple, had got him to transcribe those three Writings; telling him, That the Copies of the fifth Council, where they were not found, were defective. Paul of Constantinople had caused the same Addition to be made to the Latin Copy of the fifth Council; which was acknowledged by Constantine, a Presbyter, who transcribed it: These Writings were condemned and the Composers of them. Afterward they examined a long Passage of a Sermon of S. Athanasius upon these Words; Nunc anima mea turbata est valde; in which the Doctrine of the two Wills is strongly maintained.  
In the fifteenth Action, of the 26th of April, Polychronius, a Presbyter and Monk, presented a Confession of Faith, figned by him; wherein he owned but one Will in Christ. 
Act. xv.  He said, That he had been confirmed in this Opinion in a Vision, by a tall Man, clad in white, full of Brightness and Majesty, who told him, 'Twas an unchristian thing to think otherwise: He had seduced several Persons, and was so zealous in his Opinion, that he promised to raise a dead Man to Life again, to prove the Truth of his Doctrine; notwithstanding he attempted it in vain, and made himself to be laughed at and to be anathematised by the Council, which deposed him.  
In the sixteenth Session, held the 9th. of August, Constantine, a Presbyter of Apamea, the 
Act. xuj.  Metropolis of the second Syria, being come to give an account of his Faith, said; That he did confess two Natures in Jesus Christ, and the Properties of both his Natures; that he did not question so much as the two Operations, but he could own but one Will of the Word. They asked him, Whether he would not admit an human Will also. He confessed, That Jesus Christ had a natural human Will till he was crucified, but since his Resurrection, he had it no more; and as he put off his Mortal Flesh, his Blood, and the Weakness of the Humane Nature, by the same Reason, he had no more a Humane Will, according to Flesh and Blood. He declared, That Macarius was of this Opinion, and persisting in it himself, he was condemned by the Council, as an Apolinarist. George, Patriarch of Constantinople, did then require, in his own Name, and in the Name of the Bishops of his Patriarchate, That they would spare, if it were possible, the Names of his Predecessors, and not comprehend them in the anathemas: But the Council declared, That since they had been blotted out of the Diptychs, they ought also to be anathematised every one by Name.  
In the seventeenth Action they propounded the Definition of Faith, which was read over 
Act. xvii.  again, approved and signed in the eighteenth, held the 16th of September, 681. Indict X. at which the Emperor was present in Person. They received the Definitions of the five first General Councils, and particularly that of the fifth Council against Origen, against Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and against Theodoret's Writings, and Ibas' Letter. They recite the Creeds of Nice and Constantinople, and the Council approving the Definition of the Council, held at Rome, and Agatho's Letter, adds, That there are two Natural Wills and two Operations in Jesus Christ, in one Person, without Division, without Mixture, and without Change. That these two Wills are not contrary, but the Humane Will follows the Divine Will, and is entirely subject to it. It prohibits teaching any other Doctrine, under Pain of Deposition to Bishops and Clerks, and of Excommunication to the Laity.  
This Definition is signed by the three Legates of Pope Agatho, by George, Patriarch of Constantinople, by the Legate of Peter of Alexandria, by Theophanes, the new Patriarch of Antioch, by the Legate of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, by the Legates of the Archbishops of Thessalonica, Cyprus and Ravenna, by the Deputies of the Council of Rome, and by 160 Bishops. The Emperor asked the Bishops, if this Definition was made and published by the Consent of all. They answered, They were all of this Judgement, that it was the Faith of the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Orthodox. Then they put up many Desires for the Preservation of their Prince, and pronounced Anathema against the ancient and modern Heretics, and among the rest, against Honorius, who is always named with the Patriarch- Monothelites.  
The Emperor protested, That he had no other Design, in calling this Council, than the Confirmation of the Orthodox Faith. He exhorted them, That if any of them had any thing to add to the Definition, which was newly published, they should allege it. Then all the Bishops having approved it again, they read a Discourse, addressed to the Emperor, in the Name of the Council, signed by all the Bishops, containing many Praises of his Piety and Religion. Then they prayed him to subscribe the Definition of Faith; he promised to do it, desired the Council to receive a Bishop of Sardinia, called Citonatus, who had been accused of attempting something against his Prince and the State, but was found innocent: The Council did it willingly. This is the Abridgement of the Acts of the sixth Council, of which the Emperor caused five Copies to be made for the five Patriarchal Churches.  
The Bishops of this Council, before their Departure, sent a Letter to Pope Agatho, in which they tell him; That being, as he was, the first Bishop of the Universal Church, they rely upon him for what remains to be done; that they have received and approved his Letter; that they made use of it to overthrow the Foundations of the new Heresy; that they have anathematised, as Heretics Theodorus of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Paul, Pyrrhus and Peter; and have condemned and deposed Macarius, late Patriarch of Antioch, as also his Disciple Stephen, and Polychronius, who maintained the same Impieties. They all show their grief, that they have been forced to come to this. Lastly, They say, that he will learn more at large by the Acts of the Council, and from his Legates, in what manner they have defended the Faith, which he had established in his Letter. This Letter is Signed by Four Patriarches, or their Deputies, by the Bishop of Thessalonica, by the Deputy of the Metropolitan of Cyprus, by the Metropolitan of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Primate of Pontus, by Citonatus, Bishop of Cagliari, by the Deputy of the Council of Rome, by Thirty One Metropolitans in their own Name, and in the Name of the Bishops of their Province, and by Thirteen Bishops.  
The Emperor, presently after the Council, set out an Edict against the Monothelites, wherein he maketh a Confession of Faith agreeable to that of the Council; he condemns Honorius, as having supported Cyrus and Sergius' Heresy in every thing, and he appoints divers punishments against those that shall be found maintaining this Error, Deposition, or rather Suspension, against Clerks and Monks; Proscription, and Deprivation of Employments, against Persons constituted in Charge and Dignity, and Banishment from all the Towns of the Empire, against private Persons.  
Agatho being Dead in 682, Constantine writ to Leo the Second his Successor. In this Letter he commends Agatho's; he tells him, That Macarius was the only Man that would not yield to the Decision of the Council, notwithstanding all his endeavours to recover him from his Error. He exhorts him to Excommunicate all those that shall be found in the Error of the Monothelices, and prays him to send some Apocrisiary to Constantinople, to be his Representatives there, and to act in his stead in all Ecclesiastical Affairs, both concerning the Discipline, and the Faith. He wrote also a Letter to the Bishops that had been present at the Council of Rome, where he speaks of the Union of the Bishops of the Council about the Faith, and the condemnation of Macarius. Leo confirmed by his Answer the Definition of the Council, and condemned Honorius by Name. Lastly, Justinian confirmed this Sixth Council by a Letter written to Pope John in 687, and caused the Acts of it to be Sealed in the presence of a great number of Clerks and Lay-Men, that there might be no alteration made in it.  
I need not enlarge here on the defence of the Acts of the Council, from the injurious Aspersions of Piggius, and the groundless Suspicions of Baronius. These Writers, devoted to the Court of Rome, could not endure to see Pope Honorius' Name among the Heretics condemned in this Council; and that was the cause, that moved the one openly to attack the Acts of the Council very rudely, and the other to charge them with Corruption. But the former says nothing against this Council, but what might be said against the first Nicene Council, and that of Chalcedon; all his Objections being grounded upon the Emperor's being present in this Council, with his Officers, and his appointing the order and manner of proceeding. It cannot be denied, but Constantine the First did the same in the Nicene Council; and in that of Chalcedon, the Emperor's Commissioners took more Authority upon themselves, and concerned themselves more in the do of that Council, than the Emperor himself had done in this. And so he cannot touch and blemish this Council, without Aspersing the other Councils at the same time; and would utterly overthrow the most solid grounds of our Faith, that he may support a pretended Infallibility in Honorius' Person.  
As to Baronius Fancy, it is founded upon such frivolous Conjectures, confuted by so Authentical proofs, that it hath been abandoned by all those that have not blindly followed that Author. He supposes, That Theodorus, George's Predecessor in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, having been condemned and deposed by the Council, had razed his own Name out of all the Acts of that Council, to put in Honorius'. But there can be nothing worse contrived than this Hypothesis.  
For First of all, 'tis a groundless supposition, That Theodorus was Anathematised or Deposed for Monothelism in the Council. It is evident, that he was not Bishop of Constantinople, when the Council began; no Author says, He was Deposed or Expelled for that Heresy; neither is it probable, that it was the cause of his leaving his See, seeing George, who was put in his room, was also a Monothelite.  
Secondly, Put the case Theodorus had been condemned by the Council, how is it likely, that he durst have ventured to falsify the Acts of the Council itself? And tho' he durst do it, it had been enough for him to cross out his own Name, without substituting that of Honorius; and put even the case, he could have taken that resolution, can it be thought, that he could have brought it about? How could he falsify all the Copies of the Acts of this Council, sent out to all the Patriarchal Sees? How could he bring the Emperor, the other Patriarches, and all the Bishops, to consent to this Cheat? Why did not the Legates and the Popes complain of this falsification? Why did they acknowledge after, that Honorius was condemned in the 6th Council? Why did they not discover this Imposture by the Copy of the Acts of the Council, which the Deputy of the Holy See brought, and which the Popes, Agatho's Successors, communicated to the Western Bishops, and which he sent into Spain? If they were corrupted, when he brought them, why did he suffer that Corruption? And why did the Pope's use them? If they were not corrupted, why did they not use them, to discover the Fraud of the Enemies of the Holy See?  
Thirdly, Honorius is found condemned in some places, where they could not have spoken of Theodorus. In the 13th Action, his Letter to Sergius is particularly censured, as contrary to the Apostolic Doctrine and the Definitions of the Councils. It cannot be said, this was spoken of Theodorus. In the 14th Action, his Letter to Sergius is again condemned, as perfectly agreeable to the Doctrines of the Heretics. In the 18th Action, his Letter is condemned to be burnt, as containing the same Heresy, and Impieties, as the other Writings of the Monothelites. In the same Session, he is condemned together with Sergius. Anathema to Sergius and Honorius, and after, Anathema to Pyrrhus and Paul. If Theodorus' Name had been put in the room of Honorius', they would not have placed him before Pyrrhus and Paul, but after them; Lastly, He is almost every where called Bishop of Rome. All this shows, there is nothing more unwarrantable than Baronius' conjecture.  
Fourthly, 'Tis a plain matter of Fact, that Honorius was condemned in the 6th Council. And of this we have proofs more than sufficient. The Council itself owns it in its Letter to the Pope; the Emperor in his Edict declares it. Agatho, who was one of the Notaries testifieth it in a relation which is in the end of a Manuscript of the 6th Council. Leo the Second, Agatho's Successor, asserts it in Three of his Letters; the whole Church of Rome acknowledges it in the forms of the Oath, which the Popes newly Elected are to take, and in her Ancient Liturgy; the Two General Councils following look upon this condemnation as true. Lastly, No Body ever questioned it, and consequently, Baronius' fancy must pass for a matchless piece of rashness. You will yet be more sensible of it, when you shall see the weakness of the proofs, whereon he found'st his bold conjecture. The first is a place of Pope Agatho's Letter, which says, the Apostolic Church of Rome did never swerve from the way of the Truth, and that his Predecessors did always confirm the Faith of their Brethren. This Letter, says he, having been read and approved in the Council, how is it likely, that after this they durst have condemned one of Agatho's Predecessors as an Heretic, or favourer of Heresy? If this Pope's Letter had contained but that one point, or it had been read in the Council to justify Honorius, this Objection might have some strength. But this being said, but by the by in Agatho's Letter, containing a long Exposition of the Faith of the Catholic Church, and a very great number of the Father's Testimonies and Reasons against the Error of the Monothelites; and the Council having caused it to be read, on purpose only, to know the Doctrine of the Holy See, and the Western Churches: It is evident, their approbation does not fall upon this particular place of his Letter, but upon the Exposition of Faith, and the Doctrine it contained. And tho' we should suppose, that the Council had taken notice of the Commendation which Agatho maketh of his Church, and his Predecessors, and had perceived that it was not absolutely and strictly true, they ought not upon this account to have refused their approbation of his Letter, nor excepted against this place of it. It were a silly thing to imagine, that a Council, called to decide a Question of Faith, should busy itself to wrangle about a Commendation slipped in by the Pope in his Letter in behalf of his Predecessors. But Pope Agatho's praises of his Predecessors in general ought not to be taken in a strict sense; for if we understand them so, all the World will see that they cannot be true; because it cannot be denied, but Liberius and Honorius did but weakly defend the Faith, as well as tolerate Error; they must then be understood in general of almost all Agatho's Predecessors, and not of all in particular, so that no exception could be made to it.  
Besides, it were an easy thing to retort Baronius' Argument upon himself. For if the commendations of Agatho's Letter ought to be taken strictly, as also the Council's approbation of it, so that it was not lawful for them to condemn those whose Religion and Piety he commends: How durst Baronius charge the Emperor Justinian with Heresy, Perfidiousness, and Impiety, since he is commended in Agatho's Letter, as a most Religious, Orthodox, and Godly Prince, whose Memory is had in Veneration among all Nations?  
But I stand too long upon so weak an Objection. He makes one more, which is not harder to solve. How is it possible, saith he, that the Pope's Legates who were present in this Council, should say nothing to vindicate Honorius? But, why would he have them, to engage in a bad cause? Honorius had approved Sergius' Letter, had consented, that they should speak neither of One nor of Two Operations, had asserted but One Will in Christ, had silenced Sophronius, who would have defended the Faith. These Facts were evident by the very reading of his Letter; there is enough for his condemnation; and they could not stand up in his defence without furnishing their Adversaries with Arms. The same Reasons which they should have used to justify him, might have been urged also to justify Sergius and the rest; therefore in forsaking Honorius, they took the right course; they did the same thing in the Roman Council under Martin the 1st, for when they read Paul's Synodical Letter who defends his own Error, by the Authority of Honorius, neither the Pope, nor any of the Bishops, did think of vindicating him, nor of maintaining him to have been of another mind. But if he thinks it strange, that the Legates should suffer Honorius' Memory to be condemned; how much more strange must it seem to be, that they should have suffered the Acts of the Council to be falsified, to insert his condemnation in it? Tho' Honorius had been excusable, they may have had reasons not to oppose his condemnation; the advantage of Peace, and the fear to cause some trouble might have prevailed with them to acquiesce in the Judgement of the Council: But no reason can be found to excuse their Treachery, if they had corrupted the Acts of the Council to insert Honorius' condemnarion there.  
I do not trouble myself to confute Baronius' other Reasons, which are a mere begging of the Question, having already said overmuch on that Subject; because now his Opinion of the corruption of the Acts of the 6th Council is wholly forsaken, and it goes now for current, that Honorius was condemned in the 6th Council. This being supposed, there remain Two Questions to be examined, whether he was justly condemned, or not; and for what reason he was condemned.  
To decide these Questions, there needs no more than to read Sergius and Honorius' Letters, and to remember the circumstances of the Fact. Cyrus' Patriarch of Alexandria, that he might reunite the Theodosians, approved this expression, that there was but one Operation in Christ; Sophronius opposed this Doctrine; Sergius approved the Conduct and Doctrine of Cyrus; but for Peace sake, he did think it better, not to debate this Question, and neither to affirm One nor Two Operations in Christ, and only to say, that the same person performed Divine and Humane Actions; because they that use the expression of One Operation only, seem to confound the Two Natures; and when they say Two Operations, they seem to assert Two contrary Wills in Christ; which cannot be maintained, by reason the Soul of Christ never had any motion of its own from itself, or contrary to those of the Word, but such as the Word pleased, and when he pleased. In a word, that, as our Body is governed and moved by our Soul, so the Soul of Jesus Christ was led and governed by his Divinity. Thus Sergius explains himself in his Letter to Honorius, and asks him what was his Opinion about it.  
What does this Pope answer to this? He approves of Sergius' proceeding, he commends his Letter, he follows his Opinion, he forbids speaking any more of One or Two Operations of Christ, and orders that this Question be left to the Grammarians to be discussed; yea, and he declares, that there is but One Will in Christ. Then he writes to Eulogius, that he should maintain no longer Two Operations in Christ. He writes moreover a Second Letter to Sergius, to command silence about that Question. What did Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and the other Monothelites, who were condemned in this Council, do more? They were in Two Errors, 1. That we ought not to assert, that there was One or Two Operations in Christ, and that we should forbear debating that Question. 2. That we should say, that there is but One Will in Christ, by reason the Soul of Christ was governed and led by his Divinity. Honorius does plainly establish those Two Points; therefore he cannot be excused, without excusing also the Patriarches of Constantinople. You will say, That when he said there was but One Will in Christ, he said it to exclude the contrariety of Wills; and that the reason he gives of it, does evidently show it. We own, saith he, there is but One Will in Christ, because he took upon him our Nature, not our Sin; and he had no other Law in his Members, nor any contrary Will. But if this reason may serve for the vindication of Honorius, Sergius ought to be vindicated likewise, as rendering the same reason, and confessing in his Letter, that the Soul of Christ had its proper motions, directed and led by the Divinity. Paul, his Successor, may with much more reason be excused; for in his Letter to Theodorus, he says, That the only reason, why he acknowledges but One Will in Christ, is out of fear, lest he should admit a contrariety of Wills in Christ, or should say, That there be Two Persons with Two different Wills; That he did admit but One Will, not to annihilate the Humane Nature, or any part of his Soul, but to show that Christ's Soul was filled with the gifts of the Deity, and had no Will contrary to that of the Word. By the same reason one may justify the Ecthesis, and the Type, and all the Monothelites: For they did not deny, that the Body and Soul of Christ had all their Properties, their Faculties, and Motions; but they affirmed, they were so governed and led by the Will▪ of the Word, as to follow his direction and impression in all things. And the only reason they gave, why they would not have Men to say, that there were Two Wills in Christ, was for fear this expression should intimate Two contrary Wills in him. Honorius therefore is no more excusable than Sergius, Paul, and the other Monothelites, who did act and speak as he did; and if they condemned these as Heretics, they might condemn Honorius likewise. Wherefore not only the 6th Council always joined him with the other Monothelites, and comprehended him in the same Anathema; which they would not have done, had they believed, there was any difference to be made between him and the rest; for it is expressly said, They condemned him, for delivering in his Letter things contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles, the Desinitions of the Councils, and the Judgement of all the Fathers, and for following the false Doctrine of Heretics, for approving in every thing the Impious Opinions of Sergius, for writing a Letter tending to the same Impiety, for Preaching, Teaching, and Spreading the Heresy of One Operation, and One Will.  
In fine, the Council having pronounced anathemas against Theodorus, Sergius, Honorius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and Stephen, Polychronius adds, Anathema to all these Heretics. They did then believe Honorius to be an Heretic, as well as the rest, and condemned him as such.  
But, say they, in the Emperor's Edict, he is called only a Favourer, Helper, and Confirmer of Heresy. Pope Leo the Second, in his Three Letters, charges him only with Favouring the Error of the Monothelites, and not suppressing it with a vigilancy becoming S. Peter's Successor. But what maketh most for Honorius' vindication, is, that the Abbot John, who writ his Letter, S. Maximus, and John IV, do defend him, and say, that when he asserted but One Will in Christ, he meant it of the Humane Will; but he did not mean, that there was but One Will of the Manhood, and Godhead. That's the most plausible thing can be said in the behalf of Honorius; but all this doth not prove, that he was not condemned as an Heretic, and Favourer of Heresy. Honorius was a Favourer of Heresy, because he forbade speaking both of One, and Two Operations in Jesus Christ. He was an Heretic, because he owned but One Will in Jesus Christ.  
Besides, one is often a favourer of Heresy, by teaching it; and that Name is given to those who maintain an Heresy invented by others. 'Tis in this sense, Constantin says, Honorius was a favourer of Heresy. Sergius was the Author of this Doctrine, but Honorius approved, confirmed and embraced it; wherefore he tells him (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the proper Terms not only for him who neglects to stifle a new springing Heresy, but for him also who does formally approve, embrace and teach it. Tho' Leo II. was concerned to be tender of his Predecessor's reputation, and for that reason he expressed, in more gentle Terms, the cause of Honorius' condemnation, yet he confesseth, That Honorius did not only favour the new Heresy by his Silence and Negligence, but moreover, that he did suffer the Apostolic Tradition to be sullied and defiled by a contrary Doctrine. Qui Apostolicam Ecclesiam non Apostolicae Traditionis doctrina illustravit; sed profana proditione immaculatam maculari permisit: And in another Letter, Maculari consensit. And the Roman Church hath so plainly acknowledged, That Pope Honorius did advance the Error of the Monothelites, that in her ancient Breviary, she declares, That he was condemned with the other Monothelites, for maintaining the Doctrine of one Will.  
Lastly, Adrian II. taketh notice, That he was condemned by the Synod, because he was charged with Heresy, which he affirms to be the only cause for which he believeth a Council may judge the Pope. It cannot be doubted then, but that Honorius was condemned by the 6th. Council, as an Heretic, yea, and that the Council had as much reason to censure him, as Sergius, Paul, Peter, and the other Patriarches of Constantinople; and that his Letter was as fit to be condemned, as the Ecthesis and the Type. It's true, John the Abbot, who wrote it, and John iv defend Honorius' Letter, and endeavour to put a good Interpretation upon it; but this was before the Council had condemned it, and they were concerned then in the defence of it. The Greek Church did more than this in favour of Sergius; for notwithstanding the condemnation of the 6th. Council, she put into the office of a Festival, kept in Lent, a Story, in which this Patriarch is mentioned as a Saint. But we see, it's more just and rational, to give credit to the judgement of a general Council, where Matters are examined to the bottom, than to the Sentiments of some private Men, who judge of this Fact, according to their own Interest or Prejudices. This will stand for certain then, That Honorius was condemned and justly too, as an Heretic, by the 6th. Council.   

Council of 
* [Concilium Cabilenense]  chalon upon the River Saone.  
CLOVIS II. called a Council at chalon upon the River Saone, 
a The 6th Year of his Reign, which is the 650.] The Year is not certainly known; but it is sure it was held before the Year 658.  the 6th. year of his Reign, which is the 650. of the vulgar Aera. It was made up of the 
b Archbishops.] They have signed in the same Order in which we set them down.  Archbishops of 
Council of Challon.  Lions, Vienna, 
* [Rotomagius.]  Roven, 
† [Agendicum.]  Sens and Bourges, and of 
c 39 Bishops.] Of which 6 were Deputies.  39 Bishops of France. They made 20 Canons.  
In the 1st. they decree, That they shall hold the Doctrine established by the Councils of Nice and Chalcedon.  
In the 2d. That the Canons shall be kept.  
The 3d. renews the Prohibitions made to the Clergy against having strange Women.  
The 4th. forbids ordaining two Bishops at the same time in the same City.  
The 5th. decrees, That the Administration of Parishes, or of Church-lands, shall not be committed to the Laity.  
The 6th. forbids seizing on, or taking Possession of, Church-lands, 
* [Before an hearing. Ante audientiam.]  before it be so ordered.  
The 7th. forbids Bishops, Arch-deacons and any other Person, to take away any of the Goods or Estate belonging to a Parish, Hospital or a Monastery, after the death of the Presbyter who governed it.  
The 8th. declares the necessity of Repentance, and orders Bishops to impose Penance upon them that confess their Sins.  
The 9th. forbids selling Christian-slaves to Strangers or Jews.  
The 10th. declares, That a Bishop ought to be chosen by the Bishops of the Province, by the Clergy and the Citizens; and says, an Ordination, made otherwise, is null.  
The 11th. decrees, That the Bishops shall separate from their Communion those Judges, who would assume a Jurisdiction over the Parishes and Monasteries, where the Bishops make their visit.  
The 12th. forbids making two Abbots in one Monastery, to avoid division and scandal among the Friars. Nevertheless, if an Abbot will choose himself a Successor, he may do it; but he that is chosen, shall not dispose of the Estate of the Monastery.  
The 13th. renews the Inhibition made to Bishops to keep the Clerks of their Brethren, or to ordain any Body without his Bishop's leave.  
The 14th. provides a remedy against an Abuse which was grown common. The Lords of the places, where there were Chapels, sought to hinder the Arch-deacons and Bishops from the cognizance of what concerned the Clerks, that ministered in those Chapels. This Council decrees, That the Ordination of the Clerks, and the disposal of the Revenues of those Chapels shall belong to the Bishop, that divine Service may be regularly performed there.  
The 15th. prohibits Abbots and Friars making use of the Protection of the Seculars, and going to the Prince, without their Bishop's leave.  
The 16th. declareth, That they who give Money to be made Bishops, Priests or Deacons, shall be deprived of the Dignity that they would have purchased.  
The 17th. forbids raising Tumults or Quarrels in the Church, or at the Church-doors.  
The 18th. prohibits Ploughing, shearing Corn, Reaping or Tilling the Ground on Sundays.  
The 19th. prohibits Dancing and Singing lewd Songs within the Churchyards or in the Church-porches, upon Saints Festivals.  
The 20th. degrades Agapius and Bobon, Bishops of Digne, for having done many things contrary to the Canons.  
The Bishops of this Council wrote a Letter to Theodosius or Theodorick Bishop of Arles, in which they acquaint him, That having met together by King Clovis' order, in the Town of Challon, they did stay for him, hearing he was got near the Town; That the only thing that hindered his appearing, was, that he heard himself to be accused of living dishonestly, and doing several things contrary to the Canons; That they had also seen a Writing signed with his own Hand, and by the Bishops of his Province, wherein it appeared, That he had submitted himself to Penance; That he knew, that those that were come so far, cannot keep nor govern a Bishopric any longer. Wherefore, they declare to him, That he must abstain from doing any Episcopal Function in Arles, and from receiving the Church Revenues, till he receive his trial before the Bishops.   

Council VIII. of Toledo.  
THIS Council of 52 Bishops of Spain, was called by an order from King * Receswinthe, in the year 653. Its Constitutions are in the form of Acts, very obscure, written in a 
Council VIII. of Toledo.  barbarous Style, and full of false Notions. They begin with King Receswinthe's Letter to the Bishops of the Synod, wherein he exhorts them to follow the Faith of the first 4 general Councils; to provide against the Disorders that would happen, if they should execute the Oath they had taken, of putting all those to death that should be found to be concerned in 
[At Recesuind.]  any Conspiracy, against the Prince or State; to re-establish the discipline of the ancient Canons; and to regulate those Matters that shall be brought before them. The Bishops obeying the King's Order, professed themselves to hold the Decisions of the Councils and the Fathers; they read the Creed, which was then recited in the solemn Service of the Churches of Spain, which is that of the Council of Constantinople, to which they had superadded, That the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son. Then they made a long Discourse upon Oaths, and cited many Places of the Scripture and the Fathers, to show, that Men ought not to keep nor execute the Oaths, wherewith they have sworn to commit wicked Actions, and prejudicial to the State. The third Canon is against those that use Entreaties and Prayers, to obtain the Priesthood. They are declared Excommunicate, and those that do confer or receive Orders thus, are deprived of their Dignity; these last are likewise put to Penance in a Monastery. The three next Canons are made to keep the Clergy pure and chaste. The 7th is against an Abuse, by which some Persons ordained Bishops or Presbyters, did think themselves free to leave the Priesthood, under pretence, that in their receiving it, they had said that they would not receive it: The Council declares, That this cannot be done; and that, as Baptism conferred on Persons unwilling to receive it, and on Children who know nothing of it, is valid; so likewise Ordination ought to subsist, being as indelible as Baptism, the Holy Chrism and the Consecration of the A●●●●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who after thei● Ordination, shall 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●e 〈◊〉 out of 〈◊〉 Church, and shut up in a Monastery, to d●●enan●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉▪ The 8 〈◊〉▪ Constitution prohibi●● ordaining, hereafter, any Cl●●● that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the P●…, the Anthems, the Hymns in use, and the Ceremonies of Baptism; and that if any o● them that are ordained, be ignorant of these things, they shall be constrained to learn them. The 9th forbids eating Flesh in Lent, and orders, That those that have need of eating of it shall ask the Bishop's Leave. The 10th. Constitution is concerning the Election of Kings, and the Qualifications they ought to have. The 11th confirms the ancient Canons of Councils. The 12th confirms the Decree of the Council of Toledo, held under King Sisenand, about the security of Kings. They conclude with pious Wishes for King Receswinthe, and with a general Confirmation of the preceding Constitutions. The Acts are subscribed not only by 52 Bishops, but by 9 Abbots besides, and 10. Presbyters or Deacons, Deputies of Bishops, and 16 Lords. Moreover, there is another Decree of this Council, about the disposing of King's Revenues, which is confirmed by an Edict of King Receswinthe. The Jewish Converts presented a Petition to this Council, wherein they bond themselves, sincerely to renounce the Jewish Doctrine and Ceremonies.   

Council IX. of Toledo.  
TWO Years after, the same King Receswinthe called a Provincial Council, the Bishops whereof willing to renew the ancient Discipline, and to publish the Canons of the Councils, 
Council IX. of Toledo.  thought they ought to begin by making Laws to reform themselves: for, say they, in the Preface, It would not become Superiors to go about to judge their Inferiors, before they have judged themselves by the Laws of Justice itself. Judgements are more just by far, when the Life of the Judges is well ordered; and when their Virtue is known, their Judgement is better submitted to.  
Therefore, they 1st. forbidden the Bishops, and others of the Clergy, to appropriate to themselves the Lands given to Churches; and give leave to the Relations and Heirs of the Legatees, to apply themselves to the Bishop or Metropolitan, to hinder the Lands given by their Relations from being converted to private uses.  
Secondly, to prevent the ruin of Parish-Churches and Monasteries, they give leave to those that built them, to take care of them, and to recommend to the Bishops some Persons to govern them, whom he shall be bound to ordain, if he finds them capable of that Office. This was one beginning of Lay-Patrons.  
Thirdly, It is ordered, That if the Bishop, or any other of the Clergy (to pay the Church's Debts) alienates some part of his Church-Lands under the Titles of Patrimony, he shall be bound to set down in the Deed the cause of his doing so, to the end, that it may appear, whether it be done justly or fraudulently.  
Fourthly, they decree, That if Bishops have but a small Patrimony, the Purchases they make aught to be for the Profit of the Church; but if the Revenue of their own Patrimony be found to be as great as that of their Bishopric, their Heirs shall divide their Estate in half, or according to the proportion of their own and the Church Patrimony. Lastly, that they may, during their Life, dispose of what falls to them by Donation; but if they do not dispose of it, after their Decease, those Donations shall belong to the Church.  
In the Fifth they declare, That the Bishop that will build a Monastery in his Diocese, shall endow it only with the fiftieth part of the Revenue of his Bishopric, and with the hundredth if it be but a Church only.  
In the Sixth, That he may forgive Parochial Churches the third part of the Revenues which they own him, and that such Release shall be perpetual and irrevocable.  
For the more punctual execution of these Canons, by the Seventh Constitution, they forbidden the Heirs of the Bishop to enter upon their Inheritance, without the Consent of the Metropolitan, or, if he be a Metropolitan, before he hath a Successor, or there be a Council assembled. And likewise they forbidden the Heirs of Presbyters and Deacons to take possession of their Inheritance, without the Cognizance of the Bishop.  
In the Eighth Canon they declare, That the Prescription of thirty Years shall not be reckoned against the Church, as to the Lands alienated by any Bishop, but from the Day of that Bishop's Death, and not from the Day of the Date of the Deed.  
In the Ninth they forbidden a Bishop, who cometh to bury his Brother, to take above the value of a Pound of Gold, if the Church be rich, or of half a Pound if she be poor; and orders him to send the Inventory which he shall make, to the Metropolitan.  
In the Tenth they declare the Sons of Clergymen, who were obliged to Celibacy, uncapable of Inheriting.  
The six following Canons are concerning Ecclesiastical Persons or such as are made free by the Churches, and are not now in use.  
The Seventeenth and last lays an Obligation upon the Jews, who are newly converted, to be present on their ancient Feast-days, in the Towns and Assemblies of Christians, kept by the Bishop.  
They conclude with making pious Wishes for King Receswinthe. They appoint the next Council on the 1st of November following. This Council is signed by Eugenius of Toledo and 15. Bishops, by 3 Abbots, by the Deputy of a Bishop and 4 Lords.  
Therefore we ought not to wonder that these Councils should make Laws about Political Matters, because they are properly Assemblies of the States, authorized by the Prince; in which the Civil Authority was joined to the Ecclesiastical Power.   

Council X. of Toledo, in 656.  
THIS Council was held a Month later than it had been appointed: It made seven Canons. 
Council X. of Toledo.   
In the 1st, the Festival of the Virgin was appointed to be kept eight Days before Christmas.  
By the 2d the Clerks or Monks, which shall be found to have violated the Oaths taken to the King and the State, are deprived of their Dignity, yet so as that it shall be free for the Prince to restore them to it, if he thinks fit.  
By the 3d Bishops are forbidden to give Parochial Churches or Monasteries to their Kindred or Friends, to enjoy the Revenues of them.  
In the 4th it is ordered, That Women who have embraced the state of Widowhood, aught to make Profession of it, in Writing, before the Bishop or the Presbyter, to take the Habit of it, to keep it on always, and to wear a Veil of a Black or Violet Colour.  
The 5th decrees, that those who leave the Habit of Widowhood, after they have worn it, shall be excommunicated, and shut up in Monasteries.  
The 6th orders, That those Children, whom their Parents caused to take the Tonsure, or the Religious Habit, shall be obliged to lead a Religious Life: That, nevertheless, Parents cannot offer their Children, before they be ten Years old, and after that Age the Child's Consent is necessary.  
The last Canon contains an Advertisement, to dissuade Christians from selling their Slaves to the Jews.  
There was presented to this Council a Confession in Writing from Potamius Bishop of Braga, who was accused of many Crimes. They brought him before the Council; he owned that Writing, declared himself deeply guilty of those Faults; and said, that nine Months since he had relinquished the Government of his Church, and shut himself up in a Prison, to do Penance. The Council being informed that he had had the carnal Knowledge of a Woman, they declared, That although, according to the Ancient Rules, he was to be wholly degraded, and deprived of his Dignity, yet, out of compassion, they left him the Title and the degree of a Bishop, but they would have him to do Penance all his Life-time, and they did choose Fructuosus, Bishop of Dumes, to govern the Church of Braga in his room. This Decree is put after the Canons of the Council; and to it is annexed another Decree, disannulling the Bequests of a Will, made by Recimer Bishop of Dumes, to the Prejudice of his Church.  
This Council is subscribed by 3 Metropolitans, Eugenius of Toledo, Fugitinus of Sevil, Fructuosus of Braga, by 17 Bishops and 5 Bishops Deputies.   

A Conference held in Northumberland, in 664.  
THE chief occasion of this Conference, related by Beda, l. 3. c. 25. of his History, was the Dispute about Easterday. Colman maintained the Practice of the Britain's, and Wilfride 
A Conference in▪ Northumberland.  that of the R●…. King 〈◊〉 was present at it. Wilfride founded his Practice upon the universal Custom of the Church, which kept Easter on the same Day, excepting the Picts and the Britain's. Colman would have defended their Practice by the Authority of S. John. But Wilfride shown him, that he did not agree with this Apostle, who kept Easter without staying for the Sunday; which they did not follow, seeing they stayed till the Sunday next after the fourteenth Moon. That they did not agree with S. Peter neither, for this Holy Apostle kept Easter between the 15th and the 21st Moon, whereas they would keep it from the 14th to the 20th. so that they did sometimes begin this Feast at the end of the thirteenth Moon. Colman alleged, for his Defence, the Authority of Anatolius, Columba and the Ancients of his Country. Wilfride answered, That they did not agree with Anatolius, who made use of the Cycle of nineteen Years, which they were strangers to, because that Author's Opinion was not that Easter was necessarily to be kept before the 21st Moon, but that he had mistaken the fourteenth Moon for the fifteenth, and the twentieth for the twenty first. As to Columba and his Successors, he would not condemn them; that he was persuaded they might be excused for their Simplicity, in a Time when no Body was able to instruct them: But, as for them, they could have no Excuse, if they refused the Instructions given them. However, that Columba's Authority was not to be preferred before S. Peter's, to whom Christ gave the Keys of the Church, and said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.  
The King struck with these last Words, asked Colman if it was true, that Christ said so to S. Peter? Column having confessed it was true, the King said; That, seeing S. Peter was the Doorkeeper of Heaven, he would not contradict him, but would obey his Statutes.  
This Decision was approved by the Company: Colman and his Men withdrew, refusing to yield to the Practice of the Romans, about the keeping of Easter and the Tonsure, about which there was also a Contest: Men take such delight in Disputes about small Things.   

Council of Merida 
[Concililium Emeritense.] .  
THIS Council, made up of the Bishops of the Province of Portugal, was assembled by the Order of King Receswinthe, in the Year 666. After having prayed for the King, 
Council of Merida.  they recited the Creed, with the addition, of the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son.  
Then they decree, That on Holy Days they shall say Vespers in their Churches, before they sing what they call the Sound, that is, the Venite exultemus, which is thus called, because it was sung with a loud sounding Voice.  
In the third Chapter they ordain, That whenever the King shall go to the Army, the Bishops shall offer every Day the Sacrifice, and put up prayers for him and his till his Return.  
The decree in the fourth, That Bishops, after their Ordination, shall give a Writing, whereby they shall bind themselves to a chaste, sober and honest Life. The Metropolitans were to send this Writing to the Bishops of their Province, and the Bishops to their Metropolitan.  
By the fifth, Bishops are enjoined to come to the Synod, at the Time appointed by the Metropolitan's Letters, and the King's Order. If any of them be detained by Sickness, he is permitted to send a Presbyter for his Representative, but they will not have him to depute a Deacon.  
Moreover it is decreed by the sixth, That the Suffragan Bishops, which shall be sent for by the Metropolitan, to come and keep Christmas and Easter with him, shall be bound to obey his Orders.  
The seventh renews the Law of holding every Year a Council, and the Penalties laid upon the Bishops that do not come to it.  
In the eighth it is mentioned, That King Receswinthe hath re-established the Rights of the Province of Portugal and its Metropolis: And then it says, That Selva Bishop of Ingidane had made his Complaint, that Justus Bishop of Salamanca had invaded his Diocese, and demanded Restitution of what belonged to him. It was ordained, That Surveyors shall be sent to compose this Difference, because there had not been thirty Years possession. In the end Bishops are warned to look well to the Preservation of what belongs to their Diocese; and it is decreed, That 30. Years Possession shall go for a Title.  
By the ninth Canon, he to whom the Holy Chrism is sent, is forbidden to take any thing for his Distribution of it; and Presbyters are forbidden exacting any thing for Baptising; but they are permitted to take what shall be freely given to them.  
The tenth enjoins every Bishop to have an Archpriest, an archdeacon and a Secretary; and these Officers are enjoined to be subject to their Bishops, to pay them their Deuce, to entertain them in their Visitation, and to undertake no Business without their Consent.  
By the twelfth a Bishop is permitted to take Parish Priests and Clerks into his Cathedral Church, yet so that they shall not lose their Title, nor the Revenue of their Live, provided that another Priest or Clerk shall be put in their room, with a competent Maintenance.  
The thirteenth empowers the Bishop to Prefer the Clerks, who discharge their Duty well, and to deprive them of this Advantage, if they abuse it.  
The fourteenth Decrees, That all the Money offered on Holy Days, in Churches, shall, be gathered together and put into the Bishop's Hands; who shall divide it into three parts the one for himself, the other for the Priests and Deacons, and the rest for the other Clerks.  
The fifteenth orders the manner of punishing Church-Servants, that it be done agreeably to the Ecclesiastical Gentleness and Lenity.  
By the sixteenth, the Bishops of the Province of Portugal are forbidden to appropriate to themselves the third part of the Church's Revenue, and are ordered to employ it in the Repairing of the Churches.  
The seventeenth appoints Penalties for those who speak ill of their Bishops after his Death.  
By the eighteenth Parsons are enjoined to have Clerks.  
The nineteenth enjoins Presbyters, charged with the Care of several Churches, to say Mass in every one of them every Sunday, and to recite the Names of those that built them, whether they be alive or dead.  
The twentieth contains some Constitutions about the bestowing Freedom on the Slaves of the Church.  
The twenty first decrees, That the Donations, made by a Bishop, shall stand, when the Church is found to have got more by his Estate, than he gave by his Will.  
By the twenty second it is decreed, That those that will not observe these Decrees, shall be excommunicated.  
This Council ended, as all the preceding Councils of Spain, with Wishes and Prayers for King Receswinthe. It is subscribed by the Archbishop of Merida, and 11 Suffragan Bishops; which are the Bishops of Indane, of Pace, now Bece, of Avila, of Lisbon, of Lamega, of Salamanca, of Conimbra, of Cauria, of Oxonobe, now Istombar, of Elbora, now Talaverre, and of Caliabria, now Setuval; which we do now take notice of, because there was some Difference since between the Metropolitan of Braga and that of Merida, about 3 of those Churches, viz. Conimbra, Lamega and Indane.   

Council of Autun.  
S. Leger, Bishop of Autun, held a Council in this City, in which he made some Constitutions for Monks; wherein they are ordered, To appropriate nothing to themselves, not 
Council of Autun.  to be seen in Towns, To obey their Abbots, To let no Woman come into their Monasteries, To suffer no Vagabond Friars, To keep S. Benedict's Rules, and exactly to discharge their Duty: It appoints different Penalties against Transgressor's, among which is reckoned the Bastinado for simple Friars. Some place this Council in 663, others in 670. and some others in 666, because in his last Will it is said, That in the 7th Year of his Pontificate, which answers the 666th Year of Christ, he was present at a Council of 54 Bishops: But those 54 Bishops did not meet at Autun, but in a Place named Christiac; and the Constitutions abovementioned, are entitled, in the old Collection of the Church of Angers, Canons of the Council of Autun.   

Council of Hereford in England.  
THIS Council was held in 673. by Theodorus of Canterbury, who read and promulged 
Council of Hereford.  there 〈◊〉 Canons, of which we spoke, when we treated of this Father's Works.   

Council XI. of Toledo.  
THIS Council, held in 675. gins with a long Exposition of Faith, upon the Trinity and the Incarnation. The 1st Canon is of the Modesty and Order to be kept in the Council. 
Council XI. of Toledo.   
The 2d enjoins Metropolitans to be diligent in instructing of their Suffragans.  
The 3d enjoins all the Bishops of the same Province, to observe the same Rites and Ceremonies in the Public Service, and to conform themselves to the Metropolitan Church, from which they receive their Consecration. Abbot's likewise are enjoined, in the Public Service, to follow the Use of the Cathedral Church.  
The 4th forbids receiving the Oblations, or suffering the Bishops that are at Variance to come near the Altar before they be reconciled.  
The 5th is to prevent the Attempts and Excesses the Bishops might commit, by reason of their Authority.  
By the 6th, Clerks are forbidden to be present in Capital Judments, or to punish any Body with Loss of Limbs.  
The 7th forbids Bishops to put any Body to Penance, but according to the Public Order of the Church, or in the presence of Witnesses.  
The 8th. prohibits taking any thing, even of what is freely offered for Baptism, the Holy Chrism, or Holy Orders.  
The 9th enjoins him, who is ordained Bishop, to give Oath before the Altar, that he neither did no● will give any thing to be chosen Bishop.  
The 10th enjoins those that take Orders to bind themselves under their Hand, to keep inviolably to the Faith of the Church, to live a good Life, to do nothing contrary to the Ecclesiastical Laws, and to be obedient to their Superiors.  
The 11th. excuses those whom Illness causes them to cast up the Eucharist, and condemns them that do it out of Impiety.  
The 12th ordains, That those shall be reconciled who desire Penance, being in Danger of Death, and that Commemoration be made of those, and their Oblation be received, who die after they have been admitted to Penance, by the Imposition of Hands, though they have not been reconciled.  
The 13th forbids those who are possessed by the Devil, or stirred with violent Motions, to wait on the Altar, or to come near it, to receive the Sacraments: Yet those are excepted who fall down out of Weakness or Illness, without any other Symptom.  
The 14th orders, That there shall always be some Body assisting to the Priest, whilst he is singing the Service or celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, to the end that, if he should fall ill, another might take his Place.  
The 15th renews the Constitutions about the holding of Councils.  
The Council concludes with Wishes for the Prosperity of King [
* 〈◊〉 Bamba.]  Wamba.  
It is subscribed by the Archbishop of Toledo, by 16. Bishops, 2 Deacons, Bishops Deputies, and 7 Abbots.   

Council iv of Braga.  
THE same Year, and under the same King, was held a Council in Braga. The Bishops having recited the Nicene Creed, with the Addition of the Holy Ghost's proceeding from the Father and the Son, do condemn some Abuses which had crept into the Celebration of the 
Council iv of Braga.  Holy Mysteries: Some offered Milk, others Grapes instead of Wine; some gave to the People the Eucharist dipped in Wine: Some Priests would make use of the Sacred Vessels to eat and drink in; others said Mass without a Stole on: Some hung about their Necks Relics of Martyrs, and then made themselves to be carried about by Deacons, with their AAbes on. Several Bishops companied with Women, and some misused their Clerks; Simony was a common thing. They made Canons against all those Disorders.  
By the 1st they forbidden offering Milk and Grapes, in lieu of Wine, and dipping the Eucharist in the Wine.  
The 2d prohibits putting Sacred Vessels and Ornaments to profane and common Uses.  
By the 3d it is ordered, That Priests shall celebrate the Holy Mysteries with a Stole only, which shall cover their Shoulders, and go down, crosswise, over the Stomach.  
By the 4th Ecclesiastical Persons are forbidden to dwell with a Woman, excepting their Mother only, but not their very Sisters, nor any other near Relations.  
The 5th declares, It belongs to the Deacons to carry the Relics of Martyrs; and that if the Bishop will carry them, he shall go afoot, and not be carried by the Deacons.  
The 6th forbids Bishops to cause the Priests, Abbots or Deacons under him to be beaten.  
The 7th. prohibits Simony, and for that purpose renews the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon.  
The last forbids Bishops to take more Care of their own Patrimony than of the Church's; and if this happens to be embezel'd by their Negligence, whilst the other is improved, they shall be bound to make up the Loss out of their own.  
This Council is signed by 8 Bishops.   

Council XII. of Toledo  
THIS Council was held in 681, under King 
* [al. Ering.]  Ervigius. The Metropolitans of Toledo, Sevil, Braga, and Merida, were present in it, together with Thirty Bishops, Four Abbots, 
Council XII. of Toledo.  Three Bishop's Deputies, and several Lords. King Ervigi●s came to it at the beginning of it, and withdrew after having made a short Speech to the Council. He left them a Memoir, wherein he exhorted them to absolve the Guilty, to reform Manners, to re-establish Discipline, to renew the Laws made against the Jews, to procure the Restoration of those who had been Degraded, by virtue of a Law of his Predecessor, for not bearing Arms, or for laying them down. He directs his Speech to the Bishops and the Lords, that these Laws being made by the unanimous consent of both Spiritual and Temporal Authority, they may stand firm, and be put in execution.  
The Council, having, according to the custom, made a protestation, that they did receive the Faith of the first Four Councils, and recited the Creed, approves Ervigius' Elevation to the Throne, and Wamba's Deposition, who had withdrawn himself by taking a Religious Habit, shaving his Head, and choosing King Ervigius to Reign in his stead, and causing him to be Consecrated by the Sacerdotal Unction. It is very remarkable, that the Fathers of this Council do not depose King Wamba, nor choose Ervigius of their own accord. But after having seen the Declaration, which that Prince had made in Writing, and Signed in the presence of the Lords, whereby he had made profession of the Religious Life, and got his Hair cut; and that whereby he desired, that Ervigius might be chosen King; and the order he had given to the Bishop of Toledo, to Consecrate Ervigius with the usual Ceremonies; and the Verbal Process of that Consecration, Signed by Wamba, they join their consent to Wamba's, and approve of what he hath done, and consequently declare, that Ervigius ought to be owned for their lawful King, and in that Quality to be Obeyed, upon pain of Anathema.  
The 2d, Canon binds those, who receive Penance in the extremity of Sickness, and when they are not Sensible, to lead a Penitent Life, if they recover. Yet they will have the Priest to give Penance to those only that desire it; they give the instance of Child's Baptism, to show that Penance may be given to those who are not sensible.  
The 3d, ordains, That those that have been Excommunicated for some Crime against the State, shall be restored when the Prince taketh them into his favour again, or they have the Honour to Eat at his Table.  
In the 4th, The Bishop of Merida having represented, that King Wamba had constrained him to Ordain a Bishop in a Country-Town; and assayed to do the same thing in other places. They recited the Canons forbidding to Ordain Bishops in Burroughs, or to put Two in the same City; by virtue whereof they declared, that the Ordination of him, whom Wamba caused to be Ordained, was irregular: But seeing it was not out of Ambition that he had been Ordained, but by the Prince's express Orders, they out of mere favour granted him the next vacant Bishopric; and they make a general Inhibition, to Ordain Bishops in places where there were none before.  
The 5th, Forbids Priests to Offer the Holy Sacrifice without Communicating, because some of those who Offered it many times in one Day, would not Communicate but at their last Mass.  
The 〈◊〉, 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Archbishop of Toledo to 〈◊〉 〈…〉 〈◊〉 King 〈◊〉 〈…〉 to the Rights of Provinces; and upon condition, that within 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after h●s Ordination he shall present himself ●….  
The 7th, declares, That whereas King Ervigius intends to moderate the Law made by his Predecessor 〈◊〉 against them that had not taken A●…; it was their Opinion, that such persons had a Right to bear witness, and were not to be rejected as infamous.  
By the 8th, 〈◊〉 are forbidden to leave their Wives, except for Adultery.  
The 9th, Rene●… several Constitutions against the Jews.  
The 10th, Grants the Right of the Sanctuary to those who escape into Churches, or within Thirty Yards about, provided nevertheless, that they shall be delivered back into their Hands, who shall promise with an Oath not to hurt them.  
The 11th Canon does severely punish Superstitions and Idolatry.  
The 12th, Renews the Law for holding a Council every Year.  
The 13th, Contains Wishes and Prayers for the Prince.  
These Canons are confirmed by a Declaration of King Ervigius.   

Council XIII. of Toledo.  
THIS Council was also holden under King Ervigius, (An. 683.) The same Metropolitans assisted at it, together with Forty Four Bishops, Twenty Four Deputies of other Bishops, 
Council XIII. of Toledo.  Eight Abbots, and Twenty Six Lords. They read the Memoir sent to them by King Ervigius, containing the Heads of such matters as he would have to be regulated by them. Then they made a Confession of Faith, and recited the Creed, according to the custom. The Three first Canons respect Secular Affairs, and confirm what the Prince had done.  
The 1st, Is a Pardon in favour of those who had formerly conspired with Paul against the State.  
The 2d, Is a determination of the manner how to proceed against the Lords of the Court, accused of Capital Matters, and how to judge them.  
And the 3d, Is about the remitting of the extraordinary Taxes granted to Ervigius. These Three Canons are all of the First Day.  
The next Day the Bishop's being desirous to show their gratitude to their Prince for the favours he had bestowed upon them, provided for the Security of his Children and Family.  
By the 4th Canon, and by the 5th, They forbidden any person Marrying his Widow:  
The 6th, Prohibits advancing the Offices of the Court-Slaves, or Freemen, unless they belong to the Exchequer.  
The 7th, Forbids to unclothe the Altars, take away the Wax-Candles, Adorn the Church in a Mournful manner, or to cease to Offer the Sacrifice, without great necessity.  
The 8th, Orders Bishops to come, when sent for by their Metropolitan, to be present at some Festival.  
The 9th, Confirms and repeats compendiously the Canons of the 12th Council of Toledo.  
The 10th, made in the 3d Meeting of the Council, Is concerning a difficult case proposed by Gaudentius Bishop of Valeria, or Villareo, who being fallen Sick had subjected himself to the Laws of Penance. He desired to know, whether, in case he recovered, he might Execute his Function, and Celebrate the Holy Mysteries. The Council ordains, That he may, after he is reconciled; because the Canons permit those who being at the point of Death, have indeed received Penance, but yet have confessed no Crimes, to be admitted into the Clergy. Upon this Principle, they make a general Law, that the Bishops, who have received Penance, without confessing any Mortal Sins, being reconciled by their Metropolitan, may return to their Functions. Notwithstanding, if they had been convicted of any Crimes, before they were put to Penance, or if they have confessed some capital Sins upon their receiving of it, they shall abstain from their Functions, as long as the Metropolitan shall think fit. But if in submitting themselves to Penance they confessed no Mortal Sin, tho' they have committed some, which they conceal in their own Conscience, they have the liberty to examine themselves in their own Conscience, whether they should offer the Sacrifice, or not: But this depends upon their own Will, and not upon Men's Judgement.  
The 11th Canon prohibits keeping or entertaining another Bishop's Clerk, or helping his escape, or affording him means of hiding himself. It is observed there, that those ought not to be reckoned among Fugitives, who go to their Metropolitan about their own business.  
It is ordained contrariwise by the 12th Canon, That a Clerk, who having some business with his Bishop, betakes himself to the Metropolitan, ought not to be Excommunicated by his Bishop, before the Metropolitan hath judged whether he deserve Excommunication. Likewise, If a Clerk pretending himself to be wronged by his Metropolitan, betaketh himself to another Metropolitan; or if, both the Metropolitans refusing to do him Justice, he hath recourse to the Prince, he shall not be Excommunicated before his Cause be Judged. Yet, if he who appeals to the Synod, to the next Metropolitan, or to the King, be found to have been Excommunicated, before he brought his Matters before them, he shall remain Excommunicate till he hath cleared himself.  
The 13th, Contains Thanksgiving to King Ervigius, and some Petitions to Heaven for him.  
This Prince set out an Edict, whereby he confirmed these Canons, after the recitation of them.   

Council XIV. of Toledo.  
THIS Council was called by King Ervigius, (Anno 684.) to approve what had been done against the Error of the Monothelites, which they call the Doctrine of Apollinaris. 
Council XIV. of Toledo.  He inten●… to call a General Council of his whole Kingdom for this purpose; but time not permitting it, the Bishop of Toledo assembled his Suffragans; and the Metropolitans of Tarragona, Narbone, Merida, Braga, and Sevil, sent their Deputies thither. In this Council they approved the Acts of that of Constantinople, and added an Exposition of Faith, wherein they did acknowledge Two Wills in Jesus Christ.   

Council XV. of Toledo.  
THIS Council was held under King 
* [●lias Egypca.]  Egica, Ervigius' Successor, and Son-in-law, (An. 688.) and composed of Sixty Bishops. In this Council they justify themselves about 
Council XV. of Toledo.  some Articles of the Exposition of Faith, which the Spanish Bishops had sent to Rome by Peter a Presbyter, which Articles Pope Benedict had found fault with.  
The First is about their saying, That the Will had begotten a Will. They defend this Expression, because the Eternal Will of God is common to the Three Persons, as well as Wisdom, and other Divine Attributes; so that as Wisdom may be said to have begotten Wisdom, the Will likewise may be said to have begotten a Will; they also defend this Expression by some Testimonies of S. Athanasius, and S. Austin.  
The Second is about their saying, That there were Three Substances in Jesus Christ. They maintain, that Jesus Christ being composed of a Body, a Soul, and the Godhead, he may be said to be of Three Substances in this sense, though, the Body and the Humane Soul being taken but for One Nature, and One Substance, Two Natures, and Two Substances, only may be said to be in him. They show, that S. Cyril, and S. Austin, did speak as they did. They do not enlarge upon the other Two Articles, thinking it sufficient to observe, that they are taken out of S. Ambrose, and S. Fulgentius. Afterwards they treat of the Oaths taken by King Egica. He had made one to King Ervigius, to defend and protect his Children against all persons whatsoever; and another at his Consecration, to administer Justice to his People. It was demanded, that in case these Two Oaths should be found to interfere with one another, and that Ervigius' Children were to be protected against Right and Justice, and to be rescued from the Punishment due to them for Wrongs done by them, whether the King be bound to keep the first, or the last Oath. The Council Answers, He is more strictly bound to keep the last, as being more just, more solemn and necessary. This Council is Signed by the Metropolitans of Toledo, Narbone, Sevil, Braga, and Merida, by Fifty Six of their Suffragans in person, by the Deputies of Six, among whom Iva the Archbishop of Tarragona, by Eleven Abbots, by Seventeen Lords, and confirmed by the King's Declaration.   

Council of Saragosa.  
THIS Council was assembled under King Egica, 691. It made Five Canons.  
By the 1st, Bishops are forbidden to Consecrate Churches but on Sundays. 
Council of Saragosa.   
The 2d, Orders the Bishops to inquire of their Metropolitan, or Primate, about Easter-Day, and to keep it upon the Day he shall appoint.  
The 3d, Forbids Monks to admit Secular Persons into their Cloisters.  
The 4th, Ordains that the Church-Slaves, freed by their Bishop, shall be bound to exhibit to their Successor their Letters of Freedom within a Year after the Death of the Bishop that set them at Liberty; provided they have been warned to do so.  
The 5th, Renews what had been Decreed by the Council of Toledo, that the King's Widow should not Marry again; and ordains moreover, that she shall withdraw into a Convent, and take the Religious Habit, immediately after the Prince's Death.  
The Council ends with Thanksgivings to, and Prayers for the King.   

Council XVI. of Toledo.  
THIS Council was kept in 693, under the same King Egica. After the reading of the Memoir, containing the proposal of what was to be treated in the Council, the Bishops 
Council XVI. of Toledo.  made a long Exposition of Faith, which is followed with Twelve Canons.  
The 1st, Is in the behalf of the Jewish Converts, to exempt them from the Tribute which they paid to the Exchequer.  
The 2d, Is against the remainders of Idolatry.  
The 3d, Appoints very severe Punishments against the Sodomites, and excludes them from the Communion until the time of Death, when they have not done Penance being in health.  
The 4th, Is against them that fall into some Fit of Despair.  
The 5th, Forbids Bishops to take above the Third part of the Church's Revenues, and orders them to lay it out in Repairs. It prohibits also giving the Government of many Churches to one Priest, and ordains, that small Churches shall be united to greater ones.  
The 6th, Forbids an Abuse crept in among some Spanish Priests, who at the Sacrifice upon the Altar did not Offer clean and decent Loaves, nor prepare them carefully; but did only Consecrate a Crust of their own Bread cut round. The Council to stop this Abuse, Ordains, That the Bread, to be Consecrated upon the Altar, shall be whole, decent, made on purpose, that it shall not be a very great Loaf, but of a reasonable bigness, Modica oblata, the remainders of which may easily be preserved, and which may not load the Stomach.  
The 7th commands, That Bishops shall call their Clergy and the People together for the promulgation of the Canons of Councils within Six Months after the holding of the Councils.  
The 8th, Contains several Constitutions for the safety of King's Children, and Ordains, that every Day Sacrifices shall be Offered up for the Health and Prosperity of the King, and the Royal Family, except the Day of the Passion, when Altars are uncovered, and no Body is permitted to say Mass.  
The 9th, Is against Sisbert, Bishop of Toledo, who had broken his Oath to King Egica, by Conspiring against his Person and Family: They Depose and Excommunicate him for his whole Life, they declare his Goods to be confiscated to the Prince, and condemn him to perpetual Imprisonment. They Decree the same Punishment against all that are guilty of the same Crime.  
The 10th, Pronounces Three times Anathema against them that attempt against the Life of Kings, and Plot against them and the State, and reduces them and their Posterity to the condition of Slaves.  
The 11th, Contains some Prayers for King Egica's Prosperity,  
By the 12th, They put Felix, Bishop of Sevil, into the room of Sisbert newly deposed, and Faustin, Bishop of Braga, into Felix's room, and to Faustin they substitute another Bishop.  
The 13th ordains, That a Council shall be held at Narbone to approve the Canons of this; because the Bishops of this Province could not come to it by reason of a Sickness. This Council is confirmed by the Prince's Edict, and Signed by Five Metropolitans, viz. those of Toledo, Sevil, Merida, Tarragona, and Braga, by Fifty Two Bishops, Three Bishop's Deputies, Five Abbots, and Sixteen Counts, or Lords.   

Council XVII. of Toledo, held in 694.  
THIS Council hath the same Form with the preceding. King Egica presented a Memoir, which the Bishops of the Council having read, they recited the Creed, and made the 
Council XVII. of Toledo.  following Canons.  
1st, That they shall Fast Three Days, in Honour of the Holy Trinity, before they begin any Conference in Councils.  
2dly, That in the beginning of Lent the Bishop shall shut the Font, and Seal it with his Ring till Holy Thursday, to let People know, that no Body ought to be Baptised during that time, but in case of extreme necessity.  
3dly, They Ordain, That the Ceremony of washing of Feet shall be used on Holy Thursday.  
4thly, They renew the prohibition of putting Sacred Vessels to Profane Uses.  
5thly, They condemn to Excommunication, and perpetual Imprisonment, those Priests that say the Masses of the Dead for the Living, out of a conceit that this Sacrifice will bring them to their Death.  
6thly, They re-establish the ancient custom to make Litanies, or Public Prayers, every Month for the Church, the King's Health, the good of the State, and the remission of Sins.  
7thly, They provide for the Security of the King's Children, that no Body may attempt against their Life, or Estate, after his decease.  
8thly, They Ordain, That the Jews, who being Baptised remained in their Religion, yea, and Conspired against the Prince, shall be made Slaves, and all their Estates confiscated, that they shall be hindered from using their Ceremonies, and their Children shall be taken away from them to be brought up in the Christian Religion.  
Lastly, They return their Thanks to King Egica, who confirms their Canons by his Edict.   

Council held at Constantinople, Anno 692, called Quini-Sextum, or In Trullo.  
THE Fifth and Sixth General Councils having made no Canons about Discipline, Justinian the Second thought fit to call a Council, to renew the old Canons, and to make a 
Council of Constantinople.  kind of a Body of the Canon-Law, for the Clergy of all the East.  
This Council was held in 692, at Constantinople in the Tower of the Emperor's Palace, called Trullus. The Four Patriarches of the East were present at it, together with 108 Bishops of their Patriarchates. This Council was called Quini-Sextum, because it was looked upon as a Supplement to the Fifth and Sixth Council. It took the Name of General Council, and the Greeks owned it for such, but the Latins rejected it. It made 102 Canons.  
In the 1st, It approves all that was done in the first Six General Councils, condemns the Errors and the Persons they had condemned, and pronounces Anathema to those that hold any other Doctrine, than that they have Established.  
In the 2d, The Bishops of this Council deliver the number of Canons which they received, which are the Constitutions attributed to Clemens, the Canons of the Councils of Nice, Ancyra, Neo-Caesarea, Gangra, Antioch, Laodicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Sardica, and Carthage. The Canons made in the time of Nectarius at Constantinople, and in the time of Theophilus at Alexandria; the Canons of Denys, and Peter of Alexandria, of Gregory Thaumaturgus, of S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nyssen, S. Gregory Nazianzen, of Amphilachius, Timothy, and Theophilus of Alexandria, S. Cyril, Gennadius of Constantinople, and the Canon of S. Cyprian, and his Council, which is only observed in afric, according to their custom.  
The 3d Canon is concerning those of the Clergy, Presbyters, or Deacons, that had Married two Wives. They declare, that those that would not leave that custom shall be deposed; but as to those, whose second Wives are dead, or who have left them, they shall keep the honour and place of their Dignity, being forbidden only to perform the Functions of it; it being not fitting, say they, that he that ought to heal his own wounds, should bless others: As for them who had Married Widows, or had Married, being Priests, Deacons, or Subdeacons', they ordain, they shall for a time be suspended from their Functions; but they grant them the power of being restored, when they leave their Wives, upon condition, that they shall not be raised to a superior Order. And Lastly, they Ordain, That, for the future, all those that have been Married Twice after Baptism, or have had Concubines, shall not be made Bishops, Priests, Deacons, or Clergymen; as also those that have Married, Divorced or Prostituted Women, or Slaves, or Stage-Players.  
The 4th Canon inflicts the punishment of Deposition upon such Ecclesiastical Persons as shall company with a Virgin Consecrated to God, and of Excommunication upon Lay-Men.  
The 5th, Renews the Canon which forbids Clerks to have with them Women, not related to them, except those which the Canons allow them to dwell withal. It extends this prohibition to the Eunuches.  
The 6th, Forbids those that are in Orders, including the Subdeacons', to Marry after their Ordination.  
The 7th forbids 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 down before 〈◊〉 Presbyter, unless they represent the Person of the Patriarch or Metropolitan.  
The 8th ordains, That a Synod shall be kept at least once a Year in each Province.  
The 9th forbids Clerks to keep a Tavern, or to resort thither.  
The 10th forbids them to lend upon Usury.  
The 11th forbids them having any Commerce or Familiarity with the Jews.  
The 12th ●yes the Bishops of afric and Lybia to the Law of the Celibacy,  
The 13th probits the Separation of Presbyters, Deacons or Subdeacons from their Wives, or binding them to Continenoy, before they be ordained.  
The 14th renews the Canon, ordaining, That he who is made a Priest shall be 30 Years old at least, and a Deacon 25.  
The 15th decrees, That he who is ordained Sub-deacon, be at least 20 Years old.  
The 16th declares, That the seven Deacons, spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles, were but Ministers of common Tables, and not of Altars; and thereby rejects the Canon of the Council of Neocaesarea, which by the Authority of this Place had ordained, that there should be but seven Deacons in every Church.  
The 17th forbids Clerks to go out of their Churches, without dimissory Letters from their Bishops.  
The 18th enjoins those who were forced to withdraw because of the Incursions of the Barbarians, or for any other Cause, to comeback again, as soon as they can.  
The 19th enjoins those who govern Churches, to preach to those committed to their Care, the Doctrine of the Church, and to expound the Scripture agreeably to the Sentiments of the Fathers.  
The 20th forbids Bishops to preach in a Church, which is out of their Diocese.  
The 21st gives permission to Clerks deposed, if they repent of their Fault, to wear short Hair, like other Clerks: But if they lead a secular Life, it binds them to wear long Hair, like other Laymen.  
The 22d ordains, That they shall be deposed that have been ordained for Money.  
The 23d prohibits exacting Money for the distribution of the Holy Communion.  
The 24th forbids Clerks to be present at the Shows of Stage-players.  
The 25th ordains, That Country-parishes shall belong to the Bishop who had them in possession 30 Years ago; and if before 30 Years possession any will prove them not to belong to them, the Matter shall be examined in the Provincial Council.  
The 26th renews the Prohibition made to a Priest, engaged in an unlawful Marriage, to execute his Function.  
The 27th forbids Clerks to wear any other Garb than such as belongs to their Order, and separateth for a Week those that do.  
The 28th forbids distributing with the Oblation the Grapes offered at the Altar, by reason the Oblation ought to be given to the People for the Sanctification and Remission of Sins, whereas Fruits are only blessed and distributed for Thanksgivings.  
The 29th ordains, That, according to the Council of Carthage, the Mysteries shall be celebrated Fasting, not excepting Holy Thursday itself.  
The 30th ordains, That the Bishops of Churches in barbarous Countries, if they will leave their Wives, shall dwell no longer with them.  
The 31st forbids Clerks to baptise, or to celebrate the Mysteries in Chapels of private Houses, without the Bishop's Consent.  
The 32d condemns the Practice of the Armenians, who put no Water into the Wine which they did consecrate.  
The 33d rejects another Custom of the same Armenians, who admitted none into the Clergy but those of a Sacerdotal Race, and made them Clerks and Readers without cutting their Hair. The Council does not allow that regard should be had to the Race of those that are ordained, but only to their Merit; and forbids the Readers to read publicly in the Church, without their Hair cut, and without receiving the Blessing of the Pastor of the Church.  
The 34th decrees the Penalty of Deposition against caballing Clerks.  
The 35th forbids a Metropolitan to seize on the Estate of a Bishop deceased, or on his Church; and appoints that they shall be in the Keeping of the Clerks, till there be another Bishop▪ unless there be no Clerks, in which case the Metropolitan shall keep them for the Successor.  
The 36th renews the Canons of the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon, concerning the Authority of the See of the Church of Constantinople, and grants to it the same Privileges as to the See of old Rome, the same Authority in Ecclesiastical Affairs, and the 2d place, the 3d to that of Alexandria, the 4th to that of Antioch, and the 5th to that of Jerusalem.  
The 37th preserveth to the Bishops, ordained into Churches, which have been invaded by the Barbarians, the Dignity and Rank of Bishops, and permits them to perform their Functions.  
The 38th renews the 12th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon; whereby it is ordained, That the Disposition of Churches shall follow that of the Empire.  
The 39th preserveth to the Metropolitan of Cyprus, (who was forced to withdraw by reason of that Island's being taken by the Barbarians, and was come to settle in the new Justinianopolis) they preserve him, I say, the Right of Supremacy, and the Government of the Churches of the Hellespont, with the Right of being chosen by the Bishop's subject to it, ccording to the Ancient Custom. They do also subject to him the Bishop of Cyzicum.  
The 40th declares, They may receive a Monk in the 10th Year of his Age.  
The 41st ordains. That those who will be Recluses or Anchorets; aught to have been three Years at least in a Monastery.  
The 42d forbids to suffer Hermits to be in Towns.  
The 43d imports, That all kind of People may be admitted into Monasteries, even the greatest Sinners, by reason Monachism is a state of Penance.  
The 44th is against Monks guilty of Fornication or Married.  
The 45th forbids to dress with worldly Apparel and Ornaments the Virgins that consecrate themselves to God, when they go to take the Religious Habit.  
The 46th forbids Friars and Nuns to go out of their Monastery, without the Superiors Leave.  
The 47th forbids Friars to lie in the Monasteries of Virgins, and Virgins to dwell in the Monasteries of Friars.  
The 48th ordains, That the Wife of him who shall be made Bishop shall be put away from him, and shall withdraw into a Monastery, at a distance from the Bishop's Residence.  
The 49th prohibits converting Religious Houses to profane uses.  
The 50th forbids those of the Clergy and the Laity to play at any Games of hazard, upon pain of Deposition and Excommunication.  
The 51st forbids Jesters, Dancers and Shows.  
The 52d ordains, That the 
* [Missa praesanctificatorum, was the Sacrament, which was administered with Elements, which were before consecrated, oblatio prius oblati, & perfecti sacrificii, sacrique Mysterii. Balsam. in hunc Can.]  Mass of the Presanctified shall be celebrated every Day in Lent, except Saturday and Sunday, and Lady-day.  
The 53d forbids them that stood Sureties for Children, to marry the Mother of such Infants.  
The 54th prohibits marrying the Uncle's Daughter: Forbids a Father and a Son to marry the Mother and the Daughter, or two Sisters; as also a Mother and Daughter to marry the Father and Son, or two Brothers, upon Penalty of 7 Years Penance.  
The 55th ordains, That the Canon forbidding to fast on Saturday and Sunday shall be observed in the Church of Rome, as well as in other Churches,  
The 56th forbids eating Eggs and Cheese in Lent.  
The 57th forbids offering Milk and Honey on the Altar.  
The 58th forbids Laymen to give to themselves the Eucharist, before a Bishop, a Priest or a Deacon.  
The 59th forbids baptising in Domestic Chapels.  
The 60th is against them that feign themselves to be possessed.  
The 61st is against Superstitions.  
The 62d against the Fooleries which were acted on New-year's-day.  
The 63d condemns to the Fire the false Stories of Martyrs, made by the Enemies of the Church.  
The 64th imports, That the Laity ought not to undertake to teach Religious Matters.  
The 65th is against the Custom of kindling Fires before Houses on the New Moons.  
The 66th ordains, That Easter Week shall be spent in Prayer.  
The 67th forbids eating the Blood of Beasts.  
The 68th forbids burning, tearing, or giving to Victuallers the Books of the Gospels, if they be not quite spoiled.  
The 69th forbids the Laity to enter within the Rails of the Altar; yet the Emperor is excepted, who, according to an Old Custom, is permitted to enter in, when he is willing to make some Oblation to the Lord.  
The 70th forbids Women to talk in the Time of the Holy Sacrifice.  
The 71st is against some profane Practices of Students in the Law.  
The 72d declares the Marriages between an Orthodox Christian and an Heretic to be null and void.  
The 73d ordains, That Reverence shall be paid to the Cross; and that Crosses shall not be suffered to be made on the Floor.  
The 74th forbids making the Feasts, called Agapae, in Churches.  
The 75th ordains, That they shall sing in the Church without straining or Bawling, modestly and attentively.  
The 76th enjoins, That no Tavern or Tradesman's Shop shall be suffered to stand within the Enclosure of the Church.  
The 77th, That Men ought not to bathe with Women.  
The 78th, That they ought to instruct those that are to be baptised.  
The 79th is against an Abuse of some, who at Christmas made Cakes to the Honour of the Virgin's Lying-in.  
The 80th is against them that without Cause absent themselves for 3 Sundays together from their own Church, whether they be of the Clergy or of the Laity.  
The 81st pronounces Anathema to those that have added these Words to the Trisagion: Thou that hast been crucified for us.  
The 82d approves of the Pictures, in which Christ is painted in the Form of a Lamb.  
The 83d forbids giving the Eucharist to the Dead.  
The 84th orders them to be rebaptized, who can bring no Witnesses; nor certain Proofs that they have been baptised.  
The 85th grants Liberty to the Slaves which their Masters have freed before two or three Witnesses.  
The 86th condemns the infamous Company of debauched Women.  
The 87th is against Divorces made without lawful Cause.  
The 88th forbids bringing Horses into the Church without great Need and evident Danger.  
The 89th shows, That they ought to fast on Good Friday, till Midnight.  
The 90th renews the Law of not kneeling on Sunday.  
The 91st Condemns to the Punishment of Murderers those Women that procure Abortions.  
The 92d is against Ravishers.  
The 93d condemns the Marriages of those Men or Women who are not sure of the Death of their Wives or Husbands: But after those Marriages have been contracted, and when the first Husband comes again, he is ordered to take his Wife again.  
The 94th is against those that use the Oath of Pagans.  
The 95th is of the Reception of Heretics. It ordains, That the Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, Continents, Tesseradecatites, and Apollinarists, shall be received after they have made Abjuration in Writing, by anointing their Forehead, Eyes, Nostrils, Mouth and Ears with the Holy Chrism, pronouncing these Words; This is the Seal of the Holy Ghost. That the Eunomians, Montanists and Sabellians shall be rebaptized. That the Manichees, Valentinians, Marcionites and other Heretics, are also to abjure their Errors, anathematising all Heretics by Name, and making profession of the true Faith.  
The 96th is against plating and curling the Hair.  
The 97th forbids Husbands to cohabit with their Wives within the Enclosure of the Church.  
The 98th prohibits marrying a Maid betrothed to another.  
The 99th prohibits offering Roast Meats to Priests in Churches.  
The 100th prohibits lascivious Pictures.  
The 101st enjoins, That those that will receive the Eucharist must hold their Hands across, and so receive it. It forbids using Vessels of Gold, or of any other Matter; to receive it in.  
The 102d shows, to them that are entrusted with Power, to bind or to lose; that they ought to exercise this Ministry with a great deal of Prudence and Wisdom, considering well the Distemper, applying Remedies as skilful Physicians, and examining whether they do truly and sincerely repent.    

OF THE Ecclesiastical Writers Which FLOURISHED In the VIII Age of the CHURCH.  

BEDE. 
Bede.   
BEDE, Surnamed the Venerable 
a Surnamed the Venerable.] Upon what account he had this Name given him is not known. Several Reasons are alleged, but the most probable is this, That those that read his Books while he was alive not daring to give him the Title of Saint, contented themselves to call him Venerable; Nevertheless we do not find, that he was called so by any Cotemporary with him. He is also called Saint, Blessed, English Doctor, the Most Illustrious Master and Reader by way of Excellence.  was born in England in the Year 
* Others 673.  672 [in the County Palatine of Durham, within the Precincts of the Monastery of Girwy] not far from [the place where now stands a little Village called] Jarrow, [which lies near the Mouth of the River Tine.] At seven Years of Age his Relations presented him to S. Benedict of Biscop, than Abbot of the Monastery [of S. Peter] at Weremouth, and Founder [of that of S. Paul's] at Jarrow, [to be Educated and Instructed.] In these Monasteries, which were not above five Miles distant from each other, did he spend his whole Life under the Government [of S. Benedict, and after] of Ceolfride, who was the first Abbot of this latter. Being Nineteen Years of Age he was Ordained Deacon, and Eleven Years after Priest, by John [of Beverly] Bishop of 
† Or Hextold, by the Romans called Axelodunum, by the Normans Kexham, a famous City among the Northum  Haguestade. He applied himself closely to the study of Ecclesiastical and Profane Learning, and [by means of his exact skill in both the Greek and Latin Tongues] having read much, and made very large Collections 
b Having Read and Collected much.] As long as he lived he never gave over Reading, Writing, and Teaching.  he Composed a Great Number of Books upon all manner of Subjects, [which filled the World with so much wonder, that 
* De Gest. Angl. l. 3. c. 3. fol. 10.  William of Malmsbury says of him, That it was impossible for any Man to write so many, and so large Volumes in the narrow compass of Humane Life, had not God afforded him an extraordinary portion of his Divine Spirit and Wisdom.] He was the most Eminent Person of his time [Celebrated so highly by all the Eminent Men of that Age for his Universal Knowledge and Learning, that many said of him, Hominem in extremo Orbis angulo Natum Universum Orbem suo ingenio perstrinxisse, That he was born in the furthest part of the World, but comprehended the whole World in his Understandiug.] He had many Scholars, and [by his Example and Instruction] made all sort of Sciences to flourish in England. He died of an Inflammation of the Lungs, on the 26th of May] in the year 735, [which was his Climacterick, and was buried in the Monastery of Girwy. His Death is remarked by the Author of the Annals, Ultonienses, with this Encomium; 
† Annal. Ulton.  Beda Sapiens Saxonum quieevit: This Year died Bede the Wise Saxon. From hence his Bones were removed to Durham, and put in the same Chest or Coffin with S. Cuthbert's.] Some affirm, that he made a Voyage to Rome; [And indeed it cannot be denied, but that Sergius, who was then Pope, having some 
Gul. Malm. de Gest 〈◊〉. l. 3.  weighty Affairs of the Church then before him, did by his Letter sent to his Abbot Ceolfrid, so earnestly request him to come to Rome, to determine some difficult Controversies and Questions then under debate, which he thought could not be determined without him, as if at this time Bede, not the Pope himself, had been the only Infallible Oracle upon Earth.] Yet it is certain, that he never went out of England, [or left his Monastery;] and it evidently appears by his Writings, that he was never at Rome 
c It appears by his Writings, that he never was at Rome.] He never speaks of this pretended Voyage to Italy, but when he mentions the Pope's Letters, which he hath inserted in his History. He says, he had them from Nothelmus a London Minister, who brought him them from London. In his Letter to Egbert, speaking of the Customs used at Rome, he doth not allege his own practice for Confirmation of them, but refers us to the testimony of Egbert. He tells us, that he understood by some Monks that had been at Rome, that they put the date of the Year from the Passion of Jesus Christ upon their Christmas Tapers. . Bede's Works have been Collected, and divided into eight Tomes, which were Printed at Basil by Hervagius in 1563, and at Colen in 1612. [They had been Printed in three Tomes at Paris, in 1545, but not so Correct.] The two first Tomes contain such Works only, as concern Humane Arts and Sciences, viz. of Grammar, Arithmetic, Astronomy, Physic, Chronology, and Morality. Those which have nearest Relation to Ecclesiastical Matters are two Treatises about the Tropes and Figures of Holy Scripture, his Writings about the Lunar Cicles to find Easter-day every Year, and a Treatise of Times, in which he defends the Computation of the Years of the World according to the Hebrew Text against the Calculation of the Seventy, and divides the duration of the World into Six Ages, of which he gives us the History and Chronology in a small Treatise by itself, [which hath also been Printed alone at Paris in 15●●, 4to, and with the Scholiast of J. Bronchorstius at Colen in 1537.]  
The third Tome contains his Historical Books. The first, and most considerable is his Ecclesiastical History of England, divided into Five Books. The first contains the most remarkable things that happened in Great Britain, from Caesar to the Death of S. Gregory, [Anno. 604.] The other four relate at large what passed in the Church of England from that time [to the Year 731.] At the end he hath Annexed an Abridgement of this History in the form of a Chronicle, to which are joined the Lives o● S. Cuthbert, Archbishop of York; S. Faelix, Bishop of Nola; the Bishop of Arras, S. Columbanus; the Abbot S. Vedastus; S. Attalas, the Abbot; S. Patrick, the Apostle of Great Britain; S. Eustatius, Scholar of S. Columbanus; S. Bertolfus, Abbot of Bobio; S. Arnolphus, Bishop of Metz; and S. Burgondofora, an Abbess; with a Relation of the Travels and Martyrdom of S. Justin a Youth, in Verse, who was Beheaded at the Lovure in the time of Dioclesian's Persecution.  
The Life of S. Patrick is not Bede's, but Probus', of S. Columbanus', Jonas', and of S. Arnoldus, Paul the Deacon's.  
The Martyrology of Bede, as we now have it, is not in the same Purity, in which he Composed it, but several things have been added since, as is usual in Works of that Nature. Bollandus and his Followers do likewise assert, That it is not of Bede's Writing, but Florus' a Deacon of Lions, under whose Name 'tis found in several Manuscripts.  
The Treatise of Holy Places is made up several large Relations, and particularly from those of Arculphus, a Bishop of France, written in three Books by Adamannus.  
To this small Tract is annexed a large Collection of Hebrew Names both Proper, and Appellative and others, put in an Alphabetical Order, and Explained.  
This Tome ends with a Book, Entitled, Collections taken out of the Fathers, containing Sentences, Questions, and Parables. This Treatise is a Miscellaneous Rhapsody, without either Order or Method, and Unworthy of the Name of Bede.  
The fourth Tome of Bede's Works, contains his Commentaries upon some part of the Books of the Old Testament, of which the Catalogue followeth.  
An Explication of the three first Chapters of Genesis, taken out of S. Basil, S. Ambrose, and S. Austin.  
A Literal and Allegorical Commentary upon all the Penteteuch.  
Four Books containing an Allegorical Explication of the Books of Samuel, i. e. of the First and Second Book of the Kings.  
Thirty Questions upon the Books of Kings.  
Three Books of Allegorical Explications of the two Books of Esdras.  
A short Allegorical Exposition of the History of Tobit,  
An Allegorical Exposition of the Book of Job, Divided into three Books. This Work is not Bede's, but some other Authors; and he himself citys it in his Book of 
* De ratione Unciarum.  Ounces under the Name of Philip of Syda.  
A Commentary upon the Proverbs of Solomon, in three Books.  
Seven Books upon the Canticles. The first contains an Extract of S. Austin's Books against Julian, a Summary of all the Chapters applying them to the Church, and the Text of the Canticles. The five following Books contain a Commentary upon the Text taken out of the Ancient Commentaries. The last is made up of Collections of passages out of S. Gregory upon the Canticles.  
This Tome concludes with three Books, wherein he Explains Allegorically the Relation, which Moses gives in Exodus of the Building of the Ark, the Tabernacle, and Priest's Garments. Trithemius makes mention of a Commentary of Bedes upon the Proverbs, and he himself speaks of another upon Ecclesiastes; but these Works are not Published, no more than his Explication of all the Prophets.  
The fifth Tome contains his Commentaries upon the New Testament, viz.  
Four Books upon the Gospel of S. Matthew.  
Four Books upon S. Mark.  
Six Books upon S. Luke.  
A long Comment upon the Acts of the Apostles, at the end of which is a small Treatise of the Names, Places, and Cities, spoken of in that History.  
A Commentary upon the Catholic Epistles. [Bede made a Preface to this Commentary, giving an Account of the Order and Inscription of those Epistles; but it never was Printed with his other Works; but being lately found in a MS. belonging to Caius College in Cambridge, it hath been Printed in Dr Cave's Historiâ Literariâ among Bede's Works.  
A Commentary upon the Revelation.  
The Commentaries upon all Saint Paul's Epistles, which are taken out of Saint Austin's Works, are reserved for the Sixth Tome. There are several Opinions about the Author of this Commentary. Some attribute it to Peter, an Abbot of the Province of Tripoli, others to Florus, a Deacon of Lions, and others continue them to Bede. It is certain, that all these three did make Comments upon these Epistles, taken out of S. Austin. Cassiod●rus assures of the first, Wandelbert of the second, and Bede says it of himself in the Catalogue of his Works, at the end of his Church-History of England; and after him Hincmarus, and Lupus Ferrariensis testify the same to us. But to which of these they ought to be attributed, it would be hard to know, unless it were discovered by the Ancient MSS 
a By the Ancient MSS.] F. Mabillon quotes two MSS. of 800 years old, wherein he finds under the Name of Bede a clear different Commentary from that which is printed under his Name. This bears the Name of Florus in the Ancient MS of Corbey. It carries the same name in the MS. used by Trithemius, and in another quoted by F. Mabillon. In an Ancient MS. Collection of Canons this Collection is cited also under the name of Florus. In some MSS it carries the name of Bede and Florus. Lastly, Florus made another Commentary upon S. Paul taken out of the Works of 12 other Fathers, without any mention of S. Austin, which proves that he had already Collected the Testimonies of this Father in another Work. , in which this Commentary, Printed under the name of Bede is attributed to Florus; and where we find the true Commentary of Bede, bearing his own Name, as F. Mabillon hath observed in the first Tome of his Analecta.  
This Tome contains also some Retractations and Additions, to some places of his Commentary upon the Acts; Six new Questions, and the Translation of S. Chrysostom's Sermons in praise of S. Paul, made by Anianus.  
The Seventh Tome contains 33 Homilies fitted for the Summer. 32 for the Summer-Festivals of the Saints. 15 for the Winter. 22 for Lent. 16 for the Winter-Festivals of the Saints, and several Sermons attributed to Bede.  
Common places upon several Moral Points taken out of the Holy Scripture and Fathers.  
An Allegorical Treatise of the Valiant Woman, by which he understands the Church.  
A small Tract of the Offices of the Church, and some Fragments of an Allegorical Exposition upon the Proverbs.  
The Eighth Tome contains divers Treatises omitted in the former Tomes.  
An Allegorical Explication of the Temple of Solomon, with reference to the Church, of which it was a Figure.  
Another Exposition upon the three first Chapters of Genesis.  
Several Questions upon Genesis with Answers to them, taken out of S. Ambrose, S. Austin, S. I●dore, but more especially out of S. Jerom.  
The same sort of Questions upon Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, the Books of Joshua, Judges, and Kings.  
Divers Questions upon the Scripture. A Commentary upon all the Psalms.  
A small Treatise upon these Words of Psalm the 52. The Lord looked down from Heaven to see, if there were any upon Earth that would understand, and seek after God.  
Some Notes upon Boethius' Treatise about the Trinity.  
Meditations [upon the Passion of Christ] for the seven hours of the day.  
Bede's Penitential, Entitled, Remedies against Sin.  
Dacherius hath Printed in the Tenth Tome of his Spicilegium, a Martyrology, which sets down in Heroic Verses the chief Festivals of the Saints through the Year. It bears Bede's Name, and the Author was certainly an Englishman, a Monk of the Monastery of Jarrow, and Cotemporary with Bede. and indeed is much like the Style and Genius of this Author.  
There were also published in England in the year 1664, some Letters of Bede; Together with the Lives of the Abbots of Weremo●th and Jarrow: F. Mabillon in his first Tome of his Analecta hath published a short Letter of Bede to Albinus, but it contains nothing remarkable in it.  
Besides the Works aforementioned, there hath been lately Published out of the Ancient MSS. by the Reverend and Learned Mr. Henry Wharton, Archdeacon of Canterbury, a Commentary of Bedes upon the first One and Twenty Chapters of Genesis; His Exposition of the Song of the Prophet Habacuc; as also two Epfstles, the one containing▪ an Apology for himself against such as accused him of some Erroneus Opinions, the other to Egbert, Archbishop of York; together with a more correct Edition of his History of the Lives of the Abbots of Weremouth and Girwy. Printed at London, in 1693.  
Bede's stile is clear and easy, but is neither Pure, Elegant, Lofty, nor Polite. He wrote with wonderful readiness, but without Art or Consideration. He had much Reading and Learning, but wanted Judgement and Critical Exactness. He Collected indifferently all he found, without Picking and Choosing. His Commentaries upon Holy Scripture, as we have observed, are nothing but Extracts of the Commentaries of the Fathers, Collected and put together by him. He had set down the Authors out of which he took every passage, by putting into the Margin the first Letter of their Names; bat by the Negligence of such as copied them, they are lost. His History is exact enough as to the things that passed in his time, or a little time before him, but as to the other parts of it we cannot safely credit it, because he often made use of false Memoirs. His Composures upon the Profane Sciences, are neither very deep, nor exact, but they are well done for his Age.   

JOHN, Patriarch of Constantinople; and AGATHO, Deacon of the same Church.  
AFTER the Death of the Emperor Constantine [commonly called Pogonatus] his Son Justinian [the Second of that Name] a Cruel Man obtained the Empire in 685, and 
John Patriarch, and Agatho Deacon, of Constantinople.  was deprived os it in the Tenth year of his Reign by Leontius Patricius, who cut off his Nose, and Banished him; but he was soon after Deposed by Apsimarus Tiberius: And at length Justinian was again restored in 705, but was at last Slain in Bythinia, Anno. 712. by the Command of Bardanes, Surnamed Philippicus, who Invaded the Empire. This Man who had been the Scholar of the Abbot Stephen, the Scholar of Macarius, caused the Picture of the Sixth Council to be Pulled down, the Names of Sergius, and Honorius to be put in the Diptychs, and the Acts of the Council, which were in his Place to be Burnt. He Persecuted the Orthodox Bishops, Banished Cyrus' Patriarch of Constantinople, put John in his place, and endeavoured to reverse the Definitions of the Sixth Council, and revive the Doctrine of the Monothelites. But he did not live long enough to perfect his design, for he was taken, and had his Eyes put out by certain Persons that conspired against him in 713, on the Saturday before Whitsuntide, and the next Day Fl. Anthemius was declared Emperor, Surnamed Anastasius, and Crowned by John. He published the Sixth Council anew, put up the Picture of it, and caused the Acts to be written out again by the Deacon Agatho, who relates this whole matter in a Memoir, which he hath put at the end of the Acts of the Council.  
John, Patriarch of Constantinople, declared that he was of the same Opinion, and to reconcile himself to the Western Church. He wrote a Letter to Pope Constantine, in which he excuses himself for not sending a Synodical Letter of Communion, because he was hindered by the violence of Philippicus. He than gives him an Account how he was raised to the Patriarchate; He says, That Philippicus had a design to put a Person, who was not of the Clergy and who was of his own Sentiments, but he was forced by the earnest Petitions of the Clergy of Constantinople to choose him; That he never had declared himself to be of the Erroneous Opinions of the Emperor, nor did write to the Pope in defence of them; but he owns, That he was forced to dissemble the Truth by using ambiguous terms; He endeavours to excuse his behaviour, plainly acknowledges two Natural Wills in Jesus Christ, and approves of the Council held under Martin I. and the Sixth Council. Lastly, He earnestly desired the Pope to receive him into his Communion, and to write his Synodical Letters to him, without regard to what had passed. Nevertheless Constantine gave him no Answer, and he was likewise Deposed a little after, and Germanus put in his place.   

GERMANUS, Patriarch of Constantinople.  
GERMANUS Bishop of Cyzicum was translated to the Patriarchal See of Constantinople, Anno. 713. and enjoyed it till 730, when he was Deposed by the Emperor Leo Isaurus. and sent into Banishment in which he Died. We have three of his Letters in the Acts of the Seventh Council. Some attribute also to him a Mystical Work about the Ceremonies of the Liturgy, Entitled Theoria, Printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum which contains; also an Explication upon the Lord's Prayer, which is printed by itself. Four Sermons upon the Virgin printed by F. Combefis in Greek and Latin in his Addition to the Biblioth. Patrum. The first is upon her Presentation in the Temple. The second, which is upon her Annunciation, is a Dialogue between the Angel, Mary, and Joseph; and the two last are upon the Death of the Virgin, in one of which he insinuates, that she was taken up into Heaven in her Body. Schottus hath published another Sermon upon the Nativity of the Virgin, under the Name of Germanus; but F. Combefis hath restored it to Andrea's Cretensis. Some also believe, and not without Reason, that the Book, Entitled Theoria, and his Homilies, of which we have spoken already, belong to another Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople, who lived in the twelfth Age under Alexius Comnemus, and in the time of Pope Gregory the IX, to whom he wrote a Letter. Gretzer hath also published two Sermons upon the Cross, which are this latter's rather, than the former's; as also the Sermon upon the Virgin's Girdle put out by Surius. Lastly, F. Combefis hath published in Greek and Latin, a long Discourse about the Burial of Our Lord, which Gretzer attributes to the Author of the two Homilies upon the Cross; but it seems to be better Written, and to belong to a more ancient Author. We find also a Fragment taken out of a Treatise of Synods, and Heresies, directed to Antimus the Deacon, which seems also to be a good Piece. But the Work that doth most certainly belong to the elder Germane Patriarch of Constantinople, is that which Photius gives us some Extracts of, [in his Biblioth. cod. 233.] Entitled, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪  Of a lawful Retaliation, 
Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople.  in which he defends S. Gregory Nyssene from the Errors of Origen, which some imputed to him. He shows, that they, who were of Origen's Opinion concerning the ending of Hell-Torments, have imputed this Error to S. Gregory Nyssene by altering some of his Expressions, putting an ill Construction upon others, and not rightly understanding his other Writings. Photius observes, that his Style in this Work is clear, and easy; that he makes a fit use of Figures; that his Phrases are elegant, and polite; that he is not flat, and troublesome; that he keeps close to his Subject, and doth not fly from it by impertinent Expressions, forgetting nothing necessary for his Subject, and solidly proves the Propositions asserted; that he chief confutes the Error of those who imagine, That the Devils and Damned Souls shall one day be enstated among the Blessed, having constantly suffered [for their Sins.] He confutes, I say, this Opinion by the Authority of Jesus Christ, his Apostles, the Prophets, and Testimonies of the Fathers, particularly by some Passages taken out of the Works of S. Gregory Nyssene. He answers to the Testimonies of this Father, which the Origenists alleged, and shows their Cheats, discovers the Places that they have added, and vindicates him against all the Accusations of his Enemies.   

BONIFACE of Mentz.  
BONIFACE was an English man by Nation, and was called properly Winfrid, or Winfred; he professed a Religious Life in England, and at the same time applied himself close to his Study, that he might make himself serviceable to the Church. With this intention he went out of England in the year 715, to preach the Gospel in Friesland, but the War forced him to return into England. Not long after he went to Rome, from whence he was sent by Gregory the Second to preach the Gospel in Germany, anno 719. He preached first in Turingia, and then in Hassia, East-Frisland, and Saxony. Having planted the Faith of Jesus Christ in these Provinces, and converted several thousand Souls, he made a second Journey to Rome, and was there consecrated Bishop in 723 by Gregory the Second, who sent him back again with Instructions, and Letters of Recommendation. Being returned, he continued to preach the Gospel in Turingia, Hassia, and Bavaria. He received the Pall from Gregory the Third, with an allowance to constitute Bishoprics in the Countries newly converted. The Respect which he had for the Holy See, made him undertake a third Voyage to Rome, but he stayed not long, but returned soon into Germany. It was then his main business to establish a firm Custom in the Churches which he had Planted, to reform Discipline and Manners, to abolish Superstitions, to erect Episcopal Sees where it was necessary, and to hold Councils, of which he summoned several in Germany and France. Hitherto Boniface had only the Quality and Dignity of a Bishop and Vicar of the Holy See, without any particular Title. Wherefore Pepin, and the great Lords of France, thought it convenient to give him one, designing to make him Bishop of Colen; but the See of Mentz becoming vacant by the Deposition of Gervoldus, Boniface was put into his Place, and that Church made a Metropolis, which was confirmed by Pope Zachary, who made five Bishops Sees subject to it, viz. Tongres, Cologne, Worms, Spire, and Utrecht; and the Bishoprics newly erected, or those that depended upon Worms, viz. Strasburg, Ausburg, Wirtemberg, Buraburg, Erford, Eichstat, Constance, and Coira. But he soon after laid down that Dignity upon the account of Lullus his Scholar, whom he put in his Place with the Consent of Pepin, the Bishops, Clergy, and Lords of the Province, having first obtained Leave of the Pope to do it. He went to Utrecht to preach the Gospel in Friesland, where he was barbarously murdered by the Heathens, June 5. an. 754. in the place, whither he was come to confirm a great multitude of Persons newly baptised, and was buried in the Abbey of Fulda. Serarius hath published a Collection of Boniface's Letters, together with Lullus', Adulmus', and several other of his Scholars, Friends, Princes, and Popes, that wrote to him. [At Mentz in 1605, Reprinted 1629.]  
The first is to one of his Friends, called Nithardus; in it he takes the Name of Winfrid, which shows, that it was written when he was young. He exhorts this Friend to contemn Temporal Things, and apply himself to the Study of Holy Scripture, that he may acquire (saith he) that Divine Wisdom, which is more glittering than Gold, finer than Silver, more sparkling than Diamonds, more rare than Precious Stones; and he adds, That there is nothing that he can search after in his Youth with greater Honour, or possess with greater Comfort and Pleasure in his Age, than the Knowledge of Holy Scripture.  
The second is directed to an Abbess, to comfort her in her Afflictions.  
The third is superscribed to the Bishop Daniel. In it he complains of the Behaviour of certain Clergymen, who taught Errors, and permitted Persons guilty of Murder and Adultery to be admitted into the Priesthood. And that which troubled him most, was this; That he could not wholly separate from them, because they were in great Reputation in Pepin's Court, of whom he stood in need: But he says, That he did avoid all Communion with them in the Holy Mysteries. He observes, That the Opposition which he met with from Heathens and Infidels 
Boniface of Mentz.  was the more tolerable, because it was without; but when a Priest, Deacon, or Clergyman, departs from the Faith, this causes a Disorder in the inward parts of the Church. He asks Advice of this Bishop, how he should carry himself; he says, That on the one hand he is obliged to hold a fair Correspondence with the French King's Court, because he cannot, without his Authority and Command, defend the Germane Churches, and subdue the Idolatry of those Provinces. That going to desire Orders for that end, he cannot but communicate with those disorderly Clergymen; yet he is afraid that he offends God by it, having promised by an Oath to Pope Gregory to avoid those Persons; but on the other side, he is afraid of bringing a greater Damage upon the Church, if he should forbear going to the French King's Court. He adds, That he seems to satisfy his Oath by separating from those irregular Clergymen in their Ministry, and not agreeing with them in their Errors, or sinful Conversation. We have Daniel's Answer to this Letter, wherein he approves of Boniface's Carriage.  
The fourth Letter was written by S. Boniface when he was but a Deacon. It was to desire Adelmus' Books of Alimus.  
The fifth is a Letter written by two of S. Boniface's Scholars to an Abbess.  
The sixth is a circular Letter of S. Boniface to all Christians, in which he exhorts them to pray to God for a Blessing upon his Travels for the Conversion of the Gentiles.  
In the seventh, he desires an Abbess to help him by her Prayers.  
In the eighth, he gives Egbert Bishop of York notice, that he hath sent a Writing to Ethelwald King of the Mercians against some Errors, and exhorts him to oppose them. He tells him, That he hath sent him some of S. Gregory's Letters, which he had taken out of the Library of the Church of Rome, and which he thought not common in England. He desires of him some of Bede's Works.  
He requests the same thing in the following Letter of the Abbot Huctbert, and recommends himself to his Prayers.  
In the 10th, he exhorts in his own Name, and in the Name of eight Bishops that were with him, the Priest Herefrede to show the Memoir which they sent him to the King of the Mercians, and exhorts him to follow their Advice. 'Twas to hinder the Debaucheries and Disorders of his Kingdom.  
In the 11th Letter, he consults the Bishop Pethelmus about the Customs of France and Italy, by which it was forbidden to marry her to whose Child he had been Godfather: Whereupon he says, That till than he thought there was no harm in it, having never found, that it was forbidden by the Canons or Decrees of the Holy Bishops. He desires him to let him know, whether he hath met with any thing about it in any Ecclesiastical Writings.  
The 12th to King Ethelbald contains nothing remarkable.  
The 13th, 14th, and 16th, are directed to the Abbess Eatburg; in them he recommends himself to her Prayers.  
In the 15th, to Nothelmus Bishop of Canterbury; he prays him to hold the same Friendship and Correspondence with him, which he had with his Predecessor Berthwald. He earnestly requests him to send him a Copy of S. Austin's. Questions to S. Gregory, and this Pope's Answers, in which he allows Kindred in the third Degree to marry. He desires him to examine carefully, whether these Answers be S. Gregory's, because they are not in the Library of the Roman Church. He asks his Opinion about a Person who had married a Widow, to whose Daughter he had been Godfather, and prays him to tell him, if he had met with any Decree about it in the Canons; or Holy Fathers. Lastly, he desires him to tell him, in what Year of Jesus Christ the Persons, whom S. Gregory sent to preach the Gospel in England, arrived there.  
The 17th is sent to certain Monks, who had lost their Abbot. In it he names another to them, and gives them several Directions about a Monastic Life. He also nominates a Priest, and a Deacon, who should have the Care of Divine Service, and preach the Word of God to the Brotherhood.  
The 18th contains some special Tokens of Christian Friendship and Love to the archdeacon, to whom it is written.  
The 19th is a Letter sent in the Name of Boniface, and five other Bishops, to Ethelbald, or Ethelwald, King of the Mercians. Having commended this Prince for his Virtues, particularly for his Liberality to the Poor, and his Justice; they tell him with a great deal of freedom, that they have heard, that he lives in Incontinence, and show him the enormous Nature of that Crime. They reprove him also for depriving certain Monasteries of their Privileges and Revenues, and account it worthy of the Name of the great Sin of Sacrilege. They complain also, that his Magistrates and Justices imposed Taxes upon the Monks and Clergy; they say, that the Churches of England had enjoyed their Privileges from the coming of Austin, to the Reign of Chelred King of the Mercians, and Ofred King of 
* Of Northumberland rath●r, for Brnicia and Deria, which had been two Kingdoms, were united by Oswy, and so made the Kingdom of Northumberland a little before Osred Reigned.  the Bernicians; that these two Kings had committed very great Sins in abusing and wronging the Monks, and destroying their Monasteries, but had been punished for their Impiety, and died most miserably. They exhort him not to follow their Example, and in the conclusion, lay before his Eyes the shortness of this Life, and the torments which attend Sinners in another.  
The 20th Letter is to an Abbess, who had laid down the Government of her Nunnery, that she might live a more peaceable and quiet Life. She had desired his advice, Whether she should undertake a Journey to Rome. He doth not dissuade her from it, but advises her to stay, till the Disturbances in Italy were over.  
In the 21st he writes to the Abbess Eatburg the Visions which a certain Person had seen, who thought, that his Soul was separated from his Body for a time. He imagined himself to be taken up into Heaven, and from thence to behold evidently all that passed in this World, and in the other; to hear the Angels and Devils disputing about the state of the Souls, which were come out of the World; that the Sins which they had committed, stood up to accuse them, but the few Virtues, which they had practised, appeared in their defence; that he had seen Pits of Fire, in the bottom of which were the Souls condemned to Eternal Flames, and at the Mouths were those, who should one day be delivered from their Punishments; that he had seen Paradise, and the way that the Souls of Just Men go thither, when they depart out of the World; that some fall into a River of Fire, as they pass, which throughly purges them, who have smaller Sins to expiate: Lastly, that he saw the Storms which the Devils raised upon Earth, and the Sins into which they plunged Men.  
The following Letters of Boniface are Letters of Compliment, Thanks, or private Matters.  
The 32d is a Letter of Recommendation written by Charles Martel, [Controller of the Household to Chilperick King of France, and Father of Pepin the next King,] in favour of Boniface.  
The next are several Letters written to Boniface, or Adelm.  
The 44th is a Letter of Adelm to 
* Britannorum Cornubi-ensium Rex, Uss.  King Geruntius, against some particular Customs in Ireland, concerning the Shaving of Clergymen, and the Celebration of Easter.  
After this come several Letters written by Lullus, the Scholar of S. Boniface, who succeeded him, and by other English-Men.  
In the 62d Lullus ordains a Week of Abstinence, and two Days of Fasting, to obtain fair Wether.  
The 70th is a Letter of Cuthbert Archbishop of Canterbury, and his Synod, written to Lullus, and to the Christians of Germany, after the Death of Boniface. In it he shows the respect they had for the Memory of Boniface, and assures him, that they determine to celebrate his Festival, and take him for their Patron with S. Gregory and S▪ Austin, the Apostle of England. They exhort the Bishops of Germany to discharge their Ministry with Vigilance and Sanctity, and pray them to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for them promising to do the same on their part.  
In the 87th, Magingok Bishop of Wirtemberg consults Lullus about the inseparable Conjunction made by Marriage, and observes the different Opinions of the Fathers about it.  
The 91st is Boniface's and is directed to Pope Steven. He desires him to continue the same Friendship and Protection to him, which his Predecessors had granted him; he promises for his part to continue his Labours, and always bear the same respect for the Holy See. He submits to his Judgement and Correction all that he hath said or done; he excuses himself, that he had not written to him so long, because he had been busy in repairing the Churches, which the barbarous People had pillaged and burnt.  
The 92d is also Boniface's, it is directed to Fubredus, a Priest, to be presented to King Pepin, as a Petition from Boniface, that after his Death he would yield his Protection to his Scholars, and the Churches erected by him, and settle Lullus in his place to preach the Gospel to the Infidels, and govern the Churches.  
The three next are but short Notes written to Lullus.  
The 96th is King Pepin's Letter to him, wherein he tells him, that every Bishop should often, and devoutly repeat the Litanies without Fasting, to give God thanks for the plenty he hath given them.  
The 97th is a Letter written by Boniface to Pope Steven, in which he consults him about the Contest between the Bishop of Utrecht and the Bishop of Cologne. S. 
* Or Wilbrord.  Wilbrod was Ordained Bishop by Pope Sergius, and appointed to preach the Gospel in Frisia, where having converted many, he erected his See at Utrecht by the Order of Carloman; but the Bishop of Cologne contended, that that City belonged to his Bishopric, because from the time of Dagobert, that Castle had been annexed to the Bishopric of Cologne, upon the account of preaching the Gospel to the Fris●…ns. He adds, that this Bishop having not performed the Condition, he had forfeited his Right, and that this City ought to be a Bishop's Seat dependant upon the Holy See. He prays him to tell him what he ought to do, and send him a Copy of Sergius' Letter, that he might convince the Bishop of Cologne.  
The 100th Letter is Lullus', who wrote to the Pope against the Priest En●edus, who would not be subject to his Jurisdiction.  
The 105th is Boniface's, wherein he imparts to Cuthbert Archbishop of Canterbury the Canons made in his Synod. He tells him, That they made a Confession of the Faith of the Church, owned an Union, and Subjection to the Roman-Church, would yield Obedience to S. Peter and his Vicar, and that they have Ordained, that Synods should be called every Year; that they should require the Palls for Metropolitans of the Holy See; that they would follow the Commands of S. Peter; ●●●t 〈…〉 who have 〈◊〉 the Pall, should▪ observe the behaviour of the Bishops; that Bishops should neither keep 〈◊〉 Dogs, nor Ha●…; that the Priests should v●…t 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 account of their Conversation; that Bishops should visit their Di●… Year; that Clergymen should not wear laymen's Habit, nor bear Arms; that 〈…〉 in their Synod; and the Bishops shall bring to this Synod all P●… which they cannot reform, who shall be subject to their Metropolitans, and they 〈◊〉 the Bishop of Rome. The remaining part of it is an Exhortation to Metropolitans to discharge the 〈◊〉 of their Ministry with Vigilance, and die rather than do any thing contrary to the Sacred Laws of the Church, About the end ●e tells C●… that it were conv●… to 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 from going in such Numbers to Rome, because the greatest part of ●…, and 〈…〉 scandal in the whole Church, for there is 〈…〉 where there are not some English Women of a wicked Life.  
The 10●th Le●… is a Copy of those Letters, which a Bishop used to send to the Religious Persons of his Dio●… to recommend the Dead to their Prayers.  
The 10●th, 1●5th, and 1●7th Letters are Petitions to the Empero●… to oppose Swearing, and to desire some Favour.  
The last is in the Name of the Church of Mentz, which desired her Bishop.  
The following Letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 part of this Collection, being Letters of the Popes to Boniface, and the Acts of ●…, held under Pope Zachary, of which we shall speak in another pl●….  
The Style of Boniface's Letters is 〈◊〉, and barbarous, but they are good sense. He was very well 〈…〉 of Church-Discipline, he was wholly devoted to the Holy See, he had much Sincerity, and 〈…〉 for the Reformation of Manners, especially of the Clergy, and for the 〈…〉 Some attribute to him the Life of S. Livinus, whom F. Mabillon thinks to 〈…〉 Author. His Treatise of the Unity of the Faith is not come to us. F. 〈…〉 in the Tenth Volume of his Specilegium, a Piece, entitled, The St●… ●…, which contains several Rules for managing the Functions and Life of 〈…〉 a Catalogue of the Festivals; but this Book cannot be the Treatise of the Unity of Faith, as some ●…: And there is some Grounds to doubt whether it really belongs 〈◊〉 Boniface of M●…; and so much the more, because he there addresseth himself to the Emperor, whereas in Boniface's time there was no Emperor in Germany,   

GREGORY II.  
GREGORY the 〈◊〉 of that Name was raised to the See of Rome 
* 28 of April, in 715. D. Cave.  the 24th Day of 〈…〉 that Church 16 Years, eight Months, and some 
Gregory II.  Days. We have several of this Pope's 〈◊〉  
The 1st 〈…〉 is directed to Boniface the Priest, to whom he gave permission to preach the Faith 〈…〉 of Germany, To this is annexed the Form of the Oath, which Boniface swore to the 〈…〉 Ordi●… in the Year 722. or 723.  
The 2d Letter is 〈…〉 of the King's Household, to recommend Boniface to him. Upon which this Prince granted him Letters of Protection, which are among Gregory's.  
The 3d is also a Letter of Reco●…dation for Boniface, directed to all Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Lords, 〈◊〉, and i●…ral to all Chri●…  
The 4●… is to the People, over whom he was Constituted Bishop. 'Tis in the ordinary Form which ●….  
The 5th is 〈◊〉 to the great Lords of that Country.  
The 6th is to all People.  
The 7th is to the whole Nation of the East-Saxons inhibiting Germany.  
The 8th, which bears date ●25. is directed to Boniface, to congratulate the progress he had made in converting the Infidels.  
The 9th, 11th and 12th, respect the Controversy about Images, and are set down in the Acts of the VIIth Council, where we shall have a 〈◊〉 opportunity to speak of them.  
The 10th is addressed to Urs●… Duke of Venis●, whom he exhorts to join himself with the Exarch in recovering the City of Ravenna from the Lombard's, and putting it under the Government of the Emperors Le● and Constantine again.  
The 13th is a Decretal Epistle, in which he answers several Questions put to him by Boniface.  
In the 1st Article about the Degrees of Consanguinity, within which it is forbidden to Marry, he says, that it were to be hoped that no Persons nearly related would contract Marriage, but to yield a little to the Barbarity of that Nation, they must content themselves to prohibit Marriages between Persons related in the fourth Degree.  
In the 2d he permits an Husband, whose Wife is unable to perform Conjugal Duties, to Marry another.  
In the 3d he orders, that a Priest accused of any great Crime, shall clear himself by Oath, if there be no Witnesses for him.  
In the 4th he forbids, that Confirmation performed by a Bishop shall be repeated.  
The 5th commands, that there shall be only one Chalice set upon the Altar at the Celebration of Mass.  
In the 6th he uses S. Paul's words to resolve the Question, Whether it be lawful to eat Meats offered unto Idols?  
In the 7th he declares, that it is not lawful for Children, whose Kindred have put them into the Monasteries before the Age of 14 Years, to go out of them to lead a Secular Life.  
In the 8th he forbids to Rebaptize those, who have been once Baptised in the Name of the Trinity, although it were by wicked Priests.  
In the 9th he will have those Children Baptised, of whom there is no clear proof, that they have ever been so already.  
In the 10th he orders, that Lepers shall not be deprived of Communion.  
In the 11th he forbids flying, when the Plague, or any other Contageous Disease is in a Monastery, or in the Church.  
In the last, he commands Boniface to reprove disorderly Priests and Bishops, but would not have him to refuse to talk, or eat with them.  
This Letter is quoted by Gratian under the Name of Gregory, but it is Gregory TWO, and 'twas dated the 10th Year of the Emperor Leo, the 10th Indiction, which is Anno 726 of the Vulgar Aera, or common Account.  
The 14th Letter of this Pope is directed to Serenus Bishop of Aquileia, and in it he exhorts him not to invade the Rights of the Patriarch of Grado.  
In the last to this Patriarch he tells him, what a strict prohibition he had laid upon the Bishop of Aquileia.  
Besides these Letters we have a Memoir, which this Pope gave to the Bishop Martinian, the Priest George, and the Sub-Deacon Dorothaeus, whom he sent into Bavaria, in which he gives them Instructions, what they should do in that Country for the establishment of the Churches, for the Ordinations of Bishops, and Regulation of Discipline. He advises them to allow of those Bishops who hold the Faith of the Church, and have been Canonically Ordained; to permit them to celebrate Divine Service according to the Roman way; but to put out those, whose Faith is suspected, or Ordination faulty; to model the Divine Service according to the usage of the Church of Rome; to constitute in the Provinces a sufficient Number of Bishops, with an Archbishop; to set Bounds to Provinces and Dioceses; to enjoin the Bishops not to Ordain such as have been twice Married, nor Ignorant, nor lame Men, nor such as have done public Penance, nor Slaves, nor Servants, nor Africans; to have a special care of the Church's Revenues, and divide them into four parts, one for himself, another for the Clergy, a third for the Poor and Strangers, and a fourth for the Building; to Ordain only in the Ember-weeks; to administer Baptism at Easter and Whitsuntide only, unless in case of Necessity; to observe the Constitutions of the Church of Rome; not to suffer any Man to have more Wives than one, nor to Marry his Niece; to esteem Virginity more highly than Marriage; to account no Meats unclean, but such as are offered to Idols; to avoid all sorts of Superstition; to teach, that it is not lawful to Fast upon Sunday, or upon Christmas, Epiphany, or Ascension-Days; not to receive the Offerings of such as are at Enmity, till they are reconciled; to do Penance for daily Faults; to instruct the People concerning a Resurrection and a Judgement. This Memoir is dated Anno 715. [This Pope's Epistles are extant in the Councils, Tom. 6. P. 1437.]   

GREGORY III.  
GREGORY the third of that Name, was chosen in the Year 731. and sat 10 Years and some Months in the See of Rome. His first Letter is directed to Boniface, who 
Gregory III.  was Ordained Bishop of the Germans by his Predecessor. He granted him the Right of bearing the Pall, promises him to erect new Bishoprics in Germany, according as the Number of Christians shall multiply. He assures him, that he had not absolved a certain Priest who bragged, that he had received Absolution from him; and answers some Questions, which Boniface had propounded to him.  
In the 1st Article he orders, that they shall be Baptised again in the Name of the Trinity, who have been Baptised by the Heathens.  
In the 2d he forbids to eat the Flesh of a Wild Horse.  
In the 3d he commands to offer the Sacrifice for all that died in the Orthodox Faith.  
The 4th ordains, that those who have been Baptised by a Priest that hath sacrificed to Jupiter, or eaten Meats offered to Idols, shall be Rebaptised.  
The 5th forbids Marriage to the seventh Generation.  
The 6th bids him to hinder a Widower to Marry above twice.  
The 7th imposeth Penance for their whole Life upon such as Murder their Father, their Mother, their Brother, or their Sister, and prescribes them for Penance to abstain from Wine, and Flesh-Meats, and to fast three Days in the Week.  
The 8th forbids to sell Slaves to the Heathens.  
The 9th enjoins him, when he Ordains a Bishop to summon two or three Bishops to be present at the Ordination.  
The 2d is a Letter of Recommendation directed to all Bishops, Priests and Abbots, given to Boniface, when he returned into Germany.  
The 3d is a Letter composed on purpose for the same Person, directed to the Germans, whom he commands to obey Boniface, and leave their Heathenish Ceremonies.  
The 4th is directed to the Bishops of Bavaria and Germany, whom he enjoins to come to those Councils, which Boniface shall call.  
The 5th is directed to Charles Martel, of whom he desires assistance against the Lombard's. 'Tis very urgent, and yet withal very submissive.  
The 6th is to the same Person about the same Business.  
The 7th is to Boniface, he approves of the Division which he had made in Bavaria into four Bishoprics. He tells him that he ought to Ordain those Priests, who have exercised their Ministry in that Country, Bishops, although he can't find out by whom they were Ordained, if they be Orthodox, and of good Conversation. He will not have such Persons to be rebaptized, who have been Baptised already in the Name of the Trinity, although through Error the words were not well pronounced, but order them to be contented to confirm them by Imposition of Hands, and by anointing with the Chrism. He allows him to reprove and correct Wilo, if he act contrary to the Discipline of the Church. He order him to call a Council, and not to continue long in one place, but to travel for the Conversion of all the Country. This Letter is dated Octob. 27. Indiction 8. which is the 739 Year of the Vulgar Aera.  
To these Letters is joined a Collection of Canons, taken out of the Penitentials, which seems to be a later Composure, than of Gregory III. and which I do not believe to be the Works of this Pope; [yet both are Printed together under his Name in the Councils, Tom. 6. Pag. 1468.]   

ZACHARY Bishop of Rome.  
POPE Zachary was raised to the Holy See in the Year 741. He was a Greek, if we may believe the Authors of the Pope's Lives, and had the reputation of being most mild and 
Zachary.  courteous, and yet at the same time very valiant and courageous. At the beginning of his Popedom, Italy was in great Troubles, Luitprandus, King of the Lombard's, being at War with Thrasimond Duke of Spoletum, and the Romans, who assisted the latter. Zachary made Peace between the Romans, and the King of the Lombard's, upon condition that he should restore four Cities, which he had taken from them; and so poor Thrasimond being forsaken, was forced to give over his opposition. But the Lombard having obtained his design, was not careful to perform his promise, but Zachary went to him, obliged him to restore the Cities to the Romans, and make a Peace with him. This very Pope being consulted by the French, whither they should acknowledge Pepin for their King, who had all the Authority already, and was enstated in the Government of the Realm, or Chilperic, who indeed had the Name of King, but was not capable of a business of that weight; answered in favour of Pepin, of whose Protection the Romans and Popes had then great need, having so Potent an Enemy near at hand, as the King of the Lombard's was.  
Although these Matters were of very great consequence, yet those, which are spoken of most in Zachary's. Letters, concern the Churches newly founded in Germany by Boniface, who consulted him with much respect.  
The first is an Answer to this Bishop's Questions, contained in the foregoing Letter. They both begin with Compliments. Boniface tells the Pope, how great Veneration he had for the Holy See; and the Pope assures him, that he was extremely glad at the receipt of his Letters, by which he was informed, that the Church of Jesus Christ was every Day increased by his Preaching. Boniface tells him, that he had Ordained three Bishops in Germany, and divided the Province into three Dioceses; that he had placed one Bishop in the Castle of Wirtemberg, another in the City of Buraburg, and the third at Erford. He prays him to confirm what he had done, and to make these three places into Bishops Sees.  
Zachary returns an Answer to this Article, that he approved what Boniface had done, and did accordingly make those three places Bishoprics. Nevertheless he desires him to see, whether these places are considerable enough to place Bishops in, because the Canons forbidden to place them in Villages or small Towns, lest the Dignity of Bishops be thereby rendered vile and contemptible.  
Boniface, in the second Article of his Letter, informs Zachary, That Caroloman, a French Duke, had desired him to hold a Council in his Kingdom, to restore the Discipline, which was almost lost because there had not been a Synod held in France for above Fourscore Years; and the Bishoprics and Archbishoprics by that means were fallen into the hands of Laymen, whose Lives were very Scandalous, and Disorderly. He desires leave of Zachary to hold a Council, and this Pope grants him his Request in his Answer.  
In the third Article he desires to know what he should do with those Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, who lived in many Disorders and Debaucheries. Zachary answers him, That he ought not to suffer them to perform the Functions and Offices that belong to their Orders and Degrees.  
In the 4th Article, Boniface desires the Pope to appoint him a Successor, or give him leave to choose himself one. The Pope denieth him this Request, it being contrary to the Canons to appoint a Successor to a Bishop while he is alive: Yet he grants him power to nominate one at the point of Death.  
In the 5th he enquireth, whether it be true, that one of his Country had obtained a Dispensation from [Gregory III.] Zachary's Predecessor, to Marry his Uncle's Widow, which had been his Cozen-German's Wife, and had received the Veil. The Pope answers him, That his Predecessor did not grant such a Licence, because the Holy See allows nothing contrary to the Constitutions of the Councils, and the Holy Fathers.  
In the 6th, he asks him, whether it be true, That on New-Years-Day Heathenish Dances and Ceremonies are practised in Rome. The Pope answers, That there is no more any such practice there, and that that detestable custom was abolished by S. Gregory.  
In the 7th he says, That some French Bishops, who had been Adulterers or Fornicators, after they had made a Journey to Rome, pretended, that the Pope had given them Power to perform their Offices; but he maintained the contrary, because the Holy See would do nothing against the Canons. The Pope confirms him in this Opinion, and commands him not to believe them, but to punish them according to the Severity of the Canons. He adds, That he hath sent three Letters of Confirmation to the three Bishops constituted by Boniface; and also that he hath written to Carloman, to exhort him to a speedy Execution of his design. This Letter is dated on the 11th Indiction, that is, in the Year 742.  
The second Letter of Zachary is a Copy of the Letter written to the three Bishops instituted by Boniface. By the Authority of the Holy See he confirms the Institution of their Sees. He declares, that no body but the Apostolic Vicar, shall ordain Bishops for those Sees; and prohibits encroaching upon their Jurisdiction or Territory.  
The third Letter of Zachary is that which he sent to the French Bishops, to Congratulate them for endeavouring the Re-establishment of Church-Discipline, and the Reformation of the manner of the Clergy, and to exhort them to do it effectually, and as becomes Holy Bishops.  
By the 4th Letter directed to Boniface, Zachary gives the Pall to the three Metropolitans instituted by Boniface; Then he approves the Sentence which Boniface had passed against two French Men who had lived a Profane and Disorderly Life. This Letter is dated in June, in the 12th Indiction, that is, in the Year 743.  
In the next Letter, directed to the same Person, he wonders, that Boniface having at first desired of him the Pall for the three Metropolitans, he begged it then but for one. He complains, that he suspected him guilty of Simony. He commends him for giving no credit to a Bishop of Bavaria, who did falsely affirm himself to have been Ordained by the Pope. He exhorts him to hinder all them that do not live according to the Canons, from performing the Priestly Functions. He confirms him in the right, granted him by his Predecessor, to Preach in Bavaria. This Letter is dated in the year 745.  
In the 6th Letter, directed also to Boniface, Zachary answers a Question propounded to him by 
* Vigilius & Sidonius. ut Uss. in Ep. Heb. Syll.  two Persons of Piety of Bavaria, about the Validity of Baptism, Administered by a Priest, who not understanding Latin, in stead of saying, In Nomine Patris, Filii, & Spiritus Sancti, had said, In Nomina Patria, & Filia, & Spiritu Sancta. Zachary answers, That if that Priest did not design to introduce an Error or Heresy, but committed this fault merely out of Ignorance of the Latin Tongue, they ought not Re-baptize those whom he hath Baptised, but only Consecrate them by the Imposition of Hands.  
The 7th Letter to Pepin Constable of Franee, and to the French Bishops or Lords, is only a Collection of several ancient Canons, touching divers Articles of Discipline, about which he had been Consulted by Ardobanius a Presbyter sent from Pepin.  
In the 8th Letter he acquaints Boniface, that he hath sent those Canons, and enjoins him to Examine a new the Matter of the three French Bishops, and to send them to Rome, in case they maintain their own Innocency. this is dated in January in the Year 747.  
The 9th Letter, according to the date, was sent the Year before. Zachary commends Boniface's Zeal, exhorts him to continue in it, comforts him concerning the Irruption of the Barbarians into the Countries converted by him. He approves what he had done in the Synod held in France, and was mightily pleased that they had pitched upon a City to be made a Metropolis, that Boniface might be settled there. He blames them that opposed this design, and commends the French Princes for having countenanced it. He confirms his Sentence against disorderly Bishops. He assures him, That he ought not to believe those that boast of being Established by the Holy See. He acquaints him, that the Condemnation of Adalbert and Clement was approved in a Synod held at Rome. He saith, He will deal with another Seducer, named Geolebius, who was in his Journey to Rome, as he deserves. He will have him to hold yearly a Council in France. He confirms him in the right of a Metropolitan, which he annexeth to the City of Colen.  
The 10th Letter is directed to Boniface. He says that they ought to Rebaptize those who have not been Baptised in the Name of the three Persons of the Trinity; That Sacrilegious, Impure, or Heretical Priests or Deacons are to be Banished into Monasteries, and put to Penace. He rejects the Error of one 
* So much of this Letter as concerns Samson and Virgilius is printed in uss. Ep. Syll. p. 34.  Samson a Presbyter of Scotland; affirming, that a Man might be made a Christian, without being Baptised in the Name of the Trinity, only by the Bishop's Imposition of Hands. He approves a Writing of Boniface, about the Unity of the Faith, and the Apostolic Doctrine, directed to all Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; He refuses to send another Person to hold Councils in France; He approves also the Profession of Faith, sent to him by the French Bishops. He writes against Virgilius, who molested Boniface, assuring him, That he will write to the Duke of Bavaria, to send him to him, that he may judge him. Lastly, He answers Boniface's last Letter, that seeing the French did not keep their promise, to make Colen a Metropolis in respect to him, he may dwell at Mentz, and gives him leave to choose a fit Person to succeed him. This Letter is dated May 748.  
The 11th Letter of Zachary is directed to some French and Germane Bishops; He congratulates their Union among themselves and with the Holy See, and exhorts them to continue their labour for the Church, joining with Boniface, Vicar of the Holy See.  
The 12th Letter is to Boniface. He commends his Zeal and Piety. He likes well his Separation from the Erring and Disorderly Bishops. He says, That if the French Bishops will receive the Pall, and perform their Promises, they will deserve Praise; That what he received freely, he gives freely. He grants a Privilege to the Monastery of the Benedictines founded by Boniface in a Solitude of Germany. Then he answers several Questions proposed to him in a Memoir, which Lullus sent by Boniface, presented to him. This is the Sum of these Answers. 1. That it is Unlawful to Eat Wild Beasts, yea Hares. 2. That on the Thursday before Easter, when the Holy Chrism is Consecrated, they ought to kindle three great Lamps full of Oil, which may last till Holy Saturday, and to Kindle at those Lamps the Paschal Tapers, used at the Baptismal Fonts. 3. That those that have the Falling-Sickness, if they have it from their Birth, or from their Parents, should be banished from the Towns; but if it happens to them accidentally, they ought to endeavour to Cure them; That in the mean while they are not to Communicate, but after all the rest of the Congregation. 4. He approves the usage of Washing one another's Feet on Holy Thursday before Easter. 5. He reproves some certain Forms of Blessings used among the French. 6. He says, it were to be Wished, that Presbyters were 30 Years old [before their Ordination,] yet, if need be, they may be Ordained at 25. 7. He informs him, that Milo, who had been put in Rigobert's place at Rheims, should do well to quit that Bishopric. 8. He says, That he hath found no Decree about the time in which they ought to eat Bacon; yet he does not think, they ought to eat it before it be Dried in the Smoke, or Dressed at the Fire; and if they will eat of it without Dressing, they must stay still after Easter. 9 He approves the Condemnation of a Bishop who bore Arms, and committed Fornications. 10. He says, That Ordinations ought to be Celebrated at Lawful times: Yet he excuses Boniface for performing them at other times out of Zeal. 11. He informs him, That he ought not to make any Scruple of taking a Penny a House for the Church Revenues. 12. He enjoins him to put to Penance, and to Depose those Presbyters, who have been Ordained, being only Laics, and involved in Criminal Matters, if their Crime comes afterward to be discovered. 13. He thinks one may fly to avoid Persecution, when it is fierce. 14. He forbids Communicating with an Excommunicated Person who desires not Absolution. 15. He thinks that a Tribute may be taken of the Sclavonians who come to live in Christian Countries. 16. Lastly, He tells him, that he hath marked in Lullus' Volume, in what places they are to make the Sign of the Cross in the Canon of the Mass. This Letter is dated November 751.  
In the 13th Letter, written a few days after, he praises the unwearied labour of Boniface, who had for 25 years together, preached the Gospel in Germany, and holden Councils in France. He says, it is just he should have a Cathedral Church, and for that purpose, he confirms the right of Metropolitan to him and his Successors in the Church of Mentz, and gives him for Suffragans the Bishops of Tongres. Colen, Worms, Spire, Utretcht, and all the Countries of Germany.  
The 14th Letter of Zachary is the Privilege granted 
* The Name was, The Monastery of Our Saviour; but hath been in after Ages called, The Monastery of Fulda, because it was built in the City and near the River of the same Name, Anno. 742. by the care of Baufail, but charge of Charles the Great, and Pepin, Kings of France.  to the Monastery of Fulda, Founded by Boniface, which imports, that this Monstery shall be Subject to the Holy See only; and that no Person shall say Mass, or exercise any Jurisdiction there, unless invited by the Abbot.  
There is also a Letter of Boniface to Griphon, Pepin's Brother, wherein he recommends t● him some Monks of Turingia, to protect them against the Pagans.  
The 15th Letter of Zachary is directed to the Bishops of France. He sent it by some Monks, or Clerks, who were sent by Optatus Abbot of Mount Cassin, and from Caroloman, to procure Peace between Gripho and Pepin, and to demand a second time St. Benedict's Body, which they pretended had been stolen away from Mount Cassin. He exhorts the French Bishops to maintain the Justice of their Demand.  
In the 16th, he exhorts the French to suffer no Ecclesiastical Person guilty of Murder or Fornication; and advises them to assemble Councils every Year, to restore the Discipline.  
The 17th Letter is supposititious, at least the Title and Date of it are false; for it is directed to Austrebert Bishop of Vienna, and there was no Archbishop of that Name in that Church under Zachary's Pontificate; and it is dated the 7th of March, of the first Year of Constantine, which is the Year 741, of the Vulgar Ae●a; at which time Zachary was not Pope.  
The 18th is not more certain: 'Tis a Prohibition somewhat ill written, that a certain Person should not marry his Father's Goddaughter, because of the Spiritual Consanguinity.  
[These Epistles are all of them extant in Tom. 8. of the Councils, p. 1498.]   

ANDREA'S CRETENSIS.  
ANDREW, born at Damascus, having finished his first Course of Studies in his own Country, came to Jerusalem towards the year 730, where he embraced a Monastic 
In this Story of Andreas Cretensis, there is certainly a great Mistake; for how coul'd he come to Jerusalem in 730, and become a M●nk, and in that Quality represent his Patriarch Theodorus at the sixth General Council, which was 50 Years before, viz. in 680. His coming to Jerusalem ought to be placed doubtless towards the Year 630, and then his Death will fall toward the beginning of the 7th Century, according to the Calculation of Dr. Cave, Cas. Oudin, and the best Chronologers.  Life, and was at the 6th Council in his Patriarch Theodorus' stead, and there encountered the Monotholites. He was detained at Constantinople, and put among the Clergy or that Church; he was ordained Deacon, and had the care of the Education of Orphans committed to him. A little after, he was ordained Archbishop of Crete; he governed this Church many years, and died at Mitilene, in the beginning of the eighth Century of the Church.  
He composed a great number of Sermons, and particularly Panegyrics. Father Combefis collected all that he could meet with in the Libraries, and printed them in Greek and Latin [at Paris] in 1644. [With Notes, and an Index to explain the Words.] This Collection contains 17 of them.  
The first is upon the Virgin's Nativity: He extols this Festival, which he looks upon as the Original and Principal of all the Feasts of the New-Law. He there speaks of Joachim and Anne, of the Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple.  
The 2d is upon the Annunciation. In it he maketh several Divine Reflections upon the Angel's words.  
The 3d is on the Circumcision, and upon St. Basil▪ He follows Africanus' Opinion about Joseph's Ancestors; and says, he was Jacob's Natural Son, and Heli's according to the Law. He speaks of the Names of Immanuel and Jesus, and makes some Mystical and Moral Observations upon the 8th Day. Then he passes to the Praises of St. Basil, in the end whereof, he maketh an excellent Prayer to him.  
The 4th is upon our Lord's Transfiguration. It contains several Allegorical Reflections upon the Circumstances of this Miracle.  
The 5th is an Homily, in which he explains Lazarus' Resurrection. He there confounds Mary, Lazarus' Sister, with the Woman that was a Sinner.  
The 6th is upon Palm-Sunday.  
The two next upon the Exaltation of the Cross.  
The three following are upon the Virgin's Death. In it he describes several miraculous Circumstances of her Death, and particularly her Triumphant▪ Ascension into Heaven in Body and Soul.  
The 12th is a Panegyric upon Titus, first Bishop of Crete.  
The 13th is upon St. George, whose Martyrdom he relates.  
The 14th is a Panegyric upon St. Nicholas Bishop of Myra: He says nothing of his Life in particular, but only that he encountered the Arians; that he preserved Lycia from Famine, and 
And●… 〈◊〉.  converted an Heretic Bishop.  
The 15th contains the Praise, the Life and Miracles of a certain Monk, named Patapi●s.  
The 16th, which is another Panegyric upon Patapius, is not Andrew's of Crete, but some of his Scholars; who relates, how that holy Hermit appeared to Andrew of Crete, and what he had told him of his Life.  
The 17th contains excellent Instructions about the Miseries and Uncertainty of Human Life.  
F. Combefis, in his Addition to the Bibliothec● Patrum, attributes also to Andrew of Crect two Homilies; the one upon the Virgin's Nativity, which had been published by Schottus, under the Name of Germane Bishop of Constantinople. Allatius hath attributed it to Gregory Bishop of Nicomedia; and it is found in some Manuscripts under St. John Damascene's Name. But F. Combefis having seen it in a Manuscript, under Andrew of Creete's Name, believes it rather to be his, than the others, because of a great number of Compound Words commonly used by Andrew of Crete. The second is a Sermon upon the Beheading of St. John Baptist, already published by Lipomannus.  
They attribute to this Archbishop Andrew a great number of Odes, Pieces in Prose, upon the Festivals of the Year, which F. Combefis hath joined to his Homilies. He does also ascribe to him some jambick Verses, directed to Agatho the Deacon, which are at the end of the Letter of this latter, in the second Volume of the Addition to the Bibliotheca Patrum. Some believe, that this Archbishop of Crete is also the Author of the Commentary on the Revelation, bearing the Name of Andrew of Caesarea! Which maketh others think, that he was translated from the Archbishopric of Crete, to that of Caesarea in Cappadocia. But there is no need to suppose this groundless Translation: For, though we should suppose this Work to be of Andrew's of Crete, which is uncertain, Caesarea might perhaps have been put for Crete. This Author's Sermons are not so contemptible▪ as the most part of those of the modern Greeks; they are full of Wit, Learning, and Morality, and want not Eloquence nor Greatness: His Discourse abounds with compound and hard Words; his Narrations plain, his Reflections just, his Praises vehement, his Figures natural, and his Instructions solid.   

ANASTASIUS.  
ANASTASIUS, Abbot of the Monastery of St. Euthymius in Palestine, flourished about the year 740. St. John Damascene commends him in the beginning of his Treatise of the Trisagion, which he composed, to draw this Abbot out of the Error, which he thought him engaged in about this Point. They attribute to him a Treatise against the Jews, published in Latin in Canistus' Antiquities, and in the Bibliotheca Patrum, [Tom. 13.] but it might be supposed to be made a more modern Author; for the Author of it says, That 800 years ago Christ's Oracles were fulfilled, that the Jews were dispersed, and Jerusalem destroyed by Vespas●an: Which makes me think, that he lived to the ninth Century. This Author does not only bring Proofs for the Christian Religion, but he answers the Questions and Objections of the Jews. The Work is imperfect: It is found in Greek in the Vatican Library, and in the Jesuits at Rome. It is written well, and the Reasons he alleges are pretty solid. He observes, That when Christians honour Images, they do not adore the Wood, but their Respect refers to Christ, and his Saints; and that they are so far from adoring Images, that, when they are grown old and spoiled, they burn them, tomake new ones.   

EGBERT of YORK.  
EGBERT, an English Man, Brother to 
* Alias Eadbert.  Etbert King of Northumberland, was Archbishop of York, from 731, till about 767. The chief Work of Egbert was a Penitential, published in four Books, which are found in Manuscript in the Libraries of England. We have different Extracts of it: There is one, containing divers Canons concerning Clerks. Another composed of 35 Constitutions against divers Sins of Clerks, and other Christians. These Collections are ill contrived, and of little Authority. 
Egbert of York.   
There was printed in 1664. at Dublin, together with Boniface's Letters, a Treatise about the Life of Clergymen; bearing Egber●'s Name. It is made up of Questions and Answers; and the Questions are not directed to one Archbishop, but to many Bishops: 'Tis therefore a Consultation directed to a Council; but it seems to me to be much later than Egbert. The small Tract of the Remedies of Sins ascribed to Bede, is one of the ancientest Extracts of Egbert's Penitential: All those Pieces are of no great use. They are found in the end of the sixth Volume of the Councils of F. Labbe's Edition.   

St. JOHN DAMASCENE.  
JOHN, Surnamed MANSUR [by the Arabians,] or Chrysorrhoas [from his Eloquence,] was born at Damascus, of rich and godly Parents. He was taught and brought up by Cosmas, a 
St. John Damascene.  Monk of Jerusalem, who had been taken by the Saracens. After his Father's decease, he succeeded him in the Place of Counsellor of State to the Prince of the Saracens. Being in that Office, he began to write in the Defence of Images; which did so highly provoke the Emperor Leo, Surnamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he form a design to destroy him by an unparallelled piece of Treachery: He caused one to counterfeit the Hand of John Damascene, and to contrive a Letter in his Name, whereby he betrayed his Master, advising Leo to come speedily to Damascus, to take that City. This Letter he sent to the Prince of the Saracens, who, if we believe the Author of St. John Damascene's Life, caused John's Hand to be immediately cut off, and to be for many hours exposed to the sight of the People in the middle of the Town. In the evening John demanding it, joined it to his mangled Arm; afterward having prayed to the Virgin, and thereupon going to sleep, it was found reunited to his Arm when he awoke out of his Sleep. This Miracle struck the Prince of the Saracens with amazement, and forced him to acknowledge John's Innocency; he prayed him to continue in his Court, but John chose rather to withdraw himself from the World, and therefore betook himself into St. Subas' Monastery at Jerusalem, where he was committed to the care of a very severe old Monk, who imposed on him a perpetual Silénce; for the breaking of which, he was turned out of his Cell by that old man, who commanded him, for his Penance, to carry away the Filth of the Cells of the Monastery. When he had made himself ready to obey his Order, the good old man embraced him, and caused him to return. About the end of his Life, he was ordained Priest by the Patriarch of Jerusalem; but he returned immediately again into his Monastery, from whence he did valiantly oppose the Opinion of the Iconodastes. He died towards the year 750. This Author wrote a great number of Works of all kinds: They may be divided into Doctrinal, Historical and Moral, 
* Such as treat of the Festivals of the Year.  Heortastical, Ecclesiastical and Profane. Among the Doctrinal Works, we may place in the first Rank the four Books of the Orthodox Faith, in which he hath comprehended the whole substance of Divinity in a Scholastical and Methodical manner.  
The first Book is of the Nature, Existence, and Attributes of God, and of the three Persons of the Trinity. In all Points he agreeth with our Divines, except in the Article of the Procession of the Holy-Ghost, which he believes to proceed from the Father only.  
The 2d Book treats of the Creatures, the World, the Angels and Daemons, of Heaven and Earth, and all Things contained therein, of Paradise, and of Man. He teaches, that Man is composed of a Body and Soul, that his Soul is Spiritual and Immortal; he distinguisheth the Faculties of it; he speaks of its Passions, Actions, Thoughts, Will, and Liberty, which he places in the power of doing what we please. He treats also of Providence, Prescience, and Predestination, or Predetermination. He affirms, that this taketh no place in free Actions; that God permits them, but ordains them not. He concludes with Man's Fall, of which Adam's Sin was the cause.  
This leads him to the Incarnation of the Son of God, which is the Subject of his third Book. He explains this Mystery with great exactness; he establisheth the distinction of the Existence of the two Natures; he speaks of their Proprieties, of the Wills of Christ, and of his freewill, which he believes to be different from ours, in that the Determination of it is without any doubt or deliberation proceeding. He enlargeth upon the two Wills of Christ; he explains in what sense these Expressions are to be understood. There is in Christ an Incarnate Nature, a Theandrick Will, and an Human Nature Deified. He shows, that Jesus Christ was subject neither to Ignorance, nor to Temptation; that the quality of Slave does not belong to him; that he increased in Knowledge and Wisdom so far forth only, as it did more appear outwardly, according as he grew into years. He proves, the Human Nature 〈◊〉 really suffer, whi●… the Divinity remained impassable. He maintains, that the Divinity never ceased to be united to Christ's Soul and Body, no, not in the time of his Death.  
In the 4th, having discoursed of Christ's Resurrection, and examined some Questions about the Incarnation, he treats of Baptism, of the Faith, the Cross, and the Worship due to it; of the custom of praying towards the East; of the Holy Mysteries, in which we ought not to doubt, but Christ gives us his Body and Blood 
* Spiritually.  to feed us, the Bread and Wine being 
‡ In their Use, not Nature.  changed into Christ's Body and Blood, and being but one and the same thing. He tells us, with what Purity we ought to receive such a Holy Sacrament. He establisheth Mary's perpetual Virginity, both in and after the Birth, and reconciles the two Genealogies of Christ, after the same manner with Africanus. Then he proves, that Saints ought to be honoured, and their Relics reverenced. He would also have the Images of Saints, and of Christ, to be honoured, and believeth them to be very useful to remember us of them. He confesses, they do not worship the Matter whereof the Cross or the Images are made, but only that which is represented thereby. He says, That this Custom is established by an ancient Tradition, and thereupon he quotes the Fabulous Story of the Image sent by Christ to King Agbarus. He takes notice, that no Image of God ought to be made. He maketh a Catalogue of the Sacred Books of the Old Testament, agreeable to the Canon of the Hebrews. To the Books of the New, he adds the Canons of the Apostles, which he thinks to have been collected by St. Clemens. Having treated of all these Things, he comes again to some Questions he had forgotten. He explains, how many ways they speak of Christ. He proves, God is not the Author of Sins, and that there is but one Principle of all Things. He renders a Reason, why God created some Men, who would Sin, and not Repent. He shows what's the Law of Sin, and the Law of Grace. He gives some Reasons of the Observation of the Sabbath, and Circumcision. He extols the State of Virginity. He concludes with some Reflections upon Antichrist, the Resurrection, and the Last Judgement: Whereupon he says, That Hell Fire shall not be material as that among us, but such as God knows; Non materià hujusce nostri constantem, sed qualem Dein novit. This Work is in Greek and Latin in the Basil Edition, [in 1548, and 1575.] St. John Damascene wrote many Tracts more upon some particular Doctrines.  
A Dialogue between a Christian and a Saracen about Religion.  
Another Dialogue under the Name of an Orthodox and a Manichee, in which he disputes against the Errors of those Heretics.  
A Treatise of the two Natures against the 
* The Acephali, or Monophysites, a sort of Heretics. Dr. Cave.  Monothelites, who did admit but one Nature in Christ, made up of two.  
A Treatise of the Trisagion against the Sedition of Peter the Fuller, wherein he explains several forms of Speech about the Trinity, and the Inoarnation.  
A Treatise of the two Wills in Christ against the Monothelites.  
Another upon the Trinity, and the Incarnation.  
To these Tracts may be added, the last Article of his Logic, wherein he explains what is the Hypostatick Union, and his Institutes, containing an Explication of the Terms used by him in speaking of the Mysteries, as Essence, Substance, Person, Hypostasis, etc.  
The three Orations upon Images belong to the Doctrinal Tracts. He distinguisheth two sorts of Worship and Adoration; the one Supreme, belonging to God only; the other a Worship of Honour and Respect only. He says, The matter of Images is not worshipped, but what is represented by them; that they are in stead of Books to the Ignorant, and that, in worshipping of them, they worship the Saints, of whom they are the Images. He citys St. Basil to Authorise this use of them. He objects to himself St. Epiphanius' Letter, and answers, Either that that Letter is supposititious, or that he caused the Picture he speaks of to be buried, only for some particular Reasons; like as St. Athanasius caused the Relics of Saints to be buried, to condemn the Profane Practice of the Egyptians. He citys several Passages of the Fathers, to prove, that the Images of Saints are to be honoured; but there is hardly one word proving directly what he maintains, though he relates a great many Passages in those three Orations. He owns, the worship of Images cannot be established from Holy Scripture, and that it is authorized by the Tradition of the Church only. Lastly, he confesses, no Image ought to be made of the Trinity, nor of Things purely Spiritual.  
The Prayer for the Dead is another Point, which also is not proved but by the Tradition of the Church. S. John Damascene defends it in an Oration made for that purpose. In it he affirms, that the Prayer for the Dead is from the Tradition of the Apostles. He adds, That the Church does do nothing, but what is useful and pleasing to God; from whence he concludes, that by those Prayers they obtain the Remission of those Sins, which remain to be expiated by the Dead. He relates the Fable of Trajan's Deliverance, and a Story that happened to St. John the Alms-giver.  
We may moreover add to these Tracts, two very short Treatises; the one, in what consists the Image and Similitude of God, in which we were created; and the other, of the Last Judgement. Besides, we may add to these, two Letters about the Mass, and the Consecration; but I do not believe them to be of St. John Damascene's.  
The Historical Works of S. John Damascene are fewer in number.  
We have a Treatise of Heresies, which bears his Name; but the twenty four first are nothing but the Abridgement of S. Epiphanius.  
The rest, beginning at the Nestorians, were added by S. John Damascene. He joins to the Heretics already known, viz. the Nestorians, Eutychians, Monophysites, Aphthartodocites, Theodosians, Jacobites, Agnoetes, Donatistes, Monothelites, Saracens and Iconoclasts. He joins, I say, to these, other unknown Sects of Persons that had extraordinary Opinions and Practices, namely, the Semidalites who taste of the Paste brought to them by Dioscorus' Scholars, and believe this is to them instead of Sacrifice; the Orchistae, which are Monks dancing, when they sing God's Praises; the Gnosimachi, who will not have Men to Write or Study, a good Life being sufficient; the Heliotropites, who believe there is a certain Virtue in the Herb, called Turnsol or Heliotrope; the Thnetopsychites, who believe Men's Souls to be like to the Beasts, and that they die with them; the Theocatochestes, who find fault with some Expressions in the Scripture; the Christolites, who believe that Christ hath left his Body and Soul in Hell, and that the Godhead only ascended up to Heaven; the Ethnophrones, who retain some Pagan Superstitions; the Ethiproscoptes, who find fault with ancient Usages, and introduce new ones; the Parermeneutes, who interpret several places of the Old and New Testament according to their own fancy; and the Lampetians, living after their own fashion. It is plain, That S. John Damascene gave what Names he pleased to those he thought to be of these Opinions and Practices, tho' they made not a Body nor a Sect. Part of the Greek of this small Tract was published by Billius, at the end of his Edition [at Paris in 1619.] but M. Cotelier published it not long ago whole in his Monuments of the Greek Church, Vol. 1. p. 278.  
The History of Barlaam contains a long Narrative of the Conversion of the Son of the King of the Indies, called Josaphat by the Monk Barlaam; 'tis more like a Romance than an History. Some think it is not S. John Damascene's; nevertheless it is like enough to his Style, and all of it is agreeable to his Doctrine, except in the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, which may have been added by this Interpreter in the Translation, as also in the Original by some Transcriber.  
We have but one of his Moral Works; but it is as considerable in its kind, as the Book of the Orthodox Faith is: For S. John Damascenus hath comprehended in three Books, Entitled, Parallels, an infinite number of Precepts and Maxims of Morality, reduced to different Heads, under which he first citeth some Sentences of the Scripture, and then some Passages of several Fathers.  
The Heortastick Works of S. John are very numerous, but few of them are printed. These are printed.  
A Sermon on Christ's Transfiguration, in Greek and Latin.  
Three Discourses upon the Virgin's Nativity, also in Greek and Latin.  
Two upon her Assumption, in Latin only.  
A Sermon upon Holy Saturday, published in Greek and Latin by Billius [and in Greek and Latin by Pantinus, at Antw. in 1601.]  
His Ecclesiastical Works, or Books of the Divine Service, are,  
Some Hymns on the great Festivals; Odes and Proses for the Service of the whole year, distinguished into two Parts. They are not all S. John Damascene's, but some are Metrophane's and other Authors.  
Lastly, we have a Book of Logic and another of Physic, of S. John Damascene.  
These are the Works contained in the most perfect Editions of S. John Damascene. The First Editions contained but few Works.  
His Three Discourses of Image-worship were printed in Greek, at Rome, in 1553. in Latin, at Paris, in 1555. and at Antwerp, in 1556.  
The History of Barlaam and Josaphat, at Paris, in 1568. at Colen in 1593. at Antwerp 160●.  
His Four Books of the Orthodox Faith were printed in Latin, at Paris, in 1507. in Greek, at Verona, in 1531.  
The Dialogue against the Manichaeans, at Basil, in 1578. [at Passaw in 1572, Octavo.]  
The Hymns, at Paris, in 1575.  
They printed in 1539, 1548 and 1575. at Basil, a Collection of the chief Works of this Father, wherein are found the Books of the Orthodox Faith in Greek. Since that, Billius made a much larger Collection of them, containing all the Works abovementioned. It was printed at Paris, in 1577, 1603 and 1619. but it hath few Works in Greek.  
M. Aubert having published S. Cyril, designed to undertake a new Edition of S. John Damascene's Works, and having communicated his Design to the Learned, had collected several Pieces; among the rest, M. Allatius sent him a great number of his Works, never published before, which he had taken the pains to get copied out from some Manuscripts, and to translate them himself. M. Aubert dying before he could execute this Design, F. Labbe promised, in 1652. an Edition of S. John Damascene's Works, and printed a Specimen of it, wherein he set down the Names of the Works which Allatius had communicated to M. Aubert, without mentioning what this Learned Man had contributed to it, yea, and intimating, That he eceived no help by his Manuscripts. Allatius having heard of it by F. Goar, complained, That F. Labbe would set himself forth by his Labours, without expressing the least acknowledgement of them; and he published a Catalogue of the Manuscripts of S. John Damascene, which he had sent to M. Aubert, and of them he had by him yet and which he had to send. These are mentioned ●here.  
A Panegyric of S. John Chrysostom, and the following Sermons, on the Virgin's Nativity; on Christ's Presentation in the Temple; on the Virgin's death, and the Figtree dried up; a Confession of the Catholic Faith; a Treatise of Malice and Virtue; an historical Tract of Christ's Birth; the Greek Treatise of the Dialogue between a Christian and a Saracen; Definitions; other Definitions; a Treatise of the Divinity and the Incarnation of Christ; a Treatise of Christ's Body; another against the Jacobites; two Treatises against the Nestorians; a Writing containing the Passages of the Fathers, proving, That Christ is composed of two Natures, and that there be two Natures in him; a Treatise of the two Wills and the two Operations in Christ; a Writing upon Easter; a Prayer; a Sermon on the Annunciation of the Virgin; a Treatise to those that believe two Natures, two Wills and two Operations in Christ. Those are the Works of S. John Damascene, which Allatius had sent two M. Aubert, together with several other Pieces of the Greeks upon S. John Damascene's Works, of the Lives of this Saint, and a Critical Censure upon his Works made by Allatius himself. He was moreover to send him his Lexicon, which he says, is a large Work, rare, and contains in it many things, with several other Greek Pieces, the Titles whereof may be seen in the Catalogue itself, in the end of the Collection of the Greek Works published by Allatius, and printed at Antwerp in 1653.  
S. John Damascene writes clearly and methodically; he was a subtle Divine, an able Compiler, but a mean Preacher.   

S. CHRODEGAND, Bishop of Metz.  
CHRODEGAND 
[Alias Chroded indus or Rodegangus.]  Son of Landrada, having spent his Youth in the Court of Charles Martel, was advanced, under Pepin's Reign, to the Bishopric of Mets, and ordained by 
S. Chrodegand.  Pope Steven (An. 743.) He was the Founder and Restorer of the common Life of Clerks; for, having taken Possession of his Bishopric, he caused his Clergy to dwell in a Cloister, gave them a Rule, and supplied them with all the Necessaries of Life, that they might take no more care for earthly Things, but might apply themselves wholly to God's Service only.  
This Rule of Chrodegand was published, in its Native Purity, by F. Labbe, out of a Copy transcribed from an ancient Manuscript of the Vatican Library. F. Dacherius had printed one under his Name in his Spicilegium; but this is a Rhapsody patched up out of the true Rule of Chrodegand, Decrees of the Council of Aix-la-Chappelle and some other Monastic Rules. The true one hath but 34 Articles, with a Preface to them, wherein Chrodegand tells his Clergy, That, if the Canons of the Nicene Councils were yet in force, and the Bishop and his Clerks lived according to their Rules, there would be no need for him to make a new Rule; but having found the Clergy and the People of his Diocese remiss and lose, he thought himself obliged to prescribe these Rules: That he enjoins all the People of his Diocese, to live in Unity and Love, to frequent the Divine Service constantly, to be obedient to their Bishop, to avoid Lawsuits and Divisions, to give no Offence; and the Pastors to look to their Flocks, as knowing they must one day give an Account of them to the Pastor of Pastors.  
Then he prescribes some particular Rules to his Clerks.  
In the 1st. Article he recommends Humility to them.  
In the 2d. he binds them, To take place of one another according to their Seniority in Orders. He will not have them to call themselves by their proper Names, without adding the Name of their Dignity; That the younger Clerks, when they meet their Seniors, shall bow to them, and ask their Blessing; That being set down, they shall rise up and give them their place. He enjoins young Men to observe this Rule, and preserve Modesty in all things.  
The 3d. Article imports, That they shall all lie in the same Cloister, in different Cells; That Women shall not come into the Cloister, no, nor any Layman, without an order from the Bishop, the Archdeacon or the Chancellor; That they shall eat all together in the same Hall; That no Laic shall be admitted into the Cloister.  
The 4th. Article imports, That all the Clerks shall repair to the Church of S. Steven at Compline; after which last part of the Office they shall eat no more, and they shall keep Silence till the first hour of Prayer; and if any Body did not return home at Compline, he is forbidden to knock at the Door, or to come into the Cloister before the hour of the Nocturnal Office. Clerks are forbidden to stay in Town after the hour of Compline, without coming to it.  
The 5th, 6th, and 7th. Articles, order the time and manner of singing the Divine Service in the day and night time.  
In the 8th. he order them to come every day into the Chapterhouse after the Office of the first hour, to read there some of the Instructions made by him, or of the Homilies on Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and there to receive Orders and Reproofs of the Bishop or archdeacon.  
In the 9th. Article he enjoins them to perform the Bodily Labours, as well in common as in private.  
In the 10th. He will have the Clerks, when they are upon a Journey, to keep their Rule whilst they are travelling, and to recite their Office.  
In the 11th. he charges them to be Zealous.  
In the 12th. he forbids private Persons to strike or to excommunicate their Brethren.  
In the 13th. he forbids them to make Parties one against the other.  
In the 14th. having represented the usefulness of Confession, he chargeth the Clerks to confess their Sins twice every year to their Bishop, or to the Presbyters appointed by the Bishop, once in the beginning of Lent, and the other time between the 15th. of August and beginning of November. And all those who are guilty of no Crime, to receive the Body and Blood of Christ every Sunday, and on the great Festivals. He declares, That, if any Body hath concealed his Sins from his Bishop, and goes to confess to other Priests, fearing, lest the Bishop should degrade him or hinder his admission, and if the Bishop comes to know it, he that hath done so, shall be scourged severely or be imprisoned. For he is a very wicked Man, says he, who sins before God, and will not confess his Sins to him, of whom he ought to receive advice for the recovery of his Health.  
The 15th. ordains, That Clerks guilty of heinous Crimes, such as Murders, Fornication, Adultery, Robery and such like; shall be chastised on their Body, and then sent into Exile or cast into Prison, where they shall stay as long as the Bishop pleases; That when they come out, they shall moreover do public Penance; that is, they shall stay at the Church-door prostrate, whilst others go in and come out, and they shall not enter in during the Service, but they shall say it standing at the door; That they shall use such Abstinence as the Bishop shall impose upon them; and that they shall receive a Blessing from no Body, before they be reconciled; That they shall sue for this Reconciliation publicly, being prostrate on the Ground, and the Bishop shall reconcile them according to the order of the Canons.  
The 16th. Excommunicates him who shall keep Company with an Excommunicate Person.  
The 17th. ordains, That for lesser Faults, such as Pride, Disobedience, Arrogancy, Detraction and the Faults against the Rule, those who are faulty shall be first of all be admonished before one or two Witnesses; if they do not amend, they shall be reproved publicly; and if they persist, they shall be excommunicated; and, lastly, if they prove incorrigible, they shall have a corporal Punishment inflicted upon them.  
The 18th. is concerning much lighter Faults, such as coming late to Meat, he chargeth the Clerks to come presently to discover them to the Bishop, who shall impose a light Punishment upon them; but if they do not submit to it, and their Fault come to be known, they shall be more severely punished.  
The 19th. declares, That Penance to be imposed, aught to bear proportion with the Faults.  
In the 20th. he ordains, That Clerks shall not eat till after the Vespres; That they shall abstain from things prescribed by the Bishop; That they shall not eat out of the Monastery during this time, except in case of great necessity; That they shall not go out neither, without necessity; That they shall give themselves to Reading; That from Easter to Whitsuntide they shall eat twice aday, and they shall eat Flesh, except on Fridays; That from Whitsunday till S. John's day, they shall eat twice also, but shall abstain from Flesh-meat at the first Meal; That from Midsummer to S. Martin's day, they shall also eat twice aday, but shall eat no Flesh on Wednesdays and Fridays; That from S. Martin's day till Christmas, they shall not eat till after the 9th. hour, and shall abstain from Flesh; That from Christmas to Lent, they shall fast till the 9th. hour, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and on the other days they shall be allowed two Meals; That they shall abstain from Flesh only on Wednesday and Friday, unless they happen to be holidays, and the Superior permits them to eat of it; That the Bishop may dispense with the Infirm as to their Abstinence; lastly, That his Clergy may eat Flesh during the Octave of Whitsunday.  
In the 21st. he prescribes the order of the Tables in the Hall, and ordains that there shall be Reading when they are at Meat, and prescribes some other Particulars about the order of the Hall.  
In the 22d. and 23d. he comes to Particulars about the quality and quantity of the Meat and Drink.  
The 24th. obliges all the Clerks to wait in the Kitchen, except the archdeacon and the Chancellor.  
The following Articles are concerning the Duties of Officers, of the archdeacon, the Chancellor, the Butler, the Porter.  
The 28th. is concerning the care to be had of the Infirm and Sick.  
In the 29th. he provides for the clothing and warming of them.  
In the 30th. he sets down the Festivals when the Bishop is to Feast them.  
In the 31st. he enjoins the Clerks of his Society to have a Propriery in nothing, and to give what they have to the Church of S. Paul: Yet he gives them leave, to reserve the use of it to themselves for Almsgiving, and to dispose of their Movables, as they please, by their Wills.  
The 32d. imports, That the Alms bestowed upon private Persons, as upon Priests for saying Mass or hearing Confessions, or upon other Clerks for praying, shall be their own; but those bestowed upon the Community shall be common. He will not have Ecclesiastical Persons to take a great quantity of Alms, for fear of overburdening themselves with the Sins of others.  
The 33d. Article is concerning the time and manner in which those Clerks ought to come to Mass on holidays.  
The last Canon respects Clerks inducted into other Churches; he charges them to come twice in a Month, once in a Fortnight to the Church of S. Steven, to receive necessary Instructions and Advices from the Bishop, or him who taketh care of that Church.   

STEVEN II.  
AFter ZACHARY's decease, the Romans elected a Presbyter, named, Steven, in his his room; but this dying 3 days after his Election, they preferred to the Pontificate, the 27th. of March, 752. Pope Constantin's Son, named Steven II. In the beginning of his Pontificate, 
Steven II.  he repaired and built Hospitals. Astulphus, who was then King of Lombardy, threatened the City of Rome. Stev●●, to appease his Fury, sent Deputies with Presents to him, and concluded a Peace with him 40 Years; but Astulphus, intending to make himself Master of Rome, did soon break it. The Pope sent some Religious Persons to him to pacify him; but he did not at all regard their Entreaties or Arguments. In this Conjuncture, John, the chief Silentiary of the Emperor of Greece, came to Rome with some Letters from the Emperor to the Pope, and to King Astulphus, whom he did exhort to restore the Places he had usurped. He brought these Orders to Astulphus, who slighted them, and sent him back again, without any favourable Answer. The Pope seeing the danger he was in, sent some Deputies to the Emperor, to let him know, That it was high time for him to come with an Army to defend the Provinces he had yet in Italy, if he had a mind to preserve them; and for his part, he employed public Prayers, to obtain from God the Peace of Italy, and endeavoured, with Entreaties, to still the Anger of the King of Lombardy. But seeing, at last, there was no hope left of any assistance from the Greek Emperor, he applied himself to Pepin, King of France, who did voluntarily offer himself to help the Pope and the Romans. He judged it fit to bring the Pope into France, where he received him favourably, and promised him, That he would force the Lombard to restore him the Exarchy of Ravenna, and all the Territories belonging to the Romans. Astulphus, to avert this Storm, sent Carloman, Pepin's Brother, who was a Monk in Mount-Cassin, to oppose this Design; but he could not dissuade Pepin from his Enterprise, wherefore he retreated into a Monastery in France. Pepin did immediately send Ambassadors to the King of the Lombard's, to oblige him to make Peace, and to restore to the Romans the Towns and Lands he had taken from them. The Pope likewise urged him by Letters, but all in vain; so Pepin came with an Army to attack him. The Lombard, having assayed to force Pepin's Troops in a Passage of the Alps, was routed, put to flight, and forced to fly into Pavia, which was presently besieged by Pepin's Army. Astulphus was forced to sue for Peace, which was granted him, upon condition, he should restore the Exarchy of Ravenna, and what he had taken. But instead of performing this Treaty, as soon as he was delivered, he marched towards Rome, with an intent to take it. Pepin having notice of it, returned again with his Army, besieged Astulphus, and forced him to perform the Articles of the Treaty. The Greek Emperor's Envoy redemanded the Exarchy of Ravenna; but Pepin looking upon that Country as an Estate which he had acquired by the right of Arms, gave it to the Church of Rome, and sent Fulradus, Abbot of S. Denys, to receive the Towns of the Pantapolis and Aemilia, which the Lombard was bound to restore. After Astulphus' death, Desiderius, who had possessed himself of the Kingdom of the Lombard's, confirmed this Treaty, and rendered to the Pope all the Places agreed on. All this was done under Steven II's Pontificate, which lasted 5 Years. He died Apr. 24. 757.  
This Pope's Letters are concerning all those Affairs. In the 1st. he thanks Pepin for the assistance he had promised by Chrodegand. In the 2d. he desires the great French Lords to help forward his Request to their King. In the 3d. directed to King Pepin, whom he calls his Godfather, and to his Sons Charles and Carloman, whom he styles Kings and Nobles of Rome, he entreats them to cause Astulphus to perform the Treaty he had made. In the 4th. he begs Pepin's help against Astulphus, who was come to besiege the City of Rome. The 5th. is a Letter in S. Peter and Steven's Name, to implore Aid against the Lombard's. It seems to be Supposititious and of a quite different Style from the rest. The 6th. is a Letter of Thanks to Pepin, for setting at liberty the City and Church of Rome. He inform him, withal, of the death of Astulphus, and that Desiderius succeeded him, and entreats him to cause him to restore the rest of the Towns of the Exarchate and the Pantopolis, which were to be restored to him by the agreement. There is a 7th. Letter, wherein he requests Pepin and his Sons to force Astulphus, to restore him the Towns and Lands which they had bestowed upon the Holy See.  
To those Letters are joined 4 Privileges granted by Steven to Fulradus, Abbot of S. Denys, and a Relation of a Revelation which they pretend this Pope had, being extreme sick in the Abbey of S. Denys; but these last Monuments are of small Authority and good for little. This Pope's Letters are eloquent and powerful: We have moreover, under his Name, a Collection of some Canonical Constitutions which he made at Cressy, to answer the Questions propounded to him by the Monks of the Monastery of Bretigny. It contains 19 Constitutions, for the most part, drawn out of Pope's Decrees, and the proceeding Councils; but there be some upon Baptism somewhat singular: For in the 11th. he excuses a Priest, who in case of necessity had baptised with Wine for want of Water, and he intimates that Baptism, to be valid, in these words: Infants sic permaneant in ipso Baptismo. I know very well that some have believed, That this Parenthesis is a gloss impertinently crept into the Text, and that some others have pretended, that of these 19 Articles 10 are Supposititious, whereof this is one; but all this is said without any Ground against the Faith of the ancient Manuscript, from which they were taken. Walafrid reports, That this Pope brought the Roman way of singing into France, which appears plainly by Charlemagne's Capitularies.   

WILLIBALD.  
WILLIBALD, Born of an 
* [Some will have him to be of the Royal Family.]  illustrious Family, [in Devonshire] in England, [Scholar and Nephew to S. Boniface, was by his Parents put into the Abbey of Waldheim to 
Willibald.  be instructed by the Abbot Egviwald, when he was but Five Years old,] being grown up he traveled to Rome, and Jerusalem, and at length retreated about the Year 728 into the Monastery of Mount Cassin. In the Year 739 [going to Rome again] he was sent into Germany by S. Gregory III, [to assist Boniface in the Conversion of that Nation,] and [by him] in the Year 741, was ordained Bishop of Eistad, and was present at a Synod held in Germany in 742, he 
* [Bale fixes his Death in 781, in the 77 Year of his Age.]  Died about the Year 786. He left us the Life of S. Boniface, Archbishop of Mentz, written at the request of Lullus his Successor, which is extant in Canisius' Antiquities, and in the Third Century of the Saints of the Benedictine Order, set forth by F. Mabillon.   

JOHN Patriarch of Jerusalem.  
THIS Patriarch, who sat in the See of Jerusalem (
* [Dr. Cave places him in 84.]  Anno 759,) is thought to be the Author of S. John Damascene's Life, which we have in Latin only, at the beginning of that 
John Patriarch of Jerusalem.  Father's Works. It is written in the form of a Panegyric.   

GODESCHALCUS.  
GODESCHALCUS, a Deacon and Canon of Liege, wrote about the Year 770, at the request of his Bishop Agilfridus, the Life of S. Lambert, Bishop of Liege, and Martyr. 
Godeschalcus.  It hath been Printed in the Collection of the Memoirs of Liege, by Joan. Chapeavillus, [Tom. I. at Liege in 1612, Quarto,] and in the Third Century of the Saints of the Benedictine Order.   

AMBROSE AUTPERTUS.  
AMBROSE AUTPERTUS, a French Benedictine Monk, and Abbot of S. Vincent, [a Monastery situate near the head of the River Volternus,] Died about the Year 
Ambrose Autpertus.  778. His Writings are honourable cited by Paulus Diaconus, in his History of the Lombard's, and the Author of the Chronology of this Abbey wrote his Life, and made a Catalogue of his Writings. We have a great Commentary of his upon the Revelation, in which he puts a Moral Sense upon all that is said in that Book. F. Labbe says, That there are also some Commentaries of Ambrose on the Psalms, and the Song of Songs, Printed at Cologn in 1536. But F. Oudin, who did both seek himself, and got others carefully to seek for those Works, declareth, he could not find them. The Book of the Conflict of Virtues and Vices, which was among S. Austin's Works, and which bears Ambrose's Name in some Manuscripts, is this Author's; he wrote a Tract of Concupiscence, which is found Manuscript in Bennets College Library of Cambridge. He made the Lives of the Saints Paldon, Tuton, and Vason, the first Abbots of S. Benedict of Volternus which are so much the better, because he hath only represented their Virtues, without relating any Miracles. He hath composed several Works, and some are found in Manuscripts under his Name, and others are Printed under other Author's Names. There is one upon our Saviour's Transfiguration, which is at the end of his Commentary upon the Revelation, in a Manuscript of the Abbey of S. German-des-Prez. He hath made one on the Virgin's Assumption, which was the 18th among S. Austin's Sermons upon the Saints. There is one upon the Purification, Printed among the Sermons, attributed to S. Ambrose, which is found inserted in an Homily upon the same Festival, made by Alcuin.   

PAUL I.  
STEPHEN the Second being near Death, one Party of the People appointed his Brother Paul to be his Successor. Another Party was for Theophylactus the Archdeacon; but after 
Paul I.  Stephen's Death, Paul's Party being the stronger, he was preferred to the Holy See. He was Pious and Charitable to the Poor, repaired several Churches, and built Monasteries. He wrote to the Emperors Constantine and Leo for Image-Worship, and to Pepin, to implore his Aid against the Lombard's, and the Greeks. He Died in June 767.  
This is the Catalogue and the Abridgement of this Pope's Letters, written to Pepin, as they are found in a Manuscript of the Vatican, and as they have been set out by Gretser. The Roman Figures mark the order of the Vatican Manuscript, and the Arabic that of Gretser's Collection. Neither of them are exact.  
I. 13. He acquaints King Pepin with his Brother Stephen's Death, and his own Ordination. He prays him to continue his Protection and Friendship to him, assuring him of his Fidelity. It was sent by Simon, Pepin's Ambassador.  
II. 12. He gives to Pepin the Monastery of S. Sylvester, built on the top of Mount Soracte, together with three circumjacent Monasteries, which Carloman had given to Zachary.  
III. 43. He thanks Pepin for defending of him against his Enemies, he promises him, he will take care to teach his Brother's Psalmody to the Monks he had sent him.  
iv 39 He prays him to cause Marinus the Presbyter to be Ordained Bishop in France, and dissuades him from designs contrary to the Holy See.  
V 38. He congratulates Pepin's Prosperity, and Happy Journey, and tells him, that his Legates are not yet come back from Constantinople.  
VI 37. He returns him thanks for protecting the Church of Rome; he tells him, that next after God he puts his confidence in Pepin's assistance; he desires him to send him an Ambassador, by whose means he may discover to him the Designs and Snares of the Greeks.  
VII. 35. He sends him a Copy of the Letters wrote to a Monk by Cosmus Patriarch of Alexandria.  
VIII. 33. He sends him word that the Greek Emperor is in Arms to assault Ravenna, and begs his help against the Greeks.  
IX. 30. He says, That he shall speak with Desiderius King of Lombardy at Ravenna, and would cause him to make preparations to defend him against the Greeks.  
X. 30. He clears himself from the Accusation brought against him, of saying, that Pepin would not help the Romans; he tells him, that they heard nothing of those who had been sent over to Constantinople from him and Pepin. He leaves it to his choice to deal with Marinus, as he shall think fit; he sends him some Letters that he had received from Ravenna.  
XI. 31. He inquires of Pepin's Health, and the Success of his Journey; because his Enemies spread a report, that it was not prosperous.  
XII. He complains of the Injury done him by the People of Beneventum; he desires Pepin to write sharply to them, and in case they did not Obey, to consent that they may be dealt with as they had designed.  
XIII. 29. He lets him know, that he hath made peace with Desiderius. He desires him to give him his Hostages back again, that he may receive the Town of Imola.  
XIV. 27. He sends a Copy of the Letters he had received from Sergius Archbishop of Ravenna; he desires him to write to Desiderius to help him to defend Ravenna, and the Pentapolis.  
XV. 28. He tells him that the Lombard's will restore nothing which they had taken, and that he endeavours the Restauration of Sergius in the Archbishopric of Ravenna. He recommends Bishop Vulchorius to Pepin.  
XVI. 26. He commends Pepin for his constant protection of the Church of Rome, of which the Letters brought by Wilfridus were a fresh Testimony. He approves of his detaining the Legates, returned from Constantinople, till the Synod. He leaves it to him to order things as he shall think best, about the matter of Bishop George, and Peter the Presbyter. He tells him, that Desiderius came to Rome the last Autumn, and that they had agreed, that he should deliver what belonged to the Church into the hands of Pepin's Ambassadors. He returns him thanks for writing to Desiderius, to warn him to oblige the Neapolitans, and those of Cajeta, to restore the Church Patrimony to the Church, and to let their Bishops, be Consecrated by the Holy See.  
XVII. 24. He lets him know that Six Noblemen will come from Constantinople to Rome, and that they will go into France to see him. He complains, that Desiderius hath not kept his promise which he made before Pepin's Envoys. He desires him to send Three Ambassadors, one to Desiderius at Pavia, and the other two to Rome to help him.  
XVIII. 25. He sends to Pepin the Rescript which he demanded, to grant the Title of S. Chrysogonus to Marinus the Presbyter. He sends some Books to Pepin, and among the rest S. Denys the Areopagite's Books, written in Greek.  
XIX. 23. He thanks him for protecting the Church.  
XX. 21. He writes to him about the Treaty made by Remedius a Bishop, and Aut●arius, Pepin's Envoys with Desiderius, and gives him notice, that they are agreed to restore the Church to all her Rights before April; that he had received part of them already, and that he gave him assurance of the rest.  
XXI. 19 He gives him notice, that the Ambassadors he had sent have discovered the Fraud of the Lombard's, about the Restitution promised.  
XXII. 20. He thanks him for imparting to him what had passed between him and the Ambassadors of the Emperor of Constantinople, and the Answers he gave them, with the Letters he had written to that Prince. He intercedes with him for Tassilon, Duke of Bavaria. He tells him, the Greek Emperor is vexed at him upon the account of Image-Worship.  
XXIII. 18. He thanks him for his constant affection to the Holy See, comparing him to David.  
XXIV. 17. He Answers Two Letters of Pepin. He tells him, they have agreed that his Envoys, together with the Deputies of the Cities, should go to Desiderius, because he had not only not restored all, that he had taken, but went about to take again what he had restored.  
XXV. 16. He commends Pepin for his protecting the Church, comparing him to Moses; he thanks him for the Monastery he had given him upon Mount Soracte.  
XXVI. 15. He complains of the Cruelty and Malice of the Lombard's. He says, that he hath given some other Letters to his Legates, whereby he required Desiderius' Hostages to be sent back again. He tells him the reason that forced him to write thus to him, and desires him to do nothing till Desiderius had restored the Church's Patrimony.  
XXVII. 14. He complains of the Lombard's Invasions, tho' Desiderius had falsely affirmed the contrary. He thanks him for the Table he had offered to S. Peter's Tomb. He leaves it to him, to detain Two Bishops, if he thinks fit.  
XXVIII, XXIX, XXX. 42, 41, 40. Those Three Letters are directed to Charles and Carloman, Pepin's Sons, whom he exhorts to protect and defend the Church of Rome, following their Father's steps.  
The XXXI. 22. Is to all the French Army, which he thanks for their Service to the Church of Rome. There are Ten of his Letters whole in the 6th Vol. of the Councils, with a privilege granted to Paul, for the Monastery of S. Hilary, in the Diocese of Ravenna, and the Foundation of the Monastery of S. Stephen, and S. Sylvester, Erected by this Pope.   

STEPHEN III.  
PAUL I. being at the point to Die, Toton, Duke of Nepi, who dwelled at Rome, brought many Armed Men thither, who took Constantine, his Brother, who was but a Layman 
Stephen III.  as yet, put him in possession of the Pope's Palace, the next Day caused him to be Ordained Subdeacon and Deacon, and the Sunday after to be Consecrated Bishop of Rome by Three Bishops. Two of the chief Officers of the Roman Church, viz. Christopher, Secretary, and Sergius, Chaplain, being not able to bear with this Violence, fled to the King of the Lombard's, and having received his Orders, returned to Rome with a Band of Armed Men. Being got into the Town, they were set on by Toton and his Creatures; but Toton being slain in the Conflict, Constantine was turned out, and one Named Philip, a Priest and Monk, was chosen to sit in the Holy See. But Christopher the Secretary, who had been head of this Enterprise, forced him to withdraw into his Monastery, and in August in the Year 768, procured the unanimous Election of Stephen, who came from Sicily to Rome, under the Pontificate of Gregory the Third, and from that time had been much esteemed in the Church of Rome. After his Election, Constantine was shamefully deposed, those of his Party were very cruelly used; they carried their Fury so far, as to go and fetch him out of the Monastery▪ where he was shut up, to pull out his Eyes. After these Cruelties Waldip●rt, a Presbyter, who had brought the Lombard's to Rome to expel Constantine, would also have apprehended Christopher the Secretary, and the chief Citizens of Rome, to deliver them up to the Lombard's; but they sent a Viscount against him, who heading the People, took him Prisoner, and put out his Eyes. During all those troubles, Stephen sent into France to request the King to send some Bishops to Rome, there to set things in order in a Council. Sergius, sent by the Pope, found Pepin Dead, and delivered the Letter to his Sons Charles and Carloman, who sent Twelve French Bishops to Rome, who held a Council there, with the Bishops of Italy, to which they brought Constantine blind, as he was. The first Day he begged the Council's forgiveness, and to excuse himself, told them, that the People had forced him; but the next Day he vindicated himself, affirming, that it was no new thing, for Laics to be raised to the Episcopal Dignity, that Sergius was made Bishop of Ravenna, from a Layman, and Stephen Bishop of Naples. The Bishops, being provoked by this defence, caused him to be beaten, and turned out of the Church. Afterward the whole matter was examined, and the Acts of the Council, that had confirmed Constantine, were burnt. After this Pope Stephen fell down prostrate, with the Bishops, and those of the People, who had communicated with Constanstine, and having confessed their fault, and asked forgiveness with Tears, they imposed a Penance on them. The Council caused the Canons, forbidding to Elect Lay-Men, to be read, and made several Constitutions. Concerning the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons Ordained by Constantine, it was declared, that their Ordination was Null, and that they should remain in the same degree of the Clergy in which they were before, unless they should afterwards think it fit to Ordain them anew; and, as to the Lay-Men which had been Ordained Deacons and Priests by Constantine, that they should wear the Religious Habit during the rest of their Life. Lastly, All that Constantine had done was declared Null, except Baptism and Confirmation. Consequent to this Decree, the Bishops Ordained by Constantine, having got themselves to be chosen by the Clergy, and the People, were re-ordained by Stephen. The Council treated also of Images, and maintained the Worshipping of them against the Council holden in Greece. Things being thus ordered, Stephen remained in the quiet possession of the Holy See. But he had some difference with the King of the Lombard's, about the Archbishopric of Ravenna, which became vacant by the Death of Sergius. The King of the Lombard's had put one Named Michael in his room. Stephen would have deprived him as an intruder, and he was at last deposed and sent to Rome by the Order of Charles King of France. But Desiderius caused Christopher and Sergius to have their Eyes put out, for summoning of him in the Pope's Name, to restore to the Church what belonged to her, yea, and put Christopher to Death.  
This Pope wrote three Letters. The 1st is directed to the Queen, or to King Charles; He thanks the King there for the good Turns Itherius, his Envoy, had done him, and desires him to give him a Reward.  
The 2d is to Charles and Carloman; He congratulates their Reconciliation, and desires them to force the Lombard's to restore what they had taken from the Church's Patrimony.  
The 3d▪ directed to the same, is to dissuade them from marrying Desiderius' Daughter, or from bestowing their Sister upon his Son. This Letter is very earnest and vehement. There be two Letters more of this Pope in the Carolin Code; the 1st, which is the 46th of this Collection, is directed to Bertrade, and is written against Sergius, Christopher, and those others, who would have assassinated Stephen. The other is a Letter of Thanks to Carloman.  
There is also found there two Letters of Constantine, directed to Pepin: In the 1st of which he acquaints him with Paul's Death, and promises to be obedient to him. In the 2d he assures him, He was chosen against his Will; and tells him, That he hath received a Letter from the East about Images, of which he sends him a Copy. Stephen died the last Day of January, 772.   

ADRIAN I.  
ADRIAN was elected and consecrated Bishop of Rome by the unanimous Consent of the whole Clergy and People of Rome (ann. 772. Feb. 9) In the beginning of his Pontificate 
Adrian I.  Desiderius King of the Lombard's sought his Friendship: But seeing that King had been perjured all-a-long, he would not at first give Ear to his Ambassadors; yet he was prevailed with at last by their Oaths, and sent Deputies to him; but they were hardly got out of Rome, when News was brought that Desiderius had invaded the Dukedom of Ferraria, and the Exarchate of Ravenna, and that he was ready to besiege that City. The Pope having sent to demand those Country's back again, he promised to restore them, if he would come to him: But Adrian would not put himself into his Hands, and therefore declared, That he would not go to him, before he had restored what he had taken from the Church. Desiderius seeing he could do nothing by Fraud and Cunning, attacked him openly, and prepared himself to besiege the City of Rome. In this Extremity the Pope applied himself to Charles King of France, and sent to entreat him to help the Romans, after the Example of his Father Pepin. He would have done it immediately, had not Desiderius born him in hand by his Envoys, That he had restored all to the Church of Rome, at that very Time when he was drawing near to Rome, to besiege it. Charles hearing of it, came into Italy with an Army, summoned the King of Lombardy several times, to give the Church of Rome her Right. The King always denied it; but at last, his Men being taken with a panic Fear, he was forced to withdraw into Pavia, and his Son Adalgisius to Verona. During this Time the Pope recovered the Dukedom of Spoleto, and great part of the Country which the Lombard's had taken. On the other side, Charles besieged the Cities of Verona and Pavia; the first yielded presently, he left his Army before the other and went to Rome, where he was received by the Pope and the Romans, in a manner suitable to so signal a Service as that he did them. He confirmed the Donation his Father had made to the Holy See, of the Towns and Territories taken by Conquest from the Lombard's, and promised to preserve them to it. From Rome he returned to the Siege of Pavia, which he took soon after: He took Desiderius Prisoner, and conquered the whole Kingdom of the Lombard's. From this time Adrian continued in the peaceable possession of the Roman Church, and of the Countries the Kings of France had bestowed on him. He laid out his Wealth in Building, Adorning and Beautifying the Churches of Rome. He was Pope 23 Years, 10 Months and a few Days. This is the Sum of this Pope's Letters to Charles the Great, which are found in Manuscript of the Vatican, and have been put out by Gretser, but without observing any Order of the Times. The first Numbers note the Order of the Vatican Manuscripts, and the second the Number of the Caroline Book.  
I. 88 He congratulates Charles' Conquest of Bavaria, and gives him notice, That Arichisius, Duke of Beneventum, hath sent to Constantinople, to demand Aid, with the Dukedom of Naples and the Patrician Dignity, upon promise to obey the Greek Emperor, to be clad after the Grecian Way, and to follow their Usages. But the Ambassadors sent by the Emperor found Arichisius dead: But the People of Beneventum had promised the Greeks to perform these Conditions, since Charles has granted them Grimoaldus for their Duke, and they had led their Ambassadors to Naples. He desires Charles to take his Measures accordingly, and discovers to him the Snares laid by the Neopolitans and the People of Benevent, for those whom he had sent.  
II. 87. He grants the Pall to Ermembert, Archbishop of Bourges, at Charles' Request.  
III. 86. He gives him notice of the Snares the Greeks had laid for him; he prays him to keep his Armies always in readiness. He complains, That his Envoys have not fully executed his Orders concerning the Towns he was to deliver again to the Roman Church: He says, That Grimoaldus and the Greeks take from thence an occasion of insulting over him.  
iv 85. He writes an answer to Charles, about the Bishops of Lombardy, who did encroach upon the Dioceses of other Bishops; about Ermanald's Daughter, which married after having taken the Religious Habit; and about Simony, very rife in Italy and Tuscany. He complains of the Disobedience of the People of Ravenna and the Pentapolis. He desires Charles, not to countenance them, and not to receive those that are come to him without his Orders, as he receives none of the King's Subjects, that bring no Order from their Master.  
V 84. He acquaints him, That according to his Orders, he commanded the Venetian Merchants to be banished out of Ravenna and the Pentapolis. He desires him to apprehend the Duke of Garenne, who had possessed himself of some Lands belonging to the Church of Ravenna.  
VI 83. He recommends the Duke Paul, who went to him, to clear himself from the Accusations charged upon him and the Duke Constantine.  
VII. 82. He says, He saith he hath sent him S. Gregory's Sacramentary.  
VIII. 81. He tells him, He hath set up in the Church the Cross he sent him. He prays him to send Commissioners, to restore some Towns of the Dukedom of Beneventum to him, with the Territories of Popolo and Roselle.  
IX. 80. He speaks of the Penance to be imposed upon the Saxons, who being baptised, had lapsed again into Idolatry.  
X. 79. He intercedes for the Abbot of S. Vincent, falsely accused to Charles.  
XI. 78. He forbids Bishops and Presbyters to bear Arms, and gives him notice, That, upon his Recommendation he hath set at Liberty John the Monk, accused of bearing false Witness.  
XII. 77. He says, That Charles' Envoy could not procure the entire Restitution of the Territory of Sabina.  
XIII. 67. He speaks to him of the Presents he sent him.  
XIV. 66. He prays him to send a new Commissioner, to cause the whole Territory of Sabina to be restored to him.  
XV. 69. He requests him again to cause that whole Country to be restored to him.  
XVI. 68 He begs of him some Beams and Pewter, and gives him notice of the War of Arichisius against the Amalphitans, and of the Defeat of his Troops by the Neapolitans.  
XVII. 65. He assures him of the continuation of their Prayers for him. He tells him, That the Slaves sold to the Saracens were sold by the Lombard's and the Greeks. He says, The Roman Priests are not guilty of the Crimes▪ they are charged with.  
XVIII. 64. He says, That the Neopolitans and the Greeks had made themselves Masters of Terracine, by the Advice of Duke Arichisius. He desires Charles to send Wolfini to retake that Town, and the other Church-lands in the Neapolitan Territory.  
XX. 62. He tells him, he prays to God Night and Day for him.  
XXI. 61. He begs some Beams and Led to repair the Church of S. Peter. He says, He durst not meddle with the Holy Corpse, which Adonis had begged of him, and gives him a hint of one, which was at the Archbishop Vulcharius'; viz. the Body of S. Candidus the Martyr.  
XXII. 60. He gives him notice of the Emperor Constantine's Death. He charges the Duke Clusus with seizing of Church-Lands, and entreats Charles to remove him out of Tuscany.  
XXIII. 59 He acquaints him with a Plot made to besiege the City of Rome.  
XXIV. 92. He tells him, That his Envoys fared worse for not following his Advice; and that the Greeks were forming a Design to deprive Charles of his Dukedom of Beneventum.  
XXV. 58. He complains that King Charles' Commissioners had slighted him, and that, instead of coming to Rome, they were gone to Spoleto, and to Beneventum. He desires Charles to put him in possession of the Dukedom of Spoleto, as he had promised him.  
XXVI. He says, No body did question but that the whole Country of Sabina should belong to him.  
XXVII. He congratulates the Victory he had lately obtained, and recommends an Abbot and two Bishops to him.  
XXVIII. 54. He tells him, That in Italy and Tuscany there were some Lombard Bishops, who invaded the Dioceses of others; that there are some Monks, who lay aside their Habit, to lead a Secular Life and to marry. He speaks again of Ermenald's Daughter, and desires Charles to stop these Disorders.  
XXIX. He complains of the Bishop of Ravenna's Impudence, who detained the Towns of Aemilia and Pentapolis, after Charles' Departure.  
XXX. 51. He sends him a Letter of the Patriarch of Grado, and complains that the Bishop of Ravenna had opened it and read it.  
XXXI. 51. He entreats Charles to remember his Promises to him, and demands all the Countries which the Lombard's did once possess.  
XXXII. 50. He complains; That he hath waited in vain for the Commissioners that were to come with Andrew▪ He complains, That Leo Bishop of Ravenna did boast of having obtained of him the Towns of the Pentapolis and Aemilia.  
XXXIII. 93. He speaks of his Loyalty and Amity to him. He rejoices because he wrote to him that he would come into Italy. He complains of his detaining his Legate Anastasius in France. He accuses two Persons about him of being his Enemies.  
XXXIV. 49. He speaks of some Advantage gotten by the Persians upon the Greeks.  
XXXV. 76. He prays him to cause all the Lands, which he pretends the Lombard's had taken from the Roman Church, to be restored to him.  
XXXVI. 77. He prays again, That the Territory of Sabina be wholly put into his Hands again. He rejects an Abridgement of the Council of Chalcedon, which was brought to him.  
XXXVII. 75. He entreats him to continue his constant Affection to the Roman Church. He accuses two private Persons who had fled to Charles, and desires him to send them to him.  
XXXVIII. 74. He recommends the Deputies of the Monastery of S. Hilary to him, and prays him not to suffer that the Hospitals built in the Road of the Alps be seized to entertain Travellers.  
XXXIX. 71. He answers him about the Elections of the Bishops of Ravenna, that they ought to be performed by the Clergy and the People of the Town, in the presence of the Emperor's Commissioners, and with the Bishop of Rome's Consent.  
XL. 72. He acquaints him, How he hath composed the Differences of the Monks of S. Vincent▪ and how that the Abbot Pothon was resolved to go to him with some Monks, to purge himself from the things laid to his Charge.  
XLI. 71. He thanks Charles for all his Pains that he had been at to serve the Church of Rome.  
XLII. 70. He gives him notice, that Adalgisius, Desiderius' Son, was come to Calabria, and he desires Charles to make War on him, and to constrain those of the Country of Benevent to obey him. He cautions him not to make Grimoald Duke of Beneventum, and demands of him the restitution of Ravenna, Roselle and P●polo.  
XLIII. He tells him, That he hath received the Ambassadors of Offa 
* [Offa the King of the Mercians.] , the English King, together with Charles' Commissioners; and he intimates to him, That he does not believe that Offa hath suggested any thing against Charles.  
XLIV. He appoints Litanies to be said for 3 Days together, in all the West, for the happy Conversion of the Saxons, wrought by Charles.  
57 He tells him, That the Greeks have put out the Eyes of Maurice, Bishop of Istria, because of his faithfulness to the Church of Rome. He prays Charles to order the Duke of Aquileia to get him restored.  
75. He acquaints him, That he, with all his Clergy and Monks, pray to God to grant him the Victory against the Agarenians.  
The 95th is directed to Egila, who had been ordained Bishop, and sent into Spain by Vulcharius, for accepting a Mission without having any particular See: He commends his Zeal, and exhorts him to follow the Usage of the Roman Church in the Saturday-Fast.  
In the 96th, directed to the same Bishop, and to John a Presbyter, he exhorts them to a Conformity to the Usages of the Roman Church. He confutes the practice of the Spanish Churches, which put off Easter to the 8th Day, when the 14th Moon fell on Saturday. He reports a long Passage of S. Fulgentius about Predestination. He condemns some Errors about freewill, and the Relics of Priscillianism, and reproves some Abuses. Afterwards he was displeased with Egila, for teaching some Errors, and neglecting his Ministry.  
The 77th Letter is directed to all the Bishops of Spain: In it he treats of Felix and Elipandus' Error. 2. Of the keeping of Easter. 3. Of Predestination. 4. Of the Obligation to abstain from Blood. 5. Of the Commerce and Marriage with Pagans and Jews, and of the Women that marry again during the Life of their first Husband.  
Flodoard mentions a Letter of this Pope to Tilpin, Archbishop of Rheims; in which having described the Disorders that had happened in that Church: He confirms to him the Right of Metropolitan or Primate, and grants him the Privilege of not being judged but by a Canonical Judgement, and by the Pope, if in the very Judgement he did appeal to the Holy See. This Letter seems doubtful to me.  
Adrian gave to Charlemain the Code of Dionysius Exiguus, of whose Canons there was a Summary made, bearing unfitly the Name of this Pope. Some attribute to him a Collection of 72 or 80 Capitula's, which they suppose him to have given to Ingilram, Bishop of Mets, or Ingilram to have presented them to him, for both these are found in the Manuscripts: It contains 72 or 80 Articles of Ecclesiastical Judgements, for the most part taken out of the Ancient Canons, Pope's Letters, and the Theodosian Code; but some Additions are made to them, favourable to the Pretensions of the Court of Rome. This piece was forged when the false Decretals were made, and perhaps by the same Author. They talk also of a Privilege granted by this Pope to the Monastery of S. Denys, wherein it is permitted them to have a Bishop: But this also is visibly supposititious.   

PAUL Deacon of Aquileia.  
PAUL, Deacon of Aquileia, called Winfrid after the Name of his Family, Son of Wartifred and Theodolinda, was Secretary to Desiderius, the last King of the Lombard's. This 
Paul of Aquileia.  Prince being taken (An. 774.) by Charlemain, and his Kingdom utterly destroyed, Paul the Deacon fell into the Conqueror's Hands, who used him very civilly. But his ties to his Prince having brought him into a suspicion of some Conspiracy, he was banished into an Island of the Adriatic Sea [called Diomedea] from whence he escaped to [Anchis] the Duke of Beneventum, Desiderius' Son-in-law, and a little after made himself a Monk in Mount-Cassin, where he died in the beginning of the 9th. Century.  
This Author wrote 
* [This History hath been printed by itself at Augsparcy 1515. at Ea●il 1532. at Hamburg 161●.]  the History of the Lombard's, divided into 6 Books. They do moreover falsely attribute to him an Abridgement of the Roman History drawn out of several Authors: For, tho' he made an Addition to Eutropius' Epitome, he is not the Author of that Collection, which is rather Anastasius' the Library-keeper. He abridged the History of the first Bishops of Metz, which Abridgement is found among the Historigraphers of France, and in the last Edition of the Bibliotheca Patrum [Tom. 13.] The first times of this History, which he brings up to the Apostles, are altogether fabulous. He made this Writing, as he tells us himself (Ch. 16. B. 6. of his History of the Lombard's) at the request of Ingilram, Bishop of Metz. He composed also, in particular, the Life of S. Arnulphus, Bishop of Metz, which is found among Bede's Works. There is a relation of S. Cyprian's Martyrdom, under his Name, which is found at the beginning of this Father's Works, of Pamelius' Edition. They published, moreover, under his Name, the Lives of S. Benedict, S. Maurus and S. Scholastica. Sigebert assures us, he wrote the Life of S. Gregory the Great, which was printed in the last Edition of that Saints Works. Besides, they ascribe to him a Commentary upon S. Benedict's Rule, which is not printed. There be some Hymns and Homilies, both Manuscript and Printed, bearing his Name. It is thought, That S. John's Hymn, Ut queant laxis, etc. is his. Lastly, he composed, by Charlemagne's order, a Book of Homilies or Lessons, gathered out of the Holy Fathers for all the [Festival] days of the Year. This Book was printed at Spire, [An. 1472.] by Peter Drach, with a Letter of Charlemain at the beginning of it, declaring, That this Work was composed by Paul the Deacon, by his order 
* [14●2. Dr. Cave.] . F. Mabillion hath printed this Letter and some Extracts of the Commentaries of the first Homilies, because the Edition of Spire is grown very scarce.   

CHARLEMAIN.  
THE Emperor CHARLEMAIN may be ranked among the Latin Ecclesiastical Authors, as well as Constantine among the Greeks: For he did not only labour in the re-establishing 
Charlemain.  the Church-discipline, but moreover he made several Laws, wrote Letters and caused some Treatises of Ecclesiastical Matters to be composed.  
Charlemagne's Laws, about Ecclesiastical Matters, are called Capitularia, Capitularies. They contained some Constitutions made by Councils and confirmed by this Prince, or some Laws made by the sole Authority of this Prince.  
The 1st. Capitularly of Charlemain is of the Year 769. it contains 18 Articles about the manners of the Clergy. It forbids Ecclesiastical Persons bearing of Arms and Hunting. It enjoins Priests to be subject to their Bishops, to give them an account of their Conduct every Year in Lent; to take no Church without the consent of the Bishop upon whom it depends; to take care to administer the Sacraments to the Penitents and to the Sick, and let no Body die without the Unction, Reconciliation and the Viaticum; not to say Mass but in Churches dedicated to our Lord, and upon Stone-altars consecrated by the Bishop. It charges Bishops to look carefully after their Dioceses, to obviate Superstitions, to visit every Year. It forbids Judges to punish or condemn the Clergy without the Bishop's consent.  
The 2d. Capitulary is dated in the year 779. it was made in an Assembly of Bishops, Abbots and Lords. About Ecclesiastical Matters, it ordains, That the Suffragan Bishops shall be subject to their Metropolitans; That Bishops shall be ordained in those Towns where there were none before; That in Monasteries the Rule shall be observed; That the Bishops shall have a full Power over the Presbyters and other Clerks; That they shall be impowered to punish incestuous Persons, and to order the life of Widows; That they shall neither entertain nor ordain the Clerks of other Bishops; That every one shall pay Tithes, which shall be distributed by the Bishop's order; That the Church shall not protect Murderers, tho' they have fled into Churches, and that they shall give them no Meat there.  
They ordered also, in this Assembly, the manner of praying for the Prince, as follows: That every Bishop shall sing three Masses and three Psalters; the 1st. for the King, the 2d. for the Army, and the 3d. for the present Calamity: That Presbyters shall say 3 Masses, and the Monks, Nuns and Canons, 3 Psalte●s. Besides, That the Bishops, the Abbots and Abbesses, that are Rich, shall bestow upon the Poor one Pound of Silver, or the worth of it; That those, who are not rich enough, shall feed some poor Folks; That the Earls shall also give a Pound of Silver, and the rest proportionably.  
In the Capitulary of the year 788. there is but one Article concerning Ecclesiastical Matters whereby Bishops are forbidden entertaining the Clerks of another Bishop, without his consent.  
The 1st. Capitulary of Aix-la-Chappelle of the Year 789. is prefaced with a Letter directed to all ecclesiastic and secular Persons, exhorting them to watch over their Flocks, to instruct them in the definitions of the Holy Councils; and, declaring to them, That he sends them some Capitularies drawn out of Canonical Constitutions. The 58 first Chapters are taken out of the ancient Councils and Decrees of Popes. And the 22 next, are new Constitutions, wherein he forbids Perjuries, Witchcrafts, Murders, false Witnesses; and recommends Peace, Patience, Submission to lawful Powers, Reverence in Churches, Order in the Divine Service, Rule in Monasteries, Vigilance and Learning in the Pastors, and particularly the use of the Roman way of Singing, which Pepin had with much ado brought into the Churches of France.  
The 2d. Capitulary is of the same Year, containing 16 Rules for Monks.  
The 3d. comprehends some Rules of Policy, and, among the rest, That in the Administration of Baptism they all follow the Roman Usage; That Bells shall not be baptised; That Monks shall not meddle with secular Affairs, etc.  
There is a particular Capitulary for the Saxon Converts, containing 34 Chapters.  
The 8th. condemns to death those Saxons that will not get themselves baptised. The 6th. and 7th. grant the Tithes of all to the Churches. The 18th forbids keeping Courts on Sundays and holidays. The 19th. ordains, That Children shall be brought to Baptism within the Year. There are several against Superstitions, and some for Ecclesiastical and Civil Policy.  
The Capitulary of the year, 793. is for Italy, it contains 17 Chapters. The 1st. permits the Laity to govern the Hospitals founded by them: But it forbids them to govern the Churches, wherein Baptism is administered. The other Chapters concern Civil Matters.  
The Capitulary of Frankford of the year 794. was drawn in the Synod; it contains 51 Chapters. By the 1st. Charles grants Tassilon, Duke of Bavaria, his Pardon. By the 4th. it is ordained, That the Bishops shall do Justice to the Clergy, and that their Judgements shall be obeyed. By the 5th. it is ordained, That the Bishop shall not run from Town to Town; but shall settle in his own Church, and take care of it. By the 6th. they compose the difference between the Bishops of Vienna and of Arles, according to the Pope's Letters; and they grant five Suffragan Sees to that of Vienna and nine to that of Arles. As for Tarentaise, Ambrun and Aix, they ordain, That they shall send to the Pope about them, and shall follow his Judgement thereupon. In the 7th they ordain, That a Bishop, suspected of Infidelity, shall clear himself by taking God to witness of his Innocency. By the 8th they depose Gerbodius, who called himself Bishop, without any Proofs or Witnesses of his Ordination, and had been ordained Deacon and Priest, contrary to the Canons. The eight following Canons are concerning Monks and Abbots. The 17th forbids Clerks to go to a Tavern. The 18th enjoins Bishops to know the Canons. The 19th is for the observation of the Sunday. The 20th prohibits ordaining Bishops in Burroughs. The 21st prohibits ordaining a Slave without his Master's consent. The 22d enjoins Clerks and Monks to continue in their Profession. The 23d renews the order for the paying of Tithes. The 24th ordains, That Churches shall be repaired by those that enjoy the Benefices. The 25th, That no strange Clerk shall be received without Letters from their Bishop. The 26th, That no Body shall be ordained without a Title to a Benefice. The 27th, That the Bishop shall instruct his People. The 28th, That he shall be Judge of the differences between Clerks. The 29th, That there shall be no Cabals among them. The 30th, That Monasteries shall be under Discipline. The 31st, That all the Faithful shall learn the Creed and the Faith of the Church. The 32d. That Avarice and Covetousness shall be avoided. The 33d, That Hospitality shall be exercised. The 34th, That Infamous Persons shall not be Accusers. The 35th, That they shall reconcile in case of Necessity. The 36th, That the Clerks of the King's Chapel shall not communicate with those Clergymen which are at odds with their Bishops. The 37th, That the Bishop shall judge the Presbyters found delinquent. The 38th, That he shall take care of Orphan Girls. The 39th, That he shall not stay above three Weeks out of his Diocese, and that the Church-lands of a Bishop deceased, shall belong to his Successor, as his Patrimonial-land to his Heirs. The 40th, That they shall worship no new Saints, nor build any Chapel in the Highways to their Honour; but those only shall be honoured, which have been chosen because of their Martyrdom or the Merits of their good Life. The 41st, That the Trees and Groves, consecrated to the Pagan Deities, shall be cut down. The 42d, That they shall stand to the Sentence of Umpires chosen. The 43d, That Children shall not be brought to the Sacraments. The 44th, That they shall observe the Canons concerning the manner of veiling Virgins. The 45th, That those Abbesses shall be deposed, which live disorderly. The 46th, That the Bishop shall distribute the Oblations made in Churches. The 47th, That no Body shall be ordained Priest, before he be 30 years old. The 48th, That after Mass, they shall give one another the kiss of Peace mutually. The 49th, That the Names shall not be recited before the Oblation. The 50th, That we must not believe that Men cannot pray to God, but in 3 Languages only, because God may be worshipped in all sorts of Languages, and he understands all our Petitions. The 51st, That the Bishops and Presbyters shall not be ignorant of the Canons. The 52d, That Churches cannot be sold to profane uses. In the 53d, the Synod assents, That the Emperor may keep the Bishop Hildebold in his Court, as he did Ingilram already. In the 54th. he recommends Alcuin to the Prayers of the Synod, as a Man very well seen in Ecclesiastical Matters.  
The Capitulary for the Saxons of the year 797. given in an Assembly of Bishops and Lords, contains nothing but Articles merely civil.  
An. 799. Charlemain sent two Persons to Rome, to Pope Leo III. to consult him about the Chorepiscopi and the punishment of wicked Priests; he wrote to his Bishops also about it; and we have a Fragment of that Letter with Chapters brought over from Rome, for the abolishing of the Chorepiscopi.  
An. 800. or thereabouts, he set out an Edict, wherein he charges the Counts and other Judges to afford the Bishops their helping Hand for the Execution of the Constitutions made about Ecclesiastical Discipline.  
Some time after he made a Capitulary to recommend the reverencing of the Holy Apostolic See in honour of S. Peter's Memory.  
There is another Capitulary yet of the year 801. containing 22 Chapters, drawn by the Bishops, and confirmed by the King's Authority. The 1st and the 2d import, That the Priests shall pray for the Health and Prosperity of the King and the Royal Family, and for their Bishop. The 3d, That they shall take care of the Church and the Relics. The 4th, That they shall preach every Sunday and Holiday. The 5th, That they shall learn the People the Creed and the Lord's Prayer. The 6th and 7th, That Tithes shall be paid, and one part shall be bestowed upon Church-ornaments, another upon the Poor, and the third upon ecclesiastics. The 8th, That Divine Service shall be performed at convenient hours. The 9th, That they shall not celebrate Mass but in consecrated Churches. The 10th and 11th, That Baptism shall not be administered but at the appointed times, excepting Children, which may be baptised at any time. The 12th, That they shall exact nothing for the administration of Sacraments. The 13th, That Presbyters dwell in the Church where they were ordained. The 14th and 15th, That Clerks shall be free. The 16th. That they shall have no strange Woman in the House with them. The 17th, That he that had the possession of a Church during the space of 30 years, shall continue in the peaceable possession of it. The 18th and the next, That Clerks shall carry no Weapons with them, that they shall not meddle with Lawsuits; that they shall not go to the Tavern, that they shall forbear Swearing. The 21st. That they shall impose Penance upon those that shall confess to them, and shall grant the Viaticum and the Communion to the Sick. The 22d, That they shall give the Unction to the Sick.  
The 1st Capitulary of the year 802. given by the King to his Commissaries, contains some Articles of the Life and Manners of the Clergy, of Abbots and religious Persons.  
The other Chapters, and the 2d. Capitulary of the same year, are upon civil Matters.  
The Capitulary of the year 803. was made in the Synod held by Paul of Aquileia at Aix-la-Chapelle; it contains 7 Articles. The 1st provides for the preservation of Church-lands. The 2d is for the restoring the Election of Bishops by the People and Clergy. The 3d prohibits encroaching upon Churches, Lands and Privileges. The 4th, 5th and 6th declare, the Ordinations, Imposition of Hands and Consecrations made by the Chorepisccpi, to be void. The last is concerning the Judgements of Presbyters. There be also two Capitularies more made a little after upon this Article.  
The 3d Capitulary of the same year, contains only two Articles upon Ecclesiastical Matters. The 1st imports, That Churches shall be repaired, and that in those places which have more Churches than needs, some of them shall be pulled down to build up others, where they shall be needful. The 2d, That none shall be ordained Priest before he be examined, and no Excommunication shall be pronounced without cause.  
The 5th of the same year contains one whereby it is forbidden to give or take any thing for the Holy Chrism.  
The 8th given at Worms in the same year, is an Edict for the exemption of Bishops and Priests.  
An. 804: he made at Salz eight Articles for the Bishops. By the 1st they are charged to take care of the Churches of their Diocese. By the 2d and 3d, he preserves the Tithes to the Parochial Churches. The 4th imports, That the Bishops shall take care to ordain Priests. The 5th forbids, secular Persons to go into Nunneries, and Clerks also, except in case of necessity, and by the Bishop's order. The 6th forbids Nuns to have in their Monasteries, any other Girls but such as design to stay there. The 7th and 8th forbidden admitting Male-childrens thereinto, or carrying Arms thither. These Articles are backed with the following Advertisements to Presbyters, to preach and teach the Scripture and the Creed; to be able to say the Psalter without Book, as also, the words for administering Baptism; to be skilful in the Canons and the Penitential; and in Singing; not to dwell with Women, except their Mother, Sister or Aunt; not to go to the Tavern; not to be Covetous, Drunkards or Idle; not to break the Fast of Holy Thursday; not to administer the Holy Chrism and to come to the Synod.  
An. 805. He made a Capitulary of 16 Articles at Thionville, containing several Rules of Ecclesiastical Policy: Some Articles of it are also found in the second and third Capitularies. In the Articles given the same year to Jesse, Bishop of Amiens.  
The 2d imports, That no Layman shall be Superior of Monks nor archdeacon.  
There's an Edict of the same year, and in the same place, about the reverence due to Bishops and Priests.  
The 4th Capitulary of the year 806. contains several Constitutions of Ecclesiastical Policy.  
The 6th renews some ancient Canons about Discipline.  
The 2d Article of the 1st Capitulary of 809. discharges the Priest from administering the Holy Chrism.  
The 5th of the 1st Capitulary of 810. enjoins them to preach and instruct the People.  
The 1st and 2d Capitularies of 811. contain excellent Instructions of the duty of Abbots, Monks, Clerks and Bishops.  
The Capitulary of 813. contains 28 Articles, made in the Councils of Arles and Mentz, and confirmed by the Authority of Charlemain, about Church Discipline and the Manners of the Clergy.  
Lastly, besides these Capitularies of Charlemain, of which we know the Time, there are also 5 Capitularies more, of which the Time is unknown; they contain several Constitutions, which are almost all contained in the Capitularies abovementioned.  
Most of the Capitularies of Charlemain concerning Ecclesiastical Matters, have been collected in the first of the four Books of Capitularies composed by Ansegisus, (according to some Abbot of Lobbes, and according to M. Baluzius, Abbot of Fontenelles) whose Collection was approved by Lewis the Meek, and by Charles the Bald. This Abbot undertook to ser in order, and to collect the Constitutions contained in the Capitularies of Charlemain, and Lewis the Meek, made before 828. The first of the four Books of his Collection contains Charlemagne's Ecclesiastical Constitutions; the second the Civil Laws of the same Emperor; the third the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of Lewes the Meek; and the last the Civil Laws of the same. After him, Benedict, Deacon of Mentz, gathered about the Year 845. some Capitularies of these two Emperors, omitted by Ansegisus, and added thereto the Capitularies of Carloman and Pepin; but his Collection published in three Books, is very much confused. These two Collections are the seven Books of the Capitularies of our Kings. The six first Books were set out in 1548. by Tilius, Bishop of Meaux; and the seven Books altogether have been published by M. Pithaeus, in the end of the last Century, and in the beginning of this. Since 1545. they had printed in Germany some Capitularies, and in 1557. several had been printed at Basil, but all those Editions were imperfect and defective, and we are obliged to M. Baluzius for having procured us such a fair Edition of the Capitularies, very large and full, and revised by several Manuscripts, with all the Care and application imaginable. It came forth in 1677. from Muguet's Press, in two Volumes Folio. The first of which comprehends the Capitularies of the Kings Childebert, Chlotarius, Dagobert, Carloman, Pepin, Charlemain, of Pepin King of Italy and Lewis the Meek, together with the seven Books of Capitularies, collected by Ansegisus and Benedict, four Additions to these Collections, the Canons of Isaac Bishop of Langres, taken out of the three last Books of Capitularies, and the Chapters of Herard Archbishop of Tours, taken also out of our King's Capitularies. The second Volume contains the Capitularies of Charles the Bald, and the posterior Emperors, with divers Terms.  
These Capitularies renew the ancient Church Discipline in many points, and in the other establish one suitable to the Necessity and the Manners of the Age, and against the most common Disorders of the Time. They set up again the Bishop's Elections, and restored the Church to her former Possessions. They forbade the Laity to encroach upon them, and the Clergy to alienate them. They revived the ancient Laws concerning Ecclesiastical Judgements, the Authority of Metropolitans, and of Provincial Synods, and the Prohibitions of the Canons against encroaching upon other Bishop's Dioceses, and receiving their Clerks or Persons excommunicated by them. They did not forget the famous prohibition so often repeated, for all sorts of Persons in Holy Orders to have no strange Woman in the House with them. They put in force again the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, whereby it is forbidden to make Ordinations absolute and without Title. They prohibited Translations and Nonresidence; the perseverance of Clerks and Monks was ordained. Clerks were commanded to be subject to their Bishops by several Laws. They ordained, That he should have the disposing of all the Benefices in his Diocese, and that no Priest might be put in or out of any Parish or Chappel but by his Authority. They bond the Parsons to go or send to the Episcopal City for the Holy Oil. The Choriepiscopi were forbidden Episcopal Functions, and they endeavoured the total abolishing of them. They charged the Bishops to examine the Doctrine and the Manners of Presbyters before they ordained them; to ordain no Body Presbyter, unless he was 30 Years old; they enjoined Presbyters and other Ecclesiastical Persons, to live regularly, to addict themselves to the Offices of their Ministry, and chief to Preaching. Priests are forbidden saying Mass without communicating: They were enjoined to have the Eucharist always ready at hand, to be administered to the Sick, together with the Unction, which was common at this Time. Clerks had no other Judges but the Bishops, and they required a great number of credible Witnesses to condemn them. They set up Schools in Bishoprics and Abbeys, to learn the Psalms, Singing and Grammar. They endeavoured to destroy the Remains of Pagan Superstitions. The Invocation of Saints 
hh [Invocation of Saints.] In the Days of this Emperor, Charles the Great, who flourished towards the latter End of this Century, Idolatrous Superstitions and Corruptions were arrived at their full growth. Image-worship was established 
Conc. Nic 2. Act. 7.  by Law in the Eastern and Western Churches, and Saint-worship as our Author says truly, much used: But from the beginning it was not so. Neither the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, nor yet the purest Antiquity do at all authorise this Practice. Among those excellent Prayers which we meet with in Holy Scripture, composed by Men divinely inspired, we cannot find one directed to any Saint or Angel, nor any other Being whatsoever, but the only Living and the True God; but we read in several 
Rev. 22. 8. 9 Act. 12▪ 25, 26. I ai. 63. 16. 2 King. 22. 20. I●en. adv. Har. lib. 1. c. 23. Orig. hem. 3. 〈◊〉 cant. In. c. 13. J●s●uae in Epist. ad R. m. C pr. ep 57 Amb. de ob. Theod. Hieron. in Prov. 2. Thecd. come. in Col. c. 2. Sulp-Sever. de S. Mart. ep. 2. Greg. Nazian. inv. 1. in Jul. Hieron. epitaph. Paulae.  Places, That both the Angels and Saints, while they were alive, have disclaimed all Worship, when tendered to them, as not due to them; and after their Death we are assured that they cannot hear us. Consonant to these Truths did the Church of Christ for above 200 Years believe and act, and not only make no Prayers to any Angel or Saint, as Ireneus testifies, but shown a great Abhorrence of all such Heretics, as used such a sort of Worship. The first Step towards it was made by Origen, who advanced this Doctrine in the Church, That the Saints departed out of this Life, do carry along with them a Remembrance of the State and Condition of their Brethren, and out of their Love to them do carefully recommend them to God, and pray for them. From this Persuasion, (which many learned from him) did the Christians take occasion to entreat their Living Friends, who were eminent for Piety, That if they died before them, and so came first into Christ's joyful and happy Presence, they would not forget to recommend them to God, who were left behind in a sinful World: But yet no Saint was invoked or prayed to after Death many Years after this; for S. Jerom, Ambrose and Theodores, unanimously acknowledge, That God alone is to be worshipped and prayed to; And S. Austin expressly says, Non sit nobis Religio culius 〈◊〉 mortuorum; Let not the Worship of Dead Men be any part of our Religion. But although there was no Invocation of Saints, yet many Doctrines and practices were allowed and believed, which laid the Foundation of Saint-Worship, which was introduced soon after, As 1. It was held, That the Souls of the Martyrs were every where present, but especially at their Tombs, where several Miracles were wrought. 2. Many of the eminent Fathers both for Learning and Devotion made Rhetorical Panegyrics of the Christians deceased, wherein by Apostrophe's and Prosopopeia's they seemed to invoke Souls departed. Thus S. Jerom, in his Epitaph of Paula saith, Farewell, O Paula, and ●y thy Prayers help the decrepis Age of him, that honours thee. And so Nazianzen, in his Invectives against Julian, saith, Hear, O ●●ou S●ul of great Constantine, etc. 3. The Christians in their Prayers, at the Commemoration of the Memories of the Martyrs, not only used many unwary Expressions, implying a sort of Invocation of them, but did formally pray to God to grant them such Blessings as they stood in need of, through their Intercession; for so Austin says, We mention not them as 
Aug. in Joan. tract. 84.  though we prayed for them, but that they may pray for us. These Doctrines and Practices, so prepared Men's Minds for the Invocation of Saints, that about the Year 60●. S. Gregory inserted Petitions to them in the public Litanies among the Latins, as Petrus G●ap●aus had some time before among the Greeks, and it was quietly received and allowed, and so continued to the Times of Charles the Great, and downward till the Reformation, without any considerable Opposition: So apt are Men to cherish Will-worship.]  was much used; Relics and the Cross were reverenced 
ii [Relics— reverenced.] Although the Reverence of Bones and other Relics of Saints seems as absurd a piece of Idolatrous Worship as the Heathens themselves were guilty of, yet it was the first that crept into the Church through the Policy of Satan, which was effected by this Means: It pleased God, for the Testimony of his Doctrine and Truth, to work great Miracles by the dead Bodies of his Saints, in witness that they had been his Messengers, and Instruments of his Will: But that which was intended by God for the good of Men and Conversion of Souls, became a Snare to lead them into Error; for their admiration of the virtue which God seemed to put into them, stirred them up not only to seek for them, and use them as Annulets and Remedies against all Evils and Distempers, but also made them give them a singular Respect and Veneration, as we may gather from S. Austin's Words, I know many 
Aug. de. Eccles. & Man. c. 34.  that worship Graves, Images, etc. Indeed there was a Respect always paid to the Martyrs deceased, by the Christians, by celebrating their Memories at their Tombs, upon the anniversary of their Martyrdom, and by bestowing a neat and convenient Burial upon them; but it was never allowed by the Orthodox Fathers to give them a Divine Honour: Yea, S. Gregory says, That it is not lawful to bring the 
Greg. lib 3. ep. 30.  Body of the Saints into a public view, or handle them with the Hands. 'Twas Satan's Subtlety to insinuate Idolatry by an intemperate Devotion.] : But in France no veneration of Images was allowed. The Prohibition of contracting Marriages, was extended to the fourth degree of Consanguinity; Spiritual Affinity 
kk [Prohibition of Marriage— to the fourth Degree of Consanguinity; Spiritual Affinity.] To avoid all incestuous Marriages, such Canons as these, prohibiting Marriage within certain degrees are very convenient to be imposed, and aught to be observed: And tho' indeed this may seem too strict, restraining such Kindred from Marriage, as the Word of God itself doth seem to permit, Leu. 18. being extended to the fourth degree of Consanguinity; yet 'tis better to prohibit something in itself lawful, where there is little or no inconvenience consequent upon it, than to permit a thing, which in strictness, perhaps, is lawful, but is in appearance evil and scandalous, as a Marriage-Conjunction of Persons near-a-kin, is commonly accounted. But as to Spiritual Consanguinity or Affinity, as it is no real Relation, so to hinder such as are thus allied from Marriage is an Instance of Papal Tyranny and Usurpation, no Persons being really better qualified for Marriage together, than such as are Brethren and Sisters in the Lord: So that though the Constitution for not marrying to the fourth degree, is tolerable enough, yet the latter, since it may produce many Inconveniences among Men, deserve no Regard or Observation; and it is to be believed, that it had long since expired, had it not been much for the Advantage of the Papal Hierarchy, by creating an abundance of Dispensations.]  began then to take Place.  
The Celebration of Sundays was then very solemn. On this Day they did forbear all manner of servile Work, and Christians were obliged to be present at Divine Service, which was solemnly performed: The keeping of public Markets was prohibited on this Day This is the number of the Holy Days then kept, set down in the 158th Chapter of the first. Book of the Capitularies: The Festivals of Christmas, S. Stephen, S. John the Evangelist, the Innocents', the Octave of the Lord, the Epiphany, the Octave of the Epiphany, the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, eight Days at Easter, the great Litany, the Ascension, Whitsunday, S. John Baptist, S. Peter and S. Paul, S. Martin and S. Andrew. As to the Virgin's Assumption, it is said, We leave it out to inquire into it. Churches were built with as much splendour and Magnificence as the Age would permit; they were decked and adorned, the Altars consecrated and covered with Linen-cloth; the Service was performed with great Pomp. The Roman way of singing was brought into the Churches of France, but they kept still their own peculiar way of Singing. They took great care of the Church-Books and Singing. Women were forbidden to come near the Altars; and Abbesses to give the Blessing, to make the Sign of the Cross upon Men's Heads, and to give the Veil with the Sacerdotal Benediction. Simony was severely forbidden. They made Laws against Usury then, not only in Ecclesiastical, but Laymen. There were many Hospitals for the Poor and the Sick. The paying of Tithes was become obligatory, and all sorts of Persons were constrained to pay them to Churchmen. They were forbidden exacting any thing for the Sacraments, or for Ecclesiastical Offices. Church-Revenues were divided into three Parts; one part was for the repairing of Churches, the other for the Poor, and the last for Churchmen. They began to oblige the Clergy of Cathedrals to live together canonically. They made divers Constitutions to keep Monks in order. They forbade to receive Children without the Parent's Consent, and to veil Virgins before 30 Years of Age, and Widow-Women before the thirtieth Day after their Husband's Decease. They prohibited a Sort of Clerks, which wore the Religious Habit, and would live neither as Monks nor Clergymen. The Rectors of Country Parishes came from Time to Time to give the Bishop an account of their Conduct; and the Bishop did also visit his Diocese. Public Penance was in use yet, but not with the same rigour as in the former Ages. They granted Absolution several Times. They never denied the Communion to dying People. Secret Confessions were frequent. They recommended frequent Communion. They administered yet Baptism by immersion, and only at Easter and Whitsuntide, unless in case of Necessity. Prayer for the Dead was very much practised. This is part of the Discipline contained in Charlemagne's Capitularies.  
This is the Catalogue of this Emperor's Letters. A Letter to Offa King of the Mercians, in the Year 774. A Declaration for the Designation of Bishoprics. A Letter to Fastrade his Wife. Some Instructions given to Angilbert, going to Rome, anno 796. A Letter to Leo, sent by Angilbert. Two Letters to Offa. A Fragment of a Letter against vicious Priests, directed to the Bishops of France. A Letter to the Monks of S. Martin of Tours; wherein he enjoins them to send back again to Theodulphus, Bishop of Orleans, some Clerks of Orleans, who had harboured among them. A Letter for the Restauration of Schools in Churches and Monasteries. A Letter to Pepin, for the Peace of the Churches, and of those who serve them. A Letter to the Bishops of the Kingdom, written in 811. commanding them to instruct the Priests and the People in the Signification of the Ceremonies of Baptism: The Copy we have of it is directed to Odelbert; it was set forth by F. Mabillon, and is found, as well as the preceding, in the Collection of Capitularies of M. Baluzius. This Letter stirred up Amalarius, Jesse, and some other Bishops, to make some Treatises to explain the Right of Baptism. A Letter to Alcuin, about the number of the Works in the Year, among Alcuin's Works. A Letter which he made for a Preface to the Book of Homilies, made by Paul the Deacon, [and collected into one Volume by his order] set out by F. Mabillon in the first Volume of his Analecta, pag. 25. Sigebert ranks Charlemain among Ecclesiastical Writers, upon the account of this Work, which yet was none of his, but of Paul the Deacon of Aquileia. F. Mabillon hath moreover set forth, in the fourth Volume of his Analecta, an Epistle of Charlemain, touching the Grace of the 
* [Of the sevenfold Spirit.]  Holy Ghost. Lastly, we meet with several Letters more of Charlemain, as Foundations, Donations, Privileges, etc. in the Collection of such kind of Pieces.  
But the two most considerable Ecclesiastical Works that have appeared under this Prince's Name, are the Letter written in his Name to Elipandus, Bishop of Toledo, and the other Bishops of Spain, against the Error of Felix, Bishop of Urgel, which is at the end of the Council of Frankfort; and the four Books called Carolin, against Image-Worship, and the Decree of the Nicene Council; Some attribute them to Ingilram, Bishop of Mets, others to Alcuin, others would have us think them to be supposititious: But this last Pretention is unwarrantable, for, not to speak of the Authority of Hincmarus, who citys them, and of several ancient Authors, which are found in Libraries, Pope Adrian's Answer to this Work shows it had been published in his Time by Charlemagne's Order, and the Councils of Frankfort and Paris are authentic Testimonies of the Truth of these Books; So that there can be no Doubt but this Work is a kind of Manifesto, containing the Sentiment of the French Church, published under the Name and by the Order of Charlemain. We shall speak more fully of these Works of Charlemain, when we make the History of the seventh Council, and of this of Frankfort, where we will examine the Affair of Felix of Urgel, and the Sentiments of the Author of the Carolin Books, touching Images.   

ALCUIN.  
FLaccus, ALBIN, or ALCUIN, born in England, Deacon of the Church of York, and the Scholar of Bede and of Egbert, was invited into France (anno 790.) by Charlemain, 
Alcuin.  who looked upon him as his Master, and shown a great esteem for him. He had the Reputation of one of the most learned Men of his Age, in Ecclesiastical Matters. He instructed the French not only by his Writings, but moreover by the public Lectures he read in the King's Palace and other Places. Charles gave him [the Government of] many Abbeys, and at last charged him with the Care of the Canons of S. Martin of Tours: He died in this Society, anno 804.  
This Author's Works 〈◊〉 collected by Andrea's [●…us, or] 〈◊〉 Chesne, and Printed at Paris by Cra●… in 1617.  
They are divided into Three parts. The 1st comprehends his Tracts upon the Scripture; the 2d his Books of Doctrine, Discipline, and Morality; and the 3d the Verses, Letters, and P●●ms he made.  
The first part comprehends the following Works. Questions and Answers about several difficult passages of Ge●…sis, with an Explication of these words, Let us make Man in our ●mage. An Exposition of the Penitential and Gradual Psalms, and of the 118th Psalm. A Treatise of the use of Psalms, with Prayers taken out of the Psalms. An Office of the Church for the Year▪ A Letter upon what is said in the Song of Songs, that there be Sixty Queens, and Eighty Concubines. A Commentary upon Ecclesiastes, and Seven Books of Com●…taries upon the Gospel of S. John. It is observed in the end of this part, that Alcuinus had laboured to correct the whole Text of the vulgar Bible, by Charlemagne's Order, and that this Manuscript-work is found in the Library of Vauxcelles, with some Verses of Alcuinus upon this Work.  
The Second part comprehends the following Treatises. A Tract of the Trinity, Dedicated to Charlemain, divided into Three Books, wherein he handles with great accuracy and clearness some Speculative and Scholastic Questions, concerning those Mysteries, with Twenty Eight Questions and Answers about the Trinity. A Letter explaining what is Time, Eternity, and an Age, etc. 
* [In the Biblioth Patrum it is attributed to Paulinus Bishop of Aquileia, but falsely.]  A Tract of the Soul, directed to his Sister E●●alia a Virgin. Seven Books against the Opinion of Felix, Bishop of Urgel, who believed Jesus Christ might be called the Adoptive Son of God, as to his Humane Nature. A Letter upon the same Subject written to Elipandus, Bishop of Toledo. Elipandus' Answer, in which he treats Alcuin very rudely, and having loaded him with Calumny, citys some passages of the Fathers, and the Church-Office, to justify that Jesus Christ may be called God's Adoptive Son, as to his Humane Nature. Alcuin's Reply to Elipandus' Letter, divided into Four Books. In the Two first he Answers the Authorities alleged by Elipandus; and in the Two last he proves his own Opinion by Testimonies of the Fathers, and the Scripture. He forbears Reviling Words, and deals with him with as much Moderation as his Adversary hath expressed himself with Heat and Passion. At the end of these Four Books, there is an Advertisement of Alon●nus's about the original of Felix's Error, and the retractation he made of it; Elipandus' Letter to Felix; The Confession of Faith he made after his Retractation; And a Letter of Alcuinus about the Questions that may be raised touching the Son of God. These are the Dogmaatical Works contained in this Second part.  
The first of the Works of Discipline is the Book of [the Divine] Offices, bearing Alcuinus' Name, but it belongs to a later Author, there being mention made there of Hilperick, who lived in the Tenth Century; besides, it contains several Observations of a lower Age than that Alcuin lived in.  
The 2d Work about Discipline, is Alcuin's Letter to Charlemain, upon the Septuagesima, Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima; and upon the differences of the number of the Weeks of Lent, with Charlemagne's Answer upon the same subject.  
The 3d is a Tract of Al●…in, directed to Adrian, upon the Ceremonies of Baptism, which are the same that are practised now, of which he renders Moral Reasons.  
The 4th is a Letter 
* [Ad Pueros S. martin's, i. e. To the Boys of S. Martin. Dr. Cav.  to the Clerks of S. Martin, to exhort them to confess their Sins.  
The 5th is a Sacramentary, containing Masses for many Festivals of the Year.  
These Works are followed with Three Homilies upon the Incarnation, the Virgin's Nativity, and the Festival of All-Saints. These Three Homilies are taken out of the Book of Homilies of Paul the Deacon, and it is not certain that they are Alcuin's.  
The Life of Antichrist follows, which is full of groundless Fancies. There is but one Work of Morality, which is of Virtues and Vices: The rest are Works upon Profane Arts and Sciences▪ The Book of the Seven Arts is Cassiodorus' Preface upon that subject.  
The last part of Alcuin's Works comprehends the following Books.  
The Life of S. Martin of Tours, and a Sermon on his Death.  
The Life of S. Vedastus of Arras.  
The Life of S. Richarius, a Presbyter.  
The Life of S. Wilbrord, Bishop of Utrecht, in Prose and Verse, with an Homily for his Festival.  
One Hundred and Fifteen Epistles, with the fragments of some more, taken out of English Authors.  
Poems upon several Saints.  
A Poem upon the meeting of Pope Leo, and Charlemain.  
Divers Poems.  
The Letters upon Ecclesiastical matters are these.  
The 2d, of which we have already spoken, about the difference of the number of the Weeks of Lent.  
The 6th upon these words of the Gospel, Here are Two Swords.  
The 7th of the manner of instructing the People in the Faith.  
The 8th, in which he speaks against a Letter written to him by Felix of Urgel, whom he calls Jocosely, Felix infelix. But this was retorted upon him by Elipundus, who called him several times Albinus niger, Antiph●asius.  
In the 13th he speaks of a Writing he had made against Felix of Urgel, and of a Dialogue of that Author between a Christian and a Saracen.  
The 29th directed to Osred, King of Northumberland, is full of Instructions very useful for Princes.  
The 30th contains some for a Queen that had retired from the World.  
The 31st is full of Advices to the Canons of Tours.  
The 32d to the Bishop Adelbert and his Society, contains a commendation of the Life of the Canon Regulars, and an Exhortation to follow it.  
The 49th contains the same sort of Exhortations to the Friars of Wiremouth and Jarrow.  
The 50th to those of York.  
The 62d to the Canons of S. Leger.  
The 63d is directed to Pope Adrian, to whom he writes very submissively.  
In the 69th he exhorts the Canons of Lions, to reject the Errors which are come from Spain, to follow the Tradition and Usage of the Universal Church, to avoid the Additions made to the Creed, and the new Customs brought into the Service of the Church. He speaks particularly of their Error, about the Adoption of the Son of God, and the practice of some, who threw Salt upon Christ's Sacrifice. He maintains, they ought to Offer nothing but Bread, Water, and Wine; that the Bread ought to be very pure, without any mixture, made of Flour and Water. The last thing, he finds fault with, in the usages introduced in Spain, is, that they made but one Immersion, calling upon the Three Persons of the Trinity. He maintains against them the use of the Triple Immersion, and here he explains the Ceremonies of Baptism; he speaks of the same thing in the 81st Letter, where he does intimate, that there were some who dipped Three times, repeating the Invocation of the Trinity at each time. He reprehends in this Letter, those who doubted, whether the Souls of the Holy Apostles and Martyrs were received up into Heaven before the Day of Judgement. In the 71st Letter he proves the necessity of Confession.  
The 72d is to Pope Leo, whom he calls Vicar of the Apostles, Prince of the Church.  
In the 78th he commends the Monastic Life, and exhorts Monks to discharge the Duties of it.  
The 97th contains excellent Instructions about the Duties of a Bishop.  
He Treats of Baptism in the 104th.  
In the 106th he Answers the Question put to him by Charlemain, which is the Hymn that Jesus Christ said after his last Supper. He pretends, it was the words related by the Evangelists.  
Since this Edition there have been Printed some more of Alcuin's Works; as, a Commentary upon the Song of Solomon, at London in 1638, [by the care of Patrick Young.] An Abridgement of the Faith against the Arians, set forth [at Paris in 1630,] by F. Sirmondus, without the Author's Name, and attributed to Alcuin by F. Chiffletius, upon the Authority of some MSS. A long Confession of Faith, divided into Four parts, drawn out of the Fathers, published by F. Chiffletius, and Printed at Dijon in 
* [1654. Dr. Cave.]  1656, [but it is dubious whether it belong to Alcuinus, or no.] A Discourse of the Purification, which was without Name among S. Ambrose's Works, and was restored to Alcuin by M. Baluzius, in the 2d Vol. of Miscellanea, p. 382. Two Letters set forth by M. Baluzius in the same place, [Tom. 1. p. 365.] the one directed to Charlemain, upon the price of Jesus Christ's Death; the other to the Abbots and Monks of the Goths, upon the Unity of the Two Natures in the Person of Jesus Christ. There's in the same place a Capitulary, containing sundry Moral Maxims directed to Charlemain; but that Work seems to me unworthy of Alcuin. Twenty Six Letters published by F. Mabillon in the 4th Vol. of his Analecta. And a Poem, in which he laments the disorders and looseness of one of his Friends, under the Name of a Cuckoo.  
The Learned are not all agreed, that the Confession of Faith, set out by F. Chiffletius, is Alcuin's. The Author of the Office for the Holy Sacrament, in the Historical and Chronological Table of the Authors, hath propounded some difficulties about this Confession of Faith, which might make one doubt, whether it be truly Alcuin's. He says, the two first parts of it are very excellent and precious; but there are many things taken out of the other Works of Alcuin, especially the different Orations. That the third part does not seem to be coherent to the two first, there being several places in it copied out of them word for word; which probably an Author, whatever he might be, would not have done in the same Work. Besides, that it is almost all of it taken from Pelagius' Confession of Faith, and from the Book of the Ecclesiastical Doctrines, yet so, that the Pelagian and Semi-pelagian expressions of those Books are commonly left out in it; that there are also some places of it without any rational coherency: And above all, what he set in the end, to join it to the 4th, seems to have been added. That the 4th part, in what it contains about the Eucharist, is perfectly fine, but doubtless it ends in the first Chapter; all the rest being but a Rhapsody of divers Orations. He confesses the Style of this last part, as well as of the first, does pretty well resemble that of Alcuin, which is not always very pure and correct, but very quick and lively. He intimates, that altho' these Four Words (Caro, Cibus, Sanguis, Potus,) which are found in S. Thomas' Prose, are read there, the Thread of his Discourse did so naturally lead him, to use them in that order, that one ought not to conclude, that this Work was made since S. Thomas' time. That the Style hath nothing Scholastical, yea, and that it hath some expressions, which were not used since Berengarius, as, that the Eucharist is 
[† In a posthumous Treatise, printed at Rovan, anno 1675.]  Christ's Body and Blood only for the Iust Lastly, that in this 4th part there are some places found in the Book of the Divine Offices attributed to Alcuin.  
Daillaeus hath taken affirmatively, what was said but doubtfully by the Author Of the Office of the Holy Sacrament, and he adds new Conjectures, to show that this Confession was not Alcuin's. The 1st is grounded upon this, that in this Confession of Faith some things are met with, which are taken word for word out of the Books of the Meditations, and the Mirror, falsely ascribed to S. Austin, and composed since Alcuin's time, seeing, that of the Meditations, which is the ancienter, was written since S. Anselm's time. The 2d is grounded upon this Work's not being set down in the Index's of Alcuin's Works. The 3d upon this Author's often copying himself, which an Author does not usually do. Moreover he insists upon this, that there is a place in this Book, which is found in the Book of Offices, attributed to Alcuin. 4thly, Daillaeus pretends, that this Author's Sentiments differ from Alcuin's. He says, that explaining the Creation of the World, he relateth the two Opinions related by Alcuin also in his Questions upon Genesis, but prefers that which was disapproved by Alcuin. He adds, that this Author believes the real presence, which Sentiment he does not think to be Alcuin's; and that he looks upon the contrary Opinion as Heretical. Lastly, He pretends that there be some things in this Work which do not agree with the Ninth Tentury; as when he complains of the infelicity of his Age, and speaks of the Miracles whereby the Eucharist had been represented under the shape of a Man. 
* [In Au●l. Tom. 1. p. 178.]  F. Mabillon contrariwise asserts the truth of this Work, chief upon the Antiquity of the Manuscript, from which it is taken. He maintains the Characters to be of Charlemagne's time, or very near it; and tho' the sole Testimony of a Man, as much conversant in these matters as he was, might be sufficient, he joined to it the Attestation of many Learned Men. The Antiquity of this Manuscript shows, that this Book is of Alcuin's time, seeing the Manuscript itself is of that time, 2dly, He notes, That the Ancient Title of this Manuscript was written in Red, and that they only put Ink upon the Ancient Red Characters, which are to this effect; Albini Confessio Fidei. 3dly, He proves that this Author is older than the Schoolmen, because he does not speak as exactly as they do of the Mysteries, that he always translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks, by the word Coessential, whereas the Schoolmen always said Con-substantial. He taketh notice of the place, in which he varies from our way of speaking of the Eucharist. He adds, that this Author hath some Opinions which were not common, but in the Eighth and Ninth Century; as when he pretends, that Catechumen cannot be saved without either Baptism, or Martyrdom; that the Question of the Two Predestinations, which he treats of, was Agitated in this Age; that all, that this Author says of himself, agreeth to Alcuin. Lastly, To bring in a Witness, he says, that John Abbot of Fescamp, who lived in the Twelfth Century, hath cited several passages of this Treatise in a Book he made against Berengarius.  
Having alleged these proofs of the Antiquity of this Book, he clears the difficulties; he says, it's no wonder, this Author should have made Extracts of Pelagius' Confession of Faith, seeing it was commonly cited in this time, and was looked upon as a Work of S. Hierom. That it's less to be wondered at, that he should be cited in the Book of Gennadius' Ecclesiastical Doctrines, seeing Adrian made no difficulty to allege one Authority out of it. That the passages, which are found in this Confession, are not taken out of the Book of the Meditations, and the Mirror; but it is the Compilers of those Two Works, that have inserted them in two places of Alcuin's Treatise, seeing the Manuscript of this Work is doubtless older, than the Author of those other Treatises. And if this Confession be not found in the Catalogues of Alcuin's Works, that's not to be wondered at, seeing all those Lists of Catalogues are imperfect; that it is an ordinary thing with the Authors of this Age, and with Alcuin, not only to transcribe other Men's, but their own Works also; that the Author of the Book of Offices did transcribe Alcuin's Confession of Faith; that it's not true, that Alcuin's Opinions about the Eucharist are different from this Author's; that he had instances to prove, that Jesus Christ had appeared in the Eucharist in the shape of a Man; that some Authors of the Ninth Century, before the Birth and the Condemnation of Berengarius' Error, have condemned his Opinion as Heretical; that it's no extraordinary thing for an Author, alleging in two places two different explications of the same passage, to approve now the one, and then the other; that it were a more extraordinary thing, that two different Authors should bring two like explications of the same passage; that altho' Charlemagne's Age was more Learned than the Tenth, yet Alcuin Expostulates the infelicity of that time, and the disorders then in the Church, in the Works not doubted of, as in the 6th Letter, and in his 271 Poem. And therefore, that there's nothing in the Confession of Faith, bearing his Name, that proves it not to be his. [These Reasons and Solutions, saith F. Mabellonius, make it probable, tho' not certain, that this Confession of Faith is Alcuin's.] Alcuin's Style is neat and lively, he writes wittily, his Expressions are pure enough for his time, he handles things pleasantly; one may say, he did not want Eloquence, no, nor Elegance neither.   

ETHERIUS.  
ETHERIUS, Bishop of Axume in Spain, and Beatus, Abbot and Priest, were some of the first that opposed Felix and Elipandus' Error: These charged them with Eutychiaanism. It was to vindicate themselves, and to convince their Adversaries of the opposite Error: That they made 2 Books, in which they profess to hold the Doctrine of the Council of Ephesus, and resist the Sentiment of their Adversaries, contrary to their Doctrine. These 2 Books are very much confused, and full of several idle useless Reflections, and divers Repetitions. They were printed in Canisius' Antiquities, and in the last Bibliotheca Patrum.   

PAULINUS of Aquileia.  
PAULIN, Bishop of Aquileia, was present at the Council of Frank fort, held in 794, there he encountered Felix and Elipandus' Error, about the Title of adoptive Son, which they attributed 
Paulin of Aquileia.  to Jesus Christ; he made a small Writing and three Books upon this Subject. Those Works are found among Alcuin's: They did formerly attribute to him the 7 Books of Alcuin against that Error. There is a Fragment yet extant of a Letter, directed to Heistulphus, who had killed his Wife, which he suspected of Adultery; he does most sharply reprove that Lord, and lays a heavy Penance upon him. We may find also some Fragment of Paulinus of Aquileia, in the first Tract of the Miscellanea of M. Baluzius' [Tom. 1. p. 362.]  
Lastly, The Book of wholesome Instructions, which went a long while under S. Austin's name, was restored to Paulinus of Aquileia, in the last Edition of this Father's Works, upon the Credit of an old Manuscript of M. Colbert's Library. It contains several useful Advices to lead a Christian Life, and is of the same Style with the Advertisement to Heistulphus. This Bishop died about the Year 803. His Style is very simple, and no way elevated.   

THEODULPHUS Bishop of Orleans.  
THEODULPHUS, Abbot of S. Benedict upon the Loire, and afterwards preferred to the Bishopric of Orleans, before 794. flourished towards the end of this Century, and died 
Theodulphus.  towards 821. F. Sirmondus published this Bishop's Opuscula in 1646. [at Paris, with his own Notes.] The first and chief is his Capitulary, containing 46 Articles for the Instruction of the Priests of his Diocese. He discourses with them of the Dignity of their State, and recommends to them the Care of their Flock, Diligence in Reading, Praying and Working; he enjoins them, when they come to the Synod, after the Custom, to bring along with them the Habits, Books and Vessels, wherewith they perform their Functions, and 2 or 3 Clerks; to have a care, that the Bread, the Water and the Wine, wherewith they celebrate the Mass, be very decent and proper; to make the Bread themselves which is to be consecrated, or cause it to be made in their presence. He forbids Women to approach the Altar, whilst the Priest is celebrating; and orders, That their Oblations shall be received in their Seats. He forbids Priests to celebrate Mass by themselves, without other Communicants. He prohibits putting any thing in Churches besides the Sacred Vestments, Vessels and Books. He will not have any body to be buried within the Church, but Clergymen only, or persons of singular piety. He prohibits Assemblies in the Church, for any other thing than Praying, and also celebrating Mass without the Church. He extends the Prohibition of Churchmen keeping Women at home with them, to the nearest Relations. He forbids Clerks to go to the Tavern, and recommends to them Sobriety in the Feasts they are invited to. He forbids Presbyters to take the Tithes belonging to their Brethren, or to solicit and entice their Clerks. He charges all Presbyters to baptise Children in case of Necessity, whether they be of their own Parish or not. He forbids Presbyters and Laymen to convert Sacred Vessels to profane uses. He would have Schools set up in Parishes, to teach Youth to lead a Christian Life, of which he maketh an Abridgement; and all the Faithful to know the Lord's Prayer and the Creed. He exhorts them all to pray to God, at least, twice in the Day. He enjoins them to spend Sundays in Praying, and being present at the Divine Service, and prohibits all manner of Work but what is of necessity, to dress Meat. He permits Travelling, provided they be present at the Office. He charges the Laymen to be present at the first Vespres of Festivals, at Matins, and at Mass; and would have them to be exhorted to the practice of Hospitality, to be deterred from false Oaths, Perjuries, false Witness; to be instructed in the Holy Scripture, to be reproved, to be admonished to be constant in Prayer. He exhorts Laymen to confess all their Sins, even those of Thought, and instructs the Presbyters how they ought to examine Sinners. He exhorts Men to the Works of Mercy towards others. He will have the People to be put in Mind of the Obligation laid upon Children to honour their Parents, and upon Parents to use their Children gently, and of the mutual Love they own one another; that Merchants and Men of Business are to be remembered, that they should not mind their Temporal Gain so much as Life Eternal; That the People must confess their Sins the Week before Lent, and then receive Penance, in order to their doing of it, during Lent. He marks out several ways of obtaining forgiveness of Sins, he recommends the exact keeping of the Lent-Fast, and the joining of almsgiving to Fasting. He will not have Men to break their Fast at the ninth Hour of Prayer, but to stay till the Hour of Vespres. He thinks, it would be a great perfection to abstain from Eggs, Cheese, Fish and Wine; yet he allows infirm Persons and Labourers to use them. He will have all the Faithful to communicate on Sundays in Lent, except those which are suspended the Communion; and that all take the Sacrament on Holy Thursday, on Easter-Eve and Easter Day; that they abstain from the Use of Matrimony on Fast-days, and also some Days before the Communion; that they prepare themselves for this Holy Action by Almsgiving and good Works. That the Priests who say private Masses on Sunday, shall not say them publicly, lest they should take off the People from being present at the Mass in their Parishes. Lastly, he will have the People put in mind, That they should not eat, till they have been at the solemn Mass and the Sermon.  
There was published since an Addition to this Capitulary, containing a general Advertisement about such things as the Parsons ought to instruct the People in.  
This Bishop wrote one Book more upon Baptism, directed to Mignus Archbishop of Sens, wherein he explains the Ceremonies of that Sacrament; and a Tract of the Holy Ghost, directed to Charlemain, which is nothing else but a Collection of several Passages of the Fathers, to show that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. He citys the Books of the Trinity, and the Creed under Athanasius' Name.  
Lastly, There are six Books of Theodulphus' Poems extant; The 1st is a Piece directed to the Judges, to exhort them to do justice. The 2d gins with a Catalogue, in Verse, of all the Books of the Old and the New Testament; both of those which were in the Old Canon, and those that have been received since: It contains also Poems for Palm Sunday, and several other Poems. The 3d contains an Elegy of Charlemain, Pope Adrian's Epitaph, and Verses to several Persons. The 4th Book contains Verses on the Fables, the Liberal Arts, Verses to Bishop Aiulphus and to Moduin, with some Verses of Moduins to Theodulphus. The 5th contains Verses of Consolation upon his Brother's Death, a Description of the seven Mortal Sins, and an Exhortation to the Bishops. And the last Verses upon different Points of Morality. F. Mabillon hath published [in his Analecta, Tom. 1. p. 376.] 
* [Ten.]  some more of them, which were not in F. Sirmond's Edition. Theodulphus was a good Man, very zealous for the public Good, and none of the least Writers, nor of the unlearnedest of his Time. His Poems are verysh fine, and surpass his Prose.   

LEO III.  
LEO III was elected in the Room of Adrian, January 28. 795. Presently after his Election, he sent Ambassadors to Charlemain, to give him notice of it, and to carry him S. Peter's 
Leo III.  Keys and the City's Banner, and some other honourable Presents, praying him to send some of his Princes to take the Oath of Allegiance of the Roman People. The King sent Angilbert, Abbot of the Monastery of S. Riquier, with some considerable Presents.  
For all Leo had such a powerful Protector yet he was assaulted (anno 799.) by a Faction of seditious People [headed by his Predecessor, Adrian's Nephew] who fell upon him as he was going a solemn Procession, endeavoured to put out his Eyes and to cut out his Tongue, and dragged him into Prison in a Hall. It was found that he had not been maimed, as they thought. He fled into the French Embassador's Lodgings, from whence he was conveyed to Spoleto, and thence he came to France, to King Charlemain, who was then in Saxony. The King having heard his Complaints, sent him back again to Rome with the same Marks of Honour with which he had received him, and promised him, That he would soon come to do him Justice upon the Place: And, indeed, the next Year, having held his Parliament at Mentz, he went into Italy, both to take Cognizance of the Outrages done to the Pope and to oppose the Designs of Grimaldus Duke of Beneventum, Being at Rome, he admitted Pope Leo to justify and clear himself by Oath, there appearing no Body to accuse him: After this, he brought those that were guilty of the Assault made upon him to Trial; they were condemned to Death, but the Pope obtained their Pardon. Leo, to acknowledge and require so many Favours, as the Holy See had received from Charlemain and his Progenitors, moved it to the People, to desire him for their Emperor, and crowned him on Christmas-day, in S. Peter's Church (anno 800) taking the beginning of the Year from January, and anno 801. taking it from Christmas, according to the Authors of this Time. After the Ceremony ended, the Pope did adore the new Emperor; that is, he kneeled before him, and took the Oaths of Allegiance to him, and set up his Picture in public, to the end that all the Romans might pay him this Duty.  
Anno 804. Leo came into France to visit Charlemain, and was made Welcome by that Prince, who sent his Son to meet him, and came himself to receive him at Rheims, from whence he led him to his Palace at Cressy, and thence to Aix-la-Chapelle. After his Return to Rome, he enjoyed the Pontificate quietly till Charlemagne's Death: But (anno 815). there was another Conspiracy made against Leo, which he avenged so severely, that he put some of the Criminals to Death with his own Hands. Lewis the Meek found fault with his Proceeding, as being disagreeable to his natural Lenity, and contrary to the Right of Sovereignty he had in Rome: He ordered Bernard King of Italy to go thither, and to inquire into the Truth; which he did. The Pope, on his part, sent Legates into France, to justify himself. But the Romans were so incensed against his Cruelty, that this Pope being fallen Sick, they seized on his Lands and plundered his Castles. He died May 23d 816.  
There be 13 Letters of this Pope's extant among the Councils [Tom. VII. p. 1111.]  
The 1st is an Answer to Kenwolfe, King of the Mercians, who had desired him to abolish the Archbishopric of 
* [Lichfield was the first Bishop's See among the Mercians, founded by Iswy King of the Northumber's, anno 646. and made an Archbishopric in 793. but by this Pope was despoiled of its Dignity. So Adulphus was the first and last Archbishop of it.  Lichfield, and to restore the Bishop of Canterbury to the Rights taken away from him by Offa and Adrian I. The Pope granted him his Request, and having commended the King and Athelmard, Archbishop of Canterbury, he subjected to his Jurisdiction all the Churches that had been taken from him: We have this Letter only upon the Faith of William of Malmsbury. The 2d Letter of Leo is a Privilege of Exemption granted for a Chapel, built by Charlemain, in Saxony, upon the Hill of Eresburgh. The 3d is directed to Charlemain: He complains that this Emperor had been informed, That he could send him no Commissioners which he would admit to inform of his Affair; he tells him, That it is a Calumny, and prays him not to believe it. In the 4th he informs Charlemain of the Treaty concluded between the Saracens and the Inhabitants of Sicily. In the 5th he tells him what had passed in a Meeting of some Moors and Greeks. In the 6th he acquaints him with the Death of the Emperor Constantine, killed by Leo's Order. The 7th and the 8th are Letters of Thanks, directed to the same Charlemain. In the 9th he solves some Questions upon the Scripture, propounded by Charlemain. The 10th is a supplicatory Letter, to pacify Charlemain, who was incensed against him, and to persuade him of his Innocency. By the 11th he asks him leave, To let a Bishop of the Isle of Grade, banished, stay in a Town of Italy. In the 12th he complains, That Charles' Commissioners, who should have done him Justice, had done him Wrong. The 13th is a Letter of Thanks to Riculphus, Bishop of Mentz. Leo's Letters are written with great Art, but with little reference to Ecclesiastical Matters.   

Some Greek Authors against the Iconoclasts.  
HEre are some Authors, of whose Works we will speak more at large, when we treat of the Acts of the seventh Council. 
Some Greek Authors.   
Tarasius, Photius' great Uncle, who from the Emperor's Secretary was made Patriarch of Constantinople (anno 785.) and died in 806. wrote a Circular Letter about Images; two Letters directed to Pope Adrian, and an Apologetic Oration upon his Election.  
Epiphanius, Deacon of Catana in Sicily, recited a Panegyric in the seventh Council.  
Basil of Ancyra, offered a Confession of Faith to the same Synod.  
Theodosius, Bishop [of Ammorium,] made a Writing upon the same Subject.   

ELIAS Cretensis.  
THis Author made some Commentaries upon S. Gregory Nazianzen's Works, which are printed, in the second Volume of that Father's Works. He hath done the same also upon the Works 
Elias.  of some other Greek Fathers, which are found Manuscript in Libraries. He wrote Answers to Dionysius the Monk's 8] Questions, which are extant in Greek and Latin, in the fifth Book of the Greek and Roman Law [l. 5. p. 194.]   

GEORGE SYNCELLUS and THEOPHANES  
GEORGE SYNCELLUS of the Patriarch Tarasius, made a Chronicon [from the Creation of the World to the Reign of Maximinus and Maximinianus, anno 300] which hath 
George, etc.  been continued by Theophanes a Monk [to the Reign of Leo Armericus, anno 813. they are printed the one at Paris 1652. and the other 1655.]    

Councils held in the Eighth Century.  

The Assembly of Barkhamstead in the Kingdom of Kent.  
WIGHTHRED, King of Kent, held an Assembly (Anno 697.) which Birchwald, Bishop of Canterbury, assisted at, and Gebmond, Bishop of Rochester, with 
Assembly of Barkhamstead.  several of the Clergy and Laity, which made some Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws.  
The 1st ordains, That the Church shall be free, and enjoy her Courts of Justice, Revenues, and Pensions, that they shall pray for the Prince, and voluntarily submit to his Orders.  
The 2d, That the Fine, for infringing the Justice of the Church, shall be 50 Pence, as that of the King's Justice is.  
The 3d ordains, That the Adulterers of the Laity shall be put to Penance, and they of the Clergy shall be deposed.  
The 4th, That Foreigners, guilty of that crime, shall be expelled the Realm.  
The 5th and 6th, That those of the Nobility, overtaken in that sin, shall be fined in 100 Pence, and the Peasant in 50.  
The 7th permits an Ecclesiastical Person guilty of Adultery, if he break off that habit, to continue in the Priesthood, provided that he have not maliciously refused to administer Baptism, or that he be not a Drunkard.  
The 8th imports, That if one, with the Tonsure, that is, a Monk, do not keep his Rule, he shall retire into an hospitium with permission.  
The 9th, That the Slaves affranchised before the Altar, shall enjoy their liberty, and be capable of Succession, and of the other Rights of Free Persons.  
The three next Canons punish with pecuniary Mulcts those who set their Slaves to work, or to go a Journey on a Sunday.  
The four following appoint Corporal Punishments or Fines against those who sacrifice to Devils.  
The 17th imports, That the Bishop's and the King's word ought to be believed without any Oath.  
The 18th, That Abbots shall swear, as Priests do; and that the Priests shall swear before the Altar, by saying simply, I speak the truth in Jesus Christ, and I lie not; that the Deacons shall take the same Oath.  
The 19th, That other Clerks shall take four persons more with them to clear themselves by Oath, and that they shall lay one of their hands upon the Altar.  
The 20th, That strangers shall not be obliged to bring other persons with them.  
The 21st, That the Peasants shall present themselves with four persons more, and shall bow the head before the Altar.  
The 22d declares, That the Causes of the Bishop's Clients belong to the Ecclesiastical Court.  
The 23d ordains, That if any body impeach a Slave, his Master may purge him with his bare Oath, provided he take the Eucharist; but if he taketh it not, he must put in Bail, or submit to the Penalty.  
The 24th, That a Clergyman shall purge his Slave with his bare Oath.  
The 25th, That he that kills a Robber, is not liable to pay any Sum for that Death.  
The 26th, That he that shall be catched carrying something away, shall be punished with Death, Banishment, or Fine, according to the King's will: That he that got hold on him, shall have half the Fine; but if he kills him, he shall be fined in 70 Pence.  
The 27th, That he that helps the flight of a Slave, who hath rob his Master, shall be fined in 70 Pence, and he that killeth him shall pay the worth of him.  
The 28th, That the Strangers and Vagabonds which run up and down the Country, without blowing the Horn, or crying aloud, shall be used as High-way-men.  
These Laws are followed with some Canons concerning the Pecuniary Compensation of the Wrongs done to the Church or the Priesthood. They were found in the same Monument; but it is not known whose they are, nor at what time they were written.   

Councils held in England about the matter of Wilfrid.  
FEW Men have been more molested and crossed in their Life than Wilfrid, Abbot of Rippon, and afterwards Bishop of York. He was a Native of Northumberland, born towards the year 
Councils of England.  634. He left his Country to go to Rome, where he was instructed in the discipline of that Church. Thence he returned to Lions, and there he received the Tonsure from Delphin, Bishop of that City, who was murdered soon after by Ebroin's order. After his death, Wilfrid was called home by Alfrid, eldest Son of Oswi, King of Northumberland, who gave him the Monastery of Rippon, founded by him in the Bishopric of York. He was ordained Priest by Hagilbert, Bishop of Dorcester. He was present at the Conference, held at Streneshall before the King, about the difference between the Church of Rome, and the ancient British and Irish Churches, about Easter-day; and there he maintained the usage of the Roman Church against Colman, an Irish Man. Afterward, he was nominated to the Archbishopric of York and passed over into France to get himself ordained, there being then but one Bishop in England. He was consecrated by Angilbert, Bishop of Paris, and Eleven Bishops assisted at that Ceremony. During his absence, they that stood for the usage of the Irish Churches persuaded King Oswi to put into the Church of York, Ceadde, Abbot of Listinguen, who was consecrated by one English and two British Bishops. S. Wilfrid, after his return, did immediately retire into his Monastery, and after that, he was called out into Mercia, where the King gave him Lichfield, to erect a Bishopric or a Monastery there. After the death of Adeodatus, Bishop of Canterbury, he performed for some time the Episcopal Functions in that Church, till Theodorus obtained that See. This Man reestablished S. Wilfrid in the Archbishopric of York, and deprived Ceadde, who did very patiently bear that expulsion. Wilfrid enjoyed that Archbishopric peaceably, during King Oswi's Reign; but he was turned out of it in the beginning of Egfrid's Reign, towards the year 670. being deposed by Theodorus himself. He presently withdrew into Friesland, and thence went to Rome. He was very well entertained by Pope Agatho, who restored him to his Dignity in a Council of Bishops, and that Sentence was confirmed by the Pope's Benedict and Sergius. Being fortified with this Authority, he came back again into England, where he met with bad Entertainment, and was imprisoned by the order of Queen Ermenburge, Egfrid's Wife. Being got out, he went to preach the Gospel to the South-Saxons, and baptised, as it's believed. Edelwach [or Ethelwolfe] their King. Theodorus seeing, That he had suffered himself to be surprised by S. Wilfrid's Enemies, reconciled himself with him, and prevailed with King Alfrid to consent to his re-establishment; he returned to York in 686. but five years after, he was expelled again, for refusing to receive some Constitutions, made by Theodorus, Archbishop of Canterbury. He returned to his Bishopric of Lichfield, which he found vacant. Some years after, he was invited by Brithwald, Archbishop of Canterbury, to be present at a Synod, within two Leagues of Rippon, in hope of an agreement. They urged him to withdraw into his Abbey of Rippon, and to quit his Bishopric. He did not only refuse to do it, but he had recourse to the Holy See. Therefore, he went to Rome again, and purged himself before Pope John in a Synod, in the presence of the Deputies of both Parties, and was declared innocent. With this sentence he returned into England, but Alfrid would not permit it to be executed. Sexulfus, who succeeded him, continued in the same resolution; but being turned out, two Months after, and Ofred having succeeded him, Brithwald, Archbishop of Canterbury, went into Northumberland, and there held a Synod in 705. near the River Nid, at which the King also and the Officers and the great ones of the Country were present. They read the Pope's Letters, and after some difficulties, raised by the Bishops of the Country, they were reconciled, and that long Contest was thus happily ended. Wilfrid yielded up his Episcopal See of York to John of Beverly, and he was restored to the possession of the Church of Haguestad, and of the Abbey of Rippon. He died in 709.  
These Matters of Fact are certain, being affirmed by Eddi, S. Wilfrid's Disciple and Author of his Life, by John VII's Letters, and the relation of Bede's and William of Malmsbury.   

A Council of Rome under Gregory II.  
THIS Council was held in April 721. in S. Peter's Church. Twenty two Bishops were present at it, among whom there was one of Spain, one of England, and another of Scotland, 
Council of Rome.  Eleven Priests and 5 Deacons. Gregory II. presided in it, and published the Constitutions which were approved by all that were present.  
The Eleven first are against them that Mary their Kindred, Persons consecrated to God, or the Wives of Priests and Deacons, or who steal away Widows and Maidens.  
The Twelfth is against those that consult Diviners or Sorcerers, or use Enchantments.  
The Thirteenth against those that invade Gardens or Places belonging to the Church.  
The Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Sixteenth, against a 
* [Adrianus the Son of Exhilaratus]  private Man, who had married the Deaconness [Epiphania].  
And the Seventeenth, against Clerks wearing long Hair.   

A Council of Germany under Carloman.  
THIS Council was assembled in Germany, An. 742. by the order of Carloman the French Prince. Boniface held the first place there. Both the number of the Bishops, and the place 
Council of Germany.  of it 
* [In Longus Abridgement of the Councils, it is said to have been at R●tisbon or Augsburg.] , are unknown. The Canons of this Council are set down in the Capitularies under the name of Carloman, who declares, That following the advice of his Bishops, Monks and Lords, he caused Bishops to be ordained in his Towns, and subjected them to the Archbishop Boniface, the Legate of the Holy See; That he hath ordered a Synod to be kept every year in his Presence, to re-establish the Church's Rights, and to reform Manners and Discipline; That he hath caused Church-lands, that had been invaded, to be restored; hath deprived wicked Priests, Deacons and Clerks, guilty of Fornication, of the Ecclesiastical Revenues, degraded them and put them to Penance. This is the sum of the first Canon.  
The 2d imports, That he hath forbidden Clerks to bear Arms, or to go to the Army, except those that have been chosen to celebrate Divine Service there, and to carry the Relics of Saints, that is, one or two Bishops, with two Chaplains, and two Priests for the Prince; and for the Lord one Priest only, to hear Confessions and impose Penances. He forbids the Chair or Pulpit to the Clerks.  
By the 3d Canon he enjoins Parsons to be subject to their Bishop, to give him an account once a year in Lent of their Ministry, to receive him when he is Visiting, to go every year to fetch new Chrism on Holy-Thursday before Easter; That the Bishop may be a Witness of the Chastity, Life, Faith and Doctrine of his Presbyters.  
The 4th prohibits admitting into the Presbyterial or Episcopal Functions, unknown Priests or Bishops, before they be examined in a Synod.  
The 5th orders Bishops, with the help of the Magistrates, to purge their Diocese from Pagan Superstitions.  
The 6th ordains, That he or she that shall henceforward fall into the Crime of Fornication, shall be imprisoned, and shall do Penance there with Bread and Water; and if he be a Priest that hath committed this Crime, he shall be shut up for two years, having been whipped till the Blood comes; and then the Bishop shall lay on him what Penance he pleases. And if it be a simple Clerk or Monk, he shall be whipped three times, and then shut up for one year; That the Nuns which have received the Veil, shall be used after the same manner and shaved.  
The 7th forbids Presbyters and Deacons to wear close Coats, as Laics do; and ordains; That they shall use long Cassocks. It forbids them to have Women in their Houses with them. It enjoins Monks and Nuns exactly to follow S. Benedict's Rule.   

The Council of Lestines.  
AN. 743. the same Carloman assembled a Council at Lestines, near Cambray, the Canons whereof do immediately follow the last mentioned, in the Book of the Capitularies. They go also 
Council of Lestines.  under Carloman's name, declaring, That in the Assembly then held at Lestines, the Bishops, Nobles and Governors of Provinces have confirmed the foregoing Decrees of the Assembly, promising to observe them, to receive the Canons of the Fathers, and to re-establish the Church-discipline and Doctrine in its Splendour. That the Abbots and Monks have received S. Benedict's Rule, and promised to keep it. That they have degraded and put to Penance such Priests as are guilty of Adultery or Fornication, and ordained, That the Decree made against them shall be executed.  
In the 2d he ordains, by the advice of his Clergy and People, That the Laity shall enjoy the Church-lands, which they hold as Tenants at will, upon condition that they shall pay a Penny for every House, and when he that enjoys them, comes to die, they shall return to the Church; yet so, that if it be needful still for the good of the State, or if the Prince order it so, they shall renew their Leases; provided, nevertheless, that the Churches or Monasteries, whose Lands are held by such a Title, are not extreme poor.  
In the 3d Canon, Adulteries, Incests and illegitimate Marriages are prohibited. Bishops are ordered to hinder and punish them. It forbids also delivering Christian Slaves to Pagans.  
In the 4th, Carloman renews his Father's Decree against them that observe Pagan Superstitions, condemning them to a 15 Pence Fine.  
These Canons in an ancient Collection are joined with an abjuration in the Tudesk Tongue, a List of the most ordinary Superstitions, and an Instruction about prohibited Marriages, and about the prohibition of keeping the Sabbath-day. This hath so much relation to the Canons of this Council, that it may be rationally believed to have been part of it.   

A Council of Rome held under Pope Zachary.  
THIS Council was held (An. 743.) and composed of 40 Italian Bishops or thereabouts, and of many Priests. Zachary published there the following Canons, which were written and 
Council of Rome.  approved by those that assisted at it.  
The 1st decrees, That Bishops shall not dwell with Women.  
The 2d, That Presbyters and Deacons shall have no strange Women in the House with them, tho' they may have their Mother and near Relations.  
The 3d, That Priests and Deacons shall be decently clad, and shall wear a Cloak in the Town.  
The 4th. That the Bishops ordained by the holy See shall every year in the Ideses of May come to the Council, if they be near; if not, they shall perform this duty by writing Letters.  
The 5th, anathematizeth those that marry a Priest's or a Deacon's Wife, a Nun, or a Religious Woman, as also those who marry their Godmother.  
The 6th forbids any person to marry his Cousin-german, Niece, Mother-in-law, Sister-in-law, and any near Relations.  
The 7th anathematizeth those who steal Maidens and Widows [to marry them.]  
The 8th is against those [Clerks or Monks] that let their Hair grow.  
The 9th prohibits Feasting on New-years-day, as the Heathens did.  
The 10th anathematizes those who give their Daughters in Marriage to the Jews, or sell Christian Slaves to them.  
The 11th ordains, That the times appointed by the Canons for Ordinations shall be observed; that Persons twice married shall not be ordained; That no Clerk of another Diocese shall be ordained or received without a dimissory Letter, or permission from his Bishop.  
The 12th Canon ordains, That if Priests, Deacons or other Clerks, have any difference among themselves, they shall apply themselves to the Bishop only to be judged; and if they differ with their own Bishop, they shall go to the next Bishop; and if they will not refer the matter to him, they shall go to the Holy See.  
The 13th forbids Bishops, Priests and Deacons, to carry a Staff to the celebrating of the Mass, or to step up to the Altar with the Head uncovered.   

The Council of Soissons.  
THIS Council was assembled by Pepin Prince and Duke of France, the 2d year of Chilperick's Reign, An. 744. March 2d. It was composed of 28 Bishops, of some Priests and Lords. 
Council of Soissons.  Adalbert was condemned there. After this Council, Pepin published 10 Canons in his own and this Assembly's name.  
By the 1st, They own the Faith established in the Nicene Council, and the Authority of the Canons of other Councils; and they publish them in France that the Discipline, which was corrupted there, may be reestablished.  
It is ordained in the 2d, That there shall be a Synod kept every year, to procure the Salvation of the People and to prevent Heresies, such as that of 
* [Adelberts Heresy was that he taught, That it was lawful to marry the Elder Brother's Wife, according to the Custom of the Jews, and that Jesus Christ, when he went down into Hell, did release as well the Wicked as Godly. And for these Doctrines he was condemned in this Council. Vid. Bon. Ep. ad Zach. in Us. Ep. Hib. Syl.]  Adalbert was, who was condemned by 23 Bishops and several Priests, with the Princes and the People's consent.  
In the 3d he declares, That by the advice of the Bishops and great ones, he hath put legitimate Bishops in the Towns of France, and hath given them for Archbishops over them, Abel and Ardorbert (the former was Archbishop of Rheims and the latter of Sens) to have recourse to their Judgements, when it shall be needful both for the Bishops and the People, to the end that the Monasteries may be regular and orderly, that Monks and Nuns may peaceably enjoy their Revenues, and the Clerks be not debauched, not wearing secular Habits or going a Hunting.  
By the 4th he forbids the Laity to commit Fornication, Perjury and beat false Witness. He enjoins Parish-priests to be subject to their Bishop, to give him yearly, in Lent, an account of their management; to demand the Holy Oil and the Crisme of him, and to receive him when he is upon his visit. The 5th forbids receiving Foreign Clerks and Priests; before they be approved by the Bishop of the Diocese. The 6th charges Bishops to endeavour the utter extirpation of Paganism. The 7th orders the Crosses set up by Adalbert, in his Diocese, to be burnt. The 8th forbids Clerks to have Women in their Houses, except their Mother, Sister or Niece. The 9th forbids the Laity to have in their Houses Women devoted to God, and also to marry another Man's Wife during the Life of her Husband; because Husbands ought not to forsake their Wives, but in case they have catched them in Adultery. The last ordains, That whoever shall violate these Laws, made by 23 Bishops, Servants of God, with the consent of the Princes and the Grandees of France, shall be judged by the Prince, or by the Bishops, or by the Counts.   

The Second Council of Rome under Zachary.  
THIS Council (assembled An. 745.) was composed of 7 Bishops and some Presbyters. The Presbyter Deneardus, sent by Boniface, came before the Council (Octob. 25.) and declared, That this Bishop had called a Synod in France, in which Clement and Adalbert, false, schismatical and heretical Bishops, had been deposed, and then put in Prison by the Prince's order; but, that they would not obey this Sentence, keeping their Dignity still, and continuing to seduce the 
Council of Rome.  People. He added, he had 
* [This Letter is extant in Usher's Ep. Hib. Syllog. p. 31.]  a Letter of Boniface's upon this Subject: It was read, he demanded, That those two Bishops should be kept in Prison, and that no Body might speak with them. He accuses Adalbert, who was a French Man, to have been an Hypocrite in his Youth, to have made People believe, That an Angel from Heaven had brought him some Relics from far, by which means he could obtain whatever he desired of God; That afterward he had given Money to be ordained by some ignorant Bishops; That at last he equalled himself to the Apostles; That he would consecrate no more Churches to the honour of the Apostles or Martyrs; That he condemned Pilgrimages to Rome to visit the Sepulchers of the Apostles; That he had consecrated Altars in his own Name; That he had set up little Crosses and small Chapels in the Country, where he kept Assemblies; That the People crowded thither and forsook the Churches; That some had been so impudent as to say, S. Adalbert's Merits shall help us; and that he had the Face to give some of his own Nails and Hair, to be honoured and carried with S. Peter's Relics; That the People flocking to him, to cast themselves down at his Feet, ready to confess their Sins, he told them, There was no need for them to do it, that he knew all they had done, that their Sins were forgiven them, and that they might be assured of it.  
As for Clement, who came out of Ireland, That he did reject the authority of the Canons; That he would not receive the Writings of the Fathers, and maintained he might continue Bishop, after having had two Bastards; That he gave leave to marry the Brother's Wife; that he affirmed, That Christ, being descended into Hell, had delivered all those that were there, whether Believers or Unbelievers, Jews or Pagans, Worshippers of the true God or Idolaters. These Accusations, brought to the Synod of Rome, provoked the indignation of the Bishops against those two wicked Villains: Yet the Pope put off the judging of this Matter to another meeting on the same day. They read in this the Proofs of the Facts alleged in Boniface's Letter, the Life of this Adalbert, a Letter which he affirmed to have fallen from Heaven, and to be found by S. Michael, and brought to Rome by another Angel. These Follies became a Laughingmatter to the Council.  
The next day they read a Prayer of Adalbert's making, wherein he called upon the Angels Uriel, Raguel, Tubuel, Michael, Incar, Tubicas, Sabaoc, Simiel. The Council, hearing all this, declared, That all these pretended Angels, except S. Michael, were Daemons; That they knew the names but of 3 Angels, Michael, Raphael and Gabriel. They required, Adalbert's Writings to be burnt; but the Pope judged it better, to secure them in the Library of the Roman Church. After this, the Council declared, That Adalbert, whose Acts had now been read, who made himself be called Apostle, and his Nails and Hair be honoured as Relics, who had seduced the People into several Errors, and invoked Daemons for Angels, aught to be deposed and put to Penance. They pronounced the same Sentence against Clement, upon the Accusations brought in Boniface's Letter.  
This is the sum of the Acts of this Council, in the end of which is the Letter of Gemmulus Deacon of the Roman Church to Boniface, about the condemnation of those two false Bishops.   

The Council of Cloveshaw.  
THIS Council was held in England at Cloveshaw, Septemb. 1. 747. Although it was composed but of 12 Bishops, it may pass for a National Synod of England, because, besides the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Rochester, there was the Bishops of the Mercians, Saxons, both East and West Angles, and 
Council of Cloveshaw.  some other People of England present at it. They read a Letter, which Zachary wrote to the Church of England, to exhort them to restore the Discipline. After which, they made 30 Canons. In the 1st. the Bishops are exhorted to do their Duty, to discharge their Ministry with Zeal and Vigilance, to give themelves wholly to it, and to entangle themselves no more in secular Affairs, but apply themselves to the Service of God and the Church, to instruct their People, and to set them a good Example, by leading an exemplary Life. The 2d. recommends Peace and Union to them. The 3d. prescribes them to visit their Diocese every year, and to abolish the remainder of Heathenish Superstitions. The 4th. to warn Abbots and Abbesses to live regularly, to be Examples to the Monks and Nuns under their Government, and to take care of them. The 5th. enjoins them not wholly to neglect the Monasteries held by Seculars, to visit those that dwell therein, and to put a Presbyter in them. The 6th. forbids them ordaining Presbyters, before they be assured of their unblameable Life. The 7th ordains, That there shall be Lectures in the Abbeys both for Men and Women, and that they take care to instruct the Youth therein. The 8th. enjoins Presbyters to leave their secular Businesses, to apply themselves wholly to the Service of the Church; to read Divine Service with attention; to look to the Church and the Ornaments of it; to addict themselves to Reading, Praying, celebrating the divine Office; to admonish and reprove those under their Tuition, and to draw them to God by their Words and Example. The 9th. enjoins them to administer the Sacraments, and to live without scandal. The 10th imports, That they shall know how to perform their Functions, and shall be able to explain the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Prayers of the Mass and of Baptism; That they shall also take care to learn the signification of those Ceremonies and Sacraments. The 11th. That they shall all administer Baptism in the same manner, and shall explain the Ceremonies and the Effects of this Sacrament. The 12th. That the Priests shall not read the Prayers aloud, but shall sing them with a sweet and agreeable Melody; and if they cannot do this, they shall only pronounce them distinctly. The 13th. That in Festivals they shall follow the Roman Rites. The 14th. That the Abbots and Parsons shall not fail to read Divine Service in their Churches every Sunday and Holiday. The 15th. commands them to sing the 7 Canonical hours of the day and the night, and forbids intermixing unusual Prayers, which are neither out of the Scripture, nor according to the Roman usage. The 16th appoints, That Rogations or Litanies shall be made by the Clergy and People, on the usual days, namely, on the 26th. of November, and 3 days before the Ascension, on which they shall fast till the ninth hour of Prayer and say Mass. It prohibits mixing profane Songs with this Ceremony, and will have nothing to be carried in 
ll [Procession.] This piece of Devotion, which for the time was both seasonable and solemn, when it was first instituted by Claudius Mamertus in a time of a general Earthquake at Vienna, wherein all the People walking two by two through the Streets and Fields of the City, did sing Litanies imploring God's Mercy in averting that Judgement; being found a successful means to obtain the Blessing desired, was ever after continued in the Church, and in this Age, with other things, degenerated into a pompous Ceremony and a ludicrous Worship, the Christians carrying before them Crosses, Relics, yea, and the Sacrament itself after the manner of the Persians. This Canon lets limits to the growth of this Superstition, allowing only Crosses and Relics to be carried in Procession. But that which might give a greater Check to it is this, That some of the most Learned that use it, have much suspected the Goodness of this sort of Worship, and whether it is pleasing to God or no; for thus one of them speaks: Haud scio, an tam recte quam belle 
Pol. Virg. de Invent. Rerum, l. 6. c. 11.  id fiat; Vereor inquam, vereor, ne iis in rebus Di●s potius gentium quam Christo gratiam faciamus. I am doubtful, whither in this Ceremony there be not more Pomp than Goodness; for I am afraid, that in these Matters we do more Service to the False Gods than the true.  Procession but only the Cross and some Relics.  
The 17th ordains, That they shall keep the Festivals of S. Gregory Pope, and S. Austin the Apostle of the English. The 18th. That the Fasts of the Ember-weeks shall be kept. The 19th enjoins Monk's submission to their Superior, and forbids them to wear secular Habits. The 20th. warns the Bishops to see that Monasteries be, according to their Name, the abode of Folks living in silence, peace and repose, and working for God, praising and praying to him, and giving themselves to spiritual Reading; and not places of retreat for Poets, Musicians and Buffoons. It forbids admitting Laymen into them, particularly into the Convents of Virgins. It enjoins these to set themselves to reading or singing, rather than to embrodering of Stuffs of divers colours to make secular Habits. The 21st ordains, That the Meals of Friars and Nuns shall be sober and modest, and shall not begin, if possible, till the third hour of Prayer be over, that is, till noon. The 22d. enjoins Monks and ecclesiastics to make themselves worthy Communicants of Christ's Body and Blood, and reproves those that neglect this Duty to live licentiously, without any care of confessing their Sins. The 23d orders, That they shall bring Lay-childrens, not yet corrupted by youthful Lusts, to communicate frequently; and that aged Persons also, ceasing from Sin, shall be exhorted to frequent communicating. The 24th. enjoins a serious trying of those who come to make a religious Profession, and that they shall not give them the Habit till they have been well proved. The 25th. That the Bishops shall publish, in their Dioceses, the Canons of the Synod, and if, there be any abuses in their Diocese, which they cannot remedy, they shall acquaint the Synod with them. The 26th. recommends Almsgiving, but will not have Men give illgotten Goods, or with an intent to sin more freely, or to lessen the satisfaction of the canonical Penance, or to free themselves from Fasting, etc. The 27th. teaches how to pray; there it is said, that tho' they do not understand the Latin of the Psalms they sing, yet they may refer their intention to the general Petitions, which are to be made to God 
mm [Public Service performed in Latin in England, tho' not understood.] Although 'tis very probable, that in some places of England the Latin-tongue was not understood, where the Prayers of the Church were read in that Language, which was the reason of the making of this Canon; yet it is certain, That it was generally known in England, as not only Corn. Tacitus testifies of his time, but Bede also assures us of the time wherein he lived, which did not much precede 
Corn. Tacit. Hist. l. 5. Bed. Hist. Angl. l. 1. c. 1. 1 Cor. 14. Orig. cont. Cess. l. 8. Just. Apol. 2. Ambr. in 1 Cor. 14.  this Council. And for this reason doubtless it was, That the Liturgy and H. Scriptures were read in the Churches of England in the Latin-tongue, there being no need of translating them into the Language of the Country; especially, if it be true that some Historians relate that the Saxons, when Austin the Monk came into England, had no Letters. So that this is no Argument for the Romish Imposition of the Latin. Service upon Nations, where that Tongue is not understood; a thing so highly unreasonable in itself, so opposite to H. Scripture and so contrary to the Primitive Practice as the Fathers do unanimously agree, That for the space of 800 years after Christ we can find no Nation, but what had their Liturgy and Scriptures either in their own Tongue or in a Language well understood by them, by the reading and hearing of which they might be edified, and in which they might join with Heart and Voice. Indeed the Latin-tongue was generally received in Europe and Africa, and most of the Christian Churches in the Roman Empire, but than it was as generally understood, the Romans labouring to have all the Provinces of the Empire to speak Latin. And when through the Incursions of the Goths and Vandals, and other barbarous Nations, the Latin tongue was not only corrupted but lost, than Translations became necessary, tho' the Church continued the public Service in the same Language; for 'tis not sufficient, as this Council says, to refer their Intentions to the general Petitions, but they must hear and pray with the Spirit and Understanding also, and the most ignorant and illiterate aught to be able to say Amen to the Priests Prayers and thanksgiving, as the Apostle reproves, 1 Cor. 14. 16. . (This shows, That the public Service was then performed in Latin in England, altho' some did then pray in the Saxon-tongue privately, as it is observed in this place). In the end, it condemns an Abuse which began to grow common, of those who dispensed with themselves in Fasting and Praying, getting others to do it for them for Money, and thinking, by this means, to satisfy their Duty and the Penance laid upon them.  
The 28th forbids establishing Communities or religious Societies without sufficient means to maintain them. It forbids religious Men and Women to wear secular and profane Habits. The 29th forbids religious Men and Women to dwell in private Houses, and enjoins them to receive those that shall betake themselves to them. The 30th orders Prayers to be made in Churches at all hours for Kings and Princes.   

The COUNCIL of VERBERIE.  
THIS Council, or Assembly rather, was held in the beginning of Pepin's Reign An. 752. at Verberie in the Diocese of Soissons: They made 20 Chapters which were published 
Council of Verberie.  by the Authority of Pepin.  
The First Ordains that those that Mary in the third Degree of consanguinity shall be put asunder, and that after having done Penance they may Marry others. That those in the fourth degree only shall not be separated, But only be put to Penance if they be Married; or otherwise not suffered to Marry.  
The 2d declares, that if any Man had any commerce with his Daughter-in-Law, he shall dwell no longer, neither with the Mother nor with the Daughter, and neither the Daughter nor he shall Marry others, but the Mother may Marry another.  
The 3d imports, that if a Presbyter Marry his Niece, he shall be obliged to leave her, and lose his degree; and if any body else Mary her, he shall be obliged to leave her, but shall have Liberty to Marry an other.  
The 4th that a Maid, in what manner soever she hath taken the Veil, shall be obliged to keep it, unless it was given her against her Will; and in that case, the Priest; that Veiled her, shall be deposed. If a Woman takes the Veil without her Husband's consent, it shall be free for her Husband, to let her keep it, or to hinder her.  
The 5th gives leave to the Husband, whose Wife conspired his death, to send her away, and to Marry another.  
The 6th gives leave to those who have Married Slaves, whom they thought to be Freeborn Women, to Marry others.  
The 7th permits Slaves, who have a Concubine, to leave her, to Marry his Master's Maidservant, though they do better, if they keep the first.  
The 8th permits the Master to oblige his Slave to Marry his Maidservant, if he hath had any Carnal knowledge of her.  
The 9th imports, that if men be forced to go away from the place of their Habitation, and their Wives refuse to follow them without any other Reason, but their Love to their own Country, it shall be free for those Men, whose Wives have thus left them, to Marry others; but not for the Wives to Marry again.  
The 10th forbids him to Marry, who hath lain with his Mother-in-Law, and the Mother-in-Law likewise; and permits the Father-in-Law to Marry another Woman,  
The 11th. inflicts the same punishment upon them who defile their Daughter-in-Law, or Sister-in-Law.  
The 12th Ordains, that he that lies with two Sisters, shall have neither, though the one of them were his Wife.  
By the 13th He that marrieth a Bond Woman, knowing her to be such, is bound to keep her.  
The 14th forbids ambulatory Bishops to Ordain any Priests; and if any be found to have been thus Ordained, and they deserve it, they shall be Consecrated anew.  
The 15th That a Priest degraded may Baptise in case of necessity.  
The 16th forbids Clerks to bear Arms.  
The 17th Permits a Woman, which complains that her Husband never did Cohabit with her, to try the Proof of the Cross; and if it appears by this Trial, that the thing is so, than she may do what she pleaseth.  
The 19th Ordains, that Bond Slaves be exhorted not to Marry again, if they be found to be sold severally.  
The 20th imports that the Slave who is set at Liberty, may put away his Wife, being a Bond Woman, and marry another.  
The 21st forbids him, who suffered his Wife to be defiled, to marry another.  
Regino recites some Articles more about the said matters, which he ascribes to this Council of Verberie. They may be seen in the Edition of the Capitularies of M. Baluz. 19 166. Vol. 1.   

The COUNCIL of VERNEVILLE.  
THIS Council was held at Verneville upon Oise, and not at Vernon, as some have thought about July (An. 755.) by the Order of Pepin, who confirmed by his Edict, and published 
Council of Verneville.  the Canons that had been proposed in this Council.  
The 1st imports, that there shall be a Bishop in every Great City.  
The 2d, That Obedience shall be paid to the Bishops made Metropolitans.  
The 3d, That the Bishop shall be empowered to Correct the Regulars and Seculars in his Diocese,  
The 4th, That there shall be two Synods yearly kept in France, one in March, the other in Octob.  
The 5th, That the Monasteries of Men and Women shall be regular; otherwise, the Bishop shall see to it; and if he cannot do it himself alone, he shall acquaint the Metropolitan with it; if the Metropolitan cannot yet Correct and Order it, he shall inform the Synod of it; and if they slight the Synod, they shall be Excommunicated.  
The 6th, That an Abbess shall have but one Monastery to govern; that neither she, nor any of her Religious Women shall go out without permission from the King, that they shall send secular persons to the Prince or Synod, to represent their Grievances; that those, that are not Veiled, shall be put out of the Community, and if they be willing to live regularly, they shall be admitted after Trial.  
The 7th, That no Baptistery shall be Erected without the Bishops Leave.  
The 8th, That the Priests shall be subject to the Bishops, and that they shall neither Baptise, nor Celebrate the Office without permission from him.  
The 9th, That they that communicate with Excommunicated persons shall be Excommunicated; that Excommunicated Persons shall not enter into the Church; that they shall not eat with any of the Faithful; that no body may receive Gifts from them; nor Kiss or Salute them.  
The 10th, That Monks shall not go to Rome, nor out of their Monasteries, unless the Bishop gives them Leave to go into a more strict Monastery.  
The 11th imports, that all Clerks shall live, as Canons, under the Bishop's care; or as Monks, under an Abbot.  
The 12th, That Clerks not change the Church, and that Clerks of another Church shall not be received.  
13th forbids Bishops to Ordain or Perform any other Episcopal Function out of their Diocese, without the Bishop's Orders [of the Diocese]  
The 14th permits necessary Works, such as dressing of Meat, or making the House clean on Sunday; but forbids the Works of Agriculture.  
The 15th enjoins both the Nobles and the Common people to be Married publicly.  
The 16th renews the third Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, which forbids Clerks to meddle with secular Affairs.  
The 17th is the 25th of the Council of Chalcedon, about the vacancy of Bishoprics.  
The 18th renews the Ordinance of the 9th ch. of the 3d Council of Carthage, which forbidden Clerks to come before the Tribunals of the Laity, without the Bishops Leave.  
The 19th is concerning the immunities of Churches.  
The 20th Ordains, that the Accounts of Monasteries Lands and Revenues, if they be Royal, shall be given up to the King; if Episcopal to the Bishop; this Canon was made in another Synod, and perhaps the following Canons also.  
The 21st, That the Bishop shall have the Cures of his Diocese.  
The 22d, That no right shall be exacted from Pilgrims.  
The 23rd, That Counts and Judges shall hear the Causes of Churches, Widows and Orphans preferably to others.  
The 24th, That no Money shall be given, to get into Holy Orders.  
The 25th, That Bishops, Abbots and others shall take no Presents to Administer Justice.  
The 26th is concerning the Rights of Portage.  
The 27th, The weight of Money.  
The 28th, Exemptions.  
The 29th, Secular Courts of Justice.  
The 30th forbids Ecclesiastical Persons to go to Law, with their Superior, without permission.   

The COUNCIL of METZ.  
THIs is another Synodical Assembly, held under Pepin after the former, An. 756. the Laws whereof were authorized and promulged by Pepin. 
Council of Metz.   
The First is against the Incests, committed either with a Person Consecrated to God, a She-Gossip, a Godmother, whether at Baptism, or Confirmation with two Sisters, with a Niece▪ a Cousin-German, or Aunt, &c, they are deeply Fined.  
The Second appoints the Deposition of the Superior Clergy, convicted of these Crimes, and the Inferior are Condemned to Whipping, or Imprisonment.  
The Third ordains, that the Archdeacon shall bring the Priests to the Bishop's Synod.  
The Fourth renews the Ordinance of the Council of Verneville, that they that hold Benefices of the King, shall give account to him.  
The Fifth imports, that those that hold Churches in a Diocese, shall pay the Rights, and the Wax due to the Mother Church.  
The four last are in the Council of Verneville.   

The COUNCIL of COMPEIGNE.  
PEpin's last Capitulary is that which he made at Compeigne in 757. It contains 21 Canons, which are almost nothing else but a Repetition of the Canons of the preceding 
Council of Compeigne.  Capitularies: So that it is needless now to set down the Particulars of it. We shall not speak neither of the Assemblies of the same Nature, held under Charles the Great, seeing we have related the Canons of them in the Abstract of his Capitularies.   

The Second COUNCIL of NICE for Images, The Seventh General.  
Wherein the Acts of another Assembly, held at Constantinople, An. 754, against Images, are related: And the Books written in France against these two Councils. Together with the Letters of the Popes upon that Subject.  

nn The Use and Worship of Images was commonly received in the East.] Before the Contest about Image-Worship began in the East, it cannot be denied, but that Images had been for some time allowed in Churches, as Helps of the Memory, Instructors of the Illiterate in Sacred History, and Ornaments of the Church. Gregory Nyssene speaks of the Lively 
Greg. Nyss. Orat. in Theod. Martyr.  Pictures of the Martyrs, and their Sufferings, then painted upon the Walls of Churches, who being the first of all the Greeks that mention them, Writers do unanimously agree, that Pictures and Images were about his time [viz. about the year 370] admitted into the Eastern Churches, and that only for Ornament, or History sake. Some indeed did zealously oppose themselves against this Innovation (of whom, Epiphanius was the Chief) not as a thing absolutely unlawful, but as fearing it might introduce Idolatry among the People, but because it was declared, that no Worship was intended or allowed them; they submitted, but notwithstanding, what these men foresaw, did, in process of time, come to pass: For not only the People became down right Idolaters, but even the most Learned paid too great a Reverence to them, saying Prayers before them, and worshipping Christ by his Image. This grand Abuse of them stirred up the Emperor Leo to remove Images out of Churches, and to destroy and burn them, as the Cause of so great a Sin. This is evident from Damascene's Words, who himself was one of the most violent Opposers of the Emperor's Proceed. Exprobrant nobis, says he, quòd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, adoramus, & veneramur Christi Mariae, & Reliquorum Sanctorum Imagines. They accuse us of Image-Worship and Idolatry. And 'twas for this Crime that they appeared so vigorously against Images. They had been used, but when they were abused to the Dishonour of God, Leo would endure them no longer in the Church. As soon as they were worshipped, they were pulled down.  THE Use and Worship of Images was commonly received in the East, when the Emperor Leo Surnamed Isaurus, [or the Iscuriar] being advanced to the Empire (An. 
2d Nicene Council.  717.) undertook to abolish this Practice. The Contest begun about the year 725. he found in his way Pope Gregory II. Germand, Patriarch of Constantinople, and St. John Damascen. The first of these wrote vehemently to him upon this Subject. In his first Letter, he represents to him, that having received in former Years several of his Letters, very Orthodox, he wondered, that ten years after, he went about to destroy Images, and treat them as Idolaters, who honoured them. He maintains, That the Word, having rendered himself visible, by taking the Humane Body, they might draw Christ's Picture. Yea, and he pretends, that the first Christians had some Pictures of him, and of St. James, St. Steven, and the other first Martyrs. He alleges the Picture which Chich sent to King Abgarus. He confesses that no Image can be made of the Deity. He adds, Images are very useful to stir up Motions of Piety and Compunction in the Faithful. He says, They don't worship clothes, and Stones, but they are a Means of renewing the Memory of Saints▪ and raising our Mind to God. He denies also that they are worshipped as Deities; but he says, that, if they be Images of Christ, they 
oo If they be Images of Christ, they say before them, Lord Jesus, save us, etc.] What plainer Evidences of an Idolatrous Worship than this; not only to bow themselves before the Images, but to Pray unto them; just Grounds for Leo to charge those men with Idolatry: That did it, and to be moved like another Hezekiah, or Josiah, against such horrible Corruptions of God's Worship.  say before them; Lord Jesus, save us: and if they be Images of the Virgin, they say, Holy Mother of God, intercede for us with thy Son, that he may save out Souls. If it be a Martyr, Intercede for us etc. He complains, That he did not follow the Counsels of Germane, who was then 95 years old, but those of Apsimarus, and other like Persons. He tells him, That it belongs to Bishops, and not to Emperors, to judge of Ecclesiastical Doctrines; that as Bishops do not meddle with Secular Affairs, so the Emperors should not meddle with the Ecclesiactical, He observed that it was to no purpose to assemble the General Council he had required; if he would only give over Prosecuting Images, the Church would be at quiet. He protests, that 
pp He protests, that he was so far from raising Tnmults.] Notwithstanding these Protestations of this Pope, yet the Historians of those times assure us, that he caused several of the Countries, belonging to the Empire, as Hesperia, Cemilia, Liguria, and all his Western Dominions to revolt from him, and forbade them to pay him his Tributes; yea, offered to betray the City of Rome itself to the growing Power of the French. So Wilful and Resolute were the Roman Patriarches in maintaining their Superstitions and Idolatry.  he was so far from raising Tumults against him, that he hath written to all the Princes of the West in his Behalf, and that they were resolved to live peaceable with him; but, that hearing he was the Destroyer of Images, and had sent an Officer to break an Image of our Saviour, which was done before several Persons of the West, they had laid aside all Respect of him, had broken down his Statues, and the Barbarians had invaded Decapol●…, had put out the Magistrates, and taken the City of Ravenna; that his Imprudence had been the Occasion of all this.  
Then he relates the Emperor's Threaten to him in these Terms: I will send to Rome, says he, to break down St. Peter's Image, and will carry Gregory away, as Constans did formerly Martin. He answers him thus: ' You aught to know, and be sure, that the Roman Bishops do always employ themselves to Maintain the Peace between the East and the West, our Predecessors endeavoured to do it, and we do follow their Example. But if you go on to insult over us, and threaten us, we will not fight against you, but will withdraw within 24 Furlongs from Rome, into Campania; after that, do what you please. Then he puts him in Mind, that Constans, who persecuted Pope Martin, died unfortunately in his Sin, being slain in the Temple by one of his Officers, being informed by the Bishops of Sicily, that he was an Heretic: That Martin, contrariwise, was honoured as a Saint in the Place of his Banishment in Thrace, and the Northern Countries. That he desires nothing more, than to tread in the Steps of his Predecessors; but, that he thought himself bound to preserve his own Life for the People's Good; because in all the West, every body's Eyes were upon him, and all Christians had Confidence in him and St. Peter, whose Image Leo threatened to destroy; that they looked upon St. Peter as a God upon Earth; and if Leo attempted any thing in the West, he feared that they would also avenge those of the East misused by him: That he knew his Empire did not reach far in Italy; that Rome only had cause to fear, by reason that the Sea was so near; but if the Pope removed but 24 Furlongs, he was safe. He wonders lastly, That when all the most barbarous People of the West grew mild, the Emperor of the East should grow fierce and barbarous. He declares to him, That if he sends Men to break down St. Peter's Image, the Blood that will be spilt; shall fall upon his Head: As for himself, he protests he is clear and pure from it. This Letter shows the Falsehood of what some Greek Historiographers, out of Hatred to the Pope, have reported, That Gregory II. had forbidden the Romans and Italians to pay the Tributes due to Leo the Emperor, and had freed them from their Oath of Allegiance to this Prince.  
This Letter did not alter Leo the Isaurian's Mind; nay, he wrote to the Pope, that he was Emperor and Chief Bishop, Imperator sum & Sacerdos. Gregory writing again to him, in his Second Letter, tells him, It's true, the Emperors, his Predecessors, shown themselves both Emperors and Chief Bishops by their Deeds, defending Religion jointly with the Bishops; but he could not pretend to this Dignity, seeing he divested the Church of its Ornaments, and spoiled Temples of Images, which did equally instruct and edify the People: That Emperors ought not to meddle with Doctrine; that Bishops only had the Understanding necessary to decide them; that Ecclesiastical and Civil Matters being judged by quite different Principles, he might be very skilful in Civil Matters, and have very little Skill in Matters Ecclesiastical; that as Bishops had no Right to meddle with State Affairs, so the Emperor had no Right to Govern Church Affairs, to make Elections in the Clergy, to Consecrate, to Administer the Sacraments; no, nor to receive them, but from the Bishop's Hands. That the Prince does punish the Guilty with Death, Banishment, and other Penalties; but the Bishops don't do so; but when any body hath sinned, and confessed his Sin, instead of Beheading, or Hanging of him, they lay on his Head the Gospel or the Cross, they put him in the Vestry, or among the Catechumen, they make him Fast, Watch and Pray; so that after a long Correction and Affliction, they at last give him the Body and Blood of Christ; and having purified him, and made him a Vessel of Election, they lead him to Heaven. Then he does sharply rebuke him for his Cruelty, Barbarity and Tyranny, and exhorts him to submit himself. And as to that which was objected, 
qq Obj. That in the six first General Councils, nothing had been said of Images.] A very weighty Objection, and not to be stid over with such an Answer as the Pope gives it; viz. That they were so common, that there was no need to speak of them. There was hardly any Doctrine or Practice of the Christian Church, but had been either Explained, Confirmed, or Regulated by some of these Councils; and had Image-Worship been then used, it would have been mentioned in some of them. But the Truth of it was, that it was a perfect Innovation, a Practice never used but among Heathens, and therefore this Pope could do no other than pass it over with such an insufficient, and sorry Answer.  that in the six first Councils, nothing had been said of Images, he answers, That they were so common, that there was no need to speak of them. He advises him to refer himself to his Judgement, and German's, Patriarch of Constantinople, seeing they have received from Christ, the Power of Binding and losing in Heaven, and on Earth. All this did not hinder Leo the Emperor from going on in his Enterprise, and from setting out, Jam. 7. An. 730. an Edict, whereby he ordered Images to be removed out of Churches, and Sacred Places, and to be thrown into the Fire, inflicting Penalties upon those that would not obey this Order. German was then turned out, and Anastasius put in his Room, in the See of Constantinople.  
Constantine Copronymus, Leo's Son, followed his Father's Steps, and for the better establishing the Discipline, he had a mind to introduce, he called a Council (An. 754.) at Constantinople, composed of 338 Bishops. It began in February, and ended in August. This Council made a Decree against the Use and Worship of Images, which we will set down afterwards. It was not received by the Romans. But by the Authority of the Emperor, a great part of the Eastern Churches received and executed it; till 
rr Irene] A second Athalia or Jezebel, not less Zealous for Images, nor less Scandalous and Notorious for Wickedness and Cruelty; for she put out the Eyes of her Son Constantine, gave herself up to follow Wizzards and Sorcerers, put many good and Innocent Persons to Death; a fit Instrument to set up this Doctrine of Devils.  Irene, who had married Leo the Fourth's Brother to Constantin Copronimus, being a Widow, and Mistress of the Empire, her Son Constantine being but young, yet was so devout, as to set them up again. To succeed in her Enterprise, she resolved to call a new Council, and wrote to Adrian in her own, and her Son's Name, showing him, that the Princes, her Predecessors, had destroyed Images in the East, and had drawn the People, and all the Eastern Churches to their Persuasion; that to reform this Abuse, they judged it fit to assemble a Council, and desired him to be there without fail, to hold the Place of the first Bishop in the World; and if he could not come himself, to send some Legates in his Place, that the ancient Tradition of the Church might be confirmed in this Synod, and that there might be no Schism hereafter in the Apostolic and Catholic Church, of which, Christ is the Head. They add, they send him Constantine, Bishop of Leonce, in Sicily, to bring him this Order, desiring him to send him back again with an Answer as soon as he can.  
Tarasius, whom the Emperor and Empress had caused to be chosen Patriarch, though he was but a Layman, and Officer of the Crown, having excused his accepting of that Dignity, set forth the Division of the Church about Images, and the Necessity of calling a General Council. The Assembly assented to it, he was ordained Patriarch, and wrote Synodical Letters to the Patriarches of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Pope Adrian sent 
* Viz. Petrus Vicedomus, and Petrus Hugumeus.  to Priests to hold his Place in the Council, and the Eastern Bishops did the same. After their Arrival, the Emperor's Officers would have had the Council to sit at Constantinople; but this became impracticable, because many of them that had approved the Destruction of Images, would have no more Synods to be held about that Affair, which they thought to be already decided. As they were discoursing these Matters in private Meetings, the Emperor sent them word, that it was not lawful for them to meet without the Consent of the Bishop of Constantinople, and that in rigour, they were Deposed. Nevertheless, they raised some 
ss Tumult] The true Cause of this Tumult was, that the Image-Worshippers being resolved to carry the point, having gotten so powerful, as well as Zealous Patron of their Idolatry, as Irene the Empress was, would have shut the contrary party out of the Council, who thereupon endeavoured to gain admission by force, that their Doctrine might not be condemned unheard. This being Granted them, they carried themselves peaceably, as well in Public, as in their Dispures in the Councils, which they managed with such undeniable Arguments drawn from Holy Scripture, that the Image-Worshippers were obliged to dissolve the Council at Constantinople without accomplishing their Design. But not long after by the Empresses Order they called another Council at Nice, where they Established Idolatry by a Law, the Empress' Guards keeping the Iconoclusts from entering the Council, and herself undertaking to put the Constitutions of it in force.  tumult, when the Council Assembled the first time, the 1st day of August An. 786. and having caused the Soldiers of Constantinople to rise, they got them to Besiege the Bishops, and to require with threaten, that no Council should be held. So they were forced to separate themselves; and to the end they might hold another without constraint, they sent the Soldiers to the Army, under pretence, that the Agarenians had made Incursions into the Empire. After this the Council was Assembled at Nice about the end of 787. The Pope's Legates held the first place there, Terasius Patriarch of Constantinople the 2d, the Deputies of the Eastern Bishops the 3d, after them Agapetus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, John Bishop of Ephesus, Constantin Metropolitan of Cyprus, with 250 Bishops, or Archbishops, and above 100 Presbyters or Monks, and two Commissioners of the Emperor and the Empress.  
The First Action or Session was held the 24th of September in the Church of St. Sophia, after they had declared the Cause of holding of the Council, they read the Letter of the Empress Irene, and the Emperor, wherein they both assure them, that they have Assembled the Synod with the consent of the Patriarches; that they leave the Bishops at full Liberty, to speak their mind; that Paul the last Patriarch of Constantinople; acknowledging the Fault he had committed in receiving the Synod, which enjoined the destroying of Images, having quitted his See, he had Caused Tarasias to be chosen in his Room; that he had refused this Dignity; but being urged to accept of it, he had required, a Synod might be held, to suppress the Schism which divided the Church in the point of Images; that according to his request they had called this Council; that they exhorted them to Judge justly and courageously, to condemn Errors, and establish the Truth, in Order to bringing Peace back again into the Church; that they had received Letters from Pope Adrian, which they would have read in the Assembly, with the Papers sent by the Eastern Bishops. After the reading of this Letter, Basil Bishop of Ancyra, Theodosius of Myra, Theodosius of Amoru made very Large Declarations, that they did Honour, Reverence, and Worship Images, and that they were sorry for having been of another Persuasion; and they were received. After them, Hypatius Bishop of Nice, and four others, who had been Caballing the year before, did also present themselves to be received, declaring that they did admit of Image Worship. These gave an Occasion to examine, how and in what Quality they should be received. They searched several Ecclesiastical Laws touching the manner of receiving Heretics. Thereupon they read the 53 Canon of the Apostles, the 8 Canon of the Nicene Council, the 3 of the Council of Ephesus, the first Canon of St. Basil's Epistle to Amphilochius, a Letter of the same Father to the Evesians, the Definition of the Council of Ephesus against the Messalians, St. Athanasuis' Letter to Ruffinian, the Judgement of the Council of Chalcedon about the reception of the Bishops, who had assisted at the Council of Ephesus under Dioscorus, and some Abstracts of their Ecclesiastical Histories of Rusinus and Socrates. They debated, whether they ought to receive converted Heretics so, as to leave them in the Sacerdotal Dignity. Some insisted upon Athanasius' Letter to Ruffinian, which imports that they shall be admitted to Penance, but shall not continue in the Clergy; but it was answered, that it was to be understood of Heresiarches only. Some Voted, that according to the Nicene Council, they should lay hands on them anew; but some said, that the Council did not mean a New Consecration, but a simple Ceremony of Imposition of Hands. They enquired, whether the Heresy of the Iconoclasts, was greater or lesser than the former Heresies; and there was nothing determined upon that Point. Lastly, after many Allegations, they declared, that those who returned from their Heresy, yea and those also who had been Ordained by Heretics, were to be received and to keep their Dignity; if there was nothing else that hindered them from continuing in the Degree of Clerks.  
In the Second Action of the 26th of the same Month, after Gregory, Bishop of Neo caesaria, had presented himself, and owned that he had done amiss in rejecting Image Worship, they read Pope Adrian's Letter to Constantine and Irene, in which having commended their Zeal, he establisheth the Worship of Images, and affirm, that the Church of Rome received it by Tradition from S. Peter. He proves by a false Relation, that in S, Sylvester's time, S. Peter and S, Paul's Pictures were in the Church. He alleges the Opposition his Predecessors had made to the destroying of Images. He exhorts the Emperor, to re-establish the Use of them in the East, as it was Established in the West. He says, that Christians do not make themselves Images God; but use them as Memorials of the Worship due to God and his Saints. He grounds the use of them upon several instances of the Old Testament, as those of the Sacrifices, the Mercy-seat, the Cherubims, and the Brazen Serpent, and upon some Testimonies of the Fathers, which are either supposititious, or impertinent, proving nothing at all, or proving only the use of Images, but not that any Worship was paid to them. Nevertheless, Adrian does not only maintain, that it is useful to have Images, to teach the Ignorant the things, which they represent, to remember them of the Saints, to stir up Piety and Compunction; but besides, he will have them to be Worshipped. To this Letter Anastasius adds many Lines, wherein the Pope entreats the Emperor. 1. To cause the Council held against Images to be rejected and Anathematised, and to restore those that had been Persecuted for defending of them. 2. To cause S. Peter's Patrimony to be restored him. 3. To Order that all the Arch-Bishops of his Diocese shall receive Ordination from him. 4. To maintain the Church of Rome's Primacy. 5. To hinder the Patriarch of Constantinople from assuming the Title of Universal Bishop. 6. Not to leave Tarasius in the See of Constantinople, to which he was advanced, being a Layman. 7. He acquaints him with Charles the Great's Victories, and his Beneficence to the Roman Church. It's no hard Matter to apprehend, why the Greeks did not transcribe these Articles; nay, the Pope's Legates durst not perhaps present them to the Synod in which Tarasius presided. They read another of Adrian's Letters, written to Tarasius, in which, having freely expressed to him how much his Ordination had troubled him, he commends his Confession of Faith, and exhorts him to procure the Condemnation of the Synod, which had rejected Images. After the Reading of the Letter, the Pope's Legates asked Tarasius, whether he did not approve of it. He answered, He did, and declared he did affectionately worship the Images of Christ, the Virgin, Holy Angels, and of all the Saints, though he worshipped God only with a Sovereign Worship of Latria, and put his Trust in him alone. The Synod approved of this Declaration, and the Pope's Letter. All the Bishops made the same Declaration severally, and the Abbots followed them.  
In the Third Action, of the 28th or 29th of the same Month of September, Gregory of Neocaesarea was admitted, though with much Contradiction, after he had read a Retractation of his old Opinions, and Profession of Faith about images. The rest of the Bishops that abjured, were likewise received, and took their Place in the Council. Then was read Tarasius' Synodical Letter, sent to the Patriarches, in which, to his Confession of Faith about the Trinity, and the incarnation, he adds the Intercession of Saints, of the Virgin, the Angels, and the Worship of Images. Therein he owns but six General Councils. They also read the Letter of Theodosius of Jerusalem, approved by the Eastern Bishops; in which, after a long Confession of Faith about the Trinity and Incarnation, he adds the Worship of Saints and Images. The Bishops approved these Writings, and rejected the Council against Images.  
In the Fourth Action, Tarasius caused 
tt Testimonies of Scriptures, and Fathers, whereby he pretended the Worship of Image: to be authorized.] This Learned Sorbonist, in the Recitation of these Testimonies, hath so ingenuously owned both the Falshhood and Impertinency of them, that it is needless to spend any further Pains or Time upon a Confutation, there being not any one pertinent Allegation, or genuine Proof out of any ancient Author, to prove the Worship of Images lawful. All that can fairly be gathered from them is this, That some Images have been made by Christians, and allowed a Civil Use, or at most, but an Historical Use in the Church, which none disallows, so long as they are kept within those Bounds, and not suffered to become an Object of Worship, though but in inferior Sense, which is Idolatry. Yet if any one desire an Answer to them, the Abridgement of the Caroline Books, which our Author gives us at the end of this Council, will give him Satisfaction.  the Testimonies of the Scripture and the Fathers, whereby he pretended the Worship of Images was authorized, to be read. They allege but three Passages of the Old Testament, where mention is made of the Cherubims upon the Mercy-Seat, and one Passage of the New, taken out of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chap. 9 where the Cherubims are mentioned, and what was in the Tabernacle. The Bishops insist upon this, and pretend, that the Cherubims had Humane Faces, and that the Use of Images is thus established in the Old Testament. I leave you to judge, whether that be a sufficient Proof. Then they quote a Place out of St. Chrysostom, taken out of St. Meletius' Panegyric, which proves only, that the Faithful being Affectionate to that Saint, did not only repeat his Name, but moreover represented his Picture upon Rings, Cups. Glasses, Bed-curtaines, and in many other Places; but he does not speak at all of the public Worship of Meletius' Pictures. The next Passage alleged by them. under St. Chrysostom's Name, is drawn out of an Homily, which shows that there is but one Legislator in the Old and the New Testament, which is not this Saints, as we shown in the Criticism of his Works. The Author of this Homily says, that he beheld with Pleasure a godly Picture, wherein was represented an Angel putting to flight some Barbarian Troops. The Passage of St. Gregory Nyssen, which they allege here, does not prove it much better, though this Father speaks in other Places of the Pictures representing the Conflicts of the Martyrs, set up in some Churches. That of St. Cyril proves the Use of Images among Christians, as well as that of St. Basil, in St. Barlaum's Panegyric; which Passage is cited out of its Place, in this Council. But it is hard to understand how they can draw a good convincing Argument for Image-Worship, from what is reported by St. Gregory Nazianzen, that a debauched Woman was persuaded to leave off her Lewdness, by beholding a Picture, representing Polemon's Change of Life, whom Xenocrates converted from his Vices. Do they believe that Polemon, the Heathen's Picture, deserved any Religious Worship? It's true, St. Gregory Nazianzen says, That Picture was venerable (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉); but he means no more but this, that it was well done, and did inspi●e some Respect for the Manner of the Painting; which shows, that though this kind of Epithets (Holy, Venerable) were ●aid somewhere else of the Pictures of Saints, that would not come up to an invincible Proof, that they ought to be honoured; but only, that what was represented in them, did inspire some Reverence and Devotion. Antipater of Bostra speaks of the Statue, which the Woman, cured of the Bloodyflux, erected to Christ. But this does neither prove the Worship of Images, nor the common Use made of them in Churches. The Passage of Asterius of Amasea, is quoted more pertinently, and proves, that on St. Euphemia's- Day, they did expose the Picture of the Martyrdom of this Saint. The Narrative of a Miracle of a Woman troubled with a Pain in her Back, for speaking with little Respect to St. Anastasius' Relics, which they were bringing over from Persia, is indeed a Proof of the Worshipping of Relics, but not of Images; therefore the Sicilian Bishops add, That a Woman possessed with a Devil, was cured at Rome by St. Anastasius' Image. Then they bring in a supposititious Piece, falsely attributed to St. Athana●…; importing, That the Jews of Berytus, having used Christ's Image, as the Gospel relates, that their Fathers used Christ himself; and having at last pierced his Side with a Spear, there came out of it Blood and Water, and that so many Miracles were wrought by it, that an infinite Number of Jews being convinced by them, turned Christians, and received Baptism. This Relation is followed with two Letters of St. Nilus, whereof the one, directed to Heliodorus, is alleged to prove the Virtue of Images, though it shows only the Virtue of the Intercession of Saints; and the other to Olympiodorus, had been alleged by the Iconoclasts, and falsified, as it's pretended. They quoted a Passage out of Maximus, who, in the Relation of what passed between him and Theodosius, reports, That they brought the Holy Gospels, the Cross, with the Image of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary, that they saluted them, and laid their Hands on them, to confirm what they had agreed upon. This Passage is fit than the other to prove Image-Worship; yet they wrangle a while about the Word (Saluting) which they pretend was not expressive and strong enough; nevertheless it was concluded, It was enough to honour them with a Kiss or Salutation, and that God only was worshipped with a Worship of Latria. The 82d Canon of the Council in Trullo, is indeed a Proof of the Use of Christ's Images, but it does not establish the Worship of them. The Passage of Leontius, Bishop of Cyprus, is more formal, and establisheth the outward Worship of Images, by rejecting the ill Interpretation that might be put on it. Those of Anastasius Sinaita prove only the Honour due to Saints and Angels. That which is drawn out of the Spiritual Meadow, and recited under S●phronius's Name, though this Work belong to John Moschus, contains an Answer so strange and exorbitant, that I don't believe any body would approve of it. They say, It was made to a solitary Man, vexed with the Evil Spirit of Fornication, who understanding from that Evil Spirit, that he would let him alone, if he would give over worshipping the Virgin's Image, consulted his Abbot what he should do, and received from him this Answer, which I do not think fit to translate: Expedit autem tibi potiùs, ut non dimittas in civitate ista lupanor, in quod non in troeas quàm ut recuses adorare Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum cum propria Matre in sua imagine. Notwithstanding, this Instance was made use of, to prove, that they who had sworn to persist in Heresy, were not bound to keep that Oath; because that good Monk having promised the Devil with an Oath, that he would do what he desired of him, if he let him alone, did not regard that Oath. The Miracles related in the Acts of St. Cosmus, and St. Damian, do prove an excessive Devotion to the Images of Saints, if the Authority and Antiquity of those Acts were well established; but it being otherwise, no convincing Proof can be drawn out of them. The Passage cited under St. Chrysostom's Name, taken out of an Homily upon the Washing, is doubtful; and were it true, it does not concern Saints Images, but the Nature of God's Image which is in Man. Those of St. Athanasius and St. Basil are more impertinent yet, for their perfect Resemblance of the Son of God, with his Father, whose Image he is, is spoken of. The latter, cited under the Title of St. Basil to Julian, which to the Confession of Faith joins the Worship of Saints and Images, is a suppositious Piece. The Stories taken out of the Lives of St. Simeon, St. John the Faster, of St. Marry the Egyptian, and other such Acts, are of no great Authority. After they had recited these Extracts, they read the Letter of Pope Gregory the Second to Germane of Constantinople, wherein he established the Worship of Images, and three Letters of this Patriarch of Constantinople upon the same Subject, wherein he does acknowledge, that the Worship paid to Images is but an outward Worship, expressing the inward Veneration Men have, for what is represented thereby. All the Bishops approved this Opinion, and Anathematised those that broke down Images, and those also who did not reverence and salute them. After this, Euthymius, Bishop of Sardis, read, in the Name of the Council, a Confession of Faith, in which, to the Articles concerning the Trinity and Incarnation, they add Praying to Saints, their Intercession, the Honour due to them, and to Crosses, to Saints Relics, to the Saints and the venerable Images, which we honour, which we embrace, and worship respectfully, especially the Images of Christ's Humanity, and those of the Holy Virgin, Mother of God; those of the Angels, who, though incorporeal, have appeared under Humane Shapes to the Just; and lastly, those of the Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, and other Saints, which is the end of this Action.  
In the 5th, which was held the 4th of October, they allege several Pieces, to show that the Iconoclasts had done, what some other Heteticks had attempted before them. The first Passage is St. Cyril's, accusing Nabuchadnezzar of having taken away the Cherubims upon the Mercy-Seat. The Second Piece is a Letter of one Simeon (who must be different from the great simeon Stilites) written to Justin the Younger, against them that had broken down Images: It seems to be supposititious. The Third, Is an Abstract of a Sermon of John of Thessalonica; assuring, that not only men's Pictures may be drawn, but Angels also, by reason they are Corporeal. The Fourth, is an Abstract of a Dispute between a Jew and a Christian, wherein the Christian answering the Jew, who charged him with adoring of Images, tells him, that Christians do not adore them, but preserve and behold them, adoring and invoking God. The Fifth, Is a Fragment of a false Itinerary of the Apostles which had been cited by the Iconoclasts. The Council does reject and Anathematise it, and condems it to the Fire; and, to prove the Falsity of this Monument, citys a Passage of Amphilochus. There was no need of this, for that Monument is visibly Apocryphal. They reject also a Testimony of Eusebius to Euphration; which Passage proved nothing, neither for, nor against Images; yet it gave an Occasion to condemn the Memory and the Writings of Eusebius, against whom they cite Antipater of Bostra. The Sixth Piece alleged by the Council, is an Extract of the Ecclesiastical History of one John, whom they call the Separate, who says, That Christians would not have Angels Pictures to be drawn, and that Philoxenus could not endure Doves. They prove by a Passage of St. Sabas' Life, that Philoxenus was one of the Heretics Enemies to the Council of Chalcedon. They cite in the Eighth Place, a Fragment of the Council of Constantinople, held under Mennas, where Severus is accused of breaking down Altars and taking away the Doves hanging over them; saying, Doves ought not to be called the Holy Ghost. In the Ninth, they report a Testimony of John, Bishop of Gabale, accusing Severus of not honouring Angels. The Tenth Monument, is a Passage of Constantinian, Library-Keeper of the Church of Constantinople, maintaining, that no Image can be made of the Deity; but of Christ's Humanity there may. The Eleventh, is a Passage of Evagri●●'s History, about Christ's Image, sent to Abgarss. The 12th are some Extracts of the Spiritual Meadow. From all these Passages, they pretend to conclude, that the Jews, the Pagans, the Samaritans, the Manichaeans, and the Severians were the first Enemies of Images. Lastly, They read an Account of the Origine of the breaking down of Images, showing, that a certain. Jew of Tiberius, counterfeiting himself to be a Diviner and Sorcerer, persuaded the King of the Arabians to order all Images to be taken away out of the Churches of the Christians in his Kingdom, promising him a long Life, if he would, do it; that this Order being given out, the Christians refusing to take away the Images with their own Hands, the Jews and the Arabians had pulled them down, burnt, torn, or defaced them; that the King, instead of the long Life, which the Magician had promised him, died within two Years and some Months after, and that his Son put the Magician to Death, and suffered Images to be set up again. After this Relation, all the Bishops demanded the Restoration of Images; they called for some to be brought in, that they might honour them, and repeated the anathemas against those that broke, or dishonoured them.  
In the 6th Action, held the 5th or the 6th of October, they read the Acts of the Council of Constantinople, held against Images, and a 
uu A Confutation of the Acts of the Council of Constantinople.] The Arguments drawn from the Scriptures and Fathers, which the Council of Constantinople insists upon, to show the Incongruity of the Worship of Images to the Nature of God, and the Design of the Christian Religion, though not so clear and cogent as might be produced, yet are so weakly, and insufficiently answered by the Nicene Fathers, that they may well pass for inconfutable, till some better Answer of them appears, which since M. du Pin hath not done, but doth acknowledge the same. It is needless to stand upon the Justification of the Former, or labour to discover the Insufficiency of the Latter, which is so evident to every Reader.  Refutation of what is in this Council. The 1st thing they quarrel at, is the Title it had assumed, of The Holy Seventh General Council. They pretend, it cannot have those Titles, since it was not received, but contrary wise rejected, and Anathematised by several Bishops; nor was it approved by the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishops about him, nor by his Vicars, nor by a Circular Letter, according to the usual Law of Councils. And lastly, that the Patriarches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, did not assent to it, neither in Person, nor by the great Bishops of their Provinces. Yet they do not question the Number of the Bishops set down in the Acts of 338: But they say, that this Number could not make a General Legitimate Council, because those that composed it, had swerved from the Truth, and embraced an Error. I omit the Prefaces of the Council of Constantinople, and the Reflections of the Nicene Council, which respects the Confession of Faith about the Trinity, and the Incarnation, and the Acknowledgement of what was decided in the six first General Councils, which are Articles which both Councils agreed in: But the former pretends, that they who make Images, do overthrow the six first Synods. The others contrariwise maintain, that they who condemn them do act contrary to the Spirit, and the Practice of the Bishops, who assisted at these Synods, and contrary to their Tradition. There is nothing weaker, than what the former do allege, to prove, that the Use of Images is contrary to the Decision of the General Councils. There are nothing but a mere Petitiones Principii, or evident Sophisms which deserve no Refutation. There is one upon the Eucharist, which is nothing better than the rest. They pretend, that no Image of Christ ought to be made, because the Eucharist is the visible Image. To which, the Fathers of the Second Council answer, That the Name of Image is not given to the unbloody Sacrifice, offered by the Priest, but it is the very Body, and the very Blood of Christ; that those Oblations, before the Sanctification, have been called Types by some of the Fathers, as by Eustathius of Antioch, and St. Basil; but after the Sanctification, they never were called Types or Images of Christ, and that they are believed, and properly called the Body and Blood of Christ. They add, that their very Adversaries could not forbear acknowledging this Truth, and that they confess in the same Place, that the Eucharist, by the Consecration, is made Christ's Body; which is an Argument, that the two Councils held the Reality of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, and that they differ only in the Expression, and the Name they give it; the one pretending, that the Eucharist, even after the Consecration, may be called and considered as an Image and a Type; and the others denying expressly, that the Fathers did ever give it that Name after the Consecration; which is not altogether true, though is cannot be said, that the Eucharist may be called a Type or Image, as other Images, and the whole arguing grounded upon this Analogy be very weak.  
The Bishops of the first Council deny Images to be of the Tradition of Christ, of the Apostles or of the Fathers. Those of the second, maintain them to be a Tradition of Christ, which was, not written, and prove it by the Story of the Statue, erected by the Woman with the Bloodyflux to the Honour of Christ. I should desire a better Proof of it. They allege the other Proofs they had brought in, some of which do indeed show the Use of Images was common in Churches in the 4th and the 5th Century; but never a● one comes up to the time of Jesus Christ, the Apostles, or their immediate Successors.  
The Bishops of the first Council add, That there is no Prayer in the Church for the hallowing of Images. Those of the second answer, there are many Holy things in the Church which are not Hallowed by Prayer, but are Holy by their very Name; as the Cross and the Sacred Vessels which are Reverenced, by reason of their Shape and Use; that it is so with Images, which have Reverence paid them for the sake of that they represent, and of their Usefulness.  
The Bishops of the first Council, charge them that Honour Images of Saints, with lapsing into Heathenism. Those of the second, make a vigorous Defence upon this Article, maintaining, that they Worship them not as they Worship God; but that they ●embrace and salute them, and pay them an outward Worship, to express their Veneration of the Saints represented by them; besides that, they use them for their own Instruction, and for raising Godly Motions in the Beholders.  
From Reasons they come to Authorities, and first of all they allege two Testimonies of the Scripture, where it is said, That God is a Spirit, that they that worship him, must worship him in Spirit and in Truth; and that no Man hath seen God at any time. The Fathers of the Second Council answer, This cannot be understood but of the Deity, and cannot be applied to Christ's Humanity; thus confessing that they would not have approved of the Images of the Trinity.  
The Second Place of Scripture, is that famous one of Deuteronomy, Ye shall make to yourselves not Graven Idol. The Fathers of the Second Council Answer, This ought not to extend to the Images of Christians, but respects only the Jews and profane Images, and that Moses himself explained this Precept, by making Cherubims by God's Order. I pass by the other places of Scripture, which are less pertinent by far than the preceding, to come to the Testimonies of the Fathers.  
The First, is that of St. Epiphanius, who will not have Christians to set up Images in Churches, nor in Church-Yards, nor even in their Houses. The Fathers of the Second, maintain this Letter to be false, that St. Epiphanius could not be of a contrary Mind to St. Basil, St. Amphilochius, St. Gregory Nyssen, and the other Fathers, who commanded the Use of Images. It had perhaps been better for them to say, That this Father speaks too harshly.  
The Second Passage is drawn out of St. Gregory Nazianzen's Verses, where it is said, Men ought not to have their Trust and Hope in Colours, but in their Hearts. This Passage is of a dubious Sense, and does no way concern Images; but 'tis a moral Reflection, according to the Remark of the Fathers of the Second Nicene Council, wherein this Father observes, that Men ought not to place their Confidence in worldly Goods, which he compares to Colours, but in a good Conscience.  
The Passages of St. Basil are yet of a larger Sense: They say, That Scripture does represent to us the Images of the Souls of Saints, but not of their Bodies. This does not overthrow other Images; neither should they have alleged against Images; a Place taken out of an Homily which is not St. Chrysostom's.  
The Passage of St. Athanasius, that Creatures ought not to be worshipped, is only against Idols. That of Amphilochius hath something in it of greater Difficulty. This Father says, That we should have no Care to paint out in Colours a Corporeal Representation of the Saints, because we have no need of them, but that we should Imitate their Virtues. The Fathers of the Second Council make a large Discourse, to shift off this Passage. They show the Usefulness of representing the Histories of Saints, which do both instruct and stir up Godly Motions. But they say, it's not enough to erect Temples and Images to their Honour, but we ought besides, to imitate their Virtuous Actions. They pretend, Amphilochius meant nothing else, and explain themselves with a Passage of Asterius of Amasea, which gives them an opportunity to produce another of the same Father, proving the Use of Images.  
The Bishops of the first Council had cited a Passage stronger yet than that of Amphilochius, drawn out of a writing of Theodatus of Ancyra; saying, That Christians have not learned to draw the Pictures of the Faces of Saints, but to imitate their Virtues: For (saith he) what benefit can they, that would set up those kind of Representations, reap thereby? And what Spiritual Thought can they suggest to them? 'Tis a Vain Imagination, and a Diabolical Invention. The Fathers of the second Council answer, That this place of Theodotus is supposititious. Perhaps it had been more to the purpose to observe, That the first Part is Theodotus', but the second is a Conclusion which their Adversaries draw from the place of Theodotus, to which they might easily have returned the same Answer they had done to that of Amphilochius.  
The last Passage reported in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople, is a Passage taken out of a Letter [of Eusebius Caesariensis] to Constantia Augusta, which is attributed to that Author; yet is it not sure that it is his, and the Passage drawn out of it does not at all concern Images. Nevertheless the Fathers of the second Council, without telling us thus much, reject the Authority of Eusebius, charge him with being Anathematised, represent him as a Theopassian, who hath condemned Images, and rank him with Severus, Peter Gnaphaeus, Philoxenus, etc. believing it advantageous to them, that Eusebius should be their Adversary, and the Enemy of Images.  
The Definition of the Council of Constantinople follows these Testimonies: They forbidden all sorts of Persons to make, to worship, or to set up in Churches, or in private Houses, any Image, upon pain of Deposition, if it be a Bishop, a Priest, or a Deacon; or of Excommunication, if it be a Monk, or a Layman; and it enjoins them to be dealt withal according to the Rigour of the Imperial Laws, as Adversaries of God's Laws, and Enemies of their Ancestors Doctrines. But they forbidden to take away the Sacred Vessels under that pretence, or to make them pass for Images; as also the Veils, the Vestments, and the other Things used in the Sacred Ministry. This Declaration is joined with the Anathematising, of those, that do not receive the Doctrine of the 6 First Councils. They are also Anathematised, who make Images of Christ, or of the Saints, after the Acclamations to the Emperors Leo and Constantine, and Imprecations against Germane, Gregory, and John Damascene, who are Anathematised and Deposed. The Council of Nice confutes these Definitions in every Article.  
The 7th Action was held the 13th of October. It contains a Confession of Faith, in the end whereof 
w It is defined, That Images be plac●d in Churches, and Reverenced, but not Adored with the true Adoration due to God only.] It is clear from the Premises, that this Definition of the Council was resolved upon before the Matter was heard, or canvassed; and though they had no Grounds for this Practice, either from Scripture, Reason, or Ecclesiastical Constitutions, yet Image-worship they must have, but than it must be a very nice sort too, a Veneration, not true Adoration; or, as Tarasius distinguishes, not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Which evidently shows, that though they would not forsake Image-worship, yet they were afraid of incurring the Gild of Idolatry by it, which they thought to salve by a nice distinction of Veneration and Adoration, or as the Modern Romanists, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But this will not serve the turn, nor clear the Gild, for, as Aquinas and his Followers have at large proved, where any Thing is 
Aquin. Sum. p. 3. q. 25. art. 3.  worshipped merely for the sake of another, it must have the same kind of Worship given it, which is given to the Thing represented by it. And then if they give the Image any Veneration, notwithstanding this distinction, it must be a Divine Worship, the same which is given to God, and that is gross Idolatry.  it is defined, That the Holy and Venerable Images may be exposed to the sight, as well as the Cross, both those which are made in Colours, upon Cloth, and those of another kind; that they may be placed in Churches, set upon sacred Vessels, upon Sacerdotal Vestments, upon the Walls and Tables, in Houses, and in the Highways, viz. The Images of Jesus Christ and the Virgin, of the Angels and Saints, that they are useful to remember Men of them, and to renew the Desire of the Saints; that they may be kissed and reverenced, but not adored with the true Adoration, due to God alone; that Incense and Wax-candles may be burnt before them, as they are before the Cross; because the Reverence paid to them passeth to their Object; and they that honour them, honour those represented by them. This Confession is followed with a Letter of the Council to the Emperor and Empress, and a Circular Letter to all the Bishops and Churches.  
Anastasius the Library-keeper, who translated the Acts of this Council, reckons but seven Actions, and attributes to the last the Canons, and Tarasius' Letters. But in the Greek Edition, there is an 8th Action of the 20th of September, because what is related there, was indeed transacted at Constantinople, whither the Patriarch and the Bishops went, to give an account of their Proceed to the Emperor and the Empress. They were kindly entertained by them, and the Empress herself would be present at the Synod, to hear the Acclamations of the Bishops in her Commendation. She caused the Definition of the Council to be read, and asked the Bishops, whether it had been made by the Unanimous Consent of all. It was approved by many Acclamations, and presented by the Patriarch to the Empress, which subscribed it, and caused it to be subscribed by the Emperor, her Son. After that, the Acclamations began again, to wish a long life to the Empress, and the Emperor: These being over, some of the chief ●…monies, alleged in the behalf of Images, were read before the Lords and the People. After the reading of them the Bishops, the great Lords, and the People, made many Acclamations.  
There are 22 Canons of this Council yet extant, which Anastasius attributes to the 7th Action.  
In the first, they confirm the ancient Decrees of the Councils, [as well Provincial, as General,] and Anathematised those which are Anathematised by them, and exposed those which are Deposed by them, and Suspend and put to Penance those, which they have ordained to be Suspended and put to Penance.  
In the 2d they ordain, That they shall examine, whether he, who is preferred to the Dignity of a Bishop, be skilful in the Psalter, the Gospel, St. Paul's Epistles, and the Canons; and whether he be able to instruct his People in the Commandments of God, and in their other Practical Duties.  
The 3d declares all the Elections of Bishops or Priests, made by Princes, to be void. It ordains, That Bishops shall be chosen by other Bishops, and thereupon citys the Canon of the Nicene Council, which does not speak of the Election, but of the Ordination [of Bishops:] For of old time the Election did belong to the Clergy and People, and the Ordination to the Bishops.  
The 4th is against the Bishops, who take Money for Deposing or Excommunicating a Clerk.  
The 5th Degrades those, who did boast of having ordained for Money, and renews the Canonical Laws against Simonists.  
The 6th renews the Canon of the Nicene Council for the holding of Provincial Synods. It threatens with Excommunication those Princes who would hinder it, and imposes Canonical Penalties upon the Metropolitans who should neglect it; and forbids them to take any thing which the Bishops have brought with them to the Synod.  
The 7th ordains, That some Relics of Saints shall be put into the Temples, which have been consecrated without any Relics being put into them, and the accustomed Prayers used at that Ceremony. It forbids Bishops, upon pain of Deposition, hereafter to consecrate a Temple without Relics.  
The 8th forbids Baptising or Receiving the Jews, unless they be throughly converted.  
The 9th ordains, That all the Works made against Images shall be put in the Palace of the Patriarch of Constantinople, among the Heretical Books. It threatens to Depose or Excommunicate those that shall conceal them.  
The 10th forbids the Admission of Clerks into Chapels or Churches, without permission from their Bishop.  
The 11th ordains, That there shall be Stewards in all Churches, yea and gives the Bishop of Constantinople leave to put some in the Metropolitan Churches, if the Metropolitans neglect to do it. The same is ordained for Monasteries.  
The 12th forbids Bishops and Abbots to yield up, or to give away unwarrantably, their Churches, or Monastery Lands or Revenues.  
The 13th ordains, That Monasteries and Bishops Houses shall be repaired, and restored to their proper uses,) and shall no more be suffered to serve for public Inns.  
The 14th forbids such Children as have indeed received the Tonsure, but not the Imposition of the Bishop's hands, to read in the Desk. It gives the Abbots, who are Priests, leave to make Readers for their own Monastery only, whom the Chorepiscopi are permitted to Ordain.  
The 15th forbids a Clerk to be entitled to two Churches.  
The 16th forbids Bishops, and other Clergymen, to wear gay and fine Garments to make themselves taken notice of. It order those to be punished, who laugh at such Clerks as are meanly clad. It is observed there, that in former times all Men consecrated to God went plainly and modestly apparelled, because, as St. Basil says, any Garment which is not put on for Necessity, but for Ornament, carrieth a suspicion of Pride.  
The 17th forbids to undertake the building of Oratories, or Chapels, without a sufficient Fond to defray the Charges necessary for finishing of them.  
The 18th forbids Women to live in Bishop's Houses, or in Monasteries of Men.  
The 19th prohibits taking any thing for Orders, or Entrance into Monasteries, upon pain of Deposition for the Bishops, and such Abbots as are Priests; and for Abbesses and Abbots who are not Priests, upon pain of Expulsion from their Monasteries. Nevertheless it permits those, who are admitted into Monasteries, or their Parents or Relations, to give voluntary Gifts; yet upon this condition, That those Gifts shall belong to the Monasteries, whether he that is Admitted stays, or goes away, unless the Emperor turn him out.  
The 20th prohibits making double Monasteries, that is, for Men and Women; and as for those that are Founded, it ordains, That the Monks and Nuns shall dwell in two several Houses, that they shall not see one another, nor have any Commerce together.  
The 21st forbids Monks to quit their own Monastery to go to others.  
The 22d forbids Monks to eat with Women, unless it be needful for their Spiritual Good, or upon a Journey, yea though they be their Relations.  
Moreover, to the Acts of this Council is joined a Panegyric, pronounced in Commendation of it by Epiphanius Deacon of Catana in Sicily; a Letter of Tarasius to Pope Adrian, about the Subject of the Council; another Letter of the same Person against the Simonists, in which he hath gathered together several Canons upon that Subject; another Letter of his to John the Abbot, upon the Definition of the 2d Nicene Council, and against Simoniacal Ordinations.  
The Acts of this Council being brought to Rome, they sent Extracts of them into France, where they had a different Practice about Image-worship. They were indeed permitted to have them, and to put them in their Churches; but they could not endure that any Worship or Honour should be paid them, whilst the Cross and Sacred Vessels were permitted to be honoured. Charles, who was then King of France, and afterwards was Emperor, caused these Extracts to be Examined by 
* Of whom Alcuin was the chief; and R. Hoveden says, He it was that composed the Caroline Books.  some Boshops of his Kingdom, who composed a Treatise to vindicate their own Usage, and to answer the Proofs alleged in the Council of Nice for the Worship of Images. This Work was put out by Charles' Order, and under his Name, within three Years, or thereabouts, after the Nicene Council. It is divided into four Books.  
In the Preface having observed, that the Church, redeemed with the precious Blood of Christ her Spouse, washed with the saving Water of Baptism, fed with the precious Blood of her Saviour, and anointed with Holy Oil, is sometimes assaulted by Heretics and Infidels, and sometimes vexed by the Quarrels of the Schismatics and the Proud; that she is an Ark, containing those that are to be saved, figured by that of Noah; which undergoes the Storms of the Deluge of this World, without any danger of Shipwreck; which does not yield to the deep and deadly Whirlpools of this World, and which cannot be overcome by the Hostile Powers wherewith she is surrounded. by reason Christ does continually fight for her; so that she does still withstand her Enemies, and inviolably maintain the true Faith and Confession of the Trinity. That she is a Holy Mother, without Spot and Corruption, always Fruitful, and yet a Virgin; that the more she is set on by the Contradictions of the World, the more she increases in Virtue; the lower she is brought, the higher she raiseth up herself. After this Encomium of the Church, they add in Charles' Name, That, seeing he hath taken the Reins of his Kingdom in his hands, being in the Bosom of this Church, he is obliged to endeavour her Vindication and Prosperity; that not only the Princes, but the Bishops also of the East, puffed up with sinful Pride, had swerved from the Holy Doctrine, and the Apostolic Tradition, and do cry up impertinent and ridiculous Synods, to make themselves famous to Posterity; that some years ago they had held in Greece a certain Synod full of Imprudence and Indiscretion, in which they went about to abolish the use of Images, which the Ancients have introduced as an Ornament, and a Remembrance of Things past, and to attribute to Images what God hath said of Idols, though it cannot be said, that all Images are Idols: But it's plain there's a difference between an Image and an Idol; because Images are for Ornament and Remembrance, whereas Idols are made for destroying Souls by an impious Adoration, and vain Superstition. That the Bishops of this Council had been so blind, as to Anathematise all those who had Images in Churches, and so boast, that their Emperor Constantine had freed them from Idols. That besides this, there was another Synod held about three years since, composed of the Successors of those of the former Council, yea and of those that had assisted at it, which was not less Erroneous and Faulty than the former, though it took a clean contrary way. That the Bishops of this Synod order Images to be Adored, which those of the former would not permit to be had or seen; and that whenever these find Images to be spoken of, whether in the Scripture, or in the Writings of the Fathers, they conclude from thence, that they ought to be Worshipped. That thus they both fall into contrary Absurdities; those, and confounding the Use, and the Adoration of Images; and the other, believing Idols and Images to be one and the same thing. As for us, says he, being content with what we find in the Gospels, and the Apostle's Writings, and instructed by the Works of the Fathers, who have not swerved from him, who is the Way and the Truth, we receive the 6 first Councils, and reject all the Novelties both of the first and the second Synod. And as to the Acts of this latter, which are destitute of Eloquence and common Sense, being come to us, we thought ourselves bound to write against their Errors, to the end, that if their Writing should defile the Hands of those that shall hold it, or the Ears of those that shall hear it, the Poison which it might instill, may be expelled by our Treatise, supported by the Authority of the Scripture; and that this weak Enemy, which is come from the East, may be subdued in the West by the Sentiments of the Holy Fathers, which we have produced. In fine, we have undertaken this Work with the consent of the Bishops of the Kingdom which God hath given us, not out of any ambitious Design, but animated with the Zeal of God's House, and the Love of Truth; because, as it is a holy Thing to pursue good Things, so it is a great Sin to consent to Evil. This is the Subject of his Preface.  
In the first Book, after having made some Cursory Observations upon some Terms of the Council, he shows, that the places of the Scripture, alleged in that Council for Image-worship, being explained in their genuine Sense, and according to the Fathers, do not at all prove what they pretend. In the first Chapter, he reproves this Expression in the Letter of Constantine and Irene; By him that Reigns with us: He says, That it is a piece of intolerable Rashness in Princes, to compare their Reign to that of God. He says, That, properly speaking, God alone reigns, and Princes reign, but improperly, as none but He is really Immortal and True, and all other Things are Immortal and True only by Participation. In the 2d, he charges them with too much Boldness, in saying, That God hath chosen them, who do truly seek his Glory. He finds fault in the 3d, with their calling their Letter Scripta Divalia, as a profane Expression: Nay, he would not have the Dead called Divae Memoriae; and he says, That 'tis Ambition, not Apostolical Tradition, that brought in that Expression. In the 4th Chapter, he blames another Expression of their Letter to Pope Adrian, We beseech your Holiness, or rather that God, who suffers none to perish, beseeches you. He calls this Expression, a wretched way of speaking, and an execrable Error; because he who is God, and hath a Sovereign Empire over all his Creatures, cannot debase himself so, as to beseech them. In the 5th Chapter he observes, That 'tis a great Crime to explain any thing in another manner, than it ought to be understood. In the 6th, he says, that when there arises any Question in the Church, they ought above all to consult the Church of Rome, which is preferred before all others, and that no Writings should be made use of, but such as she receiveth: That as St. Peter was preferred before all the Apostles, so the Church of Rome is above all other Churches, and is the first of the Apostolical Churches, and so much the more, because she holds her Primacy from the Authority of Jesus Christ himself, and not from the constitutions of Synods; that St. Paul also hath contributed to the Establishing of the Church, that she might have all the Authority of both those Apostles. He quotes the Passage of St. Jerome to Damasus, and observes that his Father Pepin enjoined the French and Germane Churches to follow the Roman usage in the singing of Divine Service. I do not well see, what the Author of this Book aimed at in this place; it being evident, that the Church of Rome was contrary to his Pretention, and that Pope Adrian had been consulted, and had approved the decision of the Synod which he confutes. In the following Chapters, he runs over the Proofs and Passages out of the Old Testament alleged by the Council, or by particular Bishops in the Council, and shows at large that they signify nothing for the Worshipping of Images. He insists more particularly upon the Cherubims, and maintains that no Worship was paid them, He confesses that it is said, that Abraham Worshipped the people of the Land of Heth, and that Nathan Worshipped David; but he pretends there was a great difference between Men Living and Images. He allows that those may be Saluted and Reverenced upon the Account of the Dignity they have; but he cannot endure the same should be done to a Picture, made with colours which can neither see, nor walk, nor feel.  
In the 2d Book he finisheth his Answer to the places of the Scripture they had made use of, to Authorise Images, and gins in the 13 ch. to Answer the Authorities of the Fathers, or of other Ecclesiastical Records. In this, having made a Protestation, that he does not forbid having Images, but only Worshipping of them, he answers the Testimony drawn from the Acts of Sylvester, wherein it was said, that this Pope had caused the Images of the 12 Apostles to be carried to Constantin; he Answers, I say, this does not prove that he caused them to be Worshipped, but only that he shown them, to raise his mind by these visible Signs to things invisible; that, though he had persuaded him to honour them, which he did not, it was to lead that Prince, who was newly Converted, by things visible to the knowledge of the invisible. And lastly, though those Acts of Sylvester be read by several Orthodox persons, yet they are not of sufficient Authority, to decide controverted points. In the 14 cb. and the 15, he shows that the passage of Athanasius, alleged by the Council, proves nothing at all. In the 16th he exclaims mightily, that they had applied to the Images a passage of St. Austin, which is meant of the Son of God. In the 17th he says, he does not answer St. Gregory Nyssen, whose Life and Writings are unknown to him. In the following Chapters, he shows, that the passage, drawn out of the 16th Council, and those of St. John Chrysostom, and St. Cyril prove nothing at all for the Worship of Images. In the 21st he maintains, that the Adoring of Images is prejudicial to our duty to God, but not the suffering them in Churches for a remembrance of things past, and for an Ornament he consents, as he tells us in the next Chapter, that those of a weak and dull memory use them, to put them in mind of things; but he will not yield, that they should pay them any Worship. He proves in the 23d ch. that this was Pope St. Gregory's Opinion. In the 24th he owns, that Men may be Bowed to, and Reverenced; but he denieth, that the same may be done to inanimate Images. He pretends in the 25th, that Image Worship is not grounded upon any Example of the Apostles. In the 26th he affirms it to be a great Temerity, to compare Images with the Ark; but he says in the 27th, 'tis a kind of Impiety to compare them to the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood. He speaks of the Consecration of the Eucharist very plainly and clearly, and he intimates in the end, that the Eucharist was still given to Children Newly Baptised. Lastly, he is not willing that Images should be compared even to the Cross, to the Sacred Vessels, and to the Books of the of the Gospels and the Holy Scripture. As to this Article he is in the wrong, and all his Reasonings are mere Sophisms; for indeed the Cross, the Sacred Vessels and the Books are no less inanimate Creatures, than Images, and deserve neither more nor less Adoration. If then we may pay an 
xx If we may pay an Outward Worship to the Cross, Sacred Vessels, Bibles, etc. Why should we not also Honour the Images of Jesus Christ] If the Worship be the same, we grant the Idolatry is the same, but who ever bowed down to the Book of the Bible, or the Sacred Vessels and prayed to them? Tho' but with a Relative Worship. There is an inferior sort of Respect and Honour due to all things Consecrated to God's Service, or instrumental in his Worship, whereby tho no Man Worships or Adores them, yet he so far respects them, as not to put them to any common or profane Uses, but keeps them clean and decent; and this all persons may be allowed to give to the Holy Bible and Sacred Vessels, used in the service of God (which is all that is intended by Worship in these books) and yet it may be and is unlawful to Worship the Images of Jesus Christ and his Saints, as the Nicene Fathers have Decreed; for all Respect is not Worship.  outward Worship to the Cross, because it put us in mind of that, which Christ was Nailed to, and to Sacred Vessels because of the use made of them, and to sacred Books, because of what they contain, thereby to show our inward Respect and Worship of Christ, the Holy Mysteries, and the Truths of the Holy Scripture: Why should we not likewise Honour with an outward Worship the Images of Jesus Christ, of the Virgin and the Saints for a simple Testimony of our inward Veneration of the things represented by them, according to the common Notion of Men? There can be no difference at all, but from the practice of the Church, receiving the Worship of the one, and not of the other. But when the Church pleases to approve of this, as well as that, the one can no more be Condemned than the other. Anastasius is in the right then, when in the Preface to the Translation of the Acts of the Nicene Council, he urgeth this reason, as a convincing Argument against the Opinion of the French, They say, quoth he, That no Work of Men's Hands is to be Worshipped; as though the Book of the Gospels were not the work of Men, which they Adore by Kissing it, and the Sign of the Cross, which Christians do Worship every where, though it be a Wooden, Golden, or Silvered Cross, different from that which Christ was fastened to. But let us come again to Charles the Great. In the 31st. Chapter, he cr●es out against the Council's Anathematising those, who do not Worship Images. He pretends that hereby they have declared their Father's Heretics, and they being so, could neither Consecrate nor impose Hands; from whence it follows, that their Successors are not true Priests, nor true Bishops. Thereupon he opposeth the Practice of the West to that of the East. We pray, says he, and give Alms, according to the practice of the Church for our Fathers, and they Anathematise them. We beg rest for them in the Sacrifices of the Mass, and they make imprecations against them in their Councils. We remember them in our Prayers, and they do not mention them, but to condemn them, We pray, that they may rest in Abraham's Bosom; and they wish them to be damned with Heretics, Yet he confesses they were both mistaken; the former in Condemning the use of Images for ever, the latter in commending them to be Adored; those in throwing them to the Fire; these in burning Incense to them; the former in avoiding the sight of them, the latter in continually embracing of them; those in Anathematising those, that have them, and these in condemning those that do not Worship them. Then he concludes with propounding the Judgement of the French, which holds the mean between both. We do not believe, saith he, they ought to be Abolished, as the former have done; but then we do not declare, they are to be Adored as the latter have done. But let us Adore God alone, and let us▪ Reverence his Saints according to the Ancient Tradition of the Church. We tolerate Images in the Church, to serve as an Ornament, and if they please, as a memorial of things past. On the one Hand we avoid too great a severity, and on the other a base Flattery. We avoid Malice and Sottishness: We are neither too bold nor too weak; and thereby we show to those that run into contrary extremes, the way they ought to keep in going to Christ.  
The 3d book gins with a Confession of Faith, in which, having set forth the Doctrine of the Church about the Trinity and the Incarnation; he recites the other Articles of the Creed; and remarks upon that of the Resurrection, that men shall have the same body; upon that of the Life Eternal, that the Happiness and the Torments shall be greater or Lesser, according to the difference of Virtues or Crimes; upon that of Baptisms that it ought to be Administered to Children. Then he adds, that the Gallican Churches believe, that a Man fallen into sin after Baptism may be saved by Repentance; that they receive the Number of the Canonical Books, owned for such by the Authority of the Church; that they believe God hath created all Souls; that they Anathematise those, who believe them to be a portion of the Divine substance; that they do also condemn those that say, that they have formerly sinned in Heaven, before they were sent into the bodies; that they abhor those that affirm God hath commanded any thing impossible to Man, and that the Commandments cannot all be Obeyed by every particular person, but only by every Christian Society in common; those that condemn first Marriage, with the Manichees, and the second with Cataphryges'; that they Anathematise them that say, that Jesus Christ did lie out of necessity, or weakness of the Flesh; or that he could not do all he would, that they condemn the Heresy of Jovinian, who denied there should be any difference in the other Life between Men's Merits, and affirmed Men should have there the Virtues neglected by them here below. Lastly, that they confess free Will, so as to assert that Men do continually stand in need of God's Assistance, and that they are persuaded, that they do err, who say with Manichaetis, that Man cannot avoid sin; as also those who assert with Jovinian, that Man is not capable of Sin, because both have Free Will. This is the Abridgement of the Confession of Faith, which the Author of these books tells us, he hath expressed in St. Jerom's own words. In the 2d Chapter, he upbraids Tarasius with his hasty and precipitated Election, and promotion to Holy Orders. In the 3d he finds fault with the expression he had used, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son: He said they ought to believe that he proceeds from the Father and the Son, and brings in several Proofs 〈◊〉 this Doctrine, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for expressing his mind so, more than those who only said he proceeded from the ●ather, without joining the So● 〈◊〉 him, though in the Eighth Chapter he suspects all them that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an error. In the 4th, He reproves Theodorus for saying that the 〈◊〉 hath 〈◊〉 other Principle but 〈◊〉 Father. He believes that that Expression seem to ●…ate that the Son is not the principle himself, and that it may occasion one to think, that he believed him Posterior to his Father. In the 5th he Taxeth one expression more of Tara●●us's upon the Trinity; but he could not endure, that most of those Bishops add to their Confession of Faith the worship of Images, and 〈◊〉 ●…ently complain of it in the following Chapters. He taketh it worse yet, that they should dare to Anathematise those of a contrary mind. He taketh it ill in the 14th and 15th Chapters, that the Empress and the Emperor me●led with that business: But ●ethinks he should have remembered; that the Emperors had concerned themselves more in the other Councils, and should have considered that he did busy himself about it in the West, more than Irene had done in the East. In the 15th Chapter, he answers this Objection: They Honour the Statues, Medals, and Pictures of Princess; why shall they not Honour those of Christ and the Saints? He answers it, I say, by maintaining that the former ought not to be Honoured. In the 16th Chapter, he answers another Reason of the Council, that the Honour of the Image passeth to that which is represented by it. He says first of all that he cannot apprehead, how a Cloth and some Colours have any Relation to 〈◊〉 St. in Heaven; that it is not so with Pictures, as with Relics which have a natural relation to the Saints that it depends upon the Painter's Fancy to make folks believe that a Picture represents a Saint, or a false God. He asks, whether those that have most resemblance deserve more Honour than those of a more precious matter. He says, that if the latter, 'tis then the matter that they Respect; and if the former, it seems an unjust thing to prefer them before those that are more valuable. Lastly, he confesses, that the Learned may indeed Honour Images without any abuse, by referring the Honour not to what they are, but to what they signify; but he believes that they can be nothing else but a cause of Offence, and a stumbling block to the ignorant, who Reverence and Adore nothing but what they see; from whence he concludes, it's better quite to Abolish the use of them. This shows, that the dispute between the Greeks and the French was not so much a dispute about Doctrine as practice. In the 17th Ch. he condemns an expression of Constantiu's Bishop of Cyprus, but it was badly Translated; for whereas that Bishop had said, that he Honoured Images and Adored the Trinity; he maketh him say, that he Honoured Images with the Honour due to the Trinity: So it's an Error of Fact. In the following Chapters he reproves the Opinions of some Bishops. In the 21st, he derides the instance Polemon's of Picture. The two next Chapters are against the Praises given to the Art of Painting. In the 24th, he pretends there's no comparison to be made between the Relics of Saints and their Images. In the 25th, he says, That the Miracles done by Images are no Argument that they are to be Adored, for then Thorn-Busnes should be Adored, because God spoke to Moses out of a burning Bush, Fringes should be Adored, because Jesus Christ healed the Woman with the bloody Flux, by the Fringe of his Garment, and shadows too, because St. Peter's Shadow wrought Miracles. In the 26th, he Laughs at Theod●sius Bishop of Myra, who had related his Arch-Deacons Dreams, to Authorise Image-Worship. In the 30th Ch. he confutes several Proofs alleged by the Cooncil, because they were taken of Apocryhal Histories. In the 31st, He taxeth with Impiety and Folly; the Answer of that Abbot, who told a Monk, it was better to frequent Bawdy-Houses, than not to Adore the Images of Jesus Christ and the Virgin.  
In the last Book he goes on to confute some Expressions of the Council and of particular Men in the Council. He maintains no wax Candles ought to be Lighted, nor Incense to be burnt before Images, because they are senseless. He cannot endure, that the Council should compare those, who do not Adore Images to Heretics. He taketh it ill, that they should thus abuse their Predecessors, confessing nevertheless, that these last were to blame for burning and destroying Images. He rejects the Story of Christ's Image sent to Abgarus, as a mere Fable. He makes no great reckoning of another Story of a Monk, who had set up a Lamp before an Image, which burned several days. He adds, that tho' those Miracles were true, it would not follow from thence that Images were to be Adored. Lastly, having de●ided them for many of their Arguments he maintains, that that Synod was to blame for assuming the Title of Universal; because whatever is Universal aught to be conformable to the Tradition and Practice of all the Churches. Thus, says, he, if it fall out, that the Bishops of two or three Provinces meet together, and that according to the Authority of Tradition; they Establish some Doctrine, or make some Rule agreeable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Ancient Church; what they do is Catholic, and their Council may be called Universal; because though it be not composed of the Bishops of all the parts of the World, what it does is agreeable to the Faith and Tradition of the whole Church; but contrariwise, if they go about to Establish some Novelty, what they do is not Catholic. In a word, whatsoever is Ecclesiastical is Catholic, and whatsoever is Catholic is Universal, all that is Universal is not New. Thus the Synod, we speak of, being contrary to the Sentiments of the Universal Church, we cannot own it for Universal.  
These Books were brought to Rome and presented to Pope Adrian, by Engilbert, Charles' Ambassador. The Pope, who maintained the Council, having received them, thought himself bound to Answer them by a Writing directed to Charles the Great himself. First of all he Vindicates the Expressions of Tarasius and the other Greeks about the Holy Ghost, by some passages of the Fathers, which have spoken after the same manner, supposing those Greeks did not differ from the Roman Church about the Procession of the Holy Ghost. Then he defends the passages of the Scripture, the Reasons, Authorities and Histories alleged by the Synod, and censured in the Caroline Books; but his Answers are but weak. He pretends, that St. Gregory taught in his Letter to Secundinus, that Images deserved some Worship. He citys some passages out of the Fathers upon almost every Article; but he maketh such Applications of several of them, that very few would approve of, and he vindicates some Reasonings, that some could hardly Relish. But about the end, having reported all the Testimonies of St. Gregory, he expresseth himself about Image-Worship after a manner, which cannot be possibly condemned; for he says that Images are not Reverenced, but so far forth as they raise up our mind to God, and that whosoever Prostrate himself before Christ's Image, 'tis God whom he Adores; that likewise we show our Love and Affection to the Saint by the means of his Images. He adds, that the Nicene Synod, having Established this Doctrine, and rejected the false Synod which would have quite abolished Images; he had received it as a Legitimate and Catholic Synod; that nevertheless he had not yet written an Answer to the Emperor, lest he should relapse into the Error of his Predecessors; which he feared so much the more, because writing to him, to Exhort him to restore Images, he had also demanded of him the Restitution of the Dioceses of the Church of Rome, and of the Patrimonies also belonging to it, but had received no Answer from him, Wherefore he says, that if Charles will give him leave, in his Answer to the Greek Emperor, he will approve of what he hath done for Images; but at the same time he will maintain the Quarrel with him, about the Dioceses and Patrimonies of the Church of Rome, and if he do not restore them, he will declare him an Heretic for it.  
This Letter of Adrian did not alter the Sentiments, nor the practice of Charles, nor of the Gallican Churches: For in the Synods of Francfort held in 794. where this Question was again debated after they had done with the Opinion of Felix and Elipandus; they rejected the Opinion of the Greeks, and condemned all manner of Adoration or Worship of Images. This is the second Canon of that Synod.  
In the East, though the Definition of the Nicene Council had restored Images in several places, yet it was not equally observed every where, and Constantin himself abrogated it, Leo the 5th his Successor reestablished the Decree of the Council of Constantinople; so that the East was altogether divided in the point of Images, Anno 820. Michael Balbus succeeding Leo, and being desirous to settle Peace in the Church assembled a Council, in which they followed the sentiments of the Gallican Church, for they took away the Images that were set up in dirty corners; and they left those, which were in high places, where they might be seen, that the Picture might serve for a book to instruct the Ignorant, upon condition that they should not adore them, and that they should burn no Lamps nor Incense before them. Some of those that were most Zealous for Image-worship, came to Rome to complain of this Council. Which forced Michael to send Deputies thither, whom he directed to Lewis the Meek; First, that he might help them with his credit. This Emperor finding such a fair Opportunity, to procure Peace to the Church, sent Freculphus and Adegarius to Rome, with the Deputies of the Greek Emperor, to treat of this Affair. But Lewis' Envoys not finding the Romans complying, desired the Pope's consent, that their Master might discuss the matter with his Bishops. Having obtained it, they came back again to France. They held at Paris An. 124. an Assembly of the ablest Bishops of the Kingdom; and this question was searched to the bottom. They read Adrian's first Letter, written upon this subject to Constantin and Irene. They found that he was in the right to condemn those that broke down Images; but that he Acted indiscreetly, when he permitted them to be Adored; because they may be had, but may not be Adored. They Examined a new the Nicene Synod held in pursuit of this Letter; and they thought that they found in these Acts, that it did not only Establish Image-worship, but enjoined them to be called Holy, and to believe some Holiness to be derived from them. They caused what had been written by Charles the Great's Order against this Council to be Read over again. They made no great reckoning of Adrian's answers, in which nothing was found considerable, besides the Pope's Name, which they did bear. They complained, that this abuse was Established at Rome and in Italy. They commended the Emperor for opposing this pretended supposition, and for endeavouring to restore Peace to the Church, by avoiding the extremes, which both sides had run into. They approved the prudent Carriage of the Deputies in demanding this matter should be debated in France. They judged, that for the better affecting of their design, it was necessary to lay the Fault at the Greeks Door, to pacify the Pope, and to commend his Zeal and Piety, yet so as to Eshablish the Truth by places out of the Scripture and the Fathers, and to set it forth with Sincerity and Modesty; that by this means they might draw the Pope over and reclaim him; and if they could not effect that, they would still have the satisfaction to have spoken the Truth and done their Duty. Lastly, They made a Collection of the passages of the Fathers, divided into Fifteen Chapters, The first is against those that pretend, that Images ought to be taken away out of the Churches, and to be defaced upon the Sacred Vessels. The 2d contains some Testimonies of St Gregory the Great about Images. Showing the Use that may be made of them. The 3d contains Testimonies of St. Austin against those that would Adore them, or that believe any Holiness or Virtue to be in them. The 4th contains several other passages against the Worshipping of images. The 5th contains some passages, proving that Saints and their relics may be Honoured, but not Adored; from whence it is in●●rred, that much less may Incense be Burnt and Offered to them. The 6th contains some Testimonies against them that maintain Image-Worship, by the Usage of those that introduce it. In the 7th, They pretend to show from some Passages of the Fathers, that honouring of Images ought to be avoided, that we may give no Scandal to the Weak. In the 8th and 9th, They bring some Explications of the Fathers, to show that the Passage of Genesis, where it is said, that Jacob worshipped 
* This is a false Translation. It ought to be worshipped upon the Top of his Staff, As Heb. 11. 21.  the Top of his Son Joseph's Staff; and that of the Kings, where Nathan is said to have worshipped David, proves nothing for the Worshipping of Images. The 10th Chapter contains a Testimony of St. Austin, concernin the Sacred Vessels. The 11th contains one about the Cherubin's. The 12th contains some to show, that Adoration is due to God alone. The 13th, contains several of them upon the Cross, to prove that a great difference is to be made between that and Images. This Difference is confirmed in the 14th Chapter, by the Usage of the Church, which hath always worshipped the Cross, and used that Sign in Benedictions, Consecrations, and Exorcisms. In the 15th, They advise the Destroyer's of Images, not to take from thence an occasion to break them down, or to scorn them; and they put them in mind, that have them, not to adore them: And to establish the Truth of those two Points, they cite several Passages of the Fathers. Lastly, They drew up the Form of two Letters, one whereof, is that which Lewis was to write to the Pope, to exhort him to procure the Peace of the Church, by correcting the Abuses that stir up Tu●●ults in the East; some being for adoring of Images, and others against the very tolerating of them. The Second, is a Form of that which they will have the Pope to write to the Greek Emperors. It gins with a long Exhortation to submit themselves to the Roman Church, and to pay her Reverence; and then they advise the Emperors to restore Peace to the Church, by following the Opinion of the French, that is, by permitting Images to be had, but not to be honoured. Lastly, They allege some of the most express Passages of the Fathers, to establish that Usage.  
Lewis the Meek sent this Deliberation, and these Acts, to Pope Eugenius, by Jeremy, Archbishop of Sens, and J●…, Bishop of Orleans, and desired him by his Letter, to confer with them, about the Ambassage which he was to send into Greece. But, to give the Pope no cause of Jealousy, he says, He did not send them with these Papers to impose Laws upon him, or to take upon himself to teach him, but merely to give him an account of the Sentiments of the Gallican Church, and to contribute to the Peace of the Universal Church. He recommends them to him, and prays him to receive them favourably, and entreats him to endeavour the Reunion of the Greek Church, and to carry himself with great wariness in such a nice Affair as this is. He desireth that his Deputies may accompany those whom the Pope shall send into the East.  
At the same time he gave the two Prelates, his Ambassadors, Instructions, wherein he charges them to show to the Pope the Collection of the Passages made in the Assembly held at Paris, to examine the Businesses about Images, by his own Consent. He commands them to satisfy him about the Business of Images, to handle this Question gently and moderately, and to have a great care not to make him obstinate, by too openly resisting of him. At last, he warns them, that, when that Business is ended, if yet the Peremptoriness of the Romans permits it, to ask the Pope, if he be not willing and desirous, that they should go into Greece with his Deputies: If he be willing, to send him word ●n't immediately, to the end, that at their return, they may find Amalarius and Halitgarius, and before their Departure, to agree about the Place where the Deputies shall take Ship.  
It is very probable, that the Pope and the French did not agree about this Matter; but this did not hinder the King from sending Hal●●garius, Bishop of Cambray, and Aufridus, Abbot of Nonantula, into Greece, to the Empe●… Michael. What they did concerning Images, is not known; it is only said, that they were well entertained. Perhaps they persuaded Michael to permit Images to be had. But this Emperor, and his Son Theophilus, were set against the Ordinance of the Nicene Council. This last being dead in 842, and his Wife Theodora being left in Possession of the Government, she reestablished the Worship of Images, and the Authority of the Nicene Council. But the French and the Germans persisted long in their Usage, and it was very late ere they owned that Council, in the Room of which, they put that of Frankfort, as it appears by the Testimonies of several French Authors and Historiographers.  
Now to recapitulate in a few Words, what we could observe upon the Point of Images, from the beginning of the Church. It must be confessed, that in the three first Centuries, yea, and in the beginning of the Fourth, they were very scarce among Christians. Towards the end of the Fourth Century, they begun, especially in the East, to make Pictures and Images, and they grew very common in the Fifth: They represented in them the Conflicts of Martyrs, and Sacred Histories, to instruct those who could not Read, and to stir them up to imitate the Constancy, and the other Virtues of those represented in these Pictures. Those of the Simpler and Weaker Sort, being moved with these Representations, by seeing the Saints Pictures thus drawn, could not forbear, expressing by outward Signs, the Esteem, Respect and Veneration they had for those represented therein. Thus was Image-worship established, and was moreover fortified by the Miracles ascribed to them.  
In the West, some Bishops at first would not suffer any Images, but the greater part agreed, that they might be of some Use, and only hindered them from being honoured. But the Worshipping of Images being established in the East, was also received at Rome, whilst in France, Germany, and England, all outward Worshipping of them was unknown. This Difference did not occasion any Contest nor Division between the Churches, when on a sudden a furious Storm risen in the East against Images, which was raised by the Emperor Leo, the Isaurian: He resolved to abolish them, and had Power enough to draw a great number of Bishops into his Opinion, and to get the Abolition of them to be ordered in a Council, and to be executed in the East. The Popes did always vigorously withstand that Decree, and maintained both the Use and the outward Worship of Images. The face of things was also soon changed in the East, and maugre the Opposition of several, the Empress Irene caused it to be decided in the Nicene Council, That Images might be had and honoured; and reestablished the Use of them. This Decision had different Fortunes in the East, according to the Will and Humour of Princes; but at last it carried it. In the West, the Italians received it; but the French, Germans, and English rejected it; and without any regard to all the Contests in the East, in which they had no hand, they continued in their ancient Usage, equally rejecting the Opinion of those that were for abolishing the Images, and of those that were for paying Worship to them. They worshipped the Cross, the Sacred Vessels, the Gospels, the Relics, but would not worship Images, They did what they could, that the West and the East might embrace their Discipline, yet without separating from the Communion of any Church. They continued long in this Practice, but at last they yielded, and the outward Worship of Images was brought in amongst them, as among the other People.  
Some Reflections may be made upon these different Epocha's, which will raise our Admiration of God's Conduct towards his Church in all these Changes. There's no doubt, but when Paganism was the prevailing Religion, it would have been dangerous for Christians to have Images or Statues, because they might have given occasion of Idolatry to them, who were newly recovered from it, and they might have given the Pagans reason to object to Christians, that they had, and worshipped Idols as they did: Therefore it was sitting there should be no Images in those first Ages, especially in Churches, and that there should be no Worship paid them. Afterwards, People being better Taught, more Learned, and farther off from Idolatry, there was not so much Danger to propose them to them, and the Church being then more splendid in her Ceremonies, they served as Ornaments to Temples, and had their Use, because they set forth before their Eyes, the Actions of the Martyrs. There can be no doubt, but Pictures do not only bring to mind those we love, but moreover, representing their Actions lively, they make some Impression, and stir up Admiration and Esteem for them, and a Desire of imitating them. Therefore, there being no more danger of Idolatry, Why should not Christians have Images? Nevertheless, they that knew their People to be prone to Idolatry still, and were afraid, lest Images should draw them back to it, they might take them away; and this justifies the Proceeding of St. Epiphanius, Serenus, and of some other Bishops. But to go about to break them, to burn them, to reduce them to Ashes, and to look upon those that have them as Idolaters; wholly to condemn Painters, and the Art of Painting, as the Bishops of the Council of Constantinople have done; 'tis a piece of intolerable Imprudence and Folly. As to the Worship that was paid them, 'tis certain it cannot be referred to the Images, and that they have no Veneration for the Matter they are made of, nor for their Shape and Form; but only they give some outward Signs before them of the Veneration they have for what's represented by them. This Worship being thus explained, as it hath been, by most of the Defenders of Images, cannot be taxed nor accused of Idolatry, as even those who do not use them, do not deny. But than it cannot be said to be absolutely necessary; and those, who, for some private Reason, do not think themselves bound, for instance, to prostrate themselves before Images, to bow to them, to kiss them, to embrace them, to express their Reverence for that they represent; those, I say, are not to be condemned as Heretics, who will not do so, for some particular Reasons, either because the Practice of their Church is otherwise, or because they fear those outward Duties should be mistaken for Adorations; or lastly, because they do not believe the Worship of Images to be sufficiently warranted, seeing, to prove it, they have alleged a great number of false Pieces, or of impertinent Passages that prove nothing.  
Moreover, The Proceeding of those Persons could not be blamed, who, to settle Peace in the Church, and to reunite two opposite Parties, of which, the one were for breaking down all Images, and the other for honouring of them, endeavoured to make their own Usage to be received every where, and wrote to the Pope respectfully about it. This was the Temper of our French People, in the time of the Nicene Council, and after; thus they carried themselves: Therefore they cannot be blamed. But then, the Worship paid to Images being well explained and understood by all, there being no more fear of Idolatry, the whole Church being agreed in the Acknowledging of it: It would be a piece of Temerity in a private Man, or some private Churches, to refuse to comply with this Usage, and condemn those that honour them. 
yy The Reformed Churches are to blame for abolishing the Use and Worship of Images.] All the Reformed Churches are not so great Enemies to the Images of Christ or his Saints; but as the Lutherans do still allow them in their Churches for Ornament, or as Helps of Memory, without giving them any Worship. So, were it safe, and not offensive to many good Men, could many other Churches also. But we have so great Experience of the People's Proneness to Idolatry, and are so unsatisfied with the Bowing down to them with a Relative Veneration, that we think it better to want the Historical, than run the Hazzard of falling into the Idolatrous Use of them. And though we meet with very few of the Romish Communion, that are so moderate as our Historian, not to brand us with the odious and ignominious Name of Heretics, yet we had rather, with St. Paul, worship God after the way that they call Heresy, than after that which Scripture calls Idolatry.  The Reformed Churches therefore are to blame, to go about to abolish the Worship and Use of Images. Only it were to be wished, 1. That great Care should be taken to instruct the People well in the Nature of the Worship paid to Images, and to teach the Simple that it is not paid to the Images properly, but to Jesus Christ, and to the Saints represented by them; and that the Image is only the Occasion of it, in as much as before it, they give outward Signs of the Worship rendered to the Object. 2. That the Abuses and Excesses committed in this Worship should be avoided, such as those, of kindling a greater Number of Tapers before the Images, than before the Holy Sacrament, of Dressing and adorning them with so much Pomp, of Kneeling before them, sooner than before the Altar, where Christ's Body is kept, of believing some Virtue to be in one Image, which is not in another, etc. 3. Perhaps it were fitting, to suffer no Image of the Trinity, nor of the Deity, all the most zealous Defenders of Images having condemned these, and the Council of Trent having spoken but of the Images of Christ, and of the Saints. Besides, They should be more careful to remove profane Images, and all those that have something undecent and fabulous in them, from Churches.   

The Council of NORTHUMBERLAND.  
POPE Adrian having sent two Legates into England, Gregory of Ostia, and Theophylactus, Bishop 
Council of Northumberland.  of Todi, they were very well entertained by the Kings, and the Bishops of the Country, and held a Council in Northumberland (An. 787.) in which they made the following Canons to be received.  
1st. That the Faith of the Nicene Council should be maintained, even to the laying down of their Lives in the Defence of it, if need were.  
2d. That Baptism should be administered only according to the Order, and at the time appointed by the Canons, except in Case of Necessity; that all Persons should be obliged to learn the Creed and the Lord's Prayer; that the Sureties should be put in mind of the Obligation they had taken upon themselves, to take care that those whom they undertake for at the Font, be instructed in the Creed and the Lord's Prayer.  
3d. That every year two Councils should be held; that the Bishops should visit their Dioceses, and watch carefully over their Flock.  
4th. That they should take care to see their Clerks live Canonically, and their Monks regularly; that they wear different Garments; that Clerks be clad modestly and plain, and that of this, the Bishops, Abbots and Abbesses ought to be Examples to such as are under their Care.  
5th. That after the Death of an Abbot or an Abbess, they should choose others in their Room, with the Bishop's Advice, and that they ought to be chosen out of the Monastery, if there were any fit for that Place; if not, that they are to be taken out of another Monastery.  
6th. That Bishops shall Ordain none Presbyters or Deacons, but Men of an exemplary Life, and such as are able to discharge their Functions well; that they that are Ordained, shall remain in the Title and Degree, to which they are destined; and that no Clerk of another Church shall be received without Cause, and without Letters from his Bishop.  
7th. That in all Churches, Divine Service shall be performed at the usual time, and with Reverence.  
8th. That the old Privileges granted to Churches shall be preserved; but if any of them be found made against the Canonical Constitutions, at the Suit and Request of wicked Men, they shall be abrogated.  
9th. That Clerks shall not eat by themselves, and in private.  
The 10th. That none shall come near the Altar, but reverently, and in decent Clothing, that the Oblations of the People shall be a whole Loaf of Bread, and not a bare Crust; that no Chalice or Patin shall be made of an Ox-horn, and that Bishops shall not undertake to judge in Secular Affairs.  
In the 11th, Kings are exhorted to perform their Duty, and to Govern like Christians.  
The 12th, Recommends Obedience due to Kings, and detests them that attempt any thing against their Life.  
The 13th, exhorts the Grandees and the Rich to do Justice.  
In the 14th, Fraud, Violence and Exactions are forbidden, and Concord, Peace, Union and Charity are recommended.  
The 15th, Prohibits illegitimate Marriages upon Pain of Anathema.  
The 16th, Deprives Bastards of the Right of Succession.  
The 17th, enjoins paying of Tithes, and forbids Usury.  
The 18th, Ordains that Christians shall perform their Vows.  
The 19th, Prohibits certain Customs, which seemed to them some Remainders of Heathenism, such, as to Cut and Slash themselves, to decide Controversies by Lot, to eat Horseflesh, etc.  
The 20th, enjoins Confessing of Sins, and receiving the Sacrament, and declares, that those shall not be prayed for, who die without Confession.  
These Articles were proposed in Northumberland by Adrian's Legates, in the Presence of Osred II. King of Northumberland, of the Archbishop of York, The Bishops, the Abbots and Lords, who received them, and promised to keep them, and subscribed them. From thence they were carried to Offa, King of the Mercians, and read in his Presence, in an Assembly, at which the Archbishop of Canterbury was present, with the Bishops, Abbots, and great Lords, who also received and subscribed them.   


* Concilium Foro-juliense in Longo.  The COUNCIL of AQUILEIA.  
THIS Council was held by Paulinus Bishop of Aquileia, an. 791. It gins with a long Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Creed, in which it does chief 
Council of Aquileia.  establish these two Doctrines: That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, and the Son; and, That Jesus Christ cannot be called an Adoptive Son. After this Exposition of Faith, come 14 Canons.  
The first is against Simony.  
The 2d upon that excellent degree of Virtue which is necessary for Pastors, [above their People.]  
The 3d against Drunkenness.  
The 4th against Woman's cohabiting with Clergymen.  
The 5th forbids Clerks to meddle in Secular Affairs.  
The 6th forbids them Secular Employments and Divertisements, such as Hunting, Music, Dances, etc.  
The 7th forbids the Suffragan Bishops of Aquileia to condemn a Presbyter, an Abbot, or a Deacon, without consulting the Metropolitan.  
The 8th prohibits unlawful Marriages between Kindred, and clandestine Marriages too. It ordains, that no Marriage shall be contracted but between Parties, which shall be known not to be akin; that there shall be an interval between Betrothing and Marriage; that the presence of the Priest shall be requisite; that Kindred, which shall be found to have married within the Degrees forbidden, shall be separated and put to Penance; that, if it be possible, they shall remain unmarried; but yet if they will have Children, or if they cannot keep their Virginity, they shall be permitted to marry others, and their Children shall be declared Legitimate.  
The 9th forbids to contract Marriage before 14 years of Age.  
The 10th forbids a Man or Woman, which have been divorced for Adultery, to marry again. It affirms, that Jesus Christ in this case permitted a Man only to put away his Wife, but not to marry another, and confirms this Opinion by the Authority of St. Jerom. The common Practice was then contrary to this Law.  
The 11th declareth, That Women, of what condition soever, whether Virgins or Widows, which have promised to live Single, and have taken the Habit as a token of their Promise though they have not received the Consecration from the Bishop, shall inviolably keep their Vow; and if they do secretly marry, or suffer themselves to be defiled, they shall be punished according to the rigour of the Civil Laws; and besides this, they shall be put asunder, and do Penance all their Life-time, unless their Bishop, considering the greatness of their Repentance, show them some favour; but at the point of Death they shall not be deprived of the Viaticum. Nevertheless none of them is permitted to take the Religious Habit, without her Bishop's Advice.  
The 12th forbids Men to enter, without great need, into the Monasteries of Virgins. It extends this Prohibition to all Ecclesiastical Persons under any pretence whatsoever, without permission from the Bishop; nay, it forbids the Bishop himself to go into them, unless in the company of his Presbyters and Clerks. It ordains, That whether he goes himself, or sends any other, to Preach and Instruct Religious Women, the Person that does do it shall have Witnesses of his Carriage, that he may not be evil spoken of. It forbids Abbesses and Nuns to leave their Convents to go to Rome, or on any other Pilgrimages.  
The 13th enjoins the keeping of Sunday, beginning from the Hour of the Vespers of the Saturday; and for the due Solemnisation of it, it ordains, That they shall first of all abstain from Sin, and every Servile Work; that they shall wholly give themselves to Prayer, and shall be present at all the Divine Service. It ordains also, That the other Festivities shall be kept; and exhorts Presbyters to give good Examples to the People.  
The 14th enjoins the paying of Tithes.   

The COUNCIL of RATISBONE.  
FELIX Bishop of Urgel in Catalonia, being consulted by Elipandus' Bishop of Toledo, whether Jesus Christ, as Man, was an Adoptive or Natural Son? Answered him, That in this 
Council of Ratisbone.  respect he was to be looked upon as an Adoptive Son. He maintained this Opinion by his Writings, and went about to spread it, not only in Spain, but also in France and Germany. But he found these Bishop's opposite to his Error; for being met together at Ratisbone, (an. 792.) they condemned it with this Author, who was sent to Rome to Adrian, who confirmed the Sentence of this Synod, and made Felix to Recant. Alcuin, and Ionas Bishop of Orleans, speak of this Council. There is mention also made of it in the ancient Annals of France.   

The COUNCIL of FRANCKFORT.  
NOtwithstanding the Judgement of the former Council, the Bishops of Spain persisted in their Error. Felix, who seemed to have retracted it, maintained it anew, and Elipandus 
Council of Franckfort  wrote a Letter to vindicate it. This Letter was confuted and condemned, First, by Pope Adrian; Secondly, by an Italian Council; and Lastly, by the Council of Franckf●rt, who wrote to Elipandus, and the other Bishops of Spain, Letters, in which they prove, both from the Scripture and the Fathers, that Jesus Christ ought to be called the Natural Son of God, and cannot be called an Adoptive Son, there being no Division nor Separation of the two Natures. Charles the Great wrote also to those Bishops a Letter on purpose, wherein he presses them earnestly to retract their Error, and to follow the Sentiments of the Bishops. These four Letters are extant.  
This Council of Franckfort was assembled by the Order of Charles the Great, (an. 794.) in the beginning of Summer. It was composed of 300 Bishops, or thereabouts, of France, Italy, and Germany. The Pope's Legates were at it, and it hath been long looked upon in France as an Universal Council. And indeed if National Councils in the East, and in Africa, have been styled Universal; why should we not give the same Title to a Council made up of the Bishops of the principal Kingdoms of the West? In this Council, the matter of Images was debated, and they decided the Question started by Felix and Elipandus, about the Title of Adoptive Son, which they gave to Jesus Christ. They made 56 Canons.  
The first is against the Error of those Bishops.  
The 2d, upon Images.  
The other 54 have been set down among Charles the Great's Capitularies.   

A COUNCIL of Rome under Pope LEO III.  
THE Affair of Felix of Urgel, which had already been brought to Rome under Adrian, was examined there anew under Pope Leo the Third, in a Council of 57 Bishops, held 
Councils of Rome, under Pope Leo III.  in 799, of which Felix makes mention in his last Confession of Faith; and of which, some Fragments are extant.  
Leo the Third relates in the first Action, how that Heresy, which was condemned by his Predecessor Adrian, was renewed, and began to spread.  
In the 2d he describes, how Felix, having been condemned at Ratisbone, had after that retracted his Error at R●me, and made a solemn Promise upon St. Peter's Tomb, That he would no more call Jesus Christ the Adoptive Son of God, but did believe and call him His own proper Son. He adds, That since that time he had relapsed into his Error, and would not submit himself to the Judgement of the Council of Franckfort, assembled by the Order of King Charles, which had condemned his Error, and had threatened with Anathema those that maintained it, if they persisted in it. That not yielding to this Judgement in the least, he had written against Albinus, a Book full of Blasphemies and Errors, more horrid than those he had delivered heretofore.  
In the 4th Action, the Pope representeth it as a Thing necessary, That those that are in an Error be exhorted again to endeavour to Reclaim them; and he anathematizes Felix of Urgel, if he will not abandon the Heretical Doctrine which he teaches, viz. That Jesus Christ is the Adopted Son of God.   

The COUNCIL of Aix-la-Chapelle against FELIX.  
IN the same Year Charles the Great invited Felix of Urgel to Aix-la Chapelle, promising him, that he should have the liberty to propound to the Bishops, which he would call thither, all 
Council of Aix-la-Chapelle.  the Reasons and Allegations that he could produce to defend his own Sentiment, and that all the Proceed in the determination of this Question should be managed with full liberty: Which was done by the acknowledgement of Felix himself in a Confession of Faith; for after he had alleged the Passages he had, Alcuin answered them, and did so clearly confute his Opinion by formal Passages of St. Cyril, St. Gregory, St. Leo, and other Fathers, and by the Authority of the Synod held at Rome a little before, that Felix did voluntarily abandon his Opinion, to embrace the Doctrine of the Church, and made an Orthodox Confession of Faith: Which was followed by those of his Adherents that were there with him.   
The End of the Sixth Volume.   

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORS That Flourished In the Seventh and Eighth Centuries of the Church.  

ISIDORE, BIshop of Sevil. Ordained in 595. Dyed in 696.  
BRAULIO, Bishop of Saragoza, ordained in 626. Dyed in 646.  
S. COLUMBANUS, A Monk of Benchor, and Founder of the Monasteries of Lexevil and Bobio, went into France in 590, and into Italy in 613. died in 615.  
AELERAN, An Irish Presbyter, flourished about the middle of this Age.  
CUMIANUS or CUMINUS, An Abbot, born in 592. flourished about the Year 630. and died in 662.  
EUSEBIUS, Bishop of Thessalonica, flourished about the middle of the Seventh Century.  
BONIFACE IU. Bishop of Rome, raised to the Popedom in 607. died in 614.  
JOANNES PHILOPONUS, A Grammarian, flourished in the beginning of the Seventh Century.  
THEODOSIUS, CONON, EUGENIUS, THEMISTIUS and THEODORUS. At the same Time.  
NICIAS ANTIOCHUS', A Monk of the Monastery of S. Sabas.  
JOHN, Bishop of Thessalonica at the same Time.  
GREGORY, Bishop of Antioch, raised to that See in the Year 572. died in 608.  
JOHN, Abbot and Bishop of Saragoza, flourished about the Year 620.  
ARAUSIUS, HELLADIUS, JUSTUS, Bishops of Toledo, held that See from 606 to 634, or 635. But the last was Bishop but 3 Years.  
NONNITUS, Bishop of Gironde flourished about the same Time.  
CONANTIUS, Bishop of Palenzo, about the same Time.  
BONIFACE, V Bishop of Rome, raised to that See in 617, died in 628.  
MODESTUS, Bishop of Jerusalem, made Patriarch of that See in 620.  
GEORGE, Bishop of Alexandria, preferred to the See in 620, died in 630.  
HONORIUS, Bishop of Rome, made Pope in 626, died in 638.  
SOPHRONIUS, Patriarch of Jerusalem, flourished after 625, and was raised to that See in 629. died in 636.  
JOANNES MOSCHUS, A Priest, flourished at the same Time.  
GEORGE PISIDES, A Deacon of Constantinople, about the middle of this Age.  
EUGENIUS, Bishop of Toledo, flourished about the Year 650.  
APOLLONIUS, Priest of Novars, flourished at the same Time.  
JOHN iv Bishop of Rome, raised to the Popedom in 640. died in 641.  
THEODOSIUS IU. Bishop of Rome, made Pope in 641, died in 649.  
MARTIN I. Bishop of Rome, preferred to that See in 647, died in 656.  
S. MAXIMUS, Abbot, began to flourish in 641, died in 662.  
ANASTASIUS, S. Maximus' Scholar, was honoured for suffering with his Master.  
ANASTASIUS, Apocrisiarius of Rome, suffered with them.  
THEODOSIUS and THEODORUS, Lived at the same Time.  
THEODORUS, Abbot of Raithu, flourished in the midst of the Seventh Century.  
PETER, Of Laodicea, also in the Seventh Century.  
THALASSIUS, The Monk, was contemperary with Maximus.  
ISAIAH, The Abbot, lived also in the Seventh Century.  
THEOFRIDUS, His Time is uncertain.  
DONATUS, Bishop of Bisanzon, was made Bishop in 630, died after 650.  
VITALIAN, Pope, raised to the Popedom in 656, died in 671.  
S. ELIGIUS. Bishop of Noyon, raised to that Dignity in 646, died in 663.  
AGATHO. Bishop of Rome, raised to the Popedom in 678, died in 682.  
LEO II. Bishop of Rome also, was chosen in 678, died in 684.  
BENEDICT II. Made Bishop in 684.  
DREPANIUS FLORUS, Flourished about the middle of the Seventh Century  
ILDEFONSUS, Abbot of Agali, and after Bishop of Toledo, raised to that See in 658, died in 667.  
TAIO or TAGO, Bishop of Sarragosa, flourished about the End of the Seventh Century.  
LEONTIUS, Bishop of Limonee in Cyprus, lived about the same Time.  
MARCULPHUS, A French Monk, flourished all this Century, died 660.  
COSMA, Of Jerusalem, at the beginning of the Eighth Century.  
PANTALEO, A Priest of Constantivople, flourished about the same Time.  
S. JULIAN, Bishop of Toledo, chosen 680, died in 690.  
THEODORUS, Archbishop of Canterbury, flourished after the Year 668, and died in 690.  
FRUCTUOSUS, Bishop of Dumes, and after of Toledo, flourished toward the end of the Seventh Century.  
CEOLFRIDUS, Abbot of Jarrow, lived at the end of the Seventh and the beginning of the next Century, died 720  
ADELMUS, Abbot of Malmsbury, flourished at the same time.  
ADAMANNUS, Abot of Hue, lived also at the same Time.  
A PONIUS, CRESCONIUS, An African Bishop  
JOHN, A Greek Monk, flourished all at the same Time.  
DEMETRIUS', Bishop of Cyzicum, at the same Time.  
S. OWEN, Archbishop of Roven, ordained in 646, died in 689.  
BEDE, Surnamed the Venerable, an English Presbyter, and Monk, flourished in the beginning of the Eighth Century, and died in 735.  
JOHN, Patriarch of Constantinople, flourished about the end of Seventh Age to the Eighth.  
AGATHO, Deacon of the same Church, lived at the same Time.  
GERMANUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, translated from Cyzicum to Constantinople.  
BONIFACE. Bishop of Ments, an Englishman, flourished from 715, when he left his own County, to his Death.  
GREGORY II. Bishop of Rome, made Pope in 714, died in 731.  
GREGORY III. Bishop of Rome, raised to the Popedom in 731, died in 741.  
ZACHARY, Bishop of Rome, raised to the See in 741, died in 752.  
ANDREW, Bishop of Crete, flourished after 730.  
ANASTASIUS, Abbot of the Monastery of Euthym, in Palestine, lived about the Year 740.  
EGBERT, Archbishop of York, flourished from 731 to 767.  
S. JOHN DAMASCENE, A Monk, lived after 730, died 750.  
CHRODEGAND, Bishop of Metz, ordained in 743.  
STEVEN II. Bishop of Rome, ordained in 752, died in 757.  
WILLIBALD, A Monk of Mount-Cassin, and after Bishop of Eiestad, flourished from 728 to his Death, which happened in the Year 786.  
JOHN, Patriarch of Jerusalem, lived after the Year 750.  
GOTTESCHALCI, A Deacon, and Prebend of Leigh, flourished about the Year 760.  
AMBROSE AUTPERTUS, Abbot of S. Vincent, at the River Vulternus, at the same time died, in 778.  
PAUL I. Bishop of Rome, ordained in 757, died in 767.  
STEVEN III. Pope, ordained in 767, died in 772, in which Year  
ADRIAN I. Was elected Pope.  
PAUL, A Deacon of Aquileia, flourished after 770, died in the beginning of the Ninth Century.  
CHARLES, The Great, flourished from 700, and died in 814.  
ALCUINUS, A Deacon of York, after Abbot, Dean of the Canons of Tours, flourished in France from 791 to his Death, which was in 804.  
AETHERIUS, Bishop of Uxame, lived about the end of the Eighth Century.  
PAULINUS, Bishop of Aquileia, lived about the end of the same Age.  
THEODULPHUS, Bishop of Orleans, ordained Bishop in 794, died about 821.  
LEO III. Bishop of Rome, raised to the Popedom in 795, died in 816.  
TARASIUS, Bishop of Constantinople, flourished about the Year 787 to the second Council of Nice.  
EPIPHANIUS, Deacon of Catana, and  
THEODORUS, Lived at the same time.  
ELIAS CRETENSIS, GEORGIUS SYNCELLUS, Flourished about the end of the Eighth Age.    

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE of the Councils held in the VII and VIII Centuries of the Church.  

In the VII Century.  
A Conference held at Worcester Anno 601  
An Assembly held at Challon 603  
The Council of Toledo under Gondamarus the King 610  
The Council of Egara 614  
The V Council of Paris 615  
A Council held in France 615  
The TWO Council of Sevil 619  
The Council of Rheims under Sonnatius Bishop of Rheims 630  
The IV Council of Toledo 633  
The V Council of Toledo 636  
The VI Council of Toledo 638  
The VII Council of Toledo 646  
The Lateran Council against the Monothelites 649  
The Council of chalon upon Saone 650  
The VIII Council of Toledo 653  
The IX Council of Toledo 655  
The X Council of Toledo 656  
A Conference in Northumberland 664  
The Council of Merida 666  
The Council of Autun 666  
A Council of Hereford of England 673  
The XI Council of Toledo 675  
The IV Council of Braga 675  
The XII Council of Toledo 681  
The XIII Council of Toledo 683  
The X V Council of Toledo 684  
The XV Council of Toledo 688  
The Council of Sarragosa 691  
The XVI Council of Toledo 693  
The XVII Council of Toledo 694  
The Council of Constantinople called the Quinisect, or the Council in Trullo 692   

In the VIII Century.  
A Synod at Barkhamstead in the Kingdom of Kent 697  
Councils held in England about the Business of Wilfrid, the last of which was in 705  
The Council of Rome under Gregory II. 721  
A Council held in Germany under Charles the Great 742  
The Council of Lessines 743  
The Council of Soissons 744  
The Councils of Rome under Pope Zachary 745  
The Council of Cloveshaw 747  
The Council of Verbery 752  
The Council of Vernueil 755  
The Council of Metz 756  
The Council of Compiegne 757  
Several other Ecclesiastical Synods, the places and years of their meeting are found in the Extracts of the Capitularies, p. 115, etc.  
The Council of Constantinople against Images 754  
The TWO Council of Nice 787  
The Council of Northumberland 787  
The Council of Aquileia under Paulinus their Bishop 791  
The Council of Ratisbone 792  
The Council of Frankfort 794  
The Council of Rome under Leo III. 799  
The Council of Aix-la-Chapelle 799  
The Council of Paris 824    

A TABLE of the Works of the Ecclesiastical Writers of VII and VIII Centuries of the Church.  

S. ISIDORE of Sevil.  


His Genuine WORKS which we have.  
TWenty Books of Etymologies or Origins.  
Three Books of the differences of Names.  
A Book of the nature of things.  
A Chronicon from the beginning of the World to the Empire of Heraclius.  
The History of the Goths.  
An Abridgement of the History of the Vandals and Sweves.  
A Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Writers.  
An History of the Life and Death of certain Saints.  
Prolegomena upon the Bible,  
Some Notes upon the Pentateuch, Joshua, the Books of Kings and Ezra.  
An allegorical Book upon the Octateuch.  
A Commentary upon the Canticles.  
Two Books against the Jews.  
Two Books of the Offices of the Church.  
Some Letters.  
A Rule for Monks.  
Two Books, entitled Sy●…ma.  
A Treatise of the contempt of the World.  
The Lamentations of Repentance.  
A Prayer about amendment of Life.  
A Collection of Sentences taken out of S. Gregory.    


BOOKS Supposititious.  
His fourth and fifth Letters.  
A Letter to Massanus.  
A Treatise about the opposition of Virtues and Vices.     

BRAULIO Bishop of Saragosa. His Genuine WORKS.  
He perfected and set in order Isidore's Books of Origin's, and made a Catalogue of his Works.  
The Life of S. Milan and Leocadia is thought to be his.   

S. COLUMBANUS Abbot of Lexevil and Bobio.  


His Genuine WORKS.  
Two Letters in Verse concerning the shortness of Life, and 4 other Poems.  
A Rule for Monks, with a Penitential and some other Instructions.  
A Treatise of 20 principal Sins.  
Four Letters.    


WORKS Lost.  
A Commentary upon the Psalms.  
Some Letters.  
A Treatise against the Arians.  
A Treatise about Easter.    


Spurious WORKS.  
The 15th and 17th Instruction.  
A Treatise of Penances for the Monks, Clergy and Laity.     

AELERAN an Irish Presbyter. His Genuine WORKS.  
A Mystical Treatise about the Genealogy of Jesus Christ.   

CUMIANUS or CUMINUS, an Irish Abbot.  
A Penitential.  
A Letter concerning Easter.   

HESY CHIUS, a Priest of Jerusalem  


His Genuine WORKS.  
A Commentary upon Leviticus.  
Two Homilies upon the Virgin Mary.    


WORKS Lost.  
Four Discourses cited by Photius in his 51st Volume of his Bibliotheca.  
Some Fragments of two Sermons cited by Photius.  
A Summary of the 12 small Prophets and Isaias, in Greek.  
The Treatise of Temperance, the Ecclesiastical History mentioned in the fifth Council, as also the Harmony of the Gospels, of whom M. Cotelerius hath published an Abridgement, belong to a more ancient Hesychius.  
There was also another Hesychius, a Priest of Jerusalem more modern, of whom Photius speaks in Vol. 52. of his Bibliotheca, and gives us the Extracts of four of his Sermons.     

EUSEBIUS of Thessalonica. WORKS Lost.  
A Letter against a dissembling Monk.  
Ten Books against the Errors of the same Monk.   

BONIFACE IU. Bishop of Rome. Supposititious WORKS.  
A Decree and Letter published by Holstenius.   

Pope DEUS-DEDIT. His Spurious WORKS.  
A Letter to Gordian.   

JOHANNES PHILOPONUS.  


His Genuine WORKS.  
A Treatise upon the six days Works.  
A Treatise upon Easter.  
Philosophical Treatises.    


WORKS Lost.  
A Treatise against Jamblichus the Philosopher.  
A Treatise of the Resurrection.  
A Treatise of the 4th Council  
A Treatise against the Discourse of Joannes Scholasticus, Patriarch of Constantinople.     

THEODOSIUS the Monk. A Work lost.  
A Writing against Philoponius.   

CONON, EUGENIUS and THEMISTIUS. Works lost.  
Invectives against Philoponus.  
Themistius' Apology for Theophobius.  
His Answer to Theodorus.   

THEODORUS the Monk.  
A Book written again Themistius.   

NICIAS, Works lost.  
A Book against Philoponus, entitled, the Arbiter or Judge.  
A Treatise against Severus.  
Two Books against the Heathens.   

ANTIOCHUS'. A Genuine Work.  
His Pandects of the Holy Scripture.   

JOHN of Thessalonica.  


A Genuine Work  
Some Homilies upon the Women who carried Spices to embalm the Body of Jesus Christ.    


A Work lost.  
Some Dialogues about Religion.     

GREGORY of Antioch. A Genuine Work.  
A Discourse about the Women that embalmed Jesus Christ.   

JOHN, Bishop of Sarragosa. A Work lost.  
Prayers to be sung in the Service of the Church.   

JUSTUS, Bishop of Toledo. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to Richilan.   

CONANTIUS PALENTINUS. Works lost.  
Hymns and Prayers.   

BONIFACE V A Genuine Work.  
Three Letters mentioned by Bede.   

MODESTUS, Bishop of Jerusalem. Works lost.  
His Sermons of which Photius, Vol. 275. Biblioth. gives us some Extracts.   

GEORGE, Bishop of Alexandria. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of S. chrysostom.   

HONORIUS. Genuine Works.  
Some Letters to Sergius.  
Nine other Letters.   

SOPHRONIUS of Jerusalem.  


Genuine Works.  
A Synodical Letter to Sergius.  
Four Sermons.  
The Life of S. Marry the Egyptian.    


Works lost.  
A Synodical Letter to Honorius.  
A Discourse about S. Cyrus and S. John.    


A Spurious Work.  
The Voyages of S. Peter and S. Paul.     

JOANNES MOSCHUS. A Genuine Work.  
The Spiritual Meadow.   

GEORGIUS PISIDES.  


Genuine Works.  
A description of the Creation of the World, in Verse.  
A Poem upon the vanity of Life.  
Sermons in honour of the Virgin.    


Works lost.  
The Life of the Emperor Heraclius.  
The Persian War.  
A Panegyric upon the Martyr Anastasius.  
A Book entitled, Avarica.  
Some Poems.     

EUGENIUS, Bishop of Toledo.  


A Genuine Work.  
His Poems.    


Works lost.  
A Treatise upon the Trinity, in Verse.  
Another on the same Subject, in Prose.     

APOLLONIUS, a Priest of Novara. A Genuine Work.  
A Poem upon the ruin of Jerusalem.   

JOHN iv His Genuine Works.  
An Apology for Honorius.  
Two Letters.   

THEODORUS I. A Genuine Work.  
Two Letters and a Memoir.   

MARTIN I. A Genuine Work.  
Seventeen Letters.   

S. MAXIMUS.  


Genuine Works.  
His Life and the Acts of his Persecution.  
Questions upon the Scripture to Thalassius.  
Seventy Nine Answers to as many Questions.  
An Exposition of the 59th Psalm.  
An Ascetic Discourse.  
400 Spiritual Maxims of Charity.  
200 Theological and Ecumenical Maxims.  
A Writing to Theo-perapius.  
243 Moral Maxims.  
25 Dogmatical Treatises.  
A Conference with Pyrrbus.  
A Treatise of the Soul.  
Several Letters.  
Five Dialogues concerning the Trinity, under the name of Athanasius.  
His Mystagogy.  
A Collection of Moral Sentences.  
A Commentary upon the Work attributed to S. Dionysius the Areop.  
Scholiasts upon S. Gregory Nakienzen.  
A Calendar.    


A Spurious Work.  
A Resolution of Doubts to the King of Achrida.     

ANASTASIUS, Scholar of S. Maximus. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to the Monks of Cagliari.   

ANASTASIUS APOCRISIARIUS. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter upon the death of S. Maximus.   

THEODOSIUS and THEODORUS. A True Work.  
An Historical Work about the Sufferings of Anastasius.   

THEODRUS of Raithu. His Genuine Work.  
A Treatise of the Incarnation.   

PETER of Laodicea. His Genuine Work.  
An Explication of the Lord's Prayer.   

THALASSIUS, His Genuine Work.  
400 Moral Maxims.   

ISAIAH the Abbot. A Genuine Work.  
Some Precepts.   

THEOFRIDUS. His Genuine Work.  
Two Homilies upon Relics.   

DONATUS. A Genuine Work.  
Two Rules; one for Monks, and another for Nuns.   

VITALIANUS. His Genuine Work.  
Six Letters.   

S. ELIGIUS.  


His Genuine Work.  
A Book of Instructions collected by S. Owin in the Life of this Saint.    


A dubious Work.  
Sixteen Homilies which bear his name.     

AGATHO.  


A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to the Emperor Constantine.    


A Spurious Work.  
A Letter to Ethelred.     

LEO II. His Genuine Works.  
A Letter by which he subscribed to the Determinations of the sixth Council.  
Four Letters sent into Spain.   

BENEDICT II. A Genuine WORK.  
A Letter to the Bishops of Spain, about the Sixth Council   

DREPANIUS FLORUS. His genuine WORKS.  
A version of the 22, 26, 27. Psalms, into Verse.  
The Song of the three young Men in the Furnace, in Verse.  
An Hymn to S. Michael, another upon the Paschal Taper and other Poems.   

ILDEFONSUS of Toledo.  


His genuine Works.  
A Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers,  
A Treatise of the perpetual Virginity of Mary.  
Some Letters.    


WORKS lost.  
Of which there is a Catalogue, p. 34.    


Suppositious WORKS.  
Another Treatise upon the perpetual Virginity of Mary.  
Twelve Sermons upon the Purification.     

TAIO.  


A Genuine WORK.  
A Letter to Quiricus.    


A Manuscript Work, not published.  
Five Books of Sentences, collected out of S. Gregory's Works.     

LEONTIUS, Bishop of Cypress. A Work lost.  
His Apology for the Christians.   

MARCULPHUS. A genuine WORK.  
Some ancient Forms collected by him.   

COSMAS Bishop of Jerusalem,  
Thirteen Hymns.   

PANTALEO. A WORK lost.  
Four Sermons.   

JULIAN of Toledo.  


Genuine WORKS.  
His Prognostics, divided into three Books.  
A Treatise against the Jews.  
The History of Wamba.    


WORKS lost.  
See the Catalogue, P. 37, 38.    


Supposititious WORKS.  
Contrarieties of Scriptures.  
A Commentary upon the Prophet Nabum.     

THEODORUS, Archbishop of Canterbury.  


A Genuine Work.  
His Propositions to the Council of Hereford.    


A Work lost.  
His penitential.    


A spurious Work.  
Several Collections and Extracts of his penitential.     

FRUCTUOSUS. A genuine Work.  
Two monastic Rules.   

CEOLFRIDUS. A genuine Work.  
A Letter to Naotan about Easter and the Tonsure of Clerks.   

ADELMUS. A genuine Work.  
A Book concerning Easter.   

ADAMANNUS. His genuine Works.  
The History of the Holy Land,  
The Life of S. Columbanus.   

APONIUS. A genuine Work.  
A Commentary upon the Canticles.   

CRESCONIUS. A genuine Work.  
A Collection of Canons in two parts.   

JOHN the Monk. A genuine Work.  
A Sermon upon the Nativity of the Virgin:   

DEMETRIUS CYZICENUS.  


A genuine Work.  
A Memoir of the Original of the Jacobites.    


Works without Name,  
A Memoir concerning the Schism of the Armenians.  
A Memoir about the Nativity of Jesus Christ.     

S. OWEN. A genuine Work.  
The Life of S. Eligius.   

BEDA.  


His genuine Works.  


I. About Arts and Sciences.  
His Books of Grammar, Arethmetick, Astronomy, Physic, Chronology and Morality.  
Two Treatises of the Tropes and Figures of the Scripture.  
His Books of the Lunar Cycles.  
A Treatise of Times.    


II. Of History.  
The History of England, in five Books.  
A Treatise of the Holy Land.  
A Treatise of the Hebrew Names.    


III. Upon the Bible.  
An Explication of the three first Chapters of Genesis.  
A Commentary upon the Pentateuch.  
Four Books of allegorical Explications upon the two first Books of Kings.  
Some Questions upon these Books.  
An allegorical Explication of the Books of Esdras and Tobit.  
Three Books of Commentaries upon the Proverbs, and seven upon the Canticles.  
An Allegory upon the Ark of the Testimony.  
A Commentary upon the Gospels of S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke, the Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and the Revelation.  
Homilies and Sermons.  
Several Questions and Treatises upon the Scripture, see p. 87, 88  
A Martyrology in Verse, published by Dacherius.  
Some Letters.      


Works lost, or in Manuscript only.  
Commentaries upon the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and S. Paul's Epistles.  
A Martyrology and Penitential.    


Supposititious or uncertain Works.  
The Lives of several Saints.  
A Martyrology.  
A Penitential.  
Collections out of the Fathers.  
An Exposition of Job.  
A Commentary upon S. Paul's Epistles.  
Several Sermons.     

JOHN Patriarch of Constantinople. A genuine Work.  
A Letter to Pope Constantine.   

AGATHO the Deacon. A genuine Work.  
A Memoir composed by this Deacon.   

GERMANUS the Patriarch.  


A genuine Work.  
A Treatise upon the Burial of our Lord, in Verse, published by Gretzer.    


Works lost.  
A Treatise about lawful Retaliation of which Photius gives us some extracts.  
A Treatise of Synods.  
Supposititious Works made by another later Germane.  
A Book called, Theoria, or Speculation.  
Four Sermons upon the Virgin.  
Two Sermons upon the Cross.  
A Sermon upon the Virgin's Girdle.     

BONIFACE of Mentz.  


A genuine Work.  
Several Letters.    


Dubious or supposititious Works.  
The Life of S. Livinus.  
The Statutes of Boniface.    


A Work last.  
A Treatise upon the Unity of the Faith.     

GREGORY II. Genuine Works.  
Fifteen Letters.  
A Memoir, containing divers Instructions.   

GREGORY III.  


A genuine Work.  
Seven Letters.    


A spurious Work.  
A Collection of Canons.     

ZACHARY.  


A genuine Work.  
Sixteen Letters.    


A supposititious Work.  
The seventeenth and eighteenth Letters.     

ANDREA'S CRETENSIS.  


Genuine Works.  
Seventeen Panegyrics.  
An Homily upon the Nativity of the Virgin, and another upon the beheading of S. John.    


Dubious Works.  
A Commentary upon the Revelation.  
Odes and Proses for Festivals.     

ANASTASIUS. A supposititious Work.  
A Treatise against the Jews.   

EGBERT, Archbishop of York.  


A Genuine Work.  
His Penitential.    


Spurious Works.  
Several extracts of his Penitential.  
A Treatise of the Life of Clergymen.     

S. JOHN DAMASCENE.  


Genuine Works.  
Four Books of the Orthodox Faith.  
Other dogmatical Treatises, of which we have a Catalogue, p. 102.  
Three Orations concerning Images.  
A discourse about Prayer for the Dead.  
A Treatise upon this Question, Wherein consisteth the Likeness of Man with God?  
A Treatise of the Last Judgement.  
A Treatise of Heresies.  
Parallels.  
Sermons.  
Several Hymns.  
Such of them as are in Greek see p. 103.    


Works lost.  
See a Catalogue of them p. 104.    


Supposititious Works.  
Two Letters about the Mass and Consecration.  
The History of Barlaam.  
Some Hymns.     

CHRODEGAND, Bishop of Metz. A genuine Work.  
A Rule for the Regular Clergy.   

STEVEN II. Genuine Works.  
Six Letters.  
His Answers to the Questions of the Monks of Bretigny.   

WILLIBALD. A genuine Work.  
The Life of S. Boniface of Mentz.   

JOHN, Patriarch of Jerusalem. A dubious Work.  
The Life of S. John Damascene.   

GOTTESCHALLCUS. A genuine Work.  
The Life of S. Lambert, Bishop of Liege.   

AMBROSE AUTPERTUS.  


Genuine Works.  
A Commentary upon the Revelation, attributed to S. Ambrose, and perhaps his Commentary upon the Psalms and Canticles.  
The Book of the Opposition between Virtues and Vices, in S. Austin.  
The Lives of S. Paldon, Taton and Tason.    


Works lost.  
A. Treatise of Concupiscence.  
Several Homilies.     

PAUL I. A genuine Work.  
Several Letters inserted in the Caroline Code.   

STEVEN III. A genuine Work.  
Three Letters.   

ADRIAN I. Genuine Works.  
Several Letters to the Kings of France, which are in the Caroline Code.  
Letters about Images, in the Acts of the Council of N●ce, relating to the Caroline Book.  
A Letter to Tilpin, related by Flodoardus.  
A Collection of Canons, dedicated to Ingilram Bishop of Metz.   

PAUL of Aquileia.  


Genuine Works.  
The History of the Lombard's.  
The History of the Bishops of Metz.  
The Lives of S. Arnoldus the Martyr, S. Cyprian, S. Benedict, S. Maurus, and S. Scholastica and S. Gregory.  
Lessons for all the Days of the Year,  
The Hymn, Ut queant Laxis    


Works lost.  
A Commentary upon S. Benedict's Rule.  
Some Homilies.     

CHARLES the Great. Genuine Works.  
Several Capitularies made by his Orders.  
Several Letters written by his Command.  
The four Caroline Books about Images.  
A Letter against the Error of Felix Urgelitanus.   

ALCUINUS.  


Genuine Works.  
Questions upon Genesis.  
An Exposition upon the Penitential, and 118 Psalms.  
A treatise of the Use of the Psalms.  
A Liturgy.  
A Letter upon the Canticles.  
A Commentary upon Ecclesiastes, and the Gospel of S. John.  
A treatise of the Trinity.  
A Letter about Time and Eternity.  
A treatise of the Soul.  
Seven Books against Felix Orgelitanus.  
A Letter to Elipandus, and a Reply to his Answer, divided into four Books.  
Several Letters.  
A Confession of Faith.  
An Homily upon the Purification.  
Twenty six Letters.    


A spurious Work.  
His Book of Divine Service.     

ETHERIUS. A genuine Work.  
Two Books against Elipandus.   

PAULINUS.  


Genuine Works.  
A small Tract and three other Books against Elipandus.  
A treatise of wholesome Instructions, among S. Austin's Works.    


Works lost.  
A Letter to Heistulphus, of which we have only a Fragment.  
A Fragment of another Treatise in M. Baluzius' Vol. 1. of Miscell.     

THEODULPHUS, Bishop of Orleans.  
A Capitulary for the Instruction of the Priests of his Diocese, containing forty six Articles.  
A treatise about Baptism, to Magnus. Some Poems.   

LEO III. A genuine Work.  
Thirteen Letters.   

TARASIUS. Genuine Works.  
An Apology for his Election.  
Three Letters.   

ELIAS CRETENSIS. A genuine Work.  
A Commentary upon the Orations of S. Gregory Nazianzen.   

GEORGIUS SYNCELLUS. A genuine Work.  
His Chronicon.    

A Table of the Acts, Letters and Canons of the Councils held in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries.  
The Conference at Worcester. 
THe Acts related by Bede, in the second Book of his History.  The Council of Challon. 
Some Memoirs.  The Council of Toledo under Gondemar. 
An Act to make Toledo a Metropolis.  The Council of Egara. 
A Decree made in it about Celibacy.  Council V of Paris. 
Fifteen Canons confirmed by the Edict of Clotarius.  A Council held in France about the same time. 
Fifteen Canons.  The Council of Sevil. 
Some Acts, containing twelve Decrees.  The Council of Rheims under Sonnatius. 
25 Canons, the Extracts of which are related by Flodoardus.  Council iv of Toledo. 
A Confession of Faith and 74 Canons.  Council V of Toledo. 
9 Canons.  Council VI of Toledo. 
A Confession of Faith and 18 Canons.  Council VII. of Toledo. 
6 Canons.  A Council in the Lateran under Martin I. 


5 Actions or Sessions in Greek and Latin.  
A Circular Letter of this Popes.    Council III. of Constantinople, which was the Sixth General. 


The Emperor's Letter to Dionysius and George.  
The Letter of Mansuetus Bishop of Milan, and a Confession of Faith.  
The Acts, containing 17 Acts or Sessions.  
The Council's Letters to Agatho.  
The Emperor's Edict, and  
His Letter to Leo II. and the Bishops of the Roman Council.    The Council of Challon. 
39 Canons.  Council VIII of Toledo. 


King Recesuind's Letter.  
The Acts, which contain 12 Canons.  
A Decree about the King's Revenue.  
Recesuind's Edict.  
The Jews Petition and Remonstrance,    Council IX. of Toledo. 
A Preface and 17 Canons.  Council X. of Toledo. 
7 Canons, and a Decree against a Bishop who had Married.  A Conference in Northumberland. 
The Acts of this Conference.  The Council of Merida. 
22 Canons.  The Council of Autun. 
A Constitution concerning Monks.  A Council at Hereford. 
10 Canons.  Council XI. of Toledo. 
15 Canons.  Council iv of Braga. 
8 Canons.  Council XII. of Toledo. 
13 Canons.  Council XIII. of Toledo. 
13 Canons.  Council XIV. of Toledo. 
The Acts of the Council, containing an Exposition of the Faith.  Council XV. of Toledo. 
The Acts about the difficult Places in the preceding Confession.  The Council of Sarragosa. 
5 Canons.  Council XVI. of Toledo. 
A Memoir of King Egica and 13 Canons.  Council XVII. of Toledo. 
A Memoir of Egica and 8 Canons.  The Council called Quinisext or in Trullo. 
102 Canons.  The Council of Barkamsted. 
25 Ecclesiastical Constitutions.  Councils held about the Business of Wilfrid. 
The History of the Acts of these Councils, recited by divers Authors.  The Council of Rome under- Gregory II. 
17 Canons.  A Germane Council under Carlomannus. 
7 Canons,  The Council of Lessines. 


4 Canons, and Form of Abjuration.  
A Memoir or Instruction about prohibited Marriages.    The Council of Rome under Zachary. 
13 Canons.  The Council of Soissons. 
10 Canons.  Council II. of Rome under Zachary. 
The Acts of this Council.  The Council of Cloveshaw. 
30 Canons  The Council of Verbery. 
21 Canons.  The Council of Vernevil. 
30 Canons.  The Council of Metz. 
9 Canons.  The Council of Compaigne. 
21 Canons.  Several other Councils of France under Charles the Great. 


The Constitutions of this Council are in the Capitularies of this Prince.  
The Councils of Constantinople against Images.  
The Acts of this Council are inserted in the sixth Action of the second Council of Nice.    Council II. of Nice. 
The Acts of this Council in Greek, and Anastasius' Translation, 22 Canons.  The Council of Norhumberland. 
20 Canons.  The Council of Aquileia. 
14 Canons.  The Council of Ratisbone. 
We have nothing of this Council.  A Council in Italy against Felix. 
A Letter of this Council.  The Council of Frankfort. 


A Letter of this Council against Felix.  
56 Canons.    The Council of Rome under Leo III. 
Some Fragments of these Acts.  The Council at Aix-la-Chapelle. 
We have none of its Acts.    

A Table of the Works of the Ecclesiastical Writers of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries; disposed according to the Order of the Matters contained in them.  

Treatises of Religion, against the Pagans, Jews and Saracens.  
TWO Books of S. Isidore against the Jews.  
A Treatise of Julian of Toledo against the Jews.  
A Dialogue between a Christian and a Sarazen, by S. John Sarazen.   

Upon the whole Body of Divinity.  
Isidore's origen's.  
A Manuscript Treatise of Taio.  
S. J. Damascene's treatise of the Orthodox Faith.   

Upon the Trinity.  
Five Dialogues of S. Maximus.  
S. J. Damascene's Trisagion.  
A treatise of Alcuin upon the Trinity.   

Upon the Incarnation, and particularly upon the two wills.  
Hono●ius Letters to Sergius.  
Sophronius' Letter.  
Honorius' Apology for John IU.  
Some of S. Martin's Letters.  
Several Treatises of S. Maximus.  
Some of his Letters.  
Theodorus of Ratthu's Treatise upon the Incarnation.  
Agatho's Letter.  
S. Leo II. and S. Benedict II. Letters.  
Several Treatises of S. John Damascene.  
The Acts of the Councils of Lateran, Constantinople and Toledo.  
Of the Incarnation against Felix Orgelitanus.  
Charles the Great's Letter.  
7 Books of Alcuin against Felix Orgelitanus.  
His Letter to Elipandus.  
Four Books of Reply to that Bishop's Answer.  
2 Letters of Etherius against Elipandus.  
A small Tract of Paulinus of Aquileia.  
Three Books against the same Person.  
The Council of Frankfort.   

Upon the Soul and Man's End.  
S. Maximus' Treatise of the Soul.  
Julian of Toledo's Prognostics, in 3 Books.  
A treatise of Prayer for the Dead, by S. John Damascene, as also of the last Judgement.  
Alcuin's treatise of the Soul.   

Upon Images.  
Pope Gregory II's Letters.  
Damascene's Orations of Images.  
Adrian, Germanus and Tarasius' Letters.  
The Acts of the Council of Constantinople against, and of Nice for Images.  
The Caroline Books.  
The Council of Frankfort.  
The Council of Paris, and Letters in their Name.   

Of the perpetual Virginity of Mary.  
A treatise made by Ildephonsus of Toledo.   

Works of Discipline.  
Isidore's two Books of Offices.  
Some of his Letters.  
S. Columbanus' Penitential and Letters.  
Cuminus' Penitential and paschal Letter.  
Philoponus' treatise of Easter.  
S. Maximus' Mystagogy.  
His Calandar for Easter.  
Vitalian's Letters.  
Marculphus' Formula's.  
Theodorus of Canterbury's Capitula.  
Ceolfridus' Letter to Naitan about Easter.  
Adelmus' treatise.  
Cresconius' Collection of Canons.  
Paul of Aquileia's Book of Lessons.  
Charles the Great's Capitularies, Letters and Laws.  
Alcuin's Letters.  
His Liturgy of the Church.  
Two Books of Divine Services falsely attributed to him.  
A Fragment of Paulinus' Letter.  
Theodulphus of Orleans' Capitulary.  
A Treatise upon Baptism.  
Canons of Councils. Pope's Letters.   

Critical Works upon the Bible.  
S. Isidore of Sevil's Prolegomena.  
John of Thessalonica, Gregory and Modesius' Homilies upon the Women who embalmed Jesus Christ.  
Bede's Treatise of the Hebrew Names.  
His Questions upon the Scripture.  
German's Treatise upon our Lord's Burial.  
Alcuin's Treatise upon the use of the Psalms.   

Commentaries upon Scripture.  
S. Isidore's Notes upon the Octateuch.  
His allegorical Notes upon the same.  
Philoponus' Book upon the Hexameron.  
Bede's Explication of the first 3 Chapters of Genesis and Comment on the Pentateuch.  
Hesychius' Commentary on Leviticus.  
His Allegory upon the Ark.  
Alcuin's Comment on Genesis.  
S. Maximus' Questions to Thalassius' 79 Answers to the same.  
His Exposition of Psalm 19  
Bede's Questions on the Books of Kings.  
His allegorical Explications of the Books of Kings and Tobit.  
His Commentary on the Psalms and Proverbs.  
Alcuin's Exposition of the 118th. and the Penitential Psalms.  
His Commentary on Ecclesiastes.   

Upon the Canticles.  
S. Isidore's allegorical Comment.  
Aponius and Bede's Commentary.  
Alcuin's Letter.   

Upon the New Testament.  
Bede's Commentary on the Gospels, Canonical Epistles and Revelation.  
Alcuin's Comment on S. John's Gospel.  
Andreas Cretensis' upon the Revelation.  
Ambrose Autpertus on the same Book.   

Historical Works.  
Isidore's Chronicon and History of the Goth●.  
His Abridgement of the History of the Goths and Vandals.  
His Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers.  
His Lives of some Saints.  
Braulio's Encomium of S. Isidore, and a Catalogue of his Works.  
The Life of S. Milan and Leocadia.  
George of Alexandria's Life of S. chrysostom.  
Sophronius' Life of S. Marry the Egyptian.  
J. Moscus' spiritual Meadow.  
The Acts of the Life and Persecution of Maximus.  
S. Maximus' Life, written by Anastasius his Scholar.  
Anastasius, the Apocrysiarius of Rome, his Letter to Theodosius.  
An Historical Memoir of Theodosius and Theodorus.  
Ildephonsus' Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers.  
Julian Toledo's History of Wamba.  
The History of the Holy-land by Adamannus.  
His Life of S. Columbanus.  
A Memoir of the original of the Jacobites.  
A Memoir upon the Schism of the Armenians.  
The Life of S. Eligius, by S. Owen.  
Bede's History of England.  
His Treatise of the Holy Land.  
His Martyrology, in Verse.  
Agatho, Deacon of Constantinople, his Memoir.  
The Letters of the Pope's Boniface, Gregory, Steven, Paul I. Adrian, Zachary and others, concerning the Affairs of ●…aly.  
S. John Damascene's Treatise of Heresies.  
The Life of Boniface of Mentz.  
The Life of S. John Damascene.  
The Life of S. Lambert.  
The Lives of Taton and Tason.  
Paul, Deacon of Aquileia, his History of the Lombard's.  
His History of the Bishop of Metz.  
The Life of S. Arnulfus, by the same.  
His Martyrdom of S. Cyprian.  
His Lives of S. Benedict and S. Scholastica.  
His Life of S. Gregory.  
Syncellus' Chronicon, continued by Theophanes.  
The Acts of the Councils.   

Works of Morality, Piety and Divinity.  
Isidore's Synonyma.  
His Treatise of the contempt of the World.  
His Lamentations of Repentance.  
A Prayer.  
A Collection of Sentences out of S. Gregory.  
S. Columbanus' holy Instructions.  
His Treatise of the eight Capital Sins.  
Four Letters.  
A mystical Treatise of Aeleran, concerning the Genealogy of Jesus Christ.  
Hesychius' Homilies.  
Eusebius of Thessalonica's Letter against a cheating, deceitful Monk.  
Antiocbus' Pandects of Scripture.  
John of Thessalonica's Homilies.  
Sophronius' Sermons.  
George Pisides' Sermons in honour of the Virgin.  
S. Maximus' moral Maxims.  
His Letters.  
Peter of Laodicea's explication of the Lord's Prayer.  
400 Maxims, by Thalassius.  
Theofridus' two Homilies upon Relics.  
S. Eligius' Instructions.  
S. Pantaleo's Sermons.  
John the Monk's Sermon upon the Nativity of the Virgin.  
Bede's Sermons.  
Andreas Cretensis' Panegyric and Homilies.  
S. John Damascene's Parallel and Sermon.  
Ambrose Autpertus' Book of the opposition of Virtues and Vices.  
Paulinus of Aquileia's Book of saving Instructictions.   

Works about Monkery.  
S. Isidore's Rule.  
S. Columbanus' Rule.  
S. Maximus' Ascetic Discourse.  
Donatus' two Rules.  
Fructuosus' two Rules.  
Chrodegand's Rule.   

Poetry.  
S. Columbanus' Poems.  
A Description of the Creation, by George Pisides.  
His Poem of the vanity of Life.  
Eugenius of Toledo's Poems.  
Apollonius' Poem of the Destruction of Jerusalem.  
The Odes of Andreas Cretensis and Cosma of Jerusalem.  
Drepanius Florus' Works.  
Cosma of Jerusalem's Hymns.  
Mark Otrante's Hymns.  
S. John Damaseene's Hymns.  
Paul of Aquileia's Hymn, ut queant laxis.  
Theodulphus' Poems.   

Philosophy and other Sciences.  
S. Isidore of Sevil's Origins and other Works.  
Philoponus' Philosophical Treatises.  
S. Maximus' Collection of several moral Observations taken out of Ecclesiastical and Profane Authors.  
Bede's Treatises upon the Sciences.  
S. John Damascene's Treatise of Logic and Physic.  
Alcuin's Letter upon Time and Eternity, and several other Letters.    

AN ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF THE Principal Matters Contained in the Sixth Volume.  
The Names of Authors and their Works are omitted in this Index, the other Tables sufficiently serving for that purpose.  

A.  
Abbot's; There may not be two in one Monastery, 75.  
Adalbert and Clemens; Bishops of France, condemned for their wicked Lives, 127.  
Arles; the difference between the Churches of Vienna and Arles, determined by the Council of Frankfort, 117.   

B.  
Baptism; administered with Sand in case of necessity, 20. and with Wine, 109. through force or fear, 20. Angels, Godfathers at Baptism, ibid. administered on the Feast of Epiphany in the East, ibid. several sorts of it, 4. Effects, ibid. Chrism administered at Baptism, ibid. its Effects and Ceremonies, 46. administered by a wicked Priest not to be repeated, 97. but by a Pagan Priest it ought, ibid. the ordination of unbaptized Persons not valid, 46. the Roman usage to be observed in the administration of it, 117. not to be administered in Hospitals, ibid. if administered with Wine not valid, 109. and those not baptised in the name of the Trinity, 97. Baptism in barbarous words valid, 99 threefold Immersion, 123. to baptise Infants of other Parishes in necessity, 87. a liberty to baptise with one or three Immersions. 58. not to be administered, unless in case of necessity, but according to the order and in the time prescribed by the Church, 148. administered from the beginning of Lent till Holy Thursday, 85.  
Bells; forbidden to be baptised, 117.  
Bishoprics; erected in Germany, 93.  
Bishops; a distinction between the Rights of Bishops and Priests, 45. Functions peculiar to Bishops, 56. their Duties, 59, 60, 70, 79. what respect due to them, ibid. a constitution for Bishops, 74, 75. ought to visit and take care of their Dioceses, 117. to watch over their Clergy, ibid. ought not to be in small Towns, ibid. their residence commanded, ibid. not to perform their Office out of their Diocese, 130. not to overcharge their Curates, ought not to be ordained in Market-towns, 81. Archbishop made in France to determine and judge Ecclesiastical Affairs, 127. Youngmen not to be made Bishops, 128.   

C.  
Celibacy; not required of Priests and Deacons in the Greek Church, 85. commanded the Bishops, 86.  
Canon's Regular; appointed by Chrodegand, 106. some Rules made for them, ibid.  
Chapters; the condemnation of the 3 Chapters disapproved by S. Columbanus, 8.  
H. Crism; the Ceremony of consecrating it on Holy Thursday, 100  
Christians; a Christian Life described in short, 31.  
Church; a Miracle to prove, That there is no Salvation out of the Church, 19  
Church for Temple; not to be built where Bodies have been buried, 45. it ought to have Steps up to the Altar, Relics, a Lamp, etc. ibid. Mass to be celebrated in consecrated Churches and at consecrated Altars only, 118. Man-slayers not to fly thither, 116.  
Church; respect due to Churches, 75. a constitution to preserve Church-revenues, 45, 76. Lands of the Church held by a precarious Title, aught to pay a Rent, 126. the management of Church-revenues by Stewards, 140. Church-revenues how to be managed and how forbidden, 54, 55, 56.  
Church of Rome; the Cities and Privileges granted to it by Pepin, 108, 109. Bishop's subject to that Church should come thither every year, 126. Boniface's respect for the Pope, 95.  
Church of France; old Ecclesiastical Laws reved in the Church of France, 119. did not approve of the Worship, though it allowed the use of Images, 141. the respect it gave the Church of Rome, 142. the Roman Rites brought into it, 128.  
Clergymen; their duty 3, 4. distinctions in the Clergy, ibid. Tonsure of Clergymen, ib. different Orders of the Clergy, ibid. Clergy not put to penance, ibid. a Clergyman falling into the Sin of the Flesh is to be deposed for ever. 5, 22. Rules about the Duty and Life of Clergymen, 116. a Relaxation of the Discipline in respect to Priests fallen into Adultery, 125. how Priests, Abbots and Clerks ought to perform their Oaths, aught to be judged by their Bishop, ibid. Duties of Clergymen, 140. how they ought to be Clothed, ibid. the Qualifications that Priests ought to have, 45. Rules for the Lives of Clergymen, 96. a direction for their Converse and their Obligations, 85, 86. Celibacy of Clergy authorized by the Council of Egara, 53. and by other Councils, 55. Rules for their Lives and Duties, 148. the Virtues and Duties of Clergymen, 59 Rules for their Life and Behaviour, ibid. and 60.  
Communion; the Greeks Communicate every Sunpay, the Latins not obliged to it, 48. some reasonable Opinions about frequent Communion, 35, 36. Communion frequent and why, 128. every Sunday, 124. frequent Communion, ibid. the manner how the People and Clergy communicate, 59  
Councils; General, S. Isidore counts but four, 2. the form of holding them, 58.  
Confession; of two sorts, 1. of Praises, etc. of Sins 2. Theodorus' Opinion about the necessity of Confession, 48. private Confession of Sin in use, 9 Confession, 149. the Canons Regular Confessed their Sins twice a year, 107. an exhortation to the Confession of all manner of Sins, 106. to be made at the beginning of Lent, 107.  
Confirmation; by the Hands of a Bishop only, 5. belong to a Bishop, 46. not to be repeated. 97.  
Constantinople; Privileges reserved to that Church, 26.  
Corruption; whether the Body of Christ were Corruptible, 12. questions about Corruptibility, and Incorruptibility, ibid.  
Covetousness; Condemned by a Miracle, 31.  
Creed; the Apostles Authors of it, according to Isidore, 2.  
Cross; Signs of the Cross in saying Mass, Worship due to the Cross, 100   

D.  
Deacons; Offices forbidden to Deacons, 45.  
Dead; Opinions concerning the Dead, 43. Prayers and Masses for the Dead, 46. for whom Masses may be said, ibid.  
Discipline; divers rules of Discipline; see the Canons of the Councils, 97.  
Dispensation; Holy See will not dispense contrary to the Canons, 99   

E.  
Easter; the Opinion of the Irish about the Celebration of Easter, forbidden by S. Columbanus, 7. the Custom of the Irish condemned, 46. 52. approved, 49. the day for keeping this Feast, is to be appointed by the Metropolitans, 58. 83. Communion at Easter, 58. the Contest with the Ancient Inhabitants of England about the day of the Feast, 78.  
Eucharist; the real presence of Christ's Body and Blood acknowledged by the Councils of Constantinople, and Nice about Images, 138. whether it may be called an Image, 137. the reality of the Body of J. Christ, 104. the real Presence, 25, 30. Miracles related by J. Moschus, proving the reality of the Body of J. Christ, 19 ought not to be given to the Dead, 88 the Bread and Wine ought to be suitable, 124. the Opinion of the Church of France about the Eucharist, 142. they give it to Infants, ibid.  
Excommunication; whether we may Communicate with Bishops of an evil Life, 93, 94.  
Exorcisms; used in S. Isidores time, 4.   

F.  
Fasting; for devotion between Easter and Whitsuntide, 3. on H. Friday till Sunset, 58. forbidden on Saturday among the Greeks, 87. how used in Lent, 124. in Ember-weeks.  
Felix and Elipandus; the Error of these Bishops, about the Incarnation, 123. opposed by Etherius, 123. and Paulinus of Aquileia, 124. condemned in the Council of Ratisbon, 150. Felix maintains his Error afresh, ibid. his Letter condemned and confuted, ibid. he is condemned in the Council of Frankfort, ibid. and in the Council of Rome under Leo, III. ibid. and lastly in the Council of Aix-la-Chappelle, 151. he recants, ib.  
Festivals; the number of Festivals celebrated in France in the 8 Century, 120. the Festivals of S. Gregory and S. Austin in England, 128.  
freewill; acknowledged by the Church of France, 143. the condemnation of such persons, as assert, that the Commandments of God are impossible, ibid.   

G.  
Grace; S. Colurabanus' Opinion about Grace, is agreeable to S. Austin's Doctrine about Grace, 7. acknowledged with freewill, 143. Germany, Establishment of the Churches in Germany 93.   

H.  
Hallelujah; forbidden to be sung in Lent, 58.  
Heretics; divers sorts of them 105. how to be received, 88 Bishops fallen, into Heresy, and returning again to the Church, upon what conditions to be received, 134. Heretical Books to be secured, 140.  
Hermit's; who to be owned for such, 62. 87.  
Honorius; condemned in the 8 Council, 12. rightly Condemned, and as an Heretic 72, 73.  
Hospitals; Laymen may Govern them 117.   

I.  
Jacobites; their Original and Errors, 50.  
Iconoclasts; see Images.  
John of Lappa; how persecuted, 30.  
Images; they that honour them do not honour the matter of them, according to Anastasius, 102. and S. John Damascene, 104. Leo Isaurus undertakes to Demolish Images. 131, 132. Gregory II. German, and S. J. Damascene Defend the Worship and use of them, ibid. Leo banishes them by an Edict, 132. Irine calls a Council to restore the Worship of Images, 133. Adrian's Letter for it, 134. proofs of the Worship of Images examined, 135, 136. proofs against Images confuted, 137. their Worship and Use defined by the Council of Nice, 138, 139. the use of the Church of France concerning Images, to have them, but not Worship them, 141. the Bishops of France defend their Opinion, and oppose the Council of Nice, ibid. they allow no other Honour to be given to them, than such as is given to the Sacred Vessels, the Cross, etc. 142, 143. they are to blame in that, ibid. Adrian answers the French, 145. the Worship of Images is Condemned in the Council of Frankfort, ibid. Constantin abrogates the use of them in the East, ibid. Leo V his successor seconds him, ibid. Michael Balbus sent Ambassadors into the West about it, ibid. The question was debated anno. 824 in an Assembly met at Paris, ibid. they establish the usage of France by several Authorities, ibid. Images of the Godhead forbidden, 148. what had been in done in France, not approved at Rome, 146. the Worship of Images restored in the East by Theodora the Empress, ibid. The History of the Use and Worship of Images abridged, ibid. etc. some reflections upon that History, ibid. the Story of a Monk, who had said he would not Worship Images any more, 19 the Honour to be given them, 40.  
Incarnation. Some Questions about certain Expressions concerning this Mystery, 83. The Explication of it, 103, 104.  
Judgement; the explication of it, 44. divers sorts of Judgements, ibid.  
Jews; several Canons concerning them, 60, 61. 77. 84.  
Justinianople; a superiority independent on any other granted to the Bishop of this City. 87   

K.  
Kings; what Obedience and Fidelity due to them, 45, 61, 76, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85.   

L.  
Litanies Ordained— 62, 85.  
Love of God, and our Neighbours the fundamental Virtues of a Christian Life 6. 27.   

M.  
Marriage; affinity both Spiritual and Carnal Impediments of it, 87. a Doubt about the Impediment by spiritual Affinity, 94. the degrees of Consanguinity, within which it is forbidden to Marry, 96. the degrees prohibited, 97. third Marriages forbidden, 98. Questions about married Persons, 47. unlawful Marriages forbidden, 149. degrees of Affinity and Consanguinity forbidden, 126. degrees forbidden, 54. divers civil Constitutions about Marriage, 129.  
Marry; Honour due to the Virgin Mary, 23. her perpetual Virginity, 39 Opinion about her Assumption, ibid.  
Marry Magdalen; different from the Sinner, 16.  
Mass; ought not to be left unfinished, 62, 80. not to be said without communicating, 81. Abuses in the celebration of the Mass reform, 81, 84, 86. is to be taken Fasting, ibid. only one Chalice to be placed upon the Altar at it, 97. the Sacrifice to be offered for all that die in the Faith, 46. Priests not to celebrate it alone, nor say private Masses on Sundays, 124. the Mass of this thing before consecrated, 87.  
Miracles; extraordinary, 19  
Monks; Several sorts of them, 4. The Age at which they may be received, 87. All persons may be received, ib. A Canon for Monks and Nuns, ib. How they ought to live, 128, 129. A Decree about the Life of Monks, 20. Divers Constitutions about Monks, 60. A Rule for the Monks, 6. They ought to observe their Rule, 55. and obliged to dwell in their Monastery, 54, 87. Extravagant Commendations of Monks, 12. The greatest part of Monks disorderly and Hypocrites, 27. Forms of the Monk's Privileges, 41. A Rule for Abbots and Monks, 46. Other Rules for Monks, Nuns and Religious Persons, 140.  
Monasteries; It is not allowed to baptise or bury in them, 55. Double Monasteries forbidden, 145.  
Monothelites; Their Doctrine and Original, 63. Their History, ibid. condemned in the Lateran Council, 64. and in that of Constantinople, 66, etc.   

N.  
Nativity of Jesus Christ. Reasons for keeping that Festival upon the 25th of December, 51.   

O.  
Oecumenick, or Universal, in what sense all that is Catholic may be called Oecumenick.  
Ordination of Bishops, 4. They may not be or dained but in Cities only, 81. The Qualifications of such as are raised to the Priesthood, 140. Elections of Prince's null, ibid. The age and qualities of such as are ordained, 119. The Ordinations of Persons twice married are void, 126. Other Ordination irregular and invalid, 85. The Qualifications of a person to be ordained Bishop, 57 He ought to be made by two or three Bishops, 98. He may not choose his Successor, 99 Age required to be ordained, 100 What persons are forbidden to be ordained, 59, 75. Age of Ordination, 59, 86. Persons ordained can't return to the World, 75. The Ordination of persons twice married forbidden, 126. A Form of a Prince to oblige the Bishops to ordain a person chosen by him for Bishop, 41. Ordinations for Money or Faction forbidden, 53. Prohibitions to choose a Successor, ibid. A Priest ordained before he is baptised, aught to be re-ordained, 45. The Offices of such as Ordain and Consecrate, ibid.   

P.  
Pall, given to the Bishop of Mentz, 97. To Metropolitans ordained by Boniface, 29. Granted to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 16.  
Passion. A Canon to preach upon the Passion on Holy-Friday, 58.  
Penance. Its parts, 2. The Clergy do it before God, and the Laity before the Bishop, 4. In what consists true Penance, ibid. The Priests ought to put the Penitents in mind of it, and absolve only such as are well qualified for it, 88 How and where Penitents are to be reconciled, 47, 48. There was no public Penance in England, ibid. The Ceremonies and Practice of public Penance, ibid. Reconciliation of Penitents upon Holy-Thursday, 32. Necessary dispositions for reconciliation, ibid. Penance for small sins, 36. They who have begun a course of Penance ought to finish it, 60, 81. Divers Punishments and Penances imposed, 126. Penance of Clergymen, 107. Bishops subjected to Penance with confessing any Crimes, may be restored to their Office, 82. The Penance of Monks, 7, 8.  
Pepin. Zachary declares, that he ought to be King, 98.  
Pilgrimages forbidden to Women and Virgins, 96.  
Prayers for the Prince, 116, 118. Several sorts of Prayers, 3. The Service of the Church, 6, 7. The Lord's-Prayer ought to be recited every day in the Service of the Church, 58. The Liturgy used by the Monks, 7. For the Dead, 97. In all Languages, 117. Prayers for the Dead, 104.  
Princes, Obedience due to them, 148.  
Power, the difference between Ecclesiastical and Civil Power, 133.  
Purification, the Original of that Feast, and the Ceremonies used on it, 35.  
Purgatory, acknowledged by Julian of Toledo, 44.   

R.  
Relics ought to be put in Churches, 140.  
Resurrection with the same Bodies, 18.  
Revelations, a Canonical Book, 59  
Rogations, or Litanies mentioned by S. Isodore, 2.   

S.  
Sacrament. The Definition of a Sacrament by S. Isidore, 2. The Number of Sacraments mentioned by Isidore, ib.  
Sacrifice, defined, ib.  
Saints. Invocation of Saints by an Image, 119.  
New Saints, forbidden to honour them, 117.  
Schools established in Bishoprics and Abbeys, 119.  
Scripture, a Catalogue of the Canonical Books, by S. Isidore, 1, 2.  
Service; how it ought to be celebrated in the Church, 45. A Rule concerning the Service of the Church, 58.  
Simony condemned, 62, 79, 81. It is forbidden to take any thing but what is voluntarily offered for Baptism, 79. Simony forbidden, 121. Condemned, 149.  
Souls; their Natures and Qualities, 103. Created by God, and put into the Body, 143. Their State after Death, 44. A Vision of that State, 95. Created when the Body is form, 14. It is spiritual, and retains its faculties after death, 27.  
Holy Spirit; its procession from the Father and Son, defined in the fourth Council of Toledo, 58. Proceeds from the Father and Son, 144.  
Spain. Questions determined by the Bishops of Spain, 55, 56.  
Sunday. Works allowed on Sunday, 130.   

T.  
Toledo. The Bishop of it Metropolitan of the Province of Carthage, 53.  
Holy Thursday; Ceremonies used on that day, 32.   

V  
Holy Vessels, not to be broken unless upon great necessity, 57  
Virginity; the oligation to keep a Vow of Virginity, 149.  
Unction of the Sick, common in the eighth Century, 119.  
Usages, different among the Greeks and Latins, 46, 47. Usages of Churches, 47.   

W.  
Women; not allowed to perform any Ecclesiastical Functions, 46.    

ERRATA of Volume VI.  
PAge 3. line 8. from the bottom, read word. p. 6. l. 20. from bot. r. Anianus. and so p. 7. l. 5. p. 12. in marg. r. Apthartodocetae. p. 15. l. 2. r. Church of Rome. p. 19 l. 8. from bot. r. rejected them. p. 20. l. 12. r. for that reason. p. 21. l. 17. from bot. 1641. r. 641. l. 11. from bot. r. in one. p. 25. l. 31. from bot. Unities. r. Union. p. 30. l. 6. in this. r. in a. p. 41. l. 2. r. of Forms. p. 42. in marg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 43. l. 24. upon. r. for. l. 25. upon. r. about. p. 47. l. 9 deal again after married. p. 49. l. 12. r. Holstenius. l. 14. r. Jarrow. p. 51. l. 9 into. r. in. p. 56. l. 14. from bot. the. r. these. before Constitutions. p. 57 l. 14. be. r. by. p. 59 l. 8. is not proper to. r. agrees not with. p. 61. l. 13, 14. deal the, the. p. 62. l. 7. r. declareth. p. 03. l. 40. after one. r. that asserted. l. 44. after this. r. latter. p. 67. l. 11. from bot. Reumenical. r. Aecumenical. p. 71. l. 1. r. Disciple. l. 21. r. Apocrisiarii. p. 74. l. 13. tells. r. calls. l. 19 from bot. in marg. r. Rotomagus. p. 75. in marg. l. 18. from bot. at. r. al. p. 78. l. 20. from bot. The. r. They. p. 80. l. 22. from bot. deal them. p. 82. l. 30. from bot. after advancing. r. to. and deal (.) between Court and Slaves. p. 83. l. 8. from bot. after whom. r. was. l. 5. from bot. 691. r. anno 691. p. 84. l. 30. r. of the Kings. p. 85. l. 1. r. the Council. p. 90. l. 22. after Columbanus. deal ' s. p. 92. l. 24. put into it. p. 93. in marg. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 94. l. 3. from bot. Osred. r. Osred. in marg. r. Bernicia and Deira. p. 95. l. 25. from hot. Fubredus. r. Fulredus. p. 100 l. 2. from bot. Baufail. r. Boniface. p. 102. l. 14. from bot. after made. r. by. p. 103. l. 26. r. Sabas'. l. 33. r. Iconoclasts. l. 5. from bot. r. preceding. p. 104. l. 30. after Orthodox. r. Christian. l. 34. Sedition. r. Addition. l. ult. deal of. p. 105. l. 27. this. r. the. l. 43. r. Metrophanes'. p. 108. l. 22. before 40. r. for. l. 20. from bot. after Troops. r. which were. p. 109. l. 8. those. r. these. l. 9 from bot. in marg. 84. r. 842. p. 110. r. honourably. l. 12. r. Bennet. l. 13. of. r. in. p. 111. l. 8. from bot. those. r. these. p. 113. l. 32. before MS. r. a. l. 34. r. Manuscript. p. 116. l. 10. put the * to anno. l. 22. r. Capitulary. l. 8. from bot. after out of. r. the. p. 118. l. 1●. put an. after nor. p. 119 l. 32. Terms. r. Forms. l. 49. bound. r. bind. p. 124. l. 4. those. r. these. l. 8. r. Fragments. p. 124. (b) l. 7. in marg. Iswy. r. Oswy. p. 125. (b) l. 4. Hospitium. r. an Hospital. p. 126. l. 19 from bot. r. Lords. p. 129. l. 23. his. r. their. p. 130. l. 30 r. do, before not change. p. 131. l. 26. r. Isaurian. l. 24. r. German. p. 136. l. 6. r. Christ. p. 133. l. 18. from bot. to. r. two. p. 134 l. 24. Amoru. r. Myra. l. 19 from bot. r. affirms. l. 13. from bot. themselves. r. their. p. 135. l. 22. from bot. r. Goodly. p. 136. l. 131. from bot. r. lupanar. l. 21. from bot. their. r. the. l. 19 from bot. r. Supposititious. p. 137. l. 12, from bot. there. r. they. p. 140. exposed. r. deposed. p. 141. l. 21. from bot. deal and. p. 143. l. 20. from bot. r. Baptism. p. 144. l. 6. r. seems. l. 15. r. Princes. l. 34. r. of Polemon's. l. 25. from bot. r. taken out of. p. 145. l. 13. from bot. Supposition. r. Superstition. l. 10. affecting. r. effecting. p. 151. l. 1. 4th. r. the 3d.   

A NEW Ecclesiastical History; Containing an ACCOUNT of the CONTROVERSIES IN RELIGION; THE LIVES and WRITINGS OF Ecclesiastical Authors; AN Abridgement of their Works, And a JUDGEMENT on their STYLE and DOCTRINE: ALSO, A Compendious HISTORY of the COUNCILS, AND All Affairs Transacted in the Church. Written in FRENCH By Lewis Ellies du PIN, Doctor of the SORBON.  
VOLUME the SEVENTH; Containing the HISTORY of the NINTH CENTURY.  
LONDON, Printed by Will. Horton, for Abel Swall and Tim. Child. at the Unicorn at the West-End of St. Paul's Churchyard, M DC XC V   

To the Reader.  
NOtwithstanding the Discouragement, which the most Ingenious and Learned Mr. Du-Pin hath met with, from the Heads of his own Church, for his Free and Impartial Account of the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers of the First Eight Centuries; yet so Communicative is he of his knowledge, that he is not deterred from his Generous Design, but hath Presented the World with a Continuation of that so Good and Excellent a Work in this History of the Ninth Century: An Age, which was perplexed with so many Intricate Controversies quite through it; that scarce any Person, but of his Great Abilities, and firm Judgement, would have dared to meddled with; yet he hath done it with that Clearness, Integrity and Faithfulness, that it is rendered one of the most Profitable Parts of Church-History. Indeed, the Roughness of the Way hath forced him out of his Former Method, and this part of his History appears in a Different Dress from his former; yet the same Ingenuity, Learning and Freedom, is so visible throughout, that no Man that hath any thing of the Critic, can doubt it to be his; and, the Different Method hath made the Controversies of the Age so clear, that that History, which in our Annals seems very confused, is, by his way of Management, rendered not only Clear and Intelligible; but extremely Pleasant and Delightful, serving to give Light to some of the Greatest Contests, which have Disturbed the Church in these Latter Ages; particularly those of Predestination, and Grace, Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament, etc. Some of the Controversies being such, as are at this Day Hotly Debated, between the Church of Rome, and the Protestants: it may be justly suspected, that our Author should Represent things most fairly for the Romish side, in which, by his Profession, he is engaged, few being Impartial in such Cases; but, to the Just Commendation of Mr. Du Pin's Integrity, it ought to be said, That he hath even in those Points, no farther inclined to his own side, than the zeal of the Contending Parties hath justly obliged him, and the Words of the Controvertists will fairly bear, which is confessed, are sometimes through the Heat of Contention, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, very Extravagant; but that aught to be imputed to the Author he is speaking of, not Mr. Du Pin: So that considering the Temptation our Author had to be Partial in the History of this Century, more than in any of the Former, he is more to be admired for his Impartiality and Integrity in this, than in the Former Volumes.  
As to the Translation, it was done from the Copy Printed at Paris; and there hath been more than ordinary care taken, that it be Faithfully rendered into plain, and significant English; and where ever there occurred any difficult Customs or Words, or any Expressions, contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England, there is added in the Margin such Notes, as give an Explication of them, and discover both the Unsoundness of the Doctrine, and direct us to True and Orthodox Knowledge; whereby the History is fitted, not only for the Reading of the Learned, but made profitable, and without danger, to the more Unskilful Readers.  
In the Account of the Editions of the Fathers, Mr. Du-Pin is not so very exact, because his Design is only to give us an Account of their Writings, and a Censure upon them out of the Best Editions of their Works, which he sometimes mentions: but since it is Useful to those that Read these Authors, to know the several Editions of them; an Account of the varions Editions of the Works of the Ecclesiastical Writers of this Century is added; to gether with several Observations, for which the Reader's Kind Acceptance is all the Reward desired.   

BOOKS Lately Printed for, and to be Sold by ABEL SWALL and T. CHILD. At the Unicorn in St. Paul's Churchyard.  

CAMDEN'S BRITANNIA, newly Translated into English, with Large Additions and Improvements. Published by Edm. Gibson, of Queens-College in Oxon. Fol.  
Thesaurus Geographicus, A New Body of Geography, or, a Complete Description of the Earth. Containing the General Doctrine of Geography, and a Particular Description of all the known Countries of the Earth, and of the Principal Cities therein: With Maps of each Country, and Draughts of the Chief Fortified Towns, fairly Engraven in Copper. Folio.  
A New History of Ecclesiastical Writers, Containing an Account of the Lives and Writings of the Primitive Fathers; A Judicious Abridgement and Catalogue of their Works, their various Editions and Censures, Determining the Genuine and Spurious. Together with a Judgement upon their Style and Doctrine. Also a Compendious History of the Councils: Folio. Six Volumes containing the Authors that flourished in the Eight First Ages of Christianity; and a Dissertation concerning the Authors of the several Books of the Old and New Testament. Price 38 Shillings.  
Theatrum Scotiae: A Description of the Principal Cities and Towns, Castles, Palaces and Colleges; as also of the Ruins of many Ancient Places in the Kingdom of Scotland; With Prospects of every Place, curiously Engraven in Copper as large as the Sheet. By John Sleezer. Fol.  
Titi Lucretii Cariola de Rerum Natura Libri Sex, quibus Interpretationem & Notas addidit, Thomas Creech, Col. Om. An. Oxon. Soc. Accessit etiam Index Vocabulorum Omnium. Octavo.  
Medulla Histor. Anglicanae: Being a Comprehensive History of the Lives and Reigns of the Monarches of England, from the time of Julius Caesar, to the Reign of Their Majesties K. William and Q. Mary. The Fourth Edition, in which is added a Table of the Kings, and an Alphabetical Index of the Principal Matters. Octavo.  
The History of Britain, that Part especially now called England; from its first Traditional Beginning to the Norman Conquest. Collected out of the Ancientest and Best Authors, by John Milton. Octavo.  
De Quatuor Summis Imperiis: An Historical Account of the Four Chief Monarchies, or Empires of the World: viz. I. The Assyrian. II. The Persian. III. The Grecian. iv The Roman: Continued down to the Beginning of the Reign of the Emperor Charles the Fifth. Being a Relation of the most considerable Occurences that have happened in the World, from Noah's Flood to the Year of our Lord 1620. Written in Latin by John Sleidan. Newly Englished. Octavo.  
Terence's Comedies, made English, with his Life, and some Remarks; by several Hands. Octavo.  
Plautus' Comedies, Amphitryon, Epidicus and Rudens, made English: with Critical Remarks upon each Play. Octavo.  
The Courtier's Oracle, or, The Art of Prudence; Written in Spanish by Baltazar Gracian, and now done into English. Octavo.  
The Evangelical History: or, The Life of our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, comprehensively and plainly related, with particular Inferences and Discourses thereupon. Written in French, by L. E. Du-Pin, and Englished by a Divine of the Church of England, with Additions; Adorned with Copper Cuts. Octavo.  
D. Jul. Caesaris quae Extant, interpretatione & notis illustravit Joan. Goduinus in Usum Delp. Octavo.  
Graecae Grammaticae Institutio Compendiaria in usum Scholarum. Written by D. Wettenhall, now Lord Bishop of Cork and Rosse. Octavo.   

Some BOOKS now in the Press which will be Speedily Published.  
OVidii Metamorphose●n, Lib. XV. Cum Interpretatione & Notis nec non Indice Vocabulorum omnium; ad Methodum Editionis ad Usum Delphini at multo Correct. & Emendat.  
The Antiquities of Rome; or, A Description of the City, Religion, Government, Magistrates, Laws, Customs, Military Discipline, Arms, Triumphs, Magnificent Buildings, Sports and Exercises, etc. of the Ancient Romans; To which is Premised a short Abstract of the History of the Original, Growth and Decay of that Commonwealth. Written by Basil Kennet of Corp. Christ. Coll. Oxon. Illustrated with many Sculptures Engraven in Copper. Octavo.  
P. Virgilii Maronis Opera Interpretatione & Notis Illustravit Carolus Ruaeus, Soc. Jesus, jussu Christianis. Regis ad usum Serenis. Delphini. Octavo. juxta Edit. Parisiens.— Is now Reprinting on a very fine Paper, and fair Character, and will be Published in a very few weeks.  
A Complete History of England; or, The Lives of all the Kings to His Present Majesty: Containing a Faithful Relation of all Affairs of State, both Ecclesiastical and Civil; with Observations, Ancient Inscriptions, Coins and Medals for Illustration thereof; and the Effigies of the Kings. Collected from the most Authentic Authors, and Original Papers, by several Hands. Two Vol. Folio, Proposed for Subscription, at 40 s. in Sheets.  
Dr. Hen. Hammond's Paraphrase on the PSALMS and PROVERBS. Folio.  
An Universal English Dictionary, Explaining all Difficult English Words Ancient and Modern: and the Terms used in all Sciences and Arts. Together with the Etymology of Words, and the Inventions of Things. Collected from the most Esteemed Authors Ancient and Modern; and made much more Complete and Exact than any hitherto Extant. By several Persons, particularly Learned in the Sciences they undertake to speak of. Digested into Alphabetical Order, and contained in one Volume in Folio. Will be Published in Michaelmas-Term.    

A TABLE of the CONTENTS.  

CHap. I.  
An account of what passed in the Eastern and Western Churches, at the beginning of the Ninth Century, about the Use and Worship of IMAGES Page 1  
The State of the Greek Church 1  
The Council of Paris 2  
Claudius Clemens of Turin an Enemy to Images 3  
Ionas, Bishop of Orleans, his Judgement of Images 3  
Dungale's Treatise of Images 4  
The Opinion of Agobardus about Images 4  
Walafridus Strabo's Judgement on the same 4  
Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople 5  
Theodorus Studita a Patron of Image-worship 8  
Joseph, Bishop of Thessalonica, a Maintainer of Image-worship 9  
Theodorus Graphus, the same 9  
Theosterictus, the same 9  
Claudius of Turin his Works 9  
Dungale's Works 9   

CHAP. II.  
A Relation of the Dispute concerning GRACE. and PREDESTINATION 10  
The beginning of that Controversy 10  
Rabanus' Book against Gotteschalcus 10  
Gotteschalcus against Rabanus 10  
The Council of Mentz against Gotteschalcus 11  
The Life of Hincmarus 11  
The Council of Quercy 12  
Gotteschalchus Punished and Imprisoned 12  
Two Confessions of Faith made by Gotteschalcus 12  
The Writings of Hincmarus, Bertram, and Rabanus, about Predestination 13  
Lupus' Treatise upon the Three Questions 13  
Lupus' Letter to Hincmarus and Pardulus 14  
— His Letter to Charles the Bald 14  
Ratramus, or Bertrams Treatise about Predestination 15  
Scotus' Book about Predestination 15  
Prudentius' Work against Scotus 15  
Florus his Writings against Scotus 16  
Amalot's Letters to Gotteschalcus 16  
Hincmarus' Letter to the Church of Lions 18  
The Answer of the Ch. of Lions to Hincmarus 18  
The Articles of Quercy 19  
Prudentius' Letter to the Council of Sens 19  
The 4 Articles of Quercy, as Refuted by the Church of Lions 19  
The Canons of the Council of Valence about Grace 20  
A Relation of what followed the Council of Valens about Grace 20  
Hincmarus' Second Treatise about Predestination 21  
Hincmarus' Remarks on the Constitution of the Council of Valence about Ordinations 23  
— His Treatise upon the Expression Trina Deitas 24   

CHAP. III.  
A Relation of the Contest between Hincmarus and Rothadus Bishop of Soissons 24  
The Occasion of the Difference between Hincmarus and Rothadus 24  
Hincmarus' Accusation 24  
Rothadus' Appeal to Rome 24  
The Condemnation of Rothadus 24  
The Difference between the Pope and Hincmarus about it 25  
Hincmarus' Letter to the Pope 25  
Pope Nicholas' Letter in favour of Rothadus 26  
The Conclusion of that Affair 27   

CHAP. IV.  
A Relation of the Contest between Hincmarus and Wulfadus, and other Clerks Ordained by Ebbo, who had been Archbishop of Rheims 27  
The Council of Soissons 27  
The Confirmation of the Council of Soissons by Leo the iv and Benedict 29  
Pope Nicholas' Judgement about Wulfadus 29  
The Council of Soissons in 866. 29  
Pope Nicholas' Letter about the Judgement of the Council of Soissons 31  
The Carriage of the Bishops of France 31  
Wulfadus Ordained Archbishop of Bourges 32  
The Council of Troy's 32  
The Letter of that Council to the P. against Ebbo 32  
King Charles' Letter in Favour of Ebbo 33  
Hincmarus' Letter to the Pope 33  
The Affair of Actardus 34  
Adrian's Answers about Ebbo and Actardus 34   

CHAP. V  
A History of the several Contests that Hincmarus had with his Nephew Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon 35  
The Original of the Discontents between Hincmarus and his Nephew 35  
The Contests between the Bishop of Laon and Charles the Bald 35  
Adrian's Letter in favour of the Bishop of Laon 36  
The Quarrels of the Two Hincmarus' about the Business of Nivinus 36  
Another Difference between them about Adulphus 36  
The Bishop of Laon Declared openly against his Uncle 37  
The Difference between them at the Synod of Attigny 37  
Fifty five Articles of Hincmar in Answer to his Nephew 38  
The Sequel of the Affair of Hincmar of Laon, after he left Attigny 40  
A Petition of Hincmarus of Laon 41  
The Answer to it 41  
The Bishop of Laon's Answer 41  
A New Contest between Hincmarus of Laon and the King 42  
He is Cited to a Synod 43  
Adrian's Letter in favour of Caroloman 43  
The Council of Douzi 43  
The Letter of Hincmarus of Rheims to Adrian 44  
Adrian's Answer 44  
King Charles' Answer to the Pope 45  
The Execution of the Judgement given against Hincmarus of Laon 45  
The Council of Troy's 45   

CHAP. VI  
An Account of several other Ecclesiastical Affairs Transacted in France, wherein Hincmarus was chief Engaged 46  
The Divorce of the Queen Theutberga 46  
A Council at Metz concerning it 48  
And another at Rome 48  
The Business of Judith and Baldwin 48  
The Affair of Boson 48  
That of Count Raimond 48  
The Council of Rheims 49  
Synods of Rheims in 857 and 874. 49  
The Coronations of Kings 49  
Some Instructions of Hincmarus to Charles the Bald 49  
Hincmarus' Answer to Lewis of Germany 50  
His Advice to King Charles 50  
A Remonstrance to Lewis of Germany 50  
The Manner of Proceeding against a Priest 50  
The Condemnation of a Priest 50  
Hincmarus' Book against Ansegisus' Privilege 50  
The Council of Pontigon 50  
Hincmarus' Letter about Appeals 51  
His Advice to Lewis the Bald 51  
His Tract upon the Duties of Bishops 51  
His Letter to Charles the Gross 51  
The Election of the Bishop of Beauvais 51  
Hincmarus' Advice to Caroloman 52  
His Writing against Rapes 52  
His Tract about Proofs 52  
His Absolution by Letter 52  
The Form of Episcopal Ordinations 52  
Hincmarus' Treatise against the Translation of Bishops 52  
His Tract of the Judgement of Priests 53  
The Process against Teutfridus 53  
The Vision of Bernoldus 53  
A Relation of K. Pepin's Penitence 53  
Several Letters of Hincmarus 54  
The Editions of Hincmarus' Works 54  
By the Printer's Mistake the Pages are Misnumbered, the next being 69   

CHAP. VII.  
The History of the Controversy upon the EUCHARIST, Debated in the Ninth Century 69  
The Importance of the Controversy 69  
The Life of Paschasius 69  
Paschasius' Treatise concerning the Body and Blood of our Saviour 69  
The Editions of it 71  
The State of the Question betwixt Paschasius and his Adversaries 72  
The First Author that opposes him 72  
Who the Author is that bears the Name of Bertram 73  
His Opinion 75  
The Book of Johannes Scotus upon the Eucharist 77  
Expressions of other Authors of this Age on that Subject 77  
The Question of Stercoranism 78  
Amalarius' Opinion upon it 79  
Rabanus his Opinion on the same Question 79  
The Sentiment of a Nameless Author on the same 79  
Erigerus, Guitmondus, and Algerus, their Opinion on it 79  
The Opinion of the Greeks upon it 80  
The State of the Question amongst the Latins 80   

CHAP. VIII.  
The History of the Controversy about the Manner in which the Virgin Mary brought forth Christ 81  
Ratramnus his Opinion of our Saviour's Birth 81  
Paschasius' Opinion on it 81  
A Question upon the Nature of the Soul 81  
A Judment upon Ratramnus 82  
The Editions of Ratramnus' Book, concerning the Body and Blood of our Saviour 82  
The Editions of the other Books of Ratramnus 82  
Johannes Scotus Erigena 82  
His Book concerning the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 83  
His Books of Nature's 83  
His Translations 84  
Paschasius' Works 84   

CHAP. IX.  
The History of the Contest betwixt Photius and Ignatius, about the Patriarchal See of Constantinople 85  
Ignatius his Birth 85  
The Character of Photius 86  
His Ordination 86  
Ignatius Expelled and Deposed 86  
Pope Nicholas' Letter upon the Ordination of Photius 86  
The Council of Constantinople against Ignatius 87  
The Canons of the Council of Constantinople 88  
The Persecution of Ignatius 89  
Pope Nicholas' Letters upon the Deposition of Ignatius 89  
A Council at Rome upon the Ordination of Photius 89  
Pope Nicholas' Letter to Michael the Emperor 90  
Other Letters of his upon the Affair of Ignatius 91  
Ill Treatment of Ignatius 91  
The Council of Photius against the Pope 91  
Ignatius Reinstated 91  
The Council of Constantinople, being the VIII. General Council 92  
Contestations upon Bulgaria 99  
The Pope's Legates taken by the Sclavonians 100  
Pope Adrian's Letter 100  
New Troubles upon the Account of Bulgaria 100  
Photius returns to Constantinople, and is Restored 101  
Pope John the VIII. gives his Consent to Photius his Restauration 101  
The Council Confirms his Restauration of Photius 102  
Pope John disowns what his Legates had done 103  
The following Popes are against the Restauration of Photius 103  
Photius turned out again 103  
Letters from P. Stephen to the Grecian Bishops 104  
The Bishops Answer 104  
Formosus' Reply to the Bishop's Letter to Stephen 104  
The last Answers of the Pope's to the Greeks 104  
Broils of the Church of Rome with the Greek Churches 105  
Photius' Bibliotheca 105  
The Nomocanon of Photius 106  
His Letters 106  
His Sermons 109  
His Treatise concerning the Wills of Christ 109  
His Theological Treatises 109  
Some Works of Photius in Manuscript 110  
A Censure on the Genius and Capacity of Photius 110  
Theodorus Abucara 110   

CHAP. X.  
An Account of the Controversies raised by Photius with the Church of Rome. 111  
Answers to the Heads of Accusation of the Greeks 111   

CHAP. XI.  
Several Constitutions made in Ecclesiastical Assemblies, about the Discipline of the Church 114  
The Council of Aix la Chapelle 114  
The Sixth Council of Arles 114  
The Council of Mentz 115  
The Council of Rheims 116  
The Council of Tours 116  
The Council of Chalons 116  
The Council of Aix la Chapelle, in 816 117  
The Council of Celichith in England 117  
The Council of Aix la Chapelle, in 817. 118  
The Council of Thionville 118  
The Capitularies of Lewis the Godly 118  
The Sixth Council of Paris 119  
The Council of Aix la Chapelle in 836. 120  
The Council of Thionville, in 844. 121  
The Council of Vernevil 121  
The Council of Beauvais 121  
The Councils of Meaux and Paris 121  
The Capitularies of Charles the Bald 122  
The Council of Mentz, in 847. 124  
The Council of Pavia 125  
The Council of Soissons 126  
The Council of Verbery 127  
The Council of Rome under Leo IU. 127  
The Third Council of Valence 121  
The Council of Quercy 129  
The Council of Metz in 859. 129  
The Council of Savoniers 129  
The Council of Coblentz 130  
The Council of Toul 130  
The Council of Worms 131  
The Council of Douzy 132  
The Council of Ravenna 132  
The Council of Troy's 133  
The Council of Fismes 134  
The Council of Cologne 134  
The Council of Mentz 134  
The Council of Metz 135  
The Council of Vienna 135  
The Council of Tribur 136  
The Council of Nantes 138  
A Letter from the Clergy of Ravenna to Charles the Younger 139  
A Letter of the Bishops of Germany to John VIII. 139   

CHAP. XII.  
The Constitutions of some Bishops, and Collections of Canons, concerning the Discipline of the Church 141  
Hatto, Abbot of Angia Dives 141  
Agobardus Archbishop of Lions 142  
Amolo, or Amulo, a Deacon of the Church of Lions 150  
Adelardus Abbot of Corbie 151  
Ansegisus Abbot of St. Wandrillus 151  
Halitgarius Bishop of Cambray 151  
Isaac Bishop of Langres 151  
Herard Archbishop of Tours 151  
Wauterius, or Gauterius, Bishop of Orleans 151  
Wulfadus, Archbishop of Bourges 152  
Riculphus Bishop of Soissons 152  
Elias Bishop of Jerusalem 152  
Luitbertus Archbishop of Metz 152  
Regino Abbot of Prom 153  
Auxilius Ordained Priest by Pope Formosus 153   

CHAP. XIII.  
Certain Questions about the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church 157  
Amalarius Fortunatus Archbishop of Triers 157  
Jesse Bishop of Amiens 157  
Odilbert Archbishop of Milan 157  
Theodolphus Bishop of Orleans 157  
Leidradus Archbishop of Lions 157  
Amalarius, a Deacon of Metz 158  
Rabanus, or Herbanus, Archbishop of Mentz 160  
Walafridus Strabo, Abbot of Richenou 166   

CHAP. XIV.  
Orders and Constitutions relating to a Monastic Life, made by the Authors of this Age 168  
Benedict Abbot of Aniana 168  
Ardo Smaragdus, a Scholar of St. Benedict 168  
Hildemarus a Monk 168  
Lupus, Abbot of Ferrara 169   

CHAP. XV.  
Commentaries upon the Holy Scripture, Written in the Ninth Century 173  
The Nature of the Commentaries upon the H. Scriptures, composed in the Ninth Century 173  
The Commentaries of Florus Deacon of Lions 173  
His other Writings 173  
Commentaries of Haymo Bishop of Halberstadt 173  
His other Works 174  
Commentaries of Angelomus a Monk of Fulda 174  
Commentaries of Sedulius 174  
Commentaries of Druthmarus, a Monk of Corbie 174  
Commentaries of Remigius of Auxerre 174   

CHAP. XVI.  
The History of the POPES that enjoyed the Holy See during the Ninth Century 175  
Stephen IV. 175  
Paschal I 175  
Eugenius II. 175  
Valentinus 175  
Gregory IV. 175  
Sergius II. 175  
Leo IV. 175  
Benedict III. 176  
Nicholas I 176  
Adrian II. 179  
John VIII. 180  
Marinus [187]  
Adrian III. ibid.  
Stephen V ibid.  
Formosus [188]  
Stephen VI ibid.  
Romanus ibid.   

CHAP. XVII.  
The History of the Lives and Martyrologies of the Saints in this Century 189  
Sergius 189  
Eginhardus 189  
Theganus 189  
Petrus Sicilicus 189  
Anastasius Bibliothecarius 189  
The Anonymous Author of the Liber Synodicus 190  
Michael Syncellus 190  
Methodius 190  
Hilduinus Abbot of S. Medard, etc. 190  
David Nicetas Paphlago 191  
Leo the Wise, Emperor of the East 191  
Theophanes Cerameus, Bishop of Tauromenium 191  
Georgius Ca●●ophyla● 191  
Ludgerus, Bishop of Munster 191  
Aegis, Abbot of Fulda 191  
Vufinus Boetius 〈◊〉 of Poitiers 191  
Hermenricus Abbot of Elwange● 191  
Eulogius Martyr 191  
Alvarius 192  
Herricus, a Monk of St. Germane at Auxerre 192  
Anscharius, 〈◊〉 Monk of Corbey 192  
Rudolphus, a 〈◊〉 of Fulda 19●  
Iso, a Monk of St. Gallus 19●  
Alfridus, Bishop of Munster, and Orthegrinus 〈◊〉 Monk of 〈◊〉. 192  
Ermentarius Abbot of Noicmontier 192  
Milo, a Monk of St. Amandus' 193  
Aimonius, a Monk of St. German de Prez 193  
Abbo, a Monk of S. German de Prez 193  
Wolfadus, a Monk of Hattennede 193  
Hugbaldus, a Monk of S. Amandus' 193  
Alfredus King of England 194  
Rembertus, Archbishop of Bremen 194  
Herimbertus, a Monk of Mount Cassin 194  
Almanus, a Monk of Hautivilliers 194  
Adelinus, Bishop of Seez 194  
Otfredus, a Monk of Weissemburg 194  
Aldrevaldus, a Monk of Fleury 194  
Asserius, Bishop of Sherburn 194  
Florus, a Deacon of Lions 194  
Wandelbert, a Monk of Pr●● 194  
Rabanus of Mentz 194  
Ado Archbishop of Vienna 194  
Usuardus, a Monk of S. Germane de Pre● 195  
Gildas 195  
Conclusion 195   

A Chronological Table of the Ecclesiastical History of the Ninth Age of the Church.  
A Chronological Table of the Ecclesiastical Authors that flourished in the Ninth Century.  
A Table of the Works of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the Ninth Century.  
A Table of the Acts, Letters, and Canons of Council held in this Century.  
A Table of the Writings of Ecclesiastical Authors, disposed according to the Matters they Treat on.  
An Alphabetical Table of the Ecclesiastical Authors in this Century.  
An Alphabetical Table of the Councils held in this Century.  
An Alphabetical Table of the principal Matters contained in this Volume.    
AN HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSIES AND OTHER Ecclesiastical Affairs, Transacted in the CHURCH In the Ninth Age.  

CHAP. I.  
Containing an Account of what passed in the Eastern and Western Churches at the beginning of the Ninth Century about the Use and Worship of Images.  
IN the beginning of the Ninth Century the Greek or Eastern Church enjoyed Peace, and the 
The State of the Greek Church.  Worship of Images was received by the greatest part of the Members of it. The Emperor Nicephorus had chosen a Person of his own Name Patriarch of Constantinople in the year 806, who being of the same Judgement with the Emperor in the use of Images, joined with him in maintaining and upholding their Worship. Some little differences there were between them and Theodorus Studita about the restauration of Joseph, the Steward of the Church of Constantinople, who had been deposed by the Patriarch Tarasius, Nicephorus' Predecessor, but they were soon buried by the Death of the Emperor Nicephorus, which happened in the year 811; for Michael Curopalates, his Son-in-Law and Successor, made up the Breach between Theodorus, Joseph Archbishop of Thessalonica, and Nicephorus. The Peace of the Church being thus restored again, the Emperor and Nicephorus unanimously used their utmost endeavours to promote Image-worship, and root out some relics of the Manichees-Heresie, yet remaining in the East. But the State of Affairs was much changed by the Death of Michael, whom Leo Armeniacus having slain, possessed himself of his Throne. This Emperor was a favourer of the 
* Image-Breakers, or Opposers of Image-worship.  Iconoclasts, who having been much kept under, and scarce daring to appear after the Death of Constantinus Copronymus, made use of their Interest with him, and procured the banishment of their most inveterate Enemies, Nicephorus, Theodorus Studita, Nicetas, and several others, who were Zealous Patrons of Image-worship. After the Death of Leo, Michael, surnamed Balbus, who succeeded him in 820, mitigated the severity used against the Patrons of Images in the last Reign, and suffered several of them to return from their Exile, seeking out all fit means to bring the Iconoclasts and them to an Agreement, for which end he summoned both Parties to a Council. But the Image-worshippers refused to come to any Conference with their Adversaries, and boldly required him to restore the Bishops of their Judgement to their Sees again, and to depose the Iconoclasts in possession of them. Michael hearing this insolent demand was very angry, and immediately declared, that he would have all Images removed out of the City of Constantinople, which he had hitherto permitted, but his resolution died with his passion, and he left all Men at liberty to worship Images, or not, as their Opinion was; yet he put out a Decree forbidding several Abuses then commonly practised in the Adoration of Images, as to remove Crosses out of the Churches, and put Images in their places, to adore the Images themselves, to adorn the Statues with clothes, to accept them as Godfathers and Godmothers to their Children in the administration of Baptism, to cut off the Hair of those that professed a Monastic Life over them, to mingle their Colours with the Elements and deliver them to the Communicants, to put the Body of J. C. between their Arms, and celebrate the Holy Mysteries in their presence in their Houses. And that this Edict might take the better effect, he commanded by the same, that the Images which stood in low places should be removed, and those that stood more high should be permitted to stand, and that they might be only of an Historical use, and not be adored by the more weak and ignorant, he ordered, that no Tapers should be burnt, nor Incense offered in honour to them. Michael having thus published this Decree, was very desirous to have it approved by 
Council of Paris.  the Western Church, and for that end resolved to send his Ambassadors to Rome with rich Presents; and that he might be the better received by the Pope, he made his application to Lewis, surnamed Benignus, by them desiring him to second his Petition, and assist him with his Interest. This Emperor thinking this a fit opportunity of settling the Peace of the Church, sent two Ambassadors, Trearcphus and Adegarius, to Rome with the Deputies of the Greek Emperor, to treat of this Affair. But the Romans could not be brought to compliance, no not by the Ministers of Lewis, whereupon they requested, and obtained leave of the Pope, that their Master might have this Question debated among his Bishops. With this Grant they returned into France to Lewis, who soon after in 824, summoned a Council of the most Learned and Judicious Bishops of his Realm, by whom this Question was throughly canvassed and examined. They first read Pope Adrian's Letter to Constantine and Irine upon this subject, in which they found, that he did justly condemn those who demolished and defaced the Images, but thought that he had given too much encouragement to the Adoration of them. Then they reexamined what the Synod of Nice had done by means of that Letter, and found, that in the Acts of their Council they had not only established the Worship of Images, but had commanded them to be called Holy, by which they seemed to them to attribute some Holiness to them. They also read over the Book which Charles the Great had caused to be written against this Council, to which though Pope Adrian had given an Answer, yet they saw so little of solidity in it, that they looked upon nothing in it worthy of their notice, but the Name it bore. They complain of the Rigour and inflexible Humour of the Churchmen in Rome and Italy, commend the Moderation of the Emperor, in avoiding the Heats of both Parties, and labouring so earnestly for the Peace of the Church. They commend the Prudence of the Ambassadors, who had obtained that that Question might be debated in France. They judged, there was no other way to make their design successful, but to make use of the Imperial Authority in settling what they should upon the most impartial Examination find to be true by plain Text of Holy Scripture, and the Judgement of the Fathers, which they would do modestly and sincerely.  
In the last place, they made a large Collection of Passages of the Fathers, which they divided into 15 Chapters. The first was against those that held, that Images ought to be wholly removed out of Churches, and Pictures blotted out which were engraven on the Holy Vessels of Ministration. The 2d contains several Authorities out of S. Gregory the Great, showing what profitable use may be made of Images. The 3d is several Testimonies of S. Austin against those that worshipped Images, and believed that they had any Holiness or Virtue in them. The 4th contains several other Quotations against the Worship of Images. The 5th proves by several Authorities, that Saints and their Relics may have some honour given 'em, but not be adored, from whence they infer, that it is not lawful to burn Incense to Images. The 6th contains some Testimonies against them that defend the Worship of Images by the common usage of them, which hath been lately introduced. In the 7th they undertake to prove by several Passages of the Fathers, that even any Honour ought to be denied to Images, when it may give an offence to the weak. In the 8th and 9th they produce some Explications of the Fathers, to prove that the Text in Genesis, where 'tis said, That Jacob worshipped the Top of his Son Joseph's Staff; and another in the Kings, where 'tis said, That Nathan worshipped David, do prove nothing for the Worship of Images. The 10th contains a Testimony of S. Augustine's concerning the Holy Vessels. The 11th contains one touching the Cherubins. The 12th contains some, which evince that Adoration is due to God only. The 13th contains several about the Cross, which show that a great difference is to be observed between that and Images, which is confirmed in the 14th by the practice of the Church, which hath always given some Respect and Reverence to the Cross, by making use of that Sign in Benedictions, Consecrations, and Exorcisms. In the 15th they exhort the Iconoclasts, who were for destroying all Images, not to take occasion from the former proofs to deface, beat down, or deride Images, since there is no Worship given, or intended to them; and to confirm the truth of these two Points, they recite several Passages of the Fathers. Last of all they compose a Copy of two Letters, the one to be sent in the Name of the Emperor Lewis to the Pope, to exhort him to further the Peace of the Church, by removing those abuses which had raised so many troubles in the East. In it, some were for intimating that he Worshipped Images, but others would not hear of it. The other was such a form as they wished, That the Pope would write to the Greek Emperors. It gins with a long Exhortation to them, to submit to the Church of Rome, and pay all due respect to it; Then it advises the Emperors to restore the Peace of the Church, by permitting Images to be used, but not worshipped. And lastly, produces some most plain and remarkable Passages of the Fathers, to confirm and establish that usage of them, and none else, as Lawful.  
Lewis the Kind sent this Consultation, and these Acts, to Pope Eugenius, by Jeremiah Archbishop of Sens, and Ionas Bishop of Orleans, and desired him in his Letter to confer with them about the Embassy, which he was to send into Greece. And that he might not give the Pope the least offence, which might serve for a pretence to fly off from this design, he says, That he did not send those Papers to him, to impose Laws upon him, or direct him, as a Master, but barely to represent to him the Judgement of the Church of France, and contribute all he could to the Peace of the Church Universal. He recommends them to him, prays him to accept them favourably, and beseeches him to use his utmost endeavours to reunite the Greek Church, and to act with a great deal of Prudence and Caution in so difficult and nice a Point as this is. He desires also, that his Ambassadors might go along with the Pope's into the East.  
At the same time he gave the Bishops, whom he sent Ambassadors to the Pope some private Instructions, in which he charges them to show the Pope the Collections of Authorities made by the Council held at Paris, to examine the business of Images according to the permission he had given them. He commands them to manifest his design to the Pope about Images, to treat of that Question with all Candour and Moderation, and to be very careful that they did not provoke him by opposing him too plainly. Lastly, He order them that if they could not complete the business, when they had done all they could, they should ask him whether they might not go with his Ambassadors into Greece, to which if he consented, they should immediately send him word, that at their return they might find Amalarius and Halitgarius, who before they went should meet them at the place where they were to Embark.  
What the resolution of the Pope was in this Affair is not known, but Lewis the Kind did send Halitgarius Bishop of Cambray, and Aufridus Abbot of Nonantula, to the Emperor Michael, who received them kindly. Nevertheless, it doth not appear that their Negotiation had any good effect, for things remained almost in the same state in Greece as long as Michael Balbus lived, and after his Death his Son Theophilus used great severity against the Image-Worshippers. But the Empress Theodora, the Wife of Theophilus, becoming Mistress of the Empire [in the Minority of her Son Michael] after the Death of her Husband, which happened in 842, called a Council at Constantinople, in which the Worship of Images was again restored, the Iconoclasts condemned, and Methodius made Patriarch of Constantinople in the room of John, who was of the Party of the Iconoclasts. And thus the Controversy of Image-Worship was ended in the East.  
In the West, Claudius Clemens, a Spanish Priest, and Scholar of Foelix Orgelitanus, and afterwards 
Cl. Clemens an Enemy to Images.  Bishop of Turin, imitating the Conduct of Serenus Bishop of Marseilles, took up a resolution not only to give no Honour to Images himself, but to remove them out of all the Churches of his Diocese, not sparing so much as the Cross itself. Theodemirus, [a Benedictine] Abbot, much disliked the Actions of this Bishop, being persuaded that Images, as S. Gregory taught him, were to be retained in Churches without giving them any adoration. Whereupon he wrote a Letter to him, exhorting him to change his Opinion and Management. Claudius was so far from following his Advice, that he wrote a defence of his Proceed, wherein at large he confutes what he had said, and disproves the use of Images he contended for. We have nothing remaining of this Letter, but what Ionas Bishop of Orleans, and Dungalus the Monk, have preserved in their Confutations of it, by which it appears, that it was Written with much briskness and closeness, full of Ingenuity and Subtilty. [Melchior Goldastus, in the end of his Collection de Cultu Imaginum, hath put all the pieces of this Letter together, and in a small Treatise put them forth.]  
This Writing of Claudius' Bishop of Turin, being brought to the Court of Lewis the Kind, this 
Ionas Bishop of Orleans' Judgement of Images.  Prince commanded the most Learned men, which he had about him, to examine it, who found great fault with it, and made a Collection of the most observable Assertions, which the Emperor sent to Ionas Bishop of Orleans to confute, as having several Errors and Falsities in them. Ionas began that Work, but Claudius Dying before he had finished it, he laid it aside, believing that his Error would be Buried with him. But Ionas hearing afterwards, that he had left some Writings behind him, wherein he revived the Error of Arrius, and that his Opinion did begin to spread in his Country, he thought himself obliged to finish that Work. He divided it into three parts; In the first, he maintains the use of Images, the Invocation, Intercession and Worship of Saints, and the Veneration that is due to their Relics. He confesses, that the French did not Worship Images, reproved the Greeks, whom they supposed to Adore them, and asserts, That it is absurd to represent the Divine Nature under Corporal Figures. In the second, he maintains not only the Use, but Veneration of the Cross. In the last, he defends the Pilgrimages which were made to Rome out of Devotion, and answers, in the Name of Theodemirus, to that which Claudius of Turin had objected, viz. If that were a piece of Penance to go to Rome, why had he received, and did retain in his Monastery 140 Monks, who entered thither only to do Penance? He answered, say I, that there were several ways of doing Penance, and many different States. Men may either go into a Monastery, or go to Rome, with a design of doing Penance; but those that have once taken upon them a Monastic Life, aught to observe the Rule, and live according to the Order of S. Benedict, keeping continually in their Monastery. In these Books, he sets down the very Words that had been taken out of the Letter of Claudius of Turin, and after he answers them, and confirms his Answers with the most solid Proofs he could find, as the Testimonies of S. Jerom, S. Austin, S. Gregory, the Examples of the Saints, most evident Miracles, and the Practice of the Ancient Church. [This Work is Printed at Colon 1554. in the Haeresiology at Basil 1556. in Orthodoxogr. Tom. 2. p. 1526. and in Biblioth. Patrum, Paris 2d Edition, p. 688. Tom. 4. Two other Treatises also are extant written by Ionas, viz. De Institutione Laicorum, lib. 3. & de Institutione Regia, lib. 1. in Dacherius' Spicileg. Tom. 1. & 5. p. 57]  
Not long after the Deacon Dungal [a Monk of S. Dennis at Paris] wrote another Treatise against Claudius of Turin's Book, and Dedicated it to the Emperor Lewis and Lotharius. In it he opposeth 
Dungal's Treatise of Images.  three Points, which that Bishop had delivered in his Treatise, That we ought to have no Images; That we ought not to Worship the Cross; And that 'tis of no advantage to visit the Churches where the Bodies of the Saints are laid, or Honour their Relics. He alleges a great number of Quotations of the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, as also of the Christian Poets, as S. Paulinus and Tradentius, to confute these Errors; and in the conclusion demands, how a Bishop, who hates the Cross of our Lord, can Baptise, Consecrate the Chrism, Confirm, Bless or Consecrate any thing, or Celebrate the Communion, since none of these can be done without making the Sign of the Cross? And how he can celebrate Divine Service without Invoking the Saints, and Honouring their Relics? In this Treatise of Dungals there is little of his own, being nothing but a Collection of Passages out of Ecclesiastical Writers; what is his, is written in an harsh and unpleasant Style. ['Tis extant in Biblioth. Patrum, Tom. 14. p. 196.]  
Agobardus, Archbishop of Lions, seems not so great a Favourer of Images, for tho', indeed, at 
The Opinion of Agobardus about Images.  first, he seemed to oppose the Adoration of them only, against which he alleges several places out of the Fathers; yet afterwards he maintains, That we ought not to make use of these Visible Signs to represent things Spiritual by, nor give them a Relative Worship in respect to the Saints represented by them. He affirms, that in the Ancient Church, the Images of Jesus Christ, and of the Apostles, were preserved rather for the love they bore to them, and to put them in mind of them, than out of Religion, or to Adore them. He is of Opinion, that it were fit, upon this occasion, wholly to suppress them, as being the Causes of much Superstition; in which he differs from the Judgement of the Church of France. [These things he chief asserts in his Book de Picturis, & Imaginibus, which, together with his other Treatises, are Printed at Paris, 1605. 80. by the care of Papyrius Massionus, who found the MS. by chance in a Bookbinders Shop. After which, his Works were Printed again at Paris with Balurius' Notes, 1666. 80. 2 Vol. an Accurate Edition, but he endeavours to weaken his Authority against Image-Worship. This Edition is put in the Biblioth. Patrum, Tom. 14. p. 234.]  
Walafridus Strabo, a Monk of Fulda, who wrote some time after Agobardus, speaks of Images 
Wal. Serabo's Judgement about Images.  with much more Moderation, for he not only approves the use of them, but allows some respect to be given to them. He observes, that we ought not to Honour them with a direct Worship, but he would have us not to contemn them. He distinguishes them into three sorts, some which signify some Mysteries, as the Ornaments of the Tabernacle and Temple, others which serve to perpetuate the remembrance of Sacred History, and others, which are made to impress upon our Hearts the love of those Persons which they represent, as the Images of Jesus Christ and the Saints. Whereupon he says, that the Devotion with which the Faithful are touched, when they look upon and contemplate them, is not to be blamed, since they draw so much profit from them; but he condemns the Superstition of those who honour them with Religious Worship. That as some Worship them more than they need, so others reject them imprudently, as a kind of Idolatry; That this Question had stirred up great troubles among the Greeks. That in the time of Pope Gregory II. the Emperor Constantine had removed all Images, but that under Gregory III. there had been a Council called at Rome against the Heresy, in which it was appointed, That the Images should be set up again in the Churches according to the Ancient usage. Lastly, That the complaint of the Greeks having been brought into France, had been confuted by a Synodical Writing by the Order of Lewis the Kind. That Claudius of Turin, who had revived that Error, died before he received a Confutation, That Christians being well Instructed, that none ought to be Worshipped but God, and that the Supreme Honour, that is due to him, can't be communicated to Saint's o● Martyrs, whom they Invoke as Intercessors with him. These lawful and moderate Honours of Images are not to be rejected wholly. Non sunt omnimodis honesti & moderati Imaginum honores abjiciendi. That as we do not demolish Temples, altho' we believe God to be every where, and that he doth not dwell in them, so we ought not to deface Pictures as useless and noxious, because we are persuaded that we ought not to Worship them. In fine, he says, that they have many advantages; They are the Books of the Ignorant, and such as can't Read, and teach them those Histories that they could hardly know any other way. He concludes, that we ought to have and love Images, and not render them useless by contemning them, lest the irreverence which we show them, should reflect upon them that are represented by them. Nevertheless, we ought to be careful not to corcorrupt our faith by an excessive worship of them, for fear lest by rendering too great honour to things Corporeal, we should give just ground of suspicion, that we do not sufficiently consider things Spiritual. [These things are spoken in his Treatise De Divinis Officiis, which is Printed at Mentz 1549, at Paris 1610, and in Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 15. Other small Treatises of his are extant in Surius & Canisius Antiq. Lection. Tom. 6. & Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 15.]  
After this time I do not find that there was any Contest in the West about the Use and Worship of Images, which henceforward became common in France, Germany, and other Places. Let us now speak of the Authors chief engaged in this Controversy.  
Nicephorus was but a Layman when he was chosen Patriarch of Constantinople in 806, after the 
Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople.  Death of Tarasius. He had passed some part of his life at Court, but had been for some time before his Election retired from the World, yet was no Monk. He was no sooner in possession of the Patriarchal Dignity, but through complaisance to the Emperor Nicephorus, he restored in a Council Joseph the Steward, who had Crowned Theodota, whom Copronymus had Married, having Divorced his lawful Wife. Theodorus Studita and Plato violently opposed this Act, whereupon the Patriarch held a Council in 809, in which Joseph was not only confirmed in his place, but the second Marriage of Constantine was declared lawful by Dispensation, and every one that should maintain the contrary, was Anathematised. This Decision raised a great Quarrel between Nicephorus and Theodorus, who together with several Monks separated themselves from his Communion, and treated him as an Heretic, which Division continued till the Death of Nicephorus the Emperor But the Emperor Michael put an end to this Schism, and made them Friends upon condition, that Joseph should be displaced, and that the Monks for the future should obey the Patriarch in all things that were not manifestly contrary to the Faith and Law of God. From this time Nicephorus and Theodorus Studita were perfectly good friends, and suffered Persecution together for the Worship of Images. Nicephorus was driven out of his Church and banished in 814 by the Authority of Leo Armeniacus; and although under the Emperor Michael Balbus, many that were banished had liberty to return, yet he was allowed that favour, but remain 14 years in banishment, in which he died in 828. The Works which he hath left us are these that follow.  
The first is a Letter written in 811 to Pope Leo III. which contains a long Confession of Faith. Baronius hath Printed it in Latin in his Annals, and 'tis also Printed in Greek with the Acts of the Council of Nice, and in Greek and Latin in Zonoras', and in the Collection of the Counsels. In it Nicephorus speaks of himself with much humility and abasement; He says, that having passed the former part of his life at Court, and in Worldly Affairs, he had retreated into solitude, out of which he was drawn against his Will and made Patriarch of Constantinople, that finding himself burdened with the Weight of so great a Charge, he begged the Prayers of the Bishop of Rome, and all the Faithful of his Church: He commends the Piety and Faith of the Church of Rome, but adds, that New Rome was not at all inferior to Old in the purity of her Faith. To make proof of this Assertion, he joins a Confession of Faith to his Letter, in which, after he hath explained the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, and acknowledged the Invocation and Intercession of Saints, and Worship of Images, he declares, that he receives the 7 first Councils and the Doctrine of the Fathers. After this he excuses himself to the Pope, that he did not write to him sooner, and says that the cause was, that he was made to believe that the Church of Rome was at Enmity with that of Constantinople, but now the cause of the Division being removed, he doubted not but there would be a perfect agreement between the two Churches. In the conclusion he recommends to the Pope Michael the Archbishop of Philadelphia, who carried this Letter and some Presents with it. [This Letter is extant in Greek and Latin at Heidelberg, 1591., put out by Cornelius, and with Zonoras' at Paris, 1620.  
Nicephorus' Abridgement of History is his most considerable Work, it gins at the Death of the Emperor Mauritius, and ends with the Reign of the Empress Irene, [ad an. 769.] It hath been published in Greek and Latin by Petavius, and Printed in Latin and Greek in Octavo in 1616, and since put into the Bizantine History, Tom. 1. [It hath been since put out with Theoph. Simoccitta's History, Paris 1648.]  
Some attribute to him also a Chronology, which was heretofore Translated by Anastatius Bibliothecarius, [into Latin, and inserted into his History:] it contains a Catalogue of all the Patriarches, Kings, and Princes of the Jews, Kings of Persia and Macedon, Roman Emperors according to the Order of their Successors, the Years of their Lives and Reigns, the Names of some of the Empresses, Kings of Israel, and Jewish High-Priests, the Names and Years of the Patriarches of the Churches of Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. This Work is very defective if it be Nicephorus', some other Person hath added the Names of some of the Emperors, and some Patriarches which lived after his Death: At first there appeared only a Translation attributed to Anastasius; afterward Camerarius made another Version, upon which Contius, a Lawyer at Bruges, made a Comment. Scaliger Printed it in Greek at the end of his Edition of Eusebius' Chronicon, [or Thesaurus Temporum] and last of all F. Goar Printed them in Greek and Latin at Paris, 1652, with Sycellus' Chronicon. At the beginning of this Work is prefixed a Book, Entitled, Schometria, which contains a Catalogue of Canonical [Ecclesiastical] and Apocryphal Books, but 'tis not certain, that it is the Work of this Patriarch, [our Learned Bishop of Chester, Dr. Pearson, proves, that 'tis not Nicephorus', but some other Authors coeval with him in his Vind. Ignat. p. 1.]  
He made also four Treatises against the Iconoclasts, of which we have only a Latin Version composed by Turrian, which is extant in Canisius' Collection, [Tom. 4. p. 253.] and in the Biblioth Patrion, [Tom. 14.] In the first, he supposes the Iconoclasts to have wrong Sentiments of the Incarnation, from whence he concludes, that they are justly condemned, because they have not followed universally the Doctrine of the General Councils, because they have demolished the Temples, beat down the Images, and treated them as Idolaters which worship them, insomuch, that they have been the cause of the effusion of much Christian Blood; and lastly, because they have separated themselves from the Church. In the 2d Tract, he endeavours to prove by 10 Reasons, that the Image of Jesus Christ ought to have more respect than the Cross. In the 3d Book he proves the Worship of Images by the Example of the Cherubims over the Ark. In the last, he shows, that the Image of Jesus Christ may be form and painted, because according to his Humane Nature he is bounded, and finite.  
He hath also 3 Books which he terms Antirrheticks, against the Council held at Constantinople under Constantinus Copronymus, which abolished the use of Images, but we have only some Fragments of this Work put out by F. Combefis in his Second Volume of his Addition to the Biblioth, Patrum, [at Paris, 1648.] Lastly, we meet with several Canons which bear the Name of Nicephorus among the Greek Canonists. Glycas citys 51, which proves, that he made a great number. Cotelerius hath published a Collection of 37, and another of 9, [inter Monument. Eccles. Graec. Tom. 3. p. 445.] These are the Contents of them, 1. If a Person by chance washes a Cloth consecrated to the service of the Altar, it loseth not its consecration; 2. A Man that hath been twice Married shall do Penance two years, and he that hath been Married thrice, 5 years; 3. He that remains but a small time within the Close of a Church shall not be punished for it, but he that continues long there shall suffer the punishments in that case provided; 4. The Gifts bestowed upon the Church by dead Men may be received, though they died intestate, if it be known that it was their design and intentions; 5. If the Feast of the Annunciation happen upon the Thursday or Friday 
* The week before Easter was called the Holy Week, because of the continued Devotion of it. It was also called the Great Week, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. in Gen.  in the Holy Week, the Christians might upon that day eat Fish and drink Wine; 6. He that is consecrated an Abbot, and is a Priest, may ordain Readers and Subdeacons' in his Monastery; 7. He may not ordain any Person who hath lived viciously in his youth, although he be become a virtuous Man, because he that is consecrated to God must be without scandalous faults; 8. Such as are born of Concubines, or of 2d and 3d Marriages, may be ordained; 9 The Communion may be given to a sick Person, who is near death, although he be not fasting; 10. Bending of the Knee may be used in saluting upon Sundays from the Passover to Pentecost, but the ordinary kneeling may not be used; 11. A Priest doth not sin, if he consecrate the Sacrament, or burn a Taper for 3 Persons at once; 12. He may not consecrate a Chalice in the Vestry; 13. A Priest may not consecrate the Sacrament without hot Water, unless in case of absolute necessity; 14. A Monk who hath left his Profession, may resume it again, without using the accustomed Prayers; 15. Religious Persons may go within the Rails of the Altar to light the Tapers, or brush the Altar; 16. Monk's may not labour upon Good-Friday, that they may not have a pretence of breaking the fast; 17. A Monk may forsake his Monastery in 3 cases, 1. if the Abbot be an Heretic, 2. if any Woman be admitted to it, or 3. if they teach the Children of Tradesmen in it; 18. Because these Youngsters will divulge the Secrets of the Monastery; 19 Monks that are put under Penances and Censures, may eat and pray with the rest, and have part of the Eulogies and Consecrated Bread; 20. On the Fasts of the Apostles and S. Phillp the Monks in the Monasteries shall not eat till night, but they that labour may eat afternoon, and sup at night; 21. If a Nun have been forced by the Barbarians, if she hath lived an orderly and commendable life before, she shall be discharged after 40 days Penance, but if she hath lived a lewd and scandalous life, she shall undergo the Penance of an Adulteress; 22. He that hath put on the Habit of a Monk for any Temporal Ends, as to exempt himself from bearing Arms, and afterwards discovers his hypocrisy, shall be put to Penance six score days, and afterwards may be admitted to the Communion; 23. Young Monks, who forsake their Monastery, must not be admitted to the Communion; 24. An Abbot ought not to pull off the Cowl from the Monks, nor endeavour it; 25. A Monk that hath put off his Habit, and will not resume it, ought not to be received to the Communion; 26. If a Sick Man desires Baptism, or a Monk's Habit, they ought to be given him immediately; 27. A Monk that is a Priest ought not to celebrate the Mass without his Cloak; 28. A Confessor who hath had secret Sins discovered to him, aught to keep those secret Sinners from the Communion, mildly advising them to Repentance, and Prayer, and impose a suitable Penance upon them, but not prohibit them from coming into the Church, nor defame them; 29. As to Adulterers, Man-slayers, and other Notorious Sinners, who confess their Crimes, they must be kept from the Communion, endure a long Penance, and not suffered to remain in the Church longer than the Prayers for the Catechumen; but if their Sins are public, they must go through the several degrees of Penance commanded by the Laws of the Church; 30. If a Layman do voluntarily confess his Sins, the Confessor may dispense with part of his Penance; 31. A Priest by the permission of his Bishop may use the Ceremonies of setting up the Cross; 32. The Sacrament may not be given to Usurers. 33. Monk's must fast on Wednesday and Friday in Quinquagesima-week, but after they have eaten of the Foreconsecrated Elements, they ought to eat a little Cheese in opposition to the Heresy of the Jacobites and Tetradites. 34. If a Man that hath a Concubine will neither put her away nor marry her with the Blessing of the Church, his Offerings may not be received by the Church. 35. If a Monk leaves his Habit, Eats Flesh, Marries, and will not reform or repent, he must be Excommunicated, taken by force, and being put into his Habit, shall be shut up in his Monastery. 36. A Man that hath been guilty of Fornication ought not to be Ordained. 37. Such Persons as are reputed to be Fornicators need not to be avoided, but such as are known and proved such. These are the Canons of the first Collection, and the second are these, 1. Church's Consecrated by Heretics are to be accounted no better than Common Houses; and therefore, though there be Singing before the Cross, yet there ought to be no Service at the Altar, burning Incense, Prayers, nor Lighting of Candles and Tapers. The 2d is about the Ceremonies in the restoration of a Monk, who resumes his Habit which he had once left. The 3d declares, That we ought not to receive the Sacrament from the Hands of a Priest that doth not Fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. The four next are in the precedent Collection. The 8th says, That a Priest, Deacon, or Reader, Deposed, if he become a Monk, may say Grace in the Monastery. The last is the same with the 25th of the former Collection.— Leunclacius in his Collection of the Greek and Roman Laws, hath Published 17 Canons attributed to Nicephorus, which are all in the former Collection, except the 2d which forbids Travelling on Sundays, the third, which rejects some Apocryphal Books, the ninth, which forbids Travelling in the Week after Easter, and Singing the Hymn called Beati Maculati the Saturday which is before Quasi-modo, the twelfth, which inflicts the Penance of Manslayers upon him that strikes his Father, the thirteenth, which allows Monks to Baptise, and the sixteenth, which says, That 'tis Lawful for Laymen to Baptise Infants when a Priest cannot be had.  
After these Canons, Catelerius hath also Printed a Canonical Letter of Nicephorus', wherein he answers several Questions of Discipline propounded to him. The Questions and Answers are as follow. Quest. 1. Whether it be Lawful to Communicate, Eat or Sing, with those Priests which have been Ordained at Rome, Naples, or in Lombary, without Proclamation, or Title? He Answers, Yea, if it be through Necessity, and could not be done otherwise. Quest. 2. Whether they ought to receive Priests Ordained in Sicily out of the Province? He answers, Yes, for the same Reason. Quest. 3. Whether they may communicate with those Bishops in Prayer and sing, who had communion with Heretics, and go into their Churches? He answers, No, in no wise. Quest. 4. Whether they may do it if the Churches be not possessed by Heretics, but Catholic Bishops? He answers, Yes, provided that the Catholic Bishop do solemnly open, and call Assemblies in them. Quest. 5. Whether the Orthodox Christians may go into the Churchyards, where the Bodies of the Saints jye, and Pray to them, when the Churchyards are in the possession of Heretics? He answers, No, unless in case of Necessity, or to Honour the Saints Relics. Quest. 6. How those Monks ought to be treated who have been invested in that Possession by Heretics? He answers, They ought to be received to Communion by an Orthodox Priest after they have done their Penance. Quest. 7. How those Priests and Monks are to be dealt with who have Subscribed to Heresy? He answers, They ought to be received when they have done their full Penance. Quest. 8. Whether they may communicate with those Monks who hold communication with Heretics? He answers, No. Quest. 9 Whether they ought to be put upon Penance, who have Eaten but once only with Heretics? He answers, They ought to do Penance, and then they may be admitted with the ordinary Prayers and Ceremonies. Quest. 10. Whether such Laymen, as have Subscribed to Heresy, and Communicated with Heretics, may Eat with the Orthodox Laity? He answers, They may not, till they have done Penance. Quest. 11. Whether Men may be Baptised by a Priest, who hath held communion with Heretics, when they cannot have an Orthodox Priest, especially in cases of danger? He answers, It is allowable for such Priests, in case of necessity, to Baptise, and Administer the Sacraments, which have been Consecrated by an unblameable Priest, to Invest Monks, to Read the Prayers at Funerals, and bless the Water at Epiphany. Quest. 12. Whether it be allowable to receive Schismatics? He answers, They ought to undergo Penance before they are received. Quest. 13. Whether a Priest, who hath been Ordained by a lapsed Bishop, may Exercise the Office of his Priesthood, after he hath done Penance, as a certain Priest in a Monastery now doth? He answers, There is no doubt at all but that he may not. Quest. 14. How they are to be dealt with who have Eaten with the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is a Heretic? He answers, They may be received, as he said before, after they have underwent the Penance imposed on them, and continue in the Order wherein they were. The Penance ought to be proportioned to the Persons and their Manners, which is sufficient, if it be undergone 80, or 120 days. Quest. 15. May Men have Society with those, who have communicated with those Priests, who have Eaten with the Patriarch, not knowing it? He answers, Their Ignorance excuses them. Quest. 16. Whether Orthodox Priests may impose Penance, as Hilarion and Enstatus have done? He answers, Priests may certainly do it, and 'tis probable Monks may do it, when there is no Priests. Quest. 17. Whether a Monk Invested, by a Deposed Priest, not knowing it, is rightly and sufficiently Consecrated? He answers, His ignorance makes him safe. This Letter was written by Nicephorus, in the place of his Exile to a Bishop of his Province, about the difficulties which then happened in communicating with the Iconoclasts.  
Photius, who had read this History of Nicephorus, passes his Judgement upon it in the 66 Vol. of his Biblioth. in this manner. His Style, saith he, hath nothing superfluous or obscure, neither too much affected, nor yet too careless in his Words and Expressions, but yet he uses such choice and elegant terms, as might well become a good Orator. He avoided all new fangled Words, and uses only the common and ancient expressions, and is very agreeable and pleasing. In fine, he might be said to have outdone all that ever wrote History before him, had not his desire of Brevity hindered him from using necessary Ornaments for such a Work.  
This Judgement of Photius is true, as to the History of Nicephorus, but the same commendation may not be given to his other Works, which have nothing in them Praiseworthy but their Method and Brevity. I except his Letter to the Pope, which is of a copious, but flat Style.  
Next to Nicephorus, Theodorus Studita is the most considerable of the Patrons of Image-Worship; He was the Scholar of S. Plata, Head of the Monastery upon Mount Olympus, who voluntarily 
Theodorus Studita.  resigned the Government of it to him in 795. The same year Constantinus Capronymus having forced his Wife to enter upon a Religious Life, married one of her Maids of Honour named Theodotas, which Taresius the Patriarch was extremely against, tho' he did not oppose it with so much vigour as he ought, nor punished Joseph, the Monk's Steward of the Church of Constantinople, who had married them; but Plato and Theodorus declared themselves openly against the Emperor, and separated themselves from his Communion, blaming the carriage of Taresius. The greatest part of the Monks followed their example, which angered Constantine so much, that he banished Theodorus with eleven of his Monks. After the Death or this Emperor, Theodorus returned to Constantinople, but not being able to stay in his own Monastery, by reason of the Inroads of the Barbarians, he was created Abbot of the Monastery of Studa at Constantinople, which was so called from the Name of the Founder. He restored this Monastery, put in his Monks, and enjoyed it some time peaceably. But afterwards quarrelling with the Patriarch Nicephorus about the restoration of Joseph the Steward, he was Banished a second time, because he would not approve the Decision of the Synod, which declared the second Marriage of Constantine Lawful. In his Exile, he continued his opposition to that Allegation violently; he wrote to Pope Leo III. about it, and treated them that maintained it as Heretics, calling them Maechians, because they approved, or at least, tolerated Adultery. And whereas some of his Friends told him, that he could not properly impute Heresy to an Opinion that only respected Manners, he on the contrary held, That his Adversaries had made a Doctrine of it, by giving a Dispensation or Indulgence to an Adulterous Match, and pronouncing them Accursed who would not acknowledge it Lawful. They produced several Precedents of Indulgences and Dispensations; in answer to which, to show the present case to be very different from those they alleged, he wrote a Treatise of Dispensations or Indulgences. In 811 he returned from his second Exile, after the Death of the Emperor Nicephorus, and was reconciled to the Patriarch Nicephorus by the Mediation of the Emperor Michael and the Pope. In the Reign of Leo, he undertook the Defence of Image-Worship with much heat and vigour, and tho' the Emperor commanded him to be silent, yet he spoke and wrote Zealously against a Synod held by that Emperor against the Worship of Images. This was the cause of his third Exile, in which he suffered much through the Cruelty of Leo, whom he provoked by Writing to his Fellows in his Exile, and animated them to maintain their ground. In the beginning of the Reign of Michael Balbus, in 821, he had Liberty given him to return to Constantinople, but having spoken too freely, he was forced to retire for some time. At the end of his Life, he visited the Patriarch Nicephorus in his Exile, and several others. He died in the Year 826. Michael his Scholar hath written his Life, who thus speaks of his Writings. He wrote, or dictated several Works, which show, That he was enlightened by the Holy Spirit. The first was a Catechise, which he calls a small one, tho' it contains 135 Sermons spoken to his Brethren, proper for each day, of which the Sentences are choice, and Terms elegant. In them he treats of Constancy, contempt of Adversity, Perseverance in the Austerities and Exercises of a Monastic Life, resisting of Temptations, and Courage under all Accidents of Life, with great Eloquence. He hath also another Work called a large Catechism, divided into three parts, containing the Rules and Discipline of a Monastic Life. He hath also composed a Volume of Panegyrics, or Sermons upon the chief Festivals of the Year, as well those of our Lord, as those of the Virgin and St. John, whose solitary and retired Life he commends in an Hymn by itself. He hath made a Piece also in Jambick Verse, in which he describes the Creation, the Fall of the first Man, the Murder of Cain, the Life of Enoch, and of Noah. In the same Book also, he delivers an History of the Heresy of the Iconoclasts. We have 5 Books of his Letters, in which he manifests a great deal of freedom in his Discourse, Zeal for the Truth, Care of the Church, and Constancy in Adversity. Lastly, He hath made a Dogmatical Treatise, in which he confutes the Sophisms of the Iconoclasts with solid Reasons.— Of these Works, only these are come to our hands, A Latin Version of his 134 Sermons, made by Livineius, Canon of Antwerp, and Printed there by Miraeus in 1602. The Version of several of his Letters, which Baronius had out of a MS. and caused them to be Translated by Sirmondus to put into his Annals, where they may be found between the Years 795 and 826. A Sermon in Latin upon the 4th Sunday in Lent, [which is in the Biblioth. Patrum, Tom. 14.] A fragment of a Letter to Naucratius about the Heretics, [extant in Gr. and Lat. in Allatius de consensu, l. 3. c. 13.] A Letter to a Monk who had left his Monastery, Translated by Turnan. A Sermon upon S. Bartholomew, turned into Latin by Dacherius in the 3d Tome of his Spicilegium. The Life of S. Plato, Head of the Monastery of Mount Olympus, published by Surius, December 6. [or 16.] Lastly, A Doctrinal Treatise about the Worship of Images, Printed at Antwerp 1556. in Lat. and at Rome in 155●. in Gr. with a Treatise of S. John Damascene of Images. Baronius hath also Printed the Testament or Will of this Abbot [in his Annals in 826.] which contains several profitable Admonitions and Directions for his Monks, [but chief a Superstiticus Zeal for Image-Worship. It is also Printed with his Sermons at Antwerp in 1602. and in Biblioth. Patrum, Tom. 14.] In the Greek Liturgies there are several Hymns, or Songs, in Honour of the Restoration of Images, attributed to him, but they are not his, being made since the Peace was restored to the Greek Church about that subject. F. Sirmondus hath Published the Works of this Monk in Greek and Latin at the end of his own Works. His Works are useful for Monks. He wrote in a plain and easy Style. He died in the Year 826. Nou. 11. His Life was written by his Scholar Michael, part of which is Published in Baronius' Annals. [Tom. 9] The Relation of his Death made by Naucratius, who was another of his Scholars, hath been Published in Greek and Latin by F. Combefis, in Vol. 2. Auctuar. Biblioth. Patr. [Dr. Cave hath this Treatise in MS, and hath given us a Specimen of its trifling, and vain commendation of the Image-Worshippers, and in particular of Theodorus Studita, in Hist. Lit. p. 512.]  
Joseph, Archbishop of Thessalonica, was the Brother of Theodorus, and his Companion in all his 
Joseph Bishop of Thessalonica.  Troubles. He was Banished with him for opposing the Marriage of Constantinus Copronymus; the Restoration of Joseph the Steward of Constantinople; and for so zealously maintaining Image-Worship. He hath left us a Discourse in Honour of the Cross, [extant in Gretzer de Cruse, Tom. 2. p. 1200.] and an Epistle to Simeon the Monk, Printed in Baronius' Annal in 808. p. 10. [Dr. Cave, 22.]  
There was another Theodorus [Surnamed Graptus] which flourished about the same time with Studita, 
Theodorus.  and was one of the most Zealous Patrons of Image Worship; for the Defence of which, he died in Exile and Prison. He composed the Relation of a Conference of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, with Leo, Published by F. Combefis, with a Narration of the Martyrdom of himself, and Brother Theophanes, who outlived him, and was Bishop of Nicaea. There is attributed to him an Hymn in commendation of his Brother, which is found among the Greek Offices. [Theodorus also hath a Letter to Joannes Cyziconus, concerning his own and Brother's Sufferings from the Emperor Theophilus; Published also by Father Combefis, and a Book de fide Orthodoxâ contra Iconomachos, yet in MS.]  
Theosterictus, a Monk and Scholar of Nicetas, a Defender of Image-Worship, wrote the Life of 
Theosterictus.  his Master in a Panegyric, recited by Metaphrastes, [and is extant in Surius, April 3.] It contains an Abridgement of the Persecutions raised upon the account of Image Worship, from the Reign of Leo Isaurus to that of Michael Balbas. These are the chief of the Greek Authors which wrote in the beginning of this Age in the dispute of Images. [Besides the forementioned Authors, there were others engaged in this contest of Image Worship, tho' of less note in the Greek Church, as Sergius, called Confessor by Photius, who wrote an History against the Iconaclasts, of which we have nothing but the Name, and the Judicious Censure of Photius of it, in his Biblioth. Co. 67. 2. Michael called Syncellus, who endured much for Image-Worship with Theodorus Studita and Nicephorus, he hath left nothing in the defence of the Cause for which he suffered, but hath two Pieces extant, viz. An Encomium of Dionysius the Areopagite, which is among the Works of Dionysius, Tom. 2. And an Encomium upon the H. Angels and Arch-Angels of God, put out in Greek and Latin by F. Cornbefis in his Auctuar. Nou. Tom. 1. p. 1525.]  
Claudius' Archbishop of Turin, besides the Treatise of Images, of which we have already spoke, 
Claudius' Bishop of Turin.  hath composed several other Works. We have a Comment of his upon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Galatians, Printed at Paris in 1542. and inserted into the Biblioth. Patrum, [Tom. 14. p. 134.] Two Prefaces put out by F. Mabillon in Analect. Tom. 1. of which the first is to his Commentaries on Leviticus, and the other to those of his Epistle to the Ephesians. Tritherius makes mention of several other Commentaries of this Author upon many other Books of the Bible, viz. The Penteteuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and all S. Paul's Epistles. His Comment upon Leviticus is in MS. in the Library of S. German de Prez. His Comment upon the Gospel of St. Matthew is a MS. in the Jesuits College at Paris, and in the Library at the Cathedral Church of Laon. His Comments upon S. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and 2d to the Corinthians, are in the French Kings Library. That upon the Epistle to the Ephesians is in the Library of the Abbey of Fleury, and upon Ruth in the Abbey of Good-Hope. F. Labbs hath Published a short Chronicon attributed to this Author. Although Ionas Bishop of Orleans makes no great account of this Author's Commentaries, yet we may truly say, that in his Comment upon the Galatians, he explains the literal sense in a familiar and easy manner, agreeing with the true sense of the Apostle, without mixing any Allegories, and invented Senses far from the Subject. Ionas of Orleans, and Dungal, accuse him of reviving not only the Errors of Eustathius, and Vigilanthius, touching the Relics and Honour of the Saints, and that of Faelix Orgelitanus about the Incarnation, but also that of Arrius about the Trinity; yet Ionas owns, that it doth not appear by his Writings, but that he received it from Persons worthy of Credit.  
Dungal, besides his Treatise against Claudius of Turin, hath a Letter directed to the Emperor 
Dungal.  Charles the Great, about two Eclipses in the Year 810. 'Tis extant in the 10th Tome of Dacherius' Spicilegium.  
The End of the Controversy about Images.   

CHAP. II.  
A Relation of the Dispute concerning GRACE. and PREDESTINATION.  
OF all the Questions that were Debated in the Ninth Age, there was none that was managed with more heat and noise, than this of Predestination and Grace. Gotteschalcus, a Germane 
The beginning of the Controversy about Predestination and Grace.  Born, was the first Broacher of it. He was brought up and Instructed in the Monastery of Auria [the Rich] or Richenou, and was Surnamed Fulgentius. He made Profession of a Monastic Life in the Monastery of Orbez in the Diocese of Soissons, and was Ordained Priest at forty years of Age, not by his own Bishop, but by Rigboldus, Suffragan of the Church of Reims, which made his Ordination to be suspected. Hincmarus describes him to us as an illbred, turbulent, and fickle Man, and assures us, that this was the sense which the Abbot and Monks of his own Monastery had of him. Nevertheless, they could not but say but he was an Ingenious, Studious, and Subtle Man, but very troublesome and overreaching.  
About the Year 846, he had a Mind to leave his Monastery, (Hincmarus accuses him of doing it without the leave, or consent of his Abbot) and go to Rome to visit the Holy Places there. From thence he went into Dalmatia and Pannonia, where, some say, under a pretence of Preaching the Gospel to the Infidels, he began to spread his Doctrine of Predestination. But however this was, at his return he tarried some time in Lombardy, in an Hospital Founded by Count Eberard, and had a Conference in 847 with Notingus Bishop of Vienna, concerning the Predestination of the Saints to Glory, and of the Wicked to Damnation. Notingus offended at this Opinion of Gotteschalcus, not long after being come to meet Lewis King of Germany at a Town of Switzerland, told Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz, who promised him to confute this Error of Gotteschalcus in Writing, by the Authorities both of H. Scriptures and Fathers, which promise he not long alter performed in a 
Rabanus' Book against Gotteschalcus.  Treatise, which he sent with two Letters, one to Notingus, and the other to Count Eberard, both against the Error of Gotteschalcus. In his Treatise he accuses this Monk of teaching that Predestination is so made, That every Man, that is Predestinated to Life, can't be D●nm'd; and every Man Predestinated to Damnation can't be Saved. He chief opposeth this last assertion, and shows, That such a Predestination is contrary to the Goodness and Justice of God, who desires the Salvation of all Men, because nothing is more Unjust than to Damn a Man who can't avoid Sin. He owns that Predestination is asserted in H. Scripture, but in this sense, That all Men being fallen by the Sin of the first Man into a State of Damnation, can't be delivered but by the Grace of Jesus Christ, who was provided, and Predestined from all Eternity. That those, who are freed from the State of Damnation, and to whom both their Original and Actual Sins are Pardoned by Baptism, are afterwards Damned for the Sins that they commit wilfully and freely; And that it is by the foresight of their Evil Will, that they have been Predestined; But that the Predestination of God, whether to Good or Evil hath no influence upon Man to necessitate him either way. That God Predestines things only, because he foresees after what manner they will happen. That he doth not Predestine Evil, but foresees it only, whereas he both foresees and Predestines Good. That out of the whole Mass of Mankind, he through mere Grace, accepts those, whom he pleaseth, to Salvation, and leaves others, yet not Ordaining them to Damnation, but for their Sins, which he foresees they will commit freely. These are the Doctrines which Rabanus lays down against Gotteschalcus in his Treatise to Notingus, which he endeavours to prove by Texts of Scripture, and Testimonies of S. Austin, Fulgentius, and Gennadius, whose Book concerning the Doctrines of the Church, he citys under the Name of S. Austin. He repeats the same thing in his Letter to Eberard, and exhorts that Lord not to suffer any contrary Doctrine to be Taught in his Dominions. [This Treatise and Letters, are Printed alone at Paris 1647. by the care of Sirmondus.]  
Gotteschalcus' seeing himself thus attacked by an Adversary of great Credit and Authority, resolved to set himself about the Explication of his Opinion, that he might make him understand his 
Gotteschalcus' against Rabanus.  true meaning, and rectify his mistake concerning him. Wherefore he went into Germany in the beginning of the Year 848, and finding that the difference between himself and Rabanus might be reduced to three Questions, 1. Concerning the Predestination of the Wicked; 2. Concerning the Will and Death of Jesus Christ to save all Men, even Infidels themselves; and 3. Concerning freewill, he Composed a Treatise, in which he opposes the Opinion of Rabanus under these three heads. He reproves him for asserting, That the Reprobate are not Predestined to Damnation. He maintains, That God foreseeing that they would live and die in Sin, hath Predestined them to Eternal Torments. Concerning the 2d Article he says, That we must understand that Text of Scripture, God will have all Men to be saved, of those that are actually and effectually saved, because there is none that God will have to be saved but shall be saved; And that Jesus Christ hath not poured out his Blood to redeem those that are finally and eternally Reprobated, but only for the Elect. Upon the 3d Question, which concerns freewill, he reproves Rabanus for taking up the Opinion of Gennadius, the Scholar of that unfortunate Man Cassian, instead of S. Austin's. We have not this Treatise of Gotteschalcus, but some fragments of it cited by Hincmarus. Gotteschalcus' propounded these three Questions to the most able men of his time, praying them to resolve them agreeable to the Doctrine of S. Austin. He wrote particularly to Lupus Servatus, Marcaldus Abbot of Prumiers, and one Named Ionas.  
In October 848, there was a Council held at Mentz, in which Gotteschalcus was accused by Rabanus. 
The Counc il of Mentz against Gotteschalcus.  Gotteschalcus' presented a Confession of his Faith, in which he declared, That he owned and believed before God, and his Saints, that there were two sorts of Predestination. The one of the Elect to Eternal Happiness, and the other of the Reprobate to Damnation, because as God hath immutably Predistined the Elect before the Creation of the World through his free mercy to Life Eternal, in like manner hath he immutably Predestined the Reprobate for their wicked Actions to Eternal Death. This expression shows plainly, what was the state of the Question between Gotteschalcus and Rabanus. Rabanus accuses him for believing, That God Predestined men to Damnation, without any prevision of their wicked Works. Gotteschalcus' in this Confession of Faith owns, That no Man is Predestined to Damnation but for his Crimes. Propter ipsorum mala Merita. Rabanus acknowledges, That God knows those, that are in a state of Sin, and hath decreed to punish them with Eternal Death, because of their Sins; but he will not call it Predestination to Death, lest Men should think God also Predestines them to Sin. And Gotteschalcus resolutely maintained, That there was a Predestination to Death as well as to Life. They both agreed, That Predestination to Life was free and gratuitous; That God hath chosen, whom he pleaseth, out of the Corrupt Mass of Mankind, to Salvation, and through mere Mercy, and fits them for Salvation by his Graces, and all other necessary means for that end; As also they both confess, That God deals after the same manner with the Reprobate, whom he condemns to Eternal Death only for their Sins, of which he is no manner of cause. But Rabanus would by no means allow this last Decree, Predestination to Evil, and Gotteschalcus stiffly maintained it. The Bishops of this Synod not being able to persuade him to change his Opinion, or way of speaking, condemned him; and knowing that he was a Monk of the Diocese of Soissons, which was subject to the Archbishop of Reims, where he was Ordained, they sent him to Hincmarus, to whom Rabanus wrote in these words. Ye know, that a certain Vagabond Monk named Gotteschalcus, who says that he was Ordained Priest in your Diocese, being come from Italy to Mentz, is found to teach a wicked and pernicious Doctrine concerning Predestination, maintaining that as there is a Predestination of God for the Good, so there is also for the Evil; and that there are many Persons in the World that can't return from their Errors, nor turn from their Sins, because of the Predestination of God, which constrains them to suffer their Death, to which they are determined, being in their own Nature incorrigible, and worthy of Damnation. This Man being known to maintain this Doctrine in the Council lately held at Mentz, and being found incorrigible, we have thought fit, according to the Order and Advice of our most Pious King Lewis, to send him to you, after we had condemned him and his pernicious Doctrine, that you may keep him within your Diocese, out of which he is gone contrary to the Canons. Do not suffer him to teach his Errors any longer, nor seduce the People; for I perceive, he hath already seduced several Persons, who are become less careful of their Salvation, since he hath put this Opinion into their Minds, saying in them, Why should I labour for my Salvation? If I am Predestined to Damnation I can't avoid it; and on the contrary, whatever Sins I am guilty of, If I am Predestined to Salvation I shall be certainly saved. Thus have I, in a few words, shown you his Doctrine, which you may better, and more fully understand, from his own Mouth, and act according as you think fit against him. [This Epistle is also Printed by Sirmondus at Paris, 1647]  
Hincmarus was descended of a Noble Family in France, and brought up in the Monastery of 
The Life of Hincmarus.  S. Denys [near Paris] where he wore a Canon's Habit, according to the Custom of the Monks of that Monastery. Being come from it, he was a long time at the Court of Lewis the Kind, but returned again to the Monastery of S. Denys, after it was reform by Hildum in the year 829 [then Abbot of it.] He accompanied him into Saxony, whither he was Banished, but did not abett the Faction of Lotharius with him, but, on the contrary, continued faithful to Lewis the Kind. When this Prince was restored, Hincmarus, who had a disposition very proper for such Affairs, abode at Court to serve the King and Bishops about Ecclesiastical Matters. After some time spent thus about Worldly matters, he returned again to his Retirement in the Monastery, but he stayed not long there, for in May 844, he was chosen Archbishop of Reims, ten years after the Deposition of Ebbo, in whose place Fulcus was put, and presided almost 9 years in it, and was succeeded by Noto, who held the See but a year and half. He was Consecrated in a Synod of Archbishops and Bishops held at Beauvais, after he was desired by the Clergy and People of the Metropolis of Reims, with the consent of the Abbots, and Monks of his Monastery. A year after his Ordination, the Emperor Lotharius, who favoured Ebbo, (who was Deposed merely because he had put Lewis the Kind to Penance) and hated Hincmarus, whom he looked upon to be wholly for Charles the Bald, King of France, endeavoured to revoke the Sentence passed upon Ebbo, and restore him, supposing, that some did not acknowledge Hincmarus to be their Lawful Bishop of Reims. To this end he wrote to the Pope, and obtained a Letter from him, wherein he gave Gonbaldus, Archbishop of Rovan, Commission to examine this Affair with such Bishops of the Kingdom as he should think ht to choose, who should meet at Treves, and having cited Hincmarus, examine him before the Pope's Legates, who should be present. After Easter, Hincmarus went to the Council, and waited for the Pope's Legates till the time appointed. After this, Gonbaldus Summoned Ebbo, who not daring to appear, left Hincmarus in quiet possession of the Archbishopric of Reims. He governed that Church almost thirty years, for he Died not till Dec. 21. 882. He had a great share in all the Affairs which were transacted in that time in the Church of France, and as to his own particular, had no small difficulties to extricate himself out of, in which he shown a great deal of Wit, Diligence and Courage. Being endued with these Qualities he was pleased to meet with so good an occasion of signalizing himself by the Condemnation of Gotteschalcus; he first heard him himself, and resolved with himself 
Council of Quiercy.  to present him before the Council of Bishops, that was to meet with the Parliament appointed by Charles the Bald at Queircy, which was the King's Palace in the Diocese of Reims. And that things might be done in the better order, he gave Rhotadus notice of it, to be present there, because he was the properest Judge of Gotteschalcus. Wenilo Archbishop of Sens was present with Hincmarus, and 11 other Bishops, among whom were Rhotadus Bishop of Soissons, two Suffragan Bishops, of whom Rigboldus, who Ordained Gotteschalcus, was one, and three Abbots, viz. Paschasius Rathbertus Abbot of Co●…by, Bavo Abbot of the Monastery of Orbez, where Gotteschalcus was a Monk, and Hilduinus Abbot of Hautevilliers, Gotteschalcus having been questioned in their presence, and maintained the same Opinions which he had done at Mentz with the same obstinacy and incorrigibleness, casting some reflections upon his Enemies, was condemned for an Heretic, degraded from his Priesthood, which he had received from Rigboldus Suffragan of Reims, without the knowledge of his Bishop; and moreover, for his obstinacy, was condemned, according to the Laws, Canons of the Council of Agatha, [Can. 38.] and Constitutions of S. Bennet, to be beaten with Rods, and Imprisoned, as the Bishops of Germany had before ordered. Hincmarus' fearing that Rhotadus had not power enough to see this Sentence executed, and so he might escape, took care to shut him up in a Monastery of his Diocese. The Judgement passed against Gotteschalcus was delivered in these words.  
Brother Gotteschalcus, know that thou art deprived of the Sacred Office of Priesthood, which if thou hast ever received, you have managed contrary to all Rules, and Profaned, to this day, by thy Manners, disorderly Actions, and corrupt Doctrines; And that by the Judgement of the H. Spirit, of whose Grace the Priesthood is a special Gift, and by the Virtue of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, thou art utterly for bidden to offieiate in any Office of it for the future. Moreover, because thou hast intermeddled with Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs, contrary to the Profession and Duty of a Monk, and in contempt of the Ecclesiastical Laws, we do, by Virtue of our Episcopal Authority, Order and Command, that according to the Rules of the Church, thou be severely Scourged, and afterwards shut up in a close Prison; And that thou may never Teach again to infect others, we enjoin you perpetual silence in the Name of the Eternal Word. Thus was Gotteschalcus Condemned in the presence, and with the consent of his Bishop, Abbot, him that Ordained him, and of those who were well affected to the Doctrine of S. Austin, which shows that he had an injury.  
This Sentence, which was pronounced against him, was Executed with the utmost severity, for he was Whipped in the presence of the Emperor Charles, and the Bishops, till he cast out of his 
Gotteschalcus' Punished and Imprisoned.  own Hand, into the Fire, a Book, wherein he made a Collection of such Texts of Scripture, and Testimonies of the Fathers, as proved his Opinion; after which he was kept close Prisoner in the Monastery of Hautevilliers in the Diocese of Reims. Nevertheless, Hincmarus, that he might induce him to change his Opinion, sent him a Writing, in which he explained those places of the Fathers on which he grounded it, and proved, That God indeed knows them that shall be Reprobated for their Sins, but hath Predestinated to Man to Evil; and that his prescience is not the cause of any Man's ruin. He sent him also a second Instruction, but could not remove him from it.  
Hincmarus also wrote to Prudentius Bishop of Troy's, an Account of what had passed in the Judgement given against him, and consulted that Bishop what he ought to do in case Gotteschalcus should 
Two Confessions of Faith made by Gotteschalcus.  continue obstinate, whether he should deprive him of the use of Divine Service and the Communion. What answer Prudentius gave to these Questions is not known, but about the same time Gotteschalcus composed two Confessions of Faith, one more long, in which he confesseth, That God hath not Predestinated any Man to Sin, or Evil, but to Good only, which is of two sorts, viz. The Rewards of his Favour, and the Effects of his Justice; That he hath freely Predestinated his Elect to Life Eternal, and also hath Predestined the Devils and Reprobates to Eternal Death. He grounds this Doctrine upon Consequences taken from Holy Scripture, and assertions of the Fathers, chief of S. Austin, Gregory, Fulgentius, and Isidore. That this Predestination is but one in itself, though it hath respect to two Objects, as Charity towards God and our Neighbour is the same Charity in two parts. To prove himself no Heretic, he brings a Definition of an Heretic out of S. Cassiodorus, viz. He is a Person, saith this Author, who either out of Ignorance, or Contempt of the Law of God, defends a new Error, or follows an old one. He affirms, That he holds nothing but what is agreeable to the Doctrine of H. Scripture and the Ancients; and consequently, the Definition of an Heretic doth not touch him. He doubts not but he can prove the Truth of his Doctrine in an Ecclesiastical Assembly, if he could be so happy as to have the liberty given him, not only by his Discourses, but also by casting himself into scalding Water, Pitch, or flaming Oil, without suffering any harm. He explains himself more clearly in his shorter Confession of Faith, declaring, That God hath not Predestinated the Devils, and Wicked men; to Damnation, but for their Sins, which he foresees that they will commit. [These two Confessions are Published by Bishop Usher, in his History of Gotteschalcus. Dublin 1631. Hanou. 1662.]  
Hincmarus also wrote a Treatise in defence of his Opinion, to the Monks and Recluses of his own Diocese, against the Opinion of Gotteschalcus. 
‡ Or Bertram.  Ratramnus a Monk of Corby, finding some things in it that deserved a Confutation, wrote a Letter against that Treatise. Prudentius Bishop of Troy's wrote also a Book, in which he explains his sense of the Questions of his time, and sent it with a 
The Writings of Hincmarus, Bertram and Rabanus, about Predestination.  Letter, which served instead of a Preface to Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims, and Pardulus Bishop of Laon. He attributes much to the Authority of S. Austin in these Matters, and in the body of his Book, he sets down a Collection of several passages to that purpose out of him and other Fathers. He doth not disagree from Gotteschalcus' Opinion concerning Predestination, declaring notwithstanding, that God is not the Author of Sin, and that he Damns no body but for their Crimes, which deserve so great a punishment. He follows also the Principles of S. Austin about Grace, freewill, and Gods Will to save all Men. This Writing was sent to Hincmarus and Pardulus, after the Council held at Paris about the end of the year 849, in which this Matter was mentioned, but not debated, or determined in a full Council; nevertheless the part, which the Bishops began then to abett, made it so famous, that Charles the Bald being at Bourges on his return from the Siege of Toulouse, would have it cleared, and gave Order to Lupus Abbot of Ferrara, and Ratramnus Monk of Corby, to write upon that Subject. Hincmarus, for his part, wrote about it toward Easter in 850, to Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz, who had engaged in this Contest. He sent him the Treatise which he had written to the Monks of his Diocese against Gotteschalcus, with the Writings of some other Authors, which seemed to favour him, and among them the Book of Prudentius Bishop of Troy's. Rabanus having seen them, would not undertake to answer the Testimonies alleged by that Bishop, but collected some Texts of Scripture, and Say of the Fathers, about Predestination, to prove that the Word Predestination was never taken in an ill sense; That God inclines no Man to Evil; That he is not the Author of our Damnation; That he doth not in a proper sense harden the Heart of a Man, but only permits it to be hardened, either by their own sinful actions, or by the malice of the Devil. That he made not Death; That he reputes not for the destruction of the Angels; That he would have all men to be saved. In the conclusion, he advises Hincmarus to hinder men from debating such sort of Questions, which may cause much scandal among the Faithful, and not to suffer Gotteschalcus either to Writ or Teach. He wonders that that Monk should be allowed to Write, who is culpable both in Practice and Doctrine. He advises him to suffer him no longer to Write, or Dispute for the future, till he hath retracted, and much disapproves of their letting him enjoy Communion. He accuses him of Obstinacy and Pride, and looks upon him as incorrigible. He reproves him for wishing that he might pass through Vessels of scalding Water, Pitch, or flaming Oil, and says he never heard of the like; That it was to tempt God; That he could not endure that punishment if it were Ordained for him, and therefore 'tis a great piece of presumption to wish for it, and desire it.  
Nevertheless Lupus Servatus, which I do not believe to be a different Person from the Abbot of 
Lupu●'s Treatise upon the th●●e Questions.  Ferrara, who was consulted about the Questions of the Times, 1. By Gotteschalcus; 2. By Hincmarus; and lastly, by Charles the Bald, made a Book to clear the three Questions which Gotteschalcus had propounded to the Council of Mentz, about freewill, Predestination to Evil, and about the Death of Jesus Christ for all men; in which Treatise he lays down, and proves these Principles and Doctrines; That God, who only is immutable, hath made Spiritual Creatures subject to change, who may do either Good or Evil. This appears in the fall of the Angels, who being Created good, fell into Sin by the depravation of their Nature, whereas others of them adhering voluntarily to God, have received this as the Reward of their Fidelity, That they can't fall from their Happiness. That Man who is compounded of a Material Body and Spiritual Soul, was created in a State of Happiness, exempted from Death, and perfectly free; That he could do good by making use of the assistance of God's Grace, and Sin by abandoning of it, but having sinned freely, he is under an unavoidable necessity of Dying, and subject to the irregular Motions of Concupiscence. That the whole Nature of Man hath been corrupted by the Sin of the first Man, and all descended of him are fallen with him. That Men have some sort of freedom, but can't choose that which is good but by the assistance of the Grace of Jesus Christ. That our Liberty only inclines us to Evil and so we may ruin ourselves, but no Man can save himself, or free himself from the power of Sin, but by the help of Jesus Christ. That they that are Damned, are so by God's Justice; and they that are Saved, are so by his gracious Mercy, because by the Sin of the first Man, we all deserve Damnation, and that no Man could escape it, if God did not save him through pure Mercy; though we must not inquire, Why God shows Mercy on some and not on others: That he could do so to all, but it is his good Pleasure to save some, and leave others in the Mass of Perdition: That when he says in Scripture that he will have all Men to be saved, it ought to be understood only of those that are actually saved. That the Word All is capable of exceptions, and may mean all sort of Men; That Predestination is gratuitous, and not upon the account of our Merits. That it is in pursuance of this Election, that God gives his Grace to some, by which they are able and sedulous to do good, and leaves others to their corrupt wills by not assisting them. That he is not the Author of the Evil Men do, but Man ought to impute it to himself, or rather to the Devil, who leads him into it. That God foresees both good and evil, but he predestines nothing but the good, that he only suffers the evil and punisheth it; That what God hath predestined shall infallibly fall out, but that his Predestination imposeth no necessity; That no Christian ought to think himself of the number of the Reprobate, Men ought to labour to live well, that their punishment may be the less. He passes over slightly the Question about Predestination to Damnation. He confesses that he meets not with that word used in that sense in Holy Scripture, and that the great Lights of the Church abhor that expression, for fear Men should think God hath made his Creatures to punish them, and that he unjustly condemns Persons, who have no power to avoid Sin or Damnation. That nevertheless, it happens, that as God hath ordained the punishments which are consequent upon the Sin of the First Man, so he hath ordained the punishment of Sinners, yet so as they themselves are the Authors of their own Damnation. That since Men agree in the Matter, they should not quarrel about the Words and Expressions, seeking to get an unprofitable Victory. Lastly, he passeth to the 3d Question concerning the Extent of the Redemption of Jesus Christ, which he calls the Measure of his Blood. He ●ets down and approves of the Expressions of Scripture, which import, That Jesus Christ died for all Men, and hath redeemed all, but he says, that they ought to be understood as he hath explained them, in which it is said, He will have all Men to be saved. He adds, that it may be said as a probability, that he died for all, that are in his Church, and receive the Sacraments, whether they be in the number of the Elect, or Reprobate. He says, that some Men condemn this Opinion of Blasphemy; that he himself should be of that Judgement, and should believe that God punishes some of the Reprobate the less for the Merits of Jesus Christ, but that the Apostle speaking of the Merits of Jesus Christ, that they are of no worth to those that are circumcised, it seems reasonable to believe that the Death of Jesus Christ is of no worth to those that are indeed Baptised, but relapse and die in their Sins and Infidelity; That nevertheless, that he may not render himself odious to them who hold that Jesus Christ died not only for the Good, but also for Sinners, he sets down a Passage of S. chrysostom, which seems to favour that Opinion, and may unite all divided Minds about that Matter. Jesus Christ, saith that Excellent Bishop, by his Doctrine and Holiness died for all, not only for the faithful, but all the World, if all do not believe he hath done whatever was requisite on his part to save them. After these Remarks Lupus concludes, leaving every one to their liberty to choose what Opinion they judge truest. He confirms his Opinion, which he laid down in this Treatise, by a Collection of Passages out of S. Austin, S. Jerom, and some others of the Fathers upon these three Questions. [This Treatise of Lupus is extant, Printed by Sirmondus in Holland 1648, and 1650, and with the rest of his Works at Paris 1664.]  
After Lupus had composed this Tract, he sent a Letter to Hincmarus and Pardulus, which contained 
Lupus' Letter to Hincmarus and Pardulus.  an Abridgement of his Doctrine. In i● he says, that the truest Opinion is, that Predestination in regard to the Elect is a Preparative Grace, and in respect to the Wicked is a withdrawing of the same Grace; That all Men are born in a State of Damnation, and God takes such out of that State, as he pleaseth by his Mercy, and leaves others in it by his Justice. So that it is true that God predestines those he hardens, not by impelling them into sin, but by not keeping them from it; That this Predestination doth necessitate neither the good, or evil, because both have a freedom of will, which excludes a fatal necessity; That the Elect, who receive from God the power to will and do, do freely perform all that conduceth to their Salvation, and the Reprobate who are forsaken by God, do voluntarily, and not against their wills, those actions which deserve Eternal Punishment; That no Man is so silly, as to say, that there is a necessity, where the will hath a command, although it be assisted by the Grace of God, or left by his just Judgement. But as to Infants, who die before they come to the use of Reason, it cannot be said that their will hath a part in their Salvation, or Damnation, because they are either saved by the Grace of Baptism, or damned by the Sin of the First Man. [This Letter is among his Epistles Printed by Massonus at Paris, 1588., and in the forementioned Edition of all his Works.]  
It is easy to see, that this Author, although he was of S. Augustine's Judgement, yet manages his Expressions so warily, that he may offend neither side, but bring them to an Agreement, but it happened to him, as it ordinarily does to them that are Mediators for Peace, though they carry themselves never so wisely and cautiously, and have often Reason of their side, they are disliked by both Parties at variance. Gotteschalcus, a very rough and severe Man, blamed the mildness which Lupus Servatus had used, and the moderate Expressions which he had brought. That Man (saith he) in a Letter written to Retramnus, is so cautious and moderate, and hath so cunningly answered the 3 Questions of which he speaks in his Book, that he agrees not throughly with either Party. Hincmarus and Pardulus were not better satisfied, but accused him of Opinions unworthy of the Mercy and Goodness of God, which forced him to write his Letter to Charles the Bald, to explain his 
Lupus' L●tter to Charles the Bald.  Judgement more clearly in that Dispute. It contains an Abridgement of his former Treatise concerning the Fall of all Men in Adam, concerning the Election which God is pleased to make of some; concerning Predestination and Reprobation; concerning the Assistance which God is pleased to give Men through his mere Mercy; concerning the Just desertion of the Wicked; concerning the loss of Man's free will to do good; concerning the Efficaciousness of Grace, and the Death of Jesus Christ for all Men. Which last Article he explains more largely, for after he hath cited, som● Passages of S. Austin to prove, that when he says, that Christ died for all Men, he ought to be understood of those only that are saved; he opposeth the saying of S. Chysostome against them, but we must observe, that he is not of his Judgement, by taking notice, that he saith with all due respect to him, that he did not well understand that place of Scripture, and that he hath not proved his Opinion by any Testimony. Lastly, he rejects the Authority of Faustus, as a Bishop who was in an Error, and says, that we must keep to the Judgement of S. Austin, S. Jerom, and other Fathers, commended by Pope Gelasius, and advises the Emperor to call a Council of Learned Men about these Questions, who may Examine whether he speaks Reason, or no. [This Letter is also extant in the forementioned Editions of his Works.]  
At the same time Retramnus, a Monk of Corby, who had also been consulted by the Emperor 
Ratra●… or Bertramus' Treatise about Predestination.  about these famous Questions, composed a Treatise of Predestination divided into two Books. The first contains a Collection of Passages out of the Fathers, that all that is done in this World, is done by Order and Direction of God's Providence. That although he be not indeed the cause of the Crimes, and Sins of Wicked Men, yet they are also subject to the Order of Providence, and serve for the Execution of his Will. That God hath foreseen from all Eternity what shall befall the Good and Evil, the Elect and Reprobate. That the Predestination of the Saints is the Effect of his Mercy, and the number of the Elect can neither be increased, nor diminished, nor altered. That all the holy thoughts and good actions of the Saints, by which they acquire themselves happiness, are the effect of the mere Grace of God. That our freewill is too weak to do any good, unless it be strengthened by the Grace of God, which helps us to do good. That this Grace operates in us to will and to do, and that it is necessary for the beginning of Faith and Prayer. In the Second he treats of the Predestination of Sinners, and speaks by the by of the Predestination of the Elect. He shows by the Testimonies of St. Austin, Fulgentius, and other Fathers, that God hath not predestined Sinners to sin, but to the punishment of their Sins, and Eternal Torments. He rejects the distinction of those who say, that Eternal Punishment was ordained and appointed for Sinners, but they were not predestined to it. He maintains that this Predestination did not impose a necessity of Sinning upon any Man, though those that are Elected by the mere Mercy of God, shall be infallibly saved; and those whom God leaves in the Mass of Perdition, shall be infallibly damned for their Sins which they voluntarily commit. He adds, that we ought to attribute all the good we do to God, and all the evil we do to ourselves, because God never inclines us to evil, but only leaves us to the motions of our Wills. At the end of these Books Retramnus prays the Emperor not to publish them, before these Questions be fully examined and cleared, that they might know which Opinion to follow. He adds, that if this Book displeaseth the Emperor, that he would correct it, or show him what corrections he would have made in them. [This Treatise is published by Mauginus in Collect. Script. Tom. 1. p. 29. and in Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 15. p. 442.]  
The Emperor gave these two Books of Lupus and Retramnus, to Hincmarus and Pardulus to examine 
Scotus' Book about Predestination.  them, who opposed them to Amalarius, a Deacon of Treves, and Johannes Erigina Scotus, whom they had ordered to write upon this subject. We have not the Work of Amalarius, but only that of Joannes Scotus, which, according to the Genius of that Author, is full of Scholastic Subtleties and Distinctions. He gins with this Position, That every Question may be resolved by four general Rules of Philosophy, viz. Division, Definition, Demonstration, and Analysis, and the rest of his Work is not less Logical, for although he citys several Passages of S. Austin, yet he chief proves his Assertions by Scholastical Reasons and Arguments. He rejects the double Predestination, and proves that Predestination doth not impose any necessity. He maintains, that Man is absolutely free after the Sin of Adam, and that although he cannot do good without the Grace of Jesus Christ yet he doth it without being constrained to it, or forced by the Will of God, by his own free choice. He adds, that Sin, and the Consequence of it, the Punishments with which it is rewarded, being mere Privations, are neither foreseen no● predestined by God. That Predestination hath no place but in those things which God hath preordered in order to Eternal Happiness, and supposeth, that this Predestination ariseth from the foresight of the good use of our freewill. To prove what he had asserted, that Eternal Punishments are mere Privations, he affirms, That the Torments of the Damned are nothing but privations of Happiness, or the trouble of being deprived of it; so that according to him Material Fire is no part of the Damned's Torments. That there is no other Fire prepared for them but the fourth Element, through which the Bodies of all Men must pass, but that the Bodies of the Elect are changed into an Aetherical Nature, and are not subject to the power of Fire, whereas on the contrary the Bodies of the Wicked are changed into Air, and suffer Torments by the Fire because of their contrary qualities; and for this reason 'tis, that the Daemons, who had a Body of an Aetherial Nature, were massed with a Body of Air, that they may feel the Fire. Thus did Philosophy lead this Author to many wild and extravagant Notions and Opinions. [This Piece is put out by Maugius in his Vind. praedest. & Gratiae Tom. 1. p. 103.]  
Wemlo or Ganelo, Archbishop of Sens, having read this Work, gathered out of it several Propositions, 
Prudentius' Wo●● against Scotus.  which he put under 19 Heads according to the number and order of the Chapters of Scotus' Work, and sent them to Prudentius Bishop of Troy's, who having read them, found, as he thought, not only the Errors of Pelagius in them, but also the Impiety of the Collyridians'. Whereupon he composed a Book to confute him, in the Preface of which he accuses John Scotus of following of Pelagius, Caelestius, and Julian, to resist the Grace of Jesus Christ, and the Justice of God, to deny Original Sin, and many other Blasphemous Doctrines. Yet John Scotus did not deny Original Sin, and acknowledged the necessity of Grace in his Work, but Prudentius thought he found such Principles in it, as seemed to abet the Doctrine of Pelagius. Prudentius answered John Scotus' Book Chapter by Chapter, and opposed the Judgement and Authority of the Fathers to his false Reasonings. [The 19 Heads gathered out of Scotus' Book, are Printed in Bishop Usher's History of Gotteschalcus, cap. 19]  
After he hath rejected his Method of deciding all things by the four Rules of Logic, and showed, that Questions of Divinity are not so to be handled, he confutes Scotus' Opinion of Predestination, freewill, and the punishment of the Damned, and proves the contrary Opinion. He distinguishes Predestination from Prescience, and shows that Prescience extends to Sin, but not Predestination. He distinguishes Predestination into two sorts, the one by which God hath freely Predestined the Elect to Grace and Glory, the other by which he hath Destined the Wicked, whose Sins he foresee, to Eternal Damnation. He proves that Man, since the Fall, hath not a full Liberty and Power to do good, and that he cannot do it, not only without the Grace of Jesus Christ, but that his Grace excites, impels, and enables him to do it. He maintains, that no Man affirms that Grace wholly destroys freewill, or that Predestination imposes any Necessity upon men, but he observes, that freewill is nothing else but a voluntary choice, and unconstrained acting of the Mind. He, in the last place, decides the extravagant Opinions of Scotus about the Torments of the Damned, and propounds the Doctrine of the Church, and Fathers, who acknowledge, that Damnation consists not only in the privation of Happiness, but Tortures of Fire. [This confutation of Scotus' Book by Prudentius is extant in Mauguinus' Vindic. Gratiae, Tom. 2. p. 191. and some parts of it are in Bishop Usher's Hist. of Gott. c. 8. & 11.]  
The same Extracts of Scotus' Book being sent to the Church of Lions, they employed one of 
Florus' s W●iti●gs against Scotus.  their Deacons, named Florus, to write against him. This Deacon some time before delivering his Opinion concerning Predestination, said, in his Discourse, That God hath freely Predestinated the Elect to Grace and Glory, but he only foresees the Crimes and Sins of the Reprobate, and afterwards Ordains, and Predestines them to Damnation; and concerning freewill, that 'tis so much weakened by the Sin of the first Man, that it can do no good thing unless it be enlightened, and strengthened by the Grace of Jesus Christ. The same Doctrine he teaches us in his Tract against Scotus, and lays down a twofold Predestination, or rather Predestination under a twofold respect. 〈◊〉. A gratuitous Predestination of the Elect to Grace and Glory, and a Predestination of the Reprobate to Damnation, for their Sins which they commit by their own freewill; and maintains, that tho' our freewill can choose that which is good, yet it never would choose, or do it, if it were not assisted by the Grace of Jesus Christ. And to explain this, he makes use of the comparison of a Sick Man, of whom we may say, that he may recover his health, although he hath need of Physic to restore it; or of a Dead Man, that he may be raised, but by the Divine Power. In like manner, saith he, the freewill being Distempered, and Dead, by the Sin of the first Man, may be revived, but not by its own Virtue, but by the Grace and Power of God, who hath pity on it, which Florus understands not only of that Grace, which is necessary for actions, but of that also which is necessary to seek Conversion by Prayer, and begin to do well; Hitherto neither Prudentius, nor the Church of Lions, nor any other Author, had declared themselves for Gotteschalc●●. They contented themselves in thus treating upon the Question, without engaging on either side. Florus, who in his first Discourse thought him much to blame, seems to doubt in his answer to Scotus, where in the 4th Chapter he says, That he knows not how that unhappy Monk was Condemned and Imprisoned; adding, That if he was really guilty of Heresy, as he is accused, it were Just, that according to the Custom of the Church, all the Churches of the Kingdom should be acquainted with his Condemnation, and the cause why he was Condemned. [This Treatise is extant in Mauguin's Vind. Gratiae at Paris 1650, p. 575. and in the Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 8.]  
Nevertheless, Amolo Archbishop of Lions wrote a Letter to Gotteschalcus about the same time, in 
Amalo ' s Letters to Got●es●haleus.  which it appears, that he thought him faulty. In the beginning of it, he gives him the Title of Most Dear Brother, (although he says, he knew him an Enemy to Brotherly Unity) because Christian Charity ought not to cease or be cooled, even towards those that are our Enemies. He tells him, that he loves him most hearty, and wishes as well to him as to himself; But he says, that having read and examined his Writings, which he had sent him by a Brother, he had disputed with himself a long time whether he should answer him, because he had been accused a long time of dangerous attempts against the Church, and had still held his Opinion, although he was condemned by the Authority of a Council for his Obstinacy; That he was afraid lest he should be thought imprudent in holding correspondence by Letters with a Person who had been condemned by his Brethren; but on the other side, he took himself obliged by Christian Charity, to answer his Request. Lastly, That being convinced by the admonition which Jesus Christ propounds in the Parable of the Samaritan, that it is our Duty to comfort our Brethren in affliction, and to have such a sincere Charity towards our Brethren, as to live in Unity, and communicate one with another in all Offices and Services of Love, after he had begged God's Grace to enable him to give him necessary Comforts and Instructions, and to fit his Mind to receive them with Meekness and Humility, he looked upon himself to be under obligations to answer him. And first of all, he advises him to be of a peaceable and submissive Spirit. He tells him, that he had heard with grief, that he had began to spread abroad his new Doctrines, and to raise Disputes about unprofitable Questions in Germany. That since he had seen one of his Writings, in which he explains his Opinion at length, and endeavours to prove it by the Testimonies of the Fathers, and H. Scripture. And lastly, That he had lately received a Writing of his directed to the Bishops, or rather made against the Bishops who were concerned in his Condemnation. That by his Writings he perceived, that his Tenets were dangerous; so that he thought he could not do a better piece of Service, than to set down in short those Propositions that seemed contrary to the Doctrine of the Church, and confute them by Scripture, and the Judgement of the Church. That he ought to keep firmly to that Doctrine, if he will be one of the Living Members of Jesus Christ. That he did not send this Work directly to him, because he was Excommunicated, but to his Metropolitan, that he being moved with compassion toward him, may admit him again into the Unity of the Church upon the abjuring of his Errors. After this Preface he saith, that this Proposition which he hath delivered displeaseth him. That all those that are redeemed by the Blood of Christ cannot perish; because he says, 'twill then follow, that either no Man that is Baptised can be Damned: Or, that those who are Baptised, and Regenerate by Baptism, and yet afterward perish, are not truly Baptised, or Redeemed by the Blood of Jesus Christ; now both are false, and contrary to the Scripture, and Faith of the Church. In the second place, he is angry that he is persuaded that the Holy, and true Sacraments of the Church, Exorcism, Baptism, Confirmation, Unction, and the Eucharist, are given to no purpose, to those that are in the number of the Reprobate, because they are not Redeemed by the Blood of Jesus Christ, without which the Sacraments are no better than useless Ceremonies. He maintains, that they do effectually work upon those that do not persevere. In the third place, he can't approve that which he holds, That Infants and Adult Persons, who are Baptised, but are not of the number of the Elect, are not true Members of the Church of Jesus Christ. In the fourth place, he doth not like his words where speaking of Predestination, he saith, That the Devils and Reprobates are Predestined to Damnation, so that none of them can be saved. He affirms, That this is an horrible Blasphemy against God, and an Impiety, that makes Sin necessary. That God, indeed, foresees the Si●s of Devils and wicked Men, without which they would be necessitated; and that he hath not Destined them to eternal punishments but upon the prevision of their Sins, which he knew they would commit freely. Fifthly, He abhors the Proposition delivered by Gotteschalcus, that the Damned are as infallibly, and irrevocably Predestined to Damnation, as God is Infallible and Immutable; And he laughs at that which he adds, That the Bishops ought to exhort the Reprobate to Pray, that tho' their Damnation is irrevocable▪ yet their Torments may be less. Sixthly, He can't endure what he hath said, That God and his Saints rejoice at the Eternal Condemnation of the Reprobates. He says, That God rejoices in their Destruction, but not for it; That he rejoices not in their Evil doing, but in the Exaltation of his own Justice. Lastly, He condemns his behaviour toward the Bishops, by railing at them, contemning them, and calling them, that are not of his Judgement, Heretics and Rabanists. He chides him for being unconcerned at the separation of the Church which he had suffered a long time, for exalting himself against his Spiritual Fathers the Bishops, for submitting to no Authority, nor desiring a peaceable Decision of the Controversy in hand with humility, and for thinking himself the only Person enlightened and inspired by God to confirm the Truth. He exhorts, advices, and conjures him to reflect upon himself, return from his Errors to the Church, and submit himself to the Bishops; and gives him, with a Fatherly goodness, such other Counsels as were proper for him to follow. [This Epistle is Printed by Mauguin in Collect. Script. 9 Saeculi, Tom. 2. and with his other Works, at the end of Agobardus' Works put out by Balurius at Paris 1666.]  
Some have pretended, that this Writing of Gotteschalcus, which Amolo confutes in this Letter, was Forged by Hincmarus, whom they accuse of this Forgery, but they have no proof of it, and the two conjectures upon which they ground the Accusation are took weak to raise any Credit upon, so that 'twould be a very rash thing to condemn so illustrious an Archbishop of so scandalous a Crime without better proofs, especially since we do not find any of the Favourers of Gotteschalcus to have laid any such thing to his Charge. It is most reasonable for us to believe, that Gotteschalcus composed this Writing privately, and sent it to Amolo Archbishop of Lions, supposing that that Church would be more favourable to him, because it was of S. Austin's Judgement about Predestination and Grace; but since he strained his Opinions to too high, and faulty a pitch, and drew hard and unwarrantable Consequences from them, 'tis no wonder that Amolo gave him such an Answer, which is written with all the insinuating Art possible to appease Hincmarus, and oblige this Monk to make him satisfaction. There is another small Piece, which is annexed to this Letter to Gotteschalcus, which is thought to be a fragment of the Letter written at the same time to Hincmarus, in which he treats of Grace and Predestination. In it he teaches us to believe, that 'tis Grace by which men are saved, which is not given them according to their merits, but through the pure and free Mercy of God, which moves them to good not by Necessity, but by their Will and Love. That this Grace is given to Infants in their Baptism, to Adult Persons, and all the Faithful, in all their Actions, Thoughts and Words that are good, because there is no good but is the gift of God. That his Prescience is certain, and that he foresees how all things will come to pass; so that the number of the Elect is known to him, and cannot be changed. That the Predestination of the Just is of free Mercy, and is not done in consideration of their Merits, but that he hath justified and sanctified by his Grace in time, all those who have been Predestinated from all Eternity through his mere Mercy, that they may be holy and just. That Perseverance is a Gift of God; That our freewill is so much weakened by Sin, that it can't raise itself to the love of Truth and Justice, if it be not excited, healed and strengthened, by the Grace which frees it. He adds, That this Doctrine needs not to cast us into Despair, but gives us confidence in the Mercy of God; That that which is found in S. Austin, and some other Fathers, that God hath Predestinated the Wicked to Damnation, and eternal Death, ought not to be understood as tho' God constrained them by his Power, or Predestination, to be Sinners, and so Damned, but in this sense, That God hath Ordained by his just Judgement eternal punishments, for those that he foresaw would continue in the Mass of Perdition by the Sin of Adam, or who would make themselves subject to Damnation by their own voluntary Sins. [This fragment of Amolo's Epistle is also extant in the forementioned Edition of Agobardus.]  
Hincmarus' seeing Amolo thus in a manner to condemn Gotteschalcus, thought it convenient to write 
Hincmarus' Letter to the Church of Lions.  to the Church of Lions upon that subject. Whereupon he wrote a Letter to him, giving him an account after what manner Gotteschalcus was Judged and Condemned in two Counsels, and comprises his Doctrine under five chief Heads. 1. That God hath Predestined from all Eternity, those whom he pleaseth to the Kingdom of Heaven, or Eternal Damnation. 2. That they that are Predestined to Eternal Death can't be Saved, and those that are Predestined to Eternal Glory can't be Damned. 3. That God will not have all Men to be Saved, and that the Apostles Words ought to be understood only of those that are Saved. 4. That Jesus Christ came not to save all Men; that he hath not suffered for all Men, but for those only who are saved by the Mystery of his Passion. 5. That since the Fall of Man, no Man can keep himself safe by his own freewill from the commission of Sin. Pardulus Bishop of Laon, wrote also to the Church of Lions upon the same subject, telling them, that of those six Persons who had written upon these Questions, none of them had sufficiently cleared them. Some join to these Letters one of Rabanus' written to Notingus. [Pardulus' Letter is not extant to the Church of Lions.]  
When these Letters were carried to Lions, Remigius, who succeeded Amolo in the Archbishopric of 
The Answer of the Church of Lions to Hincmarus by Remigius.  Lions, wrote, in the Name of his Church, an Answer to three Letters that were brought him. He abandons Gotteschalcus, and condemns the rashness and temerity of that unhappy Monk, but defends the Opinion of S. Austin about Predestination and Grace; and after he hath produced seven Rules, and several Passages of the H. Fathers, to prove that the Prescience and Predestination of God are infallible, he concludes, that none of those whom God hath Predestined from all Eternity, to his Glory, through his free goodness, shall perish; and none of those, whom God hath Predestined to Eternal Death, through his just Judgement, having foreseen their Sin, shall be saved, not that they are unavoidably Sentenced to Damnation, by the power of God, but because they deserve it by the malignity of their Will, which is unconquerable, and unchangeable. This was the sense of Remigius, upon two of the Propositions which Hincmarus reproved Gotteschalcus for. Concerning the third, which respected the Will of God to save all men, he says, that 'twas a difficult Doctrine to resolve; but 'tis certain, that all are not saved, and that all that God Will shall come to pass. How then can he Will all men should be saved, when 'tis plain all men are not? He finds this difficulty resolved four ways in the Writings of the Fathers. 1. They say, that All is put in that place for all sorts of Persons. 2. For all those that are saved, because there is none saved but by him. 3. Because he inspires his Servants with desires and wishes, that all men should be saved. 4. That he will have all men to be saved, as Creator, because he hath given them a Will by which they may be saved, if they please. He saith, that this last Explication hath many difficulties attending it, because God doth not expect the Will of Man to save them, but prevents them with his Grace. Yet he confesses, that according to some Fathers, it may be said, that God, as Creator, would have all Men to be saved, but at the same time, as he is Judge, he will not have them saved who die in their Sins, either Original or Actual. So that 'tis not true, that God doth not accomplish his Will that he hath, that all Men should be saved, because of the opposition of Man's Will to his, but because he will not have it fulfilled himself, that he may punish their Sins. He adds, that these things are so obscure and intricate, that he is not willing to contend much about them, nor define them rashly, but contents himself to hold what is certain, without engaging in these fruitless Disputes. Nor is he more willing to deliver his Opinion rashly about the 4th Question concerning Christ's dying for all Men, but would search diligently in the Scripture what he ought to believe. Wherefore, after he has recited several Texts which prove that Jesus Christ died for the Redemption of Men and of the World, he saith, that in the Order of Reconciliation, the first Men are the Elect, of whom none can perish. The second are the Faithful, who have received their Baptism sincerely, and whose Sins are Pardoned by Grace, but do not persevere. The third are such as yet remain in their Infidelity, but shall soon be called through the Mercy of God. The fourth are those that will remain always in their Infidelity, and shall not receive Grace, either for a time, or in the end. He acknowledges and proves, by the Authority of the Fathers, that Jesus Christ died for the three first, but maintains, that properly speaking, he died not for the Wicked, who were Dead before his coming, without the knowledge of the true Religion, nor for Infidels, which are Born since, or shall be Born in future Ages. He adds, nevertheless, that he finds some Fathers, who assert that Jesus Christ died for those Infidels that were never Baptised, nor Converted; which expression, he says, may be Tolerated for Peace sake, though it be not exact nor true. That Men ought not to condemn one another in Questions of this nature, because there may be some things which we know not because of our ignorance. Concerning the last Proposition, he says, that he much wondders that any Man should hold, that since the fall of Adam Men can't use their freewill to do good. He says, if they had added, Without Grace, the proposition had been Orthodox, but to say it in general, as supposing that Grace alone does all the good we do, is a propotition which he never heard of before nor understood, and which the Heretics themselves never yet asserted. He owns, that the freewill may be said to be dead and perished by the Sin of the first Man, provided, it be not meant, that the Nature and Essence of the Will is not perished, but that the good which is in the will, i. e. the faculty of inclining itself to good, and that it hath need of the immediate Grace of Jesus Christ to incline it to good. Remigius Archbishop of Lions, after he hath thus treated of the Doctrine contained in the Letter of Hincmarus, passes to the Judgement and Person of Gottteschalcus. He finds fault, that he was first of all condemned by the Abbots and Monks, which were of the Council, to undergo their Regular Discipline, and afterwards was judged by the Bishops. He says, that according to the ancient usage, since he was accused of Heresy, he ought to have been judged by the Bishops only. He complains of the Cruelty with which their Sentence was executed. And as to the Heads of his Doctrine related by Hincmarus, he says, That the first and second were agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church and Fathers; That the 3d and 4th were not to be condemned; and as to the 5th, if it were true that he asserted it in those terms, it deserves to be condemned. In fine, That he deserved to be condemned for his imprudence and troublesomeness, for his talkativeness and inconstancy; That nevertheless they ought not for all that to condemn the Truth, nor use him with so much severity and cruelty as they had done. Then he confutes what Hincmarus had said concerning the will of God to save all Men, against the Predestination of the Wicked to Damnation, and concerning freewill. He also Answers the Letters of Pardulus and Rabanus. This Answer was accompanied with another small Treatise from Remigius, Entitled, A Resolution of the Question, in which he endeavours to confirm the Principle of S. Austin; That all the Generation of Mankind is corrupted by the Sin of Adam, and subject to Damnation, of whom some are chosen through mere Mercy, others left through just Judgement, the one are elected through the free Mercy of God to glory, the other predestined for their own or first Man's Sin to Damnation. [This Treatise of Remigius, with some other Tracts of his are extant in the Biblioth. Patrum, Tom. 15. and is put out by Mauguin in Collect. Script. de Praed. & Got.  
This Answer not being such an one as Hincmarus expected, he endeavoured to establish his 
The Articles of Quiercy.  Doctrine another way. Wherefore meeting at Quiercy, in his return from the Council of Soissons held in 853, with several Bishops and Abbots, he propounded four Heads of Doctrine to the Emperor, which were published by his Authority. The I. was, That there is no other Predestination but only to Life, by which God had chosen out of the Mass of Perdition, into which all Men are fallen by the Sin of Adam, those whom he hath predestinated by his Grace to Glory. And as to those whom he hath left in the State of Damnation, he foresaw that they would perish, but he hath not predestined them to destruction, but only hath predestined the Eternal punishment which they have deserved. The II. is. That the freewill which we have lost by the Sin of the first Man, is restored by Jesus Christ, and we have a full power to do good by the assistance of his Grace, and to do evil, being forsaken by it. The III. is, That God would have all Men without exception to be saved, although they are not all saved. That those that are saved, are so by the Grace of Christ, and those that perish are damned for their own Sins. The iv was, That Jesus Christ hath suffered for all Men, although all Men are not redeemed by the Mystery of his Passion, which doth not happen because the Price of Redemption is not great enough, or sufficient, but because they have not Faith, or not such a Faith as is saving, i. e. a Faith which worketh by Love.  
These four Articles were Signed by the Bishops and Abbot's present at their Assembly, and if we 
Prudentius' Letter to the Council of Sens.  may believe Hincmarus, were subscribed by Prudentius himself. But this Bishop repenting of what he had done, wrote to the Bishops assembled at Sens to choose a Bishop of Paris, that since he could not be present himself at that Synod, he had sent Arnoldus, a Priest, to whom he had given commission to subscribe to their Election of a Bishop, provided they would sign and approve these four Articles concerning Grace. 1. That the freewill of Man which was lost by the disobedience of Adam, is so far restored by the Grace of Jesus Christ, that we cannot do, think, or desire any good thing without it. 2. That God hath predestinated some to Eternal Life through his mere Mercy, and others through his just Judgement to Damnation. 3. That the Blood of Jesus Christ was shed for them that believe on him, and not for those that do not believe. 4. That God saves all those he will have saved, and that no Man can be saved whom he will not have saved. 'Tis not known what effect this Letter had in the Council of Sens, but is probable that it was read, but nothing was determined in that matter.  
But the 4 Articles of Quiercy being sent to the Church of Lions, the Archbishop examined them, 
The 4 Articles of Quiercy as confuted by the Church of Lions.  and confuted them in a Book made on purpose, [Entitled, A Censure of the Articles of Quiercy, or a Book proving that the Truth of Scripture is to be held, and the Judgements of the Holy Fathers followed.] In answer to the first Article, he finds fault with these Assertions; 1. That the first Man was free to do good, not mentioning the Divine assistance, without which neither he nor the Angels themselves can do good; 2. That they speak of the Predestination of the Elect, as if it were made upon the account of their good Works foreseen; 3. That they deny, that God hath predestinated the Wicked to Damnation. Upon the 2d Article he objects, 1. That they have spoken too succinctly and briefly about freewill, having said nothing, but produced some Explications of the Fathers upon that point; 2. That they had asserted, that we have utterly lost our freewill by the Sin of the first Man, though the Fathers acknowledge, that though it be weakened by that Sin, it still subsists in Man▪ but he can't use it well without the assistance of Grace. That all Men have naturally Judgement, Reason, and Understanding, by which they are able to distinguish that which is good from that which is evil, and that which is just from that which is unjust. That they also have a liberty of choosing good in some sort, but through the Law we have of Human Affairs, 'tis wholly carried upon the good of Society, Transactions of the World, and certain private Interests. Lastly, That in that respect we can do some good, but we can do nothing towards our Eternal Happiness but by the inspiration and Motions of Grace. 3. He also reproves them in this Article for saying, that after regeneration we have liberty of doing evil, as if we had it not before Regeneration. Concerning the 3d Article, which is about the Will of God to save all Men, part of his Remarks are lost, but by what remains we may see, that he disapproved their asserting of it so generally, and had rejected the Father's Explications of it. In the last Article he reproves them for saying, 1. That there is no Man's Nature that is not healed by Jesus Christ, and asserts, that Jesus Christ did not assume the Humane Nature of necessity, but of his own good will, and that for the Elect; 2. He dislikes them for holding, that there is not, ever was, nor shall be a Man for whom Christ died not. He confesses that he died for all that is Baptised, and for the Righteous Men of the Old Testament, but denies, that he died for all Infidels which died before Christ's Nativity, for those who never received the Faith, or Infants dying without Baptism. He maintains, that Christ died for none, but for those for whom the Church prays, and mentions in their Holy Services after their Death. Lastly, He disapproves their comparison between Infidels that never received the Faith, and Christians, who though they have been Baptised, die in their Sins. [This Confutation of Remigius of the Articles of Quiercy is extant with the Treatises last mentioned.]  
Remigius Bishop of Lions having thus confuted the Articles made at Quiercy by his own Writings, 
The Canons of the Council of Valence about Grace.  caused his Doctrine to be confirmed in a Council held at Valence, an. 855. made up of 14 Bishops of the Provinces of Lions, Arles, and Vienna, in which the 3 Metropolitans presided, and Ebbo Bishop of Grenoble was present. They made 6 Canons in this Synod concerning Grace, freewill, and Predestination. The first forbids all Novel Expressions about such Matters, and commands Men to follow the Doctrine of the Latin Fathers. In the 2d they declare, that God hath foreseen from all Eternity all the Good which Righteous Men will do by his Grace, and all the Evil that Sinners will do by their own Malice; That the Righteous shall receive Eternal Life as a reward of their good Actions, and the Wicked be condemned justly for their Crimes to Eternal punishment. That this Prescience lays no necessity upon any Man, none being condemned but for their Original or actual Sins. In the 3d the Bishops strongly assert the Predestination of good Men to Eternal Life, and of Wicked Men to Eternal Death. Nevertheless after such a manner, as that in the choice of them that shall be saved the Mercy of God goes before their Works, but on the contrary in the damnation of those that perish their Crimes goes before the just Judgement of God, yet God hath predestinated no Man to sin by his own power, so that those that are predestinated are under necessity of being damned. The 4th is about the Death of Jesus Christ, concerning which they think it sufficient to say, and confess sincerely, that Jesus Christ died for all those that believe in him. They reject the 4 Canons of Quiercy as idle, vain, and false, and condemn Scotus' Treatise as a silly Book. In the 5th they assure all those that are Baptised and Regenerate, that they have a part in the Redemption of Jesus Christ, although afterward they lose the Innocency of Baptism, and are in the number of the Reprobate. Lastly, in the last they declare, that as concerning the Grace of Christ, by which Men are saved, and the freewill of Man weakened by the Sin of Adam, but restored by the Grace of Jesus Christ, they do hold as the Holy Fathers have taught, what the Councils of Africa and Orange have decided, and what is held and maintained by the Bishops of the Apostolic See.  
These Canons of the Council of Valence were presented to the Emperor Lotharius, the King of these Bishops who had made them, with the Treatise made upon that Subject by the Church of 
The Relation of what followed the Council of Valence about the Contest of Grace.  Lions, and the Propositions of Scotus, that he might send them to Charles the Bald, and that he would advise him at the same time not to suffer the contrary Doctrine to be published in his Realm, but Lotharius not being to do it, Ebbo Bishop of Grenoble presented these Pieces himself to Charles the Bald, who went to him to his Palace at Verbery, an. 856. This Prince in September the same year, delivered them to Hincmarus to examine them, who composed an Answer to them. His Book was of a considerable bulk, and dedicated to Charles the Bald; it was Entitled, Of Predestination and freewill, and divided into 3 parts. We have not the Work itself, but only the Letter written to Charles, which served for a Preface to it. In it he complains that they had con●emned his 4 Articles without so much as reciting of them, and had put a bad construction upon them. That they would have him undertake the Defence of Scotus' Proposition, which he never saw, nor knew, and which were collected only to make Orthodox Persons odious. That they had made this noise without desiring his Opinion, without advertising him of what they disliked, without hearing him or citing him to the Synod. He wondered that Ebbo Bishop of Grenoble, a Person so Eminent for Piety, should engage in such a Faction. He observes by the buy, as a thing extraordinary, that of all the Bishops that were at the Council of Valence, he only was named in the Head of the Council amongst the Archbishops, which looked like affectation of Greatness, though he would not call it Pride. Lastly, That the Bishops of this Council had begun the Quarrel, and laid the foundation of the Difference. He than lays down the order of his Answer; First, he tells the Emperor, that he had sent him the Writings which had been presented to him by the Council; 2. That he had joined to them several other Tracts which he had received from other places upon the same Subject, of which he approved so much only as was agreeable to his 4 Articles; That he will make a Collection of the Authorities and Passages of the Fathers. Lastly, That he will prove, that these Articles are agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, and the Scriptures, which she acknowledges for genuine, and the Fathers whose Writings she allows, to which he will add the Authorities of more late Orthodox Writers, as Beda, Alcuinus, and Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury.  
In the year 859 the same Bishops which were present at the Council of Valence being met in the Suburbs of Langres with the Emperor Charles, presented to him the 6 Canons under debate, but suppressed what was said in them particularly against the 4 Articles of Hincmarus; Fifteen days after they met at a Council at Savona in the Province of Toul [or Tullium], where they were also read. Hincmarus and those of his Party opposed their Reception, but Remigius Archbishop of Lions desired, that the Decision of the Controversy might be entirely left to the next Synod, to which they would every one bring the Books of the most eminent Fathers of the Church, and out of them determine what they should follow, that they might be of one mind. This was the conclusion of this Council, but Prudentius did not rest here, but brought the Matter to Rome, sending the Canons of the Council of Valence to Pope Nicolas. that he might confirm them. Prudentius says the Pope approved of them, but Hincmarus did not yield to it, and would not take notice of the Definition which he had passed upon the Question.  
We do not find that this Question was afterward Examined or Judged in any Council of France, 
Hincmarus' 2d Treatise of Predestination.  but Hincmarus made another Treatise of Predestination to defend his 4 Articles, and confute the Canons of the Council of Valence. This also is dedicated to Charles the Bald, containing 38 Chapters. In the first he treats of the Original of the Heresy of the Predestinarians, and pretends to prove, that it began since the time of S. Austin; and to prove it, he makes use of the Testimonies not only of S. Austin, but of S. Prosper and Celestine, by whom it appears that S. Austin's Doctrine of Grace was opposed by several, but he doth not observe, that they who opposed it then, were altogether opposite to the Error of the Predestinarians, for the Priests of Marseilles, and the other Frenchmen of whom S. Austin and Prosper speak, were so far from being Predestinarians, that they contradicted the Doctrine of S. Austin about Predestination, because it seemed too rigorous. He citys a Book falsely attributed to S. Austin, called Hyp●mnesticon; He maintains very positively that it is his, and proves it by the Letter of Faustus to Lucidus about the Recantation of that Priest, and by the Authority of the Council of Arles, which through a mistake (he says) was held by the Authority of Celestine, who was dead 44 years before that Council. In the 2d he gives the History of Gotteschalcus, whom he pretends to have revived the Error of the Predestinarians. In the 3d he rejects the Authority of Fulgentius, but he gives one bad Reason for it, when he says, that he is not much to be esteemed, because Pope Gelasius doth not reckon him among the Doctors of the Church, for Gelasius was dead 8 or 9 years before this Father wrote. In the 4th he proves himself conformable to the Doctrine of the Apostolic See. In the 5th, after he hath observed that Gotteschalcus and his Followers writ the Authorities of the Scripture and Fathers to establish that Error imperfectly, he brings the Propositions of Gotteschalcus, Prudentius, and Retramnus, in which they acknowledge Predestination to Eternal Torments. In the 6th he gins to treat of the Canons of the Council of Valence in particular. He observes in that Chapter, that the first is taken out of Florus, a Deacon of the Church of Lions, but his Sentence is changed and altered by him that transcribed and abridged it. In the 7th he explains the Passage of S. Paul alleged by the Compiler of them, in which he says there are Vessels of Wrath fitted for Destruction. He citys several places of the Fathers to explain that Text, and show, that 'tis not God that hath fitted those Vessels for Death, but they fitted themselves for it by their Sins. In the 8th he alleges some places in Fulgentius, to show, that God hath predestinated no Man to Death. In the 9th he citys some Passages of Isidore of Sivil, S. Austin, S. Fulgentius, and Florus, to explain those which his Adversaries had alleged. In the 10th he expounds several places of Scripture which they made use of. In the 11th he examines the following Canon of the Council of Valence. He finds fault, that they had laid aside the Explication of Florus, and distinguished between Predestination to Grace and Predestination to Glory. In the 12th he treats of Predestination at large according to the Principles of S. Austin. He saith that God hath predestinated the Works as well as the Glory of the Elect. That he hath foreseen the Sins of the Reprobate, and knowing them, not only foresees, but predestines the punishment which they shall suffer, but he affirms, that it can't be said, that he hath predestinated them to Death or Damnation. So that all the difference between Hincmarus and his Adversaries is in this, that these affirm, that God foreseeing the Sins which the Reprobate would voluntarily commit, hath predestinated and condemned them upon the account of them to Damnation. And Hincmarus confesses, that God hath prepared and predestinated this Eternal punishment for their Crimes, but will not say that he hath predestinated them to be damned. S. Fulgentius in his Book which he wrote to Monimus, was most favourable to the Opinion which Hincmarus opposes, for which reason it is, that in the 13th Chapter he opposes some Passages of S. Prosper, and in his 14th a Passage of S. Augustine's cited by Fulgentius himself. In the 15th Chapter he returns to the History of the pretended Predestinarians. He says that the ancient Predestinarians had 4 Errors. The first, That God condemns Men for the Sins which they have not committed, but would have committed had they lived. The 2d, That Baptism doth not take away Original Sin from the● who are not of the number of the Predestinated. The 3d, That there is no difference between Prescience and Predestination. The 4th, That God hath predestinated Men to Sin and Damnation. He owns, that the Modern Predestinarians held not the first Error, that they pass the 2d, avoid the 3d, and have new moulded the 4th, although they retain the substance of it, asserting, that God hath predestined the Reprobate to Damnation, although he hath not predestinated them to Sin, since they can't suffer Damnation but by Sin. He confures the two former Errors in a few words. Then he undertakes to justify his 4 Articles, by showing that they are agreeable to the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, and chief of S. Austin, S. Fulgentius, and S. Gregory. He proves the first, which is concerning Predestination, by transcribing in the 16th Chapter several long Quotations of those Fathers. In the 17th he examines a place in the Book Entitled, Hypomnesticon, attributed to S. Austin. In the 18th he proves, that the number of the Elect is certain, and determined. In the 19th he owns, that a double Predestination may in some sense be allowed, though not in that of Gotteschalcus and his Adherents, who affirm, that God hath predestined Sinners to Torments, as he hath the Good to Glory, but that it may be said, The Elect are predestined to Glory, and Eternal Torments are predestined for the Wicked. In the 20th he examines in what sense S. Gregory speaks of the Predestinarians in the Plural Number. In the 21th Chapter he produces several Passages of S. Austin, to justify the sense and terms of his 2d Article of freewill. In the 22d he shows, that what is said in that Article is conformable to the Decisions of the Councils of afric and Orange about Grace and freewill. In the 23d he answers the accusation brought against him, that he had affirmed, that Man had wholly lost his freewill by the fall of Adam; He aims, that Man hath a freedom of Will since Adam's Sin, but his freewill is a Slave to Sin, which leads him to the commission of Evil only, so that he can't do any good through the weakness of it without the Grace of Jesus Christ. In the 24th Chapter he treats about his 3d Article, which is about the Will of God to save all Men. He declares, that the Church of Rome, which is the first Church in the World, aught to be consulted about that point in the first place. He compares it to the ancient Jerusalem, and citys a Passage in the forged Decretal of Pope Anacletus, which says, that that Church was founded by God himself. He adds also a Citation out of Innocent's Letter to Decentius Bishop of Eugubium, after which he quotes a Sentence of Celestine, where he says, that the Prayers of the Church determine what we shall believe, Legem credendi Lex statuat supplicandi; From whence he concludes, that since the Church prays for all Men without restriction, or exception, we ought to believe, that God will have all Men to be saved without exception. But why then are not all Men saved? He says, 'tis because they will not; They that love Darkness rather than Light, Injustice than Justice, Sin than Virtue, destroy themselves; That it will not then follow, that God is not Almighty, because he knows how to dispose of their actions who will not do as he wills them. Whereupon he citys several Passages out of S. Austin and S. Gregory, but depends chief upon the words of S. chrysostom. In the next Chapter he joins some Expressions taken out of the Writings attributed to S. Dionysius the Arropagite, S. Cyprian, S. Hilary, S. chrysostom, S. Theophilus, S. Jerom, and S. Cyrill, some things also he brings out of S. Austin and S. Prosper, to whom also he adds S. Calestin, S. Leo, S. Gregory, Bede, and Cassid●re. In the following Chapter he confirms this Doctrine of the Will of God to save all Men without exception, because if God would not have all Men to be saved, some would be under a necessity of damnation. And whereas his Adversaries objected, that the Will of God is all powerful, and therefore. if God would have all Men to be saved, they would be so. He puts the same Question to them as to the Angels, and urges them to answer it. Are those Angels which are fallen, fallen by the Will of God, or not? And since they could not deny according to their own Principle, but that God did desire their Salvation: He concludes that they must own, that Gods will hath not always its effect. He there recites several Passages of the Fathers to explain those places of Scripture where the allpowerful will of God is spoken of. In the 27th Chapters he examines the State of the Question concerning the 4th Article, the Death of Jesus Christ for all Men. He declares, that it extends not to the Devils, for whom Jesus Christ was no Mediator, but only to Men. And whereas it was demanded of him, whether Jesus Christ died for Antichrist; He answers, that Antichrist shall be a Man, and since Jesus Christ died for all Men, he is of the number of those for whom Christ died. In the 28th Chapter he citys several Passages of the Fathers, to prove, that Jesus Christ died for those Men who are dead in their Sins, although it can't be said, that they are redeemed for Eternal Salvation. In the 29th he justifies the Expression which he had delivered, that there never was a Man whose Flesh was not assumed by Jesus Christ, and citys several places of the Fathers which approve that Expression. He than shows, that those that are Baprized receive the Faith that worketh by Love, which he had affirmed in his last Article. He adds in the following Chapter, that except two Sentences of it, the rest of that Article is taken out of S. Prosper.  
Hincmarus' having thus justified himself, passes his Judgement upon the Writings which were come to his hands, made upon this subject. He disapproves Sco●us's and Prudentius' Books, and says, that he will not enter into any Contest with them because he does not know their design, yet he tells us that he had observed some Expressions in them contrary to the Catholic Truth, viz. That there is a Triple Divinity; That the Sacrament of the Altar is not the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, but a Memorial only of his true Body and Blood; That the Angels are Corporeal; That the Soul of Man is not in his Body; That the Tortures of Hell are nothing else but the remembrance of Sins and the reflection of a guilty Conscience; and other fruitless Questions concerning the manner how we shall see God, which arise perhaps, saith Hincmarus, from hence, that those who are busiest to move such disputes take no care to see him. He rejects the 7 Rules laid down by Prudentius. In the 3●th Chapter he shows, that those that lived before the coming of Jesus Christ are redeemed by his Death, as well as those that live after his coming. In the 32d he produces a great number of Testimonies both from the Greek and Latin Fathers, to prove, that Jesus Christ died for all Men without exception. In the next Chapter he confirms the same Doctrine by several Reasons grounded upon the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, and shows, that although Jesus Christ died for all Men, yet they are not all redeemed and saved, because they will not. In the 35th he approves the 5th Canon of the Council of Valence, propounded by his Adversaries; That Jesus Christ died for all those that are Regenerate by Baptism; But he maintains, that Gotteschalcus and the Predestinarians deny that Baptism washes away the guilt of Original Sin from those that are not predestinated, and confutes their Error.  
The Bishops of the Council of Valence, after the Articles of Grace, freewill, and Predestination, 
Hincmarus' Remarks upon the Constitution of the Councils of Valenc● about Ordinations.  confuted by Hincmarus, added a Canon concerning the Ordinations of Bishops to this effect. To prevent for the future, that Ignorant Bishops, unable to discharge that great Function, and whose Lives are not sufficiently Examined, may not be put into the Sees, as they formerly have been, (to the utter ruin and overthrow of all Church Discipline● it is decreed, That after the Death of any Bishop, they should Petition the Princes to grant the People and Clergy of that City power to make a Canonical Election of some Person of the same, or the Neighbouring Diocese, who is fit to fill the See, and if any Clerk be sent from Court to be made their Bishop, they should strictly examine and look into his Life and Doctrine and Manners before they Ordain him, and if he be found an Ignorant, Vicious, and Simoniacal Person, the Metropolitan should refuse to Ordain him, and going to Court represent it to the Prince. Hincmarus' imagining, that this Canon was made against him, and some other Bishops who had been Ordained through the favour of the Court, takes it into Examination, and therefore, in the 36th Chapter he observes first, that this Canon makes directly against him whom he thought the Author of it, because he was Shaved and Ordained in another Church than that of which he was Bishop, evidently meaning Remigius Archbishop of Lions. Secondly, He observes, that he had left out several things which concerned the Ordination of a Bishop, as for Example, If they choose a Clergyman of another Church, that he should not be Ordained till his Bishop hath given his Consent. Thirdly, He says, that those Men are not worthy to bear the Names of Bishops whose Ordination was such, as he describes, Ignorant, Vicious, and Simoniacal. Fourthly, He says, that in speaking so he affronts all the Bishops of France, the Metropolitans who have made such unlawful Ordinations, and the Princes who have approved them. Fifthly, He defends his own Ordination, and relates the whole History of the Deposition of Ebbo, and the Process had against him; He relates the Judgement given in favour of him against Ebbo in the Council of Soissons in 853. the Declaration of Ebbo, who acknowledged himself justly deposed, and consented another should be made Bishop in his place, approved by the Bishops met at Thionville in 835, whose Sentence was confirmed by Pope Sergius. He adds, that 
Theodo●is Villa.  10 years after this Deposition, the Bishops of the Diocese of R●ims being Assembled at Beauvais, desired him of the Prince, and he was Ordained by his Consent after he had been Canonically chosen by the Clergy and People of Reims. Hereupon he says, that he spoke these things with regret, but he was obliged to it, lest any Man reading this Canon should think his Ordination contrary to the Canons and Rules of the Church. Then he opposes to this Article 12 Canons of the Church concerning the Penalties to be inflicted upon such Persons as revive old Heresies that have been condemned; Which are, 1. When an Error hath been once condemned by the Church, it needs no further Confutation. 2 That when the Author of an Heresy is condemned, all that fall into the same Heresy are involved in the same Condemnation. 3. That the same Condemnation extends to all the Abettors of an Heresy. 4. That they that Communicate with Heretics, ought not to be admitted to any Synod of the Orthodox. 5. That those that revive a Condemned Heresy ought to be reproved by all the Bishops by virtue of the ancient Condemnation. 6. That it is not lawful to introduce new Doctrines, nor compose new Creeds. 7. That such as acknowledge their Errors may be again received into the Church provided that we find sure tokens of their sincere Repentance in their return. 8. That such Persons may never be promoted to any higher degree of the Clergy than what they are now in. 9 That if they relapse again they deprive themselves of their Dignity. 10. That those that act any thing contrary to the Definitions of Pope Celestine ought to be Excommunicated. 11. That such Clergymen may be received, and continued in their degree of Priesthood, who having once assented to the true Faith, subscribe to Errors, provided they deliver a Recantation of their Errors in Writing. 12. That they that will not subscribe to the Truth are condemned of themselves. Hincmarus' alleges a great number of Authorities of Popes, Councils and Fathers, to prove these Points of Discipline, which never were contested, in which he shows more Learning and Skill in the Canons of the Church, than Judgement or Equity. Lastly, Hincmarus ending this Work, adds a Conclusion divided into 6 Chapters, in which he sums up what he had before said concerning Predestination, Grace, freewill, the Will of God to save all Men, and the Death of Jesus Christ for Infidels.  
Some time after Hincmarus wrote another Treatise against Gotteschalcus upon another Subject. 
Hincmarus' Book upon the Expression T●ina Deitas.  He had forbidden, that the Hymn of the Martyrs, called Sanctorum Meritis, should be sung in his Church, because at the end of it the Three Persons of the Trinity were called T●ina Deitas, thinking that Expression to be contrary to the manner of speaking exactly about that Mystery. Gotteschalcus' seeking an occasion to expose and accuse him, composed a Treatise to defend this Expression, maintaining that the Trinity was Personaliter Trina, i. e. Personally Three, because each Person of the Trinity hath his perfect and entire Deity, & Naturaliter una. He justified this Expression by some Examples of like Expressions drawn out of the Fathers. Hincmarus' maintained the contrary, that the Deity was the Name of the Nature not of the Persons, and that we might not say Trina Deitas, as we ordinarily do Tres Personae, because there is but one God in Three Persons. It is apparent, that this dispute was only about Words and Names, which Hincmarus spins out to a great length with much Zeal in his large Treatise Entitled, De Trina Deitate, reciting several Quotations of the Fathers, and producing several Arguments, which is both tedious and needless to abridge. We understand by Hincmarus, that not only Gotteschalcus, but also Ratramnus Abbot of Corby had written in the Defence of this Expression, and that the Benedictine Monks did sing this Hymn, not leaving out Trina Deitas. But now we do not find those Words in the Hymn of the Martyrs, which seems to be changed into, Te Summa Deitas, for they are in the Prose of S. Thomas upon the Eucharist. [The Editions of Hincmarus' Works are set down at the end of the 6th Chapter following, to which the Reader is referred.]  
The End of the Second Controversy and Chapter.   

CHAP. III.  
A Relation of the Contest between Hincmarus and Rothadus Bishop of Soissons.  
HIncmarus was engaged in many other Controversies and Quarrels, which were not ended 
Rothadus B●shop of Soissons.  with less trouble than that with Gotteschalcus. The first was the Contest with Rothadus Bishop of Soissons, in which he was forced to contend with the Pope himself, and at last give place to his Judgement. This Rothadus had been Ordained Bishop of Soissons in the Reign of Lewis the Kind. He had an Order to apprehend Ebbo, his Metropolitan, who was fled, and to shut him up in a Monastery, that he might attend the Synod. He was present in 835 at the Synod held at Thionville, where Ebbo was deposed. So that Rothadus was an ancient Bishop when Hincmarus was made Archbishop of Reims, which was 10 years after the Deposition of Ebbo, which perhaps was the Reason, that he would not give so much respect and subjection to Hincmarus as he expected of him. The beginning of the Business of Gotteschalcus shows, that Rothadus and 
The Disagreement between Rothadus and Hincmarus. Hincmarus' Accusation of him.  Hincmarus were not well affected to one another, for Hincmarus would not put that Monk into his Custody, suspecting him to be inclinable to Novelties. There were also some other differences, about which Hincmarus was angry with Rothadus, as his frequent Admonitions and Threaten of him showed. At last the Quarrel broke out, when Hincmarus accused him at the Council held at Senlis in 863, that he had unjustly deposed a Priest of his Diocese, and would not obey his Metropolitan, who commanded him to be restored, and the Person put in his place to be removed; that he had squandered away the Church Revenue, and pawned pawned a Golden Chalice; that he had sold the Vessels and Ornaments of the Church without the consent of his Metropolitan, the Bishops of Provence, yea, of the Steward and Clergy of his own Church, and that he had lived in such a way as did not become a Bishop. Rothadus seeing himself likely to be condemned, appealed to the Holy See, and desired that he might have leave to go to Rome. Hincmarus and the Bishops of the Council 
Rothadus' Appeal to Rome.  consented to it, upon condition that he should return by such a time. Rothadus returned immediately to his Diocese, and prepared for his Voyage to Rome. But before his departure he wrote to the King, and Hincmarus, and at the same time sent some Heads of Request to a Bishop that was his Friend, to be shown to the King, in which he prayed the Bishops that had not consented to his Condemnation, to stir in his defence. The Priest that carried this Letter was constrained by the King and Hincmarus to show it them, although the Bishop to whom it was directed was not present. When Hincmarus had read it, he made use of it directly to hinder his going to Rome, and have him judged in France. He interpreted this as a tacit Renunciation of his Appeal, and that he would be contented to b● judged in France by the Bishops he had desired the assistance of, and 
Rothadus' Condemnation.  since they were the Judges he had chosen himself, he could not afterward Appeal from them according to the Rule Ab electis Judicibus appellere non licet.  
Being therefore glad of this opportunity he persuaded the King to appoint those very Bishops for his Judges, whose assistance he begged, and immediately sent a Prohibition to Rothadus to stop his Journey to Rome, and caused him to be Summoned to a Synod by those Bishops. Rothadus refused at first to come, and insisted upon his Appeal to Rome, but it was denied him; so, against his Will, he was brought to the Synod, Deposed, and afterward Deprived, Banished and Imprisoned. Another Bishop was put into his place, but to lighten his Sufferings, Hincmarus gave him a good Abbey, with which he might live commodiously. Hincmarus says, that Rothadus, at first, seemed to acquiesce in this Judgement, but afterwards being solicited by the Bishops of the Kingdom, and by Lotharius, who quarrelled with him, because he would not wholly join with them in the Matter of Waldrada, as also by some Bishops of Germany, Lewis' Kingdom, he put himself in the head of them, and went to Rome, to obtain his Restoration. But Rothadus on the contrary maintained, that he never acquiesced in that Judgement; that he always protested against it; and demanded, that he might be Judged at Rome, and never had any intention to choose the French Bishops for his Judges; that it was a Trick of Hincmarus', who made that ill use of the Letter he wrote to a Bishop 
The Quarrel between the Pope and Hincmarus about the business of Rothadus.  his Friend. But however that was, Charles the Bald having given Pope Nicolas an Account, that Rothadus, who had Governed the Diocese of Soissons very ill for 30 Years, was Deposed, and desiring him to approve his Deposition, was answered, that he did not approve it in the least; and wrote in particular to Hincmarus, that he should restore Rothadus within 30 days, after he had received his Letter, or suffer him to come to Rome, and come himself, or send his Deputy on his behalf, threatening him, that if he did not do one of them within that time, he will interdict him from the Celebrating the H. Sacrament, and would inflict the same Sentence upon all those who consented to the Condemnation of Rothadus. Hincmarus, and the other Bishops of France, understanding that Pope complained of their Judgement, sent the Acts of his Deposition to him, by Odo a Bishop, and wrote to him at large concerning that Matter, but the Acts did only confirm the Pope in his Resolution and Opinion: Wherefore he wrote again to Hincmarus, that he was much troubled to see, that they had Judged that Bishop contrary to the Appeal he had made to the Holy See; that they ought not to have Deposed him without Writing to the Bishop of Rome; and which is much worse, Ordained another Bishop in his place after he had entered his Appeal. For which reason, he refused to confirm those Privileges which Hincmarus had requested him to do, exhorting him to amend what he had done amiss, and enjoining him a second time to send Rothadus to Rome, threatening him, that if he did not do it, he would pass a definitive Sentence upon him, after a third Admonition. He gave Charles the Bald also an account of what he had Written to Hincmarus, desiring him to take it into serious consideration; and to show his displeasure, told him plainly, that he must expect no favour from Rome, if he would not maintain the Privileges and Prerogatives of the H. See. He also wrote a Letter to all the Bishops who were present at the Synod of Senlis, and had consented to the Deposition of Rothadus; in which, after some Allegations out of the Fathers, and the Canons of the Council of Sardica, to confirm the Right of Appeals to the H. See, and condemning the Behaviour of the Bishops of France, in pronouncing Judgement against Rothadus, he order them to recall him from the place of his Exile, and to send him to Rome, and with him two or three Bishops, or their Deputies, that he might re-examine that Affair, assuring them, that if they did not obey his Order within thirty days after they had received his Letter, he would Absolve Rothadus, and treat them as they had used him. Nicolas, at the same time, also gave Rothadus notice of what he had done for him, viz. That he had Written to Hincmarus and exhorted him to come to Rome and answer his Appeal; and after he had received the Acts of his Condemnation, he let him know what he had Answered to the Bishops of France, at the same time advising him, if he knew himself Guilty, to submit to the Sentence passed against him, as he had advised his Adversaries to restore him, if they believed him wrongfully Cendemned. He tells him also, that he was permitted to come to him, being assured by the King and Hincmarus, that he was already let out of the Monastery to which he was confined. He desired the King likewise to furnish him with all things necessary for his Voyage, and tells the Queen Hermentruda, that he could not pass by this Matter, as she had desired him, to gratify her Husband Charles the Bald. It is evident that Hincmarus, who had a mind to keep the Matter as it was, hindered Rothadus from going his Journey, for Nicolas was forced to send him a fourth Letter, wherein he complains of his Carriage, and forbids him Consecrating him Bishop of Soissons who was chosen to be put in Rothadus' place. Hincmarus' seeing himself out of favour at Rome about this Affair, and some 
Hincmarus' 〈◊〉 Rothadus.  other Matters, writes a long Letter to Pope Nicolas to justify himself, chief about this Matter. In the Letter he assures him, that Rothadus was not condemned with a design to hinder his Appeal to the H. See, that he was Tried by such Judges as he had made choice of himself, upon which account it was that he thought it not necessary to send him to Rome, but judged it sufficient to acquaint his Holiness of the Sentence they had passed on him; That he was persuaded that the Holy See ought not to be troubled with personal differences, between either the Superior or Inferior Clergy, for the Canons of Nice, and the Constitutions of Pope Innocent, and many other, leave them to the Judgement of the Metropolitan, and Bishops of the Province. 'Tis true, when the causes of the Bishops are difficult, and can't be decided by the ordinary Canons in a Council of the Province, than they ought to be carried to the H. See. As also if a Bishop, who hath been Tried by a Council of the Province, and hath not Appealed to Judges of his own choosing, thinks himself unjustly Condemned, he may Appeal to the Patriarch to have his Cause reexamined, and the Pope may Write to those that have been his Judges, as it is appointed in the Council of Sardica. That the Archbishops only receive their Pall of the Pope, who therefore ought only to be Judged immediately by him. Coming in the next place to the business of Rothadus, he says, That he had been admonished of his Duty long before, and reproved for his Disorders, but not reforming in the least, he was obliged to accuse him before the Synod of Bishops, that he might grow better upon their Advice; and that instead of harkening to them, he desired that they would be Judges of the difference between him and his Metropolitan. That these Judges had condemned him, and he acquiesced at first in their Sentence, but afterward being solicited by the Bishops of the Provinces of Lotharius, and Lewis of Germany, required his Restoration. That upon the Letters that the Pope had Written he was set at Liberty, and they would send him to Rome, but they did not think it fit to Restore him, because he was unworthy, and his disorders being so public, they could not do it without Scandal. That if his Holiness would restore him, he would quietly submit to his Decision, but he took himself obliged to let him know the Crimes of that Bishop, of which, if he were well informed, he could not believe that he would Disannul the Judgement given against him, especially since he chose the Judges himself; and according to the Council of Carthage, it is not allowed to Appeal from the Sentence of those Judges a Person hath chosen himself. He insinuates, that according to the Council of Sardica, the Pope ought not to have the first Hearing of the Causes of the Bishops, nor Judge them at Rome, but they ought first to be determined in their own Province; and in case of Appeal, the Pope must send his Commissioners to the places. He adds, That if he that hath been Condemned at the first Trial be Restored, the latter Examination ought not to hurt the Persons of the first Judges, nor ought they to be reproved for it, unless it appears that they have Condemned him out of Enmity, Coverousness, or Partiality. In fine, That if the Pope Annuls the Judgement passed upon Rothadus, he would render all the Judgements of the Bishops of France ever after contemptible. As for himself, he would never concern himself to Judge, or Condemn any Man, but, if they would not amend upon Admonition, send them to Rome. And this he shall be obliged to do, to avoid the Menaces of Excommunication which the Pope hath so often repeated to him, altho' it is the Opinion of the Fathers that Excommunication ought rarely to be used, and that in case of great Necessity. Lastly, He implores him, that his Compassion for Rothadus should not make him overlook the Rules of Discipline, and give an ill Example of Impunity to the Church. These Maxims he confirmed by the Canons of the Councils, and the Ancient and Genuine Writings of the Popes. Hincmarus also in this Letter assures the Pope, that they had sent their Deputies to Rome in their stead, not to accuse Rothadus, but only to satisfy him, that the Bishops of France intended no manner of disrespect to the H. See in Judging him, and to certify the Pope, that that Bishop was condemned by those Bishops whom he chose for his Judges, But tho' Hincmarus had promised, in the Name of the French Bishops, to send their Deputies to Rome, nevertheless they did not go, and pretended, for an Excuse, that it was told them that the ways were not open, and they should be stopped in their Journey if they went. Wherefore Rothadus went alone, and having waited almost Eight Months for his Accusers, he presented a Petition to the Pope, in which he complains, That he had been Deposed in contempt of his Appeal to the H. See. He maintains, that he never desisted from his Appeal, nor did choose or demand any other Judges. He accuseth Hincmarus of Compulsion and Deceit. He complains of his ill usage which he had received from him, and prayed the Pope to Try him.  
Nicolas, who had entertained him civilly, and dealt with him as a Bishop, declared himself wholly for him, and made an Oration in S. Mary's Church upon the Eve of the Nativity 865, in which 
Pope Nicolas' Letters in favour of Rothadus.  he pleaded Rothadus' Cause, and maintains, That having Appealed to the H. See, he could not choose any other Judges, nor be Judged at another Tribunal; that he had not done it. And lastly, Since if he had not Appealed, they could not have Deposed him without acquainting the Bishop of Rome with it, because the Canons reserve the Knowledge of such Causes as concern the Bishops to the Holy See; He declares him Innocent, and Disannuls the Judgement given against him, and restores him to his Dignity; And after he had done it, with great noise, upon a Solemn Day, he makes it known to the Clergy and People of Rome in a Letter on purpose. He sent also an Express to Carolus Calvus, in which he much blames the proceed of Hincmarus in derogation of the Right which he pretended to belong to the Bishop of Rome, without whose Cognizance they could not Judge a Bishop. He complains of the delays which they had made for above two Years, keeping Rothadus from Rome, and neither sending their Deputies, Witnesses, nor Accusers. He declares Rothadus innocent, and desires the King, Charles the Bald, to see him restored to his Dignity and Estate. At the same time he wrote a Letter to Hincmarus, in which, after he had upbraided him with the same Deal, he commands him to submit to the Judgement he had given in favour of Rothadus, and to Execute it, or come himself to accuse him, upon condition, nevertheless, that Rothadus should be first restored to his Dignity and Revenues. In conclusion he says, That if he did not do one of them, he Pronounced him, by Virtue of his Apostolic Authority, Deposed from his Priestly Dignity, and separated from the Communion of the Church, without hopes of Restoration. He wrote also a large Letter to all the Bishops, to oblige them to receive Rothadus, and approve the Judgement he had given in his favour; and taking this occasion to greaten his Authority, he claims, as his due, that all Causes of the Bishops should be brought to the H. See. He upholds this pretence by the false Decretals, which he vouches to be Genuine, Ancient, and very Authentic; and because the Causes of the Bishops are the greatest Causes, whose Cognizance belongs to the Bishop of Rome, according to the Constitutions of the Popes. He proves that Rothadus made no Choice of his Judges, because he Named none in particular, but had only Written to some Bishops that they would undertake his Defence; that he never renounced his Appeal, nor indeed could he, because having once Appealed to a Superior Tribunal, he can't be Judged at an Inferior. Nevertheless, he declares that he will do no Injustice to any Man, and gave them free Liberty to accuse him before the H. See, upon condition they should first restore him, and put him in the same Quality he was before their Sentence passed upon him. He wrote also to the Clergy and People of Soissons, to Congratulate the Restoration of their Bishop, and Exhorts them to receive him joyfully. Lastly, He gave Rothadus a Letter directed to him, in which he restores him to his Dignity and Revenues, forbids all Men to trouble him, Exhorts him to take care of his Bishopric, and execute his Episcopal Functions diligently, (upon condition nevertheless, that if after he is restored, any one shall accuse him before the H. See, he shall be ready to defend himself) and Pronounced a Sentence of Excommunication against them, who, after three Admonitions, would not restore any Goods, that belong to the Church of Soissons, which they had invaded, and against them who communicated with such. This Letter is Dated January, Indict. 13. An. 866. [These Epistles of Pope Nicolas, with many other, are Printed in one Collection at Rome 1542. and in Tom. 8. of the Councils, p. 268, 480, 514, and 563.]  
Rothadus furnished with all these Letters returned into France. The Bishops of that Kingdom seeing 
The Conclusion of the business of Rothadus.  the Pope so earnest in that Affair, would not contend with him, but for Peace sake restored Rothadus, altho' they were persuaded that the Pope did not act according to the Canons, which appoint that Bishops should be Judged in the Province, and that their Causes should not be carried to Rome, but he ought to send Commissioners to the places. And this they did so much the more willingly, because the Person who had been put in his place was Dead, as Hincmarus' Bishop of Reims observes in the 5th Article against his Nephew Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon.   

CHAP. IU.  
A Relation of the Contest between Hincmarus and Wulfadus, and other Clerks Ordained by Ebbo, who had been Archbishop of Reims.  
HIncmarus had no better success in the Contest with Wulfadus, and some other Clerks Ordained by Ebbo, after the Deposition of him from his Archbishopric, than he had in the former with Rothadus. The Story is this: Hincmarus, than Archbishop of Reims, having observed that there were some Clerks in his Diocese Ordained by Ebbo, after he was Degraded, would not permit them to Execute their Office of Priest in the Church, nor acknowledge them as Clerks Lawfully Ordained. These Men seeing this, Appealed to the Council held at Soissons, in 
The Council of Soisso●●.  the Monastery of S. Medardus, in April 853, in which Hincmarus presided with Wenilo Archbishop of Sens, Paul Bishop of Roven, and Amauri Bishop of Tours, and at which also Thierri Bishop of Cambray, Rothadus Bishop of Soissons, Lupus Bishop of Chalons, Immo Bishop of Noion, Erpuin Bishop of Senlis, Hermenfridus Bishop of Beauvais, Pardulus Bishop of Laon, Hilmeradus Bishop of Amiens, Hubert Bishop of Meaux, Agius Bishop of Orleans, Prudentius Bishop of Troy's, Herimarus Bishop of Nevers, Ionas Bishop of Autun, Godefaldus Bishop of Chalon upon the Saone, Dodo Bishop of Angers, Gontbertus Bishop of Eureux, Hildebrandus Bishop of Seez, Erloinus Bishop of Co●tance, Balfredus Bishop of Baieux, Herrardus Bishop of Lizieux, Ansegaudus Bishop of Auranches▪ Breindigus Bishop of Maion, Lau●us Bishop of Angouleme, Roitbol Suffragan of Reims, several Priests, Abbots, Deacons and Clerks, were present, with Carolus Calous himself. These Prelates being Assembled, and treating about several Matters, Sigloardus, who supplied the place of the Archdeacon of the Church of Reims, told them, That there were several Clergymen standing at the Door and desired admittance: They asked him their Names, who told them, That they were Rodoaldus, Gislaldus, Wulfadus, Fredebertus, Canons of the Church of Reims, Sigismond a Monk, of the Monastery of S. Thierri, and three other of the Monastery of S. Remigius. The Council, and Prince, ordered them to come in, and Hincmarus immediately asked them their business. They answered, That they came to desire that they might be restored to their Priestly Function, to which they had been admitted by Ebbo, but had been Suspended from the Exercise of it by Hincmarus. Hincmarus asked them, whether they had a Petition in Writing. They answered, No. Whereupon he told them, that in Ecclesiastical Affairs 'tis usual to use Instruments and Records. That the Catechumeni gave in their Names in Writing when they required Baptism. That the Elections of Bishops were confirmed by an Instrument Signed by the Electors. That a Bishop when he was Ordained received Letters Testimonial of his Ordination. That all Accusations, Judicial Sentences, Excommunications, and Admission to Communion were performed by public Records, and so they ought to prefer their Petition subscribed by their Hands, that they may determine about their demands. Therefore they drew up a Petition immediately, and presented it to the 3 Archbishops the Precedents of the Council. Hincmarus' reading it over, and perceiving that Wulfadus his Name was not to it, because he understood he was sick in the Monastery, he sent a Request to him by his Messengers to sign it as the others had done, which he did. When it was brought back, Hincmarus said, that if their Complaint had been made against any Bishop, it had belonged to him to judge of it, but being made against that Sentence which he had passed upon them, the determination ought to be referred to Judges chosen by both Parties according to the Canon of the Council of afric, confirmed in the first Book of the Synodal Articles of the Emperor Charles the Great, Chap. 43. Whereupon he delivered a Writing, in which he declared, that he chooses for his Judges in that Cause Wenilo Archbishop of Sens, Amauri Archbishop of Tours, and Pardulus Bishop of Laon, who should have his place in the Judgement, without any prejudice to the Primacy of the Church of Reims, to his own Rights, and the Respect due to the Apostolic See. After which he retired, and Pardulus took his place. The Complainants were then allowed to choose either the same Judges or others, or to add whom they pleased to them. Whereupon they chose the same, adding only Prudentius Bishop of Troy's, against whom Hincmarus had nothing to object. Wulfadus also consented to this Election, and so the first Action or Session of this Synod ended.  
In the Second, the Judges declared first of all, that if Ebbo had Ordained these Clerks before he was deposed, or since his Deposition was declared unjust and his Restoration Canonical, there had been no dispute, but that they ought to exercise their Priestly Office. But since those that Ordained Hincmarus have proved that Ebbo was justly deposed, and that he never was Canonically restored, and that he had the boldness to Ordain these Clerks after his Deposition, it is evident, that they neither can nor aught to exercise their Function. Then Thierri Bishop of Cambray presented the Acts of the Deposition of Ebbo, by which it appears, that he was deposed after he had owned his fault, that he had himself consented to his Degradation, and had notice given him not to exercise any Episcopal Function. It was also set down in the Book of these Acts, that Pope Sergius had confirmed his Condemnation, and ordered him to be allowed only a Lay-communion; that since he had not been Canonically restored, but had dared to Exercise his Priestly Function, of which he had been justly divested.  
In the Third Action, Hincmarus' Ordination was Examined. Rothadus Bishop of Soissons brought the Testimonial of his Election, signed by the Clergy and People. Hincmarus himself presented his Letters of Ordination, a Letter of the French Bishops, and the King's Letters Signed and Sealed, by which his Ordination was confirmed.  
In the Fourth Session therefore they concluded, that Hincmarus was Lawfully Ordained Archbishop of Reims, and began to Examine the Validity of the Ordinations made by Ebbo. Imm● Bishop of Noyon cited a Decretal of Pope Innocents', that they can't receive Orders from them who have no power to Ordain. Whereupon it was in conclusion resolved upon and determined unanimously.  
In the Fifth Session, that all that Ebbo had done after his Deposition, except Baptism, was null and void, and all those who had been Ordained by him should be deprived of their Orders in what place soever they were. Then Fredebert, who was one of the Canons Ordained by Ebbo, hearing this Sentence, said, that he was Ordained by that Bishop, because he saw the Suffragans of the Archbishop of Reims, of whom Rothadus Bishop of Soissons was one, were come to Reims by the Order of Latharius, and had restored Ebbo. To prove this, he produced a Letter signed by Eight Bishops. It was proved that these Subscriptions were forged, and Immo who was among them, and therefore concerned to clear this Matter, declared, that these Clerks being Excommunicated had no right to accuse a Bishop, but to satisfy the Council and Prince, he presented a Record, by which it appeared, that the Suffragans of Reims had declared, that they ought not to have any thing to do with Ebbo after his Deposition. He adds, that what was said in that Letter of the Staffs and Rings which they affirm that Ebbo had given (to 3 Bishops Ordained in his absence) was absolutely false, and that those Men who dare so boldly to affront and abuse the Bishops, should be punished according to the utmost Rigour allowed by the Canons.  
In the Sixth Action, the Cause brought against Hincmarus being thus decided, he resumed his place; and then they handled in particular the Validity of the Ordination of a Priest, Abbot of the Monastery of Haut-Villiers called Halduin, who having been Ordained Deacon by Ebbo, was afterwards made Priest by Lupus Bishop of Chalons. The Bishop excused himself, that being made Governor of the Church of Reims during the Vacancy of that See by an Order of the Prince, this Halduin was presented to him by the Archdeacon of that Church to be Ordained Priest; The Synod judged, that conformable to the Canons of the Council of Nice and Sardica, the Priest Halduin ought to be deposed.  
In the Seventh Action it was demanded, how they ought to be dealt with who had communicated in the Sacrament and Prayer with Ebbo, because the Canons had ordered, that such aught to be Excommunicated. especially if they knew that he was deposed. Erpuin shown, that according to the Canons they might be favoured so far as to enjoy Communion still, if they acknowledged their fault.  
Hereupon, in the Eighth Session, the King desired of Hincmarus, that the Clerks which had been Ordained by Ebbo, and those who had Communicated with him, should be granted Lay-communion, which the Council consented to, and when they had begged pardon of their fault, and acknowledged it, it was allowed them. Thus was the Judgement of this Affair managed in the Council, as the Acts of it relate more at large, the substance of which is contained in the first of the Canons.  
Hincmarus' being desirous to make this Sentence irreversible, used his utmost endeavours to get it 
The Confirmation of the Judgement of the Council of Soissons by Leo IU. and Benedict.  confirmed by the Pope. And to this end wrote several Letters to Leo IU. but he refused to approve the Acts of this Council, because they were not sent by some of the Bishops who were at the Council, and because he had heard that some of the Persons who were deposed had appealed to the Holy See. Nevertheless Hincmarus was still urgent to have the Judgement confirmed, and the Clerks who were concerned in this matter carried their Complaints to Rome, insomuch, that Leo iv having regard to what Pope Nicolas had written about it, sent the Bishop of Spoletum his Legate, to hold a Council in which the Case should be decided between the Parties at difference, upon Condition nevertheless, that if the Deposition of the Clerks were confirmed, they should have liberty to appeal to Rome. This was not executed, but Leo being dead Hincmarus addressed his Successor Benedict, and having desired the confirmation of those Privileges granted by the Popes to the Archbishops of Reims, prayed him also to confirm what had been done against Wulfadus and the other Clerks Ordained by Ebbo, showing him in what manner that Judgement had been passed. Benedict answered him, That if the Business were so managed as he had related, and as it was set down in the Acts of the Council, he would confirm their Decision with the Apostolic Authority, and would make it to remain in force.  
Pope Nicolas, who not long after succeeded Benedict, confirmed the Privileges granted to Hincmarus 
Pope Nicolas' Judgement about Wulfadus  in the same form, but afterwards being changed in his affections towards Hincmarus, and being solicited by Wulfadus and his Fellows, he resolved to review this Affair, and to write to Hincmarus to show those Clerks some favour, to restore them, or to have their Cause re examined in a Council of Bishops which should meet at Soissons, and at which Remigius Archbishop of Lions, Ado Archbishop of Vienna, and Wemlo of Sens should be present, with the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of France and Neustria, where Hincmarus and the Bishops of his Province should meet, and Walfadus and the Clerks in the same Cause, should be summoned: That the whole Matter being Examined, they should determine as they thought fit concerning the Restoration of those Clerks, but if they shall appeal to the Holy See, or desire to be judged there, both Parties should come to Rome, or send their Deputies after the Council, which should begin the 16th of August. In fine, That it ought not to be pleaded in excuse, that those Clerks having not appealed in the year ought not to be received; for besides that this exception is not in the Canons which speak of Appeals to the Holy See, those Clerks did Appeal to Pope Leo within the year concerning the Judgement given against them, as appears by a Letter of that Pope which he had by him. Wherefore he Exhorts Hincmarus not to be severe with those Clerks. He answers also to what might be alleged, that he had the Grants of the Holy See, by which this Judgement was confirmed, by saying, that if he read them attentively, he would find, that the final Decision of that Controversy was reserved to the Holy See, which maintains the Rights of other Churches without lessening its own. This Letter of Pope Nicholas' is dated April 2. Indict. 14. anno 866. Hincmarus at the same time wrote a Letter to Herard Archbishop of Tours, and to other Arch-Bishops that were to be at that Council, and prayed King Charles the Bald to call it together. This Prince answered, that he would cause the Council to be holden, but withal, that he had designed to make Wulfadus Archbishop of Bourges, in the place of Rodolphus who was lately dead; that he had been chosen by the Bishops and People of the Diocese, but that he dare not let him be Ordained before his restoration, till he had written to him about it; that he desired he might be Ordained Priest, and then Bishop, or if he would not do it till the Synod was met, that he would permit the Government of that Church to be left to him. The Pope wrote to this Prince, that he should not do any thing concerning Wulfadus till his Cause was Examined and Judged in the Synod.  
This Synod therefore met in Aug. 866. Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims presented Four Petitions 
The Council of Soissons, 866.  or Memoirs to it in his own defence. In the first he shows, that Wulfadus and those that had been Ordained by Ebbo after his Deposition were declared deprived of their Holy Orders by the Judgement of a Council of 5 Provinces, and by the Judges they themselves had pitched upon; That afterward he had himself, by the Order of the Council, given an Account of the Matter at Rome, and that the Judgement of the Synod had been confirmed there by Pope Benedict, and also Nicolas; That he did not envy the Happiness of these Clerks in the least; That he was troubled they were degraded after such a manner, and wished they might be restored, but he neither dare, nor could do it after the Judgement of the Synod, it being expressly forbidden by the Canons, and Decretals of the Popes, who had several times declared, that they could not themselves annul the Canons made by the Councils, and approved by their Predecessors. The Second Memoir concerns the Person of Ebbo. Hincmarus proves by the Pope's Letters, that Ebbo owned his Crime, and was deposed by 44 Bishops, whose Judgement was afterward confirmed and approved by Pope Sergius, who had ordered him to content himself with a Lay-Communion, and since he was not afterward Canonically restored, he ought not to be looked upon as a Bishop after his Condemnation, and that at this time it ought not in the least to be questioned, because this Judgement being passed in 835, he had a prescription of above 30 years against him. They alleged, that notwithstanding his Deposition he had continued to execute his Episcopal Function to his Death. Hincmarus' replies, that this unwarrantable Action was of no use to him, and that the number of those that approved it could not justify his Carriage, which was so opposite to the Laws of the Church; That it was contrary to all the Canonical Rules for him to exercise all the Offices of a Bishop in the Church of Maience, for the Canons do not permit in any case whatsoever a Bishop who is deprived of his own Diocese to exercise the Expiscopal Function in another. Hincmarus then shows, that his own Ordination was Canonical and Lawful, saying, that after the Deposition of Ebbo Fulcus took care of the Church of Reims for 9 years, in which time Ebbo did not claim his Dignity again, nor make any opposition to him. That Noto had done the same for a year and a half, without any demand of restoration from Ebbo. That as for himself he was afterward Ordained in the Synod of the Province of Reims held at Beauvais, being desired by the People and Clergy of the City, and by the Bishops of the Province, and that he was Consecrated by his Archbishop Bishop, and by the Bishops of the Province, with the consent of the Abbot and Monks of the Monastery of which he was a Member. That he was put in possession of it without any opposition from any Man. That his Ordination was approved by the Bishops of France, who wrote about it to Pope Sergius, and confirmed by an Edict of King Charles the Bald. That all these Acts were sent to Leo iv Sergius being dead in the mean time. That Lotharius himself having in vain solicited Pope Sergius to have Ebbo restored, agreed to his Ordination; That the Holy See had allowed it, and Leo iv had granted him the Pall, and had writ to him several Letters; That Pope Benedict and Pope Nicolas had confirmed him by granting him his Privileges. Lastly, That he was not obliged to enter into any dispute about it with any Man, since Nicolas had not required of him an Account of his Ordination of him. Lastly, having confirmed that which had passed in the Affair of the Clerks Ordained by Ebbo, it belonged to the Bishops to direct what they thought just and regular to satisfy the Pope; That as for himself he would not oppose what they did; That if it were necessary he would explain the Business more at large, and would show them the Reasons, why they suspended these Clerks at the Synod of Meaux, and degraded them quite in the Council of Soissons. Then he presented to the Synod the Acts of the Council of Soissons, with those of the Synod of Bourges, and the Privileges of the Pope's Benedict and Nicolas.  
Hincmarus also presented a 3d Petition, in which after he had set down such Canons and Passages in the Pope's Letters, as made it appear, that sometimes Clemency had been used towards them whose Ordinations were dubious, he consented for Peace sake, and to satisfy the Pope, that some gentle Method might be found out to receive and promote to Holy Orders those who had been Ordained by Ebbo, yet with a due care that this fact might not prejudice the Canons of the Church, nor the Judgement given against them and against Ebbo.  
The Fourth Memoir of Hincmarus was presented to the Council, but not read, for fear of offending some Persons in the Council. It shows, That it was against his will, that he was forced to declare, that Wulfadus, after he had been condemned by the Council of Soissons, without the consent of the Bishops of that Council, without any authority from the Holy See, and without consulting the Church of Reims, had left the Province wherein he was Baptised, had received the Tonsure of a Clerk, and had executed the Office of a Reader, to go into the Church of Langres, which was then vacant, that he might be Ordained a Bishop there. That he had possessed himself of the Revenues of that Church, which according to the Council of Chalcedon, aught to have been kept by the St●ward for the next Bishop. That having been removed by the Order of the Synod, he had made an Oath that he would never attempt the like again, nor undertake any Ecclesiastical Function for the future. That he had delivered this Declaration in Writing in the presence of Pardulus Bishop of Laon, Gontbertus' Bishop of Eureux, and Aeneas Bishop of Paris, before the King, and several Judges chosen by the Synod. That an Oath and Declaration had been required of him, as the Popes had decreed, to prevent a change of his resolution. And that it was for the same cause, that he had desired Pope Nicolas to confirm the Judgement given against him in the Council of Soissons, which had been already confirmed by his Predecessor Benedict. That he did not say this out of Malice, or with a design to do Wulfadus any Injury, nor to hinder the effect of the Pope's good will towards him, but only to inform the Council fully of what had passed in that Affair.  
After so full an Information, the Bishops of the Council were of the Opinion, that the Synod of Soissons had judged rightly; That Hincmarus had good reason not to restore these Clerks in contempt of the Decrees of that Council; That they might nevertheless be restored without injuring the Authority of the Council of Soissons confirmed by the Holy See, by granting them to continue in their Orders by Favour and Dispensation, and so succeed the Bishops when they died. But they thought it not convenient for them to do it by their own Authority, and judged it best for the Pope to do it by his. Wherefore they wrote to him, and assured him, that they had followed and executed his Orders; and that it might not be thought that they had revoked what was decreed in the Council of Soissons, Herardus Archbishop of Tours made a solemn Protestation in the Council in all their Names, that they would never alter their Opinion, but only would consent, that the Judgement which had been given in strictness of Justice, might by a merciful Charity be moderated, and sweetened. Seven Archbishops were at this Council, viz. Hincmarus of Reims, Remigius of Lions, Trotarius of Bourdeaux, Herardus of Tours, Wenilo of Roven, Egilo of Sens, and Liutbert of Maience, and 28 Bishops of France, among whom was Rothadus Bishop of Soissons, who Subscribed the Letter sent to the Pope about the Affair of Wulfadus and his Fellows. Hincmarus wrote in his own Name to Pope Nicolas to excuse himself, that he had not immediately restored those Clerks, because he dare not Disannul what had been done in a Synod of five Provinces, but that he had submitted to the Synod as he ordered him, and had consented to the Accommodation that his Brethren had found out agreeable to the Canons of the Council of Nice, made concerning those who had been Ordained by Meletius; That he did not conceive it necessary for him to send a Deputy in his stead, since Egilo went in the Name of the Council, and the Pope had not enjoined him to come to Rome, or send his Deputies, unless there were an Appeal from the Judgement of the Synod, either on his own part or Wulfadus'. He beseeches him to confirm what the Council had done, and assures him, that he wished no ill to Wulfadus, and other Clerks Ordained by Ebbo, who were but nine in all, as well Canons and Monks, as City and Country Clergymen. Charles the Bald wrote also a Letter to the Pope, in which he commends Hincmarus for his Obedience, approves the Method which the Council had taken, to refer the Restoration of Wulfadus to the Pope, and gives him notice that he had, in the mean time, left the Care of the Church of Bourges to him. The King also desired of the Bishops of this Council to Crown his Queen Hermintruda, which was granted him, and the Ceremony was performed by them at the same time in the Church of S. Medardus.  
Egilo Archbishop of Sens was sent with these Letters, the Acts of the Council, and a Petition sent by Hincmarus, which is not met withal among his Works, in which he gives the Sum of all that he had alleged in the Council concerning the Deposition of Ebbo, and recites several Authorities out of the Pope's Letters, to show, that he ought not to blame, or condemn, what has been done against that Archbishop, nor Annul the Judgement given against Wulfadus, or the Clerks Ordained by Ebbo, but only restore them by an Act of Grace.  
Pope Nicolas being desirous to Disannul all that had been done in the first Council of Soissons, was 
P. Nicolas' Letter about the Judgement of the Council of Soissons.  not at all pleased with this Judgement, but returned a large Answer to the Bishops, in which he much blames the Transactions of that Council, and says, That the Acts of it are full of Falsities, and that they were never Confirmed at Rome after a full knowledge of the Cause; That Pope Leo, his Predecessor, had ordered that the Matter should be reexamined, and for that end sent his Legate to be present at the Trial, but it was never Executed, and Pope benedict's Confirmation was obtained by surprise by Hincmarus, and by a false relation of it; and besides, 'twas not Definitive, or without a Reserve; That he had advised Hincmarus to receive those Clerks, and in case he would not, he commanded that a Synod should do it; That he was mightily pleased that there was no difference in the Council, but they had unanimously agreed to restore Wulfadus, and the other Clerks; That all he complained of was, that since they had left their Restoration to him, they had not given him a full account of that Affair, and all that concerned it; That they ought to have made a Declaration at large, of all the circumstance of Ebbo's Deposition, and Restoration, of his second Deprivation, and Translation to another Church; That he wished they had done it in that Cause, and would do it in all others, about which he should order a Council to be held. He approved of Hincmarus' submission, but could not but smile at his assertion, That 'twas not he that had suspended them, or declared them fallen from the Orders, since he knew what he had done in his Province against them, and how eagerly he had Prosecuted that Affair at Rome, He subjoins, That the Matter being not sufficiently cleared, or examined, he could not pass his definitive Sentence upon it, but because these Clerks were Deposed contrary to the Canons they, aught to be restored, and resettled for the present, till Hincmarus can produce what he hath against them, and prove that they have been lawfully Deposed. He complains, That they had made one of those Clerks a Bishop at the same time that they pretended to leave the Judgement of the Matter to him, and declares, That he will not yield to his Ordination till the thing is ended. Lastly, In the Business of Ebbo, he says, That 'tis no wonder that Pope Sergius would not receive him to his Communion, because he was Condemned, and had not Appealed to the H. See about his Condemnation, nor had his Cause been fully discovered to him, or examined. He speaks the same things to Hincmarus in his Letters written to him at the same time, but more especially blames his Carriage, and Administration, in many sharp reflections; and concludes, telling him, That he takes it ill that he makes use of the Pall on such occasions as were not allowable. In a third Letter, he thanks King Charles the Bald for the satisfaction he had given him, in making the Bishops of France unanimously join in the Restoration of those Clerks, but could not blame Hincmarus. Lastly, In his fourth Letter he Congratulates Wulfadus, and the other Clerks, for their Restoration, and Exhorts them to be subject to Hincmarus; and tells them, That he would allow them a Years time to prosecute that Affair at Rome, if they thought fit. These four Letters bear Date Dec. 7. 866. [These Letters of Pope Nicolas are extant Tom. 8. of the Councils, p. 268. and 480. They are also Printed with a Collection of his Epistles Published at Rome 1542. Fol.]  
By what has been said, it is evident that the Bishops of France would not bring these Causes 
The Carriage of the Bishops of France.  to Rome, nor be obliged to appear there themselves to maintain the Justice of their Sentence, nor would endure it to be Disannulled, or blamed in the least; the contrary to which, Pope Nicolas pretended to do. He required, that the Councils which Judged any Causes at the first Hearing should be called by his Authority; That both the Accused and the Accusers, had liberty of Appealing to Rome, before and after their Sentence; That all Synods should give him a large and full Account of their Proceed before they passed Sentence; That in case of Appeal, the Holy See might put the Condemned into the Places and Condition they were formerly in, conditionally, and then the Judges should be obliged to come, or send their Deputies to Rome, to maintain their Judgement, where the Cause shall be Examined anew, as if it had never been decided. From this time the Bishops of France, who were most Learned, and best Skilled in the Canons, to evade the Pretensions contrary to the Canons, which tended directly to the utter ruining of the Episcopal Authority, and overthrow of all Church Discipline, and that without quarrelling with the H. See, Judged all Ecclesiastical Causes that came before them in their Synods; and that their Judgement might be of greater Authority, they caused the Contending Parties to choose their Judges, because, according to a Maxim of Law, It is not Lawful to Appeal from the Sentence of those Judges whom they had Elected. Lastly, They caused that Judgement to be Executed, and in case the Persons Condemned referred themselves to Rome, they would send the Pope their Reasons, and require his Confirmation, or rather Approbation of their Judgement, but tho' often cited never would go to Rome, nor send their Deputies with a Commission to act in their Names, to call any Matter in Question, but left it to the Pope to do as he pleased, without opposition. And if it so happened, that they were obliged either for the good of the Church, or for Peace sake, or in Obedience to the Will of that Prince, to do as the Pope would have them, they protested that it was without any Abrogation of their Sentence, which was Valid and Just, but only to show Mercy to the faulty. Thus they behaved themselves in this Cause. Hincmarus, first of all, caused those Clerks to present their Petition in Writing, and to leave it to the Synod of France: He than made them choose their Judges by agreement, after he had withdrawn from the Trial. After the Judgement was passed he had it executed, and confirmed by the Pope; but at last, Nicolas I. being solicited to it by Wulfadus, and being desirous to have that Cause reexamined in a Synod, Hincmarus ordered the matter so, that not only their Decree was kept in force, but was confirmed without any offence to the Pope, who had resolved to restore these Clerks, or to the Emperor, who favoured Wulfadus; For he persuaded the Bishops not to deal so rigorously with Wulfadus and his Fellows, as in Justice they might, and to consent to their Restoration, if the Pope desired it. This shown a great deal of complaisance to the Pope, in leaving the thing to his dispose, in respect to the H. See, but it was not what the Pope desired; He would have had the Synod, which he called, to have quite Disannulled what was done at Soissons, and himself to be made Judge in that Affair; and upon an Appeal, both Parties should have come to Rome to Contest about it. And for this Reason it was that he would not determine the Matter definitively, but satisfied himself to Restore Wulfadus, and the Clerks Ordained by Ebbo, conditionally.  
Before Nicolas' Letters were brought by Egilo, Charles the Bald, who had so great a favour for Wulfadus, and would have him Ordained Archbishop of Bourges by all means whatsoever, sent 
Wulfadus Ordained Archbishop of Bourges.  his Son Carolomannus, Abbot of S. Medard, to have him Ordained and Installed, which was done in September, by some Bishops who were not very well Skilled in the Laws of the Church, which Wulfadus had provided, and Carolomannus had scared into it. It was Aldo Bishop of Lymoges who Consecrated him; and some have said, that that Bishop, in the midst of the Ceremony, was taken with a Fever, of which he Died soon after. Egilo being returned with four Letters from Pope Nicolas in the Year 867, Charles the Bald called a Council at Troy's, at which were the Archbishops 
The Council of Troy's.  of Reims, Tours, Roven, Bourdeaux, Sens, and Bourges, with those 14 Bishops who were present at the Council of Soissons the Year before; in which, some Bishops favouring Wulfadus to please Carolus Calvus, would encounter Hincmarus, but he defended himself so well, that they only resolved to satisfy the Pope to send a Synodical Epistle, containing a large Relation of what had passed in the Deposition of Ebbo, his pretended Restoration, and the Ordinations of Wulfadus, and others, who had been Consecrated after his Deposition. In it they relate, how the Children of Lewis the God●y would have deprived him of his Estate, and for that end had made use of Ebbo, and some other 
The Letter of the Council of Troy's to the Pope against Ebbo.  Bishops, who having obliged that Prince to confess some forged Crimes, had put him in a State of Penance, and deprived him of his Authority; How afterwards, when Lewis the Kind was again restored by the Authority of his Bishops, Ebbo had left his See, and fled; how he was Apprehended, and carried to the Emperor by Rothadus Bishop of Soissons, and by Ercaraus Bishop of Chalons; how he had himself Signed, and Approved the Restoration of Lewis the Kind; and owned, that he was unjustly, and contrary to the Canons, put to Penance; after which manner having acknowledged his fault in Writing at the Council in Thionville held 835, in which Year Lewis the Kind Died; how afterward Lotharius being come out of Italy into France, Ebbo met him at Worms, conducted by the Abbot Boso in the Monastery, where he than abode; How Lotharius having given order that he should be Restored, he went to Reims, and began to Exercise his Episcopal Function in the presence of the Bishops of the Province, without any contradiction from them; How in that time he had Ordained Wulfadus, and the other Clerks, about whom the Controversy was, who were told. That he was Canonically restored to his Church; How after he had enjoyed peaceably, one Year, the Archbishopric of Reims, he withdrew himself into the Kingdom of Lotharius, when King Charles had passed over the Sequana, and Conquered the Country; How great Service he had done Lotharius, who gave him two Abbeys, and had employed him in several Affairs, and sent him to Rome with Drog●n Bishop of Metz 844, to Pope Sergius, who would net acknowledge him for a Bishop; How having re●u●ed to go Ambassador into Greece, he fell into Disgrace with Lotharius, and was turned out of his Abbeys; How afterwards retreating into the Empire of Lewis of Germany, he was made Bishop of Hildesheim in Saxony, where he Exercised his Episcopal Function; How in 845, Charles had called a Synod at Beauvais to have a Bishop Ordained for the Church of Reims, which had been vacant ten Years, yet Governed by the Abbot Fu●cus, and after by Noth●; How Hincmarus had been Canonically Elected and Ordained Bishop and his Ordination had been confirmed by Gontbaldas, whom Pope Sergius had appointed at the Solicitation 
King Charles' Letter in favour of E●bo.  of Lotharius to regulate that Affair. They joined to this Relation all that they had Written to the H. See about that Matter, and all that the Pope had given them in Command, declaring to him, that they approved the Restoration of the Clerks Ordained by Ebbo; and consented, that they should Exercise their Office. last, to gratify the Emperor Charles, they required the Pall for Wulfadus. Ordained Bishop of Bourges. This Letter was dated Nou. 867, and Sealed up with the Archbishop's Seals, and given to Actardus, Bishop of Nantes to be carried to the Pope; But Charles the Bald made him deliver it to him, broke the Seals, Read it, and Wrote another to the Pope, which was more favourable to Ebbo▪ relating every thing that was for him, and concealing what was against him; He s●ys he was the Son o● a Person that belonged to the King's Treasury; that having his liberty, he had entered into the Ecclesiastic State, and was made the King's Library-Keeper; That after the Death of Charles the Great, in the time of Lewis the Kind, Wulfaraus Archbishop of Reims being Dead, and it being left in the power of the People to choose whom they would Bishop, they first chose Gillemarus, but he being presented to the Bishops to be examined, was found uncapable of it; wherefore the Emperor propounding Ebbo as a Person of Merit, the People agreed to choose him; That in the first Rebellion of Lewis the Kind's Sons, Ebbo continued Loyal, but the second time he had engaged himself, and the Party of Lotharius, and acknowledged his fault publicly in the Church of S. Steven at Metz; That to prevent his Deposition, he had sent to the Empress Judith the Ring that she had given him; That that Princess was employed to pacify her Husband Lewis the Kind, and to solicit for Ebbo; That nevertherless, some Bishops had persuaded him to confess his fault, and after that Confession, had advised him never more to exercise his Priest's Office; That the Emperor had written to Pope Gregory to confirm his Deposition, and had received his Letter thereupon, but what was in it they knew not, yet Lewis the Kind did not seem satisfied by it, because he did not make another Archbishop upon it, which he would immediately have done, if the Pope had confirmed the Deposition of Ebbo; That after the Death of Lewis the Kind Ebbo was acknowledged by all the Suffragan Bishops, Archbishop of Reims; That they had all communicated with him, and all that had been Ordained Bishops in his absence had received the Ring and Crosier from him, with Letters of Confirmation. This is the account that Charles the Bald gave the Pope in particular about the Deposition of Ebbo, and after excuses himself for having caused Wulfadus to be Ordained, before he had received the Pope's Answer, and demanded the ●all for him, and commends the condition of the Bishops oppressed by the Britain's to him▪— Hincmarus had also written a private Letter to Pope Nicolas, in Answer to that which he 
Hincmaru's Letter to the Pope.  had received from the Pope, full of reproof, and angry reflections: In it he defends himself with much submission, but as much smartness. He tells him, that he had found in the Letter written to himself, and in that to the Bishops of the Council of Soissons, many reproachful imputations, which he deserved f●r his Sins; That if he were present with him, he would do as S. Benedict ordered his Monks to do, when they found their Prior offended with them, cast himself upon the Earth at his feet, but what he could not do with his Body▪ he would do with his Mind and Heart, according to the Advice of S. Gregory, who bids us to have Patience, and Charity in our Hearts towards our Neighbour, who is at a distance from us. In fine, that he had executed the Pope's Command in restoring Wulfadus, and the other Clerks Ordained by Ebbo. After he hath thus humbled himself, he assures him that he was much troubled to see him so angry with him, but he imputes that Charge to the false Reports he had received of him, and owns, that had he been really guilty of those things he is accused of, he should have deserved to be dealt withal more severely, but his Conscience testifies to him, that tho' he be a great Sinner, he is not such an one as the World hath represented him. He says, That he was heretofore accused to Pope Sergius, and Leo, that he had not that respect he ought for the H. See, but he shown, by his obedient Carriage, how submissive he was to the H. See, and how far from that ambitious Spirit which was charged upon him, as well as from cruelty and falsehood; That neither his own Church, nor the Neighbouring Churches, ever complained that he was subject to those Vices, and beseeches him never to believe that he hath had any design to delude him, or oppose his Orders, or despise his Admonitions; That as to Ebbo, he thought it not convenient to lay open his faults, lest any Man should think that he insulted over the Dead, or would revive an Affair that had been ended and determined above 30 Years. Nevertheless, to satisfy the Pope, he tells him, how he had declared himself unworthy of his Priesthood, without being constrained by violent means to it, or engaged by fraud. He takes notice, that of all the Bishops who had Deposed him, there now survived but two, viz. Rothadus and Erpuinus. He than describes the manner how he was Ordained into his place; how Pope Sergius being solicited by Lotharius to it, had Named Gontbaldus Archbishop of Roven to examine his Ordination; how Ebbo, when he was Summoned to the Synod by Gontbaldus, dare not appear; whence it was concluded that Ebbo was never restored, and should remain Deposed from his Priestly Office and Dignity; and that having lost it in his Life time, he should not recover it after his Death. He next gives him an Account of the business of Wulfadus, and the other Clerks Ordained by Ebbo after his Deposition; and because Pope Nicolas chief insisted upon this, That Pope Leo had not confirmed the first Judgement given against them at the Council of Soissons, Hincmarus gives him the particulars of all that had passed between him and Pope Leo in that business, viz. That Pope Leo had written to him that he could not confirm what had been done in that Synod, because the Council had not sent their Deputies to him, nor were his Legates present at it, nor had the Emperor writ any thing to him about it; and because 'twas said that Wulfadus, and the other Clerks, had Appealed to the H. See. That, besides this, Lotharius had importuned him not to confirm the Judgement of the Council of Soissons; That the Bishops hearing that Lotharius concerned himself in that Matter, had written to him, and that he had nominated two Bishops of Italy to look into it in a Council, which was called by the Authority of the H. See; That after this, that Prince had sent his Deputies to Rome to Pope Leo, who died as they were in their Journey to him; That being arrived there in the Papacy of Benedict, that Pope had granted him a Grant to confirm the Judgement of the Synod of Soissons; that since that, neither the Bishop of Spoletum, Nominated by Lotharius, nor any other Bishop, had held any other Synod about that Affair, but that which was lately called by the Authority of Pope Nicolas; He defends himself against that Accusation that the Pope laid against him, that he had falsified Benedict's Letter of Privilege, and assures him, that the Copy which he had sent him was a true one, as he will find, if he compares it with the Original Draught, which is in the Registry of the Church of Rome. He adds, that he had not required of the H. See any other special Privileges, but what were usually granted to all Metropolitans, and were anciently granted to the Metropolis of Reims, but because his Province, and also his Diocese, was partly in one Kingdom and part in another, he thought it necessary to have his Privileges renewed, because men had great regard to them, and carnal men being awed by such marks of distinction, respected him the more. Lastly, as to the Pall, he assures him, that he never used it unless upon the great Festivals of the Passover and Nativity, because on the other Holidays of the Year, tho' 'twas allowed for him to wear them, yet he was obliged through urgent business, and the Affairs of Church and State, to be absent from his Cathedral Church. In fine, that he desired the Pall for no particular use, because the Pall is an Ornament which is suitable for all Metropolitans, as a mark of the Dignity or Virtue of him that wears it. Hincmarus had composed this Letter before the Council of Troy's, immediately after he received Nicolas' Letter, but it was not sent in that form, for the Bishops of that Council having given him a large relation of the business of Ebbo, he cut off the beginning of his Letter, and wrote a shorter beginning with his own Ordination, and the business of Wulfadus. Actardus Bishop of Nantes, the Deputy of the Council to go to Rome, was also entrusted with another Affair by the Council of Soissons. 'Tis thought commonly to be of that of 866, but it was another Council held there in 867, for Actardus, who was the Bearer, 
The business of Actardus.  went to Rome in that Year only; and Pope Nicolas in his Answers to the Synod, and Bishops of the Council of Soissons in 866, makes no mention of any thing written in this Letter. The Bishops of the last Council tell him, how the Churches of Tours and Nantes were much annoyed by the Britan's, who would not come to the Synods of the Province to which they belonged, nor acknowledge the Metropolitans and Bishops of France, pretending to govern themselves; That they valued not the Petitions that had been made to them; That they had encroached upon Nantes, and attempted the same upon the Bishoprics of Tours, Angers, and Man's; That almost all the Churches of Neustria had endured much by their Cruelty; That they had Deposed the Bishops of Dola and Vannes, and put other Bishops in their place; Then they pray the Pope to do them Justice, to give Actardus a favourable Audience, to reduce the Britan's to good Order, and to write to their Duke, either to submit to King Charles, or else to make use of the Sword of Excommunication. This Letter is dated▪ Aug. 16.  
When Actardus came at Rome he found Pope Nicolas Dead, and Adrian settled in his place, to whom he presented the Synod and King's Letters. Adrian returned this Answer to the Bishops of 
Adrian's Answers about Ebbo and Actardus.  the Synod of Troy's, That tho' they had omitted some things as to the Restauration of Ebbo, yet he commends their Zeal; That he was glad that Wulfadus' Innocency had been proved so clearly; That he approved of his Promotion to the Archbishopric of Bourges, and granted him the Pall; That he desired him to put Pope Nicolas' Name into all their Diptychs, and to oppose all that the Greeks might say, or attempt against this Pope. This Letter is Dated Febr. 11. 868. He sent an Answer also to the Letter of the Bishops of the Council of Soissons, in the beginning of which it evidently appears, that the Letter beforementioned was not written by that Council of Soissons held in 866, but in another which met there in 867, before the Council of Troy's. He tells them, that he much pitied the condition of Actardus, who was deprived and dispossessed of his Bishopric and Orders; that he should be put (incardinari) into the first vacant Church, to exercise his Episcopal Function there. He says, that he had written about it to King Charles. And indeed, in the following Letter which is directed to that Prince, he Answers first to the Letter which he had written to him concerning Ebbo, telling him, that 'tis to no purpose to examine the matters concerning that Bishop, who is now Dead. He thanks him for the Protection which he had given the Churchmen, which the H. See thought fit to restore. He grants the Pall to Wulfadus, and recommends Actardus to his Care to be put into the next vacant See, which was not less than his own. He also recommends him for the same reason to Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims, and Herard Archbishop of Tours, in private Letters to them: He commands this last to give Actardus an Abbey, which he had heretofore in his Diocese, and tells him, that he had written to Solomon Duke of the Britan's, and his People, to exhort them to do him Justice; and desires him to be fully assured, that if they should send any one to Rome on their part, they should not obtain any thing to prejudice his Rights. He grants by another Letter the Pall to Actardus, to comfort him for the loss of his Diocese. Thus ended the Contest between Hincmarus and Wulfadus, with the other Clerks Ordained by Ebbo. [These Letters of Pope Adrian are Printed among his other Epistles, which are 26 in all, in Tom. 8. of the Councils, p. 896.]  
The End of the Fourth Contest.   

CHAP. V.  
An History of the several Contests that Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims had with his Nephew Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon.  
Hincmarus' engaged in another business against his Nephew Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon, which 
The Original of the discontents between Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims, and his Nephew H. Steward of the Palace. The Contests between the Bishop of Laon and Charles the Bald.  had no better effects than the former. He had by his Interest and favour made this Nephew Bishop of Laon, which is subject to his Metropolis, in 859. This Man instead of being subject and devoted to the will of his Uncle, would govern according to his own humour, and being grown into favour at Court, accepted an Office there, and obtained an Abbey. This displeased the Archbishop of Reims, who did all he could to oblige him to quit them, and reproved him for leaving his Diocese to go to his Abbey without his permission, although it was forbidden by the Canons to Bishops to leave their Province without the consent of their Metropolitan.  
The Bishop of Laon fearing the Presence of his Uncle, dare not be at the Synod of Bishops met at Cambray for the Ordination of a Bishop, although he was summoned. In 868 Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon engaged himself in a Business with Charles the Bald. Having some Contests with certain Laymen about the Estate of the Church, and principally with a Lord called Normannus, to whom the King had given a Benefice, i. e. some Lands belonging to the Church of Laon, with the consent of this Bishop Hincmarus himself, who had himself solicited him, and procured it for him, as one of his Friends, but afterwards repenting of what he had done, and being desirous to get it again, had Excommunicated that Lord. He began to discuss the Affair privately before the Commissioners, among whom were some Bishops, but it happened that the Son of Luido accused the Bishop of Laon before the King, and the Lords of his Council, of having deprived him of a Benefice of his Fathers, (i. e. of a certain Manor belonging to the Church, which had of ancient times been possessed and enjoyed by his Father) although to retain the possession and enjoyment of it he had paid a Fine to the Church, and had gotten a grant of him. The King complaining of these Actions to Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon, he answered his Majesty with so much Impudence, that the Prince fell into a great passion against him, and gave him many ill words. He then summoned him to his Council, but Hincmarus humbly shown him, that he could not appear, and at the same time sent a Letter to Rome to accuse Normannus, and to request the Pope to take this Matter upon him, and procure that he might come to Rome. Hincmarus hereupon was condemned for his Default by the King's Council, and all the Revenues of his Bishopric were seized on. The King also put him out of his Office at Court and his Abbey. And although Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims was very angry with him, yet he endeavoured to assist him on this Occasion, and wrote a smart Letter to Charles the Bald, in which he affirms, that what he had done against Hincmarus was altogether unjust; That it was never heard of, that a Christian Prince should confiscate the Revenues of the Church. Whereupon he recites several Laws of the Emperors and Decrees of the Councils and Popes to prove, that 'tis not allowable for any Man to invade the Church Revenues. Then he presented to the King a Memoir, which contained several Canons, to show, that Bishops ought not to appear before Lay Judges in Matters Ecclesiastical. The King answered, that the Kings his Predecessors had compelled the Bishops to give an Account before the Lords of his Council of the Benefices they would put their Officers out of. Hincmarus replied by another Writing, that that Custom was an Abuse, which was reform by the Capitularies. The King being at Pistis in Normandy, he held a Council there. Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon presented a Petition to the Bishops assembled, requiring them to settle him in his Revenues, or suffer him to shift for himself at Rome, but the Matter was accommodated by Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims, and the Bishop of Laon was restored to his place, after he had begged the King's pardon, and so he retreated immediately into his Diocese. Charles the Bald commanded him several times to come to him, but he would not obey the Order, but designed to fly into the Kingdom of Lotharius, who had promised to receive him into his protection. He had also the boldness to write to King Charles, that he had rather live out of his Kingdom, than to be represented such an ill Man as he was reported to be in it. The King then commanded his Domestic Servants to come to him, some obeyed, but he detained the rest. After this the King a second time sent two Bishops to him, and some of his Guards, to bring them either by persuasion or force. Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon having heard that some Soldiers were coming to him, pronounced Excommunication against those that did meddle with the Revenues of his Church. The two Bishops which Charles the Bald had sent, having put Hincmarus in mind of the Oath which he had made to the King, could not persuade him to go with them to him, and therefore returned after they had obliged such Persons of his Family as were freed by an Oath to appear. Hincmarus of Laon holding on his course, issued out an Excommunication against several Persons in the Arch Bishopric of Reims, and in other Archbishoprics and Dioceses, not sparing the King Charles himself, which was a Cause of great Scandal to the whole Church and Kingdom. Nevertheless Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims found out a way to compose this Matter, and to hinder the Bishops who were provoked, from bringing it before a Synod, and to reconcile his Nephew with those he had Excommunicated; but this did not put an end to this Business, for Hincmarus of Laon, a Man of an untractable temper, enraged King Charles again, who thereupon called 
W●rm●ria.  an Assembly at Verbery, Apr. 24. 869. in which that Bishop was accused; and seeing himself ready to be condemned, he required leave to go to Rome, and remove his Business thither. But King Charles instead of granting it, stopped him for some time, upon which he immediately Excommunicated, or rather Interdicted his Priests and Clergy, and forbade them to celebrate their Office, administer Baptism, yea, even to Infants in danger of Death, to give the Communion even to dying Persons, or Bury any Person in his Diocese, till he shall return, or they receive a Letter from Rome to order the contrary. The Archbishop of Reims having heard of this Prohibition by some of the Clergy of the Church of Laon, who came to complain to him, wrote immediately to his Nephew to take off the Interdict, and to the Clergy of Laon, that they ought to exercise their Function, and administer the Sacraments, without any regard to that dangerous and unlawful Excommunication. He sent them also some Rules taken out of the Canons to direct them how to behave themselves. The Bishop of Laon not regarding the Advice of his Metropolitan, he wrote to him a second time more smartly, and enjoined the Clergy of the Church of Laon to do their Duty. He wrote also again a third time to the Bishop of Laon, who was set at liberty, after he had taken an Oath to be faithful to King Charles. But to justify himself, he gathered several Extracts out of the falie Decretals attributed to the ancient Popes, in which it was said, that Bishops ought to be tried by the Holy See, at the first Examination, if they demanded it.  
Some time after this, Pope Adrian wrote to Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims, and King Charles, to compel Normannus to restore immediately to the Church of Laon the Lands he was in possession of, 
Adrian's Letter in favour of the Bishop of Laon.  telling him, that if he did not do it, he would Excommunicate them, and to suffer Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon to come to Rome to fulfil his Vow he had made of going thither, and to take care of the Church of Laon in his absence, which provoked them both against the Bishop of Laon.  
In the mean time Lotharius II. King of Lorraine, being dead in Italy, Aug. 8. 869. Charles possessed 
The Quarrels of the two Hincmarus' abou● the business of Nivinus.  himself of his Kingdom, and being accepted by the Grandees of the Country, he was Crowned by Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims, Sept. 7. in the same year. In the beginning of the year 870, Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims expelled out of his Diocese a Person named Nivinus, being accused of debauching a Nun, and carrying her away, His Nephew not only received Nivinus, but put him in possession of an Estate he had in another Diocese, and gave him in recompense of what he had lost a Pension out of the Revenues of the Church of Laon. Hincmarus wrote, Feb. 13. 870, to him, and tells him, that he ought not to receive either him or his Brother Bertricus, whom he had expelled out of his Diocese for several Crimes, of which he was found guilty. Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon returned him an Answer, That he had always avoided to speak or write to him of such things as he had acted contrary to his Judgement, but he was obliged to be plain with him in reference to the Excommunication of Nivinus, and could not but tell him, that he thought that he ought not to deal with that Person as if he had been regularly accused, and could not or would not make his defence, or had been convicted of the Crime, because when he had obtained a time of him to clear himself, although he had no Accusers, and was come upon the day appointed to vindicate his own Innocence by the Testimony of Credible Persons, he neither found him, nor any Person in his stead to be his Judge; but without a Legal Hearing he was commanded to departed out of his Diocese. He finds fault with Hincmarus for believing false reports so easily, and assures him, that it was not true that he had received the Estate of Nivinus, or allowed him a Pension out of the Revenues of the Church. He also defends himself strongly against the suspicion which Hincmarus had entertained against him, that he sold the Goods of the Church. He confesses that Nivinus had a great while ago offered him a part of his Estate adjoining to his, but he would not accept of his gift, whereupon he soon after gave them to another Person; and alleges several Canons to prove, that he ought not to have passed so rash a Sentence. Lastly, he says, that he thinks Bertricus ought not to be looked upon as an Excommunicated Person, because the Archbishop of Reims could not Excommunicate him who was not of his Diocese, and had neither been put to public Penance, nor condemned by a regular Sentence.  
Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims sometime after this sent another Request to his Nephew, in which 
Another Diff●…nce between the two Hincmarus' about Ad●…phus.  he had a more favourable Answer. The Bishop of Laon had employed a certain Priest named Adulphus in a Commission, who did not discharge his trust well, but being reproved for it by his Bishop, spok● disrespectfully to him, and withdrew himself. Hincmarus' angry at this, sent the Priest Clarentius to tell him, that he was Excommunicated, but he stopped his Ears, and would not hear the Sentence, and then fled to Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims. Afterwards being desirous to return to Laon, the Doors of his Church and Cloister were shut against him, to his admiration. Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims interceded for him, and desired his Nephew to receive him, and restore him to his place, or if not, at least to receive him into Communion. Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon answered him, that that Priest had fled very unfitly, and without any necessity, telling him, that he would never have any thing to do with him. That although he had behaved himself so ill to him, yet in respect to what he had written, he would restore him to his Prebend and House, and would permit all that would to communicate with him, upon condition that he shall not be allowed communion with himself till he received him upon his trial, or had satisfaction. This Letter of Hincmarus is dated the 19th, and the Answer the 27th of April, in the same year 870. [This Letter with some others of Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon to Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims is Printed, with the Works of Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims, by Sirmondus at Paris 1645. Vol. 2.]  
At the same time Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims and Hincmarus Bishop of Laon quarrelled about 
Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon declared openly against his Uncle.  another matter. There was a Chapel in the Diocese of Laon belonging to a Benefice of the Church of Reims, in which there was ordinarily a Priest to officiate, who was presented by the Incumbent of the Benefice. Sigibert, who had the Benefice, had presented one named Senatus, a Servant of the Church of Reims, and Hincmarus would set him at liberty, that he might be Ordained by the Bishop of Laon. This Clergyman, though he was not in Priestly Orders, had yet officiated in that Chapel for 4 years. Then the Bishop of Laon sent thither two Priests of his Company, but after a while he removed these Priests, and would have a Priest only to bear the Titles, and that the Inhabitans should go to a Parish of the Diocese of Laon governed by Hermerardus. Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims desired his Nephew, either to Ordain Senatus, or to put into that Church another Priest whom he should appoint to bear the Title. Instead of satisfying his Uncle, he gave him an angry and harsh answer, thinking himself abused by some admonitions which he had given him in his Letter, with the authority of his Uncle and Metropolitan. He first of all accuses him as the Author of his imprisonment. Then he tells him, that he can't give him a full answer as to the business of Hermerardus, because he had not heard it canonically and regularly; That he did not remember what decision had been made in that business, but would inquire of those that had been present, and remembered it; That he did not positively require the Priest Adulphus to be present at the Synod to be held at Laon on the 15th of that month; That he wondered, that he did not send again sooner, since he had granted what he had desired; That as to Senatus, 'twas not true that he had consented that that Clerk should have the Church in debate, but on the contrary had told him, that he would deal with the Church which the Archbishop of Reims had in his Diocese, as he had done with that which the Bishop of Laon had in his; That he had a Complaint against Sigibert for putting that Clerk into the Church that belonged to Hermerardus; That Sigibert had answered, that he did it with the consent of his Officers, and particularly of Adulphus; That he had answered, that if Hermerardus would relinquish that Church, well, if not, he would proceed as in Justice he might; That not being able to persuade Hermerardus to recede from his Right, he had given notice to Sigibert by a Man that belonged to him; That afterward he took that Church from Senatus; That Hermerardus had desired to determine the Lands in a Synod; That he had advised Sigibert to accommodate the Matter; Lastly, That he could not approve of the Ordination of Senatus, and since it was faulty at first, because he was a Servant, he ought not to confirm it, nor promote him to a superior degree of Orders.  
Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims being met with several other Bishops, at the Palace of King Charles in Gondeville, in the Diocese of Tola, Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon, instead of saluting him as he did the rest of the Bishops, would not so much as take notice of him. Wenilo Archbishop of Roven ask him why he would not live peaceably with his Metropolitan, he answered him, that he could never be friends with him hearty, because he had not burnt the Writings which he had sent to him concerning the Excommunication which he had issued out against his whole Diocese; adding, that he did but follow his Example in Excommunicating, because he had Excommunicated a Village in his Diocese belonging to the Bishop of Laon, because the Inhabitants had refused to pay him their Tenths, but paid them to the Church to which they belonged, so that several Infants died unbaptised, and several Noble Persons without the Sacraments. Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims replied to Winelo, that that fact was not true, and that that Recrimination was a tacit confession of his fault and in short, that he desired nothing more, but that the Writings on both sides might be examined by a Synod. Wenilo relating this Answer to Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon, he said, that he had not the Papers that had passed between them, but gave him the Papers which began with the Verses directed to Carolomannus, which was the second Collection of some Extracts of the Pope's Decretals, and Canons to settle the Judgements of the Causes of the Bishops at Rome in their first Examination. Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims having read these Papers with a great deal of Earnestness, made an Answer to them, which he sent to Wenilo, to be given to the Bishop of Laon. He waited for an Answer, or expected that he would have sent him the Writings which he complained of, that they might be examined, but Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon would do nothing.  
When they went from hence, the King came to Attigni, where he held a Synod in May, at which 
The Contest between Hincmarus and his Nephew at the Synod of Attigni.  the Deputies of the 10 Provinces of France were present. Here they first gave the Ambassadors of Germany audience about the Division of the Empire. Then the Business of Hincmarus Bishop of Laon was brought upon the Board. Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims after he had delivered him 55 Articles to serve for an Answer: As to the Collections he had made out of the Decretals, and to all that he had said and written against him, presented a Petition to the Council, in which he related to the Bishops all that he had done to conquer the Obstinacy of the Bishop of Laon. He was also accused in the Council by the Bishops, who complained of the unjust and rash Excommunications which he issued out against their Diocesans; by the King, That he had broken the Oath of Allegiance which he had made to him; and by the Lord Normannus, That he had put him out by force of Arms of the Benefices which he was in lawful possession of. Hincmarus of Laon, that he might get free from this Business, demanded that he might be judged by the Holy See, but not being able to gain that point, he delivered a Writing, in which he promised submission to his Metropolitan Hincmarus, and took a new Oath of Allegiance to King Charles, but he desired that Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims should give him a Writing to oblige himself to maintain him in the Privileges that belonged to him, and to defend him. Frotarius Archbishop of Bourdeaux was the Mediator of this Peace. But since the Accusations of Normannus and his Wife, who complained of their ill usage, and that they were unjustly deprived of the Benefices they had enjoyed, and also of some others to the same effect, did yet stand unsatisfied, Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims chose for the Judges of that Affair Actardus Bishop of Nantes, Ragenelmus Bishop of Noyon, and John Bishop of Cambray. These Judges Examined that Matter before the King, and were of Opinion, that the Bishop of Laon ought to restore some of those Benefices, but they did not give their Judgement upon the day prefixed, but put it off to another day to give sentence. Then Hincmarus Bishop of Laon, seeing that the Affair would not go well for him, escaped away in the night. What passed afterwards, I shall give you an account of, when I have given an Abridgement of the 55 Articles which Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims presented in the Council to his Nephew, as an answer to all that he had written and said against him.  
In the beginning of this Work he puts some Verses, as an answer to those which Hincmarus Bishop 
Hincmarus' 55 Articles.  of Laon had put before his second Collection of Canons, and as this Bishop had taken this for the subject of his Verses, That Men might freely appeal to the Holy See, so he made it the subject of his, that according to the Canons all the Bishops of a Province ought to be subject to their Metropolitans, and sharply reproves his Nephew for not giving him the respect due to him.  
In Art. 1. he explains the business about the Chapel, where the Bishop of Laon accused him for Excommunicating the Inhabitants because they would not pay the Tenths. He says, that the Chapel, which was in the Country of Attolia, had been a long time before subject to the Priest of the Church of the Village of Juuigny; That Bertierus, sent by the Bishop of Laon to take care of that place, had hindered them from paying their Tithes to the Priest of the Parish, and had employed them as he pleased; That the Priest Aufoldus, who was to take care of the Diocese of Reims, where this Chapel stood, had demanded Justice several times against Bertierus, and when he could not obtain it, he forbidden celebrating Divine Service in that Chapel till the Inhabitants should pay their Tithes to their Curate according to the ancient usage, in which if they would hearken to him, they might come to the Church of Juuigny, but that Baptism and the Communion was denied to no Man, neither did any Man die in that time without receiving the Sacraments. Having thus cleared himself as to that matter, he proves by a long possession, that the Chapel of the Court and Lordship of Attolia did belong to the Territories within the Diocese of Reims.  
In Art. 2. he reproves the Bishop of Laon for getting an Abbey, and taking an Office at Court without his leave, and proves, that by the Canons such things are not allowable to Suffragan Bishops without the consent of their Metropolitan; as also for Excommunicating Amalbertus of the Diocese of Reims, being accused of Impotency by his Wife, who was taken out of the Bishopric of Laon.  
In Art. 3. he reproves him for Excommunicating Persons not of his own Diocese.  
In Art. 4. he relates what had passed about the Writings in the Conferences with Wenilo.  
In Art. 5. he answers the threatening Speeches which the Bishop of Laon had given out, that he could withstand his Metropolitan, and valued him not, because the Holy See had already disannulled two Sentences passed by him, viz. those against Rothadus and Wulfadus. As to the former, after he hath produced several Canons to prove, that Metropolitans and a Synod of the Province had right to Judge the Bishops at the first Trial, although the Holy See might afterwards restore them if it thought fit; He says, that the Pope did not find fault with the Judgement in France given against Rothadus, but through his great Wisdom, he had desired them to restore that Bishop who had implored his help. That as to the Second Judgement he was not concerned for it, being none of the Judges, and that since the Holy See would not join with so rigorous a Sentence, he had consented to his Pleasure and the Will of the King. That he had fully cleared himself to Pope Nicolas, and that his Successor Adrian had through his goodness put away all displeasure and anger about that matter. In fine, he says, that he had always done with alacrity what the Holy See had desired of him, to avoid all differences, being persuaded, as St. Leo says, that the Pope hath some reason to mitigate the severity of the Laws, on condition that they should ever after beware of it, and keep to the due Execution of the Canons.  
In Art. 6. he inquires into the truth of what Hincmarus Bishop of Laon had said to several Persons concerning his Uncle, That he had loosed those whom he had bound, had deposed those whom he had ordained, I will cause that he or I will never sing Mass more; Hincmarus shows, that it did not become him who was his Inferior to speak so of him, and vindicates the Right of Metropolitans, and the difference between them and other Bishops. It belongs to them to call Synods, and all their Suffragans are bound to come to them, or send their Excuse, and if they do not so, they may punish them; That the Accusations against any Bishop ought to be brought to them, and they may appoint Judges for the Accused, or consent to them that are Elected. It belongs to them to Ordain the Bishops of their Provinces, and those that are not Ordained with their consent, ought not to be acknowledged for Bishops according to the Council of Nice, whereas, if a Bishop be Ordained with the consent of his Metropolitan, and other Bishops of the Province, except one or two, his Ordination is accounted good. If a Bishop Dies in his Province, it belongs to the Metropolitan to Name a Visitor of the vacant Church. A Bishop ought to Sign the Regulations and Canons which his Metropolitan presents to him, if they contain nothing in them contrary to the Faith. He can't make any changes or alterations in the Lands of his Diocese, without the consent and advice of his Metropolitan. Men may appeal from the Judgements of the Bishop to the Metropolitan; if he hath Excommunicated any Person, and will not receive him again, he may be Absolved by his Metropolitan in a Synod of Bishops. Lastly, The Metropolitan hath a care of all the Province, and all those that have any Ecclesiastical Matters may apply themselves to him, and he can take cognizance of them; A Bishop hath only the Government of his own Diocese, in which he may Ordain Priests and Deacons; if he hath any differences with another Bishop, they can't take the Bishops of another Province for Judges; he can do nothing in the general Affairs of a Province without his Metropolitan; In dubious Causes he ought to assist him, he ought not to go directly to Rome; If he will go out of his Province, he must first obtain leave of his Metropolitan. Nevertheless, if he hath any Accusation against his Metropolitan, he may demand Judges of the H. See, according to the Council of Sardica. Lastly, The Metropolitan may cause the Canons, and Constitutions of the Church, to be put in Execution in all the Province, without assembling any Synod, or consulting the Bishops, and if he finds any thing opposite to them, he may reform it immediately, because in so doing he is the Author of no new Laws, but the Executer of the old only.  
In the 7th Article, He reproves Hincmarus Archbishop of Laon, for going out of his Diocese without his consent, and flying from the Judgement of his Metropolitan and the Bishops of his Province.  
In the 8th Article, He accuses him for sending the Pope's Letters directed to the King and himself, by such Archbishops as were at a distance from him, whereas he ought to have sent them by his own Messengers.  
In the 9th Article, He reproves him for having Excommunicated a Monk of S. Dennis, which the King had put in a Monastery in the Diocese of Laon, and would not be persuaded to revoke that Excommunication.  
In the 10th Article, He answers the Collection of Decretals made by Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon, and because he grounded the Authority of these Records upon a passage of S. Leo, who says, that we are obliged to obey the Decrees of his Predecessors, made and promulgated concerning the Orders and Discipline of the Church, quae de Ecclesiasticis ordinibus, & Canonum sunt promulgata disciplinis. He explains the signification of this expression, and affirms, that it ought to be understood of the Laws taken out of the Canons, and which they have published in their Decretals, and not of the private Decrees which they have made, and which are not agreeable to them; whereupon he citys several Sentences of the Popes, which declare, That we ought to observe the Canons.  
In the following Articles, as far as the 16th, he treats of the Order and Subordination in general, which ought to be among the Bishops.  
In the 16th Article, He treats in particular concerning the Subordination of the Church of Laon to that of Reims: He says that this Metropolis had eleven Churches under it, before S. Remigius erected the Castle of Laon in that Bishopric; That the Bishopric of Laon owes its Erection to the Church of Reims, and that it hath always been subject to it; That the Authority of S. Remigius is in his Successors, and that this Metropolis hath been dignified with several Privileges by the H. See.  
In the 17th, He citys several passages in the Pope's Letters against those Inferiors that exalt themselves against their Superiors.  
In the 18th and 19th, He shows that several have destroyed themselves through Pride and Vanity, by explaining H. Scripture according to their own fancies, and by governing according to their own humour, without following the Tradition of the Church.  
In the 20th, He shows that the Discipline of the Church may change and alter: He speaks of the first six General Councils, whose Authority he acknowledged. As to the seventh he says, That 'twas not received in France, and citys a passage of the Caroline Book concerning the General Nature of Synods. Afterwards, he heaps together many Historical Facts, in which he is mistaken in giving credit to the Supposititious Letters of Mark and Foelix.  
In the 22d, He explains S. Gregory's words in his Letter to Theoctistus, that they ought not to be Absolved who are Excommunicated by the Church; and maintains, that they ought to be understood of those only that are Excommunicated for Just Reasons, because we ought not to think that Unjust Excommunications are made by the Church.  
In the 23d and 24th Articles, he says, That the Roman Church hath not received the 9th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, in that which respects the Permission, which it gives to a Clerk, who hath any thing against his Metropolitan, to apply himself to the Bishop of Constantinople. In the last of these Articles, he rejects the Collection of Canons, which was said to be given by Pope Adrian to Angilram.  
In the 25th and 26th, He shows that there is a difference to be observed between the Decisions of General Councils and the Letters of holy Men and Popes; That 'tis absolutely necessary to obey all the Decisions of the Councils, but the same subjection is not due to all that is contained in those Letters.  
In the 27th, He shows that Hincmarus Bishop of Laon is not exempted from answering, for saying, That he was stopped; and by pretending that he hath Appealed to Rome.  
In the 28th, He says that 'twas an injury to interdict his Priests and Clerks without any Accusation, or they were either Convicted of their Crimes, or Confessed them. To prove this, he produces a great number of Canons, which prescribe the Order to be observed in Ecclesiastical Judgements, and what ought to go before the condemnation of every Person.  
In the 29th and 30th, He shows that Superiors have right to declare no Excommunications which are manifestly irregular and contrary to the Laws of the Church, such as that was by which the Bishop of Laon forbade to administer Baptism to Infants, and the Sacrament to Dying Persons, contrary to the Decrees of the Church, which do not allow the Sacraments to be denied to any Persons in their Necessity. He sets down in this Article many good Rules about Excommunication.  
In the following Article he says, 'tis great Inhumanity to deny Burial to the Dead.  
In the 34th, He shows, by several passages out of the Pope's Letters, that about Matters evident, or already decided, 'tis not necessary to call a Synod, nor Appeal to the H. See, and that the things already Ordained and Decreed should be put in Execution.  
In the 35th Article he proves, That the H. See Judges with the Bishops, and the Bishops with the H. See; That no Man can put a restraint upon Metropolitans, nor hinder them from Judging the Affairs of their Province, much less in that which is already Ordained, and Decided by the Councils. He adds, that in these things there is no need of consulting, or calling together the Bishops of the Province.  
In the 36th Article, He examines the Subscription of the Instrument of the Bishop of Laon, by which he Excommunicated those that would not obey the Decrees of the Popes contained in his Collection. He says, that if he affirms that this Collection contains any thing singular in it, and contrary to the Constitutions of the Council of Nice, and the other Councils received and approved of by the Church, he is himself Excommunicated by endeavouring to Excommunicate others, and so hath separated himself from the Church's Unity with those he hath caused to Sign it.  
In the following Articles to the 43d, he gives him wholesome Advice, and assures him in the 40th, that he was no cause that he was out of favour with the King.  
In the 43d, he vindicates himself from the Calumny that the Bishop of Laon had cast upon him, in accusing him of falsifying the Quotations which he cited. He speaks of the business of Nivintis, he says that his Crime was public and certain, that all the World knew that he had Debauched the Nun, and had conveyed her by Night out of the Monastery into his House; That the thing being discovered, the Nun had undergone her Penance in the Convent, and afterward he had conveyed her away; That he had done all he could to make him acknowledge his fault, and oblige him to do Penance, but instead of undergoing Penance, he had affronted and abused him; whereupon he Excommunicated him, and expelled him out of his Diocese.  
In the 44th and 45th Articles, he exhorts his Nephew to come to an agreement, lay aside all Animosities and Enmities, and to take mild Methods to gain the King's favour without going to Rome.  
In the 46th and 47th, he reproves him for bragging he was never Conquered.  
In the 48th he says, 'tis very dangerous for a Man to be too fond of his own Opinion.  
In the 49th, he Advises him not to abuse the Talon that God hath given him.  
In the 50th, he reproves him for not suffering any to say, that he hath received any kindness, or good turn, which he hath not deserved.  
In the 51th, he accuses him of receiving Presents from his Clergy, and proves, that it is forbidden by the Canons. In the 52th, he accuses him of being arrogant, proud and vain.  
In the 53th, he gives him advice about his Gesture, and the motions of his Body, which were indecent.  
In the 54th, he exhorts him not to misuse his health of Body, or Pleasures of the World, in the flower of his Age. last, he concludes this Work with Elias' Words to Elisha, I have done for you all I was able. He adds, that he believes, tho' he shall not profit by his Advice, that it will not be in vain, before God, to him that gives it. He prays to God to grant to him, to will, say, know, and do what he hath commanded, and to make his Nephew to hear favourably, and do what is convenient for him, and that both of them may will and do what he hath commanded, and persevere in the observance of his Commandments.  
We will now return to the remaining part of the business of Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon: After he 
The sequel of the Affair of Hincmarus of Laon, after he left Attigni.  was gone from Attigni, as we said before, he wrote a Letter to Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims, which was given him the 12th of July by one of his Deacons named Ermenoldus, in which he beseeches him, that since he had appealed twice to the Pope, as they themselves acknowledged, he would get leave of the King to let him go thither. Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims returned him no Answer, whereupon he wrote directly to the King, and having excused himself for not coming to him, because he had a Fever, he prays him earnestly to let him go to Rome, that having performed his Vow, he may be recovered from his Fever. The King answered Bertricus, who brought him the Letter, that 'twas a wonder that the Fever, which kept him from Court, should not hinder him from going to Rome; that he should come to him, and if he had any just cause of going to Rome, he would permit him. The King also commanded him to give a Benefice to one named Eloi. Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon having received this Answer, sent Eddo, Provost of the Church of Loan, to carry a Petition to the Archbishop of Reims, in which he tells him, 1. That he 
A Petition of Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon.  greeted him, and prayed for him. 2. That he was persuaded that he was sensible that he was Persecuted, and that he did share in his Sufferings. 3. That the King had taken away the Revenues of the Church of Laon, and given them to Normannus, which he knew when he withdrew from Attigni. 4. That some other Persons had possessed themselves of the Lands belonging to the Church by the King's Order, who had required him to restore a Benefice to Eloi, who had forcibly gotten it. 5. That he entreated him, who was his Uncle and Archbishop, to obtain of the King that he might have a free Administration of the Revenues of his Church, and to order and dispose of them, as he thought fit; He promises in this Juncture to obey him, come to him, and follow his Directions, protesting, That if the King will not grant him this favour, he never will obey him more, nor never come in his presence; That he will fly to the H. See, and use his Authority by Excommunicating those who have invaded the Goods of the Church, as it is allowed in the Constitution of the Bishops, which he had sent him. This Constitution was made up of certain Canons of the Council held in 860 at Toussi, in the Diocese of Tola, which Decreed, among other things, that those who violently seized upon the Goods of the Church, should be Excommunicated for their whole Lives, nor should obtain Communion at their Death, nor have a Christian Burial; That the Princes and Judges should find out such Persons as corrupted Virgins and Widows dedicated to God, upon Penalty of being expelled out of the Church, and deprived of Burial; That those that have taken away any of the Church Revenues, or Goods, should restore them double, triple, or fourfold, according to the thing they have taken.  
Although the Name of Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims be among the Subscriptions to the Canons of this Council, yet when he received this Writing, he said he had never heard of any such Constitutions, and that the Bishops who were present at that Council said the same thing: He says, that these Constitutions are unreasonable, and contrary to the Laws of the Church, and judged by the Subscriptions, that those acts were false, because he found the Names of some Bishops that were not there, and two Bishops of the same See at the same time, viz. Two Bishops of Auxerra, Christianus, and Ablo, and two Bishops of Noin, Immo and Raginelmus, who succeeded him. He adds, that his Seal was among others there, altho' he was sure that he had not set his Seal to that Act.  
This Petition of Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon was given to Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims at 
The Answer to the Bishop of Laon's Petition.  Pontigon, July 16. by Heddo; He represented his Nephew's Petition to the King, and got the Bishops then at Court to second him in it, viz. Remigius, Harduicus, Odo, and Willibert. The King answered, That he thought the Bishop of Laon might be satisfied with what was said at Attigni; That he had taken more than belonged to his Church out of the Estate which the Prince was willing to give him, so that he might re-enter upon the Land of paul's; but as to the other Revenues about which the Contest was, he must wait till the Matter could be Regulated, and Commissioners be sent on both sides to the places to examine what doth really belong to the Church, that it may be restored to it. As to the Benefices of which he speaks, Hincmarus answers him, That he had deprived the Lawful Heirs of them, to whom he himself had once granted them; and that the Judges, which he had chosen, had determined that he ought to restore them; that he would stay but till some Articles were decided before he fled, and would not wait till Sentence were pronounced; That he might return, and bring with him the Arrest, by which the King had given, or restored to the Church of Laon, the Lands in question, and would do him Justice. In fine, that he had sent him a Writing of that which was done in the Council of Joussi, which he never saw, and of which the Bishops of that Council never heard, and which was not agreeable to the Original he had. Lastly, he advises him not to Excommunicate Normannus, or any others, rashly, nor go to Rome till 'twas examined in a Provincial Synod, whether his Appeal to the H. See were regular.  
Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon returned a long Answer to this Letter of Hincmarus Archbishop of 
The Bishop of Laon's Answer.  Reims, in which he tells him, That he did not desire to enjoy the Revenues of the Church to put them to a bad use, but to employ them as the Canons prescribe; and that it could not but trouble him much to see the Revenues, which were intended for the Subsistance of himself and Clergy, to be taken away, and given to a Person to whom his Predecessor would never grant a Church-Farm; That another had got a Farm granted him, which use to furnish the Church with Candles; and several others were given to such persons, who had done no Service to the Church a long time, and could be no ways profitable to it; That the King never spoke a word to him, of that which Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims mentioned to him; and that he only told him, that he heard he had taken more Grounds in the Lands of paul's than belonged to him, or were granted by the Letters he had sent him; That he would have them; That he was willing that he should enjoy what was contained in these Letters, except the Farms in the possession of Angarius, who was his Man, upon condition, nevertheless, that they should restore them to him, if he found that they belonged to the Land of paul's; That the King had delayed to restore them to him, but he was put upon doing it by the Advice of Hincmarus; That he had not unjustly seized upon, and kept those Farms, but they have belonged above 60 Years to the Land of paul's; That he had enjoyed them ever since the King had restored those Lands, six months since, till Ansgarius had obtained them of the King, without any cognizance of the Cause, and without examining his Claim. As to the Judges, which he says were Named by him, it is true that the King ordered the Archbishop of Reims to Nominate some Bishops who should examine the Affair of those who complained that they were deprived of their Benefices; That Hincmarus having Named them, he did appear before them with one Clergyman and Layman of his Church; That Regenard having preferred his complaint first, he did show his Reasons why he deprived him; and whereas, among other things, he had accused him of not paying the Service due, the Judges required him to take an Oath that it was so, and that Regenard should lose his Benefice. Whereupon Hincmarus Bishop of Laon complains, that the Judges regarded Temporal more than Spiritual Causes, because being also accused of spoiling the Farms, and having abused the Revenues of the Church, they did not condemn him to make any Restitution. The second that made his complaint was one Gri●on, who being accused of spoiling a Wood which his Father had Planted, he defended himself by saying, 'Twas not so, and that 'twas some Peasants that had wasted it against his knowledge; and that Hincmarus had deprived him of his Benefice only because he would not go to Rome; That when Hincmarus maintained the contrary, and produced his Witnesses, they put off the Judgement of that Affair till next Week. He than confesses, that he withdrew himself, but says 'twas to avoid the Persecution intended against him; That all his Family was Banished; That they favoured the Lord Normannus, who was Excommunicated both by the Pope and himself; That they would not permit him to go to Rome, but had taken away the Revenues that belong to his Church. As to the Constitution of the Synod of Toussi, he says, that he received it of Harduicus Archbishop of Bisancon, who was present at it; and that it was written by two of his Deacons; and that he remembers well, that 'twas made in that Council; That 'tis true, that he had composed another Letter, but finding it too long, he thought it best to Sign this which was shorter, and, as it were, an abridgement of the other. Lastly, he enlarges upon the Pope's Decretals; he affirms that they do not contradict one another, and that the Bishops, who desire to be judged at Rome, at the first Examination ought to be sent thither. He complains of his Archbishop, that he had been no help to him since he desired to be sent thither, but, on the contrary, opposed his Interests. This is the Answer that Hincmarus Bishop of Laon gave his Metropolitan; but having no mind to have to do with him, nor those Ecclesiastical Judges that he had Nominated, he resolved to request Secular Judges of the King, two months after he retired from Attigni. The King appointed Helmingarius, Hotarius and Ursio, who were Court-Officers. These Judges altered, and reexamined the things that had been decided by the Ecclesiastical Judges, and were more favourable to Hincmarus of Laon than they had been, for they made the Lord Normannus to leave his Benefice; and others, who had gotten possession of the Benefices in contest through the flight of Hincmarus, to resign them to him again. Things being thus ordered, Hincmarus of Laon returned to Court, and never spoke more of going to Rome.  
Hincmarus, Archbishop of Reims, was very angry that his Nephew had so well acquitted himself before the Lay-Judges, contemning the Authority of his See, and the Judges he had appointed; 
A new Contest between Hincmarus of Laon and the King.  wherefore he wrote to him with a great deal of Passion. Nevertheless, the Judgement given for him was Executed; but not long after, Hincmarus of Laon engaged in a fresh Quarrel with King Charles upon the account of Caroloman. This happened thus: Caroloman, the Eldest Son of King Charles, was Baptised in the Church of Reims, and devoted by his Father to be a Churchman, having been Shaved, and afterwards received all the Orders, as far as a Deacon, from the Hands of Hildegarius Bishop of Meaux; But because he was forced to embrace a Profession, which displeased him, he resolved to make his escape, and being got away, he conspired against his Father. He was accused in the Synod of Attigni, and condemned as a Rebel, and thereupon being deprived of his Abbeys was put in Prison. Having appealed to Rome, the Pope wrote in his favour, and a little after he was set at Liberty. But in the Year following he began his Quarrel again, took Arms, gathered Troops, and Plundered the Country. Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims, in the absence of the King, who was gone into Burgundy, assembled the Bishops of his Province immeately, and after he had admonished him four times that he should lay down his Arms, he declared him Excommunicated, and all his Soldiers, which were the greatest part of the Province of Reims, if they did not reform, and do Penance before the 11th of March. Hincmarus sent this Letter of Excommunication to Remigius Archbishop of Lions, and to the Bishops of his Province, and wrote on purpose to Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon, to require his consent, under Hand, to this Excommunication, but he gave him no Answer to it; wherefore he wrote a second time more earnestly to him. Then he answered, That he would not give his consent to it, because he had not answered his desire made to him by Eddo, which he ought to have added in that Act. Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims replied, That Eddo had never spoke to him about it, and that he had not any thing to add. Nevertheless, he desired him to tell him plainly what he would have added, promising that he would do it if it were reasonable, being always ready to learn of others, follow their advice, and reform any thing that was amiss. In the rest of the Letter, he speaks with loftiness to his Nephew, and shows that he is greatly displeased with his Disobedience. 'Tis Dated Aug. 19  
On the 5th of May, a Clergyman of Laon called Teutlandus coming to Reims, the Archbishop ordered him to bid his Bishop to send his consent immediately to the Excommunication of Caroloman. Lastly, Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon being admonished a 6th time by a Letter from his Metropolitan, answered, That he wondered he should desire his consent to that Excommunication, since he had not taken his Advice in issuing it out. He also complains, that his Uncle had sent his Summons by the Clergymen of his own Church, and that he had pronounced a Benediction in the Diocese of Laon upon some of the Confederates of Caroloman.  
On the 14th of May, Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims cited the Bishop of Laon to a Synod, which 
Hincmarus of Laon cited to a Synod.  was to be held, that he should answer to the complaints and accusations brought against him; but he, instead of giving a civil answer, wrote a Letter full of Invectives and Affronts, in which he accuses him of betraying, and delivering him up, when he was apprehended, and of being his Enemy ever since he opposed him in his putting a Bishop into Rothadus' place, till he should receive the Pope's pleasure about that Affair. Nevertheless, Adrian wrote two Letters in favour of Caroloman to the King his Father, to the Bishops of France, and the Lords, in which he forbids the last taking Arms against Caroloman, and the others to Excommunicate him. These Letters bear 
Adrian's Letter in favour of Caroloman.  date July 13. but they did Caroloman no service, as we shall show anon. This Pope wrote also to Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims, March 25. to call a Synod for the Reformation of Abuses in his Diocese; and under this pretence Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims cited Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon, in the Name of the Pope, and by his Authority, to the Synod which was to be holden at Douzi, Aug. 5. The Act says July 5.  
The Council being assembled at Douri, King Charles presented a Bill to them containing several 
The Council of Douzi.  heads of Accusation against Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon; the beginning of it is lost. In that part which remains, he accuses him for Writing to Rome against him, at the same time when he acknowledged in France, that he had not meddled with any of the Revenues of the Church; for going out of his Kingdom into Lotharius'; for not coming to him when he had commanded him, and for hindering his Servants to come to him; for Writing a second time to Rome against him; for flying from Attigni after he had Sworn Allegiance to him. Lastly, for Arming his Servants to hinder the Governor of the Province, that he might not apprehend certain suspicious Persons which were at his House, to send them to the Council, but let them escape. When this Bill was read, the King desired, that since the Bishop of Laon, who had been cited by his Metropolitan to appear before the Council, did not come, they would search what the Canons and Laws decreed concerning those heads of Accusation brought against him, and if he came to the Synod, that the differences between him and his Metropolitan should be Judged and Determined.  
Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims presented another Petition to the Synod, in which he briefly relates all that had passed between him and Hincmarus Bishop of Laon, the causes of complaint he had against him, the heads of Accusation that he charged him with, and the consequence of the whole matter, setting down under every Article the Decisions of the Popes and Councils, showing wherein the Bishop of Laon had offended, and the punishment he deserved. He defends himself, against the Accusation, that he had betrayed him, and produceth three Letters written at the time he was seized, to show that he had no hand in his Imprisonment, but had disapproved it. He also justifies himself against the Accusation, that he had no respect to the Judgement of the H. See, and slighted its Authority, and treats of what passed at Attigni about that matter. Lastly, He concludes that Hincmarus Bishop of Laon having been Summoned three times by the Council and not appearing, aught to be condemned for his Contumacy, notwithstanding the Appeal he had made to the H. See, because it is irregular, and he hath not prosecuted it.  
The Bishops of the Council desiring some time to Answer the King's Request, made a Collection of the Canons, Laws, and Testimonies of the Fathers, upon every head of the Accusation contained in that Bill, concerning the false Oaths, and Perjury, the Sedition and Violence he had used, concerning the alienating of the Revenues of his Church, the Calumnies he had written to Rome against his Prince, his Disobedience and Rebellion, and for having made many of the King's Subjects to fly.  
This Memoir was read in the Council, and Hincmarus, Bishop of Laon, summoned again to the Council. But he answered, That he had Appealed to the H. See. The Bishop of Soissons, who Cited him, told him, That he ought to appear at the Synod, and if it were necessary for him then to appeal, they would suffer him to prosecute it. Hermerardus also was cited by the Synod. These Citations having been repeated three times, at last Hincmarus appeared before the Council; but Hermerardus would not come. They then read to him the King's Bill, and a Letter from the Pope sent to him, in which he was ordered to be obedient to his Metropolitan, with an allowance of an Appeal to the H. See, if there were just Cause.  
The next day, he was summoned to the Council, to answer to the Accusations brought against him by the King. On the 14th of August he came; and Hincmarus, Archbishop of Reims, having ordered him to answer to the King's Petition, he said, That he was deprived of all his Revenues, and would not answer in that Synod: And taking up his Papers, he began to read the Canons concerning Bishop's Appeals. The Council ordered him to answer the Accusations brought against him, giving him Liberty afterwards to appeal to the H. See, if he would. He persisted in his first Answer That he was deprived of his Revenues, and would not answer. They asked him, who had deprived him? He answered, his Clergymen knew: And one of them being asked about it, answered, that it was the King; who immediately said 'twas false, and accused Hincmarus of arming his Servants to hinder that his Governor might send several Persons accused of Treachery to the Council, of saving them, of flying himself, and carrying with him the Sacred Vessels and Ornaments of the Church of our Lady at Laon, which made him so backward to make his Defence: That since he came to the Synod, he had prepared him an House where his Servants might lodge, but he chose rather to abide in his Court near the Church: That he had ordered Bernard to treat him civilly, and take care of his Goods and Papers: That they had brought them to him, with a Golden Cross set with Stones, and several things belonging to the Church. The King proved the Facts by Witnesses, though the very Clergy of the Bishop of Laon owned them. He was accused of having taken away and given a Chalice, with a Patten of Gold set with Stones, to a Priest, to hid for him, which the King had given to the Church of S. Mary's at Laon; of having taken away the Relics and Deeds of the Church of Laon, with a Golden Cross; so not only enriching himself with the Goods of the Church of Laon, but suffering his Servants to convey them away.  
Hincmarus, Archbishop of Reims, having summoned him to answer these Accusations, he said, he would not answer before him, because he had something against him, and therefore appealed to the H. See. Hincmarus answered him, That he ought not to decline his Judgement, since he had often reproved him, and admonished him, but had not yet judged him, and so he could not appeal to Rome; because by the ancient Canons, no Appeals can be made thither, but after Judgement: Wherefore he ought to answer, and should be tried without any Prejudice to the Privileges or Judgement of the Pope, as it is decreed by the Council of Sardica, That he might appeal to Rome after the Judgement of the Provincial Synod. Hincmarus, Bishop of Laon, said, That he would not answer, nor accept his Metropolitan for his Judge, because he had advised the King to take him Prisoner. Hincmarus, Archbishop of Reims, having prayed the King to speak the Truth, the King protested with an Oath, That he did it without the Consent of the Archbishop of Reims, and added, That had it not been for the Respect he had for him, he would have imprisoned him above two years ago for his Insolences; and that if he had not kept his Lords from it, he had been set upon in his Palace, and stabbed or beaten to death. Hincmarus, Archbishop of Reims also prayed Ado and Hildebaldus, who were present when the Bishop of Laon was apprehended, to speak what they knew; who both of them testified, as well as two Priests and Earls, That it was done without the Privity of the Archbishop of Reims.  
After this, Hincmarus, Archbishop of Reims, read over again the King's Request, and interrogated him about every Article; but he would not answer: But all the heads were proved against Hincmarus, Bishop of Laon, either by Writing or Witnesses; and being required three times to answer, the Archbishops of Besancon, Bourdeaux, Bourges, Trives, Roven, Sens, and the Bishops of Troy's, Tongres, Meaux, Mets, Chartres, Beauvais, Tournay, Poitiers, Cambray, Orleans, Chalons, Soissons, Verdun, and Paris, with the Rural Bishop of Tongres, were of opinion, That he ought to be deposed, without Prejudice to the Judgement of the H. See, salvo per omnia Apostolicae Sedis Judicio. Hincmarus, who gave his Opinion last, was of the same Judgement. This Sentence was sealed by these Prelates and some Priests. The Name of the Bishop of Lions, Renugius, is found among the Subscriptions; but he was not at this Synod. The Bishops of the Council wrote a Letter to Pope Adrian, in which they tell him, That they were forced to depose Hincmarus, Bishop of Laon, as he will understand by the Acts of the Council, which they sent him. Beside the Crimes therein set down, they accuse him of having converted to his own use, or given away, several of the Ornaments of the Church of Laon, to have stirred up many Seditions, to have excommunicated and abused Amalbertus. They desire the Pope to confirm their Judgement, or if he thought fit to review it, (which they could not think necessary) That he would appoint Judges, either of the same or neighbouring Provinces, and if he pleased, send his Legate to be present at the Judgement, as it is appointed in the Council of Sardica; upon condition nevertheless, That Hincmarus shall not be restored to his Dignity, till his Cause be examined and tried anew in the Province; because as yet they had not departed from the Rights of the Gallican and Belgic Churches. They declare, That if he restores him, and sends him into France, they'll never trouble themselves with him, but let him live as he list without communicating with him. They recommend, in the last place, to him Actardus, who was desired by the People and Clergy of Tours, that he might be made Bishop of that Church by his Authority, altho' they could do't themselves. This Letter is dated Sept. 6. 871.  
Hincmarus wrote also in his own Name to Pope Adrian; He gins his Letter with the business of Actardus, and after speaks of the Condemnation of the Bishop of Laon. He excuses himself, that 
Hincmarus' s Letter to Adrian.  he did not maintain him in the business with Normannus, because he was injured, and the case was not that which he had related to the Pope. He laments that he ever Ordained him, and says, That after he had done all he could to reclaim him, and found him incorrigible, he was forced to leave him, and suffer him to be condemned. Lastly, He gives the Pope an Account of the business of the Priest, who was Deposed for endeavouring to kill, and actually wounding with a Spear, another with whom he was Travelling in a Journey, after he had made himself Drunk with him.  
Pope Adrian having received the Letter of the Bishops of the Council, returned an Answer, 
Adrian' s Answer.  That he approved their Election of Actardus for the Bishopric of Tours, but he disapproved the Judgement given against Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon, contrary to his Appeal, to be Judged at Rome; He order that he should come with his Accuser thither, and forbids them putting any other Bishop in his place, till his Cause be Examined and Tried anew. This Letter bears Date Dec. 26.  
He also wrote at the same time two Letters to Charles the Bald. In the first, which he intended to be public, he complains, that he had taken his Petitions, which he made to him, ill, and exhorted him to accept them favourably. He order him to send Hincmarus, and his Accusers, to Rome, assuring him, that he would not consent to his Deposition till that were done. He approves the Promotion of Actardus to the Archbishopric of Tours, without depriving him, nevertheless, of the Right which he hath to the Reversion of the Diocese of Nantes. He exhorts the King to see, that all the Revenues of the Church of Tours be restored that belong to it, as also the Monasteries, which according to the Canons are subject to that Bishop.  
The second Letter, which was private and secret, was wrote with more mildness and assurance, but he insists more particularly upon this, That the King had not received his Admonitions with all possible subjection, and that he had enriched himself with the Revenues of the Church. In the rest, he pretends a great deal of Friendship to him, commends his Piety, blames the carriage of Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon, and seems to think him faulty, and justly condemned; but nevertheless, hopes he will send him to Rome, that after he hath heard him, he may appoint him Judges, or send his Legates to the place to have him Judged before them there.  
King Charles being offended at these two Letters of the Pope's, as also at a former, which the 
K. Charles' Answer to the Pope.  Pope had written to him, full of reproachful Language to his Person, which he exhorted him to bear patiently, and take in good part, writ sharply to him, and shown himself angry for being treated in such a manner; and because he had ordered him to send Hincmarus immediately to Rome. Hereupon he accuses him of Worldly Pride, in ambitiously claiming a Dominion in the Church; and says, That he did not know before that a King, whose Office is to punish Evil doers, and revenge Crimes, was obliged to send the guilty to Rome, after they were condemned and convicted; That he should know, that the Kings of France are not the Bishop's Vicegerents, but absolute Masters of their Country; That he doth not find that the Popes, his Predecessors, did ever write in that fashion to the Kings of France. Then he recites several expressions of the Popes, and shows by many Ecclesiastical Laws that no Canon obliged him to send Condemned Bishops to Rome, but on the contrary, that Ecclesiastical Causes should be Judged and Determined in the Province where the Matters were acted. Lastly, He advises him not to write to him more in such a strain, nor to the Bishops and Lords of his Kingdom, unless he will have his Letters and Messengers slighted, which he wrote to him saith he, because of the respect he did bear to him, and because of the design he had to be subject, as he ought, to the Vicar of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, lest he should force him, against his Will, to do otherwise than he intended. In fine, that he knew that he ought to follow, and to hold to that which was approved by the H. See, when 'tis found agreeable to the H. Scripture, Tradition, and the Laws of the Church, but rejected the claim which was grounded upon Forged, and ill-composed Pieces.  
Nor did the Bishops of France writ with less Resolution to the Pope about that Affair, they 
The Execution of the Judgmen given against Hincmarus.  boldly rejected the pretences the Pope had, that Hincmarus should come to Rome and be Judged; and maintained, that the Judgement given against that Bishop ought to be Executed; And in effect it was done, and the Church of Laon became vacant de facto & de jure, altho' the H. See would not confirm the Judgement of the Synod of Douzi. Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon was put in Prison, and two years after his Eyes were put out, as Caroloman's were; a very usual punishment at that time for such as were found guilty of Rebellion. Charles the Bald being afterwards Crowned Emperor by 
* This Pope, according to Platina's reckoning, which is accounted the tru●st, is John IX. for John VIII. is Pope Joan, of which the Romish Church is so much ashamed, that they have blotted her out of the Catalogue of their Popes, for though th●y allow their Pope's 〈◊〉 many Women, yet they will not endure to hear of a Woman to be a Pope.  John VIII. gave him an Account of the Judgement given at the Synod of Douzi, and desired the confirmation of it from him, which he granted, writing to Hincmarus, that upon the Relation of the Emperor he approved the Judgement, he, and other Bishops of France, had given against Hincmarus of Laon; after whom, Henedulphus was Ordained Bishop of Laon, in pursuance of the Decree of his Election made March 26. and 876.  
After the Death of Charles the Bald, Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon was set at Liberty, who hearing 
The Council of Troy's.  that Pope John VIII. was retired into France, held a Council at Troy's, he went thither and Presented a Petition, in which he complained, That being carried to the Council of Douzi by force, deprived of his Goods, accused by K. Charles, he was condemned by the Archbishop of Reims, although he had Appealed to the H. See; that since that time he had been put in Chains, and his Eyes were put out. He begged of the Pope to do him Justice, and pass an equitable Sentence upon that Matter, which was referred to him. He alleged, That the Bishops of the Synod of Douzi had condemned him very unwillingly, that most of them were very much troubled at what they had done by the impulse of Hincmarus' Archbishop of Reims, who advised them to it by Writing. Nevertheless, by the Acts of the Council, and the Letters written by them, it doth appear, that they condemned Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon with a full consent and agreement, and never did repent that they had done it.  
Nevertheless, the Petition of Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon was approved in the Council of Troy's by some Bishops, and King Ludovicus Balbus did not oppose it; But Pope John VIII. judging that it would be a very difficult thing to reverse the Sentence of the Council of Douzi, ordered that Henedulphus should continue Bishop of Laon, although he himself desired that he might retreat into a Monastery, but allowed Hincmarus' liberty to Sing Mass, and to have a Pension out of the Revenues of the Bishopric of Laon. Whereupon some Bishops took him, and having Clothed him with his Episcopal Vestments, they led him to the Church with Singing, and caused him to give the Benediction. He died not long after, and his Uncle Hincmarus made Prayers to God for him after his Death.   

CHAP. VI  
An Account of several other Ecclesiastical Affairs transacted in France, in which Hincmarus was chief engaged.  
HIncmarus, besides the private Affairs, had also a share, as I before intimated, in all the most 
The Divorce of th● Queen Theutberga.  Important Affairs both in Church and State, which gave him occasion to exercise his Pen in divers Controversies. That which made the greatest noise of all, was the Divorce of the Queen Theutberga, and Lotharius III. King of Lorraine; She was the Daughter of Hubert Duke of Outrelemontjou, and allied to Charles the Great. Lotharius being fallen in Love with another Woman, endeavoured to dissolve his Marriage, and made this the pretence, That Theutberga had committed Incest with her own Brother; He forced her to confess it, and so dissolved his Marriage by the Advice of some Bishops in an Assembly held 860 at Aix la Chapelle. Since these Bishops had given it out that Hincmarus approved of this Divorce, he thought himself obliged to testify his Detestation of it in Writing. This Paper was made in his own, and all the Bishop's Names of the Province of Reims, and directed to Kings, Bishops, and all Christians. He first gives this reason of the Dedication, That altho' the Church of Rome ought principally to be consulted in Matters obscure and dubious, yet it is convenient to Address himself to the whole Church, when the ancient Truth is attacked by some Novelty; That the Matter about which he treats is of so great importance, that Kings and Princes, Magistrates and People, aught to give great attention to the Truth of the Judgement, Consent of the Bishops, and the Lenity, Patience and Goodness of the King. Lastly, That he addressed his Speech to Kings, who ought to be an Example to the People; To the Bishops, who are obliged to Teach what Christ hath commanded; And to all the Faithful, who ought neither to approve, nor favour any Man's faults. After this Preface, which he hath adorned with several passages out of the Fathers, to authorise and explain these Maxims, he Answers the Reasons that are brought to maintain the Divorce of Lotharius and Theutberga; The first and chief was the Incest, which that Queen was accused to have committed with her own brother, by whom she is said to have conceived, and afterward procured her Abortion. She denied that she was guilty of any such Crime, and since no Proof or Witnesses could be produced for her, it was resolved by the Lay-Judges, with the Advice of the Bishops, and consent of Lotharius himself, that she should Name a Man that should undergo the Trial of hot Water; Accordingly it was put in Execution, and the Man received no hurt, so she was declared Innocent even by the Judgement of the King her Husband. Some time after this Accusation was again renewed, and certain Bishops were Summoned to the Palace of Aix la Chapelle, of which the chief were Thietgaldus' Archbishop of Treves. and Gonthierus Archbishop of Cologne (the former the Uncle, and the other the Brother of Waldrada, whose Sister Lotharius desired to Marry;) They made Theutberga to own that she was not fit to continue Lotharius' Wife; She called Gonthierus for a Witness, to whom she had confessed it, and required him to tell the Reason of it before the other Bishops. Hincmarus, after he hath thus recited the Articles of that business, he shows, that the Praemonitions that the Bishops gave the Queen, that she should not accuse herself of any Crime she was not guilty of, do evidently prove, that they knew she was to accuse herself; After which he says, that the secret Crimes which are discovered in Confession ought not to be divulged, nor ought any Person to be condemned for his secret Crimes. He also relates the Declaration of Gonthierus, Jan. 8. who assured the Council, that the Queen had confessed to him that she had suffered an Abuse, tho' against her consent; The Judgement of the Bishops, Adventius and Thietgaldus was, that if this were true she ought not to cohabit with Lotharius; The Council of the Abbot Egilius was the same; and the Extract of the Acts of the Session of that Synod held Febr. 14. (at which, besides Gonthierus and Thietgaldus, were Wenilo Archbishop of Roven, Frotarius of Tongres, or Liege, Hatton of Verdun, Hildegarius of Meaux, and Hilduinus) which contains a Declaration in Writing, which the Queen gave the King her Husband, in which she owns, before God and all his Angels, that her Brother Hubert had abused her. 'Tis then said, that the Bishops did conjure the King to tell them, whether he had obliged her either by force, or threats, to make this Declaration, and he protested that he had not, and that he was much troubled at it; Then the Bishops asked the Queen again whether it were true, and she boldly said it was; whereupon they Judged, that she ought to be put to Public Penance, to atone for the Incest which was now become public by her Declaration. Hincmarus says, that Pope Leo forbids this sort of Confession by Writing, as to what respects the Church; That Lotharius, who seemed to be troubled at this, was inwardly pleased, and was the Author of this Stratagem; That the Queen having accused herself in Judgement in the presence of the King, and his Lay-Judges, ought not to be put to public Penance; that she was not regularly condemned, and therefore they had the less reason to Divorce her so readily from her Husband, and allow him to Marry another.  
He than shows, that this Cause was much different from Ebbo's, because he had chosen his Judges, before whom he regularly and judicially owned his Crime; and besides, that there is a great deal of difference between Deposing a Bishop and parting Man and Wife, the Union between Husband and Wife being much more near and close than that between a Bishop and his Church; That if a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, own their Crime, although it be false that they have committed it, they ought to be Deposed according to the Council of Valence, but a Wife cannot be parted from her Husband for the same reason; That Bishops may leave their Churches, but a Woman can't departed from her Husband.  
It was farther said, That the Archbishop of Reims had consented to what was done in that Assembly, and had conferred about it with Adventius. Hincmarus' Answers, That it was not true; that Adventius had indeed spoke to him of it, and invited him to be at the Synod, or send thither, but he gave him his answer in Writing, before he parted from him, that he could not do it, because he had not consulted the Bishops of his Province; and that he wrote to him after such a manner, as did show, that he did not approve of that Divorce. Before he enters upon a particular discussion of this business, he produces several Authorities concerning the manner how a Lawful Marriage ought to be contracted; he treats of the Reasons of a Separation between Man and Wife, which are, according to him, the desire of their Salvation, to live Continently: And Adultery, for which the Lay-Judges part Man and Wife, with the consent of the Ecclesiastic, and the Church, put the Guilty to public Penance, if the Crime be known. He adds, That in the Case in hand, the Separation was neither for the love of Continence, nor for public and certain Adultery, but only on mere Suspicion, and that this Matter should have first have been examined by Lay-Judges, and then the Bishops should have done their Duty, and used the Authority of the Church. He brought an Example of a Case that happened in the Reign of Lewis the Kind, how a Woman of Quality, Named Nothilda, presented to a General Assembly of the Estate a Petition against her Husband Argembert. This Prince bid her apply herself to the Bishops, who should put her over to the Laymen, that they might judge of that Matter, and enjoined her to follow their Judgement, reserving to themselves a Power of putting, either her or him to Penance, who should be convinced of any Crime.  
After the Judgement by hot Water was found favourable to the Princess Theutberga, they that accused her said that these sort of Proofs were forbidden; Hincmarus endeavours to maintain them by Authority and Use, and affirms, That the Man named by the Queen to undergo the Proof of hot Water, not being so much as burnt or scalded, it was a Miracle that could not be done to Authorise a Lye. He adds, That since this Judgement was not certain, and they could not accuse the Person so cleared, they ought not to make use of a secret Confession for that end.  
It was also asked Hincmarus, if it were not possible that the Queen might have to do with her Brother, and conceive by him, without losing her Virginity? He laughs at this Proposition, and says, That if she were a Virgin when she was Married, it was foolish to accuse her of being Defiled, and imagine that she had conceived before her Marriage. He sent back this Question to the Lay-Judges with another, viz. Whether if a Woman, who hath not lived honestly before Marriage, but after lives honestly with her Husband, deserves to be condemned to Death for her former Lewdness, and whether it be not more fit to Pardon her?  
They also asked, Whether the King having had to do with another Woman, after he heard that his Wife had committed this Crime, was not guilty of Adultery? He answers, That he could not deny it but that he was guilty, altho' at last his Wife were found guilty of the Crime for which he suspected her, because he had done it before the Sentence of Divorce was passed. He adds, That tho' a Man be engaged by Oath to live with another Woman besides his Wife, or a Woman with another Man besides her Husband, they ought not to observe that Oath.  
They also asked him, If it were true that Sorcerers could make a Man and his Wife to hate each other Mortally? He affirms that they can, and proves by several Relations that there were such Magicians and Sorcerers, and that the Devils could, by the permission of God, possess Men, make them Mad, and torment them. He owns, that if it were found, that according to the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws, the Marriage of Theutberga were invalid, she might be Divorced, and the King Mary another; but he maintains, that till his Wife be declared unworthy to be so by the Judgement of the Lords, and Advice of the Bishops, he ought not to think of Marrying his Concubine. Lastly, After he hath confuted several pretences alleged for the maintenance of the Divorce of Lotharius and Theutberga, he concludes, that the Bishops ought to oppose such disorderly proceed, and if they did it not, or did encourage them, they were highly unblamable before God.  
Notwithstanding this opposition made by Hincmarus, there was a Synod held in 862 at Aix la 
Council of Metz.  Chapelle, in which the Bishops assembled allowed Lotharius to Marry another Woman; whereupon he immediately Married 〈◊〉. This business made a great noise, and being carried to Rome, Pope Nicolas wrote about it 〈◊〉 Charles, who desired an opportunity to Quarrel with Lotharius, and deprive him of his Kingdom, but Lewis of Germany endeavoured to compose the Matter, and Lotharius referred it to the Judgement of the States; Then having Appealed to the Pope, two Legates were Named to hold a Council, where two Bishops of Lewis', and two of Charles' Kingdom met them, that they might judge of this Matter: This Council was held at Metz June 863. In it Lotharius went about to confirm his Marriage by the Artifices of Gonthierus and Thietgaldus, and by corrupting the Pope's Legates. Gonthierus and Thietgaldus had the boldness to bring the 
A Council at Rome.  Sentence to Rome, but Pope Nicolas, instead of confirming it, called a Council, in which he declared the Judgement of the Synod at Metz null and void, Deposed Gonthierus and Thietgaldus, and declared, That all the Bishops, which concurred in that Sentence, had incurred the greatest Punishment, which he resolved to inflict on them, unless they changed their Opinion.  
Gonthierus and Thietgaldus stoutly defended themselves, and sent a Letter against Pope Nicolas' Sentence to all the Bishops, with a Protestation, That they had signified it to him, in which they declare him Excommunicate, because he had, as they said, gone contrary to the Canons, favouring persons Excommunicated, and separating himself from the Society of other Bishops merely through Pride; But the other Prelates of Lotharius' Kingdom excused themselves to the Pope; Thietgaldus also begged Pardon, but could not obtain Absolution so long as Pope Nicolas lived; but Gonthierus, Archbishop of Cologne, could never be brought to beg Pardon. Lotharius himself did all he could to appease the Pope, who desired, that Waldrada should come to Rome in Person, and receive Absolution; She promised him, and went twice into Italy, but repenting as often of her submission, returned back again; wherefore the Pope having called a Synod Excommunicated her, and wrote several sharp Letters to Lotharius the Younger. Afterward he sent a Legate into France Named Atsenius, who addressing himself to Lewis of Germany, called a Synod, in which Lotharius was forced to take his former Wife, but as soon as the Legate was gone he began to use her ill, and to enter a Process against her for Adultery, so that she was forced to put herself under the Protection of King Charles; The Pope was very much concerned at it, and Excommunicated Waldrada anew.  
At the same time, there were two other Matters of like nature Debated between Hincmarus, the Bishops of the Kingdom, and Charles on the one part; and Gonthierus, and the Bishops of 
The Business of Judith and Baldwin.  Lotharius' Kingdom on the other. The one was about Judith the Daughter of K. Charles, the Widow 
* Ethelbald whose Father Ethelwolfe had had her to Wife before.  of the King of England, who was taken away from Senlis by Earl Baldwin, who was fled into the Kingdom of Lotharius; and the other concerning Ingeltrude the Wife of Boson, who had left her Husband, and was fled into the Diocese of Gonthierus. As to the first of these, it was soon ended by the intercession of Pope Nicolas, for Earl Baldwin, whom he had Excommunicated at the Solicitation of K. Charles, coming to Rome with Judith, cast himself at the Pope's feet; at which he was so much moved, that he wrote several Letters to King Charles, his Queen Hermentruda, and the Bishops, to obtain their Pardon; by which means the King consented to the Marriage, and so it ended.  
As to the Wife of Boson, Gonthierus wrote about her to Hincmarus, An. 860. propounding the Question thus to him: If this Woman come to me, and tell me that she hath committed Adultery, 
The business of Boson.  desiring that I would protect her from Death, which she is afraid of from her Husband, ought I to put her to public Penance in my Diocese at a distance from her Husband, or shall I send her again to her Husband, making him promise that he will not put her to Death? Hincmarus' Answers, That he ought not to put another Man's Wife to Penance who belongs to another Diocese, nor Protect her; That Boson doth not accuse her of Adultery, but complains, That she hath left him, and promises that he will do her no harm; So that all you can do upon this occasion is this, That the King of the County, whether she is fled, should make her return to her Husband, but withal, taking such security of her Husband as is usual to be given for those who have put themselves under the Protection of the Church.  
There was also another business of the like nature, in which Hincmarus was engaged; Count 
The business ●f Count Raimond.  Raimond had Married a Daughter to a certain Lord Named Steven, who would not live with her as his Wife, under a pretence that she had had a Carnal knowledge of one of her near Relations, but would not tell who it was. E. Raimond wrote a Letter of Complaint about it to the Synod held at Toussi 860, whereupon Steven was Summoned to the Synod, where he propounded the business, and told them, That whereas in his Youth he had had a Carnal Knowledge of one of the near Relations of the Daughter of Earl Raimond, it happened that he desired to have her in Marriage, and obtained it; but afterward calling to mind what he had formerly done, he went to a Confessor to know whether he might not do Penance for his Sin in private, and Mary the Earls Daughter, as they had agreed? The Confessor Answered, No; and showing him a Book, which he said was a Book of Canons, by which it was Decreed, That he that hath had any Carnal Knowledge of the Woman's Relations, whom he would Marry, must not Consummate the Marriage with her; That afterward falling under the Displeasure of the King his Lord, he was forced to leave the Kingdom, without breaking of the Contract with Raimond's Daughter, or Marrying her, so that it was put off for some time; That afterward he was constrained to Marry her publicly, but for fear he should Damn his Soul, he would not have any Carnal Knowledge of her. This he assured the Council, with an Oath, that it was true, and that he did not do it for Interest, or because he loved another Woman; declaring, That he was ready to follow the Judgement of the Bishops, if they could satisfy him that his Honour and Salvation might be alike secured, in giving contentment to his Father-in-Law and Wife. The Synod resolved, that it was necessary to call a Council of Bishops and Lords, at which the King himself should be present; That the Lords should examine the business, and the Bishops conclude it. Steven accepted this condition, and Hincmarus was employed by the Council to search into the Truth of the Matter, by which he was obliged to write to the Archbishops of Bourges and Bourdeaux, and the Bishops of their Provinces. He tells them, that they ought to bring Raimond's Daughter to the Assembly, and inquire of her, whether it was true that her Husband had no Carnal Knowledge of her; That it ought to be searched into, whether Steven did not say this that he might leave his Wife; That he ought to Name the near Relation he had known; That he ought to Swear it was true; and if it did appear to be true, that he had really done so with any of her near Relations, they should be parted, and Steven should be put to public Penance.  
In 842, Nou. 1. Hincmarus held a Council at Reims with the Priests of his Diocese, in which 
The Council of Reims, 842.  several very useful Consultations were made. They Decreed and Ordered that all Priests should know how to explain the Creed and Lord's Prayer, and be able to repeat by heart the Preface and Canon of the Mass, and recite distinctly the Psalms, Hymns, and Athanasius' Creed; That they should know how to Administer Baptism, Absolve Penitents, and Anoint the Sick; That on every Sunday they should Consecrate Water, and burn Incense after the Gospel and Offertory; That they should distribute the Holy Bread to all those that would not Communicate; That they should read the 40 Homilies of St. Gregory; That they should know the Calendar, and how to Sing, and should Sing the Service; That they should take care of the Poor and Sick; That they should not Pawn the Holy Vessels; That they should not Bury any Man in the Church, without permission from the Bishops, and should demand nothing for Burials; That they should take no Gifts of Penitents; That when they meet at Feasts they should be sober; That when they meet at Conferences they should not make any Feasts, but be contented with Bread, and two or three Glasses of Wine, and no more; That Fraternities should be upheld for Piety-sake, and none should be suffered to promote Feasting and Revels; And lastly, That when any Priest Died, no Man should get possession of his Church without the Bishop's Order.  
He gave also, at the same time, to the prebend's and Deans that were to visit his Diocese, some Articles of Enquiry, viz. What Titles every Priest had; and by whom he was Ordained; What is the Revenue of his Living, and how many Houses in his Parish; In what condition the Ornaments of his Church are, and how the Relics are Preserved; If there be a place to throw the Water in, with which the Vessels of the Altar and Ornaments are washed; If the Holy Oils were kept Locked up; If there be a Clergy man that keeps School; In what case the Church is, and whether it be in good Repair; Whether the Tithes be divided into three parts, and an Account be given of two of them to the Bishops; Whether there be any Church Wardens; Whether the Church Revenues be improved, and no private advantage made of them; If the Clergy live orderly, and do not familiarly converse with Women, frequent Alehouses; How those that are vicious should be reproved, and for what Crime they may be Condemned and Degraded.  
In 857, which was the 12th Year of Hincmarus' Bishopric, June 9 he held another Synod, 
A Syned of Reims in 857 & 874:  in which he added some other Rules, which ordered, That Public Sinners should be put to Penance in Public by the Authority of the Bishops, to whom the Curates are obliged to send them; That if they do not present themselves to receive them, after they have been advertised of it by the Priests, they shall be Excommunicated within 15 days; That they shall require nothing for Burials; and no Man shall Celebrate Mass but upon a Consecrated Altar, or Table. He also made some other Constitutions in 874, in July, Commanding, That Priests, Curates, and prebend's, should reside in their Benefices, and not retire into Monasteries; That they should take nothing to make Churchwardens, and should allow those that are chosen a part of their Tithes, to be employed about the Buildings, and Ornaments of the Church; That Priests should not be familiar with Women, nor enrich themselves with the Revenues of the Church; That they should give nothing to Patrons to be Nominated to any vacant Church.  
These are the Constitutions which Hincmarus made for the Priests, but lest the Archdeacon's, who are to put them in Execution in their Visits, should not give them in Charge to the Curates, he made, July 877. an Order, in which he forbids them to go their Visitations with many Attendants, or Horses, to require or exact any thing of them, to stay long with them; Not to meddle with the Division of Parishes, to make the Ancient Churches to be still subject to their Parishes, in which there have always been Priests; to suffer no Man to have a Chapel without the permission of the Archbishop, to Discharge no Penitents through favour before they have done their Penance, nor to Ordain any Persons not duly qualified or to settle any Deans without the Authority of the Bishops.  
After these Constitutions follows, in the Works of Hincmarus, a Recital of the Ceremonies and 
The Coronations of Kings.  Prayers used at the Coronation of Charles the Bald for the Kingdom of Lotharius, Celebrated at Metz by Hincmarus, Sept. 8. 869. as also at the Coronation of Lewis, Dec. 8. 877. and of Judith the Daughter of Charles, when she was Married to Ethelwolfe King of England, An. 856. as also of Queen Hermentrude, celebrated at Soissons.  
Hincmarus also, in a Letter to Charles the Bald, gives various Instructions to Princes out of the 
Some Instructions of Hincmarus to Charles the Bald.  Fathers, which he lays down as undoubted Truths, viz. That God makes good Kings, and permits bad ones; That a good Prince is the greatest Happiness of the People, and a bad one their greatest Misfortune; That a Wise Government is the greatest Proof of great Power; That a King should choose Wise, Experienced, and Virtuous Men; That nothing is better than for Rulers to know how they ought to Rule; That it is most profitable, that good Kings have the greatest Kingdoms; That Necessity only should make them make War; That War is Lawful, if it be Just; That God gives the Victory to whom he pleases; That they ought to be Prayed for that Dye in Battles; That Kings serve God by making Laws for his Honour; That they are obliged to compel Men to do good, and punish them justly; That they may sometimes show favour, but they should be careful they do it not unfitly; That they should be continually upon their Guard, that they be not surprised by their Favourites or Flatterers; They should have no Wicked Men about them, nor Pardon their Relations; That they ought to mix Justice with Mercy. After he hath thus spoken of a Prince, as endued with Kingly Powers, he than lays down the Virtues of a Prince considered as a Christian, which is nothing but a Collection of Texts of Scripture, and Sentences of the Fathers, concerning the Duties of a Christian Life. He hath also a third Letter to the same King, concerning the Nature of the Soul; He holds that it is Spiritual, not confined to a place, and doth not move locally, altho' it changes its Will and Manners. He also moves this Question, Whether we shall see God, in another World, by the Eyes of our Body, or only by the Eyes of the Soul?  
In the Year 858, Lewis, Emperor of Germany, entered Charles' Kingdom to Invade him, while 
Hincmarus' Advice to Lewis of Germany.  he was gone to War against the Britan's and Normans; Hincmarus, and the other Bishops of his Diocese, whom he had told the States that they must stay a Reims, sent a Remonstrance to him, in which they tell him plainly, That he was Unjust to his Brother, in entering into his Kingdom in an Hostile manner, exhorting him to make Peace with him, to turn his Arms against the Pagans, to preserve the Privileges of the Church, and suffer no Man to Rob it of its Revenues; to restore those Monasteries of the Monks which are in the possession of Laymen, to take care that the Monks live according to their Rule, and that the Revenues of Hospitals should be disposed of rightly by the Overseers, with the Authority of the Bishops. He than gives him some Directions how he ought to Live and Reign, and how he ought to govern the General Synod of France.  
In 859, Charles being ready to march against Lewis, Hincmarus wrote to him to hinder the Disorders 
His Advice to King Charles.  and Pillaging which the Soldiers use to make. He also admonishes the Churchmen at Court, by another Letter, to hinder the Soldiers, which were used to Pillage, to do it again. Lastly, He admonisheth the Priests of the Diocese of Reims to Excommunicate them, who, after Admonition, should continue to Pillage any.  
In 875, after the Death of Lewis King of Italy and Emperor, Charles the Bald being gone into 
A Remonstrance to Lewis of Germany.  Italy to be Crowned Emperor, and possess himself of Italy, Lewis of Germany falls upon France to give him a Diversion; Hincmarus presents him with a long Petition full of Quotations of the Fathers, to stop him in this Enterprise, and was effectual.  
The same Year John Bishop of Cambray was written to by Hincmarus, who gave him Directions 
The manner of proceeding against a Priest.  how he should deal with the Priest Hunoldus, who was suspected of an unlawful familiarity with a Woman. He says, That the Custom of the Province hath been to make inquiries about the Priest who is thus charged and defamed, that their Witnestes must be Sworn, and Interrogated concerning his frequent converse and familiarity with Women; That after the Deposition of 6 Witnesses, there ought to be a 7th to prove the Fact; That if there be no Witnesses, but it be only a Common report, the Priest must clear himself by the Oath of 6 of his Neighbouring Priests.  
Some time after, in 878, he condemned a Priest of his Diocese himself, Named Goldbaldus, 
The Condemnation of a Priest.  who was accused of conversing with a Woman; the Fact was proved, but the Priest fled from Judgement. The Instrument of this Priest's Deposition is among Hincmarus' Works. In the same year he Excommunicated 
* Or Fulcherus.  Soucherus and Hardoisa, who Married their near Relations, and would not be parted from them.  
In the year 876, Pope John VIII. Named for his Vicar in France and Germany, Ansegisus Archbishop 
Hincmarus' Book against Ansegisus' Privilege.  of Sens. This Privilege being prejudicial to the Church of Reims and the Authority of Hincmarus, he wrote a large Treatise to defend the Rights of Metropolitans against the new pretences of these Vicars; And in particular, glories much in the Rights and Privileges of the Church of Reims. He citys a Letter of Pope Hormisdas, in which he makes Remigius his Vicar in France; and a Bull of Benedict, which asserts, That all Persons in the Province of Reims are subject to their Metropolitan, and that no Man can go before any other Judges, without prejudice to the Right of the H. See. He adds, That he would not refuse to meet at a Synod of several Provinces, provided that it be called either by the Pope, or Emperor, because the first General Councils were called by the Emperors; and S. Gregory himself bids the Kings of France to assemble Synods in their Realms. He observes, that Boniface Bishop of Maience, whom the Pope had made his Vicar in France and Germany, had never encroached upon the Rights of the Metropolitans; That Drogon Bishop of Metz, having obtained the same Prerogative of Pope Sergius, could not enjoy it, because they, who sustained any loss by it, would not acknowledge him.  
Ansegisus' Letter of Privilege was brought to the Council held June 19 at Pontegon, where the Pope's Legates were met to represent the Pope. The Emperor, who was present, asked the 
The Council of Pontigon.  Bishops what they had to say against the Pope's Bull. They answered, They were ready to obey it, so far as was consistent with the Right of their Metropolitans, according to the Canons and Decrees made and confirmed by the Popes, agreeable to the Laws of the Church. The Emperor, and the Pope's Legates, urged them to approve the Privilege granted to Ansegisus without any restrictions, but they persisted in the Exception, only Flotarius, Archbishop of Bourdeaux, Answered as the Emperor desired, being willing to be Translated to Bourges, because his Country was Ravaged; The Emperor insisted on it, That the Pope had Named Ansegisus to keep his place in the Synod, and he had set him above all the Bishops of his Realm, on the side of the Pope's Legates▪ Hincmarus' exclaimed against it, and publicly complained, That they had done a thing contrary to the Canons of the Church. The Question was revived again in another Session, July 14. in which the Bishops protested, That they would obey the Pope's Letters in the same manner that their Predecessors had obeyed his Predecessors, according to the Constitutions. This Answer satisfied the Emperor and Pope's Legates somewhat more, but the business being again Debated in the last Session, they explained themselves in the same manner that they had done in the first Session; so that Ansegisus could gain nothing more of them.  
In the same Synod Hincmarus, and the other Archbishops, were forced to take an Oath of Fidelity openly to the Emperor. This Action much displeased Hincmarus, so that he made several Observations upon the Terms, in which the Oath was expressed; but that which troubled him most was, That his Fidelity seemed to be questioned, in requiring of him a new Oath of Fidelity, who had for so many years served his Prince faithfully. The same year he composed a Writing, to show that the Land of Nevills belonged to the Church of Reims.  
In the year 877, Hincmarus wrote a Letter to the Pope in the Name of Charles the Bald, about 
Hincmarus' Letter about Appeals.  the Appeals of Priests to the H. See. Several Priests Justly and Canonically condemned by their Bishops went to Rome, and surreptitiously obtained Letters of Absolution. This abuse freed Criminals from punishment, weakened and disannulled the Bishops of Authority, and quite destroyed the Order and Discipline of the Church; So that to stop the course of these Actions, the Emperor wrote a Letter to the Pope, in which, after a Collection of Canons which respected the Judgement of the Bishops and Priests, he prayed him to observe them, and conform to the Council of Sardica in the Appeals of Bishops; and as to Priests, they ought by the Canons to be Judged by their Bishops, and can't Appeal from the Judgement of their Bishop and Metropolitan. In the end, he prays the Pope to admonish the Bishops that they be moderate in their Judgements, and not suffer themselves to be transported either with Passion or Pride.  
Charles the Bald died a little time after, and left for his Successor his Son Lewis Balbus, or the 
Hincmarus' s Advice to Lewis Balbus.  Stammerer, who was Crowned by Hincmarus, Dec. 8. 877. Soon after this Archbishop sent him a Paper of Directions how to govern his Realm; He advises him to prevent all disagreements among his great Men, to assemble them, and take their Advice in Government, to put in Execution the Ordinance made by his Father concerning the Honour of Bishops, and Privileges of Churches, to keep his Subjects in Peace and Unity, to oppose the Inroads of the Britan's, and hold Friendship and Correspondence with the Kings his Cousins. He exhorts him to pray to God, that he may attain an Heavenly felicity, administer Justice, and live like a Christian.  
About the same time, upon the occasion of the Election of the Bishop of Beauvais, he wrote 
Hincmaru, 's Tract upon the Duties of Bishops.  a Treatise of the Duties of a Bishop and his Functions, which are to Sing the Public Service of the Church, Consecrate the Chrism, to Administer Baptism according to the Tradition of the Church, and to take care that the Priests also Baptise; to Ordain Priests, Deacons, and other Or dear of the Clergy, at the time set apart by the Church, to call Synods of Priests, to go to Provincial Synods, and to assist at the Ordination of Bishops, when they are invited, or to send a Priest and a Deacon to excuse him; to govern his Clergy, and furnish the Church with all things necessary; to have Hospitals to receive the Poor and Passengers, to have a care of the Monasteries in his Diocese, and the Country-Parishes, to Preach the Word of God to the People, to Confirm, impose Public Penance, Absolve those that have gone through with it, to have a care of all the Revenues of his Church, to serve the Prince in his Wars for the Defence of his Church, to make a good use of the Church-Revenues, to know and observe the H. Canons.  
Lewis the Stammerer dying in 879. left two Sons, Lewis and Caroloman; These two Princes having 
Hincmarus' s Letter to Charles the Gross.  many Enemies lying upon them, had need of the Emperor's Protection, who was Charles the Gross. Hincmarus wrote to him, to thank him for the kindness he seemed to have for these young Princes, and to desire him to Protect the Church, and to appoint these Princes some Counsellors and Tutors, who might have a care to Educate them well, and to teach them all Virtues necessary for Princes.  
At the beginning of the Reign of Lewis III. the Church of Beauvais having been vacant some 
The Election of the Bishop of Beauvais.  time, Hincmarus, and the Bishops of his Province of Reims, being met in S. Mary's Church, proceeded to the Election of a Bishop, and chose Odo. The Clergy and People of Beauvais had before chosen two, one after another, but they were rejected as uncapable, by reason of their Ignorance and corrupt Manners. The Bishops, who had chosen Odo, had wrote to the King, to pray him, that he would leave the Election of their Bishops to their Metropolitan, and the Bishops of their Province, with the consent of the People and Clergy, and after they would present the Bishop chosen to him, that he might put him into the Possession of the Revenues of the Church, which was under his Protection; And when this is obtained, he shall be Ordained by the Bishops. The King pretending to Name him whom he would have, who was already chosen, refused to grant the Bishop's Request, and wrote to Hincmarus, That his Intention was to govern and dispose both Ecclesiastical and Civil Matters, and desired him to be obedient to him, as he had been to his Predecessors; And that he would have the Church of Beauvais given to Odacer, in whom the Votes of the People concurred with him. Hincmarus answered him, That the Election of Bishops ought to be left to the Bishops, Clergy and People; that he ought not to force them to choose the Person he had Named to them; That the Ecclesiastical Laws, which give power of Electing Bishops, were revived in the Ordinances of the Kings his Predecessors; That he was not Lord over the Church Revenues, to dispose of them as he pleased. He puts him in mind of the Profession he made at his Coronation to protect the Church; That as for Odacer, he could never endure that he should be Bishop of Beauvais; and if he put him in possession of the Church, he would not permit him to execute the Orders of his Priesthood in his Diocese; That he ought not to be Ordained, although he was chosen by the Suffrages of the Clergy and People of Beauvais unanimously, because they having Elected two unfit persons successively, the Right of Election was fallen to the Bishops.  
King Lewis having again earnestly solicited Hincmarus by a second Letter to grant his Request, and to approve of the Election of Odacer to the Bishopric of Beauvais, he answered him with greater resolution than before; and when Odacer was put in possession of the Revenues of that Church against his will, he Excommunicated him by a Circular Letter directed to all Priests, and all the Faithful of the Church.  
Lastly, Lewis being Dead, and Caroloman only remaining King of France, Hincmarus, according 
Hincmaru● ' s Advice to Caroloman.  to his Custom, sent an Instruction to him how he ought to govern himself. It is written with Gravity and Authority. He inserts the Duties of the King's Servants, and Counsellors of State.  
It is not certain to what King Hincmarus Dedicated his Letters against Rapes, a Vice common in those Ages; He proves, both by the Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws, that that Crime ought to be 
Hincmarus' Writing against Rapes.  punished severely; that Marriages with Ravished Women are forbidden, and that Kings ought neither to tolerate them, nor compel Fathers to consent to them.  
He hath also made a Treatise about the Proof by Water, sent to Hildegard Bishop of Meaux, either when Men, to prove their Innocency, are dipped in Scalding Water without burning, or 
Hincmarus' Tract about Proofs.  when they cast themselves into Cold Water, and yet Swim on the top of the Water; and endeavours to justify this Custom, but the greatest part of his Reasons are mere Sophisms, which are destroyed by the Principle which forbids us to tempt God.  
He hath also a Letter written to Hildebold Bishop of Soissons, who being Sick, had sent him a 
His Absolution by Letter.  General Confession of his Sins in Writing, praying him to give him his Letters of Absolution. He writes to him again, That by the Apostolic Authority he Absolved him of all his Sins, and prayed God to forgive them to him by the Grace of his H. Spirit, to deliver him from all Evil, to keep him in perpetual Peace and Safety, and guide him to Eternal Life. These are the terms in which he gave him Absolution; To which he also added, That not being able to come to him and pronounce it himself, he hoped his Ministers and Priests would do it: And tells him, That he had sent by one of them the H. Oil, with which being Anointed, he shall receive Remission of his Sins. He exhorts him also to make, besides this General Confession, a particular one to God, and a Priest; and adds some Precepts about a true Conversion.  
The Form of Episcopal Ordination which he sent to Adventius Bishop of Mets, is very remarkable. 
The Form of Episcopal Ordination.  He says, That the Bishops of the Province ought to meet the Saturday before the Bishop Elect is to be Ordained, and there openly Read the Decree for his Election, and the Bishops must demand if their Votes are unanimously for him, if he hath all Virtues requisite for a Bishop, and no Man hath any thing to say against him. Then they ought, to Ordain him according to a Canon of the Council of Carthage. That on the Lordsday, the Bishops, Clergy, and People, aught to meet in the place where the Metropolitan useth to Ordain. That the person Elected aught to go out of the Vestry Clothed with his Pontifical Vestments, and take the lowest Seat among the Bishops. That the Metropolitan shall begin the Service as far as the Gloria. That after the Gloria, he shall Read the Prayer for the Consecration; and when that's ended, he shall Exhort the People to Pray for him, who is to be Ordained, and for them that Ordain him. That taking him by the Hand, he shall kneel down before the Altar twith all the Bishops his Associates, while they read the Litany. That when the Agnus Dei is begun to be Sung, they shall rise up. That the Metropolitan shall take the Gospels, and lay them upon the Neck and Shoulders of him that is to be Ordained; That that Book shall be held by him that Consecrates him, and two other Bishops: That all three of them shall lay their Hands upon the Head of the Person to be Ordained, and he that Consecrates him shall read the Prayer. Then he shall go on with the Service, and when he comes at the places marked with the Crosses, the Bishop, that Consecrates him, shall take the Vessel of Holy Oil in his Left Hand, and taking some of it with his Thumb of his Right Hand, shall make Crosses upon the Crown of the Head of the Person that is to be Ordained, Reading the Prayers in that place. This being done, and all the Congregation saying Amen, they shall take the Gospels from the Neck of him that is to be Ordained, put the Agnus upon his Finger, and give him the Pastoral Staff; After which, he shall take his place among the Bishops, viz. The first, if he be a Metropolitan, and the last if he be a single Bishop. Then they shall read the place in the Epistle to Timothy, where he speaks of the Qualifications of a Bishop; and when the Service is ended, they shall lead him to the Episcopal Chair, from whence he shall return into the Vestry, and then shall come out again to Celebrate the Sacrament. Then they shall give him a Testimonial of his Ordination.— 
* Hincmarus' Treatise against the Translation of Bishop●.  Hincmarus opposes the Translations of Bishops in a Writing composed upon that Subject, upon the occasion of the Translation of Actardus Bishop of Nantes to the Archbishopric of Tours. He proves, that according to the Laws of the Church, and the Tradition of the Apostles, the Translation of Bishops is forbidden, altho' in some cases these sort of Translations are permitted for the good of the Church. The only Lawful Reasons for Translations, according to him, are these, The Necessity of Preaching the Gospel, and the People's refusing to accept a Bishop. As for the Persecution of a Bishop in his Diocese, he shows, that it is not a sufficient reason for Translation; and that according to the Law and Canons, a Bishop persecuted, or driven out of his Diocese, ought only to remain in another in the Quality of a Bishop, but there is no necessity he should be a Titular Bishop in another Church. As to the particular case of Actardus, that he might have remained in the vacant Church, where the Council permitted him to remain without removing to the Church of Yours, and that 'twas not heard of that he might be Archbishop of Tours, and yet retain the Right which he hath to the Church of Nantes. Actardus excused himself, because he had not sufficient Revenues in the Church of Nantes to live Honourably according to his Quality, but Hincmarus says, that that pretence is by no means a lawful excuse, but on the contrary, proves his Covetousness, and so much the more, because he had elsewhere Abbeys, and an Estate sufficient for his maintenance and expense. There are in this Treatise a great many excellent Citations out of the Fathers, and some very good Precepts against the Covetousness and Ambition of Bishops.  
His Treatise of the Accusations and Judgements of Priests, is a Collection of the Ecclesiastical and Civil 
Hincmarus' Tract of the Judgement of Priests.  Laws upon that Subject; in it he shows, what Persons may accuse Priests, the quality, and number of the Witnesses, the Judge before whom they ought to be accused, which is the Bishop, the Judgement from which they may Appeal to the Metropolitan, the common Subjects, for which they may be accused, the manner how they ought to clear themselves when there are no Witnesses nor Proofs against them. He confutes the Opinion of some Persons, who held, that a Priest, or Bishop, could not be accused by their Inferiors. He shows the falsehood and impertinence of a Decree taken out of the forged Acts of Pope Silvester. He owns, that for causes Civil and Pecuniary, a Clergyman may be Summoned before a Lay-Judge, and aught to answer before him by his Attorney. Lastly, He is of Opinion, that the Estates of Clergy men, all Ecclesiastical Revenues, and Oblations of the Faithful, do belong to the Church. He orders, that all Bishop's Officers should be careful to inform them, whether that part of the Tenths, which ought to be distributed to the Poor, be appropriated to the Church, and whether they take any Presents of any Man not to put them in the Registers of the Church, nor require of them any sort of Service; whether they do not put in their Kindred; And lastly, If they look after the Poor and Infirm of their Parishes.  
Hincmarus applies the Laws, which he had laid down for the Judgement of Priests, to the particular Fact 
The Process against Teutfridus.  of a certain Priest called Teutfrid, who had taken away the Ornaments of the Church: He shows, first, That he ought to be Judged in his Province, either by his Bishop or by a Council; That if he hath confessed, or is convicted of having conveyed away the Ornaments he should be condemned to make Restitution. Deposed and Excommunicated: If it be found that he hath rejected the Judgement of the Church to have recourse to the Prince he ought also to be Excommunicated, and Deposed, according to the Canons of the Councils at Antioch and Cartbage; That if he confesses, or be convicted to have sworn falsely to his Neighbours in his own behalf, he ought to be condemned as a Perjured person, and that he ought not to be excused, by saying, That he was forced, or by putting another sense upon his Words, because God can't be deceived by such Equivocations; and that we ought not so much to consider the Words of him that Swears, as what is meant by him that imposes the Oath.  
The relation of the Vision of Bernoldus is worth our notice, because of the circumstances of what happened 
The Vision of Bernoldus.  to that Person, being fallen Sick, made his Confession, received Absolution, Unction with the Holy Oil and the Communion of the Body and Blood of J. C. That afterward he fell into such a condition, that he could not speak, nor take any thing but a little Water, and when he had remained thus 3 days, on the 4th day about Noon he became utterly senseless, but coming to himself about Midnight, he called for his Confessor, who being come, and having made such Prayers as are usual upon such Occasions, he told him he had been in another World, and had seen 41 Bishops in a certain place, among whom were Ebbo, Pardulus; and Aeneas, who seemed to him to be mangled, and black, as if they had been burnt, quaking sometimes for cold, and sometimes scorched with heat; That Ebbo calling him to him, said to him, Since you have a permission to go into the other World, we pray thee to do us this Service, as to bid the Priests and Laymen of our Diocese to Pray, and offer Sacrifice, and give Alms for us; That Bernoldus answering, that he knew not where to find them, they ordered a Person to conduct him, who brought him to a large Palace where there were a great number of Bishops; That returning from this Walk, he came to the first Bishops, whom he found in a better condition, and more merry than they were the first time, who told him, That he had freed them from the Evil Guardian they had, and had put them into a state of rest; That afterward he saw the Emperor Charles in another place, who charged him to tell Hincmarus that he was in torments for not following his good Advice, and that he prayed him to help him, and deliver him from those pains by his Prayers; That after this, he was carried into a place full of Light, where he saw Hincmarus ready to Sing Mass, and that being discharged of his Commission, at his return he found Charles in a light place, and in a good condition; That he also met with Jesse, and saw several poor Souls tormented by the Devils in Lakes of Fire; That he also saw Earl Atharius, who charged him to bid his Wife pray to God for him; That he was dismissed by a Man of an honest countenance, who Exhorted him to abound in good Works, that he might have an happy Station in another World, and promised him that he should live 14 years. That Bernoldus, after he had related these things, received the Communion, and then Eat and Drank. Hincmarus' hearing of this, (and believing it true, because he had read such like Visions in S. Gregory's Dialogues, and heard, that the like had happened to a certain Monk named Wetinus, in the Reign of the Emperor Lewis the Kind (or Godly) he took an occasion from hence to Exhort all the People of his Diocese to live well, and recommended it to them to Pray for King Charles, and for all others, whom this restored Person had seen, Interpreting, what they had said in this sense, that if they did what they desired, they should receive the comfort which they longed for.  
Towards the end of Hincmarus' Works is a Piece added concerning the Repentance of King Pepin; 
A Relation of K. Pepin's Repentance.  This Prince being delivered by the Lords of Aquitain to his Brother Charles, and confined to the Monastery of S. Medard at Soissons, An. 852. made his escape out of that Monastery, and fled to the Normans, who then Ravaged France, but was taken again. Hincmarus' consulting with himself how he ought to be dealt with, made this Treatise, and in it concludes, that he ought to be Exhorted to make a Sincere and General Confession of all his Sins in secret, and publicly acknowledge his fault in leaving his Monastery, being Perjured, and made no better than an Heathen, and do his public Penances; that then he may be reconciled, receive the Clerical Tonsure, and put on a Monk's Habit, promising to live regularly for the future. And after this he may take the Communion, but must be treated civilly and kindly, and left at liberty in the Monastery, yet the Monks ought to observe strictly, that he doth not relapse into the same fault, nor escape, as he hath already done from the Monastery of S. Medard, and as Caroloman had done from the Monastery of Corby.  
At the end of Hincmarus' Works are some fragments of his Letters taken out of Hodoardus: The first 
Several Letters of Hincmarus.  is taken out of a Letter written to King Charles the Bald, concerning the manner how he ought to administer Justice to the Bishops; The second is out of a Letter to Lewis Emperor of Germany, about the Ordination of Bertulphus to the Archbishopric of Treves; This Church had been a long time vacant, and Hincmarus Ordained Bertulphus to it. Lewis of Germany was angry at it, as an encroachment upon the Rights of his Kingdom, and an intrusion upon a Church that did not belong to him; wherefore Hincmarus wrote to him to excuse himself, and says, that he undertook that Ordination for the good of the Church; that he thought, since there were not Bishops enough in the Province of Treves to Ordain a Metropolitan, it belonged to him, who was the next Archbishop, to do it; and so much the rather, because the Churches of Reims and Treves were looked upon as Sisters, and the Custom in the Councils was, that the most ancient of those two Churches should have the Precedency of the other. That, indeed, he had not concerned himself with that Ordination, but by the entreaty of the Church of Treves, by whom Bertulphus was generally approved of; That he was resolved to maintain what he had done, and to defend the validity of this Ordination; That so long as he lived he would acknowledge Bertulphus Archbishop of Treves, unless he were Canonically Deposed; That Walto, who had invaded that Church, should never be acknowledged by him for a Lawful Bishop, and if he persisted in his Claim they would condemn him.  
In another Letter written to the Monks of S. Dennis, he forbids them to sell their Tithes, and convert the Price of them to their own advantage. In the 4th, directed to an Earl, he forbids him taking any thing for his Nomination to a Church, and tells him, That if a Person capable of a place be presented to him, he will Ordain him, if he will vouch that he hath given nothing for it, if not, he shall put in another. He complains, that there was a Person put into the Register of the Church who had given a Present to have his Name written into it.  
In the fragment of the 5th Letter, he assures Hermengardis, Lotharius' Queen, that he never was unfaithful to the Emperor her Husband.  
The 6th is an Admonition to the Nuns, about the Election of an Abbess [for the Monastery of S. Crosse.] The last is a fragment of a Treatise of Hincmarus' Entitled, Ferculum Solomonis, taken out of Durandus Abbot of Troarn, who says that this Treatise of Hincmarus' was in Verse; That which we have in the end of the first Tome of this Author's Works is in Prose, and seems to be a second part of that Work. The first is lost, and we have not spoken of the other, because it contains nothing in it but some Mystical Notions and Meditations.  
There are two other Treatises of Hincmarus' of the same Nature, the one upon these words of the Psalmist, Herodii Domus Dux est illorum; and the other upon the Mystical Name which he had given to the Council of Nice, in which he affirms, That it deserves that Name, because the number of 318, which was the number of the Bishop's present at it, is a Mystical Number.  
By what we have said of the Life, Actions and Writings of Hincmarus, it is plain that he was better Versed in the Canons and Discipline of the Church, than in the Studies of Ecclesiastical Doctrines; He had read the Writings of the Councils well, and had made Collections of the Passages of their Writings, and Canons, upon all sorts of Subjects; He knew how to use them dexterously, and convert them easily to his own advantage; He was a great Politician, and knew very well how to use the Laws of the Church to bring about his Intentions and Designs; The French Church is much beholding to him for his vigour in defending her Liberties, and the Dignity of her Bishops and Metropolitans, against the attempts that the Popes had made upon their Rights, yet without depriving the H. See of the respect and subjection that was due to it; He found out a way to oppose the unjust Pretences of the Court of Rome, without making a Schism, or slighting the H. See.  
But it was not against the Pope's only, that he maintained the Rights of the Church, he also defended them against the Kings, and tho' he was much in favour, yet he courageously defended his Rights, by telling them freely what was their Duty. Some persons may, perhaps, blame him for intermeddling so much with Affairs of State, but this may be sufficiently justified by the usage of France in his time, where the Bishops were looked upon not only as the Spiritual Pastors of the Church, but as the Principal Members of the State.  
His Style is fit a great deal for Precepts and Instructions, than for Works of Doctrine or Eloquence, for 'tis clear and plain, but neither smooth nor elegant; the faults which are to be met withal in reading his Works are recompensed by abundance of excellent Rules and Authorities for the Government of the Church; There is no Author, where we meet with such plenty and so well Authorised, and from whom we can know the Rights of the Church so well; Although he doubted of the falsehood of the forged Decretals of the Popes, yet he Quotes them often, but 'tis usually when they are agreeable to the Common Right, for when they disagree he rejects them, and grounds himself chief upon the Canons of the General Councils, or other Councils received and approved by the Church, and upon the Decretals of the Popes, which are agreeable to that Discipline.  
A Part of his Works were Printed at Mayence, [by the care of John Busaeus] in 1602. and at Paris in 1615. by Cordesius, [who added several Tracts of Hincmarus to the former Edition] but Father Simondus put out a much larger Edition in 2 Vol. in Folio, Printed at Paris by Cramoisy in 1645. Since F. Cellot Published in 1658. four little Pieces of his against Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon, [with Learned Notes of his own, and joined to them the Council of Douzi] which are also inserted in the 8th Tome of the Councils, with some new Letters of Hincmarus about the same business.   

CHAP. VII.  
The History of the Controversy upon the Eucharist Debated in the Ninth Century.  
THE Famous Controversy of the Church of Rome with the Lutherans and Calvinists, upon 
The Importance of the Controversy upon the Eucharist.  the Eucharist, has made Men more attentive to all Controversies. formerly raised about that Mystery. The Ninth Century affords us one, no less Important than Abstruse. It cannot be denied, that there were Great Contests in this Age about the Eucharist, occasioned by the Book of Paschasius Radbertus, Concerning the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; but the Difficulty is, to know the True State of the Question: And that's the thing which lies now upon me to Clear, by giving a Faithful Account of the Authors that have Written upon this Subject, as well as of their Writings. I shall begin therefore with Paschasius Radbertus, whose Book has occasioned the Debate upon this Subject.  
Paschasius was a Native of Soissons. Who, being from his Infancy forsaken by his Relations, was 
The Life of Paschasius.  brought up by the Charity of the Nuns of our Lady of Soissons, in the outparts of their Abbey. He became afterwards a Monk in the Monastery of Corbey, then under the Government of St. Adelardus, Brother of Theodrada the Abbess of our Lady of Soissons, who had taken care of Paschasius in his youth. He proved a very Studious Man, Managed divers Conferences, and Writ several Books. In short, having got a great Name both by his Learning and Virtue, he was chosen Abbot of Corbey, Anno 844; but would not take upon him the Order of Priesthood, and contented himself with that of Deacon, which he had taken when he was a private Monk. Some Difference happened betwixt him and the Monks, which made him quit his Charge; and he spent the rest of his Life in Reading and Writing of Books. He died in the year 865.  
His Treatise concerning the Body and Blood of our Saviour, was Written when he was yet a 
Paschasius his Treatïse concerning the Body and Blood of our Saviour.  Monk; and that during the Exile of his Abbot, to whom he gives in his Preface the Name of Arsenes, and whom he calls another Jeremy. It has been a received Opinion, that it was Adelardus, who was Exiled Anno 814. But it is plain, by the Dialogue made by Paschasius upon the Life and Actions of St. Adelardus, that it was not Adelardus, but Wala, whom he called by the Names of Arsenes, and Jeremy. Which Wala was Exiled in the beginning of the Troubles raised by the Division that happened betwixt the Emperor Lewis, Surnamed the Godly, and his Children, of which Paschasius himself takes notice in that Book, which made Father Mabillon Conjecture, that this Book of Paschasius was not Written till the Year 832; notwithstanding that, in a Manuscript of the Abbey of Corbey, it is said, that this Abbot Arsenes is Adelardus, Sanctus Adelardus; which words seem to be foisted in, and are not to be found in other Manuscripts.  
This Book Concerning the Body and Blood of our Saviour, bore likewise the Title of A Treatise of the Sacraments; for it is not true that Paschasius Writ two Books with those two different Titles, but one Book with both Titles, as it appears by some Ancient Manuscripts. By other Manuscripts we find, that it was Dedicated to an Abbot named Placidus, which is confirmed to us by the Testimonies of Sigebertus and Trithemius. This Placidus was the Famous Varinus, Abbot of the New Abbey of Corbey in Saxony, as it appears by a Letter of Paschasius, to be seen in the beginning of this Treatise, in the Manuscript of Annecy, published by Father Mabillon; who informs us besides, that this Book was Composed for the Instruction of the Saxons, who were not as yet well Instructed in the Christian Faith. In it, having first prepared their Minds to believe the Ineffable Mystery of the Eucharist, by demonstrating, that God by his Omnipotency may bring to pass many things Supernatural, and to us Incomprehensible, he says, That 
* [No Man ought to doubt, etc.] Although in this sum of Radbertus' Book the Sacramento Corporis & Sanguinis J. C. there be many Expressions that manifest the Ancient Doctrine of the Spiritual Presence in the Sacrament only: yet it must not be denied, but that he speaks very plainly of the Substantial Conversion, and stands up stoutly for it; yet that this was a New Doctrine, and a strange Notion in the Church, appears by the General Opposition made to it by the Learned Men of the same Age, viz. Rabanus, Scotus, Bertram, etc. the sequel of the Controversy will manifest.]  no Man ought to doubt of its being the Body of Jesus Christ, and that his Flesh and Blood be really there; and shows, that none ought to be ignorant of so great a Mystery, daily Celebrated in the Church, and such as ought to be Received by the Faithful. Which they cannot do Worthily and Effectually, unless they can discern the Excellency of the Mystical Body and Blood of Jesus Christ from what they perceive by the Tast. That it is called Sacrament, either because under the Species of a Visible Sign, God is pleased to Work some Secret Thing, or because the Holy Ghost does Consecrate the Visible Sign, and under the Veil of Outward Signs does Work some Mystical Thing for the Salvation of the Faithful. That all Sacraments in general may be defined to be an Earnest or a Pledge of Salvation, by which, under a Visible Representation, the Holy Ghost works in an Invisible manner. That such are in the Church, the Sacraments of Baptism, Chrism, and that of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; therefore called Sacraments, because under the Visible Species the Flesh is Consecrated by a secret and Divine Virtue, so that they are in effect Inwardly; what they are thought to be Outwardly by Faith. That in Baptism we are Regenerated by the Holy Ghost, and afterwards, by the Power of Jesus Christ, nourished with his Body and Blood; and that we ought not to wonder, that the Holy Ghost, who has Form our Saviour's Body in the Virgin's Womb, should, by an Invisible Power, change the Bread and Wine, though there appear no Visible Change, because it is done Spiritually and Invisibly: That by the Consecration of this Mystery, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly Created, Produced, and Sacrificed in a Mystical Manner. That it is not to be denied, but that there is some Figure in this Mystery, being 'tis a Mystery, but that the Figure does not hinder the Reality. That what appears outwardly is a Figure, but the inward a Reality, because the Body and Blood of our Saviour are made of the Substance of the Bread and Wine: So that this Mystery is both Figure and Verity; a Figure of the hidden Truth, and a Verity, not perceivable indeed by the Senses, but believed by Faith. That the Ancient Figures differed vastly from this, they being but a Shadow and Image of what we really Enjoy by Receiving this Mystery, the real Flesh and real Blood of Christ our Saviour. That those who do not dwell in Christ, that is, who remain in sin, take the Sacramental Elements out of the Priest's hand, but do not eat and drink Spiritually the Body and Blood of Christ. That, in fine, the Church is the Body of Christ, that all the Faithful are Members of his Body, and that the Eucharist is daily Consecrated to be the Body of Christ, but that those only, who are his Mystical Members are allowed to Receive it. That from this Food some receive Life, others Death; it being Life to such as are Members of Jesus Christ, and Death to such as are Members of the Devil. That we must raise our Mind to God, and Believe that after the words of Consecration, 'tis the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, that very Flesh which was Born of the Virgin, and died upon the Cross. That Christ himself is upon the Altar, Offering, as Highpriest, our Vows and Supplications to the Lord. That the Angels are present at this Sacrifice, in which our Saviour once Sacrificed upon the Cross for the Salvation of Mankind, is daily offered in a Mystical manner for the Atonement of the Sins we daily commit, to Discriminate the Good from the Wicked, to dwell Corporally in such as have received Baptism, that they may dwell in him, and to Nourish the Faithful: That therefore he is called Bread, because as the Bread nourishes the Body, so the Body of Jesus Christ nourishes the Soul of the Faithful: That he is also called Wine, because as the Wine is made of the Juice of several Grapes, so we are Justified by the Graces and Spiritual Influences which flow from him, who is the True Vine, of which the Faithful are but Branches. That it is the very Blood which ran out of his Side at his Death and Passion; and that for that Reason it is, that we mingle Water with the Wine, because out of his Side there came both Blood and Water. That others say, Water is mingled with the Wine, to join together the Water of Baptism, and the Blood which was the Price of our Salvation. That, whether the Consecrating-Priest be a good or bad Man, we ought to Believe, when we receive the Eucharist from his hands, that we equally receive the Truth of the Mystery; because the Consecration is not made by the Merit of him that Consecrates, but by the Power of the Creator, and the Virtue of the Holy Ghost; and that it is Jesus Christ who Baptises, as it is he, by whom, through the Virtue of the Holy Ghost, the Eucharist becomes his Flesh and Blood. That the Priest is not the Creator of Christ his Body, but that he Prays to God the Father by his Son; that he Offers Gifts unto him, before the Consecration, and Prays him to Accept of them; and that he makes this Offering in the Name of the Church and of the Faithful. That, although this Sacrament has neither the Taste nor the Colour of the Flesh and Blood, yet by the strength of Faith and Reason our Soul receives 'em as such; and that as we have received in Baptism the Image of our Saviour's Death, so we receive in this Sacrament the Likeness of his Flesh and Blood; so that there is truth in this Mystery: and yet the Heathens cannot Reproach us, that we Drink the Blood, or Eat the Flesh of a Dead Man.  
That, to evidence these Truth, either to such as called them into question, or to those who had a tender love for these Holy Mysteries, the 
f The Body and Blood of our Saviour visibly appeared.] This Fabulous Apparition Hospinian de Sacr. l. 4. p. 1. p. 325. tells us, is plainly foisted into the Original Manuscript, and doth so plainly differ from the Style and Doctrine of the rest of the Treatise, that it is easily discernible to a moderate Judgement, that the Chapters 38 & 39, wherein it is, are added by the Monk who put it out, or by some other, who would promote the Doctrine of Transubstantiation by such Legendary Tales.  Body and Blood of our Saviour have sometimes visibly appeared upon the Altar, particularly to a Priest who had desired it ardently. That the Consecration of this Sacrament is made by the energy of the words of Jesus Christ. That, howsoever this Mystery be the Flesh and Blood of Christ, it may nevertheless be called Bread and Wine, by reason of the Effects they produce. For as the Terrestrial Bread is a support to out Temporal Life, so this Spiritual Bread yields unto us a Spiritual and Heavenly Life; and as Wine doth rejoice the Heart of Man, so does this Heavenly Drink rejoice the inward Man. That by receiving the Flesh of Christ we receive his Divinity, and that we receive both his Body and Blood, because they cannot be separated. That, though our Saviour did Administer this Sacrament to his Apostles after Supper for some Mystical Reasons, it was nevertheless the Practice of the Catholic Church to receive it Fasting. That it is not requisite however to forbear eating till the Eucharist be digested, according to the Injunctions of some Apocryphal Books. That, though this Sacrament nourishes our Bodies, we ought chief to consider the Spiritual Effects of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, as nourishing our Souls in a Spiritual manner; so that it is frivolous to fear that this Sacrament goes into the draught as our Terrestrial Food, or that it mingles itself, and is digested with it. That we ought not to believe, that Christ is to drink Wine during his Reign of a Thousand years, as some have imagined. And lastly, that, though Good and Bad Men receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, yet we must believe, that this Sacrament is Salvation to the first, and Damnation to the last. Thus I have, in few words, summed up Paschasius his Doctrine upon the Eucharist from his aforesaid 
* This Book is Printed by itself at Cologne, 1551. under the Name of Rabanus, and under Paschasius ' s at Hagenoa, 1528. Louvain, 1561, and at Helmstad, 1616.  Treatise; To which he adds several Considerations, with Allegorical and Mystical Reflections, and towards the Conclusion some Passages out of S. Hilary, S. Austin, S. Ambrose, S. Gregory, S. Leo, S. John Chrysostom, and Beda, for the Confirmation of it.  
A long time after this Treatise was published (for it was Written in 831. before Paschasius was Abbot of Corbey, and what we are going to say happened but about the latter end of his Life, towards the Year 864.) Fredegardus, or Frudegardus, a Monk of the New Abbey of Corbey, for whose Monks Paschasius had Composed this Book, having met with some Men of a different Opinion, and himself entertaining some Doubts upon this Subject, did freely Write unto him his Thoughts upon the Matter. In Answer to which Paschasius Writ him a 
† Pasch siva his Letter to Fredegardus.  Letter, wherein he explained and confirmed what he had laid down in his Treatise concerning the Body and Blood of our Saviour. There he says, That, notwithstanding the Scruples of those Persons, he had good Reason to maintain, that it is the very Flesh of our Saviour which is given to us in the Eucharist, the same Flesh that was Born of the Virgin, and the same Blood that was shed upon the Cross. Otherwise, says he, How can this Sacrament confer Eternal Life and the Remission of Sins, were it not the Flesh and Blood of him who is Life and Salvation? Fredegardus did own it to him, that he had been of that Opinion; but that having Read in the Third Book of the Christian Doctrine, Writ by St. Austin, that these words of our Saviour, This is my Body, This is my Flesh, are a Figurative expression, and a Figure more than a Reality, he could not tell how to Reconcile that with his former Sentiment. And the rather considering what that holy Father seems to say, That it were a horrible thing to believe, that Christians eat the same Body which was Born of the Virgin, and drink the same Blood that was shed upon the Cross. To which Paschasius Answers, That it is not inconsistent with good Sense, to say, That those words of our Saviour are a Figurative Expression, because there is a Figure in this Mystery, and that the Real Body and Blood of Christ are really found in it, but in a Mystery and Figure, as our Saviour is called the Character and Figure of his Father, though he is really God. That he has sufficiently explained it in his Book, by asserting, That the Eucharist is both a Figure and a Real thing. That St. Austin himself did own it, and that he agrees in that Point with St. Ambrose, St. Cyprian, and Eusebius Emesenus, some of whose Passages he quotes. Whence he infers, That it is the Doctrine of the Fathers, though many doubt of it, who cannot apprehend how, the Bread remaining visibly entire, it can be said, that it is the Body and Blood of Christ. But that they would have other Thoughts of it, should they but consider, how five or six Loaves could be Multiplied into an infinite Number; and as those Loaves were Multiplied by the Power of God, so Christ's Flesh is multiplied, and the abundance of his Flesh and Blood diffused in the Sacrament. That we say likewise, That Christ is daily Sacrificed upon our Altars, though he Died but once for the Salvation of Mankind, because we believe it to be done Spiritually, but not without the Sacrament: Which is not reiterated, by causing Christ to Die again; but he is Mystically Sacrificed every day for us, that we may receive in the Bread what was nailed to the Cross, and drink in the Cup what ran out of our Saviour's Side. For walking by Faith, our Belief ought to be Spiritual, not Carnal. Upon which he quotes a passage of St. Gregory, and another of the Council of Ephesus, and then invites Fredegardus to Read over his Treatise attentively. Not, says he, that there is any thing extraordinary in it, being contrived for the meanest capacity; but because he heard that Treatise had stirred up many to apply themselves to the Knowledge of this Mystery, teaching them to entertain Notions worthy of our Saviour, whose Body is Incorruptible, because Spiritual, and that all things that are done in the Sacrament are also Spiritual. He tells him, That 'tis that Spirit who gives Life to those who receive it worthily; and that those who want Faith, or receive it unworthily, eat and drink their own Damnation. To his Letter he subjoins an Abstract of his Commentary upon the 26th Chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, wherein he explains the words of the Institution of the Eucharist, and opposes those who give it only a Figurative Sense, as if the Words imported nothing but the Figure and Virtue of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, and not his Real Flesh and Blood. Then he tells him, that he thought himself obliged to explain that passage more at large, upon the Information he had received, that some People found fault with what he had formerly Written upon that Subject. Which Doctrine he confirms by the Testimonies of St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and the Council of Ephesus, together with some Expressions in the Canon of the Mass.  
Although Paschasius in his Book followed the Doctrine of the Church, it having been the Opinion of all the Orthodox before him, That the Body and Blood of Christ were actually present in the Eucharist, and that the Bread and Wine were changed into the Body and Blood of our Saviour. Yet it was not usual in those Times to say positively, That the Body of Christ in the Eucharist was the same that was born of the Virgin, and Assert it so plainly. This is the Judgement of Father Mabillon, which he expresses in these words; Quip aunt Paschasii Librum de Corpore & Sanguine Domini confitebantur Catholici omnes Christi Domini verum Corpus verumque Sanguinem revera existere in Eucharistia; itemque Panem & Vinum in illa converti; at nemo Paschasii tempore illud Corpus esse idem quod ex Maria Virgin natum est tam directe asserere auditus fuerat. These Expressions, says the same Author again, are indeed to be found in the Ancient Fathers; but this Age was either ignorant of those Passages, or did not take notice of them. Id quidem antea ex Patribus tradiderant non pauci, sed ignota erant illo aevo, aut certe non observata eorum hac de re Testimonia. Paschasius therefore, adds Father Mabillon, teaching this Doctrine in his Book so positively, gave occasion for some eminent and learned Men to oppose his Opinion. These are his Words, Quapropter cum Paschasius in Libro suo tam sidenter & asseveranter illud docuisset, hujus rei Novitate, ut sibi videbatur, commoti sunt quidam Viri docti haud incelebres, qui scriptis editis hanc 
The State of the Question betwixt Paschasius and his Adversaries.  ejus sententiam acriter impugnarunt. Paschasius maintained it by a Passage of S. Ambrose, in his Book of Mysteries; whence he concluded, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was the very Flesh of our Saviour, born of the Virgin, crucified, and raised again from the Dead. Which Expression, being made public, was disliked by Rabanus, Ratramnus, and an Anonymous Author in the time of Paschasius, then in the next following Age by Erigerus. They looked upon Paschasius as one that receded from the express Words of S. Austin and S. Jerom, who said, our Saviour's Body might be taken in two or three manners, and they could by no means approve of such Expressions. Their Controversy was 
† [Not about the Real Presence, but only about the Expression.] Although Transubstantiation be not plainly asserted in this Controversy, for it was not yet come so far as to determine how Christ's Body was present in the Sacrament, whether In or Trans, or Sub, or Con; yet this Dispute laid the Foundation for it, though our Historian would persuade us 'twas but a verbal one only. Yet the Opposition of such learned men as appeared against Radbertus, do plainly intimate more, who would not fight with Shadows. These Expressions had a plain Tendency to a great Error: for though both Parties acknowledged a Real Presence, yet herein was the Difference; Radbertus was for a carnal and bodily Presence, Bertram, Scotus, etc. were for a spiritual and figurative Presence; according as the Ancient Fathers had always held: which is not less real than the other. And if we keep in mind this Distinction, Radbertus and Bertram are as far from agreeing as Truth and Error.]  not about the real Presence, which they owned with Paschasius, but only about the Expression itself. Paschasius maintained, that not only the Body of our Saviour was really in the Eucharist, but also that Christians ought plainly to say, that there was no Difference betwixt the one and the other. His Adversaries on the other side, to whom this Expression appeared too harsh, as if there were no Figure in the Eucharist, and the outward Species were the very Body of our Saviour, were disgusted at it. So that the state of their Controversy was not, whether Christ's Body was truly and really in the Eucharist, but whether we ought to say that he was there in the same manner as he was born, crucified, and raised from the dead; whether he was there without Veils, or Figure; or whether the outward Signs that appeared to our Senses were the Body and Blood of Christ. 'Tis true, Paschasius owned the Figure in the Eucharist, as they did the real Presence. But his Adversaries represented him as one that denied the Figure; and he thought his Adversaries disowned the real Presence, or at least that they had some Objections against it. Thus the whole Controversy betwixt them was merely about Expressions, and for want of a right Understanding.  
The first Author that writ against Paschasius was a nameless Author, whose Writings upon this 
The first Author who opposed Paschasius was Anonymous.  Subject Father Mabillon found in a Manuscript of Gemblours, at the end of Erigerus his Treatise, with this Title, Dicta cujusdam sapientis de corpore & sanguine Domini adversus Ratbertum. This Author says that, as all the Faithful aught to believe and confess that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are one and the same Flesh, so they ought to believe that of the Bread is made his real Flesh, and of the Wine his real Blood, by the Consecration and Virtue of the Holy Ghost. Yet he opposes Paschasius his Expression; viz. Quod non sit alia caro Christi quam quae nata est de Maria, & passa in Cruse, & resurrexit de Sepulchro; and says, that the Notion was perfectly new, he never read, or heard of it, and wonders S. Ambrose should make use of it. But he opposes S. Austin to him, who says that our Saviour's Flesh is not eaten with our Teeth, such as it was upon the Cross, or as after it risen from the Dead. And, to reconcile S. Ambrose with S. Austin, he says, that our Lord's Body in the Eucharist does not differ in Nature, but in Species, from his Body born of the Virgin; meaning (as he explains himself) that it is really the same, though in another state, and under another form, viz. under the Species of the Bread and Wine. So fully convinced was this Author, that Paschasius believed our Saviour's Flesh to be in the same manner, and as visibly in the Eucharist, as upon the Cross, that he charged him with this impious Assertion, that as often as Mass is celebrated, our Saviour suffered as really as he did upon the Cross. Father Mabillon affirms, that this anonymous Book is Rabanus' Letter to Egilo; but he brings no certain Proof for it. The Title is different, nor is the Treatise made in the form of a Letter; so that I am apt to think it another Thing. However, 'tis certain Rabanus has also found fault with Paschasius his Expressions: for, besides Erigerus his Authority, who joins him with Ratramnus, as one of Paschasius his Adversaries, Raban●… himself, in his Letter to Heribaldus, speaks on that Subject in these Words; Some Men, says he, not having true Sentiments upon the Sacrament of the Body and Blood, assert, that that very Body and Blood of our Saviour, which was born of the Virgin, and in which our Saviour suffered Death upon the Cross, is the same Body we receive at the Altar; which Opinion we have confuted, as much as in us lay, in our Letter to Egilo the Abbot, wherein we teach what ought to be believed concerning Christ his Body. 'Tis true, these very Words, Idem esse quod sumitur in Altari, are not in the Manuscript; but Monsieur Baluzius has inserted them, upon the Credit of Erigerus. And, whatever Additions or Alterations might be made, 'tis plain, Rabanus did by no means approve of Paschasius his way of expressing himself; yet this is no Argument but that he believed Christ's real Presence in the Eucharist. For in the tenth Chapter of the seventh Book of Orders he expressly says, that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, and the Wine into his Blood, and looks upon this Change as a very great Miracle. Who could believe, says he, that the Bread could be changed into the Flesh of Christ, and the Wine into his Blood, if our Saviour himself had not said it, by whom both the Bread and Wine were created, and all things made of Nothing? 'Tis much more easy for him to make one thing of another, than to make all things of Nothing. In his Book of the Institution of Clerks, he says, that the visible Creatures being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, pass into the Sacrament of the divine Body. And in his Manuscript Commentary upon Joshua, he says, That the Flesh and Blood of the unspotted Lamb are offered every day on the Altar, for the Nourishment of the Sovis of the Faithful who receive the same, that the Shadow of the Law being past, the Truth of the Gospel may come to light by Jesus Christ himself. Whereby it appears that Rabanus did not in the least oppose the real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, but only disproved Paschasius his Expression, which he thought seemed to intimate that the outward Signs of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which our Eyes see, and our Hands feel, are the very Body of our Saviour.  
There is another anonymous Author, whose Work is quoted by Erigerus, and inserted in the 
Who is the Author that bears the Name of Bertramus  12th Tome of Dacherius his Spicilegium, who speaks to the same purpose. As there is nothing (says he) but what is true and real in Christ, so there is nothing in the Mystery of his Body and Blood, which is consecrated into what it was not, by virtue of the blessing and the Word of God, that can be false or deceitful; and those Gifts being thus consecrated, are changed by an invisible Power into what they were not before, as the Water was changed into Wine at Cana, but that this being a spiritual Change, is not perceptible but by Faith. Meaning, that the 
* The Species remain, and the Inward Change, though real, is not perceived by our Eyes, but by Faith.] Mr. Du-Pin in representing this Controversy, uses the words, Species, Accidents and Form, to express the Elements of the Sacraments to us, that he may make the Romish Doctrines appear in the Venerable Robes of Antiquity, and so describes the Real Change, all along, as if it were Corporeal; but if we attentively observe the words of the Author, we shall find that Bertram, and those of his Sentiments, allowed no Material, but Sacramental Change in the Elements. Christ's Body and Blood were present Effectively and Really, but not Bodily, and Substantially, or Transubstantially, as the Romanists hold; and in this sense it is, that we Protestants, agreeable to all true Antiquity, as Casaubon says, Credimus in Eucharistia praesentiam, non minus quam ipsi Papicolae, veram.]  Species of Bread and Wine remain, and that the inward Change, though real and effective, is not perceived by our bodily Eyes, but by Faith.  
But nothing gives us a clearer Insight into the State of the Question, then under debate, than the Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord, which passes commonly under the Name of Bertram: But because some question whether he be the Author, it will not be improper, before we relate what is said therein to the present purpose, to examine whose Work it is, whether of Ratramnus himself, a Monk of Corbey, or of some other Author. The First Impression of this Book was at Collen, Anno 1●33, by the care of the Protestants of Germany; which made it the more odious to many Catholics, who, without a due examination thereof, looked upon it as a Book that countenanced the Error of the Protestants in the point of the Eucharist. Some there were, as amongst others, Six●… Senensis, and Despansaeus Sant●nensis, who gave it out for spurious: But, some Ancient Manuscripts of it being found, that supposition ceased. Some undertook the Defence of this Treatise, others conceived there were many things in it sit to be Corrected, and others gave it quite over. But, however Divines were divided in those days, upon the Doctrine of this Book, still they agreed in this, that Bertramus and Ratramnus were the same, though Bertramus is the most commonly used, and to be seen both in Sigebertus and Trithemius. Archbishop Usher is the first that quoted him under the Name of Ratramnus, taking it for an undoubted Truth, that Bertramus and Ratramnus were the same. But Maresius being Asked his Opinion concerning this Author, by Father Dacherius, Writ to him a Learned Epistle, inserted into the Second Tome of his Spicilegium, that came out in 1657, in which he maintains, That the Book bearing the Name of Bertramus, is not Ratramnus'; but that it is the Book of Johanne: Ecotus Erigena, who did certainly Write a Treatise on the same Subject, in which he seemed to oppose the Reality of our Saviour's Body in the Eucharist. This Opinion was followed by Father Paris, a Canon Regular of S. Genovefa, eminent both for his Learning and Piety, in the Discourse he made upon this Subject, and which he put at the end of the First Tome of his Book, called, The Perpetual Tenor of our Faith: and of late by Father Harduin, in his Treatise of The Sacrament of the Altar. The Principal Reasons on which they ground their Conjectures, are these. 1. What Authors have said of the Book of Johannes Scotus, concerning the Body and Blood of our Saviour, does agree with the Book that bears the Name of Bertramus. Asselin tells us, That it was a little Book, wherein he endearoured to prove, That what is Consecrated upon the Altar, is not really the Body and Blood of Christ; for a Proof whereof, he alleged several places of Scripture, which he explained contrary to the true meaning of them, and quoted, amongst other things, S. Gregory's Prayer in these words, Perficiant in nobis tua, Domine, Sacramenta, etc. to which he added next, Specie geruntur ista, non Veritate. All which agrees with Bertramus his small Book, wherein the Author ●eems to design to disprove the Reality of Christ's Body in the Eucharist. In order to which he alleges several Passages taken out of the Fathers, and, amongst others, that very Prayer of S. Gregory, with this Gloss, Dicit quod in Specie geruntur ista, non Veritate. Berengarius, speaking of Scotus his Book, tells us, That it was Written by the Order of Carolus Magnus; and Bertramus his Book is thus Dedicated, Ad Carolum Magnum. 'Tis owned, that Charles the Great is the same with Charles the Bald: But, since the Title of Great was not commonly given to this last, 'tis unlikely (some think) that two Authors should have Dedicated it to him: So that Bertramus his Book must be the same mentioned by Berengarius. 2. 'Tis alleged, That the Book of Johannes Scotus, and that of Bertramus never appeared together; and that the Authors who quoted the one, never quoted the other. 3. 'Tis affirmed, that the Style, Genius, and Character of Bertramus his Book, is the same with that of Scotus; that there is the same Spirit of Confusion and Contradiction which appears in his other Works, and the same Disagreement from the Doctrines generally received in the Church. The Arguments are in due form. The Conclusion of Bertramus his Book is very like unto the Preface of Scotus' Book of Predestination; and the Conclusion of his Fifth Book of the Division of Nature. These are the Conjectures of Learned Authors, which indeed seem very strong, and might have made their Opinion very probable, had not the Learned Father Mabillon brought positive Prooss to the contrary, such as are not grounded upon mere Conjectures, but upon Matter of Fact. Who, in the first place, insists upon the Authority of a Manuscript of the Abbey of Lobbes, Written above 800 years since; wherein is found the Book of the Body and Blood of our Saviour; and, next to that the two Books of Ratramnus, touching Predestination. One bearing this Title, Incipit Liber Ratramni de Corpore & Sanguine Domini; Jussisti, gloriose Princeps. The other this, Incipit Liber de Praedestinatione Dei, Domino glorioso atque p●●cellentissimo Regi Carolo, Ratramnus. Which Inscriptions are confirmed by an Ancient Catalogue of Books of that Library made in 1049, with these words in it, Ratramni de Corpore & Sanguine Domini Liber I. Ejusdem de Praedestinatione Dei ad eundem Libri II. It is an unquestionable Evidence, that the Book bearing the Name of Bertramus is really his; that this Manuscript which is of the same Century, bears his Name in the Title, and his Books of Predestination, are joined unto that of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, which proves it to come from the same Author. The same Father does assure us besides in his Travels into Germany, that he saw another Manuscript of above 700 years standing, with the very same Superscriptions.  
Secondly, 'Tis worth our Observation, that the Anonymous Author of Father Cellot doth attribute to Ratramnus Abbot of Corbey, and to the Author of the two Books concerning Predestination, That of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, under the Name of Bertramus. And, if that Anonymous Author was Contemporary, his Testimony in this Case must needs be decisive. Now that Author was Erigerus, Abbot of Lobbes, who succeeded Fulcuin in that Dignity, Anno 890, and died in 907, as Father Mabillon proves by an Ancient Manuscript; wherein the Anonymous Book, published by Father Cellot, bears the Name of Erigerus. And it appears besides by the Chronicle of Lobbes, that that Abbot had Written upon that Subject. This is observable moreover, that the said Author, speaking of Ratramnus his Book concerning the Body and Blood of our Saviour, says, That it was divided into a Hundred Chapters, the same Division that is found in the foresaid Ancient Manuscript of Lobbes. Which makes it a strong Presumption, that it was the very same Manuscript which Erigerus had.  
Thirdly, In two Ancient Manuscripts of Sigebert, instead of Bertramus, we read Ratramus, or Ratramnus. In Trithemius he is called Betrannus, or Ratrannus. Which Names do not differ much from that of Ratramnus, afterwards smoothed into Bertramus. But that which is the most decisive in this case, is, what those Authors do say, viz. That the Author of the Book touching the Body and Blood of our Saviour, did also Writ a Book concerning Predestination, Dedicated to Charles the Bald. Scripsit, says Sigebert, Librum de Corpore & Sanguine Domini, & ad Carolum Librum de Praedestinatione. Trithemius makes him Author of several Works, of all which he found (as he says) but one Book De Corpore & Sanguine Domini; and another, Ad Carolum De Pr●destinatione. Now the Book of Predestination, Written by Johannes Scotus, was not dedicated to Charles, but to Hincmarus and Pardulus; whereas Ratramnus his Book was Dedicated to that Emperor. We must therefore conclude Ratramnus to be the Author of the Book concerning the Body and Blood of our Saviour.  
These Positive Proofs are sufficient to destroy all opposite Conjectures, which, how plausible soever they may appear, are not altogether solid. For why might not both Ratramnus and Scotus Writ a Book upon the Eucharist, as they did upon Predestination; And what should hinder both their Works to be much of the same length? They might be each of them consulted by the Emperor Charles the Bald about the Eucharist, as they were about Predestination. Why could they not both be of the same Opinion, as Ratramnus and Gotescalchus chanced to be of the same Judgement about this Expression Trina Deitas? 'Tis not to be wondered at, that both of 'em should have made Collections of Passages out of the Fathers, seeing it was the common Practice in their Time, and the usual way of those two Authors. Why is it urged, that they have not both alleged S. Gregory's Prayer, Perficiant tua, Domine, etc. being it was a common Testimony? The Gloss of Ratramnus upon that Prayer, differs from that of Scotus. Who, according to Asselin, had Written, Specie geruntur ista, non Veritate. Ratramnus does not say so; but explaining the words of the Prayer, Dicit (says he) quoth in Specie geruntur ista, non Veritate, id est per Similitudinem, non per ipsius rei Manifestationem. Which words, Sp●cie geruntur ista, 〈◊〉 Veritate, were the Comment Scotus made upon it; whereas here the Words of the Prayer are explained by the next Words, not in the least disagreeable to the Catholic Faith. As to the Dedication, Why might it not happen that two Authors should be of the same Mind, in giving the Title of Great to Charles the Bald? Besides, that in the Manuscript of Ratramnus his Book in the Abbey of Lobbes, there is no such thing to be found as Praefatio ad Carolum Magnum Imperatorem. And, when this Book was composed, Charles was not yet Emperor: So that the Title must needs be added afterwards. But there are other Instances of this Epithet of Great, given to Charles the Bald. The second Reason grounded upon a Pretence, That they who were acquainted with Scotus his Book, knew nothing of Bertramus', is confuted by what has been already alleged, That in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries Ratramnus his Book was Transcribed under his Name, and quoted by Erigerus, that of Scotus by Aldrevadus. In the Eleventh, the Book of Ratramnus was Transcribed by Sigebert, and Scotus his Book by those who Writ against Berengarius. To conclude, the last Reason is a groundless Error. So far is it from being true, that Bertramus his Book is of the same Style and Character with those of Scotus, that on the contrary it is most uniform both in Style and other Circumstances with Ratramnus his other Works, whereof any Reader may be a competent Judge. Thus much as to what concerns the Author of the Book, that bears the Name of Bertramus. Let us now proceed to the Subject Matter of it.  
The Question, upon which Charles the Bald asked his Opinion, is thus stated by him. While 
The Opinion of the Author of the Book that bears Bertramus' his Name.  (says he) amongst the Faithful, some say there is no Veil or Figure in the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which is daily celebrated in the Church, but that it is done by a plain Manifestation of naked Verity; and others on the contrary maintain, That the Body and Blood of our Saviour are contained therein under the Figure of the Mystery, and that what appears to our bodily Senses, dissers from what our Faith perceives in it; the Church is divided by these different Opinions, and a way made to a kind of Schism. So that here is the true State of the Question, Whether or no there is any Figure in the Eucharist, if it be without any Veil, and whether the Body itself and Blood of our Saviour be perceived by our outward Senses. Your Majesty, says he, desires to be satisfied, whether the Body and Blood of Christ be made in a Mystery, or in Truth; that is to say, whether it is so made, as that there is some Thing secret and hidden, not to be perceived but by the eyes of Faith; or whether our outward eyes do outwardly perceive what the inward sight does perceive inwardly in it, without any Veil of the Mystery, in such a manner, that the whole of it does manifestly and openly appear. Those are the words of the first Question. So that the Question is not, Whether the Body and Blood of Christ be in the Eucharist, that being taken for granted; but whether they be there without Veil, so as to appear to our outward Eyes. For 'tis in this Sense the Author takes the Word Verity, and opposes it to Figure. 'Tis a naked Verity, without Veil or Mystery, such as is perceived by our outward Senses, and doth exclude all manner of Figure.  
The other Question proposed to Ratramnus, is, Whether that very same Body we receive be that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which Suffered, and was put to Death, which was Buried, and Rose again from the Dead, then Ascended into Heaven, and now sits on the Right Hand of the Father everlasting. That is to say, Whether his Body be in the same manner in the Eucharist, as it was and is in those Places, and whether it be there in as visible and palpable a manner. For, to prove that it is not so, he says, That the Body of our Saviour, in its natural state, is under the form of a humane Body, with Bones and Sinews, and all the Lineaments of a Man's Limbs; Whereas in the Eucharist 'tis under another Form, not supported by Bones and Sinews, nor with that Distinction of Limbs, in such a state as makes it incapable of proper Motions, or to give any sign of Life.  
To those two Questions Ratramnus answers distinctly, in the two Parts of his Book. But, that his Opinion of the State of the Question may be the better understood, he gives first the Definitions of what he calls a Figure and a Verity. A Figure, says he, is, when there is some Obscurity, and that under some certain Veils another Thing is exhibited. A Verity, on the contrary, is a manifest Demonstration of the Thing, without the covering of any Image or Figure. This being granted, he maintains, That if the Mystery of the Body and Blood of our Saviour were made without any Figure, it could not properly be called a Mystery, because that cannot be called a Mystery, wherein there is nothing hidden; nothing but what is perceived by our outward Senses; nothing covered with any Veil. That that Bread which is made the Body of Christ, by the Ministry of the Priest, shows Outwardly one Thing to the Senses, and, at the same time, insinuates into the Minds of the Faithful, that there is another Thing Inwardly. Outwardly it appears to be Bread, as it was before; we perceive its Form, the Colour, and Taste; but we believe, that Inwardly it is some Thing much more precious and excellent, because it is a divine and heavenly Thing, that is to say, the Body of our Saviour which is exhibited therein, which does not fall under our outward Senses, but is by the eyes of our Souls seen, received and eaten. The same he says of the Wine, and our Saviour's Blood; and concludes, that the Bread and Wine are, by a Figure, the Body of Christ; that is to say, That we do not see any Flesh and Blood, but Bread and Wine, though after the Mystical Consecration it is no more called Bread and Wine, but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. To which he adds, that, If there were no Figure, as some maintained, and that the whole Truth might be plainly seen, there would be no room for Faith, and then 'twould be no Mystery, because it hath nothing in it that is secret.  
Next he shows, that the Change which is made in the Eucharist is not made visibly, and to our outward Senses. For, says he, 'tis not a Change of a Thing that was not into one, that is; seeing the Bread and Wine were before, they were changed into the Body and Blood of our Saviour. Nor is it a Change of a Thing that is, into one that is not, seeing the form of the Bread and Wine appears the same to our eyes. Nor last, the Change of one Thing into another by a change of qualities, the qualities of the Bread and Wine remaining still the same. Whence he concludes, That those who believe no Figure in the Eucharist cannot explain that Change, and must own that there is nothing in it, which was not before. Nevertheless, says he, 'tis something else, for the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of our Saviour. And here he charges his Adversaries home, asserting, they must either own, that the Change which is made in the Eucharist is not an outward Change; or, to deny, that it is the Body and Blood of our Saviour, Quod nefas est non solum dicere, sed etiam cogitare, the very thought of which is criminal. But they granting, says he, that the Body and Blood of Christ are in the Sacrament, which cannot be without a Change for the better, and that Change cannot be made Corporally, into that which falls under our outward Senses, but Spiritually; it necessarily follows, that it must be made in Figure, because under the Veil of the Corporeal Bread and Wine, the Spiritual Body and Blood of our Saviour are really present, and do conjunctly exist. But we must not therefore imagine, that they be two Existences of two different Things, viz. Body and Spirit. For, on the contrary, 'tis but one and the same Thing, which, in one respect, is the Species of the Bread and Wine; and, in another respect, is the Body and Blood of our Saviour. Now this Bread and Wine, as they fall under our outward Senses, are Species of Corporal Creatures. But, if considered, in relation to the Power which has raised them into a kind of Spiritual being, they are the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of our Saviour. By their outward Superficies falling under our Senses, they are Creatures subject to Change and Corruption; but, if we look upon 'em with relation to the strength, and effect of the Mystery, they confer Life and Immortality on those who receive them.  
This he explains by the Similes of Baptism and the Manna, which indeed are not altogether parallel, but such as may be, in some sense, applied to it. For, as in Baptism, there is an outward Sign that falls under our Senses, and an inward Grace apprehended by Faith, so there are in the Eucharist the Species of Bread and Wine that fall under our Senses, and the Invisible Body of our Saviour. And, as the inward Grace and Virtue of Baptism for the healing of our Souls is also real and true, so the Body of our Saviour Christ is really and truly present under the Species. As to the Manna, this Author seems to be singular in his Opinion about its Conversion into the Body and Blood of our Saviour, which he affirms in very ardent Terms; but he was forced to do it, the better to adapt his Simile to the Subject in hand; which is a further Proof, that he owned a real Charge in the Eucharist. Next to that he quotes that place of Scripture out of St. John's Gospel, Chap. 6. If you do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood. Upon which he makes this Observation, That our Saviour does not say, That, to eat his Flesh, it must be cut in pieces, such as it was Crucified, or that his Blood must be drunk in the same manner as it was shed upon the Cross; but that the Faithful shall truly receive by this Mystery the Bread and Wine converted into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. Thus is clearly explained the Reality of the Body of Christ, and the Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Saviour. Afterwards he quotes several Passages out of S. Austin and S. Isidorus, upon which he observes, That the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, not in a Visible, but in an Invisible manner, by the Operation of the Holy Ghost; and that they are therefore called the Body and Blood of Christ, because they are not looked upon by their outward appearance, but as they are made by the Divine Spirit; and that by an Invisible Power they become quite another Thing than they appear to our eyes. That Part of the Eucharist, which is outward and visible, feeds our Bodies, whilst the inward and invisible feeds and gives Life to our Souls.  
Lastly, He concludes this first Part in these words; By what hath been said hitherto it plainly appears, that the Body and Blood of our Saviour received in the Church by the Mouth of the Faithful, are Figures, if considered by the visible and outward form of the Bread and Wine: But, if considered by their Substance, hidden to our eyes, that is, by the Power of the Divine Word, they are indeed the Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore, according to the visible Creature, they are a Food for our Bodies; but, by the Power of a Mightier Substance, they nourish and sanctify the Souls of the Faithful.  
After this, he comes to the Second Question, which he expresses in these words; Whether the same Body which was Born of the Virgin Mary, which Suffered, and was Buried, and sits on the right-hand of the Eternal Father, be the same which the Faithful daily receive in the Church by the Mystery of the Sacraments. The first Author he quotes upon this Question is S. Ambrose, a passage out of whose first Book, De Sacramentis, he sets down; and, out of it, he draws this Conclusion; That, what we receive corporally, that is, what we touch with our Teeth, swallow down, and goes into the Belly, is not the Thing that feeds our Souls; but that it is the Living Bread, the Body of Christ, which is perceptible only to our Faith. Which shows, that this Question agrees to the former, and that it does not lie in this, to know, Whether the Body and Blood of our Saviour be received in the Eucharist; but how it is received, and in what manner it is there, whether without any Figure or Veil, and whether it be that very Thing we fell, or break, etc. And here he repeats his Argument drawn from the Change, which must be Inward and Invisible, seeing it is not Outward and Apparent. Thus continuing to allege Passages out of S. Ambrose, he starts this Objection; Those (says he) who are not of my Opinion, do object and say, That what we see is the very Body of our Saviour; and that which we drink is his Blood; and that we ought not to inquire how it comes to pass, but that 'tis our duty to believe it to be so. To which he makes this Answer, That this Opinion is reasonable, and that we ought firmly to believe, that it is the Body and Blood of Christ; but that therefore we believe it, because we do not see it; for, could we see it, we should not say, I believe, but I see it. That it is not the Eye of the Body, but Faith, that perceives it; and that what is seen is not in Specie, but in Operation, and effect, the Body and Blood of Christ; that is to say, That the Body of Christ does not appear in it under a Humane shape. Therefore, adds he, S. Ambrose says, That we ought not to mind the Course of Nature, but the Power of Christ, who changes what seemeth good unto him, and in what manner he pleases, who created those Things which were not, and changes what he has created into what it was not before. To be virtually the Body of Christ, according to our Author, is to be so really, but not visibly, because under another form or appearance. For, as he says afterwards, 'tis Bread in Specie; but, in the Sacrament, the Real Body of Christ: In Specie Panis est, in Sacramento verum Christi Corpus. 'Tis the Body and Blood of Christ, but not in a corporal manner. Corpus Christi, sed non corporaliter; Sanguis Christi, sed non corporaliter.  
The difference he makes betwixt the Body of Christ in which he suffered, and that in the Eucharist is, that the first was had under no form, but it's own. It was what it appeared to be to the Eyes and to the Feeling; what the Jews saw upon the Cross, and afterwards in the Grave. His Blood, in the like manner, was invisible, not covered with any Veil. Whereas his Blood which the Faithful drink, and his Body which they eat, are quite another Kind of Thing, both in the Sign and the Thing signified. The corporal Flesh that was born of the Virgin, and crucified, consisted of Bones and Sinews, had Limbs and Parts distinct from each other; showed Signs of Life, and had proper Motions. But the Spiritual Flesh wherewith the Faithful are fed Spiritually, according to the outward form, consists of grains of Wheat, and is made by a Baker's hands, no part of it distinct from another. It does not appear living, or animated, is not endued with any proper and natural Motion, and its virtue of conferring Life is the effect of a Spiritual Power, of the invisible and efficacious Power of God. What it appears Outwardly to be is quite another Thing from what it is thought to be Inwardly. To which he adds, That the Bread of the Eucharist is not only a Figure of our Saviour's Body, but observes by the buy, that it is also a Figure of the Body of the Faithful, and that the Water mingled with the Wine does likewise represent it in a Spiritual manner. In fine, to demonstrate it further, that the Species of Bread and Wine are not the Body of our Saviour, he says, That his Body in Heaven is Incorruptible, Eternal, Indivisible; but that the Sacrament is Corruptible, and Divisible, in its outward and sensible Parts, though Incorruptible in that Part of it which is perceptible to Faith. From whence he draws this Conclusion, Therefore what appears Outwardly is not the Thing itself, but the Image of it, and what the Soul perceives and apprehends in it is the Truth of the Thing.  
All which he proves by several Passages of S. Austin, by the Prayers of the Mass, and other Passages, from which he does still infer, That the Body of Christ in the Eucharist differs from that which was Born of the Virgin, that Suffered, and Rose again from the Dead, yet not in Substance, but in Appearance. Lastly, Directing his Speech to the Emperor, he declares, That he has clearly proved by Places of Scripture, and by the Father's Writings, that the Bread and Wine which are called the Body and Blood of our Saviour are a Figure, because a Mystery; also, that there's a Difference betwixt the Body of Christ in that Mystery, and that which suffered Death and was Buried. That here it is Invisible, not being perceived but by Faith; whereas being unveiled upon the Cross, it was known, and fully discovered by the Outward Senses. That the Mystery of the Eucharist is likewise a Figure of the Elect People of God. And Lastly, that the Bread and Wine called, and being in effect the Body and Blood of our Saviour, do represent our Lord's Death and Passion. That from some Expressions of his one ought not to infer, That the Faithful do not receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the Mystery of the Sacrament, because Faith does not receive what the Eye perceives, but what is believed by Faith, and that it is a Spiritual Meat and Drink which seeds our Souls in a Spiritual manner, and yields unto them a Spiritual Life, according to our Saviour's saying, 'Tis the Spirit that quickens, the Flesh profiteth nothing.  
Johannes Scotus, as well as Ratramnus, was likewise consulted upon the same Question by Charles the Bald, and Writ a Book on the same Subject; In which he Argued against the same Expressions opposed by Ratramnus. But 'tis apparent he went farther than he, delivering such Things as were contrary to the Doctrine of the Church upon the Real Presence. Which Hincmarus charges him with in the 31st Chapter of his Treatise of Predestination; wherein speaking of him and Prudentius, he says, That they set on foot new Tenets, contrary to the Faith of the Church; and amongst others, That the Sacraments of the Altar are not the real Body and Blood of our Saviour, but only a Commemoration of his Body and Blood. But this cannot be justly attributed to Prudentius, who never was looked upon to be guilty of any Error in this Point; but only to Scotus, whose Book was afterwards quoted by Berengarius, and condemned by the Orthodox. Hincmarus Wrote this in 859, which shows, that the Consultation of Charles about the Eucharist happened before that year, and serves to fix the Epocha of Ratramnus and Scotus' Book upon this Subject.  
Amongst the Authors of the same Century that have but cursorily treated of this Matter, Amalatius, 
Expressions of other Authors of this Age upon the Eucharist.  Florus, and Druthmarus speak of it like Ratramnus. But Haimo Bishop of Halberstadt, and Remigius Monks of Auxerre, follow Paschasius' way of speaking, and even go beyond his Bounds, denying, after S. John Damascene, that the Eucharist may be called a Figure of the Body and Blood of our Saviour.  
About the latter end of this Century, Erigerus Abbot of Lobbes Wrote against the same Proposition which Ratramnus had attempted to overthrow; but still maintaining the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Sigebert and the Author who continued the Chronicle of Lobbes, speaking of him, observe, That he had Collected many Passages out of the Orthodox Fathers against Paschasius Radbertus, touching the Body and Blood of our Saviour. Yet 'tis certain, that Erigerus is so far from contending directly with Paschasius, that he doth in effect excuse him, and defend his Cause by the Authority of several Fathers, declaring, That he only failed in this, that he did not quote word for word the Passage of S. Ambrose, but gave the Sense only. He charges him not with Error, but with Simplicity; and observes, that he did not deny but that there was a Figure in the Eucharist. It appears however, that he favours the Opinion of Ratramnus and Rabanus, and that he does not approve of Paschasius his Expression, viz. That it is the same Flesh which was Born of the Virgin that is in the Eucharist, being persuaded, that though it is the same, yet it ought to be considered as different, because 'tis in a different state. And for this reason it is that he makes a Collection of Passages out of the Fathers against Paschasius, wherein mention is made of two or three Bodies of Christ, by reason of the different states of his Body. The same Expressions are moreover to be found in the Sermons of Alfricus Archbishop of Canterbury, who seems to have copied Ratramnus.  
This Way of Explaining the Mystery of the Eucharist was so far from being condemned in the time of Berengarius, even by his Adversaries, that Lanfrank makes use of it in the Dialogue he made against him. Wherein he owns, that one may say of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, that it is the same which was born of the Virgin, and yet not the same; that it is the same, as to the Substance, Property, and Virtue of its true Nature; and not the same, if we consider the Species of Bread and Wine. After the same manner Algerus does reconcile the Fathers, who seem to differ in their Opinions on this Matter. The Holy Fathers, says he, have observed this Duplicity, not of Substance, but of Form, when speaking of the Body of our Lord in the Eucharist, they say, that it was the same which was born of the Virgin, and in some sense not the same; the same in Substance, and not the same in Form. Fulbertus' Bishop of Chartres makes the same Distinction in his Epistle to Einardus.  
But we ought to observe, that Paschasius' mode of Expression was not new, as his Adversaries affirmed. Witness 
* [Many of the Ancient Fathers speak as Paschasius.] It is confessed, that many of the Ancients did use many Hyperbolical Expressions about the Sacrament, much like Paschasius', but it was to stir up Reverence to their Holy Mysteries, and convince Men that the Elements were not mere Bread and Wine, not dogmatically to assert a Carnal Presence; for in their Doctrinal Discourses about it, they speak only of a Spiritual and Figurative Presence.]  many of the Ancient Fathers, who speak in the same manner: As amongst the Greeks, S. Ignatius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus, Anastasius Sinaita, S. Gregory of Nice, S. John Damascene; and amongst the Latins, S. Hilary, S. Ambrose, and S. Austin himself in his Discourse to the Neophites; besides many others, who deliver Propositions equivalent to that of Paschasius. So that Paschasius cannot justly be charged with Innovation, either in the Thing itself, or the Way of expressing it. And his Adversaries seem to have fallen upon him undeservedly, the more because he rejected the Conclusions they drew from his Expression, and owned that the Eucharist was both Figure and Reality, and that it contained the Body of Christ under the Veil and Species of the Bread and Wine.  
Another famous Question about the Eucharist was started in this Age; viz. Whether any part of the Eucharist be evacuated, as our other Food? They who stood for the Affirmative being called 
The Question of Stercoranism.  by the odious Name of Stercoranists. To understand clearly the state of this Question, we must remember the Eucharist consists of two Things, one inward and hidden, the other outward and sensible. The first is the Body and Blood of our Saviour, which are present in the Sacrament after an invisible manner; and the other consists of the Species of Bread and Wine, which appear to our outward Senses. None ever did believe that the invisible Body and Blood of Christ was subject to the same Conditions with our other Nourishment, or produced the same Effects. But because the Species of Bread and Wine under which 'tis contained feed our Bodies, we say without any scruple, that the Body and Blood of Christ are converted into our Substance, and feed our Body. This Expression was ever used in the Church. And some Fathers have proved the Resurrection of our Bodies, Because it is not to be thought, says S. Irenaeus, that our Flesh being fed with the Body and Blood of our Saviour, should remain for ever in a state of Corruption.  
But if the Body of Christ has a nourishing property, 'tis not the Body itself by its own proper Substance; but it is by the outward Signs, the Bread and Wine, which nourish us by the Matter which God hath made as it were a Vehicle to us of the Body and Blood of Christ which in our Faith and Minds took up before the place of the material Bread and Wine. But notwithstanding that the Church has made no scruple to say, that the Body and Blood of our Saviour is converted into our Substance, and nourishes us by the Species of Bread and Wine, it was ever thought indecent even to think, much more to assert, that it was liable to the same Evacuation as our common Food, and that any part of it should go into the Draught. The first that seems to have took notice of this Question is Origen, whose Decision of it is in these Words, that this Food consecrated by Prayers and the Word of God goes down into the Belly, and so into the Draught, as to the Matter it does consist of, meaning the Species of Bread and Wine, not as to what it is made by Prayer. The Author of the Sermon of the Eucharist, which is in the fifth Volume of the Greek and Latin Works of S. Chrysostom, seems to differ in his Opinion. Is that Bread, says he, which you see with your outward Eyes? Is that Wine? Has that food the same fate as other sorts of food? God forbidden, and let none of you have such Thoughts of it. This Author seems to affirm, that the Body of our Lord is the very Species that we see; and does formally deny it to be liable to the same Condition with our common Food. S. John Damascene embraces this Opinion in the 14th Chapter of the 4th Book of the Orthodox Faith; adding however, that the outward Species of the Eucharist is converted into our Substance. Paschasius is of the same Opinion, and says 'tis a Weakness to think that any part of this Mystery is under the same Laws with other Food. Frivolum est ergo, says he Chap. 20. sicut in Apocrypho Libro legitur, in hoc Mysterio cogitare de Stercore, ne commisceatur in alterius cibi digestione. And he asserts, that all passes into our Flesh and Substance, without any Evacuation. Ratramnus indeed does own, that the spiritual Body of our Saviour is not under the same condition with other Food, and will not so much as have it said that it feeds our Bodies, seeing it is Food for our Souls. But he affirms, according to his Principles, that the visible and outward Species are under the same Laws with all other Food. This is all that is said by those Authors upon that Question.  
But Amalarius treats of it on purpose in his Letter to Gontardus a Monk, who took Exception at 
Amalatius his Opinion upon the Question of Stercoranism.  his spitting presently after his receiving of the Eucharist, supposing he might then spit out some part of our Saviour's Body, the fear of which kept other Priests from spitting at such a time. To which Amalarius answers, that being a phlegmatic Man, he could not long forbear spitting, and that he hoped, that for his Infirmity sake God will not deprive him of the Body of Christ his Saviour as the Nourishment of his Soul, if it be but pure and humble before him, and that what he must needs eject for the Health of his Body, will be no prejudice to his Soul. These are his Words, Et quod exeundum est propter Sanitatem Corporis, faciat exire sine dispendio Animae. To justify himself more at large, he thoroughly handles the Question, and makes this Observation, that the Body of Christ is upon Earth as often as he pleases; that nothing but an ill Disposition of the Mind can make the Body incapable of receiving it; so that tho' any part of Christ's Body should come out of his Mouth, unknown to him, one ought not therefore to think him irreligious, or that he despised the Body of our Saviour, nor think that his Body went to any place where God would not have it; that our Saviour's Body quickens our Souls; or rather, is the Life of our Souls; and therefore we do not take its Life away, tho' we part with it. To conclude, he says, 'Tis needless to inquire, whether our Saviour's Body, after it is received with an upright Intention, be invisibly raised up into Heaven, or kept in our Body till its Burial; whether it be exhaled into the Air, or issues out of the Body with the Blood, or through the Pores, the Lord saying, that whatever comes into the Mouth goes down into the Belly, and from thence into the Draught; but the chief thing that we ought to mind is, that we do not receive it Judas-like, with a treacherous Heart, that we do not ●light it, but distinguish it (as we ought) from common Food. Thus Amalarius propounds the Question, without deciding it, and does not declare his Opinion in the Matter.  
Heribaldus' Bishop of Auxerre having propounded the same Question to Rabanus Archbishop of 
Rabanus' Opinion upon the Question of Stercoranism.  Mentz, the Archbishop returned him this Answer; As to your Question concerning the Eucharist, Whether being consumed and voided out of the Body as other sorts of Food are, it reassumes the Nature it had before its Consecration upon the Altar? This Question, says he, seems to me superfluous, because our Saviour himself says in the Gospel, That wharever comes into the Mouth goes down into the Belly, and from thence into the Draught. The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour is made of Things visible and corporeal; but it works Sanctification and the invisible Salvation both of the Body and Soul. There is no ground to think, that what is digested in the Stomach should return into its former state, a Thing avouched by no Man as yet. Here Rabanus supposes, that the Species of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are under the same Laws and Contingencies with our common Food, and that they do not reassume their proper Nature which they had before the Consecration. For it is plain, that he does not speak of our Saviour's Body, but of the outward Species of Bread and Wine.  
Some Authors that were more scrupulous, fancied this Opinion unsuitable to the Dignity of the 
The Sentiment of a nameless Author upon the Question of Stercoranism.  Mystery, and that it was more decent to think, either that the Species are annihilated, or that they have a perpetual Being, or else are changed into Flesh and Blood, and not into Humours or Excrements to be voided. 'Tis the Opinion of an anonymous Author, quoted by Erigerus under the Character of a certain Learned Man, whose Work is inserted in the second Volume of Dacherius' Spicilegium. This Author distinguishes two Things in the Eucharist; viz. the invisible Body of our Saviour, which is spiritual Food to the Soul; and the outward Food, which nourishes the Body: And telling us what becomes of this, he opposes two contrary Places of Scripture; one of our Saviour, teaching us, that whatever goes into the Mouth goes down into the Belly, and thence into the Draught; and the other of the Apostle, that makes a great Difference betwixt the Eucharist and other sorts of Food. The first Place makes no Exception at all of the Sacrament; but the second teaches us to distinguish it from our usual Food. That indeed it is eaten and swallowed down in the same manner as our usual Food, putting it into our Mouths, and conveying it down into the Belly; but when 'tis come thither, none but the Lord knows how he disposes of it. For we know, says he, that it may be consumed by a spiritual Power, that it may be kept for ever from Corruption, because God may do what he pleases with his Sacrament. But God forbidden it should be subject to be conveyed into the Draught, or capable of being digested, corrupted or consumed by Heat, or altered by any other Cause, etc.  
Erigerus makes a more strong Opposition against the Opinion of Rabanus, and says, 'twas a scandalous 
Erigerus' Opinion upon the Question of Scercoranism.  Thing for Heribaldus to propose such a Question to him, but more scandalous for Rabanus to have minded it, and most scandalous to have solved it as he has done. He declares himself against him, affirming that the Symbols of Bread and Wine are not voided out of our Bodies, nor changed into useless Humours or Excrements, but into our Flesh and Blood, to be raised again from the Dead.  
Guitmondus was of the same Opinion with Erigerus, affirming, That, though a Man may be nourished 
Guirmondus and Algerus their Opinion upon the Question of Stercoranism.  by the Species of the Eucharist, yet no part of it is turned into Excrements. That they are never putrified, corrupted, or any way altered, whatever they seem to be, either to try the Faith of the Elect, or to punish the Neglect of those who keep 'em too long. That no Vermin can gnaw 'em, no Beast eat them; and, if such a thing happen, the Sacrament is, by Miracle, conveyed to some other place. Now, to obviate this Objection, That if a Priest should Consecrate one great Loaf, or several Loaves, a Man might live upon it, and shall void his Excrements in the usual manner, he declares, that in this case the Sacrament is also miraculously conveyed away, and an Unconsecrated Loaf substituted in the room of it by the Angels, or by the Evil Spirits, to cheat the Heretics. Algerus speaks much to the same purpose, and holds, That the Species do not come out of our Bodies by Excrements, but are annihilated. He utterly denies, that Excrements can arise from the Species eaten, and will not allow 'em to be corrupted or putrefyed, burnt, or altered in the least, though they seem so to be. Lastly, He taxes the Greeks with an Erroncous Belief, 
The Greeks Opinion as to Stercoranism.  That the Eucharist is liable to the same Laws and Contingencies with other sorts of Food, because they say, That the Fast ordained by the Church is broken by the Communion; and calls 'em therefore by the Infamous Name of Stercoranists. Which Accusation he got from Cardinal Humbertus, who lays the same Thing to the charge of Nicetas Pectoratus. But he fathers upon him that Opinion, as a consequence of his Assertion, that the Fast was broken by the Eucharist, and not as a Doctrine formally asserted by him. The Truth is, there is nothing of that in the Writings of Nicetas, who blaming the Latins for Celebrating the Mass in Lent upon other days than Saturday and Sunday, says, Their Practice is not well-timed, because Celebrating the Mass at the Third Hour, which is the time appointed to Offer this Sacrifice, they cannot keep the Fast till the Ninth Hour. Afterwards he quotes some Canons, to prove the Unreasonableness of this Custom, and justify the Practice of the Greeks, who Offer this Sacrifice on Saturdays and Sundays only at the Third Hour, and Communicate on other days at the Ninth Hour, upon the Presanctifyed Elements. So that Nicetas does not say positively, That the Fast is broken by the Eucharist; and, though he should say so, it would not follow, that he believed it subject to the same Laws and Contingencies as our usual Food, for that one might believe, that to ease one from the trouble of Fasting, and feed the Body in any manner of way, is ipso facto to break the Fast; which is not the Thing insisted on by Nicetas, or the Greeks. Who believed, the Celebration of the Sacrifice broke the Fast, for that it is an Action full of Joy and Solemnity. This is the Reason given for't by Balsamon, upon the Fourth Canon of the Council of Laodicea. To offer, Says he, the Sacrifice, is to Celebrate a Feast, and express the Solemn Joy of the Church; and to do this, is not to weep or fast. Besides, Nicetas does suppose, that presently after the Celebration of the Mass it is lawful to eat; and consequently that the Latins having finished in the Morning that Celebration of the Mass, broke the Fast presently after. In which particular he errs; for the Latins did not Celebrate Mass in Lent at the Third Hour, but in the Evening, and so broke their Fast but late. However, neither Nicetas nor the Greeks did ever say, That the Body and Blood of Christ were under the same Laws as common Food; nay, 'tis probable, they did not believe, that the Species of Bread and Wine went into the Draught, their great Doctor S. John Damascene having Taught the contrary, As for Algerus, he accused them of Stercoranism, only upon the Credit of Humbertus, whose words he does but Transcribe. And Humbertus charges Nicetas with it by a Consequence that has failed, and which does not necessarily follow. It does not appear, that there has been, since that time, any farther Contest with them upon this Point; and amongst the Errors which the Latins afterwards condemned in Michael Cerularius, there is no mention made of this. Therefore this Error can by no means be proved upon the Greeks.  
Now, to come back to the Latins, we have sufficiently proved, that there was no difference amongst them about the Flesh and Blood of our Saviour contained under the Species, that none was 
The State of the Question amongst the Latins.  so much Infatuated as to think, that that Mystical Flesh and Blood were subject to the same Laws and Contingencies with our usual Food; but that they had debated amongst them this Scholastical Question, What becomes of the Species of Bread and Wine? and that many of them being of Opinion, That it was Indecent to conceive, that they were subject to the same Laws and Contingencies with our common Food, would not have it thought, that any part of it were converted into Excrements, or voided out of the Body, and therefore conceived that they were either Annihilated, or Converted into the Substance of our Flesh, to be Raised again from the Dead. This Opinion, which had the Vogue in this and the following Centuries, has been since rejected by our Schoolmen, who doubt not but that the Species of the Eucharist may be corrupted and converted into another Substance, God by his Infinite Power producing another 
* 
[Another Matter.] What a many Transubstantiations must follow upon the first Forgery. Transubstantiation on the Altar creates another in the Belly, lest Christ's Body should be subject to Indecent Evacuations. So necessary it is to fall into many Absurdities to maintain one will Error.]  
[To what is said in Page 78. Paschasius is of the same Opinion, and says, 'Tis a weakness to think, that any part of this Mystery is under the same Laws with other Food, this Note the Author hath added at the end of the Book, viz. This is not without difficulty, for Paschasius says well, Frivolum est ergo, sicut in Apocrypho libro legitur, in hoc mysterio cogitare de stercore. But this will bear two Interpretations; That it is a frivolous opinion to believe, That the Essential part of the Eucharist passes or returns; or, It is a frivolous question to trouble ourselves about, whether it passes or not; since we need not to fear its mingling with other Aliments. I rather think that Paschasius is of the latter opinion; for though he Asserts, That the Eucharist nourishes our Body, ●e does not intent that we should, by that word, understand a Carnal Nourishment of our Bodies, but a Spiritual Nutriture of our Souls. See the entire Passage in Paschasiu●s Treatise, Chap. 20. and the 71 Page of this Work.]   Matter in stead of that which is Converted into the Body and Blood of our Saviour.   

CHAP. VIII.  
The History of the Controversy about the Manner in which the Virgin Mary brought forth Christ.  
PAschasius and Ratramnus had another Controversy about the Manner in which our Saviour 
Ratramnus his Opinion of our Saviour's Birth.  came out of the Virgin's Womb. Ratramnus being informed, There were some in Germany that maintained, Our Saviour did not come out of the Virgin's Womb per virginalis januam vulv●e, sed monstruose de secreto ventris incerto tramite; he thought such an Opinion dangerous, conceiving it followed from thence, that Christ was not truly Born, but Issued from the Virgin, quod non est nasci, sed erumpi. He therefore opposed it in a small Treatise, [Entitled, De partu Virgins] published by Father Dacherius, in the Second Volume of his Spicilegium; wherein he owns it as an undoubted Truth, That Mary lived all her life-time a Virgin, ante partum, in partu, & post partum; but confutes those who believed, That our Saviour came not into the World per Semitam Vulvae, but some other Way. He brings in against them several Places of Scripture, and Passages of the Fathers, which prove, That Christ came out of the Virgin's Womb; yet he owns withal, that he came out per Vulvam clausam, as he came into the Place where his Disciples were met, through the Door, and not through the Wall, yet without opening the Door.  
Paschasius Ratbertus, who had been Abbot of Corbey, and who was then but one of the Private 
Paschasius his Opinion of our Saviour's Birth.  Monks (as appears by the Title he assumes in his Epistle Dedicatory) thinking that Ratramnus, heretofore his Monk, but who perhaps had, before this, quitted that Abbey, had delivered, in his Treatise, such Things as seemed prejudicial to the perpetual Virginity of Mary; and that he had disposed Men to believe, That she had brought forth our Saviour into the World in the same manner as other Women bring forth Children, aperta scilicet Vulva; did put out a Book of our Saviour's Birth against that of Ratramnus, wherein he Confutes him, without Naming of him, and charges him with the foresaid Error; rejecting withal that Error of Ratramnus his Adversaries, quod Christus non fuisset natus. Therein he chief answers to S. Ambrose and St. Jerom's Passages, which might breed some Difficulty. This Book is Dedicated to the Abbess and Nuns of Soissons. And whereas he calls the Abbess Matrona Christi, that gives us to understand, it was Theodrada, and not Emma that succeeded in 846, because, as is observed by Father Mabillon, that Title was only bestowed upon Abbesses that had lived in a Married state.  
This Answer of Paschasius proving Ineffectual with the Followers of Ratramnus his Opinion, so as to convince them of their Error, who affirmed on the contrary, That they had done no Injury to the perpetual Virginity of Mary; He Wrote another Book upon the same Subject, of which we have but a Fragment left. These are the two Treatises published by Feuardentius, 
* By Feuardentius.] The first Treatise of Paschasius is the second Treatise of Ildephonsus, beginning with these words, Quamvis omnium Ecclesiarum Virginitas, etc. But from Page the 35, where these words are in the Margin, hic aliquid desideratur, you must go to Page the 42d, Line 13, where the Remainder of this Treatise is found; though Feuardentius has published it as another Discourse. This second Treatise of Paschasius is the Sermon which gins Page 47. Inter Sanctarum, etc. The end of the first Treatise may be part of this; being of the same Style, upon the same Subject, and likewise Dedicated to the Nuns. But the other Sermons attributed to Isidorus, upon the Assumption, the Nativity and Purification of the Blessed Virgin, belong to another Author of later date than Paschasius, being either of the Twelfth, or the Thirteenth Century.  under the Name of Ildephonsus of Toledo, which Father Dacherius has restored to their true Author upon the credit of several Manuscripts, and caused them to be Printed in the 12th Volume of his Spicilegium. 
A Question upon the Nature of the Soul.   
Ratramnus had another Controversy with a Monk of the same Abbey of Corbey, who had asserted, That all Men were of one Substance, and had but one Soul. This Opinion was grounded upon a place of S. Austin's Treatise, Of the Quantity of the Soul; but he held it immediately from one Macarius, the 
† [The Scot, i. e. an Irishman.] In this Age, the Country, that we now call Ireland was called Scotland, and consequently the Irish were Scoti, as our Author rightly Interprets Scotus in this place. Scotland was at this time called Albany, and took the present Name from the Irish-Scots, who having a long time Infested the Picts, at last Incorporated about the year 1101▪ with them, and gave that Country the Name, as the Two most Learned Prelates, Dr. Usher, and Lloyd, have fully proved, in their Books de Prim. p. 734. and an Hist. Account, etc. p. 7.]  Scot, i. e. an Irishman. Ratramnus sent him a Letter, to make him quit that Opinion. But this Monk, in his Answer, persisting still in the same, Odo, Bishop of Beauvais, who had been Abbot of Corbey, ordered Ratramnus to Confute that Monk's Book, which he did; and made it appear, in Writing, to Odo, that Macarius his Opinion was unwarrantable. This Treatise has not yet appeared in Print: but Father Mabillon, from whom we have this Information, saw it in a Manuscript of the Monastery of S. Eligius near Noyon.  
Ratramnus had yet another Controversy about the Expression of Trina Deitas, and Writ a Book 
A Judgement upon Ratramnus.  against Hincmarus, to justify it; which Book is lost. Lastly, He attempted to Confute the Objections of the Greeks against the Latin Church; his Treatise upon this Subject is yet extant, and we shall speak of it in its proper place. He lived till towards the latter end of this Century, and got himself such a Name, that there was no Question debated in his Time, but Ratramnus was desired to Write upon it.  
His Book of the Body and Blood of our Saviour was Printed the first time at Colen, in 1532. 
The Fortune of Ratramnus his Book, concerning the Body and Blood of our Saviour.  under the Name of Bertramus; and afterwards at Basil in 1550. They that were employed in the Censure of Books, in Execution of a Decree of the Council of Trent, did put it amongst the Prohibited Books. Afterward Sixtus Senensis, Despensaeus, and Genebrardus Santonensis, looked upon it as a Book forged by Oecolampadius. Pope Clement the VIII. did likewise reject it as an Heretical Book; wherein he was followed by Bellarmine, Quirogo, Sandaval, and Alanus. Yet notwithstanding, the Divines of Louvain making, in the year 1671, an Index Expurgatorius for Flanders, did not absolutely Prohibit it, but only till it were Corrected. This Opinion was followed by Possevin, and some others. Cardinal Perron did not think it spurious, though he was no Friend to the Doctrine of it. In 1657. Monsieur de Marca laboured very hard to make it pass for Scotus his Book, in the Letter annexed to the Second Volume of the Spicilegium: Which, in process of time, became a common Opinion, defended by Father Paris, in his Dissertation at the end of the First Part of his Book of Perpetuity, etc. Yet it does not appear, that the Author of this Book was altogether of that Opinion, or that he offered to decide who was the Author of that Treatise. But he made a Discourse upon that Author's Opinion; wherein he plainly shows, that he did not directly oppose the Real Presence; though at the same time he owns, there are some Passages apt to make one believe, that he was no Favourer of it. Father Paris his Opinion in this case soon became the most prevalent amongst the Roman Catholics, whilst the Protestants maintained firmly, that that Book was Ratramnus'. But in 1680, Father Mabillon did clearly convince the Roman Catholics of their Prejudice in this case, by proving in his Preface to the Second Volume of the Fourth Age of Benedictine Writers, that the Book was Ratramnus'; and defended withal his Doctrine as Orthodox. Which Book was afterwards (viz. Anno 1672.) Printed at Paris, according to the Manuscript of Lobbes, with a Translation into French, by a Doctor of the Sorbon, who Writ the History of the Fortune of this Book, and defended its Doctrine in his Preface. Father Mabillon having thus both by stress of Argument, and the Authority of the Manuscripts by him quoted, reclaimed the best part of the Roman Communion from their Mistaken Opinion of Monsieur de Marca, and Father Paris, yet Father Hardovin stood it out against him; and in his Book of the Sacrament of the Altar, Printed in 1689, endeavoured to prove, he had a Design of destroying the Real Presence. The Protestants took care to have this little Book of Ratramnus, at divers times, Printed and Translated. There are extant some old Translations of it, Printed in 1558, and 1560; and a New one, published in 1653. [But the Best of these is that which was Printed at London 1686, with an Excellent Preface, vindicating Bertram from all Popish Objections, with much Reason and Learning.]  
The other Treatises of Ratramnus have not been so well known, nor so often published, and have not appeared in public before this Century. His two Books concerning Predestination 
The Editions of the other Books of Ratramnus.  were Printed in the Collection made by Father Mauguin of the Authors of the Ninth Century, upon Grace, published in 1650. [Tom. I. p. 29. and are since put in the Biblioth. Patrum, Tom. XV.] and his two other Works, viz. That of our Saviour's Birth of the Virgin Mary, and the Four Books against the Greeks, were put out by Father Dacherius. That of our Saviour's Birth, in the Fourth Tome of his Spicilegium, which came out Anno 1655; and the Four Books against the Greeks, in the Second Tome of the same Collection, Printed in 1657.  
Johannes 
a Surnamed Scotus, or Erigena, from Ireland his Country.] All the Ancients assure us, that this Author was a Scot▪ Hincmarus speaking of him, L. 1. de Praedest. c. 31. has these words, Auctor jactitatur à multis Joannes Scotigena. Anastasius the Library-keeper, Joannem imò Scotigenam. And Pope Nicholas, in a Letter to Charles the Bald, Quidam ut Joannes genere Scotus. The other Authors of that Time that Wrote against him, call him John Scot, or simply Scot And, 'tis well known, that in those Times Ireland, not Scotland, was called by the Name of Scotia. Trithemius gives him the Name of Erigena, or Eringena, which imports the same with Scot; Ireland, in the Language of his Country, being called Eri, or Erin.  Surnamed Scotus, or Erigena, from Ireland his Native Country, 
Johannes Scotus Erigena.  had likewise a great share in the Contests about the Eucharist and Grace. He came into France about the beginning of the Reign of Charles the Bald 
b He came into France in the beginning of the Reign of Charles the Bald.] In 851. he had already raised his Reputation so high, that he was consulted about the Question of Predestination, as we have already observed; which is an Argument, that he was come hither before that Time, that is, about the beginning of Charles his Reign. But 'tis not likely that he did not come with Alcuinus to Found the University of Paris, or that he was a Disciple of Beda, as some Authors have pretended, because he died not till about the year 870.  And being a Man of Parts and Learning, a good Peripatetic, and well skilled in the Greek Language, which few People were then well acquainted with in these Parts, 
c He became in a little time very eminent.] Pope Nicholas says of him, That he was a noted Man in the University of Paris. These are his words, Aut certè Parisiis in Study cujus jam olim capital fuisse perhibetur. Certain it is, that Charles had a singular esteem for him, by whom he was Consulted about the Question of the Eucharist; as he was by Hincmarus and Pardulus, about the Doctrine of Predestination, etc.  he got himself a good Fame, and was accorddingly regarded by the King, who had a particular respect for Learned Men. But, having introduced some Errors, for which he was Cited by Pope Nicholas I. who Writ to Charles the Bald to send him to Rome, or to expel him from the University of Paris, in which he made a good Figure, he took a dislike to France, and 
d Withdrew (or Fl●d) into England.] Quare & Haereticus putatus est, says Simeon Dunelmensis, cujus Opinionis pa●ticeps fuisse dignoscitur Nicolaus Papa, qui ait in Epistolâ ad Carolum, Relatum est Apostolat●i nostro, etc. Propter hanc ergo Infamiam taeduit eum Franciae, etc. Matthew of Westminster, and William of Malmesbury speak much to the same purpose. Pope Nicholas I. being dead in 868. if Scot was forced by his Letter to return into England, he must have gone thither towards the year 864; which however does not agree with the Testimony of those Authors, who affirm, That he was called thither by King Alfred, who did not begin to addict himself to Learning till after the year 880, and that he was Companion to Grimbaldus, who quitted France not till after that year; it appearing by a Charter, that he was yet residing in his Abbey, Anno 880.  withdrew into England about the year 864, where he died 
e About the year 874.] Anastasius the Library Keeper, in a Letter to Charles the Bald, dated the 10th of the Calends of April, Anno 875. speaks of him, as of a dead Man. Which is another Argument against those men's Opinion, who make this Scotus a Tutor to King Alfred, and Companion to Grimbaldus. What Death he died, is a Thing very uncertain. The forementioned Historians, and many others, say, That he suffered Martyrdom, and that he was slain by Children, that Stabbed him to Death with Pen-knives. But William of Malmesbury, the first who related this Story, which was conveyed from him to the rest, speaks dubiously of it. 'Tis true, he relates certain Verses, made in honour of John the Sophister, Written upon a Monument of Malmesbury-Church, where it is said, That he died a Martyr; but there is no certainty, whether that John the Sophister be the Person we speak of, or another Man. But this is certain, that neither Berengarius, nor his Scholars, who have so much magnified John Scot, never contended for his Martyrdom: Nor does it appear, that those Authors who were Contemporary with him, or that Writ soon after his Death, did ever give him the Title of a Martyr. 'Tis possible, the Abbot of Etheling's Death, who was Stabbed by some Assassins' employed by his Monks, might be app●ly'd to John Scot; so that, by disguising the Story in some measure, he might be supposed to be the Man who was with Pen-knives Stabbed by Scholars. And, by dating his Martyrdom on the 4th of the Ideses of November, the day on which another John Scot, a Bishop, was killed, Anno 1060, three distinct john's will be blended into one, with the Epithet of Sophista proper to our Scot; that of Martyr proper to the Abbot of Etheling, and the Day of the Bishop's Death. However we Read in the Book of English-Martyrs, and also in a Roman Martyrology Printed at Antwerp in 1586, these Words, Eodem Die (speaking of the Fourth Day of the Ideses of November) Sancti Joannis Scoti, qui Graphiis Puerorum confossus Martyrii Coronam adeptus est. But there's no such Thing to be found in all the other Roman Martyrologies. The Reason why I d●te not his Death before the year 874, is, because in some Greek and Latin Verses, Written upon an Ancient Glossary, bearing the Name of John at the head of it, he speaks of Pope John, who was not raised to the Papal See till towards the end of the year 872. And ●f those Verses be his, 'tis like he was then come back into France.  about the year 874. 
f He seems not to be the same with Johannes Scotus Abbot of Etheling.] The Reasons which induce me to believe, that our John Scot was not the Abbot of Etheling, are these: First, That the Abbot of Etheling was an East- Saxon, a Saxon of Germany, or at least of Essex, and John Scot an Irishman Secondly, The first was called into England by Alfred, and came thither with Grimbaldus after the year 880; whereas John Scot withdrew from France into England upon a Disgust, and died before the year 875. Thirdly, The Abbot of Etheling was both P●iest and Monk, which we do not read any where of John Scot; and he was himself so far from owning it, that he calls himself only Servus, or extremus Servorum, or extremus Sophiae Studentium. But 'tis certain that he lived at Court, as appears by the Epistle sent him by Pardulus, and by his Preface to the Book of Predestination. Fourthly, The Abbot of Etheling was slain by some Assassins' in his Abbey-Church towards the year 895. being then a strong Man, and one that could ●e●end himself, as Asserus avers it, who relates his Death, and says, That he stood in his own Defence, quod bellicosae Artis non expers esset; whereas our Scot was dead long before: but put the case he had lived till then, he could not then be a strong Man, or able to make any Defence. Fifthly, William of Malmesbury makes a Distinction of those two john's; but he mistakes in his Supposition, that they were both called into England by Alfred. Asserus, a Contemporary Author, makes mention but of one Scot called into England by Alfred▪  He seems not to be the same with Joh●nnes Scotus Abbot of Etheling, who was Grimbaldus his Companion, and Master to Alfred.  
One of the Principal Works of Johannes Scotus Erigena, was his Treatise concerning the Body 
John Scot his Book concerning the Body and Blood of Christ.  and Blood of our Saviour. Which Book is lost, unless it were that which bears the Name of Ratramnus, the Improbability whereof we have sufficiently proved. In that Treatise he asserted, that the Sacraments of the Altar were not the real Body and Blood of Christ, but only a Remembrance of both. This Doctrine he did not fully explain. But, if we may give credit to Asselin, that was the Drift of it. The Book was Dedicated to Charles the Bald, who had commanded him to Write on this Subject. And Berengarius quoted this Author, as one that had Taught the Doctrine he had stood for, wherein his Adversaries did not contradict him. But they condemned the Book of John Scot, as containing Berengarius' Error; and it was attainted for that Reason by the Synods of Vercelli, Paris and Rome, by which means it might come to be lost. It was Written against by Aldrevaldus, a Monk of the Abbey of Fleury, who mustered against it a Collection of Passages out of the Fathers, inserted into the 12th Volume of the Spicilegium.  
John Scot Writ moreover two Books about Predestination; Five Books of Natures, or about 
The Books of Natures by John Scot  the Division of Natures, and a Book of Vision. We have already spoken of his Books of Predestination. The Five Books of Natures are Written by way of Dialogue, and in the same Style, that is, after a Scholastic abstruse manner. The Natures he divides into four Kind's, one that creates, and is uncreated; another that creates, and is created; a third that does not create, and is created; and a fourth which neither creates, nor is created. In the three first Books he treats of the three first Kind's of Nature; and in the fourth and fifth he explains the Return of the created Natures into the Nature uncreated. In the Second Book he handles the Controversy betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches, about the Pricession of the Holy Ghost. He tells us, That God has created in his Son, from all Eternity, the Promogenial Causes of all Things, the Goodness by himself, Essence by himself, etc. That the World was Created after Man had sinned; and that, if Man and Angels had not sinned, God would have created no Sensible and Material World. He asserts, That our Saviour's Manhood was perfectly changed into his Godhead, after his Resurrection. That the Malice and Punishments of the Infernal Spirits shall cease one day, and come to a period. That, after their Fall, they were clothed with Aereal Bodies. That the Damned shall enjoy all Natural Comforts. That all Creatures whatsoever shall be at last Transformed into the Humane Nature. That our Bodies shall be turned into our Souls at the Day of Resurrection. And Lastly, That all Things shall be converted into their Primogenial Causes, and return into God. So that, as before the World was Created, there was no Being but God, and the Causes of all Things in God; so after the end of the World, there will be no Being but God, and the Causes of all Things in Him.  
These Books, which are in Manuscript in the Library of S. german des Prez, were Printed at Oxford in 1681. The Book of Vision doth still remain a Manuscript. Father Mabillon has found one in a Monastery near S. Omar; and says, That John Scot Argues in that Book about the very same Question which is debated in the 30th Letter of Lopus' Abbot of Ferrara.  
John Scot Translated into Latin the Works Fathered upon S. Denys, the Translation whereof he Dedicated to Charles the Bald. Pope Nicholas I. Writ to that Prince about it, and desired it of 
Joh. Scot' s Translations.  him. Anastasius the Library-Keeper having perused it, found he had followed his Author too close, and that he had not taken a sufficient care to shun Obscurity. This Work, with Anastasius his Letter, is in a Manuscript of the Library of the Jesuits-Colledge at Bourges [and part of it has been Printed with S. Denys his Works, at Colen, in 1536.] Scot has also Translated some Comments of Maximus upon the Books of St. Denys; and his Translation of Maximus his Comments upon S. Gregory Nazianzen was Printed at Oxford in 1681. Trithemius makes mention of a Commentary upon St. Matthew's Gospel, and of a Book of Offices composed by John Scot  
What we have hitherto said of John Scot, is a sufficient Proof, that he had some Tincture of Learning, and that he was skilled in Logicks and Metaphysics. But it is plain on the other side, that he had a Thwarting Disposition, that he was but a weak Arguer, and a sorry Divine.  
To Conclude, what relates to the Subject Matter of this and the foregoing Chapter; all we 
Paschasius his Works.  have to do is, to speak of the Works of Paschasius Ratbertus, upon which we have been hitherto silent.  
He attempted a Commentary upon St. Matthew's Gospel, when he was yet a Monk, that is, before the year 844. being chosen Abbot, the Duties of his Place made him discontinue it. Yet he began the Fifth Book, where he had left off, and proceeded as far as the Ninth, while he was yet Abbot. Having eased himself from the Burden of that Station, he went on with the rest more undisturbed. However he suspended it yet a while, his Time being taken up with other Works. And then it was he Writ a Commentary upon the Lamentations of Jeremy, and an Explication of the 44th Psalm. But he took in hand the Eleventh Book again, at the latter end of his Life, so that the Letter to Fridegardus was not Written by Paschasius till about that Time.  
Paschasius his Commentary upon St. Matthew's Gospel is very large. In it having explained the General Sense of every particular Place, he makes long Moral Reflections, taken, for the most part, out of the Works of the Holy Fathers. The first four Books are Dedicated to Gontlandus a Monk of S. Riquier; and the last, to the whole Body of Monks in that Abbey.  
The Explication of the 
* 'Tis with us the 45th.  44th Psalm is Dedicated to the Nuns of our Lady of Soissons, in Acknowledgement of the Benefits he had received from them. The same is divided into Three Parts. The first is upon the Title of the Psalm, as in the Septuagint, For the Beloved; and in the Hebrew, For the Lilies, or, For the Flowers. Whence he takes occasion to enlarge upon the Praise of Virgins. In the Second Part, he Expounds that part of this Psalm, which exalts the Beauty of the Bridegroom, and applies it to Christ. In the Third, he applies to the Church what is there said of the Bride. To expound the Letter, he makes use of the Commentary attributed to St. Jerom; often comparing together the Hebrew Text, Symmachus his Version, and that of the Septuagint.  
His Commentary upon the Lamentations of Jeremy is much more Allegorical than the former. Here you will find Mysteries upon the Hebrew Characters, the Use of which is only for Distinction. 'Tis a tedious Work, divided into Five Books, and Dedicated to a Monk called Odilmanus Severus. Therein he deplores the Vices and Licentiousness of his Age; as, amongst others, Simony, the Covetousness of several Priests, the Corrupt Lives both of the Regular and Secular Clergy, who minded too much the Concerns of this World, the Usurpation of Church-Lands, and Grinding of the Poor. With Grief does he mention likewise, in the Fourth Book, an Invasion made by Pirates, who had committed great Depredations to the very Gates of Paris. Which ought to be understood of the Normans, who, in the year 856, or 857. burned the Church of S. german in the Fields.  
These are Paschasius his Works, which have been collected and published by Father Sirmondus, and Printed at Paris in 1618. Since which time Father Dacherius has published in the 12th Volume of his Spicilegium a Treatise of our Saviour's Nativity, Dedicated to Theodrada, Abbess of the Abbey of our Lady of Soissons, who died in 846. In which he asserts, That our Saviour coming into the World, came out of the Virgin's Womb, by penetrating her Substance, and without any Opening.  
To Conclude, Father Mabillon has put out two Books of Paschasius, containing the Life of S. Wala, Abbot of Corbey. The first he composed when he was a Monk, towards the year 856; And the second, after the Decease of his Friend Severus, about the year 859. By this we learn several Particulars of the unjust Deposing of Lewis, Surnamed the Godly, and the State of the Church of France. The Life of Adelardus is also attributed to him.  
Paschasius was a Man of great Piety and Learning. He Writes in a clear, neat and elegant Style. He was well-read both in Ecclesiastic and Profane Authors. He had withal pretty good Parts of his own; only it may, be said perhaps, that he was a little too Mystical. His Book upon the Eucharist is an accurate and elaborate Piece. His Encomium was made in Verse by Eugemoldus, and is to be seen in the beginning of his Works. He died upon S. Riquier's Day, towards the year 860.   

CHAP. IX.  
The History of the Contest betwixt Photius and Ignatius, about the Patriarchal See of Constantinople.  
IGnatius was Son of Michael Curopalata the Emperor, Surnamed Rengabis, and of Procopia, Daughter of Nicephorus the Emperor. Michael, who succeeded his Father-in-Law, Anno 
Ignatius his Birth.  811. had not sat full two years upon the Throne, when he was forced to resign the Empire into the hands of Leo the Armenian. He had Three Sons, Theophilactus, Stauratius, and Nicetas. The first two he had admitted to Govern with him; but Stauratius happened to die, before he had quitted the Empire. Theophilactus was shaved, and turned, with his Father, into a Monastery, and so was Nicetas, his youngest Brother, then but Fourteen years of Age. Theophilactus, upon his coming into the Monastery, had his Name changed into Eustratus; and Nicetas, into that of Ignatius, the Prince we now speak of. Leo the Armenian, being resolved to secure unto himself the Empire he had got by Treachery, Banished Michael, his Wife and Children, and sent them into several Islands, parting them from one another, and keeping them under a strict Guard; and his Two Children he made Incapable of Raising Issue to the Family, to which the Imperial Crown did of Right belong. He declared against the Use of Images, and turned Nicephorus the Patriarch out of his See of Constantinople, to make room for Theodosius, an Enemy of Images. Leo having quietly enjoyed the Empire some Months above Seven years, was slain by Michael, Surnamed Balbus, or the Stammerer, who raised to the See of Constantinople, after the Death of Theodosius, Anthony, Surnamed Byrsodepsa, who was Metropolitan of Perga. Theophilus, Son of Michael the Stammerer, succeeded his Father, Anno 819. and raised John Iconomachus to the See of Constantinople, in the room of Anthony. At last Theophilus dying in the year 841. the Government fell into the hands of Theodora, as the Guardian of Michael, Son to Theophilus. This Princess expelled John from his See of Constantinople, and caused Methodius to be Ordained again, who was Four years possessed of that See. After his Death, Ignatius, who, till that time, had lived a Monastic Life in the Isles of Hiatres, and Terebinthus, by him Peopled with Monks, was raised to that Dignity in 847. He had been ordained Priest by Basil, Bishop of Per●a. At that time there was a Brother of Theodorus, Uncle to Michael, called Bardas', who had a great share in the Government. This Man was desperately in Love with his Daughter-in-Law, with whom he held a secret Commerce. Ignatius offended at so great a Lewdness, Rebuked him for it, with a freedom suitable to his Character. And observing Bardas' still persisting in his Wicked Course, he refused to give him the Sacrament upon the Twelfthday. Bardas', a Mighty Man, and of a Cruel Temper, Incensed at his Refusal, took his time to break out into an open Resentment of it. Not long after this, designing to rid himself of Theodora, who shared the Empire with him, he persuaded Michael, That it was time for him to Reign by himself; and advised him to send away his Mother and Sisters into some Monastery. The Emperor, following his Advice, commanded the Patriarch to see that Business done, who refused to obey that Order. Which Refusal made way for Bards to Accuse him as an Abettor of the Rebellion of a certain Person, who pretended to be a Son of Theodora by another Husband. Michael, in the mean time, caused his own Mother and Sisters to be shaved, and shut up into a Nunnery; afterwards turns out Ignatius, and Banishes him into the Isle of Terebinthus, requiring him several times to Resign; but although he could not obtain it from him, yet he put Photius in his place.  
This Photius was descended from a Noble Family of Constantinople, and Nephew of Tarasius 
Photius his Character.  the Patriarch. He was raised to the Chief Dignities of the Empire, being made Principal Secretary of State, Captain of the Guards, and Senator. He was both a refined Statesman, and a Person of profound Learning. So great a Grammarian he was, and so well-versed in Poesy, Philosophy, Physic, and other Sciences; and (as the Author of the Life of the holy Patriarch Ignatius observes it) so great a Master of Eloquence, that he might pass, without contradiction, for the greatest Man of his Age in point of Learning, and might even be compared with the Ancients. In short, he had all the Parts requisite for an able Man; a happy Genius agreeable to a Studious Life, and a good Estate to get him a good Library of Books; but, above all, so great a desire to raise his Reputation, that it made him pass whole Nights in the course of his Studies: And, whereas he aimed at the Patriarchal Dignity, he diligently applied himself to the Reading of such Ecclesiastical Writings as might fit him for it.  
He was yet but a Layman, when he was chosen Patriarch. But, that he might be, as it were, 
Photius his Ordination.  Gradually raised to that Dignity, he was made Monk the first Day, Reader the next, and the following days Sub-Deacon, Deacon and Priest, So that in the space of six days, he attained to that Dignity, which fell out on Christmas-Day, Anno 858. He was Ordained by Gregory Asbestas, formerly Bishop of Syracuse, but Degraded at Rome, whereupon he withdrew into Constantinople. Ignatius, unwilling that he should assist at his Ordination, had forewarned him not to appear in the Ceremony, and signified unto him his desire, that his Affair should be examined, and Judgement passed upon it, before he held any Correspondence with him. Which Gregory being much offended at, he, from that time, declared himself Ignatius his Enemy, and Separated from the Church, with Peter Bishop of Sardis, Eulampius of Apamea, and someother of the Clergy. Whom therefore Ignatius the Patriarch cited before him, and caused to be Excommunicated. They Writ against him to the Pope, who required of Ignatius, that he would send some Person to Rome to give him a full Information of that Affair. Ignatius did accordingly send one Lazarus; and the Point being duly examined by the Direction of Pope Benedictus, the next Successor to Leo, Ignatius his Sentence was approved of by the Holy See. The Schism however continued during the Eleven years Ignatius was in the Bishopric of Constantinople, who could not reduce Gregory, nor those of his Party, to their Duty; because he had so great an Interest amongst the Grandees, and with Photius in particular.  
The Metropolitans, subject to the Patriarchal See of Constantinople, acknowledged Photius; but they extorted from him a Promise in Writing, that he should respect Ignatius as his Father, and 
Ignatius Expelled and Deposed.  should by no means persecute him. Yet, notwithstanding this Promise, Two Months after Photius was raised to that See; Ignatius his Friends were secured, and himself accused of a Conspiracy against the Government. He brought an Information against him, and removing him from the Isle of Terebinthus, whither he had withdrawn himself, he was conveyed to another Island called Hiera, from thence to Berneta, and afterwards to Numeta, where he was very ill used, bound with Chains and cast into Prison, From thence he was carried to Mitylene; and, whilst he was there, Photius having called a Council together, Pronounced his Deposition, and an Anathema against his Person.  
Photius having thus secured himself in his Patriarchal Dignity, was not fully satisfied; but being desirous to get this Sentence Confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, sent two Bishops to Pope Nicholas. 
Pope Nicholas his Letter upon the Ordination of Photius.  Whom he prayed to send two Legates to Constantinople, to re-establish the Church-Discipline, and utterly extirpate the residue of the Sect that opposed Image-worship, being resolved to compel them to approve of Ignatius his Deposition. For he did not formally desire of the Pope the Approbation of it, but he gave him to understand, that Ignatius had voluntarily quitted the Patriarchal See, by reason of his Age and Craziness, and had withdrawn himself into a Monastery belonging to a certain Island, and that he was in great esteem both with the Princes and People. Upon this Request, Pope Nicholas sent two Bishops to Constantinople, viz. Zachary and Radoaldus, with the Character of Legates a latere, with full power to Regulate the Business of the Iconoclasts, and to Inform themselves so far only of Ignatius his Deposition, as to make the Report thereof to the Holy See. At the same time he Writ both to Michael the Emperor, and to Photius himself, about the Deposition of Ignatius. In his Letter to the Emperor, he expresses his Dislike, that Ignatius had been Deposed without consulting the Holy See about it, and that a Layman was put into his Place, contrary to the Canons of the Church, and the Decrees of the Popes. He therefore declares to him, That he cannot give his Assent to Photius his Ordination, before he is fully informed by his Legates of the whole Matter of Fact; That he desired, Ignatius should be Cited before them and the Council, to ask him the Reason, Why he left his Flock; and to inquire whether his Deposition was made Canonically; And that, when he should have a True Account of Things, he would decide the Matter by an Apostolic Decree, according to the true Merit of the Cause. Next, he recommends the Worship of the Images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and Saints, proving the Lawfulness of it by the Tradition of the Church, and some Instances out of the Old Testament. To which he adds, That as Altars are Sanctified by Benediction, and as the Bread, after Consecration, is, in reality, the Body of Christ, and the Wine becomes his Blood; so the Wood, whereof a Cross is made, is but common Wood, before 'tis brought into the Form of a Cross; but when it has once received that Form, it becomes Holy, and the Horror of Devils, by reason of our Saviour's Figure upon it. He exhorts the Emperor, to restore to the Pope the Authority he formerly had, by his Vicar the Bishop of Thessalonica, over the old and new Epirus, over Illyria, Macedon, Thessaly, Achaia, the Two Dacia's, Moesia, Dardania, and Prevalitania. And, to assert it as his Right, he sent to the Emperor some Letters of his Predecessors. He farther requires the Restitution of the Papal Patrimonies in Calabria and Sicily; and that the Archbishop of Syracuse might be Ordained by the Holy See. Lastly, He tells him, that he sends him, as Legates, Radoaldus Bishop of Porto, and Zachary of Agncnia; whom he desires him to receive with a Respect suitable to their Character; to give them frequent and favourable Audiences, to give Credit to their Informations; not to suffer 'em to be ill-intreated, and to send them back under a safe Guard. These are, in short, the Contents of Pope Nicholas his Letter to the Emperor. That to Photius is shorter; wherein he expressed, how joyful he was to understand by his Letters the Steadfastness of his Faith, but that he was grieved on the other side, to see such Violations made of the Canons of the Church, in the Business of his Promotion, being, as it were, all at once raised from a Layman, to the Dignity of a Patriarch; wherein he had transgressed the Canons, and the Decrees of the Popes, so that he could not Approve of his Ordination, before he were fully informed by his Legates he had sent to Constantinople of his Morals, Conduct, and Affection to the Doctrine of the Church; And that, when he should be fully satisfied about it, he would Honour him according to his Station, and give him real Proofs of his Brotherly Love. These Two Letters, dated Septem. 25th. 860. being this Pope's second and third Letters, were given to his Legates, upon their departure for Constantinople.  
Whilst an Answer was expecting from Rome, Ignatius was Re-manded to the Isle of Terebinthus, where he suffered much from the Emperor's Officers, and by an Inroad the Scythians made into it, who Plundered the Island and all the Monasteries; so that he was constrained to withdraw himself into a private House at Constantinople.  
The Pope's Two Legates being come to Constantinople, the Emperor called a Council thither 
The Council of Constantinople against Ignatius.  in 861. which consisted of 318. Bishops, the Pope's Legates assisting at it. Ignatius was Cited to appear at this Council by the Commissioners, to Answer to the Charge exhibited against him. He demanded of those Officers that came to Cite him, Whether he must appear in a Bishop, Priest, or Monk's Habit? They being startled at it, could give him no Answer, But that he should hear from them about it the next day; when they came back to him, and Cited him a second time, in the Names of Zachary and Radoaldus the Pope's Legates, to appear before the Synod in the Habit which he thought in his Conscience most proper for him. Upon which he put on his Patriarchal Vestments, and Marched forth, attended by Bishops, Clerks, Monks, and a world of People, towards the Church, wherein the Assembly was. Being come over against S. Gregory's Church, at a place where a great Cross stood upon a Marble-Pillar, in the middle of the Street, a Noble Man, sent by the Emperor, came to tell him, That if he did not appear in a plain Monk's Habit, 'twould go near to cost him his Life. Laurentius the Priest, and the two Stephens, did likewise forewarn him, not to come in his Pontifical Habit. Ignatius forced to obey, was dragged alone into the Synod, Habited like a Monk. He was no sooner come in, but the Emperor fell upon him with Opprobrious and Virulent Language; but after a while, being a little cooler, he commanded him to sit down on a Wooden Bench. He begged leave to Salute Radoaldus and Zachary, which was granted him. He asked them who they were, and what their Commission was? To which they Answered, That they were Legates from Pope Nicholas, to take Cognizance of his Affair. He farther Asked them, Whether they had any Letter from His Holiness for him? They Answered, They had none: supposing they had not to do with a Patriarch, but with a Man Deposed in a Provincial Synod. Then he charged them to Expel the Adulterer, who had, by Force, possessed himself of his See; declaring withal, that, If they had not Power to do it, they had none to be his Judges. They Answered, That they had Power from the Emperor to be Judges in his Affair. Whereupon Ignatius was pressed by the Courtiers to make his Resignation, by which the Metropolitans were awed that solicited his Restauration. Thus was the first Day spent in Heats and Contests, so that the Assembly was Adjourned to another Day. Mean while Ignatius was pressed very hard to a Resignation, which he would never yield unto. Being cited again to appear before the Council, he Answered, He would not appear, and that he would never own for his Judge's Men that appeared so visibly prepossessed against him; who were so far from expelling Photius, that they did daily eat at his Table, and to whom he had sent Presents before their Arrival. That he Appealed to the Pope, and was willing to submit himself to his Judgement. Those who stood for him required the same Thing. To make out the Justice of his Demand, he alleged Innocent's Letter to Chrysostom, and the Canon of the Council of Sardis, touching the Review of the Bishop's Causes. Which notwithstanding, being pressed to appear in the Council, he urged, That those who had caused him to be Summoned thither did not understand the Canons, nor the Practice of the Church, that a Bishop must be Cited by two Bishops, not (as he was) by two Persons, one a Layman, the other a Deacon. But his Arguments not being able to prevail against Violence, he was forced into the Council; wherein appeared against him several Witnesses, Deposing, That his Ordination was Invalid, because he was Chosen by Favour: He rejected those Witnesses, as produced by the Emperor; adding, That if he were not Archbishop, the Emperor was no Emperor, nor any of those Bishops truly so, for that they had been all Consecrated by him. He said further, That Photius being an Adulterer, was no Member of the Church; and that he could not set himself up to Rule, and Feed Christ's Flock. First, Because he was one of those that were Condemned and Excommunicated. Secondly, Because, of a Layman he was made a Patriarch so suddenly. Thirdly, Because he owed his Ordination to an Excommunicated and Deposed Bishop. Fourthly, Because having given a Promise in Writing, That he would never molest him, he had broken his Oath within 40 days after his Intrusion. To which no Answer was given: but, in stead of it he was pressed again to Resign, which he constantly refused. So that the Assembly broke up this second time, as the first, re infecta. In the following Sessions, the Emperor caused no less than 72 Witnesses to be heard; who Deposed, That he was not raised to the Patriarchal See according to the Canons; but, with much Bribery, and by the Emperor's Favour. Whereupon was Read the Thirteenth of the Apostle's Canons, which Ordains, That if any one becomes a Bishop by the Secular Power, he ought to be Deposed. In fine, after a long deliberation, the Council Pronounced his Deposition; and bringing him before them, his Pontifical Habit was put on, and he was presently Devested of the same.  
Image-worship was another Thing debated in, and Confirmed by this Council; The Acts whereof were accordingly divided into two Parts, one about Images, and the other about Ignatius his Deposition. Therefore perhaps the Greeks call it, The First and Second Synod; or, if we rather give credit to Zonaras, and Balsamon, 'twas because the Resolutions taken at the first Sessions being not set down in Writing, by reason of some Troubles, another Sitting was appointed, in which the Determinations of both were reduced into Writing. These two Authors give us an account of XVII. Canons made in this Assembly.  
The First is, To prevent an Abuse in the Foundation of Monasteries. For many of the Founders retained the Property thereof, and disposed of Monasteries as of their other Estates. To prevent 
The Canons of the Council of Constantinople.  which disorder, 'tis ordained by this Canon, That no Monastery shall be erected, but with the Bishop's Advice and Consent, who is to Consecrate it; That an Inventory shall be made of the Situation, and Appurtenances of the Monastery, and all that belongs to it, which shall be kept in the Archives of the Bishopric; And that it shall not be lawful for the Founder to make himself Superior of it, or to make any other that he thinks fit, without the Bishop's Concurrence.  
The Second Canon is leveled against those who put on a Monk's Habit, without observing the Rules and Constitutions of a Monastic Life. To redress which Grievance, 'tis ordained by this Canon, That a Monk shall do nothing but by the Superiour's Direction, to whose Rules he is subject, and in whose Monastery he shall be bound to live.  
The Third enjoins the Superiors to make an Inquiry after such Monks as have left their Monasteries, and to shut them up again.  
The Fourth prohibits the Monks to quit their Monasteries, either to retire themselves into Secular Houses, or to change Monasteries; leaving the Bishops a full Power to Remove them, if they think it necessary.  
The Fifth imports, That the Monk's Habit shall be given only to such as have been proved Three Years, except in case of Diseases, which may allow of a shorter Time; or when such as are admitted, have formerly led a kind of Monastic Life in the World, it is sufficient, in this case, to keep them in the State of Novices Six Months.  
The Sixth Canon declares, That Monks ought to have nothing of their own; that, before they turn Monks, they may freely dispose of their Estates; but after they are entered, the Monastery has the sole and entire Property of all they have, and they are disabled from using, or disposing of it as their own. That in case it be discovered, that any of them has retained an Inheritance to his own proper use, it ought to be Sold, and the Money given to the Poor. All which Regulations extend, by Act of the Council, not only to Monks, but in like manner to Nuns.  
The Seventh forbids all Bishops to Found Monasteries at the Charge of their Diocese. Which was to prevent the Ruin of Bishoprics, the Bishops in those Times being apt to bestow all their Cares and the Incomes of their Bishoprics, upon Erecting and Founding of Monasteries.  
The Eighth is against such as voluntarily assumed to themselves the Office of Bishop, or caused themselves to be made such, without an Urgent Necessity, as in case of Disease. And such it Condemns to be Deposed, if Clergymen; and if Laymen, to be Excommunicated.  
The Ninth is against those who strike and abuse others.  
The Tenth ordains, That those shall be Deposed who shall take upon them to convert into Profane Uses, Vessels, or Sacred Vestments, made use of at the Altar.  
The Eleventh forbids all Clergymen to take upon them Secular Employs, or Offices.  
The Twelfth forbids to Celebrate, or Administer the Sacraments in private Chapels, without the Bishop's Consent.  
The Thirteenth prohibits all inferior Clergymen to separate from their Bishop, before he be Tried and Condemned by his Judges.  
The Fourteenth contains the same Prohibition to Bishops, in relation to their Metropolitan.  
By the Fifteenth the same Thing is ordered to be observed, in relation to the Patriarch; except in case of Heresy, if the Patriarch do publicly Teach it. In which case those that forsake his Communion, before the Judgement of the Synod, ought not only not to be Deposed, but are worthy of Praise for so doing. Which ought to be understood of a manifest and condemned Heresy.  
The Sixteenth enjoins, That no Bishop shall be Ordained in a Church, the Bishop whereof is still living, unless he has voluntarily Resigned his Bishopric, or has been Deposed in Due Form. But, if a Bishop do forsake his Flock, and absents himself Six Months from his Church, without a lawful occasion, he ought to be Deposed, and another put in his place.  
The Seventeenth forbids to raise a Layman or a Monk immediately to the Episcopal Dignity.  
These are the Canons said to be made by this Council. The first appear to have been made Indirectly against Ignatius; but the two last do plainly condemn the Conduct of Photius. Which might suggest a belief, that they were made by another Synod; but that 'tis usual with Men to appear most severe against those Disorders they themselves have been guilty of.  
Photius was not satisfied in Deposing Ignatius, and stripping him unhandsomely of his Sacerdotal 
The Persecution of Ignatius.  Habit; but to extort a Resignation from him, he caused him to be shut up in a close narrow Prison, where he received very ill usage. And there he was forced to make a Cross over a Writing, the Contents of which were, That he owned himself unworthy of being a Bishop, and that he had not been duly raised to the Patriarchal Dignity, but with Bribing and Favour; and that he was not the Lawful Possessor of it, but an Usurper. This Signature being thus extorted from him, he was left undisturbed in the Palace of Pose. Mean while he drew a Petition, by way of Appeal, to the Pope; wherein having represented his Case to His Holiness, as it is related here, he begs of him that he will Commiserate him, and lend him his helping Hand, in Imitation of his Predecessors Fabian, Julius, Innocent, Leo, and all those that have laboured for the Propagation of the Faith and Truth.  
But Ignatius his Adversaries, not contented with his forced Resignation, persuaded the Emperor, That it was fit he should Publicly Read it himself in the Church, and Anathematise himself. In order to which, upon a Whitsunday, his House was beset with Guards. Which Ignatius perceiving, made his Escape in a Country-man's habit, with Baskets, and got over into the Islands, where he absconded, shifting frequently his Habitation, for fear of being discovered. In August following there happened an Earthquake at Constantinople, which the People attributed to the Persecution of Ignatius. For which reason, the Princes were forced to Promise, That he should no more be molested, nor any harm done him for having concealed himself, or to any Person or Persons that had concealed him. Which Promise being made public, Ignatius discovered himself, and was sent back into his Monastery, there to live in quiet. Whereupon the Earthquake ceased, and the Bulgarians were converted.  
Zachary and Radoaldus being returned to Rome, declared only to the Pope, by word of Mouth, that Ignatius had been Deposed, and Photius Raised in his stead to the See of Constantinople, but concealed from him the share they had in it.  
Two days after came an Ambassador, named Leo, from the Emperor, with two Volumes, containing the Acts of the Council at Constantinople; one concerning Ignatius his Deposition, and the other about Images. He also brought a Letter from the Emperor to the Pope, wherein he desired his Assent, under his own hand, to the Deposition of Ignatius, and the Promotion of Photius. At the same time a Monk, by Name Theognostus, came to Rome from Ignatius in a Layman's habit, who informed the Pope of what had passed. The Pope, far from doing what the Emperor desired of him, Wrote immediately a Letter to all the Patriarches, wherein he declared his Dislike of 
Pope Nicholas his Letters upon the Deposition of Ignatius.  Ignatius his Deposition, and Photius his Intrusion. He Wrote likewise to Michael the Emperor, that he would never yield his Consent to the Deposition of Ignatius, nor the Ordination of Photius. And, whereas, to justify this last, Nectarius and S. Ambrose were alleged as two Precedents, being made of Laymen Bishops; he makes it out, that they had a particular Calling, and that they had not been Ordained to thrust a Bishop out of his See. He answers farther to the same Instances, and that of Tarasius, in the Letter he Writ at the same time to Photius, that it is for the good of the Church, through Necessity, or by a particular Inspiration of God, that the Laws of the Church have been dispensed with upon such Occasions; but that none of those Reasons could take place in his Ordination. He complains, that Photius refuses to own or observe the Pope's Decretals, because they condemn his Ordination. He does acknowledge, that some Churches may have particular Customs different from those of Rome. But he maintains withal, that this Way of Ordaining a Layman Bishop, contrary to the Canons, and the General Laws of the Church, ought not to be tolerated. His farther Complaints are, That his Legates were not used with that Respect he expected; that they had been detained a long time without the freedom of speaking to any one, and that they had been forced by Threats to consent to the Deposition of Ignatius, and the Intrusion of Photius. These three Letters are under the same Date, viz. March 18th, 862.  
The Pope having sent them to Constantinople, and other parts of the World, a Council was called 
A Council held at Rome upon the Ordination of Photius.  by His Holiness at Rome, in order to have this Business throughly examined. The Pope knew not at first how much his own Legates had contributed to the Deposition of Ignatius, and thought they had been forced to it. But, hearing that they had been corrupted by Photius, and that they themselves had Deposed Ignatius, and owned Photius, he thought himself bound, for the Vindication adn Honour of the Holy See, to call this Synod. Radoaldus did not appear, but Zachary did; who being convicted to have had a hand in the Deposition of Ignatius, and to have acknowledged Photius as the Lawful Patriarch, he was Deposed and Excommunicated. He afterwards did acknowledge his Fault, declaring, That he had acted contrary to the Orders he had received from the Holy See, by Consenting to the Deposition of Ignatius. Radoaldus being absent, his Condemnation was put off till another time.  
This Council did also take into their Consideration the Difference betwixt Ignatius and Photius, and Confirmed Image-Worship, as may be seen by the Six Articles inserted into the Seventh Letter of Pope Nicholas.  
The First declares, That Photius being of a Layman Ordained a Patriarch by Gregory of Syracuse, for having Invaded the See of Constantinople, and thrust out Ignatius the Lawful Possessor thereof; for having held Communion with Persons Excommunicated by the Holy See; having Corrupted the Pope's Legates; having Banished and Persecuted the Bishops who would not acknowledge him, is therefore degraded from his Sacerdotal Office, and all Orders Ecclesiastical, by the Authority of God, of the Princes of the Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, of all the Saints, of the Six General Councils, and by the Judgement of the Holy Ghost; And if, after this Judgement, he continues in possession of that See, he is Excommunicated, with all such as shall Abett him, or hold Communion with him.  
The Second contains the like Sentence of Deposition against Gregory of Syracuse, and a Commination against him, if he continues to raise Troubles against Ignatius; and such as hold Communion with him are hereby declared Excommunicated.  
In the Third Article, All such as Photius has promoted to its Orders, and have held Communion with him, after his Instruction, are declared to have been unlawfully Ordained, and their Orders to be void accordingly.  
The Fourth enjoins the Restauration of Ignatius, though he never was truly Deposed, nor justly Condemned or Degraded; and declares, that all Persons that shall hinder him from assuming again his Sacerdotal Habit, from performing the Duties of his Place, or from the peaceable enjoyment of his See, shall be Deposed and Excommunicated.  
The Fifth enjoins, That all Persons Exiled upon this account, be Restored to their several Stations; and Declares, all that shall obstruct it to be Excommunicated.  
The Sixth confirms what had been Decreed by the Pope's touching the Images of Jesus Christ, the Holy Virgin, and the Saints; and pronounces an Anathema against John of Constantinople and his Followers, who Taught, That they ought to be broken, and trampled under our feet.  
To these Six Articles, Pope Nicholas adds two Decisions, made in a former Synod, against those who held, That our Saviour's Godhead had suffered upon the Cross. By the first it is determined, that our Saviour indeed suffered in his Flesh, but that his Godhead remained Impassable. And by the Second pronounces an Anathema against those who shall say, That our Saviour suffered in his Godhead.  
Radoaldus, whose Judgement was put off, being returned into Italy from France, the Pope sent some Bishops, to summon him to appear at the Synod. But he concealed himself so well, that they could find him no where. Anno 863. he came suddenly into Rome, where he combined for some time with the Pope's Enemies; but durst not stay till the Synod sat, which was put off by reason of the Troubles. He fled from Rome, spoiled his Church, and took Sanctuary in another Diocese. But in the Year 864. he was Deposed and Excommunicated in the Synod which then sat, with Threats of Anathema, if he held Communion with Photius.  
Michael the Emperor having received the Pope's Letter, sent him a very sharp Answer, expressing his Discontent. To which the Pope made a long Reply, Confuting, Article by Article, what 
Pope Nicholas his Letter to Michael the Emperor.  the Emperor had Written. Who complaining as if he had been illused by the Holy See, tho' since the Sixth Council, no Emperor of the Greeks had honoured the Holy See so much as he had: The Pope makes him this Return, That he has not Abused him in any manner, but only Warned and Rebuked him, as Bishops aught to do; and that, if his Predecessors did not bear the Honour that was due to the Holy See, 'twas because most of them were Heretics, when those that were good Catholics had always a Veneration and Respect for the Holy See. The Emperor, speaking of the Legates, he desired the Pope to send him, had used the Word to Command. Which hard Expression the Pope could not digest, and therefore brought in several Instances of Emperors, who Writing to the Popes, had used the words to Pray, or to Desire; and says, That in the Letter sent him by Michael, he himself had used the word to earnestly Entreat, Obsecramus. Nor does he pass by the Epither of Barbarous, given by the Emperor to the Latin Tongue; but tells him very seriously, That he ought to have spoken better of a Language made by God himself, made use of in the Inscription of the Cross, and in which God is worshipped amongst the Latins. To which he adds, That he who glories in being the Emperor of the Romans, should not despise the Roman Tongue. The Emperor had signified in his Letter, That he had not required the Legates to be Judges a second time in the Cause of Ignatius. And the Pope makes him this Return, That the Event is a Proof, that was his Design; that, for his part, he had given them no Power but to get an Information of the Matter, and make him the Report thereof, but not to give Judgement in the Case. That those who had Condemned Ignatius, were his Enemies, or Excommunicate, Persons either Suspected, or Accused, and so could not be his Judges; and that they were all Inferiors to him, having consequently no Power to Sat upon, much less to Depose him. Upon which last Head he does much enlarge, endeavouring to prove by Instances, as well as by the Authority of the Popes and Councils, that the Patriarches of Constantinople can be brought to no Judgement but the Pope's. He maintains, That the Emperor could not call a Synod, and much less bring his Officers thither.  
The Emperor had sent him word, That the Council by which Ignatius was Deposed, was as Numerous as the Nicene Council. To which the Pope Answers; That it is not the Number, but the Merit and Worth of the Bishops assembled in Council, which ought to be regarded; That no Patriarch was present at this, and all the Bishops were Suffragans of Constantinople; That the Small Number ought to be no prejudice, provided they act from a Pious Principle; and a great Number availeth nothing, if Ungodliness be at the bottom of their Proceed. That on the contrary, the greater the Number of the Wicked is, the more easily they may compass their wicked Designs. The Emperor had Writ, That he desired Legates only upon the account of Images. And the Pope makes him this Return, That he made it only his Pretence, and that his Aim was to make use of them against Ignatius. But he declines an Answer to what the Emperor had Alleged against the Privileges of Rome, and contents himself to say, That they are Divine and Perpetual; That they may be Assaulted, but not Overthrown; That they were not granted by Councils, but owned and respected. The Emperor had demanded of him Theognostus, and some other Monks of Ignatius' his Party, who had taken Sanctuary at Rome. But the Pope refused to deliver them up. He affirms and proves, by the Example of S. Athanasius, and the Testimony of Pope Julius, that he had a Power to Cite both Photius and Ignatius to Rome, and to be Judge of their Difference. Yet he is willing, if they cannot come in Person, to receive their Deputies. He wishes that Photius should send him, on his part, the Bishop of Syracuse, with others left to his Choice; and names the Deputies that shall appear in behalf of Ignatius. He consents that the Emperor shall send thither Officers from him, and says, The Business shall be Judged at Rome by his Council.  
In another Letter Written to the same Emperor, Nou. 13. 866. and sent him by Legates, he exhorts him to yield to his Reasons. He gives him an account, how Zachary and Radoaldus were Deposed, for having exceeded their Power, in Condemning Ignatius. He complains, That the first Letter he had Written had been Counterfeited, and makes it appear, that the Council held against Ignatius had not proceeded in a Legal Manner; and that he should have been Reinstated before his Cause was Judged. He requires from the Emperor, that he would cause that Injurious Letter he had sent him, to be Burnt, and threatens with Excommunication the Inditers of it.  
At the same time he sent to the Clergy of Constantinople an Account in Writing of what had passed 
Other Letters of Pope Nicholas upon the Affair of Ignatius.  at Rome about the Concern of Photius and Ignatius; Photius in particular he charges with several Things, in a Letter directed to him. In another to Prince Bardas' he expresses the Dissatisfaction he lies under, to see those Hopes frustrated which he had entertained of him; and advises him to Recollect himself, and to protect Ignatius. Whom he informs on the other side of what he had done for him; and comforts him in his Condition. Theodora the Empress he praises in another Letter, exhorting her to Patience, and assuring her that he would do his utmost to restore Ignatius. He entreats Eudoxia to protect him, and desires the same of the Senators of Constantinople. Thus you have the substance of the Sixteen first Letters of Pope Nicholas, collected by himself, and sent into all Parts, to inform the whole World of this Affair, and of his Conduct in it.  
But whilst Pope Nicholas laboured hard to Reinstate Ignatius in his See, Photius and Bardas' were 
Ill Treatments made to Ignatius.  no less active and industrious to bring him to a fatal end. Photius suborned a Man, and caused him to be Intercepted with two Counterfeit Letters; one to the Pope, subscribed by Ignatius, and the other under the Pope's Name to Photius. Whence he took occasion to Impeach Ignatius for keeping Correspondence in the West, and Writing thither against the Emperor. Whereupon Ignatius was Apprehended, who remained in Custody, till the Letter-bearer was manifestly proved to be an Ill Man, and an Impostor. After this he had some Respite; till Bardas', frighted by a Dream, in which he saw the Patriarch imploring the Pope's Assistance against him, kept him under so strict a Guard, that he could not so much as say Mass, or speak to any Man. At last Bardas' was slain, in April, Anno 866. by the Emperor's Order, who set up Basilius Caesar in his place the 26th following, being Whitsunday.  
Photius, resolved to be revenged of the Pope, exasperated as much as in him lay, the Emperor 
The Council of Photius against the Pope.  against him, and persuaded him to call a Council, in order to Condemn the Pope, as the Pope had Condemned him. He Summoned to Constantinople all the Bishops of his Patriarchate, and set up others, who pretended themselves to be sent as Deputies from the other Patriarches. Pope Nicholas was Accused before this Council, his Deposition pronounced, and his Person Excommunicated. This done, Photius solicited the Emperor Lewis King of Italy, and the Princess Ingelberg, to declare themselves against the Pope, promising to procure him the Imperial Crown of the East, should they but Expel that Pope from his See. The Acts of this Council he sent into the West by Zachary. But, soon after this, Michael the Emperor was slain by Basilius his Order, who thereupon was Declared Emperor, Sept. 23d, 867.  
The first Thing Basilius did, after he had settled himself upon the Throne, was the Explusion of 
Ignatius Reinstated.  Photius, and Restauration of Ignatius. He sent Orders for Zachary to Return, banished Photius into a Monastery, sent for Ignatius to Constantinople, and Reinstated him in his See, Novemb. 23d, in the same Year.  
This is Observable in the Life of this Patriarch, that he came now into his Church, whilst the Priest Offering the Sacrifice, was Singing these Words in the Choir, Giving Thanks unto the Lord. Ignatius being in Possession of his See, Excommunicated presently Photius, those that had been Ordained by him, all his Followers, and such as held Communion with him. He likewise begged of the Emperor, that he would Summon a General Council, to remedy those Evils the Church did lie under. And several Deputies were immediately dispatched to the Pope at Rome; John, Bishop of Pergos, from Ignatius; Peter of Sardis from Photius; and an Officer, Named Basilius, from the Emperor. Peter of Sardis perished by a Shipwreck, in the Gulf of Dalmatia; the other two had better luck, and came safe to Rome. Where they found Pope Nicholas dead, and Adrian raised into his Place, who received them very graciously. They shown him the Acts of the Councils held by Photius against Ignatius, and Pope Nicholas I Adrian called a Synod, which Condemned them to be Burnt, and Excommunicated Photius a second time. Next he presented to them two Bishops, by Name Donatus and Stephen, for his Legates, to Act in his Name in the Council to be held at Constantinople.  
This Council was Summoned by Basilius the Emperor in the Third year of his Reign, and the Second of that of Constantine Ind. 3. Anno 869. of the Common Account. They met in the 
The Council of Constantinople, being the VIII. General Council.  Church of S. Sophia, on the right side, where the Catechumeni were commonly instructed. In the midst of the Assembly were placed the Holy Gospels, with a Cross. It began the Fifth of October, and ended the last day of February following. During which time they had Ten distinct Sessions. As to the Number of Bishops assisting thereat, it varied very much. At first it consisted only of the Pope's Legates, viz. Donatus Bishop of Ostia, Stephen Bishop of Nepi, and Marinus a Deacon, Thomas Archbishop of Tyre representing the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople. With them did 12 Bishops sit, by their Order, who had firmly adhered to Ignatius his Cause and Interest. In the Second Session they admitted Ten Bishops, who begged Pardon for having sided with Photius. The Third consisted only of 23 Bishops, and the Fourth of 21. In the Fifth there was Two Metropolitans, to wit, of Ephesus and Cyzicus, who had not been in the former; but on the other side some of the Bishops that had been in the former, did not appear in this. The Sixth consisted of Thirty seven Bishops, their Number increasing as the Bishops that had stood for Photius came in and subscribed a Writing, whereby they rejected him, and owned Ignatius. The next Two were not more numerous. But the Ninth, at which Joseph was present, as Deputy from the Patriarch of Alexandria, was composed of above 60 Bishops; and the last of above 100L, who all subscribed to the Decisions of the Council. At all their Sittings there were Senators, noblemans, and Officers of the Emperor, with Bahanes at the head of them, who spoke to the Bishops in the Name of all. The Emperor was there in Person at the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Sessions. Constantine came thither with him at the Ninth, at which were present also Anastasius the Library-Keeper, and Eberard, as Ambassadors from Lewis Emperor of Italy, besides Two Ambassadors from the King of Bulgaria. Almost all the Bishops were of Asia, Thracia and Greece.  
The first time they sat was October the 5th. The Pope's Legates, Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople, a Deputy from the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Thomas, Metropolitan of Tyre representing the Patriarch of Antioch, that See being then Vacant; and the Noblemen being met, they sent for the Bishops in, who had been persecuted for the Cause of Ignatius, being 12 in Number, viz. Five Metropolitans of Greece, and Seven Bishops, who accordingly took their places in the Council Then Bahanes, the Chief of the Noblemen, Read aloud the Emperor's Exhortation to the Council; wherein he declared, That having purposed to put an end to the Differences that troubled the Peace of the Church, he had sent for Legates from the Bishop of Rome, and Deputies from the other Patriarches, to hold an Ecumenical Council; that he exhorted the Bishops to come with a Spirit of Peace, and to seek out Remedies for the present Evils. Whereupon Bahanes, turning to the Pope's Legates, desired them, in the Bishop's Name, to declare unto them whence they came, and what Power they had. They answered, That it was never done before in any Synod, to examine the Power of the Pope's Legates. To which Bahanes replied, That what he did was not for want of Respect to the Holy Apostolic See; but because the late Legates Radoaldus and Zachary had deceived them, by abusing their Power. This Reason being allowed of, they presented the Pope's Letter to the Emperor; which was Read in Latin by Marinus the Deacon, one of the Legates, and turned into Greek by Damian a Clergyman, the Emperor's Interpreter. In this Letter Adrian, having Congratulated Basilius, concerning his Elevation to the Imperial Throne, Commends his Design of restoring Peace to the Church, and his Application to the Holy See to find out a Remedy for the Evils the Church of Constantinople did lie under: He approves of what he had done in the behalf of Ignatius, and against Photius; and returns him his Thanks for his proceeding in that Matter, according to the Judgement of the Holy See, and the Modern Bishops. As to those Bishops, and other Persons, that had Troubled the Peace of the Church, and continued to hold Communion with Photius, after his Condemnation, he says, They ought to be differently used according to the difference of their Faults, which he leaves to the Judgement of his Legates and Ignatius. And, whereas the Emperor had desired, they should not be proceeded against to the utmost rigour; He tells the Emperor, That he is very much concerned at it, because not only by the Judgement of Nicholas his Predecessor, which he has Subscribed to, but also by the Laws of the Church, they ought to be most severely Punished, without any hopes of their Restauration. However, for Peace-sake, and to save a great many Men, his Opinion was, That Moderation might be used, and some favour may be showed them, as has been practised on the like occasions by the Popes his Predecessors, of which he gives some particular Instances. That therefore he desires the Meeting of a Council, wherein his Legates shall preside; who, upon their knowledge of the Persons and their Faults, may be competent Judges thereof. That a Declaration of Abhorrency shall be made against the Council held against the Holy See, and all the Acts thereof shall be Burnt.  
He likewise exhorts the Emperor to make all the Bishops subscribe to the Decrees made in the Synod of Rome against Photius, and for Ignatius. In conclusion, he prays him to send him back four Monks, fled from Italy into Constantinople; and recommends unto him his Legates, together with John Bishop of Silea, Ignatius his Deputy, and Basilius his Envoy. He prays him to excuse their long Tarrying, as being none of their Fault; for he could not possibly dispatch them sooner, having upon him the Care of so many Churches.  
This Letter being Read, the Deputies of the other Patriarches were likewise desired to read their Letters, that Information might be had both of their Qualities and Power. Elias, Deputy of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, said, They could not be ignorant who they were, and that they might know it by the Emperor's Exhortation; However, to satisfy the Desire of the Assembly, he declared, That Thomas Bishop of Tyre represented the Patriarch of Antioch, during the Vacancy of that See, being the first Metropolitan of that Patriarchate, and consequently had no occasion to bring Recommendatory Letters; and that he spoke for him, because he could not speak Greek without some difficulty. As for himself, that he had a Letter from Theodosius his Patriarch to Ignatius, which had been already read, and might be read again. The Contents of which Letter were, That he durst not before Write unto him, or send any body to him, for fear of incurring the Suspicion and Persecution of the Prince of the Saracens, whom Jerusalem was then subject to, and who treated the Christians with a great deal of Humanity, suffering them to Build Churches, and to have a Free Exercise of their Religion, without any Violence or Hardship put upon them; but, that having received his Orders to Write to him, he sends him Elias to Represent his Person, a Man of Eminent Parts, able to give a sound Judgement of Things under debate; that the Prince of the Saracens appointed Thomas Bishop of Tyre to bear him Company; and that he desires him to obtain from the Emperor the Liberty of some Saracens who were his Prisoners, whereby the Saracens Anger might be appeased, who otherwise threatened the Christians.  
Then was Read the Paper sent by the Pope to be Subscribed by all the Bishops, containing an Excommunication of all Heretics, particularly of Photius, and all the Opposers of Image-worship, with a general Approbation of all the Proceed against Photius, and Gregory Bishop of Syracuse, by the Pope's Nicholas and Adrian, a Condemnation of all that had been done by Photius against the Holy See; and lastly, an Acknowledgement of Ignatius as the Lawful Patriarch. This Form was approved of by all the Bishops, and the Deputies from the East. Thomas and Elias said, They agreed to it, and desired to hear it Read. The like Form was drawn up at Constantinople, before the Legates came thither, and contained Six Articles. In the first, they acknowledge Ignatius as the Lawful Patriarch. In the second they declare, That all the Bishops who had stood by Ignatius, and therefore Deposed by Photius, aught to be restored to their respective Sees. In the third, they give it, as their Opinion, That all Priests, or other Clerks Ordained by Methodius, or Photius, who joined with Photius, and are returned into the Church since his Expulsion, may be admitted and restored, after they have performed such Penances as shall be laid upon them. In the fourth, they declare Photius Degraded from his Sacerdotal Office, and incapable of Restauration, and do farther Anathematise him, in case he do not submit to the Pope's and their Judgement. In the fifth, they declare Gregory, Bishop of Syracuse, Condemned and Deposed, and all that have been Ordained by Photius unworthy of the Sacerdotal Office. In the last, They recommend the Execution of these Things, declaring they have, in all Points, conformed themselves to the Judgement of Pope Nicholas, and Excommunicating all Persons that do not submit to His and their Judgement. Which Articles were approved of by the Pope's Legates, and the whole assembly in General. Whereupon the Pope's Legates, and the Deputies from the Patriarches of the East, being Asked by the Commissioners, Why they had Condemned Photius in his absence; They gave their Reasons why they refused either to see or hear him, together with the Reasons which had induced them to own Ignatius, whom all the Patriarchal Churches had acknowledged to be the Right Patriarch. This done, the Session concluded with Acclamations for the Emperor, the Empress, and the Patriarches.  
In the Second Session, the Pope's Legates, Thomas of Tyre, Elias the Deputy from Jerusalem, and the Twelve Bishops that had firmly adhered to Ignatius, being met with the Emperor's Commissioners, Paul, the Keeper of the Records of the Church of Constantinople, said, That the Bishops that had stood for Photius Prayed to be Admitted. Which being granted, they declared, That they had been Ordained by Methodius, or by Ignatius; acknowledged their Error in siding with Photius, Begged Pardon for the same, and presented a Petition, the substance whereof is as followeth. That having been drawn in by the Artifices of Photius, or prevailed upon by the fear of Persecution, and the Punishments he had threatened them with, and inflicted upon Ignatius his Friends, they had been forced to own and support him; that they Acknowledged their Fault, and begged pardon for it; protesting, They should never adhere to Photius, or any of his party, as long as they should continue in their Obstinacy. This Petition of theirs being presented, the Pope's Legates declared, That they received them. The Form was read unto them; who, having approved of, and subscribed unto it, their Petition being laid upon the Gospel and the Cross, they presented it to Ignatius the Patriarch, who restored unto them their Pontifical Habit, and then they took their places in the Council. Though the number of the Bishops be not expressly mentioned, yet Ten of them are named in this Session.  
The Priests Ordained by Methodius and Ignatius, who had sided with Photius, were likewise admitted; who, having presented a Petition to the same purpose as the former, and subscribed to the Form, were also restored. The same was done with the Deacons, Subdeacons, and other Clerks, these Penances being inflicted upon them all. That they that eat Flesh, should forbear it, together with Eggs and Cheese; and they that eat no Flesh, should abstain from Eggs, Cheese, and Fish, on Wednesdays and Fridays, and eat nothing but Pulse with Oil, and a little Wine; to fall upon their knees Fifty times a day; to say a Hundred times Kyrie eleeson, My God, I have sinned, forgive my sin, O Lord; to repeat the Sixth, Thirty sixth, and Fiftieth Psalms, until Christmas-day; and to forbear, till that day, all Sacerdotal Function. Thus ended this Session, with the usual Acclamations.  
In the Third Session, which was held on the 11th of October, the Pope's Legates, the Deputies from the East, the Commissioners, and 23 Bishops being met together, the Archbishops of Ancyra and Nice, who had been Ordained by Ignatius and Methodius, and had favoured Photius, were Summoned to subscribe unto the Form, in order to be Restored. But they declared, That having sufficiently suffered for having formerly Subscribed, whether to good or ill purpose, they were resolved to Subscribe only to the Profession of Faith they had Subscribed unto when they were Ordained, and prayed the Council to be satisfied with their Resolution. After this, the Emperor's Letter to Pope Nicholas was read, wherein he signified unto him the Deposing of Photius, and entreated him to let him know, how he should deal with those who had espoused his Quarrel, or had been Ordained by him, expressing his desire, That they should be pardoned who came in first to Acknowledge their Fault. He gave him notice withal, that he sent Deputies from Ignatius and Photius, with Basilius one of his Gentlemen-Ushers, that he may order Things in their Presence as he shall think most expedient, or send them back with Commissioners from him, that he may know his clear Intention.  
This Letter was followed by another from Ignatius to the same Pope; In which, having Extolled the Holy Apostolic See, and commended the Emperor's Zeal, he says, That he sends him a Metropolitan and a Bishop, to express his Thankful Acknowledgement, to give him a faithful Account of all Passages, and know of him what Measures he must take in the present Juncture, concerning the Bishops of Photius his Faction; Whom he divides into two Classes, viz. those Ordained by himself, and those Ordained by Photius. He puts amongst these Paul Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, who opposed him at first, but afterwards returned to his Duty. With this Letter was Read Pope Adrian's Answer, in which this Pope having promised Ignatius the Patriarch, that his Affection for him shall not fall short of his Predecessor's, and praised God for his Restauration; he gives him, for a Standard, the Decree given by Pope Nicholas against Photius and Gregory; and, confirming the same, declares them Degraded of all Sacerdotal Offices, and not to be regarded as Bishops, no more than Gregory and Photius, who took upon him a Power he had not; Gregorium Syracusanum & Photium Tyrannum, & eos quos idem Photius in Gradu quolibet Ordinasse putatus est, ab Episcoporum numero, vel Dignitate, quam usurpative ac ficte dedit, merito sequestrantes. To prove Photius his Ordinations to be void, he gives these following Reasons. First, Because Photius was like Maximus, and his Ordination, or rather Intrusion, in all points like unto his. Secondly, Because Pope Nicholas his Predecessor had so Decreed it. Thirdly, Because Photius being a Great Man, a Courtier, a Novice, an Intruder, an Adulterer, Excommunicated, having no lawful Power, could not consequently confer it upon his Followers. A Maxim which he afterwards confirms, as owned by Photius, and those of his Party. He therefore requires that the same Rigour be used, with relation to those who had been Ordained by Photius, and even to Paul himself, who was recommended unto him by Ignatius, who (says he) must expect an everlasting Reward for the Persecution he had suffered, besides the Temporal Rewards of the Church, and the Honour he has acquired by his Sufferings. As to those who had been Ordained by Methodius, or Ignatius, he commends the Zeal of those who had withstood Photius, and suffered constantly for the Cause of Ignatius; but, for the rest, who submitted to Photius, either of their own accord, or by force, he declares, That, provided they come in, and Sign the Form he sends by his Legates, they ought to be Pardoned, and left in possession of their Church-Dignities, notwithstanding their Opposition against the Patriarchal Dignity, and the Holy Catholic See. Yet he declares withal, That those who assisted at the Illegal Council held at Constantinople against the Holy See, should be incapable of Pardon, were not the Compassion of the Holy See invaded by them as great as their Demerit. He exhorts Ignatius to see the Articles drawn up at Rome against Photius and his Council Subscribed unto. Lastly, He commends John of Silea his Charity and Zeal for Ignatius. This Letter being read, was highly Commended by all the Bishops, and so this Session ended with the usual Acclamations.  
The Fourth Session was held Octob. 13th. In which two Bishops were Accused, Theophilus and Zachary by Name, who were both Ordained by Methodius, and continued obstinate in Photius his Party. These Bishops being called into the Council, required that the other Bishops that stood it out for Photius should also be called in. There was some time a Debate upon the matter, whether or no they should be admitted. But the Pope's Legates did at last consent, That Three of them should be called in in the Name of the rest, to hear the Sentence passed against them. When they were to be called in, they had all withdrawn themselves, except Theophilus and Zachary. Who being come before the Council, maintained, That Pope Nicholas had Communicated with them. The Legates convinced them of Falsehood, by Nicholas his Letters against Photius, which they caused to be read. Thomas and Elias made it appear likewise, That they had never owned Photius for a Patriarch. Which appearing undeniable, Theophilus and Zachary were pressed upon to Subscribe to the Form against Photius. But they would not so much as hear of it, and so were turned out of the Council. This is the Sum of what passed in this Session.  
In the Fifth, held Octob. 20th, Paul, the Emperor's Charter-Keeper, had ordered Photius to be brought before the Council. Some Laymen being sent to know of him, Whether he was willing to appear? He answered, That he came not willingly, but was carried by force. The Bishops however ordered, That he should come in. He protested against it, refused to Answer the Questions made unto him, and would, by no means, acknowledge his Fault. Pope Nicholas his Letters, containing the Sentence passed against him, were Read, and the Deputy of the Church of Jerusalem protested again, That the Patriarches of the East had never owned him, exhorting him to do Penance. This done, the Pope's Legates declared him Excommunicated; and the Council did approve of it. He was exhorted to do Penance, and to acknowledge his Fault, there being no Refuge left for him, now that Rome and the East had declared against him. To which he Answered, That his Plea was not of this World. He was again warned to think seriously of his Case, and had time given him for it.  
The Emperor himself was present at the Sixth Session, which was held Octob. 25th. Metrophanes, Metropolitan of Syria, made him a Compliment. After which a Memoir of the Pope's Legates was Read, containing the substance of what had passed against Photius. Then were called in the Bishops Ordained by Photius, and Pope Nicholas his Letter to Michael the Emperor was Read. Upon which the Council told them, That they ought to forsake Photius, and submit to their Judgement, who had declared his Ordinations void. They endeavoured to defend Photius his Ordination, and their own, against the Decree of Pope Nicholas, by some Instances of Bishops Condemned or Rejected by the Popes, who, notwithstanding, were owned to be lawful. To which the Emperor himself gave this Answer; That those Bishops had been owned and defended by other Patriarchal Sees, whereas Photius was forsaken by all; that he pitied their Case, and exhorted them to submit themselves to the Mercy of the Council. The Pope's Legates told them, That if they would subscribe to the Form, and do Penance, they should be received into the Church-Communion; and, at the same time, Answered to the Instances by them alleged, to show, that the Pope's Decisions concerning Condemned Persons, had not been always followed. After this, the Emperor caused a long Exhortation to be Read, directed to those who were of Photius his Faction, whereby they were exhorted to submit themselves, and had Seven days time to consider of it.  
The Seventh Session was held Octob. 29th, in the Presence of the Emperor, The Time allowed to Photius, to consider what he would do, being elapsed, he was called in, with Gregory Bishop of Syracuse. Marinus the Deacon, one of the Legates, caused his Crosier to be taken away from him; and the rest of them advised him to subscribe unto the Form, that he might be received as a Layman, into the Church-Communion. In stead of returning them an Answer, he directed his Speech to the Emperor, wished him a long Life, and declared he had no Answer to give to the Legates. Being asked by Bahanes, Whether he had any thing else to say? he answered, That Question might have been spared, had they but minded what he had told them a few days since, and that he exhorted them to do Penance themselves. The Council was Incensed at this Answer of Photius; whereupon the Bishops Ordained by him, or who adhered still to him, were immediately called in, and the Form brought from Rome offered unto them to set their hands to it. But all the Arguments which the Bishops and the Emperor himself did make, to induce them to it, proved insignificant. Pope Nicholas his Letter to the Bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Clergy of that City, containing the Sentence passed against Photius and his Adherers, was Read unto them; together with Adrian's Letters to the Emperor, to Ignatius the Patriarch, and the Acts of the Synod held at Rome, under that Pope against Photius, in the presence of the Deputies sent from Constantinople. Which Acts begin with three Discourses of the Pope to the Council; the first containing a Compendious History of the Intrusion and Attempts of Photius. In the second, the Pope requires the Condemnation of the Acts of the pretended Council of Photius against the Holy See. And the third contains a Complaint of his Presumption, in passing a Judgement against the Pope, whom he pretends to be liable to the Judgement of no Man, which he proves by the Instance of Symmachus: And, in answer to the Example of Honorius, who was Anathematised by the Eastern Bishops after his Death; he says, That he was Accused of Heresy; for which cause only 'tis lawful for Inferiors to resist their Superiors, and forsake their Errors; and that neither the Patriarches, or Bishops, could have set up for his Judges, if the then Bishop of Rome, as first Bishop, had not himself consented to it. To which he adds, That the Council of Ephesus had Censured and Condemned John of Antioch, for his attempting to pass Judgement against S. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria, whose See precedes that of Antioch. Which Maxim was approved of, and confirmed by this Council, praying the Pope to Pardon those who should acknowledge their Fault, and return to their Duty, and to regulate that Matter in the presence of the Deputies sent from Constantinople. Upon which the Pope declared, That all the Acts of the Council held by Photius against the Authority of the Holy See, aught to be utterly destroyed, and thrown into the fire; That all the Assemblies he held against Ignatius, ought likewise to be had in detestation; That he reiterates and confirms the Sentence passed against him by his Predecessor, yet willing to admit him, as a Layman, into the Church-Communion, if he will but consent to all the proceed of the Holy See against him, and condemn his own against his Predecessor; That he grants Communion to all such as have given their Consent or Approbation to that Council, provided they approve of what was done by the Holy See. And, whereas the Name of Basilius the Emperor is put into the Acts, he declares, That it was falsely put in, being assured, that Prince had always had a great Respect for the Holy See; For which reason he declares him a most Orthodox and Religious Prince. Lastly, That he Excommunicates all Persons that shall in time to come adhere to, or approve of the Acts of that Council, and that shall not approve of the Decrees of the Holy See. Which Judgement was Signed by more than Thirty Bishops of Italy. Nine Cardinal-Priests, the Archdeacon of Rome, and Four Deacons.  
These Acts of the Roman Synod being Read over in the Council of Constantinople, Nicetas said, That, seeing Photius refused to submit, he thought it fit that the Excommunication pronounced against him should be Reiterated. Ignatius the Patriarch having made a Speech thereupon to the Council, Stephen, Deacon and Notary, pronounced several times the Anathema against Photius, and made several Acclamations to the Prosperity of the Emperor, the Empress, the Pope, and the Patriarches Deputies.  
The Eighth Session was held upon the 8th day of November; the Acts of the Council of Photius against Pope Nicholas being first burnt by the Emperor's Order. There appeared Three Persons bearing such Names as Photius had given to the pretended Deputies from the Pope and the Patriarches. Who declared, That they had not subscribed to those Acts, and knew not what they were about. Being pressed to pronounce an Anathema against those that had subscribed thereunto, they did it. This done, one Theodorus Erithimius, an Iconoclast, being summoned to appear at the Council, was called in. The Emperor pressing him to own the Lawfulness of Image-worship, to convince him thereof, asked him, Whether he honoured his Image upon a Medal? He protested, That he had for it all the Respect and Veneration which he ought to have. If then, said the Emperor, you respect the Image of a Mortal Man, much more ought you to honour the Image of Christ, of the Virgin, and the Saints. Theodorus being puzzled with this Objection, desired Time, but he was pressed to declare. The Decree of Pope Nicholas, relating to Images, was read to him, yet he refused to yield. Three others, Iconoclasts, acknowledged their Error, and pronounced an Anathema against all such persons as should refuse to honour Images. Theodorus, and all other Iconoclasts, were Anathematised by the Council, which repeated again their Excommunication against Photius and Gregory. And so ended this Session, with the usual Acclamations.  
The Ninth Session was held Feb. 12th, in the year following. There was admitted a Deputy from the Patriarch of Alexandria, who brought a Credential Letter from him to the Emperor; in which he signified, that he could not give his Judgement in the Difference betwixt the two Patriarches of Constantinople, because by reason of his Remoteness he had no certain Information of it; that the Bishops, and other Clergymen, under that Patriarchate, were the more proper Judges; that there was formerly two Patriarches of Alexandria, when Narcissus having withdrawn himself into the Wilderness, another Patriarch was Ordained in his place; that Narcissus being returned, he Ruled some time with him, after whose Decease, Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, was chosen to Govern together with Narcissus the Church of Alexandria. After the reading of this Letter, this Deputy (named Joseph) was admitted as Vicar of the Patriarch of Alexandria; and was asked, Whether he was informed of what related to the Ordination of Ignatius, and the Deposition of Photius? His Answer was, That he was not only informed of the Matter, but had himself examined all passages relating to it, and approved of the same; and, to assure the Council of it, he tendered a Writing, which was read in full Council; whereby he formally declared his Opinion in the Thing. Next, the Witnesses were called in, who had appeared against Ignatius in the Synod held before Zachary and Radoaldus. One of them, called Theodorus, was examined first of all; who confessed, That he had been forced by an express Order of Michael the Emperor, to Swear falsely, and to Depose against the Ordination of Ignatius; that he had confessed his Fault to an Abbot, who had therefore imposed upon him a Penance, which he had performed. But, being asked, Whether the Party who had laid that Penance upon him was a Priest, or not? he answered, He knew nothing on't; but that he was an Abbot, and had great confidence in him. In short, he owned this Council to be Lawful. Another Witness, named Leo, did also aver, That he had Falsely Deposed against the Ordination of Ignatius. Being asked, Whether he had done Penance for his Fault? he answered, He had not; but, if any were laid upon him, he would submit to it: Declaring, That he owned this Council to be Lawful. But being asked, Whether he did Anathematise Photius, and all those against whom the Council had pronounced an Anathema: Who am I (says he) to pronounce an Anathema? This is only done, adds he, in case of Heresy, whereas Photius is Orthodox. Wherefore, says he, should I then Anathematise him? The Patriarches Legates answered, That his Actions were worse than Heresy itself. Upon which Leo did Anathematise him, and all those whom the Council had Anathematised, when he saw that it might be done for other causes than Heresy. Eleven Witnesses more were Examined, who all confessed, They had been compelled to bear False Witness against Ignatius. Some of them had done Penance for it, and those who had not, received it from the Council. As to the other False Witnesses then absent, they had a General Penance laid upon them, To be Two years out of the Church, two years with the Hearers without receiving the Communion, and to abstain from Flesh and Wine during these four years, except Sundays and holidays; to stand up Three years with the Faithful, performing three times a Week the like Abstinence; and were declared Excommunicated, unless they came to acknowledge their Faults, and submit to that Penance. 'Tis true, the Council left it to Ignatius the Patriarch, to moderate, as he should think fit, the Rigour of the Penance.  
After this another Business was brought in before the Council, relating to some Officers of Michael the Emperor, who had took upon them to wear the Sacerdotal Habit, and to perform the Office of a Priest; one named Theophilus, the Emperor's Master of the Horse, having laid the Gospels upon their heads, and said Prayers in derision of Ordination. Theophilus was dead; but three of those Officers were found guilty of this Sacrilege. Who being brought before the Council, the Patriarches Legates obliged them to confess their Crime, the Enormity whereof they exposed unto them; and they freely submitted to what Penance should be laid upon them. Lastly, The false Deputies of the Patriarches, whose Names Photius had put in the Acts of his Council, were examined before the Deputy of the Patriarch of Alexandria.  
In the Tenth Session, at which assisted both the Emperors; the last day of February, the Canons were read that were to be Authorized by this Council.  
The First confirms the Canons and Rules set down by the Apostles, by the general and particular Councils, and by the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church.  
The Second exacts a due Observation and Execution of what had been Decreed by the Pope's Nicholas and Adrian, upon pain of Deposition of Clerks, Delinquents, and Excommunication of Laymen.  
The Third requires the same Adoration to our Saviour's Image, as to the Book of the Gospels; because, as our Salvation is to be obtained by the words contained in that Holy Book; so in Images, we learn by the Features and Colours, what the Scripture Teaches by the Letters; and therefore they ought to be honoured according to ancient Tradition, with Worship relating to the Original; and as we honour the Gospel, and the Figure of the Cross, so ought we to honour the Virgin Mary's, and the Saints Images. This Canon ends with an Anathema against such as shall not do it.  
In the Fourth Canon, the Council condemns Photius, and declares, That he never was a Bishop; That those Ordained, or raised to any Church-Dignity by him, shall be degraded; that the Church's Consecrated by him, or those whom he had Ordained, shall be Consecrated anew; and that all the former Acts of his Sacerdotal Functions shall be null.  
By the Fifth, 'tis prohibited to ordain a Man, who leaves the World and turns Monk, in order to become a Bishop, or Patriarch, though he has continued some considerable time in each degree of the Orders. And as to those who left the Secular Life without any such Ambition, it is Ordained, that none shall be raised to that Dignity, till they have been Readers the space of one year, Subdeacons two years, Deacons three, and Priests four years. A Time not requisite to observe, in respect of those that have been, from the very first, Clerks or Monks.  
The Sixth pronounces an Anathema against Photius, for having Intruded False Deputies, and against all those who shall hereafter Impose thus upon the Public.  
By the Seventh, it is prohibited to suffer any Person, condemned by this Council, to Paint Images, or Teach in the Churches.  
The Eighth contains a Prohibition to the Patriarch of Constantinople, to exact Declaratory Subscriptions from Bishops, that they shall own him for their Patriarch.  
By the Ninth it is determined, That those who have thus Subscribed for Photius, are not bound to stand to it.  
By the Tenth it is prohibited to separate from the Patriarch's Communion, or to refuse to Name him in the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries, before he has been Condemned in a Council, how conspicuous soever be his Crimes. Which extends likewise to Bishops, in relation to their Metropolitans, as it does to these in relation to their Patriarch.  
The Eleventh pronounces an Anathema against such as hold, That Man has Two Souls.  
The Twelfth doth enjoin the Deposition of Bishops, that shall prove to have been chosen by the Intrigues or Violence of Princes.  
By the Thirteenth 'tis Ordered, That the Principal Dignities of the Church of Constantinople shall be conferred upon such Clerks of that Church, as have served in lesser Offices, and not to Strangers, or Persons having Secular Employments.  
The Fourteenth provides for the honour of Episcopacy, by enjoining the Bishops not to meet Great Men and Princes at a distance from their Churches, or to Light when they meet them, or to Prostrate themselves before them.  
The Fifteenth prohibits all Bishops, upon pain of being Deposed, to Sell, or Alienate what belongs to their Churches, and pronounces an Anathema against the Purchasers or Retainers thereof. If a Bishop erects a Monastery out of his Church-Revenues, he ought to leave it to the Church. But, if it be out of his own Revenues, he may dispose of it; provided nevertheless, that it shall not become a place of Habitation for Laymen.  
The Sixteenth is to prevent the Impiety of such as take upon them, in Derision, the Priestly Habit. Which Sacrilege is strictly forbidden by this Council, enjoining, That if any Emperor, or Prince, should attempt for the future to do any such Thing, he shall be therefore liable to a Penance, and Anathematised, if he refuse to submit to it; And if the Patriarch of Constantinople, or his Suffragan Bishops, should wink at it, they shall be Deposed; And that all those who shall prove to have been any ways Instrumental in such an Impiety, shall do Penance, and be excluded during the space of Three years, from the Communion of the Church, viz. one year in each degree of public Penance.  
The Seventeenth renewing the Sixth Canon of the Nicene Council, concerning the Rights and Prerogatives of the Patriarches, declares, That both at Rome, and in the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem, the Patriarches shall be Impowered to Summon to their Councils all the Metropolitans whom they Ordain, or Confirm, by giving them the Pallium, and likewise to Reprove and Correct them. That it shall be no lawful Excuse for the Metropolitans to allege, That their Princes will not give them leave to go out of their Dominions, or that they are bound to hold a Synod twice a year, because they ought to perform the Good of a Whole Diocese, that is, of several Provinces, procured by a Patriarchal Synod before that of one Province. That it is needless for Princes to be present at those Synods, because it does not appear, that they have assisted at any but General Councils. It is therefore ordered by this Council, That the Metropolitans which are Summoned by their Patriarch, and shall not appear Two Months after his Summons, shall be Excluded from Church-Communion, and Deposed, in case they continue a whole year in their Obstinacy.  
The Eighteenth doth pronounce an Anathema against all those that shall take away from any Church her Rights or Privileges, obtained by the Grant of Princes, or enjoyed during Thirty years.  
The Nineteenth prohibits all Metropolitans to remove from their own into other Dioceses, abusing their Authority, to consume the Revenues of the Churches of their Suffragan Bishops. Yet it enjoins, That Hospitality shall be used towards them, when they shall be obliged to go through any Diocese; but that they shall be provided only of such Things as shall be found there; that they shall proceed on their Way, without making any long stay, or exacting any thing, either from the Bishop, or Church. For, if all Bishops be bound to use their Revenues with Pars●…ny, and not spend them for their own use: How great is their Fault, who impoverish, o● burden the Churches of other Bishops?  
The Twentieth enjoins, That those who are in possession of Church-Lands, paying Rend for the same, shall not be turned out by force, and without a due Course of Law, for want of Payment, but shall be summoned; and, if in Three years' time they pay not what they own, application shall be made to the Judges, that by virtue of a Judgement, the Church may be put into possession of her Land.  
The One and twentieth declares, That all due Respect must be showed to Patriarches, and all Attempts to turn them out of their Sees are unlawful; That the Pope of Old Rome ought to be Honoured and Respected in the first place, and next to him the Patriarches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. That none ought to attempt to Write against the Pope, under pretence of some Crimes, which they falsely impute to him, as Photius, and, before him, Dioscorus, have done; that all those, who, in imitation of them, shall cast any Obloquy, by word of Mouth, or in Writing, against St. Peter's Holy See, the Prince of the Apostles, shall be Condemned, as those two Heretics are; and that if any Prince attempt to Depose him, he shall be Excommunicated. But if a General-Council being met, there happens any Difference with the Bishop of Rome, he ought to be conferred with about the Matter, and his Answers be had, to make the best of it on either side, and no rash Judgement to be passed against the Supreme Bishop.  
By the Two and twentieth it is ordered, That Princes and Great Men shall have no hand in the Election of Patriarches, Metropolitans, or Bishops, but shall receive him whom the Bishops have Chosen. Yet if any Layman be invited to join his Assistance in the Election, he may lawfully do it.  
The Three and twentieth charges the Bishops not to give away what belongs to other Churches; nor to Ordain those Men Priests or Clerks in Churches, that have no Dependency upon them, nor to perform their Functions in any other Diocese, without the leave of the Bishop of the Place.  
The Four and twentieth is against the Metropolitans, that send for their Suffragan Bishops to perform their Functions, while they are taken up with Secular Employs. The Patriarch is ordered to punish them; and, if they persist in their Delinquency, to Depose them.  
The Five and twentieth declares, That all Bishops and Priests, Deacons and Subdeacons, Ordained by Ignatius, or Methodius, who still adhere to Photius, shall be Deposed▪ and made Incapable for ever of all Sacerdotal Functions; but, if they Repent hereafter, they shall be received into the Church-Communion, but not restored to their Dignity.  
The Six and twentieth allows the Freedom to any Priest or Deacon, Deposed by his Bishop, to Appeal to his Metropolitan; who shall send for the Bishop, and Examine the Clerks Case in a Synod, in order to confirm or annul the Judgement given against him. It gives likewise to Bishops, Judged by their Metropolitans, the liberty of a Recourse to the Patriarcha, as the Judge of the Causes of the Metropolitans within his Patriarchate; and excludes both the Provincial Bishops and the Neighbouring Metropolitans, from taking any cognisance thereof.  
The Seven and twentieth, being the last of all, enjoins all Bishops to make use of their Pallium at proper Times and Places; and not to abuse it through pride or ambition, by wearing it at all Times, and using it in all their Functions; and that all such as have been Monks shall keep some Marks of their Profession.  
These Canons being read, the Legates proposed, That the Definition of the Council should be Read, which contained a Confession of Faith, or a Symbol of a pretty large extent; an Acknowledgement of the Seven first General Councils; the Condemnation of some Heretics therein condemned; the Condemnation of Photius, and the Approbation of what had been Enacted in this Council. This Definition being unanimously approved of by all the Bishops, the Emperor Asked, Whether any one amongst them had any thing to say against the Canons and Decrees of this Eighth General Council, because whoever should oppose them, after the breaking up of the Assembly, should be condemned to Banishment. At the same time he exhorted the Bishops to give wholesome Instructions to their Flocks, and all Clergymen to keep Peace amongst them, and not to departed from the Council's Decisions. The Laymen he charged to forbear Disputing about Church-Matters, the Cognizance whereof belongs to the Patriarches, Bishops, and Doctors of the Church. Which Exhortations were approved of by all the Bishops. Lastly, The Pope's Legates proposed, That the Acts of this Council should be Subscribed unto, and Invited the Emperors to do it in the first place. But Basilius answered, That he ought not to Subscribe, but after the Bishops, in Imitation of Constantine; yet, seeing they did him that Honour, he was willing to Sign next to the Deputies of the Patriarches. So Donatus Bishop of Ostia Signed first; next to him the other Deputies from Rome, than the Deputies of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople; and next to these the Emperors Basilius, Constantine, and Leo; and, lastly, all the Bishops, every one according to his Rank. Five several Copies were Subscribed unto. The Officers and Noblemen who had assisted at this Council, declared their Abhorrency of all the Actings of Photius against Pope Nicholas and Ignatius the Patriarch; and that they freely submitted to the Decisions of the Council. Which was accordingly Recorded by the Registers; and so the Council broke up, with the usual Acclamations.  
The Pope's Legates did not Subscribe, till after a Review made of all the Acts, by Anastasius the Library-Keeper, who was well-skilled in the Greek Tongue; Who, having observed, that the Commendations given in Pope Adrian's Letter, to the Emperor of the West, were razed out, they made a Scruple to Subscribe, and complained of it. The Greeks, unwilling to own the Emperor of the West, refused to have them Inserted; and, to palliate the Matter, alleged, That in a Council, God's Praise only, not the Commendations of Princes, aught to be mentioned. A Pretence not very taking from Persons that continually repeated their Acclamations in Honour of the Emperors. This Debate however obliged the Legates, fearful to do any Thing that might displease the Pope, to Subscribe, with this Restriction, that they gave their Consent to the Acts of this Council.  
The Council afterwards caused Circular Letters to be drawn, to Acquaint the whole World with the Condemnation of Photius, and the Restauration of Ignatius. One was particularly directed to Pope Adrian, full of Thanks and Approbation of the whole Proceed of the Holy See in this Matter. The Emperor's Writ likewise Two Letters about this Council; one to the Patriarches, to let them know the Success of their Meeting; and the other to the Pope, full of Thanks and Commendations.  
Ignatius the Patriarch Writ in particular a Letter to Pope Adrian, wherein he prays him to Consent, That the Readers Ordained by Photius might be admitted into Holy Orders, and desired favour for Paul, the Keeper of the Records of the Church of Constantinople, and for Theodorus Metropolitan of Caria.  
The Council being ended, some Bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople went to wait on 
Contestations upon Bulgaria.  the Emperor, and complained, The Church of Constantinople was made too much subject to the Church of Rome; adding, That the Uncertainty that was observed in the Legates Subscriptions, might give occasion to alter what was passed, and that they could not recover their Liberty, if they did not recover the Forms they were fain to subscribe unto. Whereupon those Forms were taken out of the hands of those to whom the Legates had committed the care of them; and they found it exceeding difficult to recover them, though they made use of the Interest of the Ambassadors of the Western Empire, who pressed it so hard upon the Emperor, that he found himself obliged to get them returned into their hands. Three days after this, the Emperor sent for the Pope's Legates into a place where Ignatius the Patriarch, and the Deputies of the other Patriarches were met together. An Envoy of Bulgaria, Peter by Name, was called in; who acquainted the Assembly, That the Prince of Bulgaria was very joyful to learn, that they had met in Council for the good of the Church; and, that he Thanked the Legates of the Holy See of Rome for having Writ to him in their Way hither. After these Compliments, he asked the Patriarches Vicars, in the Name of the Bulgarians, What Church they must be subject to? To which the Pope's Legates answered immediately, That the Bulgarians had been first Instructed in the Christian Faith by the Church of Rome, which had sent unto them Bishops, and Priests, according to their desire. The Envoy owned, That it was true, the Bulgarians had first applied themselves to the Church of Rome, which they had owned hitherto; but that this was the Time to decide with the Patriarches Legates, to which of the Two Churches it was most reasonable they should submit themselves, the Church of Rome, or that of Constantinople. The Pope's Legates answered, They had made an end of those Things they were sent for; and that they could not regulate any Thing farther, or consent to any Regulation prejudicial to the Church of Rome, concerning such Matters as they had no power to Treat of: But, the whole Country of Bulgaria being full of Latin-Priests, their Opinion was, That they ought to submit themselves to no Church but that of Rome.  
The Deputies of the Patriarches of the East asked the Bulgarians, Whose Country Bulgaria was, when Conquered by them? Whether they had, at that time, Greek or Latin Priests? To which they answered, That they Conquered it from the Greeks, amongst whom they found Greek Bishops. Whence the Patriarches Deputies inferred, That those Bishops were Ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople. But it was replied by the Pope's Legates, That, though they were Greeks, it did not follow, that they were Ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople; that the Difference between I ay-men did not make any confusion in the Ecclesiastical Order; and that the Latin Church had Greeks in several places who were subject to her. The Deputies of the Patriarches retorted, They could not deny but that Bulgaria was a Member of the Greek Empire, which the Legates granted; but affirmed withal, That the Division of the Church does not agree therein with that of the Empire. Being asked, Upon what they grounded the Right of the Church of Rome, They answered, First, That it was plain by the Decretals of the Bishops of Rome, that the Two Epyrus', Thessaly and Dardania, to which the Bulgarians gave the Name of Bulgaria, had formerly belonged to the Church of Rome. Secondly, That the Bulgarians had voluntarily submitted themselves to the Holy See. Thirdly, That the Holy See had sent unto them Latin Priests and Bishops, and that they had yet actually a Latin Bishop. That the Right of the Church of Rome being so well grounded, and her Possession so long, she ought not to be deprived of it. The Deputies of the Patriarches asked them, Upon which of those Pretences they grounded themselves. To which they answered, They did not own them for Judges, who were under the Holy See, and that they had no power to Treat of this Matter. Notwithstanding which Protestation, the Deputies of the Patriarches made this Decision; That it was unreasonable for the Romans, who disowned the Greek Empire, and were Confederated with the French, to pretend to a Right of Ordination in their Emperor's Dominions; and therefore their Judgement was, That that part of Bulgaria which formerly belonged to the Empire, and had received Greek Priests and Bishops, should be restored to the Church of Constantinople. The Pope's Legates on the other side declared, That they made void that pretended Judgement given by the Deputies of the East, and Conjured Ignatius the Patriarch to forbear sending Priests or Bishops into Bulgaria; and presented to him, at the same time, a Letter from Pope Adrian upon that Subject. Which being read by Ignatius, not without some reluctancy, he answered in general terms, That he would not engage himself in that Affair.  
The Emperor, although he was provoked by the Opposition of the Pope's Legates, concealed, for some time, his Resentment. Having treated them sumptuously, he dismissed them with Rich 
The Pope's Legates taken by the Sclavonians.  Presents; but took no care to provide for their Safety, and sent them away without a Convoy. So that they were intercepted by the Sclavonians, who seized upon all they had, and (amongst other Things) of the Authentic Acts of the Council. In short, they were very ill treated, and kept some time in Captivity: But, being at last released, upon pressing Letters from the Pope, and the Western Emperor, they returned to Rome at the latter end of the year. They gave the Pope an account of their Voyage, and delivered unto him Ignatius his Letter, and some Writings they had recovered from the Bulgarians, with those they had put into the hands of Sippo, Minister of State, and Anastasius the Library-keeper, which fell not into the same danger, but preserved, and brought the Acts of the Council entire to Rome.  
Pope Adrian was very well pleased with the Transactions of the late Council, but no less dissatisfied 
Pope Adrian's Letter.  with what had passed since, as he expressed it in the Letter he Writ to the Emperor, dated Nou. 10. 871. In which, having praised their Piety and Zeal, he makes great complaints of their neglect of his Legates, as to their safety, being left, without a Convoy, to the Mercy of Barbarians, by whom they were stripped, made Captives, and very ill used. But that which touches him most to the quick, is the business of Bulgaria, complaining of the Attempt made to extort it from the Jurisdiction of the Holy See, and that Ignatius has had the confidence to Ordain a Bishop, in order to send him thither. To which he adds, That, if they continue in that Resolution, he must vindicate his Right, and make void the Ordination of all such as shall perform any Episcopal or Ecclesiastic Functions in that Country by the Mission of the Bishop of Constantinople. As to Ignatius his Requests to him, he declares, That he cannot alter any thing in that Matter, nor derogate from the Ordinances of his Predecessors, or the Council; for, it was not the practice of the Popes to abuse (according to their Fancy) the Decrees of their Fathers, as did some Greeks, who used the Pope's Decrees as long as they favoured their Designs, but laid them aside, when they found them contrary.  
This however hindered not the Greeks from taking possession of Bulgaria, and turning out of it 
New Troubles upon the account of Bulgaria.  the Latin Priests and Bishops. But the Popes did not lose all hopes to recover it. In order to which, John VIII. next Successor to Adrian, sent in the year 878. Two Legates to Constantinople. viz. Peter and Eugenius; the first, Bishop of Ancona, this of Ostia. The pretence was, To bring the Church of Constantinople into a peaceable temper, than still divided by the Faction of Photius. But he charged them to go to the Prince of Bulgaria, and Writ, at the same time, a very positive Letter to Ignatius the Patriarch, the substance of which was, That he now warned him the Third time to yield up Bulgaria to the Holy See of Rome, and Thirty days after the Receipt of this Letter, to call from thence all Bishops, Priests, and other ecclesiastics by him Ordained. If not, he would Exclude him from the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, as long as he persisted to keep that Country under his Jurisdiction; and, if he continued in his Obstinacy, he would declare him Deprived and Fallen from the Patriarchal Dignity, wherein he had been kept by the Favour of the Holy See. At the same time the Pope Writ Two Letters to Michael King of the Bulgarians, Exhorting him to submit to the Church of Rome; and required of Count Peter, that he would use his utmost endeavours to persuade that Prince to it. Lastly, He commanded all Greek Priests, and Bishops, then in Bulgaria, to withdraw themselves within the space of Thirty days, declaring them Deprived of their Functions, if they refused to do it within that Time.  
Photius, relying upon this Division between the Pope and Ignatius, attempted his Restauration; 
Photius returns into Constantinople, and is restored,  and, having by his Artifices procured the Emperor's Favour, with the Assistance of Theodorus Santarabenus, he returned to Constantinople, Ignatius yet living. 'Tis said, This Patriarch offered him to Write in his behalf to all the Bishops under his Patriarchate, and procure, that he should have his Absolution, provided, he would forbear all Sacerdotal Functions; but Photius refused it, being resolved to attempt his Restauration to the Patriarchal Dignity. Thus, in stead of Reconciling himself with Ignatius, he Declared against him, and Ordained in Magnaurus his Palace, Ignatius yet living. But this Patriarch dying, Octob. 23d. 878. Photius went into St. Sophia's Church with Armed Men; forcing a great many Bishops, Clerks and Monks, to Communicate with him, and to own him as their Patriarch; Deposing, and Persecuting all that refused; turning out all that had been Ordained by Ignatius, and restoring them to their respective Stations, after he had Re-ordained them. At the same time he took care to confer the principal Dignities of the Church upon his own Creatures. And, to prevent all Opposition on the Papal side, with Threats and Presents he prevailed with the Two Legates, to tell publicly, both the Clergy and People, That they were come to Depose Ignatius, and to declare Photius their Patriarch.  
To bring the Holy See to consent to Photius' Restauration, Basilius the Emperor sent Ambassadors 
Pope John the VIII. gives his Consent to Photius his Restauration.  to Pope John the VIII, to desire of him, That he would receive Photius into his Communion, and own him as Patriarch. Three Monks were also sent to desire the same Thing, in the Name of the Patriarch of Jerusalem; and Photius sent Theodorus Santarabenus, to bring about this Accommodation. Who were all well received, and had a favourable Audience from the Pope. The Eastern Emperor, whose Forces began then to be considerable in Italy, promised him to secure the Coast of Campania from the Eruptions of the Saracens, and to yield him up Bulgaria. To justify the Restauration of Photius, the Necessity of it was urged, for the good of the Peace, and the Reunion of men's Minds. To which his Partisans added, That Ignatius himself was for it; and a Paper was produced, under his Name, whereby he desired the Pope's Consent to it.  
The Pope, in Answer to the Emperor, sent him word, That Ignatius of happy Memory being dead, he consented, by reason of the present Necessity, and for the good of the Peace, that Photius should be owned as Patriarch, provided that he gave Satisfaction, and begged pardon before a Council; That he declared him Absolved, with all the Churchmen of his Party, from all Censures and Condemnations against them; and that he thought it convenient, to have him Reinstated in the See of Constantinople; but that he expected, no Layman or Courtier should, for the future, be raised to the Patriarchal Dignity of Constantinople; and that Cardinal-Priests, or Deacons of that Church, should be chosen for that See. To which he added, That he granted this, but on condition that Bulgaria should be Resigned up to him, and that the Patriarch of Constantinople should make no Claim to it. Lastly, He exhorted the Emperor to own, and bear respect to the Patriarch, and to endeavour the Reunion of the Bishops, and the whole Clergy with Photius; Declaring all those Excommunicated, That should refuse to hold Communion with him, after Three several Notices. This Letter, bearing date the 16th of August, 879, was carried by one Peter, a Priest, who was sent to Constantinople, with the Deputies come from thence. He had also, under his Care, a private Letter to Photius, wherein the Pope expressed unto him, the Joy he received by the Reunion and Peace of the Church of Constantinople, and his consent to his Restauration, provided that he begged Pardon in a Synod, and restored Bulgaria to the Holy See. Other Letters he was charged with, one directed to the Clergy of Constantinople; another to the Patriarches of the East, upon the same subject; and a Third, directed to those who should refuse to hold Communion with Photius, wherein he warned them to acknowledge him as their Patriarch; if not, that he had charged his Legate to Excommunicate them.  
He Writ in particular to the Two Legates he had sent to Constantinople, and let them know he was not satisfied with their rash Approving of Photius, without his Order or Knowledge; that however he joined unto them Peter, Cardinal-Priest, that they might labour together for the Peace of the Church, according to the Letters and Instructions he had given him. By which Instructions, they were to ●ake their first Visit to the Emperor, and deliver him the Letter they had for him; the next day to visit Photius, and give him his Letter, with Salutations from him, and a Declaration of the Command they had received from him, to own him, for Peace-sake, as Patriarch, and to make all the Churches own him, provided he received all those that should be willing to hold Communion with him, though his Adversaries before. That a Council should be called, in which they should preside with the Patriarch, and the Deputies of the Patriarches of the East, and wherein should be present the Metropolitans and Bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In it he ordered, That there should be Read his Letter to the Emperor, and the Bishops be asked, Whether they approved of it; which done, they should declare, That the Holy Father having the Care of all the Churches, and being desirous to procure Peace amongst them, had sent them thither to make up their Breaches, to Reconcile those that were at Variance, and Raise up them that are Fallen; That they might all with one accord Glorify the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Then they were to propose the following Canons, viz. That after Photius his Decease, no Layman should be raised to the Patriarchal Dignity; that Photius should send no Pallium into Bulgaria, nor make any Ordination there. 'Tis very probable, the Pope had enjoined Photius to beg pardon of the Council, as is mentioned in the Pope's true Letters. But this Article is not found in the Memoir which we have only from Photius, nor in the Letters of Pope John the VIII, which he caused to be Read in the Council, and out of which he had razed this Article with some others, as he had added unto it an Article against the Eighth Council, to be found also in this Memoir, falsified by Photius in the like manner. All this was done by the Pope in a Synod held at Rome, consisting of 17 Bishops of Italy, 4 Cardinal-Priests, and Two Deacons, whose hands are to be found at the end of this Memoir.  
Peter being arrived at Constantinople in 879, Photius summoned thither a full Council, to which he gave the Name of the VIII. Ecumenical Council; which, by his Account, consisted of 
The Council Confirms the Restauration of Photius.  383 Bishops. The first thing he declared, at the Opening of the Assembly, was, That Pope John the VIII. had received him into his Communion; first, by his Two first Legates, Paul and Eugenius; next by Peter the Priest, whom he had sent purposely for it. Whereupon John, Bishop of Heraclea, complained, That the Church of Rome had occasioned all the Troubles befallen to the Church of Constantinople, blaming the Conduct of the Pope's Nicholas and Adrian, and exalting that of John the VIII.  
In the Second Session, held the 16th of November, the Pope's Letters to the Emperor and to Photius were read. But so falsified, that what concerned Ignatius was razed out, as were also the Injunction to Photius, to beg pardon before the Council, some advantageous Expressions about the Holy See, and what related to the Restitution of Bulgaria. Which was supplied with high Commendations of the Emperor and Photius, and the Condemnation of the Eighth Council. These Letters being read, Photius extolled his kindness which he pretended himself to have to Ignatius the Patriarch, and promised that he would honour his Memory. After this, a Letter from Michael the Patriarch of Antioch, upon this subject, was read; wherein he required also the Condemnation of the Eighth Council. Then was called in Thomas, Archbishop of Caesarea, the only Deputy from the East, that had Assisted at the Eighth Council. Photius caused him to Renounce what he had both said and done in that Council. The Letters from the Patriarches of Jerusalem and Antioch to Photius, were likewise read; wherein they gave him very high Commendations, and owned him as Patriarch. This Session ended with the reading of a Letter from Abramius Archbishop of Amydus, who Writ very sharply against the Eighth Council.  
In the Third Session, held Nou. the 18th, the Letters from Pope John the VIII. to the Church of Constantinople, to the Bishops of that Patriarchate, and to the Patriarches of the East, were read. In which, expressing his desire to procure the peace of their Church, the Bishops of that Patriarchate declared thereupon, that they had Peace amongst them, before the coming of that Letter; and some mention being made of Bulgaria, they judged it reasonable that Affair should be referred to the Emperor, the Bounds of the Empire being concerned therein. A Letter from the Patriarch of Jerusalem to the Emperor was likewise read, wherein having deplored the Miseries and Calamities of his Church, he prayed that Prince to assist it with his Princely Charity. Lastly, The Pope's Instructions to his Legates, an Abstract whereof we have already made, came also to be read.  
In the Fourth Session there appeared a Deputy from the Patriarch of Antioch, who brought some Letters from that Patriarch, and that of Jerusalem, both Written in the behalf of Photius. Wherein they declared, That the Deputies, who had assisted at the Eighth Council, in the Name of their respective Churches, had been sent by the Saracens. These Letters being read, the Noblemen came in who had assisted at the said Council, and expressed their sorrow for what they had done, being (as they pretended) imposed upon by the false Deputies of the Patriarches. Five Articles were read, which were proposed in the Name of the Pope's Legates. The first, about the restitution of Bulgaria to the See of Rome; The second, that for the future no Layman should be elected Patriarch of Constantinople; The third, that no Clerk of another Church should be chosen; The fourth, to abrogate the Council held against Photius; And the fifth, that those should be Excommunicated who refused to hold Communion with Photius. All which Articles, except the first about Bulgaria, were approved of by the Council.  
In the Fifth Session, held Jan. the 26th, 880. Photius complained, That the Church of Rome seemed unwilling to receive the Seventh General Council. But the Pope's Legates having satisfied the Council in that Matter, it was decreed unanimously, That that Council should stand for the venth Ecumenical.  
After this, Metrophanes, Metropolitan of Syria, was summoned to appear, for refusing to hold Communion with Photius. Whereupon the Pope's Legates required a Canon to be made, disabling Photius from receiving such as had been Excommunicated or Deposed by the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishop of Rome from receiving those that had been Condemned, or Excommunicated by Photius: This was the first Canon. The second was made upon the Remonstrance of Photius, and Ordered, that Bishops that turned Monks, should not retain their Bishoprics, and disabled them from the Recovery thereof. A third Canon was added, against such as should Imprison, or abuse Bishops. This done, the Acts of the Council were signed by the Legates, and all the Bishops.  
May the 10th, they met together in the Emperor's Palace, in whose presence was read the Symbol, or Creed of the Council of Constantinople, with a Prohibition to add any thing to it; which was against the Latin Creed, to which was added the Filioque. Basilius the Emperor, with the Princes his Sons, subscribed to this, and disapproved, by his subscription, all that had been Transacted against Photius.  
May the 13th, the Bishops met again in the Great Church, to whom was read the Creed agreed upon in the last Meeting, and repeated anathemas pronounced against all persons that should either add to, or take any thing from it. Thus you have an Abstract of the Acts of this Council, published by Baronius, and taken out of the Acts themselves, the Manuscripts whereof are to be found in the Vatican Library, and that of the Colonni's.  
The Pope's Legates returned to Rome, with Letters from the Emperor and Photius to the Pope; to whom they made their Report of Photius his Restauration, and of the peaceable State wherein they had left the Churches of Constantinople. The Pope, in his Answer, Congratulated the Emperor for it, and returned him his Thanks, at the same time, for his Care in sending Galleys for the Defence of the Territory of Rome against the Saracens; for his restoring to the Church of Rome S. Sergius his Monastery in the Neighbourhood of Constantinople; and, lastly, for having restored Bulgaria to the See of Rome. He prays him to continue his Good Will to that See; and adds, at the end of the Letter, That he allows of the Acts of the Council at Constantinople for the Restauration of Photius; but, if his Legates had any way trespassed upon his Orders, he disowns all such Actings, and declares them void. This Letter bore date, August the Thirteenth, 880.  
He also Congratulated Photius upon his Restauration, for which he told him he was obliged to 
Pope John disowns what his Legates had done.  the Holy See; but blamed him for refusing to make a Public Acknowledgement of his Fault, and beg the Council's Pardon. He enjoins him to submit himself, and be faithful to the Holy See; and ends his Letter with the same Clause contained in that to the Emperor: Which shows, that he was not, as yet, fully informed of all those Things the Legates had consented to. And indeed, when he understood how they had been surprised, he went up to the Choir of his Church, from whence he fulminated his Excommunication against all Persons that should not receive the Condemnation of Photius; and, having Deposed his Legates, he sent Marinus, who had been twice already Legate in the East, to Repair the Mischief done by the late Legates. Marinus being arrived at Constantinople, did strenuously maintain what had been done under Pope Nicholas, and in the Eighth Council against Photius, refusing to consent to the Abrogation of the Acts of that Council. The Emperor incensed at his Presumption, in Disannulling what the other had Ratified, caused him to be cast into Prison; and having kept him there the space of Thirty days, thinking that Mortification would make him change his Mind, he sent him back to Rome, where his Constancy was soon required. For Pope John dying in the beginning of the year 882, he was Chosen to be his next Successor on the First of February.  
Being raised to that High Station, the first Thing that he did, was, to Condemn Photius again; 
The following Popes are against the Restauration of Photius.  to declare void all the Episcopal Functions he had took upon him; and to Abrogate all the Acts of the False Council of Photius. His Pontificate having lasted but one year and odd days, he had for his Successor Adrian, the Third of that Name, to whom Basilius the Emperor made present Applications, to get him to own Photius. But this Pope, on the contrary, did openly declare against him, and Confirmed what his Predecessor had done. Basilius, provoked by this Denial, Writ Adrian a Letter full of Invectives against the Bishops of Rome, but chief against Marinus; affirming, That he could not legally be Chosen Bishop of Rome, because of his being Bishop of another Church. This Letter was delivered to Pope Stephen the Vth, who succeeded Adrian in 885. Stephen made a Sober, but Smart Answer to the Emperor; in which he tells him, That he wonders how he could Write in so violent a Style to his Predecessor; for he could not be ignorant, that the Sacerdotal Dignity was not any way subject to the Regal Power; That, though the Emperor represented Christ upon Earth, 'tis only in respect to Civil and Temporal Things; And that, as God has given him a Supreme Power over the Things of this World, so has he given, by St. Peter, to his Successors, a Supreme Authority over Spiritual Things. That it was the Emperor's part to destroy with the Sword the Impiety and Barbarity of Tyrants; to do Justice to his Subjects; to make Laws; and to have Armies both by Sea and Land; but that the Care of Christ's Flock is committed to the High-Priests; a Dignity as much above that of Kings, as Heavenly Things are above Spiritual. He exhorts him to follow the Pope's Decrees, and to respect their Dignity. He charges with Blasphemy all that have offered to Calumniate his Predecessor Marinus, and sharply rebukes him for his giving credit to such Calumnies. He asks him, By whom he was Constituted a Judge of the Holy High-Priests? And how he knows that Marinus was not a Bishop? He excuses his being Translated, by several Instances. Moreover, he affirms, That the Pope is not liable to any Man's Judgement; and says, That Pope Sylvester caused a Declaration of it to be made by his Legates in the Nicene Council: A Fact that cannot be proved. He justifies all the Proceed of Marinus and his Predecessors against Photius, exhorts the Emperor to put him out of his See, and to fill his Place by another Patriarch. He complains of the ill usage Marinus had at his Court. Lastly, He commends the Emperor for designing one of his Sons for the Sacerdotal Office; and requires his Assistance for the defence of Rome and all Italy, both by Sea and Land, against the Descents and Inroads of the Barbarians.  
This Letter came to Constantinople after Basilius' Decease, and was delivered to his Son Leo, 
Photius turned out again.  who succeeded him in 886. This Prince was an Enemy to Photius, upon a Jealousy he had that Photius had made use of Santarabenus to put him out of his Father's favour, who had forced him to a private Life. Glad therefore of this Opportunity, at his Accession to the Imperial Throne, to be revenged of his Enemies, he presently turned out Photius, and banished him into a Monastery in Armenia; caused Santarabenus' Eyes to be put out, sent him into Exile to Athens, and caused Stephen, his own Brother, to be chosen Patriarch of Constantinople. Which Election was approved of by Stylianus Bishop of Neocaesarea, and by the other Bishops that were Photius' Adversaries: who in their own Names, and the Names of the Clergy of Constantinople, together with the Abbots and Monks of the Empire, sent a Letter to Pope Stephen. In which having related all that had passed from the beginning, in Photius' Case, and how Leo the Emperor had no sooner ascended the Throne of his Father, but he presently turned him out, and by that means delivered them from the Miseries they groaned under for not submitting to him; they earnestly entreat him to pardon those who had held Communion with Photius a second time: by which Indulgence, he would save a world of people, proving that it had been practised by the Church upon several Occasions. However they acquaint him, that they would not suffer the Bishops of Photius' Faction to perform any Sacerdotal Functions, whatever Permission they pretended to have from the Holy See, till they had a certain Account of the Pope's pleasure in it; ●nd that the rest who had submitted to Photius, and were compelled to do it, were the more excusable. The Emperor writ also to the Pope; but only acquainted him by his Letters, that Photius had withdrawn himself of his own accord, and had embraced a private Life.  
Pope Stephen, in his Answer to the Bishops that had writ to him, told them, they had just cause to turn out Photius, as by their Letters he was informed they had done; but that the Emperor 
Letters from Pope Stephen to the Greek Bishops.  having signified unto him, that he had withdrawn himself, he was perplexed what Answer to give. That there was a vast Difference betwixt being turned out, and quitting a Dignity of his own accord. Therefore not being able to pass his Judgement upon the Matter without a full Information, he had put it off; and thought it necessary that Bishops should be sent on both sides, that all Things being duly examined, and the Truth found out, he might order that which should be most acceptable unto God.  
The Bishops answered Pope Stephen, that the Difference found in their Letter and that of the 
The Bishops Answer to Pope Stephen.  Emperor, came from hence, That Photius' Friends, who acknowledged him for Patriarch, were obliged to give it out, that he had voluntarily quitted his Patriarchate: which they did not, who followed the Judgement of the Pope's Nicholas and Adrian, and their Legates; for they looked upon him only as a Layman, and said, he would never have voluntarily left it. They wondered, that having said in the beginning of his Letter, that Photius had been rejected, he should say at the latter end, that he must be brought into Judgement, as if it were doubtful whether he is a Bishop or not: that, if he were brought again into Judgement, he would be found still more guilty; and, to pass by other Matters, they did not think it convenient to pardon what the World knew he had done against Marinus. Lastly, They repeat their former Entreaties in behalf of those whom Photius had forced into his Communion, and pray him to send Circular Letters to the Patriarches of the East, that they may approve of and confirm the Condescension which he had used towards those persons. To which they add, that it was the Emperor's Desire, who by rejecting of Photius had delivered them from his persecution; and that it was no way repugnant to the Canons; Photius being rejected, to admit to Penance such as had been compelled to hold Communion with him. This Letter was delivered to Pope Formosus, who succeeded Stephen, Anno 891.  
This Pope answered to Stylianus, that he was not plain enough in his Letter; that he desired Favour, without telling the manner, or for whom, whether for Laymen or Bishops. If for Laymen, 
Formosus his Reply to the Bishop's Letter to Pope Stephen.  he was willing to grant it; but if for Bishops, and that they might remain in their Dignity, he ought to observe, that Photius could not confer an Episcopal Dignity which he had not; that he could confer nothing but the Condemnation he had received; that praying in behalf of those he had Ordained, was to countenance him, who had Ordained them; that on the contrary, the Church of Rome ought to inflict severe penalties upon such persons, to purge throughly by that means the Church of Constantinople; that however his Clemency and Lenity inclined him to the Toleration of some things, but that there were others that could not be dispensed with; that he had appointed Landulphus Bishop of Capua, and Romanus his Legate à Latere, with whom they should consult about Matters, joining with them Theophiladus Bishop of Ancyra, and Peter in whom he reposed a great Trust, provided nevertheless that the Condemnation of Photius should stand; and as to those whom he had Ordained, they might be received as Laymen into the Church-Communion, if they acknowledged their Fault in Writing, and begged to be admitted to Penance; that done, he might do in conjunction with his Legates what he should think most expedient, these two Articles remaining untouched.  
But, whereas the Number of Bishops, Priests, and other Clerks ordained by Photius was so great, that all the Churches almost had been left destitute, if the Clergy ordained by him had been made 
The last Answers of the Popes to the Greeks.  Laymen, therefore this Regulation could not be put in Execution in the East: So that Stylianus and others were forced at last to tolerate them, and hold Communion with them; but since they should have been better satisfied if they could get the Consent of the Holy See to it, Stylianus endeavoured seven Years after to get it, and writ to the Pope for it. Then was John IX. raised to the Papal See, who declined to return an Answer himself, but ordered one to be sent him in his Name, to this purpose, That he thanked him for his firm Adherency to the Church of Rome, that he hoped at last the Obstinate would submit, that Peace would be restored to the Church, and an End put to a Schism that had continued the space of 40 Years. That he expected his Predecessors Decrees should be inviolably observed; that he had the same Sentiments of Ignatius, Photius, Stephen, and Anthony, as his Predecessors Nicholas, John, Stephen, and the whole Roman Church; that he would deal with them, and looked upon them as they had done, and received into the Church-Communion all those he had Ordained, upon the same Conditions they had prescribed. This was the last Answer of the Popes upon this Matter, whose Judgement the Greeks did not follow, 
Broils of the Church of Rome with the Greek Churches.  for they left in their respective Stations not only such as had sided with Photius, but also those whom he had Ordained. From which time the Latin and Greek Churches held no good Intelligence, though it seems they did not break off Communion altogether. For both the Emperor, and the Patriarches of Constantinople, used to write to the Pope, and the Pope to return Answer; who also sent his Legates into the East, as in the Business of Nicholas the Patriarch upon the fourth Marriage of Leo the Emperor; who, having lost three Wives without Issue, resolved to marry again. But meeting with strong Opposition against it from the Patriarch, he in the Year 901. desired Legates from Pope John IX. and made them approve of his fourth Marriage. Whereupon he turned out Nicholas the Patriarch, and put Euthymius in his place. This Business renewed the Troubles of the Church of Constantinople: for, after Leo's Death, Nicholas was restored to his See in 912, and writ a Letter to the Pope concerning it, praying him to punish those who had stirred up those Troubles against him. Some time after, having reconciled the Minds of Men, and restored Peace to the Church of Constantinople, he desired Pope John X. by another Letter, to endeavour a Reunion of their respective Churches, the Peace whereof seemed to have been for some time interrupted, and to re-settle a sincere Correspondence betwixt them by sending Legates on both sides, and declaring with one accord that fourth Marriages are unlawful, and therefore prohibited. It does not appear that the Pope made any Answer to it; but an Assembly was held at Constantinople in 921. which absolutely prohibited such Matches for the future, and Excommunicated all persons so contracted, till such time as they were parted. As for third Marriages, they were not absolutely forbidden; but a penance was ordered for five Years to all persons that should marry three times after forty Years of Age, or even before that Age, provided they had had Children by the first Marriage. We find that John XIII. sent Legates in 968. to Nicephorus the Eastern Emperor, to treat of a Match with his Daughter-in-law and Otho the Western Emperor; but those Legates were slighted and abused by the Greeks, as was also Luitprandus, Otho's Ambassador. In short, 'tis very plain, that there was in those Times no good correspondence betwixt the Latins and the Greeks; that the Latins were hated and slighted by the Greeks, and these but little regarded by the Latins. But as little Friendship as there was amongst them, yet they did not openly condemn each other, nor did their Enmity break out openly till the time of Michael Cerularius, as will appear in its proper place.  
Before we conclude this Chapter, it will not be improper to speak of the Works of Photius.  
The most considerable Fruit of Photius' Studies and Labours, is his Library entitled Myriobiblon, 
Photius' Library.  composed by him at the Request of Tarasius his Brother, being yet a Layman, and Ambassador in Assyria. It contains the Argument or Abstracts of 279 or 280 Volumes of many Authors, upon various Subjects. Wherein we find Grammarians, Critics, Poets, Orators, sacred and profane Historians, Physicians, Philosophers, Divines, etc. not ranked according to their several Arts or Professions, but brought in confusedly, and as they came first into his Memory. As he goes forward in this Work, he seems to increase his Labour by the length of his Abstracts. For in the beginning he sets down in few Words the general Argument of the Works he speaks of, and delivers his Censure upon them. Then he attempts a larger Account of the Matters therein contained; and towards the end he makes long Abstracts thereof, without Choice or Reflections. Thus, as his Work swells, he falls short in his Exactness; and his Spirits being wearied with the length of the Work, he grows careless and negligent, producing nothing of his own, but contenting himself to transcribe faithfully what comes in his way. And indeed the end of his Work is so unlike the beginning, that some eminent Scholars have thought it could not be Photius'. There is nothing to be seen of that Exquisiteness, of that fine critical Wit, of that free and impartial Judgement upon the Character and Style of the Authors, or of that inimitable Exactness which appears in the beginning. Yet it is very probable, the Weariness and Negligence of Photius were the Reason why he was not so accurate towards the end as he was in the beginning. For the Number of Works mentioned in the preliminary Letter being only found complete at the end, 'tis not credible that what Photius had done should be taken out, to substitute in lieu of it the productions of any others. Nay, it seems that Photius had purposely altered his Method, thinking it more useful to give larger Abstracts of the Works he went upon, than barely to tell the Subject. For there are some Authors of which he speaks but succinctly in the beginning, and speaks of 'em again towards the end, to give larger Abstracts of their Works. But whatever Reason induced him so to do, whether it was to make his Work less tedious or more useful, it cannot be denied but that it had been more proper to join the general Argument and the Censure to be given upon each Work, to Abstracts of particular places worth taking notice of. 'Twere to be wished, that Photius had performed both the one and the other in all the parts of his Work, and that he had not contented himself to do one of them only. The World however is very much indebted to him, and his Work a very rich Treasure nevertheless, including what is most curious in every Science, and preserving to us both the Memory of Authors, and some Fragments of abundance of Works, which had been unknown to us, and nothing whereof had remained with us, had it not been for this Learned Man's Work.  
This so useful a Work was found out by the Jesuit Andrew Schot, who caused it to be transcribed from a Manuscript of Cardinal Sirlet's Library, and to be compared with a Copy thereof in the Vatican, taken out of a Manuscript at Venice, written by the hand of Cardinal Bessarion. He communicated this Copy to David Hoeschelius, a Printer of Ausburg, who caused it to be Printed in 1601; being first compared with three other Copies, one in the Duke of Bavaria's Library, and the two other being procured for him by Margunius, and the Son of Henry Stephen, who had a Copy Written by his Father's own hand, and Revised by an Ancient Manuscript. Andrew Schot, a Man extraordinary well skilled in the Greek Tongue, considering the Usefulness of this Work, undertook to Translate it into Latin; and having happily compassed his Design, caused his Translation to be Printed alone at Ausburg, Anno 1606. Afterwards, both the Text and the Translation were Printed together at Geneva in 1611; and lastly, in the year 1653, this Work was reprinted at Roven by the Berthelins. This Edition is the largest and fairest.  
Photius his Nomocanon is another Proof of this Author's great Ability. 'Tis a Collection digested 
The Nomocanon of Photius.  in an excellent Method, and brought under 14 different Titles, of the Canons of the Councils and Canonical Epistles, and of the Emperor's Laws about Ecclesiastical Matters. Balsamon has made Comments upon this Work, and with these Comments it appeared in public by the care of Monsieur Justel, being Printed at Paris in Greek, with a Latin Version at the end, in 1615; the Version being first Printed both at Paris and Basil, in 1501. This Work is also found amongst Balsamon's Works (Printed at Paris in 1620.) and in the Pandects of the Canons of England, [put out by Justellus at Paris, 1662.]  
The delicateness of Photius his Style, and fineness of his Wit, as well as his Learning, and his 
Photius his Letters.  particular Knowledge of Holy Scripture, are in a special manner conspicuous in his Letters, which appeared first long after his Works beforementioned. They were published from a Manuscript brought from the East into England, Translated by Richard Montague Bishop of Norwich, and Printed at London, Anno 1651. They are in number 248.  
The first, Written to Michael King of Bulgaria, is an Instruction directed to that Prince. To whom he proposes the Creed in the first place, as the Foundation of our Christian Faith; after which, he brings in the Decisions of the Seven General Councils, of which he makes a Compendious History. He tells him, We cannot departed from the Purity of the Doctrine settled by those Councils, without endangering our Salvation. He exhorts him firmly to adhere to the Faith, and to join Virtues and Good Works to a Lively true Faith. In short, he lays before him the chief Duties of a Christian Prince, the Virtues that are most necessary for him, and the Manner how he ought to govern himself. 'Tis one of the best and compleatest Instructions that were ever given to a Prince; and, 'twould be a hard matter to find a larger, exacter, or more solid Collection of Precepts.  
The Second is the Circular Letter which he sent to all the Patriarches of the East against the Roman Church in 866. Wherein he takes occasion to reproach her with what had passed in Bulgaria, which was but newly Converted to the Christian Faith, where some Persons were found come from the West, who spread such Doctrines as were repugnant to the Purity of the Faith. First, by making the Bulgarians Fast on Saturdays, against the Laws of the Church which forbidden it. Which might occasion a Contempt of the Doctrine; because when Men take upon them to slight Tradition, even in the least Things, they are easily prevailed with to slight the Doctrine itself. Secondly, by distinguishing the first Week in Lent from the rest, and permitting them to eat in that Week, Milk, Butter, Cheese, etc. Thirdly, by detecting Married Priests. Fourthly, by causing them to be Anointed again with the Chrism, that had been already Anointed with it by the Priests; affirming, That Unction ought not to be made by Priests. He exclaims against the Prohibition, affirming, That there is no Law reserving that Unction to the Bishop, or prohibiting the same to the Priests. Lastly, he charges the Latin Church with breach of Faith, and falsifying of the Creed; by Teaching, that the Holy Ghost does not only proceed from the Father, but from the Father and the Son. Upon this Article he doth enlarge very much, and alleges many Objections against the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. Then he breaks out against those who had Taught the Bulgarians this Doctrine, and does Excommunicate them, by virtue of the Canons, about the Saturdays Fast, and the Celibacy of Priests. He exhorts the Patriarches to join with him in Banishing that Doctrine, to send Bishops to Constantinople, to have those new Tenets exploded, and put a stop to those evils, that the Bulgarians may receive the true Faith. He acquaints them, That he has received a Letter from Italy, against the Tyranny of the Church of Rome. He admonishes them to receive, and cause to be received, in all the Churches of their Patriarchates, the Seventh General Council, in the same manner, and with the same Authority as the first Six.  
In the Third Letter, which is to Bardas', he complains of what he was to suffer in the Place where he was, and seems to speak much like a Christian.  
In the following Letters he also makes his Complaints of the Wrongs done him.  
In the 18th he Writes to Michael the Emperor, about the Death of Bardas'. He owns he deserved it, if he had actually conspired to make himself sole Master of the Empire, as he could not doubt of it upon the account of the Letters Michael had sent him. But he laments his Death, because he had not time to do Penance for his sins. He very much flatters Michael, and expresses to him the great desire he has to see him again shortly at Constantinople. The same Thing he insinuates, but in more flattering and pathetic Terms, in the next Letter.  
In the 20th, he congratulates a Monk, for having brought over a Bishop to his Party.  
In the 27th, he Writes against certain Monks, who had took upon them to depose their Abbot; and observes, that Monks ought not to set up themselves as Judges of their own Abbots, but that they ought to refer their Cause to their Superiors.  
In the 30th, he proves the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin; and explains that place of Scripture, where it is said, That she knew not Joseph till she had brought forth her firstborn; observing, that the Particle Donec (till) doth not always imply, that the contrary to that which had not happened before, doth happen afterwards.  
In the 31st, directed to Tarasius a Nobleman, whom he calls his Brother, he Treats of Providence; and shows, why Good Men suffer in this Life, whilst the Wicked wallow in Prosperity.  
In the 32d, and the Seven next following, directed to Theotictus the Abbot, he explains, in short, the Faith of the Mysterious Trinity, and of the Incarnation, against Heretics. He also speaks smartly therein against the Iconoclasts.  
The next Ten consist of Moral Exhortations to several Persons.  
The Fiftieth is upon the Covenants of the Law and Gospel.  
The next Three consist of Reprimands to a Collector of Taxes, for his Covetousness.  
In the 54th he proves, that the Holy Mysteries ought not to be given to Infidels, or Heretics, nor to Ill-Livers, but only to Orthodox Persons, who live according to the Rules of Christianity.  
The 55th is against a Liar.  
In the 63d he gives the Reasons for the Darkness of Prophecies.  
In the Sixty fourth he Confutes the Iconoclasts, and Answers to some of their Objections.  
In the 72d he shows, how Contemptible our Temporal Life is.  
In the 74th he pretends, That Abraham made his Servant Swear, by putting his hand under his Thigh, in honour to the Circumcision, and as a Figure of the Messiah to come out of his Seed.  
The 97th was Written to Basilius the Emperor, after he had turned him out of his See of Constantinople. He complains, in this Letter, of the Ill Treatment he had received, and particularly, That his Books were taken from him. He gives a very pathetic Account of the Persecution he suffered, and Writes smartly to the Emperor.  
In the next Letters he continues to deplore his Misfortunes, and speaks of the Earthquake that happened at Constantinople upon his Expulsion.  
In the 102d he examines, how St. Paul could be both a Roman of Tarsis, and a Jew.  
The 111th is directed to Gregory of Syracuse, his old and constant Friend. Wherein he exhorts him to stand firm under his present Ill Circumstances, and not to discontinue his Episcopal Functions.  
In the 115th, he says, That the Council, which he calls Heretical, and which was made up of the Enemies to Image-Worship, has Excommunicated him, to raise a Man to the See of Constantinople, who lay under an Anathema. He speaks of the Eighth Council.  
In the next Letters, he Writes against that Council, but chief in the 118th.  
In the 125th he gives Mystical Reasons for the Tearing of the Veil of the Temple, when our Saviour died.  
In the 127th he explains that place of Scripture, where it is said, That the Sin against the Holy Ghost shall never be pardoned.  
In the following Letters, he expounds some other places of Scripture, for which he brings Mystical Reasons, well invented, and happily applied.  
In the 137th he affirms, That what is said in St. Luke's Gospel, that our Saviour sweated drops of Blood, is not to be understood literally; but that it is a Proverbial Expression, to signify, that the Pains he felt were so very violent, that he Sweated great drops. To which he adds, That this History of the Gospel has been left out of the Gospel by some, and particularly by some Syrians; but his Opinion is, That it ought to be received as Canonical, and to be put amongst the Scriptures of Divine Inspiration.  
In the 139th he shows, That it is not impossible, as some pretended, to look upon a Woman, without sinful Thoughts.  
The 144th is against Eusebius of Caesarea, whom he charges with Arianism.  
In the 147th, Photius examines what it is to take God's Name in vain; and says, That among the Jews, taking of God's Name in Vain, was to give it to the Idols, or make use of it for a false Oath, or profane it in idle Discourses. That among Christians, those take God's Name in Vain, who Swear against that which is established by Law, or who attribute God's Name to Creatures, as a Being which they believe Created, as also, those who confound Images with Idols, and all Heretics who abuse that Name.  
In the 152d, he expounds, as the Pelagians do, that place of St. Paul's Epistle, where it is said, in which all have sinned; pretending, after Theodoret, that it ought not to be thus Translated, but whereas all have sinned.  
In the following Letters, he Treats of divers Critical Questions.  
In the 162d, he treats of the Names of God; and shows, by several Instances, that the Name of God is sometimes given to Creatures, with relation to their Excellency, Justice, or Power. He observes, the Jews were forbidden to Name God by his proper Name, and that none but the Highpriest bore it, which he did in his Forehead, Written in extraordinary and strange Letters. He adds, that the Hebrews pronounce it Aia, and the Samaritans, Jabe; that it is Written with these Four Letters, Joth, Al●ph, Vaughan, H●, signifying That is, viz. He that is, and endures for ever.  
In the next Letter, he demonstrates, how it was not absolutely forbidden among the Jews, to hear or pronounce that Name, seeing Moses heard it, and taught it the High-Priests, who wore it Written upon Plates of Gold; but that they were forbidden, upon pain of Death, to pronounce it before Strangers.  
In the 164th, he examines what may be the sense of the 13th Verse, Chap. 1. of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans.  
The 165th contains a Fine Encomium of St. Paul's Wisdom and Eloquence.  
In the 166th he explains several places of St. Paul's Epistles something dark, by reason of their Hyperbata, or Ellipsis, i. e. Transpositions, or Defects of words usual in them.  
The 174th contains Photius his Apology against one of his former Friends, who now inveighed against him for his Contradictious Humour, charged him with betraying the Catholic Church, and violating her Laws. Photius, to vindicate himself from his Aspersions, maintains, That he has not undertaken, done, said, or writ any thing that might give any just ground to that Accusation; and that he could be reproached with nothing but the Hardships he had endured, and the Misery he was reduced to by the Persecution of his Enemies. Which he gives an Account of in the most sensible manner; affirming, That his Misfortunes had neither Despirited, nor made him slight the Divine Truth. His Adversary pretended, That it was ill done of him, to draw that Persecution on himself for Things of small consequence. But Photius, to justify himself, affirms, That his Enemies are our Saviour's Enemies, who rendered contemptible (as far as in them lay) the Blood of his Covenant, profaned his Altars, and Ridiculed the Holy Chrism, or rather the Holy Ghost, who had Consecrated it. He protests, he will never hold Communion with such Men, nor with those who shall receive them. Next, he deplores the Miseries of those who suffer Persecution for his sake; and complains, that he is abandoned almost by all the World. He concludes, saying, That he ever offers Sacrifices and Prayers to God for his Prince.  
In the 176th Letter, he recites the different Expositions of this Place of Scripture given by the Fathers, viz. My Father is greater than I  
In the 177th, speaking of St. Peter's Fall, he owns his Primacy.  
In the 180th, and the Two next, he explains some places of the Gospel.  
In the 182d, he deplores his Misfortunes.  
In the 187th, he defends strongly and rationally against Julians Railleries', our Saviour's Advice, To sell a Man's substance to give it to the Poor.  
In the 188th, he congratulates himself for his Sufferings.  
In the 192d, he observes upon the Word Ephod, that it signifies, 1. A Priestly Habit. 2. A Habit like unto that worn by Laymen. 3. The Habits of the Priests of the Heathen Gods, who imitated the Ceremonies of the Priests of the True God.  
The 201. is a Letter of comfort to George of Nicomedia, upon the death of a Clerk Ordained a Priest by him. He says, That his Soul is in Abraham's Bosom, where it enjoys the Heavenly Glory.  
In the 211th, he expounds a difficult place of Genesis, about the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel.  
The 223d, and the three next, are likewise upon some difficult places of Scripture.  
In the 228th he expounds that place in the Gospel, so frequently objected by the Arians, That none but the Father knows the Day of Judgement.  
The 234th is a long Epistle, no less Christian than Eloquent, directed to Tarasius his Brother, to comfort him upon the Death of his Daughter.  
In the 240th, he handles Two Critical Questions upon Scripture. The first, who was Ethan the Zeraite. The second, concerning David's Two Unctions. The third, about Samuel's serving Saul.  
The 243d, and 244th consist of Ingenious Reproofs to a Friend of his, who forsook him through Timorousness.  
The 245th, is a piece of Comfort directed to a Nun, upon the Death of her Sister. Wherein be supposes her Soul to be in the Company of Angels.  
The 246th, and 247th, are upon the Birth-place of St. Paul.  
In the 248th, he Discovers the Mystical Reasons of the Circumcision.  
Monsieur Cotelerius was published in the Second Tome of the Monuments of the Greek Church, [Page 104.] a short Letter of Photius to Smaracus, Governor of the Isle of Cyprus, against that Minister's Avarice and Extortions; With a Compendious Discourse of the same Photius, showing, that we ought to take care but of one Thing in this Life, that is, to forbear Sin; and, as we ought not to regard the Casualties and Misfortunes of this Life, nor look upon them as Evils; so Honour, Riches, Power, Eloquence, and other Advantages, either of Nature or Fortune, ought not to be regarded as a real Good.  
Photius his Letter to the Patriarch of Aquileia, is much beyond the former. Baronius has inserted a Translation of it in his Annals [ad An. 883.] but it came out since in Greek by the care of Father Combefis, in the last Addition to the Bibliotheca Patrum [at Paris, 1673.] In this Letter, having first highly extolled that Archbishop, and Complimented him about the Deputy he had sent unto him, he Argues against the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, as an Error contrary to Tradition. He says, that the Popes, Leo the I. and Leo the III. have rejected that Doctrine. The first, by saying in his Letter, against Nestorius and Euty●…jus, that the Holy Ghost doth proceed from the Father; and the last, by disproving those that had added the Filioque to the Creed, and causing it to be Engraven on Plates without that Addition. He afterwards brings in many Arguments, grounded upon some places of Scripture, against the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. He answers to the place alleged by the Latins, The Holy Ghost shall receive from me, and will declare it to you. He objects to himself, That S. Ambrose, S. Austin, S. Jerom, and some other Fathers have said, That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. He owns it to have been their opinion, and that they ought not therefore to be called Heretics. But he pretends, their Authority must not be preferred before that of a greater Number, who spoke according to the Councils and the Holy Writ. He adds, that some Fathers of the Church may have swerved from the Truth; but, whatever respect we have for their persons, we ought not to follow their Errors. As for Instance, though Dionysius of Alexandria be ranked amongst the Fathers, the Arian Expressions he used are not to be approved, as well as some Tenets of Methodius, S. Irenaeus, and Papias. Lastly, he dares affirm, That if all the Men in the World should oppose us, we ought still to adhere to our Saviour's Words, and those of the Gospel; and, if we do seek after Proofs, next to our Saviour, we have the Suffrages of Ecumenical Councils, the greatest Number of the Fathers, the Bishops of Rome, and amongst these S. Leo, and Adrian the I. That the Legates themselves of the Holy See, which lately have been in the East Three several times, have alleged nothing contrary to that Doctrine; and that in the Council held by him, the Legates of Pope John had Subscribed unto, and approved of the Creed, without that Addition. Thus much is alleged by Photius in his Letter, to make good his Opinion.  
His Work containing a compendious History of the first seven General Councils, which has been several times published separately, is nothing but part of the first Letter directed to Michael King of the Bulgarians.  
But, as Photius had skill in Composition, so he was no less versed in Preaching. We have many 
Photius' Sermons.  Manuscript Homilies of his, whereof Father Combefis has printed the Titles and Beginnings in the last Addition to the Biblioth. Patrum. But there are only two whole ones extant: one upon the Virgin's Nativity, inserted by the same Author into his first Continuation of the Biblioth. Patrum, and written with much Eloquence and Politeness. The other containing the Description and Encomium of a new Church in the Emperor's Palace at Constantinople, published by Codinus and Combefis in their Collections.  
In fine, Photius had joined all the Subtlety of the most refined Schoolmen to his other sorts of 
Photius' Treatise concerning the Wills of Christ.  Learning. In Canisius' Collection we have some small Treatises of his in Latin, which are a convincing proof of his great Ability in School-Learning. The principal of which, is that of our Saviour's Wills, which are called Gnomical; found in the Tome added by Stuart to Canisius' Collection. It was in Greek in the Emperor and the Duke of Bavaria's Libraries, out of which Turrian took it, and put it into Latin. The state of the Question is to know, whether our Saviour had, besides a general Will to do a Thing, a particular Will to do it in such and such manner, whether he has chosen and affected the one more than the other. Photius in the first place says, That this Question, having been but slightly handled by the Fathers, is the more difficult to solve; but that 'tis an easy matter to find out all that has been written upon it, S. Maximus being the only Father that he found treating of this Question. And, to expound him, he distinguishes many sorts of Wills. The first, a Natural Will, which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being nothing but a Desire of doing a Thing, without any Reason for it. The second, a General Will, by him called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being an Effect of Reason. The third, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is an Inclination to one Thing rather than another. The fourth, is the Choice one makes of one Thing rather than another. The fifth, is the Determination of the Will to do this or that Thing. And lastly, the Execution. The Matter being thus stated, he says, that our Saviour had unquestionably a general Will attended with Reasoning, but that he has not a Will of Choice, nor of Deliberation or Design to do one Thing rather than another, because having a perfect Knowledge of all Things by his Nature by reason of the Hypostatical Union, and his humane Will being wholly subject to the divine Will, he cannot deliberate upon what he must do, nor will any Thing but what pleases the divine Will. That there being two Natures in Christ, there ought to be likewise two Wills, that is to say, two Faculties; but by reason there is but one Hypostasis, or but one person that wills, he therefore wills but one Thing, and has but one general Will, that is, but one sole Affection, because the humane Will does in all Things concur with the divine Will. This is the Opinion of Photius in this Matter, which he backs with many Reasons; and gives shrewd Answers to all Objections against it.  
In the fifth Tome of Canisius we find moreover seven short Dissertations of Photius, upon several 
Photius' Theological Treatises.  Scholastic Questions. In the first he puts this Question, How God is every where, and answers the Objections made against his Omnipresence. He shows, that God is not in the World as created Being's are, but in a more sublime manner; that he is in every Thing, and above all Things; that he is in all Things by his Operation, but that his Act being his Substance, one may truly say he is both in Act and Substance every where; that he is every where, without being of the same Substance with the Things in which he is; that he makes no part of them, not being tied, mingled, confounded, or any way changed by them.  
In the second Dissertation he shows how we know God in this Life; and says, that we cannot perfectly define, or know him, but that he is known to us by a small beam of his Majesty shining upon his Creatures, and by way of Negation, that is, by denying that he is any of those Things we see. That all Men naturally know, that there is a God; because there ought to be an Eternal Being, a Sovereign Lord of all Things, and a Supreme Good by his own proper Substance.  
In the third Dissertation he explains the Terms proper to the divine Nature, both in common, and such as are proper to each person.  
In the fourth, he shows how we may say, that God is one, and that there are three persons in the Godhead.  
In the fifth, he treats of the Mystery of the Incarnation, and shows, that though the Word be every where, yet 'tis united hypostatically only to the humane Nature he took upon him.  
In the sixth, he brings in the Reasons why it was expedient the Word should become Man. The first is, That Men being led by their Senses, might be raised by the sight of his humane Nature to the Knowledge of a Deity. The second, Because our Saviour had not overcome the Devil, had he not been in a condition to suffer. The third is, Because when a Man does both preach and give good Example, it is more effectual than using the Ministry of others; and that it is easier to imitate the Virtues we see practised, than those the practice whereof is required, without giving a Model of them. Thus it was requisite, that God should assume our Nature, to preach unto us himself the true saving Doctrine, and by teaching us by his own Example the practice of Virtues, to set himself up for a Model thereof.  
In the Libraries of Ausburg, the Vatican, and of Monsieur Colbert, there are Manuscripts of a Treatise of Photius, entitled Amphilochia, from the Name of Amphilochius Bishop of Cizycus, who 
Manuscripts of Photius.  had proposed unto him a hundred Questions, which he solves in this Answer. [Some Fragments of this Treatise are extant at the end of Amphilochius' Works, printed by Father Combefis at Paris in 1644. and in his Auctuar. Tom. I. and by Turrian and others.] This Book was never yet in Print, nor these following Works of Photius, viz. his Commentary upon St. Paul's Epistles, of which there is a Manuscript extant in the Public Library of Cambridge [but defective;] his Notes upon the Prophets, to be found in the Vatican Library; a Treatise against an Heretic, called Leontius, Bishop of Antioch, and quoted by Suidas [in the word Leontius.] To which add a Treatise against the Latins; [a fragment of which is extant in Bishop Usher, de Symbolis, p. 25.] a Collection upon the Rights of the Metropolitans and Bishops, with a Lexicon; a Commentary upon Aristotle's Categories; and some other Works, which never yet saw Light.  
We have nothing to add to what has been already said, concerning the Learning, the happy Genius, and Sublime Qualifications of Photius. Had he made use of 'em for the good of the 
A Censure upon the Genius and Qualifications of Photius.  Church, and not corrupted them by his Unjust Attempts, by unheardof Violences, by Tricks and Artifices unworthy of an honest Man, he might have been happy. But his excessive Love of Glory, and his Unbounded Ambition, prompted him to those Excesses, which have blasted all his Endowments. 'Tis needless to repeat what we have already said of the various Editions of his Works: But it were to be wished, that we had a New Edition larger, and more Correct.  
Having spoke hitherto of Photius his Writings, I shall add a word of Theodorus Abucara, supposed 
Theodorus Abucara.  to be that Metropolitan of the Province of Caria, who was Ordained by Methodius. Who, having sided with Photius, acknowledged his Fault in the Eighth Council, at their Second Session; and was received with the other Bishops Ordained by Methodius, who left Photius to submit to Ignatius. We have, under his Name, many small Doctrinal Treatises, published both in Greek and Latin by Gretzerus, and Printed at Ingolstadt in 1606, together with a Treatise of Anastasius Sinaita, [Entitled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; or, A Guide in the Right Way. As also in Auctua●i● Duceano, at Paris, 1624. Tom. I. p. 367.]  
The Works of this Author are almost all Composed by way of Dialogues; wherein he brings in a Christian speaking with Infidels, Saracens, Jews and Nestorians, whom he Teaches the Truths of our Christian Faith, and answers their Objections. Therein he handles several Scholasti●● Questions upon the Mysteries of Christian Religion, and expounds the Meaning of the Philosopher's Terms, which they made use of to explain them. He insists particularly upon the Trinity, and the Incarnation. Having, by Natural Reasons proved God's Existence, he endeavours to prove the Trinity after the same manner. He shows, That Christ is the Messiah; tells the Infidels, That he is God; and demonstrates Mahomet to be an Impostor. He proves the Necessity, and explains the Effects of the Incarnation; Confutes the Errors of the Nestorians, Euty●…ans, Jacobites, and Theopaschites in that Point; and proves, that there is in Christ but one Hypostasis, and two Natures. In his Answer to the Saracens Question upon the Eucharist, he says, in plain Terms, That the Bread and Wine set by the Priest upon the Holy Table, are changed by the Descent of the Holy Ghost into the Body and Blood of our Saviour. He Confutes the Err●● of the Origenists, as to the Duration of the Pains inflicted upon the Damned. He shows, agai●… the Saracens, that it is more decent and rational to have but one Wife, than many. He show, That God is by no means the Author of Evil. He affirms, That the Blessed Virgin never 〈◊〉 Lastly, he treats of several of the most subtle Questions of Divinity.   

CHAP. X.  
An Account of the Controversies raised by Photius, with the Church of Rome.  
PHotius was not satisfied with having divided the Greek Church by his Ambition, and laid the foundations of a Division between the Greek and Latin Church; but he also opposed the latter about several Points of Doctrine and Discipline, contained in a Letter which he Writ against it. Pope Nicholas the First seeing himself so vigorously Attacked, desired the Assistance of the Bishops and Clergy of France, to Answer the Objections of Photius; and sent to Hincmarus, and the other Archbishops of Charles his Kingdom, the Ten Chief Heads objected against the Latin Church; that when they had examined them, they might furnish him with suitable Answers. Odo, Bishop of Beauvais, was pitched upon by the Bishops of the Province of Rheims, to make a Collection of the Answers which they thought sufficient to obviate the Objections of the Greeks. Aeneas, Bishop of Paris, was chosen for the same matter by the Bishops of the Province of Sens. We have the Treatise of the last; Odo's is lost: unless some will say, That 'tis the Treatise of Ratramnus, which Odo put out in his Name. But, there is more likelihood, that the Bishops also ordered Ratramnus to Write on that Subject; for, he ends his Work with these words; We have Treated as well as we could on those Matters, contained in the Writings you sent to us. If our Answer please you, we give God Thanks; and, if it displease you, we submit it to your Censure and Correction: Which words were, in all probability, addressed to the Bishops, who had given him order to Write on this Subject.  
The Charge of the Greeks consisted of Ten Articles, which Ratramnus and Aeneas Answer in their Works.  
Ratramnus' Preface is very short: He says, That the Objections made by the Emperors, Michael and Basil, against the Roman Church, are either False, Heretical, Superstitious, or Irreligious; and aught to be Contemned, were it not, that they give an Offence to the Weak. Aeneas' Preface is a great deal longer. He gins it with an Eneomium of the Church, which is always Victorious over her Enemies; and then he laments the Division which was growing up between the Churches; for the Greeks had begun to Attack the Roman Church in the Reign of Lewis the Godly. He adds, That almost all the Heresies were hatched in Greece; that oftentimes the Eastern Patriarches were Heretics; but, that the Roman Church was so happy, as never to have had an Author of Heresy for its Bishop: That indeed Liberius yielded to the violence of the Arians, but did not altogether forsake the Faith of the Church. That the Objections which the Greeks make at present, are unjust; that they start unnecessary Questions, which are like to be the occasion of Trouble and Scandal; that he is obliged to prepare to Answer and Refute 'em.  
The first chief Objection of the Greeks is concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost. The 
Answers to the Heads of Accusation of the Greeks.  Greeks ask the Romans, Why they hold that He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and not from the Father alone? As this is the principal head, and a Fundamental Point, Ratramnus treats of it very fully; and, of the Four Books which complete his Work, Three are entirely Written on this Subject. In the first he proves the Doctrine of the Romans, by several Texts of Scripture; and, in the Two other, he urges some passages of the Fathers. Aeneas only Collects those passages of the Fathers, which confirm the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and from the Son.  
Ratramnus observes, in the beginning of his Fourth Book, that the other Heads of the Exceptions, made by the Greeks, don't at all concern matters of Faith, but merely the Ceremonies and Usages of the Church, insomuch, that it had been better not to have mentioned 'em; Since no Man is either obliged to approve of 'em, or reject 'em; for, the Ceremonies of the Churches may be different; which he proves by the Practices of the Primitive Church, which made use of others, than what have been since practised, and by the various Customs of the Churches among themselves, concerning which he citys the passage of Socrates: Whence he concludes, that it is without cause, that the Greeks inveigh against the Ceremonies of the Latins, for differing from theirs; observing, that this Exception could not proceed from a motive of Piety, but from Envy or Pride. After this general observation, which Aeneas has not made, he examines distinctly the Exceptions of the Greeks, against every Article of Discipline.  
The First, in Ratramnus, which is the Second in Aeneas, is concerning the Fast on Saturdays, Ratramnus observes, That all the Western Churches do not agree with the Church of Rome in this Article; and that the number of those Churches, who do not Fast on Saturdays, is greater than of those, who keep this Fast: Besides that all the Eastern Churches do not abstain from Fasting; since, in the Church of Alexandria, they Dine not on this day, no more than in the Church of Rome. He says, That the Custom of Fasting on Saturdays is of long standing in the Church of Rome; and he deduces the Original of it from St. Peter and St. Paul, who ('tis said) Fasted on this day, before they undertook the Dispute with Simon Magus; whence ('tis thought) this Custom among the Romans came. He grounds this Assertion on a passage in the Life of St. Sylvester, of which he will have Eusebius to be the Author: But this Apocryphal Work does not so well justify the practice of the Roman Church, as the passages in St. Augustin about this Fast, and the Reflections that he makes on the Liberty which the Churches ought to have of following their Ancient Customs. Aeneas justifies the practice of the Church of Rome by the Testimonies of Pope Innocent the First, of S. Hierom and S. Isidore.  
The Second Article of Discipline, which is of like nature with this, is, concerning the Length of the Lent-Fast. The Greeks were offended, that the Latins did not Fast Eight whole weeks, during which they were to abstain from eating Flesh, and, during seven weeks, from Eggs and Cheese. Ratramnus answers, That there is a great deal of difference, as well in the Eastern, as the Western Churches, about the number of Weeks in Lent; that some begin it six, some seven, others eight, and others even nine weeks before Easter: That if the Fast were to be kept exactly Forty days, those who Fast all the other days, except Sundays, must Fast also four days of the seventh week: That they who Fast not on Saturdays, or Sundays, aught to begin their Fast the eighth week; and that those who likewise, except Thursdays, aught to begin nine weeks before Easter, to make up the number of Forty days; and, in fine, that the Roman Church gins a kind of Fast nine Weeks before Easter, as well as the Greek Church, in that they leave off Singing of Hallelujah nine weeks before Easter: But, after all, though there are some Western Churches that Fast no more than six weeks before Easter, except Sundays, and, in which, by consequence, there are but Thirty six days of Fasting; nevertheless, for the most part, there are added four days more of Fasting in the Seventh week before Easter, and that thus they Fast more exactly than the Greeks, who keep but half a Fast in the first week, since they do not abstain from things made of Milk; and in the seven others are Three days in each week without Fasting, so that thus they Fast but 36 days. Aeneas says the same in his Answer; but he observes farther, that this kind of Abstinence is various in different Churches; that in Egypt and Palestine they Fast nine weeks before Easter; that in several parts of Italy, three days in a week they abstain from Eating any Boiled, Baked, or Roasted Meat, their Meals being only of Fruits, Herbs and Pulse; that in Germany they don't usually abstain from Milk, Butter, Cheese, and Eggs; that some do not Fast on Holy Thursday; and that the Roman Church seems more reasonable in Fasting six weeks together, except Sundays, and in adding four Days to complete the number of Forty days of Fasting.  
The Fourth Objection made by the Greeks is of very little consequence, as Ratramnus observes. They are offended that the Priests shave their Beards. Ratramnus makes this appear to be a matter of no moment, which wholly depends upon Custom: That some do not shave their Beards, but cut the hair of their heads; That others shave their beards, and the Crowns of their heads, letting the hair grow that is about their Temples, and the underpart of their heads: That others shave off one part of their hair, and keep on the other: In fine, That the Custom of the Clergy is not uniform in this matter, but different; and that there had never been any dispute on this occasion; that the Apostle St. Paul seems to condemn those Men, who, in shaving their heads, put themselves under a necessity of Covering them with a Veil: That nevertheless they are not to be blamed, who do it out of Humility: That he does not accuse the Greeks, nor should they find fault with the Custom of the Latins, who imitate the Nazarites, in shaving their Beards, and cutting their Hair. Aeneas makes use of this Example, and of some passages in the Fathers that speak of it, to justify the Custom of the Romans; and adds, That it might more reasonably be objected to the Greeks as a Fault, that they suffer their hair to grow, & sic comam nutriant, against the prohibition made by the Apostle and the Church.  
The Fifth Article is, concerning the Celibacy of Priests. Ratramnus says, That if the Greeks seemed Superstitious in the other Objections, they are either very blind, or were worthy Compassion in this; blind, if they do not see that Continency is very much to be commended in Ministers of the Altar; and, worthy of compassion, if, knowing it, they condemn what they are sensible in their own Consciences deserves to be praised. He makes it appear, that the Latins do not by this condemn Marriage; but that they prefer Continency, and esteem it more becoming Priests, who ought only to be taken up with Divine Service. Then he quotes some Canons, which oblige Bishops and Priests to Continence. Aeneas, after he has alleged the Texts of St. Paul, in praise of Celibacy, citys the Canons of Councils, Decretals of Popes, and Passages of Fathers, in Favour of Celibacy.  
The Sixth Article is, touching the Prohibition to Priests of the Roman Church, to Anoint the Foreheads of those that are Baptised with Chrism. Ratramnus says, That there is no better ground for this Objection, than for the other; since the Greeks have no other reason for doing it, besides the Custom of their Church, and no Law at all. On the contrary, he maintains, that the Custom of the Romans is grounded upon the Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles, where the Imposition of Hands, for bestowing of the Holy Ghost, is reserved to the Apostles, and consequently to Bishops, who are much above Priests, and who have particular Offices, as conferring Holy Orders, Consecrating the Holy Chrism, Holy Oils, etc. He adds, That it was upon the account of their Dignity, that it was forbidden to Priests to Anoint the Forehead of the Baptised with Holy Chrism. He affirms, That this was established by St. Sylvester, as it is Written in the Pontifical, and quotes a Passage of Pope Innocent on this Subject. These two Authorities are likewise urged by Aeneas, with a passage of Gelasius.  
The Seventh Objection which the Greeks make against the Latins, is false in matter of Fact; They charge 'em with ordaining Bishops and Deacons, without conferring on them the Order of Priesthood. Ratramnus denies that this is practised in the West. He owns, that their Deacons are chosen in order to be made Bishops; but, he makes it appear, that this is not contrary to the Canons of the Church; whereas the Greeks violate 'em, in choosing Laymen to make 'em Bishops. Aeneas does not absolutely deny, that there are some among the Latins who allow of this Ordination; but he excuses their Practice upon this account, that it seems that he, who receives the Pontifical Benediction, is likewise honoured with the other Benedictions, and that (it may be) they believed, according to S. Jerom, that the Ministry of a Priest makes part of a Bishop, on which he quotes the passage in S. Jerom on the Epistle of Titus.  
The Eighth Objection of the Greeks is against the Primacy of the Patriarch of Rome, to whom they would prefer, or at least equalise the Patriarch of Constantinople; because that City was then Equal, if not Superior to Rome. Ratramnus asserts this Primacy; Because Jesus Christ, who is the Head of the whole Church, said to St. Peter, Thou art Peter, and upon This Rock will I build my Church: And St. Paul tell us, That he was among the Gentiles, as St. Peter among the Jews: That these two Apostles having received of Jesus Christ the Supremacy of the Church, Quos ambos Ecclesiae principatum à Christo positos, were sent to Rome, as appears both by undoubted History, and by the Monuments of their Martyrdom: That it was reasonable, that the Prince of the Apostles should be sent to the Chief City of the World, to the end, that as it had subdued all the World to its Empire, it should likewise preside over all the Kingdoms of the World, by its Primacy of Religion, and the Dignity of Apostleship. He alleges some Passages of Councils and Popes to establish this Pre-eminence of the Church of Rome. He affirms, That the Popes were always Precedents at General Councils by their Legates. He makes it appear, that the Patriarch of Constantinople, is neither to be preferred, nor equalled with that of Rome; and that he ought to be satisfied with the second place, which was allowed him by the Council of Constantinople, without entrenching on the Rights of other Churches, and the Determination made by the Council of Nice. Aeneas makes a Collection of the Canons of some Councils, and the Decretals of Popes about the Prerogatives and Dignity of the Church of Rome: He quotes some Spurious Tracts attributed to S. Sylvester, as also the Donation of Constantine, and ends his Treatise with an Invective against the Condemnation of Ignatius, and the Advancement of Photius to the Patriarchate of the Church of Constantinople.  
The Greeks made two more Objections against the Latins, which these two Authors think worth their Answering, because they plainly appear to be false; however, they ought not to be forgotten. The First is, that they made use of Riverwater to make the Chrism. The Second is, that they offered a Lamb at Easter with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, according to the Custom of the Jews. Walafridus Strabo relates, that there were some particular persons, who Consecrated and offered a Lamb at Easter. An example of this usage, is found in the Life of S. Uldarick, and a Prayer is to be seen in the Roman Order, for the Benediction of the Lamb on Easter-day; but this was not a general Custom, nor Authorised by all the Latin Churches. There is much more of Argument in Ratramnus' Work than in Aeneas', which is little else but a Collection of passages on the Questions proposed,   

CHAP. XI.  
Several Constitutions made in Ecclesiastical Assemblies, about the Discipline of the Church.  
NO Princes and Bishops were ever so careful in making Rules for the Discipline of the Church, nor have so frequently renewed and confirmed them, as the Kings and Bishops of France in the Ninth Century. These Rules were made by them in several Assemblies, of which here follows a particular Account.  

The Council of Aix la Chapelle, held in 809.  
IN this Council the Question about the Procession of the Holy Ghost was debated, which 
The Council of Aix la Chapelle  was started by a Monk of Jerusalem, called John; and, it was there determined, That He proceeded from the Father and the Son: And, to confirm this Determination, Charles the Great Wrote a Letter to Pope Leo the Third, in which he confirms this Doctrine by many passages out of the Fathers. He also sent Bernarius, Bishop of Worms, Jesse, Bishop of Amiens, and Adelardus Abbot of Corbey, to that Pope, to oblige him to confirm this Definition, and to allow that the Creed might be Sung with the Addition of the Filioque. A part of the Conference, which these Deputies had with Leo on that Subject, is yet extant; by which it is evident, that this Pope did allow of their Definition; but that he was not pleased with this Addition made to the Creed, or that it should be Sung with it. It was also proposed in this Council, to make some Orders concerning the Discipline of the Church, and the Lives of the Clergy, but it was not put in Execution.   

The Sixth Council of Arles, in the year 813.  
IN the year 813, Charles the Great Assembled several Councils for the Reformation of the Church, designed in the Council of Aix la Chapelle; Eginhard speaks of Five; One held 
The Sixth Council of Arles.  at Mentz, Another at Rheims, a Third at Tours, the Fourth at Chalons, and the last at Arles: In this order these Councils are reckoned by this Author and Reg●non. Nevertheless, that of Arles, and that of Rheims, are dated in the Month of May; and that of Mentz not till June; and, the two other have no date at all. We follow the Order in which they are found in the Collection of Councils, among which the Council of Arles is the first. The Bishops met in St. Stephen's Church at Arles, on the Tenth of May, and after they had taken their places, according to the time of their Ordination, and Prayed for the Emperor Charles, who had Assembled them; John, Archbishop of Arles, and Hebridi●s, Archbishop of Narbonne, who were the Emperor's Deputies, told them, That His Majesty earnestly prayed and desired them to Instruct the Churches that were committed to their Charge, with Saving Doctrines, and to be Exemplary to them for the Sanctity of their Lives and Manners. They added, That in Acknowledgement of the King's Kindness and Favours, it was fit that Prayers should be ordered to be daily made in the Church for the Health and Prosperity of His Majesty. The next day the Bishops being met again, began their Constitutions with a Profession of Faith: Then they ordered, that Prayers should be made for the Emperor, which were the Two first Articles of this Council. In the Third, the Metropolitans were ordered to take care, that their Suffragans should be well Instructed in Sacred Things; That they should understand what belonged to Baptism, The Holy Scripture, and the Canons, that they might be able to Teach, Preach to, and Edify all the World by their Knowledge and Piety. In the Fourth, the Laity is forbidden to turn the Priests out of their Churches, without the Bishop's Sentence, who ought not to prefer them to any Churches, unless he be well assured of their capacity. The Fifth forbids the Laity to take Bribes of Priests for presenting them to Churches. The Sixth enjoins Bishops to Regulate the Lives of Monks and Canons. The Seventh says, That none but persons of known Honesty, and of considerable Age, shall have leave to come into Nunneties; and that those who shall come in there to Celebrate Divine Service, shall withdraw as soon as it is over; That neither young Clerks, nor Monks, shall be permitted to come thither, unless it be to see some of their Relations. The Eighth ordains, That no Monastery shall receive a greater number of Maids than it can maintain. The Ninth, that Tithes shall be paid. The Tenth, that the Rectors and Vicars shall take care to Preach, and Instruct their Congregation. The Eleventh forbids Marriages between Relations. The Twelfth recommends Peace and Unity. The Thirteenth Obedience to the Bishops, and Concord between Priests and the Civil Magistracy. The Fourteenth regards the Relief of the Poor in time of Famine. The Fifteenth is against False Measures. The Sixteenth forbids keeping Markets on Sundays, and Working in Servile Employments. The Seventeenth enjoins Bishops to Visit their Dioceses every year, and to hinder Oppression and Violence. The Eighteenth commands, that Priests shall keep the Holy Chrism under Lock and Key; that they shall give none of it to any person as a Medicine, or for any other Reason whatever; because it is a kind of Sacrament which ought not to be touched but by the Priests. The Nineteenth recommends to Fathers and Godfathers Care of the Instruction and Education of their Children, both Natural and Spiritual. The Twentieth declares, that the Churches shall not be deprived of their Tithes, nor of the Goods belonging to them. The One and twentieth forbids Burials in Churches. The Two and twentieth ordains, that no Plead nor Assemblies shall be held in Churches, or in the Porches of Churches. The Twenty third is to prevent the Frauds and Cheats that are used in the Sale of the Goods of the Poor. The Twenty fourth forbids Bishops to permit any strange or fugitive Priests in their Dioceses, and enjoins 'em to send 'em back to their own Bishops. The Twenty fifth orders, that those who hold any Benefices, or have Goods belonging to Churches, shall be obliged to contribute to the Repairing of those Churches. The Twenty sixth, That Public Sinners shall do Public Penance.   

The Council of Mentz, in the same year.  
THis Council was more famous and numerous than the preceding, and made more Canons: 
The Council of Mentz.  It was holden in St. Alban's Church, the 8th of June, in the year 813. There were four Deputies from the Emperor present at it, Hildebaud, Riculphus, Arnoldus, and Bernarius. The Assembly divided themselves into three Classes: The Bishops made up the first, who had before them the Holy Scripture, the Canons, and the Pastoral of St. Gregory: The second consisted of Abbots and Monks, who examined the Rule of S. Benedict. The last was composed of Noblemen and Judges, who considered what concerned the Civil Government. After a Fast of three days, they made Fifty six Canons. In the Three first they speak of the Three Virtues, Faith, Hope and Charity. In the Fourth it is ordained, That Baptism should be Administered, according to the Roman Ritual, and that it shall not be Administered, but at Easter, or Whitsuntide, unless there be a necessity for it. The Three following Canons are for settling Peace, and to prevent the taking away another Man's Goods unjustly. The Eighth grants to the Bishop the disposal of the Revenues belonging to the Church. The Ninth, and the following, contain several Orders concerning the Lives of Prebendaries and Monks, to whom they prohibit Worldly Pleasures, and the Secular Employment. The Prebendaries or Canons are there distinguished from the Monks, and the Canonesses from the Nuns, who are of the Order of S. Benedict. The Two and twentieth is against Vagabond Clerks. The Three and twentieth sets at liberty the Clerks and Monks who have been shaved, and Cloistered by force. The Twenty fifth enjoins Bishops to appoint some others to Preach in their stead, when they can't perform this Duty. The Twenty eighth commands Priests to wear Stoles always as Badges of the Sacerdotal Office. The Thirty Second and Thirty third recommend the Observation of Litanies, or of Rogations. The Thirty fifth that of Ember-weeks. The Thirty sixth the Celebration of High holidays, which are Easter-Day, and all the Week, Ascension-Day, Whitsuntide, the Feasts of St. Peter and St. Paul, the Nativity of St. John, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, the Dedication of St. Michael, the holidays of S. Remigius, S. Martin, and St. Andrew; Four days at Christmas, and the Octave of Christmas-day, the Epiphany, the Purification, with the holidays of Martyrs and Confessors, in each Diocese, where the Body of any one of them lies, and the Day of the Dedication of the Church. The Fortieth maintains the ancient Right of Churches, in being made Sanctuaries, and forbids that those shall be delivered up, who come thither for Refuge, till their Lives are secured. The Three and fortieth declares, that one Priest cannot Sing Mass alone. The Four and fortieth reminds the People, that they ought to make frequent Offerings in the Church, and to give one another Pax. The Five and fortieth exhorts the Faithful to be careful in the Instruction of their Children. The Six and fortieth threatens those with Excommunication, who shall not refrain from Drunkenness. The Eight and fortieth forbids the Singing any Lewd or Immodest Songs, in going round any Churches. The Fiftieth appoints the Titles of the Vidames, and Defenders, or other Officers of 
Vidames'] were such persons, as supplied the Bishop's places, as Temporal Lords: Judges of Bishops Temporal Jurisdiction. Now they are become Lords, holding of the Bishopric they belong to.  Bishops, Abbots, or their Clergymen. The One and fiftieth forbids the Translation of Relics without leave. The Four and fiftieth orders, that Relations in the Fourth Degree shall not be allowed to join in Matrimony. The Five and fiftieth forbids Parents presenting their own Children at the Font, or Marrying one's God-daughter, or one's Partner in the Suretyship at a Child's Baptism, or even the Person, whose Son or Daughter one has brought to be Confirmed. I have omitted some Canons that are mentioned in the foregoing Council.   

The Council of Rheims, in the same year.  
AFter a Profession of Faith had been drawn up in this Council, and the Clergy had been admonished 
The Council of Rheims.  to do their Duty, the Gospel was Read. The manner of Celebrating the Divine Service, and of Administering Baptism, was explained. The Canons, the Rule prescribed by S. Benedict, the Book Written by S. Gregory, concerning the Duty of Pastors, and some Sentences out of the Fathers were Read. What relates to Penance was examined, that the Priests might know how they were to hear Confessions, and what Penances they were to enjoin. Eight of the Chief Vices were also discoursed of in this Council; and the Bishops were told what they ought to Study, and how they should Preach. They were directed to lead a chaste, Sober, and Modest Life, and to do Justice. As for Priests, they were enjoined not to Remove from a Meaner Benefice to one that was Greater; and it was ordered, that such as should obtain any by Presents, or Money, should be deposed. Several Canons were made concerning the Lives of Clergymen and Monks, as also concerning the preservation of the Goods of the Church, and the keeping the Sabbath-day Holy. This is all that is contained in the Four and forty Articles, or Canons of this Council, which are nothing but the Summary or Abridgement of the Matters that were transacted there.   

The Third Council of Tours, in the same year.  
THe Prelates of the Province of Tours took no less care than the other Bishops to Reform 
The Council of Tours.  the Lives of the Clergy, and the Discipline of the Church. In a Council that was convened in that Town, in the same year 813, they made Fifty one Canons upon the same Subjects. The Bishops are charged by them, to Instruct themselves and others; to lead a Sober, Modest Life; to abstain from Games, Shows, and Hunting; to take care of the Poor, etc. The same is enjoined the Priests, and other Clergymen. 'Tis forbidden to bestow the Order of Knighthood on any Man, before he be Thirty years of Age. In short, most of the Canons mentioned in the foregoing Councils are treated of in this.   

The Second Council of Chalons, in the same year.  
THis Council is the best of the Five, held that year by Charles the Great's Order, for Reforming 
The Council of Chalons.  the Church, and particularly the Clergy; but it is the most considerable for the number of Canons, and for the Matters of which it treats. In the first Canon, it condemns, with a great deal of strictness, the Avarice, Sordid Gain, and Exactions of the Bishops, and other Clergymen. Among other things, it enjoins the Bishops not to be a Charge to the Rectors of Parishes in their Visitations; and their Arch-deacons not to demand of them any Fees, or any thing for the Holy Chrism. It will not have them to oblige the Clerks, whom they Ordain, to Swear that they are worthy, nor that they will never do any thing contrary to the Canons, and will be obedient to their Ordinaries. It does not prescribe many things to the Monks, because it observes, that those of that Province are to follow S. Bennets Rule, and consequently need but to keep exactly to their Rule to live as they ought. It requires the Re-establishing of Public Penance, for Public Sins. To stop, or prevent the Differences that happen among Heirs, concerning the Right of Patronage of a Church, it orders, that it shall not be divided, and that none of the Clergy, named by different heirs, shall be suffered to perform their Function there, till they are agreed together, and have Elected one and no more. Some persons were so devout as to be Confirmed many times; this Council forbids this abuse in the 27th Canon. In the Thirtieth it is forbidden to dissolve the Marriages of Slaves. Some Women, with a design of being Divorced from their Husbands, brought their Children, at the Administration of Baptism, or Confirmation: Now, this Council orders, that these Women shall be obliged to do Penance, and not be Divorced. The 32d intimates, that we ought not to make Confession of our Corporeal Sins only, but also of the Spiritual. These are the words of the 33d. Some say, That we ought to Confess our Sins to God alone; others affirm, That they ought to be Confessed to Priests: Both are done with great Benefit in the Holy Church; so that we Confess our Sins to God, who does forgive them; and, according to the Apostle's Institution, we Confess them to each other, and Pray for each other, that we may be Saved. So the Confession which is made to God Purges from Sin; and that which is made to the Priest, inform▪ us, how we ought to be Purged from them: For, God is the Author of our Salvation, and grants it us, sometimes in an Invisible manner, by his Omnipotence, and sometimes by the Operation of Physicians. Which Canon only proves, that the Confession which is made to Priests ought to be attended with an Humble Confession of Sins to God; or, it is to be only understood of Venial Sins; it being certain, that it is necessary, that Mortal Sins be Confessed to Priests, that we may obtain a Forgiveness of those Sins. This Council, in the next Canon, exhorts the Priests to act like Physicians, and like Judges, and to enjoin Salutary and Suitable Penances to Sinners. It let's Penitents know, after this, that Repentance, if it be true, aught to be attended with a Change, both in the Heart, and Course of Life. It enjoins all Confessors to take their Measures, concerning the Injunction of Penances, from the Holy Writ, and the Canons, or from the Custom of the Church; and, to reject such Penitential Books, the Errors of which are unquestionable, and their Authors uncertain, which have occasioned the Death of many, because they only enjoin slight Penances for great Sins. In the Nine and thirtieth Canon it is ordered, that Prayers be said for the Dead at every Mass. The Fortieth orders, that such Clergymen as have been, or shall be degraded for their Crimes, be shut up in Monasteries, that they may lead there a Penitent Life. The One and fortieth is against such Priests as change their Church. The Two and Fortieth is against those who give Churches to Priests, or take Churches from them, without the Consent of the Bishops. The Three and fortieth is against certain Irishmen, who giving themselves out to be Bishops, did ordain Priests and Deacons, without the consent of the Ordinaries: Their Ordinations are here declared to be void. The Four and fortieth is against those Priests, that follow such Trades as are forbidden them. The Five and fortieth is against those who go in Pilgrimage to Rome or Tours, thinking, by this means, to obtain more easily the Remission of their Sins; and who, in hopes of this, the more freely commit them: But the Council approves the Piety of those, who, having first Confessed their Sins at the place of their abode, and there done Penance, and begun a new Course of Life, go afterwards in Pilgrimage, by a motive of real Devotion, and with a sincere design of expiating their sins. The Six and fortieth imports, that a great deal of caution ought to be used in what relates to the Receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ. That 'tis to be feared on one side, if it be too long put off, this delay should occasion the loss of the Soul; but that on the other side, if 'tis received Unworthily, not considering the Lord's Body, those that Receive, are like to eat and drink their own Demnation. So that all persons ought to try, and examine themselves before, abstaining, for some time, from Carnal Works, and cleansing the Body and the Soul. The Seven and fortieth orders, that all Christians shall receive the Eucharist on Holy Thursday, except those to whom it is forbidden to take it, on the account of the great Crimes which they have committed. The Eight and fortieth recommends the Anointing of the Sick, which ought to be performed by Priests, with an Oil Consecrated by the Bishop; adding, that a Remedy so fit to cure the Infirmities of the Soul and the Body, ought not to be neglected. The Nine and fortieth renews the Inhibition made by the Council of Laodicea, to Celebrate the Sacrament in private houses. The Fiftieth orders the keeping of the Lord's Day Holy. The One and fiftieth recommends Charity between Superiors and Inferiors. The Two and fiftieth commands the Abbesses to Rule the Nuns committed to their Charge, with Holiness and Piety, and to be themselves a good Example to them. The following Canons are some Directions for Abbesses and Nunneries. There are, in all, Sixty six Canons of this Council.   

The Council of Aix la Chapelle, in the year 816.  
LEwis the Godly having Convened a Numerous Council at Aix la Chapelle, in the year 816, 
The Council of Aix la Chapelle.  caused two Rules to be drawn up there, by Amalarius, out of the Writings of the Holy Fathers, the one for the Canons, and the other for the Canonesses. They were Read and Approved in this Council; which ordered, they should be followed and practised by all Canons and Canonesses. The Emperor confirmed them with his own Authority, and sent Copies of them to the Bishops, that they might take care to have them put in Execution. I do not here give the Abridgement of those two Rules, because they wholly consist of some Extracts of the Canons of the Councils, and of the Writings of the Latin Fathers.   

The Council of Celichith in England, in the same year.  
'TWas not the French alone that were endeavouring to reform the Discipline of the Church; 
The Council of Celichith.  The English, moved by their Example, did the like. Kenwolfe, King of the Mercians, caused a Council to Meet in the same year 816; The Archbishop of Canterbury presided in it, and Twelve Bishops of the different Kingdoms in England were present; Eleven Canons were made in it: In the First, the Bishops declare, That they will preserve the Faith and Orthodox Doctrine in their Purity, which they received from their Fathers. In the Second they say, That when a Church is built, it ought to be Consecrated by the Bishop of the Diocese; that afterwards the Eucharist ought to be set there, with Relics in a Chest; and that 'tis requisite the Figure of the Saint to whom it is Dedicated, be placed in some part of it. The Third is an Exhortation to Concord and Unity among the Bishops. The Fourth gives a Bishop Power to Elect an Abbot, or Abbess, yet with the Advice and Consent of the Society. The Fifth enjoins that no Irishman be suffered to discharge any Ecclesiastical Function out of their own Country. The Sixth confirms the Ancient Canons, and all Acts ratified and confirmed with the Sign of the Cross. The Seventh is to prevent the Alienation of the Goods of the Church. The Eighth charges Layicks, or Secular persons, not to take possession of Monasteries, or alter their Institution. The Ninth directs each Bishop to have a Register, in which the Orders of the Synods, which he is to observe, are to be set down, with the Name of the Archbishop, on whom he depends, and of the other Bishops in the Province. The Tenth imports, that after the Death of a Bishop, the Tenth part of his Estate shall be distributed to the poor, or to pious Uses; and that Prayers shall be said for him throughout his whole Diocese, that he may obtain the Kingdom of Heaven, and dwell with the Saints. The Eleventh orders the Bishops to do nothing in the Dioceses of their Brethren without their leave. The Archbishop is excepted, because he is the Head of the Bishops. It charges the Priests not to perform any other Functions than such as are left to them by the Bishops, as that of Baptising, and giving the Extremeunction. It establishes some Penalties against those that did neglect to administer Baptism; and finally it orders, that this Sacrament shall not be performed by Sprinkling, but by Dipping.   

The Council of Aix la Chapelle, in the year 817.  
IN the following year Lewis the Godly held an Assembly of Abbots and Monks at Aix la Chapelle, and caused some Constitutions for Monks to be prepared by Benedict of Aniane, charging 
The Council of Aix laChapelle  that Abbot to see them kept. These Constitutions are Eighty in all. An account of Abbeys, and of what they were to pay to the Crown was also drawn up in that Assembly.   

The Council of Thionville.  
IN the year 821, there was an Assembly at Thionville, which made some I awes against those 
The Council of Thionville.  who should offer to Misuse or beat a Clerk, and the time of their Penance is fixed. These Ecclesiastical Laws were confirmed by an Edict of Lewis the Godly, which is at the end of them.   

The Capitularies, or Sanctions of Lewis the Godly.  
LEwis the Godly following his Father's Pious Example, made several Laws, and Wrote some 
The Capitularies of Lewis the Godly.  Letters about Ecclesiastical Matters.  
In the First year of his Empire he passed an Edict in Favour of the Spaniards who fled into France from the Persecution of the Saracens. Another Edict made in his Third year, on the same Subject, is extant.  
In the year 816, he Confirmed the Constitutions that were made at the Council of Aix la Chapelle, and gave Orders, that they should be followed by Letters to Magnus, Archbishop of Sens; to Frotarius, Archbishop of Bourdeaux; to Arnoldus, Archbishop of Salsburgh, and to other Metropolitans. In the same year he also made Twenty nine Capitularies on the Discipline of the Church. In the first he takes care to secure to the Church those Revenues that belong to it. In the Second, he leaves to the Clergy and the People the Liberty of choosing their own Bishops. In the Third he confirms the Rules of Prebendaries. In the Fourth he orders, that a good use be made of the Oblations given at Church. In the Fifth he leaves to the Monks the power of choosing their own Abbots. In the Sixth, he forbids the conferring Holy Orders on Slaves. In the Seventh, he enjoins the Clergy not to receive such Oblations, as might cause the Children, or Relations of those that make them, to be deprived of their Inheritance. In the Eighth, the Priests are forbidden to give the Tonsure to any Person, with a Design to get a part of his Estate. In the Ninth the Laity are charged not to turn the Priests out of their Churches, or Install any there without the Bishop's consent. In the Tenth, he orders, that every Church have a piece of Ground belonging to it, and that no Priests apply their Revenues but to the Service of the Church. In the Eleventh, that every Church have its Priest: That the New Villages, where New Churches shall be built, pay Tithes to those Churches. The Thirteenth forbids to Pawn the Holy Vessels, unless it be for the Redemption of Captives. The Sixteenth is against the Simoniacal Exactions, that were practised by some Bishops of Italy. The Seventeenth renews the Canon which forbids Priests to dwell with Women. In the Eighteenth, 'tis ordered, that the Bishop shall send the Chrism to such Rectors of Parishes as are remote, by one of those in their Neighbourhood; but that all those who dwell but a League, or a League and a half out of Town, shall come to fetch it as usually. In the Nineteenth, the Bishops are exhorted not to be a charge to the People, when they go either to Preach, or to Confirm. In the Twentieth 'tis decreed, that none presume to make young Maids, Nuns; or Boys, Monks, i. e. without the consent of their Relations. The One and twentieth obliges Widow's not to take the Veil, till Thirty days after their Husband's decease. The Three following Canons are concerning Ravishers. The Five and twentieth renews Gelafius' Canon, against those that either debauched any of the Virgins who had been Consecrated to God, or ran away with them. In the Six and twentieth 'tis enjoined, that no Maid shall receive the Veil before she be Five and twenty years of Age, according to the Canons of Africa. The Seven and twentieth forbids the Trial by the Cross. In the Eight and twentieth the Bishops are charged to Instruct the people of their Diocese. The last forbids Marriages between Relations, and the sharing of Churches between Coheirs, and promises to take care to prevent this and many other things.  
In the year 817, this Emperor published some Constitutions for the Monks; which Orders were drawn up at Aix la Chapelle by Benedict of Aniane.  
Some mention an Edict of Confirmation made by Lewis the Godly, which, they say, he confirmed in favour of Pope Paschal II. the pretended Donations made by his Father to the Roman Church; but that Piece plainly appears to be supposititious, and does not deserve the least credit.  
The Capitularies of the year 819, are almost all of them Civil Laws. Some of them, nevertheless, relate to the Church; particularly in the last Capitulary, published by Baluzius, page 619.  
In the year 821, he Wrote a Letter to the Monks of Aniane, to exhort them to follow the Rules that had been established in their Monastery by their Abbot Bennet. He promises them his protection on the account of the Love he had for him, and confirms their Abbey in a Free Tenure, and the liberty they had of choosing their Abbot.  
In the year 822, at the Request of the Bishops Convened at Thionville, he made some Laws, by which he enjoined very severe punishments for those, who calumniate, revile, misuse, or put to death any Clergyman.  
In the same year he made a Capitulary in favour of the Nuns of S. Cross at Poitiers.  
In the year 824, he caused some Instructions to be composed for Jeremiah, Archbishop of Sens, and Ionas, Bishop of Orleans, his Deputies at Rome, in the Affair of Images, according to the prescription of the Council of Paris; and he Wrote a Letter to Pope Eugenius the Second on that Subject.  
In the year 826, there was an Assembly at Inghilheim, where some Laws were published against those that should offer any violence to persons consecrated to God.  
In the year 828, he appointed Four Councils, viz. at Mentz, Paris, Lions, and Tholouse; commanded a Solemn Fast, and sent Deputies to these Councils, to whom he gave some Instructions; and, on this occasion, he Wrote two Letters, which were addressed to the People.  
In the year 829, he caused the Decrees of these Four Councils to be examined in an Assembly held at Worms, and extracted some Capitularies out of them.  
In the year 832, he made an Edict, to confirm the Re-establishment of the Monastic Rule in the Abbey of St. Denys, which Monastery was originally made up of Benedictine Monks. The Monks had taken the Habit and way of living of Canons, except some of them, who had retired within a House that belonged to the Abbey, by the Advice of Benedict and Arnoldus, who, being come to Reform that Abbey, had not been able to effect it; and had advised those who had a mind to follow S. Bennets Rule, to withdraw from the rest. After this, Hilduin having demanded, that the Rule should be re-established in that Abbey, a Council held at Paris deputed Aldricus, Archbishop of Sens, and Ebbon, Archbishop of Rheims, to do it. Now when these were come to the Abbey, they found three sorts of Religious Men there; some of them said, They never professed a Monastic Life, and that they desired still to live like Canons; Some others confessing, they had professed a Monastic Life, were sorry that they had left it, took again the Habit of Monks, and led a life conformable to its Rules; and a third sort had always lived like Monks in a separate House. These two Archbishops settled again the Monastic Order in the Abbey of St. Denys. But, afterwards, many of those who had resumed the Monastic Habit and Way of Living, repent the doing it, protested against it, and presented their Petition to the Emperor against Hilduin, and against Aldricus and Ebbon; but, it being rejected, they resolved to return to their Duty, and made three Charters, by which they bond themselves to follow S. Bennets Rule; one of which was presented to Lewis the Godly, who confirmed it by the Edict of which we are now Treating.  
In the year 834, he made the City of Hamburgh an Archbishopric, as soon as Anscharius should be ordained Bishop of it; and he assigned him all the People in the North of the Elb●, by his Declaration of the 15th of March in the same year.   

The Sixth Council of Paris, held in the year 829.  
LEwis the Godly imitating his Father Charles the Great's piety and zeal, caused four Councils 
The Sixth Council of Paris.  to be convened in the year 829, to reform all the Churches in France. These Councils met at Mentz, at Lions, at Tholouse, and at Paris; but we have nothing left of them all, but the Constitutions of that at Paris, which are excellent and very well Written. The Bishops begin with an Exposition of the True Faith, in which they show, That Good Works ought to be joined with Faith, that it may become Saving. They add, That it must be acknowledged, that the Church is but one Body, which is divided into two principal parts, the Sacerdotal and the Regal. On this point they quote the passage in S. Gelasius, and S. Fulgentius. Then they enlarge on the Learning and Virtues that are requisite in a Minister of the Church. They order, that unless necessity require it, none shall be Baptised at any other times but those prescribed by the Canons; and that the Godfathers shall take care to instruct their God-childrens in the Faith. They renew the Inhibition made, to hinder such as were Baptised out of the Solemn Times, being sick, from entering into Holy Orders. They exhort all Christians to remember the Promises they have made at their Baptism. They enlarge upon the Qualities and Virtues which those aught to have that enter into Holy Orders. They enjoin the Bishops not to Alienate the Revenues of the Church, and prescribe to them the use they ought to make of them. They also order, that they recite the Canonical Hours with their Clergy, and hold Spiritual Conferences. They forbidden them to prefer to any Church such Clergymen as are presented to them by Laities, unless they find them duly qualified, and of sound Morals. They exhort them to do their duty towards the Flock that is committed to their Charge, and not use it as their own, but as belonging to Christ, and to assist it Corporally and Spiritually. They complain, that Provincial Councils were not still holden every year; and show, how beneficial that Practice was to the Church. They reprove the attempts of the Suffragan Bishops. They condemn the Priests that become either Farmers, or Men of Business, and wand'ring Clergymen and Monks. They charge the Bishops not to send to several distinct parts such Priests as belong to some particular Church. They recommend Residence to the Priests, and a constant attendance to Instruct their Flocks. They charge the Bishops not to put their Clergy to expense in their Visitations. They condemn several Penitentials to be burnt, and charge the Priests to fulfil, as they ought, the Ministry of the Keys. They order the Bishops not to give the Sacrament of Confirmation, after they have eaten, and believe that Sacraments ought to be Administered Fasting, unless on extraordinary occasions. They would not have them bestow the Holy Ghost by Imposition of hands, which is the Sacrament of Confirmation, at any other times than at Easter, and on Whitsunday. They renew the Ancient Canons against the Crimes of Uncleanness. They will have Degraded Priests put into a state of Penance. They forbidden the Admission of Foreign Clergymen. They advise the Abbots to be an Example to their respective Societies. They exhort the Clergy to behave themselves Modestly, Decently, and Honestly. They will not have such Women as have newly left a Worldly State to be Superiors [i. e. Abbesses] of Nuns. The Priests are forbidden giving the Veil to Widows without the Bishop's consent, and also Consecrating Virgins; and the Abbesses are forbidden giving the Veil to Widows or Maids. They will not have the Veil to be given to Widows, till some time after the death of their Husbands. They do not permit Women to touch the Sacred Vessels, nor to give the Sacerdotal Habits to the Priests, and much less to give the Eucharist, as, through a great abuse, they did in some places. They charge all Priests and Canons not to go into any Nunnery, nor will they have Mass said in any other place than Public and Consecrated Churches, saying, That 'tis better not to hear Mass, than to hear it where it ought not to be said. Priests are ordered not to say Mass when they are alone. They order, that, as there is a Bishop in each City [or Town] there aught to be a Priest in each Church; and they forbidden one Priest Officiating at several Churches. After they have spoken of keeping the Lord's-Day Holy, according to the Ecclesiastical Laws, they resolve that an Address be made to the Prince, to desire, that he may Command, that no Plead, nor Markets be kept on that Day; and that neither Husbandmen, nor Day-labourers Work on that Day in the Country. They forbidden all Vexations and Usury. Finally, they will not allow those Penitents, who are not yet reconciled to the Church, to stand Godfathers to Children. This is what is handled in the first part of this Council, so far as it relates to the Clergy, and to the Priestly Office. The Second concerns Princes, and the Laity. The Bishops give some very good Instructions to Kings concerning their Duties. They recommend to them Justice, Moderation, Clemency, and other Royal Virtues. They declare to their Subjects, that they ought to obey them, and revere their Power which comes from God. They exhort the Faithful to come to Church, to join in the Prayers, and admonish them to behave themselves reverently there. Finally, they charge those who cannot come to Church, nevertheless to pray to God, and perform the Duties which they own him. These Articles being framed, they sent them to the Emperor Lewis, and added Twenty seven Chapters to them, which they prayed His Majesty to Enact, and cause them to be put in Execution, that the aforesaid Articles might continue and be in force.   

The Council of Aix la Chapelle, in the year 836.  
IN the year 836, in the Month of February, there was an Assembly of Bishops at Aix la 
The Council of Aix la Chapelle.  Chapelle, in which some Constitutions were made, which are divided into three parts. The First is, concerning the Virtues of Bishops: The Second, touching the Learning, Manners, and Doctrine of other Clergy; And the Third, of the Virtues and Duties of the Emperor, and his Children, principally in what relates to Church Affairs. A Remonstrance was prepared afterwards by the said Council, Addressed to King Pepin, and the Great Men of His Kingdom, on the occasion of their having seized, to their own use, the Goods of the Church; and, that the said Remonstrance might be more effectual, it was attended with three Books, that contained the Examples and Passages in the Old and New Testament; as also, some Ecclesiastical Laws, which make it appear, that 'tis a Crime to take away, by force, those Goods that are Consecrated to God and the Church. Eginhard tells us, That this Remonstrance wrought the desired effect, and that Pepin yielded to these Advices which were given him by his Father and the Bishops; so that he caused the Goods which had been taken from the Churches, to be restored.   

The Council of Thionville.  
IN the year 844, Lewis the Godly's three Sons met at Thionville, and held there an Assembly of 
The Council of Thionville.  Bishops, of which Dreux, Bishop of Metz, was Precedent. They exhorted these Princes, First, To keep a Peaceable, and Friendly Correspondence with each other. Secondly, To Name Bishops to the Vacant Churches. Thirdly, To restore to some Monks the Places and Revenues that ought to belong to them. Fourthly, to hinder the Laity from taking into their possession the Goods of the Church. Fifthly, That if some Reasons of State obliged them to give some Abbeys, or Houses of Canons, or Nuns, in Commendam; at least they should give order, that the Bishop, with some Abbot, might take care of those Monasteries and Religious Houses. Sixthly, To restore to the Whole Ecclesiastical Order, the Authority which they had, to cause the Discipline of the Church to be put in Execution, and oblige Sinners to do Penance.   

The Council of Vernevil.  
IN the same year 844, a Council was held at Vernevil, in which, Ebron, Bishop of Poitiers was 
The Council of Vernevil.  Precedent, with Wenilo, Archbishop of Sens, Hincmarus, Archbishop of Rheims, and the Abbot of S. Dennys, who assisted at it, bore the Character of the King's Commissioners. The Council addresses their Constitutions to King Charles. First of all they exhort him to mix Severity with Mercy, and Govern his people with Justice. They pray him to send his Commissioners to apprehend, and punish those disorderly Clergymen, who contemn Apostolic Discipline, and break the Holy Canons, to hinder several Monks, that they abandon not their Profession, to compel certain wand'ring Monks, and Clergymen to return to their Monasteries and Churches, to Nominate a Bishop for the Church of Rheims, and confirm the Ordination of Agius to the Church of Autun; to Adjourn the Debate about the preference granted to Dreux the Bishop of Metz, to a more Numerous Council out of France and Germany; and lastly, to cause those Revenues of the Church to be Restored, which Laymen have unjustly possessed themselves of.   

The Council of Beauvais.  
IN 845, Wenilo, Archbishop of Sens, Erchanraus, and Nine Bishops, or Archbishops of Charles' 
The Council of Beauvais.  Kingdom, with Hincmarus, Archbishop Elect of Rheims, met in April at Beauvais, and composed Eight Canons, which they presented to that Prince, to require of him a Restitution of the Revenues and Privileges of the Church. In this Synod Hincmarus was Ordained.   

The Councils of Meaux, in 845. and Paris, in 846.  
THe Bishops of France being very earnest to perfect the Reformation of Discipline, which they 
The Councils of Meaux and Paris.  had begun, met in May 845, at Meaux; and in February following at Paris, where they composed 80 Canons for that end. The Six first were the Decrees made at Couleine, near Mons, concerning the Honour of the Church, and Peace of the State, which had the Approbation of the King, and Bishops. Those that follow, to the 13th, are the Canons made at the Synod at Thionville. The Four next are taken out of the Council held at Lorris in Anjou, about the Authority of the King. To these are added the Decrees of the Council of Beauvais, concerning the Revenues of the Church. The rest were made either at Meaux, or Paris. In them the Bishops declare, that their Mansion-Houses ought to be Holy, and not frequented by Secular Men, or Women. And for this reason it is, that they desire the King, that when he takes up his Lodgings in them, in his Journeys, that he would not bring any Women into them. They also earnestly beg of him, that he would not suffer his Retinue, or Guards, to Pillage the Towns they pass through, or take what they please of the people without paying for it: They exhort him to maintain the Bishops in their right of doing their Office; without Molestation, and executing the Holy Canons. They condemn the custom of certain Bishops, who very seldom, or never Visit their Dioceses. They revive the Ancient Laws concerning the Translation of Bishops, the Honour due to Metropolitans, holding Provincial Councils, and Residence, etc. They forbidden taking Oaths about things Sacred. They demand a Restitution of the Ancient Hospitals, and the Freedom of Monasteries. They condemn them that are Simoniacally Ordained. They forbidden the Suffragan Bishops to execute the Functions of Bishops. They command the Bishops to Consecrate the Chrism upon Holy Thursday only, and not to take any thing for the Distribution of it. They forbidden Laymen making themselves Masters of Ecclesiastical Revenues, or choosing a Steward of them without the Consent of the Bishop, to whom the Disposal of them doth properly belong. They strictly prohibit any Priests to Administer Baptism in any other places than in the Churches where the Fonts stand; and that Clergymen should be employed in any other business besides what belongs to the Church. They ordain, that the Priests, or Clergy of another Diocese shall not be received without Letters Dimissory. They forbidden, that any Strangers shall be admitted into Holy Orders, till they have continued one year in the Communion of some Church, or Monastery, or in the City, and declare themselves against all Ordinations without a Title. They require all Prebendaries to live in one House together, and to have the same Hall, and Dormitory. They order the Bishops to have special care of the Cardinal-Titles established in the Cities, or their Suburbs. They forbidden Usury to all Christians. They order, that a Bishop shall Excommunicate no Man, but for a Public and certain Crime, and then shall not pronounce that Anathema against any Man, but with the consent of his Metropolitan; and after he hath given the Admonitions commanded in the Gospel. They charge the Monks to abide in the Monasteries, and not to meddle with Secular Affairs. They petition the King not to entertain any Prebendaries in his Service, though they present themselves to him, unless the consent of their Bishop be first had, and desire, that he may be the person that Ordains them. They forbidden, that a Monk should be put out of his Monastery, till his Bishop be consulted about it, or be either himself, or Deputy present. They repeat the Laws against those that invade the Revenues of the Church, as also against Ravishers, and such Nuns as live a disorderly life. They revive the Ancient Laws against the Jews. They forbidden Burying the Dead in the Church, as by an Hereditary Right. They agreed, that the Bishop should sue to the King for a Commission, engaging the Judges to obey them in every thing that respected the Ministry. They exhort the Great Men not to suffer any Disorders in their Houses, and to be particularly careful that the Priests of their Chapels should live pious Lives. They testify their earnest desires, that the King would bestow those Chapels only upon such Priests as would exact the Tithes that belong to them, leaving the Parish-Churches to a Curate, with a charge to uphold the Chapels, and Celebrate Divine-Service in them. And they add, that if the King gives them to Laymen, they ought not to receive the Tithes, but they ought to be given to the Curates, who Officiate in those Chapels. They pray him to give order, that no Pleas be held in any Court, during Lent, or Easter-week. Lastly, They desire him to confirm the Constitutions of Charles the Great, and Lewis the Godly.  
These Constitutions being presented to King Charles, then at Epernay, and the Nobles opposing some of them, The King having commanded the Bishops to retire, till he consulted about them, confirmed only Nineteen of them, which ought to be understood of the last of those Constitutions, which were made in the Councils of Meaux, and Paris. For the Canons of the Councils of Covelines and Thionville, were confirmed, and published by his Authority before, and are met with at the Head of his Capitularies.   

The Capitularies of King Charles the Bald.  
AFter the Constitutions beforementioned, there follow Nine made at Toulouse, An. 843. upon the complaints of certain Priests, who were overcharged by their Bishop.  
In the First of them the Emperor orders, that the Bishop should do nothing against the Priests, by way of Revenge, because they have complained against them.  
In the 2d he commands, that the Bishops should exact no more every year of the Priests, than a Muid of Wheat, and as much Barley; 
† Muid is a large French Measure, for Corn, containing Five Seam and Five Bushels of London Measure; and, for Wine, it contains 36 Gallons.  a Muid of Wine, with a Pig of Six pence, or Two Sols-value, which was before determined by the Councils of Toledo, and Brague.  
The 3d obliges them that dwell within one League, or a League and half of the City, to send this Present by their Servants; but in all places at greater distances, the Bishop shall appoint a place in every Deanery to have them brought to. He exhorts the Bishops not to suffer those Officers, whom they shall appoint to receive those Presents, to exact them with force, but they should kindly accept what the Priests shall bring of their own accord.  
The 4th advises the Bishops, in their Visitations, not to stay at every small Church, but to make choice of some of the Principal Churches, where the Curates of the Lesser shall meet them, and bring their People to be Instructed and Confirmed. So that they shall Visit but one Church in five, and the Curates of the other four shall come to them, with their People, and bring with them every one Ten Loaves, a Roundlet of Wine of 16 Gallons, a good quantity of Oats, a fat sucking Pig, two Pullet's, and some Eggs for the Maintenance of the Bishop and his Attendants. That the person where the Bishop Lodges shall accommodate him with nothing, but Wood, and Household Utensils; and that the Bishop shall be careful that his Servants do his Host no damage, either in his House or Gardens.  
In the 5th he confines the Bishops, that they shall not Visit above once in the year; and, if they do it oftener, they shall be no Charge to their Curates in their other Visits.  
In the 6th he orders, that if the Bishops do not Visit in person, they shall not exact any thing of their Curates for it, nor oblige them to be at any expense to entertain others; and that they shall not carry along with them a great number of servants.  
The 7th exhorts the Bishops not to multiply Parishes without necessity.  
The 8th declares, that the Bishops shall have no power to decline the observation of the Orders, under a pretence that it belongs to them to make and explain Canons; That they ought to explain them in their genuine sense, and not elude them by corrupt glosses; and, if they do otherwise, he will teach them, by the Judgement of a Synod, and his own Royal Authority, how they shall explain them aright.  
The 9th says, that the Bishops shall oblige the Priests not to come to above two Synods a year, at the set-times for them, appointed by the Canons of the Church, and that they shall judge Priests with Justice.  
King Charles published also, at the same place, another Constitution in favour of the Spaniards and Goths, who were then fled into Catalonia.— He likewise published at Epernay the 19 Canons made at the Councils of Meaux and Paris, in 846.  
In 853, he confirmed the Canons of the Council of Soissons, and made several Constitutions for the better support of Ecclesiastical Discipline, of which I shall speak afterwards. Which were published and confirmed at the Synod held at Verbery the same year; which made some other Canons also, confirmed by Charles' Authority.— In December, the same year, he nominated several Ecclesiastical and Lay-Commissioners, in all the Provinces of France, and gave them several Heads of Instruction to act by in their Office; among which the Second concerns the Honour of the Church.  
There are also one or two about the Revenues of the Churches and Monasteries in the Constitutions made at Attigny, in 854.— In his Letters-Patents of the same year, given at Verbery, Aug. 23d. King Charles confirms to the Prebendaries of the Church of Tournay, the property of the Revenue she was possessed of, and limits the number of them to 30.  
In an Assembly of Bishops and Lords, held Anno 856, at Bonnevil, they petition the King to put the Monasteries in Order, and to execute the Constitutions made at Couleine, Beauvais, Thionville, Vernevil and Soissons, and declare all those things Null, that shall be made in prejudice to those Laws. They threaten him with God's Judgements, if he doth not perform their desires.  
In 857, King Charles made two Constitutions at Quiercy, which he sent to the Commissioners of his Realm; by which he gave them power to bring all Offenders to Civil or Ecclesiastical punishments, and particularly Ravishers.  
In 862, he put out a severe Edict at Pista against Robberies, and other public Disorders, very common at that time, in which the Bishops join with the King, and condemn those Malefactors to Canonical punishment, which the King condemned to Civil. In 866 there was a Constitution made at Compeigne, about the Liberties and Privileges of Churches, and the Authority of Bishops.  
But, above all, his Edict of 869, made at Pista upon the Seine, is the most considerable of all that he made about Ecclesiastical Discipline. In it he declares himself the Defender of the Bishop's Authority, and Liberty of the Churches. He order all his Ministers to respect their Power, execute their Commands, and preserve the Churches in the enjoyment of their Privileges. He requires all Earls, great Lords and Judges, to give the Bishops their due subjection; and, on the other side, that the Bishops should not encroach upon the Rights of the Earls, Lords and Judges. He commands the Bishops to do no Injustice, either to the Clergy or Laity, under their Jurisdiction; and that their Curates should give the Lords of their Parishes the respect due to them. He enjoins the Bishops not to reject those Clergymen that are presented to them by Abbots, Abbesses, or Lords, to serve in their Churches, if they are not worthy of blame for their Conversation, or Doctrine. He renews the Constitution, which forbids the Lords requiring any thing of the Clerks they present. He forbids them Excommunicating any persons, who were not full convicted of the Faults they were accused of; and, who after admonition to amend and repent, have not obstinately refused to submit. He recommends Peace, Union and Friendship among his Civil Magistrates, Bishops and Clergy. He order his Bishops to defend the Privileges granted to their Churches by the Church of Rome, and by the Charters of his Royal Progenitors, and that they be careful to have the Rents paid that are due to them.  
The King having received Intelligence at Pista, that Lotharius was dead, went immediately to Lorraine to be Crowned King of it. And being arrived there in Sept. 869. after Adventius, Bishop of that City, had declared in the Name of all the Bishops and People, that they all accepted him for their King, he took an Oath to preserve the Honour and Privileges of their Churches, to do Justice impartially to every Man, according to the Laws, and protect that Kingdom. After this Hincmarus, who performed the Ceremony of the Coronation, and Ordained some Bishops, being Admonished by Adventius, and other Bishops, which belonged to the Province of Treves, that this Action would prejudice the Rights of their Metropolis, made a Declaration, That it would be no prejudice to the Rights of the Province of Treves, because that Province, and that of Rheims were like Sisters, so firmly united, that they made, but as it were, one Province; since the Bishops of both met at one Synod, observed the same Canons, and, among the Archbishops of Treves and Rheims, the most Aged always took place: but yet, were it not so, he ought not to be accused for meddling with the Jurisdiction of another Province, by his own Authority, or of putting his Sickle into the Harvest that did not belong to him, since he had not concerned himself with that Province, but at the Request of the Bishop, and out of Charity. Lastly, That they ought to look upon it, as a special Favour of God, that Charles was Crowned King at Metz, because heretofore his Father Lewis the Godly, who was descended of Clovis the French King, who was Converted by S. Remigius, and Baptised in the Church of Rheims, where he was Anointed and Consecrated King, by a Chrism sent down from Heaven, which they still have at Rheims: That Lewis the Godly was Crowned Emperor in that City, and after he was Deposed from his Imperial Throne by the Conspiracies of his Enemies, he was restored, and was Crowned again in the same City, and in St. Stephen's Church, whose Name was a good Omen, because it signifies a Crown. After this Declaration, he asked the People, If the Coronation should be Celebrated before the Altar, and whether that Prince should be Consecrated by the Holy Unction. The People having testified their Approbation by their Acclamations, they Sang Te Deum, and the King was Crowned by the Priestly Benediction of the Bishops. This Constitution is very remarkable.  
In the year 874, Charles Judged some Ecclesiastical Causes at Attigny, at the Request of the Bishop of Barcelona. The First was about a Complaint made to him, That one Thyrsus, a Priest of Corduba, had called the People together at a Church of Barcelona, and had taken away from him almost two thirds of his people; That he Celebrated Mass, and Administered Baptism without his permission. That he caused those people to go to his Church on the Feasts of Nativity and Easter, which ought to be at his Cathedral, and gave them the Sacrament. The King Recited the Canons, which condemned the practice of that Priest. The Second complaint, made by the Bishop of Barcelona, was, That another Priest had engaged the Inhabitants of the Castle of Terracine, not to submit to his Jurisdiction. The King ordered, that the Canons in that case should be observed. The Third was against two private persons, who having Intercepted the King's Letters, had possessed themselves, the one of St. Stephen's Church, and the other of certain Lands belonging to the Church of S. Eulalia. The King commanded, that if this could be proved, his Commissioners should give an Account what Letters had been Intercepted, that being reported to the Council, it might be Examined by them.  
Lewis, the Emperor of Italy, being dead, Aug. 8. 875, Charles was Crowned Emperor at Rome on Christmass-Day of the same year, by Pope John the VIII; and, at his return, received the Crown of Lombardy at Pavia, and the Confirmation of his Imperial Crown in an Assembly of the Nobles and Bishops of that Country, held Feb. 876, at which the Pope was present in person. After this, to acknowledge the Obligations he had to the Pope, he made a Constitution, in which he decreed, That all persons should pay an especial Veneration to the Holy Roman Church, the Head of all other Churches; that no Man should dare to attempt any thing in violation of her Power and Privileges; but should enjoy her full Authority, and exercise her Pastoral care over all the Church; that they should particularly honour the Supreme Bishop, and Universal Pope John; that his Decrees should be received, with all due regard, and Obedience be given him in all things he hath right to: He forbids all persons encroaching upon the Lands and Revenues of the Church of Rome. He than commands, that due respect be paid to the Sacerdotal Authority and Clergy; that all should submit to the Imperial Authority, and none should be so bold as to resist his Orders. That Bishops should freely exercise their Function, and punish Offenders; that they be careful to Preach. He enjoins the Laymen which dwell in the Cities, to be present at the Assemblies of the Church on Festival-days, and forbids them having private Chapels in their Houses. He requires, that Bishops should have Colleges for their Prebendaries near the Church; that Prebendaries should live according to the Canonical Rules, and be subject to their Bishop. He forbids Clergymen dwelling, or conversing with Women, as also Hunting. He provides for the preservation of the Church-Revenues, and payment of Tithes. He commends Friendship between the Nobility and Clergy. This was published and received at Pontigon in July 876.  
Lastly, Charles the Bald held an Assembly of his Nobles at Quiercy, June 877, in which he made several Constitutions by his own Authority, and propounded others to his Nobles for their Advice. The Constitutions now made about Discipline, are these. The First was about the Honour and Liberty of Churches, so often repeated. By the 2d he confirms the Privileges of the Abbey of S. Mary of Compeigne, granted by the Pope, received by the Bishops, and Authorized by the King's Letters. The 8th secures the Revenues of Vacant Archbishoprics, and Bishoprics. In the 12th he nominates several Bishops, Abbots and Earls to dispose of his Alms, which he should give by Will, after his Death. The rest contain several Directions for doing what is necessary for the good of his Kingdom and Children after his Decease. Two days after he renewed again the Constitution about the Honour of Churches, and Authority of Bishops; he confirmed several Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws, and promised to put them in Execution. He provides for the preservation of the Estate of an Earl lately deceased, till his Son was in possession of it; and for the security of those Churches who have lost their Bishop, Abbot, or Superior, till they have a Successor. These are the last Constitutions of Charles the Bald, who died August the 28th following at Frankfort, in the 70th year of his Age, and 59th from his first Coronation. He was a Lover of Justice, Religion, and of the Church, and was the nearest of any Prince of his Race, to Charles the Great, in his good Qualities and Virtues.   

The Council of Mentz held Anno 847.  
THis Council was held under Rabanus, An. 847. It was made up of 12 Bishops, some Suffragans, 
The Council of Mentz.  several Abbots, Monks, Priests, and others of the Clergy. The Bishops and Clergy made one body, and had the Gospels, Canons, and Fathers laid before them; The Monks the Rule of St. Benedict, that they might unanimously endeavour a Reformation of the Clergy, and the Monastic Life.— First, They particularly recommended it to the Bishops, that they should take care that the people be well-instructed in the Fundamentals of Religion; and, for that end, certain Homilies should be composed in the Vulgar Tongue. Secondly, That Baptism should be administered according to the Rites of the Church of Rome, and at the times appointed by the Pope's Decretals.  
They exhort all Men to Peace; and order, That not only those Men should be Excommunicated, who attempt any thing against the King, or State; but those, who, by surprise, contrary to his good affection to Religion, obtain of him the Lands and Revenues that belong to the Church.  
They leave the whole disposal of the Church's Revenues in the power of the Bishops, and forbidden the Clergy to make use of them, to augment their own Estates, or dispose of them. They secure their Tithes, and other Rights, to the Churches. They revive the Canons concerning such Employments as are forbid Clergymen and Monks.  
They forbidden Monks to have any possessions of their own, to covet the enjoyment of worldly things, which they have renounced, and to take on them any Cure of Souls, without the consent of the Bishop.  
They forbidden Abbesses to go out of their Monasteries without great necessity, and without the leave of the Bishop.  
They revive the Ancient Canons of the Council of Ancyra against Man-slayers. They declare, touching the Administration of the Sacraments to the Sick, that the Priests ought to require of them a sincere Confession, without imposing on them any rigorous Penance, but only to bring their sins to remembrance, and comfort them under them, by the Prayers of their Friends, and by their Alms, and so Absolve them, upon condition nevertheless, that if they recover their health, they shall undergo what Penance shall be imposed on them; after which they may Administer the Unction, and then the Communion, as their Viaticum.  
They are not afraid to grant such Malefactors, as suffer for their Crimes, if they confess their sins, and are penitent, the honour of a Christian Burial; and that their Offerings be received, and Masses said for them.  
Lastly, After they have forbidden all Contracts of Marriages, either Incestuous, or within the Degrees of Consanguinity, prohibited by the Laws; they command, that Penances, proportionable to men's Crimes, shall be imposed upon them; that public Sinners shall do public Penance; and they, whose sins are secret, shall undergo private Penance.  
This is almost all that is contained in the One and thirty Canons of this Council. We shall not here speak of the Council of Mentz held the next year, against Goteschalcus, nor of those that concern his Affair, nor Ebbo's, because we have spoken of them at large in another place.   

The Council of Pavia.  
THe Emperor Lotharius, and his Son Lewis, held an Assembly at Pavia, Anno 850. in which 
The Council of Pavia.  the Bishops made 25 Articles, or Constitutions.  
In the First they order, that the Bishops should have some Priests, or other Clergymen witnesses of their most secret Actions.  
In the Second, That they should not neglect not only to celebrate Mass publicly on Sundays and Festivals, but, if it be possible, offer that Sacrifice every day in private.  
In the Third they order, that their Meals should be temperate, and that they should entertain Pilgrims and Strangers at them; whom they should entertain with Pious Discourses and Exhortations.  
In the Fourth they forbidden the Pleasures and Luxury of the World.  
In the Fifth they advise them to Study the Holy Scripture; to explain it to their Clergy, and to Preach upon it to the people.  
The Sixth imports, that the Bishops should be careful that the Priests discharge their Duties well in the Government which is entrusted to them. That the Archpriests should go to the Heads of Families, to exhort public Offenders to do public Penance: That in difficult cases they should apply themselves to the Bishops, and the Bishops should consult their Brethren.  
The Seventh orders, that the Priests should examine whether the Penitents perform the works of Penance; That the Absolution of public Penitents is reserved to the Bishops, and that no Priest shall Absolve them but in the absence of the Bishop, and with his Allowance, because the Imposition of hands was reserved to the Apostles.  
The Eighth engages them to Instruct the People in the saving nature of the Sacrament of Unction, of which the Apostle St. James speaks [c. 5. 14.] and make them sensible, that they can hope to receive the wished-for effects of that Mystery, viz. Remission of sins, and health, only when they desire it with a sound and full Faith. That because it often happens, that sick persons know not the force of that Sacrament, or think their Distempers inconsiderable; or forget to desire it, because their Minds are taken up with the pains of their sickness; the Priests of the place ought to put them in mind of receiving it, and invite the Priests of his Neighbourhood to be present at the Administration. But if the sick person be in a state of Penance, he ought not to bestow it on him, till he be reconciled to the Church; because he that is not allowed to receive the other Sacraments, is not in a capacity of receiving this.  
The Ninth advices Fathers of Families to Marry their Daughters as soon as they are of Age, and condemns them to Penance, if they happen to be debauched, either by their Negligence, or Connivance; and forbids, that the Benediction be given them, who Mary after they are Deflowered. It also says, that Marriage is forbidden those, who are in a course of Public Penance.  
The Tenth is against Ravishers, and declares, that they cannot lawfully Marry the persons they have forced; and allows such persons no Absolution, but just at the point of Death.  
The Eleventh orders, that they who commit a public crime in any place, shall be excluded from Communion by the Bishop of that place, and put to Penance, and not be received to Communion by any other.  
The Twelfth declares, that they who are deprived of Communion, and put to Penance for their Crimes, may not exercise any public Offices, but can't be prohibited from taking care of their Domestic Affairs. That such persons as refuse to do Penance, aught to be Excommunicated and Anathematised, after all proper means is used to make them submit to their Duty. Yet this is not to be done without the Judgement of the Metropolitan, and Bishops of the Province.  
The Thirteenth orders the Bishops to commit the care of Priests of smaller Parishes to the Archpriests.  
The Fourteenth commands those Bishops who have suffered the Monasteries of their Dioceses to be demolished, to have them immediately repaired and rebuilt.  
The Fifteenth imports, that such Hospitals, as are subject to Bishops, shall be governed according to the Orders of their Founders: That those that are under the protection of the Church, shall be Governed by the Heirs of the Founders, according to the Rules of their Institution, who shall hinder all embezelling the Revenues, and mis-employment of them.  
The Sixteenth resolves, that they will represent to the Princes the Misdemeanour of those Hospitals, that are under their protection.  
The Seventeenth orders, that all Christians should pay their Tithes, which shall be employed for the Maintenance of the Clergy, and the Necessities of the Church, according to the Disposal of the Bishop.  
The Eighteenth importeth, that they will not suffer any of those Priests, or Clergymen, who are called Acephali, not under the Discipline of any Bishop; and that those Priests, that celebrate Divine Service in Nobleman's Chapels, shall be such as are approved by the Bishop; or if they be out of other Bishoprics, shall have Commendatory Letters from their own Bishop: That they will not suffer wand'ring Clerks, nor any other persons without a Mission.  
The Nineteenth forbids putting Clergymen upon Secular Employments.  
The Twentieth imports, that they shall be Excommunicated, who suffer Jews to be either the Judges, or Receivers of Tribute.  
The One and twentieth forbids Usury, and obliges such, as have made advantage by it, to Restitution.  
The Two and twentieth imports, that they who neglect the care of Orphans and Widows committed to their charge, shall be admonished of it, and exhorted to be very diligent and watchful for them; but if they will not do it, they shall petition the King to appoint them other Guardians.  
The Three and twentieth is against those Clergymen and Monks, who, going up and down the Cities, stir up unprofitable Questions, and disperse Errors. They order, that such Men shall be apprehended by the Bishop of the place, and carried to the Metropolitan; and if it be found that they have vented such Doctrines through Ambition, and not for the Instruction, or Edification of the Faithful, they shall be punished, as the Disturbers of the Church's Peace.  
The Twenty fourth forbids the ill practices of certain Peasants, who Married their Sons very young to full grown Women, to be abused by them, and prohibits such Marriages.  
The last condemns Magicians to very severe penance, and deprives them of Absolution till the point of Death, who boasted, they could make persons Love, or Hate one another by their Art; and, whom they suspected of having killed some Men by it.   

The Council of Soissons, Anno 853.  
THis Council hath Three parts. 1. Some Canons. 2. The Acts of Eight Sessions, about the Affair of Ebbo, and the Clerks Ordained by him. 3. Some Constitutions published by the Emperor. 
The Council of Soissons.  What is contained in the Acts of this Council, we have related in the History of Hincmarus. So that there remain only the Canons and Imperial Constitutions.  
The First is nothing else but an Abridgement of the Judgement given against Ebbo.  
The Second is concerning Heriman, Bishop of Nevers; who, being a Man of a weak Judgement, had committed several Misdemeanours in his Office; and, notwithstanding that, desired to continue in his Function. They order Wenilo, Archbishop of Sens, his Metropolitan, to go to Nevers, to put that Church in order, and bring away Heriman to Sens along with him, till the Summer, in which he was worst in his Mind, was over, and send him again when he was grown something better.  
In the Third they reform what had passed in the business of the Bishop of Chartres. They questioned the Validity of his Election, and maintain, that he is not fit to be a Bishop. It was ordered, that he should either justify himself, or retire; and they charged Hincmarus, Pardulus and Agius, to certify him of their Resolution. He thinking himself Innocent, and being confirmed in that Opinion by the Testimony of the Clergy and Laity of Chartres who were present, he thought it his best time to appear, which he accordingly did, and said, That it would be a great piece of pride in him to assert himself worthy of so great a Dignity, but if any Person accused him of any Crime, he was ready to defend himself. No Man appearing, the Council ordered, that certain Commissioners chosen by Wenilo, should be sent to Chartes, to examine the ordination of Burchard, give in their Report, and ordain him Bishop.  
In the Fourth they relate, that the Bishop of Man's being troubled with the Palsy, wrote to the Council to be excused for not coming to it, and to desire the Bishops to pray for him, both so long as he lived, and after his Death. That the Bishops promised to do their Duty, and gave Order to Amaricus, Archbishop of Tours, his Metropolitan, to go to the City of Man's, and to do what he saw convenient for the advantage of that Church in this juncture.  
In the Fifth they declare, that they had deposed and banished into remote Monasteries, those Monks and Priests of the Abbey of St. Medard, who had conspired to secure P●pin, Charles' Nephew, who was shaved and shut up in that Abbey.  
The Sixth is against a Deacon of the Church of Rheims, who was accused of putting out Edicts in the Emperor's Name, they debarr him going to any Synod, and confine him within the Diocese of Rheims, till he should clear himself.  
The other Canons are some Propositions, which they intended to make to the King; That he would send Commissioners to set up Divine Service in the Monasteries. That he would permit the Churches to enjoy their Ancient Privileges. That he would pay to the Church the Ninth and Tenth part of those Revenues; which belonged to it of old. That he would not hold any Courts in any place Consecrated to the Service of God. That none should protect those, whom the Bishop would punish by the Laws of the Church. That on the contrary, incestuous Persons, and others guilty of like Crimes, should be referred to the Bishops by the Civil Judges. last; That there should be no exchanges made of the Church's Lands or Revenues, without the Consent of the King. In Answer to these Demands, the Emperor made Twelve Constitutions, in which he granted them more than they had desired of him. For in the First, he order that his Commissioners shall make inquiry, with the Bishop of the place, and in the presence of him who hath charge of the Monastery, concerning the Life and Behaviour of those that dwell in it; that he will regulate the Discipline, and cause them to make the Repairs carefully. That the Churches shall be adorned, and furnished with Tapers and Books, etc. That he will compose a Verbal process, in which he will put the Name of the Abbot, or Superior of each Monastery, the time of his enjoyment of it; the number of the Canons and Monks, or Religious Persons, to increase or diminish it, etc. That they should inquire, whether the Heirs of such as founded the Monastery, did not detain the Revenues their Ancestors had given them. That they should inform themselves of the Revenues of Chapels, and several Monasteries farmed out,— and if they had a care to keep up the Buildings, and provide all things necessary for Divine Service. That they should inform themselves of such Estates of the Church, as are given in Fee-simple; and of those Persons which pay Ninths and Tenths: That they shall forbid, that any pleading be had in Church Porches, Quires, or any other places, or in Lent. That they shall declare, that those that study to revenge them whom the Bishops have chastised for their Faults, shall be excommunicated, and pay a large Fine. That they shall order the Judges to assist the Bishop in his Visits, and constrain the excommunicated to do their Penance. That they shall declare, that he will give no Letters to set Farm to the Church Revenues. last; That they shall forbid making any exchange of the Church Land, or Slaves, without the consent of the King.   

The Council of Verbery, anno 853.  
THE same Bishops that were convened in the Council of Soissons in February, met at Verbery in August 
The Council of Verbery.  the same Year, where they wrote a Letter, in which they declare, that they would settle Heriman in his Bishopric of Nevers, and that he was not deprived of it for any Fault he had committed, but only for the Infirmity of which he was cured. They prevented the giving by a precarious Title, an Abbey and Farm which belonged to the Abbey of St. Denys. Lotharius in this Assembly, caused the Constitutions which had been made at Soissons, to be read over and received.   

The Council of Rome, under Leo the IU.  
IN 853 Pope Leo iv called a Council at Rome in December, in which he confirmed the Canons of a Synod held under Sergius II. in 826. and made some Additions to them. He also composed 
The Council of Rome.  some n●w Canons, and deposed Anastasius a Priest of the Church of S. Marcellus, who having left his Church, fled out of the Country, and would not return after several Admonitions given him, nor justify himself before the Council. There are Thirty Eight Canons made by the Synod held by Sergius. The six first concern the Lives, Knowledge, and Manners of the Bishops. The Eight following contain some Constitutions about the Life of Priests. The Fifteenth forbids all Familiarity of Clergymen and Bishops with Women, and chief any Woman▪ with whom they are suspected to deal carnally. The Sixth forbids alienating the Church Revenues. The Seventeenth prohibits, that the Offerings of Sinners be accepted. The Eighteenth orders, that no Letters dimissory be given to any Clergymen, but such only as are desired by some other Bishop. The Nineteenth and Twenty first, are about the Advocates, who ought to have Bishops to patronise their Causes. The Twentieth enjoins the Founder of a Monastery or Chapel, to name a Priest approved by the Bishop to it. The Two following Canons concern the Administrations and Usage of the Church's Revenues. The Twenty Fourth orders, that Divine Service be settled again in the Churches, where it had been discontinued. The Twenty Fifth, commands that sacred places be built again. The Twenty Sixth forbids the Bishop's exacting any thing against Law. The Twenty Seventh imports, that they should choose Abbot's fit to govern the Monasteries. The Twenty Eight enjoins Bishops to take Care, that those that profess themselves Monks, should live regularly. The Twenty Ninth commands, that young Women who have taken on them a Religious Life, should not marry. The Thirtieth and Thirty First, concerns the Sanctification of the Sunday. The Thirty Second commands, that such as are shut up in the Monasteries for their Crimes, should not be suffered to go out. The Thirty Third says, that 'tis not allowable for Lay-Men, to place themselves with the Priests or Clergy, at Divine Service. The Thirty Fourth says, that there shall be in all Cathedral Churches and other places where 'tis necessary, Masters and Tutors to teach the Liberal Sciences. The Thirty Fifth forbids Balls, Dancing, and other Sports upon the Feasts of the Martyrs. The Thirty Sixth prohibits Men putting away their Wives and marrying others, unless in case of Adultery and Orders, that if a Man and his Wife are willing to part, to embrace a Religious Life, they must do it with the consent of the Bishop, who shall examine both the Man and his Wife, whether they do both indeed consent to it. The Thirty Seventh forbids Polygamy. The Thirty Eight is against Marriage within the Degrees of Consanguinity forbidden.  
Leo iv made some Additions to these Canons, which were nothing else but Explications of them, or some Clauses to confirm them. But he added four new Canons. The First imports, that no greater number of Priests or Clergymen be ordained in every Church, t●an is just necessary. The Second, that Priests should present themselves at the Council of their Bishops. The Third orders, that Laymen who retain Priests that are Strangers, and employ them against the consent of their Bishop, shall be themselves excommunicated, and the Priests deposed; if upon Admonition, they will not return to their Diocese. The Fourth says, that no Man shall settle Priests in the Churches, but he that hath right to ordain in those Churches, and punish those that are in it, i. e. none but the Bishop of the Diocese.   

The Third Council of Valence.  
IN January 855. the Emperor Lotharius called a Synod at Valence, of Fourteen Bishops belonging to the Province of Lions, Vienna and Arles, over whom their Metropolitans pre●ded, 
The third Council of Valence.  and Ebbo Bishop of Grenoble, to judge the Bishop of Valence, who was accused of several Crimes. In this Council, the Decisions about Grace above mentioned, were made, which make up the first six Canons of this Council. The Seventh is about the Election of Bishops. They declare in it, that to prevent, that ignorant and unfit Persons be not preferred to Bishoprics, they would petition the King, that the Bishop of every Diocese shall be chosen by the Clergy and People who shall be obliged to choose a Person out of the same, or a Neighbouring Church, fit to fill the See, and that if the Emperor shall send any of his Officers to be Bishop, they shall examine his Life and Doctrine carefully, that the Metropolitan shall have a care, that the Bishop who is ordained, be a person fit for that Charge. The Eighth is against those who invade the Revenues of the Church. The Ninth is against those that take the Revenues of Chapels. The Tenth orders, that they pay the Ninth and Tenth of the Revenues of alienated Churches, and condemns Usury. The Eleventh forbids taking the Oaths of both parties in justice, and excommunicates him that doth the contrary. The Twelfth forbids the Combats, which were in use to prove men's Innocence. The Thirteenth imports, that such as are disobedient to their Bishops, shall do Penance, and such as are excommunicated in one Church, shall not be received in another. The Fourteenth forbids all vexatious Troubles, and commends Union and Love in Clergymen. The Fifteenth enjoins the Bishops to live an Exemplary Life. The Sixteenth orders them to preach and instruct their People. The Seventeenth commands them to visit their Diocese, without being a charge to any Man. The Eighteenth requires, that Schools be set up for Learning and Singing. The Nineteenth imports, that the Metropolitans and Bishops should take care that the Clergy live orderly. The Twentieth enjoins, that the Ornaments of Churches be preserved, and used only according to the Canons. The Twenty First says, that Church Revenues shall not be alienated. The Twenty Second says, that a Bishop shall not receive the rights of the Visitation, when he doth not Visit. The Twenty Third is in Favour of the Archdeacon of the Church of Vienna, whom they had redeemed from Slavery. They assert he was not a Slave, and threaten Excommunication to them, who shall persecute him upon that account.   

The Council of Quiercy.  
IN November, 858. the Bishops of the Province of Rheims and Ro●…en being Assembled at Quiercy, 
The Council of Quiercy.  composed a Letter, directed to Lewis King of Germany, who had possessed himself of the Kingdom of Charles, Surrendered to him at Attigny, by Wenilo, Archbishop of Sens, and Ercanraus' Bishop of Chalons. After they had excused themselves for not being present, according to the Orders they had received at the Assembly held at Rheims, because they had not sufficient Warning to provide for their Journey, and get leave of their Metropolitans, they passionately represent to that Prince the Disorders of the People of his Realm, and the lamentable state the Church was in. They exhort him to maintain the Rights and Privileges of the Churches, the Authority of the Bishops, and honour of the Priests; to put in Execution the Canons and Constitutions, which concerned the Liberty of the Church; to restore their Revenues to the Church and Clergy; to put the Monasteries and Abbeys of the Monks and Nuns into their Ancient condition; and to take them from the Laymen, to whom his Brother was forced to grant them. They give him many Instructions about his own Carriage, and how he ought to govern his Kingdom. They let him know, that they thought he had no Right to mind the King his Brother's Countries; and, at last, Protest, that they could not take the Oath he desired of them; nor subject their Churches to him, or their Revenues, as if they were Temporal Estates. This Letter is Written with much Elegance and Freedom. In it they Threaten that Prince with the Judgements of God, and terrify him, with representing to him his sad condition at the hour of Death. They give him several Instructions and Precepts about Civil matters, and speak to him in a Majestic Style. They relate to him a fabulous Story of the Damnation of Charles Martel; for having taken away church-good. There is some probability that Hincmarus composed this Letter; for which Reason 'tis Printed among his Works.   

The Council of Metz.  
LEwis of Germany being obliged to retire in 859, the Council assembled at Metz sent Nine Prelates 
The Council of Metz.  to him, to exhort that Prince to beg peace of his Brother, to acknowledge and confess his Fault, oblige him to promise to live peaceably for the future, and never hereafter to cause Schism, or Division, to punish them who were the Authors of this War, to engage himself to maintain the Rights of the Churches, and procure a Reformation: That if he did these things, although his Faults deserved a long penance, they could absolve him, although they did not join with him. These Messengers, who had for their Leaders, Hincmarus, Archbishop of Rheims, and Wenilo, Archbishop of Roven, finding Lewis of Germany at Worms, June the 4th. the Prince spoke to them first, and being desirous to appease them, said to them, That if he had offended them, he begged their pardon. Hincmarus, who stood the first on his lefthand, answered, That he came to offer him what he desired; that, as to his own particular, he had nothing against him; that he pardoned him what he had done; and as for the Mischief he had done his Church, he advised him, as he tendered his own Salvation, to make it up. Guntharius, Archbishop of Cologne, who was also one of the Messengers, told him what satisfaction they demanded of him, and read the Instructions to him they had given them. Lewis of Germany was displeased with them, and told them for Answer, That they came provided with full Instructions, that they might surprise him: That the Bishops of his Kingdom not being present, he could do nothing in that Affair without consulting them. So that this Embassage had not that good effect which they hoped for by it.   

The Council of Savonieres.  
IN June, the same year 859, the Bishops of both Kingdoms met at Savonieres, near Toul, where 
The Council of Savonieres.  they made up a Peace and Agreement between the Kings. In it also they Regulated several other Affairs. Tortoldus' Deacon of Sens, who had taken upon him to exercise the Episcopal Functions at Baycux, was left to the Judgement of Wenilo, Archbishop of Sens, and three other Bishops. They ordained, that the Sub-deacon Anscharius, who had possessed himself of the Church of Langres, should make Oath, that he would not attempt the like for the future. King Charles accused Wenilo, Archbishop of Sens, as the cause of his Rebellion; and it was ordered, that his Process should be made according to the Canons. Atto, Bishop of Verdun was summoned, because his Ordination was accused as faulty. They also charged the Bishops of Bretany not to withdraw themselves from the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Tours, their Metropolitan. They admonished them not to communicate with persons under Excommunication; and to exhort their Prince Solomon, to be faithful to King Charles. They also allow the persons Excommunicated till the next Council, to amend and reform themselves; and, if they did not do it, they would pronounce a solemn Anathema upon them at the next General Council. This Synod earnestly entreats the King, and Ralph, Archbishop of Bourges, to maintain the privileges of the Abbey of S. Benedict, which that Archbishop had possessed himself of, upon condition, that if the Abbot were found negligent, or irregular, by the King's Commissioners, he should be deposed, and another put in his place. They set in order several other private Affairs, of which there is no mention in the Canons, and ordered Prayers. This Synod was very numerous: At it were Eight Metropolitans, and most of the Bishops of the Twelve Provinces of France. We have, besides the Thirteen Canons, or Articles, already mentioned, Three Letters, one to Wenilo, Archbishop of Sens, and two others to the Bretons, with a Remonstrance, containing an Accusation of that Archbishop, brought against him by Charles the Bald.  
They read also in this Council the Six Constitutions of Valence about Grace; and Ten other Canons made Fifteen days before, by some Bishops met at Langres. We will not repeat what we have said about the Constitutions of the Council of Valence, and how Hincmarus opposed the Reception of them; but we will give the substance of the other Ten Canons.  
The First imports, that they would petition their Kings to call Synods every year in every Province, and every second year a General-Council in their Palaces.  
The Second ordains, that the Bishops should be ordained according to the Canonical Laws; that is to say, by the Judgement of the Metropolitan, and Neighbouring Bishops; and such persons should be chosen, as are of good life, and known probity.  
The Third commands, that Bishops visit Religious Houses, and take care, that all things be managed and disposed in good order.  
The Fourth enjoins them to set up Schools, or Teach the Holy Scripture, and good Learning.  
The Fifth requires them to repair their Churches.  
The Sixth orders, that every Congregation should have an Head of their Profession.  
The Seventh declares, that the alienated Revenues of the Church shall pay their Ninth and Tenth parts, and that for the future nothing shall be taken from the Church.  
The Eighth enjoins, that the Revenues of Hospitals shall be employed according to the intent of the Founders.  
The Ninth declares, that they will cause Justice to be done to the Poor by the Civil Judges.  
The Tenth contains their Resolve to punish Ravishers and Adulterers.   

The Council of Coblentz.  
THe Peace which was made between the Kings at the Council of Savonieres in 859, was confirmed 
The Council of Coblentz.  and sworn to, Anno 860, at an Assembly held at Coblentz; at which, Ten Bishops, and several Lords were present. In it it was agreed, that public sinners should be put to penance; and, that no Bishop should Excommunicate any Man, till after Admonition and Reproof; That they would pardon those Rebels that accepted a pardon, and promised Fidelity for the future; That they would put the Laws and Canons against Criminals in Execution. Some other Ecclesiastical Laws and Civil Constitutions were made in it.   

The Second Council of Tullium, or Toul.  
IN October 860, a General Council was held at Toussy, in the Province of Toul. There 
The Council of Toul.  were present almost Sixty Bishops out of Twelve or Fourteen Provinces of France. They composed a Pastoral Letter against those that invaded the Church's Revenues; and, because it seemed too tedious to some of them, they made Five Canons, which were signed by all the Bishops.  
In the First they Excommunicate, and deprive of Burial all those, that take, or receive the Oblations of the Church without the consent of the Bishop, or the Person, who is entrusted with the care of the Church Revenues; and condemn those of the Clergy or Laity who shall do it, to restore three or fourfold.  
In the Second, it is ordained, that Widows, or Virgins, devoted to the Service of God, who Marry, or suffer themselves to be Deflowered, shall be Imprisoned, and put to Penance till their Death: and they that so Debauch them, shall also be forced to undergo Penance.  
The Third pronounces Excommunication against all Perjured Persons, and False Witnesses.  
The Fourth excludes from the Communion of the Faithful, and from Divine Service, all Ravishers and Man-slayers, till they shall submit to a course of Penance.  
The Fifth enjoins all wand'ring Clergymen, and Monks, which are out of employ, because their Churches, or Monasteries, are burnt by the Normans, to betake themselves to their Duties, and submit themselves to their Abbots, or Bishops.  
We have spoken about the contest between the two Hincmarus', concerning these Canons; the Archbishop of Rheims maintaining, that they were not made by a Council, and that he did not sign them: the Bishop of Laon affirming the contrary. It is probable, that Hincmarus, Archbishop of Rheims, composed the Large Letter; but, that not being liked, some others digested the Five Canons, which were signed by several of them. This Council ordered Hincmarus to Write to the Archbishops of Bourges, and Bourdeaux, and Bishops of their Provinces, about the Affair of Earl Raimond, which we have explained in the History of Hincmarus' Work. And because we have also spoken of the Councils of Aix la Chapelle, Metz and Rome, held about the Divorce of Lotharius and Thietberga, we shall pass them over here; as also those held about the business of Rothadus, Hincmarus of Laon, Ebbo, Wulfadus, of which we have spoken in the History of the Controversies, in which Hincmarus was chief concerned.   

The Council of Worms.  
IN 868, in June, Lewis, King of Germany, Assembled a General Council of his Kingdom at 
The Council of Worms.  Worms: in it, the Bishop's first of all composed a Confession of their Faith; in which they asserted the Procession of the Holy Ghost form the Father, and the Son; and rejected the Opinion of those, who affirmed, That it proceeded from the Father by the Son, or from the Son only. They deliver, That the Resurrection shall be in the same flesh, in which we live, and that the Catholic Church shall Reign with Jesus Christ for ever.  
After they had made this Confession of Faith, they composed, or rather revived several Canons. The 1st Imports, that Baptism shall be solemnly Administered only at Easter and Whitsuntide. The 2d, that it belongs to the Bishop only to Consecrate the Chrism. The 3d, that a Bishop shall not require any Present for the Consecration of Churches; and that they shall use nothing but Bread and Wine, mingled with Water, in the Sacrament of the Altar. The 5th contains a Rule of S. Gregory's, about Dipping once, or thrice in Baptism. The 6th, that the Disposal of the Church Revenues belongs to the Bishops, and not to the Founders. The 7th, that they shall divide the Church Revenues into four parts. The 8th is an Extract of the Seventh Canon of the 2d Council of Sevill. The 9th contains a Law of Caelibacy, for all in Sacred Orders. The 10th concerns a Bishop accused of a Crime. The 11th declares, that Priests, who have been guilty of carnal sins, ought not to enjoy their Dignity. The 12th, that they that are accused of that crime, but can't be convicted, shall clear themselves by their Oath. The 13th, that Bishops shall not Excommunicate any Man for small faults. The 14th, that if they do, their neighbouring Bishops shall not communicate with them, till a Synod shall meet. The 15th orders, that if there be any Robbery done in any Monastery, and the Author is not known, all the Brethren shall communicate at one Mass, that by that means it may be known that they are innocent. The 16th Excommunicates the Bishops that refuse to come to a Synod, or withdraw before 'tis ended. The 17th forbids Clergymen keeping Hunting-dogs, or Hawks. The 18th orders, that strange Clergymen shall not be suffered to exercise their Ecclesiastical Functions, unless they have a Letter from their Bishop. The 19th says, that those that will not obey their Bishops, nor execute their Ministry diligently, in the Church which shall be allotted them, shall be Excommunicated and Degraded. The 20th appoints, that those Women, who are devoted to God by the Sacred Veil, and fall into any carnal crimes, shall not leave their profession, but shall be put to severe penance. The 21st obliges those Widows, who have taken the Veil, and have Prayed in the Church among the professed Nuns, offered Oblations with them, and promised to continue in that Estate, never to leave it. The 22d holds, that it is not lawful for them, who have by their Parents been put into the Monasteries in their Infancy, and have been brought up in a Regular Discipline, to leave or forsake that sort of Life, when they are come to a Riper Age. The 23d Revives that Maxim of the Councils of Spain, That a Man may be made a Monk, either by the Devotion of his Parents, or by his own proper Profession; and declares, That both ways equally oblige: and those, that are made so either way, may not return to a Secular Life. The 24th is against them that do any Injury to Clergymen or Churches. The 25th Commands Priests to impose penances proportionable to men's Crimes, and agreeable to the Laws of the Church. The following Canons contain the punishments of different sorts of Manslaughter. The 31st gives Lepers a liberty of receiving the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, but not with those that are in perfect health. The 32d says, that the number of Children, which a Man may have, can't be determined; yet no Man may Marry his near Relations. The 33d forbids Marrying Two Sisters. The 34th a Godmother, or God-daughter. The 35th condemns to the penance of Murderers, those Women, who cause Abortions in themselves; and those to something less punishments, who smother their Children in their sleep, though not thinking of it. The 36th subjects to penance, and separates him from his Wife, who hath lain with his Wife's Daughter by another Husband. The 37th imports, that Married persons, though under penance, are not to be parted. The 38th and 39th impose penance upon those that kill their Slaves. The 40th appoints, that a Bishop, who ordains a Slave, knowing him to be such, without the consent of his Master, shall pay double the worth of him to his Master; but, if he were ignorant of it, the Sum shall be paid by them who were Witnesses for him. The 41st orders, that they shall be Excommunicated who live in Enmity, and will not be reconciled. The 42d constitutes, that no Man shall be Condemned, who is not formally Convicted. The 43d sentences them to Deprivation of their Goods, and Excommunication till Death, who side with the Enemies of the State. The 44th condemns Adulterers to a Seven years' penance.  
These are the 44 Canons, which are all, but the 40th, in an ancient MS. under the Name of the Council of Worms. There are also 36 other Canons, that bear the Name of this Council. But since they are not to be found in any ancient MS. and some of them are already among the 44 preceding; and Labbé hath assured us, that the order of the first is very different in a MS, which he hath consulted; And there are some Canons cited by Ivo Caarnutensis, under the Name of the Council of Worms, which are not found among these Latter; it may be rationally doubted, whether this Collection of 44, or 80 Canons, were made in this Council of Worms. However that be, these Canons are, almost all of them, found either in more ancient Councils, or in those about this time.   

The Second Council of Douzy.  
AN Assembly of Bishops, who met the 13th of June at Douzy, in the Diocese of Rheims, Wrote 
The Council of Douzy.  a Circular Letter to the Bishops of Aquitain, which contains some Laws of the Councils and Popes about Marriages between Relations, and against them who possessed themselves of the Church's Revenues, that they might deter the Great Lords from those two disorders, which reigned among them. This Assembly also Tried Duda the Nun, who, being ambitious to become an Abbess, combined with the Priest Huntbertus, and engaged him to Write Slanderous Libels against her Abbess, and present them to the King's Commissioners, by whom he was convicted of Falsehood and Calumny. After this, he returned to his Monastery, and had such private commerce with the said Nun, that she became with Child by him: She confessed her fault, and said, That it was done by the Priest Huntbertus; but he denied it. The Council, in the first place, declared, That that Priest, being already convicted of Perjury, and to be a False Accuser, ought not to be believed upon his denial, nor ought they to refer themselves to his bare Affirmation. Secondly, That before he be judged in the place, where the Crime was committed, the King should send certain Commissioners into the Monastery, who may examine all the Nuns apart, and inquire out particularly of Duda, the time and place, where she committed the Crime with Huntbertus; who may also examine her Companions, and so make that Priest sensible that his Oath is not to be trusted; That if he persist in the Denial, they shall bring him before the Deputies of the Synod, King's Commissioners, Priests, and Clergy of the Monastery, with the Abbess, and her Society. That Duda, and her Companions, being also summoned thither, shall endeavour to make him own his Crime. But, if he still resolutely deny it, they shall Swear Duda and her Companions, and make them bear Witness against him; That, upon their Testimony, he shall be deposed by the Deputies of the Synod, Banished by the King's Commissioners, and Imprisoned in some Monastery. As for Duda, they ordered, That she should be put to Penance, and Scourged by the Abbess, in the presence of her Sister-Nuns, and shall not be received into Communion till after Seven years' Penance. And, as for the two Nuns, who being conscious of Dudas Fault, did not discover it, they judged them Blame worthy; because the Priests, to whom they discovered that sin, by secret confession, are obliged to keep them secret; yet there is not the same Obligation of Secrecy upon them, who attain the knowledge of others Crimes some other way. Nevertheless, they dealt more mildly with these Nuns, and ordered, that after they have been moderately chastised with a Rod, they shall endure but Three years' Penance. This is the substance of the Relation of this Council, which is full of choice passages out of the Councils and Fathers, very handsomely and fitly alleged.   

The Council of Ravenna.  
JOhn the Eighth appointed a Council at Ravenna, where he was to meet the Bishops at the end of 
The Council of Ravenna.  May, 877. He came and held a Council there in the beginning of August, where they made Nineteen Canons for the good of the Church.  
The First enjoins, and obligeth all Metropolitans within three Months after their Ordination, to send a Confession of their Faith to the Holy See, demand the Pall; and they that shall neglect this Duty, shall have no power to Ordain Bishops till they have performed it; and that other Metropolitans shall have liberty to ordain the Bishops of their Province, after three Admonitions, and having taken the Advice of the Pope.  
The Second orders, that if those who are chosen Bishops do not procure Ordination within three Months after their Election, they shall be Excommunicated till they do; and if they do not do it within Five Months, they shall neither be Ordained for the Church, to which they are chosen, nor to any other.  
In the third 'tis forbidden to make use of the Pall in the Streets in Procession, or in any other Ceremonies, than what are appointed by St. Gregory.  
The Fourth forbids the Nobles and Judges to contemn or abuse the Bishops, or exact any thing of them. It reserves the cognizance of the causes of the Clergy, Nuns, Orphans and Widows, to the Bishops.  
The Fifth is against those that take away the Revenues of the Church.  
The Sixth is against Ravishers.  
The Seventh is against Murderers, and Incendaries.  
The Eighth is against those that pillage and steal other men's Goods.  
The Ninth declares them Excommunicate, who voluntarily keep company with persons Excommunicated; and requires, that all Audience be denied them who are Excommunicated a whole year, and trouble not themselves to take off their Excommunication; if they die in that condition, it forbids to accept them to Communion.  
That the former Decree may be put in execution, it is ordered in the following Article, That all the Bishops should send to their Neighbours, and people of their Diocese, the Names of such as are Excommunicated, and cause them to set up a List of them upon their Church-doors.  
The Eleventh imports, that those, who, to avoid deserved punishment, fly to other Lords, shall not be received, till their Master hath Justice done him.  
The Twelfth is, that they that absent themselves Three Sundays together from the Assemblies of the Faithful in their Parishes, shall be Excommunicated.  
The Thirteenth enjoins the Defenders, Preservers and Managers of Church-Revenues, to do their Duty, under the pain of Excommunication.  
The Fourteenth shows, that he shall not be Ordained a Priest, that is not diligent in the Service of the Church.  
The Three following are for the preservation of the Laws and Revenues of the Church of Rome.  
The Eighteenth orders, that Tithes shall be paid to the Priest that serves the Parish; and forbids the Priest of another Diocese, or Parish, to meddle with them.  
The Nineteenth forbids the Judges, or King's Commissioners to hold any Pleas, or Lodge in Churches.  
At this Council there were present, besides the Pope, the Archbishop of Ravenna, Patriarch of Grado, Bishop of Verona, and Six and Forty other Bishops of Italy; who signed a Grant, by which they confirmed the Donation of certain Lands and Revenues given to the Church of Autun by King Charles.   

The Council of Troy's.  
John the Eighth being come into France, to desire the Assistance of Charles the Emperor, called 
The Council of Troy's.  a Council at Troy's in 878, at which were present with the Bishop of Porto, and Three other Bishops of Italy, the Archbishop of Rheims, Sens, Lions, Narbonne, Arles, Tours, Besancon, Vienna, and Eighteen other Bishops of France. In it they treated of several matters. The Bishops approved of the Excommunication of Lambert, and Adelbert; and declared, that they would look upon all those as Excommunicated, who had been so by the Pope. They pronounced an Excommunication against those, that had invaded the Goods of the Church. They confirmed the Judgement given against Formosus. They made a Canon, forbidding all Christians to Marry a Second Wife, while the First is living; and Bishops removing from one Church to another; and, in the conclusion, made Seven Canons. In the First it is commanded, that Secular Noblemen should pay respect to the Bishops, by not sitting down before them; and, that Laymen should not meddle with Church Revenues. The Second enforces the same prohibition. The Third orders, that the Canons made the year before at Ravenna, should be observed. The Fourth enjoins the Bishops to assist each other in the defence of the Revenues and Interests of their Churches. The Fifth requires, that those persons, who have been Excommunicated, or subjected to Penance by one Bishop, shall not be received by his Brethren. The Sixth asserts, that they will not receive another Man's Servant without his consent. The Seventh says, that they will not entertain a private Accusation against any Man. The Pope having seen the Body of the Gothick and Spanish Laws, brought by the Archbishop of Narbonne, and finding no Law in it against Sacrilege, Wrote to them to observe the Law made by Charles the Emperor, who Fined such as were guilty of it Thirty pounds. He sent also a Letter to the Bishop of Poitiers, forbidding him to encroach upon the Revenues of his Church; and, enjoining all those, that had invaded it, to make Restitution. By another Letter he confirms the Privileges of the Church of Tours, and grants a Privilege to the Monastery of Fleury. Hincmarus, Bishop of Laon, presented a Petition to this Synod, and his Affair was here determined, as we have said. In this Synod King Lewis the Stammerer was Crowned by the Pope. They made a Motion to put out Gozelin, Abbot of S. Denys, but 'twas not put in execution. Lastly, They determined some affairs concerning the Bishops of Avignon, Troyes, and Besancon. This Council was ended at Five Sessions, or Actions, which have we have Abridged with the Seven Canons, and the Decisions of John the Eighth, of which we spoken.   

The Council of Fismes.  
IN 881, several Bishops of France met at Fismes, April the 2d, where, after they had recited 
The Council of Fismes.  that excellent passage of Gelasius, about the Distinction between the Ecclesiastical and Civil Power; and, another place out of S. Gregory, concerning the Episcopal Vigilance, they admonish King Lewis to preserve, and increase the Honour and Revenues of the Church, and to maintain the Authority of the Bishops. They require, that Monasteries and Nunneries be visited by the King's Commissioners, who shall represent the state of those places. They exhort the King to punish Ravishers severely. They also exhort the King's Officers and Judges to hinder Disorders, and punish Crimes. They invite Sinners to Penance; and, Lastly, addressing their Speech to the King, they advise him to provide wise, discreet, and impartial Counsellors, who love Justice and Religion, and will employ their knowledge and zeal to suppress Vice.   

The Council of Cologne.  
IN the year 887, there was an Assembly held at Cologne, made up of the Arch-Bishops of Mentz 
The Council of Cologne.  and Cologne, Four or Five Bishops, some Abbots, several Priests and Deacons, and some Laymen, in which Drogo, Bishop of Metz was Ordained. Afterward they renewed some Constitutions made against them, who had taken away some Revenues belonging to the Church. Nevertheless they gave them to the end of June, to be received to Penance, if they would come in. They also revived divers other Canons of Councils about unlawful Marriages.   

The Council of Mentz.  
THis Council was called by King Arnoldus at that time, when Germany was much afflicted by 
The Council of Mentz.  the Inroads of the Normans. The Archbishops of Mentz, Cologne, and Treves were at it, with several of their Suffragans: In it, after they had declared, by way of Preface, the miserable condition that Germany was reduced to, they made the following Canons.  
The First obliges, to Pray continually in the Church for King Arnoldus, his Queen, and all Christians.  
In the Second, they give the King a short Abridgement of the chief Duties incumbent on him.  
The Third shows him, that he is obliged to Administer Justice impartially both to great and small.  
The Fourth says, that they who are Founders of Churches, should leave the disposal of the Revenues they give, to the Bishops, according to the Nineteenth Canon of the Third Council of Toledo.  
The Fifth enjoins, that no Priests be put into any Church, without the permission of the Bishop.  
The Sixth requires, that those shall be punished as Murderers of the Poor, who detain the Revenues of Churches, Monasteries, or Hospitals.  
The Seventh declares, that those, who do any injury to Clergymen, shall be put out of the Church, till they have made a proportionable satisfaction.  
The Eighth orders, that they who had cut off the Nose of a Priest of the Church of Wirtzburg, should be Excommunicated.  
The Ninth commands, that Masses shall not be celebrated in all places; but either in such places as are consecrated by the Bishop, or are allowed by him for that use. That in the places, or Churches Burnt by the Normans, Mass may be celebrated in the Chapels, till they are Rebuilt; and that in a Journey, if Men can't find a Church, they may say it in the open Field, or in a Tent, provided they have a Consecrated Table for an Altar, and other things necessary for that Service.  
The Tenth enjoins Clergymen absolutely to have no Woman to cohabit with them.  
The Eleventh says, that all that Invade the Lands of the Church, shall be Excommunicated and Banished.  
The Twelfth is a Canon falsely attributed to Pope Silvester, about the Accusations of Clergymen.  
The Thirteenth imports, that ancient Churches shall not be deprived of their Tithes and Revenues to Endow New Chapels.  
The Fourteenth holds, that no Bishop can retain, ordain, or judge a person, that belongs to another Bishop's Diocese.  
The Fifteenth asserts, that he that doth so, shall not be received at a Council, till he hath had a Reproof.  
The Sixteenth imposes a severe and long Penance upon him that shall kill a Priest.  
The Seventeenth orders the Payment of Tithes.  
The Eighteenth is against a person that had Married his Godmother, and being divorced from her, had taken her again.  
The Nineteenth revives some old Laws against Unchaste Priests.  
The Twentieth is against them, who, by their Petitions, get the Revenues of the Church into their possession by a precarious Title.  
The One and twentieth revives the Prohibitions made by Charles the Great, to hold Meetings about Secular Affairs in the Churches, or Church-porches.  
The Two and twentieth is against those, who defraud the Church of part of their Tithes.  
The Three and twentieth ordains, that Ecclesiastical Causes shall be judged by the Bishop, either according to the Deposition of Witnesses, or by the Oath of the Accused, and none shall be admitted for a Witness, unless they be 14 years of Age.  
The Four and twentieth recommends Peace, Unity, and Loyalty to their Prince.  
The Five and twentieth orders those, who have the Patronage of Monasteries committed to them, to place such Superiors over them as may do their Duty, and will govern such as are subject to their power, as they ought.  
The Six and twentieth forbids, that Widows should be easily admitted to the Veil; and declares, that they ought to be left at liberty, either to Marry, or embrace a single Life, till their conversation be approved. If they embrace a Single Life, it orders, that they be put into the Monasteries, where they shall live regularly with the Nuns. If they violate their ●…sion, they shall be punished Canonically: They renew the Canon of Elvira, made concerning Virgins devoted to God, which violate their Virginity.   

The Council of Metz.  
I Place this Council after the preceding, because we do not precisely know the year of its 
The Councils of Metz.  Meeting; yet it was held under the same Prince by Rathbodus, Bishop of Treves, and Robert, Bishop of Metz. The Bishops of Verdun, and Toul, were present at it, with one Abbot, and several Priests. Many Earls, Lords, and other Persons of worth were also at it. The following Constitutions were made at it.  
The First is a resolution to endeavour to establish Peace in the Church, promote Piety and Discipline, and hinder the Poor from being pillaged.  
The Second provides, that Tithes shall be paid to the Priest that serves the Church, to which they were anciently due, to maintain him; to furnish the Church with Lights, and Ornaments, and to make necessary Repairs for the Buildings.  
The Third requires, that every Priest shall have but one Church, unless there hath been a Chapel annexed to it, time out of Mind.  
The Fourth forbids, that any Tribute shall be exacted for a Farm, or Four Slaves belonging to the Church, or for Lands given for a Burial-place; and that nothing shall be paid for a Burial.  
The Fifth orders, that Priests shall have no Women with them; no, not so much as their Mother or Sister.  
The Sixth enjoins, that Priests shall show their Bishop the Books, and Sacerdotal Habits; that they shall keep the Throne under a Key; that Clergymen shall not bear Arms, nor wear laymen's Habits; nor Laymen Priests; that none shall be admitted for Godfathers, but such as understand the Confession of Faith; and, that one Godfather is sufficient.  
The Seventh forbids Christians eating with Jews.  
The Eighth orders, that Mass shall not be celebrated in places which are not Consecrated; and that Bishops shall Consecrate those Churches anew, which have been consecrated by Suffragan Bishops only.  
The Ninth commands, that they shall veil, and shut up, in some Monastery, two Nuns of the Monastery of St. Peter, who had been put out of it, and unveiled for their Crimes; and that a Deacon convicted of Sacrilege shall be put in prison.  
The Tenth pronounces Excommunication against some persons who had Guelt a Priest, who would oblige one of their Kinswomen to return to her Husband.  
The Eleventh Excommunicates those persons, who exercised pillaging in the Province, and did not come to the Synod to acknowledge their Crime. It issues out, in particular, an Excommunication against two private persons, the one guilty of a Rape committed upon a Nun, the other of Manslaughter.  
The Twelfth asserts it to be unlawful to Communicate with Excommunicate persons, or give any tokens of Communion to those, who died under the Bonds of Excommunication.  
The Thirteenth orders prayers to be made for King Arnoldus, with a Fast of three days, and some Processions to obtain of God the Peace and Quiet of the State.   

The Council of Vienna.  
THe Bishops of the Province of Arles made, in 892, some Constitutions like those, which had 
The Council of Vienna.  been made in Germany. Two Legates from Pope Formosus were present at that Assembly. In it they Excommunicated, ●st. those who invaded, or unjustly detained the Revenues of the Church. 2dly, Those, who injured, or abused the Clergy. 3dly, Those, who misemployed the Alms given by a Bishop or Priest, in their Sickness. 4thly, It was forbidden Secular persons to bestow Churches without the consent of the Diocesan, and to exact any Present of the Priests they put into them. By the 5th 'tis ordered, that Priests have no Women with them.   

The Council of Tribur.  
OF all the Councils held at this time, there were none so numerous, or that made more considerable 
The Council of Tribur.  Constitutions, than this, which was held in 895, under King Arnoldus, at his Palace called Tribur, situate near Mentz. The Archbishops of Mentz, Cologne, and Treves were at it, with 19 Germane Bishops. The Constitutions of it are contained in 58 Articles, or Canons, which are set after a long Preface.  
The First is only an Invocation of the Spirit of Peace.  
In the Second, upon occasion of a Priest, who complained, that a Layman had put out his eyes, and his Bishop pronounced him Innocent, and because the Layman would not appear before him, nor undergo Penance for his crime, they renewed the Canons which forbidden to receive persons Excommunicated by their Bishop, or communicate with them. And, in the following Article they enjoin all the Counts to apprehend the Excommunicate, who will not submit themselves to Penance, and bring them before their Bishop; that those who are not afraid of the Judgements of God, may be terrified by the Severities of Men. They promise Impunity to them, who slay them, when they defend themselves against their apprehension, and will not have them obliged to pay the Fine in that case usually imposed.  
The Fourth directs, how the Fine which is to be paid, for hurting and wounding a Priest, shall be employed. If he survive, he shall have it all; if he dies, it shall be divided into three parts, and given, one part to the Church, in which he was Ordained, the other to his Bishop, and the third to his Relations.  
In the Fifth, they impose upon him that kills a Priest, Five years' Penance; during which time he shall eat no Meat, nor drink any Wine, unless it be on Festivals and Sundays. He shall carry no Arms, go always on foot, and never come into the Church. After these years are expired, he may come into the Church, but shall not Communicate till Five years more be expired; in which time he shall keep three days of Abstinence weekly.  
The Sixth condemns him, as guilty of Sacrilege, who enters into the Church-porch with a naked Sword.  
The Seventh is against such as violently extort the Goods of the Church.  
The Eighth is against those, that will not perform the Penance imposed on them by the Bishop.  
The Ninth shows, that if the Bishop and Count call an Assembly both in one day, it is just that the People and Count both should meet at the Bishops; nevertheless, to prevent such an accident, and for the good of Peace, it was ordained, without any prejudice to the power and dignity of the Bishop, that he that first sends out his Summons, shall hold his Court.  
The Tenth renews the Canon of the Council of Carthage, which orders, that no Bishop shall be deposed, unless it be by 12 others, a Priest by 6, and a Deacon by 3.  
The Eleventh inflicts the punishment of Deposition upon those Deacons and Priests, who have committed Murder, although against their Wills.  
The Twelfth orders, that the Sacrament of Baptism shall not be administered but at the Solemn Times, i. e. at Easter and Whitsuntide.  
The Thirteenth commands, that the Tithes and Oblations of the Church shall be divided into Four parts, one for the Bishop, two for the Clergy, the third for the Poor, and a fourth for the Reparation of the Church.  
The Fourteenth preserves the Tithes to the ancient Churches, and annexes the Tithes of new broken-up Lands to them; but if new Houses be built Four Miles from other Churches, in a Wood, or other place, and a Church be built there by the consent of the Bishop, they may put in a Priest, and give him the new Tithes.  
The Fifteenth says, that the Dead shall be Buried, if possible, in the City, or some Monasteries; but, if that can't easily be done, then in the Church, to which they pay their Tithes.  
The Sixteenth forbids exacting any thing for a Burial.  
And the Seventeenth prohibits the Burying of Laymen in Churches.  
The Eighteenth forbids the use of Wooden Pattens and Chalices.  
The Nineteenth orders, that Water and Wine be mixed in the Chalice, but twice as much Wine as Water.  
The Twentieth is against them that Misuse Clergymen.  
The One and twentieth provides, that no Oaths be required of Priests.  
The Two and twentieth says, that those that are accused of any Crime, which they have no proof of, shall clear themselves by Oath. But if there be any just cause of suspicion, they shall undergo the Proof of Red-hot Iron, in the presence of the Bishop or his Commissioner.  
The Three and twentieth revives the Laws against those who Mary Virgins Consecrated to God.  
The Four and twentieth imports, that a Maid, who hath taken the Veil by her own desire, and without any Constraint, before she is 12 Years old, she is obliged to retain her Virginity, if she hath worn that Habit a Year and a Day, and no Body may take her out of the Monastery.  
The Twenty Fifth forbids Bishops to give the Veil to Widows, and obliges them to a single Life, who have taken it before.  
The Twenty Sixth allows Monks, who will not go out of their Monastery to preserve themselves, or others, to do it with the consent of the Bishop, Abbot, and their Brethren; but orders those to be punished, who get out to avoid the severity of the Discipline.  
The Twenty Seventh forbids the Clergy to forsake their Office, and gives the Bishop's power to keep them to it, and take them up, if they are fled to take a secular Habit.  
The Twenty Ninth forbids that a Slave be ordained till he hath gotten perfect Liberty.  
The Thirtieth appoints, that in Memory of St. Peter, the H. Roman and Apostolic See ought be honoured, it being just, that that Church, which is the Mother of the Priestly Dignity, should be the Mistress of Ecclesiastical Order, so that 'tis fit, that Men bear and endure the Yoke she lays upon them, although it be almost insupportable. Nevertheless 'tis ordered, that if any Priest or Deacon be accused of carrying forged Letters from the Pope to stir up any Troubles, or lay any Snares for the Ministers of the Church, the Bishop may with due Respect to the Pope, stop his Proceed, till he hath written to the H. See.  
The Thirty First is against Thiefs.  
The Thirty Second orders, that if the Right of Patronage to any Church be disputed by several Coheirs which can't agree, to hinder the Disorders which may follow upon it, the Bishop shall remove the Relics out of the Church, shut it up, and provide that no Mass be celebrated in it, till all the Heirs shall agree together to present one Priest, and that they shall neither put in, nor remove any Priest without the Bishop's consent.  
The Thirty Third revives those Canons, which exclude such Persons from H. Orders, as have made themselves Eunuches, or maimed themselves; but it excepts such from this Law, as have lost any of their Members, o● are made Lame by any Distemper, or other Accident.  
The Thirty Fourth treats those Men gently, who in the Wars with the Barbarians have slain by chance some Christians, which they took for Pagans, by imposing on them only 40 Days Penance.  
The Thirty Fifth forbids that any Plead or other Civil Assemblies be held on Sundays, Holidays, Fasts, or in Lent, and commands that all Christians be present on holidays and Sundays, at the Vigils, Divine Service, and Mass; and that in Lent, and other Fasts, they fast with Devotion, pray with Zeal and Fervour, and give Alms according to their Abilities.  
The Thirty Sixth declares, that if it happens that a Man, who is cutting down a Tree, and seeing it ready to fall, bids his Companion stand out of the way, and he doth not do it, but it falls upon him, he that cut down the Tree shall not be reproved or blamed for it.  
The Thirty Seventh is a like Case: If a Woman leaves her Child near boiling Water, and the Water still boiling scalds the Child, the Woman shall be put to Penance for her Negligence, but she that set the Water on the Fire hath committed no fault.  
The Thirty Eighth orders, that every Freeman that marries a Woman made Free, shall keep her as his Wife.  
The Thirty Ninth orders the same thing to such as marry Strangers.  
The Fourtieth declares the marriage of a Man and a Widow null, who have committed Adultery together in the Life of her Husband, if he hath promised to marry her at that time.  
The Forty First imports, that if a Person who is unable to do the Duties of Marriage, marry a Woman, and his Brother abuse her, they shall be parted, and she shall not have Commerce with either of them; nevertheless the Bishop may permit her to marry again, after the Guilty Person hath done Penance.  
The Forty Second asserts, that if any Person change his Diocese, after he hath committed incest, he shall be taken up, and put to Penance by the Bishop of the Place where he committed it.  
The Forty Third is, that if a Person commit Fornication with a Woman, who hath had carnal knowledge of his Son or Brother without his Knowledge, and he deposeth upon Oath, that he is not Conscious of any such thing, he may be allowed to marry, after he hath done Penance.  
The Forty Fourth says, that if one Brother marry a Woman, with whom another Brother hath had carnal Commerce, a severe Penance shall be imposed upon this last, because he did not tell his Brother of it, after which they may Marry. As to the Woman, they revived upon her account the Law of the Council of Neocaesarea.  
The Forty Fifth orders, that he that lies with two Sisters, and the Sister which lies with him last, if she knows that he hath had Commerce with her Sister, shall be put to Penance, and obliged to live a single Life to their Death.  
The Forty Sixth importeth, that if a Woman be prosecuted at Law by her Husband for Adultery, and she hath recourse to the Bishop, he shall endeavour to obtain of her Husband not to put her to Death, but if he can't prevail, he shall not deliver her into her Husband's Power, but send her whither she desires for her Safety.  
The Forty Seventh allows him, who is Godfather to a Man's Child, to marry his Widow, if she was not his Godmother.  
The Forty Eighth imports, that if a Man by chance marry the Daughter of his Godmother, he may keep her and live with her, as with his Wife.  
The Forty Ninth forbids, that such as have committed Adultery together, should ever Marry, Dwell, or have Society together. If they have any Estate, it shall be preserved for the Adulterous Offspring.  
The Fiftieth is against those who pervert Christians, and destroy them by their evil Arts.  
The Fifty First repeats the Prohibitions made to an Adulterer, to marry the Woman with whom he hath committed Adultery, after her Husband's Death.  
The Fifty Second leaves it in the Power of the Bishop, to regulate the time of Penance for involuntary Man-slayers.  
The Fifty Fourth to the Fifty Eighth, which is the last, appoint the time and manner of Penance for wilful Murderers, viz. Seven Years. For the first Forty days, the Guilty shall not go into the Church, eat nothing but Bread and Salt, and drink nothing but Water. He shall go bare Footed, having his Thighs only covered, he shall not lie with his Wife, he shall not converse with other Men; after this, he shall not enter into the Church for a whole Year, all which time, he shall abstain from Meat, Cheese, drinking Wine, Metheglin and Beer, unless upon Holidays, or in a journey, or in Sickness, in which case he shall buy off the Fasts of Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, by giving a Penny to the Poor, and maintaining Three poor People. After this year, he may go into the Church, with other Penitents, but he shall observe the same Abstinences, for the Second and Third Years, saving that he may for all that time buy off the Three Days aforesaid. In the Four last Years, he shall make three Lents, the one before Easter, in which he shall abstain from Cheese, Fish and Wine. The Second before the Nativity of St. John Baptist, and the Third before the Nativity of Christ, in which he shall practise the same abstinences. He may eat the rest of the year, what he pleases, on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, and buy off Monday and Wednesday for a Penny, but he shall keep a strict Fast on Friday. When the Seven Years are over, if he hath observed these Penances exactly, he shall be reconciled as the Penitents are, and be admitted to partake of the Communion.   

The Council of Nantes.  
THE Canons which bear the Name of the Council of Nantes, are only a Collection of several Constitutions made at different places. 
The Council of Nantes.   
The First orders, that the Priests on Sundays and holidays shall demand of the People before they say Mass, whether there be any person of another Parish, who is come to hear Mass in Contempt of his own Priest; and if they find any, they shall put them out of the Church, and oblige them to return to their own Parish. They shall also ask, if there be any Person at Variance, and in Quarrels, and if they find any, they shall cause them to be Reconciled immediately, which if they refuse to be, they shall also put them out of the Church, till they shall be Reconciled, because they cannot bring their Offering to the Altar, till they be reconciled to their Brother. This being done, the Priest shall say Mass.  
The Second forbids all Priests to receive the Parishioners of another, unless he be in a Voyage, or come to some Court.  
The Third forbids a Priest to have any Woman with him, yea, those that are accepted by the Canons. It forbids also Women to approach the Altar, officiate as Priests, or to sit within the Rails.  
The Fourth contains Directions, what a Priest ought to do when he hears that any Person is sick in his Parish. He ought to go immediately to see him, and when he enters into his Chamber, sprinkle Holy-Water, singing the Anthem, Asperges me Domine, Thou shalt sprinkle me, O Lord, etc. Psal. 51. 7. Then he shall say the Lord's Prayer, the Seven Psalms, and the Prayers for the Sick. After this, he shall cause all that are in the Chamber to go out, and coming to the Bed of the Sick-Man, he shall speak comfortably to him, and exhort him to put his whole Trust in God, to bear patiently the Afflictions he hath laid upon him, to confess his Sins, and to resolve fully upon a thorough Conversion; if God restores him to his Health, to promise, that he will do Penance, to dispose of his Goods, and set his worldly affairs in order, while he is of a sound Mind, to redeem his Sins by Alms, to pardon those that have injured him, to make a Confession of the Faith of the Church, and not to despair of the Mercy of God. After he hath given him these Exhortations, he shall give him his Blessing, and then shall retire to leave the Sick Man to think of his Sins.  
The Fifth imports, that the Priest who shall receive the Confession of a Sick-Man, shall not bestow Absolution upon him, but upon Condition, that if God shall restore him to his Health, he will undergo Penance proportionable to his Faults.  
The Sixth forbids taking any thing for Burials, and Burying in the Church, near the Altar.  
The Seventh forbids all Ministers of the Church to favour secret and clandestine Ordinations of any of the Clergy of another Diocese.  
The Eighth forbids a Priest to have more than one Church, unless he have other Priests under him in every of those Churches, who shall recite the Office day and night, and celebrate Mass in them every day.  
The Ninth commands, that the Bread be Blessed that is distributed to the People. This is one of the Articles of Hincmarus' Constitutions made 852.  
The Tenth is about the Revenues of the Church, what use they ought to be put to, and how distributed into Four parts.  
The Eleventh Orders, that when the Bishop designs to make an Ordination, he shall cause all those who are to be Ordained, to come to the City the Wednesday before the Ordination, with the Archpriests who are to present them. That afterward he shall send some Priests, and other discreet persons, to get information of their Life, Education, Birth, Manners, and Capacity; that he shall have them examined Three days together, and on Saturday Ordain those he finds worthy.  
The Twelfth allows a Man to put away his Wife for Adultery, but not to Marry another in her Life-time. He may be Reconciled to her, but on condition that he do Penance with her.  
The Thirteenth imposes Three years' Penance for single Fornication.  
The Fourteenth imposes Seven years' Penance upon a Married person, that hath committed Adultery; and Five on him that is not Married.  
The Fifteenth regulates the practices of Fraternities, and takes away Abuses. This is Copied out of Hincmarus' Constitutions.  
The next is an Extract from the same Author, In it a Priest is forbidden to sue for another Church besides what he has, and give Presents to the Lord to attain it.  
The Seventeenth laus 14 years penance upon a Voluntary and Public Murderer, viz. Five years in which he shall be separated from the Church; the rest of the time he may be at Prayers, but without Offering, or Communicating.  
The Eighteenth imposeth Five years' penance upon an Involuntary Murderer; Forty days Fast with Bread and Water, Two years' separation from the Prayers of the Faithful, and Three years without communicating. It leaves it to the Priest to prescribe the Abstinence as he thinks convenient.  
The Nineteenth forbids Nuns and Widows to be present at Plead, or any public Assemblies, if they are not summoned by the Prince or Bishop, or have no necessary business, in which case they ought to have the permission of the Bishop.  
The Twentieth commands, that Bishops and their Ministers should use their utmost endeavours to abolish the Remainders of Idolatry in all places.   

A LETTER from the Clergy of Ravenna to Charles the Younger.  
CHARLES the younger had consulted the Clergy of Ravenna, to know, whether the Monks, which were raised to Ecclesiastical Dignities, aught to wear Clergy-men's habit, or keep to their Monks Garb. In Answer to him, they brought several Authorities of the Popes, to show, that Clergymen and Monks ought not so much to be distinguished by their Habits, as by their holy Lives and Profession. Then they say, that it doth not seem contrary to the Laws of the Church, that the Monks who are made Bishops, may not wear the same Habits with other Bishops, according to the practice of the Church of Rome; and they think, that such an Uniformity is much better, than if they were distinguished, as they are in the Greek Church. That nevertheless they do not think that it ought to be a Law to all Churches, because every one may have its particular Customs. But yet they can't condemn the practice of the Italian Bishops, and that it is convenient to uphold it, and to oblige all Monks that are Ordained Bishops, to wear the Stole, i. e. a Long Garment, in Honour to the Priesthood; although they are not thereby dispensed with to neglect the practice of their Rule. Lastly, That we must follow in such things the Custom that is anciently settled in the Church.   

The LETTER of the Bishops of Germany to John the VIIIth.  
THis Letter is Written in the Name of the Bishops, Clergy, and People of Bavaria. They tell the Pope, that having heard of their Predecessors, that the Bishop of Rome hath been always careful to promote the Peace, Union, and Discipline of every Church; they cannot believe that which is daily reported, That there is lately come out from the Holy Apostolic See, which is the Original of the Christian Religion, and the Source of the Priestly Dignity, a Decree both unjust in itself, and contrary to the Doctrine and Authority of the Church; but that three Bishops, who pretend themselves his Legates to the Sclavonians and Moravians, have raised that Report. That these People were heretofore subject to their Prince and the Bishops, that had Converted them; That the Bishop of Passau had always conversed freely with them, and held Synods there, till they revolted, and forsook Christianity; That since they brag, that they have obtained of the Pope, by their Money, to send three Bishops, who have attempted to do a thing in the Bishopric of Passau, which they could not think the Holy See would be the Author of, and which is directly contrary to the Order of the Canons, viz. To divide that Bishopric into Five parts, and place an Archbishop, and three Bishops in that Diocese, without the consent of the Bishop. They cite the two Canons of a Council of Africa, and some places in the Pope's, Leo, and Celestine's Letters. They add, that his Predecessor Consecrated Wicherius Bishop at the desire of the Duke Zuetbaldus; but that he sent him into a Conquered Country, and not into the Duchy of Passau. They complain also, that his Legates giving credit to the Relations of the Sclavonians, accused them of many false things. They take notice, that their Prince is descended of the Family of the Kings of France, who are Christians; whereas the Moravians and Sclavonians are Originally Pagans, and Enemies to the Christian Religion. They commend their King Lewis, and show the great inclination he hath to the Holy See, and for Religion. They Confute the Reports the Sclavonians had given out, that they had made a League, in a profane manner, with the Hungarians, who have pillaged, burnt and sacked the Country. That, on the contrary, they had a design of hindering them from entering into Italy, and to send some Succours into Lombardy; and to put themselves into a condition to do it, they had desired a League with the Sclavonians, but could not obtain it. They conclude, with an earnest Request to the Pope, not to believe the Calumnies which the Sclavonians spread abroad against them, and to endeavour the Peace of the Church.    

CHAP. XII.  
The Constitutions of some Bishops, and Collections of Canons, concerning the Discipline of the Church.  
BEsides the Constitutions made by the Bishops Assembled in Councils for the Resormation of Church-Discipline, several Bishops were at the pains to make particular Constitutions for their own Dioceses, and Treatises for the Instruction of their Clergy. They also, at the same time, made several Collections of Canons about Penance, and other Ecclesiastical Matters. The chief Tracts, which relate to the Matters, and the Authors of this Age, which composed them, are these that follow.  
Hatto, or Hetto, chosen in 796 Abbot of the Monastery of Auria Dives, of which he was a 
Hatto.  Monk, and afterwards Bishop of Basil in 801; was sent, by Charles the Great, in the year 811, to the Greek Emperor, to make a Peace, and settle the Bounds of both Empires. He Wrote a Rolation of his Voyage, but it is lost. He Composed a Book of Constitutions for the Instruction of the Priests of his Diocese, put out by Father Dacherius, in Tom. 6. of his Spicilegium, and inserted in the last Collection of the Councils.  
This Book contains 25 Articles. 1. That Priests shall understand well the Doctrine of the Faith. 2. That they shall Teach the People the Creed, and Lord's Prayer in Latin, and their Mother-Tongue. 3. That they shall Teach them to say the Responses after the Priest in Divine-Service. 4. That the Priests shall understand the Nature of the Sacraments, of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Lord's Supper; and that by the Mysterious use of a Visible Creature, the Salvation of the Soul is furthered. 5. That they shall have Books necessary for their Office, viz. A Book for Celebration of Sacraments, a Book of the Lessons, Anthems, Administration of Baptism, a Calendar, and Homilies for all the year. 6. That they shall recite S. Athanasius' Creed at the Prime. 7. That they shall have notice of the Solemn time for Baptism, as H. Saturday, and the Saturday before Whitsuntide, although in cases of necessity, Baptism may be administered at all times. He observes, that they used Three Dippings, and had in their Fonts a Vessel, which they used only to Baptise in. 8. That they should know all the days in the year, which they are to keep Holy, viz. All the Sundays in the year, from Morning to Night; our Lord's Nativity, St. Stephen's, St. John's, St. Innocent's, Circumcision, Epiphany, Purification, Easter, Ascension, H. Saturday, Whitsuntide, St. John Baptist, the XII Apostles, and chief St. Peter and St. Paul. The Assumption of the Virgin Mary, the Dedication of St. Michael's Church, and all other Churches; the Feast of every Saint, in Honour of whom any Church is Founded. That they ought to observe the Fasts appointed by the Prince; but as to the Festivals of S. Remedius, S. Maurice, and S. Martin, the People ought not to be forced to keep them, nor hindered, if their Devotion lead them to it. 9 That Clergymen ought not to have Women, that are Related to them▪ with them. 10. Nor go to Taverns. 11. Nor frequent Courts of Judicature, nor be Bail, nor go a Hunting. 12. That they should know, that none ought to be Ordained for Money, and if any Man be, he ought to be deposed, as well as he that Ordained him. 13. That no body ought to receive, nor employ a Clergyman of another Diocese, without the consent of his Bishop. 14. That they ought not to celebrate Mass in private Houses, or Unconsecrated Churches, unless in respect to the Sick. 15. That Tithes ought to be paid, the third part of which belongs to the Bishop, according to the Council of Toledo; that, as for himself, he was contented with a Fourth part, according to the Constitutions of the Roman Bishops, and the use of the Church of Rome. 16. That Women ought not to come near the Altar, nor do any Offices about it. That when they are to wash the Vessels, and Church, the Clerks shall take them from the Altar, and deliver them to the Women at the Rails of the Altar, whither they shall bring them again; and the Priests shall also receive there the Offerings of the Women, to carry them to the Altar. 17. That Priests shall Preach both by their Word and Example, That Men ought not to be Usurers. 18. That no Clergyman, Ordained, or to be Ordained, shall go out of his own Diocese, either to Rome, or to Court, or to obtain Absolution, without the allowance of his Bishop; and that they shall admonish them, that will go to Rome out of Devotion, that they ought not to go, till they have confessed their sins in their Diocese, because they ought to be bound, or loosed by their own Bishop, and not by a Stranger. 19 That nothing shall be Sung, or Read in the Church, which is not taken out of Scripture, or the Writings of the Orthodox Fathers. That they shall not honour any unknown Angels, but only S. Michael, S. Gabriel, and S. Raphael. That Priests shall all have one way of Administering Penance, and shall impose it according to the nature of men's Faults. 20. That they shall put the Offerings of the Faithful to a Good Use. 21. That they shall not suffer a Contract of Marriage between Relations to the Fifth degree; but nevertheless those that are Married in the Fourth degree shall not be parted, but put to Penance so long as they continue together. That it is not lawful to Marry the Relations of a First Husband, or First Wife; also a Godson, or God-daughter at Baptism, or Confirmation: That they who have committed Fornication with a Relation in the First degree, may not co●…nue together, that they shall be put to penance, and parted; but they may Marry others. That Slaves may not Marry, without the consent of their Master; and if they do, the Marriage is null. 22. That Priests shall Teach their People to do Works of Mercy▪ Instruct them in Virtue, and win them from Vice, but chief from Perjury. 23. That they shall Officiate in the Churches they are appointed, and shall not fail to say the Canonical hours both by day and night. 25. That they shall admonish Godfathers and Godmothers, that they are obliged to make their God-sons and God-daughters, when they are at Age of Discretion, to be sensible of the Promise they have made for them. These Constitutions show, how prudent and wise a Man this good Bishop Hatto was. Being very Aged, he laid down the Government both of his Diocese and Monastery, which he had always held with it, in 823, and lived a private Monk the rest of his Life. He died in 836. He also Wrote a Relation of the Visions of St. Wettinus, or Guettinus, a Monk of the same Abbey, which are also mentioned by Strabo. [This Tract is printed among the Visions of Hildegardes, and other Religious Men, at Paris, 1513. and by F. Mabillon, Saec. Benedict. 4. p. 1.]  
This is a proper place to Treat of the Writings of Agobardus, which, for the most part, concern 
Agobard.  the Discipline of the Church. The Life of this Author is very obscure; some think him a Frenchman, though they have no clear proof of it. He was Coadjutor, 
a Or rather a Suffragan.] We ought to Read Chorepiscopus in Ado, as it is in the Chronicon of Hugo Flavinia●ensis, and not Coepiscopus; because if he had been Coepiscopus, or Coadjutor, there had been no need of Ordaining him anew, when Leidradus retired. And 'tis certain there were at this time Suffragans in France.  or rather a Suffragan of Leidradus, Archbishop of Lions; who being desirous to retreat into the Monastery of Soissons, in the beginning of the Empire of Lewis the Godly, Argobardus was put in his place by the consent of the Emperor, and 
b A Whole Synod.] What Synod it was is not known. M. Baluzius believes it was that of Mentz, in 813. but this Synod was under Charles the Great; and Leidradus did not retire, and so Agobard could not be Ordained, till the Reign of Lewis the Godly.  a whole Synod of France, which approved of the Choice, that Leidradus had made of him for his Successor. But this Ordination was afterward found fault with, because 'tis against the Canons for a Bishop to choose his Successor; a Rule, which it is very dangerous to break. Nevertheless Agobard enjoyed his See peaceably, till he was put out by Lewis the Godly for taking part with his Son Lotharius, and having been one of the Principal Authors of his Deposition, at an Assembly of Bishops held at Compeigne, in 833. for Lewis the Godly punishing the Injustice, and Violence, which had been done to him by Lotharius, and the Bishops of his party, had a Process drawn up against them at a Council of Thionville held in 835. Ebbo, who was Archbishop of Rheims, was forced to confess his fault, and submit himself to his Deposition. Agobardus, who fled into Italy, with the other Bishops of his party, was cited to the Council three times; and, not appearing, was Deposed. The Examination of their cause was begun the next year, at an Assembly held near Lions, but was left undetermined, by reason of the absence of the Bishops, to whom alone it belonged to depose their Brethren. Lastly, The Children of Lewis the Godly having made peace with him; they obtained, that Agobardus should be Restored; and he was present at a Synod held at Paris, by the Order of Lewis the Godly. He likewise obtained the favour of that Emperor, with whom he Died at Xaintonge in 840, on the 15th day of June.  
This Bishop had no less share in the Affairs of the Church of his time, than in those of the Empire, and hath shown, by his Writings and Government, that he was not more Learned and Skilful in Divinity, than expert in Politic Affairs. The Catalogue, and Extract of his Works follow.  
His Treatise against Felix Orgelitanus is dedicated to Lewis the Godly. In it he explains the Tract of Felix, which he Composed by way of Question and Answer, and published, against what Agobardus had asserted in the City of Lions, where he was then in banishment, after the Recantation he had made of his Error at the Council of Aix la Chapelle. Agobard observes, that Felix had suppressed several Expressions, which he had used before, and had added new Errors. He acknowledged, that that Bishop lived a very Holy Life; but says, that we must judge of a Man's Faith, not by the Holiness of his Life, but of his Manners by his Faith. Non est vitâ hominis metienda fides, sed ex fide probanda est vita. He excuses the plainness of his Style, and prays them, who will take the pains to read his Writings, to content themselves with the consideration of the passages of the Fathers which he hath cited, and to compare Felix's Opinion with them. After he hath spoken in general of the Error of Nestorius and Eutychius, he says, that he hath heard that Felix in his Life-time, did Teach, That Jesus Christ, as Man, was ignorant of many things; as of the place where Lazarus was Buried; because he asked his Sisters, where they had laid him; the Day of Judgement; the Discourse which the Disciples, that went to Emmaus, had together; the Love St. Peter had for him. That Agobard, knowing that he Taught these things, found them out, reproved him for them, explained those places to him, and sent him several passages of the Fathers, contrary to those Errors; that having read them, he promised to amend them; that things remaining thus, he did not think it his Duty to publish the Errors asserted by him, because it did not concern him to do it. But, after his Death, some of the Faithful told him, That he had asserted, That it was not certain that the Son of God Suffered, or was fixed to the Cross, but that aught to be affirmed of the Manhood only, which he had assumed; an Error, which arises from the ignorance of the Substantial Union of the Word with the Flesh, although he seemed to admit but one Person only in the Person of Jesus Christ. He shows, that Nestorius spoke after the same manner. He consults that Assertion of Felix, That in the Nativity of the True Son of God, of the Substance of his Father, his Nature preceded his Will; so that he is necessarily the Son of God: but in his Humane Nativity, it was from his Will, and not from Necessity. That he was the Son of God— Agobardus affirms, that this Expression makes Jesus Christ to be believed not to be the true and natural Son of God. He also blames Felix for teaching, that though the Virgin Mary be the Mother of God, yet she is otherwise the Mother of the Man, than of God. He says, that this Expression is not only new, and not heard of before, but impious. That the Virgin can't be one way the Mother of the Godhead, and another of the Manhood in Jesus Christ, since she was the Mother of a God-man at the same time, and the Divinity and Humanity make but one Person in Jesus Christ. He also opposes that opinion of Felix, that Jesus Christ was different ways the Son of God according to his different Natures; That according to his Divinity, he was a Son by Nature, in Truth and Substance, whereas according to his Humanity, he was a Son only by Grace, Election, Will, Predestination and Assumption. From this Principle, he draws this Consequence, That since Jesus Christ is a Natural Son in one Sense, and an Adoptive in another, we must acknowledge two Sons and two Persons. 'Tis true, that Felix disowns this Consequence, but Agobard affirms it to follow directly from his Doctrine, and says, that Nestorius used that very Expression. He confutes this principle, and the Consequences Felix draws from it by several passages of the Fathers. And Lastly, answers to those that Felix had alleged to prove the Adoption of Jesus Christ; showing that the Fathers never said, that Jesus Christ was an Adoptive Son, but that the Humane Nature was adopted by the Divine, i. e. the Divine Nature was united with the Humane, so that the Person made up of both Natures, was the true and natural Son of God, and not merely by Adoption and Grace.  
The Book of Agobard concerning the Insolence of the Jews, is a petition addressed to Lewis the Godly, in which he Complains, that the Commissioners which he had sent to Lions, took part with the Jews against the Church, and had sealed Letters and Ordinances bearing his Name, which were favourable to them. They had carried the Business so far, that they spoke openly in favour of the Jews, and so threatened some Bishops. Agobard, who was absent when this happened, being gone to the Monastery of Nantonen to accommodate a difference that had happened among the Monks, wrote about it to the Commissioners, but they had no regard to his Letters; whereupon he addressed himself to the Emperor, and represented it to him, that the Jews did persecute Him and his Fellow-Bishops, because he preached to the Christians, that they should not sell any Slaves to the Jews, nor suffer the Jews to sell Christians into Spain, nor keep Christians for their Household Servants, not to suffer Christian Women to keep the Jewish Sabbath, nor the Jews to labour or trade on the Lord's Day, not to eat in Lent with them, not to eat any Flesh they have killed, nor drink any Wine that they sell. Lastly, not to converse familiarly with them, nor trade with them, because they daily Blaspheme the Name of Christ. Then he describes the insolence of the Jews, because they found themselves upheld by the Authority of the Commissioners. He beseeches him to hear the humble entreaty of Himself and Brethren, and rectify this disorder.  
To this Petition he joins a Letter written in his Name, and in the name of Bernard, Archbishop of Vienna, and another Bishop called Eaof or Taof, in which they produce the Authorities of the Fathers and Scripture, to justify the Severity they treated the Jews withal. They relate the example of S. Hilary, who would not salute them; of S. Ambrose, who writes, that he would rather suffer Death, than rebuild a Synagogue of the Jews, which the Christians had burnt. They add to these two Fathers, S. Cyprian and S. Athanasius, who wrote against the Jews: Then they allege the Canons of the Councils of Spain and Agda, which forbidden Christians to eat with the Jews, and the Constitutions of the first Council of Masco, which declares, that according to the Edict of Childebert, it is not permitted to the Jews to be Judges, or Receivers of the public Revenues, nor to appear in public in the H. Week, and renew the prohibition given the Christians not to eat with them. This is Confirmed by the Canons of the First and Third Councils of Orleans, and the Council of Laodicea, which forbids Christians to converse with them. They forget not the Action of St. John, who fled from the Bath, in which he saw Cerinthus the Heretic entered, who was an Heretic of the Sect of the Jews. They accuse the Jews of their time to be worse than Cerinthus, because they believed God Corporeal, and had gross and false Notions of the Divinity, allowed an infinite number of Letters, and believed the Law to be written several Years before the World, were persuaded that there are several Worlds and Earth's, introduced many Fables about the old Testament, and uttered Blasphemy against Jesus Christ, published the false acts of Pilate, used the Christians as Idolaters, because they hated the Saints, and did infamous Actions in their Synagogues, from whence they conclude, that if they ought to separate themselves from Heretics, they ought with more Reason to have no commerce with the Jews, which they maintain by several passages of H. Scripture.  
'Tis very probable, that Agobard went to Court about this Business. He applied himself to Three Persons, who were in great Favour at Court, viz. Adelardus Abbot of Corbey, Vala the Son of Bernard, Brother of Pepin, and a Relation to the Emperor, and Helesacharius' Abbot of S. Maximus at Treves, having complained before them of those that defended the Jews, they brought him into the King's presence to relate it, but he received no Satisfaction, and was ordered to withdraw. Being returned, he consulted those Three Persons by a Letter, what he should do with those Jewish Slaves, who desired to become Christians and be Baptised. He shows by several Reasons that he could not refuse to do it; and that the Jews might have no ground of Complaint, he says that he offered to pay them for those Slaves, what was ordered by the ancient Laws. But since the Jews would not receive that Price, because they were persuaded that the Court Officers were their Friends, he prays them to whom he wrote to direct him what to do upon that occasion, about which he was much perplexed, fearing on the one Side Damnation, if he denied Baptism to the Jews, or their Slaves who desired it; and on the other Side, being fearful of offending the great Men, if he granted it to them.  
In Agobard's Letter to Nebridius Archbishop of Narbonne, he shows how dangerous it is to hold a familiar converse with the Jews, and tells him, that he hath admonished his People of it all along his Visitation of his Diocese, and boldly opposed the attempts of the Emperor's Commissioners.  
Agobard presented another Petition to Lewis the Godly, in which he prays him to abolish the Law of Gundobadus, which ordered, that private Contentions and Differences should be decided by a single Combat, or some other proofs, rather than by the Deposition of Witnesses. He shows that that Law which was made by an Arrian Prince, is contrary to the Spirit of the Gospel; to that Charity, that Christians ought to have one for another, and to the peace both of Church and State. He observes, that it came neither from the Law nor Gospel; That the Christian Religion was not established by such sort of Combats; but on the Contrary, by the Death of him that preached it; That the most Wicked and Guilty have often overcome the more Just and Innocent. He adds, that Avitus Bishop of Vienna, who had some Conferences about Religion with Gundobadus, and converted his Son Sigismond, disallowed this Custom. He complains of the little Regard had to the Canons of the Church of France. last; he says, he could wish that all the King's Subjects had but one Law, but because he believed that impossible, he desired he would abolish at least, that Custom, which was so unjust and so prejudicial to the State.  
In the Treatise of the Privileges and Rights of the Priesthood, dedicated to Bernard Bishop of Vienna. Agobard Treats of the Excellency of the Priesthood. He says, that all Christians being Members of Jesus Christ, who is our Chief Priest, are Kings and Priests of the Lord. That in the beginning of the World, the First Born were Priests, and Sacrificers. There he produces several Examples taken out of the Holy Scripture, and many Authorities to show that God hath often heard wicked Priests, and had no regard to the Sacrifices of good ones, because he looks chief upon the Dispositions of the Heart of those for whom they offer Sacrifices, and that otherwise 'tis not the Merit of the Priest, nor his Person that God respects, but his Ministry and Priesthood. For this Reason it is, that wicked Priests may administer Sacraments, which the most H. Laymen cannot do. And upon this account, Men ought to hear and believe what the Priest teacheth, if he do not corrupt the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, for if he teach any thing that Christ hath not Commanded, he that hears him, saith Agobard, is a Leper, that follows another Leper, a Blind Man, lead by another Blind Man, and consequently both of them ought to be driven out of the Camp, and shall both fall into the Ditch. This gives him occasion to cite several Texts of Scripture, to exhort the Priests of the New Testament to behave themselves worthy of their Ministry, and to complain of the Irregularities of his time. He observes that the Great Lords of his time, kept Domestic Priests in their Houses not to obey them, but to employ them as they pleased, as well in Temporal as Spiritual Services; insomuch says he, that some Priests wait at Table, provide Meat and Drink, look after Dogs and Horses, and take care of their Farms in the Country. And because they can't find any good Clergymen, who will so dishonour their Calling, they take such as come next, without regarding whether they are ignorant and worthless, and guilty of many Crimes. They only desire to have some Priests with them, that they may leave the Churches and public Offices to them. And when they have a mind to have them ordained, they come and say in an imperious way, I have a little Clergyman whom I have brought up, who is the Son of one of my Waiting-Men or Tenants, I desire you to make him a Priest, and when they have got him ordained, they think that they have no need of the Curates, and never come to the Service of a Parish-Church, nor Exhortions made there. He cries out against this abuse, and bewails the badness of his time, in which the Bishops were not allowed to reprove their irregularities, as by their Office they are obliged. Lastly, he exhorts the Laity to have respect to the Sacraments, which are administered by the Priests. For says he, the Holy Sacraments, Baptism, and the Consecration of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and the rest, which give Life and Salvation to the Faithful, are so Great and Holy, that they cannot become more Excellent, by reason of the Holiness of good Ministers, nor worse by the impiety of wicked ones, because they operate not by the Virtue of Men, but by the Majesty of the Holy Spirit, when the Priest hath made his Invocation; whereupon he citys several passages of S. Austin, Gelasius and Pope Anastasius, and advises the Bishops to be careful, that they be not partakers of other men's Sins, by ordaining such Persons Priests, as are vicious, ignorant, and unable to discharge their Ministry well. He says, that the Learning of Ministers is more to be regarded than their Manners, because though a Priest ought to be blameless in both, yet 'tis less dangerous, to have a Priest that teaches well and lives ill, than to have the ignorant though they live well. Lastly, he distinguishes Ministers into four sorts, 1. Such as are to be loved, who live well and teach well. 2. Tolerable, such as teach well but live ill, or who live well, but have not learning enough to instruct others. 3. The Contemptible, who live ill and are ignorant. 4. Such as are accursed, who live either well or ill, and teach Heresies. In the Conclusion, he prays God to pour his Graces upon the Priests of his Church, that they may carry themselves so, as becomes their Ministry.  
Nothing is more judicious, than the next Treatise of Agobard's, which he wrote to undeceive the People, and remove the Opinions they had, that Sorcerers could raise Tempests, cause Thunder, and bring Hail by their Enchantments. He proves by several Texts of Scripture, that it is great Folly, and a kind of Sacrilege to attribute to Men, that which belongs to God. He laughs at the fancy of some, who supposed that there was a Region in the Air, whither they conveyed the Corn and Fruit, which the Hail beat down. He shows by several Texts of Scripture, that God only is the cause of Thunder and Hail, that he punishes Men by these Plagues; That all that is done in the Air, is the effect of his Power, whether done by Himself or Angels, or Men; That he alone is the Mover and Creator of the Universe; That if wicked Men had power to afflict and destroy other Men, all their Enemies would be so dealt with; That he understood not how Men had power to disturb the Air, or Heaven, whose Nature they are ignorant of; That most of the Histories written upon this Subject being examined, will be found false, although there be some People so ignorant as to expose themselves to Death to maintain them, as it happened a little before, when they accused Grimoaldus Duke of Beneventum, of having scattered a Powder through the whole Country, which made all the Oxen die. As if, says he, he could make a Powder, which should kill Oxen only, and not other Beasts, or could make such quantities of it, and have Sowers enough to scatter it through the whole Country.  
Fredegisus Abbot of S. Martin's at Tours, having found fault with some passages in one of Agobard's Books, he thought himself obliged to defend himself and answer that Abbot's Objections. The first Expression of Agobard's which he reproved was, That the humble Man who hath mean Thoughts of himself, is subject to error. Fredegisus says, That Jesus Christ was humble, and yet 'tis certain, he was not subject to error. Agobard answers, That his Maxim ought not to be understood of Jesus Christ, who abased and humbled himself voluntarily without ceasing to be Omnipotent and Sinless; but he confirms it in respect of all other Men, who are subject to Error and Sin.  
Secondly, Fredegisus accuses him of weakening the Authority of Scripture, and of the Interpretation of it, because he had observed, that they did not always observe the rules of Grammar. Agobard answers, that that ought not to make those things doubted of, which are related in Holy Scripture, that the Interpreters have used so to do, either to accommodate themselves to the capacity of the Simple, or to express the Sense of the Original the better. That it is not allowable to doubt of the authority of those Authors, of whom the Holy Spirit hath made use to write the Canonical Books, or believe that they ought to have written otherwise than they have. That next to the Original, the authority of the Translation of the Seventy ought to be acknowledged, and the fidelity of S. Jerom's Latin Version upon the Hebrew Text, and that the Latin Versions made by Orthodox Christians out of the Seventy, are not to be contemned, but there are several Translations which are justly to be corrected and reproved, as those of those famous Heretics, and Bastard Jews, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, as also certain Latin Interpreters reproved by St. Jerom. And Lastly, as to Commentators, Men ought to follow the Rule of St. Austin, who gives all Liberty to judge of them, and reject what is not orthodox and true in their Writings. Afterward examining particularly the question about the Holy Books, he says, 'tis absurd to believe, that the Holy Ghost did inspire the Prophets and Apostles, with the Words and Terms which they used; and to prove this, he allegeth the Example of Moses, who says, that he was of a slow Speech. He produces the Testimonies of S. Jerom, who acknowledgeth, that there is a difference in the Style in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, some of whom wrote more Loftily and Eloquently, others with less Elegancy and Loftiness, and sometimes there is the same difference in different Writings. This difference may not be attributed to the Holy Spirit, but to Men, and consequently 'tis they, not the Spirit, which are the Authors of the Words and Expressions which they use, although he inspires them with the Sense and Doctrine they ought to write.  
In his Answer to the Third Objection, he opposeth the Opinion of his Adversary, who maintained, that the Souls of Men were Created, separated from the Bodies; he affirms, that we ought to believe, that they are created in and with the Body, although the Philosophers delivered the contrary, and Austin doubts of it.  
In the next place he answers a question put to him by his Adversary, Whether Truth be any thing but God. He answers, That Truth is not always taken for God himself, although 'tis not to be doubted, but that God is Truth. The Fourth Question concerns the Righteous Men of the old Law. Agobard maintains that they may be called Christians, although they were not called so, because they believed in Jesus Christ, and belonged to him, being anointed with the invisible Ointment of his Grace, as well as those who were good Men among the Gentiles.  
The Jews who were in credit at Court, because they had Money, obtained an Edict from the Emperor, which contained many things in their Favour, and among the rest, that none of their Slaves should be baptised, but with their Master's Consent. This Edict being very prejudicial to Religion, and contrary to Christian Piety. Agobard addressed a Writing to Hilduin the King's great Chaplain, and to the Abbot Vala, who was at Court, in which he shows the injustice and impiety of that Prohibition, being evidently contrary to the Design of the Gospel, and the intention of Jesus Christ, who will have all Men to be saved, and hath commanded his Apostles to preach the Gospel to all Creatures, and baptise all that believe, whether Bond or Free. He desires them to whom he writes, to endeavour all they can to get this Edict recalled, which he hoped might be done more easily, because he offered to pay the Jews the Ransom of those Slaves, according to the appointment of the Canons made in that Case.  
In the Letter written by Agobard in his own Name, and Hildegisus and Florus's, who were Clergymen of Lions, to Bartholomew Bishop of Narbonne, he speaks of a certain Distemper, which took Men suddenly, and threw them down like the Falling-Sickness. Some also felt a sudden Burning, which left an incurable Wound. This ordinarily happened in the Churches, and the astonished People to guard themselves from it, gave considerable Gifts to the Churches to secure them. Agobard disallows this practice, and searching into the Cause of this Plague, he says, 'twas nothing else but the will of God, who punisheth Men by the Ministry of an Angel. After which, he relates several Examples of the like Chastisements out of Scripture, in which God hath exercised his Justice by Angels and other Creatures. He affirms, that these sort of inflictions are not from the power of the Devil, although he owns that God sometimes suffers the Devil to disquiet and torment Men. Returning then to the Question of Bartholomew, viz. what we ought to think of the practice of those, who coming into the Churches, where they were seized with this Distemper, bring presents to them. He says, that fear causes these people to do what they ought not, and hinders them from doing what they ought; for it were better, says he, to give Alms to the Poor, or Strangers, to address themselves to the Priest to receive Unction, according to the Command of the Gospel and of the Apostle, to fast and pray, and do works of Charity. It is true, adds he, that if the Offerings given to the Church be employed as they ought, they are an Action of Charity, but because at present, they are used only to satisfy the Covetousness and Avarice of Men, and not to honour God, or relieve the Poor, it is a shame to give them to such covetous Wretches to be kept, or ill employed by them.  
The Injustice and Violence which was practised among the people of Lions, and could not be restrained, obliged Agobard to write to Ma●fredus, a powerful Man in the Emperor's Court. He begs of him to use his Interest with his Prince, to hinder those Disorders, and cause justice to be done. This Compliment is short, but urgent. The Letter to the Clergy of Lions concerning the manner, how the Bishops and Pastors ought to govern, is an excellent instruction for them. He says, that those who are entrusted with the Government of the Church, the Spouse of Christ, who is Peace, Truth, Justice, and the Author of all Good, aught to love that his Spouse singularly as himself, and apply himself entirely to the spiritual good of his only Spouse. That those who neglect to do their Duty, and place all their Pleasure and Affections upon Riches, Finery, Hunting, and Debauchery, are the destroyers of God's Work, and the Assistants of Anti-christ; That though they seem to be Bishops in the Eyes of Men, they are not so in the Eyes of God, no more than Hypocrites, who affect to appear outwardly Holy, but whose Heart is full of Impurity, who seek not the Edification and Instruction of the Faithful, but their own Interest and Glory, such are those, who seek to get into the sacred Ministry, only to obtain Honour and Riches, or to live finely. He adds, that all those, that make it their main Business to gain themselves the Love and Respect of those that are under their Charge, and not to make Jesus Christ be loved and honoured by them, who is the only Spouse of the Church, are Adulterers and unworthy of the sacred Ministry, because they design rather to feed themselves than their Flock. Nevertheless he advises, that the Sheep should endure wicked Pastors, through Prudence, when they can't reform them.  
His Book concerning the Dispensing of Ecclesiastical Revenues, was not written against the ill usage, which Clergymen might make of them, but against the Laity, who took them away and kept them unjustly. Lewis the Godly, having called an Assembly of Clergymen and Lords at Attigny, in 822. for the Reformation of Church and State, Agobard advises Adelardus Abbot of Corbey, and another Abbot called Helissicarius, that they ought to rectify the Disorder, that was in the Church about the Ecclesiastical Revenues, which the Laity had appropriated to themselves, that they might speak to the Emperor of it. He zealously represents to them, that the Churches having been enriched by the Gifts of the Emperors, Princes and Bishops, had made an abundance of Laws and Canons for the preservation of the Revenues, and to hinder Laymen from encroaching upon them; That the necessity which they alleged, was not a sufficient Reason to overlook those Laws, nor to authorise the Usurpations they had made of them. The year following, this matter was more fully debated in an Assembly held at Compeigne, where the Clergy again represented that the Laity were not to be suffered in the quiet Possession of the Revenues of the Church, which they had usurped. The Lords would not agree to the Restitution of them. The Emperor thought to accommodate the matter between the Bishops and Nobles, by causing a part to be restored only, but the Nobles not contented with it, declared at Length, that they would not hear of any accommodation, and complained grievously against Agobard, as a Man whoh●d raised a question, which was fit to trouble both Church and State. In this Book he defends himself by bringing Authorities out of the Old and New Testament, to show, that it is a great Crime to meddle with the Goods Consecrated to the Temple, Altars, maintenance of Ministers, and relief of the Poor. To them he joins the Authority of the Canons, and chief those of the French Church. He observes, that some would not receive them, because the Popes and Emperor's Deputies were not present at the Councils that made them, but 'tis his Judgement, that wherever Orthodex Bishops are met in the name of Jesus Christ for the good of the Church, the Decisions they make aught to be respected and followed, which says he, is established upon the Authority of the Popes, who have ordained that every two Years, two Councils shall be held in every Province, and have commended great Councils. Lastly, Agobard not only condemns the lay-men, who make use of the Revenues of the Church to maintain Dogs and Horses, and great Retinues of Servants, or to satisfy their Pleasures and Passions, or spend them in Sports and superfluous Gallantry, but he involves in the same Condemnation the Bishops, Abbots and Clergymen, who put those Revenues to any other use, t●…n is allowed by the Laws of the Church and Doctrine of the Fathers.  
Agobard's Treatise against the Judgement of God (i. e. the proofs made of men's Innocency, either by single Combat, or by holding a red-hot-Iron, or by standing immovable by a Cross, or by any other proof of like Nature) contains several Maxims taken out of the Holy Scripture, and chief out of the New Testament; by which he proves, that this usage is contrary to the Gospel, Christian Charity, Right Reason, and the Principles of our Religion.  
In his Discourse of the Faith, Agobard runs through the chief Articles of our Belief, as the Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption; the Union of Jesus Christ with his Church; the Necessity of the Grace of Jesus Christ; to do Good, and Resist Temptations; Patience in Adversity; Obligation to Prayer, etc. and sets down on every point Texts of Scripture, or Fathers: 'Tis rather a Sermon, than a Doctrinal Treatise.  
The Letter of Lamentation about the Division of Europe, Dedicated to Lewis the Godly, was Written by Agobard in 833. when that Emperor made War against his Children. Agobard, who wished for peace, although he was of Lotharius' party, sent this Letter to him. He first of all represents to him, that it is the duty of a faithful Subject, and chief of a Prelate, to admonish his Prince, when he sees him ready to engage in a bad Cause, where his Soul is endangered. He calls God to witness, that this was the only cause of his Writing to Lewis the Godly. Lastly, After he hath lamented the Calamities and Disorders which the War had caused, he tells him, That he did some time since part his Country between his Children, and made Lotharius a Partner in the Empire: That it was done with all the Solemnity possible, and with the consent of the Nobles and Bishops; That to consult the Will of God about it, he had commanded a Fast, continual Prayers, and Alms for three days; That the thing being finished, he sent the Act to Rome, to have it confirmed by the Pope. Lastly, That he obliged them all to Swear, that they approved the Election of Lotharius, and Division of the Empire. That, at first, all Letters and Edicts bore the Name of the Two Emperors in the front of them; but afterward he put out the Name of Lotharius without any Reason, and attempted to dispossess him of it. He beseeches Lewis the Godly not to persist in that design. He lets him know, that the Oath he had taken obliged him to be of Lotharius' party; and he endeavours to terrify that Prince, who was of a fearful spirit, by threatening the Judgements of God, and hatred of Men upon him.  
About the same time he sent a Treatise to Lotharius, Entitled, A Comparison between the Ecclesiastical and Civil Government; in Answer to an Order, which the Emperor had given to the Nobles, as well of the Clergy as Laity, to be ready to fight for him; the one with the Sword, and the other with the Tongue. Agobard tells him, That he ought in War to put his trust in God's help, more than his own Forces; and that in all Disputes we should seek for Truth, rather than Eloquence. Since he was one of those that Lotharius had Commanded, not daring to come himself, he Admonished him by Writing, of the Respect he ought to give the Holy See; and, to persuade him to it, he Cites a Passage of Pope Pelagius, against some Bishops, who would not recite the Pope's Name at Mass: And another passage out of St. Leo, about the Primacy of Peter. Agobard touched upon this string, because Lotharius carried Pope Gregory the IVth along with him, to Authorise his own party, and make his Father's odious. He knew what the other Bishops of France said, That if he came to Excommunicate them, he should return Excommunicated himself. Si Excommunicaturus verniret, Excommunicatus abiret Agobardus. That if Gregory came, with an ill design, to foment the War, he deserved to be sent away with Disgrace: but he maintains, that if he came to procure the Peace and Quiet of the Empire, they ought to obey him, and not resist him. Now, he affirms, that this is the end of his Voyage, since he came to settle what was done by the will of Lewis, and consent of all the Members of the Empire; and confirmed by the Authority of the Holy See. He adds, That he had received Letters from him, commanding, that Prayers and Fasting be made for the Restoration of the Peace, and Agreement of the Empire, and in the Emperor's Family. Lastly, Agobard exhorts Lewis the Godly to be of that Mind.  
This Writing is followed by a Letter, or rather a Fragment of a Letter of Gregory the Fourth to the Bishops of France, who would not receive him. It serves for an Answer to a Letter which they Wrote to him. In the beginning of it he finds fault, that they had called him Father, and Pope, in the Superscription of their Letter. He requires them to give him the Name of Father, as if the Bishops were not his Brethren, and had not that Title given upon many occasions; yea, in those very Letters he sent to them. The Second thing that Gregory finds fault with in the French Bishops Letter, is, That they declare their Joy for his Arrival; being persuaded, that it would be profitable for their Prince and his Subjects; and that they would have paid their Respects to him, had they not been prevented by an Express Order from the Emperor. He complains, That they preferred the Order of their Prince, before their Respect due to him; and maintains, that the Matter of Fact was not true, for they had notice of his Arrival, before they had any such Command from the Emperor. He adds, That they ought to know, that the Spiritual Government of Souls is more excellent, than the Temporal Government of Princes, as S. Gregory Nazianzen boldly told the same Emperor: That they ought to imitate the Liberty of Gregory the Great, who told the Emperor, That he was one of his Sheep, and that he ought to hear and believe him in things that belong to the Faith. That, in stead of those foolish flatteries which  
The Works of 〈…〉 the one an Epitaph upon Charles the Great; 〈…〉 Relics 〈…〉 Cyprian, S. Speratus▪ and ●….  
Agohard Writes▪ ●…, but something flat, and without Ornament: 〈…〉 Citations, long passages of Scripture and Fathers, 〈…〉 Argues very rationally about the Matters he Treats of, and Writes 〈…〉 in the Doctrine of the Fathers, and Discipline of the Church.  
His Works are published by 〈◊〉 Massonus, and Printed at Paris in 1605, in Octavo, out of a MS. which he found by chance in a ●…ers-Shop at Lions, which he designed to use as Wast-paper; and which his Brother, after his Death, put into the King's Library. But though Massonus was a very Learned Man, yet he left many Faults in his Edition, which have been since Corrected by M. Baluzius, in his Edition of Agobard's Works, Printed by Maguet at Paris, 1666, in Two 〈◊〉. Octavo. Revised by the same MS. with great exactness, who hath added a Treatise of Agobard's to it, against the Book of Offices, made by Amalarius, taken out of a MS. which was communicated to him by F. Chiffletius. [This Edition is put into the last Edition of the Biblioth. Patrum, Tom. 14. p. 2●4.]  
Amolo, Amulo, or Amulus, a Deacon of the Church of Lions, under Agobard, succeeded him in 841. He was in great Reputation and Favour with Charles the Ba●…. He was Precedent in a 
Amulo.  Council held at Lions, 845.  
We have already spoken of this Letter to Gotteschalcus about the Question of Predestination and Grace: But we must here give an Extract of another Letter Written to Theobaldus, or Theobaldus, Bishop of Langres; who consulted him about some Abuses committed in the Church of S. Benignus at Dijon, as to the Relics shown then: Two Monks had brought some Bones of a pretended Martyr, which they said came from Rome, and some other place of Italy; but that which was most pleasant, was, that these impudent Monks were not ashamed to say, That they had forgotten the Name of the Saint; As if, says Amulo, it were credible, that they could be ignorant of the Name of a Saint, famous in the place from whence they had him; or could forget his Name in the way, whom they looked upon as their Patron, and whom they ought continually to Pray to. The Bishop of Langres used much prudence upon this occasion; and imitating S. Martin in a like Case, determined, That they ought not to receive those Relics, which were not well-Attested; but yet they might not use them with contempt. Then he thought it ●it to oblige those who had brought them, to procure Authentic Proofs from the place where they had them. Indeed, one of them went away with a pretence to get some proofs, but never returned; and the other died a little time after at Dijon. Nevertheless they laid up these pretended Relics in the Church, by the Body of the Holy Martyr, and affirmed they did many Miracles: No Sick persons were cured by them; but, on the contrary, some Women fell upon the ground, beat themselves▪ if they were Plagued by them. This brought many to that place. Amulo observes, that there were many persons who were seized with the same Distemper, and, upon that account, were obliged to stay in the Church, or to return again as soon as they were gone out of it: That this Distemper happened in other places, particularly in the Village of 〈◊〉, in the Diocese of Autun, where the Bodies of the Holy Martyrs, Andochius, Thyrsus, and Felix lay.  
Amolo hereupon advises the Bishop of Langres to remove these Bones out of the Church, and Bury them in some decent place at a distance from it, in the presence of some few persons; for, say●…, They are the Bones of some Saint, we ought not to deprive them of all Respect; but yet we ought not to give an occasion to the People to fall into an Error and Superstition. Nor may we fear, adds he▪ lest our scrupulousness be the cause of Scandal; since God hath commanded us to be sincere, and prudent in things which concern his Service. Whereupon he 〈◊〉 the Example of S. Martin, and the Decree of Pope Gelasius. He says, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Miraculous C●●es done in the Church of S. Benignus, they ought to be attributed to God, and the Merits of his Saints, without approving other Signs, done in the Church▪ or ●…where. That it is likely, that the fall and beat of Men and Women▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the wickedness of those miserable Beggars, who pretended themselves to be so afflicted, only to get Money. That he never heard any such Miracles spoken of, as to make Sound-Men Sick; part Daughters from their Parents, and Women from their Husbands▪ by obliging them to continue in the Church, and hindering their return to their Houses. That these things are the effect, either of Humane Malice, or Diabolical Illusions. Upon this occasion he relates two Examples of things of like nature, which happened under his Predecessor Agobard, of which he found out the Cheat. He advises the Bishop of Langres to banish that Superstition out of his Diocese, to persuade the people from it; and exhorts them earnestly not to assemble so unprofitably in that place, but every one to remain in his Parish, and frequent the Service of that Church, where he received his Baptism, as well as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, where he useth to hear Solemn Masses, from whose Priest they receive Penance, are assisted in their Sickness, and are Buried after their Death; to whom they pav their Tithes, and bring their Offerings, to which they go to hear Saving Instructions. That in these Churches it is, they must meet to pay their Vows and Prayers to God, to beg the Prayers of the Saints, to give Alms to the poor Widows and Orphans, That this is the Lawful and Regular Discipline of the Church, and the ancient practice of the Faithful. That if it happens that Christians fall into any Weakness, or Sickness, they ought to follow the Command of St. James, to call the Priests to Pray over them, and anoint them with Oil in the Name of the Lord. He doubts not but if this were put in practice, all these pretended Miracles would cease: And he likewise advises him, that if any of these Wretches prove obstinate, to have them Scourged, till they shall confess the Truth. He adds, That since these Distempers happened, through the Illusion of the Devil, they would do better to implore the help of the Lord of their Churches, than to remain in a distant Church; and that one Saint will not contradict the Honour given to another, because they are all united in the same Love. If they will go to visit the Churches of the Martyrs, they ought to do it at those times, which are appointed for it by the Church, viz. In the Rogations, Lent, and Festivals of the Martyrs. Nevertheless he doth not condemn those, who do it at other times out of Devotion, provided they do it without Ostentation and Tumult; but he finds fault with them for neglecting to do it upon the Solemn Days set apart by the Church; and tells them, they do it at other times to no purpose, through Vanity and Ostentation. Lastly, Since there are some people really possessed, they ought to be used by the Priests of the place, or Neighbouring Chapels of the Martyrs, in private, with gentleness, and not expose them to the throng and tumult of the People. These are the principal Arguments of Amulo in this Letter, which prove, that this Bishop had much sincerity, knowledge, prudence, zeal and eloquence. He is also the Genuine Author of a Treatise against the Jews, published by F. Chiffletius, under the Name of Rabanus [at Dijon, 1656.] for Trimethius [De Script. Eccles.] attributes it to Amulo, and it is found under his Name in a MS. in the Library of M. Colbert. [Baluzius published the rest at the end of Agobard's Works.]  
Adelardus, the Son of Count Bernard, Brother of Pepin, Grandson of Charles Martellus, Great 
Adelardus.  Master of the French, and Abbot of Corbey, was sent to Rome to Pope Leo, about the: Question concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost. Having joined with Bernard King of Italy, in the Conspiracy against Lewis the Godly, he was forced to fly into Aquitain, to the Monastery of S. Philibert, but he was re-called in 822, and restored to his Monastery. He made some Statutes for the Church of Corbey, published by Father Dacherius, Tom. 4. of his Spicilegium. He died in 826. His Life is Written by Paschasius Rathbertus, Abbot of Corbey.  
Ansegisus, Abbot of S. Wandrillus, is the Author of the Collection of the Constitutions of 
Ansegisus.  Charles the Great, and Lewis the Godly, of which we have already spoken. He died in 834.  
Halitgarius Succeeded Hildegaldus in the Bishopric of Cambray, in 816. He was sent with 
Halitgarius,  Ebbo▪ of Rheims to Preach the Gospel in Denmark; and, by Lewis the Godly, Ambassador to Michael Balbus, the Emperor of Greece, Anno 828. Being returned from that Embassy, he died in 830, June 25. He Composed a Work, Entitled, Of Vices, and their Remedies: Of Virtues, and the Order and Judgements of Penance. 'Tis a long Penitential, divided into Six Books, which is found in Tom. V of the Collection of Canisius, and in the Biblioth. Partrum [Tom. XIV.] This Work is also attributed to Rabanus.  
Isaac, Surnamed the Good, a Scholar of Hilduin, and Deacon of Pardulus, Bishop of Laon, 
Isaac.  who was preferred to the Bishopric of Langres, and present at the Council of Savonieres in 859, and the following Councils; made a Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws, taken out of the Canons of the Councils, held by Boniface Archbishop of Mentz, and confirmed by Pope Za●hary; and out of the Constitutions of the French Kings; chief out of the Three Books, which the Deacon Benedict hath added to the Collection of Ansegisus. This Collection is published by Father Sirmondus, in the Ninth Tome of the Councils of France; and by M. Ba●…us, Tom I. of Capitularies. F. Dacherius hath published a Small Tract about the Canon of the Mass, which bears Isaac's Name. But M. Baluzius tells us, That 'tis not Isaac Bishop of Langres', but another Isaac's, who was Abbot of Stella, whose Name it bears in some MSS. and under whose Name it hath been published in Tom. VI of the Biblioth. Cistertiorum.  
Herard, made Archbishop of Tours in 855, made a Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws in 856, 
Herard.  taken out of the Capitularies, which he propounded to a Synod of Priests, held in May the same year. This Collection is in Tom. VIII. of the Councils of the Last Edition, and at the end of Tom. I. of M. Baluzius' Capitularies. This Archbishop died in 871.  
Wauterius, or Gauterius, Bishop of Orleans, about the year 870, made also a like Collection 
Wauterius.  of Canons for his Diocese; which is Printed Tom. VIII. of the Councils.  
Wulfadus having been Ordained, as we have s●id, by Elbo, and molested by Hinemarus, 
Wulfadus.  was, made Arc●…p of Bourges, in 866. He ●ath l●st a Pastoral Le●…, directed to the Priests of his D●… which Father M●●illon hath put out in Tom. IU. Analect. This Bishop died in 876.  
Riculphus, who was Bishop of Soissons, about the end of the Ninth Age, sent, in 889, a Pastoral Letter to the Curates of his Diocese, containing 28 very useful Constitutions for ordering 
Riculphus.  their Discipline and M●…ers. He exhorts them to labour after the Sa●ctay of their People, by their good Example and Knowledge: He advises them to be constans in Divine Service, and exhort their Parishioners to be there as of●●n as they can; but ●o be sure not in 〈◊〉 absent on Festivals and Sundays. He requires the● to say by heart the Psalms, Canon of t●● Mass, Creed, Qui●●tnque, S●c. That they should be skilled also in Singing, and the Calendar; That they should have Rituals to Administer Baptism, a Missal, a Book of the Lessons, a Book of the Gospel, a Martyr-book, a Book of Anthems, a Psalter, and a Copy of S. Gregory's Forty Homilies. He also prescribes what Ornaments they ought to have, and Order them to take care of them, to keep them near, as well as the Holy Places. He order them to instruct the Catechumen in Lent, that they may be Baptised, and receive the Eucharist at Easter. He commands them to have a care of the Public Penitents, and not to receive them to Absolution, till they have performed the time of their Penance; and if it happens that they are forced to it by necessity, or any other Reason, he desires them to have particular care of them. He Order them to Administer to the Sick the Holy Unction, after Confession, and Absolution, but before Communion. He allows them to give Absolution to the Sick, that have lost their Speech, if there be any that can witness that they desired it. He puts them in m●… of the Division of the Church's Revenues into four parts, and requires an account of that, which is to be employed for the Service of the Church. He exhorts them to have two or three Clergymen to celebrate Masses, i. e. Divine-Service with him; and forbids them to ce●●brate it alone. He advises them to be Charitable and Hospitable. He forbids them going to Inns, suffer Wine to be sold in the Church, to dwell with any Women, or be familiar with them; to be Farmers, or Men of business. He forbids Usury, and orders them to keep the Sunday Holy. He requires them to take nothing for the Burial of the Dead, but allows them to take any Free-gifts. He order the Deans to call Assemblies of the Curates every Month, on the First day of it, but forbids Feasting at them; and enjoins them to have Conferences about what concerns their Ministry, and the occasions of their Parishes. He order them to reconcile those that are Enemies, or Excommunicate them if they refuse. He enjoins them to give Notice of the Fasts, he hath appointed, to the People. This Letter is published by Condesius, with Hincmarus' Works [at Paris, 1615.] and is Printed in Tome IX. of the Councils.  
Elias, Bishop of Jerusalem, Wrote in 887, a Letter to Charles the Gross, the Clergy, and Lords of the Kingdom of France, to desire of him some Relief for the Churches of 
Elias.  his Country; He tells him, That the Prince under whose Government they were, being become a Christian, had allowed them to rebuild, and repair their Churches, which were either quite ruined, or ready to fall: That to do it, they were forced to Mortgage, their Lands and Revenues, so that they had nothing to purchase Oil, Ornaments, and Holy Vessels for Divine-Service: Then he exhorts this Prince, and the French, to exercise t●… Charity upon this occasion, and to bestow something upon the Two Monks which he wo●… send to gather their Alms. This Letter is in Latin in Tome II. of Dacherius' Spicilegium. 〈◊〉 is well Written, but very short.  
Luitbe●tus, Archbishop of Mentz, hath Written a Letter to King Lewis; In which 〈◊〉 tells that Prince, That seeing the Danger their Churches were exposed to, he was oblig●… 
Luitbertus,  to speak, because the Primacy and Dignity of St. Peter is assaulted and Dishonoured by t●… who ought to be the Leaders of the People of God, who prefer Humane things before 〈◊〉 vine; insomuch, that he is afraid, that the Evil, which is in the Head●, will spread 〈◊〉 self into all the Members, unless a Remedy be timely provided. He tells the King, t●… there is present danger, because those that aught to watch for the Salvation of others, 〈◊〉 stroy themselves, and dig a Pit of destruction for those that follow them. He exhorts 〈◊〉 to conser with those, that know the Law of God, that he may remove these Scandals, and 〈◊〉 Peace in the Church. He adds, That it is so much the Easier, because all the Body 〈◊〉 the Church is not corrupted as yet; That there are some Members weakened by the wound 〈◊〉 the head, but may be cured with suitable Medicines; That it seems necessary and profitable, that King Charles call a Council soon; that the Bishops of his Kingdom, which 〈◊〉 not infected with the Disease, might join, with the: Bishops of Germany and Him, to re●… the Peace and Agreement of the Catholic Church, as soon as he returns from the Voy●… he was about to take. This Letter seems to relate to the Troubles, which happened after 〈◊〉 Death of Lotharius, about the Kingdom of Lorain, which Pope Adrian claimed for the Emperor Lewis; threatening Excommunication to Charles, and to the rest who were in possession of it.  
Of all Authors of this Age, there is none that hath taken more pains about the Canons than Regino. He was chosen Abbot of Prom, about 892; after Farabertus had voluntarily resigned it, but he enjoyed it not long, being deprived of it in 899, by the Arts of his Enemies, who put Richarius, the Brother of the Counts Gerhardus and Montfredus, into his place. He endured this injustice, with a great deal of Patience, and lived a private Monk, in the Abbey of Prom. In this time he composed his Collection of Canons, and Ecclesiastical Constitutions at the desire of Rathboldus, Archbishop of Treves. He finished it in 906. He also composed a Chronicon, which ends in 968, dedicated to Adelbertus' Bishop of Metz. We do not exactly know to what Age he lived.  
His Collection of Canons is entitled, A Treatise of Ecclesiastical Discipline and of the Christian Religion, collected by the order of Rathboldus, Archbishop of Treves, by Regino, heretofore Abbot of P●…, and taken out of the Fathers, Councils and Popes. It is divided into two Books. In the first he sets down the Canons, which concern Ecclesiastical Persons; and in the Second, those that concern the Laity. These two Books begin each of them, with a form of such things, as Bishops, or Ministers ought to be informed in, when they make their Visits. That which is at the beginning of the first, concerns the Clergy; and that which is at the beginning of the second, concerns the Laity. Then he confirms the Articles of the first by the Canons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions. He quotes the Canons of the Councils, and particularly those of France, the Constitutions of the Kings, the genuine Decretals of the Popes, and sometimes the false; some passages of the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Authors. This Collection is very large, and exact. Burchardus, Iv● Carnatensis, and the other Collectors of Canons that follow him, have made use of it, and often copy it out. It hath been published from a M S. of Flaccus Illyricus, and printed at Helmstad, 1659.; and since M. Baluzius hath taken care to print it at Paris, by Muguet, 1671, having received it by a very ancient M S. in the Library of the Fathers of the Oratory at Paris. He hath set down in the Margin, the places from which the Canons and passages of that Collection are taken, and where the Articles of Burchardus' Collection are found.  
Regino's Chronicon is divided into two Books. It was printed at Frankfort in 1583. Trimethius assures us, that this Author wrote several Sermons, some Letters, and other Works, which never came to his Hands. He much commends his Ingenuity, Learning and Piety; and says, that he is the best of the Germane Writers of his Time.  
Lastly, we have another Author of this Age, who treats of a very curious Subject of Discipline, and that is Auxilius, who maintains the Validity of the Ordinations made by Pope Formosus. He was 
a Ordained by this Pope.] He says it plainly at the end of his first Treatise, in which having spoken of the Validity of the Ordinations of this Pope; he adds, That he continued in the order which he had received by Consecration, waiting for the equitable Judgement of a General Council. In the Thirty First Chapter of his Second Treatise. His Adversary objects, that he was a Stranger; and at first he don't deny it, but about the end he puts in a Doubt; saying, 'twas a fiction of his Adversaries. He says also in the same place, ●hat he was ordained a Priest by Formosus. In the Chapter of the Second Book, he says also, that he was ordained by Formosus, and was come to Rome from his own Country.  ordained by this Pope, and 'twas his Interest to defend it. He hath made two small Treatises upon that Subject, in which he shows a great deal of Learning for the Age he lived in.  
The First is a Collection of Ecclesiastical Constitutions and passages of Fathers, to prove that a Bishop deprived of his Bishopric may be dignifyed in another Church, when it is for the good and advantage of the Church, and with the Pope's Permission. This Collection was designed to prove the Translation of Formosus, from the Bishopric of Ostia to the Roman See, Lawful. Then he adds some other Testimonies to show that though the ordination of Formosus was not lawful, yet the Ordinations made by him were valid. Upon the first Head, he brings a Passage out of the false Decretal of Anterus, the Example and Authority of St. Gregory Nazianzen, the Examples of some Translations alleged by Socrates, and what is observed in the Greek Book, about the Translation of S. German of Cyzicum to Constantinople. Then he shows, That the Canons of the Council of Nice, do not forbid all Translations, but those only, that are made through ambition, and to disturb the Church. He approves the Law, which Hosius propounded in the Council of Sardica, which forbids those Translations which are made for Avarice, Ambition, or Dominion; but he disapproves what is added, that those who pass from one See to another, shall be reduced to Lay-Communion. He affirms this Law, comes near the Rigour of the Novatians, Condemned by S. Austin, That it was not approved by the Holy See; and that Hosius was of no great Authority, having fallen into Heresy. He ought to have observed, that all the Bishops of the Council, approved the opinion of Hosiu●.  
Auxilius then passeth to the Second Head; which concerns the Validity of the Ordinations made by Photius, and allegeth the Testimonies of S. Innocent, S. Austin, S. Leo, S. Gregory, and S. Anastasius, to show that the Ordinations made by unlawful Bishops are valid, and ought not to be repeated. He confirms this Doctrine by a Canon of the Council of Nice, which accepted the Ordinations made by the Novatians. He says, that since the Ordinations of Pope Liberius, who was an Heretic, and Vigilius who was an Usurper, guilty of Simony and Murder, were well approved, there is much greater reason to allow of those made by Formosus. He proves, that it will cast the Church of Italy into strange Confusion, and the Faithful into inexpressible Trouble. He observes, that if there was any default in the Translation of Formosus, it did not belong to him, who accepted it, but to the Clergy and Nobles of Rome, who chose him, and acknowledged him for their Bishop. Lastly, he proves, that they who swear, that their Ordination is void, are guilty of Sacrilege, and they are not obliged thereby to obey the Commands of their Superiors, nor of the Pope, who exacts it, because they ought not to execute those Commands of Superiors, which are contrary to Justice, and the Law of God; That their Excommunication ought not be feared or observed, but when it is just; That we ought to distinguish between the Papal See, and the Persons who preside in it; That we ought to respect the Sees, but not follow those that preside in them, if they depart from the Faith or Religion, although, they are obliged to obey them in those things, they order well, although they would not do it. In Conclusion, He advises, That this Collection of Testimonies may perhaps seem needless to several Persons, because there are few People, that will judge of this▪ Affair with Equity, and that he did not hope to carry his Cause in the judgement of those, who are both Judges, Advocates and Witnesses, but that according to the Opinion of S. Jerom, he wrote both for himself, and for them which were of his Judgement, that they might be courageous, seeing they do not ground their belief upon their own Sense, but the Holy Fathers, and that they observe, that which is written; That if a Multitude rise up against you, you should not fear, and that they should hold fast what they have received, lest you lose your Crown. That continuing in the sacred Vocation you have received, they may wait for the impartial Examination of a general Council, under the protection of which they may put themselves with these W●… Lift up thyself, O Lord, judge thine own Cause.  
The Second Treatise of Auxilius, saith Sigibert in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, is written in form of a Dialogue, by way of Question and Answer. It was composed at the desire of Leo, Bishop of Nola, who had been ordained by Formosus, who being urged to acknowledge, that the Priesthood which he had received from Pope Formosus, is null; first consulted the French Bishops, and the Bishop of Beneventum about it, who answered him, that he ought not to do it, and then sent his Request to Auxilius, to answer the Objections made against the Ordinations of Form●s●●. At the beginning of this Treatise is propounded a general Question, which serves as a Preface to it, viz. whether those who have been ordained against their own Consent, but afterwards yield to their Ordination, aught to be re-ordained. To which he answers, that as we do not re-baptize Infants, nor such as have been baptised by force; no more ought we to re-ordain them who have been involuntarily ordained. This Preface is accompanied with a Letter of Auxili●●'s to Leo Bishop of Nola, in which he tells him, That he made this Treatise to satisfy him, and had set down the Objections under the name of the Objecter, and answers under the name of the Defender. That he ought not to expect in his Writings Syllogisms in form, no Logical Subdeties, being the Scholar of a Fisher, i. e. S. Peter. That 'tis true, though he is in his Bark, he is in a Tempest, but he prayed the Lord of all to command the Winds and Sea, and make a Calm.  
The first Objection made by the Objecter, is about the Translation of Formosus. He says, having left his Wife, i. e. Bishopric, he hath taken away the H. See from them, who ought to be ordained in it; so that he is a Reprobate and Hypocrite. The Defender says, That he did not trouble himself with what Formosus was, but he maintained that the Ordinations of Formosus made by him were valid and Lawful. The Objecter insists and says, That Formosus not being Pope, all the Ordinations made by him are null. All that Chapter contains this Difficulty. The Defender maintains, that his Ordinations may be valid, since S. Leo acknowledgeth the Ordinations of false Bishops to be so; That Anastasius allowed Acacius', and no Man ever doubted of Liberius and Vigilius'. The Objecter replies, That the Council of Nice declared their Ordinations void; and that Pope Innocent asserts, That an Hypocrite and Reprobate can't confer Ordination, because he hath none. The Defender Replies, that this aught to be understood of some, and not all Heretics, since he approved of those that Bonosus ordained. The Objecter insists upon his Principle, and demands how it can be, that the Ordinations of a Reprobate can be valid, since the Members can't exist without the Head; and to urge it the farther, he asks to whom Formosus' Crime ought to be imputed; if his Ordinations are of Force, the Defender says, it belongs to the Clergy and people of Rome, and not to a Clergyman, who being a Stranger, came far with a good intention to receive Ordination from him, whom he saw settled on the H. See. Then he proves by the Testimonies of Anastasius and S. Austin, that a Reprobate and an Hypocrite may administer Sacraments effectually, and consequently Ordinations. The Objecter urges the Example of Constantine the Antipope, whose Ordinations were declared null, and the Persons ordained by him Re-ordained. The Defender condemns this Action, and opposes the Authority of S. Leo, Anastasius, etc. Then he proves by some passages of the Popes and Fathers, that Re-ordinations are no less faulty, than Re-baptizations. The Objecter says, That if it were so, a great number of Men are Condemnable, because the number of them that believe Formosus' Ordinantions null, is very Great. This inconvenience doth not at all touch the Defender. He says, God regards not great or small Numbers, but Justice; That his Flock is small; That he never hath, nor will pardon a multitude of Sinners, though never so great, which he clears by the Example of the Deluge; People of the Jews, and the small number of those that remained Faithful under the Persecution of Antiochus; adding to these Examples of the Old Testament, that in S. Ath●…asius's Time almost all the World embraced Arianism, and there was but a very ●●all ●…ber of Persons that continued in the Catholic Faith, and did obtain the Crown. The ●…nder having asserted, that those who are ordained a Second time ought to be excluded for ever 〈◊〉 the Sacred Ministry. The Objecter propounds two difficulties against the Propositions T●e first, That they are not deprived of Christianity, who have been rebaptized. The Second is, That Clergymen who have fallen into Idolatry, may do their Duty, and perform their Functions, and therefore 'tis probable, that the same thing may be allowed to those who are re-ordained. The Defender answers to the First, that a Minister's Function is not like the Title of a Christian, that this is necessary, but that the other is not. To the Second he says, that they have been deposed without all hopes of Restauration, who have voluntarily renounced the Faith, and no Mercy hath been showed, but only to those who have done it through the violence of Torments. The Obedience due to the Pope, and the Oath which he required, to acknowledge that the Ordinations of Formosus are null, create new Difficulties. The Defender strongly maintains, that Superiors ought not to be obeyed, when that which they command is forbidden, and that the Oaths taken in such Cases oblige not. He takes himself not to be obliged to go to the Synod, which the Pope had appointed, and treats the Bishops, that were at it, as Wolves. He adds, that it is sometimes convenient to discover the faults of Superiors, especially when they are prejudicial to the Church, and they can't be remedied any other way; and in fine, insists upon the Fact that 'tis a Fault, which is published, and aggravated by those that defend it. He proceeds yet farther; he says, that we ought not to fear or regard the Excommunication that is unjustly pronounced. He repeats what he had said in his first Treatise about the Distinction of Sees, and them that sit in them. He comes next to the Examination of the affair of Formosus; and says, as he was deposed, so also he was absolved by the Pope; That the Oath which they made him take never to come to Rome, or to return to his Bishopric, was a Cruelty and an unheard of Violence; That he did it only by Constraint. He brings several Examples of Bishops condemned and deposed, who have been restored again. He adds, that Formosus having been restored by the Pope; his first Deposition could not be alleged as an Obstacle to his promotion to the Pope-dom; That only God knows, whether it was through Ambition that he was raised to the H. See, and so it belongs only to him to judge of it. That all the City of Rome, and Neighbouring Provinces did bear Witness of his Piety, except some who had the boldness to blast his Reputation. He endeavours to justify his Translation by the Example of several others, of whom he makes a long list. He answers as he had done in the other Treatise to the Law propounded in the Council of Sardica, approving the first, and condemning the second part. The Council of Africa was objected, which forbids him who doth the Office of a Clergyman in one Church, to pass to another. He replies, that it is only forbidden by that Canon, to receive the Clergy of another Bishop. He explains the Canons, which forbidden Translations, of such as are through a kind of Ambitious Avarice or Dominion, and proves that they do not comprehend those which are made for the necessity, and profit of the Church. He adds, that it belongs to the People of Rome to answer for the Necessity and Advantage there was in Translating of Formosus to the See. It was objected, that although Formosus might be excused as to those Points, yet the Blow he had received by suffering himself to be re-ordained, was not to be covered. This Objection much puzzled Auxilius, and to answer it, he supposeth that the Priests and Bishops are not essentially distinct, and endeavours to prove it by the famous passage of St. Jerom, from whence he Concludes; That as a Priest is Consecrated to make a Bishop, without any intention of Consecrating him a Priest anew, but only adding the Episcopal Title in like Manner. Formosus by his Second Ordination, did not lose the Title of Bishop he had before, but only received the addition of the Apostolic Dignity. This Sophistical Answer of Auxilius, did not excuse Formosus, if the Matter of Fact were true; but he maintains immediately, that it was very false, and that he was informed by those, that were present at the Instalment of Formosus, that he did not receive a new Ordination, but was conducted to the H. Apostolic See, by singing of Prayers, and was installed with a Speech proper for that occasion. He adds, that none but his Enemies, and others, that had a present Quarrel with him; said, that he was ordained a Second Time, whose Testimony was not worthy of Credit. That to pass a true Judgement of this Matter, a general Council ought to be called, which might easily remove the Scandal, and settle Peace in the Church; That the Synod held at Ravenna had confirmed the Ordination of Formosus, for which indeed the Bishops were accused of Bribery, but very unjustly. He aggravates the Cruelty exercised by Pope Stephen against Formosus, whose Corpse he took up and brought it to a Council, where having stripped him of his pontifical Habits, he caused a Lay-Garb to be put on him, and having cut off two Fingers of his Right-Hand, he caused him to be Buried in the Churchyard for Strangers, from whence he was aftèr thrown into the Tiber. Auxilius says, that they that exercised this piece of inhumanity upon him, acted like Savage Beasts; That this their Action was contrary to Heathen Morality, which obliges us to spare the Dead; That although the Translation of Formosus had been contrary to the Laws of the Church, it ought to have been tolerated with a Christian Compassion, and not aggravated with an unheard of Cruelty. That all that could have been done, had been to have called a Council to forbid the Peo whatever else is necessary to Celebrate Divine Service. He acquaints him, that he had gotten Schools of Singers, who are so very excellent in their Art, and are able to Instruct others. That he has Readers, who not only Read Publicly, but are fit to Expound and Interpret. That he has caused a great many Ecclesiastical Authors to be Transcribed; Rebuilt and Beautified a great many Monasteries, and other Religious Houses; and likewise erected a Cloister for the Canons and Prebendaries, and many other things both of Use and Profit. The Second Letter of Leidradus is Consolatory to his Sister upon the Death of her Son and Brother. The Works of Leidradus are in a plain and natural stile, but have nevertheless a great deal of good Sense and very Christian Thoughts. These two last Letters are in the Bibliotheca Patrum, [Tom. 10. p. 232.] Papyrius Massonus and M. Balusius have joined them to the Works of Agobardus, to whom Leidradus resigned his See to retire into the Monastery of St. Martin at Soissons. There are other Anonymous Answers given to the Questions proposed by Charles the Great in his Letter. All these Authors give an Account of the Ceremonies of Baptism, and put a Mystical Sense upon them, for the Instruction and Edification of Priests and Believers.  
Lewis, Surnamed the Kind or Godly, was not less Curious than his Father, in endeavouring to understand the Ceremonies of the Church. Amalarius, a Deacon of Mets, to whom is also given the 
Amalarius.  Title of Abbot in Ancient Manuscripts, and whom some have called Suffragan, Dedicated to him Four Books of the Ecclesiastical Office, in his Preface of which he gives him great Commendations, concluding it with many wishes for his long and happy Life. In these Books he relates the Ceremonies and Customs of the Church, according to the Roman Establishment, and gives Mystical Reasons for them, which are in no wise to be thought the true Reasons for the Institution of these Ceremonies, but Humane Inventions, and for the most part groundless Suppositions, and which I do not think myself obliged to give any Account of; therefore shall only take notice of a few Points of Discipline in them, which are the most considerable. The First Book is about the Service of the Church from Septuagesima to Pentecost: Where he teaches us, that from Septuagesima to Easter, neither Hallelujah, nor Gloria in Excelsis were sung in Churches; that Lent began the Wednesday after Quinquagesima. That on Holy-Thursday they Consecrated Oils for the Sick, for the Catechumen, and those that were Confirmed. That these three Oils had three different Consecrations. That they mingled Balm with that used for Confirmation. That on Good-Friday they worshipped the Cross, and after they had brought out the Body of Christ (reserved the day before) they mixed it with unconsecrated Wine, which they thought sufficiently consecrated by this Mixture, and so gave it immediately to the People. But he takes notice at the same time, that in the Church of Rome the Priests only Communicated. That the Service of Saturday was for Saturday Night till Sunday, and that they blest the Wax Candle. He speaks of some of the Ceremonies of Baptism made use of at that time, and principally of the Unction, which was poured by the Priests on the top of the Novice's Head. He seems to disapprove of the Fast upon Rogation, which he says, was Instituted by St. Mamertus, and was never in use with the Eastern Churches. In the Second Book he Treats of the Twelve Lessons of Divine Service, of the Fast of the Four Ember Weeks, of the several Orders and 
* Of the Habits of Priests, see Durand. Ration. l. 3.  Habits of Priests, of which he gives very Mystical significations. The Priest's Vest signifies the right management of the Voice, his Albe the subduing of the Passions; his Shoes, upright Walking; his Coat, Good Works; his Stole, the Yoke of Jesus Christ; the Surplise, Readiness to Serve his Neighbour; his Handkerchief, Good Thoughts, and the Pallium, Preaching. The Third Book Treats of the Method observed in Celebrating Mass. Of the Habits, of the Office of the Singers, of the manner of the Bishop's going to the Altar; of the Place where he sits, of the Presenting of the Chalice by the Acolythus to the Subdeacon, who receives it. Of the mixing of the Sacramental Bread with the Consecrated Wine; and lastly of the Kiss of Peace. He Discourses at the same time of the Prayers which are said, viz. 
† Concerning these parts of the Mass (533.) if any desire to be exactly informed, let him consult Durand. Ration. lib. 4.  Of the Introitus, the Kyrie Eleison, the Gloria, the Collects, the Tractus, the Responses, the Hallelujah, the Offertory, the Secret Prayers, the Preface, the Canon, the Lord's Prayer, the Agnus Dei, and the Blessings, which are given at the end of the Mass. He also adds some Reflections upon the Masses and Service used on All-Saints-Day, the Advent, Christmas-Day, and the Purification; upon the Hour of Celebrating Mass, and the differences between the Masses for the Dead. We may thereby Learn, that the Practice in his Time of Celebrating Mass was not different from what it is at present. But the Mystical Reflections he makes upon these Ceremonies and Prayers are so farfetched and incongruous, that there is no great use to be made of them. He has one particular Observation to himself about the Body of Jesus Christ, which he divides into three states or conditions. 1st. Of Jesus Christ risen again, represented by that part of the Eucharist which is put into the Chalice. 2. Of Jesus Christ upon Earth, represented by that which is consumed by the Priest. And, 3. The Body of Jesus Christ in the Tomb, represented by that part which remains on the Altar. The last Book is upon the other parts of the Divine Service; 
‖ These hours of Prayer, and the Reasons of their Institution, are at large explained by Durand. in his Rationale Divin. Off. l. 5. c. 3— 10.  As the Prayers for the First, Third, Sixth, None hours, Vespers, Complectorum, and Night-Office, as well for Sundays and holidays, as other Principal Feasts of the Year. F. Mabillon, in the Second Tome of his Analects, has Printed a Supplement to this Fourth Book attributed to Amalarius. But it appears by Agobard's Book, writ against this Work, that the last Chapter of the 4th book, was the same with the last and 47th in the Vulgar Editions: Also 'tis certain, that this Supplement is rather added by the Monk Ademarus, than the Work of Amalarius. Moreover 'tis plain, this Addition has no Connexion or Conformity with the other parts of that Treatise.  
The same Author has Writ another Book, called 
* De ordine Antiphonarii. Liber.  The Order of the Book of Anthems, where he gives a Reason for the Order he has observed in the Book of Anthems, which he made for the Churches of France, in so disposing the Anthems, Responses and Psalms. Ademarus informs us, That Amalarius was also Author of a Treatise, named A Rule for the Canons and Canonesses, Published in the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle, which consists of nothing else but a Collection of Precepts and Canons, gathered from the Fathers and Councils, relating to the Lives of Clergymen and Monks. The Deacon Florus makes mention of two other Books of Amalarius, made before the former, and adds a third, called An Introduction or Preface to his Works; but this we have altogether lost.  
Mon. Balusius amongst the pieces which are at the end of the second Volume of his Capitulary, hath Published some Eclogues of choice Reflections, upon some places of the Roman Order, concerning the Ceremonies of the Mass, which go under the name of Amalarius: But althô this Work be very full of Reflections, much like those of Amalarius, yet it is very dubious whether they be his or no; for besides that it is not likely he would Treat a second time of the same thing, only after a different manner, of which he had spoken before in the third Book of his Divine Offices. It appears to me, that this Author's Style and Manner of Writing is something different from that of Amalarius.  
There are five Letters of this Authors, in the seventh Tome of Dacherius' Spicilegium, [Tom. 6.] The first is directed to Terence, Archbishop of Sens, concerning the manner of Writing the Name of Jesus Christ, together with Terence's Answer. The second is on the same subject, Writ to Ionas Bishop of Orleans, with that Bishop's Answer. The third is to Rancarius Bishop of Noyon, about the meaning of these Words in the Gospel; This is the Cup of my Blood, of the new and eternal Testament.  
The fourth is to the Monk Hetton, who was Abbot of Fulda, after Rabanus, about the Word Seraphim, whether it be of the Masculine or Neuter Gender; And the fifth is to Gontard, where he treats of this Question, viz. Whether a Person may be allowed to spit just after receiving the Holy Eucharist. It seems by this last Letter, that he believed that there was no harm in spitting some time after, when one cannot easily forbear longer: And if it should happen that without their knowledge or will, they should let drop some of the Eucharist, they need not much trouble themselves about it: Also, That he doubted whether Christ's Body once Received did Incorporate with ours, and accompany it to Death; or whether it evaporated through the Ports, or was exhaled into Air, or converted into Blood, or went into the Drought; so that this has given occasion to some, to accuse him of the Error of the Starconanists, as Heribald and Rabanus were. The Books of Amalarius were very ill received in France, and chief by the Church of Lions, which would by no means endure them. Agobardus Bishop of this See, wrote three Treatises against his Offices and Book. Florus a Deacon of the same Church, attacked him very vigorously, and accused him in the Councils of Cressi and Thionville: First about his Opinion of the Body of Christ, under three Forms, represented by three pieces of the Sacramental Bread: Secondly about his Moral and Mystical significations of the Ceremonies of the Church, which he looked upon as false Opinions and Imaginations without Grounds. Thirdly, because he insisted only upon the Roman Order, and Expounded it word for word, although he knew that this Book was unknown to the Archdeacon of Rome, of whom he had many Traditions.  
Amalarius thus having attacked the Customs of the Church of Lions, Agobard, who was their Archbishop, descended them in his Correction of the Anthem Book, to which his Treatise of the manner of singing Psalms in the Church of Lions, serves for a Preface. He observes that the particular Customs of some Churches ought not to be reflected on. He approves of that of the Church of Lions, in not Singing new and fantastical Psalms, in not making use of Poetry in Divine Services, and by keeping exactly to the Scriptures. This was what Amalarius Quarrelled with, but Agobard vigorously defended it, and proved it highly reasonable and conformable to the sense of the Church.  
This Correction of the Anthem Book is Dedicated to all Believers, but principally to the Singing-men of the Church of Lions: He there gives reasons for the Corrections he has made, and shows that he has only retrencht all that was not taken from the Holy Scriptures, he gives particular reasons for leaving out some Anthems, and proves that they were contrary to the Truth, and did not at all agree with Mysteries. He afterwards Quotes several Places in the Fathers, to show that it is necessary to endeavour to reform the Service, and to retrench those Errors and Abuses which are ●lid into it, either by Malice, Ignorance or Simplicity. He complains that there are some Clergymen, that spend their Lives more in learning to Sing, than in Studying the Holy Scriptures, and other matters that relate to their Ministry: He says that the Ancients to avoid this disorder, chose rather to repeat the Psalm often, than to charge the minds of those that sung with a great many superfluous pieces. And lastly he concludes, That as the Church has a Mass-Book whose Doctrine is very pure, and a Collection of Lessons taken wholly out of the Holy Scriptures, so it ought also to have an Anthem-Book Purged from all Errors and Humane Inventions, and composed out of nothing but the Bible.  
This Treatise is followed by another against some passages of Amalarius' Book, concerning the Divine Service: He reproves what Amalarius maintains; That on the twenty fifth of April might be used Litanies or Rogations, without Fasts and Abstinence; he laughed at what Amalarius had asserted, that upon that day they prayed Publicly for Eggs, Bread and Fish. He finds fault with Amalarius' Explanation of the passage of St. Paul. He reproves divers expressions and Notions of this Author; as when he says, that the Holy Ghost did drive all Carnal Desires out of the Apostles Hearts: That Man, and by consequence Jesus Christ, was Created out of the four Elements; That Jesus Christ died for the just and unjust; That there are two Sacrifices, the one General for all Men, and the other particular only for the Saints: That the first is the death of Jesus Christ, and the second the Prayers of the just, which are united to the Sacrifices of the Angels: This Treatise of Agobard seems imperfect.  
Rabanus or Herbanus, surnamed Maurus and Magnentius, has made himself very famous by his 
Rabanus.  Works, which he has Written concerning the Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church. He was born at Mayence, in the year 788. He was put very young into the Monastery of Fulda, where he was brought up; from thence he was sent to Tours, where he Studied some time under the famous Alcain: He returned afterwards into Germany to his Monastery, where he was entrusted with the Government of the younger Monks, and was afterwards ordained Priest in the year 814. and at last chosen Abbot of Fulda in 822. After having managed this charge twenty years, he voluntarily quitted it to satisfy his Monks, who accused him, that he applied himself too much to Study, and neglected the affairs of the Monastery. He retired to the Mount of St. Peter, and was at last chosen Archbishop of Mayence, in the year 847. He held a Council the same year for the Reformation of Discipline, be Condemned Gotescalcus a Monk of Corbey in another Council, and sent him to Hincmarus' Archbishop of Rheims; he died in the year 856.  
He excelled all in the common Learning of those times, such as expounding the Principles of Arts, as the Rules of Grammar and Rhetoric; in a readiness of Collecting from the Fathers of the Church, common places upon the Holy Scriptures. In Inventing Allegories upon the Histories of the Bible; in the Exposition of the Mystical Reasons of the Ceremonies; in a knack of turning Prose into Verse, and in the manner of reducing his common places into Precepts and Instructions. All the Works of R●banus, are of this kind.  
I shall not speak of the Grammar that is attributed to him, and which is nothing else but an Extract of Priscian, because these kind of Works do not relate to our Subject; and that those that have writ his Life, and the Catalogue of his Books, have not mentioned it.  
His Treatise, De Universo▪ or of the signification and propriety of Words, composed for Haymon Bishop of Halb●rstat, and sent to Lewis the Godly, is nothing but a Collection of common Places, about a great number of things. It is divided into twenty two Books, of which there are but the five first, which have any relation to Ecclesiastical Affairs, the others being all about the Sciences and profane Arts. The fir●● Book is concerning the three Persons in the Godhead; in the first Chapter he explains the several names of God, and gives the sense of such Expressions in the Scripture, as attributes the Members and Actions of Man to him. In the second he considers the different Names which are given to the Son of God, in the Old and New Testament. In the third he explains what relates to the Holy Ghost, which he affirms to proceed from the Father and the Son. In the fourth he treats of the Mystery of the Trinity, and in the last of the Names of Angels, and of their different Orders. In the second and third Book he searches into the Significations of the Names of the Patriarches and Prophets, and other remarkable Persons in the Old Law. The fourth concerns the Church only; he there Explains the Names and Parables in the New Testament, he takes Notice of the Signification and Etymology of the Words which are made use of in the Affairs of the Church, such as Clerk, Bishop, Martyr, etc. Also he distinguishes the different sorts of Monks: he speaks of Heresies, and concludes with an Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church, which is taken, or rather Copied out of the Treatise of Gennadius, upon Ecclesiastical Opinions. In the fifth he Discourses of the Books of the Holy Scriptures; he makes a Catalogue of them, and adds moreover to those the Church has received as Canonical, some that have not been allowed by the Canon of the Jews. He sets down those that he believes to have been the Authors of the Old and New Testament, and makes an Abbridgment of their Works. He speaks also of the Restoration of the Holy Books by Esdras, of the Libraries of the Version of the Septuagint, and of other Versions of the Holy Scriptures; ●e extremely commends that of St. Jerom, and prefers it before all others, as being the most literal and clear. Verboram tenacior & perspicuitate Sententiae Clarior. He Treats also in the same Book of other Ecclesiastical Writings of Canons, or of Concordances of the Evangelists, of Defini●ions of General Councils, and of Ecclesiastical Offices. He comes at last to the Sacraments, and other means of Sanctifying us. He says, That Sacraments are things which ought to be received Holily; That Baptism, Chrism, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, are called Sacraments, because the Divine Grace works in them by the Visible Signs; that they have their Effect, whether they be Administered by good or bad Men; that Baptism remits Sins; that there are several sorts of Baptisms, as that of the Holy Ghost, and that of Martyrdom, etc. That there are in the Church other means of purifying ourselves from our Sins, and principally Confession, Penance and Tears; that Chrism or Unction Sanctifies us, and that the Priest lays his hands upon us to endue us with the Holy Ghost; That as to the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, God has chosen Bread and Wine to show us that his Body and his Blood is for our common Nourishment; That the Sacraments g●ve Life to some and Death to others, because all receive them, though few have the virtue and benefit of them. He speaks lastly of Exorcisms, the Creed, the Lords Prayer, Lent, public Penance, and Littanies or Processions.  
Rabanus' Work in Praise of the Holy Cross, is of a very particular kind; it must needs have cost him a great deal of pains and study, though it be but of little use. The body of the Work is composed 〈◊〉 letters divided from one another, and range over against one another in lines. In reading from the right hand to the left, every line contains an Hexameter Verse. These Letters thus ranged in lines, make a sort of a draught or platform, on which there are Figures or Simbols of the Cross Painted; the letters enclosed in these Figures make also Verses, which have some relation to the Figure. There are 28 Figures in 28 Tables, the Verses are Copied entire; afterwards at the end of every Table, and the Mystery explained in Prose. The first Table contains the Image of Christ, extending his Arms in the form of a Cross. The 47 Verses read long-ways, from the right Hand to the left, show the several Names that have been given to Christ, in the Old and New Testament. The Letters comprised in the draught of the Figure Compose other Verses; as for Example, Those that meet i● the Crown about his Head, read round, make exactly this Verse, Rex Regum Dominus Dominantium. In the other Tables he represents many different things upon the Cross, as the Angels, the Virtues, the Elements, cyphers, Mystical Numbers, Gifts of the Holy Ghost, the Beatitudes, Books of Moses, Names of Adam, Allelujah, Amen, etc. In the last he represents a Cross, at the foot of which is Painted a Monk Worshipping it, and in it these Words, Rabanum memet clemens rogo, Christ tuere, O Pie, Judicio. This first Book is explained by a second, which contains 28 Chapters in Prose. Rabanus undertook this Work at thirty years of Age, and presented it a great while afterwards to Gregory the Fourth, to whom it was recommended as a wonderful piece of Art by Alcuinus, who had been Rabanus' Master.  
These are the Contents of the first Tome of Rabanus' Works; the second consists of four Books of Commentaries upon Genesis, four upon Exodus, seven upon Leviticus, with an Abridgement of them, by Strabo his Scholar, four upon Numbers, and as many upon Deuteronomy. All these Commentaries are Dedicated to Freculphus Bishop of Lysieux, at whose desire he undertook them. Rabanus in his Epistle entreats him to Examine them; and tells him, That he ought not to expect any thing extraordinary from one that was more fit to Work for his Living, than to write Books for the use of the Learned, and besides whose charge of Abbot allowed him but little Leisure. The third Tome contains two Books of Commentaries upon Judges, Dedicated to Humbertus Bishop of Wirtzbourg. One on the History of Ruth, four on the four Books of Kings, Dedicated to Hilduin, four others upon the two Books of Chronicles, Dedicated to Lewis Emperor of Germany. One Commentary upon the History of Judith, and another upon Hester. These two are Dedicated to the Empress Judith. A Comment upon the Canticles, which is Composed into Morning Hymns, for every day of the Week, Dedicated to Lewis King of Germany. Three Books of Commentaries on the Proverbs of Solomon, as many on the Book of Wisdom, and two upon Ecclesiastes. These two last are Dedicated to Otgarus Archbishop of Mayence. The fourth Tome consists of nineteen Books of Commentaries upon the Prophecy of Jeremiah and his Lamentations, twenty upon Ezekiel, Dedicated to the Emperor Lotharius. And two more on the two Books of Maccabees; the first is to Lewis King of Germany, and the other to Geroldus Archdeacon of that King's Chapel. The fifth Tome contains eight Books of Commentaries upon the Gospel of St. Matthew, Directed to Aistulphus Archbishop of Mayence: and lastly, thirty Books of Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul, written at the request of Lupus of Ferrara, and Dedicated to the Bishop Samuel. Many Homilies upon the Sundays, Feasts and Holydays of the year, and also upon divers points of Morality, Dedicated to Aistulphus and Lotharius. A Treatise of Allegories upon all the Scripture, where, after having explained the difference between Tropology, Analogy, and Allegory; he ranks in Alphabetical Order, many words of the Holy Scriptures, to all which he gives an Allegorical or Mystical Sense.  
Those Authors that have mentioned Rabanus' Works, add to these several other Commentaries, upon Joshua, Esdras, Tobit, Job, the Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel, the Minor Prophets, the Gospels of St. Mark. St. Luke, and St. John, the Acts of the Apostles, and Canonical Epistles, and some others which have never yet been Printed. All these Commentaries consists of nothing else but Collections out of other men's Works, which be Copied from them without any exact choice or distinction.  
The Sixth Tome of Rabanus' Works contains many Books; the first and most considerable of all these, is his Treatise of Instruction of Clerks, divided into three Books. He Composed it for the Monks of Fulda, who propounded to him divers questions about their Duty, and Dedicated it in the year 819. to Aistulphus Archbishop of Mayence. The first Book treats of the several Ecclesiastical Degrees and Habits of Clergymen; also of the four Sacraments of the Church, as Baptism, Chrism, the Body and Blood of Christ, and the Service of the Mass according to the Roman Order. The second is upon the Liturgy itself, the Canonical Hours, Fasts, Confessions, Penance, holidays, the rule of Faith, and about Heresies; the last is of Ecclesiastical Knowledge and Studies.  
In the first, after having observed that the Church is an Assembly of Believers, he divides it into three sorts of Members; first Laymen, secondly Monks, and thirdly Clerks: He observes, That the Clergy are admitted into it by Shaving the Crown, which is a Ceremony that demonstrates, that they ought then to part with all Vice and Disorderly Living. It seems they did not then content themselves to cut off a little Hair, but Shaved all the top of their Heads, leaving only a circle round about, which Rabanus believes to have been a mark of the Royalty of the Christian Priesthood. He reckons up eight Ecclesiastical Orders; the Porter, the Chorister, the Reader, the Exorcist, the Acolythus; the Sub-deacon, the Deacon, the Priest, and Bishop. He says, That this last must be Ordained, not by one Bishop only, but by all those of his Province; lest so great Power being trusted to a single Person, he should undertake any thing prejudicial to the Faith. He adds, That in Consecrating him he has a Staff put into his Hand to admonish, that he is not only to Guide but Correct the People committed to his charge, and a Ring to denote either the Honour of the Priesthood, or the Secrets he is to keep. He counts three sorts of Bishops; first Patriarches, secondly Arch-Bishops or Metropolitans, and thirdly single Bishops. He adds moreover Suffragans, which he compares to Christ's Disciples, who could do nothing without their Master's Orders. These sorts of Bishops were Established for the sake of the Poor in the Country, that they might not be deprived of Confirmation, which these Suffragans had power to confer upon them, though they were Ordained by one Bishop only, as the Priests are. He tells us, that these last were also called Bishops, and that they had the power almost equal to theirs, for they could Consecrate the Eucharist confer Baptism, and Preach. But nevertheless they had not the chief Dignity of Priesthood, Pontificatus Apicem, since they could not anoint the Forehead with Chrism, and bestow the Holy Ghost, which two only belong to the Bishops, as it appears by the Acts of the Apostles; neither can they confer Holy Orders, which is also reserved to the Bishops. The Deacons are Ministers of Sacred Things, they have right to Baptism, they are necessary in the service of the Altar, for the Priest cannot take the Chalice from thence, but must receive it from the Hands of the Deacon. The Subdeacons are under them; these take the Offerings of the People, and carry them to the Deacons who place them upon the Altar; they are obliged to live unmarried: These are not Ordained by Imposition of Hands, but only by receiving the Cover and Chalice from the Hands of the Bishop; and the Crystal Bottle and Napkin from the Archdeacon. He says nothing particular of the lesser and inferior Orders. I shall pass by the Remarks he makes upon the likeness of our Ministers with those of the Old Testament, and the Mystical significations he gives to the Bishop's Habits. To come to what he teaches concerning the Sacraments, He says, That Baptism, Chrism, and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are called Sacraments; because that under the Veil of Corporal things, the Divine Power produces Salvation and Grace, after a secret manner by the power of the Holy Ghost, which works this Effect, insomuch that they are equally Efficatious, whether they be Administered by the Good or the Bad. That Baptism is the first, because it must be received before Confirmation, and before the Receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord. That in this Sacrament Men are dipped in Water, to denote, that as Water outwardly purifies the Body, so Grace inwardly does the Soul, into which the Holy Ghost descends. He relates afterwards the Order of Administration, and the Ceremonies of Baptism; and from thence passing to Confirmation, he Remarks, that the Bishop dispenses the Holy Ghost by Imposition of his Hands; and that he Anoints the Believer a second time with the same Chrism the Priest had done before, with this difference only, that his Anointing is on the Forehead, whereas the Priest's was on the Crown of the Head. He attributes to this last Unction the Sanctification and Grace of the Holy Ghost. At last speaking of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which he considers as two different Sacraments. He asks the Question, Why Jesus Christ has comprehended the Mystery of his Body and Blood under things which we eat and drink? And why of all the sorts of Food we eat, he has made choice of Bread and Wine? To which he Answers, That Jesus Christ has given us his Body and Blood in the form of Nourishment, because effectively his Flesh is such and his Blood Drink. That he hath made use of the Fruits of Earth, because he was upon Earth, and that he has chosen Bread and Wine to accomplish the Sacrifice of Melchisidech, and to show that as Bread and Wine consists of many Particles, which together make but one Substance, so we are all United into the same Church by the same Charity, being all made Members of the same Body by this Sacrament. He adds, That this Sacrament serves for Nourishment to our Flesh, and converts itself into our Substance, and that by virtue of this Sacrament we are changed into Jesus Christ. That we participate of his Spirit and Grace; and in a word, that we become his very Members. That the Bread which is made use of is without Leaven, to denote, that those which approach it ought to be exempt from all Impurities. That Water is mixed with the Wine, because we read in the Gospel, That Blood and Water came out of the Side of our Saviour. And that as it is good for them that are not separated from it by their Sins, often to approach this Sacrament, so it is very dangerous for such as have committed such Crimes as debar them from it, to receive it before they have Repent. After having treated of the Sacraments, he speaks of the Celebration of Mass, which he believes to have been so called, because of the dismissing of the Catechumen with these words, Ita Missa est. He says, That the Mass is a Sacrifice which the Priest offers to God, instituted by Jesus Christ, practised by the Apostles, and used by all the Church. He acknowledges that at first they did not Sing as they do at present; but he believes they read the Gospel and the Epistles of the Apostles; he ends this Book with a short Exposition of the Ceremonies and Prayers of the Mass.  
In the second Book after, he hath spoken of the Hours for Divine Service, and the different sorts of Prayer. He treats of the Confession, the Litanies or public Prayers, and the divers kinds of Fasts. He distinguishes three sorts of Lent; the first, that which precedes Easter; the second, the Fast observed after Pentecost; and the third, that which gins in November and ends at Christmas-day. He notes, that the custom of his time was to Fast Friday and Saturday. He does not forget to speak of the Fasts of the four Ember-weeks. He approves of other Fasts ordered by the Bishop on any particular occasion, or practised through Devotion by Christians. In speaking of abstaining from Wine and Flesh, he observes, that Birds are allowed to those who are forbid to eat of any fourfooted Creature, because that 'tis thought, they were form out of Water as well as Fish.  
He distinguishes two different sorts of Alms, and ranks amongst this Number the good Works we do for our Salvation, which are as Alms we bestow upon ourselves. He defines Penance a Punishment. by which a Man corrects himself for what he has done amiss. He says, that Penitents let their Hair and Beards grow, wear Sackcloth, throw themselves on their Faces on the Ground, and besprinkle their Bodies with Ashes. That Repentance is a second remedy for our Sins, after Baptism. That to effect a true Repentance, it does not suffice only to bewail one's Sins past, but we must never commit them again. That this is the satisfaction, followed by Reconciliation. That Penance and Reconciliation ought to be public, for public Transgressions; but as to those whose Sins are concealed, and who have confessed them secretly to a Priest or a Bishop, they may do Private Penance, such as the Priest or Bishop will order; and afterwards be reconciled when they have performed their Penance. That the ordinary time for Reconciliation is Holy-Thursday, but Absolution may be granted at other times to those that are in danger of their Lives. He afterwards Treats copiously of the Solemn Celebration of Feasts and Sundays. He speaks by the by of the Oblation of the Sacrifice of the Mass for the Dead, of the Dedicating of Churches, the Prayers of Divine Service, the Songs, the Psalms, Hymns, Anthems, Responses, and Lessons. He makes a Catalogue of Canonical Books, which comprehends all that are at present acknowledged for such. He tells you those that he believes to have been Authors of the greatest part of them. He speaks of Ecclesiastical Benedictions, viz. That of Oil, and that of Salt and Water; which he says, are made use of to comfort the Sick against the Illusions of the Devil, to heal the Flock, and to drive away Distempers. At last, having spoken of the Apostles Creed, and given an Abridgement of the Doctrines agreeable to the Faith, he sets down a very imperfect Catalogue of Heresies, in which he forgets some, and reckons others which are altogether unknown; as the Canonians and Metangismonites.  
The last Book is concerning the Learning of Clergymen. He says, they are not allowed to be ignorant of any thing they should teach others, and which is necessary to render them capable of Instructing them. That they ought to understand very well the Holy Scriptures, not only the Historical part, but be able to Expound the Figures and Mystical Sense of it. That it is good for them to have a Tincture of other Arts and Sciences. That they be Civil and Regular in their Manners, and Affable and Courteous in their Speech. That they be of an Acute Judgement, and know how to apply proper Remedies to the different Diseases of the Soul. He afterwards makes use of the words of St. Gregory the Great, to Reprove those who undertake to teach others, and Cure Souls, without being very well instructed in their Duty themselves: I mean such as enter into the Ministry merely through the Prospect of Interest or Ambition, and those that dishonour God by an Irregular Life, whose Deportment does not answer their Doctrine. He says, That the Grounds and Perfection of Wisdom is the Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, which is an Emanation of the Eternal Wisdom of God, and a Participation of his Truth. That all the Wisdom and Truth that Men have, and all that is to be found Profitable in Profane Writers, is to be attributed to the Divine Wisdom, which gave it a beginning. That the Scripture has its Obscurities, which are good to exercise men's wits: But there are scarce any Truths contained in one place, which are not explained in another, Nihil autem de illis obscuritatibus eruitur quod non plenissimè dictum alibi reperiatur. This is taken from St. Austin's Treatise of Christian Doctrine, as well as the rest of this Book; which is nothing but an Extract from this Father, excepting what he says upon the Seven Liberal Arts, upon which he quotes a passage taken out of the Pastoral of St. Gregory.  
The Book of Orders, Holy Sacraments, and Priests Habits, which followeth this, is almost nothing else but a Copy of the first of the three foregoing Books: It is very near the same with the three Books of Ecclesiastical Discipline; for the two first are nothing but an Abridgement of those of the Instruction of Clerks, to which he has added some passages out of St. Austin. In the last, which is about the Christian Warfare, he Treats of Virtues and Vices.  

* Dr. Cave adds a third, De Puritate Cordis: Or, the Purity of the Heart.  The two Books dedicated to the Abbot Bonosus, of which the first is about the Vision of God, and the second upon Penance, are made up of passages out of the Fathers upon these Subjects.  
The three Books of Questions about the Rules of Penance, do not belong to Rabanus. The first and second are Halitgarius', Bishop of Cambray, and the third an unknown Author's.  
The three Books of Virtues and Vices belong to the same Halitgarius, who has also made a Penitential at the Request of Ebbo, Archbishop of Rheims, divided into Five Books, and published under his Name by Canisius. These are not much different from the Five Books, which here bear the Name of Rabanus.  
But the Penitential dedicated to Otgarus, Archbishop of Mayence, is certainly the Work of Rabanus, which he composed towards the Year 841, before he was Bishop of Mayence. [This Tract is Printed alone at Venice, 1584. Quarto.]  
The Name of a Penitential has also been given to the Letter which he wrote to Heribaldus, Bishop of Auxerre, published by Stewart in his Addition to the Antiquities of Canisius [at Ingolstadt, 1616.] and by M. Balusius, at the end of Regino, [at Paris, 1671.] But this is a Canonical Letter, in Answer to some Questions propounded by that Bishop. It is divided into Articles, and quoted by Regino and the Collectors of Canons. He there gathers together many Canons concerning the Penances of Homicides, Adulterers, Forsworn People, Sorcerers; and about the Punishments of those that commit any great Crimes after they are admitted into Holy Orders, and about other Circumstances of Penance and Absolution. But towards the end he Treats about two Questions much debated in his Time. The First about the Eucharist, whether it goes into the Draught? A Question that has been spoken of before. And the Second about Ebbo, Old Archbishop of Rheims, who after his Deposition, retired to Hildesheim in Saxony, where he exercised his Episcopal Functions. He says, that he knows not whether he was justly or unjustly Deposed; but nevertheless that it did not hinder him from doing the Duty of that Office: For he has heard that he was afterwards reestablished by the Holy See. He adds, That he had lately written thereupon to Hinemarus, after he understood that he had removed from the Priesthood and Clerkship, all those who had been ordained by Ebbo after his being deposed. This Letter of Rabanus was written about the Year 853. a long time after the Penitential, of which we have spoken before.  
Rabanus' Letter to Humbert, about the Degrees of Consanguinity, within which 'tis forbidden to Contract Marriage, is also a Work of the same Nature. In it after he hath related the Opinions of Theodorus, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Isidorus, he says, 'tis his Judgement, that a Man may Marry after the fifth Degree of Consanguinity. And that if there be any Marriages found within that Degree, without their knowledge they were so near of Kin, they might be suffered to continue married, only enjoining them Penance, and exhorting them to live in Abstinence from the Marriagebed.  
Humbertus not being satisfied with this short Answer, sent him some new Questions about this Subject; and also asked him what he thought of Fortune-tellers Divinations? Rabanus Answers him in a longer Letter, in which he shows, that he was in the right to make use of the Chapter in Leviticus to Regulate the Degrees of Consanguinity, within which it is forbidden to Marry: Because that this Law related to Manners, and that the Precepts of this kind have not been abolished by Jesus Christ. He afterwards relates a passage of St. Austin, which explains the passage of Leviticus. Another passage in the Answer of St. Gregory to Austin the Monk; and a great many Canons concerning the Degrees of Consanguinity, in which it is forbidden to Contract Marriage. In the Second Part, after having spoken of the Artifices of Magicians or Sorcerers, he concludes, That we ought to take care how we apply ourselves to them for the Cure of any Distemper, or to find things that are stolen or lost.  
In his Book, Of the Soul, he treats briefly, contrary to his ordinary Custom, about such Questions that respect the Original and Nature of our Souls. He says also, that it is a disputable Point, whether God created it to be infused into our Bodies, or whether it be produced from the Souls of our Fathers and Mothers. He maintains, that it is altogether Spiritual, and has no particular Figure, although its principal seat be in the Head. He says, it is not less in Infants than more aged Persons; and that it is of the same Nature in all Men, though the inequality of Organs hinders it from acting every where alike. He Treats afterwards of the Principal Virtues of the Soul, of the Form of the Body, and of the Senses.  
The Treatise of the Rise, Life, and Manners of Antichrist, contains a Description of his Life and Actions, framed out of what is said of him in the Holy Scriptures: That he should be of the Race of the Jews, and of the Tribe of Dan: That he should be born according to the order of Nature, of a Father and Mother: That at the very Minute of his Conception the Devil should enter into his Body, and always dwell there: That he should be born in Babylon: That he should extend his Dominion to a great distance. That he should do Signs and Prodigies. That he should stir up a great Persecution against all Christians. That when he should come, the Roman Empire would be entirely ruined, and Judgement would be at hand. That he should call himself Christ, and draw all the Jews after him. That he should also sit in the Temple of God, that is to say, the Church. That he should have Elias and Enoch for his forerunners: That they should be killed after three Years and a half's Preaching. That the great Persecution of Antichrist should commence from their Death, and that it should continue three Years and an half; but that although the Anger of God should be inflamed against him, and that he should be slain by Jesus Christ, or the Angel Michael armed with his Power. That 'tis thought this shall be on the Mount of Olives. That the Judgement shall not follow his Death immediately, but that God should grant some time to those that have been seduced, to Repent, and acknowledge their Transgressions.  
At the end of these Works we find Rabanus' Verses, in which he confesses, that his Writings are only Collections and Composures out of others Writings.  
The Martyrology attributed to Rabanus, is very short, and seems to be a Genuine Piece: It has already been published by Canisius, [Antiq. Lect. Tom. VI.] We own to the Jesuit Brouverus the Collection of Rabanus' Poetry, where there is Sense and Wit, although it is every where full of Barbarous Terms, and have neither Elegance nor Politeness.  
The Commentary upon the Rules of St. Benedict, attributed to Rabanus, belongs to the Abbot Smaragdus, as we have noted before.  
The List of some Latin words rendered into High Dutch Terms, and the Figures of the Letters or Characters of the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Tutonick Tongues, are taken from the Second Tome of the History of Germany, composed by Goldastius, which are such Ancient Pieces, that they may very well be attributed to Rabanus. These are the whole Contents of the Six Tomes of this Author, Printed at Antwerp in the Year 1626. bound in Three Volumes in Folio. [And by the Care of Georgius Colvenerius, at Colen, 1627. Fol. Vol. 3.]  
There have been since published some other Works of Rabanus. For without reckoning the three Letters of Predestination and Grace, written against Gotescalcus, and published by Sirmondus [at Paris, 1647. Octavo.] of which we have spoken. M. Balusius has given us in the last Edition of the Works of M. de Marca, two Treatises, which without doubt do belong to Rabanus, and which are most elaborate, useful, and best Written than any of his other Works. The first is Dedicated to Drogo Bishop of Mets, which is concerning Suffragans. Opinions were then divided in the Gallican Church, about the Dignity and Power of Suffragans; some affirmed they were real Bishops by their Ordination, and that they might ordain Priests and Deacons, Confirm, Consecrate Altars, and do all the Office of a Bishop: But others denied this, and affirmed that their Ordinations and Confirmations were null and void. Charles the Great consulted Pope Leo the Third upon this Question, who Answered. That he was certain that Suffragans had not this Power, and that all they had done belonging to Bishops, was ipso facto void, and that they ought to be deprived of any such Power. The Council of Ratisbon followed the Pope's Advice, and ordered them to remain in the rank of Priests.  
This Decision did not hinder, but that there were yet Suffragans in many Dioceses, and that the Bishops did still allow them Privileges which belonged only to them. There has always been many Churches, and chief in Italy and Spain, where Suffragans have been esteemed no more than Ordinary Priests, where they Re-ordained such as were made Priests or Deacons by them, Confirmed anew those they had been Confirmed by, and Consecrated anew such Churches as they had Consecrated. Rabanus having understood this, undertook to defend the Suffragans. He says, that their Order had its Original from the times of the Apostles; and that they had such Assistants who could Ordain and do the same Offices with them. He believes that St. Linus and St. Cletus were Suffragans to St. Peter and St. Paul in the Church of Rome. He accuses those Bishops that undervalue Suffragans, and who look upon them no more than Ordinary Priests, of overthrowing the Order by their Ambition. He endeavours to prove by the Canons of the Councils of Ancyra and Antioch, that Suffragans might Ordain thro' the permission of their Bishops, and that they have received the Episcopal Consecration and Ordination. He asserts, that if Suffragans had not this Right, they would be of no use to the Bishops as they now are: And upon what was objected against him, that it is said in the Acts, that the Apostles themselves had been sent into Samaria, to bestow the Holy Ghost on those that were newly Baptised; He answered, that the Apostles were sent thither, because there was then no Suffragan at Samaria but only the Deacon Philip, who had Baptised them. The rest of the Treatise contains some Admonitions to the Bishops about Humility.  
The other Treatise of Rabanus, Published by M. Balusius, is concerning the respect Children own to their Parents, and Subjects to their Prince: It was writ upon the occasion of the Conspiracy of Lewis the Godlie's Children against their Father. Rabanus there quotes several places in the Scripture, which prove, that every one ought to obey his Prince and his Parents. He confirms these Truths by Examples, and shows in particular, that it was never permitted to a Subject, to take Arms against his Sovereign upon what account soever. He mightily condemns those children who would deprive their Parents of their Estates. He speaks against unjust and rash Judgements, openly blaming that which the Bishops pronounced against Lewis the Godly. He shows plainly that Clergymen ought not to meddle with Secular or Temporal Affairs. He maintains, that none can Condemn or put to public Penance, a Sinner that accuses himself, unless he be otherwise Convicted. He adds, that those that are sorry for their Sins and are converted, deserve forgiuness. At last addressing himself to the Emperor, he exhorts him to despise the false Judgements given against him; and advertises him, that he may nevertheless with good Works 
* Merit Pardon— Heaven] Under the word merit, which is often met with in the Fathers, The Church of Rome, which generally conches her new and false Doctrines, under old Names, would have us understand a Merit ex condigno, whereby we deserve Heaven as a just reward of our Works; whereas they mean a Merit of impetration, as a conditional qualification for happiness.  merit Heaven. He Counsels him, not to be surprised at the attempts of his Enemies, but to be encouraged by the truth of the Gospel, and to believe in his Judge and his King, who has given him a Crown on Earth, and promised him one in Heaven. He tells him, that if the Conspiracy of his Enemies have done him any wrong he should trouble himself but little about it, but be thankful to his Defender and Saviour Jesus Christ, who afflicts and chastizes all those that he loves. He exhorts him in fine, not to seek after any Revenge, but hearty to forgive all such as have offended him. This Treatise is Elegant and well Written.  
M. Balusius, has also Published in the first Tome of his Miscellaneous Works, his Treatise about the account of Time, directed to Macarius. Rabanus writ this when he was a private Monk, in the year 820. This Book is written by way of Questions and Answers. It treats of all that relates to the Calendar; as Days, Months, Years, Epacts, Cycles and Easter. These Matters, though they be very obscure, are here treated of with a great deal of Exactness and Method.  
The same M. Balusius hath put out in another of his Works, (viz. his Collection of some ancient Acts, which he has put at the end of his Capitularies) a Letter of Rabanus' to Regenbaldus, Suffragan of Mayence, about some Questions, that Regenbaldus had propounded to him, about several cases. The first is concerning a Person who having beaten his Wife, had caused her to bring forth a dead Child. He answers, he ought to be dealt with as a manslayer. The second is about a Person, who having been bit by a Dog, applied immediately some of his Liver to the Wound, as most likely to heal it. He excuses him that did this through Ignorance; but he says, he ought to be forwarn'd of committing the like again. The third is concerning such as are guilty of the Sin of Bestiality. He condemns them to suffer the Punishments specified in the ancient Canons. The fourth is, Whether it be lawful to eat the Calves brought forth by Cows polluted with the Abominations of Men? He Answers, that that is not forbid to his knowledge. The fifth is concerning the Penance of those that have voluntarily, involuntarily, or otherwise killed their Parents and other Relations. He refers these to what has been said about Homicides. In the Conclusion he tells this Suffragan, that he may moderate Canonical Punishments with Prudence and Discretion.  
There is at the end of the eight Volume of Councils, in the last Edition, another Letter of Rabanus' to the same Reginbold or Reginbald, about other questions of like nature with the former. The first is concerning those that carry away and sell Christians to Pagans. He Answers, that they ought to be subjected to the Penance for Homicides. The second is about Infants, who are stifled by lying with their Fathers and Mothers. He says, that although these Children came by their Death, contrary to the knowledge of them that were the cause of it; nevertheless they ought not to be exempt from doing some Penance; and if they knew it, they ought to have been punished as Homicides. The third is about the degrees of Consanguinity, within which it is forbid to Marry. He sends him upon this question, the letter which he writ to Humbert. The fourth is concerning the Sins of Fornication or Adultery amongst Relations; Rabanus hereupon quotes divers Canons. The fifth is, whether it be lawful to Pray for a dead Slave, who had run away from his Master. Rabanus says, that we ought not to refuse to Pray for him, if he had committed no other Crime; but withal, that we ought to admonish other Slaves not to commit the like. The sixth is concerning a Man, who pleading to be a Priest, althó he was none, had Administered the Sacrament of Baptism. Rabanus says, it ought not to be reiterated, if it was Conferred in the Name of the Holy Trinity. The last is about those that eat Flesh in Lent, and who swear by Relics. Rabanus answers, that they do very ill, and that they ought to be made to do Penance for their Crime.  
Walafridus Strabo, (so called as some think, because he was Squint-eyed) a Monk of Fulda, a Scholar of Rabanus; afterwards Dean of St. Gallus, and Abbot of Richenou; followed and imitated 
Walafridus Strabo.  his Master, not only i● Composing a Gloss upon the whole Bible, Collected principally out of his Commentaries: but also in making a Treatise about the Beginning and Progress of Divine Worship, Dedicated to Reginbert, in which he explains particularly what relates to the Ceremonies of the Church. This Work has been Printed in the Collections of Writers concerning Divine Offices, [by Cochlaeus at Mentz, 1549. and Hittorpius at Paris, 1610.] and also in the Bibliotheca Patrum, [Tom XV.] The principal Points which he handles in this Book are these:  
He says about the Original of Altars and Temples, that Noah, Abraham and Isaac, erected them in Honour of God. That Moses was the first that Built a Tabernacle for the People to Worship God in. That Solomon afterwards Built a Temple, which was preserved a great while by the Jews. That Pagans, and Authors of false Religions, have imitated in this the Worship of the True, in Honouring Devils and False Gods with the like Ceremonies. That when Christians, who are the true Worshippers of God in Spirit and Truth, began to set up Places for their Worship, they always sought out pure places, distant from the noise and hubbub of the World; where they might quietly offer God their Prayers, Celebrate the Holy Mysteries, and Comfort one another. That they have sometimes made use of their houses for that purpose, but the number of them increasing, they were forced to build Churches. That oftentimes to avoid Persecution, they have met together in Caves, Caverns, Churchyards, and other private places; but at length, Religion being fully established, they Built new Churches, and turned the Temples of their False Gods, into those of the True. That they than did not much mind in what Situation their Churches were built, although the common custom has been since, to turn towards the East to Pray. That at first they had no Signal to call them to the Assemblies. That some were led thither by their Devotion, others had notice of the Day and Hour at their last Meeting, and others by reading it upon certain Tables, set up in their Assemblies for that purpose. That they afterwards made use of an Horn and Trumpet, and at last of Bells, the larger of which are called Campanae, and the lesser Nolae; so named from the Town of Nola, where they were first used. Having explained the names of Church, Temple, Basilick, and their parts, together with the Barbarous name of the Osticon, he goes on to Discourse of Images, the Abstracts of which, I shall for some reasons forbear to set down here.  
He proves afterwards, that Altars ought to be Consecrated, and so passes from the material parts of Churches, to what is to be done in them. He says, that Praises ought there to be Sung to God, the Gospel Preached, and Baptism Administered. That a great deal of Care ought to be taken, to keep them from Profane uses. That Prayers there ought to be short and pure, and accompanied with Tears; and that they ought to proceed from Hearts worthy to be the Habitation of God, who loves the Offe●… of Virtues, better than any Corporeal Gifts. That nevertheless God accepted the Oblations of ●…archs, and the Sacrifices of the Jews, till such time as Christ, which they represented, w●s 〈◊〉 That he by his coming, has caused all Sacrifices to cease, and has established new Mysteri● 〈◊〉 given the Sacrament of his Body and Blood to his Disciples; and commanded them at 〈◊〉 ●ame time to Celebrate it in Commemoration of his Passion. That he has chosen for this Mystery, the Species of Bread and Wine, to signify the Union betwixt the Head and its Members; and that Water is mixed with the Wine, to show, that the People ought not to be separated from Jesus Christ. That these Mysteries are called Sacraments, because of the Secret Virtue, by which they work our Sanctification. That it is for this reason, that such as cease to be Members of Jesus Christ, by committing Capital Crimes, are excluded from these Sacraments, for fear that if they should approach them, they should be made worse, or be Corporally punished: And to the end, that the terror of this Separation might engage them to Repentance; he takes notice, that heretofore other things than Bread and Wine were offered upon the Altar; and that is some places at Easter, they Sacrificed a Lamb, which was laid upon the Altar, or the side of it, and which they afterwards eat; but he altogether disapproves of this Practice. He afterwards shows there was great reason, that the Eucharist should be received in Lent.  
As to what relates to frequent Communion, he observes, that some have thought it enough to Communicate once a year, and that others Communicated every Sunday, and many upon all holidays; that afterwards they added some solemn days for Fasting. He approves of their Practice, that Communicate and Say Mass every day, provided they be free from great Sins. He adds also, that there were some Priests that would not Celebrate Mass above once a day, and that there were others, who believed themselves obliged to say it three or four times; for according to the Church of Rome, there are sometimes two or three Masses appointed for one day, as for Christmas-day, and some Feasts of Saints. He gives every Priest the liberty of using them as they think fit, provided they done't condemn each others Practice. As to the Prayers of the Mass, he says, that no body knows by whom they were established, as they now are; and that the Apostles Celebrated it, after a plainer and most unaffected manner: Quod nunc Agimus multiplici Orationum, Lectionum, Cantilenarum, & Consecrationum Officio, totum hoc Apostoli, & post ipsos proximi (ut creditur) Orationibus & Commemoratione Passionis Dominicae, sicut ipse praecepit, Agebant simplicitér. That the Ancients say, that they did, as we do now on Holy [or Good] Friday; and that after they had repeated the Lord's Prayer, and made Commemoration of Christ's Passion, they received the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. That afterwards the Offices of the Church were enlarged, as well as the Ceremonies. That the Romans added to what they received from St. Peter, what else they thought fit. That their usage was admired by so many People, because they were a famous Nation, and were taught by St. Peter himself, the Head of the Apostles; and because there never was a Church in the World so free from Heresies. That St. Ambrose composed a Form of Prayer for his Church, and for the Churches of Liguria. He fixes upon the Roman Order, and explains the parts of it, taking notice of the Popes, to whom some attribute the Institution of them. He wishes, that they would Communicate at every Mass; and observes, that the time of Communion is before the Prayer, which is said at the end of the Mass, in which they commonly Pray for those that have Communicated. And although he acknowledges, that Priests may Offer and Communicate alone; nevertheless he says, Illam esse legitimam Missam cui intersunt Sacerdos, Respondens, Offerens & Communicans. As to the hour of the Mass, he observes it is different, according as the Solemnities of the day will permit; that sometime it is before Noon, sometimes towards three a Clock in the Afternoon, sometimes in the Evening, and sometimes at Night, but never before nine a Clock in the Morning. He speaks afterwards of Holy Vessels and Priests Habits. He makes several remarks upon the Hours of Divine Service, of which these are some of the most considerable. That the Irish kneeled down often; that the Distribution of the Psalms into many parts of the Service, was not begun before the time of Theodosius. That about the same time they began to sing Hymns in the Church of Milan, and to Celebrate Vigils. That St. Ignatius goes for the Institutor of Anthems. That the name of Hymns may be given to all Psalms of Praise, although they be not in Verse. That there are a great many Churches, where they are never Sung in Verse. That St. Ambrose was not the Author of them all. That the Gloria Patri is differently expressed. That the Spaniards Sing it thus; Gloria & Honour Patri, & Filio, & Spiritui sancto in saecula saeculorum, Amen. And the Grecians, Gloria Patri, & Filio, & Spiritui sancto, & nunc & semper, & in saecula saeculorum, Amen. That the Latins add, Sicut erat in Principio. That 'tis thought to be the Council of Nice that Instituted this Hymn, That many put it at the end of those Hymns which they divide into a great many parts, as those which follow the Service of St. Benedict. That the Romans use it not so often in their Psalms, as they do in their Responses: That all the Offices begin with, Deus in Adjutorium, except that for the dead, and that for the Holy Week, [or Week before Easter]. That the Romans still Sing the Psalms, according to the Edition of the Septuagint, but the French and some of the Germans, according to the Correction of St. Jerome; that Stephen the III. coming into France, introduced the Roman way of Singing there.  
Strabo, after having finished what related to the Divine Service and its several parts, treats of the Administration of Baptism. He says, That the Ceremonies of Baptism have been increased by little and little, that the Unction of Chrism was added to it, which no body doubts but 'twas taken from the Old Law. That from the very first, Confirmation was Administered by Imposition of Hands, which was then always Conferred by the Bishops, and so is still. That the solemn times of Administering Baptism, are Easter and Whitsuntide, that some have added Christmas-day and the Epiphany. That in case of necessity Persons may be Baptised at any time. That they may be Baptised by Dipping or Sprinkling, Plunging the Infant in the Water once or thrice. That at the beginning of the Church, Baptising of Adult Persons was more frequent; because that those which were Converted, were capable of being instructed in the Principles of Religion, and in answering for themselves. That as for Infants, they had Godfathers and Godmothers to answer in their Names, who are obliged to put them in mind, when they come to have the use of their Reason, of the Promise, that they have made for them.  
He passes afterwards to Tithe's, and shows that they ought to be given to the Clergy, who must divide them into four parts, whereof one is for the Bishop, another for the Clerk, a third for the Poor, and the last reserved for the Buildings of the Church. He does not forget to speak of the Litanies or Processions, used in the days of Rogations, established by Mamertus; but he observes, that some keep them between Easter end Whitsuntide, according to the Council of Orleans; but the Spaniards defer them till after Whitsuntide, and others to December. He adds, that the name of Litany does not only signify, that Prayer by which the Saints are Invoked, but also every sort of Prayer, by which we ask any favour of God. He speaks afterwards of the Sprinkling of the Holy Water, of the Consecrating of Wax-Candles, and ends with an enumeration of the several Orders of Clergy, which he compares to Civil Employments. These are the several Orders of the Clergy. The Supreme Bishop who enjoys the See of Rome, and holds the place of St. Peter, being raised to the Dignity of Head of the Church. The Patriarches of other Churches, who are equal in Dignity to the See of Rome, which are of Antioch in Asia, and Alexandria in Africa; besides these three Patriarches, there are many others which are Inferior to them [as the Patriarches of Constantinople and Ephesus]. The Arch-Bishops are above the Metropolitans, to whom succeed in order the Metropolitans, Bishops, Abbots, Great Chaplains, Little Chaplains, Suffragans, Priests that are possessed of Churches where they Administer Baptism, and Priests who have the Government of private Chapels, Archpriests that have the charge over Canons, Arch-Deacons who have care of the Bishop's Family. Then Deacons, Subdeacons, Exorcists, Porters, Acolythus', Readers, and Singing-men. This is an exact Abridgement of this Work of Walafridus Strabo, which treats of Matters very rationally. He seems to have read a great deal. He often quotes the false Decretals of the Popes, and sometimes Cites Apocryphal Histories. There is another small Treatise of this Author's, upon the Destruction of Jerusalem, and a great deal of Poetry, Published by Canisius [Antiq. Lec. Tom. 6.] The Lives and Miracles of St. Gallus and Othmarus, Published by Surius [Oct. 16. & Nou. 16.] The Life of Blainaus' Abbot of Ifi, and the Visions of St. Wittinus in Saec. Benedict. iv of Father Mabillon. Walafridus died in the year 849.   

CHAP. XIV.  
Such Orders and Constitutions relating to a Monastic Life, as were made by the Authors of this Age.  
BEnedict, Native of Languedoc, Son of Aigulphus, Earl of Maguelone, having past some 
Benedict, Abbot of Aniana.  time at the Court of Charles the Great, retired into the Abbey of St. Sequanus, in the Diocese of Langres. The Abbot of this Monastery being dead, they would have chosen him in his room, but he refused it, and returned to Languedoc, where he Erected near the River Aniana a Monastery, which afterwards became very considerable. The Reputation of this Holy Abbot was so great, that he was chosen to Govern divers Monasteries, and to effect a Reformation in all the Abbeys of France. Being Invited to the Court of Lewis the Godly, he Built the Monastery of Indus, near Aix-la-Chapelle; he was present at the Council held in 817. in that City, and framed Statutes for the Monks. He died in his Monastery of Indus in the year 821. He has made a Collection of all the Rules and Orders of Monks, both of the East and the West; and another Work, in which he shows the Conformity of other Orders with that of St. Benedict. The first is Entitled Codex Regularum, i. e. a Book of Rules; and the second, Concordia Regularum, or an Harmony of Rules. The first has been Published at Rome by Holstenius [1661.] and since Printed at Paris in Quarto, in the year 1663. by Billaine. And the second Published by Father Menardus, and Printed at Paris in 1648. At the end of the first, there is a Collection of Works of Fathers, proper for Monks. It is Composed out of the Pious Treatises of St. Athanasius, St. Basil, Evagrius and Faustus; also out of other Writings about a Monastic Life. There is also another Collection of Passages of the Fathers, which also bears the name of Benedict of Aniana, Composed of Extracts, out of the Works of St. Jerome, St. Austin, St. Ephraim, St. Cesarius, Cassian, St. Fulgentius, etc. There are also some other small Treatises of this Abbot, as a Penitential printed in the Addition of Capitularies [by M. Balusius]. A Confession of Faith, which is to be seen no where but in Manuscripts, and a few Letters.  
Ardo Smaragdus, a Scholar of St. Benedict of Aniana, and a Monk of his Monastery, has written the life of his Master, Published by Father Menard, and inserted in the first Tome of F. Mabillon's 
Ardo Smaragdus.  Saec. Benedict. iv  
We ought not to Confound another Smaragdus with the foregoing. This was Abbot of St. Michael, 
Smaragdus.  in Lorraine; he taught human Learning to his Society, as it appears by his Commentaries upon Donatus, and other Profane Authors. He wrote a Book concerning the Duty of a Prince, under the Title of Via Regia, i. e. The King's Way, which he Dedicated to Lewis the Godly, who was made King of Aquitain, by his Father Charles the Great. He has also written Sermons upon the Epistles and Gospels, throughout the whole year, Collected for the most part out of the Fathers: Likewise a little Treatise for Instruction of Monks, Entitled Diadema Monachorum, or Monk's Crown, and a Commentary upon the Rule of St. Benedict, which he explains and confirms in many places by other Rules. Charles the Great made use of him to Write to Pope Leo, about the Procession of the Holy Ghost. And he also writ the Acts of the Conference held at Rome, in the year 809. and upon the same Subject. The Book Entitled, The way of Kings, was Published in the fifth Tome of Dacherius' Spicilegium. His Sermons were Printed at Frankfort, in the year 1536. The Monk's Crown at Antwerp, in 1540 And the Commentary upon the Rule of St. Benedict, is Published amongst the Works of Rabanus, Printed at Colen, in the year 1625. (where it was Printed before in 1575.)  
Hildemarus a French Monk, called into Italy about the year 830. by Rampertus Bishop of Bresse, 
Hildemarus.  who committed to him and Leutgrius, the care of Rebuilding the Church of St. Faustinus and St. Jovitus. He has written a Commentary upon the Rule of St. Benedict. This Work has never yet appeared in Print. Some have attributed it to Paul the Deacon, but it is none of his, and it ought to be restored, according to the Manuscript of Dijon, to Hildemarus. There is also in the thirty eight Chapter, a Letter writ by Hildemarus to Ursus Bishop of Beneventum. This Author died in the year 840.  
We may also place amongst those Authors that have written concerning Monastical Discipline, Lupus Abbot of Ferrara, whose Letters contain divers Laws and Instructions for a Monastical Life. 
Lupus Abbot of Ferrara.  He was Born about the beginning of the Ninth Century. He was certainly of the Province of Sens, and of a very considerable Family. He was brought up to Learning, and was admitted betimes into the Abbey of Ferrara, where he was soon after Professed under Aldricus, who was then Abbot, and afterward Archbishop of Sens. He was sent into Germany to the Abbey of Fulda, there to Study the Holy Scriptures under the famous Rabanus, who at his desire, Composed his Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul. Lupus, who was then but Deacon, made great Progress in Ecclesiastical Knowledge, under so able a Master, and returned to France with great Reputation, in the year 830. He was presented to Lewis the Godly, by the Empress Judith, and stayed some time at Court, in hopes of obtaining some Abbey. It was at this time that he received the Order of Priesthood: Afterwards he was chosen by Charles the Bald, to supply the place of Odo Abbot of Ferrara, whom this Prince resolved to deprive of his Monastery, because he had favoured the Party ●f Lotharius. Being come thither by the King's Order, he was received for Abbot in November 842. and, drove out Odo from the Abbey in the year 844. He assisted at the Council of Vernevil, and was ordered to compile the Canons. He assisted at divers other Assemblies of Bishops, and was sent to Pope Leo the iv by Charles the Bald. He assisted at the Council of Soissons in the year 853. and lived in great Reputation for Knowledge and Piety, till the 862.  
There has been a Collection made of 130 Letters of this Abbot's, upon different Subjects. There are divers upon the difficulties of Grammar, and other Civil Matters; but there are some which relate to Ecclesiastical Affairs, and which treat of some points of Doctrine, Discipline, and Morality.  
The fourth is a very Christian Consolation to Eginhardus, upon the death of his Wife, who was Daughter to Charles the Great. This is an Answer to the third Letter of Eginhardus, written to him; in which he declared, that he was not capable of Comfort under his Loss. He says, That it afflicted him most, that the hopes he had put in the Intercessions and Prayers of the Martyrs were all in vain. Lupus Answers him in that point, that his Vows and Prayers, that have not been heard for a Temporal Good, will serve to procure him Eternal Life; and that he does not in the least doubt, but that this Death will be Advantageous both to him and his Wife; because it was more convenient that he should die last, it being likely that he had the greatest Strength to bear this Affliction, and to resist the troubles that are suffered in the World: That oftentimes God does not grant us what we ask, but what is most fitting and convenient for us. That God perhaps had taken away his Wife, to reconcile the Division that was in his Heart, between Her and the Lord, and to Unite all his Love in this only Object. He tells him at length, that though it be seemingly out of his Power to end his Grief, yet he ought to have recourse to the Goodness and Mercy of God, and resign himself entirely to this Sovereign Physician, who easily heals those Wounds that Men think most Incurable. Then he Exhorts him, to ask of God Eternal Happiness for his Wife; and for himself Perseverance in good Works, growth in a Spiritual Life, and Christian Consolation. About the end he speaks of a Book of Eginhard's, upon the Adoration of the Cross, and thanks him for Dedicating it to him. We have lost this Work.  
In the Eleventh Letter he Petitions Lotharius, in the Name of the Monks of Ferrara, to let them enjoy the Revenue of the Monastery of St. Josse, upon the Sea, which Charles the Great had given to Alcuin, and to the Monks of Ferrara, to maintain Pilgrims, and relieve their Necessities. Rhodingus obtained it of Lotharius by Surprise: He begs of him to restore it; and conjures him to it by the respect he owes to the Holy Virgin, St. Peter and St. Paul, through whose Intercession they daily pray God for his Health and Salvation.  
In the twelfth, writ to Pardulus Bishop of Laon; he desires this Bishop to use his Interest with the King, in favour of the Monks, of the Monastery of St. Columbus of Sens, who were going to Court, to recover the Privilege of Exemption, which had been granted them by the Archbishop of Sens, and by the Kings. M. Balusius observes upon this Letter, that the Kings were then able to Exempt Abbeys from ordinary Jurisdiction. That that of St. Columbus had been put under the Jurisdiction of Jeremy Archbishop of Sens, by Lewis the Godly, and afterwards taken from him. That after this it lost its Liberty again, under Charles the Bald, but soon recovered it again; as it appeared, by a Charter from this Charles, dated the 13th of November, 847. which serves to fix the Date of this Letter. M. Balusius adds also many other Examples to show, that the Exemptions of the Monasteries of France, were Granted and Settled by the Authority of Kings, who took them into their Care, Management and Protection, sub tuitione.  
It appears by Lupus' 18th Letter, that he was charged with care of the Abbey of St. Amandus, without ever seeking it: That he was glad when he was rid of it; and that he was sent to a General Assembly called by the King, near Paris.  
In the 19th, Lupus being informed of the Poverty of a Monastery, of the Diocese of Auxerre, by a Monk of the same Monastery, who was come into his; gave Heribald Bishop of Auxerre notice of it, and desired him to remedy it.  
The 20th is about some difficulties of Grammar; he takes notice towards the end of a very remarkable thing, which was, that Probus a Priest of Maience had begun a Book, in which he placed Cicero, Virgil and Others, that he believed to have lived well, amongst the number of the Elect; for fear it should be said, That Jesus Christ had unprofitably shed his Blood, and did nothing when he was in Hell. These are his Words, An certè inchoatam Satyram, quod magis existimo, Scribens Ciceronem & Virgilium, Caeterosque opinione ejus probatissimos viros, in Electorum Collegium admittat, ne frustra Dominus sanguinem fuderit, & in Inferno otium triverit. It is to be thought, that this Probus did not speak this seriously, as you will be convinced, if you please to consult M. Balusius' Notes upon it.  
The 21st Epistle of this Lupus' is an Excuse to Ionas Bishop of Orleans, that he had Accused Agus his Kinsman of having wronged the Estate that his Monastery had in his Diocese. He makes an Apology also for taking his Predecessor Odo's place. The 23d, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28th, are some Letters of this Odo about Affairs relating to his Monastery.  
The 29th Letter, dedicated to Wenilo Archbishop of Sens, is very remarkable. Two Priests of this Diocese, one called Adegarius, and the other Baudrius, having a design to turn Monks, had desired of the Archbishop that they might leave their Churches or Cures, titulos, to enter into the Order of S. Benedict. Wenilo answered them, That he would not give them this permission, unless Lupus, into whose Monastery they were to be admitted, would satisfy him it might be done regularly and lawfully. Lupus writ him word, That he had never heard it questioned; and that without doubt it might be done. That Jesus Christ having taught that the perfection of a Christian Life consists in quitting all, and leaving the World, Clergymen sure ought not to be hindered embracing that perfection which Jesus Christ proposed even to Laymen. Hereupon he makes a strong Objection, and answers it. You will object perhaps, says he, that as none are allowed to break the carnal Union of Marriage, unless it be for Formcation; so none are permitted to quit the Pastoral Charge, which they have once undertaken, as long as they are able to labour for the edification and salvation of their Flock. This is true, answers he, unless he that has established the Marriage does break it himself, or that he that has charged us with the Government of others, does secretly command us to quit it. For he that has forbidden any man to put asunder those whom he has joined together, the same great God hath made this separation himself when he has pleased, because he is God. For we have many Examples of virtuous Persons of both Sexes, that have quitted all carnal Commerce to serve the Lord in holy places. He adds, that there has scarce been any Monastery whereinto some Priests have not retired. He quotes amongst the rest one of his Predecessors, an Abbot of Ferrara, called Frigulphus, who had quitted the Habit of Canon, to take upon him the Profession of a Monk. He says that Aldricus, the Predecessor of Wenilo had resolved before his death to leave his Archbishopric and retire into a Monastery. That it is not to be thought that these great men were ignorant of the Canons and Rules of the Church. That the Apostles and Clergy of the Primitive Church had in some measure practised a Monastical Life, by putting their Goods in Common. That there may be bad Monks among them, but that he ought to have Episcopal Compassion for them. And, in fine, that there is no surer way to Salvation, than by entering into that religious Order prescribed by St. Benedict. Whose Constitution, so much commended and approved by S. Gregory the Great, shows that we may, and we ought to receive Priests into our Monasteries, since he allows them to enter, and the Abbot to receive them, altho' with greater difficulty and precaution than others. Then he entreats Wenilo to allow these two Priests that Liberty they had desired. This Letter teaches us, first, That Priests, who had Ecclesiastical Charges, ought not to quit them to become Monks, without leave of their Bishop. And M. Balusius confirms this in his Annotations by an Example of a like permission requested and granted by Arnoldus Bishop of Lisieux. Secondly, That Bishops might give this permission, or refuse it. Thirdly, That Curates were so closely linked to their Churches, that it was not in their power to leave them, nor in the Bishops to take them away from them at their pleasure; which M. Balusius confirms in his Notes by divers Canons and very curious Remarks.  
The 30th, directed to Grotescalcus, contains an Explanation of a Passage of S. Austin concerning Happiness. He shows that this Saint believed, That God would make himself clearly known to the Blessed, and that this knowledge would engage them inviolably to him. That this knowledge of the Divine Substance belonged only to the Soul, but that the Eyes of the Body should perceive his presence by the admirable Effects it should work upon the Creatures. Thus he expounds what St. Austin says, That God shall be seen by the Eyes of the Body. He advises Grotescalcus not to perplex his mind with such Questions, for fear they make him uncapable of understanding teaching Matters of better use.  
The 35th Letter contains an handsome Reflection on the study of good Literature. He observes that it ought to be joined with the study of Wisdom and Virtue. That if we labour to correct the Defects of the Tongue, we ought not to be less diligent to reform the Vices of our Manners. That if one has a great deal of care to polish his Discourse, he ought to apply himself more vigorously to acquire Virtue and Goodness. He exhorts him to whom he writes, to live like a Christian in whatever Condition he engages in, and to make often and serious Reflections on his Duty towards God.  
In the 42d and 43d Letters written to Hincmarus, he employs his Interest with Charles the Bald, to get the Revenue of S. Josse restored to him, making use of the Poverty of ●is Monastery to persuade him to it. He also recommends it to King Charles in the 45th Letter, and humbly shows him, That for fifteen years, or thereabouts, seventy two Monks of his Monastery, that prayed continually for his Health and Prosperity, had endured great want of Habits, Pease and Fish, (M. Balusius concludes from hence that they eat no Flesh) and that they could not relieve the Poor and Pilgrims. He entreats him to consider seriously upon their Wants, and to bestow some Charity upon them. He mentions in the 42d Letter, a Vow that Charles had made by Hincmarus' solicitations, in the Church of S. Dennis. He also there tells us that he compiled the Canons of the Council of Vernevil.  
In the 51st Letter he writes to his Monks that he had some hopes to recover the Revenue of S. J●sse. Where you may meet with this sine thought, That the Abbot ought to have the Charge and Government of the Revenues of the Monastery, but the enjoyment of them only in common with the other Monks.  
In the 53d Epistle he presses King Charles vigorously to restore him this Revenue; and the better to engage him to it, he informs him, That his ancient Monks have observed, and heard of their Predecessors, that all that have ever done any considerable damage or wrong to their Monastery, have been punished either by the loss of their Estates, their Health or their Lives. He exhorts him to perform the Vows he has made; and moreover, threatens him with the Judgements of God if he doth not.  
In the 55th Letter to Marcuadus Abbot of Provins, he entreats this Abbot to come to Court to assist him in obtaining the Restitution of the Revenue of S. Josse. He informs him, that he came thither the last of November, and has continued there with a great deal of expense and trouble. That the King endeavours to elude his Demands, and always delays him, because that Odulphus, (who then was possessed of St. Josse) was absent and sick, as he was informed, but not very grievously (says he) so that this sickness may serve to humble and correct him: Nor so dangerously as to be the cause of his death, for which he should be sorry, because 'tis certain he would be damned if he should die, in the unjust possession of the Revenue of the Church. At length Lupus, after many delays and put offs obtained the Restitution of the Revenue of S. Josse, as it appears by the 61st and 62d Letters. The 64th Letter is an Instruction to King Charles concerning his duty.  
The 79th contains an Extract of a Letter written to Hinomarus, by which he recommends his Kinsman Hilmeradus to him, who was named by the King to be Bishop of Amiens; affirming, that tho' he had not much Learning, yet he might be made serviceable to the Church by following his directions. And that if he was not well fitted for Teaching the Word of God, yet he might do Works that might save him, and those that should imitate him. M. Balusius in his Notes declares himself of a different Opinion with his Author, and says, That in this he has harkened more to the Sentiments of Nature, than the Principles of Reason.  
The 81st Letter is written in the name of Wenilo Archbishop of Sens and Count Girard, who were sent to Amolo Archbishop of Lions, by the King's Orders, to command him to Ordain Bernus' Bishop of Autun. They represent to him, That 'twas not a new thing for the King to make Courtiers Bishops of the principal Churches. That Pepin had had in the like Case the Consent of Pope Zachary in a Synod, where Boniface Bishop of Mayence assisted. They also desired the same thing of him for Godeseldus, named by the King Bishop of Chalons.  
The 82d Letter is written to Wenilo in favour of a Priest Accused and Suspended from the Exercise of his Function. Lupus desires Wenilo to give him liberty to exercise his Duty, till a Synod were called, in which he hoped to clear himself of the Charge brought against him.  
The 84th is a Synodical Epistle of a Council held in the Year 849, consisting of the Metropolitans of Tours, Rheins, Roven, and about twenty of their Suffragans, whose names are set down at the beginning of this Letter, directed to Nomenoius Duke of Breton, about the Disorders he had committed. They reprove and blame him for having laid waste the Lands belonging to the Christians, for having destroyed, pillaged, and burned several Churches, together with the Relics of Saints, for seizing upon the Revenues of the Church, which are the Vows of the Faithful, the Satisfaction of Sins, and the Patrimony of the Poor, for having taken away rich men's Estates, and killed and enslaved a great number of Christians. Of driving the Bishops from their Churches, and robbing them of their Goods, etc. But principally for having slighted the many Letters of Leo the 4th, Successor to S. Peter, to whom God hath given Supreme Power over all the Church. Of having entertained Lambert Count of Nantes, a Rebel against the King. They exhort him to do Penance, and to satisfy that which the Pope write to him about. And finally, they declared those Excommunicate that shall Communicate with Lambert.  
The 93d is an Instruction to King Charles, to whom he proposes Trajan and Theodosius, as two Patterns worthy of his Imitation.  
In the 94th he shows, That Afflictions and Sufferings are advantageous to good men.  
The 98th is a Letter written in the name of the Cathedral Church of Paris, of the Abbeys of S. German, S. Dennis, S. Geneva, S. Maurus des Fossez, and other Monasteries, to Wenilo, Archbishop of Sens, and to the other Bishops of that Province, acquainting them that after the death of their Bishop Ercanradus, they had chosen Aeneas, who had been named to them by King Charles, whom they desired them to Ordain as soon as they could. This Letter is followed by an Answer written in the name of the Bishop of Sens and his Suffragans, testifying their approbation of their Election of Aeneas.  
The 100 Letter is an Admonition to the People, wherein they are exhorted to do Penance, to avoid Rebellions and Factions, to embrace a Peace, to sorbear Robberies and Plunder, to think of nothing but Public Good, and to live in Union with one another.  
The 101st is a Letter of Recommendation, written in the name of Wenilo, to the Bishops of France and Italy, in favour of two Monks of Ferrara, who went to Rome, desiring them to afford them an Hospitable Reception by the way. This is followed by a Letter written in the name of Lupus upon the same account.  
By the 103d Letter he recommends these two Monks to Pope Benedict, to whom he sent them. He entreats him to Instruct them in the Customs of the Church of Rome, and to send him the Commentaries of S. Jerom upon Jeremiah, from the sixth Book to the end, being not able to find them any where in France. He adds to this, the Book of Cicero's Book of Oratory, Quintilians Institutions, and Donatus' Commentaries upon Terence, etc.  
In the 105th he promises to receive and deal mercifully with a Monk that had quitted his Habit and Order, provided he would amend, and behave himself better for the future.  
In the 108th he thanks Lotharius for sending him this converted Monk. And excuses himself for not letting him be his Secretary, because there was no likelihood that a Monk, who had not all imaginable diligence, would ever be able to do his duty in the midst of the affairs and hurries of the World. Quoniam propositum nostrum vix mediocriter intrà Claustra Monasterii custoditur, ne dum inter tumultus Mundanos à quolibet praesertim non satis cauto valeat adimpleri. The following Letter is also about the return of this Monk. It is to be noted that Lupus says in the first Letter upon this Subject, that he could not receive him without the consent of his Brethren.  
In the 112th Letter Lupus condemns those that in commending Virginity blame Marriage.  
In the 124th he clears himself to Wenilo of the Accusation that Erard had preferred against him in the Synod of Savoniers.  
The 128th and 129th Letters are those mentioned before which Lupus sent to Answer the Questions concerning Predestination and Grace.  
The last is a Fragment of an Epistle written in the name of Wenilo Archbishop of Sens to Pope Nicholas the first, concerning Herimanus Bishop of Nevers, who was Non compos mentis. He there alleges that Pope Miltiades was of opinion, that a Bishop could not be deposed without the consent of the Pope. He desires Nicholas to send him this Decree of Miltiades, such as it is at Rome; and he assures him he will wait his Judgement, how to make use of it against this Bishop, Whether he shall keep to the Moderation observed by S. Gregory towards the Bishop of Rimini, or whether he should immediately depose him according to the Decree of Gelasius.  
Pope Nicholas did not Answer this Question about the Decree of Miltiades; but having enlarged upon the Commendation of the Archbishop of Sens' Conduct, he acquaints him concerning Heriman, that he is not enough instructed in his Business; that tho' Heriman be Non Compos, he ought not to be allowed to come to the Synod; that if he has no other defect than a Weakness of Mind, he ought to be pitied rather than punished. And that as to the lewdness and extravagancies he used to be guilty of, he ought not to condemn him for them, as well because he is absent, as because he is not informed what those Extravagancies are; and then, whether he committed them in his right Wits, or when he was not himself. This Letter in the Manuscript from whence F. Sirmondus took it, bears the na●● of Servatus Lupus; which shows that 'tis the Abbot of Ferrara's who is so called, and by consequence that the Treatise about the three Questions of Gotescalcus, belongs also to him; besides, that this Book and these Letters are of the same style, and that the same Doctrine is expounded in the 128th and 129th Letters, which are as it were an Abridgement of the other Work. Insomuch that there is no reason to believe that Lupus Servatus was any other but the Abbot of Ferrara. 'Tis likewise believed that he took this Surname after he had been cured of a very dangerous Disease, through intercession of S. Faron, as it is related in his Life, written by Hildegarius Bishop of Meaux, a Co-temporary Author.  
I have already given you an Extract of Lupus' Writings upon Predestination and Grace. He has also written the Lives of S. Maximinus' Bishop of Treves, of S. Wigbert an Abbot, with two Homilies and two Hymns upon the same Saint.  
Two great Men of our Age have given very different Judgements of Lupus Abbot of Ferrara, in relation to a Monastical Life. One blames the inordinate Love he had for curious Learning, and his great Inclination for Profane Sciences, which, he says, is a study unworthy of a Monk; and it would have much better become him to have lamented his own and the world's sins in his Cloister, and to have supported his Brothers, then to hunt after and study with so much diligence the Works of Profane Writers. This is the Judgement given of him by the Abbot de la Frappe. F. Mabillon on the contrary thinks him an Ornament to the Monastical Order; a Man that was not less to be esteemed for his Piety, than his solid Doctrine. So well known and valued in his time, that there was no Council held without him; and whom they always employed in the most important Affairs, as the best Instrument and Secretary of the Bishops, and chiefest Churches of France. A Man extremely well versed in the Fathers; and who in short was to be admired both for his Religion and Holiness, and the great veneration he brought to the Monks of his Monastery, as Hildegarius observes. Pastor modòpro Religione Sanctitatis in Monasterio famosissimo Ferrariensi, ubi Coetus Monachorum in Christo cum illo toto Orbe est venerandus.  
It does not belong to me to judge of the Monastical Conduct of Lupus Abbot of Ferrara, neither am I fit to decide the Judgements of two Persons so learned as the Abbot de la Frappe and F. Mabillon, for both of which I have a very singular respect. But in keeping to my Subject, that is, considering Lupus as an Ecclesiastital Writer, I may say, That he was not only very knowing in general Learning and Profane Sciences, but in the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church and the Works of the Latin Fathers. And that he writ, not only with Elegancy, Pleasantness and Politeness, but also with a great deal of Solidity and Exactness.  
His Letters were published the first time by Papirius Massonus out of a Manuscript of the Abbey of Ferrara, and printed in the Year 1597. This Edition is very erroneous. M. Duchesnius has since obliged us with one more correct, [In his Collection of French Historians, Tom. 3.] The Treatise of the Three Questions, and the Letters about Predestination and Grace, have been printed at Paris in 1648. from an ancient Manuscript of S. Amandus, and since by M. Mauguinus, together with a Collection of Fathers upon the same Subject. F. Sirmondus has published the two Letters, and the Book of the three Questions [in 1650.] The same Author has put out a Fragment of the 130th Letter, taken out of a Manuscript of the Abbey of Fleury, which was communicated to him by F. Dacherius. The Life of S. Maximin, with that of S. Wigbert, has been published by Busaeus, who had caused it to be printed with the Letters of Hincmarus at Mayence in the Year 1602. and the two Homilies upon this Saint in 1604. At last M. Balusius published a very fair Edition of all Lupus' Works, enriched with Learned Notes, and many Pieces added at the end of the Volume in Octavo, printed for Muguet in 1664. [From whom it is put into the Biblioth. Patrum, Tom. XIV. p. 1.]   

CHAP. XV.  
Commentaries upon the Holy Scriptures written in the Ninth Century.  
SUch as in this Century have applied themselves to the study of the Holy Scriptures, have 
The nature of the Commentaries upon the H● Scriptures, composed in the Ninth Century.  rarely produced any thing of their own, but only made Collections out of the Commentaries of the Fathers. After this manner are those of Rabanus, Pascharius, and the ordinary Gloss of Walafridus Strabo composed, of all which we have spoken before. Florus a Deacon of the Church of Lions, followed the same method, and gathered together a great many Books, out of which he made divers Collections. And amongst others, a large Commentary upon the Epistles of S. Paul, taken from fourteen Latin Fathers, and which has never yet been printed. Another Commentary upon S. Paul, composed of Extracts out of S. Austin, commonly attributed to Bede, altho' it really belonged to Florus. It is printed amongst the Works of Bede. He has beside 
The Commentaries of Florus.  this composed a Treatise about the Celebration of the Mass, entitled, De Actione Missarum, which is a Comment upon the Canon of the Mass printed in the Bibliothecâ Patrum [Tom. XV. p. 62.] Also two Discourses upon Predestination; and another upon the same Subject against Johannes Scotus.  
You meet some Fragments of the first Discourse in Hincmarus. The second has been published by Father Cellot and Monsieur Mauguin. This last has also obliged us with Florus' Book against Johannes 
Florus' Writings.  Scotus, spoken of before, [B at Paris 1650.] He has also made a Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws, of which there are two considerable Fragments quoted in another Collection of Manuscripts, whereof the first was published by Father Dacherius in the Twelfth Tome of his Spicilegium; and the other by M. Balusius at the end of Agobardus' Works. The first consists of Laws and Canons against the Jews, and the Judgements of the Bishops. The second is concerning the Elections of Bishops, which he proves aught to be made by the Clergy and People. Lastly, Florus is Author of some Poetry, and there is a great deal of likelihood, that those which go under the name of Drepanius Florus in the Bibliothecâ Patrum belong to him. For there is one Poem inscribed to Moduinus Bishop of Autun, and another to Wulfinus, who both lived in the Ninth Century. So that it must needs be acknowledged, that the true Author of these Poems was Florus the Deacon of Lions, whom we now speak of. Father Mabillon has also published in the first Tome of his Analects some other Poetry of this Author's, of the same nature with the former. The first Poem is a Complaint about the Division of the Kingdom, after the Death of Lewis the Godly. The second is a Letter to Moduinus Bishop of Autun, in which he complains that this Bishop suffered the Church of Lions to be abused. The third is in honour of two Martyrs, called S. John and S. Paul. The fourth is in honour of S. Stephen the Proto-Martyr. The fifth is concerning the Relics of S. Cyprian, which are generally believed to be at Lions. And the last is the Inscription of an Altar, under which there were some Relics of certain Martyrs; and upon it was portrayed Christ, the Apostles, and S. John Baptist. There was also a third Piece dedicated to Moduinus, of which Father Sirmondus published the beginning in his Notes upon Theodulphus, [at Paris 1646. which are also in Biblioth. Patrum, Tom. 14.]  
These are very near all the Works of Florus which we have extant. He made a great many Collections, reasoned very properly, and writ tolerably well. He passed for one of the best Writers in his time.  
Haymo [Aimo] or Hemmo, 
a A Monk of Fulda, or Hersfield.] Some make him Abbot of Hersfield; but M. Bultean believes that he was no more than a Monk of this Monastery, as well because he has no other Character given him in the Chronicle of Saxony, as that Hui who was Abbot of Hersfeild in 831. did not die till 846. when he was succeeded by Bruvardus.  a Monk of Fulda, or of Hersfield, a Scholar of Alcuin, who was chosen Bishop of Halberstadt in Saxony in the year 841. is one of the Authors of this Century, that has writ the most Commentaries. In the Year 847. he assisted at the Condemnation of Gotescalcus in the Council of Mayence, and died in the Year 853. He has written Comments upon almost all the Books of the Holy Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, collected according to the custom of this time out of the Commentaries of the Fathers, whose Expositions he does but Copy and Abridge. We have those upon the Psalms printed at Paris in 1533. [at Friburg the same year]. Those which he composed upon the major Prophets, and the Twelve minor, printed at 
Commentaries of Haymo of Halberstadt.  Colen in 1573. Seven Books upon the Apocalypse at Paris in 1540 and at Colen in 1529. [and 1531.] One Book upon the Acts, and Seven upon the Canonical Epistles at Colen in 1573. [at Paris 1556. and under Remigius' name at Mentz 1614] There is at last a Commentary upon the Epistles of S. Paul, which some attribute to Remigius of Auxerre, which is certainly Haymo's. It was printed at first at Rome in 1598. under the name of Remigius Archbishop of Rheims, by the care of the Jesuit Villalpandus, known by his Commentary upon Ezekiel, and afterwards Reprinted at Mayence, in 1614 Villalpandus' attributed it to S. Remigius Archbishop of Rheims, who Baptised Lewis; but all the Critics easily discovered, that this Opinion was not Maintainable: For how could S. Remigius, that died in the beginning of the Sixth Century, Cite the Order of St. Benedict, Bede, the life of Caesarius Bishop of Arles, etc. His Style and Manner of Writing easily shows, he was of the Ninth Century; but yet they don't agree to what Author it ought to be attributed. Some give it to Remigius d' Auxerre, others to Remigius of Lions, but the greatest part to Haymo of Halberstadt; which name it goes under in many Manuscripts, and in two Paris Editions, 1556. and 1608. This last Opinion seems most reasonable; for it is certain, by the Testimony of Sigebert and Trithemius, that Haymo did write a Commentary upon St. Paul: Besides, this is very like his other Commentaries; there is the same Method, the same manner of Writing, the same Expression, and in the greatest part of the Manuscripts of it, it bears his name. Lastly, it was attributed to him 100 years after his death, in the times of Fulbertus and Carnatensis. On the contrary, there are but very few Manuscripts that attribute it to Remigius of Auxerre, and Sigebert that writes of this last, has not numbered it amongst his Works. It is therefore more reasonable to attribute it to Haymo, than Remigius.  
We have besides these Commentaries, two Tomes of Homilies upon the Evangelists, Printed at Colen in 1532. and 1540 and at Antwerp in 1559. An Abridgement of the Ecclesiastical History, 
Other Works of Haymo.  Printed with Sulpitius Severus, and with Notes of Galesinius at Colen, in 1531. and Reprinted at the same place in 1573.  
In fine, Dacherius hath Published in the twelfth Tome of his Spicilegium, a small Work concerning the Body and Blood of our Saviour, which is apparently a Fragment of a Homily of this Bishop's: He there teaches the Real and Substantial Conversion of the Bread and Wine, into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  
Angelomus a Monk of Luxevil, has also written large Commentaries upon the four Books of Kings, 
The Commentaries of Angelomus.  taken out of the Works of the Fathers, and upon the Song of Songs; they are Entitled Stromates, because they are Woven up of many passages of divers Fathers: The first is divided into four Books, which he wrote by command of Drogo or Dreux his Abbot; but he did not finish it till after the Abbot's Death, in 855. And the second is Dedicated to the Emperor Lotharius, before he was deprived of the Empire, which happened in 855. These Commentaries are Allegorical and Mystical; they are Printed in the Blibliotheca Patrum [Tom. XV.] and have been Printed separately at Colen, in 1530. and at Rome in 1665. Trithemius mentions another Treatise of this Author's, bearing the Title Of Divine Offices.  
Some time before these Authors, of whom we have been speaking, and at the beginning of this 
The Commentaries of Sedulius.  Century, one Sedulius a Scotchman, writ the like Commentary upon St. Paul's Epistles, which are nothing else but Collections out of the Commentaries of other Authors. It is thought that this Sedulius, was also Author of the like Collections upon St. Matthew. [His Collection on St. Paul's Epistles is Printed at Basil, 1528. 1534. and in Bib. Pat. Tom. 6.]  
We must add to these Christianus Druthmarus, a Monk and Priest of Corbie, who lived about the end of the ninth Century. He has made a Commentary upon the Gospel of St. Matthew, addressed 
The Commentaries of Druthmarus.  to the Monks of Stavelo and Malmedy. He tells us in his Preface, that he Composed it for the use of the young Monks; because that he observes, after he had Expounded to them twice the Gospel of St. Matthew, they had forgot what he had taught them. He says, he expressed himself in Terms easy enough to be understood; that he endeavoured to clear all difficulties, that he kept to the Literal and Historical Sense, because that the Letter is the ground of other Senses, and that without it they could not be well understood. He promises a Commentary upon the Gospel of St. John, for that of St. Mark, he refers to one of Bede. This Author performs his design well enough; his Expositions are Short, Historical, Easie, and without Allegories or Tropes. There are also two Expositions of the same Author, upon some places of St. Luke and St. John. This Commentary has been Printed at Haguenau, in the year 1550. [1530.] in the Bibliotheca Patrum. This Author was called The Grammarian, because he was very skilful in the Languages, and understood Greek and Latin admirably well, and always kept to the Literal Sense.  
Lastly, Remigius a Monk of St. German's of Auxerre, was called to Rheims to fix his Studies there, by Fulkgrew who succeeded Hincmarus [in that See, and had lately Erected a School at Rheims] in 
The Commentaries of Remigius of Auxerre.  the year 882. He was reputed to have been very Learned in the Profane Sciences, says Sigebert; but yet he employed himself more profitably in Expounding the Holy Scripture. We have one of his 
‖ [This Comment is come out by itself at Co●●n, 1536.]  Commentaries upon the Psalms, Collected out of those of St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, Cassiodore, and an Exposition of the twelve Minor Prophets, Printed at Antwerp in 1545. and in the Bibliotheca Patrum [Tom. XVI.] Sigebert makes no mention of these two Books: Some deprive him of the first, and bestow it upon one Monegondus; but Trithemius attributes it to Remigius of Auxerre. This same Author makes mention of a Commentary of Remigius' upon St. Matthew. We have observed, that the Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul, which some attribute to Remigius of Auxerre, does rather belong to H●ym● of H●lberstadt. Both Sigebert and Trithemius place among his Works, a Commentary on the Song of Songs, which was never Printed. But in the Bibliotheca Patrum, we have the Exposition of the Canon of the Mass, of which the same Author speaks: They also say he wrote a B●●k of Divine Offices a Treatise of all the Feasts of the Saints, an Answer to Gualo Bishop of Autun, who had proposed two Questions to him; one upon the Contest of St. Michael th' Archangel, with the Devil about the Body of Moses, spoken of in the Epistle of St. Judas; and the other upon these words of God to Job, Lo, the Behemoth that I have made with you, etc. and some other Treatises. Trithemius adds, that he Composed a great many Learned Books, and amongst the rest, a Commentary upon Donatus, and other Ancients. Neither of these Treatises or the foregoing, have been yet Printed, no more than his Sermons.   

CHAP. XVI.  
The History of the Popes, that enjoyed the Holy See during the Ninth Century.  
LEO the III, who had been raised to the Holy See, about the end of the foregoing Century, Dying in the year 816. he was succeeded by Stephen the iv soon after his Exaltation he 
Stephen IU.  imposed an Oath of Fidelity upon the People of Rome, to be true to Lewis the Godly, and then went into France to visit this Emperor, where he was very honourably received: and after he had obtained liberty for some Prisoners, and a return for some Persons that were then in Banishment, he returned to Rome, where he died a little while after, in the seventh Month of his Pontificate.  
Paschal the first of that name, who succeeded him, was raised to the See of Rome in the year 
Paschal I.  817. He immediately gave notice of his Elevation to Lewis the Godly, according to the custom of those times. Having received Letters from Theodorus Studita, and other Defenders of Images Persecuted in the East; he writ them back a Letter, to comfort them in their Sufferings. There are three Letters which go under his Name, but which are very faulty, and much to be suspected. The first is about a Privilege granted to the Church of Ravenna. The second is an account of the Invention of the Relics of St. Cecilia. By the third he grants the Pall to the Archbishop of Vienna. The two first are not worthy of credit, and the third is doubtful: [They are extant in Tom. VII. of the Councils.]  
Eugenius the II. succeeded Pope Paschal in the year 824. There goes under his name a Bull, sent to 
Eugenius II.  the Bishops and Lords of the Army of the Huns, which does not seem a very Authentic Monument. There are also attributed to him some Canons, but without doubt they belong to a Council of Rheims, and not to this Pope. There is also a Letter under his name to Bernard, Archbishop of Vienna, which has little more to be said for it than the former. [This with another Letter attributed to him, is extant Tom. VII. of the Councils.]  
Valentinus who succeeded Eugenius in the year 827. having lived but few Months, Gregory the iv 
Valentinus. Gregory IU.  was raised to this Dignity, at the beginning of the following year. He came into France to favour the Undertake of the Children of Lewis the Godly, against their Father; threatening to Excommunicate the Bishops that would not be of his side. But the Bishops answered him boldly, that if he came to Excommunicate them, he should return Excommunicated by them. We have spoken of an Extract of a Letter, which this Pope writ upon this Subject, which is to be found amongst Agobard's Works. There are also two other Letters of this Popes, one upon the Affair of Adlricus Bishop of Man's, whose cause he would have had brought before him, and in the mean time his Title of Bishop to cease: And the other upon the Deposing of Ebbo, which he disapproves of, and condemns of Violence. This Pope's Letters are in Tom. VII. of the Councils.]  
Sergius the II. succeeded Pope Gregory the iv in the year 844. We have but one Letter of this Pope's, by which he makes Drogo Bishop of Mets his Vicar general in the Countries, on the other side 
Sergius II.  of the Alps, in consideration that he was Uncle to the Children of Lewis the Godly, and besides was very fit for that Office. He gives him power to Assemble the National Councils of all that Country; to examine the Cases of those that shall appeal to the Holy See, and to prepare those of Abbots and Bishops. He forbids any to Appeal to Rome, that have not first had their Case Examined in a Provincial Synod, or in that of the Vicar General; because an Affair may be better understood in a place where it is Transacted, than any where else. This Letter is Directed to all the Bishops on the other side the Alps; 'tis written with a great deal of weight and worth. [This Letter is Printed in Tom. VII. of the Councils, p. 1799.]  
Leo the iv was chosen Pope, after the death of Sergius the II. the twelfth of April, in the year 847. He Governed the Church of Rome eight years, three Months, and some days; during this 
Leo IU.  time he wrote divers Letters, but there are but two of them come to us entire, and it is not very certain they are his.  
The first is a short Letter Directed to Prudentius Bishop of Troy's, by which he commands him to Consecrate an Abbey for Ademarus and his Monks, which was to depend upon the Holy See.  
The second is sent to the Bishops of England, who had consulted him upon many Articles, and particularly about Simoniacal Bishops; he order, that such should be tried in a Council. He afterwards gives them a satisfactory Answer to their other Questions: Concerning the first he says, 1. That the Hierarchy consists of Bishops and Clergymen: 2. That every Bishop is to govern his Diocese, by his Priests and other Clergy, and make his Visitations: 3. That Priests ought not to be obliged by them to carry the Eulogies to the Councils: 4. That Charms are a sort of Witchcraft: 5. That no Body ought to Marry his Kinswoman: That the Bishops ought to regulate their Judgements, by the Canons of the Councils, and the Decrees of the Popes, Silvester, Fericus, etc. but might also make use of the Authorities of St. Jerom, St. Austin, and St. Isidore.  
We have some Fragments of a Letter of Leo, against Nomenocus Duke of Britain; of another to Lotharius, in which he refuses the Pall, to the Bishop of Autun; and of a third to Hincmarus, concerning the Council of Soissons.  
Lastly, There is a Discourse attributed to this Pope, Directed to the Priests and Bishops, containing a great many Instructions relating to their Ministry and Duty. [All these Letters of Pope Leo, are put into the VIII. Tom of the Councils, p. 30.]  
Benedict the III. of that name, was chosen in July, 855. after the death of Leo the iv His Election 
Benedict. III.  was opposed by a Priest, called Athanasius, who through the favour of the Commissioners of the Emperor, possessed himself of the See and Palace of Rome; he also put Benedict into Prison: But at last, such as espoused Athanasius' Cause, were forced to yield, and to Depose him themselves, and to acknowledge Benedict. This Pope was but two years and an half in the Papal Seat, and we have but two Letters of his; One to Hincmarus, concerning the Council of Soissons, and the Privileges of the Church of Rheims; and the other to the Bishops of Charles' Kingdom, by the which he Cites to Rome, Hubert Son of Boson, who had quitted his Profession of a Clergyman, and lived a lewd and irregular Life.  
There are also two other Letters attributed to this Pope; One to confirm the Privileges of the Abbey of Corbey; and another to ratify those of the Abbey of S. Denis. But since these Writings are doubtful, and particularly the last, we shall insist no longer upon them. These four Letters are printed together in Tom. VIII. of the Councils.  
Nicholas the first, Son of Theodorus a Roman, was Ordained Sub-Deacon by Pope Sergius, and Deacon by Pope Leo the fourth. He acquired a great Reputation under the Pontificate of Benedict the 
Nicholas I.  third. He was chosen after the death of this Pope by the Clergy and Grandees of Rome to his See in the Year 858. and was Consecrated in presence of the Emperor Lewis, the 22th of April. He had at the beginning of his Pontificate a Difference with John Archbishop of Ravenna, against whom many had brought Complaints to the Holy See. He cited him three several times to a Synod of Rome. But this Archbishop not appearing, he Excommunicated him. John upon this had immediate recourse to the Emperor, who was then at Pavia, and afterwards came to Rome with some Officers, which that Prince sent to accompany him. The Pope told those Officers, That they ought not to join themselves with one that was Excommunicate; and at the same time cited John to the Synod that was to be held in November. But instead of obeying, John immediately left Rome. The Senators of Ravenna, and the People of Aemilia prayed the Pope to come himself in Person to Ravenna to reform the Disorders that John had caused there. He went and restored to the People of Aemilia and Pentapolis the great Riches that John and his Brother had got into their possession. John fled to Pavia to beg the assistance of the Emperor Lewis, but this Prince counselled him to submit to the Pope, and to reconcile himself to him. Which he did; and the Pope gave him Absolution from the Heresy of which he cleared himself, and received him again into his Communion. And upon the Complaints of the Bishop and People of Aemilia, he ordered him to come every year to the Synod at Rome: To Ordain no Bishops but such as were chosen by the Duke, Clergy, and People, and whose Election was first confirmed by the Holy See. To permit the Bishops of Aemilia to come to Rome when they pleased. To exact nothing of them, and not to seize upon any Revenues, under pretence that they belonged to him, till it was plainly determined by the Holy See, or Commissioners from it, that they did really belong to him. This Decree of the Pope was approved of by the Synod.  
This Affair was followed by many others of greater Consequence, which Nicholas maintained with a great deal of Courage and Vigour. The principal are the Intrusion of Photius, and the unjust Deposing of Ignatius; The Divorce of Thietberga; The Deposing of Rolhadus, and the Conversion of the Bulgarians. Which are not necessary to be any farther spoken of here, because I have treated of them in other places of this Volume. And this is also the reason that I have but little to say of his Letters, which are near an hundred; because the Course of our History about these Affairs, hath obliged us to make an Extract of them upon other occasions. The first sixteen are a Collection, which he made himself of those, which related to the Case of Ignatius and Photius. The rest concern the Affairs of France, the Peace between the Kings, the Divorce of Thietberga, of Lotharius, the Excommunication of Waldrada, the pardoning of Count Baldwin, the affair of Ingletruda and Boson, the Judgement pronounced against Rothadus Bishop of Soissons, the affair of Ebbo, the Privileges of some Abbeys, the Promotion of Hilducius to the Bishopric of Cambray, the Dispute between the Bishop of Man's and the Monks of S. Kallais, the Pall granted to Egilo Archbishop of Sens, the Bishoprics of Britain, which the Dukes of that Country had a mind to take away from the Metropolis of Tours, and the Objections of the Greeks against the Church of Rome, about which he consults the Bishops of France.  
But there is one of these Letters, in which he Answers Rodulphus Archbishop of Bourges, about several Points of Discipline, which we cannot pass over in silence. It contains seven Articles. The first relates to the Ordaining of Priests and Deacons by Suffragans. Some Bishops of France Deposed those they had Ordained; and others Re-ordained them. Because, says he, Suffragans were created in imitation of the Seventy Disciples, who might perform Episcopal Functions. But because the Canons forbidden Suffragans to execute these Functions, he order the Canons for the future to be observed.  
The second is upon the Complaint the Archbishop of Narbonne made, That the Archbishop of Bourges forced his Clergy to Commence their Differences in his Courts, and be tried by him; and that he disposed of several Matters that belonged to his Diocese, without consulting him about it. Nicholas admonished the Archbishop of Bourges of this, and told him, that his Quality of Primate and Patriarch did not allow him that Privilege. And that he ought to content himself to be Judge of Appeals of Causes which had been tried before by the Archbishop of Narbonne. He repeats anew, upon this occasion, the Canons that constitute the Rights of Patriarches and Primates.  
In the third he declares, That in the Church of Rome they never anoint the Hands of those Priests and Deacons that are Ordained with the Chrism: Adding, that he never read that it was practised.  
The fourth permits the Archbishop of Bourges to moderate the Penance, and relax something of the rigour of Canons made against such, as having undertaken a state of Penance, return again to the World.  
The fifth is about those that are obliged to bring to Confirmation such Children as their Wives have had by a former Husband. He says, That if they have been guilty of the neglect of it through Ignorance, they ought not to be parted from their Wives, but only made to do Penance.  
The sixth orders, That such as have killed their Wives, unless they have taken them in Adultery, shall be made to undergo the Penance of Homicides.  
The seventh intimates, That the Bishops ought to repeat the Gloria in Excelsis, on Holy-Thursday at Mass. But it is not permitted to any to wear the Pall on this day, unless they have leave from the Holy See.  
F. Dacherius in the Twelfth Tome of his Spicilegium, has published another Canonical Letter of Nicholas the first, sent to Harduicus Archbishop of Besançon, in which the Pope prescribes the following Rules.  
First, he proves by the Canons, That such as have married two Sisters, may not marry any more for the future.  
Secondly, That those that have married their Relations, and are upon that account divorced, cannot marry as long as either of them lives; but that it is not forbidden when one of them dies.  
Thirdly, he also believes, That Marriage ought not to be absolutely forbidden to such as have committed the Crime of Sodomy, provided they repent of their Sin, and have left off that cursed habit.  
Fourthly, he shows, That the Election of a Bishop by the Clergy and chief Men of the Diocese, aught to stand good.  
In the fifth Article he says, That it is forbidden Suffragans, not only to Ordain Priests and Deacons, but also to Consecrate Churches and Confirm Children, which only belongs to the Bishops, as wemay observe, not only by the Customs of the Church, but also by the Acts of the Apostles.  
The last shows, That a Priest that is once fallen into, and convict of a foul Crime, can no more be restored to his Function.  
There is another Work of Nicholas the first, concerning Church Discipline, yet more considerable than the former. 'Tis his Answer to the Questions of the Bulgarians, which contains * 
Viz. 106.  above 100 Articles.  
In the first he says, That the Religion of Jesus Christ consists in Faith and Good Works.  
The second is concerning the Spiritual Affinity between Godfathers and their God-childrens, which hinders their ever marrying together.  
The third is about the Ceremonies of Marriage. He says, that after the betrothing, the Priest ought to cause the Persons to come into the Church with their Offerings, and there give them his Benediction and the Voil, which is not to be given in second Marriages. That being gone out of the Church, they should wear Crowns upon their heads. These are the ordinary and solemn Ceremonies, which, as the Greeks say of theirs, need not nevertheless always be observed. That consent, accordding to the Laws, might suffice; and that if that be wanting, the rest signifies nothing.  
The fourth sets down the Fasts which are observed in the Church of Rome; 1. Lent; 2. The Fast after Whitsunday; 3. That before the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin; 4. That before Christmas; 5. The sixth day of every Week; and 6. All the Vigils or Eves of great Feasts.  
In the fifth he says, That the Fast on Wednesday is not commanded, but that of Friday is.  
In the sixth, That it is not forbid to bathe on those days.  
In the seventh and eighth he approves of the Custom of Carrying and Kissing the Cross, and of the Relics in Lent.  
In the ninth he extols the Custom of Communicating every day in Lent, provided the Communicant be engaged in no Sin, nor has any Mortal Crime lying upon his Conscience.  
The tenth is about the Celebration of Sunday.  
The eleventh sets down the Feasts in which we must forbear working, to assist at Divine Service.  
In the twelfth he says it is to be wished that Men would on those days forbear also trying Civil and Criminal Affairs.  
In the thirteenth he excuses himself for not sending them Civil Laws.  
In the fourteenth he aggravates the Cruelty which was used towards a Greek, who had his ears and nose cut off for pretending to be a Priest, and baptising a great many People.  
In the fifteenth, he says that such Persons ought not to be rebaptized in the Name of the Holy Trinity.  
In the sixteenth he says, That those that did thus abuse this Priest ought to be put to Penance.  
In the seventeenth he blames the King for executing the principal Leaders of a Rebellion raised against him by the Bulgarians, whom he had caused to be baptised. And he says that he has committed a great Sin, and particularly in the murdering their Infants who were innocent. But since he did it through a violent Zeal for Religion, and a blind ignorance, he hopes he may obtain mercy, if he repent.  
In the eighteenth he says, That those that have been baptised, and after forsake Christianity, aught to be first admonished by them, that held them to the Font, that if they do not reform, they ought to be accused to the Church; and that if they refuse to obey the Church, they should be punished by the Prince's Authority.  
In the nineteenth he says, They may make use of the rigour of their Laws against those, as would take away the lives of their Princes. Nevertheless, he exhorts the King to pardon such Offenders. This, and the following Articles relate more to Civil Policy than Church Discipline.  
In the 41st he forbids forcing Infidels to the Faith, and advises them to avoid communicating with them.  
In the 44th, and those that follow, he forbids Hunting, Examining Causes, Playing, Marrying, or Feasting in Lent; and in the 50th leaves it to the prudence of the Bishop or Priest, who have the care of Consciences, to determine after what manner a man should live with his wife during that time.  
In the 51st he expressly forbids men to have two wives at a time. In the 53d he says that it is permitted to all Believers to make the sign of the Cross upon the Table, and to give a Benediction thereupon in the absence of the Priest. In the 54th he does not disapprove of the Custom of the Greeks, who through humility used always to wash their hands before they went into the Church; but nevertheless, he does not command it. In the 55th he says he does not think it needful to force People newly converted to pay their debts, that they may be received into Communion. In the 56th he approves of the Custom of ordering Prayers and Fasts for Temporal Necessities, as in a time of Drought, etc. In the 57th he rejects the Superstition of the Greeks, who would not eat any Beasts killed by Eunuches. In the 58th he orders, according to the Precept of the Apostle, that women should have their heads covered in the Church. The 59th and 60th relate to their Habits and the Hours of Eating. In the 61st he recommends continual Prayer to them. In the 62d he forbids them to make use of a certain Stone that they believed would heal or cure a Disease. The 63d and 64th show the time when it is most proper to abstain from use the of Marriage. The 65th commands to receive the Eucharist fasting, and allows those to come to the Communion, who have bled much at the nose or mouth; for which he makes use of the example of the Woman in the Gospel, who being sick of a Bloodyflux touched Christ's Garment; which makes it credible, that he doth not debar Women from it that are under the like inconvenience. In the 66th he forbids them to enter their Church with their Turbans on their Heads. In the 67th he forbids the Bulgarians to swear by their Sword, or by the name of any Creature. The 68th allows Women newly brought to bed to enter into the Church: In the 69th he says, That the solemn times of administering Baptism are the Feasts of Easter and Whitsuntide; but that it is not necessary to observe this in regard of the People newly converted, no more than in respect of such as are in danger of death. The 70th directs that they ought not to depose a Priest who hath a Wife; and that it is not lawful for Laymen to judge of Priests. The 71st shows that Priests, how wicked soever they are, cannot defile the Sacraments; and that they may be received from them with security. The 72d is about the question propounded to him concerning a Patriarch. He says he cannot answer whether he shall grant them one, till he knows their number of Christians That a Bishop may serve their turn in the mean time; and that if their numbers of Believers increase, and that there be divers Churches and divers Bishops, he will make choice of one of them for their Patriarch, or rather Archbishop. In the 73d he says that their Patriarch, Bishop, or Archbishop must not be Ordained but by the Supreme Bishop; and then he that is Ordained by him, having received the Privilege of Metropolitan from the Holy See, may Ordain other Bishops. That after this there would be no more need of coming to Rome for the Ordination of their Archbishop, who then might be Ordained by the other Bishops, upon condition that he doth not execute any part of his Office till he has received the Pall. The 74th asserts that men may pray any where. The 75th and 76th, That the Bishops that he will send them, shall bring the Rules of Penance which they desired, together with a Missal. In the 77th he forbids them to have any thing to do with Lots, by putting a Pin into a Book to find out any thing they are in suspicion of. The 78th declares that Penance ought to be refused to none. In the 79th he forbids superstitious Ligatures made use of to cure men. The following Articles relate to Peace, Agreements or Bargains. Judgements and Civil Punishments. In the 87th he forbids forcing Widows to become Nuns. The 88th says that it is not lawful to pray for such as died in their Infidelity. The 89th recommends to them the Custom of Offering the First-fruits of the Earth. The 90th says that it is lawful to eat Birds which have not been bled in killing them. The 91st forbids Christians to eat Beasts killed or hunted by Infidels. In the 92d he declares that they are the proper Patriarches who govern the Churches founded by the Apostles, which are only Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. That the Bishops of Constantinople and Jerusalem are also called Patriarches; but they have not so great Authority as these three. In the 93d he declares that of Alexandria to be the second Patriarch. In the 94th he declares the Cheat of the Greeks, who said that Chrism came first from their Country. The 95th says that they ought not to be taken from the Church who have fled thither for Sanctuary. In the 96th he forbids Husband to be divorced from their Wives, if it be not for Adultery. In the 97th he exhorts Masters to pardon their Slaves that have offended them. In the 98th he is willing that such as kill themselves should be buried, for fear their putrid Bodies should occasion Infection; but he would have no Obsequies bestowed upon them, nor any Sacrifice or Prayer offered for them. In the 99th he permits such to be buried in the Church as have lived well. The 100th approves of the Custom of carrying dead Bodies into their own Countries. In the 101st he commends Alms. In the 102d he forbids doing violence to Pagans to convert them. In the 103d he command; them to burn the Books of the Saracens. The 104th is concerning the validity of Baptism administered by a Jew, who had no Religion. Nicholas the first answers, That such ought not to be rebaptized, if he did confer it upon them in the name of the Trinity. In the 105th he speaks of those that preached a Doctrine contrary to that of the Apostles. He answers that they ought not to be heard: But that it doth not belong to the Bulgarian Laymen to judge whether the Doctrine be true, or not. In the last he exhorts them to take Instructions from none but the Church of Rome, which always delivers the Truth to such as desire it.  
These are the Decisions or Answers of Nicholas the first in this Work. This Pope was a great Canonist. He wrote readily and with Authority. He often quoted the Canons and Decretals of the Popes. He maintained the Grandeur of his See with vigour, and managed the most difficult Matters he was concerned in with Honour. M. de Marca observes, That he had done some Injuries to the Discipline and Liberties of the Church by maintaining that it was not lawful to assemble a National Synod without the consent of the Pope: In attributing to himself the Appeals of the Clergies Cases determined in National Synods; and also after a Review brought, in Citing the Persons and Causes to Rome to be there determined anew, instead of appointing Judges on the places; and affirming, that the Causes of Bishops wholly belonged to his Cognizance. But these Pretensions have not been acknowledged by the Church, and particularly by that of France, who have always kept to their Liberties without the least diminution of Respect and Submission due to the Holy See. [These Epistles are all put out in Tome VIII. of the Councils.]  
After the death of Nicholas the first, which happened the 13th of November in the year 867. Adrian 
Adrian II.  the second, who was about 76 years of age, was chosen in his place. He was a Roman, the Son of Talanius, related to the Pope's Stephen the fourth and Sergius the younger. Gregory the fourth Ordained him Priest, and gave him the Title of St. Mark. His Liberality gained him a great repute in Rome, and he was proposed to be chosen Pope after the death of Leo the fourth, and Benedict the third. And after the death of Nicholas he obtained it both by the Votes of the People, who loved him, and by the joint consent of both Parties of Grandees. Lewis the Emperor approved of his Election; and he was Ordained the 14th of December. He was at first suspected not to favour much the Memory of his Predecessor Nicholas the first, because he seemed not so severe towards Lotharius and Waldrada, as he had been. But he freed himself from this suspicion, and reunited those to him that before had forsaken his Interest upon this account.  
The beginning of his Pontificate was disturbed by the Invasion of Rome, which the Duke of Spoleto seized on, and harassed with Robberies and Plundering of his Soldiers. But Rome was delivered both by the Authority of the Emperor, who deprived the Duke of Spoleto of his own Dominions, and the Thunderbolts of Excommunication which the Pope sent out against these Robbers. A Peace was no sooner granted to the Church of Rome, but the Affair of Photius was brought before Pope Adrian. The Emperor Basilius having restored Ignatius, sent some of his Officers to Rome to accompany the Deputies of Ignatius and Photius. Those of Photius' side were drowned for the most part, and there appeared in his behalf but one inconsiderable Monk called Methodius, who durst not maintain his Cause, and who suffered himself to be cited thrice, and was at last condemned for Non-appearance. But the Officer of the Greek Emperor, and John Metropolitan of Caesaria in Cappadocia, having presented to Pope Adrian the Transactions of the pretended Council which Photius had assembled against Pope Nicholas the first, he caused them to be examined and condemned in a Council which pronounced an Anathema against Photius, and had the Book burnt which he wrote against Pope Nicholas. After this Adrian sent Legates to Constantinople to assist in his name at the eighth General Council. They had at first all the sati●…ction they could wish, but after the Council, they entered upon the Affair of Bulgaria, and after it was debated in their hearing, judged that it ought to be subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, which troubled the Legates extremely. Wherefore having protested against, and declared this Judgement null, they immediately left the City dissatisfied. And being but very meanly accompanied they fell into the hands of the Sclavonians, who rob them, and took them Prisoners. They soon after made an escape, and came to Rome at the end of the year 870.  
There are five Letters of this Pope concerning the Affair of Ignatius and Photius in the Version of the Acts of the eighth Council done by Anastasius. The three which follow, relate to the Affairs of France, and the Churches of Britain, to Lotharius and Weldrada, Actardus, Wulfadus, and the other Clergymen Ordained by Ebbo. To the Kingdom of Lotharius, on which Charles the Bald seized after his death, and which Adrian would have had been left to Lewis the Emperor. To the pretended Privileges of Caroloman, and to the Quarrel of Hincmarus' Bishop of Laon, with his Uncle. It is not necessary to give any Extracts of these Letters in particular, having spoken of them particularly elsewhere. Adrian died the first of November in the year 872. He was naturally good and well tempered, zealous for Peace, and for the welfare of the Catholic Church. His Letters are written in a Style mixed with Gravity and Modesty, Zeal and Humility; he maintaining in every part of them his Authority, without Affectation or Contempt of any Body. He behaves himself towards those he had Business with, according to the Rules of Honesty and Charity; not Flattering them by a base Complaisance, or Offending them by high Words, nor Enraging them by his extraordinary Claims.  
John the VIII. was Archdeacon of Rome, when he was raised to the Holy See; it was in December 872. that he came to this Dignity, at a time when all Italy began to be very much molested by the inroads of Barbarians, and Divisions between the Dukes and Lords. He was obliged to make a Treaty with the Saracens, to hinder their Invasions. After the death of the Emperor Lewis the II. he set the Imperial Crown upon the Head of Charles the Bald, in the year 875. and supported himself by his Protection, as long as this Prince lived: But having a mind after his Death to let the Empire fall into the Hands of his Son, he was opposed in his Design by the Lords of Rome, and by Lambert Duke of Spoleto, who seized both upon that City and the Pope in it. But he escaping some time after, fled into France, where he held the Council of Troy's: After this, returning into Italy with some succours, he drove out the Barbarians, and to procure himself a quiet Life, Crowned Charles the Gross Emperor, in the year 880. and died at the beginning of the year 882. He has writ many Letters concerning the Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs of his time.  
The first is Directed to Count Boson; he thanks him for the good Service he had done his Legates with Charles the Emperor, and acquaints him, that he expected those Succours from that Prince with a great deal of Impatience, which he promised him against the Saracens.  
The second to King Lewis, is about the Differences between that Prince and the Emperor Charles the Bald: He tells him, that he cannot hope to make them Friends, till he has heard them both, and Exhorts him in the mean time to think of a Peace.  
In the third he advises Jeoffry Prince of Salern, that he has received Power from the Emperor to Conclude and Swear the Treaty made with him, and that he will shortly give him a Visit upon that Occasion.  
In the fourth, sent to the Clergy and Faithful of the Church of Valva, he condemns a certain Person, who would have seized upon that Church, during the Life of Arnoldus, who was the Bishop of it. He commends them for not being willing to receive him; he forbids them to do it, and threatens them with Excommunication if they should, as also he that undertook to settle him, if he persisted in it.  
In the fifth he commands him that he writes to— which it may be was the Bishop of Naples, to separate himself from the Duke of Naples, who would not submit to the Holy See, and threatens him with Excommunication, if he does not do it.  
In the sixth he order his two Legates, which he had at the Emperor's Court at Pavia, to return immediately.  
In the seventh he complains of Boson's retaining his Legates, and begs assistance of him against the Saracens, to prevent the Besieging of Rome, which they threatened.  
The eighth is written to Charles the Bald; in it he allows of the Translation of Frotarius, from the Archbishopric of Bourdeaux to that of Bourges, upon the Testimony and Remonstrances of the Bishops of that Province, having delayed to grant it till he was acquainted with their Sentiments, as he observes in that Letter.  
The ninth is Directed to Landulphus Bishop of Capua, to whom he sends word, that the Legates whom he had dispatched to the Emperor, had obtained of him, a Confirmation of all the Privileges anciently belonging to the Church of Rome, and particularly a Power to conclude such a Treaty, as he himself should think best, concerning the Territory of Capua. He informs this Bishop, that he designed to be in that City shortly, that so he might make preparations to receive him.  
In the tenth, he writes to Adelard Bishop of Verona, to come to Rome in December, to assist at the Council which was to be held there; and threatens him with Excommunication in case of a failure.  
In the eleventh, he desires the Emperor to pardom Emmenius, and take him into favour, although he owns him to have been justly Condemned.  
In the twelfth, he begs of him to Pardon a Man that had killed another, and who was come to Rome ad limina Apostolorum, to expiate his Crime.  
The thirteenth is Directed to the People of Bourges, whom he exhorts to receive Frotarius for their Archbishop, by reason of the Desolation of the Province of Bourdeaux, because the Pagans having cruelly ravaged it, he was now become unserviceable in his first Diocese. In the following Letter, he commands the Bishops of that Province to acknowledge him.  
In the fifteenth, he order the Bishop of Chartres, to restore to his Goods and Offices, the Murderer of whom mention is made in the twelfth Letter, who had been at Rome ad limina, to make Atonement for his fault.  
The sixteenth and the four following, are about an Affair wherein Peter Archbishop of Grado was concerned. It seems two of his Suffragan Bishops had revolted from him; and one Dominicus Abbot of the Monastery of Altino, had got himself to be Elected Bishop of Toricelli in spite of him. The Archbishop of Grado having brought this Affair to Rome, the Pope citys both these Bishops, and the Bishop Elect, to make their Appearance at the Council which he held there; but they failing to obey the first Citation, he was forced to threaten them with Excommunication if they did not come in Person, to a Council which was to meet in February. Then he wrote to two of the neighbouring Bishops, to see this Sentence put in Execution, in case they did not obey; to the Duke of Venice, to send them to him; to two Bishops called Felix and Peter, that he interdicted them, till such time as they came to his Synod; and that if they failed of coming thither, he would certainly Excommunicate them. He blames Dominicus for his Carriage, and Summons him likewise to his Synod under pain of Excommunication; and he returns his thanks to the Duke of Venice for his good Inclinations to the Holy See; requesting him to cause those Bishops to repair to the Synod which was to be Celebrated in February. He directed these Letters to a certain Bishop, whom he desires to Distribute the rest, to those Persons to whom they belonged, as it appears by the twenty fifth Letter, which is addressed to that Bishop.  
In the twenty first, he desires help of the Emperor Charles, against the Insults of the Saracens; representing to him, the terrible Devastations they made among the Christians.  
The twenty second is directed to Count Lambert, whom he severely reproves for not hindering the violent Oppressions of some of his Subjects, and threatens to Excommunicate him if he did not take care to regulate these Disorders for the future.  
In the twenty third, he thanks the Emperor Charles the Bald, for the kind Reception he gave the Legates of the Holy See; as also, because he sent Ansegisus and Adalgarius to Rome, with Commissioners to repress the Insolence of those Persons that were troublesome to the Holy See. He informs him, That they could not be Punished according to their deserts, because they were fled to a certain marquis, and some great Lords, who took them into Protection: he prays the Emperor to find them out, and to Condemn them to Banishment; and humbly entreats him, not to suffer them in his Kingdom. In the following Letter he complains of the Conduct of Ansegisus, whom he accuses of maintaining a secret Correspondence with Count Lambert. He commends the Fidelity of Adalgarius, upon whom he had bestowed a Pall, by way of Recompense.  
The greatest part of the following Letters relate to the Wrongs which the Holy See Suffered by the Saracens and other Enemies of the Church; against all which he begs the Assistance of Charles the Emperor: And Exhorts the Bishops and Princes of Italy, to break the Treaties made with them; and animates them to declare War against them.  
The thirty fourth Letter is an answer to Bishop Ansbert, who had Consulted him about the Promotions of Bishops and Abbots. He sends him word, That he must follow as much as he can the Directions of the Canons; nevertheless, he thinks it convenient, he should wait for the coming of the Emperor, that he may Act according to his Will and Pleasure. He says in particular, as to those Persons he had been Consulted about, that an Exile may be favoured without doing any thing contrary to the Canons. That with Permission of the Prince, the Abbot that was put out of a Royal Monastery, might be Re-established, if he hath never been Convicted of any Crime: And that a Murderer, or any Accomplice in such a Crime, aught to be deprived of all Spiritual Authority.  
The thirty seventh is a Letter about the Translation of Frotarius Archbishop of Bourdeaux, to the Archbishopric of Bourges.  
In the forty second, he Exhorts King Charles the Gross to restore the Revenues he had taken from a Nunnery at Bresse, and threatens him with Excommunication if he does not do it within sixty days.  
In the forty seventh, he acquaints the Emperor Charles the Bald, that he had Excommunicated Adelard Bishop of Verona, because he had seized upon the Monastery of Nonantula. He sends the same thing to the Arch-Bishops of Ravenna, Milan, and Aquileia, in the following Letter: and in the forty ninth to the Clergy of Verona.  
By the fifty third, he commands the Archbishop of Milan, and the Bishop of Bresse, to meet at a General Synod of the Bishops of Italy, which was to be held at Ravenna in June.  
In the fifty fifth, he Cites Vitus Duke of Venice, and the Bishops of his Country to it. By the following Letter he commands the same thing to be done by the Bishops Peter and Leo.  
In the fifty seventh, he requires the Archbishop of Ravenna and his Suffragans, to be present at the General Synod of the Bishops of Italy, which was to be held at Ravenna.  
The fifty eight is written to the Patriarch of Aquileia, to end his Affair in this Synod.  
By the fifty ninth, he acquaints the Archbishop of Ravenna, that this Synod was Prorogued to the nineteenth of July; and he signifies to him in the following Letter, that he has Summoned thither all the Bishops of Italy, and especially those of Venice. The foregoing Letters are Dated on the tenth Indiction, that is to say, that they were written between September 876. and the same Month in 877. The following Letters are of the eleventh Indiction.  
In the sixty second, he sent a manslayer to his Bishop, that had been enjoined Penance, and who was come to Rome; but he nevertheless Exhorts and Entreats this Bishop, to mitigate the rigour of his Penance.  
The sixty third is Addressed to Carloman. He acquaints him with his concern for the Death of Charles the Emperor, Exhorts him to Protect the Church of Rome, promises to send him Legates very speedily, grants him the Pall for Theodemarus the Archbishop, and desires him to secure him in the Possession and Enjoyment of the Revenues, which the Church of Rome has in Bavaria.  
The sixty fifth is written to the English Archbishop, where after he hath commended his Zeal for the Holy See, and Exhorted him to discharge his Duty with Constancy, he warns him not to suffer Husbands to forsake their Wives and Marry others. He Confirms the Privileges granted by St. Gregory to the Bishops of his See.  
In the sixty sixth Letter, he thanks Athanasius Bishop of Naples, for Excommunicating his Brother Sergius who was an Enemy to the Church. He desires him to continue his Labour and Vigilance for his Church, and recommends to him the Deacon Peter. In the following one, he commends the Neapolitans for driving out Sergius, and giving the Government of their City to the Bishop his Brother.  
By the sixty Ninth, he sends to Landulphus Bishop of Capua, to join with the Bishop of Naples in the Defence of the Church of Rome, and requires him to observe the Treaty made with the Amalphitans.  
In the Seventieth, He reproves the Bishop of Ambrun, for Ordaining another Bishop of Venice than him, that had been chosen by the Clergy and People, and whose Election had been confirmed by the Consent of Charles the Emperor. He enjoins him to come to Rome, together with him that was Elected, and him that had been Ordained.  
The 68, 72, and 73. are Letters written to Lambert Duke of Spoleto, an Enemy to Rome, to prevent his acting those Hostilities, which he intended against it.  
The seventy fifth and the six Letters following, are written about the Affairs of Bulgaria to that King, to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Greek Emperor.  
The following Letters are written against Lambert Duke of Spoleto, who had Invaded the Territories of the Holy See, and being possessed of the City of Rome, had placed a Garrison in it, abused the Bishops and Priests, and hindered them from performing Divine Service in St. Peter's Church.  
These Outrages obliged the Pope to retire into France, to implore aid of Charles, of Carloman, Lewis the Stammerer, of Engelberga, and Berengarius, as it appears by these Letters.  
In the ninety first, he acquaints the Empress Engelberga, that he will compose the Service for the Anniversary of the Emperor Lewis her Husband, as she had desired him: He Conjures her to continue her care of the Affairs of the Holy See, and to act so, that he may return as soon as possible to Rome; he informs her also, that he will hold a Council at Troy's the first day of August.  
In the following Letter he tells her, that he is come to Arles, and that he hath met Boson and Hermengarda, whom he wishes preferred to some higher Dignities, that they might be more able to defend the Roman Church.  
He Exhorts the Empress to favour him in the Design he hath for them, and to write to the Archbishop of Ravenna to pray for him, and to send Legates to Rome to Comfort his Faithful Friends.  
By Letter the ninety third, he makes the Archbishop of Arles his Vicar in France, yet without prejudice to the Rights of the Metropolitans, for whichend he gives him the Pall; and Commands the Bishops that are obliged to go out of their Provinces, not to do it without his Consent; and if there should happen any Disputes concerning the Faith, or about other matters of any difficulty among the Bishops, he requires them, after they have given him an account of it, to Decide it with twelve Bishops which he shall Assemble, provided that if it cannot be Decided by these Judges, they shall content themselves with having fully instructed him, and refer the matter to the Holy See.  
He Complains it is a great Disorder, that the Metropolitans of France Consecrate Bishops, before they have Received the Pall of the Holy See; he desires this Abuse may not be allowed to become Customary.  
The Letter ninety four is to the same Person, and on the same Subject, 'tis a forged piece, Composed of part of St. gregory's Letter, and part of the foregoing.  
The ninety fifth is a Copy of one of St. gregory's Letters.  
By Letter ninety six, he invites Isaac Bishop of Langres to the Synod to be held at Troy's.  
By the ninety seventh, he Excommunicates those that had taken his Horses and Baggage at Châlons, unless they return them in three days, and passes the same Sentence against Adurardus the Priest, whose Servants had taken a Silver Plate out of the Church of Rome.  
By the following Letters, he invites and citys the Metropolitans and Bishops of France, to the Synod to be held at Troy's.  
The 108 is sent to Luitbertus' Archbishop of Mayence, whom he order to return to the Daughters of Boson and Engeltruda their Father and Mother's free Estate. And declares Godfrey and Engeltruda uncapable of disposing of them; and in the following Letter, threatens Count Marfroy who was in possession of them, unless he presently restored them.  
In the 110 he complains to the Archbishop of Besançon, that he did not come to him to Condole his Persecutions: He Exhorts him to come as soon as he can, and forbids him to Consecrate a Bishop in the Church of Lausanne, though the Prince command it, or the People desire it, till he hath considered what will be most Expedient.  
The four following Letters are in the Council of Troy's.  
In the 115 he citys Count Bernard to the Council of Troy's.  
In 117 and 118, he invites King Charles and Lewis to a Conference: King Lewis came, but not King Charles. The Pope complains of it in 119. Letter, and lets him know, that he had adopted Prince Boson for his Son.  
The 120 is a Sentence of Excommunication against Count Bernard, who had deprived Frotarius Archbishop of Bourges, of his Archbishopric and Revenues.  
In the 121 he threatens those with Excommunication, that had seized upon the Revenues of the Church of St. Maurice of Tours, unless they speedily restore them; and admonishes those that own their ninths and tenths, to pay them.  
By the 122, he leaves to the Archbishop of Arles the Decision of the Controversy, between the Bishop of Usez and Avignon, which could not be determined at Troy's, the Bishop of Avignon being absent.  
The 123 is an Excommunication of Hugh, the Natural Son of King Lewis, and Emmo Brother of Bernard, for Conspiring the Death of their King.  
The 124 is Addressed to the Bishop of Dol, and the Bishop of Britain, who had withdrawn themselves from the Jurisdiction of the Arch Bishop of Tours, he charges them to submit with menaces of Excommunication, if they fail.  
In the 125, to Lewis the Stammerer, he tells, how great Obligations he lay under to Boson, who brought him safe to Pavia, and begs his assistance in reducing the Enemies of the Holy See, and recommends to him Agilmarus Bishop of Clermont.  
In the 126th he accuses Anspert Archbishop of Milan of unkindness, in not sympathising with him in his Sufferings. He commands him and his Suffragans to come next Thurday to meet him at Pavia. He gives the same Orders in the following Letter. He likewise Summons Count Beringarius by the 128th and 131st Letters, and Suppo by the 130th. In the 129th he presses King Lewis to restore to the Daughters of Boson and Engeltruda the Free-Estate of their Father and Mother, of which he was in Possession.  
In the 135th he orders two Bishops to Excommunicate those that had stole Wipert's Son, and plundered his Country.  
In the 136th he advises Count Hugh to punish some Thiefs.  
In the 137th he exhorts him, and two other Counts, to keep their League made with Boson.  
In the 138th he order a Monk to obey Bishop Wipert, who had obtained him from his own Bishop and Abbot by Letters dimissory.  
In the 139th he order the Arch-Bishops of Milan and Ravenna to meet, when the Bishop of Pavia should require it.  
In the 140 he Authorises the Bishop of Pavia to Excommunicate those that had taken away a Woman.  
In the 141st he acquaints the Bishop of Pavia that he shall shortly be at Turin, and prays him to come thither. He intimates to him that he ought not to adhere to the Archbishop of Milan in Prejudice of the Roman Church's Interest; and desires him to forward his Letters to the Suffragans of the Archbishop of Ravenna.  
By the 142d he calls four Bishops to a Council to be held at Pavia.  
The 143d is a Decree for the Confiscation of the Goods of an Abbey.  
In the 144th he promises Salvation to all that are killed in Battle against Heathens and Infidels, and absolves them as much as is in his power.  
By the 145th he Suspends the Bishop of Venice from Celebration of Divine Service, because he had Communicated with some Excommunicated Persons; till he and they appeared before him.  
In the 146th he gives leave to promote to Sacred Orders, some Persons, who in their youth happened to be in Company where one killed his Companion.  
In the 147th he desires two Bishops to send home the Wife of Rostagnus, who deserting her Husband, was fled into their Diocese; and orders them to Excommunicate all that Communicated with her.  
In the 148th he advises the Bishop of Mets, that he should not force a Man to marry a Woman who was Contracted to him, who by her own Confession was with Child by another Man.  
In the 149th he Order the Bishop of Pavia to mitigate the Penance imposed by his Predecessor on a Man, for being in Company when another was killed.  
In the 150th he order the Bishop to cause Restitution to be made to some Persons he recommends that were rob.  
In the 151st he writes to the Bishop of Besançon that he had Absolved Fulcardus and his Wife; and that he is again to admit them into his Communion.  
The 152d is an Exhortation to certain Bishops assembled in Council, to judge with Justice.  
In the 153d he acquaints the Archbishop of Ravenna, That it being ordered by the Canons that Councils should be held twice a year, he appointed one to be at the end of March; and orders him and his Suffragans to be there.  
In the 154th he writes to the same Archbishop, and tells him, That he wonders he should design to Ordain to the Bishopric of Sarsenne another Person than the Priest Lupo, whom he had commanded him to Ordain; and forbids him doing it.  
In the 155th he writes to Anspert Archbishop of Milan, and he Commands him and his Suffragans to come to a Council to be held at Rome the first of March, to choose an Emperor in the place of Carloman, whose Infirmities made him no longer able to bear the Burden of Government. He adds, That as it belongs to the Pope and Bishops of Italy to Consecrate the Emperor, so it is chief their Right to call and choose him.  
In the 156th he Comforts the Duke of Beneventum for the loss he had sustained by the Agarenians.  
The 157th is only a Letter of Compliment and Thanks to a Bishop that was very zealous for the Roman Church, and had enquired of his Health; and Condolance for the Death of his Brother. Here end the Letters of the eleventh Indiction, and those of the twelfth begin.  
The six first Letters contain nothing very remarkable, being chief about Civil Matters.  
In the 163d he forbids certain Bishops to Excommunicate the Person that brought the Emperor's Letters Patents, till his Cause were examined.  
In the 165th he Excommunicates a Count and his Wife for taking a Nun out of his Monastery, till they restored her.  
In the 174th, 189th, 192d Letters he exhorts Michael King of Bulgaria, to submit himself to the Church of Rome.  
In the 181st and 182d he sharply reproves Anspert Archbishop of Milan, for not coming to the Synod at Rome, after he had been thrice Summoned, and threatneth to proceed against him if he come not this fourth time. He forbids his holding any Assembly with any of the Kings of France that shall come into Italy.  
In the 188th to the Bishop of Lymoges, he decides, That a Man ought not to be parted from his Wife, because he had Baptised his Child himself in a Case of Necessity.  
In the 190th written to the Bishops of Dalmatia, he exhorts them to acknowledge the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, and to send thither their new chosen Bishop to be Consecrated, and Receive the Pall from him.  
The 191st is to the Arch-Bishops of Arles, Narbonne and Aix. He order them to conser with the Bishop of Nimes, to oblige him not to molest the Monks of a certain Monastery, and gives them power, if he does not do as he desires, to suspend him from all his Priestly Functions, till he comply, or appear at Rome to give an account of his Conduct.  
In the 194th he Exhorts a Sclavonian Lord to continue in the Faith of the Roman Church, and live in its Obedience. He saith he hath written to Archbishop Methodius, who was Ordained by Pope Adrian his Predecessor, because he had heard he taught other Doctrines than what he had professed in Presence of the Holy See.  
The following Letter is to this Methodius Titular Archbishop of Pannonia: he commands him to come to Rome and justify his Doctrine. Forbids him to Celebrate Mass in the Sclavonian Tongue, but only in Latin or Greek; as, saith he, the Church of Jesus Christ dispersed over the whole Earth, practiseth in all places.  
The 196th is to Anspert Archbishop of Milan, about his refusing to come to the Synod at Rome. The Pope had suspended him from Celebrating Divine Service, till he came to Rome to justify himself: but not regarding of that Suspension, he continued to do all Episcopal Functions. The Pope peremptorily commands him to come to Rome, or send his Legates.  
In the 197th he thanks King Lewis for his good will, and invites him to come speedily to Rome, promising to do his utmost to make him to be declared Emperor.  
The 198th Letter is to Herard Archbishop of Auch, and to the Bishops of Comminges, Conserans, and Bigores, concerning the Disorders in their Dioceses, which they could neither restrain by Exhortations nor Excommunications. They had written to the Pope to join his Authority to theirs, to put a stop to them. The Pope writes to them to use their utmost Endeavours to rectify the Disorders of the People committed to their charge. And because the greatest were in the Marriages of Kindred, he saith, 'tis not permitted to Christians to marry their Kindred so long as they can make out any Relation. He declares all those, that are so married, and will keep their Wives, or those that shall so marry for the future, to be subject to the Church's Anathema by Apostolic Authority, and forbids all Priests to give them the Sacrament, till they have done Penance. He also declares it unlawful to have two Wives, to forsake one Wife and marry another for no cause whatsoever, or to have a Wife and a Concubine at the same time. He forbids the Laity to meddle with the Church Goods. He order Priests and Clerks to submit to their Bishops, and to do nothing without their consent; and that the Laity do obey their Bishop under pain of Excommunication.  
The following Letters concern the Affair of Photius, which we have spoken of in the History of the Eighth Council.  
In the 204th Letter he writes to the Empress Engelberga, who had desired him to Absolve Anspert Archbishop of Milan, and humbly represents to her, That he could not do it without the consent of his Brethren the Bishops, with whose concurrence he had Excommunicated him. That he must either come or send Deputies to the Synod to be held the eleventh of October at Rome, to answer such things as are laid to his Charge: and after Satisfaction given, he will Absolve him, and Receive him into his Communion. He saith he will Celebrate the Anniversary of the Emperor her Husband; and that he prays for the Soul of her Brother Suppo, that God would forgive his sins.  
The four following Letters are concerning the Troubles about the Election of Landulphus to the Bishopric of Capua.  
The 216 Letter is written to King Charles, whom, he saith, he hoped to raise to the Dignity of Emperor, that therefore he was come to Ravenna: That he hoped he would labour all he could to Re-establish the Honour and Dignity of the Roman Church, and subdue its Enemies. That at his Return he found its Enemies more violent; having not only seized and carried away the Possessions, but the Persons, that belonged to the Church of Rome. He desires him to send him three Persons before he comes, that he may concert with them concerning what belongs to the Honour and Good of the Holy See.  
In the next Letter he prays the same Prince to protect the Church of Rome against its Enemies.  
The 218th is addressed to the Archbishop of Ravenna; he wonders he had not recourse to the Holy See, to redress the Injury done him; he intimates, that he had sent a Prudent Person to Ravenna, whom he Empowered to inform himself of all had been done to him, he order him to be at Rome by the beginning of October at the Synod, and promises all manner of Assistance, but finds fault with his quitting his Church to live elsewhere.  
In the 219th, he order him to refer it to the Bishop of Pavia, whom he had Commissioned to Excommunicate those that deserve it.  
The 221st Letter is to the Clergy of Milan, whom he order to proceed to the Election of a new Archbishop instead of Anspert, whom he had deposed in his Synod, and tells them, that he sends the Bishop of Pavia and Rimini to join with them in this Election: This Letter is the first of those that were written in the 11th Indiction, beginning in September 879. In the following Letter, he acquaints King Charles with the Deposing of Anspert and Joseph, whom the former had Ordained Bishop of Vercelli, and that he had put another Bishop into Vercelli, whom he desires him to maintain.  
In the 223d he enjoins the People of Vercelli to Receive the Bishop he had Ordained.  
In the 224th, he threatens to Excommunicate Nottingus Bishop of Novara, unless he restored to the Empress Engelberga the Goods belonging to her.  
In the 225th he Declares the Amalphitains' Excommunicate, till they separated from the Heathens, with whom they maintained too familiar a Correspondence.  
The 226th is written to four Bishops, whom he appoints to judge the Business of a Lady called Theodrona, the Widow of Tresigius. She came to Rome to complain, that after the Death of her Husband, her Brother-in-law had forced her to become a Nun, and that without the Blessing of a Priest; and that she had often declared and protested against the Veil, and had worn it but fifteen days: The Pope order them to Assemble and Examine this Affair, and if they find these things true, then to declare her discharged of her Vow.  
In Letter the 227th, he Commands the Bishop of Naples and Magistrates of Amalfi, to break their League with the Saracens; and threatens to Excommunicate them, unless they do it by the first of December.  
In 228th, he reproves a Bishop for not coming to his Synod, and Summons him to appear on the eighth of December, to give his Reasons why he had Excommunicated a certain Nobleman.  
He gives the same Reproof to another Bishop in the following Letter, and Cites him to come and Answer the Accusations brought against him by all his Clergy.  
In 230th, written to King Charles, he wonders that he did not acquaint him with his Arrival at Pavia; and prays him if he be there, to send him Ambassadors with Honourable Letters, that he might come and meet him.  
In the 231st, he thanks this Prince for leaving the Church of Vercelli, in Possession of the Bishop he had Ordained. He Excuseth himself, that he could not absolve Anspert as he had desired, because the Sentence given against him was in these Terms, That he should be Suspended and Excommunicated, till he had appeared and justified himself before the Holy See.  
By the 232d, he enjoins the Bishop of Regio to Rebuild a Church lately Burned, to put in a Priest, and to send thither the Holy Chrism; which the Bishop neglecting, he in the following Letter order the Bishop of Pavia to do it.  
In the 234th. he reproves Bishop Egilbert for Communicating with Excommunicated Persons, and forbids him to Communicate with Luitfredus and Odebricus Excommunicated Persons; because they detained Goods of the Empress Engelberga.  
In Letter the 237 he Excommunicates Luitfredus, for Receiving a Nun which was gotten out of his Nunnery, and detaining the Empresses Goods.  
In the following Letter he threatens to Excommunicate Count Lambert, for Detaining the Goods of the Empress, and of the Church of Rome.  
By the 239th, he commits to the care of Abbot Gisulphus, the Empresses Monastery.  
In the 240th, he Congratulates the Grecian Emperors Officers, concerning their Victory over the Saracens, and Exhorts them to come to Rome to assist him against the Agarenians.  
In the 241st, he commends the Bishop of Naples' Zeal for the Church of Rome; he Exhorts him to break his League with the Saracens; and declares, that he will Excommunicate the Amalphitains' if they do it not, of which he gives them Notice in the next Letter.  
Letter the 243d, is to entreat King Charles the Gross, to leave the Bishop of Lausanne in the free Possession of his Bishopric, and to oblige Count Hubo, to restore what he hath taken from the Church of Besançon: In the following Letter, he recommends the affair of the Church of Langres to the Bishop of Vercelli, and in the 245th, to Thierricus Archbishop of Besançon.  
In the 246th, he commends the Zeal of King Charles toward the Church of Rome, and desires him to send some Body with Authority, to see that all be restored to the Roman Church, which has been taken from it.  
The 247th is to Sfentopulcher, an Earl of Sclavonia; he Congratulates his Faith and Piety, and his Submission to the Holy See, of which he had been informed by Methodius Bishop of Moravia, whom he had sent to Rome: He saith, he had questioned him concerning his Creed, and found it the same with the Roman; and whether his Sentiments were Orthodox, and found him to be found in all points of Catholic Doctrine; upon which Account, he sends him to Govern his Church, with the Quality of Archbishop, which he confirms for ever. He adds, that he had Consecrated Wichinus Bishop of Nitria, and desires him to send some other Priest, that he may Ordain him Bishop of some other Town, and that these three Bishops may regulate Affairs as need shall require: He order all Priests and Clergymen to submit to the Archbishop; then he repeats what he had before said, about the Celebration of Divine Service in the Sclavonian Tongue; and first, he approves of Prayer in that Tongue; secondly, he saith, 'tis not contrary to Faith nor sound Doctrine, to say or sing Mass, the Gospel, or the Lessons of the Old or New Testament, or the Hours of other Service in the Sclavonian Language, provided that they be well Translated; for God is not only Author of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, but also of all other Languages which he hath made to Praise him with. Thirdly, he thinks it fit to read the Evangelists in Latin, for the greater Reverence, and afterwards in the Sclavonian Tongue, in respect of the People who understand it not, as 'tis Practised in some Churches. Fourthly, he writes, that if it pleases the Prince and his Judges to hear Mass in Latin rather than in the Sclavonian Language, it may for them be Celebrated in that Tongue.  
In the 248th he reproves a Bishop, for having violated a Treaty made with the Bishop of Capua in his Ordination; he order him to go on with it, and in Case of default, threatens him with Excommunication: He permits him to come to him, if he have any Complaint or Excuse to make.  
The 249th is to King Charles the Gross, he thanks him for the good Offices he does to the Church of Rome; and particularly that he commanded all the Counts and Bishops his Neighbours, to defend the Territories of St. Peter, against the Assaults of all Enemies, not only bad Christians but Saracens, who are always Pillaging the Roman Church. He saith, he would have Conferred with Wibodus, Son of Count Lambert, but he failed of Meeting at the place appointed: He promises that Count Boson shall find no Refuge or Asylum at his Court; and Rejoiceth, that King Charles will quickly come and beg of him, to send Commissioners that may do him Justice.  
The two following Letters are about Photius' Affair, which hath been spoken of elsewhere.  
The 252d is also to King Charles, he acquaints him, that he waits his Arrival with Impatience, and complains that he had not sent him Commissioners according to his desire, and that an Excommunicated Person called George's, being come from him, had seized upon certain Revenues in the Possession of the Church, pretending they belonged to him, and also, that he very much molested his Neighbours. He desires him to remedy this disorder, and to remove the Enemies of the Holy See; this, and the following Letters, are written in the XIVth Indiction, which gins at the Month of September 880.  
By the 253d, he Summons the Archbishop of Ravenna to the Synod, which had been Prorogued to November, to determine with other Bishops some Ecclesiastical Affairs. He acquaints him, That in this Assembly, they will go upon the Affair of Count Deus Dedit, whom the Archbishop of Ravenna had Excommunicated, for Contracting Marriage with one of his Relations; adding, that tho' indeed it was in his Power to absolve him, yet since the Council was so nigh, he thought it convenient to defer the Conclusion of it to the Synod, where he would be present. He tells him, That the Earls Wife had presented a Petition to him, wherein she says, that he was made Privy to her Marriage, and soon after she was Married, he had admitted and invited them to his Communion; he also gives him an account of another Affair.  
The 254th is a Circular Letter to the Bishops of Italy, to call them to the Synod which was to be held the seventh of November.  
The 255th is addressed to King Charles, he acquaints him, that the Saracens were defeated by the Greeks, but that those Barbarians were yet very troublesome, and desires his Succours against them.  
It appears by Letter the 256th, Directed to Anspert Archbishop of Milan, that John the VIIIth did once pardon him, and received him into his Communion; but that the Archbishop having again offended him, by Apprehending two Monks of the Roman Church, and putting them in Prison: The Pope commands him to release them. In the next Letter, he threatens the Proctor of Pavia that had Arrested them.  
By the 258th he absolves the marquis Adelbert, because he found him faithful to the Church of Rome, and his Subjects, provided they make satisfaction to the said Church within fifteen days. In the next he writes, that he hath sent Legates with Instructions to treat with him; and Exhorts him to Compliance with his desires, and not to come to Rome.  
In the 260th to Anspert Archbishop of Milan, he approves of the Ordination of Joseph to the Bishopric of Ast, though he had been before Ordained Bishop of Vercelli: But his Ordination being found faulty, he was deprived and put in the same State and Condition he was before.  
In the 261st, he threatens the Archdeacon of Milan with Excommunication, unless he submits to his Archbishop, and return to his Church.  
The 262d is to a Private Churchman of Milan, whom Anspert had Excommunicated, for raising troubles in the Church, and detaining some of his Goods: he Exhorts him to his Duty, and to give full satisfaction to his Archbishop, or else he Confirms the Excommunication against him.  
In the 263d he Entreats Lewis and Carloman to join their Consent with Charles, that Engelberga may retire to Rome. where he promises to have such an Eye over her Actions, that she shall undertake nothing against them, nor the Emperor for the future.  
The 264th is a Bull, by which he puts under the Protection of the Holy See, the Monasteries and other Benefices belonging to one Harderick.  
In the 265th, he complains of the Bishop of Naples, for not breaking the Treaty with the Saracens.  
The two following Letters are about a difference between the Bishop of Trent and Verona, about some Ecclesiastical Revenues, he writes about it to the Bishop of Trent, in Letter 266th, and appoints them Judges in Letter 267th.  
The 268th is Directed to Methodius Archbishop of Sclavonia, he comforts him under some Persecutions, which he suffered from a certain Bishop; assuring him, that he had neither Contributed to it, nor Privately Written against him: He Exhorts him to be Zealous for Religion, and promiseth him Justice against his Enemy.  
By the 269th, he begs a speedy Relief of Charles the Emperor against the Saracens.  
In the 270th, he Pronounces Athanasius Bishop of Naples Excommunicate, for not breaking the Treaty made with the Saracens.  
The 271st is to the Archbishop of Ravenna, who had brought Aldericus into his City from the Emperor. He blames his Carriage, and pretends 'tis contrary to his Oath. He promises him, that returning from Naples, he will come to Ravenna, and do Justice to that Church. He enjoins him to Ordain Dominicus Archdeacon, Bishop of Fayance, whom he had nominated to that end.  
In the 272d written likewise to the Archbishop of Ravenna, he reproves him for having obliged a married Woman to leave her Husband, and marry her Ravisher; and Accuses him of Disobedience to the Church of Rome: Therefore forbids him Ordaining any, till he had appeared at the Synod to be held at Rome in October.  
In the 273d he commands the same Archbishop to dismiss the Clerks belonging to the Bishop of pleasance, that had retired to Ravenna, whom the Archbishop had received without Letters of leave from their own Bishop; and commands him to Absolve the Clerks of pleasance, whom he had Excommunicated. We see by these Letters, that this Archbishop had frequent Contests with Rome. This more plainly appears by the following Letter, which showeth that this Prelate had Ordained another Person Bishop of Fayance than him whom the Pope had nominated. The Pope by this Letter Excommunicates him, and forbids him taking Possession of this Bishopric, or exercising any Function, till he had presented himself to the Synod at Rome.  
He Cites a second time the Archbishop of Ravenna by Letter 274. intimating to him, That he stands Accused of several Crimes, and chief of Perjury.  
In the 276th he determines the Affair of one Deus Dedit, an Inhabitant of Ravenna. His Archbishop had Excommunicated him as Convicted of Incest: He appeals to the Holy See, and came to Rome to clear himself; but no Body appearing from the Archbishop, the Pope would not Absolve Deus Dedit, till he had written to the Archbishop to send Accusers and Witnesses to Rome. He sent a Priest and a Deacon with an Accusation in writing: Deus Dedit answered, and proved his Marriage to be according to Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws. The Pope and the Synod declared him Absolved, and confirmed his Marriage.  
In the 277th he writes to Charles the Emperor to send him two Legates, that he might regulate the Wrong and Injustices the Church suffers under his Reign.  
The Archbishop of Ravenna not appearing at the Synod, was Excommunicated. The Pope Advises those of Ravenna by Letter 278, and forbids them to Communicate with him.  
By the 279th Letter he Congratulates the Emperor Charles his intended Journey into Italy. He exhorts him to Succour the Church of Rome, and to expel Guy out of the Possession of the Lands of the Church.  
In 280. he thanks the Bishop Luitwardus for having procured the Emperor's Journey into Italy.  
By the 281st he commands the People of Geneva to obey Optandus, whom he had Ordained their Bishop.  
In the 282d he prays the Bishops and Counts of Italy to intercede with the Emperor, that Engelberga might come to Rome.  
The 283d is directed to the Archbishop of Cologne, touching a Priest long since Excommunicated by Pope Nicholas, for having Communicated with Ingeltrude, and had undergone eleven years' Penance; the Pope Absolves and Restores him at the Request of the Archbishop of Cologne. He likewise writes to this Archbishop to Judge concerning the Divorce of Gideon, whose Wife had committed Adultery with her Brother, according to what St. Austin writes on that Matter in his Book of Adulterous Marriages; and what is ordered by Pope Innocent.  
In the two following Letters he praises several Lords for their Zeal to the Holy See.  
In the 286th he expresseth his Joy for the emperor's coming to Ravenna, and begs him to hasten his Journey.  
The 287th is to the King of Bulgaria: He expresses his admiration, that he hath not sent Ambassadors to Rome, and Exhorts him to do it, and acknowledge the Holy See.  
In the 288th he reproves the Archbishop of Vienna for favouring the Allies of Boson, and Cites him to Rome.  
The 292d is written to the same Archbishop, and blames him for causing Optandus Bishop of Geneva to be apprehended, and Ordaining another in his place. He Cites him a second time to Rome.  
In the 293d he complains to the Emperor, that the Marquis Guy had seized on the Goods of the Church of Rome, and refused to do him Justice; desiring him to come in Person and do him right.  
By the 294th he Absolves the Bishop of Naples, provided he break the Alliance made with the Saracens, and strangle the most Guilty of those that are in his hands, and send him the rest.  
The 295th is an Answer to Oteran Archbishop of Vienna, who to clear himself, writ to the Pope, That he had Ordained a Bishop for Geneva before the Arrival of Optandus. The Pope answered, That 'twas well known to the World how long that Church had been without a Bishop; and that 'twas for that Reason, and the Necessity of that Church, that he had Ordained Optandus Bishop of that place. That he ought not to object this against him, that he was not of that Church; since he himself was neither a Clerk, nor Instructed nor Baptised in the Church of Vienna, of which he was now Bishop. He Cites him to the Synod at Rome with Adalbart Bishop of Maurienne, who was Accused of having injured the Bishop of Grenoble; 'tis to him that the following Letter is directed.  
The 297th is to Michael King of Bulgaria, whom he often Exhorts to send Ambassadors, and submit to the Holy See.  
In Letter the 298th, written to the Empress and Luitwardus Bishop of Vercelli, he entreats her to press the Emperor to assist him against the Infidels, and to send Engelberga to Rome.  
By Letter the 299th, Directed to Anspert Archbishop of Milan; he Confirms the Privileges of the Church of Milan, and Exhorts him to Labour and Pray for the Church of Rome: Here end the Letters of the XIVth Indiction, and begin those of the XVth, beginning in September 881.  
In the 300th Letter, he enjoins the Archbishop of Ravenna to restore to Dean John all he had taken away from him.  
In the 301st, he order the Clergy of Ravenna to Apprehend Maimbert, whom he had Excommunicated, and send him to him.  
By the following, he adviseth his firm Friend to do it with Expedition; he enjoins the same thing to Duke John, in Letter 303.  
The 304th is a Condoling Letter, written to the People of Ravenna for the Death of their Bishop: He Confirms the Election they had made of an Other, and charges them to respect him. He recommends to them the Dukes Deus Dedit and John, together with their Estates.  
In Letter the 305th to the Abbot Hugh, he desires him to Exhort King Lewis to come to Rome, and warns him to shun the Communion of Formosus, of John Archbishop of R●uen, Adelard Archbishop of Tours, and Frotarius Archbishop of Bourges.  
Letter 306 is Directed to King Charles, whom he entreats to Confirm King Carloman in his good Intentions toward the Roman Church.  
In the 307th he sends to Suppo to meet him at Mount Cenis, and to bring thither to him the Princess Engelberga, Anspert Archbishop of Milan, Wibodus Bishop of Parma, and some other Persons of Trust.  
In 308th, he commends to a Bishop the Care of a Vacant Church, till it be provided of a Pastor.  
The following Letters are not set down according to the Order of their Dates.  
In Letter the 309th, written to Aldephonsus' King of Gallicia, and all the Christians of that Country: he makes the Church of Oviedo a Metropolitan Church, with Authority over the Kingdom of Gallicia. In the next he advises that Prince to have the Church of S. Jame's Consecrated by the Spanish Bishops, and desires some Moor-Cavaliers to serve against the Enemies of the Church of Rome.  
In the 311th he grants the Communion to some Priests of Salerno, who though Excommunicated by Pope Nicholas his Predecessor, yet were suffered to Exercise their Functions, on condition they should Fast every Monday and Friday for three years.  
The 312th is a Fragment of a Letter written to the King of the Bulgarians, accusing him of Schism, because he Received the Sacrament of such People as the Church of Rome counted Excommunicated.  
In the 313th, he Creates Ansegisus his Vicar in France and Germany with Power to Assemble Synods, if need required, and to regulate the Affairs of that Country: He order him also, to Publish the Decrees of the Holy See, and to refer to him all Affairs of Difficulty or Consequence.  
In the 314th, he gives leave to Hincmarus' Archbishop of Rheims, to Ordain in the Church of Laon, him that was chosen in the place of his Deposed Nephew; this Letter is Dated on the fifth of January, Indiction IX. that is to say the year 876.  
Letter the 315th, Directed to the Bishops and Arch-Bishops of the Kingdom of Lewis of Bavaria; he smartly reproves them, for not hindering their King from Entering into the Kingdom of Charles the Emperor; and he acquaints them, that he hath sent two Legates to Compose the Differences between those Princes, and to Excommunicate him that shall not agree to their Decisions.  
He writes the same thing to the Counts of the Kingdom of Bavaria in the following Letter: On the contrary, he praises the Prelates and Counts of the Empire, because they continued faithful to him: and reproves in Letter the 318th, those that had abandoned him.  
Letter 319th is directed to all the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priests, Judges and People of France and Germany. He gives them to understand, That Gregory Nomenclator and George his Son-in-law, having been Impeached before the Roman Church, and Accused in two Writings, he had Cited them by two Bishops, and by his Secretary, who had delivered them Copies of the Accusations against them; that they had put off their Appearance from day to day, and in the mean time had conspired to Introduce the Saracens into Rome. That not being able ●o affect their Designs, and the Day of their Trial approaching, they had by Night opened a Gate of the City, and fled with Bishop Formosus, and some others, that had conspired against the Emperor Charles. That he had sent two Bishops to Cite them, but not finding them; and having put off their Trials to another Day, and sent again without success to seek them, he had assembled a Council, and pronounced against them the following Sentence: That Formosus Bishop of Porto, heretofore sent Ambassador by Pope Nicholas to the King of Bulgaria, had engaged that Prince to receive no other Bishop sent by the Holy See but himself: Also being Convicted of having done his Endeavours to pass from his Bishopric to that of Rome; of having quitted his Church; fled out of Rome, and Conspired against Charles the Emperor; should be Excommunicated and Deprived of his Priestly Office, if he did not appear to justify himself within Fifteen days, that is to say, by the Second of May, and that without hopes of Restoration, if he past Twenty days without appearing. That Gregory, Stephen, George, Sergius and Constantine, Authors and Accomplices of the said Conspiracy, and Guilty of divers other Crimes, should be also Excommunicated unless they appeared within Ten days, and be for ever Anathemized, if they do not do it in Fifteen. He adviseth by this Circular Letter all Prelates and Believers not to Communicate with them; and declares those that do so, Excommunicated as well as they.  
Letter the 320th is directed to Photius, and written concerning the Addition of the Filioque added to the Creed: Pope John the Eighth disapproves of it.  
These Letters are followed by some Fragments of others, written by John the Eighth, gathered out of Gratian.  
In the first, taken out of a Letter written to the Bishop of Vannes, he determins, that a Bishop having committed Manslaughter, can never perform Priestly Functions afterwards.  
In the Second, out of a Letter written to Rostagnus' Archbishop of Arles, That the Sacrament cannot be given to a Person ravished, till she hath quitted her Ravisher.  
In the third, cited out of a Letter to the Archbishop of Narbonne, he submits to the Judgement of this Metropolitan, an Excommunicated Priest who had been put to Penance by some Bishops of his Province, and advises him to take six Bishops with him to judge of it.  
In the fourth he writes to the Archbishop of Cologne, That he cannot grant him the Pall, because in the Letter by which he desired it, he neither spoke according to the Custom of Universal Councils, nor the Decrees of the Popes, and that he had not signed the Letter, nor sent any one to testify the Truth of it by Oath.  
Lastly, There is a Fragment of a Constitution concerning the Cardinals, attributed to Pope John the VIIIth; which orders, that they shall be present at least twice a Month in the Churches, to which they are entitled, that they may inform themselves of the demeanour of the Clergy, prevent disorders, and judge of all differences between the Clergy and Laity in Ecclesiastical Affairs; he also commits to their Charge, the care of Monasteries; he likewise commands them to be twice a Week at the Palace, according to the Command of Leo the IVth, to regulate Affairs there. In fine, He grants them half the Revenues and Contribution of the Parishes of Rome, upon Condition that they perform Divine Service there. These Constitutions do not appear to be so ancient as John the VIIIth.  
Father Labbe hath made an Addition of some Letters, which he supposes to belong to Pope John the VIIIth: but either they are forged as the three first, or they are Grants of Privileges, which are not of John the VIIIth's, only as the fourth and the sixth; or they are found elsewhere as the fifth, which differs not from Letter 113th, and the seventh, which is a Paper of Instruction, given to the Legates sent to Constantinople, about the Affair of Photius. [These Letters of Pope John's are Extant in Tome IX. of the Councils, with the Fragments.]  
After John the VIIIth, the See was held by Marinus, and afterwards by Adrian the IIId, they lived but a short time, and did nothing considerable. Stephen the Vth who Succeeded, writ two Letters into the East; one to the Emperor Basilicus, and the other to the Oriental Bishops, about the Affair of Photius. There is also a little Letter that bears his Name, to Robert Bishop of Mets, in which 'tis Decided, that a Clerk having lost one Finger, might be Promoted to Holy Orders.  
A Fragment of another Letter to Fulke Archbishop of Rheims, in favour of Teutboldus chosen Bishop of Langres; which Commands him to put him in possession of that Bishopric. I do not mention another in favour of the Church of Narbonne, against the rights of the Church of Tarragon, which is a supposititius Monument full of falsities. [His Epistles are in Tom. IX. of the Councils]  
At the end of this Age, the Church of Rome was troubled by the Election of Formosus Bishop of Ostia, Translated to the Bishopric of Rome; This Man had been Deposed by Pope John the VIIIth: But being returned under the Papacy of Marinus, he used all arts and interest to obtain the Holy See; but finding himself hated and rudely used by the Romans, he procured the Emperor Arnoldus to come to Rome, who Beheaded several of the Chief of that City, who came to meet him. After his Death, which happened in the year 896, about the fifth or sixth of his Popedom, the Holy See was Disputed between Boniface and Stephen.  
This last being an Enemy to Formosus' Memory, dug up his Corpse, dressed him, and stripped him of his Pontifical Habit, and after having cut off his Fingers, threw him into the Tiber; and Declared, that all whom he had Ordained should be Ordained anew; and made this cruel and unreasonable Proceeding be approved of by a Council held at Rome: But Pope Romanus that succeeded him in the year 900, revoked what his Predecessor had done: And his Papacy, and that of his Successor Theodorus lasting but few Months, John the IX in a Council, Disannulled all that had been done against Formosus, declared all his Ordinations good, Condemned to the Fire the Acts of the Council, held under Stephen the IVth, Excommunicated those that had dug up Formosus' Body, and forbidden for the future all such like Proceed.  
These last Popes have written very little: There are two Letters of Formosus'; one to Stilianus about the Affairs of the East, another to the Bishops of England; but the latter which is likewise attributed to Pope Leo the Vth belongs to neither of them, being writ at a Council, supposed to be held the year 905. which neither agrees with the time of Formosus' being Pope, nor with the Reign of King Edward, in whose time this Council is placed. They Attribute to Stephen the VIth, two Letters to the Archbishop of Narbonne, but both seem to be Supposititious. As to the Letters of John the IXth, we shall speak of them in the History of the following Age.   

CHAP. XVII.  
Containing the Ecclesiastical History of the Lives and Martyrologies of the Saints.  
THis Age had but few Writers, who attempted to give an account of the Ecclesiastical Affairs of it in General, but had an abundance of Authors, who composed the single Lives of several Saints.  
Among the Ecclesiastical and Profane Historians of the first sort, which flourished in this Age, 
Sergius.  we may reckon Sergius, of whom Photius [Cod. 67] speaks; and assures us, That this Author wrote an History of all things memorable, both in Church and State, from the Time of Copronymus to the 8th Year of Michael Balbus, which was the 828th Year of Jesus Christ. It is evident that he was a Layman and a military Officer. Since he relates also the Actions of the Army, as well as his Thoughts concerning the Disputes, then on Foot, about Religion: We have not this Work. Photius observes, That his Style was clear, elegant and unaffected: He used very proper Words and Expressions; that his Composure was very curious and his Method pleasant, easy and Natural; which he judges the best Properties of an Ecclesiastical Historian.  
Eginhardus, Secretary to Charles the Great, and founder of the Monastery of Selgenstat upon 
Eginhardus.  the Main, in the Diocese of Mentz, Wrote the Life of Charles the Great, and the Annals [of the most observable Things done in the Reign of King Pepin, Charles the Great, and Lewis the Godly] beginning at the Year 741. and ending at 829. [Both these Works are printed together at Cologn, 1521. quarto, at Francfort 1584. in fol. and 1594. in octavo.] We have also some Letters of his [viz. 62 put forth by Du Chesne, in his Appendix, Tom. 2.] a Treatise upon the Cross, and an account of the Translation of the Relics of S. Marcellinus and S. Peter, which Ratlavius and Dicudo cunningly conveyed out of the Church of S. Tiburtius, near Rome. [This last Treatise is extant in Surius, June 2d. and the other is quite perished.]  
Theganus, a Suffragan of the Bishopric of Treves, hath written an History of Lewis the 
Theganus  Kind [or Godly.] [Pithaeus hath put it out, with the French Writers of this Age, at Francfort, 1594. p. 291. And Du Chesne in his Collection of the same Writers, Tom. 2.] He flourished from the Year 810. to 840. or thereabouts.  
Petrus Siculus, being sent, in 870. by the Emperor Basil to Tibrica, in Armenia, to procure 
Petrus Siculus.  the exchange of some Prisoners; and there having had some Conferences with the Manichees of that Country, called Paulitians, made a Treatise, containing The History of [the Rise, Progress and Downfall of] the Manichees, and the Doctrines which they maintained. This Treatise hath been translated by Raderus [a Jesuit] and Printed in Greek and Latin at Ingolstadt, in 1604. and in Biblioth. Patr. [Tom. 16.] It is dedicated to an Archbishop of Bulgaria. In it he reduces the Errors of the Manichees to six principal Heads, which are these. 1. That there are two Principles, a good one and an evil; the one the Creator and Governor of this World, the other of the World to come. 2. That Jesus Christ was not born of the Virgin. 3. That the Elements in the Sacrament, are not converted into the very Body and Blood of Christ. 4. That they contemn and disgrace the Cross. 5. That they reject the Books of the Old Testament and S. Peter's Epistles. 6. That they account the Ecclesiastical Ministry of Priests and Elders unnecessary. He than relates the Story of Manes and his Sect. All that he says is taken out of the Catechises of S. Cyril of Jerusalem and Epiphanius. He promised a Confutation of these Errors, but hath not done it in that Treatise. F. Sirmondus saw a Confutation of two of these Articles, by several Texts of Scripture, in a MS. in the Vatican Library.  
But, of all the Ecclesiastical Authors of this Age, there is none more famous than Anastasius, 
Anastasius Bibliothecarius.  an Abbot and Library-Keeper of the Church of Rome, who flourished under the Popedoms of Nicolas I Adrian II. and John VIII. He was sent by Lewis II. Emperor of Italy, to Basil Emperor of the East [to obtain a Marriage between his Master's Daughter and Basil's Son] and was present at [the last Session of] 
* This Council, which passes for the 8th General Council in Coriolanus' Collection, is rejected both by the Greeks and Romanists, for an unlawful one, being called without the Consent of the Western Emperors, and managed by the Iconolatrae, or Image-Worshippers, with Force and Cruelty, against Iconomachi, especially the great Photius, who was deposed from his See of Constantinople, and Ignatius put into it.  the VIII. Council; where he was of great use to the Pope's Legates, because he understood both the Greek and Latin Tongues well. He hath translated the Acts of this Council, and of the VII. [at Nice] with several other Records of the Greek Church, [which are extant in Tom. 7 and 8 of the Councils;] as also a a threefold Chronology; containing [a Collection of such Ecclesiastical Matters as are related in] the Chronica of Nice-Phorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Georgius Syncellus and Theophanes, from the Beginning of the World to the Reign of Leo Armenus [put out by Fabrotus, at Paris, 1649. with his own Notes.] A Collection of several Pieces concerning the History of the Monothelites, published by F. Sirmondus' [at Paris] in 1620. [and in the Biblioth. Patr. To. 12. p. 831.] The Life of S. John the Alms-giver, Patriarch of Alexandria, mentioned by Sigibert and Trithemius [is not extant] and the Martyrdom of S. Demetrius, published by F. Mabillon, in his Analects, Tom. 1. [p. 65.] His Translations have all Prefaces to them, made by him, and very well written: But his most excellent one is that which he hath prefixed to the Version of S. Dionysius the Areopagite, made by Erigenes, where he speaks of the Scholia which he had translated. He is commonly thought to be the Author of the Pope's Lives, which bear the Name of Pope Damasus, but falsely, and they are printed under Anastasius' Name at Mentz, in 1612. [1602.] But 'tis doubtful whether they are all his, and many believe that they are a Composure, taken out of several Authors. F. Labbe assures us, That he saw a MS. written in Charles the Great's Time, which contained the Lives of the first Popes; which, if it be true, this Work can't be all Anastasius'. I am of Opinion, that the Lives of the first Popes, as far as Damasus, were written by a more ancient Author, who put them out under Damasus' Name: But the latter are Anastasius', who reviewed them, and put them in that Form they now are in, and concluded them with the Life of Nicholas I. for I take the Lives of the five following Popes to be written by William, who succeeded Anastasius in the Office of Library-keeper, in the Church of Rome. Nevertheless Anastasius might write the Life of Adrian II. for he certainly outlived him: And perhaps he lived long enough to write the Lives of the four following Popes. He wrote tolerable good Latin, and was a learned Man for his Time. He was a good Politician, and studied the Interest of the Church of Rome.  
There remains only the Author of the Treatise, called Liber Synodicus, whose Name is 
The Anonymous Author of the Liber Synodicus.  unknown. His Work is, An Abridgement of the first Councils, commonly called, The little Synodical Book: It ends with the Council held by Photius in 877. which is accounted the VIII. General Council, which makes it probable that he lived about the end of the IX. Age, This Work hath been Printed at Strasburg in 1601 [in quarto,] and since is put by F. Labbe into the last Collection of the Councils. It is a very short and plain Abridgement, and contains nothing considerable or extraordinary about the History of the Councils.  
The number of the Historians of this Age, which have written the Lives and Panegyrics 
Michael Syncellus.  of the Saints, is very great; The chief of them are these that follow: Michael Syncellus of the Patriarch Nicephorus; and, after his Death, designed for his Place, by the Empress Theodora: But he refused to accept that Dignity. He wrote the Life of S. Dionysius [the Areopagite] and made a Panegyric in Honour of the Holy [Archangels and] Angels: In which, after he hath invoked them, and distinguished their several Orders, he speaks of their good Offices, which they perform to Men, and relates several Examples to prove it out of Holy Scripture. Lastly, he makes several Exclamations, by way of Encomium. There is an Hymn at the end of this Discourse, published by F. Combefis [in his Auctuar. Nou. Tom. 1. p. 1525.] and is found in the Biblioth. Patr. The Style of it is lofty, full of great Words and affected Epithets.  
Methodius, preferred to the Patriarchate of the Church of Constantinople in 842. is also the Author of S. Dionys's Life, which is extant at the end of the Works of that Father [printed 
Methodius  at Antwerp in 1634. Tom. 2. 'Tis also printed alone at Florence, 1516. Paris 1562.] Some Fragments also of two Sermons, printed by Gretzer [in his Tom. 2. de Cruse] are attributed to him: The one is concerning the Benefit of the Death of Christ, and the Reasons why he would die upon the Cross. The other is against those that are ashamed of the Cross of Christ. To these we may add, The Encomium of S. Agatha, translated into Latin by F. Combefis, in his Biblioth. Concionat. Patr. and is said to be in MS. in the Library of S. Mark at Venice. Some also attribute to him a Sermon upon S. Simeon; and another upon the Sunday, called Dominica in Ramis [or Palm-Sunday, which is the Sunday before Easter-day] which F. Cambefis hath printed among the Works of the elder Methodius [who flourished in 290. at Paris in 1644.] although it be very doubtful whether they be so ancient, as we have observed in speaking of the Elder Methodius. He died in 847. [in Balsamon's Collection of the Greek Canon we meet with some penitential Canons, attributed to Methodius, but the Learned judge them not to be his.]  
To Methodius we may join Hilduinus, the Patron of the Fable of S. Dionysius the Areopagite's coming into France. He was Abbot of S. Medard at Soissons, of S. German and 
Hilduinus Abbot of S. Medard at Soissons, S. German and S. David.  S. Dionys [near Paris] and chief Chaplain to the Emperor Lewis the Godly. He made a Reformation in the last of these Monasteries, in 829. and settled Monks there instead of the Canons, formerly there. He took Lotharius' part against his Father, and was banished into Saxony. But he was again restored, and after his Restauration he wrote his Book of the Areopagite, by the Command of Lewis the Godly. In it he undertakes to prove, That Dionysius, the Apostle of France, was the Areopagite: But this Work is full of abominable Falsehoods and gross Forgeries. He proves his Opinion by Records of so small Authority, That his Writing discovers the weakness of the Cause he maintains, and his own inability to do it. This Work was printed at Cologn in 1563. and is put by Surius among the Lives of the Saints [Octob. 9] with a Letter from Lewis the Godly to him, and his Answer. Hilduin died, according to the Opinion of some, in 838. and of others in 842.  
David Nicetas, surnamed Paphlago, because he was a Bishop in Paphlagonia, altho' he was 
David Nicetas Paphlago.  also Patriarch of Constantinople, was a great admirer of the Patriarch Ignatius, and wrote a long History of his Life [which is extant, with the Acts of the VIII. Council at Ingolstadt, 1604, quarto. and Tom. 8. of the Councils. p. 1179.] He hath also composed several Panegyrics, in honour of the Apostles and other Saints [viz. S. Mark, S. Marry, S. Gregory the Divine, S. Hyacinthus, Eustatheus, Agapius and Theopistus] printed by F. Cambesis in his last continuation of the Biblioth. Patrum [at Paris in 1672.] His Style is elegant and pleasant; his Relations are simple and plain, without being tedious. He often turns his Speech to the Saints; he commends and makes Acclamations in their Honour, according to the Custom of his Time.  
Leo the Wise, Emperor of the East, may be reckoned among the Panegyrists of the Saints. 
Leo the Wise, Emperor of the East.  He succeeded his Father Basilius in 886. and reigned till 911. He took great pleasure in composing Sermons. Baronius hath published a List of 33. [ad Annum 911. numb. 3] which are found in a MS. in the Vatican Library, Gretzer hath published 9 printed at Ingolstadt in 1600. and since, F. Cambesis hath inserted 10 in the first Tome of his Auctuar. Biblioth. Patrum. Besides these, we have a Discourse upon the Life of S. John Chrysostom, among the Works of that Father [Tom. 8.] of Savil's Edition, and a Sermon upon S. Nicolas [Bishop of Myra] printed at Toulouse in 1644. and some Predictions [viz. 17] concerning the State of Constantinople, Printed by Codinus [at the end of his Antiquities, at Paris in 1655.] Baronius mentions other Works of Leo, which are in MSS. in the Vatican Library, viz. several Discourses, Moral Precepts, Riddles or mystical Say, Constitutions, and [
† They are Printed at Basil, in 1554. and Leyden, in 1612. and 1613.  his Tactics, or] a Treatise of the manner of Ranging an Army in Battalia. The Sermons printed by F. Cambefis are upon the Nativity, Purification and Annunciation of the Virgin, Palm-Sunday, the Incarnation, the Burial, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ; upon the Feast of Pentecost and Death of the Virgin, which he calls her Repose, maintaining, That she, as well as others, paid the last Debt to Nature, leaving us in doubt, whether her Body was afterwards reunited to her Soul, or whether she was put into some place to be reserved there to the General Resurrection.  
Theophanes, surnamed Cerameus [or the Potter] Bishop of Tauromenium in Sicily, lived about 
Theophanes, Bishop of Tauromenium.  the End of the IX. Age. He hath composed several Homilies upon the Gospels and yearly Festivals, which are Printed in Greek and Latin at Paris, in 1644. Gretzer hath put out two upon the Cross. Another Bishop of the same Place, named Gregory 
* Dr. Cave places him in 1040. Georgius Chartophylax. , hath composed several Homilies upon the same Subjects, but they are not yet printed.  
Georgius Monachus, the Keeper of the Records of the Church of Constantinople, and afterwards Archbishop of Nicomedia, was one of Photius' great Friends. He composed several Homilies upon the Feasts of the Virgin, published by F. Cambefis, in vol. 1. of his Auctuar. Biblioth. Patrum. They are in a copious Style, and full of Common Places, of little Benefit and tedious.  
Nor doth the West furnish us with fewer Historians, who wrote the Lives of the Saints of their Time, than we have seen the Eastern Empire to have done, viz.  
Ludgerus, the Scholar of S. Gregory of Utrecht, having spent much Time and Labour in 
Ludgerus, Bishop of Munster.  converting the Infidels in England and Swedeland, was made Bishop of Munster in Westphalia, in 802. He wrote the Life of his Master S. Gregory, Bishop of Utrecht, which is published by Brower [at Mentz, 1615.] who hath joined with it a Relation of the Beginning of S. Benedict's Mission. This Life is in Tom. 2. Saec. Benedict. III. published by F. Mabillon. Surius and Bollandus have published a Letter under Ludgerus' Name, dedicated to Rixfridus Bishop of Utrecht; which contains a Relation of the Life and Miracles of S. Switbert [but it is proved by Cointe, in his Ann. Eccl. Fran. ad ann. 779. n. 31. & 754. n. 78. by many Arguments, not to belong to this Author.] He died in 809. and his Life is written by Alfridus, the third Bishop of Munster.  
[Aegil or] Eigil, fourth Abbot of Fulda, governed that Monastery from 818. to 822. He 
Aegil Abbot of Fulda.  hath written a Relation of the most eminent Actions of his Master S. Sturmio [his Predecessor in the Abbacy of that Monastery:] It is put out by Brower [at Ingolstadt in 1616.] and is also in Tom. 2. Saec. Benedict. III. The Life of S. Aegil is written by a Monk of the same Abbey, named Candidus, and published by the same Authors. 
Candidus. Vufinus Boetius, Bishop of Poitiers. Hermenricus, Abbot of Elwangen.   
Vufinus Boetius, Bishop of Poitiers, flourished from the Time of Lewis the Godly to the year 830. He wrote the Life of S. Junianus Abbot of More, which is extant in Tom. 1. Saec. Benedict. put out by F. Mabillon.  
Hermenricus, a Monk of Elwangen, a Monastery in Germany, was chosen Abbot of it in 846. He wrote the Lives of S. Magnus and S. Sola, with a Dialogue about the Foundation of his Monastery. The Life of S. Sola was written about the Time that Rabanus was chosen Bishop of Mentz, about 847. It is dedicated to Rodolphus, a Monk of Fulda, under whom Ermenricus had studied. These two Lives are published by F. Mabillon.  
Eulogius, whom some believe to have been chosen Archbishop of Toledo, suffered Martyrdom 
Eulogius the Martyr.  at Corduba in 859. in the Persecution [of the Christians in Spain] by the Saracens. He wrote the Martyrdom of the Christians which suffered for the Faith of Jesus Christ, before him, in that City. This Treatise is entitled, Memoriale Sanctorum [or. An Account of the Sufferings of the Martyrs of Corduba] and is divided into three Books. Afterward he composed an Apology [or Defence] of the same Martyrs, against those who denied them that Title and Honour, for 3 Reasons. 1. Because they never did any Miracles, as the ancient Martyrs did. 2. Because they did not suffer variety of Torments, but were put to Death presently. 3. Because those that put them to Death, were not Idolaters, but Mahometans, who worship the true God. He answers these Objections, and continues the History of those Martyrs. These 4 Books are followed by an Exhortation, or Instruction, which he made in Prison, and dedicated to two Virgins, Mary and Flora, who also were Prisoners. [In which he gives all the Christians then in Bonds for Christ's sake, Arguments and Encouragements to suffer constantly, and adds] a Prayer for them to use in their present Condition. He hath also composed a Writing, dedicated to [Wilifindus] Bishop of Pampelona, when he sent him some Relics of the ancient Martyrs of Corduba, which he had desired of him, when he was at Pampelona. In it he speaks of the Persecution of the Christians of Corduba, and sets down the Names of the Martyrs, and the days of their death. He sent his Instruction to Flora, and his Memoir of the Martyrs to his Brother Alvarus, who was then in Banishment in Germany, and wrote two Letters to him about the same matter, which Alvarus answered. Afterward he sent him an Account of the Martyrdom of those two Virgins, as he did also to Baldegosena, Flora's Sister. We have these Letters, with the Works of Eulogius, in the Biblioth. Patr. [Tom. 15. p. 242.] and in the iv Tome of the Spanish Writers [p. 213.] Ambrose Moralis also hath printed all together with his own Notes at Complutum in 1554. [which was the first Edition of Eulogius' Works, but Maluenda finds fault with it, because he hath left out several things concerning Mahomet and his Doctrines, in the first and second Books of his Memoir of the Martyrs, which Eulogius had written. Wherefore Poncius Leo put out a more correct Edition at the same place in 1574. but continued Moralis' notes.] Surius also hath printed his Lives of the Martyrs of Corduba.  
Alvarus, Brother of Eulogius hath written, besides the Answers to his Brother Eulogius' Letters beforementioned [which are among Eulogius' Letters] the History of his Brother's 
Alvarus.  Martyrdom [which is prefixed before Eulogius' Works in the Complutensian last Edition, and in the Biblioth. Patr. and Surius-March. II. Vossius attributes to this Author two other Treatises, viz. Scintillae Patrum, which is a Collection of Moral Sentences out of the Fath●… and 
Voss. de Hist. Lat.  Indiculus Luminosus, but they are not yet commonly received for his by Learned Men.]  
Herricus or Erricus, born at a Village of the same name, viz. Hery, two Leagues from Auxerre, was a Benedictine Monk of the Abbey of S. Germane in that City. He had for his Masters 
Herricus a Monk of S. Germane at Auxerre.  Haymo [of Halberstadt] and Lupus of Ferrara, as he himself tells us in the Preface to his Collection of Maxims and Things remarkable, taken out of the Holy Fathers and other ancient Writers, dedicated to Hildebald Bishop of Auxerre, of which we have only the Preface in Tom. 7. of Mabillon's Analect. Besides this Work, he composed two Books in Prose concerning the Miracles of S. German Bishop of Auxerre, printed by F. Labbe in the first Tome of Biblioth. MSS. Six Books also in Verse, containing the Life of Caesarius, undertaken by the order of Lotharius the younger and dedicated to Carolus Calus, printed at Paris [in 1543. Octavo,] with the Poem of Marius Victorinus upon Genesis. He undertook to compose an History of the Bishop of Auxerre, with Rainogalus and Alogius, Canons of that Church. He made also [many] Homilies, of which we have three among the Homilies of Paulus Diaconus.  
Anscharius, a Monk of Corby, the Apostle of Denmark and those Northern Countries, and after made Bishop of Hamburg and Breme, hath written the Life of Willihadus first Bishop of 
Anscharius, a Monk of Corby.  Breme, which was printed at Antwerp in 1642. and in the 2d part of F. Mabillon's Saec. Bened. III. Anscharius went into Denmark in 836. and was made Bishop of Hamburg in 842. and the Bishopric of Breme was added to it in 849. He died in 865. [Anscharius' Psalter is extant in Cranzius Metrop. l. 1. c. 42. but his Epistles, of which he wrote many, are lost.]  
Rudulphus or Rudolphus, a Scholar of Rabanus, a Priest and Monk of Fulda, the Preacher, and Confessor to Lewis King of Germany, passed for a very learned Man for his time. In the Annals 
Rudolphus, a Monk of Fulda.  of Fulda he hath given him the Title of an excellent Historian and Poet, and of a Man very well versed in all humane Sciences. He writ the Lives of Rabanus and S. Lioba, Abbesni of Priscofhten, which are in F. Mabillon's Saec. Benedict. and in Surius and Bollandus' Acts of the Lives of the Saints. The last of these Lives was composed out of the Records and Collections of a Priest named Mago, who had conversed with four of the Scholars of S. Lioba [viz. Agatha, Thecla, Nana, and Eoliba. This Author died in 865. 
Iso, a Monk of S. Gallus. Alfridus Bishop of Munster, and Orthegrinus, a Monk of Werthin. Ermentarius Abbot of Noicmantier.   
Iso, a Monk of S. Gallus, wrote about the year 860. two Books containing the Lives and Miracles of S. Othmarus, Abbot of S. Gallus, which are also put out in Tom. II. Saec. Ben. III. He died in 871.  
Alfridus and Orthegrinus, of which the first was Bishop of Munster, and the other a Monk of Werthin, have each of them written the Life of S. Ludgerus the first Bishop of Munster. They are both printed in the Saec. Benedict. Alfridus was the third Bishop of Munster after Ludgerus, succeeding to Jeffrey the Nephew of this Saint in 839. and died in 849. Orthegrinus or Hildegrinus, wrote before him.  
Ermentarius, Abbot of Noicmontier, wrote an History of the Translation of the Body of S. Philibert, which the Monks of that Abbey were forced to carry into several places, to keep it from the burning of the Normans. 'Tis published by F. Chiffletius, and since by F. Mabillon.  
Milo, called Sigebert, a Monk of S. Amandus, hath composed, in Verse, the Life of that 
Milo, a Monk of S Amandus.  Saint, and a Treatise of Sobriety, dedicated to King Charles. We have this Life of Amandus, divided into 4 parts, with a Supplement to another Life of the same Saint, and the History of the Translation of his Relics, in the Acts of Bollandus. Surius hath published an Homily under his Name upon the Life of Principius Bishop of Soissons. F. Audin hath published a piece, in Verse, of this Author's, which is a Dialogue between the Spring and Winter. [He died in 872. 
Voss. de Hist Lat.  and is buried in his Monastery. His Epitaph celebrates him for the Author of his Treatise of Sobriety and Life of Amandus.]  
Aimonius, of whom we are speaking in this Paragraph, is a different Person from the Author 
Aimonius, a Monk of S. German de Prez.  of the History of France. This last was a Monk of S. German de Prez, the other was the Abbot of Fleury. The one wrote at the end of the 9th Age, and the other at the beginning of the 11th. This, of whom we are speaking, hath described the Finding and Translation [of the Body] of S. Vincent, and made two Books upon the Miracles of S. German Bishop of Paris. A Book upon the Translation of the Martyrs S. George the Monk, S. Aurelius and S. Natalia, and two Books of their Miracles. These Works are printed by F. Mabillon in Saec. Benedict. [33 and 4.] and in other Collections [viz. Surius, July, 25. etc.]  
We must distinguish the two Abbo's as well as the two Aimonius'. The first was a Monk 
Abbo, a Monk of S. German de Prez.  of S. German de Prez [or de Pratis] as well as the first Aimonius, and lived at the same time with him; the other was co-temporary with the second Aimonius, and a Monk of the same Abbey of Fleury. This last is the Author of a Poem divided into two Books, containing the History of the Siege of Paris by the Normans, in 886, and 887. This Work is dedicated to Goscelinus (not the Bishop of Paris, but a Deacon of the same name) and hath been printed several times in the Collections of the French Historians. He hath a third Book, which is not yet printed. This Author hath made some Sermons, which are in MS. at S. German de Prez, of which F. Dacherius hath chosen out 5. and printed them in Tom. 9 Spicil. with an Advertisement to the Reader, in which he says, That he made these Sermons at the request of Frotarius Bishop of Poitiers and Fulradus Bishop of Paris, That the Clergy might make use of them to instruct the ignorant Laity. Four of these Sermons are upon Holy Thursday. In them Abbo observes, That this was the day on which Jesus Christ celebrated the Passover with his Disciples, and gave them the sacred Memorials of his Body and Blood; That the Bishops consecrate the Holy Oil and the Altars, and the Pavements of the Churches are washed, and those Penitents absolved and received to Communion, who had been excommunicated at the beginning of Lent. And upon this last Point it is that he chief enlarges in those Sermons, exhorting the Penitents to turn unto God with all their Hearts, that they may receive the benefit of Absolution, to renounce their Sins, and lead a Christian Life for the future. The third is addressed to the Penitents before their Asolution. He comforts them under the delays of Absolution, telling them, That the Bishop can't absolve them till they have performed their Penance, and shown a real sorrow for their Sins. Nullus est certe Episcopus, qui possit absolutionem dare, nisi post poenitentiam factam, & dignam satisfactionem. He exhorts them earnestly to observe the Lent-Fast. The fourth is directed to the absolved Penitents. He compares the state they were in before Reconciliation to that they are now in, and exhorts them not to make their Repentance of no advantage to them, by relapsing into their Sins. The last Sermon is upon the settlement of the Christian Religion, whose excellency he commends by the price it cost. For the sake of this it was that Jesus Christ died and risen again, that the Apostles laboured and suffered so much, that so many just Men have been martyred, that so many Confessors have given such Examples of Virtue, and dispersed that Light in the World; that so many Men have retreated into Monasteries, founded and established by the piety of the Kings and Princes of the Earth. This gives him an occasion to inveigh against those, that take away the Revenues of Churches and Monasteries. He comforts the Christians that suffered Wrongs, and shows them, That they ought to content themselves with a few worldly Things, and labour for a Celestial Treasure, where these Extortioners, which spoil the Church, the Normans, who plunder and rob to enrich themselves, must expect the Torments of Hell.  
Wolfardus or Wolfadus, a Priest and Monk of Hatennede in the Diocese of Eicstat, composed, 
Wolfadus, a Monk of Hatennede.  about the end of the 9th Age the Life of S. Walpurga, and dedicated it to Erkenwald Bishop of Eicstat [by whose Command he made them] and three Books of Miracles of that Holy Woman. He promised a Dialogue concerning that Saint, which we have not. Other of his Books are printed in the Collections of Canisius, Bollandus and F. Mabillon.  
Hugbaldus [Hucbaldus or Hubaldus] the Nephew and Scholar of Milo, a Monk of S. Amandus, 
Hugbaldus a Monk of S. Amandus.  flourished in the 9th Age, and was very long-lived. He was accounted a Man of great Learning in his time. He made a Poem of 300 Verses, dedicated to Charles the Bald, in commendation of Baldness, of which almost all the Verses begin with the Letter C. But 'tis not for the sake of this Work [though it hath been thought worth the printing at Basil in 1516. and 1546. and at Frankfort in 1624.] that we mention this Author; nor for the sake of his Book of Music [spoken of by Sigebert] but because he composed the Lives of S. Aldegondes' Abbess of Malbod, S. Rictrudres Abbess of Marchieme, and S. Lebwin, a Priest, printed by Surius and Bollandus on May 12. and Mabillon [Saec. Bededict II.] Sigebert speaks of this Author, and attributes to him the Lives of several other Saints, [in his Book De Script. Cap. 108.]  
Alfredus, or Elfridus [or Aluredus] King of Englund, was sent by his Father Ethelwolf, 
Alfredus King of England.  [King of the West Saxons] to Rome, where he was Crowned in the year 872, by Pope Leo IU. He was a great lover of Learning and Learned Men; He Translated several Latin Authors into the Saxon Tongue, and published them in his own name, viz. Bede's History of England, Paulus Orosius' History, S. Gregory's Pastoral, etc. He composed some Laws. The Saxon Translation of Bede's History was Printed at Cambridge in 1644, with his Laws and Prefaces to S. Gregory's Pastoral and P. Orosius. His Laws also are inserted in Spelman's Councils, and in the 9th. Tom of the Councils, p. 582. The 1. commands the payment of Tithes. The 2. Is against those that rob Churches. The other are about Civil matters. This King died in the year 900. Father Collet hath Published his Will [out of Asserius Menevensis.]  
Rembertus, Archbishop of Breme, wrote the Life of his Predecessor Anscharius, Printed at 
Rembertus' Archbishop of Breme.  Cologne, with the Lives of the other Bishops of that Church. 'Tis also in the Collections of Bollandus and Father Mabillon. Rembertus was chosen Bishop after the Death of Anschcarius, in 865, and died in 888.  
Herembert, [or Erchempert,] a Monk of Mount Cassin, lived at the end of the 9th. Age; he made a Chronicon, printed at Naples, in 1626., by the care of Caracciolus a Theatin 
Herimbertus, a Monk of Mount Cassin. Almanus a Monk of Hautivilliers.  Priest.  
Almannus, a Monk of Hautevilliers in the Diocese of Reims, Compiled at the request of Theudonus his Bishop, the Life of S. Memnus the first Bishop of Chalons. Father Mabillon in Tome 2. Analect, hath put out a Letter of that Bishop to him, and his Answer with an Extract of the Register for Burials in the Abbey of Hautevilliers; which show that this Author made the Lamentations of France Ravaged by the Normans, and the Lives of S. Nivard Archbishop of Reims, Sindulphus a Recluse and Priest, the Empress S. Helena, and the History of the Translation of her Relics [from Rome] to the Monastery of Hautevilliers, with several other Works.  
Adelinus, [or Adelelinus, or Adelmus] succeeded Hildebrand in the Bishopric of Seez after 877, and governed that Church till the Year 910. He wrote the Life of S. Opportuna the Abbess, 
Adelinus' Bishop of Seez.  Sister of Godegrand the first Bishop of Seez. It was published by Surius, Bollandus, in April 22, and by F. Mabillon in Tome 2. Saec. Benedict. III.  
Otfredus, a Benedictine Monk of the Abbey of Weissenburg, and Scholar of Rabanus, Composed 
Otfredus a Monk of Weissemburg.  an History of the Gospel in the Teutonick Tongue, that the People that did not understand the Greek nor Latin, might read and understand the Gospel. He divided this Work into five Books, which contained the principal circumstances of the Life of Jesus Christ, taken out of the Four Evangelists, and digested into the order of Time. He Dedicated it to Luctbertus' Archbishop of Mentz, by a Latin Letter which he used instead of a Preface; it is Printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum; but the Work itself is not yet made Public. Trithemius makes mention of some other Treatises of this Author, Dedicated to King Lewis, Bishop Solomon, and the monks of S. Gallus. Three Volumes upon the Psalms; a Treatise of the last Judgement; another of the Joys of Heaven, several Letters, and many pieces of Poetry.  
Aldrevaldus' [Aldelbertus] and Albertus, a Monk of Fleury lived towards the end of the 9th. Age. He wrote an History of the Translation of S. Benedict and S. Scholastica, and a Book of 
Aldrevaldus a Monk of Fleury. Asserius Bishop of Sherburn.  the Miracles of S. Benedict. These works are in the Library of the Monastery of Fleury.  
Asserius, [Menevensis] Bishop of [Sherburn in] England, flourished about 890, and died in 909. He wrote the History of the Acts of Alfredus his King, which was Printed in 1602 at Francfort, with other English Historians; [Bale says he wrote the Annals of England, some Homilies, and some other Works, but we have them not. He is accounted an Author of good Credit.]  
We must not forget the Martyrologies which were perfected in this Age. In the beginning of the last Century, venerable Bede took much pains in this matter, and made two Martyrologies, the one in Prose, the other in Verse, but both of them being Imperfect, Florus a Deacon 
Florus, a Deacon of Lions.  of the Church of Lions, made several Additions to Bede's Martyrology, in the Age we are speaking of, and put it almost into that form it is at present in, as is observed by Bollandus, who hath published the true Martyrology of Bede, with Florus' Additions, in his 2. Tom of March.  
Wandelbert, a Deacon and Monk of Prom, a Monastery in the Diocese of Treves, composed 
Wandelbert, a Monk of Prom.  about the year 850, a Martyrology, in [Heroick] Verse, taken out of Bede and Florus. Sigebert and Trithemius make mention of him. It has been Printed under the name of Bede at the end of Bede's Ephemerideses in the Basil Edition, and afterwards by Molanus at the end of Usuardus' Martyrology. But F. Dacherius hath Printed it more exact and correct in Tom. 3 Spicileg.  
About the same time also Rabanus Composed a Martyrology, Published by Canisius, in the 
Rabanus of Mentz.  VI Tome of his Ecclesiastical Antiquities.  
After him Ado, Archbishop of Vienna Composed a Work of the same nature more exact than 
Ado Archbishop of Vienna.  any of the former: He modelled it by an ancient Martyrology, which he found at Aquileia, brought thither from Rome, which contained the Names, Qualities, and various Torments of the Saints that suffered Martyrdom. He hath put at the beginning of his Martyrology a small Tract of the Festivals of the Apostles, in which he writes the History of their Martyrdom. The same Author hath made a short Chronology from the beginning of the World to the Birth of Charles the Simple, the Son of Lewis the Stammerer, which was in 879 of our Account. He divides the duration of the World into six Ages; The 1. is from the Creation of the World to the Flood. The 2. From the Flood to the Birth of Abraham. The 3. From Abraham to David. The 4. From David to the Captivity in Babylon. The 5. From the Captivity to the Birth of our Saviour. And the 6. From the Nativity of Jesus Christ to the end of the World. This Chronology is Printed with the Works of Gregory Bp. of Tours at Paris, in 1512, and 1567., and at Basil 1568, [and by itself at Paris in 1522.] It is also inserted in the Biblioth. Patr. [Tom 16, p. 768.] His Martyrology is Published by Lippomannus in the Lives of the Fathers; and after by Bollandus in his Supplement to Surius, and last of all by Rosweidus, who first Printed the ancient Martyrology which Ado had put before his Works [at Antwerp in 1613, and at Paris in 1645.] There are also two Lives which bear the name of Ado; the one is of Desiderius Archbishop of Vienna, put out by Canisius in his Antiquities; and the other is of S. Theudorius an Abbot of the same City, published by F. Mabillon in Tome 1. of his Saec. Benedict. Some think this Author Died in 814. which makes some say, that he added some years to his Chronology; but to me it seems not probable. It is most agreeable to Truth to six his death a little after 879.  
Lastly, Usuardus a Monk of S. Germane de Prez, 
a A Monk of S. Germane.] Some make him the Abbot of Fulda and others the Abbot of S. Saviour's, but it is evident that he was a Monk of S. Germane, by an ancient Manuscript of that Abbey. Some call him Isuard  hath composed a Martyrology more considerable 
Usuardus, a Monk of S. Germane de Prez.  than any of the former, under the Reign of the Emperor 
b Charles the Bald] His Book was Dedicated to Charles, some have thought it was to Charles the Great; but Aimonius a Monk of S. Germane, in his Translation of the Martyrs, Gregory, Aurelius, etc. observes, that Usuard lived in 858, and we find in that Martyrology, the Names of Eulogius and other Martyrs that suffered in Spain, in 857. In an ancient Manuscript of this Martyrology which may be thought the Original, we find the Death of Queen Hermentruda set down in the first place, and Charles in the second, which shows that 'twas Written after the year 869, in which the Queen died, and before 875, in which the death of Charles the Bald happened.  Charles the Bald, to whom he Dedicated it in 870. This Work being much larger and more perfect than any that were written before upon the same Subject, was much approved and well accepted in all Churches which began to make use of it in their Offices. Some think also that the Church of Rome took it into their Services and used it, before they had one of their own. This Martyrology hath been Printed at Antwerp in 1538t and at Louvain in 1568 [with Molanus' Notes and Additions] and since in several other places [as Antwerp 1583, with Hissel's Censure; but all that was displeasing to the Papists, is left out of this Edition, as Usher tells us in his Biblioth. Theol. M S.]  
To these Author's might have been added Gildas, who made a Calendar of the Saints, of which 
Gildas.  Bishop Usher hath Printed the Preface, [in Epist. Heb. Syll. p. 55,] and some other Authors of the IXth Age, which are purposely omitted, as well as some Historical matters of little or no Consequence, which we could not think necessary to put into this Work; for it is not our design to make complete Annals year by year, but only to explain the most important Matters treated of in this Age, which is the principal and most profitable part of Ecclesiastical History; for in that our particular Enquiry ought not to be after a mere Narration of Matters of Fact, which is of little use, but what concerns the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church, and upon Questions and Works of that nature it is that we have chief insisted: That our Reader may have a competent knowledge of them, we shall account it a very great happiness if this Work may be serviceable in any measure to clear the difficult Questions and confirm the important Doctrines of the Christian Religion. But how severe so ever others Censures may be upon it, it will be always some comfort to us that we have laboured in and aimed at so good a Design; and we hope that though our pains may not have the wished for Effect among Men, yet it shall be of some real advantage to us with him who knows and rewards the good Intentions as well as the good Actions of Men, according to the words of S. Bernard Ep. 360, Laboravimus, quantum potuimus, & si quo minus impetravimus, quod optavimus, manet tamen fructus Laboris nostri, apud Deum, apud quem nullum bonum irremuneratum est in fine.   

Chronological Tables, And other Necessary INDICES & TABLES.  
A. C Pope's. Eastern Emperors. Western Emperors. Kings of France, Italy, Lor rain, etc. Ecclesiastical Affairs. Councils. Ecclesiastical Writers. 801 Leo III. in the VI year of his Pope-dom, which began Jan. 801. Irene in the iv year of her Emp. which began, August, 800. Charles the Great, crowned by Leo III on Christma●-day, 800. 
Lewis K. of Aquitain.  
Pepin K. of Italy, in the XX. year of his Reign.  The Empress Irene maintains the Worship of Images. The Constitutions of Charles the Great added to the Laws of the Lombard's. 
Theodorus restores the Monastery of Studa.  
Hincmarus' made Abbot of S. Dyonies.  
Gottescalchus, born about the beginning of this Age or end of the last.  
Paschasius brought up by the Monks of Soissons.  
Hatto chosen Bishop of Basil, flourished in 836.  
Rabanus, having been instructed in his Studies at Tours, returned to the Abbey of Fulda.  802 VII. V Nicephorus deposed Irene, and took the Empire, Oct. 31. 802. II. XXI. Nicephorus maintains the Worship of Images also. 
Other Constitutions of Charles the Great, given to his Commissioners.  
The Council of Altino, held by Paulinus Bishop of Aquileia, about the Injuries done by the Duke of Venice to the Patriarch of Grado.  Ludger made Bishop of Munster. 803 VIII. II. Irene died in August, and Nicephorus III. XXII.  A Council at Aix la Chapelle, at which Paulinus, Archbishop of Aquileia was present, Paulinus, Patriarch of Aquileia, died.   having put Bardanes to flight, took his Son Stauratius to rule with him.    
in which several Canons were made.  
A Council at Clovisho in England.   804 IX. Leo came into France in November, and kept his Christmas with Charles the Great. III. iv XXIII.  
Some Constitutions made at Salz.  
An Edict made at Osnaburg about the Instructing of Schools.  Alcuinus died. 805 X. iv V XXIV.  
A Council at Thionville, which made several Canons.  
Other Constitutions given to Jesse Bishop of Amiens.  Joseph Bishop of Thessalonica, Brother of Theodorus Studita, a Patron of Images. 806 XI. V VI XXV. 
Nicephorus chosen Patriarch of Constantinople, instead of Tarasius.  
The Contest between Nicephorus and Theodorus Studita, about the Restoration of Joseph, Steward of the Church of Constantinople.  
A Council at Constantinople, about the Restoration of Joseph the Steward.  
Some Constitutions taken out of the Canons.   807 XII. VI VII. XXVI.    408 XIII. VII. VIII. XXVII.    809 XIV. VIII. IX. XXVIII. 
The Controversy about the Marriage of Constantine, Copronymus and Theodora, the Empress being divorced & put into a Monastery.  
Theodorus Studita put in Prison,  
The Conference of Leo III. with the Ambassadors  
A Synod held at Constantinople, against Theodorus; in which Constantine's Marriage with Theodora was declared valid and good.  
A Council at Aix la Chapelle, in November, about the Procession of the Holy Spirit, which was  Theodorus Studita made a Treatise of Dispensations, contrary to the Approbation that the Council of Constantinople had given to the second Marriage of Constantine.      of Charles the Great, about the addition of the Filioque in the Creed. 
followed with a Conference of the Deputies of it with Pope Leo.  
The Constitutions of this Year.   810 XV. IX. X. XXIX. Pepin died and Bernard his natural Son succeeded him. Sergius and some other Manichees, renew their Heresy at Constantinople.  
Paschasius made a Monk of Corby, and gins to write.  
Benedict, Abbot of Aniane, reforms the Order of S. Benedict, and gathered Rules.  811 XVI. Nicephorus was slain by the Bulgarians, July 26. and his Son, Stauratius, reigned a few Months, after him, and then gave Place to Michael Curopolates, who was proclaimed Emperor Octob. 5. XI. II. 
The Reconciliation of Theodorus Studita, with Nicephorus.  
Several French Bishops answer Charles the Great's Questions about Baptism.  
Hatto Bishop of Basil sent to the Emperor of the East, to conclude a Peace and settle the Limits of their Empire.  The Articles and Letter of Charles the Great, in which he commands the Bishops to write about the Ceremonies of Baptism. 
Nicephorus' Letter to Pope Leo, and his other Works. He flourished from 806 to 828.  
Theodorus Studita wrote several Letters about Image-Worship; and made many other Pieces in his Banishment.  
Amalarius, Archbishop of Treves, Jesse Bishop of Amiens, etc. answer Charles' Letter about the Ceremonies of Baptism.  812 XVII. I. XII. III. The Emperor Michael joined with Nicephorus to destroy the Manichees, and Iconoclasts.  Michael Syncellus. 813 XVIII. II. Michael being conquered by the Bulgarians, left his Empire to Leo Are menus, who was crowned by the Patriarch Nicephorus, July 11. XIII. Charles th' Great admits Lewis the godly to rule with him, and confirms the Kingdom of Italy to Bernard. iv Amaliarius, Archbishop of Treves, and Peter Abbot of Nonantula, Ambassadors of Charles the Great, went to Constantinople in this year. 
Councils held at Reims, Arles, Tours and Chalon in May, for the Reformation of Church-discipline  
Some Constitutions of Charles the Great, in this year  
The Council of Constantinople against Anthony of Silea.  Nicetas, surnamed Ignatius, the Son of the Emperor Michael, is banished by Leo into a Monastery. 814 XIX. I. XIV. Charles the Great died, Jan. 28. and Lewis the Godly ruled alone. V Leo Armenus, declares against Image-Worship, and prosecutes the Favourers of it, and imprisons or banishes Theodorus Studita, Nicetas, etc. in favour of the Iconoclasts. 
A Council of the Iconoclasts at Constantinople.  
A Council at Noion to regulate the Differences between the Bishops of that Church and that  Rabanus ordained Priest.      Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople banished, and Theodosius put in his place. 
of Soisons, about the Bounds of their Dioceses.  
The Synod of Treves.   815 XX. II. II. VI 
Claudius' Clemens opposes the Worship of Images, and is confured by Ionas and Dungal.  
Some of the Exiles for Image-Worship are recalled.   
Claudius Cl. Bishop of Turin wrote a Treatise against Images and some other Books.  
Gotteschalchus made a Monk of the Monastery of Orbez.  
Agobard chosen Archbishop of Lions; he made several Books.  816 XXI. Leo died, May 23. and Steven iv succeed'd him, June 22. III. III. VII.  
The Council of Aix-la-Chapelle; in which were made two Rules, 1 for Canons, 2 for Canonesses, and some Constitutions afterward.  
The Council of Celichith in England.  Theodorus and Theophanes, Patrons of Images. 817 I. Steven died Jan. 10 and Paschal I. was chosen in his Place.  IU. Lotharius the Son of Lewis the Godly is admitted to rule with his Father. Bernard rebels against Lewis the Godly, is taken, and his Eyes being put out, dies 3 Days after.  A Council of Abbots and Monks at Aix-la-Chapelle, where they made Rules for the Regulation of Monasteries. Hincmarus came to the Emperor's Court. 818 II. V V Pepin is made K. of Aquitain and Lewis K. of Bavaria. Pope Paschal sends his Legates into the East to treat for the Monks, who were Defenders of Images.  Aegil chosen Abbot of Fulda. Sedulius. 819 III. VI VI II. John, an Enemy to Image-Worship, is made Patriarch of Constantinople. Several Constitutions made by Lewis the Godly.  820 IU. VII. Leo Armenus slain by Michael Balbus, who succeeded him. VII. III. Michael Balbus stops the Persecution of the Patrons of Images, recalls Theodorus, and the rest, except Nicephorus.  
Eginhard, Secretary to Charles the Great.  
Claudius' of Turin dies.  
Adelard Abbot of Corby made some Rules.  
Halitgarius Bishop of Cambray made a Paenitentia.  
Amalarius Deacon of Mentz made a Treatise upon the Ceremonies of the Church.  821  1 VIII. iv 
Michael endeavours to bring the Iconoclasts and Image- Worshippers to an Agreement.  
Anthony Byrsodepsa made Patriarch of Constantinople.  A Council at Thionville in October. The Death of Theodulphus, Bishop of Orleans, and Benedict Abbot of Amiens. 822 VI. II. IX. V  
Some Constitutions of Lewis the Godly.  
A Council at Clovisho.  
An Assembly of Bishops at Attigni in August.  
Theosterictus.  
The Death of Aegil Abbot of Fulda, and Rabanus chosen in his Place.  
Two Smaragdus's flourish.  823 VII. III. X. The Birth of Charles the Bald. VI The Emperor Michael sent his Ambassadors into the West, to have his Pacification about the use of Images confirmed, but the Pope would not.   824 VIII. Paschal died May 14. and Eugenius II. was consecrat.ed M. 21. iv XI. VII. The Bishops of France agreed to it, and sent their Deputies to the Pope about it, adding some Writings concerning it. A Council at Paris concerning Image-Worship.  825 II. V XII VIII. Lewis the Godly sent Halitgarius Bishop of Cambray and Abbot of Nonantula into the East.   826 III. VI XIII. IX.  
A Synod at Rome.  
An Assembly at Ingelheim.  Theodorus Studita died, and Naucratius his Scholar wrote his Life. 827 IU. Zinzius the Antipope relinquishing it, and Eugenius and Valentine, who survived his Election but a Month and a few Days, Gregory iv succeeded them, Jan. 10. VII. XIV. X.    828 I. VIII. XV. XI.    829 II. IX. Theophilus the Son of Michael succeeded XVI. XII. Lewis the Godly gave Rhaetia and  Councils were held at Mentz, Lions, Toulouze and Paris, in June, by order of Lewis Hincmarus returned to the Abbey of S. Dionys, and submits to the Reformation   him in October.  part of Burgogne, to Charles the Bald.  
the Godly, to restore the Discipline of the Church  
A Council held at Worms in August, in confirm the 4 former Councils.  settled by the Abbot Hilduin. 830 III. I. XVII. Lewis the Godly's Children rebel against their Father, and imprison him in S. Medard at Soissons; but he was restored by the Synod of Nimeguen. XIII.   
Hincmarus went with Hilduin into Saxony.  
Ansegisus, Abbot of S. Wandrelle, made a Collection of Constitutions.  
Orthogrinus, a Monk of Werthin.  
Vufinus, Boetius, Hildemarus.  
The Death of Halitgarius of Camlin.  831 IU. II. XVIII. XIV.  The Council of Noion, in which Jesse Bishop of Amiens was deposed. Paschasius made his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord. 832 V. III. XIX. XV.    833 VI. iv XX. Lewis the Godly's Children conspire against him again, & deposing him, put him into a state of Penance, by Ebbo, but he was soon after restored. XVI. Gregory went into France to excommunicate Lewis the Godly; and the Bishops of that Kingdom told him, That if he excommunicated their Prince, they would excommunicate him. A Synod of Bishops at Campeigne, in which Ebbo, Archbishop of Rheims presided, and deposed Lewis the Godly. Agobard wrote a sad Letter about the Divisions of Europe. 834 VII. V XXI. XVII.  A Synod of Bishops at S. Dionys, to restore Lewis the Godly. Hincmarus came to Court. 835 VIII. VI XXII. XVIII. Ebbo, Archbishop of Reims deposed, for causing Lewis the Godly to relinquish his Kingdom. 
The Council of Thionville, in which Ebbo was deposed.  
A Council at Attigny, in November.   836 IX. VII. XXIII. XIX.  A Council at Aix-la-Chapelle, in February. The Death of Hatto, Bishop of Basil.       A Council at Lions, against Agobard, and Bernard Bishop of Vienna, for joining with Lotharius.  837 X. VIII. XXIV. XX.    838 XI. IX. XXV. XXI. The Death of Pepin K. of Aquitain, in November.  
A Council at Chaalons.  
A Synod at Paris, in which Agobard was cleared and restored.   839 XII. X. XXVI. Lewis the Godly gives the kingdom to his Son Charles, with whom Pepin the late K's eldest Son contended for it.    140 XIII. XI. XXVII. Lewis the Godly died at Ingelheim, near Mentz, June 20th, and Lotharius became sole Emperor and invaded France but Charles the Bald kept the possession of it. Lotharius endeavours to restore Ebbo, but could not.  
Gotteschalcus ordained Priest.  
Hincmarus retires into the Abbey of S. Dionys.  
Paschasius undertakes a Comment on S. Matthew.  
Two nameless Authors writ against Paschasius.  
Prudentius ordained Bishop of Troy's.  
Walafridus Strabo, Agobard dies.  841 XIV. XII. Michael succeeds his Father Theophilus, but under the Guardianship of Theodota his Mother. I.    
Amolo succeeds Agobard in the Archbishopric o● Lions, and writes some Books.  
Haimo is chosen Bishop of Alberstadt, and goes on with his Comment on Scripture  
Theganus wrote about the same time.  842 XV. I. II. The 3 Sons of Lewis the Godly, after a long War, John, the Image- Breaker, deposed, and Methodius made Patriarch A Council at Constantinople against the ●conoclasts, in which      agree to divide the Empire, Italy, Lorraine and Burgogne to Lotharius; Germany to Lewis, and France to Charles. of Constantinople. John Patriarch of Constantinople was deposed, and Methodius put in his Place.  843 XVI. II. III.   
A Synod of Bishops at Couleines in the Diocese of Mons; in which were made some Canons.  
An Assembly at Toulouse; where were made other Constitutions.  
Another Synod at Aurillac.   844 Gregory IV. died Jan. 25. and Sergius II. succeeded him. Feb. 2 III. iv   Two Councils held at Thionville and Vernevil, in October and December. 
Hincmarus' chosen and ordained Archbishop of Rheims in May.  
Paschasius made Abbot of Corby.  845 II. iv V  A Dispute between Paschasius and Bertramus about the manner of Jesus Christ's coming into the World. A Council at 

Meux in May  
Beauvais in April.  
Toulouse in June.  
Treves, to confirm the Ordination of Hincmarus.  
Lions.   
Hincmarus is opposed by Lotharius.  
His Ordination is confirmed in a Council at Treves.  
Joannes Scotus came into France.  846 III. V VI  Gotteschalcus began to assert Predestination & Grace. 
A Council at Paris in February.  
An Assembly of Bishops at Epernay.  Gotteschalcus' leaves his Monastery, and divulges his Doctrine. 847 Leo iv succeeds Sergius, April 12. VI VII.  
Ignatius ordained Patriarch of Constantinople.  
Gotteschalcus confers with Notingus.  
Rabanus writes against him.  
A Council at Paris, in which Hincmarus' Ordination is confirmed.  
A Council at Mentz.  
Rabanus chosen Archbishop of Mentz.  
A Writing of Rabanus against Gotteschalcus.  848 II. VII. VIII.  Gotteschalcus writes against Rabanus, and propounds 3 Questions to the Learned Men of his time, he is condemned in two Councils, at Mentz and Queircy, and imprisoned in the Abbey at Haute Villium. Two Councils at Mentz and Queircy against Gotteschalcus, about the same time. 
A Book of Gotteschalcus against Rabanus, and two Confessions of Faith made by him in his Imprisonment.  
Hincmarus wrote a Book against him. Charles  849 III. VIII. IX.  Charles the Bald orders Lupus of Ferrara and Bertram to write about the Questions of Predestination and Grace, and of the Nature of the Soul. A Council at Paris. 
Bertram wrote a Letter against Hincmarus' Book.  
Prudentius wrote also upon the same Subject.  850 IU. IX. X.  
The Controversy about Predestination & Grace grows famous, and many Writings pass on both sides.  
A Dispute about the Eucharist, between Paschasius and his Adversaries.  A Council of the Province of Sens, which wrote a Letter to Arcantaus. 
Hincmarus and Rabanus wrote against Gotteschalcus. Lupus of Ferrara made a Treatise and two Letters upon the 3 Questions, and wrote several other Letters.  
Bertram and J. Scotus made their Treatises of Predestination. Prudentius and Florus confute Scotus. Amalanus' Letter to Eribald upon the Question of Stercoranism. Hermanricus, Rodolphus, Hermantarius, Milo and Vandalbert flourish.  851 V. X. XI.  Ebbo, once Archbishop of Rheims, died, March 17.  
Amolo, Archbishop of Lions wrote to Hincmarus.  
Hincmarus wrote to the Church of Lions.  852 VI. XI. XII. Lotharius admits his Son Lewis to rule with him.    
The Church of Lions send a sharp Answer to Hincmarus.  
Hincmarus' Constitutions for his own Church, published Nou. 1.  853 VII. XII. XIII.  
Hincmarus hath his 4 Articles confirmed at Quiercy.  
Prudentius opposes them.  
Walfadus and the Clerks ordained by Ebbo, are degraded at the Council of Soissons.  
Councils at Soissons, Apr. Verbery in Aug. Quiercy.  
Sens, to elect a Bishop of Paris.  
Rome, in December.  
The Four Articles of Queircy.  
Some Articles drawn up by Prudentius in opposition to those approved at Quiercy.  854 VIII. XIII. XIV.  The Church of Lions opposes the Articles of Quiercy. An Assembly of Bishops at Attigny. The Church of Lion's cause Remigius, the Archbishop to confute the Articles of Quiercy. 855 IX. Leo IU. XIV. Michael XV. Lotharius Lotharius' Children The Decision of the Council of The Council of Valence The Treatise of Bertram and J. Scotus  died July 17th and Benedict 3 was chosen in his Place. I. deposed his Mother Theodota, by the advice of Barda, whom he made Caesar. retired into the Monastery, of Prom, and died Sept. 28. and Lewis II. succeeded him. divide the Kingdom Lewis the eldest had Italy and the Empire, Lotharius Lorraine, & Charles Provence. Valence about the Questions of Predestination and Grace. held in January. about the Sacrament, against Paschasins. 856 II. XV. II. Judith, Daughter of Charles the Bald, married to Ethelwolf King of England. The Canons of the Council of Valence. The Letters of the Church of Lions, and J. Scotus' Propositions are delivered to Charles the Bald who gave them to Hinomarus, to examine and answer them. Benedict approved the Judgement given against the Clerks ordained by Ebbo. An Assembly of Bishops at Bonnevil. 
The Death of R●banus, the Author of a great number of Works  
Herard, Archbishop of Tours makes a Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws.  
Hincmarus made a Treatise about Predestination and freewill, upon the occasion of the Canons of the Council of Valence.  
Angelomus, a Monk of Lexevil, composed his Comments upon Holy Scripture.  857 III. XVI. III.   
The Council of Quiercy in February.  
A Synod of the Clergy at Rheims in June.  Some other Constitutions of Hincmarus, for his own Church, added to the former. 858 IU. Benedict III. died, April 8. & Nicholas I made, April 22. XVII. iv  Photius made Patriarch of Constantinople, and Ignatius deposed about Christmas. A Council at Quiercy in November. 
Hincmarus' Advice to Lewis of Germany.  
Photius, a Person admirable for his Knowledge and Learning, made several Works.  859 II. XVIII. V  
The Canons of the Council of Valence, about Grace, were presented to the Councils of Langres and Savonnieres for their Approbation, but they put it off to a fuller Council.  
Hincmarus' Nephew of the Archbishop of Rheims, made Bishop of Laon.  
Councils at Constantinople against Ignatius.  
Langres, Metz, and Savonnieres, in June.  
Hincmarus' Exhortation to Charles the Bald.  
The Death of Eulogius the Martyr.  
Alvarus his Brother writes.  
Ado succeeds Augibrom in the Archbishop. ●ick of Vienna.  860 III. XIX. VI  
Prudentius carries the Business to Rome, and desires the Confirmation of Pope Nicholas of the Canons of the Council of Valence.  
The Contest between Hincmarus and Bertram about the Words Trina Deitas.  
Lotharius nulls his Marriage with Theutberga. Gonthierus consults Hincmarus about Ingeltrude, the Wife of Baldwin, who had left her Husband.  
Another Question of the Divorce between the Daughter of Earl Raimond and Steven.  
Councils at Aix-la-Chapelle about the Divorce of Theutberga, in February.  
Coblentz, Toussy, near Toul, in October.  
Photius' Letter to Pope Nicholas, and the Pope's Answer to it.  
Hincmarus makes his last Treatise of Predestination.  
The Treatises of Hincmarus and Bertram about the Words Trina Deitas.  
Hincmarus' Treatise against the Divorce of Queen Theutberga. Hincmarus' answer to Gonthierus, about the parting of the Wife of Boson.  
Another Letter of Hincmarus about the Separation of Earl Ramand's Daughter and Steven.  861 IU. XX. VII.  The Prosecution of Ignatius. The Council of Constantinople of 318 Bishops, in the Presence of Zachary and Rodoaldus, who confirmed Photius' Ordination and Ignatius' deposition. Hugbaldus and Iso write. 362 V. XXI. VIII.  Lotharius married Waldrada. 
Councils at Sablonieres, Piste, Rome, which declared Photius' Ordination void, restored Ignatius, and condemned Zachary and Rodoaldus.  
Aix-la-chapelle, about the Divorce of Theutberga.  Pope Nicholas' Letter in favour of Ignatius. 363 VI. XXII. IX.  
Hincmarus accuses Rothadus to the Council of Senlis, but he appealed to the Holy See. He was condemned; the Pope engages for him.  
A Council at Metz approves the Marriage of Lotharius with Waldrada.  
Pope Nicholas, in a Councildeclares the divorce of Queen Theutbarga null, and excommunicates  
Councils at Metz, about the Marriage of Waldrada.  
Rome against the former.  
Senlis against Rothadus.        
Waldrada, deposing Gonthierus and Thietgaldus.  
King Charles pardons Earl Baldwin for stealing his Daughter Judith.    864 VII. XXIII. X.  Lotharius is forced by a Council to take Theutbrga, but he used her so ill that she left him soon after. A Council at Rome against Rodoaldus. 
Pope Nicholas writes to Charles the Bald, against Hincmarus and other Bishops, in favour of Rothadus. Hincmarus writes an Answer, to justify himself.  
Paschasius writes a Letter to Frudegarius about the Expressions he found fault with in his Book of the Eucharist. Scotus went into England.  865 VIII. XXIV. XI.  Rothadus went to Rome and was absolved there. 
A Council at Rome, to restore Rothadus.  
A Council at Tossy.  
Pope Nicholas' Discourse in favour of Rothadus.  
The Death of Paschasius.  866 IX. XXV. Michael puts Bardas' to Death, in April, and make Basilius Caesar. XII  
Pope Nicholas writes in favour of Rothadus, and he is restored.  
The Pope's Orders, That the Judgement be reviewed, which was given against the Clerks ordained by Ebbo, which being considered on at a Council of Soissons, they were restored without any Reflection on the Sentence given against them.  
Pope Nicholas writes against the Sentence.  
Photius' Council against Pope Nicholas.  
A Council held at Soissons, in Aug.  
The Council of Compeigne.  
Pope Nicholas' Letter against Photius, and for Ignatius.  
Bertram, Aeneas and Odo answer the Accusations of the Greeks against the Latin Church  
Pope Nicholas' Letters for the Restauration of Rothadus.  
Some Papers of Hincmarus presented to the Council of Soissons.  
Pope Nicholas' Letters for the Restoration of the Clerks ordained by Ebbo.  867 X. Nicolas I. died, Nou. 13. and Adrian TWO succeeded him, December 14. Basilius puts Michael to Death, & reigned alone, September 24 I. XIII.  
Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople restored and Photius deposed.  
Books of Controversies between the Latin and Greek Church.  
The Bishops of France and Charles the Bald writ to the Pope about the Clerks ordained by Ebbo and and the Churches of Britain.  
Council at Troy's in October.  
At Soissons again.  
Hincmarus' Letter to Pope Nicolas.  
Anastasius Bibliothecarius became famous, and flourished to the end of this Age  868 I. II. XIV.  
P. Adrian writes to the French Bishops about the business of Ebbo.  
Hincmarus, Bishop of Laon contends with Charles the Bald about the Church-Revenues.  A Council at Worms in May. 
Pope Adrian's Letter to the Bishops of France.  
Hincmarus' Letter to Charles the Bald, in favour of his Nephew Hincmarus.  869 II. III. Basilius takes Leo his Son to rule with him. XV. Lotharius K. of Lorraine dies at Plaisance, Aug. 10. as also Charles K. of Provence, and Charles the Bald invades his Kingdom, 〈◊〉 and parts it with Lewis King of Bavaria. 
Hincmarus, Bishop of Laon is accused at the Council of Verbery, desires to go to Rome, and interdicts his Diocese.  
The Judgement of the VIII. General Council against Photius and his Adherents.  
Councils. At Verbery in April, Piste.  
Metz in September.  
Constantinople. The VIII General Council, which began Octob. 5. and ended Feb. ult.  
Luctbertus, Archbishop of Mentz, wrote a Letter to King Lewis.  
Rembert, Archbishop of Brime.  870 III. iv XVI.  
Hincmarus Bishop of Rheims, and Hincmarus Bishop of Laon quarrel; this is accused at the Council of Antigni, and appeals to the Pope, who appoints some Lay- Commissioners that gave their Judgement for him.  
A Contest between the Pope's Legates and the Patriarch of Constantinople about Bulgaria.  
The Pope's Legates passing with out a Guard, are taken by the Sclavonians.  A Council at Antigny in May. 
Petrus Siculus, Theodorus Alucara and Georgius Chartophylax flourish.  
Hincmarus, Archbishop of Rheims' Letter to his Nephew, about the business of Nivinus and Adulphus. His Answer, and several Papers that passed between them.  
A Collection of Canons, gathered by Hincmarus, Bishop of Laon, in his own Defence.  
A Treatise of 55 Articles made by Hincmarus. Gauterius Bishop of Orleans made a Collection of Canons for his own Diocese.  
Walfadus Archbishop of Bourges wrote a Pastoral Letter.  
Ado and Alsuard compose Martyrologies.  871 IU. V XVII.  
Hincmarus Bishop of Laon condemned in the Synod at Douzy.  
Actardus Bishop of Nantes made Archbishop of Tours.  
Pope Adrian dislikes the Condemnation  A Synod at Douzy in August. 
Pope Adrian's Letter in favour of Caroloman. The Petition and Memoir of Hincmarus Archbishop of Rheims to the Synod of Douzy.  
The Letters of the Synod, Hincmarus and Charles to the Pope.       of Hincmarus, but allows the Promotion of Actardus, nevertheless the Sentence passed against Hincmarus was executed.  Adrian's Letter to the Emperor Basil, in which he approves the Council of Constantinople, and defends his Right in Bulgaria. 872 V. Adrian II. died, Nou. 1. & John VIII succeeded him, Dec. 14. VI XVIII.    Alfridus is crowned King of England. 873 I. VII. XIX.   The Council of Senlis.  874 II. VIII. XX. Lewis II. died, Aug. 31.   The Council of Dowzy in June, of Attigni in July, and at Rheims.  875 III. IX. Charles the Bald crowned Emperor on Christmas-day.  John VIII. confirms the Judgement of the Synod of Dowzy.  
Hincmarus's Re-Monstrance to Lewis of Germany, to keep him from invading the Empire and Italy. Hincmarus' Letter to the Bishop of Cambray, about the Condemnation of Hanoldus.  
Hincmarus' Letter to Ildebold Bishop of Soissons, upon his Confession in Writing.  876 IU. X. I. Lewis of Germany, left his Kingdom by his Death, to his 3 Sons, Carloman had Bavaria, Lewis Germany and part of Lorraine, & Charles the other part of Lorraine and Almania. 
The Prerogative granted to Ansegisus Archbishop of Seus, by John VIII. examined in a Council at Pontigon.  
The Translation of Frotarius, Archbishop of Bourdeaux to the Church of Bourges.  
The Council of Pavia in February.  
Council of Pontigon in July and June.  Hincmarus wrote against the Oath he was obliged to take. 877 V. XI. II. Charles the Bald poisoned in his return from Italy, Oct. 6. and the Lewis Balbus succeeded Charles the Bald, and was crowned King.  A Council at Rome to confirm the Empire to Charles the Bald. Councils at Queircy in June, at Ravenna in August, and at Compeigne Hincmarus' Letter about the Appeals of Clerks to the Holy See. His Advice to Lewis Balbus. His Writing about the Duties of Bishops.    Empire was vacant. December 8.  in November. Some Articles for his Archdeacon's, and a Letter concerning the Vision of Bernoldus. 878 VI. XII.   Hincmarus Bishop of Laon provides for himself at the Council of Troy's, and is dealt favourably with. The condemnation of a Priest of the Diocese of Rheims. John VIII claims Bulgaria, and contends with Ignatius about it. Ignatius dying, Octob. 23. Photius made Patriarch of Constantinople again. The Council of Troy's in August.  879 VII. XIII. Leo crowned Emperor, Jan. 6.  Lewis Balbus died at Compeign, April 19 Photius being restored after the Death of Ignatius, John VIII. consents to it on certain Conditions. 
Two Councils at Rome, the latter of which was about the Restoration of Photius.  
A Council at Constantinople to confirm it.  
A Council at Arles to restore Boson.  
Hincmarus' Advice to Lewis and Caroloman.  
Some Letters and a Writing of John VIII. about the Restoration of Photius.  880 VIII. XIV.  Lewis III. and Caroloman, K. of the western part of France, Burgogne and Aquitain. Caroloman K. of Bavaria dies, and Lewis of Gerwany seizes on his Kingdom. John VIII. approves the Restoration of Photius.  
Some Letters of John VIII. wherein he approves the Restoration of Photius.  
O●fredus, Henricus, Druthmarus and Remigius Bishop of Auxerre flourish.  881 IX. XV. Charles III. surnamed the Gross, crowned Emperor on Christmas-day.  
A Difference between the King and Bishops about the Nomination of the Bishop of Beuvais.  
John VIII. condemns Photius again, and sends Marinus into the East.  A Council at Fismes in April, to choose a Bishop of Beauvais.  882 X. XVI. I. Lewis of Germany died, Jan. 28. Lewis III. K. of France died at S. Dionys, and left his Kingdom to Caroloman. 
Pope Marinus condemns Photius, and declares his Ordination void.  
Dionys.   Hincmarus Archbishop of Rheims, died, Decemb. 21. 883 II. XVII. II.     884 Adrian III. succeeded Marinus in Jan. I. XVIII. III. Caroloman is slain a hunting, & Charles the Gross obtains all the Kingdoms.  A Council held at Vernevil in March.  885 II. Steven V made Pope, May 9 I.      Pope Steven's Letter to Photius. Aimonius, Abbot Wolfadus, Hetempertus, Altmannus and Alderwaldus flourish in th'West and Theophanes Corameus and Nicetas Paphlago in the East. 886 II. XX. Basil died and Leo VI called the Philosopher, succeeded him. I. V  
The Greeks propound an Agreement about Photius' Ordination, but the Pope refuses it; which causes a Division of the Eastern & Western Churches.  
Photius is deposed by the Emperor Leo.   Leo the Wise succeeds his Father Basil the Emperor. 887 III. II. VI Charles the Gross, growing sluggish, is deserted by his Subjects.   A Council at Cologne in April. Elias Bishop of Jerusalem writes to Charles the Gross. 888 IU. III. 
VII. Charles the Gross died, Jan. 8. and Arnoldus the Natural Son of Caroloman is chosen Emperor of Germany.  
Guy Duke of Spoleto takes to himself the name of Emperor of Italy.  The Empire of Charles the Gross was divided into 5 parts, 1. Arnulphus had Germany 2. Eudes or Odo France, 3. Lewis Arles 4. Raolt Bourgogne, and 5. Guy Italy; but opposed by Beringarius.  A Council at Mentz at the beginning of the Year.  889 V. iv II.    Riculphus, Bishop of Soissons wrote a Pastoral Letter. 890 VI. V III.    
A Nameless Author wrote the Liber Synodicus.  
Asserius, an English Bishop, began to flourish.  891 Formosus, Bishop of Ostium chosen Pope in Steven's room; but opposed by Sergius, the Antipope. VI iv     892 II. VII. V   A Council at Vienna. Regino chosen Abbot of Prom. 893 III. VIII. VI Charles the Simple, the Son of Lewis Balbus, is crowned K. of France, Jan. 17. and disputes about the Kingdom with Eudes.  A Council at Metz in May.  894 IU. IX. VII.   A Council at Challons in May, to try Gerfredus the Monk, who was accused for Poisoning Adalgarius Bishop of Autun.  895 V. X. VIII.   Council of Tribur.  896 After the Death of Formosus Boniface invaded the See; but dying within 15 days, Steven VI. was chosen, Jan. 6. I. XI. IX. Arnulphas takes Rome, and makes himself to be crowned Emperor.     897 II. XII. X.   A Council at Rome against Formosus, lately dead.  898 III. XIII. XI. Eudes died January 3.    899 IU. XIV. XII. Amulphus died Nou. 30.    Regino was deposed from his Place and Dignity, and after made a Chronology, and a Collection of Canons. 900 V. XV. Lewis IU. the Son of Arnulphus is chosen Emperor by the Princes of Germany.    
Auxilius ordained Priest by Formosus, composed some Treatises to maintain the Ordinations made by that Pope.  
Adelinus' composed the Lives of the Saints.    

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE Authors of the Church IN THE NINTH CENTURY.  

NICEPHORUS, PAtriarch of Constantinople; flourished from 806 to his Death, in 828.  
THEODORUS, Abbot of Studa in 800: He was a famous Patron of Images, for which he was banished 3 Times.  
JOSEPH, Bishop of Thessalonica, Brother of Theodorus; and flourished at the same time.  
NAUCRATIUS, A Scholar of Theodorus Studita: About the same Time with the last.  
THEODORUS and THEOPHANES, Brethren: Flourished a little after.  
THEOSTERICTUS, A Monk: About the same time.  
MICHAEL SYNCELLUS, The Syncellus of Nicephorus: Flourished about the beginning of this Age.  
LUDGERUS, Bishop of Munster: From 802, died in 809.  
LEIDRADUS, Archbishop of Lions; raised to it in 806, retreated in 815.  
SERGIUS, An Historian: From 800 to 830.  
CLAUDIUS' CLEMENS, Bishop of Turin: From 810, died in 820.  
DUNGALUS, A Deacon: About the same time.  
LEO III. Bishop of Rome: Made Pope in 795, died in 816.  
HATTO or HETTO, Abbot of Auge and Bishop of Basil: Made Abbot in 796, Bishop in 801, and died in 836.  
JESSE, Bishop of Amiens: Chosen to that See in the beginning of this Age, and deposed in 831.  
ODILBERT, Flourished at the same time.  
AEGIL, Abbot of Fulda; From 818 to 822, died in 822.  
GILDAS, Flourished 820.  
SEDULIUS, About 818.  
EGINHARDUS, Secretary to Charles the Great: Flourished about 820.  
THEGANUS, Suffragan of the Diocese of Treves; flourished at the same time.  
BENEDICT, Abbot of Aniane; flourished in the beginning of this Age, died in 821.  
ARDO SMARAGDUS, S. Benedict's Scholar, flourished after the Death of his Master.  
SMARAGDUS, Abbot of S. Michael; flourished about the same Time.  
ORTHEGRINUS, A Monk of Werthin; flourished about 830.  
ALFRIDUS, Bishop of Munster; chosen Bishop in 839, died in 849.  
PASCHALIS I. Pope: Made in 817, died in 824.  
ADELARDUS, Abbot of Corby; flourished after 810, died in 826.  
EUGENIUS II. Pope; ordained Bishop of Rome in 824, died in 827.  
ANSEGISUS, Abbot of S. Vandrille; flourished about 830, died in 834.  
HALITGARIUS, Bishop of Cambray: Made in 816, died in 830.  
VUFINUS BOETIUS, Bishop of Poitiers; flourished about 830.  
AGOBARDUS, Chosen Archbishop of Lions in 815, died in 840.  
AMALARIUS, Deacon of Metz; flourished about 820, died in 850.  
HILDEMARUS, A Monk; flourished about 830, died in 840.  
GREGORY iv Pope; chosen in 828, died in 844.  
HILDUIN, Abbot of S. Medard at Soissons, S. German, S. Dionys, and Arch-Chaplain to Lewis Godly; reform the Abbey of S. Dionys in 829, died in 838 or 842.  
ANSCHARIUS, Monk of Corby, and Apostle of Denmark: Went to Denmark 836, and made Bishop of Hamburg in 842, died in 865.  
AIMONIUS, Monk of Fulda, and after Bishop of Alberstadt; chosen Bishop in 841, died in 853.  
RABANUS, Abbot of Fulda and Archbishop of Mentz; made Abbot in 822, and Archbishop in 847, died, in 856.  
WALAFRIDUS STRABO, A Monk of Fulda, and after Dean of S. Gallus, and Abbot of Auria Dives; flourished about 840, died in 849.  
AMOLO, Archbishop of Lions, succeeded Agobard in 841. died in 853.  
SERGIUS II. Pope; chosen in 144, died in 847.  
ERMANRICUS, Monk of Elwangen, chosen Abbot in 846, died about 850.  
RODOLPHUS, A Monk of Fulda, and Scholar of Rabanus; flourished about 850, died in 865.  
ERMANTARIUS, Abbot of Noirmantier; flourished about 850.  
MILO called SIGIBERT, A Monk of S. Amandus; flourished about the same Time.  
WANDELBERT, A Deacon and Monk of Prom; flourished about the same time.  
METHODIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople; chosen 841, died in 847.  
HINCMARUS, Archbishop of Rheims; born in 800, made in 844, died in 882.  
GOTTESCHALCUS, A Monk of Orbez; born in the beginning of this Age, left his Monastery in 846, spread his Doctrine in 847, was condemned and imprisoned in 848.  
HINCMARUS, Jun. Bishop of Laon; made 859, deposed in 871, died a little after.  
PASCASIUSRATHBERTUS, Abbot of Corby; Born in the beginning of this Age, made in 844, died in 865.  
BERTRAMUS, Monk of Corby, and after Abbot of Orbez; born about the same time, flourished in the Reign of Charles the Bald, died about 870.  
JO. SCOTUS, Born about the same time, came into France about 850, returned into England in 864, and died in 874.  
Two nameless AUTHORS, Opposers of Paschasius Rathbertus; wrote in 840.  
PRUDENTIUS, Bishop of Troy's; made in 840.  
FLORUS, Deacon of Lions; flourished about 850.  
REMIGIUS, Archbishop of Lions; ordained in 853.  
LUPUS SERVATUS, Abbot of Ferrara; born in the beginning of this Age, chosen in 842, died in 862.  
LEO IU. Pope; chosen in 847.  
EULOGIUS, Martyred at Corduba; flourished about 840, died in 859.  
ALVARUS, His Brother; flourished about the same time, died a little after.  
ODO. Bishop of Beauvais; flourished about 860.  
AENEAS, Bishop of Paris; chosen in 853, died in 170.  
ANGELOMUS, A Monk of Luxevil, flourished after 150.  
BENEDICT III. Pope; elected in 855, died in 858.  
ISAAC, Bishop of Langres; flourished after 850.  
HERARDUS, Archbishop of Tours; chosen in 855, died in 871.  
NICOLAS I. Pope; chosen in 858, died in 867.  
IGNATIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople; made in 847, deposed in 858, restored in 869, died in 877.  
PHOTIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople; made in 858, deposed in 867, restored in 878, deposed again in 886, died in Exile a little after.  
ADRIAN II. Pope; chosen in 867, died in 872.  
HUCBALDUS, A Monk of S. Amandus; flourished from 860 to 900.  
ISO, A Monk of S. Gallus; flourished about 860, died in 871.  
PETRUS SICULUS, Flourished about 870.  
ADO, Archbishop of Vienna; flourished about the same time, died after 879.  
USUARDUS, A Monk of S. German des Prez.  
THEODORUS ABUCARA, Metropolitan of Carca, flourished about the same time.  
ANASTASIUS Bibliothecarius, A Library-Keeper; flourished from 867 to 900.  
GEORGIUS, A Monk, Chartophylax of the Church of Constantinople and Archbishop of Nicomedia; flourished about 870.  
LUITBERTUS, Archbishop of Mentz; flourished about 870.  
WULFADUS, Archbishop of Bourges; ordained in 866, died in 876.  
GAUTERIUS, Bishop of Orleans; flourished about 870.  
OTFREDUS, A Benedictine Monk; flourished about the End of this Age,  
JOHN VIII. Pope; made in 872, died in 882.  
REMBERTUS, Archbishop of Breme; chosen in 165, died in 882.  
HERRICUS, A Monk of S. Germane of Auxerre; flourished about 880.  
DRUTHMARUS, A Monk of Corby; flourished about the end of this Age.  
REMIGIUS, A Monk of S. German at Auxerre, flourished after 880.  
THEOPHANES CEREMEUS, Bishop of Taurimenum in Sicily; flourished about the end of the Age.  
AIMONIUS, A Monk of S. German des Prez; flourished about the same time.  
ABBO, A Monk of S. German des Prez; flourished about the same time.  
WOLFADUS, A Monk of Hasinede; flourished about the same time.  
HEREMPERTUS, A● Monk of Mount Cassin; flourished about the same time.  
ALTMANNUS, A Monk of Haute Villiers; flourished about the same time.  
ALDROVALDUS or ALBERTUS, A Monk of Fleury; flourished about the same time.  
STEVEN V Pope; chosen in 885. died in 891.  
RICULPHUS, Bishop of Soissons; flourished about the end of the Age.  
ELIAS, Patriarch of Jerusalem; flourished about the same time.  
DAVID NICETAS, A Bishop; flourished about the same time,  
ALFREDUS, King of England; crowned in 872, died in 900,  
A nameless AUTHOR, Wrote Liber Synodicus; flourished about the end of the Age.  
FORMOSUS, Pope; chosen in 891, died in 896.  
STEVEN VI Pope; chosen 896, died in 900.  
AUXILIUS. A Priest, ordained by Formosus; flourished about the End of the Age.  
REGINO, Abbot of Prom; chosen 892, died in the next Age.  
ASSERIUS, A Bishop of England; flourished about 890.  
LEO the Wise, Emperor of the East; succeeded his Father Basil in 886, died in 911.  
ADELINUS, Bishop of Se●z; ordained in 877, died in 910▪    

A TABLE of the WORKS of the Ecclesiastical Writers of the Ninth Century.  

NICEPHORUS, Patriarch of Constantinople.  


His Genuine Works still Ext●nt.  
AN Ecclesiastical History, from the Death of Mauritius the Emperor to the Reign of Irene.  
A Letter to Pope Leo III.  
Four Treatises against the ●conoclasts.  
Several Canons. A Canonical Epistle.    


Books lost.  
Three Books of Antirrheticks, against the Council of Constantinople under Copronymus.    


Doubtful Works.  
A Chronology. His Sticometria.     

THEODORUS STUDITA.  


His Genuine Works, which we have.  
An Hundred thirty four Latin Sermons.  
Several Letters.  
Several Sermons and Letters.  
The Life of S. Pl●to.  
A Doctrinal Treatise about the Worship of Images.    


Books l●st.  
A large Catechism  
A Volume of Panegyrics.  
Some Poems in jambick Verse.  
A Treatise of Dispensations.    


Spurious Works.  
Some Odes or Hymns of Joy for the Restoration 〈◊〉 Image-Worship.     

JOSEPH Bishop of Thessalonica▪ Genuine Works.  
A Discourse in Honour of the Cross.  
A Letter to Simon the Monk.   

NAUCRATIUS, A Genuine Work.  
The Lise of Theodotus Studita.   

THEODORUS, the Martyr▪ His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Relation of a Conference between the Patriarch ●icephorus and the Emperor Leo.  
A Narration of the Martyrdom of that Patriarch,   

THEOPHANES. A Genuine Work.  
A Hymn in Commendation of his Brother Theodorus.   

MICHAEL SYNCELLUS. Genuine Works.  
The Life of S. Dionysius.  
A Panegyric of the Angels.   

THEOSTERICTUS, A Genuine Work.  
The Life of S. Nicetas.   

LUDGERUS, the first Bishop of Munster. His Genuine Works.  
The Life of S. Gregory, Bishop of Utrech●.  
A Relation of the Beginning of the Mission of S. Boniface.  
A Letter to Rixfridus; containing an account of the Life and Miracles of S. Luitbertus.   

AMALARIUS FORTUNATUS. A Genuine Work.  
A Treatise of the Ceremonies of Baptism.   

LEIDRADUS, Genuine Works, which we have.  
A Treatise upon Baptism.  
A Letter to Charles the Great upon the same Subject.  
A Writing about Renunciations made in Baptism.  
A Letter to Charles the Great about the Use that he made of the Church-Revenues.  
A Consolatory Letter to his Sister.   

SERGIUS, the Historian. A Work that is lost.  
An Ecclesiastical History from the Empire of Constantine Copronymus to the eighth Year of Michael Balbus.   

CLAUDIUS' CLEMENS, Bishop of Turin.  


Genuine Works.  
His Comment upon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Galatians. And,  
Two Prefaces.    


Works lost.  
An Apology against Theodomirus against the Use of Images, Relics and Pilgrimages.  
His Comments upon the Pentateuch, the Books of Joshua, Judges and Ruth, the Gospel of S. Matthew, and S. Paul's Epistles.     

DUNGALUS, Genuine Works, etc.  
A Treatise of Images, against Claudius of Turin:  
A Letter upon two Eclipses.   

IONAS Bishop of Orleans. A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Treatise of Images, against Claudius' Bishop of Turin.   

HATTO Bishop of Basil.  


Genuine Works, etc.  
A Book of 25 Articles of Instruction for his Clergy;  
A Relation of the Vision of S. Wettinus a Monk.    


A Work lost.  
A Relation of his Voyage to Constantinople.     

JESSE, Bishop of Amiens. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to Charles the Great about the Ceremonies of Baptism.   

ODILBERT,  


A Genuine Work.  
The Preface to his Treatise of the Sacrament of Baptism.    


A Book lost.  
His Treatise of the Sacrament of Baptism.     

AEGIL, Abbot of Fulda. A Genuine Work.  
A Relation of the eminent Actions of S. Sturmia.   

GILDAS,  


A Genuine Work.  
The Preface to his Calendar.    


A Work lost.  
His Calendar.     

SEDULIUS, Genuine Works.  
His Comments on S. Paul's Epistles, gathered out of several Authors.   

EGINHARDUS,  
The Life of Charles the Great.  
Annals. Letters.  
A Treatise upon the Cross.  
An Account of the Translation of the Relics of S. Marcellinus.   

THEGANUS, A Genuine Work.  
The Life of Lewis the Godly.   

BENEDICT, of Aniane. A Genuine Work.  
A Collection and agreement of the Monastic Rules.   

ARDO SMARAGDUS, A Genuine Work.  
The Life of S Benedict of Aniane.   

SMARAGDUS, Abbot of S. Michael. Genuine Works.  
His Treatise of the Duty of a Prince; entitled▪ Via Regia.  
Sermons upon the Epistles and Gospels throughout the Year.  
A Treatise of the Duty of Monks; entitled, Diadema Monachorum, i. e. The Monk's Crown.  
A Comment upon the Rule of S. Benedict.  
A Relation of a Conference with Pope Leo, about the Procession of the Holy Ghost.   

ORTHEGRINUS, Monk of Werthin. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of S. Ludgerus.   

ALFRIDUS, Bishop of Munster. A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Life of S. Ludgerus.   

PASCHALIS I. Pope. Genuine Works.  
Three Letters.   

ADELARDUS, Abbot of Corby. A Genuine Work.  
Some Constitutions for the Church of Corby.   

EUGENIUS II. Pope. Genuine Works.  
Two Letters and some Canons.   

ANSEGISUS, Abbot of S. Vandril. A Genuine Work.  
A Collection of Constitutions.   

HALITGARIUS, A Genuine Work.  
A Penitential.   

VUFINUS BOETIUS, Bishop of Poitiers. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of S. Junianus Abbot of Marius.   

AGOBARDUS, Archbishop of Lions. Genuine Works  
A Treatise against Faelix Orgelitanus.  
A Book against the Insolency of the Jews.  
A Letter to Adelard and Wala about the Jewish Slaves.  
A Letter to Nibudius against all Converse with the Jews.  
A Petition to Lewis the Godly, against the Law of Gondebad.  
A Treatise about the Privileges and Rights of the Priesthood.  
A Book against those that believed that Sorcerers could make Hail and thunder, and inflict Distempers.  
An Answer to Tredegisus.  
A Treatise about the Baptism of Jewish Slaves.  
A Treatise of the Cheat of those who pretended they had the Falling Sickness.  
A Letter to Matfredus, a Courtier.  
A Letter to the Clergy of Lions about the Government of the Church.  
A Treatise of Images.  
A Treatise about disposing of the Church-Revenues.  
A Book against the Judgement of God, i. e. against the Proofs which were made by Fire, hot Water or Duels, of the Innocency of Men.  
A Discourse of the Faith.  
A Letter concerning the Division between Lewis the Godly and his Children.  
A plain Defence of Lewis' Children against their Father.  
A Letter to Ebbo, concerning Hope and Fear.  
A Treatise about correcting the Antiphonies.  
A Book against Amalarius Deacon of Metz.  
An Epitaph upon Charles the great.  
Some Verses upon the Translation of the Saints Relics.   

AMALARIUS, Deacon of Metz.  
Four Books De Ecclesiasticis Officiis.  
A Treatise of the Order of the Antiphonies.  
Some Rules for the Canons and Canonesses.  
Five Letters. 

A Work lost.  
An Introduction to his Works.   

Works forged.  
Eclogues or Reflections upon the Canon of the Mass.     

HILDEMARUS, a Monk. A Genuine Work in M. S.  
A Commentary upon the Rule of S. Benedict.   

GREGORY iv Pope. Genuine Works.  
Three Letters.   

HILDUIN, A Genuine Work.  
His Areopageticks.   

ANSCHARIUS, Monk of Corby. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of S. Willihadus, Bishop of Breme.   

HAYMO Bishop of Halberstadt.  


Genuine Works.  
Commentaries upon the Psalms, upon the Greater and Smaller Prophets, upon the Revelations, Acts and S. Paul's Epistles and the Canonical Epistles.  
Homilies upon the Gospels.  
An Abridgement of Church. History.  
A Treatise upon the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.    


Works lost.  
His Commentaries upon the rest of the Books of the Bible.     

RABANUS, Bishop of Mentz.  


Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of the Universe, or the proper Signification of Words.  
A Poem upon the Cross.  
His Commentary upon the whole Bible almost.  
Several Homilies and Sermons.  
A Treatise of Allegories.  
Three Books concerning the Instruction of Clerks.  
A Treatise of Orders and the Holy Sacraments.  
Three Books of Ecclesiastical Discipline.  
Two Books dedicated to Bonosus, the one about the Vision of God, the other about Repentance.  
A Penitential.  
A Treatise about the Soul.  
A Canonical Letter to Heribaldus.  
A Letter to Humbert about the Degrees of Consanguinity.  
Another Answer to Humbertus.  
A Treatise of the Life and Manners of Antichrist.  
A Martyrology.  
Some Poems.  
Three Letters against Gotteschalcus.  
A Treatise about Suffragan Bishops.  
A Treatise of the Honour Children own their Parents.  
A Treatise of the Art of Computing Time.  
A Canonical Letter to Regimboldus.  
Another Canonical Letter to the same Person.    


Works falsely attributed to him.  
Three Books of Canonical Questions.  
Three Books of Virtues and Vices.  
A Commentary upon S. Benedict s Rule.  
A Grammatical Treatise.     

WALAFRIDUS STRABO, His Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of Ecclesiastical Worship.  
An ordinary Gloss upon the whole Bible.  
An History of the Destruction of Jerusalem.  
Several Poems.  
The Visions of S. Wettinus.  
The Lives of S. Galius, Othmarus and Blaitmacus.   

AMOLO, Archbishop of Lions. Genuine Works.  
Letters and some small Tracts about Grace.  
A Letter to Theobaldus Bishop of Langres.  
A Treatise against the Jews, published by F. Chifflet under Rabanus' Name.   

SERGIUS II. Pope. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to Drogo Bishop of Metz.   

ERMARICUS, Monk of Elwangen. Genuine Works.  
The Lives of S. Magnus and S. Sola.  
A Dialogue upon the Foundation of his Monastery.   

RODOLPHUS, Monk of Fulda. Genuine Works.  
The Lives of Rabanus and S. Lioba.   

ERMANTARIUS, Abbot of Noirmantier. A Genuine Work.  
An History of the Translation of the Body of S. Philibert.   

MILO called SIGIBERT, Monk of S. Amandus. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of S. Amandus.   

WANDELBERT, a Monk of Prom. A Genuine Work.  
A Martyrology in Verse.   

METHODIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople. Genuine Works.  
The Life of S Dionys.  
Some Fragments of two Sermons.  
A Panegyric upon S. Agatha  
Some Sermons upon S. Simeon and Palm-Sunday.   

HINCMARUS, Archbishop of Rheims.  
A Letter to Charles the Great, serving for a Preface to his first Book of Predestination.  
A Treatise upon the Expression, Trina Deitas.  
A Treatise upon the Divorce of Lotharius and Theutberga.  
A Book of 55 Articles against the Bishop of Laon.  
Constitutions and Canons for his Diocese.  
Divers Letters and Treatises to the Emperors, Kings, Popes and Bishops of his Time.  
The Coronations of the Kings and Queens.  
Some Papers and Petitions presented to the Councils. 

Works lost.  
His first Treatise of Predestination.  
A Writing sent to the Monks against Gotteschalcus.  
Letters to Rabanus and the Church of Lions, about Predestination.  
Several other Pieces.     

GOTTESCHALCUS, a Monk of Orbez.  


Genuine Works.  
Two Confessions of Faith, and some Fragments of that which he presented to the Council of Mentz.  
Some Fragments of his Treatise of the 3 Questions recited by Hincmacus in his Treatise of Predestination  
A Summary of a Writing recited by Amola.  
A Fragment of a Letter written to Bertram.  
A Treatise upon the Expression, Trina Deitas, put into Hincmarus' Answer to it.    


Works lost.  
Those of which we have cited some Fragments.     

HINCMARUS, Bishop of Laon. His Genuine Works, which we have.  
A Letter to Hincmarus, Archbishop of Rheims, about Nivinus.  
Another Letter to him about Adulphus.  
Another about Senatus, and another of other things.  
A second Collection of Decretals.  
A Letter to Hincmarus, Archbishop of Rheims, with Answer to his 55 Articles against him.  
A Petition to the Council of Piste, with a Recantation sent to King Charles.   

PASCASIUS RATHBERTUS, Abbot of Corby. Genuine Works.  
A Treatise about the Body and Blood of our Saviour.  
A Letter to Fridegardus.  
A Treatise upon Christ's Birth.  
A Commentary upon the Lamentations of Jeremiah, upon Psalm 44, and upon S. Matthew.  
The Life of S. Wala.   

BERTRAMUS, a Monk of Corby.  


Genuine Works.  
A Letter against Hincmarus' Book of Predestination.  
A Treatise of Predestination.  
A Treatise of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  
An Answer to the Objections of the Greeks against the Latin Church.  
A Treatise upon the Nativity of Jesus Christ.  
A Treatise upon the Nature of the Soul, which is in M. S.    


A Work lost.  
A Treatise to justify this Expression, Trina Deitas.     

JO. SCOTUS,  


Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of Predestination.  
A Treatise of the Division of Nature.  
A Translation of Maximus' Scholia upon the Works of S. Dionysius and S. Gregory Nazianzen.  
A Book about the Vision of God in M. S.    


Works lost.  
A Treatise upon the Eucharist.  
A Commentary upon S. Matthew.  
A Book of Offices.  
The Translation of S. Dionysius' Works.     

Nameless AUTHORS against Paschasius Genuine Works.  
Two Treatises upon the Eucharist.   

PRUDENTIUS, Bishop of Troy's.  


Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of Predestination, against J. Scotus.  
A Letter to the Synod of Sens.  
A Letter to Hincmarus and Pardulus about Grace.    


Works lost.  
A Treatise of Predestination, against Hincmarus.  
Annals cited by Hincmarus.     

FLORUS, a Deacon of Lions.  


Genuine Works.  
A Fragment of a Discourse of Predestination.  
A Treatise against Joannes Scotus.  
Two Commentaries upon S. Paul's Epistles.  
A Treatise upon the Celebration of the Mass.  
Two Fragments of a Collection of Canons.  
A Poem attributed to Drepanus Florus.  
Another Peice in Verse.    


Works lost.  
A Collection of Canons.     

REMEGIUS, Archbishop of Lions. Genuine Works.  
An Answer to Hincmarus, in the Name of the Church of Lions, with a Writing, entitled, A Resolution of the Question concerning the Damnation of all Men in Adam, and the particular Redemption of the Elect by Jesus Christ.  
A Treatise against the Articles of Quiercy, entitled,  
A Book to prove that we ought to hold firmly the Truth of Holy Scripture, and faithfully follow the Authority of the Holy and Orthodox Fathers.   

LUPUS Abbot of Ferrara. Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of the three Questions about Predestination.  
A Letter to Hincmarus and Pardiulus.  
Another Letter to Charles the Bald.  
126 Letters upon different Subjects.  
A Fragment of a Letter to Pope Nicholas, in the Name of Wenilo.  
Two Homilies and two Hymns.  
The Lives of S. Maximus Archbishop of Treves and S Wigbert an Abbot.   

LEO IU. Pope. Genuine Works.  
Two Letters and a Discourse.   

EULOGIUS. Genuine Works.  
The Lives of the Martyrs of Corduba, and,  
An Apology for them.  
Some Letters upon Relics.  
An Instruction to two Virgins, Prisoners.   

ALVARUS. A Genuine Work.  
An History of the Martyrdom of his Brother Eulogius.   

ODO, Abbot of Corby, and afterward Bishop of Beauvais. A Work lost.  
A Treatise against the Greeks.   

AENEAS, Bishop of Paris. A Genuine Work.  
His Answer to the Objections made by the Greeks.   

ANGELOMUS Monk of Luxevil.  


Genuine Works.  
Comments, entitled Stromata, upon the 4 Books of Kings and the Book of Canticles.    


Works lost.  
A Treatise of Divine Offices.     

BENEDICT III. Pope.  


Genuine Works, which we have.  
Two Letters, the one to Hincmarus and another to the Bishops of France.    


Spurious Works.  
Two Grants, one of Corby and the other of S. Dionys.     

ISAAC, Bishop of Langres. A Genuine Work.  
A Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws.   

HERARD Archbishop of Tours. A Genuine Work.  
A Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws out of the Capitularies.   

NICHOLAS I. Pope.  
About 100 Letters.  
An answer to the Bulg●rians.   

PHOTIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople.  


Genuine Works.  
His Bibliotheca.  
His Nomocaron.  
248 Letters; the first of which contains an History of the first 7 General Councils.  
A Letter to the Patriarch of Aquileia, against the Latin Church.  
A Letter to the Governor of the Isle of Cyprus.  
A Treatise of the Wills of Jesus Christ.  
Seven other Theological Treatises.  
A Homily.  
A Description of the New Church at Constantinople.    


Works yet in M. S.  
Several Sermons.  
A Treatise entitled, Amphilochia.  
A Comment on S. Paul's Epistles.  
A Lexicon,  
Some Notes upon the Prophets.  
A Treatise against the Latins.  
A Treatise against an Heretic called Leontius.  
A Collection of the Rights of Metropolitans and Bishops.  
A Commentary upon Aristotle's Categories.     

ADRIAN II. Pope. Genuine Works.  
Thirty six Letters.   

HUCBALDUS, a Monk of S. Amandus. Genuine Works.  
A Poem in Commendation of Baldness.  
A Treatise of Music.  
The lives of several Saints.   

ISO, a Monk of S. Gallus. A Genuine Work.  
The Life and Miracles of S. Othmarus.   

PETRUS SICULUS. A Genuine Work.  
The History of the Heresy of the Manachees.   

ADO, Archbishop of Vienna.  
A Martyrology.  
A Treatise upon the Festivals of the Apostles.  
A Chronicon, abridged, from the beginning of the World to 879.  
The Lives of S. Desiderius and S. Theuderius an Abbot.   

USUARDUS, a Monk of S. German de Prez. A Genuine Work.  
A Martyrology.   

THEODORUS ABUCARA, Archbishop of Caria. A Genuine Work, which we have.  
A Theological Treatise of Religion.   

ANASTASIUS Bibliothecarius. Genuine Works.  
Translations of the Acts of the Council of Constantinople; of his threefold Chronology; of several Pieces about the Monothelites; of the Life of S. John the Alms-giver; of the Passion of S. Danetius; with the Prefaces to them.  
A Preface to his Translation of S. Dionysius' Works.  
The Lives of the Popes from S. Peter to Nicholas I.   

GEORGIUS, Chartophylax of the Great Church at Constantinople. Genuine Works.  
Several Homilies upon the Feast of the Virgin.   

LUITBERTUS, Archbishop of Mentz. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to King Lewis.   

WULFADUS, Archbishop of Bourges. A Genuine Work.  
A Pastoral Letter.   

GAUTERIUS, Bishop of Orleans. A Genuine Work.  
A Collection of Canons.   

OLFREDUS, a Benedictine Monk.  


A Genuine Work.  
A Preface to his History of the Gospel in the Teutonick Tongue.    


Works lost.  
The History of the Gospel  
Three Books upon the Psalms.  
Some Treatises upon the last Judgement, and the Joys of Heaven.  
Divers Letters.  
Several Pieces of Poetry.     

JOHN VIII. Pope.  


Genuine Works.  
320 Letters. The Fragments of some others.    


Spurious Works.  
A Regulation of the Cardinals.  
Three Letters added by F. Labbe.     

REMBERTUS, Archbishop of Breme. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of Anscharius.   

HERRICUS, a Monk of S. Germane at Auxerre.  


Genuine Works.  
A Preface to his Collection of Maxims, taken out of the Fathers.  
The Life and Miracles of S. German of Auxerre.  
The Life of S. Caesarius in Verse.    


Works lost.  
A Collection of Maxims and other Remarkable things out of the Fathers; dedicated to Hildeboldus Bishop of Auxerre.     

DRUTHMARUS, Monk of Corby. Genuine Works, which we have.  
A Comment upon S. Matthew's Gospel.  
Two Expositions of some Places of the Gospels of S. Luke and S. John.   

REMIGIUS, Monk of Auxerre.  


Genuine Works.  
Commentaries on the Psalms.  
An Explication of the 12 small Prophets.  
An Exposition of the Canon of the Mass.    


Works lost.  
Comments upon S. Matthew and the Canticles.  
A Book of Offices.  
A Treatise of Festivals.  
An Answer to Walo Bishop of Autun.  
Some other Works and Letters.     

THEOPHANES CERAMEUS. Genuine Works.  
Several Homilies upon the Gospels and Festivals of the Year.  
Two Sermons upon the Cross.   

AIMONIUS, a Monk of S. German des Prez. Genuine Works.  
An Account of the Translation of the Body of S. Vincent.  
Two Books of the Miracles of S. German, Bishop of Paris.  
A Book of the Translation of the Relics of S. George a Monk, S. Aurelius and S. Natalia, and two Books of the Miracles done by them.   

ABBO, a Monk of S. German des Prez.  


Genuine Works.  
Two Books of the Siege of Paris by the Normans.  
Five Sermons.    


Works lost.  
The third Book of the Siege of Paris.  
Several Sermons.     

WOLFADUS, a Monk of Hatennede. Genuine Works.  
The Life of S. Walpurgus, and three Books of his Miracles.   

HEREMBERT, Monk of Mount Cassin. A Genuine Work.  
A Chronological History of that Monastery.   

ALTMANNUS, a Monk of Hauteville.  


A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to his Bishop.    


Works lost.  
The Lives of S. Memnus, S. Navardus, Sindulphus and S. Helena, and the History of the Translation of her Relics.  
The Complaint of France, harrassed by the Normans.     

ALDREVALDUS, or ALBERTUS, a Monk of Fleyry. Works in M. S.  
A Collection of Passages out of the Fathers upon the Eucharist, against J. Scotus.  
A Book of the Miracles of S. Benedict, and  
An History of the Translation of the Bodies of S. Benedict and S. Scholasticus from Mount Cassin to Fleury.   

STEPHEN V Pope.  


Genuine Works, which we have.  
Three Letters and a Fragment of a fourth.    


A Spurious Work  
A Letter in Favour of the Church at Narbon.     

RICULPHUS, Bishop of Soissons. A Genuine Work.  
A Pastoral Letter.   

ELIAS, Patriarch of Jerusalem. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to Charles the Gross.   

DAVID NICETAS, Paphlago. Genuine Works.  
The Life of S. Ignatius, Patriarch of Jerusalem.  
Several Panegyrics in honour of the Saints.   

ALFREDUS, King of England. Genuine Works.  
Translations of divers Books into the Saxon Tongue.   

A Nameless Author. A Genuine Work.  
A Book of Synods, called Liber Synodicus.   

FORMOSUS, Pope.  


A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to Stilianus.    


A Spurious Work.  
A Letter to the Bishops of England.     

STEPHEN VI Pope. Spurious Works.  
Two Letters to the Archbishops of Narbo●.   

AUXILIUS, a Priest, ordained by Formosus. Genuine Works.  
Two Treatises about the Ordinations made by Formosus, to prove the validity of them.   

REGINO, Abbot of Prom.  


Genuine Works.  
A Collection of Canons.  
A Chronicon.    


Works lost.  
Several Sermons and some Letters.     

ASSERIUS, a Bishop in England. Genuine Work.  
The History of Alfred, King of the West Saxons.   

LEO the Wise, Emperor of the East.  


Genuine Works.  
Nineteen Sermons-  
A Discourse upon the Life of S. J. Chrysostom.  
A Sermon upon S. Nicolas.    


Works lost.  
Several Sermons.  
Some Moral Precepts and Proverbs  
A Treatise about the manner of drawing up an Army in Battalia.     

ADELINUS, Bishop of Seez. Genuine Works.  
The Lives of S. Opportuna and S. Gondegrand.    

A TABLE of the Acts, Letters and Canons of the COUNCILS held in the Ninth Century.  
Councils Years Acts, Letters, Petitions and Canons. AN Assembly called by Charles the Great. 801 Constitutions. A Council at Altino 802 A Synodical Letter. A Council at Aix-la-Chapelle 803 Constitutions. A Council at Clovesho, 803 Acts and Decrees. An Assembly at Salz 804 Constitutions. An Assembly at Osnabrug 804 An Edict about the Teaching of Schools. A Council at Thionville 805 Constitutions. Another Assembly 805 Constitutions given to Jesse Bishop of Amiens. A Council at Constantinople, in Favour of Joseph the Steward 806 Acts are lost. Some Constitutions taken out of the Canons. Another in Favour of the Marriage of Theodota 809 Acts lost. A Council at Aix-la-Chapelle 809 A Conference between the Deputies of the Council and the Pope. An Assembly of the same Year.  Constitutions. A Council at 

Arles  
Rheims  
Mentz  
Tours  
Challon,  
Constantinople, against Silaeus  
Constantinople, of the Iconaclasts,   813 26 Canons. 813 44 Canons. 813 55 Canons 813 57 Canons. 813 66 Canons Constitutions taken out of these Councils. 813 Acts. 814 Acts lost. A Council at 

Aix la-Chapelle,  
Celcehith,  
Aix-la-Chapelle,   816 A Rule for Canons and Canonesses, and some Constitutions made afterward. 816 11 Canons. 817 A Rule for Monks, containing 80 Articles. Divers Assemblies held under Lewis the Godly, 819 Constitutions. A Council at 

Thionville,  
Attigny,  
Clovesho,  
Paris,  
Rome,   821 4 Canons and 5 Constitutions 822 Acts. 822 Acts. 824 Letters and other Writings made about the Worship of Images. 826 ●8 Canons. An Assembly at Ingel●eim, 826 The Laws of Lewis the Godly, published after the Assembly. A Council at 

Paris,  
Mentz,  
●yons,  
Thoulouse,  
Noion   829 Some Orders in 3 parts. Orders and Constitutions lost.   831 Acts lost. An Assembly of Bishops at 

Worms,  
Compeign,  
S. Dennis,   829 Constitutions made to confirm the Canons of the 4 precedent Councils. 833 Acts. 834 Acts lost. A Council 

at Thionville,  
at Aix-la-Chapelle,  
at Lions,  
at Paris,   835 Ebbo's Confession. 836 Rules in 5 parts. 836 Acts lost. 838  A Synod at Rheims, 842 Constitutions Ecclesiastical. A Council at Constantinople against the Iconoclasts, 842 Acts lost. An Assembly at Couleine, in the Diocese of Man's, 843 6 Canons. A Council at Aurillac, 843 4 Canons. An Assembly at Thoulouse, 843 9 Constitutions. A Council held at 

Thionville,  
Vernevil,  
Beauvais,  
Treves,  
Lions,  
Meaux,  
Paris,  
Epernay,  
Mentz,  
Mentz,  
Quiercy,  
Pavia,  
Sens,  
Soissons,  
Quiercy,  
Sens, 853,  
Verbery,  
Rome,  
Attigny,  
Valence,   844 6 Canons. 844 12 Canons. 845 8 Canons. 845  845  845 80 Canons. 846  846 19 Articles. 847 21 Canons. 848 A Letter to Gotteschalcus. 848 The Judgement against Gotteschalcus. 850 25 Canons. 850 A Letter to Ercanrous. 853 13 Canons and the Acts about Ebbo. 853 4 Constitutions. 853  853 A Synodical Letter. 853 Confirmed 38 Canons and made 4 Canons. 854 Constitutions. 855 23 Canons. An Assembly of Bishops at Bonnevil, 856 A Petition to the King. Council at Quiercy, 857 2 Constitutions. A Synod of the Clergy of Rheims, 857 Some Ordinances. A Council held at 

Quiercy,  
Constantinople, against Ignatius,  
Metz,  
Langres,  
Savonieres,  
Aix-la-Chapelle.  
Coblentz,  
Toul,  
Constantinople, against Ignatius,  
Sabloniere,  
Pista,  
Rome against Photius,   858 A Letter to Lewis the German. 859  859 Instructions to the Deputies for Lewis of Germany. 859 10 Canons. 859 13 Canons: A Petition against Wenilo Archbishop of Sons; a Letter to him. Two Letters to the Churches of Britain. Advice to Wemilo. 860 A Letter to Pope Nicholas. 860 Acts with several Rules. 860 A Pastoral Letter and 5 Canons. 861 Acts related by Nicetas, and 17 Canons. 862 Acts. 862 4 Constitutions. 862 A Sentence against Photius' Ordination.  Canons made in another Synod against the Theopaschites. A Council held at 

Aix-la-Chapelle about the Divorce of Theutberga,  
Metz, about the same Affair,  
Rome, against the 2 last Councils,  
Senli, against Rothadus,  
Rome against Rodoaldus,  
Rome, to restore Rothadus,  
Toussy,  
Constantinople, against Pope Nicholas,  
Soissons,  
Compeigne,  
Troyes,  
Soissons,  
Worms,  
Verbery,  
Pista,  
Metz,  
Constantinople, VIII. General,  
Attigny,  
Douzy,  
Senlis,  
Rheims,  
Douzy,  
Pavia,  
Pontigon,  
Rome,  
Ravenna,   862 Acts and Judgement of that Council. 863 Acts lost. 863 Acts. 863  864    865 Some Constitutions. 866  866 Letters, Memoirs, Petitions and other Acts. 866 Some Constitutions. 867 Acts and Letters. 867 A Letter to the Pope about Actardus. 868 80 Canons. 869  869 One Constitution. 869 Some Constitutions of these 3 Councils. 869 Acts and Canons. 870 Acts. 871 Acts. 873 Decrees. 874  874 A Synodical Letter and the Judgement of Dud. 876 A Constitution. 876 Acts. 877 The Pope's Discourse to the Council. 877 19 Canons. An Assembly at Quiercy, 877 Some Constitutions. A Council held at 

Compeigne,  
Troyes,  
Rome,  
Rome, to restore Photius,  
Constantinopl●e, to restore Photius.  
Fismes,  
Vernuil,  
Cologne,  
Mentz,  
Vienna,  
Metz,  
Chaalon, about the business of Gerfredus the Monk,  
Tribur,  
Nantes,   877 Other Constitutions. 878 Acts and Canons. 879  879 Pope John viii Letter, containing the Acts of the Council. 879  881 A Letter, divided into 8 Articles or Canons. 884 Constitutions. 887 6 Canons. 888 26 Articles. 892 4 or 5 Canons. 893 13 Canons. 894  895 58 Canons. 895    

A TABLE of the WORKS of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the Ninth Age; disposed according to the Subjects they treat of.  

Treatises against the Jews.  
AGobard's Letters against the Jewish Superstitions.  
Amolo's Treatise against the Jews.  
Theodorus Abucara's Treatise of Religion.   

Treatises against Superstition.  
Agobard's Petition to Lewis the Godly, against the Law of Gondeb●dus.  
— His Books against those that believed that Sorcerers could bring Hail and Thunder, and inflict Diseases.  
— His Answer to Fredigisus  
— His Treatise against the Delusions of those who pretended to be seized by the Falling-Sickness.  
— His Treatise against the Judgement of God by Fire, Hot Water or by Duels.   

Bodies of Divinity.  
Rabanus' Treatise about the Universe.   

Upon the Trinity.  
Gotteschalcus and Hincmarus' Treatise upon this Expression, Trina Deitas.   

Upon the Incarnation.  
Agobard's Treatise against Foelix Orgelitanus.  
Paschasius' Treatise upon the Birth of Jesus Christ.  
Bertrams Treatise upon Christ's Nativity.  
Photius' Book about the Wills of Christ.  
— His 7 other Theological Treatises.   

Upon the Eucharist.  
Haymo's Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Saviour.  
Paschasius' Book upon the Body and Blood of Christ.  
Frudegarius' Letter upon the same Subject.  
Bertrams Treatise of the Lord's Supper.  
Two Nameless Treatises upon the same Subject.  
Aldervaldus' Collection of Passages out of the Fathers, upon the Eucharist, against J. Scotus.   

About the Soul.  
Rabanus' Treatise of the Soul.   

About Antichrist.  
Rabanus' Tract of the Life and Manners of Antichrist.   

About Images.  
Nicephorus' 4 Treatises against the Iconoclasts.  
A Doctrinal Treatise of Theodorus Studita.  
Dungal's Book against Claudius of Turin of Images.  
Ionas of Orleans' Tract against Claudius of Turin.  
Agobard's Treatise of Images.   

In the Disputes between the Greeks and Latins.  
Photius' Letter to the Patriarch of Aquileia, against the Latins.  
Bertrams Treatise in answer to the Objections of the Greeks.  
Aeneas' Treatise upon the same Subject.   

About Grace and Predestination.  
Rabanus' 3 Letters against Gotteschalcus.  
Amolo's Letters and Tracts.  
Hincmarus' Treatise.  
Gotteschalcus' Confession of his Faith.  
Some Fragments of his other Writings.  
Bertrams Letter and Treatise of Predestination.  
Jo. Scotus' Treatise of Predestination.  
Prudentius Bishop of Troyes' Book of Predestination, against Scotus.  
— His Letter to the Synod of Sens.  
— His Letters to Hincmarus and Pardulus.  
Florus, a Deacon of Lyons' Tracts against Scotus.  
— A Fragment of his Discourse of Predestination.  
Remigius Archbishop of Lyons' Treatise, in answer to Hincmarus.  
— His Treatise against the Articles of Quiercy.  
Lupus Abbot of Ferrara, his Treatise upon the three Questions  
— His Letters to Hincmarus and Charles the Bald.   

Books of Church-Discipline.  
Nicephorus' Canonical Letters and Canons.  
Amalarius' Treatise of the Ceremonies of Baptism.  
Leid●adus's Treatise of Baptism.  
— His Letter to Charles the Great, with a Treatise of the Renunciations made in Baptism.  
— Another Letter to Charles the Great, about the use he put the Revenues of his Church to.  
Hatto, Bishop of Basil, his Constitutions.  
Jesse, Bishop of Amiens' Letter about the Ceremonies of Baptism.  
Odilberts Preface to his Treatise upon the same subject.  
Adelardus' Constitutions for the Church of Corby.  
Ansegisus' Collection of Canons.  
Halitgarius' Penitential.  
Agobardus' Writings against the Converse of Christians with Jews.  
— His Treatise of the Rights and Privileges of the Priesthood.  
— His Treatise about the Baptism of Jewish Slaves.  
— His Letter to the Clergy of Lions about the Government of the Church  
— His Treatise about disposing of the Church-Revenues.  
— His Treatise about correcting the Antiphonies.  
— His Book against Amalarius Deacon of Metz▪ Amalarius Deacon of Metz, Four Books De Ecclesiasticis Officiis.  
— His Book of the Order of the Antiphonies.  
— His Rules for Canons and Canonesses.  
— His 5 Letters.  
— His Letter to Pope Gregory IU.  
Rabanus' Book of Directions for Clerks  
— His Treatise of Holy Orders and Sacraments.  
— His 3 Books of Ecclesiastical Discipline.  
— His 2 Books dedicated to Bonosus  
— His Penitential and Canonical Letter to Heribaldus.  
— His Letter to Humber about the degrees of Consanguinity.  
— His Treatise of Suffragans.  
— His Canonical Letters to Regimboldus.  
Walafridus Strabo's Treatise of Ecclesiastical Worship.  
Amolo's Letter to Theobaldus Bishop of Langres.  
Sergius II's Letter to Drogo Bishop of Meiz.  
Hincmarus' Treatise about the Divorce of Lotharius and Queen Theutberga.  
— His Works of 55 Articles.  
— His Constitutions and Rules for his Diocese  
— His Writings and Letters upon several Ecclesiastical Matters which happened in his Time.  
Hincmarus of Laon's Letter.  
— His Collection of Decretals and other Writings.  
Florus' Treatise upon the Celebration of the Mass.  
— Two Fragments of a Collection of Canons.  
Lupus Abbot of Ferrara's Letters.  
Leo IV's Letter and Discourse.  
Benedict iii Letters.  
Isaac Bishop of Langres' Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws.  
Herardus' Laws, taken out of the Canons.  
Nicholas I's several Letters.  
— His Answer to the Bulgarians.  
Photius' Nomocanon and several Letters.  
Pope Adrian's Letters  
Wulfadus' Pastoral Letters.  
Gauterius' Collection of Canons.  
Luitbertus' Letter to King Lewis.  
John VIII. Pope, several Letters.  
Remigius Bishop of Auxerre, his Exposition of the Canon of the Mass.  
Altmannus' Letter.  
Pope Steven V's Letters.  
Riculphus' Pastoral Letter.  
Elias, Patriarch of Jerusalem, his Letter to Charles the Gross.  
Formosus' Letter to Stilianus.  
Steven VI's two Letters.  
Auxilius' two Treatises about the Validity of the Ordinations made by Formosus.  
Regino's Collection of Canons.   

Critical Works upon the Bible.  
Sticometria, attributed to Nicephorus.  
Rabanus' Treatise upon Allegories.  
Several Letters of Photius.   

Commentaries upon the Holy Scripture.  
Rabanus and Haymo's Comments upon most of the Books of the Holy Bible.  
Wal. Strabo's ordinary Gloss upon all the Bible.  
Angelomus' Comment upon the 4 Books of Kings and the Canticles.  
Remigius of Auxerre's Comments upon the Psalms.   

Upon the Prophets.  
Paschasius' Comments upon the Lamentations and 44th Psalm  
Remegius of Auxerre's Explication of the 12 Lesser Prophets.   

Upon the Evangelists.  
Paschasius' Comments upon S. Matthew.  
Druthmarus' Comments upon the same Gospel.   

Upon S. Paul's Epistles.  
Claudius' of Turin's Comment on the Galatians.  
Sedulus' Comments upon S. Paul's Epistles.  
Florus' Comments upon the same.   

Historical Works.  
Nicephorus' Ecclesiastical History and Chronology.  
— His Letter to Pope Leo III.  
Theodorus Studita's Letter and Life of S. Plato.  
Joseph Bishop of Thessalonica's Letter.  
Naucratius' Life of Theodorus Studita.  
Theodorus' Relation of a Conference, and the Martyrdom of the Patriarch Nicephorus.  
Theophanes' Hymn in praise of his Brother Theodorus.  
Michael Syncellus' Life of S. Dionysius.  
Theosterictus' Life of S. Nicetas.  
S. Ludgerus' Life of S. Gregory Bishop of Utrecht.  
— His Relation of S. Boniface's Mission.  
— His Letter concerning the Life and Miracles of S. Luitbertus.  
Sergius' Ecclesiastical History.  
Ho●o's Relation of the Visions of S. Wettin.  
Aegyl's Account of the chief Actions of S. Sturmio.  
Eginhard's Life of Charles the Great  
— His ●nnals, and the Story of the Translation of the Relics of S. Marcellinus. 

Theganus' Life of Lewis the Godly.    
Ardo Smaragdus' Life of S. Benedict of Aniane.  
A Relation of the Conference of the Deputies with Pope Leo about the Procession of the Holy Ghost.  
Orthegrinus' Life of S Ludgerus.  
Alfridus' Life of the same Saint.  
Vufinus Boetius' Life of S. Janianus Abbot of Mair.  
Paschasius' Life of Wala.  
Agobardus' Letter and Manifesto about the Quarrel between Lewis the Godly and his Children.  
— His Letter to Ebbo.  
— His Epitaph on Charles the Great.  
— His Poem upon the Translation of the Relics of some Saints.  
Hilduin's Areopageticks  
Haymo, Bishop of Halberstadt's Abridgement of Ecclesiastical Histories.  
An●charius's Life of Wi●i●adus Bishop of Brem.  
Rabanus' Martyrology, and his Book of the Knowledge of the account of Time.  
Wal. Strabo's Relation of the Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.  
— His Lives of S. Gallus, S. Othmarus and S. Blaithmatus, with the Visions of S. W●tin.  
— His Lives of Rabanus and S. Lioba.  
Ermantarius' Translation of the Relics of S. Philibert.  
Milo's Life of S. Amandus.  
Wandelberts Martyrology.  
Ermanricus' Life of S. Magnus and S. Sola.  
— His Dialogue about the Foundation of his Monastery.  
Methodius' Life of S. Dionysius.  
Hincmarus' Coronations of the Kings and Queens.  
Lupus Abbot of Ferrara's Lives of S. Maximinus and S. Wigbert.  
Eulogius' Lives of the Martyrs of Corduba.  
— Some other of his Works. 

Alvarus' History of the Martyrpom of Eulogius.    
Several Letters of Nicholas I. Pope.  
Ignatius' Letters to the Pope's Nicholas and Adrian.  
Photius' first Letter; containing the History of the seven first General Councils; and some others.  
— His Description of the New Church at Constantinople  
Hucbaldus' Lives of several Saints.  
Iso's Life and Miracles of S. Othmarus.  
Petrus Siculus' History of the Heresy of the Manichees.  
Ado's Martyrology and Chronicon.  
— His Treatise of the Festivals of the Apostles.  
— His Lives of S. Desiderius and S. Theuderius.  
Usuardus' Martyrology.  
Anastasius Bibliothecarius' Translations of the Acts of the Council of Constantinople; his threefold Chronology; his Life of S. John the Almsgiver; and the Martyrdom of S. Demetrius.  
— His Lives of the Popes.  
Rambartus' Life of Anscharius.  
Herricus' Life and Miracles of S. German of Auxerre.— His Life of S. Caesarius.  
Aimonius' account of the Translation of the Body of S. Vincent.  
— Two Books of the Miracles of S German, Bishop of Paris.  
— His History of the Translation of the Relics of several Saints.  
Abbo's 2 Books of the Siege of Paris by the Normans.  
Wolfadus' Life and Miracles of S Walpurgus.  
Herempers's Chronicon of Mount Cassin.  
Aldrivaldus' History of the Translation of S. Benedict and S. Scholasticus; and a Book of the Miracles of S. Benedict.  
Nicetas' Life of Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople.  
Liber Synodicus.  
Regino's Chronicon.  
Asserius' History of King Alfredus.  
Leo the Wise, his Discourse of the Life of S. J. chrysostom.  
Adelinus' Lives of S. Opportuna and S. Godegrand.   

Works of Morality and Piety.  
Leidradus' Consolatory Letter to his Sister.  
Smaragdus' Treatise of the Duty of a Prince.  
Agobardus' Discourse of Faith.  
Hincmarus' Advice to Kings and Princes.   

Sermons.  
134 Sermons of Theodorus Studita.  
Joseph Bishop of Thess●lonica's Discourses of the Cros.  
Michael Syncellus' Panegyric of the Angels.  
Smaragdus' Sermons upon the Epistles and Gospels.  
Haymo's Sermons.  
Rabanus' Sermons.  
Methodius' Sermons throughout the Year.  
— His Panegyric on S. Agatha.  
Photius' Homily.  
Abbo's 5 Sermons.  
George, Chartophylax at Constantinople, his Sermons.  
Theophanes Cerameus' Sermons.  
Nicetas' Panegyrics.  
Leo the Wise's Sermons.   

Works about a Monastic Life.  
Benedict of Aniane, his Code and Concord of Monastic Rules.  
Smaragdus' Crown of the Monks.  
— His Comment upon S. Benedict's Rule.  
Hildmarus' Comment upon S. Benedict's Rule, a M. S.   

Poems.  
Agobard's Verses upon the Translation of the Relics of several Saints.  
— His Epitaph upon Charles the Great.  
Rabanus' Work upon the Cross.  
— Other Poems of his.  
Some Poems of Florus Deacon of Lions, which bear the Name of Drepanius Florus.  
— Another Piece of his in Verse.  
Lupus Abbot of Ferrara's 2 Homilies and 2 Hymns.  
Hucbaldus' Poem in praise of Baldness.   

Critical Works upon Authors.  
Photius's Bibliotheca.    

An ALPHABETICAL TABLE of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the Ninth Age.  

A.  
A Abbo, 193  
Adelardus, 151.  
Adelinus, 194.  
Ado, ibid.  
Adrian II. 100, 179.  
Aegil, 191.  
Aeneas of Paris, 111.  
Agobardus, 4, 142, 159.  
Aimonius, 193.  
Aldrevaldus or Albertus, 83, 194.  
Alfredus, King of England, 194.  
Alfridus Bishop of Munster, 192  
Almannus, 194.  
Alvarus, 192.  
Amalarius Fortunatus, Bishop, 157.  
Amalarius, Deacon, 79, 158.  
Amolo, 16, 150.  
Anastasius Biblioth, 189.  
Angelomus, 174.  
Anonymous Authors against Paschasius, 72, 79  
Anonymous Author of Liber Synodicus, 190.  
Anscharius, 132.  
Ansegisus, 151.  
Ardo Smaragdus, 168.  
Asserius, 194.  
Auxilius, 153.   

B.  
Benedict III. Pope, 176.  
Benedict Abbot of Aniana, 168.  
Bertram, 13, 15. See Patcamnus Clemens.   

C.  
Claudius' Clemens of Turin, 3, 9   

D.  
Druthmarus, 174.  
Dungalus, 4, 9   

E.  
Eginhardus, 189.  
Elias of Jerusalem, 152.  
Ermantarius, 192.  
Eugenius, 11, 175.  
Eulogius, 191.   

F.  
Florus, 16.  
Formosus, Pope, 153, 155, 188.   

G.  
Gauterius or Wauterius, 151.  
Georgius Chartophylax, 191.  
Gildas, 195.  
Gotteschalcus, 10, 11, 12, 13.  
Gregory IU. 175.   

H.  
Haymo, 173.  
Halitgarius, 151.  
Hatto or Hetto, 141.  
Herardus, 151.  
Herembertus, 194.  
Hermenricus, 191.  
Herricus or Erricus, 192.  
Hildemarus, 168.  
Hilduinus, 190.  
Hincmarus of Rheims, 11 to 69.  
Hincmarus of Laon, 35, &c  
Hucbaldus, 193.   

J.  
Jesse of Amiens, 157.  
Ignatius of Constantinople, 85.  
John VIII. Pope, 101, 180.  
Joannes Scotus, 15, 77, 82.  
Ionas of Orleans. 3.  
Joseph of Thessalonica, 9  
Isaac of Langres, 151.  
Iso, 192.   

L.  
Leidradus, 157.  
Leo IU. Pope, 175.  
Leo the Wise, Emperor, 191  
Ludgerus, 191.  
Luitbertus, 152.  
Lupus of Ferrara, 13, 14, 169, 170.   

M.  
Methodius, 190.  
Michael Syncellus, ibid.  
Milo Sigibert, 193.   

N.  
Naucratius, 9  
Nicephorus, 1, 5, 6.  
A Nameless Author of the Liber Synodicus, 190.  
Nameless Authors against Paschasius Ratbertus, 72, 79.  
Nicetas Paphlago, 191.  
Nicholas I. 86, 89, 90, 176.   

O.  
Odilbertus, 157.  
Odo, 111.  
Orthegrinus, 192.  
Otfredus, 194.   

P.  
Paschal I. 175.  
Paschasius Radbertus, 69, 70, 71, 72, etc. 84, 85.  
Photius, 85, 105, 106.  
Petrus Siculus, 189.  
Prudentius, 13, 15, 19   

R.  
Rabanus, 10, 11, 13, 160, 194.  
Ratramnus or Bertram, 13, 15, 24, 73, etc. 81, 111.  
Regino, 153.  
Rembertus, 194.  
Remigius of Lions, 18.  
Remigius a Monk, 174.  
Riculphus, 152.  
Rudulphus or Rodulpus, 192.   

S.  
Sedulius, 174.  
Sergius II. Pope, 175.  
Sergius the Historian, 189.  
Smaragdus an Abbot, 168.  
Stephen V. 103, 104, [187.]  
Stephen VI [188.]   

T.  
Theganus, 189.  
Theodorus Graptus, 9  
Theodorus Abucara, 110.  
Theodorus Studita, 8.  
Theophanes of Nicaea, 9  
Theophanes Cerameus, 191.  
Theosterictus, 9   

U.  
Usuardus, 195.  
Vufinus Boetius, 191.   

W.  
Walafridus Strabo, 4, 166.  
Wandelbertus, 194.  
Wolfadus or Wulfadus, 193.    

AN ALPHABETICAL TABLE of the COUNCILS held in the Ninth Age of the Church.  
Place Page Year A. AIx-la-chapelle; 114, 809 Aix-la-chapelle, 117, 816 Aix-la-chapelle, 118, 817 Aix-la-chapelle, 120, 836 Aix-la-chapelle, 46, 860 Aix-la-chapelle, 47, 862 Arles VI 114, 813 Attigny, 146, 822 Attigny, 123, 854 Attigny, 37, 870 B. Beauvais, 121, 845 Bonneval, 123, 856 C. Celichith, 117, 816 Chalon II. 116, 813 Coblentz, 130, 860 Cologn, 134, 887 Compeigne, 142, 833 Compeigne, 123, 866 Constantinople, 5, 806 Constantinople, 8, 809 Constantinople, 3, 842 Constantinople, 86, 859 Constantinople, 87, 861 Constantinople, 91, 866 Constantinople VIII. General, 92, 869 Constantinople, 102, 879 Coulein Assembly, 122, 843 D. Douzy, I. 43, 871 Douzy II. 132 874 E. Epernay, 122, 846 F. Fismes, 134, 881 I. Ingilheim, 119, 826 L. Langres, 21, 859 Lions, 119, 829 Lions, 142, 836 Lions, 150, 845 M. Mentz, 115, 813 Mentz, 119, 829 Mentz, 124, 847 Mentz, 11, 848 Mentz, 134, 888 Meaux, 121, 845 Mets, 129, 859 Mets, 47, 48, 863 Mets, 135, 869 N. Nantes, forged, 138, 895 Noion, 157, 83● P. Paris, 2, 824 Paris VI. 119, 829 Paris, 142, 838 Paris, 121, 846 Pavia, 125, 850 Pavia, 124, 876 Pista, 123, 862 Piste, 35, 123, 869 Pontigon, 50, 876 Q. Quiercy, 12, 848 Quiercy, 19, 853 Quiercy, 123, 857 Quiercy, 129, 858 Quiercy, 124, 877 R. Ravenna, 132, 877 Rheims, 116, 813 Rheims, 49, 842 Rheims, 49, 857 Rheims, 49, 874 Rome, 127, 826 Rome, 127, 853 Rome, 89, 862 Rome, 48, 863 Rome, 90, 864 Rome, 25, 865 S. Savonieres, 21, 129. 859 Senlis, 24, 863 Sens, 19, 853 Soissons, 19, 22, 27, 126. 853 Soissons, 34, 866 Soissons, 34, 867 T. Thionville, 118, 821 Thionville, 23, 24, 32, 145, 835 Thionville, 121, 844 Thoulouse, 119, 829 Thoulouse, 122, 843 Toul, II. 130, 860 Tours, III. 116, 813 Toussi, 48, 860 Treves, 12, 845 Tribur, 136, 895 Troyes, 32, 867 Troyes, 45, 133, 878 V. Valence III. 20, 23, 128, 855 Verbery, 127, 853 Verbery, 36, 869 Vernevil, 121, 844 Vienna, 135, 892 W. Worms, 119, 829 Worms, 131, 868   

A General INDEX of the Principal Matters contained in this Volume.  

A.  
Abbot's, whom they may ordain, 7. Of their Promotion, 181.  
Abbesses, not to go out of their Monastery, 125.  
Abortion, the Punishment imposed upon Women that procure it, 131.  
Absolution granted by a Letter, 52. Granted to Photius on condition, 101, Means of obtaining it, 129. How granted to sick Persons that have lost their Speech, 152.  
Acts and Records necessary in Ecclesiastical Affairs, 28.  
Adalgarius, the Deputy of Charles the Bald to the Pope, who granted him the Pall, 181.  
Adegarius, a Priest of the Diocese of Sens; his Design to leave his Cure to become a Monk, 170. Authorities that confirmed him, ibid.  
Adelard, Bishop of Verona; the Cause of his Excommunication, 181.  
Adventius, Bishop of Mets, declared Charles the Bald King of Lorraine, 123.  
Adultery; all Commerce with any Person besides a Husband or Wife is Adultery before the Sentence of Dissolution, 47. When it gives Liberty to marry another Woman, 128. And when it hinders, 139. When it makes Marraige void, 137. Penances for Adultery, 139.  
Adulterers; Punishments ordained for them, 130, 131.  
Aeneas, Bishop of Paris, his Election and Ordination, 171.  
Affairs Ecclesiastical; Formalities required about them, 28.  
Afflictions and Sufferings profitable for the Godly, 171  
Agius, Bishop of Autun, his Ordination confirmed, 12●.  
Agobard, Archbishop of Lions, his Deposition, 143. His restoration, ibid.  
Almsgiving; the Punishment of those that do not give the Alms of the Sick, 136. To be given according to Men's Ability, 137 Two sorts, according to Rabanus, 162.  
Altar-Cloath, washed by Chance, loseth not its Consecration, 6.  
Amalphitans, excommunicated, 185 And forced to break their League with the Saracens, ibid.  
Anastasius, a Priest of the Church of Rome, deposed in a Council. Another Priest of Rome, his Affronts offered to Benedict III. Pope, 127.  
Anathema may be pronounced for other Causes besides Heresy, 96. The Ceremonies used before it is pronounced, 122, 130.  
Aniana, an Abbey, its Foundation, 168.  
Ansegisus, Archbishop of Sens, the Pope's Vicar in France and Germany, 50, 188. The Deputy of Charles the Bald to the Pope, who blames his Carriage, 181.  
Anspertus, Archbishop of Milan; the Reproofs and Orders given to him by John VIII. 183. Cited often to the Synods at Rome, 183, 184. Suspended from his Episcopal Office for refusing, 184. Excommunicated; which he solicited to be taken off, 184, 185. His Deposition in a Synod, and the Pope's Orders to choose another in his Place, 185. Joseph Bishop of Vercellae was first ordained, but soon excluded from that Dignity, ibid. Then the Bishop of Ast was ordained; and that Ordination was approved, 186.  
Antichrist, his Life and Actions, 164.  
Antiphonies; reasons for correcting them, 159.  
Apostates, how to be dealt with, 178.  
Appeals to the Holy See, 25, 29, 44, 51. The Pope's Pretensions to Appeals, 44. From Bishops to Metropolitans, and from these to the Patriarch, 98.  
Arles; the Archbishop of Arles made the Pope's Vicar in France, 182. Privileges granted to him upon that account, 182. His Commission to judge 〈◊〉 Bishops, 182.  
Arms; Churchmen not to use them, 135.  
Arts; Schools established for them by a Council, 128.  
Asylum: The Right of the Asyla preserved to Churches, of Advantage to those that fly to Churches,  
Assemblies of Secular Persons not to be in Churches, or Church-porches, 135. A Rule for the Public Assemblies of this Age, 1●6 Days forbidden to them, 137. Nuns or Widows not to be at Public Assemblies, without the Allowance of the Bishop, 1●9.  
Assemblies of Priests in the Deaneries, 152.  
Athanasius, Bishop of Naples, excommunicates his Brother, and assumes the Government of that City, 181. Excommunicated himself, and why, 187.  
Autun; the Charters which confirmed the Gift of the Revenues of that Church, 133.   

B.  
BAptism; allowed Monks to administer, 7. In what Cases Laymen may baptise, ibid. Whether a Priest that communicates with Heretics may baptise, 7. Forbidden to be done by Sprinkling, 118. Ought to be administered only at the time set apart by the Canon, 119. Persons baptised at other times may not be ordained, ibid. Ought to be administered in such Places only as have Fonts, 121. Ought to be administered according to the Rites used at Rome, 114. Time of baptising solemnly, 131, 136. Without Dipping, 131, 136. The Questions of Charles the Great about Baptism, 157. Answered by several Bishops of France, ibid. In the Name of the Trinity, and may not be repeated, 66, 178. It's Administration, 167. By Dipping or Sprinkling, 167 Baptism of Adulterers, ibid. In what Cases it may be administered out of the solemn Times, 178. The validity of Baptism conferred by the Jews, 179. Or a Father to his Child, 184.  
Barbarous, the Pope's Complaint to the Emperor, because he called the Latin Tongue a barbarous Language, 90.  
Barcelona's Attempts against the Rights of that Church condemned, 124.  
Baudrius, a Priest of the Diocese of Sens, how hardly he obtained Leave of his Bishop to leave his Cure and become a Monk, 170. Authorities against such Permission, ibid.  
Beati Immaculati, forbidden to be sung the Saturday before Quasi modo, 7.  
Beggars, their wicked Devices to get Money, 150. How to discover them, ibid.  
Bernard, Count, why excommunicated, 182.  
Bernus, Bishop of Autun, his Ordination, 171.  
Bells, the bigger called Campanae and lesser Nolae, 166.  
Bertram, a Name confounded with Ratramnus, 73.  
Bertulphus, Archbishop of Treves, his Ordination by Hincmarus of Rheims, 205.  
Besancon, Pope John VIII. Advice to the Bishop of it, 182.  
Blessings; different Uses of Blessings in the Church, 163. Of the Blessing of Tables, 178.  
Blood; some Remarks upon our Saviour's sweeting Blood, 107.  
Birds; why they may be eaten on Days of Abstinence, 162.  
Bishops, their Ordination, 23, 51, 128, 161, 181. The Signification of their Staff and Ring, 161. 3 Sorts, according to Rabanus, ibid. To be ordained 3 Months after their Election, 132. The Punishment upon them that are not, ibid. The Causes reserved to them, ibid. Rules for their Life, Carriage and Duties, 97, 98, 114, 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 125. Their Duties, 39, 117, 146, 175. Not to revenge themselves on their Priests, 122. What they may exact of their Curates, and the manner how they may take it, ibid. Their way of Living, and how they ought to visit, ibid. To observe the Canons, under great Penalties, ibid. To maintain their Rights and Privileges 123. Their Ordination, 130. To visit Monasteries, ibid. To go to the Synod, under Pain of Excommunication, 131. Their manner of Visiting Monasteries, 127. Not to overcharge their Curates, 116, 120, 128. To give their Goods to the Poor after their Death, 117. Their Offices, 118. Their Judicial Power, 25, 26. Cannot appeal from the Judges they have chosen, 26. Ought not to be tried by the Pope at first, ibid. But by their Metropolitan or a Synod of the Province, 38. The Pretences of the Pope as to the Causes of the Bishops, 26, 27. Ceremonies required in their Election and Ordination, 27. Cannot leave their Diocese without the Consent of their Metropolitan, 35. Obliged to, celebrate Divine Service on Sundays and Festivals, 125. Rules for their Diet, ibid. Not to be tried before Lay-Judges about Ecclesiastical Affairs, 35. Ought to be subject to their Metropolitans, 38. Can only be cited by Bishops, 87. Rules about their being deposed, 136. How they ought to be restored after several Censures, 93, 94. An absolute Liberty required in their Ministry, 121. Ought not to take an Oath about Sacred Things, ibid. Rules for the Function, 124. Cannot choose their Successor, 142. Translations of Bishops, 52, 53. The Pope's Brethren, 147. Ought not to prefer the Pope's Commands before their Princes, 147, 148. When Private Men may separate themselves from the Bishops, Bishops from the Metropolitan, and Metropolitan from their Patriarch, 88 A Rule for the Ordination of Bishops, ibid. Princes not to concern themselves with their Election, 98. Ought not to ordain or execute their Function in the Churches which are not in their Diocese, ibid. Ought to preserve the Sign of their Profession, if they have been Monks, ibid. Women not to go into their Houses, 121. Prayers for a Bedrid Bishop, 127.  
Books, Canonical; Opinions about their Composure and Translations, 145. What are necessary for Priests, 141, 152  
Boson and Engeltrude; their Estate given to their Children, 182, 183.  
Bread, after it is blessed may be given to the People, 139.  
Bretagne, the Bishop, put under the Jurisdiction of their Metropolitan, 129. Threatened with Excommunication if they did not submit, 183. Admonitions to them to call a Council, 129.  
Bulgaria; the Rights of the Church of Rome over Bulgaria, contested by the Greek Church, 99, 100 P. Nicolas' Answer to them, 179. Bulgarians Questions, 177. And the Rules added to it, ibid. The Ordination of the Bishops there, 178. The indiscreet Zeal of the Kings of Bulgaria reproved by Pope Nicholas, 178. Pope John VIII. Exhortations to the King of the Bulgarians, 187. Whom he accused of Schism, 188.  
Burchard, Bishop of Chartres, the Validity of his Election and Ordination, 126.  
Burial, Ecclesiastical, when granted to persons put to Death, 125. To be allowed gratis, 135, 136, 138, 152. Forbidden to be in Churches to Laymen, 136.   

C.  
Canon's; some Remarks about their Observation, 39 The Canons of the Councils of the Ninth Age, 114.  
Canons; Rules for their Lives, 115. Precepts for Canons and Canonesses, 117. Obliged to live in Common, 122, 124 Cannot serve their Prince, but by the Consent of their Bishop, 122. The Canons of the Church of Tournay limited to thirty, 123.  
Canterbury; the Privileges of that Church confirmed by Pope John VIII, 101.  
Cardinals; their Duty, (182)  
Carolomannus; the Addresses that Pope John made to him, 181. His Deposition was approved by the same Pope, 183.  
Catechumen; the Ceremonies of Baptising them, 28.  
Celebacy commended in Priests, 126. Enjoined for all Sacred Orders, 131. A Canon for the single Life of Widows, 135.  
Chalice; not to be consecrated in the Vestry, 6. The use of Wooden Chalices prohibited, 136. The quantity of Water and Wine to be mixed in them, ibid.  
Chapels, private, forbidden, 124.  
Charles, the Bald, his good Qualities, 124. The Examples he had to imitate, 171.  
Charles, the Gross; the Wants of the Churches in the Holy Land made known to him and his Lords, 152 Threatened with Excommunication by John VIII. Pope, 181. The Pope's Thanks and Requests to him, 186.  
Children; the Honour they own their Parents, 165. Children smothered by lying with their Father or Mother, 165. A Precept about the Teaching them, 115. Parents not to hold their Children at the Font, 115, 116.  
Church, 3 sorts of Members in it, 133. Di●…ded into 2 Parts, 119.  
Church or Temple; original of them, 166. The Signal given to meet there, ibid. Their Use, ibid. Their Foundation, 134. The Consecration of them, and manner of doing it, 117. The Ground ordered for every Church, 118. The Custom of the Greeks before they go into their Churches, 178. The Times of Visiting the Churches of the Martyrs, 15●. Bishops not to require any thing ●or the Consecration of Churches, 131. Judges not to lodge in them, 133. A Rule for their Foundation; 136. The Churches of Heretics may be entered in some Cases, 7. When we may go into the Churches of Bishops that communicate with Heretics, ibid. Priests may not serve divers Churches, 120. Coheirs may not part Churches, 118.  
Chrism, reserved to the Bishops, 112, 113. The Greeks reproved about it, ibid. Not to be used as a Medicine, 109. To be given the Curates, 118. To be consecrated on Holy Thursday only, and nothing to be exacted for the Consecration of it, 121. Bishop's only to consecrate it, 131.  
Christians; this Name given to the Holy Men under the Law, 145. They sell them to the Heathens, to be put to the Penance of Murderers, 165.  
Churchyards; whether the Saints may be prayed to in the Churchyard possessed by Heretics, 7.  
Churchwardens; how to be chosen, 49  
Clergymen, how such as have subscribed to Heresy ought to be dealt with, 7. A Constitution for degraded Clerks, 117. For-Wandring Clerks, 126, 130. Not to exercise their Office without a Letter from their Bishop, 131. A Rule for their Carriage, 137. For their Office, 49. Their Duties, 99, 101, 116, 124, 159. Their Knowledge, 163. Ought not to follow secular business 88, 126, 152. How theirs and Bishop's Causes should be tried, 98. The Cognizance of their Causes reserved to the Bishops, 132, 134. They that abuse them to be excommunicated, 134, 135, 136. The Penance of such as kill a Clerk, 136. The Order of deposing them, ibid. How to be restored, when excommunicated or deposed, 93, 94. The Conditions of their Penance, 94. To be Excommunicated and Degraded, if they obey not their Bishops, 131. May be deprived of their Orders, upon their Confession of a Crime, whether true or false, 47. The Duty of Archpriests, 125, 126. Canons against Vagabond Priests, 126. The Punishment imposed on a Deacon, accused of a State-Crime, 127. Ought not to communicate in the Sacrament or Prayer with a Bishop deposed, 29. A Canon in Favour of the Clergy, 119.  
S. Columbus, an Abbey of Sens, Privileges granted to it, 169. Confirmed by a Charter, ibid.  
Communion, when granted to Sick Persons, without Fasting 6. The Opinion of the Greeks, That the Communion breaks a Fast, 80. Of frequent Communion, 166. Why it were to be wished, That Christians would communicate at every Sacrament, 167. Time of celebrating it, ibid. Frequent Communion in Lent, 177.  
Compeigne; a Confirmation of the Privileges granted to the Abbey there, 124.  
Conversation, scandalous, when it is accounted Adultery in Divorce, 47. The manner of proceeding against a Priest or Nun that lives scandalously, 132.  
Confession; Rules for it, 6, 116. How a Confessor ought to deal with secret Sins, 6. An Irregularity in Confessing secret Sins, 46. Not to be made in Writing as to what concerns the Church, ibid. Cannot justify a Divorce between Husband and Wife, ibid., 47. Of 2 sorts of Sins, 116.  
Confession of Faith; required of Metropolitans, within 3 Months after their Ordination, 132.  
Confirmation not to be repeated, 116. May be conferred after eating, 120. The Time of conferring it, ibid. A Constitution to bring the Children of a Wife by a former Husband to it, 177.  
Confiscation of Goods, commanded against them, who Side with the Enemies of the State, 131.  
Congregation; every Congregation to have a Superior, 130.  
Councils; the seventh General not received in France, 39 Their Decisions of greater Authority than the Writings of the Fathers, 39, 40. Suffragan Bishops to be present at Provincial Councils, 38. Not always necessary to call them, 40. The first General Councils called by the Emperors, 50. The Nycene called mystical, and why, 54. It is not the number but worth of the Bishops that makes them of Force, 90, 91. Metropolitans to be present at Patriarchal Synods, and punished for refusing 98. The Persons that make up Councils of 3 sorts, and their Disposition, 115. Of holding Provincial Councils, 120. A Rule for Diocesan Synods, 123. Priests to be at them, 128. The Council of Photius against Pope Nicolas, condemned, 179.  
Creed; The Filioque taken out of the Greeks Creed, 103. Added to the Latin Creed, ibid. 114. Priests obliged to say Athanasius' Creed, 141, 152.  
Crimes; what Proofs allowed anciently to clear Men from them, 47. When known any other ways than by Confession to be discovered, 132.  
Cross; veneration given it, 2, 3, 4. The Sign of it used in all Consecrations and Blessings in the Church, 4. Examinations by the Cross forbidden, 118. The use of carrying the Cross approved, 177.  
Coronation, of Charles the Bald at Me●z, 123. A good Omen taken from this Coronation, ibid. His Coronation at Rome and Pavia, 124. The Coronation of Lewis the Stammerer at Troy's, 133.  
Curates; a Rule for their Duties on Festivals, 138. Their Office towards the Sick, ibid. A Priest may serve but one Church, 139. And not seek another, ibid. May not turn Monks without the Permission of their Bishop, 170. An Example against that Custom, ibid. See Clergymen.   

D.  
DEad; Prayers for them, 116, 134.  
Deacons; a Rule for their Deposition, 136. Their Ministry, 162.  
Deputies; the Formalities required for their reception in a Council, 92.  
Deus in adjutorium, in what Service not said, 167.  
Deus dedit, Count, his Marriage censured by the Archbishop of Ravenna, 186. The Determination of it put off to a Synod, ibid. His Marriage confirmed, 187.  
Dignities Ecclesiastical ought to be given to the Clergy of the same Church before others, 97. Dimissory Letters, how granted, 128.  
Proofs made by Scalding-water and hot Irons, to clear the Innocency of Persons suspected, 52, 136, 144, 147.  
Protection by Churches and Bishops, how far altered, some Rules about it, 123.  
Psalms; the original of their parting into divers Offices, 167. Their several Editions, ibid.  
Power: the Distinction between the Ecclesiastical and Civil, 103. The Respect due to both, 124.   

R.  
RAdoaldus, Bishop of Porto, the Pope's Legate to Constantinople, 87, 89. Summoned to a Council to give an account of his Carriage, 89. Deposed and Excommunicated in the Synod, 90.  
Rapes not to be tolerated by Princes, 52.  
Ravenna; the Pope's Advice to the Archbishop of it, about his Election, 183. And the Bishop of Sarsennes, ibid. And concerning the Wrong had been done him, 185. Other Differences between him and the Pope, 187. Excommunicated, ibid.  
Ravishers. Canons against them, 123, 130, 132, 134. Penalties imposed upon them, 126, 130, 135, 187.  
Rebellion: The Punishment of those guilty of it, 45. Condemned in the Archbishop of ●ens, 129  
Reformation of the Abbey of S. Dennis, 11, 119, 190. Some Edicts and Grants for it, ibid.  
Religion: Scotus' Method of treating Questions in it, 15, 16.  
Religion of Christians: The Excellency of its Constitution, 193. In what it consists, 177.  
Relics: the Honour due to them, 4. Advice to the Bishop of Langres, to prevent the Abuses of the Relics of a Martyr, 150. The Forgery of certain Persons, who pretend themselves to be tormented in the presence of Relics, at their Entrance into the Church, 150, 151.  
Revenues of the Church, forbidden to be taken away, 35, 121, 128 Sold or alienated, 97. An Anathema to those that take them away, 98. How to deal with them that farm them, ibid. Not to be alienated, 117, 119, 120, 127. How to be employed, 118, 120. The effects of a Petition to King Pepin, to restore the church-good, 120. Some Canons for their Preservation, 122, 124, 132, 133, 136 To be disposed of by the Bishop, 135, 131. Not to be exchanged without the King's Consent, 127, 128. The Rights of alienated Church Revenues confirmed, 128, 136. They who made them excommunicated, 13●, 135 And Anathematised, 134. Forbidden to be extorted upon a precarious Title, 135. Discharged of Taxes, ibid. Their Use and Distribution, 139. Their Dispensation and Usurpation, 146. Their Division into 4 parts, and their Use, 152. Their Usurpers, 193.  
Resurrection; the Doctrine of a general Resurrection, 131.  
Rheims; the Churches of Rheims and Treves accounted as Sisters in the 9th Age. 54.  
Robbery, how to discover the Author of it in a Monastery, 131.  
Rogation; their Institution and Fasting, 115, 158, 159. The several times for them, 167.  
Rome, the Church of it, the Respect and Obedience due to it, 2, 5, 124, 137. It's Primacy, 113. It's Ancient Privileges, 180. Customs, 166, 167. Compared to the old Jerusalem, 22. Its Prayers show us what to believe, ibid. Its Donations ill settled, 119. Exempted from Heresy, 867. Photius' Objections against it, 106,  
Rostagnus' Wife compelled to return to her Duty, 183.   

S.  
SAcraments; their Excellency and Ministration, 144. Are Pledges and Evidences of Salvation, 69. Ought not to be administered in private Chapels without Permission, 88 How the Priests ought to behave themselves in administering the Sacraments to the Sick, 125. Rabanus' Doctrine about them, 162. Not allowed to Usurer, 6. Ought to be received Fasting, unless in case of Necessity, 120. Where and how they may be administered to such Priests that have communicated with Heretics, 7. Cannot be defiled, altho' administered by a wicked Priest, 178.  
Sacrifice; 2 sorts of it according to Amalarius, the one General the other Particular, 159.  
Sacrilege, Penalties and the Penance imposed upon such as are guilty of it, 97, 133  
Saints; whether they may be prayed to in the Church-Yards where their Bodies are laid, tho' in the possession of Heretics, 7.  
Sanctorum Meritis; a Hymn so called, forbidden to be sung in the Church of Rheims, and for what Reason, 24.  
Sanctuary, not be entered by Women, 138.  
Schism; how they are to be dealt with that are in it, 7.  
Schools for Arts and Sciences founded, 128, 130.  
Scripture; Clergymen should be well versed in it, 163. Dangerous to be left, 39  
Selgenstat, an Abbey, by whom founded, 189.  
Separation in Marriage, in what Cases allowed, 131.  
Service, Divine, its parts, 166, 167. Rites and Usages, 158, 159.  
Sfensopulcher, Earl of Sclavonia; the Pope's good Wishes and Advice to him, 185.  
Simony condemned in bishops, 175.  
Slaves not to be ordained, 118, 131, 137. A Penalty for their Death, 129. Whether Runagate Servants may be prayed for after their Death, 166.  
Singing after the Roman Fashion introduced into France, 167.  
Sorcerers; the weakness of their Enchantments, 144, 145.  
Soul; of its Original and Nature, 50, 164. Opinions concerning its Creation, 145.  
Spoletus; the Duke of that Name deprived of his Dominions, 179. Rome taken by that Duke, 180. His Injuries to the Church of Rome, 182.  
Stercoranism; divers Opinions about it, 78, 79, 80. Why the infamous Name of Stercoranists was given to the Greeks, 80.  
Suffragans; their Institution and Function, 161, 162. Their Dignity and Power, 164, 165. Offices forbidden them, 177. May not meddle with the Functions of Bishops, 121. Nor consecrate Churches, 135.  
Sunday; its Holiness, 120, 128.  
Subscriptions not to be required of Suffragan Bishops, and why, 97. The Respect given a Greek Emperor in those of the Acts of a Council, 99 An Accident in the Subscription of the Legates for the Western Emperor, according to his quality, ibid.  
Superstition of the Greeks about Beasts slain by Eunuches, 178. A Question about the superstitious Cure of the Biting of a Dog, 165.  
Synods, see Councils.   

T.  
TEmples; their Original, 166.  
Theognostus; Ignatius' Envoy to Pope Nicholas, 89.  
Taverns and Alehouses not to be frequented by Clergymen, 49, 141, 152.  
Theodrona, a Widow; the Force and Constraint which her Brother-in-Law put upon her to become a Nun, 185. The Pope's Commission to regulate that affair, ibid.  
Thursday, Holy; the Ceremonies used on that Day in the 9th Age, 193.  
Thyrsus, a Priest of Corduba, his Encroachment upon the Rights of the Bishop of Barcelona condemned, 124.  
Tyths not to be sold, to be converted to our own Advantage, 54. A Constitution about the Tyths of New Church, 118, 136. To whom they belong, 122. Their Payment and Use, 126, 133, 135, 141. May not be taken from one Church to be given to another, 134. Their division into 4 parts, and their Use, 145.  
Tonsure or Shaving; the Signification of that Ceremony, 161. Forbidden to be conferred upon the account of Interest, 118, Or without Consent of Parents, ibid.  
Tournay; the Confirmation of the Property of the Revenues of the Church of Taurnay, and the number of the Canons fixed to thirty, 123.  
Tours; the Confirmation of the Privileges of the Church of Tours, 133.  
Trajan and Theodofius; patterns propounded to Charles the Bald, 171.  
Translations of Bishops forbidden, 52, 53, 183. Reasons which may seem to prove it lawful, 52. Other Reasons which render it faulty, 153. Of Bishops to other Churches, ibid. 155.  
Treason punished with Excommunication, 183.  
〈◊〉; whether it be any thing else but God, 145.   

V  
V●…inus, Abbot of Corby; a Treatise dedicated to him under the Name of Placidus, 69.  
Venice; the Bishop of it forbidden to exercise his Episcopal Function, 183.  
Vessels, sacred, not to be employed in profane Uses, 88 Not to be pawned, unless for the Redemption of Captives, 118. Not to be touched By Women, 120.  
Vails; the Duties of those that assume them, 136 137. Not to be conferred upon a Virgin without the Consent of her Parents, nor before the Age of 25 Years, 118. The Time prescribed to Widows to assume it, 120, 135. Some ●ules for those that have taken it, 131, 136, 137. Cannot be given without the Bishop's Permission, 120.  
Vicars of the Pope in France, their Power, 175, 182. Their Pretences injurious to the Rights of Metropolitans, and therefore opposed by them at first, 50.  
Virgin; the Death of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 19  
Virginity; a ridiculous Question about it, 47. Some Remarks upon the Text of the Gospel, about the Virginity of the Virgin Mary, 107.  
Visitations; Bishops to visit once a Year, all their Diocese, 122. The Rights due to them for visiting, ibid. They can exact nothing if they visit not in Person, ibid. 128. Visiting of Monasteries, 134.  
Visitors; what they ought to do in visiting Churches 49. Their Charges limited, ibid.  
Unction of the Sick; its Administration, 117, 152. The Carriage of the Priest in administering of it, 125. Can't be conferred upon a Person not absolved, ibid.  
Usury prohibited, 120, 122, 126, 128.   

W.  
WIdows; a Constitution for Widows and Orphans, 126. And far veiled Widows, 131, 137. Bishop's to judge their Cause, 132. The Time prefixed for them to take the Veil 118, 120 How they ought to live in their single Life, 135.  
Witches condemned, 138.  
Witnesses; the Age which is necessary to qualify them to depose, 135. False Witnesses, the Penance imposed upon them, 96. Excommunicated, 130.  
Women; Clergymen forbidden to have a familiar Converse with Women, 118, 124, 127, 134, 135, 136, 138, 152. Have sometimes administered the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, 120. Obliged to be covered in the Church, 178.   

Z.  
ZAchary, Bishop of Ag●●●ia, the Pope's Legate at Constantinople, 87, 89. His Conduct during this Office disapproved in a Council, 89. Deposed and excommunicated on the same account, ibid.   
FINIS.   

A NEW Ecclesiastical History; Containing an ACCOUNT of the CONTROVERSIES IN RELIGION; THE LIVES and WRITINGS OF Ecclesiastical Authors; AN Abridgement of their Works, And a JUDGEMENT on their STYLE and DOCTRINE: ALSO, A Compendious HISTORY of the COUNCILS, AND All Affairs Transacted in the CHURCH. Written in FRENCH By Lewis Ellies du PIN, Doctor of the SORBON.  
VOLUME the EIGHTH; Containing the HISTORY of the TENTH CENTURY.  
LONDON: Printed for Abel Swall at the Unicorn in Pater-Noster-Row. MDCXCVIII.   

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE AND Right Reverend Father in God, HENRY, Lord Bishop of LONDON; AND ONE Of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, etc.  
My Lord,  
YOUR Generosity to Strangers, which all the World owns and must admire, hath Encouraged me to Publish these Papers under the Protection of your Venerable Name. They are of such a Nature, as may in a great measure expect a favourable Reception from your Lordship, who are one of the Fathers of our Church; And may not be ungrateful to those, who would know what Luminaries shone, and what Learned Men Flourished even in those dark and ignorant days of Christianity.  
My Lord,  
I will not trouble your Lordship with a long Account of Du-Pin's Performance, whom you very well understand in the Original; and much more the Fathers of whose Writings and Lives he has given us an Extract in this Collection. Whether I have done him Justice or no, your Lordship is the best Judge. Such therefore as it is, I submit it and myself to better Judgements, and Humbly Present it to your Lordship, as an Acknowledgement of the Honour I have of being one of,  
My Lord, Your Lordship's Most Humble, and Dutiful Servants William Jones.   

TO THE READER.  
THE greatest Part of the Historians, who have delivered their Opinions concerning the Character of the Tenth Century, have represented it as an Age of Darkness, Ignorance and Obscurity, accompanied with Notorious Disorders and Irregularities. The Author of a Treatise, called, The Perpetuity of the Faith, has undertaken to Vindicate it from these Censures, and to make it appear on the contrary, That it is one of the most Happy Ages of the Church, and that its Disorders being only such as were common to 
Lesser Perpet. Part 3. p. 36●.  the Preceding, it has some very remarkable Advantages: But a third Writer, who would seem to keep the middle Way between both these Extremes, appears (in my Opinion) to have come nearer to the Mark. For if on the one side, the Author of the Perpetuity has well observed, That there were Holy Men, and some clearsighted Persons in that Century; it cannot be denied on the other side, That Ignorance, Vices and Irregularities were not generally very predominant. The inconsiderable Number of Authors, who wrote; the few Works they left; the Rudeness and Barbarism of their Style; the Matters contained in their Dissertations; and the Complaints that even those Writers themselves make, of the Disorders which prevailed in their Time; are evident Proofs, That the Censures passed upon that Century, are not without sufficient Ground: And if a due Comparison be made, between the Writers, the Works, the Subjects treated of, the Constitutions of Councils, the Church-Discipline, and the Manners of the Christians of the same Age, with those of the preceding; it cannot but be readily acknowledged, That it is in many Respects inferior to them.  
'Tis true indeed, that there were Irregularities in all the Ages of the Church, but that they were Commensurate to those which were so common in the Tenth Century; or that they were spread abroad so far, or become so general, is an Assertion, which cannot be maintained with any manner of probability: For who can avouch with assurance, That that Age had as great a share in Learning and Eloquence; was as fruitful in Illustrious Personages and Ecclesiastical Writers; or wa● as productive of Excellent Works and Regular Constitutions, as the preceding Centuries? Who would adventure to compare the Pope's John IX, X, XII, and XIII. and the other Bishops of Rome, who lived in the Tenth Century, I will not say, to S. Leo, or S. Gregory; but even to those Popes, who were less eminent in former Times? Or who would attempt to set up Ratherius, Atto, Flodoard, Luitprand, Metaphrastes, and other Ecclesiastical Writers, whose Number is very small, not to say in opposition to S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Ambrose, S. Augustin, Eusebius and Theodoret; but even to the more Common Authors of the preceding Ages? Upon the whole, it ought to be certainly determined, That 'tis not without good Reason, that that Century, in comparison of the foregoing, and even of those that follow it, has been generally styled, The Age of Darkness, Ignorance and ●…curity. However it must be acknowledged, That 'twas not altogether Dark, and that it brought forth some Lights, which penetrated the Darkness, and dispersed part of the Obscurity. The most Ingenious M. Du Pin followed these Luminaries, and took them for his Guides, in writing the Ecclesiastical History of the Age in which they flourished, and in giving an Impartial Account of the Matters treated of by them; which he has done with that Clearness, Generosity and Integrity, which is so inseparable from the Character of this Great Man.   

A Table of the Contents OF THE TENTH CENTURY.  

CHAP. I.  
AN Account of the most considerable Transactions in the Eastern Church during the Tenth Century, Page 1.  
Leo the Philosopher Emperor of the East, ibid.  
The Disturbances which happened in the Eastern Church upon the Account of Leo ' s fourth marriage, ibid.  
Nicolas Patriarch of Constantinople is banished, ibid.  
Nicolas is reestablished. ibid.  
The Letters of Nicolas Patriarch of Constantinople to the Pope and others. 2  
The Reunion of the Clergy of Constantinople, ibid.  
The Patriarches of Constantinople who succeeded Nicolas, ibid.  
Theophylact an unworthy Patriarch of Constantinople, ibid.  
Polyeucta Patriarch of Constantinople, ibid.  
Nicephorus Phocas Emperor, ibid.  
John Zemisces Emperor, 3  
The Death of Polyeucta, and Basil put in his place, ibid.  
Antony Studita Patriarch of Constantinople, ibid.  
Nicolas Chrysobergius and Sisinnius Patriarches of Constantinople, ibid.  
Simeon Metaphrastes, ibid.  
John Cameniates, 4  
Constantine Porphyrogenneta, ibid.  
Hipppolytus Thebanus, ibid.  
Eurychius Patriarch of Alexandria, ibid.  
Nico of Armenia, ibid.  
Nicephorus the Philosopher, 5  
Moses Bar-Cephas, ibid.   

CHAP. II.  
An Account of the Church of Rome, and other Italian Churches during the Tenth Century, 5  
The State of the Church of Rome in the Tenth Century, ibid.  
The Ordination of Pope Formosus, ibid.  
The Condemnation of Formosus by Stephen VI 6  
Romanus and Theodorus two Popes. 7  
Pope John IX. ibid.  
The Wars between Berenger and Lambert, ibid.  
The Council of Rome and Ravenna in favour of Formosus, ibid.  
Benedict X. Pope, ibid.  
Pope Christophilus, 7  
Pope Sergius condemns Formosus, ibid.  
Pope Anastasius, ibid.  
The Death of Lambert, 7  
Landon an unworthy Pope, ibid.  
Pope John X. ibid.  
Pope Leo VI ibid.  
Pope Stephen VII. ibid.  
John XI. A Monster of a Pope, ibid.  
Alberic becomes Master of Rome, 8  
The Wars of Italy, ibid.  
Manasses relinquishes his Archbishopric of Arles to go into Italy, ibid.  
Pope Leo VII. ibid.  
Pope Stephen VIII. ibid.  
Pope Marinus II. 9  
Pope Agapetus II. ibid.  
The Wars between Hugh and Berenger, ibid.  
Pope John XII. 10  
The Wars of Berenger and Otho, ibid.  
Otho crowned Emperor by John XII. ibid.  
The Disloyalty of Pope John XII. ibid.  
Otho returns to Rome, and causes John XII. to be deposed, 11  
The Council at Rome against John XII. ibid.  
The Ordination of Pope Leo VIII. 12  
The Tragical Death of Pope John XII. 13  
Benedict the Antipope, ibid.  
Benedict is deposed, and Leo the VIII. re-establshed, ibid.  
Pope John XIII. ibid.  
The Council of Ravenna in the year 967. ibid.  
Pope Donus and Pope Benedict VI ibid.  
Boniface the Usurper outed by Benedict, ibid.  
The Wars and Death of Otho II. ibid.  
Otho III: crowned Emperor, ibid.  
Pope John XIV. ibid.  
Boniface returns to Rome, ibid.  
Pope John XV. 15  
Pope Gregory V ibid.  
John the Antipope, ibid.  
Gerbert named Pope Sylvester II. ibid.  
The Letters of John IX. ibid.  
Herveus Archbishop of Rheims ' s Memorial concerning Repentance; ibid.  
The Letters of Benedict IU. 16  
The Letter of Hatto Archbishop of Mentz to John IX. ibid.  
The Letters of the Bishops of Bavaria to John IX. ibid.  
The Council of Rome under John IX. 17  
The Council of Ravenna under John IX. 18  
The Letters of Pope John X. ibid.  
The Letters of Charles the Simple about Hilduin, ibid.  
The Letters of Pope Leo VII. 19  
A Letter of Pope Agapetus, ibid.  
The Letters of John XII. 20  
The Letters of John XIII. ibid.  
The Letters of Benedict VII. ibid.  
The Letters of John XV. ibid.  
The Letters of Gregory V ibid.  
Ratherius Bishop of Verona, ibid.  
Atto Bishop of Verceil. 26  
Luitprand Bishop of Cremona, 28   

CHAP. III.  
An Account of the Churches of France, 29  
The Dignity of the Church of Rheims, ibid.  
The State of France after the Death of Charles the Gross, 30  
The Reign of Charles the Simple, ibid.  
The Reign of Radulphus, ibid.  
The Reign of Lewis d'Outremer, ibid.  
The Reign of Lotharius ibid.  
Lewis the Faint-hearted the last King of the Corolignian Race, ibid.  
Hugh Capet and Robert, Kings of France, ibid.  
Fulcus Archbishop of Rheims, 31  
A Letter of Pope Stephen V to Fulcus, ibid.  
Other Letters of Stephen V to Fulcus, ibid.  
Other Writings of Stephen V in favour of the Church of Rheims, 32  
The Letters of Fulcus to Formosus, ibid.  
The Letters of Formosus to Fulcus, ibid.  
The Letters of Fulcus to Pope Stephen VI 33  
The Letters of Fulcus to the Kings and Princes, ibid.  
The Letters of Fulcus to the Bishops, 34  
The Letters of Fulcus to the Abbots, 35  
Herveus Archbishop of Rheims, ibid.  
The Council of Trosly in the year 909. ibid.  
The Council of Trosly in the year 921. 36  
Seulfus Archbishop of Rheims, ibid.  
Hugh elected Archbishop of Rheims, ibid.  
The Wars between Hebert Count of Vermandois and King Radulphus, ibid.  
The State of France under King Radulphus, ibid.  
Artaldus' Archbishop of Rheims, ibid.  
The Council held at Soissons for the Deposing Artaldus and Ordaining Hugh, 37  
The Council of Verdun in favour of Artaldus, ibid.  
The Council of Mouzon against Hugh, ibid.  
The Council of Ingelheim in favour of Artaldus, 38  
The Council of Mouzon in the year 948. ibid.  
The Council of Treves or Trier in the same year, 39  
The Death of Artaldus Archbishop of Rheims, ibid.  
Odalric and Adalberon Archbishops of Rheims, ibid.  
Arnulphus Archbishop of Rheims, ibid.  
The Council of Rheims against Arnulphus, 40  
Gerbert Archbishop of Rheims, 43  
The Council of Mouzon in the year 995. ibid.  
The Synod of Rheims against Gerbert, 44  
The Re-establishment of Arnulphus in the Bishopric of Rheims, ibid.  
The Writings of Gerbert, ibid.  
Flodoard Prebendary of Rheims, 45  
Aurelian Clerk of the Church of Rheims, 46  
Bernerus Monk of S. Remy at Rheims, ibid.  
Gautier Archbishop of Sens, 47  
Of the other Bishops of France, ibid.  
The Resolutions of the Bishops of France concerning the Dedication of a Church, ibid.  
The Council of Charroux in the year 989. 48  
The Council of Poitiers in the year 999. ibid.  
The Council of Ravenna in the year 997. ibid.  
The Marriage of King Robert with Bertha, ibid.  
The Council of Rome in the year 998. under Gregory V ibid.  
The Founding of the Abbey of Clunie, 49  
Otho Abbot of Clunie, 50  
John Monk of Clunie, ibid.  
Odilo Abbot of Clunie, ibid.  
Abbo Abbot of Fleury, 51  
The Council of S. Dennis in the year 995. ibid.  
Aimoin Monk of Fleury, 52  
Stephen Abbot of Lobes, ibid.  
Fulcuin Abbot of Lobes, 53  
Heriger Abbot of Lobes, ibid.  
Aldebold Bishop of Utrecht, ibid.  
Albert Abbot of Gemblours, 54  
Odilo Monk of S. Medeard at Soissons, ibid.  
Gerard Abbot of S. Medard of Soissons, ibid.  
John Abbot of S. Arnulphus at Mets, ibid.  
Helperic or Chilperic Monk of S Gall, ibid.  
Berthier Priest of Verdun, 55  
Adso Abbot of Luxueil, ibid.  
Adso Abbot of Devures, ibid.  
Letaldus' Monk of S. Memin. ibid.   

CHAP. IU.  
The History of the Churches of Germany, ibid.  
The Revolutions of the Empire of Germany in the Tenth Century, ibid.  
S. Ulric Bishop of Augsburgh, 56  
Adalbero Bishop of Augsburgh, 58  
The two Adalberts who were Saints, ibid.  
Bruno Archbishop of Cologn, ibid.  
Roger Monk of S. Pantaleon, ibid.  
Rathboldus' Bishop of Utrecht, 59  
Hildebert Archbishop of Mentz, ibid.  
William Archbishop of Mentz, ibid.  
Bonno Abbot of Corbey in Saxony, ibid.  
Waltramnus Bishop of Strasburgh, ibid.  
Solomon Bishop of Constance, 60  
Utho Bishop of Strasburgh, ibid.  
Notger the Stammerer, ibid.  
Witichindus Monk of Corbey in Westphalia, ibid.  
Roswida a Nun, 61  
Reginaldus Bishop of Eichstadt, ibid.  
Thierry Archbishop of Triers, ibid.  
Othlo Bishop of Mets, ibid.  
Uffing or Uffo Monk of Werthin, 62  
A Council at Coblentz in the year ●22. ibid.  
A Council at Erfurdt in the year 932. ibid.  
A Council at Augsburgh in the year 952. ibid.   

CHAP. V.  
An Account of the Churches of England, 63  
The State of England in the Tenth Century, ibid.  
A Council at Canterbury under King Edward and Phlegmon Archbishop of that City, ibid.  
King Edward's Laws, ibid.  
King Ethelstan's Laws, ibid.  
An Ecclesiastical Assembly under King Edmund, ibid.  
Odo Archbishop of Canterbury, 64  
An Assembly of Bishops at London in the year 948. ibid.  
S. Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury, ibid.  
A General Council of England in the year 973. 65  
A Council under S. Dunstan and King Edgar, ibid.  
A Council at Winchester in the year 975. ibid.  
S. Ethelwold Bishop of Winchester, ibid.  
Alfric or Aelfric Archbishop of Canterbury, 66  
Fridegod Monk of S. Saviour at Canterbury, ibid.  
Lanfrid and Wulstan Monks of Winchester, ibid.   

CHAP. VI  
Observations on the Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Tenth Century, ibid.  
Controversies about Doctrinal Points, ibid.  
Of the Eucharist, ibid.  
Of the Pope's Authority, 67  
Several Points of Discipline, 68  
The Canonization of Saints, 69  
The Institution of the Seven Electors of the Empire, 70  
A Chronological Table of the Ecclesiastical History of the Tenth Age of the Church.  
A Chronological Table of the Ecclesiastical Authors who flourished in the Tenth Century.  
A Table of the Works of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the Tenth Century.  
A Table of the Writings of the Ecclesiastical Authors, disposed according to the Matters they treat of.  
An Alphabetical Table of the Ecclesiastical Authors in this Century.  
An Alphabetical Table of the Councils held in this Century.  
An Alphabetical Table of the Principal Matters contained in this Volume.    
AN HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSIES AND OTHER Ecclesiastical Affairs Which happened in the Tenth Century. 
A. D. 90●   

CHAP. I.  
An Account of the most Considerable Transactions in the Eastern Church, during the Tenth Century.  
AT the beginning of this Century, Leo the Philosopher, one of the most Learned 
Leo the Philosopher Emperor of the East.  Emperors the Greeks ever had, governed the Empire of the East. This Prince having had three Wives successively, and no Issue Male by either of them, being desirous of a Son to succeed him, marries a fourth Wife, by name Zoe, by whom he already had a Son before the Nuptials. But a third Marriage being prohibited in the East, and Leo himself having enacted a Law against such as should contract such a 
The Disturbances which happened in the Eastern Church upon the account of Leo's 4th Marriage.  Marriage, Nicholas the Patriarch of Constantinople, refuses to marry this Prince to this fourth Wife, deposes Presbyter Thomas who ventured to do it, and excommunicates the Emperor himself. Leo had recourse to the Pope for his Approbation of the Marriage; and because such successive Marriages (how often soever contracted) were tolerated in the West, he easily obtained from Pope Sergius the point he desired. This Pope sent his Legates into the East to confirm the Marriage of Leo; but the Patriarch of Constantinople would not give the least ground, nor acknowledge the Emperor's Marriage as valid, or his Son Constantine Porphyrogenneta as lawful Heir to the Crown. The Emperor did all he could to change his Mind, but finding him fixed in his Resolution, he banish t him in the beginning of the year 901, and plac d in his Room Euthymius, who held the Patriarchal See of Constantinople till about the end of Leo's Reign: For Nicholas himself assures 
Nicholas the Patriarch of Constantinople is banished.  us, that this Prince, touched with the remorse of what he had done, recall d him from his Exile, and re-established him a little before his Death: In which matter he is rather to be credited, than those Authors who tell us that he was recalled by Alexander the Brother of Leo, which happened after the Death of this Prince, in the year 911, the time when he was declared Governor to Constantine Porphyrogenneta. Let it be how it will, Euthymius fell into disgrace, and was banished, and died shortly after: And Nicholas' Interest so far prevailed, 
Nicholas is re-established.  that after the Death of Alexander, who did not outlive his Brother above thirteen Months, he was chosen Tutor of the Young Emperor. It was at this time, that he wrote 
The Letters of Nicholas Patriarch of Constannople to the Pope and others.  a long Letter to the Pope, acquainting him of the whole Contest with the Emperor Leo about his last Marriage, and stiffly maintained, contrary to the Practice and Opinion of the Church of Rome, that to marry a third or fourth time was absolutely unlawful. But the Patriarch having received no answer from Rome, wrote another to Pope John, wherein he offers to observe a fair Correspondence and Union with the holy See, provided he would own that a fourth Marriage was not to be permitted to the Emperor, unless by way of Indulgence or Consideration of his Royal Person, and that in itself it was unlawful. The same Patriarch wrote several other Letters, viz. to Simeon Prince of Bulgaria, recommending the Legates which the Pope sent him: One to the Prince of Armenia, upon the Conversion of several Armenians, who had abandoned their Errors: another to the Prince of the Saracens, to dissuade him from persecuting the Christians: One wrote from the Place of his Exile to the Bishops, who had owned Euthymius for their Patriarch; and two other Letters of Compliment, one to the Prince of Lombardy, and the other to the Prince of the Amalphitans.  
The Empress Zoe, who had taken the Government into her own hands, and had expelled 
The reunion of the Clergy of Constantinople.  the Patriarch Nicholas from Court in the year 914, was herself divested of her Authority in the year 919, and thrust into the Monastery of Saint Euphemia, by Patricius Romanus, whom Constantine had made his Partner in the Throne. Hitherto the Clergy of Constantinople were divided into two Parties, one declaring for Nicholas, the other for Euthymius; but were reunited in the year 920, and made a Treaty of Union in an Ecclesiastical Convocation, by which (without disannulling any thing that was past) they absolutely prohibited for the future a fourth Marriage, under the pain of Excommunication to be inflicted on those who should contract such Marriage, and to be in force during the continuance of such Marriage. They likewise inflicted a Penance of five years on such as should marry a third time being above forty years old: And a Penance of three years on such as should remarry after thirty years of Age, if they had any Children by their former Marriages.  
By this Regulation was the Church of Constantinople restored to its former Quire, the Peaceable possession of which Nicholas enjoyed to his Death, which happened in the year 
The Patriarches of Constantinople who succeeded Nicholas.  930. Stephen the Archbishop of Amasea was his Successor, who presided over this Church almost three years. After his Death the Patriarchal See of Constantinople was designed for Theophilact the Emperor's Son; but he being under age, this Dignity was reposed by way of Trust in the hands of one Tripho a Monk. He being once in possession refused to resign his Place to Theophilact; but the Emperor made use of one, who cunningly procured a Blank Paper signed by the Patriarch's own hand, which he filled up with a Resignation of the Patriarchship, as acknowledging himself unworthy of it. Whereupon he was deposed in a Synod held at Constantinople in the year 944, and Theophilact was constituted 
Theophylact an unworthy Patriarch of Constantinople. Pylyeucta Patriarch of Constantipople.  in his place. But this Man led a Life far different from what a Patriarch ought to lead, and was more taken up with his Horses and his Hounds, and other such like Diversions, than with discharging the Duty of his Place. He died in the year 956 of a Dropsy, occasioned by a fall off his Horse, which fling him against a Wall. The Emperor constituted in his Room Polyeucta, a poor Monk, but one of extraordinary good Morals, who was Ordained by Basil Bishop of Caesarea, and not by Nicephorus of Heraclea, to whom that Ordination did of Right belong. The liberty which this Patriarch took of reproving the Great Men at Court, immediately drew upon him a great many Enemies, who inclined the Emperor to think of Deposing him. He was confirmed in this Resolution by Theodorus of Cizica, but notwithstanding he was so bend upon it, he died without doing any thing therein. His Son Romanus, who was supposed to give his Father a Lift into the other world, succeeded him in the year 960, and caused his Son Basil to be Crown d by Polyeucta. But this young Prince and his Brother Constantine, not being of age to enter upon the Government when their Father died in the year 963, Nicephorus Phocas was proclaimed Emperor by the Army, and Crowned by Polyeucta. A while after 
Nicephorus Phocas Emperor.  this Patriarch had a warm debate with the Emperor: For this Emperor having married Theophanes, the Widow of Romanus, Polyeucta threatened to excommunicate him unless he would Renounce her: (1.) Because this was the second Marriage Nicephorus had contracted, without submitting to the Penance due to those who were Guilty of Bigamy. (2.) Because it was reported that Nicephorus had stood Godfather to one of Theophanes s Children, the Emperor proposed this Question to the Bishops who were then in Constantinople, and to the chief of his Council, who left him at his Liberty to keep Theophanes as his Wife: And Polyeucta himself did not insist any more on the Dissolution of the Marriage, after that the Emperor had assured him upon his Oath, that he had never stood Godfather to any of Theophanes' Children, which was confirmed by Stylien, chief Secretary of State, who made a Recantation of what he had formerly said about it. This Emperor began his Reign with success, and retook a great many Provinces of Asia from the Saracens; but he loaded his People with Taxes, and seized upon the Revenues of the Church to give to his Soldiers. After the Death of any Bishops he would send a Commissary to seize upon their Temporalities, and prohibited the choosing any others in their stead, without his consent and orders, which was confirmed in a Synod. At the same time he would fain have had a Ratification of this Proposal, That all Soldiers who died in the Field, should be declared Saints as the Martyrs were; but the Bishops opposed it. However, they could not persuade two of their Brethren who had born Arms, and fought against the Enemy, to relinquish their Ministerial Functions; several amongst them of a more Martial Genius approving of this their Conduct. The exactions of Nicephorus, and the bad success of his Arms in Italy, having rendered him Odious to the people 
John Zemmisces Emperor.  of Constantinople, he was killed in an Insurrection of them, and John, Surnamed Zemisces, Reigned in his stead in the year 969. Polyeucta refused to Crown him, till he had banished the Murderers of Nicephorus, sent Theophanes from Court, and promised to give to the Poor, as an Expiation of his Fault, the Estate which he had when a private 
The death of Polyeucta. Basil put in his place.  man. This was the last Action of Polyeucta, who died five and thirty days after he had Crowned this Prince, in the beginning of the year 970, having held the Patriarchal See of Constantinople fourteen Years. Basil the Monk succeeded him, who had the Government of that Church till the Death of John Zemisces, which happened about the year 975 or 976, after which the two Sons of Romanus being upon the Throne, and having recalled their Mother Theophanes, Basil the Patriarch was deposed in Council, and 
Anthony Studita Patriarch of Constantinople.  Anthony Studita succeeded him. But he did not enjoy the Patriarchship long; for the year after Bardus, Surnamed the Hard, having revolted and taken upon him the Quality and Ensigns of Emperor, Anthony of his own accord quitted his place and withdrew. The See of Constantinople became Vacant during four Years, the time he survived. After his Death, Nicholas, Surnamed Chrysoberge succeeded, who had Sisinnius for his Successor in the year 993. Basil and Constantine, who had subdued Bardus, Reigned still as Emperors. 
Nicholas Chrysoberge, and Sisinnius Patriarches of Constantinople.  Basil lived to the Year 1025, and his Brother Constantine lived three Years after him.  
During this whole Century, the Greek Church, which was upon its Declension, proved very Barren, both of famous Men and good Authors. We find among them but very few who made it their business to compose, and their Works are very inconsiderable, both in respect to the Matter, and to the Manner wherein they were writ.  

Simeon Metaphrastes.  
ONe of those who wrote most was Simeon, Surnamed Metaphrastes, so called from 
Simeon Metaphrastes.  his turning the Ancient Lives of the Saints into another sort of a Style than that wherein they were formerly written. He was an Officer in the Palace, Lord High Chancellor, and flourished in the Tenth Century, chief under the Reign of Constantine Porphyrogenneta. For though he had been employ d under the Reign of Leo, yet he writ nothing till Constantine's time, as appears by the Life of Saint Theoctista, which is his first Piece, as is observed in his Panegyric written by Psellus, another Psellus than that who liv d in the time of Constantine the Iconaclast, of whom we spoke in another place. He applied himself to study, and inquire into the Lives of the Saints, and having made a large Collection of them, those which he did not like he undertook to make over again, not only by casting them into a different stile, but also by adding to, or substracting from them, what he thought Convenient, and running them down into the form of a Panegyric rather than History. We have a great many of them of his Composing, and most under his name, as well in printed Collections as in MSS.; but they are mixed with several others, Composed by various Authors. There are some among the Anonymous which may be ascribed to him. It would be very difficult to make the distinction; had not the Inge nious Allatius given himself the trouble of doing it, with a great deal of accuracy, in his Dissertation concerning the Writings of the Simeons; wherein he gives us a Catalogue of the Lives of the Saints, which, in Manuscript or Print, belong properly to Metaphrastes, and which of them belong to other Authors. He reckons above an hundred which are genuine, and almost as many more that are Spurious, whose Authors are unknown; and near four hundred and fifty whose Authors he discovers. They who have the curiosity to search further into this matter, may consult Allatius himself: As for our part, we don't think it worth our while to crowd such a tedious and useless Catalogue into our Work. Besides these Lives of the Saints, Metaphrastes has composed several Sermons on the solemn Festivals of the year, which are to be met with in Manuscripts; and a great many Hymns and Prayers which are inserted in the Ecclesiastical Writings of the Greeks. He likewise digested four and twenty Moral discourses taken from the Works of S. Basil, and Printed together with them, [and likewise published by themselves in Greek at Paris, 1556.] And in the Libraries there are a great many Collections of Moral Sentences taken out of S. Macarius, and an hundred one and thirty Sentences or Rules more, all composed by Metaphrastes. Lastly, Leo Allatius has published nine Letters and several pieces of Poetry of the same Author, together with a Discourse of the Lamentation of the Virgin Mary on the Passion of our Saviour.   

John Cameniates.  
ABout the same time lived John Cameniates, Lecturer of the Church of Thessalonica, who 
John Cameniates.  wrote the History of the taking and sacking that City by the Saracens in the year 904. It was set forth by Leo Allatius in his collection of the Greek Writers.   

Constantine Porphyrogenetta.  
COnstantine Porphyrogenneta is reckoned one of the Authors of this Century. He was ingenious himself, a Lover of Learned Men, and very well versed in the Sciences. We 
Constantine Porphyrogenetta.  have of his writing an History of the Image of our Saviour sent to Abgarus King of Edessa, and brought from Edessa to Constantinople in the year 944. This piece was published by Father Cambefis, in his Collection of the Authors who wrote the History of Constantinople, and printed at Paris 1664. He likewise wrote the Life of his Grandfather the Emperor Basil the Macedonian; which is to be met with in the Collection of Allatius. In the year 1617. Meursius set forth several Political Treatises of this Emperors composing, viz. A Treatise concerning the Government of the Empire, directed to his Son Romanus; a Book of Institutions, two Books of the Dignities of the Eastern Empire, and seventeen Novels. He likewise composed several Historical and Political Pandects, extracted out of all the Historians, and ranged under three and fifty Heads, of which we have only two remaining, viz. the Seven and Twentieth, which contains the Extracts of Embassies, published in Greek by Hoeschetius, printed at Ausbourg in the Year 1603, and in Latin at Paris in the Year 1609: And the Fiftieth on the Virtues and Vices, set forth by Monsieur Henry de Valois, and printed at Paris in the Year 1634.   

Hippolytus the Theban.  
HIppolitus the Theban lived in the same Century. He composed a Chronicon, several Fragments whereof are to be met with in the third Tome of the Antiquities of Canisius, 
Hippolytus the Theban.  and in Monsieur Cotelier s Notes. 'Tis to this Hippolytus that we ought to attribute the small Treatise of the Twelve Apostles set forth by Father Cambefis in the Second Tome of his Additions to the Bibliotheca Patrum, [Printed at Paris in the Year 1648.]   

Eutichius Patriarch of Alexandria.  
EUtichius the Egyptian, of the Country called Said in Egypt, born in the year 876, by Profession a Physician, and Patriarch of Alexandria from the Year 933 to the Year 940, 
Eutichius Patriarch of Alexandria.  composed several Treatises in Arabic. Those which have been Transmitted to our times, are a Treatise of Physic, a Dispute between an Heretic and a Christian, an History of Sicily from the time of the taking of that Island by the Saracens, and Annals from the beginning of the World down to the Year 937, containing several remarkable Transactions both of Ecclesiastical and Profane History, and which he has entitled a Methodical Disposition, or Composition of precious things, or the Substance, or Marrow of History. Selden in the Year 1642 printed at London, a Fragment of his Treatise concerning the Election and Ordination of the first Patriarches of Alexandria, which Eutichius asserts had been done till Alexander's Time, by twelve Presbyters of that Church, who chose one among themselves for Patriarch, and laid their hands upon him. He likewise there maintains that there was not a Bishop in all Egypt till the time of Demetrius. This very Treatise has since that been published entire by Selden, and printed in the Year 1658 at London, in two Volumes in 40 both in Arabic and in Latin. 'Tis full of Fables and very Vulgar Stories.   

Nico of Armenia.  
NIco of Armenia was very young, when without his Parents consent he shut himself up in the Monastery of the golden Rock, situate between Pontus and Paphlagonia. After he had 
Nico of Armenia.  there led for a long time a very austere life, in the Year 961. he was sent out on a Mission by his Superior. He preached in Armenia, and in other Provinces of the East, and from thence went to the Isle of Crete, which had lately shaken off the Yoke of the Saracens. He purged this Island from those Pagan superstitions which were still in use among them, and brought over a great many persons to the Faith. He retired afterwards to Lacedemonia, from whence he was sent for to Corinth, by his Prayers to put a stop the incursions of the Bulgarians. He died in the year 998. He is said to be the Author of a little Treatise of the Religion of the Armenians, containing an Abridgement of their Errors, which is to be seen in Latin in the Bibliotheca Patrum, together with a fragment against irregular and rash excommunications, where he says that they recoil back on those persons who dart them out too rashly.   

Nicephorus the Philosopher.  
WE may likewise reckon among the Authors of this Century, Nicephorus the Philosopher, 
Nic●phorus the Philosopher.  who made Funeral Orations on the Death of Anthony Patriarch of A●…dria.   

Moses Bar-Cephas.  
LAstly, to these we may join Moses Bar-Cephas Bishop of Syria, who composed in Syriack 
Moses Bar-Cephas.  a Treatise concerning Paradise, divided into three Books, set forth in Latin by Masius, Printed first at Antwerp, in the year 1569, and afterwards in the Bibliotheca Patrum▪ 'Tis a very large Commentary on what was said concerning Paradise in the Book of Genesis. In the first Book he treats of the Earthly Paradise: In the second, of the Mystical Paradise, that is to say, of the Mystical Significations of that which is called the Earthly Paradise; and in the last he treats of the Errors of Heretics concerning Paradise, and the Objections that may be brought to the contrary. In this last Book he maintains, that Adam was created Mortal, and that God would have rendered him immortal by his Grace, if he had not sinned: however, he refu●es Theodore and Nestorius, who had maintained that the Sin of Adam was not the Cause of the Death of Mankind.    

CHAP II.  
An Account of the Church of Rome, and other Italian Churches during the Tenth Century.  
THough Historians have differed in their Judgement, concerning the Tenth Century in 
The State of the Church of Rome in the Tenth Century.  general; yet they all agree in their accounts of the wretched State and Condition of the Church of Rome, and those who have been most favourable in their Censures, could not but own that it was in a strange disorder. At that time (cries Cardinal Baronius) How deformed, how frightful was the face of the Church of Rome! The Holy See was fallen under the Tyranny of two lose and disorderly Women, who placed and displaced Bishops as their humour led them: and, (what I tremble to think and speak of) they placed their Gallants upon St. Peter's Chair, who did not so much as deserve the very name of Popes. For who dare say that these infamous persons, who intruded without any form of Justice, were lawful Popes? We do not find that they were chosen by the Clergy; or that they consented in the least to their Election. All the Canons of Councils were infringed, the Decrees of Popes trampled under foot, the ancient Traditions despised, the Customs and Ceremonies usually observed in the Election of Popes neglected, and the Holy See became a prey to Avarice and Ambition. In such terms as these does this Cardinal, who cannot be supposed to be an Enemy to the Church of Rome, lament the sad estate wherein it was in this Tenth Century: and a long time before him, Arnold Bishop of Orleans, who probably might have been an Ey-witness of some of these Disorders, breaks out into this Complaint: O miserable Rome! Thou that formerly didst hold out so many great and glorious Luminaries to our Ancestors, into what prodigious darkness art thou now fallen, which will render thee infamous to all succeeding Ages?  
We may trace the beginning of this disorder from the Promotion of Formosus to the Pope-dom, 
The Ordination of Pope Formosus.  which sowed the Seed of the Divisions which afterwards ensued. This Formosus being Bishop of Ostia, had been deposed by John VIII. in a Synod held at Rome, and constrained to swear he would continue a Layman all the rest of his Life. He was deposed for these three Reasons. (1.) Because having been sent by Pope Nicholas I. into Bulgaria, he made the King of the Bulgarians swear that he would not admit of any other Bishop besides himself, that should be sent thither by the Holy See. (2.) Because he had already endeavoured to be translated from the Church of Ostia to that of Rome, and made Parties for the attaining of his end, contrary to the Laws prescribed in the Canons. (3.) Because he had abandoned his Church without the Pope's leave, and that having left Rome, he was suspected to have conspired against the Empire and the Church. This Sentence of John VIII. was repealed by his Successor Marinus, who recalled Formosus, re-established him in his Bishopric, and declared the Oath he had been forced to take to be null and void. However he still kept up the design he had laid of advancing himself to the Popedom; and he so well formed his intrigue, that after the Death of Steven V he had so powerful a Party as to carry it, against Sergius a Deacon of the Church of Rome, who had been elected by a great part of the Clergy. Formosus hindered his Ordination, drove him out of the Church, and forced him to fly to Tuscany to the Marquis Adalbert, who declared himself his Prote●…. Formosus was ordained on the 27th of May in the year 891. The year after he crowned Guy Duke of Spoleto Emperor, and a while after conferred the same Title on Lambert the Son of that Prince. But no sooner was Arnulphus King of Germany fallen down into Italy, but Formosus invited him to Rome, designing to make him an instrument of wreaking his revenge on those Romans who had affronted him. Arnulphus entered the City by force, caused the chief of the Enemies of Formosus to be beheaded, and was for this piece of Service crowned Emperor by this Pope in the year 896. No sooner was Arnulphus gone off, but the Romans renewed their Conspiracies against Formosus, who died about the latter end of this year.  
Boniface, whom the People put up in his stead, was a very unworthy man, who had been 
The Condemnation of Formosus by Stephen VI.  degraded from his Subdeaconship, and the order of Priesthood. A few days after he was Outed by Adalbert, and Stephen VI advanced to the Chair. This man immediately declares himself an Enemy to the memory of Formosus; calls a Council, where he nulls all the Ordinations made by Formosus; dug up his Corpse, and having dressed him up in his Pontifical Robes, he condemned him as if he had been alive: and after he had censured him for his Ambition in quitting the Bishopric of Ostia, and usurping S. Peter's Chair, contrary to the Canons of the Church, he caused him to be stripped of his Robes, cut off his three Fingers, wherewith he gave the Blessing, and threw him into the Tiber. A base and barbarous Proceeding this! and such as has struck Horror into all those who have wrote about it. For though the Promotion of Formosus was not agreeable to the Canons, and might prove a very Ill precedent; yet such a disingenuous Cruelty exercised to no purpose upon a dead Carcase was a certain demonstration of the Spite and Malice, or rather of the Madness wherewith his Enemies were possessed. And in truth all this Tragedy was begun by Sergius, and supported by the Authority of Adalbert, who bore at that time the greatest sway in Rome. But his Interest afterwards grown weaker, Stephen was severely used by the Romans, and cast into Prison, where he was Strangled about the latter end of the Year 900, if his Epitaph is to be credited in the case.  
The Romans advanced one Romanus in his place, who sat but a few months on the Chair: however he had so much time as to condemn and disannul all that his Predecessor had done 
Romanus and Theodore.  against Formosus. The man who succeeded him named Theodorus, was of his mind, but he died within twenty days.  
After his Death the Romans chose a Monk, Deacon of the Town of Tivoli, Son of Rampealdus, who went under the name of John IX. This man seeing Italy divided by the Factions of those 
John IX. The Wars between Berenger and Lambert.  who made their Pretensions to the Empire, behaved himself very cautiously in the beginning of his Popedom. The Emperor Arnulphus die▪ d about the end of the Year 899, and Guy of Spoleto died within a short time after, so that Italy was disputed between Berenger, Lewis the Son of Boson, and Lambert the Son of Guy. The Princes of Italy, weary of the Government of Berenger, especially Adalbert, Marquis of Yurea, the Father of another Berenger, who was afterwards King of Italy, had called in Lewis; but Berenger assisted by Adalbert; Marquis of Tuscany, having hemmed him in, obliged him to return, and made him renounce his Pretensions to the Kingdom. A while after Adalbert, who had supported the Interests of Berenger, re-called Lewis, who retook part of Italy; but those who had invited him in, soon betrayed him, and delivered him into Berenger's hands, who caused his Eyes to be put out. Berenger swollen with his success comes to Rome, and forces Pope John IX. to Crown him Emperor: But no sooner was he gone from Rome, but the Pope sent for Lambert, who resided privately in a corner of Italy, and declared him Emperor.  
Since by this Action he found himself obliged to acknowledge Formosus for Lawful Pope, because it was he who had crowned Lambert, he held a Council, wherein he cancelled all 
The Council of Rome and Revenna in favour of Formosus.  the proceed against that Pope. After so bold an undertaking, he durst not stay at Rome, where the Interest of Berenger was most powerful, but retir▪ d to Ravenna, where in another Council of 74. Bishops, he confirmed what had been done at Rome. The Italians, who love to have a great many Masters, and to change the Government, acknowledged Lambert, and his Forces became so considerable, that Berenger durst not attack him, but retired to Verona. All this happened in the year 904.  
The year after John IX. died, and Benedict iv succeeded him, who was not upon the Chair above a year or thereabouts, and did nothing of any note. He who was set up in 
Benedict IU.  his Room, called Leo V was Outed forty days after by one of his Domestics, named Christophilus. He did not enjoy this Dignity long; for that Sergius, whom we formerly 
Christophilus.  mentioned, and who had been the Competitor of Formosus, being come to Rome, seized on Christophilus, put him in Prison, and stepped himself into St. Peter's Chair. The first thing he did was to condemn Formosus, to declare his Ordinations Null, and to cancel all that John IX. had done in his favour. Afterwards he degraded those whom Formosus had ordained, 
Sergius condemns Formosus.  and either ordained them over again, or ordained others in their stead. This man is esteem d a Monster, not only for his Ambition and the violent proceed he was Guilty of, but also upon the account of his lose Morals. He had a Bastard by Marosia the Daughter of Theodora, who being a long time before highly in the Favour of Adalbert, bore a great Sway in Rome. This Bastard Son of his was afterwards promoted to the Popedom by the Intrigues of this Marosia, and took upon him the name of John XI. as we shall show in the Sequel. Sergius enjoyed the See which he had usurped, only three Years; he died in the Year 910. After him Anastasius came, of whom History is silent. About this time Lambert was 
Anastasius The, death of Lambert.  traitorously murdered, as he was hunting, by a Count of Milan. After his Death Adalbert, whom he had taken prisoner some time before, was set at Liberty, and Berenger was the only man who pretended to the Title of King of Italy and Emperor. The Popedom of Anastasius did not last above two years and some few months; after whose Death Landon 
Landon an unworthy Pope.  was promoted to the Chair, no doubt by the Interest of Theodora. For that wicked woman made use of him to prefer one of her Favourites, named John, to the Archbishopric of Ravenna. Let us see in what terms Luitprand relates this matter: About this time (says he) Peter Archbishop of Ravenna, which was esteemed the chiefest Archbishopric next to that of Rome, sent frequently to Rome a Deacon of his Church, called John, to pay his due respects to the Pope. Theodora, that impudent Whore, having seen him, fell desperately in love with him, prevailed upon him to maintain a shameful familiarity with her. While they lived thus lustfully together, the Bishop of Bolognia dying, this John was chose in his place. But before he was consecrated, the Archbishop of Ravenna dies also; and Theodora prevails upon John to quit the Bishopric of Bolognia, and to accept of this Archbishopric. He thereupon returns back to Rome, and was ordained Archbishop of Ravenna. Within a while after the Pope (namely Landon) who had ordained him dies, God calling him to give an account of his unjust Proceed in ordaining John. Theodora upon this, that she might not be far from her Lover, made him again to relinquish the Archbishopric of Ravenna, and to seize upon St. Peter's Chair.  
Tho' John was so shamefully promoted to the Popedom, yet he enjoyed it a long time 
John X.  very peaceably; and was acknowledged as lawful Pope by all the Churches. But as God never suffers the Crimes of men to go unpunished, unless for a season, thereby to make his Justice the more conspicuous, so the conclusion of his Popedom was tragical, and he fell by the same steps, by which he had been advanced. This Theodora we speak of, had two Daughters, more wicked and more debauched than herself, called Marosia and Theodora. The first of these after she had prostituted herself to Pope Sergius, was married to Guy, the Son of Adalbert Marquis of Tuscany, who, aspiring to be as absolute in Rome as his Father had been before him, took it ill that Pope John should prefer his Brother Peter, and thought he gave him too great an Authority. He thereupon resolved to divest him of it, and taking the opportunity when the Pope was with his Brother in the Lateran Palace, with a very few attendants, he ordered an Assault to be made by the Soldiers he had raised, who put the Pope into Prison, having first killed his Brother before his face. He there died some time after, either for Grief, or rather by an untimely Death. This happened in the year 928.  
Leo VI who succeeded him, had a design, if Historians may be credited, of restoring 
Leo VI.  Italy and the City of Rome to its former Quiet: but he had not time for it, being upon the Chair no longer than six Months and fifteen days. 'Tis said he likewise died in Prison, 
Stephen VII.  as his Predecessor did before him. Stephen VII, who succeeded him, enjoyed the place but two years, one month, and a few days.  
Marosia, upon this vacancy of the Holy See, thought there could be no better way of 
John XI. A Monster of a Pope.  making herself absolute in Rome, and raising her Family, than by placing the Son she had by Pope Sergius, upon the Chair. Tho by reason of his Birth, his Age, and his Conduct, he was very unworthy of that Promotion. He took upon him the Name of John XI. and was ordained in the year 931. Some time after Guy died, and his Brother Lambert was declared his Successor. But Marosia invited Hugh, Son of Count Thibold, Duke of Provence, and King of Arles, and promised to make him Master of Rome, in case he would marry her. He not willing to let such an opportunity slip, came forthwith to wait upon her at the Castle of Angelo, and married her, though she were his Brother's Widow. For this Hugh was the Son of Bertha, who had been married first to Thibold, and then to Adalbert, the Father of Guy. The Romans received him very kindly: But afterwards finding he put the slight upon them, they sought nothing so much as an opportunity of ridding themselves of his Government. Soon after an opportunity presented itself: For Alberic, who was likewise the Son of Marosia, being disgusted with his Father-in-law, for affronting him whilst by his Mother's Order he filled him out a glass of Wine, excited 
Alberic becomes Master of Rome.  the Romans to throw off the Yoke of King Hugh, representing to them how deep a disgrace it was for Romans to be subject to the Burgundians. They thereupon quickly abandoned his Interest; and having chosen Alberic their Leader, they set upon the Castle of St. Angelo, with so much expedition, that Hugh having not time to throw any of his Troops into the place, was forced to provide for his own safety; Marosia was seized upon by Alberic's Order, who likewise secured his Brother, Pope John, and kept him close Prisoner during the remainder of his Popedom, which expired in the year 935. The City was governed a long time by Alberic, who changed the form of the Government, made himself Consul, and commanded in chief with a Perfect and Tribunes.  
Whilst these things were in Action, Italy was disputed between several Princes, who all 
The Wars of Italy.  pretended to the Sovereignty thereof. The Italians being weary of the Government of Berenger, in the Year 924. conferred the Sovereignty on Radulphus King of Burgundy, Grandson to Conrade and Adelaid the Daughter of Lewis the Godly. Berenger seeing himself turned out of Possession, brought the Hunns into Italy, who harassed all Lombardy; but having passed the mountains, they were defeated by Radulphus in Languedoc▪ At the same time Berenger using his Endeavours to reinstate himself in the Kingdom of Italy, was slain by his own men at Verona. After his Death the Title of Emperor of the West was not conferred on any one, at least not by the Pope and Italians, till Otho I. in the Year 962. By Berenger's Death Radulphus became sole Sovereign of Italy, but the Inconstancy of the Italians, which always put them upon driving out one Sovereign by another, caused them to submit to Hugh Count Arles, Son to Count Thibold and Bertha the Daughter of Lotharius II. Radulphus after he had received Intelligence that they had traitorously killed his Father-in-law, Burchard Duke of Suabia, retired to his own Kingdom of Burgundy, and left Hugh in quiet possession of Italy. We have already shown after what manner he became master of Rome, by the means of Marosias, and also how he was outed by Alberic. He revenged himself on Lambert the Brother of Guy the affront he received from his Sister-in-law, and having apprehended him, he caused his Eyes to be put out, and bestowed the Dukedom of Tuscany on his Brother, who proved no more faithful to him than Lambert. The Italians presently recalled King Radulphus, who put himself into a posture of re-entering Italy, and of engaging in a fresh War with King Hugh; but these two Kings thought it most proper to come to an accommodation, on condition that Radulphus should renounce his pretensions to the Kingdom of Italy, and Hugh should yield to him all the Country he had then in possession beyond the Alps. Notwithstanding this accommodation, the Italians continuing still resolved to abandon Hugh, invited Arnulphus Duke of Bavaria, the Bastard Son of Arnulphus the Emperor, to come and take possession of the Crown. This Prince enters into Italy with an Army and advances as far as Verona, where he was received by Count Milo and Ratherius Bishop of the place. Hugo came immediately with an Army and sat down before the place, and having defeated a considerable party of the Troops of Arnulphus, he obliged him to think of making his Retreat, and of taking Count Milo along with him. The Count no sooner understood his Design, but he went over to King Hugh, and Arnulphus perceiving he was abandoned by him, withdrew in great haste to Bavaria. The City of Verona immediately surrendered to King Hugh, who sent Ratherius Bishop of that City, a Prisoner to Pavia. Hugh, puffed up with this success, after he had caused his Son Lotharius to be proclaimed King, endeavoured to surprise the City of Rome, and Besieged it; but perceiving he could not have his Aim, he treated with Alberic, and gave him in Marriage his Daughter Elda, in hopes, that afterwards he might make himself Master of Rome; but Alberic, as subtle a Politician as himself, would not relinquish the place, nor put it into the Hands of his Father-in-law.  
Much about this time Manasses, Archbishop of Arles, King Hugh's Kinsman, thinking he might make his fortune greater under the Government of his Kinsman, quitted his Church at Arles, 
Manasses.  and comes into Italy, and obtained, contrary to all form of Law, the Bishoprics of Verona, Trent, and Mantua, to which he annexed the Marquisate of Trent.  
Whilst Alberic governed Rome, the Holy See was filled by Popes of a blameless life; but 
Leo VII.  they found themselves in a Capacity of wishing, rather than of doing good. Leo VII. who succeeded John XI. in the year 936, was called by Flodoard the Servant of God. His good Intention was apparent by his sending for Odo the Abbot of Clunie, to manage the Treaty between Hugh and Alberic. He likewise wrote two Letters, of which we will speak hereafter, which show him to be a lover of Ecclesiastical Discipline. The pontificate of this Pope lasted no longer than three years and a few months. The Romans chose in 
Stephen VIII.  his place in the year 939 a German, who went under the name of Stephen VIII. This Election was very highly resented by Alberic, who thought that a Roman would have been more for his Interest: Therefore suspecting that he favoured Hugh, and held a private correspondence with Otho, he caused him to be ill treated. They mangled his Face so barbarously, and rendered it so deformed, that he durst not appear any more in public. This Pope sent a Legate into France called Damasus, to the Princes of France and Burgundy, exhorting them to acknowledge Lewis, the Son of Charles the Simple for their Lawful King, and threatening to excommunicate them, if they did not do it. He likewise sent for Odo again into Italy, to mediate the Peace between Hugh and Alberic, but all to no purpose, for both Odo and the Pope died before it was concluded.  
Marinus II. succeeded Pope Stephen in the year 943. who was reputed to be a man of 
Marinu. II.  singular Piety; and we have an account in the life of St. Ulric, Bishop of Ausbourg, that he foretold to this Saint the Death of his Predecessor Adalberon, and withal assured him that he should succeed him; which happened thirty years before he was Pope. All the time of his Popedom he was very serviceable to the Church of Rome, in reforming the Clergy and the Monks, in repairing Churches, and in taking a particular care of the poor. He did likewise what he could to promote Peace among the Christian Princes. He concluded that between Alberic and Hugh; and wrote several Letters in order to make up the breach between Otho King of Germany, who endeavoured to enter Italy, and Lotharius, the Son of Hugh, who opposed his design. He call●d to Rome the Prior of Mount Cassin, and bestowed on him the Government of the Monastery of S. Paul in Rome. 'tis likewise said that he wrote a Letter to Sico Bishop of Capua, wherein he charges him with his ignorance of the Canons; with his want of Learning; with his holding too great an intimacy with secular persons; and with his having endeavoured, contrary to all form, to confer a Benefice on one of his Deacons, which belonged to a Monastery. He granted several Privileges to the Benedictin Monks, whom he favoured in a great many instances.  
Agapetus II. who succeeded Marinus, was likewise a holy man, who governed the Church 
Agapetus II.  of Rome with a great deal of prudence. He sent into France a Bishop, whose name was Marinus, to assist in the quality of a Legate in that Council held at Ingelheim in the year 948. about the Contests between King Lewis and Prince Hugh; and Hugh of Vermandois and Artaldus, pretenders to the Archbishopric of Rheims. The cause was there determined in favour of Artaldus, who was confirmed in that Bishopric. Hugh of Vermandois was declared an Intruder and excommunicated; and a Letter was written to Prince Hugh the White, in the name of the whole Council, and to his Adherents, to admonish them to return to their Allegiance, under the pain of excommunication. The Sentence of this Council was confirmed the year following in a Council held by Agapetus, wherein Prince Hugh was excommunicated, till such time as he should give satisfaction to King Lewis.  
Under this Pope's Pontificate Italy felt another Revolution. Adalbert, Marquis of jurea, 
The Wars between Hugh and Berenger.  had two Sons, Berenger by Gilla, the Daughter of Berenger King of Italy; and Anschaire by Ermegarda, Daughter of the Marquis of Tuscany. These two Princes inherited the power of their Father and Grandfather's by the Mother's side, and governed a part of Italy. The first was prudent, ingenious and politic; the second was valiant and bold. King Hugh had married his Niece Villa, the Daughter of Roson to Berenger, but he began to be jealous of the growing Greatness of those two Brothers, and resolved to put a stop to it. He began with Anschaire, whom he caused to to be set upon by Sarlio, who having made the Spoletians and Camerines' to revolt, defeated the Troops he had raised for his own defence, and killed him in the Skirmish. Berenger, desirous to revenge the Death of his Brother, conspired against King Hugh. This Prince having intelligence thereof, took up a resolution in his Council to send for him, under pretence of making up a Reconciliation, and then to put him to death; but his young Son Lotharius, who had been present in Council, could not forbear advertising Berenger thereof, who, upon the receipt of this Intelligence, fled forthwith to Herman Duke of Suabia, who presented him to King Otho. Hugh sent to demand him, but Otho was so far from delivering him up, that he took him under his Protection. A while after Berenger returns to Italy, at the head of some Troops; and having laid Siege to a Fort which was held out by Adelard, the Clerk of Manasses, he became Master of it, by promising the Archbishopric of Milan to that Bishop, and to the Clerk the Bishopric of Cumae, in case he should become Master of Italy. Big with these hopes, Manasses importunes the Princes of Italy in his behalf. Milo Count of Verona, was the first who declared for Berenger, and received him into his City. The Bishop of Modena soon followed his example, as did likewise the City of Milan, where the Princes of Italy came to wait on Berenger, having deserted King Hugh, who was retired to Pavia. From this place he sent his Son Lotharius to Milan, conjuring Berenger and the Princes of Italy, to acknowledge him for their King; and that for his own part he had taken a resolution to retire into Provence. The people mov●d with compassion towards Lotharius, who was not then above fourteen or fifteen years old, acknowledged him their King; with the consent of Berenger; and they wrote to Hugh, acquainting him, that he might (if he pleased) reside still in Italy. This Berenger ordered, with a design of seizing upon his Treasures, which he was carrying off to Provence: for Hugh and Lotharius were only Titular Kings, while the whole power of governing was lodged in the hands of Berenger. Hugh could not bear this, but cunningly retired into Provence, where he died a short time after; leaving his Estate to his Niece Bertha, the Widow of Boson, Count of Arles. This Revolution happened about the year 945. Lotharius still retained the name of King of Italy, but did not long enjoy it; for about four years after, whether out of grief to see himself slighted, or whether by the means of some poison, he fell mad, and died childless, about the latter end of the year 949. Berenger presently caused himself to be proclaimed King, and to be crowned with his eldeit Son Adalbert, and that he might render his new Authority the stronger, he sought in Marriage for his Son, Adelaid, the Widow of Lotharius, Daughter to Radulphus II. and Sister to Conrade, Kings of Burgundy. This Princess having refused the offer, he besieged her in Pavia, took her, and sent her Prisoner to a Castle call●d le Garde: however; she escaped thence by the help of a Priest, and fled to Atho her Kinsman, who undertook to defend her in the Fort of Canossa, where she secured herself. Berenger immediately sat down before the place with all his Forces. But in the second year of the Siege, this Queen seeing herself reduced to the last extremity, sent to beg King Otho's Assistance, and with herself offered h●…he Kingdom of Italy. The love of Glory rather than Interest inclined this Prince to cross the Mountains. He delivers Adelaid, marries her, and takes her along with him into Germany, leaving his Army with Conrade, Duke of Lorraine, to make an end of the War. Conrade pressed so hotly on Berenger and his Son, that they were forced to lay down their Arms, and submit to Otho, whom they went to wait upon in Germany. He having given them an Oath of Allegiance and fealty, restored their Kingdom to them, only excepting the Veronese and Friul, which he gave to his Brother the Duke of Bavaria.  
During all these Revolutions in Italy, Rome was very quiet under the Government of Alberic, who would not suffer Otho to enter the place, though the Pope Agapetus had invited 
Pope John XII.  him thither. The Death of Alberic, which happened in the year 954, made no alteration in Rome, for his Son Octavian, not above 16 years old, having taken his place, continued the same form of Government: and not satisfied with the Temporal power, he was minded to annex to it the Spiritual Authority, by getting himself advanced to St. Peter's Chair, after the Death of Agapetus, which happened in the year 955. He was not at that time above 18 years of age at most, and was the first Pope that changed his Name, by assuming that of John. He was truly the Twelfth of that name, though several count him the Thirteenth, being led into that mistake by the fabulous story of Pope Joan. This Man was so far from having any of those qualities requisite for so great a Dignity, that he was a Monster in Debauchery and Irregularity. He began with making War against Pendula Prince of Capua, in order to turn him out of his Estates: but his design did not succeed, and he was forced to retire, and to sue for Peace. The Power of Berenger and Adalbert became 
The Wars of Berenger and Otho.  so great, that they began to be a Terror both to the Pope and the Romans. Ever since Otho had re-establish●d them in the Kingdom of Italy, they had continued to conspire against him and cruelly to oppress their Subjects. Otho, willing to bring them to Subjection, had sent his Son Luitolf into Italy to give them Correction. This young Prince had almost chased them out of their Dominions, when he died in the year 958, not without suspicion of being poisoned, and so left his Conquest imperfect. After his Death, Berenger and Adalbert were reestablished in their Kingdom, and continued to exercise their Tyranny not only to the other Italians, but also to the Romans. This was the reason why John XII. sent two Legates to Otho, praying him ardently for the Love of God, and the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, (they are Luitprand's words) to come and deliver the Church of Rome from the encroachments of these Tyrants, and to restore it to its primitive health and liberty. Walbert Archbishop of Milan, turned out of his Church by that Manasses, we formerly mentioned, and Waldon, Bishop of Cumae, turned likewise out of his Bishopric, and several other Lord's 〈◊〉 of their Demeasns, went at the same time to prefer their complaints to Otho; who being affected with the miseries of Italy▪ marched thither, after he had crowned his Son Otho at Aix-la-Chapelle, though a lad of but about seven years of Age. Upon his Arrival Berenger, his Wife, and his Son, being abandoned by his Subjects, withdrew from the Towns and the open Country, and betook themselves each of them to a 〈◊〉. Otho was every where r●… with great Acclamations, recovers Pavia, was crowned King of Lombardy at Milan by the Archbishop, and from thence he marched to Rome, where he received the Imperial Crown in the beginning of the year 962, at the hands of John XII. with the Universal 
Otho crowned Emperor by Pope John XII.  Acclamations of both Clergy and Laity. He spent some time there with the Pope, and having restored to the Church of Rome that which of right belonged to it, according to his promise, he made Pope John and the principal men of the City, to swear by the Body of St. Peter, that they would bear true Allegiance to him, and never furnish Berenger or Adalbert with any Supplies; After this he returned to Pavia, with a full design of putting an end to the War, by taking those Castles which still held out for Berenger. He began with taking the 〈◊〉 of St. Jula, whither Berenger's Wife was retired, and restored it to the Church of Novar. In the mean time, Adalbert, seeking for assistance in every place, retired at last to the Saracens; and under hand solicited Pope John to come over to his Party. This Pope, whose inclinations and intentions did not suit with those of 
The disloyalty of Pope John XII.  the Emperor Otho, being as much a Slave to Vice and Debavehery, as that Prince was a Lover of Goodness and Virtue: This Pope, I say, that he might have the liberty of indulging his Lusts, made privately a League with Adalbert, and invited him to Rome, promising upon Oath to aid him against Otho. The Emperor being informed of it, sent several of his Attendants to Rome, to know what were the reasons which induced the Pope to enter into an Alliance with Adalbert. And when the Romans could give no other account, than that it arose only from the contrariety of Pope John s Morals and Conduct, to those of the Emperor; that Prince returned this prudent Reply: The Pope is as yet but a Child; he may be bettered by the Examples of good men; I hope to reclaim him from his extravagancies by a good honest reproof, and by wholesome Advice; and then we will say with the Prophet, Behold the Change made by the Hand of the most High. So without troubling his head much with the secret practices of the Pope, he laid Siege to the Castle of Leo in Umbria, whither Berenger and his Wife was retir d. Thither the Pope sent Leo, chief Secretary of the Church of Rome, and Demetrius, one of the principal Roman Lords, to excuse his falling into the follies incident to youth, promising, that for the future he would be another kind of man: He gave them likewise orders to complain of the Emperor's retaining Bishop Leo, and Cardinal John a Deacon, who had failed in their Duty towards him; and of his not keeping the promise he had made him, because he caused those whom he took to take the Oath to himself, but not to the Pope. The Emperor return d this Answer, That he was glad of the promise which the Pope had made of reforming, and becoming a better man for the future: That for his part he had religiously observe d his promise; that he had indeed promised to restore to the Church of Rome, all the Territories which of right did belong to it; but before he could do that, he must first take them, and render himself Master of them: That he had neither seen the Bishop nor the Cardinal, whom they charge d him with entertaining; but that he had heard that being sent from the Pope to the Emperor of Constantinople, on a Negotiation against him, they had been taken at Capua, together with others whom the Pope sent to the Hunns, to engage them to fall upon him: That these proceed were proved by Letters signed by the Pope, and sealed with the Papal Seal. Otho dismissed the Pope's Deputies with this Answer, and with them sent two Bishops to Rome, to make an ample justification for him; with orders, in case the Pope would not believe what they told him, to offer to prove it by the Combat of two Champions. John XII. received these Envoys very coldly, and to amuse the Emperor, he sent to him eight days after John the Bishop of Narni, and Cardinal Benedict a Deacon, to Negotiate with him. Before they returned, Adalbert came to Civita Vechia, and from thence to Rome, where he was received very kindly by the Pope. No sooner had the Emperor intelligence thereof, but he comes to Rome with his Forces in August 963, being invited by the Romans themselves, part of whom had seized the Castle of St. Paul, and held it out against Adalbert. Upon 
Otho returns to Rome and causes John XII. to be deposed. The Council at Rome against John XII.  his arrival, John XII. and Adalbert went off; the Romans received Otho, and took a new Oath of Allegiance to him, promising that they would neither choose nor ordain any Pope without his consent and approbation. Three days after, upon the request of several Bishops of Italy, and the people of Rome, he held a grand Council in St. Peter's Church, where there met the Emperor, for the Archbishop of Aquilea, who was fallen sick in Town; Radulphus the Deacon, Walbert Archbishop of Milan, Peter of Ravenna, an Archbishop and Bishop of Saxony, Orger Bishop of Spires, and Bublus Bishop of Parma, with about 33 Italian Bishops more, fourteen or fifteen Cardinals, and a great many Officers of the Church of Rome, with several Lords and a Representative for the people. The Emperor demanded of the Assistants, why the Pope was not present in this Council; they replied, that they wondered he should ask them a thing which was so well known to the whole World: That John was not one of those, who being covered with Sheep's clothing, are inwardly Ravenous Wolves; but that he committed publicly and in the Eye of the world diabolical Actions, without putting himself to the trouble of concealing them. The Emperor told them it was but reasonable to express in particular, the heads of his Accusation, and afterwards to debate what ought to be done. Then Cardinal Peter a Priest, said he had seen him celebrate the Mass without communicating: John Bishop Narni, and a Cardinal Deacon of the same name, declared that they had seen him ordain a Deacon in a Stable extra tempore: Benedict, and the other Priests and Deacons of Rome declared, that they knew him to have confer d Orders for Money, and to have ordained a Child of ten years old Bishop of Todi. That it was not necessary to bring Witnesses to attest these Sacrileges, since they were so visible, that all that could be said about them, would not express the one half of what they would appear to be. As for the Adultery whereof he was accused, they said, that indeed, they were not Eye-witnesses of the Fact, but that they knew for certain, that he had abus d the Widow of Ranier, Stephania, his Father's Concubine, the Widow Ann and her Niece, and that he had made his Court the very sink of Debauchery: that he went publicly a hunting: that he had put out the Eyes of Benedict, his spiritual Father, whereof he died: that he had cut off the Privy-Members of Cardinal John the Subdeacon, whereof he likewise died: that he had been the cause of a great many Fires; and that he was seen with a Sword in his hand, an Helmet on his head, and a Coat of Mail on his body. The Clergy and Laity there present cried out that they had seen him drink a health to the Devil, and swear by the Heathen Gods in his play at hazards: that he never took care to say his Office, or to make the Sign of the Cross. Upon these accusations, the Emperor ordered Luitprand Bishop of Cremona to tell the Synod in Latin (for they could not understand the Saxon Language, 
The Council at Rome▪ against John XII.  in which he spoke) that he conjured them in the name of God, the Blessed Virgin, and the Apostles to advance nothing against the Pope, but what was certain and would bear good proof. They all replied that they were willing to be Anathematised, if Pope John were not guilty of the Crimes laid to his Charge, nay and of far more shameful and horrid than had been mentioned. That if he would not believe them in this, yet that could not be called in question of which the Emperor's whole Army were Spectators, viz. that he appeared in Armour from Top to Toe at the Head of his Forces; and that if the Tiber had not between him and the Emperor's Army, he would have been taken prisoner in that Equipage. The Emperor acknowledged that this was true, and all his Soldiers were Witnesses to it. The Synod were of Opinion that it was necessary to write to the Pope, that he might come and clear himself of the Crimes laid to his Charge. The Letter was written in the name of the Emperor, of the Bishops of Liguria, Tuscany, Saxony, and France, who resided then at Rome. They acquainted John, to whom they gave the Title of Pontifex Summus, and that of Universal Bishop, that having demanded of the Clergy and Laity of Rome the reason of his absence, they had related such abominable things of him, as would make the most impudent to blush: that he was accused of Homicide, of Perjury, of Sacrilege, and of Incest with two of his Relations: That it was likewise reported of him, that he had drank a Health to the Devil, and sworn by Jupiter, Venus, and the other Heathen Deities in his play at hazards: that they earnestly entreat him to come and clear himself of these Accusations, assuring him upon Oath that nothing should be done against him but what was agreeable to the Canons. This Letter bears data November 6. 963. Pope John XII. having received it, returned this answer. We hear you design to make another Pope; but if you do, I excommunicate you by the Almighty God, so that you 
Nos Audivimus dicere, quod vos ●ultis alium ●apam facere. Si hoc facitis; excommunico vos de Deo Omnipotente ut non habeatis licentiam ullam ordinare, & Missam celebrare.  shall not be capable of ordaining any man, or of celebrating the Mass. This Letter being remitted to the Synod, to which the Archbishop of Treves, and three Bishops of Emilia and Liguria were likewise come; they made the Pope this Reply: That the Letter he had sent was a sign of his folly and want of Prudence: that he should have alleged some reasonable excuse of his absence, and sent his Deputies to give the Synod an account thereof: that they would submit to him, provided he delayed not coming to clear himself of the Crimes laid to his charge; but that if he would not do that, they would not value his excommunication, which they might with Justice retort upon him. This second Letter of the Council to the Pope bears date November 20. and was sent by Cardinal Adrian a Priest, and Cardinal Benedict a Deacon: They went as far as Tiber to give it him, but they could not meet with him there, for he was rid into the Country before they came. Wherefore not meeting with any person that could inform them where be was gone, they brought the Letter back to the Council, which was sitting a third time. The Emperor presented to them the Complaint which he in particular had to prefer against John, viz: That forasmuch as that Pope had sent for him to assist him against Adalbert, and had afterwards taken an Oath of Allegiance to him, yet he had since invited this same Adalbert to Rome, and put himself at the head of the Revolters. Then the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of Rome said, that it was necessary to cure this extraordinary Wound, by as extraordinary a Remedy: That if the debauched Morals of Pope John XII. had injured the Emperor only, he might have met with some toleration; but since he was the ruin of so many, by the scandal and bad example he had given, they required the Emperor that this Monster (whom it was impossible to reclaim from his Vices) should be turned out of the Church of Rome, and that another Pope of an exemplary Life should be set up in his room. The Emperor approved of this Resolution, and declared it was his desire, that they would choose one who was worthy of sitting in St. Peter's Chair. He had no sooner done speaking, but those who were present cried out 
The Ordination of Pope Leo VIII.  unanimously, that they chose the Venerable Leo, chief Secretary of the Church of Rome, to be their Pastor, and Sovereign, and Universal Pope of the Roman Church, rejecting John the Apostate because of his irregular Life. Having repeated this their Vote three times, they, according to custom, conducted Leo to the Lateran Palace, consecrated him afterwards in St. Peter's Church, and took an Oath of Fidelity to him. After this the Emperor Otho, supposing he had nothing more to fear in Rome, dismissed part of his Troops, that they might not be a grievance to the people: but the Romans, won over by the promises of John, soon after rose up in Arms, and made Barricades to enclose and cut off Otho. But he was rescued by the bravery of his Troops, defeated the Seditious, killed part of them, and obliged the people to give him Hostages. Pope Leo the Eighth of that name, willing to ingratiate himself with the people, prevailed so far with the Emperor by his entreaties, that he persuaded him to restore the Hostages before his departure. But no sooner was this Prince withdrawn to pursue Adalbert, who lurked about Camerin and Spoleto, but the Women whom Pope John had debauched, stirred up the people to revolt afresh. The Seditious had a design of putting Leo to death, and receiving John; but the former found means of flying to the Emperor: as for the latter, he no sooner entered Rome, but he used the Friends of Leo very barbarously, among others Cardinal John a Deacon, 
The Re-establishment of Pope John XII.  whose right-hand he caused to be cut off; Aso chief Secretary, whose Tongue he cut out, and cut off two of his Fingers and his Nose; and Orger Bishop of Spires, whom he caused to be whipped cruelly, and would not let him go, but in hopes by his means to obtain the Emperor's pardon. John to authorise his Proceed by an Act that should have some show of Justice, held a Synod February 26. in the year 964, where assisted sixteen Bishops of Italy, and some Cardinals. These Prelates, devoted to the will and pleasure of this Pope, condemned the Synod which had deposed him, and elected Leo in his stead: They pronounced a Sentence of Deposition against Leo: anathematised all those who favoured him: declared his Ordinations null: convened those whom he had ordained to the Council; and after they had obliged them to declare in writing, that he who had ordained them, having no power to do it, had not conferred any Order upon them, they stripped them of their habits: they constrained Benedict Bishop of Porto, and Gregory Bishop of Albania, to confess they had done amiss in ordaining Leo, and they suspended them for a time: and because Sico Bishop of Ostia, who was one of those that had ordained him, did not appear before the Synod, they declared him deprived of his Priesthood, without any hopes of being restored: they declared all those who had contributed to the Ordination of Leo, or favoured him, or acknowledged him afterwards, to be deposed or excommunicated.  
The Emperor Otho being informed of what passed at Rome, prepared for his return 
The tragical Death of Pope John XII.  thither, to punish John according to his deserts; but God prevented his Vengeance, for that infamous wretch received a mortal Wound as he was sporting himself one night with a Lady out of Town, of which he died within eight days after, on the fourteenth of May, without receiving the Sacraments. The Romans persisting in their revolt, were before 
Benedict the Antipope.  hand with the Emperor, by choosing Cardinal Benedict a Deacon, and placing him upon the Papal Chair, upon his promise of never quitting it. A while after the Emperor came with his Army, sat down before Rome; and without being terrified at the Excommunication thundered against him by Benedict, he constrained the Romans, pinched with Famine and want of necessaries, to open the City Gates unto him on the 23 of June. As soon as he entered 
Benedict is deposed and Leo VIII. re-established.  Rome, that he might do nothing irregular, he held a Synod, where he caused Benedict to be brought in his Pontifical Habit. He demanded of him by Cardinal Benedict the archdeacon, by what Authority, and according to what Laws he had usurped that Dignity in the Life time of Pope Leo, whom he himself had elected, and why he had violated the Oath he had taken with the rest of the Romans, not to choose any Pope without the Consent of the Emperor. Benedict acknowledged his fault, and begged the Emperor's Pardon, he divested himself of his Pontifical habit, and put them, together with the Pastoral Rod, into Leo's hands. Leo divested him likewise of his Cope, and declared him deprived of all Sacerdotal and Priestly Dignity, leaving him only the Order of Deacon, in consideration of the Emperor Otho; but he prohibited him from staying at Rome, and banished him. This Council by a solemn Decree, related by Gratian, granted to the Emperor the right of choosing a Pope, and of investing Bishops and Archbishops, and forbade the choosing a Pope without his Consent, or ordaining a Bishop elect, till he should receive investiture from the Emperor. There is another Decree of Pope Leo, whereby he grants to the Emperor Otho all that Pepin and Charlemain had given to the Church of Rome; but this is such a dubious Piece, as deserves no credit.  
Otho having thus quieted the City of Rome, departed thence after the Festival of S. Peter, in order to return to Lombardy, taking along with him the Antipope Benedict as Prisoner, and carrying off with him a great many Bodies of the Saints. He lost in his March a great many of his Men by Sickness, kept his Christmas at Pavia, and the next year returned into Saxony, after he had given his Instructions for the Affairs of Italy. Benedict died at Hamburgh in July 965, after he had edified the Germans by his Piety, and made it appear that he deserved to have been Bishop of Rome, if he had been raised to that Dignity according to the Canon. Leo died likewise the same year. After his Death the Romans sent Deputies to the Emperor Otho, to know his pleasure concerning the Election of a Pope. Some Authors have writ, that Benedict not being dead when Leo died, the Emperor Otho had a design of re-establishing him, if he had not died in the very interim. Let the case be how it will, John Bishop of Narni, who was his Creature, was the man whom he designed to advance to that Dignity; and 'tis very probable that he told his Intention to the Roman Deputies. 
JohnXIII.  He was thereupon elected, and placed in the Holy See, and is the Thirteenth of that Name. But whereas he was supported by the Emperor, and wedded to his Interests, he treated very haughtily the principal Lords of Rome, who affected to retain the Liberty they enjoyed under Alberic. This was the reason why they declared against this Pope, and resolved to turn him out of his Popedom. They caused him to be arrested by Roger the Perfect of Rome, being assisted by Jeofry Count of Campagnia, whither John was sent Prisoner. This Jeofry being killed some time after, and Roger being dead, the Romans being afraid of the Emperor Otho, who was preparing to come into Italy, set the Pope at liberty, and permitted him to return to Rome. However this did not hinder the Emperor from coming by great marches to Rome: upon his arrival he arrested the Consuls, the Perfect, and the Decemviri (a Body of ten men who were instead of a Senate, and the Grand Council of the City). He punished them after an exemplary manner, for he sent the Consuls and the Perfect Prisoners to Germany; and after he had caused the last to be shamefully dragged and whipped through the Streets of Rome, he hanged up the Decemviri. 'Tis reported that he likewise ordered the Bodies of Jeofry and Roger to be dug up, and after they were dragged through the City, to be cast into the Common-shore. Having by these severe Proceed struck an Awe into the minds of the Romans, after he had kept his Christmas in the year 966 at Rome, he went to Ravenna with Pope John, where he held a Synod about Easter, in the year 967, wherein several Regulations were made in the Ecclesiastical Discipline; 
The Council of Ravenna in the year 967.  and the Emperor restored to the Church of Rome the Towns and Territories, which had been granted it formerly by Pepin and Charlemain They likewise excommunicated Harold Archbishop of Saltzburgh, because he would officiate and wear the Pall, though he had lost his sight; and because, being charged with several crimes besides, the Popes had prohibited him from exercising any Episcopal function, and Frederic was put in his place, who was now Confirmed. They likewise raised the Bishopric on which the Town of Magdeburgh depended, to an Archbishopric, by the Consent and Approbation of Hatto Archbishop of Mayence, and Hildevard Bishop of Halberstat. From Ravenna the Emperor went into Tuscany, and sent for his Son Otho, in order to have him crowned Emperor by the Pope, which Ceremony was performed at Rome in the Christmas holiday, in the year 967. After this Expedition of Otho, Pope John enjoyed the Popedom very quietly whilst he lived. He raised the Bishopric of Capua to an Archhishoprick, in recompense of the kind usage he met with there during his Imprisonment. He sent a Legate into Polonia, to instruct the Polonians, who desired to be converted. He likewise sent a Legate to the Vandals, and wrote several Letters, wherein he recommended to the Bishops the observation of the Church Discipline. 'Tis observed that he with a certain Ceremony blessed a new Bell belonging to the Church of Saint John of the Lateran, and that this is the first instance we have of such Benenedictions, on which the Title of Christening was afterwards improperly imposed. This Pope died September 6. 972. Donus alias Domnus succeeded him, who died at the end of three months, without having done any thing of note. After him Benedict VI. had the Pope-dom: 
Donus and Benedict VI.  some there are who pretend, that he was in possession of it before Donus died. Let the case be how it will, he survived him, but came to a tragical end. For Otho dying May 7. 973, a Roman Lord of great Authority, named Cincius, caused the Pope to be seized on, and committed him Prisoner to the Castle of St. Angelo, where he was strangled some few days after.  
This bloody design was put in Execution by the insinuation of Franco, surnamed Boniface, a Cardinal Deacon, whom Gerbert terms the most impious monster of Mankind, who rather 
Boniface the Usurper outed by Benedict.  deserved the name of Maleface, than that of Boniface. This man, though all o'er besmeared with the blood of Benedict, yet seizes upon the Papal Chair in the year 974. But the Romans could not endure him long; and having found out a Bishop named Benedict, of the Family of the Alberics, they set him up in opposition to Boniface, who was forced in the year 975. to fly to Constantinople, whither he carried the things which he Sacrilegiously rifled from the Vatican Church before he went off. This Benedict was put up in his stead, and enjoyed the Popedom very peaceably till the tenth of July, in the year 984, on which day he died. During these Revolutions, the Empor Otho II. was wholly taken up in Germany, 
The Wars and Death of Otho II.  against the Bohemians, and Lotharius King of France; and he was no sooner out of that Fatigue, but he was engaged to begin a new War in Italy against the Greeks, who, with the assistance of the Saracens, designed to re-take Apulia and Calabria. At first he had some advantage over the Enemy, but afterwards he was entirely defeated and taken Prisoner: However, he found a way to make his escape, and having rallied some Troops, he assaulted and took the City of Benevent, because the people of that Country had betrayed him. From thence he returned to Rome, where he dy●d of grief on December 6. 983. After his death there arose a debate about the choice of an Emperor; some would have Henry Duke of Bavaria, Nephew to Otho the Great, to be crowned: the Italians were for an Italian Emperor, named Crescentius, but the Germans whose interest was strongest at Rome, caused Otho III. the Son of the last Otho to be crowned Emperor, with the Consent of Pope 
Otho III. crowned Emperor. John XIV.  Benedict, who did not survive Otho II. above six Months.  
Peter Bishop of Pavia was put in his place, and took upon him the name of John XIV. He was Lord High-Chancellor to the Emperor Otho, and it was doubtless by the recommendation of this Prince, that he was advanced to this Dignity, but he did not enjoy it long; for Boniface returned from Constantinople in the year 985, and having roused some of his own faction, and won the people by distributing among them the money he had raised, by the 
Boniface returns to Rome.  sale of those rich Ornaments he had carry●d from Rome, he rendered himself very powerful in Rome, seized on Pope John, joaded him with Irons, shut him up in the Castle of Saint Angelo, where he starved him to death at the end of four months; but he himself did not survive above four months, and died hated by all the World, even by those of his own faction, who, after his Death, used his body very contumeliously. Upon the Death of this Tyrant, the Clergy and Laity of Rome were left at liberty to elect a Pope. The choice fell on a Priest named John, the fifteenth Pope of that name. The beginning of his Pope-dom 
John XV.  was disturbed by the fear he had that Crescentius, who having taken upon him the title of Consul, seized on the Castle of S. Angelo, would not use him so kindly as he did his Predecessor. Under this apprehension he withdrew into Tuscany, from whence he sent several Deputies to Otho, praying him to come to his assistance. It was this that inclined the Romans: who knew by experience what they were to fear from such kind of Visits as the Emperors made, to send an honourable Embassage to the Pope, earnestly to entreat him to return, by giving him all the assurance he could desire. He harkened to them, and was received with all the signs imaginable of submission and respect. From that time forward he enjoyed the Holy See very peaceably till about the latter end of his Popedom, at which time he was again so disturbed by Crescentius, that he was forced to pray the Emperor Otho to come to his assistance. This Prince immediately marched with an Army into Italy, and stopped some time at Ravenna. During his stay there, John XV. died in May 996. The Romans were obliged by an order from the Emperor to elect in his place Bruno his Cousin-german, who took upon him the name of Gregory V but Crescentius soon 
Gregory V. John the Antipope.  after outed him, and set up in his stead John Bishop of Placentia. This Action was not long unpunished, for Otho came immediately with his Army, and being soon Master of Rome, re-established Gregory. John secured himself with Crescentius, in the Castle of Saint Angelo. The Emperor besieged it, Crescentius held it out very vigorously, and it would have been very difficult to have taken it, had not he been killed treacherously. The Antipope John was taken, his Eyes were scratched out, his Nose and his Ears were cut off, and in that posture was he led through the Streets of Rome, mounted on an Ass with his Head towards the Tail, and forced to say as he went along, Whoever shall dare to dispossess a Pope, let him be served like me.  
'Tis said that Gregory, to prevent the trouble which might afterwards arise in the Election of an Emperor, ordered that for the future it should be made by a certain number of Germane Princes, which he appointed; which was done at the instant, and by the authority of the Emperor Otho, and to favour those of his own Nation, and doubtless with the approbation of the Romans. This Pope did not survive his Election above two years and eight or nine months. Otho caused Gerbert to be elected in his place, who took upon 
Gerbert named Pope Silvester II.  him the name of Silvester II. He had been formerly Archbishop of Rheims, and was then Archbishop of Ravenna, having been obliged, as we shall hereafter declare, to quit his first Archbishopric. He was a man of great Learning, and much in favour with Otho, which inclined him to prefer him, before all others, to that Dignity, supposing he could not find a person more worthy to fill the Chair, or in whom he could more rely. We shall have occasion to speak of the Actions of this Prelate, before he was Pope, in the History of the Churches of France during this Century; and of what he did or wrote while he was Pope, in the History of the following Century, to which it belongs, for he was not promoted to Saint Peter's Chair till about March, in the year 999.  

An Account of the Roman W●…ers in the Tenth Century.  
AFter what has been related of the State of the Church of Rome during the Tenth Century, and of the Qualifications of those who governed it, 'tis no wonder that we have so few Monuments of this Church, either of Councils held at Rome, or of Letters written by the Popes.   

John IX.  
JOhn the Ninth has left us four Letters, and the Acts of two Councils. The first of these 
The Letters of John IX.  Letters is directed to Harvey, Archbishop of Rheims, who sent to know of him how he should deal with the Normans, who, after they had been baptised, had led lives wholly Pagan, and were transported to that degree of Extravagance, as to kill the Christians and Priests, to sacrifice to Idols, and to eat of such things as had been offered in sacrifice to them. John IX. after he had congratulated the Archbishop's happiness, in the conversion of Normandy, returns him this Answer, that the persons he mentioned being but newly converted, and not fully instructed in the Christian Religion, ought not to be dealt with according to the rigour of the Canons, but with some sort of gentleness and moderation. That however, if there were any among them, who would submit to all the severities of Penance, he ought to proceed against such according to the Canon. Agreeable to this Letter, Harvey sent to Guy, Archbishop of Rouen, a Memorial containing 
Harvey Archbishop of Rheims.  the institutions of Councils and Popes, the Authorities of the Fathers, and the Example of Saints, concerning the Mercy and Moderation which ought to exercised towards the greatest Sinners upon their sincere conversion and repentance.  
John's second Letter is directed to Stilian Bishop of Neocesarea: He congratulates his steadfastness to the Church of Rome, from whose communion nothing was able to separate him, and declares to him, that he hopes that by his Prayers he would prevail upon God to put an end to the Schism, which was of 40 years' continuance. He likewise declares, 'tis his intention that the Decrees of his Predecessors against Photius and his Adherents, should continue in their full force, and exhorts him not to act contrary to them.  
The third Letter of John is directed to the Clergy and Laity of Langres in France, who had petitioned his Authority for re-establishing of Argrin, their Bishop, who had been turned out of his Bishopric by the Sentence of Stephen the Predecessor of Pope John. He being well informed that this Bishop had been elected canonically, that he was turned out upon false grounds, and that there had been never another put in his place, re-establishes him by this Letter, notwithstanding the decree of Stephen, wherein he tells them, That he did not revoke what was done, but that he altered it for the better, for the benefit of the Church, and out of pure necessity, as his Predecessors had done upon several occasions. He wrote the very same Words at that time to Charles the Simple, and prays him to reinvest Argrin in his Bishopric, which is his fourth Letter. We have two Letters likewise of Pope Benedict on the same subject, wherein writing to the Bishops of 
The Letters of Benedict IU.  France, to the Clergy and Bishop of Langres, he confirmed the sentence of his Predecessor in favour of Argrin, and very earnestly presses for his Restitution.  
We have likewise two Letters of the Bishops of Germany directed to this Pope. The first is writ in the name of Hatto, Archbishop of Mayence, and his Suffragans. After protestation 
The Letter of Hatto Archbishop of Mayence to John IX.  made, that there were no Churches more submissive to the Holy See than Theirs, nor any Bishops paid greater deference to it than they did, they acquaint him that the Emperor Arnulphus being dead, his Son Lewis had been elected in his place, by the Advice of the Princes, and with the consent of the People, according to the Ancient custom of continuing the Kings of France always in the ●●me Line. They told the Pope, that the reason why they did it without his permission was, because all the Passes that opened from Germany to Italy, were in the possession of the Barbarians; so that they could not send Deputies to Rome, nor could the Pope send his Legates to them: that having at last found an opportunity of conveying this Letter to his hands, they prayed him to confirm by his Benediction the choice which they had made. After this they informed him of the Complaints which the Bishops of Bavaria made, upon the account that the Solavonians, who had possessed themselves of Moravia, and were declared Rebels against the French, pretended that they were out of their Jurisdiction, and would have a distinct Metropolitan of their own; and they accused the Bavarians of entering into Alliance with the Pagans, and partaking of the disorders which they committed. They assured the Pope, that this accusation was a malicious calumny, and gave him to understand, that i● he should grant the Moravians a Metropolitan, and permit them to withdraw themselves from the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Bavaria, he would be the cause of great disorders; for this would give them an occasion of rising against the powers to which they ought to be subject, and of making a new War with them. They added, that they gave him this caution with somuch the more freedom, because they thought themselves obliged to inform him, when ever any thing happened to the Church of Rome which deserved correction, that so some speedy and necessary Remedy might be applied thereto.  
The Letter of Theotmarus, Metropolitan of Bavaria, and of the other Bishops of that Province, upon the same subject is as strong. 'Tis written not only in the name of the Bishop, but also in the name of the Clergy and people 
The Letter of the Bishops of Bavaria to John IX.  of Bavaria. They remonstrated to the Pope, that having learned from his Predecessors, and the Holy Fathers of the Church, that the Bishop of Rome, had always taken care to maintain the Peace, Union, and Discipline of each Church, they could not tell how to believe what they had notice of every day, that there was issued out of the Apostolical See (the Origine of the Christian Religion, and the source of their sacerdotal Dignity) a Decree unjust, and contrary to the Doctrine and Authority of the Church: but that an Archbishop called John, and two Bishops who gave out that they were sent by the Pope to the Moravians, had given occasion for this Report. That these People were formerly Dependants on their Prince, and on their Bishops, who had converted them: That the Bishop of Passaw had always liberty of entering among them, and of holding Synods there, till such time as they risen up in Arms, and renouncd Christianity. That of late indeed they boasted that they for a sum of Money had prevailed upon the Pope to send three Bishops, who, in the Bishopric of Passaw had undertaken such a thing, as they could not believe proceeded from the Holy Apostolical See, being so directly contrary to the Intention of the Canons; namely, to canton that Bishopric into five parts, and to place an Archbishop and three Bishops into that Diocese, without the consent of the Archbishop and Bishop. They cited two Canons of Africa, and several passages out of the Letters of Pope Leo and Celestine, wherein this very thing was prohibited. They add, that his Predecessor had consecrated Wichinous Bishop, at the instance of the instance of the Duke of Zutphen, but withal, had sent him not into the Duchy, of Passaw, but into a Conquered Country. They likewise complained, that his Legates giving credit to the Stories of the Sclavonians, accused them of several falsities. They likewise took notice that their Prince was descended from the House of the King of France, who were Christians, whereas the Moravians and Sclavonians were originally Pagans and Enemies to the Christian Religion. They praised their King Lewis, and observed how zealous he was for Religion and the Holy See. They refuted the Reports which the Sclavonians had raised of their entering into a profane Alliance with the Hunns, and of their supplying them with money to go into Italy. They said that the Sclavonians were the persons who were in confederacy with the Hunns, when they pillaged, burnt, and ravaged all before them. That for their parts, they designed to have opposed their entering Italy, and to have marched to the Assistance of Lombardy; and that they might be in a condition to do it, they desired a Cessation of Arms from the Sclavonians, but could not obtain it. They concluded by conjuring the Pope not to give credit to the calumnies which the Sclavonians cast upon them, nor suffer such a division in their Church.  
One of the two Councils held under John IX. convened at Rome, and the other at Ravenna. The Institutions of the former are divided into twelve Articles.  
The first condemns the Proceed of the Synods held under Stephen VI against the Body of Formosus, which they had dug out of his Grave, cited and judged in a full Synod, which was an Action without all Precedent. In this Article is forbidden all such usage for the future, because a dead body cannot be cited into a Court of Judicature, since 'tis impossible he should answer the Accusations laid to his charge.  
The second grants a full pardon to the Bishops, Priests, and other Clergymen, who out of fear of being ill treated themselves, assisted at that; And Orders that for the future no such constraints shall be used, but that the Bishops when they convene shall be left to a perfect Liberty and Freedom.  
The third imports, that since Formosus had been translated from the Bishopric of Oporto to that of Rome, purely out of necessity, no person could make it a Precedent for the future, and it shall not be allowed to promote any person to any higher degree of Dignity, who has been declared to have forfeited an inferior Order, unless he has been re-established canonically; as the people had done in advancing Boniface I. who had been deposed from the Subdeaconship, and afterwards from Priest's Orders.  
The fourth restores those Clerks to their Orders, who were ordained by Pope Formosus, and had been deposed in a passion.  
The fifth renews the Canon of the African Council against Re-ordinations, Re-baptizations, and Translations; and prohibits the ordinary Bishops in those Churches, which were provided with Bishops, unless those who were in possession had been deposed according to the Canon.  
The sixth confirms the consecration of Lambert for Emperor, and condemns that of Berenger.  
The seventh condemns the Acts of the Council of Rome against Formosus, to be burnt.  
The eighth declares Sergius, Benedict, and Marinus Priests; and Leo, and Pascal, and John Deacons, to be lawfully condemned and separated from the Church, and anathematizes those who should acknowledge them as Clergymen, or should endeavour to re-establish ' them.  
The ninth excommunicates the persons, who had dug up the body of Formosus, and cast it into the Tiber.  
The tenth, for the prevention of those Violences, and that scandal which sometimes happened in the Election of Popes, ordains that for the future, none should be made, but what were elected by an Assembly of the Bishops and Clergy, in pursuance to the Desires of the Senate and People, and in the presence of the Emperor. This Canon likewise forbids the exacting of unreasonable Oaths and Promises.  
The eleventh is levelled against an abuse very prevalent at that time, of robbing the Pope after his Decease, not only of his Patriarchal Seat, but of all others which belonged to him in Rome, or thereabouts.  
The twelfth was against another abuse which prevailed at Rome. The secular Judges apprehended such Women as were suspected to be bad Livers, and by the severity which they used to them, obliged their Masters or their Relations to redeem them at a dear price: and afterwards those who had redeemed them, whether Clerks, or Laics, thought they might freely enjoy them without the fear of a Reprimand, since the public censure was passed upon them; which was the cause of a very great disorder. The Council to put a stop thereto, granted the taking cognisance of and passing Judgement on these offences to the Bishops, with a power of citing the Refractory before the civil Magistrates.  
Some time after, the Pope being come to the Emperor Lambert at Ravenna, they there convened a Council of 74 Bishops, who confirmed what had been done in the Council of Rome, and approved of the ten following Institutions.  
By the first it is ordained, that the Canons of the Holy Fathers, and what is contained in the Registers of Charlemagn and his Successors concerning Tenths should be observed.  
Afterwards the Emperor proposed two Articles. By the first, all persons whatsoever are forbidden to arrest, or offer any injury to those who should make their Appeals to his Imperial Majesty.  
By the second, the Emperor confirms the Ancient Privileges granted or confirmed by his Predecessors to the Church of Rome.  
The Pope afterwards proposed the following Articles.  
First, A confirmation of what was enacted in the Council of Rome, in favour of Formosus.  
Secondly, The punishing of the Outrages committed on the Territories of the Church of Rome, which had obliged him to have recourse to the Emperor.  
Thirdly, A Renewing of the Treaty made between the Holy See, and the Emperor Guy, Lambert's Father.  
Fourthly, That the Edicts which were not conformable to the conditions of this Treaty should be repealed.  
Fifthly, That the Estates granted by the Letters Patents of the Prince, to the prejudice of that same Treaty, should be restored to the Church.  
Sixthly, That the Emperor shall break off the Leagues which the Romans, the Lombard's, and the French had made together, contrary to the Interests of the Holy See and the Empire.  
Lastly, That the Emperor shall protect the Church of Rome, prevent its being disturbed, and use his utmost care to restore to it its ordinary Revenues, which were now wasted.  
These Articles being approved by the Bishops, the Pope recommended to them the Appointing a Fast and solemn Litanies upon their Return to their Respective Dioceses.  
[The four Letters of Pope John IX. and his Acts of the two Councils are extant Concil. Tom. IX. p. 483.]   

John X.  
WE have three Letters of John X. which relate to the Affairs of France. The two first 
The Letters of John X.  are about the Affair of Hilduin, whom Charles the Simple had turned out of the Bishopric of Liege. This Hilduin being supported by Giselbert, who held part of Lorraine against Charles the Simple, and by Henry the Fowler, King of Germany, was ordained Bishop of Tongres, or Liege, by Herman Archbishop of Cologne, placed into the possession thereof, and rifled the effects of it. Charles the Simple nominated Richerus to this Bishopric, and caused him to be elected by a party of the Clergy and Laity of Liege, who were come to him to complain of the extravagances of Hilduin. This Prince thereupon wrote a Letter to all the Bishops of his Kingdom, wherein he made it appear by the Registers and Canons, that Hilduin was not fit to be a Bishop. (1.) Because he was a Rebel and Traitor 
The Letters of Charles the Simple about Hilduin.  against his Prince. (2.) Because he procured himself to be ordained by Faction and Violence. (3.) Because he rifled the Treasures of the Church of Liege, to bestow on those who were the Instruments of his Ordination. (4.) Because he had pretended that the King had conferred on him the Bishopric of Liege. (5.) Because being cited thrice by Herman, to make his appearance before the Synod, he had not complied therewith. After this remonstrance, Charles exhorts the Bishops of his Kingdom to join with him, in turning this Usurper out of the Bishopric of Liege.  
'Tis very probable that he wrote likewise to Pope John X. upon this very subject, and that this gave occasion to that Pope to write to Herman, citing him, and Hilduin, and Richerus to come to Rome, that he might decide this difference; of which he informed Charles the Simple in another Letter. The two Competitors obeyed, and came both to Rome, where the Cause was decided in favour of Richerus, who was ordained Bishop of Liege by the Pope, and Hilduin was excommunicated. This contest begun in the year 920, and ended in the year 922.  
The third Letter of Pope John X. is directed to the Bishops of the upper Narbonnois. The Church of Narbonne which was the Metropolis of that Country, being vacant, Agius had been elected into it according to the Canon; but a powerful man named Gerard, possessed himself of that Archbishopric, having counterfeited Letters from the Pope. John X. disowns them in this Letter, and declares that he would not give him a grant thereof when he came to Rome, though he was ignorant of his Treachery and Knavery: but that being since fully informed of the matter, he order them not to acknowledge him any longer for Bishop, since he had been neither elected by the Clergy and Laity of that Town, nor ordained by the Bishops of the Province. By the same Letter he sends the Pall to Agius. [These three Letters of John X. are extant Concil. Tom. IX. p. 574.]   

Leo VII.  
WE have likewise three Letters remaining of Leo VII.  
The First is directed to Hugh, Duke of France, and Abbot of S. Martin of Tours. 
The Letters of Leo VII.  He therein enjoins him, under the pain of excommunication, not to suffer any Women to stay, or so much as enter within the enclosure of that Monastery.  
The Second is directed to Gerard, Archbishop of Lorch in Germany. He grants him the Pall, and permits him to make use of it, not only on the days of consecrating the Holy Chrism, and of the Resurrection of our Lord, but also on the Festivals of Christmas, of the Blessed Virgin, of the Apostles, of St. John the Baptist, of St. Laurence, of St. Stephen, and of all those Saints whose Bodies lay interred in his Church, and on the Day of his own Consecration, and of the Dedication of the Church; during the consecration of Bishops and Priests, and the Sermons to the new Converts. He exhorts him to behave himself so, as that the Sanctity of his Morals may be suitable to the Dignity of that Ornament, and afterwards makes a very edifying Mo●al discourse upon that subject.  
This Gerard came afterwards to Rome, and consulted with the Pope about several Questions, to which he gave an answer directed to the Bishops of France and Germany. The first of these Questions is concerning Necromancers, Magicians, and Wizards, whether they ought to be admitted to Penitence: The Pope replied, that the Bishops ought to bring them over to repentance by their exhortations, that so they might live like Penitents rather than die like Criminals. He adds, that if they slighted the censures of the Bishops, they ought to be punished according to the Rigour of the civil Laws. The second Question is, whether the Bishops ought to say Pax Vobis, or Dominus Vobiscum: the Pope replied, that they ought to act conformably to the custom of the Church of Rome, wherein Pax Vobis was said on Sundays, the principal Festivals, and on the Festivals of the Saints, on which days they likewise said Gloria in excelsis; and that Dominus vobiscum was used in the time of Lent, the Ember-Weeks, the Vigil of Saints, and ●n Fast-days. The third Question is, to know whether the Lords Prayer ought to be said at the benediction of the Table: The Pope replied, No, because the Apostles recited it at the consecration of the Body and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST. The fourth is, whether a man might marry with his Godmother, or God-daughter: The Pope replied, that such Marriages were forbidden. The fifth has respect to those Priests who marry publicly: The Pope orders, that th●y shall be deprived of their Dignity, but that their Children should not be endamaged thereby. The sixth is, whether Surfragan Bishops can consecrate Churches, ordain Priests, or Confirm: The Pope prohibits it, according to the tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch. The seventh is, concerning those who marry their Relations without knowing it, and who afterwards upon the knowledge thereof, confess it to the Priest: the Pope orders, that they shall be parted and enjoined Penance. The last is, concerning those who rob Churches: the Pope declares, that the Bishops ought to proceed against them with all the Authority God has put into their hands. At the end of this Letter he adds, that he constituted Gerard his Vicar in Germany; and exhorts the Bishops to join with him in reforming those abuses, which the Incursions of the Pagans, and the persecution raised by false Christians had introduced.  
These Letters of Leo are written in a pretty good Style, and full of good Maxims, and confirm the Judgement which Flodoard has passed upon him, that he was a great Servant of God. [His Letters are extant Concil. Tom. IX. p. 594.]   

Agapetus II.  
WE have likewise a Letter of Pope Agapetus II. wherein he adjusts the difference which 
A Letter of Agapetus II.  was then on foot between the Church of Lorch and that of Salzburgh, concerning the Right of Metropolitanship, by giving the Priority to the Archbishop of Lorch, whose See was the most ancient Metropolitan, together with a Jurisdiction over the Eastern Pannonia, and over the Country of Avarois, of the Moravians and Sclavonians, and by granting to the Archbishop of Salzburgh, whose See was raised to an Archbishopric by Leo III: the Right over the Western Pannonia.  
There is another Letter of this Pope, which is a Privilege in favour of the Abbey of Cl●ny. [Both these Letters are extant Concil. Tom. IX. p. 618.]   

John XII.  
WE have two Letters of John XII. One, by which he grants the Pall to Dunstan, 
The Letters of John XII.  Archbishop of Canterbury: and the other, whereby he excommunicates Issuard and his Adherents, who had seized upon the Lands and Estates belonging to the Abbey of S. Simphorien in Provence. [These Letters are extant Concil. Tom. IX. p. 641.]   

John XIII.  
THere are four Letters of John XIII. The first is directed to the Bishops of Bretagne, 
The Letters of John XIII.  whom he exhorts to acknowledge the Archbishop of Tours for their Metropolitan. The second is directed to Edgar King of England, wherein he promises him to turn out of the Church of Winchester, such Prebendaries as lead a scandalous Life, and to put some Monks into their places. The third and fourth are two privileges which he grants, one to the Monastery built by Berenger Bishop of Verdun, the other to the Monastery of S. Remy of Rheims. [These four Letters are extant Concil. Tom. IX. p. 663.]   

Benedict VI.  
POpe Benedict VII. by his Letter to the Bishops of France and Germany, confirms the 
The Letter of Benedict VII.  Arbitration made in favour of the Church of Lorch by his Predecessor Agapetus, and sends the Pall to Pilgrin, who was Archbishop of the place. [This Letter is extant Council Tom. IX. p. 718. It was first published by Lambeck Com. Lib. 2. C. 8. p. 645. who likewise gives us a Diploma of this Benedict concerning the privileges of the Monastery of Gemblours, anno Dom. 983. which is to be met with in Lambeck's Book p. 901.]   

John XV.  
THey give the Title of the Letters of John XV. to a Treaty of Peace between Etheldred 
The Letters of John XV.  King of the West Saxons, and Richard Duke of Normandy; to a Monitory which this Pope sent to Arnold and Baldwin, Counts of Flanders, admonishing them to make Restitution of the Revenues belonging to the Abbey of S. Riquirer; and to another such like Monitory sent to the Bishops of Picardy, exhorting them to procure the said Restitution to be made. [These three Letters are extant Concil. Tom. IX. p. 731.]   

Gregory V.  
GRegory V restored to John Archbishop of Ravenna, the Church of Placentia, which had 
The Letters of Gregory V.  been raised by his Predecessor to an Archbishopric, and put that of Monferrat under its Jurisdiction: This is the subject of the first Letter of this Pope.  
By the second he grants the Pall to Gerbert, Archbishop of Ravenna, and confirms and grants several privileges to that Church.  
The third letter of this Pope is, a Privilege which he grants to the Abbey of S. Ambrose of Milan.  
The fourth is directed to Queen Constantia, the Wife of Robert King of France, whom he exhorts to punish those who had pillaged and burnt the Demeans of a Bishop of France called Julian. [These four Letters are extant Concil. Tom. IX. p. 752. Baluzius' published another Letter of his, concerning the privileges of the Abbots of Mons major.]  
This is all we have remaining of the Writings of the Popes, which were in possession of the Holy See during the Tenth Century.   

Ratherius Bishop of Verona.  
AMong the famous men who flourished in Italy during this Century, none was of 
Ratherius Bishop of Verona.  greater Repute than Ratherius, Bishop of Verona. His life has something in it extraordinary, upon the account of the many cross Accidents which he met with. He was a Monk in the Abbey of Lobbes, where he grew into great esteem for his Learning. Happy had he been, had he stayed quietly in that peaceable Harbour, and not exposed himself, as he did, to the Waves of a tempestuous World. But whether he was called to another Post because of his Abilities, or whether he had some other motive to incline him to it, he followed the fortune of that Hilduin, who had usurped the Bishopric of Liege; and was afterwards turned out of it. Hilduin retired into Italy, and after the Death of Notger, Bishop of Verona, he was put into the possession of that Bishopric by King Hugh, who promised to advance him to a more considerable See when occasion should offer, and then to bestow that of Verona on Ratherius. A while after that Prince having determined to translate Hilduin to Milan, sent Ratherius to Rome, to procure Pope John XI. to approve of this Translation. Whilst Ratherius was upon this Negotiation at Rome, King Hugh altered his mind, and designed to bestow the Archbishopric of Milan upon some other person. However, Ratherius brought a Letter from Rome, whereby the Pope approved of the Instalment of Hilduin, in the Archbishopric of Milan, and granted him the Pall, and another Letter, whereby he required in his own Name, and in the name of the Church of Rome, that Ratherius should be made Bishop of Verona. This displeased King Hugh, who had other designs in his head: however, he could not tell how to deny the Requests of the holy See, and of the Lords that were about him. He was the more inclined to grant it, because Ratherius being then sick, he believed he would quickly march off to the other world. But he recovered of his distemper, and was ordained Bishop in the year 931. Hugh being very much enraged against him, swore that he should be never the better for his Ordination, and would oblige him to be contented with only a part of the Revenue of his Church, and to swear that he would not require any more of it during his Reign and his Son's Reign. Ratherius was not willing to submit to such an unreasonable proposition, whereupon this Prince caused him to be persecuted, and sought for pretences of turning him out. The War of Arnulphus furnished him with a favourable opportunity of doing it; for Arnulphus becoming master of Verona, Ratherius was accused of being one of his party; and when Hugh had retaken the Town, he sent him Prisoner to Pavia, where he was under confinement two years and an half. Being released thence, he was obliged to go into exile, where he spent five years, after which he returns into Italy, in hopes of being restored to his Bishopric. In his return he fell into the hands of Berenger, who kept him in prison three months and an half by the Advice of Manasses: afterwards he was brought to Verona, and received by Milo, Count of that City. He stayed there two years, under the Government of that Count, who would not allow him any liberty. In the mean time Manasses, Archbishop of Arles, being translated to Milan, bethought himself of ordaining a person for the Church of Verona, and some time after Ratherius received an Order from the Emperor Lotharius to withdraw. He did very willingly, he says, in obedience to that Order, that which he would have done of himself, if he had not been forbidden by the Gospel to relinquish his Flock. He takes no notice whither he retired at this time, but the Abbot Fulcuin tells us, that he stayed some time at Provence with a Nobleman's Son called Roesteing, that afterwards he returned to Lobbes, where he was very kindly received by Riquier who was still living, and that at last he was sent for by the Emperor Otho, who placed him near the person of his Brother Bruno. This Bruno having been made Archbishop of Cologne, in the year 953. bestowed on Ratherius the Bishopric of Liege, vacant by the death of Farabert, who had succeeded Hugh, the Successor of Riquier. But bad Fortune always attended him, for he was opposed by a prevailing party, who turned him out two years after, and put up in his place one Baudrey, a person of Quality in that Country. Spite of these crosses, he had a mind to be re-enstated in his Bishopric of Verona, and attempted it when Otho came into Italy a second time. At first he met with some difficulty, because the place was filled by Milo's Grandson, whose ordination had been ratified by the Holy See. However, he insisted upon it, wrote very powerfully to Pope John XII. and to the Bishops of France and Germany, cited them to a Council, and prevailed so far as to be re-established in a Synod held at Pavia. But he was no sooner re-enstated in his See, but he had new controversies between himself and his Clergy, so that he took up a Resolution to retire. About the year 966. he came into France, where he purchased Lands, and bought the Abbeys of S. Amand of Aumont, and of Alne, in the last of which he died in the year 972.  
This Bishop has composed several Treatises, a great part whereof hath been recovered and published by Father Dachery, in the second Tome of his Spicelegium.  
The first has a very fantastical Title: 'Tis entitled, A Treatise of the Perpendiculars of Ratherius Bishop of Verona, or the Vision of a Thief, hanged among several others. It is dedicaed to Hubert Bishop of Parma, and he therein reprehends that slight which the Clergy put upon the Canons. The Work is divided into two parts. In the first he complains, that he had formerly been turned out by the Clergy of his own Church, who could not endure that he should concern himself with the distribution of the Ecclesiastical Revenues of his own Diocese, though it was part of the Pastor's Duty; and who were not willing he should exercise himself in any other Function, than that of consecrating the Chrism, and of confirmation. Being harassed by their continual Rebellion, he undertook in this Writing to show that their Attempt was a manifest Contempt of the Canons: and for the proof thereof, he began by collecting those Canons which related to the Authority of Bishops, and which granted to them the Administration of the Goods belonging to their own Churches. Afterwards he made it appear by an Argumentation, that Bishops not being only obliged to feed their Flocks spiritually, but also corporally, they had a right to take cognizance of the state and distribution of the Church Revenues, so as to divide them among the Clergy according to justice and equity. He shows that this equity had been perverted in the distribution which was made in the Church of Veronae; because the most powerful ran away with the greatest share thereof, and enriched themselves at other men's costs, and that the Priests and Deacons kept all to themselves, without parting with any to the rest of the Clergy. He adds, that these latter, in whose behalf he spoke, did not much concern themselves about it, upon two accounts: First, because they were very glad they had this pretence to excuse themselves from doing the Church any service: Secondly, because they hoped hereafter to have the same advantage. Whereas they objected, that the custom of the Church of Verona was quite contrary, he maintains that they ought not to prefer an evil custom to the Intention of the Canons, and to the Laws of the Church. It was again objected to him, that it was a reflection upon a Bishop to degrade himself so far, as to distribute amongst the Clergy, and to appoint each their Allowance of Corn, of Wine, and of Money. He replied to this, that it was not at all requisite that the Bishop should do this himself, but that he might do it by his Priests and Deacons, if he could find any among them whom he could trust: which way was authorised by the example of the Apostles, who made use of Deacons to distribute the Alms which were collected by their Order; and by the practice of S. Sixtus, who committed the distribution of the Treasures of the Church to S. Laurence: upon which he makes this remark, that St. Laurence speaking to S. Sixtus, told him, that he had disposed of his Treasures, calling the Treasures of the Church, the Treasures of the Bishops; because the Bishop is as it were the Husband of the Church. He proves the same things out of the Civil Laws, which gave the Bishops a power of treating about the privileges of the Church. He afterwards invieghs against that general contempt, which all sorts of Christians, from the meanest Laic to the Pope himself, cast upon the Canons and Laws of the Church: and he with a great deal of heat declaims against the irregular Lives of the ecclesiastics of his time, who made no scruple of violating the Canons openly in matters of moment, as well as in small things. He reproves very smartly, and charges them with several Disorders, which he describes in a plain and naked dress. He speaks against those persons of Quality, who were marked out for Church Preferments, and advanced thereto by all manner of contrivances, how unfit soever they were for such an employ: He calls them Thiefs, false Shepherds, whose blessing turned to a curse; persons excommunicated by the Canons a thousand times over, who render the Authority of Bishops contemptible, and were the cause why men set so slight by their excommunications and absolutions.  
In the Second part of his Treatise, Ratherius more particularly falls upon the Immodesty of the Clergy, which was at such a height in his time, that one could scarce (says he) find a man fit to be ordained a Bishop, or any Bishop fit to ordain others, He taketh notice that of all the Nations in Christendom, the Italians were the persons who had the least regard for the Canons, and the least esteem for the Clergy: 
* [This is likewise one great reason of that general Contempt which our modern Clergy labour under; and which will in all succeeding Ages cast a scorn and 〈◊〉 reproach on all such irregular Clerks of what Church or Nation soever they be.]  The reason he gives for it is that the ecclesiastics of their Country were the most irregular in their Conduct, the most Immodest in their outward behaviour, and the most remiss in the discharge of their Duty. He reckons up several horrible Stories, and charges them chief with an Infamous Converse with Women. In the conclusion he gives them to understand that they had still place left for Repentance, and earnestly exhorts them thereto. This Work was composed by Ratherius some time after he was last reestablished in his Bishopric of Verona by the Emperor Otho about the year 962.  
The Second Treatise is entitled: A Deliberative Determination made at Liege. He there alleges forty reasons, why he thought himself obliged neither formally nor tacitly to renounce the Government of his Flock, nor to abandon it to those who had robbed him of it. These Reasons are strong and short, and are of the Nature of Aphorisms: In the conclusion he says that he formerly made use of them for the Bishopric of Liege; but that the Sixteen first were likewise applicable to that of Verona. He ends with an Imprecation against those who persist to harass and disturb him. This Work was written at that time when he solicited his re-establishment in the Bishopric of Verona.  
The third Treatise is entitled: Qualitatis conjectura cujusdam. He therein exposes under an unknown Name, all that his Enemies laid to his charge, and how they construed all his actions in a wrong sense. 'Tis a continued piece of Raillery on their Spite and Malice; and wrote about the end of his Life, when he had taken up his resolution to retire: for he therein observes that it was forty years ago since he began to aspire to Greatness and Authority, without being ever able to attain it. Lastly, he complains that the Emperor himself had forsaken him.  
The following Treatise is composed upon the variance which happened between him and the Clergy of Verona after his re-establishment. He says that it was no new thing, and that it began at the time of his Ordination: That it proceeded, (1.) because his morals and those of his Clerks were a contradiction to each other. (2.) Because he preferred the observation of the Canons to those Customs which were introduced by the Devil. (3.) Because he had restrained them from keeping company with Women, according to the Injunction of the Council of Nice. (4.) Because he would not permit the unequal distribution of the Church Goods among the Clergy. That 'tis upon this last account the quarrel between him and them is founded, as he had already demonstrated in a Letter written to Hubert, which is his first Treatise. He declaims very strongly against the general irregularity of all the Clergy, which he describes with very little Caution. He tells us the reason why he undertook to discourse of the distribution of the Goods of his Church, was, because the Clerks, who had received an order from the Emperor to leave off that familiarity which they held with women, excused themselves from so doing under a pretence of their Poverty. That it was upon this account he entered upon this particular, that they might all have wherewithal to live.  
The Apologetic Treatise of Ratherius, is not an Apology of his whole Life, but he therein only gives an account how he had employed a sum of money, which the Emperor put into his hands for the re-building the Church of S. Zeno. One of his Enemies, named Marcian, found fault with what he did, and would have had him distributed it amongst the Poor. Ratherius makes it appear that he ought not to do it. (1.) Because it was designed for the rebuilding of the Church. (2.) Because there were not very many poor in his Diocese, and that several persons contributed to their subsistence: whereas on the contrary, there were very many Churches demolished, or at least very much out of repair, for the rebuilding of which nothing was bestowed; that thereupon he supposed he might even employ a part of that Portion of the Church Goods intended for the Poor on such a good work. He tells us, that his Antagonist had ventured to go to Rome without his Licence, and that he had by Bribes procured Letters from the Pope, which excommunicated him and the Bishops his Successors, in case they should concern themselves with the distribution of the Church Goods. He says, that it was impossible but that this Excommunication would be the cause of a great deal of trouble: for if he should slight the Anathema of the holy See, he should give a very bad Precedent; but on the other hand, if he should submit to it, he should be no longer a Bishop, since he who is made a Bishop, at the same time is made an Overseer, not only in spiritual things, but also in the Temporalities of his Church, as it is ordained by a vast number of Canons. This Treatise was composed by Ratherius after his last re-establishment.  
The following was wrote much about the same time. 'Tis a discourse directed to his Clergy, wherein he upbraids them of their Rebellion. He there tells them that he had resolved to excommunicate them, as they had deserved; but he had delayed doing it, in hopes they would have reformed of themselves: That he tarried for a Commission from the Emperor, who should report to his Imperial Majesty the Reasons of both sides, upon which the Emperor should determine what he pleased, and he would obey his Orders.  
This Treatise is followed by a Charter, whereby Ratherius institutes several Clerks into a Monastery, in the place of the Abbot and Monks, whom he was obliged to turn out, because of their Irregularities. He therein appoints that they should sing the Office, and that every one of them should have his share of Corn, Wine, Pulse and Money, without dividing the Lands and Vineyards.  
The following Treatise is an Injunction of Ratherius against the Marriage of a Clergyman's Son of Verona, which was performed on a Sunday in Lent. He declares that it is irregular, and that no Marriage ought to be celebrated during Lent, nor on Fast-days, nor on Sundays, nor on holiday; and orders that all those who should commit such a fault, should fast for forty days; that is to say, that when others of the faithful eat at nine of the clock, they should stay till noon ere they eat: when others fast till noon, they should fast till till three a clock: and when others fast till three a clock, they shall abstain from eating till night. He exhorts them likewise to be charitable to the poor during this time. He declares that he would undergo the same penance himself for being backward in opposing such an irregularity. He excommunicates such Offenders as would not submit to this Penance, and declares that God would consign them over to eternal Damnation.  
After this Treatise there are five Letters of his writing. The first is directed to Martin Bishop of Ferrara, wherein he acquaints him that his Clergy laid several Crimes to his charge, particularly that of ordaining several Infants for money. He exhorts him to repent, and to behave himself better for the future.  
The second Letter is writ in the name of all the Clergy of Verona, and directed to him, who was then in the Holy Apostolical See, to the Senate, and to all the faithful of the Church of Rome. It was composed by Ratherius some time after his Re-establishment, that is about the year 963. during the contest between John XII. and the Emperor. Upon which account in the direction of his Letter he names only in general, The Bishop who is in the Holy Apostolical See, whoever he be. Domino Sancte Sedis Romanae, quicunque est, Apostolico. In this Letter he desires to know what he ought to do with those Clergymen of Verona, who entered into Orders whilst that Church was governed by Intruders. He drew up a collection of those Canons, which declare such Ordinations to be invalid: however, he declares in the name of his Clergy, that their Bishop having referred the decision of the case wholly to the judgement of the holy See, they earnestly entreated that See to assist them, and deal favourably with them in that particular.  
The Letter which follows precedes in date that which we have been just now speaking of; Ratherius wrote it to Pope John XII. in his own name, to desire his re-establishment. He styles the Pope the Bishop of the Chief See, i. e. of Rome, Archbishop of Archbishops, and Universal Pope, if it were lawful to give that title to any Mortal. He therein describes his own misfortunes, and the history of his own Life, and entreats the Pope to judge whether he ought to be Bishop of Verona, or no.  
The fourth Letter is writ upon the same subject, and directed to the Bishops of Italy, France, and Germany; he therein implores their Assistance, and citys his Adversary to a Council, that his Cause might be determined there.  
The fifth Letter is imperfect: 'tis a dedicatory Epistle of some Work, directed to a Bishop.  
These particular Letters are followed by a Synodical Letter, which Ratherius published in a Synod which he held after his last re-establishment, in order to instruct his Clergy, who were very ignorant. He recommends to them at first the getting by heart the Apostle's Creed, that which was sung at Mass, and the Creed of S. Athanasius. He explains to them the mysteries of the principal Festivals of the year, exhorts them to say Mass, and to communicate on the Festivals and Sundays; and advertizes those who would enter into Priests Orders of what they ought to know and practice, in order to their Ordination; which he reduces to these heads: They must bring Certificates out of the Church Registers, whether they be freeborn, and of the same Diocese. If they are born Slaves, they must produce their Letter of Freedom: and if they be of another Diocese, Letters of recommendation from their Bishop, called now Letters Demissory. They must learn by heart, and be able to explain the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and to read distinctly, and to explain the Epistle and Gospel. They must know how to adminster the Sacraments of Baptism, of Penance, and of Extreme Unction, and how to perform the Ceremonies for the Burial of the Dead, and for the Blessing of Holy Water. They must be well versed in Singing and in the Calendar, and they must have a Martyrology and a Penitential. He adds, that he would not admit any into Priests Orders, unless they had spent some time in his City, either in a Monastery, or under the Discipline of some Learned Man, and were men of some Learning themselves. He informs his Clergy that the Ecclesiastical Revenues being divided into four parts, whereof only one belonged to them, they ought not to encroach on those which belonged to the Bishop, to the Poor, and to Building. He orders that a Regular observation should be made of Lent every day alike, except Sundays; that during Advent they should abstain from eating of Flesh, and from the celebration of Marriage. He requires that abstinence in the last case should likewise be observed in the Octaves of Easter and Whitsuntide, in the time of public Prayers, in the Vigils of all the Festivals, on all Fridays and Sundays; that they should fast till 
† One of the Popish Canonical hours.  None all the Passion-Week; that on Easter Eve no Priest should say Mass before ten a clock, nor solemnly christian any before that hour. He declares that the Priests can enjoin Penance, and give Absolution for secret Sins, but for public Offences they ought to apply themselves to the Bishop. Lastly, he would have them omit the Festivals, which fell out in Lent, except those of the Virgin Mary, the Apostles, and the Saints, whose bodies lay interred in their Church. There is inserted in this Synodical Letter, a discourse containing likewise several Advices and Instructions for ecclesiastics, the which is attributed to Pope Leo IU. and S. Ulric. 'Tis very plain, that 'tis foreign to this subject, but 'tis difficult to determine whose piece it is.  
The Treatise of Ratherius, entitled a Journal of his Travel to Rome, is a piece wherein he threatens his Clergy to go to Rome, and impeach them there, that so he might reduce them to their Duty. He tells them, that though they might be very sensible that he designed to go to Rome, yet they were ignorant of his design in going: That he did not go thither to put up his Prayers there; having read in the Gospel that the time is come, when Men shall no longer Worship God on this Mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, and that God being a Spirit, he ought to be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth, which every one might do at home in his own Closet. That he did not go thither by the Emperor's Order, having received no such orders from him, but only to send his Soldiers thither: That he did not go thither to learn any thing, since the Scripture gave him sufficient instructions what to do: but that he went thither to the Synod of Bishops which were to meet at Rome by the Emperor's Order, to know of them how he should behave himself in the Discipline of his Church, and particularly whether he might tolerate his Clergies having Women amongst them. He observes that he could apply himself to no place so properly as to Rome, for instruction how he ought to demean himself in that case. For, (says he) where can one be better informed of the discipline of the Church than at Rome? There are the most eminent Doctors in the World: 'Tis there the Heads of the Universal Church do flourish: 'Tis there they examine the constitutions of Episcopacy, and the institutions of other ecclesiastics: There they approve of those that aught to be received, and reject those that aught to be rejected. Nothing that is disannulled there, can be of force elsewhere; and nothing which is ordered there can be abolished. Whither then can I better apply myself for the Cure of my Ignorance, than to the source and fountainhead of all Wisdom? To this Consideration he adds the Equity and Justice of the Emperor, and the personal Deserts of Pope John (viz. the Twelfth of that Name, who scarce deserved such an Encomium) and the hopes that they would call a general Council, which he wishes might prove beneficial to the Church.  
He explains the question he would propose to them; namely, whether those who infringed and openly contemned the Canons, aught to be endured in the Church: He adds, that he would not so much as mention the Injuries he had formerly suffered from them, nor those which they still continued to heap upon him; but that he knew not how to refrain speaking of that which passed in the last Synod which he held, wherein he had not the Liberty of Reforming his Clergy, and in which there was not the least notice taken of his Synodical Letter. He enlarges himself very much on the necessity there was of observing the Canons; and was extremely concerned, upon the account that these Canons prohibited the Clergy, who had been guilty of such Crimes, from Celebrating or discharging their Ministerial Functions. For (says he) if they do not confess their Faults, they are in danger of being Damned; and if they do confess them, these Canons prohibit them from discharging their Functions. Since the Case stands thus, the Church would be unprovided of Ministers, since the Number of the Wicked was so great. He exhorts them to Repentance, and to recite a Prayer, which, he says, he met with in the Psalteries, wherein God is to be implored for their Salvation and Conversion, through the Intercession of the Virgin, and all the Saints. However, forasmuch as the Difficulty still remained; he concludes, that he goes to Rome for the removal of it.  
To those Treatises of Ratherius are annexed several Sermons. The first and most considerable is a large Instruction upon Lent. He therein blames those who did not observe it according to the Canon, either fasting only one part of that Holy time, or else breaking out into Excess; or lastly, breaking the Fast on Holy Thursday and Saturday. He takes notice, that in his time they fasted in Lent only till Noon: That on Holy Saturday Mass was not Celebrated among the Latins till about Night, and that they fasted that day till Mass was over: But that in the Greek Church they began the Solemnity of Easter at Nine of the Clock in the Morning; that their Lent was longer. After this he recommends Prayer, almsgiving, and Repentance; and shows with what mind, and after what manner they ought to put these into Practice. Lastly, to these Instructions he adds a Dissertation against the Error of the Anthropomorphites, into which he perceived several of his Priests were fallen out of Ignorance, not being capable of imagining a God unless he had a Body. By several Arguments he Demonstrates that God is a pure Spirit. He likewise refutes a foolish and superstitious Opinion, that St. Michael Sang Mass in Heaven every Monday. He concludes with Exhorting his Clergy to live regularly.  
The Persons, whose Errors he had declared against in this Sermon, accused him (either out of Malice or Ignorance) of having denied that JESUS CHRIST had a Body, and of having condemned the Devotion of those who went every Monday to hear Mass in the Church of St. Michael; so that he was obliged to explain himself, by declaring that he never said that JESUS CHRIST, that is, the incarnate Wisdom, had not Eyes, Hands, or a Body; but only that the Divine Substance had none; and that he never said, that it was ill done in going to the Church of St. Michael to hear Mass; but that he had said, and would maintain, that it was a great piece of Folly to assert, that St. Michael Sang Mass, and Superstition to believe, that it was better to go to St. Michael's Church on Mondays, and Pray to him on that Day, than on any other day of the Week.  
The Second Discourse upon Lent, is a Moral Exhortation to refrain from Vice.  
There are besides four Sermons on Easter-day, and three on the Ascension, which likewise contain very useful Instructions of Morality, taken for the most part out of the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers.  
These are all the Works of Ratherius, which are extant in the Second Tome of the Spicilegium. There is still in the Twelfth Tome, a Letter of the same Author upon the Eucharist: He wrote it to a Bishop, who having met him in a Convocation of Bishops held by Conrade, had asked him, whether he had Sung Mass that Week or no? He complains, that this Question was proposed to him, rather to try him, than out of Charity; and answers him, that perhaps it were to be wished, that neither of them had Celebrated it on Christmas-day; declaring withal, that he had no good Opinion of him. He leaves the World to judge, which of the two who received the Eucharist unworthily, is most in danger of his Salvation; whether he who received it seldom, or be who received it often. He adds, that were they to read the Homilies of St. Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews, perhaps the One would abstain altogether from Celebrating, and the Other from doing it every day. From this point of Morality Ratherius passes to another of Doctrine, and asks him, to whom he writ; whether he understands figuratively these words, which are spoken in giving the Sacrament; The Body of JESUS CHRIST preserve thee to Everlasting Life. He tells him, that if he understood them in that Sense, he was miserably blind; and assures him, that he ought to believe, that as in the Marriage of Cana in Galilee, the Change of the Water into Wine was Real, and not Figurative; so the Wine is by the Priest's 
[But by this Bishop's and Monsieut Du Pin's leave, this parallel will not hold good; nor is it a sound Argument to prove Transubstantiation. The Fallacy of it is apparent. For the change of Water into Wine, at the Marriage of Cana in Galilee, was reckoned a Miracle, and such as only a God could do: But the change of Bread and Wine into the real Body and Blood of Christ, by a words speaking of the Priest is more Miraculous, and shows the Priest to be endowed with a greater Power than our Saviour himself had, which I presume no Romanist, if he be in his Senses, will be so bold or so blasphemous as to assert. And as for ●his other Argument to elude the Evidence of our Senses, 'tis altogether as vain; unless it can be proved, that we ought to believe things which contradict our Sense and Reason, as well as those which are above them. The One we grant, the Other we deny. The Mystery of the Incarnation, of the Blessed Trinity in Unity, and the like, are above our Sense and Reason, but contradict neither. But the Mystery of the Transubstantiation, is not only above, but contradicts the joint Testimony of our Senses and Reason at once. So that I leave the World to judge which of the two Opinions is most Orthodox; whether Ours which says, that Christians do by Faith receive very Christ, in the receiving the Elements of Bread and Wine, which remain still the same; or Theirs, which says, that the Bread and Wine are changed into the real Body and Blood of Christ, by a Mystical Transubstantiation.]  Benediction made the real Blood of JESUS CHRIST, and the Bread the real Flesh, and not only in a Figure: That if the Taste and the Colour seem to suggest the contrary, yet we are not to stick here; and that as the Mud whereof Man was formed changed its Figure, tho' the Substance still remained, so we ought to believe, that tho' the Colour and Taste of the Bread and Wine remain, yet we receive the real Flesh; and the real Blood of JESUS CHRIST: That if one should ask, what is become of the Substance of the Bread and Wine? it might be answered, That the Bread perhaps vanishes after an invisible manner; or that 'tis changed into Flesh. But that the Gospel teaches us, that this Flesh and this Blood, are the Flesh and the Blood of the Body of JESUS CHRIST: That we ought not to be over-inquisitive about the rest, since 'tis a Mystery of our Faith: because being a Mystery it cannot be comprehended; and being a Mystery of Faith, we should believe it, without going about to explain it.  
Foulcuin Abbot of Lobes, speaks of almost all these Works of Ratherius, which we still have, and likewise makes mention of some others which are lost; viz. a Treatise Entitled The Combat, or the Mental Meditations of one Ratherius, Bishop of Verona, and Monk of Lobes, which he writ during his first Exil, and addressed to the most Learned Prelates of his Time: A Treatise Entitled, The Frenzy, because he therein talks like a Madman against Baudry: Several Sermons for Holy Thursday, for the Feast of Pentecost, and for several Festivals of the Blessed Virgin, and several other pieces. The same Author adds, that Ratherius in his Exile at Cumae, meeting with a Copy of the Life of St. Usmar, corrected the Solecisms thereof, and sent it to Lobes; and that afterwards being in Provence, he Composed a Treatise of Grammar, which he Dedicated to Roësting's Son, under the Title of Spera-dorsum, or, A Shelter for the backside.  
The Style of Ratherius is obscure and intricate, but pure enough in the Terms: his Expressions are lively and smart, and his Reasonings just enough. He was well acquainted with the Canons, had thoroughly read the Latin Fathers, and very pertinently made use of their Authority and Principles. He reproves with sharpness the Vices and irregularities of his Time, without sparing any Man, and particularly levels against the corrupted Morals of ecclesiastics, which he did not stick to detect and describe in very lively Colours, and perhaps with a little too much Picquancy.   

ATTO Bishop of Verceil.  
ATTO or Hatto Bishop of Verceil, (not the same with the Bishop of Basil, of the same 
Atto Bishop of Verceil.  Name, whom we mentioned in the foregoing Century) is more moderate and less obscure than Ratherius. He was the Son of Aldegaire, and presided over the Church of Verceil, from the Year 945. till about the Year 960. His Works were a long time concealed in the Vatican Library, and were at last made public by Father Dachery, in the Eighth Tome of his Spicilegium.  
The first is a Capitulary for the Clergy of his Diocese, containing an Hundred Heads or Articles, almost all extracted and copied from the Councils of Laodicea, Carthage, Toledo, and others, from the Decretals of Popes both true and false, and from the Capitulary of Theodolphus, only excepting a very few, of which perhaps he is the Author. These are the Fourth, wherein he enjoins his Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, to learn the Catholic Faith (that is, the Creed of Athanasius) by Heart: The Fifth, which is a general Admonition to the ecclesiastics, to discharge their Duty, and lead exemplary Lives: The Tenth, whereby he ordains, that when they Consecerate the Body of JESUS CHRIST, it should be an entire Oblation, i. e. a whole Loaf unbroken; and that the Priests should celebrate the Mass Fasting. The eighteenth concerning the Institution of Catechumen, the Baptism of Mutes, and the Obligation of Godfathers, to instruct those for whom they stand Sureties. The Twentieth, whereby 'tis ordered, that in all Churches where Baptism is Administered, there should be a Deacon with the Priest, and enjoins Priests who have no Deacons, to make speedy choice of some fit Person, and get him to be ordained Deacon. The Twenty ninth which enjoins the Conferences of the Priests, on the First day of the Month, a Custom established in the Ninth Century, as appears from the Capitularies of Hincmarus and Riculphus. The Thirty ninth, which imports that for the future all Bishops should be enjoined not to ordain Deacons till they had obliged themselves to continue in Celibacy. The Seventy fifth, whereby he imposes a Penance on such, who by their slovenliness should Belch after they had received the Eucharist. The Seventy seventh, which imports that those who shall be Baptised or Confirmed, shall abstain, during the time prescribed by the Bishop, from eating Meat, and for eight days from the use of Marriage, and that no Clerk should be ordained till he had received both these Sacraments. And the Ninetieth, which concerns the Pennances which Priests ought to impose on Public Offenders, and after what manner they ought to present to the Bishop such Persons as will not submit to Penance.  
The next Treatise is about the Persecutions and Troubles which the ecclesiastics suffered. It is divided into three Parts. The first treats of the Troubles they suffered in being censured in their Persons. The second, of those they met with in their Ordinations: and the third, of those they endured in their Revenues. In the beginning he takes notice that the Church will always have its Persecutors, but that they will never get the Mastery; and that the Church being founded on the Solid Rock of the Apostolical Faith, will always stand by Faith, by the Love of JESUS CHRIST, by the Use of Sacraments, and by the Observation of the Commandments of God. Happy House! (says he) it is not overthrown by Storms, nor shattered by Floods, nor shaken by Winds; against which the Gates of Hell will never prevail, tho' assaulted by them continually; which yields neither to secret Temptations, nor to open Persecutions, nor to the Attacks of Malicious Spirits, nor to the Corruption of Vices and Impieties. After he had thus expressed himself in general concerning the Persecutions of the Church, he says that one of the most usual in his time, is that when the Wicked are corrected by their Superiors, they persecute those who teach them, and openly assault them, that by this means they may evade the submitting to Ecclesiastical Punishments: that to prevent this abuse, it was ordained in the Canons, that Bishops should not be accused but by Men of unspotted Reputation, nor judged by any other Judges than those of their own choosing, nor Condemned by any other Authority than that of the Holy See, altho' it was allowed for Metropolitans and Bishops of the Province to hear and examine their Causes. After having established this Point of Civil Law on the false Decretals of the Popes, he says that in his time, they did not only not observe these Precautions in the Accusation of Bishops; but that they would not so much as give them leave to make their own defence, and would oblige them either to bring their Brethren to swear that they are innocent, or to provide a Champion to fight for them. He shows that these two Methods of judging the Crime or Innocence of any Man, which were then in use, are both of them unjust and unlawful, especially among ecclesiastics. The first, because it does not follow that all those who cannot produce Witnesses to swear to their Innocence, are guilty; and that it had been always the Custom of the Church to acquit those who were not convicted of the Crimes laid to their Charge, without obliging them to bring others to swear for their Innocence. The second Method, (1.) Because it was only in use among Laics, who did not approve of it themselves. (2.) Because it often happens that the Innocent are vanquished, and the Guilty crowned as Victors. (3.) Because this was to tempt God. (4.) Because it being unlawful for ecclesiastics to fight themselves, 'tis altogether unjust to oblige them to find Champions in their stead, in order to be acquitted: 'Tis to put them into an incapacity of clearing themselves of one Crime, unless by committing another. He than makes this Objection to himself; But must we suffer all the Faults which ecclesiastics may commit to go unpunished? He answers, that there are some Persons who ought to suffer it; and that there are other Persons whose duty it is to reprove and punish them according to the Power invested in them for that purpose, and with the necessary Precautions: but that a rash Judgement should not be passed on those who have received a Power to judge the very Angels; That the Clergy ought not to be judged by Laics, but by Bishops; and that Laics ought not to concern themselves with punishing their Crimes, unless they are appealed to by the Bishop of the Diocese. And yet (says he) the quite contrary is now observable; For the Civil Authority incroaches on the Ecclesiastical; and the latter is now crushed by the former, which ought to support it. So that as in the Election of Prelates, the Will of the Prince is followed more than the Decrees of the Holy Fathers; even so in their Condemnation, more regard is had to gratify their Humours, than to proceed according to Canon Law. And from hence it happens, that by the Injustice of unrighteous Judges, the Offences of the Guilty are no Bar to the holding their Dignity; and Dignity does not exempt any Person from an unjust Accusation.  
The Second Part is about the Authority which Princes had usurped in the Ecclesiastical Ordinations of Bishops: He says that they ought to be made by those who have a Right thereto according to the Canons and Customs of the Church; but that Princes absolutely require that their Edict should be of universal force in the case: That he, whom they chose, must be received, tho' never so wicked; and that the Man, whom others shall elect, should be rejected, tho' never so deserving: That the Faults of those whom they choose, how great soever, were looked upon as nothing: That they had no regard to the Virtues, but to the Riches, the Parentage, and the Services of the Persons: That many were ordained for Money, others by Recommendation, or because they are Relations, or in recompense of some Service they had done: That there are some Princes so blind, as to prefer Infants to Bishoprics, who had not so much as one of the necessary Qualifications; and who are obliged to be under the Care of Tutors and Masters, even while they are the Masters and Judges of a whole Diocese.  
In the last Part he reprehends the Abuse which prevailed in his time, of rifling the Revenues of the Church, when the Episcopal See was vacant by the Death, or by the Expulsion of a Bishop. He citys in the three Parts several Canons, and a great many fine Passages out of the Fathers, to back his own Arguments.  
To these Treatises are annexed Eleven Letters of Atto.  
The first is directed to a Bishop named Waldon, who was at variance with his Prince. He exhorts him to submit to his Prince, and produces several Passages out of the Father's concerning the Obedience which is due to Kings. This Walden is doubtless the same with him whom Berenger had made Bishop of Cumae, and who afterwards proved treacherous to him, and withdrew to the Emperor Otho, as Luitprand relates it.  
The three following Letters are directed to the Faithful of his own Diocese: The two first are against those, who pretended to Divine and Prophesy of things to come: and the last is against those who would feast on Fridays.  
The fifth is directed to a Bishop named Aso. He therein shows by the Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws, that Marriage is prohibited between those who had contracted a Spiritual Affinity by Baptism, contrary to the Advice of that Bishop, who found fault that one Thierry, who had married his God-father's Daughter, was divorced from her, and Excommunicated till such time as he made his Appearance in a Court of Judicature before the Archbishop and Bishops.  
The sixth is a Letter of Gunzon Deacon of the Church of Navarre, wherein he sends Atto the Copy of a Letter, pretended to be Pope Zachary's, to Theodorus Bishop of Pavia, about the Prohibition of Marriage between those who have contracted a Spiritual Affinity.  
The seventh is a Letter of Ambrose, a Priest of Milan, directed to Atto, whereby he gives him to understand that these sorts of Marriages were likewise prohibited in his Church; and desires he would let him know the meaning of the Titles Pristesses and Deaconesses, mentioned in Zachary's Letter.  
Atto replies in the eighth Letter, That the Priestesses and Deaconesses were Widows chosen to assist the Women in the Administration of the Sacrament of Baptism. He does not approve at all their Opinion, who pretend that the Deaconesses were Abbesses: and he observes that these Titles of Priests and Deacons might likewise be given to Women.  
The ninth and tenth are directed to the ecclesiastics of his own Diocese, against those who kept company with lewd Women, with whom they maintained a scandalous Familiarity, and whom they kept and maintained out of the Revenues of the Church.  
In the last, he advises the Bishops, his Brethren, upon what was necessary to be done in case the Kings of Italy, (viz. Berenger and Adalbert mentioned formerly) fearing their Enemies, should require him and the rest of the Bishops to continue Loyal to them, not only by the Oath of Allegiance, but by exacting Hostages from them. He gives them to understand that 'tis not his Opinion that they ought to give them any. (1.) Because he is not sensible, that the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers have commanded any thing else than to be loyal and subject to one's Prince, and to do one's best to preserve the public Peace of the State, and to provide for the Safety of one's King. (2.) Because 'tis a sort of Punishment inflicted on the Innocent for another's Fault, which is contrary to Justice. (3.) Because 'tis the exposing of a Man's Life for some Temporal Interest, and the leaving it to the changeable Will of others. (4.) Because 'tis such a new and strange thing, as would make the World believe either that the Bishops of whom these Hostages were required, are more disloyal than their Predecessors, or else that the Princes are more odious. Whereupon he exhorts his Brethren to pray to God for the Safety of their Princes, and to beg him to infuse into them a good Opinion of the Loyalty of the Prelates of their Kingdom, and that he would preserve them steady and constant in their Fidelity.  
There is still in the Manuscript at Rome another piece of Atto, entitled The Poliptick, or The Perpendicular, which serves as a Reproof of Vice, and a Recommender of Virtue; and seventeen Sermons which 'tis impossible to Transcribe, because the Manuscript is so torn in this place, that one cannot read it. There are likewise several things wanting in the Works which are copied out; all which might be supplied by the Manuscript which they say is in the Archives of the Church of Verceil; but the Canons of that Church would never communicate them, nor suffer them to be copied, notwithstanding the importunity of Father Dachery made by Cardinal Bona, and the Ambassador of the Duke of Savoy: whether 'tis because they knew not where this Treasure lay, or because they were minded it should lie dormant there.  
The Works of this Author are nothing else almost but a Collection of Citations out of Scripture, the Canons, and the Fathers, which were very applicable to his purpose. What is his own, is writ with some spirit, and after a lively and natural manner.   

LUITPRAND.  
LUITPRAND, or LIUTPRAND, is one of the greatest Ornaments of Italy. Trithemius 
LUITPRAND.  assures us that he was an Italian, and descended from a Family of Pavia: Others suppose that his Family was Spanish. However it be, his Father was sent by Hugh King of Italy to the Emperor at Constantinople; and being returned from that Embassy, he embraced the Monastic Life, leaving Luitprand very young. He was brought to Pavia, and made Deacon of that Church. His Relations presented him to Berenger II. to be his Secretary. He served him a long time, and was sent Ambassador by that Prince about the Year 948. to Constantine Porphyrogenetta Emperor of the East. Some say that soon after his return he was Bishop of Cremona; but 'tis more likely that he was not advanced to that Dignity till Otho I. had rendered himself Master of Italy: for he soon fell into disgrace with Berenger, who persecuted him and all his Family; so that he was forced to fly into Germany, where he composed his History, on the top of which he only assumes the Title of Deacon. He came into Italy with Otho, and assisted at the Council held at Rome in the Year 963. against John XII. in the quality of Bishop of Cremona, where he was the Emperor's Interpreter. In the Year 968 he was sent Ambassador by that Prince to Phocas Emperor of the East, and has writ himself the Relation of that Embassy, which contains very excellent Remarks on the Manners of the Grecian Emperors of that time. His History is dedicated to Raimond Bishop of Elvira in Spain. It is divided into six Books, and gins with the Reigns of Leo Emperor of the East, and of Arnulphus Emperor of the West, and ends at Luitprand's Embassy from Berenger to Constantine. But the last Book is imperfect; and instead of continuing the History, a Fragment is added, containing the History of the Expulsion of Berenger, of the Condemnation of Pope John XII. and of all that happened at Rome till Pope Benedict was outed of his Popedom. The Fragment seems to me to be Luitprand's, if we may judge by the style, and certainly it belongs to an Author of that time. The third Book is entitled, The Counterpoison, that is, The Revenge; because therein he undertakes to revenge himself of the base usage he had received from Berenger. This History, and the Relation of his Embassy to the Emperor Phocas, are the only genuine Pieces of Luitprand. For the Book of the Lives of the Popes from S. Peter down to Formosus, is not writ in Luitprand's style, nor is it mentioned in Sigibert or Trithemius. Some believe that it belongs to a more ancient Author, but they are mistaken; for it ends with a passage copied out of the History of Luitprand, which is a farther evidence that this Work is none of his: But what time soever it was of, 'tis nothing else but a vile Copier of Anastasius the Librarian. As for the Chronicon which goes under the name of Luitprand, 'tis apparently a spurious Piece, which ought to be reckoned among the Romances made in the form of ancient Chronicons by the Spaniards.  
Luitprand's style is harsh and rough, but strong and vehement. He wrote his History in a pathetical manner, but such as is not pleasant, without observing the Regular Order and Series of Times. He therein speaks particularly of the Affairs of Italy, and of that which concerned the Empire of the West, and therein likewise inserts something of the Empire of the East, and of the History of the Popes.  
His History was printed at Basil in the Year 1532. The Relation of his Embassy at Ingolstat in the Year 1600. The Book of Lives of the Popes, which is foisted on him at Mayence in the Year 1602. And all his works together, with the spurious Chronicon, were published by Jerom of Higuera the Jesuit, and printed in Folio at Antwerp in the Year 1640.    

CHAP. III.  
An Account of the Churches of France.  
IN the Tenth Century the Church of Rheims was looked upon as the chief Church of France, 
The Dignity of the Church of Rheims.  and its Archbishops had the principal share in the Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs of that Kingdom. The Privileges which the Popes granted to them, the great Revenues which they possessed, and which were considerably augmented at that time, the Prerogative which they had of Consecrating Kings, the Post they held in the Assemblies both of Church and State; their Quality, their Reputation, and their Personal Merit, raised them to a higher pitch of Power and Dignity than any Prelate could hope for. But forasmuch as all great Dignites are envied and eagerly thirsted after, and the higher the Post is, the more 'tis exposed to storms and dangers; 'tis not at all to be wondered at that there were so many Artifices used to come into this Archbishopric, so many heats to keep in it, and if those that had the possession of it, have been subject to so many Scandals, as the ensuing History will make appear. But because the Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Churches of France, and particularly of that of Rheims, bear so near a Relation to those of the State; and because the Changes of Kings, and the Revolutions of the Government have likewise produced very many Alterations in the Affairs of the Church: 'Tis necessary to begin with giving you a Scheme of the State of the French Monarchy, and of the Succession of the Kings who governed France during the Tenth Century.  
After the Death of Charles the Gross, which happened in the Year 888. 
* [Other Historians say he was Son to Lewis the Bald.]  his Son Charles, surnamed 
The state of France after the Death of Charles the Gross.  the Simple, being still in his Minority, the Neustrians met at Campeign, elected Odo or Eudes, Count of Paris, and Duke of France, to govern the Kingdom, gave him the Quality of King, and caused him to be crowned by Gautier Archbishop of Sens. On the other side, Radulphus the Son of Conrade, made himself Master of the Country between Montjou and the Apennine Mountains; that is, Savoy and Switzerland, and caused himself to be crowned King of Lower Burgundy. Lewis the Son of Bozon, seized on the Country which lies from Lions to the Sea, between the Rhone and the Alps, and went under the name of King of Arles or Provence, and caused that Kingdom to be conferred upon him by a Council held at Valence on purpose in the Year 890. Thus France was divided into three Kingdoms: The Kingdom of France, which comprehended Normandy, Aquitain, and the Duchy of Burdundy; the Kingdom of Arles; and the Kingdom of Lower Burgundy. Eudes was not long in quiet possession of a Kingdom to which he could pretend no Right. Charles the Simple had his Partisans, who sent for him from England, whither his Mother had carried him, and caused him to 
The Reign of Charles the Simple.  be Crowned at Rheims in the Year 893. He immediately entered into possession of a part of the Kingdom, and raised a Civil War between the two Parties; which within a while was appeased, and wholly ended by the Death of Eudes, which happened on the Thirtieth of January 898. By his Death Charles the Simple took possession of the Kingdom of France, not of that of Arles, nor of Lower Burgundy. In the Year 918. he added Lorraine to his Dominions, having conquered it from Henry the Falconer, after the Death of Conrade. But the Malcontents among the French Nobles, took an occasion from this War, to cut him out new Work, and elected Robert the Brother of Eudes' King, who was Crowned at Rheims on the Twentieth of June in the Year 922. so that Charles was forced to quit Lorraine to come and fight Robert. This last was killed in Battle, but his Party elected in his room his Brother-in-Law Radulphus II. Duke of Burgundy. Charles the Simple struck up on Alliance with Henry the Faulconner, 〈◊〉 whom he remitted Lorraine, upon condition that he should aid him; but he was treacherously taken in the Year 923. by Hebert Count of Vermandois, who kept him Prisonner in Thierry Castle. The Queen his Wife withdrew into England with her Son Lewis. From that time Charles the Simple was always in the Power of Hebert, or Hugh le Blanc Count of Paris, Robert's Son, who kept him Prisoner till his Death, which happened in the Year 929. Upon his Death Radulphus was left in quiet possession of the Kingdom to the Year 936. at which time he 
Radulphus.  died without Issue, leaving the Dukedom of Burgundy to his Brother Hugh the Black, and the chief Authority of France to Hugh the White, Count of Paris and Orleans, and Duke of France, his Brother-in-Law. However, this Man had not the Heart to take the Crown upon him, being afraid of Hebert Count of Vermandois, and Gisalbert Duke of Lorraine; and he thought it more advisable to send for the Son of Charles the Simple out of England, who upon that account was called Lewis d'Outremer. 
Lewis d'Outremer  He was received without any Opposition, and Crowned at Laon in the Year 936. Lewis during his Reign had great Contests with the Counts Hebert and Hugh, and was sometimes at War, sometimes at Peace with Otho King of Germany. But at last, having accommodated Matters with Hugh, he died peaceably in the Year 954. leaving the Title of King to his Son Lotharius, an Infant 
Lotharius.  of Fourteen or Fifteen years of Age, and the Administration of the Government to Hugh, to whom the young King granted the Duchy of Burgundy and Aquitain. Hugh died in the Year 956. and left four Children, of whom the Eldest, named Hugh-Capet, was declared Duke of France in the Year 959. by Lotharius, who gave him likewise Poictou. Lotharius reigned peaceably Three and Thirty years, having after the Death of Hugh the White, reassumed the Royal Authority. But this was lost in the hands of his Son Lewis, surnamed the Faint-hearted; who survived his Father only sixteen 
Lewis the Faint-hearted. Hugh-Capet and Robert.  Months under the Tutelage of Hugh-Capet, and was the last King of the Carolignian Line. For after his Death Hugh-Capet was Elected King by the Nobless of Nayon, about the end of May in the Year 987. and afterwards Crowned at Rheims, without any regard had to Charles Duke of Lorraine, Brother to Lotharius, whom they hated, because he had taken an Oath of Allegiance to the King of Germany for his Duchy of Lorraine. The next year Hugh-Capet caused his Son Robert also to be Crowned. However Duke Charles was not altogether out of hopes of re-investing himself in the States of his Ancestors, and having seized on Laon and Rheims, he made War for some time with Hugh; but was taken in the Year 991. in the City of Laon, and carried Prisoner to Senlis, and from thence to Orleans, where he was shut up in a Tower, wherein he died three years after. And thus the Kingdom of France was transferred from the Carolignian Line to that of Hugh-Capet, who lived till the Year 996. and left his Son Robert in quiet possession of the Kingdom, which this good King governed till the Three and thirtieth year of the ensuing Century. And thus much may suffice for what concerns the Political Estate of the Kingdom of France: let us now proceed to the Ecclesiastical Affairs, wherein the Archbishops of Rheims had a principal share.  

FULCUS Archbishop of Rheims.  
FULCUS succeeded Hincmarus in the Archbishopric of Rheims, in the Year 882. He was 
Fulcus Archbishop of Rheims.  a Person of Quality, who had been a long time at Court. Immediately he sent to Pope Marinus his Confession of the Faith, according to Custom, and received the Pall from him. In a Second Letter he demanded a Confirmation of the Privileges granted by the Popes to his Predecessors, and made Complaints to him of the Estate bequeathed by his Brother Rampo, for the building of a Monastery, of which Ermenfroy, who had married his Widow, had taken Possession. Marinus wrote on this last point to to Gerard Archbishop of Sens, in whose Diocese this Monastery was; and to John Archbishop of Rouen, to whose Diocese Ermenfroy did belong, giving him orders to enjoin him to relinquish the Estate which he had so unjustly possessed himself of; and if he would not do it, to make use of Canonical Punishments against him. Fulcus wrote likewise to Pope Adrian the Successor of Marinus, to Congratulate his Advancement to the Popedom; and at the same time sent him some Copies of the Privileges granted by the Popes, Leo, Benedict, and Nicholas to the Church of Rheims, to which he desires him to grant a Confirmation. In the same Letter he entreats him to send a Commission to the Archbishops of Sens and Rouen, to adjust the business of the Monastery, which Ermenfroy had taken possession of, and writes in favour of Frotarius Archbishop of Bruges, who was accused by a Monk of his Diocese; assuring the Pope, that he had been Elected by the Bishops of his Province, by the Clergy and Laity of his own Diocese, and Confirmed by Pope Marinus. He sent another very submissive Letter to Pope Stephen, wherein he thanks him for the Honour he did him in writing to him, and in treating with him as a Friend and Brother; Titles which he could not pretend to, thinking it an Honour to be his Servant and Subject. He assures him, that if he were not surrounded, and as it were Besieged by the Barbarians, who were not above five Leagues off his City, and who Beleaguered Paris; he would have undertaken a Journey to Rome. He informs him of the part he bore in the Snares which were laid against him, and makes his acknowledgements for the favour showed by the Pope to his Son Guy, who was the Archbishop's Kinsman. He promises Obedience to the Pope, and exalts the Dignity of the Church of Rheims, which he pretends had been Founded by Saint Sixtus, who was sent by S. Peter, and was the chief of the whole Kingdom. He adds, that Pope Hormisdas had established the Archbishop of Rheims, his Vicar in Gaul; and desires him to confirm the Privileges granted by his Predecessors. He presses him to order Ermenfroy to be Excommunicated by the Arch-Bishops of Sens and Rouen; and entreats him to write to King Charles, to oblige him to restore in full to the Church of Rheims the Revenues which belonged to it.  
The Pope answered Fulcus, that he was glad to see he had such good thoughts of the Holy See; 
A Letter of Stephen V to Fulcus.  he assured him, that he looked upon Guy as his own Child; that he was deeply affected with the Desolation of France, caused by the Barbarians; that he prayed God to deliver that Kingdom out of all its Trouble: And Lastly, he acquainted him, that he had sent Letters according to his desire, to the Archbishops of Sens and Rouen.  
Fulcus wrote a Second Letter to this Pope, wherein he renews his complaints against Ermenfroy, who would not obey the Injunctions of the Two Arch-Bishops, and entreats the Pope to cause him to be Excommunicated. At the same time he asks his Advice, whether it be lawful to ordain Bishops every Festival day.  
The Pope sent him afterwards several Letters.  
The first is a Letter of Consolation, for the Miseries he underwent.  
The Second is a Recommendatory Letter, in behalf of a Man who was oppressed by his Children 
Other Letters of Stephen V to Fulcus.  and Relations.  
The Third is directed to the Bishops of France against Frotarius, who had seized upon the See of Bruges, after he had been turned out of the Bishoprics of Bourdeaux and Poitiers. He enjoins him under the Penalty of Excommunication, to relinquish Bruges, and return to Bourdeaux.  
The Fourth is in favour of Teutboldus, whom he had ordained Bishop of Langres. He therein tells him, that after the Death of Isaac Bishop of that Church, Aurelian Archbishop of Lions had ordained in his room a Monk called Egilon, without being Elected by either Clergy or Laity, who had Elected Teutboldus, and desired the Pope that he might be Consecrated; that being willing to maintain the Privileges of all Churches, he had sent to Aurelian to ordain Teutboldus, provided it appeared to him, that he had been unanimously elected by Clergy and Laity: That he had sent a Bishop to be upon the spot, to see that this Order were duly put in Execution; but that Aurelian had put a trick upon him, by sending him before to Langres, with a promise that he would be there soon after him; and that instead of being so good as his word, he suffered the Bishop to wait for him to no purpose: That the Clergy and Laity had sent an Act of the Election to Rome, and prayed that Teutboldus might be Consecrated; that he had writ again to Aurelian, requiring him to ordain him; but that instead of obeying his Order, he made it his Business to bring the other into Possession; Lastly, That upon the fresh Instances of the Clergy and Laity of Langres, he had ordained Teu●boldus; he enjoins Fulcus to put him into Possession. Fulcus replied to him, that he was very willing to put his orders touching Teutboldus into Execution, but that he had been obliged to defer it upon the Instance of King Eudes, who would send his Ambassadors to him, to know his Resolution. He adds, that the Bishops were very glad at his declaring, that he was willing to maintain the Rights and Privileges of Bishops in their full force. He desires to know of him, whether it be lawful for any of his Suffragans to execute the Orders of the King, or of any other without his leave, or to undertake any thing contrary to his Prohibitions.  
The same Pope confirms the Privileges of the Church of Rheims, and prohibits all Persons whatsoever 
Other Writings of Stephen in favour of the Church of Rheims.  from seizing or detaining any of the Revenues which belong to it. He likewise wrote to Fulcus about the difference which happened between Herman Archbishop of Cologn, and Aldegairus Bishop of Hamburg and Breme. They had both written to the Holy See upon that Subject, and had been cited thither. Aldegairus came to Rome accordingly, but Herman did not appear. However, the Pope being unwilling to determine a matter of that Consequence, without hearing both Parties, he order Fulcus to call a Synod in his Name at Worms, with the Bishops his Suffragans and Neighbours; and to cite thither Herman and Aldegairus, with the Archbishop of Mayence and his Suffragans, to examine strictly the Pretensions of both Parties. He invites him to come to Rome upon that Affair and others, or at least to send thither some able Person, with the Parties concerned, that so he might be fully informed of all things.  
The Pope being dead before this Affair was adjusted, Fulcus wrote about it to his Successor Formosus, 
The Letters of Fulcus to Formosus.  praying that he would continue him in the same Commission. He thanked him at the same time for the Compliments he had sent him by the Abbess Bertha; and asks his advice, what ought to be done against one who had a mind to seize on the Estate which his Brother-in-Law Count Everard, had bequeathed to a Monastery, which he had built in Honour of Saint Calixtus, whose Body he had brought from Rome. He withal declares to him, that he was very sorry to hear that there were some Persons, who gave disturbance to the Church of Rome, and he was ready to stand in its defence. In the Conclusion he gives the Pope to understand, that several Bishops of France required the Pall, which they ought by no means to have, since it would cause them to despise their Metropolitans; and that he ought to take special care about it, because this abuse might be the Cause of a great deal of trouble in the Church of France.  
Pope Formosus returned him this Answer, that he was obliged to him for the Concern he showed at 
The Letter of Formosus to Fulcus.  the unhappy state of the Church of Rome: That the Eastern Churches were likewise disturbed by ancient Heresies and new Schisms: That the Bishops of Africa had sent their Deputies to Rome, for the adjusting and making up a Schism, which was then on foot between the Bishops of that Country; and that there were several other Deputies at Rome, from divers parts, who required Answers upon several distinct Subjects: That he had resolved to hold a Synod the first of March, to which he invited him. He had already invited him to another Synod by a former Letter, whereby he confirmed the Privileges granted to the Church of Rheims, and prohibited any seizure to be made of the Revenues which belonged to it. By the same Letter he likewise acquainted him of the Coronation of Guy performed by him that same Year.  
By another Letter of the Year ensuing, he confirmed the Donations granted to the Church of Rheims, and gave Fulcus to understand, that he had Crowned Lambert the Son of Guy Emperor. He likewise reprimands several Laics who would not be subject to their Archbishop.  
Formosus wrote likewise several Letters in favour of Charles the Simple, against Eudes. He sent for Fulcus to Rome upon that Subject, desiring all Acts of Hostility might cease, till his return. Fulcus excused himself from this Journey, and tells the Pope that he ought to write to Arnulphus King of Germany, requiring him to assist Charles, and to threaten Eudes with Excommunication if he continued to ravage France. The Pope wrote to each of them; but it could not hinder Eudes from carrying on his Design: And Arnulphus was so far from favouring Charles, that he entered the Kingdom, laid Siege to the City of Rheims; ravaged the Country, and particularly rifled the Revenues which belonged to the Church. Fulcus made his complaints of this to the Pope. A while after he likewise wrote another Letter to him, wherein he takes Notice, that it was expedient that 
The Letter of Fulcus to Pope Formosus.  Lambert should enter into an Alliance with King Charles, and that the Pope should write to Eudes to inform him, that it was highly reasonable, that Charles should enjoy part of his Father's Dominions. At the same time he advises him, about three Persons who lay under perpetual Excommunication, because of the ill usage they showed to Teutboldus Bishop of Langres, and to Gautier Archbishop of Sens; viz. whether he might admit them to Penance: and about Heriland Bishop of Teroüane, turned out of his Diocese by the Normans; whether he might give him another Bishopric, and place in his stead a Person who might be more agreeable to the People of the place, and who could speak the Language of the Country. The Pope returned him this Answer, that he was obliged to him for what he wrote with Relation to Lambert; that the three Persons he spoke of, had been condemned 
The Letter of Formosus to Fulcus.  to a perpetual Excommunication, for having put out the Eyes of Teutboldus, and for having cast Gautier into Prison, and that they ought still to lie under that Sentence.  
The last Letter which Pope Formosus wrote to Fulcus, related to Berchairus, whom the Laity and Clergy of Chalons had elected their Bishop by the Consent of King Eudes. He complains of the unwillingness of Fulcus to Consecrate him; and that after the Decease of the late Bishop, he had by way of Prevention, caused this Bishopric to be governed by Heriland Bishop of Teroüane, who had been turned out of his own Diocese: that afterwards he had ordained Mancian, a Man of a profligate Life; and that Berchairus intending to go to Rome, had been Arrested by Conrade the Creature of Fulcus, and sent into Banishment. For this he citys the Archbishop to Rome, with Mansion, Conrade, and several other Bishops.  
Fulcus returned not reply to Formosus, but wrote a Letter of Compliment to Stephen VI his Successor. However this did not prevent that Pope from citing him to a Synod, to be holden the latter 
The Letters of Fulcus to Stephen VI.  end of September. He excused his going thither, and sent several of his Clergy in his room. He gave the Pope to understand, that he wondered at the hard Expressions of his Letter; and the more because he had been always very submissive to the Holy See, and had received nothing from it but Kindnesses and Civilities. He imputes this harshness of the Pope to the false Reports he had received of him. To justify himself, he shows how he had been Educated from his Childhood, in all that an Ecclesiastic aught to know: How afterwards he was called to Court by King Charles the Son of Lewis, and continued in it till the Reign of Charlemain; that he had been elected Archbishop of Rheims by the Bishops of the Province, and by the Clergy and Laity of that City; and how industrious he had been in promoting the interest of that Church. Lastly he adds, that if King Eudes would give him leave, he would go to Rome when the way was open, for he was then enclosed by Zuentibold the Son of Arnulphus, who had basely used and rifled his Church. In fine, he prayed the Pope to free him from that Tyranny, and not to oblige him to relinquish his Church, at a time wherein his presence was so necessary. These are all the Letters of Fulcus to the Popes, and of the Popes to that Archbishop, of which Flodoard gives us an Extract, in the four first Chapters of the fourth Book of his History.  
In his fifth Chapter the same Author mentions the Letters of this Archbishop, directed to the Kings and Princes. 
The Letters of Fulcus to the Kings and Princes.   
The first is to Charles the Gross, the Son of Lewis of Germany, after the Death of Charles the Bald, wherein he prayed him to protect France against the Normans, who had ravaged the Country, and laid Siege to the principal Towns thereof.  
In a second Letter to the same Emperor, he entreats that he would procure the Pall for him from the Pope, and the Confirmation of the Privileges granted to the Church of Rheims.  
The third is directed to Arnulphus King of Germany, wherein he gives him the reason why he had anointed Charles the Simple King. He gives him to understand, that upon the Death of Charles the Bald, the French immediately made their Application to him, to be accepted under his Protection: but that having received no Protection nor Countenance from him, they were obliged to choose Charles for their King, who was the only Man next him of the Royal Blood, and whose Brothers and Predecessors had been Kings: That the reason why they did not choose him sooner, was, because being too young he was not capable of governing the Kingdom, especially at a time when the Normans were ready to rifle and pillage the whole Kingdom: and that they had done it at last without consulting Arnulphus in the Case, according to the Custom of France, which always was, when one King was dead, to put up in his place one of the Royal Family, without consulting any Foreign Power. He likewise answered that which they accused him of, viz. that he had never Crowned Charles the Simple, but that he might with the more ease bestow the Kingdom on Guy; and makes it appear, that it was only a Calumny invented by his Enemies. And whereas some were pleased to raise a Report, that Charles was not the Son of Lewis the Lisper; he says, that the very sight of him would be a sufficient Evidence to convince them of the contrary; because any one might easily discern in him, the very Air and Features of his Father. Lastly, he entreats Arnulphus to do Justice to this innocent King, and his own Kinsman: To consider that the Kingdom of France had always been an Hereditary Kingdom; and to believe that the French had no other design, than that Charles should be lead by his Counsels, and bound to him in a firm Bond of Amity and Alliance.  
In the fourth Letter which is likewise directed to Arnulphus, he assures him of the Fidelity wherewith King Charles and himself had observed the Treaties made with that Prince. He informs him, that this King being minded to Attack Eudes, had writ to Guy and the Pope, to engage them on his side.  
The fifth was written to King Eudes. He entreats him to grant the Church of Laon liberty to choose a Bishop, in the room of Didon lately Deceased.  
The sixth was directed to Charles, whom he very sharply reproves for his intention of making a League with the Normans, and of making use of them to reinstate him in his Kingdom. He remonstrates to him, that it was a piece of Idolatry, thus to enter into the Alliance and Interest of Pagans: That the Kings his Predecessors were Servants of the true God; and that he had renounced him, by joining with Infidels; that this was not the way to reascend the Throne of his Ancestors, but rather to lose it, by pulling on his Head the Wrath of an angry God: That those who gave him this advice were his Enemies, and that if he followed it, he knew not how to continue Loyal to him, nor how to prevent himself from drawing off as many as he could from obeying him, but that he must be forced to Excommunicate him, and condemn him with a perpetual Anathema. He adds, that he wrote these things with extreme grief and concern, because it was his desire, that he might be had in honour both with GOD and Man, and that he might regain his Throne by the help of the Lord, and not by the Assistance of the Devil; because the Kingdoms which God bestows are firm and lasting; whereas those which are acquired by Injustice and Rapine are uncertain, and of a short standing.  
The seventh was directed to the Emperor Lambert, whom he Congratulated upon the Pope's Declaration, that he would look upon him as his own Son. He exhorts him always to bear a due respect and honour to the Holy See, because that was the only way of securing himself an Interest in Heaven, and of obtaining a superiority over all his Enemies. He wished him to remember that his Uncle Lambert, who had been an Enemy to the Holy See, Perished miserably; and he entreated him to intercede with the Pope for their Kinsman Rampon, who had been Excommunicated.  
The eighth was Dedicated to Albrade, or alfred, the King of Great Britain, whom he Congratulates for the choice he made of a worthy Person to fill the See of Canterbury; because he heard that in his Country they advanced such a sort of Men, as permitted the Bishops and Priests to have Women among them, and the Laics to Marry their Kindred, as well as those Virgins who were Dedicated to God's Service; and to have a Wife and a Concubine at the same time.  
The ninth was directed to Richilda, a Queen or Empress, whom he informed of the ill Reports which went about of her Conduct, and exhorts her to lead a Life more conformable to Christianity, and to her state of Widowhood, which she had devoted to God.  
In the sixth Chapter Elodoard makes mention of the Letters which Fulcus scent to several Bishops.  
In the first directed to Frotharius, Archbishop of Bourdeaux, he desires that Archbishop to preserve 
The Letters of Fulcus to the Bishops.  the Revenues of the Church of Rheims, which were in his Diocese, and to Excommunicate such as should seize on them.  
The Second is Directed to Rostaing, Archbishop of Arles, on the same Subject.  
In the third directed to Herman Archbishop of Cologn, he declares that he had a great desire to hold a Conference with him, and the Bishops of his Province, but that he was prevented by the Incursions of the Normans: And he prays him to do him Justice with relation to some of the Revenues belonging to his Church, of which several Persons had made a Schism; the Cognizance of this Affair having been referred to Wilbert his Predecessor, and now laid before him.  
The fourth written to the same Person, relates likewise to the Interest of the Church of Rheims, for some Revenues which were Embezelled from it.  
The fifth is directed to Gontier, Archbishop of Sens, about the business of the Abbess Hildergarda. He entreats this Archbishop not to be so False as he had been, to the Assignments made upon this Account, and to do right to that Abbess.  
In the sixth he Congratulates Pleonicus a Bishop of England, for his endeavouring to root out those Disorders of which he had made mention in his Letter to Alfrede, and he exhorts him to continue in his Design.  
The Seventh was directed to John a Roman Prelate, whom he put in mind of some Ancient Tokens of Friendship, which he had shown to him; and entreats him to assure Pope Stephen of his Submission to him, and begs he would stand his Friend in that Affair.  
The Eighth, Ninth and Tenth were directed to Dodilon, Bishop of Cambray. By the two first he calls him to the Synod, which was to meet about determining the business between Hildegarde and Hermingard: and by the last wrote in his own Name, and in the Name of the Bishops his Suffragans, he enjoins him to compel Count Baldwin to make due Restitutions of the Church Revenues which he had seized on, to send him the Letter which they wrote to him upon the same Subject; and to go and meet with Bishop Hetilon at Arras.  
The eleventh was writ to this Hetilon, upon the account of Dodilon's having caused the Body of Saint Calixtus to be taken away; which had been bequeathed by Radulphus to the Church of Rheims whither it was brought.  
The Twelfth was directed to Didon Bishop of Laon, whom he reproves for having refused the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, at the point of Death, to one Walcher, who was Executed for High Treason; and for denying him Burial, and forbidding any Prayers to be made for him.  
In the Thirteenth he desires Peter a Roman Prelate to obtain the favour of Pope Formosus, that he might put Heriland, turned out of his own Diocese of Teroüane, into Possession of the Bishopric of Chalons putting him in mind of what had been done in the Case of Actardus Bishop of Nants, who had been Translated to Tours.  
The Fourteenth was directed to Honoratus Bishop of Beauvais: He complains, that this Bishop was his open and professed Enemy; Exhorts him to a Reconciliation, and gives him to understand, that he was accused of Rapines: He takes Notice to him of the Excommunication of one named Aldramus, which the Bishop of Beauvais had thundered out, and which he said that the Archbishop of Rheims was bound to put in execution: As to this point he tells him, that he was always ready to follow the advice and opinion of other Bishops, but that he knew of no Power which the Church of Beauvais had to command the Church of Rheims; and that this Excommunication was not grounded on a Lawful and Canonical Reason, but only because this Man had left the Interest of Eudes, and embraced that of King Charles. He likewise Summoned him to appear at the Ordination of the Bishops of Senlis and Chalons, and gave him to understand that Pope Stephen had ordered him to send him to Ravenna.  
The Fifteenth is a Letter of Compliment to Teuthaldus, Bishop of Langres.  
The Sixteenth was directed to Radulphus Successor to Didon Bishop of Laon, whose Promotion to that Dignity he Congratulates, and advertised him that he had too rashly Excommunicated one of his Diocesans, hinting withal that he gave him his advice as a Friend to a Friend, not being willing to make use of that Authority and Privilege which the Church of Rheims had from all Antiquity, of succouring all those who made their Application to it, and thought themselves injured by their Bishops.  
We might likewise to these Letters join that of Mansion Bishop of Chalons, directed to Fulcus, and published by Father Mabillon in the third Tome of his Collections, wherein he asks the Archbishop's Advice, how he ought to behave himself with relation to a Priest who was solemnly betrothed to a Woman, and would marry her publicly.  
In the seventh Chapter Flodoard speaks of several Letters of Fulcus, directed to Abbots, and to 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Fu●… to the Abbot's  Persons of Note.  
The first was directed to an Abbot called Stephen, whom he comforts upon his having been deprived of a Bishopric to which he had been elected.  
In the second he reproved Baldwin Count of Flanders, for the many Injuries he offered to the Churches of his Country: and among others for having caused a Priest to be whipped; for having turned out several Parochial Priests out of their Churches, in order to make room for others of his own choosing; for having unjustly seized upon an Estate which the King had bestowed on the Church of Noyon; for having seized upon a Monastery, etc. he threatened to Excommunicate him, in case he did not forthwith make Restitution, and leave off his Cruelties to the Church.  
The third is directed to the Clergy and Laiety of Senlis upon the Election of a Bishop.  
The fourth to the Clergy of Laon upon the same Subject.  
The fifth to the Monks of Corby, whom he severely reproves for their having cruelly turned out their Abbot.  
These are all the Letters of Fulcus, which are mentioned in Flodoard; the very Extracts of which show us, that this Archbishop wrote with a great deal of Strength and Authority; That he was zealous for the welfare of the Church, for the Dignity of Bishops, and particularly for the Rights and Prerogatives of the Church of Rheims. He was assassinated by Win●mare and others of Count Baldwin's Creatures in the Year 900, which Count was incensed against him for having taken away from him the Abbey of S. Wast, and the Castle of Arras.   

HERVEUS Archbishop of Rheims.  
HIS Successor was one HERVEUS, a young Lord belonging to Court, and Nephew to Count Hughbold. He was ordained by the unanimous consent of all the Bishops of the Province. 
HERVEUS Archbishop of Rheims.  Immediately after his Ordination he soon rendered himself capable of governing his Diocese, and gained the Esteem and Love of all the World by his Charity to the Poor, by his sweet Temper, by his good Nature, and by the Zeal he expressed for the Welfare of the Church, and for Ecclesiastical Discipline. He held several Provincial Councils, wherein he discoursed very usefully of Religion, and of the Peace both of Church and State, and of the Conversion of the Normans, who about that time embraced the Christian Faith. It was for their sakes that he sent to Guy Archbishop of Rouen a Letter containing three and twenty Articles extracted out of the Canons and Letters of the Popes, about the manner of treating those, who after they had been baptised, had apostatised, and afterward's returned to the Church. In the Year 909. he held a Council at Trosly (a Village near 
The Council of Trosly in 909.  Soissons) at which assisted the Archbishop of Rouen, with the Bishops of Laon, Beauvais, Noyon, Chalons, Soissons, Cambray, Meaux, Senlis, Terovane and Amiens; in which, after he had discoursed at large of the Miseries under which France groaned, which he imputed to the Sins both of the Laity and the Clergy, he gave them very fine and large Instructions, grounded on several Passages of the Fathers and Canons of Councils. 1. Concerning the Honour and Respect due to Churches and to ecclesiastics. 2. Concerning the Duty and Allegiance which Bishops and ecclesiastics owed to their King, and concerning the Duties and Qualifications of a Prince. 3. Concerning the Reformation of those Abuses which were crept into the Monastic Life, and particularly concerning the Abbeys which were possessed by Laics. It was ordained that Abbots should be Religious Persons, well skilled in the Regular Discipline; and that the Monks and Religious should live according to their Profession and Rule, praying for the Welfare of Kings, for the Peace of the Kingdom, and for the Tranquillity of the Church, without concerning themselves with Secular Affairs, without hunting after the Pomp's of this World, and without encroaching on the Rights and Privileges of ecclesiastics: and that they might have no Excuse for straggling, the Abbots were enjoined, or at least those who had the Government of Monasteries in their Care, to provide them Necessaries. 4. Against those who either by violence, or by any other method, seized on Church Lands: which he looked upon as Sacrilege. 5. Against those who either abused or persecuted the Clergy. 6. Against those who would not pay Tenths, and the other Revenues belonging to the Church. The Duty of Tithes reached not only to the Fruits of the Earth, and to the Breed of Cattle, but likewise to those things which were the Profits of a Man's Industry and Labour. 7. Concerning the Rapines and Robberies so rise at that time. He demonstrates the Enormity thereof, and shows the Obligation they lay under of making Restitution, before they could expect Absolution. 8. Against stealing young Women, and against clandestine or unlawful Marriages. 9 Concerning the Prohibitions renewed so often by the Canons against Priests having Women amongst them. 10. Concerning the Chastity which all Christians were obliged to preserve in their Words and Actions. 11. Concerning the Obligation of keeping strictly to the Oaths they took, without being perjured. 12. Against quarrelsome Persons who took delight in Law-Suits and vexatious Prosecutions. 13. Against Homicides and Liars. 14. Against the Abuse which then prevailed of rifling the Goods of Bishops after their Decease. Upon this he advises that two or three of the neighbouring Bishops, upon the News of the Death of their Brother, should go and perform the last Offices over him. In the Conclusion, he exhorted the Bishops to refute the Errors of Phetius. Lastly, He sums up in a few words what Christians ought to believe and practice, and exhorts them faithfully to discharge their Duties.  
In the Year 921. Herveus held another Council at the same place, wherein he took off the Excommunication 
The Council of Trosly in the Year 921.  issued out against Count Ertebold, who had seized upon some of the Church Revenues.  
This Archbishop assisted Charles the Simple in his Expedition against the Hunns, who ravaged Lorraine, and was the only Man who continued Loyal to that Prince, when he was abandoned by the French Lords. In the Year 920. he brought him back to Rheims, and adjusted Matters betwixt him and his Lords, and re-established him in his Kingdom. But within a short time after the Lords revolted again, and being met at Rheims, they elected King Robert, and Herveus was constrained to crown him. He did not survive this Coronation but four days, and died in the Year 922. having presided over the Church of Rheims Two and twenty years lacking four days.  
Robert caused Seulfus to be elected in his room, who was then Archdeacon of that Church. He had been the Disciple of Remy of Auxerra, who had instructed him in the Sciences, both Divine and 
Seulsus Archbishop of Rheims.  Profane. He was ordained by Abbo Bishop of Soissons, and by the other Bishops of the Province of Rheims. Eudes the Brother of Herveus, and a Nephew of that Name, were cited before him, being accused of Disloyalty to Robert; and they not justifying themselves, were stripped of all the Revenues of the Church of Rheims in their possession, and cast into Prison: the former in the Custody of Hebert Count of Vermandois; and the latter at Paris. In a Provincial Council held in the Year 923. he imposed a Penance on those who had born Arms in the War between Robert and Charles; and in another Council held in the Year 924. at Trosly, he put an end to the Difference which was between Count Isaac and Stephen Bishop of Cambray; the former paying an hundred pounds to the latter, for the wrong he had done to his Church. 'Tis said that Seulfus agreed with Hebert to resign the Archbishopric to the Son of that Count However the case was, Seulfus did not enjoy this Dignity long, being prisoned in the Year 925. by the order of Hebert as it is supposed.  
Presently after his death that Count came to Rheims, and having called thither Abbo Bishop of Soissons, and Bauvo Bishop of Chalons, he caused his Son Hugh, who was not then above five years old, 
Hugh Archbishop of Rheims.  to be elected by the Clergy and People of Rheims. Afterwards he procured the Confirmation of this Election by King Radulphus, who committed the Temporalities of this Diocese to Hebert, till his Son came of Age to take upon himself the Government thereof. The Spiritualities were conferred by Pope John X. on Abbo Bishop of Soissons, so that Hebert became absolute Master of that Church, and drove out of it all the Clergy whom he supposed to be against his Interests, and among others Flodoard, as he himself informs us.  
In the Year 927. King Radulphus and Count Hebert fell out upon the account of the Earldom of Laon, which Hebert would have had given to his Son Odo, and which the King desired to keep for 
The Wars between Hebert and Radulphus.  himself. Hebert willing to rely on a Power which might support his Pretensions, had an Interview with Henry King of Germany, and struck up an Alliance with him. He caused a Council to be convened the same Year at Trosly, notwithstanding the Prohibition of King Radulphus, which consisted of six Bishops of the Province of Rheims: Afterwards he delivered Charles the Simple out of Prison, brought him to S. Quintin, and procured an Interview between him and Radulphus Duke of Normandy: from whence he brought him to Rheims, and writ to Pope John X. for the restablishing of that Prince. This attempt obliged Radulphus to quit the City of Laon to Hebert, and to adjust Matters with him. Radulphus Duke of the Normans would not restore to Hebert his Son. Odo, till he had set Charles at liberty, and promised to obey him. At the same time Hebert invited to Rheims Odalric Archbishop of Aix, who had been turned out of his Church by the Saracens, that he might there discharge his Episcopal Functions; and to reward him, he gave him the Abbey of S. Timotheus, with the Revenue of a Prebend.  
France was then as it were parted between the great Lords, and the Regal Authority was extremely cramped. Hugh the White, Count of Paris, and Hebert, were two of the most powerful: 
The State of France.  Radulphus had the Title of King, and that little of the Regal Authority which remained. For Charles was the sport and pastime of all three. As soon as Hebert was reconciled to Radulphus, he threw Charles again into Prison; and Radulphus afterwards returning to Rheims, gave him a seeming sort of Liberty, which he did not long enjoy, dying on the Seventh of October in the Year 929. After his Death Hugh and Hebert fell out, the Umbrage of which quarrel was, that the Latter had given Entertainment to several Vassals belonging to the former, and among others to Herluin Count 
Artaldus' Archbishop of Rheims.  of Monstrevil. Radulphus sided with his Brother-in-law Hugh and there was a warm War between them: but Radulphus having taken the City of Rheims in the Year 931. caused Artaldus, a Monk of S. Remy, to be ordained Archbishop of the place, who the year after received the Pall from Pope John XI. This Archbishop held a Council in the Year 934. at Chatteau-Thierry, where he ordained Hildegarius Bishop of Beauvais; and in the same year he ordained Fulbert Bishop of Cambray. The year after he held another Council at Fismes, wherein he Excommunicated those who had made an unlawful Seizure on the Revenue of the Church. King Radulphus being dead, Hugh the White recalled out of England Lewis, Charles the Simple's Son, called upon that account Lewis d●Outremer, and caused him to be crowned at Laon by Artaldus Archbishop of Rheims, who continued in the peaceable possession of his Archbishopric for some time, and ordained Bishops in all the Churches of his Province, except Chalons and Amiens. But Hebert would not endure that any other but himself should be in the possession of so considerable a Post, and thereupon sent several of his Troops to take and rifle the Castles and Villages which belonged to the Archbishopric of Rheims. Artaldus for this Excommunicated him. King Lewis to make him amends for the Losses he sustained, granted him the Earldom of Rheims, and the Privilege of the Mint, and assisted him in taking several Castles which were held out by the Troops of Hebert. Fortune did not long favour Artaldus; for Hugh entering into a new League with Hebert against Lewis d'Outremer, they came with William Duke of Normandy, besieged the City of Rheims, became Masters of it at the end of six days, and caused Artaldus to appear in the Church of S. Remy, in the presence of several Lords and Bishops; and obliged him to make a Resignation of his Archbishopric, and to content himself with the Abbeys of S. Bazol and Avenay, into the former of which he retired, after he had governed the Church of Rheims for the space of Eight years and seven months. Hugh the Son of Hebert, was replaced in possession thereof, and was ordained Priest by Guy Bishop of Soissons, three Months after his return, and fifteen Years after his first Election. He had spent this Interval of Time at Auxerre, where he had followed his Studies under Guy Bishop of that City, who had ordained him Deacon; for he had received his other Orders at Rheims from the Hand of Abbo Bishop of Soissons.  
The next Year, namely 941. the two Counts Hebert and Hugh convened the Bishops of the Province 
The Council of Rheims for the Deposing Artaldus and ordaining Hugh.  of Rheims at Soissons, and entered into a Consultation of ordaining Hugh the Son of Hebert Archbishop of Rheims. The Deputies of the Clergy and Laity of Rheims met there, and demanded that he might be ordained, asserting that Artaldus had not been Elected according to the Canon, but intruded by Force; and that he had given up all the Title he could claim to that Archbishopric. Upon this Remonstrance, the Bishops resolved upon ordaining Hugh, and immediately set out for Rheims for that purpose. Artaldus was already withdrawn to Lewis d'Outremer: but that Prince having been defeated in the Year 941. near Laon, Artaldus was very lucky in reconciling himself with Hugh the White and Hibert, in re-entering into the Possession of his Abbeys, and in making a League with Hugh Archbishop of Rheims, who soon after received the Pall that was sent him by Pope Stephen VIII. Notwithstanding this League, Artaldus returned to Lewis d'Outremer. In the mean time Hebert dying in 943. Lewis was persuaded by Hugh the White to entertain the Sons of this Count, and also to leave Hugh in possession of the Archbishopric of Rheims, upon condition that they restored to Artaldus his Abbeys, give him another Bishopric, and grant that his Kinsmen should retain the Honours they had obtained. This Treaty was not long kept; for Hugh the White and Lewis d'Outremer Warring against each other, the latter laid Siege twice to the City of Rheims, and the second time having chased away Hugh Archbishop of Rheims, he entered the City, and re-establishes Artaldus, who was replaced in his See in the Year 946. by the Archbishops of Treves and Mayence. The Church of Amiens becoming Vacant the year after, Hugh ordained Tetbold archdeacon of Soissons Bishop thereof, which occasioned a Trial which was brought before an Assembly of Bishops and Lords, held near the River Cher. The Affair was not brought to any Issue at that place, but put off 〈◊〉 November. In the mean time Artaldus was left in possession of the Archbishopric of Rheims, and Hugh permitted to stay at Mouzon.  
A Council was called and held at Verdun: wherein were Robert Archbishoy of Treves, Artaldus 
The Council of Verdun.  Archbishop of Rheims, Odalric Archbishop of Aix, Adalberon Bishop of Mets, Gozelin Bishop of Tulle, Hildebald Bishop of the Upper Rhine, in the presence of Bruno an Abbot, Brother to King Otho, and of the Abbot's Agenold and Odilo. Hugh was cited thither by two Bishops, but would not appear. The Synod adjudged the Archbishop's of Rheims to belong to Artaldus.  
Another Council was called in January following upon the same Subject, and held in the Church of 
The Council of Mouzon  S. Peter, near to Mouzon. They met at the time appointed, and Hugh made his appearance. But after he had discoursed with Robert Archbishop of Treves, he withdrew, and only caused a Letter to be presented by one of his Clergy, which was brought from Rome, and writ in the name of Pope Agapetus, wherein it was ordered that Hugh should be re-established in the Archbishopric of Rheims. The Bishops having read the Letter, alleged that it would not be reasonable to supersede the Execution of the Orders which they had received from the Holy See, upon the account of a Letter presented by the Enemy of Artaldus, and after they had read the nineteenth Chapter of the Council of Carthage concerning the Accuser and the Accused, they adjudged Artaldus to have continued in the Communion of the Church, and in possession of the Archbishopric of Rheims; and that Hugh, who had been already summoned before two Synods, without appearing to either, aught to be deprived of the Communion and Government of that Church, till such time as he should clear himself in a General Council. This Sentence they notified to Hugh, who for his part declared, that he would not submit to it. In the mean time Artaldus having appealed to the Authority of the Holy See, Pope Agapetus sent Bishop Marinus his Vicar to King Otho, that he might call a General Synod, to pass a definitive Sentence on this Affair.  
It was held at Ingelheim the seventh of June in the Year 948. Marinus the Pope's Legate was the 
The Council of Ingelheim in favour of Attaldus.  Precedent thereof, and the Archbishop of Cologne, Mayence, Treves, and Hambourgh his Assistants, with six and twenty Bishops of Germany, without reckoning Artaldus' Archbishop of Rheims, upon whose account the Assembly met. The Kings Otho and Lewis d'Outremer were likewise present. The latter made his Complaints against the Rebellion of Hugh; and afterwards Artaldus presented his Petition to the Pope's Legate and the Synod, wherein he gave a Remonstrance of all his Concerns, which was as follows. That after the death of Herveus, Seulsus who had been put up in his place, declared himself against the Kindred of his Predecessor: and that he might gain his point, he entered into a Confederacy with Count Hebert, who cast them into Prison, where they were confined till the death of King Robert. That Seulfus dying in the third year of his Pontificate, being poisoned (as several attested) by Hebert' s Creatures, that Count seized on the Church of Rheims, and was in possession thereof for the space of six years by the permission of King Radulphus. But that afterwards that King being moved by the Remonstrances of the Bishops, who complained that that Church was left so long without a Pastor, after he had made himself Master of Rheims, had caused him to be ordained by eighteen Bishops. That he had discharged the Episcopal Functions for nine years together, ordained eight Bishops, and a great many Clerks, and crowned King Lewis and Queen Gerberga. But that Count Hugh being incensed against him, because he would not join in his Revolt against the King, had forced him, after he had taken the City of Rheims, to resign his Archbishopric, had sent him into the Monastery of S. Bazol, and had put into his place Hugh, Count Hebert' s Son, who had been ordained Deacon at Auxerre. That afterwards he called a Synod at Soissons, wherein a Proposal was made to him to permit the Ordination of Hugh. That he immediately opposed it, and had declared them Excommunicated who should ordain any other Archbishop of Rheims whilst he was living, and him who should accept of such Ordination. That afterwards, to get out of their hands, he had desired them, that they would let him go to ask advice of the Queen, and his Friends, what he ought to do, and that they would send some body along with him to know his answer. They sent with him Bishop Deroldus, to whom, in the presence of the Queen, he gave this Answer, That he Excommunicated the Bishops who should dare to ordain another in his place; repeating the Protestation he had formerly made of appealing to the Holy See. That without being concerned at this Denunciation, some of these Bishops went to Rheims to ordain Hugh. That from that time King Lewis proving unsuccessful, he had been obliged to wander from place to place like a Vagabond; and that afterwards several of his Friends had brought him by force to the Counts Hugh the White and Hebert, who having him in their power, constrained him to resign the Revenues of his Church, and sent him into the Monastery of S. Bazol. That being informed that they designed to make away with him, he fled to Laon. That since that, King Otho came in to the assistance of King Lewis, had turned Hugh out of the Archbishopric of Rheims, and re-established him therein. That Hugh retired to the Castle of Mouzon: that in the Conference held upon the River Cher, where he was present with Hugh, his Affair was there debated before the Bishops then present. That Hugh had there produced a Letter writ to the Pope in his name, whereby he desired to be discharged from his Archbishopric, which he had maintained was counterfeit. That the Favourites of Hugh having alleged that an Affair of that Importance could not be determined in that Assembly, because it was not a Synod convocated according to form, they had put it off to November, wherein a Synod was to be held; and that in the mean time it was, ordered, that he should have the Government of the Church of Rheims, and Hugh was allowed to stay at Mouzon. That Hugh came in the Season of Vintage with Count Thibold, to carry off all the Wine round about the City of Rheims. That the Synod had been held at Verdun as appointed, to which Hugh was cited, and he would not make his Appearance, nor to another held afterwards near Mouzon, which had passed a Sentence absolutely in his favour. But that Hugh having declared that he would not submit to this Sentence, and remaining still at Mouzon. he had sent to Rome by the Ambassadors of King Otho a Petition containing his Complaints; that he expected the Issue of all from the Orders of the Holy See, and the Determination of the Council. This Petition of Artaldus having been read in Latin and in the old Teutonick Language, Sigeboldus a Clerk belonging to Hugh entered, presented to the Council the Letter which had been brought from Rome, and which had been already produced before the Council of Mouzon, and avouched that it had been given him by the Legate Marinus then present. It was written in the name of Guy Bishop of Soissons, Hildegaire Bishop of Beauvais, and of all the other Bishops of the Province of Rheims, who desired the re-establishment of Hugh, and the Expulsion of Artaldus. When this Letter had been read, the Bishops therein mentioned did declare that it was Counterfeit, and that they had never heard the least mention of any such thing, nor gave their Consent that such a Request should be made in their Names. Upon this their Declaration this Deacon was deposed as an Impostor and Calumniator; and in the same Session Artaldus was confirmed in the Archbishopric of Rheims. In the second Session Robert Archbishop of Treves alleged, that since they had re-established Artaldus as lawful Archbishop of Rheims, it was requisite to condemn the Intruder. Marinus told them the Council ought to pronounce a Sentence agreeable to the Canon; and after the Decrees of the Pope's touching this Subject were read, the Bishops declared Hugh to be Excommunicated and thrown out of the Church, till such time as he should do Penance for his Fault. In the other Sessions they debated on several Points relating to Church Discipline; and all the Acts of this Council are reduced into Ten Canons.  
The first contains the Excommunication of Hugh.  
The second, the Resettlement of Artaldus, and the Excommunication of those, who were ordained by Hugh, unless they should appear before the Synod to be held at Treves, September 13. to make Satisfaction, and to receive Penance for what they had done.  
The third inflicts the same Punishment on Count Hugh the White, for having turned out Radulphus, Bishop of Laon.  
The fourth prohibits the Laity from bestowing Churches on Priests, or from turning them out of them without the Approbation of the Bishop.  
The fifth is against those who abuse the Priests, or do them any wrong.  
In the sixth, it is ordered that the whole Easter-Week, and the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday after Whitsunday should be kept as Festivals, as well as the Lord's Day.  
In the seventh, it is ordered, that in the Grand Litany (which is on S. Mark's day) a Fast shall be kept as in the Rogation-Week before the Ascension.  
The eighth imports that the Laics should have no share of the Offerings which the Faithful offered on the Altar.  
The ninth, that the Cognizance of all Differences about Tithes should be brought before the Bishops.  
The tenth and last Canon is imperfect, and one cannot well comprehend the meaning thereof; There is mention made of Widows dedicated to the Service of God.  
After this Council Lewis d Outremer assisted by Conrade Duke of Lorraine, retook Mouzon, Montague 
The Council of Mouzon,  and Laon, and the Bishops being met at Mouzon, Excommunicated Count Thibold, and cited Count Hugh the White to appear before the Synod to be held at Treves. In this Assembly, Guy Bishop of Soissons, who had ordained Hugh, came to wait upon King Lewis, and to give him Satisfaction.  
Artaldus when he departed from Laon went to Treves with Guy Bishop of Soissons, Radulphus Bishop of Laon, and Wickfroy of Terrovane, where they met with Marinus the Pope's Legate, and Robert Archbishop of Treves, who waited for their coming, without whom there would not have been any 
The Council of Treves,  other Bishops of Germany and Lorraine. Marinus asked Artaldus and the rest of the Bishops, how Hugh the White had behaved himself since the last Synod, and whether the Letters which cited him before the Synod had been delivered to him. They replied, That he still persisted in his Rebellion and Robberies; that one of their Letters had been delivered to him, and that the other had been intercepted by his Party. Upon this Reply, It was asked whether any one was come on his behalf; and none appearing, the Assembly was adjourned till the morrow. On that day there appeared no Deputy in behalf of Count Hugh; and tho' the Clergy and Nobless cried out, that he ought to be Excommunicated; yet that was put off to the third day. In the mean time they consulted about the Affair of the Bishops who had been cited before the Synod, or who had any hand in the Ordination of Hugh. The Bishop of Soissons begged Pardon and obtained it; the Bishop of Terovane was found to have no hand in the Ordination; and the Bishop of Noyon was excused by reason of his Sickness. On the third day High the White was Excommunicated till such time as he should come and ask the Legate and the Bishops Pardon for what he had done: and in case he should defer that, he enjoined him to go to Rome for Absolution. There were likewise two Bishops Excommunicated who were ordained by Hugh, the one of Amiens, the other of Senlis; and a Clerk who had instituted and inducted the Latter. Hildegairus Bishop of Beauvais was cited before Marinus, or to Rome, for assisting at their Ordination: and lastly, the young Count Hebert, Brother to Hugh, was likewise summoned to make Satisfaction for the wrong he had done the Bishops. All these things were transacted in the Year 948. and from that time forward Artaldus remained in possession of the Archbishop of Rheims, which was made sure to him by the Peace concluded between Lewis d'Outremer and Hugh the White in the Year 953. In the same Year this Archbishop held a Council of five Bishops at S. Thierry, wherein he Excommunicated Count Reginald, who had seized upon the Revenues of the Church.  
Artaldus dying the last day of August in the Year 967. after he had been Archbishop of Rheims 
The death of Artaldus.  thirty years, several Bishops proposed the Re-establishing Hugh. The Affair was debated in a Council held in a Village of the Diocese of Meaux upon the River Marne, consisting of Thirteen Bishops of the Provinces of Rheims and Sens. The Bishops of Laon and Chalons very strongly opposed his Restitution, and the Case was referred to the Arbitration of his Holiness. He gave them to understand by Bruno Archbishop of Cologne, that Hugh had been Rejected and Excommunicated by the Councils of Rome and Pavia, and that there was no thinking of him again. Whereupon they elected a Clerk of the Church of Rheims called Odalric, the Son of a Count named Hugh, who was supported 
Odalric Archbishop of Rheims. Adalberon Archbishop of Rheims.  by King Lotharius, by the Queen-Mother, and by Bruno. He enjoyed the Archbishopric very peaceably for the space of Seven years, and died in the Year 968. His Successor was Adalberon or Alberon, Brother of Count Henry, who governed the Church of Rheims for Nineteen years, with a great deal of Prudence and Candour. Under his Episcopacy a Council was held at Rheims in the Year 975. whereof Stephen Deacon of Pope Penedict VII. was Precedent. In this Council Thibold was Excommunicated for having unlawfully seized upon the Church of Amiens. In the Year 972. he held another Council at St. Mary's Mount, wherein he procured a Ratification of an Order he had made, of putting Monks into the Monastery of S. Mouzon instead of Canons who were there: After 
Arnulphus Archbishop of Rheims.  the death of this Archbishop, Hugh Capet laid hold on this opportunity of taking into his Interests Arnulphus, the Bastard Brother of Charles Duke of Lorraine, the last of the Carolignian Race, Clerk of the Church of Laon, by procuring him to be elected Archbishop of Rheims in the Year 989. who immediately took of him an Oath of Fidelity. But within six Months after his being in possession of the Archbishopric of Rheims, his Brother Charles was introduced into that City, and became Master of it by means of a Priest named Adalger. Which was brought about, as 'tis supposed, by the Intelligence he had from the Archbishop, who however was carried by his Brother to Laon, and cast into Prison for forms sake. Arnulphus notwithstanding issued out a Sentence of Excommunication against those who had made an unlawful Seizure of the Revenues of the Church of Rheims; and the Bishops of the Province met at Senlis, and passed a Decree against Adalger, whereby they Excommunicated him and all others who had any hand in the Usurpation made upon the Churches of Rheims and Laon. This Excommunication was sent to all the Bishops, and Complaints were made to the Holy See, who took part with Arnulphus. But Hugh Capet, who had always suspected his Treachery, having discovered that his Suspicion was not groundless, and that he was in the Interests of his Brother, wrote against him to Pope John XV. and caused the Bishops of the Province of Rheims to write to him likewise, who accused Arnulphus, and desired he might be Condemned. After this Hugh becoming Master of the City of Laon, and having Charles in Custody, he took Arnulphus, and brought him to Rheims, where he called a Council to proceed against him. It consisted of six Suffragans of the Archbishopric of Rheims, viz. Guy Bishop of Soissons, Adalberon 
The Council of Rheims against Arnulphus.  of Laon, Herveus of Beauvais, Gotesman of Amiens, Ratbode of Mayon, and Eudes of Senlis; besides them were Debert Archbishop of Bourges, Sigwin Archbishop of Sens, Gautier Bishop of Autun, Bruno of Langres, Milo of Mascon, Arnulphus Bishop of Orleans, and Hebert of Auxerre, with several Abbots of several Dioceses. Sigwin was Precedent thereof, and Arnulphus of Orleans Prolocutor. In the first Session held the sixteenth of June in the Church of Bazol, Arnulphus Archbishop of Rheims was accused for having betrayed his Trust to King Hugh, and being the chief Cause of the taking that City. Sigwin Archbishop of Sens, alleged that he would not permit a Process to be made on this Charge, till he was sure that Arnulphus should not be put to Death in case he were Convicted of High Treason; and moreover cited the Thirty first Chapter of the Council of Toledo, which imports that Bishops shall not proceed to the Determination of such Matters, till they had engaged the Princes upon Oath to remit the Punishment of the Offenders. Herveus showed that it would be of worse consequence if the Prince should take cognizance of the Case, and deprive the Bishops of the right of doing it. Bruno declared that he was most concerned in this Affair; that upon the account of his being a Retainer to the King Lotharius his Uncle, he had engaged himself for the Fidelity of Arnulphus, that he might be made Archbishop of Rheims, in hopes that he would not let him suffer any prejudice for this Act of Kindness: That Arnulphus was so far from making his due acknowledgements, that he had begun to persecute his Friends, and had put him in danger of his Life: that he had to no purpose warranted that he would not break the Oath of Fidelity which he had taken to King Hugh; that there was sufficient Evidence of his Treachery, because the Authors of that Rebellion were his most intimate Friends, and such as he esteemed very highly. As to that which was alleged, that care ought to be taken that the Offender should not lose his Life; he answered, that there was no need to fear any such thing under Princes so merciful as theirs were; but that it was more to be feared, whilst they endeavoured after the Safety of one Man, that the whole Ecclesiastical Order would be exposed to danger. At last it was concluded, that the Priest who had delivered up the Gates of the City to Duke Charles, should be brought in. Whilst they stayed for his coming, they read over the Oath of Fidelity which Arnulphus had taken to King Hugh and King Robert. Afterwards the Priest named Adalger appearing, declared that it was Arnulphus who gave him the Keys of the City Gates, with orders to deliver them up to Duke Charles. After this Evidence was given, they read the Decree which Arnulphus had made against those who made an unlawful Seizure of the Revenue of the Church of Rheims, which proved that himself was Excommunicated, because he was the Author of that Depredation, and went shares with thóse who committed it. To this was joined the Sentence of the Bishops of the Province of Rheims, passed at Senlis much about the time wherein they began to suspect Arnulphus of Treason. After the reading of these Papers and the Canons of the Council of Carthage against Persons Excommunicated who partake of the Sacrament, and against Bishops who do any thing contrary to the Oath which they have taken in their Ordination, leave was given to all who were minded to vindicate Arnulphus, to say freely what they could in his behalf. The Clergy of his own Church would neither accuse nor defend him: But John Scholasticus of Auxerre, Ranulphus Abbot of Sens, and Abbo Superior of the Monastery of Flewry, undertook to defend him, and produced a great many Passages extracted out of the false Decretals of the Ancient Popes, to prove that Arnulphus ought to be re-establisht before they proceeded to judge him; and that they might not judge him till he had been cited several times, and the Holy See made acquainted with the Business. It was answered them that he had sufficient Notice given him; That they ought not to re-establish him till he had received such a Sentence as declared him Absolved, since he had been already Condemned; That Hildemare Bishop of Beauvais, and Abbo Archbishop of Rheims charged with the same Crime as Arnulphus was, had been judged by the Synods of the Province; That the Holy See had been already informed of this Affair by the Letters of King Hugh, and of the Bishops of the Province of Rheims, which had been carried to Rome by Deputies, which the Pope at first had pretty well entertained: but that since Count Hebert had presented his Holiness with a fine white Steed and several other things, he denied to give them any further Audience. The Deputies which Bishop Bruno had sent to Rome for his Releasement, added, that having requested the Pope to Anathematise those who were guilty of his Confinement, the Clerks of the Pope had demanded M●…y of them for it; and that they not being willing to give them any on that account, the Pope ●●d told them as his final Answer, That the Person for whom he had been Apprehended might release him, if he thought fit: from whence they concluded, that the Holy See did not hinder them from proceeding upon the Spot to the Judgement and Determination of that Affair. But they carried the Point higher yet, and Arnulphus Bishop of Orleans remonstrated, that they might go on in the Trial, without waiting for what Rome should say in the Case. And after he had made Protestation that all due Respect ought to be paid to the Holy See and its Decisions, without offering prejudice to the Canons of the Councils; he gave them to understand that there are two things of which great care ought to be taken, which were not to permit that the Silence, or the new Laws or Institutions of the Popes, be any prejudice to the Ancient Laws of the Church: Because this would be to overthrow all order, and to make every thing depend on the Will and Pleasure of one single Man. That this did not derogate any▪ thing of the Privileges of the Pontifex Maximus; because if the Bishop of Rome were a Man of Worth for his Learning and his Piety, there was no fear of his Silence, or of his Altering the Constitutions of the Church. That if on the contrary, either out of Ignorance, or Fear, or Passion, he should swerve from Justice, his Silence and his new Decrees were the less to be feared; because he who acts contrary to the Laws, cannot prejudice the Laws. From thence he took an occasion to lament the sad. Estate of the Church of Rome, and gave a brief account of the Popes from Octavian to Boniface, and showed his abhorrence of their Irregularities. He asked whether Bishops, noted for their Sanctity and Piery, were obliged to submit themselves blindly to such Infamous Monsters, who had no Learning, neither Divine nor Profane. He complained that they should advance to the highest Post of the Church the mere Scu● and Refuse of the Clergy; Pastors who more deserved the name of Walking Statues, than of Reasonable Men. Upon default of excellent Popes, he was for consulting Metropolitans; and took notice that there were a great many such in Gallia, Belgiea, and in Germany, very well skilled in Matters of Religion; and that it was more proper to ask their Opinion, if the War which happens between Princes did not hinder it, than to go to seek it in that City, which at present declares in favour of him who gives most, and weighs its Judgements by the Number of Crowns which are presented. He adds, that if any one should allege with Pope Gela●…, that the Church of Rome is the Judge of all Churches, and can be judged by none, this is a Proposition which the African Bishops would not consent to, and which could not be true at this tim, wherein there was scarce one at Rome who had so much as studied Humane Learning, if common Fame were to be credited therein. That Ignorance was more excusable in other Bishops than in the Bishop of Rome, who ought to be Judge of the Faith, of the Life, of the Manners, and of the Discipline of the whole Church. That according to St. Gregory's Opinion, the Bishops, when in fault, are subject to the Correction of the Holy See; but when they are unblameable, Humility in one sense renders them all Equal. Lastly, That when the Bishops of Rome of this time were like to Da●…, nothing could be done more than had been done, since the Bishops and the King had writ concerning this very Business to the Holy See, and they had not undertaken to decide it in the Province, till such time as they had no hopes of having it tried at Rome, which was conformable to the Canons of the Council of Sardica. He quoted several Passages out of St. Gregory, to show that Bishops are obliged to punish Offences, and that they may Depose Bishops who are convicted thereof. He added, That tho' one might pass by other Crimes in silence, one could not do so in the Case of High Treason: yet that there have been Instances of Archbishops of Rheims, condemned by the Bishops of the Province for this very Crime; namely giles Archbishop of Rheims, who proved disloyal to Childebert and Ebbs, and was deposed at Thionville: That the Decree of D●…, which imports that the Causes of Bishops shall be tried at Rome, aught to be extended to none but difficult Causes, and not to such wherein the Crime is self-evident: That the African Bishops have contested the very Right of Appellation, and that the Councils of Nice and Antioch appointed the Synod of the Province to determine these Matters: That he would very readily grant the Church of R●… more than ever the African Bishops pretended to allow it: That they consulted it when the Affairs of the State permitted it, and they submitted to its Determinations, unless they were contrary to Equity: But if it remained silent, the Ecclesiastical Laws ought to be consulted, and the rather because the Church of Rome at present was destitute of all manner of Supports and Supplies; for since the Fall of the Empire it has lost the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch, as well as those of Africa and Asia, and all Europe began to fly off from it: That the Church of Constantinople was withdrawn from its Obedience: That the Churches of Spain, which were most remote, did not acknowledge its Determinations; and that 
[From all this Learned and Judicious Speech of the Bishop of Orleans, it cannot but be observed, that even in these dark times, wherein Rome might with ease have imposed on the blind and ignorant World, there were some so wise, and so honest as not to think its Bishop (especially if a wicked and ignorant one) to be the Infallible Judge of all Controversies. Now whether this honest proceeding of the Council of Rheims in judging Arnulphus, even in a time when they professed to pay all due deference to the Holy See; and whether the Practice of the Modern Gallican Churches in this Age, be not a sufficient Evidence to prove how little they (even of the Romish Communion) believe the Doctrine of the Pope's Infallibility (unless as far as they gain by it) I leave the fair and impartial Reader of both Parties to judge.]  Rome had abandoned itself, since it no longer gave any wholesome Advice to itself, or others. He concludes, that according to the Examples and Canons of former times, they ought to proceed to the Trial of the Archbishop of Rheims.  
Upon this the Synod came to a Resolution; the Defendant was called in, who took his place among the Bishops. The Bishop of Orleans upbraided him with the Favours he had received from the King, which he had returned with Treachery. The Defendant alleged that he had done nothing against the King: that he was always Loyal to him; that he had been taken by force in his City by the Enemy, the King not coming to his Assistance. The Bishop of Orleans opposed to him the Testimony of Adalger the Priest, who said he had delivered up the Gates of the City by his order. The Defendant replied that the thing was false: the Priest maintained to his Face that his Evidence was true. Arnu●phus of Rheims complained of the ill usage he had met with; the Bishoy of Soissons asked him why he did not appear when he was cited by the King and Bishops; and upon the Answer he made, that he could not, being then retained in Custody; that Bishop replied, that he had offered to conduct him, and alleged several Circumstances to prove that he had behaved himself very deceitfully. Afterwards another Witness was produced, who told him that he had said to him that he preferred Prince Charles to all the World; and if he had any kindness for him, he ought to endeavour to serve him. Whereas several Abbots declared that Arnulphus ought to be permitted to withdraw, and to ask advice what Answer to make, it was granted him; and he withdrew into a corner of the Chamber with the Archbishop of Sens, and the Bishop of Orleans, Langres, and Amient. Whilst they consulted together, they read in the Synod the Canons of the Councils of Toledo against those who proved disloyal to their Prince. In the mean time Ar●ulphus acknowleded and confessed his Crime before the Bishops who were retired aside with him, who called others to be present at his Declaration. He made it before them, and thirty Abbots or Clerks, which were called to be Witnesses. This Acknowledgement took off the Objection which might arise upon the Account of the Holy See; because Arnulphus having not appealed to it, chose his Judges, and acknowledged his Fault there was no difficulty remaining; so that they might condemn him without encroaching upon the Rights of the Holy See. But to be informed what Ceremony they should use in his Deposition, several Canons were consulted, and a great many Instances were produced, which took up the remaining part of this Session.  
The next day the Bishop's meeting in the same place, after they had debated several Affairs both Ecclesiastical and Civil, resumed that of the Archbishop of Rheims: and as they were debating after what manner he ought to be treated, King Hugh, and King Robert entered with the Lords, and then thanked the Bishops for the Zeal they had expressed for them, and asked them how the Case stood. The Bishop of Orleans returned them this Answer, that there was no need of returning them Thanks for doing what was only their Duty: that they had not acted therein out of any Motive of Love to them, or of Hatred to Arnulphus: they could hearty with that he were able to clear himself; but that at last, after many Evasions, he had acknowledged his Crime, and consented to be degraded from his Priesthood, in the presence of several Abbots, and several Clerks who were Witnesses of that Declaration: that he thought it proper to have him there before him, that the King himself might be both Witness and Judge, and that by this means his Accusers, the Witnesses which had given in Evidence against him, and the Judges might be discharged. He was forthwith introduced, and the Bishop of Orleans having asked him whether he were still of the same Mind, he replied, that he was. The Bishop asked him, whether he were willing to be deprived of the Sacerdotal Dignity, which he had hitherto abused: He replied, as you please for that. Count Brochard catching at that word, said, That he did not explain himself enough, and that he ought to acknowledge his Fault publicly, that so he might 〈◊〉 afterwards say, that the Bishops had imposed upon him therein, and that he had not made 〈◊〉 Acknowledgement of that Nature. He replied That he had openly confessed his Fault, and acknowledged that he had swerved from that Allegiance which he ●●'d to his Prince: that he d●… that they would credit what the Bishop of Orleans should say of him, and that he entreated him to make 〈◊〉 fair a Report of his Case 〈◊〉 he could. Thereupon this Bishop said, that Arnulphus of Rheims being naturally modest in speaking, and ashamed to acknowledge in public, what he had confessed 〈◊〉 them in private, it was enough that he should acknowledge in general th●● he had not kept the Oath of Allegiance which he owed to his Prince. Count Brochard insisted that ●e ought to declare it publicly; but the Bishop of Orleans silenced him by saying, that the Bishops were the only Persons who could extort a Confession of that Nature; and that it was sufficient that the Archbishop of Rheims had made his Confession to them in private, and declared himself unworthy of the Priesthood because of his Sins, as he had done by a Writing which was read, wherein he declared, that he had confessed himself to Sigwin Archbishop of Sens, and to other Bishops, and had appointed them the Judges of his Offences, that he might receive from them such Penance as he deserved, and be removed from the Sacerdotal Dignity; and consented that another Archbishop should be put in his place, without pretending ever to return contrary to this Declaration. Afterwards Adalger the Priest confessed his Fault. He was asked whether he had rather be degraded, o● lie under a perpetual Excommunication. He preferred Degradation, which was performed with the usual Ceremony; for he was stripped of 〈◊〉 his Clerical Habits from his Priesthood to his Sub-deaconship; and each time he was ordered to forbear performing the Offices of the Order, and of the Habit he was stripped of a after this he was enjoined Penance, and received Absolution with leave to Communicate as a Laic. Lastly, They issued forth an Anathema against the other Rebels, who did not appear to make Satisfaction and Arnulphus was sent Prisoner to Orleans.  
Arnulphus being thus deposed and deprived of the Archbishopric of Rheims, the Bishops elected in his 
Gerbert Archbishop of Rheims.  place one Gerbert or Gilbert. He came of a considerable Family of Auvergne; and applying himself to study, he became a great Proficient in the Sciences and Philosophy. He was brought up in the Monastery of Aurillac, where he lived a Monastic Life; and from thence he went into Spain, where he learned the Mathematics. He was afterwards Schoolmaster of the Church of Rheims, where Prince Robert, Son of Hugh Capet, Leoteric Archbishop of Sens, and Fulbert Bishop of Chartres were his Scholars; and he had afterwards the Honour of being Tutor to Otho III. Immediately after his Election he made a Profession of his Faith, and thereupon was Ordained, and Instituted and Inducted into the Archbishopric of Rheims. In the Year 998. he held a Council, wherein he Excommunicated Count Hebert and other Usurpers, who had unlawfully seized upon the Revenues of the Church of Rheims. He wrote at the same time to Fulcus Bishop of Amiens, who had appropriated to his own use several Revenues of his Church.  
King Hugh and the Bishops sent the Decrees of this Council to Pope John XV. by the archdeacon of Rheims, and prayed him to approve of their Election of Gerbert. But this Pope being persuaded that Arnulphus could not have been Deposed without his Authority, very highly resented what the Bishops of France had done. King Hugh wrote him word that they had done nothing in this Affair that might be of any Prejudice to the Holy Sea; and that if he pleased to come to Grenoble, or into France, he would receive him with all the Tokens imaginable of Submission and Respect; and that if he pleased, they should try this Matter over again in his Presence. The Pope sent into France Abbot Leo, with orders to call a Council, and in the mean time forbade the Bishops who had assisted at the Council of Rheims to be there. Gerbert foreseeng the Storm that was coming on him, wrote to an Abbot, and Archbishop Sigwin, and endeavoured to fortify the latter, against the fearful apprehensions he had of the Thunderbolts of Rome, by telling him, that the Judgement of the Pope was not Superior to God's Decree: That if he (meaning the Pope) should fall into Error, he might be reproved: that he could not exclude Bishops from the Communion of JESUS CHRIST, for being unwilling to consent to a thing which they thought contrary to the Gospel: that they had no Power to debar him of the Communion, neither as a Guilty Person, since he was Innocent, nor as a Rebel, since he had not refused to go to any Council: that this Sentence, being unjust, ought not to be looked upon as proceeding from the Holy See, according to S. Leo's Maxim. That the Rules whereby the Catholic Church ought to be regulated are the Gospel, the Apostles, the Prophets, the Canons made by the Spirit of God, and consecrated by that respect which all the World paid them, and the Decrees of the Holy Apostolical See which were conformable thereto. That those who out of Contempt swerved from these Rules, aught to be judged and condemned by these Rules: but that whoever observes and follows them, aught to enjoy perpetual Peace, without ever being separated from the Communion of the Church. In conclusion he declared to Sigwin, that he ought not to suspend the performing of his Functions because of the Prohibition of Rome, and that he ought to despise this irregular Judgement, for fear that whilst he endeavoured to appear Innocent, he should declare himself Guilty.  
In the mean time the Pope by his Legate very warmly pressed for the re-establishment of Arnulphus, and after he had appointed Councils to be held for this purpose at Aix-la-Chapelle, and at Rome, to 
The Council of Mouzon.  which the Bishops of France would not go, he ordered one to be held at Mouzon the Second of June, in the Year 995. in which assisted Luitolfe Archbishop of Treves, Aimon Bishop of Verdun, and Notger of Liege, with Sigefroy Bishop of Munster. Leo Legate of Pope John XV. presented to them a Letter of that Pope, and after it had been read, Gerbert made an eloquent Speech in his own Defence, wherein after he had shown the Reasonableness of his Conduct, he declared that he had not taken the Church of Rheims from its lawful Possessor; but that Arnulphus, who was unworthy thereof, having condemned himself, he had been elected and ordained Canonically in his place. He gave this Speech in writing to the Legate, who handed to him the Pope's Letter. After this the Council broke up, having first appointed to meet at Rheims the first of July, and deputed John a Monk of the Abbot Leo the Pope's Legate, to go to King Hugh. But as Gerbert was going away, Leo ordered two Bishops to remonstrate to him, that he ought to abstain from celebrating Divine Service, till the Convention of the Synod. After he had declared that their Denunciation signified nothing, he went himself to wait upon Leo, and told him that it was not in the Power of any Bishop, nor of any Patriarch, nor of the Pope himself to exclude any of the Faithful from the Communion of the Church, till such time as he had been either convicted of any Crime, or had acknowledged himself to be Criminal, or had refused to appear before a Synod, being cited thereto according to the Canon: That neither of these being his Case, he could not tell how to condemn himself. However Luitolf Archbishop of Treves, having calmly, and like a Brother, admonished him not to give any occasion of Scandal, he prevailed upon him so far, that for peace and quietness sake, he would only abstain from celebrating Mass till the first of July next, which was the time appointed for the Synod at Rheims. The Queen Adelaid wrote to Gerbert, ordering him to appear at that Synod; threatening him that if he did not, such Measures should be taken as should be thought most proper. Gerbert understanding that they would Absolve Arnulphus, and re-establish him, and all to gratify Leo, who had promised that the Pope should confirm the late Marriage of King Robert; and being informed that his Clergy and Laity had declared against him, returned this Answer to that Princess, That he would not be there; and declared that he would patiently attend the Determination of the Synod: That having received the Government of the Church of Rheims at the hands of the Bishops, he was not willing to quit it till the Bishops had so ordered it: But that he was not in any manner capable of opposing the Sentence which should be passed upon him, or of retaining his Diocese by force: That in attending the Judgement of the Synod, he suffered with grief an Exile, which many believe to be very happy for him.  
The Synod appointed at Rheims was held there accordingly; of which we have not any Acts or Decrees. All that we can learn of it is, that they therein resolved to re-establish Arnulphus, and to 
The Synod of Rheims against Gerbert. The restablishment of Arnulphus in the Archbishopric of Rheims.  turn out Gerbert. The latter, according to the Resolution he had taken, obeyed, and retired to Otho III. who soon after gave him the Archbishopric of Ravenna, from whence he ascended the Papal Chair in the Year 999. As to Arnulphus (whatever some Authors may say) he was not set at liberty, and re-established till three years after, at the instance of Pope Gregory V. John the Fifteenth's Successor. His re-establishment was likewise afterwards confirmed by Gerbert himself when he was advanced to the Popedom. For that Pope very generously forgetting all that was past, sent him word, That as it was the Duty of the Holy Apostolical See to raise up those who were fallen, and to restore to them the Dignity of which they had been deprived; so he thought it convenient to secure him, even him who had been turned out of the Archbishopric of Rheims for some default: Because since his Deposition had not been ratified by the Pope, it was believed that he might be re-established by the Clemency of the Holy See, St. Peter having such a Sovereign Authority as no other could stand in competition with. That therefore by restoring to him the Pastoral Rod and Ring, he grants him a power of performing all his Archi-Episcopal Functions; to retain the Dignity thereof; to enjoy all the Revenues belonging to the Church of Rheims; and to wear the Pa●●. That he prohibits all manner of Persons from upbraiding him with his Deposition; being willing that the Apostolical Authority should protect him, tho' his Conscience condemn him: That lastly, he confirms and grants to him de novo, the Archbishopric of Rheims with all that belonged to it. This is the Language of Gerbert when advanced to the Papal Chair; which seems to be in a different strain from what he formerly used.   

The Writings of Gerbert.  
GErbert was without question the most Learned Man of his Time, especially in Profane Learning: 
The Writings of Gerbert.  for he had to his Study of the Languages and Philosophy joined that of the Mathematics, wherein he was a great Proficient. He informs us himself that he had composed several Tracts of Rhetoric, Arithmetic, and Geometry. He speaks of a Sphere which he had made, and he composed a small Treatise of the manner of its Construction. He invented Clocks, and made one at Magdeburgh, which he regulated according to the Motion of the Polar Star, the which he viewed through a Telescope. They likewise attribute to him a Treatise concerning the Astrolabe, written in Dialogue-wise, between him and Leo the Pope's Legat. This Art made him pass for a Magician, and gave rise to the Fable of his being promoted to the Papal Chair by a Contract which he made with the Devil. He had a great Hand in all the Affairs of the State, and especially in those which related to the Church of Rheims; and was in great repute with the Emperors and the Kings of France. He behaved himself so well in those difficult times, that he fell into disgrace with none. The Archbishop Adalberon, as well as the Princes and Princesses of his time and several others made use of his Pen to write their Letters. He wrote likewise several Letters in his own name to several Persons about the Affairs of Church and State, or about particular Affairs, or else about some Points of Learning. There is a Collection made of an Hundred and sixty of them, which are published from the Manuscript in the Library of Papyrus Mason, and printed by the Care of his Brother in the Year 1611. at Paris, with the Letters of John of Salusbury, and Stephen of Tournay. They are penned in a very pure Style, and such as is truly Epistolar, with a great deal of Beauty and Spirit, but they do not contain much of Ecclesiastical Affairs. He is likewise the Author of the History of the Acts made by the Council of Rheims against Arnulphus, writ with a great deal of Elegance and Energy; which shows that he was no less skilled in Ecclesiastical, than he was in Profane Learning. His Speech to the Council of Mouzon is a farther proof of both; as well as the Speech which he made, when Pope, for the instructing of Bishops, published by Father Mabillon in the Second Tome of his Analects. In this last Piece he Remonstrates to the Bishops that the higher their Station and Dignity is, the greater Obligations they lie under of answering the height of their Post by their Sanctity and their Merits; and that their Fall is by so much the more deplorable, by how much the more the height is from which they fall: That God requires more of them than of the rest of the Clergy; and that their Faults shall meet with a severer Punishment than those of others. He explains to them the Qualifications which St. Paul requires of Bishops in his first Epistle to Timothy. Afterwards he declares against Simony, which was so common in his time, that Bishops gave Money to Archbishops for their Ordination; Priests, Deacons, and other Clergymen to Bishops. He exclaims very highly against this abuse, and exhorts the Bishops to whom he directs his Discourse, not to drive such a dishonourable Trade, but to lead an unblameable Life.   

FLODOARD Prebendary of Rheims. 
Flodoard Prebendary of Rheims   
FLodoard or Frodoard is not one of the least Ornaments of the Church of Rheims. He was born at Espernay in the year 894. He was Prebendary of the Church of Rheims, and the Scholar of Rhemy of Auxerre, whom Fulcus had invited to Rheims, to be Precedent of the School of his Canons. In the year 936, he took a Journey to Rome, and in the year 940. he took up a Resolution of going to S. Martin of Tours, because he could not approve of the Promotion of Hugh to the Archbishopric of Rheims. But Count Hebert caused him to be apprehended, and took from him the Revenues belonging to the Church of Rheims, which he was in possession of, and the Church of Cormicy which he governed. He was for five Months confined to that City, till he was brought to Soissons, where he submitted to the Judgement of the Bishops, who confirmed the Promotion of Hugh. Then he was restored to favour; the Revenues which he possessed were restored to him, and the Church of Coroy given him, instead of Cormicy. He assisted at the Council of Verdun, wherein Artaldus was elected Archbishop of Rheims; and lived in the World to Odalric's time, into whose hands he resigned his Benefice, and withdrew into the Solitude of a Monastery, where he died in the year 966.  
This Author has written an History of the Church of Rheims, divided into four Books. He therein gives an Account of the Succession and Lives of the Archbishops, of what they had done or written, and what happened worth the taking notice of under each of them in that Church. The first Book gins with the Apostles, and ends at the death of S. Remy. The Account of the first Bishops is fabulous, and what he says of the following is very uncertain. The Life of S. Remy, the Conversion and Baptism of Clovis take up the greatest and best part of that Book. The second Book contains the Succession and History of the Archbishops of Rheims from S. Remy down to Hincmarus. The third is wholly taken up with the Life of Hincmarus, and with the Abstract of his Writings. The fourth contains the History of Fulcus, and of those who succeeded him down to Odalric. This History was published by Father Sirmond, and printed at Paris in the year 1611. and afterwards by Colvenerius who got it to be printed at Douai in the year 1617.  
Beside this Piece, Flodoard did likewise compose a Chronicon (for Monsieur Python had no grounds to question whether it were his or no.) It began at the year 877. but the first years are lost, and we have only by us the year 919. and those which follow to the 966. where it ends. Bonderius observes that at Treves there is a Manuscript, which contains several pieces of Poetry of Flodoard; namely, five Books of the Triumphs of the Italian Martyrs and Confessors; three Books of the Triumphs of JESUS CHRIST, and of the Saints of Palestine; and two Books of the Triumphs of JESUS CHRIST at Antioch. But these Pieces have not as yet been published, and no body (as we hear of) has ever seen them since. The Chronicon was published by Monsieur Python, and Monsieur Duchesne, in their Collections of the Writers of the History of France.  

An ADVERTISEMENT to the following Addition.  
As soon as this Volume was printed off, I understood by Father Thierry Ruinard, a Learned Religious Benedictine of the Congregation of S. Maur, that the Treatise of Flodoard concerning the Triumph of the Martyrs, which Bonderius made mention of, was in an ancient Manuscript in the Convent of the unshod Carmelites of that City; and this Father has been pleased to communicate the Abstract of that Manuscript to me, which I thought fit to publish.   

The ADDITION.  
I Have examined that Manuscript, the beginning of which is torn; the Work gins at the end of the first Chapter of the third Book. He therein treats of the Martyrs who suffered under Valerian's Persecution.  
The fourth Book gins with Pope S. Foelix, and treats of the Persecutions of Aurelian, Claudius, Numerian, and Dioclesian. He therein speaks of the Pope's according to the times wherein they lived.  
The Fifth and sixth Books are not there, tho' there seems to be nothing left out.  
The seventh treats only of the Persecution under Diocletian.  
The eighth has this Title De Persecutione Maximiniani, i. e. Concerning the Persecution under Maximinian. It gins with the History of S. Marcel, and of all the Martyrs which are in his false Decretals: Afterwards he speaks of the Martyred Saints which are worshipped in Italy. The fifteenth Chapter is concerning S. Afra of Augsburgh. The sixteenth is concerning S. Eusebius the Pope.  
The ninth Book makes mention of S. Valentine a Martyr at Rome, afterwards of the Martyrs thereabouts; and of the Decretals of S. Sylvester, Gallicanus, S. John, and S. Paul, and of several other Martyrs, who were at Rome in the time of Julian the APOSTATE.  
The tenth Book gins at S. Julus the Pope, and ends with Vitalian and Adeodate. He therein mentions several other Saints; as for instance, in the second Chapter he speaks of Eusebius, whom he calls Praesul, Prelate, who is said to have suffered at Rome under Constance, with Orosus and others: he speaks of S. Eusebius of Verceil, of Victorine the Rhetorician, and of S. Dennis of Milan; he makes mention of the Translation of the latter, made by S. Basil, who sent his Body to S. Ambrose. (I have the Letter of S. Basil by me, directed to S. Ambrose, taken out of an ancient Manuscript, which makes mention of this Translation.) In the third Chapter, where he treats of S. Damasus the Pope, he likewise speaks of S. Jerom. In the eighth Chapter he treats of the Schism of Laurence, of Pascasius the Deacon▪— In the nineteenth of Horsmisdas the Pope, of the Peace in the East, of S. german of Capua, of the Restitution of Africa, of S. Remy, of the Conversion of Clovis, of the Crown which he sent to Rome, of the Censular Habits which he received from the Emperor. In the tenth Chapter he speaks of S. John the Pope, of Symmachus, and of Boëtius, whom Theodoric caused to be put to death. In the twelfth Chapter of Cassiodorus, of what Belisairus did against the Goths in Italy and Africa. Lastly he treats at large of S. Gregory, and of what happened in his Monastery.  
The eleventh Book comprehends the History of the Popes from Agatho down to Christophilus. In the fifth Chapter he speaks at large of Boniface of Germany, whom he styles Doctor and Martyr. In the sixth Chapter of Charlemain Prince of France, who turned a Religious. In the seventh Chapter of Pope Stephen II. of his Progress into France, of the miraculous Cure he wrought in the Abbey of S. Dennis, etc.  
The twelfth Book contains the History from Leo iv to Leo VII. In the first Chapter he speaks of the Palls of Hincmarus, of the Settling the Octave of the Feast of the Assumption of our Lady. In the second Chapter, of John Bishop of Ravenna. In the third Chapter of Hincmarus and of Charles the Bald. In the fourth Chapter of Fulcus Archbishop of Rheims, and of the several Commissions which the Popes granted him. In the fifth Chapter of the Translation of S. Calixtus the Pope to Rheims, which he calls Urbem Nostram, Our City. He treats at large of the Actions of Formosus, whom (he says) Charles▪ King of France desired to send him Panem Benedictum, i. e. some Consecrated Bread.  
The thirteenth Book is about the Saints which S. Gregory treats of in his Dialogues, and of other Saints of Italy.  
The fourteenth Book is about the Guardian Saints, Martyrs, and others of the Cities of Italy. He ends all by S. Colomban and his Disciples.  
At the end is an Epitaph of Flodoard himself.  
This Manuscript is almost as ancient as Flodoard.  
Flodoard's stile is very plain, without any Ornament and without the least Affectation. He makes a great many Extracts, and relates a vast number of Miracles.    

AURELIAN Clerk of the Church of Rheims.  
TRithemius makes mention of another Clerk of the Church of Rheims called Aurelian, who, he says, 
Aurelian Clerk of the Church of Rheims.  was very well skilled in the Knowledge of the Scriptures, and in good Literature; but above all a good Musician. He makes him the Author of a Tract concerning the Rules of Singing and of Notes, which he says was a very remarkable Volume, entitled, The Complete Music Master. He adds, that he likewise composed several other Pieces, and that he flourished in the Reign of Arnulphus about the year 900. We have nothing of this Author left us.   

BERNERUS Monk of S. Remy of Rheims.  
WE ought likewise to reckon among those who were an Ornament to the Church of Rheims 
Bernerus Monk of S. Remy of Rheims.  Bernerus Monk of S. Remy of Rheims, who was sent in the year 948. with several Monks to establish a Monastical Discipline in the Monastery of Humbliers in Vermandois. He wrote the Life of S. Hunegonda Abbess of Humblieres, published by Father Mabillon in the second Benedictine Century; and the Account of the Translation of her Body, which is to be met with in the fifth Century. He sent several Monks to S. Quentin to be put in the room of those Clerks of the Church of that place, who did not lead regular Lives. He relates in the Account of the Translation of the Relics of S. Hunegonda, several Miracles which were wrought till the year 965. which shows that he wrote and lived beyond that year. But thus much may su●…ce to speak concerning the Church of Rheims. We proceed to the other Churches of France.   

GAUTIER Archbishop of Sens.  
THE beginning of this Century Gautier was Archbishop of Sens, who was ordained in the year 887. and lived to the year 923. He made Constitutions, which remain still among us. They 
Gautier Archbishop of Sens.  are comprehended in fourteen Articles.  
The first Prohibits such Abbots and Conventual Priors, who would not appear at the Synod, and were not excused; from being admitted into the Church for eight days.  
The second prohibits the Religious from receiving any Depositum into their Convents without the permission of the Bishop.  
The third orders that they should all eat together in the same Refectory, and all lie together in the same Dormitory.  
The fourth imports, that all the separate Apartments of Nunneries shall be pulled down, except such as were requisite to entertain the Bishop; or proper for the sick; or for any other Cause which the Bishop shall adjudge to be just and necessary.  
The fifth, that none of the Religious shall be permitted to go abroad, or to lie out of the Monastery, unless it be but seldom, and upon some lawful occasions.  
The sixth, that all the suspicious and unnecessary Doors of these Monasteries shall be shut up.  
The seventh prohibits the Ecclesiastical Judges from issuing forth general Excommunications, and from Excommunicating all those who shall Communicate with an Excommunicate Person, unless it be upon some great important occasion, and in such Cases as are enormous.  
The eighth enjoins the Canons or Prebendaries to regulate their Offices, and to behave themselves in them with care and exactness.  
The ninth enjoins them to observe the Rules prescribed by the General Council.  
The tenth and eleventh order, that the Communities of the Monks or Regular Canons be re-established in those Priories where they were used to be, if they have but wherewithal to subsist.  
The twelfth, that the Abbots and Conventual Priors shall have in their respective Abbeys and Priories, a sufficient number of Religious, from whom they shall not exact any Pension.  
The thirteenth, that the Clerks who lead lose lives shall be shaved by the order of the Bishops, Archdeacon's, or other Officers, so that no Mark or Token of their Clerical Tonsure shall be left them.  
The fourteenth imports, that when any Country shall be interdicted for the Offence of the Lord or his Bailiffs, that Interdiction shall not be taken off, till such time as satisfaction be made for the Damages which the Parochial Churches shall suffer by reason thereof.  
'Tis questioned whether these Constitutions belonged to this Gautier, or to some other of a more modern date. And indeed they relate more to the Discipline of the succeeding Centuries, than to the Discipline of the Tenth.   

Of the other Bishops of FRANCE.  
THE other Bishops of France showed themselves no less zealous for the keeping up of Discipline and maintaining their Rights, than those we have already mentioned. We have one famous 
The Resolutions of the Bishops of France concerning the Dedication of a Church.  instance of it related by Glaber Monk of Clunie, who lived in the following Century. Fulcus Count of Anjou, upon his return from a Journey he made to Jerusalem, being willing to discharge himself of a Vow he had made, caused a Monastery to be built in the Territory of Tours, over ●gainst the Castle of Loches, which he dedicated according to the Advice of his Wife to the memory of the Cherubims and Seraphims, and not to the memory of any Martyr. Hugh Archbishop of Tours was entreated to perform the Dedication of that Monastery; but he refused it till such time as Fulcus should restore to his Church the Revenues which he had contrary to all justice taken from it. Fulcus stomached this refusal, went to Rome, and after he had made several Presents to Pope John, he returned with Cardinal Peter, who afterwards dedicated the Monastery, having a Commission granted by the Pope for that purpose. As soon as the Bishops of France ●…, They k●●w (says Glaber) that it was the effect of 〈…〉 which having inclined 〈◊〉 〈…〉 Church, had likewise 〈◊〉 upon the Pope to accept of th●se Presents which 〈◊〉 had 〈◊〉 him of the 〈◊〉 which he had unlawfully seized upon; and that by this means 〈…〉 ris● to 〈◊〉 fresh 〈◊〉 in the Church of Rome. They all abominated this proceedings looking upon 〈…〉 Action▪ tha● he who governed 〈◊〉 Holy Apostolical See should violate the first Order established by the Apostles and by the Canons, the Custom of the Church, founded on a great many Authorities of Antiquity▪ which forbids Bishops to exercise any Juris● diction in another's Diocese, unless the Bishop of that Diocese entreat him, or permit him to do it. For tho' the Pope of Rome be most revered upon the account of the Dignity of the Holy Apostolic See, yet he is not permitted in any case whatsoever to violate the Rules prescribed by the Canons. And 〈◊〉 each Bishop of the Catholic Church is the H●●band of his own Church, and the Representative of our Lord: So it is not allowable to any man to undertake any thing in ●…rs Diocese. Glaber adds, that Fulcus notwithstanding these Remonstrances, having caused this Church to be dedicated, had no Bishops present but those of his own Dominions, who assisted at it much against their wills; and that it was no sooner finished, but the Fabric was blown down by a 〈◊〉, which is attributed to the 〈◊〉 of this proceeding.  
In the year 989▪ a Council was held in the Abbey of S. Saviour of Charr●●x, in the Diocese of Poitiers, 
The Council of Charroux in the year 989.  at which assisted the Archbishop of B●●deaux, and the Bishops of Poitiers, L●…ges, Perigueux, Saintes, and 〈◊〉. There was nothing else done there but 〈◊〉 out 〈◊〉 against those who should rob the Churches of their Revenues, de●… the Poor of their D●…, o● should by force apprehend or abuse a Clerk, not bearing Arms, before he were tried by his Bishop.  
Ten years after there was another Council held in the City of Poitiers, which 〈…〉 called by William 
The Council of Poitiers in the year 999.  Count of Poitiers, and consisted of the Archbishop of Bourdeaux, and the Bishops of Poitiers, Lim●ges, Ang●…, and Saintes. They therein confirmed the Order made in the Council of Ch●rr●ux against the Usurpators of the Revenue of Churches and of private Persons. And for the putting is in execution▪ it was ordered that all the Grandees and Judges should cause full Restitution to be made to every one, who had any thin● taken from them▪ and that those who wo●●d not submit to their Determinations, should be 〈◊〉 to do it by force. They therein likewise forbidden Bishops the exacting any thing for the Administration of 〈◊〉 and Confirmation▪ and renewed the Prohibition made so often against ecclesiastics keeping Company with Women.  
We shall reckon among the Councils of France the Synod held at Ravenna under Gerbert▪ because we look upon that Archbishop a● a 〈◊〉; and because it was ●e 〈◊〉 who ●…e the following Institution in an Assembly of his Clergy, held the first of May in the year 997.  
The first is a Prohibition of a great Abuse which prevailed in the Church of 〈◊〉, according to 
The Council of Ravenna in the year 997.  which they 〈◊〉 to Bishops, at the time of their Consecration, the Body of JESUS CHRIST, and the Holy Chrism to the Archpriests of the Diocese. The Eucharist which he speaks of in this place, was 〈◊〉 Consecrated Loaf, which was given whole to the Bishop on the Day of his Consecration, and which he kept by him to Communicate thereof for forty days together, as 〈◊〉 observed in the Roman Decretal.  
The second imports, that all the Archpriests shall pay to the Subdeacons of Ravenna, as an acknowledgement of that Church, an yearly Pension of Two pence.  
The third renews the Ancient Canons concerning the necessary qualifications of those who are to be admitted into Holy Orders, and prohibits Bishops from Consecrating Churches out of their own Diocese, without leave from the Bishop of the place; and from entertaining or keeping those who belong to another's Diocese▪ till they have Letters Dimissory from their Bishop. He likewise forbids the receiving any thing for the Burial of the Dead, unless their Friends or R●…ons ●●ould give any thing voluntarily.  
Lastly we shall refer to this place that which happened in France and at Rome about the Marriage and Divorce of King Robert and Queen Bertha.  
About the end of this Century, that Prince being a Widower by the Death of Queen Lutgard● 
The marriage of King Robert with Bertha.  his first Wife, had married Bertha, Sister to Radulphus the Simple, King of Burgundy, who was the Widow of Eudes the first, Count of Chartres. But forasmuch as she was his Kinswoman, and he had formerly stood Godfather to one of her Children, tho' he had taken the Advice of several Bishops of his Kingdom about it, yet the Pope opposed this Marriage as being Null, and contracted between Persons, who according to Law could not marry together. Robert did what he could to confirm this Marriage, and spoke about it to Leo Pope Gregory the Fifth's Legate in France, who made him believe that he would obtain of the Pope what he desired, provided he would cause Arnulphus to be re-established in the Archbishopric of Rheims. In the mean time notwithstanding the Judgement which was passed i●… favour of that Archbishop, Pope Gregory V held 〈◊〉 Council at Rome in the year 998. in 
The Council of Rome in the year 998. under Gregory V.  the presen●… of the Emperor Otho III. at which assisted Gerbert, at that time Archbishop of Ravenna, and seven and twenty Bishops of Italy. In this Council he declared that King Robert ought to part from his Kinswoman Bertha, whom he had married contr●●y to the Laws, and do Penance for seven years together, according to the Degrees set down by the Canons; and if he would not, he should be Auathematized: That Bertha should submit to the same Penalty; and he Excommunicated Arch●…bold Archbishop of T●…rs, who had celebrated that Marriage, and the Bishops of France, who had either Assisted or Consented thereto, till such time as they should come and give the Holy-See satisfaction. This Sentence of the Pope made such an Impression on the minds of Men (if we will believe Peter Damien in the case) that all the King's Domestics, except two or three, abandoned him, and would no longer have any Conversation with him; and even caused the Vessels out of which he had either eat or drunk to be burnt. Let the Case be how it will, King Robert at last giving ear to the Admonitions of Abbo the Abbot, parted with Bertha within two or three years after; and Leo IX. (according as Ives of Chartres relates it) says that they came to Rome with the Bishops, to obtain their Absolution, and to get their Penance mitigated. The Author of the Life of Abbo does not say that Robert went to Rome; but that he confessed his Fault both publicly and privately: that he asked pardon, and did Penance for it. That which is most evident is, that the Marriage was of no longer force.  
In the same Council, the Pope passed several other Sentences. The first in favour of the Church of Mersburgh, which had been raised to a Bishopric by the holy See, and by the Councils held under Otho, and afterwards destroyed out of Council by Otho II. He restores to it its Dignity of being an Episcopal See.  
The second relates to the Person of the Bishop of Mersburgh, called Gislair, who had quitted that Church to be Archbishop of Magdeburgh. It was ordered, that if he had been required by the Clergy and Laity of Magdeburgh to take upon him that Archbishopric, be should still hold it: That if that had not been done, and he could prove that neither Ambition nor Avarice moved him to take upon him that Archbishopric, he should return to his first Church without being deposed. But if he could not deny but that he was induced to it by some one or other of these Motives, he should be deprived of both Churches. This Gislair did not submit to the Sentence of Gregory, but held both these Churches. Whereupon he was accused in a Council at Rome, held under Sylvester II. Successor to Gregory V. who suspended him for some time, and ordered his Nuncio's in Germany to cite him. But that Bishop prevailed upon them by Bribery to put it off, and afterwards pleaded for his Excuse his being sick of the Palsy. At last he appeared before a Council held at Aix-la-Chapelle, where he demanded an Appeal to a General Council. Lastly, The Emperor Henry having sent for him to Dronburgh, and remonstrated to him that he ought to return to his Church of Mersburgh, he desired a few days to consider on it, and died in the Interim.  
The third relates to the Church of Puy in Velay. Guy Bishop of that City, had elected for his Successor his Nephew Stephen, without the Consent of Clergy and Laity: however, after the Death of Guy, the Archbishop of Bourges and the Bishop of Nevers had ordained Stephen. The Council declares this Ordination to be null and void; deposes Stephen; excommunicates the Prelates who had ordained him, till such time as they should come and give the Holy See satisfaction; grants leave to the Clergy and Laity of Velay to elect a Bishop; desires the Pope might consecrate him whom they should elect; and exhorts King Robert not to support Steven, but to stand by him who should be elected by the Clergy and Laity. This Sentence was put in Execution; Theodarde was elected by the Clergy and Laity, and ordained by Silvester II. Successor to Gregory V as we learn by the Fragment of a Letter of that Pope, related by Father Dachery in the Advertisement to the Reader before the Ninth Tome of his Spicilegium, wherein he has given us the Acts of that Council more complete than they are in the Edition of the Councils by Father Labbé. He takes notice in the same place that Gregory V held a Council at Rome, wherein Gualdalde, who had seized upon the Episcopal see of the Church of Osona or Vich, in the Province of Catalonia, had been deposed, as appears by a Letter of Gregory V. which Father Dachery tells us is in the hands of Monsieur Baluzius. 'Tis very probable that this was done in the same Council, where Otho III. published an Edict, directed to the Archbishops, Abbots, Marquess', Counts; and to all the Judges of Italy; whereby he declares that all the Deeds of Alienation of the Church Revenues, even tho' leased out for 99 years, shall not be of force any longer than the life time of him who shall make them; and that there shall be no such Deeds made but for the Advantage of those Churches who are to be maintained out of them. This Edict is dated October 17. in the year 998. and 'tis observed that it was published by Gerbert in the Synod which turned Arnulphus out of the Archbishopric of Milan.  
In this Century there was no less care taken of settling the Monastical Discipline of France, than of the Ecclesiastical Discipline; and as the Bishops were diligent in reforming the Clergy and Laity; so there were some holy Abbots, who set themselves, and that with a great deal more success, upon reforming the Monastical Order, which was the beginning of that Century in a very lamentable Condition. Most of the Monasteries having been ruined by the Normans, were abandoned, their Revenues were in possession of Laics, and the Abbots were Seculars. If there were any Monks still left in the Monasteries, they were such as observed no order; and were so far from living according to their Rule, that they did not so much as know it.  
In this Condition was the Monasterial Order, when God raised up Berno, Monk of Antun, to be the 
The founding of the Abbey of Clunie.  Restorer of it. He began his Reformation in the Monasteries of Joigny and Baume, and in several others of which he was Abbot. For a Custom was then in Use, that one and the same Abbot held several Abbeys, or at least several Monasteries which depended upon him. He had for his Companions and Disciples Odo and Adegrin. In the year 910. William Count of Auvergne and Duke of Aquitain; having founded the Abbey of Clunie, committed it to the Government of Berno, who put twelve Monks into it, and took likewise care of the Monasteries of Hols, Massay, and Souvigny, who were all under his Conduct, and embraced the same way of Living. Berno dying in the year 927. had for his Successor Odo, the Son of Abbo, born at Tours in the year 879. He had been educated by Fulcus Count of Anjou, and made Canon of S. Martin of Tours at nineteen years of Age. Some time after, being come to Paris, he became a Disciple of Remy of Auxerre; and afterwards resolved to dedicate himself to God, he embraced the Monastical Life in the year 909. in the Monastery of Baume, under the Conduct of Berno. Odo extended the Reformation of Clunie to a great many other Monasteries, and carried it as far as Rome itself, to which he made three Journeys. The first in the year 936. The second in the year 938. and the last in the year 942. being called thither by the Popes to be the Mediator of the Peace between the Princes of Italy. He died at Tours in the year 942. at his return from his last Journey to Rome.  
He had for his Successor Ademar, or Aymar; next him was S. Macol, who was employed by Hugh Capet in the Reformation of almost all the Monasteries of France. He died in the year 994. leaving for his Successor Odilo, who had been elected three years before his death. This last was Abbot of Clunie for the space of Fifty six years.   

ODO Abbot of Clunie.  
BErno applied himself more to the settling of his Order, than to study: but Odo applied himself to both, and composed several Pieces at different times, and in all the Conditions of his Life. When 
Odo Abbot of Clunie.  he was Canon, he made an Abridgement of the Morals of S. Gregory, and of the Hymns and Anthems in honour of S. Martin. When he was only Monk, he made three Books concerning Priesthood, upon the Prophecy of Jeremy, dedicated to Turpio Bishop of Lymoges; They are entitled Collationes sive Colloquia; and others call them by the Title of Occupationes. When he was Abbot, he wrote the Life of S. Geraud or Gerard, Count of Aurillac, in four Books, dedicated to Aimo Abbot of Tulle; and the Life of S. Martial of Lymoges; an Account of the Translation of the Body of S. Martin; a Piece wherein S. Martin is equallized to the Apostles; several Sermons and a Panegyrics of S. Benedict. These Tracts are printed in the Library of Clunie, with Hymns upon the Holy Sacrament and S. Magdalene. An ancient Author of his Life takes notice, that being at Rome, he corrected the Life of S. Martin; and speaks of a Book about the Coming of S. Benedict into a Village near Orleans. They likewise attribute to Odo the Life of S. Gregory of Tours, related by Surius. Father Mabillon takes notice that in the Library of the Reformed Carmelites of Paris, there is a Manuscript which formerly belonged to the Monastery of S. Julian of Tours, wherein there is a large Treatise in Verse, entitled, Occupationes Odonis Abbatis. He adds that this Piece is divided into four Books; the first concerning the Creation of the World; the second concerning the Formation of Mankind; the third concerning his Fall; and the fourth concerning the Corruption of Nature. 'Tis by a mistake that they attribute to this Odo the Life of S. Maurus, which belongs to Odo Abbot of S. Maurus of Fossez. They likewise falsely attribute to him several Chronicons which Thomas of Lucca composed under the Name of Odo, as it has been observed by the Author of the History of the Counts of Angers, related in the Tenth Tome of the Spicilegium. Sigibert gives Odo the Title of Musician, and says that he was a very proper Person to Compose and Pronounce Sermons, and to make Hymns upon the Saints.   

JOHN Monk of Clunie.  
THE Life of Odo was written by one of his Disciples, called John, whom he had met in Italy in his Journey in the year 938. and brought along with him to Pavia, where he caused him to 
John Monk of Clunie.  take upon him the Monastic Life. It is divided into three Books, and printed in the Library of Clunie, and in the fifth Benedictine Century by Father Mabillon, who has likewise given us another Life of Odo, written by Nalgodus, who lived about Two hundred years after the death of that Abbot.   

ODILO Abbot of Clunie.  
ODilo has left us but a few Pieces: which are, the Life of S. Maiol his Predecessor; four Hymns in his Praise; several Letters to S. Fulbert Bishop of Chartres; the Life of S. Adelaide the Empress, 
Odilo Abbot of Clunie.  Otho the first's Wife; Fourteen Sermons upon the Festivals of Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin; a Decree concerning the Prayers for the Dead; and three Letters related by Father Luke Dachery in the second Tome of the Spicilegium, with a Letter of Pope John XIX. who reproved him for refusing the Archbishopric of Lions. He is looked upon as the first Founder of the Feasts of All-Saints, and of that of the Commemoration of the Dead. He lived to the year 1048.   

ABBO Abbot of Fleury. 
Abbo Abbot of Fleury.   
ABBO or Albo, Monk of Fleury or S. Benedict upon the Loire, was born at Orleans, and instructed and Educated in the Schools belonging to the Monastery of Fleury, where he studied under Wolfaldus the Abbot; and for several years together had the Government of the Schools of that Monastery. He went afterwards to Paris and Rheims, to study Philosophy and Astronomy; but making no great Progress in them, he returned to Orleans, where he learned Music. From thence he was invited over to England, where he taught publicly for the space of Two years, after which he returned to the Monastery of Fleury, of which he was made Abbot. This did not hinder him from prosecuting his Studies. He had some Differences to adjust with Arnulphus Bishop of Orleans, which occasioned him to write an Apology directed to the Kings Hugh and Robert, wherein he exhorts them to turn out Heretics; among whom he reckons such as believed that the Revenues of the Church belonged to them, and who had made an unlawful Seizure upon them. He would have the same thing done to those Bishops who assert that the Churches and Altars belong to them. He observes that Jesus Christ does not say that the Church is the Church of S. Peter; but that his Church is built upon 
[How much this Abbot is mistaken in the latter part of his Remark (which says, That our Saviour says his Church was built upon S. Peter) will appear to any who consult our Lord's Words in the Original, Matth. 16. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which words in our Version run thus, And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church. Where we may observe that he does not say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. from whence it must be concluded that he does not mean the Person, but the Faith of S. Peter, the Rock upon which he would build his Church. This Remark seems pertinent, since the Romanists from this Text, and that of S. John, chap. 21. v. 15, 16, etc. pretend to prove the Infallibility and Universality of the Pope.]  S. Peter. From whence he concludes that his Successors cannot say that the Churches which they govern, are theirs, much less can they make a gain of them, as he says they then did every day. He likewise in his Apology gives an account of what passed in the Council of S. Dennis about the 
The Council of S. Dennis 995.  year 995. where he himself was present, wherein having maintained against the Bishops, the Right which the Monks and Laics had of possessing several Tithes, the People risen up in Arms against the Bishops, who were forced to fly for it; and forasmuch as Sigwin Archbishop of Sens, who was at the Head of them had been wounded in the Flight, Abbo was accused of being the Author of this Sedition. He made his Defence in this Epistle. He wrote a Letter to Bernard Abbot of Beaulieu in the Diocese of Lymoges, to dissuade him from giving a Sum of Money which the Count of Thoulouse and the Archbishop of Bourges would exact from him, for the making him Bishop of Cahors. That Abbot having resolved upon taking a Journey to Jerusalem, was dissuaded from it by Abbo, who advised him rather to go to Rome, whither he retired upon Mount Gargan; and being afterwards entreated to return into the World, to relieve his Relations, he again consulted Abbo about what he ought to do in the Case, who in a very elegant Letter returned him this Answer, That he ought not to think of quitting his Solitude to involve himself in the Affairs of this World. As to the Question which Bernard proposed, Whether he ought to keep or leave his Abbey? he returned him this Answer, That Circumstances would direct him what to do; and recommends to him the using his utmost Discretion to examine in his own Conscience, which of the two was the most honourable for him, and most beneficial to others: because on one side 'tis a great Duty to discharge the Functions of an Abbot, when one can conduct Souls to God: but that on the other side, when there is no hopes of being able to do any good, by reason of the Wickedness of those one has to govern, 'tis more convenient to retire, to provide for ones own Salvation. Sometime after Abbo went to Rome to obtain a Confirmation of the Privileges of his Church. He there met with Pope John XV. upon the Holy See, who was not (says Aimoin the Author of his Life) such an one as he wished him, or as he ought to be. Having this Pope in detestation, he returned after he had offered up his Prayers in the Holy Places of God's Worship. Upon his return from this Journey, he wrote a Letter to the Abbot of Fulda, published by Monsieur Baluzius in the first Tome of his Collection of Miscellanies. He was afterwards sent a second time by King Robert to Pope Gregory V Successor to John, who threatened to lay the Kingdom under an Interdiction upon the Account of Arnulphus Archbishop of Rheims. He met this Pope at Spoleto, was very kindly received by him, and obtained of him a Privilege for his Abbey, by which the Bishop of Orleans was prohibited entering into that Monastery, unless he were invited thither▪ and the Monks were permitted to celebrate Divine Service in their Monastery always, even tho' the whole Kingdom were laid under an Interdiction by the Pope. He adjusted the Business of Arnulphus; and having engaged his word to the Pope, that that Archbishop should be released out of Prison and re-established, he was entrusted to carry the Pall to him. Upon his return to France, what he had promised was accordingly done, and he gave the Pope notice of it. About the end of his Life, he re-established the Monastery of Squires in Gascony, which was called the Monastery of the Rule, and in the Country Language la Reoule, where he was killed in the year 1004. in an Insurrection which the Monks or Women of that Country raised against him. Monsieur Balusius has published a Circular Letter written by the Monks of Fleury, upon his Death.  
Besides the Apology and the Letters of Abbo which we have already mentioned, the Author of his Life makes likewise mention of the following Tracts. Of a Letter in Hexameter Verse, in praise of the Emperor Otho: The Verses begin and end with the same Letter, and may be read six manner of ways, which make so many different Senses. Of a Treatise directed to Odilo Abbot of Clunie, about the Harmony of the Gospel: and of another Tract concerning the Cycles of all the Years, from the Birth of Jesus Christ down to his time, which Sigibert says is a Commentary on the Treatise of Victorius. They likewise attribute to him the Abstract of the Lives of the Popes, taken out of the History of Anastasius the Librarian, printed at Ma●…ce in the year 1603. The Life of S. Edmond King of England and Martyr. Father Mabillon has given us an Excellent Collection of Canons composed by Abbo, and dedicated to the Kings Hugh and Robert, in the second Tome of his Analects.  
Abbo's stile is very pure and elegant, and his Conceptions are accurate: He was very well versed in the Rules of Discipline and Morality. His Zeal for the Monastical Order, and the Interest of the Monks, created him a great many Enemies: because, as he says himself, he had always in his Thoughts the protection of the Monks; and had consulted their Interest upon all occasions, and opposed all who annoyed them.   

AIMOIN Monk of Fleury.  
THE Life of Abbo was written by Aimoin Monk of the same Monastery. He was of Aquitaine, the Son of Anentrude, the Kinswoman of Gerald, Lord of Anbeterre. He embraced the Monastic 
Aimoin Monk of Fleury.  Life in the year 970. under Oilbolde Abbot of S. Benedict upon the Loire; and flourished under his Successor Abbo, whose intimate Friend he was. He attended him in his Journey to Gascoigne, and after his death returned to his Monastery, The principal Piece of this Aimoin is his History of France dedicated to Abbo. It was printed at Paris by Badius Ascensius in the year 1514. under the Name of Aimonius. Fifty years after Monsieur Pithou or Pithaeus, caused it to be reprinted from a Manuscript, under the true Name of Aimoin. It was published in the year 1567. at the Printing House of Vexel. In the year 1603. James of Brevil, Monk of S. german del Prez, caused it to be printed, and pretended that it was writ by Aimoin, a Monk of S. german. Ten years after Freherus inserted it in the Body of the History of France, which he caused to be printed at Hanover. Lastly, The Messieurs Duchesne inserted it in the Third Tome of their Collections, printed in the year 1641. This History is divided into five Books; But of Aimon's there are only the three first Books, and one and forty Chapters of the Fourth, which ends at the founding of the Monastery of Fleury. The rest is compiled by a Monk of very late standing.  
Aimoin is likewise the Author of two Books of the Miracles of S. Benedict, which are the second and third Books of these four, which are in the Library of Fleury; of the Life of S. Abbo, mentioned before; of a Sermon upon the Festival of S. Benedict; and of several Verses upon the first founding of the Monastery of Fleury, printed in the Third Tome of the Collection of Duchesne; together with another Treatise in Verse concerning the Translation of the Relics of S. Benedict▪ He is not altogether so elegant as his Master Abbo; But he wrote with great accuracy, and his Narration is plain and pleasant, without having any thing of that flatness of stile which several other Authors of that time had.  
The Abbey of Lobes, in the Diocese of Cambray and Principality of Liege, founded in the Seventh Century by S. Ursmar, preserved the Monastical Discipline till the Tenth Century, at which time its reputation was farther increased by several Abbots, who for their Piety were deservedly advanced to the Bishopric of Liege, and recommended themselves to the World by their Writings.   

STEPHEN Abbot of Lobes.  
THE first is Stephen, whom Fulcuin calls a Learned Man, and of whom he says, that he observed the Rule of the Canons: which made People believe that he was a Secular Abbot. The same 
Stephen Abbot of Lobes.  Author adds, that he has cast into a more polished stile the ancient Life of S. Lambert, which was written in a course dress, and he made a very famous piece of Prose out of it: That he likewise made another small Treatise, composed of several fine Thoughts extracted out of Holy Writ; in which he has inserted the Chapters and Collects of each Festival in the year: and that in the Preface he observes that he had been advanced to Mets, by dedicating his Treatise to Robert Bishop of that City. Sigibert says likewise, that he made a piece of Prose upon the Trinity, and upon the Invention of S. Stephen the Proto-Martyr. Others say, that they are certain Offices appointed for these Festivals. The Life of S. Lambert was published in the History of the Bishops of Liege, by Chapeaville. This Stephen was ordained Bishop of Liege in the year 903.  
After his death the Bishopric of Liege was contested, as was formerly hinted, between Hilduin and Riquier; but the latter being Abbot of Lobes, carried it from the other. In his time the study of the Liberal Arts and Sciences (says Fulcuin) began to flourish in the Abbey of Lobes, and the most famous Professors of them were Scamin, Theoduin, and Ratherius. We have already given a particular Account of the Transactions and Writings of the last of these Persons. Trithemius likewise attributes to Hilduin, who was Competitor with Riquier for the Bishopric of Liege, the Title of Abbot of Lobes, and assures us that he wrote the History of the Abbots of that Monastery, and several Sermons; but 'tis probable that he was mistaken, and that he took Hilduin for Fulcuin.   

FULCUIN Abbot of Lobes.  
IN the end of this Century Fulcuin or Folcuin was chosen Abbot of Lobes. He left a well penned 
Fulcuin Abbot of Lobes.  History of that Abbey, from its first founding by Landelin and S. Ursmar to his time, which was published by Father D. Luks' Dachery in the Sixth Tome of his Spicilegium. He has likewise composed a Treatise of the Miracles of S. Ursmar, referred by Henschenius to April 18. and the Life of S. Fulcuin Bishop and is contained in the first Part of the Fourth Benedictine Century by Father Mabillon. Fulcuin was chosen Abbot in the year 975. and died in 990.   

HERIGER Abbot of Lobes.  
HE had for his Successor Heriger, the Friend of Notger Bishop of Liege, whose Works are compiled 
Heriger Abbot of Lobes.  in the following Catalogue, collected by the Author of the Continuation of Fulcuin's History, viz. The History of the Bishops of Liege: The Life of S. Ursmar in Verse: A Letter to Hugh about several Questions, and two other Tracts, which were never published: A Treatise by way of Dialogue between him and Aldebold Clerk of the Church of Liege, and afterward Bishop of Utrecht, concerning the Dissensions of the Church, and the Coming of our Saviour: And another Treatise containing a Collection of several Passages of the Father's touching the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST against Paschasius Rat●ertus. the History of the Bishops of Liege was published by Chapeaville, and his Treatise of our Saviour's Body and Blood is that Anonymous Piece set forth by Father Cellot. The Life of S. Ursmar is in Henschenius referred to April 18. and the other Works are only in Manuscript. Some other Pieces are also attributed to him, viz. the Life of S. Berlenda referred by Bollandus to Febr. 3. and by Father Mabillon to the third Bedictine Century, and that of S. Candoalde, which is inserted under the Name of Notger by Surius to March 19 This Abbot died in the year 1007.   

ALDEBOLD Bishop of Utrecht.  

* [After having left his Employments in the Court of the Emperor Henry II. whom he served in quality of a Privy Counsellor and General of his Armies, he became a Monk of Lobes.]  ALdebold Clerk of the Church of Liege, and afterwards chosen Bishop of Utrecht about the 
Aldebold Bishop of Utrecht.  year 1009. wrote the History of the Emperor Henry II. which is contained in the Lives of the Saints writ by Surius in July 14. and in the Fifth Tome of Canisius' Antiquities. Trithemius likewise makes mention of a Hymn in Commendation of the Cross; of another in praise of the Virgin Mary; and of some other Works of the same Author, as well in Prose as Verse. He died A. D. 1027.   

ALBERT Abbot of Gemblours. 
Albert Abbot of Gemblours.   
ALbert or Olbert Abbot of Gemblours, is likewise one of the Writers who proceeded from the Abbey of Lobes. Sigebert informs us, that he was a Person illustrious for his profound Skill in Human Literature and Ecclesiastical Affairs, as also by reason of his great Zeal for Religion, and that he rendered his Name immortal by writing the Lives of the Fathers, and composing Hymns in Honour of the Saints; but more especially in regard that he was Tutor to Buchard Bishop of Worms, and incited him to the study of Divinity, and caused him to publish his Volume of Canons so useful to the whole World, which was written and dictated by him, and compiled by the diligence of that Albert. Sigebert does not say that he composed those Lives of the Fathers, but only that he wrote them with his Hand; nevertheless Trithemius makes him the Author of them.   

ODILO Monk of S. Medard at Soissons.  
ODilo Monk of S. Medard at Soissons flourished about the year 920, and wrote a Book concerning 
Odilo Monk of S. Medard at Soissons  the Translation of the Relics of S. Sebastian Martyr, and S. Gregory Pope, to the Monastery of S. Medard, dedicated to Ingram Dean of that Abbey, who was ordained Bishop of Laon, A. D. 932. Therefore Odilo's Piece precedes that year. It is referred by Bollandus to January 20. and to the fourth Benedictine Century by Father Mabillon, who has likewise given us in the same Volume, the History of the Translation of the Relics of S. Tiburtius, of S. Marcellinus, and of S. Peter and his Companions, made in the same Monastery A. C. 828. and written by the same Author.   

GERARD Abbot of S. Medard at Soissons.  
GErard Abbot, or rather Dean of S. Medard at Soissons, flourished in the middle of the Tenth Century, 
Gerard Abbot of S. Medard at Soissons  having found an ancient Manuscript of the Life of S. Romanus, he cast it into a more polite stile, and made another of it in Verse; which he presented to Hugh Archbishop of Rouen, as it appears by the Epistle Dedicatory, published by Father Mabillon in the first Tome of his Analects. Of these Works there is only extant the Ancient Life of Romanus, that he corrected, and which was set forth by Monsieur Rigaud, or Rigultius.   

JOHN Abbot of Arnulphus at Metz.  
JOhn Monk of Gorze, and afterward Abbot of S. Arnoud or Arnulphus at Metz, flourished there in 
John Abbot of S. Arnulphus at Metz.  the time of Adalberon, who was Bishop of that City. He wrote the Life of S. Goldefinda Abbess of Metz, and the History of her Translation, with the Life of S. John Abbot of Gorze his Patron, dedicated to Thierry Bishop of Metz. Father Mabillon has inserted these Works in different Tomes of his Benedictine Centuries.   

HELPERIC or CHILPERIC Monk of S. Gal.  
HElperic or Chilperic Monk of S. Gal, composed in the year 980. a Treatise of the Calendar, the 
Helperic or Chilperic Monk of S. Gal.  Preface to which was published by Father Mabillon, in the first Tome of his Analects, and which is entirely preserved in Manuscript in the Library of S. german des Prez.   

BERTHIER Priest of Verdun. 
Berthier Priest of Verdun.   
BErthier Priest of Verdun wrote a Compendious History of the Bishops of that Church, and dedicated it to Dado, who was then Governor of that Country. It was published by Father Dachery in the Twelfth Tome of the Spicilegium. He flourished about the year 987.  
This Work of Berthier was continued by an Anonymous Monk of S. Viton at Verdun down to 
A nameless Monk.  Thierry the Fourteenth Bishop of that City. Afterward Laurence Monk of Liege, and at last of the same Monastery of S. Viton at Verdun, made a Supplement and Continuation of that History to the time of Alberon, that is to say, to the middle of the Twelfth Century. These Works are followed by another Continuation in the same Tome of Father Dachery's Spicilegium.   

ADSO Abbot of Luxeüil.  
THere were two Monks in the Tenth Century who bore the Name of Adso: The first of these, 
Adso Abbot of Luxueil. Adso Abbot of Devures.  the Abbot of Luxevil, wrote about the year 960. a Treatise of the Miracles of S. Vaudalbert, the third Abbot of Luxueil, which is contained in the first Tome of the Benedictine Centuries. The second Abbot of Devures in the Diocese of Bourges, is the Author of the Life of S. Bercaire; of that of S. Basole Confessor; of the History of the Translation and Miracles of the latter; of the Life of S. Frodbert Abbot of Cells; of the History of the Translation of his Relics; and lastly of the Life of S. Mansuet the first Bishop of Toul. All these Works, except the last, are in the second and fourth Benedictine Centuries of Father Mabillon; the last was published by Monsieur Bosquet. This Author flourished about the year 980. and died in 992.   

LETALDUS' Monk of S. Memin.  
Letaldus' Monk of the Abbey of Micy or S. Memin in the Diocese of Orleans, flourished about the 
Letaldus' Monk of S. Memin.  end of the Tenth Century. He wrote the History of the Miracles of S. Maximin or Memin, the first Founder of that Monastery, published by Father Mabillon in the first Tome of his Benedictine Centuries; and it is probable that he is the same with the Author of the Life of S. Julian Bishop of Mans.    

CHAP. IU.  
The History of the Churches of Germany.  
THE Emperor Arnulphus the last of the Branch of the Carlian Stock, who obtained Germany for 
The Revolutions of the Empire of Germany in the Tenth Century.  his Inheritance, dying in the year 899. left but one lawful Son named Lewis, who being only eight years old, was committed to the Care of Otho Duke of Saxony, who married his Sister; and of Hatto Archbishop of Mayence: Soon after he became Heir of Lorraine, of which Zuentibold his Bastard Brother was in possession. But he was not able to subdue Italy, nor to cause himself to be crowned Emperor; neither did he live long, but died between eighteen and twenty years old, A. C. 911. leaving only two Daughters, named Placidia and Mathildis. The first was married to Conrade Duke of Franconia, and the other to Henry the Fowler, Duke of Saxony, and Son of Duke Otho. The Estates of the Realm designing to confer the Crown upon that Otho, he desired to be excused by reason of his old Age, and advised them to choose Conrade Duke of Franconia, but his Son Henry Duke of Saxony, whose Moderation was not so great, claimed a Right to part of the Kingdom, as having married one of the Heiresses, revolted against Conrade, waged War with him, and gained the Battle▪ however this Advantage proved ineffectual, and Conrade always remained in possession of the Throne, till his death; which happened in the year 918. When he left Henry Duke of Saxony his Heir, and ordered the Lords to wait upon him with the Crown and the Royal Ornaments. They performed his last Will, and acknowledged Henry Duke of Saxony, surnamed the F●wler, as King of Germany. This valiant and prudent Prince kept in awe Arnulphus Duke of Bavaria; defeated the Hungarians who ravaged Germany; overcame the Vandals; subdued Bohemia; and after having reigned Seventeen years, died A. C. 936. The Lords substituted in his place his eldest▪ Son Otho, afterwards surnamed the Great; against whom his Brother Henry made War, but was defeated, and mortally wounded in a Fight. The Duke's Gilbert and Everard, who were Authors of this Revolt, perished in another Engagement near Andernac, and left Otho in the quiet possession of his Dominions, which he enlarged considerably; and joined to them the Kingdom of Italy, with the Imperial Dignity, which passed to his Son Otho, and to his Grandson of the same Name, as it has been already related.  
Under these Emperors, who were no less Religious than Valiant, the Churches of Germany were in a flourishing Condition, by the means of a great number of Reverend Bishops, the Writings of several Authors, and the propagation of the Gospel among the Northern People. This is what we shall proceed to show in giving an Account of such Persons illustrious for their Learning and Sanctity, as Germany has produced in this Century.  

S. ULRIC Bishop of Augsburgh.  
WE shall begin with S. Ulric Bishop of Augsburgh. He was descended from an Ancient Family in Germany, the Son of Hugpaut and Thetpirga; He began to study in the Monastery of S. 
S. Ulric Bishop of Augsburgh.  Gal, and was taken from thence to be put under the Tuition of Adalberon Bishop of Augsburgh, in the year 909. He made a Journey to Rome, and during his residence there Adalberon died, and left Hiltin his Successor, after whose death Ulric was nominated Bishop of Augsburgh by King Henry, A. C. 924. He was highly esteemed by that Prince, and the Emperor Otho had a particular respect for him. This Prelate, in like manner, made two other Journeys to Rome; one about the year 956. and the other near the end of his Life. He died A. C. 973. in the 83d year of his Age, after having governed the Church of Augsburgh during Fifty years.  
His Life, which was written by an Author of those times named Gerard, who was Contemporary with him, contains many remarkable Passages. It is there related, that besides the Divine Office, which he sung every day with his Canons in the Choir of his Church; He was wont to recite in particular the Offices of the Blessed Vitgin, of the Holy Cross, and of All the Saints, with the ●n●ite Psalter; and that he was accustomed to say one, two, or three Masses accordingly, as the time would permit: That in Lent, after having said Matins at Night, he continued his Prayers till the hour that the Bell rung to the Vigils for the dead, which he sung with the Choir, and afterwards the 
* The first of the Roman Canonical Hours.  Prime; That he continued in the Church at Prayers till the Canons returned with the Cross to celebrate Mass, at which he assisted, and kissed the Hand of the Priest that officiated: That after Mass he sung 
† Two other of the Canonical Hours.  Tierce with the Canons, and that he remained in the Church till the Sexte; when he visited the Altars, and kneeled before them, singing a Miserere and a De Profundis: That then he returned to his Camber, to wash his Face, and to prepare for saying Mass: That when it was said, and Vespers after it, he was wont to visit the poor of the Hospital, to wash the Feet of Twelve amongst them; and to give every one a penny: That at his departure from thence, he sat down at Table; that after having eat, he said ●is Compline, and retired: That he spent all the days of Lent after this manner▪ till that of the Indulgence, commonly called Palm-Sunday: That on that day, he went early in the Morning to the Church of S. Afer, where he sung a Trinity-Mass, and made a Benediction of the Palmtree Branches, which he carried about in Procession, accompanied with the Clergy and People, with the Gospel, the Cross, the Banners, and an Image representing our Saviour sitting on an Ass, as far as Mount Perleich, where he was met by the Choir of Canons▪ and part of the People, who covered the way with Palmtree Branches or Garments: That he made an Exhortation to them upon our Saviour's Passion, and that they returned together to sing Ma●s in the Cathedral Church: That during the three following days, he held a Synodical Assembly: That on Holy Thursday he celebrated Divine Service, Consecrated the Holy Chrysm and other Oils, and distributed them among his Clergy: That afterward he went, according to his usual Custom, to visit the Hospital, from whence he returned to the Church; Clothed twelve poor Men in the Ve●●ry, and washed their feet: That on Good-Friday he assisted at the whole Office; That after having Administered the Holy Sacrament to the People as on the preceding day, he laid up the rest of the Eucharist, in order to bury it, according to the Custom of those times; and that at Night he eat Bread and drank Beer, without sitting down at Table; That on Holy Saturday, after the Nocturnal Office, the Repetition of the Psalter, the Singing of the Three Litanies, the Blessing of the Tapers, and the Reading of the Lessons, he went in Procession to S. John's Church, where he baptised three Infants, and then returned to Celebrate Mass, to Administer the Holy Sacrament to the People, and to say Vespers: That afterwards he distributed Victuals to a great many Persons: That on Easter-Day, after the Prime Office, he usually went to S. Ambrose's Church, where he celebrated the Trinity Mass, and returned from thence in Procession, carrying the Image of our Saviour with the Gospel; the lighted Tapers and the Incense to S. John Baptist's Church, where he Sung Tierce, and from thence to the Cathedral, where he sung Mass and administered the Sacrament to all the Assistants: Afterward he gave Provisions to the Canons of his Cathedral, and to the Clergy of S. Afra's Church distributing to them Lambs Flesh and pieces of Bacon, which had been blessed at Mass, and gave them a very splendid Entertainment. It is also observable, that he was wont to visit his Diocese every Four years; to instruct the People; to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation, and to reform his Clergy.  
I shall take no notice of a great number of Miracles that are related in this Life of S. Ulric, nor of those that were written by G●beard his fourth Successor, and by Berno Abbot of S. Afer: but I cannot omit the History of Adalbero Nephew to this Reverend Bishop. He had caused him to be carefully educated, gave him an Abbey, designed him for his Successor, and made use of his Service in the management of all his Affairs, as well at Court, as in his own Diocese. To gain him greater Authority, he entreated the Emperor, in the last Journey he made to Rome, to vouchsafe to entrust him with the sole Administration of the Affairs of his Diocese, and to nominate him for his Successor. Adalbero upon his return from Augsburgh, not only caused an Oath of Fidelity to be taken to him, by the Clergy and People of the City, but also presumed to use the Crosier Staff. This Attempt gave offence to the Bishops of Germany, insomuch, that in a Council held at Ingelheim in the year 972. in the presence of the Emperor Otho, and of his Son, to which S. Ulric and Adalbero were summoned; a Process was drawn up against the latter, for presuming to bear the Marks of the Episcopal Dignity, and upon that account they proceeded so far, as to declare him uncapable of succeeding his Uncle in the Bishopric of Augsburgh. Whereupon the good old Man, not being able sufficiently to explain the Case, by reason of his great Age, sent word by one of his Clerks, that he designed to retire, and embrace the Monastic Life, according to the Rule of S. Benedict, whose habit he had assumed. The Bishops of the Council having made a Remonstrance, That he ought not thus to leave his Bishopric, and that this Example would be of very dangerous Consequence, obliged him to return to the Government of his Church; promising him at the same time, that after his death no other Bishop should succeed in the Diocese of Augsburgh, but Adalbero; of whom they exacted an Oath, that he knew not that it was unlawful, or that it was an Heretical Practice, to assume the Ensigns of the Episcopal Dignity, and to Exercise the Authority of a Bishop without due Ordination.  
This Promise signified nothing with respect to Adalbero, because he died suddenly in a short time after, even before his Uncle; who had for his Successor Henry the Son of Count Burchard, who caused himself to be chosen by force. The latter died as he had lived, that is to say, rather like a Soldier than a Bishop; for in his time he raised a Rebellion against his Sovereign Prince, and was killed in a Battle fought against the Saracens in the year 983. After his death, the Emperor Otho the Second, was desirous to confer that Bishopric upon Werenharius, whom S. Ulric had designed for his Successor; but upon his refusal of it, Eutychus Count of Altorf was elected. Luitolphus, who succeeded in the year 988. made a Journey to Rome to procure of Pope John the XV. the Canonization of S. Ulric, which he obtained in a Council at Rome, upon the reading of the Life and Miracles of that Saint, who edified the Church rather by his Life and Conversation, than by his Writings; for few are attributed to him, and those too are very dubious. We have already observed that some make him the Author of a Discourse, concerning the Ecclesiastical Functions ascribed to Pope Leo the Fourth, and inserted in the Synodical Letter of Ratherius, which seems to be really so; because he returns an Answer to certain Questions which the Writer of his Life says he proposed to his Clergy, during the time of his Visitation.  
The same Author citys a Sermon of S. Ulric upon the Eight Mortal Sins, and the Eight Beatitudes. But it is probable that he composed it out of the ordinary Discourses that he had heard from the Mouth of that Saint: In the preceding Century was likewise published in Germany, a Letter bearing the Name of S. Ulric, and directed to Pope Nicolas; in which he adviseth that Pope, for putting an end to the Irregularities of the Clergy, to permit them to marry: Mention is made of this Letter, in an Addition of Barthoul Priest of Constantz, to the Chronicon of Hermannus Contractus; and it's affirmed to be mentioned by Aeneas Silvius in his Treatise of the Manners of the Germans; where he says, That S. Ulric reproved the Pope for keeping Concubines. But this Letter is apparently Supposititious, by reason that in S. Ulric's time there was no Pope named Nicolas, neither did S. Ulric Bishop of Augsbourgh live in the time of those Popes who bore that Name. The Authority of the Chronicon is of little moment, and Aenaeas Silvius does not distinctly make mention of that Letter; but only says, that S. Ulric reproved the Pope, upon account of his Concubines; which may agree with John the XII. Besides that, this Passage is not found in some Manuscripts of Sylvius' History, nor in the Roman Edition. But altho' it were true, that this Author alludes to that counterfeit Letter, it would only prove that it was already forged in his time; and that it is more ancient than the Councils of Basil and Constantz, which, as I presume, cannot be called in question.   

ADALBERO Bishop of Augsburgh.  
ADalbero the Predecessor of S. Ulric is Author of the Life of S. Hariolphus the first Abbot of Elwangen, 
Adalbero Bishop of Augsburgh.    

The two ADALBERTS, who were Saints.  
THE two Saints named Adalbert not only illuminated Germany with the Light of their Doctrine, but also propagated that of the Gospel amongst the Barbarous Nations: The former, after 
Two Adelberts Saints.  having preached it to the People, who inhabit along the Coasts of the Baltic Sea, and having taken much pains in Converting the Sclavonians, was ordained the first Archbishop of Magdeburg in the year 968, and died in 981. The second, who was Bishop of Prague, in like manner preached the Gospel to the Bohemians, Polanders, and Hungarians. The later left his Bishopric, by reason of the excessive Enormities of the People of Bohemia, and departing to Rome, there embraced the Monastic Life in the Convent of S. Boniface. After having spent five years there, he returned to Bohemia, and passed from thence into Hungary; from whence he returned the second time to Rome, and presided five years more in the same Monastery. He was also removed again by the Solicitation of the Archbishop of Mentz, who obliged Pope Gregory the Fifth to send him back. Boleslaus King of Bohemia having forbidden him to enter his Dominions, he went into Prussia, and from thence into Lithuania, where having suffered much in propagating the Christian Faith, he at last received the Crown of Martyrdom.   

BRUNO Archbishop of Cologn.  
BRuno. Archbishop of Cologn, the Son of the Emperor Henry the Fowler, and Brother of Otho the 
Bruno Archbishop of Cologn.  Great, is none of the least Ornaments of the Church of Germany, both with respect to his profound Learning and singular Piety. We are informed by a Writer of that time, that he had acquired a perfect Knowledge of the Greek and Latin Tongues; that he had perused all the Ancient Authors; that he had a very fine Library; and that he took a particular Care of his Diocese and Clergy; retrenching all their superfluous Habits, and obliging them to a constant attendance on the Duties of their Functions, as also instructing them by frequent Conferences, reiterated Exhortations, and his own Example. Sixtus Senensis says, that he composed a Commentary on the Pentateuch, the Manuscript of which is kept in the Library of the Dominicans at Boulogn. It's also reported that he wrote the Lives of certain Saints. He was chosen Archbishop of Cologn in the year 953. and died in 965.   

ROGER Monk of S. Pantaleon.  
THE Life of this great Archbishop was written by Roger a Monk of S. Pantaleon at Cologn, who 
Roger Monk of S. Pantaleon.  dedicated it to Fol●mar his Successor in the year 970. It is referred by Surius to Octob. 12. and is written very elegantly with respect to the stile of those times. We also may reckon up a great number of Germane Prelates illustrious for their Learning and Piety, among whom are Henry Archbishop of Trier, Wolfang Bishop of Ratisbon, Sigismond of Halberstadt, and many others whom we shall not now mention. We shall therefore proceed to give a particular Account of those who have left us any considerable Writings.   

RATHBOLDUS' Bishop of Utrecht.  
RAthboldus or Ratholdus a Germane by Nation, descended from the Princes of Friesland, applied 
Rathboldus' Bishop of Utrecht.  himself to study under Nanno or Manno, in the Court of Charles the Bald, and of his Son Lewis, where those Princes caused the Liberal Sciences to be taught publicly. He was chosen Bishop of Utrecht in the year 899. Trithemius says, that he was well versed in the Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, and that he was no Novice in Humane Literature; that he was of a quick Apprehension, and much esteemed for his Eloquence, leading a very Circumspect Life and Conversation; that he governed the Church of Utrecht during Seventeen years, and wrote several Tracts; among others, a Treatise of the Commendation of S. Martin; another of that of S. Boniface; The Life of S. Amalberga; a Book of Homilies and Sermons; certain florid Discourses on S. Willebrord; an Office of the Translation of S. Martin; with divers Hymns in Honour of the Saints; and lastly that he died in the year 917. or rather in 918. Another Writer named William of Hedin, attributes to him certain Poetical Pieces, and a Compendious Chronicon. Surius likewise ascribes to him an Eclogue concerning S. Lebuin. Father Mabillon has published a Discourse of the same Author on the Life of S. Amalberga, and another on that of S. Willebrord.   

HILDEBERT Archbishop of Mentz.  
HIldebert Brother to the Emperor Conrade, the Thirteenth Archbishop of Mentz, Crowned Otho 
Hildebert Archbishop of Mentz.  the Great in the year 938. Bur afterward's having combined with Richard Bishop of Stratsburg, to foment the Division between Otho and his Brother Henry, he was banished to Hamburg, Some make him the Author of the Lives of certain Saints.   

WILLIAM Archbishop of Mentz.  
WIlliam the Fifteenth Archbishop of Mentz, Prince of Saxony, and the Son of Otho the Great, 
William Archbishop of Mentz.  was chosen Archbishop in the year 954. and died in 968. He composed a Chronicon of the Archbishops his Predecessors.   

BONNO Abbot of Corbey in Saxony.  
BOnno or Bavo Abbot of Corbey in Saxony, flourished under Arnulphus and Lewis the Fourth, Kings 
Bonno Abbot of Corbey in Saxony.  of Germany. He wrote a Treatise of the memorable Actions of his time, mentioned in the History of Adam of Bremen, who citys a Passage of it concerning a Miracle of S. Rembert. We have at present no other knowledge of that Work.   

WALTRAMNUS Bishop of Stratsburg.  
WAltramnus or Waldramnus Bishop of Stratsburg, who assisted at the Council of Triburia in the 
Waltramnus Bishop of Stratsburg.  year 895. and did not die till 905. is the Author of certain Poetical Pieces which are inserted in the second Tome of Canisius' Antiquities.   

SOLOMON Bishop of Constance.  
SOlomon Bishop of Constance lived almost at the same time, for he entered upon the Episcopal Function 
Solomon Bishop of Constance.  in the year 981. and died in 919. He likewise composed certain Poems dedicated to Bishop Dado, which are in the first Tome of the same Antiquities by Canisius. He had been Monk of S. Gal and Chaplain to King Lewis.   

UTHO Bishop of Stratsburg.  
REutharius Bishop of Stratsburg had for his Successor in the year 950. Utho Nephew to Henry 
Utho Bishop of Stratsburg.  the Second Duke of Schwaben. This Utho wrote the Lives of S. Arb●gastus, and S. Amarid and died in 975. leaving Echembaldus his Successor.   

NOTGER the Stammerer.  
THere were several Notgers in the Tenth Century, but the first and most famous was of the Carlian 
Notger the Stammerer.  Race, and Surnamed the Stammerer, by reason of the impediment in his Speech. He entered very young into the Monastery of S. Gal, he studied under Marcellus and Iso, with Batpertus and Tutilo. These three Monks studying together, promoting Learning in that Abbey, where they had frequent Conferences one with another, applying themselves more especially to the study of the Liberal Arts and Sciences, and to that of Music in particular: But their chief Employment was the making of Proses. Notger composed many, and translated the Psalter into High-Dutch for the use of King Arnulphus: He wrote the Life of S. Gal in Verse, as also a Treatise of the Letters of the Alphabet, that are used in Music and some other Works of the like nature; but the principal of them is his Martyrologia, published by 〈◊〉 in the sixth Tome of his Antiquities. The same Canisius has set forth some of the Proses and Hymns of this Author, with a Fragment of the Life of S. Gal, in the Fifth Tome of the same Work, in which is also found the Treatise of Music before mentioned. Besides these Works, Goldastus' attributes to Notger the Stammerer the two Books of the History of Charl●magn, that are dedicated to Charles the Bald, and written by a nameless Monk of S. Gal. And indeed he seems to discover himself in the 26th Chapter of the Second Book, where he declares that he is subject to Stammering, and wants Teeth. The same Author observes, that he has seen a Manuscript of the Life of S. Gal, written by way of Dialogue, which bears the Name of Notger. To him likewise is attributed the Life of S. Landoald referred by Surius to March 19 That of S. Remaclus' Bishop of Utrecht, referred by the same Historian, to Sept. 3. and two Books of the Miracles of that Saint: But it's not certain that these Works are his; neither do they appear to be of the same stile. Notger spent the greatest part of his Life in the Ninth Century, and died in the Month of April, A. C. 912. His Martyrology was composed in the end of the Ninth Century, or in the beginning of the Tenth.  
The second Notger lived in the Tenth Century, and was not made Abbot of S. Gal till the year 973. he died in 981. but there are not any of his Pieces now extant.  
The third Notger was chosen Bishop of Liege in the year 972. Neither has he left any Works, unless we attribute to him the abovementioned Lives of the Saints.   

WITICHINDUS Monk of S. Corbey in Westphalia.  
WItichindus, Winduchindus, or Windichinus a Monk of Corbey a Monastery in Westphalia, of the 
Witichindus Monk of Corbey in Westphalia.  Order of S. Benedict, flourished under Otho I. and II. He wrote three Books of the History of the Saxons, in which are comprehended the Actions of Henry and Otho the First, and which ends at the death of the latter, that is to say, in the year 973. They are dedicated to Queen Mathildis, Daughter of the Emperor Otho, and were printed at Basil A. D. 1532. at Francfort in 1577. Among the Germane Historians printed in 1580. and at the end of a particular Edition by Meibonius at Francfort in 1621. Sigebert says also, that he wrote in Verse a Relation of S. Thecla's Passion, and the Life of S. Paul the first Hermit. These Works are lost; altho' in the last Edition by Meibonius, there are certain Verses which are attributed to this Monk.   

ROSWIDA a Nun.  
ROswida a Nun of the Monastery of Gandersheim, famous for her Quality, Learning and Piety, 
Roswida a Nun.  flourished under the Emperor Otho II. by whose Order she composed in Heroic Verse a Panegyrics upon the Actions of Otho the First. She likewise wrote in Verse the Passion of S. Dennis Bishop and Martyr, and that of S. Pelagius who suffered Martyrdom in Spain; and some other Poems in Commendation of the Virgin Mary and S. Anne; as also on S. Gandolphus and some other Saints. To her likewise is attributed the Life of S. Wilblod Bishop of Eichstadt, and that of S. Unnebald the first Abbot of Heildesheim, related by Surius, Canisius and Father Mabillon. This Nun wrote in a finer stile than most part of the Authors of her time, and was well versed in the Knowledge of the Greek and Latin Tongues: Her Poem of the Life of Otho, was printed with Witichind's Works at Francfort in 1621. and in the Collection of the Germane Writers by Ruberus; and her Poetical Pieces were printed together at Nuremburg in 1501. by Conradus Celta.   

REGINALDUS Bishop of Eichstadt.  
REginaldus, who in the year 975. succeeded Starband killed by the Hungarians at Augsburgh, in the 
Reginaldus Bishop of Eichstadt.  Bishopric of Eichstadt, passed in his time for a very Learned Man, as having attained to a considerable Knowledge in the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew Tongues, and more especially in the Art of Music. He wrote the Lives of S. Wilbald and Unnebald, with those of S. Nicolas and S. Blasius. He was Bishop for the space of Twenty four years.  
Another Germane Bishop of the same time, has given us the Life of S. Hunegonda referred by Surius 
A Germane Bishop. A nameless Author.  to Aug. 25. and a Nameless Writer made a Narrative of the Translation of S. Epiphanius Bishop of Pavia into Saxony.   

THIERRY Archbishop of Triers.  
THierry Provost of the Church of Mentz, and afterwards Archbishop of Trier, wrote sometime 
Thierry Archbishop of Triers.  before the preceding Authors (for he died in the year 970.) the Life of S. Lutruda, referred by Surius to Sept. 22.   

OTHLO Bishop of Metz.  
OThlo Monk of Fulda wrote the Life of S. Pyrmin, who is supposed to have been Bishop of Meaux, 
Othlo Bishop of Metz.  or rather Metz. This Life is dedicated to Liudolphus Archbishop of Trier, and was published by Brouverus, who caused it to be printed A. D. 1616. at Mentz, with other Lives of the Illustrious Personages of Germany. Liudolphus was made Archbishop of Trier in 999. and died in 1008. Therefore Othlo composed his Work in the Ninth Century, or in the beginning of the Tenth. Canisius and Serrarius likewise attribute to him the Life of S. Boniface. But Brouverus observes, that it is of a different stile.   

UFFING or UFFO Monk of Werthin.  
AT the same time Uffing, or rather Uffo of Friesland, Monk of Werthin, wrote the Life of S. Ludger 
Uffing or Uffo Monk of Werthin.  Bishop of Munster, which was printed at Cologn the last Century, with a Poem of the same Author; some attribute to him the Life of S. Ida referred by Surius to Sept. 4. Suffridus says that he likewise left the Life of S. Lucius King of England, which he affirms to be extant in Manuscript.  
We have the Acts only of very few Councils of Germany in the Tenth Century, altho' we have 
A Council at Coblentz in the year 922.  just grounds to suppose that many more were held. The first, of which, any Monument is remaining is a Council held at Coblentz in the year 922. by the order of Charles King of France, and Henry King of Germany. It was composed of Eight Prelates, viz. Herman Archbishop of Mentz, Heriger Archbishop of Cologn, and six other Germane Bishops, and made Eight Canons, of which only the First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth remain in our Possession. The first forbids Marriage between Relations to the Sixth Generation. The Fifth prohibits Laymen, who have Chapels, from receiving the Tithes of them with their own hands on purpose to put them to profane uses, and ordains that the Priests shall receive and use them to the advantage of the Churches, and for the maintenance of Hospitals and poor People. The Sixth brings the Monks under Subjection to the Jurisdiction and Government of the Bishop. The Seventh condemns a Person who sells a Christian for a Slave, as guilty of Murder. The Eighth forbids those who give any Goods or Revenues to a particular Church, to take away the Tithes due upon account of such Revenues, to the Church to which they belonged before.  
The Canons of a Council held at Erfurdt in the year 932. in like manner are still extant, with a 
A Council at Erfurdt A. C. 932.  Preface which shows that it was convened by the Order of King Henry the First, in the Fourteenth year of his Reign, and that it was composed of the Archbishop of Trier and Twelve Bishops. The First of these Canons imports, that the Festivals of the Twelve Apostles shall be solemnised, and that the Fast of the Vigils shall be observed according to the ancient Constitutions. The Second, that no Pleas shall be held in the Courts of Judicature on Sundays, holidays, or Fasting-days: It is also added, that King Henry prohibited the Judges to Cite any Person before them in the Week preceding the Festival of Christmas, that of S. John Baptist, and during the whole time of Lent, till the Eighth day after Easter. In the Third it is forbidden to deliver a Summons or Warrant to those Persons who are going to Church, or are there already, that they may not be disturbed in their Devotions. The fourth imports, that if a Priest be suspected of any Crime, and accused before his Bishop, he shall be thrice admonished to acknowledge his Fault, and shall undergo condign Punishment, if he be found Guilty, unless he prove his Innocence by clearing himself by his own Oath, or by that of his Colleagues. The Fifth forbids private Persons to impose Fasts without the Consent of the Bishop or his Vicar, because many do it to carry on Superstitious Divinations, or for other sinister ends, rather than out of a Principle of Devotion.  
We have already made mention of the Council of Ingelbeim held in the year 948. in treating of the Contests of Artaldus for obtaining the Archbishopric of Rheims, in regard that it was chief assembled upon that account.  
In the year 952. the Emperor Otho the First held at Augsburgh an Assembly of the Bishops of Germany, 
A Council at Augsburgh A. C. 952.  France and Italy; where the Archbishop of Mentz presided, and published Eleven Canons, which were approved by the other Prelates.  
The First ordains that the Priests, Deacons and Subdeacons' that marry, shall be deposed according to Chap. 25. of the Council of Carthage. The Second is against Clergymen, who keep Dogs and Birds for Hunting, and are addicted to that Exercise; they are to be suspended from their Functions as long as they persist in such Practices. The Third ordains that Bishops, Priests and Deacons, who spend their time in playing at Games of Chance, shall incur the Penalty of being Deposed, unless they renounce such sort of Games. The Fourth is against those Clergymen who keep suspicious Women in their Houses. The Fifth prohibits Monks from going our of their Cloisters, without the permission of their Abbot. The Sixth enjoins Bishops to take care of the Monasteries of their Respective Dioceses, and speedily to Reform the Disorders that are committed in them. The Seventh and Eighth forbidden them to hinder Clergymen and Canonesses from embracing the Monastical Life. The Ninth prohibits Laymen from turning out of the Churches those Persons to whom the the Bishops have committed Care of them. The Tenth attributes to the Bishop the right of taking Cognizance of the distribution of Tithes. And the Eleventh imports, that not only the Bishops, Priests, Deacons and Subdeacons' shall lead a single Life, but also that the other Clergy shall be obliged to live Continently when they come to years of Maturity.    

CHAP. V.  
An Account of the Churches of England.  
IN the beginning of the Ninth Century, King Alfred re-established the Universities, and caused 
The State of England in the Tenth Century.  the Liberal Arts and Sciences to flourish in England, inviting over the Abbot Grimbaldus, and several other Learned Men of France; but the Kings his Successors were chief employed in Reforming the Corruptions of Manners and Discipline. In the beginning of this Century King Edward, upon the Remonstrances and Threats of the Pope, who complained that for Seven years the whole Country of the Westsaxons was destitute of Bishops, caused a Council to be assembled at Canterbury, in which Archbishop Phlegmon presided, and where several Persons were chosen to be 
A Council at Canterbury under King Edward and Phlegmon, Archbishop of that City  Bishops in that Province, and elsewhere, who were ordained by Phlegmon after his Return from Rome, whither he went on purpose to give an Account to the Pope of the Proceed of the Council, and to pacify him. The Pope approved their Regulations, ordered that for the future the Churches should no longer be left vacant, and confirmed the Primacy of the Church of Canterbury. All these Actions are attributed by several Authors to Pope Formosus, but in regard that this Pope died a long while before the time of King Edward, they are rather to be ascribed to John the Ninth, who possessed the See of Rome in the beginning of Edward's Reign, A. C. 904. to which this Council may be referred.  
The same King published in the year 906. divers Laws against the Disturbers of the Tranquillity 
●●ng Edward's Laws.  of the Church; against Apostates whom he condemns to death; against Clergymen who commit Robberies or Fornication; against Incestuous Persons; against those who refuse to pay Tithes, or to keep Sundays and Fasting-days; and against Sorcerers and lewd Women, who are condemned to different Punishments. It's also ordained in that Edict, that Persons condemned to die for Capital Crimes, should be permitted to make a Confession of their Sins in private to a Priest; and that those, who have been deprived of any Member for an Offence, and survive three days, should cause their Wounds to be dressed, and receive Consolation, after having obtained a Licence from the Bishop.  
King Ethelstan, who succeeded Edward in the year 923. in like manner caused certain Laws to 
King Ethelstan's Laws.  be Enacted relating to Ecclesiastical Affairs, with the Advice of the Prelates, Lords, and Learned Men of his Kingdom, by which he ordained, That all the Lands, and even those of his own Demeans, should be liable to pay Tithes. He enjoined all those, who held any Estates of him, to allow somewhat for the Maintenance of the Poor, and other charitable Uses: He prohibited Outrages that were done to the Churches, and again condemned the Sorcerers and Witches to Imprisonment, and to pay great Fines: He regulated the manner of proving the Innocence of Accused Persons, by Fire or Water-Ordeal; Forbade the keeping of Markets, or buying and selling on Sundays: And ordained that perjured Persons and false Witnesses should be deprived of Christian Burial. To these Laws he added divers Instructions for the Bishops, and recommended the Reading in the Monasteries every Friday Fifty Psalms upon his Account.  
Forasmuch as the most remarkable Circumstances of those Laws, is that which relates to the Clearing or Convicting of an Accused Person, by the Trial of Fire or Water, then commonly called Ordeal; and in regard that the manner of performing it is there explained at large; it may not be improper here to insert an Account of that passage. If any one be desirous to clear himself by Ordeal, that is to say, by the Trial of Fire or Water, let them come to the Priest three days before he do it, who shall give him a Benediction after the usual manner; and during those three days let him eat nothing but Bread and Salt or Pulse; let him hear Mass every day; let him make an Oblation; let him receive the Sacrament on the day he is to undergo the Trial, If it be that of Cold Water, let him be plunged one Fathom below the Surface of the Water. If it be that of a Hot Iron, let it be put into his Hand, and left there three days, without looking on it. If it be that of Hot Water, let it be made boiling hot, and let the Hand or Arm of the Accused Person be put into it, In all these Trials, both the Accused Person and the Accuser are to Fast, and to cause Twelve Witnesses to be present, who may take an Oath with them, and let Holy Water be sprinkled upon them. There are two Editions of these Laws, one of which is printed at large, and the other is an Abridgement of them.  
King Edmund had no less Zeal for the maintaining of the Discipline of the Church, than his Predecessor Ethelstan. He held in the year 944. which was the third of his Reign, even on Easter-day, 
An Ecclesiastical Assembly under King Edmund.  an Assembly of the Prelates and Lords, in which he made certain Laws relating to Chastity, and the payment of Tithes, and of the Alms-penny; as also against those who offered Violence to Nuns; against perjured Persons, and those who assisted at profane Sacrifices. In these Laws are specified the Ecclesiastical Penalties to be inflicted on the Infringers of them; viz. The privation of Christian Burial and Excommunication. The Bishops are there enjoined to repair their Churches at their own Charge, and to prefer a Petition to the Prince, for the Reparation of others, and for their Ornaments. He likewise made Laws for the punishment of Murderers, and for the regulating of Marriage-Solemnities. This Assembly was held under Wulstan Archbishop of York and Odo Archbishop of Canterbury.  
The latter made about that time, certain Ecclesiastical Constitutions, by way of Admonition or 
Odo Archbishop of Canterbury.  Instruction, in which he recommends, 1. That the Church should be left in the peaceable Enjoyment of its Privileges and Immunities, and that no Taxes should be laid on the Revenues belonging to it. 2. He admonishes the King and the Princes to obey the Archbishop and Bishops; to be humble; to oppress no Man; to administer Justice to all; to punish Criminals; and to relieve the Poor with their Alms. 3. He order the Bishops to lead an Exemplary Life; to visit their Dioceses once every year; to preach the Truth boldly to Kings and Princes; to Excommunicate none without just grounds, and to show to All the way to Salvation. 4. He enjoins the Priests in like manner to live Circumspectly, and to wear Habits conformable to their Order. 5. He gives the same Admonition to all the Clergy. 6. He exhorts the Monks to perform their Vows, and forbids them to turn Vagabonds, contenting themselves only with wearing the Habit of Monks, without leading a Life consonant to their Profession: He recommends to them working with their own Hands, reading and prayer. 7. He prohibits Incestuous Marriages with Nuns, or near Relations. 8. He recommends Peace and Union, 9 He enjoins the Observation of the Solemn Fasts of Lent; of the Ember-Weeks, of Wednesday and Friday; and the Celebration of Divine Service on Sundays and Festivals. Lastly, He recommends the payment of Tithes. There is also a Pastoral Letter written by this Archbishop, and directed to his Suffragans, which is related by William of Malmsbury.  
Edmund being killed in the year 946. his Brother Elred took possession of the Throne. We have 
An Assembly of Bishops at London A. C. 948.  no Laws enacted by this Prince, only the Charter of a considerable Donation made by him to the Monastery of Crowland, in favour of Turketulus, who had been formerly Chancellor of the Kingdom, and to whom he gave that Abbey. This was done in an Assembly of Bishops and Lords held at London in the year 948.  
After the death of Elred, which happened in 955 Edwin the Son of Edmund was proclaimed King, but sometime after, part of England Revolting, Edgar the Brother of Edwin got a share of his Dominions, and upon his Brother's Death, obtained the sole Possession of the whole Kingdom. This Prince being more Religious than his Predecessors, entirely re-established the Purity of Discipline in the Church of England, and brought the Monastical Course of Life into Repute, by the Advice of S. Dunstan, who may be called the Restorer of th● Ecclesiastical Discipline in England.  
This Saint was born in the Country of the Westsaxons, in the first year of King Ethelstan's Reign A. C. 923. He entered into Holy Orders very young, and after having completed his Studies, 
S. Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury.  made application to Athelm Archbishop of Canterbury, who introduced him into the Presence of King Ethelstan: Afterward having fallen into some disgrace at Court, he retired to Elfeg Bishop of Winchester, who advised him to embrace the Monastical Life, which he accordingly did, and continued in his Retirement till the Reign of King Edmund, when he was invited to Court by that Prince: He did not remain long there, without being obnoxious to the Envy and Hatred of several Persons, who misrepresented him to the King; insomuch that he was obliged to retire to his Solitude of Glassenbury, where he took up his Abode; altho' he was restored to the Favour of King Edmund, who had always a great respect for him; granted considerable Revenues to his Monastery, and continued to follow his Counsels, not only in the management of Civil Affairs, but also of Ecclesiastical. He was no less esteemed by King Elred, who determined to nominate him to the Bishopric of Winchester; but Edwin having received a severe Reprimand for his Irregularities from this Abbot, banished him, and pillaged his Monastery. However, King Edgar recalled him immediately after his Accession to the Crown, and made him not only Bishop of Winchester, but also conferred on him the Government of the Church of London. At last the Archbishopric of Canterbury being vacant in the year 961. by the death of Odo; Elfsin Bishop of Winchester, who was appointed to supply his place, dying in a Journey he made over the Alps to Rome, to fetch the Pall; and Berthelim, who was substituted in his room, having refused to accept that Dignity, Dunstan was Invested with it a few days after, and went to Rome to receive the Pall. At his return, he applied himself altogether to the Reformation of the Clergy of England, and took upon him to Expel all those who refused to lead a Regular Course of Life, and to Restore the Monks to their former Station,  
This Saint had for his Fellow Labourers and Imitators of his Zeal, Ethelwold Bishop of Winchester, and Oswald Bishop of Worcester, who founded a great number of Monasteries, and took much pains in Reforming the Clergy, and Extirpating the Vices that were predominant in England. The former died in the year 984. before S. Dunstan, who foretold his approaching Death, as well as that of the Bishop of Rochester, in a Visit which those two Prelates made him: but the latter did not die till after this Archbishop, viz. in the year 992. As for S. Dunstan, he survived King Edgar, who died in 975▪ and maintained the Right of the young Prince Edward, against the Pretensions of Alfride, who endeavoured to transfer the Crown to her Son Ethelfred; but Edward being Assassinated Three years after by the Treachery of that Queen, Dunstan was constrained to Crown Ethelfred, and foretold the Calamities that should befall England, and the Family of this young Prince, as a Punishment for his Crime, and that of his Mother. At last S. Dunstan died laden with years and honour A. C. 988.  
In his time, and apparently by his Direction, King Edgar in 967. not only published Laws like to those of his Predecessors, for the preservation of the Revenues of the Church; for the Payment of Tithes, and S. Peter's Pence; and for the Solemn Observations of Sundays and Festivals; but also divers Ecclesiastical Constitutions, relating to the Manners and Functions of Clergymen; to the Celebration of the Mass; to the Confession and Pennances that ought to be imposed on those who commit Sin, etc. Indeed these Canons may serve as a kind of Ritual for the Use of Curates. It is affirmed that they were made in the year 967. by King Edgar; but this does not appear to be altogether certain, and perhaps they are of a later date. The Discourse which this King made to Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury, and to Oswald and Ethelwold Bishops of Worcester and Winchester, is much more certain. He there inveighs against the Irregularities and Disorders of the Clergy, and pathetically Exhorts those Bishops to join their Authority with His, to repress their Insolence; and to oblige them to apply the Ecclesiastical Revenues to the Relief of the Poor, for which Use they were designed. To the end that this Order might be put in Execution, he granted a Commission to those three Prelates to take the Matter in hand, and gave them power to turn out of the Churches such Clergymen as lived dissolutely, and to Substitute others in their room.  
By virtue of this Injunction, S. Dunstan held a General Council A. C. 973. in which he ordained 
A general Council of England in the year 973.  that all the Priests, Deacons and Subdeacons', who would not lead a sober Life, should be Expelled their Churches, and caused a Decree to be made, to oblige them to Embrace a Regular and Monastic Course of Life, or to Retire. And accordingly, these three Bishops turned the old Clergymen out of most part of the Churches, and put Monks in their place, or else forced them to assume the Monastical Habit.  
S. Dunstan did not only show his Constancy and Zeal, with respect to the Clergy, but was also as zealous in treating Kings and Princes: For he sharply reproved King Edgar for abusing a young Maid whom he had sent for out of a Monastery, and imposed on him a Penance of Seven years. A certain very potent Earl having married one of his near Kinswomen, he Excommunicated him, and refused to take off the Excommunication, altho' the King had commanded him, and the Earl had obtained a Brief of the Pope for his Restoration. S. Dunstan being informed of it, replied, That he was ready to obey the Pope's Commands, provided the Person had really repent of his Offence; but that he would not suffer him to persist in his Sin, nor without submitting to the Discipline of the Church to insult over the Prelates, and, as it were, to triumph in his Crime. At last, the Earl being moved with his Constancy, and the fear of those Punishments which the Divine Vengeance usually inflicts upon Excommunicated Persons, left his Kinswoman, did Public Penance, and threw 
A Council under S. Dunstan and King Edgar.  himself down prostrate before S. Dunstan in a Council barefoot, clothed with a Woollen Garment, holding▪ a Bundle of Rods in his Hand, and lamenting his Sin, from which S. Dunstan gave him Absolution, at the request of the Bishops of the Council.  
The Reformation of the Clergy cannot be carried on without great Opposition, nor without creating many Malcontents, insomuch that in King Edgar's Life time, the Clergymen deprived of their Benefices, used their utmost Efforts to recover them; and having made a Complaint in an 
A Council at Winchester A. C. 975.  Assembly held at Winchester, in the beginning of the year 975. they prevailed upon the King by their Entreaties and the Promises they made to lead a more regular Course of Life for the future: But as they were about making a Decree for their Restoration, on Condition they should live more regularly, a Voice was heard coming as it were from the Crucifix, which pronounced these words, It will turn to no account, you have passed a just Sentence, and you will do ill to alter your Decisions. However, after the death of King Edgar these Clergy men renewed their Instances, and even offered force to drive the Monks not only from their Places, but also out of the Monasteries which were lately founded: But S. Dunstan always maintained his Reformation, which prevailed in the most part of the Churches and Monasteries of England, under the Reigns of Edward and Ethelred.  
S. Dunstan and S. Ethelwald did not only take pains to Reform the Ecclesiastical Discipline in England, but also in reviving the Study of the Liberal Sciences, and even they themselves composed some Works. A modern English writer, called Pits, says that S. Dunstan compiled certain Forms of Archiepiscopal Benedictions; a small Tract on the Rule of S. Benedict; a Book called, Rules for the Monastical Life; several Writings against Vicious Priests; a Treatise of the Eucharist; another of Tithes; a Book of Occult Philosophy; a Tract for the Instruction of the Clergy, and some Letters. And indeed, we cannot be certainly assured upon the Credit of this Writer, whether S. Dunstan were really the Author of these Works, which are no longer extant; but we find a Concordance or Rule for the Monastic Life, and under the Name of Edgar set forth by Rainerus, which is apparently a Piece of S. Dunstan, as well as the other Constitutions of that Prince, and there is extant a Letter written by him to Wulfin Bishop of Worcester, which Father Mabillon published from a Manuscript of Monsieur Faure, Doctor of the Faculty of Paris. The Life of S. Dunstan was written by Osborn chanter of the Cathedral Church of Canterbury, who was Contemporary with this Saint, and is found in the Fifth Benedictine Century of Father Mabillon.  
If we may give farther Credit to Pits, S. Ethelwald in like manner composed several Tracts, 
S. Ethelwald Bishop of Winchester.  of which he gives us this following Catalogue: A Book dedicated to Pope John XIV. concerning the Authority of the Bishops over their Priests; a Treatise against those Priests who commit Fornication, and against their Concubines; another of the Abbots of Lindisfarn; another of the Kings, Kingdoms, and Bishoprics of England; a History of the Kings of Great Britain; a Narrative of his Visitations; a Treatise of the Planets and Climates of the World; the Treatise of the Abbots of Lindsfarn, which this Author attributes to S. Ethelwald, is apparently a piece composed in Verse by Ethelwulf a Monk of that Abbey. The other Works are no longer Extant, and perhaps never were, but only in Pits' imagination.  
The Writers of Ecclesiastical History are not agreed about the immediate Successor of S. Dunstan 
Alfric or Aelfric Archbishop of Canterbury.  in the Archbishopric of Canterbury: Some give him the Name of Siricius, and others of Alfric or Aelfric: however, it is certain that the latter was Archbishop of Canterbury in the beginning of the following Century, in regard that he signed in that Quality a Privilege granted by King Ethelred: He was a Pupil of S. Ethelwald, succeeded him in the Monastery of Abington; was afterward made Abbot of Malmsbury by King Edgar, then Bishop of some Church in England, about which Authors are not agreed; and at last, being advanced to the Metropolitan See of Canterbury, he governed that Church till about the year 1006. This Archbishop in his time was in great reputation for his profound Skill in the Sciences of Grammar and Divinity, insomuch that he was Surnamed The Grammarian. His Sermons were translated into the Saxon Tongue, in order to be read publicly in the Churches, and his Letters were inserted in the Synodical Books of the Church of England. The English Writers assure us, that their Libraries were full of a great number of Works of this Archbishop, written in the Saxon Tongue, and they have lately published some of them translated into Latin, viz. A Paschal Homily of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in which he discourses much after the same manner as Ratramnus or Bertram, and two Letters, one to Wulfin Bishop of Salisbury, and the other to Wulstan Archbishop of York on the same Subject, which were printed at London in 1566, 1623., and 1638. In the Body of the Councils is contained a Canonical Letter of Alfric, directed to Wulfin, which is a kind of Ritual for the use of the Priests. The principal Manuscript Treatises of this Author, composed in the Saxon Tongue, are an History of the Old and New Testament till the Taking of Jerusalem; a Penitential; Eighty Sermons; a Letter concerning the Monastical Life; another against the Marriage of Clergymen; a Saxon Chronicle of the Church of Canterbury; certain Lives of the Saints, and Versions of some Latin Works; among others the Dialogue of S. Gregory.  
Sometime before Fridegod, a Monk of S. Saviour at Canterbury, wrote in Verse, at the request 
Fridegod Monk of S. Saviour at Canterbury.  of Odo, the Lives of S. Wilfrid and of S. Owen Archbishop of York; the former was published by Father Mabillon in the first part of the Third and Fourth Benedictine Centuries. William of Malmesbury observes, that these Verses are not altogether contemptible, but that Fredigod intermixes so many Greek words and Phrases which render them unintelligible.  
At the same time Lanfrid, a Monk of Winchester, wrote the Life of S. Swithin, and a Relation 
Lanfrid and Wulstan Monks of Winchester.  of the Miracles that happened at his Translation; and after him Wulstan, Monk of the same Monastery, composed in Verse the History of that Translation, and the Life of S. Ethelawld.  
Thus we have given an Account of almost all the most remarkable Circumstances that occur in the Ecclesiastical History of England in the Tenth Century.   

CHAP. VI  
Observations on the Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Tenth Century.  
THERE were no Controversies in the Tenth Age of the Church, relating to Articles 
Controversies about Doctrinal Points.  of Faith, or Doctrinal Points of Divinity, by reason that there were no Heretics, nor other Inquisitive Persons, who refined upon Matters of Religion, or undertook to dive into the bottom of its Mysteries. The Sober Party contented themselves only in yielding an implicit Faith to whatever the Churchmen thought fit to deliver from the Pulpit; and the profligate Wretches, abandoned themselves to gross Sensualitles, which gave Satisfaction to their brutish Appetites, rather than to the Vices of the Mind, to which only ingenious Persons are liable. Therefore in this Age of Darkness and Ignorance, the Church not being disturbed upon account of its Doctrines, had nothing to do but to put a stop to the Enormities of Discipline and Manners.  
There were nevertheless in England some Clergymen, who positively affirmed that the Bread and 
Of the Eucharist.  Wine on the Altar retained the very same Substance after Consecration, and that they were only the Representation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and not his Real Body and Blood. Odo Archbishop of Canterbury being desirous to oppose this Opinion, prayed to God one day, as he was Celebrating Mass solemnly, in the presence of a multitude of People, to show the very Substance of these Mysteries; which happened in the breaking of the Consecrated Bread, out of which (as it's reported) issued forth several Drops of Blood; which Miracle being seen by his Clergy, and by those who doubted of the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, they abjured their Error.  
Thus Osborn, a Writer of those times, relates the Matter in the Life of that Saint. The same Author in the Life of S. Dunstan says, that that Saint returning to the Altar, changed the Bread and Wine into our Saviour's Body and Blood, by the Prayer of Consecration; but when he had given the Benediction to the People, he left the Altar a second time to preach, and that being altogether transported with the Divine Spirit, he discoured after such a pathetical manner concerning the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ, of the Future Resurrection, and of Life Eternal, that one would have thought that a glorified Saint was then speaking.  
Ratherius Bishop of Verona stiffly maintains the same Opinion in one of his Letters; and Fulcuin Abbot of Lobes, in discoursing of the Eucharistical Table, says, That it is the Table on which the Sacred Body of our Lord is consumed. These Authors express themselves after the same manner as Paschasius Rathertus; nevertheless this did not hinder some others, who lived in the end of the same Century, to take part with Retramnus, to make use of his Expressions, and to oppose those of Paschasius. This is apparently done by Alfric Archbishop of Canterbury, and Heriger Abbot of Lobes, altho' they do not impugn the Real Presence, as we have made it appear in the preceding Century. These are all the remarkable Circumstances in the Tenth Century, relating to Points of Doctrine; for the Error of the Anthropomorphites confuted by Ratherius in one of his Sermons, was peculiar to certain Clergymen of Italy, and those of the Greeks, mentioned by Pope Formosus in one of his Letters to Fulcus, are ancient, and not modern Heresies. We read in a Chronicle of the Abbey of Castros, that Durandus Abbot of that Monastery, in the year 953. confuted one Walfred, who gave it out, that both the Soul and Body perished after death; but it is not known whether this Error continued long, neither is there any part of Durandus' Piece now extant. The Contests that arose about the validity or invalidity of Ordination made by Intruders, were soon silenced. Some Persons were of Opinion, that one might Feast on Fridays, but their Infatuation was not of long continuance. Upon the whole, there was no Council held in this Century that either debated, or made any Decisions with respect to any Point of Doctrine; which shows, that there was no Error in Matters of Faith that prevailed long, or made any Disturbance in the Church.  
Howsoever enormous the Irregularities of the Popes might be at that time, nevertheless a great 
Of the Pope's Authority.  deal of Respect was shown to their Authority, and the Christians distinguishing, according to Auxilius' Remark, the Holy See, from the Person of those who possessed it, had as much veneration for the Dignity of the One, as aversion to the Extravagancies of the others; and upon this account they yielded Obedience to the Equitable Laws, and Just and Lawful Ordinances, proceeding from the Authority of the Holy See, and opposed the Erterprises of the Popes, which entrenched upon the Liberty of the Churches and the Intention of the Canons. This may be observed in the conduct of the Bishops of Germany, and in the Letters they wrote concerning the Erections of Bishoprics, which the Pope attempted to make in Moravia, to the prejudice of their Rights; in that of the Bishops of France assembled in a Council at Rheims against Arnulphus; in the Discourse made by the Bishop of Orleans in that Council; and in the Judgement they passed with respect to the Legates Attempt, who presumed to Consecrate a Church without the consent of the Ordinary. Neither were the Bishops of Italy of a different Opinion, as appears from their Deposing of Pope John XII. S. Dunstan showed the same Resolution in Refusing to Absolve a Person, altho' the Pope had expressly enjoined him to do it; and the like constancy is observable in Ratherius, who did not think himself obliged to obey the Order of a Pope, who was about to deprive him of the Disposal of the Ecclesiastical Revenues of his Diocese. However, Magnificent Titles were given to the Popes, and their Primacy and Jurisdiction was acknowledged: They had not as yet assumed the Right of Ordaining Bishops or Metropolitans; nay John X. and Stephen VIII. plainly owned, that it did not belong to them; but they granted the Pall, not only to Archbishops, but also to several Bishops, which Practice Fulques or Fulco Archbishop of Rheims censures as an Abuse, which sullied the Splendour of the Hierarchical Order. They were desirous, that the Archbishops should come in Person to Rome to receive the Pall, which was usually done by the Archbishops of England and Germany, but not by those of France.  
The Pope's likewise used to erect new Archbishoprics and Bishoprics, and there were several Examples in that Century of these sorts of Erections; as Magdeburg, Mersburg, Passaw, Placentia, etc. They also assumed to themselves a Power to Judge Bishops primarily, according to the Direction of the Decretals, and claimed a Right to Summon them to Rome: But it does not appear that the Bishops of France ever acknowledged that Right; on the contrary, they followed the ancient Custom which makes the Bishop's subject to the Judgement of the Provincial Councils, and to prevent the bringing any Appeals to Rome, they obliged the accused Persons to make choice of their own Judges, as it happened in the Affair of Arnulphus.  
John IX. owned that the Popes might be mistaken, and that their Judgements might be reversed: That they ought to be chosen by the Bishops of Italy, and the Clergy and People of Rome, with the Emperor's consent, and in the presence of his Deputies; as it was ordained in the Council of Rome held under the same John IX. Otho and his Successors had the plenary Enjoyment of that Right, and the Election of the Popes depended on those Emperors. Octavian was the first of the Popes who changed his Name after his Election, in which he was imitated in the same Century by Gregory V and Sylvester II. Neither were the Popes as yet absolute Sovereigns in the City of Rome: In the beginning of this Century the Romans enjoyed an appearance of Liberty under the Government of Alberic. Afterwards Otho and his Successors were Sovereign Princes of Rome, in quality of Emperors; caused the Romans to take an Oath of Allegiance to them; and treated as Rebels those who revolted against them: But the Popes had the Demesus of a great number of Towns in Italy, which were granted by King Pepin, and afterwards confirmed by the Otho's. The Writers of those Times, particularly Ratherius, Abbo, Gerbert, and some others complained very much, that under some Pope's a shameful Traffic was made at Rome of the most Sacred Things, and that every thing there was to be purchased for Money. We also read, that the Popes were used to grant Indulgences to those Persons who made a Journey to Rome: and it is related in the Life of S. Ulric, that the Pope sent him back laden with Indulgences.  
There were few Councils held in this Century, and in the most part of them the Decrees were 
Several Points of Discipline.  concerning Tithes; against the Usurpers of Church Revenues; against Churchmen who keep Concubines; and against Marriages among near Relations. To which purpose the Degrees of Consanguinity were extended to the Seventh, in which it was forbidden to contract Marriage, and Spiritual Affinity took place as well in the Eastern as the Western Churches: Such Persons as married with these Impediments were divorced without redress, neither were any Dispensations granted to Kings and Princes, as it appears from the Case of King Robert, and that of the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas.  
Fourth Marriages were absolutely prohibited in the Eastern, but not in the Western parts. The Bishops were chosen by the Clergy and People, but the Princes would not suffer the Election to be made without their consent. The Investitures of the Archbishops, and Bishoprics, were granted to Otho I. by Pope Leo VII. and were given with the Ring and Staff. The Translation of Bishops became very frequent, and Coadjutors began to be joined with them, with Assurance of Succeeding them. Thus Utho Bishop of Strasburg had Archimbaldus for his Coadjutor; but this practice was condemned by the Bishops of Germany, with respect to Adalbero, whom S. Ulric his Uncle, who had chosen him for his Coadjutor, and by Gregory V with respect to the Bishop of Puy in Velay, who in like manner had ordained his Nephew.  
This Century is the first, in which it is observed that Ambition transported the Bishops so far, as to get the possession of several Bishoprics, and in which Bishops were ordained at the Age of eighteen years, as Pope John XI. John XII. and the Bishop of Tody; and elected very young, as Hugh of Vermandois, and Theophylact Patriarch of Constantinople. Many Bishops of Italy and Germany obliged their Canons to be Regular, and to live in common: others placed Monks in their Cathedrals, and even advanced them to Dignities; and others on the contrary, turned out irregular Monks, to substitute Secular Clerks in their room; as did Ratherius in one of the Churches of his Dicoess. The Ecclesiastical Revenues were usually divided into four parts, and the Bishops assumed the sole Administration of them, but in some Churches other Clergymen, had particular Revenues, which they enjoyed independently of the Bishop. After the Death of the Bishops the Revenues of the Church, and those they left, were often exposed to pillage, as it is related by Ratherius, Atto, and several other Writers. To prevent this Rapine, the Prince or neighbouring Bishop engaged to take care of them. The Lords were wont to settle Priests at their pleasure, in the Country Churches; Benefices were often conferred on unworthy Persons; and sometimes Persons were advanced to the Episcopal Dignity, without any merit, and only on account of their quality; an abuse much lamented by Ratherius and Atto. Lastly, Ignorance was so predominant in those times, that it was absolutely necessary to admit Priests of mean parts to the Sacerdotal Function. However, the Bishops endeavoured to render them more capable, by Synodal Instructions, by frequent Conferences with them, (the Original of which may probably be referred to the Ninth Century) by Schools, which were kept in the Cathedral Churches and Monasteries, and by furnishing them with divers Forms of Sermons and Exhortations ready prepared. The Bishops and other Clergymen were often obliged to bear Arms, as Ratherius observes, altho' it be prohibited by the Canons; an abuse which was committed both in the Eastern and Western Parts. In the beginning of this Century, the Monks were very irregular, and the Monasteries were ruined, and possessed by Laics, who assumed the quality of Abbots; but after Matters were regulated, the Monastical Discipline was re-established, and Regular Abbots were constituted; nevertheless the Bishops for a long time retained some Abbeys as it were in Comendam; the same Abbot, or the same Regular Clerk held several Abbeys, which he caused to be governed by-co-abbots' or Pro-abbots', or Superiors. To which we may refer the Original of Congregations. Divers Monks were advanced to the Episcopacy, possessed Dignities in the Cathedral Churches, and were ordained Priests under the Title of their Monastery. Public Penance was still in use, but very rarely practised, and the Canonical Discipline was enervated by the Redemption of Pennances which was then introduced: The Rigour and Austerity of Fasting, was likewise much abated, and the Obligation to Receive the Sacrament was reduced to four times a year.  
Ratherius forbade in his Diocese the Celebration of Marriages on Sundays, and in the time of Lent, altho' the contrary Custom had prevailed. We find in this Century the first Example of the Benediction of a Bell; for there is no mention made of them in the Authors of the preceding Ages, who have treated at large of Ceremonies. Father Menard citys in his Notes, on S. Gregory's Sacramentary, two ancient Manuscripts which prescribe the Ceremonies of this Benediction, but it is not certain that they are more ancient than the Tenth Century. At that time also they began to recite as a part of Divince Service, the Office of the Virgin Mary: It is related in the Life of S. Ulric, that that Saint was wont to say it every day, and in the continuation of the History of the Bishops of Verdun, mention is made of a certain Clerk whom Berenger, Bishop of that City, the Kinsman of Otho the Great, met in the Church, lying prostrate on the Ground, and saying the Office of the Blessed Virgin. Peter Damien in the following Century, in like manner makes mention of two Clerks who were wont to recite it every day; and Pope Urban II. ordained in the Council of Clermont, that the Office of the Virgin Mary should be said on Saturday. We may also observe, that the Councils and Bishops of those Times pronounced Eternal anathemas, that is to say, perpetual Excommunications without hopes of Absolution against the Usurpers of Church Revenues, and against those that offered any Injury to Ecclesiastical Persons. The manner of clearing those that were accused of any Crime by Fire or Water Ordeal, or by a Duel between two Champions, was then in use, and even Clergymen were obliged to provide a Champion; but there were certain Times when all Acts of Hostility ceased, which were called The Truce of God.  
In this Century we find the first Example of the Solemn Canonization of a Saint by the Pope. This Pope is John XV. who placed S. Ulric in the Rank of the Saints in the year 995. at the request of Liutolphus Bishop of Aug●burg. We shall here subjoin the Act itself, which was drawn 
The Canonization of Saints.  up on that occasion: John Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, to all Archbishops, Bishops and Abbots of France and Germany, Greeting, and the Apostolical Benediction. Having held an Assembly in the Palace of the Lateran, on the last day of January, John the most Holy Pope sitting, with the Bishops, Priests, Deacons and Clergy standing, the most Reverend Liutolphus, Bishop of Augsburg rising up, said, Most Holy Bishop, if it may please you and the rest of the Reverend Bishops and Priests here present, to give leave to read in your presence, the Book which I hold in my hand, concerning the Life and Miracles of S. Ulric, who was sometime Bishop of Augsburg, to the end that you may afterwards ordain what you shall think fit. Then the Life of that Saint being read, they proceeded to the Miracles which were performed by him, either in his Life-time, or after his Death, as the restoring of Sight to the Blind; the Exorcising of Devils out of possessed Persons; the Curing of others afflicted with the Palsy, and several other Miracles which were not committed to writing These things being thus related, we have resolved and ordained, with the common consent, that the Memory of S. Ulric ought to be honoured with a pious Affection and a sincere Devotion, by reason that we are obliged to honour and show respect to the Relics of the Martyrs and Confessors, in order to Adore him whose Martyrs and Confessors they are: We honour the Servants, to the end that this honour may redound to the Lord— It is our pleasure therefore that the Memory of Ulric be Consecrated to the Honour of the Lord, and that it may serve to celebrate his Praises for ever. Then follows the Anathema against those who shall act any thing contrary to this Decree, with the Seals, of the Pope, of five Bishops, of nine Cardinal Priests, and of some Deacons.  
This is the first Solemn Bull of Canonization; for the more ancient Examples, which are produced of the Canonization of S. Suitbert by Pope Leo III. and that of S. Abbo Martyr by Adrian I. at the request of Offa King of the Mercians in the end of the Eighth Century, are only grounded on Supposititious Pieces; nay, the very Name of Canonization in that sense, is yet more Modern than the Tenth Century, and is found only in the Bull of Pope Alexander III. For the Canonization of S. Edward the Confessor, King of England, in the year 1161. in that of the Canonization of S. Thomas of Canterbury Eight years after, and in the Letter of Ulric Bishop of Constance to Calixtus II. in which he sues for the Canonization of Bishop Conrade.  
In the Primitive Church the Name of Saint was given to all Christians, in their Life-time, and even after their Death, when they died in the Communion of the Church, having preserved the Innocence of their Baptism, but a more particular respect was shown to those, who died upon the account of Religion, and were called Martyrs of Jesus Christ; so that the Evidence of the Matter of Fact, and the Testimony of the Faithful, caused that Veneration to be paid to their Memory, which their generous Constancy had merited; nevertheless, it belonged to the Bishops and Clergy to make a Catalogue of those who deserved that honour, and to distinguish the false Martyrs from the true. Therefore S. Cyprian in his Ninety seventh Letter admonishes his Clergy to take care exactly to mark all the days of the Death of those who suffered Martyrdom, to the end that their Memory might be celebrated with the other Martyrs. Optatus Milevitanus reproves Lucilius for kissing every day, even before the Communion, the Relic of a certain Person, who was said to be a Martyr, but was not yet acknowledged as such. It is reported that Pope Clement I. appointed seven Deacons, and Fabian as many Subdeacons to commit the Acts of the Martyrs to writing; but this Matter of Fact being grounded only on the Authority of the Author of the Pontifical Book, is of no great Consequence, and so much the rather, in regard that we are informed by the Pope's Gelasius and Gregory, that these Acts were not much valued by the Church of Rome, which was content only to have a Catalogue of the Saints and Martyrs who were to be honoured. The Councils of Laodicea, Carthage, and Elvira, ordained, that great care be taken to make a due distinction between the true and false Martyrs, and the Example of S. Martin of Tours, and several other Reverend Bishops, who dissuaded the People from the Superstitious Worship of false Martyrs, apparently shows that it belongs to all the Bishops to declare what Martyrs ought to be acknowledged and publicly honoured. After the Martyrs in process of time was likewise honoured, the Memory of Virgins, Anchorites, Bishops renowned for their Sanctity: and lastly, of those Persons whose singular Virtues were remarkable in their Life-time. Their Names were inserted in the Diptychs, that were recited at the Altar, and they were styled by the Name of the Saints and Blessed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Every particular Church was used to place in that rank, those who had first propagated the Christian Religion, the Bishops, and those who had lived in great Reputation for their Sanctity. Afterwards were made Kalendars and Martyrologies, of the Saints of several particular Churches, which were by little and little dispersed throughout the Eastern and Western Parts. The Church of ‛ Rome, as others had done, made use of one of these Martyrologies, from which Ado composed His, and afterwards took in that of Usuardus; but it does not appear that before the Tenth Century, any Solemn Decrees were made at Rome, or elsewhere, for the Canonization of Saints. Indeed, this Custom was entirely established in the Eleventh Century, when Adelardus, Paschasius Ratbertus, S. Wibroad, Gerard Bishop of Toul, and Wolfang Bishop of Ratisbon were Canonised by several Popes. In the Twelfth Peter d'Agnania was Canonised by Pope Paschal II. Conrade Bishop of Constantz, by Calixtus II. at the request of Ulric Bishop of the same place; Hugh Bishop of Grenoble, S. Sturmius Abbot of Fulda, and the Emperor Henry I. by Eugenius III. But it is observable, that these two last Papers declare that the Solemnity of Canonization ought to be performed regularly in a General Council, and yet they do it by the Authority of the Church of Rome, with the Advice of the Archbishops and Bishops, who were present in that City.  
During these two Centuries, the Metropolitans and Bishops were not deprived of the Right to declare as Saints, such Persons as died in the Reputation of Sanctity, and to cause their Bodies to be exposed to the Veneration of the Faithful: But Pope Alexander III. first reserved to himself the Canonization of Saints, as a Matter of great Consequence, and after him Innocent III. assumed the same Right; insomuch that we do not read that the Bishops solemnly Canonised any Saints since that time, altho' there were some who were generally reputed such among the People.  
The Institution of the seven Electors of the Empire is also referred to this Century, according to 
The Institution of the seven Electors of the Empire.  the general Opinion of the Germane Historians, who wrote after the Reign of Frederick II. and who affirm that Pope Gregory V and the Emperor Otho III. declared, with the consent of the Princes of Germany, that the Election of the Emperor should belong, for the future, only to those seven, without allowing any Vote to the others: But the Original of this Epocha is very much disputed; and is not grounded on any Authentic Record, or the Testimony of any Contemporary Writer. Indeed some, particularly Jordanes have given it out, that the Right of choosing the Emperor has been peculiar to the seven Electors ever since Charlemagn's time; and this Opinion seems to be confirmed by the Authority of Pope Innocent III who acknowledges the power of Electing the King and Emperor to be inherent in the Princes of the Empire, to whom the Right justly belongs, more especially in regard that this Right and Power is derived to them from the Apostolical See, in the person of Charlemagn, who transferred the Empire from the Grecians to the Romans. Theodoric Anihem refers this Institution to the time that followed the Death of the Emperor Henry II. and makes the Princes of Germany the Authors of it. Onuphrius maintains, that this number of Electors was not fixed till after the Death of Frederick II. that before that time all the Princes of Germany were wont to give their Suffrages for the Election of the Emperors; that their number was not restrained to seven; that the name of Electors was then unknown; that altho' the precise time of the Institution cannot be determined, yet it ought to be fixed between the years 1250. and 1280. and according to all appearance, under the Pontificate of Gregory X. which perhaps gave occasion to the generality of Authors to refer it to that of Gregory V. Jordanes' Opinion concerning the Antiquity of the seven Electors, is at present generally disclaimed; it being evident that Charlemagn's Posterity obtained the Empire by the Right of Succession, and by the Election of the Germane, French and Italian Princes and Noble men. After the Death of Lewis IU. the Son of Arnulphus, the last of Charlemagn's Race, Italy became (as we have already declared) a Prey to the Berengers, to Guy, Lambers, Lewis, Boso, Hugh, Lo●haire, Raoul, etc. of whom some affected the Title of Emperor, and even caused themselves to be crowned. In Germany, Conrade, Henry the Fowler, and Otho were chosen Kings by the Saxons and French, as it is related by Luitprand and Witichindus, Writers, who flourished at that time. The last was also acknowledged and crowned Emperor when he had subdued Italy: His Son and Grandson obtained the Imperial Diadem by the Right of Succession, and by the Election of the Princes, as well Saxons as French and Italians. Therefore till that time, it cannot be said, that the Election of the Emperor was reserved to the seven Electors. Now to know whether this was effected by Pope Gregory V under Otho III. we need only inquire after what manner Historians relate the Election of his Successors to have been carried on, that is to say, whether it were performed by the seven Electors, or indifferently by all the Germane Princes. Otho Frisingensis assures us, that after the Decease of Otho III. Henry Duke of Bavaria was chosen Emperor by all the Nobility or Lords of the Kingdom: Ab omnibus regni primoribus; and this Author speaks after the same manner concerning the Election of Conrade, who succeeded Henry: But nothing more plainly shows to whom the Right of choosing the Emperor belonged, then that which happened in the time of the Emperor Henry the Fourth, when Pope Gregory the Seventh designed to Depose him, and caused Rodolphus to be substituted in his room; for he made application to all the Dukes, Earls and Bishops of the Germane Empire, and Rodolphus was chosen by a Party of the Princes different from the Electors, among whom are named the Bishops of Wurtsburg and Me●s, and the Duke of Carinthia.  
Afterward when Henry the Fifth dispossessed his Father of the Imperial Throne, and ca●●'d himself to be placed on it in his stead, this was done by all the Princes of Germany indifferently; as it is related by Otho Frisingensis, and by the Abbot of Ursperge. Lotharius the Second was in like manner elected Emperor by the Princes of the Empire, at the solicitation of the Archbishop of M●●tz. When Conrade the Third was at first only chosen by a small number of Princes, and Henry of Bavaria with some Saxon Princes reversed his Election, because they were not present, it was requisite to call a general Assembly of all the Princes, in which the Saxons assisted, and gave consent to his Election. After the death of Conrade, Frederick Barbarossa was proclaimed Emperor in an Assembly of all the Princes of Germany, in which the Barons of Italy were also present. Lastly, In the time of Pope Innocent the Third, the Germane Princes being divided, after the Death of Henry the Sixth some of them elected his Brother Otho, and others Philip of Schwaben; on which occasion Letters were written on both sides to the Pope: The Electors of Otho were, the Archbishop of Cologn, the Bishop of Paderborn, two other Bishops, and two Abbots, the Duke of Lorraine and Brabant, the Marquis of the Sacred Empire, and the Count of Kuk, who declare in the Body of the Letter, that they elected Otho, and confirm their Proceed by their respective Seats. Those of the contrary Party were the Archbishops of Madgeburg, Trier, and Resancon; the Bishops of Rat●bon, Frisingen, Augsburg, Constantz, Eichstadt, Worms, Spire, Hildersheim, and Brixen; the Chancellor of the Imperial Court, four Abbots, the King of Bohemia, the Dukes of Saxony, Bavaria, Austria and Moravia; the Marquis of Raversperg, and other Potent Noblemen of Germany, who all declare that they had chosen Philip Emperor, and that many other Germane Princes had consented to his Election by Letters.  
This evidently proves that the Election of the Emperors was not reserved to the seven Electors, but that it belonged to all the Princes of the Empire. Innocent the Third replying to those Letters, That his Legate was not capable of assisting at the Election of an Emperor, either in quality of an Elector, or in that of a Judge; not as an Elector, because it does not belong to him; but to the Princes, on whom the Power of choosing the Emperor is devolved according to ancient custom; more especially in regard that they received it from the Holy See, which transferred the Roman Empire, in the Person of Charlemagn, from the Grecians to the Romans. These are the words of that Pope, which are manifestly misapplyed, when alleged in behalf of the seven Electors: it being apparent, that in this place, he makes mention of all the Princes of the Empire, who had an inherent Right to elect the Emperors ever since the time of Charlemagn; affirming that neither had his Legate acted as a Judge, in regard that he had not proceeded against Philip in a Judiciary Form, nor passed any Judgement upon the Validity or Nullity of the Election: That therefore he had only performed the Function of a Denouncer, by declaring to them, that the Duke was Incapacitated from being elected, whereas Otho was not. That many of those persons, who had a right to choose the Emperor, had approved Otho's Election: And that they who had chosen Philip, had forfeited their Right, by carrying on the Election, in the absence, and to the contempt of the others. That besides, Philip was not crowned Emperor, either in the place where i● ought to have been done, or by a person, whose office it was to perform the Ceremony: whereas Otho was crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle, which was the proper place for his Coronation, and by the Archbishop of Cologn, whose Right it was to officiate at the Solemnity: That therefore he nominated and declared Otho Emperor, being incited thereto by a principle of Justice, as also upon account that he had a Right to favour whom he thought fit, when the Suffrages of the Electors were divided: That besides, there were several lawful Impediments against Philip Duke of Schwaben, as his being Excommunicated, Attainted of Perjury, and descended of the Race of the Persecutors of the Church.  
Thus this Answer supposes that these persons, who had a right to choose the Emperor, and who are mentioned by this Pope, are not only the seven Electors, but also all the Princes and Noblemen of the Empire, of whom a party had elected Otho, and the greater number Philip of Schwaben: But after the death of the latter, all the Suffrages were reunited in favour of Otho A. D. 1209. and in the following year, Otho being Excommunicated, the Princes of Germany, viz. the King of Bohemia, the Dukes of Austria and Bavaria, the Landgrave of Thuringen, and many others being assembled, elected Frederick King of Sicily Emperor. Hitherto we find no mention of the seven Electors; and indeed the first Writer that makes any, is the Cardinal of Ostia, who lived in the time of Pope Innocent the Fourth, and speaks of them in his Commentary on the Decretal of Innocent the Third, where he affirms that the Electors mentioned in that place, are the Archbishops of Mentz, Cologn, and Trier, the Count Palatine of the Rhine, the Duke of Saxony, the Marquis of Brandenburg, and the Duke of Bohemia. Matthew Paris writing the History of the Council of Lions, at the same time reports, that after the Deposing of Frederick, Pope Innocent the Fourth ordained that the seven Electors should pass into an Island of the River Rhine, there to choose an Emperor; but those seven Electors, whom he names, are the Archbishops of Cologn, Mentz, and Saltzburg, and the Dukes of Austria, Bavaria, Saxony, and Brabant. However, Martinus Potonus a contemporary Writer, names the seven Electors after this manner, that is to say, the three high Chancellors of the Empire, viz. the Archbishop of Mentz, the Chancellor of Germany, the Archbishop of Trier Chancellor of Gaul, the Archbishop of Cologn Chancellor of Italy, the Marquis of Brandenburg High Chamberlain, the Palatine of the Rhine High Steward, the Duke of Saxony Gentleman of the Horse, and the King of Bohemia High Cupbearer. This Author says thus much in speaking of Otho the Thi●d, which has induced some to believe, that they were instituted underthat Emperor, altho' he observes that it did not happen till afterward. Thus this Relation makes it appear that the Institution of the seven Electors attributed to Pope Gregory V without any just grounds, is nothing near so ancient, and that 'tis very probable that the Electors of the Emperor were not reduced to the number of seven, till the Pontificate of Innocent the Fourth, and that before, all the Princes and Noblemen of the Empire indifferently, might have a share in his Election, notwithstanding the Assertions of the Canonists and the Modern Historiographers of Germany to the contrary.   

Chronological Tables And other Necessary INDICES & TABLES FOR THE Tenth Century.  
A. C. Popes. Eastern Emperors. Western Emperors and Kings of Fr. and Italy. Ecclesiastical Affairs. Councils. Ecclesiastical Writers. 900 
V. Stephen VI. is imprisoned and strangled about the end of this year.  
Romanus is chosen to supply his place.  Leo the Philosopher. XVI. 
Lewis IU. the Son of Arnulphus K. and Emperor of Germany.  
Charles the Simple King of France.  
Raoul I. King of Burgundy.  
The Kingdom of Italy is contested between Berenger and Lewis the Son of Boson.  The death of Foulques or Fulcus Archbishop of Rheims assassinated by Count Baldwin's Party: Hervaeus succeeds him in that Archbishopric.  
Mancio Bishop of Chalons.  
Waldramnus Bishop of Strasburg.  
Notgar the Stammerer.  
Aurelian Clerk of the Church of Rheims.  
Gauthier or Gualt●rius Bishop of Sens.  901 
Theodorus II. succeeds Romanus, and dies at the end of twenty days.  
John IX. is substituted in his room.  XVII.  Nicolas Patriarch of Constantinople is deposed by Leo's order, for refusing to approve his fourth Marriage, and Euthymius is set up in his place.  
Solomon Bishop of Constantz.  
Bonno or Bavo Abbot of Corbie in Saxony.  902 II. XVIII. The Incursions of the Huns or Hungarians in Italy subdued by Berenger. John replies to Heruè Archbishop of Rheims about the Conversion of the Normans.  
Herué or Hervaeus Archbishop of Rheims.  
Adalbero Bishop of Augsburg.  903 III. XIX.  Steph●n Abbot of Lo●●s is or●…'d Bishop o● Liege.   904 IU. John IX. after having crowned Bereng●r, retires to Ravenna, and declares Lambert Emperor. XX. 
Lewis the Son of Boson is taken by Berenger, who causes his Eye● to be put out, and himself to be crowned Emperor.  
Lambert contends with him for that Dignity, a●d is owned by the Pope and by the Italians.  
Argrin Bishop of Langres is restored to his Bishopric by Pope John IX.  
Lambert is acknowledged Emperor in the Council of Rome, to the exclusion of Ber●nger, and in that quality, he confirms the ancient Privileges of the Church of Rome in the Council of Ravenna.  
Councils at Rome and Ravenna in favour of the memory of Pope Formosus.  
The Council of Cant●rbury under King Edward, and Phlegmond Archbishop of that Province.  
Hatto Archbishop of Mentz and Theotmar Metropolitan of Bavaria, writ to Pope John IX.  
Stephen Abbot of Lobes, and afterwards Bishop of Liege.  905 
V. The death of John IX.  
Benedict iv succeed● him. I.  XXI.    The death of Waldramnus Bishop of Stra●burg. 906 
II. The death of Benedict 4.  
Leo V is substituted in his room, expelled 40 days after, and imprisoned by Christophilus, who usurps the See of Rome.  XXII.   The Laws of Edward King of England.  907 Chr●stophilus is turned out seven months after by Sergius made Antipope in the time of Formosus. XXIII.     908 II. XXIV.     909 III. XXV.   A Council at Trosly under Herve Archbishop of Rheims.  910 IU. Sergius dying Anastasius is placed on the See of Rome. I. XXVI. 
Lambert is killed by Treachery.  
Berenger remains the sole Master of Italy.  The founding of the Abbey of Clunie, by William Count of Auvergne and Duke of Aquitain.  Rathodus Bishop of Utrecht. 911 II. 
XXVII. The death of the Emperor Leo, June 11.  
Alexander's Brother is declared Tutor to his Son Constantine Porphyrogenneta. I.   
Nicolas Patriarch of Constantinople is recalled some time before Leo's death.  
Euthymius Patriarch of Constantinople is banished, and dies in exile a little while after.   Letters written by Nicolas Patriarch of Constantinople. 912 
III. The death of Pope Anastasius.  
Lando succeeds him. In the end of the same year John X. is chosen Pope by the intrigues of Theodora.  II. Alexander being dead, Nicolas the Patriarch is chosen Tutor to the young Emperor. Conrade is elected King of Germany after the death of Lewis IU. John Deacon of Ravenna is chosen Bishop of Bolonia, leaves that Bishopric to be made Archbishop of Ravenna, and at last aspires to the Papal Dignity.  The death of Notger the Stammerer. 913 I. III. II.    914 II. iv Zoe the Emperor's Mother turns out the Patriarch Nicolas, and assumes the administration of the Government. III.    915 III. V iv    916 IU. VI V    917 V. VII. VI    918 VI. VIII. VII. The death of Conrade, who leaves for his successor Henry surnamed the Fowler, the son of Otho Duke of Saxony.   The death of Ra●bodus Bishop of Utrecht. 919 VII. IX. Z●● is banished from the Court, & Romanus associated to the Empire, by Constantine. I.   The Death of Solomon Bishop of Constantz. 920 VIII. X. II. 
Nicolas Patriarch of Constantinople is re-established a second time▪  
A Treaty of Agreement between the Partisans of Nicolas and Euthymius.  
A Contest about the Bishopric of Liege between Hilduin and Richerus.  
Another Contest touching the Archbishopric of Narbonne between Agius and Gerard.  A Council at Constantinople about the fourth Marriage. 
Odilo Monk of S. Medard at Soissoins.  
The death of Stephen Bishop of Liege.  
Letters by King Charles the Simple in favour of Richerus against Hilduin.  921 IX. XI. III.  A Council at Trosly under Harué Archbishop of Rheims.  922 X. XII. iv Robert is elected and and crowned K. of France in opposition to Charles the Simple. 
The Decree of John X. in favour of Richerus, ordained Bishop of Liege by that Pope.  
Hilduin deposed and excommunicated.  
Seulfus succeeds Hervaeus in the Archbishopric of Rheims.  A Council at Coblentz. The death of Hervaeus Archbishop of Rheims. 923 XI. XIII. 
V Robert is killed in battle, but his Son Hugh causes Raoul K. of Burgundy, to be chosen K. of France.  
Charles the Simple is apprehended & sent Prisoner to Chateau Thierry. The Queen his Wife retires to Engl. with her Son Lewis.   
A Council at Rheims under Seul●us Archbishop of that City.  
The Laws of Ethelstan King of England.  The death of Gauthier Archbishop of Sens. 924 XII. XIV. VI Berenger is killed, and Raoul Duke of Burgundy remains Master of Italy. 
A Decree made in the Council of Trosly in favour of Stephen Bishop of Cambray, against Count Isaac.  
S. Ulric i● ordained Bishop of Augsburg.  A Council at Trosly under Seulfus Archbishop of Rheims.  925 XIII. XV. VII. Hebert Count of Vermandois, causes his Son Hugh, aged only 5 years, to be chosen Archbish. of Rheims, after the death of Seulfus.   926 XIV. XVI. VIII. The beginning of the Reign of Hugh Count of Arles in Italy.    927 XV. XVII. IX.  A Council at Trosly.  928 
XVI. John is put in Prison by Guy the Brother of Hugh, & dies there.  
Leo VI. succeeds him, and dies six months & 15 days after.  XVIII. X.    929 Stephen VII. succeeds Leo. 
I▪  XIX. XI. The death of Charles the Simple, Oct. 7.    930 II. XX. XII. Nicholas Patriarch of Constantinople dies, and Stephen Archbishop of Amasia is substituted in his room.  Eutychius Patriarch of Alexandria. Odo Abbot of Clunie. 231 
III. The death of Stephen.  
John XI. the Son of Sergius and Marosia succeeds him. I.  XXI. XIII. King Raoul causes Artoldus to be chosen Archbishop of Rheims.  Ratherius made Bishop of Verona in this year, composed several Writings. 932 II. XXII. 
XIV. Arnulphus of Bavaria wages war with Hugh in Italy▪ & is repulsed.  
Hugh is invited to Rome by Marosia, and seizes on the Castle of S. Angelo.  
Manasses Archbishop of Arles, passes into Italy, where he gets possession of several Bishoprics.  
Ingram Dean of S. Medard at Soissoins is ordained Bishop of Laon.  A Council at Erfordt.  933 III. John is imprisoned by A●beric. XXIII. XV. Alberic retakes the Castle S. Angelo, and makes himself Master of Rome. Stephen Patriarch of Constantinople dying, Trypho is substituted in his room, till Theophylact the Emperor's Son came to full age.   934 IU. XXIV. XVI. 
Hildegarius ordained Bishop of Beauvais by Artoldus Bishop of Rheims, in the Council of Chateau Thierry.  
Fulbert made Bishop of Beauvais by the same Archbishop.  A Council at Chateau Thierry under Artoldus Archbishop of Rheims.  935 V. XXV. XVII.  A Council at Fismes against the Usurpers of Chu●eh Revenues.  936 VI John XI. dies, and Leo VII. succeeds him. I. XXVI. XVIII. Henry the Fowler dies, and leaves his Dominions to his Son Otho I Odo Abbot of Clunie is sent for to Rome by the Pope to procure Peace among the Princes of Italy, by his Mediation.      
I. The death of Raoul K▪ of France, Jan. 15.  
Lewis iv surnamed d'Outremer is crowned K. of France, June 20.     937 II. XXVII. I.   Eutychius completes his Chro●…con. 938 III. XXVIII. II. Otho is crowned K. of Germany. 
Hildebert Archbishop of Metz crowns Otho I.  
Gerard Archbishop of Lorch is made the Pope's Vicar in Germany.  
Odo Abbot of Clunie returns to Rome to endeavour to reconcile the Princes of Italy.    939 IV. Leo dies, and Stephen VIII. succeeds him. I. XXIX. III.    340 II. Alberic causes the Pope to be abused. XXX. iv Artoldus is obliged to resign the Archbishopric of Rheims. and Hugh is put in possession of it.  
The death of Eutychius Patriarch of Alexandria.  
Flodoard Canon of Rheims.  941 III. XXXI. V Hugh is ordained a Bishop of Rheims. A Council at Soissoins, for the deposing of Artoldus Archbish of Rheims, and the Ordination of Hugh.  942 IU. XXXII. VI Odo Abbot of Clunie goes a third time to Rome, to be the Mediator of a Peace between the Italian Princes.  The death of Odo Abbot of Clunie. 943 
The death of Stephen.  
Marinus II. succeeds him. I.  XXXIII. VII.    944 II. XXXIV. VIII. The deposing of Trypho Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Ordination of Theophylact. 
The Council of Constantinople.  
A Council in England under King Edmund.  The History of our Saviour's Image sent to K. Abgarus, and other Pieces of Constantine Porphyrogenneta. 945 III. XXXV. IX. Hugh King of Italy expelled by Berenger the son of the Marquis of jurea and Lotharius substituted it his room. Atto made Bishop of Verceil.   946 IU. Marinus dies, Agap●tus II. succeeds him. XXXVI. X. 
Artoldus' re-established in the Archbishopric of Rheims.  
The death of Edmund K. of England, who leaves his Brother Elred to succeed him.    947 II. XXXVII. XI. Tetbaud archdeacon of Soissons is made Bishop of Amiens by Hugh Archbishop of Rheims, who likewise ordains another for Senlis, which causes an Information to be drawn up against him in the Councils. 
A Council held near the River of Cher.  
A Council at Verdun held in the Month of Novemb.   948 III. XXXVIII. XII. 
Luitprand is sent Ambassador to Constantinople.  
Artoldus confirmed in the Archbishopric of Rheims, and Hugh declared an Intruder and Excommunicated in the Council of Ingelheim.  
Guy Bishop of Soissons gives Satisfaction to K. Lewis in the 2d Council of Mouzon for ordaining Hugh Archbishop of Rheims, and begs pardon in the Council of Trier, for performing that Ordination.  
Bernerus a Monk of Rheims, is sent to re-establish the Monastical Discipline in the Monastery of Humblieres  A Council held at Mouzon in the month of January. 
A Council at Ingelheim, June 7.  
A Council at Trier in favour of Artoldus.  
A Council at London under Elred K. of England.   949 IU. XXXIX. 
XIII. The death of Lotharius King of Italy▪  
Berenger causes himself to be crowned K. of Italy, with his Son Adalbert.   A Council at Rome, which confirmed that of Ingelheim in favour of Arto●dus.  950 V. XL. XIV. Adelaida the Widow of Lotharius invites Oth● into Italy. The Decree of Pope Agapetus in favour of the Church of Lorch.  
Si●…on Metap●rastes.  
Atto Bishop of Verceil.  
Luitprand Bishop of Cremona.  
Utho Bishop of Strasburg.  
Gerard Dea● of S. Med●rd at Soissons.  951 VI. XLI. XV.   Joannes Ca●…ata. 952 VII. XLII. XVI. Berenger & Adalbert submit to Otho, and are re-established in the Kingdom of Italy.  A Council at Augsburg. 
Hildebert Archbishop of Mentz.  
Durand Abbot of Cartres.  
John Monk of Clunie.  
Odo Archbishop of Canterbury.  
Bernerus Monk of S. Remy at Rheims.  593 VIII. XLIII. XVII. 
Bruno the Brother of the Emperor Otho is ordained Archbishop of Cologn.  
Ratherius is made Bishop of Liege.  The Council of S. Thierry. Bruno Archbishop of Cologn. 954 IX. XLIV. 
XVIII. Lewis King of France dies Octob. 15. and Lotharius his Son succeeds him.  
The death of Alberic, who was Governor of Rome.  William the Son of Otho the Great is elected Archbishop of Mentz.  William Archbishop of Mentz. 955 
X. The death of Agapetus.  
Octavian Son of Alberic gets possession of the See of Rome, and is named John XII.  XLV. XIX. Lotharius K. of France, gives the Dutchies of Burgundy and Aquitain to Hugh the white Duke of France, & the Father of Hugh Capet. 
Ratherius turned out of the Bishopric of Liege, and Baudry set in his place.  
The death of Elred King of England, whom Edwin the Son of Edmund succeeds, and after him his Brother Edgar.    956 II. XLVI. XX. The death of Hugh the white Duke of France. Theophylact Patriarch of Constantinople dies, and a certain Monk named Polyeuctes is substituted in his room.  
S. Ulrie Bishop of Augsburg.  
Edgar King of England.  957 III. XLVII. XXI.    958 IU. XLVIII. XXII.    959 V. XLIX. XXIII. Hugh Capet declared D. of France by King Lotharius, who also gives him Poitou.    960 VI. L. Constantine dies, and his Son Romanus succeeds him, I. XXIV.   
Nico preaches in Armenia, and composes a Treatise of the Religion of the Armenians.  
Thierry or Theodoric Archbishop of Trier.  
The death of Att● Bishop of V●●ceil.  961 VII. II. XXV. Otho marches into Italy, and Berenger being abandoned, retires to certain Forts. 
The death of Artoldus Archbishop of Rheims.  
The Election of Odalric to that Archbishopric.   
The death of Odo Archbishop of Canterbury.  
S. Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury.  962 VIII. III. XXVI. Otho enters Rome in the end of the year, and is crowned Emperor by John XII. Ratherius is restored to the Bishopric of Verona, and holds a Synod, for the Instruction of his Clergy. A Council held in the Diocese of Meaux. 
Witichindus a Monk of Corbie in Saxony.  
Abbo Abbot of Fleury.  
Adso Abbot of Luxueil.  963 
IX. John XII. revolts against Otho, is deposed in a Council at Rome, and Leo VIII. is substituted in his room.  
Some time after, the Romans take up Arms against Otho, but he reduces them to his Obedience. I.  iv Romanus dies. Nicephorus Phocus is proclaimed Emperor by the Army. I. XXVII.  A Council at Rome held in the Month of August against John XII.  964 
II. After Otho's departure, Leo VIII. is expelled, and John XII. reenters Rome, where he dies May 14.  
The Romans substitute Benedict V in his room.  II. XXVIII. 
The Restoration of Pope John XII. in a Council at Rome, which declares Leo VIII. deposed and excommunicated, and his Ordinations void.  
The Restoration of Leo VIII. in another Council at Rome.  
A Decree of the later Council, by which the Investitures are  
A Council at Rom● Febr. 26. in favour of Pope John XII.  
A Council held at Rome in the Month of June for the Restoration of Leo VIII.   Otho returns to Rome, deposes Benedict, and re-establishes Leo.   granted to the Emperor.   965 
III. Benedict dies in exile at Hamburg, and Leo VIII. at Rome.  
John XIII. is chosen Pope with the Emperor's consent. I.  III. XXIX Otho returns to Germany.   
The death of Bernerus Monk of S. Remy at Rheims.  
The death of Bruno Archbishop of Cologn.  966 II. John is turned out by the Romans, and re-established by Otho. iv XXX. Ratherius leaves the Bishopric of Verona, and retires to France.  The death of Flodoard Canon of Rheims. 967 III. V XXXI. Otho comes to Rome, and causes his Son to be crowned Emperor. 
Otho confirms the Donation of the Ecclesiastical Revenues of Rome made by Pepin and Charlemagn.  
Herold Archbishop of Salezburg is deposed and excommunicated in the Council of Ravenna, and Frederick chosen to supply his place.  
The Erection of the Archbishopric of Magdeburg in the same Council.  
A Council at Ravenna held on Easter Day.  
A Council at Constantinople in which the Emperor proposes to declare such Soldiers as are killed in the Wars Martyrs.  
The Laws and Constitutions of Edgar King of England.   968 IU. VI XXXII. 
Luitprand is sent a second time to Constantinople.  
S. Adalbert is made Archbishop of Magdeburg after having converted the Sclavonians.  
The Erection of the Bishopric of Capua into an Archbishopric.  
The death of Odalric Archbishop of Rheims, who left Adalbero his Successor.   The death of William Archbishop of Mentz. 969 V. VII. Nicephorus Phocas is killed: and John Zemisces advanced to the Imperial Dignity. I. XXXIII. The Erection of the Bishopric of Benevento into an Archbishopric.   970 VI. II. XXXIV. Polyeuctes Patriarch of Constantinople dies, and Basil is chosen to supply his place.  
Roger Monk of S. Pantaleon at Cologn.  
The death of Thierry Archbishop of Trier.  971 VII. III. XXXV.    972 
VIII. John XIII. dies Sept. 6.  
Donus succeeds him, & dies at the end of three Months.  
Benedict VI: reckoning the Antipope Benedict for the fifth of that Name, is advanced to the Papal Dignity.  iv XXXVI. Notger a Monk of S. Gal is chosen Bishop of Liege. 
A Council held at Mount S. Mary by Adalbero Archbishop of Rheims.  
A Council at Ingelheim, which Censures the Conduct of Adalbero the Nephew of S. Ulric.  The death of Ratherius Bishop of Verona. 973 I. Benedict is taken Prisoner by Cincius, and strangled in the Castle of S. Angelo. V 
XXXVII. Otho the Great dies May 7.  
His Son Otho II. reigns sole Emperor I.  Henry succeeds S. Ulric in the Bishopric of Augsburg. A General Council in England under S. Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury. The death of Ulric Bishop of Augsburg. 974 
Boniface usurps the See of Rome.  
The Romans set up Benedict VII. in opposition to him.  VI II. A Council at Canterbury under King Edgar and S. Dunstan.  Roswida a Nun of Landersheim. 975 II. Boniface is forced to escape by flight to Constantinople. VII. John Zemisces dies Decemb. 4. & Basil and Constantine the Sons of III. 
Basil Patriarch of Constantinople is deposed, and Antonius Studita substituted in his room.  
The death of Edgar King of England,  
A▪ Council at Rheims under Adalbero Archbishop of that City.  
A Council held at Winchester in the beginning of the year.  
S. Ethelwold Bishop of Winchester.  
The death of Utho Bishop of Strasburg.   the Emperor Romanus are placed on the Throne.  
who leaves Edward his Successor.  
Reginaldus succeeds Stigand in the Bishopric of Eichstadt.    976 III. I. Bardas' revolts against the two Emperors. iv Antonius Studita voluntarily abdicates the Patriarchal See of Constantinople, which remains vacant four years.   977 IU. II. V Edward King of England is assassinated, and Ethelfred succeeds him.   978 V. III. VI    979 VI. iv VII.    980 VII. V VIII.   
Adso Abbot of Devures.  
Ghilperic Monk of S. Gal writes his Treatise of the Calendar.  
Fulcuin Abbot of Lobes.  
Reginald Bishop of Eichstadt.  981 VIII. VI IX. 
The death of Antonius Studita. Nicolaus Chrysoberge is advanced to the Patriarchal See of Constantinople.  
The death of Adalbert the first Archbishop of Magdeburg.   Funeral Orations made by Antony Patriarch of Constantinople for Nicephorus the Philosopher. 982 IX. VII. X.    983 X. VIII. XI. The Emperor Otho II. dies at Rome Decemb. 6. & his Son Otho III succeeds him.    984 XI. Benedict dies July 10. and leaves John XIV. his Successor. IX. I.   The death of S. Ethelwald Bishop of Winchester. 985 
Boniface returns to Rome, confines John XIV. in the Castle of S. Angelo, where he dies; Boniface dies likewise four Months after.  
John XV. is advanced to the Papal Dignity. He retires to Toscany to avoid the Persecution of Crescentius, and is recalled by the Romans. I.  X. II. Lotharius K. of France causes his Son Lewis to be crowned.    986 II. XI. III. Lotharius K. of France dies, & Lewis the Faint-hearted hisson succeeds him.    987 III. XII. 
iv The death of Lewis the Faint-hearted, June 22.  
Hugh Capet is elected and proclaimed K. of France, about the end of May, and crowned at Rheims, July 3.    Berthier Priest of Verdun. 988 IU. XIII. 
V Hugh Capet likewise causes his Son Robert to be crowned at Orleans, Jan. 1.  
Charles D. of Lorraine wages War with them to for the Kingdom.  
An Assembly of the French Noblemen at Orleans for the Coronation of King Robert.  
Luitolphus is made Bishop of Augsburg.   The death of S. Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury. 989 V. XIV. VI Adalbero Archbishop of Rheims dying, Hugh Capet causes Arnoul or Arnulphus, natural Brother to Charles Duke of Lorraine to be chosen to supply his place. 
A Council at Charroux against the Usurpers of the Revenues of the Churches and of the Poor.  
A Council at Rheims.  
A Council at Senlis against Adalger a Clerk of the Church of Rheims.   990 IU. XV. VII.   
H●riger Abbot of Lobes.  
The death of Fulcuin Abbot of Lobes.  
Gerard the Pupil of S. Ulric.  991 VII. XVI. VIII. Charles D. of Lorraine is taken Prisoner at Loan, conveyed to Senlis, and from thence to Orleans, where he is confined in a Tower till his death.   Ussin a Monk of Werthin. 992 VIII. XVII. IX. Arnold or Arnulphus Archbishop of Rheims is deposed in a Council in that City, and Gerbert substituted in his room. A Council at Rheims. 
Gerbert Archbishop of Rheims.  
Aimoin Monk of Fleury.  
The death of Adso Abbot of Devures.  993 IX. XVIII. X.  A Council at Rheims against the Usurpers of Ecclesiastical Revenues, held by Gerbert.  994 X. XIX. XI. Charles D. of Lorraine, the last of the Carlian Race dies in Prison at Orleans.    995 XI. XX. XII. 
John Chrysoberge Patriarch of Constantinople dying, Sisinnius is substituted in his room.  
Arnulphus is re-established in the Archbishopric of Rheims, and Gerbert forced to retire.  
A Council at Rome, in which S. Ulric was Canonised.  
A Council at Mouzon held June 2 in favour of Arnulphus against Gerbert. A Council at Rheims▪  
The Council of S. Dennis.  
Albert or Olbert Abbot of Gemblours.  
Ad●lhold Bishop of Utrecht.  996 
XII. John XV. dies in the Month of May.  
Bruno the Kinsman of Otho is chosen in his stead, and named Gregory V. Crescentius expels him, and causes John Bp. of Placentia to be elected.  
Otho marches to Rome, dispossesses John; treats him after a cruel manner and re-establishes Greg. I.  XXI. 
XIII. Otho goes to Italy.  
Hugh ●apet dies, and his Son Robert reigns alone.  
Otho is crowned Emperor at Rome by Pope Gregory V.  The Church of Platentia erected by John XV. to a Metropolitan See, is restored to the Archbishopric of Ravenna by Gregory V and the Church of Montferrat is in like manner made subject to the Archbishopric of Ravenna by the same Pope.  
John Abbot of S. Arnoud or Arnulphus at Metz.  
Letaldus' Monk of S. Memin.  
The Writer of the Life of S. Hun●gonda.  
The Author of the Translation of S. Epiphanius.  997 II. XXII. XIV. Gerbert is made Archbishop of Ravenna. A Council at Ravenna held May 1. by Gerbert Archbishop of that City. 
Wolstan Monk of Winchester:  
Fridegode Monk of Canterbury.  
Lanfrid Monk of Winchester.  
Osborn Cha●ter of Canterbury.  998 III. XXIII. XV. 
Archembaud Archbishop of Tours, and other Bishops of France are excommunicated by the Pope, for consenting to, and assisting at the Marriage between K. Robert and Bertha.  
The Dignity of an Episcopal See, is restored in the Council at Rome to the Ch. of Mersburg, which was erected to a Bishopric under Otho I. and afterward debased under Otho II.  
A Council at Rome held in the Month of October.  
A Constitution of the Emperor Otho III. published in that Council.  
The death of Nico of Armenia.  
The Continuators of Berthier's History.  
Nicephorus the Philosopher.  
Moses Bar. Gepha.  
Otho Monk of Fulda.  999 V. The death of Gr●g. V Febr. 18. Gerbert Archb. of Ravenna sncceeds him under the name of Sylvester 2. I. XXIV. XVI. Liutolphus is made Archbishop of Trier. A Council at Poitiers. 
The death of Reginald Bishop of Eichstadt.  
Odilo Abbot of Clunie.  
Hippolytus Thebanus.    

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE Ecclesiastical Writers IN THE TENTH CENTURY.  

STEPHEN V POPE; chosen in the year 885. died in 890.  
FORMOSUS, Pope; elected in 891. died in 896.  
FOULQUES or FULCO, Archbishop of Rheims, made Archbishop in 882. died in 900.  
MANCIO, Bishop of Châlons; Flourished in the end of the Ninth Century.  
WALTRAMNUS or WALDRAMNUS, Bishop of Strasburg; Ordained Bishop in 895. died in 905.  
NOTGER the Stammerer, Flourished in the end of the preceding Century, and in the beginning of the present; died in 912.  
AURELIAN, Clerk of the Church of Rheims; Flourished in 900.  
GAUTERIUS, Archbishop of Sens; Ordained Archbishop in 887. died in 923.  
SOLOMON, Bishop of Constance; made Bishop in 891. died in 919.  
BONNO or BAVO, Abbot of Corby in Saxony; Flourished in the beginning of the Century.  
HERVAEUS, Archbishop of Rheims; Ordained in 900.  
JOHN IX. Pope; advanced to the Papal Dignity in 901. died in 922.  
ADALBERO, Bishop of Augsburg; Flourished in the beginning of the Century, died in 905.  
THEOTMAR, Metropolitan of Bavaria; Flourished in the beginning of the Century.  
HATTO, Archbishop of Mentz; Flourished at the same time.  
STEPHEN, Abbot of Lobes, and afterwards Bishop of Liege; made Bishop in 903. died in 920.  
BENEDICT IU. Pope; made in 905. died in 906.  
JOHN X. Pope; chosen in 912. died in 928.  
RATBODUS or RADBODUS, Bishop of Utrecht; made in 899. died in 918.  
ODILO, Monk of S. Medard at Soissons; Flourished in 920.  
NICOLAS surnamed the Mystical, Patriarch of Constantinople; raised to that See in 890. banished in 901. restored in 911. deposed a second time in 914. and re-established in 920. died in 930.  
EUTYCHIUS, Patriarch of Alexandria; Flourished from 933. to 940. died in 940.  
CONSTANTINUS PORPHYROGENNETA, Emperor of Constantinople; born in 900. succeeded his Father in 911, began to reign alone in 919 died in 960.  
JOANNES CAMENIATA, Flourished under Constantinus Porphyrogenneta.  
SIMEON METAPHRASTES, Flourished under the same Emperor.  
ODO, Abbot of Clunie; born in 879. made Canon of Tours in 900. embraced the Monastical Life in 909. succeeded Berno in the Abbey of Clunie in 927.  
LEO VII. Pope; raised to the Papal Dignity in 936. died in 939.  
MARINUS II. Pope; chosen in 943. died in ●●6.  
AGAPETUS II. Pope; elected in 946. died in 955.  
RATHERIUS, Bishop of Verona; Flourished from the year 920, made Bishop of Verona in 931. translated to Liege in 953. returned to Verona in 955. left that Bishopric in 966. died in 972.  
FLODOARD, Canon of Rheims, born in 894. Flourished in 940. died in 966.  
LUITPRANDUS or LIUTPRANDUS, Bishop of Cremona; Flourished from the year 948. till 970.  
HILDEBERT, Archbishop of Mentz; Flourished about the year 940.  
DURANDUS, Abbot of Castres'; Flourished about the year 950.  
JOHN, Monk of Clunie; Flourished about the same time.  
ODO, Archbishop of Canterbury; Flourished at the same time.  
BERNERUS, Monk of S. Remy at Rheims; Flourished at the same time, and died in 965.  
ATTO, Bishop of Vercelli; governed that Church from the year 945. to 960.  
BRUNO, Archbishop of Cologn; Ordained in 953. died in 965.  
WILLIAM, Archbishop of Mentz; made in 954. died in 968.  
JOHN XII. Pope; elected in 955. deposed in 963. died in 964.  
St. ULRIC, Bishop of Augsburg; Flourished from the beginning of the Century, till his death in 973.  
EDGAR, King of England; came to the Crown in 956. died in 975.  
UTHO, Bishop of Strasburg; made in 950, died in 975.  
GERARD, Dean of S. Medard at Soissons; Flourished in the middle of the Tenth Century.  
THIERRY, Archbishop of Trier; Flourished in 960. died in 970.  
WITICHINDUS, Monk of Corby in Saxony; Flourished from 950. to 980.  
ABBO or ALBO, Abbot of Fleury; Flourished from the year 960. to the end of the Century, died in 1004.  
JOHN XIII. Pope; chosen in 965. died in 972.  
ADSON, Abbot of Lux●…; Flourished about the year 960.  
ROGER, Monk of S. Pantaleon at Cologn; Flourished in 970.  
ROSWIDA, A Nun of Gandershei●; Flourished under the Emperor Otho II. that is to say, after the year 973.  
BENEDICT VII. Pope; elected in 974. died in 984.  
St. ETHELWOLD, Bishop of Winchester; Flourished after the year 960 died in 984.  
St. DUNSTAN, Archbishop of Canterbury; Born in 923. ordained Archbishop in 961. died in 988.  
ADSON, Abbot of Devores; Flourished ●…80. died in 992.  
HELPERIC or CHILPERIC, Monk of S. Gallus; Flourished in 980.  
JOHN XV. Pope; raised to that Dignity in 985. died in 996.  
NICON, Of Armenia; Flourished after the year 960, died in 998.  
FULCUIN or FOLCUIN, Abbot of Lobes; Chosen in 975. died in 990.  
REGNALD, Bishop of Eichstadt; made in 975. died in 999.  
BERTHIER, Priest of Verdun; Flourished in 980.  
GREGORY V Pope; Elected in 996. died in 999.  
GERBERT, Archbishop of Rheims, afterward of Ravenna, and at last Pope, under the Name of Sylvester II. Flourished about the year 980. chosen Archbishop of Rheims in 992. forced to leave his Archbishopric in 995. made a little while after Archbishop of Ravenna, and advanced to the Papal Dignity in 999.  
AIMOIN or AIMONIUS, Monk of Fleury; Flourished from 980. to 1001. died in 1007.  
HERIGER, Abbot of Lobes; chosen in 990.  
UFFIN or UFFO, Monk of Werthin; Flourished in the end of the Century.  
GERARD, The Pupil of S. Ulric; Flourished at the same time.  
A Nameless AUTHOR, Monk of S. Vito at Verdun, who wrote a Continuation of the History of the Bishops of Verdun after Ber●hier; Flourished about the end of the Century.  
ALBERT or OLBERT, Abbot of Gemblours; Flourished in the end of the Century.  
ALDELBOLD, Bishop of Utrecht; Flourished at the same time.  
JOHN, Abbot of S. Arnoul or Arnulphus at Metz; Flourished about the same time.  
LETALDUS, Monk of Micy or S. Memin; in like manner flourished in the end of the Century.  
A Nameless BISHOP, Of Germany, who wrote the Life of S. Hunegonda; Flourished in the end of the Century.  
A Nameless AUTHOR, Of the History of the Translation of S. Epiphanius Bishop of Pavia; Flourished in the end of the Century.  
WOLSTAN, Monk of Winchester; Flourished about the same time▪  
FRIDIGOD, Monk of S. Saviour at Corby; Flourished at the same time.  
LANFRID, Monk of Winchester; Flourished about the end of the Century.  
OSBORN, Chanter of the Church of Canterbury; Flourished at the same time.  
ALFRIC or AELFRIC, Archbishop of Canterbury; Flourished in the end of the Century, died about 1006.  
NICEPHORUS, The Philosopher; Flourished in the end of the Century.  
MOSES BARCEPHA, Bishop of Syria; Flourished at the same time.  
OLTHO, Monk of Fulda; Flourished in the end of this Century, and in the beginning of the Eleventh.  
ODILO, Abbot of Clunie; made in 991. died in 1048.  
HIPPOLYTUS THEBANUS, Flourished in this Century, but the precise time is unknown.  
LAURENTIUS, A Monk of Liege, and afterward of S. Vito at Verdun; Flourished in the beginning of the Twelfth Century.    

A TABLE of the WORKS of the Ecclesiastical Writers of the Tenth Century.  

STEPHEN V Pope.  
HIS Genuine Works still extant.   

SEVERAL Letters, referred to Flodoard. FORMOSUS Pope. His Genuine Works.  
Certain Letters to Foulques Archbishop of Rheims.   

FOULQUES or FULCO, Archbishop of Rheims. Genuine Works.  
Several Letters produced by Flodoard.   

MANCIO Bishop of Châlons. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter directed to Foulques Archbishop of Rheims.   

WALTRAMNUS, or WALDRAMNUS Bishop of Strasburg. Genuine Works which we have.  
Certain Poetical Pieces.   

NOTGER the Stammerer, Monk of S. Gallus.  


His Genuine Works.  
A Martyrology.  
A Fragment of the Life of S. Gallus.  
Certain Proses or Hymns.  
A Treatise of Church Music.  
The History of Charlemagn●.    


Works lost.  
The Life of S. Gallus in Verse.  
A Translation of the Psalter in High-Dutch.    


Spurious Works.  
The Lives of S. Landoald and S. Remaclus.  
Two Books of the Miracles of S. Remaclus.     

AURELIAN, a Clerk of the Church of Rheims. A Work lost.  
A Treatise of Church Music, called The Regular Tuner.   

GAUTERIUS, Archbishop of Sens. A doubtful Work.  
Certain Ecclesiastical Constitutions.   

SOLOMON, Bishop of Constance. Genuine Works still extant.  
Certain Poems dedicated to Dado.   

BONNO or BAVO, Abbot of Corby in Saxony. A Work lost.  
An History of the memorable Actions of his time.   

HERVAEUS, Archbishop of Rheims. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to Guy Archbishop of Roven.   

JOHN IX. Pope. Genuine Works.  
Four Letters.   

ADALBERO, Bishop of Augsburg. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of S. Hariolphus Abbot of Elwangen.   

THEOTMAR, Metropolitan of Bavaria. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter written in his own Name, and under that of the Bishops of Bavaria, to Pope John IX.   

HATTO, Archbishop of Mentz. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to Pope John IX.   

STEPHEN, Abbot of Lobes, and afterwards Bishop of Liege.  


A Genuine Work which we have.  
The Life of S. Lambert.    


Works lost.  
Conceptions taken out of Holy Scripture.  
Certain Proses or Discourses on the Trinity, and the Invention of S. Stephen' s Body.     

BENEDICT IU. Pope. Genuine Works.  
Two Letters.   

JOHN X. Pope. Genuine Works.  
Three Letters.   

RATBODUS, or RADBODUS Bishop of Utrecht.  


Genuine Works.  
A Discourse on the Life of S. Amalberga, and that of S. Willebrord.    


Works lost.  
Tracts in Commendation of S. Martin and S. Boniface.  
Certain Homilies or Sermons.  
The Office of the Translation of S. Martin.  
Hymns in honour of the Saints.  
Certain Poems.  
A Chronicle.     

ODILO, Monk of S. Medard at Soissons. His Genuine Works still extant.  
An History of the Translation of the Relics of S. Sebastian and S. Tiburtius to the Monastery of S. Medard.   

NICOLAS, Patriarch of Constantinople. Genuine Works.  
Divers Letters to Popes and other Persons.   

EUTYCHIUS, Patriarch of Alexandria.  


A Genuine Work.  
A Fragment of a Treatise, called The Contexture: or The disposing of precious Things in order.    


Works yet in Manuscript.  
A Treatise of the Art of Physic.  
A Disputation between a Christian and a Heretic.  
The History of Sicily.  
A Disposing of precious Things in order from the Creation of the World till the year 937.     

CONSTANTINUS PORPHYOGENNETA, Emperor of Constantinople. Genuine Works.  
The History of the Image of Jesus Christ sent to Abgarus King of Edessa, and brought to Constantinople A. C. 944.  
The Life of the Emperor Basil.  
A Treatise of Politics.  
Historical Pandects.   

JO. CAMENIATA, A Genuine Work which we have.  
The History of the taking and sacking of Jerusalem by the Saracens, published by Allatius.   

SIMEON METAPHRASTES.  


His Genuine Works.  
Above a hundred Lives of the Saints, part in Manuscript and part printed.  
Moral Sentences and Rules.  
Nine Letters.  
Certain Poetical Pieces.    


Works forged.  
One hundred Lives of the Saints without the Authors Names.  
About 450 attributed to other Authors See Allatius de Simeonibus.     

ODO Abbot of Clunie.  


His Genuine Works.  
An Abridgement of S. Gregory's Morals.  
Hymns and Anthems in honour of S. Martin.  
Collations or Conferences.  
The Lives of S. Gerard and S. Martial of Lymoges.  
An Account of the Translation of S. Martin's Body.  
The Encomium or Commendation of S. Martin.  
Divers Sermons.  
A Panegyric on S. Benedict.    


Works lost.  
The Life of S. Martin.  
The History of S. Benedict.  
A Book called Occupations.    


Works falsely attributed to him.  
The Life of S. Maurus.  
A Chronicle.     

LEO VII. Pope. Genuine Works which we have.  
Three Letters.   

MARINUS II. Pope. Works lost.  
Letters and Privileges.   

AGAPETUS II. Pope. Genuine Works.  
Two Letters.   

RATHERIUS, Bishop of Verona.  
A Book of Perpendiculars.  
A deliberative Conclusion made at Liege.  
A Conjecture on a certain Quality.  
A Tract about the Context between Ratherius and the Clergy of Verona.  
An Apologetical Treatise.  
A Discourse to the Clergy of Verona.  
A Charter for the Institution of Canons instead of Monks.  
An Ordinance prohibiting to solemnize Marriages on Sundays.  
Five Letters.  
A Synodical Letter.  
Ratherius' Itinerary to Rome.  
Six Sermons.  
A Letter on the Eucharist. 

Works lost.  
The Combat, or Meditations of the Heart.  
A Book called Phrenesis.  
Divers Sermons.  
The Life of S. Ursmar.  
A Grammar, which bears the Title of Spera dorsum.     

FLODOARD, Canon of Rheims▪ Genuine Works still extant.  
An History of the Church of Rheims.  
A Chronicle.   

LUITPRANDUS, or LIUTPRANDUS Bishop of Cremona.  


Genuine Works which we have.  
A History beginning at the Reign of the Emperors Leo and Arnulphus, and ending at that of Constantinus Porphyrogenneta.  
A Relation of his Embassy to the Emperor Phocas.  
An History of the Expulsion of B●renger.    


Spurious Works.  
The Lives of the Popes.  
A Chronicle.     

HULDEBERT, Archbishop of Mentz Genuine Works.  
Certain Lives of the Saints.   

DURANDUS, Abbot of Castres'. A Work lost.  
A Tract against those Persons who avouch the Soul to be Mortal.   

JOHN, Monk of Clunie. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of S. Odo Abbot of Clunie.   

ODO, Archbishop of Canterbury. His Genuine Works.  
Ecclesiastical Constitutions.  
A Pastoral Letter.   

BERNERUS, Monk of S. Remy at Rheims. Genuine Works.  
The Life of S. Hunegonda.  
The History of the Translation of the Body of that Saint.   

ATTO, Bishop of Vercelli.  


His Genuine Works still extant.  
A Capitulary for the Clergy of his Diocese.  
A Treatise of the Persecutions raised against Clergymen.  
Eleven Letters.    


Works lost.  
Politica, or the Perpendicular.  
Seventeen Sermons.     

BRUNO, Archbishop of Cologn. Works lost or forged.  
A Commentary on the Penta●●uch.  
The Lives of certain Saints.   

WILLIAM, Archbishop of Mentz. A Genuine Work.  
A Chronicle of the Archbishops of Mentz.   

JOHN XII. Pope Genuine Works.  
Two Letters.   

S. ULRIC Bishop of Augsburg.  


Genuine Works.  
Several Sermons referred to by the Author of his Life.    


A Spurious Work.  
A Letter about the Celibacy of Priests.     

EDGAR, King of England.  


Genuine Works still extant.  
His Laws.  
His Discourse to S. Dunstan.    


A Work forged.  
Certain Ecclesiastical Constitutions.     

UTHO, Bishop of Strasburg. Genuine Works.  
The Lives of S. Arbogastus and S. Amand.   

GERARD, Dean of S. Medard at Soissons.  


A Genuine Work.  
The Life of S. Romanus in Prose.    


A Work lost.  
The Life of S. Romanus in Verse.     

THIERRY or THEODORIC, Archbishop of Trier. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of S. Lutruda.   

WITICHIND, Monk of Corby in Saxony.  


His Genuine Works.  
Three Books of the History of the Saxons, containing the Reigns of the Emperors Henry the Fowler, and Otho I.  
Certain Poems.    


Works lost.  
The Lives of S. Thecla and S. Paul the first Hermit.     

ABBO, or ALBO, Abbot of Fleury.  


His Genuine Works which we have.  
An Apology.  
Letters to Bernard Abbot of B●aulieu.  
A Letter to an Abbot of Fulda.  
A Collection of Canons.    


Works lost.  
A Letter in Hexameter Verse in Commendation of Otho.  
The Harmony of the Gospel dedicated to Odilo.  
A Treatise of the Cycles.    


Spurious Works.  
An Epitome of the Lives of the Popes.  
The Life of S. Edmund.     

JOHN XIII. Pope. Ge●●ane Works.  
Four Letters.   

ADSON, Abbot of Luxueil. A Genuine Work.  
An History of the Miracles of S. Vandalbert.   

ROGER, Monk of S. Pantaleon at Cologn. A Genuine Work still extant.  
The Life of Bruno Archbishop of Cologn.   

ROSWIDA, a Nun of Gandersheim. H●r Genuine Works.  
A Poem on the Life of the Emperor Otho I.  
Other Poetical Pieces.   

BENEDICT VII. Pope. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to the Bishops of France and Germany.   

S. ETHELWALD, Bishop of Winchester. Spurious Works.  
A Treatise of the Abbots of Lind●farn, and others mentioned by Pitsaeus.   

S. DUNSTAN, Archbishop of Canterbury. His Genuine Works.  
Concordia, or Rules for the Monastical Life.  
Ecclesiastical Constitutions under the Name of Edgar King of England.  
A Letter to Wulfin Bishop of Worcester.   

ADSON, Abbot of Devures. Genuine Works which we have.  
The Lives of S. Bercarius, S. Basolus, S. Mansuet, and S. Frodbert.  
The History of the Translation and Miracles of S. Bercarius and S. Frodbert.   

HELPERIC or CHILPERIC, Monk of S. Gallus.  


A Genuine Work.  
A Preface to a Treatise of the Calendar.    


A Work lost.  
A Treatise of the Calendar.     

JOHN XV. Pope. Genuine Works still extant.  
A Relation of the Treaty of Peace between Ethe●●ed and Richard.  
An Admonition to the Bishops of Picardy.   

NICON, of Armenia. A Genuine Work.  
A Tract concerning the Religion of the Armenians.   

FULCUIN or FOLCUIN, Abbot of Lobes. Genuine Works.  
His History of the Abbey of Lobes.  
The Life of S. Ursmar and S. Fulcuin.   

REGNALD, Bishop of Eichstadt. His Genuine Works.  
The Lives of S. Nicolas and S. Bla●ius.  
The Lives of S. Wilbald and S. Unnebald.   

BERTHIER, or BERTHERIUS▪ Priest of Verdun. A Genuine Work.  
A Compendious History of the Bishops of Verdun.   

GREGORY V Pope. Genuine Works.  
Four Letters.   

GERBERT, Archbishop of Rheims, afterward of Ravenna, and at last Pope under the Name of Sylvester II.  


His Genuine Works still extant.  
CLX. Letters.  
The History of the Acts of the Council of Rheims in 992.  
A Discourse to the Council of Mouzon in 995.  
A Discourse concerning the Episcopal Functions against Simony, which he composed, being Pope.  
Three Letters written during his Pontificate.    


Works lost.  
Divers Treatises of Rhetoric, Arithmetic, and Geometry.     

AIMOIN or AIMONIUS, Monk of Fleury.  
The History of France in three Books, and 41 Chapters of the fourth.  
The Life of Abbo Abbot of Fleury.  
Two Books of the Miracles of S. Benedict.  
A Sermon on the Festival of that Saint.  
A Piece in Verse on his Translation, and on the Foundation of the Abbey of Fleury.   

HERIGER, Abbot of Lobes.  


Genuine Works still extant.  
An History of the Bishop of Liege.  
A Treatise of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  
The Life of S. Ursmar.    


Works lost.  
A Letter to Hugh about several Questions.  
A Treatise of Discord, and of the Coming of our Lord.    


Doubtful Works.  
The Lives of S. Bertenda and S. Landoald.     

UFFIN or UFFO, Monk of Werthin.  


A Genuine Work.  
The Life of S. Ludger Bishop of Munster.    


A doubtful Work.  
The Life of S. Ida.    


A Work lost.  
The Life of S. Lucius King of England.     

GERARD, the Pupil of S. Ulric. A Genuine Work which we have.  
The Life of S. Ulric Bishop of Augsburg.   

A nameless WRITER, Monk of S. Vito at Verdun. A Genuine Work.  
A Continuation of Berthier's History of the Bishops of Verdun.   

ALBERT, or OLBERT, Abbot of Gemblours. Works lost.  
The Lives of the Fathers composed by that Author.   

ALDELBOLD, Bishop of Utrecht.  


A Genuine Work.  
The History of the Emperor Henry III.    


Works lost.  
Hymns in Praise of the Cross, and of the Virgin Mary.  
Some other Works.     

JOHN, Abbot of S. Arnulphus at Metz. Genuine Works.  
An Account of the Life and Translation of S. Glodesinda.  
The Life of S. John Abbot of Gorze.   

LETALDUS, Monk of Micy, or S. Memin. Genuine Works.  
An History of the Miracles of S. Memin.  
The Life of S. Julian Bishop of Mans.   

A Nameless Germane BISHOP. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of S. H●nnegonda.   

A Nameless AUTHOR. A Genuine Work.  
The History of the Translation of the Body of S. Epiphanius Bishop of Pavia.   

WOLSTAN, Monk of Winchester. Genuine Works.  
The Life of S. Ethelwold.  
A History in Verse of the Translation of S. Swithin's Body.   

FRIDIGOD, Monk of Corby. Genuine Works.  
The Lives of S. Wilfrid and S. Owen.   

LANFRID, Monk of Winchester. Genuine Works.  
The Life of S. Swithin.  
An History of the Miracles upon the Translation of that Saints Body.   

OSBORN, Chanter of the Church of Canterbury. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of S. Dunstan.   

ALFRIC, or AELFRIC, Archbishop of Canterbury.  


His Genuine Works still extant.  
A Sermon.  
Two Letters.  
A Canonical Letter.    


Works lost, or yet in Manuscript.  
Divers Sermons in the Saxon Tongue.  
An History of the Jews and Christians till the taking of Jerusalem.  
A Penitential.  
A Letter about the Monastical Life.  
A Letter against the Marriage of Clergymen.  
A Saxon Chronicle.  
Certain Lives of the Saints.  
Translations of some Works of the Fathers.     

NICEPHORUS, the Philosopher. A Genuine Work.  
Funeral Orations for Antony Patriarch of Constantinople.   

MOSES BARCEPHA, Bishop of Syria. A Genuine Work.  
A Treatise of the Terrestrial Paradise.   

OTHLO, Monk of Fulda.  


A Genuine Work.  
The Life of S. Pyrmin.    


A Suppositious Work.  
The Life of S. Boniface     

ODILO, Abbot of Clunie. Genuine Works still extant.  
The Lives of S. Maiol and S. Adelaida.  
Letters to S. Fulbert.  
Three other Letters.  
Fourteen Sermons.   

HIPPOLYTUS THEBANUS. Genuine Works.  
A Fragment of a Chronicle.  
The Lives of the Apostles.   

LAURENTIUS, Monk of Liege, and afterward of S. Vito at Verdun. A Genuine Work.  
A Continuation of the History of the Bishops of Verdun.    

A TABLE of the Acts, Letters, and Canons of the COUNCILS held in the Tenth Century.  
Councils Years Acts, Letters, Petitions and Canons. A Council at Rome 904 Acts divided into Twelve Capitularies. A Council at Ravenna 904 Ten Capitularies. A Council at Canterbury ib. Acts are lost. An Assembly in England, under King Edward 906 Laws. A Council at 

Trosly  
Constantinople  
Trosly  
Coblentz  
Rheims   909 Acts divided into Fifteen Articles. 920 Acts lost. 921 An Extract of the Acts in Flodoard. 922 Eight Canons, of which only four remain. 923 An Extract of the Acts in Flodoard. An Assembly in England under King Ethelstan 923 Laws. A Council at 

Trosly  
Trosly  
Erfurdt  
Chateau-Thierry  
Fismes  
Soissons   924 An Extract of the Acts in Flodoard. 927 An Extract of the Acts in Flodoard. 932 A Preface and Five Canons. 934 An Extract of the Acts in Flodoard. 935 A Decree against Usurpers of Ecclesiast. Revenues. 941 An Extract of the Acts in Flodoard. An Ecclesiastic Assembly in England under K. E●…und 944 Laws Ecclesiastical and Civil. A Council at 

Constantinople  
Near the River Cher  
Verdun  
Mouzon  
Ingelheim  
Mouzon  
Trier or Treves  
London  
Rome  
Augsburg  
S. Thierry   944 Acts lost. 947 Acts lost. 947 An Extract of the Acts in Flodoard. 948 An E●…ract of the Acts in the same Author. 948 Acts and Ten Canons. 948 An Extract of the Acts in Flodoard. 948 Acts in Flodoard. 948 
Laws lost.  
The Charter of a Donation to the Monastery of Croyland.  449 Extract of the Acts in Flodoard. 952 Eleven Canons. 953 An Extract of the Acts in Flodoard. A Council held in the Diocese of Meaux 961 An Extract of the Acts in Flodoard and in Hugh de Flavigny. A Council at Rome 963 Acts. A Council at Rome 964 Acts. A Council at Rome 964 A Dec. about Investitures. Acts lost. A spurious Decree. A Council at Ravenna 967 Acts and Let. of the Pope. An Assemb. in Engl. under K. Edgar & S. Dunstan 967 Laws and Constitutions. A Council at Constantinople under Nicephorus Phocas 967 Acts lost. A Council at Mount S. Mary 972 Acts. A Co●nc at Ingelheim 970 An Extract of the Acts in the Life of S. Ulric. A general Council in England 973 Acts. A Council at 

Canterbury under S. Dunstan  
Rheims  
Winchester  
Charroux  
Rheims  
Senlis  
Rheims  
Rheims  
Rome  
Mouzon  
Rheims  
St. Dennis  
Ravenna  
Rome  
Poitiers  
Rome  
Aix-la-Chapelle   974 An Extract of the Acts in S. Dunstan's Life. 975 An Extract of the Acts in Flodoard. 975 Acts. 989 Three Canons. 989 Acts. 989 Acts. 992 Acts and Discourses of Arnoul of Orleans digested by Gerbert. 993 An Admonition of the Bishops, & Gerbert's Letter. 995 An Act for the Canonization of S. Ulric. 995 Acts. 995 An Extract ●f the Acts in Aimoin's Appendix. 995 An Extract of the Acts in Aimoin. 997 Three Canons. 998 Eight Canons or Constitutions. 999 Three Canons. 1002 Acts lost. 1003 Acts lost.   

A TABLE of the WORKS of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the Tenth Age of the Church; disposed according to the Subjects they treat of.  

Dogmatical Works.  
A Dissertation against the Anthropomorphites by Ratherius.  
Nico's Tract concerning the Religion of the Armenians.  
Ratherius' Treatise of the Eucharist.  
Heriger Abbot of Lobes' Treatise on the same subject.  
A Sermon and two Letters on the Eucharist by Alfric Archbishop of Canterbury.  
Moses Bar-Cephas's Treatise of the Terrestrial Paradise.   

Books of Church-Discipline.  
Pope Stephen the Fifth's Letters referred to Flodoard.  
Certain Letters by Pope Formosus.  
Fulcus Archbishop of Rheims' Letters.  
Ecclesiastical Constitutions by Gauterius Archbishop of Sens.  
Hervaeus Archbishop of Rheims' Letter to Guy Archbishop of Roven.  
Letters written by Pope John IX.  
Hatto and Theotmar's Letters to Pope John IX.  
Pope Benedict the Fourth's Letters.  
Pope John the Tenth's Letters.  
Edward King of England's Laws in 906.  
King Ethelstan's Laws in 923.  
Letters by Nicolas Patriarch of Constantinople to the Popes.  
Pope Leo the Seventh's Letters.  
Pope Agapetus the Second Letters.  
Ratherius Bishop of Verona's Book of Perpendiculars.  
— His deliberative Conclusion made at Liege.  
— His Writings about the Contest between him and his Clergy.  
— His Apologetical Treatise.  
— Discourse to the Clergy of Verona.  
— His Character and Synodal Ordinance.  
— His Five Letters.  
— His Synodal Letter.  
— His Itinerary to Rome.  
— His Six Sermons.  
Odo Archbishop of Canterbury's Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Pastoral Letter.  
Atto Bishop of Verceil's Capitulary.  
— His Treatise of Persecutions raised against the Clergy.  
— His Eleven Letters.  
— His two Letters to Pope John XII.  
Edgar King of England, his Laws.  
— His Discourse of S. Dunstan.  
Abbo Abbot of Fleury's Apology.  
— His two Letters.  
— His Collection of Canons.  
Pope John the Thirteenth's Letters.  
Pope Benedict the Seventh's Letters.  
S. Dunstan's Letter to Wulfin Bishop of Worcester.  
Pope Gregory the Fifth's four Letters.  
Pope Sylvester the Second Discourse of the Episcopal Functions.  
Mansion Bishop of Châlons' Letter to Fulcus Archbishop of Rheims.  
Alfric Archbishop of Canterbury's Canonical Letter.   

Historical Works.  
Pope Stephen the Fifth's Letters referred to Flodoard.  
Pope Formosus' Letters produced by the same Author.  
Letters written by Fulcus Archbishop of Rheims.  
Notger the Stammerer's History of Charlemain.  
Pope John IX. and Benedict IV's several Letters.  
Pope John the Tenth's Letters.  
Charles the Simple King of France, his Letter to the Bishops of that Kingdom, and to Pope John X. about the Affair of Hilduin's being intruded upon the Bishopric of Liege.  
A Fragment of the Historical Treatise, by Eutychius Patriarch of Alexandria.  
Constantine Porphyrogenneta's Life of the Emperor Basil.  
— His Historical Pandects.  
— His History of the Image of Jesus Christ brought from Edessa to Constantinople.  
Jo. Cameniates' History of the taking of Jerusalem by the Saracens.  
Ratherius' Apology, and some other Tracts of the same Author.  
Flodoard's History of the Church of Rheims.  
— His Chronicle.  
Luitprandus' History.  
— His Relation of his Embassy to the Emperor Phocas.  
— His History of the Expulsion of Berenger.  
A Chronicle of the Archbishop of Mentz by William Archbishop of that City.  
Witichindus' History.  
Pope John the Fifteenth's Relation of the Treaty of Peace between Ethelred and Richard.  
— His Advice to the Bishops of Picardy.  
Fulcuin's History of the Abbey of Lobes.  
Gerbert Archbishop of Rheims' Letters.  
Gerbert's History of the Acts of the Council of Rheims against Arnulphus.  
— His Discourse to the Council of Mouzon.  
Heriger Abbot of Lobes' History of the Bishops of Liege.  
Aimoin Monk of Fleury's History of France.  
Berthier's Compendious History of the Bishops of Verdun.  
A Continuation of the History of the Bishops of Verdun by a nameless Monk.  
Adelbold's History of the Emperor Henry III.  
A Fragment of Hippolytus Thebanus' Chronicle.  
Lawrence Monk of Liege's Continuation of the History of the Bishops of Verdun.   

Lives of the Saints.  
Notger the Stammerer's Martyrology.  
— His Fragment of the Life of S. Gallus.  
Adalbero's Life of S. Hariolphus.  
Stephen Abbot of Lobes' Life of S. Lambert.  
Odilo Monk of S. Medard at Soissons his History of the Translation of the Relics of S. Sebastian and S. Tiburtius.  
Radboldus' Lives of S. Amelberga and S. Willebrord.  
Simeon Metaphrastes' Lives of the Saints.  
Odo Abbot of Cluny's Lives of S. Geraldus and S. Martial of Lymoges.  
— His Account of the Translation of the Body of S. Martin.  
— Commendation of S. Martin and Panegyric on S. Bonedict.  
Hildebert Archbishop of Mentz's Lives of certain Saints.  
John Monk of Cluny's Life of S. Odo.  
Bernerus' Life and Translation of the Relics of S. Hunegonda.  
Utho Bishop of Strasburg's Lives of S. Arbogastus and S. Amand.  
Gerard Monk of S. Medard's Life of S. Romanus.  
Thierry or Theodoric Archbishop of Triers' Life of S. Lutruda.  
Adson Abbot of Luxueil's History of the Miracles of S. Wandalbert.  
Roger Monk of S. Pantaleon's Life of Bruno Archbishop of Cologn.  
Adson Abbot of Deuvre's Lives of S. Bercaire, S. Basolus, S. Mansuet, and S. Frodbert.  
— His History of the Translations and Miracles of S. Bercaire and S. Frodbert.  
Fulcuin Abbot of Lobes' Lives of S. Ursmar and S. Fulcuin.  
Reginald Bishop of Eichstadt's Lives of S. Nicolas, S. Blasius, S. Wilbaldus, and S. Unnebald.  
Heriger Abbot of Lobes' Life of S. Ursmar.  
Aimoin's Life of Abbo Abbot of Fleury.  
— His two Books of the Miracles of S. Bonedict.  
— His Sermon on the Festival of that Saint.  
Uffin Monk of Werthin's Life of S. Ludger Bishop of Munster.  
The Life of S. Ulrio by Gerard his Pupil.  
John Abbot of S. Arnulphus at Metz's Lives of S. Glodesinda and S. John Abbot of Gorze.  
Letaldus' History of the Miracles of S. Memin.  
— His Life of S. Julian Bishop of Mans.  
The Life of S. Hunegonda by a nameless Germane Bishop.  
The History of the Translation of the Body of S. Epiphanius Bishop of Pavia by a nameless Writer.  
Wolstan Monk of Winchester's Life of S. Ethelwold.  
— His History of the Translation of the Body of S. Swithin.  
Fridegod Monk of Canterbury's Lives of S. Wilfric and S. Owen.  
Lanfrid Monk of Winchester's Life of S. Swithin, and History of the Miracles of his Translation.  
Osborn's Life of S. Dunstan.  
Nicephorus the Philosopher's Funeral Orations for Antony Patriarch of Constantinople.  
Othlo Monk of Fulda's Life of S. Pyrmin.  
Odilo Abbot of Cluny's Lives of S. Maiol and S. Adelaida.  
Hippolytus Thebanus' Lives of the Apostles.   

Works of Morality and Piety.  
Simeon Metaphrastes' Moral Sentences.  
Odo Abbot of Cluny's Conferences.  
— His Sermons.  
— His Epitome of S. Gregory's Morals.  
Ratherius' Conjecture on a certain Quality.  
— His Sermons.  
S. Ulric Bishop of Augsburg's Sermons.  
Odilo Abbot of Cluny's Sermons and Letters.   

Works about a Monastic Life.  
Odo Abbot of Cluny's Conferences.  
S. Dunstan's Harmony, or Rules for the Monastic Life.   

Poetical Works.  
Waldramnus Bishop of Strasburgh's Poems.  
Notger the Stammerer's Proses and Hymns.  
Solomon Bishop of Constance's Poems.  
Simeon Metaphrastes' Poems.  
Odo's Hymns and Anthems in honour of S. Martin.  
Roswida Nun of Gandersheim, her Poem on the Life of the Emperor Otho I.  
— Her other Poetical Pieces.  
Aimoin Monk of Fleury's Poem on the Translation of S. Benedict, and the Foundation of the Abbey of Fleury.    

An ALPHABETICAL TABLE of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the Tenth Century.  

A.  
ABbo, or Albo, Abbot of Fleury, 51  
Adalbero Bp. of Augsburg, 58  
Aldebold Bp. of Utrecht, 53  
Adson Abbot of Devures, 55  
Adson Abbot of Luxueil, ib.  
Agapetus II. Pope, 9 & 19  
Aimoin or Aimonius Monk of Fleury, 52  
Albert, or Olbert, Abbot of Gemblours, 54  
Alfric, or Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury, 66  
An Anonymous Author Bishop of Germany, 61  
An Anonymous Author Monk of S. Vito at Verdun, 55  
Another Anonymous Writer, 61  
Atto Bishop of Verceil, 26  
Aurelian Clerk of the Ch. of Rheims, 46   

B.  
BEnedict IU. Pope, 6 & 16  
Benedict VII. Pope, 20  
Bernerus Monk of S. Remy at Rheims, 46  
Berthier Priest of Verdun, 55  
Bishop of Germany nameless 61  
Bonno, or Bavo, Abbot of Corby in Saxony, 59  
Bruno Archbishop of Cologn, 58   

C.  
CHilperic, or Helperic, Monk of S. Gallus, 54  
Constantine Porphyrogenneta, Emperor of Constantinople, 4   

D.  
S. DUnstan Archbishop of Canterbury, 64  
Durandus Abbot of Castres' 67   

E.  
EDgar K. of England, 64  
S. Ethelwald Bishop of Winchester 65  
Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria, 4   

F.  
FLodoard, Canon of Rheims 45  
Formosus, Pope, 32  
Fulcus, Archbishop of Rheims, 31  
Fridegod, Monk of Canterbury, 66  
Fulcuin, or Folcuin, Abbot of Lobes 53   

G.  
GAuterius, Archbishop of Sens 47  
Gerard S. Ulric's Pupil, 56  
Gerard, Dean of S. Medard at Soissons, 54  
Gregory V. Pope, 15 & 20   

H.  
HAtto Archbishop of Mentz, 16  
Helperic, or Chilperic, Monk of S. Gall, 54  
Heriger Abbot of Lobes, 53  
Hervaeus Archbishop of Rheims, 15, 35. & sequ.  
Hildebert Archbishop of Mentz, 59  
Hippoljtus the Theban, 4   

J.  
Joannes Cameniates, 4  
John IX. Pope, 6 & 15  
John X. 7 & 18  
John XII. 10 & 20.  
John XIII. 20  
John XV. 15 & 20  
John Abbot of S. Arnulphus at Metz, 54  
John Monk of Clunie, 50   

L.  
LAnfrid Monk of Winchester, 66  
Laurence Monk of Liege, and afterward of S. Vito at Verdun, 55  
Leo VII. Pope, 8 & 19  
Letaldus Monk of Micy, or S. Memin, 55  
Luitprandus, Bishop of Cremona, 28   

M.  
Mansion Bishop of Châlons, 35  
Marinus II. Pope, 9  
Monk Anonymous, 55  
Moses Bar-Cephas Bishop of Syria, 5   

N.  
A Nameless Author Bishop of Germany, 61  
A Nameless Writer, Monk of S. Vito at Verdun, 55  
Another Nameless Author. 61  
Nicephorus the Philosopher, 5  
Nicolas Patriarch of Constantinople, 1 & sequ.  
Nico of Armenia, 4  
Notger the Stammerer Monk of S. Gall, 60   

O.  
ODilo, Abbot of Clunie, 50  
Odilo Monk of S. Medard at Soissons, 54  
Odo Abbot of Clunie, 50  
Odo Archbishop of Canterbury, 64  
Olbert, or Albert, Abbot of Gemblours, 54  
Osborn Chanter of Canterbury, 65  
Othlo Monk of Fulda, 61   

R.  
RAthboldus, or Radboldus, Bishop of Utrecht, 59  
Ratherius Bishop of Verona, 20. & sequ.  
Reginaldus Bishop of Eichstadt, 61  
Roger Monk of S. Pantaleon at Cologn, 58  
Roswida a Nun of Gandersheim 61   

S.  
SOlomon Bishop of Constance, 60  
Simeon Metaphrastes, 3  
Stephen V Pope, 31  
Stephen Abbot of Lobes, afterward Bishop of Liege, 52   

T.  
THeotmar Metropolitan of Bavaria, 16  
Thierry, or Theodoric, Archbishop of Trier, 61   

U.  
ULfric, or Uffo, Monk of Werthin, 62  
S. Ulric Bishop of Augsburg, 56. & sequ.  
Utho Bishop of Strasburg, 60   

W.  
WAltramnus, or Waldramnus, Bishop of Strasburg, 59  
William Archbishop of Mentz, ibid.  
Witichindus, Monk of Corby in Saxony, 60  
Wulstan Monk of Winchester, 66    

An ALPHABETICAL TABLE of the COUNCILS held in the Tenth Age of the Church.  
Place. Pages. Years. A. AIx-la-Chapelle, 49, 1003 Augsburg, 62, 952 C. CAnterbury, 63, 904 Canterbury under S. Dunstan, 65, 974 Charroux. 48, 989 Chateau-Thierry, 37, 934 Cherseoli River, ibid. 947 Coblentz, 62, 922 Constantinople, 2, 920 Constantinople, ibid. 944 Constantinople, ibid. 967 D. S. DEnis, 51, 995 E. ERfurdt, 62, 932 England under K. Edmund, 63, 944 England (General) 65, 973 F. FIsmes, 37, 935 I. INgelheim, 9, 948 Ingelheim, 38, 972 L. LOndon, 64, 948 M. MEaux, 39, 961 S. Mary's Mount, ibid. 972 Mouzon, 37, 948 Mouzon, 39, 948 Mouzon, 43, 995 P. POitiers, 48, 999 R. RAvenna, 6 & 17, 904 Ravenna, 14, 967 Ravenna, 48, 997 Rheims, 36, 923 Rheims, 39, 975 Rheims, 40, 989 Rheims, ibid. 992 Rheims, 42, 993 Rheims, 44, 995 Rome, 6 & 17, 904 Rome, 9, 949 Rome, 11, 963 Rome, 13, 964 Rome, ibid. 964 Rome, 57 & 69, 995 Rome, 48, 998 Rome under Sylvester II. 49, 1002 S. SEnlis, 40, 989 Soissons, 37, 941 T. THierry-Chateau, 37, 934 S. Thierry, 39, 953 Trier, or Treves, ibid. 948 Trosly, 35, 909 Trosly, 36, 921 Trosly, ibid. 924 Trosly, ibid. 927 V. VErdun, 37, 947 W. WInchester, 65, 975   

A General INDEX of the Principal Matters contained in this Volume.  

ABbeys in the possession of Laymen, 68 Restored to Regular Canons, ibid. some retained by the Bishops, ib. several Abbeys governed by the same Abbot, ibid.  
Abbey of S. Ambrose at Milan; a Privilege granted to it, 20.  
Abbey of Clunie, when and by whom founded, 49. Its first Abbots, 50. A Privilege granted to that Abbey, 19  
Abbey of Croyland, a Donation made to it, 64.  
Abbey of Fleury, a Privilege granted to that Abbey, 51.  
Abbeys Regular, by whom founded and so called, 51.  
Abbots; their Office and Functions, 35, 41.  
Absolution, that of public sins reserved to the Bishop, 24.  
Adalbert the Son of Berenger, expelled Italy by his Father, 10. His Intrigues with Pope John XII. against Otho for the Recovery of Italy, ibid. He is invited to Rome by the Pope, from whence they are driven out by Otho, 11.  
Adam; Moses Bar-Cephas's Opinion concerning his Immortality, 5.  
Adelaida, the Widow of Lotharius King of Italy, persecuted by Berenger, who covets to marry her, 10. She makes application to the Emperor Otho I. who rescues her, and takes her to Wife, ibid.  
Agius Archbishop of Narbonne, confirmed in his Archbishopric, and Gerard, who had the possession of it, turned out, 18.  
Alberic, his Authority at Rome, after having expelled Hugh his Father-in-law, 8. Octavian his Son advanced to the Papal Dignity at the Age of 18 years, 10.  
Alms, the first founding of Alms-money, or S. Peter's Pence in England, 63.  
Anathema, published to continue for ever, 32, 69.  
Anthropomorphites, their Errors confuted by Ratherius, 25, 67. Certain Italian Clergymen fallen into that Error, ibid.  
Appeals: of those to the See of Rome, 41.  
Argrin Bishop of Langres, restored to his Bishopric, 16.  
Armenians; the Mission of Nico into Armenia, 4.  
Arms; Clergymen allowed to beat them, 3, 68  
Arnulphus King of Germany, crowned Emperor, by way of recompense for being severe against the Romans, 6. The time of his death, ibid.  
Artoldus' Archbishop of Rheims, his Ordination, 37. A Privilege granted to him by King Lewis d'Outremer, ibid. He is obliged to resign his Archbishopric, and to accept of two Abbeys, ibid. His Treaty with Hugh upon account of that Resignation ibid. He is restored to his Episcopal See, 38. The time of his death, 39  
Augsburg, the Bishops of that Church in the Tenth Century, 56, etc.   

B.  
BAptism, the Administration of that Sacrament, 26.  
Pennance imposed on Adult Persons admitted to receive it, 27.  
Bells; the first Example of the Benediction of Bells, 14 & 68  
Benefices, the Merchandise that was made of them in the Tenth Century, 51 & 68 Plurality of Benefices condemned, 8 & 68  
Berenger, the success of his Arms in Italy, 6. He causes himself to be crowned Emperor, ibid. His Coronation condemned in a Council, 17. He is killed at Verona, 8.  
Berenger, the Son of Adalbert, Marquis of jurea; his power suspected by K. Hugh, who determines to dispatch him, 9 He makes an Escape to Germany, ibid. He returns to Italy, ibid. having re-established his Authority, he causes himself to be crowned King, 10. His vain Efforts to marry Queen Adalaida, Lotharius' Widow, ibid. He is compelled to submit to the Emperor Otho I. ibid.  
Berno, Founder of the Order of Clunie, 49.  
Bishoprics, erected by the See of Rome in the Tenth Century, 14, 19, 49 & 67. Plurality of Bishoprics conferred on the same person, 8, 48, & 68  
Bishops, their Election and Ordination, 27 & 68 Some Bishops chosen very young in the Tenth Century, 11, 36 & 68 Of the Episcopal Functions and Authority, 21, 22 & 23. Bishops not allowed to consecrate Churches beyond their own Diocese without permission, 48. nor to ordain foreign Clergymen, without recommendatory Letters from their Bishops, ibid. nor to choose Coadjutors, 49, 57, & 68 Of their Right to Churches, 51. Monks made Subject to their Jurisdiction, 62. and the Monasteries to their Visitations, ibid. Of the Allegiance they own to Kings, 28, 35, 40, & 41. Whether they may be allowed to give Hostages for their Fidelity, 28. Deposed for High Treason, 18 & 41. Of Judiciary proceed against Bishops, 27, 40, & 41. Of the removing of their Causes to the See of Rome, 41. Penalties to be inflicted on those who are addicted to Hunting, or to playing at Games of Chance, 62. Whether they ought to say Pax vobis, or Dominus vobiscum, 19 Bishops obliged to preserve the Revenues of their Churches, ibid. Of the pillaging of their Estates or Goods after their Decease or Expulsion, 27, 36, & 68 How the Emperor Nicephorus seized on their Revenues after their death, 2 & 3. The Misdemeanour of two Greek Bishops tolerated in a Council, 3.  
Boniface, the Successor of Formosus, turned out of the See of Rome, 6.  
Boniface, Antipope, the outrageous Acts committed by him in aspiring to the Papal Dignity, and in maintaining his Authority, 14.  
Burial; a Constitution about the burying of the dead, 24 & 48.   

C.  
CAnonization of Saints; the original and progress of of it, 69 & sequ.  
Canons of the Councils of the Tenth Century, 38 & sequ. 49, 62, etc. Of the necessity of observing them, 24, 25. The Italians of all the People in Christendom (according to Ratherius) have the least regard to the Canons, 22.  
Canon's Regular of particular Churches; Rules for their Functions, 47.  
Canonships' Regular, instituted in several Chapters of Italy, 68  
Charles the Simple, King of France, set up in opposition to Eudes' Count of Paris, crowned King, 30 & 33. The Arguments of Fulcus Archbishop of Rheims about the Coronation of Charles the Simple, 33. His Remonstrance to that Prince concerning his Alliance with the Normans, ibid. King Charles imprisoned by Herbert Count of Vermandois, 30. He is detained Prisoner till his death, ibid. & 36.  
Charles Duke of Lorraine, the last of the Carlian Race, why excluded from the Crown, and Hugh Capet preferred before him, 30. His vain Attempts against Hugh, ibid. & 40. His imprisonment and death, 30.  
Chests containing the Records of a Monastery; Nuns prohibited to receive any into their Custody, without a Licence from the Bishop, 47.  
Chrism, Nothing to be exacted for the distribution of it, 48.  
Church Catholic, Rules for its conduct, 43.  
Church or Temple; The Bishops in England obliged to repair their Churches, and the King to stand to the Reparation of the rest, 63. Of the Right of the Bishops to Churches, 51. Laymen forbidden to provide Priests for Churches, or to turn them out, without the consent of the Bishops, 39  
Clergymen; Of their irregular practices in the Tenth Century, 23, 26, & 65. Of their Functions, 26, 27, & 65. Of the Persecutions that were raised against them, 27. Of the unjust Processes served upon them, ibid. Penalties to be inflicted on those who spend time in Hunting or playing at Games of Hazard, 62. obliged to lead a single Life, 23, 36, & 62. and to live continently, 62 & 64. Forbidden to keep suspected Women in their Houses, 36 & 62. Constitutions against Clergymen who commit Robberies or Fornication, 63. Ordinancies against those who do them any injury, 32. 36 & 39  
Clerks, why contemned in Italy according to Ratherius, 22. Secular Clerks substituted in the room of Monks, 23. What they ought to know, 26. Clerks obliged to embrace the Monastical Life in England, 64. Constitutions against those who abuse them, 39 and relating to their Ordinations, 48. A Penalty to be inflicted on Clerks who live licentiously, 47.  
Coadjutories, condemned in several Councils, 49.  
H. Communion; an Obligation to participate of it four times a year, 68  
Confession; Criminals allowed to make Confession of Capital Crimes to a Priest, 63.  
Confirmation. Clergymen forbidden to exact any thing for the Administration of it, 48.  
Congregations, the original of them, 49 & 68  
Crescentius Consul of Rome, 14. his Tyranny over the Popes, 15. His revolt against the Emperor, ibid. He is killed by Treachery, ibid.   

D.  
DEcemviri, who they were, 14. An exemplary punishment of their Revolt against the Emperor Otho, ibid.  
Deaconesses; Atto's opinion concerning them, 28.  
Didon Bishop of Loan, reproved by Fulcus Archbishop of Rheims, upon account of his proceed with respect to a certain Criminal, 34.  
Dignities Ecclesiastical, who are unworthy of them, according to Ratherius, 22.  
Discipline; Certain Regulations of Ecclesiastical Discipline, 14. By whom re-established in England, 64.  
S. Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury, refuses to take off an Excommunication which he had denounced, all-, tho' he received express orders from the Pope to do it 65. He cannot be prevailed with, to that purpose, but upon the request of the Bishops of a Council, ibid.   

E.  
ECclesiastical Persons, see Clergymen.  
Ecclesiastical Discipline, see Discipline.  
Edgar King of England, reproved by S. Dunstan, 65. The Penance which he imposed on him, ibid.  
Elections; The Authority of Princes in the Election of Bishops, 27 & 68  
Electors of the Empire; The time of their Institution, 15, 70. & sequ.  
Emperor; The Election of the Emperors restrained to a certain number of Germane Princes, 15 & 70.  
Eucharist; Several Persons in the Tenth Century deny that the Eucharistical Bread and Wine are really changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, 66. Pretended Miracles to confirm the contrary Opinion, ibid. & 67. The Authors who maintain it, 67. Other Writers who treat of the Eucharist after the same manner as Ratramnus, ibid. Divers Questions relating to this Sacrament, 25, 26. An Abuse of it reformed in the Church of Ravenna, 48.  
Excommunications; a Constitution about such as are denounced by Ecclesiastical Judges, 47. A perpetual Excommunication, 32 & 69.   

F.  
FAsts, a Constitution about that on S. Mark's day, 39  
Forbdiden to be imposed without the Bishop's consent, 62. A Relaxation of Fasting, 68 Of the Obligation of Fasts, 64. Of those prescribed by Ratherius Bishop of Verona, 24. How they were observed in his time, 25.  
Formosus Pope, the sentiments of several persons for and against him, 6 & 7. His Memory and Ordinations condemned in a Council. 6. re-established in another Council, ibid.  
Fulcus Archbishop of Rheims; Qualities attributed to him by Pope Stephen V. 31. For what reason cited to Rome by Formosus and Stephen VI 32 & 33. The Excuses he made to decline that Journey, ibid. His Remonstrance to King Charles the Simple, about his League with the Normans, 30. Another Remonstrance made by that Archbishop to Honoratus Bishop of Beauvais, 34. His Death, 35.  
France, The Division of it into three Kingdoms, 30. The Progenitors of Hugh Capet crowned Kings of France, ibid. & 36.  
Friday, some would have Feasting on that day, 67.  
Frotarius Archbishop of Bourdeaux, chosen Archbishop of Bourges, 31. Obliged to leave the latter Metropolitan See, and to return to that of Bourdeaux, ibid.   

G.  
GAmes of Hazard or Chance; a Penalty to be inflicted on Clergymen who are addicted to them, 62  
Gerard Archbishop of Sens, receives a Commission with John Archbishop of Roven, from the See of Rome to regulate the restauration of a Monastery, 31.  
Gerard Archbishop of Lorch; the Times in which the Pope allowed him to wear the Pall, 19 Divers Questions proposed by him to the Pope, and the Answers to them, ibid. Made the Pope's Vicar in Germany, ibid.  
Gislair Bishop of Mersburg, a Sentence passed against him, upon account of his instalment in the Archbishopric of Magdeburg, 49.  
Godfathers, the obligation they lie under to their God-childrens, 26.  
Gild; irregular proceed, that were in use, to judge of the Guiltiness or Innocency of an accused person, 27.  
Guy Duke of Spoleto crowned Emperor by Pope Formosus, 6 & 32. The time of his death, 6.   

H.  
HArold Archbishop of Saltzburg, for what reason deposed and excommunicated, 14.  
Hebert Count of Vermandois, his Treachery to King Charles the Simple, 30. He makes himself Master of the Archbishopric of Rheims, by causing his Son to be chosen Archbishop, 36. After what manner he disposes of the Government of that Metropolitan See, ibid. Excommunicated for pillaging the Revenues of the Church of Rheims, 37.  
Heriland Bishop of Terovane driven out of his Diocese by the Normans, 32. nominated to the Bishopric of Châlons, 34.  
Hilduin, intruded on the Episcopal See of Liege, 18. The causes that rendered him uncapable, ibid. At last turned out of that Bishopric, ibid.  
Hugh Archbishop of Rheims, chosen at the Age of five years, 36. Artoldus substituted in his room, ibid. & 37. Restored to the possession of his Archbishopric, 37. His Ordination, ibid. He is deposed in several Councils and Excommunicated, 37 & sequ. The Bishops who ordained him obliged to make satisfaction, 39 Penalties inflicted on those who had ordained him, ibid.  
Hugh Count of Arles, becomes Master of Rome by marrying Marosia, 7. He is expelled thence by Albericus, 8. His erterprises to get possession of that City again, ibid. The Kingdom of Italy is left him by Radulphus, ibid. He is constrained by Berenger to abandon it, 9 He retires to Provence, and dies there, ibid.   

I.  
THe Image of Jesus Christ, when brought from Edessa to Constantinople, 4.  
●…chanters, Whether they ought to be admitted to Penance, 19  
Indulgences granted by the Popes, 68  
Instructions Synodal; their original, ibid.  
Interdictions, a Regulation of them in favour of the Parochial Churches, 47.  
Investitures, the Right of them granted to the Emperors, 2 & 68  
Italy, that Kingdom contested among divers Princes, 7, 8 & sequ.  
Judiciary Proceed against the Bishops and Clergy irregularly carried on, 27.   

K.  
KIngs, Instructions about their Duty, 64. Whether they may require Hostages for the Fidelity of Bishops, 28.   

L.  
LAmbert, crowned Emperor by Pope Formosus, 6 & 32. His Title acknowledged by John IX. 6. His Coronation confirmed in a Council, 17. His Tragical end, 7.  
Langres; Two Bishops ordained for that Church, 31  
Lewis d'Outremer; whence he obtained that surname, 30 & 37. The Motives that induced the Estates to crown him King, 37. The time of his death, 30.  
Lewis the Son of Bosno, Count of Arles, assumes the Title of King of Arles or Provence, 30. He Abdicates the Kingdom of Italy, 6. He is recalled thither and betrayed, ibid.  
Lorch; The Right of precedency granted to the Church of Lorch before that of Saltzburg, 19 The Jurisdiction of it regulated, ibid.  
Lord's Prayer; Whether it ought to be said at the Benediction of the Table, 19,   

M.  
Malefactor's; whether they ought to be admitted to Penance, 19  
Magdeburg; the erection of the Church of Magdeburg into an Archbishopric, 14 & 67. The first Archbishop of that Diocese, 58.  
Manasses Archbishop of Arles; The Motives that induced him to leave that Metropolitan See, 8. The Bishoprics which he obtained in Italy against all manner of Rules, ibid. He declares for Berenger, who promises him the Archbishopric of Milan, 9 He actually gets possession of it, and turns out Walbert, 10. He expels Ratherius out of the Bishopric of Verona, 21.  
Markets forbidden to be kept on Sundays, 63.  
Marriage; With whom forbidden to be contracted. 2, 19, 28, 48, 62, 64 & 68 The Times in which Ratherius prohibits to marry, and the Penalties he imposes on those persons, who do not observe them, 23. A punishment to be inflicted on married Priests, 19 At what times Ratherius forbids Matrimony to be solemnised, 24 & 68 Disturbances in England about marriage, 34. Third and fourth Marriages prohibited in the Eastern Churches, 2 & 68 The Church of Rome does not maintain the nullity of them, 2. Second and third Marriages obnoxious to Penance in the Greek Church, ibid.  
S. Martin at Tours; Women forbidden to enter that Monastery under pain of Excommunication, 19  
Martin Bishop of Ferrara, accused of having ordained Children for money, 23.  
Martyrs; The Emperor Nicephorus endeavours to get a Decree made in a Council, that all the Soldiers, who were killed in the War, should be reputed Martyrs, 3  
Mass; of the Celebration of it, 25. Clergymen, who stand convicted of any Crime, forbidden to say it, ibid. Mass celebrated without the Communion, 1●. At what hour it was usually said on Holy Saturday, 25.  
Mersburg, when that Church was raised to a Bishopric, 49. afterwards destroyed and restored to that dignity, ibid.  
Monasteries, Rules for those of Nuns, 47. and for the other Monasteries, ibid. & 62. Several Monasteries governed by the same Abbot, 49 & 68  
Monastical Order, the state of it in the Tenth Century, 49. The original of the Monastical Congregations, ibid. & 68  
Monks, instituted by Bishops, even in Cathedral Churches, 65 & 68 Irregular Monks turned out of their Churches by Bishops, 68 Raised to the Episcopal Dignity, ibid. Instructions concerning their Duty, 64. Subject to the Jurisdiction of their Bishops, 62. Forbidded to go out of their Monasteries without leave, ibid.   

N.  
NOrmans, The time of their first Conversion, 15 & 35.   

O.  
OAths, The Obligation for the performance of them, 36.  
Office of the Virgin Mary, when it began to be said, 68 & 69.  
Offerings, Laymen excluded from a share in them, 39  
Ordeal, What? 63.  
Ordination, What ought to be known and performed for the receiving of Ordination, 24. Those of Pope Formosus and of those persons whom he ordained, declared Null in a Council, 6. re-established in another, 17 An Abuse in the Ordination of Bishops reform, 48. Contests about the validity or invalidity of Ordinations made by Intruders, 67. Constitutions which declare null those that are conferred by Intruders, 24. Sacrilegious Ordinations, 11.  
Otho I. Emperor, marches into Italy, where he delivers Queen Adelaida besieged by Berenger, and takes her to Wife, 10. He constrains Berenger to submit, and restores him to the Kingdom of Italy, ibid. He returns to Italy and expels Berenger, with his Son Adalbert, ibid. He is crowned King of Italy and Emperor, ibid. His proceed against Pope John XII. whom he causes to be deposed, 11. & sequ. He punishes the principal Romans for their Revolt, 14. The time of his death, ibid.  
Otho II. crowned King of Germany, 10. and Emperor, 14. He is defeated and taken Prisoner, ibid. The time of his death, ibid.  
Otho III. preferred before his Competitors to the Imperial Dignity, 14.  
Oswald Bishop of Worcester, Founder of several Monasteries, 64.   

P.  
Palls, the Popes enjoin the Archbishops to go to Rome to receive it, 67. The Bishops to whom the Popes granted the Pall in the Tenth Century, 19, 20, 31, 37, 44 & 64. Advice to the Pope about the concession of it, 32 & 67.  
Paradise; the Mystical significations of the Terrestrial Paradise, 6.  
Passaw; Remonstrances made to the Pope, to prevent the dividing of the Bishopric of Passaw, 16. The Misunderstanding between the Moravians and Bavarians about that Affair, ibid.  
Patriarch; The origine of the Patriarches of Alexandria, according to Eutychius, 4.  
Patrons, A Constitution for the Patrons of Churches, 39  
Pennance, Public Penance in use, 26, 27 & 68 but very much enervated, 68 The Rigour of it ought to be mitigated in favour of New Converts, 15. A Prohibition to exact any thing for the Administration of it, 48.  
Pentecost, A Rule about the Celebration of that Festival, 39  
Perjured Persons; Constitutions against them, and punishments inflicted on them, 36 & 63.  
Placentia, The Church of Placentia erected into an Archbishopric, and afterward restored to that of Ravenna, 20.  
Pleas; Rules for the keeping of Court-Days, and about certain Judiciary proceed, 62  
Popes; Of their Election, 17 & 67. The right of choosing them granted to the Emperor Otho I. 13. Of the lawful Authority of Popes, and its Limits, 67, 68 Of their Decrees and Constitutions, 41. Unworthy Popes, according to Arnulphus Bishop of Orleans, ibid. They ought to be Learned Men, ibid. Of their Rights in the Trial of Bishops, ibid. 44 & 67. Of their Authority over other Bishops, 48. Of the preserving of their Revenues and Estates after their death, 17. The first Pope who changed his Name, 10 & 67. Qualilities attributed to the Pope by Ratherius, 23 & 24. The Submission made by Nicolas Patriarch of Constantinople to the Pope, 2. The Eastern Emperor makes application to him to get his Marriage confirmed, 1.  
Priests, of the Qualities requisite in them, 68 An Ordinance concerning Priests accused of Crimes, 62. Obliged to lead a single Life, ibid. A Penalty imposed on those who were married, ibid.  
Priestesses; Attoes Opinion about the Names of Priestesses and Deaconesses, 28.  
Primacy, That of the Church of Canterbury when and by whom confirmed, 63.  
Processes, Illegal Processes in the Trials of Bishops and other Clergymen, 27.  
Prohibitions, A Rule about those made in favour of the Parochial Churches, 47.   

R.  
RAdulphus King of Burgundy, makes himself Master of Italy, 8. He leaves it to Hugh Count of Arles, ibid.  
Ravenna; The established Right of that Metropolitan See, 48. The Churches that are restored to it, 20. Divers privileges granted to it, ibid.  
Rebaptising forbidden, 17.  
Re-ordinations prohibited, ibid.  
S. Remy at Rheims, a privilege granted to that Abbey, 20.  
Restitution; Of the Obligation to make it, 36 & 48.  
Revenues of the Church; The Bishops obliged to preserve them, 19 Ordinances and Penalties against those persons who usurp them, 20, 34, 37, 39, 42 & 47. That the distribution of them belongs to the Bishops, 22 & 68 Of their division into four parts, 24 & 68 Appointed for the Relief of the Poor, 65. An Ordinance concerning their Alienation, 49. They that usurp them esteemed Heretics by Abbo, 51. How they were seized by the Emperor Nicephorus, 2, 3.  
Rheims; Of the Dignity of that Church, 31. The Archbishops of it, by whom constituted Vicars of the See of Rome, ibid. The confirmation of its privileges, 32. And of the Donations of its Revenues, ibid. The Authority of its Archbishops, 34.  
Riquier or Richerius, preferred before Hilduin to the Episcopal See of Liege, 18. Ordained Bishop of that Church, ibid.  
Robert King of France; His marriage with Bertha declared null, 48. The Effects of the Excommunication denounced against him, 49.  
Romans; Their Revolts against the Popes, the Kings of Italy, and the Emperors, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.  
Rome; The Liberty of that City, 67, 68 The The ancient privileges of the Church of Rome confirmed in a Council, 18. The deplorable state of it in the Tenth Century, 5. The Intrigues carried on in aspiring to the See of Rome, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15. Ratherius' Commendation of that Church, 24, 25. The Donation of its Revenues confirmed by the Emperor Otho, 14.   

S.  
SAcrament of the Eucharist, 25, 26. An Injunction to receive it four times a year, 68  
Saltzburg, That Church deprived of the Metropolitan Right, 19  
Schools set up in the Cathedral Churches and Monasteries, 68  
See of Rome, The unworthy Possessors of it, 41. Of its Rights in the Trial of Bishops, ibid.  
Sentence, irregularly pronounced in the Trials of Bishops and Clerks, 27.  
Sergius a Deacon of the Church of Rome, stands in competition with Formosus for the Popedom, and is forced to retire, 6. Afterward he finds means to step into S. Peter's Chair, 7. His Exorbitances, ibid. His Bastard Son raised to the Papal Dignity, ibid.  
Sico Bishop of Capua, reproved by Pope Marinus II. 9  
Simony, common in the Tenth Century, 23, 27 & 44.  
Soothsayers; Whether they ought to be admitted to Penance, 19  
Sorcerers, Constitutions and Punishments ordained against them, 62, 63.  
Soul, The Error of some persons, who believed the Soul to be mortal, 67.  
Stephen V Pope; The Title of Brother and Friend which he gives a certain Archbishop of Rheims, as also that of Son to one of the Kinsmen of that Prelate 31.  
Stephen VI Pope; his tragical and lamentable death, 6.  
Stephen Bishop of Cambray, a Decrec made in his favour in a Council, 36.  
Stilian Bishop of Neocaesarea, adheres to the Church of Rome, notwithstanding the Schism of the Greeks, 16.  
Suffragans, Whether they are empowered to consecrate Churches, to ordain Priests, or to administer Confirmation, 19  
A Superstitious Opinion concerning S. Michael, 25.  
Synods; Penalties to be imposed on those persons who refuse to assist in them, 47.   

T.  
TEutboldus; The Bishopric of Langres contested between him and Egilon, 31, 32. The ill usage he received, ibid.  
Theodora and Marosia Roman Ladies; Their Authority in the City of Rome, 7, 8. Their exorbitant practices and intrigues for and against the Popes, ibid.  
Tithes, Of the Duty of paying them, 35 & 64. Contests about them referred to the Bishops, 39 A Rule for Tithes, 18. Constitutions about the receiving and use of them, 62. All the Territories of the Kingdom of England subject to the payment or Tithes, 63.  
Translations of Bishops, when forbidden and permitted, 17. Become frequent in the Tenth Century, 68 The Translation of Formosus from the Bishopric of Porto to that of Rome, 5, 6, & 17.  
Truce of God, what, 69. Rules concerning it, ibid.  
Trials by Fire and Water, 63 & 69. Those of Bishops and Clerks irregularly carried on, 27.   

W.  
Wizard's, Whether they may be admitted to Penance, 19  
Women, a Abuse reformed with respect to those who lead a dissolute course of Life, 17. Constitutions against lewd Women, 62, 63.   
FINIS.   

A NEW Ecclesiastical History; Containing an ACCOUNT of the CONTROVERSIES IN RELIGION; THE LIVES and WRITINGS OF Ecclesiastical Authors; AN Abridgement of their Works, And a JUDGEMENT on their STYLE and DOCTRINE: ALSO, A Compendious HISTORY of the COUNCILS, AND All Affairs Transacted in the Church. Written in FRENCH By Lewis Ellies du PIN, Doctor of the SORBON.  
VOLUME the NINTH; Containing the HISTORY of the ELEVENTH CENTURY.  
LONDON, Printed by H. Clark for Abel Swall, at the Unicorn in Pater-noster-Row, MDC XCIX.   

To the Reader.  
BY how much the farther Progress we make, in the several Ages of the Church, so much the greater Number of Contests appear to our View; every Age successively affording Variety of Matter, and producing a new Scene of Affairs. Thus for instance, in the Eleventh Century, different Opinions arose concerning the Holy Sacraments; the Latin and Greek Churches came to an open Rupture; the Popes took upon them to depose Emperors and Kings; and Scholastic Divinity▪ the Source of an infinite Number of Questions, took then its first Rise. The Minds of Men being recovered, as it were, from that Lethargy, wherewith they were seized in the preceding Age; they began to apply themselves to Study, in the beginning of this: Insomuch that in a short space of time, all Europe was filled with Judicious and Learned Personages, who communicated their Knowledge to others, either by Public Lectures or Writings.  
The Controversies, that afterwards arose, were likewise a powerful Motive to excite them to Study; and gave Occasion to those, who were endowed with extraordinary Parts, to exercise their Pens, and to show their Learning. Some were very successful in imitating the Ancients, both in their Style and manner of Writing; but the greatest part of them, still retained somewhat of the Barbarism and Courseness of the former Age, and others fell into that uncouth and barren Method of handling Matters, which is more especially peculiar to Logicians. The most notorious Disorders were regulated; enormous Crimes were restrained; and the Bishops took a great deal of pains in reforming Church-Discipline; which nevertheless, was not restored to its ancient Perfection. Thus much may serve to give a general Idea of the Eleventh Century, which the Learned M. DV PIN (according to his usual Method) has improved to the best Advantage.   

A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS.  

CHAP. I.  
Of the Writings of St. Fulbert Bishop of Chartres, Page 1   

Chap. II.  
An Account of the Controversy about the Eucharist, set on foot by Berenger, and of his several Condemnations 6  
Berenger, Archdeacon of Angers ibid.  
Bruno or Eusebius, Bishop of Angers 7  
The Council of Rome held in the Year 1050. against Berenger ibid.  
The Council of Brionne against him ibid.  
Theodwin, Bishop of Liege ' s Letter against Berenger ibid.  
The Council of Verceil in 1050. against Berenger ibid.  
The Council of Paris held the same Year against Berenger 8  
Adelman, a Clerk of the Church of Liege ibid.  
Berenger' s Letter to Ascelin, a Monk of St. Eurou, ibid.  
Ascelin' s Letter to Berenger ibid.  
Berengers ' s Letter to Richard 9  
The Council of Tours in the Year 1055. against Berenger ibid.  
The Council of Rome in 1059. against the same Person ibid.  
Berenger's first Confession of Faith ibid.  
— He relapses into his Error 10  
The Council of Rouen held against him in 1063. ibid.  
The Council of Poitiers against him in 1075. ibid.  
Eusebius or Bruno, Bishop of Anger's ' s Letter to Berenger ibid.  
The Councils of Rome held in 1078 and 1079. against Berenger under Pope Gregory VII. ibid.  
Berenger's second Confession of Faith ibid.  
The Council of Bourdeaux in 1080 against Berenger 11  
Berenger' s Repentance ibid.  
— His Followers ibid.  
— Other Errors laid to his Charge ibid.  
— His Writings and Adversaries ibid.   

Chap. III.  
Of the Writings of Lanfrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, of Guitmond, of Alger, and of the other Authors who have refuted Berenger's Opinions. 12  
Lanfrank, Archbishop of Canterbury ibid.  
The Council of Windsor ibid.  
Lanfrank's Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles, ibid.  
— His Treatise of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 13  
The Rules of the Order of St. Benedict 14  
Lanfrank ' s Letter's ibid.  
— His Treatise of Confession 16  
— His other Writings 17  
Hugh, Bishop of Langres ibid.  
Durandus, Abbot of Troarn ibid.  
Guitmond, Archbishop of Aversa 18  
Alser, Deacon of Liege, and Monk of Clunie 19  
St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury 21   

Chap. IV.  
An Account of the Popes, and of the Church of Rome, from the time of Sylvester II. to Gregory VII. 22  
Sylvester II. ibid.  
John XVI. and John XVII. 23  
Sergius IV. ibid.  
Benedict VIII. ibid.  
The Council of Pavia under Benedict VIII. ibid.  
John XVIII, ibid.  
Benedict IX. 24  
Sylvester III. ibid.  
Gregory VI ibid.  
Clement II. ibid.  
Damasus II. ibid.  
Leo IX. ibid.  
The Councils held under Leo IX. 26  
Victor II. ibid.  
Stephen IX. 27  
Nicolas II. ibid.  
The Council of Rome in 1059. under Nicolas II. ibid.  
The Councils of Amalfi and Benevento under the same Pope 28  
Pope Nicolas II's Letters ibid.  
Gervase, Archbishop of Rheims' Letter to Pope Nicolas II. ibid.  
Alexander II. ibid.  
The Councils under Alexander II. 29  
— His Letters ibid.   

Chap. V.  
An Account of the Church of Rome under Gregory VII. Of the Differences between that Pope and the Emperor Henry, and other Princes of Europe; with an Abstract of his Letters 32  
Gregory VII. ibid.  
An Account of the Difference between the Emperor Henry and Pope Gregory VII. 33  
The Council of Rome held in the Year 1074. 35  
Another Council held at Rome in 1075. 36  
The Pope arrested by Cincius 37  
Henry's Letter to the Bishops and Princes of the Empire ibid.  
Thierry or Theodoric, Bishop of Verdun's Letter against Gregory VII. 38  
Engelbert, Archbishop of Treves' Letter on the same Subject ibid.  
The Assembly of Worms against Gregory VII. in 1076. ibid.  
The Council of Rome held the same Year against Henry 39  
The Convention at Oppenheim against that Prince 40  
The Emperor Henry's Journey into Italy ibid.  
The Complaints made by the Lombard's against Henry's Conduct 41  
The Convention at Forcheim, where Radulphus is chosen Emperor 42  
The Council of Rome in 1078. ibid.  
Another Council at Rome in the same Year 43  
The Council of Rome in 1079. 44  
The Council of Rome in 1080. in which Henry is excommunicated and deposed by the Pope 45  
The Council of Brescia against Gregory VII. ibid.  
Clement III. the Antipope ibid.  
Henry ' s Letter to Gregory VII. ibid.  
The Preparations of War between Henry and Gregory ibid.  
Henry defeats Radulphus 46  
— His Expedition into Italy, and the Siege of Rome ibid.  
— He returns to Germany, and Gregory VII. is set at Liberty by the Normans ibid.  
The Convention at Berchach A. D. 1085. 47  
The Assembly at Quintilineburgh in the same Year ibid.  
The Convention at Mentz in the same Year ibid.  
The Death of Pope Gregory VII. ibid.  
The Contest between Gregory VII. and Philip I. King of France 48  
The Judgement passed by Hugh Bishop of Dic ibid.  
Gregory VII.'s Letters relating to England 49  
— His Pretensions upon Spain ibid.  
— His claim to the Kingdoms newly converted 50  
— His Pretensions to Hungary ibid.  
— His Letters to the Kings of Denmark 51  
— His Letters sent to Poland and Russia, ibid.  
— His Letters sent to Norway and Dalmatia ibid.  
— His Letters concerning Bohemia ibid.  
— His Pretensions to Italy 52  
The Conquests of the Normans in Italy ibid.  
The Differences and Agreement of Gregory VII. with the Normans 53  
— His Pretensions to Sardinia and Corfu 54  
— The Oath of Fidelity exacted by him from the Princes of Italy ibid.  
— His Project of the Crusade ibid.  
— His Letters sent into Africa 55  
— His Letter against the Errors charged upon the Armenians ibid.  
— His Legates sent to several Parts ibid.  
The Councils held in France by Hugh Bishop of Die A. D. 1077. 57  
The Council of Poitiers in 1078. ibid.  
The Canons of that Council 58  
The Councils of Avignon and Meaux in 1080. ibid.  
The Council of Meaux in 1082. ibid.  
The Vicars of several Popes in France 59  
The erecting of the Primacy of Lions by Gregory VII. ibid.  
The Rights and Privileges of the Primates of France ibid.  
The Cause of Manasses Archbishop of Rheims 60  
— Those of the Archbishop of Tours and of the Bishop of Dol 62  
— That of the Bishop of Toul ibid.  
— That of William Duke of Aquitaine ibid.  
— Those which Pope Gregory VII. heard and tried at Rome 63  
— Those that he referred to his Legates ibid.  
— Those cited to and judged by him in the same City ibid.  
— That of Everard Dean of Orleans 64  
— That of Robert nominated to the Bishopric of Chartres ibid.  
— That of Stephen Bishop of Annecy ibid.  
— That of the Archbishop of Rouen 65  
— That of the Canons of St. Omer ibid.  
Cardinal Richard elected Abbot of Marseilles ibid.  
Gregory VII.'s Letters concerning Discipline ibid.  
— His Letters relating to Monastic Discipline 66  
— The various Judgements passed upon that Pope 67  
— An Examen of the Decree called Dictatus Papae, said to belong to him 68  
— His other Writings 69   

CHAP. VI  
An Account of the Church of Rome, and of the Popes who succeeded Gregory VII. to the end of the Century 69  
Victor III. ibid.  
Hugh, Archbishop of Lyons' Letters against Victor ibid.  
The Council of Benevento, held in the Year 1087 under Victor ibid.  
Urban II. 70  
— His Letters ibid.  
The Council of Rome held in the Year 1089. 72  
The Council of Melphi in the same Year ibid.  
— of Toulouse in 1090. ibid.  
— of Benevento in 1091. ibid.  
— of Troia in Apulia in 1093. 73  
— of Constance in 1094. ibid.  
— of Placentia in 1095. ibid.  
— of Clermont in the same Year ibid.  
Philip I. King of France divorced from Bertha ibid.  
The Council of Autun in the Year 1094. ibid.  
The Crusade under Pope Urban II. 74  
The Canons of the Council of Clermont ibid.  
The Confirmation of the Primacy of Lions 75  
The Council of Lymoges in the Year 1095. ibid.  
The Councils of Tours and Nismes in 1096 ibid.  
The Canons of the Council of Nismes ibid.  
The Councils of Bari and Rome in 1098. ibid.  
The Council of Rome in 1099. ibid.  
— of Rouen in 1096. 76   

Chap. VII.  
An Account of the Controversies on foot between the Latin and the Greek Churches in the Eleventh Century 76  
Michael Cerularius and Leo of Acridia, their Letter against the Church of Rome ibid.  
Pope Leo IX's Letter to Cerularius ibid.  
The Greek Emperor's Letter to the Pope ibid.  
The Pope sends Legates to Constantinople ibid.  
Pope Leo IX's Letters to Cerularius, and to the Greek Emperor ibid.  
Cardinal Humbert delivers those Letters and Writings to that Prince ibid.  
— His Reply to Cerularius' Letter 77  
Nicetas Pectoratus' Dissertation against the Latin Church ibid.  
Humbert's Reply to Nicetas 78  
Nicetas' Retractation 79  
The Excommunication of Michael Cerularius by the Pope's Legates ibid.  
The Departure of the Pope's Legates 80  
Dominick Patriarch of Grado's Letter to Peter Patriarch of Antioch ibid.  
Peter of Antioch's Answer to the Patriarch of Grado ibid.  
Cerularius' Letter to Peter of Antioch 81  
Peter of Antioch's Answer to Cerularius 82  
A new Attempt made for the reuniting the Greek and the Latin Churches ibid.  
The Banishment of Cerularius ibid.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Of the Life and Writings of Peter Damian, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia 83  
— His Letters to the Popes ibid.  
— His Letters to the Cardinals 86  
— His Letters to the Archbishops ibid.  
— His Letters to the Bishops 87  
— His Letters to the Clergy 88  
— His Character [98]  
Petrus de Honestis, a Cl●●k of Ravenna ibid.   

CHAP. IX.  
An Account of the Churches of England from the Time of William I. surnamed The Conqueror, to Henry II. with the Life of St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, and an Abridgement of his Writings 91  
St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury ibid.  
Eadmer, St. Anselm's Pupil 96   

CHAP. X.  
Of the Ecclesiastical Writers of the Eleventh Age, who composed Treatises of Church-Discipline, or Commentaries on the Holy Scriptures 97  
Burchard, Bishop of Worms ibid.  
Godehard, Bishop of Hildesheim ibid.  
Gosbert, Abbot of Tergernsee ibid.  
Guy Aretin, Abbot of La Croix St. Leufroy ibid.  
Aribo, Archbishop of Mentz ibid.  
Berno, Abbot of Richenaw ibid.  
Bruno, Bishop of Wurtzburg 98  
John, surnamed Jeannelin, Abbot of Erbrestein ibid.  
Warin, Abbot of St. Arnulphus at Mets ibid.  
William, Abbot of the same Monastery ibid.  
Robert de Tombalene, Abbot of St. Vigour at Bayeux ibid.  
Anselm, Bishop of Lucca ibid.  
Deus-dedit, Cardinal of St. Eudoxia 99  
Gregory, Cardinal of Rome ibid.  
Benno, Cardinal of the same Church ibid.  
Conrade, Bishop of Utrecht. ibid.  
Weneric, Bishop of Verceil ibid.  
Ulric, a Monk of Clunie ibid.  
Bernard, a Monk of the same Abbey ibid.  
Bernard, a Monk of Corby in Saxony ibid.  
Bernard, a Clerk of the Church of Utrecht ibid.  
Aegilnothus, Archbishop of Canterbury ibid.  
Campanus, of Lombardy ibid.  
Franco, a Philosopher of Liege ibid.  
Berthorius, Abbot of Mount Cassin ibid.  
Erard, a Benedictin Monk ibid.  
Adam, Abbot of Perseme 100   

CHAP. XI.  
Of the Authors who wrote Ecclesiastical History, or the Lives of the Saints in the Eleventh Century 100  
Megenfroy or Meginfred, a Monk of Fulda ibid.  
Syrus, a Monk of Clunie ibid.  
Osbern or Osbert, a Monk of Canterbury ibid.  
Tangmarus, Dean of Hildesheim ibid.  
Arnold, a Canon of Hersfeldt ibid.  
Eberard, St. Harvic's Pupil ibid.  
Arnulphus, a Monk of St. Emmeran ibid.  
Erchinfroy, Abbot of Melck ibid.  
Rupert, Abbot of Mount Cassin ibid.  
Dithmar, Bishop of Mersburg ibid.  
Ademar or Aimar, de Chabanois, a Monk of St. Cibar at Angoulesme 101  
Hugh, Archdeacon of Tours ibid.  
Odoran, a Monk of St. Peter Le Vif at Sens ibid.  
Anselm, Dean of Namur 102  
Hermannus Contractus, a Monk of Richenaw ibid.  
Glaber Radulphus, a Monk of Clunie ibid.  
Gualdo, a Monk of Corbie ibid.  
Drogo, a Monk of St. Winoch ibid.  
Helgaud, a Monk of Fleury ibid.  
Witpo or Wippo, Chaplain to the Emperor Henry III. ibid.  
Ebervin or Evervin, Abbot of St. Maurice at Tolen ibid.  
Evershelm, Abbot of Aumont in Hainaut ibid.  
Guibert, Archdeacon of Toul ibid.  
Metellus, Abbot of Tergensee ibid.  
Folcard, a Monk of St. Berthin ibid.  
Gerard, Abbot of St. Vincent at Laon ibid.  
Willeran, Abbot of St. Peter at Mersburgh ibid.  
Ursio, Abbot of Aumont ibid.  
Desiderius, Abbot of Mount Cassin ibid.  
Paul, a Canon of Benrieden 103  
Conrade, a Monk of Bruvilliers ibid.  
Geffrey de Maleterre, a Norman Monk ibid.  
William, of Apulia ibid.  
Bertulphus or Bernulphus, a Priest of Constance ibid.  
Nalgod, a Monk of Clunie ibid.  
Othlo, a Monk of St. Boniface ibid.  
Ingulphus, Abbot of Croyland ibid.  
Thierry or Theodoric, Abbot of St. Trudo ibid.  
Alphanus, Archbishop of Salerno ibid.  
Amatus, a Bishop in Italy ibid.  
Hepidannus, a Monk of St. Gall ibid.  
Marianus Scotus ibid.  
Lambert of Aschaffemburgh, a Monk of Hirsfeldt 104  
Adam, a Canon of Bremen ibid.  
Albert, a Benedictin Monk of Mets ibid.  
Anselm, a Benedictin Monk of Rheims ibid.  
Gonthier, a Monk of St. Amand ibid.  
Warman, Bishop of Constance ibid.  
Britwol, Bishop of Winchester ibid.  
Ingelran, Abbot of St. Riquier ibid.  
Bertha or Bertrada, a Nun of Willock ibid.  
Gislebert, a Monk of St. German at Auxerre ibid.  
Diodericus, a Monk of Hirsfeldt ibid.  
Andrew, a Monk of Fleury, or of St. Benedict on the Loire ibid.  
Odo, a Monk of St. Maur des Fosses ibid.  
Bovo, Abbot of St. Berthin ibid.  
Gislebert, a Monk of St. Amand ibid.  
St. William, Abbot of Richanaw 105  
Alberic, Cardinal ibid.  
Jotsald, a Monk of Clunie ibid.  
Wolferus, a Canon of Hildesheim ibid.  
Gotzelin, a Monk of Canterbury ibid.  
Peter, a Monk of Maillezais ibid.  
William, a Monk of Chiusi in Tuscany ibid.  
Raimond, a Monk of St. Andrew at Avignon ibid.  
Heymo, a Monk of Richenaw ibid.  
Gerard de Venna, a Monk of La Chaise-Dieu ibid.  
Egiward, a Monk of St. Burchard at Wurtzburg ibid.  
Gautier or Gauterius ibid.  
Grimaldus ibid.  
Rudolf, a Monk of La Chaise-Dieu ibid.  
Notcherus, Abbot of Hautvilliers ibid.  
W. a Monk of Walsor ibid.   

CHAP. XII.  
Of the Greek Ecclesiastical Writers, who flourished in the Eleventh Century 106  
Leo, the Grammarian ibid.  
Alexius, Patriarch of Constantinople ibid.  
Eugesippus ibid.  
Theophanes, the Ceramean Archbishop of Tauromenium ibid.  
Nilus' Doxopatrius, Archimandrita ibid.  
Nicetas Pectoratus, a Monk of Studa ibid.  
Michael Psellus, a Senator of Constantinople ibid.  
Simeon the Young, Abbot of Xerocerce 107  
John, Archbishop of Euchaita 108  
Joannes Thracesius Scylitzes Curopalata ibid.  
Georgius Cedrenus, ibid.  
Constantinus Lichudes, Patriarch of Constantinople ibid.  
John Xiphilin, Patriarch of Constantinople ibid.  
Samonas, Archbishop of Gaza ibid.  
Nicolas, Bishop of Metone ibid.  
Theophylact, Archbishop of Acris ibid.  
Nicetas Serron, Archbishop of Heraclea 109  
Nicolas, surnamed the Grammarian, Patriarch of Constantinople ibid.  
Peter, Deacon and Chartophylax of the Church of Constantinople ibid.  
Samuel of Morocco, a converted Jew ibid.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Of the Councils held in the Eleventh Century 109   

The COUNCILS of FRANCE.  
The Council of Orleans held in the Year 1017. ibid.  
The Synod of Árras in 1025. 110  
The Council of Bourges in 1031. 111  
— of Lymoges, held in the same Year 112  
Divers Councils held in France in 1040. 113  
The Council of Rheims in 1049. 114  
— of Tours in 1060, 115  
— of Soissons in 1092. ibid.  
Roscelin, a Clerk of the Church of Compiegne ibid.  
Theobald, a Clerk of Etampes 116   

Divers Councils held in Normandy.  
The Council of Rouen convened A. D. 1050. 116  
— of Lisieux in 1055. ibid.  
— of Rouen in 1063. ibid.  
— of Rouen in 1072. 117  
A Quarrel between the Archbishop of Rouen and the Monks of St. Owen 118  
The Council of Rouen in 1074. ibid.  
— of Lillebonne in 1080. ibid.   

The Councils of the Province of Aquitaine.  
The Council of Narbonne held in the Year 1054. 119  
— of Toulouse in 1056. ibid.   

The COUNCILS of GERMANY.  
The Council of Dortmundt held A. D. 1005. 120  
— of Selingenstadt in 1023. ibid.  
— of Mentz in 1069. 121  
— of Mentz in 1071. ibid.  
— of Erford in 1073. ibid.   

The COUNCILS of ENGLAND.  
The Council of Aenham held in the Year 1010. 121  
King Ethelred and King Canut's Laws 122  
The Council of London in 1075. ibid.  
— of Winchester in 1076. ibid.  
— of London in 1102. 123.   

The COUNCILS of SPAIN.  
The Council of Leon held in the Year 1012. 123  
— of Coyaco in 1050. 124  
— of Elna in Roussillon in 1065. 125   

CHAP. XIV.  
Observations on the Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Eleventh Century 125  
The Study of Divinity in this Century ibid.  
Of the Rights of the Popes and of the Church of Rome. 126  
Divers Points of Discipline concerning the Clergy ibid.  
Remarks on the scourging Discipline and Fasts ibid.  
Observations on the Mass, and on divers Points of Discipline 127  
— on the Monastic Life ibid.  
The Order of Camaldolites ibid.  
— of Carthusian Monks ibid.  
— of St. Antony ibid.  
— of Cistercian Friars 128  
— of Regular Canons ibid.  
A Chronological Table of the Ecclesiastical History of the Eleventh Age of the Church.  
A Chronological Table of the Ecclesiastical Authors that flourished in the Eleventh Century.  
A Table of the Works of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the Eleventh Century.  
A Table of the Acts, Letters, and Canons of the Councils held in this Century.  
A Table of the Writings of the Ecclesiastical Authors, disposed according to the Matters they treat of.  
An Alphabetical Table of the Ecclesiastical Authors in this Century.  
An Alphabetical Table of the Councils held in this Century  
An Alphabetical Table of the Principal Matters contained in this Volume.    
AN HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSIES AND OTHER Ecclesiastical Affairs Which happened in the Eleventh Century.  

CHAP. I.  
Of the Writings of S. Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres.  
WE will begin this Eleventh Century with S. Fulbert Bishop of Chartres, who 
S. Fulbert Bishop of Chartres.  was one of the principal Restorers of Learning, of the Sciences, and of Divinity. He came from Rome to France, and held his public Lectures in the Schools of the Church of Chartres, about the end of the Tenth, and the beginning of the Eleventh Century. His Reputation gained him Scholars from all Parts, who went out of his School full of Learning and Piety, and diffused his Light in France and Germany; insomuch that all the Ingenious Persons of that time, gloried in having been his Scholars. He was in great Repute with King Robert; and, as some Historians tell us, he was his Chancellor. In the Year 1007. he succeeded Radulphus in the Bishopric of Chartres; and governed that Church with a great deal of Vigilance and Prudence, for the space of One and twenty Years and some Months. He died April 10, 1028.  
He composed several Letters, Sermons, and Pieces of Poetry. His Letters amount to 134.  
In the First he explains three Essential Points of our Faith; namely, The Mystery of the Trinity, the Sacrament of Baptism, and the Sacraments of Life; to wit, of the Body and Blood of our Lord. We shall not here stand to repeat what he has said about the Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation; 'tis enough to take notice that he has given a very exact Explanation of them, and that he has very particularly refuted the Errors of the Arians, Nestorians and Eutychians. Upon the Sacraments, he says, That we ought not to rest upon the External and Visible Signs, but to attend to the Invisible Power and Efficacy of these Mysteries. We know, says he, and 'tis an unquestionable Truth, That we were polluted by our first Birth, and purified by the second; therefore we are buried and we die with JESUS CHRIST, that we may be born again and quickened with him. The Water and the Holy Ghost are united in that Sacrament; the Water denotes the Burial, the Holy Ghost the Life Eternal; as JESUS CHRIST lay buried in the Ground for three Days, so is Man dipped, and as it were buried three times in the Water, that he may rise again by the Holy Spirit. He afterwards proves, That 'tis God which Baptizeth; and that tho' a wicked Man should administer this Sacrament, yet it does not hinder the Remission of Sins, because 'tis not he who is the Author, but only the Minister of the Sacrament; as he himself acknowledges, when he says, He who has regenerated you by Water and the Holy Spirit, grant you the Unction of Salvation. Now 'tis God alone who is the Author of Grace, the Dispenser of Spiritual Gifts, and who remits Sins. In discoursing on the third Point, namely, concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, after he had taken notice of its Sublimity, and its Incomprehensibility; he says, That God commiserating our Frailty, has provided a Remedy for us by this propitiatory Sacrifice offered for our daily Faults; and forasmuch as he has taken out of our sight, and carried to Heaven that Body which he offered for our Redemption, that we might not be deprived of the present Protection of his Body, he has left us a Salutary Pledge of his Body and Blood, which is not a Symbol of a vain, empty Mystery, but the real Body of JESUS CHRIST, which his secret Efficacy produceth every Day after an invisible manner, in the Solemnity of those Mysteries, under the visible Form of the Creature. 'Tis this Body which he spoke of to his Disciples a little before his Passion, This is my Body, and this is my Blood: And elsewhere, He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, John 6. 56. Being therefore thus instructed by the Will and Pleasure of this true Master, in partaking of his Body and Blood, we may boldly maintain, That we are changed into his Body, and that he dwelleth in us, not only by an Union of the Will, but by the Reality of the Nature which is united to us. He adds, That we should not imagine it to be any Dishonour to a God, who condescended to enter into the Womb of a Virgin, to be in Pure and Virgin Creatures: That what appears externally to be the Substance of Bread and Wine, became internally the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST: And to make this Change the more credible, he compares it to the Creation; and says, That if God could make Creatures out of Nothing, he could more easily convert them into the Substance of his Body.  
The Second Letter of Fulbert of Chartres is concerning a Custom in use in his time, of giving to the Priests, after their Ordination, a Consecrated Host, which they kept and communicated of for forty Days together. He had been asked the Reason of this Custom. But before he replied to that, he observed, That different Churches had their different Customs; which was no hindrance of their being united in the same common Faith. Afterwards, he says, That this Custom was observed by all the Bishops of his Country: That he remembered that formerly a Priest, having received a consecrated Host from his Bishop, and communicating thereof every Day, it one Day happened, That after he had celebrated these Mysteries, he lost this Host, by wrapping his Habit in the Communion Tablecloth. That on the Morrow, in the time of Celebration, when he came to communicate, he was very much surprised at his missing the Host. That the Bishop, being informed of what had happened through his Carelessness, had imposed on him a very severe Penance. S. Fulbert adds, That this Accident gave him an occasion of ask this Bishop, Whether it were not better that the Priests should eat this Host, the first or second Day after it was consecrated, without dividing it into so many Pieces? But that this Bishop had returned him this Answer, That they were obliged to keep this Host for the space of Forty Days; because, as JESUS CHRIST had been Forty Days upon Earth after his Resurrection, and appeared to his Apostles several times; so the Bishop, in ordaining his Priests, gave them the Eucharist to take for Forty Days together, to put them in mind of those Forty Days during which our Lord appeared to his Apostles after his Resurrection. Fulbert having asked, Whether this Mystery might not be as well performed by the Bread which the Priests consecrated every Day, was answered by the Bishop, That as many particular Churches spread over the Face of the whole Earth, made but One Catholic Church, because they have all one Common Faith; just so, many Particucular Hosts offered by many Faithful, are only One Bread, because of the Unity of the Body of CHRIST: That the Bread consecrated by the Bishop, and the Bread consecrated by the Priest, are changed into one and the same Body of JESUS CHRIST, by the Omnipotency of the same Virtue which operateth in both; but as it may be said in some measure, That the Body of JESUS CHRIST born of the Virgin, and nailed to the Cross, is different from the Body of JESUS CHRIST when raised from the Dead: Even so it seems, That the Bread consecrated on the Ordination-day, and kept by the Priests, may have a particular Signification distinct from the Bread which was consecrated every Day; the former may denote the Body of JESUS CHRIST raised from the Dead, to die no more; the latter, JESUS CHRIST who dies and rises again every Day for us.  
The Third and Fourth Letters are directed to King Robert; wherein he prays him to order Eudes Count of Chartres, to cause the Castles to be demolished which were built by Viscount Geoffrey, and very much incommoded the Church of Chartres.  
The Two following contain nothing in them remarkable.  
The Seventh is directed to Leoterick Archbishop of Sens, whom he exhorts to make use of his Authority in succouring Avisgaudus Bishop of Man's, whom the Count of that City oppressed; and to threaten the said Count with Excommunication, in case he did not restore to him his Revenue, and let him be quiet.  
The Eighth is a Copy of a Letter which he had written to this Avisgaudus, who complained that Fulbert and Leoterick had published his Confession. Fulbert gives him to understand, That he wronged them, in having such a Thought of them; That they had never published any thing but what was for his Advantage, and which might serve to justify him against those who had accused him of having quitted his Bishopric out of Avarice, Baseness, or for some other dishonourable Cause. That if he had trusted to their Secrecy such Things as he ought to repent of, they had taken great Care to conceal them; but that they had no Power to conceal those, which were public both before and after his Confession. As to that part of this Bishop's Complaint that they had said of him, That he was in Love with a Monastic Life, Fulbert returns him this Answer, That he ought not to take this amiss, since it could be no Prejudice to him; for the Love of a Religious Life rendered him rather worthy, than unworthy of the Bishopric into which he desired to enter again, were there nothing else to hinder him from it. But that they could not perceive how he could be put into Possession again, because he could not complain that he had been turned out of it, or that any one had been put into Possession of that See against his Will; since he had voluntarily quitted it under pretence of his Indisposition, and desired the King, That either Franco, Dean of the Church of Paris, or some other Person might be put into his Place: That after this Resignation, Franco had been put into his Place according to the Election of the Clergy, the Votes of the Laity, the Donation of the King, and the Approbation of the Holy See; and that he had been ordained by the Archbishop of Sens his Metropolitan.  
In the Ninth Letter he returns an Answer to the Bishop of Paris, upon three Points. The First is upon that Bishop's desiring him to Excommunicate one who had seized upon some Revenues belonging to the Church of Paris. He says he had not done it, (1.) Because he had not met with any Man who would venture to give him notice of this Excommunication. (2.) Because 'twas to no purpose that this Man should be declared excommunicated in the Church of Chartres, without knowing any thing of it. (3.) Because he thought it might more conveniently be done in a Synod of the Bishops of the Province. The Second is about the archdeacon of Paris, of whom his Bishop complained. Fulbert sent him Word, That it signified nothing to consult him about it, since it was his Business to judge him; and that for his part he could not condemn him, till he had first heard him. The Third is upon a Dispute which happened between Adeoldus and the Monks of S. Dennis. He says, That Adeoldus offered to refer himself to their Arbitration; and that if he pleased to appoint a Day wherein he would meet him, with some One in behalf of the Monks of S. Dennis, at S. Arnulphus, he would be there likewise to adjust these Differences.  
The following Letters, to the One and twentieth, contain very little of Ecclesiastical Matters; but in this there is mention made of a very remarkable Matter of Fact. The Abbot of S. Peter's of Chartres being very sick, a Monk, named Megenard, stole by Night out of the Monastery, and went to beg the Abbacy of Count Thibold, Son of Count Eudes of Chartres, who was then at Blois. The Count sent him back on the Morrow with Orders, That he should be received as Abbot. Answer was made him, That this ought not to be allowed; because they could not acknowledge him for Abbot, who had begged the Abbacy of another before the present Abbot was dead, and who intended to carry it by Authority, and not receive it by Election. He went and carried this Answer back to the Count; and within five Days after, the Abbot died. The Monks, with some Canons who had entered the Monastery, held a Chapter: Fulbert was there present, and asked them, Whether there were any among them who approved of what Megenard had done? They all answered, No. Thereupon it was ordered, That One should be sent to the Count, to carry him the News of the Abbot's Death; and to entreat him to grant the Monks leave to choose another. At the breaking up of the Chapter, two Monks, who had been Provosts of the Outparts, went to Blois to tell the Count, That Megenard was Elected, and required to be Abbot, by the Monks of S. Peter. These Monks, having Intelligence thereof, made a Protestation against it. The Count brought Megenard, and introduced him by Force: The Monks withdrew, and were received by Bishop Radulphus. Notwithstanding all this, Megenard received Benediction from a Bishop of Bretagne●, maugre the Protestations of the Deputy of the Archbishop, and of several Monks. He seized upon the Monastery, and solicited the Bishops, and the Pope himself, to be established therein. Fulbert laments this Misfortune, and entreats him to whom he writ, to do his best for these poor Monks.  
The Two and twentieth Letter is directed to Pope John XVII. He informs him, That Count Radulphus, whom he had excommunicated for seizing the Revenues of his Church, and for having abused a Clerk, was gone to Rome to seek for the Absolution of a Sin, for which he would make no Satisfaction. He conjures the Pope not to admit him to Communion.  
The following Letters to the Thirty fourth, are directed to Leoterick Archbishop of Sens. What is most remarkable in them about Matters Ecclesiastical, we shall here briefly insert. In the Three and twentieth he advises him, to send back a Priest, who was guilty of Simony, into his Diocese who had ordained him; and, if he tarried in his Diocese, to suspend him from all Ecclesiastical Functions. In the Five and twentieth, he desires him to degrade a Priest who had been ordained for a Reward, that he might afterwards enjoin him Penance for two Years, and then re-establish him. He adds, That it was not requisite to re-ordain him, but to re-establish him in his Orders, by the proper Instruments and Habits, by saying, I restore to thee the Order of Doorkeeper, etc. in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And afterwards to give him the Blessing in these Terms; The Blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, rest upon thee, that thou mayst be confirmed in the Sacerdotal Order; and that thou mayst offer Propitiatory Sacrifices to God Almighty, for the Sins and Offences of the People. In the Twenty eighth he complains, That Leoterick had ordained several Bishops in his Province, without calling him thereto; and that he had called the Bishop of Troy's, who was incapable of any such thing. In the Twenty ninth, he refuses to give Absolution to some Homicides of Senlis, at the Price they offered him. In the Thirtieth he declares, That he had not elected Odolrick for Bishop; but that after he had been elected by the Clergy or Laity, he had ordained him Priest; and upon Leoterick's Account, he had ordered him to go to Rome, there to be ordained Bishop. In the Thirty third he determines, That a Man who had been Godfather to his own Son at Confirmation, aught to be divorced from his Wife; which he grounds upon a Canon of the Council of Lessines, held under Charlémaigne.  
The Thirty fourth is written in the Name of Leoterick and Fulbert of Chartres, to the Clergy of the Church of Paris; to whom they wish, in the Preface, Temperantiam in Prosperis, Fortitudinem in Adversis, Charitatem ubique; i. e. Temperance in Prosperity, Courage in Adversity, and Charity at all times. They declare to them, That they sympathise in the Troubles which their Bishop undergoes; but they are sorry, that he would not apply himself to them for Consolation; and they wonder that these Canons should admit to their Communion such Persons who are refractory to the Laws of God, and disobedient to their Bishop: They assure them, they ought not to defer separating them from their Communion, till their Bishop had excommunicated them. In particular, they accuse Lysiard archdeacon of Paris, who instead of being what he ought to be, The Eye of his Bishop, the Reliever of the Poor, and the Instructor of the Ignorant, had run counter thereto; and was become to his Bishop a Blinder of the Eyes, to the Poor a Robber, and to the Ignorant an erreonous Guide, by taking away the Tithes and Oblations of the Altars from the Poor, and giving them to Seculars. Besides, they accused him of Perjury and Disloyalty to his Bishop; and orders them to show him this Letter, that so he may reform himself.  
In the Thirty sixth, Fulbert demonstrates the Enormity of a Deacon's Offence, who pretending to be a Priest, had celebrated Mass.  
In the Thirty eighth he says, That Ebaud, elected Archbishop of Rheims, ought not to be rejected, though he were a Laic, provided he had been brought up in Piety, and kept himself always untainted in his Morals; because there are several Examples of very great Men, such as S. Ambrose of Milan, S. german Bishop of Auxerre, and several others, who, having led a good Life whilst Laics, have proved holy Bishops.  
In the Thirty ninth he writes to the Archbishop of Bourges, That the Abbot Solomon and his Monks, cited before that Archbishop upon the Business of Tedfride, could not possibly make their Appearance, because it was then their Harvest-time; but that at the Council of Orleans, to be held the Fifteenth of October, they would appoint him the Time and the Place, wherein they would have an Hearing. Afterwards he complains, That this Archbishop had written a Letter to Arnulphus Abbot of S. Peter, whereby he declared, that he had excommunicated his Monks. He gave him to understand, That he had never any where Read that he had such a Power allowed him. This Archbishop had written another Letter to him, wherein he had reproved him for having submitted the Abbot Tedfride, without an Hearing, to Monk Solomon, who was only Provost. Fulbert replied, That it was not done before Tedfride had been heard, and that he was not Abbot when Solomon was put in his Place: That Abbot Tedfride being accused by his Monks, had declared, That he would no longer endure them; That he abdicated their Government, and that he would be no longer Monk of Bonneval. That after this Declaration he went, by his Permission, to the Diocese of Bourges; and that the Monks of Bonneval had elected one of their Brethren, and had presented him to Count Odo, that he might confer the Abbacy on him, according to Custom; and that this having been granted to him, he had made him Abbot.  
In the Forty fifth, directed to Adarus Bishop of Laon, he relates a tragical Action, which happened in his Diocese. The Subdean of his Church being dead, the Bishop of Senlis desired of him this Benefice for himself, or his Brother. Fulbert replied, That it was not suitable for him, who was a Bishop; and that he could not give it to his Brother, who had neither Age nor Manners requisite for such a Place: That he had chosen a pious Man out of his own Clergy, on whom he had conferred that Benefice. That the Bishop of Senlis being incensed at this Denial, and coveting this Benefice, had sent high Threaten to the Incumbent: That these Threaten afterwards were put in Execution: And that within a few Days after the People of Senlis had set upon him as he was going to Church, and had killed him in the Porch of the Cathedral. That the Authors of this Offence had been discovered by one of their Valets, who being taken as he was drying his clothes, had discovered all. S. Fulbert exhorts the Bishop of Laon to excommunicate these Homicides.  
The Forty eighth and ninth, are directed to the Bishop of Senlis, upon the same Subject.  
In the Forty seventh, he advises the Archbishop of Tours, That if the Pope has refused to give him the Pall without a lawful Cause, he ought not to be discouraged at it; and that he ought to repeat his Requests, because, in the Court of Rome, there were certain Rules, not practised any where else.  
In the Fiftieth he determines, That a Woman, who was engaged upon Oath to marry a Man, could not marry another till after his Death, or by his Consent.  
The Fifty first contains the Resolution of another Case of the same Nature. A Woman not being willing to live with her Husband, and saying she had rather live a Nun, the Husband desires he may have leave to marry another. S. Fulbert declares, That 'tis his Opinion he could not have leave, till she were either Dead, or turned Recluse.  
In the Two and fiftieth he declares, That it was better not to celebrate Mass, unless there were two or three Communicants. Which he proves thus; Because the Word Church, without which there can be no true Sacrifice, cannot be said but of many; for when 'tis said Dominus Vobiscum, The Lord be with you; it implies, That there are more than one. And lastly, because the Prayers are made for those who offer the Sacrifice.  
The Fifty Seventh is directed to the Bishop of Lisieux, who had interdicted the Priests of the Canons of Chartres, who had Churches in his Diocese, because they did not pay him a certain Duty, called the Synodical Duty. He says, That this Duty had been remitted to them who were in the Diocese of Chartres, by the Liberality of his Predecessors; but that this does not prejudice the Right of the Bishop of Lisieux, over those who are of his own Diocese; that therefore if he would not be pleased to remit it, they should pay him, provided he would re-establish them.  
In the Fifty eighth, directed to the Bishop of Paris, he declaims against the Request which this Bishop had made to him, of giving Benefices to Laics.  
The Sixtieth Letter, directed to Leoterick Archbishop of Sens, is written about the Excommunication of Guido, an Accomplice in the Murder of the Subdean of Chartres. Leoterick had writ to Fulbert, That this Man desired to be examined in a Synod of Bishops. Fulbert returns him this Answer, That there was no further need of examining his Cause, since he was proved Guilty.  
In the Sixty first, he tells Theodoric the Reasons why he did not Ordain him, (1.) Because on the Day whereon he was to be ordained, he had neither Letters, nor Deputies from the Bishops of the Province, to intimate their Approbation of his Ordination. (2.) Because he he had seen a Suspension of the Pope issued out against him, because of an Homicide he had been guilty of. (3.) Because by his own Confession he was unworthy thereof. (4.) Because the Clergy and Laity had not elected him freely, but through Fear, and at the Recommendation of the Prince, who had not given them Liberty of choosing any other. He adds, That though he had so many Reasons for not ordaining him, yet he had like to have been killed in the Church by those who supported his Interest. He reproves him for thus endeavouring to be ordained by Force, and for having celebrated Mass in a violated Church, before it had been reconciled.  
The Sixty second Letter is directed to the Bishop of Orleans, to whom at the top he wishes, Obsequium-Dilectionis sine fuco Dissimulationis, i. e. The Obedience of Love, without the least Varnish of Dissimulation. He therein gives him the Reasons why his Clergy could not go in a solemn Procession to the Church of Orleans, according to Custom.  
In the Sixty Fourth he approves of the Dissolution of Marriage, for the Cause of Impotence.  
In the Seventy second, he advises the Abbot and Monks of S. Medard, to live in Subjection to their Bishop, according to the Laws of the Church.  
In the Seventy third he gives the same Advice to the Monks of Orleans, whom the Bishop of that City had Excommunicated, because they would not submit to his Jurisdiction.  
In the Seventy fourth, he reproves a Clerk of his Church, who had been undutiful to him.  
In the Eighty third, directed to the Almoner of the Church of Orleans, he handles this Question, What Punishment a Priest was liable to, who had celebrated Mass without Communicating? He says, That if he did it through Infidelity, or because he was apprehensive of his being guilty of Drunkenness or Uncleanness, he ought to be enjoined Penance, till he were throughly converted. That if he did it through any Disgust, because of the frequent Celebration of the Holy Sacrifice, he ought to be excluded from communicating for a whole Year. That if he did it through any Scruple of Conscience, and for a small Offence, 'tis sufficient to reprove him with Gentleness. And Lastly, That if he did it through any Weakness in his Head or Stomach, he ought to abstain from celebrating, till he was restored to his Health.  
The Ninety fifth is a Letter of King Robert directed to Guarlin Archbishop of Bourges, wherein he acquaints him, that in several Parts of his Kingdom there fell a shower of Blood, of that Nature, that it stuck so close on the Flesh, on the clothes, and on the Stones, that no washing could fetch it out: Whereas when it fell on Wood, it was easily washed off. He desires to know whether any such thing had ever happened. The Archbishop of Bourges Answers him in the following Letter, that this Prodigy Prognosticated some Civil War, for the confirmation of which he produces several Examples of the same Nature taken out of History, to which he adds several mystical Reasons. Fulbert of Chartres in the following Letter relates another Instance of it, taken out of the Writings of Gregory of Tours.  
In the Ninety ninth Letter, Fulbert exhorts a Count to do Penance, and to restore to the Church, what of Right belonged to it.  
In the Hundred he declared to Count Fulcus, who had in his Retinue, several who were Rebels to the King; that he would excommunicate him, if he did not turn them off.  
The Hundred and Eighth is a Letter of Compliment from Odilo to Fulbert of Chartres, wherein he gives him many high Commendations.  
The Six and twenty following Letters are written in the name of the Canons of Chartres, but contain nothing remarkable concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs.  
There is nothing extraordinary in the Sermons of S. Fulbert. The First is upon the Trinity. In the Second he exhorts his People to Repentance. The Third is about the Purification of the Virgin Mary. The Three next upon the Incarnation. These are followed by Three other Discourses against the Jews, wherein he proves that the Messiah is already come: And by a small Collection of Passages of the Scripture concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation. After this follows a Penitential very much abridged, and several Passages of the Fathers about the Eucharist. Next to this come several Hymns, several Pieces in Prose, and lastly several pieces of Poetry very ill done.  
The Letters of S. Fulbert are written in a pretty correct Style, and are full of Delicacy and Spirit; he has not been so happy in the rest of his performances. He Argues very pertinently both upon the Doctrines and the Discipline of the Church, and gives very just Determinations of any Case that is proposed to him. Upon occasion he shows a great deal of Steadiness, without failing in his Respect to higher Powers. His Works have been Published with a great deal of Remissness by Charles de Villiers Doctor of Paris, from a Manuscript of the College of Navarre, and from several others, and Printed at Paris in the Year, 1608.  
Father Luke Dachery has since given us in the addition to the second Tome of his Spicelegium, a Letter of Fulbert of Chartres concerning Ecclesiastical Revenues; wherein this Author in the first place lays down by several Passages of the Fathers, and especially of S. Jerom, that these Revenues are designed for the Maintenance of the Poor. Secondly, That the holy Vessels ought not to be Sold no more than the Crucifixes, unless upon urgent Occasions, and when the Poor are in such extreme Want, that they cannot be relieved otherwise. Thirdly, That they should take care not to sell them to such Persons, as might convert them to profane Uses. They ascribe likewise to S. Fulbert the Life of S. Aupert Bishop of Cambray, referred by Surius to the Thirteenth of December.   

CHAP. II.  
An Account of the Controversy about the Eucharist, set on foot by Berenger; and of his several Condemnations.  
BERENGER was born at Tours about the end of the Tenth, or the beginning of the Eleventh 
Berenger Arch deacon of Angers.  Century. He Studied at Chartres under Fulbert, and stayed in that City till the Death of that Bishop. 'Tis said that from that very time it appeared that he had several particular Opinions, and that Fulbert upon his Death took notice of him as a dangerous Man, and as one who corrupted a great many People. It was perhaps the Offence he took at being thus stigmatised, which induced him to leave Chartres, and return to Tours. And being in great Repute for his Learning, he was made choice of to be Lecturer in the public Schools of S. Martin: He gave such Content in that Employ, that they made him Chamberlain, and afterwards Treasurer of the Church of S. Martin. No Body knows the Reason why he left Tours, and went to Angers; but 'tis certain that thither he retired, and was very well received by the Bishop, who made him archdeacon of his Church, and showed him a great deal of Respect. He who was then Bishop of that City, goes under two Names; for he is called Bruno by Theodwin Bishop of Liege, by Durandus Abbot of Troarn, and Marbodus Cotemporary Authors, and in the Decretal of the Dedication of the Church of S. John 
Bruno or Eusebius Bishop of Angers.  of Angely: And he is called Eusebius in the Title of the Letter which he wrote to Berenger; in that which was sent to him by Gregory VII. In the ancient Inscriptions of S. Aubin of Angers, in two ancient Catalogues of the Bishops of Angers, which are in the Library of Monsieur Colbert, and in almost all the ancient Records. These two Names are given him in the Decree whereby Geoffry Count of Anjou and Agnes his Wife, granted the Church of Allhallows in the Suburbs of Angers to the Abbey of the holy Trinity of Vendosme, which bears date in the Year, 1048. and signed by Eusebius Bruno Bishop, and Berenger archdeacon of Angers: And in the Chronicon of S. Aubin of Angers, Printed by Father Labbe in the first Tome of his Bibliotheca Manuscriptorum, he is called twice Eusebius Cognomento Bruno. He was made Bishop of Angers in the Year 1047. Sometime after Berenger coming to that City, began there to broach his Doctrine upon the Eucharist. Bruno maintained his Opinions, and within a short time he had a great many Followers: But these Opinions were rejected and opposed by the greatest Scholars of that Age, as a new Heresy. Lanfrank began the Controversy, and Berenger being informed of it by Ingelram of Chartres, wrote to him a Letter, by which he gave him to understand, that he was very much to blame in accusing John Scotus of Heresy, for his Opinion about the Sacrament of the Altar, opposed to the Sentiment of Paschasius; and that he could Wish to meet him in the presence of several Persons, that he might convince him that it was through prepossession that he had such Thoughts: Besides, that if he judged John Scotus to be an Heretic, upon the account of what he had delivered about the Eucharist, he must likewise charge S. Ambrose, S. Jerom, S. Austin, and several other Fathers with Heresy. Lanfrank was gone to Rome, when this Letter was carried to Normandy; but for all this it was Published, and scandalised a great many People. It was likewise carried to Rome by a Clerk of the Church of Rheims, who showed it to a great many, and read it publicly in the Council held at Rome, under Pope Leo IX. in the Year, 1050. Berenger was thereupon Excommunicated, and Lanfrank then 
The Council of Rome, in the Year, 1050.  present was engaged to clear himself of the Suspicion he lay under of holding Correspondence with Berenger, and to give an Account of his Faith: He did it without any Hesitation, made a profession of the Faith of the Church, and proved it by the Testimony of the Fathers. It was Ordered in this Council that another should be held at Verceil in September, to which Berenger should be Cited, and Lanfrank was desired to be present. Berenger being informed of his Condemnation, retired into Normandy to Arisfrede Abbot of Preaux, and endeavoured to win over to his Party, William Duke of Normandy. But that Prince detained him at Brionne, where he called an Assembly of the Bishops of his Duchy, who Condemned 
The Council of Brionne.  Berenger, and a Clerk who had accompanied him. In the Letter of Durandus, Abbot of Troarn, this Council is referred to the Year, 1053. But certainly there must be an Error in the Text, or Durandus was mistaken: For 'tis evident by the Testimony of Durandus himself, that the Convention of Brionne was before the Council of Verceil, which was held in September 1050. according to the Testimony of Herman Contract.  
Berenger being drove out of Normandy retired to Chartres, where he dared not to declare himself, but when he was asked his Opinion, only answered, That he would tell it when Time and Place should offer themselves. However, this new Doctrine beginning to spread itself, Henry King of France to stop the Progress of it, resolved to call a Council at Paris, and ordered Berenger to appear there to give an account of his Doctrine. Theodwin or Dietwin Bishop of Liege understanding the King's Design, wrote a Letter to him; wherein he 
The Letter of Theodwin against Berenger.  Condemns the Doctrine of Berenger, which he said was likewise the Doctrine of Bruno Bishop of Angers; but he disapproved the Design he had of causing them to be Condemned in a Council; because Bruno being a Bishop, could not be Tried without the Authority of the Holy Apostolic See. Therefore he advises him to pass by the impious and sacrilegious Opinions of these Persons, till such time as he had received Authority to Condemn them, after they had been heard at Rome, tho' he thought it needless to hear them, and to call a Council to Condemn them, and that all that was to be done was to consider what Punishment to inflict upon them. Theodwin in this Letter accuses Berenger and Bruno, not only of believing that the Eucharist was nothing else but the Shadow and Type of JESUS CHRIST, but also of holding erroneous Opinions about Marriage, and of disapproving Infant-Baptism. This Letter has been published under the Name of Durandus Bishop of Liege; but since it was written after the Year 1050. it cannot be his, for he died in the Year 1025. therefore it must be Theodwin's, who was ordained Bishop of Liege in 1048.  
The time appointed for the Synod of Verceil being come, Leo IX. came thither with a 
The Council of Verceil in 1050.  great many Prelates of several Nations, and opened the Council the first of September, in the Year 1050. Berenger durst not appear there in Person, but sent two Clerks to maintain his Cause. They read in the Council the Book of John Scotus, which gave Rise to the Error of Berenger, and it was Condemned by all the Fathers of the Council. The Opinion of Berenger was likewise examined and condemned, and the Doctrine of the Church maintained and defended by Lanfrank, was approved of and confirmed by an unanimous Consent. The two Clerks who were sent by Berenger would have undertaken his Defence, but they no sooner began to speak, but they were forced to hold their Tongues.  
Notwithstanding the Remonstrance of Theodwin, King Henry held the Council which he 
The Council of Paris in 1050.  had called at Paris on the sixteenth of November in the same Year; but neither Berenger nor Bruno durst appear there. In their Absence the Bishop of Orleans caused a Writing of Berenger's to be read, which was Condemned as Heretical by all the Assembly. They Condemned the Authors and Abettors of that Doctrine, together with the Book of John Scotus. It was there ordered that the Author of that Heresy and his Adherents should be prosecuted and constrained to recant under the pain of being put to Death. These Matters of Fact are Recorded by Theodwin, and Durandus Abbot of Troarn. None besides these two Authors have made mention of this Council of Paris, and accused Bruno of abetting Berenger in his Error: But forasmuch as they lived at that Time, 'tis hard to discredit them.  
Whilst the higher Powers made use of their Authority against the growing Heresy of Berenger; the Learned World opposed it by their Writings. Among the rest, Adelman a Clerk 
Adelman Clerk of the Church of Liege.  of the Church of Liege, who had been Berenger's School-fellow under Fulbert Bishop of Chartres, and who afterwards was Bishop of Bresse; when he understood that Berenger taught this Error, wrote a Letter to him, wherein after he had put him in mind of their old Acquaintance, and of Fulbert of Chartres their common Master, he conjured him to relinquish his Error, demonstrating to him, That it was not impossible for that God who had Created all Things out of nothing, to change the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. He had sent another Letter some time before upon the same Subject to Paulinus Bishop of Mets, that he might admonish Berenger to renounce his Error. We have lost this last Letter, and several others mentioned by Trithemius: But the former is among the Authors who wrote upon the Eucharist, Printed at Louvain in 1551 and 1561. and in the Bibliotheca Patrum.  
Ascelin a Monk of S. Eurou in Normandy, sent likewise about the same time a Letter to 
The Letter of Berenger to Ascelin.  Berenger against his Error. Berenger upon his return from Normandy, had a Conference with Ascelin and his Scholar William. They publicly declared, That he had acknowledged the Book of John Scotus to be blamable, and that he durst not maintain his Error. Berenger being informed of it, wrote a Letter to Ascelin, wherein he gave him to understand, That he was not minded to Dispute against him in the Conference which they had together, because at that time he had resolved not to discourse with any one about the Eucharist, till he had satisfied the Bishops, to whom he ought to give an account of his Doctrine. That it was upon this Account that he would not so much as refute that damnable and impious Maxim maintained by William, That every Man ought to approach the Holy Table at Easter: But that Ascelin was conscious to himself that he never said John Scotus was an Heretic: That all he had said about it, was, That he had not seen all the Writings of that Author, but that what he had read of his about the Eucharist contained nothing in it Heretical; and if he had spoken any thing which was not so exact, he was ready to disown it. That Lastly, They could not Condemn him for having alleged that the substance of Bread remains in the Sacrament, since 'tis the Doctrine of the Fathers which he defended, designing nothing else than to follow in every thing S. Ambrose, S. Austin and S. Jerom; and that therefore there was no Ground for what Arnulphus had said to him in Ascelin's own hearing, Prithee let us alone in the Opinion we have been brought up in; since he did not pretend to establish a Novelty, but to maintain the Doctrine of the Fathers.  
Ascelin returned him this Answer, That he had received his Letter with Joy, hoping 
Ascelin's Letter to Belinger.  therein to have heard the News of his Conversion; but that in reading it, his Joy was turned into Sorrow, perceiving that he still adhered to his old Error. That he did no longer see in him that depth of Thought, and that Learning, which he had formerly; since he had forgot the Passages of their last Conference, particularly that about the Proposition made by William, That every Man ought to approach the Holy Table at Easter; to which he had added this Restriction, Unless he were excluded from this Heaven●… Banquet by some Crime, which ought not to be done but by the Order of his Confessor; otherwise the Keys of the Church would become useless. That for his part he did not repent of what he had said in that Conference, since he had maintained a notorious and unquestionable Truth, from which he would never Swerve, viz. That the Bread and Wine were by the Efficacy of the Holy Spirit, and the Ministry of the Priests, turned into the real Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST; which is plainly proved out of the Holy Scriptures, unless corrupted by a vicious and false Interpretation. That for what relates to John Scotus, he was persuaded that in looking upon him as an Heretic, he did nothing unbecoming either his Priesthood or Religion, since he perceived that the whole aim and design of that Author is to prove. That what is Consecrated on the Altar, is not the true Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST; which Error he endeavours to establish, by several Passages of the Fathers falsely explained, and among others by a Prayer of S. Gregory, upon which he says, that this change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST was figurative and not real. That he looked upon Berenger himself to be a Man of more Learning than to maintain the Orthodoxy of this Expression: That he had not ventured to defend it in their Conference; that he only said he had not read the Book of John Scotus quite out: That he was surprised to see such a prudent Man give so large Encomiums of a Book which he had not read through: That lastly, for his part, he was of the Opinion of Pascasius and of the other Catholics, and that he firmly believed that the Faithful received upon the Altar the real Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST under the appearance of Bread and Wine; and that this Opinion was not contrary to the Laws of Nature which depend on the Will of God, nor to 
[And here it is worth our while to observe how modest the first Advancers and Promoters of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation were in their Assertions: Who did not assert any thing about it more than what we Protestants readily own, viz. That the Faithful do verily and indeed receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, signified to us by the Bread broken, and the Wine poured out.]  the Testimony of the Gospel. To conclude, that the Advice which Arnulphus (whom he calls the singing Man) had given him was very wholesome, and that he ought to follow it, to be ashamed of defending a Book Condemned in the Council of Verceil, and to keep close to the Catholic and Apostolic Tradition, from which he had Swerved. This and the former Letters were published by Father Luke Dachery in his Notes upon the Life of Lanfrank.  
About the same time Berenger wrote another Letter to Richard, who was then at the 
Berengers Letter to Richard.  French Court, wherein he prays him to speak to the King in his behalf, that so he might remedy the Injustice which had been done him; and to give him to understand that they had not done well in Condemning John Scotus in the Council of Verceil, and in justifying Paschasius. That the Clerks of Chartres had given him a false explication of the Opinion of S. Fulbert, or rather of the Passage of S. Augustin related by that Bishop. That to induce the King to hearken unto him, he might inform him that John Scotus wrote his Book by the Order, and at the instance of his Predecessor Charles the Great (that is, Charles the Bald) who had charged him to refute by writing the Folly of Paschasius; that upon this Account he was obliged to grant his Protection to that dead Person against the Calumnies of the living, if he were minded to show himself the worthy Successor of that great Prince.  
While these Disputes were on foot between Berenger and his Adversaries, Leo IX. dies in 
The Council of Tours in the Year 1055. against Berenger.  the Year 1054. His successor Victor II. confirmed what he had done against Berenger, and 'tis said likewise that he held a Council at Florence, wherein he Condemned him. Hildebrand his Legate in France having held a Council at Tours in the Year 1055. made Berenger appear there, and gave him Liberty to defend his Opinions: Berenger resolved to forsake them, and to engage himself by an Oath to hold the common received Doctrine of the Church, concerning the reality of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST in the Eucharist.  
But he either did this pretendedly, or else soon changed his mind; for after this Council 
The Council of Rome in 1059.  he continued to broach his Doctrines as before; and not being capable of Teaching his Error publicly, he explained it in particular, and wrote several Treatises in its Defence. So that his Heresy continuing to spread itself, Nicholas II. who in the Year 1058. succeeded Stephen X. Pope Victor's Successor, cited Berenger to a Council held at Rome in the Year 1059. which was composed of 113 Bishops of several Nations. Berenger at the first maintained his Opinion, which was refuted by Alberic a Monk of Mount Cassinus, and by Lanfrank; but afterwards he yielded, and declared that he was ready to believe and subscribe to what the Pope and Council would be pleased to prescribe to him. Upon this, Humbert Cardinal Bishop of Blancheselve, prepared a form of Faith, which was Sworn to and Subscribed by Berenger in these Words: I Berenger an unworthy Deacon of the 
The first Profession of Faith made by Berenger.  Church of S. Maurice of Angiers, having a knowledge of the true Catholic and Apostolic Faith, do abjure all Heresy; especially that of which I have been suspected, which holds that the Bread and Wine upon the Altar after the Consecration are only the Sacrament, and not the real Body and Blood of our Lord JESUS CHRIST; and that it could not be handled by the Priests, nor broke and eat by the Faithful, unless it were only in the Sacrament, and after an insensible manner. I approve of the Doctrine of the Holy and Apostolic See of Rome, and I confess from my Heart and with my Lips, that I hold the same Faith which the Holy and Reverend Pope Nicholas, and his holy Synod have declared and assured me that I ought to hold, according to to the Evangelical and Apostolic Authority, viz. That the Bread and the Wine which lie upon the Altar, after the Consecration, are not only the Sacrament, but also the real Body and Blood of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, and that 'tis handled by the Priests, broke and eaten by the Faithful, not only in the Sacrament, but also in a sensible way. The which I swear By the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, and by the Holy Evangelists, declaring that those who shall advance any thing contrary to this Faith, deserve themselves, their Doctrines, and their Followers to be Anathematised. And if I myself should be so bold, as to think or teach any thing contrary to this Profession of Faith, I submit myself to the utmost Rigour of the Canons. In Testimony whereof, I have set my Hand to these Presents, which I have heard read over and over. Afterwards he burned his own Writings, and the Book of John Scotus.  
This Profession of Faith seemed to be sincere: But Berenger was no sooner returned to 
Berenger relapses into his Error.  France, but finding King Henry dead, and his Son Philip in his Minority, he thought that now he might maintain his Error afresh without Restraint. He repent that he had burnt his Writings, and made a new one in opposition to that Profession of Faith, which he said was Humbert's, and not his. This is that Piece which Lanfrank and Guitmond refute. In a Word, he persisted in the Defence of his Error, and fled out into a Passion against Pope Leo, and the Holy See. Pope Alexander II. who succeeded Nicholas, being informed thereof, wrote him a Letter, wherein he exhorts him absolutely to renounce his Error, and to be no longer a Scandal to the Church. But instead of obeying the Pope, he had the Confidence to send him Word, That he would do nothing in it, and remained obstinate in his Opinion.  
Maurilla Archbishop of Rouen, willing to put a stop to the progress of this Heresy, which visibly spread itself in Normandy, upon the account of that Influence which Berenger had over 
The Council of Rouen against Berenger, in 1063.  it, calls a Provincial Council of Bishops at Rouen, in the Year, 1063. wherein he prepared a Profession of Faith, declaring, That the Bread and Wine, after Consecration, were changed into the very Substance of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST; anathematising all those who are of the contrary Opinion, or oppose this true Faith: And it was ordered, That for the future this Profession of Faith should be subscribed by the Bishops, before their Ordination.  
In the Year, 1075. Geraldus Bishop of Angoulesme, and Legate of the Holy See for the Provinces of Tours, Bourdeaux and Auche, called a Council at Poitiers, wherein Berenger 
The Council of Poitiers against Berenger.  was accused, and like to be killed. But this Accident did not alter his Mind, for as soon as the Heat was over, he went from the Council as unconvinc'd of the Truth, as he came.  
It was at this time that Eusebius Bishop of Angers, who is the same with Bruno, wrote to Berenger; That he had received a Letter from him, which intimated, That Geoffrey was a 
The Letter of Eusebius or Bruno, Bishop of Angers.  public Abetter of Lanfrank's Fooleries; and that in that Letter he desired, that Geoffrey might be summoned before him, to give an Account of the Explication of a Passage of S. Ambrose, taken out of the Treatise concerning the Sacraments. That in Answer to his Letter he declares to him, That he knew not whether that Question had been started out of Vainglory; but this he knew very well, that after it had been spread over a great part of the World, it had cast a great Blemish on the Reputation of the Church of Angers, which was exposed to the Calumnies and Upbraid of all Men, both far and near. That for his part he had resolved to decline these Disputes, to keep to the Text of the Holy Scriptures, and to believe that the Bread and Wine are the real Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST after Consecration, without concerning himself how this could be: And that if any one should ask him, What were the Thoughts of the Fathers and Doctors about it? he would refer such an Inquirer to their Writings; and advise him to put such a Construction upon what he found in them, as was most conformable to the Doctrine of the Gospel. That this was not out of any disrespect to the Writings of the Fathers, but because he thought that the principal Regard ought to be had to the Text of the Gospel, for fear it should cause a Scandal in the Church of God, if the Opinions of the Fathers should not be well understood, or the Passages taken out of them should be corrupted. That it was after this manner that the disturbance which happened at Tours in the Presence of Gerald, and in the same City in the presence of Hildebrand, was appeased; and that this Plague, which began to spread itself afresh, had been stopped by the Command of the Prince, and by the Authority of the Archbishop of Besanzon. That thereupon he had taken up a Resolution to hold no more Conferences, nor to enter into any Dispute upon that Subject, and that he would never give his Consent for the holding of any Assembly upon that Affair: That if any such should be holden, he would not be at it. That he would not give Audience to the Disputants, and would exclude such as continued obstinate from the Communion, because this Business had been determined thrice in the Province, and four times by the Sentence of the Holy See.  
At last Gregory VII. willing to put an end to what he had begun whilst Legate, cited Berenger to a Council, held at Rome in December, 1078. and gave him time to consider what 
The Council of Rome in 1078. under Gregory seven. against Berenger.  he had to do till the next Council, which was held the next Year in February. Berenger did still adhere to his Opinion, and maintained it very vigorously: Bruno, afterwards Bishop of Signi and Abbot Wolphelmus, opposed him. The Question was debated between them for three Days; and, at last, Berenger was forced to make his Recantation, drawn up in these Terms: I Berenger, believe in my Heart, and confess with my Mouth, That the Bread and Wine which are upon the Altar, are substantially changed by the Mystery of the Priest, and by the Words of our Saviour, into the true, proper, and quickening Body and Blood of our 
The second Profession of Faith made by Berenger.  Lord JESUS CHRIST, which came out of his Side: And not only figuratively and by virtue of the Sacrament, but truly, properly and substantially, according to the Intention of these Presents, and as I have read, and you understand it. This is my Faith, contrary to which I will not, for the future, broach any Doctrine: So help me God, and the Holy Evangelists. After this, the Pope conjured Berenger, by the Almighty God, and by the Holy Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, never to dispute again with any Person, about the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST, unless to undeceive those on whom he had imposed. Upon this Declaration he granted Berenger a Letter, directed to the Archbishop of Tours and to the Bishop of Angers; wherein he declared to them, That he had taken Berenger into his Protection, and enjoined them to defend him against Fulcus Richinus, the Count of Angers, who bore him an ill Will, and against all his Enemies. He likewise granted him a Bull, which excommunicates those who should attempt any thing against his Person or Estate, or should call him Heretic. These Favours, granted by Gregory VII. to Berenger, gave an Occasion to the Bishops, who exhibited a Decree against this Pope, in a Council held at Bresse, in the Year, 1080. to accuse him of being a Disciple, or at least a Favourer of that Heretic. But this Charge against this Pope was groundless and unjust, since he had not entertained Berenger till after he had abjured his Heresy: Tho' perhaps he was too easy in giving Credit to the Words of so unconstant a Man. In Truth, it appears that Berenger did persist in teaching his Heresy, since he was forced to appear at a Council held at Bourdeaux 
The Council of Bourdeaux in 1080. against Berenger.  in the Year, 1080. by Hugh the Pope's Legate, at first Bishop of Dia, and afterwards Archbishop of Lions, and there to give an Account of his Faith, as 'tis recorded in the Chronicon of S. Maixant. This is the last Scene wherein Berenger appeared. He spent the rest of his Life in the Isle of S. Cosmus, near the City of Tours; to which Place he retired after the Council of Rome, and died there Jan. 6. 1088.  
An ancient Author to be met with in the Library of Fleury, William of Malmsbury, 
Of Berenger's Repentance.  Matthew of Paris, Vincent of Beauvais, and several other more modern Authors, tell us, That Berenger was a real Convert, and that he died a sincere Penitent, being hearty sorry for having infected so many with his Error. Clarius a Monk of Fleury, and the Authors of the Chronicon of S. Peter the Lively of Sens, and of the Chronicon of S. Martin of Tours, speak very much in his Praise. We have likewise two noble Epitaphs made in his Praise; the one by Baudry Abbot of Bourgneil, and afterwards Bishop of Dol; and the other by Hildebert archdeacon of Man's, who was afterwards Bishop of that City, and at last Archbishop of Tours. In a Word, his Memory is still had in veneration at Tours, where they say that the Prebendaries of S. Martin's have a Custom of paying him their Respects every Year. 'Tis probable that these Authors who believe the real Presence, would never have bestowed so many Encomiums on Berenger, if they had not been fully convinced of his Conversion. And yet we find that Lanfrank, in his Fiftieth Letter, written since the Year, 1080. to Reginald Abbot of S. Cyprian of Poitiers, and the anonymous Author of a Treatise written in the Year, 1088. and published by Father Chifflet, speak of him still as an Heretic, without mentioning his Conversion in the least. We find that after his return from Rome, he was obliged to give an Account of his Faith to the Council of Bourdeaux. But that which raises the greatest cause of suspecting his Conversion, is, That after his second Return from Rome to France, he composed a Treatise in opposition to his last Profession of Faith, as Father Mabillon, who had seen the Manuscript, assures us: The which being joined to the Testimony of Berthol Priest of Constance, who says positively, That Berenger had not changed his Opinion, seems to destroy all that has been said about his Repentance, or at least shows that it was very late, and that he did not change his Opinion till a little before his Death.  
Notwithstanding his Retractations and Repentance, several of his Followers persisted in 
The Followers of Berenger.  their Error; but by degrees this Heresy was extirpated. One Anastasius, a Monk of S. Sergius of Angers, was forced to abjure it, and to deliver a Profession of his Faith to Gerald Abbot of S. Aubin of that City, related by Father Luke Dachery, in his Notes upon the Life of Lanfrank. The Fathers of the Council of Placentia in the Year, 1095. condemned the Heresy of Berenger afresh: And lastly, Bruno Archbishop of Treves, drove out of his Province the Followers of this Heretic.  
Berenger was likewise suspected of several other Errors. Guitmond, after Theodwin, accuses 
Other Errors of Berenger.  him of believing, That Infant-Baptism was null; and of destroying lawful Marriages, by permitting Men to abuse all Women without distinction. Lanfrank and William of Malmsbury, accuse him of harbouring a strange Contempt for the Writings of the Fathers. Lastly, Guitmond and S. Anselm relate, as an Error which he had advanced, That our Saviour after his Resurrection, did not enter through the Chamber-door, where his Disciples were, before it was opened. As to this Error, 'tis a Consequence of his Opinion about the Eucharist. As for the two former, forasmuch as they are not in the Writings of Berenger, and were never (as we can learn) charged upon him by other Authors: And since he has not been condemned for maintaining them, nor ever obliged to retract them in any Council, 'tis hard to suppose that he taught them publicly; and the rather, because they are ancient Errors condemned long before that in the Church.  
We have by us a Letter of Berenger to Asceline, another to Richard the Abbot; three Professions 
The Writings and Adversaries of Berenger.  of Faith; a part of his Treatise in opposition to his second Profession of Faith: And Father Mabillon has seen a Treatise in Manuscript against the third. The Treatise which he composed against Adelman, alias Alman, Bishop of Bresse, of which Sigibert of Gemblours makes mention, and his other Pieces, are lost. He wrote in a dry and scholastic Style. Sigibert has reason for what he says, when he tells us, That he abused the Sophisms of Logic in opposition to the Apostolical Simplicity; and that this could be no Excuse to him, nor Edification to others, because he rather rendered clear Things obscure, than obscure Things clear. He does not seem to have had very much Skill in the Antiquities of the Church. His Error was opposed by Lanfrank, Archbishop of Canterbury; by Adelman, Clerk of the Church of Liege, and afterwards Bishop of Bresse; by Asceline, Monk of S. Eurow in Normandy; by Guy Aretine, Abbot of La-Croix-Saint-Leufroy; by Durandus, Abbot of Troarn; by Hugh, Bishop of Langres; by Alberic, Monk of Mount-Cassin; by Guitmond, Archbishop of Averse; and by Alger Deacon of Liege, and afterwards Monk of Clunie.   

CHAP. III.  
Of the Writings of Lanfrank, Archbishop of Canterbury; of Guitmond; of Alger; and of the other Authors who have refuted the Error of Berenger.  
LANFRANK, descended from a very honourable Family of Pavia; for his Father was 
Lanfrank, Archbishop of Canterbury.  Warden or Keeper of the public Archives, where were reposited the Minutes of the Laws and Customs of the City. After he had went through the course of his Studies in his own Country, he went into France, under the Reign of King Henry, and came to Auranches, where he taught publicly for some time. In his Journey to Rouen, he was taken by High-way-Men, who robbed him; and having bound him, left him in a Forest near the Abbey of Bec. On the Morrow, some Passengers finding him in that Condition, unbound him; and, upon his ask them, Whether there were not a Monastery near that Place; they directed him to the Abbey of Bec, which was newly founded. He retired thither, and took upon him the Habit at the Hands of Herluin chief Abbot of that Monastery. This happened in the Year, 1041. The Genius, the Learning, and the Virtue of Lanfrank, being soon discerned, he was elected Prior of his own Monastery, and chosen by William I. Duke of Normandy, to be one of his Counsellors of State. He went to Rome under the Popedom of Leo IX. and cleared himself, before that Pope, from the Error of Berenger, which was laid to his Charge. He returned thither a second time under the Popedom of Nicholas II. to request a Dispensation for the Marriage of Duke William with the Daughter of the Count of Flanders, his Kinswoman; which was granted, upon Condition that the Duke and his Lady would build a Monastery. The Duke gave Orders for the building the Monastery of S. Stephen of Caen, of which Lanfrank was made Abbot in the Year, 1063. He was so highly in the Duke's esteem, that this Prince, after he had conquered England, could find none more proper than him to send to Rome to Pope Alexander II. to treat with him about the Reforming the Churches of that Kingdom. After the Death of Maurillus Archbishop of Rouen, Lanfrank was pitched upon to be his Successor. But he refused it. And upon his Refusal, the Bishop of Auranches having obtained that Archbishopric, Lanfrank went a fourth time to Rome, to get this Translation to be approved of, and to desire the Pall for that Archbishop. He obtained his Request from the Pope; who sent two Legates to crown William King of England, and to reform the Churches.  
These Legates held a Council at Windsor, wherein they deposed several Bishops who were convicted of Crimes, or of gross Ignorance; and among the rest, Stigand Archbishop of 
The Council of Windsor.  Canterbury, who had possessed himself of that See by Intrigues and Violence. Lanfrank was obliged, against his Will, by the express Command of Abbot Herluin, to take upon him this Archbishopric in the Year, 1070. He governed that Church, for Nineteen Years together, with a great deal of Wisdom and Authority. He still kept up his Credit with King William, in whose Absence he was Regent of the Kingdom. He died a little after that Prince, in May, 1089.  
The largest Treatise of Lanfrank, is his Commentary upon the Epistles of S. Paul. He gives us the Text, with some Illustrations, in a Parenthesis; and adds to this, some Notes of 
Lanfranks Commentary on S. Paul's Epistles.  Explanation taken out of S. Augustin, or out of the Commentary attributed to S. Ambrose, or such as himself composed. Those out of S. Augustin are to be met with in that Father; but a great part of those which are cited under the Name of S. Ambrose, are not to be met with in the Commentary which goes at present under the Name of that Saint: And there are likewise some others which are S. Augustin's, and are ascribed to S. Ambrose. These Notes are short and sententious; and the Author keeps close to the Literal Meaning and the Morality of the Epistles. Peter Lombard citys several Passages out of this Commentary upon S. Paul, which are not exactly in the same manner expressed by Lanfrank.  
Lanfrank's Treatise of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST, is a Refutation of 
Lanfranks Treatise of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  a Piece which Berenger had made against the real presence of the Body of JESUS CHRIST in the Eucharist. He tells him that he could wish that he might have a Conference with him, being persuaded that it would be very advantageous either to reclaim him from his Error, or at least to rectify his followers. But that since he took upon him to maintain it in his private Converse with ignorant Men, and at the same time to own the Orthodox Truth before the Councils, rather out of fear of Death, than for the sake of Truth, he avoided Persons of clearer Heads, who could pass a sound Judgement upon his Discourses. That if he could once Discourse with him in the presence of sensible Men, he would convince him what an ill use he made of several Passages of the Fathers, which were either false, or corrupted, or ill explained. That not being content to Teach his Errors with his Mouth, he likewise spread them through the World by the Writings which his Disciples published. That his first Writings had been Examined and Condemned by Pope Nicholas of blessed Memory, in a Council at Rome of One hundred and thirteen Bishops; in which Council Berenger himself had thrown them into the Fire, and promised upon Oath, that he would never swerve from the Faith of the Fathers, nor Teach any more the Doctrine which he had advanced about the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST. That he had since that broke his Oath by Writing against that Synod, against the Catholic Faith, and the Doctrine of all the Churches. That this is the Treatise which he undertakes to refute, by repeating his own Words, and giving them an Answer afterwards.  
Berenger gave out that the Confession which they had made him sign at Rome, under Pope Nicholas, was prepared contrary to the Catholic Faith by Humbert, whom by way of Contempt he calls the Burgundian. Lanfrank asserts, That this Confession was not Humbert's, but His, the Pope's and the Council's, who all had approved of it. He likewise recites Berenger's other Confession under Pope Gregory VII. and defends Humbert. Berenger said, That this Man was of the Opinion, or rather of the Fooleries of the Mob, of Pascasius, and of Lanfrank, who believe that after Consecration, the substance of the Bread and Wine were no longer upon the Altar. Lanfrank shows him that this was not any particular Opinion; but the Doctrine of the Church, of the Councils, and of the Popes who had condemned him. Berenger adds, That tho' Humbert was of this Opinion, yet he had destroyed his own Argument before he was ware, because in saying that the Bread and Wine which are on the Altar, are either only the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST, or are only the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST, he supposed that there was both Bread and Wine upon the Altar. After Lanfrank had taken notice that if there were any Ambiguity or Contradiction in the Words of that Confession, the Blame lay at Berenger's Door, since he had approved of, and Sworn to it, and was not allowed to Swear that he would hold two Contraries; he observes that the two Propositions which he starts are neither the Councils, nor Cardinal Humbert's. That the first belongs to Berenger and his Followers; and that the second is maintained by none, for tho' the Church believes that the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of our Saviour, yet it acknowledges that this Mystery is the Sacrament of the Passion of our Lord, of his Mercy, of the Concord and Union, and of the Incarnation. That besides, when the name of Bread is given to the Body of JESUS CHRIST, 'tis a figurative and mystical way of Speaking; and that 'tis so called, because 'tis made of Bread, and retains the Qualities of Bread; and because it nourishes the Soul after an incomprehensible manner, as the Bread nourishes the Body. 'Tis upon this Principle that he answers the logical Evasions which Berenger makes about these terms of Bread and Wine. He replies likewise to the Passages of the Fathers, which he alleges to prove that the Bread and Wine still remain in this Sacrament, by showing that 'tis the external Appearance of Bread and Wine, which is the Sacrament and the Sign of the invisible Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST. Berenger asks how it can be said, That the Body of JESUS CHRIST which is incorruptible, is broken and eat in this Bread. Lanfrank replies, That the Just who live by Faith, need not concern themselves how the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST, by an essential change of its Nature: That the Belief of the Church is, That the Body of JESUS CHRIST is so Broken and Eat in the Eucharist, that it does not hinder it from being incorruptible and impassable in the Heavens: That we eat it Corporeally when we receive it from the Hand of the Priest, and that we likewise eat it Spiritually by Faith. He moreover produces the Passage out of the Council of Ephesus, which says that this Flesh which we Eat in the Eucharist, is the proper quickening Flesh of the Divine LOGOS. After he had thus Answered Berenger, he explains his own Sentiments in these Terms. We believe that the terrestrial Substances which are Sanctified at the holy Table, by the divine Efficacy and Ministry of the Priest, are converted after an Ineffable, Incomprehensible, and Miraculous manner, by the Operation of the supreme Power into the essential Body of our Saviour, their Appearances remaining with their Qualities, for fear Men should be struck with Horror, if they were to Eat raw and bloody Flesh; and that they believing what they did not see, their Faith merited the greater Reward. That notwithstanding this, the Body of JESUS CHRIST remains still in Heaven at the Right Hand of his Father, Immortal, Entire, without Defect, and Impassable: So that we may truly say, that we do, and do not receive the same Body which is Born of the Virgin; because 'tis the same with respect to the Essence, Propriety, and Efficacy of its Nature; And 'tis not the same, if we consider the Appearances of Bread and Wine and the other Qualities: This, says he, is the Doctrine which the whole Catholic Church has always held, and does still hold. He recites a great many Passages out of S. Ambrose and S. Augustin to strengthen this. He explains in what Sense it may be said that the Eucharist is an Appearance, a Figure, or a Sacrament: That 'tis the Appearance of the Bread and Wine which were there before the Consecration, and which are changed into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST: That we beg of God in a Prayer, that we may comprehend according to the Truth and Reality of Things, that which we perform under Types and Figures, thereby taking the Word Truth for a clear manifestation of those very Things without a Type and without a Figure. That the Eucharist is likewise a Sign and Sacrament of the Passion of our Lord and Saviour. That last 'tis called Bread and Wine, because 'tis customary to call Things by the name of those Things out of which they are made, and to which they are like. The Berengerians objected, That if the Bread were changed into the Body of JESUS CHRIST, It was necessary for this Change, that either the Bread should be carried up into Heaven, or else, that the Flesh of CHRIST should be brought down hither; neither of which appeared to be done. Lanfrank answers them, that this is a Mystery which we ought to believe, without enquiring into the manner of it. After Lanfrank had answered these two Objections, he than raises two new Arguments against Berenger. The first is, that if the Eucharist were called the Flesh of JESUS CHRIST, only because it is the Figure of it, it would from thence follow that the Sacraments of the old Law were more excellent than those of the New; because 'tis more excellent to be the Type of Things future, than to be the Figure of Things past: And moreover, that the Manna which fell down from Heaven, was a more noble Figure than a little Bit of Bread could be. The second Argument is the universal Opinion of the Church, and the Consent of all Nations. If, says he to Berenger, that which you believe and maintain be True, it follows that what the whole Church believes and teaches in all the World must needs be False: For all the Christians who are in the World, are Persuaded that they receive in the Sacrament the real Body and the real Blood of JESUS CHRIST. Ask the Latins, the Greeks, the Armenians, and all the other Nations of the Christian World, and they will all unanimously tell you, that this is their Faith. If the Faith of the universal Church be false, you must say that there never has been a Church or else that it is lost: But there is not any Catholic who dares to affirm either. After he had proved this Truth by several Passages of Scripture, he adds, (speaking still to Berenger) You and those whom you have deceived, object against these plain Testimonies of our Lord, and of the Holy Ghost, concerning the Perpetuity of the Church, that indeed the Gospel has been Preached to all Nations, that the World has believed that the Church is Established, that it has increased and improved; but that it afterwards fell into Error by the Ignorance of those who have put a false Gloss upon Tradition, and that 'tis to be found among you alone. This is the usual Answer of Innovators, which Lanfrank refutes in a few words.  
The Statutes or Rules of the Order of S. Benedict made for the Monks of England, go under Lanfrank's Name; but Father Luke Dachery observes that they are not in his Style; 
The Rules of the Order of S. Benedict.  that he is cited as a third Person in the second Section of the second Chapter, and that there are some Rules which appear too Remiss; this makes him believe that 'tis a Collection of Rules, of which Lanfrank is not the Author, or which has been augmented by some other of a more modern Date. Let the case be how it will, it contains nothing but what relates to the Customs and Practices of Monks, therefore we shall not insist any longer upon it.  
Lanfrank's Letters are short and few, but contain in them things very Remarkable. 
Lanfranks Letters.   
The three first are directed to Pope Alexander II. In the first he earnestly entreats him to give him leave to lay down his Archbishopric, which he had not taken upon him but by his Order, that he might retire into a Monastery. He likewise excuses himself for not being able to wait upon him at Rome. In the second he gives him to understand, that Herman a Bishop who had formerly quitted his Bishopric under the Popedom of Leo IX. and embraced a Monastic Life, had a design to do it again, and would have done it, had not he hindered him. He assures the Pope that that Bishop was no longer in a Condition, by reason of his Age, to discharge his Functions, and that he is not forced to retire, but does it voluntarily to give himself wholly up to the Service of God. The English Historians tell us that this Herman was Flamand, and that he had been Bishop of Winchester under the Reign of King Edward; that he afterwards left both that Bishopric and England, and became a Monk of S. Berthin: That he returned some time after into England to be Bishop of Sarum, and that he lived to the time of William the Conqueror, which part of his Life he spent at the Bishopric of Sarum. 'Tis about the end of his Life that he desired to retire the second time. Lanfrank likewise consults the Pope about the Bishop of Litchfield. This Bishop being accused of Incontinence, and other Crimes before the Pope's Legates in England, would ●ot appear before the Synod which they held; they had Excommunicated him, and given ●he King liberty to put another in his place. He afterwards came to Court, and gave his Resignation to the King. Lanfrank was not willing to ordain another in his place, till he had received Permission from Rome, he therefore desires it in this Letter. The third is about the difference then on foot between the Sees of Canterbury and York about the Primacy, and about several other Churches. The Pope had referred the Examination of the Matter to an Assembly of Bishops, of Abbots, and of other Prelates of the Kingdom. This Assembly was held at Winchester by the Order of the King of England, and in his presence. It was there proved by the Ecclesiastical History of Bede, that from the time of S. Augustin the Apostle of England, the Church of Canterbury had always enjoyed the Right of Primacy over all England and Ireland; and that the Bishops of the Places now in Question, had been ordained, cited to Synods, and deposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury for above 140 years together. This was likewise proved by the Acts of Councils, and confirmed by the Decretals of Pope Gregory I Boniface IU. Honorius, Uitalian, Sergius I. Gregory IU. and Leo IX. The Archbishop of York having nothing but weak Arguments to oppose these Authentic Testimonies, yielded the Point, and had desired the King to adjust Matters between Him and Lanfrank. Afterwards by a general Consent an Act was prepared touching the Privileges of the Church of Canterbury, which he sends to the Pope, and desires him to confirm. He thanks him for those Testimonies of Love which he had given him, and for granting him two Palls. He tells him at last that he sends him the Letter, which he had writ formerly to Berenger, whom he calls Schismatic.  
The fourth is a Letter of Pope Alexander, directed to Lanfrank, wherein he confirms the Decrees of his Predecessors made in favour of the Monks who were in the Cathedral Churches of England, in opposition to those who would dispossess them, for to put secular Clerks into their Places.  
The fifth is directed to Hildebrand archdeacon of Rome. After he had returned him Thanks for the good Will he bore to him, he informs him that the Controversy about the Primacy of the Church of Canterbury was ended, and that he had sent the Act of it to Rome.  
The sixth is Hildebrand's, who gives him to understand, that he had not obtained the Pall which his Legates required, because they were not given at Rome, but to Persons there present.  
The seventh is a Letter of William King of England and Duke of Normandy, to Pope Gregory VII. who acquainted him that his Legate was come to wait upon him, to demand of him the Oath of Fidelity, and the Money which his Predecessors had always been used to remit to Rome. He answers him, That as for the Oath he would take none, because he was not allowed to do it, and his Predecessors had never done it. As for the Money, he says, that for these three last years which he had spent in France, it had been Collected very carelessly, that he would send him what was already gathered, and the remainder he would send by Lanfrank's Deputies. He desired to be recommended to his Prayers, and assures him that he had a sincere Affection for him, and would be always submissive to him.  
Lanfrank at the same time sent the Pope word that he could not as yet prevail upon the King to take the Oath which he required, and assures him that he had still the same Affection for him as formerly. This is the Eighth Letter.  
The ninth is a Certificate granted to a Man of the Diocese of Seez, who stood Convicted of having killed three Persons who went to Mount S. Michael. The Bishop of Seez had enjoined him Penance, and granted him Letters directed to the Bishops, that they might absolve him, or release him from part of his Penance, when they should think it proper. This is what Lanfrank certifies to the Archbishop of York.  
In the tenth, writ to the same Archbishop, he very clearly determines that it is not Lawful for a Man or a Woman who are divorced for Adultery, to Marry again.  
The eleventh is a Letter of Thomas Archbishop of York, who wrote to Lanfrank, desiring he would send to him the Bishops of Winchester and Dorchester to assist him in Consecrating a Bishop of the Isles of the Orcadeses, protesting that hereby he did not pretend that these two Bishops were his Suffragans.  
By the following Letter Lanfrank enjoins them to do it.  
In the thirteenth, directed to John Archbishop of Rouen, he tells him his Opinion upon several Rites and Ceremonies which he wrote to him about. He maintains that in the Consecration of Churches the Bishop ought not to wear his * Chasuble but a * Chap; 
[Several Copes and Vestments wore by the Mass-Priests and other Clerks of the Church of Rome.  and that the * Maniple ought not to be given at the Ordination of Subdeacons, because 'tis not a Habit peculiar to ecclesiastics, no more than the Albe and Amict, since in Monasteries the Laics wear them.  
The four next are likewise directed to the same Archbishop; in the two first he writes to him about a difference which had happened in the Church of S. Owen, which is related at large in a Passage of an History of the Church of Rouen, mentioned by Father Luke Dachery in his Notes. The third is a Letter of Compliment. In the last he excuses himself upon some complaints that had been made of him.  
The Four next are written in Favour of Baldwin Abbot of S. Edmond, and the Religious of that House. The Last is Pope Gregory the Seventh's to Lanfrank; by which he order him to prevent Bishop Herfast from putting that Abbot to any Trouble. And this is the Subject-Matter of the former Letter which Lanfrank had wrote to that Bishop.  
The One and twentieth is a Letter to the same Bishop, about a Man whom he had ordained Deacon, without having received any Order for it; who besides, was a married Man, and would not turn off his Wife. He enjoins him to depose him from his Deaconship; to give him for the future only the four lesser Orders, and not to place him among the Deacons, unless he would live single. If he did that, than he should not confer the Order of Deacon upon him again, but only grant him a Power of discharging his Functions, by giving him the Gospels in a Synod or an Assembly of the Clergy.  
The Two and twentieth is likewise an Answer directed to that Bishop, about a Man who had entered into Priest's Orders, without being fit for it. He orders, That he should be enjoyed Penance, and suspe●●ed from all Ecclesiastical Functions, till such time as he thought fit to restore him.  
The Three and twentieth is directed to Herbert Bishop of Norwich, his Suffragan; whom he reproves for slighting a Letter which he sent him in favour of Berard, a Clerk belonging to the Abbot Baldwin. He tells him of the Respect which is due to Metropolitans; and admonishes him to turn out Monk Herman, who went under a bad Name.  
The Four and twentieth is directed to Maurice Bishop of London elect. He returns him this Answer, That he ought to enjoin them Penance who had apprehended a Man, who died under their Hands. That he could not speak any farther of his Affair to the King. That Clerk Geoffrey, charged with Apostasy, aught to be turned out of his Church; or bring Letters demissory from his Bishop: And advises him to meet him the Saturday before Laetare-Sunday, at Chichester; and that he would there give him Priests Orders.  
The following Letters, which are very short, are upon various and particular Subjects. However, there are several Things in them concerning the Discipline of the Church, viz. In the Six and twentieth, That a Priest, who has taken upon him the Habit of a Monk, and lived sometime in a Monastery without having received Benediction, cannot return to the World again. In the Seven and twentieth, That Arch-deacons have a Right of distributing the Holy Chrism. In the Two and thirtieth, That young Women who have made a religious Profession, or who have been presented at the Altar, shall be obliged to continue Religious; but that such as have not made any such Profession, nor have been presented, shall have Liberty to go out, as well as those who fled for Sanctuary to Monasteries for fear of the French. In the Three and thirtieth he proves to the Bishops of Ireland, That tho' it might be proper to give the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to Infants, yet it was not absolutely necessary for Salvation. The Six, Seven and Eight and Thirtieth inform us, That the Clergy and Laity of Dublin elected their Bishop, and sent him to the Archbishop of Canterbury for Ordination: That there were some Irregularities in the Churches of Ireland; and that it was requisite to call a Councils there to reform them. In the Nine and fortieth he shows, That the Apostate-Monks, who offered to return to their Monasteries again, aught to be pardoned, and to be treated with the same Kindness as formerly. In the Sixtieth and the Last, he proves, That a Monk who has engaged himself to constant Residence in any Monastery, may now and then go to another Monastery, when urgent Occasion requires it. In the Fiftieth he refutes Berenger, who charged S. Hilary Bishop of Poitiers with being in an Error about the Sufferings of JESUS CHRIST, in teaching, That he had not been sensible of any Pain. Lanfrank explains the Passage of that Father, and tells us he spoke of the Divinity of our Saviour. In the Nine and fiftieth, he reproves a Lord for having spoke very ill Things of Pope Gregory VII. and for bestowing large Encomiums on Guibert, whom the Emperor had caused to be ordained Pope, in opposition to Gregory. He says that we ought to believe, That the Emperor did not undertake such a Thing but upon good Grounds; but that we should not commend any Person before his Death, nor speak ill of one's Neighbour; and that one cannot tell what Men are at present, nor how they will one Day appear to be in the Eye of God.  
These Letters are followed by a small Tract, concerning the Secrecy of Confession. Lanfrank doth demonstrate, That 'tis a great Sin to reveal it, or to give any Hints whereby 
Lanfrank's Treatise of Confession.  the Sins that have been confessed may be discovered. He would not have them in Confession inform themselves of the Sins of other Men, but only of those who are confessed, nor to require them to discover their Accomplices. He afterwards says, That the Confession of public Sins ought to be made to the Priests, by whose Ministry the Church binds and loses that which it takes public Cognizance of: But that one may confess private Sins to all the ecclesiastics, and even to Laics; since we read that there have been Holy Fathers, who were the Guides of Souls, tho' they were not in Holy Orders. These are Lanfrank's own Words; who perhaps by public Sins, understood mortal Sins; and by private, only venial Sins: Or rather, by the Confession of public Sins, he meant a particular Confession of Sins; and by that of private Sins, a general Confession, without specifying any particular Offence, such as Laics usually make to one another. Although in Lanfrank's time it was a common Custom among the Faithful, to confess their Sins to one another out of Humility, and especially when they could not meet with any Priests; and 'tis to this Custom Lanfrank alludes: For he adds, That if one cannot find a Person to whom one may confess one's self, we ought not to despair upon that Account, because the Fathers agree that in such a Case 'tis sufficient to make our Confession to God. Lastly, he says, That those to whom Confession is made, ought not to punish or correct publicly those who confess themselves, no not under the pretence of any other Fault. This Discourse is obscure and intricare, full of forced Allegories, and unjust Reasonings; which made Father Luke Dachery at first to question whether it were Lanfrank's or no. However, we are not sure that 'tis not his; and 'tis plain that its Author lived much about that time.  
There is likewise a Treatise of Lanfrank in the Fourth Tome of Father Dachery's Spicelegium; 
Other Writings of Laufrank.  which contains, in a few Words, the principal Duties of the Religious who wait upon the Churches. It was found in an ancient Manuscript of the Oxford Library. We have lost his Ecclesiastical History, which perhaps was the same with the Life of William the Conqueror; and a Commentary upon the Psalms, of which mention is made in the Author of his Life.  
Lanfrank's Style was neither florid nor sigurative, but plain and simple, and such as ought to appear in Dogmatical Treatises. His Reasonings are pretty just, and his Arguments cogent. He had thoroughly studied the ancient Latin Fathers, and the Canons of the Church, upon which he grounds the Doctrine which he advances, and the Judgements he makes upon the Discipline of the Church. There are but few who wrote at that time so distinctly and so exactly, or who passed such a just Judgement upon Things.  
Father Luke Dachery was the first who published Lanfrank's Works. They were printed at Paris by Billain, in the Year, 1648. The Edition is very correct, and in a fine Character. There are likewise very exact and curious Notes made by Father Dachery. At the end of Lanfrank's Works he has added several other Tracts, viz. The Chronicon of the Abbey of Bec● The Life of S. Herluin, first Abbot of Bec, wrote by Gilbert Crispinus Abbot of Westminster; and the Lives of William, Boso, Thibold and Letard, Abbots of that Abbey; the which, as well as that of Lanfrank, which is at the beginning of his Works, were wrote by Milo Crispinus a Monk of Bec, who lived in the Twelfth Century: The Life of S. Augustin the English Apostle, and two Tracts upon the Eucharist against Berenger; the one wrote by Hugh Bishop of Langres, and the other by Durandus Abbot of Troarn, who lived in the same Century.  

Hugh Bishop of Langres.  
THE first of these two last Authors was the Son of Gilduin Count of Bretevil, near Beauvais; 
Hugh Bishop of Langres.  and Brother to Waleran Abbot of S. Witon of Verdun. He had been Clerk of the Church of Chartres, and Monk of Clunie. He was made Bishop of Langres in the Year, 1031, and was deposed by Leo IX. in a Council held at Rheims in the Year, 1049. But following that Pope to Rome, and being enjoined Penance, he was re-established, and died in his return homeward about the Year, 1052. His Piece is only a Letter directed to Berenger, whose Opinion he declares in the following Terms. You maintain (says he) That the Body of JESUS CHRIST is in the Sacrament in such a manner, that the Essence and Nature of the Bread and Wine are not changed; and you make that Body you speak of, which was Crucified, to be an Intellectual Body; which makes us think that you believe it to be Spiritual: And in this you scandalise the Catholic Church, and offend our Lord, who made it appear, That this Body which you say was Spiritual, was such as might be felt. Besides, if the Nature and Essence of the Bread and Wine do really remain after Consecration, it cannot be said that there is any real Change: And if the Body of JESUS CHRIST be therein only figuratively and virtually, one might, upon the same Grounds say, That he is likewise in Baptism, and in the other Sacraments. He afterwards proves, by several Instances, That the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST is real and true; and that tho' one cannot conceive how it is, yet one ought to believe it. To strengthen this, he produces several Passages out of S. Ambrose and S. Augustin. He adds, That the Body of JESUS CHRIST is given to us under the form of Bread and Wine, because if it appeared to be Flesh and Blood, Men would be startled at it, and would not eat it. This Tract is obscure and full of Niceties and School-Terms.   

Durandus Abbot of Troarn.  
THE other Author is Durandus Abbot of Troarn in Normandy, who is not the same with 
Durandus Abbot of Troarn.  the Bishop of Liege of the same Name. His Treatise is a great deal larger, and better penned than the former. He therein citys a great many Passages of the Fathers, against the Error of Berenger; and in the Conclusion thereof gives a particular Account of the Condemnations of Berenger at Brionne, at Paris, and at Verceil. This Author lived till the Year 1088. but no Body knows at what time he wrote this Treatise.   

Guitmond Archbishop of Averse.  
SOME time after Berenger's Recantation in the Council of Rome, Guitmond Archbishop of 
Guitmond Arch bishop of Averse.  Averse, formerly a Monk of the Monastery of S. Leufroy in Normandy, composed three Books against Berenger in the nature of a Dialogue; wherein Roger, to whom these Books were dedicated, is made to propose the Objections of Berenger and his Followers. After he had given a Character of the Temper and the Errors of Berenger, and mentioned his Condemnation in the Council of Verceil in his first Book, he than proceeds to tell us, That all the Berengarians hold, that the Bread and Wine are not substantially changed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; but that they do not all agree in their Sentiments. For some believe, That the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST are not at all in this Sacrament, which they pretend to be only a Sign and a Figure. Others assert, That the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST are really there, but that they are concealed, and that we might receive them there is made a kind of Impanation; the most subtle Opinion which they say Berenger ever found out. Others, who were not thorough-paced Berengarians, but only shocked by the Arguments of that Heretic, imagined the Bread and Wine are changed in part, and in part remain the same. Lastly, There were others who believe that the Bread and Wine are entirely changed; but that when unworthy Persons approach this Sacrament, it returned to its first Substance of Bread and Wine. Guitmond undertakes to refute all these Opinions; and in the first place oppugns the two former, which were properly the Berengarian's Opinions, by showing that there was a real Change made of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST. He proves first, That it was not impossible for God to effect this Change. Secondly, That the Body of JESUS CHRIST might very well be touched, broken, bruised and eaten, and yet not be passable, corruptible or mortal; and that when the Host is divided into several parts, yet the Body of JESUS CHRIST is not divided, but remains whole and entire, and the same under each Wafer; and such as is in a thousand distinct Places in the Hands of a thousand Priests, who say Mass in different Places, and yet this very Body is still in Heaven. That we ought not to wonder that this Change is not indeed perceptible by our Senses; but that we are not always to credit their Evidence, and that Faith is enough to persuade us of this Miracle. That 'tis indeed difficult to conceive, but easy to believe it, since nothing is impossible to God, who has produced Things more wonderful. And that we see Changes altogether as surprising, such as the Change of Nothing into this visible World, the Change of Accidents into other Accidents, the Change of Substances into other Substances, together with the Change of their Accidents: If these Changes are possible, why should the Change of one Substance into another, without the Change of the Accidents, be counted impossible?  
In the Second Book, Guitmond answers an Objection made by Berenger, which Roger proposes to him in these Words: Berenger says, The Flesh of JESUS CHRIST is incorruptible, but the Sacraments of the Altar are corruptible if they be kept too long. To this Guitmond replies, That tho' the Consecrated Bread seems to be corrupted to the Apprehension of corrupted Men, yet in reality it is not changed at all; and that it does not appear altered, unless as a Punishment of the Infidelity and Negligence of Men: That it cannot be gnawn by Mice, and other Vermin; and if at any time it appears to be so, 'tis only to punish the Negligence, or to try the Faith of Men. Nor will he admit that the Fire can consume these Mysteries; and he says, That with Veneration they commit it to this most pure Element, to be carried up into Heaven. Lastly he affirms, That though the Eucharist may serve for Nourishment, yet it does not turn to Excrement; and as to that Objection which might be made, That supposing a Man should eat nothing for some considerable time but consecrated Bread, he would nevertheless have occasion to go to Stool. He answers, That 'tis a Matter of Fact, that has never been experienced, and that it could never enter into the Heart of any Catholic to try such an Experiment: That if any of Berenger's Party thought fit to do it, one should not trouble one's Head much about what became of the Mass of those Infidels, which committed so great a Crime; Because, says he, we do not believe, That the Bread and Wine are necessarily changed into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST, unless among those who have the Faith to believe this Mystery, and that the Words of JESUS CHRIST are efficacious. That Lastly, If any of them should order a Catholic Priest to consecrate one or more great Loaves to try the Experiment, it is to be believed that this Loaf would not be turned into Excrement; or rather that God would permit these Heretics to be deceived, by ordering some Angel or Spirit to convey away this consecrated Loaf, and to put an unconsecrated one in its stead. After he had thus solved the Objections drawn from Reason, he answers the Passages cited out of S. Augustin, and makes it appear in what Sense, and of what the Eucharist is a Sign.  
In the last Book he produces a great many Passages of the Fathers, upon which he grounds the Doctrine of the real change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST, and confirms it by the Testimony of the Romish Church, and by the Condemnations brought against Berenger. To conclude, he demonstrates that 'tis much greater, and more excellent to believe that we receive the real Body of JESUS CHRIST, than to imagine that we only receive the shadow and sign of it.  
Afterwards he refutes in short their Opinion, who pretended that one part of the Bread and Wine was changed, and that the other remained still the same: And the Opinion of those who believed that the Bread and Wine reassumed their former Nature, when unworthy Persons approached thereto. Both of these Opinions were grounded upon this, That they could not conceive how the Wicked could be partakers of the Body of JESUS CHRIST. To solve this difficulty, Guitmond distinguishes between two sorts of Receiving, the one Corporeal, the other Spiritual: That the Just receive the Body of JESUS CHRIST both these ways; that the Wicked receive it only in the first sense, though they do really receive it. He adds, That if only part of the Consecrated Bread were changed into the Body of JESUS CHRIST upon the account of those who were unworthy to receive it, than no Man could assuredly say, This is the Body of JESUS CHRIST, because no Man ought to affirm confidently that he is worthy to receive it. Wherefore it would be rashness in the Priest to say, This is the Body of JESUS CHRIST, as well as in the People to answer, It is so. That besides, if a vicious Priest should Consecrate an Host which he ought to receive all himself, than there would be neither Change nor Consecration; and by this means it would be true to affirm, That the Wickedness of the Priest would disannul the Efficacy of the Words of JESUS CHRIST, and that the Belief of the Church which is persuaded, that the Words of our Saviour are alike Efficacious in Good and Bad Priests, would be absolutely false. Lastly, To refute the last Opinion, he observes that 'tis contrary to sound Sense and Reason to say, That the incorruptible Body of JESUS CHRIST is changed in corruptible Creatures; and he concludes all by saying that, since the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, is not a bare representation of the Body of JESUS CHRIST, it does not contain it by an Impanation: That the Bread and Wine are not changed in part only; and that being once changed, they cannot return again to their former substance; and that it must be affirmed, that all the Bread and Wine are substantially and perpetually changed into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST.  
There is likewise another small Tract of Guitmond, which is only a plain Exposition of Faith concerning the Mysteries of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Eucharist: It enlarges chief on the former, and explains in what Sense the Son is the Wisdom, and the Holy Ghost the Love of the Father. Nor ought we to forget a Discourse belonging to the same Author, which he directs to William the First, King of England, by which he refuses a Bishopric which that Prince had offered to him. These Tracts are to be met with in the Bibliotheca Patrum. Guitmond lived to about the Year 1080. The Seventy eighth Letter of Ives of Chartres is directed to him, wherein that Author gives him the Character of a Religious and Learned Man. His Style is not very elegant, but pretty cogent; he argues very methodically without wandering from his Subject.   

Alger Deacon of Liege and Monk of Clunie.  
ALger did not write till long after Lanfrank, for he flourished in the twelfth Century. He 
Alger Deacon of Liege and Monk of Clunie.  was of Liege, where he studied with great success, and there spent part of his Life, first of all in the quality of a Deacon of the Church of S. Bartholomew. From thence he was translated to the Church of S. Mary and S. Lambert, where he lived Twenty years, till the Death of Frederick Bishop of Liege, after which he retired, and took upon him the Habit of a Monk in the Abbey of Clunie. We make mention of this Author here, tho' he belongs to the next Century, because the principal Treatise which he wrote, was that whereby he refutes the Errors which Lanfrank and Guitmond have opposed. This Treatise is entitled, A Discourse concerning the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST, and divided into three Books. In the Preface he takes notice of the four Errors about the Eucharist, mentioned by Guitmond, and Subjoins two more to them. The One is, That the Bread and Wine are changed into Flesh and Blood, but not into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST: The Other, That the Eucharist is turned into Excrements. He afterwards proposes to refute these Errors, not by the force of humane Reason, but by the Testimonies of JESUS CHRIST and the Saints. But before he does this, he advertises the Faithful, that tho' this Mystery be incomprehensible, yet it does not from thence follow that 'tis incredible, because God has a Power sufficient to do things which we are not capable of Comprehending. After this he divides his Work into two Parts: In the former he says, He will treat of the reality of the Body of JESUS CHRIST in the Eucharist; and in the latter, concerning several Questions relating to that Sacrament.  
In the former he proves, That the Son of God after he had taken upon him a Nature like to Ours by the Incarnation, was likewise pleased visibly to communicate thereof to us, by giving us his Body and his Blood, not only in a figure, but likewise in reality under the Sacrament of Bread and Wine. That there are two Things to be distinguished in the Eucharist; the Sacrament, and the Matter of the Sacrament. That the Sacrament is the Form, the Figure, and the other Qualities of the Bread and Wine; and that the Matter of the Sacrament is the invisible Substance of the Body of JESUS CHRIST, which is contained in that Sacrament, and into which the Substance of the Bread and Wine has been changed. That it cannot be said, That JESUS CHRIST is united to the Bread, as the Son of God is personally united to Man, because the Substance of the Bread and Wine is no longer there, but changed into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST. That tho' the Body of JESUS CHRIST in the Eucharist, is spiritual and invisible, yet 'tis really there; and that God has sometimes permitted that it should plainly and manifestly appear to be as really in the Eucharist, as it is in Heaven, at the Right hand of the Father. That 'tis the same whole and entire Body, which is distributed to all the Faithful under several consecrated Wafers. That it is not Sacrificed nor offered up after the same manner, as it was upon the Cross, but that this mystical Sacrifice or Immolation is the Figure and Representat on of that which was offered upon the Cross, tho' it be the same CHRIST, both upon the Cross and the Altar. That the invisible Body may in one sense be said to be the Figure of the visible Body, but that for all this, 'tis no less the real Body. That the Corporeal Communion is the Figure of the Spiritual Communion; but that by this Corporeal Communion, the Wicked as well as the Good, receive the Body of JESUS CHRIST Corporeally, though not Spiritually. These are the principal Points which Alger establishes upon the Testimonies of the Fathers in this first Book.  
In the second Par● he treats of other Questions relating to the Sacrament, and particularly whether the Eucharist be capable of any alteration, or subject to the same condition with other Aliments, part of which turns to Execrements? Upon this Head he sets upon the Grecians, who maintained, That by receiving the Communion, Men broke their Fasts. He owns that Men might live of Consecrated Bread and Wine, and that there are Instances of it: But he denies that any part of the Eucharist is Corrupted, or turned into Execrements; or if any are voided, they are produced by the flesh of the Man himself, or supplied some other way. He further maintains, That tho' the Bread and Wine seem to be subject to alteration, as for Instance, to be devoured by Animals, or consumed by Fire; yet this is not in reality, but only in appearance, to punish the Incredulity of the Wicked, or the Carelessness of Ministers. After he had thus resolved that Question, he passes on to others that are less Considerable: Namely, (1.) Why God, who is invisible, would have us to offer him a visible Sacrifice? To this he answers, That 'tis to put Men in mind of what they own him; and because Man being a Compound Creature made up of a Soul and Body, 'tis reasonable he should offer to God both Corporeal and Spiritual Sacrifices. (2.) The second Question is, Why the Sacrifice of the Church is made up of a Sacrament and the Body of JESUS CHRIST, and why 'tis not either a simple Sacrament, or the visible Body of JESUS CHRIST? This he resolves by saying, That if the Eucharist were a simple Sacrament, it would not be different from the Sacraments of the old Law; and that if the Body of JESUS CHRIST should appear therein openly, it would be subject to great Inconveniences. For (says he) it would appear either alive or dead; but it cannot appear as dead, since he is living; and if it appeared alive, it would either be in the same State wherein it was before his Passion, or in the same State wherein it was after his Resurrection: In the first Case, it would be impossible to swallow it; and in the second, Men would not be able to endure the brightness of its Glory. That besides, it was necessary that the Body of JESUS CHRIST should be concealed under shadows and representations, to exercise the Faith of the One, and to prevent others from uttering Blasphemies, and from charging the Christians with eating and drinking humane Flesh and Blood. The third Question is, (3.) Why God requires so much Faith in this Sacrament? He answers, That Man being in a lapsed State, because Adam by giving too much Credit to the Words of the Devil, had eaten of the forbidden Fruit; 'tis necessary we should be saved by believing the Word of God, who enjoins us to eat his Body, and drink his Blood in this Sacrament. (4.) The fourth Question is, Why we make use of Bread and Wine, rather than any other Creature? For this he assigns several Reasons, Because Bread and Wine are the ordinary Nourishment of Man, which supports the corporeal Life, as the Eucharist is the Nourishment of the Soul, which supports the spiritual Life: Because as the Bread and Wine are changed into Flesh and Blood, so they are here changed into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRST: Because the Bread being made up of several Grains of Corn, and the Wine out of several Bunches of Grapes, is a figure of the Unity of the Church which is made up of several Persons. (5.) The fifth Question is, Why we do not immediately enjoy Life eternal, after having received the Body of JESUS CHRIST? He replies, That 'tis because we may have time to exercise ourselves in Virtue. (6.) The sixth Question is, Why God bestows an eternal Recompense on temporal Merits? 'Tis, says he, Because he regards not the temporal Action, but rewards or punishes the Eternal Propensity and Inclination of doing Good or Evil. (7.) The seventh Question is, Why Bread is consecrated into the Body, and Wine into the Blood of JESUS CHRIST? He replies, That 'tis not because the Body of JESUS CHRIST is without the Blood, or the Blood without the Body, since JESUS CHRIST is whole and entire under each Kind; but that we offer and communicate under these two Kind's, because of the different Mysteries which they figure out to us. (8.) The eighth Question is, Why we make use of White Bread rather than Brown, though at the same time we consecrate Wine of all sorts of Colours? He answers, That in case of Necessity, one may make use of any sort of Bread; but that 'tis proper to use the Whitest, because it is to be changed into the glorious Body of the spotless Lamb. (9) The ninth and last Question is, Why we make use of Unleavened rather than leavened Bread, although we indifferently make use of Wine that has Lees as well as of that which has none? He says, That this is a grand Dispute between the Latins and the Greeks, who treat one another as Heretics, and call each other Azymites and Fermentarians, though one may safely use the One as well as the Other; that notwithstanding this, JESUS CHRIST made use of Unleavened Bread as a Figure of Purity. He likewise relates the Reasons of the Greeks; and after he had answered them, he concludes, That it was better to make use of Unleavened Bread, which he believed to have been the Custom of the Latin Church from its beginning.  
In the last Book he discourses of several other Points which relate to the Ministers of the Eucharist: And in the first place he demands, Whether Heretics and Schismatics, which are without the Pale of the Church, do consecrate the Body of JESUS CHRIST; and at first he produces the Testimonies of the Fathers, which seem to prove, That they do not consecrate according to due Form. But afterwards having laid it down as a Principle, That the Validity of the Sacraments doth not depend on the Faith or Piety of the Minister; he concludes, That as Heretics and Schismatics may baptise, so likewise can they consecrate; and that the Ordination of Priesthood is as much among them as Baptism. This he proves from several Principles and Passages of S. Augustin, and replies to those Passages which he at first started against the Sacraments of Heretics and Schismatics, which (he says) ought not to be understood of the Sacraments themselves, but of the Abuse which they make of them, since they are so far from being beneficial to them, that they render them the more Criminal. He afterwards asks, Whether the Sacraments are valid, if any Addition or Alteration be made of the Words of the Office, either by the Wickedness or Carelessness of him who officiates? He explains this Question as it relates to Baptism; and, after he had cited several Passages out of S. Augustin and the Popes, and among others out of Pope Zachary, he concludes, That provided the Essential Words be recited, tho' by carelessness it happens that needless Words be added thereto, or some Ceremony be left out, yet this does not hinder the Efficacy of the Sacrament. He does not apply this Principle to the Eucharist, but only says in general, That in the Celebration of these Holy Mysteries we ought not to introduce any Heresies or Novelties; but faithfully to observe the Institution of JESUS CHRIST, that so as those Mysteries are truly effected by his Power, and founded upon his Authority, they may be likewise profitable to us by his Grace.  
The same Author has composed a Treatise of Mercy and Justice, without affixing his Name thereto: It is divided into three Parts. In the first he shows in what Instances we ought to extend Mercy to Criminals, and to bear with them. In the second part he shows, at what times, with what discretion, and in what manner we ought to exercise Justice upon them. In the third, he discourses of the different Errors of the Heretics about the Sacraments, and shows wherein they differ from the Catholics, and in what Points they disagree among themselves. This is what we gather from the Preface of that Treatise; which Preface Father Mabillon has published in the first Tome of his Analects, with the Panegyric of a Canon of Liege, who was Cotemporary with Alger. This Preface is taken out of his two Manuscripts, where the Work is complete, but has never yet been published. We have wholly lost several Letters, and the History of the Church of Liege, which he wrote whilst he resided in that City, of which the Author of his Elegy makes mention. Peter, surnamed the Venerable, prefers Alger's Piece upon the Eucharist, to those of Lanfrank and Guitmond. It must be confessed, That 'tis a great deal larger, and that he citys more Passages out of the Fathers; but his way of Reasoning is not so exact, nor is his Writing so complete as Lanfrank's. He has observed Guitmond's Method, and done little else besides amplifying and confirming his Principles and Arguments. This Treatise was printed at Cologne in the Year, 1535. At Louvain, together with Lanfrank's Treatise, in the Year, 1561. and is to be met with in the Bibliotheca Patrum.   

S. Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury.  
THE same Principles which are established in the Tracts of Guitmond and Alger, are likewise 
S. Anselm A. B of Canterb.  to be met with in the two last Letters of S. Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury; wherein he establishes the real Presence, and refutes those who believed that the Eucharist was only a Type and Figure. He asserts, That the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST; but withal owns, That it may be called Bread, a Sacrament and a Figure: Bread, because JESUS CHRIST is called so himself; A Sacrament, because under the visible Appearance of Bread and Wine, the Divine Power does therein internally present to us the Flesh of JESUS CHRIST: And a Figure, because we conceive and believe it to be quite another Thing than what it seems to be to our Sight and Taste. That God made Choice of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament, because of the Analogy which there is between our Spiritual and Corporeal Nourishment. That we ought not to believe that when we receive the Body, we do not receive the Blood; and that when we receive the Blood, we do not receive the Body; but that they are exhibited to us under these two different kinds, thereby to denote that we ought to be conformable to the Body and Soul of JESUS CHRIST. That Water is mixed therewith, thereby to represent that Water which issued out of our Lord's Side, and which is the Figure of Baptism. That the Wicked do indeed receive the Substance, tho' not the Effects and Benefits of the Body of JESUS CHRIST. That the outward Elements of Bread and Wine, may be broken, eaten by Mice, and go into the Stomach; but that these are Accidents which only happen to the Elements which are left, but not to that which is really the Eucharist. That we ought not to ask, what becomes of the Body of JESUS CHRIST, nor how the Bread is changed into the Body of JESUS CHRIST, because God has wrought greater Miracles than these. Lastly, That a wicked Priest may as well Consecrate as a good Priest, because 'tis JESUS CHRIST who Consecrates, and 'tis he who Baptises.    

CHAP. IU.  
An Account of the Popes and of the Church of Rome, from the time of Silvester II. to Gregory VII.  
GERBERT, who goes under the Name of Silvester II. had the Possession of the Papal Chair only Five Years, from the Year, 999. to the Year, 1003. During this 
Silvester II.  time he did not do much worth the mentioning, nor did he write so much as he had acted before. We have only Three Letters of his, written whilst he was Pope. The First is directed to Azolin Bishop of Laon, who was accused by King Robert of being disloyal to him. He had been cited before a Council held at Compiegne, where he had acknowledged his Fault, begged Pardon for it, given Hostages for a Security of his Allegiance, and promised to restore the Forts of Laon to the King. But afterwards he went back from his Word, would have taken the Archbishop of Rheims Prisoner, under a Pretence of restoring to him the Citadel of Laon; and kept those Men Prisoners who were sent to take Possession thereof. The Pope upbraids him with this Perfidiousness, and citys him to a Council to be held at Rome in the Easter-week; giving him to understand, That if he did not make his Appearance, he would pronounce Sentence against him, without admitting his Excuse of the Dangers of Travelling, since there was no more Danger in the Kingdom of Lorraine than in Italy; And whereas he might perhaps allege Sickness as an Excuse, the Pope adds, That if he made use of that Shift, he must send some to testify the Truth of it, and to answer to the Accusations which were preferred against him.  
We have already mentioned his Second Letter, directed to Arnulphus Archbishop of Rheims, by which he confirms him in that Archbishopric.  
The Third is a Bull or Grant, which confirms and ratifies the Privileges of the Abbey of Vezelai.  
We may likewise add to these Letters., his Tract against the Simonists, which he made in the beginning of his Popedom. Ademar makes mention of one Action of Silvester, which, if true, is an Instance of unheardof Severity. He says, That Guy, the Count of Lymoges, having imprisoned Grimoald Bishop of that City, for taking Possession of the Monastery of Brantome, which that Bishop demanded of him; and having afterwards released him upon certain Conditions, this Bishop went to Rome, and having complained of this Usage to Silvester, that Pope had cited Guy to Rome; where, his Cause being heard in an Assembly held on Easter-day, he had been condemned by the Pope and Senate to be tied by the Feet to wild Horses Tails, and to be drawn and torn to pieces: But that being committed to the Bishop's Custody, he adjusted Matters with him, and that they both fled from Rome, and returned good Friends to their own Country again. 'Tis very probable that all this was done by Consent; for otherwise how can one excuse the Cruelty of this Sentence so disagreeable to the Spirit and Character of the Church, which breathes out nothing but Gentleness and Peace, and which desires not the Death, but the 
[Here we may see how much Dupin, though a true Romanist, abbors those bloody Principles upon which the Inquisition, and other unheard of severities of the Church of Rome are founded.]  Amendment of a Sinner?  
The two Popes, who immediately succeeded Silvester II. were both Johns. The first of 
John XVI. and John XVII.  these, who according to our Account is John XVI. and according to others John XVIII. surnamed the Meager, was only four Months and some Days upon the Chair: The other held it almost six Years. He sent a Legate into Germany to confirm the Privileges and Prerogatives of the Church of Magdebourg, and to raise the Church of Bamberg into a Bishopric. This was done with the consent of the Archbishop of Mayence, and other Prelates of Germany in a Council held at Francfort, which approved of the Pope's Bull, which advanced the Church of Bamberg to be a Bishopric. He gave the Pall to S. Elphege Archbishop of Canterbury, and sent Bruno his Missionary into Poland. He renewed Communion with the Greek Church. S. Fulbert Bishop of Chartres wrote him a Letter, wherein he bestows great Commendations upon him, and prays him to be well advised before he granted Absolution to Count Radulphus.  
Sergius iv succeeded John XVII. and was called before Os Porci. If Ditmar may be 
Sergius IU.  credited in the Case, he changed his Name into that of Sergius, and was the first who made a Law to authorize the changing of Names; however, there are instances of this Nature more ancient, as we have already observed. Authors say in general a great deal in Commendation of this Pope; but they have not mentioned any one of his Actions in particular, and we have none of his Letters by us. He was not upon the Chair above two Years, eight Months, and thirteen Days, for he died May 13. in the Year 1012.  
After his Death there was a Schism in the Church of Rome, between Benedict VIII. Son to 
Benedict VIII.  Gregory the Count of Frescati, who was first Elected by his Father's interest; and one Gregory, who was Elected by some Romans, who outed Benedict. He fled to Henry King of Germany, who immediately raised Forces, and marched into Italy to re-establish him. As soon as the King arrived, Gregory fled for it, and Benedict was received without any Opposition. He conferred the imperial Crown on that Prince, and on Queen Chunegonda his Wife. Under his Pontificate the Norman Lords who had driven the Saracens out of Sicily, drove likewise the Greeks out of a great many of those places which they held in Italy, being assisted by the Emperor Henry, who came thither a second time at the instance of the Pope. Benedict died in the Year 1024. and some Authors say that after his Death, he appeared mounted on a black Horse, and that he strewed the place, where he had deposited a Treasure, that so it might be distributed to the Poor, and that by these Alms, and the Prayers of S. Odilo, he was delivered from the Torments of the other Life. We have only one Bull of his in Favour of the Abbey of Clunie.  
This Pope held a Council at Pavia, in which after he had discoursed at large against the 
The Council of Pavia under Benedict VII.  Incontinence of the Clergy, he published eight Decrees. The first and second, prohibit the Clergy from having any Concubines, and from living with Women. The third and fourth import, that the Children of such Clergymen as are Slaves of the Church, shall be Slaves to the Church for ever, tho' born of a Mother that is Free. And the three last import, that such Clergy as are Slaves to the Church, can neither purchase nor possess any thing of their own, even tho' they should be born of a Mother that is Free. These Decrees were Signed by the Pope, by the Archbishop of Milan, and by five Bishops, and afterwards ratified by the Emperor's Authority, who at the Pope's Request, published an Edict consisting of the same Articles, to give them the force of a Law.  
The Count of Frescati, that the Popedom might be still in his Family, caused his other 
John XVIII.  Son to be Elected in the room of Benedict VIII. tho' he was not then in Orders. He was ordained and called John, which according to us is the Eighteenth of that Name, but according to others the Twentieth. 'Tis said, that sometime after this Pope being sensible that his Election was Vicious and Simoniacal, he withdrew into a Monastery there to suffer Penance, and that he forbore performing any part of his Function, till such time as he was chosen again by the Clergy. The Emperor Henry died at the beginning of this Popedom, and Conrade was Elected King of Germany in his place, in the Year 1024. and Crowned Emperor three years after by this Pope. The Greeks having dispatched an Embassy to Rome, to get the Pope's Grant that the Church of Constantinople should be called the Universal Church, were opposed by the French Prelates; and William Abbot of S. Benign of Dijon, wrote a Letter to John XVIII. to divert him from that Design; which Letter is mentioned by Glaber. This Pope wrote a Letter to the Bishop of Lymoges, by which he declares, that S. Martial shall have the Character of Apostle; and another Letter to Odilo Abbot of Clunie, wherein he blames him for having refused to accept of the Archbishopric of Lions. He sent Letters of Absolution to the Bishop of Auxerre, who had sent him his Confession in Writing. Canutus' King of England came to Rome in the Year 1031. where he was very kindly received by Pope John and the Emperor. He complained that they exacted too great Sums of his Archbishops for the Grant of their Palls, and it was ordered that for the future they should not be so served. He likewise obtained, That his Subjects might have free Access to Rome, and that they should be exempt from Customs. This is what the King acquaints the Peers of his Kingdom in his Letter, mentioned by William of Malmsbury.  
John XVIII. dying November 7. in the Year, 1033. Alberic Count of Frescati caused his Son to be seated on S. Peter's Chair. He was Nephew to the two last Popes the Count's 
Benedict IX.  Brothers, and was not above Eighteen Years of Age at the most. He changed his Name of Theophylact into that of Benedict IX. Peter Damien speaks of him as a Man that lived very disorderly, and was very unworthy of that Dignity to which he had been advanced by the Tyranny of his Father. However, he enjoyed the Popedom very quietly for Ten Years together; but at last the Romans, weary of his abominable Irregularities, outed him, and put up in his Place the Bishop of S. Sabina, who took upon him the Name of Silvester III. He 
Silvester III.  enjoyed his Diginty but three Months; for tho' Benedict voluntarily resigned the Popedom, yet he returned to Rome, and with the Assistance of Frescati's Party, drove out his Competitor, and reassumed the Papal Chair. But being altogether uncapable of Governing it, and having nothing more in his Thoughts than the gratifying of his Brutal Appetite, he made a Bargain about the Popedom with John Gracian Archpriest of the Church of Rome, and made it over to him for a Sum of Money, reserving to himself the Revenues due from England to the Holy See. This Gracian took upon him the Name of Gregory VI In the 
Gregory VI.  mean time King Henry, who had succeeded his Father Conrade in the Year, 1039. being incensed against Benedict, who had sent the Imperial Crown to the King of Hungary, after he had defeated that Prince, resolved to march into Italy, to put an end to that Schism. After he came thither, he caused these three Popes to be deposed in several Synods, as Usurpers, Simonists and Criminals. Benedict fled for it; Gregory VI. was apprehended and afterwards banished; and Silvester III was sent back to his Bishopric of S. Sabina. He caused Suidger Bishop of Bamberg to be Elected in their stead, who took upon him the Name of Clement II. and was acknowledged as lawful Pope by all the World. He crowned Henry Emperor; 
Clement II.  and as he was waiting upon him home to Germany, he died beyond the Alps, Octob. 7. in the Year, 1047. Nine Months after his Election. Immediately upon this Benedict IX. returns to Rome, and a third time remounts the Papal Chair; which he held for Eight Months, notwithstanding the Emperor had sent from Germany, Poppo Bishop of Bresse, who was consecrated Pope under the Title of Damasus II. but he did not long enjoy that Dignity, 
Damasus II.  for he died of Poison, as 'tis supposed, at Palestrina, Three and twenty Days after his Consecration.  
It is no Wonder that these Popes have not left us the least Monument of their Pastoral Vigilance, either in Councils or by Letters, since all their Care and Aim was how to gratify their Ambition and the rest of their Passions, without watching over the Flock of JESUS CHRIST. Clement II. must be excepted out of that Number; for though he had been Pope but a very short time, yet the first thing he did after his Advancement, was to hold a Council at Rome against the Simoniacal, in which he endeavoured to put a stop to the further progress of Simony, which was then so common at Rome, that almost all the ecclesiastics were guilty of it. He wrote likewise a Letter to John, Archbishop of Salerno Elect, by which he approves of his Translation, after he had examined whether it had been done by Intrigue or Simony; and being satisfied that it was only for the Benefit and Good of the Church, and that the Clergy and Laity of Salerno had elected him freely, he granted him the Pall, confirmed him in the Archbishopric, and gave him a Power to ordain and consecrate the Bishops of seven Dioceses mentioned in that Letter.  
In the mean time, Benedict being still in Possession of the Church of Rome, was guilty of strange Exorbitances there, which obliged the Romans to send fresh Deputies to the Emperor 
Leo IX.  Henry, desiring he would grant them a Man fit to be advanced to S. Peter's Chair. He made choice of one Bruno Bishop of Toul, whom he sent to Rome with the Pontifical Purple Habit upon him. 'Tis reported, That in going through France, at Clunie he met with Hildebrand Clerk of the Church of Rome, who having been carried away with Gregory VI stayed in France after his Death, and withdrew to Clunie, where he was Prior. This Hildebrand attended Bruno to Rome, and persuaded him to lay aside his Purple Robes, and to leave the Romans to a free Liberty of Election; assuring him, That this would promote and further his Design. He attained his End, according as he had promised him. Bruno was very kindly received by the Romans, elected Pope unanimously, and ordained February 13. in the Year, 1049. under the Name of Leo IX. Benedict was likewise obliged to submit, and by Hildebrand's Persuasion he acknowledged Leo as Pope, and ingratiated himself to him. Leo having settled the Affairs of Rome and Italy, crossed the Mountains twice and went into Germany. The second time he went to beg the Emperor's Assistance against the Normans of Pozzuolo, with whom he was then at War. Having obtained his Desire he returned into Italy, and marched against them. They surprised his Forces, defeated them, and took him Prisoner. However, they used him very kindly; and having treated him with a great deal of Respect, conducted him to Benevento. He lived there a Year, from whence they dismissed him, without exacting any thing for his Ransom, attended with a great Train of Coaches, which conducted him to Rome, where he died within a short time after. Peter Damien very vehemently upbraids this Pope for having waged this War, born Arms, and appeared in Person at the Head of his Forces. Benno assures us, That he undertook this War by the Advice and Instigation of Benedict and Hildebrand, and that they were the Persons who betrayed him to the Normans. However it was, Leo IX. in the rest of his Actions, showed a great deal of Prudence and Piety; and his Letters are an eternal Monument of his Learning, and of the Love he bore to Religion and Church-Discipline.  
The First is directed to Leo Archbishop of Acride, and to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who had condemned the Custom of the Latin Church about Unleavened Bread, which it made use of in the Holy Mysteries. He therein raises the Dignity of the Church of Rome, founded by S. Peter. He says, That 'tis this Church which has refuted, convinced and condemned all Heresies, and which has confirmed other Churches in the Faith of S. Peter, which has and will always remain in the Church of Rome. He reckons up Fourscore and ten Heresies sprung up in the Greek Church, among which he places the Presumption of John the Faster, who took upon him the Quality and Title of Universal Patriarch: He not only defends the Spiritual Authority of the Popes, but likewise their Temporal Sovereignty, which he found'st upon a supposititious Donation of the Emperor Constantine. He upbraids the Grecks with the Constantinopolitan Council under Constantine Capronymus, and with the Affair of Photius. He adds, That in Contempt of the Canons of the Nicene Council, they had advanced Eunuches to the Patriarchal See of Constantinople. Afterwards, comparing the Church of Rome with that of Constantinople, he says, That the former is as ancient as Christianity itself, and that it has undergon all manner of Persecutions; whereas the latter is wholly New, and sprung up in Pleasures: That the one is the Mother, the other the Daughter: That upon this Account the Latter aught to pay a due Respect to the Former, and not to be so ungrateful, as it is to that Church, from which it derived its first Birth. He reproves, in particular, Leo of Acride, and the Patriarch, for having shut up all the Latin Churches, and taken away the Monasteries from the Monks and Abbots, till such time as they should conform themselves to the Greek Customs. The Church of Rome (says he) acts with a great deal more Moderation and Prudence. For tho' there are several Greek Monasteries and Churches both within and out of Rome, yet they have no Disturbance, but are permitted to live according to the Custom of their Ancestors, and are not constrained to relinquish their Customs: On the contrary, they are admonished and advised to observe them. To conclude, he enlarges very much on the Presumption of the Patriarches of Constantinople, and on the Dignity of the Church of Rome.  
Leo's second Letter is directed to the Bishops of the Provinces of Venice and Istria, whom he gives to understand, That Dominick Patriarch of Grado or Aquileia Nova, came to a Council held at Rome in the Year, 1053. wherein he had been ordained: That the Town of Grado should always be esteemed the Metropolis of Venice and Istria, and that the Bishop of Foro-Julio or old Aquileia, should have no Power or Jurisdiction out of Lombardy, according to the Grant of Gregory II. and the Restriction of Gregory III. He thereupon order these Bishops to submit to the Patriarch of Grado, as to their Metropolitan.  
The Third is an Answer directed to Thomas a Bishop in Africa, who had asked the Pope's Advice about the Dignity of the Church of Carthage. He at first lets him know how deeply he is concerned to understand, by his Letter, that the Church of Africa, where there were formerly so many Bishops, that in the Canons we read of Two hundred and five who were present at a Council held at Carthage, was now reduced to the Government of only five Bishops, and that even they could not live friendly together. Afterwards he congratulates him for having applied himself to the Church of Rome for the Resolution of his Doubts. Lastly, he declares to him, That the Bishop of Carthage is Primate and Metropolitan of all Africa; and that the Bishop about whom he wrote (whoever he were) ought not to consecrate Bishops, nor to depose them, nor to call a Provincial Council, nor to do any Thing, unless what concerns his own Diocese, without the Consent and Permission of the Archbishop of Carthage. He adds, by way of Advice, That they could not call a General Council, nor determine any thing about Bishops, without the Authority of the Holy See.  
The Fourth Letter is directed to two other Bishops of Africa, called Peter and John. After a Preamble, very much like that of the former Letter, he gave them the same Answer concerning the Archhishop of Carthage, and the determining of Matters relating to Bishops; and thereto adds several Extracts out of the false Decretals, concerning the Institution of Metropolitans.  
In the Fifth, he congratulates Peter Bishop of Antioch his Advancement to that Dignity, speaks of the Prerogatives of the Church of Rome, exhorts him to maintain the third Rank among the Patriarches, approves of the Form of Faith which he had sent him, and makes another like it, declaring, That he wished that the Latin and Greek Churches were happily united, and it was no Fault of his that they were not.  
The Sixth is directed to Michael Patriarch of Constantinople. He declares to him the Inclination he had for Peace, and was glad to find the Patriarch of the same Mind too. However he reproves him, (1.) Because he being a Novice, had all of a sudden been made Patriarch. (2.) Because he was minded to make the Patriarches of Alexandria and Antioch submit to his Jurisdction. (3.) Because he took upon him the Title of Universal Patriarch, which the Popes of Rome had never allowed of, and says, That S. Peter was never styled Universal Apostle, tho' he had been made the Prince of the Apostles; and that the Council of Chalcedon had granted that Title to S. Leo and his Successors. (4.) Because he calumniated the Latin Church, and anathematised and persecuted all those who made use of Unleavened Bread in the Eucharist. In the close of this Letter, he exhorts him to put an end to this Schism. This Letter bears date January, Indictio septima, which is the Year 1054.  
The Seventh is writ to the Emperor Constantine Monomachus, on whom he bestows great Commendations for his being so desirous of Peace and Union between the two Churches. He exhorts him to imitate the Piety of Constantine the Great, and the respect he bore to the Holy See, and to grant him his Protection. He complains to him that Patriarch Michael had done many unjust things, even whilst he pretended to be desirous of a Peace.  
The Eighth is directed to all the Bishops of Italy, and contains an Injunction which he made to put a stop to the Avarice of Abbots and Monks, who converted all the Pious Donations to the use of their own Monasteries, without allowing any share thereof to the Churches. He enjoins that all those who should hereafter grant such Donations, shall leave the one Moiety of what they give to the Church where they live, and the other to the Monastery.  
The Ninth, directed to the Bishops of France, has relation to the Council of Rheims, to which it is referred.  
The Tenth is against those who rifle Bishops Houses after their Decease.  
In the Eleventh he confirms the Right of Metropolitan to the Archbishop of Salerno.  
In the Twelfth directed to the Princes of Bretagne, he Excommunicates the Bishops of that Province, because they would not submit themselves to the Archbishop of Tours, and because they were Guilty of Simony. However, he gave them leave to come and clear themselves if they could at the Council of Verceil. He pronounces the same Sentence against those who had ordained them.  
One may likewise reckon among the Letters of Pope Leo, the Bulls which he has granted upon several Occasions, viz. The Bull by which he grants to the Vatican Church the Tenths of the Offerings: That by which he declares that the Body of S. Dennis is at Ratisbonne, and not at S. Dennis in France, where there are only the Bodies of S. Rusticus and S. Eleutherus; (but 'tis a question whether this Bull be genuine or no): That which relates to the Bishop of Porto: The Bulls confirming the Privileges of the Abbeys of Clunie, of S. Sophia at Benevento, and of the Monastery of Peter Damien, to whom he wrote likewise a Letter, wherein he approves of one of his Works.  
There is no question to be made, but that this Pope made several Laws in several Councils, tho' we have not an entire one left us. Authors make mention only of a Council of 
The Council held under Leo IX.  Rome held in the Year 1049. wherein he confirmed the Decree of his Predecessor Clement II. concerning those who were Guilty of Simony: Of another Council held the same year at Pavia: Of a Council held at Rheims, wherein Hugh of Langres was deposed, the Acts of which we have by us: Of a Council held the next year at Mayence, against a Bishop charged with Adultery: Of another Council held the same year at Rome against Berenger: Of another held at Siponta against two Simoniacal Archbishops: Of a third Council held at Rome after Easter in the Year 1051. wherein Gregory Bishop of Verceil was deposed for Adultery, and wherein several Laws were made against Simoniacal and Incontinent Clerks: Of another Council begun the year following at Mantua, which was disturbed by a Sedition of the People; without making any mention of that which was held at Rome in the Year 1054. about the Contest which happened between the the Archbishops of Grado and Aquileia. This Pope died April 15. in the Year 1054. after he had presided over the Church of Rome for five Years and some Months.  
After his Death Benedict endeavourd again to seize upon the Papal Chair; but the Romans sent Hildebrand to the Emperor, to desire a Pope of him. He nominated to them 
Victor II.  Gebehard Bishop of Eichstat, who was Elected and Consecrated in the Year 1055. under the Name of Victor II. 'Tis said that he met with some disturbance in the beginning of his Pontificate, and that a Sub-deacon would have Poisoned him, by mixing Poison with the Wine in the Chalice; which was discovered by a Miracle: For after it was Consecrated, he could not lift up the Chalice, and the Sub-deacon who had done this wicked Thing, was immediately possessed by an evil Spirit. He called a Council at Florence, in which he deposed several Bishops convicted of Simony; and ordered Laws to be made to prohibit the Alienating of the Revenues of the Church. He sent Hildebrand his Legate into France, who held there several Councils; among the rest one at Lions, in which a Bishop convicted by a Miracle, of Simony, was deposed: And that at Tours against Berenger. In the Year 1056. Victor went to Germany, being called thither by the Emperor Henry III. whom he found at the Point of Death. This Prince before his Death, caused his Son Henry to be Elected King, who was scarce five Years old, and recommended him at his Death to the Pope and the Church of Rome. Victor did not long survive the Emperor, for being returned into Italy, after he had held a Council at Rome, he died at Florence, July 28. in the Year 1057. We have only one Letter of this Popes, by which in favour of Cardinal Humbert, he confirms and augments the Privileges granted to the Church of Blancheselve.  
After Victor's Death, Frederic Abbot of Mount Cassin was advanced to the Holy See. He 
Stephen IX.  descended from a noble Family of Lorraine, and had been Chancellor and archdeacon of the Church of Rome. Pope Leo had sent him on an Embassy to Constantinople. At his Return he became one of the Religious of Mount Cassin▪ under his Brother Richerus, who was Abbot of the Place; and after his Death Cardinal Humbert got him to be Elected Abbot of that Monastery in the Year 1057. having constrained the Person, whom the Monks had Elected without the Knowledge and Consent of the Holy See, to lay down that Preferment. Some time after, Victor created him Cardinal under the Name of S. Chrysogone; and that Pope dying, he was Elected in his place, and Consecrated on S. Stephen's day, in the Year 1057. from whence he took upon him the Name of Stephen IX. He immediately set upon reforming the Clergy of the Church of Rome, and made several Statutes against the Clerks who kept Concubines. He brought the Church of Milan to submit to that of Rome, after it had for several years withdrawn from its Jurisdiction; and sent an Embassy into the East, to reunite the two Churches. He went to Florence in the beginning of the Year 1058. where he died on the 29th of March. We have one Letter of his left us, directed to the Archbishop of Rheims, by which after he had Complimented him for the submission he expressed towards the Holy See, he informed him of the Council which was to be held at Rheims, that he wondered he had not sent him word whether the King had consented to it or no. He wrote to him about the Archbishop of Bourges, that nothing could be determined upon his business in the absence of Hildebrand; that he would come with him, and that they would settle this and other Affairs together. He exhorts him vigorously to defend the Interests of the Holy See and the Church; and ordered him to be at a Council which was to be held at Rome, a Fortnight after Easter. There is likewise another Letter writ by this Pope to Pandu▪ phus Bishop of Marsi, by which he reunites that Bishopric, which had been divided into two.  
The News of the Pope's Death being brought to Rome, the Count of Frescati and the 
Nicholas II.  Roman Lords placed by force on the Papal Cha●r Mincius Bishop of Velitra, to whom they gave the Name of Benedict X. Peter Damien and the other Cardinals who had no hand in this Election, withdrew from Rome after they had protested against it: And being met at Sienne, they Elected for their Pope Gerard Archbishop of Florence, a Burgundian by Nation. They immediately sent Ambassadors to the Empress Agnes, to prevail upon King Henry to confirm this Election. They had their request granted, and the Empress ordered Godfrey Marquis of Tuscany to place Gerard in Possession of the Holy See, and to turn out Benedict. In the mean time Gerard held a Council at Sutri to depose Benedict; but he perceiving his Interest to decline, thought fit to retire to his own House, and relinquish the Chair. Gerard being informed of this, came to Rome with the Bishops and Cardinals, was there acknowledged as lawful Pope, and ordained in the beginning of January 1059. by the Name of Nicholas II. Within a few days after, Mincius waited upon him to ask him Pardon, and having solemnly declared that he had been basely used, and owned himself Guilty of Perjury, for being put in Possession of the Holy See before the return of Hildebrand, contrary to the Oath which he had taken to him, he was for ever suspended from all his Ecclesiastical Functions: And to prevent such disturbances for the future, which might happen upon the Election of Popes; it was Enacted in a Synod of an Hundred and thirteen Bishops, held at Rome in the Year 1059. That the Cardinals should have the greatest share in the Election of a Pope, and 
The Council held under Nicholas II. in the Year 1059.  that if any one should intrude into the Papal Chair without being Unanimously and Canonically Elected by the Cardinals, and with the consent of the other Orders, both of Clergy and Laity, he should not be looked upon as an Apostolic Pope, but as an Apostate. This is the First Act of that Council. The Second imports, That at the Death of a Pope, or any other Bishop, no Body should make a seizure on their Estates, but they should be reserved to their Successors. The Third is, That no Person shall be present at the Ma●s of a Priest, whom he knows keeps a Concubine. The Fourth imports, That the Canons or Prebendaries shall hold all things in Common. The Fifth, That the Tenths and other Offerings shall be at the disposal of the Bishop. The Sixth, That no Peason shall be entitled to any Church at the Presentation of Laics. The Seventh, That no Person shall take upon him the Habit of a Monk, upon the promise or hopes of being made Abbot. The Eighth, That no Priest shall hold two Churches at once. The Ninth, That Laics shall not be the Judges of the Clergy. The Tenth, That no Person shall be ordained by Simony. The Eleventh, That no Person shall Marry his Relation, to the seventh Generation, or so long as the Kindred may be known. The Twelfth, That a Laic who has a Wife, and keeps a Concubine shall be Excommunicated. The Thirteenth, That Laics shall not be advanced all of the sudden to Ecclesiastical Degrees, but shall be tried for some considerable time, after they have laid aside their secular Habit. These Acts are followed by a Decree against those who are guilty of Simony, by which it is ordered, That those who have been formerly ordained by Persons guilty of Simony, without having given Money for their Ordination, may continue in those Ecclesiastical Degrees to which they have been advanced; but that for the future, those who shall be ordained by Persons whom they know to be guilty of Simony, shall be deposed. With reference to Popes 'tis added, That those who shall take Possession of the Papal Chair, either by Bribery, or by Intrigue, or by Force, without being Unanimously and Canonically Elected by the Cardinal-bishops, and the rest of the Clergy, shall be looked upon not as Apostolic Popes, but as Apostates: And that it shall be lawful for the Cardinal-bishops, and any other Persons of known Piety, whether Clerks or Laics, to turn out such an one, who shall thus seize upon the Holy See, by Excommunicating him, and by calling in to their Assistance the secular Power. And that if they cannot do this in Rome, they shall meet together out of that City, in what place they please, to Choose one whom they shall judge more worthy to fill the Chair: And that the Person whom they shall Choose, shall be looked upon as Lawful Pope; Salvo omnino Imperatoris Privilegio, as 'tis worded in that very Decree concerning the Election of a Pope. It was in this Council that Berenger retracted his Error, as we have said before.  
This same Pope being reconciled to the Normans of Pozzuolo, held a Council at Amalfi, where he deposed the Bishop of Trani; and another Council at Benevento, wherein he adjusted 
The other Councils under Nicholas II.  a difference concerning an Hospital depending upon the Monastery of S. Vincent of Volaterra, upon which one Albert a Monk had seized.  
The Letters of this Pope do almost all of them relate to the Affairs of France.  
The Four first are directed to Gervais Archbishop of Rheims. In the First he gives that 
The Letters of Nicholas II.  Bishop to understand, that there was a flying Report of his being a favourer of his Adversary: That however, he was willing to believe the contrary upon the Testimony which he had received of him by a very creditable Person. He exhorts him to maintain the Rights of the Church, and to admonish the King of France not to hearken to the evil Counsels which were given him, nor to oppose the Holy See, particulary with relation to the Person whom he would have to be ordained Bishop of Mascon. He assures him that he has a particular Respect and Kindness for that Prince; and let him do as he pleased, yet he would always Pray for Him and his Army. In the Second, He enjoins that Archbishop to interdict the Bishops of Beauvais and Senlis, in case it appeared that they had been ordained by Simony, as he was assured. In the Third, He order that Archbishop to give Satisfaction to the Church of Verdun for the Injuries he had done it, and to release the Prebendaries whom he had caused to be apprehended. In the Fourth, He lets him know how well satisfied he was with those signs of Submission which he had expressed to him; that he granted him what he desired for the Bishop of Senlis, because it was nothing but what was reasonable; and that he could not tell whether he should come to France or no.  
We have likewise a Letter of Gervais, directed to this Pope, in which he thanks him for the kind Entertainment he gave to his Deputies, and for the Charity he showed to one 
The Letter of Gervais Archbishop of Rheims, to Pope Nicholas II.  of them who died at Rome. He acquaints him of the Death of King Henry, tells him how earnestly he wished to see him in France; and assures him in very express Terms of the Submission and Respect which he bore to the Holy See. This doubtless is the Letter which Nicholas answered by the foregoing.  
The Fifth Letter of this Pope is a Privilege, granted to the Monastery of the Religious of S. Felicity near Florence.  
The Sixth, directed to Edward King of England, is a confirmation of the Privileges granted to the Church of Westminster.  
The Seventh, directed to Ann Queen of France, is a Tract of Peter Damien's, which was among his Letters.  
The Eighth is directed to the Bishops of France, Aquitain, and Gascogne. He informs them of the Decrees made in the Council of Rome, against the Clerks and Monks who kept Concubines, or were Apostates; against those who abuse ecclesiastics, or seize upon the Revenues of the Church; and concerning the Compass of the Courts and Church-Yards.  
In the Ninth, directed to the Count of Rovergue, he exhorts him to take the Churches and Poor under his Protection; and in particular, to restore to the Monastery of S. Peter of Verdun, the Lands and Revenues which he had in his Country, threatening to Excommunicate him, if he detained them any longer. This Pope died at Florence, July 3. in the Year 1061.  
After his Death there were great Contests about the Popedom, occasioned by the two powerful Factions which were then in Rome: Namely, the Faction of Hildebrand, and that of the 
Alexander II.  Counts of Frescati and Galera, and of other Lords of Rome. Both Factions sent Deputies to King Henry's Court, to obtain his Vote in favour of some one of their own Party. Gerard Count of Galera deputed by the Lord's Faction, having presented King Henry with a Crown of Gold, and offered him the Title of a Roman Peer, insinuated so far into his favour, that Stephen a Cardinal-Priest deputed by Hildebrand and the other Cardinals, could not so much as get Audience, but returned without doing any thing. After his return the Cardinals in October, Elected for their Pope one Anselm a Native of Milan, and Bishop of Lucca, who took upon him the Name of Alexander II. They believed he would prove agreeable enough to the Court. But King Henry looking upon this Election as a breach of his Prerogative, caused Cadalous Bishop of Parma to be Elected Pope, who was acknowledged as such by the Bishops and Princes on the other side the Alps. He intending to take Possession of the the Papal Chair by Force, sat down with an Army before Rome; but was beaten off by the Forces of Godfrey Marquis of Tuscany, and of Matilda his Wife, who had entered into the Interests of Alexander. This first attempt proving very unsuccessful, he returned a second time with greater strength, and became Master of the Town Leonina, and of the Church of S. Peter; but he was outed thence also, and his Forces put into such a Consternation, that he himself had like to have been taken, and was forced to throw himself into a Castle, from whence he very narrowly made his Escape, by giving Money to those who Besieged him. Some time after Anno Archbishop of Cologne, who had the greatest hand in the Administration of the Affairs of Germany, ever since the Empress Agnes was removed, being come into Italy, and alleging that the Election of Pope Alexander was invalid, because it was carried on without the Emperor's Approbation, and because he lay under a suspicion of having given Money for to be Elected: It was agreed upon to call a Council at Mantua, to adjust this difference. Alexander and Cadalous met there, with Peter Damien, Hildebrand, and several other Bishops of Italy, Lombardy and Spain. Alexander did there very stiffly defend his Election; Cadalous had not the face to maintain his pretended Right, and so withdrew. The former likewise cleared himself by Oath of the Accusation of Simony, which was laid to his Charge; so that Anno and the Bishops of Lombardy acknowledged him alone to be Lawful Pope. But the Emperor's Prerogative was preserved for the future, and Alexander was obliged to Pardon Cadalous, and to make Guitbert Grand Signior of Parma, Chancellor to King Henry, and formerly the Pope's greatest Enemy, Archbishop of Ravenna. This Council was held in the Year 1064. and put an end to a Schism which would have been the Cause of very great disturbances in the Church of Rome, if it had continued as it had begun.  
The year before, Alexander had held a Council at Rome, consisting of above One hundred 
The Councils under Alexander II.  Bishops, wherein he had revived the Decrees of his Predecessors, Leo IX. and Nicholas II. against those who were guilty of Simony, against those who kept Concubines, against such of the Laity who seized on the Revenues of the Church, against those who Married their Kindred till after the seventh Degree, and against the Apostate Clergy and Monks. This is only a renewal of the Council held under Nicholas II.  
In two other Councils held at Rome the year following, Alexander Condemned those who maintained, that the Degrees of Consanguinity ought to reach no farther than to Cousin-germen, which he calls the Heresy of the Nicolaitans. He likewise Condemned those who had maintained, that one may without being guilty of Simony, give Money to Princes to be instituted into the Revenues of the Church. He makes use of Peter Damien to confute these Errors; and sent him to Milan to reform the Clergy of that City; into France, to relieve the Monks of Clunie; and to Florence, to put an end to the Schism of the Church, belonging to that City.  
Whilst Peter Damien was employed in Reforming the Church, Hildebrand archdeacon of Rome, who had the sole Administration of Affairs relating to the Holy See, made use of his utmost endeavours to advance the temporal Power thereof. With the Assistance of Godfrey Marquis of Tuscany, and the Princess Matilda, he repulsed the Normans of Pozzuolo, and obliged them to surrender several places. He engaged several Lords of Burgundy and France to bind themselves by Oath to defend the Church of Rome. He exhorted William Duke of Normandy to take upon him the Kingdom of England, vacant by the Death of King Edward. Lastly, From the Pontificate of Alexander he began the Contest with King Henry about the Right of Investitures, and caused him to be cited to Rome upon that Subject. We attribute all this to Hildebrand, because 'tis evident that it was he who Governed under the Name of Alexander II. who led a reserved and a retired Life, and spent more of his time at Lucca and Mount Cassin than at Rome. However he died in that City, April 22. in the Hear 1073.  
Since this Pope was eleven Years and some Months on the Chair, we may very well expect 
The Letters of Alexander II.  a great many Letters written in his Name. We have Five and Forty of them complete, and the Fragments of several Acts related by Ives of Chartres and by Gratian.  
His First Letter is directed to the Clergy and Laity of Milan, whom he exhorts to lead a Christian Life.  
The Second is directed to Harold King of Norway, whom he exhorts to own the Archbishop of Breme as Vicar of the Holy See, and to submit to him as such. He reproves him for that the Bishops of his Kingdom, were either not Consecrated, or else had given Money to be Consecrated.  
By the Third, directed to the King of Denmark, he demands of that Prince the payment of what was due from that Kingdom to the Holy See.  
By the Fourth, directed to the Archbishop of Dalmatia and Sclavonia, he sends him the Pall, and gives him some Instructions concerning his Office.  
The Fifth is the Decree of the Council of Rome, of which we have already spoken.  
In the Sixth, directed to Gervais Archbishop of Rheims, he writes to him against Cadalous, congratulates him of the endeavours he used for the extirpation of Simony; and entrusts him and the Archbishop of Sens with the Trial of the Bishop of Orleans, who was Charged with Simony, and orders him to turn out the Abbot of S. Medard of Soissons, Excommunicated long before, and to Elect another in his Place.  
This Letter is followed by a Decree made at Milan by two Cardinal Legates of the Holy See, against the Clergy who were either guilty of Simony, or kept Concubines.  
The Seventh Letter is directed to the Bishops of Denmark, whom he enjoins to be present at the Synod held by the Bishop of Hamburgh.  
In the Eighth he exhorts William King of England to pay him the Peter-pences which were due to him.  
In the Ninth he grants to Anno Archbishop of Cologne, a Privilege which he had begged of him in the behalf of a Monastery.  
The Tenth is directed to William King of England: He exhorts him to take into his Protection the ecclesiastics of his Kingdom; and advises him to follow Lanfrank's directions, to whom he committed the Determination of the Bishop of Chester's Cause, and of the Dispute on foot between the Archbishop of York, and the Bishop of Dorchester.  
In the Eleventh, directed to Landulphus, he determines that the Man who had Vowed to take upon him the Monastic Life and had forced his Wife to consent to it, ought not to be made a Monk, till she should give her voluntary consent thereto.  
The Twelfth is directed to Gervais Archbishop of Rheims: He assures him that he was deeply concerned for what had befallen him, and invites him to come to a Synod held at Rome.  
In the Thirteenth, directed to the same Archbishop, he admonishes him to put an end to the difference on foot between Him and two Clerks of his own Church, and that in the presence of the Legates of the Holy See, and of the Bishop of Laon, whom he had Commissioned for that purpose: And he lets him know that he has written to the Lords who molested him, either to do him Justice in the presence of his Legates, or else to appear before his Synod.  
In the Fourteenth, he admonishes him again to put an end to the Affair of those two Clerks, about whom he had already written.  
In the Fifteenth, he enjoins him to Excommunicate those who had unlawfully seized upon the Revenues belonging to a Monastery.  
In the Sixteenth, he gives the same Archbishop to understand how deeply he was concerned for the Afflictions which the Church of Rheims laboured under, and promises to send him a Legate to his Assistance.  
In the Seventeenth, he exhorts him to assist the Bishop of Laon, in doing Justice to an Abbess, who was turned out of her Monastery of S. John of Laon.  
In the Eighteenth, he forbids him to Ordain Josselin Bishop of Soissons, who was manifestly guilty of Simony; and orders him to punish the Bishop of Beauvais for the outrages he had committed, and to oblige the Bishop of Amiens, to let the Abbot of Corby live in quiet.  
In the Nineteenth, he informs him, That he had confirmed the Privilege of the Abbey of Corbey, and adjusted the difference which was between the Abbot, and the Bishop of Amiens, who had given him satisfaction in the Synod. He refers to him the other Contests which might be between them, and orders him to give the Holy Chrism and other Rites to the Monastery of Corby, if that Bishop refused to give it them.  
In the Twentieth, he lets him know, that he has confirmed the Privileges of the Abbey of S. Dennis of France, and put an end to the difference between the Abbot and the Bishop of Paris, after he had heard both Parties at Rome.  
The One and twentieth directed to the Archbishops of France, is the Letter of Legation which he grants to Peter Damien, when he sent him into France.  
In the Two and twentieth directed to Gervais Archbishop of Rheims, he confirms the Excommunication made by that Archbishop and by Peter Damien against the Abbot of S. Madard, and orders him to turn him out.  
In the Three and twentieth, he thanks that Archbishop and the King of France, for having turned out the Archbishop of Chartres, who was Convicted of Simony; and he desires that they would do the same with respect to the Bishop of Orleans.  
In the Four and twentieth, he refers the Trial of the Divorce between Count Radulphus and his Wife, to the Archbishops of Rheims and of Sens, and to their Suffragans.  
In the Five and twentieth, he order the Archbishop of Rheims to cause the Bishop of Chalons to restore to the Church of S. men the Body of that Saint, which he had by force taken away.  
In the Six and twentieth, directed to the Archbishop of Treves, and the Bishop of Verdun, he orders, that a Priest who in his Sickness had vowed to turn Monk, and was of another mind after his Recovery, should be restored to the Benefices which he held before.  
In the Seven and twentieth written to the Clergy of Naples, he determines that the Degrees of Kindred ought to be reckoned according to the Number of the Generations.  
In the Eight and twentieth, that he who Marries a Relation of his Concubine, who is promised in Marriage to another, aught to restore her to him.  
In the Nine and twentieth, he enjoins a Priest, who had killed another Priest, four years' Penance, and suspends him for ever.  
In the Thirtieth he imposes ten years' Penance on a Laic who had killed a Priest, tho' the Priest had been the first Aggressor.  
In the One and thirtieth he moderates the Penance imposed by the Bishop of Constance upon an Abbot, who had given his Servant a blow with a Stick, of which he died within six Months after.  
In the Two and thirtieth, he determines, that a Man who was ordained Deacon and Priest, without having been made Sub-deacon, shall forbear performing his Ministerial Functions, till such time as he had been ordained Sub-deacon.  
In the Three and thirtieth, he moderates the Penance imposed on a Man who had been the occasion of Homicide, tho' he had not been an Instrument thereof.  
In the Four and thirtieth, directed to the Bishops of Spain, he declares that they ought not to put the Jews to death for their Religion.  
In the Five and thirtieth, he order the Clergy and Laity of Lucca, not to sell the Offices belonging to the Church.  
In the Six and thirtieth, he adjuges that a Priest, who is subject to the Falling Sickness, aught to abstain from Celebrating Mass.  
By the Seven and thirtieth, he declares that he had imposed seven years' Penance on a Man who had killed his own Son involuntarily.  
In the Eight and thirtieth he explains the manner of reckoning the Degrees of Consanguinity.  
In the Nine and thirtieth, which is among Lanfrank's Letters, he confirms the Privilege of the English Monks, to officiate in Cathedral Churches.  
The Fortieth is the Privilege granted to the Abbey of Vendom.  
The One and Fortieth is the Privilege granted to the Monastery of Peter Damien.  
In the Two and fortieth, he enjoins the Bishop of Amiens to forbear disturbing the Monks of Corby; otherwise he would Suspend and Excommunicate him, till such time as he should give them satisfaction in the presence of the Archbishop of Rheims.  
The Three and fortieth, directed to the Monks of Clunie, is a Privilege which he grants to them, that they should not be Excommunicated or Interdicted, but by the Sentence of the Holy See.  
By the Four and fortieth he permits Gebehard Archbishop of Salzbourgh, to erect a Bishopric in his Diocese.  
By the Five and fortieth he confirms the Establishment made by the Bishop of Passaw, that the Regular Canons should hold all things in Common.  
The greatest part of the Fragments of his other Letters, are his Judgements preferred against the Clerks who were guilty of Simony and Fornication; or else his Determinations upon several Points of Discipline, particularly concerning the Degrees of Consanguinity. We likewise gather from them, that an Excommunicated Person cannot Excommunicate another: That a Priest ought to Celebrate but one Mass a day; tho' some say one for the day, and another for a deceased Person, when 'tis necessary: That those who offer any Violence to Bishops, shall be Excommunicated; and that those who offer any to Priests, or to any other Clergymen, shall be enjoined Penance.   

CHAP. V.  
An Account of the Church of Rome under Gregory VII. of the Differences between this Pope, and the Emperor Henry, and other Princes of Europe; With an Abstract of his Letters.  
THERE happened no disturbance among the People upon the Death of Pope Alexander: For Hildebrand, who had the whole Power in his own Hands, gave such 
Gregory VII.  good Orders, that all was still and quiet. He ordered a Fast to be kept, and Prayers to be made for three Days together, before they consulted about the Election of another Pope. But at the very time of Interring the Corpse of the deceased in the Church of S. Saviour, April 22 in the Year, 1073. being the very Day of his Death; the People being moved thereto, proclaimed Hildebrand Pope, and put him into the Possession of the Holy See. The same Day he acquainted the Prince of Salerno of his Election, and prayed him to come to Rome to defend him. This is what he says himself about the manner of his Election: But he withal declares that it was much against his Will, and that he was very Angry at it. His Adversaries tell us quite another Story, and say, That they were his Soldiers and other of his Creatures, who made this tumultuary Proclamation: That neither the Cardinals, nor the Clergy, nor the most considerable among the People had any Hand in it. However, there is an Act of Election in the Name of the Cardinals and the Clergy of Rome, made in the presence of the Bishops and Laity, which bears date the very Day of his Election. However the Case was, it must be owned that this Election was very Precipitate; and that Didier Abbot of Mount Cassin and Cardinal, had a great deal of reason for the Reply he made to Hildebrand, who checked him for coming too late, when he told him, that it was himself who was too hasty, since he took possession of the Holy See, before the Pope his Predecessor was laid in his Grave: And Hildebrand himself has acknowledged the Fault of this Election, which he casts upon the People, and maintains that he had no Hand in it. He was of Tuscany, of the Borough of Soana, the Son of a mean Artificer, if most Historians may be credited. He spent the first Years of his Life in Rome, where he had for his Master, Laurence Archbishop of Melpha, and was extremely in the favour of Benedict IX. and Gregory VI He attended the latter in his Banishment to Germany, and after his Death retired into the Abbey of Clunie, where he abode till such time as Bruno Bishop of Toul, who was nominated for Pope by the Emperor Henry, going through France took him along with him to Rome, not questioning but by the Acquaintance and Interest which he had in that City, he might be very serviceable to him. He was no sooner returned but he renewed his Familiarity with Theophylact or Benedict IX. and grew within a while so Rich and Powerful, that he became Lord and Master of all Affairs, and the Popes were in a manner his Dependants. It was he who negotiated the Election of Victor II. between the Emperor and the Romans; and under Victor's Pontificate he was sent Legate into France. He turned out Benedict IX. and caused Nicholas II. to be Elected in his stead, who made him archdeacon. In a Word it was by his means that Cadalous was turned out, and Anselm Bishop of Lucca ordained Pope under the Name of Alexander II. It was he who supported that Pope's Interest, and having taken upon him the Character of Chancellor of the Holy See, had the absolute Administration of all Affairs both Ecclesiastical and Civil, as well as the entire disposal of the Revenues of the Church of Rome during his Popedom.  
Hildebrand foreseeing that his Election might be molested, because it had been carried on so precipitately, and without the Consent of Henry King of Germany; he forthwith wrote to him about it, and requested by his Deputies that he would be pleased to confirm it, assuring him that he had been elected against his Will, and that he put off his Ordination till such time as he was informed of his Will and Pleasure. King Henry took some time to consider on it, and sent Count Eberhard to Rome, to learn after what manner that Election had been carried on. Hildebrand showed so many Civilities to this Count, that he wrote to the King in his behalf: And Henry perceiving that it signified nothing to oppose his Election, because he was more powerful in Rome than himself, gave his Consent to it. By this means Hildebrand was ordained Priest, and afterwards Bishop of Rome, in June, Anno Dom. 1073. At his Ordination he took upon him the Name of Gregory VII. in honour to the Memory of John Gratian his old Patron, who had assumed the Name of Gregory VI when he was seated upon the Papal Chair.  
No sooner was this Man made Pope, but he formed a design of becoming Lord Spiritual and Temporal over the whole Earth; the supreme Judge and Determiner of all Affairs both Ecclesiastical and Civil; the Distributer of all manner of Graces of what kind soever; the Disposer not only of Archbishoprics, Bishoprics, and other Ecclesiastical Benefices; but also of Kingdoms, States, and the Revenues of particular Persons. To bring about this Resolution he made use of the Ecclesiastical Authority, and the Spiritual Sword which God had put into his Hand, not only to maintain the Faith and Discipline of the Church, to reform Abuses, and to punish those who were guilty of Spiritual Offences; but he likewise made use of it to deprive Kings of their Kingdoms, Princes and Lords of their Estates and Revenues; to render them his Tributaries, to dispose at his pleasure all that belonged to them, and to force them to do whatsoever he desired; to engage Archbishops and Bishops to pay him a blind Obedience, and to do nothing in their own Dioceses without his Order. He lived in times very lucky for him, and very proper to establish his Pretensions; the Empire of Germany was weak; France governed by an Infant King, who did not much mind the Affairs of State; England newly Conquered by the Normans; Spain in part under the Government of the Moors; the Kingdoms of the North newly Converted; Italy in the Hands of a great many petty Princes; all Europe divided by several Factions, so that it was easy for him in such a juncture to establish his Authority. But this undertaking created a World of Business to him, and engaged him in Contests with a great many European Princes. The most considerable was that which he had with Henry King of Germany, which lasted all his Popedom, and was of very pernicious Consequence, both to the Church and the Empire: The account of which is as follows.  
Henry, the Fourth King of the Germans of that Name, since Henry the Falconer, succeeded 
An Account of the Difference between Henry and Gregory VII.  (as we hinted before) his Father Henry, in the Year, 1056. being then about five Years old. His Father at his Death recommended him to Pope Victor II. and threw him under the protection of the Holy See. He was at first under the Government and Tuition of the Empress Agnes his Mother, who had the administration of the Empire in her Hands. But the Princes and Grandees of Germany, being weary of the Government of this Woman, took Henry away from her, and committed the Charge of his Royal Person to Anno Archbishop of Cologne, who had likewise the greatest share in the Government. These Lords, to retain their Authority the longer, left Henry to his liberty of doing what he pleased, and to live in the Debaucheries common to Youth; and in the mean time Governed Absolutely under his Name, and disposed as they saw fit of the Offices, Revenues, and Affairs of the Empire. Henry was in this kind of dependency upon them till he came to be Eighteen or Twenty years old: At which time he began to take Cognizance of the Affairs of his Estate, and to Govern them himself: It was then that he began to be sensible that a great many things had been done contrary to Justice, and that the Grandees abusing the Confidence which he had reposed in them, were advanced by indirect means, and regarded more their own private Interests, than those of the State: It was then, he revoked part of what they had caused to have been done, prohibited the Exactions and Outrages which they had been guilty of, re-estabished the Course of Justice and the Force of the Laws, and punished the Offenders. The measures which he took, made several of his Lords to become Malcontents; for they being used to do what they pleased themselves without fearing to be checked for it, could not be easy under this new Yoke. Thereupon they conceived an Aversion to King Henry, which they continued for ever after, and they took up a Resolution either to Kill him, or to Out him of the Empire. The Saxons were the first who openly Rebelled against him; they set upon him with such an Advantage, and with so great Numbers, that he was forced to fly for it. He returned with an Army, and the Saxons were twice defeated, but still kept to their Resolution. They entered into a Confederacy with several Lords of Lombary, France, Bavaria and Suabia; and finding themselves not strong enough to make open War against him, they charged him with several Crimes before Pope Gregory, and entreated that Pope to turn him out of his Throne, and to put up another King in his place, whose Conduct and Wisdom should be answerable to his Dignity.  
Gregory VII. had formerly begun under the Popedom of Alexander II. to form a Process against King Henry, and had caused him to be cited to Rome upon the account of Simony, and other Crimes laid to his charge. But after Alexander's Death, he thought it would redound to his Interest to manage him, that he might be the more inclinable to confirm his Election. Some Authors say, That he secretly threatened that Prince to Prosecute him, in case he would not approve of his Election; but this Matter of Fact is not proved by any Authentic Testimony. What is more certain, is; That before his Ordination, Gregory sent word to Beatrice and Matilda, That he had a design of sending some pious Persons to King Henry, to give him some wholesome Advice about his Conduct, and to persuade him to return to that Obedience which he owed to the Church of Rome. At the same time he advises these Princesses not to communicate with the Bishops of Lombardy, who were either guilty of Simony, or favoured those who were so. This Letter of Gregory, which is the Eleventh of his first Book, bears date May 25, 1073.  
The Persons guilty of Simony, of whom he speaks in this Letter, are the Bishops of Lombardy, and particularly Godfrey Archbishop of Milan, who was (as Gregory says) advanced to that Dignity by Simony; and even whilst Guy Archbishop of that City was Living. He and his Adherents had been Excommunicated for this by the Pope in a Council of Rome, but this Excommunication had no other Effect upon him than to Incense him; and entering into a League with all the Bishops of Lombardy, they conspired together against the Holy See. Gregory VII. being advanced to the Papal Chair, had nothing more in his Thoughts, than to bring them to submit, and to cause the Excommunication issued out against them to be put in Execution; as appears by the Letter which he sent on that Subject to all the Faithful of Lombardy, bearing date July 1, 1073. which is the Fifteenth of the first Book. King Henry on the other hand protected the Archbishop of Milan, and the Bishops of Lombardy, and continued in Communion with them; and this gave the first Rise to the Contest betwixt him and Pope Gregory.  
The first of September in the same year the Pope advised Anselm, Bishop of Lucca Elect, not to receive the Investiture of his Bishopric from King Henry, till such time as he had given Satisfaction for his holding Communion with Excommunicated Persons, and till he was reconciled to the Holy See, which he hoped would be effected by the Mediation of the Empress Agnes; of Beatrice and Matilda Countesses of Tuscany; and by Radulphus Duke of Suabia, who had undertaken the Accommodation. The same day Gregory wrote to that Duke, telling him, That he had no particular ill Will to King Henry; but on the contrary, wished him well, as he was obliged to do, because he had acknowledged him for King; because he had received several signal Favours from his Father Henry; and because that Prince upon his Death, had recommended him to Pope Victor II. But for as much as this Concord between the Empire and the Church, aught to be pure and sincere, it was requisite in the first place that he should manage the Affair with him, with the Empress Agnes, with the Countess Beatrice, and with Reginald Bishop of Cumae; that for this purpose he desired a Conference with him, and prayed him to come to Rome. He wrote likewise at the same time to this Bishop of Cumae, telling him, That he wished with all his Heart, that the King were Master of all that Religion and Piety which he ought to be Master of; and that he were in Union and Amity with the Holy See; and to bring this about, he prayed him to be ready to come to Rome with the Empress, Radulphus, and the Countess Beatrice, that so all things might be adjusted: That he might hold Conferences with the Bishops of Lombardy, but that he ought not to Communicate with them. These three Letters are the Nineteenth, Twentieth and the One and twentieth of the first Book. In the Four and twentieth written to Bruno Bishop of Verona, bearing date September the 24th, he declares that he retains the same Love and Tenderness for King Henry as ever he did. This Prince replies to the Pope's Civilities in a very submissive Letter, wherein he declares, That for as much as it was requisite that the Empire and the Papacy should be mutually assisting to each other, it were to be wished that they were united together: That he owned he had not as yet paid all that Respect to the Papacy which he ought, nor punished the Guilty with sufficient Severity: That he confessed his Fault, in order to obtain Pardon for it: That he acknowledged that the Levity of his Youth, or his being Jealous of his Authority, or Lastly, his being led by evil Councillors, was the cause of his Sinning against Heaven and the Pope, not only by unlawful seizing upon the Revenues of the Church, but also by communicating with unworthy Persons, and such as were guilty of Simony, and by selling of Churches, instead of protecting them as he ought: That he desired he would for the future assist him with his Authority; and that he implored his Aid and his Advice for the Reformation of the Churches, and particularly that of Milan; assuring him that he would assist him as far as possible, and hoped he was of the same mind with respect to him. The Pope seemed satisfied with this Letter, as he declares in the Five and twentieth Letter of the first Book, directed to Herlembold, whom he had made Archbishop of Milan after the Excommunication of Godfrey, wherein he does not stick to tell him, That King Henry had sent him such a submissive Letter, as was never in his Memory sent by that Prince, or any of his Predecessors to the Popes of Rome. This Letter bears date September the 28th, so that King Henry's Letter, which is not related till after the Nine and twentieth of Gregory, is written some time before. The Six and twentieth Letter bearing date October the 9th, is likewise directed to Herlembold, whom he advises to use his utmost endeavours to reclaim the Bishops of Lombardy, and among the rest, the Bishop of Verceil, by treating them with meekness; and to grant Absolution to those who had communicated with excommunicate Persons, whenever they would repent. In the Seven and eight and twentieth, he exhorts the Bishops of Aix and Pavia to assist Herlembold, and to shun Excommunicated Persons; these Letters bear date the 13th, of the same Month. However, he would not have the Germans to rise up in Arms against Henry, he desires that both Parties would refer themselves to his Judgement, as he sent word to the Archbishop of Magdebourg by the Nine and thirtieth Letter of the same Book, which bears date December the 20th, in the same Year.  
By the Two and three and fortieth Letters, dated January 25, and 26, 1074. he summoned 
The Council of Rome in the Year, 1074.  the Archbishops of Aquileia and Milan with their Suffragans, to a Synod which was to be held at Rome in the beginning of Lent. This Synod being met, the Pope ordered that all those who had been promoted to Ecclesiastical Dignities, or had obtained any Benefices by Simony, should be suspended and deprived of them: That it should no longer be lawful for Clerks guilty of Fornication to celebrate Mass, nor to wait at the Altar; and that the People should not assist at the Mass, or any other Office of such Priests or Clerks who kept Concubines. In this Council he gave Absolution to Garnier Bishop of Strasbourgh, who had been Excommunicated by Alexander. This Bishop was the only Person of the Germane Bishops who were guilty of Simony, who came to Rome to beg Pardon for his Fault; so that the Pope thought this Submission deserved an absolute Pardon: But as for the Bishops of Placentia, and the other Bishops of Lombardy, who were likewise come to Rome, he only granted them the Power of Confirming Infants, in case of Necessity. This is what he gives an Account of to the Princess Beatrice and Matilda in the Seventy seventh Letter of the first Book, dated April the 15th, 1074. A proposal was likewise made in this Synod to ordain Anselm Bishop of Lucca, and Hugh Bishop of Dia; but a Remonstrance was made in behalf, of King Henry, that the Pope ought not to Consecrate them, till they had received Investiture. However, the Pope did not stick to ordain the Bishop of Dia; but put off for some time the Ordination of the Bishop of Lucca. Notwithstanding a little time after he ordained him; the People of Lucca would not acknowledge him, but turned him out in spite of all the entreaties the Pope used for his Reception. Some Authors say that Gregory in this Council, made a Decree against the Investitures of Benefices by Laics. It appears by the Letter written by this Pope to Beatrice and Matilda, the Sixteenth of November the same year, that Robert Guiscard Duke of Pozzuolo was already Excommunicated, and 'tis probable that this was done in this Council.  
Some time after the Pope sent to King Henry the Bishops of Ostia, Palestrina and Cumae, as his Legates, with order to call a Council of Bishops in Germany, to reform the Abuses; to communicate to that Council the Decrees of the Council of Rome against such Clerks as were guilty of Simony, or kept Concubines; and to oblige King Henry to abandon the Interests of the Bishops of Lombardy, and to put himself upon the zealous Reformation of the Church. These Legates attended with the Empress Agnes, waited upon Henry about Easter at Nuremberg. He received them very obligingly; regulated several Abuses, promised them to extirpate Simony wholly out of his Dominions, and to submit to the Holy See. But he would not separate himself from the Communion of the Archbishop of Milan, and returned this Answer upon that Subject, That he hoped that when the Pope should be fully informed of the matter, he would revoke what he had done against that Archbishop, and the Bishop of Lombardy. Nor would he promise the Legates to call a Council, under a pretence that it did not belong to them, but to the Archbishop of Mayence to act in Germany as Vicar of the Holy See, since he had received that Privilege from the Predecessors of Gregory. It was Liemar Archbishop of Breme who furnished King Henry with this reply. The Legates insisted and remonstrated that the Power which had been granted to the Archbishop of Mayence, ended at the Death of that Pope who had given him the Grant; that besides they had a Commission or Power which that Archbishop had not; but they were not hearkened to, and were obliged to return, after they had suspended the Archbishop of Breme, and cited him to a Council to be held at Rome about the Feast of S. Andrew.  
The Legates having brought this Answer back to Gregory, he wrote word to Henry, That tho' he had not satisfied him in the business relating to the Archbishop of Milan, yet he was very well pleased with his Submission, and with the Civilities he showed to his Legates: That he was willing to have another hearing of that Affair, to see whether any alteration ought to be made in the Judgement that had been pronounced against that Archbishop. By this very Letter, he gives him to understand, that he had cited to the Synod to be held at Rome the beginning of the next Lent, Sigefroy Archbishop of Mayence, and the Bishops of Bamberg, Strasbourg and Spires; to give an account of their advancement to the Episcopacy, and of their Morals: He desires that he would oblige them to come, and send Deputies along with them, who should give in their Testimony of their Lives and Conversations. This Letter is dated December 7th 1074. There is likewise another Letter of the same date directed likewise to Henry, wherein he expresses a great deal of Affection to him, and prays him not to hearken to their Counsels, who were willing to sow Dissensions between them. He tells him of the Afflictions which the Eastern Christians laboured under, and assures him that he had provided several Italian Lords to go to their Assistance, and that he had already Fifty thousand Men who were ready to follow him, if he would Head them, and March as far as our Saviour's Sepulchre. That he is the more inclined to undertake this, because it would be a means of reuniting the Greek Church to the Latin, and of reducing the Armenians and all the other Orientals into the Bosom of the Church. But forasmuch as it was a business of great Consequence, he asked his Advice and Assistance, and declares that if he should go, he would leave him Protector of the Church of Rome. These two Letters are the Thirtieth, and one and Thirtieth of the Second Book.  
Some Days before this, the Pope had summoned to the Synod of Rome, by the Twenty eighth, and Twenty ninth Letters of the Second Book, Liemar Archbishop of Breme, Sigefroy Archbishop of Mayence, Otho Bishop of Constance, Garnier of Strazbourg, Henry of Spires, Herman of Bamberg, Imbric of Augsburg, and Adelbert of Wirtzbourg.  
The Pope's Decree against those who were guilty of Simony, and against the Clerks, who either kept Concubines or were Married, removed in Germany, Italy, and France a great many ecclesiastics out of their Places, who were found guilty of Simony, or of having unlawful converse with Women. These Men not only complained of this Yoke which the Pope would impose upon them, but they likewise inveighed against him, and accused him of advancing an insupportable Error and such as is contrary to the Words of our Saviour, who says that all Men are not able to live continently; and contrary to the Words of the Apostle, who enjoins those who cannot live continently, to Marry. They added, that this Law he would impose on them, which obliged them to live like Angels by offering force to the ordinary course of Nature, would be the Cause of great Disorders: That moreover if the Pope persisted in his Resolution, they had rather renounce the Priesthood than Marriage, and let him see if he could get Angels to take care of their Flocks, since he would not make use of Men. This was the Language of these corrupted ecclesiastics, according to the account of an Historian of that time. But the Pope for his part pressed the Execution of his Decree, and wrote very warm Letters to the Bishops to oblige them to take strict care of it. The Archbishop of Mayence doing his utmost therein, found how difficult it was to root out an Abuse so inveterate and so general as this was; and before he proceeded against the Refractory, he gave them six months' time to reclaim. Lastly, having called a Synod at Erford in October, he told them in express Terms that he was obliged to put the Pope's Decree into Execution, and that they were obliged either to renounce their pretended Marriages, or else their Attendance on the Altar. When they found they could not by their Prayers prevail upon him to alter his Resolution, they withdrew from the Council in a great Rage, threatening the Archbishop either to turn him out, or to kill him. The Archbishop to pacify them, ordered them to be called back again; and promised, when an Opportunity should offer, he would send to Rome and endeavour to work the Pope over to another Mind. The next Day he proposed to them the Question about the Tenths.  
The Decree of Gregory met with no less opposition in France, Flanders, England and Lombardy, than it did in Germany, as we are informed by several Letters sent by this Pope to the Princes and Bishops of these Countries; and this opposition risen so high at Cambray, that they caused a Man to be Burnt who had asserted that those who were guilty of Simony, and the Married Priests ought not to celebrate Mass or any Divine Office; and that no Man ought to assist them therein. This we find related in the Twentieth Letter of the Fourth Book.  
This Opposition did not discourage Gregory VII. in the least; on the contrary he wrote several Letters to the Bishops and Princes, whereby he enjoins them to put his Decree in Execution, and not to tolerate Clerks guilty of Simony, nor such as were Married or kept Concubines. Upon this Head, we may consult the Thirtieth Letter of the First Book directed to the Archbishop of Salzbourg, dated November 15, 1073. the Five and fortieth of the Second Book directed to Radulphus Duke of Saubia, and to Berthold Duke of Carinthia dated January 11, 1075. the Sixty first directed to Dietwin or Theodwin Bishop of Liege, whom he charges with Simony: The Sixty second directed to Sicard Bishop of Aquileia dated March 23. The Sixty sixth to Burchard Bishop of Halberstat, of the same Month: The Sixty seventh to Anno Archbishop of Cologn: The Sixty eighth to the Archbishop of Magdebourg bearing the same date: The Tenth and Eleventh of the Fourth Book directed to the Count and Countess of Planders dated November 2, 1076. the Twentieth of the same Book: Lastly, he ordered an Apology of his Decree to be issued out in the nature of a Manifesto, wherein he very much exalts the Authority of the Holy See, and the Decretals of his Predecessors.  
The Synod called at Rome by the Pope the Year before, was held there about the end of February this Year. He therein Excommunicated Five Persons belonging to King Henry's 
The Council of Rome in the Year 1075.  Court, who were the Instruments of that Prince in selling of Benefices: He suspended from their Episcopal Functions Liemar Archbishop of Breme, Garnier Bishop of Strazbourg, Henry of Spires, and Herman of Bamberg. He likewise therein suspended William Bishop of Pavia, and Cunibert Bishop of Turin, and deposed Dennis of Placentia, without any hopes of being reestablished. Some of these Bishops went to Rome for Absolution: The Bishop of Bamberg was likewise in the way thither, and sent Deputies beforehand by Presents to corrupt the Bishops who were his Judges; but seeing he had no hopes left, he returned again, after promise made of retiring into a Monastery. Upon his return, instead of performing his promise, he entered again into the possession of his Church, and committed there new irregularities. This obliged the Pope to renew his sentence of Condemnation issued out against him, and withal to excommunicate him. This is what Gregory wrote to the Clergy and Laity of Bamberg, to Sigefroy of Mayence, and to King Henry by Three Letters of the Third Book dated July 20, 1075. In the last he commends that Prince for opposing those who were guilty of Simony, and for using his utmost endeavours to oblige the Clergy to live in Celibacy.  
King Henry willing to hold a fair Correspondence with the Pope, whom he thought fit to keep his Friend, as long as the War between him and the Saxons lasted, sent two Ambassadors to him before August. By them he sent him Word, that since all the Princes of his Dominions wished more to see them at variance than in Peace, he sent him these two Persons privately, to manage the Peace between them. That he would not have any one know any thing of it, but his Aunt Beatrice and Matilda. That when he returned from his Expedition against the Saxons he would send other Ambassadors to him to acquaint him of his Mind, and to testify to him the respect he bore to the Holy See. The Pope having received this Letter, returned him this Answer, That he was hearty glad to find he had trusted this Negotiation to Persons of Piety, and that he was ready to receive him into the Bosom of the Church, without exacting any thing else from him, but that he would follow the wholesome Counsels which he had to give him. At the close of his Letter he exhorts him to use the Saxons with Clemency, to turn the Bishop of Bamberg out of his Bishopric, and to put another in his Place. This Letter which has no date, is the Seventh of the Third Book.  
When Henry had Conquered the Saxons, he began to put a 'Slight on the Pope's Favour; and instead of sending a private Embassy to him according to his promise, he resolved to make it public. This gave the Pope to understand, that he did not care how the Affair was canvased, as he sent word to Beatrice and Matilda by the Fifth Letter of the Third Book, which bears date September 11, 1075.  
Much about the same time he who was in possession of the Archbishopric of Milan against the Pope's Will, died, and Henry put up in his place a Clerk of the Church of Milan named Tedald, without taking any notice of the Person whom Gregory pretended to be the lawful Archbishop of the place. Immediately upon this the Pope wrote to Tedald and to the Suffragans of the Archbishopric of Milan, to prevent his Ordination; and cited him to the Synod which was to be held at Rome. These Letters are the Eighth and Ninth of the Third Book dated September 7th, and October 10th, 1075. That very Day he wrote a long Letter to King Henry, by which he exhorts him to separate himself from the Communion of those who were Excommunicated by the Holy See, and to receive immediate Absolution from some Bishop who had received Commission from him to grant it to that Prince. He tells him, that he is surprised to see, that tho' in his Letters he expresses all manner of respect and submission to the Holy See, yet he opposes the Canonical and Apostolic Institutions thereof; and particularly that he had not kept to the promises which he made to him by the Princess his Mother, and by his Legates concerning the Church of Milan; and that on the contrary he had bestowed the Bishoprics of Spoleto and Fermo to the prejudice of what had been enjoined by the Holy See: He exhorts him to a sincere submission to the Sanctions of the Holy See, and to put them in Execution: And he promises him however that if he could show him by Persons of Prudence and Piety, how an Accommodation might be found out, he would very readily lay hold on it for his Satisfaction.  
About the end of this Year, the Pope fell out with Cincius, Son of Alberic, the Perfect of 
The Pope is Arrested by Cincius.  Rome; and after he had Excommunicated him, he cast him into Prison, if Benno may be credited in the Case. Cincius having made his Escape, conspired against the Pope; and having raised a Troop of Soldiers, set upon him unawares on Christmas Day, whilst he was celebrating Mass in his Pontifical Robes, seized upon his Person, drew him by Violence out of Church, and shut him up in a strong House. No sooner was this News spread about Rome, but the People flocked in great Multitudes to the House of Cincius to storm it, and to oblige him to release the Pope. Cincius finding that he was constrained to do it, made the Pope to promise him, before he set him at liberty, that he would not do any thing to him, or his Accomplices. But the People being enraged burnt and pillaged the Revenues belonging to Cincius both within and without the City. Cincius for his part burnt and demolished all that belonged to the Church of Rome. This Contest held for some Days, being fomented by Guilbert Archbishop of Ravenna, who had excited Cincius to this undertaking. But at last Cincius was constrained to leave off, and to departed from Rome to go to the Emperor. Guilbert likewise retired, pretending to be reconciled to the Pope, tho' his design was to create him new troubles. This he did by joining himself with Tedald Archbishop of Milan, the Bishop of Lombardy, Cardinal Hugh, and several others of the Clergy of Rome.  
King Henry being very much dissatisfied with the Pope, who had treated his Ambassadors unkindly, and had sent him a Nuncio who had discoursed with him in an haughty and threatening Air, was easily persuaded by Cardinal Hugh, and the other Bishops and Lords, the professed Enemies of Gregory, to abandon the Interests of a Man who treated him with an intolerable severity. To bring this about, he wrote a circular Letter to the Bishops and 
King Henry's Letter.  Princes of the Empire, by which he implores their Assistance in the urgent necessity he lay under, and in that oppression under which both the Empire and Church laboured through the Tyranny of Hildebrand, who designed to take upon himself alone the Regal and Sacerdotal Authority contrary to divine Institution, which has committed the One to Princes, and the Other to Bishops: To the prejudice of which Institution he designed to deprive him of the Kingdom and his Life, after he had deprived the Bishops of their Priesthood. That in this public Grievance both of Church and State, he invites them to meet at Worms about Septuagesima, to take such measures as might conduce to the good of the Church, and the honour of the State. Thierry Bishop of Verdun, wrote likewise a circular Letter in his 
The Letter of Thierry Bishop of Verdun. The Letter of Engelbert Archbishop of Treves. The Assembly of Worms against Gregory VII. held in the Year, 1076.  own Name to all the Prelates and princes of the Empire, which was full of Invectives against Gregory VII. in which he declares that they ought to proceed to the Election of a new Pope. Engelbert nominated to the Archbishopric of Treves, wrote likewise another Letter no less abusive than the former. Lastly, all the Bishops of Germany were so dissatisfied with Gregory VII, because he had declared publicly that there was not one single Man among them who was a lawful Bishop, and that he would oblige all of them to resign their Bishoprics to him, and to hold them from him, as he had already served several of them; that they all declared openly against him. They thereupon met together in great Numbers at Worms on the day appointed, where Cardinal Hugh, (whom the Pope had Deposed and Excommunicated a few days before) with Guilbert of Ravenna met, and preferred several things against the Life, Conduct, Election, and Constitutions of Gregory. Upon this Charge, the Assemby declared that Hildebrand could no longer be looked upon as lawful Pope, and all the Bishops Subscribed to his Condemnation. Herman of Metz, and Adelbert Bishop of Wirtzbourgh, were the only Persons who made any scruple: But William Bishop of Utrecht, who very warmly maintained the Interest of the King, obliged them to Subscribe, by saying, That they must either do that, or renounce the Allegiance which they owed to their Prince. Afterwards they wrote a Letter to Gregory, in the Name of the Archbishops of Mayence and Treves, and of Four and forty Bishops of Germany, by which they declared to him, That tho' they knew he had been advanced to the Papal Chair contrary to all manner of Right, yet they had thought fit to tolerate his Intrusion, in hopes that he would have made amends for these criminal Beginnings, by his Probity, and the good Services he would do the Church: But that the miserable Estate of the Universal Church, was a sufficient demonstration that the sequel of his Actions was answerable to these unhappy Beginnings. That tho' our Saviour had recommended Peace and Charity as the principal Character of Christians, yet he on the contrary, sowed Divisions in the Church by his Novelties, and tore it in pieces by his proud Cruelty, or rather by his cruel Pride. That he was the Head of the Schism, and that he had created Confusion and Trouble to the Members of the Church, who before his Time lived in Union and Peace, by blowing up the Flames of Discord in all the Churches of Italy, Germany, France and Spain. That he was desirous to strip the Bishops of that Power which they received in their Ordination from the Holy Ghost; and had delivered them up to the fury of the People, who could not endure any Bishops or Priests, but those who had by an unworthy Complaisance begged their Power and their Priesthood from his Pride. That he had been the cause of great Confusion between the Members of JESUS CHRIST; subverted the Subordination which was requisite to be observed among them; and destroyed the Rights and Privileges of all other Bishops, by asserting that as soon as ever he should have notice of the Offence of any one of their Diocesans, the Bishops should have no farther any Power of binding or losing them. That since they could not find in their Consciences to leave the Church in the danger to which it was exposed by his continued Outrages, they thought it proper to acquaint him with that, which they were hitherto willing to pass by in silence, viz. That he had never been capable of being lawfully seated upon the Holy and Apostolic See, because he had taken an Oath in the Life time of the Emperor Henry of blessed Memory, that he would never be Pope, nor suffer any other to be advanced to that Dignity without the consent of that Emperor, or his Son after him. That he had formally renounced the Popedom, in order to bring over the other Cardinals to do the like. That in the time of Pope Nicholas II. he himself had been the Author of a Decree made in a Council of One hundred and fifteen Bishops, importing that no Pope should be made but who was Elected by the Cardinals, acknowledged by the People, and approved of by the King. That he had transgressed all these Promises and all these Sanctions: That moreover he gave a great scandal to the Church, by holding too great a familiarity with a Woman (meaning Matilda) and that it became a general complaint, that all the Affairs of the Church were managed by the Counsels of Women. That one cannot complain too much of the unworthy Treatment he shows to Bishops. Therefore for as much as 'tis evident, that by Perjury he entered upon the Papacy; that he has disturbed the Church by his dangerous Novelties; and scandalised it by the irregularity of his Life, they renounce that Obedience which they never promised him, and would no longer esteem him as an Apostolic Pope, since hitherto he has not esteemed them as Bishops. Rowland a Clerk of the Church of Parma was fixed upon to carry this Letter to Rome; to declare to Gregory that he should renounce the Popedom; and to protest that all he should do or enjoin for the future should be Null. This Clerk attended by the Envoys of King Henry, came to Rome the day before the Pope held his Synod which was immediately before the first Week in Lent. He delivered the Letter of the Assembly of Worms to Gregory, and made those Declarations and Protestations, which he had been ordered.  
Gregory without being startled at it held his Council on the Morrow, and caused the Letter 
The Council of Romés against Henry in the Year, 1076.  which had been brought him, to be read in the presence of those who assisted therein. Rowland did there renew the Denunciation he had made, threatening that if he would not obey and relinquish the Holy See, the King should be at Rome before Whitsuntide, and turn him out by force, because he was a Wolf and not a lawful Shepherd. King Henry's Envoys made the same protestations. But for all this, the Courage of Gregory VII. was not abated; on the contrary, fired by this Affront, he began by excommunicating Sigefroy Archbishop of Mayence, and by suspending the other Bishops of Germany, who had any hand in this undertaking; he pronounced likewise a Sentence of Excommunication against the Bishops of Lombardy, and against several Bishops beyond the Mountains, who were charged with Simony or other Crimes; and lastly, he declared King Henry to have forfeited the Kingdoms of Germany and Italy, and his Subjects absolved from the Oath of Allegiance, and thundered out a Bull of Excommunication against that Prince.  
The Pope immediately published this Sentence, and directed it to all the Faithful, with a very warm Letter against the Proceed of the Bishops and King of Germany. This is the Sixth Letter of the third Book, where 'tis misplaced among the Letters of the Year, 1075. whereas it was not written till after the Council held the first Week in Lent, in the Year, 1076.  
This Excommunication made an Impression on a great many People's Minds. The Enemies of King Henry made use of it to promote their Designs, and it served as an Umbrage to the League which the Princes and Lords of Germany renewed against him. It likewise shocked some of those who assisted at the Assembly of Worms; and amongst others, Udo Archbishop of Treves, who went express to Rome, to procure his Absolution, and be reconciled to Gregory; and being returned to Germany, he was one of the first who maintained, That they ought not to communicate with the King, till such time as he should be reconciled to the Pope. The Archbishop of Mayence and a great many more became of the same Mind, and there were but a very few of the Prelates who would venture to stand to what they had done. The Pope for his part, made sure of the Forces and Places belonging to Matilda, the Widow of Godfrey Duke of Lorraine, who died this year in his Duchy, being parted from his Wife a long time before. This Princess was Daughter to Beatrice the Sister of the Emperor Henry III. and to Boniface Lord of Lucca. She was possessed of a very considerable Estate in Italy, having the Sovereignties of Lucca, Parma, Reggio, Mantua, and a part of Tuscany under her. She has wholly wedded to the Interests of Gregory VII. who likewise espoused her Interests with all the warmth imaginable.  
Whilst Affairs stood in this posture, Gregory thought that before he broke out into an open War, it was advisable to use his fresh endeavours to bring over King Henry to submit to what he was minded to require of him. To forward this design he directed a Letter to all the Bishops, Abbots, Priests, Dukes, Princes, Knights, and in general, to all the Faithful of the Roman Empire, wherein after he had declared what he had done in favour of Henry, and the base returns he had received for it; he exhorts them to prevail upon this Prince to do Penance, that so he might be reconciled to the Church, declaring that if he would not hearken to their Counsels, they ought to convene together to consult the Welfare of the Universal Church. He puts them in mind of holding no Correspondence with those who were not separated from Communion with Henry. To conclude, he calls God to witness, that he had no temporal Advantage in his eye, but the Welfare of the Church was the only Motive of what he did. This Letter which is the First of the fourth Book, bears date July 25, in the Year, 1076.  
Within a while after Herman Bishop of Metz, who kept Neuter in this Affair, wrote to Gregory, to ask him whether the Bishops who communicated with Henry were excommunicated, and at the same time he takes notice to him that there were some Persons who maintained, that a King could not be excommunicated. Gregory answered him by the Second Letter of the same Book written at Tivoli, August 25. That there was no question to be made but that all those who communicated with King Henry (if it be lawful to call him King) were excommunicated: And that with respect to those who say that a King ought not to be excommunicated, there was no need to return them an Answer, since their Opinion was so Ridiculous. However, he did not stick to prove that Kings might be excommunicated from the example of Pope Zachary, by whom he says the King of France had been deposed, and his Subjects absolved from their Oath of Alliegance to him: From several Privileges which are among the Letters of S. Gregory, wherein he declares the Kings and Princes excommunicated, and deprived of their Dignity who shall infringe them. He subjoins the instance of Theodosius; and lastly he alleges as a convincing Argument, that when JESUS CHRIST gave S. Peter the Power of feeding his Sheep, and the Power of Binding and Losing, he excepted no Person from it. Afterwards he gives Herman to understand, That he had granted some Bishops a Power of Absolving the Bishops and Grandees who would separate themselves from communion with King Henry; but that he had forbidden them to grant Absolution to that Prince till such time as he was assured by good creditable Witnesses of his Repentance, and the satisfaction he would make, since he knew very well that there were Bishops enough who would not scruple to absolve him, if he had not forbit it.  
'Tis much in the same Air he wrote Eight Days after a Second Letter to the Prelates and Grandees of Germany, wherein after protestation made that it was neither Pride nor Interest which moved him to excommunicate King Henry, but only for the welfare of the Church, he prays them to be tender of him, if he did sincerely Repent: Upon condition however that he would turn out of his Council those excommunicated Persons who were guilty of Simony, and for the future follow the Advice of those who value the welfare of the Church above their own Interests: That he would look upon the Church as his Mistress, and use her no longer as a Servant: That he would no longer defend such Customs as were contrary to the Liberties of the Church; but follow the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers: That if he gave them an assurance of performing these and other things which with Reason might be required of him, they shall give him notice thereof by their Deputies, that so they might consult together what is best to be done on that occasion; but that he absolutely forbids them to absolve him from his Excommunication, till they had received an Approbation in writing from the Holy See for it. That if he would not repent, they ought to proceed to the election of a Prince, who would discharge the Duties aforementioned, and that they ought to inform him of the Conversation and Manners of the Person they shall elect, that so he might confirm their Election: That with regard to the Oath which they had taken to the Empress Agnes, in case her Son should die before her, they ought not to be concerned about it, because they might very well perceive that she had no longer a Right thereto, whether she opposed or consented to his being Deposed: That upon the whole, they should let him know who the Person was whom they designed for Emperor, after they should have resolved to Out Henry. This is the Third Letter of the Fourth Book. It was no sooner received in Germany, but the Princes and Grandees of the Empire resolved to meet at Tribur or Oppenheim, to consult of the measures they ought to take. Radulphus Duke of Suabia, 
The Convention at Oppenheim.  and the Dukes of Bavaria and Carinthia, with the Bishops of Wirtzburg and Worms, having held a Conference at Ulma, appointed this Convention to be on the Twenty sixth of October, and acquainted therewith all the Princes of the Empire, and the Pope, who sent thither two Legates, to wit Sigehard Patriarch of Aquileia, and Alman Bishop of Passaw. These Legates declaimed against the Conduct of Henry, and desired that they would elect another King in his stead. Henry for his part sent every Day his Deputies to promise the Legates, that he would correct what he had hitherto done amiss, and that he would make reparation for it by consulting the Welfare of the Church for the future: That if they mistrusted his Promise, he was ready to confirm it by his Oath, and to give Hostages for a security thereof. They returned him this Answer, That they could not tell how to rely on his Words, since he had falsified them so often already. That nothing but the very utmost extremity could have brought the Holy See to use such methods, after it had tried all other: That it had waited his leisure as long as possible; but that at present it could not forbear laying hold of an Opportunity which offered itself of placing on the Throne a Person worthy to fill it. After several Conferences of this Nature, both Parties were ready to Engage, for the two Armies were over against each other, on either side of the Rhine, when the Lords of Suabia and Saxony sent their Deputies to the King with this Declaration, That tho' he had behaved himself very ill towards them, and tho' the Crimes laid to his Charge were evident, yet they were willing to submit the Determination thereof to the Holy See. That they would prevail upon his Holiness to come to Ausbourg about the Feast of the Purification, to determine this Affair in a general Assembly of the Princes of the Empire: That if he could not get his Absolution in a Year's time, he should be deprived of his Right for ever: That in the mean time he should disband his Army, and withdraw to Spires with the Bishop of Ferden, and several other Ministers, who were not excommunicated; that he would lay aside all his ensigns of Royalty; and forbear going to Church; that he should restore the Church of Worms to its Bishop; and that he should order the Garrison which he had thrown into that City to march out. The King finding his Forces to be in a bad Condition, esteemed it a happiness to extricate himself out of these Difficulties, tho' upon such dishonourable Terms. He thereupon promised to gratify them in their demands, took his leave immediately of the Archbishop of Cologne, and of the Bishops of Bamberg, Stratzbourg, Basil, Spires, Namburg, Osnabruck, and others who were excommunicated; caused the Garrison of Worms to march out, disbanded his Forces, and withdrew to Spires. The Princes of Suabia and Saxony being satisfied with his Submission, sent the Pope word of all that happened in their Convention, and prayed him to come to Augsburg to put an end to this Affair. The King 
King Henry's Journey into Italy.  whose Interest it was to be beforehand with the Pope, and to get his Absolution as soon as possible, set forward on his Journey to the Pope about the end of the Year; and understanding that his Enemies had seized upon the Passes which opened into Italy, to apprehend him, he went through Burgundy and Savoy, and with much ado entered Italy. He was there received very honourably by a great many, who promised him all manner of Assistance. In the mean time the Pope upon the intelligence he had received from the Princes of Germany set forward on his Journey, and came as far as Verceil, where having understood that King Henry was come into Italy, and had raised some Forces, he withdrew to the Castle of Canossa in the Diocese of Reggio, which belonged to the Princess Matilda. Whilst he was there, a great many Bishops and several Lords of Germany waited upon him, to receive their Absolution at his Hands. He enjoined them to Fast for some time in Cells, and afterwards gave them Absolution according to their request, upon condition that they should hold no Correspondence with Henry, till such time as he was reconciled to the Holy See. In the mean time the King carried on his Reconciliation by the Mediation of Matilda, the Abbot of Clunie and several other Lords, and very earnestly requested that he would take off the Excommunication issued out against him, promising that he would always be ready to answer the Accusations of his Enemies, and to refer all to the Pope's Determination. At last Gregory consented to grant him Absolution, provided he would come in Person, and humbly sue for it. This Prince resolved to submit to it, rather than be entirely dispossessed of the Empire by the Princes of Germany. He thereupon came to Canossa, and entered the Outworks of that place barefooted, without any ensign of Regal Dignity. He waited three Days together at the Castle Gate, without receiving any Answer from the Pope. On the fourth Day, after several Conferences, the Pope granted him Absolution, upon condition that he would appear at the time and place which he should appoint, to answer to the Accusations brought against him by the Princes of Germany, whereof the Pope shall be Judge; and that he shall either leave or keep his Kingdom, according to the Sentence he shall pronounce: That till that time, he shall not assume to himself any Character of the Royal Dignity; nor perform any Act of Sovereignty, unless receiving of such Revenues as were necessary for his Subsistence: That all his Subjects should be absolved from their Allegiance both before God and Men: That he should remove Robert Bishop of Bamberg, and Ulrick Bishop of Costheim from his Person; and that if he failed in the Observation of any one of these Articles, the Absolution which he received should be Null and Void: That from thenceforth he should acknowledge himself to be Guilty, and should not require any longer to be heard in his own Defence: Lastly, He bond himself by Oath to submit to the Judgement which the Pope should make, or come to the Agreement which he desired; and if the Pope should cross the Mountains, he should give him free Liberty of coming and going, without offering him any Molestation. These Articles were Signed and Sworn to by Henry, January the 28th, in the Year, 1077. and as Gurantees of his Word, he offered the Princess Matilda, Hugh Abbot of Clunie, the Bishops of Verceil, Naumburg, and several Lords. Afterwards the Pope celebrated Mass, and having taken a Consecrated Host in his Hands, and directing his Discourse to King Henry, he told him, That for a proof of his being Innocent of the Crimes laid to his Charge, he would take the Sacrament upon it; and if his Majesty were as Innocent of the Crimes laid to his Charge, he conjured him to do the like. This proposal somewhat puzzled the King, who perhaps was not very much disposed to communicate. Some Historians relate that he shifted it off by saying, That this proof of his Innocence would not perhaps be satisfactory to the Germane Princes, who were not there present: Others say, That he did receive the Communion from the Hands of the Pope. Let the Case be how it will, 'tis certain that after Mass, he was treated very nobly, and sent away with manifest tokens of Friendship and Reconciliation. These Matters of Fact are apparent from the Relation of cotemporary Authors, and from the Letter which Gregory wrote immediately after to the Princes of Germany, which is the Twelfth of the fourth Book.  
Henry repent of this Action as soon as he had done it; for the Italians of Lombardy perceiving 
The Complaints which the Lombard's made of Henry's Conduct.  how disadvantageous the Agreement would be to them, ridiculed him for what he had done, and cast reproaches upon him for it, telling him, That for their parts, they did not value the Excommunication of a Man, who had himself been very justly Excommunicated by the Bishops of Italy; who was possessed of the Holy See by Simony; who had stained it by several Murders, and polluted it by his Adulteries: That his Majesty had received a Treatment unworthy of himself, and cast such a Blot upon his Honour, as could never be wiped off, by submitting to an Heretic, and to an infamous Person: That they were very unfortunate in having made choice of one for the Protector of the Justice and Laws of the Church, who had by this dishonourable Submission betrayed the Catholic Faith, the Authority of the Church, and the Dignity of the State. These and such like were the common Discourses of the Princes and Grandees of Italy, and which they ventured to speak publicly. This rendered Henry so odious, that they proposed to make his Son their King, and to carry him to Rome with an Army, there to have him Crowned by a Pope of their own choosing. Henry to clear himself, represented to them that he was necessitated to do what he did; that he had not done it but only for the good of the Public, and because he could not otherwise satisfy the Pope, and the Germane Lords, who had declared against him: That at present being in a place of safety, he would make use of all his strength to revenge the Affront which had been offered him. He had much ado after all to pacify them, and perceived himself abandoned by many, and despised by others. This put him upon resolving to break entirely with the Pope, by not observing the Articles agreed upon betwixt them. He recalled the Excommunicated Bishops, and declared publicly that Gregory had betrayed him, and that he would be revenged of the Affront which had been offered him.  
On the other side the Archbishop of Mayence, and the Bishops of Wirtzburg and Mets, the Duke Radulphus, and a great many other Princes and Grandees of Germany, appointed a 
The Convention at Forcheim, where Radulphus is Elected King.  Convention to be held at Forcheim the 13th of March, and invited the Pope thither, who was still at Canossa, where he was detained three Months by the Princess Matilda. Having received this Intelligence, he sent Cardinal Gregory to King Henry, to give him notice that the time was come for the performing of what he had promised: That the Germane Princes were to meet March the 13th at Forcheim, to regulate the Affairs of the Empire: That he ought to be there, to clear himself of the Accusations preferred against him. The King returned him this answer, That since this was the first time of his coming to Italy, he had too much business upon his hands to think of returning so suddenly and in so short a time. The Pope having received this Answer, immediately dispatched away his Legates to Forcheim, to declare to the Convention, that he could not safely go into Germany, or return back to Rome, because Henry had caused all the Passes to be blocked up: And that therefore they should in his Absence consult the Necessities both of Church and State, and do what they thought most proper for the welfare of both.  
This Convention was held at the place and time appointed. Radulphus Duke of Suabia caused himself to be Elected King, and was Consecrated by Sigefroy at Mayence. He immediately sent one to the Pope to acquaint him of his Election, and to assure him of his obedience. Henry for his part, prayed the Pope to assist him against Radulphus, to declare his Election Null, and to Excommunicate him. Some Author's report that Gregory approved of the Election of Radulphus, and acknowledged him for King: But he himself assures us of the contrary in the Eight and twentieth Letter of the ninth Book, where he calls God to witness that this Election was carried on without his Consent and Knowledge; and that the Answer which he had returned to Henry, was to this effect, That he would do him Justice, after he had heard the Arguments on both sides, to know which had the most Right on his side. Upon this he resolved to go to Germany, and for this end wrote the last of May, in the Year, 1077. two Letters, the one directed to the Legates which he had in that Country, and the other to the Princes of Germany, wherein he acquaints them of his Intention of coming to Germany to decide the difference. That they ought to take all necessary security of the two contending Parties, for his free passage thither; and that if either of the two Parties should oppose his coming, they should esteem him as an excommunicated Person, and acknowledge him as lawful King, who should submit to the Holy See, and was willing to refer himself to its determination. These two Letters are the Three and Four and twentieth of the fourth Book.  
Henry foreseeing that if the Pope went into Germany, he would not fail of passing a Sentence contrary to his Interests, resolved to stop his Journey, and to engage in a War against Radulphus, and the other Rebels. The Pope having caused several Bishops of King Henry's Party to be apprehended, that Prince by way of reprisal, ordered Cardinal Gerard Bishop of Ostia, who was Legate in Lombardy, and Bernard Abbot of Marseilles, one of the Pope's Legates in Germany to be apprehended. Gregory being concerned that the Affairs of Germany did not go according to his desires, complained of it to Udo Archbishop of Treves, and his Suffragans, and exhorts them to do all they could to divert the Storm which was coming upon Germany. The Letter which he wrote to them upon this Subject, bears date the last of September, in the Year, 1077. and is the Seventh of the fifth Book.  
The beginning of the next Year, the Pope cited Guilbert Archbishop of Ravenna and his Suffragans, with the Bishops and Abbots of la March, Fermo and Camerine of Pentapolis, of 
The Council of Rome in the Year, 1078.  Emilia and Lombardy, to the Council which was to be held at Rome according to Custom the first Week in Lent, and assures them by his Letter, (which is the Thirteenth of the fifth Book, dated January 28.) That he would do them no harm, and that he would be as indulgent towards them as in Conscience he could be. These Bishops did not think it proper to appear at this Synod, which consisted of almost One hundred Bishops. The Pope did therein renew his Anathema issued out already against Tedald Archbishop of Milan, and against Guilbert Archbishop of Ravenna, and suspended them from all Episcopal and Sacerdotal Functions. He therein deposed (without any hopes of being re-established) Arnulphus Bishop of Cremona, who was there present, and had owned himself guilty of Simony, and excommunicated him till such time as he should do Penance. He therein likewise deposed Rowland Bishop of Trevisi, for having acquired his Bishopric by taking upon him the Deputation of the Assembly of Worms, which had been the cause of the Schism between the Empire and the Papacy, and excommunicated him for ever, if he did not do Penance. He served after the same manner Cardinal Hugh of S. Clement, as one Condemned thrice by the Holy See: First, For having favoured and supported the Schism of Cadalous: Secondly, For having joined himself, when Legate, with Heretics and Persons Condemned by the Holy See for Simony: And Thirdly, for having stirred up Schisms and Dissensions in the Church. He therein renewed the Excommunication issued out by his Predecessors against the Archbishop of Narbonne; and after he had thus determined Matters with relation to Bishops, he order with reference to the Affairs of Germany, that two Legates should be sent into that Country, to hold there an Assembly of Prelates and Grandees of the Empire, wherein they should endeavour to bring things to an Accommodation, or to pass a definitive Sentence in favour of him who had the best Title. And that no Person might disturb the Execution of this design, he excommunicates all such as shall oppose it, and shall hinder his Legates from going into Germany. He therein likewise excommunicates the Normans of Pozzuolo, and interdicts all the Bishops who did not appear at his Synod. Lastly, He prohibits under the penalty of Excommunication, the detaining of those who had been cast away at Sea, or seizing of their Effects. He therein declares the Ordinations made by excommunicated Persons to be Null, and absolves from the Oath of Alliegance all such as had taken it to excommunicate Persons, and prohibits them from paying any Obedience to them. But that the great number of Excommunications might not be the cause of the Damnation of those, who by ignorance, simplicity, fear or constraint were obliged to communicate with excommunicated Persons, he exempts out of the Excommunication all Women, Children, Servants, and other Subjects, who had no hand in the Crimes which the others committed, and in general all those who communicated with excommunicated Persons without knowing them to be so. He likewise gives Travellers leave, who are in the Country of excommunicated Persons, to buy what they want of them; and he does not hinder any Man from assisting or showing any Acts of Charity towards the excommunicate. These Decrees are of the third of March, in the Year, 1078.  
This Council being broke up, the Pope wrote to the Bishops, Princes, and other Lords of Germany, sending them word what had been resolved upon with relation to the Affairs of Germany: And after having excommunicated all those who should hinder the Execution thereof, he gave them to understand, that the Bearer of his Letter shall agree with Udo Archbishop of Treves, who is of King Henry's party, and with some other Bishops of the party of Radulphus, about the time and place of their Assembly, that so his Legates may be there with safety. He wrote likewise in particular to that Archbishop, recommending to him the making up of the Peace, and the putting in Execution what had been enjoined in the Council of Rome; and that he might take such measures as were most equitable, he advises him to consult with him who should be chosen Mediator of the other party. These two Letters dated March 9 in the Year, 1078. are the Fifteenth and Sixteenth of the fifth Book.  
The Pope wrote and disturbed himself in vain about the holding of this Convention; Henry would not agree to it, and prepared himself for carrying on the War; and even those of the party of Radulphus suspected the Pope's Sentence. Thereupon he wrote another Letter dated the first of June into Germany, wherein after he had declared that all the care or pains which he had taken to procure Peace were in vain, because the Enemies of God and the public Good, who only minded the gratifying of their Ambition, by destroying the Empire, and ruining Religion, hindered the holding of the Convention which was proposed: He enjoins all the Germans not to assist these Enemies of the public Peace, and not to communicate with them, giving them to understand that they were excommunicated. Lastly, he assures them that he would never favour the party which was unjust, and prays them not to harbour any such thoughts of him, whatever might be said or written to them about it; for he was one who feared God, and who suffered every day for his sake. This Letter is the First of the sixth Book.  
In the mean time King Henry without minding all these Excommunications, being marched into Germany at the Head of an Army, and became Master of the Countries of Bavaria and Suabia, which Radulphus hhd left to retire into Saxony. Radulphus did there raise some Forces, and came before Wirtzburg, and besieged it. Henry being come to its Relief, gave Battle to him, which did not prove successful to him, for several of the Horse, who pretended to be on his side, falling upon him to kill him, put his Army into confusion. The Cavalry fled, the Infantry were cut in pieces, and the Town was taken; but Henry retook it within a short time after.  
About the end of November, Gregory held a Council at Rome, wherein he excommunicated 
The Council of Rome, December 1078.  Nicephorus Botoniatus, who had seized upon the Empire of the East, after he had outed Michael Ducas. The Envoys of Henry and Radulphus, took an Oath in the Name of their Masters, that they would not hinder the Legates of the Holy See from holding an Assembly in Germany, to put an end to their Contests. Lastly, The Pope made in this Council twelve Canons concerning Benefices, and Ecclesiastical Revenues.  
In the First, he excommunicates all Laics who were possessed of Ecclesiastical Revenues, and in particular those who had seized upon the Revenues belonging to the Monastery of Mount Cassin. This Decree was made upon the account that Jordanes Duke of Capna, had taken away from that Monastery a Sum of Money which had been deposited there by the Bishop of Roscella.  
The Second imports, That having understood that several Laics granted in several places the Investitures of Churches, contrary to the Constitutions of the Holy Fathers, and that this was the cause of great Disturbances, he orders that no ecclesiastics shall receive Investiture of any Bishopric, Abbey or Church, from the hands of an Emperor or a King, or any other Laic whatever, and declares that if any shall receive it, his Investiture shall be Null and Void, and he shall be excommunicated, till such time as he has given satisfaction for his offence.  
The Third imports, That if any one sell any prebend's, Archdeaconries, Provostships, or any other Ecclesiastical Benefices, or disposes of them otherwise than the Holy Canons direct, he shall be suspended from his Functions, because 'tis requisite that he who receives the Dignity of a Bishop gratis, should likewise dispense the things which belong to it gratis.  
The Fourth declares those Ordinations to be Null, which are made for Money, or at the Solicitation of any one, or in consideration of any Service done for that purpose; and all such as are not made by the joint consent both of Clergy and Laity, or such as are not approved of by those to whom the Consecration of elected Persons does belong.  
The Fifth imports, That such Pennances as are not proportioned to the Quality of the Crimes committed are insignificant; and that they who cannot bear Arms, or exercise a Trade without falling into Sin, aught to quit their Profession or Trade: And that those who bear any Malice to, or detain any Goods of their Neighbour, shall be reconciled and make full restitution to him, before they shall be admitted to Communion.  
The Sixth, prohibits Laics from possessing Tenths, what Title soever they may have thereto.  
The Seventh, enjoins abstinence from Meats every Saturday, unless some solemn Festival fall thereon.  
The Eighth imports, That no Abbot shall be possessed of the Tenths, or other Ecclesiastical Revenues which of Right belong to the Bishop, unless by the Authority of the Pope, or by the Licence of the Bishop of the place.  
The Ninth, That Bishops shall not impose any new Burden on the Abbots or Clergy.  
The Tenth, That all those who are possessed of any Revenues belonging to the Holy See, or know of any who do possess them, shall be bound to discover it, under the Penalty of paying Fourfold.  
The Eleventh, That the Bishops who shall permit the Priests, Deacons, or Subdeacons of their Diocese to live Married, shall be suspended of their Functions.  
The Twelfth, That all Christians shall endeavour to offer something at the Celebration of the Mass.  
The next Year Gregory held another Council the beginning of Lent, in which Berenger abjured his Error. After this the Envoys of Radulphus complained to the Council, That 
The Council of Rome, in the Year 1079.  King Henry offered great Violences to the ecclesiastics of Germany. Several Bishops of the Council proposed to excommunicate him; but the Pope thought it more advisable to put it off, and contented himself with taking an Oath from his Envoys, who swore that their Master should send Persons with Passports for the Pope's Legates to go safely into Germany, and should submit to their Judgement. The Envoys of Radulphus took likewise an Oath, That their Master should either come, or send Deputies to the Assembly, which the Pope or his Legates should appoint, and that he should submit to the Judgement of the Holy See. The Archbishop of Aquileia likewise promised to be faithful for the future to Pope Gregory, and his Successors; to make no attempt on their Persons or Estates; and to be in all things submissive to them. In this Synod were excommunicated and deposed, without any hopes of being re-established, Tedald Archbishop of Milan, the Archbishop of Narbonne, Sigefroy Bishop of Boulogne, Rowland Bishop of Trevisi, and the Bishops of Fermo and Camerine. Lastly, The Bishop of Reggio promised on the Holy Evangelists to quit forthwith his Bishopric, if the Pope or his Legate should order him to do it.  
Gregory upon the Oath taken by the Envoys of the two Competitors, sent away his Legates, as he hints in a Letter written to the Princess Matilda, March 3. in the Year, 1079. But King Henry finding he had the better of his Enemy, whom he defeated in a Battle near Fladesheim, would not permit any Assembly to be held, wherein his Right might be called in question; and the Pope's Legates perceiving the success of his Arms, not only abstained from acting any thing against him, but likewise seemed to favour him. Those who were of Radulphus' Party preferring their complaints to the Pope about it, and taking notice that it was suspected that he had altered his mind, he returned them this Answer, That tho' all the Latins who were of King Henry's Party accused him of too much severity used towards that Prince, he had always objected to them, and declared that he would be of no Party, but of that which had Justice on its side; that if his Legates had done any thing contrary to the orders which he had given them, he was very sorry for it, and that he understood that they were constrained to do it, either by Fraud or by Force; that he had only given them orders to appoint the time and place, that so he might send his Legates to determine this great Affair; to re-establish the Bishops, and to forbid them communicating with excommunicated Persons. This Letter dated October 1. in the Year, 1079. is the Third of the seventh Book.  
Lastly, Gregory in the Council held the beginning of Lent in the Year 1080. after he had 
The Council of Rome in the Year 1080. wherein Henry is excommunicated and deposed by the Pope.  renewed the prohibition of receiving Investitures of Benefices from Laics; anathematised those who granted them; reiterated the Excommunications issued out against Tedald Archbishop of Milan, Guilbert of Ravenna, Peter of Narbonne, Rowland Bishop of Trevisi and others; prohibited the Normans of Pozzuolo from invading the Revenues belonging to the Church of Rome; repeated and enlarged the Decrees made in the Council of the foregoing year, concerning Pennances proportioned to the greatness of the Crimes, and the Elections of Bishops: He thundered out a terrible Excommunication against King Henry, wherein he anathematised Him and all his Adherents; declared him to have forfeited the Kingdoms of Germany and Italy, and all Regal Dignity; forbade all Christians to obey him; and bestowed the Kingdom of Germany on Radulphus, Elected by the Princes of Germany: And Lastly, Exhorts all of them to take up Arms against Henry, to divest him of his Dominions.  
When the News of Henry's Excommunication was brought to Germany, it incensed those of his Party against the Pope, who meeting at Mayence about Whitsuntide, resolved to endure 
The Council of Bresse against Gregory VII.  him no longer on the Papal Chair. But that his Deposition might be the more solemn, they appointed a Council to be held at Bresse, which was made up of Thirty Bishops, and a great many Princes of Germany and Italy. They there unanimously deposed Hildebrand, because, say they, it is manifest that it was not God who Elected him, but that he caused himself to be Elected by Fraued and for Money; because he overthrew the Order of the Church; disturbed the Empire; threatened Death to a Catholic King, and a lover of Peace; defended a perjured King; sowed discord among those who were at Peace, and scandalised the Church. They likewise cast Reflections upon him, calling him Obstinate, Perverse; a Preacher up of Sacrileges and Combustions; a Protector of perjured Persons and Homicides; a Disciple of Berenger, who called in question the reality of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST in the Eucharist; a Sorcerer; a Necromancer possessed by an evil Spirit; an Heretic; an Infidel. For these Reasons they thought that he ought to be deposed and turned out of the Chair, and that if he did not recede of his own accord, he ought to lie under a perpetual Condemnation. They Elected in his stead Guilbert Archbishop 
Clement III. the Antipope.  of Ravenna, one of the principal Actors in this Tragedy, who took upon him the Name of Clement III. All this was done June 25, in the Year, 1080.  
After the Assembly, Henry wrote a Letter to Hildebrand (for so he calls Gregory) in these Terms: Henry by Divine Providence, and not by Usurpation, King, to Hildebrand who 
The Letter of Henry to Gregory VII.  is no longer Pope, but a Wicked Monk. You very justly deserve this Title, having been the cause of that Confusion, which the Church at present labours under, and which is so great that there is scarce a Man but has had his share in your Curses. For without making much mention of other Things, you have laid under your feet Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, and others of the Lord's Anointed, to get the Applause of the People, and to make them believe that you know every thing, but that they know nothing ........ WE have born with you as long as WE thought WE might with safety do it without prejudice to the Holy See; but you fancied that WE did that out of fear, which Humility put US upon doing. You have advanced yourself against the Regal Power; you have dared to threaten to divest US thereof, as if it were you who had bestowed it on US, and as if WE had not received it from God, who has called US to the Empire, but not you to the Papacy; for you were advanced thereto by Craft and Fraud, and by your Money gained the favour you had. This favour you thus gained has put you upon making use of the Sword to ascend the Throne of Peace, and being mounted thereon, you have disturbed the Peace, by Arming the Subjects against those whom they ought to obey, by bringing a contempt on those Bishops whom God hath called, even you who who had not call .... You yourself have assaulted OUR Royal Person, though an Anointed King, and one who could not be called to Account but by God alone, nor be deposed for any other Crime but that of Apostatising from the Faith ...... For as much therefore as you are Anathematised and Condemned by OUR Sentence, and by the Sentence of OUR Bishops, quit the Holy Apostolic See which you have unjustly usurped, and let another take your Office, who exercises no Violence under the Umbrage of Religion; but who Teaches the pure Doctrine of S. Peter. WE Henry by the Grace of God King, with all our Bishops, enjoin you to descend from the Papal Chair.  
Henry at the same time wrote likewise to the Laity and Clergy of Rome, that Hildebrand being deposed, he ordered them to turn him out of the Holy See, and to receive him in who had been Elected in his place. He sent likewise Ambassadors to the Christian Kings and Princes, to prevail upon them to Recognize Clement, and to withdraw their Obedience from Gregory.  
From Words they came at last on both sides to Blows. The Pope, to make his party good 
The preparations of War between Hen, and Gre.  against Henry, reconciled himself with Robert Guiscard Duke of Pozzuolo, who promised him all manner of Assistance and Obedience; and by way of Retaliation received the Investiture of the Countries which he possessed, with a permission of enjoying (durante beneplacito) Salerno, Melpha, and part of the March of Fermo, which he had invaded. This Accommodation gave the Pope a Right of imploring his Aid by the Letter, which is the Fifth of the eighth Book, dated July 21. Afterwards, to fall particularly on Guilbert, he nominates another Archbishop of Ravenna, declares he would come with the assistance of the Normans of Pozzuolo to turn out Guilbert, and exhorts those of Ravenna, Fermo, and Spoleto to abandon him, and to place him whom he had nominated, into Possession of that Archbishopric. These are the Seventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Letters of the eighth Book. He wrote likewise to the Germane Rebels, by the Ninth Letter of the same Book, dated September 22. by which he exhorts them to behave themselves like Men, and vindicate the Honour of the Church of Rome.  
Henry for his part, prosecuted his design against the Saxons, with whom he had hitherto engaged without Fortune's declaring herself absolutely on either side. But at last Octob. 15. 
Henry defeats Radulphus.  in the same Year, there was a bloody Engagement between Henry and Radulphus. The Engagement was very sharp on both sides, and Radulphus seemed to have the better of it, till such time as being hot in the Engagement, he received a Wound in his Arm. This obliged him to retreat, and leave the Field to his Enemy: He was carried to Mersburg, where he died within a short time after, showing a great deal of concern for having swerved from his Allegiance to his King. Henry entered Saxony, and made there great Havoc, and upon his return retook all Suabia.  
Gregory was the more concerned for the Death of Radulphus, because it exposed him to the Mercy of Henry, who prepared to fall down into Italy. He had the Princess Matilda at his Devotion; but the Forces which she had, were weak in comparison of Henry's. A great many advised him to adjust Matters with that Prince: But being resolved to try his utmost before he came to that, he wrote to the Bishop of Passaw, and to the Abbot of Richenou, who still held out against Henry; to learn of them, whether they were in a capacity of giving him any Assistance, and exhorted them to choose instead of Radulphus, a King entirely devoted to the Interests of the Holy See, sending them likewise the form of an Oath which he would have him take. He wrote likewise at the same time to the Abbot of Mount Cassin, to desire Assistance from Robert Guiscard, and he himself desired the same of that Prince, as appears by the Eleventh and Seventeenth Letters of the same Book.  
In the mean time Henry after he had given necessary Orders for the Affairs of Germany, 
Henry's Expedition into Italy, and the Siege of Rome.  marched into Italy in the Year, 1081, at the Head of an Army. He marched directly to Rome without meeting any opposition, only when he came near that place he engaged with the Forces of Matilda, which he quickly defeated. But the City of Rome shutting the Gates against him, he ravaged and laid waste all the adjacent Countries as he retreated to Lombardy. The next year he returned and laid Siege to that City, which he vigorously assaulted during all Lent: But Easter coming on, and the Heat being insupportable, he quartered his Forces round about Rome, and returned to Lombardy, leaving Guilbert at Tivoli to Command the Blockades. The next Campagn he returned, and took the Town Leonina, where he caused Guilbert to be ordained, some say by the Bishops of Modena and Rimini; others by the Bishops of Bologne, Vincenza, and Cervia. Afterwards he carried on a vigorous Assault against the City. At this time the Romans being weary of so long a Siege, advised Gregory to call a Council to put an end to these disasters. Henry consented to it, and promised to grant a free Passport to all the Prelates, who should come to that Synod. But he Arrested by the way the Deputies of the Germane Rebels, and Otho Cardinal Bishop of Ostia who came along with them. Notwithstanding this, the Pope held that Council in November; and tho' his Affairs were so desperate, yet they had much ado to prevent him from pronouncing a new Sentence of Excommunication against Henry, so full of Passion was he. He would not so much as hearken to an Accommodation, so that this Synod which lasted three Days, determined nothing, and was wholly taken up with Complaints and Invectives against Henry. In short, the Romans perceiving themselves very much incommoded by the Army of that Prince, and won over by the Money he distributed among them, surrendered the City to him the beginning of the Year, 1084. and Gregory fled into the Castle of S. Angelo, where he was besieged by Henry. That Prince being Master of Rome, caused himself to be Crowned Emperor by Gilbert on Easter-Day in the same Year. Gregory in this Exigency had recourse to Robert Guiscard, who returned with all expedition from Greece, (whither he had went to Fight the Emperor Alexis) in order to set the Pope at Liberty. Henry did not stay for his coming, whether 
Henry returns into Germany.  it was for fear that he was not strong enough to oppose him, or rather because the present state of his Affairs called him back again to Germany (for the Germane Rebels had Elected in the Year, 1082, one Herman in the place of Radulphus) he● left Rome, took Gilbert along with him, and repassed the Mountains, to go in all haste to Germany. The Pope was still besieged by part of his Army, and by the Romans: But Robert Guisoard raised the Siege; and having entered Rome in Triumph with his Army, he laid 
Gregory VII. is set at liberty by the Normans.  part of the City in Ashes, and restored it to the Pope's Authority. Henry's Party was likewise worsted in Lombardy. In Germany that Prince laid Siege to the City of Ausburg, which the Rebels had seized upon, and retook it from them. Afterwards he made it his business to punish those who had declared against him, and turned those Bishops who had been his Adversaries, out of their Churches.  
The year 1085. was more quiet, the two Parties being contented to have several Conferences, 
The Convention at Berchach.  and to hold Conventions one against the other. There was one the beginning of the year at Gostat or Berchach, where Otho Cardinal Bishop of Ostia appeared. Tho' it chief consisted of those of Herman's Faction, yet there came some of Henry's Deputies to maintain his Right. The Question discussed, was; Whether the Pope had a lawful Power to excommunicate King Henry, and deprive him of his Dominions. It was debated by Gebehard Archbishop of Salzburgh on the behalf of Herman, and by Wicelin, who had succeeded Sigefroy in the Archbishopric of Mayence, on the behalf of Henry. The one strongly maintained the Negative, the other the Affirmative: But each continued obstinate in his Opinion, and nothing was determined in that Convention.  
There was another held after Easter at Quintilineburgh, in the Presence, and by the Order 
The Convention at Quintilineburgh.  of Herman, and the Cardinal of Ostia, composed of Archbishops, Bishops, and other Prelates and Lords of their Party, who began by determining that it was not lawful to question whether the Pope's Judgement were lawful or no, and that no body could meddle with it. Gunibert Clerk of Bamberg, being willing to argue upon this Proposition, was contradicted by the whole Assembly, and forced to withdraw. In this Convention, they declared the Ordination of Wiceline to the Archbishopric of Mayence, that of Sigefroy to the Bishopric of Ausburg, that of Norbert to the Bishopric of Chur or Coire, and in general all the Ordinations and Consecrations made by excommunicated Persons, to be Null and Void. They there Condemned Wiceline, as one who maintained, that Laics when dispossessed of their Estates, could not be subject to the Judgement of the ecclesiastics, nor be excommunicated; and that those who were excommunicated for their Temporal Estates, might be received into Communion, without being reconciled. They there prohibited the receiving such into Communion, who had been excommunicated by their Bishops, unless they had received Absolution. They there renewed the Law which enjoined Celibacy to Priests, Deacons and Subdeacons. They prohibited Laics from meddling with the Consecrated Vessels or Cover of the Chalice belonging to the Altar, and from possessing of Tenths. They ordered that the Emberweek in the Spring should be observed the first Week in Lent; and That in Summer the Week after Whitsuntide; that no Person shall eat Eggs or Cheese during Lent. They there ratified and confirmed all that Gebeherd Bishop of Constance had done as Legate of the Holy See. But there arose some difficulty about the Legality of the Marriage of King Herman, who they said had Married his Kinswoman. He said he would refer the Determination thereof to the Synod; but that Affair could not there be tried, because there were not any of his Accusers. Lastly, They pronounced an Anathema, by lighted Candles, against Guilbert, whom they called Arch-Heretick and Intruder into the Holy See; and against Cardinal Hugh, John Bishop of Porto, Peter the Chancellor, Liemar Archbishop of Breme, Uto Bishop of Hildesheim, Otho of Constance, Burchard of Basil, Husman of Spires; and against Wiceline Archbishop of Mayence, Sigefroy Bishop of Ausburg, Norbert of Coire and their Accomplices. This Decree is Signed by Herman, by Cardinal Otho, by the Archbishops of Salzburgh and Magdeburgh, by twelve Bishops of Germany, who were most of them ordained Bishops in the room of those of King Henry's Party, who had been deposed. For at that time there were several Churches which had two Bishops; the One of King Henry's placing, and the Other of the Pope's: And he of the two whose Party was most prevalent in the City, was in Possession.  
Henry soon revenged himself on this Convention, for in May he held another more numerous 
The Convention as Mayence.  Convention at Mayence, at which Assisted the Bishop of Porto, and two Priests of Rome, who took upon them the Character of the Legates of Clement III. the Archbishops of Mayence, of Treves, of Cologne and of Breme, twenty Bishops of Germany, and a great many other Bishops of France and Italy. Hildebrand, his Legate Otho, and his Adherents were there Condemned, together with the fourteen Prelates of the Assembly of Quintilineburgh, whom they deposed, as being Guilty of Perjury, Rebellion and Homicide. They excommunicated Herman, Eckbert of Saxony, and the Lord Welpho; prohibited all Christians from holding any Correspondence with them, and placed other Bishops in the room of those who were of Herman's Party.  
Whilst these things passed in Germany, Gregory VII. not finding himself secure enough in 
The Death of Gregory VII.  Rome, because the Romans looked upon him as the cause of that Desolation which they endured; went to Mount Cassin, and from thence retired to Salerno, where he died May 24th, of the Year, 1085. Authors do not agree about what were the last Thoughts he had concerning his Difference with Henry. Some say that he testified a great deal of regret for what he had done; and others on the contrary tell us, That he continued fixed in the same Mind to his very Last; and that he said, that he died in Exile, because he had loved Justice and hated Iniquity. However, the Case stood, 'tis plain that his Death did not put an end to that notorious Quarrel which he had raised, and which had drawn along with it such dreadful Consequences, as were the cause of a world of Mischiefs, both to the Church and to the Empire, as we shall show in the sequel; after we have done with that which relates to Gregory VII.  
The Emperor was not the only Person with whom Gregory VII. was Engaged: He had likewise Contests with the Kings of France and England, and his aim was to bring all the 
The Difference between Gregory VII. and Philip I. King of France.  Crowned Heads under his subjection, and to oblige them to hold their Kingdoms as Fiefs from the Holy See, and to govern them at his Discretion.  
Philip I. was then King of France: And since the Death of Baldwin, who had been Regent of the Kingdom during his Minority, he took the Government into his own Hands; but he Administered it so remissly, that France was full of Disorders and Disturbances. The Churches, which have always greater Sufferings than other Societies, when Justice is not maintained in a State, were the first who were oppressed. Gregory VII. who never slipped an opportunity of making himself the Judge and Reformer of Princes, cast several reproaches upon him for it, and threatened to punish severely his unjust proceed against the Churches. The King assured him by Alberic, that he would reform his Conduct, and govern the Churches according to such Rules as his Holiness should prescribe him. Gregory who was not satisfied with empty Words, required that he would begin to demonstrate the reality of his Promises, by permitting that the archdeacon of Autun, elected Bishop of Mascon, after a long vacancy, by the Clergy and People, and even by the consent of the King, should be put into the Possession of that Church, without giving any Thing for it. To this purpose he wrote to the Bishop of Chalons upon the Seyne, and to the Archbishop of Lions: And at the same time acquaints them, that in case the King should refuse to do what he desired, and would not permit the Churches of France to be supplied with Bishops without Simony, he should be obliged to excommunicate all the French Nation, if they continued in their Alliegance to Philip. He likewise enjoins the Archbishop of Lions to ordain that archdeacon Bishop of Mascon, what opposition soever he might meet with, either from the King, or the other Competitor. These two Letters are dated December 4th, 1073. and are the Thirty fifth and the Thirty sixth of the first Book. The Bishops of France would not venture to ordain the Bishop of Mascon, whereupon the Pope ordained him himself, as he sent word to the Arch bishop of Lions, by the Seventy sixth Letter of the same Book, dated August the 4th, 1074. Two days before, he had written expressly to King Philip, to oblige him to make reparation for the wrong he had done to the Church of Beauvais: And had absolved those of that City, who had abused their Bishop. See the Seventy fourth and the Seventy fifth Letters of the same Book.  
That same year Gregory VII. renewed his Complaints and his Threaten against Philip, with a great deal more Noise, by writing a large Letter to all the Bishops of France, wherein after he had given a description of the Disorders of that Kingdom, he says that the King, whom he ventures to call Tyrant, is the Author and Cause of all; because his whole Life being one continued Debauch, he took no care to punish the Crimes, whereof he himself gave so bad an Example. That he not only converted the Revenues of Churches to Profane and Criminal uses, but within a little while ago exacted a very considerable sum of Merchants, who were come from all parts to import their Effects into France, under the public Faith. He likewise accuses the Bishops of contributing to these disorders, either by their Approbation or Connivance: He upbraids them for their Remissness, and exhorts them to meet, and to tell the King plainly of his Faults, that he may correct them, and regulate the Affairs of his Kingdom; and in his Name to declare, that if he does not do it, he can no longer shelter himself from the Censure of the Holy See: That afterwards they should separate themselves from Communion with that Prince, and forbear performing Divine Service in all France: That if he does still hold out notwithstanding this Punishment, he would have the whole World take notice, that he would use his utmost endeavours to deprive him of the Kingdom of France. This Letter dated September the 10th, 1074. is the Fifth of the second Book.  
Some time after he wrote likewise to William Duke of Aquitain, against King Philip, and prayed that Duke to do all he could to bring the King to change his Conduct; declaring that if he did not reform, he would excommunicate him and all the Subjects who paid him any Obedience; and that he would lay this Excommunication on S. Peter's Altar, in order to reiterate it every day. This Letter dated November the 13th, of the same year, is the Eighteenth of the second Book.  
He continued these menaces in the Two and thirtieth Letter of that Book, dated December the 8th, directed to Manasses Archbishop of Rheims.  
However, it does not appear that Gregory has acted any thing more against the Person of the King of France, but he took upon him the sole Jurisdiction over the Bishops and the Ecclesiastical Affairs of that Kingdom; and sent thither Hugh Bishop of Dia 
The Judgements passed by Hugh Bishop of Dia.  with other Legates, who took cognizance of the Life, Manners and Elections of the Bishops; took upon them the liberty of citing them to the Synods, which they called; of passing Sentence upon them; of enjoining them Penance; and even of deposing them, in case they would not make their Appearance: And Lastly, Of disposing absolutely the Affairs of that Kingdom, without minding whether the King concerned himself with the defending of them, or with vindicating the Liberty of the Churches of France. So that these Bishops were obliged to go to Rome to beg the Pope's Favour for their re-establishment, and upon such Terms as he saw fit; which Gregory did not scruple to grant them. There are a great many Instances of this Nature; and the Seventeenth Letter of the fifth Book furnishes us with a great many. For Hugh Bishop of Dia having cited to a Synod, which he held at Autun, the Archbishops of Rheims, Besanson, Sens, Bourges and Tours, and having inflicted several Penalties upon them, because they had not made their appearance; they were forced to wait upon the Pope, who absolutely re-established the Archbishop of Rheims and the rest, upon condition that they would clear themselves before his Legat. This is what he order by the forementioned Letter, dated March the 9th, in the Year, 1078. That Legat having excommunicated the Bishops of Paris and Chartres, they went likewise to Rome, and obtained a favourable Sentence from the Pope. See the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Letters of the ninth Book.  
But Gregory was not satisfied with taking Cognizance of the Ecclesiastical Affairs of France; he likewise endeavoured to make them his Tributaries, as he had made England and all other Countries. 'Tis upon this Account that he wrote to the Bishop of Albania, and the Prince of Salerno, his Legates in France, that they acquaint all the French, and enjoin them in his Name, that each House pay at least a Penny every Year to S. Peter, as an acknowledgement of his being their Father and Pastor. He pretends that Charlemain raised every Year upon his Subjects a Tax of Twelve hundred Livres for the use of the Church of Rome, and that he had offered Saxony to the Holy See. These are two such Matters of Fact as are only grounded on the imagination of Gregory VII. This is the Three and twentieth Letter of the eighth Book.  
This is what relates to the Kingdom of France; we now proceed to what concerns England, 
The Letters of Gregory relating to England.  which met with a little better Treatment from Gregory; because King William took care to ingratiate himself with him by a seeming Submission and Respect. That Prince, to give him some signs thereof, took care to send him a complimental Letter on his Advancement to the Popedom, wherein he declares to him, That tho' he was very sorry for the Death of Alexander II. yet he was as glad to see him in his Place. Gregory answers him by the Seventieth Letter of the first Book, dated April the 4th, 1074. wherein he tells him, That he is obliged to him for the Affection which he expressed towards him; and exhorts him to demonstrate the Submission which he bore to the Holy See by its Effects. At the same time he acquainted him of the dangers to which the Church of Rome was exposed. He confirmed the Privilege of the Monastery of S. Stephen, and recommended to that Prince to take care of the Revenues which the Church of Rome possessed in England. He wrote likewise to Matilda Queen of England the Seventy first Letter, by which he exhorts her to persevere in Virtue, and to give her Husband good Counsel.  
By another Letter written to the Bishops and Abbots of England, dated August the 28th, in the same year, he exhorts them to come to Rome to his Synod, and to put in Execution the Ecclesiastical Laws concerning the Marriages of Kindred. This Letter is the First of the second Book.  
The King of England would not suffer the Bishops of his Kingdom to go to Rome. This very much displeased the Pope, who complained of it by the First Letter of the seventh Book, directed to Hubert his Legate, who was sent into that Kingdom to Collect the Peter-pences. He therein presses that Legate to return with all speed, and orders him to admonish the King of England to pay, and cause to be paid the Deference which is due to the Holy See; withal threatening him, if he did not do it, he should incur his Displeasure. He order him to prevail upon the Prelates of England and Normandy to send to Rome, to the approaching Synod, at least two Bishops out of each Archbishopric. This Letter bears date September the 23d, 1079.  
The Three and twentieth, and the Four and twentieth Letters of the same Book, dated April the 25th, and May the 8th, in the Year 1080. are full of Exhortations to the King of England, to bear a due Submission to the Church of Rome, and to Govern his Kingdom with Justice, and in the fear of the Lord. The Six and twentieth is a Letter of Compliment to the Queen of England; and the Seven and twentieth a Letter to Robert, the Son of the King of England, whereby he exhorts him to be subject to his Father, and to follow his Advice.  
In the Fifth Letter of the ninth Book, he ordered Hugh Bishop of Dia to restore the Bishops of Normandy, which he had deposed, for not appearing at his Synod. This he did that he might not exasperate King William, who paid greater Deference to the Holy See, than any other Prince. And he ordered him to behave himself more tenderly towards that Prince's Subjects, and to grant Absolution to the Soldiers which had kept back some Tithes.  
Part of Spain being (as we said before) in the Hands of the Moors, Gregory VII. from thence 
The Pretensions of Gregory VII. upon Spain.  took an occasion of becoming Lord of those Countries, which could be taken from these Infidels. To this purpose he pretended that the Kingdom of Spain formerly belonged to the Holy See; and that tho' the Pagans had since seized upon it, yet the Right of the Holy See was not thereby disannuled; because no Prescription can take place to the prejudice of the Church. 'Tis upon the account of this pretention, that he granted to Ebold Count of Rocey all the Country which he could recover from the Barbarians, upon condition that he would hold it in Fee from the Holy See, and pay him a certain Duty. He likewise granted the same Donation to those who would assist that Count, or undertake the same Thing upon the same Conditions. And that this Agreement might be put in execution, he gave Orders to Cardinal Hugh the White to go into Spain, and wrote to the Princes of Spain to aid the Count of Rocey. This is the Subject Matter of the Sixth and Seventh Letters of the first Book, dated April the 30th, 1073.  
Gregory VII. had not only a design of bringing the Provinces of Spain, which were newly Conquered, under his Subjection, but likewise sought to establish an absolute Dominion over the ancient Churches of that Kingdom. It was upon this account that he wrote the Sixty third and fourth Letters of the first Book to Sancho King of Arragon, and to Alphonso King of Castille, recommending to them the Submission which they ought to bear to the Holy See, and to order the Roman Office to be received in their Kingdoms. These two Letters are dated March the 19th and 20th, 1074. He wrote upon the same Subject to Simeon a Bishop of that Kingdom, by the Eighteenth Letter of the third Book.  
In the Eight and twentieth of the fourth Book, directed to the Kings and Princes of Spain, he renews the Pretensions which the Holy See made to that Country, as being a Kingdom which belonged to it before the Saracens were Masters thereof; and exhorts them to pay the Tribute which he pretended was due from them to the Church of Rome. This Letter is dated June the 28th, 1077.  
The Sixth Letter of the seventh Book, dated in October 1079, is directed to Alphonso King of Castille, whom he compliments for his good Intentions towards the Holy See, sending him a small Golden Key with S. Peter's Chain affixed to it, by a Legate whom he recommended to him.  
Some time after that Prince, harkening to the Advice of a Monk named Robert, would no longer be so subject to the Pope as he had been, and openly took upon him to grant the Investitures of the Benefices in his Kingdom. This provoked Gregory very much: He excommunicated Robert, and ordered him to be confined in the Monastery of Clunie. He wrote to Alphonso, willing him, To hearken no longer to his Counsels; to make reparation for the ill he had done; to part from the Relation of his Wife, whom he had Married, and to do what Richard his Legate should advise him. See the Second, Third, and Fourth Letters of the eighth Book, which are dated in the Year, 1080.  
That Prince very probably submitted to the Counsels of Gregory: For by the Second Letter of the ninth Book, the Pope wrote to him, as to a Prince entirely devoted to the Holy See; who had introduced the Service of the Church of Rome into his Dominions; who referred the choice of the Archbishops of his Kingdom to the Pope; and who asked his advice upon some Cases of Conscience, and upon what concerned the Churches of Spain. Gregory by this Letter admonishes him, not to tolerate the Jews to have Christian Slaves, and grants Absolution to him and his Adherents of all their Sins, and wishes them an absolute Victory over all their Enemies.  
Spain was not the only Kingdom of Europe which Gregory VII. pretended did formerly belong to the Holy See; he maintained the same Pretention with respect to most of the other 
The Pretensions of Gregory to the Kingdoms newly converted.  Countries of Europe; and was of Opinion, that those who were in Possession of them, aught to hold them as Fiefs from him. He more especially carried this Pretention to the most remote Countries whose Kings were newly converted to the Christian Religion. This he grounded upon the account that these Princes, at the time of their Conversion, had either remitted their Crowns into the hands of the Pope to receive them again from him, or thrown their Kingdoms under the protection of the Holy See. Or Lastly, Permitted the Raising of a certain Contribution for the Church of Rome. He established upon these demonstrations of Submission, and upon these Alms or Liberalities, a certain Tribute to be 
The Pretensions of Gregory to Hungary.  paid to the Holy See. 'Tis upon this Principle that he took it ill that Solomon King of Hungary had received that Kingdom from the hands of King Henry: Because (as he pretended) Stephen formerly after his Conversion had offered and given it to the Holy See; and the Emperor Henry after he had Conquered it, had sent to Rome its Lance and its Crown: From whence he concludes that he ought to receive the Sceptre from his hands, and threatens him, if he did it not, he would make use of the Apostolic Authority against him. This is the Subject of the Thirteenth Letter of the second Book, directed to that Prince, dated October the 28th, 1074. Gregory wrote likewise a consolatory Letter to Queen Judith his Wife, who was the Daughter of the Emperor Henry; it is the Four and fortieth of the second Book, dated June the 10th, 1075.  
Solomon had a Kinsman named Geisa, who was at War with him. This Geisa sent Ambassadors to Gregory, to gain him on his side. The Pope by his Letters expressed kindness to him, and exhorts him to be entirely devoted to the Holy See; assuring him that his Kinsman [Solomon] had not fallen into the Misfortunes he laboured under, if he had received the Crown from the Holy See, and not from the Hands of the King of Germany. He advises him to make Peace with Solomon; withal giving him some hopes that he would enter into his Interests, so soon as he was assured what overtures he would make to the Holy See. You may consult the Fifty eighth Letter of the first Book, and the Sixty third and Seventieth of the second.  
In the Five and twentieth of the fourth Book, he exhorts the Archbishop of Strigonia to bring it about, that he who is Elected King of Hungary, should be made sensible of the Duty he owed to the Holy See. It bears date June the 9th, in the Year, 1077.  
In the Nine and twentieth of the sixth Book, he extols the Piety of King Ladislaus, and his Submission to the Holy See. He recommends to him several Persons who were unjustly Banished, and exhorts him to take the Churches into his Protection; and to send him forthwith Ambassadors, if he had not already done it.  
All the Kings of Europe received either Reprimands or Admonitions from Gregory. The 
The Letters of Gregory to the Kings of Denmark.  King of Denmark had neglected to write to him in the beginning of his Pontificate; he checks him for it in the Fiftieth Letter of the second Book, and gives him some Instructions about the Government of his Kingdom. He tells him likewise, that he had sent him Legates upon the Affairs about which he had written to the Holy See, in the time of Pope Alexander: But that they could not get to him, because of the Wars of Germany. That therefore if he were deeply concerned for any one of these Affairs, he ought to send Deputies to him with full Instructions, that so he might consult with them what ought to be done in the Case. Lastly, He prays him to send word what Assistance the Holy See could expect from him, against her Enemies; and acquaints him that there is a Province not far from Rome, held by Heretics, which one of his Sons, if he would come into Italy with a small Force, might easily Conquer. This Letter bears date January the 27th, in the Year, 1075. In the Seventy seventh Letter of the same Book, he offers to grant that King, all that in Justice he could, of the things which he should desire of him by his Envoys, or by the Legates which were dispatched to his Kingdom. This Letter is dated April the 17th, in the same Year. That King being dead, and his Son succeeding him, Gregory VII. continues his exhortations to him, to be submissive to the Holy See, by the Tenth Letter of the fifth Book, dated November the 6th, in the Year, 1077. He likewise gave the like exhortation to King Canute, who was in Possession of that Kingdom, by the Fifth Letter of the seventh Book, dated October the 15th, 1079. and by the One and twentieth of the same Book, dated May the 19th, 1080.  
The Sovereigns of Poland and Russia felt likewise the Effects of the desire which Gregory 
The Letters of Gregory sent to Poland and Russia.  VII. had to have an hand in the Affairs of all Kingdoms. He recommended to them, as well as to others, the being devoted to the Holy See, and wedded to its Interests; gave them Instructions about the methods of administering the Government; sent them Legates to regulate the Ecclesiastical Affairs of their Countries: enjoins Boleslaus Duke of Poland, to restore to Demetrius King of Russia, the Money which he had taken from him; and to the Holy See, the Lands which belonged to it; and undertook to bestow the Kingdom of Russia, on the Son of Demetrius. This is what we gather from the Seventy third and fourth Letters of the second Book, the First of which, directed to Boleslaus, is dated April the 15th, in the Year, 1075. and the Second, directed to Demetrius, bears date the 17th of the same Month.  
Gregory VII. was no less careful even of Norway; for he wrote to Olaus the King of that 
The Letters of Gregory sent to Norway and Dalmatia.  Country, exhorting him to get himself fully instructed in the Christian Faith, and for that end to send some of his Nation to Rome, that he might send him back necessary Instructions, how he ought to demean himself towards the Holy See. He forbids him siding with either of the two Brothers, who pretended to the Crown of Denmark, and orders him to procure a Peace to be made between them. This Letter, which is the Thirteenth of the sixth Book, is dated December the 15th, 1079.  
He gave a King to Dalmatia; and a Lord of that Country intending to rise up in Arms against him, he enjoins that Lord to acknowledge and obey him, under pain of Excommunication, by the Fourth Letter of the seventh Book, dated October the 4th, in the Year, 1079.  
Uratislaus Duke of Bohemia, was entirely in Pope Gergory the Seventh's Interest. He 
The Letters of Gregory concerning Bohemia.  had admitted into his Dominions the Pope's Legates, in spite of Jaromir Bishop of Prague, as appears by the Seventeenth Letter of the first Book. In a grateful acknowledgement of this, the Pope confirmed to him, by the Eight and thirtieth Letter of the same Book, dated December the 16th, 1073. all the Privileges which had been granted him by Alexander II. his Predecessor, and exhorts him to persevere in his Obedience; assuring him that he himself will determine such Causes, as his Legates could not pass a definitive Judgement upon.  
The Bishop of Prague, who had been interdicted and divested of the Revenues of his Church by the Sentence of the Pope's Legates, having sent word to Rome that he could not come thither, because he had not wherewithal to defray the charge of his Journey; the Pope gave Orders that he should be put into Possession of his Revenues, except those to which John Bishop of Moravia laid claim: And he desires the Duke of Bohemia, by the Five and fortieth Letter of the first Book dated January the 30th in the Year, 1074. to cause them to be restored to that Bishop, and to send him to Rome, with the Bishop of Moravia and some Ambassadors, that with them he might regulate all the Ecclesiastical Affairs of his Dominions. By another Letter of the same date, which is the Four and fortieth of the Book, he acquaints the Bishop of Prague, that he had written to the Duke to put him in same Possession of the Revenues of his Church.  
Sigefroy Archbishop of Maience, at the Instance of Jeromir Bishop of Prague, who was afraid of the Pope's Judgement, was minded to take cognizance of the difference between him and the Bishop of Moravia. Gregory being advertised thereof, wrote forthwith to Sigefroy, that he should not dare to concern himself in an Affair, which was referred to the Holy See, and at the same time he sent word to Uratislaus, that he should not be concerned at the rash proceed of that Archbishop. These two Letters dated March the 18th 1074. are the Sixtieth and Sixty first of the first Book.  
At last the Bishop of Prague perceiving that he could no longer shift off the Pope's Sentence, went express to Rome, and when he appeared before Gregory, he acknowledged part of what was laid to his Charge, declaring that he was ready to make Satisfaction; and justified himself with respect to other Things, particularly as to the ill usage which was said that he offered to the Bishop of Moravia, or his People. The Pope who required nothing more than such a Submission, sent him back to his own Country reconciled and reestablished, with a Recommendatory Letter to the Duke of Bohemia, which is the Seventy eighth of the first Book, dated April the 16th 1074. wherein he takes notice to him that he could not put an end to the Difference between that Bishop and the Bishop of Moravia, because of the absence of the latter; but that he would decide it in the first Council: That in the mean time he allowed Provision to be made in behalf of the Bishop of Moravia for the Territory that was in Dispute. He advises the Duke to silence the Complaints of the Bishop of Prague concerning the Right which he pretended to have to a certain Castle; if not, he order him to send his Deputies to the first Synod, to examine whether he has any Right to it, or no.  
The Bishop of Prague being returned to his own Country in Triumph for his Re-establishment, seized upon the Lands which were in dispute between him and the Bishop of Moravia, being confident that the Pope had adjudged them to be his. Gregory being informed that he thus abused the Levity he had shown him, wrote him a Letter full of Invectives about it, and enjoins him to restore to the Bishop of Moravia the Castle which he had seized on; and orders Duke Uratislaus to cause him to restore it to the Bishop, whom he comforts in a particular Letter. These three Letters are the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth of the second Book, dated October the 22d in the Year, 1074. In the second Letter he thanks the Duke of Bohemia for having sent him the Tribute which he paid to the Holy See. This Affair between the Bishops of Prague and Moravia was again discussed in the Year, 1075. and ended at Rome by an agreement between them, by which they agreed to divide into equal shares the Lands which were in dispute, till either of them could produce more authentic Titles; which they continued to do for the space of Ten Years. And this Accommodation was approved of by a Bull of Gregory, dated March the 2d which is the Fifty third Letter of the second Book.  
The Seventy first Letter of the second Book, is written to Uratislaus, in favour of his Nephew Frederick, for whom the Pope demands of that Prince the Lands which his Father had left him. At the same time he exhorts him to live peaceably with his Subjects. This Letter is dated April the 14th 1075. By the next Letter written the Day after, he exhorts all the Faithful of Bohemia to lead a Christian and Innocent Life.  
Since Gregory VII. had pretensions to Kingdoms so remote as those we have been speaking of, it is not to be wondered that he should imagine that all Italy, and the Islands of Sicily, 
The Pretensions of Gregory to Italy.  Sardinia and Corfu belonged to him; that he might dispose of them as he thought fit; and that all the Lords of these Countries were obliged to take an Oath of Allegiance to him. It was no difficult matter for him to bring the petty Princes round about Rome under his Subjection; because being weak, they desired nothing more, than the support of the Holy See: But he had much ado to bring his design about upon the Normans, whose Power became formidable in Italy, forasmuch as they were established so firmly there as we shall now relate.  
Several Norman Lords having been invited to the Relief of the Greeks and Italians against the Saracens of Sicily, upon Condition that they should have share in their Conquests; after 
The Conquests of the Normans in Italy.  they had done wonderful things against these Infidels, were dealt falsely with by the Greeks, who refused to give them what they had promised, But these Bravoes knew very well how to do themselves Justice, and seized on Pozzuolo under the Conduct of William Firebrass their General, who in a short time after defeated the Greeks in a great Engagement, and weakened them so far, that in a small time they lost all that they had left in Italy. The Normans afterwards turned their Arms against the Lords of Italy their Neighbours, and seized upon some Lands which belonged to the Holy See. The Popes, who could not without Jealousy behold so formidable an Enemy so nigh at Hand, declared against them, and Leo IX. engaged in a War with them: But the Forces of that Pope having been defeated, and himself taken Prisoner, as we formerly said, that Respect which they showed him, by setting him at Liberty, and reconducting him to Rome with all the Demonstrations of Honour and Submission, inclinded that Pope to grant them by way of Recompense all the Lands which they had Conquered from the Greeks and Saracens. Robert Guiscard, in league with Onfroy, Brother to William Firebrass, extended these Conquests, and having made an end of taking Calabria, caused himself to be called Count thereof for the space of two Years, and afterwards took upon him the Title of Duke. His Brother Roger undertook to Conquer Sicily from the Saracens, and having at first taken Panorma and Messina, he opened himself a way to become Master of the whole Island, of which he took upon him the Quality of Count  
It was very difficult for these Warriors to forbear Contesting with the Lords their Neighbours; 
The Differences and Agreement of Gregory VII. with the Normans.  and their Forces who were used to Plunder, could not forbear seizing upon the Lands, Castles, and Territories of private Persons; upon Churches, upon Abbeys; and even upon the Holy See itself. This was the cause of the many Anathemas thundered out against them by Gregory, who from the very beginning of his Popedom excommunicated Robert, Roger, and all the Normans who made any attempts upon the Revenues of Churches, or of the Holy See, or upon those Lords who were under its Protection. But afterwards foreseeing that he might stand in need of their Assistance, he grew milder, and by his Letter dated March the 13th 1076. which is the Eleventh of the third Book, he grants the Bishop of Cirenza Power to absolve Roger and all his Soldiers, upon condition that he would promise to Obey the Holy See; do Penance for his Offences, and abstain for the future from all capital Crimes. At the same time he advised that Bishop, that if Count Roger should speak to him about his Brother Duke Robert, he should declare to him, that the Church of Rome was ready to show Mercy to those who being affected with true Repentance, would give Satisfaction for the Scandal, which they had given: That therefore if Duke Robert would be obedient to the Holy See, he was ready to give him Absolution, and to receive him into the Communion of the Church: But that if he would not, Roger ought not to communicate with him. Lastly, he ordered that Bishop to give the Bishop of Melpha Absolution. In the fifteenth Letter of the same Book to Wifroy, Lord of the Milanois, he sends word that the Affairs of the Normans were in a hopeful way of Accommodation, and that he hoped shortly to render them faithful to the Church of Rome. However this Accommodation was not so soon concluded; and we see by a Letter dated October the 31st of the same Year, directed to the same Wifroy and to two other Lords of the same Country, that the Normans were still contesting with the Pope about the Revenues of the Church, which they had seized upon; but that he hoped to reclaim them as soon as Henry. This Letter is the Seventh of the fourth Book.  
At last Robert thought fit to submit to the Pope, to take an Oath to him to be always faithful to the Holy See; to assist it in the Defence of the Pope's Person and its Revenues; to pay him an annual Rent for the Church Lands which he held; to permit the Churches of his Dominions to enjoy quietly their Revenues, and to procure a free Election of a Pope, in case Gregory should die before him. This Rent amounts to twelve Pence, the Coin of Pavia, payable every Year at Easter. In pursuance of this Treaty, the Pope invested Duke Robert with all the Lands which the Pope's Nicholas II. and Alexander II. his Predecessors had formerly granted him: And as to others which he unjustly held; to wit, Salerno, Melpha, and part of the March of Fermo, he left them to him by way of Connivance. This Treaty was made June the 29th in the Year 1080.  
In the same Year Michael Ducas being turned out of the Empire of the East, sent into Italy to beg Assistance of the Pope and Duke Robert. The Pope wrote to the Bishops of Pozzuolo and Calabria, by the sixth Letter of the eighth Book, desiring them to exhort the Faithful to engage in this Expedition with Duke Robert; and before they went away, to enjoin them Penance for their Faults, and to give them Absolution.  
Gregory soon after had himself need of the Assistance of Robert, to protect him against Henry. Whereupon he wrote to the Abbot of Mount Cassin, to know of him whether he could bring him any Assistance about Easter, or send him some. This is the Subject matter of the fourth Letter of the ninth Book, which doubtless belongs to the Year, 1081.  
Henry at his coming into Italy, wisely foreseeing that the greatest Enemy he had to fear was Duke Robert, proposed to come to an Accommodation with him, upon condition that his Son should Marry that Duke's Daughter, and give him the March of Ancona. The Pope being informed of this Proposal, by the Princess Matilda, was very much surprised at it, and forthwith wrote to Didier Abbot of Mount Cassin, to prevail upon Robert to keep his Word to him. This is the Subject matter of the eleventh Letter of the ninth Book.  
By the Seventeenth of the same Book, written to that Duke, he exhorts him to come to the Assistance of the Church of Rome, which was annoyed by King Henry.  
In the mean time whilst Robert was in the East with all his Forces, the Normans of Italy perceiving that Henry was like to become Master of Rome, and being afraid what the Consequence would prove to them, endeavoured to bring about the Peace between the Pope and the Emperor, and sent Didier Abbot of Mount Cassin, with the Prince of Capua, and several Deputies to Henry, to treat with him. But neither the Pope nor the Emperor were inclinable to it; and the latter received some Money from the Emperor of Constantinople to carry on the War against Robert. That Duke understanding this, and being sent for by the Pope, left his Son in the East, and immediately returned to Italy to the Pope's Assistance, whom he relieved, as we formerly have declared.  
Gregory VII. was likewise willing to make the Islands of Corfu and Sardinia his Tributaries. For part of the former having been retaken by the Christians from the Saracens, he 
The Pretensions of Gregory VII. to Sardinia and Corfu.  immediately sent a Legate thither to govern absolutely, and promised them Succours to Conquer the rest; upon condition that this Island should be dependent on the Holy See. This appears by the Second and fourth Letters of the fifth Book, dated September the 1st and 16th in the Year, 1077. He afterwards bestowed this Legation on Landulphus Bishop of Pisa, and his Successors, with one Moiety of the Revenues of that Island, reserving the other Moiety for the Holy See, together with all the Fortresses, whose Governors however he was willing should still be dependent on that Legate, as appears by the twelfth Letter of the sixth Book, dated November the 30th in the Year, 1079.  
With respect to Sardinia, he was so strongly persuaded that it belonged to the Holy See, that writing to the Sovereign of that Island, he showed that Prince what a piece of service He [the Pope] had done in having refused to give it to the Normans and Lombard's, who had demanded it of him, tho' they offered him the Moiety of their Conquests; till such time as he should see after what manner that Prince would receive the Pope's Legate, and how he was inclined to the Holy See. By this means he supposed, that if that Prince would not be subject to the Holy see, he was so far the Disposer of his Estates, as to give them to whom he pleased. This is the subject of the tenth Letter of the eighth Book, dated October the 5th 1080.  
After all this 'tis no wonder that he should treat all the Lords near Rome, as his Vassals, and exact from the Oaths of Fidelity. We have one made by Landulphus, Duke of Benevento, 
The Oath of Fidelity exacted by Gregory VII. from the Princes of Italy.  by which he engages himself to forfeit his Duchy, if he failed in his Duty to the Holy See, or to Gregory and his Successors, and if he did any wrong to the Church of Rome or its Members. This Treaty signed by the Bishops of Porto, Frescati, Palestrina, by Didier and Peter, Cardinals of the Church of Rome, is in the first Book of Gregory's Letters, after the Eighteenth, and is dated August the 11th in the Year, 1073.  
He also exacted the like Oath from Richard Duke of Capua, by which that Prince was engaged to enter into no League against the Pope; upon all occasions to defend the Revenues and Rights of the Church of Rome and of his Holiness; to make no Pillage on its Territories, and to suffer no body else to do it; to pay yearly the Rent which he owed for the Lands which he held in S. Peter's Patrimony; to be faithful to King Henry, and his Successors; yet without prejudice to the Fidelity he owes to the Holy See: And lastly, that whenever the Pope should die, he should do his utmost to get him to be elected and ordained Pope, who should have the Suffrages of the major part of the Cardinals, Clergy, and Laity. This Oath dated September the 24th 1073. is after the One and twentieth Letter of the first Book.  
There is another Oath of this Nature taken by Bertran Count of Provence, after the twelfth Letter of the ninth Book.  
Lastly, Gregory VII. not willing to omit any one means of aggrandizing the Church of Rome, had resolved upon a CRUSADE, to go into the East at the head of an Army, to 
The Project of the CRUSADE set on foot by Gregory VII.  assist the Christians, and to fall upon the Infidels. Big with this Design he wrote to William Count of Burgundy, by the Six and fortieth Letter of the first Book, dated February the 2d in the Year, 1074. ordering him to be ready, and to give notice to his Allies, to furnish him with Forces, that so he might, after he had reduced the Normans of Pozzuolo to their Duty, march directly with an Army to Constantinople, and relieve the Christians of the East.  
By the Nine and fortieth Letter of the same Book, dated March ensuing, he exhorts all the Christians of the West to unite together for the relief of the Christians of the East against the Infidels. He did the same thing by the Seven and thirtieth Letter of the second Book, which bears date the 16th of December of the same Year.  
This Project of Gregory had not that success which he desired: But he engaged Duke Robert to lead an Army into the East, under Colour of placing Michael Ducas again upon the Throne of the Eastern Empire. This Duke gave Battle to the Emperor Alexis in Thrace, and became Master of the Field, tho' the Enemy were much superior in Number. The Difficulties which the Pope's Affairs laboured under, and the War with the Emperor Henry prevented that Duke from pursuing his Conquests in the East, and from extending the Limits of the Roman Church, and the Authority of the Holy See by his Victories: The which Gregory had attempted in vain, by the way of Accommodation, in sending to the Emperor Michael (who had writ to him, and made proposals on his part for the reunion of the two Churches) Dominick Patriarch of Venice, to treat with him viva voce concerning this Peace; and in remonstrating to that Emperor, by his Answer, that the Division which had been between the Roman and the Greek Church, had done great prejudice to the Affairs of the Holy See, and the Empire of the East. This Letter is the Eighteenth of the first Book, dated June the 9th 1073.  
Gregory VII. was no less Solicitous about the Churches of Africa; and having understood 
The Letters of Gregory sent into Africa.  that the Christians of Carthage, tho' persecuted by the Saracens, quarrelled among themselves, and that some of them had betrayed Cyriacus their Archbishop into the Hands of those Infidels, who had very much abused him: He wrote a neat Letter to the Clergy and Faithful of that City, whereby he exhorts them to suffer patiently the Persecution of the Saracens, and to live in Peace and Unity one with another; and after he had in a very lively manner represented to them the Enormity of the Offence committed in betraying Cyriacus, he exhorts them who were guilty of it, to do Penance. This Letter dated September the 15th 1073. is the Two and twentieth of the first Book.  
In the next Letter of the same date, he comforts that good Bishop, extols his Constancy, and exhorts him to rejoice in his Sufferings, and to persevere in the Faith; assuring him that he would continually offer up his Prayers to God, that he would be pleased to look down with an Ey of Pity and Compassion upon the Church of Africa, which has so long groaned under the pressures of Persecution and Distress.  
Some time after the Church of Africa being reduced to the Government only of two Bishops, the Africans were obliged to send one Servandus to Rome, whom they had elected Bishop of Hippo, to be ordained by the Pope. Gregory ordained him, and sent him away with Recommendatory Letters directed to the Archbishop of Carthage, to the People of Hippo, and to Auzir King of Mauritania. These are the three last Letters of the third Book, and belong to the Year, 1076.  
In the first Letter of the eighth Book directed to the Archbishop of Synnada Patriarch of 
The Letters of Gregory VII. against the Errors charged upon the Armenians.  the Armenians, dated June the 6th in the Year, 1080. Gregory reproves several Errors, or rather several Practices contrary to the Discipline of the Church, wherewith the Armenians were charged: Namely, That in their Churches they did not mix Water with the Wine in the Celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; that they made the Holy Chrism with Butter, and not with Balsam; and that they had a regard to the memory of Dioscorus. The Deputy of the Archbishop of Synnada, who was come to cause an Armenian Heretic, who was fled to Italy, to be driven thence, had assured the Pope that all these Things were only groundless Surmises: But for his better Satisfaction Gregory desires that that Archbishop would inform him by Writing what were his Thoughts, and send him a profession of Faith. At the same time he advises him to leave out these Words in the TRISAGION, who wast crucified for us, because they were not used in any other Church of the East, no more than they were in the Church of the West, and because they might be perverted to an ill Sense. He commends the practice of their Churches in making use of Unleavened Bread, and Fortifies them against the Objections of the Greeks.  
As to the Churches of the West, we may safely say that Pope Gregory VII. governed almost all of them, as if they belonged to his own Diocese, either by sending to them his Legates a Latere; or by nominating Vicars to them; or by citing the Bishops to Rome, to give an account of their Conduct; or by confirming or approving their Elections; or by receiving the Appeals of their Decisions; or by admitting the Complaints of their Diocesans; or by appointing Judges upon the place; or by deciding several Points of Discipline: In a Word, by having an hand in the particulars of all that happened in the Churches of Europe.  
In the first place as to Legates, 'tis certain that nothing conduced more to establishing the 
Legates sent by Gregory VII. to several Parts.  absolute Authority of the Popes, than the sending Legates a Latere to reside upon the spot. At first the Popes were satisfied with nominating the Bishops of the Country for their Vicars, or for their Legates, and granted them a Commission to call Councils, and to act in their Names: But for as much as these Prelates might have particular Interests to carry on, and were not entirely devoted to the Will and Pleasure of the Popes, the Court of Rome thought it more advisable to send upon the places Legates who were Strangers, with full Commission of calling Councils, of making Rules of Discipline, of judging Priests, and even Bishops themselves; of excommunicating those whom they thought fit, upon condition that they would return a faithful Account of all their Proceed to the Pope; and provided that those who thought themselves injured by their Decisions, might come Personally to Rome, to complain to the Pope himself. By this means the Holy See judged the same Cause twice over, and kept all the World in Awe. For those who had been Condemned by the Legates, hoping to meet with kinder usage from the Pope, went to Rome in the nature of Suppliants and Penitents, and seldom failed of clearing themselves, or of receiving their Absolution; which on the one side, advanced the Authority of the Holy See, and on the other, made them its Creatures. This Custom of sending Legates a Latere into the Provinces, began to prevail in the foregoing Century, and became very common in this, especially in Italy, and France: However, it met at first with some opposition in Germany, where they maintained that no other Legate of the Holy See aught to be acknowledged beside the Archbishop of Mayence; but Gregory VII. played his part so well as to introduce it there. In the Church of France, the Archbishop of Rheims pretended, by virtue of his Privileges, to be exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Legates, at least of those who were not Romans, and were immediately come from Rome; and for this Reason would not appear before Hugh Bishop of Dia and the Abbot of Clunie, whom Gregory had nominated to be his Legates in France. But the Pope sent him word by the Second Letter of the sixth Book, dated August the 22d, 1078, that the Holy See had always a Liberty of sending Legates immediately from Rome, or of nominating those who lived upon the place, or of taking them whence it pleased. England maintained its Right much longer, and rejected Foreign Legates; for we read in the History of Eadmerus, that Pope Urban successor to Gregory VII. having sent in the Year, 1100. Guy Archbishop of Vienna as Legate of the Holy See to England, all the Kingdom was startled at this Legation, which was looked upon as a dangerous Innovation, because it was too well known, that there could be no other Vicar of the Holy See in England, beside the Archbishop of Canterbury; that thereupon the Archbishop of Vienna return▪ d just as he came, without having been acknowledged by any one as Legate, and without doing any thing in that Quality.  
Gregory VII. who himself had been Legate in France, had no mind to abrogate this Custom; on the contrary, the first thing he did after he was Elected Pope, was to continue the Legates sent by his Predecessors, and to send new ones into those parts, where there were none. By the Sixth Letter of the first Book, he confirms the Legation of Gerard Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, and of the Sub-deacon Rainbold Legates in France, order them to do their utmost in making up the Breach between Hugh Abbot of Clunie and his Monks, and sends them Hugh the White a Cardinal, to go into Spain, if they thought fit.  
In the Eighth Letter, he likewise continues the Legation of Hubert and Albert, and exhorts them to execute the Commission which his Predecessor Alexander had given them.  
In the Sixteenth, he shows how he would have his Legates demean themselves towards him, by writing to Cardinal Gerard of Ostia, that he was very much surprised at his not sending him word by an Express, what had been done in the Synod which he had held in Spain, because it was customary, and withal necessary that when a Legate of the Holy See held a Council in a remote Country, he should come and give an account of what he had done, or at least send one to do it for him: That tho' that Cardinal had acquainted him with part of the Proceed, yet since there was no Person, who either saw or heard, how things went in that Synod, to inform him about it, he was very much at a stand what answer to give those, who complained of having been excommunicated, deposed or interdicted unjustly; for fear he should either be deceived by the intricacy of the Causes, or should not fully exercise his Authority: That however, 'tis looked upon as a piece of Cruelty and Contempt, to defer giving these kind of Answers, because of the dangers they are in, who are under Ecclesiastical Censures: That as to the business of William Archbishop of Auche, whose re-establishment he desired him to grant; he had himself raised perplexities in his mind, by taking notice to him that he had been deposed only for having voluntarily communicated with an excommunicate Person; and that yet he had not cleared himself Canonically, but only offered to do it before Pope Alexander: That after this Affair had been debated, at last they came to this Resolution, That if the Archbishop of Auche were guilty of nothing else, but of having communicated with an excommunicate Person, he ought not to be deposed; but that if he were charged with any other Crimes of which he was not cleared, the determination thereof aught to be referred to the Holy See: That Pontius Bishop of Beziers, who (as he sent word) had been deposed for the same Offence, was come to Rome to make his complaint; but that he had declined giving him any answer out of Respect to him: That however, since the like Sentence ought to be passed on Cases that are alike, if he were guilty of no other fault, he ought to re-establish him. The Archbishop of Auche was re-established, and the Pope wrote in his behalf to the Bishop of Beziers, and to the other Suffragans, that they should acknowledge him, and show him the Respect which they owed him. This is the Five and fiftieth Letter of the first Book, dated March the 16th, 1074.  
The Pope's Legates did not meet with the same Reception in all places. Those whom he sent into Bohemia, were not much regarded, particularly by the Bishop of Prague, whom they had Reprimanded and Condemned as one guilty of Simony. Gregory thereupon wrote to the Duke of Bohemia, and thanked him for the Respect which he showed to his Legates; but withal told him, That he had great Reason to complain of their being slighted in his Country, because formerly Legates were not sent so frequently; which he says happened through the remissness of his Predecessors. In particular, he accuses the Bishop of Prague, and threatens to confirm the Interdiction pronounced against him by his Legates, if he did not obey them, by doing what they required of him. This Letter is the Seventeenth of the first Book, dated July the 8th, in the Year, 1073.  
In the Fortieth of the second Book, Gregory VII. charges all the Faithful to Respect his Legates: And in the One and fortieth, he sends them to be present at the Election of the Bishop of Eugubio.  
He sent his Legates even to the most remote Countries; as for instance to Poland, as appears by the Sixty third Letter of the second Book; to Sclavonia, Russia, Denmark, etc. as appears by several other Letters.  
Of all the Legations, none was more considerable than that of the two hugh's in France, nor were there any Legates who exercised it with greater Authority, or dispatched more Affairs. The one was Bishop of Dia, and the other Abbot of Clunie. The former had been Elected Bishop of Dia by the Clergy and Laity of that City, with the Approbation of William their Count After his Election, he had taken an Oath of Fidelity to that Count: But not being forward to pay him the Sum of Money which was usually exacted for the Right of Investiture, he disobliged him so much, that he was no sooner gone to Rome to be Consecrated, but the Count seized of the Revenues of his Church. The Pope having read over the Act of Hugh's Election, Consecrated him, but upon condition that he would not tolerate any Simony in his Diccess, nor Consecrate any Church that had its dependence on any Lay Patrons. This is what he acquaints that Count with, by the Sixty ninth Letter of of the first Book, wherein he upbraids him for having seized on the Revenues of the Church of Dia. This Letter bears date March the 16th, 1074.  
By the Three and fortieth Letter of the second Book, dated January the 5th, 1075. he order that Bishop to accept of the Restitutions which those of his Church should make him, and to absolve them, upon condition that they would come and appear before the Synod of Rome.  
Gregory VII. reposing a great deal of Confidence on this Bishop, made him his Legate or Vicar in France; and in that quality referred to him a great many Affairs: Among others, that which related to the Bishop of Cambray, who after he had been Elected, had received the Investiture thereof from King Henry. The Pope order his Legate by the Two and twentieth Letter of the fourth Book, to examine this Affair in a Council, with Hugh Abbot of Clunie, and several Bishops of France: And that if he who was Elected to the Bishopric of Cambray, would swear, that when he received the Investiture from Henry, he did not know that he was excommunicated, or that the Pope had prohibited such Investitures, he should confirm his Election. By the same Letter he likewise committed to him, the taking cognizance of the Affairs which related to the Bishop of Chalons, the Churches of Chartres, Puy and Clermont, and that of the Monastery of S. Dennis. This Letter is dated May the 2d, in the Year, 1077.  
This Legate in pursuance of his Commission, held several Councils in France in the Year, 
Councils held in France, by Hugh Bishop of Dia, in the Year, 1077.  1077. Among the rest he held one at Clermont, wherein he deposed the Bishop of that City, and the Bishop of Puy in Velay: Another at Dijon against the Simoniacal: A third at Autun, to which he cited most of the Archbishops of France, and condemned all those who would not appear; to wit, Manasses Archbishop of Rheims, accused of Simony by his Clergy; the Archbishop of Sens, because he would not acknowledge the Legate; the Archbishop of Bourdeaux, because he had not appeared at the Council of Clermont, and because after he had been Suspended, he still continued to discharge his Functions; the Archbishop of Bourges, for having relinquished his Church; the Archbishop of Tours, accused of being Vexatious and Simoniacal; the Archbishop of Lions, convicted of Simony, in whose place Gebuin archdeacon of Langres, was elected and ordained; the Bishops of Senlis, Chartres, Auxerre, for having received the Investiture from the King; the Bishop of Noyon, who owned himself Guilty of Simony; and the Bishop of Autun, for not assisting at the Council.  
The next year Hugh Bishop of Dia, held another Council at Poitiers, spite of the Prohibitions 
The Council of Poitiers, in the Year, 1078.  of the King of France, who perceiving how roughly his Bishops were handled, had written to the Count of Poitiers and to the Bishops of his Kingdom, not to suffer the Pope's Legate to hold such Councils, which he Nicknames Conventicles. The Archbishop of Tours and the Bishop of Rennes came to this Council, but it was to disturb it; for which the Legate suspended both of them. However, they still spoke boldly against the Legat's Proceed, and even offered some Violence to him. Afterwards they withdrew with the Suffragan Bishops of the Archbishopric of Tours, and left him with a very small number of Prelates. The next day he held a Council in the Church of S. Hilary: The Archbishop of Tours persisted to inveigh hotly against the Legate, who suspended him; and appealed to the Holy See. The Legate referred him to the Pope. Afterwards he deposed the Abbot of Bergues, as being Guilty of Simony. The Archbishop of Bezanzon was suspended for not appearing at the Synod of Autun and Poitiers. The Judgement of the Bishops of Beauvais and Noyon, accused of Simony, was referred to the Pope. He who had intruded into the Church of Amiens was likewise referred to the Pope, together with the Bishops of Laon, Senlis and Soissons, who had ordained him. The Absolution of the Count of Angers, was likewise referred to the Holy See. Hugh of Dia in this Council, heard the Cause between the Bishops of Terrovane and Poitiers, and after he had discussed these Personal Causes, he made ten Canons upon the Discipline of the Church.  
In the First, ecclesiastics are prohibited from receiving the Investiture or Collation of Benefices, from the King, or any Lay Patron. The Laics who held any Churches in their Possession, were excommunicated, and these Churches interdicted. 
The Canons of the Council of Poitiers.   
In the Second, It is prohibited, to hold two Benefices in two different Churches.  
The Third imports, That no Person shall pretend to hold Ecclesiastical Benefices, by right of Succession.  
The Fourth imports, That Bishops shall take nothing for Ordinations, nor for Consecrating Churches.  
The Fifth, That neither Abbots nor Monks shall administer the Sacrament of Penance, without the Commission of the Bishop first had.  
The Sixth, That neither Abbots, Monks, nor Prebendaries shall purchase Churches, or get the Impropriation of them by any method whatsoever, unless it be with the consent of the Bishop, in whose Diocese these Churches are: That however, they shall still hold, and quietly possess the Benefices which they already have; but that the Priest who serves them, shall be answerable to the Bishop for the Charge of Souls, and for his Ministry.  
The Seventh, That the Abbots, Deans, and Archpriests who are not Priests, shall enter into Priest's Orders, or lose their Benefices: And that the Arch-deacons shall be Deacons, under the same Penalty.  
The Eighth, That the Children of Priests, and Bastards, shall not be admitted into Holy Orders, unless they be Monks, or live in a regular Convent: But that they shall not hold any Ecclesiastical Preferments. That Slaves cannot be admitted into Orders, unless their Masters give them their Freedom.  
The Ninth, That the Subdeacons, Deacons, and Priests shall have no Concubines, or any other suspicious Women in their Houses; and that all those, who shall wittingly hear the Mass of a Priest who keeps a Concubine, or is Guilty of Simony, shall be excommunicated.  
The Tenth, That Clerks who bear Arms, or are Usurers, shall be deposed.  
Most of the Prelates, who were Condemned by Hugh Bishop of Dia, had recourse to the Pope, who released them from their Condemnations, upon condition (as we said before) that they would clear themselves before his Legat. For this, you may consult the Letters of Hugh of Dia to Gregory VII. those of Manasses to the same; and the Letter of that Pope by which he re-establishes them, which is the Seventeenth of the fifth Book, dated March the 8th, 1078.  
Of all these Prelates, Manasses was almost the only Person who persisted in his Resolution of not owning Hugh of Dia as Legate, who continued to prosecute him till he had pronounced a definitive Sentence against him, in the Council which he held at Lions in the Year, 1080. wherein he deposed him; and his Judgement was confirmed by Gregory VII. as appears by this Seventh Letter of the fifth Book.  
The same year this Legate held two other Councils: The one at Avignon, wherein 
The Councils of Avignon and Meaux in the Year, 1080. The Council of Meaux, in the Year, 1082.  Achard, who had intruded into the Church of Arles, was turned out, and Gibelin put into his place: And the other at Meaux, wherein he deposed Ursion, Bishop of Soissons, and caused Arnulphus, Monk of S. Medard, to be elected in his room.  
In the Year, 1082. he held another Council at Meaux, wherein he ordained Robert Abbot of Rebais, Bishop of that City. But because this Ordination was done without the Approbation of Richerus Archbishop of Sens, the Bishops of the Province would not own him; and Richerus ordained another Bishop, after he had excommunicated Robert.  
The Pope referred to Hugh of Dia, the Absolution of Robert Count of Flanders, excommunicated by the Bishop of Langres, with Commission to put other Persons in his place; this appears by the Seventh Letter of the sixth Book, dated November the 25th, 1079.  
By the Sixteenth Letter of the seventh Book, dated March the 26th, 1080. he order Hubert Bishop of Terrovane, whom Hugh of Dia had cited twice before him, to justify himself before that Legat.  
Hugh of Dia as a Recompense of the good Services he had done to the Holy See, was translated from the Bishopric of Dia, to the Archbishopric of Lions, in the Year, 1083. and became so powerful, that after the Death of Gregory VII. he was one of those who pretended to the Popedom; and upon that Subject, had contests with Victor III. who had been preferred before him. That Pope excommunicated him: However, in the Popedom of Urban II. Hugh was retaken again into Favour, and continued to exercise his Legation in France, as we shall show in its proper place. He died in the Year, 1106. in October, at Susa, in his Journey to the Council which Pope Paschal II. held about the end of that year at Guastilla, in the Dukedom of Mantua.  
There are a great many other Affairs relating to France, Normandy, Flanders, England and Bretagne, which Hugh and his Colleagues took Cognizance of, and passed Sentence upon either Definitively, after it had been referred to them by the Pope, or else Provisionally for any to have liberty of appealing to the Holy See. We shall have opportunity of speaking more largely of these things hereafter.  
Gregory VII. to add the more Strength to his Authority, thought it expedient to make choice of one of the most eminent Sees of France, on which he might confer the perpetual Vicarship or Primacy of the Holy See. The Vicarship of the Popes in France, (by virtue 
Vicars of the Popes in France.  of which those, to whom it was granted, pretended to a Jurisdiction above Metropolitans), and the Quality of Primates, had till then passed from Church to Church, according as they had been more or less favoured by the Holy See. The Church of Arles is the first on whom this Privilege was conferred by Pope Zozimus, in consideration of the Merits of Patroclus, who was Archbishop of that place. Pope Symmachus confirmed this Privilege in favour of Cesareus Archbishop of Arles, as to that part of Gaul, which was then under the Dominion of the Goths: But at the same time he made S. Remy, Archbishop of Rheims, his Vicar in the Kingdom under Clovis. However, afterward the Vicarship of the Archbishop of Arles spread itself in the Kingdom under Childebert, and even through all France, by the favour of the Pope's Vigilius, Pelagius I. Gregory the Great, and John VIII. But Adrian I. restored this Honour to the Archbishop of Rheims; and the Pope's Benedict III. and Nicholas I. confirmed it. Pope Sergius granted it to the Bishop of Metz, in consideration of the Person of Dreux, the Emperor's Uncle. But the Bishops of France would not acknowledge him, and we do not find that his Successors have pretended thereto. Ansegisus Archbishop of Sens, obtained the same Privilege from John VIII. and his Successors retained the Quality of Primats of Gaul and Germany, tho' the Bishops of France would not acknowledge it in the Council of Pontyon, and ever since it has been disputed with them.  
At last Gregory VII. made choice of the Church of Lions, as the Church of most note, 
The erecting the Primacy of Lions, by Gregory VII.  to Honour with this Quality, and granted it the Primacy over four Provinces of France; namely, of Lions, Rouen, Tours, and Sens, by the Four and thirtieth Letter of the sixth Book, directed to Gebwin Archbishop of Lions; and by the Five and thirtieth Letter of the same Book, directed to the Archbishops of Rouen, Tours and Sens, which are both dated April the 20th, in the Year, 1079. To establish this, he supposes that the distinction of Dioceses, Provinces, Primacies, and Metropolitanships was made by the Apostles themselves, or by the Holy Apostolic See, and that the Dignity of Primate had been granted by his Predecessors to the Archbishop of Lions. However, it would be a hard matter to prove this out of any Authentic Record. Besides, the Archbishops of Sens and Rouen, would not acknowledge the Archbishop of Lions for Primate: Which obliged Urban II. in the Council held at Clermont, in the Year, 1095. to suspend Richerus Archbishop of Sens from the use of the Pall; to enjoin his Suffragans not to obey him; and to threaten the Archbishop of Rouen with the same Punishment, if he did not within three Months acknowledge the Primacy of the Archbishop of Lions.  
The Rights or Privileges annexed to the Pope's Vicars or Primates in France, have been 
The Rights or Privileges of the Primates of France.  of a greater or less extent, according to the difference of the Times. Pope Zozimus granted three Things to the Archbishop of Arles, viz. (1.) That all the Bishops who were minded to come to Rome, shall be obliged to take along with them recommendatory Letters from the Archbishop of Arles. (2.) That the Ordinations in the Provinces of Vienna and Narbonne shall be his Peculiars. (3.) That he shall have the same Jurisdiction over the Churches, which he has had over them for a long time, tho' they be not in his Territory. Of these three Privileges, the two last belong to the Archbishop of Arles as Metropolitan; and the first was granted him as Vicar of the Pope. Simmachus, besides these, granted him a Power of calling Councils of the Bishops of France and Spain: Vigilius added thereto the Honour of wearing the Pall; but he desires that if he should meet with any difficult Point, which could not be determined by the Councils, he should make his Report thereof to the Holy See. Pelagius granted him in general, a Power of Acting in France, with respect to every thing which concerned the Administration of Ecclesiastical Affairs. Lastly, Pope Gregory took notice in particular, wherein this Power consisted, which is, (1.) To cause all the Canons to be Religiously observed, and to maintain the Faith. (2.) To call a Synod when 'tis necessary. (3.) To make his Report to the Holy See, of the Controversies of Faith, and of the most momentary and difficult Causes. The Privilege granted by the Popes to the Archbishops of Rheims, consists chief in being immediately subject to no other than the Holy See, and in having the Right of Ordination and Inspection in the whole compass of his Vicarship. The Bishop of Metz had a Commission to call general Councils; to receive the Judgements passed in the Provincial Synods; to hear upon the first instance, the Causes of Appealing to the Holy See; to inform himself of the Lives of the Abbots and Bishops, and to provide for the necessities of the Church. The Privileges granted to the Archbishop of Sens, are to call Councils, and to examine into all the Ecclesiastical Affairs of France and Germany; to receive and publish the Decrees of the Holy See, and to make his Report to it, of all the Affairs of Moment and Consequence.  
Gregory VII. does not enter into the particulars of the Privileges of the Archbishop of Lions; but only says in general, that the Ecclesiastical Affairs of any Consequence ought to be brought before him; and that it belongs to him to confirm and disannul the Judgements of the Ordinaries, and to judge the Causes of Bishops, and the Affairs of Importance, but without prejudice to the Holy See.  
Before Gregory VII. was Pope, Manasses was Archbishop of Rheims. That Prelate being very powerful, thought that the Monks of the Abbey of S. Remy of that City, aught to pay an entire Submission to him. He was for giving them such an Abbot as he thought fit, and took 
The Cause of Manasses Archbishop of Rheims.  part of their Revenues into his Possession. These Monks having preferred their Complaints to Alexander II. that Pope wrote to Manasses, and admonished him to put an end to these Complaints, and to give Orders that that Abbey should be provided with a regular Abbot, who should have the Administration both of Spirituals and Temporals in his own hands. Gregory VII. continued the same Remonstrances: But being informed that Manasses, notwithstanding all the Promises which he had made by his Deputies, to give him satisfaction, continued his Abuses to those Religious, and enjoyed their Revenues, He wrote a Letter to him full of Invectives, wherein he threatens to show him the utmost severity, if he did not immediately cause a Regular Abbot to be put into that Abbey, and if he did not give such Orders as that the Religious might have no farther Reason to complain of him: And at the same time he order Hugh Abbot of Clunie to convey that Letter to him, and to learn his Answer. These are the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Letters of the first Book, dated June the 29th, 1073. and the first which Gregory wrote after his Ordination.  
Manasses obeyed the Pope's Orders, and caused William, Abbot of S. Arnulphus of Metz, to be elected also Abbot of S. Remy of Rheims. The Pope approved of the Choice of the Person; but he thought it hard that one Man should have the Charge of two Abbeys. However, he permitted William to hold, or relinquish that of Remy, as he thought fit. He held it for some time; but not being able to endure the Tyranny and Oppression of Manasses, he resigned that Abbey. The Pope wrote to Manasses to order another Abbot to be elected, and gave at the same time notice to Herman Bishop of Metz, that Abbot William was willing to reside in the Abbey of his Diocese. This is the Subject matter of the Fifty second and third Letters of the first Book, dated March the 14th, 1074.  
The next year the Pope, by the Fifty sixth Letter of the second Book, dated March the 4th, committed to Manasses, the Execution of the Sentence passed against the Bishop of Chalons, who had been deposed for not appearing before the Synod of Rome, to which he had been cited, upon the account of some Differences between Him and his Clergy. And by the Fifty eighth dated the 5th of the same Month, he order him to cause the Bishop of Noyon to restore to the Bishop of Utrecht, a Church which he had unlawfully seized upon.  
Hugh Bishop of Dia, Legat of the Holy See in France, having cited Manasses to a Council, which he had called at Autun, that Archbishop thought it beneath him to appear there; which caused the Legate to Condemn him. Manasses went immediately to Rome to clear himself; and by the Pope's order waited there three Months together for Hugh of Dia. But when that Bishop came not, the Cause of Manasses was argued in a Council, between Him and the Deputies of Hugh of Dia. Manasses having no Body to Accuse him, did with ease justify himself; and having affirmed that it was not in contempt of the Holy See, that he did not appear before the Council of Autun, the Sentence passed against him in that Council was declared invalid, upon condition that he would appear before the Pope's Legate, whenever he should be Summoned: But he declared that he would not admit the Bishop of Dia to be his Judge. The Pope asked him whom he was willing should be his Judge; Manasses replied▪ The Abbot of CLUNIE: Whereupon the Pope deputed that Abbot to be the Judge in the Cause of Manasses; after he had made him promise, that if he were called to any Synod by the Holy See, or to any by that Legate, he would not fail to make his Appearance. Manasses being returned to France, was Summoned in the Name of Hugh of Dia and the Abbot of Clunie, to a Council to be held at Troy's; he went thither with part of his Clergy: But the Clerks who accused him not daring to come thither, he was countermanded, and the Legates of the Pope were not at that Council. Manasses appeared there, notwithstanding the Orders to the contrary, and thought he had discharged the Promise which he had made to the Pope. He pretended likewise that according to the Promises he made, he was obliged to appear before none beside the Pope, or before the Roman Legates sent immediately from the Holy See, and not before the Bishops on the other side the Mountains. He wrote to the Pope about it, and at the same time complained of the Archbishop of Vienna, who had deposed and re-established several Priests of the Diocese of Rheims; and of the Bishops of Laon and Soissons his Suffragans, who had ordained a Bishop of Amiens without consulting him, and even whilst he was at Rome. Gregory replied to him by the Second Letter of the sixth Book, dated August the 22d, 1078. That he ought to acknowledge the Legates named by the Holy See upon the place, as well as those who were sent immediately from Rome; and that he ought forthwith to clear himself of the Things laid to his Charge before Hugh of Dia and the Abbot of Clunie; and that they should do him Justice, with respect to the Complaints which he had made. This is what he acquaints the Bishop of Dia with, by the next Letter dated the same day.  
In the mean time Hugh of Dia caused Manasses to be Summoned twice to a Council to be held at Lions, to answer to the Accusations which Count Manasses, and several Clerks of the Church of Rheims preferred against him. The Archbishop of Rheims refused to come to that Council, and published an Apology or Manifesto, wherein he alleges several Reasons for his not appearing. The first is, Because there is no mention made of the Abbot of Clunie in the Order, by which he was Summoned to that Council. The Second, Because that Council was held in a City, which was not in that part of France, wherein he ought to be Judged. The Third, Because the Province which lay between that of Rheims and that of Lions, and through which he must pass, was engaged in a War; so that he could not come without danger of being made Prisoner. The Fourth, Because he understood that that Council was to consist of the same Persons, who had already Condemned him rashly and unjustly. The Fifth, Because according to the Canons, it was required that such a place should be made choice of to Try any one, as was near to his own Country, where one might produce Witnesses, and pass a definitive Sentence. That besides, he was reconciled to Count Manasses, and to all those who were at Difference with him, except Bruno, who was neither his Clerk, nor Born nor Baptised in his Diocese, but a Prebendary of S. Cunibert of Cologne, for whom he was not much concerned; and who had served him basely, tho' under particular Obligations to him; and except another Clerk, named Pontius, whom he had convicted of Falsehood in the Council of Rome. That if he had no Accusers, he was not obliged to come and clear himself before the Council, by the Testimony of six Bishops of an unblameable Life: That when he would have done it, he could not, because of the shortness of the time that was allowed him; and that it would be difficult to find in his Province six Bishops, who were not his Enemies, and without Reproach: That when he had promised to the Pope to appear before the Council which should be held by his Legates, he meant only such a Council as should be held in France, and in case he had not lawful Reasons to excuse his Non-appearance: Lastly, That for his part, he did not acknowledge Hugh of Dia to be Legate; since the Pope had granted him the favour of refusing him for his Judge: That however, to show his Submission to the Holy See, he offered him to appear at a Synod which should be held in some City near to Rheims, either in Lent or at Easter; and that he would there receive him with all the Honour that was due to the Legates of the Pope: That he exhorted him to accept of this Offer; because it would be more advantageous to the Holy See, to attract the Respect and Submission of the French by Acts of Moderation, than by Acts of Severity to keep them at a distance: That if notwithstanding this Remonstrance, he still would persist in the same mind, and pronounce a Sentence of Deposition and Excommunication against him, the Pope's S. Gregory and S. Leo had instructed him that he ought not to look upon such an Excommunication as issuing from the Holy See. These are the Reasons contained in the Apology of Manasses, which is a very fine Piece, and written in a very elegant Style, and published by Father Mabillon in the first Tome of his Treasury of Italy.  
Hugh of Dia had no regard to this Manifesto, but in the Council of Lions pronounced a Sentence of Deposition against Manasses, and the Pope confirmed it in the Synod of Rome, held the beginning of the Year, 1080. and gave Manasses notice of it by the Twentieth Letter of the Seventh Book, dated April the 7th of the same Year; allowing him notwithstanding further time till the Feast of S. Michael to justify himself, either at Rome, or before his Legates; by producing as an Evidence of his Innocence some Bishops his Suffragans; by restoring to the two Persons who had accused him, the Revenues which he had taken from them; and upon Condition that he would retire to Clunie or some other Monastery till Ascension-day, and forbear till then all Episcopal Functions.  
Manasses did not hearken to this Sentence, and continued in Possession of his Archbishopric without submitting in the least to the Pope; who wrote immediately to the Clergy and Laity of Rheims, to the Suffragans of that Metropolitanship, to King Philip and to Count Ebold, ordering them no longer to acknowledge him for Archbishop of Rheims, to turn him out of that Church, and to Elect or cause to be Elected another in his stead. This is the subject Matter of the Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth and Twentieth Letters of the Eighth Book, dated Decemb. 27th in the same Year.  
This Manasses is accused by the Authors of that time of having attained to the Archbishopric of Rheims by Simony, and of having exercised an insupportable Tyranny and Oppression over his Clergy; of having rifled Churches, plundered Monasteries, exacted Money from his Clergy, persecuted Men of Estates; of seizing the Revenues of the richest Abbeys; of having lived more like a Great Lord, than a Bishop; of having greater Care of his Soldiers, than of his Clergy; of having more Concern for the Temporalities, than for the Spiritualities of his Archbishopric; and of being so impious as to say, That the Archbishopric of Rheims would be a very pretty Thing, if no singing of Mass were required. 'Tis thus that he is set out by William Abbot of S. Arnulphus of Metz, Guilbert Abbot of Nogent, and Hugh of Flaviany. However, Fulcoius Subdeacon of Meaux, has made his Elegy; and the Clergy of Noyon (in a Letter which they wrote at that very time to the Clergy of Cambray, to prove that the Sons of Clerks and Priests might be admitted into Priests Orders) maintain, That the Excommunication of Manasses had been made by a Motive of Envy; and that it was rash and unjust. This Letter is related by Father Mabillon, after the Apology of Manasses. All this makes it appear, That tho' Manasses had been as guilty as they would have him thought to be, yet he was not condemned in due Form.  
There had been for several Years past a Contest between the Archbishop of Tours and the 
The Cause of the Archbishop of Tours, and the Bishop of Dol.  Bishop of Dol, who pretended likewise to the Dignity of an Archbishop, or the Right of Metropolian over the Bishops of Bretagne. The Pope's always declared themselves in favour of the Archbishop of Tours. Gregory VII. seemed at first to favour the Bishop of Dol; for the Clergy and Laity having sent to the Pope him whom they had elected to be Bishop, he refused to ordain him because he was too young: But having chosen Yves Abbot of S. Melaine, who was come to Rome with the Deputies of Dol, he consecrated him by their Consent, and granted him the Pall, upon Condition that he would come to Rome whenever he should be sent for thither, to regulate the Contest which was between the Church of Dol and that of Tours about the Right of Metropolitanship. The Archbishop of Tours thinking that the Pope had by this prejudiced his Right, complained of it; but Gregory sent him word that he had no occasion to complain, since he had taken such Measures that what he had done should be no Prejudice to him, and that he would do him Justice, when that Affair was in a Posture of being tried. This is the Subject Matter of the Fourth, Fifth, and Thirteenth Letters of the Fourth Book, of which the two first, about the Ordination of Yves, are directed, the one to the People of Dol, and the other to the Bishops of Bretagne, dated September 27, in the Year, 1076. and the last to Radulphus Archbishop of Tours, dated the First of March, 1077.  
The Pope was deceived in the Choice of the Man whom he had ordained to the Church of Dol. He soon received Complaints of his bad Conduct: And after he had examined the Accusations brought against him, he was just ready to depose him; when he received a Letter from William King of England, who interceded for him. This caused the Pope to supersede the Execution of that Sentence, till he should send upon the Place Hugh Bishop of Dia, and two other Legates, to inform themselves more fully about that Affair. This appears by the Seventeenth Letter of the Fourth Book, written to the King of England, and dated March the 2d, in the Year, 1077. He committed the Determination of that Affair to Hugh of Dia, to the Abbot of Clunie, and to two other Clerks, by the Two and three and twentieth Letters of the Fifth Book, dated May 22d, 1078.  
At last the Contest between the Churches of Tours and Dol, for the Right of Metropolitanship, having been debated in the Council held at Rome the beginning of the Year, 1080. And the Archbishop of Tours having made it appear, by good Titles, That Bretagne belonged to his Metropolitanship; whereas the Bishop of Dol not being able to produce such Authentic ones, was pleased to say, That he had forgot behind him several of his Titles: The Pope granted him a farther time, and declared that he would send Legates upon the Place, to determine that Affair: And that if it appeared that the Bishop of Dol had sufficient Titles whereon to ground his Exception, he should still remain in Possession of it; if not, that then the Bishop of Dol and the other Bishops of Bretagne shall be subject to the Archbishop of Tours, as to their Metropolitan; upon Condition however that the Bishop of Dol shall still enjoy the Privilege of wearing the Pall. This is what he intimates to the People of Tours and Bretagne, by the Fifteenth Letter of the Seventh Book, dated March 8th, in the Year, 1080.  
The Bishop of Toul having refused to one of his Clerks a Church which he pretended to 
The Cause of the Bishop of Toul.  belong to his Prebendship, and having absolutely suspended him, that Clerk was incensed against him, and accused him of selling Benefices and Sacred things; of holding a shameful and dishonourable Commerce with a certain Woman, and of having bought his Bishopric. The Bishop's Friends, to avenge his Quarrel, threaten to be even with that Clerk, if ever they could catch him. Whereupon that Clerk not thinking himself secure absconded, and the Bishop immediately caused all that he had to be sold. That Clerk having made his Complaints thereof to Rome, Gregory VII. by the Tenth Letter of the second Book, dated October the 14th, 1074. Commissioned the Archbishop of Treves, and the Bishop of Metz, to Try this Cause. He enjoins them in the first place to put that Clerk into the Possession of his Benefice; afterwards to make enquiry into the Life of the Bishop: If he were Innocent, to punish the Clerk who had scandalised him; and if he were Guilty, to depose him.  
William Duke of Aquitain, and Count of Poitiers, having Married one of his Relations, 
The Cause of William Duke of Aquitain.  the Legate of the Holy See, and the Archbishop of Bourdeaux called a Synod, to oblige him to part from her. Isembert Bishop of Poitiers disturbed that Assembly, and offered violence to those who were there. However, the Duke of his own accord parted from his Wife. Gregory no less pleased with his Submission, than he was offended at the Action of the Bishop of Poitiers, complimented the Duke upon it by the third Letter of the second Book, and cited the Bishop to the Council of Rome by the second Letter of the same Book, threatening to depose and excommunicate him; and by the Fourth of the same Book advises the Archbishop of Bourdeaux to come to Rome, or to send some body thither to accuse Isembert. These Three Letters are dated September the 2d, 1074. Isembert not appearing at the Synod, the Pope not only confirmed the Suspension which his Legate had pronounced against him, but likewise excommunicated him, till such time as he should come to the Synod, to be held at Rome the beginning of Lent, as appears by the Three and Four and twentieth Letters of the same Book, dated November the 16th, in the same Year.  
The Letters of Gregory are full of Instances of Bishops whom he cited to Rome, to give 
The Causes which Gregory VII. heard and tried at Rome.  an account of their Conduct, or condemned for not appearing; or absolved when they did appear; or deposed or enjoined to do Penance. We may consult beside those already mentioned, the Fifty sixth Letter of the first Book, by which he Summons the Bishop of Chalons, to come and clear himself at Rome: The Fifty seventh, by which he order the Bishop of Pavia, to come to him with the Marquis Aso, accused of Incest with that Bishop's Sister. This Woman's Name was Matilda, which gave occasion to some Authors, to think her to be the same with the Princess Matilda, the Wife of Godfrey. But she was quite another Woman; for she whom we speak of, was the Sister of William Bishop of Pavia, who had Married her Kinsman Aso, before the Death of Godfrey, the Princess Matilda's Husband. The Pope wrote to her by the Thirty sixth Letter of the second Book to part from Aso, till such time as she should prove in the Synod of Rome, that the Marquis was not her Kinsman. And by the Thirty fifth Letter, he likewise cited William Bishop of Pavia upon the same account. These two Letters are dated December the 16th, 1074.  
Sometimes Gregory VII. Commissioned Bishops upon the places to pass a definitive Sentence 
Causes referred by the Pope to his Legates.  upon the Affairs in dispute. Thus he committed to the Archbishops of Bourges and Tours, the Determination of the Process between the Monastery of Dol, and the Abbey of S. Sulpicius, by the Ninth Letter of the second Book: To Richerus Archbishop of Sens, by the Twentieth Letter of the same Book, the correcting of Lancelin, who had injured the Archbishop of Tours.  
By the Sixteenth Letter of the fourth Book, he referred to Hugh Bishop of Dia, the Trial of the Difference which was between the Clergy of Romagne, and the Archbishop of Vienna.  
In the Twentieth of the same Book, he referred to Josefroy Bishop of Paris, the Absolution of several Persons excommunicated by the Archbishop of Rheims, and granted him power to Absolve them, in case he found them innocent, if that Archbishop would not do it.  
In the One and twentieth, he referred to Herman Bishop of Metz, the Trial of the Process between the Bishop of Liege, and the Abbot of S. Laurence, who having been turned out of his Monastery by the Bishop, had Appealed to the Holy See.  
In the Fourth Letter of the sixth Book, he referred to the Archbishop of Treves and the Bishop of Metz, the Cause of one who complained that he had been unjustly excommunicated by the Bishop of Liege.  
In the Fifth of the same Book, he advises Herman Bishop of Metz, to assist the Bishop of Toul, whom he had ordered to call a Council of six Bishops, to clear himself Cononically of what had been laid to his charge.  
By the Thirty ninth of the same Book, he referred to the Bishop of Cumae, the Trial of the Election of the Bishop of Pergamo.  
By the Eight and twentieth Letter of the seventh Book, he committed to the Bishop of Benevento, and the Abbot of Mount Cassin, the Trial of an Armenian Heretic.  
By the Nineteenth Letter of the ninth Book, he referred to the Archbishop of Lions, the Trial of the Cause of an Abbot, who produced a Grant of Alexander II. which proved that he had been falsely accused.  
By the Two and twentieth of the same Book, he referred to a Council of the Province, to be held in the presence of his Legates, the Trial of the Count of Angiers, excommunicated by the Archbishop of Tours, upon the account of a Concubine which he kept.  
He referred to the same Archbishop, by the Thirty second Letter of the same Book, the Cause of the Bishop of Terrovanne, who being favoured by the Count of Flanders, had broke open the Church, and offered several Violences. You may consult on this Subject the Thirteenth, Two and thirtieth, Three and thirtieth, and Four and thirtieth Letters of the ninth Book, and the First of the eleventh.  
By the Thirty first of the same Book, he referred to a Bishop the Trial of the Difference which was between the Clergy of Autun, and the Monks of Fleury, about a Privilege which the latter pretended to.  
To conclude, there were scarce any Controversies in the Dioceses between the Bishops 
The Causes cited to, and Judged at Rome by Gregory VII.  and their Clerks, or Monks, and even Laics themselves, which Gregory VII. was not minded to take Cognizance of, to try at Rome, and to oblige the Bishops to put his Sentence into Execution, as may be seen by a great many Letters, about several Subjects.  
In the Fifty fourth of the first Book, he order against the Bishop of Poitiers, that the Canons of that City shall observe their usual Custom concerning their Stations upon the Feasts of S. Hilary, and All-Saints In the One and twentieth of the second Book, he enjoins the Abbot of Beavieu, to be obedient to the Archbishop of Tours; and that if he thought he had any Reason not to be subject to him, he should come to Rome, and make his Pretensions good. In the Two and twentieth, he enjoins Hugh, Knight of S. Maur, to restore to the Archbishop of Tours the Revenues of his Church, which he had taken away from him: And in case that he thought that they belonged to him, to come to Rome to demand Justice in the case. In the Five and twentieth, he order the Bishop of Cologne to Try the Difference which was between the Bishop of Osnabrux and the Abbot of Corbey in Saxony, upon condition that if he could not determine it, he would send them to his Synod of Rome. In the Thirty third, he reproves the Bishop of Turin for not coming to the Synod of Rome, and for having offered an Injury to the Monastery of S. Michael.  
By the Sixty fourth and Sixty fifth Letters of the second Book, dated March the 25th, in the Year, 1075. he orders that the Accusation which the Monks of S. Dennis in France had brought against their Abbot, shall be Tried by his Legates, or in a Synod of Rome. He likewise called to Rome by the Sixty ninth, the Contest which was between the Bishop of Turin, and the Monks of the Monastery of S. Michael; this Letter is dated April the 9th, in the same year. By the Thirteenth Letter of the third Book, he determines a Difference which was between the Church of Roscelle and the Church of Piombino, in favour of the former.  
There was at that time a great Contest in the Church of Orleans, concerning a Deanery, 
The Cause of Everard Dean of Orleans  between the Bishop and his Prebendaries. The Cause having been brought before Pope Alexander, he had determined it in favour of Josceline, whom the Prebendaries were for, and excommunicated Everard whom the Bishop had favoured. Notwithstanding this Sentence, the Bishop of Orleans had still supported Everard, and was likewise accused of having received Money for the Collation of a Prebendship, the Revenue whereof was appropriated to the maintenance of the Poor: Gregory VII. being informed of it, in the first place cited Everard to Rome, by the Fifty second Letter of the second Book, dated March the 1st, 1075. and afterwards having confirmed the Sentence passed by his Predecessor against him, he wrote to the Bishop of Orleans to turn him out, to put Josceline into Possession of the Prebendship then in question, and to suffer the Poor to enjoy the Revenue of that Prebendship which belonged to them; if not, he threatened to excommunicate him; and at the same time he ordered Richerus Archbishop of Sens to do it, if he did not submit. These two Letters are the Sixteenth and Seventeenth of the third Book, dated in April 1076. The Bishop of Orleans returning no answer to Gregory, that Pope wrote a second time to the Archbishop of Sens, ordering him to thunder out the Excommunication against that Bishop, unless he assured him upon Oath, that he had not come to the least knowledge of the Pope's Letter; and he ordered him to come to Rome along with the Parties concerned in that Affair. He likewise by this Letter Commissions Richerus Archbishop of Sens, not only to take Cognizance of this, but also of several other Matters which concerned the Churches of France. This is the Subject Matter of the Ninth Letter of the fourth Book, dated November the 2d, in the same year.  
The Bishop of Orleans did not much regard all these Menaces of the Pope, and caused the Person who brought his Letters to be apprehended. Gregory enraged at this proceeding, wrote to the Arch bishop of Sens and Bourges, ordering them to cite him before them at a place which they should appoint him; and if he continued Refractory, to depose him, and put Sanzon in his place: He likewise advertized the Bishop of Orleans, that he had given this Order. These are the Eighth and Ninth Letters of the fifth Book, dated October the 6th, 1077. This Sanzon was elected in pursuance of this Order, and the Pope by the Fourteenth Letter of the same Book, dated January the 28th, in the Year, 1078. orders the Clergy and Laity of Orleans to acknowldge him: However, by another Letter dated April the 24th, which is the Twentieth of the same Book, he writes to Rainier, who was the deposed Bishop of Orleans, ordering him to appear at the Synod which should be appointed by Hugh Bishop of Dia, and Hugh Abbot of Clunie, in order to receive a final Sentence. Lastly, By the Three and twentieth of the sixth Book, dated March the 5th, 1079. he acquaints the People of Orleans that he approved of the Election of Sanzon, but that he could not confirm him in Form, till such time as he should send Legates upon the place.  
Robert Abbot of S. Euphemia in Calabria, had been nominated by the King of France to 
The Cause of Robert, nominated to the Bishopric of Chartres.  the Bishopric of Chartres. Gregory VII. who liked not such sort of Nominations, and looked upon them as Simonaical, charged him by his Legate to quit his Bishopric. But Robert was not very forward to obey; whereupon the Pope declared him to have forfeited his Title to it, ordered the People of Chartres to elect another Bishop, and enjoined Richerus Archbishop of Sens and his Suffragans to see this Order put in Execution. You may consult the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Letters of the Fourth Book, dated March the 4th, 1077. However, by a Letter directed to Hugh of Dia, which is the Eleventh of the Fifth Book, he gave that Bishop orders to examine into that business, and to make his Report thereof to him.  
Stephen Bishop of Annecy had the same fortune. Hugh of Dia the Pope's Legate excommunicated 
The Cause of the Bishop of Annecy.  him, and Gregory ratified his Sentence by two Letters; the one written to the Clergy of Annecy, and the other to the Bishops of France, which are the Eighteenth and Nineteenth of the Fourth Book, dated March the 23d, in the Year, 1077.  
The Archbishop of Rouen being grown infirm and uncapable of governing his Diocese, Gregory VII. sent him one Hubert a Subdeacon, to inquire whether things were so or no, and to persuade him to give his Consent, that another be put in his place, if he were capable 
The Cause of the Archbishop of Rouen.  of giving such a Consent; and in case he were wholly infirm, to cause another to be elected. This is what he acquaints the King of England with, by the Nineteenth Letter of the fifth Book, dated April the 4th, 1078.  
The Canons of the Castle of S. Paul and S. Omer, having sent Deputies to Rome, to complain 
The Cause of the Canons of S. Omers.  of the Counts Hubert, Guy and Hugh, who had seized upon some Revenues which belonged to them; the Pope wrote to these Counts, ordering them to make Restitution, according as it had been enjoined in a Council held at Poitiers by Hugh of Dia, or else to justify their Pretensions to these Revenues before that Legate within the space of forty Days. If they would not obey, he ordered the Defenders of the Church to re-enter upon the Premises, and the Canons of Terrovanne to see that this Sentence be put in Execution. This is the Subject Matter of the Eighth and Ninth Letters of the sixth Book, dated November the 25th. 1079.  
In the Seventh and Eighth Letters of the sixth Book, he approves of the Election which 
Cardinal Richard elected Abbot of Marseilles. The Letters of Gregory VII. concerning Discipline.  the Monks of Marseilles had made of Cardinal Richard for their Abbot: He declares to them that he wished that that Monastery were united to the Monastery of S. Paul.  
We will conclude the Account of the Letters of Gregory VII. with several Points of Ecclesiastical and Monastical Discipline, which he decided, and of which we have had no opportunity of speaking.  
In the Fifth Letter of the first Book, directed to Rainier Archbishop of Florence, he determines that a Woman who had Married one of her Kinsmen, and was become a Widow, ought not to receive her Dowry from any part of her Husband's Revenue, nor to have any advantage of that Marriage, which was in its own nature Null.  
In the Four and twentieth Letter of the first Book, he recommends to the Bishop of Verona a constant Submission to the Holy See, and promises him the Pall, provided he would come in his proper Person to Rome: Because his Predecessors had ordered that the Pall should be bestowed only on Persons who were present. This Letter bears date September the 24th, 1073.  
In the Four and thirtieth Letter of the same Book, directed to the Bishop of Lincoln, he determines that according to the Opinions of the Fathers, a Priest who had been guilty of Homicide, ought no longer to attend at the Service of the Altar; but he is willing that in case he be truly Penitent, a Subsistence should be allowed him out of the Ecclesiastical Contributions. Afterwards he gives that Bishop Absolution of all his Sins.  
In the Seven and fortieth of the same Book, he exhorts the Princess Matilda to frequent Communion, and to bear a due Respect and Devotion to the blessed Virgin.  
In the Eight and fortieth, he enjoins that a Woman accused by her Husband of Adultery, shall be admitted to justify her Innocence.  
In the Sixty fifth, he reproves the People of Ragusa for having first apprehended Vitalius their Bishop, and then elected another in his room. He enjoins them to set him at Liberty, and to suffer his Cause to be tried by the Archbishop of Siponto, whom he had Commissioned for that very purpose, with a Charge that if it could not be determined upon the place, they should send to Rome their old Bishop, and him whom they had newly elected, that so he might decide the Controversy between them.  
In the Seven and fortieth of the second Book, he acquaints the Lord Rainier, that he had ordered the Bishop of Chiusi, to turn out of the Provostship of a Church, a Priest who had been Condemned by his Predecessor Alexander, and whom that Bishop would re-establish in defiance to the Authority of the Holy See.  
In the Eight and fortieth, he order two of his Legates to prevent a Man who had killed his Brother, from Marrying till he had done Penance.  
By the Fiftieth, he determines that one who is not Born in lawful Wedlock, cannot be advanced to the Episcopacy, because 'tis contrary to the Canons. He likewise therein declares, that he would not accept of the Resignation of the Bishop of Arragon, who had desired to relinquish his Bishopric because of his Infirmities. He says, that he had advised him to make use of an Ecclesiastic to take care of the Temporalities of his Diocese, and to apply himself wholly to Spiritual Affairs with the assistance of his Neighbouring Bishops; and that if his Infirmities continued upon him longer than an Year, and he were no longer capable of discharging his Episcopal Functions, one might with the Consent of the Clergy of that Church accept of his Resignation, and ordain in his stead the Person who should be elected to assist him in the Government of his Diocese, if he were fit for that Dignity. This Letter is directed to Sancho King of Arragon, and bears date January the 25th, 1075.  
In the Seventy seventh Letter of the same Book, directed to Gebehard Archbishop of Salzbourg, he advertises that Archbishop, that he ought not to detain the Tenths of a certain Territory, wherein a Bishopric had been founded in the time of Alexander II.  
In the Sixth Letter of the fourth Book, he determines that one cannot communicate with a dead Bishop who is excommunicate, nor pray for him: And he absolves him in case that he had involuntarily Subscribed to what the Emperor had acted against the Church. And in the Eighth Letter of the same Book, he order Absolution to be given at the point of Death to an excommunicate Bishop, if he required it, even before he had finished the Penance assigned him.  
In the Tenth Letter of the same Book, directed to the Countess of Flanders, he declares that the Clerks who kept Concubines, ought not to be tolerated to say Mass, or celebrate any Divine Office. And in the Twentieth and several others he says, That the People ought not to assist them therein.  
In the First Letter of the fifth Book, he reproves the Canons of Lucca for having bought their Benefices, and interdicts all those who had given Money for being Instituted and inducted into a great Church, and prohibits them from holding such Benefices.  
In the Thirteenth, Fifteenth and Sixteenth of the same Book, he determines that the Elections of Bishops ought to be done by the Clergy and Laity, with an unanimous Freedom and Consent.  
In the Eleventh Letter of the sixth Book, he enjoins the Canons of S. Martin's of Lucca to live Regularly and in Common, or at least to allow their Bishop a Prebendship for the Necessities of the Church.  
In the Six and thirtieth of the same Book, he threatens to excommunicate those who should buy Benefices. In the Thirty fourth, he had reckoned up three sorts of Simony, viz. a Manu, ab obsequio, a lingua: The first sort is when one gives Money either in ones own Person, or by others, for the obtaining a Benefice. The second is when in hopes of a Benefice one does some signal Service to a Patron, who bestows it by way of Recompense for that Service. The third is when one Petitions, or causes another in ones behalf to Petition for a Benefice, and when one obtains it by Recommendation.  
In the Second Letter of the seventh Book, he declares the Canons who disobey their Bishop, to have for ever forfeited their Benefices, and forbids both Clergy and Laity from communicating with them.  
In the Tenth of the same Book, he desires that the Canonical Discipline of Penance should be re-established in England, and sends a Legate thither for that purpose. He therein declares that that Penance is Hypocritical, which is not attended with an amendment of Life.  
In the Eleventh he would not permit Divine Service to be celebrated among the Sclavonians in their own Language.  
In the Thirteenth, he order the Bishop of Verdun to enjoin a Count Pennance, who had Robbed a Bishop of Liege in his Journey to Rome, and to anathematise him, in case he would not submit to the Penance.  
In the Eighth Letter of the eighth Book, he congratulates the Bishop of Salerno, for having found the Relics of S. Matthew, and exhorts him to show them the Veneration which they deserve.  
In the Tenth of the same Book, it is observed that the Legate of the Holy See in Sardinia, obliged a Grecian Archbishop to cut off his Beard; the which Gregory approved of.  
In the Fifteenth of the same Book, he declares that he had ordered a Bishop of Italy, who had without just cause relinquished his Bishopric, to retire to the Monastery of Mount Cassin, and to stay there till such time as it was determined what should be done with him. But that Bishop instead of obeying him, re-entered upon his Church without his permission: Wherefore he prohibits his Clergy from acknowledging him for their Bishop, and from obeying him.  
In the Second Letter of the fourth Book, and in the One and twentieth of the eighth, he undertakes to prove that the Popes might excommunicate Kings and Sovereign Princes, and even absolve their Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance taken to them. But all the Authorities and Arguments which he makes use of to prove the Latter, are such as are either Supposititious, or founded on false Matters of Fact, or such as conclude nothing.  
In the First Letter of the ninth Book, he reproves the Archbishop of Rouen, for not having sent to desire the Pall from the Holy See, and prohibits him from performing any Ordination, or any Consecration of the Church, till such time as he should receive it from thence. This is the first Instance we meet with of the Pope's obliging Archbishops to take the Pall, under the Penalty of being deposed till they should receive them.  
In the Four and twentieth of the same Book, he refused to ordain a Bishop of Malta, because that Ordination belonged to the Bishop of Reatino.  
With respect to the Monastical Discipline, Gregory VII. applied himself chief to preserve 
The Letters of Gregory VII. concerning Monastical Discipline.  or increase the Exemptions and Privileges of Monasteries, or to regulate the Differences which happened between the Abbots, the Religious and the Bishops. We have already mentioned several of these kind of Causes, which he Tried himself at Rome, or referred to his Legates, or to other Commissaries upon the place. We will now relate some others which we have not had occasion to speak of.  
By the Two and thirtieth Letter of the first Book, dated November the 27th, 1073. he order the Bishop of Chartres to re-establish Isimbard Abbot of S. Laumer, who had quitted his Abbey to go to Jerusalem, in case he were guilty of no other Fault, and to turn out Guy, who had been put in his place, and who, they said, had not so much Piety as Isimbard, nor was so proper to govern that Monastery.  
In the Three and thirtieth, dated the next Day, he writes word to the Religious of the Monastery of Saint Mary, in the Diocese of Tortone, that he was not willing to confirm the Privilege, which being under the Name of Alexander II. had been presented to him, by Benedict whom they had elected their Abbot in the room of Hubert; since he had discovered it to be forged upon these two Accounts, first because it had false Latin in it, and secondly because it contained something in it contrary to the Intention of the Canons: That he did not think it advisable to grant them a new one, till the Church of Tortone had a Bishop elected according to the Canon, by whose consent he might grant them a Privilege conformable to the Ecclesiastical Authority. With respect to him whom they had elected for their Abbot, he acquaints them, that he did not think him proper for that Place, by reason of his great Age, and his Infirmities, and that he had advised him to resign it.  
In the One and fiftieth Letter of the first Book, he reprimands the Abbot of S. Severus, for not appearing at the Synod of Rome, to answer the Complaints preferred against him, concerning the Monastery of the Holy Cross, from which this Abbot was minded to take a Church. He prohibits him from giving that Monastery any disturbance, and orders him if he thought he had Reason for what he did, to come to the Synod held in November with the Abbot of the Holy Cross. This Letter is dated March the 14th, in the Year, 1074.  
By the Sixty sixth, Sixty seventh, Sixty eighth, Seventy second, Eighty first, Eighty second Letters of the same Book; by the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, Forty sixth, Fifty ninth, Sixtieth, and Sixty first of the second Book; by the Twenty fourth, Twenty fifth, Thirty first, and Thirty third of the sixth Book; by the Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty fourth of the seventh Book; and by the Sixth, Seventh, and Twenty ninth of the ninth Book, he vindicates the Privilege of several Monasteries against the Bishops, or any other Persons who seized on their Revenues, and had done any prejudice to their Rights or Immunities.  
Thus have we given you a full Account of the Actions, Conduct, Life, Writings, Sentences, and Determinations of Gregory VII. during his Pontificate, extracted out of his Letters, wherein he has described his own Character, and discovered what his Sentiments and Designs were. They are in all 359. which Compose a Register divided into Nine Books, containing all the Letters which he wrote from April 1073, to the Year, 1082. 'Tis observed that there was a Tenth Book, but 'tis lost: That which is called the Eleventh, contains only one entire Letter, and the Fragment of another, which may be connected with Seven or Eight other Letters extracted out of Lanfrank, and S. Anselm, or other Authors.  
The Judgements which have been passed on the Person, Conduct, Manners and Genius of 
The various Judgements passed upon Gregory VII.  Gregory VII. have been wholly contrary to each other. His Partisans have represented him to us as a Man very Religious and Pious, Just, Equitable, Humble, Patient, Unblameable both in his Life and Morals; a learned Canonist and a good Divine, Zealous for the Welfare of the Church, a Lover of Discipline, an Enemy to Vice, a Protector of the Innocent, an undaunted Defender of the Ecclesiastical Rights and Privileges, and a faithful Imitator of Gregory the Great in his Pastoral Care. His Enemies on the contrary have made him pass for a cruel, ambitious, and perfidious Man, who having seized by force on the Papal Chair, had put the whole Church into Confusion to gratify his Ambition, and to attain to his Designs; who without respect to the Royal Majesty or to the Sacerdotal Dignity, had a Mind to make Kings his Slaves, and Bishops his Creatures, by depriving the one of their States, and by unjustly Condemning the others, that he might afterwards give them Absolution: Who had utterly overturned the Discipline of the Church, by being willing to establish in his own Person a Monarchy, or rather Tyranny over things both Spiritual and Temporal: Who had advanced this unheard of Error so far as to maintain, that Popes might by Excommunicating Kings and Princes, divest them of their States, and absolve their Subjects from the Oath of Alliegance taken to them: Who had thundered out so many Excommunications, and extended them so far, that there was scarce a Man in his time who was sure of not being excommunicated. I omit speaking of the other gross Enormities with which they charged him; such as his being guilty of Sorcery, of holding a dishonest Familiarity with the Princess Matilda, and of being in the same Error as Berenger was about the Eucharist. There is no doubt to be made but that the Zeal of the One, and the Passion of the Others, carried them both into Extremes. To pass therefore a right Judgement upon him, it must be acknowledged that this Pope was a great Genius, capable of great Things, constant and undaunted in the execution of his Designs, well versed in the Constitutions of his Predecessors, Zealous for the Interests of the Holy See, an Enemy to Simony and Libertinism, Vices which he strongly opposed, full of Christian Thoughts and Zeal for the Reformation of the Manners of the Clergy; and there is not the least Colour to think that he was tainted in his own Morals. But it must likewise be confessed, that he was advanced to the Papal Chair a little too Precipitately: That his Zeal to promote the Grandeur of the Holy See catryed him to undertake such things as were unreasonable and beyond his Power: That he was the Cause of great Disturbances both in the Church and in the Empire: That he assumed to himself a Power over Kings and their States, which he never had: And that he carried the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Holy See beyond its due Bounds. This is the Judgement which we suppose every one will pass upon him, who shall read over his Letters with a disinterested and unprejudiced Mind. In short, they are penned with a great deal of Eloquence, full of good Matter, and embellished with noble and pious Thoughts: And we may boldly say, that no Pope since Gregory I. wrote such strong and fine Letters as this last Gregory did.  
We find among his Letters, after the Fifty fifth of the second Book, a piece Entitled, DICTATUS PAPAE. i e. An Edict of the Pope, or Papal Decisions; which contains Seven 
An Examen of the Decree said to belong to Gregory VII.  and twenty Propositions, concerning the Rights of the Holy See, some Feigned and some True. The Summary of them is as follows. (1.) That the Church of Rome owes its Foundation to none but God alone. (2.) That no other Person beside the Pope of Rome has a Right to be called UNIVERSAL BISHOP. (3.) That 'tis he alone who can depose Bishops and re-establish them. (4.) That his Legate ought in Council to preside over all Bishops, even tho' he be inferior to them in Dignity; and that he may pronounce a Sentence of Deposition against them. (5.) That the Pope may depose even absent Bishops. (6.) That no Man ought to live in the same House with them whom he has excommunicated. (7.) That 'tis Lawful for him alone to make new Laws, when Times require it, to found new Churches, to turn a Canonship into an Abbey, to divide a Rich Bishopric into two, and to consolidate Poor ones. (8.) That 'tis he alone, who can wear the imperial Robes. (9) That all Princes should kiss the Pope's Feet, and that 'tis to him alone they ought to pay this Honor. (10.) That his Name alone is to be repeated in the Churches. (11.) That there is no other Name but his in the World (that is, according to some, that to him alone belongs the Name of Pope; an Explication which seems to be very much strained. (12.) That 'tis lawful for him to depose Emperors. (13.) That he has the Power of Translating Bishops from one Bishopric to another, when there is a necessity for it. (14.) That he can ordain a Clerk in any Church whatsoever. (15.) That a Clerk whom he has ordained, may enter into another Church; but that he cannot be obliged to serve there; and that he cannot be promoted to a superior Order by any other Bishop. (16.) That no general Council ought to be held without his Order. (17.) That no Book can be Canonical without his Authority. (18.) That his Judgement ought to be corrected by none, and that he can correct the Judgements of all other Persons. (19) That no Person ought to Judge him. (20.) That no Person whatsoever dare to Condemn him, who appeals to the Holy See. (21.) That the Cognizance of the most material Causes of all Churches belongs to him. (22.) That the Church of Rome has always been, and will always be Infallible, according to the Testimony of the Scriptures. (23.) That the Pope of Rome ordained Canonically, becomes unquestionably HOLY by the Merits of S. Peter, according to the Testimony of Ennodius Bishop of Pavia, approved of by several Saints, and as it is recorded in the Decretals of Pope Symmachus. (24.) That by his permission 'tis lawful for Inferiors to accuse Superiors. (25.) That he can depose and re-establish Bishops without calling a Synod. (26.) That he who does not agree with the Church of Rome, is no true Catholic. (27.) That he can declare the Subjects of wicked Princes, absolved from the Oath of Alliegance, which they have taken to them.  
This Piece has no relation to the Letter which precedes it, nor to that which follows it; and we have not the least proof that it was made in the Council of Rome in the Year, 1076. as Baronius pretends. Nor is it probable that it belongs to Gregory VII. For tho' there be in this Collection several Propositions which have relation to what he wrote in his Letters, yet there are a great many which he never advanced, nor approved of. There are likewise some of them that are equivocal, others expressed in odious Terms, and others Intolerable. They are almost all of them drawn up so ill, that one cannot say Gregory VII. who had a good Genius, was the Author of them. This is what inclines me to believe that 'tis the Work of one who was an Enemy to Gregory, who was minded to render his Doctrine odious, by comprehending it in these Seven and twenty Propositions drawn up at random, which bear some resemblance to the Genius and Manners of that Pope. If this Conjecture be not agreeable to some, we may say that 'tis the Work of some Roman bigoted to the Maxims of the Court of Rome, who supposed he might deduce these Propositions from the Letters of Gregory VII. and made this Collection of them, which has been since inserted in the Register of that Pope. Let the Case be how it will, one cannot say without injustice to Gregory, that 'tis his Piece, nor maintain all these Propositions without doing injury to the Holy See.  
'Tis to be observed, that the Commentary upon the Seven Penitential Psalms, ascribed to Gregory the Great, was composed in the Time of Gregory VII. because the Author of this Commentary speaks in three places, viz. in Psal. 5. v. 9, 26. and in Psal. 27. against an Emperor of his Days, whom he accuses of renewing Simony in the Church; of having disturbed it by a dangerous Schism, of having a Mind to make it his Slave; of having seized upon what belonged to it; of making himself Master of the Church of Rome, and of having 
Other Writings of Gregory VII.  begun to exercise his Power against it. This has inclined many to believe that 'tis the Work of Gregory VII. which his Name made others think that it belonged to Gregory the Great: But the Style of this Piece does not seem so elegant as the Style of that Pope: However perhaps he might be more remiss in a Work of this Nature. There is in England a Commentary upon S. Matthew in Manuscript, which is ascribed to Gregory VII. and which they say he composed whilst he was only a simple Religious: But it has never yet been Published.   

CHAP. VI  
An Account of the Church of Rome, and of the Popes who Succeeded Gregory VII. to the end of this Century.  
AFTER the Death of Gregory VII. the Cardinals and the Clergy of Rome had their 
Victor III.  Eyes upon Didier Abbot of Mount Cassin, to advance him to the Popedom. Some Authors say that Gregory VII. had recommended him to them, before he Died. He was descended from a noble Family of Benevento, and had spent all his Life in the Monastery of Mount Cassin. He at first refused the Dignity which was offered him; so that the Holy See remained Vacant for almost a whole Year. In the mean time Guilbert the Antipope became Master of one part of the Churches of Rome, and would fain have been acknowledged for lawful Pope. The Cardinals and Bishops who acknowledged Gregory, to prevent Guilberts design, came to Rome about Easter in the Year, 1086. with the Prince of Salerno, and Duke Roger, to proceed to the Election of a Pope. When they were there, they renewed their Importunities to Didier, to engage him to accept of the Popedom; but he would never expressly consent to it. However, they Elected him, and having taken him by force, carried him to the Church of S. Lucia to proclaim him Pope under the Name of VICTOR III. But when they were about to put on him the Pontifical Robes, he made so great a Resistance, that they could not put his Albe on him, but only cast a red Chap about his Body. Four Days after he left Rome, and when he came to Terracina, threw off all the Ensigns of the Pontificate, and retired to Mount Cassin, where he lived privately, and could by no means be prevailed upon to be Ordained. But the Year after in a Council held at Capua during Lent, he yielded to the Entreaties of Duke Roger, of the Prince of Capua and of the Bishops, reassumed the Purple and the Pontifical Cross; and after he had spent the Easter Holidays in his Monastery, was Conducted to Rome by the Princes of Salerno and Capua, who having taken the Church of S. Peter by force from Guilbert, caused Victor to be Ordained by the Bishops of Ostia, Frescati, Pavia and Albania, and placed him on the Papal Chair, May the 9th in the same Year. This Election was not only opposed by the Favourers of Guilbert, but also by Hugh, who from the Bishopric of Dia was translated to the Archbishopric of Lions, and pretended to the Popedom; by the Archbishop of Aix and by Cardinal Richard Abbot of Marseilles, who were underhand supported by the Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, who had himself likewise some Votes on his side. The Archbishop of Lions was the greatest opposet of Victor's Ordination, and wrote 
The Letters of Hugh Archbishop of Lions.  against him two Letters to the Princess Matilda, to hinder her from acknowledging and assisting him: Accusing him of holding correspondence with the Emperor Henry. But these Letters made no impression on the Mind of that Princess; on the contrary she came forthwith to Rome with some Forces, and retook from Guilbert that part of the City of Rome which he was possessed of, and the Castle of S. Angelo. Within a while after, the Romans who favoured that Antipope, being got together, assaulted the Church of S. Peter on the Vigil of that Apostle's Festival, and obliged those who held out for Victor to throw themselves into the Castle of S. Angelo. The two Parties continued these Acts of Hostility for several Days together. But at last Victor desisted, and retired to his Monastery; from whence he went out in August, to hold a Council at Benevento, composed of the Bishops of 
The Council of Benevento under Victor III.  Apulia and Calabria; wherein he made a Speech against Guilbert, and issued out a fresh Anathema against him. He therein likewise excommunicated the Archbishop of Lions, and Richard Abbot of Marseilles; renewed the Prohibitions against receiving Benefices from the Hands of Lay Patrons, and the Penalties inflicted on those who were guilty of Simony; and prohibits the receiving the Communion from the Hands of excommunicated and simonical Persons. Victor fell Sick during this Council, which obliged him to return immediately to Mount Cassin, where he died September the 16th 1087. after he had recommended Otto Bishop of Ostia for his Successor.  
Otto was a French Man of Chatillon upon the Marne in the Diocese of Rheims. He had 
Urban II.  been taken out of the Monastery of Clunie to be Cardinal, and had done signal Services for Gregory VII. who had sent him Legate into Germany against King Henry. He could not be Elected immediately after the Death of Victor; because the Cardinals and the Bishops were dispersed. The Countess Matilda convened them again at Terracina the beginning of Lent in the Year ensuing, whither John Bishop of Porto, brought the Consent of the absent Cardinals; and Benedict Perfect of Rome, brought a Commission from the People of that City, to acknowledge him who should be elected Pope by the Assembly. Otto was proclaimed by the Cardinal Bishops of Porto, Frescati, and Albany, and the Choice confirmed by the whole Assembly. They gave him the Name of Urban II. and placed him on the Papal Chair. Upon his departure from Terracina, he went to Mount Cassin, where they say that he was miraculously Cured of a Pain in his Side, by S. Benedict who appeared to him, and who assured him that his Body was reposited in that Monastery. Roger and Beaumond the Counts of Apulia and Calabria, waited upon him in that Place, and carried him along with them into Apulia. He was almost constantly resident on their Territories or in Campania, and went now and then to Rome, which sometimes favoured Guilbert, and sometimes Him. For Guilbert was at first turned out by the Romans, and obliged to renounce the Popedom. Afterwards he was received there in the Year, 1091. retook the Castle of S. Angelo, and continued Lord of that City, so long as the Emperor Henry had the better of it: But his Son Conrade revolting in the Year, 1093. and in League with Welpho Duke of Italy, whom Urban had got to Marry the Princess Matilda; Guilberts Faction began to grow weaker, and Conrade whom that Pope favoured in his Revolt, caused Urban to be acknowledged in Lombardy, and to be received in Placenza, where he held a famous Council in the Year, 1095. He went from thence into France, where he called a Council at Clermont in Auvergne, wherein he gave in the Project of the grand CRUSADE, which was performed under his Popedom in the East. When he returned into Italy, he at last became Master of Rome, tho' Guilbert had a great many Favourers in that City. He died there July the 29th in the Year, 1099.  
The Register of this Pope's Letters is lost: Those that are left us are as follow.  
Urban's first Letter, is a Privilege granted to the Monastery of Bantino, which the Pope 
The Letters of Urban II.  had founded at the Instance of the Duke's Roger and Beaumond.  
The Second and Third are directed to the Archbishops of Toledo and Tarragon, about their Primacy.  
In the Fourth, he prescribes to the Archbishop of Milan the method he ought to use in reconciling those who had been ordained during the Schism: Which is to order them to come at the time wherein he gives the Blessing, and the Imposition of Hands, that is, at the time of Ordination, and to perform all the Ceremonies with relation to them, except the Unction.  
By the Fifth, he confirms to the Archbishop of Bari or Canosa, the dignity of Metropolitan, and grants him the Pall.  
In the Sixth, he exhorts the Duke's Roger and Beaumond to protect the Abbot and Monks of Bantino, against the Lords who persecuted them, and seized upon their Estates.  
In the Seventh, he grants the Archbishopric of Tarragon to the Bishop of Vich, which Berenger Count of Barcelona had lately re-established and Peopled with Christians.  
In the Eighth, he sent word to the Clergy and People of Chartres, that he approved of the Choice which they had made of Yves for their Bishop in the place of Geoffrey who had been deposed, and that he would send him to them, after he had Consecrated him. By the following Letter he acquainted Richerus Archbishop of Sens with the same thing, who had refused to Consecrate him, and enjoins him to receive him, and to use him kindly. This Letter is followed by a Discourse of that Pope, which contains a great many Instructions in a few Words, directed to Yves of Chartres after his Consecration.  
The Tenth is a Privilege granted by the Pope and Duke Roger to the Monastery of Cave.  
The Eleventh and Twelfth contain the Confirmation of the Privileges granted to the Canons of S. Martin of Tours.  
The Thirteenth is a kind of Declaration which the Pope made to Roger Count of Calabria and Sicily, that he would not send any Legate into his Dominions without his Consent: That he and the Princes his Successors shall be the innate Legates of the Holy See in their own Territories: And that when the Pope shall send for any Bishops or Abbots of their Country, he gives them leave to send whom they pleased, and retain those whom they should think fit.  
In the Fourteenth, he advertises the Count Radulphus, that the Clerks ought to be Subject to none beside their Bishops, and that secular Persons have no Jurisdiction over them.  
In the Fifteenth he interdicts a Priest of Salerno, who held a Church as the Patronage of a Laic, and pronounces the same Penalty against all those who received the Investiture of Benefices from any beside their Bishops.  
By the Sixteenth he acquaints Alexius the Emperor of Constantinople, of the great number of those engaged in the CRUSADE for the Relief of the Christians of the East, and exhorts him to assist them in their Expedition.  
In the Seventeenth, he replies to Lucius Provost of S. juvensius of Pavia upon several Questions which he had proposed to him. In this Letter he proves that all manner of Selling Ecclesiastical Things is Simony. And as to what that Provost had demanded, whether the Ordinations and Sacraments administered by the Simoniacal, by the Adulterous, or by any other notorious Offenders, were valid: He replies, that in case they be not separated from the Church by Schism or Heresy, their Ordinations are valid, and their Sacraments Holy and Venerable: That however his Predecessors Pope Nicholas II. and Pope Gregory VII. had prohibited the assisting at the Mass of such Priests as were guilty of these Irregularities, in order to bring them to Penance: But as to Schismatics and Heretics, that they have indeed the Form of the Sacraments, but not the Power and Efficacy of them; and that they do not produce their Effect, till those who have received them are reconciled to the Church by the imposition of Hands.  
The Eighteenth is a confirmation of the Privileges granted to the Archbishop of Salerno.  
In the Nineteenth, he acquaints two Abbots of Fossombrona, that he had excommunicated and deposed Guezilon Archbishop of Maience, who was Consecrated by excommunicated Persons.  
In the Twentieth, directed to the Archbishop of Sens and other Bishops of France, he declares that no Bishop has any power of absolving the King of France, whom he had excommunicated.  
In the One and twentieth, he wrote to the Archbishop of Lions to use his utmost Endeavours to oblige an Abbot to return to his Abbey, who was withdrawn to lead an heremitical Life.  
The ancient Collection of Urban's Letters contains only these One and Twenty: There have been several others added since of which a new Collection is made under other Heads.  
The first of these is a Letter directed to Gebehard Bishop of Constance, about the Difficulties he met with in executing the Excommunications thundered out by Gregory VII. He therein determines, (1.) That Guilbert and King Henry are Excommunicated. (2.) That all those who assist them are Excommunicated likewise. (3.) That those who Communicate with these Excommunicated Persons to the third Degree, ought not to be admitted into the Communion of the Church till they have been Absolved. (4.) That he will make an Order in a general Council concerning the Clerks who have been ordained by excommunicated Bishops; but that in the mean time, they ought to hold their Orders, who have been ordained without Simony by Catholic, tho' excommunicated Bishops, after they had been enjoined Penance: But yet they should not be permitted to take upon them any higher Order without urgent Necessity. (5.) That he ought to turn out of the clerical Order all those who are guilty of a Crime which deserves to be punished according to Law, whether they have committed it before or after their Ordination. Lastly, he makes that Bishop, as well as the Bishop of Passaw, Vicar of the Holy See for the Ecclesiastical Affairs of Germany.  
The Second is directed to Robert Count of Flanders, whom he exhorts to suffer the Church to enjoy the Revenues which belong to it. Notwithstanding this Remonstrance, that Prince continued to rifle the Revenues of the Church; whereupon the Clergy of Flanders preferred their Complaints against him to the Archbishop of Rheims, who ordered in a Council held in the Year, 1092. that Robert should restore to the Churches what he had taken away from them, under the pain of Excommunication. That Prince obeyed, and died within a short time after.  
The next Fourteen relate to the re-establishment of the Bishopric of Arras.  
In the Seventeenth, directed to Pibo Bishop of Toul, he renews the Decrees of Gregory VII. against the Simoniacal, and those who kept Concubines; and the Decree which prohibits the Children of Priests from entering into Holy Orders. He repeats what he had said in his Letter to Gebehard concerning Ordinations which were performed by excommunicated Persons. He excommunicates the Simoniacal, and declares that the Churches which they Consecrate, aught to be Consecrated over again by a Catholic Bishop. He leaves to the pleasure of Bishops, the receiving or rejecting those who are ordained without a Title. Lastly, He renews the Law which forbids Holy Orders to those who were guilty of Bigamy.  
In the Eighteenth, he permits Richerus Archbishop of Sens, to bestow some Live on some Regular Canons.  
In the Nineteenth, he answers Hugh Archbishop of Lions, that he may, if he thinks fit, admit of the Ordinations of the Clerks of his Diocese, who have received Orders from the Hands of another Bishop, if there be no other defect in their Ordination.  
In the Twentieth, he admonishes the Bishop of Laon, not to take away from the Monks of S. Remy of Rheims, a Church which they had in his Diocese, and determines in the general, that all the Churches which the Monks have been in Possession of for Thirty or Forty years together, shall still be Theirs.  
In the One and twentieth, he recommends to Count Raimond and the People of Narbonne, their Archbishop Dalmatius, and orders them to cause Restitution to be made to the Church of Narbonne, of all the Revenues which belong to it.  
In the Two and twentieth, he order the Abbot of Tomeri to restore several Revenues which he had taken from the Church of Narbonne, and the Monastery of S. Cucufato of Barcelona. By the next Letter he refers that Affair to Rainier his Legate upon the place.  
The Nine next Letters concern the Primacy of the Church of Toledo.  
The Thirty third, contains an Agreement between the Monks of S. Aubin of Angers, and the Monks of Trinity of Vendome.  
By the Four and thirtieth, he enjoins the Count of Poitiers to restore several Revenues which he had taken away from the Monastery of Vendome.  
In the Five and thirtieth, he upbraids the Archbishop of Rheims and the Bishops his Suffragans, for having permitted the King of France to part from his Wife, and to Marry one of his Kindred, and for that the Bishop of Senlis had blessed him upon the Marriage. He exhorts them to reprove the King, to prevail upon him to turn to his Duty, to set at Liberty Ives of Chartres, and if he did not obey, to excommunicate him, and interdict his Kingdom.  
These Letters are followed by a Collection of several Letters of Reginald Archbishop of Rheims, of Pope Urban, of Lambert Bishop of Arras, and of several others written about the Ordination of that Bishop of Arras, who having been elected by the Clergy and Laity of that City, had been denied Ordination by the Archbishop of Rheims. Pope Urban being informed thereof, enjoins that Archbishop to ordain him. Instead of doing it, he sent him to Rome, where the Pope ordained him himself. The Archbishop of Rheims was obliged to approve of this Ordination, and he wrote to Rob●… ●ount of Flanders in his behalf. The Pope when he went into France, sent for Lambert 〈◊〉 ●he Council of Clermont. That Bishop was taken Prisoner as he was going through Provence, and set at Liberty afterwards at the Pope's desire, who gave him a very kind reception, confirmed the Privileges of the Church of Arras, and deposed Gaucher Bishop of Cambray. Sometime after the Archbishop of Rheims wrote to Lambert against a Lord who had Plundered and Burnt a Village belonging to the Church of Cambray. This is the Subject Matter of the Letters we mentioned.  
Pope Urban held several Councils; the first at Rome in the Year, 1089. wherein he confirmed all that Gregory VII. had done against Guilbert. Several Lords proposed to the 
The Council of Rome, in the Year 1089.  Emperor Henry, to abandon Guilbert, for the procuring of Peace to the Empire and the Church. He was well enough inclined to it, but was diverted from it by his Bishops, who feared being deposed as well as Guilbert.  
The same year Urban held a Council at Melphi, wherein he renewed the Decrees against the Simoniacal, and concerning the Celibacy of those who were in Holy Orders. He therein 
The Council of Melphi, in the Year 1089.  enjoins that none should be admitted into Holy Orders but such as had led chaste Lives, and had never been Married to any more than one Woman: That none should be ordained Sub-deacon before he was Fourteen years old, nor Deacon before One and twenty, nor Priest before Thirty. He therein prohibits Laics from granting the Donation of Churches, without the Consent of the Bishop or the Pope: And Abbots from exacting Money of those who took upon them the Monastical Habit. He therein abolished the Custom of Exempt Clerks, who either were in the Service of great Lords or depended on them. He therein declares the Sons of Priests uncapable of entering into Holy Orders, unless they have taken upon them the Monastical Habit; and he advises ecclesiastics to behave themselves modestly. This is the Subject Matter of the Sixteen Canons made in that Council, which was held in the presence of Count Roger.  
The Legates of this Pope, held a Council at Toulose in the Year, 1090. wherein they made several Decrees about Discipline. The Archbishop of Toulose cleared himself in this 
The Council of Toulose, in the Year 1090. The Council of Benevento, in the Year 1091.  Council, and they there resolved to send Legates to Toledo for the re-establishing of the Faith.  
In the Year 1691. August the 1st, Urban held a Council at Benevento, wherein he renewed the Condemnations issued out against Guilbert, and made Four Canons. By the First, he prohibits the Electing any one for Bishop who is not in Holy Orders, that is, according to his Explication, who is not Deacon or Priest: And with respect to Subdeacons, he enjoins, that they cannot be promoted to Episcopacy, unless upon an extraordinary occasion, and with the Permission of the Holy See. In the Second, he suspends ab officio the Chaplains who are nominated and paid by Lay-Patrons, without the consent of the Bishop. In the Third he prohibits the receiving Clerks, who were Strangers, without Letters Dimissory from their Bishop. In the fourth, Laics are forbid the eating of Flesh after Ash-wednesday, and all the Faithful of both Sexes are enjoined to put Ashes on their Heads on that Day: It is likewise ordered that no Marriage shall be Solemnised from Septuagesima Sunday till after the Octave of Whitsuntide, and from the first Sunday in Advent till after the Octave of Epiphany.  
In the Year, 1093. he held a Council in a City of Apulia, called Troy's, wherein he renewed 
The Council of Troy's in Apulia in the Year, 1093. The Council of Constance in the Year, 1094. The Council of Plaisance in the Year, 1095.  the Prohibitions against contracting Marriages between Kindred.  
In the Year, 1094. Gebehard Bishop of Constance, his Legate in Germany, held a Council in his City against incontinent and simoniacal Clerks. He likewise ordered that Ember Week in March should be held the first Week in Lent, and that in June the Whitsun Week, and that there should be no more than three Holydays at Easter and Whitsuntide; for till then they were used to keep Holiday all the Week long. The Princess Praxedis, Henry the Emperor's Wife, appeared before that Council, and discovered a great many Enormities, which she said she had been constrained by her Husband to commit.  
She made the same Declaration before the Pope, in the Council held at Plaisance in the Year, 1095. during Lent, which was so numerous that they were forced to hold the Assembly in the open Field. Philip King of France sent his Ambassadors thither to excuse his not appearing. The Pope allowed him time till Whitsuntide. Hugh Archbishop of Lions was Suspended in this Council, because he neither appeared there himself, nor sent any Deputy to excuse him. The Pope gave audience to the Ambassadors of the Emperor of Constantinople, who demanded assistance against the Infidels, and he engaged the Lords who were there present to promise to go into the East for that purpose: This was the first step towards the CRUSADE, which was fully resolved upon in the Council of Clermont. There were likewise several Rules of Discipline made in this Council, by which it is ordered that those who will not part with their Concubines, or pardon their Enemies, or were habituated in any mortal Sin, should not be admitted to the Holy Communion. That the Priests shall admit none to Penance but those who shall be referred to them by the Bishops. That the Eucharist shall not be denied to those, who shall confess themselves as they ought. They renewed likewise the Decrees against the Simoniacal, and the Incontinent, and the Judgements passed against the Heresy of Berenger, against Guilbert, and against those who were ordained by Schismatics.  
Urban going into France, in November, 1095. held a Council at Clerment in Auvergne, 
The Council of Clermont in the Year, 1095.  which was composed of Thirteen Archbishops, and a great many Bishops their Suffragans; wherein he confirms the Decrees of the Council of Plaisance, and made other new ones; published the CRUSADE for the East; excommunicated King Philip; confirmed the Primacy of the Archbishop of Lions, and made a great many other Institutions. These are the things we will speak of more particularly, and will begin with the Excommunication of Philip I. King of France. This Prince had put away his Wife Bertha, the Daughter 
King Philip I. Divorced from Bertha.  of Florentius the chief Count of Holland, and of Gertrude of Saxony, for being too nigh a Kin to him. This Divorce having been made in form by the Authority of the Church in the Year, 1086. and in pursuance of a juridical Sentence, the King banish d her to Monstrevil a Sea Port, and looked after another Wife. At first he courted the Daughter of Roger Count of Sicily, named Emma, who was carried to the Borders of Provence; but the Match broke off, perhaps because she did not think it safe to Marry a Prince who had another Wife Living. Bertrade the Daughter of Simon of Montfert, who had Married Fulcus Rechinus Count of Anjou, pleased the King, and she made no scruple to part from her Husband and Marry him: She was the King's Relation in the fifth or sixth Degree, and Rechinus her Husband, in the third or fourth Degree. Besides, if Philip were free as he pretended, Bertrade was not, her first Marriage being still valid. All these considerations were of no weight to King Philip, who surmounted them all, and resolved upon solemnising this Marriage with Bertrade publicly. He fixed upon a Day to celebrate it at Paris, and sent for Reginald Archbishop of Rheims, Yves of Chartres, and several other Prelates to render the Solemnity the more Authentic. Yves of Chartres sent the King word, that he could not be there, nor could he consent to, or approve of that Marriage, because his Divorce from Bertha had not as yet been confirmed by the Authority of the Holy See, and because Bertrade could not Marry him, being another Man's Wife. He sent likewise word to the Archbishop of Rheims; that he ought not to celebrate this Marriage, but rather to dissuade the King from it. Lastly, he wrote to Hugh Archbishop of Lions (who because of this business refused to take upon him the quality of Legate of the Holy See in France) telling him that he ought to be inspirited with a Holy Zeal in order to oppose this Criminal Proceeding of the King. Notwithstanding this, Philip Married Bertrade, and found out a Bishop who dared to Marry them for the Revenue of some Churches which the King gave 
The Council of Autun in the Year, 1094.  him. Hugh of Lions at the instance of Yves of Chartres held a Council at Autun October the 16th in the Year, 1094. wherein he excommunicated Philip, because he had Married a second Wife whilst the first was Living. In this Council he likewise renewed the Excommunications against the Emperor Henry, and against the Antipope Guilbert; and the Decrees against the Simony and Incontinence of the Clergy; and prohibited Monks from usurping the functions and rights of Curates. Pope Urban suspended the execution of this Decree against Philip, and cited him to the Council of Plaisance, whither he sent, as we mentioned before, his Ambassadors, who obtained a farther Respite till Whitsuntide. Afterwards when Urban was come to France, the King sent his Deputies before him, to endeavour to work the Pope into a good Disposition, and to prevail upon him to cancel the Excommunication, and to confirm his Marriage: But the Pope being prevented by the Letters of Yves of Chartres, refused to grant him what he desired, and wrote to the Archbishops and Bishops of France ordering them to exhort the King to do Penance for his Fault, and to part from Bertrade: Yves of Chartres was the only Person who did it with Resolution, which was the cause of his being persecuted, and taken Prisoner. The Pope perceiving that all his Admonitions proved ineffectual, in the Council of Clermont thundered out a Bull of Excommunication against King Philip, and his Concubine Bertrade.  
As to the CRUSADE set on foot for the relief of the Christians in the East, Gregory 
The CRUSADE under Urban II.  VII. was the first promoter of it, but could not put it into practice because of his differences with the Emperor. Victor III. notwithstanding the difficulties he laboured under, found out a Means of sending an Hundred thousand fight Men into Africa against the Infidels. Urban in imitation of those great Exemplars, and being importuned by the Letters of Alexius Emperor of the East, and by the remonstrances of Peter the Hermit, a Gentleman of Picardy near Amiens, who had brought a Letter from Jerusalem from the Patriarch Simeon, who conjured the Christians to free the Holy Land from the Tyranny of the Turks, did so animate the Bystanders, by his warm and pathetical Discourses to undertake the Conquering of the Holy Land, and so far prevailed upon all the Prelates to make use of the same Exhortations in their Dioceses, that within a very short time an infinite number of Men were listed for that Service, and took a Voyage by Sea under the Conduct of a great many Princes and Persons of Quality. The Badge which the Soldiers wore was a Red Cross sewed on the left Shoulder, and the Military Word, Deo placet.  
We have not all the Canons which were made in this Council of Clermont complete, but only an Abridgement of them, of which the largest is that which was made by Lambert Bishop 
The Canons of the Council of Clermont.  of Arras, who was, as we said before, at that Council. They are Two and thirty in all. The First takes notice of the Days wherein the Breach of the Peace or Truce of God was made. The Second imports, that the Voyage of those who went to Jerusalem out of Devotion to deliver the Church of that City, shall serve them instead of all manner of Pennances. The Third, that the Deaneries of Churches shall be bestowed only on Priests; and the Archdeaconeries only on Deacons. The Fourth, that the Clerks shall not bear Arms. The Fifth, that Laics cannot be chosen Bishops, and that those who are Elected, shall be Subdeacons at least. The Sixth, that no Person shall Sell Prebendships or any other Benefices, and that those who shall give any Money for them, shall resign them into the Hands of the Bishop. The Seventh, that the Altars bestowed on the Congregations of Monks or Canons, after the Death of those who gave them shall be at the Disposal of the Bishops, if they have not been confirmed to them by their Letters. The Eighth, that no Person shall exact any Duty for Burial. The Ninth and Tenth are against those Clerks who keep Concubines. The Eleventh prohibits the promoting to Holy Orders and to Ecclesiastical Dignities the Sons of Concubines; or the bestowing any Benefices upon them unless they have embraced the monastical or canonical Life. The Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth prohibit one and the same Person from holding two Prebendships, or two Live in the same, or in several Churches, and from altering the Title. The Fifteenth prohibits the receiving the investiture of Live from Lay Patrons. The Sixteenth prohibits Kings and Princes from granting the investiture of Live. The Seventeenth prohibits Bishops and Priests from taking an Oath of Allegiance to Kings or any other Laic. The Eighteenth prohibits Laics from having Chaplains Independent on the Bishop. The Nineteenth and Twentieth prohibit them from detaining the Tenths or Churches. The One and Two and twentieth prohibit the granting Absolution to those who are in possession of another's Right, unless they make Restitution; and to those who live in the habitual Commission of any mortal Sin. The Three and twentieth prohibits Christians from Eating Flesh from Ash-wednesday till Easter. The Four and twentieth fixes the times of Ordination, viz. the four Ember Weeks, and the Saturday of the third Week in Lent: And declares that if it were possible, they should continue their Fast till Sunday Morning, that so the Celebration of Holy Orders might be on that Day. The Five and twentieth imports, that the Children of Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons shall not be promoted to Holy Orders, if they be not either Monks or regular Canons. The Six and twentieth, that on Holy Saturday the Fast shall last till Night. The Seven and twentieth, that the Ember Week in Spring shall be always the first Week of Lent, and that in Summer in the Whitsun Week. The Eight and twentieth, that all those who shall communicate at the Altar shall receive the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST under both Kind's, if there be no necessity or provision made for the Contrary. The Nine and twentieth and Thirtieth, that those who fly to a Cross, when pursued by their Enemies, shall be as secure as those who fly into a Church: And that they shall not be delivered up to Justice, till they are assured that no Violence shall be offered to their Lives or Members. The One and thirtieth anathematizes those who shall seize on the Revenues of the Church. And the Two and thirtieth declares that those who shall apprehend or imprison a Bishop, shall be in perpetual Disgrace, and never capable of bearing Arms.  
In this very Council Pope Urban confirmed the Primacy of the Archbishop of Lions, in 
The Confirmation of the Primacy of Lions.  opposition to the Archbishop of Sens, as 'tis intimated in the Bull of Confirmation, dated the first of December in the Year, 1095. published by Monsieur de Marca, with an ingenious Discourse of his own about Primacies. Richerus Archbishop of Sens would not submit to this Constitution; but Hugh Archbishop of Lions, got it ratified in the two succeeding Councils held at Tours and at Nismes: and Urban obliged Danibert, who succeeded Richerus, to promise that he would acknowledge the Archbishop of Lions for his Primate. Urban likewise in this Council adjusted the Difference which was between the Archbishop of Tours and the Monks of the Monastery of S. Martin's, upon condition that that Archbishop should not have any Station, nor perform any Office in their Church, nor be capable of Excommunicating them: Only they should receive Holy Orders and the other Sacraments from the Hands of the Archbishop of Tours.  
Before the Council of Clermont broke up, the Pope appointed another Council at Tours, 
The Council of Lymoges in the Year, 1095. The Councils of Tours and Nismes in the Year, 1096. The Canons of the Council of Nismes.  to be held in Lent the Year ensuing; and in his Journey thither he held a Council at Lymoges in December, 1095. wherein 'tis said that he deposed Humboldus Bishop of that City. When he arrived at Tours he held a Council there according to Appointment, wherein he renewed his Exhortations to engage all manner of Persons to undertake the Expedition to the Holy-Land, and adjusted the Differences of several Monasteries. From thence he went to Nismes, where he held another Council, wherein he gave Absolution to King Philip, who promised to part from Bertrade; and made Sixteen Canons.  
By the First all Bishops are prohibited from bestowing Altars, Churches or Prebendships for Money: And a reservation is made to the Monks of the Altars and Tenths which they have been in possession of for Thirty Years past, upon condition that they pay the yearly Quitrent. It is therein likewise ordered that the Monks shall not institute and induct Priests into the Churches which they possess, without the Consent of the Bishop: That they shall be instituted and inducted into them by the Bishop with the Approbation of the Abbot, and that they shall be accountable to the Bishop for the Spiritualities, and to the Abbot for the Temporalities.  
By the Second and Third it is proved by several Authorities, that the Monks may administer the Sacraments, and take upon them the Care of Souls.  
The Fourth sets a Brand of Infamy upon, and Excommunicates those who dare to make the ecclesiastics Prisoners.  
The Fifth enjoins that after the Death of the Bishop, two Persons of Probity shall be made choice of to take care of the Revenues of his Church, and to preserve them for the use of his Successor: And excommunicates all that shall seize on them; and interdicts the Cathedral Church and the Churches that depend upon it.  
The Sixth and Seventh excommunicate the Laics who possess or detain the Revenues of the Church.  
The Eighth enjoins that those who shall receive Benefices from the Hands of Laics shall be Suspended ab officio.  
The Ninth, That those who leave a small Church to go to a great one, shall lose both of them.  
The Tenth, that those who Mary their Relations shall be Excommunicated.  
The Eleventh, that Ravishers who are Killed in the very Rape, without having done Penance, shall be deprived of Christian Burial, and of the Prayers of the Church.  
The Twelfth, that the Priests who are guilty of Fornication shall be Deposed.  
The Thirteenth, that young Women shall not be Married before they are twelve Years old.  
The Fourteenth, that it is not Lawful to alien the Revenues given to the Church, nor to cite Clerks before secular Judges.  
The Fifteenth, that Bishops shall not entertain those who have been Excommunicated by other Bishops.  
The Sixteenth, that Monks shall not grant Burial to, nor admit to Divine Service Persons who are Excommunicated, Suspended, or are guilty of Rape. 
The Councils of Bari and Rome in the Year, 1098. The Council of Rome in the Year, 1099.   
When the Pope was returned to Italy, he held a Council at Bari in the Year, 1098. wherein S. Anselmn disputed against the Greeks about the Procession of the HOLY GHOST. He held likewise another Council about the end of the same Year at Rome, of which we have no Monument, except his granting a farther time to the King of England. Lastly, in the Year, 1099. he called a grand Council at Rome the last of March, wherein he Published Eighteen Canons, which are only a Repetition of the Canons of the Council of Placenza, and of the other last Councils, against the Simoniacal, and the Usurpators of the Revenues of the Church.  
The Canons of the Council of Clermont were published and confirmed in a Council held 
The Council of Rouen in the Year, 1096.  at Rouen in the Year, 1096. under William Archbishop of that City, wherein Eight Canons were made, of which the first four are about that which they call the Truce of God: That is to say, the Days wherein it is prohibited to make War, and the Persons whom 'tis not Lawful to Assault. The Fifth reserves to the Churches all the Revenues of which they were in Possession of, and prohibits Laics from exacting any thing from them. The Sixth prohibits likewise Laics from giving Churches to, or taking them from Priests without the Consent of the Bishop; and prohibits in general all the Faithful from wearing long Hair. The Seventh imports that Laics shall have no Ecclesiastical Courts of Judicature. And the Eighth, that the Priests shall not be Vassals to Laics.   

CHAP. VII.  
An Account of the Controversies on foot between the LATIN and the GREEK Churches in the Eleventh Century.  
THO' The Latin and Greek Churches were not in a close Communion with each 
The Letter of Michael Cerularius and Leo of Acridia against the Church of Rome.  other ever since the Affair of Photius, yet they did not proceed to an open Rupture till the time of Pope Leo IX. and of Michael Cerularius Patriarch of Constantinople. This Breach began by a Letter which the Latter wrote in the Year, 1053. in his own Name and in the Name of Leo Archbishop of Acridia and of all Bulgaria, to John Bishop of Trani in Apulia, that he might communicate it to the Pope and to all the Western Church. In▪ this Letter they reproved the Latins. (1.) Because they made use of unleavened Bread in the celebration of the Eucharist. (2.) Because they Fasted on the Saturdays in Lent. (3.) Because they Eat the Blood of Beasts, and things Strangled. (4.) Because they did not Sing ALLELUIAH in Lent. At the same time Michael Cerularius ordered the Churches of the Latins who were at Constantinople to be shut up, and to deprive the Abbots and Latin Religious, who would not renounce the Ceremonies of the Roman Church, of the Monasteries which they held in that City.  
This Letter of Michael being brought into Italy by an Officer of the Emperor Constantine 
The Letter of Leo IX. to Cerularius.  Monomachus, who went thither to carry on a Treaty with the Pope against the Normans, was communicated to Cardinal Humbert, who was at Trani; he turned it into Latin, and sent a Copy of it to Pope Leo. This Pope wrote upon that Subject a Letter to Cerularius and to Leo of Acridia, wherein he extols the Dignity of the Church of Rome, and complains of the unkind usage which the Greeks had shown to the Latins at Constantinople without discanting on any of the particular Points. He only observed in general, that the Diversity of Ceremonies is no lawful Foundation for the breach of the unity of the Church. This is the first Letter of Leo, of which we have made mention in another place.  
The Greek Emperor, whose interest it was to hold it fair with the Pope, that he might 
The Letter of the Greek Emperor to the Pope.  still be Master of that little which he had in the West, wrote him a Letter, whereby he declares that he was willing to procure the Union of both Churches: And the Patriarch of Constantinople took notice to him likewise that he desired the same. The Pope who as much desired this reunion as the Greeks, as well for the Welfare of the Church, as because he was willing to be secured against the Normans in Apulia, the next Year sent three Legates 
The Legation of the Pope to Constantinople.  to Constantinople, viz. Cardinal Humbert Bishop of Blanchesolva, Cardinal Frederick archdeacon and Chancellor of the Church of Rome; and Peter Archbishop of Melphi. He sent them with Letters to the Emperor and to the Patriarch, wherein he commends the Zeal, which the Emperor expressed for the Peace of the Church, and complained of the Patriarch's Proceed against the Church of Rome, even at a time when he pretended to be desirous of Peace. These are the sixth and seventh Letters of Leo. In that which is directed to the Patriarch he upbraids him with four Things of which mention is made 
* P. 25, 26. Humbert presents the Writings and Letters to the Emperor of Greece.  before, and which 'tis not thought fit to repeat. This Letter is ●…ated in January, 1054.  
The Legates being arrived at Constantinople on the Feast of S. John Baptist, were kindly received by the Emperor Humbert, who was the Spokesman who presented to that Prince the Pope's Letters, and gave Michael that which was directed to him. He likewise presented to the Emperor a Writing which he had Composed in answer to the Letter of Cerularius, with a Resutation of the Treatise composed by Nicetas Pectoratus Monk of Studia, against the Practices of the Latins. The Emperor having caused them to be turned into Greek, made them to be Published in Constantinople, concealing the Names of Humbert and Michael under those of Romanus and Constantinopolitanus.  
In the Reply to the Letter of Cer●larius, Humbert accuses the Greeks of tolerating Heretics 
Humbert's Reply to the Letter of Cerularius.  among them, and surpassing all of them in their Rashness; because they had the Confidence to confront the Church of Rome, and to Anathematise it openly; which never any Heretic dared to do. He afterwards demonstrates that 'tis a piece of Malice to accuse the Latins of imitating the Jews in Unleavened Bread, and in the Sabbath: Since they observe not the Ceremonies of their Passovers; and are so far from Feasting on their Sabbath, that they Fast on that Day. That this reflected rather on the Greeks, who spent the Saturday in Mirth, as if it were a ●estival Day. He proves that the Unleavened is the true Bread, and enlarges himself on the Advantages and mystical Significations, which it may have. He observes that the Bread which is offered in the Church of Rome is a great deal more proper and convenient than that which the Greeks make use of; because 'tis made in the Vestry with fine Wheat, and clear Water by the Ministers of the Altar, and they offer a whole Loaf: Whereas the Greeks make use of all manner of Bread, of which they cut a round Piece to put upon the Altar, and return or 
Is it not a great Sign that Cardinal Humbert and the other great Men of these Times had little to do, when they thus le●t the Substance ●o hun● after the mere Shadow of Religion?  inter the Remainder, a Practice which Humbert Condemns as contrary to the Respect due to those Holy Mysteries. As to the second Charge, relating to the Saturday's Fast, Humbert only replies in one Word, that the Latins do not Feast on the Sabbath or Saturday, as do the Jews, neither in Lent nor out of Lent. As to the third Point relating to things Strangled, he says that the Latins make use of that Liberty which the Apostle has given them, of eating all manner of Meats; but withal observing the Custom of the Churches wherein they Live, that they might give no occasion of Offence. He adds, that they likewise abhor Eating of Blood, or the Flesh of such Animals as are Drowned or Stifled, and that they enjoin Penance to those who do it: But as to Beasts killed or taken in Hunting, 'tis their Custom to eat thereof without any Scruple. In short, as to the last Head, which relates to the omission of singing ALLELUIAH in Lent, He makes it appear that the Latins do not omit it out of any Aversion thereto; but that they look upon it as an Hymn of Thanksgiving, which is not so suitable to that holy time of Penance and Humiliation. In this Treatise he speaks very sharply against the Greeks, whom by way of Induction he accuses of being Marcionites, Manichees, Theopaschites, etc. He upbraids them with Rebaptising the Latins; with suffering Children to Die without Baptism, if they be not eight Days old; with interring the remainder of the Holy Eucharist; with permitting married Men to wait at the Altars, even at a time when they have had to do with their Wives, when at the same time they refused to give the Communion to Women newly brought to Bed, or who have their usual Infirmities upon them; with tolerating Sarabait Monks guilty of Fornication, whereas they blamed the Rule of S. Benedict, which allows the Monks of that Order to wear Breeches in a Journey, and to eat of Flesh when they have occasion for it; and lastly because they represent in their Crucifixes the figure of a dying Man, so that upon the Cross of JESUS CHRIST a sort of Antichrist is exhibited to be adored as a God.  
The writing of Nicetas Pectoratus, a Studite Monk, against the Latin Church is a great 
The Writing of Nicetas against the Latin Church.  deal more fierce than the Letter of Michael Cerularius. He gins with an Admonition to the Latins, to hearken with Humility and Charity to the Remonstrances which he would offer to them, concerning Unleavened Bread, the Fast on Saturday, and the Marriage of Priests. Upon the first Point he says, That those who make use of Unleavened Bread are still under the shadow of the Law: That they assist at the Table of the Jews, and do not eat that Bread which is Supersubstantial, or Consubstantial to us; because Unleavened Bread is Dead Bread which has no Virtue or Efficacy in it: That 'tis not such Bread as is perfect, complete, or composed of three Things which figure out to us the Body of JESUS CHRIST, which are the Leaven, the Meal, and the Water; representations of the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood of our Saviour. He pretends that JESUS CHRIST made use of leavened Bread in the Institution of the Holy Eucharist; because he instituted it on the Thirteenth, and not on the Fourteenth Day of the Moon of March before the Feast of Unleavened Bread; and that the Apostles forbade the making use of Unleavened Bread. As to the second Point, he asks the Latins upon what they ground the Fast on Saturday, since S. Clement has instituted the Fasts on Wednesday and Friday, because JESUS CHRIST was betrayed on Wednesday, and fastened to the Cross on Friday: But that he prohibited the Fast on Saturday, since there was not the least colour for it. He moreover Cites the Canons of the Apostles, the Constitutions of S. Clement, and a Canon which is attributed to the sixth Council. He likewise found fault that the Latins did celebrate the whole Mass on Fast Days; and to refute this Custom he produced a Canon of the Apostles, several Canons of the Councils of Gangres and Laodicea, and of the Council of Trullo▪ which he again Cites under the name of the sixth Council, which he makes use of to Authorize the Usage of the Mass of Preconsecrated Bread every Fast Day, which he sets forth in these Terms.  
On Saturday and Sunday (says he) about nine a Clock we offer the Sacrifice, and Consecrate as much Bread as will serve the rest of the Week: On other Days about three a Clock in the Afternoon, when the Service is ended by the 
* The Roman Vespers.  Complines, the Priests and Deacons come in carrying a Censer; and after they have read the Prophecies, and said the Prayers prescribed by S. Basil, before the Altar where the Sacred Mysteries lie, we repeat the Lord's Prayer; and afterwards we elevate the Preconsecrated Bread, and say, SANCTA SANCTIS: After which we receive the Communion of the Bread and Cup, and having returned thanks to God, we send away the People, and those▪ who please, take their repast of Pulse and Water. And there are some who go the whole Week without any other Nourishment than that of the Communion. Lastly upon the last Head, which is concerning the Marriage of Priests, he asked the Latins who taught them to hinder married Persons from being ordained Priests, or to force them to part from their Wives? He confuted this Custom by the Constitutions of S. Clement, and by the Council of Trullo. He concludes this Treatise with an Exhortation to the Latins to submit to his Admonitions, or to produce manifest Authorities from the Holy Scriptures to justify their Customs.  
Humbert in his Reply gins with casting Reflections and Reproaches on this Monk, and took it very ill that he (contrary to the Duties of his Profession) should concern himself in 
Humbert' s Reply to Nicetas.  writing against the Roman Church. He rejects his Thought concerning the Consubstantiality of the leavened Bread, as a Chimaera bred only in his own Brain; and his Application of the Passage out of S. John concerning the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, as wresting the true Sense of the Scripture: And he takes an occasion to charge him with Heresy, because he had said that the Quickening Spirit remained in the Body of JESUS CHRIST after his Death. He does not enlarge himself much about the use of Unleavened Bread, supposing that he had said enough in his Reply to Michal Cerularius; he only observes that it cannot be said that JESUS CHRIST celebrated the Passover the thirteenth of the Moon of March, and with leavened Bread, because if it had been so, he would have been guilty of a double Breach of the Law, which he had observed in all its parts with the greatest strictness imaginable. He rejects the Constitutions and Canons of the Apostles, except the first Fifty, as Apocryphal Pieces. He pretends, that after the Sixth Council, the Emperor Constantine Heraclius having asked the Pope's Legates after what manner they celebrated the Eucharist, they returned this Answer, viz. That they made use of Wine mingled with Water, and of Unleavened Bread; and that the Emperor approved of the Tradition of the Holy Apostolical See. This is a Matter of Fact of Humbert's advancing that cannot be met with in any Record: As to what concerns the Saturday's Fast, he says that since the Greeks think it requisite to ●ast every Wednesday and Friday in the Year, because our Saviour was betrayed and Crucified on those Days, and since they were likewise willing to Fast on Holy Saturday, because of his remaining in the Sepulchre on that Day, they ought for the same Reason either to Fast every Saturday in the Year, or else to Fast only on the Wednesday and Friday of the Holy Week▪ and to celebrate Easter Sunday only in Honour of the Resurrection of our Saviour. He rejects the Canons of the Council of Trullo, as supposititious or corrupted; he disapproves of the making use of preconsecrated Bread on Fast-days, as being contrary to the Practice of the Apostles, and the example of JESUS CHRIST, who consecrated the Bread just before they distributed it. He calls Nicetas a perfidious Sterconanist, because he seems to suppose that the Eucharist broke the Fast, from whence he concludes that he believed that the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST were of the same nature with other Aliments, and were turned into Excrements. He says that in the Latin Church they usually celebrated Mass on Sundays and Holydays at the 
* A Popish Canonical Hour.  Tierce Hour, and on Fast-days at Noon, or about Night; but that when necessity required, it might be celebrated at any Hour without breaking one's Fast. He reproves the Greeks, because in breaking the Consecrated Bread they took no Care to gather up the Crumbs which fell; because they rubbed their Patens with Leaves, or a Brush; because they crowded the Consecrated Bread into their Boxes, by thrusting it down with their Hands; because in elevating the Consecrated Bread, at the Mass of the Preconsecrated Bread, they seemed to offer one and the same Oblation twice; because they did not observe the Decretal of Pope Clement, who required that no more Hosts should be Consecrated than what were sufficient for the Communicants, and that if any were left, they should not be kept till the Morrow, but be consumed; because immediately after they had communicated they fell to Ea●ing; because that a great many of them did not observe Lent, and because several others fasted only a Week, the which they styled the Lent of Theodorus. Lastly, he charges Nicetas with being a Nicolaitan, because he opposed the Celibacy of Priests and Deacons. He explains the Canons which prohibit Priests from parting with their Wives; of the Care which they ought to take of them, in looking upon them still as their Wives, tho' they have no Carnal Knowledge of them. He produces the Canon of the Council of Nice, concerning Women who live with Clerks, and several Authorities of the Popes, to prove that Priests ought to live chastely. In short, he charges the Greeks for not ordaining Ministers till after they had obliged them to Marry, and concludes all by anathematising Nicetas.  
Cardinal Humbert was not satisfied with having refuted this Monk in so blunt a way, he 
The Retractation of Nicetas.  was willing likewise to make him recant; and when he went with the Emperor and the other Legates to the Monastery of Studius, he obliged him to Condemn and Burn his own Writing, and to anathematise all those who denied that the Church of Rome was the chief Church of the World, and who Dared to call its Doctrine into Question. The next Day Nicetas went himself to wait upon the Legates at the Palace of Pigi, without the City, where they resided; and after he had a second time Condemned what he had written or done against the Holy See, he was admitted into their Communion, and became one of their Friends. But as for Michael Cerularius he was not so forward to revoke what he had written; on the contrary he avoided meeting with the Legates, and holding any Conference with them. When the Legates 
The Excommunication of Michael Cerularius by the Pope's Legates.  perceived that he continued Obstinate, they went July the Sixteenth, which happened to be a Saturday, to the Church of St. Sophia about Nine a Clock, when they were just upon celebrating Mass; and after they had complained of the Obstinacy of Michael Cerularius, they laid on the high Altar in the presence both of Clergy and Laity, a Sentence of Excommunication against that Patriarch, drawn up in these Terms.  

HUMBERT, by the Grace of God, Cardinal Bishop of the Holy Church of Rome, PETER Archbishop of Melphi, FREDERICK Deacon and Chancellor, to all the Sons of the Catholic Church Greeting.  
The Holy Apostolic See of Rome, which is the Chief of the whole World, to which as to the Head belongs in a more especial manner the Care of all the Churches; has sent us to this Royal City in the quality of its Legates for the Welfare and Peace of the Church, that as it is Written, we should go down and s●e whether the Cries which pierce its Ears from this great City be true or no. Let therefore the Emperor's, Clergy, Senate and People of this City of Constantinople know, That we have here found more Good to excite our Joy, than Evil to raise our Sorrow. For as to the supporters of the Empire, and the principal Citizens, the City is wholly Christian and Orthodox: But as for Michael, who took upon him the false title of Patriarch, and his Adherents, we have found that they have sown Discord and Heresy in the midst of this City, because they sell the Gifts of God like the Simoniacal; because they imitate the Valesians, in causing Eunuches to take upon them Holy Orders, and in advancing them to the Episcopacy itself; because they Rebaptised, as did the Arians, those who had been Baptised in the Name of the Blessed Trinity, and particularly the Latins; because with the Donatists they maintain that the Greek Church is the only true Church, and that the Sacrifices and Baptism of none else are Valid; because with the Nicolaitans they allow of Priests cohabiting with their Wives; because with the Severians they enjoined the Observation of the Law of Moses; because they have struck out of the Creed the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Person of the Son, as the Pneumatomachi (that is the Macedons, who denied the Divinity of the Ho●y Ghost;) because with the Manichees they ascribed a Soul to the leavened Bread; because with the nazarenes they were such strict observers of the Legal Purity, that they would not Baptise Infants, who died within eight Days after they were Born, nor admit Women in Travail, or who had the usual Infirmities of Nature upon them, to Baptism or the Communion; and lastly, because they Condemned and Excommunicated those who shaved their Beards, according to the Custom of the Roman Church. Michael having been advertised of these Errors, and reproved for several other proceed by the Letter of Pope Leo, has still persisted in them, and when that we would have applied a Remedy to these Evils, he refused to appear before, or to have any Conference with us, and has likewise forbade our entrance into the Churches to perform Divine Service therein, forasmuch as he had formerly shut up the Churches of the Latins, calling them Azymitae, Persecuting and Excommunicating them, all which reflected on the Holy See, in contempt whereof he styled himself ECUMENICAL or UNIVERSAL PATRIARCH. Wherefore not being able any longer to tolerate such an unheard of Abuse as was offered to the Holy Apostolical See; and looking upon it as a Violation of the Catholic Faith in several Instances: By the Authority of the Holy Trinity, by the Authority of the Holy Apostolical See, whereof We are Legates, by the Authority of all the Orthodox Fathers, the Seven Councils, and the whole Catholic Church, WE do Subscribe to the Anathema which our most Holy Father the Pope has denounced against Michael and his Adherents, if they do not retract their Errors; and in pursuance hereof we declare that Michael, styling himself Patriarch, a Novice, who was made Monk only by the fear of Men, one of a dissolute and Vicious Life; Leo of Acridia, styling himself Bishop; Constantine, Michael ' s Chaplain, who had trodden under Foot the Sacrifices of the Latins; and all the followers of their Errors, and the abetters of their Proceed are Anathematised, with the Simonists, Valesians, Arrians, Donatists, Nicolaitans, Severians, Pneumatomachi, Manichees, nazarenes, and all the other Heretics, or rather with the Devil and his Angels, if they do not Repent. At the same time in the presence of the Emperor and his Court they pronounced viva voce, an Excommunication against all those, who should contradict the Faith of the Church of Rome, or condemn its Sacrifice; and declared that such Persons ought not to be looked upon as Christians, but as Heretics.  
After they had published these Excommunications, they set in order the Latin Churches; 
The Depa●ture of the Pope's Lega●s.  prohibited under pain of Excommunication, the receiving the Communion from the Hand of any Greek Priest, who should Condemn the Sacrifice of the Latin Church. And when they had taken leave of the Emperor, they went out of Constantinople, July the 17th, and set forward on their Journey homeward. But the Emperor caused them to return again on the 19th of the same Month, at the instance of Michael Cerularius, who promised him to enter into a Conference with them. The design of this Patriarch was to draw them into the Church of St. Sophia, under colour of holding a Council there, and to cause them to be stoned by the People, by reading to them the Legat's Decree of Excommunication, which he had corrupted in Translating it, in order to render it the more odious. The Emperor foreseeing what would happen, would not permit the Legates to appear in any Assembly out of his Presence. Michael having refused this Offer, the Emperor sent the Legates away; which incensed that Patriarch so far, that after he had excommunicated them by a Public Writing, he raised an Insurrection against the Emperor himself, who was forced to deliver up the Legates Interpreters, who were abused and cast into Prison. The Legates sent the Emperor, by his Courriers, a true Copy of the Excommunication which they had denounced against Cerularius, by which that Patriarch was convicted of being an Impostor. This occasioned an entire Rupture between the Patriarch and the Emperor, who drove out of his Court all the Relations and Friends whom Michael had there, and would never have pardoned him, if he had lived longer. But he died the same Year, leaving the Empire to Theodora Porphyrogenita, Daughter to Constantine, and Sister to Zoe, under whom as well as under Michael Strationicus, to whom she left the Empire, dying within two Years after. Cerularius continued in quiet Possession of the Patriarchship, and grew so great, that he obliged the latter to resign the Empire in the Year 1057. to Isaac Commenius. By this means, the Church of Constantinople was wholly separated from the Church of Rome; and these two Churches, which till then, were in a manner tolerated and treated with Respect, were looked upon as Enemies, Schismatics and Heretics, and became almost irreconcilable through the fault of the Greeks.  
Within a while after the Latins endeavoured to withdraw Peter Patriarch of Antioch from Communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. They thought this the more feasible because 
The Letter of Dominick Patriarch of Grado to Peter of Antioch.  that Patriarch immediately after his Advancement, had writ to Pope Leo, who had returned him an Answer, whereby he approved of the Profession of Faith which he had sent him, and took notice to him, of his being very well inclined to carry on the Union of both Churches. The Patriarch of Grado named Dominick, who held the greatest Correspondence with the Greeks, because the Provinces of Venice and Istria belonged to his Patriarchship, was ordered to write to Peter of Antioch about it. He did it in such a manner as might have engaged that Patriarch to enter into the Interests of the Church of Rome. For in the beginning of his Letter he declares, that without mentioning the Submission, the Deference, and the Amity which ought to be had for the Church of Antioch, which is the Sister of the Church of Rome, and the second Church of the World: The Reputation of his Piety and the particular Esteem which he had for his Person, inclined him to desire an Interest in his Respects, and to wish to be in an entire Friendship with him. He tells him that he thought himself obliged to let him know that his Church had been Founded by St. Mark, that St. Peter conferred upon it the Dignity of a Patriarchal See, and that he had the Right of Pope in the Councils which were held in Italy: That he would inform him upon what these Privileges were Founded, when they could come to have a Correspondence with each other by Letters, but that at present he only wrote to him to have the happiness of being acquainted with him, and to begin a Friendship which might be hereafter Corroborated: That however he could not forbear acquainting him, that he understood that the Clergy of Constantinople blamed the Church of Rome, because it celebrated the Holy Mysteries with Unleavened Bread, and believed by reason of that, that the Latins were separated from the Unity of the Church; that tho' the Latins make use of Unleavened Bread, according to the Tradition of JESUS CHRIST and the Apostles, yet they Condemned not the Custom of the Greek Church, because as the mixture of Leaven with the Meal may be the Figure of the Incarnation of JESUS CHRIST, so the Unleavened Bread may likewise represent the Purity of the Flesh of JESUS CHRIST. That therefore he thought it expedient that he should advertise the Greeks not to Condemn the Custom of the Latins, nor to maintain that all their Sacrifices were null, and that they were out of the Road to Eternal Salvation.  
Peter Patriarch of Antioch, answered him with a great deal of Integrity, without approving of his Opinion concerning the use of Unleavened Bread, or his Pretensions concerning the 
The Answer of Peter of Antioch, to the Patriarch of Grado.  Patriarchship. For he makes it appear to him by his Letter, that there were never acknowledged in the Church any more than Five Patriarches, and that the Bishops of the Capital Cities of Provinces, greater than His, never assumed this Quality. And with respect to the use of Unleavened Bread, he at first excuses the Patriarch of Constantinople, by saying, that he does not absolutely Condemn the Latins as Heretics; but was only sorry that they swerved from the ancient Tradition of the Church, and did not make use of Perfect, but of Unleavened Bread, in Imitation of the Jews. He afterwards opposes this Usage by several Arguments, but particularly by the Passages of the Gospel, which seem to prove that JESUS CHRIST instituted the Eucharist before the Feast of the Passover, and at a time when they did not as yet make use of Unleavened Bread. At the Close of his Letter he takes notice that two Years ago he had wrote to Pope Leo in the beginning of his Pope-dom, to which he had not as yet received any Answer, and that he desired he might have a Sight of this.  
Michael Cerularius on the contrary wrote to Peter of Antioch, to engage him to declare 
The Letter of Cerularius to Peter of Antioch.  openly against the Church of Rome. After he had thanked him in the beginning of his Letter, for having at his Recommendation granted to a Deacon a Place which he had demanded of him, he gives him to understand, that having some time since heard that the last deceased Pope was a Virtuous, Honest and Learned Man, he had writ to him with a great deal of Humility about the Reunion of the two Churches, in order to procure his Favour, that he might give some Assistance to the Greeks against the Normans: That having committed this Letter to an Officer of the Emperors, who carried likewise another from that Prince, they were put into the Hands of Duke Argyrus, who detained them, as well as the Money which the Emperor had sent by that Officer: That Argyrus thought fit to send three Persons to Constantinople in the quality of Legates of the Holy See, whereof one had formerly been Archbishop of Melphi, who he understood had been turned out of his Church five Years ago: Another had only the Title of Archbishop, but where his Diocese lay none could tell; and to the Third he had given the Title of Chancellor: That these Three Men having accosted the Emperor with a fierce and arrogant Air, caused the Cross and the Pastoral Rod to be carried before them: That afterwards they gave him a Visit, but in a way of Insolence and Contempt: And that without saluting him, or paying him the Respects which were due to him, they clapped into his Hands a Letter sealed up, which contained the same things concerning Unleavened Bread, as Argyrus had formerly advanced whilst he stayed at Constantinople, for the which he had been Excommunicated: But that having examined the Seal he found it was false, and that it was nothing but a piece of Forgery of this Argyrus, as he had afterwards been assured by the Archbishop of Trani, and by his Chancellor, who had unravelled the whole Mystery to him. After he had given this Account of that Transaction, he says, That it was Reported of him that he inserted the Names of the Popes in the Church Registers, and that the Patriarches of Alexandria and Jerusalem did the same: That however he did not suppose them so Ignorant, but that they knew that since the time of Pope Vigilius, who would not pronounce an Anathema against the Writings of Theodoret, and the Letter of Ibas, there was no notice taken of the Bishops of Rome, in the Churches of the East: That he likewise heard, that these two Patriarches admitted to their Communion those who celebrated with Unleavened Bread, and that they made use of the same sometimes themselves: That not being fully satisfied of this matter of Fact, he left him to the Liberty of enquiring into it, and desired he would send him Word how the Case was: That moreover he had read the Letter which he had written to the Patriarch of Grado, wherein he opposed the making use of Unleavened Bread: But that the Latins hold a great many other Errors, which ought to be rejected; such as believing that one might Eat Things Strangled, that Men ought to be Shave, to observe the Sabbath, to Eat unclean Things, that Monks might be permitted to Eat Flesh and Bacon: That one might Eat Flesh in the first Week of Lent, and in the Weeks wherein one ought to abstain from Flesh and Milk, as well as on every Wednesday in the Year: That they were guilty of Eating Cheese and Eggs in the Holy Week; of Fasting on Saturdays, all of them being Customs belonging to the Jews; of having added to the Creed, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son; of not permitting Priests to be Married; of allowing two Brothers to Marry two Sisters; of observing that one of the Ministers of the Altar who has Eaten Unleavened Bread, shall embrace the rest in the Sacrifice, by giving Pax Vobis to them; of giving to the Bishops a Ring which they wear on their Thumb; of Baptising only with one Immersion; of not honouring the Relics of the Saints, and several of them not so much as Images; of not reckoning among the Saints the Doctors of the Greek Church, such as St. Gregory the Theologue, St. Basil the Great and St. Chrysostom the Divine, and of not observing their Doctrine: But what is more strange is, that when they were at Constantinople they declared that they were not come to enter into a Dispute, nor to be informed of the Differences that might be between them, but to teach and persuade others to hold their Tenets  
There is likewise another Letter of Cerularius to the same Patriarch of Antioch, wherein he gave him a particular Account of what the Pope's Legates, (whom he still imagines to be Impostors sent by Argyrus, who had trumped up these false Letters) had done against him at Constantinople, by excommunicating him, and exhorts that Patriarch to join with him in revenging the Affront.  
Peter of Antioch replied to Michael Cerularius, That he wondered that Argyrus, who was 
The Answer of Peter of Antioch to Cerularius.  a Laic, should concern himself in the disposal of the Affairs of the Church, and make use of such Artifices as he had acquainted him with: That the Name of the Pope was not in the Registers of the Church of Antioch; but that it could not be truly said that even since the Time of Pope Vigilius, the Name of the Bishop of Rome had been left out of the Registers of the Greek Church: That it was a gross Omission in his Secretary; since in the Sixth Council, held One hundred and twenty nine Years after Vigilius, Pope Agatho was recognised: That when he himself was at Constantinople, about Five and forty Years ago, in the Time of Domnus the Patriarch, he found the Name of Pope Sergius in the Registers among the rest of the other Patriarches; and that he could not tell upon what Grounds it had since been left out: That of the Errors and Faults which in his Letter he attributed to the Latins, there were some which ought to be avoided and abhorred, several others which it were easy to remedy; and lastly, others at which it would be proper to connive. For (says he) what is it to Us, if their Bishops do shave their Beards, and wear Rings on their Fingers? Do not we make a Crown upon our Heads, and do not we wear Gloves, Maniples and Stoles embroidered with Gold? Will not you likewise find some of our Monks who eat Flesh and Bacon? Do not the Monks of Bythinia, Thrace and Lydia, eat Magpies, Jays and Turtle-Doves? Do not the Holy Fathers leave us at liberty to eat indifferently of all manner of Things which God has Created? In particular he demonstrates, that St. Basil and St. Pacomius allowed their Religious to eat Bacon. But he does not pass the same Judgement on what was added to the Creed, and he pretends that 'tis a very great abuse, as well as to Baptise with only one Immersion: However, he thinks it requisite to be of a Temper inclinable to Peace, because the Latins are their Brethren, altho' through Rusticity or Ignorance, they might be in some Errors: That so punctual an exactness could not be expected from Barbarians; that it was very well that they held the true Doctrine about the Trinity and the Incarnation: That he blamed them for their Custom relating to the Celibacy of Priests, and for their eating Flesh and Cheese the first Week in Lent. That as to the Question about Unleavened Bread, he had handled that in the Letter which he wrote to the Patriarch of Venice; and that he was of Opinion, that every Church ought therein to observe its ancient Customs; that as to that part of their Charge, of eating Things strangled, and of allowing one and the same Person to Marry two Sisters; it was to be believed, that this was not among them by the approbation of the Pope and the Bishops, but by the abuse of some particular Persons, as there are a great many of the same Nature in the East, which 'tis very difficult to abolish. That moreover, he ought to insist particularly on the Addition to the Creed, and on the Marriage of Priests: That with Respect to the other Articles, it was not requisite to stand much upon them, because they are such as do not concern the Faith, and because most of them are false. That therefore he thought it proper, that being thus inclined, he should write to the Pope who was to be elected, who perhaps would disown what is imposed on the Latins, or else alter his Mind: That no Person can imagine that the Romans do not honour Relics and Images, since they set so high a Value on the Relics of St. Peter and St. Paul; since Pope Adrian by his Legates was Precedent of the Seventh Council, and Condemned the Iconoclasts; and since it was observable that several Images were brought from Rome, and that the Latins honoured them. He therefore conjured the Patriarch of Constantinople to think upon an Accommodation, and to require nothing of the Latins beside the striking out the Addition which they had made to the Creed. Lastly, He acquaints him that he sends him Indors'd, the Letter which Pope Leo had written to him; and that the Letters which he had directed to the Patriarches of Alexandria and Jerusalem, he had conveyed to them. These Four Letters have been Published in Greek and Latin by Monsieur Cotelier, in the second Tome of his Monuments of the Greek Church.  
Tho' this Action of Cardinal Humbert seemed to put a stop to the Reunion of the two Churches, yet the Popes were not quite out of hopes of bringing it about. For this purpose, 
A New Attempt made for the reuniting the Greek and the Latin Churches. The Banishment of Cerularius.  Stephen IX. resolved upon sending Didier Abbot of Mount Cassin, and two other Legates to Constantinople, who set forward upon that design in the beginning of the Year 1058. but being detained at Bari by the badness of the Season, they there heard the News of that Pope's Death, and returned home again. That same Year Michael Cerularius building too much upon the Obligation under which the Emperor Isaac Commenus lay to him, was for assuming to himself too great an Authority, threaming the Emperor himself, That if he did not follow his Councils, he would be an Instrument of making him lose that Crown which he had procured for him. This impudent Boldness, and his Pride in wearing Purple coloured Shoes and Stockings, and in saying, That there was no difference between the Sacerdotal Office and the Empire, made Isaac resolve to Out him. But forasmuch as Michael was beloved by the People of Constantinople, he took an opportunity to cause him to be apprehended, when he went on the Feast of All-Saints to perform his Office in a Church of the Suburbs of that City. He sent thither several of his Soldiers, who pulled the Patriarch out of his Episcopal Chair, and carried him immediately to the next Seaport, where they embarked him and his Relations, to be conveyed into Exile to Proconessus. The Emperor had a great mind to cause him to be deposed in a Council; but he durst not attempt it, because Michael was a Man of great Parts, and had great Friends. The death of that Patriarch put an end to his Troubles, but made no alteration in the Affairs of the Church; nor did it procure the Reunion of the two Churches, which ever after remained divided, tho' frequent attempts have been made to reunite them, and tho' there have been several Treaties between them, which never lasted long, by reason of the Inconstancy of the Greeks.    

CHAP. VIII.  
Of the Life and Writings of PETER DAMIEN, Cardinal Bishop of OSTIA.  
PETER surnamed Damien from the Name of his Brother, was born at Ravenna the beginning 
Peter Damien, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia.  of the Eleventh Century. He was descended from an honourable Family, and his Parents took care to bestow upon him good Education; and in his very Youth he was noted for his singular Piety. After he had went through the whole course of his Studies, he retired into the Monastery of the Holy Cross of Avellane near Engulio, the Monks of which place are called Hermits, because they spent their Lives in great Retirement, tho' in Common and under an Abbot. He was called by Guy Abbot of Pomposio to reform his Monastery. At two Years end he returned to Avellane, where he was made Prior, and afterwards Abbot of that Monastery, which in a short time he augmented, and Founded several others, where the same Rule was observed. He was in so great a Repute and Esteem, that he was nominated Cardinal, and made Bishop of Ostia by Pope Stephen IX. He likewise held by way of Commendam the Bishopric of Engulio, and began to have a great share in the Affairs of the Church of Rome. In the Year 1059. under the Pontificat of Nicholas II. he was sent Legate to Milan, to reform the Clergy of that Church, where Simony was publicly practised. He acquitted himself in this Legation with a great deal of Authority and Prudence, and returned after he had caused an Order to be made, to prevent this and such like disorders for the time to come. Some time after, he resolved upon quitting his Bishoprics, and the Employments which he had at large in the World, and to retire into Solitude; he thereupon resigned them into the Hands of Pope Alexander II. and returned back to his own Monastery. However, this did not prevent him from having great concerns with the Popes, Bishops and Noblemen, who asked his Advice, and made use of him in Matters of the highest Importance. Alexander II. sent him as his Legate into France, to put an end to the Difference there on Foot between the Bishop of Mascon and the Abbot of Clunie, concerning the Privileges of that Abbey. He held a Council at Challons, wherein he made several Orders; confirmed the Privileges granted by the Popes to the Abbey of Clunie, and made the Bishop of Mascon to consent thereto. He was likewise sent by the same Pope to Florence, to put a stop to the Schism which was between Peter, Bishop of that City, and his Clergy. Afterwards in the Year 1068. he went as Legate into Germany, to hinder the Emperor Henry from being divorced from his Wife Bertha. Some time after he took a Journey to the Monastery of Mount Cassin, to consolate the Religious of that place. Lastly, In the Year 1072. he was sent by the same Pope to Ravenna, to take off the Excommunication issued, a long time since, against that City, because of the Differences which Henry Bishop of Ravenna, lately deceased, had with the Holy See. After he had discharged the Commission, he died the 23d of February the Year ensuing at Fayance, being Sixty six Years Old.  
The Works of this Author, in the last Edition, are divided into Four Tomes.  
The First contains the Letters, ranged in Eight Books, according to the Quality of the Persons to whom they were written; of which the First is composed of the Letters which are directed to the Popes.  
The First is to Gregory VI. whom he congratulates upon his advancement to the Popedom, 
His Letters to the Popes.  exhorts to root out Simony, and admonishes to depose the Bishop of Pesaro.  
The Second is directed to the same Pope; he gives him to understand, That the Man who was elected Bishop of Fossombrona, was not altogether worthy of the Episcopacy, because of his Ambition; but that yet he was to be preferred to a great many others, and that in other Respects he had the Qualifications necessary to a Bishop.  
The Third is to Clement II. to whom he writes word, That the Emperor had ordered him to wait upon him, to inform him of the Abuses of several Churches, and of what he thought necessary to put a stop to them; that being upon his Journey, he had received a Letter from that Prince which was directed to him; that being returned to his Solitude he sent it to him, where he waits for his Orders to departed. He declares on the one Hand, That he would be very well satisfied to be excused from the Journey, that so he might not lose his Time in going and coming; but that on the other hand, he could not but be moved with the miserable Condition of the Churches of his Country, which were in a strange Confusion, by reason of the Irregularity of the Bishops and Abbots. He remonstrates to him, That it signified nothing that the Holy See was passed from Darkness to Light, if the rest of the Churches were still in Darkness, and exhorts him to apply some speedy Remedy to these Evils, and to punish the Bishop of Fano.  
The Fourth is to Leo IX. He therein complains for that this Pope had given too lightly Credit to the Calumnies raised against him, and he calls God to witness how Innocent he was.  
The Fifth is to Victor II. He remonstrates to this Pope, That he ought to protect a Lord who had devoted himself to the Service of God, and whom they would dispossess of his Estate.  
The Sixth, directed to Nicholas II. is amongst the Opuscula of this Author, of which it makes the Seventeenth.  
The Seventh is to the same Pope. He congratulates him for that the Church was in Peace under his Pontificate; and Petitions him in behalf of the Inhabitants of Ancona, who had been excommunicated.  
In the Eighth, directed to Pope Nicholas and the archdeacon Hildebrand, he desires to quit his Bishopric, since they had divested him both of his Sacerdotal Habits, and of his Revenues.  
The Ninth and Tenth are among the Opuscula, and they make the Nineteenth and Twentieth of them.  
The Eleventh is directed to Alexander II. He recommends to him the Church of Orleans which was then in Trouble.  
The Twelfth, directed to the same Pope, is very considerable. He therein reproves two Abuses, which he says were too frequently practised by the Court of Rome in his Time, and he entreats the Pope to redress them. The First is, That in almost all the Decretals, the Penalty of Excommunication was inserted. The Second is, That the Clerks and Laics were hindered from reproving the Vices of their Bishops. The First (says he) makes the Salvation of Men very dangerous; because Persons are often excommunicated without knowing any thing of it, and that for Things of little or no Consequence; the most trivial Faults being punished with the same Penalty as the more heinous ones: They punish a Man more rigorously for having violated an humane Law, than ever God does for the breaking of his Commands. He says, That St. Gregory and the other Popes had no such Custom, and that they seldom pronounced an Anathema in their Decretals, except when the Faith was in dispute. He therefore conjures this Pope to abolish this Custom, and for the future to strike this Clause out of their Decretals, by assigning some other Penalty in its stead. As to the other Abuse, which supposes that it is not lawful for Inferiors to accuse their Bishops in a Superior Court, or to allege against them what ought to be Corrected. This (says he) is a very unreasonable Thing, and contrary to the Discipline of the Church. For to whom can one better address one's self to discover the Faults, which a Bishop commits, than to him who has the Office of a Master, and who has the Pre-eminence among his Brethren, to correct the Faults of the Bishops, according to the Privilege of his See? And is it not a piece of insupportable Arrogance, Pride and Vanity, that a Bishop shall live as he pleases, and not condescend to hearken to the Complaints of those who are under him, in things wherein he may be deceived; especially when they do not apply themselves to secular Judges, but to Bishops, that they may honourably and gravely redress those Grievances which might attract the Smiles of the Laity? Is it not reasonable, that he who is accused should Justify and Clear himself, or else acknowledge his Faults? To this he subjoins the Example of St. Peter, who did not make use of his Authority to reject the Complaints of the Faithful, who took it ill that he should Preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, but gave them a reason for this his Proceeding. To this Instance he adds that of David, who acknowledged his Offence when he was reproved for it by Nathan; the Example of Mary, who suffered the Reproof of her Sister Martha; and another Instance of St. Peter, who did not take it ill that St. Paul rebuked him. Afterwards he starts this Objection: But I am Bishop; I am the Pastor of the Flock, I am not to be accused by those who ought to be subject to me, and whom I ought to lead; they ought patiently to suffer my Failings. And to this ●e answers, that in the Gospel it is said, That we ought to declare to the Church the 〈◊〉 of our Brethren, when they do not amend after they had been privately reproved; the which being expressed in general Terms, aught to be understood as well of the Faults of Bishops, as of the Faults of the rest of the Faithful; that if the Bishop would not sub●… to the Laws of the Church, who would? Lastly, He concludes, That nothing would more conduce to the abating the Pride of Bishops, who valued themselves too much upon the account of their Divinity, to the maintaining of Peace, and to prevent Tyranny, than to suffer Inferiors to have recourse to a Superior Authority, and to Synods, there to prefer their Complaints against their Bishops.  
In the Thirteenth, directed to the same Pope, he opposes an Error which grew very prevalent in his Time; to wit, That it was not Simony to buy a Bishopric of a King, or any other Prince; provided nothing was given for Consecration. Two Chaplains of Prince Godfrey Marquis of Tuscany, had broached this Doctrine, and maintained it by saying, That in this Case, they do not buy either the Sacerdotal Office or the Church, but only the Temporalities and the enjoyment of the Revenues. Peter Damien makes it appear that this is a Fallacy; because since a Man cannot be divided into two distinct Persons, whereof one shall enjoy the Temporalities, and the other perform the Spiritual Functions, when he buys the Temporalities, which he cannot enjoy till he be advanced to the Ecclesiastical Dignity, and perform the Functions thereof; it may be truly said, That he buys the Ecclesiastical Dignity and the Sacrament too. This he proves, because the Prince in granting the Investiture of a Bishopric does not give a mere Rod only, but the Pastoral Rod, and the Title of Priesthood, the Sacrament whereof is received by the Ordination. He adds, That 'tis only in pursuance of this nomination of the Prince that the Man is ordained, and therefore tho' he does not directly give Money for his Ordination, yet it cannot be said to be gratuitous, since Money made the way for him. Afterwards carrying this Thought a little farther, he says, When the Prince has put the Pastoral Rod into your Hands, did he say, Receive the Lands and Revenues of such or such a Church? No▪ Did he not say to you, Receive this Church? If you pretend to have received the Revenues of the Church without the Church, you are a Schismatic, and guilty of Sacrilege; and if you received the Church by this Investiture, as you must needs own, than you are guilty of Simony. Lastly, He says, That the possession of the Ecclesiastical Revenues, and the Consecration are so closely connected together, that he who receives the Right of possessing the Revenues of the Church, cannot enjoy them till he be consecrated, and that he who is consecrated, ought necessarily to have the management of the Revenues of the Church. To conclude, He confirms these Maxims by several Passages taken out of the Decretals; and shows that it is not only Simony to buy and sell Bishoprics and great Benefices, but also to buy and sell small Benefices, such as Curacies and Prebendships. In the close, he exhorts the Pope to Condemn the Error, which he had refuted in this Letter, and not to permit any Persons to be promoted to the Priesthood, who have acquired it by Money, or (which he pretends to be more unblamable) by any Services which they have done for their Princes.  
In the Fourteenth, he makes his Complaints to Alexander II. for that he had abused and raised a Disturbance in the Church of Engubio, which had been committed to his Care, by the Predecessors of that Pope. He puts him in mind of the Obligations which he lay under to him, which deserved quite another sort of usage, and takes notice that if satisfaction were not done him, he would make his just Grief to break out the more. He likewise entreated him to take off the Excommunication which he had issued out against the Archbishop of Ravenna, whom he looked upon to be very unfortunate; because it was an unworthy thing that so great a multitude of Men should be in danger of perishing for the fault of one single Man.  
The Fifteenth is an Answer to a Letter of that Pope, who complained that he had not wrote to him, being too much taken up with Contemplation. He gives him to understand, That indeed he did enjoy a little more Repose, since he had quitted the Episcopacy; but that still he was taken up with a great many Visits, and a multiplicity of Business, and was so highly concerned at the disorders of the World, that he had neither Time nor Courage to write. This gave him an occasion to describe the corrupted Manners of his Time. Afterwards he conjures the Pope, who had taken from him the Earldom of Ostia, to discharge him likewise from his Bishopric. Lastly, He exhorts him to use his utmost endeavours to reform the Church, and concludes his Letter with Eight Verses, which puts him in mind of his Duty.  
In the Sixteenth, directed to the same Pope and to Hildebrand, he excuses himself for having wrote to the Archbishop of Cologne, by sending to them the Copy of his Letter, thereby to let them know that they had no reason to be offended at it. He excused himself likewise from taking a Journey to Rome, to which they had summoned him; but does not refuse to go to Mantua, because he thought that Journey would turn to greater Account.  
The Three next Letters are among his Opuscula; the two first are the Three and Four and twentieth of these Opuscula, and the last is the Life of St. Radulphus.  
The Twentieth is directed to Cadalous Bishop of Parma, the Antipope, whom he extremely upbraided, for having caused himself to be elected Bishop of Rome; or at least, for having permitted it: He made it appear that his Election is Adulterate, Schismatical, Heretical and Vicious. (1.) Because he had been elected, whilst the Holy See was filled with a Lawful Pope. (2.) Because he had not been elected by the Cardinals, who have the greatest share in the Election of a Pope, nor by the Clergy and Laity of Rome; but by two Bishops of a bad Life, and who had no Right in this Election. (3.) Because the Church of Rome would not acknowledge him. Afterwards he threatns him with the Judgements of God, and with a speedy Correction.  
This Letter made no Impression on Cadalous; on the contrary, that Bishop came to Rome with an Army, and became Master of it by Force. Upon this Peter Damien wrote him a second Letter more vehement than the former, wherein he compares him to the most cruel Tyrants, and puts him in mind of the Punishment inflicted on the Bishop of Placenza, who had usurped the Holy See by such like Methods, in turning out Gregory IU.  
The Second Book contains the Letters which Peter Damien wrote to the Cardinals.  
The First is directed to the Cardinals of the Church of Lateran; he exhorts them to bear a strict Watch over themselves and others, that they may be Exemplary in so corrupted an Age. 
His Letters to the Cardinals.  He therein shows how the Lives of Bishops ought to be Holy and Unblameable. He declaims against Bishops who are Ambitious, against those who follow the Court, and who enter into the Service of Grandees, in order to obtain Ecclesiastical Preferments by way of recompense. He says, That there are three sorts of Presents, which are alike prohibited for the gaining of Benefices: Munus a Manu, Munus ab obsequio, Munus a lingua; that is, Money, Presents, and Flatteries. After he had invey'd sufficiently against this Abuse, he exhorts the Cardinals to lead such exemplary Lives, as might serve as a Pattern to the Bishops and all the Clergy.  
The Two next Letters are in the Opuscula, the one is the Two and twentieth, and the other the One and thirtieth.  
The Fourth is directed to Boniface Cardinal of Albania, and to Stephen the Priest: He recommends to them an Abbot of the Monastery of St. Apollinarius.  
The Fifth directed to Cardinal Hildebrand archdeacon of Rome, and to Peter the Priest; contains a great many Mystical Reflections about the Sabbath, and the Six days of the Creation.  
In the Sixth, directed to the same Persons, he ingenuously complains of Alexander II. his taking away from him a Book which he had composed; he commends this Pope, declaims against Cadalous, and makes mention of what he had suffered in the Service of the Holy See.  
The Seventh is likewise amongst the Opuscula, of which it makes the Two and thirtieth.  
In the Eighth, he complains that Hildebrand, to whom he had written, not only took no notice of him, and returned him no Answer, but likewise spoke very much to his disadvantage. He puts him in mind what Services he had done to the Holy See, and to him in particular. Lastly, He declares to him, That he surrendered up to him the Bishopric which had been bestowed on him.  
In the Ninth, he makes his complaint to the same Person, for having too lightly given Credit to his Enemies, who had told him, That he had founded a Monastery in a place where he had no Right to do it. He made it appear that it had been granted to him by the Uncle of Guy, who was the Person who complained that the Monastery had been built on his Demeans.  
The Tenth is amongst the Opuscula, and makes the Eighteenth.  
The Three next Letters are directed to Didier Abbot of Mount Cassin and Cardinal of St. Cecilia, to whom he gives a great many wholesome Advices about his Conduct; as for Instance, To have always an Eye upon his Faults, and not to regard his Virtues; to be glad when he was reproved by others; not to slight, but to correct, as his Duty required him, the Faults of those who were committed to his Charge; to say no ill of the Absent, but to reprove those who were Faulty face to face; to have a due Veneration for Fast-days, and often to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice, that so, says he, the old Serpent seeing your Lips tinctured with the Blood of JESUS CHRIST, may tremble for fear, retire in Confusion, and not approach to the Sacrament, which has made him a Captive.  
The Five others, directed to the same Person, are among the Opuscula, of which they make the Thirty third, the Thirty fourth, the Thirty fifth, the Thirty sixth and the Thirty seventh.  
The Nineteenth is a Letter of Compliment and Friendship, to Peter a Cardinal and Chancellor.  
The Two last make the Thirty seventh of the Opuscula.  
The Third Book is composed of the Letters directed to Archbishops; the Number of those is but small. 
His Letters to the Archbishops   
The First is the Eight and thirtieth of the Opuscula.  
The Second is directed to Gebehard Archbishop of Ravenna, who had desired him to come to him. He excused himself for not obeying him, because he had not wherewithal to undertake this Journey; being Poor himself, and having the Government of a very poor Monastery in his Hands. He commends this Archbishop, gives him a great deal of Good Council, and conjures him to give him no further Trouble.  
In the Third, he declares to that Prelate what a great Affection he bore to him, and exhorts him to turn out the Bishops of Fano and Pesaro, who were Men of an infamous Life, and guilty of several Crimes.  
The Fourth is directed to Henry Archbishop of Ravenna, who had sent to know what his Opinion was concerning the Elections of Cadalous and Alexander. He returns him this Answer, That the Latter is the lawful Pope, and the other is a Simonists and an Intruder: And afterwards making a Comparison between the Manners and the Genius of both; he says that Alexander II. is a Man of Parts, Learning and Piety, and that he is chaste and Charitable: Whereas Cadalous is not able to explain one Line. Lastly, he declares to him that he cannot conceal his own particular Sentiment, and that he thinks himself obliged to avow freely what he thinks, and stiffly to maintain the Truth and Honour of the Holy See.  
The Fifth is directed to a third Archbishop of Ravenna named Wigbert. He complains of the severity which that Archbishop showed to him and his Monastery. He entreats him to forbeat oppressing him by exacting Money still from him, even after he had been divested of part of his Demeans.  
The Sixth is to Anno Archbishop of Cologne: He commends him for the Care he had taken of Henry the Emperor's Son, who had been committed to his Trust by that Prince; and for having declared himself against Cadalous; and exhorts him to continue and use his utmost endeavours, that a general Council might be held to put an End to the Schism.  
The Seventh is a Letter of Compliment to the Archbishop of Milan, whom he thanks with a great deal of Address and Neatness, for the Sacerdotal Habits which he had bestowed upon him.  
The Three next are among the Opuscula, of which they make the Twenty fifth, the Thirty fourth and the Thirty ninth.  
The Fourth Book contains the Letters of Peter Damien directed to Bishops. 
H●s Letter▪ s to the Bishops.   
The First is written to Bishop Albert: He exhorts him to do his Duty, and to lead an unblameable Life. In a more especial manner he advises him to be Charitable, and to beware of Avarice and Simony.  
In the Second he thanks a Bishop for the Alms which he had bestowed on his Monastery, and exhorts him to add the other Virtues to his Liberality. Lastly, he entreats him to confer the Order of Deacon on Two Clerks, which he sent him, and who had obtained a Dispensation from their Bishop for it.  
The Third is among the Opuscula, and is comprised in the Eighteenth.  
In the Fourth to the Bishop of Osino, he makes use of the great number of Dead Persons which he found in his Return, as a Motive to persuade that Bishop not to put off his Conversion.  
In the Fifth he gives us a lively and frightful Description of the last Judgement, to persuade him to whom he wrote to lead a Life becoming a Christian.  
In the Sixth he exhorts another Bishop to a Contempt of this World.  
In the Seventh he advises the Bishop to whom he wrote, to receive no Presents; and upon that Account he relates a Vision that had happened to a Priest, who had seen the Confessor of Count Hildebrand punished in the other World, for having received Presents from him; And that Count himself in Torments for not having Repent of his Cruelties, so as he ought to have done, by the over Indulgence of his Confessor. The same Priest said, that he likewise saw Count Lotharius in a Fire of Brimstone, who entreated him to admonish his Family to restore to the Church a Territory which belonged to it, that so by this means he might be throughly delivered from his Torments, and that he understood that Count Guy was suddenly expected in that very Place, where several Torments were preparing for him. After the Relation of this Vision, Peter Damien says, That it was not requisite to receive Presents indifferently from all sorts of Persons; but only from such as were well-pleasing to God, because the Gifts of the Wicked are dangerous.  
In the Eighth he exhorts the Bishop of Engubio to redeem the Revenues and the Ornaments of his Churches which were given or Mortgaged to Laics. He likewise gives him several good instructions about the Virtues which he ought to put in Practice, and relates the untimely End of Pope John XII. which happened that very Day, wherein his Guards pulled out the Eyes of an Holy Abbot.  
In the Ninth directed to the Bishop of Fermo, after he had with a great deal of Modesty rejected the Title of Holiness, which that Bishop had bestowed upon him, He bewails the Misfortunes and Irregularities of his Age, which inclined him to think that the End of the World was at Hand. More particularly he declaims against the Schism of Cadalous, and against the Liberty which at that time was granted to the Bishops and other ecclesiastics, of maintaining their Rights and Properties with a Sword in their Hand. He makes it appear that War and Revenge is downright contrary to the Genius and Spirit of the true Church, which breathes forth nothing but Peace, and is for Pardoning all Mankind, that nothing than them can be more dissonant to the Life which JESUS CHRIST himself led upon Earth, and which he proposed as an Example to his Followers, when he Taught to Suffer with Patience, and not to Revenge by Force the Injuries offered them: That Lastly, the Difference between the Regal and Sacerdotal Power lay in this, that the King makes use of Material Arms, but the Priest of the Sword of the Spirit, viz. the Word of God: That since it had never been allowed to take up Arms for the Defence of the Faith, much less was it Lawful to take them up for the maintenance of temporal and transitory Goods: And that if the Saints of old never put any Heretic or Idolater to Death, but rather suffered Death themselves; With what face could any of the Faithful Kill his Brother, who was purchased and redeemed by the precious Blood of JESUS CHRIST, only for the loss of mere 
[This is sound and orthodox Doctrine which Peter Damien here Preaches, and su●h as is consonans to the Doctrine and Practice of the primitive Christians: But ●ow dissonant to the Spirit and Genius and Practice of the present Church of Rome, let their Fire and Faggot, their Inquisitions and Dragooning, and the Doctrine of your new Doctors the Jesuits Speak.]  perishable and contemptible Things? Afterwards he relates an Instance of an Abbot of France, who would not by Force and Violence oppose a certain Great Lord, who was marching towards him with armed Soldiers to fall upon him; but went to meet him with his Monks unarmed, with only the Cross carried before them. This Action so much surprised that Lord and all his Men, that instead of offering them any harm, they begged them Pardon, and threw themselves at their Feet. Lastly he says, that if any one should object that St. Leo ('tis Leo IX. he here means and not Leo I.) did engage himself in a War, he would answer him thus, that as St. Peter had not the Primacy for having denied his Master, nor David the Gift of Prophecy, for the sake of his Adultery: So an Estimate of the Good or Evil of any Person ought not to be drawn from the merit of that Person, but all Actions ought to be considered nakedly in themselves. That St. Gregory who suffered so many Plunderings and Injuries from the Lombard's, never made War against them. That St. Ambrose never sat upon the Arians, tho' they Persecuted him very Cruelly. That not one Instance could be given of any of the Holy Bishops rising up in Arms. That Lastly, all Causes relating to Ecclesiastical Matters ought to be tried, either by secular Judges according to the Laws, or by the Decisions of Bishops; and that they ought not to the Shame and Disgrace of ecclesiastics to determine that by Force, which ought to be decided by the Courts of Justice, or by the Decrees of Bishops.  
In the Tenth he excuses himself to the Bishop of Engubio for having permitted his Church to be Consecrated by the Bishop of Fossombrona, who pretended that he had a Right of Consecrating the Churches of that Place, tho' it were under the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Engubio. He says, That he durst not oppose his proceeding, and the rather because he was already his Enemy: But that he did not pretend to exempt himself from the Jurisdiction of the Church of Engubio, which he promises to Re-cognize very cheerfully. Wherefore he entreats the Bishop of Engubio to take off the Interdiction he had issued out against that Church; and to be persuaded that not only that Place, but also that whatsoever his Monastery could enjoy were entirely at his Service, and he begs him to grant him his Protection.  
The Eleventh is a Letter whereby he Dedicates several of his Works to the Bishops of Sinagaglia and Engubio.  
In the Twelfth he reproves a certain Bishop, who alienated the Revenues of his Church. He asks him whether he had forgot that Pope Victor in a Council held at Florence, had prohibited it under the Pain of Excommunication? Whether he did not know that the Revenues of the Church were appropriated to the Maintenance of the Poor, and to the Relief of Widows and Orphans? This gave him an occasion of treating concerning the Original of Church Revenues; upon which he observes that in the Primitive Church the Faithful brought the Price of their Lands, and laid them at the Apostles Feet, that so they might distribute them to the Poor: And that afterwards it was thought more proper to settle Estates on Churches, not only for the maintenance of the Clergy, but likewise for the Relief of the Poor. That therefore those who rob the Church of the Revenues which belong to it, were guilty of a World of Homicides in depriving the Poor of their necessary Subsistence. He adds, That as Sinners by giving their Estates to the Church, obtained by this means an Absolution of their Sins: So those on the contrary who take them do bind and engage themselves to suffer that Penance from which the others are exempted by their Charity.  
The Thirteenth contains nothing very remarkable: He thanks the Bishop of Cesena for the kind Reception he gave to a young Man whom he had recommended to him: And exhorts him to a Christian watchfulness by setting before him the Hour of Death and the Day of Judgement.  
The Fourteenth is referred to the Twenty sixth of his Opuscula.  
In the Fifteenth he shows what a Guard ecclesiastics ought to put over their Senses, which are the source and fountain of a great many Disorders.  
In the Sixteenth he maintains that the Octave of the Festival of St. John Baptist aught to be solemnised in the same manner as the Festival itself, and afterwards explains the Eight solemn Festivals of the Jews, which by way of Allegory he applies to Christianity.  
The Fifth Book contains the Letters directed to several of the Clergy.  
In the First directed to the Archpriests, he maintains what he had advanced in one of 
His Letters to the Clergy.  his Sermons, that every Man's Soul shall appear at the Day of Judgement in the same State wherein it left the Body. Several Persons were offended at this Position, believing that from thence it follows, that the Prayers, Oblations and Sacrifices which were offered for the Dead, signified nothing to them. Peter Damien denies this Inference, and makes it appear that he asserted no more than what St. Gregory had asserted before him.  
The Second Letter is directed to his Brother Damien. He therein makes an ingenuous Confession of the Faults to which he was addicted, and especially of his Propensity to rail at others. He entreats his Brother to pray to God to give him Grace to redress his Default.  
In the Third, he gives a lively Description of the Soul just upon its departure out of the Body.  
In the Fourth, he makes use of a Passage out of Jeremy, to demonstrate how far the Intemperance of Clerks is an offence to God.  
The Fifth is a Letter of Compliment directed to an archdeacon.  
The Sixth is written in the name of Leo IX. to the People of Osmo, against a Custom which prevailed in that Church of riffling the Goods of the Bishop after his Death: This Custom is therein prohibited under the penalty of Excommunication.  
The Seventh is writ in the name of Alexander II. to the Clergy and Laity of Milan, whom that Pope acquaints of his Exaltation to the Popedom, and exhorts them to Labour earnestly for the carrying on of their own Salvation.  
The Eighth directed to the Clergy of Florence, concerning the use of Disciplines, is one of the most Curious of his Pieces. He had writ about this Practice to a certain Monk: His Letter falling into the Hands of some secular Persons, and of some Monks of a less strict Life, they were very much offended at this new Kind of Penance, unknown to all former Ages, and which seemed to overthrow the Order of the Canons and the ancient Custom. Peter Damien in this Letter, undertakes to maintain it. First, from the Example of our Saviour, of the Apostles and Martyrs, who have been Scourged for the sake of JESUS CHRIST: From whence he infers, That God may very well be pleased with the voluntary Offering to him such a Penance as he caused his Servants to endure against their Will. As to what might be objected, that indeed we do Read, that the Saints were Scourged by others, but that we never find they did it themselves: He replies, That as we ought voluntarily to imitate the Mortification of the Cross, so likewise one may imitate the other Sufferings of JESUS CHRIST; and that as no body can blame him who of his own accord Fasts at other times than those enjoined by the Church: So one ought not to imagine, that he who Chastises himself with his own Hand, does a Deed less acceptable to God. That on the contrary, he undergoes a real Penance, by mortifying his Flesh, and making it suffer for the Pleasures which it has enjoyed; that it signifies nothing to what sort of Punishment it is Condemned, provided that the preceding Pleasures be punished by a subsequent Punishment. He asks those who pretended that this new Custom subverted the Canons; whether the Reverend Bede did ill in enjoining several Penitents to wear Iron Girdles? Whether the Holy Fathers did ill in putting such Austerities and Pennances into Practice, of which no mention is made in the Canons? He adds, That since the Laics might redeem themselves from a long Penance by bestowing a certain Sum to Charitable Uses, tho' no mention be made of these Redemptions in the Canons; the Monks who may have deserved a long Penance, and cannot make compensation for it by their Alms, ought not to be hindered from doing it by this Mortification of their Flesh.  
The Ninth is among the Opuscula, of which it makes the Twenty sixth.  
In the Tenth he excuses himself to the Clergy and Laity of Fayence, for his not being able to come to them after the Death of their Bishop, and he advises them to put off the Election of another Bishop, till the arrival of the Emperor.  
The Eleventh is referred to the Forty first of the Opuscula.  
In the Twelfth he asks the Advice of the Treasurer of the Church of Ravenna, whether he ought to remain in that City, or return to his Solitude. He relates the Reasons that might be alleged on both sides: On the one side, he might be serviceable to the saving of Souls at Ravenna, but there he was had in Contempt: On the other side, he was had in esteem in his own Monastery, but he was afraid this esteem would puff him up with Pride. He refers himself wholly to the counsel of him to whom he wrote, what he ought to do in the Case.  
The Thirteenth is directed to the Chaplains of Duke Godfrey who charged him with Avarice. The occasion of which Charge was this; one of the Chaplains had a difference with him about a Piece of Gold which the Duchess had presented at the Offering of the Mass, which Peter Damien Celebrated: The Monk who had received it, left it upon the Altar, together with another Piece of Gold presented by a Marchioness. One of these Chaplains took away one of the Pieces which the Duchess had ordered to be given him: But afterwards Peter Damien using his utmost endeavours to make him restore it to him again he would not, but left it with one of the Monks. This Conduct of Peter Damien's being perfectly free from any partiality, sufficiently cleared him from the Accusation of these Chaplains; but in his turn he reproved them for two Errors, First because they taught, that Priests might Marry; and then because they maintained, that it was no Simony to give Money for the Presentation of a Living, provided nothing was given for Ordination.  
The Fourteenth and Fifteenth are directed to the Clergy of the Church of Milan, who maintained the Truth and Purity of Discipline; he exhorted them to persevere with Constancy and Steadfastness.  
The Two next are part, one of the Forty second, and the other of the Eighth of his Opuscula.  
In the Eighteenth, he returns an Answer to a Priest who had asked his Advice about two Ceremonies relating to Baptism and the Celebration of the Mass: And after he had intimated that no new Customs ought to be introduced, he determines, That only the Holy Chrism ought to be put into the Water of Baptism, and not any Oil or Wine; and that in the Celebration of the Mass the Ablution of the Chalice ought not to be omitted, but when it was to be celebrated twice in a Day.  
The Nineteenth is among the Opuscula of which it makes the Twenty eighth.  
The Sixth Book contains such Letters as are written to Abbots and Monks.  
The First is referred to the Forty third of his Opuscula.  
The Second is directed to Hugh Abbot of Clunie; the Monks of that Abbey as an acknowledgement of the Love which Peter Damien had for them, and of the Services which he had done them, had promised him, that they would say an Office for him every Year on the Day of his Death. He prays the Abbot of Clunie that this might be performed not only in that Abbey, but likewise in others which were of the same Order.  
The Third directed to the same Abbot, is only a Letter of Compliment for the kind Entertainment he had given to one of Peter Damien's Nephews.  
In the Fourth, he recommends to him again the Prayers which he had promised to offer up for him after his Death.  
In the Fifth, directed to the Monks of that Abbey, he commends the Discipline and the good Order which was observed in their Monastery; thanks them for the acknowledgement they made of the good Services he had done them, and conjures them to pray to God for him after his Death.  
The Two next contain nothing in them very remarkable.  
The Eighth is among the Opuscula, of which it makes the Twenty first.  
In the Ninth, he reproves a Monk whom he had made Superior of an Hermitage, for having quitted it, to be an Abbot of another Monastery; and orders him either to return to the Charge committed to him, or else to live only as a Monk in that Monastery.  
In the Tenth, he retracts what he had said of St. John the Baptist's being conceived during the Feast of Tabernacles.  
The Eleventh is among the Opuscula, of which it makes the Forty fourth.  
In the Twelfth, he answers to the Reproaches cast upon him by an Abbot, for having entertained a Monk who came out of another Monastery, which seemed contrary to the Rule of St. Benedict. He makes it appear, that this Rule ought only to be understood of the Monasteries of the Coenobites, and not of the Hermits, whose Life is most perfect. He pretends that St. Benedict was at first an Hermit, and that he always preferred the Life of the Hermits, before that of the Coenobites.  
The Thirteenth is directed to the Monks of a Monastery of Constantinople; but contains nothing in it remarkable.  
The Fourteenth is among the Opuscula, of which it makes the Twenty ninth.  
In the Fifteenth, he admonishes an Abbot not to detain one of his Monks, who had deserted him and was excommunicated, promising withal, That if that Monk would return, he would use him kindly.  
The Three next make the Forty fifth, Forty sixth, and Fifty ninth of his Opuscula.  
In the Nineteenth, he gives a description of the Distempers, under which he laboured; of the Patience wherewith he endured them; and of the extremity to which he was brought; which was such; That they administered the extreme Unction to him, and laid him upon Ashes and Haircloth, as the Custom than was. He takes notice that his Remedy was communicated to one of his Monks in a Vision, and procured by Alms, and that he had much ado to persuade himself to eat Flesh.  
In the Twentieth, he advises a Monk not to engage himself upon every turn to expiate the Faults of others, and readily to perform those Pennances with which he was engaged. He moreover relates an Instance of another Monk, who had suffered great Punishments in the other World, for having not done Penance for another, according as he undertook.  
The Twenty first is among his Opuscula, of which it makes the Forty seventh.  
The Twenty second is to his Nephew Damien, whom he exhorts to be zealous in the Exercises of the Monastical Life, and reproves for having gone from an Hermitage to a Monastery, and exhorts to return thither again.  
In the Twenty third, he reproves a Monk, who delayed turning Hermit, upon the account that he had much ado to persuade himself not to drink Wine.  
The Twenty fourth and Twenty sixth, are referred to the Forty eighth and ninth of his Opuscula.  
In the Twenty fifth, he makes it appear, That it was upon some Grounds that he had a design of quitting his Church; he thereupon relates two extraordinary Events.  
The Twenty seventh is directed to the Monk Cerebrosus, who had with some sharpness blamed the practice of Discipline. Peter Damien maintained it by the same Arguments which he had already alleged. He pretended that it was a sort of Martyrdom; that it was what was very well known to the Ancients; that it is founded upon the Canons; and that it was in use before his Time in the Religious Mona asteries, wherein it was Customary to buy off a whole Year's Penance, by a Thousand Stripes of a Rod. That Monk did not find fault with the Discipline, which was used during the reading of a Chapter for light Faults; but he blamed those severe and long Disciplines of so many Hundred Stripes. Peter Damien says, That if one approves the lesser Discipline, one ought not to Condemn that which was more severe and mortifying.  
In the Twenty eighth, he illustrates two Passages out of St. Gregory.  
In the Twenty ninth, he advises a Monk, every day, to say the Rosary, and to read the Holy Scriptures.  
The Two next make the Fifty first and the Fifty third of his Opuscula.  
In the Thirty second, he reproves the Hermits of a Monastery near his, for having neglected the Rule which he had given them, for being too much in love with Money, and too much given to Ease and Luxury. For their Instruction, he relates the Punishments of several Monks, who had not lived up to that strictness which they ought, and the Penance inflicted upon them for their Faults.  
The Thirty third is amongst his Opuscula, of which it makes the Fifty fourth.  
The Thirty fourth is likewise directed to several Hermits of his Congregation, whom he reproved for being too severe and too long in the exercise of their Discipline. He would not have any one, every day, be Disciplined any longer than during the reading of Forty Psalms, and in Advent and Lent, only whilst Sixty Psalms were reading.  
The Thirty fifth is amongst his Opuscula, of which it makes the Twenty fifth.  
In the last, he exhorts his Monks to live peaceably after his Death, and requires that all the Possessions belonging to another Monastery, which he permitted them to enjoy during his Life-time, should be restored after his Decease.  
The seventh Book contains the Letters written to Princes and Princesses, the Two first of which are directed to the Emperor Henry III. In one of them he desires that Count Gisler may be set at liberty, and in the other, he commends that Prince for having dispossessed Wiquier of the Archbishopric of Ravenna, who had obtained it by sinister practices.  
The Third is directed to the young Prince Henry, the Son of the former, whom he earnestly exhorts to defend the Church, and to oppose Cadalous's Schism.  
The next are directed to the Empress Agnes, the Wife of Henry III. and written nabout different Affairs. In one of them, he gives that Princess to understand, that the Pope could not send the Pall to the Archbishop of Mentz, till he himself came to desire it, or till he were examined by his Legates. In the two others, he comforts and exhorts the same Princess to beg assistance of Jesus Christ, and in the last, he invites her to Italy.  
The Ninth is written in the Name of Pope Nicolas II. to the Queen of France, whom he exhorts to continue her Bounty and pious Actions; advising her at the same time, to inspire the King her Husband with the same Principles, and to cause her Children to be educated in the same manner.  
In the Tenth, directed to Godfrey Duke of Tuscany, he expresses himself how much he was concerned, that that Prince, had given entertainment to Cadalous, and admonishes him to make amends for that Fault.  
The Two next directed to the same Duke, are comprised in the Fifty seventh Opusculum.  
In the Thirteenth, he entreats that Prince to remit a certain Sum of Money to the Abbey of St. John Baptist, to pay for a Library which he had bought.  
In the Fourteenth, directed to Beatrice Duchess of Tuscany, he approves of the Resolution that she and her Husband had taken to live in perpetual Continency, and proposes many Examples of Virtue, for her imitation.  
In the Fifteenth, he exhorts a certain Prince, to contemn all Worldly Possessions, and to seek after the Heavenly.  
The Sixteenth, is comprehended in the eighteenth Opusculum.  
In the Seventeenth, he exhorts the Marquis Renier, who had been enjoined, by way of Penance for his Offences, to go in pilgrimage to Rome; to set forward on his Journey, as soon as possible, and produces divers Examples, of the Protection that God has afforded to Pilgrims.  
In the Eighteenth, he admonishes the Countess Gille, newly married to the Marquis Renier, not to retain the Spoils of the Widows and Orphans, but to restore every thing that her Husband had got by rapine, and advises her in order to prevent him from committing those outrages for the future, to cause the Lands to be well cultivated, and to give Alms to the Poor.  
The Nineteenth, is among the Opuscula, of which it makes the Fiftieth.  
The last Book of Peter Damien's Letters, contains those that were written by him to divers particular Persons.  
In the First, directed to Cinthius' Perfect of Rome, he commends him for the Exhortation that he made to the Twelfthday, and advises him to persevere in administering Justice in the City, and in maintaining the Rights of the Church.  
In the Second, he admonishes the same Cinthius, that he should not so much give himself up to praying as to neglect doing Justice.  
In the Third, he exhorts the Person to whom he writes, to show due Respect to his Mother, and enlarges on the Duties of Children to their Parents.  
The Fourth, is a Consolatory Letter to a Father, upon the Death of his Son. He maintains that the Death of Children is a peculiar Favour of God, and that we ought to rejoice rather than to be troubled at it.  
In the Fi●th, he exhorts a Senator of the City of Rome, to complete the building of a Church that he had begun, showing by many Examples, that it is an Action, which deserves Reward.  
In the Sixth, he comforts a sick Person, giving him to understand, that Sufferings are a mark of Predestination, and that a Christian ought to bear them with Patience and Cheerfulness.  
The Seventh, is comprised in the Forty second Opusculum.  
In the Eighth, he exhorts a Judge to meditate on the future State, and on the Day of Judgement, and produces a great number of Sentences of Scripture on that Subject, to the end that he might take the matter into serious Consideration.  
The Ninth, is amongst the Opuscula, of which it makes the Fifty eighth.  
In the Tenth, he exhorts a certain Person, who was apt to forswear himself to abstain altogether from Swearing, and advises him to give Alms.  
The Eleventh, makes the Thirtieth Opusculum.  
The Twelfth, is an Invective against Pride.  
The Thirteenth, is contained in the Fifty ninth Opusculum.  
The Fourteenth, is directed to his two Sisters, to whom he gives a great deal of Advice about the Religious Life.  
The Fifteenth, is a Prayer made by Peter Damien, on behalf of a Man, who was at the point of Death, and it is one of those that are now used in the Church (i. e. of Rome) for Persons in such a Condition.  
From the Letters pass we to the Opuscula or small Tracts, which constitute the third Volume of Peter Damien's Works; reserving the Account of the Second, which contains his Sermons, till we have made the Extract of his Opuscula.  
The First bears this Title, Of the Catholic Faith, and is dedicated to Ambrose. He explains therein, the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, and more especially establishes the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Persons of the Father and of the Son.  
In the Second, called Antilogus against the Jews, he makes it appear by several Proofs taken out of the Old Testament, That JESUS CHRIST is the true Messiah the Son of God.  
The Third is on the same Subject, in which he answers divers Questions proposed in the name of the Jews, concerning JESUS CHRIST.  
The Fourth, is a Dialogue between the Emperor Henry's Attorney General, and an Advocate of the Church of Rome, concerning the Right that the Emperors of Germany have to the Election of a Pope. After the Death of Nicolas II. the Romans chose Alexander II. without the Emperor Henry's Knowledge; whereupon that Prince being highly displeased that the Election was carried on without his Authority, nominated Cadalous Bishop of Parma to the Papal Dignity. Peter Damien supposes the Question about the validity of both those Elections to be debated in a Council, between the Advocate of the Church of Rome, and the Emperor's Attorney General. The latter maintains, That the Election of a Pope cannot be duly managed without the Prince's Consent, and that they had apparently done him an injury in ordaining Alexander without his Knowledge. On the other side, the Advocate of the Church of Rome asserts, that the Right of choosing a Pope, or of confirming his Election, does not belong to his Imperial Majesty; since not only the Pagan Emperors, but also all the Christian Princes to the last Greek Emperors, never laid claim to that Right, nor had any share in the Election of a Pope, which was always performed by the Church of Rome. The Attorney General replies, That Henry the Father and Predecessor of the Prince, whose Right he maintained, enjoyed such a Privilege and that it was confirmed by Pope Nicolas II. to the Emperor his Master. The Advocate of the Church of Rome acknowledges that Concession, and willingly agrees, that the Emperor should enjoy the same Privilege; but he insists that as to the matter in debate, the Emperor Henry being under Age, the Church of Rome, acted as his Tutor in that Election, and performed the Office that belonged to him, by reason that a Child is uncapable of making such a choice: That therefore what was done at Rome, was not prejudicial to the Emperor's Right, but only made it appear, that there might be some occasions, in which it cannot take place. The Attorney General averred, That at least it could not be denied, that they had done that Prince Wrong, in not making application to him: That three Months had passed from Pope Nicolas' Death to the Day of Alexander's Ordination, and that there was more time than was requisite for the obtaining of a Pragmatical Sanction from the Imperial Court. The Advocate of the Church of Rome replies, That the Germane Noblemen and some of the Bishops of the Empire, who were disaffected to the Church of Rome, called a kind of Council, in which, by an unheard of boldness, they disannulled every thing that was ordained by Pope Nicolas: That they refused to hearken to Stephen Cardinal Priest and Legate of the Holy See, and that at the solicitation of Count Gerard, whom Pope Nicolas had excommunicated in a full Synod, they proceeded to the Election of a Person, who was altogether unworthy. Thereupon he demands, which of the two Competitors ought to be acknowledged as lawful Pope; either he who was unanimously chosen by the Cardinals, who was nominated by the Clergy and People of Rome, and who was fairly elected in that City, and in the Bosom of the Holy Apostolic See; or he who had no other suffrage in his favour, but that of an excommunicated Person? The Attorney General acquiesces to these Arguments, being well satisfied, that his Sovereign's Right was sufficiently secured, and that the Person, who was chosen, could not be unacceptable to him, because he belonged to his Court. Then the Advocate of the Church of Rome concludes, wishing, That the Sacerdotal and Imperial Powers were inseparably united, and that they might always concur in the same end.  
The Fifth Opusculum or small Tract, is a Relation directed to Hildebrand the Archdeacon, of what befell Peter Damien, during his Journey to Milan, where he was sent in quality of Legate of the Holy See, to suppress the Disorders committed by the unchaste and simoniacal Clergy of that Church. 'Tis related by him, that upon his arrival at Milan, he had no sooner given notice of the purport of his Commission, but the Clergy under colour that their Church ought not to be governed by the Laws, nor to submit to the Yoke of Rome, raised a Sedition. That the People ran in Crowds to the Episcopal Palace, threatening to cause him to be put to Death: And that afterwards appearing between the Archbishop of Milan, and Anselm Bishop of Lucca, he allayed their fury by a Discourse, which he produces. In that Speech Peter Damien remonstrates to them, that he was not come to enhance the Grandeur and Authority of the Holy See; but to promote their Salvation: That that Church derives its Dignity and Primacy from the Institution of JESUS CHRIST, and that no attempt can be made on its Rights without violating the Faith: That St. Nizarius, St. Gervase and St. Protasius, the first Planters of the Church of Milan, received their Mission from the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul: That St. Ambrose had recourse to Pope Siricius, to put a stop to the irregularities of some of his Clergymen, and that he declared, that he was ready in all Points to obey the Church of Rome as his Patroness. The Cardinal of Ostia having by this means pacified the People, called an Assembly of the Clergy, and after having made enquiry into the manner of their Ordination, scarce found one Man, among so great a number, who was admitted into Orders without disbursing Money, because every one upon that occasion, was obliged to pay a certain set rate.  
This general Disorder extremely perplexed Peter Damien, in regard that it would be unjust to punish some, and to pardon others, who were no less culpable. Therefore he took a Resolution, to grant an Amnesty for passed Transgressions, and to make a Constitution to prevent such Enormities for the future. It was drawn up in the Name of Guy Archbishop of Milan, who declared, That he condemned the Custom or rather Abuse, which prevailed in his Diocese, and that he obliged himself and his Successors to exact nothing for Ordinations: That he likewise condemned the Marriage of Priests, Deacons and Subdeacons, and that he promised to use his utmost endeavours, to hinder them from keeping Wives or Concubines: That he further engaged both for himself and his Officers, not to take any thing, for the Benediction of Abbeys and Chapels; for the Investiture and Collation of Benefices; for the Ordination of Bishops; for the Administration of the Holy Chrism, or for the Consecration of Churches. This Decree was signed by the Archbishop of Milan, and by the principal Clergy, who took an Oath to observe it, and did Penance for their passed Offences: The former imposed on himself a Penance of a hundred Years, and nominated how much he determined to give for the Redemption of it. The other Clergymen were in like manner enjoined Fasting, which nevertheless they might redeem by reciting the Psalter, or by giving Alms. Furthermore the Archbishop made a Vow to go in pilgrimage to the Sepulchre of St. James in Gallicia, and to send his Clerks to Rome or Tours, or to some other Place usually frequented by Pilgrims.  
In the sixth Tract, directed to Henry Archbishop of Ravenna, Peter Damien debates this Question, viz. Whether those who were ordained by Priests Simoniacally promoted, aught to be re-ordained or not? This Question was proposed in a Council, where it was not judged expedient to resolve it, till it were farther discussed. Peter Damien maintains the Negative, by reason that 'tis not the Bishop, who is only the Minister, but God, that Consecrates: That the same thing may be said of Ordination, as of Baptism, viz. That it ought not to be reiterated, altho' it were administered by an unworthy Minister: That provided the Orders be conferred in the Catholic Church, and that both he who confers them, and he who takes them have Faith, the vicious Clerk is as effectually ordained by an unworthy Minister, as the virtuous Clerk by a worthy Minister: That there are three principal Sacraments in the Church, viz. Baptism, the Eucharist and Orders: That St. Augustin proves as to the First, and Paschasius with respect to the Second, that those Sacraments are not made more or less eff●…cious by worthy or unworthy Ministers; and altho' the Question was never as yet stated in reference ●o Ordinations; nevertheless the Case ought to be argued after the same manner, according to St. Augustin's Principles, on which Peter Damien enlarges in this Book, and adds many examples to show, that Ordinations conferred by unworthy Ministers are valid, and that those Persons who were once admitted into Orders, ought not to be re-ordained, which he applies in particular to Simonists, and commends the Conduct of Pope Leo IX. who only imposes a Penance of forty Days on those that were ordained by Priests guilty of Simony, but did not lay out any Money upon that account. He likewise commends the Emperor Henry, for opposing that Irregularity, and concludes with a Declamation against Si●….  
The seventh Treatise, called the Gomorrhean is dedicated to Pope Leo IX. who approved of it in a 〈◊〉 which is prefixed at the beginning. In this Tract, Peter Damien proves, that Clergymen who have committed Sins of Uncleanness, which Modesty does not permit to be 〈◊〉, aught to be deprived of the Functions of their Order for ever: He re●… the 〈◊〉 of the Penitential Books, which impose too light Penances for those sorts of Crimes of which he shows the Enormity: He inveighs against those Persons who are guilty of 〈◊〉 not●…s Offences, and exhorts them to a speedy Repentance, and to do severe Penance.  
The eighth Tract, dedicated to John Bishop of Cesena and to the archdeacon of Ravenna, related to the Degrees of Consanguinity in which it is forbidden to contract Marriage. He 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Opinion of the Lawyers who restrained them to the Fourth, and imagined that Grand Nephew● and Grand Nieces might intermarry. He reckons up the Degrees by Generations, and maintains, That as far as any Consanguinity or Affinity can be discerned, Ma●… 〈◊〉 not to be contracted, which takes place at least to the seventh Degree. He ●…ise, that in computing the Degrees, of Consanguinity, the number of Per●…●xceed that of the Generations by one; so that there are but five Ge●…●he●e, are six Persons: But he retracts this Opinion in a Dissertation made 〈…〉 purpose to be 〈◊〉 to the same Treatise.  
〈◊〉 the Ninth, he treats at large of almsgiving, and shows the Usefulness of it, both for ●…ing ●nd 〈◊〉 Dead, in this World and in the future State.  
The Tenth, 〈◊〉 ●●out the Divine Service, in which he gives an account of the number of 〈◊〉 Canonical ●ours 〈◊〉 of the Prayers which make the Office, and of the difference between the Office of Clergymen and that of the Monks: He shows how beneficial 'tis to recite it, and even recommends it to ●a●cks, as well as the small Office of the Virgin Mary. In this Tract ●e likewise discourses of the seven Mortal Sins, amongst which he does not reckon 〈◊〉, but di●●inguishes vain Glory from Pride.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eleve●…●e states this Question, viz. Whether those who recite their Office alone 〈◊〉 private ought ●o say; Dominus vobiscum, Jube Domine, etc. He concludes in the Affirma●… because, 〈◊〉 the Church is, one in many; it may be said, that divers Persons are 〈◊〉 apprehended in one single Member of it, and by reason of that Unity, one single Person may speak for all, and as if, he joined in Prayer with many: That one single Person often speaks in the name of many and many in that of a single Person: That if it were requisite to retrench these Prayers, because they seem to suppose the presence of many Persons; other parts of the Divine Office, which are of the same nature, ought likewise to be omitted: That the Sacrifice of the Mass is offered up for all the Faithful, tho' in a special manner by the Priest, in regard that he holds in his Hands, every Thing that the Faithful offer in their Mind: That altho' only 〈◊〉 ●●ngle Person assists at the celebration of Mass; yet he does not forbear to say Dominus 〈◊〉, and not Dominus tecum: That the Church has no regard to Numbers, Cases or Te●ms, but adheres only to that which tends to Edification: That that which one omits, may be supplied by another; and lastly, that these Words may be referred as well to the Absent as to the Present. He concludes with a Commendation of the solitary Life, in favour of the Her●…, to whom he wrote, and leaves the Resolution of this Question to his Judgement. It may also be observed in this Treatise, That at that time, the Bishops were wont to say, Pax Vobis, whereas the Priests only said Dominus vobiscum.  
The Twelfth, is written against the disorderly Lives of the Monks of his Time, and he rebukes them chief for four irregular Practices, viz. 1. That they enjoyed Estates and hoarded up Money, contrary to the Vow of Poverty. 2. That they ran about continually, and kept Company with Laymen, even with excommunicated Persons, or such as deserved to be so punished, according to the tenor of the ancient Canons. 3. That they kept rich Apparel and other Garments so sorry, that they wore them only to show their affectation of Vain Glory. 4. That they were too much immersed in Worldly Affairs, and that they did not lead a Life sufficiently retired. This Treatise is written with a great deal of Energy; so that the Author gives a very lively description of the Enormities of the Monks of those times, and endeavours to reform their Manners by Precepts and contrary Examples.  
In the next Treatise that bears this Title, Of the Perfection of Monks, he instructs them in their Duty and in the Virtues they ought to practise.  
The Fourteenth dedicated to his Hermits, contains an Abridgement of the Rule, and of the manner of living that they ought to observe.  
He enlarges farther on the same Subject, in the Fifteenth Tract, which may be looked upon as an entire System of the Rules of his Order.  
The Sixteenth, is an Invective against a certain Bishop, who asserted, That a Person who had assumed the Monastic Habit by reason of the Indisposition of his Body, or upon some other Motive without serving as a Novice for a considerable time, according to the Rule, might return to a secular course of Life. Peter Damien maintains the contrary Opinion, and establishes it on the Tenor of the Canons, which absolutely forbids all those, who have voluntarily embraced the Monastic Life, and even Children, whom their Parents have engaged in that Station, to quit their Profession. He says, that the complete Probation specified in St. Benedict's Rule, does not prove that those who get admission without undergoing a Trial, may disengage themselves at pleasure: That it is a precaution requisite for the satisfaction of those who have a right to admit, rather than for the benefit of the Persons to be admitted; and that it is not so absolutely necessary, that it cannot be dispensed with, when there is assurance, that they who present themselves for that purpose, are endowed with proper Qualities, and are really in a State of Grace.  
The Seventeenth, is dedicated to Pope Nicolas II. whom he earnestly exhorts to put a stop to the enormities committed by unchaste and dissolute Clergymen and to make use of the severity of the Canons against them, in imitation of Phineas' Zeal.  
The Eighteenth, is composed of three Letters against the incontinency of Clergymen, in which Peter Damien shows, that they are obliged to lead a single Life; inveighs against those who are married or keep Concubines; vigorously opposes these Disorders and powerfully exhorts the Persons, to whom he writes, who are Peter Cardinal of Rome, the Bishop of Turin and the Duchess Adelaide, to interpose their Authority in order to prevent them for the future.  
In the Nineteenth, he resigns his Bishopric and two Abbeys into the Hands of Pope Nicolas, and to induce him to approve of that Resignation, he represents the Examples of divers Prelates, who have in like manner quitted their Bishoprics, and gives an Account of certain Apparitions of Bishops or other Persons, condemned to endure the Torments of Hell, or of Purgatory, for neglecting to perform their Duty. Indeed one cannot but admire at the great number of Examples of that nature produced by him; but if any be desirous to be informed of the particulars, they need only peruse this Treatise; in which the Author, for his own part, alleges, as a motive to his Resignation, that at the time of his promotion to the Episcopal Dignity, he was not worthy of it; and that his Life and Conversation were culpable, which induced him to believe, that it was much safer to depose himself, than to have a Sentence of Deposition passed upon him at the Day of Judgement, accompanied with everlasting Damnation.  
The next Tract dedicated to the same Pope Nicolas; is written on the same Subject, and full of Examples of the like Nature: He enlarges farther on the Reasons that obliged him to quit his Bishopric, and more particularly on this, viz. that he was no longer in a condition to take care of the two Bishoprics, which the Holy See thought fit to commit to his Charge.  
In the Twenty first, he commends an Abbot, for resigning his Office, to be discharged of the Cares, Troubles and multiplicity of Business that unavoidably attended that Dignity, and exhorts him to withstand, for the future, the Temptations, with which the Devil usually assaults those, who have quitted Ecclesiastical Preferments, by inspiring them with a desire to resume them.  
The Twenty second, is written against Clergymen who reside at Court, and put themselves into the Service of Princes or Potentates, to obtain Bishoprics or Abbeys. He shows that they are not free from the imputation of Simony, although they disburse no Money, but that on the contrary, they are blame-worthy; because they sell themselves as it were for Slaves, and part with their Liberty to get Ecclesiastical Live: Besides, that their Services are of greater Value, than the Money that is paid by others: For suppose (says he) that two Clergymen are possessed of an equal Hereditary Estate; that they both sell it, and that one of them resorts to Court, where he spends his Stock by degrees in the Prince's Service, whilst the other, on the contrary, keeps his entire. Afterwards a Benefice is bestowed on each of them, that is to say, on the former, as a recompense for his Service, and on the other, for his Money; now the Question is, Which of the two bought the Benefice at the dearest Rate? The Value of the Money is equal, since it was the Product of both their Estates; but one obtained with a great deal of Pains and Fatigues, that which the other got without any Trouble or Difficulty; and therefore the Purchase made by the former, cost much more than that by the latter.  
The Twenty third, is dedicated to Pope Alexander II. upon his return from the Council of Mantua, and contains an Answer to a Question which he had formerly proposed to Peter Damien, viz. Upon what account it happens that the Lives of the Popes are generally so short? The latter resolves it by a Moral Reflection, That God permits it so to fall out, to the end that the Frailty of Humane Life, may be most conspicuous in those, who are promoted to the Supreme Dignity; and that all Men who have regard to the Popes, may be struck with terror at their Death. This gives him an occasion to enlarge upon Providence and the Goodness of the Divine Majesty.  
In the Twenty fourth, he writes against those Canons, who being maintained in common, by the Church-Revenues, affect to enjoy private Possessions. He exhorts Pope Alexander, to whom his Letter is directed, to make use of his Authority, to oblige them to quit that Claim.  
In the Twenty fifth, he extols the Sacerdotal Dignity, and discourses on the Obligations that accompany it.  
In the Twenty sixth, he declaims against the Ignorance, supine Negligence and Slothfulness of Clergymen. He makes it appear to be the source of the principal Disorders in the Church, and exhorts the Bishops to inspect the Lives and Conversation of the inferior Clergy, and to take care that none be admitted into the Ecclesiastical State, but such as are capable of performing those Functions.  
The Twenty seventh is directed to the Canons of the Church of Fano, who were at variance one with another, by reason that some of them were desirous to live separately, and the others in common. Peter Damien takes part with the latter, and maintains, that the Canons ought to live in Common, and to have no private Property, following the Examples of the Apostles and of the Christians of the primitive Church.  
The Twenty eighth is composed in favour of the Monks, against the Secular Clerks and Canons. The latter insisted, that the Monks ought not to administer the Eucharist or other Sacraments. Peter Damien maintains on the contrary, that the Monks ought not to be excluded from those Functions; and to prove his Assertion, brings several Examples of Monks, who being made Bishops or Priests, have actually administered them. He extols the Monastic Order, deriving its original from the Prophets and Apostles; and in the close, citys a Decretal made by Pope Boniface iv in which Monks are authorized to administer the Sacrament of Penance.  
The Twenty ninth is directed to a certain Abbot, whom he reproves for wearing too sumptuous Apparel.  
The Thirtieth is written to the Inhabitants of Florence, and more especially to the Monks of that City, who refused to communicate with their Bishop, and to receive the Sacraments from his Hands, because they suspected him to be guilty of Simony. Peter Damien makes it appear, that although the Information they brought against him were true, yet they ought not to withdraw themselves from his Communion, till he were legally convicted, nor to refuse to receive the Sacraments administered by him; by reason that unworthy Ministers are capable of administering them as well as the worthy.  
In the Thirty first, he exhorts the Cardinals to oppose the Covetousness and Concupiscence of the Clergy, which was the source of the greatest part of the Disorders and Calamities that befell the Church.  
The Thirty second, is a Moral and Mystical Treatise on Lent or the Forty days Fast, and on the Forty Stations of the Israelites in the Wilderness.  
The Thirty third, is a letter directed to the Abbot of Mount Cassin, who had threatened that if he did not come to him, he should no longer partake of the Benefit of the Prayers put up in his Monastery. Peter Damien excuses himself, upon account that he was sensible that the time of his Dissolution drew near, and that he was afraid of going in quest after a Monastery, lest he should die without the precincts of a Monastery. He entreats that Abbot not to deprive him of the Advantages that might arise from the Supplications of those of his Order: He enlarges on the Devotions to be performed to the Virgin Mary, and produces a great number of Miracles wrought by her Intercession, in favour of those who had a particular Respect for her; and amongst others, he says, that she appeared to his Brother Damien a little before his Death. Afterwards he shows, that Alms distributed for the Dead, procure them Consolation, as well as Prayers and Sacrifices.  
The Thirty fourth, is a Collection of a great number of Miracles, Visions, Apparitions and Historical Passages, relating to the Punishment of evil Actions, and the reward of good, the Torments of Hell, and the deliverance of Souls out of Purgatory.  
In the Thirty fixth, after having alleged for a Reason, why the Image of St. Paul is usually placed on the right Hand and St. Peter's on the least; that the former was of the Tribe of Benjamin, which signifies the Son of the right Hand; he enlarges on the Commendation of that Apostle.  
In the Thirty sixth, he treats of the Eternity, Immensity, Purity, and more especially of the Omnipotence of God.  
In the Thirty seventh, he explains several Difficulties relating to the Holy Scripture, that were proposed to him.  
In the Thirty eighth, he confutes the Opinion of the Greeks, concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost.  
In the Thirty ninth, after having commended the Archbishop of Besanson, for the good Order he had established in his Church, and for having caused a Tomb to be prepared for himself, he finds fault with the Custom of his Church and of some other Churches of France, in which the Clerks and even the Monks, in some places, were permitted to fit, during the Celebration of Divine Service. He is of Opinion, that all those who assist at it, aught to continue standing, till it be performed.  
In the Fortieth, after having congratulated a certain Bishop, upon the recovery of his Health, he exhorts him not to give way to Passion for the future, and to forgive his Enemies.  
In the Forty first, he maintains, That those Persons who make Matrimonial Contracts within the time prohibited by the Church, that is to say, in Lent; three Weeks before the Festival of St. John Baptist; and from Advent to Epiphany; aught to be divorced, and their Marriage declared null: But forasmuch as some, made no scruple to marry at those times, and imagined that it was sufficient to abstain from the use of Marriage, to avoid the Ecclesiastical Censures, he confutes that Opinion, by showing, that it is not carnal Copulation, but the mutual Consent of the Parties that makes the Marriage.  
The Forty second contains two Letters, in which he admonishes two several Persons, to perform the Vow that they had made, to enter into a Religious Order; showing by divers Authorities and Examples, the Obligation they lie under, to fulfil their Vows, who have once made them.  
In the Forty third, he exhorts the Monks of Mount Cassin, to discipline themselves every Friday.  
In the Forty fourth, he gives Moral Explications of the ten Plagues of Egypt.  
In the Forty fifth, to comfort a tender-conscienced Monk, who was troubled for his Ignorance; he shows that Learning often occasions many Vices, more especially when it is not accompanied with other Virtues, but that downright Integrity is always profitable to Salvation.  
In the Forty sixth, he exhorts that Monk, patiently and cheerfully to bear Reprimands and Corrections.  
In the Forty seventh, he recommends Chastity to his Nephew Damien, and persuades him to receive the Communion every day, to be in a condition to preserve that Virtue. Afterwards he gives him wholesome Instructions to withstand the Temptations of the Devil.  
In the Forty eighth, he reproves a Monk, who had still some inclination for delicious Fare and costly Apparel, and admonishes him to fix all his Delight and Repose in God.  
In the Forty ninth, he gives a great deal of wholesome Advice, concerning the Spiritual Life to a young Monk his Nephew.  
The Fiftieth, is a Moral Instruction, dedicated to the Countess Blanch, who had taken a Nun's Habit.  
The Fifty first, is directed to a Monk named Teuzo, who having left his Monastery, retired to a Cell in the middle of the City, and refused to entertain Peter Damien as well as his Abbot, when they came to Visit him. He exhorts him with a great deal of Charity and Gentleness, to quit that particular way of living and to return to his Duty.  
In the Fifty second, he makes divers Moral Reflections, on the Qualities of several sorts of Animals.  
In the Fifty third, he shows the Advantages that arise from Afflictions and Adversity.  
In the Fifty fourth, he exhorts certain Monks to fast on Saturdays in honour of our Saviour's Burial, and makes use of an Apparition to confirm that Custom.  
In the Fifty fifth, he admonishes the Monks of his Order, to fast on the Vigils of the Festivals of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, of Christmas, of the Epiphany, of Holy Thursday, of Whitsunday, of the Nativity of St. John Baptist, and of those of all the Festivals of the Apostles, as also to observe a Fast on all Saturdays throughout the Year.  
In the Fifty sixth, he commends the Empress Agnes, upon account of the singular Modesty and Humility she had shown in going to Visit the Sepulchre of St. Peter and St. Paul, and makes it appear, that Potentates ought not to take a pride in their Grandeur, nor in the Riches of this World.  
In the Fifty seventh, he admonishes Prince Godfrey, that he did not use sufficient severity in the punishing of Criminals, and shows how necessary it is, that Princes should be very punctual in the Administration of Justice.  
In the Fifty eighth, he demonstrates, That there is no perfect Felicity in this World, and that all profane Sciences are not capable of making us truly Wise or Happy. Therefore he warns Boniface, to whom he writes, that if he has not taken a resolution entirely to renounce worldly Wealth and Knowledge; at least, he ought to make use of them only as means for the attaining of the real Possessions and of the true Wisdom.  
In the Fifty ninth, he treats of the last Judgement and Antichrist; and shows that it is difficult to discourse appositely on that Subject, but very profitable to meditate seriously upon it. He says, that Antichrist shall reign three Years and a half; that he shall be killed on the Mount of Olives; and that forty days shall pass from his Death, to the coming of JESUS CHRIST, during which the Persecution shall cease, and the Just, whose Faith has been shaken, shall perform Acts of Repentance: That afterwards the Earth and Air shall be involved in universal Flames, which shall purify the Elect. Then he produces ten Signs that ought to precede the Day of Judgement, according to St. Jerom.  
The Sixtieth and last Tract, contains Allegorical Explications on divers Passages of the Book of Genesis.  
We have given an account of the Opuscula after the Letters, because the greatest part of those Tracts, are in effect only of that nature, and it were more expedient to leave them among the Letters, (as in the first Edition) and to dispose them all according to the Order of time or the Subjects they treat of, than to distribute them in such a manner, as they appear at present. Let us now return to the second Tome that contains Peter Damien's Sermons, which are Seventy five in number, disposed according to the Order of the Festivals of the Year, but some of them do not belong to this Cardinal, particularly that of St. Martin. The second Sermon of St. Andrew; that of St. Nicolas; that on Christmass-Eve; and that of St. Stephen the Protomartyr; which are inserted among St. Bernard's Sermons, and which were published by Father Mabillon in the Edition of the Works of that Saint, under the Name of Nicolas Abbot of Cairvaux; as also, those on the Festivals of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, and of All-Saints, the first on Christmass-Day, and that on the Dedication of a certain Church, appear to have been composed by the same Author.  
The Sermons are followed by the Lives of St. Odilo, St. Maurus Bishop of Cesena, St. Romualdus, St. Rodulphus Bishop of Eugubio, and the History of the Passions of St. Flora and St. Lucilia. As for the other Lives of the Saints, taken out of Surius by Peter Damien, they constitute part of the Sermons.  
In the last Tome, are contained divers Prayers, Hymns and 
† A part of the Mass.  Proses attributed to Peter Damien, to which are annexed certain Extracts taken out of the Works of that Father, by a nameless Writer who was one of his Pupils, and out of the Rule of the Canons, composed by PETRUS de HONESTIS, a Clerk of Ravenna, whom some have unadvisedly confounded 
Petrus de Honestis.  with Peter Damien; since that Rule was dedicated to Pope Paschal II. who was not promoted to the Papal Dignity till A. D. 1099. after the death of the latter.  
The Treatise of the Reformation of the Bishops and Popes, extant in Goldastus, is not a Work flasly ascribed to Peter Damien, as Possevinus imagined, but a Fragment of the twelfth Letter of the first Book.  
The five Sermons, that Father Luke Dachery set forth under the Name of Peter Damien, in the seventh Tome of the Spicilegium, do not belong to this Author, but rather to St. Retrus Chrysologus, as it is owned by that Father himself, in the end of his Preface to the eighth Tome.  
Peter Damien wrote with a great deal of facility and clearness. His Style is Polite and Elegant, full of Figures and agreeable Varieties: He produces divers fine Notions, and 
Peter Damien's Character.  gives an admirable turn to his Writings, insomuch that some of his Letters are composed with all possible Art and Accuracy. He had a Genius proper for Negociations; and was so dextrous in the Management of Affairs, that even those whom he condemned or reproved, were constrained to acknowledge, that he had reason to do it. He delivered his Mind with a great deal of freedom, to the Popes and other Persons of Eminency; nevertheless, without failing to show all the Respect that was due to their Quality. He used his utmost endeavours to revive, at least a shadow of the ancient Discipline in that corrupted Age, and to put a stop to the Career of the Enormities committed by the Clergy and Monks of his Time. He attained to a profound skill in Ecclesiastical Affairs, and more especially in those that relate to the Constitutions and Discipline of the Church. He was also well versed in the Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, but insisted on the Allegorical rather than the Literal Sense of them. He had perused the Works of the Latin Fathers, and chief those of St. Augustin and St. Gregory, whose Doctrine and Maxims he thoroughly imbibed: He argues subtly about Theological Questions, and Controversial Matters. He showed a great deal of Devotion to the Virgin Mary, and was a punctual Observer of the Rites of the Church, and of Monastical Customs: But he produces a great number of Visions and Apparitions, which he very easily gives Credit to.  
The Works of this Author were published by Father Constantin Caietan, a Monk of the Order of Mount Cassin, and printed at Rome, in three Volumes in the Years, 1606, 1608, and 1615. These three Tomes were reprinted with a fourth at Lions, A. D. 1623. in one single Volume in Folio, and afterwards at Paris in 1663. not to mention an Edition of his Letters in Quarto, set forth by Nivelle at Paris in 1610.   

CHAP. IX.  
An Account of the Churches of England from King William the Conqueror, to Henry I. with the Life of St. Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury, and an Abridgement of his Works.  
THE Churches and Kingdom of England, which were in a flourishing condition, and enjoyed a profound Peace and Tranquillity in St. Dunstan's time, were miserably distressed after his Death, (according to his Prediction) with innumerable Troubles and Calamities. The Countries overrun by the Barbarians; the Churches were Pillaged and set on Fire; the Monasteries were ruined; the City of Canterbury was Burnt; and Alphegus the Archbishop was carried away Prisoner with the Clergy of that Province. These Calamities were followed by the Dissensions and Civil Wars, between King Edward the Son of Ethelred, and Godwin Earl of Kent with his Son Harold, as well as by a general Barbarity and Corruption of Manners; till at last the Death of Edward the Confessor, who left no Issue, completed the ruin of the Kingdom. Affairs being in this posture, William Duke of Normandy passing over the Sea, subdued it in the Year, 1066. having killed Harold in Battle, who had taken possession of the Throne after the decease of King Edward; and caused new Laws, as well Ecclesiastical as Civil, to be established throughout his Dominions: He prohibited his Subjects to acknowledge any Pope without his leave, and to receive any Bulls from Rome till they were shown to him: Neither would he suffer the Archbishop of Canterbury, tho' styled Primate of all England, to make any Constitutions in his Councils, which were not conformable to his Inclination, and that were not before concerted with him: Lastly, he forbidden that any of his Barons, Lords, Ministers of State, or Officers should be excommunicated without his Order. In the fifth Year of his Reign, Lanfranc, Abbot of St. Stephen at Caen, was ordained Archbishop of Canterbury, and went a little while after to 
Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury.  Rome, with Thomas Archbishop of York, and Remigius Bishop of Lincoln, to obtain the Pall of Pope Alexander II. who received them with particular marks of his Esteem and Friendship. The next Day, Lanfranc accused both these Bishops, who accompanied him, upon account of their illegitimate Ordination; by reason that one was the Son of a Priest, and the other had given a certain Sum of Money to King William for his Bishopric. The effect of this Accusation was, that the two Prelates resigned their Pastoral Staves and Rings into the Hands of the Pope, who gave these Ornaments back again to them, upon Lanfranc's request. This Archbishop upon his return from Rome with the Pall, took much pains in re-establshing the Churches of England, and maintained their Rights and Revenues against the Secular Powers with so great efficacy, that neither King William I. nor his Son William II. thought fit to make any attempt upon them, as long as he lived; but after his Death, the latter caused all the Ecclesiastical Revenues belonging to his Dominions to be registered, and having computed what was requisite for the maintenance of the Monks; reunited the rest to the Demeans of the Crown, letting them out to Farm every Year, to those who offered most; but in order to get an absolute Power over the Churches, when the Bishops died, he left their Sees vacant, and enjoyed their Revenues. That of Canterbury was vacant above five Years, till King William falling dangerously Sick, sent for the Abbot Anselm, and invested him with that Archbishop against his Will.  
This Saint was the Son of Gondulphus and Ermemberga, and was born at Aosta on the Alps, A. D. 1033. After having completed his Studies, and having travelled for some time in 
St. Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury.  Burgundy and France, he embraced the Monastic Life (at the Age of 27 Years) in the Abbey of Bec▪ and put himself under the Tuition of Lanfranc Prior of that Monastery: when the latter was made Abbot of St. Stephen at Caen, about three Years after, he was substituted in his room, and in like manner succeeded Herluin Abbot of Bec, who died in 1078. St. Anselm took some Journeys into England whilst he had the Government of that Abbey; by which means having given special Proofs of his extraordinary Abilities in this Kingdom, he was chosen Archbishop of Canterbury, March 6. A. D. 1093. and was consecrated on the fourth Day of December following. Then he went to salute the King, and offered him the Sum of Five hundred Pounds towards carrying on the War which that Prince undertook against his Brother Richard, to recover the Dukedom of Normandy. The King at first seemed to be well satisfied with this Present, but some of his Courtiers insisted that it was not sufficient, and that if his Majesty would signify his dissatisfaction never so little to the Archbishop, as much more might be got from him: Therefore the King sent him word, That he was unwilling to receive the Money which was proffered by him, as being too small a Sum: The Archbishop after having entreated him to accept of it, refused to give any more, and withdrew from the Court. However, some time after, he went to meet the King at Hastings just before his departure for Normandy, and delivered his mind freely to him, concerning the Reformation of the Churches of England, and the necessity of calling a Council for that purpose. The King was not well pleased with what he said, and made another demand of Money: but the Archbishop refusing even to disburse what he had proffered at first, incurred his high displeasure, and was obliged to retire with Precipitation. Upon the return of this Prince, he begged leave to go to Rome, to receive the Pall from the Hands of Pope Urban II. but the King denying his Request, told him, that 'twas not customary in his Kingdom, to acknowledge any other Person as Pope, than him whom he and his Prelates should think fit to approve, and having afterwards held an Assembly of Bishops and Lords for that purpose, it was declared therein, that Urban II. should not be acknowledged. Whereupon St. Anselm having undertaken to vindicate that Pope, all the Prelates except the Bishop of Rochester resolved, as well as the King, no longer to own him as Primate or Archbishop: He preferred a Petition that he might have leave to departed out of England, but it was rejected; nevertheless a delay was proposed till Whitsuntide, which being accepted of by him, he was left at liberty to return to Canterbury; yet he was no sooner arrived there, but his most faithful Friends and Servants were made Prisoners or Banished.  
In the mean while, the King sent two Clergymen to Rome, to endeavour to bring over Pope Urban to his Party, and to make himself Master of the Pall: The Pope sent back the Bishop of Albano with the two Clerks, who managed the business so well; that he persuaded the King to cause Urban to be owned; nevertheless this Legate could not be induced to consent to the deposing of Anselm. At last the King perceiving himself not to be able to accomplish his design, either to cause him to be deposed, or to oblige him to do what he required, was reconciled with him, by giving him the Pall which Urban's Legate had brought for his use. St. Anselm lived in quiet for some time, whilst the King pass over into Normandy, which Duchy was resigned to him by his Brother Richard; but at his return, a resolution was taken to exact a great Sum of Money of the Archbishop, who to avoid the Storm. sued for a permission to go to Rome; but not being able to obtain it, notwithstanding his reiterated solicitations at three several times, he departed without leave, and embarked at Dover; from whence he passed into France, and afterwards taking a Journey to Italy, went directly to Rome in the Year, 1098. where he was joyfully entertained by Pope Urban, but his Residence in that City being inconvenient by reason of the excessive Heats, he retired to a Village near Capua, where the Pope soon gave him a Visit, upon his arrival at the Siege of Capua, which Place was invested by Roger Duke of Apulia. After the raising of the Siege, the Pope held a Council at Bari, in which St. Anselm assisting, disputed earnestly against the Greeks, about the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and entreated the Pope and the Bishops, not to excommunicate the King of England. When the Council was concluded, he accompanied the Pope to Rome, and some Days after, the King of England, to whom Urban had written that he ought to re-establish St. Anselm in his Metropolitan See, sent thither an Ambassador, who obtained a Demurrer till the Festival of St. Michael. St. Anselm being informed of the matter, determined to go to Lions; but the Pope obliged him to stay, in order to be present in a Council, which was to be held at Easter in the Year, 1099. Thus he resided during six Months at Rome, and was very highly esteemed in that City. The Writer of his Life observes, that certain English Men, who came to visit him, being desirous to Kiss his Feet as it was usually done to the Pope's, he would not suffer them to do it, and that the Pope admired his Humility in that particular: Lastly, St. Anselm having assisted in the Council of Rome, A. D. 1099. in which Laics who took upon them to give Investitures, and those Clergymen who received them from their Hands, were excommunicated, he took leave of the Pope, and retired to Lions; where within a little while after, he was informed of the Death of Urban II. and afterward of that of William II. King of England, which happened in the Month of August A. D. 1100.  
Henry I. his Successor immediately recalled St. Anselm to England, where he was no sooner arrived, but he had new contests with that Prince about the Investitures and the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, which he refused to take. Forasmuch as this Affair was regulated at Rome, it was requisite that the King should make application to that Court, to endeavour to cause the Resolution which had been taken there, to be changed: However, St. Anselm refused to ordain the Bishops, who had received Investiture from the King, and nothing could be obtained from Rome. Afterward this Archbishop being persuaded by the King to take a Journey to Rome to find out some Expedients for the adjusting of that Affair, went thither accompanied with an Ambassador: Upon their Arrival the Matter was debated A. D. 1105. in the presence of Pope Paschal II. to whom the Ambassador peremptorily declared, That the King his Master would sooner be prevailed upon to part with his Kingdom, than with his right to the Investitures; The Pope replied, That he would sooner lose his Life than suffer him to retain it. However, at last it was agreed upon, That the King of England should enjoy certain Privileges which were in his possession, but that he should lay no manner of claim to the Investitures: Therefore the Excommunication which he was supposed to have incurred, by granting the Investiture of Benefices, was taken off; but it was ordained, That those Persons who had received them from his Hands, should remain excommunicated for some time, and that the giving them Absolution for that Offence should be reserved to St. Anselm. The Affair being thus determined, the Ambassador and St. Anselm set forward in their Journey, but when they were arrived near Lions, the Ambassador declared to him in his Master's name, that he was forbidden to return to England, unless he would promise him to submit to the Custom which prevailed in that Kingdom, without having any regard to what had been ordained to the contrary by the Pope. St. Anselm refusing to enter into such an Engagement, stayed some time at Lions, and having passed from thence into Normandy, at last came to an Accommodation with the King of England, on condition that the Churches which King William II. had first made subject to the Payment of a certain Tax, should be exempted from it, and that his Majesty should restore what he had exacted of the Clergy, and every thing that was taken from the Church of Canterbury, during the exile of the Archbishop. After this Agreement, which was concluded, A. D. 1106. between the King and the Archbishop at Bec Abbey, St. Anselm returned to England, was re-established in his Archbishopric, and enjoyed it peaceably till his Death, which happened three Years after, in the 16th since his advancement to that Dignity, and the 76th of his Age, A. D. 1109.  
St. Anselm is no less famous for his Learning, and the great number of his Writings, than for his Conduct and the Zeal he showed in maintaining the Rights of the Church. The largest Edition of his Works is the last, published by Father Gerberon, and it is that which we shall follow, being divided into three Parts: The First of these containing Dogmatical Treatises, bears the Title of Monologia; that is to say, a Treatise of the Existence of God, of his Attributes, and of the Holy Trinity: It is so called, by reason that it is composed in form of the Meditations of a Man, who reasons with himself to find out Divine Truths,▪ and who explains them accordingly as they are discovered by him. It is a very subtle Work, and contains a great Number of Metaphysical Arguments,  
He continues to Treat of the same Subject, and observes the same method of Writing in the Prostogia, where the Person who reasoned with himself in the first Work, making his Addresses to God, Discourses of his Existence, Justice, Wisdom, Immensity, Eternity, and of his being the Summum Bonum or Sovereign Good. A certain Monk named Gaunilon, having perused this Treatise, could not approve the Argument which St. Anselm makes use of therein, to prove the Existence of God, taken from the Idea of a most perfect Being: We have (says he) at least the Idea of a most perfect Being; therefore this Being of necessity Exists. Gaunilon not being able to comprehend this Argument (which seems to be a Sophism or mere Fallacy to those who are not endued with a sound and penetrating Judgement to discern the force of it) wrote a small Tract on purpose to refute it, in which he objects every thing that is most subtle and plausible, to overthrow this Ratiocination. St. Anselm returned a very solid Answer, in which he enervates his Adversary's Objections, and makes it appear, that his Argument is Rational and Convincing.  
The Treatise of Faith, of the Holy Trinity, and of the Incarnation Dedicated to Pope Urban II. was written against a French Clergyman named Rocselin Tutor to Abaelard, who undertook to prove, That the three Persons of the Trinity are three different Things; because otherwise it might be said, That the Father and the Holy Ghost were Incarnate. St. Anselm being as yet Abbot of Bec, began a Treatise to confute this Error; but the Maintainer thereof having abjured it in a Council held by the Archbishop of Rheims in his Province, he left the Work imperfect; yet completed it afterward in England, being there informed, that he who broached this Error, persisted therein, and declared that he abjured it, only for fear of being Assassinated by the People. St. Anselm at first lays down for a Maxim, That we ought not to argue against that which the Church believes, nor against that which Faith Teaches us, and that we ought not to Reject that which we cannot Comprehend; but that we ought to acknowledge, that there are many things which are above our Understanding. Afterward he relates Roscelin's Proposition expressed in these Terms: If the three Divine Persons be one and the same Thing and not three Things considered every one apart, as three Angels or three Souls, nevertheless in such a manner, that they are the same Thing in Will and Power; it follows, That the Father and the Holy Ghost were Incarnate with the Son. St. Anselm declares that this Man admits three Gods, or else that he does not know what he says: He asks him what he means by three Things, and acknowledges, that in one sense it may be said, That the three Persons of the Trinity are three Things, if their Relation one to another be understood by that Term; but that it cannot be so said, if their Substance be understood, which seems to be Roscelin's meaning, since he says, That they are Three distinct Things, as three Souls and three Angels: He confutes this Opinion, and shows, that the distinction of the Persons is sufficient to the end that it may be said, That the Son is Incarnate, without inferring, That the Father and the Holy Ghost are so. Afterward he resolves this Question, Why the Son was Incarnate rather than the Father or the Holy Ghost; shows that there is but one Person and two Natures in Jesus Christ; and explains the Procession of the Divine Persons.  
The Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost against the Greeks, is no less Theological than the former: For the Archbishop proves therein, That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, and discusses the principal Questions relating to his Procession.  
His Treatise of the Fall of the Devil, is written in form of a Dialogue and the Subject of it is less obscure. He shows, That altho' the Good Angels received from God, all the Good that was done by them, and even the Gift of Perseverance; yet it cannot be said, That the Bad did not persevere, because God denied them that Gift, but because they would not persevere: That the Good Angels were in a capacity of Sinning as well as the Bad; but that having freely preferred Righteousness to Unrighteousness, they had as a recompense, the assurance of never swerving from the former: And that the Bad on the contrary, having voluntarily fallen from Righteousness, lost for ever the Good which they had, and put themselves out of a Capacity of ever becoming Righteous. Afterward he treats of the nature of Evil, and proves that it consists only in a privation of Good, and debates some other subtle Questions.  
The Treatise which shows, Why God was made Man? Discovers its Subject in the very Title, and is more particularly explained in the Preface. This Treatise (says he) is divided into two Books; the first of which contains the Objections raised by the Infidels, who imagine it to be contrary to Reason, That a God should become Man, with the Answers of the Faithful to their Arguments; and it is shown therein, That 'tis impossible for any Man to be Saved without the Mediation of a God Incarnate. In the second Book 'tis proved, That Humane Nature is designed to enjoy everlasting Life, both in respect of the Soul and of the Body; and that this advantage cannot be obtained but by the means of a God-Man.  
The Treatise of Original Sin, was composed immediately after the preceding, and in it are discussed many Questions about the nature of Sin, and the manner how it is communicated to all the Posterity of Adam.  
The Treatise of Truth, of the Will, and of Liberty, contains variety of Metaphysical Principles concerning those Matters, to explain their Nature and Kind's. These Discourses are written, in form of Dialogues as well as the preceding.  
In the following Treatise, he inquires into the means of reconciling freewill with Foreknowledge, Predestination and Grace. As for Foreknowledge and Predestination, all his Discourse on those Matters is rambling, and in some places very obscure.  
The Subject of the Three next Treatises is less intricate, and the first of them Dedicated to Valeran Bishop of Naumburg, is about the use of Unleavened Bread; in which the Author maintains against the Greeks, that altho' the Eucharist may be administered with Unleavened and Leavened Bread, yet 'tis most expedient to make use of the former. The second is a Letter written by the said Valeran, complaining of the great number of Ceremonies used in the administration of the Sacraments, and entreating St. Anselm to resolve this Question, viz. Why the sign of the Cross is made on the Bread, and on the Chalice; and why the Chalice is usually covered with a Veil or 
† A Squ●re Pasteboard covered with fine Linen.  Pale before the Consecration? In the end he gives him to understand, that he was reconciled with Pope Paschal II. St. Anselm returns him an Answer in the following Treatise, That the variety of Customs and Ceremonies, does not hinder the Unity of the Faith, and alleges certain Mystical Reasons for making the sign of the Cross on the Host, and on the Chalice, and for covering the latter with a Veil.  
To these Treatises is annexed another small Tract, in which he asserts, That Clergymen, who make Confession of Sins of the Flesh committed privately, may be re-established in the Functions of their Order, after having done Penance. This Piece is only an extract of St. Anselm's Letter to the Abbot William.  
In the Treatise of Marriages forbidden between near Relations, he inquires into the Reasons of that Prohibition, which he extends only to the sixth degree of Consanguinity.  
There is nothing relating to Divinity in his Treatise of the Grammarian.  
In that of the Will of God, being the last of the Dogmatical, of which the first Part of his Works is composed, he explains the different Senses, in which the Term of the Will of God is taken, and the different kinds of Wills that may be distinguished in him.  
To these Works is to be added a Treatise of Peace and Concord, which is inserted in the end of the Volume; a Piece that is well worthy of St. Anselm and which is altogether written in his Style.  
The second Part of the Works of this learned Prelate contains the Paraenetick and Ascetic Treatises, viz. 1. Sixteen Homilies, the First of which is on the 24th Chapter of Ecclesiastes, and the others on divers Gospels: Indeed the first is only found in the ancient Editions of his Works, and the rest were since added; but they are all of the same Style, and some of them bear St. Anselm's Name in certain Manuscripts; so that 'tis very probable, that they all belong to him. 2. An Exhortation to the contempt of Temporal Things, and to the desire of Eternal, published by Father Theophilus Renaudaeus, which contains wholesome Admonitions comprised in short and pathetical Sentences. Although there be no proof, that this Piece is St. Anselm's; nevertheless it is very conformable to his manner of Writing. 3. Advice to a dying Person, which is a Form of assisting Persons at the Hour of Death, bearing St. Anselm's Name in certain Manuscripts. 4. A Poem in Hexameter and Pentameter Verses, on the Contempt of the World, which altho' Printed under this Archbishop's Name; yet does not bear it in the Manuscripts, but that of Bernard of Clunie, and in another, that of Roger Monk of Bec: This Poem is followed by two other very short Pieces on the same Subject, which appear to be written by the same Author. 5. A Collection of 21 Meditations on different Subjects. 6. Seventy four Prayers. 7. A Psalter in honour of the Virgin Mary; that is to say, certain Stanza's of Hymns on the Psalms of her Office, with other entire Hymns for the Canonical Hours, and the Festivals of the Blessed Virgin. This Piece does not bear St. Anselm's Name in any Manuscript, and seems to me to be unworthy of so great an Author.  
The third Part comprehends St. Anselm's Letters distributed into four Books, in the First of which are contained those that he wrote whilst he was a simple Monk, which are 77 in Number; in the Second, those that were written by him being Abbot of Bec, to the Number of 53; in the Third, those that he composed when Archbishop; and in the Fourth, 106 Letters which never were as yet Printed. There are also Nine others in the Supplement taken out of Tome IX. of the Spicilegium by Father Luke Dachery. We shall not here produce the Extracts of all these Letters, it being sufficient to hint, That they are either such as relate to Compliments or particular Affairs, or to Morality and Piety, or to the Monastic Discipline and that of the Churches of England. Besides these Letters but now recited, there are Eight others in the ninth Tome of the Spicilegium, which are not comprised in the four Books of Letters belonging to the Works of this Archbishop.  
The Works falsely attributed to St. Anselm are reserved for the Appendix, and the First of these is called, An Illustration or Dialogue concerning Theological Points; being a Body of Divinity by way of Question and Answer, which bears St. Anselm's Name in some Manuscripts, but neither is of his Style, nor conformable to his Doctrine. Trithemius attributes a Piece under this Title, to Honoratus of Autun.  
The Second is a Dialogue concerning the Passion of our Lord, in which the Virgin Mary is introduced discoursing with St. Anselm: It is a supposititious Piece and forged at pleasure.  
The Third is the Treatise of the Measure of the Cross, which is a Moral Explication of these Words of Jesus Christ: If any one will follow me, he must deny himself, and take up his Cross. 'Tis a Book full of very devout Expressions, in which the Author citys St. Bernard, and therefore it cannot belong to St. Anselm, who died before that Saint was in a Capacity to write.  
The Fourth is a Treatise of the Conception of the Virgin Mary, the Author of which explains the Solemnity of the Festival of the Conception: The State of the Question plainly shows, that this Piece is of a later date than the time of St. Anselm; since the Author treats of that Festival, which he supposes to be of considerable Antiquity, and yet did not begin to be instituted till St. Bernard's time. There is a certain Manuscript, in which this Treatise is attributed to Hervaeus, a Monk of the Monastery founded by Ebbo, in the Village of Dol near Bourges, who lived in the XII. Century.  
The Fifth is another Tract in the same Festival of the Conception of the Virgin Mary, which is more visibly spurious.  
The Sixth is an History of the Passion of St. Guigner and his Companions, which is rather a Romance, than a pious and true Narration.  
The Seventh is a small Tract on the Monastic Stability, of which St. Anselm may well be reputed to be the Author.  
The Eighth is a Dialogue about Matters of Religion between a Christian and a Jew, composed by Gislebert a Monk of Westminster, and dedicated to St. Anselm.  
The Ninth is another Dialogue of the same Nature, composed by the Abbot Rupert.  
The Tenth is a Collection of certain useful Sentences, that are attributed to St. Anselm and which are very suitable to his Genius, as well as two other small Tracts that follow them.  
The last is a Fabulous Relation of two Miracles falsely ascribed to St. James the Apostle.  
This Edition does not contain the Treatise of the Sacrament of the Altar, imputed in some Manuscripts to St. Anselm, which cannot be his, in regard that it comprehends certain Extracts of the Book of Divine Offices, by the Abbot Rupe●t; and which belongs to William of St. Thierry, according to the Manuscript of Longpont, under whose Name it was Printed in the Bibliotheca Ordinis Cisterciensis. Neither do we find in the same Edition, the Treatise of the Parts and Actions attributed to God, which are extant among St. Bonaventure's Works, and among the supposititious Works of St. Augustin and St. Jerom; because it does not bear St. Anselm's Name in any Manuscript, no more than the Tracts of the Image of the World, that are inserted among the Works of Honoratus of Autun, and of which the Authors are unknown.  
We do not meet with any Ecclesiastical Writers before St. Anselm, who wrote after so Scholastic a manner, nor who have started so many Metaphysical Questions, and argued so subtly, as he has done: He is also the First who composed long Prayers in form of Meditations: His Letters are written in a plainer Style, but they are less accurate: His Exhortations are simple Homilies, full of mystical Notions, in which there is not much Eloquence, and very little Morality. He does not seem to have been well versed in positive Divinity, nevertheless he had perused St. Augustin's Works, and took out of them many Principles, which he makes use of, in his Theological Ratiocinations.  
There are two Gothick Editions of his Works, viz. one A. D. 1491. at Nuremberg, and the other at Paris in 1544 and 1549. They were also Published at Venice in the last of these Years, and at Colen in 1573. Father Picard a Regular Canon of St. Victor at Paris, set forth an Edition much larger than the former, Printed at Colen in 1612. Some time after, Father Theophilus Renaudaeus a Jesuit caused one to be Printed at Lions in 1630. And at last Father Gerberon a Benedictin Monk of the Congregation of St. Maur, Published a new Edition much finer and more correct than the preceding, Printed at Paris in 1675. which is a signal Proof of his accurate Industry and sound Judgement, whose Merit is well known in the Commonwealth of Learning.  
To St. Anselm's Works are annexed those of Eadmer a Monk of Canterbury and his Pupil; the First of which is the Life of his Tutor, written very largely, and in a very plain Style. 
Eadmer St. Anselm' s Pupil.   
The Second is called, The History of Novelties, and divided into six Books, of which the first Four contain a Relation of the Contests which St. Anselm had with the Kings of England about the Affair of the Investitures, and of the Persecutions he suffered upon that Account; and the Two last, the History of the Transactions in the Church of Canterbury under Radulphus his Successor, who was translated from the Bishopric of Rochester to the Archbishopric of Canterbury, five Years after St. Anselm's Death, and governed that Church till A. D. 1122.  
The Third is a Treatise of the excellent Qualities of the Virgin Mary, in which he extols her Nativity, Annunciation, Assumption, the Love that she had for her Son, and the Advantages she procured for Men, and ends with a Prayer made to her.  
The Fourth is a particular Tract of the four Cardinal Virtues observable in the Blessed Virgin.  
The Fifth is a Discourse of Beatitude, or rather of the State of the Blessed in Heaven, which he had heard delivered by St. Anselm.  
The Sixth is a Collection of divers Similitudes and Comparisons that were taken out of St. Anselm's Works, or which he had heard from his Mouth.  
The Same Author likewise composed a Treatise of Ecclesiastical Liberty, and wrote the Lives of St. Wilfrid and St. Dunstan, and many Letters which are not as yet Published. He died A. D. 1121.   

CHAP. X.  
Of the Ecclesiastical Writers of the Eleventh Age, who composed Treatises of Church-discipline or Commentaries on the Holy Scripture.  
BURCHARD a Germane by Nation, a Monk of Lobes and the Pupil of Olbert Abbot 
Burchard Bishop of Worms.  of Gemblours, succeeded Franco his Brother in the Bishopric of Worms A. D. 996. He assisted in the Council of Selingenstadt held by Aribo Archbishop of Mentz in 1023. and died in 1026. He compiled by the help of Olbert a Collection of Canons, distributed according to the Matters, and divided into twenty Books, called Decrees; in which he has copied out and followed Regino, but he has added many things and even committed several Errors which Regino never fell into. This Work was Printed at Colen in 1548. and the next Year at Paris, and at the end of it are annexed the Canons of the Council of Selingenstadt: 'Tis composed very Methodically, but without a due choice of Matters; being full of Quotations of the false Decretals of the Popes, according to the Custom of that Time.  
GODEHARD Abbot of Tergernsee, and afterwards Bishop of Hildesheim, flourished 
Godehard Bishop of Hildesheim. Gosbert Abbot of Tergernsee. Guy Aretin Abbot of La Croix. St. Leufroy. Aribo Archbishop of Mentz.  in the beginning of the Century: Father Mabillon has Published five Letters written by him, in the fourth Tome of his Analecta.  
GOSBERT was in like manner Abbot of Tergernsee, and Contemporary with the former: Four of his Letters are Published by Father Mabillon in the same Place.  
GUY ARETIN, Abbot of La Croix-St. Leufroy, flourished from the Year, 1020. to 1030. and composed a new Method for Learning the Art of Music, called Micrologus. He likewise wrote a Treatise of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST against Berenger, which is lost.  
ARIBO, the nineteenth Archbishop of Mentz is placed by Sigebert and Trithemius in the Class of the Ecclesiastical Writers: The former only attributes to him a certain Commentary on the Fifteen gradual Psalms, and the other adds a Letter to Berno Abbot of Richenaw and some others. He says, That that Archbishop held in the Year, 1023. a Council at Selingenstadt, with Burchard Bishop of Worms, and the other Bishops and Abbots of his Province, in which were made very useful Constitutions, and that he died under the Emperor Conrade, A. D. 1031.  
BERNO, a Monk of St. Gall, and afterward Abbot of Richenaw, who was contemporary with, and the familiar Friend of Aribo, is likewise recommended by Trithemius, as a 
Berno Abbot of Richenaw.  Person not inferior in Knowledge to any of the learned Men of his Time: He was more especially Skilful in the Art of Music, which was much studied in that Age, and composed many Works, as well in Prose as in Verse. We shall here mention those that Trithemius has taken notice of, viz. A very elegant and useful Treatise, Dedicated to Pilgrin Archbishop of Colen, but he does not declare the Subject of it; A Treatise of Musical Instruments; Another of the coming of our Lord, Dedicated to Aribo; A Book of the Office of the Mass; one of the Fast of the Ember-weeks; one of Saturdays Fast; another of the Time of the Monocord, and several Letters. But Trithemius has forgotten to make mention of the Life of St. Ulric Bishop of Augsburg, composed by that Author, and set forth by Surius; as also of the Life of St. Meginrad Bishop and Martyr, which Father Mabillon Published in the second Part of the fourth Benedictin Century. Berno flourished under the Emperor Henry II. from A. D. 1014. till 1048. when he died, after having been Abbot during forty Years.  
His principal Work is the Treatise of the Office of the Mass, in which he inquires into the Authors of it, and the Original of the Prayers of which 'tis Composed. He supposes that in the beginning of the Church, the Mass was not said after the same manner as afterwards; that in the time of the Apostles, no other Prayers were recited but the Lord's Prayer; and that for that Reason St. Gregory Pope ordained, that the Lord's Prayer should be said over the Host after the Consecration: He adds, That the Canon was not made by a single Person, but that it was augmented from Time to Time; and that the other Parts of the Mass were Established by Popes or by Holy Fathers: Lastly, he Treats in particular, of the Gloria in Excelsis, and of the times when it ought to be said; of the Solemnity of the Octaves, of Pentecost, of the Office for the Sundays in Advent and other Sundays of the Year; of that of the four Ember-weeks; and of other Rubrics of the Divine Office. But it ought to be observed, That in this Book, as in other Works of the same Nature, divers Matters of Fact are advanced, without sufficient Ground, and even contrary to the Truth of History.  
BRUNO Duke of Carinthia, Uncle by the Father's side to the Emperor Conrade II. was 
Bruno Bishop of Wurtzburg.  ordained Bishop of Wurtzburg, A. D. 1033. He wrote a Commentary on the Psalms, taken out of the Works of the Fathers, with certain Annotations on the Songs of the Old and New Testament, on the Lord's Prayer, and on the Apostles Creed, as also on those of St. Athanasius and St. Ambrose. He died, A. D. 1045. being crushed to Pieces under the Ruins of a House which fell upon him, as he accompanied the Emperor Henry III. who was going to carry on the War in Hungary. His Works were Printed at Colen in 1494. and inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum of the Colen Edition, and in the last at Lions.  
Father Mabillon, Published in the first Tome of his Analecta, the Preface belonging to a Treatise of Prayers, taken out of the Fathers, and Dedicated (as he proves it) to the Empress Agnes, the Wife of the Emperor Henry III. with certain Extracts of these Prayers, Copied out of an ancient Manuscript of the Monastery of St. Arnulphus at Metz. The Preface bears the Name of John Abbot, and Father Mabillon shows that he is apparently John surnamed 
John or Jeannelin Abbot of Erbrestein.  Jeannelin by reason of the lowness of his Stature, who was sometime Monk of St. Benignus at Dijon, afterwards Prior of Fecamp under William Abbot, and at last nominated Abbot of Erbrestein, by the Emperor Henry III. A. D. 1052. This Author makes mention in that Preface, of four or five other Treatises which he had composed, viz. one of the Institution of a Widow; another of the Life and Manners of Virgins; a third of Alms; and a fourth of the Heavenly Jerusalem or of Contemplation; the greatest part of those Prayers are also contained in the Book of Meditations, attributed to St. Augustin.  
There are likewise in the same Place, Letters of the same Abbot, written by him when Prior of Fecamp: In the Two first, he consents to the Proposal made him by William I. King of England, that Vitalis Abbot of Bernay, should be translated to Westminster, and that his Brother Osbern, a Monk of Troarn, should be substituted in his room. By the Third, directed to Warin Abbot of St. Arnulphus at Mets, he requires a certain Monk, named Benedict, to be sent back again, who was then in his Abbey.  
WARIN returns him a large Answer, complaining of his rude Manner of treating him; 
Warin Abb●t of St. Arnulphus at Mets.  and declares, That the Monk whom he demanded, did not belong to his Jurisdiction, by reason that after having taken upon him the Vows of Religion, under the Abbot William, he was placed by that Abbot in the Monastery of Gorze, which he left to go to that of St. Arnulphus, with the Permission of the Priors of Gorze, and even of the Abbot William.  
Warin had for his Successor, in the Abbey of St. Arnulphus at Mets, WILLIAM, who 
William Abbot of St. Arnulphus at Mets.  was chosen by Manasses Archbishop of Rheims, to be also Abbot of St. Remy. William wrote to Pope Gregory VII. about the Affair, protesting that he did not accept of that Office without a great deal of Reluctancy and Trouble, and so much the rather, in regard that he had no prospect of discharging it with good success, by reason of the Irregularities that were then Predominant among the Monks of that Monastery. The Pope did not approve that this Abbot should have the Government of two Abbeys at once, yet left him at Liberty to retain both: However, William himself soon repent of having had any thing to do with the Abbey of St. Remy; for Manasses, who only nominated him, to the end that he might Pillage the Revenues of the Monastery, with greater impunity, perceiving that the Abbot would not suffer it, treated him so rudely, that at last he forced him to leave it; which William did, severely reprehending the Archbishop for his Tyrannical and Exorbitant Practices, as it appears from the two Letters which he wrote to him, published by Father Mabillon in the first Tome of his Analecta, with that Abbot's Letter to Pope Gregory VII. four other Letters, and a Prayer by the same Author.  
At the same time lived Robert de Tombalene, a Monk of St. Michael's Mount, and afterwards 
Robert de Tombalene, Abbot of St. Vigour at Bayeux.  Abbot of St. Vigour at Bayeux, who wrote a Commentary on the Canticles, the Prolegomena, to which was set forth by Father Mabillon, with an Extract of the Work itself, in the first Tome of his Analecta. This Extract makes it appear, That the Commentary is not much different, from that which is attributed to St. Gregory the Great. There is a certain Manuscript without the Author's Name, in the Library of St. Victor, and it was published under that of Radulphus Abbot of Fontanelle, by Father Homey of the Order of the Hermits of St. Augustin, and Printed by Peter de Laune at Paris, A. D. 1684. This good Friar apparently had no other Ground to ascribe it to Radulphus than the Letter R. which he found in his Manuscript, which denoted Robert and not Radulphus, as he imagined.  
ANSELM born at Mantua, of a noble Family, succeeded Alexander II. in the Bishopric 
Anselm Bishop of Lucca.  of Lucca: He received the Investiture from the Emperor Henry IU. and repenting of it some time after, retired to the Monastery of Clunie, from whence he was recalled by Gregory VII. to govern his Bishopric in 1073. Afterwards he was always extremely wedded to the Interests of that Pope, and stiffly maintained them against the Emperor and Guibert the Antipope: He wrote two Letters against Guibert, in Vindication of Gregory; and made a Collection of certain Sentences, to show, That Kings have no Right to be Masters of the Church-Revenues. These Works are referred to by Canisius, in the sixth Tome of his Antiquities. To him likewise is attributed a large Collection of Canons, of which there are some Manuscript-Copies in divers Libraries; but although it bears his Name in a certain Manuscript of the Barberine Library, nevertheless 'tis not probable that it belongs to him; as M. Balusius has proved, in his Preface to Antonius Augustinus: 1. Because the Author of the Life of St. Anselm, Sigebert and Trithemius, have not made any mention of it. And 2. By reason that it contains some Decrees of Popes of a later Date than the Year 1086. which was that of the Death of Anselm of Lucca. Antonius Augustinus ascribes this Collection to Hildebert Archbishop of Mans.  
Some in like manner attribute to DEUS-DEDIT Cardinal, with the Title of St. Eudoxia, 
Deus-Dedit Cardinal.  who lived under Pope Victor III. a Collection of Canons divided into four Books, a Manuscript Copy of which is to be found in the Vatican Library. There is also a third Collection, bearing the same date, and called Polycarp; which was made by another Cardinal of the Church of Rome, named GREGORY, and of which there are some Manuscript 
Gregory Cardinal.  Copies in M. Colbert's Library.  
BENNO, a Germane by Nation and Cardinal of the Church of Rome, was one of the 
Benno Cardinal.  greatest Adversaries of Pope Gregory VII. and wrote two Books against him, full of Reproaches and Invectives, which are comprised in the Collection made my Orthuinus Gratius, under the Title of, Fasciculus rerum Expetendarum & Fugiendarum, Printed in 1535. and afterwards set forth by Goldastus, in a Collection of Pieces, composed in favour of the Emperor Henry iv against Pope Gregory VII.  
In this Collection, by Goldastus, is likewise contained a Treatise by Conrade, Tutor to 
Conrade Bishop of Utrecht.  Henry Bishop of Utrecht, called; An Apology for preserving the Unity of the Church, and putting an end to the Schism between the Emperor Henry, and Pope Gregory VII. which is also Printed among the Historians of Germany, published by Freherus. Indeed some Persons attribute this last Treatise to Waldramus of Naumberg, and others to Weneric Bishop of Verceil, 
Weneric Bishop of Verceil.  who flourished at the same time. Trithemius says, That the latter wrote a Letter in the Name of Thierry Bishop of Verdun, to Pope Gregory VII. in which he admonishes him, as a Friend, of every Thing that (as it was reported) he had acted or alleged contrary to the Rules of Justice and Equity, and conjured him to put a stop to those Irregularities.  
ULRIC, descended of a Family of Bavaria at Ratisbon, a Monk of Clunie, made a 
Ulric a Monk of Clunie.  Collection of the ancient Customs of that Abbey, in three Books, at the request of William Abbot of Richenaw. This Collection is contained in the fourth Tome of the Spicilegium, by Father Luke D' Achery.  
BERNARD, a Monk of the same Monastery, was likewise employed about that time, 
Bernard Monk of Clunie. Bernard Monk of Corby in Saxony. Bernard Clerk of the Church of Utrecht. Egilnothùs Archbishop of Canterbury. Campanus of Lombardy.  in writing on the same Subject; but his Work being not so complete, Father Dachery did not think fit to publish it. But care must be taken, not to confound this Writer with another of the same Name, a Monk of Corby in Saxony, who flourished some time after, and wrote a Book in a very fine Style, but very Satyrical against the Emperor Henry IU. which is mentioned by Sigebert and Trithemius.  
There is also a third Author of the same Name, who was a Clerk of the Church of Utrecht, and wrote Commentaries on Theodulus' Eclogues, of which mention is made in Sigebert. To these Authors may be added, certain Writers, of whom Trithemius takes partiticular notice, and whose Works are not as yet come to our Hands.  
AEGILNOTHUS, Archbishop of Canterbury, famous for his extraordinary Charity, to whom he attributes a Piece in Commendation of the Virgin Mary, certain Letters and some other Works, flourished (according to his Account) under the Emperor Conrade the Young, A. D. 1030.  
CAMPANUS OF LOMBARDY, a renowned Philosopher and Astronomer, was a Man of a subtle Wit, an able School-Divine, well versed in the Holy Scriptures and very skilful in the Art of Arithmetic, more especially in the Calendar: For all these commendable Qualities are attributed to him by Trithemius, who adds, That he set forth many small Tracts, the reading of which might be of very great use to Bishops, and among which he himself had perused the following, viz. a Treatise of Ecclesiastical Numbers; another of the manner of making Sun-dials; a Calendar; and some other Astronomical Works. This Author flourished, A. D. 1040.  
Sigebert of Gemblours, makes mention of another Scholastic Philosopher of Liege, named FRANCO, who lived in the Year 1060. He composed a Treatise of the Quadrature of 
Franco a Philosopher of Liege.  a Circle; another of the Calendar; and certain Commentaries on the Holy Scripture.  
BERTHORIUS, Abbot of the Monastery of Mount Cassin, joined (according to Trithemius) the Study of the Holy Scriptures, to that of the Profane Sciences; and after having written, before his Conversion, certain Works relating to Philosophy and Physic; he composed, when Abbot, divers Discourses for the Edification and Benefit of the Monks under his Tuition.  
ERARD, a Benedictin Monk, spent his Time in Preaching and Explaining the Holy 
Erard a Benedictin Monk.  Scriptures. Trithemius met with certain Commentaries on the whole Pentateuch, and divers Homilies written by this Author.  
ADAM, Abbot of Perseme, in the like manner applied himself to Preaching: He composed 
Adam Abbot of Perseme.  many Discourses for the use of his Monks, with several Homilies on the Festivals of the Saints, and on different Subjects, and some Commentaries on the Holy Scripture, of which Trithemius makes mention, without having seen any of them. M. Balusius has published in the first Tome of his Miscellaneous Works, five Moral Letters by this Author, directed to Osmond a Monk of Mortemer in Normandy.   

CHAP. XI.  
Of the Authors who wrote Ecclesiastical History, or the Lives of the Saints in the Eleventh Century.  
MEGENFROY, MEGINFROY or MEGINFRED, a Monk of Fulda, 
Megenfroy Monk of Fulda.  wrote in the Year 1010. the Life of St. Emmeran Bishop of Ratisbon, directed to Arnulphus Count of Vogburg, and afterwards a Monk of the Monastery of St. Emmeran at Ratisbon, and referred to by Canisius in the second Tome of his Antiquities. The same Author composed Twenty four Books of History, cited by Trithemius, in the Life of St. Maximus Bishop of Mentz, which is in Surius' sixth Tome, November 18.  
SYRUS, a Monk of Clunie, and the Pupil of St. Maiol, wrote about the same time, the Life of his Tutor, dedicated to Odito; which was published with great accuracy by Father 
Syrus Monk of Clunie.  Mabillon, in the fifth Benedictin Century, and with Aldebaldus' Addition by the Bollandists, in May 11.  
OSBERN or OSBERT, a Monk and Chanter of Canterbury, wrote in the beginning of the Century, the Life of St. Dunstan, with those of St. Odo and St. Alphegus. The 
Osbern Monk of Canterbury.  Life of St. Dunstan, was set forth by Surius, under the Name of Osbert; but that Narration belongs to a later Author, since it was written in Lanfranc's Time, and Father Mabillon has published the genuine Life of that Archbishop by Osbert, as well as that of Odo of Canterbury, and the Life of St. Alphegus, referred to by Bollandus in April 19  
TANGMARUS, a Saxon, Dean of Hildesheim, composed a Relation of the Life of St. Bernard Bishop of that City and his Pupil, which was published by Browerus and 
Tangmarus' Dean of Hildesheim.  afterwards inserted in the last Edition of Surius. This Author wrote in the Year of our Lord, 1023.  
ARNOLD, a Canon of Herfeldt, wrote the Life of St. Godehard Abbot of that Monastery, who succeeded St. Bernard in the Bishopric of Hildesheim, A. D. 993. and died in 
Arnold Canon of Herfeldt.  1036. This Author was Meginfroy's Pupil, and had seen Godehard in his Youth, but he was informed of the Passages which he committed to Writing, by a certain old Man, who had spent his Life with that Saint. This Piece was set forth by Browerus, with the Life of St. Bernard; and these two Lives may well be reckoned among the most accurate, that were written at that time.  
EBERARD, made a Narrative of the Life of St. Harvic Bishop of Saltzburg, who died in 1024. He was his Pupil, and wrote a little while after his Death. This Work is 
Eberard St. Harvic' s Pupil.  inserted in the second Tome of Canisius' Collection.  
ARNULPHUS, Count of Vogburg, and afterwards a Monk of St. Emmeran at Ratisbon, composed two Books in form of Dialogues, of the Life of St. Emmeran, which were published 
Arnulphus Monk of St. Emmeran. Erchinfroy Abbot of Melck.  by Canisius, in the second Tome of his Antiquities.  
ERCHINFROY or ERCHINFRED, Abbot of Melck in Austria, wrote A. D. 1012. an Account of the Life and Miracles of St. Colman a Scotch Man, which is cited by Lambecius, in his Bibliotheca.  
Trithemius reckons among the Ecclesiastical Writers, of the beginning of this Century, RUPERT, Abbot of Mount Cassin, whom he much commends; and says, That he composed 
Rupert Abbot of Mount Cassin. Dithmar Bishop of Mersburg.  certain Sermons, and some other Works, but we have none of his Pieces in our Possession.  
DITHMAR, the Son of Count Sigefroy and of Cunegonda, born in Saxony, A. D. 976. became a Monk of St. John at Magdeburg, under the Abbot Riddagius; was afterwards made Provost of Walbeck, and at last Bishop of Mersburg after Wigbert, whom he succeeded in 1008. He compiled seven Books of Historical Chronicles, containing the Occurences and Transactions under five Emperors, viz. Henry the Fowler, the Otho's, and Henry II. He intermixes in several places, a great deal of Ecclesiastical History, and enlarges in the Commendation of many reverend Bishops of his Time. He died A. D. 1018. and his Works were Printed at Francfort in 1580. as also among those of the Germane Historiographers.  
ADEMAR, or AIMAR DE CHABANOIS, a Monk of the Monastery of 
Ademar or Aimar de Chabanois, Monk of St. Cibar in Angoulesme.  St. Cibar at Angoulesm, composed a Chronicle of the History of France, which gins A. C. 829. and ends in 1029. with a Catalogue of the Abbots of St. Martial at Lymoges; published by Father Labbe in his second Tome of his Library of Manuscripts: He took care to procure the Writing of the Treatise of Offices by Amalarius, and some attribute to him the Supplement to that Work, relating to St. Benedict's Rule, which Father Mabillon inserted in the second Tome of his Analecta, tho' 'tis more probable, that it belongs to Amalarius himself. We have also Ademar's Acrostic Verses, taken out of an Extract that he made of the Lives of the Popes, attributed to Damasus, by the Order of Rohon Bishop of Angoulesme, which Verses were set forth by the same Father, in the first Tome of his Analecta. M. Balusius has in his Possession, a certain Manuscript Letter, (which he has thought fit to communicate to us) written by this Author, after the first Council of Lymoges, held A. D. 1029. in which he assisted, and directed to Jordan Bishop of Lymoges, and to the Abbots and other Clergymen of that Diocese; as also, to Arnulphus Bishop of Rhodez, to Thierry Bishop of Metz, to the Empress Cunegonda the Widow of the Emperor Henry, to Conon, to the Emperor Conrade, to William Duke of Guienne, and to Pope John, who is branded therein, as a brutish, choleric and cruel Man. In this Letter, he relates many remarkable Passages that happened during the Contest about the Apostolical Dignity of St. Martial Bishop of Lymoges, chief in reference to Benedict, Prior of the Abbey of St. Michael at Cluse in Piedmont, who a little while after the Session of that Council, being arrived at a certain Place called La Bussiere, in the Province of Limonsin, on the Festival of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, publicly gave it out, with a great deal of Heat and Passion, That St. Martial ought not to be reckoned among the Apostles, and that the Inhabitants of Aquitaine, who looked upon him to be so, were Asses and ignorant Doters.  
This being reported in the Monastery of St. Cibar, by two Monks of that Convent, who were then present at La Bussiere, made so great an impression on the Minds of the Friars, that all, except Aimar and Gosbert, embraced Benedict's Opinion; which gave occasion to this Letter, in which Aimar treats Benedict very rudely, who nevertheless, (even according to Aimar's Report) was a judicious and learned Person, but extremely Passionate, if we may give Credit in that respect to Aimar, in his own Cause: For it appears, That the Prior inveighed against him most bitterly at La Bussiere; accusing him as the Author of that Innovation, which he also termed Hercsie, and affirming that 'twas devised by him through Flattery, on purpose to gratify the Abbot and Monks of Lymoges, who had corrupted him with Mony. Benedict added, That having disputed with Aimar upon that Point, he had baffled him, and had obliged him to hid himself. Now Aimar wrote this Letter to refute the Prior's Arguments, declaring what had passed at Lymoges, between himself and Benedict, whom he censures as an Impostor and Profligate Wretch: He likewise gives an account of the Contest that he had at Angoulesme, about the same Affair, with a certain Monk of Ravenna, being also an able Physician, named Bernard, who came to La Bussiere with Benedict, and had learned of him all the Arguments against the Apostleship of St Martial. But it ought to be observed, that this Benedict said, That the Dispute could not be determined, but by a general Council of France and Italy, held in the Pope's presence: Quis ausus fuit Martialem praedicare Apostolum, nisi prius grande generale Concilium omnium Episcoporum Galliae & Italiae, una cum Papa Romano congregaretur, & ibi esset probatum, si est aut non est Apostolus? And forasmuch as Benedict and a Monk of St. John d' Angely, who likewise maintained that Saint Martial was not an Apostle, peremptorily declared, That 'twas requisite to make application to the Pope, and to cause the Monks of St. Martial to be forbidden to place him in the Rank of the Apostles, for the future; Aimar replies, That if the Pope being surprised by the Insinuations of envious Persons, should publish such a Prohibition, it would be more expedient to obey God, rather than the Pope of Rome; by reason that no Pope has received Power to absolve or excommunicate the Holy Apostles, nor to hinder the Church of God from doing well and speaking well: Si Papa subripiente consilio invicdorum hoc prohibet, tamen obedire oportet Deo magis quam Papae Romano. Nulli etenim Papae data est potestas vel absolvendi, vel excommunicandi sanctos Apostolos Dei, vel prohibendi Ecclesiam Dei a benefaciendo & recte loquendo. M. Balusius has also divers Sermons made in the Council of Lymoges, relating to the Apostolical Dignity of St. Martial, which he supposes to have been written by the same Author.  
HUGH, archdeacon of Tours, composed a small Dialogue between him and Fulbert 
Hugh archdeacon of Tours.  Bishop of Chartres, containing an Account of an Apparition of St. Martin, seen by Herveus Treasurer of St. Martin at Tours, in the beginning of this Century, which was Published by Father Mabillon, in the second▪ Tome of his Analecta.  
ODORAN, a Monk of St. Peter Le Vif at Sens, is the Author of a Chronicle, which 
Odoran Monk of St. Peter Le Vif.  gins at the Year of our Lord, 675. and ends in 1032. It was Printed in M. Du Chesne's Collection of the Historians of France.  
ANSELM, a Canon of Liege, and afterwards Dean of Namur, wrote, upon the Request 
Anselm Dean of Namur.  of Ida Abbess of St. Cecilia at Colen, the History of the Bishops of Liege, from St. Theodard, who lived, A. C. 666. to Was●n, who succeeded Richard in 1041. and died in 1048. It was set forth by Chapeaville, in his Collection of the Historians of Liege.  
HERMANNUS, surnamed CONTRACTUS, by reason that his Limbs were shrunk, 
Hermannus Contractus, Monk of Richenaw.  the Son of the Count of Weringen in Suevia, who was Educated in the Monastery of St. Gall, and afterwards became a Monk of Richenaw, flourished in the middle of the Century, and acquired much Skill in divers Languages and liberal Sciences. He composed a Chronicle, from the Creation of the World, to A. D. 1052. continued by Bertulphus of Constance, to 1065. It was Printed at Francfurt, in 1583. in the Edition of the Historians of Germany, by Pistorius; in Canisius' Antiquities; and in the last Bibliotheca Patrum. To him are also attributed, certain Anthems in honour of the Virgin Mary; the Veni Sancte Spiritus; and some other 
† A Part of the Mass.  Proses or Hymns. Trithemius likewise makes mention of the following Works of this Author, viz. a Treatise of the Science of Music; another of the Monochord; three Books of the manner of making the Astrolabe; one of its usefulness; one of the Eclipses; another of the Calendar; a Treatise of the Quadrature of a Circle, one of the Discord of Sounds, one of Physiognomy; and the Lives of divers Saints. 
Glaber Radul phus Monk of Clunie. Gualdo Monk of Corbie. Drogo Monk of St. Winoch. Helgaud Monk of Fleury. Witpo Chaplain to the Emperor Henry III. Ebervin Abbot of St. Maurice at Tolen. Evershelm Abbot of Aumont. Guibert archdeacon of Toul. Metellus Abbot of Tergensee. Folcard Monk of St Berthin. Gerard Abbot of St. Vincent at Laon. Willeran Abbot of St. Peter at Mersburg. Ursio Abbot of Aumont. Desiderius Abbot of Mount Cassin.   
GLABER RADULPHUS, a Monk of St. German at Auxerre, and afterwards of Clunie, composed in the Year, 1045. an Ecclesiastical History dedicated to Odilo Abbot of Clunie, which gins at A. C. 900. and ends in 1045. This History being very accurately and faithfully Written, was Printed at Francfurt in 1596. and is contained in M. Du Chesne's Collection of the Historians of France. He likewise wrote the Life of St. William Abbot of St. Benignus at Dijon, who died in 1031. which is referred to by Bollandus in January 1.  
GUALDO, a Monk of Corbie, wrote in Verse, the Life of Anscharius Bishop of Hamburg, dedicated to Adalbert Archbishop of Bremen. It is comprised in the second Tome of the fourth Benedictin Century, by Father Mabillon.  
DROGO, a Monk of St. Winoch, wrote the Lives of St. Gonelena, of St. Oswald King of Northumberland, and of St. Winoch: The Two first of these are in Surius, and the Third is only to be found in Manuscript.  
HELGAUD, a Monk of Fleury, wrote A. D. 1050. the Life of King Robert, which was published from a Manuscript of Petrus Pithaeus' Library, and Printed at Franefurt in 1596. also in M. Du Chesne's Collection of Historians.  
WITPO or WIPPO, Chaplain to the Emperor Henry III. composed a Relation of the Life and Actions of Conrade the Father of that Emperor, which is extant in the Collection of the Germane Writers by Pistorius, and a Panegyric on Henry III. which is Printed in Canisius' Antiquities.  
EBERVIN or EVERVIN, Abbot of St. Maurice at Tolen in the Diocese of Trier, wrote the Life of St. Simeon of Syracuse a Monk of Trier, who died in 1035. which was dedicated to Poppo Archbishop of that Diocese, and is referred to by Surius in June 1.  
EVERSHELM, Abbot of Aumont in Hainaut, is the Author of a Life of St. Poppo Abbot of Stavelo, his Kinsman, cited by Surius and Bollandus in January 25. He was made Abbot of St. Peter at Ghent in 1058. and died in 1069.  
GUIBERT, archdeacon of Toul, wrote the Life of Pope Leo IX. Published by Father Sirmond, A. D. 1615. and afterwards by Henschenius and Papebrochius in April 19  
METELLUS, Abbot of Tergensee, who flourished, A. D. 1060. left certain Eclogues called Quirinales, in commendation of St. Quirinus' Martyr, which were set forth by Canisius in the first Tome of his Antiquities.  
FOLCARD, a Monk of St. Berthin, wrote the Life of that Saint, and that of St. Omer, both referred to by Surius, viz. one in September 5. and the other under the 15th Day of the same Month.  
GERARD, a Sacristain or Vestry-keeper in the Monastery of Corbie in Saxony, and afterwards Abbot of St. Vincent at Laon, is the Writer of the Life of St. Adelard, published by Surius and Bollandus in January 2. and by Father Mabillon in the first Tome of the fourth Benedictin Century. He was afterwards made Abbot of St. Medard at Soissons, A. D. 1077. but being turned out thence, by Queen Bertha, he Founded the Monastery of Sauvemajeur, in the Diocese of Bourdeaux, where he died in 1095.  
WILLERAN, a Monk of Fulda, and afterward Abbot of St. Peter at Mersburg, composed an Epithalamium on the Marriage between JESUSCHRIST and the Church, or a Commentary on the Canticles, contained in three Books in Prose, intermixed with Verse: A certain Piece of that nature, was published under his Name in Latin, and in the old Gaulish Language, Printed at Leyden, A. D. 1598.  
URSIO, Abbot of Aumont in Hainault, wrote an Historical Account of the Life of St. Marcellus Pope, A. D. 1080.  
DESIDERIUS, Abbot of Mount Cassin, who was afterwards Pope, under the Name of Victor III. being as yet Abbot, composed a Dialogue concerning the Miracles of St. Benedict.  
PAUL, a Canon and Provost of Benrieden, wrote in the end of the Century a Treatise 
Paul Canon of Benrieden.  of the Actions of Pope Gregory VII. and the Life of St. Herlucia a Virgin, both published by Gretzer, Printed at Ingolstadt, and inserted in the Collection of the Bollandists.  
CONRADE, a Monk of the Monastery of Bruvilliers, in the Diocese of Colen, wrote 
Conrade a Monk of Bruvilliers. Geffrey de Maleterre a Norman Monk. William of Apulia.  in the Year 1096. the Life of St. Wolphelin Abbot of that Abbey, deceased in 1091. which was published by the Bollandists, in April 22.  
GAUFROY or GEFFREY DE MALETERRE, a Norman Monk, composed an History of the Conquests of the Normans, under the Duke's Robert Guiscard and Roger, in Apulia, Calabria and Sicily. It was Printed separately, and is also to be found among the Historians of Hispania Illustrata Printed at Francfurt, A. D. 1603.  
WILLIAM of APULIA, wrote in the end of this Century, at the request of Pope Urban II. a Poem on the same Subject, Printed separately at Paris in 1652. as also in the Collection of the Historians of Normandy, by Du Chesne, and in that of the Historiographers of Sicily.  
BERTULPHUS or BERNULPHUS, a Priest of Constance, besides a Continuation 
Bertulphus Priest of Constance.  of Hermannus Contractus' Chronicle, and an History of his Time, from the Year, 1053. to the end of the Century, composed a Treatise, to show that the Company of excommunicated Persons ought to be avoided, and some other small Tracts in favour of Pope Gregory VII. which were published by Gretzer in his Apology for Cardinal Bellarmin, Printed at Ingolstadt, A. D. 1612.  
NALGOD, a Monk of Clunie, wrote in the end of the Century, the Lives of St. Odo 
Nalgod Monk of Clunie, Othlo Monk of St. Boniface. Ingulphus Abbot of Croyland.  and St. Mayol, set forth by the Bollandists, and by Father Mabillon.  
OTHLO, a Priest and Monk of the Monastery of St. Boniface in Germany, is the Writer of the Life of that Saint, sometime Archbishop of Mentz, which was published by Canisius in the fourth Tome of his Antiquities, and by Father Mabillon in the second Tome of the third Benedictin Century.  
INGULPHUS, an English Man of the City of London, the Son of an Officer belonging to King Edward's Court, applied himself to Study in his Youth, and acquired so great Reputation for his Learning, that William Duke of Normandy passing into England, brought him back with his Retinue, and made him his principal Minister. He undertook a Journey to the Holy Land, A. D. 1064. and returning from thence was admitted into the Monastery of Fontanelle, of which he was made Prior soon after, in 1076. William I. King of England invited him over into this Kingdom, and constituted him Abbot of Croyland, from whence he had turned out Wulketulus; but Ingulphus obtained leave to retire from that Abbey, the History of which he composed from A. C. 664. to 1091. It was published by Sir Henry Savil in 1596. and among the Historians of England, Printed at London in 1684. This Author died in 1109.  
THIERRY, a Monk of St. Peter at Ghent, and afterwards Abbot of St. Trudo in the 
Thierry Abbot of St. Trudo.  Diocese of Liege, wrote the Lives of St. Bavo, St. Trudo, St. Rumold and St. Landrada, published by Surius. Trithemius says, That he was likewise the Author of a Life of St. Benedict and of an Account of the Translation of his Body, with certain Letters and some other Works in Prose and Verse: He flourished A. D. 1050.  
ALPHANUS, a Monk of Mount Cassin, afterward Abbot of St. Benedict at Salerno, 
Alphanus Arch bishop of Salerno. Amatus a Bishop of Italy.  and at last Bishop of that City, from A. D. 1057. to 1086. is reputed to be the Author of divers Hymns, in Honour of the Saints, and of some other Poetical Pieces, referred to by Ughellus, in the second Tome of Italia Sacra.  
AMATUS, a Monk of Mount Cassin and Bishop in Italy, although 'tis not known of what Church, composed four Books in Verse, dedicated to Pope Gregory VII. on the Actions of the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, and eight Books of the History of the Normans, which (as they say) are kept in Manuscript in the Library of Mount Cassin. He likewise wrote certain Poems in commendation of Gregory VII. on the Twelve precious Stones of the Breastplate of the High Priest; and on the Celestial Jerusalem.  
HEPIDANNUS, a Monk of St. Gall, who flourished during a considerable part of 
Hepidannus Monk of Saint Gall.  this Century, is the Author of a Chronicle which gins at the Year, 709. and ends in 1044. It is inserted in the Collection of the Historians of Germany, set forth by Goldastus, and Printed at Francfurt in 1606. He likewise composed two Books of the Life and Miracles of St. Wiborad, dedicated to Ulric Abbot of St. Gall, which are referred to in the same Place, as also by the Bollandists, and by Father Mabillon. They were written, A. D. 1072. and this Author might be Dead in 1080.  
MARIANUS, a Scotchman or Irishman by Nation, related to Venerable Bede, (if 
Marianus Scotus.  we may give Credit to Matthew of Westminster) was born A. D. 1028. turned Monk in 1052. passed over into Germany in 1058. was ten Years a Recluce in the Monastery of Fulda, and spent the rest of his Life at Mentz, where he died in 1086. He composed a Chronicle from the Creation of the World, to A. D. 1083. in which he followed Cassiodorus. It was continued to the Year, 1200. by Dodechin Abbot of St. Dysibod in the Diocese of Trier, and was Printed in several Places, more especially among the Germane Historians.  
LAMBERT of ASCHAFFEMBURG assumed the Monastic Habit, in the 
Lambert Monk of Hirsfeldt.  Convent of Hirsfeldt, under the Abbot Meginher, A. D. 1058. was ordained Priest the same Year, by Lupold Archbishop of Mentz; and soon after undertook a Journey to Jerusalem, without the Knowledge of his Abbot, from whence he returned the next Year. He composed an Historical Chronology from the Creation of the World, to A. D. 1077. which is only an Epitome of general History to the Year 1050. and a particular History of Germany of a competent largeness, from that Year to 1077. This Work is written with a great deal of Accuracy and Elegancy, and there are few Germane Authors, who have showed so much Politeness in their Writings. It was Printed separately at Tubingen in 1533. and also among the Historians of Germany.  
ADAM, a Canon of Bremen, in the Year, 1077. composed four Books of the Ecclesiastical History of his Church, in which he treats of the original and propagation of the 
Adam Canon of Bremen.  Christian Religion in the Dioceses of Bremen and Hamburg, from the time of the Emperor Charlemain, to that of Henry iv He has annexed at the end, a small Treatise of the situation of Denmark and other Northern Kingdoms; of the Nature of those Countries, and of the Religion and Manners of the Inhabitants. The whole Work was published by Lidembrocius and Printed at Hanaw, A. D. 1579. at Leyden in 1595. and afterwards at Helmstadt in 1670.  
Sigebert and Trithemius make mention of a Benedictin Monk of Mets, named ALBERT, 
Albert a Benedictin Monk of Mets. Anselm a Benedictin Monk of Rheims. Gonthier Monk of S. Amand.  who wrote certain Works, and among others, an History of his Time, dedicated to the Bishop of that Diocese.  
They likewise take notice of another Benedictin Monk of the City of Rheims, named ANSELM, who composed an Historical Account of the Voyage of Pope Leo IX. to France; of the Synods he held there; and of other Affairs transacted by him in that Kingdom▪ This Piece was called Pope Leo's Itinerary.  
Lastly, Sigebert mentions a Monk of St. Amand, known by the name of GONTHIER or GONTHERIUS, who wrote in Verse a Relation of the Martyrdom of St. Syricius.  

An Addition of some other Authors who wrote in the Eleventh Century.  
WARMAN, Count of Dilingen, afterwards Monk of Richenaw, and at last Bishop of Constance, 
Warman Bishop of Constance. Britwol Bishop of Winton. Ingelran Abbot of St. Riquier. Bertha a Nun of Willock. Gislebert Monk of St. German at Auxerre. Diodericus Monk of Hirsfeldt. Andrew Monk of Fleury. Odo Monk of S. Maur des Fossez. Bovo Abbot of St. Bertthin. Gislebert Monk of S. Amand.  wrote the Life of St. Pyrmin. He died A. D. 1034.  
BRITWOL, a Monk of Glassenbury and afterwards Bishop of Winchester, wrote the Life of St. Egwin, sometime Bishop of the same Diocese, and died A. D. 1045.  
INGELRAN, a Monk and afterwards Abbot of St. Riquier, composed a Poem, divided into Four Books, the First of which contains the Life of St. Riquier; the Second and Third a Narrative of the Miracles wrought by him; and the Fourth, an Account of the Translation of his Body to the Abbey that bears his Name. Some part of this Poem is inserted in the second Century of the Acts of St. Benedict. This Author likewise wrote certain Copies of Verses, in Honour of St. Wilfran Archbishop of Sens, and died A. D. 1045.  
BERTHA or BERTRADA, a Nun of Willock near Bonne, the Sister of St. Wolphemus Abbot, wrote the Life of St. Adelaida, the first Abbess of her Monastery.  
GISLEBERT, a Monk of St. german at Auxerre, under the Abbot Winneman, composed in the middle of the Century, two Books of the Life of St. Romanus, an Abbot near Auxerre, who is supposed to be the same that gave Food to St. Benedict, in the Grot of Subiago, of which St. Gregory makes mention in his Dialogues. This Piece is contained in the first Benedictin Century by Father Mabillon.  
DIODERICUS, a Monk of Hirsfeldt, composed in the beginning of this Century, a Treatise concerning the Translation of St. Benedict, which is inserted in the second Part of the fourth Benedictin Century. Trithemius falsely attributes to him the Book of the Translation of St. Benedict, which belongs to Adalbert a Monk, who died A. C. 853.  
ANDREW, a Monk of Fleury, or of St. Benedict on the Loire, wrote in like manner, at the same time, a Treatise of the Miracles of St. Benedict.  
ODO, a Monk of St. Maur des Fosses, completed a Relation of the Life of Count Burchard, A. D. 1058.  
BOVO, Abbot of St. Berthin, composed a Narrative of the Canonization of that Saint, and dedicated it to Guy Archbishop of Rheims. He died A. D. 1069. four Years after having resigned the Government of his Abbey.  
GISLEBLRT, a Monk of St. Amand, wrote four Books containing an Account of the Life of that Saint, and of the destruction of his Monastery. He died A. D. 1095.  
St. WILLIAM, Abbot of Richenaw, composed two Books concerning the Customs of 
St. William Abbot of Richenaw. Alberic Cardinal. Jotsald Monk of Clunie. Wolferus Canon of Hildesheim. Gotzelin a Monk of Canterbury.  that Abbey, with some other Works, and died in 1091.  
ALBERIC, Cardinal, is the Author of the Life of St. Dominick of Sora. See Petrus Diaconus, Cap. 12.  
JOTSALD, a Monk of Clunie, wrote the Life of St. Odilo his Abbot. Father Mabillon designs to publish it more entire, than it has been hitherto, in his Sixth Benedictin Century.  
WOLFERUS, a Monk of Altaich, or rather Canon of Hildesheim, left a Relation of the Lives of St. Gonthier the Hermit, and of St. Godehard Bishop of Hildesheim. Some have attributed this Piece to Albuin, by whom it was only Revised.  
GOTZELIN, a Monk of St. Berthin and afterwards of Canterbury, composed an History of the Life and Miracles of St. Augustin the Monk, who converted the English Nation to Christianity, with an Account of the Translation of the same Saint, made in his Time. William of Malmesbury extols him as the most famous Writer in England after Bede; especially in reference to the History of the Saints of this Kingdom, many of whose Lives were written by him.  
PETER, a Monk of Maillezais, wrote the History of his Monastery, and dedicated it 
Peter Monk of Maillezais. William Monk of Chiusi. Raimond Monk of St. Andrew at Avignon. Heymo Monk of Richenaw. Gerard de Venna Monk of La Chaise Dieu. Egirward Monk of St. Burchard at Wurtzburg. Gautier. Grimaldus. Rudolf a Monk of La Chaise Dieu. Notcherus Abbot of Hautvilliers. W. a Monk of Walsor.  to Goderan Abbot of the same Convent, who flourished, A. D. 1070.  
WILLIAM, a Monk of- Chiusi in Tuscany, wrote the Life of St. Benedict Abbot of that Monastery in the Eleventh Century.  
RAIMOND, a Monk of St. Andrew at Avignon, composed a Relation of the Life of St. Pons Abbot of the same Monastery, in the end of that Century.  
HEYMO, a Monk of Richenaw, is the Author of the Life of St. William of Richenaw, which is referred by Trithemius to the Year of our Lord 1091.  
GERARD DE VENNA, a Monk of La Chaise Dieu, left a Relation of the Life of St. Robert Abbot and Founder of that Abbey. This Life not being well written, was revised by Marbodus Bishop of Rennes.  
EGIRWARD, a Monk of St. Burchard at Wurtzburg, made some Additions to the Life of the same Saint.  
GAUTIER or GAUTERIUS, wrote the Life of St. Anastasius the Hermit, who lived in the end of this Century, in the Diocese of Rieux.  
GRIMALDUS, composed an Historical Account of the Translation of St. Felix, sometime Pupil to St. Emilian the Patron of Spain.  
RUDOLF, a Monk of La Chaise Dieu, wrote the Life of St. Adelelm the third Abbot of that Monastery, and afterward Prior of St. John at Burgos in Spain, who died in the end of the Century.  
NOTCHERUS, Abbot of Hautvilliers in the Diocese of Rheims, composed in the end of the Century, a Narrative of the Translation of St. Helena, made in his Monastery.  
W. a Monk of Walsor, wrote in the middle of the Century, the Life of St. Hiltrada a Virgin, which is inserted in the second Part of the third Benedictin Century.   

To these may be added the nameless Writers of the same Age, who composed the following works, viz.  
THE Life of St. Gildas, surnamed the Wise, Abbot of Ruis in Bretagne, written by a NAMELESS Author, who likewise makes mention of certain Saints of the same Monastery, who lived in his Time. This Piece is extant in the Library of Fleury, and in the first Benedictin Century.  
A Relation of the Miracles of St. Martin at Vertou, in the same Benedictin Century.  
The Life of St. Bertulf Abbot of Renty, written by a Monk of Blandin at Ghent, in the first Part of the third Benedictin Century.  
The Life of St. Chaffer, which is contained in the same Volume. 
Nameless Authors.   
The Author of the Chronicle of St. Vincent at Vulturno in Italy, in M. Du Chesne's third Tome.  
The Life of St. Oditia Abbess of Homburg in Alsatia, which is to be found in the second Part of the third Benedictin Century.  
An Account of the Miracles of St. Hubert Bishop of Liege, written by a certain Monk of of St. Hubert's Abbey in Ardenne, which is in the first Part of the fourth Benedictin Century.  
A Narrative of the Translation of St. Cuthbert Bishop, by a Monk of Durham, contained in the second Part of the same Volume.  
Another of the Life and Translation of the Body of St. Hugh a Monk of St. Martin at Autun, by a nameless Monk. This Piece is in the fifth Benedictin Century.  
Another of the Translation of the Body of St. Valery of Flanders, to the Abbey that bears his Name, by a Monk of the same Convent, which is inserted in the same Volume.  
The Life of St. Simon Count of Crepy, who died, A. D. 1082. written by a nameless Author of the same Time.  
The Life of St. Simeon an Armenian Hermit, at Padolyrona near Mantua.  
The Life of St. Thierry Abbot of St. Hubert, in the Forest of Ardennes, who died, A. D. 1087.  
The Life of St. Richard Abbot of St. Vannes, deceased in 1046. which was written by a certain Monk of the same Monastery, a little after his Death; although that Abbot was never seen by him.  
The Life of St. Ysarn Abbot of St. Victor at Marseille, who died A. D. 1048.  
The Life of St. Bononius Abbot of Lucedia in Piedmont, who died in 1026. written by one of his Pupils.  
A Relation of the Life and Miracles of St. Gautier or Gauterius, the first Abbot of St. Martin at Pontoise, deceased in 1094. which was composed in like manner by one of his Pupils.  
The Life of St. Guy Abbot of Pomposa in Italy, who died A. D. 1046.    

CHAP. XII.  
Of the Greek Ecclesiastical Writers who flourished in the Eleventh Century.  
LEO, the Grammarian, is the Author of a Continuation of Theophanes' Chronicle, 
Leo the Grammarian.  from A. C. 813. to 1013. which is apparently the Year when he wrote. It was published by Father Combefis, in the end of Theophanes' Works; Printed at Paris, A. D. 1655.  
ALEXIUS, a Monk of the Monastery of Studa, and afterward Patriarch of the Church 
Alexius Patriarch of Constantinople. Eugesippus.  of Constantinople, which he governed from A. D. 1025. to 1043. compiled certain Constitutions relating to Ecclesiastical Affairs, which are referred to in the Collection of the Greek and Roman Law.  
EUGESIPPUS, an Author very little known, composed a Geographical Treatise of the Holy Land, published by Allatius, in his Collection of the Greek and Latin Writers. 'Tis reported that this Treatise was written about A. D. 1040.  
THEOPHANUS the Ceramean, Archbishop of Tauromenium in Sicily, lived in this 
Theophanes the Ceramean, Archbishop of Tauromenium.  Century, although we have already made mention of him in the Ninth Age, to which he is generally referred; but two Reasons invincibly prove, that he belongs to the Eleventh: The first is, That he citys Metaphrastes; and the other, that 'tis expressed, That the Homely on Palm-Sunday, was made in the Presence of King Roger, who could be no other Person but the Count of Sicily, whom he styles King and Emperor, according to the usual Custom of the Greeks. The Homilies attributed to Gregory the Ceramean, in some Manuscripts, are not different from those of Theophanes; insomuch, that it must either be an Error of the Transcribers, or else Theophanes had two Names. Let the Case be how it will, these Homilies being 72 in Number, are not Contemptible; in which the Author explains the literal Sense of the Gospels, and afterwards enlarges on the Allegorical and Moral; but his Style is plain, without any manner of Ornament, or loftiness of Expression.  
At the same time likewise flourished NILUS DOXOPATRIUS, Archimandrita or Abbot of his Convent; who by Count Roger's Order, composed a Treatise of the five Patriarchal 
Nilus Doxopatrus, Archimandrita.  Sees, and of the Archbishoprics and Bishoprics under their Jurisdiction; as also concerning the Institution of those Patriarches, their Ranks, Titles, Rights and Privileges. Allatius has produced many Fragments of this Piece; and it was published entire by M. Le Moine, in the first Tome of his Sacred Varieties.  
NICETAS PECTORATUS, besides the abovementioned Treatise against the 
Nicetas Pectoratus Monk of Studa.  Latins, composed also some other Works; particularly a Treatise of the Soul, of which Allatius set forth a Fragment; an Hymn in Honour of St. Nicolas; and another in Commendation of Metaphrastes, referred to by the same Author.  
MICHAEL PSELLUS, descended of a noble Family in Constantinople, made so 
Michael Psellus Senator.  great Progress in the Studies to which he applied himself, that he became one of the most learned Men of that Age: He exercised the Office of a Senator, and was highly esteemed by the Emperors: He was one of those Deputies whom Michael surnamed Stratioticus, sent to Isaac Comnenus to treat with him, and the latter made use of his Service against Michael Cerularius; afterward he was chosen Tutor to Michael Ducas, who was advanced to the imperial Throne by his means, A. D. 1071. He followed the Fortune of that Emperor; and was obliged, when the same Prince was deposed in 1078. to retire to a Monastery, where he died a little while after. The Greek Writers, who succeeded him, made many Encomium's on his profound Skill in all manner of Sciences; more especially Allatius, who gives us a very particular Character of him; and says, That none in that Age nor in the following, was ever more successful in inventing; nor observed a more regular Method; nor wrote with so admirable Eloquence, and discussed Matters so thoroughly; and lastly, that there is no Science, in which he has not written Commentaries, Abridgements or Treatises.  
The Printed Works of Michael Psellus, are a Paraphrase in Verse on the Canticles, dedicated to Nicephorus Botoniata, which was published in Greek by Meursius, and Printed at Leyden, A. D. 1617. and in Latin at Venice in 1573. A Commentary on the same Book, taken out of St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Nilus and St. Maximus, which is extant among Theodoret's Works: Certain Questions about the Holy Trinity and the Person of Jesus Christ, Printed at Augsburg in 1608. jambick Verses on the Virtues and Vices: Moral Discourses on Tantalus and Circe, and an Allegory of Sphinx, Printed at Basil in 1545. A Dialogue of the Operation of Demons, Printed at Paris in 1615. with M. Gaulmin's Notes: A Scholion or brief Commentary on the Chaldaic Oracles, Printed at Venice in 1593. and at Paris in 1599 A Treatise of the Faculties of the Soul, Printed at Paris in 1624. with Origen's Philocalia: Annotations on some Passages of St. Gregory Nazienzen, published by Billius: The Panegyric and Office of Simeon Metaphrastes, set forth by Allatius: And a Treatise of the Seven general Councils, published with several Poems by M. Bosquet, and Printed at Paris in 1632. Not to mention a great number of Books of Philosophy and Commentaries on Aristotle, which bear the Name of this Author, and are Printed at several Places.  
Allatius likewise produces a Catalogue of many other Treatises written by Psellus, which are only extant in Manuscript; particulary, a Treatise against Eunomius; an Epitome of the Books of Moses; certain Theological Questions; divers Tracts about the Mysteries of Jesus Christ; many Homilies and some Letters: Notwithstanding the high esteem that Allatius has for this Author, his Works do not appear to be very useful, nor very learned, in respect of Ecclesiastical Matters, nor very eloquent. Although he was no Friend to Michael Cerularius, yet he maintained the Opinion of the Greeks concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost.  
In the end of the same Century lived SIMEON surnamed the Younger, Abbot of the 
Simeon the Young, Abbot of Xerocerce.  Monastery of Xerocerce, of whom we have 33 Orations or Sermons on Faith, and on the Christian and Monastic Manners; as also a Pious Treatise called, Hymns of Divine Love, in measured Prose, which the Greeks call Politic or Blank Verse; and 228 moral Maxims, which Jacobus Pontanus translated into Latin from the Manuscripts of the Libraries of Bavaria and Augsburg, and caused to be Printed at Ingolstadt in Quarto, A. D. 1603. Allatius gives us a Catalogue of 79 Homilies, 58 Hymns, and some Instructions by this Author, with the Titles and Begining of them: Of the Homilies there are only Fifteen among those of Pontanus, and of the Hymns there are Twenty, which Pontanus has not published, no more than the Instructions of which he makes mention. These Works are full of Moral and Ascetic Precepts; but there are also certain Maxims of the Hesychasts or Quietists: So that perhaps it may not be amiss, here to show after what manner he lays down those Principles of Quietism, in his third Discourse of Prayer.  
In the first place (says he) three Things are to be Practised, in order to attain to what you desire, viz. the Contempt of all Rational and Irrational Creatures, Mortification, and a pure Conscience, free from all manner of Passions and particular Interests. Afterwards sitting alone in Tranquillity in a Corner of your Cell, do what I am now about to tell you: Keeping your Door shut, lift up your Mind above all Vanities; that is to say, above all temporary and transitory Things, and bowing your Head to your Belly, hold your Breath; seek your Heart in Mind: At first you'll find thick Darkness, but by continuing this practice Day and Night, you will discover Wonders and meet with endless Consolation: For when the Mind has once found out the place of the Soul, it clearly perceives things which it never comprehended before; it discerns Air round about the Heart, and becomes altogether Luminous and full of Wisdom: And when a Man is arrived to that height of Perfection, if any evil Thought intervenes, it is expelled and immediately disappears, before it can make any Impression; so that the Mind being exasperated drives away the Devil: You may learn the rest with God, by preserving Jesus Christ in your Heart.  
This is the Model of Quietism framed by that Monk, who talks of nothing for the most part in his System of Divine Love, but Divine Illuminations and Lights, Divine Unions, Essential Unions with God; the Transformation of our Members into those of Jesus Christ, and other Matters of the like Nature. However it must be acknowledged, That otherwise the Works of this Author are full of most excellent Maxims, solid Principles, and very useful Instructions for promoting the Spiritual Life. There are also two other small Tracts by the same Author, viz. one of the alteration and impressions which the Elements make on the Bodies and Souls of Men; and the other, of the manner of God's Omnipresence in all Places, and how his Light is dispersed every where. The same Method of Writing, and the same Principles are observable in these Pieces: But Simeon was cast into Prison in the end of his Life, for reproving the Emperor too freely (as some say) or as others will have it, upon account of his Erroneous Doctrines. He is also reputed to have first broached the Error of those Greek Monks, who imagined, That the Light which appeared on Mount Tabor, was the uncreated and eternal Light of the Divine Majesty; and that all Happiness consisted in the Contemplation of it.  
JOHN, Archbishop of Euchaita in Paphlagonia, composed in the middle of this Century, 
John Archbishop of Euchaita.  certain Poetical Pieces in jambick Verse, on the principal Histories of the Festivals of the Year, Printed at Eton, A. D. 1610. As also a Relation of the Lives of St. Eusebius and St. Dorotheus the Younger; some Extracts of which are produced by Allatius, in his Book of the Agreement of the Greek and Latin Churches, concerning Purgatory.  
JOANNES THRACESIUS SCYLITZES, 
† The Name of one of the principal Ministers of State, in the Court of the Eastern Emperors. Georgius Cedrenus.  Curopalata, who flourished under 
Joannes Thracesiu, Scylitzes, Curopalata.  Alexis Comnenus, wrote a Continuation of Theophanes' History, from the Year 813. to 1081. when Alexis Comnenus was advanced to the imperial Dignity. It was Printed at Venice in Latin, of Gabius' Translation; and Peter Gore published it in Greek, at the end of Cedrenus' Chronicle, part of the same History by Scyletzes, which gins at A. D. 1057. and ends in 1081.  
GEORGIUS CEDRENUS, a Monk, flourished in like manner in the end of the Century, and wrote Annals or an Epitome of History, from the beginning of the World to the Year 1057. It is only a Collection of divers Authors, more especially of George the 
* Ascertain Officer under the Patriarch of Constantinople. Constantin Lichudes, Patriarch of Constantinople. John Xiphilin Patriarch of Constantinople. Samonas' Archbishop of Gaza.  Syncellus, whose Chronography he Copied out from the Creation of the World, to the Reign of Diocletian; of Theophanes, from Diocletian to Michael Curopalata; and of Joannes Thracesius Scylitzes, afterward Curopalata, to his time. In a word, his whole History is taken out of the Works of several Writers, the Extracts of which he has drawn up without much Judgement or Skill, in the Art of Critic. These Annals were Translated by Xylander, and Printed at Basil, A. D. 1566. and afterward at Paris in the Royal Printing-House, with the Notes of Fabrot and James Gore, in 1647.  
CONSTANTINUS LICHUDES, who succeeded Michael Cerularius, A. D. 1058. in the Patriarchal See of Constantinople, compiled certain Synodal Constitutions, which are contained in the Collection of the Greek and Roman Law, as well as a Synodal Decision of Michael Cerularius about Marriages, to the seventh Degree of Consanguinity; and some other Fragments of Constitutions by the same Patriarch, relating to forbidden Marriages.  
JOHN XIPHILIN, of Trebisond or Trapezut, a Monk of Mount Olympus, succeeded Constantin Lichudes, A. D. 1066. and died in 1078. We have still in our Possession his Homily on the Cross, or on the third Week of Lent, cited by Gretzer, and certain Decrees about Marriage inserted in the Collection of the Greek and Roman Law. 'Tis also reported, That there are to be seen in some Libraries, certain Homilies by this Patriarch, on all the Sundays of the Year; and some have imagined him to be the Author of the Epitome of Dion Cassius' History, but the latter assures us himself, That he was his Nephew, and that he composed that Abridgement under the Emperor Michael Ducas.  
SAMONAS, Archbishop of Gaza, flourished (as 'tis supposed) in the end of this Century, and wrote a small Tract in form of a Dialogue, between Himself and a Saracen; in which he proves, That the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This Piece is extant in the Bibliotheca Patrum; but 'tis more probable, that that Archbishop did not live till the Thirteenth Century.  
NICOLAS, Bishop of Metone, is also referred to the Eleventh Century: He composed a Treatise of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, like that of Samonas, against those who 
Nicolas Bishop of Metone.  doubted that the Consecrated Bread and Wine, were really his Body and Blood: But there is yet a much greater probability that this Author belongs to the Twelfth Century. He likewise composed three Treatises of the Procession of the Holy Ghost against the Latins, of which some Manuscript-Copies (as we are informed by Allatius) are preserved in the Vatican Library: His Treatise of the Eucharist is in the Bibliotheca Patrum.  
THHOPHYLACT, Archbishop of Acris in Bulgaria, flourished under the Emperors 
Theophylact Bishop of Acris.  Romanus Diogenes, Michael Ducas and Nicephorus Botoniata. He took a great deal of pains in explaining the Holy Scripture, by making an Abridgement of St. Chrysostom's Commentaries, and after that manner composed his Commentaries on the four Gospels, on the Acts of the Apostles, on St. Paul's Epistles, and on four of the lesser Prophets, viz. Habakkuk, Ionas, Nahum and Hosea.  
These Commentaries were Printed in Latin at Paris, A. D. 1554. and at Basil in 1570. The Commentaries on the Gospels were Printed in Latin at Antwerp in 1564. in Greek at Rome in 1542. and 1568. and in Greek and Latin at Paris in 1562. The Commentaries on the Acts, were Printed in Greek and Latin at Colen in 1568. The Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles, were Printed in Latin at Rome in 1469. at Antwerp in 1564. at Colen in 1531. and at Paris in 1552. as also in Greek and Latin at London in 1536. Lastly, The Commentaries on the four lesser Prophets were Printed at Paris in 1549. and 'tis reported that there is extant an entire Manuscript Commentary on all the lesser Prophets, in the Library of Augsburg; Meursius has published 75 Letters by this Author in Greek, Printed at Leyden in 1617. which were afterward translated into Latin by Marinerius, and Printed at Colen in 1622. Gretser likewise set forth under Theophylact's Name, a Discourse of the Cross, and Father Poustin another Treatise, which is an Institution dedicated to Constantin Porphyrogenneta. Joannes Veccus has cited certain Passages of the same Archbishop, relating to the Procession of the Holy Ghost, against the Latins; and 'tis reported that there is to be seen in the Library of the Duke of Bavaria, a Manuscript Treatise by him, concerning the Differences between the Greeks and Latins, and a Discourse on the Emperor Alexis Comnenus. Theophylact's Commentaries are very useful for the Literal Explication of the Holy Scriptures.  
NICETAS SERRON, a Deacon of the Church of Constantinople, and afterward 
Nicetas Serron, Archbishop Heraclea.  Archbishop of Heraclea, Cotemporary with Theophylact, wrote a Commentary on St. Gregory Nazianzen's Homilies, which is inserted in Latin among the Works of that Father: To him likewise is attributed a Catena on the Book of Job, Printed in Latin at Venice in 1587. and at London in 1637. which nevertheless may be rather appropriated to Olympiodorus, than to this Author; but 'tis probable that the Commentary on the Poems of St. Gregory Nazianzen, Printed at Venice in 1563. under the name of Nicetas the Paphlagonian, belongs to this Nicetas of Heraclea.  
NICOLAS, Surnamed the Grammarian, chosen Patriarch of Constantinople, in the 
Nicolas the Grammarian, Patriarch of Constantinople. Peter Chartophylax, of the Church of Constantiople. Samuel of Morocco, a converted Jew.  Year 1084. wrote a large Letter to the Emperor Alexis Comnenus to prove, That 'tis not lawful to take away Bishoprics from the Metropolitans. He likewise made certain Constitutions about Marriage, which are to be found with this Letter, in the Collection of the Greek and Roman Law.  
PETER, Deacon and Chartophylax or Keeper of the Records of the Church of Constantinople, made, A. D. 1090. his brief Answers to certain Cases that were proposed to him: They are in like manner comprised in the Collection of the Greek and Roman Law.  
Among all these Authors may be reckoned, a certain Jew of Africa, named Samuel of Morocco, converted to the Christian Religion; who composed a small Tract to prove, That the Messiah was come; in which he gives us to understand, that he wrote a thousand Years after the Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem: This Piece was Printed at several times separately, and is extant in some Collections of Authors.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Of the COUNCILS held in the Eleventh Century.  
HAVING already given an Historical Account of divers Councils, treating of other Ecclesiastical Affairs transacted in this Century, we shall now proceed to do the same thing, in reference to those of which we have not hitherto had occasion to make mention.  

The Councils of France.  
IN the Year of our Lord, 1017. certain concealed Heretics were discovered, who spread 
The Council of Orleans, 1017.  abroad detestable Doctrines and committed no less infamous Actions; and this Discovery was first made by a Norman Lord named Arefastus: He had a Clergyman in his House, who going to Orleans to hold Conferences with the Learned of that City, met two other Clerks, one named Stephen, Professor of School-Divinity in St. Peter's Monastery, and the other Lisoius, Clerk of the Convent of St. Croix, who were then in great repute for their Learning and Piety. He Conversed with them for some time, till they communicated their Errors to him, and afterward returning to Normandy, acquainted his Patron with their Tenets, who disclosed the matter to Duke Richard. Whereupon the Duke gave notice of it to King Robert, and at the same time sent Arefastus with his Chaplain in order to discover and convict the Heretics. Arefastus' passed through Chartres, to know of Fulbert what Measures were most expedient to be taken in this Case; but not meeting with him, he consulted Eurard, a Doctor of Divinity and Prebend of the Church of Chartres, who advised him to give himself up to Prayer, to receive the Holy Communion, and to fortify himself every Day with the sign of the Cross, before he entered into Conference with those Heretics; not to contradict what he heard them say, and feigning to be their Disciple, to make a Discovery of all their Errors. He followed this Advice, and having associated himself with them several times, was informed by them, That they did not believe that JESUS CHRIST was born of the Virgin Mary, nor that he died for the Salvation of Mankind, nor that he was buried and risen again: And that they maintained, That Baptism did not procure the remission of Sins; that the Consecration by the Priest did not constitute the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord; and that it was unprofitable to make Prayers to the Holy Martyrs and Confessors. Afterward Arefastus having interrogated them about the Salvation which they hoped to be partakers of, they informed him, That at certain Hours of the Night, they were wont to meet together in a particular Place, every one being furnished with a Lamp, where after having invoked the Demons, they perpetrated infamous Villainies, and even burned the Children born of their incestuous Copulations, whose Ashes they reserved to be given to sick Persons as a kind of Viaticum.  
King Robert being arrived at Orleans with some Bishops, caused this Herd of Miscreants to be apprehended and Arefastus among them, by whose Testimony they were Convicted, and their Errors were refuted by the Bishops: But upon their refusal to abjure their Heresy, they were deprived of their Ecclesiastical Habits and all burnt in a House, except one single Clerk and a Nun, who were Converted. These Circumstances are thus related in an ancient History of the Council of Orleans, referred to by Father Luke Dachery, in the second Tome of his Spicilegium; and Glaber a Cotemporary Historian, relates them almost after the same manner as to the matter of Fact, except that he makes no mention of Arefastus; but he attributes to them some other Errors, viz. That they denied the Holy Trinity, affirmed the World to be Eternal, and believed that sensual Pleasures are not to be punished in the future State, and that good Works are unprofitable. This Author adds, That the Persons burnt upon that Account, were thirteen in Number.   

The Synod of Arras, held in the Year, 1025.  
SOME time after there appeared in Flanders another Sect of Heretics, which was likewise Condemned in a Synod held at Arras, A. D. 1025. on the Festival of Christmas, by 
The Synod of Arras, in 1025.  Gerard Bishop of Cambray and Arras; for both these Cities had then but one Bishop. Gerard residing some Days in the latter, News was brought him, that certain Persons were arrived from Italy, who introduced a new sort of Heresy, which ruin'd the Gospel Ordinances, and the Discipline of the Church; and that these Miscreants making profession of perfect Righteousness, gave it out, That that alone was sufficient for the Justification of a Person, and that there was no other Sacrament in the Church for the attaining of Salvation.  
Upon this Report, Gerard caused a strict search to be made after those, who were suspected to be maintainers of this Heresy; insomuch, that they were apprehended by the Governor's Order, and even brought before the Bishop, who being taken up at that instant with other Affairs, after he had examined them for some time concerning their Doctrine, and perceived them to be in an Error, caused them to be confined during three Days, and ordered a Fast to be kept the next Day, by the Clerks and Monks who were there present, that Almighty God might be implored to give Grace to those Miscreants to acknowledge their Errors. On the third Day, being Sunday, he held a Synod composed of the Abbots, Arch-deacons, Monks and other Clergy, and caused the Prisoners to be brought forth in the presence of the People: Then, after having made a Speech to the Assembly, he demanded of the Prisoners, what their Doctrine was, and who were their Teachers: They replied, That they were the Disciples of an Italian named Gandulphus, who had instructed them in the Commandments of the Gospel, and of the Apostles; that they received no other Scripture, but that they observed that very strictly. The Bishop having heard it reported, That they abhorred Baptism; that they rejected the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST; that they gave it out, that Pennance was altogether unprofitable; that they despised the Churches; that they condemned lawful Marriages; that they did not acknowledge any Eminency in the Confessors; and that they affirmed, That none ought to be honoured except the Apostles and Martyrs; he thought fit to interrogate them, and to give them Instructions about those Points. As to the first, they owned, That their Master had Taught them, That provided that they practised the Precepts of the Gospel; that they renounced the Vanities of the World; that they did not follow their Passions; that they got their Livelihood by the Labour of their Hands; that they did no injury to any; and that they exercised Charity toward those, who were animated with the same Zeal; it was not necessary to receive Baptism; that if the performance of these Duties were neglected Baptism would be unprofitable, and that altho' 'twere granted that it had some efficacy; yet it was now become altogether useless and of none effect for these three Reasons, viz. 1. Upon account of the irregular Practices and Conversation of the Ministers. 2. Because the Sins which might have been remitted by Baptism, are committed again by Professors during the whole Course of their Lives. 3. In regard that Infants are Baptised, who have neither Faith nor free Will; who cannot desire Baptism, nor know what is meant by Faith or Free Will; neither can the Profession of others avail them any thing.  
The Bishop replied upon that Article, That altho' JESUS CHRIST was perfectly Righteous, yet he condescended to receive Baptism from St. John; That he instituted it for the regeneration and the remission of Sins; That in this Sacrament the Holy Ghost operates invisibly in the Soul, what is done outwardly by the Water, on the Body: That altho' it be administered by worthy or unworthy Ministers, nevertheless it is always effectual; because it is the Holy Ghost who Sanctifies, and the Iniquity of a Man cannot hinder the effect of the operation of God: That whilst the Minister outwardly sprinkles the Body, the Soul is inwardly purified by the operation of the Holy Ghost: That afterward Holy Unction is administered to the Infant, for its farther Sanctification after Baptism; by reason that as Sin is remitted by Baptism, so Unction sanctifies the Person after Baptism: That the Imposition of Hands was also added, to procure the Descent of the Holy Ghost: That the necessity of Baptism is proved by the Doctrine of the Gospel and of the Apostles: That how Holy or Innocent soever, the Life of a Man may be, yet he cannot be Saved without receiving this Sacrament: That Baptism takes away both original and actual Sins, and re-establishes Man in the same State of Uprightness, in which he was created, altho' it does not render him immortal: That the Example of the Man Sick of the Palsy, whom our Saviour cured, having regard to the Faith of those Persons, who brought him into his Presence; and that of the Canaanitish Woman, who by Faith obtained a Cure for her Daughter, give us to understand, that the Faith of those who present an Infant to be Baptised, may stand it in some stead. Lastly, he demanded of them, for what reason, they expressed so great contempt of the Sacraments of the Church, who were so punctual in observing the Ceremony of washing their Feet? Neither does he insist less on the second Article, concerning the Mystery of the Eucharist, of which he explains the Effects, proving the real Presence of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST, and answering the Objections that was made about the impossibility, that the same Body should be present in divers Places, to which purpose he relates a great number of Miracles.  
These Heretics being convinced by his Discourse, acknowledged their Error, and sued for a Pardon: The Bishop gave them some hopes of obtaining their Request, and proceeded to the other Points of Discipline, to which they had no regard, viz. those that related to the Churches, Altars, Sacred Orders, Unction, Exorcisms, Bells and Funeral Rites. After having vindicated the Customs of the Church as to these Matters, he endeavoured to prove against them, the usefulness of Penance for the Living, and that of Prayer, good Works and Sacrifices for the Dead. He shows, That lawful Marriages is not forbidden by the Ordinances of the Gospel: That the Confessors ought to be honoured as well as the Martyrs: That the singing of Psalms is not only allowed of, but also commendable: That a due Veneration ought to be had for the Cross, by referring that Worship to JESUS CHRIST: That the use and adoration of the Images of our Saviour, and of the Saints is profitable; because the sight of them represents their Actions, and puts us in mind of their Virtues. He concludes with discoursing of the usefulness and distinctions of Sacred Orders, and about the necessity of the Grace of JESUS CHRIST.  
Upon the conclusion of this Discourse, the Heretics, who were present, declared, That they acknowledged the Truths, which the Bishop of Arras had explained to them; insomuch that a Form of a Confession of Faith contrary to the Errors which were refuted by that Prelate, was immediately drawn up and recited by him and the rest of the Clergy: Afterward they caused it to be explained in the Vulgar Tongue, by an Interpreter in favour of these Heretics, who did not well understand the Latin: Then they approved and signed it, and were dismissed in Peace after having received Benediction from the Bishop. The said Gerard himself compiled the Acts of this Synod, and Dedicated them to one of his neighbouring Bishops whose name is marked by the Letter R prefixed at the beginning of the Epistle which he wrote to him, and who is apparently Reginald of Liege. These Acts were published by Father Luke Datchery, in the thirteenth Tome of his Spicilegium, and may well be esteemed as one of the finest Monuments of those times.   

The Council of Bourges, held in the Year, 1031.  
AIMO, Archbishop of Bourges, held a Council on the first day of November, A. D. 1031. 
The Council of Bourges in 1031.  in that City, in which assisted the Bishops of Puy en Velay, Clermont, Alby, Cahors and Manned, with the Abbot of Micy and several others. Pope John's 18th Letter was read concerning the Affair of St. martials Apostleship; proper means were sought for, to put a stop to the Civil Wars and to establish Peace in the Kingdom, and the following Constitutions were rectified.  
The First ordains, That the Commemoration of St. Martial shall be made among the Apostles, and not among the Confessors.  
The Second, That the Priest shall not keep the Body of Jesus Christ, consecrated under the same Hosts longer, than from one Sunday to another.  
The Third imports, That the Bishops shall not receive any Presents upon account of Ordinations, nor even their Officers, who were wont to take somewhat for Registering the Names of those Persons, who were proposed for Ordination.  
The Fourth, That none shall obtain an Arch-deaconry, who is not a Deacon.  
The Fifth, That Priests, who cohabit with their Wives, shall only be Readers or Chanters for the future; and that Deacons and Subdeacons shall not be suffered to keep either Wives or Concubines.  
The Sixth, That the Bishops shall oblige them to take an Oath to that purpose, at their Ordination.  
The Seventh enjoins, That all those who are employed in the Ministerial Functions, shall have Ecclesiastical Tonsure; that is to say, their Beards shaved, and the Crown made on their Heads.  
The Eighth, That the Sons of Deacons and Subdeacons, shall not be admitted into the Clergy.  
The Ninth, That Slaves shall not be ordained Clerks, till they have obtained Freedom of their Masters.  
The Tenth, That such Persons shall not be looked upon as the Sons of Clergymen, as were born after their Fathers quitted the Ecclesiastical State, and returned to that of Laics.  
The Eleventh, That the Bishops shall declare at the time of Ordination, that they excommunicate those who shall presume to present to them any Sons of Clergymen or Slaves to be ordained, and that Persons under such Circumstances, who have got their Ordination by surprise, shall be deposed.  
The Twelfth, That nothing shall be exacted for the Administration of Baptism and Penance, nor for burying the Dead; nevertheless that it shall be permitted to receive whatever the Faithful shall think fit to bestow Voluntarily upon those Occasions.  
The Thirteenth orders, That the Priests shall have the Offerings, and the Funeral Torches, which are presented to them, but that the Paschal-Taper shall remain to give Light to the Altar.  
The Fourteenth, That Linen clothes which have served to cover dead Bodies, shall not be laid on the Altar.  
The Fifteenth, That no public Meetings shall be held on Sundays for the Management of Secular Affairs, unless they be called to perform Works of Charity, to oppose the Insults of Enemies, in case of danger, or to transact Business upon some other emergent Occasion.  
The Sixteenth ordains, That those Persons who leave their Wives, except upon account of Adultery, shall not marry others as long as the former are living, nor the Women other Husbands in the like Cases.  
The Seventeenth, That no Man shall take to Wife a Relation to the sixth or seventh Degree of Consanguinity.  
The Eighteenth, That none in like manner shall be permitted to Marry his Kinsman's Wife.  
The Nineteenth, That no Man shall give his Daughter in Marriage to any Priest, Deacon or Sub-deacon, nor to their Sons.  
The Twentieth, That none shall Marry their Daughters.  
The Twenty first imports, That Laymen shall not enjoy Ecclesiastical Benefices.  
The Twenty second, That Laics shall not put Priests in their Churches without the approbation of the Bishop.  
The Twenty third, That those Ecclesiastical Persons, who renounce their Clerkship or Ministerial Functions, shall be separated from the rest of the Clergy.  
The Twenty fourth, That Monks, who quit their Habit, shall be deprived of the Communion of the Church, till they have resumed it; and if the Abbots or Monks refuse to re-admit them, they shall reside with the Clerks in Churches or in other Monasteries, wearing the Habit of Monks and observing the Monastic Rule.  
The Twenty fifth, That neither the Canons nor Monks shall pass from one Church or from one Monastery to another, without a Licence from the Bishop or Abbot.  
After the Session of this Synod, Aimo made a Declaration, That St. Martial should be styled an Apostle in all the Church-Offices.   

The Council of Lymoges held in the Year, 1031.  
THE same Question was debated at large in the Council of Lymoges, assembled eighteen days after in the Church of that City, where the greatest part of the Prelates who had 
The Council of Lymoges in 1031.  assisted in the Council of Bourges, were present, with Jourdain Bishop of Lymoges, Isambert of Poi●…rs, Arnold of Perigueux, Rohon of Angoulesme and some others. There were only two Sessions, viz. the first on the 18th day of November, and the other on the 19th. In the former after many Debates, the Apostolical Dignity was confirmed to St. Martial.  
In the second, after having observed, that different Customs might be in use in several Churches, the Constitutions made in the Council of Bourges were read; and the second concerning the renewing of the Host every Sunday was altered, because 'twas judged sufficient that they should be renewed Twelve times a Year. Afterward the Affair of the Abbey of Beaulieu was proposed, which was possessed by a secular Abbot: He was Summoned to the Synod, and after he had consented that it should be reformed according to the Rule, 'twas ordained that the Bishop of Lymoges should place a regular Abbot therein, before the Festival of Christmas. This gave occasion to treat of the Monastic Regularity in the Council: The Bishop of Lymoges was very well satisfied with the Conduct of the Abbots and Monks of his Diocese, and only complained of one Abbot, who had suffered a certain Viscount, excommunicated by the Bishop and deceased without Absolution, to be interred in his Church: The Abbot vindicated himself; alleging, That it was done without his Knowledge by the Soldiers of that Viscount, who buried him themselves; but that as soon as he was informed of the Matter of Fact, he caused his Corpse to be dug up, and to be laid without the consecrated Ground. The Bishop of Cahors related an Accident of the like nature, which happened in his Diocese. Then the Prelates of the Council proceeded to find out Means to oblige the great Lords and Noblemen to make Peace one with another, and Excommunication and Suspension from Divine Service were proposed to that end. The Monks of St. Martial had their Custom confirmed of Administering Baptism on the Festivals of Easter and Whitsuntide; and the Abbots had a Privilege granted them to have a Chaplain and three Deacons assisting at their Celebration of Mass, on the solemn Festivals: The Canons against incontinent Clergymen and Simoniacal Practices were revived; and the time of Ordination was fixed on the four Ember-Weeks. Upon a Remonstrance, that divers Persons excommunicated by their Bishops for notorious Crimes, went to Rome and received Absolution from the Pope; the Bishop of Puy en Velay reported, that some Years ago, the Count of Clermont being excommunicated by the Bishop, for leaving his lawful Wife to Marry another, made a Journey to the Court of Rome, where he obtained Absolution of the Pope, who had no notice of the Sentence of Excommunication passed against him: That the Bishop having made a Complaint, the Pope returned for Answer, That he ought to blame himself for what had happened, by reason that he never gave him any Information that the Count was excommunicated; the Pope added, That if he had known it, he would have confirmed the Bishop's Sentence, because he makes Profession to assist his Brethren in every thing, and not to oppose them; that he should be very sorry, to hear of any Schism or Misunderstanding between him and them; and that therefore he abrogated and made void the Penance and Absolution, which he had granted to that excommunicated Person, by whom he was surprised, and who ought to expect nothing but a Curse, till he has made Satisfaction and has been duly absolved by his Diocesan.  
This Narrative makes it appear, That these sorts of Absolutions were often surreptitiously got of the Popes, as it may be further evinced from another Passage of the like nature, which happened at Angoulesme; where a certain excommunicated Person, who could not obtain Absolution, by reason that he was unwilling to make Satisfaction, presented to his Bishop a Letter from the Pope, in which he entreated him to admit the said Person to the Penance which he had enjoined: The Bishop, without being surprised, replied, That he did not believe that that Order came from the Pope, and that it should not be serviceable to the Offender, who should remain under the Sentence of Excommunication, till he had accepted of and done the Penance, that should be imposed on him by himself or by his archdeacon by his Order. Upon these considerations, the Bishops unanimously declared, That the Pope had indeed a Right to confirm, augment or diminish the Penance enjoined an Offender by his Diocesan, or even to impose it on those, whom the Bishops should nominate for that purpose; but that he had no Power either to impose Penance or to grant Absolution, in respect of an excommunicated Person, without consulting the Diocesan. And that it was his Office, rather to confirm than to disannul the Sentences of the other Bishops; in regard that if the Members ought to follow their Head, the Head also ought to take care not to oppress the Members: The Acts of this Council are very large, and contain a great number of Matters of Fact, Authorities and Arguments, relating to the Affair of St. Martial, which are of no very great Moment.   

Divers Councils held in France, A. D. 1040.  
MANY other Councils were convened at the same time in divers Provinces of France, 
Divers Councils held in France, in 1040.  particularly in Aquitaine, Burgundy and Lyonnois for the re-establing of Peace and Church-Discipline. Effectual Means were chief sought for therein, to put a stop to the Civil Wars, public Robberies and Outrages that were committed, more especially in reference to the Church-Revenues and Clergy. It was ordained in all these Councils, that the People should abstain from eating Flesh on Fridays and Saturdays, and from drinking Wine on Fridays; that those who were desirous to be exempted, for some lawful Cause, should be obliged to maintain their indigent Persons on those days; and that in consideration of this Abstinence, Offenders should be discharged from other Pennances, provided that they bond themselves by an Oath to observe it. However some Bishops opposed this Constitution, and among others Gerard Bishop of Cambray, who maintained, That that Yoke ought not to be laid equally on all People, because there were some who were not able to undergo it, by reason of the weakness of their Bodies; neither perhaps did their Transgressions deserve so severe a Chastisement, and there were others, in respect of whom, this Satisfaction is not proportioned to the haynousness of their Offences: That it were more expedient to follow the Canonical Rules in the imposing of Pennances; and that much less ought the People to be constrained by an Oath to observe this Abstinence; since that were by such means to expose them not only to the hazard of breaking a Commandment, but also of incurring Perjury. The same Prelate did not think fit that the Bishops should be concerned in Military Affairs, and the bearing of Arms; saying, That it is the Province of Kings to take cognizance of those matters, and not that of Clergymen.  
'Tis a thing very observable, that a great number of Bodies of Saints and abundance of Relics were brought into those Councils, and that 'twas generally believed, that many Miracles were wrought therein: There were also held at the same time divers other particular Councils, either for the dedicating of Churches, or for the granting of Privileges to Monasteries, or for the determining of private differences among the Bishops, about the limits of their Dioceses, or to put an end to other Contests, which are mentioned by the Writers of that Time, but do not deserve to be insisted upon in this Place.   

The Council of Rheims held in the Year, 1049.  
HERIMAR, Abbot of St. Remy at Rheims, having invited over Leo IX. to consecrate his new Church, that Pope arrived there in the Month of October A. D. 1049. accompanied 
The Council of Rheims in 1049.  with the Archbishops of Trier, Lions and Bezanson, and the Bishop of Porto, and after having performed the Ceremony, and that of the Translation of the Body of St. Remy to this new Church, he held a Council therein, which continued during some Days: It was composed of the Archbishops of Rheims, Trier, Lions and Bezanson; of the Bishops of Soissons, Terovane, Senlis, Mets, Langres, Coutances, Lisieux, Bayeux, Auranches, Verdun, Nevers, Angers, Nantes and Porto, and of a Bishop of England, with divers Abbots and other Clergymen, to the number of Fifty. Peter Deacon of the Church of Rome opened the Council, declaring, That it was requisite to treat about the reformation of many Abuses which had crept into the Churches of France, particularly Simony, the seizing of Churches by Laics, forbidden Marriages, the Apostasy of Clerks and Monks, etc. But above all things, he admonished the Bishops to declare under pain of an Anathema, whether they were ordained for Money or otherwise: The Archbishops of Trier, Lions and Bezanson, protested that they were not, but the Metropolitan of Rheims desired time to return an Answer: Among the Bishops there were only Four, who were not able to clear themselves, viz. those of Langres, Nevers, Coutances and Nantes. The Abbot's being asked the same Question, many of them protested themselves innocent, and others owned their Fault by their silence. The Abbots of Poitiers was accused of Incontinency by the Bishop of Langres, and not having sufficiently cleared himself, was deposed. In the end of this Session, it was prohibited under the penalty of an Anathema to attribute the Title of Universal Primate of the Church to any but the Bishop of Rome.  
The next Day, the Archbishop of Rheims after having had a private Conference with the Pope and some other Prelates, entreated the Bishop of Senlis to speak in his favour, who accordingly declared that the Archbishop was not guilty of Simony; but the Pope ordered that he should clear himself by Oath; whereupon he sued for longer time, which was granted, on condition that he should appear in a Council to be held at Rome in the middle of April in the following Year. The determination of the Cause that was depending between that Archbishop and the Bishop of Toul, about the Abbey of Monstier-Randy, was referred to the next Day. Afterward certain Clerks of the Church of Tours, brought an Accusation against the Bishop of Dol for assuming the Quality of Archbishop, and withdrawing himself with the seven Bishops of Bretagne from the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Tours: It was ordered that he should be summoned to the Council of Rome, in the Month of April following. Then the Bishop of Langres was accused of Simony, of bearing Arms and committing Murders, of tyrannising over his Clergy, and of perpetrating other more notorious Crimes: One of his Clerks deposed that the said Bishop took away his Wife, whom he had whilst he was as yet a Layman, and after having abused her, made her a Nun: A certain Priest gave in evidence, that he caused him to be kept in Custody under a Guard and to endure much hardship, on purpose to extort Money from him. The Bishop of Langres demanded Counsel, and made application to the Archbishops of Lions and Bezanson: The latter going about to plead for him, faltered in his Speech, and the other acknowledged, that the Bishop had exposed the sacred Orders to Sale, and exacted a Sum of Money of that Priest, but denied that he caused him to be misused.  
On the third Day, the Bishop of Langres not daring to appear, and being summoned thrice, and sought for to no purpose, was at last excommunicated. The Bishop of Nevers owned, that his Relations had given a Sum of Money for his Bishopric, but that he was altogether ignorant of what they had done; nevertheless he declared, that he designed to leave it, and even at the same time laid down his Crosier-Staff at the Pope's Feet, who caused him to take it up again, after he had taken an Oath, that that Money was paid without his knowledge. Then an ancient Copy of a Privilege granted to the Church of Rheims was read, which made it appear, that the Abbey of Monstier Randy belonged to its Jurisdiction, and it was accordingly adjudged to that Church. The Bishop of Coutances confessed, that his Brother had laid out a Sum of Money to get him advanced to the Episcopal Dignity; but having taken an Oath, that it was done without his knowledge, he was declared innocent. The Bishop of Nantes was not so favourably treated; for having owned that he succeeded his Father in his Bishopric, after having disbursed a certain Sumn of Money, he was deposed, and only permitted to exercise the Office of a Priest. Lastly, a Sentence of Excommunication was denounced against the Prelates who were summoned to this Council but did not appear, and the following Constitutions were agreed upon, viz.  
1. That none shall be promoted to Ecclesiastical Dignities, but by the election of the Clergy and People. 2. That none shall buy or make Sale of the Sacred Orders, Ecclesiastical Offices or Altars. 3, That Laics shall not retain Spiritual Live. 4. That none but the Bishop or some Person deputed by him shall be empowered to levy any Sums of Money within the Precincts of the Churches. 5. That nothing shall be exacted for Burying the Dead, or for administering the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 6. That Clergymen shall not bear Arms, nor go on Warfare. 7. That no Clerk nor Layman shall lend Money upon use. 8. That the Monks and Clerks shall not quit their Profession. 9 That none shall offer violence to Clergymen as they are Travelling. 10. That there shall not be suffered any manner of oppression of the Poor. 11. That no Man shall take to Wife any of his near Relations. 12. That it should be prohibited to leave a lawful Wife, in order to marry another. Lastly, all those Persons were excommunicated, who should protect or hold correspondence with the new Heretics of France, the Sodomites and certain Lords, who had contracted forbidden Marriages and assaulted some Bishops and other Clergymen.   

The Council of Tours, held in the Year, 1060.  
THE Custom being now introduced that the Councils for the reformation of Church-discipline, 
The Council of Tours in 1060.  should be held in the presence or by the authority of the Legates of the See of Rome; Stephen Cardinal and Legate of Pope Nicolas II. called one A. D. 1060. at Tours, in which it was ordained,  
1. That all those Persons who give Money for any Ecclesiastical Dignity, shall be deprived of it for ever.  
2. That if any Bishop or Patron confer Benefices for Money, the Clerks shall be allowed to oppose their Proceed and to have recourse to the Arbitration of the neighbouring Bishops; nay, even to Appeal from them to the See of Rome.  
3. That no new Benefice can be sold, nor any Church-Revenues alienated.  
4. That none shall purchase any Spiritual Live of Laymen.  
5. That the same Person cannot enjoy two Benefices in different Churches.  
6. That the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, who knowing the Prohibition made by Pope Nicolas, do not forbear the Exercise of their Ministerial Functions, when they have been engaged in a scandalous Conversation with Women, or who shall refuse to desist for the future, after having received information of that Prohibition, shall be deposed without a possibility of restauration.  
7. That Clergymen, who bear Arms, shall be deprived of their Benefices and Dignities.  
8. That Laics, who presume to sell or dispose of the Church-Revenues shall be excommunicated.  
9 That those Men who marry their Kinswomen, or those Women who keep an unchaste Correspondence with their Kinsmen, and refuse to leave them, or to do Penance, shall be excluded from the Communion of the Faithful and turned out of the Church.  
10. That those Monks who quit the Monastic State, shall likewise be separated from the Communion of the Church as Apostats.   

The Council of Soissons, held in the Year, 1092.  
ROSCELIN, a Clerk of the Church of Compiegne, and a very able Logician, gave it out 
The Council of Soissons in 1092.  in the end of the Eleventh Century, That the three Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity were three Things: This Opinion was condemned in a Council held at Soissons, A. D. 1092. under Raynold Archbishop of Rheims, and confuted by St. Anselm, by Ives of Chartres, and even 
Roscelin Clerk of Church of Compiegne. Theobald a Clerk of the Church of Etampes.  by Abaelard, who is reputed to have been his Pupil. Roscelin was obliged to make an abjuration of his Error in that Council, but afterward he did not forbear to maintain it obstinately, and for that reason was banished from France and England. THEOBALD, a Clerk of the Church of Etampes likewise wrote a Letter against him, on another Subject, viz. to show, That the Sons of Priests may be admitted into the Clergy.   

Divers Councils held in Normandy. The Council of Roven, convened, A. D. 1050.  
MAUGIER, Archbishop of Roven, held a Council in that City, A. D. 1050. with Hugh Bishop of Eureux and Robert of Coutances, in which he drew up a Letter directed 
The Council of Roven, in 1050.  to the Bishops and Faithful of his Province, containing the following Constitutions, viz.  
1. That the Articles of Faith, comprised in the Creed of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, aught to be firmly adhered to.  
2. That no Presents shall be made to Princes, nor to their Officers for the obtaining of Bishoprics.  
3. That the Bishops shall not covet to be translated from one See to another, out of a Principle of Ambition.  
4. That the Monks shall not cause themselves to be made Abbots for Mony.  
5. That one Bishop shall not dispossess another, nor one Abbot another.  
6. That the Bishops shall not exact any thing for Ordinations.  
7. That their Officers, that is to say, their Arch-deacons or Secretaries shall not in like manner demand any thing upon that account.  
8. That no Person shall be ordained who is not of a competent Age, and who has not made a sufficient progress in Learning.  
9 That a Bishop shall not ordain a Clerk of another Diocese without the permission of his Diocesan.  
10. That the Bishops shall not bestow the Revenues, Lands and Benefices of the Clergy on Laics.  
11, 12 and 13. That Clergymen shall not endeavour to supplant one another.  
14, 15 and 16. That nothing shall be exacted for the Holy Chrism, nor for the Consecration of Churches, nor for the Administration of Baptism.  
17. That on the eight days, during which new Baptised Persons wear the 
† A sort of Vestments worn by Popish Priests.  Albe, they shall be obliged only to offer their Wax-Tapers and the Linen with which their Heads were covered, by reason of the Holy Chrism.  
18. That the Penance imposed on Offenders, shall neither be augmented nor diminished for Money.  
19 That the new Baptised Persons shall spend eight days in wearing the Albes, and holding lighted Tapers in the Church, where they were baptised.   

The Council of Lisieux, held A. D. 1055. and that of Roven in 1063.  
THE Archbishop of Roven, under whom the preceding Council was held, was deposed, A. D. 1055. in another Council convened at Lisieux, in the presence of Stephen Bishop of 
The Council of Lisieux in 1055.  Zion in Switzerland, the Pope's Legate, which consisted of the Bishops of that Province. He was accused of having robbed his Church, of consuming its Revenues in unprofitable Expenses, and of dissipating part of them to Largesses only to satisfy his Ambition: He was also suspected to be guilty of infamous Crimes, and was censured for not showing a due Respect to the See of Rome: He was apparently culpable, but that which chief brought upon him this Condemnation, was the Displeasure of Duke William his Nephew, who was incensed against him, because he had excommunicated that Prince upon account of his Marriage with the Princess Mathilda his Kinswoman, the Daughter of Baldwin Count of Flanders, and favoured the Party of Duke Arques his Brother: Therefore the Duke banished him immediately after his Condemnation, to the Isle of Guernsey, and caused Maurillus, a Monk of Fecamp, to be substituted in his room. The latter was zealous in endeavouring to re-establish the Church-Discipline and to reform the Corruption of Manners: To which purpose he called divers Synods, and made some Constitutions. In that which was held by him at Roven, A. D. 1063. for the Dedication of the Cathedral Church, the building of which was completed at that time, he published a Confession of Faith against Berenger's erroneous Opinion, 
The Council of Roven, in 1063.  of which we have made mention elsewhere.   

The Council of Roven held, A. D. 1072.  
MAURILLUS, dying A. D. 1069. Duke William caused John de Bayeux, Bishop of Auranches, to be chosen to supply his Place, and sent Lanfranc on purpose to Rome, to get that Election confirmed by the Pope. This Archbishop held a Council at Roven in 1072. 
The Council of Roven, in 1072.  with his Suffragans; in which after having revived the Creeds of the Councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon, they set forth Twenty four Canons, relating to Church-Discipline.  
The First imports, That the Bishop shall perform the Consecration of the Holy Chrism and of the Oils, after the Hour of 
† One of the Popish Canonical Hours.  None, having at least twelve Priests for his Assistants.  
The Second, That the Arch-deacons shall not content themselves, only with receiving some few Drops of the Chrism and consecrated Oil, to be mixed with the other Oil; as it is commonly practised in some Places by an Abuse, but that they shall present all their Chrism and Oil to the Bishop to be consecrated by him.  
The Third, That the Deans, being clothed with Albes, shall distribute the Chrism and consecrated Oil with Reverence, and keep them in well stopped Vessels.  
The Fourth ordains, That none shall celebrate Mass without the Communion.  
The Fifth, That the Priests shall remain Fasting and Clothed with the Albe and Stole, when they go about to administer Baptism, unless in Case of necessity.  
The Sixth, That the Viaticum or Holy Water, shall not be kept above eight days; and that Hosts already consecrated, shall not be consecrated a second time.  
The Seventh, That to confer Confirmation, 'tis requisite that the Bishop and those Persons who receive it should be Fasting, and that Tapers be lighted.  
The Eighth, That sacred Orders shall be conferred in the Evening on Saturdays or Sunday Morning, if Saturday's Fast were not broken.  
The Ninth, That the Fasts shall be exactly observed during the Ember-Weeks.  
The Tenth, That Clerks who have caused themselves to be ordained by surprise, shall be deposed.  
The Eleventh, That those who have received Crowns with Benediction, and presume to quit them, shall be excommunicated, till they have made Satisfaction; and that Clerks who are desirous to be ordained, shall repair to the Bishop on Fridays for that purpose.  
The Twelfth enjoins, That vagabond Monks, or such as have been turned out of their Monastery for some Misdeameanour, shall be constrained by the Bishop's Authority to return to them; but if the Abbots refuse to re-admit those whom they have expelled, they shall be obliged to give them Alms, and to maintain them.  
The Thirteenth, That no Merchandise shall be made of Spiritual Live.  
The Fourteenth, That no Marriages shall be solemnised privately, nor after Meals; but that the Bridegroom and Bride being Fasting, shall be blessed by a Priest in like manner Fasting; and that before he proceed to marry them, enquiry shall be made, whether the Parties be not Relations in the seventh Degree of Consanguinity.  
The Fifteenth declares, That Priests, Deacons and Subdeacons, who are married, cannot enjoy any Church-Revenues, nor dispose of them themselves, or by others.  
The Sixteenth, That a Man cannot marry a Widow, with whom he is suspected to have conversed scandalously, in her Husband's Life-time.  
The Seventeenth, That a Man, whose Wife is veiled a Nun, cannot take another, as long as she is living.  
The Eighteenth, That a Woman cannot marry again, till she be certainly assured of her Husband's Death.  
The Nineteenth orders, That Clerks who have committed enormous and public Sins, shall not be restored to their Dignities, till after a long course of Penance.  
The Twentieth, That if any Clergyman be guilty of a Crime, for which he ought to be deposed, his Diocesan shall summon such a number of his Colleagues, as is required by the Canons; that is to say, six for the deposing of a Priest, and three for that of a Deacon; and that those who cannot assist in Person, shall be permitted to send their Deputies to supply their Place.  
The Twenty first, That during the time of Lent, none shall take any Repast before the 
* One of the Canonical.  Hour of None.  
The Twenty second, That on Saturday the Vigil of Easter-Festival, the Office shall not be begun before the Hour of None, by reason that it is the Noctural Office, which belongs to Easter-Sunday, and that no Mass ought to be said during the two preceding days.  
The Twenty third, That if any Festival happens to fall on a day, when it cannot be celebrated, it shall be transferred to another within the Octave.  
The Twenty fourth, That the solemn and general Baptism of adult Persons, shall be administered only at Easter and Whitsuntide, and not even on the Festival of the Epiphany, unless in Case of necessity; but as for Infants, they may be Baptised at all times.  
In the following Year, there happened a notable Quarrel between John de Bayvex the 
A Quarrel between the Archbishop of Roven, and the Monks of St. Owen.  Archbishop, and the Monks of the Abbey of St. Owen at Roven: It was a Customary thing for the Metropolitan of that City, to celebrate a solemn Mass in their Church on the Patron's Festival: Archbishop John having made them stay somewhat longer than ordinary, they began the Office without him; but he arrived when the Hymn called Gloria in excelsis was ended; and being incensed, because they did not wait for him, he excommunicated all the Monks, caused the divine Service to cease, and the Abbot of Sees, who was officiating, to departed from the Altar. By this means a great Tumult was raised, during which one of the Monks or one of their Servants got up into the Steeple, rung the Alarm-bell, and cried out from the top of the Tower, That the Archbishop was come to take away the Relics of St. Owen: Whereupon the People were gathered together; some with Hatches, and others with Staves; ran in crowds to the Church; and broke in furiously; whilst others climbed upon the Vaults: The Archbishop terrified with the danger, retired toward the Church-doors, caused them to be shut, and made a Rampart of Seats and Benches against those who were in the Church. In the mean while his Attendants fell foul upon the Monks with Candlesticks and Staves, and the Monks on the other side, defended themselves as resolutely; till at last the Sheriff of the City being informed of this Tumult and of the danger, to which the Archbishop was exposed, came with his Guards and rescued him out of the Hands of the Rabble: The latter immediately wrote to King William about the Affair, and the Monks did the like on their side. This Prince ordered, that the Archbishop should reconcile the Church, and upon his refusal, caused it to be done by the Bishop of Auranches; nevertheless, to give Satisfaction to the Archbishop, some of the Monks were put into Prison, and others were dispersed in divers Monasteries.   

The Council of Roven, held, A. D. 1074.  
IN the Year 1074. the same Archbishop John, held another Council at Roven with his 
The Council of Roven, in 1074.  Suffragans, in which he published Fourteen Canons.  
The First imports, That to extirpate Simony, 'tis forbidden to buy or sell any sort of Benefice, whether it be an Abbey, Arch-deaconry, Deanery or Cure of Souls, and to exact any thing for admission into Orders.  
The Second, That Abbeys shall only be bestowed on those who are well versed in Matters of Church-Discipline, by the means of a continued practice of it for several Years.  
The Third, That the ancient Constitution shall be observed, which prohibits to entertain any Clerk, without a Letter of recommendation from his Diocesan.  
The Fourth, That several Orders shall not be received on the same day.  
The Fifth, That the Subdeacons, Deacons and Priests, shall not be ordained but upon making a solemn Profession, according to the Injunctions of the Council of Toledo.  
The Sixth, That Monks or Nuns, who have fallen into any public notorious Enormity, shall be excluded for ever from the exercise of their Functions.  
The Seventh enjoins, That the Monks and Nuns take care exactly to observe St. Benedict's Rule.  
The Eighth, That Clergymen who are ordained, shall be instructed in those things which are expressed in the Eighth Canon of the Eighth Council of Toledo.  
The Ninth, That Christian Burial shall not be denied those Persons who die suddenly, if they do not actually lie under the guilt of some notorious Crime: nor to Women with Child, or newly brought to Bed.  
The Tenth, That no Credit shall be given to the Depositions of those Persons, who under a colour of a scruple of Conscience, declare that they have had to do with the Sisters or Relations of their Wives, to have a pretence to leave them, unless they bring sufficient Proof of the Matter of Fact.  
The Eleventh, That they shall likewise be obliged to the same thing, who give it out that they did not receive all the inferior Orders, when they were ordained Priests, on purpose to get an opportunity to quit the Sacerdotal Functions.  
The Twelfth, That Clergymen degraded for their Misdeameanours, shall not have the liberty to lead a secular Life, as Laics.  
The Thirteenth, That those Persons whose Marriage is declared Null, because it was contracted with near Relations, shall live continently till they be married to others.  
The Fourteenth, That the Christians shall not have any Jews for their Slaves, nor any Jewish Women for their Nurses.  
Some time after, this Archbishop of Roven falling Sick of a Palsy, King William the Conqueror demanded a Licence of Gregory VII. to substitute another Clerk in his room. This Pope gave orders to Hubert Sub-deacon of the Church of Rome his Legate, with the Bishops and Abbots of the Province, and the Clergy of the City of Roven, to inquire whether John de Bayeux their Metropolitan were really capable any longer to perform the Episcopal Functions, and in case it appeared so, that they should exhort him to consent to the Election of another Archbishop; but if his Distemper hindered him from giving such Consent, they might proceed to the Choice of a Person worthy of being advanced to that Dignity. Upon mature deliberation, John being found uncapable was obliged to make a Resignation in due form, and retired to one of his Country-Houses: The King caused William Abbot of St. Stephen at Caen, the Son of Radbodus Bishop of Sees to be chosen to supply his place. Pope Gregory disapproved this Election, because he was the Son of a Priest; but notwithstanding his Prohibition, William was ordained, A. D. 1079. whilst John was as yet living, who died some time after.   

The Council of Lillebonne, held, A. D. 1080.  
WILLIAM I. surnamed the Conqueror, King of England and Duke of Normandy, caused 
The Council of Lillebonne in 1080.  a Council of the Prelates of Normandy to be held at Lillebonne in his presence, A D. 1080. William Archbishop of Roven presided in this Synod, and divers Constitutions were made therein, against those who married their Relations; against Clergymen, who had Wives; to prohibit Simoniacal Practices and Exactions for the performance of Ecclesiastical Functions; concerning the restitution of Revenues usurped from the Churches; the Rights of Bishops and Arch-deacons; the maintenance of Priests to serve the Churches that belong to Monks; and about the Punishments to be inflicted on Criminals and the Infringers of the Ecclesiastical and Civil Laws.   

The Councils of the Province of Aquitaine. The Council of Narbonne, held in the Year, 1054.  
GEFFREY, Archbishop of Narbonne held in that City, A. D. 1054. a Council consisting 
The Council of Narbonne in 1054.  of ten Bishops, and made a large Ordinance concerning the Laws of Peace and Truce; in which he marks the Days on which it is forbidded to make War, as also the Persons and Goods that ought to be free from Insults, even in the time of War, who are more especially Clergymen, Husbandmen and Merchants; with the Effects belonging to their respective Qualities,   

The Council of Toulouse, held, A. D. 1056.  
POPE Victor II. having given Orders to Rambaldus Archbishop of Arles, and to Pontius 
The Council of Toulouse in 1056.  Archbishop of Aix, his Vicars, to call a Council for the extirpation of Simony, and the restauration of Ecclesiastical Discipline: They met together, A. D. 1054. at Toulouse, with the Archbishop of Narbonne, and divers other Bishops of France, and drew up thirteen Canons.  
In the First it is Decreed, That those Persons who receive Ordination for Money, shall be degraded from their Dignity, as well as they who ordained them.  
In the Second, That a Bishop, Abbot or Priest shall not be ordained till the Age of thirty Years, nor a Deacon till he has attained to that of Twenty five.  
In the Third, That nothing shall be taken for the Dedication of Churches.  
In the Fourth, That nothing shall be given to obtain Ecclesiastical Benefices.  
In the Fifth, That they who turn Monks with a design to get the Government of an Abbey, shall never be promoted to that Dignity.  
In the Sixth, That the Abbots shall govern their Monks according to St. Benedict's Rule, and that they shall not suffer them to enjoy any private Estate, nor to hold a Provostship or Superiority without their consent.  
The Seventh enjoins Priests and Deacons to lead a single Life.  
The Eighth, That Laymen shall not have any Spiritual Live.  
The Ninth, That the Estates and Goods of deceased Persons shall not be pillaged, but that they shall be disposed of, according to their last Will and Testament.  
The Tenth ordains, That the Churches shall be obliged to pay the accustomed Duties to the Episcopal See, and that those that do not pay any, shall allot the third part of their Tithes and the Oblations, for the use of the Bishops and Clerks.  
The Eleventh, That in the Churches which belong to the Jurisdiction of Noblemen, the third part of the Tithes, and the Offerings shall be reserved for the Priests and Clerks, who officiate therein.  
The Twelfth denounces a Sentence of Excommunication against Adulterers and incestuous Persons, as also against those who are found guilty of Perjury.  
The Thirteenth orders the like Sentence to pass upon those who hold Correspondence or Converse with excommunicated Persons, unless to reprove or admonish them.   

The Councils of Germany. The Council of Dortmund, held in the Year, 1005.  
IT is related by Dithmar the Historian, that a great Council was held at Dortmund in Westphalia July 7. A. D. 1005. in which the Emperor Henry II. complaining of the Irregularities 
The Council of Dortmund in 1005.  in reference to Church-Discipline, induced the Bishops to revive the Ecclesiastical Laws, and to endeavour to reform the Exorbitances and corrupt Manners of the Clergy and Laity, by making divers useful Canons: But the Acts and Constitutions of this Council are lost.   

The Council of Selingenstadt, held, A. D. 1023.  
ARIBO, Archbishop of Mentz, held in the Year, 1023. a Council at Selingenstadt, composed of Burchard Bishop of Worms, Vernarius Bishop of Strasburg, Bruno of Augsburg, 
The Council of Selingenstadt in 1023.  Eberhard of Bamberg and Meginhard of Wurtzburg, in which these Bishops made the following Constitutions, viz.  
The First ordains, That Abstinence from eating Flesh shall be observed fourteen Days before the Festival of St. John, as many before that of Christmas, and on the Vigils of the Epiphany, of the Festivals of the Apostles, of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, of St. Laurence and of all the Saints.  
The Second fixes the Ember-Weeks.  
The Third denotes the time, when the solemnisation of Marriages is forbidden, viz. from Advent till after the Epiphany, and from Septuagesima till after Easter, as also on the above specified Days of Abstinence, as well as the Vigils of the solemn Festivals.  
The Fourth imports, That a Priest who has drunk plentifully after the Cock-crowing in the Summer, or even in Winter, shall not be allowed to say Mass the next Day, unless in case of necessity.  
The Fifth prohibits Priests to celebrate above three Masses in one Day.  
The Sixth forbids under pain of an Anathema that 
† A Consecrated Linen Cloth on which the Chalice and Host are set in the Popish Churches.  Corporals should be thrown into the Fire to put a stop to the Conflagration.  
The Seventh ordains, That if two Persons suspected to have committed Adultery together, one confesses the Crime, and the other denies it, the Party who owns it shall be put to Penance, and the other shall clear himself by taking his Trial.  
The Eighth forbids the carrying of Swords into the Church, except the Sword of State.  
The Ninth prohibits Meetings in the Churchyards.  
The Tenth condemns the Custom of some Laics, and more especially of certain Ladies, who contented themselves only to hear every Day the Gospel In principio, or to cause the Masses of the Trinity and of St. Michael to be said in their presence; and ordains, That this shall not be done for the future, but in the proper time: Otherwise if any Persons be desirous to hear a particular Mass, being moved by a singular Veneration for the Holy Trinity, and not by any superstitious Conceit; they shall hear a Mass for the Day, or one for the consolation and safety of the Living, or one for the Dead.  
The Eleventh imports, That the first degree of Consanguinity shall be reckoned from the Cousin's German.  
The Twelfth, That the Houses of Laics which are contiguous to Churches shall be pulled down, and that none shall be built in the Courts belonging to them, except those of Priests.  
In the Thirteenth, Laymen are forbidden to consign their Churches to Priests, without the consent and approbation of the Bishop or of his Grand Vicar.  
The Fourteenth imports, That two Persons being accused of having committed Adultery together, which they deny; if either of the Parties desire that they may both undergo a Trial, and if one be cast, they shall both be reputed guilty.  
The Fifteenth enjoins, That the public Fasts appointed by the Bishops shall be observed, or else that they shall be redeemed by allotting a certain Largess for the sustenance of poor People.  
The Sixteenth, That none shall take a Journey to Rome, without a Licence from the Bishop or his Grand Vicar.  
The Seventeenth, That no Priest shall retrench any thing from the Forty Days Fast imposed on Penitents.  
The Eighteenth is against those who being guilty of enormous Crimes, refuse to receive Penance from their Diocesan, upon a presumption, that going to Rome, the Pope will forgive all their Sins: The Council declares, That this Indulgence shall stand them in no stead, and that they ought at first to receive a Penance proportioned to the heinousness of their Offences, after which they may go to Rome with the permission and recommendatory Letters of their Diocesan.  
In the Nineteenth, Penitents are prohibited to Travel during the forty Days of their Fast.  
The Twentieth forbids Priests to admit into the Church, such Persons as are not allowed to enter therein, by reason of their Crimes, without having received an Order from the Bishop.  
These Canons are followed with a Form of Ceremonies to be observed, and Prayers to be said during the Session of a Synod.   

The Council of Mentz, held, A. D. 1069.  
SIGEFROY or SIGEFRID Archbishop of Mentz succeeded Luitbold, A. D. 1059. and 
The Council of Mentz in 1069.  governed that Church till 1084. He held a Council in 1069. at Mentz, in which the Emperor Henry iv made a Proposal to divorce his Wife, by reason that he could not have any Issue of her Body. Sigefrid inclined to his Opinion; but Peter Damien the Pope's Legate being arrived, and having prevented the Divorce, the Archbishop wrote to Alexander II. that he had prohibited the Emperor from divorcing his Wife, under pain of Excommunication; but that this Prince having alleged, that he could not have carnal Copulation with her, and the Empress having owned her impotency, he found himself obliged to consult the Holy See, about so extraordinary a Case; that he was unwilling to pass Judgement on the Affair in a Council, which was called upon that occasion, till he had received his Answer; and that he entreated him to send his Legates to examine and decide the matter in Germany.   

The Council of Mentz, A. D. 1071.  
THE same Archbishop held another Council at Mentz, A. D. 1071. to inquire into the 
The Council of Mentz in 1071.  Ordination of Charles nominated to the Bishopric of Constance: He was accused of Simony, and the Pope forbidden Sigefrid to ordain him Bishop; nevertheless the Emperor peremptorily required it, and wrote to the Pope about the Affair, who referred the examination of it to the Archbishops of Colen and Mentz. Whereupon they summoned a Council, but the Emperor would not suffer it to be held, and took a resolution to send Charles to Rome, to the end that the Pope might take cognizance of the matter and ordain him Bishop. Sigefrid prevented the Pope, and entreated him not to consecrate Charles, but if he found him Innocent, to send him back to him and to his Colleagues, to receive Ordination from them. The Pope refusing to determine this Affair at Rome, sent him back to be examined in his own Country, and it was referred to the Council which Sigefrid held at Mentz in the Month of August, A. D. 1071. The Archbishops of Saltzburg and Trier with nine Bishops of Germany assisted in this Synod, in which, Matters were debated during four Days between Charles and his Adversaries, till at last Charles fearing lest he should not be able to carry the Point, declared that he would not be Bishop contrary to the Inclination of those whom he was to govern, and delivered up his Ring and Crosier into the Emperor's Hands. The Acts of this Council, which were sent to the Pope and Sigefrid's Letters are still extant.   

The Council of Erford, A. D. 1073.  
IN the Year, 1073. there happened a difference between Sigefrid and the Clergy of Thuringen, 
The Council of Erford in 1073.  about the Tithes of that Province, which this Archbishop claimed as his Right, and which were contested with him by the said Clergy, more especially by the Abbots of Fulda and Herfeldt. The matter was debated in an Assembly held at Erford in the same Year, and determined by the Emperor to the advantage as Sigefrid, who wrote about it to Hildebrand, and to Pope Alexander. The History of this Council is written by Lambert, and we still have Sigefred's two Letters, in the last of which, he makes mention of the Outrages committed against the Archbishop of Trier, declaring that he was taken away by force, extremely abused, and at last shamefully put to Death.   

The Councils of England. The Council of Aenham, held in the Year, 1010.  
KING Ethelred called a Council about the Year, 1010. in which Elphegus Archbishop 
The Council of Aenham.  of Canterbury and Ethelred Archbishop of York assisted, and made a great number of Constitutions concerning the Reformation of Manners and Church Discipline; Rules that ought to be followed by the Clerks and Monks; the Celibacy of Priests and other Clergymen; against superstitious Practices and Incontinency; about the Rights of Churches, particularly St. Peter's Pence, the Tribute of funeral Torches, which was paid thrice a Year, that of Burials, etc. concerning the Festivals and Fa●●s that aught to be observed, viz. the great Festival of the Virgin Mary, preceded by a Fast; and the Festivals of the Apostles in like manner preceded by their respective Vigils, except that of St. James and St. Philip, when a Fast is not to be kept, by reason of the Paschal Solemnity; the Fast of the four Ember-Weeks, and that on all Fridays: Concerning the time, in which Marriages are forbidden to be solemnised, that is to say, the solemn Festivals; the Ember-Weeks; from Advent to the Octave of the Epiphany, and from Septuagesima, to the end of the Fortnight after Easter: About the Interval that ought to be observed by Widows before they marry again, which is the space of a Year: Lastly, concerning frequent Confessions; the receiving of the Communion; and divers other Points of Morality. For the Ordinances of this Council contain many excellent Instructions and very prudent Exhortations: Forasmuch as it was held under Elphegus Archbishop of Canterbury, it must needs be between the Year of our Lord, 1006. and 1013. There are two different Editions of the Acts of the Council of Aenham.   

The Laws of the Kings Ethelred and Canut.  
THE same King Ethelred published A. D. 1012. certain Laws, among which are some relating 
King Ethelred and King Canut's Laws.  to Ecclesiastical Affairs; particularly, about the payment of Peter's Pence; to oblige all the Faithful to Fast three Days before the Festival of St. Michael; concerning the Prayers which ought to be said in the Churches for the State, and about almsgiving.  
King Canut in like manner in the Year, 1032. caused divers Laws to be proclaimed which relate to Church-Affairs, viz. concerning the exterior Religious Worship; the Peace of the Churches; the respect due to Clergymen; unlawful Marriages; the payment of Tithes, Peter's Pence and other Tributes; the observation of Festivals, Sundays and Days of Abstinence; the Functions and Manners of the Clergy and of the Faithful; and against Irregularities, Abuses and Misdemeanours. These Laws are full of moral Maxims and pious Exhortations: There are also some others of the like nature enacted by King Edward III.   

The Council of London, held in the Year, 1075.  
'TWAS a long time since any Councils were held, or any Constitutions made relating to Church-discipline in England, when Lanfranc was ordained Archbishop of Canterbury, 
The Council of London in 1075.  neither could such an Assembly be summonded for some time after, because the King would not suffer any to be convened without his permission. At last he held a National Synod at London, A. D. 1075. in which Thomas Archbishop of York assisted and eleven Bishops of England, with the Bishop of Coutances, who was admitted to the Council, because he had a considerable Estate in this Kingdom: There were also present 21 Abbots in this Council, in which it was first ordained, That all the Bishops should take their Places according to the antiquity of their Ordination, except those who had a peculiar Privilege upon account of the Dignity of their Sees; and after having sought for those who might lay claim to such a Privilege in England, it was determined that the Archbishop of York should be placed on the right Hand of the Metropolitan of Canterbury; the Bishop of London on the left, and the Bishop of Winchester next the Archbishop of York; and that in the absence of the latter, the Bishop of London should sit on the right Hand of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of Winchester on the left. Afterward it was decreed, That all the Monks should live according to St. Benedict's Rule; that they should take care to instruct the Youth, and that they should not have any private possessions: Then three Episcopal Sees which were erected in Towns, were translated to Cities, according to the Tenor of the third Constitution, and the ancient Injunctions were revived, which prohibited to receive a Clerk who was subject to the Jurisdiction of another Bishop, without Letters of recommendation from his Diocesan, and to marry a near Kinswoman. Simoniacal Practices, Witchcraft and Pagan Superstitions were likewise forbidden, and the Celibacy of the Clergy was strictly enjoined.   

The Council of Winchester, held, A. D. 1076.  
IN a Council held the next Year at Winchester, Lanfranc caused divers Canons to be 
The Council of Winchester in 1076.  drawn up against Persons guilty of Simony; for the celebration of Provincial Councils; the subjection of Clerks to their Bishops, and the payment of Tithes; concerning the administration of the Sacraments and divers other Points of Discipline, among which the following are more especially remarkable, viz.  
That the Altars ought to be made of Stone: That the Mass cannot be celebrated with Beer or Water: That Divine Service shall not be performed in Churches till they be Consecrated by the Bishops: That none shall be buried in the Churches: That the Bells shall not be Rung during the Canon of the Mass: And that the Chalices shall not be made of Wax nor Wood Constitutions were also made about the time of Penance for divers Crimes.   

The Council of London, held, A. D. 1102.  
Archbishop Lanfranc continued to celebrate divers other Councils in England in his Life-time, the Canons of which are not as yet come to our Hands; but after his Death, much time passed ere any could be convened, and St. Anselm his Successor in vain importuned the Kings of England to that purpose, till at last he held a solemn Synod at London, 
The Council of London, in 1102.  A. D. 1102. the Constitutions of which were transmitted to us by Eadmer: The Archbishop of York and twelve Bishops of England assisted in this Council, and made the following Constitutions.  
By the first, they condemned Simony, and deposed several Abbots, who were convicted of that Crime.  
The Second forbids Bishops to exercise the Functions of Civil Magistrates, and enjoins them to wear Habits suitable to their Profession.  
In the Third, it is prohibited to let out Archdeaconries to Farm, or to confer them on any other Persons than Deacons.  
The Fourth revives the Constitutions about Celibacy.  
In the Fifth, Clergymen are forbidden to undertake the Management of secular Affairs, or to sit as Judges in Criminal Causes, and to drink in Victualling Houses or Places of public Resort: They are also enjoined to wear Habits of one single Colour, and to have their Crowns shaved.  
The Seventh declares, That Tithes ought only to be paid to the Churches.  
The Eighth is a Prohibition to build new Chapels without the consent of the Bishops, and without raising a sufficient Fund for the Maintenance of the Priest and Church.  
In the Ninth, Abbots are prohibited to bear Arms, and enjoined to reside in their Monasteries, with their Monks.  
The Tenth prohibits that Monks should administer Penance without the consent of their Abbot, and that Abbots should impose it on other Persons than those, who are under their Tuition.  
In the Eleventh, Monks are forbidden to hold Farms; to stand as Godfathers; to get Churches into their Possession without the consent of the Bishops; or to take the Revenues of those that are granted to them, without allowing a competent Maintenance for the Priests who serve in them, and a sufficient Fund for the keeping them in repair.  
The Twelfth declares the Promises of Marriage, made without Witnesses, to be Null, if it be denied by one of the Parties.  
The Thirteenth enjoins the Cutting of the Hair short, so that part of the Ears and the Eyes may be discovered.  
The Fourteenth prohibits Marriages, to the seventh Degree of Consanguinity.  
The Fifteenth forbids to bury the Dead without the Bounds of their Parish, unless the accustomed Duties be paid to the Curate; and to honour their Memory, without the Bishop's Authority.  
In the Sixteenth, it is prohibited to make Merchandise of Men, by selling them for Slaves as it was often practised. Lastly, Sodomy is forbidden under very severe Penalties, and this Case is reserved to the Cognizance of the Bishops. These Constitutions were confirmed by the Authority of the See of Rome.  
In the Year 1108. St. Anselm held another Council at London, in which he made Ten 
The Council of London, in 1108.  very rigid Canons against Priests and Deacons, who were married or lived incontinently.   

The Councils of Spain. The Council of Leon, held in the Year, 1012.  
FEW Councils were called in Spain in this Century, by reason that part of that Kingdom 
The Council of Leon, in 1012.  was then under the Dominion of the Moors. However, King Alphonsus held a notable Assembly at Leon, A. D. 1012. in which the Bishops drew up Seven Canons.  
The First imports, That Ecclesiastical Affairs shall be first treated of, at the opening of the Synods.  
The Second, That the Churches shall peaceably enjoy such Revenues as are left them by last Wills and Testaments, and that the Clergymen shall pass Judgement as to their validity.  
The Third, That Abbots, Abbesses, Monks and Nuns, shall be subject to the Jurisdiction of their Diocesan Bishop.  
The Fourth ordains, That none shall seize on the Church-Revenues.  
The Fifth, That the King's Officers shall Prosecute those who have killed a Clergyman.  
The Sixth, That after having dispatched Ecclesiastical Affairs, the Bishops shall proceed to the Examination of those of the Kingdom.  
The Seventh, That none shall buy the Estate of a Vassal of the Church, and he who has done it, shall lose the Money he gave for the Purchase.  
These Derees are followed with Forty others for the advantage of the State, some of which nevertheless have reference to the Preservation of Ecclesiastical Revenues.   

The Council of Coyaco, held, A. D. 1050.  
SINCE the time of King Alfonsus, we do not find that any Ecclesiastical Constitutions were made in Spain, till the Reign of Ferdinand I. King of Castille, who being desirous 
The Council of Coyaco, in 1050.  to revive the ancient Church-Discipline, which was for so long time disused, called a Council in the Year 1050. at Coyaco, a Castle in the Diocese of Oviedo, where the Bishop of that City assisted, together with Eight other Bishops of Spain; and the following Constitutions were ratified by them.  
The First ordains, That the Bishops shall govern their Dioceses, and perform their Ecclesiastical Functions with their Clerks, according to the Order of the Church.  
The Second, That the Abbots and Abbesses shall likewise govern their Monasteries according to St. Benedict's Rule, and shall be subject to the Bishops; and that they shall not admit any Religious Persons of another Monastery, without the permission of their Abbot or Abbess.  
The Third, That the Churches and Clergy shall be under the Jurisdiction of the Bishops, and not under that of Laics: That the Churches shall not be divided, but that they shall be supplied with Priests and Deacons, and furnished with Service-Books and Ornaments; so that there may be no need of Wooden or Earthen Chalices: That the Habits of the Priests during the Celebration of the Mass, be the Amict, the Albe, the Cincture, the Stole, the Chasuble and the Maniple; and those of a Deacon, the Amict, the Albe, the Cincture, the Stole, the Dalmatick and the Maniple: That the Altar be entirely made of Stone, and consecrated by the Bishop: That the Host be altogether of pure Wheat and without any Defect: That the Wine be likewise Pure, and the Water Clean; the Altar decently adorned and covered with a white Linen Cloth, with a Corporal above and below the Chalice: That the Priests and Deacons shall not bear Arms; but that they shall always have the Crown of their Head and Beards shaved: That they shall not keep any Women in their Houses; unless their Mother, Sister, Aunt or Mother-in-Law: And that they shall teach Children the Creed and the Lord's Prayer.  
The Fourth imports, That Persons guilty of Murder, Adultery, or any other sort of Uncleanness, shall be obliged to do Penance; and if they refuse to submit to it, they shall be separated from the Church and the Communion.  
The Fifth, that those whom the archdeacon presents for Ordination, in the Ember-Weeks, shall be well versed in the Psalter, the Hymns, the Canticles, the Epistles, the Gospels, and the Prayers: That the Priests shall not be present at Weddings to eat among the Guests, but only to give the Benediction: That the Clerks and Laymen, who partake of the Funeral Banquets, eating the Bread of the Deceased, shall do some good Work for their Souls, and that they shall invite the Poor and the Sick to these Banquets.  
The Sixth, That all the Christians shall go to Church, on Saturday Evening and on Sunday Morning; that they shall assist on that day at the Masses and the whole divine Service; that they shall do no servile Work, nor undertake any Journeys except for Devotion sake, or to bury the Dead and visit the Sick, or to put in Execution some private Order received from the Prince, or to defend themselves against the Saracens: And that the Christians shall not keep any Correspondence with the Jews.  
The Seventh, That the Counts or chief Magistrates shall govern the People with Justice; shall admit upon a Trial, only the Evidence of Eye or Ear Witnesses; and shall severely punish false Witnesses.  
The Eighth, That Justices shall be administered in the Kingdoms of Leon, Gallicia, Asturia and Portugal, according to Alphonsus' Law, and in Castille, according to those of Sanchez.  
The Ninth declares, That the Triennial Prescription shall not take place, in reference to the Churches.  
The Tenth, That he who has manured Land or cultivated a Vineyard, shall gather the Fruits with a Priviso, till the Point be debated by the Parties concerned about the Propriety.  
The Eleventh imports, That all the Christians shall Fast on Frydays.  
The Twelfth, That those who have taken Sanctuary in the Churches; nay, even within thirty Paces of the Church, cannot be taken away from thence by Force.  
The Thirteenth, That the Subjects of the Kingdom shall be obedient to their Prince, as they were to Alphonsus and Sanchez. These Constitutions were made in the Presence, and by the Authority of King Ferdinand and Queen Sanchia.   

The Council of Elna in Roussillon, held, A. D. 1065.  
TO these Councils may be joined an Assembly of Bishops and Counts, held in the Year 
The Council of Elna in Roussillon.  1065. at Elna in the Country of Roussillon, where the Episcopal See of Perpignan was formerly fixed: Divers Constitutions were made in this Council, for the Preservation of Church-Revenues, and more especially that which was called, The Truce of God.    

CHAP. XIV.  
Observations on the Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Eleventh Century.  
THE Study of Divinity, which was neglected in the preceding Age, was revived in 
The Study of Divinity in the Eleventh Century.  this Century; and many Persons made public Lectures of it in the Schools of the Cathedral Churches or of the Monasteries. In the beginning, they contented themselves (according to the ancient Method) to relate the Explications of the Fathers on the Holy Scriptures, and Points of Doctrine were only treated of by the way, and when some remarkable Occasion induced them to do it. But in the end of this Century, they began to make Divinity-Lectures on the Doctrinal Points of Religion; to propose divers Questions about the sacred Mysteries; and to resolve them by the Principles of Ratiocination and according to the Logical Method. This was the Original of Scholastic Divinity, which became in a little after, the principal and almost only Employment of those, who studied Matters of Religion.  
Some of those, who followed this Method, relying too much on their nice Ratiocinations, and departing from the plain manner of Discoursing used by the ancient Fathers of the Church, advanced some erroneous Propositions. In this Century, Roscelin, who was Professor of Divinity at Compiegne, started a Proposition about the Holy Trinity, which gave offence to every Body; viz. That the three Divine Persons were three Things; nevertheless 'tis not probable, that he designed to maintain the Error of the Tritheites, or to admit three different Substances in God; and one may reasonably suppose, that by those three Things, he understood only three subsisting and distinct Persons, altho' of the same Nature.  
But altho' no new 
* We have not thought fit in this Translation, any where to omit the Words of the Author; who being of the Church of Rome, relates many things as Heresies, which the Protestants esteem not so: Wherefore we doubt not but the discreet Protestant Reader will always use his own Judgement.  Heresy sprung up in this Age about the Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, yet there were divers in respect of the Sacraments and Church-Discipline. We have shown that in the beginning of the Century, certain Heretics were discovered at Orleans in Flanders, and at Toulouse, who denied the real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist; the necessity of Baptism, and the efficacy of the Sacraments; who rejected the Worship of Saints and Crosses, and the Use of Images; who condemned lawful Marriages, and censured the most part of the Ceremonies of the Church. Some time after, Berengarius divulged his Opinions about the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which were condemned in divers Councils. The Controversies that were debated in this Century, between the Greek and Latin Churches, have regard only to Points of Discipline, and particularly to the use of Unleavened Bread in the Communion. Lutheric Archbishop of Sens, is wrongfully accused of having denied the real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the same Sacrament, in the beginning of this Century; and 'tis falsely supposed that he was reproved by King Robert upon that account: For Helguad does not say, that he embraced that Opinion, but only that he was wont to make use of the Eucharist, to try whether Persons were unworthy or not, by saying to those to whom he was ready to administer that Sacrament, If you are worthy to receive it, draw near and take it: And that King Robert found great Fault with this Expression, and reproved him very sharply for it; but that Leutheric turned the Reprimand to his own Advantage.  
The Quarrels that broke forth between the Popes and the Emperors, caused very great 
Of the Rights of the Popes and of the Church of Rome.  Confusions and Disorders in the Church and the Western Empire. During these Commotions, the Popes took an occasion to establish their Temporal Sovereignty in Rome, and endeavoured to make themselves independent of the Emperors. Gregory VII. extended his Pretensions yet farther, and used his utmost Efforts to persuade the World, that he was rightful Sovereign of the whole Universe, as well in Civil as in Ecclesiastical Affairs: He was the first of the Popes, who attempted directly to dispossess the Emperor and the Kings of their Dominions, and imagined that he had a right to dispose of them in favour of whomsoever he should think fit to advance to that Dignity. As for the Spiritual Supremacy, he carried it beyond its due Bounds, and abrogated almost the whole Authority of the Bishops, and the Liberties of particular Churches. The great number of Legates of the See of Rome sent abroad on all sides, and the Power which they assumed to themselves, did not a little contribute to ruin the Authority of the Ordinaries, and was extremely chargeable to the respective Churches: The Dignity of the Cardinals was augmented to the detriment of that of the Bishops, and they began to have the greatest share in the Election of Popes, and in the Management of the Affairs of the Church: The Archbishops were obliged to receive the Pall, before they were permitted to exercise the Functions of their Order; and to conclude, the Court of Rome, under divers Pretences, got the Cognizance and Determination of all manner of Ecclesiastical Affairs.  
The Simoniacal Practices, Marriage and Concubinage of Clergymen were expressed, and their 
Divers Points of Discipline concerning the Clergy.  Career at last quite stopped by the means of a vast number of Decrees: Some to palliate Simony, thought fit to distinguish the Temporal Revenue of Benefices from the Spiritual; and maintained, That in giving Money for a Benefice, they did not commit Simony, because they purchased only the Temporalities. This gave occasion to determine, That it was Simony, to buy the Revenues annexed to Church Live, the Functions of which were Spiritual: The famous distinction of three sorts of Simony, ab officio, a manu, a lingua was in vogue at that time: St. Gregory was the first who made the Remark, and it was revived by Gregory VII. The Laics who had Tithes in their Possession, were moved by a scruple of Conscience to restore them; but they often bestowed them on Monks, and applied them to the Founding of Monasteries: The Bishops opposed this Practice, and ordained that they cannot be given to Monasteries without the permission of the Diocesans and of the Pope: However, the Monks did not forbear to retain those that they had in their Possession, nor even to accept of others, when offered to them. The Elections of Bishops were still in use; but the Princes often nominated them, or caused those to be chosen whom they thought fit to promote, and sometimes the Popes took care to provide them, or ordained those who were elected, when the Metropolitan refused to do it.  
The Emperors and Kings still had the Power of granting the Investiture of Bishoprics and Abbeys; and this Right was not contested with them till about the end of the Eleventh Century: The Plurality of Benefices began to be in use, and was condemned by divers Constitutions: A great number of Monks were promoted to the Episcopal Dignity, and some Bishops left their Bishoprics to retire to Monasteries, after having obtained a Licence from the Pope. Many Bishoprics were made Metropolitan Sees, and many others were newly erected. The Archbishop of Lions was instituted Primate of France: In the end of the Century, the Bishoprics of Arras and Cambray were separated, and the Episcopal Sees of Gascogne, which had lain for a long time vacant, were filled up again. The Sons of the Clergy were declared unworthy to be admitted into Holy Orders; but this Decree was not generally received, nor without opposition: For in many Places, the admission into the Monastic State, or into the Order of Regular Canons, removed that Obstacle. A great number of Churches, Abbeys and Monasteries were then founded, and almost all the old Churches were demolished, to build new ones.  
The Discipline of the Church, relating to Penance, was not so strict nor so severe as in the preceding Century; for the Pilgrimages, the Absolutions fetched from Rome, the Redemptions, the Disciplining Whip and the Crusades, contributed much to the Abolishing of that Injunction: Private Confession was more especially recommended. The Sentences of Excommunication were so frequent, that they became contemptible; and they were extended not only to Persons actually excommunicated, but also to those who conversed or kept correspondence with them, even to the third Generation; a Practice which can scarce be met with in any other Age of the Church. The ancient severity of the Canons, which ordain, That Clergymen guilty of notorious Offences, more especially of Simony, should be suspended from their Office for ever, was no longer observed; but they were generally re-established in the Functions of their Orders, and restored to their former Rights, by the means of certain particular Ceremonies.  
The use of the Disciplining Whip, unknown to all Antiquity, began in the end of this Century, having had its Opposers and Maintainers; the Custom of doing Penance for another, 
Remarks on the Scourging, Discipline and Fasts.  was likewise introduced at that time. The Fasts on the four Ember-Weeks were strictly observed; but the Emberweek of the Summer-Quarter, was not as yet fixed; for some took it to be the second Week of the Month of June, and others referred it to the Week immediately following Whit-Sunday. Divers Councils ordained abstinence from Flesh on Saturdays, and from Flesh and Wine on Fridays: In the former Ages of the Church, 'twas customary to fast on Fridays and Saturdays, till the Hour of 
† One of the Canonical Hours.  None: The Church of Rome was wont to keep a Fast on Saturdays instead of Wednesdays: The Churches of France for a long time, observed the Fasts of Wednesday and Friday, but that Custom was abolished; neither was any regard had even to abstinence on those days. A Constitution was made to that purpose in this Century, for Friday and Saturday, although it met with some Opposition.  
The Priests were forbidden to celebrate above on Mass in a day, unless in case of necessity, 
Observations on the Mass.  or when 'twas requisite that one should be said for a deceased Person; for than they were allowed to say such a Mass, and that of the day: Some sorts of Penance were imposed on Priests who let fall on Host through Carelessness: In some Churches, 'twas customary to give a consecrated Host to the Priests on the day of their Ordination, with which they communicated during forty days. This Question was debated at that time, viz. Whether it were lawful for a Priest to celebrate Mass, without being attended with divers Assistants, and when he officiated in that manner, whether he ought to say, Dominus vobiscum? All the Faithful were obliged to receive the Holy Communion at Easter, and it was still usually administered in all the Churches, under both Kind's: However, in some, the consecrated Bread was steeped in the Wine; and perhaps the Canon of the Council of Clermont, which ordains, That both the Species should be received separately, was made against that Custom.  
The general Commemoration of all the Dead, the next day after the Festival of all Saints, was instituted in the end of this Century: Odilo Abbot of Clunie, enjoined it to his whole Order; and this Custom was introduced into the Church a little while after. It was ordained in the Council of Clermont, That the Office of the Virgin Mary should be said every Saturday, and there arose Disputes about the Festival of her Annunciation, viz. whether it ought to be celebrated on March 25. or on December 18. but it was usually referred to the former: Some other Questions of less importance were likewise started, and hotly debated, particularly, That about the Apostolical Dignity, attributed to St. Martial. The Benedictins of the Abbey of Fleury, and those of Mount Cassin, had a long Contest for the Body of St. Benedict, the Founder of their Order, and the Monks of St. Dennis and of St. Emmeran at Ratisbon, in like manner contended for that of St. Dionysius or Dennis the Areopagite.  
The Monastic State, received very considerable Accessions and advantages in the Eleventh 
Observations on the Monastic Life.  Century. The Congregation of Clunie was much augmented by a vast number of Monasteries newly founded, and by the great Revenues, with which it was endowed; but the increase of Riches occasioned Remissness of Discipline; caused Ambition to be predominant, and immersed the Monks in Secular Affairs. A serious reflection on these Irregularities induced many Persons to embrace a more austere sort of Monastic Life, and more conformable to that which is enjoined in St. Benedict's Rule, and gave occasion to the founding of several new Orders, who all made profession to follow the same Rule made by St. Benedict; altho' they had their peculiar Customs. Thus St. Romuald founded that of the Camaldolites in Italy, in the beginning of the Century. He became a Monk, A. C. 971. at the Age of 20 Years 
The Order of Camaldolites.  in the Abbey of Clasee in the Diocese of Ravenna, but perceiving the Disorders in which his Monastery was involved, and considering that the engagement of the Monks in Secular Affairs, was the cause of their Irregularity, he put himself under the tuition of a certain Reverend Hermit named Marinus, who resided in the Territories of Venice, and embraced the Hermetick Life, which he re-established in the Western Countries. Their Institution was not to live alone, as the ancient Hermits, but to dwell together in the same place separated from other Men, and in distinct Cells, under the Government of the same Superior, and observing the same Rule: These sorts of Monasteries were anciently called Laur, and St. Romuald founded a very great number of them in Italy: One of the most famous, was that which was built on Mount Ape●…in near Arezzo, in a Place which was given them by a certain Person named Mandol, from whence the Order took the name of Camaldoli: St. Romuald lived 100 Years after he had taken upon him the Vows of Religion, and saw his Order in a flourishing Condition. Peter Damian in like manner instituted a Congregation of Hermits of the same kind: These Hermits practised great Austerities, and are reputed to have done very extraordinary things. John Gualbert of Florence having likewise quitted his Monastery to lead a more regular course of Life, retired to Vall'Ombrosa, and their laid the Foundation of a new Religious Society.  
The Order of the Carthusians was instituted, A. D. 1086. by Bruno, a Native of Colen, 
The Order of Carthusians.  and Canon of Rheims, who repaired, with Six of his Companions to the Solitude of Chartreuse, which was assigned to them by Hugh Bishop of Grenoble. Some time after, two Gentlemen of Vienne named Gaston and Girond, having devoted their Persons and Estates to the relief of those who being seized with the Distemper commonly called St. Antony's Fire, came to implore the Intercession of St. Antony at Vienne, where the Body of that Saint was translated from Constantinople by Jocelin D'A●bon, in the time of King Lothaire the Son of Lewes D'Outremer, gave occasion to the Institution of the Order of St. Antony, which was 
The Order of St. Antony.  composed at first of certain Laymen, and afterward of Monks, who made Profession of St. Augustin's Rule. In the Year, 1098. Robert Abbot of Molesme retired to Cisteaux in the 
The Cistertian Order.  Diocese of Challon sur Saone, with 21 Monks of his Convent, to practise St. Benedict's Rule with greater strictness: His design being approved by Gautier Bishop of Challon, and by Hugh Archbishop of Lions, he built a Monastery in that Place, which was endowed by Eudes' Duke of Burgundy; but he had not long the Government of it, for Pope Paschal II. enjoined him, the next Year, to return to Molesme. The other Monks continued at Cisteaux, under the tuition of Alberic, and this Resorm was approved by the Pope, A. D. 1100. Stephen Hardingue, who succeeded Alberic in 1109. brought this Order to its full perfection, insomuch, that it became very numerous and obtained great Reputation. About the same time Robert D'Arviselles archdeacon of Rennes, having received a Mission from Pope Urban II. to Preach to the People, by that means gathered together a great multitude of Persons of both Sexes, and caused many Cells to be built for them in the Forest of Frontreurault, at the distance of three Leagues from Saumur. Afterward he shut up the Nuns in a separate Apartment, and in the Year of our Lord, 1100. made a great Monastery, which was governed by him till the end of his Life; but before he died, he caused Petronilla de Chemille to be chosen Abbess, A. D. 1115. and conferr'd on her, both the Government of the Nuns, and of the Monks of that Order.  
The regular manner of living in common, peculiar to the Canons, which was instituted in the Ninth Century, was now almost every where abolished; nevertheless some Bishops 
Of the regular Canons.  revived it in their Chapters, and it was re-established in the end of the Century in another form: For then certain Religious Houses were founded, in which Clergymen, who were desirous to lead a more regular course of Life, retired thither, to live in common, without having any manner of private Property. These last Canons were different from those of the Ninth Century. 1. In regard that the former had Benefices annexed to Churches, and were obliged to officiate in them; whereas there were many among these who had not any peculiar Church-Living. 2. Because the former were wont to live in common, of the Church-Revenues, but they might also retain those of their private Patrimony; whereas these were obliged to renounce them, as well as the Monks. 3. Upon account that the others were at liberty to quit that course of Life; whereas these last professed to live always after the same manner, and they were positively forbidden to do otherwise. The latter Canons lived in common, under an Abbot, Superior or Provost, and made profession, as the Monks, of Poverty, Constancy and Obedience; altho' they were not as yet bound by an express Vow; neither were they only employed in serving the Church or Monastery, where they resided, but they were also taken sometimes out of their House, to receive a Cure, and to exercise other Ecclesiastical Functions. Ives afterwards Bishop of Chartres, established this strict Reform in the Monastery of St. Quentin, A. D. 1078. Afterward that Religious House supplied France, with many other Convents of regular Canons, and in the beginning of the following Century, the Congregations of St. Rufus and St. Norbert were instituted; insomuch, that the Order of regular Canons, became very numerous, and extended very far within a short space of Time.   

Chronological TABLES, And other Necessary INDICES and TABLES.  
A. D. Popes. Western Emperors, and Kings of France and Italy. Eastern Emperors. Ecclesiastical Affairs. Councils. Ecclesiastical Writers. 1001 Silvester II. III. 
Otho III.  
VI The Revolt of the Romans against Otho who retires to Rome.  Basil and Constantin. XXVI.   St. Fulbert becomes Professor of Divinity in the School of the Church of Chartres. 1002 IU. Otho dies in the Month of Jan. Henry I. Duke of Bavaria is put in his place by the Princes of Germany, and crowned at Mentz by the Archbishop. I. XXVII.   Burchard Bishop of Worms. 1003 V. Sylvester TWO dies May 12. John XVI. surnamed the Lean, who is chosen in his place possesses the See of Rome only during 5 Months, and John XVII. succeeds him. II. XXVIII. Almost all the old Churches are demolished to build new ones.   1004 I. III. XXIX. Leutheric Archbishop of Sens is reproved by King Robert for making use of the Eucharist as a Trial.   1005 II. iv XXX.  A Council at Dortmund in Westphalia.  1006 III. V XXXI. Alphegus Archbish. of Canterbury goes to Rome to fetch the Pall. The erecting of the Bishopric of Bamberg in the Council of Francfurt. A Council at Francfurt on the Main.  1007 IU. VI XXXII. St. Fulbert succeeds Rodulph in the Bishopric of Chartres.   1008 V. VII. XXXIII. Wigbert Bishop of Mersburg dying, Dithmar is chosen to succeed him in that Bishopric.   1009 VI John XVII dies in the Month of July. Sergius iv is substituted in his room in the money of August. VIII. XXXIV. 
The Eastern and West. Church's still maintained a kind of mutual Communion one with another.  
The Church of Jerusalem is destroyed by the Prince of Babylon, and afterward re-established.  
Adelbold is chosen Bishop of Utrecht.    1010 I. IX. XXXV. The Trial of the Archbishop of Hamburg at Rome, about a certain Parochial Church. A Council held at Renham in England in this Year. 
William Abbot of St. Benignus at Dijon.  
Godehard Bp. of Hildersheim.  
Gosbert Abbot of Tergensee.  
Meginfroy Monk of Fulda.  
Erchinfroy Abbot of Melck.  1011 II. X. XXXVI.   
Syrus Monk of Clunie.  
Osbert or Osborn Chanter of Canter.  
Adelbold Bp. of Utrecht.  
Rupert Abbot of Mount Cassin.  
Dithmar Bp. of Mersburg.  1012 III. Sergius IV dies May 13. A Schism after his death between Benedict VIII. and Gregory, during which the former retired to the Emperor Henry I. XI. XXXVII.  
A Council at Leon in Spain.  
The Laws of Ethelred King of England.   1013 Henry marches to Rome, re-establishes Benedict, and is crowned Emp. the next year in the month of May. II. XII. XXXVIII   Leo the Grammarian. 1014 III. XIII. XXXIX.  A Council held at Pavia after that year.  1015 IU. XIV. XL.    1016 V. XV. XLI.    1017 VI. XVI. XLII. 
The Heresy of the Manichees revived in France, and suppressed by King Robert.  
A Shower of Blood in the Province of Aquitaine.  A Council at Orleans against the Manichean Heretics. Guarlin or Gauslin Archbishop of Bourges. 1018 VII. XVII. XLIII.   The Death of Dichmar Bishop of Mersburg. 1019 VIII. Benedict goes to Bamberg in Germany. XVIII. XLIV. Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople, who succeeded John, dies, and Eustachius is substituted in his room.   1020 IX. XIX. XLV.   Tangmarus Dean of Hildesheim. 1021 X. XX. XLVI.    1022 XI. XXI. The Emperor Henry arrives in Italy. XLVII.   Guy Aretin Abbot of Croix-Saint Leufroy. 1023 XII. XXII. Henry returns to Germany. XLVIII.  A Council at Selingenstadt. Briv● Archbishop of Mentz. 1024 Benedict dies in the end of the Month of Feb. and John xviii. his Brother succeeds him. I. The death of Henry. Conrade is chosen Emperor in his stead. I. XLIX. 
An Embassay of the Greeks to Rome to obtain a Grant of the Pope that the Church of Constantinople may be styled the Catholic or Universal Church.  
The French Prelates oppose their Proceed, and William Abbot of St. Benignus at Dijon writes a Letter to John XVIII. to divert him from his Design.   William Abbot of St. Benignus at Dijon. 1025 II. II. L. Basil dies and Constantin reigns alone. Alexius is advanced to the Patriarchal See of Constantinople. A Council at Arras.  1026 III. III. I.   The death of Burchard Bp. of Worms 1027 IU. iv Conrade is crowned Emperor at Rome. II.   The death of Adelbold Bishop of Utrecht. 1028 V. V III.   The death of St. Fulbert Bishop of Chartres. 1029 VI. VI Constantin dies, and Romanus is chosen to supply his place. I. Robert King of France holds an A Council Assembly of Bishops at Orleans, for at Lymoges. the Dedication of the Church of St. Aignan, which he had built.   1030 VII. VII. II.   
Berno Abbot of Richenaw.  
Ademar, or Aimar de Chabanois Monk of S. Cibar.  
Hugh archdeacon of Tours.  
Arnulphus Monk of Emmeran.  1031 VIII. VIII. III. 
Hugh Monk of Clunie is made Bishop of Langres.  
Canut King of England takes a Journey to Rome, where he is honourably received by the Pope and the Emperor, and obtains certain Privileges for his Subjects.  
The Pope's Letter, which attributes the Quality of an Apostle to St. Martial.  
St. Martial is placed among the Apostles in the Councils of Bourges and Lymoges.  
The Abbey of Beauleau usurped by a Secular Abbot, is reformed by the Council of Lymoges.  
A Council held at Bourges, Nou. 1.  
A Council at Lymoges on the 18th day of the same Month.  
Odoran a Monk of St. Peter le Vit.  
Agelnothus Archbishop of Canterbury.  
Eberard St. Harvic's Pupil.  
The death of Aribo Archbishop of Mentz.  1032 IX. IX. iv  The Laws of Canut King of England.  1033 X. Pope John dies Nou. 7. and Benedict IX. a young Child, the Son of Alberic Count of Frescati is substituted X. Conrade arrives in Italy, and re-establishes Pope John who was expelled. The death of Robert King of V. 
The death of Burchard Archbishop of Lions.  
Odilo Abbot of Clunie refuses to accept that Archbishopric, and the Pope blames him for it in a Letter.  
Bruno, Uncle by the Father's side to the Emperor Conrade, is ordained Bishop of Wurtsburg.    in his room. 
France, July 20.  
Henry I. his Son succeeds him.      1034 I. XI. Romanus dies April II. being poisoned and afterward strangled, by the Order of Zoe his Wife, who causes Michael the Paphlagonian her Favourite, to be placed on the Throne. I.    1035 II. XII. II. The death of Simeon of Syracuse a Monk of Trier.   1036 III. XIII. Conrade marches into Italy. III. Drogon is made Bishop of Terovane.  The death of Godehard Bishop of Hildesheim. 1037 IU. XIV. iv    1038 V. XV. V Pandulphus Duke of Capua is obliged to submit to the Emperor Conrade.   1039 VI. Conrade dies June 5. and Henry III. his Son succeeds him. VI   
Euge●ippus.  
Bruno Bishop of Wurtzburg.  1040 VII. I. VII.  Divers held this year in France. 
Glaber Radulphus a Monk of Clunie.  
Arnold Canon of Herfeldt.  
Campanus of Lombardy.  1041 VIII. II. VIII. Michael dies in the Month of Decemb. and Zoe causes Michael Calephas to be put in his place. Lanfranc receives the Monastic Habit from the hands of the Abbot Herluin, in the Abbey of Be●.   1042 IX. III. I. Michael      Calephas is expelled, and Constantin Monomachus being substituted in his room, marries Zoe.    1043 X. iv I. Alexius Patriarch of Constantinople dying, Michael Cerularius is chosen in his stead.   1044 The Romans expel Benedict accused of divers Crimes, and put Sylvester III. Bp. of St. Savine in his place. Benedict acknowledging himself unworthy of the Papal Dignity, resigns it in favour of Gregory VI on condition that he should enjoy the Revenues which the See of Rome received from England. V II.    1045 II. VI III.    1046 
Henry Emperor of Germany deposes Gregory 6th and causes Suidger Bp. of Bamberg to be chosen Pope on Christmas-Eve, who takes the name of Clement II.  
Gregory VI voluntarily abdicates the Popedom in a Synod, and is banished.  
Sylvester III is sent back to his Bishopric of St. Sabina.  VII. Henry is crowned Emperor by Pope Clement II. iv  Councils held at Rome for deposing the Pope's Benedict IX. Sylvester III. and Gregory VI.  1047 I. Clement II. dying Oct. 2. Benedict IX. got Possession of S. Peter's VIII. V 
Hildebrand accompanies Gregory VI. in his Exile, and retires to Clunie.  
Eusebius Bruno made Bishop of Angers.  
A Letter written by Pope Clement II. to John nominated Archbishop of  A Council at Rome against Persons guilty of Simony.  Chair a 3d time, and kept it 8 months longer.   Salerno, in which he approves his Translation to the Bishopric of Pesti, as also to that Archbishopric, and grants him the Pall.   1048 The Emperor sends from Germany Poppo Bishop of Brescia, who is made Pope under the name of Damasus II. but he dies 23 Days after his Consecration. XI. VI 
Theoduin is ordained Bishop of Liege.  
Geffrey Count of Anjou and Agnes his Wife, give the Church of all Saints in the Suburbs of Angers, to the Abbey of Vendome.  
Hildebrand leaves the Abbey of Clunie, of which he was Prior, and accompanies Bruno Bishop of Toul to Rome.    1049 Bruno Bp. of Toul, who assumed the name of Leo IX. was chosen Febr. 13. 5 months after the death of Damasus. I. X. VII. 
Pope Leo confirms by a Bull the Privileges of Clunie Abbey.  
He causes the Body of St. Remy of Rheims to be translated to the Church of that Abbey, which was also dedicated by him.  
He approves, in a Letter, the Translation of John from the Bishopric of Frescati to that of Porto.  
Arnold Abbot of Poitiers, accused of Incontinency by the Bishop of Langres, was deposed in the Council of Rheims.  
Hugh Bishop of Langres charged with divers Crimes, was likewise deposed and excommunicated in that Council; but having attended the Pope to Rome, and having done Penance, he was restored to his former Dignity some time after.  
Rudicus Bishop of Nantes, was also degraded for succeeding his Father in his Bishopric, by the means of Simoniacal Practices.  
The Contest between the Archbp. of Rheims and the Bp. of Toul, about the Abbey of Monstier-Rendy, was determined in favour of the former, in the same Council.  
A Council at Rome against Simony.  
A Council at Pavia.  
A Council at Rheims, Octob. 3.  
A Council at Mentz, held in the end of this year, or in the beginning of the next.   1050 II. XI. VIII. 
Berengarius or Berenger is accused and condemned in divers Councils hell this Year. He and his Followers are constrained to retract their Opinions under pain of death in the Council of Paris.  
Lanfranc is obliged to give an account of his Doctrine, in the Council of Rome, and he there makes a Confession of Faith. His Doctrine is approved in the Council of Verceil.  
A Confirmation of the Privileges of Corbey Abbey by the Pope.  
A Council at Rome.  
A Council at Brionne.  
A Council at Verceil, Septemb. 1.  
A Council at Paris, Nou. 19  
A Council Coyaco.  
A Council  
Anselm Dean of Namur.  
Hermannus Contractus a Monk of Richenau.  
Theophanes the Ceramean.  
Nilus' Doxopatrius.  
Gualdo Monk of Corbey.  
Drogo Bishop of Terovane.  
Helgaud Monk of      
at Roven.  
A Council at Siponto.  
Fleury.  
Wippo the Emperor's Chaplain.  
Ebervin Abbot of St. Maurice.  
Evershelm Abbot of Aumont.  
Guibert archdeacon of Toul.  
Anselm a Benedictin Monk.  1051 III. XII. IX. Pope Leo's Letter, confirming to John Archbishop of Salerno, the Right of a Metropolitan.  
Berenger's Letter to Lanfranc, and his Treatise against him.  
Theoduin Bp. of Liege's Letter against Berenger.  
Adelman a Clerk of Liege, and afterward Bishop of Brescia, writes to Berenger about his Opinion.  
Reciprocal Letters between Ascelin and Berenger.  
John Archbishop of Euchaita.  1052 IU. XIII. X. 
The Pope confirms the Privileges of the Abbey of St. Sophia at Benevento.  
John, surnamed Jeannelin, is nominated Abbot of Erbrestin by the Emperor Henry III.  
Marianus Scotus turns Monk.  A Council at Mantua, disturbed by a popular Tumult. 
John Jeannelin Abbot of Erbrestein.  
Hepidannus a Monk of St. Gall.  
The death of Hugh Bishop of Langres.  1053 V. Leo IX. makes war with the Normans of Apulia, who take him Prisoner, and convey him to Benevento. XIV. XI. 
A Letter written by Michael Cerularius Patriarch of Constantinople in his own Name, and under that of Leo Archbishop of Acris, against the Latin Church.  
This Patriarch causes the Churches of the Latins in Constantinople to be shut up, and takes away from all the Latin Abbots and Monks, who refused to renounce the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, the Monasteries which they had in that City.  
The Pope being set at liberty by the Normans of Apulia, grants them all the Territories which they had subdued, and those that they might obtain by Conquest, from the Greeks and Saracens.  
A Contest between the Churches of Grado and Aquileia for the Metropolitan Right, determined in the Council of Rome, in favour of Grado.  
The Pope's Letter to the Bishops of Venice and Istria, confirming that Right.  A Council at Rome.  1054 
Leo IX. dies Apr. 15. and the Papal See continues vacant during a whole year.  
Hildebrand goes to meet the Emperor, to demand Geb●hart Bishop of Eichstadt, who was made Pope the next year under name of Victor II. I.  XV. Constantin Monomachus dies, and Theodora Porphyrogenneta governs the Empire. I. 
Pope Leo's Letters, which confirm the Metropolitan Right of the Church of Carthage, over all those of Africa.  
The Pope sends Legates to Constantinople to treat about the Reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches.  
Pope Leo's Letters on that Subject to the Emperor Constantin, and to Michael Cerularius Patriarch of Constantinople.  
A Contest between the Legates and that Patriarch.  
An Answer by Cardinal Humbert the Pope's Legate, to the Letter of Michael Cerularius and Leo of Acris.  
Nicetas Pectoratus, a Monk of Seuda, composes a Tract against the Latin Church.  
Cardinal Humbert's Answer to that Piece.  
Nicetas makes a Recantation, and burns his Writings.  
A Sentence of Excommunication denounced by the Legates against Michael Cerularius.  
The Patriarch in like manner excommunicates the Legates by a public Edict, and raises a Sedition which obliges the Emperor to deliver up their Interpreters, who are misused and put in Prison.  A Council at Narbonne. 
Humbert Cardinal.  
Nicetas Pectoratus a Monk of Seuda.  
Dominick Patriarch of Grado.  
Peter Patriarch of Antioch.  1055 II. XVI. II. 
Berenger abjures his Opinions in the Council of Tours, in the presence of Hildebrand.  
Maugier Archbishop of Roven is deposed in the Council of Lisieux, and Marrillus a Monk of Fecamp put in his place.  
A Council at Florence.  
A Council at Lions.  
A Council at Tours against Bereinger.  
A Council at Lisieux.   1056 II. Pope Victor goes to Germany, where he was invited by the Emperor Henry III. 
XVII. The Emperor Henry dies Oct. 3.  
Henry IU. his Son, aged only 5 years, succeeds him, and is at first put under the Tuition of his Mother, who obtains the Administration of the Government.  III. Theodora dies in the end of the year, and Michael, whom she had made Emperor a little before, reigns alone.  A Council at Toulouse.  1057 Victor dies at Florence July 28. and Frederick Abbot of Mount Cassin is chosen in his place, on the Festival of S. Stephen, whence he took the Name of Stephen IX. I. I. Michael abdicates the Imperial Throne and leaves it to Isaac Commenus. I. 
Pope Victor's Letter, which confirms and augments the Privileges granted to the Church of Selve-Blanche.  
Frederick is made Abbot of Mount Cassin; a little after, Cardinal; and at last Pope.  
Alphonsus' Abbot of St. Benedict at Salerno, is ordained Archbishop of that City.  
A Letter by which Pope Stephen IX. reunites the Bishopric of Marli, which was sometime divided.  
Peter Damian is made Cardinal and Bishop of Ostia by that Pope.  A Council at Rome. Peter Damian Alphanus. 1058 
Stephen dies at Florence, March 29.  
The Count of Frescati and Gregory of Lateran, cause Mincius Bishop of Veletri to be chosen Pope, who assumes the name of Benedict.  
Cardinal Humbert and many others refuse to own his Authority.  
Gerard Bp. of Florence is chosen, and this Election is approved by the Emperor Henry.  II. II. 
Pope Stephen sends Legates to Constantinople, who return without pursuing their Journey, having received Information of his death.  
Michael Cerularius is turned out of the Patriarchal See of Constantinople, and Constantin Lichudes is substituted in his room.  
Evershelm is made Abbot of St. Peter at Ghent.  
Marianus Scotus an English Monk passes into Germany, where he continues ten years a Recluse, in the Monastery of Fulda.  
Lambert of Aschaffemburg assumes the Monastic Habit at Hirlfeldt under the Abbot Meginher; in a little while after is ordained Priest by Lupold Archbishop of Mentz, and undertakes a Journey to the Holy Land without the knowledge of his Abbot, from whence he returns the next year.    1059 
II. Gerard is ordained Bp. of Rome in the beginning of Jan. and takes the name of Nicolas II.  
I. Mincius renounces the Papal Dignity, and is suspended for ever from Ecclesiastcal Functions.  III. III. Isaac resigns the Imperial Dignity to Constantin Ducas, and retires to a Monastery I 
A Privilege granted to the Nunnery of St. Felicitas near Florence.  
The Election of Popes reserved to the Cardinals in the Council of Rome.  
Berenger abjures his Opinions in that Council, and makes a Confession of Faith.  
Peter Damian is sent Legate to Milan to reform the Clergy, who publicly used Simoniacal Practices.  
The Bishop of Trani is deposed in the Council of Melfi.  
Sigefroy or Sigifred succeeds Luitbold in the Archbishopric of Mentz.  
A Council at Rome.  
A Council at Melfi.  
A Council at Benevento, held in the beginning of the Month of August.   1060 II. iv Henry I. King of France, causes his II. St. Anselm embraces the Monastic Life in the Abbey of Bec. A Council at Tours. 
Guitmond Archbishop of Aversa.  
Durand Abbot of Troarn.  
Franco a Philosopher   Son Philip to be crowned at Rheims, May 22. dies in the end of this year.    
of Liege.  
Warin Abbot of St. Arnulphus at Mets.  1061 
III. The death of Nicolas II. in the Month of July.  
Anselm Bishop of Lucca is elected three Months after, and ordained Pope under the name of Alexander II.  
The Emperor Henry, incensed by reason that he was chosen without his knowledge, causes Cadalous Bishop of Parma to be proclaimed Pope, who endeavours to make himself Master of the City of Rome; but being repulsed, was obliged to return to Parma the next year.  V III.   
Michael Psellus.  
Alberic a Monk of Mount Cassin.  
Merellus Abbot of Tergensee.  1062 I. VI iv    1063 II. VII. V 
A Contest between Peter Archbishop of Florence and his Monks.  
The Pope sends the Pall to Peter Archbishop of Dalmatia.  
Lanfranc is made Abbot of the Abbey of St. Stephen at Caen, newly founded, and St. Anselm succeeds him in the Office of Prior of Bec Abbey.  
Maurillus' Archbishop of Roven holds a Synod for the Dedication of the Cathedral Church of that City, which was newly built.  
A Confession of Faith published in that Synod against Berenger's Opinions.  
A Privilege granted by the Pope to the Abbey of Vendome.  
Peter Damian the Pope's Legate in France, determins in the Council of Challon, the Differences between the Bishop of that City, and the Abbey of Clunie, about the Privileges of the same Abbey, which are confirmed in the Council.  
A Council at Rome.  
A Council at Roven.  
A Council at Challon.   1064 III. Cadalous causes some Disturbances. Alexander is owned as lawful Pope VIII. VI Guibert, Grand Lord of Parma and Chancellor to Henry Emperor of Germany, is ordained Archbishop of Ravenna. A Council at Mantua.  in the Council of Mantua, and pardons Cadalous, who dies a little while after      1065 IU. IX. VII. The Heresy of the Nicolaitans condemned in two Councils held at Rome. 
A Council at Rome.  
Another Council at Rome.  
A Council at Elna in Roussillon.  Lanfranc. 1066 V. X. VIII. 
John Xiphylin is chosen Patriarch of Constantinople, instead of Constantin Lichudes.  
The Charters of Edward King of England for authorising the Confirmation of the Privileges of the Church of Westminster, which was granted by the Pope's Leo IX. and Nicolas II.  
William Duke of Normandy passes over into England, and defeats Harald who had taken Possession of the Throne, after the death of King Edward.    1067 VI. XI. IX. Constantin Ducas dies, leaving 3 Children and his Wife Eudoxia, who takes upon her the Administration of the Government.    1068 VII. XII. II. Eudoxia marries Romanus Diogenes, who is proclaimed Emperor. I. 
Peter Damian is sent Legate into Germany, to hinder the Emperor Henry from divorcing Bertha his Wife.  
Marianus Scotus, who lived as a Recluse in the Monastery of Fulda, goes to Mentz to end his Life there in the same Quality.    1069 VIII. XIII. II. 
The death of Maurillus Archbishop of Roven.  
Lanfranc refuses to accept of that Archbishopric, which is obtained by John de Bayeux Bishop of Auranchez. Lanfranc goes to Rome, to cause that Translation to be ratified, and to get the Pall for the same Archbishop.  
The Emperor Henry endeavours to get himself divorced from Bertha in the Council of Mentz, but is opposed by Peter Damian the Pope's Legat.  A Council at Mentz. The death of Evershelm Abbot of Aumont. 1070 IX. XIV. III. 
Lanfranc is obliged to accept of the Archbishopric of Canterbury.  
The Pope gives leave to Gebehard Archbishop of Saltzburg, to erect a Bishopric in his Province.  A Council at Windsor. Benno Cardinal. 1071 X. XV. 
iv Romanus Diogenes is taken Prisoner by the Turks, and Michael the Son of Constantin Ducas is proclaimed Emperor.  
Diogenes being delivered, has his Eyes put out by Michael's Order, and dies a little while after.  Charles, nominated by the Emperor Henry to the Bishopric of Constance, not being able to get Ordination by reason of Simoniacal Practices, resigns his Ring and Crosier-staff to the Emperor, in the Council of Mentz. 
A Council at Mentz.  
A Council held at Winchester this year.  Theophylact. 1072 XI. XVI. II. Peter Damian is sent by the Pope to Ravenna, to take off the Excommunication denounced against that City, by reason of the Contests which the Bishop of that Diocese had with the See of Rome. A Council at Roven. Hepidannus writes two Books of the Life and Miracles of St. Wiborada. 1073 XII. Alexander dies April 22. and Hildebrand is chosen in his place on the same day. He is ordained Priest and consecrated Pope, under the Name of Gregory 7th in the Month of June. I. XVII. III. 
William Archbishop of Auche, and Pontius Bishop of Beziers, are deposed by Gerald Cardinal of Ostia, the Pope's Legate, for having voluntarily communicated with certain Persons, who lay under a Sentence of Excommunication.  
Pope Alexander confirms the Settlement of a Convent of Regular Canons, made by Altman Bishop of Passaw.  
Dominic Patriarch of Venice is deputed by Pope Gregory to negotiate at Constantinople, about the Reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches.  
Pope Gregory's Decree against Persons guilty of Simony, and against Clerks who marry or keep Concubines.  
Letters written by the same Pope to the Bishops and Princes, about putting that Decree in execution.  
Other Letters by Gregory against Godfrey Archbishop of Milan and the Bishops of Lombardy, who were excommunicated for their Simoniacal Practices. But they were protected by Henry Emperor of Germany, which gave occasion to the Dissensions that afterward broke forth between that Prince and the Pope.  A Council at Erford. 
The death of Peter Damian on Febr. 23.  
Robert de Tombalene Abbot of St. Vigour.  
William Abbot of St. Arnulphus at Metz.  
Hugh Bp. of Die.  
Anselm Bishop of Lucca.  
Manasses Archbishop of Rheims.  1073   
Anselm, who succeeded Pope Alexander II. in the Bishopric of Lucca, but repenting that he had received the Investiture of that Bishopric from the Emperor Henry iv retired to the Monastery of Clunie; from whence he was recalled by the Pope to govern his Bishopric.  
Landric archdeacon of Autun is chosen Bishop of Mascon, and consecrated the next Year by the Pope, the Bishops of France not daring to ordain him.  
The Pope's Complaints and Menaces against Philip I. King of France.  
Pope Gregory lays claim to Spain, and by virtue of it gives to Ebol Count of Rocey, all the Countries that he could wrest out of the Hands of the Saracens, on condition that he should hold them of the Holy See, and should pay him a certain Tribute.  
He exacts an Oath of Allegiance of Landulphus Duke of Benevento, and of Richard Duke of Capua.  
He promises the Pall to Bruno Bishop of Verona, provided he come to Rome to receive it there in Person.  
He confirms all the Privileges granted by Alexander II. to Wradisla●s Duke of Bohemia.  
Jeromir Bishop of Prague is suspended, and deprived of the Revenues of his Church, by the Pope's Legates, for opposing their reception in Bohemia.  
A Contest between the same Bishop of Prague and the Bishop of Moravia, for the possession of certain Territories.  
The Pope's Remonstrance to the Inhabitants of Carthage, some of whom had delivered up Cyriacus their Bishop, into the Hands of the Saracens.     1074 II. XVIII. iv 
Garnier Bishop of Strasburg, excommunicated for Simoniacal Practices, is absolved in the Council of Rome.  
Hugh is ordained Bishop of Die by the Pope in that Council.  
A Decree against Investitures made by the Pope in the same Council, according to the Relation of some Authors.  
Robert Guiscard Duke of Apulia is excommunicated in the same Council of Rome.  
The Agreement between the Bishops of Prague and Moravia, confirmed by the Pope's Bull, dated March 2.  
William Archbishop of Auche, and Pontius Bishop of Beziers, restored to their respective Sees.  
The Pope reproves the Inhabitants of Ragusa, for imprisoning Vitalis their Bishop, and substituting another in his room. He summons both the Bishops to Rome, if the  
A Council at Roven.  
A Council at Rome.  
Another at Poitiers.  
A Council held at Erford in the Month of Octob.   1074   
Matter cannot be determined by his Legate in that City.  
The Pope's Legates sent to the Emperor Henry, about the Affair of the Bishops of Lombardy.  
The Contest between those Legates and Sigefred Archbishop of Mentz, about the Right of calling a Council, which the Archbishop claimed, as Vicar of the Holy See. The Legates returned without any effect of their Negotiation.  
The first Project of a Crusade formed by the Pope.  
The Pope's Letters to divers Princes and Bishops, for putting in execution his Decree against Simony, and the Incontinence of Clergymen.  
Letters written by the same Pope to the Bishops of France, against the Proceed of King Philip, whom he threatens to dethrone.  
A Constitution of the Council of London about the Rank and particular Seat, that every Bishop ought to hold in the Councils of the Kingdom of England.  
The Pope confirms the Privilege of the Monastery of St. Stephen at Caen.  
William Duke of Aquitaine is obliged, in the Council of Poitiers, to put away his Kinswoman, whom he had taken to Wife. Isembert, Bishop of that City, who had disturbed the Council, was suspended, and some time after excommunicated by the Pope.  
The pretended Claim which Gregory VII. laid to the Kingdoms that were newly converted.  
He takes it very heinously that Solomon King of Hungary should be established in that Kingdom by Henry Emperor of Germany, and insists, that King Stephen formerly gave it to the Holy See after his Conversion. Wherefore he threatens that Prince with the Apostolical Censures, if he do not make Suit to receive the Royal Sceptre from his Hands.  
The Pope restores to the Bishop of Prague the Revenues of his Church, and orders him to come to Rome with the Bishop of Moravia: The former being arrived there, is sent back to his own Country, fully reconciled and reinstated: However, the Pope adjudges to the latter the possession of the contested Lands, but the Bishop of Prague having seized on them at his return, the Pope enjoined him to restore them.  
A Tribute paid by the Bohemians to the See of Rome.     1075 III. The Pope falls out with Cincius the Son of Alberic Perfect of Rome, and excommunicates XIX. Henry subdues the Saxons, who had revolted. V 
Liemar Archbishop of Bremen, Garnier Bishop of Strasburg, Henry of Spire, Herman of Bamberg, William of Pavia, and Cunibert of Turin, are suspended in the Council of Rome. Some of these Bishop's repair to that City to get Absolution.  
Denis Bishop of Placentia is deposed in the same Council, without hope of Restauration.  
A Council held at Rome in the end of the Month of February.  
A Council at Poitiers against Berenger.   1075 
him.  
Cincius excited by Guibert Archbishop of Ravenna seizes on the Pope's Person, as he was saying Mass on Christmas-day, but he is forced by the People to set him at liberty, and to retire to the Emperor.    
Herman of Bamberg is excommunicated some time after, for his Misdemeanours.  
The Pope's Letters to the Emperor Henry, to the Archbishop of Mentz, and to the People of Bamberg against that Bishop.  
A private Embassy sent by Henry to the Pope, to settle a good Correspondence between them.  
The Success of the Emperor's Arms causes him to have less regard to the Pope's Interest.  
His second Embassay to the Pope, which is not very favourably received.  
Henry causes Tedald to be chosen Archbishop of Milan, to the prejudice of him whom the Pope had nominated to that Dignity.  
The Pope's Letters to the Emperor Henry, and to the Suffragan Bishops of the Milanese, to hinder Tedald's Ordination.  
Henry's Circular Letter to the Bishops and Princes of the Empire, against Gregory.  
Letters by Thierry Bishop of Verdun, and Engelbert Archbishop of Trier, against the Pope.  A Council at London.  1076 IU. XX. VI 
Cardinal Hugo excommunicated by the Pope.  
The Pope's Election condemned in the Council of Worms.  
A Letter sent from the Council to the Pope, importing that Condemnation.  
Roland a Clerk of Parma, the Bearer of this Letter, delivered it to the Pope, and makes him the Declarations and Protestations with which he was charged.  
The Envoys of Henry make the same Protestations against the Pope.  
The Pope excommunicates Sigefroy Archbishop of Mentz, and suspends the other Bishops of the Council of Worms in the Synod of Rome: He likewise declares the Emperor Henry excommunicated, and fallen from the Imperial Dignity, and absolves his Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance.  
Henry's Enemies take an occasion from this Sentence of Excommunication, to enter into a League against him.  
The greatest part of the Prelates of the Assembly of Worms are reconciled with the Pope.  
An Assembly held at Worms on Septuagesima-Sunday.  
A Council held at Rome in the beginning of Lent.  
A Council at Winchester Apr. 1.  
A Council at Tribur or Oppenheim, Octob. 26.   1076    
Gregory brings over to his Party Mathilda, Sovereign Princess of a considerable Territory in Italy, and the Widow of Godfrey Duke of Lorraine, who died there this year, divorced from his Wife.  
The Pope's Letters to all the Faithful of the Roman Empire against Henry.  
A Letter written by Herman Bishop of Mets to the Pope concerning the Excommunication of Henry, and about this Question, viz. Whether a Sentence of Excommunication can be denounced against Kings?  
The Pope's Answer, showing that Kings may be excommunicated; which he proves by divers Examples.  
Another Letter by the Pope to the Prelates and Nobility of Germany, prescribing certain Conditions for the absolving of Henry, which if not performed by him, he requires them to proceed to the Election of another Prince, to take upon him the Government of the Empire.  
By virtue of this Letter, the Dukes of Suevia, Bavaria and Carinthia, and the Bishops of Wurtzburg and Worms confer together at Ulm, and appoint an Assembly at Oppenheim.  
Sigehard Patriarch of Aquileia and Altman Bishop of Passaw the Pope's Legate, declaim against the Conduct of Henry, in the Assembly of Oppenheim, and demand another Emperor to be chosen in his place.  
Henry on the other side promises the Legates, by his Deputies, to reform Abuses for the future, and to make Restitution for what Damage he might have done.  
A Committee of the Assembly is appointed to treat with the Emperor, who submits to their Remonstrances; disbands his Army; dismisses the Prelates and other excommunicated Persons residing in his Court; retires to Spire, and relinquishes all the Marks of the Imperial Dignity till he can get himself absolved within the year.  
Gregory writes to the Bishop of Cirenza, to give Absolution to Roger Count of Sicily, and to the Bishop of Melfi.  
The Pope ordains Servandus Bishop of Hippon, and sends him back into Africa, with Letters of Recommendation.  
He likewise installs Ives Abbot of St. Melaine, in the Bishopric of Doll in Bretagne, and grants him the Pall.  
William I. King of England turns Wulketulus out of the Abbey of Croyland, and gives it to Ingulphus, who nevertheless procures the Restauration of Wulketulus.    1077 V. XXI. Henry goes to Italy to VII. Henry passes into Italy, and there comes to an Agreement with the Pope, by the Mediation of the Princess An Assembly at Forcheim, March 13.   1077  
sue for the Pope's Pardon, and receives Absolution.  
Afterwards he falls out with him again, and Rodulphus is elected Emperor of Germany.   
Mathilda, of Hugh Abbot of Clunie, and of some other Noblemen.  
He obtains his Absolution at Canosa under certain Conditions, which afterwards he was not able to observe.  
The Complaints of the Lombard's against these Proceed of the Emperor, which oblige him to break with the Pope.  
Henry recalls the excommunicated Bishops, whom he had dismissed.  
Rodulphus Duke of Suevia causes himself to be chosen Emperor in the Convention at Eorcheim, and to be crowned at Mentz by Archbishop Sigefred.  
The Pope determines to pass into Germany to end the difference between Henry and Rodolphus; but the former takes a resolution to hinder his Passage, and to make War with Rodolphus and the other Rebels.  
The Pope having caused certain Bishops of Henry's Party to be apprehended, that Prince in like manner arrests two of the Pope's Legates, by way of Reprisal.  
The Archbishops of Rheims, Besanson, Liege, Sens, Bourdeaux, Bourges and Tours, and the Bishops of Senlis, Chartres, Auxerre, Noyon and Autun, not appearing in the Council of Autun to clear themselves, are condemned by Hugh of Die the Pope's Legate, and obliged to go to Rome to get that Condemnation remitted.  
Geduin archdeacon of Langres is chosen and ordained Archbishop of Lions, instead of him whom Hugh of Die had deposed.  
Rainier Bishop of Orleans is likewise deposed by the Pope, and Sanzon is substituted in his room.  
Stephen Bishop of Annecy is excommunicated for taking possession of that Church.  
The Pope renews his Pretensions to Spain, and exhorts the Kings and Princes of that Country to pay him the Tribute, which he pretends to be due to the Holy See.  
He in like manner lays claim to the Island of Corsica, and sends a Legate to reside there in quality of Governor.  
Gerard Abbot of St. Vincent at Laon is made Abbot of St. Medard at Soissons; but being turned out some time after, by Queen Bertha, he founded the Abbey of Seauve-Majeur in the Diocese of Bourdeaux.  
A Council at Clermont.  
A Council at Dijon.  
A Council at Autun.   1078 VI. XXII. VIII. Nicephorus Botoniata gets possession of the Imperial 
The Pope renews, in the Council of Rome, the Anathema which he had denounced against Tedald Archbishop of Milan, and against Guibert Archbishop of Ravenna.  
Arnulphus Bishop of Cremona being  
A Council held at Rome in Lent.  
Another Council at Rome in the  
Lambert of Aschaffemburg completes his History.  
Michael Psellus retires to a Monastery, where he  1078   Diadem, having caused Michael to be confined in a Monastery I 
present in the Council, is deposed for Simoniacal Practices, without hope of Restauration.  
Roland Bishop of Trevisi is excommunicated, for having obtained his Bishopric, by undertaking to manage the Deputation of the Assembly of Worms.  
Cardinal Hugo, who took part with the Emperor Henry, is likewise excommunicated.  
The Sentence of Excommunication denounced against the Archbishop of Narbonne, by the Pope's Predecessors is revived in that Council.  
All the Normans of Apulia are excommunicated in the same Council.  
Upon the breaking up of this Council, the Pope solicits the Germans to call an Assembly, to put an end to the Dissensions between Henry and Rodolphus, and excommunicates all those Persons who hinder their Meeting.  
Both Parties seem to mistrust the Pope's definitive Sentence.  
Henry makes himself Master of the Countries of Bavaria and Suevia, which Rodolphus had abandoned to retire to Saxony.  
Rodolphus levies Forces, besieges the City of Wurtzburg, and takes it after having defeated Henry's Army, who came to relieve the Place, but the latter found means to recover it a little while after.  
Nicephorus Botoniata is excommunicated in the second Council of Rome for usurping the Government of the Eastern Empire.  
The Envoys of Henry and Rodolphus take an Oath in that Council, in the name of their Masters, that they should not hinder the Pope's Legates from holding an Assembly in Germany to determine their Controversies.  
A Decree in the same Council against Investitures made by Laics.  
The Archbishop of Tours and the Bishop of Rennes are suspended in the Council of Poitiers, for endeavouring to disturb it.  
The Archbishop of Besanson is likewise suspended in that Council, for not appearing therein, no more than the Bishop of Autun.  
The Abbot of Bergues is deposed for Simony, in the same Council.  
The Divorce of William Duke of Aquitaine from his Wife is ordered in that Council, by reason of their being too near a kin.  
The Settlement of the Regular Canons of St. Quentin at Beauvais made by Guy Bishop of that City, who conferred the Government of that Convent on Ives, his Successor afterward in the Bishopric of Beauvais.  
Cosmus is chosen Patriarch of Constantinople in the place of John Xiphilin.  
St. Anselm succeeds Herluin Abbot of Bec, who died this year.  
Month of Decemb.  
A Council at Poitiers.  dies a little while after. 1079 VII. XXIII. II. 
Berenger is forced to abjure his Opinions, and to make a new Confession of Faith.  
The Archbishop of Aquileia promises in the Council of Rome to continue loyal, for the future, to Pope Gregory and his Successors, and to be obedient to them in all things.  
Tedald Archbishop of Milan, Peter Archbishop of Narbonne, Sigefrey Bishop of Bononia, Roland Bishop of Trevisi, and the Bishops of Fermo and Camerine, are excommunicated and deposed in that Council without hope of restauration.  
The Pope, after having caused the Envoys of Henry and Rodolphus to take an Oath in the Council that their Masters should submit to the Decision of the Holy See, deputes his Legates to hold an Assembly in Germany.  
Henry having defeated Rodolphus in a Battle near Fladesheim, could not suffer an Assembly to be held, in which his Right might be brought into Question.  
The Church of Lions erected into a Primacy by Gregory VII.  
This Pope threatens a certain Lord named Wezelin with Excommunication, if he continue to disturb the Tranquillity of the King, whom the Holy See had set over Dalmatia.  
He confers upon Landulphus Bishop of Pisa and his Successors the Office of Legate, and half the Revenues of the Island of Corsica, reserving the other Moiety for the Holy See, with all the Forts.  
He confirms the Election which the Monks of Marseille, made of Cardinal Richard, for their Abbot.  
William Abbot of St. Stephen at Caen, is ordained Archbishop of Roven in the place of John, who had resigned that Archbishopric by reason of his Infirmities.  A Council held at Rome in the Month of February.  1080 VIII. Gregory is deposed in a Council held at Brescia, and Guibert is declared Pope. XXIV. Henry is excommunicated by the Pope in the Council of Rome, and Rodolphus is confirmed in the Imperial Dignity, 
III. Michael Ducas sent to desire Succours of the Pope, and of Robert Duke of Apulia.  
Nicephorus is expelled  
The Pope forbids the Sclavonians to celebrate Divine Service in the Vulgar Tongue.  
Manasses Archbishop of Rheims is deposed in the Council of Lions.  
The Decree against Investitures is revived in the Council of Rome.  
The Sentence pronounced in the Council of Lions against Manasses, is confirmed in that of Rome.  
The Bulls of Excommunication published against Tedald Archbishop  
A Council at Bourdeaux.  
A Council at Lions.  
A Council held at Rome in the beginning of Lent, against the Emperor Henry.  
An Assembly  
Theophylact Archbishop of Acris.  
Folcard a Monk of St. Berthin.  
Gerard Abbot of St. Vincent at Laon.  
Willeram Abbot of St. Peter at Mersburg.  
Ursio Abbot of Aumont.  1080  but the latter dies in the end of the Year. by Alexis Comnenus, who is proclaimed Emperor. 
of Milan, Guibert of Ravenna, Peter of Narbonne, and the other Bishops, are reiterated in that Council.  
Henry is excommunicated by the Pope in the Council, which declares him fallen from the whole Imperial Dignity, and transfers the Empire of Germany to Rodolphus.  
The chief Leaders of Henry's Party meet at Mentz, and call the Council of Brescia against the Pope.  
Hildebrand is deposed in that Council, and Guibert Archbishop of Ravenna is substituted in his room, who assumes the Name of Clement III.  
Henry's Letter to Hildebrand deposed from the Papal Dignity, to oblige him to relinquish the See of Rome.  
A Letter by the same Emperor to the Clergy and People of Rome, requiring them to expel Hildebrand the deposed Pope.  
Henry likewise sends Ambassadors to the Christian Kings and Princes, to induce them to acknowledge Clement as lawful Pope, and to withdraw them from their Obedience to Gregory.  
Gregory comes to an Agreement with Robert Guiscard Duke of Apulia, and invests him with the Territories which were in his Possession, granting him also a Toleration to enjoy those that he had usurped.  
This Pope nominates another Archbishop of Ravenna instead of Guibert, whom he endeavours to get outed from that Archbishopric.  
A bloody Battle fought Octob. 15. between Henry and Rodolphus; insomuch that the latter having received a Wound in his Arm, quits the Field, and causes himself to be conveyed to Mersburg, where he died a little after.  
Henry marching into Saxony, lays waste those Parts, and at his return regains the whole Country of Suevia.  
Gregory demands Succours of Robert Guiscard; writes to the Germane Princes, to oblige them to choose an Emperor entirely devoted to the Interests of the Holy See, in the place of Rodolphus deceased; and sends thither a Form of an Oath, which he requires them to put to the Prince whom they should elect.  
Achard is turned out of the Church of Arles which he usurped, and Gibelin is substituted in his room, by Hugh of Die, in the Council of Avignon.  
Another Hugh is chosen Bishop of Grenoble in that Council.  
Ursio Bishop of Soissons is deposed in the Council of Meaux, and Arnulphus a Monk of  
held at Mentz at Whitsuntide.  
A Council held at Brescia in the Month of June, against the Pope.  
A Council at Avignon.  
A Council at Lillebonne.  
A Council at Meaux.  
A Letter written by the Clergy of Noyon to those of Cambray, about the admission of the Sons of Priests into Orders.  
Amatus a Bishop in Italy.  
Adam a Canon of Bremen.  
Conrade Bishop of Utrecht.  
Weneric Bishop Verceil.  
Waleran Bishop of Naumburg.  
The death of Guitmond Archbishop of Aversa.  
Hepidannus a Monk of St. Gall, died likewise this Year.  1080    
St. Medard is put in his place.  
gualtier is elected Bp. of Challon.  
The Pope endeavours to no purpose, to extort a Tribute from the Kingdom of France, as he had done from England, and the other Estates of Christendom.  
He congratulates Alphanus Bishop of Salerno, upon occasion of his having found the Relics of Saint Matthew.  
He threatens Orzococcius Sovereign Prince of Sardinia, to dispossess him of that Island (which he avouches to belong to the Holy See) unless he submit to the Injunctions of the Church of Rome.  
He is well satisfied with the Conduct of his Legate in that Island, who had obliged a Greek Archbishop to keep his Beard shaved.  
In a Letter written by him to Synnadius Patriarch of the Armenians, he censures certain Errors which are attributed to him.    1081 IX. XXV. 
Henry marches into Italy at the head of an Army, and besieges Rome.  
Gregory defends himself, and Henry is obliged to retire to Lombardy.  I. Bertrand Count of Provence, takes an Oath of Allegiance to the Pope.  
Joan. Thrasesius Scylitzes Curopalata.  
Engelbert Archbishop of Trier.  
Ulric a Monk of Clunie.  
Bernard a Monk of Corbie in Saxony.  1082 X. XXVI. 
Henry returns to the Siege of Rome; but the rigorous Resistance he met with, obliged him to turn it into a Blockade.  
The Germane Rebels choose Herman in the place of Rodolphus.  II. Robert Abbot of Rebais is ordained Bishop of Meaux in the Council of that City, by Hugh of Die; but this Ordination being made without the Consent of the Archbishop of Sens and his Suffragans, that Archbishop consecrated another, after having excommunicated Robert. A Council at Meaux.  1083 XI. Henry makes himself Master of part of the City of Rome, and XXVII. III. Gregory holds a Synod at Rome with Henry's Consent, who grants Passports to all the Prelates who were obliged to be present therein; but he causes the Deputies of the Germane Rebels, and Otho Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia who accompanied them, to be arrested on the Road. A Council held at Rome in the Month of Novemb. Marianus Scotus completes his Chronicle. 1083 causes Guibert to be ordained Pope, who takes the Name of Clement III.   
This Synod concludes nothing.  
Hugh Bishop of Die is translated from that See to the Archbishopric of Lions.    1084 XII. 
Henry takes the rest of the City of Rome, and causes himself to be crowned Emperor by Clement III. But Gregory VII. induces Robert Duke of the Normans to come to his Relief, who obliges Henry to retire.  XXVIII. iv Nicolas the Grammarian is chosen Patriarch of Constantinople.   1085 
XIII. Gregory VII. dies May 24. and the See of Rome continues vacant almost a whole year.  
Guibert becomes Master of part of the Churches of Rome, and endeavours to get himself acknowledged as lawful Pope.  XXIX. V 
This Question, viz. Whether the Pope had a Right to excommuniand dethrone the Emperor Henry? is debated in the Assembly of Berchach, between Gebehard Archbishop of Saltzburg on Herman's side, and Wicelin Archbishop of Mentz on that of Henry, without determining any thing as to the Matter in Hand.  
Wicelin's Opinions condemned, and his Ordinations declared null in the Assembly of Quintilineburg.  
The Ordinations and Consecrations of Sigefrey Bishop of Augsburg, of Norbert Bishop of Chur, and all those made by excommunicated Clerks, are likewise declared null in that Assembly, which pronounced a Sentence of Anathema with lighted Candles against Guibert, Cardinal Hugo, John Bishop of Porto, Peter the Chancellor, Liemar Archbishop of Bremen, Utho Bishop of Hildesheim, Otho of Constance, Burchard of Basil, and Herman of Spire; as also against Wicelin of Mentz, Sigefrey of Augsburg, Norbert of Chur, and their Adherents.  
Hildebrand with those of his Party, and the Bishops of the Assembly of Quintileneburg, are condemned and deposed in that of Mentz, and other Bishops are substituted in their room.  
An Assembly at Gostar or Berchach, held in the beginning of the year against Henry.  
An Assembly at Quintilineburg, held against Henry after Easter.  
An Assembly at Mentz for Henry, held in the Month of May.  Deusdedit Cardinal. 1085    
Herman and Ecbert of Saxony are likewise excommunicated in that Council.  
The death of Robert Guiscard Duke of the Normans of Apulia.    1086 Desiderius Abbot of Mount Cassin is made Pope, under the Name of Victor III. I. XXX. VI 
Hugh Archbishop of Lions, the Archbishop of Aix, and the Bishop of Marseille aspire to the Papal Dignity.  
The Archbishop of Lions in vain endeavours to oppose the Election of Victor.  
St. Bruno institutes the Order of Carthusian Monks.  
Philip King of France divorced from Bertha his Wife, who is banished to Monstrevil.   
The death of Anselm Bishop of Lucca.  
The death of Alphanus Bishop of Salerno.  
Marianus Scotus a Recluse dies at Mentz.  1087 II. Victor is consecrated at Capua, May 9 and dies Sept. 16. at Mount Cassin, after having nominated Otho Bishop of Ostia for his Successor. XXXI. VII. 
The Anathema denounced against Guibert the Antitope, is renewed in the Council of Benevento.  
The Archbishop of Lions and the Bishop of Marseille are likewise excommunicated in that Council.  
A Council at Capua.  
A Council at Benevento against Guibert.   1088 
Otho Bishop of Ostia is ordained Pope May 12. under the Name of Urban II.  
Guibert is expelled by the Romans, and obliged to renounce all manner of Claim to the Popedom. I.  XXXII. VIII. 
The death of Berenger, which happened Jan. 6.  
The death of William I. surnamed the Conqueror, King of England, on Septemb. 9  
The Pope confirms the Primacy of the Church of Toledo, and sends the Pall to Bernard Archbishop of that Metropolitan See.   
Hildebert archdeacon of Mans.  
The death of Durandus Abbot of Tro●…n.  1089 II. XXXIII. IX. 
The Pope confirms in the Council of Rome all the Proceed of Gregory VII. against Guibert the Antipope, the Emperor Henry and their Adherents.  
He revives in that of Melfi, the Decrees against Persons guilty of Simony, and abolishes the Institution of Clerks called Acephali, who were retained in the Service of the great Lords, or depended on them.  
A Council at Rome.  
A Council at Melfi.  The death of Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury, on May 8. 1090 III. XXXIV. X. A Grant of the City of Tarragona to the See of Rome, by Berenger Count of Barcelona. A Council at Toulouse. 
Lambert Bishop of Arras.  
Raynold Archbp. of Rheims.  
Thierry Abbot of St. Trudo.  
Peter Chartophylax of the Church of Constantinople.  1091 IU. Guibert returns to Rome, takes the Castle St. Angelo, and becomes Master of the City. XXXV. XI. 
The death of St. Wolphelin Abbot of Bruvilliers, in the Diocese of Colen.  
The Pope grants the Archbishopric of Tarragona to Berenger Bishop of Vich.  A Council held at Benevento against Guibert. Ingulphus Abbot of Croyland. 1092 V. XXXVI. XII. 
St. Anselm is chosen Archbishop of Canterbury, Mar. 6. and consecrated on the 4th day of Decemb. following.  
Roscelin, a Clerk of the Church of Compeigne, is obliged to make an Abjuration of his Error, in the Council of Soissons; but having maintained it again afterwards, he was banished from France and England.  
Lambert, nominated Bishop of Arras, is ordained at Rome by the Pope.  
Ives is likewise installed Bishop of Chartres by the Pope at Capua in the end of the year, in the place of Geffrey who was deposed.  
The Pope's Discourse to Ives of Chartres, after his Consecration.  
Richer Archbishop of Sens citys Ives Bishop of Chartres to an Assembly held at Estampes, to give an Account of his Ordination; and that Assembly having determined to restore Geffrey, Ives of Chartres appeals to the Pope, who forbids Richer the use of the Pall, till he desist from further Prosecution.  
Philip King of France marries Bertrada the Wife of Foulques le Rechin Count of Anjou.  
The Bishop of Senlis performs the Nuptial Ceremonies, for the Revenue of certain Churches conferred upon him.  
Ives Bishop of Chartres vigorously opposes that Marriage.  
A Council at Soissons against Roscelin.  
A Council at Rheims.  
St. Anselm.  
Simeon the younger.  
Georgius Cedrenus.  
Roscelin a Clerk of the Church of Compeigne.  
Paul Provost of Benrieden.  1093 VI. XXXVII. Conrade the Son of Henry revolts against XIII. Ives Bishop of Chartres is put in Prison, for declaring against King Philip's Marriage. A Council at Troia in Apulia.  1093  his Father, and is crowned at Milan by Anselm Archbp. of that City.     1094 VII. XXXVIII XIV. 
The Pope's Bull for the Restauration of the Bishopric of Arras.  
Praxeda, the Wife of the Emperor Henry, appears in the Council of Constance, and makes a Confession of many infamous Practices, which she had been constrained to commit, by her Husband.  
Hugh Archbishop of Lions, the Pope's Legate, excommunicates King Philip in the Council of Autun, by reason of his Marriage with Bertrade, but the Pope suspends the execution of that Sentence.  
A Council at Constance.  
A Council held at Autun, Octob. 16.   1095 VIII. XXXIX. XV. 
Pope Urban II. gives Audience in the Council of Placentia to the Ambassadors of the Emperor of Constantinople, who desired Succours against the Infidels.  
King Philip sends Ambassadors to that Council, who obtain some respite as to the Sentence of Excommunication which was denounced against him.  
The Pope forms in the same Council, the Project of the Crusade, which was absolutely resolved upon in that of Cl●●mont.  
The Condemnation of Berenger's Opinions is revived in the Council of Placentia.  
Hugh, Archbishop of Lions is suspended, for neglecting to make his appearance, and to send any one to excuse his Absence.  
The Empress Praxeda makes the same Declaration against her Husband in that Council, as she had before exhibited in the Council of Constance.  
The Council of England declares that Urban should not ●e acknowledged as Pope, ●or St. Anselm as Primate of England, so long as he took part with him.  
The Pope publishes a Sentence of Excommunication against King Philip and against Bertrade his Concubine in the Council of Clermont.  
He likewise renews in that Council, the anathemas against the Emp. Henry, and Guibert de Antipope.  
A Council held in Lent at Placentia.  
A Council held in England, April 21.  
A Council at Clermont in the Month of Novemb.  
A Council at Lymoges in the Month of Decemb.  The death of Gerard Abbot of S. Vincent at Laon. 1095    
Upon the Remonstrances of Peter the Hermit, a Gentleman of Picardy near Amiens, and upon the receipt of the Letters sent by Alexius Emp. of Constantinople, and Simeon Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Levantine Crusade is resolved on, and published in the same Council: The Mark of the Soldiers listed for that Expedition, was a red Cross sowed on their left Shoulder, and the Watchword, 'Tis the Will of God.  
A Confirmation of the Primacy of the Archbishopric of Lions in that Council.  
The Bull of that Confirmation, dated Septemb. 1.  
The Pope forbids Richer Archbp. of Sens the use of the Pall, for refusing to own the Primacy of the Church of Lions.  
Humbaud Bishop of Lymoges is deposed by the Pope in the Council of that City.    1096 IX. XL. XVI. 
A Dispute between St. Anselm and the King of England.  
The Pope confirms the Privileges of the Canons of St. Martin at Tours.  
King Philip promises to quit Bertrade, and the Pope gives him Absolution in the Council of Nismes.  
A Council at Roven.  
A Council at Tours.  
A Council at Nesmes.  
Conrade a Monk of Bruvilliers.  
Geffrey de Maleterre.  
Bertulphus or Bernulphus, a Priest of Constance.  
William of Apulia.  
Nalgod a Monk of Clunie.  1097 X. XLI. XVII.  A Council at Bari. 
Othlo a Monk of St. Boniface.  
Gregory Cardinal.  
Peter de Honestis, a Clerk of Ravenna.  
Thibaud or Theobald Clerk of the Church of Estampes.  1098 XI. XLII. XVIII. 
St. Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury leaves England, and passes into Italy.  
He disputes against the Greeks about the Procession of the Holy Ghost, in the Council of Bari, and entreats the Pope not to excommunicate the King of England.  
The Pope grants to Roger Count of Sicily and Calabria, that no Legates shall be sent into his Dominions without his consent; that the Princes, his Successors, shall be Le  
A Council at Bari.  
A Council held at Rome in favour of the Party, that opposed the Interests of Pope Gregory VII.  
Eadmer a Monk of Canterbury.  
Gislebert a Monk of Westminster.  
Bernard a Monk of Clunie.  
Bernard a Clerk of the Church of Utrecht.  
Adam Abbot of Perseme.  
Albert a Benedictin Monk of Mets.    


GLABER RADULPHUS, A Monk of Clunie, wrote about 1045.  
ARNOLD, A Canon of Herfeldt, flourished about 1040.  
ALEXIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, promoted to that Dignity in 1025. died in 1043.  
CAMPANUS, A Philosopher of Lombardy, flourished A. D. 1040.  
BERENGARIUS or BERENGER, archdeacon of Angers; born at Tours in the end of the Tenth Century; flourished there A. D. 1030. was made archdeacon in 1047. began to spread his Doctrine in 1048. and died Jan. 6. 1088.  
EUSEBIUS BRUNO, Bishop of Angers, ordained in 1047.  
THEODUIN or DIETWIN, Bishop of Liege; made in 1048.  
ADELMAN or ALMAN, A Clerk of the Church of Liege, and afterwards Bishop of Brescia, flourished about 1050.  
ASCELIN, A Monk of St. Eurou: flourished about 1050.  
HUGH, Bishop of Langres; born in the end of the T●nth Century, ordained in 1031. died in 1052.  
GREGORY VI Pope; was chosen in 1044. deposed and banished in the end of the Year 1046.  
CLEMENT II. Pope; chosen in the beginning of the year 1047. died in the Month of October in the same year.  
LEO IX. Pope; ordained in 1049. died in 1054.  
VICTOR II. Pope; advanced to that Dignity in 1055. died in 1057.  
STEPHEN IX. Pope; made Abbot of Mount Cassin, and afterwards Pope in 1057. died in 1058.  
NICOLAS II. Pope; chosen in 1058. died in 1061.  
HUMBERT, Cardinal; flourished about 1050. was sent Legate into the Levant in 1054. and died in 1060.  
MICHAEL CERULARIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople; made about 1050. was banished in 1058. and died in 1059.  
NICETAS PECTORATUS, A Monk of Studa, flourished about 1050.  
DOMINIC, Patriarch of Grado; flourished at the same time.  
PETER, Patriarch of Antioch; flourished in the middle of this Century.  
ANSELM, Dean of Namur: flourished about 1050.  
HERMANNUS CONTRACTUS, A Monk of Richenaw, flourished about 1040. and died in 1054.  
THEOPHANES the CERAMEAN, Archbishop of Tauromenium, flourished in the middle of the Century.  
NILUS' DOXOPATRIUS, Archimandrita or Abbot of his Monastery, flourished in the middle of the Century.  
GUALDO, A Monk of Corbie, flourished about 1050.  
DROGO, Bishop of Terovane, ordained in 1036. died in 1070.  
HELGAUD, A Monk of Fleury, wrote about 1050.  
WIPPO, Chaplain to the Emperor Henry III. flourished under him.  
EBERVIN or EVERVIN, Abbot of St. Maurice at Tolen, flourished about 1050.  
EVERSHELM, Abbot of Aumont, flourished about 1050. and died in 1069.  
GERVASE, Archbishop of Rheims; flourished about 1050. and died in 1070.  
GUIBERT, archdeacon of Toul, flourished about 1050.  
ANSELM, A Benedictin Monk of Rheims, flourished about the same time.  
JOHN, Archbishop of Euchaita, flourished in the middle of the Century.  
JOHN of JEANNELIN, Abbot of Erbrestein; made in 1052. died in 1078.  
HEPIDANNUS, A Monk of St. Gall; flourished in the middle of the Century, and died in 1080.  
LANFRANC, Archbishop of Canterbury; was born at Pavia in the beginning of the Century, and assumed the Monastic Habit in the Abbey of Bec, A. D. 1041. A little while after, he was chosen Prior, and made Abbot of St. Stephen at Caen in 1063. and at last Archbishop of Canterbury in 1070. He died in 1089.  
GUITMOND, Archbishop of Aversa, flourished about 1060. and died in 1080.  
DURAND, Abbot of Troarn; flourished about the same time, and died in 1088.  
PETER DAMIAN, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia; born in the beginning of the Century, advanced to those Dignities in 1057. died in 1072.  
ALEXANDER II. Pope; chosen in 1061. died in 1073.  
ALPHANUS, Archbishop of Salerno, chosen in 1057. died in 1086.  
GREGORY VII. Pope; began to flourish after the year 1030. under Benedict IX. and Gregory VI and passed beyond the Mountains with the latter in 1047. After whose death he retired to Clunie, and continued there till the time of Pope Leo IX. who brought him back to Rome in 1049. Afterwards he obtained the greatest Share in the management of the Affairs of the Church of Rome, and was at last advanced to the Papal Dignity in 1073. He died in 1085.  
BENNO, Cardinal; flourished under Pope Gregory VII. from A. D. 1073. to 1086.  
HUGH, Bishop of Die, and afterwards Archbishop of Lions; installed in the Bishopric of Die in 1074. and translated to the Metropolitan See of Lions in 1083.  
MANASSES, Archbishop of Rheims, ordained in 1070. and deposed in 1080.  
THIERRY, Bishop of Verdun; flourished about 1080.  
FRANCO, A Philosopher at Liege, flourished in 1060.  
WARIN, Abbot of St. Arnulphus at Mets, flourished about 1060.  
MICHAEL PSELLUS, A Senator of Constantinople, flourished at the same time and died in 1078.  
CONSTANTIN LICHUDES, Patriarch of Censtantinople; succeeded Michael Cerularius in that Dignity in 1058. and died in 1066.  
JOHN XIPHILIN, Patriarch of Constantinople; made in 1066. died in 1078.  
ALBERIC, A Monk of Mount Cassin, flourished about 1060.  
METELLUS, Abbot of Tergensee, flourished about the same time.  
DESIDERIUS, Abbot of Mount Cassin, and afterwards Pope, under the Name of Victor III. flourished in that Abbey under Gregory VII. whom he succeeded in the Popedom A. D. 1086. and died in 1087.  
WILLIAM, Abbot of St. Arnulphus at Mets, flourished about 10●0.  
ROBERT de TOMBALENE, Abbot of St. Vigour at Bayeux, flourished about 1070.  
LAMBERT of ASCHAFFEMBURG, A Monk of Hirsfeldt, wrote after the Year 1077.  
MARIANUS SCOTUS, Born in 1028. wrote after 1083. and died in 1086.  
ANSELM, Bishop of Lucca, chosen in 1071. ordained in 1073. died in 1086.  
THEOPHYLACT, Archbishop of Acris, flourished from 1070. to the end of the Century.  
FOLCARD, A Monk of Saint Berthin, flourished about 1080.  
GERARD, Abbot of St. Vincent at Laon, flourished at the same time, and died in 1095.  
WILLERAM, Abbot of St. Peter at Mersburg, flourished about 1080.  
URSIO, Abbot of Aumont, wrote about the same time.  
AMATUS, A Bishop in Italy, flourished at the same time.  
ADAM, A Canon of Bremen, flourished at the same time.  
JOAN. THRACESIUS SCYLITZES, Curopalata; flourished under the Emperor Alexis Comnenus, that is to say, after 1080.  
ENGELBERT, Archbishop of Trier, flourished about 1080.  
CONRADE, Bishop of Utrecht, flourished about the same time.  
WENERIC, Bishop of Verceil, flourished at the same time.  
ULRIC, A Monk of Clunie, flourished about the same time.  
BERNARD, A Monk of Corbie in Saxony, flourished about the same time.  
WALERAN, Bishop of Naumberg; flourished in the end of the Century.  
URBAN II. Pope; chosen in 1087. died in 1099.  
DEUS- DEDIT, Cardinal; flourished about 1085.  
LAMBERT, Bishop of Arras, flourished in 1090.  
RAYNOLD, Archbishop of Rheims, flourished at the same time.  
NICOLAS, surnamed the Grammarian, Patriarch of Constantinople; chosen in 1084.  
SIMEON, the Young, Abbot of Xerocerce, flourished in the end of the Century.  
St. ANSELM, Archbishop of Canterbury; born A. D. 1033. chosen Abbot of Bec in 1078. and Archbishop of Canterbury in 1093. He died in 1109.  
THIERRY or THEODORIC, Abbot of St. Trudo; flourished about 1090. and died in 1107.  
PETER, Chartophylax, or Keeper of the Records of the Church of Constantinople, wrote about 1090.  
INGULPHUS, Abbot of Croyland, made in 1076. died in 1109.  
GEORGIUS CEDRENUS, A Greek Monk; flourished in the end of the Century.  
ROSCELIN, A Clerk of the Church of Compiegne, flourished in the end of the Century.  
PAUL, Provost of Benrieden; flourished in the end of the Century.  
CONRADE, A Monk of Bruvilliers; flourished in the end of the Century.  
GEFFREY de MALETERRE, A Monk of Normandy, flourished at the same time.  
BERTULPHUS or BERNULPHUS, A Priest of Constance, flourished at the same time.  
WILLIAM of APULIA, Wrote in the end of this Century.  
NALGOD, A Monk of Clunie; flourished at the same time.  
OTHLO, A Monk of St. Boniface, flourished at the same time.  
GREGORY, Cardinal, flourished at the same time.  
PETER de HONESTIS, A Clerk of R●venna, flourished at the same time.  
THIBAUD or THEOBALD, A Clerk of the Church of Etampes, flourished at the same time.  
EADMER, A Monk of Canterbury, the Pupil of St. Anselm; flourished in the end of the Century, and died in 1121.  
GISLEBERT, A Monk of Westminster, flourished in the end of the Century.  
BERNARD, A Monk of Clunie, flourished at the same time.  
BERNARD, A Clerk of the Church of Utrecht, flourished in the end of this Century.  
ADAM, Abbot of Perseme, flourished about the same time.  
ALBERT, A Benedictin Monk of Mets, flourished at the same time.  
ERARD, A Benedictin Monk, flourished at the same time.  
BERTHORIUS, Abbot of Mount Cassin, flourished at the same time.  
GONTHIER or GONTHERIUS, A Monk of St. Amand, flourished at the same time.  
ANASTASIUS, A Monk of St. Sergius at Angers, lived at the same time.  
BAUDRY, Bishop of Dol; flourished at the same time.  
GAUNILON, An English Monk; flourished at the same time.  
NICETAS SERRO, Archbishop of Heraclea, flourished at the same time.  
SAMUEL of MOROCCO, A Converted Jew, wrote in the end of the Century.  
ALGER, Deacon of Liege, and afterwards Monk of Clunie, flourished A. D. 1130.  
NICOLAS, Bishop of Methone, flourished in the end of the Eleventh Century, or rather in the Twelfth.  
SAMONAS, Archbishop of Gaza, flourished about the same time.    

A TABLE of the WORKS of the Ecclesiastical Writers of the Eleventh Century.  

SYLVESTER II. Pope. His Genuine Works still extant.  
THree Letters.  
A Discourse against Simoniacal Practices, not to mention some Pieces composed by him before he was made Pope.   

St. FULBERT Bishop of Chartres. Genuine Works.  
CXXXIV Letters.  
IX Sermons.  
A Collection of certain Passages of Holy Scripture, about the Mysteries of the Trinity and of the Incarnation.  
A Penitential.  
A Collection of Passages of Scripture relating to the Eucharist.  
Certain Poetical Pieces.  
A Letter about the use of Church-Revenues, published by Father Dachery.  
The Life of St. Auspert.   

WILLIAM, Abbot of St. Benignus at Dijon. A Genuine Piece.  
His Letter to Pope John XVIII.   

GODEHARD, Bishop of Hildesheim. Genuine Works.  
Five Letters.   

GOSBERT, Abbot of Tergensee. His Genuine Pieces.  
Four Letters.   

BURCHARD Bishop of Worms. Genuine Works.  
His Decretals divided into twenty Books.   

MEGENFROY or MEGINFROY, a Monk of Fulda.  


A Genuine Piece.  
The Life of St. Emmeran.    


Works lost.  
XXIV Books of History.     

ERCHENFROY or ERCHINFROY Abbot of Melch. A Genuine Work.  
An History of the Life and Miracles of Saint Colman.   

SYRUS, Monk of Clunie. A Genuine Piece still extant.  
The Life of St. Maiol.   

OSBERT, or OSBERN, a Monk and Chanter of Canterbury. Genuine Works.  
The Lives of St. Dunstan, St. Odo, and St. Alphegus.   

ADELBOLD, Bishop of Utrecht. A Genuine Piece.  
The Life of the Emperor Henry II.   

RUPERT, Abbot of Mount Cassin. Works lost.  
Sermons and other Tracts mentioned by Trithemius.   

DITHMAR, Bishop of Mersburg. A Genuine Work.  
An Historical Chronicle divided into 7 Books.   

BENEDICT VIII. Pope. His Genuine Works.  
A Discourse made in the Council of Pavia, concerning the Incontinency of Clergymen.  
A Bull in favour of the Abbey of Clunie.   

LEO, surnamed the Grammarian. A Genuine Work that we have.  
His Chronicle from A. C. 813. to 1013.   

GUARLIN, or GAUSLIN, Archbishop of Bourges.  


A Genuine Piece.  
A Letter to King Robert.    


Pieces lost.  
Two Letters to St. Fulbert.     

TANGMARUS, Dean of Hildesheim. A Genuine Piece.  
The Life of St. Bernard Bishop of Hildesheim.   

GUY ARETIN, Abbot of La Croix St. Leufroy. Works lost.  
A Method for attaining to the Science of Music, called Micrologus.  
A Treatise of the Body and Blood of Jes▪ Christ.   

ARIBO, Archbishop of Mentz. Works lost.  
A Commentary on the five gradual Psalms.  
A Letter to Berno Abbot of Richenaw.   

BERNO, Abbot of Richenaw.  


His Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of the Office of the Mass.  
The Lives of St. Ulric and St. Meginrard.    


Works lost.  
A Treatise of the coming of our Lord.  
Another on the Fasts.  
A Tract dedicated to Pilgrin Archbishop of Colen.  
A Treatise of Musical Instruments.  
Another of the Monochord.  
Divers Letters.     

ADEMAR, or AIMAR de CHABANOIS, a Monk of St. Cibar.  


Works lost.  
A Chronicle, or History of France.  
A List of the Abbots of St. Martial at Lymoges.  
Certain Pieces in Acrostic Verse.    


Manuscript Works.  
A Letter directed to Jordan Bishop of Lymoges.  
Several Sermons about the Apostleship of Saint Martial.     

HUGH, archdeacon of Tours. A Genuine Piece.  
A Dialogue about an Apparition seen by Herveus, Treasurer of St. Martin at Tours.   

ARNULPHUS, Monk of St. Emmeran. A Genuine Piece still extant.  
The Life of St. Emmeran, by way of Dialogue.   

ODORAN, a Monk of St. Peter le Vif. A Genuine Work.  
His Chronicle, ending A. D. 1032.   

AEGELNOTUS, Archbishop of Canterbury. Works lost.  
A Piece in commendation of the Virgin Mary.  
Several Letters and some others Works.   

EBERARD, the Pupil of St. Harvic. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of St. Harvic.   

JOHN XVIII. Pope. Genuine Pieces.  
Three Letters.   

EUGESIPPUS, A Genuine Piece.  
A Geographical Treatise of the Holy Land.   

BRUNO Bishop of Wurtzburg. His Genuine Works.  
A Commentary on the Book of Psalms.  
Annotations on the Canticles, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creeds.   

GLABER RADULPHUS Monk of Clunie. His Genuine Works still in our Possession.  
An Ecclesiastical History dedicated to Odilo Abbot of Clunie.  
The Life of St. William Abbot of St. Benignus at Dijon.   

ARNOLD, a Canon of Herfeldt. A Genuine Piece.  
The Life of St. Godehard Bishop of Hildesheim, published by Browerus.   

ALEXIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople. Genuine Works.  
Certain Ecclesiastical Constitutions.   

CAMPANUS, a Philosopher of Lombardy. Works lost.  
A Treatise of Ecclesiastical Numbers.  
— Another of the making of Sun-dials'.  
— Another of the Calendar, with some other Pieces.   

BERENGARIUS or BERENGER, archdeacon of Angers.  


Genuine Works.  
Three several Confessions of Faith.  
A Letter directed to Ascelin.  
Another Letter to Richard.  
Part of his Treatise against the second Confession of Faith.    


Works lost.  
A Manuscript Treatise against the Third Confession of Faith.  
A Treatise against Adelman and others.     

EUSEBIUS BRUNO, Bishop of Angers. A Genuine Piece still extant.  
A Letter to Berenger.   

THEODUIN or DIETWIN Bishop of Liege. A Genuine Piece.  
A Letter against Berenger, directed to Henry King of France.   

ADELMAN, or ALMAN, a Clerk of the Church of Liege, and afterwards Bishop of Brescia.  


A Genuine Piece.  
A Letter to Berenger.    


A Piece lost.  
A Letter to Paulinus Bishop of Mets.     

ASCELIN, a Monk of St. Eurou. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to Berenger about the Eucharist.   

HUGH, Bishop of Langres. A Genuine Piece still extant.  
A Letter against Berenger.   

GREGORY VI Pope. A genuine Piece.  
A Circular Letter to all the Faithful.   

CLEMENT II. Pope. A Genuine Piece.  
A Letter to John Archbishop of Salerno.   

LEO IX. Pope. Genuine Works.  
XII Letters.  
Divers Bulls.   

VICTOR II. Pope. A Genuine Piece.  
A single Letter.   

STEPHEN IX. Pope. Genuine Works.  
A Letter to the Archbishop of Rheims.  
Another Letter to the Bishop of Marsi.   

NICOLAS II. Pope. Genuine Works.  
IX Letters.   

HUMBERT, Cardinal. Genuine Works still extant.  
An Answer to Michael Cerularius' Letter.  
A Confutation of Nicetas Pectoratus' Tract against the Latin Church.  
A Copy of the Sentence of Excommunication denounced against Michael Cerularius.   

MICHAEL CERULARIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople. His Genuine Works.  
A Letter written in his own Name and under that of Leo of Acris, to John Bishop of Trani, against the Church of Rome.  
Two Letters to Peter Patriarch of Antioch.  
A Form of Excommunication of the Pope's Legates.   

NICETAS PECTORATUS, a Monk of Studa.  


Genuine Works.  
A Piece against the Latin Church.  
A Fragment of his Treatise of the Soul.  
Two Hymns.    


A Work lost.  
A Treatise of the Soul.     

DOMINIC, Patriarch of Grado. A Genuine Piece.  
A Letter to Peter Patriarch of Antioch.   

PETER, Patriarch of Antioch. Genuine Pieces still extant.  
A Reply to Dominic Patriarch of Grado, with another to Michael Cerularius, about the Differences between the Greek and Latin Churches.   

ANSELM, Dean of Namur. A Genuine Work.  
An History of the Bishops of Liege, from St. Theodard to Wason.   

HERMANNUS CONTRACTUS, a Monk of Richenaw.  


A Genuine Work.  
A Chronicle from the Creation of the World, to the Year. 1052. continued by Bertulphus.    


Doubtful Works.  
Anthem in honour of the Virgin Mary.  
Some other Divine Poems.    


Works lost.  
A Treatise of Music.  
— Another of the Monochord.  
Three Books of the manner of making the Astrolabe, and its usefulness.  
One Book of the Eclipses.  
One Book of the Calendar.  
A Treatise of the Quadrature of the Circle.  
— Another of the Discord of Sounds.  
— Another of Physiognomy.  
The Lives of divers Saints.     

THEOPHANES the CERAMEAN, Archbishop of Taurominum. Genuine Works still extant.  
LXXII Homilies.   

NILUS' DOXOPATRIUS, Archimandrita. A Genuine Work.  
A Treatise of the Patriarchal Sees.   

GUALDO, a Monk of Corbie. A Genuine Piece.  
The Life of Anscharius Bishop of Hamburgh.   

DROGO, Bishop of Terovane.  


Genuine Works.  
Certain Relations of the Lives of St. Godelena and St. Oswald.    


A Manuscript Piece.  
The Life of St. Vinock.     

HELGAUD, a Monk of Fleury. A Genuine Piece.  
The Life of King Robert.   

WIPPO, Chaplain to the Emperor Henry III. Genuine Works.  
An History of the Life of the Emperor Conrade.  
A Panegyric on the Emperor Henry III.   

EBERVIN, or EVERVIN, Abbot of St. Maurice at Tolen. A Genuine Piece still extant.  
The Life of St. Simeon of Syracuse.   

EVERSHEIM, Abbot of Aumont. A Genuine Piece.  
The Life of Poppo Abbot of Stavelo.   

GERVASE, Archbishop of Rheims. A Genuine Piece.  
A Letter to Pope Nicolas. II.   

GUIBERT, archdeacon of Toul. A Genuine Piece.  
The Life of Pope Leo IX.   

ANSELM, a Benedictin Monk of Rheims. A Work lost.  
The Itinerary of Pope Leo IX.   

JOHN, Archbishop of Euchaita. Genuine Works.  
Divers Poetical Pieces about the Festivals of the year.  
The Lives of St. Eusebia and St. Doroitheus.   

JOHN, or JEANNELIN, Abbot of Erbrestein.  


Genuine Works that we have.  
Several Extracts of Prayers, with a Preface composed by that Author.  
Three Letters.    


Manuscript Pieces.  
Certain Forms of Prayer dedicated to the Empress Agnes.    


Works lost.  
A Treatise of the Institution of a Widow.  
— Another of the Life and Conversation of Virgins.  
— Another of Alms.  
— Another of the Heavenly Jerusalem, or of Contemplation.     

HEPIDANNUS, a Monk of St. Gall. Genuine Works.  
A Chronicle.  
The Life of St. Wiborada.   

LANFRANC, Archbishop of Canterbury.  


Genuine Works.  
A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles.  
A Treatise of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST.  
Divers Letters.    


Doubtful Works.  
Certain Constitutions of the Order of Saint Benedict.  
A Treatise of Confession.  
A Discourse on the principal Duties of the Monastic Life.    


Works lost.  
An Ecclesiastical History.  
The Life of William the Conqueror King of England.  
A Commentary on the Book of Psalms.     

GUITMOND, Archbishop of Aversa. Genuine Works still in our Possession.  
Three Books of the Eucharist against Berenger.  
An Exposition of the Articles of Faith relating to the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Eucharist.  
A Discourse made to William I. King of England, upon his refusal of a Bishopric offered to him by that Prince.   

DURAND, Abbot of Troarn. A Genuine Piece.  
A Treatise of the Eucharist against Berenger.   

PETER DAMIAN, Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia.  


Genuine Works.  
A Volume of Letters divided into e●●ht Books.  
●X. Tracts.  
Divers Sermons.  
The Lives of St. Odilo, St. Maur Bishop of Cesena. St. Romualdus, and St. Rodulphus.  
The History of the Passion of St. Flora and St. Lucilla.  
Divers Prayers, Hymns and Proses.    


Supposititious Works.  
Certain Sermons, which are among those that are contained in the Collection of his Works.  
Five Sermons published by Father Luke Dachery.     

ALEXANDER II. Pope. Genuine Pieces.  
XLV entire Letters, and several Fragments of other Letters.   

ALPHANUS, Archbishop of Salerno. Doubtful Works.  
Divers Hymns and other Poetical Pieces.   

GREGORY VII. Pope.  


His Genuine Works.  
CCCLIX Letters, a Register of which is composed, divided into nine Books.  
IX or X other Letters.  
A Decretal Letter to Otho Bishop of Constance, against the Marriage of Clergymen, and their keeping of Concubines, with the Apology of the first Council of Rome, made upon that account by his Order.    


A Dubious Work.  
A Commentary on the seven Penitential Psalms.    


A Manuscript Work.  
A Commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel.    


A Spurious Work.  
A Piece, called Dictatus Papae.     

BENNO, Cardinal. Genuine Works that we have.  
Two Books against Pope Gregory VII.   

HUGH, Bishop of Die, and afterwards Archbishop of Lions. Genuine Works.  
Divers Letters to Gregory VII. about the Affairs of France, which are among those of that Pope.  
Two Letters to the Princess Mathilda against the Election of Pope Victor.  
Two Letters concerning the Instalment of Lambert in the Bishopric of Arras.   

MANASSES, Archbishop of Rheims. Genuine Works.  
A Letter to Pope Gregory VII.  
An Apology or Manifesto in his favour.   

THIERY or THEODORIC, Bishop of Verdun. A Genuine Work.  
A Circular Letter against Pope Gregory VII.   

FRANCO, a Philosopher of Liege. Works lost.  
A Treatise of the Quadrature of the Circle.  
Certain Treatises on the Holy Scripture.  
One of the Calendar.   

WARIN, Abbot of St. Arnulphus at Mets. A Genuine Piece still extant.  
A Letter to John, surnamed Jeannelin.   

MICHAEL PSELLUS, a Senator of Constantinople.  


His Genuine Works.  
A Paraphrase in Verse, with a Commentary on the Canticles.  
Certain Questions about the Trinity and the Incarnation.  
A Dialogue concerning the Operation of Demons.  
Other Poetical and Philosophical Works.    


Works that are in Manuscript, or lost.  
A Treatise against Eunomius.  
An Epitome of the Pentateuch, or Books of Moses.  
Certain Theological Questions.  
Divers Tracts.  
Homilies.  
Letters.     

CONSTANTIN LICHUDES, Patriarch of Constantinople. Genuine Works.  
His Constitutions and Synodal Decisions.   

JOHN XIPHILIN, Patriarch of Constantinople. Genuine Works still extant.  
An Homily on the Cross.  
Certain Decrees about Marriage.   

ALBERIC, a Monk of Mount Cassin. Works lost.  
A Piece against Berenger.  
A Treatise of the Science of Music.  
A Book of the Forms of Saluting and Discoursing.  
A Treatise against the Emperor Henry, about the Election of Popes.  
— Another of the Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  
Divers Hymns.  
Certain particular Discourses.   

METELLUS, Abbot of Tergensee. Genuine Pieces.  
Quirinales; or Eclogues in honour of St. Quirinus.   

DESIDERIUS, Abbot of Mount Cassin, and afterwards Pope under the Name of Victor III. A Genuine Piece.  
A Dialogue about the Miracles of St. Benedict.   

WILLIAM, Abbot of St. Arnulphus at Mets. Genuine Works still extant.  
Seven Letters and a Prayer.   

ROBERT de TOMBALENE, Abbot of St. Vigour at Bayeux. Genuine Works.  
A Commentary on the Canticles, printed under the name of Radulphus Abbot of Fontanelle.  
A Preface to that Commentatry.   

MARIANUS SCOTUS. A Genuine Work.  
A Chronicle from the Creation of the World to A. D. 1083.   

LAMBERT of ASCHAMBURG, a Monk of Hirsfeld. A Genuine Work.  
An Historical Chronology, from the Creation of the World to A. D. 1077.   

ANSELM, Bishop of Lucca.  


Genuine Works.  
Two Books against Guibert the Antipope.  
A Collection of Sentences, to show, that Kings are not the lawful Proprietors of Church-Revenues.    


A Spurious Work.  
A Collection of Canons.     

THEOPHYLACT, Archbishop of Acris.  


Genuine Works still extant.  
Commentaries on the Four Gospels, on the Acts of the Apostles, on St. Paul's Epistles, and on four of the lesser Prophets.  
LXXV Letters.  
A Discourse on the Cross.  
An Instruction for Constantin Po●phyrogenne●a.    


Manuscript Works.  
Commentaries on the rest of the lesser Prophets.  
A Treatise of the Controversies between the Greeks and Latins.  
A Discourse to the Emperor Alexis Com●●nus.     

FOLCARD, a Monk of St. B●rthin. Genuine Pieces.  
The Lives of St. Be●thin and St. Omer.   

GERARD, Abbot of St. Vincent at Laon. A Genuine Piece.  
The Life of St. Adelard.   

WILLERAM, Abbot of St. Peter at Mersburg. A Genuine Work still extant.  
An Epithalamium on the Marriage of JESUS CHRIST and the Church.   

URSIO, Abbot of Aumont. A Genuine Work.  
The History of the Life and Actions of Saint Marcelles Pope.   

AMATUS a Bishop in Italy. Works lost.  
An History of the Normans.  
Poems on St. Peter and St. Paul, in commendation of Pope Gregory VII. on the devout Prayers of the Rational, and on the Heavenly Jerusalem.   

ADAM, Canon of Bremen▪ Genuine Work●.  
An History of the Church of Bremen.  
A Treatise of the Situation of the Northern Kingdoms.   

JOAN. THRACESIUS SCYLITZES, Curopalata. A Genuine Work.  
A Continuation of Theophanes' Chronicle, from A. C. 813. to 1081.   

ENGELBERT, Archbishop of Trier. A Genuine Piece.  
A Letter to Pope Gregory VII.   

CONRADE, Bishop of Utrecht. A Genuine Piece still extant.  
An Apology against Pope Gregory VII.   

WENERIC, Bishop of Verceil. A Genuine Piece.  
A Letter written in the Name of Thierry Bishop of Verdun, to Pope Gregory VII.   

ULRIC, a Monk of Clunie. Genuine Works.  
Constitutions of the Abbey of Clunie.   

BERNARD, a Monk of Corbie in Saxony. A Work that is lost.  
A Tract against the Emperor Henry IU.   

WALERAN, Bishop of Naumburg. A Genuine Piece.  
A Letter to S. Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury.   

URBAN II. Pope. Genuine Works.  
A Collection of XXI Letters.  
Another Collection of XXXV Letters.  
Another Collection of divers Letters, about the Affair of Lambert Bishop of Arras.   

DEUS-DEDIT, Cardinal. A Manuscript Work.  
A Collection of Canons.   

LAMBERT, Bishop of Arras. Genuine Pieces that we have.  
Five Letters.   

RAYNOLD, Archbishop of Rheims. Genuine Pieces.  
Certain Letters, which are inserted in the Second and Fifth Tomes of the Spicilegium, by Father Luke Dachery.   

NICOLAS, surnamed the Grammarian, Patriarch of Constantinople. His Genuine Pieces.  
A Letter to the Emperor Alexis Comnenus.  
Decrees about Marriage.   

SIMEON the Young Abbot of Xerocerce. His Genuine Works.  
XXXIII Orations.  
A Treatise of Piety, called Hymns of the Divine Love.  
CCXXVIII Maxims.  
Two small Treatises, viz. one about the Impressions made by the Elements on the Bodies and Minds of Men; and the other, of the manner of God's Omnipresence.   

Works in Manuscript, or lost.  
Divers Homilies and Hymns.   

St. ANSELM, Archbishop of Canterbury.  


His Genuine Works still extant.  
Two Treatises, called Monologia and Proslogia.  
A Reply to Gaunilon.  
A Treatise of Faith, the Trinity and the Incarnation.  
— Another of the Procession of the Holy Ghost.  
— Another of the fall of the Devil.  
— Another showing why God was made Man.  
— Another of Original Sin.  
— Another of Truth, of the Will and its Freedom.  
— Another of the Agreement between freewill and Predestination.  
A Letter to Waleran Bishop of Naumburg about the use of unleavened Bread.  
A Treatise of the Restauration of Clerks, who have committed Sins of Uncleanness.  
— Another of Marriages between near Relations.  
— Another of the Will of God.  
— Another of Peace and Concord.  
— Another of a Grammarian.  
XVI Homilies-  
An Exhortation to the Contempt of Temporal Things.  
An Admonition to a dying Person.  
XXI Meditations.  
LXXIV Prayers.  
Four Books of Letters; to which are annexed two others concerning the Eucharist.   

Spurious Works.  
A Poem on the Contempt of the World.  
The Psalter of the Virgin Mary.  
A Dialogue about Divinity.  
— Another concerning the Passion of JESUS CHRIST.  
A Treatise of the Dimensions of the Cross.  
— Another of the Conception of the Virgin Mary.  
— Another of the Festival of her Conception.  
— Another on the same Subject.  
The History of the Passion of St. Guigner.  
A Tract about the Stability of the Monastic Life.  
Two Dialogues concerning Religion.  
A Relation of certain Miracles.  
Divers Works printed among those of other Authors.     

THIERRY, Abbot of St. Trudo.  


Genuine Works still in our Possession.  
The Lives of St. Bavo, St. Trudo, St. Rumoldus, and St. Landrada.   

Works lost.  
The Life of St. Benedict.  
An Account of the Translation of his Body.  
The Life of St. Amelberga.  
The Histories of the Old and New Testament in Verse.     

PETER Chartophylax, or Keeper of the Records of the Church of Constantinople. Genuine Piece● that we have.  
Answers to certain Cases relating to Church-Discipline.   

INGULPHUS, Abbot of Croyland. A Genuine Work.  
An History of the Abbey of Croyland.   

GEORGIUS CEDRENUS, a Greek Monk. A Genuine Piece.  
His Annals or Epitome of History, from the Creation of the World to A. D. 1057.   

ROSCELIN, a Clerk of the Church of Compiegne. A Piece that is lost.  
A Treatise of the Holy Trinity.   

PAUL, Provost of Benrieden. Genuine Works.  
An History of the Actions of Pope Gregory VII.  
The Life of St. Herlucia.   

CONRADE, Monk of Bruvilliers. A Genuine Piece.  
The Life of St. Wolphelin Abbot of Bruvilliers.   

GEOFFREY de MALTERRE, a Monk of Normandy. A Genuine Work still extant.  
An History of the Conquests of the Normans.   

BERTULPHUS or BERNULPHUS, a Priest of Constance. His Genuine Works.  
A Continuation of Hermannus Contractus' Chronicle.  
Some other small Tracts.   

WILLIAM of Apulia. A Genuine Piece.  
A Poem on the Conquests of the Normans.   

NALGOD, a Monk of Clunie. Genuine Works.  
The Lives of St. Odo and St. Mayol.   

OTHLO, Monk of St. Boniface. A Genuine Piece.  
The Life of St. Boniface.   

GREGORY, Cardinal. A Manuscript Work.  
A Collection of Canons called Polycarp.   

PETER de HONESTIS, a Clerk of Ravenna. A Genuine Piece still extant.  
A Constitution for Canons.   

THIBAUD or THEOBALD, a Clerk of the Church of Etampes. A Genuine Piece.  
A Letter to Roscelin, inserted in the Third Tome▪ of the Spicilegium by Father Luke Dachery.   

EADMER, a Monk of Canterbury, and the Pupil of St. Anselm.  


Genuine Works.  
The Life of St. Anselm.  
An History of Novelties, divided into 6 Books.  
A Treatise of the Excellency of the Virgin Mary.  
— Another of her Cardinal Virtues.  
A Discourse on Blessedness.  
A Collection of Similitudes taken out of Saint Anselm's Works.   

Manuscript Works.  
A Treatise of Ecclesiastical Liberty.  
The Lives of St. Wilfrid and St. Dunstan.  
Divers Letters.     

GISLEBERT or GILBERT, a Monk of Westminster.  
A Dialogue about Religion between a Christian and a Jew.   

BERNARD, a Monk of Clunie. A Manuscript Work.  
Customs of the Order of Clunie.   

BERNARD, a Clerk of the Church of Utrecht. A Work that is lost.  
A Commentary on the Eclogues of Theodulus.   

ADAM, Abbot of Perseme.  


Genuine Pieces still extant.  
Letters published by M. Baluzius.   

Works lost.  
Sermons and Commentaries on the Holy Scripture.     

ALBERT, a Benedictin Monk of Mets. A Piece that is lost.  
An History of his Time.   

ERARD, a Benedictin Monk. Works lost.  
A Commentary on the Pentateuch.  
Divers Homilies.   

BERTHORIUS Abbot of Mount Cassin. Works lost.  
Several Treatises of Philosophy and Physic.  
A Discourse to his Monks.   

GONTHIER or GONTHERIUS, a Monk of St. Amand. A Work that is lost.  
A Relation of the Martyrdom of St. Cyricius in Verse.   

ANASTASIUS, a Monk of St. Sergius at Angers. A Genuine Piece still extant.  
A Confession of Faith.   

BAUDRY, Bishop of Dol. A Genuine Piece.  
The Epitaph of Berenger.   

GAUNILON, an English Monk. A Genuine Work.  
A Treatise of the Demonstration of the Existence of God.   

NICETAS SERRON, Archbishop of Heraclea.  


Genuine Works.  
A Commentary on St. Gregory Nazianzen's Homilies.  
A Commentary on the Poems of the same Saint.   

A Supposititious Work.  
A Catena on the Book of Job.     

SAMUEL of Morocco a Converted Jew. A Genuine Piece.  
A Treatise to show that the Messiah is come.   

ALGER, a Deacon of Liege, and afterwards Monk of Clunie.  


His Genuine Works still extant.  
Three Books of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST.  
A Preface to his Treatise of Mercy and Justice.   

A Manuscript Work.  
A Treatise of Mercy and Justice.   

Works lost.  
An History of Liege.  
Divers Letters.     

NICOLAS, Bishop of Methone.  


A Genuine Piece.  
A Treatise of the Eucharist.   

Manuscript Works.  
Several Treatises of the Procession of the Holy Ghost against the Latins.     

SAMONAS' Archbishop of Gaza. A Genuine Piece.  
A Dialogue between a Christian and a Saracen about the Eucharist.    

A TABLE of the Acts, Letters and Canons of the COUNCILS held in the Eleventh Century.  
Councils, Years, Acts, Letters, Petitions and Councils. A Council at Compiegne, 1000 Mention made of that Council in the first Letter of Pope Sylvester II. A Council at Dortmund, 1005 Mention made of that Council by Dithmar. A Council at Francfurt, 10●6 Acts. A Council at Eenham in England, 1010 Acts containing divers Constitutions. A Council at Leon, 1012 Seven Canons and forty Constitutions. An Assembly in England, 1012 King Ethelred's Laws. A Council held at 

Pavia,  
Orleans,  
Selingenstadt,  
Arras,  
Bourges,  
Lymoges,   1014 & 1024 A Discourse against the Incontinence of Clergy men. Eight Decrees against Clerks who keep Concubines. The Emperor's Edict for the Confirmation of those Decrees. 1017 The History of that Council. 1023 Twenty Canons and a Form for the holding of Synods. 1025 Acts, with the Letter of Gerard Bishop of Cambray and Arras 1031 XX Canons. A Declaration that Saint Martial should bear the Name of an Apostle. 1031 Acts. An Assembly in England, 1032 King Canui's Laws. Councils held in divers Provinces of France, 1040 Mention made of those Councils by the Contemporary Authors. Councils at Rome, 1046 Mentioned by the Contempory Authors. A Council held at 

Rome against Simony,  
Rome,  
Pavia,  
Mentz,  
Rome against Berenger,  
Brione,  
Verceil,  
Paris,   1047 Mention made of it by Peter Damian. 1049 Mentioned by Peter Damian and Hermannus Contractus. 1049. Mention made of that Council by Hermannus Contractus. 1049 Referred to by Hermannus Contractus and Adam of Bremen. 1050 The History of that Council referred to by Lanfranc. 1050 The History of it cited by Durandus Abbot of Troarn. 1050 The History of it referred to by Lanfranc. Letters by Ascelin and Berenger, concerning that Council. 1050 The History of it by Durand Abbot of Troarn. A Council held at 

Coyaco,  
Roven,  
Siponto,  
Rome,  
Mantua,  
Rome,  
Narbonne,  
Florence,  
Lyons.  
Tours.  
Lisieux.  
Toulouse,  
Rome,  
Rome,  
Melfi,  
Benevento,  
Tours,  
Rome,  
Roven,  
Challon,  
Mantua,  
Rome,  
Another Council at Rome in the same year,  
Elna,  
Mentz,  
Windsor,  
Mentz,  
Winchester,  
Roven,  
Erfurdt,   1050 XIII Canons. 1050 A Letter containing 19 Rules. 1050 Mentioned in the Life of Pope Leo IX. by Guibert. 1051 Mention made of that Council by Peter Damian and Herminnus Contractus. 1052 Mentioned in the Life of Pope Leo IX. by Guibert. 1053 Referred to by Herminnus Contractus, and in a Letter by Pope Leo IX. 1054 An Ecclesiastical Constitution. 1055 The History of that Council by Leo of Ostia. 1055 Acts. 1055 The History of that Council referred to by Guirmond and Lanfranc. 1055 The History of that Council. 1056 XIII Canons. 1057 Mentioned in a Letter by Pope Stephen IX. 1059 Berenger's Retractation. XIII Canons. A Decree against Persons guilty of Simony. A Decree about the Election of Popes. 1059 Mention made of that Council by Peter Damian. 1059 Acts. 1060 X Canons. 1063 XI. Articles against Persons convicted of Simony. 1063 A Confession of Faith relating to the Eucharist. 1063 Acts taken out of the Library of Clunie. 1064 Extract of the Acts in the Historians of that time. 1065 A Decree referred to by Gratian. 1065 Mentioned by Pet. Damian. 1065 Divers Constitutions. 1069 Mention made of it by Peter Damian. 1070 Extracts of the Acts in the Historians of England. 1071 Acts of that Council. 1071 Acts in Lanfranc. 1072 XXIV Canons. 1073 The History of that Council written by Lambert of Aschaffemburg, and 2 Letters of Sigefroy Archbishop of Mentz. A Council held at 

Roven,  
Rome,  
Poitiers,  
Erfurdt,  
Rome,  
Poitiers,  
London,   1074 XIV Canons. 1074 A Relation of that Council in the 77th Letter of the first Book of Pope Gregory VII. See also the 42d and 43d Letters of the same Book. 1074 Mentioned in the Letters of Gregory VII. 1074 The History of it referred to by Lambert of Aschaffemburg. 1075 A Relation of the Transactions of that Council, in the three first Letters of the third Book of Pope Gregory VII. 1075 Mentioned in the Chronicle of St. Maixent. 1075 Acts containing divers Rules. An Assembly at Worms, 1076 A Letter to Pope Gregory and a Decree against him. A Council at Rome, 1076 A Decree against the Emperor Henry, and the Bishops of Lombardy and Germany. A Council at Winchester, 1076 Divers Constitutions. An Assembly at Tribur or Oppenheim, 1076 A Relation of the Transactions in the Historians of that time. An Assembly at For●heim, 1077 An Account of it in the Contemporary Historians. A Council held at 

Clermont,  
Dijon against Persons guilty of Simony.  
Autun,  
Rome in Lent,  
Rome, in the Month of Decemb.  
Poitiers,  
Rome,  
Bourdeaux against Berenger,  
Lions,  
Rome,   1077 Mention made of that Council in the Letters of Pope Gregory VII. 1077 Mentioned likewise in the Letters of Gregory VII. 1077 A Relation of the Transactions in that Council in the 22d Letter of the 4th Book of Gregory VII. See also the 15th and 16th Letters of the fourth Book. 1078 Acts of that Council. 1078 XII Canons or Constitutions. 1078 A Letter by Hugh de Die to Pope Gregory VII. and X Canons. 1079 Acts. 1080 Mentioned in St. Maixent's Chronicle. 1080 Acts in the Historians of that time. 1080 Decrees of that Council. An Assembly at Mentz, 1080 The History of that Assembly by Hugh de Flavigny. An Assembly at Brescia, 1080 A Decree against Pope Gregory VII. and the Emperor Henry's Letter written upon that occasion. A Council held at 

Avignon,  
Lillebonne,  
Meaux,  
Ibid. after the year,  
Meaux,  
Rome,   1080 Mentioned in the Historians of that time. 1080 Divers Canons. 1080 Referred to by the Historians of that time. 1080 A Letter by the Clergy of Noyon to that of Cambray, about the admission of the Sons of Priests into Orders. 1082 Mention made of that Council in the Historions of that time. 1083 Acts. An Assembly at Berhach or Gosler, 1085 A Relation of the Transactions therein by the Historians of that time. An Assembly at Quintilineburg, 1085 Acts. An Assembly at Mentz, 1085 Mention made of it by the Contemporary Writers. A Council held at 

Capua,  
Benevento,  
Rome,  
Melfi,  
Toulouse,  
Benevento,  
Soissons,  
Rheims,  
Troia in Apulia,  
Constance,  
Autun,  
Placentia,  
In England,  
Clermont,  
Lymoges,  
Roven,  
Tours,  
Nismes,  
Bari,  
Rome,  
Rome,  
London,  
London,   1087 Mentioned likewise by the Historians of that time. 1087 Acts of that Council in Leo of Ostia. 1089 An Extract of the Acts in Bertulphus the Historian. 1089 Eight Canons. 1090 Referred to by the Authors of that time. 1091 Four Canons. 1092 Mentioned by the Contemporary Authors. 1092 Mention made of that Council in one of the Letters of Pope Urban II. 1093 Decrees about Marriages between near Relations, etc. 1094 An Extract of the Acts of that Council. 1094 An Extract of the Acts in the Contemporary Writers. 1095 The History of that Council referred to by Bertulphus and XV Canons. 1095 Mentioned in St. Anselm's Life by Eadmer. 1095 Acts, Letters of Pope Urban, and Canons of that Council. 1095 Referred to by the Histoans of that time. 1096 Eight Canons. 1096 Mentioned by the Contemporary Historians. 1096 XVI Canons. 1098 Mention made of that Council in St. Anselm's Life. 1098 Mentioned likewise in the same Life of St. Anselm. 1099 XVIII Canons. 1102 XVIII Canons. 1108 X Canons.   

A TABLE of the WORKS of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the Eleventh Century; disposed according to the Subjects they treat of.  

Works about the Existence of God and his Divine Attributes.  
ST. Anselm's Treatises called Monologia and Proslogia, with another small Tract.  
Gaunilon's Piece concerning the demonstration of the Existence of God.   

Works about the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.  
St. Fulbert's first Letter.  
— his Collection of divers Passages of Scripture.  
Guitmond's Exposition of the Articles of Faith relating to the Mysteries of the Trinity and of the Incarnation.  
Mich. Psellus' Questions about the Trinity and the Incarnation.  
St. Anselm's Treatise on the same Subject.  
— His Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost.  
— His Treatise to show, why God was made Man  
— His Tract about the Will of God.   

Treatises against the Jews.  
St. Fulbert's three Treatises.  
Gislebert's Dialogue about Religion between a Christian and a Jew.  
Samuel of Morocco's Treatise of the coming of the Messiah.   

Other Dogmatical Works.  
Psellus' Dialogue about the Operation of Demons.  
Nicetas Pectoratus' Fragment of a Treatise of the Soul.  
St. Anselm's Treatise of the Devil's Fall.  
— His Treatise of Original Sin.  
— His Treatise of Grace and freewill.   

Works about the Eucharist.  
St. Fulbert's first and second Letter.  
— His Collection of Passages of Scripture.  
Berenger's three Confessions of Faith.  
— His two Letters.  
— Part of his Treatise against his second Confession of Faith.  
Eusebius Bruno's Letter to Berenger.  
Theoduin's Letter against Berenger.  
Adelman's Letter to Berenger.  
Ascelin's Letter to the same Author.  
Hugh Bishop of Langres' Letter against Berenger.  
Lanfranc's Treatise of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST.  
Guitmond's Treatise.  
Durand Abbot of Troarn's Treatise.  
Alger's Piece.  
Hugh of Langres' Treatise.  
St. Anselm's Letter.  
Ana●●asius a Monk of Angers' Treatise.  
Nicolas Bishop of Methone's Treatise.  
Samonas' Archbishop of Gaza's Treatise.   

Books of Church-Discipline.  
Pope Sylvester II's Letters.  
— His Discourse against Simoniacal Practices.  
St. Fulbert's Letters.  
— His Penitential.  
— His Letters about the use of Church-Revenues.  
William bbot of St. Benignus at Dijon's Letter.  
Godehard Bishop of Hildesheim's Letter.  
Gosbert Abbot of Tergernsee's Letters.  
Burchard's Decretal.  
Pope Benedict VIII. 's Discourse against the Incontinency of Clergymen.  
Berno's Treatise of the Office of the Mass.  
Pope John XVIII. 's Letters.  
Alexius Patriarch of Constantinople's Ecclesiastical Constitutions.  
Pope Clement II. 's Letter.  
— Leo IX. 's Letters.  
— Victor II. 's Letter.  
— Stephen IX. 's two Letters.  
— Nicolas II. is Letters.  
Nilus Doxopatrius' Treatise of the Patriarchal Sees.  
John surnamed Jeannelin's three Letters.  
Lanfranc's Letters.  
A Treatise of Confession attributed to him.  
Guitmond's Discourse upon his refusal of a Bishopric.  
Pope Alexander II. is Letters.  
— Gregory VII. 's Letters.  
— His Decretal Letter, with an Apology of the Council of Rome about the Celibacy of Priests.  
Peter Damian's Letter.  
— His Tracts.  
Benno's two Books against Pope Gregory VII.  
Hugh Bishop of Dies Letters.  
Manasses' Letter and Apology.  
Constantin Lichudes Patriarch of Constantinople's Constitutions and Synodical Decisions.  
John Xiphilin Patriarch of Constantinople's Decrees about Marriage.  
William Abbot of St. Arnulphus at Mets' Letters.  
Anselm Bishop of Lucca's two Books against Guibert the Antipope, with a Collection of divers Passages of the Father's about-Revenues by Anselm Bishop of Lucca.  
Thophylact's Letters.  
Engelberts Letter to Pope Gregory VII.  
Conrade Bishop of Utrecht's Apology against the same Pope.  
Thierry Bishop of Verdun's Letter to Gregory VII.  
St. Anselm's Letter to Waleran.  
Pope Urban II. is Letters.  
Lambert Bishop of Arras and Rainold Archbishop of Rheim's Letter.  
Nicholas surnamed the Grammatian Patriarch of Constantinople's Letters and Decrees.  
St. Anselm's Treatise of the Use of unleavened Bread, and of the Ceremonies in the Administration of the Sacraments.  
— His Treatise of Marriages between near Relations.  
— His Letters.  
Peter Chartophylax, or Keeper of the Records of the Church of Constantinople's Reply about certain Points of Church-Discipline.  
Thibaud or Theobald's Letter to Roscelin.   

Controversial Works between the Greek and Latin Churches.  
Michael Cerularius' Letters.  
Cardinal Humbert's Answer to Michael Cerularius.  
Nicetas Pectoratus' Treatise.  
Humbert's Confutation of that Piece  
— His Sentence of Excommunication denounced against Michael Cerularius.  
Michael Cerularius' Form of Excommunication published against the Pope's Legates.  
Peter Patriarch of Antioch's Reply to Dominic, and his Letter to Michael Cerularius.   

Commentaries on the Holy Scripture.  
Bruno Bishop of Wurtzburg's Commentaries on the Book of Psalms.  
Lanfranc's Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles.  
Peter Damian's Sixtieth Tract.  
A Commentary on the Penitential Psalms attributed to Pope Gregory VII.  
Psellus' Commentary on the Canticles.  
Another Commentary on the Canticles.  
Theophylact's Commentaries on the four Gospels, on the Acts of the Apostles, on St. Paul's Epistles, and on four of the lesser Prophets.   

Commentaries on the Works of the Fathers.  
Nicetas Serron's Commentaries on the Homilies and Poems of St. Gregory Nazianzen.   

Historical Works.  
Dithmar's Chronicle.  
Leo the Grammarian's Chronicle.  
Guarlin or Gauslin Archbishop of Bourges' Letter about a Shower of Blood.  
Aimar the Chabanois' Chronicle.  
— His List of the Abbots of St. Martial of Lymoges.  
Hugh Archdeacon of Tours' Dialogue about a Vision.  
Odoran Monk of St. Peter le Vif's Chronicle.  
Eugesippus' Geographical Treatise of the Holy Land.  
Glaber's Ecclesiastical History.  
Pope Gregory VI Circular Letter.  
Anselm Dean of Namur's History of the Bishop of Liege.  
Bertulphus' Continuation of Hermannus Contractus' Chronicle.  
Hepidannus' Chronicle.  
Pope Gregory VII's Letters.  
Hugh Bishop of Dies Letters.  
Manesus' Letter and Apology.  
Marianus Scotus' Chronicle.  
Lambert of Aschaffemburg's Historical Chronology.  
Adam Canon of Bremen's History of that Church.  
— His Treatise of the Situation of the Northern Kingdoms.  
Joan Thracesius Scylitzes's Continuation of Theophanes' Chronicle.  
Ingulphus' History of the Abbey of Croyland.  
Geo. Cedrenus' Annals.  
Paul Provost of Benrieden's History of Pope Gregory VII.  
Gauffroy or Geffrey's History of the Conquests of the Normans.  
Eadmer's History of Novelties.   

Lives of the Saints.  
St. Fulbert's Life of St. Rupert Bishop of Cambray.  
Meginfroy's Life of St. Emmeran.  
Erchinfroy's Life of St. Colman.  
Syrus' Life of St. Maiol.  
Osberre's Lives of St. Dunstan, St. Odo, and St. Alphegus.  
Adelbold's Life of the Emperor Henry II.  
Tangmarus ' Life of St. Bernard Bishop of Hildesheim.  
Berno's Lives of St. Ulmic and St. Meginrard.  
Arnulphus' Life of St. Emmeran.  
Eberard's Life of St. Harvic.  
The Life of St. William Abbot of St. Benignus at Dijon,  
Arnold's Life of St. Gode●●●●.  
Gualdo's Life of Anscharius Bishop of Hamburg.  
Drogo's Lives of St. Godolena and St. Oswald.  
Helgaud's Life of Robert King of France.  
Witpo's Lives of the Emperors Conrade and Henry III.  
Ebervin's Life of St. Simeon of Syracuse.  
Evershelm's Life of Poppo.  
Guibert's Life of Pope Leo IX.  
John Archbishop of Euchaita's Lives of St. Eusebia and St. Dorotheus.  
Hepidannus' Life of St. Wiborada.  
Peter Damian's Lives of St. Odilo, St. Maur, St. Remualdus, St. Rodulphus, St. Flora, and St. Lucilla.  
Desiderius Abbot of Mount Cassin's Dialogue about the Miracles of St. Benedict.  
Foscard's Lives of St. Berchin and St. Omer.  
Gerard's Life of St. Adelard.  
Ursio's History of St. Marcellus Pope.  
Trudo, Abbot of St. Thierry's Lives of St. Bavo.  
St. Trudo, St. Rumold, and St. Candrada.  
Paul of Benrieden's Life of St. Herlucia.  
Conrad's Life of St. Wolphelin Abbot of Bruvilliers.  
Nalgod's Lives of St Odo and St. Maiol.  
Othlo's Life of St. Boniface.  
Eadmer's Life of St. Anselm.   

SERMONS.  
St. Fulbert's Sermons.  
Theophanes the Ceramean's Sermons.  
Peter Damian's Sermons.  
John Xiphilin's Homily on the Cross.  
Theophilact's Discourse on the same Subject, with an Instruction to Constantin Porphyrogenneta.  
Simeon the Young's Sermons.  
St. Anselm's XVI Homilies.  
Eadmer's Discourse on the Virgin Mary, with some others.   

Works about a Monastic Life.  
Certain Constitutions of the Order of St. Benedict attributed to Lanfrank.  
A Discourse on the Principal Functions of Monks ascribed to the same Author.  
Peter the Honestis' Rule for the Regular Canons.  
Certain Letters by Pope Gregory VII.  
W●rin Abbot of St. Arnulphus at Mets' three Letters.  
Ulric's Constitutions of the Abbey of Clunie.  
S●meon surnamed the Young's Discourses and other Treatises.  
Bernard's Customs of the Order of Clunie.   

Works of Morality and Piety.  
Peter Damian's Prayers.  
Sim on the Young's several Pieces.  
St. Ans●lm's Prayers and Meditations.  
— Some of his Letters.   

Poetical Pieces.  
St. Fulbert's Hymns and Poems.  
Aimar the Chabanois' Acrostic Verses.  
Nice●as Pectoratus' Hymns.  
Hermannus Contractus' Anthems in honour of the Virgin Mary and other Hymns.  
John Archbishop of Euchaita's Poems on the Festivals of the Year.  
Peter Damian's Hymns, Prayers and Proses.  
Psellus' Paraphrase in Verse on the Book of Canticles.  
— His other Poetical Works.  
Metellus' Poem called Quirinales in honour of St. Quirinus.  
William of Apulia's Poem on the Conquest of the Normans.    

An Alphabetical TABLE of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the Eleventh AGE.  

A  
ADam, Abbot of Perseme, 100  
Adam, Canon of Bremen, 104  
Adelman, or Alman, a Clerk of the Church of Liege, and afterwards B●shop of Brescia, 8  
Ademar, or Aimar de Chabanois, a Monk of St. Cibar, 101  
Aegilnothus, Archbishop of Canterbury, 99  
Alberic, a Monk of Moun● Cas●in, 12  
Alberic, Cardinal, 105  
Albert, a Benedict in Monk of Mets, 104  
Alexander II. Pope, 10, 28, and sequ.  
Alexius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 106  
Alger, a Deacon of Liege, and afterwards Monk of Clunie, 19, and sequ.  
Alphanus, Archbishop of Salerno, 103  
Amatus, a Bishop in Italy, ibid.  
Anastasius, a Monk of St. Sergius at Angers, 11  
Andrew, a Monk of Fleury, 104  
St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, 21, 91, and sequ.  
Anselm, Bishop of Lucca, 98  
Anselm, Dean of Namur, 102  
Anselm, a Benedict in Monk of Rheims, 104  
Aribo, Archbishop of Mentz, 97, 120  
Arnold, a Canon of Herfeldt, 100  
Arnulphus, a Monk of St. Emmeran, at Ratisbon, ibid.  
Ascelin, a Monk of St. Eurou, 8   

B  
Baudry, Bishop of Dol, 11  
Benedict VIII. Pope, 23  
Benno, Cardinal, 99  
Berengarius or Berenger, Archdeacon of Angers, 6, and sequ.  
Bernard, a Monk of Clunie, 99  
Bernard, a Monk of Corbie in Saxony, ibid.  
Bernard, a Clerk of the Church of Utrecht, ibid.  
●erno, Abbot of Richenaw, 97  
●ertha, Nun of Willock, 104  
Berthorius Abbot of Mount Cassin, 99  
Bertulphus or Bernulphus, a Priest of Constance, 11 and 103  
Boro, Abbot of St. Berthin, 104  
Britwol, Bishop of Winchester, 104  
Bruno or Eusebius Bruno, Bishop of Angers, 7 and 10  
Bruno, Bishop of Wurtzburg, 98  
Burchard, Bishop of Worms, 97   

C  
Campanus, a Philosopher of Lombardy, 99  
Cedrenus, a Greek Monk, 108  
Clement II. Pope, 24  
Conrade, Bishop of Utrecht, 99  
Conrade, a Monk of Bruvilliers, 103  
Constanus Lichudes, Patriarch of Constantinople, 108   

D  
Desiderius, Abbot of Mount Cassin, and afterwards Pope under the name of Victor III. 69 and 102  
Deus-dedit Cardinal, 99  
Diodericus, a Monk of Hirsfeldt, 104  
Dithmar, Bishop of Mersburg, 100  
Dominick, Patriarch of Grado, 80  
Drogo, a Monk of St. Winoch, 102  
Durandus, Abbot of Troarn, 7 and 17   

E  
Eadmer, a Monk of Canterbury, 96 and 123  
Eberard, St. Harvic' s Pupil, 100  
Ebervin or Evervin, Abbot of St. Maurice at Tolen, 102  
Egilnoth, See Aegilnothus.  
Egirward, a Monk of St. Burchard at Wurtzburg, 105  
Engelbert, Archbishop of Trier, 38  
Erard, a Benedictin Monk, 99  
Erchenfroy, or Erchinfroy, Abbot of Melck, 100  
Evershelm, Abbot of Aumont, 102  
Eugesippus, 106  
Eusebius ●runo, Bishop of Angers, 7 and 10   

F  
Folcard, a Monk of St. Berthin, 102  
Franco, a Philosopher of Liege, 99  
St. Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres, 1 and sequ.   

G  
Gauffroy or Geffrey de Malterre, a Monk of Normandy, 103  
Gaunilon an English Monk, 93  
Gautier of Rieux, 105  
Georgius Cedrenus, a Greek Monk, 108  
Gerard, Abbot of St. Vincent at Laon, 102  
Gerard de Venna, a Monk of La Chaise Dieu▪ 105  
Gervase, Archbishop of Rheims, 28  
Gi●lebert, a Monk of St. german at Auxerre, 104  
Gislebert, a Monk of St. Amand, ibid.  
Gislebert or Gilbert, a Monk of Westminster, 96  
Glaber Radulphus, a Monk of Clunie, 102  
Godehard, Bishop of Hildesheim, 97  
Gonthier or Gontherius, a Monk of St. Amand, 104  
Gosbert, Abbot of Tergernsee, 97  
Gotzelin, a Monk of Canterbury, 105  
Gregory VI Pope, 24  
Gregory VII. Pope, 10, 32, and sequ.  
Gregory Cardinal, 99  
Grimaldus, 105  
Gualdo, a Monk of Corbie, 102  
Guarlin or Gauslin, Archbishop of Bourges, 4 and 6  
Guibert, Archdeacon of Toul, 102  
Guitmond, Archbishop of Aversa, 11 and 18  
Guy Aretin, Abbot of La Croix St. Leufroy, 97   

H  
Helgaud, a Menk of Fleury, 102  
Hepidannus, a Monk of St. Gall, 103  
Hermannus Contractus, a Monk of Richenaw, 102  
Heymo, a Monk of Richenaw, 105  
Hugh Bishop of Die, and afterwards Archbishop of Lions, 11, 48, 58, and 69  
Hugh, Bishop of Langres, 17  
Hugh, Archdeacon of Tours, 101  
Humbert, Cardinal, 9, 13, and sequ.   

I  
Ingelran, Abbot of St. Riquier, 104  
Ingulphus, Abbot of Croyland, 103  
John XVI. Pope, 23  
John XVII. Pope, ibid.  
John XVIII. Pope, ibid.  
John, Archbishop of Euchaita, 108  
John surnamed Jeannelin, Abbot of Erbrestein, 98  
Jo●n Thracesius Scylitzes Curopalata, 108  
John Xiphilin, Patriarch of Constantinople, ibid.  
Jotsald, a Mon● of Clunie, 105   

L  
Lambert, Bishop of Arras, 72  
Lambert, of Aschaffemburg, a Monk of Hirsfeldt, 104 and 121  
Lanfrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, 8, 12, and sequ.  
Leo IX. Pope, 9, 24, and sequ.  
Leo surnamed the Grammarian, 106   

M  
Manasses, Archbishop of Rheims, 57, 60, and sequ.  
Marianus Scotus, 103  
Maurillus, Archbishop of Rouen, 10 and 116  
Megenfroy or Meginfroy, a Monk of Fulda, 100  
Metellus, Abbot of Tergernsee, 102  
Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 76 and 81  
Michael Psellus, a Senator of Constantinople, 106   

N  
Nalgod, a Monk of Clunie, 103  
Nicetas Pectoratus, a Monk of Studa, 77 and sequ. and 106  
Nicetas Serron, Archbishop of Heraclea, 109  
Nicolas II. Pope, 9, 27, and sequ.  
Nicolas, Bishop of Methone, 113  
Nicolas, surnamed the Grammarian Patriarch of Constantinople, 109  
Nilus Doxopatrius Archimandrita, 106  
Notcherus, Abbot of Hautvilliers, 105   

O  
Odo, a Monk of St. Maur des Fosser, 104  
Odoran, a Monk of St. Peter le Vit, 101  
Osbert or Osbern, a Monk and Chanter of Canterbury, 100  
Othlo, a Monk of St. Boniface, 103   

P  
Paul, Provost of Benrieden, 103  
Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, 80 and sequ.  
Peter Chartophylax, or Keeper of the Records of the Church of Constantinople, 109  
Peter Damian, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, 83 and sequ.  
Peter de Honestis, a Clerk of Ravenna, [98]  
Peter, a Monk of Maillezais, 105   

R  
Raimond, a Monk of St. Andrew at Avignon, 105  
Rainold or Reginald, Archbishop of Rheims, 72 and 116  
Robert de Tombalene, Abbot of St. Vigour at Bayeux, 98  
Roscelin, a Clerk of the Church of Compeigne, 94  
Rudolf, a Monk of La Chaise Dieu, 105  
Rupert, Abbot of Mount Cassin, 100   

S  
Samonas, Archbishop of Gaza, 108  
Samuel of Morocco, a converted Jew, 109  
Simeon, surnamed the Young, Abbot of Xerocerce. 107  
Stephen IX. Pope, 27  
Sylvester II. Pope, 22  
Syrus, a Monk of Clunie, 100   

T  
Tangmarus, Dean of Hildesheim, 100  
Thibaud or Theobald a Clerk of the Church of Etampes, 116  
Theoduin or Diettoin, Bishop of Liege, 7 and 11  
Theophanes, the Ceramean Archbishop of Tauromenium, 106  
Theophylact, Archbishop of Acris, 108  
Thierry or Theodoric, Bishop of Verdun, 38  
Thierry, Abbot of St. Trudo, 103   

V  
Valeran, Bishop of Naumberg, 94  
Victor II. Pope, 9 and 26  
Victor III. Pope, 69  
Ulric, a Monk of Clunie, 99  
Urban II. Pope, 70 and sequ.  
Ursio, Abbot of Aumont, 102   

W  
W. a Monk of Walsor, 105  
Warin, Abbot of St. Arnulphus at Mets, 98  
Warman, Bishop of Constance, 104  
Weneric, Bishop of Verceil, 99  
Willeran, Abbot of St. Peter at Mersburg, 102  
William, Abbot of St. Arnulphus at Mets, 98  
William, Abbot of St. Benignus at Dijon, 23  
William of Apulia, 103  
St. William Abbot of Richenaw, 105  
William, a Monk of Chiusi in Toscany, 105  
Witpo or Wippo, Chaplain to the Emperor Henry, 102  
Wolterus, a Canon of Hildesheim, 105    

An Alphabetical TABLE of the COUNCILS held in the Eleventh Age of the Church.  
Place Page Year A A Enham in England, 121, 1010 Aquitaine Prov. 113, 1040 Arras, 110, 1025 Avignon, 58, 1080 Autun, 49, 57, and 60. 1077 Autun, 73, 1094 B Bari, 65 and 92, 1098 Benevento, 28, 1059 Benevento, 69, 1087 Benevento, 72, 1091 Bèrchach or Goslar Assembly, 47, 1085 Bourdeaux, 11, 1080 Bourges, 111, 1031 Brescia, 11, 1080 Brionne, 7, 1050 Burgundy Prov. 113, 1040 C Capua, 69, 1087 Clermont, 57, 1077 Clermont, 59, and 73, 1095 Compeigne, 22, 1000 Constance, 73, 1094 Coyaco, 124, 1050 D Dijon, 57, 1077 Dortmund in Westphalia, 120 1005 E Eenham in England, 121, 1010 Elna, 125, 1065 Erfurdt, 121, 1073 Erfurdt, 36, 1074 F Florence, 9 and 26, 1055 Forcheim Assembly, 42, 1077 Francfurt, 23, 1006 G Goslar or Berchach Assembly, 47 1085 L Leon, 123, 1012 Lillebonne, 119, 1080 Lymoges, 112, 1031 Lymoges, 65, 1095 Lyonnois Prov. 113 1040 Lions, 26, 1055 Lions, 58, 60, 61. 1080 Lifieux, 116, 1055 London, 122, 1075 London, 123, 1102 London, ibid. 1108 M Mantua, 26, 1052 Mantua, 29, 1064 Mentz, 26, 1049 Mentz, 121, 1069 Mentz, ibid. 1071 Mentz Assembly, 45, 1080 Mentz Assembly, 47, 1085 Meaux, 58, 1080 Meaux, ibid. 1082 Melfi, 28, 1059 Melfi, 72, 1089 N Narbonne, 119, 1054 Nismes, 65, 1096 O Oppenheim Assembly or Tribur, 40, 1076 Orleans, 109, 1017 P Paris, 8, 1050 Pavia under Pope Benedict VIII. between the Years 23 1014 and 1024 Pavia, 26, 1049 Placentia, 11 and 73, 1095 Poitiers, 62, 1074 Poitiers, 10, 1075 Poitiers, 57, 1078 Q Quintilineburg Assembly, 47, 1085 R Rheims, 17, 26, and 114, 1049 Rheims, 71, 1092 Rome, 24, 1046 Rome, ibid. 1047 Rome, 26, 1049 Rome, 7 and 26, 1050 Rome, 26, 1051 Rome, 25, 1053 Rome, 27, 1057 Rome, ibid. 1059 Rome, 29, 1063 Rome, ibid. 1065 Rome the same Year, ibid. 1065 Rome, 34, 1074 Rome, 36, 1075 Rome, 39, 1076 Rome, 42, 1078 Rome the same Year, 10 and 42 1078 Rome, 10 and 44 1079 Rome, 45, 1080 Rome, 46, 1083 Rome, 72, 1089 Rome, 65, 1098 Rome, ibid. and 93, 1099 Roven or Rouen, 116, 1050 Roven, 10 and 116, 1063 Roven, 117, 1072 Roven, 118, 1074 Roven, 76, 1096 S Selingenstadt, 120, 1023 Siponto, 26, 1050 Soissons, 93 and 115, 1092 T Toulouse, 119, 1056 Toulouse, 72, 1090 Tours, 9 and 26, 1055 Tours, 115, 1060 Tours, 65, 1096 Tribur or Oppenheim Assembly, 40 1076 Troia in Apulia, 73 1093 V Verceil, 7. 1050 W Winchester, 15, 1071 Winchester, 122, 1076 Windsor, 12, 1070 Worms Assembly, 38 1076   

A General INDEX of the Principal Matters contained in this Volume.  

A  
ABBEYS; whether the same Person may hold two, 98. An Abbey that was possessed by a Layman reformed, 113.  
Abbots obliged to live with their Monks, 123. The Ceremonies, with which they may celebrate Mass, 113. Abbot's forbidden to exact money of those who assume the Monastic Habit, 72.  
Absolution; the Abuse of Absolutions granted at Rome, 113. A Restriction of them, 120. A Case in which 'tis prohibited to give Absolution, 74. Letters of Absolution obtained after Confession made in Writing, 23.  
Abstinence; that on Fridays and Saturdays ordained in divers Councils, and for what Reason, 113 and 114. Of Abstinence observed before the Festivals of Christmas and St. John, and of that of the other Vigils, 120.  
Adultery does not dissolve Marriage, 15 and 112. A Bishop deposed for that Crime, 124.  
Agnes the Empress, obtains the Regency for some time, 33. A Protection granted by her to Pope Nicholas II. against Benedict IX. 27. She is obliged to retire, and to leave the Administration of the Government to certain Princes of Germany, 29 and 33. She is employed to procure an Accommodation of the Differences between the Emperor, her Son, and Pope Gregory VII. 34. The Pope's Decision against the Rights of that Princess, 40. Her Praises celebrated by Peter Damian [98]  
Alexander II. made Pope, without the Emperor's Consent, who causes another to be chosen, 28, 29, [92] and [93.] His Election confirmed in a Council, and that of his Competitor condemned, without prejudice to the Emperor's Right for the future, 29 and [93.] Peter Damian's Commendation of that Pope, 86 and 87.  
Alleluiah, See Halleluia.  
Alms; of those that are given for the dead [94.] Of the Advantage procured by them, ibid.  
Alphonsus' King of Castille; the Laws re-enacted for the benefit of the Church and State, 123 and 124. The Admonitions given by Pope Gregory VII. to that Prince, 50.  
Altars, to be consecrated by the Bishop 124, aught to be made of Stone, 123 and 124. Of their Ornaments for the Celebration of the Mass, 124. That clothes which have served to cover dead Bodies, ought not to be laid on the Altar, 112. A Constitution about the Donations of Altars made to Religious Societies, 74. An Ordinance concerning Altars that are in the Possession of Monks, 65.  
Anastasius a Monk of Angers; obliged to abjure Berenger's Doctrine, 11.  
Angels; the Reason of the Perseverance of some, and of the Fall of others, 94.  
Animals; the Latins censured by the Greeks for eating the Blood of Animals, and things strangled, 76 and 81. A Reply to those Censures, ibid. 82.  
Anno Archbishop of Colen; the Affairs committed to his Management, 29 and 33. He declares for Pope Alexander II. against Cadalous, 29 and 87. He obtains a Privilege of that Pope, 30.  
The Annunciation of the Virgin Mary; of the Day on which that Festival ought to be celebrated, 127.  
Anselm Bishop of Lucca; prohibited by the Pope to receive the Investiture of his Bishopric from the hands of the Emperor Henry, 34. His Ordination by the Pope, 35. He is expelled by the Citizens of Lucca, ibid.  
Antichrist; of his Reign [98.]  
Antioch; of the Dignity of the Church of Antioch, 80. Peter Patriarch of that See acknowledges the Pope, 25.  
St. Antony; the Institution of that Order, 127.  
Apostats; a Constitution against them, 28.  
Aquileia; an Oath of Allegiance to the Pope, taken by the Archbishop of that Church, 44.  
Archdeaconries; of the manner of conferring them, 74.  
Arch-Deacons; that none shall be admitted to that Office who is not a Deacon, 112. The Functions of an Archdeacon, 4.  
Argyrius an Officer in the Court of the Eastern Emperor; why sent into Italy, 76. The Accusations brought by the Patriarch of Constantinople against that Officer, 81.  
Arles; the Archbishops of that See reputed to be the Pope's Principal Vicars in France, 59  
Arms; the bearing of them forbidden to Clergymen, 58, 74, 114 and 124, and to Abbots, 123. A Prohibition to wear Swords in the Church, 120.  
Arnold Bishop of Cirenza; the Power that he received from the Pope to absolve the excommunicated Normans of Sicily, 53. The Advice the Pope gave him about the Normans of Apulia, ibid.  
Arnulphus Bishop of Cremona, deposed by Pope Gregory VII. 42.  
Arnulphus, a Monk of St. Medard, when ordained Bishop of Soissons, 58.  
Arras; the Privileges of the Church of Arras confirmed, 72. It's Episcopal See re-established, 71.  
Ash Wednesday; the Faithful obliged to take up Ashes on that Day, 73. Prohibited to eat Flesh after the same Day, ibid. and 74.  
Asylum; the Right of Asyla in the Churches, and near Crosses, 65 and 125.  
Avisgandus' Bishop of Man's; a Reply made to the Complaints made by that Bishop concerning the Secret of his Confession, 3. His endeavour to resume the Marks of the Episcopal Dignity after he had voluntarily resigned them, ibid.  
Azolin Bishop of Laon; reproved by the Pope for his Perfidiousness, and cited to Rome, 22.   

B  
BAmberg; the Erection of that Church into a Bishopric, 23.  
Banquets; the Obligations on those who partake of Funeral Banquets, 124.  
Bantino Monastery; a Privilege granted to that Convent by Pope Urban II. 70.  
Baptism; an Explication of that Sacrament, 1. It does not cease to operate the Remission of Sins, although administered by an unworthy Priest, 2. The time of solemn Baptism, 117. The Efficacy of it denied by Heretics, 110. That some of the Holy Chrism ought only to be put into the Baptismal Water, 90. Monks forbidden to stand as Godfathers at the Baptising of Children, 123. What sort of Vestments the Priests ought to wear during the Administration of Baptism, 117. Infant-Baptism disapproved by Berenger, according to Theoduin and Guitmond, 7 and 11. Persons newly baptised obliged to wear Albs, and to hold Wax-Tapers, for Eight Days, 116.  
Bari or Canosa, the Metropolitan Dignity of that See confirmed, 70.  
Bastards; when they may be admitted to Holy Orders, 58 and 74. Excluded from the Episcopal Functions, 65, and from other Ecclesiastical Dignities, 58.  
Beard; a Greek Archbishop obliged to keep it shav d, 66.  
Benediction of Churches; the Bishops forbidden to exact any thing upon that Account, 58.  
St. Benedict; that he was an Hermit, 98. An Apparition of that Saint to Pope Urban II. 70. A Contest about his Body, 127  
Benedict VIII. re-established in the See of Rome by Henry Emperor of Germany, on whom he confers the imperial Diadem. 23. An Apparition of that Pope after his Death, ibid.  
Benedict IX. chosen Pope at the Age of 18 Years, 24. He is turned out of the See of Rome at the end of ten Years, by reason of his Irregularities, ibid. He finds means to expel his Competitor, and reassumes the Papal Chair, ibid. He makes a bargain about the Popedom with John Gracian, and made it over to him for a Sum of Money, ibid. At last he is deposed in several Synods, as well as his Competitors, ibid. He gets Possession of St. Peter's Chair a third time, ibid. He is forced to surrender himself, and to acknowledge Pope Leo IX. ibid.  
Benefices Ecclesiastical cannot be granted to others before the Death of the Incumbents, 3. They cannot be conferred on Laics, 119. Abuses in the collating of them, not to be tolerated, 84, 85, and 89. The Plurality of Spiritual Live condemned, 58, 74, 115 and 126. Forbidden to be held by right of Inheritance, 58. The voluntary Resignation of them commended by Peter Damian [95.] Ecclesiastical Benefices that oblige the Possessors of them to enter into Orders, 58 Penalties to be imposed on those who presume to sell them, 44.  
Berengarius or Berenger; his Doctrine concerning the Eucharist, 7 and sequ. 13 and sequ. 16 and sequ. 19 and 20. Condemned in divers Councils, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, 73, and 116. And by many Authors, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and sequ. Other Opinions attributed to Berenger, 7, 11, 17, and sequ. 18, 19, and sequ. He is constrained with his Followers to make a Recantation under pain of Death, 8. He abjures his Opinions in several Councils, 9 and sequ. He maintains them again, ibid. He is obliged to abjure them a second time, 10 and 44. A Protection granted to him by Pope Gregory VII. 11. Of his Repentance, ibid. The time of his Death, ibid.  
Berengarians differ in their Opinions about the Eucharist, 18.  
Berenger Count of Barcelona; the Restorer of the, City of Tarragona, 70.  
Bertrade; her Marriage with Philip King of France, 73. She is excommunicated in a Council, ibid.  
Bertrand Count of Provence; takes an Oath of Fidelity to the Pope, 54.  
Bigamy excludes Persons from Holy Orders, 71.  
Bishopric; that 'tis Simony to purchase one of a King, or any other Prince; although nothing were given for the Consecration, 84, 85, 89.  
Bishops; of their Election, 66 and 74. Of their Functions, ibid. 1●4. Of their Duties, ibid. 87 and sequ. [95.] Circumstances that render them uncapable of Ordination, 5. Of their Habits, 123. They cannot be chosen unless they have first taken Orders, 72 and 74. The Seats of the Bishops in the Councils, according to the Antiquity of their Ordination 122. Of their Authority over the Inferior Clergy, and their Churches, 124. Of the Respect due to them, 4 and 66. Whether it be lawful for Laics to reprove the Vices of their Bishops, 84. They are uncapable of exercising the Function of Civil Magistrates, 123. A Definitive Sentence cannot be passed upon them, without the Authority of the See of Rome, 25. A Prohibition to pillage their Goods or Estate after their Death, 26, 27, 65 and 89. Of the Management of their Revenues, 65. Those who offer violence to them, to be excommunicated, 31.  
Bohemia; the Privileges of that Duchy by what Popes granted and confirmed, 51. Subject to the Jurisdiction of the See of Rome, ibid.  
Bonneval Abbey; a Contest about that Monastery, 4.  
Bread, See Unleavened Bread.  
Bretagne, a Penalty imposed on the Bishops of that Province, who refused to acknowledge the Archbishop of Tours as their Metropolitan, 26.  
Bruno, by what Pope deputed to be his Missionary in Poland, 23.  
Buryal; ought not to be performed in Churches, 123. A Prohibition to bury the dead in another Parish, unless the accustomed Duties be paid to the Curate, ibid. Christian Burial ought not to be denied to those who die suddenly, if they do not actually stand convicted of some Crime, 118. Forbidden to Ravishers and to suspended or excommunicated Persons, 65. An Ordinance that nothing be exacted for Burials, 74.   

C  
CAdalous, Bishop of Placentia, and afterwards Antipope; the Causes that occasioned his Advancement to the Papal Dignity, 29 [92] and [93.] That Election condemned in a Council, 29, and by Peter Damian, 85 and [91.] His Attempts to get Possession of the See of Rome, 29. The Censures passed upon him by Peter Damian on that account, 85. He is driven out of the City of Rome, 29. Peter Damian's Letters against that Antipope, 86, 87 and [91.]  
Camaldolites; that Order by whom founded, 127.  
Canons; Their Pretensions to the Privilege of enjoying a private Estate disapproved by Peter Damian, [96.] They are ordered to hold all things in common, 27 and 31. That they ought to live in common [96.] Punishments to be inflicted on Canons who revolt against their Bishops, 66.  
Canon's Regular; The Restauration of that Order, 31 and 128. Divers sorts of Regular Canons, 128. A Licence from the Pope to confer spiritual Live on such Canons, 71.  
Canut King of England; The Laws enacted by that Prince, 122. His Journey to Rome, 23. The Church Immunities he there obtained for his Subjects, ibid. and 24.  
Candinals; the time when they began to have the principal Share in the Election of the Popes, 27 and 124. The Augmentation of their Authority, ibid.  
Carthusians; the Institution of their Order, 127.  
Celibacy; enjoined Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, 16, 27, 28, 29 30, 31, 34, 36, 47, 72 [95] 112, 115, 117, 119, 122, 123, 124. The Celibacy of Priests condemned by the Greeks, 77 and 82, and authorized by the Latins, 78 and 79.  
Cerularius, See Michael Cerularius.  
Chalices; ought not to be made of Wax or Wood, 123, nor of Potter's Earth, 124.  
Charles; nominated to the Bishopric of Constance, 121. Contests about his Ordination, ibid. He is obliged to resign that Bishopric, ibid.  
Chaplain; those of Lay men subject to the Bishop's Jurisdiction, 74. Forbidden to exercise their Functions without the Approbation of their Diocesan.  
Chappel; that a Chapel cannot be built without the Bishop's Consent, 72, 73.  
Chastity; the means of preserving that Virtue, [97.]  
Children; of their Duty to their Parent's [92] Their Death being looked upon as a special Favour of God, ibid.  
H. Chrism, of its Consecration, 117. and Distribution, ibid.  
Chunegonda the Empress, crowned with the Emperor her Husband, 23.  
Church; See Greek Church and Latin Church.  
Churches; Of their Consecration, 123. Whether the Bishop ought to wear a Chasuble or a Cope, whilst he officiates in performing that Ceremony, 15. Bishop's forbidden to exact any thing for the Benediction of Churches, 58. The Consecration of them by a Bishop found guilty of Simony, declared null, 71. Of the Tithes appropriated to the Maintenance of Churches, 123. A Constitution about the maintaining of Churches granted to Monks, ibid. A Prohibition to get Induction into Churches by the Presentation of Laics, 27. and to hold two Churches at once, ibid. Of the founding of new Churches, 123. Incumbents forbidden to leave a small Church, in order to get possession of a greater, 65.  
Churchyards; a Prohibition to hold Civil Assemblies in them, 120. And to build any other Houses on that Ground, than those that belong to the Priests, ibid.  
Cincius the Son of the Perfect of Rome; Of the Outrages committed by him against Pope Gregory VII. 37.  
Cistercians; the Institution and Progress of that Order, 128.  
Clergymen or Clerks; Of their Functions, 88, 89, and sequ. Obliged to wear clothes of one single Colour, and to have their Heads shaved in form of a Crown, 123. That their Ignorance and Negligence are the Source of the principal Disorders of the Church [.96] as well as their Covetousness and Concupiscence, ibid. They cannot carry on Law-Suits in Quality of Attorneys or Solicitors, nor sit as Judges in Criminal Causes, 123. That those Clergymen who put themselves into the Service of Noblemen to obtain Benefices, are more guilty of Simony than those who give Money to procure them [95] [96.] That 'tis not lawful to cite them before secular Judges, 65. That their Causes never ought to be decided by Force, 88 A Penalty imposed on those who leave a Church of a small Revenue, to get another of a greater, 65. Clerks subject to the Jurisdiction of their Bishop, 3, 124. Those who misuse them excommunicated, 3. A Sentence of Excommunication denounced against those who take them Prisoners, 65. How they ought to be qualified for Admittance into Orders, 112 and 124. They cannot serve a Church, without a Licence from the Bishop, 112. Neither can they be translated from one Church to another, ibid. The Custom of Acephali or exempt Clerks abolished, 72. A Prohibition to receive foreign Clerks without Letters Dimissory from their Diocesan, 73. Whether their Sons may be admitted into Holy Orders, 58, 61, 71, and 112. The Sons of Clergymen declared Vassals of the Church for ever, 23. Such Clerks, who are the Vassals of the Church, not allowed to purchase or to enjoy a private Estate, ibid. Those who quit their Profession ought to be separated from the rest, 112, 115. After what manner they are to be deposed, 117. Whether those who have committed the Sin of Uncleanness may be restored to their Functions, 95. Constitutions against Clergy men found guilty of Simony, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 44, 57, 58, 66, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 85, [93] and sequ. [95] and [96.] Other Constitutions against married or incontinent Clerks, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 47, 58, 66, 71, 73, 74, 75, [93] 123. Those who fall into Faults may be restored, 126.  
Cluny-Abbey; Bulls published by Popes in Favour of it, 23 and 26. A peculiar Privilege granted to the same Monastery, 31.  
Communion; An Exhortation to the frequent receiving of it, 65. The Custom of Communicating with the same consecrated Host for Forty Days, 2 and 127. An Explication of that Custom, ibid. 2. The Communion under both kinds in use, 127. Sometimes under the Species of Bread steeped in that of the Wine, ibid. An Ordinance to receive it under both kinds, 74. An Obligation to communicate on the Festival of Easter, 127. See Eucharist.  
The Conception of the Virgin Mary; the Opinion of an Author later than St. Anselm, about the Festival of her Conception, 95.  
Concubinage; liable to Excommunication, 63 and 73. A Priest who keeps a Concubine forbidden to say Mass, 58.  
Confession; of the Secrecy of it, 16. That the Confession of public Offences ought to be made to Priests, and that of secret Sins to all sorts of Clergymen, and even to Laics according to Lanfrank, ibid. The Custom of making Confession one to another, very common among the Faithful in the Eleventh Century, 17, Those who hear the Confessions of others, ought not to punish or chastise them publicly, ibid. When 'tis sufficient to confess our Sins to God alone, according to Lanfrank, ibid. A Form of Confession exhibited in Writing, followed by another of Absolution in a Letter, 23.  
Confirmation, with what Ceremony it ought to be performed, 117. A Father who stands as Godfather to his Son at Confirmation, obliged to leave his Wife, 4.  
Conrade Emperor of Germany; when chosen and Crowned, 23.  
Conrade the Son of the Emperor Henry IV. revolts from his Father, 70.  
Constantinople; Deputies sent by the Greeks to obtain of that Pope, that the Church of Constantinople should be styled the Catholic or Universal Church, 23. The Prelates, who opposed that Design, ibid.  
Corbie-Abbey, One of its Privileges confirmed by the Pope, 31. The Bishop of Amiens obliged to make Satisfaction to one of the Abbots of that Monastery, ibid.  
Corporals, or Chalice-cloths; ought not to be thrown into the Fire to stop a Conflagration, 120.  
Corfu; the Pretensions of the See of Rome to that Island, 54.  
Creed; the Addition of the Particle Filioque to the Apostles Creed, disapproved, 81 and 82.  
Crusade; the Project of one formed in the Council of Placentia, 73. Published in that of Clermont, 70, 73, 74. The putting that Crusade in Execution, 70, 74. The Badges of the Persons li●●ed, 74. The Indulgences granted to them, ibid.  
Curates, obliged to give an Account of their Ministerial Functions to the Bishop, 58.  
Cyriacus Archishop of Carthage, delivered up to the Saracens by some of his Diocesans, 55. The Pope's Remonstrance about that Treachery, ibid.   

D  
DAlmatia, that Kingdom conferred by Pope Gregory VII. 51.  
Daughters; not to be given in Marriage till they have attained to the Age of twelve Years, 65.  
Dead; what may afford Refreshment to the Souls of deceased Persons [96] A Prohibition to honour their Memory without the Bishop's Authority, 123.  
Deaneries; of the collating of them, 74.  
Death; A Prayer for Persons at the Point of Death [92.]  
Decretals of the Popes; frequently corrupted in the Eleventh Century, 84.  
Demetrius' King of Ru●●ia; his Son invested in that Kingdom, by Pope Gregory VII. 51.  
St. Denis, where his Body lies interred, 26. The Privileges of the Abbey of St. Denis confirmed by the Pope, 30  
Denmark; Pope Gregory VII. 's Admonitions to the Kings of Denmark, 51.  
Desiderius or Didier, Abbot of Mount Cassin, and afterwards Pope under the Name of Victor III. The wholesome Advice given him by Peter Damian, 86. The Negotiations in which he was employed under Gregory VII. 46, 53 and 54. He is chosen Pope against his Will, 69. His Election by whom opposed, ibid. The time of his Death, 70.  
Discipline; Decisions of divers Points of Ecclesiastical Discipline, 3 and sequ. 15 and sequ. 28, 29, and sequ. 65 and sequ. 71 and sequ. 84 and sequ. 129 and sequ.  
Disciplining or Scourging; the Original and Use of it, 89 and 126. That Custom condemned by a Monk, and vindicated by Peter Damian [91.] During how long time it would be requisite for a Person to Discipline himself according to the Directions of that Cardinal, ibid.  
Disease; the Cure of it obtained by almsgiving, 90.  
Divinity; the Original of Scholastic Divinity, 125.  
Divorce, proposed between Bertha and the Emperor Henry IU. 121. Philip the first King of France, divorced from Bertha his Wife, 74. Marriage permitted in case of Impotency, 5.  
Dol; the Quality of Archbishop contested with those who were in Possession of that See, 114.  
Dominick Patriarch of Grado, employed by Pope Gregory VII. to endeavour to procure a Reunion between the Greek and Latin Churches, 54, 55.  
Dominus vobiscum; whether those who recite the Divine Office alone in private, aught to say, Dominus vobiscum, or Dominus tecum, 5 [94] and 127.  
Donations; An Ordinance concerning pious Donations made to Monasteries, 26.  
Dublin; the Bishop of that City obliged to receive Ordination from the Archbishop of Cante bury, 16.  
Ducas; See Michael Ducas.   

E  
EAster; the Festivals of Easter reduced to three, 73.  
Ebol Count of Rocey; a Donation made by Pope Gregory VII. in his Favour, 51.  
Ecclesiastical Revenues, See Revenues.  
Ecclesiastical Persons, See Clergy men and Clerks.  
Elections; That those of Bishops belong to the Clergy and People, 115.  
England; the State of that Kingdom in the Eleventh Century, 91.  
Eucharist; an Explication of the Sacrament, 1 and 2. Of the Eucharist, 7 and sequ. 13 and sequ. 17 and sequ. 19 and sequ. Joan Scotus' Opinion concerning it maintained by Berenger, 7, 8, and 9, and condemned in divers Councils, ibid. Different Opinions of the Berengarians about that Sacrament, 18 and sequ. Their Objections refused, 13, 14, 18, and sequ. Lanfrank's Arguments to prove that Mystery, 14. The real Presence opposed by certain Heretics discovered at Orleans and in Flanders, in the beginning of the Century, 109, 110, and 124. The Sacrament of the Eucharist, formerly administered to Infants, 16. That the Host ought not to be kept longer than from one Sunday to another, 112. That Constitution changed and reduced to once a Month, 113. Referred again to every eighth Day, 117. Whether the consecrated Elements can suffer any Alteration, or be liable to the condition of other sorts of Food, part of which is turned into Excrements, 18, 19, 20, and sequ. Whether Heretics and Schismatics consecrate the Body of Jesus Christ without the Pale of the Church, 21. Two sorts of Manducations according to Guitmond, viz. one Corporeal and the other Spiritual, 19 The Eucharist made use of to serve as a Trial, 125. Constitutions about the Administration of that Sacrament, 73. An Ordinance to receive it under both kinds, 74. Pennance imposed on Priests, who let fall the Host, 127. An Host given to Priests on the Day of their Ordination, to serve them in communicating for some Days following, ibid.  
Excommunication; Certain Questions about the Sentence of Excommunication denounced against a King, 39 and 47. A Case in which 'tis incurred, 4, and in which 'tis not lawful to publish it, ibid. Excommunicated Persons ought not to be buried in consecrated Ground, 113. Common and contemptible Excommunications, 126. Extended to those who converse with excommunicated Persons to the third Generation, 126. For what reason the publishing of such Sentences is sometimes forborn, 3. Denounced against those who pillage Church-Revenues, and misuse Clergymen, ibid. Exceptions in the Forms of Excommunication published by Pope Gregory VII. 42. A Constitution about those that are denounced by the Bishops, 65. A Prohibition to keep Correspondence with excommunicated Persons, 119 and 129.   

F  
FAithful; Of the Duties of the Faithful on Sundays, 124.  
Falling Sickness; renders a Priest uncapable of celebrating the Mass, 31.  
Fasts; of that of Lent, 47 and 120. Of those of the Ember Weeks, 47, 73, 74, 117, 120 and 126. Fasts observed in England, 122.  
Feasts; Priests forbidden to be concerned in those that are made at Weddings, 124. What Duties are to be performed by them, who are Partakers of Funerl Banquets, ibid.  
Festivals, those of the Jews adapted to Christianity, 88 Those that were observed in England, 122. An Opinion about the Solemnity of the Octave of the Festival of St. John Baptist, 88  
Fees. exacted by the Court of Rome of divers Kingdoms, 30. Certain Priests suspended for neglecting to pay the Synodical Fees, 5.  
F●●r●bras (William) his Exploits in Italy, 52, 53.  
Filioque; that Particle left out in the Creed of the Greeks, 81 and 82.  
Fonteurauls; the Institution of that Order, 128.  
Foro Julio; the Jurisdiction of that Church regulated in a Council, 25.  
France; the Tribute which the Pope exacted of that Kingdom, 49. The Authorities alleged by him to establish that Tribute, ibid.  
Free Will; the Concord of Free Will with Predestination and Grace, 94.  
Friday; the Abstinence observed on Friday, 127. An Obligation to fast on that Day, 125.   

G  
GArnier or Garnerius, Bishop of Strasburg, cited to Rome, 35, and suspended 36. Absolved from the Excommunication he incurred upon account of Simoniacal Practices, 35.  
Gebebard, Archbishop of Salisburg; obtains a Licence of Pope Alexander II. to erect an Episcopal See in his Province, 31. The Remonstrance made by Gregory VII. to that Archbishop about the receiving of Tithes from the new Bishopric, 65. A Disputation between Gebehard and Wizelin, Archbishop of Mentz for and against the Emperor Henry 47.  
Gebehard, Bishop of Constance; the Decisions by Pope Urban II. upon the Difficulties which that Bishop had proposed to him about the Excommunications published by Gregory VII. 71. He is made the Pope's Vicar in Germany, ibid.  
Gebuin, Archdeacon of Langres; ordained Archbishop of Lions, 57  
Geraud or Gerald, Bishop of Angoulesme; the Legate of the See of Rome in some Provinces of France, 10.  
Gerard, Bishop of Cambray and Arras; confutes certain new Errors in a Council, 110 and 111. The Persons who were convicted obliged to abjure them in the same Council, 111.  
Gibelin, chosen Archbishop of Arles, in the place of Auchard, 58.  
Gluttony; not reckoned among the seven mortal Sins by Peter Damian, [94.]  
God; of his Existence and Attributes by Peter Damian [97] and by St. Anselm, 93.  
Godfathers, a Penalty imposed on a Father, who stands as Godfather at the Confirmation of his Son, 4. Monks forbidden to perform that Office, 123.  
Godfrey, Archbishop of Milan; excommunicated for Simony, 34. And Herlembol substituted in his room, ibid. He conspires with the Bishops of Lombardy against the See of Rome, ibid. He is protected by the Emperor, who still holds Communion with him, ibid. His Successor settled in that Archbishopric notwithstanding the Pope's Opposition, 37.  
Godfrey, Marquis of Toscany; Peter Damians Remonstrances to that Prince [91] and [98.] The Errors of two of his Chaplains confuted by the latter, 84, 85, and 89. A Favour which Peter Damian begged of the same Prince, 90. The time of his Death, 39  
Grada, of the Dignity of that Church, 80. That Dignity contested by Peter of Antioch, ibid. His Metropolitical Right established in a Council, 25.  
Greek Church; the Reproaches that the Greeks put upon the Latins, 76, 77, 78, and 81. Their Answer to those Censures, 76, 77, and 82. The Accusations brought by the Latins against the Greeks, 77 and sequ.  
Greeks; driven out of Part of Italy by the Normans, 23. And lose their Territories and Estates in that Country, 52.  
Gregory VI aspires to the Papal Dignity by the means of Simoniacal Practices, 24. He is deposed and banished, ibid.  
Gregory VII. made Pope by the People of Rome, without consulting the Cardinals, Clergy and Emperor, 32. A pleasant Repartee made by Desiderius Abbot of Mount Caffin, upon occasion of his precipitate Election, ibid. His great Undertake during his Popedom, 33. His Contests with the Emperor Henry IU. ibid. and sequ. The Opposition that his Decree against Simoniacal and Incontinent Clergy men met with, 36. A cruel Outrage to hinder the Effect of that Decree, ibid. His Constancy in causing it to be put in Execution, ibid. The first Project he made of a Crusade, 54. Confederacies made against him, 38. He is deposed in a Council, ibid. The Cause of those Proceed against him, ibid. He deposes and excommunicates the Emperor Henry, as well as those who assisted in that Council, 39 He proposes the Election of another Emperor of Germany, 40. The Conditions upon which he is willing to grant Absolution to Henry, 41. He contributes to the choosing of Radulphus Duke of Suabia, in his place, 42. The Measures taken by him in order to compose the Differences between the two Contenders, ibid. and sequ. He denounces another Sentence of Excommunication against Henry and his Adherents, 45. He himself is deposed again in a Council, and Guilbert Archbishop of Ravenna, is substituted in his room, ibid. He is reconciled with the Duke of Apulia, ibid. and obtains Succours of him, 46. His Contests with Philip King of France, 48. The Reproaches and Threats he put upon that Prince, ibid. He endeavours to get a Tribute from the Kingdom of France, and from divers other Estates of Europe, 49, 50, and sequ. He grants a Protection to Berenger, Archdeacon of Angers, 11. He is accused to be a Favourer of his Opinions, ibid. The time when this Pope died, 47. See Hild-brand.  
Gregory the Antipope; expelled by the Emperor, 23.  
Guizilon, Archbishop of Mentz; why deposed and excommunicated, 71.  
Guilbert the Antipope; when ordained Arbishop of Ravenna, 29. He creates much trouble to Gregory VII. and is excommunicated by that Pope, 37 and 38. He is advanced to the Popedom under the Name of Clement III. after the deposing of Gregory in a Council, 45. When ordained, 46. He crowns the Emperor Henry, ibid. Ecommunications published, and often reitered against him and his Adherents, 47, 69 and 72. He sometimes becomes Master of the City of Rome, and is sometimes expelled from thence, 69 and 70.  
Guiscard (Robert) Duke of Apulia; His Conquests in Italy, 53. He is excommunicated in a Council by Pope Gregory VII. 35 and 53. The Reasons that induced Gregory to be reconciled with him, 45, 46. The Conditions of that Agreement, ibid. The Advantages which the Duke obtained by that mean●, bid. The Succours he sent to the Pope, 46 and 53. His Exploits in Greece, 54.  
Guy, Archbishop of Vienna; the sending him in Quality of Legate into England, looked upon as an unheard of Innovation, 56.  
Guy, Archbishop of Milan; A Constitution made by that Archbishop by the Advice of Peter Damian, for the Reforming of the Clergy of Milan [93.]   

H  
HAbits Sacerdotal; those of Priests and Deacons during the Celebration of the Mass, 123 and 124.  
Hair; An Ordinance against the wearing of long Hair, 76. Another for cutting the Hair short, 123.  
Hallelujah; A Censure passed by the Greeks upon the Latins because they do not sing Hallelujah in Lent, 76. A Reply to that Censure, 77.  
Hanno, Archbishop of Colen; See Anno.  
Happiness; That there is no perfect Happiness in this World [98.]  
Harold, King of Norway; An Admonition given him by Pope Alexander, 29.  
Henry II. Emperor of Germany; crowned at Rome with the Empress his Wife, 23. The time of his Death, ibid.  
Henry III. Emperor; when he succeeded Conrade his Father, 24. He causes three Popes to be deposed in divers Synods, ibid. He is crowned by Clement II. ibid. The time of his Death, 26.  
Henry IU. Emperor; chosen at the Age of five Years, and put under the Protection of the See of Rome, 26 and 33. His Demeanour during his Minority, ibid. His Conduct when grown up to Man's Estate, ibid. A Proposal made that he should be diverced from his Wife, 121. The Cause and Effects of the Revolt of the Saxons against that Prince, 33. His Quarrels with Pope Gregory VII. ibid. and sequ. The Original of those Feuds, ibid. and 34. His Erterprises against the Pope, 37 and 38. He is deposed and excommunicated by the Pope, 39 He is very submissive to the Assembly of Oppenheim, 40. His Endeavours to procure Absolution from the Pope, ibid. and 41. On what Conditions he obtains it, 41. He reputes of having taken such Measures, and falls out with the Pope, ibid. and 42. He makes War with Radulphus his Competitor, 42. The hazard he run of losing his Life, 43. The Advantages he gained in Germany, ibid. 44 and 46. He is excommunicated and deposed a second time by Gregory VII. 45. He causes that Pope to be deposed in a Council, and Guibert Archbishop of Ravenna to be chosen in his Place, 45. His Letter upon that Occasion, ibid. He defeats Radulphus in a Battle, who dies a little while after, 46. He besieges Rome several times, and at last having taken that City, causes himself to be crowned therein, ibid. and 53 He is obliged to departed thence, and to return to Germany, to make head against a new Competitor, ibid. He takes Augsburg, and punishes the Rebels, 46, 47. He causes an Accommodation to be set on foot with Robert Guiscard Duke of Apulia, 53. His Son Conrade revolts against him, 70. The Sentence of Excommunication denounced against that Emperor, renewed in divers Councils, 71, 73, and 74.  
Henry I. King of England; his Contest with the Pope and St. Anselm about the Right of Investitures, 93.  
Henry, Bishop of Spire; accused of Simony and cited to Rome, 35, 36. He is suspended, 36.  
Herbert, Bishop of Norwich; for what Reason reproved by Lanfrank, 16.  
Heretics; Certain new Heretics discovered at Orleans, in the beginning of the Eleventh Century, 169, and sequ. 125. Their Errors and Condemnation, ibid. Other Heretics found in Flanders, 110. Their Errors confuted in a Council, ibid. Their Reconciliation and their Confession of Faith, 111.  
Herlembald, made Archbishop of Milan instead of Godfrey, 34. Directions for his Conduct given him by the Pope, in reference to the excommunicated Bishops of jombardy, ibid.  
Herman; chosen Emperor of Germany in the Place of Radulphus, 46. A Difficulty proposed in a Council about the Validity of his Marriage, 47. He is excommunicated in another Council, ibid.  
Herman, Bishop of Bamberg; cited to Rome to give an Account of his Simoniacal Practices, 35 and 36. And suspended 36. At last deposed and excommunicated, ibid.  
Herman, Bishop of Mets; the Questions proposed by him to the Pope, viz. Whether those Persons who converse with a Prince under Sentence of Excommunication, are to be looked upon as excommunicated? And whether it be lawful to excommunicate a King, 39 The Pope's answer to these Questions, 29. ibid.  
Herman, Bishop of Winckester; leaves his Bishopric to embrace the Monastic Life, 14. He is afterwards made Bishop of Salisbury, ibid.  
Hermits; Their Cause of Life preferred to that of Cenobites; or Collegiate Monks, 91. A Rule for Hermits by Peter Damian [95.] Hermits of the Eleventh Century different from the Ancient, 127.  
St. Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers; A Passage of that Father concerning the Sufferings of Jesus Christ, maintained by Lanfrank against Berenger, 16.  
Hildebrand, a Clerk of the Church of Rome; was Partaker of the Fortune of Gregory VI 24 and 32. He is made Prior of Clunie, where he retired after the Death of that Pope, 24. He accompanies to Rome, Bruno Bishop of Toul, whom he causes to be chosen Pope under the Name of Leo IX. ibid. He is accused of having incited that Pope to declare War against the Normans of Apulia, who took him Prisoner, 25. His Power at Rome, and his Intrigues in managing the Elections of the Popes who succeeded Leo, 26 and sequ. 32. He causes Alexander II. to be chosen without the Emperor's Consent, 28. His Erterprises to promote the Grandeur of the See of Rome under that Pope, 29 and 32. At last he himself is proclaimed Pope without the Knowledge of the Cardinals, 32. See Gregory VII.  
Holy days, those of Easter and Whitsuntide restrained to three, 73.  
Host; a Custom among the Priests, to communicate with the same consecrated Host, during forty Days after their Ordination, 2. An Explication of that Custom, ibid. See the Eucharist.  
Hugh Cardinal; his Erterprises against Pope Gregory VII. 37 and 38. He is deposed and excommunicated by that Pope, 38 and 42. And by the Council of Quintilineburg, 47.  
Hugh Bishop of Die; his Election to that Bishopric, 57  
His Ordination by Pope Gregory VII. 35 and 57 The Power he had by Virtue of his Office of Legate in France, 48, 49, 50, 57, and sequ. The Decisions made by him in that Quality, 49, 57 and sequ. When made Archbishop of Lions, 58. His Intrigues in aspiring to the Papal Dignity, ibid. and 69. He is excommunicated by Pope Victor III. ibid. And receives Absolution from Urban II. 58, For what reason he was suspended in the Council of Placentia, 73. The time of his Death, 58.  
Hugh, Bishop of Langres; being accused of divers Crimes in a Council, is deposed and excommunicated, 26, 114, and 115. Restored to his former Dignity by Pope Leo IX. after having been put to Penance, 26.  
Hugh, Abbot of Clunie; the Mediator of the Agreement between the Emperor Henry and Pope Gregory, 41. He becomes surety that that Prince should keep his Word, ibid. He is constituted the Pope's Legate in France, 57  
Hungary; the Pope's Pretensions as to the Right of Investiture in that Kingdom, 51. A Contest for the same Kingdom, ibid.   

I  
JEromer, Bishop of Prague; for what reason suspended and deprived of the Revenues of his Church, 51 and 56. He is put again into Possession of his Revenues, 51 and 52. A Contest between him and the Bishop of Moravid about certain Lands, 52. He is reconciled and reinstated by the Pope, ibid. Is reprehended by Gregory VII. for seizing on the contested Lands a second time, ibid. That Quarrel determined by the Pope at Rome, ibid.  
Jews; the Christians forbidden to keep any of them as Slaves, 118. And to hold Correspondence with them, 124 That they ought not to be put to Death upon account of Religion, 31.  
Images; the Latins accused of not paying due Veneration to them, 81. Testimonies to the contrary, 82.  
Incarnation; why the Second Person of the Trinity was incarnate, 94. An Exposition of the Article of Faith concerning that Mystery, 19  
Incontinence; that of Clergymen condemned in many Constitutions, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 47, 58, 66, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 [93] and 123.  
Inferiors; whether it be lawful for them to reprove their Superiors for their Vicious Courses, 84.  
Investitures of Benefices; Emperors and Kings enjoy that Prerogative, 126. A Contest about the Right of Investitures claimed by the Kings of England, 92 and 93. Decrees against the Investitures granted by Laics, 35, 44, 45, 58, 66, 71, 74, and 75. An Error concerning the Investitures condemned, 29. The Pope's Pretensions to that Right, 57  
St. John Baptist; Peter Damian's Opinion about the Time when that Saint was conceived, 90. And about the Solemnity of the Octave of his Festival, 88  
John Archbishop of Rouen; A Quarrel between that Archbishop and the Monks of St. Owen, 15 and 118. He falls into an incurable Distemper, and is deposed, 118 and 119. His Death, 119.  
John Bishop of Moravia; the Occasion of the Contest between him and the Archbishop of Prague, 52. That Difference composed by Pope Gregory VII. ibid.  
John Archbishop of Salerno; his Translation from the Church of Pesti to that of Salerno, approved by the Pope, 24. The Bishops whom he is authorised to ordain by his Order, 25.  
Jordanes Duke of Capua; excommunicated for seizing on a Sum of Money belonging to a certain Monastery, 43.  
Josselin Bishop of Soissons; the Pope forbids his Ordination, 30.  
Isembert Bishop of Poitiers; for what Reason deposed and excommunicated by Pope Gregory VII. 62.  
Isimbard Abbot of St. Laumer; restored to his Abbey by Gregory VII. 67.  
Judgements; the last Judgement described by Peter Damian, 87 and [98.]  
Ives Bishop of Chartres; his Election and Consecration approved by Pope Urban II. 70. He vigorously opposes the Marriage between King Philip and Bertrude, 73. The Pope makes Intercession to procure his Liberty after he was imprisoned upon that Account, 72.  
Ives Abbot of Melaine; made Bishop of Dol, and consecrated by Pope Gregory VII. 62. A Privilege granted him to wear the Pall, ibid. The Mediation of the King of England to hinder the deposing of that Bishop, ibid.   

K  
KIngs; whether it be lawful to excommunicate a King, and to deprive him of his Dominions, 39, 47 and 66. Whether his Subjects may be absolved from their Oath of Allegiance, 66. The Advice given by Pope Gregory VII. to a King of Norway, 51.  
Knowledge; often causes many Vices [97.]   

L  
Laics; uncapable of exercising any Authority over Clergymen and Churches, 70 and 124. A Prohibition to advance them to Ecclesiastical Dignities, 27. They cannot be chosen Bishops, 74. Nor sit as Judges in Spiritual Courts, 65. Nor possess Tithes or Church-Revenues, 43, 44, 47, 75 and 76. The Consent of the Pope or of the Bishops, requisite in Donations made by them to Churches, 72 and 76. They are excluded from making Presentations to vacant Churches, 27. And from passing Judgement on Clerks, ibid. Whether they may be allowed to reprove the Vices of their Bishops, 84.  
Lambert Bishop of Arras; his Ordination by the Pope, upon the Refusal of the Archbishopric of Rheims, 72. He is put in Prison, and afterwards set at Liberty at the Pope's Request, ibid.  
Landric Bishop of Mascon; A Contest about his Ordination, 48. He is ordained by the Pope, ibid.  
Lands; That in Contests about the Rights to Lands, the Fruits belong to those who sowed or planted them, 124.  
Landulphus Bishop of Pisa; the Right that the Pope consigned to him and his Successors, to the Island of Corfu, 54.  
Landulphus Duke of Benevento; an Oath of Allegiance exacted of him by Pope Gregory VII. ibid.  
Lanfrank Archbishop of Canterbury; obliged to give an Account of his Doctrine in a Council at Rome, 7 and 12. Which was found Orthodox in another Synod held at Verceil, 8. His Proceed at Rome to get two Bishops of England established in their respective Sees, 91. The Causes committed to her Determination by the Pope, 30.  
Latin Church; Its Customs vindicated against those of the Greek Church, 76 and 77. The Censures passed upon the Greeks by the Latins, 77 and sequ.  
Laymen; see Laics.  
Learning; often gives occasion to divers Vices [97.]  
Legates of the See of Rome during the Eleventh Century; in France, 10, 11, 48, 49, 55, 56, and 83. In Germany, 23, 35, 40, 42, 55, 72, 83, and 121. In Lombardy, 42, 49, and [93.] In England, 12, 56 and 92. In Spain, 50. In the Island of Corfu, 54. In the Levant, 76, 79. In Poland, 57 In Denmark, ibid. In Russia, ibid. In Sclavonia, ibid.  
Legates● Latere; of their Institution and Power, 55 and sequ. 126. Their Jurisdiction contested, 55 and 56. Of their Functions, 55. Of the Respect due to them, 56.  
Lem; a Constitution about it, 74. Theodorus' Lent, what it is, 78.  
Leo IX Pope, promoted to the Papal Dignity by the Means of Hildebrand's Intrigues, 24. The War that he made with the Normans of Apulia, who took him Prisoner, ibid. He is set at Liberty without a Ransom, ibid. He is reproved by Peter Damian upon Account of that War, 24, 25.  
Leo Archbishop of Acris; reprehended for his Proceed against the Latins, 25.  
Leutheric Archbishop of Sens; wrongfully accused of having denied the real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, 125.  
Life; the Commendation of a solitary Life, by Peter Damian [95.]  
Liemar Archbishop of Bremen, what was suggested by him to the Emperor, to hinder the Pope's Legates from calling a Council in Germany, 35. He is cited to Rome and suspended, ibid. and 36. He is excommunicated in a Council, 47.  
Lions; the Primacy granted to that Church, 59 And confirmed in divers Councils, 73 and 74.  
Lysiard, Archdeacon of Paris; the Accusations that were brought against him, 4.  
Live Spiritual, See Benefices.   

M  
MAgdeburg, a Confirmation of the Privileges and Prerogatives of that Metropolitan See, 23.  
Manasses Archbishop of Rheims; the Occasion of the Complaints made against that Archbishop, 60 and 98. The Affairs committed to his Management by Pope Gregory VII. 60. The Sentence passed upon him by certain Legates of the See of Rome, 57, 60 and 61. He refuses to acknowledge Hugh Bishop of Die as the Pope's Legate, 60. The Reasons alleged by him for making his Appearance in a Council, where he was cited by the Legate, 61. He is deposed in the same Council, and their Decree against him is confirmed at Rome, ibid.  
Maniple; for what reason it ought not be given in conferring the Order of a Sub-Deacon, 15.  
Man slaughter; Punishments inflicted on a Priest who killed another Priest, 31. On a Layman who had killed a Priest, ibid. On a Father who had killed his Son, ibid.  
Marriage; Ceremonies used at the Celebration of it, 117. Of the Degrees of Consanguinity, 31 and [94.] Constitutions about the Prohibition of those Degrees 94 112, 115 and 120. Of those in which 'tis forbidden to contract Marriage, 27 and 29. Unlawful Marriages, 112, 117 and 118. The Age requisite for the marrying of Virgins, 65. A Case in which 'tis null, 31. Marriage not to be dissolved upon account of Adultery, 15 and 112. The time during which the Celebration of it is prohibited, 73 and 120. Declared null, if contracted in the forbidden Times [97.] The Resolution of two Questions about Marriage, 5. A Divorce permitted in case of Impotency, ibid. The Nullity of the Promise of Marriage, 123. Priests not allowed to be present at Marriage-Feasts, only to give the Benediction, 124. Persons twice married to be excluded from Orders, 71.  
Marli; the Reunion of that Bishopric, 27. 23.  
St. Martial; reckoned among the Apostles, The Commemoration of him enjoined to be made among the Apostles, in the Council of Bourges, III. And in the first Council of Lymoges, 112. A Dispute concerning his A postleship, 101.  
St. Martin at Tours; a Confirmation of the Privileges granted to the Canons of that Church, 70. The Difference between the Monks of St. Martin's Abbey and the Archbishop of Tours, determined by Pope Urban II. 75.  
Mass; the Original of the Prayers of which 'tis composed, 97. Of the Celebration of it, 122. Of that of the Mass of the Praesanctified among the Greeks, 78. Certain Defects in that Celebration condemned by the Latins, ibid. A Prohibition to celebrate it without communicating, 117. What Punishment a Priest incurs, who neglects that Injunction, 5, 6. Of the Ablution in celebrating the Mass, 90. A Prohibition to say above one on the same Day, unless in case of Necessity, 31 and 127. Or above three at most, 120. And to say any other Masses than those that are peculiar to the Day, ibid. It ought not to be solemnised by a Priest who has drunk after the Cock-crowing in Summer, ibid. Whether it be more expedient to refrain from saying Mass, or to do it when only one or two Persons are present, 5. The Necessity of having Assistants at the Celebration of it, 127. A Prohibition to hear Mass of a Priest who keeps Concubines, 58 and 66. An Impediment that renders a Priest uncapable of saying Mass, 31.  
St. Matthew; his Relics found by a certain Bishop, 66.  
Mathilda a Sovereign Princess in Italy; who she was, and her Dominions in that Country, 39 Her strict Friendship with Pope Gregory VII. 38, 39 and 46. She is Mediatrix of the Agreement between the Emperor Henry III. and that Pope, 41. She sends Succours to the latter, 39 Her second Marriage, 70. She is confounded by some Authors with a Lady of the same Name, who was the Sister of William Bishop of Pavia, 63.  
Maugier Archbishop of Rouen; deposed in a Council, 116.  
Maurice elected Bishop of London; the Advice given him by Lanfrank, 16.  
St. Medard's Abbey at Soissons; Regnald excommunicated for seizing on the Monastery, 31.  
Megenard Monk of St. Reter at Chartres; his Attempts to get Possession of that Abbey, 3.  
Men; the selling of Men for Slaves forbidden, 123.  
St. Mennus; the Restitution of the Relics of that Saint ordered by Pope Alexander, 30.  
Metropolitans; of their Rights and Privileges, 25.  
Metropolitical Right; a Contest about it, between the Church of Tours and that of Dol, 62.  
Messiah; that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of God [92.]  
Michael Cerularius Patriarch of Constantinople; the Reproaches and Oppressions he put upon the Latins, 76 and 77. The Complaints and Reprimands made by Pope Leo IX. against that Patriarch, 25, 26 and 76. He is excommunicated by the Pope's Legates, 79. His Practices against them, 79, 80 and 81. His great Authority at Constantinople, 82. The Cause of his Banishment, ibid.  
Michael Ducas Emperor of Constantinople; desires Supplies of the Pope to recover the Throne Impeperial of which he was dispossessed, 53. A War carried on under pretence of his Restauration, 54.  
Milan; of the Dignity of that Church [93.] Of the first Planters of the Gospel in those Parts, ibid. The Clergy of that Diocese reformed by Peter Damian, ibid. Subject to the Jurisdiction of the See of Rome, 27.  
Mincius Bishop of Velitri; intruded on the See of Rome by force, 27. He renounces the Papal Dignity, ibid. He begs pardon of the Pope, and is suspended for ever from the Ecclesiastical Functions, ibid.  
Monasteries; the Licentiousness of some Monasteries restrained by Pope Gregory VII. 66 and 67.  
Monks; of their Duties, and of the Virtues they ought to practise [95] and [97.] The Decrees in their Favour against the secular Clerks confirmed, 15. They cannot leave their Monasteries, to reside in another without a Licence from their Abbot, 124. That they who have assumed the Monastic Habit, without serving as Novices for some time, cannot return to a secular Course of Life, [95.] Punishments to be inflicted on those Monks who quit their Profession, 112, 115 and 117. They are obliged to instruct Youth, 122. Their Irregularities in the time of Peter Damian [95.] Of the Obedience they own to Bishops [96] and 124. Some of them permitted to administer Baptism on the Festivals of Easter and Whitsuntide, 113. That they are capable of administering the Sacraments [96.] They cannot impose Penance, without the Consent of their Abbot, 123. They cannot perform the Office of Godfather, ibid. Nor turn Farmers, ibid. They ought not to be suffered to exercise their Functions, when convicted of public and notorious Crimes, 118. Those who turn Monks on purpose to be promoted to Ecclesiastical Dignities, declared uncapable of enjoying them, 119. They ought to be subject to the Jurisdiction of their Bishop, 5 and 124. Forbidden to be concerned in the Management of secular Affairs, 74. That they may administer the Sacraments, and have the Cure of Souls, 75. They cannot serve a Church without the Bishop's Consent, 123. Monks advanced to the Papal Dignity, 126. Substituted in the room of secular Clerks, in the Cathedral Churches, 15 and 31. When a Pardon may be allowed to those who have apostatised, 16. The Rights granted to them upon account of Restitution, 75. To whom accountable for the Spiritualities, and to whom for the Temporalities, ibid.  
Monstier Rendy; a Contest about that Abbey, 114.  
Murder; liable to Excommunication, 5. Excludes a Priest for ever from the Sacerdotal Functions, 65. Punishments inflicted on a Priest for murdering another Priest, 31. On a Layman for assassinating a Priest, ibid. And on a Father for killing his Son, ibid.   

N  
NIcephorus Botoniata Emperor of Constantinople; for what Reason excommunicated by Pope Gregory VII. 43.  
Nicolaitans; their Heresy condemned in divers Councils, 29.  
Normans; their Wars and Conquests in Italy, 52. They take Pope Leo IX. Prisoner, 24 and 53. Their Generosity towards him, ibid. The Advantage they get by setting him at Liberty, 53. They are excommunicated by Gregory VII. 43 and 53. Their Reconciliation with that Pope, 45 and 53. The Succours they afford him, 46. Their Exploits in Greece, 54.  
Norway; the Admonitions given by Pope Gregory VII. to a King of Norway, 51.  
Nurses; Jewish Women not to be admitted in that Quality, 118.   

O  
OAths; of the manner of clearing by Oath used in the Council of Rheims, 114. Subjects absolved from their Oath of Allegiance, 39, 43 and 45. Whether the Pope has a Right to absolve any, 66. Such an Oath exacted of Kings by the Court of Rome, 15. The King of England refuses to take it, ibid. Exacted of divers Princes by Pope Gregory VII. 54. Bishops and Priests forbidden to take an Oath of Fidelity to Kings or other Laics, 74.  
Odito Abbot of Clunie; blamed for refusing the Archbishop of Lions, 23.  
Offerings; an Exhortation to bring them to the Mass, 44. That they belong to the Priests, 112 and 119. The disposing of them reserved to the Bishop, 27. A Contrast about a piece of Gold presented as an Offering at the Celebration of Mass, 89.  
Offices Divine; That the People ought not to sit during the Celebration of them [97.] Of their Usefulness, [94.] Of the Difference between the Rituals of Clergymen and those of the Monks, ibid. A Prohibition to celebrate the Divine Offices in the vulgar Tongue, 66. Whether those who recite them alone in private, aught to say, Dominus vobiscum; Jube Domine, etc. [94] 127. When the Roman Office was introduced into the Churches of Spain, 50. The Institution of the Office of the Virgin Mary, for every Saturday throughout the Year, 127. Of its Usefulness [94.]  
Olaus' King of Norway; receives Admonitions from Pope Gregory VII 51.  
Orders and  
Ordination; the Times appointed for them, 117. The Qualities requisite in Persons who are to be ordained, 116, 118. Whether the Sons of Clergymen may be admitted into Orders, 112. The Sons of Priests, Bastards and Slaves uncapable of being ordained, unless they become Monks or Regular Canons, 58, 72, 74 and 126. A Constitution to exclude the Sons of Priests, 71. The Proceed enjoined by Lanfrank in Reference to a Person who was ordained Deacon without receiving any Order, 16. A Deacon and Priest ordained without taking any other Orders, ibid. and 31. The manner of reinstating them, 16. Ordinations are valid, altho' performed by unworthy Ministers [94.] Those made by Schismatics or excommunicated Priests, condemned, 43, 47, 71 and 74. Whether those that are made by Clerks who stand guilty of Simony, Adultery, or other notorious Crimes, are valid, 71. Whether Persons ordained by Clerks convicted of Simony, aught to be re-ordained [94.] Ordinations procured by Simoniacal Practices forbidden and condemned 27, 28, 44, 112, 114, 119. The manner of reconciling those who were ordained during the Schism, 70. A Prohibition to receive several Orders on the same Day, 118. The Age requisite for Admission into Orders, 72, 119. A Punishment inflicted on those who procure Ordination for Money, 119. A Constitution enjoining Abbots, Deans and Archpriests to enter into Priests Orders, 58.   

P  
PAle, a sort of Linen Covering for the Chalice; the Reason of its Use, 94, 95.  
Pall; the Metropolitans obliged to desire it of the See of Rome, 66 and 126. The Archbishops and Bishops to whom it was granted in the Eleventh Century, 12, 15, 23, 29, 61, 70 and 92. Allowed only to those who went to Rome to fetch it, 15, 65 and [91.] Denied to an Archbishop of Tours, 5.  
Paschasius Robertus; his Sentiments concerning the Eucharist approved, 7, 8 and 9 Those of Joan. Scotus his Adversary condemned, ibid.  
Pax Vobis; That the Bishops were wont to say Pax Vobis in the time of Peter Damian [95.]  
Penance; Constitutions about it, 44, 58, 73 and 74. Declared false, unless it be proportioned to the Quality of the Crimes, 44. Abbot's forbidden to impose Penance without the Consent of their Bishops, 58. And Monks without that of their Abbots, 123. Of those that are undergone to expiate the Offences of others, 90. Causes of the Relaxation of Penance, 126.  
Pentecost; See Whi●sontide.  
St. Peter and St. Paul; why the Images of the latter are set on the right Hand, and those of St. Peter on the left [97.]  
St. Peter's Abbey at Chartres; a Contest about an irregular Grant made to that Monastery, 3.  
Peter Archbishop of Narbo●ne; excommunicated by Pope Gregory VII, 43.  
Peter the Hermit; the Effect of his Remonstrances for a Crusade, 74. Peter▪ penny exacted by the Pope of William II. King of England, 30. A Constitution about the Payment of them, 122.  
Philip I. King of France; his Contests with Pope Gregory VII. 48. The Threats and Reproaches put upon that Prince by the same Pope, ibid. Philip is divorced from Bertha and marries Bertrade, 73.▪ Pope Urban II. reproves the Bishops of France about that Marriage, 72. The King is excommunicated on that account in the Councils of Au●un and Clermon●, 73, His Absolution reserved to the Pope, 72. He is absolved in the Council of Wismes, 75.  
Pilgrimages; their Use approved by Peter Damian [91.]  
Poland; the Advice given by Pope Gregory VII. to the Dukes of Poland, 51.  
Pontius Bishop of Beziers, for what Reason deposed, 56.  
Popes; of their Spiritual and Temporal Authority, 25. What Pope caused the changing of their Names at their Ordination, to be authorised by an express Law, 23. Different Opinions about the time when their Names were razed out of the Diyptiches or Registers of the Greek Church, 81 and 82. The unjust Pretensions of the Popes, 126. The Infringements made by the Court of Rome of the Authority of the Ordinaries and of the Liberties and Immunities of the Churches, ibid. That they are liable to be surprised, ●13. That they ought not to be obeyed when they forbidden the doing of Good, 101. The manner how they ought to proceed in granting Absolution to Offenders excommunicated by the Bishops, 113. The Election of Popes reserved to the Cardinals, 27 and 126. A Constitution about that Affair, 27. Of the Right of the Emperors in their Elections [92] [93.] What may occasion the Shortness of their Life [96▪] A Prohibition to pillage the Revenues and Estates of the Popes after their Death, 27. The Establishment of their Temporal Sovereignty in the City of Rome, 126.  
Power; a Distinction between the Regal and the Sacerdotal Power, 87.  
Praxeda Empress; her Declaration against the Emperor Henry III. her Husband, 73.  
Presents; That they are not to be received indifferently from all manner of Person, 87.  
Priesthood; of the Dignity and Duties of that Function [96.]  
Priests; what Punishments is incurred by those who celebrate Mass without communicating, 5 and 6. They cannot be admitted into, nor turned out of a Church without the Bishop's Consent, 76. Nor become Vassals to Laics, ibid. Disputes between the Greeks and Latins about the Marriage of Priests, 77 and 78. See Clergymen and Clerks.  
Primate; the Title of Universal Primate forbidden to be attributed to any but the Bishop of Rome, 114.  
Procession of the Holy Ghost; of his Procession from the Father and the Son [92.] Maintained by Peter Damian [97.] And St. Anselm in a Council▪ 92. A Treatise written by that Saint on the same Subject, 94.  
Pudicus Bishop of Na●●es; deposed in a Council, for succeeding his Father in that Bishopric, 115.   

Q  
QUietists; the Errors of that Sect observable in Simeon the Younger, 107.   

R  
RAd●lphus Duke of Suabia; See Rodolphus.  
Rainier Bishop of Orleans; a Contest between him and his Chapter, 64. The Pope's Threats denounced against him, ibid. Sa●zon chosen in his place, ibid.  
R●inier a Priest; a Vision seen by him, 87.  
Ravishers; Punishments to be inflicted on them, 75.  
Reginald Bishop of Cumae▪ receives a Letter from Pope Gregory VII. 34.  
Relics; the Latins accused of not showing due Respect to them, 81. Testimonies to the contrary, 82. Those of St. Matthew found by a Bishop, 6●.  
St. Remy; the Dedication of his Church at Rheims, and the Translation of his Body, 114.  
Repentance; Constitutions about it, 44, 58. 73 and 74. Declared Counterfeit, unless proportioned to the Quality of the Offences, 44. See Penance.  
Restitution; that of other men's Goods ordained in a Council, 74.  
Revenge; condemned in Clergymen by Peter Da●ia●, 87.  
Revenues of the Church; of their Original, 88 The Alienation of them forbidden, ibid. Of their Use, 6, 75, 88 Constitutions against Laics, who se●ze on them, 28 and 29. Those who usurp them liable to Excommunication, 3, 30, 43 and 75. A Custom that was used for the preserving of them condemned by Peter Damian, 87. Church-Revenues cannot be recovered by the Donors, 75 and 76. An Ordinance about the Possession of them by Abbots, 44.  
Richard Duke of Capua; an Oath of Allegiance exacted of that Prince by Pope Gregory VII. 54.  
Richerus Archbishop of Sens; how he opposed an Attempt made by the Pope's Legate, 58. A Penalty imposed on the Archbishop, for refusing to acknowledge the Primacy of the Metropolitan of Lions, 59  
Rituals; of the Difference between those of Clergymen and those of Monks [94.]  
Robert Abbot of Rebais; a Contest about his Election and Ordination, 58. He is excommunicated, and another is substituted in his room, ibid.  
Robert Count of Flanders; the Restitution of the Church-Revenues made by that Prince, 71. His Absolution reserved to Hugh Bishop of Die, 58. The time of his Death, 71.  
Rodolphus Duke of Suevia; employed by Pope Gregory VII. to negotiate a Reconciliation with the Emperor Henry III. 34. He himself is chosen and crowned Emperor of Germany, 42. He besieges and takes Wurtzburg, but loses that City a little after, 43. The ill Success of his Arms in the War that he maintained against Henry, 44. The Pope confers on him the Empire of Germany, 45. He is defeated in Battle and dies of his Wounds soon after, 46. His Party proceed to the Nomination of his Successor, ibid.  
Roger Count of Sicily and C●labria; his Conquests in Italy, 53. He is excommunicated by Pope Gregory VII. ibid. And absolved from that Excommunication, ibid. His Engagements with the Popes who succeeded Gregory, 69. Certain Privileges granted by Urban II. at the Request and in Favour of that Prince, 70.  
Roland a Clerk of the Church of Parma; the Bearer of the Orders of the Council that deposed Gregory VII. 38. For what Reason made Bishop of Trevisi, 42. Deposed and excommunicated by the Pope, ibid. and 44.  
Rome; of the Dignity and Pre-eminence of the Church of Rome over the Gree● Church, 25.  
Russia; the pretended Claim laid by Pope Gregory VII. to that Kingdom, 51.   

S  
SAcerdotal Function; of its Dignity [96.]  
Sacraments; Three Principal Sacraments in the Church [94.] That they are not rendered more efficacious by the Administration of worthy Ministers, nor less effectual by that of unworthy ones, ibid. They may be administered by Monks, 75 and [97.] Questions relating to the Qualities of those who administer them, 20, 21. Whether the Administration of the Sacraments would be valid, if any Addition or Alteration were made in the solemn Words of the Consecration, either of set Purpose, or by Carelessness, 21. Whether they be effectual, when administered by Clerks, who stand guilty of Simony, Adultery, or other notorious Crimes, 71. A Prohibition to exact any thing for the Administration of the Sacraments, 112.  
Salerno; a Confirmation of the Metropolitical Right of that Church, 26. The Privileges of its Archbishop likewise confirmed, 71.  
Sactuaries; of the Right to them in Churches and near Crosses, 75 and 125.  
Sardinia; the Homage required by Pope Gregory VII. of the Sovereign Prince of that Island, 54.  
Saracens; driven out of Sicily by the Nor●ans, 23.  
Saturday; Abstinence enjoined on that Day, 44▪ The Censures made by the Greeks on the Latins in Reference to Saturday Fasts, 76. An Answer to those Censures, 77 and 78.  
Schism; in the Church of Rome, between Pope Benedict VIII. and Gregory VI 23. Between Benedict IX. Sylvester III. and Gregory VI 24.  
See of Rome; exacts Tributes of divers Kingdoms, 29 and 30.  
Selve-blancke; the Privileges of that Church confirmed and augmented, 27.  
Servandus Bishop of Hippo; ordained by the Pope, 55.  
Service; That the People ought not to sit during the Celebration of Divine Service [97.] See Office.  
Shower of Blood; the Nature of that which fell in France, in the Time of King Robert, 6. A Prognostic upon that Shower, ibid.  
Sickness; the Cure of it effected by the Means of almsgiving, 90.  
Sigefroy or Sigefrid Archbishop of Mentz; succeeds Luitbold in that Metropolitan See, 121. He consults the Pope about the divorcing of the Emperor Henry from Bertha his Wife, ibid. He constrains Charles nominated to the Bishopric of Constance, to renounce that Dignity, ibid. His Contests about Tithes with the Clergy of Thuringia and the Abbots of Fulda and Herfeldt, ibid. His vain Efforts to oblige the Germane married Clergy to lead a single Life, 36. His Quality of Vicar of the See of Rome made use of as a Pretence to hinder the Pope's Legates from calling a Council in Germany, 35 and 55. He is cited to Rome to give an Account of his Conduct, 35. Excommunicated by Gregory VII. 39 Absolved from that Excommunication and reconciled with the Pope, ibid. His Interest in the Election of Radulphus, whom he afterward crowned Emperor of Germany, 42. He is reproved by the Pope for taking Cognizance of the Differences between the Bishops of P●ague and Moravia, 52. The time of his Death, ●21.  
Sign of the Cross; the Mystical Reasons of the Sign of the Cross made on the Host, and on the Chalice, 94.  
Simony; the different Kind's of it, 66 and 126. Divers Constitutions to prevent Simony, ●6, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 44, 57, 66, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 84 [93] and sequ. 112, 114, 115, 118, 119, 122 and 123, That 'tis a Simoniacal Practice to purchase a Benefice of a King, or of any other Prince or Potentate, altho' nothing were given for the Ordination [95] and [96.]  
Sin; What Lanfrank means by public and private Sin, 16. Divers Questions about the Nature of Original Sin, 94.  
Sipento; the Archbishop of that City commissioned by the Pope to try the Cause depending between the People of Ragusa and Vitalius their Bishops, 65.  
Slaves; uncapable of being admitted into Holy Orders till they have obtained their Liberty, 58.  
Sodomy; prohibited under very severe Punishments, 123.  
Solomon King of Hungary; reproved by Pope Gregory VII. about the Investiture of his Kingdom, 50.  
St. Sophia Abbey at Benevento; a Confirmation of the Privileges of that Abbey, 26.  
Soul; of its State after the last Judgement, 88  
Spain; the Pretensions of the See of Rome to that Kingdom, 49 and 50.  
St. Stephen's Abbey at Caen; when and by whom founded, 12. Its Privileges by whom confirmed, 49.  
Stephen Bishop of Annecy; excommunicated by Hugh of Die, 64.  
Stigand Archbishop of Canterbury deposed; and Lanfrank substituted in his room, 12.  
S●b. Deacons; cannot be promoted to the Episcopal Dignity, without a Licence from the See of Rome, 72.  
Sufferings; a Mark of Predestination [92▪] Of their Usefulness [97.]  
Sunday; a Prohibition to hold Civil Assemblies on that Day, 112.  
Sylvester II. a Sentence of an unheard of Severity attributed to that Pope, 22.  
Synnada the Archbishop of that City Patriarch of Armenia, 55. An Account of the Sentiments of Pope Gregory VII. concerning certain Errors attributed to the Armenians, sent to that Archbishop, ibid.   

T  
TArragona; that City by whom restored and peopled with Christians, 70. Of the Primacy of the Church of Tarragona, ibid.  
Taverns; not to be frequented by Clergymen, 123.  
Tedald; chosen Archbishop of Milan without the Pope's Consent, 37. Cited to Rome, ibid. He enters into a League with the Enemies of Gregory VII. ibid. And is excommunicated by that Pope, 42 & 44.  
Testaments or last Wills; the proving of them reserved to Clergy▪ men in Spain, 124.  
Thomas Archbishop of York; desires the Suffragans of the Archbishop of Canterbury to assist him in the ordaining of a Bishop, 15.  
Tithes; ought only to be paid to Churches, 123. Laics forbidden to possess them, 43, 44 and 47. Those that ought not to be received by Abbots, 44. The Possession of certain Tithes allotted to the Monks, upon Payment of a Yearly Quit▪ Rent, 75.  
Contest's between the Monks and Bishops about Tithes, 126. The disposing of them reserved to the Diocesan, 27.  
Toledo; of the Primacy of the Metropolitan See, 72.  
Tonsure; the Constitutions that oblige Clergymen to receive Ecclesiastical Tonsure, 112 and 123.  
Translations; that of the Body of St. Remy, 114. Those of Bishops prohibited, 116.  
Tribute; exacted of divers Kingdoms by the Court of Rome.  
Trinity: Of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, 1. An Exposition of the Article of Faith relating to that Mystery, 18, 19 Roscelins' Error about it confuted by St. Anselm, 94. Whether the Three Persons of the Trinity may be called Three Things, ibid.  
Trisagion; the Addition of certain Words to the Trisagion condemned, 55.  
Truce of God; What, 76. Constitutions about it, ibid. and 119.   

V  
V All Ombrosa; the Institution of that Order, 127.  
Vatican; the Donation of Pope Leo IX. in Favour of that Church, 26.  
V●ndosme; a Privilege granted to the Abbey of Vendosme, 31. The Reconciliation of the Monks of that Abbey, with those of St. Aubin at Angers, 72.  
Vessels; Laics forbidden to meddle with consecrated Vessels, 47. They ought not to be sold, unless for the Relief of the Poor, 6. Nor put to profane Uses, ibid.  
Vestments-; those usually worn by Priests and Deacons during the Celebration of Mass, 124.  
Vezelay Abbey; a Confirmation of its Privileges, 22.  
Victor II. Pope; a Miracle which happened in his Favour, 26.  
Victualling-Houses; Clergymen forbidden to frequent them, 123.  
Virgin Mary; of the Devotion paid to her [96.] The Institution of her Office for all the Saturdays of the Year, 127. Of the Usefulness of that Office [94.]  
Virgins; not allowed to marry before they have attained to the twelfth Year of their Age, 75.  
Vitalius Bishop of Ragusa; put in Prison by the People of his Diocese, who substitute another in his room, 65. Summoned to Rome with his Competitor to have their Cause tried there, if it cannot be determined upon the place by the Pope's Legate, ibid.  
Unleavened Bread; the Cause of it in the Eucharist condemned by the Greeks, 76, 77, 80 and 81. Authorised by the Latins, 77, 78 and 80.  
Vows; of the Obligation to perform them, [97.]  
V●adislaus Duke of Bohemia; the Concessions by Gregory VII. in his Favour, 61. The Advice given him by that Pope, ibid.  
Urban II. Pope; a Miracle that happened for his Cure, 70.  
U●sio Bishop of Soissons; when and by whom deposed, 58.  
Usury; the Practice of it forbidden to Clerks and Laics, 115. Absolutely condemned in Clergymen, 58.   

W  
Weddings; Priests forbidden to be present at them, only whilft they give the Benediction, 124.  
Wee●; the Office of the Holy Week, 117.  
Westminster; the Privileges of that Church confirmed, 28.  
Wicelin; Archbishop of Mentz; a Disputation between him and Gebehard Archbishop of Saltzburg, for and against the Emperor Henry, 47. His Ordination declared null, ibid. His Opinions condemned, ibid. He is excommunicated in a Council, ibid.  
William I. King of England; excited by Hildebrand to invade this Kingdom, 29. His Conquest of it, 91. The Laws he caused to be enacted, ibid. He is exhorted to follow Lanfrank's Advice, 30. Peter-pences demanded of him, ibid. The Homage that Gregory VII. requires of that Prince, with Menaces, 49. He refuses to take an Oath of Fidelity to the Pope, 15.  
William II. King of England; his Conduct with Respect to the Churches of his Dominions, 92. The Troubles that he created to St. Anselm, ibid. and 93. The time of his Death, 93.  
William Archbishop of Auche; for what Reason excommunicated and deposed, 56. Absolved and reinstalled by Pope Gregory VII. ibid.  
William Archbishop of Rouen suspended from the Episcopal Functions, till he obtain the Pall, 66.  
William a Monk of Eurou; a Proposition advanced him against Berenger, 8.  
Wills, See Testaments.  
Wiquier Archbishop of Ravenna; deprived of his Archbishopric [91.]  
Witnesses; That the Testimony of Eye and Ear Witnesses ought only to be admitted, 124.  
Women; Clergymen forbidden to keep unchaft Correspondence with them, 124. Young Women not allowed to marry before they are twelve Years old, 75.   

Y  
YVues Bishop of Chartres; See Ives.   
FINIS.   

A NEW Ecclesiastical History, Containing an ACCOUNT of the CONTROVERSIES IN RELIGION; THE LIVES and WRITINGS OF Ecclesiastical Authors; AN Abridgement of their Works; And a JUDGEMENT on their STYLE and DOCTRINE: ALSO A Compendious HISTORY of the COUNCILS AND All Affairs Transacted in the Church.  
Written in FRENCH By Lewis Ellies du PIN, Doctor of the SORBON.  
VOLUME the TENTH. Containing the HISTORY of the TWELFTH CENTURY.  
LONDON: Printed for Abel Swal, at the Unicorn in Pater-Noster-Row, and Timothy Child, at the White-Hart in St. Paul's- Churchyard, MDCXCVIII.   

THE PREFACE.  
THis Tenth Volume contains the entire History of the Twelfth Century, tho' that be larger than the Preceding, by reason it contains a greater Number of Authors than the Ages before it, some whereof may be Compared to the greatest Lights of the Church. We here find the Empire and the Church at Difference; The Church of Rome disturbed by Obstinate Schisms; The Popes at War with the Emperors; The Kings and Bishops in Dispute about their Rights. The Dignity of the Sacraments, and the External Worship in Religion, as also its Principles are attacked by Monstrous and Ridiculous Heresies. Scholastic Divinity becomes the common Study, and the Body of the Canon Law, such as it is at Present, was formed and established in this Twelfth Century. The Church is stocked with abundance of Monastic and Regular Orders. The Immunities and Exemptions of the Revenues of the Church and Ecclesiastical Persons are vigorously supported by the Bishops, and maintained by the Decrees of Councils. And Finally, the Manners of ecclesiastics and the External Ceremonies of the Church are reformed in this Age by several very useful Regulations. This is what the Reader will find in the History and Extracts of the Authors and Councils of the Twelfth Century, which we Publish in this Volume.   

A TABLE of the CONTENTS.  

CHAPTER I.  
OF the Life and Writings of Ivo Bishop of Chartres, Page 1  
The Life of Ivo of Chartres, 1  
His Letters, 2  
His Pannormia or Decretal, 22  
His Sermons, 23  
The Chronicon ascribed to Ivo of Chartres, 23  
The Editions of his Works, 23   

CHAP II.  
AN Account of the Church of Rome under the Pontificate of Pope Paschal II. Gelasus II. and Calixtus II. containing the Rise, Progress, and Conclusion of the Contests between the Holy See and the Empire about Investitures, 22  
The Election of Pope Paschal II. Ibid  
The Death of Guibert. The Antipopes who succeeded him, Ibid  
The Designs of Pope Paschal II. against the Emperor Henry, 24  
The Council of Rome under Paschal II. against the Emperor Henry, 24  
Henry V. rebels against his Father, 24  
The Convent. of Northusa, in the Year 1105. Ibid  
The War between the two Henry's, Ibid  
Henry IU. is cast into Prison and Deposed, 25  
Henry IU. retires to Liege, and there publishes a Declaration, 25  
The Reply of his Son Henry to this Declaration, 25  
The Death of Henry IU. 25  
The Council of Guastella in the Year 1106. 25  
The Contest between the Pope and the Emperor about Investitures, 25  
The Reasons alleged by the Deputies of the Emperor for Investitures, 25  
The Reasons alleged by the Pope's Deputies, 26  
The breaking off of the Conference about Investitures, Ibid  
The Council of Troy's in the Year 1107, Ibid  
The emperor's Journey into Italy, Ibid  
The Treaty between the Pope and the Emperor, Ibid  
The Pope and Cardinals arrested by the Emperor's Order, Ibid  
The Pope grants the Right of Investitures to the Emperor, 27  
The Emperor's Return into Germany, 27  
The Grant of Investitures disapproved of by the Cardinals, 27  
The Lateran Council in the Year 1112. Ibid  
The Decrees against Henry upon the account of Investitures, 28  
The second Journey of Henry V into Italy, 28  
The Lateran Council held in the Year 1116. Ibid  
Henry enters Rome: Paschal withdraws, Ibid  
Paschal returns to Rome, 29  
Gelasus II. elected Pope, 29  
Henry comes to Rome, and causes Mauritius Burdin to be proclaimed Pope, Ibid  
The Election of Calixtus II. 29  
The Conference of the Emperor with William of Champeaux about Investitures, 29  
The Council of Rheims in the Year 1119, 29  
The Pope's Negotiation with the Emperor, 30  
The Canons of the Council of Rheims, Ibid  
Calixtus II. is received into Rome, and Burdin deposed with Disgrace, Ibid  
The Treaty betwixt Calixtus II. and Henry V about Investitures. Ibid  
The Rise and Progress of Investitures, 31  
The Ceremonies of Investitures, Ibid  
The beginning of the Contest about Investitures, 32  
The state of the Question in the time of Paschal II. Ibid  
The state of it under Calixtus II. Ibid  
Remarks upon the Treaty concluded between Calixtus II. and Henry V Ibid  
The Execution of the Treaty made with Henry, 33  
The Custom of France with respect to Investitures, Ibid  
The Custom of England with respect to the same. Ibid  
Investitures granted to particular Princes, Ibid  
The first general Lateran Council in the Year 1123 Ibid  
The Letters of Paschal II. 34  
The Letters of Gelasus II. 37  
The Letters of Calixtus II. Ibid   

CHAP. III.  
THE History and Letters of the Pope's Honorius II. Innocent II. Celestine II. Lucius II. Eugenius III. 38  
Honorius II. 38  
Innocent II. Ibid  
Celestine II. 39  
Lucius II. 39  
Eugenius III. Ibid  
The Letters of Honorius II. Ibid  
The Letters of Innocent II. Ibid▪  
The Letters of Celestine II. 40  
The Letters of Lucius II. Ibid  
The Letters of Eugenius III. 40, 41  
The Letters of Anacletus II. the Antipope, 42   

CHAP. IV.  
THE Life of St. Bernard, together with an Account of his Writings, 42  
The Letters of St. Bernard, 44  
St. Bernard's Treatise of Consideration, 68  
His Treatise of the Duties of Bishops, 70  
His Treatise of the Commandments and Dispensations. Ibid  
His Apology to William Abbot of St. Thierry, 72  
His Treatise in Commendation of the new Militia 74  
His Treatise of the Degrees of Humility, Ibid  
His Treatise of the Love of God, Ibid  
His Treatise of Grace and freewill, 75  
His Letters to Hugh of St. Victor, 75, 76  
The Life of St. Malachy by St. Bernard, 76  
St. Bernard's Sermons, 76  
Gilbert Abbot of Hoilanda, Ibid  
William Abbot of St. Thierry, 77  
Geoffrey Abbot of Igny, Ibid  
Guigue Prior of the Great Chartress, Author of the Ladder of the Cloister, Ibid  
The Works of those Anonymous Authors which are to be met with among those of St. Bernard. Ibid  
The Works of Gueric Abbot of Igny, Ibid  
The Lives of St. Bernard, Ibid  
The Works of Geoffrey, St. Bernard's Disciple, Ibid  
The History of St. Bernard's Miracles. 78  
Other Lives written by St. Bernard, Ibid  
Nicholas Monk of Clairvaux, 78  
The Character, and Judgement upon St. Bernard, Ibid  
The Several Editions of his Works, 78, 79   

CHAP. V  
OF the Life and Writings of Peter, Sir-named the Venerable, Abbot of Clunie. 79   

CHAP. VI  
AN Account of the Heresies which prevailed in the Twelfth Century, 86  
The Heretics of the Twelfth Century, 86  
An Account of the Heretic Henry, Ibid  
The Errors of Peter of Bruis, Ibid  
The Publication of the Errors of Henry and Peter of Bruis, 87  
The Heretics of Perigueux Ibid  
The Heresy of Tancheline, Ibid  
The Heretics of Cologne, Ibid  
The Heretics of Toul, 88  
The Heretics in Italy called Cathari, 89  
The Heretics called Passagians, Ibid  
The Heresy of Arnold of Bresse, Ibid  
The Condemnation of the Heretics in the Council of Tolouse, in the Year 1119, 89, 90  
Their Condemnation in the Synod of Oxford, in the Year 1160, 90  
Their Condemnation in the Council of Tours in the Year 1163, Ibid  
The Council of Lombez, in the Year 1176, against the Heretics, Ibid  
The Heretics condemned at Tolouse, 91  
The Condemnation of the Albigenses in the Lateran Council, in the Year 1179, 91  
The Heresy of Terrick. Ibid  
The Heretics called Publicans or Poblicans, 91  
The Errors of Eon de l'Etoile, Ibid   

CHAP. VII.  
AN Account of Peter Abaelard, his Wrtting, Errors and Condemnation, 92  
The Life and Adoentures of Abaelard, 9●  
The Council of Soissons, in the Year 1121, 93  
The Letter of Heloissa to Abaelard, 94  
The Letter of Abaelard to Heloissa, 95  
Another Letter of Heloissa, 95  
Abaelard's Reply, Ibid  
A Third Letter of Heloissa, Ibid  
Abaelard's Reply, 96  
Abaelard's Letters, 96  
The Charge brought against Peter Abaelard, 97  
The Decrees of the Council of Sens, in the Year 1140, against Peter Abaelard, 100  
The Pope's Confirmation of the Judgement passed by the Council of Sens, 103  
Abaelard's Apology, Ibid  
The Retreat of Abaelard to Clunie, and his Death, Ibid  
The Examination of Abaelard's Doctrine. The Works of Abaelard. Ibid   

CHAP. VIII.  
THE History of the Errors and Condemnation of Gilbert de la Porrée, Bishop of Poitiers. 113  
The particular Opinions of Gilbert de la Porrée, 113  
The Council of Paris, in the Year 1147. about him, Ibid  
The Council of Rheims in the Year 1148. 113, 114  
The Condemnation of Gilbert in the Council of Rheims, 114  
The Writings of Gilbert de la Porrée, 115  
His Letter about the Eucharist Ibid   

CHAP. IX.  
THE History and Letters of the Popes who sat upon the Papal's Chair, from Eugenius III. to the end of this Century. 115  
Anastasius IV. 115  
Adrian IV. 115  
Alexander III. 116  
The Council of Pavia, in the Year 1160, against Alexander, Ibid  
The Kings of France and England declare for Alexander, Ibid  
The Assembly of Lodi, in the Year 1161, 117  
Alexander III. goes into France, Ibid  
A Conference at Avignon, upon the Subject of Schism, Ibid  
The Council of Tours held by Alexander, in the Year 1163. 117  
Alexander III. returns to Rome, Ibid  
The Assembly of Wirtzburgh, in the Year 1166, against Alexander, Ibid  
The War of the Emperor Frederick in Italy, 118  
Ped●e concluded between Frederick and Alexander Ibid  
Lucius III. 119  
Urban III. Ibid  
The Assembly of Geinlenheusen, in the Year 1186. Ibid  
Gregory VIII. Ibid  
Clement III. Ibid  
Celestine III. Ibid  
The Letters of Anastasius IU. 120  
The Letters of Adrian iv Ibid  
The Letters of Alexander III▪ 121  
The Letters of Lucius III. 122  
The Letters of Urban III. 123  
The Letters of Gregory VIII. Ibid  
The Letters of Clement III. Ibid  
The Letters of Celestine III Ibid   

CHAP. X.  
AN Account of the Contests between Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury, and Henry II. King of England. 124  
The Life of S. Thomas, before he was Archbishop of Canterbury, 124  
The Election of S. Thomas to the Archbishopric of Canterbury, Ibid  
The Original of the Contests, between the King of England and St. Thomas, 125  
The Assembly of London in the Year 1163. Ibid  
The Convention at Clarendon, in the Year 1164. Ibid  
S. Thomas reputes his having signed at the Assembly of Calrendon, 126  
The Retreat of St. Thomas, Ibid  
The Negotiation of the King of England with the Pope, Ibid  
The Assembly at Northampton against S. Thomas, 126, 127  
The Archbishop withdraws into France, 127  
The Judgement of the Pope in favour of S. Thomas Ibid  
S. Thomas is sent Legate of the Holy See into England, 128  
The Negotiation of John of Oxford at Rome. Ibid  
The Negotiation of the Pope's Legate sent into England, Ibid  
An Interview of St. Thomas and the King of England, in the Presence of the King of France. 130  
Other Legates sent into England, and their Negotiation, 130  
The King of England's Son is Crowned by the Archbishop of York, 131  
The Accommodation between the King of England and S. Thomas, Ibid  
The Return of S. Thomas into England, Ibid  
Fresh Disturbances, Ibid  
The Plot against the Life of S. Thomas, and his Death, 132  
The Canonization of S. Thomas, Ibid  
His Writings, Ibid   

CHAP. XI.  
THE Lives and Writings of the most Eminent Authors, who flourished in the Twelfth Century. 133  
Geoffrey Abbot of Vendome. 133  
Hildebert Bishop of Man's, and afterwards Archbishop of Tours, 136  
Guibert Abbot of Nogent. 140  
Sigibert Monk of Gemblours, 144  
Honorius Solitarius, the Schoolmaster of the Church of Autun, 145  
Ernulphus or Arnulphus Bishop of Rochester. 156  
St. Bruno and Guigne, Priors of the Carthusian Monastery at Grenoble, 147  
St. Norbert, 148  
Stephen Hardingue Abbot of Cisteaux, 149  
Bruno Bishop of Signi, Ibid  
Odo a Benedictine of Asti. ibid.  
Marbodus Bishop of Rennes, 150  
Arnulphus or Arnold Bishop of Lisieux, 151  
Peter de Cells Bishop of Chartres, 156  
Nicholas Monk of S. Alban, 157  
John of Salisbury, Bishop of Chartres, 157  
Peter of Blois, archdeacon of Bath, 158  
Stephen Bishop of Tournay, 166  
The Authors who have written against the Albigenses and Waldenses, 169  
Ebrard of Bethuni, Ibid  
Bernard Abbot of Fontcaud, 169  
Ermengard or Ermengand, Ibid   

CHAP. XII.  
OF the Ecclesiastical Authors of lesser Note, who flourished in the West during▪ this Century, 170  
Anselmn Dean of Laon, Ibid  
Gislebert or Gilbert Crispin Abbot of Westminster Ibid  
Peter Alphonso a Spanish converted Jew Ibid  
Theobald Clerk of the Church of Etampes, Ibid  
Radulphus or Ralph the Zealous, 170  
Odo Bishop of Cambray, Ibid  
Gilbert Bishop of Limerick, Ibid  
Franco Abbot of Afflighem, Ibid  
William of Champeaux Bishop of Chalons, Ibid  
Stephen Bishop of Autun, Ibid  
Gautier Bishop of Maguelone, Ibid  
Drogo or Dreux, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, 171  
Peter, the Library-keeper of Mont Cassin, Ibid  
Richard Abbot of Mont-Cassin, Ibid  
Anselmn Bishop of Havelberg, Ibid  
Herveus a Benedictine of Dol, Ibid  
Hugh de Foliet Monk of Corbey, 171  
Stephen Bishop of Paris, Ibid  
Hugh Archbishop of Rouen, Ibid  
Hugh Metellus a Regular Canon Ibid  
Thomas Abbot of Maurigny, Ibid  
Bernard Monk of Clunie, Ibid  
Ulgier Bishop of Angiers Ibid  
Rodulphus Abbot of S. Tron, Ibid  
Sibert Prior of S. Pantaleon, 172  
Waselinus Momalius Prior of St. Laurence of Liege, Ibid  
Amadeus Bishop of Lausana, Ibid  
Potho Monk of Prom, 173  
Philip Bishop of Tarento, Ibid  
Serlo Monk of Cerisy, and afterwards Abbot of Savigny, Ibid  
Gautier of Mauritania Bishop of Laon, Ibid  
Wolbero Abbot of S. Pantaleon, Ibid  
Luke Abbot of S. Corneille near Liege, Ibid  
Bartholomew of Foigny Bishop of Laon, Ibid  
Ralph the Black Monk of S. Germer, Ibid  
S. Aelrede or Athelred Abbot of Reverbi, Ibid  
S. Hildegarda Abbess of Mount S. Robert, 174  
Thierry Abbot of the Order of St. Benedict, Ibid  
S. Elizabeth Abbess of Schonawe Ibid  
Ecbert Abbot of S. Florin, Ibid  
Odo a Regular Canon, Ibid  
John of Cornwall, Ibid  
Folmar Provost of Trieffenstein, Ibid  
Gerocus Provost of Reichersperg, 174  
An Anonymous Dean of Reichersperg, Ibid  
Gilbert Foliot Bishop of London, Ibid  
Philip of Harvenge Abbot of Bonne Esperance, Ibid  
Adam the Scot, a Regular Canon, Ibid  
John the Burgundian Magistrate of Pisa, 174  
Peter of Riga Canon of Rheims, Ibid  
Henry Archbishop of Rheims, Ibid  
Robert Paululus Priest of Amiens, Ibid  
Maurice of Sully Bishop of Paris, Ibid  
Gervaise Priest of Chichester, 175  
Odo Abbot of Bell, Ibid  
Laboromtius a Cardinal, Ibid  
Alulphus Monk of S. Martin at Tournay 175  
Baldwin Archbishop of Canterbury, Ibid  
Isaac Abbot de l'Etoile, Ibid  
Henry, Peter and Garnier Abbots of Clairvaux, Ibid  
Gilbert of Sempringham, Ibid  
Christian Monk of Clairvaux, Ibid  
Gautier of Chatillon, Ibid  
Garnier of St. Victor, Ibid  
Thomas Monk of Cisteaux, Ibid  
Peter Comestor Dean of S. Peter of Troy's, 176  
Robert of Flamesbury, Ibid  
Bartholomew Bishop of Oxford, Ibid  
Odo of Chirton, Ibid  
Elias of Coxie, Abbot of Dunes, Ibid  
John a Monk of Chartreux des Portes, Ibid  
Stephen de Chaulmet, Chartreux des Portes, Zachariah Bishop of Chrysopolis, Ibid   

CHAP. XIII.  
OF the Authors of the Twelfth Century, who have Composed any pieces of Ecclesiastical History, 177  


Authors who have written the Universal History.  
Florentius Bravo Monk of Winchester, Ibid  
Eckard Abbot of Urangen, Ibid  
Hugh Monk of Fleury, Ibid  
Ordericus Vitalis Monk of S. Eurou, Ibid  
Anselm Abbot of Gemblours, Ibid  
Otho Bishop of Frisinghen, Ibid  
Godfrey of Viterba, 178  
Robert de Torigny Abbot of Mount S. Michael, Ibid  
Otho of S. Blaise, Ibid  
John Brompton Abbot of Jorval, Ibid    


English Historians.  
Henry Archdeacon of Huntingdon, Ibid  
William the Little, called Guilielmus Neubrigensis, Ibid  
Walter Archdeacon of Oxford, Ibid  
John Pike, Ibid  
Gervais Monk of Canterbury, Ibid  
Geoffrey Arthur Bishop of St. Asaph, Ibid  
Turgot Monk of Durham, 179  
Simeon of Durham, Ibid  
William of Somerset, Monk of Malmsbury, Ibid  
John of Hexam, Provost of Hagulstad, Ibid  
Silvester Girald, Bishop of S. David's, Ibid  
Roger of Hoveden, Professor at Oxford, Ibid  
Historiographers of the Croisades, 179  
Peter Teuthbodus, Ibid  
An Anonymous Italian, Ibid  
Robert Monk of St. Remy of Rheims, Ibid  
Baudry Bishop of Dol. Ibid  
Raymond of Agiles, Canon of P●y. 180  
Albert or Alberic, Canon of Aix, Ibid  
Foucher Monk of Chartres, 180  
Gautier the Chancellor, Ibid  
Two Anonymous Abbreviators of Foucher, Ibid  
William Archbishop of Tyre, Ibid  
James of Vitry Cardinal, Ibid  
An Anonymous Author, 18●  
Oliver of Cologne, Ibid    


Authors of Chronicles and particular Histories.  
Hugh Abbot of Flavigny, Ibid  
Baudry Bishop of Noyon and Terrovane, Ibid  
Leo of Marsi, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, Ibid  
Leo Cardinal Deacon, Ibid  
Hariulsus Monk of S. Riquier, Ibid  
Rainier Monk of S. Laurence of Liege, Ibid  
Herman Abbot of S. Martin of Tournay, Ibid  
Falcon Magistrate of S. Benevento, Ibid  
Udeschalchus Monk, Ibid  
Alexander Abbot in Sicily, Ibid  
John Monk of Marmoutier, 182  
Geoffrey or Walter of Vinesauf, Ibid  
Odo of Devil Abbot of S. Corneille at Campagne, Ibid  
Laurence Monk of Liege, Ibid  
Sugerus Abbot of S. Denys, Ibid  
Adelbert or Albert, Abbot of Hildesheim, Ibid  
Teulsus Monk of Maurigny, Ibid  
Hugh of Poitiers, Monk of Vezelay, Ibid  
Richard Prior of Hagulstad, Ibid  
Thierry a Monk, Ibid  
An Anonymous Author of the Danish Expedition into the Holy Land, Ibid  
Geoffrey Prior of Vigeois, Ibid  
Gonthier Monk of S. Amand, Ibid  
Saxo the Grammarian Profost of Roschild, Ibid  
Ralph of Diceto, Dean of S. Paul's in London, Ibid    


Authors of the Lives of the Saints, and of the Relations of their Miracles.  
Anscherus Abbot of S. Riquier, 183  
Theofredus Abbot of Epternach, Ibid  
Reginald of Semur, Archbishop of Lions, Ibid  
Nicholas Monk of Soissons, Ibid  
Domniso an Italian Priest, Ibid  
Aelnothus Monk of Canterbury, Ibid  
Gualbert Monk of Marchiennes, Ibid  
Pandulfus of Pisa, Ibid  
Fabricius Tuscus Abbot of Abbingdon, Ibid  
Anchus Abbot of the Order of Valombrosa Ibid  
Odo Abbot of S. Remy of Rheims, Ibid  
Geoffrey the Gross, Monk of Tiron, Ibid  
Ulric Bishop of Constance, Ibid  
Archard Monk of Clairvaux, Ibid  
Sifred Ebbo, Timon and Herbard, 184  
Robert archdeacon of Ostrevant, 184  
An Anonymous Author of the Life of S. Ludger, Ibid  
Turstin Archbishop of York, Ibid  
Thibald Monk of S. Peter of Beze, Ibid  
Hugh Monk of Clunie, Ibid  
Gautier Canon of Terovane, Ibid  
Nicholas Canon of Liege, 184  
Alanus Bishop of Auxerre, Ibid  
Sibrand Abbot of Mariegarde, Ibid  
Bertrand Abbot de la Chaise Dieu, Ibid  
Radulphus Tortarius, Ibid  
Stephen Abbot of S. James of Liege, Ibid  
Hugh Monk of S. Saviour of Lodeve, Ibid  
Herman a Convert Jew of Cologne, Ibid  
Thomas Monk of Ely, Ibid     

CHAP. XIV.  
THE Lives and Writings of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the East, during the Twelfth Century. 184  
Euthymius Zigabenus, a Grecian Monk, Ibid  
Philip the Solitary, a Greek Monk, 185  
Peter Crosolan or Chrysolanus, Ibid  
Eustratus Archbishop of Nice, Ibid  
Nicetus Seidus, Ibid  
Isaac an Armenian Bishop, Ibid  
Michael Glycas, a Sicilian, 186  
Nicetas Constantinopolitanus, Ibid  
Constantine Manasses, 187  
Constantine Hermenopulus, Judge of Thessalonica, Ibid  
John Patriarch of Antioch. Ibid  
German Patriarch of Constantinople, 188  
Arsenius Monk of Mount Athos, Ibid  
Andronicus Cameterus, Ibid  
George Archbishop of Corfeu, Ibid  
Anthony Melissus a Greek Monk, Ibid  
Basil of Acris, Archbishop of Thessalonica, Ibid  
Lucas Chrisobergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, Ibid  
Michael of Thessalonica, Ibid  
Alexis Aristenes, Steward of the Church of Constantinople, 189  
Simeon Logothetes, Ibid  
John Cinnan the Grammarian, Ibid  
Theorianus, Ibid  
Hugh Etherianus, Ibid  
Nicephorus Bryennius the Macedonian, Ibid  
Anna Comnena, Ibid  
John Zonaras, Secretary of State of Constantinople, 190  
John Phocas a Greek Monk, Ibid  
Neophytus a Reoluse Monk, Ibid  
John Bishop of Lydda, Ibid  
George Xiphilin, Patriarch of Constantinople, Ibid  
Demetrius Tornicius, Ibid  
Lupus Protospates, Ibid  
Michael Anchiales, Patriarch of Constantinople, Ibid  
Theodorus Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch, Ibid  
John Camaterus, Patriarch of Constantinople, 191   

CHAP. XV.  
OF the Original of Scholastic Divinity, and of the first Schoolmen who flourished in the Twelfth Century. 191  
Peter Lombard Bishop of Paris, 192  
Robert Pullus Cardinal, 199  
Peter of Poitiers, Chancellor of the Church of Paris, 200  
Robert of Melun, Bishop of Hertford, 201  
Gautier, Regular Canon of S. Victor, Ibid   

CHAP. XVI.  
OF the Commentaries on the Holy Scriptures, Composed in the Twelfth Century, and of the three famous Commentators, viz. Rupert Abbot of Duyts, Hugh and Richard of S. Victor. 201  
The new Method of Commenting on the Holy Scriptures, Ibid  
Rupert Abbot of Duyts, Ibid  
Hugh of S. Victor, 202  
Richard of S. Victor, 203   

CHAP. XVII.  
OF the Collection of Canons made by Gratian, 204   

CHAP. XVIII.  
OF the General Councils held in the Twelfth Century, 205  
The first general Lateran Council, 33, 205  
The second general Lateran Council, 206  
The third general Lateran Council, 207   

CHAP. XIX.  
OF the Provincial Councils held in the Twelfth Century, 210  
The Council of 

Valence in the Year 1100 210  
Poitiers in the Year 1100 210  
Ansa the same Year, 211  
Troyes in the Year 1104, 211  
Beauvais in the Year 1114, 211  
Rheims in the Year 1115, 211  
Toulouse in the Year 1119, 212  
London in the Year 1125, 212  
London in the Year 1127, 212  
London in the Year 1138, 212  
Rheims in the Year 1131, 213  
Rheims in the Year 1148, 213  
Tours in the Year 1163, 213  
Cassel in Irel. in the Y. 1172, 214  
Auranches the same Year, 214  
London in the Year 1175, 215    
The ●…od o● York in the Year 1195 215  
The Council of Montpellier the same Year, 216   

CHAP. XX.  
OBservations on the Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Twelfth Century, 216  
Of the Authority of the Popes, 217  
Several points of Discipline relating to the Clergy, 217  
Remarks on the Discipline of the Sacraments, 218  
Remarks on the Monastical State, Ibid  
Regular Canons, Ibid  
Military Orders, 219  
A Chronological Table of the Ecclesiastical History of the Twelfth Century of the Church.  
A Chronological Table of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the Twelfth Century.  
A Table of the Works of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the Twelfth Century.  
A Table of the Acts, Letters and Canon of Councils held in this Century.  
A Table of the Writings of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the Twelfth Century, disposed according to the Matters they treat on.  
An Alphabetical Table of the Ecclesiastical Authors of this Century.  
An Alphabetical Table of the Councils held in this Century.  
An Alphabetical Table of the Principal Matters contained in this Century.    

An Alphabetical Table of the Ecclesiastical Writers of the Twelfth Century.  

A.  
ABaelardus, a famous Philosopher, Page 40, 44, 56, 64, 92,  
Adamus Scotus, a Regular Canon 194  
Adelbert or Albert, Abbot of Hildesheim. 182  
Adrian IV. Pope, 115, 120  
Aelnothus a Monk of Canterbury, 183  
St. Aelred or Ethelred, Abbot of Reverby, 77, 173  
Alanus Bishop of Auxerre, 78, 184  
Albertus or Albericus, a Canon of Aix. 180  
Alexander III. Pope, 116, 121, 122  
Alexander Abbot in Sicily, 181  
Alexis Aristenes Steward, of the Church of Constantinople, 189  
Alulphus, a Monk of St. Martin at Tournay, 175  
Amedeus Bishop of Lausana, 172  
Anacletus Antipope, 38, 42, 43  
Anastasius IV. Pope, 115, 120  
Andronicus Camaterus, 188  
Anna Comnena, 189  
Anonymous Authors, Vide, Name Authors.  
Anscherus, Abbot of St. Riquier, 183  
Anselm Abbot of Gemblours, 177  
Anselm Dean of Laon, 92, 170  
Anselm Bishop of Havelberg, 182  
Antonius Melissus a Grecian Monk, 188  
Archardus a Monk of Clairvaux, 183  
Ariulphus a Monk of St. Riquier; see Hariulphus,  
Arnulphus or Arnoldus, Bishop of Lisieux, 151  
Arnulphus or Ernulphus, Bishop of Rochester, 146  
Arsenius a Monk of Mount Athos, 188  
Auctus Abbot of Valombre, 183   

B.  
BAldwin Archbishop of Canterbury, 190  
Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch, 190  
Bartholomew Bishop of Oxford, 176  
Bartholomew of Foigny, Bishop of Laon, 68, 173  
Basil of Acri, Archbishop of Thessalonica, 19  
Baudry Bishop of Dol, 179  
Baudry Bishop of Noyon and Terovanne, 181  
St. Bernard, 42. etc. 38, 88, 100, 111, 114.  
Bernard Abbot of St. Anastasius, afterwards Pope under the name of Eugenius III, 39, 40, 44, 64, 68  
Bernard Abbot of Fontcaud, 169  
Bernard a Monk of Clunie, 171  
Bertrand Abbot of La chaise dieu, 184  
Bonacursius, 89  
St. Bruno, 147  
Bruno Bishop of Signi, 27, 28, 159   

C.  
CAlixtus II. Pope, 29, 32, 33, 36, 37,  
Celestine II. Pope, 39, 40  
Celestine III. Pope, 119, 120, 123  
Christian, a Monk of Clairvaux, 175  
Chrysolanus or Grosolanus, 26, 28, 185  
Clement III. Pope, 119, 123  
Constantinus Harmenopulus, 187  
Constantinus Manasses, 187   

D.  
Demetrius' Tornicius, 190  
Domniso a Priest, 183  
Drogo or Dreux, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, 171   

E.  
EBBo, 184  
Ebrard of Bethune, 169  
Ecbert Abbot of St. Florin, 88, 174  
Eckard Abbot of Urangen, 177  
Elias of Coxis, Abbot of Dunes, 176  
St. Elizabeth, Abbess of Schonaw, 174  
Elnothus a Monk of Canterbury, 183  
Enervinus Provost of Stemfeld, 87, 88  
Ermengardus or Ermengaldus, 169  
Ernulphus or Arnulphus, Bishop of Rochester, 146  
St. Ethelred or Aelred, Abbot of Reverby, 173  
Eugenius III. Pope, 39, 40, 44, 64, 68  
Eustratius Archbishop of Nice, 185  
Euthymius Zygabenus, a Greek Monk, 184   

F.  
FAbricius Tuscus Abbot of Abington, 183  
Falco a Magistrate of Benevento, 181  
Fastredus Abbot of Clairvaux, 68  
Florentius Bravo a Monk of Winchester, 177  
Foucher a Monk of Chartres, 180  
Franco Abbot of Afflighem, 170   

G.  
Garnerius' Abbot of Clairvaux, 175  
Garnerius of St. Victor, 175  
Galterius or Walter, archdeacon of Oxford, 178  
Galterius a Canon of Terovane, 184  
Galterius Bishop of Maguelone, 170  
Galterius of Chatillon, 175  
Galterius of Mauritania, Bishop of Laon, 173  
Galterius of St. Victor, 201  
Galtier le Chancelier, 180  
Gelasius II. Pope, 29, 37  
Geoffrey Abbot of Clairvaux, the Disciple of St. Bernard, 77, 114 115  
Geoffrey Abbot of Igny, 77  
Geoffrey Abbot of Vendome, 133  
Geoffrey Abbot of Chartres, 48 67, 171,  
Geoffrey Prior of Vigeois, 182  
Geoffrey Arthur Bishop of St. Asaph, 178  
Geoffrey the Gross, a Monk of Tiron, 183  
Geoffrey or Walter de Vinesauf, 182  
George Archbishop of Corfu, 188  
George Xiphylin Patriarch of Constantinople, 190  
Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople, 188  
Gerochus Provost of Reichersperg, 174  
Gervase a Monk of Canterbury, 178  
Gervase a Priest of Chichester, 175  
Gilbert Abbot of Hoiland, 77, 174  
Gilbert of Sempringham, 175  
Gilbert Foliot Bishop of London, 174  
Gilbert Bishop of Limerick, 170  
Gillebert or Gilbert de la Porrée Bishop of Poitiers, 115  
Gillebert or Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster, 170  
Godfrey of Viterbo, 178  
Gontherius a Monk of St. Amand, 182  
Gratian, 204  
Gregory VIII. Pope, 119, 123  
Gualbert a Monk of Marchiennes 183  
Gueric Abbot of Igny, 77  
Guibert Abbot of Nogent, 140, 180  
Guigue Prior of la Grande Chartreuse, 77, 148  
Guy, Archbishop of Vienna, 28, 29, 36,   

H.  
HAimo archdeacon of Chalons, 67  
Hariulphus a Monk of St. Riquier, 181  
Heloissa Abbess of Paraclet, 93, 94, 106,  
Henry Abbot of Clairvaux, 175  
Henry Archbishop of Rheims, 174  
Henry archdeacon of Huntingdon, 178  
Henry Bishop of Troy's, 68  
Herbert a Monk, 87  
Herbordus, 184  
Herman Abbot of St. Martin at Tournay, 181  
Herman a Converted Jew of Colen, 184  
Herveus a Monk of Bourg de Dol, 171  
Hildebert Bishop of Man's, and afterward Archbishop of Tours, 51, 86, 136  
St. Hildegarda Abbess of Mount St. Rupert, 41, 174  
Honorius II. Pope, 38, 39  
Honorius Solitarius, Professor of Scholastic Divinity in the Church of Autun, 144  
Hugh Abbot of Flavigny, 180  
Hugh Archbishop of Roven, 144 171  
Hugh Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, 68  
Hugh a Monk of Clunie, 184  
Hugh a Monk of Fleury, 177  
Hugh a Monk of St. Saviour at Lodeve, 184  
Hugh de Foliot a Monk of Corbie, 171, 202  
Hugh of Poitiers, a Monk of Vezelay, 182  
Hugh of St. Victor, 202  
Hugh Metellus a Regular Canon, 67, 88, 171  
Hugh Etherianus, 189   

I.  
JAmes de Vitry Cardinal, 180  
Innocent II. Pope, 22, 38, 39, 43, 54, 83, 100,  
Johannes Burgundus a Magistrate of Pisa, 174  
Johannes Camaterus Patriarch of Constantinople, 191  
Johannes Cinnamus the Grammarian, 189  
Johannes Phocas a Grecian Monk, 190  
Johannes Zonara's Secretary of State to the Emperor of Constantinople, 190  
John Bishop of Lydda, 190  
John the Hermit, 78  
John a Carthusian Monk of Portes, 176  
John a Monk of Marmoutier, 182  
John Patriarch of Antioch, 187  
John Brompton Abbot of Jorval, 178  
John of Cornwall, 174  
John of Hexam Provost of Hagulstadt, 179  
John of Salisbury Bishop of Chartres, 132, 158  
John Pike an English Author, 178  
John Phocas a Greek Monk, 190  
Isaac Abbot of l'Etoile, 175  
Isaac an Armenian Bishop, 185  
Ivo or Ives Bishop of Chartres, 1, etc.   

L.  
LAborantius Cardinal, 175  
Laurence a Monk of Liege, 182  
Leo Cardinal Deacon, 184  
Leo of Marsi, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, Ibid  
Lucas Chrysobergius Patriarch of Constantinople, 188  
Lucius II. Pope, 39, 40, 84  
Lucius III. Pope, 113, 122  
Luke Abbot of St. Cornelius, 173  
Lupus Protospatus, 190   

M.  
MArbodus Bishop of Rennes, 150  
Maurice of Sully, Bishop of Paris, 175  
Michael Anchialus Patriarch of Constantinople, 190  
Michael of Thessalonica 188  
Michael Glycas of Sicily, 199   

N.  
NAmeless Writers, Two nameless Authors, Epitomizers of Foucher, 180  
A nameless Author of the History of Jerusalem, Ibid  
A nameless Author of the Expedition of the Danes to the Holy Land, 182  
A nameless Italian Writer of the Acts of the French in the Levant, 179  
Virgin-Mary, attributed to St. Anselm, 53  
A nameless Writer of the Life of St. Ludger, 184  
A nameless Dean of Reichersperg, 174  
Neophytus a Greek Monk, 190  
Nicephorus Breynnius of Macedonia, 189  
Nicetas of Constantinople, 186  
Nicetas Seïdus, 185  
Nicholas a Canon of Liege, 184  
Nicholas a Monk of Clairvaux, 78  
Nicholas a Monk of St. Alban, 55  
Nicholas a Monk of Soissons, 183  
S. Norbert, 148   

O.  
ODO Abbot of Bel, 175  
Odo Abbot of St. Remy at Rheims, 183  
Odo a Regular Canon, 174  
Odo Bishop of Cambray, 170  
Odo a Benedictin Monk of Ast, 149  
Odo of Chirton, 176  
Odo of Devil, Abbot of St. Cornelius, 182  
Ogerus Abbot of Lucedia 77  
Oliver of Colen, 181  
Ordericus Vitalis a Monk of St. Eurou, 177  
Otho Bishop of Frisinghen, Ibid  
Otho of St. Blaise. 178   

P.  
PAndulphus of Pisa, 183  
Paschal II. Pope, 23, 32, 34  
Peter Abbot of Clairvaux, 175  
Peter Abbot of Clunie, 58, 65  
Peter Library-keeper of Mount Cassin, 171  
Peter of Blois, archdeacon of Bath, 158, etc.  
Peter of Cells Bishop of Chartres 55, 85, 156  
Peter of Leon Antipope, under the name of Anaclerus, 38, 42.  
Peter of Poitiers Chancellor of the Church of Paris, 200  
Peter de Riga a Canon of Rheims, 174  
Peter de Roye a Monk of Clairvaux, 68  
Peter the Venerable Abbot of Clunie, 79, etc. 106  
Peter Lombard Bishop of Paris, 192, etc.  
Petrus Abaelardus, 92, etc.  
Petrus Alphonso a Spanish Jew Converted 170  
Petrus Comestor Dean of St. Peter' s at Troy's, 176  
Petrus Theutbodus, 179  
Philip Bishop of Tarentum or Taranto, 173  
Philip a Monk of Clairvaux, 78  
Philip de Harveng Abbot of Bonne-Esperance, 174  
Philippus Solitarius a Greek Monk, 185  
Potho a Monk of Prom, 173  
Pullus Cardinal, 199   

R.  
RAdulphus, or Raoul L'Ardent, 170  
Radulphus de Diceto, Dean of St. Paul's London, 183  
Radulphus Niger or le Noir, a Monk of St. Germer, 173  
Radulphus Tortarius, 184  
Raimond d'Agiles a Canon of Puy, 180  
Rainoldus of Semur, Archbishop of Lions, 183  
Richard Abbot of Mount-Cassin, 171  
Richard Prior of Hagulstadt, 182  
Richard of St. Victor, 203  
Robert Archdeacon of Ostrevant, 184  
Robert a Monk of St. Remy, at Rheims, 179  
Robert of Flamesbure a Regular Canon of St. Victor, 176  
Robert of Melun Bishop of Hereford. 201  
Robert of Florigny, Abbot of Mount St. Michael, 143  
Robertus Paululus a Priest of Amiens, 178  
Robertus Pullus Cardinal, 199  
Rodulphus Abbot of St. Tron, 171  
Roger de Hoveden Professor of Oxford, 179  
Rupert Abbot of Duyts, 201   

S.  
SAmpson Archbishop of Rheims, 50, 67  
Saxon Grammaticus Provost of Roschild, 182  
Serlo Abbot of Savigny, 173  
Sibrandus Abbot of Marigarde, 184  
Sifredus, Ibid  
Sigebert a Monk of Gemblours, 144  
Simeon of Durham, 179  
Simeon of Logetheta, 189  
Stephen Abbot of St. James ' s at Liege, 169  
Stephen Bishop of Autun, 170  
Stephen Bishop of Paris, 171  
Stephen Bishop of Tournay, 166  
Stephen de Chaulmet a Carthusian Monk of Portes, 176  
Stephen Harding Abbot of Cisteaux, 42, 149  
Sugar Abbot of St. Denys, 41, 85, 182,  
Sylvester Giraldus Bishop of St. David's. 175   

T.  
TEulphus a Monk of Maurigny, 182  
Theobaldus a Clerk of the Church of Etampes, 170  
Theobaldus a Monk of St. Peteri at Beze, 184  
Theodoricus an Abbot, 174  
Theodoricus or Thierry a Monk, 182  
Theodorus Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch, 190  
Theofredus Abbot of Epternack, 183  
Theorianus, 189  
Theutbodus, 179  
Thimo, 184  
Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury, 124, etc.  
Thomas Abbot of Maurigny, 1●1  
Thomas a Monk of Cisteaux, 176  
Thomas a Monk of Ely, 184  
Turstin Archbishop of York, 184   

V.  
Udaschalcus' a Monk, 181  
Ulgerus Bishop of Anger, 172  
Ulricus Bishop of Constantz, 183  
Urban III. Pope, 119   

W.  
WAlter Archdeacon of Oxford 178  
Waselinus Momalius Prior of St. Laurence of Liege, 172  
William Abbot of St. Thierry, 64 67, 97  
William Archbishop of Tyre, 180  
William de Champeaux Bishop of Chalons, 29, 92, 170  
William a Regular Canon of Newberry, 178  
William of Somerset a Monk o● Malmesbury, 179  
Wolbero Abbot of St. Pantaleon at Colen.   

Y.  
YVes Bishop of Chartres, 1, etc.   

Z.  
ZAcharys Bishop of Chrysopolis, 176  
Zonaras Secretary of State to the Emperor of Constantinople, 190    

An Alphabetical TABLE of the Councils held in the Twelfth Century.  
A. Years. Pages. ANSE, 1100 211 Avignon, 1162 117 Auranches, 1172 214 Auxere, 1147 44, 113 B. BEaugency, 1104 14, 211 Beauvais, 1114 28, 211 Beauvais, 1161 116, 153 C. CAssel in Irel. 1172 214 Chalons, 1115 28 Charters, 1146 65, 85 Clarendon, 1164 125 Colen, 1115 28 E. ETampes, 1100 9 Etampes, 1130 38, 43 Etampes, 1147 44 G. GEinleuhausen, 1186 119 guysor's, 1168 128 Guastalla, 1106 25. I. JErusalem, 1111 28 Jovarre, 1130 39 Ireland, 1110 170 L. LAteran, 1112 27 Lateran 1116 28, 185 Later. I. General, 1123 33 Later. II. General, 1139 39, 206 Later. III. General, 1179 207 Liege, 1131 38, 43 Lodi, 1161 117 Lombez, 1176 90 London, 1125 212 London, 1127 Ibid. London, 1138 Ibid. London, 1175 215 M. MEntz, 1105 25 Mentz, 1107 Ibid, Montpellier, 1195 216 N. NAntes, 1127 138 Newmarket, 1161 116 Northampton, 1164 126 Northausen, 1105 24 O. OXford, 1160 90 P. Parish, 1105 211 Paris, 1147 44, 113 Pavia, 1160 116, 153 Pisa, 1134 43, 44, 83 Poitiers, 1100 10, 210 R. RAtisbon, 1110 26, Rheims, 1115 28, 211 Rheims, 1119 29 Rheims, 1131 38, 213 Rheims, 1148 213, 44 Rome, 1102 24 S. Since, 1140, 44, 56, 63, 100 Sens, 1163 167 Sens, 1198 91 Soissons, 1121 93 T. TOrnus, 1115 36 Toulouse, 1119 89, 212 Toulouse, 1161 116 Tours, 1163 90, 213 Trier, 1148 174, Triburia, 1119 29 Troy's, 1104 211 Troy's, 1107 16, 26 Troyes, 1128 43, 47, 74 V. VAlence, 1100 210 Venice, 1177 119 Vienna 1112 28 W. WEstminster, 1163 125 Wirtzburg, 1166 117, 128 Y. YOrk, 1195 215   

AN Historical Account OF THE CONTROVERSIES IN RELIGION AND OF OTHER Ecclesiastical Affairs, IN THE Twelfth CENTURY.  
CHAP. I.  
Of the Life and Writings of Ivo, Bishop of Chartres.  
IVO, Bishop of Chartres, (though Born in the XIth. Age of the Church,) not Dying till the Year 1115. shall begin our Catalogue of the Writers of this XIIth. Century; and his Life and Works have so many things remarkable in them, as to deserve a Chapter by themselves.  
He was the Son of Hugo de Altylo and Hilemburga, and was Born at Beauvais; where, he also began his Studies; but, removing afterwards to the Abbey of Bec, he applied himself to Divinity under Lanfranc, and chief to the Reading and Studying of the Ecclesiastical Canons. Guy Bishop of Beauvais made choice of him for Abbot of the Monastery of St. Quentin, which he had Founded in the Year 1078. He gave all his Estate to this Foundation; wherein, by his Care and good Government, Religion and Learning did mightily flourish, and by some of the Members of this, were several other Monasteries of Canons Regulars Erected in divers parts of France.  
Geofry, at this time Bishop of Chartres, was summoned to answer before Pope Gregory VII. to the Charge of Simony, laid against him, which, nevertheless there appeared not sufficient Evidence at that time to make out; but being afterwards Cited before Urban II. he was found guilty of divers Crimes and deposed by that Pope from his Bishopric. The Clergy and People of Chartres Elected Ivo into his place, and presented him to King Philip, who gave him the Investiture: but Richerius, Archbishop of Sens, being enraged that Geofry was turned out, without acquainting him with it, refuses to Consecrate Ivo, though the Clergy and People of Chartres demanded it with much earnestness. The Archbishop persisting in his Temper, Ivo Addresses himself to Pope Urban II. and from him receives his Consecration, with an express to Richerius to acknowledge him, and by virtue of it was soon put in possession of the Bishopric of Chartres, and Geofry obliged to retire to that part of the Diocese which lay in Normandy, which for some time after he retained by the favour and interest of the Duke of that Province. Richerius, in revenge of the affront put upon him, and to assert his own rights and privileges, Summons Ivo before the Council he was to hold at Stampae, to answer for his having seized himself of the Church of Chartres, while Geofry was yet living: Ivo not thinking it safe for him to appear there, the Archbishop, together with the Bishops of Paris, Meaux and Troyes, declared him guilty of High-Treason against the King and the Ecclesiastical Laws, in having gotten himself Consecrated by the Pope, and resolved to resettle Geofry in his Diocese, but Ivo appealing once more to Rome, the Pope Interdicts Richerius the use of the Pallium, in case he should any longer oppose the Establishment of Ivo; upon which, Geofry was at last entirely driven out of the whole Diocese. The great zeal Ivo always expressed for maintaining Ecclesiastical Discipline, the observation of the Canons and purity of Manners, and his undaunted Courage in asserting the liberties of the Church, in opposing all Innovations and Irregularities, and in discouraging and discountenancing all remissness and neglect of duties, as it engaged him in many differences with others, and involved him in much trouble, so it gave occasion to the World to perceive and admire his great Learning and Knowledge, and his mighty Wisdom and Constancy. He died at Chartres, the 23d. of December, in the Year 1115.  

His Works.  
THere are yet extant, 287. Letters written by Ivo Bishop of Chartres, which, being full of remarkable Observations concerning the Discipline and History of the Church, and containing many excellent Lessons of Morality, judicious determinations of several Cases of Conscience and Law-Questions, proposed to him by others, are of no small value, and it will be well worth our while to give the Reader a short and exact abridgement of each of them.  
The two First in the Collection, are from Pope Urban II. one to the Clergy and People of Chartres, the other to Richerius Bishop of Sens, in which, he advertises them of his having Consecrated Ivo Bishop of Chartres: at the end of them follows the Pope's advice to him after his Consecration.  
The IIId. Letter is from Ivo to the Pope regreting his having been by him drawn from his solitudes and retirement to be made a Bishop, and recommending to him the Bishop of Beauvais.  
In the IVth. he admonishes Bernard, Abbot of Marmoutier, not to entertain any Monks of his Diocese, and in particular, demands of him one Walter, who had been Abbot of Bonneval, and quitted his Station for that retirement.  
The Vth. Letter to Adela Countess of Chartres, severely reprimands her for countenancing the Marriage of her Kinswoman Adelaida with William, and advices that they forbear having Carnal knowledge of each other, till the matter be determined in Consistory.  
The VIth. is a Letter of Thanks for a Present he had received from Girard; (supposed to have been a Regular Canon of St. Quentin at Beauvais, and afterwards Abbot of the Monastery of St. Loup in Troy's) He gives him also some account of the contrivances of his Enemies against him, and invites him to his House. He tells him in the Conclusion, that Geofry was forced to quit the whole Bishopric, except a small corner of it, which he yet held by the Duke of Normandy's assistance.  
The VIIth. is directed to Roscelin, a Priest of the Church of Compiegne, who had been Condemned of Heresy, in the Council of Soissons, and forced to a recantation, which he afterwards abjuring, was turned out of his Benefice, and not knowing, in that condition, where to find a retreat, had Addressed himself for relief to Ivo Bishop of Chartres. Our Prelate answers, that he would willingly grant his request and afford him entertainment, were he sure he had sincerely renounced his former errors; but having reason to believe the contrary of him, and fearing the People of Chartres would not endure him among them, must refuse what he asks of him; that the best advice he can give him is to bear his condition patiently, and to resolve on a public and authentic abjuration of his errors in Religion.  
The VIIIth. Letter of Ivoes is to Richerius Archbishop of Sens, who had severely inveighed against him, in a Letter, by which he Cited him to appear and answer before him, for having usurped the See from Geofry. Ivo, in this Letter, remonstrates to him, how injuriously he dealt, and what inconveniencies he would draw upon himself, by undertaking the cause of one who had been found guilty of the most notorious Crimes, and stood condemned by the Holy See: that for his part, he was so far from aspiring to the Bishopric of Chartres, that after the Clergy of that Church had Elected him and forced him to take Investiture of the King, he had still declined entering upon that Charge, till he was fully certified of the deposition of Geofry, and that it was the Pope's pleasure he should succeed him: that upon the Archbishop's refusing to admit him, he had recourse to the Pope, who obliged him to accept the Bishopric and Consecrated him himself. He reminds the Archbishop, likewise that the Pope had written to him, and commanded him to receive him as his Suffragan, that he had ever since endeavoured to behave himself according to the respect and obedience due from him to his Metropolitan: he adds, that he is willing to attend the Council at Stampae, if a safe Conduct may be granted him, and that Stephen Earl of Chartres should be ready there, on the King's side, to answer to all that should be objected against him, without prejudice to the Authority of the Holy See, before which this matter might one day be brought.  
The IXth. Letter is Addressed to Philip King of France, and gives His Majesty an account how Ivo had Accommodated the differences between the Monks of Bec and those of Molesme, with which the King was not satisfied.  
In the Xth. he gives several Instructions to the Nuns of St. Avita near Châteaudun, and advises them in particular, to take care of their Reputations.  
In the XIth. he Congratulates Gonthier, upon his return to his duty, order him to retire into the Church of Sancta Maria de Gournay, where he should have the Charge of some Monks, and exhorts him to live there peaceably and orderly.  
In the XIIth. he consults Pope Urban, about an odd practice of some in his Diocese, who would live by the Altar, but not serve at the Altar, and offered Money to him for Altars, as they were wont to purchase them of his predecessors, under the title of Personnats: Of this matter, Ivo entreats the Pope's Opinion, and his Advice how to deal with these Traders. He informs him also, that the Archbishop of Sens, assisted by the Bishops of Paris, Meaux, and Troy's, had pronounced his Consecration void, and intended to reinstate Geofry. He appeals therefore to the Holy See, and judges it necessary that the Pope write to them, and oblige them either to give him no farther disturbance, or else to appear at Rome, and give an account of their proceed. Lastly, he delivers his Opinion, that 'twould be convenient the Pope should send a Legate into France, to endeavour the Reformation of the Churches: and prays the Pope, that if any persons banished out of his Diocese for notorious Crimes, shall repair to Rome, he will not decree any thing concerning them, till he have fully informed himself of the whole merits of their causes.  
The XIIIth. and XIVth. Letters are to the Archbishop Richerius, and the other Bishops invited by the King to his Marriage with Bertrade, whom Ivo dissuades from going to Court, and exhorts to do all they can to hinder that Marriage.  
In the XVth. he freely declares his mind to King Philip, that he neither can nor will assist at his intended Marriage with Bertrade, till his former Marriage be pronounced void in a General Council.  
The XVIth. is an Answer to Walter Bishop of Meauxes, upon this Question, If it be lawful for a Man to Marry his Concubine? He tells him that some Laws have forbid it, and others have permitted it, and leaves the whole matter to the discretion and judgement of the Bishops; after which, he exhorts the Bishop of Meaux, not to approve of King Philip's Marriage with Bertrade.  
The XVIIth. to the regular Canons of St. Quentin, at Beauvais, does with a great deal of Eloquence set forth the troubles he is involved in, since he was made a Bishop; admonishes them to continue to observe the Rules of their Institution and to make choice of a Superior in his place.  
In the XVIIIth. Ivo highly blames Cardinal Roger, the Pope's Legate, for being inclined to Absolve Simon Count of Niofle, whom he had Excommunicated for Adultery. This Count, after the Death of his Wife, Marries one with whom he had formerly been too familiar, and now demands Absolution; Ivo absolutely refuses it, and sends him to the Pope with a Letter, setting forth the whole affair: the Count makes his suit to Roger, hoping to meet with more gentle treatment from him than at the Pope's hands; Ivo hereupon declares to the Cardinal that he cannot absolve him, nor will he admit him to the Communion, till he has an answer from the Pope, either in writing or by word of mouth.  
The XIXth. Letter is written to William, Abbot of Fècamp, who had compared him to St. John and to Elijah, for his boldness, in declaring his dislike of the King's Marriage. Ivo acquaints him how great inconveniences that liberty of his had brought him under, and desires the Prayers of him and his Monks. He cannot grant the Abbot's request in behalf of a Canon Regular, who would have leave to quit his Rule and enter into the Monastery of Fècamp; he tells him, if he knew the Man, he would not be concerned for him, that he is a proud and idle Fellow, that for ten years together he had never as he ought observed his week for reading Mass, but was at any time for reading out of his turn, when there was an occasion of serving his vanity by it; however, if the Canons his Brethren, would consent he should leave their House, he would not hinder him, and gave him full leave to ask them.  
Ivo being taken into Custody for opposing King Philip's Marriage, the Clergy and people of Chartres threatened to assault the Count, unless he would release him: to them, therefore Ivo writes, dissuading them from all thoughts of taking Arms, which would be a means not of procuring his liberty, but prolonging his Confinement, that it would moreover offend the Divine Majesty, that it was not fit for a Bishop to recover his Rights by violence, that he was resolved rather to Die, than that any Man should lose his Life to rescue him, that that would much sooner be obtained by their Prayers, which was all he had to beg or expect from them. These are the Contents of his XXth. Letter.  
In the XXIst. he pays his thanks to Hoel Bishop of Man's, for the Prayers he had put up to God for his deliverance. He desires of him the Relics of St. Julian's Body, which had been lately translated to Mans.  
The XXIId. to King Philip, acknowledges that having been by that Prince advanced to a Bishopric, he owes to him under God the highest respect and observance: but that having had the misfortune to fall under his displeasure, for offering him as a true and faithful Servant necessary and wholesome advice, he had been ill treated, and the goods of his Bishopric embezzled by his Enemies; that therefore he prayed His Majesty to excuse his not coming to Court, and to allow him some time to breath, and to put his affairs into order again. He hopes God will one day convince him by experience of the truth of that Maxim of Solomon's, that the wounds and harsh usage of our friends who love us, are to be preferred before the kisses of our enemies and flatterers. He concludes with assuring the King, that he is ready to answer his accusers, when he may know what they have to object against him, and that he will defend himself in the Church, if his crimes fall under the Ecclesiastical Cognizance, or before His Majesty's Council, if he be charged with any against the State.  
The XXIIId. is to Guy, Chief Master of the King's Household, who had interceded with the King, in favour of Ivo: he returns him thanks for his good offices, and assures him 'tis impossible they should come to any good terms, till the King have totally quitted Bertrade; that he had seen a Letter of Pope Urban's to all the Prelates of the Kingdom, Commanding them to Excommunicate him in case he continued to live with her, and that this Letter had been long since published, if he had not concealed it out of the true love he bore His Majesty, and his unwillingness that his own people should rise up against him.  
The XXIVth. is to Hugh, Archbishop of Lions; he acquaints him how great joy it was to him to hear that Pope Urban had appointed him Legate of France, in which employment he had so well acquitted himself under Gregory the VIIth. but, that he was now not a little grieved to understand he had by the advice of several of his friends refused to accept of that Office again, by reason of the too great business which must lie upon him, at the present juncture of affairs, while the Church laboured under such troubles as would not easily admit of being composed. Ivo tells him, he had been ill counselled, and ought not to be swayed by his friends persuasions, that though in Italy a second Ahab was arisen, and France had another Jezebel, who endeavoured to overthrow the Altars and kill the Prophets of the Lord, yet he should remember the saying of Elijah, that God had yet left him Seven Thousand Servants, who had not bowed their knees to Baal: that though their Herodias should request the Head of John, and Herod should grant her what she asked, yet John should not be afraid to tell him, 'tis not lawful for thee to put away thy own Wife, and to Marry another Man's Wife or Concubine. These and the like instances are urged by Ivo, to induce Hugh to take upon him the Legatine Authority, which he hopes he will soon acquaint him he has yielded to, and desires to know where he may meet him about the beginning of Lent.  
His XXVth. Letter is addressed to Pope Urban; and lays before him an account of the troubles and difficulties he was daily obliged to encounter with, which made him often resolve to quit his Bishopric. He than entreats the Pope not to hearken to what should be alleged, in his own defence, by one of the Clergy of Chartres, who had been degraded for Simony, Money-Coining, and other irregularities.  
The XXVIth. is to Walter, Abbot of St. Maur des Fossez, who had thoughts of leaving his Monastery, by reason of the great corruptions and disorders amongst his Monks. Ivo dissuades him from pursuing that resolution, if he have yet any hopes of doing good upon and reforming but some of them; but in case they continue all incorrigible, thinks he may leave them.  
The XXVIIth. is to Eudes, Chief-Justice of Normandy, who had asked his Opinion, how he ought to proceed against a certain Bishop; who, being formerly accused of Simony and other misdemeanours, had gotten himself Consecrated before the day appointed for his trial. Ivo advises this Magistrate not to regard him as a Bishop, but to treat him as an Heretic and an Intruder; and that if he could not have Justice done upon him by the Bishops of the Province, he should Cite both him and his Judges before the See of Rome, without whose determination such causes were seldom brought to a due issue.  
The XXVIIIth. to King Philip, carries his excuses for not appearing with his Soldiers at Pontoise, or Chaumont, according to the King's Orders. 1. Because Pope Urban having forbid the King to keep Company with Bertrade, under pain of Excommunication, he could not have forborn publicly admonishing his Majesty of it. 2. Because most of the Guards and Militia of his Diocese lying under Excommunication for being concerned in a Rebellion, he could not, till they had undergone a Penance, receive them into the Communion of the Church, nor send them against the Enemy while they were under her Censures; and 3. because he thought it not safe for him to be at Court, where he was hated by the Sex that seldom pardon even their best friends.  
The XXIXth. Severely reprimands Roger the Priest, for his ill conduct and behaviour.  
The XXXth. contains Ivoes advice to Fulk, Bishop of Beauvais, not to persist in opposing Hugh the Pope's Legate, and communicates to him the Letters sent him by the Pope, relating to King Philip's affair.  
By the XXXIst. to the same Prelate, he resigns up into his hands the Provostship of St. Quentin in Beauvais, conjuring him to see that his Successor be chosen by the majority and soundest part of that society. And in the XXXIId. he sends his advice to them, to Elect a ●it and able person for their Governor.  
The XXXIIId. and XXXIVth. Letters have nothing remarkable in them.  
The XXXVth. is addressed to Richerius, Archbishop of Sens, and the other Prelates assembled with him at Rheims, and sets forth his reasons why he would not obey their Citation of him before that Council: 1. that he was Cited by Bishops of other Provinces, who had no power to be his Judges. 2. Because they intended to try him out of the jurisdiction of the Province he was under; and 3. because the accusations laid against him proceeded only from their malice and hatred of his person: that therefore he appealed to the Holy See of Rome, where he should be sure to meet with the favour allowed to all others in his condition, of being heard by the Pope himself, or by his Vicars: that he did take this method to avoid a Trial, being able enough to defend himself against their charge of Perjury, by bringing proof that he had not so much as taken any Oath, but that he did it to prevent his giving an ill example to others and exposing himself to apparent hazard of his Life, since he could not by any means obtain the King's Passport: that besides all this, he well enough foresaw he should not be allowed liberty of speech in their Assembly, since they had already accused him of disloyalty to the King, and of being an Enemy to His Majesty, only for having had the courage to tell him his duty, as he thought all of them in Conscience bound to do; whereas His Majesty's real Enemies were those who dissembled with him, and dared not search his wounds with fire and sword; that the King might deal with him as His Majesty should think fit, but that he was firmly resolved never to approve of his Marriage.  
In the XXXVIth. Letter to the Bishop of Beauvais, he shows him the reasons he had to complain of him; particularly, that having requested him to send a Canon Regular to be preferred to a vacancy in his Diocese, that Bishop would have had him put in a Monk, contrary to the constitutions of that Church ordained by the Pope. Hereupon, Ivo takes occasion to show the dignity of the Regular Clergy above that of the Monks, and citys, to this purpose, a passage of St. Austin, wherein that Father says, he scarce ever knew a Monk prove a good Clerk, and some places out of St. Jerom, preferring the Clergy before the Monks. He protests however, that he does not intent all this to reproach and disparage the Monastic way of living, but to put them in mind that they ought to continue truly Monks, and be content to lead a retired life. We praise their Institution, (says he) and believe their state to be as perfectly happy as any on Earth, while they confine themselves within the bounds assigned them by their Founders; but we think them fit to be Subjects than Governors, and would have them be humble and obedient, not proud and aspiring.  
In the XXXVIIth. he exhorts a certain Canon Regular to go on as he had begun, in all due submission to his Superiors, and in the practice of virtue and Religion.  
The XXXVIIIth. is a Letter of thanks to the Bishop of Winchester, for a Chalice he had made him a Present of, to hold the Holy Chrism.  
In the XXXIXth, he acquaints St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, That he had shown what kindness he could to the Monks of Bec, in taking their part against those of Molesme, and that he had long since done them Justice, in their demands upon the Abbey of Poissy, if they had not resolved to wait first of all for the King's Consent.  
There is nothing observable in the XLth. Letter.  
The XLIst. Written to Geofry Abbot of Vendome, Treats of the following Question, viz. Whether a Monk taking the Vow upon him, and receiving the Benediction from another Monk, ought again to receive it from his Abbot? Ivo determines, that it may be either repeated or omitted, without any prejudice either to the one or the other of the parties, because the Benediction of a Monk is not by imposition of hands, nor the Administration of any Sacrament of Apostolical Tradition, and that it has no other virtue in it than what is in the Absolution of a Penitent, or the Prayers of a Priest for his People; that a private Monk having no body but himself to take care of, may, by his own act, dedicate himself to that state of Life, without the Benediction of any Monk or Abbot, since that which constitutes him a Monk, is not any new Dignity conferred on him, but only his Contempt of the World and Love of God; that this is so, appears from considering the practice of the first Institutors of the Monastic Orders, who neither received nor used any Benedictions; that indeed, when the Communities of Monks began to be numerous, Vows were exacted of them, and they were admitted by Benedictions, which custom, was prudentially taken up, to oblige them the firmer and more solemnly, in the presence both of God and Men, to Diligence and Constancy in the way of Life they had chose and undertaken; which if they should afterward offer to renounce, they would have the more Witnesses to Condemn them; that these Ceremonies were the best security could be found out against the fickleness of men's minds and resolutions; and that therefore, 'twere convenient it should be left to the discretion of every Abbot to oblige his Monks, if he thought fit, to renew the Vows they had come under before Witnesses, and to repeat the Benedictions they had received from others, or wholly to omit them; since these were not Sacraments, which ought not to be repeated; but if the Benediction were looked upon as such, it ought not to be administered a second time, as Bishops were not to Consecrate anew the Nuns that had been already Consecrated by Priests.  
The XLIId is a Letter of Moral Advice, to the Bishop of Soissons.  
The XLIIId, Congratulates Pope Urban, upon the Restitution of Peace to the greatest part of Italy; and acquaints him, that one William, a Clergyman of his Diocese, was Elected Bishop of Paris.  
The XLIVth. is an Admonition to all the Bishops of France, to put in Execution a Law which prohibits all manner of War, four days in the week.  
The XLVth. forbids the whole Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Poissy to marry the Count de Meulan to the Daughter of the Count de Crépy, they being within the Degrees of Consanguinity, as he proves from the Genealogy of the two Families.  
The XLVIth. Letter to Pope Urban, advertises him that the King of France was dispatching a Deputation of some Courtiers to him, to obtain from him, either by threaten or fair offers, an Absolution; and exhorts him not to be prevailed on by them to grant it.  
In the XLVIIth. he tells Guy, the Chief Master of the King's Household, that 'tis in vain for that Prince to think of procuring a Dispensation of his Marriage with Bertrade, by his promises of bestowing great Endowments on the Church; that it can never be granted him, nor can he Atone for his great Sin by so good a Work, or ever hope for Remission of it, while he resolves to keep to her.  
In the XLVIIIth. he acquaints Pope Urban with the promotion of Manasses IId, to the Archbishopric of Rheims.  
The XLIXth. is Written to Stephen, Earl of Chartres and Blois, denying him the Exemption of the Cloister of the Canons, from the Bishops' Jurisdiction, and refusing to Swear Homage to him, out of the bounds of the City of Chartres.  
In the Lth. he makes his excuses to Richerius, Archbishop of Sens, for not waiting upon him, without the King's Passport: He interposes his Advice, concerning the Dispute for Primacy, between the Archbishop of Lions and Richerius, that if he have good Authorities to produce, he should do it, and desires he would send him the Copies of them; but, if no such can be found, thinks he had best refer the matter to the Pope's Decision: He acquaints him, that William is Elected Archbishop of Paris, praying that he would Consecrate him before the Feast of St. Remy, letting him also know, that he had obtained leave for him of the Pope, to make use of his Pallium on this occasion, though otherwise, it had been forbidden him.  
The LIst. Letter is written to Sanction, Dean of Orleans, who had been Elected Bishop of that Church, in the Year 1099. John, the Subdean, had used underhand measures to get himself into that Bishopric, and some of the Clergy of his Faction, had, by Letters to Ivo, accused Sanction of Simony: Ivo, hereupon, endeavours to dissuade him from aspiring after that Dignity, and from getting himself Consecrated, till he had the Pope's Order for it, and had cleared himself of the Aspersion cast upon him. In the mean while, the Clergy and People of Orleans, had prevailed on the Archbishop of Sens, to Command Ivo to Consecrate him; he refused to do it at Châteaulandon, bordering on the Diocese of Sens, by reason of the difference between the Archbishop of Sens and the Pope, about the Primacy of Lions; but the Clergy having interested the King to confirm their Election, Ivo sends forth his Citation for Sanction's Adversaries to appear at Chartres, which they not obeying, and Sanction having purged himself by Oath, of what they had alleged against him, he was Consecrated by Ivo Bishop of Chartres, William Bishop of Paris, and Walter Bishop of Meaux, as is fully related by Ivo, in his LIVth. Letter, written on this occasion, to Hugh Archbishop of Lions. No sooner was Sanction settled in his new Dignity, but he began to abuse and insult over those of his Clergy who had opposed him, which drew from Ivo the LIIId. Letter in this Collection, wherein, he severely taxes him for his indecent Behaviour. The Archbishop of Lions was highly displeased at Sanction's Consecration, and took care to let Ivo know how ill he resented it at his hands: To him, therefore Ivo protests, (in his LIXth Letter) that he had not taken any Money for performing that Office; that he knew nothing of the Crimes Sanction was accused of; that Sanction had denied them all upon Oath; that he did not give him notice of that solemnity, because 'twas not customary to do so; nor did he conceive that the Archbishop could by virtue of his Legatine Authority, challenge such Jurisdiction over the Bishops of France, as that they should not have power of Consecration, without his leave and Licence.  
In the LIId Letter, Ivo writes to Ganfroy, Dean of Man's, about one Everard a Canon-Regular, who had entered himself a Monk, in the Abbey of Marmoutier, and had a mind to return to his former Order, that he ought by no means to suffer him to quit his Monastery, nor receive him again among the Clergy.  
In the LVth. he requests the Archbishop of Lions to confirm the Election of one who had been chosen Bishop of Beauvais, notwithstanding some Objections he had against him.  
In the LVIth, he Answers King Philip, that he could not hear, that Hugh Archbishop of Lions intended to call another General Council this Year, the Pope having already held two within His Majesty's Dominions; and that if he should Summon one, 'twould be contrary to the Apostolical Institutions and the practice of the Church; that if the Pope's Legates shall after any reasonable distance of time, think fit to Convene the Bishops, they are to obey their Orders; but, if they shall begin to impose a new and intolerable Yoke upon the Bishops, he hopes His Majesty will think it his duty to put a stop to their encroachments.  
In the LVIIth, he tells Geofry, Abbot of Vendome, That he ought to deny the Rite of Burial, among his Monks, to one of them, who had four times quitted his Monastery; because, at his last Return thither, he had not brought back with him, the Goods he had sacrilegiously carried away from the Monastery.  
Richerius, Archbishop of Sens, dying in the beginning of the Year 1096, the Clergy elected Daimbert, and sent to Ivo, to Ordain him both Priest, and Bishop; who answers them, in the LVIIIth Letter, That he could not do it, but within the Times appointed for Ordinations; and, that before his Election could be confirmed, he must confer with the rest of his Brethren the Bishops, about an Obstacle that offered itself. This Obstacle, was, the Opposition of Hugh, Archbishop of Lions, who gave out, That no Bishops could be Ordained in France, without his Permission; and that he would, in particular, do all he could to hinder Daimbert's succeeding to the Archbishopric of Sens, till he should acknowledge the Primacy of Lions. Ivo, therefore, in the LIXth Letter, demands of Hugh, If he may Ordain him? And prays his Answer with all speed. Hugh absolutely refusing to give him Leave to do it, Ivo lets him know by the LXth Letter, That he will obey his Pleasure therein, and had communicated it to the Bishops of his Province; but he entreats and advises him, to be more moderate, and reserved, for the future, in the Exercise of his Authority, and not to insist so rigorously, in exacting their Obedience, to all the Commands of the Holy See; lest, by imposing on them Burdens too heavy for them to bear, he force them to disown her Power, through an impossibility of performing what she lays upon them; or out of some necessity, and expediency, of acting contrary to it: That tho' they are all very well inclined to pay due Observance to the Orders, or Prohibitions of the Holy See, in Matters relating to Faith and Morality, either concerning the Defence of Religion, the Punishment of wicked Men, the preventing Dangers, and Evils, and the like; and tho' they are ready to suffer any thing, in Obedience to what she shall Command, and Appoint, to any such Good Ends and Purposes; yet, as to indifferent Matters, the observing, or not observing of which, has no Influence upon our Salvation: And as to the Endeavours of the Court of Rome, to alter ancient Customs, established by the Holy Fathers, he entreats him to consider with himself, Whether they ought not rather to adhere to what they have established, than to receive her new Constitutions? The ancient Canons (he tells him) do constantly order, that Metropolitans be Consecrated by the Bishops of the Province; and therefore, he wonders, that Hugh should go about to introduce another Custom, and pretend to oblige the New-elected Archbishop of Sens, to come to him before his Consecration, and to promise Submission, and Obedience to him; which is contrary to what was ever practised in the Province of France, or in any other Country; and, that since Daimbert had not been accused of any Crimes, and had been elected duly, and without Simony, he had no Authority to Cite him before him: And whereas, Hugh complains, in his Letter, that Daimbert had received Investiture from the King's Hands; Ivo tells him, he knew of no such Matter; and that tho' it were so, he could not see how that Ceremony should concern Faith and Religion, since, upon a Canonical Election, their Kings had always assumed a Right of Conferring Bishoprics, and the Popes themselves had written to them, to give Investiture to such as had been duly Elected; and, sometimes, had sent Orders to defer the Consecrations of Bishops, who had not obtained the King's Consent. He urges, moreover, That Pope Urban opposed only the real Investitures, and did not exclude their Kings from Electing, or Confirming Elections: And tho' the Eighth General Council prohibited their being present at Elections, yet it allowed them to admit the Person Elected, to the Possession of his Bishopric; that it matters not, whether that Ceremony be administered by the Hand, or some other Sign; whether by pronouncing any Form, or giving the Pastoral Staff; since Kings pretended not to convey any thing Spiritual, but only to show their Approbation of the People's Choice of a Pastor, and to give him Possession of such Lands, and other Ecclesiastical Profits and Advantages, as the Churches were entitled to, from the Liberality of Princes; that the putting a stop to the Practice of such Investitures, had occasioned many Evils in the Church, which could not be prevented, or remedied, but by permitting again the Exercise of them: Not that he speaks this out of any Disrespect to the Authority of the Holy See, but to show how much he wisheth, that the Ministers of the Church of Rome, would apply themselves to the Correcting the greatest Evils, and Distempers, and not lay out themselves, so much, upon such small and insignificant Matters: And therefore, Ivo demands, again, with much Earnestness, That he, and his Brethren, may be permitted to Consecrate the Archbishop of Sens; which, if Hugh will grant them, he promises to prevail on him, to own the Primacy of Lions; but if he deny this their Request, tho' they did not, at present, think of doing it without his Leave, yet, if a Schism should, hereupon, break out in the Church, the Blame would not lie at their Doors. Ivo ends this large Epistle, by letting Hugh understand, That he had Reason to demand Satisfaction of him, for the Wrong done to himself, and his Church, by those of Puiset, who lay under an Excommunication, which Hugh had taken off, without his knowledge; whereby they had been encouraged to farther Sacrilegious Attempts, presuming to get off so again for the future.  
But this was not the only Instance of the strange Carriage of Hugh, Archbishop of Lions: For he pretended, also, to oblige the New-elected Bishop of Nevers, to wait upon him for his Consecration, at Autun. And herein Ivo opposed him again, and tells him, in the LXIst Letter, That the Privilege he assumed, was a Violation both of the Laws, and Customs, of the Church, by which Bishops were to be Consecrated by their Metropolitan; or, when that could not be, by the Bishops of the same Province.  
Ivo, having accommodated Matters with Adelecia, Countess of Puiset, writes the LXIId Letter to Sanction, Bishop of Orleans, letting him know, That the Agreement made between them, did not at all meddle with the Difference that Bishop had with the Clergy, and Monks, of Puiset; that he may still execute the Sentence of the Canon upon them, for Celebrating Divine Service, while they lay under an Interdict from him; tho' he would advise him, not to meddle with them, but by the Archbishop of Lions' Consent, without which he would not get Justice done upon them. He tells him also, He need not wonder at his having received Gervase, (Count of Chîteauneuf, in Thimerais) into the Communion of the Church; being obliged so to do, out of Respect to the King, by the Canon, which enjoins, That if the King admit any Excommunicated Person to cat at his Table, the Bishops are to restore him to Ecclesiastical Communion.  
In the LXIIId Letter, he proves, That none but such as are in Holy Orders, can Consecrate, and Administer the Sacraments.  
The LXVth, to Pope Urban, acquaints him, That the Bishop of Paris is on his Journey toward Rome; recommends him to the Pope, and prays, he will give him so good Instructions, and wholesome Advice, that he may return wiser, and of a more manageable Temper, than he had formerly been: He petitions, also, in the same Bishop's behalf, for an Inhibition, to prevent the Abbot, and Monks, of Lagny, from withdrawing themselves from under his Jurisdiction; and lastly, entreats the Pope to determine what should be done, in the Affair of the New-elected Archbishop of Sens, whom the Archbishop of Lions would not Consecrate, till he would submit to his Primacy.  
Sanction had not been long in possession of the Bishopric of Orleans, before he was deposed by the Archbishop of Lions, at the Request, and Instigation of the Archbishop of Tours, to make room for John, one of his Creatures; but a very infamous Person, who had been Archdeacon of that Church, under Sanction's Predecessor: To bring this Matter about, the Archbishop of Tours had Crowned King Philip, at Christmas, and obtained his Grant, that John should be Consecrated Bishop of Orleans: But as soon as Ivo understood it, he wrote to Hugh, Archbishop of Lions, conjuring him to put a stop to it, and accusing John of many notorious Crimes, particularly of having procured the Bishopric by Simony. These are the Contents of the LXVIth Letter.  
In the LXVIIth, Ivo writes to Pope Urban likewise, to interpose his Authority, that so scandalous a Wretch may not be suffered to get into the Episcopal Order: And in this Letter, he offers his Apology to the Pope, who was incensed against him, on Account of what he had written to the Archbishop of Lions, touching the Election, and Consecration of Daimbert, to the Archbishopric of Sens: Ivo protests, he had no other Design in it, but to induce the Archbishop of Lions to cut off all occasion of those Complaints that were daily made against him, by the Bishops of France; and to take Care, that the Churches of that Kingdom be not oppressed, and overburdened by the Regulations, and Decrees, of the Holy See; that if any thing he had said, relating to the Primacy claimed by the Archbishop of Lions, had been displeasing to him, he thought he might take leave to speak his Opinion freely upon that Subject, to one, especially, for whom no Man, on this side the Alps, had so entire a Respect, and by devoting himself to whose Interests he had been a great Sufferer: However, if his Holiness were offended at any Expression that had dropped from him, he would retract it, and would resign his Bishopric, rather than bear his Anger, whether he had deserved it or not: And if by this Means he might make Satisfaction, for any thing his Holiness might have taken amiss, he would willingly stand to his Offer, and prays him to accept it: Adding, moreover, that if the Pope would not permit him to quit his Diocese, he feared he must shortly be constrained to do it, by the King's violent Hatred of him, and the miserable Contempt of God's Word, among the People under his Care. This Letter is dated nine Years after he came to his Bishopric, which shows it was written in the first Year of this Twelfth Century.  
Hugh, Archbishop of Lions, making no Account of these Remonstrances of Ivo, Cites him to bring Proof of what he had to allege against the Person, and Election of John: But, Ivo, instead of obeying this Summons, answers him, by the LXVIIIth Letter, That the Crimes being so notorious, 'twas needless to search after farther Evidence; and if there were occasion for it, he could produce sufficient Witness, that John had already distributed Moneys among the Queen's Servants, and had promised them a farther Sum, to procure for himself the Bishopric of Orleans: That, besides, his being Elected by the King only, made his Title void by the Canons; and, that however the Examination of this whole Affair, aught to be made in the Province, to which his Accusers were subject, and where the Evidence lay that was to be brought against him, and not in any other.  
The LXIXth Letter, is, to the Provost of the Canons Regulars of Estreppe, in the Diocese of Lymoges, who complained, That the Bishop had issued out a Prohibition against their taking upon them the Cure of Souls, and the Administration of the Sacrament of Penance. Our Prelate tells him he is of Opinion, That the Bishop had done better, if he had endeavoured to bring all the Clergy to a regular Way of Living, rather than to have refused the Pastoral Office to those who were already obliged to it: However, they might make a good Use of this Exemption, in having the better leisure to look after the State of their own Souls. The Regular Clergy, he thinks, ought not to be universally forbid undertaking the Cure of Souls; nor ought it to be permitted to all of them, since it would be an Injury to the Order itself, and tend to the Dissolution of it, tho' the Correction, and Instruction of others, may more safely be trusted in the Hands of such as have been long trained, and carefully exercised, in examining, and well-ordering their own Lives and Manners; therefore that Charge is not to be imposed upon, and enjoined to all the Regular Clergy: For, by that means, their Discipline will soon be destroyed; and instead of learned and able Champions in the Cause of Religion, the Monasteries will afford us but weak Defenders, and Betrayers of it: To prevent which fatal Mischief, the most prudent, and best approved among them, should be picked out for this weighty Employment, and be presented to the Bishop, as fit to be entrusted by him, with the Care of other men's Souls.  
The LXXth Letter, is an Admonition to the Bishop of Meaux, to Reform the Monastery of Marmoutier; which was scandalous for very great Irregularities.  
In the LXXIst, he lays before William Rufus, King of England, the Reason why he had absolved Nivard, of Septevil, from the Oath he had taken to that King, viz. Because it was contrary to the Obligations of his former Oaths, to his own natural and lawful Princes.  
The LXXIId to Girard, Abbot of St. Vandrille, contains this Decision; That the chief Stone, or Altar-piece of an Altar that has been demolished, or pulled down, tho' it had been formerly Consecrated, is to be Consecrated again, when laid upon another Altar: And whereas it is objected, That the Portable Altars do not lose their Consecration, by being carried from one place to another, he answers, That there is a Difference between the moving these Altars from place to place, and taking the Stones from an old Altar, because the Stones of these Portable Altars are fastened upon a Plank of Wood, or some other Pedestal; and so to whatever place you remove them, they remain still as they were when first Consecrated.  
The LXXIIId Letter is sent to Bernard, Abbot of Marmoutier, whom some of the Monks refused to submit to, as their lawful Abbot; because, as they pretended, he had been Consecrated by an Excommunicated Bishop. Ivo, in answer to this, maintains, That the Promotion of an Abbot depends, rather upon the Election of the Monks, than the Bishop's Benediction; which, in the present Case, is not given by Imposition of Hands, nor is it properly a Consecration, but only a Formulary of Prayer.  
The LXXIVth Letter is to Hildebert, Bishop of Man's; who is in a great Streight, Whether, or no, he shall put himself upon the Trial of Ordeal, or walking Blindfolded, and Barefoot, over red-hot Plowshares, to justify his Innocence to the King of England, who accused him of having treacherously surrendered the Town of Mans. Ivo tells him, That the Ecclesiastical Laws having utterly condemned that Practice, he should endure any thing, rather than undergo it.  
The LXXVth is to John, who was Consecrated Bishop of Orleans, notwithstanding all the Efforts of Ivo to prevent it. The Countess of Puiset, and her Adherents, continuing to give Disturbance to the Church of Chartres, Ivo was obliged to ask Leave of the Pope, to Excommunicate them; which was granted him: John, out of spite to Ivo, pretended, 'twas his own Right to pronounce the Excommunication against them, being of his Diocese, and offered to try the Matter with Ivo, at Orleans. Ivo insists upon the Pope's having Commissioned him to do it; and, that the Case ought to be decided at Chartres, not at Orleans; since it was the Church of Chartres that had received the Affront, and that all Differences ought to be tried upon the place where they began.  
The LXXVIth Letter is written to Daimbert, whom the Pope himself had Ordained Archbishop of Sens, (tho' Hugh, Archbishop of Lions, had refused to do it) and who had thereupon submitted to the Primacy of Lions. Ivo lets him hereby know, That he intends to come and assist at the Provincial Council he had invited him to; prays him, to defer the Ordination of the Bishop of Nevers, (because of a Scruple about the Election) and to excommunicate the Lady of Puiset, her Son Hugh, and all that assisted, or belonged to them.  
The LXXVIIth is written to Hugh, Dean of Beauvais, and to the Chapter of that Church, upon occasion of a Trial they had had about a Mill belonging to them, but rendered useless, by some Bridges, and other Buildings, that cut off its Supply of Water: Ivo advises them to complain to the Metropolitan, or the Pope's Legate, in case the Bishop of Beauvais will not remedy that Inconvenience.  
The LXXVIIIth is a Letter of Advice to the Monks of the Monastery of Dol, in the Diocese of Bourges, to put an end to their Quarrels, and Divisions, about the Election of Bernier, (formerly a Monk of Bonneval) for their Abbot. Ivo assures them, he had had a very good Account of his Life and Conversation; that whereas some had thought ill of him, for quitting his Monastery without leave from his Brethren, he had been forced to do it by the Scandalous Irregularities that were therein, which had likewise occasioned their Abbot himself and several others of the Monks who abhorred the Villainies of the rest to take the same course.  
The LXXIXth Letter is written in the Name of Ivo Bishop of Chartres, William Bishop of Paris, John Bishop of Orleans, Walter Bishop of Meaux, and Humbaud Bishop of Auxerre, Assembled in Synod at Stampae, to Philip Bishop of Troy's, who was Summoned to this Council, but had not made his Appearance: They tell him, they might have passed Sentence against him, but would allow him time, till the Sunday before Christmas, and then he must not fail to defend himself, if he could, for this Contempt of their Authority. This Letter appears to have been written in the Year, 1100.  
The LXXXth to William Abbot of Fêcamp, confirms the decision of the LXXIId Letter, about the re-Consecration of Altars that have been removed out of their places.  
The LXXXIst is a Congratulatory Letter to Pope Paschal II. upon his Elevation to the Pontifical Chair.  
In the LXXXIId he Counsels Geofry, Abbot of Vendôme, to forbear his severities against a certain Monk of his Convent, and either to confine him to a Cell by himself, or else suffer him to retire to some other Monastery.  
The LXXXIIId Letter is Addressed to the Bishops of the Province of Rheims, advising them, in regard to their own honour, and that of the Bishop of Soissons, not to suffer the insults of their Metropolitan; for that if the Arch-Bishops shall thus take upon them to do what they please in the Churches of their Provinces, and, without the Ordinaries Consent, to Judge and Suspend any of the Clergy, as they shall think fit; they will quite overthrow the Credit of the Episcopal Dignity and the Orders in the Church, Established by the Canons: That therefore, they ought to oppose any such Innovations, and if the Clergy of Soissons are ready to justify themselves by their Bishop, the Metropolitan has no power to Condemn them for Heresy or Sacrilege.  
The LXXXIVth is to Manasses Archbishop of Rheims, upon the same subject. He lets him know, that he thought his Letter a little too severe, and exhorts him to use gentler methods to bring the Church of Soissons to their duty, and to accept of the submission and satisfaction they tendered him.  
The LXXXVth Letter to John, Priest, Cardinal-Legate for Pope Paschal in France, highly commends him for refusing to Communicate with the King, though some Bishops of the Belgick-Province had dared to put the Crown upon that Prince's Head, at Whitsuntide, contrary to the Pope's express prohibition to them all.  
Ivo approves likewise his intentions of Assembling a Council in the Province of Aquitain, but wishes, he would defer it till the beginning of Autumn.  
In the LXXXVIth he demands satisfaction of Stephen Earl of Chartres, for having abused some of his Clergy.  
By the LXXXVIIth he advertises John and Benet, Legates of the Holy See, that Guarland, Elected Bishop of Beauvais, is an ignorant and debauched sot, altogether unworthy of that preferment; and observes to them farther, that the Church of Beauvais has a long time had the misfortune to be governed by very ill Bishops.  
By the LXXXVIIIth he acquaints Pope Paschal, that Hilgode, heretofore Bishop of Soissons, was not Deposed for any Misdemeanours, as his Holiness had been informed, but that he voluntarily retired into a Monastery, to avoid the inconveniencies all Prelates are exposed to, choosing rather to live in meanness and obscurity, to secure the state of his own Soul, than to hazard the Salvation of it, in the heights of Honour and Preferments: And whereas, some were now against his being made an Abbot, 'twas not out of any dislike of him, but because they thought it not seemly that a Bishop should come to receive Benediction from an Abbot, which Ivo thinks needs not be made a scruple of, but that the Ceremony may be well enough quite omitted, or may be used to one of his Character, without any prejudice, since it is not a Sacrament reiterated.  
The LXXXIXth Letter is to the same Pope, and admonishes him not to give credit too easily to any complaints that shall be brought to him, against the Bishops, or any private Persons of France, not to proceed to censures against them, but upon good evidence given in by credible Persons, and such as live near them: He acquaints him moreover; that the Bishop Elect of Beauvais is very undeserving of his Preferment, and that he had been already driven out of the Church, for his Scandalous Behaviour, by Hugh Archbishop of Lions.  
In the XCth to Daimbert, Archbishop of Sens, he examines this case; if a Man who had killed another, excepted out of the Articles of Peace agreed and Sworn to, were to be deemed a violater of God's Laws and subject to the Punishments due to such a one! and concludes, That though he be guilty of Manslaughter, yet, he has not thereby Offended God.  
By the XCIst he Congratulates Adela Countess of Chartres, upon the recovery of her Health, and exhorts her to protect the Churches.  
The XCIId Letter is written to Pope Paschal, at the request and in behalf of Stephen, Bishop Elect of Beauvais, praying his Holiness to confirm his Election, though he have not yet taken Orders, assuring him there is no other Objection can lie against him; that the Accusations that had been brought against him were found to be false and groundless; that Lisiard Archdeacon of Beauvais, the chief promoter of them has acknowledged as much, by being fully reconciled to Stephen, and vindicating him on all occasions, and that if any be yet dissatisfied, he is ready to give them all full and Canonical satisfaction.  
Notwithstanding this Letter, Pope Paschal would not allow of Stephen's Election, but severely reprimanded Ivo for offering one to him so unworthy of any favour or preferment as every body else represented him to be; at which Ivo was so far from being displeased, that he lets the Pope know, by the XCVth Letter, how glad he is that Stephen had missed of his aim; and assures his Holiness, he had extorted the former Letter from him, by his importunities, and that he did not think when he wrote it, 'twould prove a help to his desired advancement, or be taken for a serious recommendation of him, by his Holiness, or any intelligent person that should observe the Style of it. He likewise minds the Pope, that his Holiness had proceeded too far in approving of Drogo's pretensions to the Treasurership of Châlons, because the Merits of them having been examined in the Council of Poitiers, it appeared that the late Bishop of Châlons had not power to bestow the place upon him, unless, as was required by the Ecclesiastical Laws, he were first Canon, (or Prebend) of that Church; which Drogo could never pretend to, because he was Canon and Archdeacon of another: and that therefore they had decreed his Institution to the Treasurership of Châlons' null and void, following therein the Opinion of his Holiness himself, and of his Predecessors, who have determined that no Man shall have preferment in two Churches at the same time: And therefore Ivo entreats the Pope to consider well of this matter, and the ill consequences that may ensue, if he do not revoke what he has ordered in it, contrary to the Opinion and resolution of the Council.  
The XCIIId Letter, after having Complimented Daimbert, (or rather, Dagobert) Patriarch of Jerusalem, recommends to him some of Ivoes Diocese, who were travelling to that City.  
By the XCIVth Ivo Requests Pope Paschal to grant his Bull to the Clergy of Chartres, empowering them to Excommunicate all such as should at any time hereafter pretend to renew the Claim which the present Earl had quitted, in his own and his Successor's Name, to the Goods and Houses belonging to the Bishop and to that Church; and to proceed to the like severity against any Bishop of Chartres, who shall connive at, or consent to any Attempts of that nature.  
In the XCVIth Letter, he asserts that Christian-Burial is not to be denied to any one who Dies in the Communion of the Church.  
In the XCVIIth, he desires Lambert Bishop of Arras, and John Bishop of Teroilane, to write to the Archbishop of Rheims, to take care that a new Bishop be Chosen at Beauvais, in the room of Stephen, whose Election Pope Paschal would not allow of.  
The XCVIIIth is an Exhortation to the People of Beauvais, to choose for their Bishop one who is Eminent for Piety and Learning.  
The XCIXth is the resolution of a Question proposed to him by Gualon, Abbot of St. Quintin, in Beauvais, viz. if Children under Six years of Age, can be Contracted or Married with one another, and in case there be only a Contract between them, and one of the parties die, whether the surviving party may Marry the Brother or Sister of the other? To which Ivo answers, that none can actually Marry till the Age of Fourteen, but that Children may promise Marriage to each other assoon as they are at years of Discretion, which he determines they are at Seven years of Age, and that a Contract agreed on at that Age shall hinder either Party, if one of them Die before they are completely Married, from Marrying with the Brother or Sister of the Deceased.  
In the Cth Letter, he demands of John Bishop of Orleans, the restitution of an Altar, (or Church) which had been adjudged by the Council of Poitiers, to belong to the Diocese of Chartres.  
In the CIst Letter, to Adela Countess of Chartres, he Complains of her having assumed Authority to Cite before her Judges Ralph, a Chief Clergyman of his Diocese, to answer for his having seized the Goods of a Counterfeit Nun: Ivo puts her in mind, that it has ever been the undisputed Right of his and of all the other Churches of France, that none but the Ecclesiastical Judges shall take Cognizance of, and inflict Punishments on disorderly Clergymen and Monks, unless their Crimes are such as deserve Death, in which case only, they are to be delivered over to the Justice of the Civil Magistrate.  
In the CIId, he presses Manasses Archbishop of Rheims, to proceed to the Consecration of the new Elected Bishop of Beauvais, without waiting any longer for leave from the King: The Election of Bishops (he tells him) is the Church's Prerogative, and has been yielded to them by the Capitulars or Grants of Charlemagne and Lovis le Debonnaire.  
By the CIIId, he acquaints Pope Paschal, that the Bishop of Senlis, who had been forced out of his Diocese for adhering to his Holiness' Interests, could not regain possession of it, though he had produced his Holiness' Letters in that behalf to the King, and to his own Metropolitan; but that moreover, the Dean of Paris had also seized to his own use the Prebend this Bishop had in that Church.  
In the CIVth, he advertises the same Pope, that the soundest and most judicious of the Clergy of Beauvais, having Elected for their Bishop one Gualon, a person of excellent Learning and Morals, some who were still zealous for Stephen, had slily insinuated to the King, that the other being a Disciple of Ivo and nominated by the Pope, his Majesty had reason to fear he would prove no very good Subject of his: upon which suggestion, the King absolutely refused to Consent to the Election of Gualon, and to give him Investiture. Ivo tells the Pope, he had e'er this been Petitioned on that occasion, but the Metropolitan kept the Clergy from it, under pretence of speedily compromising the matter, perhaps to please the King by delaying it as long as he can in hopes of terminating it to his satisfaction; and therefore conjures his Holiness to interpose his Authority, for the Confirmation of what he has begun, and to stop his Enemy's mouths. He acquaints him, that the King has declared he will go shortly to Rome, but he scarce believes it; though whether he go or send thither, 'twould be requisite his Holiness should be cautious of Absolving him, or do it only conditionally, for fear of a return to his beloved Sin, and should signify as much to all the Churches of France.  
In the CVth Letter, he farther informs the Pope, that the King had taken a Solemn Oath, that Gualon should never be Bishop of Beauvais, in his Reign; and humbly remonstrates, that if his Holiness take any notice of this Oath, and do not resolutely show his power to the contrary, there shall never any more regard be had for Elections in France. Ivo concludes this Letter with Praying the Pope's direction what course he shall take, if the King after obtaining his Holiness' Absolution, should reassume his former ill practices, as he much feared he would.  
The CVIth and CVIIth Letters are to Henry the I. King of England, and his Queen Mathilda, exhorting them above all things, to promote Religion, and take Care of the Churches in their Dominions, recommending also to their bounty the necessitous state of the Church of Chartres, of which they would be more fully informed by two of the Canons of it, whom he had sent on purpose to their Majesties.  
In the CVIIIth he gives Pope Paschal an Account of the Quarrels between Ralph Archbishop of Tours, and the Abbot of Marmoutier, whom the former had accused of divers misdemeanours: Ivo thinks the Archbishop ought not to be heard against him; 1. because he was not himself Legally Ordained; 2. because the Abbot was never guilty of what is laid to his Charge; or, 3. if he were, the Archbishop should then have Objected them against him, while he was concerned in Church-Affairs, and not now he is retired into a Cloister. 4. The ground of the Archbishop's malice against him, is, that he cannot have leave to read Mass publicly, in the Church of Marmoutier, to insult over the Monks, and embezzle the Goods of the Monastery; and therefore, to show his spite against it, he had lately in Synod, Prohibited any of his Diocese from entering into that Abbey: 5. All the Witnesses he had to produce against the Abbot, were either his own Kindred, or Men of a Scandalous Reputation, or such as he had bribed and suborned; all which, he prays his Holiness to take into his Prudent Consideration, and do what he thinks requisite thereupon.  
In the CIXth Letter, to the same Pope, he entreats him to Constitute for his Legate in France, some Bishop whose Diocese lies on this side of the Alps; for that the Cardinals who were wont to be sent from the other side could not stay there long enough to put the Affairs of the Church in order, which ministered occasion to the Enemies of the Holy See, to say that they were not sent to regulate abuses, but to scrape up Money for their own pockets, or the use of the Court of Rome: to prevent such clamours, Ivo proposes Hugh, Archbishop of Lions, as the fittest person he can think of for this employment, in which he had heretofore acquitted himself with great applause, and done excellent service to the Church of Rome, and to those of France.  
In the CX, he acquaints the Pope, that having almost resolved to resign his Bishopric, by reason of the excessive wickedness of his people, and his despairing of doing any good among them, he was got as far as the Alps, on his way towards Rome, to consult his Holiness on this occasion, when he was informed of a Treacherous design his Enemies had against him, which obliged him to return home and send Gualon, who could better pass unsuspected, and by whom he desires to know his Holiness' Opinion and Pleasure.  
By the CXIth he requests Daimbert, Archbishop of Sens, to Excommunicate Hugh, Lord of Puiset, as he had already done, for his violent and unjust practices against the Church of Chartres, and to interdict the use of Divine Service in the Village of Merville, which sided with him.  
In the CXIIth he tells the Dean and Chapter of Paris, that they have power to Excommunicate any under their Jurisdiction, as has the Church of Chartres, and several others: But he blames them for receiving into their Church Hugh Earl of Puiset, and his followers, whom he had Excommunicated.  
By the CXIIIth, he sends word to Daimbert, Archbishop of Sens, that he is glad of the Election of Manasses to the Bishopric of Meaux, and is ready to assist at his Ordination, if it be at any place whither he may securely come, or obtain a Passport for his safety; otherwise, he would consent and approve of it by Letters under his own hand. The CXVth Letter is to the same purpose.  
In the CXIVth, he assures John Bishop of Orleans, that his Conscience cannot in the least accuse him of having done any thing that should Offend King Lewis; (the Son of Philip, Surnamed le Gros,) and as to Hugh Earl of Puiset, and his Companion, he cannot receive them into the Church, till they have given good satisfaction for their Offences.  
In the CXVIth, he entreats Adela, Countess of Chartres, not to give credit to, nor encourage any malicious and false Stories that shall be brought to her against him.  
By the CXVIIth Letter, he acquaints Pope Paschal, that he had published the Injunctions sent him by his Holiness, for the reforming some abuses in the Church, which were so well received by his Brethren, the Clergy of his Diocese, that few showed any dislike of them; but that some additions were thought necessary for the Honour and Liberty of the Churches, which he prays the Pope to confirm, that Posterity may be obliged to observe them.  
The CXVIIIth Letter to Henry King of England, requests him again, to bestow somewhat on the Church of Chartres.  
In the CXIXth, he tells Daimbert, that though the opposition made against the validity of Manasses' Election was without any just ground, yet, to leave no room for suspicion or calumny, he thinks it convenient that some of the Clergy of Meaux vouch for him upon their Oaths, and that then he may proceed to Consecrate him publicly.  
The CXXth Letter is to Robert Earl of Ponthieu and Bellême, whose Territories were put under an interdict, by the Bishop of Seés. This Earl had sent to Ivo for some of the Consecrated Chrism, which he tells him, he must be forced to refuse him, because the Canons absolutely forbidden a Bishop's Communicating with any person Excommunicated by another Bishop: He assures him nevertheless, that he is hearty sorry for his sufferings, and should be glad if he might have an opportunity of doing him any service.  
In the CXXIst, he expostulates with Adela Countess of Chartres, concerning the outrages committed by her Servants upon his ecclesiastics, and assures her, he is ready to assist them in obliging her to do them Justice, if she shall not think fit to endeavour it upon this third admonition from him.  
The CXXIId to Volgrin, Archdeacon of Paris, asserts, that a Jewish Woman marrying with a Christian Husband, and afterwards returning to Judaisme, is not freed from her Conjugal Vow, nor, though she leave him, can the Man marry with any other Woman during her Life.  
In the CXXIIId to Gaultier, Library-Keeper of the Church of Beauvais, he gives his Opinion of a difficult case he had consulted him upon, viz. how he should proceed against a Priest, who had in a profane manner, made use of other Ceremonies and words than are prescribed in the Form of marriage? Ivo tells him, he had never yet heard of so foul a Sacrilege, nor was there any provision against it in the Canons; and therefore, this being a Crime wholly new and unparallelled, some more than ordinary punishment ought to be inflicted on the Author of it: However, not to deal too severely without Warrant and Authority from Scripture or the Ecclesiastical Laws, he thinks it sufficient that such Punishment be laid on him as the Canon's order to be inflicted upon those that violate the Sacraments and holy things.  
In the CXXIVth, Ivo acquaints Daimbert, Archbishop of Sens, that Hugh Earl of Puiset having restored to the Church of Chartres their Goods he had detained, and given security for what he had taken from himself and his Domestics, he desires he may be Absolved from the Excommunication he lay under: But, as to King Lewis (le Gros,) he tells him, that Prince will not be yet reconciled to him, because he refuses to bestow Preferment on one who had begun a cruel Schism in the Church of Chartres.  
In the CXXVth to the same Archbishop, he gives his Opinion, that those whose Wives had Committed Adultery while they were absent in the Holy-Land, ought either to be reconciled to their Wives, or, remain unmarried to any others during their Lives.  
In the CXXVIth, he returns his thanks to the same Archbishop, for advising him to be reconciled with the Countess of Chartres, to which he tells him, he is very well inclined, but that he cannot release his Clergy from an Oath they had obliged themselves by, not to admit into their Church any but the Sons of Freemen.  
By the CXXVIIth to King Lewis, he excuses himself for not waiting on his Majesty, because he was not in a condition to take a Journey, when His Majesty's Orders came to him: And besides, having agreed with the Countess of Chartres, to refer the difference between them to the Bishop of Alban, he thought it would look unfair or suspicious in him to go to Court before the Arrival of that Bishop.  
In the CXXVIIIth, he sends word to Odon, a Regular Canon of St. Quintin in Beduvais, that he does not care to enter into Conference, or to have any thing to do with the person he was sending to him, who had been his bitter Enemy.  
In the CXXIXth, he writes to Geofry, Earl of Vendome, not to marry with the Vicountess of Blois, whose first Husband was his Kinsman, and threatens him with Excommunication if he venture to do it.  
In the CXXXth, he sends the same message to the Vicountess of Blois, and advises her to defer the Marriage, at least, till the scruple about their Consanguinity be cleared and tried before him.  
In the CXXXIst, he advises Volgrin, Archdeacon of Paris, not to suffer a Priest who had resigned his Benefice to him, to re-enter it again by force; and if he attempt it to Excommunicate him and all that shall dare to assist him.  
In the CXXXIId, he prays Daimbert, Archbishop of Sens, to punish a Priest of Stampae, in his Diocese, who had abused a Clergyman of the Church of Chartres; and asks his Advice about a Dispute among the Clergy of that Church about Moneys that had been expended out of the common Stock, to defray the charge of a deputation to the King, to demand Justice against the bold erterprises of the Countess of Chartres.  
The CXXXIIId Letter is to Richard, Bishop of Alban, the Pope's Legate, who had accused him of conniving at Simony in his Diocese: Ivo clears himself from this Aspersion, and tells him, if the Dean and Chanter, and the other Church Officers demand a Fee of every one that is admitted to a Canonry, 'tis what he cannot prevent, and has endeavoured to remedy, but a Custom they plead Authority for, from the Example of the Church of Rome, where the Chamberlains and the other Officers of the Sacred Palace, exact of the Bishops and Abbots that come for Consecration excessive Sums, under the Specious names of Oblations, or Benedictions; and that though he has endeavoured, with all his might, to Banish this wicked custom out of his Church, yet he is forced to yield to the practice of it by the iniquity of the Times.  
In the CXXXIVth Letter, to Daimbert, Archbishop of Sens, he asserts, and proves from good Authorities, that a Daughter promised in Marriage by her Father, to another Man's Son, is not bound thereby when she comes to Years of Discretion, though her Father be then Living. Ivo acquaints the Archbishop likewise, that William, Son of the Countess of Chartres, notwithstanding, the Accommodation between them, and without any provocation given, had himself Sworn, and compelled others to take an Oath at the Altar, to destroy him and his whole Clergy, if they will not yield to his unreasonable pretensions; that, thereupon, he had refused to Celebrate Divine Service, when they are in the Church, and to give them the Episcopal Benediction, daily used; but that he deferred pronouncing them Excommunicate, till he had the advice and assistance of the Archbishop, and the rest of his Brethren.  
The CXXXVth, is sent to Pope Paschal, by a Knight, who came from the Siege of Jerusalem: This Knight had caused a Priest of Bonneval to be Gelt, for detecting his Servants in a Robberry; for this unparallelled presumption, Ivo had cashiered him and enjoined him a severe penance for Fourteen Years; to which he readily submitted; but, his Enemies taking advantage of his misfortunes, and Beginning to be very troublesome to him, the Knight begs leave of Ivo to permit him to use his Arms again, in his own defence; Ivo, upon great intercession made for him, recommends him to the Pope's mercy for absolution.  
The CXXXVIth Letter is to Adela, Countess of Chartres, telling her that, if his inclinations were for War and broils, he had the offer of such potent succours, as might Enable him to create her great disturbance; but, Peace he had always desired, and thought it had been firmly settled between them, till he had the News of her Son William's rash Oath, to ruin him and his Church; that, out of respect to her, he had, hitherto, forborn to Excommunicate him, and hoped she would contrive some means to prevent all such irregularities for the future.  
The CXXXVIIth is to the Chapter of Beauvais, concerning one of their Canons, who was prosecuted by an Action of Law in the King's Court of Justice: Ivo minds them, that by the orders of the Church, no Clergyman is to be Cited before any but the Ecclesiastical Judges, and that if they have Courage enough, they ought to endure any thing rather than the loss of their Rights and Privileges; but if they cannot resolve to suffer in defence of them, he can only advise them to submit to what they cannot remedy, and assist them by his Prayers, for their prudent Behaviour and good Success.  
The CXXXVIIIth Letter, to Volgrin and Steven, Arch-Deacons of Paris, is occasioned by the great contests among the Clergy of that City, about the Election of a Bishop: Ivo declares, he will never consent to any Election that is not made by the unanimous consent of the Clergy, and People, and Confirmed by the Metropolitan and his Suffragans: he admonishes them not to be swayed by hatred or Ambition, and wonders at their consenting to a hearing of this cause before the King.  
In the CXXXIXth, he puts Daimbert, Archbishop of Sens, in mind, that the contest, about the Election of a Bishop of Paris, aught to be determined by him in Consistory, and that he should Convene the Bishops his Suffragans, for that purpose, when and where he pleased.  
In The CXLth, he Asserts, that no Man-ought to Scruple assisting at Divine Service, or receiving the Sacrament from the hands of a Priest suspected of Scandal, or notorious for an ill Life.  
In The CXLIst, he assures Richard, Bishop of Alban and Legat of the Holy See, that he should as hearty rejoice at King Philip's absolution, as he had grieved at his being Excommunicate; if it might be for the Honour of God and of the Holy See, to grant it; that, though he somewhat doubts of the Sincerity of the King's Conversion, yet he will not oppose his being Absolved; but advises that the Ceremony be performed as publicly, and Solemnly as is possible, and rather at any other place than at Sens: He tells him, moreover, he would willingly appear at the Council he Summons him to, if he will obtain for him the King's Passport, without which he dares not venture abroad, his Majesty having been incensed against him for these Ten Years past. This Letter was written in the Year 1104.  
The CXLIId is a Letter of Thanks to Mathilda, Queen of England, for the Bells she had given to the Church of Chartres, and her promise of repairing and New-Adorning that Church.  
The CXLIIId carries Ivoes acknowledgements, to Robert Earl of Meulan, for the kind reception he gave to Richard Abbot of Preaux, and Prays him to hasten the Restitution of the goods of his Monastery.  
The CXLIVth informs Pope Paschal of what was done in the Assembly of Bishops, called together at Baugency, by his Legate, Girard, Bishop of Alban, to be witnesses of the Separation of King Philip and Bertrade. He tells him, they were both ready to Swear, upon the Holy Evangelists, that they would Forbear all Carnal knowledge of each other; the Legate would have had the Bishops have given judgement upon them, but they declined it, and so the whole came to Nothing: Ivo therefore, prays the Pope to put an End to this matter and dispense with the King as far as he can. He acquaints the Pope, also, that Gualon not finding it possible to get possession of the Bishopric of Beauvais, because of King Louis' Oath against admitting him, he hopes he may be Transferred to the See of Paris, to which he has been also Elected by the Clergy and People of that City.  
In The CXLVth, he entreats Manasses Archbishop of Rheims, to determine, as speedily as may be, whether Gualon shall continue Bishop of Beauvais, or not.  
In The CXLVIth, he acquaints Daimbert, Archbishop of Sens, that the Clergy and People of Paris have unanimously Elected Gualon, for their Bishop, and that since no Bishop can be Translated to another See without Leave from his Metropolitan, and the Pope's Dispensation, he prays him to use his interest at Rome, to obtain one for Gualon.  
In The CXLVIIth, he intercedes with Pope Paschal to dispense with the Oath taken by the Chapter of Chartres, not to admit into their Fraternity, the Sons of such as had been Servants to any one, so that they may hereafter be allowed to admit the Sons of any of the Earl of Chartres Domestics, or the Officers of the King's Revenues; and assures his Holiness that without abating of the Rigour of that Oath, the Church of Chartres could never enjoy any Peace.  
In The CXLVIIIth, to Hildebert, Bishop of Man's, he determines, that a certain Man who (as he writes) had promised Marriage to his Concubine in her Sickness, was bound by the Law of God, to acknowledge her, afterwards for his Wife.  
In The CXLIXth, he exhorts William Archbishop of Roven, to Expel out of the Diocese of Lisieux the Sons of Count Ranulf Flambard, who had seized upon it, and to substitute in their place the Archdeacon of Eureux.  
In the CLth, he excuses himself to Pope Paschal, for not coming to the Council held by him in the Month of March, of which he had not Notice time enough before hand.  
In The CLIst, he complains to Walter Bishop of Beauvais, of his having Consecrated Odo, Abbot of St. Quintin, in that City, without his consent, and contrary to the Opinion and desires of the Fraternity of that House.  
In The CLIId, he Stirs up Ledger, Archbishop of Bourges, to Vindicate a certain Earl of his Country, who had formerly shown himself his true Friend, from the abuses he suffers under.  
In the CLIIId, he Earnestly exhorts William, Archbishop of Roven, and Gilbert Bishop of Eureux, to drive out of the Bishopric of Lisieux, Ranulf, Bishop of Durham, in England, and his two Sons, who had possessed themselves of that Diocese.  
In The CLIVth, he advises Robert Earl of Meulan, to petition the King of England not to countenance the usurpations of Ranulf.  
In the CLVth, to Odo, Archdeacon of Orleans, Ivo Treats of this Question; if a Woman who has committed Fornication, and is great with Child may Marry? and concludes that, in strictness, no great Bellied Woman, aught to have Carnal knowledge of any Man; but considering the infirmity of the Flesh, St. Paul advises Men to use their own Wives, for avoiding Fornication, although they are with Child; and therefore, by consequence, a Man may Marry a Woman in that condition.  
In the CLVIth, to Ulric, he solves another difficulty, viz, if, in Confession to a Priest, a man have owned himself guilty of a Crime deserving Excommunication, the Priest ought publicly to refuse him the Communion of the Church? to which Ivo answers, That unless the fault be publicly Known, the Priest is not to take Notice of it, before others, but only to abhor it in his own heart, and to give public Notice to his People, in general Terms, that those who are guilty of such Crimes are already Excommunicate in the sight of God.  
In the CLVIIth, he gives Pope Pascal an Account of what had happened in the Diocese of Lisieux; that, after Ranulf Flambard was driven out, who had kept it several Years by violence, William, Archdeacon of Eureux, was Canonically Elected Bishop, who deferring being Consecrated, upon Account of his Metropolitan's (the Archbishop of Rouen's) being under Suspension, Flambard had prevailed with the Duke of Normandy to put one of his Clergy into that See. Ivo having, thereupon, Counselled William to appeal, in person, to the Pope, entreats his Holiness to Confirm his Election, and to Consecrate him at Rome.  
In the CLVIIIth, he acquaints Hugh, Archbishop of Lions, that King Philip and his Son are resolved to make void the Marriage of Constance, the King's Daughter, and Hugh Earl of Troy's, because of their being too nearly Related, and desires the Archbishop to send speedily to all the Bishops, summoned to Court on this occasion, the Genealogy of both Families.  
In the CLIXth, he writes to Pope Paschal, that, when any complain to him of Judgements given against them in the Court of Rome, he advises them to have recourse again to the Holy See, for relief, not thinking it fit to remove into any other Court a Cause that has been determined there: This Method he has persuaded the Monks of St. Maur des Fossez to take, who had been forced by the Council of Tours, held, by Pope Urban, to Surrender to the Earl of Angers the Jurisdiction they had held for 300 Years, over the Monastery of St. Maur de Glanfevil; and prays the Pope to examine, again, the Rights of their pretensions.  
The CLXth, to Odo, Abbot of Jumieges, prays him to receive kindly a Monk who had left his Monastery, and desires to be admitted into it again.  
The CLXIst, to the Provost of the Church of Rheims, asserts, that, a Man, who promises Marriage to a Woman, and afterward Marries another, aught to be Divorced and return to his first Engagement.  
In the CLXIId, he prays John Bishop of Orleans, to degrade, in as public and severe a manner as may be, a certain Priest, who profanely Treated the Sacraments of the Church, before a Woman's Statue.  
In the CLXIIId, he persuades Geofry, Abbot of Vendôme, not to suffer one of his Monks to hold a Benefice he was possessed of.  
In the CLXIVth, Ivo reprimands Geofry, Abbot of Blois, for repenting of his having resigned his Abbey into the hands of the Pope's Legate, and giving his voice for Maurice to succeed him.  
The CLXVth, is a Letter of Thanks and Friendship, to Samson Bishop of Worcester.  
The CLXVIth, is to Humbald, Bishop of Auxerre, acquainting him that Hugh le Blanc having made his complaint to Bruno, Bishop of Signi, that Pontius, Nephew to the Bishop of Troy's, had Married his Daughter Mathilda, by Force, who had been promised by her Parents to Galeran, the King's Chamberlain, and that the Legate having given Orders to the Bishop of Paris to cite Pontius and Mathilda before him, to answer for themselves, that Bishop had Summoned them to appear before a Council held by him, for that purpose, at Paris: There, Mathilda affirmed that Pontius Married her without her consent, or that of her Parents; Pontius could not answer any thing in his own Defence, but stole out of Court: Then, Mathilda brought Ten witnesses to Swear she had been espoused to another Man, and was Married to Pontius against her will; upon which the Bishops declared the Marriage Null, and that she was free to Marry any other Man. Ivo acquaints the Bishop of Auxerre with these particulars, understanding that one of his Diocese had a mind to Marry her, which he assures him he may do without Scruple. This Letter was written in the Year, 1106.  
In the CLXVIIth, he writes to the Bishop of Man's, to hinder the Marriage of one who had already Engaged himself to another Woman.  
In the CLXVIIIth Letter, to Daimbert, Archbishop of Sens, he speaks of the difference that 〈◊〉 been between the Viscount of Chartres and Count Rotroc, about a Farm, in the Diocese of Char●… The former of them had given it to Ivo, Lord of Courbeville, whom the party of R●troc seized 〈◊〉 kept prisoner, though he were one of those appointed to go to the Holy Land: The Viscount of Chartres having complained of this matter to the Pope, his Holiness appointed the Archbishop of Sens, the Bishops of Chartres and Orleans, Commissioners to settle it.  
Ivo Bishop of Chartres, after he has, by this Letter, instructed Daimbert in the merits of the cause advises him to take care how he proceeds in it, and to consider if it will be most advisable for them to Excommunicate Rotroc, or to cite both parties before them: Daimbert is of opinion that they are obliged, by the Pope's Letter to them, immediately to Excommunicate Rotroc; but Ivo, thinking this too hard measure, consults Gualon, Bishop of Paris, about it, in the 169th Letter; and in the 170th Letter, tells Daimbert, again, that he cannot join in so unjust an action, as cutting off one from the Communion of the Church, before he be found, upon fair Trial, to deserve it, especially, since Rotroc is willing to stand to the Examination and Sentence of their Court, which his Adversaries decline doing as much as they can. In his Letter, also, he determines that a Woman that Marries her Husband's Murderer ought not to be separated from him, if she can justify herself from having a hand in the Murder, and the Man can offer reasonable proof, that he had never Carnal knowledge of her during her Husband's Life, nor contrived his Death, to have the enjoyment of her to himself.  
In the CLXXIst Letter, he tells Daimbert, Archbishop of Sens, that he scarce knows how to advise him to deal with some he had Excommunicated for stealing the goods of the Church, and violating the observation of holidays; if he receive them to the Communion again, before they have made restitution, 'twill be directly contrary to the Laws; if he persist in keeping them out, he must, of necessity, incur the King's displeasure: And though, if he have Courage enough, he ought to see that the Rigour of discipline be observed; yet, because such severity may occasion dismal inconveniences, he advises him to use moderation; chief because the administration of temporal Affairs naturally belongs to Kings, who are not, unadvisedly, to be exasperated, if they sometimes go beyond the bounds of their Authority, but must be left to God's Judgement, when they will not yield to the humble admonitions and Remonstrances of the Clergy. for his part, Ivo protests, that were he obliged, in obedience to his Superiors, to readmit an Excommunicate person in to the Church, without penance or satisfaction, he would do it by some such Form as this; Do not deceive yourself; I admit you into the visible Church, notwithstanding the Crimes you are guilty of; but I cannot open to you the Gates of the Kingdom of Heaven, and therefore I absolve you, no farther than I have power to do it; those of more Courage and Piety, may find out better methods in such cases. This seems to me proper enough; not that I hereby prescribe to others, but to prevent farther mischiefs to the Church, think it best to submit, thus far, to the necessity of the Times.  
The CLXXIId Letter contains a judgement given by Ivo, in Favour of the Monks of St. Laurner at Blois, against the Abbot and Monks of Vendôme concerning a Chapel, near Baugency, which he adjudges to belong to the Jurisdiction of the former, notwithstanding the Abbot of Vendôme's having appealed to the Holy See.  
In the CLXXIIId, he relates to Pope Paschal, what had passed at the Trial of Rotroc, who, he tells him, has now appealed to his Holiness.  
In the CLXXIVth, he assures Mathilda, Queen of England, that he will pray for the Soul of her Brother (Edgar, King of Scotland, who died, without issue, in the Year 1107.) for though he doubts not but his Soul is in Abraham's bosom; yet since we cannot be certain of the State of Souls in the other World, it is a piece of commendable Devotion to pray even for those in Heaven, that their happiness may be augmented; and for those in Purgatory, that their sins may be forgiven them.  
In the CLXXVth, he excuses himself to Pope Paschal, for not appearing at the Council he citys him to, (held at Troy's, Anno 1107.) by reason of his being very much indisposed; but tells his Holiness, he has sent his three Arch-Deacons in his stead.  
In the CLXXVIth, to the same Pope, he prays him not to oblige Volgrin Chancellor of the Church of Chartres to accept of the Bishopric of Dol, to which he was Elected by the Deputies of that Church in the Council of Troy's; and.  
In the CLXXVIIth Letter, he acquaints the Clergy of Dol, that Volgrin will not accept of that Bishopric.  
In the CLXXVIIIth, he Counsels Geofry, Bishop of Beauvais, to punish one of his Clergy, who had admitted to Divine Service and consorted with an Excommunicated person.  
In the CLXXIXth, to Adela, Countess of Chartres, he complains of her denying the Clergy of his Church the privileges of Travelling the Roads and of buying Bread and Wine, and threatens her, in case she do not Revoke the Orders she has published to this Effect, that the whole Clergy of the Province shall daily curse her at the high Altar.  
The CLXXXth Letter gives Ledger, Archbishop of Bourges, advice to abate sometimes the Rigour of justice; and not to be so wholly governed by some of his Clergy, as not to do any thing but according to their Pleasures, even in judicial matters; as happened lately, in the case of Arnoulf of Vierson, who was so exasperated by his hard usage, that he was forced to appeal to Rome, upon the very first hearing before them.  
The CLXXXIst is to Richard, Bishop of Alban, the Pope's Legate, upon a dispute between the Monks of Vezelay and those of St. Lucian at Beauvais, about a Church they both of them laid claim to.  
The CLXXXIId is to Daimbert, Archbishop of Sens, concerning a difference between Ivo and the Chapter of Chartres, who had opposed and violently affronted him, for conferring the Office of Subdean upon Fulk: The Archbishop is agreed upon to be Judge between them, and Ivo prays him to appoint the day and place, where their cause shall be heard, which he wishes may be at Chartres.  
In the CLXXXIII, to William, Bishop of Paris, he asserts, that if a Man challenge a Woman for his Wife, upon pretence that her Father promised her to him, he must bring witnesses of such promise, and that the Trial by single combat is not to be allowed in cases of this Nature.  
The CLXXXIVth, to Walter, Library-Keeper of Beauvais, maintains, that all Actions about Goods belonging to the Church are to be brought before Ecclesiastical Judges.  
In the CLXXXVth, he gives answer to what William, Archbishop of Roven had written him about one who had gotten himself Ordained Sub-Deacon, before he had passed the inferior degrees of Holy Orders: In strictness of Law, Ivo acknowledges, that he should not be permitted to exercise the functions of the Order he has obtained, nor to Rise to the higher Orders; however, if his Life and Conversation be unexceptionable and the good of the Church require it, he thinks the Archbishop may give him the Clerical Benediction, and let him assist at Ordinations, not to be Re-ordained, but to Confirm him in his Orders.  
In the CLXXXVIth Letter, he Answers several Questions proposed to him by Laurence, a Monk of the Monastery of Charity: 1. He asserts that we are obliged to avoid only those that are Excommunicated for the most notorious and abominable faults; 2. That of such we are not to receive any thing, but in extreme necessity, nor, are we to give them any thing but for their relief, in utmost want and misery; 3. That those of the Clergy who buy of Laymen, goods that formerly belonged to the Church, or receive such from them by way of Gift, are much to blame, if they do it with any other design but of restoring them to the Church: 4. That, they who, in private Confession, discover themselves to be guilty of the greatest crimes are not, therefore, to be Excommunicated, nor put to public penance, as public offenders; however, they are to be admonished to abstain from the Sacrament, and from the Functions of their Orders, if they are ecclesiastics: 5. That the Sacraments are not the less profitable for being administered by wicked Priests, nor (6.) by Simoniacal ones, or such as are Married: 7. That the People ought not to abandon their Prelate, nor fail in their obedience to him, though in many respects unblamable, till he is publicly Condemned or Excommunicated: 8. That Confession of common and small sins may be made to any Christian, but that great faults are to be confessed only to those who have the power of binding and losing: 9 That one may entertain an Excommunicated Person, provided he do not Eat with him, nor salute him.  
In the CLXXXVIIth, he admonishes the Countess of Chartres, to leave troubling the Abbot and Monks of Bonneval on Account of the murder of Hugh the Black.  
In the CLXXXVIIIth, to Ralph, Archbishop of Rheims, he delivers his opinion, That a Woman who is delivered of a Child within two or three Months after her Marriage, is not to be divorced from her Husband.  
The CLXXXIXth contains Ivoes answer to the complaints of the Archbishop and Clergy of Rheims, against the Archbishop of Sens, for having Consecrated King Lovis le Gros: Ivo remonstrates that the Consecration could not be longer deferred, that it could not be performed at Rheims, because Ralph was not then fully possessed of that Archbishopric, and the City of Rheims was under an Interdict; that, besides, he knows no Law that Orders that Office to be performed there, but can prove that several of the Kings of France have been Consecrated elsewhere, and by the Bishops of other Cities.  
In the CXCth, Ivo gives Pope Paschal an Account of the Accommodation agreed to between the King and Ralph Archbishop of Rheims, on condition that Ralph take an Oath of homage to the King for his Archbishopric: This he says they were obliged to consent to, not as a thing necessary in itself, but to procure Peace, and prevent farther distraction in the Nation.  
In the CXCIst, he intercedes with Hugh Abbot of Clunie in behalf of one of his Monastery, whom he had degraded, upon an accusation brought against him of having procured abortion to a Woman great with Child, before he took the vow of a Monk upon him. Ivo thinks his punishment too severe, and that though the fact were clearly proved against him, as it is not, he should not suffer for ever, for a fault he may have long since repent of.  
In the CXCIId, to the Monks of Colombs, near Nogent le Roi, he dissuades them from harkening to the advice somebody had been giving them of quitting their Monastery, because their Superiors had taken away some Tithes, belonging to the Bishop's Jurisdiction; he shows them, that they ought rather to remain in subjection to their Superiors, and live upon such Tithes as the Church shall in Charity allow to the Monasteries, as she does to Hospitals, than turn Sarabaites and live upon the goods of the poor, or the gain of usury: nevertheless, he blames the Abbots and Superiors of Monasteries for buying Tithes of Laymen for their own uses, to the damage of the Church, though this be no reason for the Monks to withdraw themselves from the Monasteries and the Subjection they have sworn to them: he approves well enough of the Lives of such Anchorets as, after having been trained up in Monasteries, retire wholly into Solitudes; but highly blames those who make it their business to run from Town to Town to be admired at themselves, and proudly despise all that are not of their profession, desiring to be thought Masters, before they have been Scholars.  
In the CXCIIId, he advises Geoffrey, Bishop of Beauvais, not to infringe the Privileges granted to the Monastery of St. Quintin, by the Bishops his predecessors, and confirmed to them by the Authorities of the Holy See and the King's Majesty.  
In the CXCIVth, he sends Notice to Hugh Dean of Orleans, and Volgrin, his Archdeacon, that he has Excommunicated Chenard, belonging to his Diocese, and therefore, according to the direction of the Canon, they are not to entertain him.  
The CXCVth, is a very severe Answer to a displeasing Letter he had received from Geoffrey, Abbot of Vendôme, with whom, for the future, he renounces all correspondence, till he behave himself better.  
In the CXCVIth, to King Lovis le Gros, he begs that Prince not to order process against the Abbot of St. Denys for what he is charged with by a certain Monk, who having owned himself a Criminal, his Testimony against the innocence of others is not to be received.  
In the CXCVIIth to William Abbot of Marmoutier, he agrees with him that a Priest, who, to fright his Enemies, set fire to his own house, and thereby unhappily Burnt a Neighbour's Child, aught to undergo the penalties appointed by the Canons.  
The CXCVIIIth, the CXCIXth, and the CCIst Letters are about a difference, between Gislebert, Nephew to the Archbishop of Tours, and Geoffrey Canon of that Church, concerning the Government of Sy●urre, the determination of which matter the Pope had put into the hands of Ivo Bishop of Chartres, and the Bishops of Paris and Soissons: By the two first Letters, he citys Gislebert, to appear before them and by the last, he acquaints the Pope, that, upon his refusing to own their Authority he had sent Geoffrey to his Holiness for justice.  
In the CCth Letter, he admonishes Daimbert, Archbishop of Sens, to correct two Scandalous practices in his Church; one, of the Chaunter's holding another preferment, contrary to his Oath; the other, in one of the Chapter's keeping in his house two Women of very ill fame.  
The CCIId Letter is a notable instance of the Liberty used by Ivo, in dealing with the greatest Princes King Lovis had sent to him for some Outlandish Furs; Ivo tells him, 'tis not decent for a King to ask such vanities of a Bishop, nor is he bound to obey any such Orders from a King; that he could not believe, at first, the Letter came from his Majesty, and sends this Answer, that he may not any more, make such requests to him, or any other Bishop, if he desire they should retain a due esteem for his Majesty.  
In the CCIIId, to Lisiard, Bishop of Soissons, he shows him, from good Authority, that he has a Right to demand of the Arch-Deacons of his Diocese, part of the profits due to the Bishop, which they have taken upon them to receive for themselves, both before and since his accession to the Bishopric.  
By the CCIVth, he informs Pope Paschal, that he had Excommunicated Guy of Puiset, for his Sacrilegious and outrageous attempts against the Church of Chartres, and petitions his Holiness to Confirm the Excommunication, and to Order the Archbishop of Sens and the Bishops of Paris and Orleans, to publish it in their Churches: he informs the Pope, likewise, of a difference between the Dean and Subdean of Chartres, and prays him to compose it.  
The CCVth Letter is written to a Knight, who suspected his Wife to have been with Child by another man, because he had been absent from her seven days longer than is usual between the times of conception and bringing forth, and because the person whom he suspected of being too familiar with her had been Burnt in passing the Trial of Ordeal: As to the computation of Time, Ivo tells him, that ought not to sway him, since many Women go much longer with Child, and, for the Trial by fire, no heed is to be given to it, so that these two Reasons prove nothing against the honesty of his Wife, whose Oath and the good word of her Neighbours and Acquaintance ought fully to suffice in Vindication of her.  
In the CCVIth Letter, to Hildebert, Bishop of Man's, he Examines, by what Method an Ecclesiastic accused of Crimes or Misdemeanours is to purge himself; and says that, heretofore, his single Oath was sufficient, but that for better Security, the Oaths of six or seven other Clergymen have been required, together with that of the party's.  
The CCVIIth is a Letter of Thanks to the Bishop of Worcester.  
In the CCVIIIth Letter, Ivo reproves Geoffrey, Abbot of Vendome, that, having quitted that place and retired into a private Cell, he entertains there Monks that are disobedient to and abuse their Abbot, and that he hinders those who hold Estates of the Abbot from doing homage to him.  
In the CCIXth he represents to Hugh, Earl of Troy's, that the Consultation intended to be held at Sens about the validity of the King's Marriage with the Marquis Boniface's Daughter, the Earls Kinswoman, will neither be honourable, nor of any advantage to her: It will be to no purpose, because the Marriage will certainly be declared Null by the Bishops and Lords of the Realm; nor will it be for her honour, because it will occasion the illegitimacy of her Birth to be talked of; so that, Ivo advises the Earl to hinder, if he can, all debates about that matter.  
In the CCXth he writes Pope Paschal word that Odo, Bishop of Cambray, complains of his Holiness, for turning out of the Arch-Deaconry of his Church, one who was a zealous friend of the Holy See, and putting in one who is an Enemy to it.  
In the CCXIth, to Ralph, Archbishop of Rheims, he deduces the Genealogies of the Earl of Flanders, and the Daughter of the Earl of Rennes, to show they are nearly Related.  
The CCXIIth to Geoffrey Bishop of Beauvais, is about the validity of a Donation granted to the Monastery of St. Simphorien.  
In the CCXIIIth, to John Bishop of Orleans, he proves that the Regular Clergy may have Cure of Souls and Parishes committed to them.  
In the CCXIVth, to Bruno, Archbishop of Treves, he bemoans the sad State of Religion, under the unhappy divisions between the Church and the Civil Government.  
The CCXVth is a Letter of compliment and friendship, to Thomas, Archbishop of York.  
In the CCXVIth, and CCXVIIth Letters, he give Richard, Bishop of Alban, Legate of the Holy See, an account of the dispute between the Monks of Bonneval and those of Blois, which he tells him he had used his best endeavours to accommodate, but could not yet effect it.  
In the CCXVIIIth, he writes, to Gualon, Bishop of Paris, that the Canon of that Church, who had lately been Married, aught to lose his preferment and be degraded from being a Clergyman, but that his Marriage must remain good and valid.  
In the CCXIXth, he justifies himself, to Pope Paschal, for having divided part of a Prebend of his Church among the Canons, by daily distributions, for the Encouragement of such as assisted, constantly, in performing Divine Service.  
In the CCXXth, to Hildebert, Bishop of Man's, he shows, that when an appeal is made from one Judge to another, the party concerned is, within five days after he appeals, to get a Letter from the first Judge to the other he appeals to, who is not else obliged to take cognizance of the Matter. He asserts, also, in this Letter, that it is not in the power of any Bishop, to give up the Estate of a Religious Society to the sole disposal of the Abbot.  
In the CCXXIst Letter, to John Bishop of Orleans, concerning a free-man's having Married a Slave, without knowing her to be so; Ivo says that, by the Civil Law, the Marriage is void, and he may quit her and marry another Woman; but that, by the Laws of God and of Nature, they ought to keep together, or at least, if he put her away he may not marry again.  
In the CCXXIId, to the Clergy of Autun, he inquires, if a Woman that has been guilty of Adultery, must necessarily be Divorced from her husband, and concludes that in strictness, she ought; but, by the wisdom of the Gospel, such a Temper was prescribed as may reconcile her to her husband.  
In the CCXXIIId, to Owen, Bishop of Eureux, he persuades him to Excommunicate and deny Christian Burial, to such as embezil the Patrimony of the Church.  
In the CCXXIVth, he tells Guy, Abbot of Molême, that one of his Monks having been with him and acknowledged with great Sorrow, that he took Orders for the sake of Temporal gain only, though by the Rigour of the Canons he ought for ever to be turned out of the Clergy, yet having expressed true Repentance for his Sin, he thinks he may be permitted to retain his Orders, and to Exercise the Functions of them.  
In the CCXXVth, to Daimbert, Archbishop of Sens, he delivers his judgement, that a certain person who came and confessed that, before he was Married, he had Carnal knowledge of his Wife's Sister, aught to be deemed ever after, infamous, and his evidence not to be heard against any man; that he ought also to be Divorced from his Wife and live the rest of his Life unmarried; but that his Wife should have her Portion back again.  
CCXXVIth, he requests Bernier, Abbot of Bonneval, to receive kindly one of his Monks, who was sorry for having left his Monastery, and begged leave to come into it again.  
The CCXXVIIth is a Letter of Condoleance to Pope Paschal; and acquaints him that being desirous of bestowing a Prebend, in his Church, upon Guarin, he is opposed therein by the Dean and Chapter.  
In the CCXXVIIIth, to Gonhier, a Priest, Ivo answers a Scruple he had proposed to him, viz. How to reconcile these words of the Prophet Ezechiel, (At what time-soever a sinner shall Repent, and turn from the Evil of his ways, he shall save his Soul alive, or be forgiven,) with the Sentence and discipline of the Ecclesiastical Canons, which suspends, for some time, even penitents from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper? and how it comes to pass, that those whom Christ, who is the head, immediately releases, the Church who is the body should detain under the Penalty of sin: This difficulty, Ivo says, 'tis Easy to solve, if we consider the manner of God's remitting sins and the frailty of Mankind; that God, who knows the heart, forgives the sin as soon as he sees the heart is converted, but that the Church, which knows not the inward thoughts of a Man, cannot absolve a sinner till his Conversion be made evident by Public Signs of it.  
In the CCXXIXth, to Lisiard, Bishop of Soissons, he declares that a Man who defames a Married Woman, to any of her Relations, by saying he had Carnal knowledge of her before her Marriage, ought not to be admitted in Court as an evidence against her, because he is criminal himself by his own Confession.  
In the CCXXXth, to Hildebert, Bishop of Man's, he asserts that a Jewish Woman who turns Christian may not quit her husband, nor Mary another, at least unless her husband were her near Relation.  
In the CCXXXIst, to Pontius, Abbot of Clunie, after giving some mystical reasons of the Elevation of the Chalice and the Host and the Signs of the Cross made upon those occasions, he delivers his opinion that a Monk who was forced to make himself an Eunuch, to prevent Epileptic fits he was subject to, may notwithstanding be allowed to take Orders.  
In the CCXXXIId, to Hildebert, Bishop of Man's, he maintains that a Man who had been too familiar with his Wife's Mother before his Marriage, ought not to be Divorced from his Wife, but upon good proof of his having been carnally joined to the Mother.  
In the CCXXXIIId, to Henry Abbot of St. John d' Angeli, he declares that he adheres to the opinion of the Popes, Gregory and Urban, touching Investitures given by Laymen, and believes that they who allow them the power of bestowing Church-preferments are Schismatics; nor is he afraid of hereby offending Pope Paschal, who has owned in several Letters to him that what he had done with Relation to the Investitures, he had been constrained to do by the violence of others, but was still in his heart of another opinion.  
In the CCXXXIVth, he persuades William, Abbot of Marmoutier, to end his quarrels with Ralph, Archbishop of Tours; and in the CCXXXVth, he tells that Archbishop, he is glad that the Bishops of Man's and Angers Labour to procure Peace between him and the Abbot.  
The CCXXXVIth Letter is written in the Name of Daimbert, Archbishop of Sens, and his Suffragans, to John, Archbishop of Lions, who had summoned them to a Council, called at Anse, near Lions, to consult about matters of Faith and the dispute of Investitures. They assure him, though they have a great respect for him, yet they will not go beyond the limits set them by their Ancestors, and that the Holy Fathers allowed no Authority to the Bishop of the Chief See to call the other Bishops to any Council, out of their peculiar Provinces, unless by the Express command of the Holy See, or that, upon some Controversy, which could not be Terminated within the Province, any of the Bishops of it should appeal to the Primate. As to the matter of Investitures, proposed to be Treated of in this Council, they tell him it cannot be done without discovering the nakedness of their Father the Pope; and besides, 'twould be needless to have any thing proved against persons they dare not pass Sentence upon; that the Pope may be excused for granting Investiture since he did it only by force and in cases of necessity; that 'tis foolishly done of some to bestow the name of heresy upon Investitures, since heresy can be only in matters of Faith, not in the Practice and Discipline of the Church; or at most, those only can be reckoned guilty of error who suppose some Sacrament or Grace conferred by the Investiture, if ever any were so weak as to think so; that however, Investitures are an Invasion upon the Rights and Liberties of the Churches, and aught to be abolished in all places, where it may be Effected without endangering a Schism.  
The CCXXXVIIth is the Archbishop of Lions' answer to the foregoing Letter, wherein he protests he did not mean to force them out of their Province, to a Council, but only desired to Confer with them, and ask their advices about the State of the Church; not but that the Church of Lions has such Authority over the other Churches of France: As to the persons he would have Treated about, he says, there is not one of them but aught to submit to the pleasure of a Council, even Kings and Emperors being subject to the Authority of the Bishops; that he did not design to uncover, but to hid the nakedness of their Father the Pope; that no dangers nor obstacles ought to hinder them from courageously defending the cause of the Church; that those who approve of Investitures remaining in the hands of the Laity are Heretics in their hearts; that he will not usurp any undue Authority over the Diocese of Sens, but prays them toremember, 'twas always Subject to the Primacy of the Archbishop of Lions.  
In the CCXXXVIIIth Letter, to Pope Paschal, Ivo endeavours to dissuade him from constituting a Bishop over the Church of Tournay, and exempting it from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Noyon, it has been under these 400 Years; lest his Holiness, by so doing, create a misunderstanding between the King and the Clergy, and raise such a Schism as happened in Germany.  
In the CCXXXIXth, he Compliments King Loüis le Gros, upon his intended Marriage with a Niece of the Earl of Flanders.  
In the CCXLth, he warns a certain Monk of the Scandal he occasions by his too great familiarity with a Nun.  
In the CCXLIst he writes to Humbaud, Bishop of Auxerre, not to suffer a Cause, already determined in the Ecclesiastical Courts, to be brought again before the Earl, or any Secular Judge.  
In the CCXI IId, to Owen, Bishop of Eureux, he explains himself concerning his having given his opinion that a Freeman, who had Married a Slave, without knowing her to be such, aught to be Divorced from her; and adds that this is not dissolving a Lawful Marriage, but only declaring that 'tis unlawful for them to live together any longer, their Marriage being Null by Law.  
In the CCXLIIId, to Gualon, Bishop of Paris, he says that a Marriage concluded on by the Parents, between two Children in their Cradles, is of no force.  
The CCXLIVth is written to Pope Paschal, in favour of Hubert, Bishop of Senlis, accused by some of his Clergy, to the Metropolitan, of selling Holy Orders. He had met with hard usage from the Bishops of his own Province, and therefore appeals to the Pope, to whom Ivo recommends his Case.  
The CCXLVth is to Hugh, Earl of Troy's, who having Listed himself for the Holy Land, designed to put away his Wife and live in Celibacy. Ivo commends his Resolution, but advises him to do it with his Wife's consent and to lead a Regular Life.  
In the CCXLVIth to Lisiard, Bishop of Soissons, he declares that 'tis not allowable for a Man to Marry two Sisters, successively, though the Marriage with the former of them were not consummated.  
In the CCXLVIIth, to John Bishop of Orleans, Ivo highly blames him that, upon a quarrel between the Earl of Orleans and Ralph Lord of Baugency, he and his Church had consented that they should decide it by single Combat: And,  
In the CCXLVIIIth, he advises the latter to carry himself respectfully towards the Earl of Orleans.  
In the CCXLIXth, to Gilbert, Archdeacon of Paris, he affirms, that those who had been assistant and consenting to an Adultery, cannot be received as witnesses against the Adulteress.  
In the CCLth, he intercedes with Pope Paschal, that he will grant to Ralph, Bishop of Rochester, Elected to the See of Canterbury, the Confirmation of that Dignity, and also the Pallium which he is not able to come and ask in person of his Holiness.  
In the CCLIst to Manasses, Bishop of Meaux, he tells him, he did well to refuse administering the Viaticum (or last Sacrament) to a dying person, who was troubled with a constant vomiting.  
In the CCLIId, he writes to Ralph, Archbishop of Rheims, that he thinks it unreasonable that a Woman suspected of Adultery by her husband, should undergo the Trial of Ordeal, but that it is sufficient for her to purge herself upon Oath.  
In the CCLIIId, he recommends to King Loüis' favour and protection Godfrey, Bishop of Amiens, who had met with ill usage in his Diocese.  
In the CCLIVth, he vouches for Geoffrey, Archbishop of Roüen, to Pope Paschal, that it was not in his power to wait upon his Holiness at Rome, as he would otherwise have done.  
The CCLVth is a Letter of Consolation to Ralph Abbot of Fusein, in his sickness; exhorting him to bear his afflictions patiently, and to see one chosen in his stead to govern the Monastery, if he find himself uncapable of doing it: telling him also, that the Extreme Unction being a Sacrament needs not be Repeated.  
In the CCLVIth, he dissuades Rainaud, a Monk, from turning Hermit.  
In the CCLVIIth, he gives Philip, Bishop of Troy's, an Account of the Accommodation made by the Regular Canons of St. Quintin, at Beauvais between Odo Prior of St. George's, and some of his Canons.  
In the CCLVIIIth, he recommends to Pope Paschal the Affairs of Hubert, Bishop of Senlis.  
In the CCLIXth, he expostulates with Ralph, Archbishop of Rheims, concerning a Judgement he had given against the Church of St. Quintin, at Beauvais with Relation to a Mill they claimed Right to; and lays before him the wrong he conceives done to them.  
In the CCLXth, he assures Steven of Guarland, the King's Chancellor, that he may with a safe Conscience, be Elected to succeed Gualon, Bishop of Paris, who is to be removed to Beauvais.  
In the CCLXIst, he dissuades Henry, King of England, from Marrying his Daughter to Hugh, an Earl in the Diocese of Chartres, there being too near a Relation between them.  
In the CCLXIId, to Pontius, Abbot of Clunie, he shows him the reason, why in the Consecration of the Cup, at the Lord's Supper, the words [Mystery of Faith] are added, which were not used by our Saviour, at the Institution of this Sacrament? and says, (among other things) that this is done because we judge of the greatness of the Mystery contained in it not by the Senses but by Faith.  
By the CCLXIIId, he represents to the Clergy of Beauvais, how much he is grieved for their sufferings.  
In the CCLXIVth, he intercedes with King Lovis, for the Clergy and People of that City.  
In the CCLXVth, he acquaints that Prince, how much he had been misinformed by some, who had suggested to him that the Clergy of the Church of Chartres, do invade the Rights of the Chapter and represents to him, that they only hinder them from some exactions prohibited by the Holy See.  
In the CCLXVIth to Conon, Bishop of Palestine, and Legate of the Holy See, in France, after giving him an Account of his having Excommunicated Hugh, for a breach of Peace, he prays him to make choice of wise and Religious Persons to be judges at the Trial he is to have with the Monks of Marmoutier, for the Church of St Nicholas de Courbeville.  
The CCLXVIIth Letter is to the same Legate, about the same Affair: Ivo, therein sends his excuse, that he could not wait on him in person to plead for himself.  
In the CCLXVIIIth, he writes to the Bishops of Beauvais, Chalons, Amiens and Senlis, Commissioners for hearing this Cause, letting them know that judgement had already been given, in favour of the Bishop of Chartres, by Hugh, Bishop of Die, in a Council held at Issoudun.  
In the CCLXIXth, he tells Bernier, Abbot of Bonneval, that he ought not to hinder one of his Monks from turning Hermit.  
In the CCLXXth, to Turgedus, Bishop of Auranches, he advises him to submit to the decision of the Pope's Legate, or to send deputies to Rome, to plead there in his own behalf.  
In the CCLXXIst, he thanks Pope Paschal, for granting to the Clergy of Chartres a Confirmation of their Privileges, to shelter them from the exactions of the Chapter: And whereas two of that body had disputed the Authority of the Pope's Decree, and complained of it to the King, he prays his Holiness to do what he thinks farther necessary to enforce the Execution of it.  
In the CCLXXIId, he exhorts Reginald, Bishop of Angers, to be reconciled to one Mathilda, of his Diocese and to endeavour to reclaim her from ill courses.  
In CCLXXIIId, he intercedes with Conon, the Pope's Legate, to moderate the Sentence of Excommunication, issued out by him against the Bishops of Normandy, in favour of the Bishop of Bayeux.  
In the CCLXXIVth, he writes to Pope Paschal, concerning a Controversy he has with the Monks of Marmoutier, who to create him trouble, had appealed to Rome and cited him to appear there, though living at a great distance and very ill: he entreats the Pope to appoint some to judge between them at home, and wishes him not to grant any Clergyman a dispensation to hold two Benefices.  
In the CCLXXVth, he informs Conon, the Pope's Legate, that he has acquainted Count Theobald with the Sentence of Excommunication he had published against all that had a hand in taking the Earl of Nevers, and which would have its course against him, if he did not set the Earl at Liberty, by a time therein prefixed him: He says the Count was somewhat surprised that the King had referred this matter to the Ecclesiastical Judicature; since he is very ready to appear before the King's Judges, and doubts not but he can make it appear to them that not he but the Earl of Nevers is to blame, and offers, if they shall require it, to deliver him up to them.  
By the CCLXXVIth, he recommends to Pope Pascal Turstin Archbishop of York Elect.  
In the CCLXXVIIth to Aldebert, Bishop Elect of Man's, he tells him, he hears he was guilty of several irregularities, while he was an Archdeacon, and that he was nor Canonically Elected to the Bishopric. He refers him therefore to the witness of his own Conscience, and exhorts him not to take the Government of others upon him while he himself lies under any such guilt.  
The CCLXXVIIIth is a Letter of Compliment, to Robert, Bishop of Lincoln.  
In the CCLXXIXth to Lisiard, Bishop of Soissons, he persuades him to receive one of the Clergy of his Church, upon his submitting to Penance, or to give him leave to remove to some other Church.  
In the CCLXXXth, to the same Bishop, Ivo determines, that a Married man may not be suffered to accuse his Wife of Adultery, upon suspicion only, nor to force her to pass the Trial by red-hot irons.  
In the CCLXXXIst, he writes to Ansehn, Bishop of Beauvais, that he is ready at any time to attest, that the Clergy of St. Peter's, in Beauvais, had granted to the Regular Canons of St. Quintin, in that City, the inheritance of a piece of Land they now lay claim to again.  
The CCLXXXIId is an Instrument in Form, by which Ivo takes into the protection of the Church of Chartres an Hospital for poor People, lying at Châteaudun.  
The CCLXXXIIId is an Act, for Consecrating a piece of ground near Tiron, for a Churchyard and putting it under the Jurisdiction of the Church of Chartres.  
The CCLXXXIVth is a Deed making over, for ever, to the Monastery of Bonneval the Church of St. Peter, at Châteaudun, which some of the Clergy had redeemed from a Layman, in whose possession it was before.  
The CCLXXXVth is a Confirmation of the Gift of the Church of St. Nigasius, at Meulan, by Robert Earl of Meulan, to the Monks of Bec.  
The CCLXXXVIth is the Charter of the Foundation of the Abbey of St. John du Val, in the Suburbs of Chartres.  
The CCLXXXVIIth is concerning the Eucharist, of which we have already given an Extract. It was written by Ivo, while he was a Regular Canon of St. Quintin at Beauvais.  
The CCLXXXVIIIth is a Confirmation of a Grant, formerly made, to the Monastery of Marmoutier, of the Church of Hanc●e and a Chapel annexed to it.  
The Last is a Letter to the Abbot of the Monastery of Marmoutier, written in very pressing Terms, to persuade him and his Monks to stand to the Arbitration made by himself and the Earl of Chartres, of the difference between them and the Church of Chartres.   

Of the Pannormia of Ivo.  
IVo, Bishop of Chartres, has left us two Collections of the Ecclesiastical Canons; one of them entitled Pannormia, which makes but a small Volume; the other pretty large commonly known by the Name of the Decretal; the former in Eight Books, the Decretum is divided into seventeen. The same Preface is prefixed to both of them.  
The Pannormia is supposed by some to have been written by Hugh Bishop of Châlons: and indeed, Vincent, Bishop of Beauvais, mentions an abridgement of the Decretum of Ivo, drawn by him: but that must be different from this we are speaking of, which is not an Epitome of any other Book, but an Original work. In all the Manuscripts, that can be found, it bears the Name of Ivoes Pannormia; particularly, in that in the Library of St. Victor, which was written before the time Hugh Bishop of Châlons lived in; which is an evident proof that the Pannormia cannot be his. The Decrees of Innocent IId, who was Pope since Ivoes death, though added in the Editions, are not in the ancient Manuscript, nor in several others, as has been observed by Antonius Augustinus. The Pannormia was composed before the Deeretal.   

Of the Decretum of Ivo.  
THe Decretum is a Collection of Rules and Constitutions in Church-Affairs, taken out of the Letters of the Popes, the Ancient Canons and Councils, the writings of the Fathers of the Church and the Laws of Catholic Princes. In the Preface, Ivo gives notice, that he has ranged them under general heads, or Titles, for the easier finding out any Canon the Reader has occasion to consult. And admonishes that if one Canon shall seem to have a different meaning from that of another, we are not presently to conclude they are contradictory; but to remember that some are to be understood according to the Rigour of their import, others are to be taken with allowances; for that all Ecclesiastical Discipline aiming only at that Edification which is founded upon Charity, every Rule and Order of the Church is intended for the same End; upon which Account, the Spiritual Physicians, the Guides of Souls, Accommodate their Remedies and Prescriptions to the quality of the distempers and the condition of their patients: that moreover, we are to distinguish between what is laid down by way of advice, and what is delivered as a precept or command, what is forbid from what is permitted or tolerated only: and among those things that are commanded or forbidden, we must carefully consider that some of them are so, by an Eternal and Immutable Law; others, by the Laws of Men, which may be either changed, repealed, or dispensed with: Of all which distinctions, exceptions, restrictions and allowances he gives very pertinent instances and illustrations out of the Writings of the Fathers.   

The Contents of the XVII Parts of the Decretal.  
THe Is Part treats of Faith, and of the Sacrament of Faith called Baptism, of the qualifications required in those that are to be Baptised, of the Ministration, the Ceremonies, the virtues and effects of Baptism and of Confirmation.  
The IId is concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, of the manner of receiving it, of the Celebration of the Mass, and of the Sanctity of this and the other Sacraments.  
The IIId is of the Church and what belongs to it, and the Reverence and Observance due thereto.  
The IVth treats of the observation of the Feasts and Fasts of the Church, of the Holy Scriptures, of the Customs and Councils of the Church.  
The Vth of the Supremacy of the Church of Rome, the Rights of Primates, Metropolitans and Bishops; their Ordination and Sovereign Dignity.  
The VIth is of the Conversation and Ordinations of the Clergy; how they are to be Tried and punished for Offences.  
The VIIth is of the Retirement and single Lives of Monks and Nuns; and of the penance to be undergone for breach of the vow of Continency.  
The VIIIth of Lawful Marriages; of Virgins and un-veiled Widows; of Rapes, of Concubines, of Transgressions of the Marriage-vow; of the punishment of Adultery.  
The IXth speaks of Incestuous Marriages and Fornication; of the Degrees of Affinity and Consanguinity, within which Marriage may not be Contracted; of the penances and punishments due to the violaters of these Laws.  
The Xth of Murders voluntary and accidental, of all sorts; and of the guilt and punishments of them.  
The XIth of Conjurers, Soreerers, Jugglers, Stage-players, and the penalties they are liable to.  
The XIIth treats of Lies and Perjuries, of Informers, Evidences, False-witnesses Judges, and Advocates.  
The XIIIth contains the several Canons against Ravishers, Robbers, Usurers, Hunters, Drunkards, Rioters and Je●s.  
The XIVth is concerning Excommunication just and unjust; in what manner and for what offences to be Inflicted.  
The XVth of Penances, and Commutations of Penances.  
The XVIth sets forth the duties of the Laity; and in what manner they are to be proceeded against, when they are guilty of any crimes or irregularities.  
The XVIIth consists of the Reflections and Speculations of the Fathers, particularly of St. Gregory, concerning Faith, Hope, and Charity.  
BEsides the works already named, there are 24 Discourses or Sermons of Ivo, Bishop of Chartres.  

The Is of them concerning the Sacrament of Baptism:  
The IId, of the Dignity of Holy Orders, and the Conversation and Duties of Churchmen.  
The IIId, upon the Mystical Significations of the Sacerdotal Habits.  
The IVth, of the Dedication of Churches.  
The Vth, of the agreement between the Holy Rites of the Old and New Testament.  
The VIth, upon the Birth and Sufferings of our Blessed Saviour.  
The VIIth, upon his second Advent.  
The VIIIth, upon the Nativity.  
The IXth, upon the Circumcision.  
The Xth, upon the Epiphany.  
The XIth, upon the Purification of the Virgin Mary.  
The XIIth, upon the Septuagesima.  
The XIIIth, upon Ash-wednesday.  
The XIVth, upon the Lent.  
The XVth, upon the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin.  
The XVIth, upon Palm-Sunday.  
The XVIIth, upon Maundy-Thursday.  
The XVIIIth, upon Easter-day.  
The XIXth, upon our Saviour's Ascension.  
The XXth, upon Whitsunday.  
The XXIst, upon the day of St. Peter's being made Bishop of Rome, (as is supposed.)  
The XXIId, upon the Lord's Prayer.  
The XXIIId, upon the Apostle's Creed.  
The XXIVth, of the indecent apparel of Men and Women.   
THere is also a short Chronicle, of the Kings of France, from Pharmond to Philip the first, reckoned, by some, to be written by Ivo, Bishop of Chartres; but neither does this seem to be his, nor another much larger (ascribed to him by some) from Ninus King of Assyria, to Loüis le Debonnaire, which was written by Hugo Floriacensis.  
The Pannormia of Ivo, Bishop of Chartres, was printed at Basil, in 1499. and at Louvain in 1557.  
The Decretum was printed at Louvain, in 1561. And at Paris, in 1647, with the Letters and Sermons correctly published by Father Fronto, a Regular Canon of St. Genevieve: In which Edition are added the Learned Notes of Juretus' Canon of Langres, and of Souchet Canon of Chartres upon the Letters of our Bishop.    

CHAP. II.  
The History of the Church of Rome under the Popedom of Paschal II. Gelasius II. and Calixtus II. Containing the Rise, Progress, and Conclusion of the Contests between the Holy See and the Empire, about the Right of Investitures.  
PAschal II. called, before he was Pope, Rainier, was a Tuscan, the Son of Crescentius and Alsatia. 
The Election of Paschal II.  He embraced the Monastic Life, and practised it in the Abbey of Clunie, under the Abbot Hugh. He was Created Cardinal Priest of St. Clement, by Gregory VII. and made Abbot of the Monastery of St. Stephen, and St. Laurence of Rome. After the Death of Urban II. the Cardinals cast their Eyes upon him to advance him to the Papal Chair. When he had intimation of this, he absconded for some time; but being afterwards discovered, he was Proclaimed Pope by all the Cardinals, with the loud Acclamations of the People, and Consecrated the 14th day of August, in the Year 1099.  
The first thing he did was entirely to drive out the Antipope Guibert. He declared War against 
The Death of Guibert. The Anti-popes' who succeeded him.  him, and forced him to fly to the Mountains of Abruzzo, where he Died, in the Year 1100. His Death did not put an end to the Schism which had lasted 20 Years already; for after him came three more Anti-popes', who succeeded one after another, but fell within a short time. The first was Albert of Acella, whom Richard Duke of Campania, the great supporter of Guibert, caused to be Elected in his stead. At the end of four Months he was taken by Pope Paschal's Friends, and shut up in the Monastery of St. Laurence. After this the people of Cava a small Town near Palestrina, undertook to bestow the Pontificate on a Roman named Theodoric, who enjoyed the Title of Pope only three Months, and thought himself very happy in relinquishing it and becoming an Anchoret. Maginulphus who was Elected at Ravenna, by the name of Silvester iv seemed to have a greater interest, but he Died within a short time after. By this means Paschal being freed from all his Rivals, retook Castellano and Benevento from the Prince of Capua, and the Town of Cava, on which Peter Collona Abbot of Farfa had seized, and driven Stephen Corso out of Rome, who having seized upon St. Paul's Church, annoyed the Romans by his continual Incursions.  
Having thus quieted Italy, his designs were aimed against the Emperor Henry. Conrade the Son of that Emperor, who was Governor of Italy, Dying in the Year 1101. Henry had a design of passing 
The Designs of Paschal II. against the Emperor Henry.  into Italy, going to Rome, and holding a Council there the beginning of the Year 1102. to adjust the differences that had been between him and the Holy See. The Pope made no open opposition to it, nay, he invited the Emperor thither: But forasmuch as they could not trust each other, the Emperor would not venture to rely on the Italians, and Paschal was not very sorry that Henry did not come into Italy.  
However, he held a very large Council at Rome about the end of Lent, where, Henry not appearing 
The Council of Rome under Paschal II. against the Emperor Henry.  in Person, nor having sent any Ambassadors thither, was Excommunicated with all his Adherents. And because several maintained that there ought to be no regard had to such kind of anathemas, the Pope in this Council drew up a Form in these Terms: I Anathematise all Heresy, and chief that which disturbs the State of the present Church, which teaches and maintains that no regard is to be had to anathemas, and that one may lawfully contemn the Ecclesiastical Sanctions. I promise to obey Pope Paschal and his Successors; I approve and condemn what the Holy Catholic Church approves and condemns. The Pope exacted this Oath of all that assisted at the Council, and on Holy-Thursday published the Excommunication against Henry, drawn up in these Words: Whereas Henry has not ceased from rending the garment of Jesus Christ, that is, has not ceased from ravaging the Church by Fire and Sword, from dishonouring it by his Perjuries, Incontinence, and Homicides; he has been Excommunicated and Condemned for his Contumacy and Disobedience, by Pope Gregory of Blessed Memory, and by our Predecessor, Urban II. and we also have anathematised him for ever in our last Synod by the Judgement of the whole Church, which we desire may be notified to the whole World, and especially to the people residing beyond the Mountains, that they may have no hand in his Iniquity.  
Henry to avoid the stroke of this Excommunication, about the end of that Year ordered publication to be made that he intended to resign the Empire to his Son Henry, and to Travel to the Holy-Land. 
The Rebellion of Henry V against his Father.  He not only caused this to be published by Bishop Eginard, but likewise engaged himself by a Vow to undertake this Journey. This proposal engaged the affection of the Princes and Clergy of the Empire to him; and several of his Subjects made preparations to accompany him in this Expedition. But when they perceived that he had no design to perform his Vow, they began to change their inclination towards him; which gave his Son Henry an occasion of Rebelling against him, when by his Father's stay he saw his hopes of very suddenly enjoying the Empire frustrated. Having entered upon this Design by the wicked Counsels of three great Lords, he left his Father at Mentz, where he had spent the Christmas holidays in the Year 1104. and withdrew to Bavaria, Religion being the cloak to cover this unatural Disloyalty. He began by anathematising the Heresy of his Father, and by promising Obedience to the Pope. The Nobless of Austria, Germany, and the Eastern parts of France declaring for him, he entered into Saxony, where he was very well received; and having spent the Easter holidays at Quiedlingburg, he was acknowledged Emperor by all the Towns of that Country. Rothard Archbishop of Mentz, and Gebehard Bishop of Constance, the Pope's Vicars in Germany entered into this Confederacy, and advised young Henry to reconcile all Saxony to the Holy See.  
Young Henry to establish his Power appointed a general Assembly of the Bishops and Clergy to be held on the 29th of May, in the Year 1105. at Northusa, a Royal Seat; wherein, they made several 
The Assembly of Northusa in the Tear 1105.  Orders with respect to the Discipline of the Church. They reformed upon the Spot what they thought they might safely do; and what appeared to be of the most consequence they referred to the determination of the Holy See. They therein condemned the Heresy of the Simoniacal, and that of the Nicolaitans, namely of such Clerks as would not live in Celibacy. They therein fixed the Summer Ember-week, which was to be the Whitsunweek; and ordered that those persons who had been Consecrated by false Bishops should be reconciled the next Ember-week. Henry V. would not appear at that Council till after he had been invited thither; and when he came he seemed to behave himself with a great deal of Modesty, Humility, and Wisdom. He declared to them, that he did not covet his Father's Throne, and was ready to resign it to him, if he would but submit to St. Peter and his Successors. The Bishops of Hildesheim, Paderborne, and Halberstat, throwing themselves at the Feet of the Archbishop of Mentz their Metropolitan, declared, that they would submit to the Holy See; whereupon their Cause was referred to be tried by the Pope.  
No sooner did this Assembly break up, but Henry V marched towards Mentz at the Head of some 
The War between the two Henry's.  Troops, in order to render himself master of that City, and to re-establish the Archbishop thereof. The Emperor his Father being within the place, Henry would not venture to invest it, but drew his Forces off to Wirtsburgh, which he took by surprise, drove out thence Bishop Erlong, and put Robert in his place. Afterwards he invested the Castle of Nuremberg, which Surrendered to him at the end of two Months; and being come to Ratisbonn, he was set upon by his Father who defeated him and retook that City. Young Henry without being shocked at this Overthrow rallied up more Forces, and having been joined by the Saxons, he encamped over against his Father's Army, being separated from each other only by the River Regen. After several slight skirmishes, Young Henry found a way of winning over the Princes and Great Men who were in his Father's Army. They would not fight, so that the Emperor was forced to fly, and left his Son Master of the Field, who seized on his Father's Treasures that were at Spires.  
About the end of the Year it was agreed that a Convention should be held at Mentz, to adjust 
Henry iv is cast into Prison and dethroned.  the difference then on foot between the two Emperors. The Father came upon the Rhine with an intention of being there; but the Son being afraid he should not obtain all that he desired from this Convention, had recourse to Fraud and Treachery. He waited upon his Father, protested to him that he was very sorry for what had passed, accompanied him towards Mentz: but in the Road some body acquainted the Old Emperor that a very great number of Lords of Suabia and Saxony his Enemies were Arrived there: Upon this, his Son showed him that it would not be safe to trust himself in their hands, and persuaded him to retire to the Castle of Binghen near Mentz. He no sooner entered the place, but the Gates were shut upon him, where he was kept close Prisoner. Afterwards they sent to him requiring him to deliver up the Ensigns of his Imperial Dignity, that they might forthwith be conferred on his Son Henry. The Bishops of Albany and Constance, the Pope's Legates in this Assembly, repeated the Excommunication issued out against him. At last, they took him out of the Castle of Binghen, and carried him to Ingelheim, where they forc'd him to renounce the Empire, to confess that he had been in fault, and on his Knees to ask Absolution of the Bishop of Albany, who denied it him, and referred him to the Pope. Young Henry was Crowned Emperor, and acknowledged as such by the Assembly of Mentz. He dispatched Six Bishops in the Quality of Deputies to Rome with several persons of Quality, to obtain a Confirmation of all that had been done at Northusa and Mentz.  
However; Old Henry having made his Escape from Ingelheim, was received by Henry de Limbourg, 
Henry iv retires to Liege, and issues forth a Declaration.  Duke of the Lower Lorraine, and by Obert Bishop of Liege who held out several places upon the Rhine for him. The City of Liege was the place he made choice of for his Residence, from whence he wrote Letters to the King of France, to his Son, to the Bishops, and to the Princes of Saxony and Germany. Wherein he makes loud Complaints of the manner wherein he had been used, and protests against all that they had forced him to do by constraint. In the last Letters, he declared that he was ready to pay all manner of Respect to the Pope, to regulate all the Affairs of the Empire by the Advice of Henry Abbot of Clugny, and appeals to the Pope's Determination of all that had been done against him in Germany.  
His Son caused an Answer to be returned to him in the Name of the Lords, to this Effect; That 
The Reply of his Son Henry.  the miseries which he had brought upon both the Church and State had obliged them to depose him, and set up his Son on the Throne in his stead: That he had acknowledged himself that he was unworthy of the Empire, and had resigned it into his Son's hands: That the promises he at present made signified nothing, since they could not tell how to give any Credit to them: That however, that he might have no reason to complain, they would consent to have the business examined over again in an Assembly of the Lords and Commons.  
Notwithstanding this Young Henry pursued his Father, and after he had been beaten off from the 
The Death of Henry IU.  Bridge of Viset, he invested Cologne, designing afterwards to march to Liege. But the Besieged held out more vigorously than he expected; and after two months' Siege, he was ready to break up, when he received the News of his Father's Death at Liege, the 7th of August, in the Year 1106. The people of Liege obtained their Pardon, upon Condition, that they would dig up the Body of the Late Emperor, which was carried to Spires, and put into a Sepulchre of Stone, where it remained without the Church unburied for five Years together: The Pope's Partisans were of Opinion, that since he Died Excommunicated, they could not give him Ecclesiastical Burial. Guibert the Antipope was used after the same manner, whom they dug up Six Years after his Burial, and cast his Bones to the Common-Shore to insult over his Memory.  
After the Death of the Emperor Henry IU. those Princes and people who had continued firm to his 
The Council of Guastalla, in the Year 1106.  Interests were obliged to submit to the New Emperor. The Pope was invited into Germany, and left Rome with that Design. In the way, on the 19th of October, in the Year 1106. he held a Council at Guastalla, a Town of Lombardy, situated on the Po, therein to regulate what concerned the Churches of Germany and Lombardy, which had been engaged in the Schism. He therein declared that the Bishops, the Priests, and the other Clerks who had been Ordained during the Schism, should still keep their Orders, provided, they had not procured them by Simony or by force, nor were conscious to themselves of being guilty of any other Crimes. He therein renewed the Decrees of his Predecessors against Investitures, and prohibited the Alienation of the Church Revenues. He took away from the Metropolis of Ravenna the Towns of Aemilia, that is, Placenza, Parma, Reggio, Modena, and Bologne, to punish it for its Rebellion.  
The Decree against Investitures was disliked by the Emperor, whereupon Paschal instead of going to 
The Contest between the P●pe and the Emperor concerning Investitures. The Reasons alleged by the Emperor's Deputies for the Investitures.  Mentz, as he had designed, retired into France; and after he had spent the Christmas holidays in the Abbey of Clugny, he went to implore the Protection of King Philip. However, the Germane Nobles and Bishops being convened at Mentz, resolved upon sending Deputies to the Pope, to let him know that the power of Creating Bishops had been granted by the Holy See to Charlemain and his Successors; and that therefore he could not divest that Prince of it. These Deputies entered into a Conference with the Pope at Chalons, and the Archbishop of Treves being their Prolocutor, after he had told the Pope that the Emperor wished him all manner of Prosperity, and proffered to serve him to the utmost of his Power so long as it did not prejudice the Rights of the Empire, he declared that from the time of St. Gregory the Great, the Emperor had notice given him of the person to be chosen; that after he had given his Consent, the Election was publicly made; that then he who was Elected was Consecrated; and that after the Consecration he waited upon the Emperor, to receive from him the Investiture for the Royalties, by the Ring and Pastoral Staff, by which at the same time he did Homage and swore Allegiance to the Emperor: That this custom seemed to be very reasonable, because without it the Bishops could not enjoy the Cities, Castles, Territories, Fiefs, or any other Revenues depending on the Empire.  
The Pope replied by the Bishop of Placenza, that the Church being redeemed by the Blood of Jesus 
The Reasons alleged by the Pope's Deputies for the Investitures. The breaking up of the Conference about Investitures. The Council of Troy's in the Year 1107.  Christ was free, and therefore ought not to be put into Bondage: That if it could not choose its Prelates without the Consent of the Emperor, it would become his Vassal; and that if these Prelates after their Election were obliged to receive the Investiture from him by the Ring and Pastoral Staff, this would be an Usurpation on the Prerogative of God himself: That lastly, it was unbecoming and beneath the Sacerdotal Order and Unction, that Hands Consecrated by the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ should be put into Hands stained with Bloodshed.  
The Emperor's Deputies withdrew, being very much dissatisfied at this reply, threatening to put an end to this Debate at Rome, with their Swords in their Hands. The Pope would willingly have renewed the Business with Adelbert the Emperor's Chancellor; but they could not come to an agreement in any one point, and the Emperor's Deputies returned back into Germany.  
The Pope on his part Assembled a Council at Troy's in Campagne, about Ascension-day, in the Year 1107. wherein after he had made several Institutions about Church Discipline, he proposed to renew the Decrees of his Predecessors against Laics concerning themselves with Ecclesiastical Dignities. The Emperor who had spent the Easter holidays at Mentz, made his approaches towards the Council, and sent thither his Ambassadors to acquaint them that the Popes had formerly granted to Charlemain, the Right of making Bishops; and that if they would not consent thereto, to declare that he would prevent the determining of that Affair in a strange Country. Upon this remonstrance the Council granted the Emperor a Years time, that he himself might come in person to Rome, there to plead the Cause in a general Council which should determine it.  
The Emperor put off his Journey till such time as he had fully regulated the Affairs of the Empire; after which, in the beginning of the Year 1110. he held a Convention at Ratisbone, wherein he declared 
The Emperor's Journey into Italy.  that he had resolved to go to Rome, there to receive the Imperial Crown, and to adjust the differences betwixt the Pope and him. He ordered the Princes of the Empire to prepare to wait upon him, and to raise an Army by August. At that time he set out according to his former resolution. His Army consisting of 30000 Horse, was divided into two Bodies; He put himself at the Head of the one at Yurea, and the other stayed for him at Novara, and joined him near Milan, where he was Crowned King of Lombardy, by Archbishop Chrysolaus. Afterwards he crossed the Po and came to Placenza, where and at Parma he stayed for some time, whilst he sent his Deputies to adjust matters with the Princess Mathildis, whom he continued in her Dominions, upon Condition, that she should not oppose his passage. The Season being very far gone, he lost a great many Sumpter Horses in crossing the Apennine Mountains, which obliged him to stay some time at Florence, where he spent the Christmas Holy days. From thence he marched to Sutri, after he had in his Passage demolished the Town of Arezzo, which opposed his March.  
The Ambassadors which he had sent to the Pope, waited upon him at this place, with the Legates of his Holiness; and they agreed that the Pope should Crown Henry, and that this Prince should 
The Treaty between the Pope and the Emperor.  allow the Churches their Liberty, and grant no more Investitures to Bishops, upon condition that he should retain the Dutchies, Counties, Marquisates, Territories, the Rights of Money, Justice, and Marches, the Revenues, Fiefs, and other Estates which they held of the Empire. This agreement seemed at first sight to be very advantageous to the Church; but in reality stripped the Bishops of their Estates and Dignities, for a Chimerical Honour, and reduced them to extreme Poverty. The Emperor foreseeing that one of these two things would happen, either that this Agreement should be Executed, and he be a great gainer thereby; or that if the Pope could not prevail upon the Bishops of Germany to quit their pretensions to those great Estates, he should re-enter upon the Rights of Investitures, made no scruple to ratify this Treaty, upon condition that the Pope would prevail upon the Bishops to approve thereof. The Pope for his part, who lost nothing by it, and was satisfied that by this means he should humble the Bishops of Germany, was likewise very well pleased with this Treaty. Whereupon it was signed and sworn to, and Hostages exchanged on both sides.  
After the Conclusion of this Treaty, the Emperor marched towards Rome, and on the 11th of February 
The Pope and Cardinals apprehended by the Emperor's Order.  in the Year MCXI, arrived at the Town Leonina, where he was received by the Clergy and Laity, who came to wait upon him, and Conducted him with loud Acclamations to St. Peter's Palace, where he met with the Pope and the Cardinals who attended his coming on the Top of the stairs. He kissed the feet of his Holiness, and afterwards his forehead, Eyes and Mouth, and went into the Church on the Pope's Right hand, who celebrated Mass. When they came to the Ceremony of the Coronation, the Pope asked the Emperor whether he was willing to observe the Treaty to which they had agreed, and remit his Right of Investitures: The Emperor replied that he was ready t●…do it, provided the Bishops of Germany would Consent thereto; and that it was requisite to know their Sentiments of the matter. The Bishops of Germany opposed it all they could, and complained that the Pope was minded to dispose of that which did not belong to him. The Pope in vain remonstrated to them that these Estates were committed to them by way of Trust, and that they needed not scruple to resign them back to the Emperor; for they would never consent to so disadvantageous a Proposition. Upon these debates, Henry summoned the Pope to Crown him, and upon his Refusing to do it, ordered his Guards to apprehend him and several Cardinals. The News of this being noised about the City, the Romans ran to their Arms, animated thereto by the Cardinals of Frescate and Ostia, killed several Germans straggling in the City, and set upon the Emperor's Forces very vigorously. The Engagement was very obstinate on both sides, the Emperor was in great danger of his Life, but at last repulsed the Romans, and marched out of the City two days after, carrying along with him the Pope and Cardinal's Prisoners.  
He quartered near two Months about Rome, till at last the Pope to put an End to the War which 
The Pope grants the Right of Investitures to the Emperor.  was ready to break out, and to get his Liberty, resolved to grant him the Right of Investitures and to Crown him. Being thus agreed with the Emperor, they reentered Rome the thirteeenth of April, and coming to St. Peter's Palace, the Emperor received the Imperial Crown at the hands of the Pope. They say that the Pope communicated to him a moiety of the Host which he had Consecrated, protesting that he gave it him as a Seal and Pledge of the Peace which he had made with him, and of the Concord that was between them; and that whoever of them should break this Concord or Violate this Peace, should have no part of portion in the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. The Pope likewise granted him a Bull of Confirmation of the Right of Investitures, importing that he granted and confirmed the Privilege which the Emperors his Predecessors had of giving Investitures by the Ring and Crosier to the Bishops and Abbots of his Dominions Elected without Simony or Violence: That they should not be consecrated till after they had received Investiture, excepting such as were used to be invested by the Arch-Bishops or the Pope. This Concession is founded on these two Reasons; First, because the Predecessors of Henry had considerably enriched the Churches, by the Revenues of the Crown which they had bestowed on them: and Secondly because it was necessary that the Dissensions and Disturbances which might happen upon Elections, might be appeased by the Royal Authority. Lastly the Pope in this Bull denounced an Anathema against those who should oppose this Concession.  
The Emperor having thus compassed his design, departed from Rome being attended by the Pope. They parted very good Friends in appearance, by showing to each other a Reciprocal Good Will and Affection. The Pope returned to Rome, and the Emperor as he went through Lombardy, took an Oath of Fidelity from all the Towns, and arrived at Spires August IU. Where he interred his Father's Corpse with great Magnificence, according to the Leave he had from the Pope, upon the Testimony given that he died a Penitent.  
Notwithstanding this, Pope Paschal at his Return, found a great many Cardinals offended that he 
The Grant of Investitures disapproved by the Cardinals.  had granted the Right of Investitures to the Emperor, and he excused himself as well as he could, upon the Account of the Extremity he was in, and the Miseries which threatened Rome, if he had not made this Condescension. These Reasons did not satisfy the more Resolute, who took an occasion from the Pope's going into the Country, to call an Assembly, wherein they cancelled all that the Pope had done, renewed and confirmed the Decrees of his Predecessors against Investitures. The Pope having heard of it sent them Word, that though their intention might be good, yet their way of Proceeding was not to be tolerated: That he hoped for the future to make amends for what he had done amiss, only to divert the Ruin of Rome and all the Country; but that they ought to have patience, and to take care that the Zeal they have for the Welfare of the Church does not prove prejudicial to it.  
Bruno Bishop of Signi, Abbot of Mount Cassin, was one of those who was the freest in speaking against Investitures; and who solicited the Pope most to revoke what he had done, and to Anathematise the Emperor. The Cardinals who had been taken Prisoners with the Pope, were divided in their Sentiments; some were for what he had done, others disapproved it. The Pope offended that this Division risen so high, and fearing it would spread farther if the Monks of Mount Cassin followed their Abbot's Sentiments, ordered Bruno to retire to his Bishopric, and another Abbot to be Elected in his Room. This Question was likewise debated out of Italy, and we are informed that John Archbishop of Lions, would have called a Council to condemn what the Pope had done, and that Ivo of Chartres endeavoured to dissuade him from it. Some maintained that one could not approve of Investitures without being guilty of Heresy; others believed that they might be tolerated, though they were irregular, and a third openly stood up in their Vindication. Pope Paschal was very sorry that he had deviated from the Decrees of his Predecessors, and desired nothing more than to revoke what he had done; but durst not undertake it on his own head after the Oath which he had taken, and the solemn Bull he had granted.  
To wind himself out of this Difficulty, he assembled a Council of one hundred Bishops or thereabouts 
The Council of Lateran in the Year 1112.  in the Lateran Church in March 1112. The chief Institution of which was the Repealing the Right of Investitures. For after they had renewed against the Clerks, the Favourers of Guibert the Antipope, the Interdiction pronounced against them, the fifth day of the Session the Pope showed in what manner He and the Cardinals had been apprehended by King Henry, and how contrary to his Resolution he had been forced to grant to that Prince the Investitures for to obtain his Freedom, the Peace of the Church and the People: That he had taken an Oath that he would give him no farther disturbance about Investitures, and that he would pronounce no Anathema against his person: That though the King had not observed the Conditions of that Oath, yet he was resolved to stand to what he had done; that however he acknowleged that he had done amiss, and desired it should be redressed, so that the Church might come to no prejudice. To clear himself the more fully from all Suspicion of Heresy, the next day he made a Profession of Faith, wherein he declared that he embraced the Faith and Doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures, in the four General Councils, and in the Decrees of the Popes his Successors, especially those of Gregory 7. and Urban 2. that he approved of what those Pope approved, and that he condemned what they had condemned. After this Declaration, Gerard Bishop of Angoulême read a paper, importing that all those who were then present at that Council condemned, declared Null, and absolutely cancelled the Privilege, or rather Pravilege extorted from Pope Paschal, by the Compulsion of Henry, particularly that which employed that those who should be Canonically Elected by the Clergy and People, could not be Consecrated till such time as they had Received Investiture from the King. This Sentence was approved by all the Prelates of the Council, consisting of twelve Arch-Bishops, an hundred and fourteen Bishops, and twenty three Cardinals, Priests and Deacons.  
There was nothing done in this Council against the Person of the Emperor Henry, but Guy Archbishop 
The Decrees against Henry upon the account of Investitures.  of Vienna the Pope's Legate, a Man very zealous for promoting the interests of the Holy See, called a Council together in September, wherein he not only cancelled the privilege of Investitures, as had been before done in the Lateran Council; but farther declared, that it was Heresy to receive Investiture at the hand of any Laics, and Excommunicated the Emperor Henry. He sent the Pope word of what he had done in that Council, and desired that he would be pleased to confirm it. The Pope who had already declared against what himself had done, made no scruple to grant his Request. Cardinal Conon, Bishop of Palestrina, and Legate of the Holy See in the East, thundered out Excommunications against Henry, as well in a Council held at Jerusalem, as in those he held at his return, in the Years 1114, and 1115. at Beauvais, at Rheims, at Cologne, and at Châlons. Thierry Cardinal and Legate of the Holy See appointed a Council to be held at Cologne in the Christmas holidays, 1115. and set out with an intention of being there; but he died by the way, however, the Council thundered out an Excommunication against the Emperor Henry.  
That Prince perceiving himself to be thus frustrated of the hopes which he had conceived of quietly 
The Emperor Henry V's. second Journey into Italy.  enjoying the Investitures, resolved upon marching a Second time into Italy, and the rather because his Presence there was requisite for the taking possession of the Dominions of the Princess Mathildis, who died the 24th of July 1115. Thereupon having entered into Lombardy, he made a stay near the River Po, to take possession of the Estates left him by the Death of that Princess; and in the mean time sent the Abbot of Clugny, and several other Deputies to the Pope, to endeavour an Accommodation with the Holy See.  
The Pope, held at that time a Second Council in the Lateran, which commenced the 6th of March, 
The Lateran Council in the Year 1116.  the three first Sessions whereof were wholly taken up in discussing the private Affairs of some Bishops. Several of those who assisted in this Council complained that they spent too much time on such Affairs as were of little, or no consequence to the Church, and required that they might enter immediately upon the Debate of that for which they were more especially assembled, that they might know what the Pope's sentiments were, and what they ought to teach when they were returned to their Dioceses. Upon t●…s Remonstrance the Pope declared, that he freely acknowledged, that designing to put a stop to the Robberies, Burn, Murders, and other Crimes which were daily committed; he had done amiss in granting the privilege of Investitures which now he condemned with an Eternal Anathema, and desired they would do the same. All who were there present, cried out, Let it be so, Let it be so. Bruno of Signi immediately said, Let us give God thanks for that Pope Paschal Precedent of this Council has in our hearing condemned this wicked Privilege so full of Injustice and Heresy. Moreover, a Bishop averred, that since this Privilege was Heresy, he who had granted it by consequence was an Heretic. This discourse moved Cardinal John Cajetan, who applying himself to that Bishop, How dare you (says he) in our presence call the Pope Heretic? The Writing indeed which he granted was bad, but not Heretical. Another added, that strictly speaking, it could not be called bad, because it had been done to deliver the people of God: which according to the Gospel was a good Work. The Pope who was out of patience to hear himself accused of Heresy, caused silence to be made, and then with a loud Voice expressed himself thus. Hark ye my Lords and Brethren; 
† This is a bold assertion, and fit only for a Pope, an infallible Pope to make; but how true it is, we with him appeal to the Determination of the whole World.  let the whole World know that the Church of Rome has never been guilty of Heresy, and that it has extirpated them all: That the Arian Heresy which lasted for 300 Years together was at last condemned at Rome: That the Heresies of Eutychius and Sabellius were there likewise Condemned: That Photinus and the other Heretics received their Condemnation at Rome: That lastly, 'tis for this Church the Son of God prayed just before his Passion, when he said, Peter, I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not. And thus ended the third Session. At the fourth, which was held on Thursday, the Pope was not present, because he was taken up in giving Audience about the Emperor's Affairs to the Abbot of Clugny, to John Catejan, and to Peter Leo, Perfect of the City of Rome, and to the other Favourers of Henry.  
The fifth Session on Friday, began with the Disputes between John Cajetan and the other Defenders of the Emperor Henry, and Conon of Palestrina, who was absolutely for Excommunicating him. The Pope to pacify them, said, that the Church in the Primitive times flourished by its Martyrs; and by the Piety of its Professors; that afterwards, when Emperors and Kings were Converted to the Faith, they Honoured the Church by granting it Demeans, Revenues, and Temporal Rights and Dignities: That it was reasonable she should enjoy the Benevolence of Princes, and bestow those Goods on her Sons as she judged most convenient. He afterwards repealed the Privilege of Investitures, and renewed the Decrees of Gregory VII. but would pronounce nothing in particular against Henry's Person. However, he confirmed what Cardinal Conon of Palestrina had done against that Prince in Syria, in Greece, in Hungary, in Saxony, in Lorraine, and in France. This was passed by the majority of Voices.  
The next day the Pope discussed in the Council the Contest between Grosolanus, or Chrysolaus and Jordanes, pretenders to the Archbishopric of Milan; and after he had observed that the Translations of Bishops were never allowed, but in case of necessity, or for the Churches greater benefit, he declared that of Grosolanus Null, which had been more prejudicial than advantageous to the Church. Afterwards he granted indulgences of forty days, to those who would visit the Sepulchers of the Apostles, and dissolved the Council by giving his Blessing to the Prelates.  
The Emperor Henry having heard of the proceed of this Council, thought it requisite that he himself should appear personally at Rome, to prevent the Consequences of the Excommunication, and 
Henry enters Rome, Paschal withdraws.  maintain the Privilege which the Pope had granted him. He thereupon ordered his Army to advance towards that City. The Pope not venturing to stay his coming, retired to Mount Cassin, and from thence for the greater security went into Apulia. The Emperor came to Rome and entered it without any opposition, and caused himself to be Crowned a Second time, by Maurice Burdin Archbishop of Brague. This Archbishop was Limosin, who went into Spain to wait upon Bernard Archbishop of Toledo, who made him Archdeacon of his Church, from whence he was preferred to the Bishopric of Conimbra, and afterwards to the Archbishopric of Brague. He was come to Rome to defend the Rights of his Church against the Archbishop of Toledo, and stayed there two Years. The Emperor spent the Easter holidays at Rome, but was forced by the excessive hotness of the Season to draw off towards Tuscany, from whence he sent Ambassadors to the Pope to promise him all manner of satisfaction, provided, he would but absolve him, from the Excommunication. The Pope returned him this Answer that for his part he had not Excommunicated him, because he had engaged himself upon Oath to do no suchthing; but that he could not take off the Excommunication which others had denounced against him, till he had heard what they and he had to say for themselves in a Synod. In the mean time, the Pope returned 
Paschal returns to Rome.  towards Rome with the Norman Troops of Apulia, and fell Sick at Anagnia. Being recovered of his illness, he went and spent the Christmas holidays at Palestrina, and from thence advanced towards Rome and entered it; and as he was studying to bring his Enemies to submit, he Died two days after his return, in January 1118.  
After his Death, the Cardinals met in a Monastery of the Benedictines of Rome called the Palladium, 
Gelasus TWO, Elected Pope.  near to the Palace of Franchipani, and six days after Elected John Cajetan the Chancellor, who was called Gelasus TWO, and Proclaimed Pope. Cincius of Franchipani being offended that they had not made choice of a Cardinal whom he had proposed, entered the Monastery in a forcible manner, with Armed Men, fell upon the Pope, abused him, and carried him away Prisoner to his Palace. The Romans could not endure this Affront; the chief among them met, and sent to demand the Pope from Cincius, and the common people risen up in Arms to set him at liberty. Upon this, Cincius was forced to deliver him. He was put in possession of the Papal Chair, which he enjoyed very peaceably till the Arrival of the Emperor, who being informed that Gelasus would not confirm the privilege of Investitures, marched directly with his Army to Rome. The Pope made his Escape by Sea to Cajeta, where he was Consecrated by the Bishop of Ostia, in the presence of William Duke of Apulia, and Robert 
Henry comes to Rome and causes Maurice Burdin to be Proclaimed Pope.  Prince of Capua. After his Consecration he came to Capua, where he heard that the Emperor had caused Maurice Burdin Archbishop of Brague to be Proclaimed Pope, under the Name of Gregory VIII. In the mean time Gelasus raised Forces, William of Apulia came in to his Assistance; they marched towards the Territories of Rome, where the Emperor invested a place of some strength, who hearing that Forces were coming to its relief, raised the Siege immediately, and retired into Germany. The Pope retook several places in the Country, and entered privately into Rome; but his Enemies there being more powerful than himself, after he had settled his Affairs in a good posture, he went into France, and retired to Clugny, the usual Sanctuary of the Popes, where he Died of a Pleurisy on the 29th of January, in the Year 1119. after he had nominated Cardinal Guy Archbishop of Vienna for his Successor, upon the refusal of Conon Bishop of Palestrina.  
This Choice was approved of by all the Cardinals then present at Clugny when the Pope Died: They 
The Election of Calixtus II.  unanimously Elected Guy who was Named Calixtus II. and their Election being confirmed by the Cardinals who were at Rome, he was Consecrated by the Bishop of Ostia.  
The Emperor Henry, who had been Excommunicated afresh by Conon in two Councils held in Germany, to screen himself from these proceed and to restore peace to Germany, held a Convention at Tribur, 
The Conference between the Emperor and William of Champeaux concerning Investitures.  wherein it was proposed to put an end to the difference between him and the Pope, by way of Accommodation. He promised to do it, and to go to the Council which the Pope had appointed to be held at Rheims on the 18th of October. In the mean time to prepare matters for the Peace, William of Champeaux Bishop of Chalons, and Pontius Abbot of Clugny went to Strasburg to begin the Treaty. The Emperor demanded how he might put an end to this Affair without losing any thing of his Prerogative; to which the Bishop of Chalons replied, That if he were sincere in his desires of the Peace, it was requisite he should remit the Investitures, but that he would not thereby diminish the least of his Prerogative; because then the Case would be the same as it was in France, where, though the Bishops neither before nor after Consecration received their Investiture from the King, yet they were not thereby dispensed from discharging their Duties to him, whether in paying Taxes, or contributing towards the Soldiery, or any other Deuce whatsoever. The Emperor said, that he desired nothing more, provided, the Pope would do him Justice, and restore to his Subjects the Lands which they had lost during the War. These two Deputies having gained this Concession from the Emperor, went to wait upon the Pope who was hard by Paris, and proposed the Business to him. He immediately sent the Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, and another Cardinal to finish the Treaty with him. They met the Emperor between Metz and Verdun, and agreed with him in Writing about the same things; and for a complete consummation of this Affair, the Emperor promised to meet the Pope at Mouzon on the 24th of October.  
The Council of Rheims opened on the 21st of October. The Pope and Lewis King of France were personally present at it, and it consisted of fifteen Arch-Bishops, above 200 Bishops of France, Spain, 
The Council of Rheims in the Year 1119.  Germany, and England, and a great many Abbots and other ecclesiastics. The Pope made a Discourse on the Gospel for the Day, and Conon made another upon the Pastoral Care. In this Council, King Lewis preferred several Complaints against Henry King of England. Geoffrey Archbishop of Rouen undertook to answer him, but was forced to be silent by the Noise that arose in the Assembly. Afterwards Hildegarda Countess of Poitiers appeared in the Council, and complained that her Husband had left her and married another Woman. The Bishop of Saintes, and other Prelates of Aquitain undertook the Defence of their Prince, and excused him for not appearing because he was sick. The Pope accepted of this Excuse, and put off the Trial of this Cause till another time. The Contest which afterwards was started between Audin Bishop of Eureux, and Amaury who had turned him out of that Bishopric, raised a great Heat between the French and the Normans. The Pope to lay it, made a Discourse on the Advantages of Peace and Unity, and declared that the Emperor had proposed an Accommodation, and that he was to meet him at Mouzon to put an End to it; that he desired the Prelates to stay till his Return which should be very speedy. The Cardinals who had waited upon the Emperor, the Bishop of Chalons, and the Abbot of Clugny, gave an Account of their Negotiation to the Council.  
On the morrow the Pope took his Leave of the Assembly, recommended them to put up their 
The Negotiation between the Pope and the Emperor.  Prayers and Wishes for the Peace, and the next day set out for Mouzon. He arrived there on the Thursday, and after he had conferred with the Prelates whom he had brought along with him, and read over again the Projects of the Accommodation, he sent the Deputies who had already commenced this Negotiation to the Emperor. That Prince at first denied that he had made any such promise; afterwards they debated how the Pope should receive him in giving him Absolution, but could come to no agreement. On the morrow the Emperor desired farther time, and the Pope perceiving that he sought to procrastinate the Business, retired to a Castle belonging to the Count of Troy's with an Intention of returning back again. The Emperor desired time till Monday, but the Pope would not grant it; and after he had ordered him to be told that if he were sincerely intent upon Peace, he was ready to grant it him either in or after the Council. He set out on Sunday Morning, and returned with all expedition to Rheims. The next day being fatigued by his Journey, he could not stay long in the Council, he only gave them an Account of his Proceed at Mouzon. On Tuesday he was not there at all, but on Wednesday he appeared. At first they debated of a great many private matters, and afterwards the Pope published five Canons.  
The first was against the Simoniacal, who either bought or sold any Ecclesiastical Goods.  
The second was against Investitures.  
The Third against those who either seized or detained the Revenues of Churches.  
The Fourth against those who left them to their Heirs by way of Succession, and against the Priests who exacted Money for the Administration of the Sacraments or for Burial.  
And the fifth against the Priests, Deacons and Subdeacons who had Wives or Concubines.  
The Canon concerning Investitures made a great Noise in the Council. It was drawn up in these Terms: We absolutely forbidden the receiving the Investiture of Churches or any other Ecclesiastical things from the hands of Laics. Several were of opinion that this Canon thus expressed took away from the ecclesiastics the Tenths and Benefices which they held or received from Laics, so that the Contest arising upon this Article, hindered the Council from determining any thing about it that day. On the Morrow the Pope removed this Difficulty by mending the Canon and drawing it up in these Terms. We absolutely forbidden the receiving the Investiture of Bishoprics and Abbeys from the hands of Laics. Afterwards they brought in 427 Candles, which were given to the Assistants, who risen up and held them Lighted whilst the Pope solemnly Excommunicated the Emperor Henry, the Antipope Burdin and all their Adherents; He likewise declared all the Emperor's Subjects dissolved from their Oath of Alliegance to him and forbade them to obey him, till he returned to his Duty, and had made the Church satisfaction. Thus the Council broke up.  
The next year Calixtus went into Italy, with a Design of going to Rome. He was joyfully received 
Calixtus Il. is received into Rome and Burdin shamefully divested.  every where, and entered Rome as in Triumph. The Antipope Burdin being drove out of that City retired to Sutri, from whence he made several Excursions, to the very Gates of Rome. Calixtus to rid himself of this Enemy, went into Apulia to desire assistance from Duke William, and having raised a Considerable Army, he marched to invest Sutri. The Inhabitants of this City perceiving they should be taken by Storm, seized upon Burdin, and delivered him up to the Normans, who by way of derision clothed him with a Goat's-Skin, made in the form of a Cope, set him on a white Camel, with his face towards the Tail which served him for a Bridle, and in this manner led him through the whole City, heaping affronts upon him. Afterwards he was shut up in a Castle, and confined in a Monastery of Cava, where he spent the rest of his days in a forced Penance.  
After this Victory the Pope becoming absolute Master of Rome, where he caused the Forts of the 
The Treaty between Calixtus II. and Henry. V  Franchipani and of the other Favourers of the Emperor to be razed, sent an Embassy to Adalbert Archbishop of Mentz, a professed Enemy to the Emperor, and solicited him to stir up Saxony against that Prince. This Enterprise succeeded, and within a short time all Saxony revolted, and raised an Army against Henry, who likewise for his part raised some Forces: So that there would have been a bloody War in Germany; if the Lords on both sides had not agreed upon a Treaty of Peace, by which they agreed to restore to the Emperor what belonged to him; that he should likewise restore to the Churches the Revenues which had been taken away from them; and send Deputies to Rome to make up an Accommodation with the Pope. This Treaty was concluded at Wirtzburgh in the year 1121. Bruno Bishop of Spires and Arnulphus Abbot of Fulda were chosen for this Deputation. They came to Rome, where they Negotiated this accommodation; and being agreed about it, the Pope sent Lambert Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, and two other Cardinals, who met with the Emperor Henry at Worms in September 1122. and there concluded the Treaty between the Pope and Him. The Emperor remitted the Right of Investiture, which was given by the Ring and Crosier; and engaged himself to leave to all the Churches within his Dominions, the Liberty of Elections and Consecrations; to restore to the Church of Rome all the Revenues which had been taken away from it since the Beginning of this Contest, whether under his Reign, or during the Reign of his Father; to restore likewise to other Churches, Princes and private persons as well ecclesiastics as Laics all the Revenues which have been taken away from them; to Live in peace with the Church of Rome, and assist it, whenever it should have occasion. The Pope on his part granted to the Emperor that the Elections of Bishops and Abbots within the Kingdom of Germany should be made in his presence, without Simony and Force, upon Condition that in Case of any contest, he should favour him, who should be approved by the Metropolitan and the Bishops of the Province. He consented that the person who should be Elected, should receive the Royalties from the Emperor by the Sceptre, except of such things as belonged to the Church of Rome, and should faithfully perform what he was bound to by Virtue of those Royalties: That the Prelates of the other States of the Empire, should likewise receive the Royalties at the Emperor's hands, within six Months after their Consecration. He likewise obliged himself to assist the Emperor on all occasions, and lastly granted absolution to him and all his Adherents. These Articles of Peace were solemnly published in the Emperor's Camp, and within a short time that Prince was received into the Communion of the Church by the Pope's Legates, who carried this Treaty to Rome, where it was confirmed in the general Council of the Lateran, held in the Year 1123. and published in Rome. Thus ended the Quarrel about Investiture, which Lasted six and fifty Years, and which had caused so much disturbance to the Church and Empire. We shall farther illustrate this by some Reflections on the Original and Use of Investitures.  
The Word Investiture signifies the Grant of any Fief, Territory, Dignity, Place of Trust, or Privilege, 
The Original and Progress of Investitures.  made by a Lord to his Vassal or Client, or by a Prince to his Subject, upon condition that he prove Faithful to him, and do him all the Service and Duty required of him. This Investiture was performed with certain Ceremonies, by putting into the person's hands to whom it was granted something as a Symbol or Sign of the Donation then made, such as a piece of Turf, a Staff, Green Boughs, the Ornaments or the Habits of the Dignity or Place of Trust, or other such like Tokens, which had resemblance to, or denoted the thing given. The Christian Church, which in the Primitive times had no other Goods than those of the Voluntary Oblations of the Faithful, or the Revenues of such Estates as had been bestowed upon it by private persons, began in the time of Pepin, and Charlemain to be possessed of a great many Fiefs, with which those Princes enriched it. This rendered the Bishops and Abbots more considerable in the State, and engaged them to take an Oath of Fealty and Homage to their Prince for the Fiefs which they held of him, to supply him with a Certain Number of Soldiers for the Wars, to go themselves thither in person, to concern themselves with the Affairs of the State, and to discharge the other Duties to which they were bound by virtue of the Fiefs and Dignities which they enjoyed. According to Ancient Custom, after the death of those who had those Fiefs, the Lord of the Manner entered into the Possession of them and held them, till such time as the Heir or successor were invested anew, and had taken the Oath of Fealty and Homage. Upon this Account after the Death of a Bishop, the Princes and Lords entered into the Possession of his Fiefs, and held them till such time as the person elected in his stead had received Investiture from them, and had taken the Oath of Homage and Fealty. In process of time this Prerogative extended to all the other. Revenues left by the Bishop, and the Princes granted indifferently the Investiture of all the Revenues of the Bishopric to the person who was elected Canonically before he was Consecrated, but they never pretended by this Ceremony to confer any Spiritual Power or Mission to the Bishops. Some are of Opinion that this Right of Investiture was granted to Charlemain by Pope Adrian, as 'tis related by Gratian Distinct. 63. Ch. Adrianus, which is taken out of the Chronicon of Sigebert of Gemblours, wherein 'tis said that that Pope in a Council held at Rome in the Year 774. granted to Charlemain the Right of Electing Popes, and ordered that all Arch-Bishops and Bishops within his Dominions should receive Investiture at his hands before they were Consecrated. But most of the Learned are persuaded that this matter of Fact is forged, because neither Eginard who wrote the Life of Charlemain, nor any other Cotemporary Author, make any mention either of this Grant, or of Charlemagne's, going to Rome this Year. This Constitution notwithstanding is cited by Leo viij. who renewed it in favour of Otho 1. both with respect to the Election of the Pope, and to the Investiture of Bishops. But though we cannot found the Original of Investitures upon Gratian's Chapter entitled Adrianus, which is at least doubtful, yet we may be certain that this Custom commenced a long time before Otho, and soon after Charlemain, and that it was observed not only by the Emperors, but likewise by the Kings of France and England, and by most of the other Christian Princes.  
We are not certain what Ceremony was used at first in the Investiture of Bishops and Abbots; but 
The Ceremonies used in Investitures.  'tis very probable that they made use of the Crosier, or the Ring, the Marks and Tokens of their Dignity; as the Custom was with regard to secular Offices. We find in the Author of the Life of St. Romanus Archbishop of Rouen, that when this Saint, was Elected, the Great men about Court unanimously advised the King to approve his Election, and that that Prince ('twas Clovis 2. or his Father Dagobert) having convened the Bishops and Abbots, gave him the Pastoral Rod, in consequence whereof he was Consecrated. The Author of the Life of Aldric Bishop of Man's, tells us that after the Election of that Bishop made in the Year 832. Lewis the Gentle having taken the Pastoral Rod from the hands of Landramnus Archbishop of Tours, the Metropolitan of Man's, gave it to Aldric, and in giving it to him, committed to him the Care and management of that Bishopric. Glaber in the Life of King Robert, relates that that Prince desiring to gratify an Abbot who had presented him with a sine Horse, demanded the Crosier of him, and that having put it into the hand of our Saviour's Statue, bade the Abbot take it again, and by Virtue thereof to enjoy his Dignity, without any manner of Dependence. We find that in the tenth Century, this Custom was become Common in Germany, and that those who were instituted into Bishoprics, carried the Pastoral Rod, and the other Ensigns of their Dignity, even before they were Consecrated. Ivo of Chartres takes notice that the King had inducted him into his Bishopric, by giving him the Pastoral Rod. However this Ceremony was not so general nor so necessary, but it was sometimes omitted, or supplied by some other. Investiture might be given by Writing, or by word of Mouth, or even by a dumb sign. Several Authors tell us that the Emperor Henry II. conferred the Bishopric of Paderborne on Meinvercus, by presenting him with one of his Gloves. Let this Account be how it will, 'tis certain that 'tis a thing very indifferent with what Ceremony, or after what manner the Investiture was conferred. Yet there can be no question made but that commonly in granting the Investitures of Bishoprics and Abbeys they made use of the Pastoral Staff, to which they afterwards joined the Ring, because these were the Tokens and Ensigns of the Episcopal Dignity.  
When this quarrel about Investitures first began, it was not the Ceremony, but the thing itself 
The Beginning of the Contest about Investitures.  which raised the Heat; and Gregory VII. in prohibiting Investitures, not only opposed those which were performed by the Pastoral Rod and Ring, but in general all manner of Investitures of Benefices granted by Laics. The principal reason that induced him to prohibit them was, that it very much hindered the Liberty of Elections, and rendered Princes the Masters and sole Disposers of all Benefices. For when a person canonically Elected could not enjoy his Benefice, nor be Consecrated till he had received Investiture from his Prince, it was unavoidably requisite before they proceeded to an Election to know whether the Person they had an Eye to were agreeable to the Prince or no; and in case they Elected one who was not so, the Election would be Invalid. By this means it absolutely depended on the Will of the Prince to confer Bishoprics and Abbeys on whomsoever he pleased. Oftentimes he granted them as a Reward for some Service done, or to the man who was the highest bidder. This was that Abuse which moved Gregory VII. absolutely to prohibit all Investitures of Benefices; and he carried it so high, as to forbid Bishops taking an Oath of Homage and Fealty to their Princes. Victor III. and Urban II. his Immediate Successors prohibited likewise in general all manner of Investitures. Ivo of Chartres tells us that Urban only forbade Princes the Corporal Investiture: but that he never prohibited them from concerning them with an Election to which they had a Right, as being Heads of the People, and that he had not taken away from them the Right of Concession. However that Pope in the Council of Clermont absolutely prohibited all Investitures, and even the Bishop's Oath of Fealty to their Prince.  
It was in the time of Pope Paschal II. that they began to have a more particular design upon the 
The State of the Contest in the time of Paschal II.  Ceremony of granting them by the Rod and Ring; and hence they raised a fresh Argument against Investitures, by looking upon those Ornaments as tokens of the Ecclesiastical Power appertaining to the Altar; from whence 'twas Concluded that the Prince in making use of this Ceremony seemed to conser the Ecclesiastical Power. 'Tis thus that Paschal explained himself in the Conference which he held at Chalons with the Emperor's Deputies; and 'tis chief upon this Reason those men argued, who looked upon Investitures as an Heresy worse than Simony. The Princes on their side urged to no purpose, that they did not pretend by this Ceremony to bestow any Spiritual Power: That their Intention was only to invest the Bishops, as they did the other Lords, with the Temporalities which belonged to the Church by the Grants of Princes. But the Enemies to this Right to render it the more odious would persuade us that this Ceremony had another meaning. The Accommodation which was set on foot between Pope Paschal II. and the Emperor Henry V. entirely removed the Difficulty: For it took away from the Bishops all the Fiefs and other Temporalities which they possessed by the Donation of the Emperors since Charlemain, which were the only Ones for which the Princes could justly demand the Right of Investitures; but it divested the Churches of great, real and solid Goods, for a chimerical, fanciful Independance: The Bishops likewise did not relish this Accommodation, and so it came to nothing. The forced Concession of Investitures made by Pope Paschal was resented by some as an Heresy, and considered by others as a Dangerous Relaxation. There were some who would have it pass for a necessary Toleration, and others for a thing reasonable and Lawful.  
In the Beginning of the Popedom of Calixtus II. the Difficulty seemed to be reduced to the Ceremony 
The State of the Question under Calixtus II.  of Investiture with the Ring and Rod: At least those who were concerned in the Negotiation thought so. Henry V was very ready to renounce this, provide it did not prejudice his Prerogative; and if the Bishops and Abbots would hold their Fiefs and Royalties of him; take to him the Oaths of Allegiance, and pay him all the Deuce to which they were obliged by virtue of the Estates which they possessed. But the Pope always insisted upon a General Prohibition of Receiving any manner of Investiture or Ecclesiastical Benefices at the hands of Laics; to which the Emperor would never consent. The French themselves would not admit this Prohibition to extend to Bishoprics and Abbeys.  
In short the last Accommodation made between Pope Calixtus and Henry was a great deal more Advantageous 
Remarks upon the Treaty concluded between Calixtus II. and Henry V.  to the Princes than the ecclesiastics. For the Princes pretended to these three things. (1.) That no Election of Bishops or Abbots ought to be made without their Consent. (2.) That the Person Elected aught to receive Investiture with the Pastoral Rod and Ring before he was Consecrated. (3.) That he was obliged to take an Oath of Fealty to them, and do them Homage for the Fiefs and Royalties which were dependent on them. Now by this Treaty it was granted to them (1.) That the Elections of Bishops and Abbots should be made in their Presence and Consequently with their Consent. (2.) That in Germany the Bishop Elect shall be invested with the Royalties (that is all the Estates which he holds of the Crown, by the Sceptre, before his Consecration; and in the other States within six Months after his Consecration. (3.) It preserves to them all the Deuce and Services to which the Bishops were obliged by Virtue of their Fiefs and Royalties. So that all the Alteration it made to the ancient Custom of the Emperors consisted (1.) In that it took away the Ceremony of Investiture by the Pastoral Rod and Ring, and ordered that it should be done with the Sceptre. (2.) That it restrained this Ceremony precisely to the Royalties, that is, to such Fiefs and other Estates which the Bishops held of the Crown. (3.) In that it permitted the Consecration of Bishops out of Germany before they had received Investiture, yet upon condition that they should receive it within six Months after.  
The Treaty made between Pope Calixtus II. and the Emperor Henry V was executed on both sides. 
The Execution of the Treaty made with Henry.  But Lotharius, Henry's Successor, in the time of the Schism which was between Pope Innocent II. and his Adversary Peter de Leon, thought he had a favourable opportunity of re-entering upon the Right of Investiture. He made this Proposal in the Conference which he had with Pope Innocent at Liege, letting him know that he would not acknowledge him but upon this Condition. This very much startled the Roman Prelates, but Saint Bernard persuaded that Prince not to insist on this Pretention, and things remained in the same state wherein they were before.  
This is what relates to the Empire: As to France the Kings had never any Contest with the Popes 
The Custom of France with respect to Investitures.  about Investitures: They enjoyed them quietly even in the time of Gregory VII. who was not indeed pleased at it, but durst not fall out with France upon that Subject. Under the succeeding Popes the Kings of France left off giving Investiture by the Pastoral Rod and Ring, and were pleased to confer it by a Writing or by Word of Mouth; so that the Popes whose chief design was to abolish that External Ceremony, left them in the quiet enjoyment of their Prerogative.  
This Affair made a greater Noise in England than in France: For S. Anselm willing to be conformable 
The Custom of England with respect to the same.  to the Decrees of the Popes against Investitures, refused to pay Homage and Fealty to the Kings. This Contest lasted a great many years, and neither the Popes, nor the Kings of Englahd would yield the point: But at last they both conformed themselves to the Regulation of Calixtus II.  
The Right of Investitures was not the Peculiar Prerogative of Emperors and Kings; but Dukes, 
Investitures granted to Petty Princes.  Counts and other Lords who had Bishoprics or Abbeys in their States, possessing Fiefs or Revenues in their Dominions, did likewise enjoy the same Right. Thus it appears by a Letter wrote by Gregory VII. to Radulphus Archbishop of Tours, that the Counts of Bretagne had been in possession of the Right of granting Investitures to Bishops, since that Pope commends them for having receded from that Custom which they had so long enjoyed, in compliance to the Holy See. Saint Anselm tells us likewise that Robert Count of Flanders had been used to invest the Abbots after their Election. Ivo of Chartres in several places takes notice, that Robert Duke of Normandy granted Investiture to the Bishops and Abbots of that Province. The Counts of Champagne, Anjou and Savoy had the same Custom, and even the petty Lords assumed this Privilege to themselves: As the Lord of Rotrou, whom we find in the Chartulary of St. Denys of Nogent, to have granted to Hubert the Investiture of that Abbey with the Crosier, so that when Gregory VII. and the other Pope's condemned Investitures, this did not only Extend to Emperors and Kings, but likewise to Duke's Marquises, Counts, and in general to every Lay Person whether Man or Woman.  
The Lateran Council which approved of the Treaty about Investitures, made between Pope Calixtus 
The first general Lateran Council in the year 1123.  and the Emperor Henry, is that which is called the first general Lateran Council. It was held in March A. D. 1123. and composed of three hundred Prelates or thereabouts, according to the Testimony of Sugerus Abbot of Saint Denys, who was present at the Council, a more creditable Witness than the Abbot of Usperge, who reckons four hundred Twenty Six; and than Pandulphus who tells us of almost a Thousand. There were two and Twenty Canons made in this Council.  
The First renews the Canons made against the Simoniacal, and ordains that all those who shall have obtained any Ecclesiastical Dignity for Money, shall be turned out of it.  
The Second forbids the bestowing the Dignities of a Provost, Archpriest or Dean on any but Priests, or that of archdeacon on any other but Deacons.  
The Third renews the Prohibitions made by the Laws of the Church against Clerks having Wives or Concubines, or to live with Women, excepting such as are exempted in the Canon of the Council of Nice.  
The Fourth Imports that the Laics, how pious soever they may be, shall not have the Disposal of the Revenues of the Church, and that this shall be Peculiar to Bishops, and declares those Princes and Laics who shall attribute it to themselves Sacrilegious.  
The Fifth renews the Prohibition of Marriages among Relations.  
The Sixth declares the Ordinations made by the Arch-Heretick Burdin after his Condemnation, and those that had been made by the false Bishops whom he had ordained, to be Null and Void.  
The Seventh Prohibits Arch-deacons, Archpriests, Provosts and Deans from giving any Benefices having the Charge of Souls, or prebend's, without the Consent and Approbation of the Bishop.  
The Eighth pronounces an Anathema against any Person whatsoever who shall seize upon the Town of Benevento.  
The Ninth renews the Prohibitions made in the Canons, against admitting those who had been Excommunicated by their Bishop to the Communion.  
The Tenth prohibits the Consecrating of a Bishop, who has not been Elected Canonically.  
The Eleventh grants remission of Sins to those who go to Jerusalem to aid the Christians against the Infidels, puts their Persons, their Families, and their Estates under the Protection of the Holy See; prohibits the offering any Violence to them under the Pain of Excommunication; and enjoins all those, who were Crossed to go into the Holy Land, or into Spain, and who having changed their Minds, had laid aside their Cross, to take it up again, and go that expedition within a year under the Pain of Excommunication.  
The Twelfth abolishes the Custom of siezing on the Estates of those who died without Heirs.  
The Thirteenth Orders that they shall be declared Excommunicated who shall violate the Truce enjoined for Certain Days.  
The Fourteenth prohibits Laics from seizing on any Oblations made to Churches, and from enclosing any Churches within the Bounds of Castles.  
The Fifteenth is against Counterfeit Coiners.  
The Sixteenth Excommunicates those who Rob or exact any Tribute from the Pilgrims who go to Rome or to any other Places of Devotion.  
The Seventeenth prohibits Abbots and Monks, from admitting Sinners to Public Penance, from visiting the Sick, from performing the Extreme Unction, and from singing Solemn and public Masses, and enjoins them to receive from their Bishop the holy Chrism, the holy Oils, and Ordination.  
The Eighteenth enjoins that the Curates shall be Established by the Bishops, and that no person shall receive a Church or Tenths from the hand of Laics without the Consent of the Bishop.  
The Nineteenth imports that the Monasteries shall continue to pay the Bishops the Services and Duties which they have paid them since the time of Gregory VII. and it takes away from Abbots and Monks the Right of claiming the Possession of Thirty years, in order to hold those Churches which belong to the Bishops.  
The Twentieth provides for the Security of the Church Revenues.  
The Twenty first does again prohibit Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons and Monks from having Wives or Concubines, and Declares the Marriages which they have contracted, Null. This is the Canon which expressly pronounces the Nullity of the Marriages of such Persons as are in holy Orders.  
The Twenty second declares the Alienations of Church Revenues made by Bishops, Abbots, or any other ecclesiastics Null, and Void.  
This is the Summary of what we have left of the general Lateran Council, held under Pope Calixtus II. who died the Year after. To complete the History of those three Popes already mentioned, we have nothing more to do, than to give you an Extract of the Letters which they wrote.  
Paschal II. was he who wrote most; of which a Collection is made of an hundred and seven, 
The Letters of Paschal II.  without reckoning the Fragments of several others which are to be met with in Gratian, and in the other Collectors of Canons.  
In the First he congratulates those Persons of the Crusade in the Holy Land, for the Victories they had gained.  
In the Second he confirms the Establishment of a new Monastery in the Diocese of Chalons, and the Treaty which had been made between the Religious of that Monastery and those of Moleme by the Archbishop of Lions according to the order he had received from Urban II.  
In the Third he commends Saint Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury for the Steadfastness he showed in standing up for the Rights of the Church.  
In the Fourth directed to Bernard Archbishop of Toledo, he confirmed the Primacy of that Church.  
The Fifth and Sixth are not two distinct Letters. The former of the two is only a fragment of the latter, whose inscription has been changed: It is directed to an Archbishop of Poland, who scrupled to take an Oath to the Pope, in receiving the Pall. He therein magnifies the Dignity and Authority of the Church of Rome, and the Necessity of the Pall.  
The Seventh is directed to Robert. Count of Flanders, whom he commends for having executed his Orders touching the Church of Cambray; and whom he exhorts to persecute the Emperor Henry IU. and the Inhabitants of Liege, to whom that Prince was retired.  
The Clergy of Liege having procured a Copy of this Letter returned a very smart reply to it: Wherein they made it appear how contrary that Order which the Pope gave in this Letter of making War against them, was to the Spirit of the Church, and to the Charity which the Pope, the Common Father of all the Faithful, aught to bear towards all the Churches. They say that they could not tell how to believe that the Pope had approved of the Destruction of the Church of Cambray, and the Outrages which had been there committed, had they not learned from his own Mouth, that all this was done by his Order; without mentioning the dividing of that Bishopric into two, and the Expulsion of Gautier who was Bishop thereof. They make mention of several Instances to prove that one ought not to make use of the Sword, or engage in a War to put the Sentences of Excommunication in Execution: That moreover they have done nothing which deserved either Death or Excommunication: That they were Excommunicated only because they had paid to their Lawful Sovereign the Respect which they owed him, according as they were obliged by the Law of God: That they are not Simoniacal, but on the Contrary avoid those who are so, and that they have no less abhorence to those who pretending to give Ecclesiastical Graces for nothing, sell them under a pretence of Charity: That in fact they had not been Excommunicated by their Archbishop, and that they supposed they had not been Excommunicated by the Pope, since he could not do it without hearing them first. That no one could say that they were Excommunicated, because they Communicated with their Bishop, who would not fail in his Duty towards his Prince, since therein that Prelate had done his Duty, and had greater Reason to fear the Curse which God had pronounced against those who obeyed not his Commandments, than that which some Popes have within a while invented against those who would not be Rebels to their Lawful Prince: That the Holy Fathers inform us that Kings ought not to be Excommunicated, or at least but very rarely: That according to Ancient Custom they stand to the Decisions of their Metropolitan and of their Provincial Synod, and they did not recognize those Legates à Latere, who ran from place to place to enrich themselves, and who reformed neither Manners nor Discipline, but were the Cause of rifling Churches and of the Wars: That they lived as Regular Clerks, according to the Rule of the Canon. Lastly, they inveighed against the Memory of Gregory VII. who was the first that stirred up the People against their Emperor, and was for extending the Spiritual Power of binding and unbinding even to Temporalities; which they proved to be contrary to the Maxims and Practice of the Popes his Predecessors.  
The Eighth Letter of Paschal is directed to the Clergy and People of Bamberg, to whom he recommends Otho their Bishop Elect.  
By the Ninth directed to Henry King of England he exhorts that Prince to renounce his Right of Investitures.  
By the Tenth he advises Didasus Bishop of Compostella, to take care that his Clergy live regularly, to hinder forbidden Marriages, and not to suffer the Monks to live with the Nuns.  
The Eleventh is the Bull of Canonization of Peter Bishop of Anagnia, by which he order that his Feast should be celebrated on the third of August.  
In the Twelfth directed to Gebehard Bishop of Constance, and to Oderick Bishop of Passaw, he determines that those who unwillingly converse with Excommunicated persons by necessity or in duty, are not liable to Excommunication.  
By the thirteenth he citys the Laity and Clergy of Augsburgh, who accused their Bishop; and  
By The fourteenth congratulates their being reconciled to him.  
By the fifteenth he advises the Clergy and Laity of Arles to Elect another Archbishop in the place of Gibbeline, who had been made Patriarch of Jerusalem.  
In the sixteenth he congratulates S. Anselm for his being reconciled to the King of England, and grants him a Power of absolving those who had opposed the Decrees of the Holy See about the Investitures of Benefices granted by Laics, or who had done Homage to the King for Ecclesiastical Preferments.  
In the Seventeenth he advises Gerard Archbishop of York to submit to the Archbishop of Canterbury.  
By the Eighteenth he writes to Baldwin King of Jerusalem, to subject all the Churches which shall be conquered by him to the Church of Jerusalem as their Metropolitan.  
In the Nineteenth he grants this Privilege to Gibeline Patriarch of Jerusalem.  
In the Twentieth, he declares to Bernard Patriarch of Antioch, that he did not thereby intent to prejudice his Rights.  
In the Twenty first he order Vraca, the Daughter of the King of Castille, to part from Alphonso King of Arragon her Kinsman in the third Degree.  
The Twenty second is the Draught of a Bull which he had thought of making, according to the first agreement which he had made with the Emperor Henry V. whereby he enjoins the Bishops and Abbots of Germany to abandon all the Fiefs and other Estates which they held of the Empire, upon Condition that the Emperor should make no pretention to the Estates which had not been bestowed on the Church by the Emperor.  
The Twenty third is written to John Cardinal Bishop of Frescati, to Leo of Verceil, and to other Cardinals, who were met at Rome to Cancel the Decree of Pope Paschal, whereby he had granted the Right of Investiture to the Emperor Henry.  
In the Twenty fourth directed to Guy Archbishop of Vienna, he himself cancels this Decree, and declares the Concession null and void.  
In the Twenty fifth he advertises the Clergy of Augsburgh, that he had interdicted their Bishop five Years ago, upon the Complaints that had been preferred against him; and that since that Bishop never appeared to clear himself of the Crimes laid to his Charge, he thought it not convenient to take off the Interdiction pronounced against him.  
In the Twenty sixth, he refers this Affair to the Determination of Arnulphus Archbishop of Mentz.  
The Twenty seventh directed to the Chapter of Augsburgh does not at all agree with the two former. For he therein excuses the Bishop of Augsburgh, and refers his Affair to Guy Bishop of Coire; which has made Baronius suppose that it was surreptitious.  
In the Twenty Ninth written to the Patriarch of Antioch, he renews the Declaration which he had formerly made; that by the Letter which he had written in favour of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, he did not pretend to prejudice the Rights of the Church of Antioch. He wrote the same thing to Baldwin King of Jerusalem by the Twenty Ninth.  
In the Thirtieth he wrote word to Henry King of England that he would not meddle with the Rights and Privileges of the Church of Canterbury.  
In the Thirty first directed to the same Prince he complains of their having turned Turstin Archbishop of York out of his Church, without having observed any forms of Justice.  
In the Thirty second written to Pontius Abbot of Clunie, he order that in the Communion they should give the Bread and Wine apart, which was contrary to the Custom of Clunie, where sometimes they dipped the Host in the Wine. However he excepts Infants and Infirm persons.  
In the Thirty third he sent word to Daimbert Archbishop of Sens, that he had Consecrated him who had been Elected Bishop of Paris without prejudicing the Rights of the Church of Sens.  
By the Thirty fourth directed to Lambert Bishop of Arras, he confirms the Disunion which had been made by his Predecessor Urban II. of the Bishopric of Arras, from that of Cambray; gives two Archdeaconries to the former, and orders it should enjoy all the Territories which depended on it formerly.  
By the Thirty fifth he wrote word to the Bishops of the Provinces of Rheims, Sens, and Tours, that he had commissioned them with Lambert Bishop of Arras, to give King Philip Absolution, in case he would sincerely part with Bertrarda. To this Letter is annexed the Oath which that Prince and Bertrarda took at Paris in the Year 1104. in the presence of those Bishops, to have nothing more to do with each other.  
In the Thirty sixth he Commissions Daimbert Archbishop of Sens to try the Difference which was between the Abbot of Vezelay and the Abbot of Flavigny.  
The Thirty seventh is the Bull of the Legation of Gerard Bishop of Angoulême, in the Provinces of Bourges▪ Bourdeaux; Auche▪ Tours and Bretagne.  
In the Thirty eighth directed to Norigand Bishop of Autun, he confirms his Election, and orders that he shall freely enjoy all the Revenues of his Church.  
The next written to Stephen Bishop of Autun contains some thing like the former.  
The Six next Letters are directed to Saint Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury. In the forty second he answers to several questions which that Archbishop had proposed, especially about the Investitures of Churches, and he therein determines that a Bishop may receive Ecclesiastical Revenues from the hands of Laics, who bestow them on the Church, provided it were within his own Diocese, but that he ought not to receive those which are in another Diocese, and that Abbots ought not to receive them but from the hands of Bishops: That one might not receive a Church from the King, as a Recompense of those Ecclesiastical Revenues which he had seized upon: That an Ecclesiastic ought not to pay Homage to a Lay Prince: That the Sons of Priests may be admitted into Holy Orders: That it was better in case of extremity one should receive the Viaticum from the hands of a Married Priest, rather than not receive it at all.  
In the forty sixth, he wrote word to the Clergy of Terrovane, that they ought not to suffer any Married Clergy amongst them.  
The forty seventh is a Privilege granted to the Monastery of St. Sophia near Benevento.  
The forty eighth directed to Richard Archbishop of Narbonne, is a confirmation of the Revenues and Privileges appertaining to that Archbishopric, with Prohibitions against making any attempts on them.  
In the forty ninth he prohibits two Abbots from admitting into Communion two persons Excommunicated by the Archbishop of Narbonne.  
In the fiftieth directed to Rhotard Archbishop of Mentz, he wrote against the Inves●…res of Churches, which Princes made with the Pastoral Rod and Ring. He therein renews the Decree of the Council of Placenza under Urban II. against the Clerks Ordained during the Schism, and refers to a Council to determine how they ought to proceed against Excommunicate and Schismatical persons who had procured themselves to be Ordained Bishops.  
The fifty first is a Privilege granted to the Abbey of Vezelay.  
The five next Letters are written in favour of that Abbey.  
The fifty seventh and eighth confirm the re-establishment of the Bishop of Arras.  
In the two next he nominates Umpires to decide the difference between the Clergy of Arras and the Monks of St. Vaast.  
The next Letters to the seventy sixth are particularly in favour of the Abbey of Clunie. He grants that Abbot a Power of wearing the Mitre and the Crosier, and the Pontifical Habits: but forbids him to cause the Holy Chrism to be Consecrated in his Abbey.  
In the seventy sixth he commends Otho Bishop of Bamberg, for not accepting of that Bishopric from the hands of the Emperor.  
In the seventy seventh, he recommends to the Clergy of Paris, Gualon their Bishop, and exhorts them to join with him in the recovery and preservation of the Revenues of their Church. He therein prohibits the Great Prebendaries from exacting Homage from the Demi-Prebendaries.  
The four next are directed to Guy Archbishop of Vienna, Legate of the Holy See: In the first he confirms to him his Privileges: In the second and third he order him to determine the difference which was between the Canons of Besanzon and those of St. Stephen in the same City: And in the last he confirms what that Archbishop had done in the Council of Vienna. The Contest between the Canons of St. John and St. Stephen of Besanzon was about the Right of the Cathedral. The Pope had referred the Determination thereof to William the Predecessor of Guy; afterwards the Cause was heard at Rome: The Pope there ordered that in case the Canons of St. Stephen could prove that they had been in quiet possession of the right of the Cathedral for thirty years past, they should enjoy it without any more dispute. It was upon this and several other differences that their Cause was referred to the Archbishop of Besanzon, who having called a Council at Tornus, in the Year 1115. found that the Canons of St. Stephen produced very sorry Witnesses to prove their Possession, and thereupon adjudged the Right to the Chapter of St. John. Pope Paschal was not satisfied with this Sentence, as appears by his third Letter written to Guy; but Calixtus II. confirmed the Judgement of the Council of Tornus. But this did not put an end to the Dispute, till Cardinal Hugh united those two Churches by a Treaty concluded between them, An. Dom. 1253.  
In the eighty fourth, he confirms the Limits granted to the Citadel of Velitra by Gregory VII.  
In the eighty fifth, he wrote word to William Archbishop of Melphi, that he put down the Bishopric established in the Burrow of Lavella, and confirms the Privileges of the Church of Melphi.  
In the eighty sixth directed to Guy Bishop of Pavia, he confirmed the Rights and Privileges of the Church of Pavia.  
Most of the following Letters are confirmations of Privileges.  
The ninety sixth, ninety seventh, ninety ninth, the hundredth, hundredth and first and second are written to Henry King of England, and to St. Anselm about Investitures, and about the Prohibition made against admitting the Sons of Priests into Orders.  
The next Letters are likewise directed to the same Persons, and have regard to the Affairs of England; such as the Institution of the Bishopric of Ely, and the Translation of Radulphus from the Bishopric of Rochester to the Archbishopric of Canterbury. In the ninety eighth directed to Osborn Bishop of Exon, he determines that he ought to allow the Monks to have a Churchyard within their Monastery to Bury their Dead.  
These Letters are followed by several fragments of other Letters Attributed to this Pope, in the Collection of Gratian, several of which are against the Laics who were for conferring the Investiture of Churches, or seized on their Revenues; others about Tenths; some whereby the Monks were prohibited from claiming the Rights which belonged to Bishops, or from exempting themselves from their Jurisdiction; and others against Marriages between Relations.  
Pope Gelasus II. being but a short time on the Chair, wrote but a very few Letters. 
The Letters of Gelasus II.   
In the first directed to all the Prelates of the Kingdom of France, he gives them to understand that the Emperor being unexspectedly come to Rome had driven him thence, and that afterwards he threatened to do him all the mischief he could, if he would not grant him what he desired. That he had returned this Answer to him, that he was ready to determine the difference which was between the Church and the Empire, at Milan or at Cremona, about St. Luke's-day, by those whom God had appointed to be Judges in the Church: That notwithstanding this proposal, he had set on the Chair Maurice Archbishop of Brague, Excommunicated by his Predecessor Pope Paschal: That thanks be to God the Emperor had not been favoured by any of the Romans in this his proceeding; but only by those of the Faction of Guibert. He exhorts the Prelates of that Kingdom to find out ways of vindicating the Honour of the Church.  
The second directed to Bernard of Toledo, is upon the same Subject.  
In the third he exhorts the Clergy and Laity of Rome to have no Correspondence with Maurice the Intruder, who was both Perjured and Excommunicated.  
In the fourth, he Congratulates Gautier Archbishop of Ravenna, his being advanced to that Archbishopric, and the reunion which he had procured between that Church and the Holy See; in pursuance whereof, he restores to the Archbishopric of Ravenna all the Bishoprics of Aemilia, which had been taken away from it during the Schism, and granted him the Pall.  
In the fifth he recommends to the Christians who were at the Siege of Saragossa to receive him whom he had Consecrated Archbishop of that City, and grants Indulgences to all who should Die in that Expedition.  
The sixth and seventh are Privileges granted to the Abbey of Clunie.  
Calixtus II. wrote more Letters. 
The Letters of Calixtus II.   
By the first he informs Adalbert Archbishop of Mentz of his Election to the Popedom.  
The second is a confirmation of the Constitutions of the Order of Cisteaux.  
The third is a Confirmation of the Privileges, Rights, and Revenues of the Church of Vienna.  
The fourth is written to the Bishops of France, about the taking of Maurice Burdin.  
The fifth is a Congratulatory Letter to the Emperor Henry V upon the Conclusion of the Treaty which he had made with the Holy See about Investitures.  
By the sixth he confirms the Privileges of the Church of Brague.  
By the seventh and eighth those of the Church of Bamberg.  
By the ninth and tenth those of the Abbey of Vendome.  
In the eleventh, he refers to the Bishop of Langres a difference which was between the Monastery of St. Peter the Lively of Sens, and the Abbots of Molesin, and of St. Rhemy of Rheims.  
The next are written in favour of the Chapter of St. John of Besanzon, to whom he adjudged the Right of the Cathedral.  
The four next are Privileges granted to the Abbey of Tornus.  
The twenty first and second are other Privileges granted to the Abbey of Clunie.  
The twenty third is a Letter of Compliment to King Lewis the Gross, to whom he recommends his Legat.  
The twenty fourth is directed to Gerbert Bishop of Paris: He therein orders that all the Churches and Abbeys of his Diocese shall be subject to him, and that the Canon of his Church who had been made a Bishop, shall no longer hold his Prebend.  
In the twenty fifth, he permits a certain Lord of Germany to found a Monastery; upon Condition, that the Revenues which he bestowed should be under the Protection of the Holy See, to which than Monastery should give every fourth Year an Albe and some white Vestments; and that neither he 〈◊〉 his Successors should have any thing to do with what related to the Monastery.  
In the twenty sixth and seventh, he approves the Institution of the Regular Canons in the Churches of Benriad and Berchgetesgaden.  
By the twenty eighth, he Establishes Gerard Bishop of Angoulême, his Legate in the Provinces of Bourges, Bourdeaux, Auche, Tours, and Bretagne.  
In the twenty ninth directed to the Bishops of Orleans and Paris, he confirms the Prohibitions made by his Legate against Celebrating Divine Service, wherever William the Son of Count Robert, who had Married the Daughter of the Count Angers his Kinsman, should be.  
In the thirtieth directed to Pontius Abbot of Aniana, he adjudged to that Abbot a Priory, which was Contested between him and the Archbishop of Arles, and the Monks of the Abbey de la Chaise-Dieu.  
In the thirty first and second, he ordered that those who pillaged the Revenues of the Village of Mongodin, belonging to the Chapter of Mascon, shall be Excommunicated.  
In the four next, he confirms the Primacy of the Archbishopric of Toledo.  
To these Letters is annexed a Letter of Lewis the Gross, directed to that Pope, as an Answer to that which he had sent into France upon the taking of Burdin; wherein, after he had declared to him the Joy he conceived at this Success, he returns him thanks for having superseded for a while the Sentence passed against the Archbishop of Sens, in favour of the Archbishop of Lions, and desires he would be pleased wholly to revoke it, observing to him that he had laid this business very much to heart, and would expose himself and his Kingdom to the utmost dangers, rather than put up such an Affront. He puts his Holiness in mind of the great services which the Kings of France had always done to the Holy See, and of those which in a particular manner he had done for him by being present at the Council of Rheims, wherein he had more regard to the Honour of the Holy See than to his own Interest. He conjured him as an acknowledgement- of those good turns, that he would be pleased to preserve the Church of Sens in its Ancient Liberty, which could not be taken away from it by a Privilege granted by Stealth, and without his knowledge, to the Archbishop of Lions.  
The four Sermons upon St. James attributed to Calixtus II. Published by Mariana, and inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum, are supposititious pieces, and unworthy of that Pope.   

CHAP. III.  
The History and Letters of the Popes, Honorius II. Innocent II. Celestine II. Lucius II. and Eugenius III.  
POPE Calixtus being Dead, Leo Franchipani forbade the Cardinals to proceed to a New Election till three days after, under pretence, that they might have time sufficient to deliberate on the 
Honorius II.  Choice they were to make, and to consult the Canons, relating to Elections thereupon. Franchipani's design was to get Lambert Bishop of Ostia Elected; the People were for the Cardinal of St. Stephen, whom Franchipani seemed also to favour: But, the Cardinals casting an eye upon Thibaud, Priest and Cardinal of St. Anastasius, gave their Votes for him, and would have Proclaimed him Pope under the Name of Celestine II. When in the mean time Leo Franchipani, observing the People were against this Election, proposed to them the aforesaid Lambert; who was soon after Proclaimed by the common suffrage of the Clergy and People, was Clothed in his Pontifical Habit, and named Honorius II. Nevertheless, the better to gain the Cardinal's Approbation, in few days after he threw off his Papal Ornaments in their presence; which won so extremely upon them, that they were soon brought to acknowledge him and confirm his Election. He Governed Peaceably and Prudently the Holy See for five Years and two Months. In the Year 1125. 〈◊〉 Excommunicated Frederic and Conrade, Nephews to the Emperor Henry V. who would have seized upon the Empire, and who made War upon Lotharius. In 1127 he declared War himself against Roger Count of Sicily, who pretended to have a right to the Dutchies of Calabria and Apulia Independent from the Pope. The Year after he Excommunicated this Prince, and Died the 14th of February, in the Year 1130.  
After the Death of Honorius II. the Cardinals that were then present, on the same day Elected Gregory Cardinal of St. Angelo, who was then Named Innocent II. At the same time Cardinal Peter of 
Innocent II.  Leon, formerly a Monk of the Abbey of Clunie, caused himself to be Elected, under the Name of Anacletus, by another Faction of Cardinals. The Party of Cardinal Peter was by much the stronger, which obliged those that were for Innocent to retire to strong Holds, and afterwards to fly with that Pope to the City of Pisa. This occasioned Innocent to come into France, where an Assembly of Prelates was held on his account at Etampes, in the Year 1130. to which St. Bernard was sent. He spoke very notably in favour of Innocent, and his Opinion was followed by the whole Council. This Pope being thus acknowledged by France went immediately thither, and was splendidly received at Orleans by King Lewis the Gross, and several Bishops that came to wait on that Prince. From thence he set forwards to Chartres, where Henry I. King of England acknowledged him likewise. He had not long after the Approbation and Consent of the Emperor Lotharius, whom he went to meet at Liege in the beginning of the following Year. This Prince received him very honourably, but however he would needs make use of this occasion to get the Investitures restored. This very much surprised the ●…ns, and St. Bernard laboured all he could to dissuade the Emperor from insisting on such a Demand.  
At the breaking up of this Conference, the Pope held a Council at Rheims, at which he Crowned King Lewis the Younger, in the Room of his Brother Philip, then lately dead. After this Council was over he made some short stay at Auxerre and thence returned into Italy, having first complied with Lotharius, who thereupon promised to march to Rome and Re-Establish him in the Papal Chair. Upon this Lotharius kept punctually to his word; came to Rome; put Innocent in possession of the Palace of Lateran, and in recompense was Crowned Emperor by this Pope in the Year 1133. But, notwithstanding, all this; Peter of Leon and his Party, being become Masters of all the Strong Holds in and about Rome, and Lotharius likewise being Obliged to Return home, Innocent was constrained to retire a Second time to Pisa, where he called a Council in the Year 1134. The Church of Milan soon came under the Obedience of Innocent TWO, through the persuasion of St. Bernard and the Legates which this Pope had sent thither. But the Province of Guienne declared for Peter of Leon through the Subtlety of Gerard Bishop of Angoulesme, who had persuaded William Duke of this Province that this was the Rightful Pope, and who for recompense was made Legate in conjunction with Giles Cardinal Bishop of Frescati: These condemned William Bishop of Poitiers, caused him to be driven out of his Diocese and placed another in his Room. They likewise dispossessed the Bishop of Lymoges and instated Ranulphus of Duras in his See. Hereupon St. Bernard and Geoffrey Bishop of Charters, went to Guienne and conferring with the Duke at Pontigni, easily inclined him to own Innocent: for Pope, But whereas he would by no means consent to the Re-establishment of the Bishops that had been suspended, St. Bernard to surmount his Obstinacy, took the blessed Sacrament and carrying it to the Place where the Duke was, conjured him in the Name of Jesus, and with such terrible words that the frighted Duke fell ●…at upon the Ground and was forced to be reconciled to the Bishop of Poitiers. The Bishop of Angoulesme, who had also possessed himself of the Archbishopric of Bourdeaux, died some small time after, whereby the Schism was entirely suppressed in Guienne. Roger Duke of Sicily was now the only Prince that continued in the Interest of Peter of Leon, and this by reason that he had received the Title of King from him, and moreover was in possession of that part of the Patrimony of St. Peter which lay in the Province of Benevento which he had no mind to restore to the Holy See. Yet Duke Ranulphus having defeated him in a signal Battle, prevented his attempting any thing against Pope Innocent. Peter of Leon died in the Year 1138. A little while after his death, those of his Party placed in his stead the Cardinal Gregory to whom they gave the name of Victor, but this Person finding his side too weak to hold out against Innocent, came and publicly surrendered his Pretensions to him in the Year 1139. Afterwards Innocent held a Council at Lateran, in which the Favourers of Peter of Leon were solemnly condemned, and the Ordinations made by this Pope declared Null and Void. Some time after Innocent was taken by Duke Roger which occasioned the Agreement afterwards made between them. This Pope died the 24 of September in the Year 1143. The same day Guy a Priest and Cardinal of St Mark was chosen Pope by the Cardinals, and proclaimed under the name of Celestine II. He had no Competitors in his Election, but his Pontificate was of no long continuance, for 
Celestine II.  he died 5 Months and a few days after, on the Eighth of March in the Year 1144. He was succeeded by Gerard Cardinal of the Holy-Cross, who took the name of Lucius TWO, whose Pontificate 
Lucius II.  was very much molested by the War with Roger Duke of Sicily, with whom nevertheless he at length made a Truce, and by the Revolt of some Italians who had a mind to Assert the Authority of their Senators that were Assembled in the Capitol. This Pope died of Grief as some will have it, but as others say, he was killed by the fall of a Stone about the End of the first Year of his Pontificate, the 26th of February in the Year 1145.  
Bernard, Native of Pisa, Abbot of St. Anastasius and Disciple of St. Bernard was chosen in his place 
Eugenius III.  by the Cardinals under the Name of Eugenius III. This Pope the People would have Obliged before his Consecration to have confirmed the Sovereignty of the Senators, to avoid doing which he retired to the Monastery of Forfu where he was proclaimed and Consecrated Pope. Some time after his Consecration he retired to Rome, where he lived for a while in a strong hold; but at length, not thinking himself in sufficient Security, he retired to Viterbe. He was no sooner gone but Jordanes, who had taken upon him the Quality of a Patrician, made himself master of Rome, Pillaged all the Cardinals and Great men's House that would not submit to his Government, Built divers Citadels in the City, and also made one of the Church of St. Peter. Against him, Eugenius pronounced the severest anathemas and by the Assistance of the Militia of Tivoli forced the Italians to make Peace, to abolish the Dignity of Patricius, and to receive a Praefect and Senators which he should depute to govern them in his Absence. This Agreement being Concluded, he returned to Rome, and kept the Feast of Christmas there, but the Romans being unmindful of the Articles of the Peace, and given to Rebel, Eugenius was forced to get away secretly to Tivoli, whence he retired to Pisa and from thence into France in the Year 1147. He was there kindly received by King Lewis and had several Councils in favour of the Crusade, and continued above a Year in that Country. He returned into Italy towards the End of the Year 1148. where after having undergon divers fatigues of War, he at length became Master of the Church of St. Peter in the Year 1150. He died at Tivoli the Ninth of July in the Year 1153. His Body was carried to Rome and Interred in St. Peter's Church.  
The Letters of these Popes contain nothing very remarkable.  
Honorius II. has writ but very few.  
His first was upon occasion of the Death of Pontius a Monk of Clunie who died out of his Abbey. 
The Letter● of Honorius II.  He gives Peter the Venerable Abbot of Clunie, to Understand that he had buried him in holy Ground out of respect to that Abbey whereof he had formerly been Monk.  
The Second and Third are writ concerning the Pall which he Grants to William Elected Archbishop of Tire and Consecrated by the Patriarch of Jerusalem.  
In the Fourth he recommends to the King of Denmark the Legate which he had sent into his Kingdom.  
By the Fifth he receives Henry, Son of Lewis VI of France being designed for the Church, under the Protection of the Holy See.  
In the Sixth, directed to the Clergy of Tours, he confirms the Excommunication pronounced by his Legate against Fulcus Earl of Angers, by reason that he did not break the Marriage between his Daughter and William Son of Lord Robert.  
The Seventh is a Confirmation of the Privileges granted the Abbey of Clunie by his Predecessors.  
The Three following relate to the Legateship of Cardinal John de cream into England.  
The Last Addressed to the Bishops of the Province of Tours to exhort them to Observe the Decrees of the Council of Nantes.  

The Letters of Innocent TWO are very many.  
In the First he confirms the Judgement of the Council of Jovare against the Associates of Thomas 
The Letter● of Innocent II.  Prior of St. Victor as likewise against those of Archembaud Subdean of Orleans, adding several Punishments which were before Omitted.  
By the Second he gives all the Lands▪ which the Princess Matildis enjoyed in Italy, and which she had left to the Holy See, to the Emperor Lotharius and Henry Duke of Bavaria his Son in Law, on condition that they swear Fealty and do Homage to the Church of Rome, and moreover to pay yearly a Hundred Pound in Gold.  
The Third is a Confirmation of the Immunities and Revenues belonging to the Church of Pistoia in Tuscany, Addressed to the Bishop of that City.  
The Five Letters following are written to the Patriarch of Jerusalem and Antioch, and the other Bishops of the East for Conservation of the Dignity and Rights of Fulcus Archbishop Tyr.  
In the Ninth he confirms the Grant made by Pope Honorius II. to Roger, of the Kingdom of Sicily, Duchy of Apulia and Principality of Capua together with the Title of King.  
The Next following contain the Condemnation of Peter Abaëlard and Arnold de Bresse.  
The Twelfth is a Privilege granted to the Abbey of St. Memme.  
In the Three Next he confirms the Power of the Archbishop of Hambourg over the Bishoprics of Denmark, Sueden, and Norway.  
In the Sixteenth he Admonishes Hugh Archbishop of Rouen to comply with the King of England his Master, and to permit the Abbots of Normandy to pay Fealty and Homage to him.  
In the Seventeenth, he acquaints King Lewis that he is Arrived in perfect Health at Clunie.  
By the Eighteenth he commands Geoffrey Bishop of Chartres, and Stephen Bishop of Paris, to restore to Archembaud Subdean of Orleans and his fraternity, the Benefices and Goods that had been taken from them.  
In the Nineteenth, he order the same Bishop of Paris to take off the suspension which he had awarded against the Church of St. Genieveve.  
The Four next relate to the Abbey of Vezelay, to which he order an Abbot, and whose Privileges he confirms.  
In the Twenty fourth, he commands Al●isus Abbot of Anchin to take care of the Church of Arras, of which he was Elected Bishop.  
In the Twenty fifth, he confirms the Rights and Privileges of the Bishop of Bamberg.  
In the Twenty sixth, he receives Hugh Archdeacon of Arras, under protection of the See of Rome.  
The Fourteen Letters which follow, concern the Privileges and Revenues of the Abbey of Clunie: and in the fifteenth, he recommends himself to the Prayers of this Monastery.  
The Forty second is a piece of a Letter wrote to Otho Bishop of Lucca, concerning those Witnesses who are related to either Party.  
In the Forty third, he acquaints Guigue Prior of the Great Charter-House, that he has Canonised Hugh Bishop of Grenoble, and farther Commands him to write what he knows of his Life or Miracles.  
There are also five more Letters which belong to Innocent II. and relate to the Affairs of Germany, and two concerning the Church of Angers. The first are at the end of the 10th Tome of the Councils, and the two last in the 2d Tome of the Miscellanies of Monsieur de Baluze.   

We have but three Letters of Celestine II.  
IN the First he acquaints Peter, the Venerable Abbot of Clunie, with his Accession to the Pontificate. 
The Letters of Celestine II.   
In the Second, he confirms the Donation of the Church of St. Vincent, to the Order of Clunie, by the Bishop of Salamanca.  
In the Last, he order the Archbishop of Toledo to restore to the Bishop of Orense some Parishes which the late Bishop of Astorgas had seized upon.   

The Letters of Pope Lucius II. are about Ten.  
BY the First he gives Peter of Clunie to understand that he has made a Truce with Roger King of 
The Letters of Lucius II.  Sicily.  
By the Second he demands aid of King Conrade against the Italians, who were revolted, and who had chosen Jordanes for a Patrician.  
In the Third and Fourth, he confirms the Primacy of the Church of Toledo over all the Churches of Spain.  
The Fifth contains a Privilege granted to the Abbey of Clunie.  
In the Sixth he submits the Monastery of St. Sabas to the Abbey of Clunie.  
By the Seventh, he Commands the Abbot of St. Germain's of Auxerre to discharge the Servants of the Abbot of Vezelay, who were Bail for him, and he moreover removes the Suit before Godfrey Bishop of Langres.  
In the Eighth, he confirms the Judgement given by Pope Paschal against those that had killed Artaud Abbot of Vezelay, and forbids their being received any more into any Monastery.  
By the Ninth he order the Count of Nevers to restore to the Abbey of Vezelay whatever he had taken from it.  
And by the Tenth, he enjoins St. Bernard to warn the said Count from exacting any thing from the aforesaid Abbey.   

The Letters of Eugenius III. are in a far greater number.  
THE First Addressed to Lewis King of France, is an exhortation to the Crusade, to encourge the retaking 
Eugenius III.  the City of Edesse, with all others that had been Conquered, and in a word, to defend the Holy-Land from Invasion. He therein confirms all the Privileges granted to the Knights of the Cross by his Predecessor Urban, and moreover puts their Wives, Children and Estates under protection 
The Letters of Eugenius III.  of the Churches and Bishops; then he prohibits any Process being issued out in prejudice of the said Knights till they were either Dead or returned from their Voyage. Next, his Will is, that they be paid Interest for the Money they had, Permits them to Mortgage their Estates to the Churches without equity of Redemption; warns them not to be at a needless charge about unprofitable Equipage, but to lay the most part out in Arms, Horses and other Instruments of War. And lastly, he grants them Remission and Absolution of all their Sins, which they shall have Confessed with an humble and contrite Heart.  
By the Second directed to Thibaud, Archbishop of Canterbury, he Commands and Provides that the Bishop of St. David's shall be subject to the See of Canterbury, and likewise requires the two said Bishop's Attendance at Rome the Year following, on St. Luke's day, that he may Judge farther of the matter.  
The Third is Addressed to Hildegarda Abbess of Mont St. Rupert, commending her Spirit of Prophecy, and advising her to preserve by her humility God's Grace granted to her, and moreover, always to make use of Prudence in the unfolding of those Mysteries which God had revealed to her.  
The Fourth and Fifth are against some ecclesiastics of Rome, who followed the Doctrine of Arnaud de Bresse.  
By the Sixth he comforts King Conrade on his ill success in his Expedition to the East.  
The Seventh comprehends the Ceremonies of the Canonization of the Emperor Henry II.  
The Eighth is an answer to the Bishops of Germany, wherein he signifies his dislike of the intended Translation of Guieman Bishop of Naumbourg to the Archbishopric of Magdebourg.  
The Ninth contains a grant of the fourth part of all the Offerings made in the Church of St. Peter, to the Canons of that Church. This is signed by the Pope and several Cardinals.  
The Tenth is another Act to confirm the Rights and Privileges of the Church of Colen. This is likewise Signed by divers Cardinals.  
The Eleventh is a Consolatory Epistle written to Sugerus Abbot of St. Denys upon the Death of his Nephew.  
In the Twelfth written to the same Abbot, he Demands the Names of those French Bishops who had refused to assist him in the defence of the Kingdom, and likewise thanks him for his kind offer of the place which he desired to hold a Council in. He therein also speaks of the Excommunication of the Duke of Lorraine, and of a favour which this Abbot had requested of him for a certain Church.  
The Thirteenth is likewise written to Sugerus: He therein exhorts him to place the Monks of St. Martin's in the Fields, in the Church of St. Genevieve; and accordingly gives the Canons of the said Church notice thereof in the Letter following. But however, having afterwards altered his mind, he order in the Fifteenth the Regular Canons to be received in stead of the Monks, which was speedily obeyed by Sugerus, as he gives his Holiness to understand, and which the Pope approves of by the Sixteenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Letters, all written to Sugerus.  
The Seventeenth is writ to the same, relating to him that had been chosen Bishop of Arras, notwithstanding an Appeal made to the Holy See.  
In the Twenty first, he gives this Abbot to understand that Lewis King of France is returned from the Holy-Land, and Arrived in Sicily.  
In the Twenty Second, he exhorts the said Abbot to govern the Kingdom of France with Fidelity during the King's Absence. And moreover, acquaints him that he has written a Letter to the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of that Kingdom, by which, he Commands them to Excommunicate all those that disturb the public Tranquillity, and likewise Commands the said Abbot to convene the Prelates of the Kingdom to provide whatever shall be necessary for the good of the State.  
The Twenty third is the same mentioned before, written to the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of France.  
The Twenty fourth relates to a particular Affair of two Priests of Meaux accused by Go●●in whose cause he refers to Sugerus.  
By the Twenty fifth, Twenty sixth, and Thirtieth, he also refers to Sugerus the Judgement pronounced against a Priest of the Diocese of Sens who had been deprived of his Benefice by the Archdeacon for having refused to give him such Sums as he demanded.  
By the Twenty seventh, he also refers to the said Abbot the difference between Josselin Canon of Meaux and another Ecclesiastic.  
By the Twenty eighth, he exhorts the same Abbots to redeem the Treasure of St. Genevieve which had been pawned.  
In the Twenty ninth, he speaks to him concerning the Crusade of King Lewis.  
In the Thirty first, he desires him to relieve the Church of St. Medard of Soissons, from which Ives Count of Soissons demanded a great Sum.  
In the Thirty second, he thanks him for his Care of the Churches of the East, and moreover recommends to him the re-establishment of Religion in the Church of Campiegne.  
The Thirty third is Addressed to Stephen King of England, whom he desires not to use the Bishop of London ill, though he had refused to take the Oath of Fidelity to him. He recommends the same matter to Maud Queen of England by the Thirty fourth Letter.  
The following Letters to the Sixtieth, concern the differences which Pontius Abbot of Vezelay had with Count Nevers, and the Bishop of Autun, concerning the Immunities and Privileges of his Abbey. Eugenius III takes this Abbot's part very strongly, and writes in favour of him, to several Princes and Bishops.  
The Sixty first is written to Eberhard Bishop of Bamberg, whom he Commands to retain the Regular Canons Established in the Church of Hildesheim by Gebehard Bishop of Eichstat, and to drive out the Secular Canons which the Archbishop of Mayence had introduced there. He writes about this matter to the said Archbishop in the following Letter.  
The Sixty third is the Title of the Re-Establishment of the Bishopric of Tournay written to the Clergy and People of that City, by which he gives them to understand that he has ordained for their Bishop, Anselm Abbot of St. Vincent of Laon, enjoining them to receive him, and consequently promises to dispense with their Oath of Fidelity which they should have taken to the Bishop of Noyons. By the following Letter he acquaints Lewis VII. King of France with the Re-Establishing of this Bishopric and recommends to him the Person that he had Ordained Bishop of Tournay.  
The Three following Letters are written to Moses Archbishop of Ravenna concerning him that had been Elected Bishop of Placenza, and who ought to have been Consecrated by this Archbishop his Metropolitan.  
In the Sixty eighth he severely, reprimands Samson Archbishop of Rheims for having Crowned the King of France in the City of Bourges to the Prejudice of the Archbishop of that City, whereupon he Order him to restore to the Church of Bourges the Offerings and Gifts which he had received upon that Occasion, Interdicts him the Pallium, and moreover Cites him to Rome together with the other Bishops who had Assisted at that Coronation.  
The Sixty ninth contains his Grant and Confirmation of the Archbishop of Bourges his Primacy over the Provinces of Bourges and Bourdeaux.  
By the following Letter he commands the Bishop of Saints to permit a new Church to be Built at Rochel.  
The Seventy first is a Confirmation of the Constitutions and Privileges and of the Order of White Friars.  
The Seventy Second with the following till you come to the 83 and last, are Addressed to the Bishops of Spain Relating to the Primacy of Toledo.  
There are also three Letters of Eugenius III. wherein he commands the Abbots of St. Po●… ●…d de Grace to present to the Archbishop of Narbonne the Priests which they have a mind to place in Curacies belonging to them, to the End that they might receive their Orders from him and pay him accordingly their First Fruits and Oblations.  
Monsieur Baluze in his TWO Tome of Miscellanies, has given us a Letter of this Pope's written to the Bishops of Reggio and Foro-Julio, whereby he forbids the said Bishops to exact any thing from the Church of Barjole, since it was under protection of the Holy See. He also Excommunicates the Bishops of these Dioceses for having Interred Excommunicated persons in Consecrated Ground.  
There is also a Privilege in favour of the Bishops of the Province of Bourges, whereby Eugenius confirmed the Liberty granted them by the Kings of France, and which had been approved by the Popes, Innocent and Lucius, which was that they might be Elected without being Obliged to do Fealty or Homage to the Papal-Chair.  
To the Letters of these Popes we may here Add those of Anacletus II. the Antipope, which have 
The Letters of Anacletus II. the Antipope.  been lately published by Christianus Lupus, at the End of his Collection of Letters printed at Louvain in the Year 1682. They are in all 38, whereof the most considerable have been written about his Election, which he maintains to have performed according to Custom; and with the Unanimous Consent of the Clergy of Rome. He there Accuses Aimeric Chancellor of the Church of Rome to have been the Cause of his Adversaries being Elected, and of the Troubles which Ensued. These Letters are writ in a good stile, and with some sort of Elegance and Force.    

CHAP. IU.  
The Life of St. Bernard together with his Works.  
SAint Bernard was Born in the Year 1091. at Fontaine a Village of Burgundy whereof his Father, called Jeschelin, was Lord. His Mother, named Alethe Daughter to Count Mont●art, had 
The Life of Bernard:  7 Children, six Boys and one Girl, all which she Educated very discreetly and piously. St. Bernard was very much inclined to Virtue from his Infancy, and took betimes a resolution to retire from the World. He also engaged all his Brothers and several Friends in the same Resolutions, who after they had lived for some time retired in their own houses, in the year 1113. met together and went to Cisteaux, there to enter into a Monastical Life. This Monastery is Situated in the Diocese of Chalons about Five Leagues from Dijon. It had been Built about 15 Years before, in 1098, by Robert Abbot of Molesme who retreated thither with about one and Twenty Monks, who all embraced an Austere and Rigid Life. But in the Year following Robert being Obliged by the Pope's Order to return to Molesme, Alberick Prior of Cisteaux, was made Abbot who dying in 1109. Steven Hardingve became the Third Abbot. He Governed this Monastery, reduced to a small Number of Monks by reason of the Austerity of their Lives, when St. Bernard and 30 of his Companions came into it. This extremely augmented the Zeal of this Order which then began to increase; for the first year after the Abbey of la Tecté, first Daughter of Cisteaux, was founded near la Grone in the Diocese of Chalons. The year following there was another Established at Pontigni four Leagues from Auxerre, and in the year 1115. those of Clairvaux and Morimond were founded in the Diocese of Langres. Abbot Stephen sent St. Bernard and his Brothers to that of Clairvaux. He chose, although he was very Young, to govern this Monastery. He was Consecrated Abbot by William de Champeaux Bishop of Chalons, by reason of the Vacancy of the Episcopal See of Langres. The Reputation of St. Bernard's singular Piety, and the strict Manner of living in his Monastery, drew People from all parts to be Admitted of it. Insomuch that in a little time several Monks went out thence to Establish themselves in other Monasteries where they lived according to the same Rule. That of the Three Fountains was first founded in the Diocese of Chalons in the year 1118. That of Fontenay a little while after in the Diocese of Autun in the Year 1121. Next there was one Established at Foigny in the Diocese of Laon, and that of Igny in the Diocese of Rheims, and Lastly the fourth Offspring of Clairvaux was founded in the year 1127. All these Monasteries had for their first founders the Monks of Clairvaux, who were all Abbots successively. But St. Bernard had a general supervisorship over all the rest. The Learning and Virtues of this Saint were too bright to continue long hid within the Walls of a Cloister, for they quickly rendered him so famous in the Church that nothing of Moment passed there wherein he was not Employed. He was called to the Councils of Troy's and Chalons, held by Matthew Cardinal Bishop of Albani: The first in the year 1128. and the second in 1129. The Schism and Factions which happened in the Church of Rome after the Death of Pope Honorius II. between Innocent and Peter of Leon, gave a great deal of Trouble to St. Bernard who was the principal Defender of Innocent for eight years together. The King of France before he would declare for either of these Competitors assembled a Convocation of his Prelates at Etampes to examine which of the two had the greater Right. To this Assembly St. Bernard was called, and the sole Decision of so important a matter referred to his Judgement. Whereupon he gave his Opinion for Innocent II. and all the Assembly acquiesced in it. This Pope being thus acknowledged by France, posted thither with all imaginable diligence, and St. Bernard waited on him all along during his stay there. He carried him from Orleans to Chartres where he persuaded Henry King of England to Acknowledge him. From thence he followed this Pope into Germany, and was present at the Conference his Holiness had with the Emperor at Liege. He there spoke with a great deal of freedom to this Prince, persuading him to alter his resolutions of requiring the Pope to re-establish Investitures. At his Return from Liege, His Holiness held a Council at Rheims in the year 1131. which when ended he retired to Auxerre, after having Visited Clunie and Clairvaux, which did not go in Procession before him clad in splendid Ornaments, but clothed in Course Cloth, carrying a homely Crucifix and singing leisurely and modestly Hymns and Anthems. The year following St. Bernard accompanied the Pope into Italy, and brought over to him both the Pisantines and Genoeses. At length he came with him to Rome, whence he was not long after sent into Germany, to make Peace between Conrade and Lotharius. Having happily Negotiated this Affair he was recalled to Pisa, whither the Pope was forced to retire a second time. St. Bernard Assisted at the Council which his Holiness held in this City in the Year 1134, after the Conclusion of which the Pope sent him to Milan to reconcile the Milaneze to the Church of Rome. He sent also along with him two Cardinals in quality of Legates, Guy Bishop of Pisa, and Matthew Bishop of Albani, and this to the end that they might purge the City of Milan of the Schism which Anselm a favourer of Peter of Leon had spread there, and bring back all that were strayed from the Church of Rome. St. Bernard took also along with him Geoffrey Bishop of Chartres to Advise with upon occasion. The Milaneze who had long desired St. Bernard should come among them, met him before he came to the City, and received him with all imaginable Respect and Honour, so that by his means the Church of Milan was soon brought over to the Obedience of the See of Rome. After this St. Bernard returned into France, but he was no sooner got there, but he was forced to leave his Monastery to go to Guienne with the Pope's Legate, to reduce the Duke of that Province to the Obedience of the Holy See, and to re-establish the Bishops of Poitiers and Lymoges who had been Expulsed. He Overcame the Obstinacy of this Prince by an Action of surprising Boldness, for when he saw the Duke's resolution, not to restore the Bishop of Poitiers, was inflexible, he went to perform the Divine Office, and as soon as the Consecration was over, he placed the Wafer upon the Chalice, walked out of the Church and with Eyes full of fury and a terrible Mien he accosted the Duke after this manner. Hitherto (Quoth He) We have Prayed and Prayed, and you have still slighted us. Several Servants of God who were present at the Assembly, have Joined their Prayers with ours, yet you have never minded them. Now therefore the Son of God, who is the Lord and Head of that Church which you persecute, is come in Person to See if you will Repent. Here is your Judge at whose name every Knee bends both in Heaven, Earth and Hell. Here is the Just revenger of your Crimes into whose hands this Obstinate Spirit of yours shall one day fall. Will you despise and flout at him? Will you be able, think you, to slight him as you have done us his Servants? Will you. Here the Duke not being able to hear any more, fell down in a Swoon; whereupon St. Bernard took him up and commanded him forthwith to be reconciled to the Bishop of Poitiers, which the poor Astonished Prince immediately condescended to; so that the Bishop was quickly after restored and all Schism abolished in that Province. In the year 1137. he was recalled into Italy by the Pope to quell the remaining Party of Peter of Leon. He went thither and after having brought over several to Pope Innocent's side, he was deputed to Roger Duke of Sicily, who was then the only Prince that continued to support Peter of Leon, there to Defend his Master Innocent against Cardinal Peter of Pisa who was to Oppose him. He entered into a Conference with this Cardinal, and soon made him change his Opinion and Party. After Peter of Leon's Death, the Person that was intended to succeed him in his Attempt, came to beg of St. Bernard that he would Intercede to Pope Innocent for his Pardon. Peace by these means being restored to the Church of Rome, and Schism entirely extirpated, St. Bernard returned to his Monastery of Clairvaux, and after his arrival sent the Pope some of his Monks to Inhabit the Monastery of St. Anastasius newly rebuilt. One of these called Bernard, formerly Official of the Church of Pisa, was chosen for their Abbot, who afterwards came to be Pope under the name of Eugenius III. after the Death of Celestine and Lucius, successors to Innocent II. bot● who lived no long time. It was about this time that St. Bernard disputed with Abaëlard, a Famous Philosopher of the University of Paris, at the Council of Sens in the year 1140. He had often sent to him privately to correct his Errors, maintained in his Books, but this Obstinate Author neglecting so to do, and Appealing to the Archbishop of Sens, St. Bernard was sent to the Council held there, whither he went though against his will▪ Abaëlard not daring to support his Errors, Appealed to the Pope, but his Doctrine being condemned by this Council, he retired to Clunie; where after having renounced his sentiments, he Died in the Communion of the Church of Rome. Under the Pontificate of Eugenius III. St. Bernard was desired to Preach up the Crusade, at the Request of Lewis the Younger, who had thoughts in his Head to undertake a Voyage into the Holy-Land. St. Bernard acquitted himself in his Duty with so much zeal, that great numbers of people resolved to accompany Lewis in that Expedition. He was present at three Councils, held in the Year 1147. at Etampes, Auxerre, and Paris. The same Year he was sent into Aquitaine, by Alberic Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, to Combat the Heresies which Henry had promulged there. He quickly confounded them, as well by his Preaching as a great many Miracles which he performed. In the Year 1148. Gillebert of la Porrée, Bishop of Poitiers, being Convinced by St. Bernard at the Council held at Rheims, retracted his Errors, and came over to the Church. At length, St. Bernard having been chosen towards the end of his days, to be Mediator between the people of Mentz and some Neighbouring Princes, after having happily and Prudently concluded all differences between them▪ on his return, he fell Sick of a weakness in his Stomach, and Died the 20th of August, in the Year 1153. He left near 160 Monasteries of his Order, Founded by his Care. Divers Churches desired to have him for their Bishop: Those of Langres and Chalons Courted him excessively; and those of Genoa and Milan offered him their Archbishoprics. And lastly, Rheims earnestly requested him for its Pastor, but notwithstanding all these Solicitations, he persevered in his Resolutions never to be Advanced to the Episcopacy.  
St. Bernard, did not o●ly render himself worthy of Esteem by the Piety of his Life, and his many Illustrious Actions. His Works also speak high in his behalf; in which, he discovers as much Wit and Elegancy, as Knowledge and Piety. We shall proceed to give an exact History and Abridgement of them, as we find them ranked in the last Edition, Published not long since by Father Mabillon. The First Volume, Contains all his true Works, and gins with the Letters which Compose the first Tome.  
The First Letter was written to his Son Robert, to exhort him to return to the Monastery of Clairvaux, 
The Letters of St. Bernard.  which he had left for that of Clunie. The Author of St. Bernard's Life, says, that this Letter was dictated to William, who was afterwards Abbot of Riévaux, in the middle of a Field while it Reigned hard, yet the Paper was never wet. This Letter is full of Professions of Love and Charity towards his Son, which shows, how extremely St. Bernard was grieved at his Absence. I have long and impatiently expected (says he,) My Dear Son Robert, That God in his Mercy would please to touch thy Heart, and mine at the same time, inspiring thee with a hearty Compunction, and giving me the Pleasure of seeing thy Conversion: But having hitherto been all along frustrated in my hopes, I can no longer conceal my Grief, contain my Sorrow, nor dissemble my Sadness. 'Tis that which obliges me, contrary to the Order that ought to be observed, to call home him who has Offended me; To Court one that has slighted me; To give satisfaction to one that has Affronted me; and in a word, to Beg of him that ought to Petition me. For when a Man is once touched with extreme concern, He deliberates not, ●as no Shame, Consults not his Reason, Thinks not of abasing himself, observes no measure, and his Soul is entirely employed in the search or recovery of what he has lost or desires. You will tell me perhaps that you have never Offended nor Slighted me, but that it was I only that have abused you, and that you left me but to avoid the ill Usage which I made you undergo. I grant it: You had reason, but let us talk no more of what is past, nor inquire into the cause of it; the present time only demands our Consideration. Let me consider then what makes me unhappy, what so discomposes me? Is it not because I have thee no more, because I see thee no more, and because I live altogether without thee, who art only able to give me Life? I ask not why you went away, but I hearty Grieve that you are not returned. Come but a little and I shall be at quiet. I own it was my fault that you left me; I was perhaps too rigid towards a young tender Youth, and dealt perhaps too hardly by thee, yet still it may be I could excuse myself and say that the follies of unexperienced Youth ought to be suppressed by a severe Discipline, and our first Years should be corrected by the severest Test of Reason: But I will not insist upon this; I will as I said before, take all upon myself; I only am in the wrong; Pardon me, for I confess it; I will never do the like again: You shall find me quite another Man: Return only and have no more fear of any thing. Others now might lay your Crime home to you; Fright you into thoughts of Gild; lay the Content● of your Vow before you; Threaten you with God's Judgements; Condemn your Disobedience, and accuse you of Apostasy; but I had rather bring you over by fair means, and reclaim you with kind Words. St. Bernard next describes after what manner Robert had been seduced to Clunie, and how he had been led away by the Conversation which a Prior, who was sent by the Abbot of Clunie, had with him. This Preacher of the New Gospel, (says he,) I suppose, cried up good Cheer, and Condemned Self-denial and Parsimony; and told him, I imagine, that voluntary Poverty was a real Misery, and Fasts, Watch, Prayer, and Labour a mere Folly. To Idleness, it may be, he gave the Title of Contemplation, and that of Discretion to Gormandizing, Babbling, and Niceness. Perhaps he demanded of him if God could ever be Pleased with tormenting us; Or, if the Scripture Commanded us any where to Murder ourselves? What Religion there could be in digging of Ground, Cutting of Wood, Carrying of Dung, or the like? Who was the Wise Man, he that hated his own Flesh, or he that cherished it? This poor Youth might easily be seduced ●y such insinuating Discourse, and consequently is led to Clunie, where they Shave his Head, Wash his Bedy, Tear off his course and homely Habits, and put on such as were New and more Costly. Next is he led in 
The Letters of St. Bernard.  Triumph about the Monastery; every Body Commends him, and Congratulates his coming among them; and, in a Word, he is soon placed above those of a longer standing. But however, they think sit to send to Rome to have what they do Authorized by the Holy See, and that the Pope may the better yield to their Request, they pretend that being a Child he was offered by his Parents to their Monastery. No body was then at Rome that could refute this Reason, and therefore his Holiness has passed his Judgement in favour of the present, to the prejudice of the absent; by a Privilege too severe he has confirmed an Absolution too easy; and, in a Word, has forced my Son to take up a new Profession and make new Vows. From this allowance of the Pope's, St. Bernard Appeals to the Determination of God, and the Tribunal of Christ, and demands which ought to prevail most, the Vows of a Father for his Son, or those of a Son made for himself, principally when he has entered into a Vow of any great importance. For it is certain, that Robert had never been any otherwise than promised, and never had been given to the Monastery of Clunie, since his Parents had not required them to receive him, and he had not been offered in the presence of Witnesses, neither had his Head been covered with the Pallium of the Altar. They likewise gave out that there was a Portion given with him to their Monastery. But (Quoth St. Bernard) If they had a Portion with him, why do they not think themselves obliged to keep him as well as the Portion? Is it because they have greater regard to the Money than the Person, and love the Pence better than the Soul? If he has been offered to the Monastery, why do they suffer him to live at large in the World, for it is from the World and not from Clunie that you came, Robert, to Cisteaux? You have earnestly entreated and begged to be received into that Brotherhood, but notwithstanding, they delayed two Years before they would admit you, yet at length you got in, and after having been a Year Probationer, you became Professed, and quitted the Secular Habit for the Regular. It is here that St. Bernard severely reproaches him for the breach of his Vows, and for his Ingratitude, and that in making him sensible of the care and pains he had been at in his Education. Afterwards in terms the most moving imaginable, he expresses the Agonies he has endured by his Absence. He gives him moreover to understand, that a Lazy and Luxurious Life, which they all lead in the Order of Clunie, is very dangerous to his Salvation, and likewise exhorts him to do his best endeavours to be in a Condition to observe Abstinence, Watching, Fasts, Silence, Labour and other Austerities, practised in Clairvaux, and all which the Life he leads in Clunie, will very much disuse him from. This Letter was writ in the Year 1119.  
In the Second he Reproves Fulcus a Regular Canon inasmuch that having accepted of the Deanery of Langres at his Uncle's request, he thereupon quitted his Cloister for a secular Life. Although St. Bernard had no positive Authority over this young Man, yet his Zeal obliged him to rally him severely, and openly to blame the Conduct of his Uncle. He endeavours to convince him, that to convers with the World is dangerous, and therefore the best way to be saved were to avoid that. At length he Admonishes him to return to his Cell, and promises he will put up his petitions to God on his behalf. In this Letter there is an Elegant Passage relating to the use of church-good. You may imagine (says he) that what belongs to the Church belongs to you while you Officiate there. But you are mistaken, for tho' it be reasonable that one that Labours at the Altar should live by the Altar, yet must it not be either to promote his Luxury or Pride. In a word whatever extends beyond bare Nourishing, and simple, plain Clothing is Sacrilege and Rapine. This Letter was writ in the year 1120.  
In the Third, directed to the Canons of Audicour, in the Diocese of Chalons, after having rejected, with a great deal of Humility, the commendations which they gave him, he acquaints them that he has received, with permission of the Bishop of Chalons, some Regular Canons into his Monastery who had a mind to embrace a Monastic Life.  
The Fourth was written about the year 1125. to Arnold Abbot of Morimond about his having quitted his Monastety with six of his Brothers without leave, first Obtained from the Abbot of Cisteaux. He had acquainted St. Bernard with what he had done, and begged of him not so much as to mention his return to his Monastery. This Letter S. Bernard answers, and tells him that it is not in his power to forbear Advising him to return, and moreover acquaints him that if he had known where to have met him, he would have run into his Arms, thrown himself at his feet, Begged, Conjured and Endeavoured both by Tears and Words to have reclaimed him: But since he had thought fit to deprive him of that pleasure, he earnestly entreats him to hearken to an Absent Friend, that is sorry for his Crime, and cordially concerned at his Peril. He likewise shows him that it is to be feared that his fall may draw others into the same snare, and therefore tho' he has little regard to himself yet ought he to take care of those he has the Charge of. He conjures him to think how much he Exposes both them and himself, and lastly he Adds that for his part he cannot think he did well to leave his Convent even on a worldly Account, because he did it without the Consent of his Brothers; the Monks, the rest of the Abbots, and without the Permission of his Superior.  
That which follows is Addressed to Adam one of the Monks that went away with Abbot Arnold. He Reproaches him for his Inconstancy and Fickleness.  
In the Sixth he entreats Brunon, who was afterwards Archbishop of Colen to do all in his power to cause some of these straggling Monks of Morimond that lurked about in his Diocese, to Return to their Colyster.  
Arnold being dead, St. Bernard reinforced his Request to Adam, that since his Abbot was dead and he consequently discharged of his Obedience, he might make no difficulty to return. And farther upon this Abbot's having commanded his Monks to follow him, St. Bernard examines into these cases how far Superiors are to be Obeyed. He lays down for an Unquestionable Maxim that they are not to be Obeyed when they command any thing that is ill, because in that case they cannot be complied with without displeasing God. Afterwards he proceeds to reckon up three sorts of things that may be commanded: 1. Absolutely Good, 2. Absolutely bad, and 3. Indifferent, which may be either good or bad according to the several Circumstances and Persons. He observes that the Law of Obedience 
The Letters of St. Bernard.  which relates to men, has regard only to the last of the three for the first may not be Omitted tho' any body commands it. Nor the second permitted tho' a Superior would have it so, but in the third and last a Superiors Pleasure is to be preferred to our own will, and we are to Obey equally what they Command or forbid. Moreover he urges that what had been commanded him by his Abbot to quit his Monastery and go along with him, was among the Number of those things which are forbidden by God, and that even the Pope himself could not have given him permission to have done it, for that the Dispensation which he had Obtained was a frivolous Remedy that served rather to palliate a Diseased Conscience than cure it. We have (say They) Asked leave of the Holy See, and we have obtained it; but would to God (says Saint Bernard) * that you had not Asked Leave but rather demanded Counsel; that would have been more for your Good and my satisfaction. But again, why did you Ask this Leave? Was it not because you had a mind to do what you ought not? Now what you ought not to do is ill when done, and you it seems have got a Permission to do so. You will say perhaps that what you Asked was only ill where leave had not been Obtained, but being once permitted it ceased any longer to be so. But I have already shown that your Petition was not of this kind, but a Public Scandal forbidden by the Law of God; so that this Action of yours was not less unblamable by being allowed of by the Pope, who I'm confident would never have consented to your Demands, had he not been either deceived or forced by Importunity: After having shown farther by several Arguments, that it was in vain for this Monk to pretend to Excuse himself on pretence of Obedience to, and Command of his Abbot, he remarks that two things are principally to be observed in Monasteries; which are Obedience to their Abbot, and Continuance in the same Place. Here You may Ask me perhaps (says he) how I can reconcile that with the continuance which I vowed to Cisteaux? I Answer that in truth I was Professed at Cisteaux, but that I was sent by my Abbot to the Place where I now reside, without Discord and Scandal, pursuant both to Order and Custom. There is also another Objection raised against me. If I condemn (say They) those that have left their Monasteries by the Command of the Abbot, how comes it to pass that I have received and retained such as have done so? The Answer to this is easy, tho' I do not know whether it will please every body. I receive them (continued he) because I cannot think it a Crime to Assist them to Observe their Vows in one Place which they could not do in another, and so to recompense the Omission of Residence by a strict Performance of all the Other Precepts of a Monastic Life. But why, says one to me, do you condemn all those that do not live in every particular like yourself? No; I do not do so, I know there are many Holy Men that do not live after the same manner with me; I only give a reason why I receive those that desire it of me without blaming those that don't desire it. Excuse the one without Accusing the Other. The Envious only I cannot nor will not Excuse. In respect to others, if there be any that design to practise a Monastic Life in its Purity, but dare not for fear of Scandal, or cannot by reason of some Infirmity, I do not believe they commit any Sin, providing they live soberly, justly, and devoutly in the place where they are; and if they are sometimes Obliged to live a little more loosely than our Rules prescribe, they may be Excused either by Charity that covers a Multitude of faults; or Humility, which makes them sensible of their own Weakness and Imperfection.  
The Eighth Letter of St. Bernard is written to Brunon Archbishop of Colen, who had demanded of him, If he might accept that Archbishopric. To which he Answers That no Mortal Man ought to resolve that Question; because if God calls one to it no body ought to dissuade one from it, and if God does not call one to it no body ought to Advise one to Accept it, for the Holy-Ghost alone is able to determine who is called and who not; that what troubles him more than this is that he made a confession of his Sins to him, but he fears, has not sufficiently repent of them; so that when he considers that he has been called from the State of a sinner to that of a most Reverend Minister without Repenting, he hopes he will beg of God a speedy Commiseration and Forgiveness; but yet there is a great deal of difference between Meriting Pardon for Sins, and being advanced all of a sudden to so great a Dignity, that it is true St. Matthew was called to the Apostle-ship even in the very Act of his Profession, but nevertheless he thought it Advisable to repent hearty before he Accepted of his Mission. St. Ambrose also was raised from a Profession of the Law to that of the Gospel, but he had all along led an Innocent and Inoffensive Life. That the Conversion of St. Paul likewise is a Miracle which cannot be paralleled. But in fine he says that in this Case he can give no other Answer than that he will pray God to Manifest his pleasure, and that if he doubts of any thing more, he may consult Norbert who being a great Scholar, and always with him may be able to give him due Satisfaction.  
Brunon at last resolves to Accept the Archbishopric of Colen; which St. Bernard having Understood, he writ him the two following Letters by which he exhorts him to do his Duty, and acquit himself in all things as he ought to do. These Letters were writ about the year 1132.  
The Eleventh Letter is written to Guigue Prior of the Great Charter-House and to his Monks. He therein Discourses upon Charity and its Effects with its several kinds, and Lastly Asserts that it can have no perfection in this Life.  
In the Twelfth writ to the same, he desires their Prayers.  
By the Thirteenth he requests of Pope Honorius II. a Confirmation of the Election of Alberic to the Bishopric of Chalons. This Alberic was Native of Rheims, a fellow-Disciple with Abaëlard, and a learned Divine. He was Elected Bishop of Chalons in the year 1126. after the death of Ebalus, but he was never Ordained nor Inducted into this Bishopric. He was Translated in the year 1139 to the Archbishopric of Bourges. This Letter of St. Bernard's was written soon after the Election of Alberic to the Bishopric of Chalons. This is the first which he wrote to Pope Honorius TWO, and yet he did not put his name to it, but subscribed himself a Poor Monk and great Sinner.  
In the Fourteenth he recommends to the same Pope an Affair of the Church of Dijon.  
He recommends also the same thing in the two following Letters, to the Cardinal's Haimeric and Peter.  
In the Seventeenth he excuses himself to the last of these Cardinals, that he did not come to wait on 
The Letters of St. Bernard.  him, because he had made a Resolution never to stir out of his Monastery. He moreover writ to him, that he knew not what his Eminence meant by the Books he speaks off, and that he knows not what he had ever writ, which could in the least be worthy of his judicious perusal. That some of his Monks indeed might probably have copied what they heard him speak, and that he believed Gebuin the Chanter and Archdeacon of Troy's might likely have a Copy by him; but for his own part, he had none to his knowledge; yet if he ever found any, or writ any thing for the future, which he thought might be agreeable to him, he would certainly send it.  
In the following Letter addressed to the same, he enlarges upon the vanity of Humane Praise, and the Esteem which Men have of us. I am proud, (says he) of the good Character you have honoured me with, but my Pride is extremely diminished, when I consider that it is not my Actions, but the Opinion which others have of me, that has procured me this Esteem. I am ashamed to be so puffed up, when I perceive that I am not so much Loved and Honoured for what I am, or for what I am thought to be; for it is not I that am so well beloved, but a certain Je ne scay quoy which is supposed to be in me, and perhaps is not. He shows afterwards that there is nothing in any Creature which deserves perfectly to be Loved, and Commended, nevertheless (says he) there is an universal Vanity scattered amongst the Generation of Men, which makes all covet to be praised, although they are never so blame-worthy. All Commendation bestowed on us is Flattery, and the Joy we conceive thereupon a fruitless vanity. They that let themselves be Commended are most commonly vain Fools, and such as Commend themselves for the most part are impudent Liars. Towards the end of this Letter, he promises to send him some of his Works. These Letters are thought to have been written about the Year 1127.  
The Two next Letters, are likewise writ to the same Cardinals. He Recommends to them an Affair of the Church of Rheims.  
The Twenty First is directed to Matthew, the Pope's Legate in France. In it he excuses himself for not being able to wait on him, by reason of his illness; as also complains of being solicited to come out of his Cloister to embroil himself with the Affairs of the World. This Letter was written some short time before the Council of Troy's, which was held in the Year 1128.  
In the Twenty second, he recommends to Humbaud Archbishop of Lions, an Affair belonging to the Bishop of Meaux.  
In the Twenty Third, he Commends Atton Bishop of Troy's, for having distributed all he had among the Poor, when he once lay sick. Most commonly, (says he,) Wills are not wont to be Executed till after our Deaths, and consequently we then give what we are no longer able to enjoy, but this Person being between the hopes of Life and Fear of Death, gave away all his Goods to the Poor, to the end that his Charity might subsist Eternally, even in despite of his Fate. He afterwards rejoices that this Bishop recovered from his Disease. These Two last Letters were written about the Year 1128.  
In the Twenty Fourth, he Commends Gilbert Bishop of London, for living Poor whilst he enjoyed so considerable a Benefice. It is no great wonder (says he,) That Gilbert is a Bishop, but it is somewhat extraordinary that a Bishop of London should live so meanly. The exalted Dignity of his Episcopacy could not augment the Glory of so great a Man, when his humble Poverty has not a little advanced him. To undergo want patiently is the effect of an ordinary Virtue, but to court it voluntarily is the Sign of a great Soul.  
In the Twenty Fifth, he exhorts Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen, to Patience, and to temper his Zeal by Charity. A Bishop, (says he,) must not only be Patient, that he may not be overcome by Evil, but he must be also a Peacemaker, to surmount the Evil with Good, insomuch, that he ought to support even the Wicked, and Reform them that he supports. Be you therefore Patiented, because you are amongst Wicked Men, and a Peacemaker, that you may be able to govern ill-doers. Let your Charity be full of Zeal, but let your severity be tempered with Reason.  
The Twenty Sixth is a Letter to Guy Bishop of Lausane, which Comprehends in few Words the necessary Qualifications and Virtues required in a Bishop. You have (says he to him,) undertaken a difficult Task, you need therefore to have force to go through it: You have took upon you to watch over Israel, you ought to have a great deal of Prudence. You expose yourself both to Fools and Wise Men, therefore Justice is likewise necessary, and, in a word, you will have occasion for Temperance to moderate your Passion upon the greatest Provocations.  
The Twenty Seventh and Twenty Eighth, contain much the like instructions to Arduition Bishop of Geneva.  
In the Twenty Ninth, he congratulates Stephen, Bishop of Mets, upon the Peace restored to his Church.  
In the Thirtieth he exhorts Alberon of Mets to wait patiently for the execution of an affair which he was treating about with his Bishop. These two Letters were written after the Year 1126.  
In the Thirty First he congratulates Hugh Count of Champagne, on his being made a Knight of Jerusalem (of the Cross.) This Count was the first founder of the Abbey of Clairvaux, which occasions St. Bernard to say that he can never forget the great Friendship he has for him, on account of his Noble Beneficence to his Monastery.  
The Thirty Second is addressed to Joran Abbot of St. Nicaise of Rheims, who complained that the Order of Cisteaux had received into their Fraternity, one of his Monks called Dreux. St. Bernard gives him to understand, that he does not approve of such a Proceeding, and that if that Monk had asked his Advice, he should not have counselled him to such an Action, and that he would not have received him himself, had he been Abbot of that Monastery. He likewise acquaints Joran that he partakes of his Concern, and would assist him to his Power; but that he was able to do nothing more, than to write to the Abbot of Cisteaux to restore the said Monk. He moreover counsels him not to take that matter so much to Heart, but to submit freely to the good pleasure of God, and suppress his just Indignation 
The Letters of St. Bernard.  by the example of a certain Saint, who being solicited to look after a strayed Monk, answered, I shall not do it; for if he be a good Christian, wherever he be he is still mine. St. Bernard adds further, that he himself had made use of the Counsel which he gave; for that having had a near Relation received by the Monastery of Clunie against his Will, though he is sensibly grieved for his Loss, yet is he resolved to rest satisfied, praying both for the Monks that they would restore him, and for the Person himself, that God would give him Grace to return. This shows plainly, that this Letter was written before Robert's return, about the Year 1120.  
Although St. Bernard had thus written to the Abbot of St. Nicaise, nevertheless, his Opinion was not that this Monk was obliged to return to his Cloister, therefore having written before to Hugh, Abbot of Pontigni, that had received this Monk, that he thought him obliged to restore him, he was forced to write a second letter to undeceive him, whereby he signified that it was never his Intention to advise him to give up this Monk, but that on the contrary, he commended what he had done, and likewise congratulated him in it. But having been powerfully solicited by the Archbishop of Rheims, and by an Abbot, who was one of that Monk's Friends, he could not prevent writing that Letter and requesting what he feared should come to pass. He believed at the same time that he had given some umbrage of his meaning by writing at the end of his Letter, that if he chose rather to suffer Displeasure, than to release this Monk, he might do as he pleased, but that for his part, he would have no manner of hand in it. In fine, he tells him, that he did him a great deal of wrong, to suspect that he had a mind to seduce this Monk to his own Monastery.  
In the Thirty Fourth, he congratulates this Monk on the Resolution he had taken, and exhorts him to persevere in it.  
The Thirty Fifth is addressed to Hugh Farsite, Abbot of St. John of Chartres, whom he desires to recommend the cause of Humbert, to the Count of Chartres. He withal assures him, that he has not burnt the Letter which he sent him, although there were strange Notions in it concerning the Sacraments.  
Hereupon this Abbot wrote him an Answer to this effect, That he had forgot that he had given him any cause of Concern, but having sent him a right Orthodox Confession of Faith, St. Bernard makes known to him by the Thirty Sixth Letter, that he esteemed him a very good Catholic, and that he verily believes he gave wrong Sentiments of his Mind. He counsels him moreover, not to injure the Memory of a Holy Bishop, with whom he never had any difference whilst he lived.  
In the Thirty Seventh, Thirty Eighth, Thirty Ninth, Forty and Forty First, St. Bernard recommends several things to Thibaud Count of Champagne.  
The Forty Second written to Henry Archbishop of Sens, is to be found among St. Bernard's Opuscula.  
In the Forty Third and Forty Fourth, he desires that Archbishop to do Justice to the Abbey of Molesme, concerning what he claimed from the Church of Sevan, which belonged to that Abbey.  
The Forty Fifth Letter is written in the name of the Abbot, and the whole Order of Cisteaux to Lewis the Gross, King of France, concerning his persecuting of Stephen, Bishop of Paris. He makes them speak to this King with a great deal of freedom, and declare that if His Majesty did not think fit to do Justice to this Bishop, they would assuredly write to the Pope about it.  
This King not having made satisfaction to the Bishop of Pari● The Archbishop pronounced a Suspension against him, but the King having afterwards humbled himself to Pope Honorius II. procured it to be taken off, which obliged Hugh Abbot of Pontigni, and St. Bernard, to write the Forty Sixth Letter to this Pope, signifying to him, that they were surprised that his Holiness would suffer that Suspension to be taken off, when if it had been continued, the King would certainly have done that Bishop Justice, and this because the Constancy and Courage of the Prelates of that Nation had considerably wrought upon the Temper of that Prince.  
St. Bernard, caused also the same thing to be written to the Pope, by Geoffrey Bishop of Chartres, in whose Name the Forty Seventh Letter was writ. He Acquaints his Holiness that the King having been frighted with the Interdict, had promised to restore to the said Bishop of Paris, all that he had taken from him, but that since he had obtained Absolution, he refused to perform his Promise.  
In the Forty Eighth, he justifies himself to Haimeric, Chancellor of the Holy See, concerning the Accusations which had been made against him. He desires to know if they are grounded on the Bishopric of Verdun, being taken from a Person that was unworthy to enjoy it, or upon Fulbert Abbot of the Holy Sepulchre, at Cambray's being forced to yield his Place to Porvin, or by reason that at Laon a place of Debauchery was become one of Devotion, by driving out of the Monastery of St. John Monks which led an Irregular lewd Life, and by putting those of St. Nicaise in their room. He says, if these things are laid to his Charge, he takes it for an Honour, but that to his great Grief he was not the Author of them, and by consequence could neither deserve the Merit nor the Blame. He adds, that the Bishop of Albani was the occastion of the First, the Archbishop of Rheims of the Second, and the Third ought to be Attributed to the same Archbishop, in Conjunction with the Bishop of Laon. All that is to be found fault with in him, he says, is, that he was present when these matters were transacted, when he ought to have been shut up in his Cloister, and not to have meddled in the Affairs of the World. He owns he was there present. But, (says he,) It was because I was Summoned and forced thither, which if it be displeasing to my Friends, it is less pleasant to me, and would to God I had never gone to any of these sorts of Assemblies. He then earnestly entreats the Chancellor, That since his Endeavours have been esteemed unacceptable, he might for the future never be Ordered out of his Monastery. Let these Clamorous and Troublesome Frogs (says he,) for the future be confined to their Marshes; Let them no more be heard in Councils, nor seen any more at Court: and let neither Necessity nor Authority drag them out of their Solitude. It may be by these means your Friend may avoid the suspicions of being thought bold. For my part I am resolved henceforward never to stir abroad unless it be about the Affairs of the Order, and that too only upon Command of the Pope's Legate or my Bishop.— If by your means I can obtain the favour to go no more out of my Cell upon any account whatever, I shall be at rest, and envy no body. But although I am permitted to remain in silence, yet I cannot believe that the Church will ever be at quiet as long as the Court of Rome persists to prejudice the absent, by obliging and humouring the present. This Letter was writ in the Year 1130.  
The Forty Ninth and Fiftieth, are Addressed to Pope Honorius II. in the Name of the Abbots of Cisteaux, Pontigni, and Clairvaux, in favour of the Archbishop of Sens, persecuted by King Lewis the Gross. They beg of his Holiness to permit this Archbishop to have recourse to the Holy See for Justice.  
In the Fifty First, he recommends the same Affair to Haimeric, Chancellor of the Church of Rome.  
In the Fifty Second, Addressed to the same, he says, That the Bishop of Chartres was in the right not to undertake the Voyage to the Holy-Land. He moreover begs of this Chancellor to use his Interest to the Pope that he may be employed no more abroad.  
The Two following are Letters of Recommendation, Addressed to Haimeric. These Six Letters were writ about the Year 1127.  
In the Fifty Fifth directed to Geoffrey, Bishop of Chartres, he prays that Bishop to receive again a Recluse Monk, who had repent of leaving his Cell.  
In the Fifty Sixth, he acquaints the same Bishop that he does not know whether Norbert will go to Jerusalem or no. He says, he is not of the Opinion of that Holy- Man, who Affirmed that Antichrist would certainly come before the Century he Lived in was expired, and that he should not die before he had seen a general Persecution in the Church. He also recommends to the Bishop of Chartres the Affair of Humbert.  
In the Fifty Seventh writ to the same Bishop, he says, that a Vow made to go to Jerusalem ought not to hinder a Man from being received to make a better Vow.  
In the Fifty Eighth writ to Ebalus, Bishop of Chalons, he recommends to him to admit for Prior of the Regular Canons of his City, him whom the said Canons had chosen, being a good and Religious Person; or if they would not do so he proposed to them another of a Regular and virtuous Life, and not such a one as they would have to favour their Libertinism.  
In the Fifty Ninth, he advises Guilencus Bishop of Langres to deliver up to the Church of St. Stephen of Dijon, some Goods fell to them by the Death of the Archdeacon Garnier.  
In the Sixtieth Addressed to the same Bishop, he Recommends to him the Care of the Church of Molesme.  
By the Sixty First, he sends a Penitent that had Addressed himself to him, to Ricuin Bishop of Toul, he being not used to enjoin Penance to any but such as were under his Care. For (says he;) would it not be an unpardonable rashness in us to intermeddle with the Affairs of Bishops, when we ourselves have recourse to them in matters of great difficulty. Ricuin Died in 1128. so that this Letter must necessarily precede that Year.  
In the Sixty Second, he desires Henry Bishop of Verdun, to receive a Penitent that had Addressed himself to him.  
In the Sixty Third, he assures this Bishop that he has never uttered any thing to his Prejudice. This Henry is he whom St. Bernard persuades to lay down his Bishopric, and which is mentioned in the Forty Eighth Letter.  
The Sixty Fourth is written to Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln, whose Consent he asks to permit a certain Clerk of his named Philip, who had left his Cloister, with design to Travel to Jerusalem, to remain a Monk in his Monastery of Cldirvaux, and he farther desires him to pay the said Monk's Debts out of the Revenues of his Prebend.  
In the Sixty Fifth written to Aloisus, Abbot of Anchin, in Flanders, he Commends him for being so much concerned at the Death of a Monk of his called Godwin, who Died in his Monastery of Clairvaux. He also excuses himself for having received him.  
In the Sixty Sixth, he entreats Geoffrey Abbot of St. Medard of Soissons to make peace with Aloisus.  
In the Sixty Seventh, he excuses himself to the Monks of St. Germer de Flay, for having received one of their Fraternity into his Monastery. He tells them that he never heard any thing of them but very lately; That this Monk came to him after he had been an Hermit above Seven Months, and that he had several times refused to admit him. Also having asked him why he would not return to his Cloister, that he had answered; his Abbot would not have him only in quality of a Monk, but also obliged him to serve as Physician. But at length being over-persuaded by his importunities that he had received him; and as he had not forced him to come into his Monastery, so he would not oblige him to go out of it.  
These Monks being not well satisfied with this Answer, and having writ again to St. Bernard, to this effect; That he did not do well to receive one of their Monks whom they had Excommunicated. He Answers by the following Letter, That if they have Excommunicated him, he understands it was since he admitted him, which was not likewise well done on their part. And since they accused this Monk for a Vagabond that could never rest in a place, and who was always disobedient to his Abbot, they ought to rejoice on account of his Conversion, and in regard that he lived now in a Monastery where he should perform the strictest Vows. These two Letters are thought to have been written about the Year 1125.  
In the Sixty Ninth, he Comforts Guy Abbot of the Three-Fountains, who was extremely concerned in that being about to Celebrate Mass he happened to Consecrate a Chalice, in which, there had been nothing but water put, through carelessness, because this Crime was rather the effect of Inadvertency and Negligence than a Design. He nevertheless enjoins him and the Person that served them 〈◊〉 Altar the Penance of repeating till Easter the Seven Penitential Psalms, as likewise to receiv●… 〈◊〉 lashes of a Scourge each day. He approves of what he did when he saw there was no Wine in the Chalice, which was to pour a little Wine upon part of the Consecrated Host; because though it was not transmuted by a proper and Solemn Consecration into the Blood of Christ, it was nevertheless become Sacred by the bare contact of his Body. He adds moreover, That there is a certain Writer who maintains that the Sacrifice cannot be Valid, unless there be both Wine, Bread, and Water, in a manner, that if there be but one of these wanting the rest signify nothing. He says likewise, That in this case every one may do as he pleases, but for his part, if any such Accident should happen to him, he would do the same thing with him to whom he writes, or would begin Mass with these Words. Simili modo postquam coenatum est, etc. and would finish the rest of the Sacrifice, not in the least doubting but that the Bread was Consecrated separately.  
In the Seventieth, he Counsels the same Abbot to treat one of his Monks more kindly, and to revoke the several rigorous Judgements he had passed against him.  
In the Seventy First Addressed to the Monks of this Abbey, he acquaints them that he has not yet had an opportunity to make them a visit, and moreover Condoles them upon the Death of the Abbot Roger.  
The Seventy Second is written to Rainaud Abbot of Foigni's. He writes to him concerning the Title of Father, which this Abbot had given him, and refuses to accept of any other but Brother.  
In the Seventy Third and Seventy Fourth, he comforts and fortifies this Abbot who had been melancholy and seemed dissatifyed with his having been elevated to this Dignity.  
In the Seventy Fifth, he dissuades Artaud Abbot of Prully from sending any of his Monks to found a Monastery in Spain.  
In the Seventy Sixth, he Counsels the Abbot of the Regular Canons of St. Pierre-Mont, in the Diocese of Toul, to exert all their force in reclaiming one of their Monks who had strayed into the World, and was there married.  
The Seventy Seventh is the 14th of the Opuscul●.  
In the Seventy Eighth, he Congratulates Sugerus Abbot of St. Denys, for having made a reformation in his Monastery, and quitted the exterior Pride which was in it before. He likewise Commends him for having taken so Pious a Resolution. Towards the end of this Letter, he exclaims against Stėphen de Guarlande Deacon, who was then Steward of the King's Household, bore Arms, and enjoyed divers Benefices. This Letter was writ in the Year 1127.  
The Seventy Ninth was written to Luke Abbot of Cousy of the Order of Austin-Friars, in the Diocese of Laon. Whom he advises to send a certain Friar of his who had committed the Sin of the Flesh, to some place far distant from his Cloister, where he might do Penance.  
In the Eightieth, he Comforts Guy, Abbot of Molesm, upon a certain Injury done him; and moreover, exhorts him not to think of Revenge upon that occasion, but to Pardon freely him that did him the wrong.  
By the Eighty First, he assures Gerard, Abbot of Poitiers, in the Diocese of Langres, That he never writ any thing to the Count of Nevers in his prejudice, but only for his Church's Benefit, that it might continue in Peace.  
In the Eighty Second he dissuades Stephen Abbot of St. John of Chartres, from quitting his Monastery to go on Pilgrimage to Jerusale●…  
In the Eighty Third he comforts Simon Abbot of St. Nicholas of the Woods in the Diocese of Laon, about the Persecution which he suffered on account of his Monks. We understand by the Letters of Samson Archbishop of Rheims, and Josselin Bishop of Soissons, to Pope Innocent II. that these Monks were dissatisfied with their Abbot by reason that he had restored to the Church of Arras some Curacy which they were in Possession of.  
By the following Letter written to the same Abbot, he entreats him to receive and use kindly a certain Monk which he sends him.  
The Eighty Fifth Addressed to William Abbot of St. Thierry, is a Christian and Spiritual Compliment to serve for Answer to an Obliging Complaint which this Abbot had made him, who did not believe himself so well beloved by St. Bernard as he loved him.  
In the Eighty Sixth he writes to the ●●●e Abbot that he sends him a Monk who had strayed out of his Monastery. He acquaints him that he ●●s reprimanded him severely and desires of him to do as much, and then to send him back to his Abbot with a Letter of Recomendation. He dissuades this Abbot from quitting his Cloister to turn Hermit.  
In the Eighty Seventh he blames the Conduct of Oger, a Regular Canon, who after having laid down a Curacy by the consent of his Bishop, which he had as 'twere extorted from him, on condition that he should remain in his Bishopric, he Addressed himself to the Metropolitan to Obtain leave to Return to his Abbey. Being returned he entreated St. Bernard to Instruct him how he should live. Whereupon this Saint disapproved altogether of his Conduct, yet would not have him nevertheless charge himself anew with the care of his Curacy. He advises him to be thoroughly Sensible of his fault, for that he considers his Retreat as an Action of no great Virtue. He afterwards gives him a great deal of good Advice in this Letter, and in the three which follow, being all likewise writ to him. He excuses himself in the Eighty ninth for not writing him long Letters, because he is Obliged to silence, which is interrupted as well as the Tranquillity of Mind by Dictating and Composing, and Moreover forasmuch as his Profession is not to Instruct others but bewail his own Sins.  
The N●… First is Addressed to a General Chapter of Benedictine Abbots, Assembled at Soissons for Reforma●… 〈◊〉 their Monasteries. St. Bernard exhorts them earnestly to Labour about it, for fear (says he) That ●he World should say, you were met together to no purpose. Do all in your power to render your Actions and Occupations perfect. They cannot be so too much, because a Man cannot be too Just, too Wise nor too Virtuous. Harken not to such as will say: We will not be better than our Fathers, Owning thereby that they are the Offspring of Lukewarm and Lose People: Or if they pretend to be Children of Saints, let them Imitate their Sanctity and not their Indulgence and Depravity. There is no living in this World without either Advancing or Retreating, Rising or Descending: If a Man has a mind to continue in the same State, he shall presently fall. He that desires not to be better was never really Good; and whoever ceases endeavouring to be good ceases to have any worth.  
The Four following Letters are Letters of Compliment, the First is Addressed to Henry King of England, and the others to the Prelates of his Realm.  
In the Ninety Six he commends Richard Abbot of Fontaine in the Diocese of York, for having embraced the Order of Cisteaux with 12 of his Monks in the Year 1132.  
In the Ninety Seventh he dissuades Duke Conrade from making War upon the Count of Savoy.  
In the Ninety Eighth He Answers a question which had been put to him. Why of all the Saints that are in the Old Testament, the Church Observes Feasts for none but the Macchabees? The Answer is that the Church takes Notice of them because they are not unlike our Christian Martyrs, having suffered Death for not Abjuring the Law of God.  
In the Ninety Ninth he writes to a Monk whose going out of the Monastery he was Jealous of; but having by a Letter Understood the occasion of it, his Suspicions soon vanish.  
In the Hundred he commends the great Charity of a certain Bishop towards the Poor. It is (says he) a thing so well becoming a Bishop; It is a great Ornament to his Function in that not being able to be Poor by reason of his Revenues, he Nevertheless has regard to the Poor and Indigent; for it is not Poverty that is a Virtue, but the Love of the Poor, and the Poor in Goods are not pronounced happy by the Gospel, but the Poor in Spirit.  
In the Hundred and First, he begs of a Monastery to receive a Monk again that had left them without Permission.  
In the Hundred and Second, He Counsels an Abbot to try all means to bring a certain Monk to his Duty, and to expel him if he found him Irreclaimable.  
In the Hundred and Third he exhorts a Person to forego the inordinate Love that he had for Riches.  
In the Hundred and Fourth he Advises another to quit the World.  
The Letters following to the Hundred and Fifteenth, are Exhortations to several Persons to embrace a Monastic Life which he greatly commends.  
In the Hundred and Fifteenth he dissuades a Monk from turning Hermit.  
The Six following Letters contain only Compliments and Thanks.  
The Hundred Twenty Second is a Letter of Hildebert, at that time Archbishop of Tours Addressed to St. Bernard, in which he greatly commends him and begs his Friendship, which Letter St. Bernard Answers after a very Obliging manner in the 123. and in the 124 he Admonishes him to embrace the Interest of Pope Innocent II.  
By the Hundred Twenty Fifth, he sends to Geoffrey of Loroux, to engage in the Defence of this Pope against Peter of Leon.  
In the Hundred Twenty Sixth, Addressed to the Bishops of Lymoges, Poitiers, Perigueux and Saintes, he vigorously defends the Cause of Innocent II. against Gerard Bishop of Angoulesme whom he accuses to have engaged in the Interest of Peter of Leon through Ambition.  
The Hundred Twenty Seventh is written in the name of Hugh Count of Burgundy, to William Count of Poitiers, whom he Admonishes to quit the Party of Peter of Leon, and to Acknowledge Popé Innocent.  
In the Hundred Twenty Eighth, St. Bernard Reproaches Count William, in that having once procured peace to the Church of Poctiers, he had afterwards drove the Clergy of Hilarius out of the City. He Advises him to cease that Persecution.  
In the Hundred Twenty Ninth, he Counsels the Genoese to live Peaceably with the Citizens of Pisa, and to continue faithful both to the Pope and Emperor.  
In the Hundred and Thirtieth, he Advises likewise the Pisantines by reason of the great Affection they had to the Pope.  
By the Hundred Thirty First, he puts the Milanese in mind of their reconciliation with the Church of Rome, and Pope Innocent, and earnestly exhorts them to continue their Obedience and submission accordingly.  
The Three following are written to the Clergy and People of Milan upon the same Account.  
In the Hundred Thirty Fifth he rejects, with a great deal of Humility, the Praises which Peter Bishop of Pavia had given him; and moreover commends that person for his Charity.  
In the Hundred Thirty Sixth, he desires Pope Innocent to Pardon a Man that was disposed to make satisfaction.  
In the Hundred Thirty Seventh, he implores the Clemency of the Empress upon the Milanese, whom the Pope had not received into favour till after they had Acknowledged Lotharius for their King and Master.  
In the Hundred Thirty Eighth, he requires Henry King of England to Assist Pope Innocent.  
In the Hundred Thirty Ninth, he excites the Emperor Lotharius to revenge the Church upon Schismatics.  
In the Hundred and Fortieth, he recommends the Pisantines to this Prince.  
In the Hundred Forty First, he sharply Reproaches Humbert Abbot of Igny for having quitted his Abbey.  
In the Hundred Forty Second, he condoles the Monks of the Abbey of the Alps for the loss of their Abbot Guarin, who had been advanced to the Bishopric of Zion in Switzerland.  
In the Hundred Forty Third, he excuses his long Absence to the Monks of Clairvaux, assuring them that he has been no less concerned than they about it, and exhorting them to Persevere in their Duty.  
The Two following Letters are written upon the same Account, with the same Tokens of Tenderness and Affection.  
All these Letters were written under the Pontificate of Innocent II. from the year 1132 to the year 1137.  
In the Hundred Forty Sixth, he congratulates Burchard Abbot of Balere, inasmuch that the care he has taken to reform his Abbey has not been fruitless, and says the Glory of it is due only to God.  
The Hundred Forty Seventh, is a Letter of Thanks to Peter, Abbot of Clunie, for having Comforted him in the pains he had been at in procuring Peace to the Church. He therein expresses his satisfaction in that the Schism was at length extirpated thence.  
The following is a Letter of Compliment written to the same.  
In the Hundred and Forty Ninth, he Admonishes this Abbot not to take so much pains to bring the Monastery of St. Berthin to subjection.  
In the Hundred and Fiftieth, he Commends Pope Innocent for having made a Reformation in the Monastery of Vezelay, St. Bennet on the P●, and those of St. Meme, and St. Satire. As likewise for the resolution he had shown at Liege in refusing to grant Investitures at the request of the Emperor Lotharius, and for Excommunicating the Clerks that disturbed the Church of Orleans. He exhorts him to employ the like Zeal in opposing Philip, Nephew to Gislebert Archbishop of Tours, who had seized upon the See of that Church.  
The Hundred and Fifty First is Addressed to this Philip, whom he acquaints with his concern to see him engaged in so pernicious an undertaking. These two Letters were writ in the Year 1133.  
In the Hundred and Fifty Second, he writes to Pope Innocent in Favour of the Bishop of Troy's, who was molested by his Clergy. He there says, that the Insolence of the Inferior Clergy occasioned by the Bishop's neglect, has every where disturbed the Peace of the Church: That Bishops give Holy things to Dogs and throw Pearls to Swine, who afterwards turn upon them and trample them under their Feet: That such as they prefer, such are they obliged to bear with; that they first enrich them with the Spoils of the Church without correcting them, and afterwards they are forced to submit to their Insolences, for Priests that enjoy the Fruits of other's Labours live without Gratitude to their Benefactors, insomuch, that their Iniquity most commonly proceeds from their abundance. Towards the end of this. Letter, St. Bernard excuses himself for not having gone to wait on the Pope as he had been desired.  
In the Hundred and Fifty Third Addressed to Bernard, Prior of the Charter-House of Portes, near the Town of Bollay, which had desired of him an Exposition of the Canticles, after having spoken of this Work in a very humble manner, he promises to transcribe and send his Exposition at the beginning of that Book.  
In the following Addressed to the same, having sent him this Discourse, he expresses his Sorrow that he had not leisure to go Visit that Charter-House.  
In the Hundred and Fifty Fifth, he Acquaints Pope Innocent, who had given this Prior a Bishopric in Lombardy, that he is very worthy of that Honour, but that he is not a proper Person for the Place, insomuch, that the Lombard's being a headstrong wicked People, a young Man that has always Lived in a Cloister, would find it a difficult matter to govern them, so that he desires this Pope to bestow on him another Place.  
In the Hundred Fifty Sixth, he Recommends to this Pope the Church of Orleans, whose See was vacant.  
In the Hundred and Fifty Seventh, he Recommends to Haimeric, Chancellor of the Church of Rome, the Provost and Canons of the Church of Meun, in the Diocese of Orleans. These Two Letters with the foregoing, from the Hundred and Fifty First, were written in the Year 1135.  
The Hundred and Fifty Eighth is written to Pope Innocent, concerning the Murder of Thomas Prior of St. Victor in Paris, who had been killed near Gournay, by the Relations of Thibaud Archdeacon of Paris, in his return with Stephen Bishop of Paris, to the Abbey of Chelles, whither they went to make a Reform in that Abbey. The Bishop of Paris was so concerned with this Assassination that he after pronounced Excommunication against the Murderers and all their Adherents, reserving to himself only their Absolution, he retired to Clairvaux, whence he wrote to the Pope, and to Geoffrey Bishop of Chartres, his Legate, to incline them to do Justice upon the Assassins. This Letter St. Bernard writ to the Pope in his Name to exite his Zeal against so detestable an Action, and to beg of him to Punish the archdeacon of Paris, as being Accessary to this Murder.  
The following Letter is that which was writ to the Pope in the name of the Bishop of Paris, upon the same Account.  
About the same time there was another Murder Committed on the Body of Archembaud, Subdean of the Church of Orleans, at the Instigation of a Canon of that Church. St. Bernard writes also concerning th●…urther to the Pope, by his Hundred and Sixty First Letter, to the end, that so Barbarous a Crime ●●ght meet with an exemplary Punishment, not only in the Person of those who had committed the Crime, but also in those who were the cause of it.  
There are moreover Three other Letters which follow those, which are the Hundred Sixtieth, the Hundred Sixty Second, and Hundred Sixty Third, by which, he Recommends this Affair to Haimeric, Chancellor of the Church of Rome, and to another Cardinal.  
Geoffrey Bishop of Chartres, the Pope's Legate, upon occasion of these Murders, Commanded the Bishops of the Provinces of Rheims, Rouen, Tours, and Sens, to meet at the Council of Joarre to Condemn the Authors thereof, pursuant to the utmost rigour of the Canons. We have not the Transactions of this Council of Joarre, but we are Assured by a Letter of Pope Innocent II. Addressed to the aforesaid Bishops, that they Excommunicated all that were in the least concerned in these Murders. The Pope confirms their Decree by this Letter, and because it seemed to him that this Judgement was not severe enough, he ordered farther, That no Mass should be Celebrated in any of those places where these Murderers were found, and that Thibaud, Noterius, and all others concerned in the said Murders should for ever be deprived either of enjoying or acquiring any Benefice. He pronounced also anathemas against any that received or concealed these Assassins. All this happened in the Year 1133. as Father Mabillon testifies in his Notes.  
The Hundred Sixty Fourth Letter of St. Bernard is writ to Pope Innocent, concerning the difference which arose in the Church of Langres, about the Election of a Bishop, in the room of William, who Died in 1138. Peter Archbishop of Lions, and Hugh Duke of Burgundy, would have chosen a Monk of Clunie, yet Robert Dean of the said Church, Pontius the Archdeacon, Olric, and the other Canons would not acquiesce in this Election, but demanded an Accustomed liberty of choosing whom they pleased. The Pope writ to them not to make choice of any without the Advice of some Pious Men, whereupon, they had recourse to St. Bernard, and promised to do nothing but with his Consent. This Archbishop of Lions Agreed to, and the Pope likewise approved of the Choice they had made of St. Bernard, who was then at Rome. In his return, St. Bernard understanding that they were about to Consecrate a Bishop of Langres at Lions, which he thought not worthy, and whom the Dean and Canons would not receive, he went immediately to the Archbishop, and represented to him, that having agreed to be determined by him, they ought to do nothing without him. The Archbishop laid all the blame on Hugh, Son to the Duke of Burgundy, but promised, that for the future there should be nothing done without his Knowledge. St. Bernard proposed to leave the matter to a Debate in a general Convocation of the Bishops and Clergy. That Monk of Clunie who was about to have been Elected, dared not appear, but being arrived on Friday went away on Saturday. The Archbishop of Lions at the same time wrote Two Letters to the Chapter of Langres, quite contrary to each other, for by one, he ordered them to proceed to an Election, and by the other, told them that he had not altogether rejected, but only put off to another time the Ordination of this Monk of Clunie. Whereupon, this Monk observing his Ordination to be stopped, went to the King, and obtained from him an Investiture, and afterwards assigned a day for his Ordination. Soon after Falcon Dean of Lions, Pontius Archdeacon of Langres, Bonami Canon of the same, with two Monks of Clairvaux, Appealed to the Holy See, and Cited thither as well the Person that would have been Consecrated, as the Persons that would have Consecrated him. St. Bernard informed the Pope of all matters that related thereto by this Letter.  
In the following Letter written to Dean Falcon, and Guy Treasurer of the Church of Lions, he commends them for the Zeal they had shown in this Affair.  
Notwithstanding the Appeal to the Court of Rome, yet the Archbishop of Lions, and the Bishops of Autun, and Mascon, Installed and Consecrated the Monk of Clunie, which extremely nettled St. Bernard, for he wrote very earnestly about it to the Pope and Cardinals, in the Hundred Sixty Sixth, Hundred Sixty Seventh, and Hundred Sixty Eighth Letters. At length he wrought so much upon his Holiness as to cause him to disapprove of this Election, and to give the Chapter leave to proceed to a New Election, after having taken Advice of St. Bernard. Whereupon, they immediately went to wait upon him accordingly, and he after having made them all Friends, sent them back to make their Election, as he Acquaints his Holiness by the Hundred Sixty Ninth Letter. Hereupon they Elected Godfrey Prior of Clairvaux, a relation to St. Bernard, who having met with some difficulty on the Courtside, St. Bernard writ the Hundred and Seventieth Letter to Lewis the Younger, in which, he protests that no body had a greater Veneration for His Majesty than himself, and afterwards Assures him that the Election of his Prior to the Bishopric of Langres was altogether against his Intention and good liking, since it deprived him of the principal Comfort of his Age and Infirmity, yet that he must nevertheless submit to the Will of God: That it was neither in the power of himself nor the King to oppose it; and that he was persuaded His Majesty would not attempt it, but leave the Church of Langres to remedy its Affliction, having been long vacant together with that of Rheims: That he humbly thanked His Majesty for what he writ him thereupon, and would have been conformable, had not he seen the danger of delays, as likewise that the Revenues of that Church were in Huckster's hands: That this was that which gave him the greatest trouble, and procured no small Dishonour to His Majesty, it being his Duty to preserve the Goods of the Church: That the Election had been made altogether according to Form; That the Person Elect was faithful, for that he would not have been for him had he not first consented to do Homage to His Majesty for the Lands held of the Crown; That he had all along this Precaution given him; That he was not yet put into possession, nor yet entered into the City; That for his part he had meddled but little with the matter, tho' he had been Invited to do it by the Clergy and People, and that the Oppression of several and Prayers of Good Men might well have engaged him deeper in it: That as the case ●…stands, it was for his Majesty's Honour and the Public Good to defer the Confirmation no lo●…nd that if he did not Return an Answer by those that gave him this Letter, he would peradventure raise the Spirits of divers Religious Men against him, and moreover Prejudice the Revenues of the Crown annexed to this Bishopric. There is great likelihood that the King complied with St. Bernard's request, for the year following, Falcon Dean of the Church of Lions, having been Elected Archbishop thereof, Godfrey and St. Bernard wrote in his favour to Pope Innocent, which are the 171 and 172 Letters.  
In the Hundred Seventy Third, St. Bernard recommends to Falcon the Monks of the Monastery of Benisson-Dieu.  
The Hundred Seventy Fourth is the famous Letter which he writ to the Canons of Lions, concerning the Feast of the Conception which they had newly Introduced. This Letter he gins with Commending of the Church of Lions which (says he) Has always been Preferable to all the rest of France not only on account of the Dignity of its See, but also by the strict Order there kept. For is there any where a better Discipline to be found, a greater Authority Established and of a more venerable Antiquity, principally in regard of Ecclesiastical Duties, it having never hitherto introduced any Novelty, nor suffered its self to be debauched by any change? This has been the occasion (continues he that we can never enough wonder that some of you could have the Boldness to Introduce a Feast) which the Church has not the least knowledge of, which neither is supported by reason, nor backed by any Tradition: Are we, to think ourselves more knowing or Devout than our Forefathers? and is it not a dangerous Presumption to pretend to do what they thought not proper? But (say you) we ought to Honour the Mother of our Saviour: Why so we ought in all reason, but still the honour paid to a Queen demands Discretion. This Royal Virgin has no need of false Honour having Several true Titles, and being of a Quality truly Honourable. Honour then the Purity and Piety of her Life, Admire her supernatural Fecundity and Adore her divine Offspring; Commend her in that she conceived without Concupiscence, and brought forth without trouble: Affirm that Angels respected her, All Nations have desired her, that the Patriarches and Prophets have been acquainted with her, and that she was chosen above all Women, and Preferred to all her Sex.— The Church teaches me to have an Uncommon Veneration for the day when she died, and when she was received with an unexpressible Joy into Heaven. The same Church learns me to honour the day of her Birth, being verily persuaded that like Jeremiah and St. John Baptist, she was sanctified in her Mother's womb. Yes, the Mother of our Lord was Holy before she was Born, and therefore the Church cannot err in believing that the day of her Birth was also Holy, nor in keeping it solemnly as such: I also am thoroughly persuaded that she was endued with so many Graces that not only her Birth was sanctified, but also all the rest of her Life, which was exempt from all Sin; a favour that never yet was granted to any Other of the Offspring of Man.— What then are we able to contribute to these Honours? Let her conception also have Honours (say they) since it preceded her Birth, because had not this Conception preceded, her Birth could not have been extant to be honoured. Very well! for the same reason any one might Celebrate the Feasts of their Father and Mother, and mount upwards even to their remotest Ancestors. Then we should have a prodigious Number of Feasts indeed, and which would be more proper for the Eternity of the other Life than the poor circumscribed Limits of this. But there is a Book produced where this Feast is Authorised, as they pretend by Divine Revelation. Why this might very well be, and I myself could sooner compose one in favour of any of my Ancestors. For my part I am not willing to Credit any of these Books which have neither Reason nor Authority on their side: For what Consequence is there that a Conception must be Holy because the Birth was so? was it made Holy by its Precedence? Whence had it this Sanctity to communicate to the Birth? and on the contrary is it not because this Conception was not Holy, that it was thought necessary to Sanctify the Virgin afterwards? Whence proceeds the pretended Sanctity of this Conception? Will any one say that it was occasioned by Grace to the End that she might be conceived Holy? But then she could not receive the Appanage of her Divinity before she was Divine, and that she could not possibly be before her Conception. Some will say perhaps that she was conceived and sanctified in the same Moment, but that is what they cannot reasonably make out, for how can Holiness be where sin is? and how can any one deny that sin is not to meet where Concupiscence is to be found. If they will not Affirm she was conceived by the Holy Ghost, which I presume no body will Offer to Assert? so that not having been Sanctified before her Conception, because she then was nothing, nor at her Conception, because she was then in the State of Sin, she must have been sanctified in the womb of her Mother after her Conception, and that tho' her Birth was Holy her Conception was not. In a word her good Fortune of being conceived in Sanctity, is owing only to Jesus Christ, for all the other Children of Adam have been conceived in Sin. This being thus, what reason can there be for Introducing a Feast of the Conception? How can it be maintained that a Conception which proceeds not from the Holy Ghost, but rather from sin, can be Holy? Or how could they conjure up a Holiday on Account of a thing that is not Holy in itself? The Church may have, reason to boast indeed of a Feast which honours sin or Authorises a false Holiness; Yet whatever People may think she will never be brought to Approve of an Innovation contrary to her Usual Custom that being the Mother of Rashness, Sister of Superstition, and Daughter of Levity. Moreover if they had proceeded rightly in Introducing this Feast, they should first have consulted the Holy See, and not followed blindly and without Deliberation the suggestions of some hare-brained Idiots. St. Bernard adds that he has understood this error, was in other Places; That he had hitherto forborn taking Notice of it out of a Veneration, he had for the Holy Virgin which proto spread itself over the whole Church, of which he was a Member, he could no longer dissemble his resentments without Offending all. He concludes, with saying, that he submits his Judgement to the more Sage and Experienced, and chief the Authority of the Church of Rome, to whom, he reserves the Decision of thi● matter, being ready to alter his Opinion if the Holy See shall be of another Mind.  
Some Authors have undertaken the Defence of the Feast of the Conception of the Virgin, and among others, a certain Person has written a Treatise on this Subject, commonly Attributed to St. Anselm, wherein, he attacks St. Bernard without naming him. Likewise an English Monk called Nicholas, writ a little after St. Bernard's Death against his Letter. This Monk has been refuted by Peter Abbot of Cells; and at the same time Poton Priest and Monk of Prom blamed those that had received three new Feasts, which were that of the most Holy Trinity, of the Transfiguration, and of the Conception of the Virgin, all which he esteemed very extravagant. In the Century following, John Beleth, and William Durand, Bishop of Manned, disapprove also of this Feast, but notwithstanding it was Authorised in the Fifteenth Century by the Council of Basil. It must here be understood with Father Mabillon, that St. Bernard means by Conception that same instant, in which the Body of the Virgin was Conceived, and not with the School-Divines the moment of the Union of the Soul with the Body, for he could not have overthrown those that say that she was Sanctified this Instant, but only such as maintain she was Sanctified before she was animated, if he should have compared her Sanctification with that of Jeremias and St. John Baptist, but he plainly insinuates that she was not Sanctified before her Soul was United to her Body. Thus it may be observed, that St. Bernard had not very favourable Thoughts of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.  
The Hundred Seventy Fifth Letter of St. Bernard, is an Answer to one writ to him by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, wherein, he Recommends to him the Knights of the Cross. This Patriarch was William of Flanders, who had been formerly a Hermit at Tours.  
The Hundred Seventy Sixth is written in the Name of Alberon, Archbishop of Treves, to his Holiness Pope Innocent. This Archbishop not being able to go in Person to wait on the Pope, writes him this Letter, to assure his Holiness of the unfeigned Obedience of the Churches on this side the Mountains; and moreover exhorts him not to concern himself at the loss of Benevento and Capua, which Roger of Sicily had taken from him, and likewise assures him, that the Emperor Lotharius was preparing to march to his Relief. This Letter was written in the Year 1135.  
The Hundred Seventy Seventh is also written to the Pope, in the Name of the same Archbishop, who complains of the Fatigue and Care he is like to undergo in his Archbishopric. He says, he accepted it not without regret; that he is plagued by his Suffragans who are young persons of Quality, and who rather oppose than assist him; that Right, good Manners, and Religion, are extinct in their Suffraganships; that he thinks himself obliged to Acquaint his Holiness with what he will not give him leave to reform; that notwithstanding, he undergoes patiently all these Affronts rather than act any thing contrary to the Obedience he owes to the Papal Chair. But that he begs of his Holiness to consider that these Injuries fall on the Papal See, and that the Contempt had of him renders also the Holy See despised: That in a word, he has several more complaints to make to him, of which his Holiness may be better informed by the Deputy he has sent.  
In the following Letter written also in the Name of the former Person, and Addressed to Pope Innocent. St. Bernard lays open all the causes of Complaint which the Archbishop of Treves had against the Pope, grounded upon the frequent usage of Appeals, which brought all matters before the Holy See, and quite destroyed the Authority of the Arch-Bishops and Bishops. Observe how St. Bernard represents this matter to the Pope. I speak to you, (says he,) with a great deal of Freedom, because I have a more than ordinary Affection for you, which could not be, should I use Dissimulation. The Archbishop of Treves his Complaint is not his alone, but proceeds from the Sentiments of several others, and chief those that love you best. They complain that Justice is no more to be found in the Church, that the Keys thereof become of no use, and the Episcopal Authority is rendered Despicable, by reason that the Bishops have now no more power to revenge the Injuries done to God, nor to punish the Offences committed in their Dioceses. The fault of all which is laid upon you and the Court of Rome. It is affirmed that you a●… what they have well established, and that you have established what they abolished with Reason; That 〈◊〉 Criminals and disobedient Persons, whether they be of the Clergy or Laity have immediately recourse to you, and boast when they return, that they have not met with Protectors who ought rather to have been Punishers of their Crimes. What a shame is this! What occasion for Laughter to the Enemies of the Church! Friends finds themselves Confounded, the Faithful Affronted, Bishops become the Subjects of Scorn and Contempt, and your Authority much lessened by the weakness of your Decisions. 'Tis those only have a true value for the Holy See, who labour hearty to procure the Peace, and advance the Grandeur of the Church of Rome. Why therefore will you yourself weaken your own Strength? He afterwards proceeds to represent to the Pope the mischiefs occasioned in the Churches of Toul, Verdun, and Metz, by the Protection which the Holy See has unadvisedly bestowed. He Accuses the Bishops of Metz, and Toul, of Tyranny and Misgovernment, and complains that the Holy See ●as upheld them in it, and particularly that the Bishop of Metz had quashed a free Election made with all form, in his Chapter, and placed by his Authority, a Probationer in the Church. At length he gives the Pope an extraordinary Character of the Archbishop of Treves, assuring him, that he is a much more faithful Person both to the Church and the Holy See.  
In the Hundred and Seventy Ninth, and Hundred and Eightieth Letters, he Recommends to this Pope the Affair which this Archbishop had with the Abbot and Monks of St. Maximine and desires his Holiness to revoke the Brief which these last had obtained. One of the greatest Advantages of the Holy See, (says he,) is, that it can revoke whatever it finds it has been overseen in granting. It is certainly very just and commendable that a Person should not get any advantage by his Crime, and above all with the Holy See and Sovereign Bishop. This is what engages me in a boldness to request your Favour, in behalf of the Archbishop of Treves, and to lay before you such instances of his Integrity as I am pretty well assured will succeed. All his Crime is having wrested a Monastery out of the hands of Laics, and endeavouring to purge it of its Errors.— May God always fortify your Holiness with his Divine Grace, that the Monks may at no time overreach you: These Monks that hunt not after Liberty more than they fly Order and Discipline.  
The Hundred and Eighty First, is a Letter of Thanks to Haimeric, Chancellor of the Holy See.  
In the Hundred and Eighty Second, he writes very earnestly to Henry, Archbishop of Sens, concerning his inflexibility, which, he says, has procured him a great many Enemies.  
In the Hundred and Eighty Third, he exhorts Conrade King of the Romans, to be Obedient to the Pope.  
In the Hundred and Eighty Fourth, he excuses himself to Pope Innocent, for not being able to send him some Religious Persons, as he promised, by reason of three late Foundations he had made.  
In the Hundred and Eighty Fifth, he exhorts Eustace who had possessed himself of the Church of Valence, not to persist in his design through a false Glory, and by being Advised by Flatterers who played upon him.  
In the Hundred Eighty Sixth, he recommends to Simon Son of the Chastelan of Cambray, the Monks of the Monastery of Vaucelles, and desires him to confirm the Donation which his Father had made them.  
The following Letters were writ in the Year 1140. against Peter Abaelard.  
The Hundred Eighty Seventh is Addressed to those Bishops that were to Assemble at the Council of Sens all whom he exhorts to promote zealously the interest of Religion.  
In the Hundred Eighty Eighth, he makes the same Entreary to the Bishops and Cardinals of the Court of Rome. He in general accuses Peter Abaelard of Contemning the Fathers; raising trifling Questions upon elevate Subjects, and, in a word, for confiding too much in his Wit, and not contenting himself with the plainess of Faith, and afterwards descending to particulars, Read (says he, to those to whom he writes) Peter Abaelard ' s Book, which he calls his Theology. It is easy to be found, because it is to be Sold, and there are a great many Persons at the Court of Rome who Read it. See there how he advances upon the Holy Trinity, the Generation of the Son of God, the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and several other matters which both the Ears and Minds of Catholics are but little Accustomed to. Read likewise another which is said to be his Book of Proverbs, but which is Entitled, Noise Teipsum: There you may observe how full his Works are of Sacrilege and Errors. What strange Opinions has he concerning the Soul and the Person of Jesus Christ, of his Descent into Hell, and the Sacrament of the Altar; of the power of binding and of losing, Original Sin, Concupiscence, the Sin of Pleasure, the Sin of weakness, the Sin of Ignorance, of the Action of Sinning, and the Will of Sinning. If you find hereby that I have reason to be moved, be you also the like, but that you may not be so to no purpose, be sure to bestir yourself suitable to the Rank, Dignity, and Authority of your Power. Lay these Works of Darkness open, Reprehend and Condemn them publicly, and stop the Mouths of those that speak Evil.  
In the following Letter to Pope Innocent, he expresses his concern in that Schism had not been sooner extinguished, and that the Errors of Peter Abaelard, and Arnaud of Bresse had not sooner been abolished. He Acquaints his Holiness, that he has been invited by the Arch Bishop of Sens, to enter the Lists with Abaelard. That he came at the time appointed, and in the Presence of the King, Bishops, Abbots and several Learned Men, he produced divers Articles against him, but as they were going to be Read, this Hero all of a sudden went out of the Assembly, and Appealed to the Judges that he had chosen, which I hope (says St. Bernard,) will not be approved of. In his Absence, the Articles proposed were examined into, and found repugnant both to Faith and Truth. He concludes this Letter by earnestly exhorting the Pope not to grant protection or encouragement to a Person that was at variance with the Established sentiments of St. Peter.  
The Hundred and Ninetieth is a Treatise against the Errors of Peter Abaelard, which is also inserted amongst his Opuscula.  
The Hundred Ninety First is written to Pope Innocent, in the several Names of Sanson, Archbishop of Rheims, Josselin Bishop of Soissons, Geoffrey of Chalons, and of Aloisus of Arras, against Peter Abaelard. They are made to Accuse him of Presumption, Error, and Heresy, and also observe, that his Book of the Trinity has already been Condemned to be Burnt by a Legate of the Holy See; and moreover, that having been lately Accused by the Abbot of Clairvaux, to avoid his Condemnation, he had Appealed to the Holy See, without cause or reason, against the Judges which he himself had made choice of; And that the Bishops who were Assembled about that Affair would not Decree any thing against him out of respect to the Holy See, but only Condemned some few Articles drawn out of his Books. In a word, that it was necessary that his Holiness should apply some speedy remedy to a mischief which daily increased.  
In the Hundred Ninety Second, he Counsels Guy, Cardinal of the Church of Rome, not to favour the Errors of Abaelard on account of Friendship for his Person, and to frighten him the more from it, he tells him, that he treats of the Trinity like Arrius, like Pelagius of Grace, and like Nestorius concerning the Person of Jesus Christ.  
In the Hundred Ninety Third, he writes to another Cardinal named Ives, acquainting him that he is surprised that Abaelard should find so many Friends and Protectors at Rome.  
By the Hundred Ninety Fourth Letter, Pope Innocent Answers Henry Archbishop of Sens, Samson Archbishop of Rheims, the Bishops their Suffragans, and St. Bernard Abbot of Clairvaux; that he has been as much concerned for the Novelties advanced by Abaelard, as joyful at the Zeal they have shown to oppose him in his Innovations, and declares that by the Advice of the Bishops and Cardinals of the Church of Rome, he had Condemned the Articles which they had sent him, and all the false Doctrines of Peter Abaelard, together with their Author, on whom he has enjoined perpetual silence, as being a Heretic; and moreover, that he esteems all the Followers and Defenders of these Errors, to be worthy of being put out of the Communion of the Church.  
In the Hundred Ninety Fifth, he Counsels the Bishop of Constance to expel Arnaud of Bresse out of his Diocese, he having already been driven out of Italy and France for his Errors.  
In the Hundred Ninety Sixth, he gives the same Advice to Guy the Pope's Legate, to whom this Arnaud was retired for shelter.  
In the Hundred Ninety Seventh, he reproves Peter Dean of Bezanson, for disturbing the Abbot and Monks of Cherlieu.  
In the Letter following, he earnestly Recommends their Case to Pope Innocent, who refers it to John Abbot of Bonneval, than Bishop of Valence, and to the Bishop of Grenoble. These determined in favour of the Abbot of Cherlieu. But Peter not being willing to acquiesce in their determination, continued to importune the Holy See for redress, which occasioned St. Bernard to write the Hundred Ninety Ninth Letter to Pope Innocent, to beg of him to confirm the Judgement Pronounced by the Bishops.  
The Two Hundreth is written to Ulger Bishop of Angers, concerning a difference between this Bishop and the Abbess of Fonteurault.  
In the Two Hundred and First, he admonishes Baudevin Abbot of the Monastery of Realino, and recommends to him in particular three things, First, to instruct others by his Discourse, Secondly, to give them good Example by his Works, and Thirdly, to apply himself to Prayer.  
In the Two Hundred and Second, he exhorts the Clergy of Sens not to proceed too rashly in the Election of an Archbishop, but to wait for the Opinion of the Suffragan Bishop's, and consent of the Persons of Rank in the Diccess to prevent that befalling them which happened before to the Churches of their Neighbourhood, Orleans and Languedoc. He Recommends to them, moreover to proclaim a Fast, Assemble the Bishops, Summon the Monks, and in fine, to omit none of the requisite Ceremonies in this Election. This Letter was written after the Death of Henry, Archbishop of Sens, who was succeeded in the Year 1144. by Hugh Abbot of Pontigni.  
In the Two Hundred and Third Letter, he Counsels the Bishop and Clergy of Troyes not to suffer the Sub-Deacon Anselle to be Married and carry Arms.  
The Two Hundred and Fourth, contains a Christian Compliment to the Abbot of St. Aubin.  
The Two Hundred and Fifth, is an Answer to the Bishop of Rochester, who wrote to him somewhat severely about causing Robert Pallus to Live at Paris, when he thought it necessary.  
In the Two Hundred and Sixth, he Recommends one of his Kindred to Melisenda Queen of Jerusalem, and wishes her a long and happy Reign.  
The Three following Letters Addressed to Roger King of Sicily, contain nothing remarkable.  
The Two Hundred and Tenth, and the Eight following, are Letters of Recommendation Addressed to Pope Innocent. In the Two Hundred and Thirteenth, he complains that this Pope took little or no notice of the Reconciliation made by his means with Peter of Pisa. In the Two Hundred and Sixteenth, and Two Hundred and Seventeenth, he Complains that Radulphus Count of Vermandois, having put away one Wife and Married another, was seemingly vindicated by the Court of Rome. He likewise Commends Thibaud Count of Burgundy, for taking the part of the first Wife which was his Niece. In the Two Hundred and Eighteenth, he justifies himself to the Pope against a suspicion had of him concerning the Goods of the Cardinal Ives, assuring his Holiness that they had been embezzled contrary to his knowledge.  
The Two Hundred and Ninteenth is Addressed to Alberic, Bishop of Ostia, Stephen of Palestrine, Igmar of Frescati, and Gerard Chancellor of the Church of Rome, concerning a difference which happened between the King of France and the Pope, on account of the Archbishop of Bourges. This Archbishopric being vacant, the King had given the Clergy of Bourges leave to choose any other for their Archbishop than Peter, whom the Pope had cast a favourable Eye upon. He was nevertheless Elected afterwards, and Consecrated at Rome by the Pope. Whereupon, the King having made an Oath, that he should never be Archbishop during his Life time, would not receive him, but declared War against the Count of Champagne, to whom he was retired. This caused the Pope to interdict the Dominions of France, and it was upon this occasion that St. Bernard writ this Letter, by which, he wills the Prelates of the Court of Rome, that they might have learned by the Persecution of Guibert, and undertake of Burdin and Peter of Leon, how much Schism is to be dreaded, and how hazardous it is to raise any difference between the Regal and Sacerdotal Power. That therefore they must Act with Prudence, and manage Matters with Lenity not to incur the danger of a New Schism: That he can by no means excuse the King for having made an Oath, which it was both a Crime and Sin to keep; nay, though he was in a manner forced to perform it, being a custom among the French to observe any, though never so unjust; that his Intention was not to excuse the King of France, but ask Pardon for him; and lastly, that the concern he was in, his Age and Majesty, do in some measure deserve it, without being like to do any great wrong to the Church.  
In the Two Hundred and Twentieth Letter, he writes to King Lewis, that he cannot hinder the Anathema's being renewed against Radulphus; and endeavours to persuade his Majesty, that that ought not to set him at variance with Count Thibaud.  
In the Two Hundred Twenty First, he speaks high to this Prince, and takes a great deal of Liberty to reprove him, Affirming that he is an Enemy to Peace; that he has violated the Treaties which he has made; that he has communicated with Excommunicated Persons; that he has encouraged Murders▪ Theft, Robbery, and the Destruction of Churches; that not contented to Assume an Authority over the Church of Bourges, which did not belong to him, he also hinders the Church of Chalons from having a Bishop, as likewise permits his Brother to seize upon the Revenues of the Bishoprics. He Admonishes him to forbear speedily these Exactions, and prevent the anger of God by Repentance after the Example of the King of the Ninevites.  
In the Two Hundred Twenty Second, he writes to Josselin Bishop of Soissons, and Sugerus Abbot of St. Denys, likewise the King's Minister, concerning the occasions pretended at Court for making War upon Count Thibaud, as also touching the wrong which the King did to the Churches.  
These Letters written with all the freedom imaginable, extremely incensed the King and his Ministers against St. Bernard, who having understood as much by the Answer which Josselin sent him, he signifies again to him in the Two Hundred Twenty Third Letter, that perhaps he had been a little bold, but that his Presumption was merely caused by Grief, and the Zeal he had for the Welfare of the Church, and moreover that it was to have been wished that they had made use of the same Liberty, and endeavoured to reclaim the King by the like Admonitions.  
In the Two Hundred Twenty Fourth, he acquaints Stephen Bishop of Palestrine with the damage which the King had done to the Churches of France, putting him in mind that he ought to Repent, having written to Rome in favour of this Prince.  
In the Two Hundred Twenty Fifth, he exhorts Josselin to endeavour a Peace.  
The Two Hundred Twenty Sixth is written to the King in the Name of Hugh Bishop of Auxerre, as likewise in his own, wherein he Admonishes this Prince, who had just before frustrated a Negotiation begun at Corbeil, to renew the same and to have more advantageous thoughts for the good of the Church.  
In the Two Hundred Twenty Seventh, he conjures Josselin to use his Interest that no damage may come to him especially from the King, who was not a little incensed against him. All these Letters were writ in the Years 1142 and 1143.  
The Two Hundred Twenty Eighth, is a very Civil Answer to a Letter of Peter Abbot of Cluny's lately written to him, whereby he gives him to Understand that he could hearty wish to renew the Friendship that had formerly been between them, and which was now Interrupted by some differences as well on account of the Bishop of Langres, as by reason that Pope Innocent had discharged the Order of Cisteaux, of the Tithes which they paid to Clunie.  
The following is the Answer which Peter of Clunie gives to this Letter, in which after having heaped on St. Bernard, a great many Compliments, he searches into the Reasons, why the Orders of Clunie and Cisteaux, which ought to live in good Intelligence with each other, so continually jar and disagree; and he makes it plainly appear, that they have no reasonable Cause to be so divided: For in the first place, if their Difference be about Lands or other temporal Goods, they have proper Judges who may regulate those Matters, and make Peace between them. Secondly, they ought not to disagree about their Monastical Observances, because if the different Customs of different Churches, hinders not the Union of the Spirit and Charity among Christians, no more ought the diversity of Practices and Ceremonies to be a cause of Division among Monks, who although they are all of one Order, yet may have different Usages and Customs, St. Bennet himself having been sensible that his Order might be subject to some Moderation or Explication. He than brings examples of these Differences, and shows that both Orders may observe their Customs separately, and with simplicity of Heart, without condemning each other in them. Thirdly, he affirms that the different Colours of Habits ought to be a less subject of Division, since nothing is more ridiculous than for Men to fall out on such trifling Accounts. And lastly, he lays the blame on the Spirit of Pride, which (he says) had divided the Monks of Clunie and Cisteaux; the former being unwilling that the latter should be preferred to them, and the latter Glorying that they had been restorers of the Order, and of Monastic Discipline. He concludes by exhorting both Parties to live in Peace, and to preserve a mutual Esteem and Value for each other.  
In the Two Hundred and Thirtieth he writes to the Cardinals of Ostia, Frescati and Palestrine, to relieve the Church of Mets, which for some time had rather been in the hands of a Wolf than a Shepherd. He speaks of Stephen Bishop of that City, and Nephew to Pope Calixtus II. who came to the Bishopric whilst he was young, which occasions St. Bernard to say, that he began like a little Wolf, but now being become a great one, he ravaged the Herd of Christ by Rapines, Conflagrations and Murders.  
The Two Hundred Thirty First is written to the same Cardinals, in favour of the Abbot of Lagny, accused at Rome to have refused receiving the Pope's Nuncio, to have torn his Holinesses Letter, to have imprisoned certain Monks, and to have given divers Lands of his Monastery to his Relations. St. Bernard after having exceedingly commended this Abbot, proceeds to reply to his Accusations. First he says he did not entertain the Nuncio which his Holiness sent into England, by reason that the Provost Humbert promised to do it for him; that the Letter which he was accused to have torn, was yet whole; that he never imprisoned any Monks, but only sent some that were of a very turbulent Spirit to other Monasteries, and as for giving away the Monastery Lands to his Relations, he never did without a Clause of Reversion, and a Rent reserved according to Custom, and which likewise was executed in presence of the Bishops of Soissons and Auxerre, and of Thibaud Count of Champagne, Conservator of the Rights and Privileges of the Monastery. As to the rest, he said it was unaccountable that a proud, rebellious and ambitious Monk, should obtain his Liberty of the Holy See. Formerly (says he) you have been accused of domineering over the Clergy, and the Consciences of all the World, contrary to the precept of the Apostle; and now you add something more to this Presumption, in showing an Inclination to dispose absolutely of all Religious Persons; insomuch, that I know not what remains for you to desire more, unless you would likewise command over the Angels. I do not impute this to my Lord Pope Innocent, who might easily have been over persuaded, being but a Man, and I beg of God not to impute it to him, not in the least doubting, but when he shall come to a knowledge of the Truth, he will abbor the favouring of so pernicious and dangerous a Person as that Monk was.  
In the Two Hundred Thirty Second, he writes to the same Cardinals, that if the Abbot of St. Theofroy, commonly called St. Cha●●re, in the Diocese of Puy in Vellay, be guilty of those things whereof he is accused, they ought not to favour, but speedily punish him.  
In the Two Hundred Thirty Third, he writes to John Abbot of Busey, in the Diocese of Nantes, persuading him to return to his Abbey, which he had quitted for some time before.  
In the Two Hundred Thirty Fourth, he desires Herbert Abbot of St. Stephen of Dijon, to pardon one of his regular Canons, though he had written injuriously against him.  
In the Two Hundred Thirty Fifth, written in the Year 1143 to Pope Celestine II. He writes very bitterly against William, who had got possession of the Archbishopric of York▪ being guilty of several Crimes which he was not cleared from but by a false Oath. The Cause was removed to Rome, and he obtained of Pope Innocent a Bull in his Favour, whereupon St. Bernard begs of Celestine not to suffer so ill a Man to continue in possession of the Archbishopric of York.  
In the following Letter he writes upon the same subject, and after the same manner, to the Prelates of the Court of Rome.  
In the Two Hundred Thirty Seventh, he writes to the same, concerning the Elevation of Bernard, Abbot of St. Anastasius, to the Sovereign Pontificate (Eugenius III. who succeeded Lucius II. in the Year 1145.) He admires how they could draw him out of his Cloister where he was at quiet, to bring him into the World, and lay the whole Care of the Church upon him, which he says makes him very much doubt whether he will be able to sustain the Weight, and therefore recommends to them to support him therein.  
The Two Hundred Thirty Eighth is Addressed to Pope Eugenius, then but newly raised to the Holy See. St. Bernard acquaints him with his Joy, intermixed with Grief and Fear for his Elevation to that Dignity. And afterwards he exhorts him to sustain with Apostolic Zeal, the sublime Ministry which was committed to him, and to endeavour to answer the Opinion people generally had of his Virtue. He writes to him particularly concerning the irregular Lives of the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Winchester. At length he recommends to him to abolish the wicked Custom crept into the Court of Rome, of bestowing Favours for Money; and moreover admonishes him to remember at all times that he is a Man, and to think often of Death by Reflecting how little time the Pontificates of several of his Predecessors have lasted.  
In the Two Hundred Thirty Ninth, and the Two Hundred and Fortieth, he writes again to the Pope against the Archbishop of York▪ and presses his Holiness to suspend him.  
The Two Hundred Forty First is written to Hildefonsus, Count of Tholouse, concerning the Errors of Henry, Disciple to Peter de Bruys, whom this Count favoured. How many Disorders (says he) do we every Day hear that Henry commits in the Church of God? That ravenous Wolf is within your Dominions clothed in a Sheep's ' Skin, but we know him by his Works. The Churches are forsaken, the People are without Bishops, and the Bishops are no more respected. In a Word, the Christians are without Christ, the Church are like Synagogues, the Sanctuary despoiled of its Holiness, the Sacraments looked upon as profane Institutions, the Feast days have lost their Solemnity, Men grow up in Sin, and every day Souls are born away before the Terrible Tribunal of Christ, without being first reconciled to and fortified with the Holy Communion. In refusing Christians Baptism, they are denied the Life of Jesus Christ. A Man that Teaches and Acts so contrary to the Will and Word of God, cannot be from God. And yet alas! he is harkened to by many, and finds those that are ready to believe him. He would have People believe that the Church of God is at an End, and reduced only to that small number that he imposes on: After having been driven out of France, he nevertheless finds an Asylum in your Dominions. Consider with yourself, Great Prince, if this Person does you any Honour; he is an Apostate; for after having quitted his Cloister to live loosely, and not being willing to tarry in his own Country, or rather having been whipped out of it, he went about begging his Bread, and Preaching for a wretched Sustenance, and whenever it happened that he got any thing over and above, he did not fail to consume it at Play, or at other means more shameful. This famous Preacher has been often found with Women of ill Lives. Inform yourself therefore, I beseech you, how he has been driven out of Lausane, Mons, Poitiers and Bourdeaux, and what Reputation he has left behind him in those Places. St. Bernard sends this Prince word, that he is coming to reform the Disorders that this Prince has caused in the Churches of his Dominions; that he has Authority for that Purpose; that he shall do his utmost endeavours to extirpate this pernicious Plant, with assistance of the Bishops, and particularly by the Authority of the Cardinal of Ostia, who will be sent on purpose by the Holy See. He takes notice to him, that it will be for his Interest to receive this Cardinal Kindly, and to join his Authority with theirs, to the end, that the Pains they shall take for the Salvation of him, and his People may not prove of no effect.  
In the Two Hundred Forty Second, written by St. Bernard after his return from this Country, he exhorts the People of Tholouse to shun Heretics, obey their Bishop, exercise Hospitality, and not to suffer any Preachers among them, but such as have either Ordination from their Bishop or the Pope.  
These Letters were writ in the Year 1147.  
The Two Hundred Forty Third, is Addressed to the Lords and People of Rome, after they had driven out Pope Eugenius III. He reproaches them severely for this Action, and conjures them to reconcile themselves speedily to him.  
In the Two Hundred Forty Fourth, he exhorts Conrade, King of the Romans, to Re-establish the Pope, and Punish the Rebels of Rome; giving him to understand, that it is as much for his Interest as for that of the Holy See, that the City of Rome which is Metropolis of the Empire, should be under his Subjection.  
In the Two Hundred Forty Fifth, he Commends the Zeal which Pope Eugenius showed in opposing King Lewis the Younger's obliging Elias Bishop of Orleans to quit his Bishopric.  
In the Two Hundred Forty Sixth, he Recommends this Bishop to the Pope, being before but an humble Monk, and entreats his Holiness to take pity on his Condition, and to provide for the Payment of his Debts, out of the Revenues of his Bishopric.  
In the Two Hundred Forty Seventh, he Prays the same Pope to permit Samson, Archbishop of Rheims, to make use of the Pallium which he had been forbidden, on account of his having Crowned King Lewis in the Church of Bourges in presence of the Archbishop of that City.  
In the Two Hundred Forty Eighth, he advises this Pope not to suffer himself to be overreached by the Bishop of Seez, who was coming to wait on him, to get himself re-established.  
In the Two Hundred Forty Ninth, he recommends to the same Oribert the Prior of Chaise-Dien, Bishop Elect of Valence, chosen in the Year 1145.  
In the Two Hundred and Fiftieth, he Acquaints the Prior and Monks of Portes, that they ought not to take it amiss that the Pope would not allow one of their Fraternity to be Bishop, though he was chosen. He says, that perhaps his Holiness would not admit of him, because he was too Young, and that he would have nothing to be said afterwards against the Election. And as for his own part, he says, he never opposed it in the least. Afterwards, he tells them, that he is sorry that the Abbot of Troy's had written to them so very harshly, and he concludes his Letter with these Humble Words. My Monstrous Life and my Afflicted Conscience Cry towards you for Compassion, for I am a kind of Amphibious Creature, that neither live altogether as an Ecclesiastic nor a Recluse; and it is now a long while since I have quitted the Life of a Monk without forsaking the Habit. I esteem it needless to acquaint you with what you may easily hear from others, that is, what I do, what I employ myself about; what hazards I expose myself to in the World, and through what dangers I am compelled to go: If you are not acquainted with these I beseech you to inform yourselves of them, and when you have thoroughly learned them, to favour me with your Advice and Prayers.  
In the Two Hundred Fifty First, he intercedes to Pope Eugenius in behalf of the Monks of Baume, whom this Pope had punished by changing their Abbey to a Priory, for their having slighted the Authority of the Holy See.  
In the Two Hundred Fifty Second, he conjures the same Pope to put in execution the Sentence pronounced by Innocent II. against the Archbishop of York.  
The Two Hundred Fifty Third is an Answer to a Letter from Hugh Abbot of Premontre, who had made several Complaints against the Monks of Clairvaux. St. Bernard tells him, he did not do well to complain of him and his Order, since he has always had an esteem for that of Premontre, and that he has done them several Service upon divers occasions: He brings several Examples of what he asserts, and at length justifies himself against what that Abbot had alleged against his Order. Towards the end, he admonishes them not to break the Union betwixt them, Acquainting them that for his part he shall never be wanting in the Duties of Charity and Friendship.  
In the Two Hundred Fifty Fourth, he Commends Guarini, Abbot of the Alps, in endeavouring to reform his Monastery, and exhorts him, not to discontinue so good a Work out of fear of not being able to accomplish it while he lives, since the short time we have to live is not sufficient excuse for not endeavouring to make ourselves perfect, and that such as do not labour after a progress in Spiritual Affairs go backwards instead of advancing.  
In the Two Hundred Fifty Fifth, he exhorts Lewis the Gross, King of France, not to hinder the holding of a Council which he believes necessary for the good of the Church. It is of the Council of Pisa that he speaks, convened in the Year 1134, so that this Letter ought to precede the others by many Years.  
In the Two Hundred Fifty Sixth, he exhorts Pope Eugenius not to be disheartened because of some losses the Christians had sustained in the East, but to secure and assist them to his power. He moreover tells him, that he was more than ordinarily surprised when he heard that he was pitched upon for General of the Army, that was to go thither, being no ways qualified for that Employ.  
In the Two Hundred Fifty Seventh, he writes to this Pope in favour of Philip, who was become a Monk of Clairvaux, after he had been suspended from his Bishopric of Tarentum, and desires his Holiness to be kind to him.  
The Three following Letters were writ concerning Rualenus, who had been chosen Abbot of St. Anastasius. St. Bernard after having requested of his Holiness by the first of these Letters to discharge him from his Burden. In the Second, consents that he shall continue it, since his Holiness desires it, and by the Third, he Admonishes this Abbot not to be uneasy under his Vocation.  
In the Two Hundred Sixty First, he desires Eugenius to take off the Excommunication pronounced against the Abbot of St. Urban, who had bestowed the Habit of that Order on a Knight Templar.  
The Two Hundred Sixty Second, is a Letter of Recommendation to the Pope, in favour of the Monks of Mouzon.  
The Two Hundred Sixty Third is Addressed to the Bishop of Soissons, in savour of the Abbot of Chesy.  
The Two Hundred Sixty Fourth is a Letter from Peter, Abbot of Clunie, to St. Bernard, in which, he extremely Commends St. Bernard, and begs of him to send him his Secretary Nicholas.  
The Two Hundred Sixty Fifth is St. Bernard's Answer, in which, he rejects the Praises given him, and moreover informs him, that he cannot send the Person he desires, by reason, that he was with the Bishop of Auxerre, where he was so Sick that it was impossible he should come to Clairvaux without great inconvenience.  
The Two Hundred Sixty Sixth is written to Sugerus, Abbot of St. Deny●, a little before his Death. He exhorts him to prepare courageously for Death, and professes a great deal of Friendship for him.  
By the Two Hundred Sixty Seventh, he tells Pope Eugenius that he was grossly deceived when he raised to the Ecclesiastical Dignity a Person Convicted of Crimes and Condemned for them, by Lambert Bishop of Angoulesme, and therefore begs of his Holiness to revoke what he had done.  
In the Two Hundred Sixty Ninth, he sends him word that he would not have him give Credit to a Letter he lately wrote him, about a Person who had overreached him by a Recommendation from the Bishop of Beauvais.  
In the Two Hundred and Seventieth, he writes again to the Pope, in favour of Anthelmus, Prior of the Great Charter-House, who having expelled some of his Monks for Disobedience and Irregularity, they had gone to Rome, and obtained a Re-establishment from the Pope. St. Bernard says, that from the first foundation of this Order, he had never heard that a Carthusian who forsook his Cloister had ever been received again, without making ample Satisfaction; that these Monks who had thus forsaken their Order did yet worse in returning to it. And what good (says he to the Pope) does your Holiness believe, that these Monks could do, whose leaving their Monastery was an effect of Disobedience, and their returning to it the Product of Pride? They rejoice for the Ill they have done, and insult over those whom they have Offended; and, in a word, they even Triumph for having obtained the Victory. The Prior is no more Prior; he bears his Office with regret, not being willing to see the Destruction of his Order, and he would have left his Monastery long since, could he have gone out alone.— Consider therefore most Holy Father, (continues he,) how you have been overreached, and what Punishment he deserves, who has thus deceived you!— Take Care then that the Prior be restored, to the end, that Iniquity may not Triumph over Justice. He afterwards Acquaints the Pope with the Death of Raymond, Abbot of Cisteaux, and that Gozvin, Abbot of Bonneval, had succeeded him. This Abbot Died in the Year 1151. This Letter therefore belongs to that Year.  
In the Two Hundred Seventy First, he excuses himself to Thibaud, Count of Champagne, for not caring to be concerned in promoting his Son's having Benefices while he was but a Child, and this for Conscience sake, well knowing that Ecclesiastical Dignities ought only to be bestowed upon such as are able to acquit themselves of their Functions, and moreover, it being not allowable for one person to enjoy several Benefices at a time, unless by Dispensation or some other considerable reason that the Church may have.  
In the Two Hundred Seventy Second, he exhorts the Bishop of Laon, (Gautier Abbot of St. Martin who was made Bishop of that See in the Year 1151.) to be reconciled to the Bearer of that Letter.  
The Two Hundred Seventy Third, is written to the Abbot and general Chapter of Cist●aux: He gives them to understand that he could hearty wish his Affairs would give him leave to Assist in their Chapter, and moreover Admonishes them to Labour in the Reformation of their Order.  
In the following he thanks Pope Eugenius for the Letter full of Charity and Zeal which he had written to his Chapter, and moreover entreats him to continue always the same good will towards his Order. He acquaints him towards the End that he is Sorry that he had taken from them Hugh Abbot of the Three Fountains, to make him a Cardinal.  
In the Two Hundred Seventy Fourth, he gives this Abbot of the Three Fountains, to Understand, that he Reputes having writ to Rome, in favour of the Nephew of Hugh Bishop of Auxerre then lately Dead.  
In the Two Hundred Seventy Fifth, he Acquaints the Pope with the Disturbances that had happened in the Election of a Bishop to the Church of Auxerre, and what he had been Informed by one of his Monks, sent thither concerning the double Election there made.  
In the Two Hundred Seventy Sixth, he Acquaints him likewise that the will of the late Bishop of Auxerre, had been made by suggestion of Deacon Stephen, at whose Request he had given his Nephew several Benefices and Church-Lands.  
In the Two Hundred Seventy Seventh, written also to the Pope, he recommends to him Peter Abbot of Clunie, who was on his Journey towards Rome, and begs that his Holiness would not give him leave to quit his Abbey altho' he should desire it.  
The Two Hundred Seventy Eighth is a Letter of Recommendation to the Pope in favour of Henry Bishop of Beauvais.  
In the Two Hundred Seventy Ninth, Addressed to Henry Son of Thibaud Count of Champagne, he begs of him to do Justice in behalf of the Abbot of Chatillon, on the Lord of Belfort, whose Servants had taken several Cattle from him.  
The Two Hundred and Eightieth is written to the Pope concerning the Election of a Bishop of Auxerre. The Pope having Understood that there were two different Elections, deputed St. Bernard, with two other Persons to proceed to a New one, St. Bernard and one of the Electors pitched upon one Person who is thought to have been Alain who got the better, but the Third gave his Vote for another. Hereupon St. Bernard prays the Pope to procure the Consent of the Third Person, Assuring his Holiness, that he could not have thought of a more proper Person to serve the Church, and to prevent the Designs of the Count of Nevers upon the Church of Auxerre.  
The Two Hundred Eighty First contains a Reprimand which he gave the Abbot of Cher●al, for the Liberty he had taken to talk injuriously of him.  
In the Two Hundred Eighty Second, he exhorts Lewis the Younger, King of France to give his Consent to the Election which had been made of a Bishop of Auxerre.  
In the Two Hundred Eighty Third, he writes to Pope Eugenius touching the restitution demanded by the Monks of the Monastery of the Mirror, of the Order of Cisteaux, upon the Monks of Gigny of the Order of Clunie, of 30000 Sols. Hereupon the Abbot of Clunie and St. Bernard had endeavoured to accommodate the Difference; and the Monks of Gigny, having little to say for themselves, St. Bernard has recourse to the Pope, that he would be pleased to do justice in behalf of those of the Mirror.  
In the Two Hundred Eighty Fourth he recommends to this Pope the Archbishop of Rheims, the Bishop of Arras, the Abbot of Aucourt, and some others.  
The Three following Letters were written in favour of Odon Successor of Sugerus in the Abbey of St. Denys. The Two First are Addressed to the Pope, and the Third to Hugh Cardinal Bishop of Ostia.  
In the Two Hundred Eighty Eighth Addressed to Andrew his Uncle, a Knight Templar, he acquaints him with his concern for the ill Success of the Crusade occasioned by the ill Conduct of the Christian Princes, and says he hopes to see that Enterprise accomplished before he dies.  
In the Two Hundred Eighty Ninth, he gives wholesome Advice to Melisenda Queen of Jerusalem.  
In the Two Hundred and Ninetieth, Addressed to Hugh Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, he writes against the Conduct of Jordain des Ursini, Cardinal Legate of the Holy See in Germany. Your Legate (says he) has left behind him shameful Marks of his Expedition wherever he has been, for he has filled all the Churches of Germany, France, and Normandy with Sacrileges. It is said that he has done a great many Ill Things unworthy of his Character, Robbed the Churches wherever he came, and every where placed Young Men in Ecclesiastical Dignities; That several have paid him great Sums of Money to keep him out of their Country; That by his Emissaries he has Extorted and Exacted Money from those places whither he could not go himself: In a word he is become the By word of the World: Every Body slights and speaks ill of him: The Poor Monks and Other Clergy complain of him: Those of his Profession have the greatest Abhorrence of his Life and Conversation; and Lastly he has little resemblance with John Paperans, who was Legate at that time in Ireland, and who was justly Honoured and Rewarded for his faithful and Prudent Ministry. St. Bernard desires his Letter may be Read to the Pope, to Assist him in his Proceed against this lose Legate.  
In the Two Hundred Ninety First, he prays the Pope to have compassion on the Monastery of St. Eugende on Mont-Jura which was almost ruined.  
In the Two Hundred Ninety Second, he reproves a Man of the World for having endeavoured to dissuade one of his Relations from turning Monk.  
In the Two Hundred Ninety Third, he writes to Peter Abbot of Cells concerning a Monk of the Abbey of Chesy whom he had received into his Monastery.  
In the Two Hundred Ninety Fourth, he recommends to the Pope, William de Passavant Bishop of Man's, Accused by one of his Clergy.  
In the Two following Letters he recommends also the same Person to the Cardinals Henry, and Hugh Bishop of Ostia.  
In the Two Hundred Ninety Seventh, he sends back a Monk of the Abbey of Montier-Ramey who had quitted his Monastery, and now was desirous to return to it.  
In the Two Hundred Ninety Eighth he writes to the Pope, that Nicholas who came from the Abbey of Montier-Ramey to his of Clairvaux, and who also had been his Secretary, was run from him, and had taken away several Books, a great Sum of Money and divers Seals of Value. That he had for some time been Jealous of him, but that he all along hoped that God would convert him or that he would betray himself as he now had done. That he does not question but he has written to several People in his Name. At length he desires his Holiness not to receive him.  
In the Two Hundred Ninety Ninth, he writes to the Count of Angoulesme in behalf of the Monks of the Monastery of St. Amand de Boisse.  
In the Three Hundred he comforts Matildis Countess of Blois concerning the extravagant Courses of her Son, and that he hoped Age would work an Alteration upon him, but however he Advises her to treat him with Mildness.  
In the Three Hundred and First, he prays Sancha, Sister to the King of Spain, to Accommodate a difference that had happened between the Monks of the Order which she had newly Established in Leon, and the Other Monks of the Country.  
The Three Hundred and Second is written in favour of the Archbishop of Mentz, to the Legates of the Holy See sent into Germany to determine the matter. This Archbishop was Henry and the Legates were the Cardinals Bernard and Gregory who suspended this Archbishop, notwithstanding the recommendation of St. Bernard, having as was supposed been corrupted by Money.  
In the Three Hundred and Third, he writes to King Lewis the Younger that he ought not to let a Lord of Britain, being Excommunicated for Adultery, have the Estate that belongs to his Wife.  
In the Three Hundred and Fourth he thanks this King for his kind Enquiry after his health, and Moreover recommends to him Robert Cousin to this Prince.  
In the Three Hundred and Fifth, he sends Pope Eugenius word that he has hindered Henry Bishop of Beauvais from going to Rome; as likewise recommends to him the Affair of this Bishop, desiring him to delegate the Archbishop of Rheims for its Determination.  
In the Three Hundred and Sixth, he acquaints the Cardinal of Ostia that he has not been able to incline the Monks of the Three Fountains; to Elect Nicholas for their Abbot whom this Cardinal desired might succeed in this Abbey, yet notwithstanding the Monks had chosen Turolde; that he knew nothing in that Person which could deserve that Dignity, and that if he had a mind to out him of it, for his part he would not oppose it.  
In the Three Hundred and Seventh, he excuses the Conduct of the Bishop of Beauvais to this Cardinal, altho' he says he does not deserve it. He promises him to recall as soon as possible Robert his Monk who was with that Bishop; and moreover sends him word, that Heraclius, Archbishop of Lions, was on his Journey to Rome, but that falling Sick at Montpelier, he had spent all the Money he had laid apart for his Voyage. He gives him likewise to understand, that he had been almost at Death's-Door, but was now somewhat recovered.  
The Three Hundred and Eighth is addressed to Alphonso King of Portugal. He writes him word, that he will do all in his Power to comply with his Commands; gives him some Account of his Brother Peter, and likewise acquaints him, that one of his Monks named Roland, brings him a Letter from the Pope, whereby his Holiness grants him many Favours. He lastly recommends this Monk to him, as also all of his Order within his Majesty's Dominions.  
The Three Hundred and Ninth was written before the foregoing, in the Life time of Sugerus, Abbot of St. Denys, whom he thereby recommends to the Pope.  
The Three Hundred and Tenth, Addressed to Arnaud, Abbot of Bonneval, is the last which he writ before his Death. He therein gives his Friend to understand the sad Condition he is in, and desires his Prayers.  
These Three Hundred and Ten Letters, compose the Ancient Collection of those of St. Bernard, compiled by his Disciples, and left in the Monastery of Clairvaux. There have since been found several others which are those which follow, continuing the Number.  
The Three Hundred and Eleventh is Addressed to Haimeric, Chancellor of the Holy See, and written in the Name of Hugh Abbot of Pontigni, and of St. Bernard. It contains Complaints against those who envy other Men's good Actions, and excessive Commendations of Haimeric's Conduct in his Ministry.  
The Three Hundred and Twelfth is a Letter of Compliment to Rainaud Archbishop of Rheims.  
In the Three Hundred and Thirteenth, written to Geoffrey Bishop of York; he says that those Monks that have a mind to quit a-— Life for amore Austeres, ought not to be hindered, but after having embraced it, they are not to be released, for fear of becoming Apostates.  
The Three Hundred and Fourteenth is written to Pope Innocent II. about the time that St. Bernard negotiated the Affair of the People of Lombardy with his Holiness. He sends him word, that he can neither prevail upon those of Cremona, nor those of Milan.  
In the Three Hundred and Fifteenth, he begs of Maud Queen of England, to grant him what he had formerly requested of her in favour of the Abbot of La Chapelle.  
In the Three Hundred and Sixteenth, he desires also Henry Archbishop of Sens, and Haimeric Chancellor of the Church of Rome, not to oppose the Restitution of some Ecclesiastical Goods, which a certain Lord has a mind to make to the Monks. When Laics (says he) who are in possession of Church's orChurch-Revenues have a mind to quit them, it is commendable; and when they are disposed to give them to the Ministers of God, it is doubly so. But this being to be done only by the hands of the Bishop, he cannot refuse it without being guilty of two Faults, nor consent to it, without being cause of two good things. This Lord requests a thing of you which you ought to have asked of him; for which do you think does it better become to be in Possession of Church Revenues, a Soldier or a Saint? No body that has heard of this Action; but has been surprised. Make then no more difficulties to receive from Laics what belongs to the Church and the Ministers of God's Word.  
In the Three Hundred and Seventeenth, written from St. Bernard to Geoffrey Prior of the Monastery of Clairvaux; he gives him to understand that the Church of Rome is at present in Peace; that the party of Peter of Leon have done Fealty and Homage to Pope Innocent; that in like manner, all the Clergy that had sided with that Cardinal were came over to the Pope: And in fine, that God having thus fulfilled his Wishes, he shall be speedily on his Return. This Letter was written in the Year 1138.  
In the Three Hundred and Eighteenth, he acquaints Pope Innocent II. with the Danger the Church of Rheims was in, by reason of the great Contests about the Election of an Archbishop.  
In the Three Hundred and Nineteenth, he exhorts Turstin Archbishop of York not to lay down his Archbishopric, or in case that he be obliged to do it for some secret Reason, or in Obedience to the Pope's Commands, he advises him to enter into the strictest Cloister.  
In the Three Hundred and Twentieth, he admonishes Alexander, Prior of the Monastery of Fountain in England, to take care that the Election of a new Abbot be made without Heats and Dispute.  
In the Three Hundred and Twenty First, he enjoins Henry de Murdach to accept of the Abbey of Fountain, in case he be Elected.  
The Three Hundred and Twenty Second contains wholesome Instructions to a young Monk, which he gives to Hugh, then but a Probationer, and afterwards Abbot of Bonneval.  
The Three Hundred and Twenty Third is written in favour of the Archbishop of Treves, against the Abbot of St. Maximin.  
The Three Hundred and Twenty Fourth is a Compliment to Robert Abbot of Dunes, who was afterwards successor to St. Bernard, in the Abbey of Clairvaux.  
In the Three Hundred and Twenty Fifth, he writes to the same Abbot, that he is not to admit a Probationer, if he have not well acquitted himself during his Probation-ship.  
The Three Hundred Twenty Sixth is a Letter from William Abbot of St. Thierry, to Geoffrey Bishop of Chartres, and to St. Bernard, against the Error of Abaelard, which he has there reckoned up. We shall speak more of this when we treat of the Doctrine of Abaelard.  
The Three Hundred and Twenty Seventh is an Answer of St. Bernard's to this Letter, wherein he acquaints him that he intends speedily to have a Conference with him upon that Subject.  
The Three Hundred Twenty Eighth is written to Pope Innocent II. against him that had been chosen Bishop of Rhodes.  
The Three Hundred Twenty Ninth is written to the Bishop of Lymoges against the same.  
The Nine Letters following were written in the Year 1140. against Peter Abaelard. The Three Hundred and Thirtieth, and the Three Hundred Thirty Seventh to Pope Innocent, and the rest to the Cardinals. The Three Hundred Thirty Seventh is written in the Name of the Bishops of France, and contains a Relation of what had passed against Abaelard in the Council of Sens.  
In the Three Hundred Thirty Ninth, he recommends to Pope Innocent, Aloisus Bishop of Arras, and says that those who have accused him are only Calumniators.  
In the Letter following he recommends to the same Pope Ulger, Bishop of Angers.  
The Three Hundred Forty First is written to Malachy, Archbishop of Armagh in Ireland, who had sent two young Monks to him, to learn the manner of living in Clairvaux, with design to found a Monastery of the same Institution. St. Bernard promises to send them back well instructed in a short time.  
In the Three Hundred Forty Second, he writes to Josselin Bishop of Soissons, to appease the King who had been incensed without cause against Geoffrey de Loroux, Archbishop of Bourdeaux, who had incurred the Displeasure of this Prince, by ordaining Grimoard, who had been canonically elected Bishop of Poitiers, in the Year 1140.  
The two following Letters were written by Bernard, Abbot of St. Anastasius, and afterwards Pope Eugenius III. The first to Pope Innocent II. and the second to St. Bernard. In both he expresses a great deal of Concern, for having been forced from the Monastery of Clairvaux, and sent into Italy.  
The Three Hundred Forty Fifth is a Letter of St. Bernard's to the Monks of St. Anastasius, to whom he recommends living always in strict observance of their Order, and in Charity one towards another. He moreover tells them, that though any of the Monks be sick, they must make use only of some common sorts of Herbs, it being repugnant to the Spirit of Religion to buy Drugs, to send for Physicians, or to take Physic.  
In the Three Hundred Forty Sixth, he exhorts Pope Innocent II. not to favour the unjust cause of William Archbishop of York.  
In the Three Hundred Forty Seventh, he recommends to him the Deputies which went to Rome to complain of this Archbishop.  
In the Three Hundred Forty Eighth he recommends to the same Pope Arnone, Elected Bishop of Lisieux, who had a Dispute in the Court of Rome, about his Election, with Geoffrey Count of Angers.  
The three following, are also Letters of Recommendation to the same Pope.  
The Three Hundred Fifty Second contains a Privilege granted by Pope Innocent to St. Bernard and his Successors, in consideration of the great Services he had done the Church of Rome, during the Schism caused by Peter of Leon, by which this Pope takes under the Protection of the Holy See, all Revenues present, and to come, belonging to the Abbey of Clairvaux; as likewise, grants to the Monks of Cisteaux, leave to choose an Abbot out of their Order, and to the Abbeys which have others under them; he grants permission to choose any of those Abbots for their Head, or any of the Monks belonging to such Orders. He forbids the Bishops to constrain the Abbots of Clairvaux, and the other Abbots of the Order of Cisteaux, to come to any Council, providing it be not about matters of Faith. He prohibits all Persons to receive any Friars of their Order, after they are professed; and lastly, declares the Monks of this Order exempt from paying Tithes of Fruits or Cattle.  
In the Three Hundred Fifty Third, he Comforts William Abbot of Rivau, in the Diocese of York, in that the Archbishop of that See has been Countenanced at Rome, Assuring him withal, that the Sacraments Administered, and Ordinations made by bad Ministers are Valid, since it is God that Baptises and Consecrates.  
In the Three Hundred Fifty Fourth, he Comforts Melisenda, Queen of Jerusalem, for the Death of Fulk her Husband, and exhorts her to govern her Kingdom with Prudence and Justice.  
In the Three Hundred Fifty Fifth, he Recommends to this Queen the Monks of Premontre, who were on their Journey to the Holy Land.  
By the Three Hundred Fifty Sixth, he sends back to Malachy, Archbishop of Armagh, the Monks which he had sent him. He likewise Recommends them to him in the Letter following.  
In the Three Hundred Fifty Eighth, he writes to Pope Celestine II. to Pardon Thibaud, Count of Champagne.  
The Three Hundred Fifty Ninth, is written to the same Pope, in the Name of the Monks of Clairvaux, who beg of his Holiness not to permit Rainaud Abbot of Morimond, to quit his Monastery to go to Jerusalem.  
In the Three Hundred and Sixtieth, he again exhorts William Abbot of Rivau, to bear patiently with the Archbishop of York.  
In the Three Hundred Sixty First, he recommends to Thibaud Archbishop of Canterbury, John Bishop of Salisbury.  
In the Three Hundred Sixty Second, he recommends to Robert Pallus, Cardinal and Chancellor of the Church of Rome, to behave himself becoming his Dignity, to Eugenius III. newly Elected Pope.  
In the Three Hundred Sixty Third, he exhorts the Christians of France and Bavaria to take up Arms for relief of the Holy Land; and moreover admonishes them neither to put the Jews to Death, nor so much as to persecute them.  
In the Three Hundred Sixty Fourth, he invites Peter Abbot of Clunie to an Assembly to be held after Easter at Chartres, there to deliberate on the manner of relieving the Christians of the Holy Land.  
In the Three Hundred Sixty Fifth, Addressed to Henry Archbishop of Mayence, he writes against a Monk named Radulph, who by his Preaching, authorised killing of the Jews.  
The Three Hundred Sixty Sixth is Addressed to Hildegarda Abbess of Mont-Saint-Robert near Binghen, in the Diocese of Mayence. After having rejected the Praises given to him, he congratulates her upon the extraordinary Gifts the has received from God, and exhorts her to make a suitable return thereto by Humility and Devotion.  
The Three Hundred Sixty Seventh is a Letter of Recommendation to Guy Chancellor of the Church of Rome, in favour of Stephen Bishop of Mets.  
The Three Hundred Sixty Eighth is a Letter of Compliment to a Cardinal, which contains wholesome Advice to wean him from the Cares of the World.  
In the Three Hundred Sixty Ninth and Three Hundred and Seventieth, he congratulates Sugerus Abbot of St. Denys, in having reformed the Church of St. Genevieve, by introducing regular Canons into it. He exhorts him to do the same thing in the Church of St. Victor.  
In the following Letter Addressed to the same, he dissuades him from making the Match between the Count of Angers and the King's Daughter, by reason of their near Kindred.  
In the Three Hundred Seventy Second, he commends Peter Bishop of Palenzade, for his Humility and Application to the reading of good Books.  
The Three Hundred Seventy Third is a Letter of the Abbot of Epine, in the Diocese of Palenza, Addressed to St. Bernard, by which this Abbot testifies the great Concern he has for having been drawn out of the Abbey of Clairvaux, and charged with the Government of a Monastery, which he earnestly entreaties St. Bernard to get him discharged from.  
In the Three Hundred Seventy Fourth, he comforts the Monks of his Order in Ireland, for the death of their Abbot St. Malachy.  
In the Three Hundred Seventy Fifth, he complains to Ida Countess of Nivernois, that her Servants molest and detain those who go to the Abbey of Vezelay.  
In the Three Hundred Seventy Sixth, he exhorts Sugerus Abbot of St. Denys, to hinder the Duels which certain French Lords were engaged in against each other.  
In the Three Hundred Seventy Seventh, he commends this Abbot in that he designed to Assemble the Clergy for the public Good.  
The four Letters following are likewise Addressed to Sugerus, whereof the two first are Letters of Recommendation. The Third is concerning the Estate the Church of the East was then in; and in the last, says that he is sorry that this Abbot is accused of the disturbances in the Kingdom, and wills him therefore to do his utmost to prevent 'em, and not to suffer any in his Abbey, which are any ways the cause of them.  
In the Three Hundred Eighty Second, written to Leonius Abbot of St. Berthin; he expresses his Gratitude for the Favours he has received from him, and moreover acquaints him, that Thomas of St. Omer who had left his Order to come to his of Clairvaux, could not possibly return.  
In the Three Hundred Eighty Third, Addressed to the same, he thanks him for the many proofs of Friendship which he has received from him. He passes the same Compliment on the Monks of St. Berthin in the following Letter; and in the Three Hundred Eighty Fifth, he commends them for having reformed themselves, and exhorts them to endeavour to perfect themselves every day more and more.  
The Three Hundred Eighty Sixth, is written to St. Bernard, by John Abbot of the House of St. Mary, in the Country of Verulo, to comfort him about the unsuccessful Expedition to the Holy-Land, whereof St. Bernard had been the Promoter. He imputes the Fault thereof to the wickedness of those that had the management of it.  
The Three Hundred Eighty Seventh, is written to Peter Abbot of Clunie, to whom St. Bernard excuses himself about a sharp Letter written in his Name, affirming that the Blame ought not to be cast on him, but on the Authors of it; to which Peter Abbot of Clunie, Answers by the following Letter, expressing a great deal of Value and Esteem for St. Bernard, professing himself well satisfied with his Excuse; and moreover mentioning a Legacy deposited in the Treasury of Clunie, which was left to the Monasteries of Clairvaux and Cisteaux, which he says he will not contend with him about, nor concerning the Election of a Bishop of Grenoble, which the Carthusians opposed.  
St. Bernard gives a short Answer to this Letter, by the Three Hundred Eighty Ninth.  
The Three Hundred and Ninetieth, written to Eskile, Bishop of Londen in Denmark, and Legate of the Holy See in Sweedland, contains only matter of Compliment, in which St. Bernard Assures him of his Affection, and thanks him for that which he had professed for him.  
The Three Hundred Ninety First is Addressed to the Abbess of Tavernay, in the Diocese of Bezancon, whom he Admonishes to endeavour to re-establish the Religious Houses, and to reform the Monastic Discipline.  
The Three Hundred Ninety Second, contains Instructions concerning Humility given to Radulph Patriarch of Antioch.  
The following Letter contains the like, being Addressed to William Patriarch of Jerusalem.  
In the Three Hundred Ninety Fourth, he blames the Archbishop of Lions, for having deposed th● Abbot of Aisnay, and admonishes him to revoke his Decree▪  
In the Three Hundred Ninety Fifth Addressed to Alvisus Bishop of Arras, he acquaints him that Thomas a Monk of St. Berthin being entered into the Monastery of Clairvaux, cannot reasonably be expected to return to Berthin.  
In the Three Hundred Ninety Sixth written to Ricuin Bishop of Toul, he excuses himself for having received into his Monastery a Clerk of his Church without knowing of him.  
In the Three Hundred Ninety Seventh written to Odon Abbot of Marmoutier, in the Name of Hugh Abbot of Pontigni and of St. Bernard, they give him to understand that his Monks ought not to take it ill that they have lost some Churches which they pretended to by the Arbitration and final Determination of Geoffrey Bishop of Chartres, and Thibaud Count of Champagne, therefore persuades them to acquiesce in that Judgement. They further Observe in this Letter, that Churches and Church-Revenues belong naturally to the Clerks who are Obliged to serve at the Altar, and consequently aught to live by it. When the Profession of Monks and the Examples of their Predecessors learn them that they are to get their living with the sweat of their Brows, and not to subsist on the Profits of the Church. Nay even tho' the Church should be neglected by the Clerks they are not to partake of the Revenues tho' they do of the Trouble. For (says he) with what Face can you, O Monks, pretend to the Wine of the Vines which you have not planted, and to the Milk of the flock which you have not governed? How comes it that you would exact some thing from them for whom you never did any Service? And if you will needs ●●y claim to it, why don't you Baptise their Children, Bury their Dead, Visit their Sick, Give Benedictions in Marriage, Instruct their Ignorant, Reprimand Sinners, Excommunicate such as despise Instruction, and give Absolution to Penitents? In a word why don't ye Open your Mouths and Preach, you whose duty it is to live in Repose and silence? But it is a most Odious thing to reap where you did not Sow, and live upon the gains of another. Lastly St. Bernard says that altho' they had the right they pretended, yet ought they not to Dissent from their Abbot who had already Agreed to the Judgement of the Arbitrators.  
In the Three Hundred Ninety Eighth he writes to Guy Abbot of Montier-Ra●…ey, and to the Monks of his Monastery who had desired St. Bernard to compose Lessons and Hymns for them to read on the Feast of St. Victor, whose body they pretended was buried in their Church, to which he Answered that he durst not undertake a work so much above his Capacity, and which required a Person of greater Authority, of a Life more Holy, and who was master of a better Style. He Adds moreover that in the Celebration of so solemn a Feast, New Prayers of small Authority ought not to be made use of, but rather Authentic and Ancient Compositions which may be proper to edify the Church, and which Savour of Ecclesiastical Gravity. That if there be a Necessity for something new and the subject so requires it, such Pieces ought only to be used as command respect from the Grandeur of their Style and the Pious Life of their Author. As for the rest (says he) the Expressions therein contained aught to be of Unquestioned Veracity; They ought to inspire Justice, Teach Humility, Inculcate Equity, Enlighten the mind, Model the Manners, Extirpate Vice, Instill Devotion and restrain the Liberties of the Senses. The Singing aught to be Grave, without intermixing any thing either Effeminate or Rustic. It ought to be Agreeable without being too delicate, and should Affect the Heart by surprising the Ear. And in a word it should comfort sadness, and Appease Discontent, but not drown the Sound of the Words but rather increase it; for it is no small disadvantage to a spiritual Life when the Charms of Singing divert the Attention from Thoughts, and fix them rather upon Modulating the Voice, than comprehending the sense of the Words. These are the Sentiments of St. Bernard concerning Prayers and Celebrating the Divine Office, and altho' he had all the Qualifications which he required in an Author of this kind, yet would he not undertake what was requested of him, and contents himself with sending only two Sermons on the Life of St. Victor to the Monks of Montier-Ramey.  
The Three Hundred Ninety Ninth is a Letter of Recommendation which he gave to a Monk of the Monastery of St. Michael, who was about to go in Pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He endeavours to dissuade him from this Design by reason that he thought a Monk, however Criminal he were, could not do Penance better than within the Walls of his Monastery. He desires Lelbert Abbot of this Monastery to receive him.  
The Four Hundred is another Letter of Recommendation granted to Robert a Monk of Liessi●● that his Abbot might use him more kindly.  
The Two Letters following contain nothing remarkable.  
In the Four Hundred and Third Addressed to Henry Archdeacon of Orleans, he Answers to a Question proposed to him, to wit, If a Child who was in Danger of Death had been baptised by a Laic under this form. I Baptise you in the Name of God and of the Holy and true Cross, whether the Baptism had been Valid; or whether providing the Child had lived it must have been Baptised again. St. Bernard is of the mind that it had been well Baptised, because he cannot think that the difference in words can prejudice the Truth of the Faith, and the good Intention of him that Baptised it. His reason is because under the word God the Trinity is comprehended, and by Adding the Holy and True Cross he had made mention of our Saviour, That when one is baptised according to the Custom of the Church in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and as we may read in the Acts of the Apostles that some were baptised in the Name of Jesus Christ only, it cannot be doubted but that those who have been baptised in the Name of the Holy Cross, have been sufficiently sanctified, insomuch that the Confession of the Cross implys the Confession of Jesus Christ Crucify'd. Moreover that in respect of him who had baptised, his simplicity and good Intention excused him, but nevertheless that if any should endeavour to Introduce this manner of Baptism they would be Inexcusable. This Opinion of St. Bernard disagrees with that of the Divines, who maintain that Baptism of this kind is ipso facto Null and Void.  
The Four Hundred and Fourth is Addressed to Albert a Recluse Monk, who desired of St. Bernard that he might fast after his own fashion, and Permit Women to enter into his Cell. St. Bernard Answers that he has no power to Command him, but that he has several times Advised him to Eat at least once a day to receive no visits from Women and to live by hard Labour.  
In the Four Hundred and Fifth he takes Notice to an Abbot that one of his Monks was qualified to be Professed, and therefore he ought not to dispense with him.  
The Four Hundred and Sixth is Addressed to the Abbot of St. Nicholas in the Woods, to whom he recommends a certain Monk.  
In the Four Hundred and Seventh he blames Odon Abbot of Beaulieu, for not having paid a Legacy to a Poor Man, and tells him he had better have Sold a Chalice from the Altar, than have suffered this Person to want.  
In the Four Hundred and Eighth he recommends to William Abbot of the Regular Canons of St. Martin of Troy's a Clerk who had a mind to retire from the World, and who was not able to undergo the way of Living at Clairvaux.  
In the Four Hundred and Ninth Addressed to Rorgon Abbot of Abbeville, he makes him a compliment upon his desiring to see him, and desires him to bestow a spare piece of Ground belonging to his Abbey, to the Monks of Alchy.  
In the Four Hundred and Tenth he recommends to Gilduin Abbot of St. Victor of Paris, Peter Lombard who was come from Bulloign in France, and had been recommended to St. Bernard by the Bishop of Lucca.  
The Four Hundred and Eleventh is written to Thomas Provost of Beverlake in England, and contains Exhortations to a Holy Life.  
The Letter following is written upon the same subject to a young Man who had entered into a Vow to embrace a Monastic Life.  
In the Four Hundred and Thirteenth he recommends a Probationary Monk to Rainaud Abbot of Foigny Advising him to send him back after he had corrected his Faults.  
In the Letter following he blames a Monk of this Monastery for having Opposed the return of this Person.  
By the Four Hundred and Fifteenth he exhorts a Man to perform the Vow he had made to become a Monk of Clairvaux.  
In the Four Hundred and Sixteenth he Answers a certain Person who had complained to him that he had had no share of the Alms given by Count Thibaud, that he was not concerned in the Distribution of them.  
The Two following Letters contain nothing remarkable.  
These are all the Letters which are most commonly Ascribed to St. Bernard tho' Father Mabillon has Added some others which are doubtful, and might very probably have been written by other Persons. He also adds some Charters which may reasonably admit of the same doubt, all which nevertheless continue the foregoing Numbers.  
The Four Hundred and Nineteenth is An Exhortation to Probationers the which Father Mabillon believes does not belong to St. Bernard, by reason that the Style is more restrained, and contains Maxims unlike those of St. Bernard, such as this, That we must Praise God even for our Damnation. It likewise appears to me that this Letter differs in stile from those of St. Bernard.  
The Two following Letters are also Unlike the stile of St. Bernard.  
The Four Hundred and Twenty Second is only a short Billet Addressed to King Lewis.  
The Four Hundred and Twenty Third is a draught of a Letter concerning the Crusade which might probably be his as well as the Letter following. He therein recommends the Son of Count Thibaud going to the Holy War to Emanuel Commenes Emperor of Constantinople.  
The Four Hundred and Twenty Fifth is a Copy of the Twenty Sixth Letter of St. Bernard.  
The Four Hundred and Twenty Sixth is a Judgement by Arbitration pronounced by St. Bernard between Hugh, Bishop of Auxerre, and William Count of that City.  
The Four Hundred and Twenty Seventh is a Letter from Geoffrey Bishop of Chartres, to Stephen Bishop of Paris, by which he advises him to Refer himself to St. Bernard touching the dispute he had with Stephen de Guarlande.  
The Four Hundred and Twenty Eighth from Bernard Abbot of St. Anastasius, to St. Bernard Abbot of Clairvaux, concerning a disobedient and haughty Monk.  
The Four Hundred and Twenty Ninth is an Elogium of St. Bernard sent to him by Hugh Metellus a Regular Canon of St. Leon.  
The Four Hundred and Thirtieth is a Letter from the same written to St. Bernard which contains an Apology for his Monastery.  
The Four Hundred and Thirty First is also from the same written in the Name of Siebaud Abbot of St. Leon to Abbot William, to excuse him for having Answered the Calumnies of Herbert with too great severity.  
The Two following Letters are written by Haimon Archdeacon of Chalons, to St. Bernard; In the First he acquaints him with his sickness, and in the other he sends to him for his Sermons.  
The Four Hundred and Thirty Fourth is a Letter Addressed to St. Bernard to excuse Thierri Bishop of Amiens from his Voyage to the Holy Land.  
The Four Hundred and Thirty Fifth is a Charter by which Samson Archbishop of Rheims gives to the the Congregation of Clairvaux the Church of Moors, which he had Obtained from the Monks of St. Denys there to Build a Monastery of his Order.  
By the Four Hundred and Thirty Sixth Henry Bishop of Troy's makes the like Gifts of the Church of Billencourt to the Abbey of Clairvaux.  
The Four Hundred and Thirty Seventh is a Letter of Hugh Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, to the general Chapter of Cisteaux, concerning the death of Pope Eugenius III.  
The Four Hundred and Thirty Eighth, is a Letter of Bartholomew, a Monk of Foigny, who had been Bishop of Laon, Addressed to Samson Archbishop of Rheims, by which he justifies himself against his being accused, that he had embezzled the Goods of the Church of Laon, while he was Bishop there.  
The Four Hundred and Thirty Ninth, is a Letter from Turstin Archbishop of York to William Archbishop of Canterbury, containing a Relation of what had happened to him when he had endeavoured to introduce the Customs of Cisteaux into the Monastery of St. Mary at York.  
The Four Hundred and Fortieth, is a Letter of Fastrede the Fourth Abbot of Clairvaux, to an Abbot of his Order, whom he blames for going too richly dressed, and living too delicately. He therein renews the Maxim of St. Bernard, That a Monk ought not to make use of any external Remedies.  
The Four Hundred and Forty First, is written by Peter de Roye, a Probationer of Clairvaux, to the Provost of the Church of Noyon, in which he shows the difference between the Life led in Clairvaux, and that which is led at large in the World.  
The Four Hundred and Forty Second, is a Letter of a General Chapter of the Province of Rheims, who were called the Black Monks, to Pope Adrian IU. whereby they beg that Godfrey Abbot of Lagny may be suspended.  
The Letter following is from the same, Addressed to Pope Alexander III. upon the same Subject.  
Lastly, the Four Hundred and Forty Fourth, is a Letter from an unknown Hand, Addressed to the Abbot of Reatino, which contains nothing remarkable.  
The Second Tome of St. Bernard's Works, comprehends divers Treatises, whereof the first is Entitled, Of Consideration, divided into V Books, and Addressed to Pope Eugenius III. to serve him for Instruction. The Consideration he treats of in this Work, is as himself desires it, the Thoughts which he employs in search after Truth, and more particularly relating to the Duties of his Profession. In 
St. Bernard's Treatise of Consideration.  the first Book, he shows that the Condition of a Sovereign Pontiff would be but very unhappy, had he no regard to himself, for it would be a very indiscreet thing of him to spend all his time in hearing and deciding other men's Differences, and all the while neglect to employ himself sometimes in Contemplation. He exclaims against the great number of Causes that are brought into the Ecclesiastical Courts, as likewise against the many Abuses committed there. He shows that this is more consistent with the Secular Power than the Ecclesiastical. He says he would not have Eugenius follow the Examples of his Predecessors, who applied themselves more to Business than Contemplation, but that he should imitate St. Gregory, who when Rome was threatened to be besieged by the Barbarians, laboured on an Exposition of the most difficult passage of the Prophet Ezckiel. He there proves that Consideration serves to form and employ the four Cardinal Virtues. Lastly, he takes Notice of the unbecoming Bicker at the Ecclesiastical Bar, and exhorts Pope Eugenius to endeavour after a Regulation.  
In the second Book, after having justified himself for advising the expedition of the Crusade, which had been unsuccessful; he admonishes Pope Eugenius to consider as to his Person, who he is, and as to the Dignity of his Profession, what he is. First he is to reflect whence he is descended, which may serve to abate his Pride. He gives him to understand, that he is not set over others, to domineer over them, but to be their Minister and watch over them; that if this Dignity has procured him great Riches, he is not to think they belong to him by the right of Apostleship, since St. Peter had no power to dispose of what he never enjoyed: That he indeed had given him the charge of all Churches, but not an arbitrary Dominion over them, which he expressly forbids, and the Gospel disallows. That the same Person cannot well execute the Civil Government and the Papacy, and therefore he who grasps at both, ought justly to lose both. In a word, he advises him particularly to avoid being haughty on account of his Supremacy, for (says he) you are not supremely perfect by being supreme Bishop, and take notice, that if you think yourself so, you are the worst of Men. But let us consider you, as you stand in the Church of God, and what Figure you make. You are the Chief Priest, the Sovereign Pontiff, the first among the Bishops, the Heir of the Apostles, Abel in Priority, Noah in Government, etc. 'Tis to you that the Keys of Heaven have been entrusted, and to whom the Care of the Flock has been committed; but there are other Doorkeepers of Heaven, and other Pastors besides you; yet you are so much the more above them, as you have received the Title after a different manner. They have every one a particular Flock, but you are superintendent over them all; you are not only Supreme Pastor over all the Flocks, but likewise over all the Shepherds. He establishes this Privilege upon the Words of our Saviour in the Gospel, and he adds some Lines afterwards.— Others are but called to a part of the Care, when the full Power is confided to you. Their Power is limited, when yours extends even over those who have a power over others; for it is your Business to excommunicate a Bishop, and suspend him if you see occasion. This is what you are at present by your Office to remember also what you were, and who you are Personally, for you are still what you were once, and the Dignity which has been superadded to you, has not been able to divest you of your Nature. You were born a Man; you have been made a Sovereign Bishop, yet you are still a Man, so that you ought to consider yourself as a Man; draw the Veil which covers you, disperse the Clouds that environ you, and you will find yourself to be no better than a Poor, Naked, Wretched Creature, that is dissatisfied with his Nature; that is ashamed of being Naked; that grieves for being Born; that murmurs at being destined to Labour, and not to Ease; and in a word, that is born in Sin, with a short Life abounding in Miseries, and full of Fears and Complaints. From these two Considerations he passes to a Third, which is to consider his Manners and Conduct, wherein he Counsels Eugenius to make a serious Reflection upon those things. He admonishes him in the Conclusion of this Book to be constant in Adversity, and humble in Prosperity; to fly sloth and unprofitable Discourse, and to practise no manner of Partiality in his Judgements.  
In the Third Book he Treats of the Consideration that the Pope ought to have towards those that are under him, and they are the Faithful over all the World. He admonishes him again not to affect an arbitrary Power over them which he repeats (says he) because there is no Poison nor Arms that he ought to dread more than the Spirit of Tyranny. He afterwards proceeds to treat of the Duty of a Pope towards his Inferiors, and first in respect to those who are out of the Church, as well Jews and Infidels, as Christians and Schismatics. He says it is a Pope's Duty to bring over those that are in an Error, to keep those from straying that are already brought over; and lastly, to reconcile and fix Wanderers. For this purpose he must pitch upon unbiased Preachers, and who shall be apt to be moved neither by Ambition nor Avarice: Such as these now adays swarm in the Court of Rome, and that is the reason that there is so little good done, and that Religion seems as it were at a stand. He speaks afterwards against the grievance of appealing to the Court of Rome: We must (says he) make a severe Reflection upon these Appeals, for fear a Remedy prove fruitless when it is established, for it seems to me, that a great deal of Mischief may be occasioned by these means, if moderation be not made use of. Every Body appeals to your Holiness; 'tis a badge of your Primacy, yet if you are wise, you will rather endeavour to procure the welfare of the Church, than insist upon the grandeur of your See. Men appeal to the Pope, and would to God it was to a good end. Would to God that those who oppress others, would feel the effect of protection granted to such as are oppressed. But on the contrary, nothing is more common, than for the Oppressors to have cause to rejoice, and for the Oppressed to have reason to mourn. The Court of Rome seldom considers, either the Fatigue or Expense of a Journey in a just cause, and rarely are incensed against him or them that were the cause of it. Rouse thee then, O Man of God, when these things happen: Be touched with Compassion for the Sufferer, and moved with Indignation against the Oppressor: Let the first be comforted by a Redress of his Grievance, by a full satisfaction for the Injury done him, and let the last repent of what he has done, and let him have no power to do the like again. The same punishment is to be inflicted upon those that appeal without cause, for no small Injury accrues that way; Men may be permitted to appeal where they are injured, but to appeal with design to injure others, is an injustice that ought not to be suffered. One may reasonably appeal from a Sentence, but it would be ill done to do so before any be pronounced, insomuch that as than no manifest wrong appeared. Whoever appeals without being injured, has either design to molest his Adversary, or to gain more time for his Defence. He adds, that every Body complains and murmurs against the great Number and confusion of Appeals made to Rome, and that they are the occasion of innumerable Mischiefs. He confirms this by some Examples; and moreover Counsels the Pope not to suffer any longer such as promote injustice. He also in this Book condemns the Abuse of Exemptions. I have a mind (says he) to speak of the Complaints and Murmur of the Churches who cry continually that they are torn to pieces and dismembered, and that there are few or none, but either feel this Damage or fear it. If you ask wherefore? It is because the Abbeys are wrested from the Jurisdiction of their Bishops, the Bishops from that of the Arch-Bishops, and the Arch-Bishops from that of the Patriarches or Primates. Does this consist with Order? Can this be any ways excused? You may thereby indeed show the absoluteness of your Power, but it is to be feared you can at the same time produce but little Justice. You do thus because you have a power to do it, but the Question will be only whether you ought to have done it. You are set above others, only to preserve to every one his Rank and Quality, and not to injure any one. He proves afterwards that these Exemptions are neither Just nor Profitable; that they confound the Oeconomy of the Church; that they occasion a great deal of Trouble, and raise a contempt as well of the lawful Powers established by God Almighty, as of those of the Pope; and in a word, that they destroy the Ecclesiastic Hierarchy established in imitation of that of the Angels. But what (may it be objected in the Pope's Name) will you then forbidden me to grant Dispensations? No certainly, but to ruin the Church you ought not. I know you are established universal Dispenser, but still it is to Edify and not to Destroy. When there is a necessity for Dispensation it is excusable; when it is profitable it is likewise commendable, but when there is neither of these, it▪ is rather Dissipation than a faithful Dispensation. There are several Monasteries in most Bishoprics, which belong peculiarly to the Holy See, according to the Will of their Founders, but then must those be distinguished which have been gained on account of Devotion, from those that have been coveted by Ambition. And lastly, St. Bernard says, that the Pope ought in general to watch over the Church, and see strict Discipline and Ecclesiastical Institutions duly observed. He recommends to him more particularly to take care of the Reform, enjoined by the Council of Rheims, relating to the Habits and Manners of the Clergy, as likewise to the Age and Qualifications of such as were to be admitted to Benefices.  
In the Fourth Book, St. Bernard considers the Pope's Duty towards the Clergy, the Inhabitants of Rome, the Cardinals, and other Officers of his Court. He tells him his Clergy ought to be extremely regular in all their Actions, because it is they that are to set Examples to others. In relation to the People, he observes that it is enough to say, it is the People of Rome to denote what disorders they live in. That it is a People that have never been accustomed to Peace, that love Disturbances and Tumults, that are Cruel and Untractable, and who never submit, but when they have no power to resist: That he is nevertheless obliged to exhort them, though they seem irreclaimable. He farther admonishes the Pope in particular to endeavour a Reformation of Luxury and Sumptuousness. He gives him a great deal of Advice, concerning the Qualifications that are to be required in Cardinals and other Ministers, which he shall pitch upon to be near his Person, and counsels him to take care that they 〈◊〉 neither Selfish nor Arrogant; and in a word, he admonishes him to discharge his Domestic Affairs with true Oeconomy. Lastly, he makes a Recapitulation of all the principal Qualities that a Pope ought to have. Consider above all things (says he to him) that the Church of Rome over which God hath placed you as Supreme, is the Mother, and not the Commandress of other Churches; and moreover, that you are not a Sovereign Lord over the other Bishops, but only one among them; that you are a Brother of those that love God, and a Companion of such as fear him; that you ought to be a living Example of Justice, a mirror of Holiness, a model of Devotion, the support of Truth and defence of Faith, the leader of Nations and guide of Christians, the Friend of the Bridegroom, and conductor of the Bride to her Spouse; the Ordainer of the Clergy, the Pastor of the People, the instructor of the Ignorant, the Sanctuary of the Oppressed, the Advocate of the Poor, the Hope of the Miserable, the support of the Fatherless, the Judge of Widows, the Eye of the Blind, the Tongue of the Dumb, the staff of Age, the revenger of Crimes, the Terror of the Wicked, and Glory of the Good, the Rod of the Powerful, the Scourge of Tyrants, the Father of Princes, the mitigator of Laws, the dispenser with Canons, the Salt of the Earth, the Light of the World, the pontiff of the most High, the Vicar of Christ, the Anointed of the Lord; and lastly, the God of Pharaoh.  
In the last Book, he admonishes Pope Eugenius to consider the Power that is above his, that is, that of God and the Angels, which gives him occasion to treat of the Angels and of the Divinity.  
St. Bernard began this Work in the Year 1149, and the first Book of it was finished the same Year. The second was sent to Pope Eugenius, in the Year 1150. after the ill success of the Crusade. The third in 1152, and the two last, some small time after.  
These Books Of Consideration were followed by a Treatise of the same Nature, addressed to Henry Archbishop of Sens, concerning the Manners and Duty of Bishops. St. Bernard therein shows how difficult it is to behave one's self in that Office, and the Necessity there is for having good Counsel. He afterwards lays down the Obligations for Bishops to prove an Honour to their Ministry by their Virtues, and not by Vanity and Luxury. He treats more particularly of the Virtues required in a Bishop, such as Chastity, Humility and Pastoral Care; and lastly, he blames the Conduct of those Abbots who had a mind to exempt themselves from the Episcopal Jurisdiction, and wear Pontifical Habits. This Treatise was composed about the Year 1127.  
About the same time St. Bernard being at Paris, writ a Discourse to the Clergy of that City, Entitled, Of Conversion, which follows the Treatise of the Duty of Bishops. It contains a Moral Exhortation to Repentance and change of Life, and towards the End, he speaks against Ambitious and incontinent Clerks.  
The Treatise of Commands and Dispensations was composed by St. Bernard, about the Year 1131. to serve for Answer to the Monks of St. Peter of Chartres, who had consulted him upon this Subject, and which is addressed to Roger Abbot of St. Colombe, near Sens, and not to these Monks of Chartres, because they had written to him with the leave of their Abbot. The first question he treats of, is whether all those things which are contained in the Order are Obligatory to them who profess them, or whether they are only Monitory and Instructive. And again, if one part aught to be taken for Precepts, and the other for Counsel. He answers, that the Order of St. Bennet is proposed to all Mankind, but not offered to be forced upon any Body. That any Person is free to be admitted of it, but when one is once engaged in it, it becomes necessary so to continue; so that excepting a few particulars which relate to Spiritual Matters, such as Charity, Humility, etc. which are instituted only by God, and therefore not to be changed, all the other Rules of the Order are only Instructions and good Counsel to them who are not yet professed, but to such as are, they become Commands, and it is Criminal to violate them; that they are voluntary to the first, and compulsory to the last; yet however they may be dispensed with upon an extraordinary occasion: That this power of dispensing belongs only to Superiors, and who cannot do it upon just Grounds, and not merely out of Fancy. To explain the utmost extent of these Dispensations. St. Bernard reckons up three sorts of necessary things which are one established, two Inviolable, and three Immutable. The established are those which are found to be so very necessary, that every Body is not allowed to alter them but Superiors only: These are Monastic Rules, which having been instituted by Saints, are as it were established, and cannot be changed by private Persons, but as those who established them were Men, those Men also who by a Canonical Election have succeeded to these Saints, have authority to give Dispensations without Abuse and Disorder, according to the circumstances of Time, Place and Persons; and moreover, these having been instituted for the increase and preservation of Charity, as long as they are conducing thereunto they cannot be altered, even by Superiors; but if it at any time happens that they become contrary to the interest of Charity, in the Observation and Judgement of those that are obliged to inspect them, than it is but reasonable that what was at first instituted for the benefit of Charity, should be either omitted, interrupted or altered for the sake of Charity, and it would be unjust, that what had been established on account of Charity, should subsist and flourish in prejudice thereof. These things we term established, are fixed and immoveable, even in regard to Superiors, but than it must be as long as they are Serviceable and Assisting to Charity. The second sort of necessary things are called Inviolable, for that not having been instituted by Men, but established by the Commandments of God, they cannot be changed but by the Authority of God himself who was the Author of them. As to the third kind of necessary things which he terms immutable, are those which are of such a Nature, that even God himself could not change them on whatsoever account. Under this kind are comprehended all the Instructions which Christ gave his Disciples on the Mount, and moreover, such as both the Old and New Testament have ordained relating to Charity, Humility, etc. all these things being such in their Nature, it would not be either allowable or profitable to retrench them, their Excellency being immutable and founded on the principles of the Law of Nature. Of these three necessary things, the first is covenanted by free Will and a Promise. The second proceeds from the Authority of him that Commanded. And the third is grounded on the dignity of Precept.  
From these Principles St. Bernard concludes▪ that an Abbot cannot dispense with any thing that belongs to Spirituals in his Order, and as to Outward Observances he must not be guided by his Pleasure, and Fancy, but by Charity, because he is not above the Order which he Professes himself a Member of: That the Letter of the Rules must give way to Charity when Necessity so requires it: That even Superiors cannot restrain the Obligation of a Vow, unless upon an absolute Necessity; nor Extend it, unless the Inferiors Consent: that Nevertheless an Inferior whose Obedience does not exceed his Vow is Imperfect, because perfect Obedience is not comprehended within any bounds, but embraces willingly and accepts courageously whatever it is commanded: That there is no Disobedience but what is to be avoided, but that several kinds of it are not equally Criminal: That there ought to be a difference put between the Person that commands and the things commanded: That in regard of the Persons we ought to be most Afraid of Offending our Superiors who have the greatest Authority over us; for it is better to obey God than Man, our superiors than our equals, and amongst our superiors those of our own Country rather than strangers: That in relation to Commands we ought to take more care of those which are of Importance than of those of less consequence, and that a Person is more or less culpable according as the Command is of more or less Importance: That this difference is in the Commandments Established by Men, because they command with more or less Affection according as they see Occasion▪ That Perfect Obedience consists in not slighting the least commands and Obeying the Greatest, conforming one's self to the Intent of the Superior: That slight matters, such as forbidding laughing or spea-king when they are once commanded become Obligatory, and they who disobey them commit a sin, tho' no Crime, providing they do it not with contempt; but when they contemn the Law they are more than ordinarily Faulty: That God is to be Obeyed, as likewise is Man that commands in his name providing the command be not contrary to the Law of God: That in doubtful Matters the commands of s●…periours are to be followed: That all Sins of Disobedience are not equal; and that in respect of those which are committed against the Monastic Rules, some are more considerable than others: That it ought not to be thought that the Observing of Monastic Rules is Impossible, because that cannot be but either through Neglect or Inadvertency.  
St. Bernard proceeds afterwards to Answer some Particulars which these Monks had proposed to him.  
The First was why an Erroneous Conscience does not sometimes change the Bad to Good in like manner as the Good to Bad? He Answers that to the End that an Action may be good, it ought to be Effected by the Knowledge and Love of God: That he that does a good Action believing it to be bad, has not the Love of Good in him, and by consequence his Action must be bad, but that he that does a bad Action believing it to be Good, is ignorant of what is Good, and therefore his Action cannot be esteemed Good tho' his Intention was so: That his good will shall not be altogether deprived of a Reward, altho' through a deceived simplicity he be not altogether exempted from iii. But what (Perhaps you may say) did not he Act according to his Conscience? Yes, (replies St. Bernard) but according to a false and erroneous Conscience which does not exempt him absolutely from sin.  
Next he Answers this Second Question, which was If in relation to Commands Disobedience be proportionably as Criminal as Obedience is Meritorious? He shows that in certain cases Obedience is more Meritorious than Disobedience Criminal.  
They had likewise demanded of him how far they were Obliged to be resident, and where they might take a Liberty to quit their Monastery. He Answers that a good Monk ought never to forsake his Monastery without leave first Obtained from his Abbot when he is able to Undergo the Injunctions of his Order; but if the ill Lives of those which he lives amongst, hinder him from so doing, then is he to choose and go to another Monastery where he may accomplish those Vows, he could not so well perform there: That altho' it be not allowable for a Monk who is in a well regulated Monastery tho' less Austeres, to leave it without permission of his Superior for one more Austere; yet if it happen that one having left it enters into another, none ought to Advise him to return, unless the Monasteries be near to each other, and he be speedily recalled.  
The Fourth Question they proposed to him was Why St. Gregory the Great received a Person that had quitted his Order, into the Communion, and did not rather Oblige him to return to a Monastic Life. and why St. Austin Teaches that a Marriage contracted by such as had made a Vow of Continence is not to be Dissolved. St. Bernard owns freely that he is not of those holy Bishop's Opinion: And that it belonged to them to make good what they had Asserted.  
He moreover Answers a Fifth Question Concerning the Bishops which St. Gregory had Cloistered up in Monasteries by reason of the Crimes they had committed, the Question was Whether they were to continue their Episcopal Habit there or to wear that of the Monks. He says He knows little of the matter but that it is likely they ought not to take upon them the Habits of the Order because they had never before done it, and because they were to continue in those Monasteries but for a time, and that they were confined to these Places only that they might have more leisure to Repent.  
The Sixth Question which he Answers, is why of all the kinds of Repentance that among Monks has the Privilege of being termed a Second Baptism? He says he believes it is by reason that they have absolutely renounced the World and Practise a spiritual Life after a very excellent and extraordinary Manner; That they are anew clothed with Jesus Christ, and retire from the darkness of sin into the Light of Piety and Virtue.  
The Seventh Question they Asked St. Bernard, is If when an Abbot dies or is Deposed, they have during the Interval a Liberty to go out of their Monasteries to go to another? St. Bernard Answers they have not, because the Vow they made is not to be limited by the death of the Abbot, but only Authorised by his Presence, and that therefore a Monk ought to consider his Vow by the limits of his own Life, and not by that of another.  
They also demanded of him what a Monk ought, to do that has a secret Aversion to his Abbot, whose Election he looks upon to be Inconsistent with the Rules of the Order? to which St. Bernard Answers that when the Election is not manifestly Irregular the Monks ought to Obey.  
The other Questions of these Monk's bein●… of less Consequence St. Bernard Answers them in few words, and there is but one which deserves to be Mentioned, which is, If a Person who has offended another be so disposed as not to design to do him any harm, and yet is notconcerned if any happen to him, be in a condition to Approach the Altar. St. Bernard Answers that he ought not to do it till his passion and Resentments be over.  
St. Bernard's Apology Addressed to William Abbot of St. Thierry, is a Work in which he undertakes 
St. Bernard's Apology to William Abbot of T●…rey.  to Justify himself and those of his Order against their being Accused of speaking ill of the Order of Clunie, that is to say of all the Benedictin Monks who had not embraced the Reform of Cisteaux. Although this work be entitled an Apology, he nevertheless severely reproves in it the Monks of Clunie; but to have the better colour for doing so with greater freedom, he gins by declaring that neither he nor any of his Monks have ever spoken ill of that Order. He Approves of the different kinds of Religious Orders, and particularly commends that of Clunie. He exclaims against those that Judge rashly of the manner of living of this Order, who think themselves more holy, because they lead an austerer Life. He shows that Spiritual Exercises are more profitable than Corporal, and that a Man may be a good Monk without practising all these Austerities, and that also all these Austerities are Unprofitable when they are not accompanied with Charity and Virtue. But for fear that he may not seem to Approve of the Irregularities which were practised in the Abbey of Clunie, he falls upon and condemns them in the Second part of this Work. He says that the manner of Living among the Order of the Abbey of Clunie seems to be a work of Saints, because being willing to save a great many Persons they have tempered the Rigour of the Rules of this Order in favour of the Weak without altogether ruining it at the same time. But I cannot believe they have nevertheless allowed of the Many Disorders that are to be found in most Monasteries. For I can never enough Admire (says he) how so great a Licentiousness in Meals, Habits, Beds, Equipages, and Horses can get in and be Established as it were, among Monks; Insomuch that those who have thus wholly Abandoned themselves to these Excesses, seem to have had a mighty regard to the Spirit and Religion of their Ancestors: In a manner that by these extravagant Proceed they have procured Vices the name of Virtues, and on the contrary Virtues the Name of Vices. When a Moderate Expense ought to be called Covetousness; Sobriety, if not Extraordinary, Austerity; and silence, sadness; they on the contrary call a lose behaviour the Effect of Discretion; Profuseness, Liberality, and much Talking but common Civility. Immoderate Laughing with them is no more a Vice, but goes under the Name of a Necessary Gaiety. Luxury in Habits and Pride in Horses are looked upon as the good Breeding of a Monk; and superfluous Ornaments are the furniture of his Chamber. Yet whatever they thus lavish away can it be called Charity? No; Unhappy Charity that destroys the True! Irregular Discretion that confounds in us that of Virtue! Cruel Pity that has greater regard to the Body than the Soul! What a strange Charity is this, to provide so well for the Flesh, and to take no care of the Spirit! What Discretion to give all to the Body and Refuse all to the Soul! He afterwards proceeds to compare the Sobriety of the Ancient Monks with the Intemperance of those of his Time, and gives a very lively Description of the Excesses of these last, whereof some of his Expressions follow. Are not their Mouths and Ears equally filled with Victuals and confused Voices? And while they thus Spin out their Immoderate Feasts, is there any one who offers to regulate the Debauch? No certainly: Dish dances after Dish, and for Abstinence which they Profess, two Rows of fat fish appear swimming in sauce● upon the Table: Are you Cloyed with these? The Cook has Art sufficient to Prick you up Others of no less Charms? He'll provide Sauces as different as your Dishes. Thus Plate is devoured after Plate, and such natural Transitions are made from one to the other, that they fill their Bellies, but seldom blunt their Appetites, for the Palate is always soagreeably entertained with so many Novelties that it has not leisure allowed it to be satisfied. Now Hunger is revived again, the Appetite is Awakened and they fall on with the same greediness and Gust. The Belly having no Eyes sees not how much it sakes in, and it is at last rather filled than Glutted. And because the simplieity of Nature is not entertaining enough, we make Mixtures and Hotchpotches of different kinds, and by exquisite and elected Sapours support and encourage our Intemperance, yet notwithstanding tho' we recede so much from Nature, yet are we not able to fill the vast Bound of our Desires. He than reproves very severely, their Excess and Niceness in Drinking, and ridicules a pleasant custom of some Monks who being Young, Healthy and Strong, would retreat at Sacrament time into the Infirmary to Eat and Drink. From their Excess, in Eating and Drinking he proceeds to Dressing. We don't think ourselves well Dressed (says he) unless we have the best of every thing on our Backs. We don't search after the most decent and commodious but the Gayest clothes. We don't inquire for the warmest but the finest cloth. In a word, we don't desire (pursuant to our Vows) what may be most serviceable to u●, but what may cover us most with Vanity?— Don't we see every day that those Habits which were given to the Monks as Marks of Humility, are so contrived ●●at they serve rather to exalt their Pride? scarce can a whole kingdom furnish them suitable to their Extravagant Desires. The Soldier and the Monk almost participitate of the same Habit in the Field and the Cell. Will not a Monk's Habit now a days become a Man of the World? A Prince likewise, providing he were in fashion, would not look Amiss in their Garments. But You'll tell me perhaps with the Proverb, That the Habit does not make the Monk, and that it is Virtue alone which governs the Heart tho' the Person be never so splendidly clothed. Very well: Then I would Ask you when you Traverse the Town, visit all Fairs, and the Merchant's Houses, Overturn the Magazines, Unfold the Silks, Feel them with the Fingers, View them with your Eyes, Hold them up to the Light, Reject some and like others, Whether you have not more Vanity than Virtue? He Adds moreover that the Abbots do not only Neglect to Reform these Disorders, but even Authorise and Encourage them by their Silence and Example. I am Accused (says he) of being Arrogant; No matter I cannot hold my Tongue; I must always take the Liberty to inquire how the Salt of the Earth comes to be so depraved: What occasions Men, who in their Lives ought to be Examples of Humility, by their Practice to give Instructions and Examples of Vanity? And to pass by many other Things, what a Proof of Humility is it to see a vast Retinue of Horses with their Equipage, and a Confused train of Valets and footmen, so that the Retinue of a single Abbot outshines that of two Bishops. May I be thought a Liar if it be not true that I have seen one single Abbot attended by above 60 Horse. Who could take these Men for the Fathers of Monks and the Shepherds of Souls? Or who would not be apt to take them rather for Governors of Cities and Provinces? Why, tho' the Master be Four Leagues off, must his Train of Equipage reach to his very Doors? One would take these mighty Preparations for the Subsistence of an Army, Or for Provisions to Travel through a very large Desert. Cannot Wine and Water be poured Undefiled out of the same Cup? Cannot a Candle Give Light but in a Gold or Silver Candlestick? Cannot you sleep upon any other Bed but one of Tissue? Will not one Servant suffice to guide the Horse, serve at Table and make the Bed? If you tell me it is to save charges in an Inn that you carry so many things, then will I ask you why every one does not carry hisown Provisions. He also does not spare the Monks in their Buildings. But all this (says he) is little or nothing. Let us proceed to matters of greater Consequence, and so much the greater as by how much they are more Common. I shall not take Notice of the Dimensions of our Churches, of their Stately Height, of their Excessive Length and Superfluous Breadth, of their Sumptuous Ornaments and Curious Pictures which, attracting the Eyes of the Congregation do not a little, I fancy, divert their Devotion, and which seem to me not much more allowable than the Ceremonies of Ancient Judaisme. As for my part I would have all Devotion and Places of Worship tend to the Glory of God. I would feign Ask the Monks (for I am a Monk myself) a Question which a Pagan heretofore demanded of Pagans. Tell me ye Priests (says he) what has Gold to do in Holy Places? Now I would make use of his Sense tho' not of his words. Tell me Poor Souls than say I (if you may be called Poor Souls) what has Gold to do in the Sanctuary? I do not speak of Bishops and their Churches, for they may take a greater Liberty, but I speak of the Churches of Monks. We know that Bishops are indebted both to Wise Men and Fools, and must be allowed to stir up Devotion in the People by Images, and other such Sensible objects, which they could not raise by their Preaching. But we that are now no more of the World; that have forsaken all the Pleasures and Riches of Life, for Jesus Christ his Sake; who have cast at our feet all that Glitters in the Eyes of the World, and have fled from Concerts of Music, Fragrant smells and Feasting our senses, shall we (I say) Interrupt our Devotion by these Baubles which we have left for its sake? What can we expect if we should Acquiesce in all these Vanities? The Admiration of Sots or the satisfaction of Fools. Is it not the Commerce we entertained with the World that causes us to offer Incense to its Idols? and to speak more plainly, Is not Avarice the Cause, the very worst of Idolatries? Is it not true that we have greater regard to the People's Riches, than their Salvation? If you ask me how comes this to pass? I will discover the wonderful Secret to you. There is a certain Art to multiply Riches by Exhausting them, and like a River to make them increase while they flow, for here Profuseness is the Cause of their Abounding. Here the Eyes and minds of the spectators are so seduced by these costly Vanities, that instead of Offering their Hearts to God they Sacrifice their Purses to Man. Thus you may see how Riches swallow up Riches, and how the Money of the Monks proves a bait for that of Fools; for Men have I know not what Inclinations to throw Water into the Sea, and to heap Riches upon those that have 'em in Abundance. The Monks cover the Relics with Rich Artery, and the Pilgrim for fear of being dazzled approaches them with shut Eyes and an Open Purse. The best Adorned of these Images are ever the most Holy. Men crowd to pay them Devotion, but first they must be Consecrated with the Holy Water, and after are led to the Image where they for the most part Admire the Ornaments more than the Thing itself. Next the Church is hung round not with Crowns of Thorns, but Rows of Pearls. The Lights of the Lamps are heightened by the Lustre of Diamonds, and instead of Candlesticks you see great Branches of Brass mounted, whose weight and Work-man-ship are equally to be Admired. What do you think can be the cause of all these fine things? Are they more to put you in mind of your Sins than to move your Admiration? No Certainly. O Vanity of Vanities? But this is not so much a Vanity as Folly. The Church shines in its Walls and Suffers in its Poor. It covers its stone with costly Garments and leaves its Children the Misfortune of being Naked. Here the Eyes of the Rich are fed with the Bread of the Poor. The Curiosity of Men is Indulged when the Miseries of the Indigent are Neglected. Nevertheless if we are Insensible of the Wants of Men, we ought to have more respect to the Images of our Saints, than to Pave our Churches with them. What shame is it for us to Spit in the Mouth of an Angel, and Tread on the face of a Saint? But all this while if we have an Indifference for the Carving, why do we not spare the Beauty of the Painting? Why do we paint with our Hands, what we intent to deface with our Feet? Why do we take so much pains in embellishing what we Intent to defile the next Moment? What signify so many fine strokes when they are immediately to be covered with Dust? In a word what occasion is there for all these Vanities among Poor Monks who have renounced the World, unless we have a mind to Answer this Pagan Poet with David; Lord, I have been all Inflamed with Zeal for the Honour of thy House and the Tabernacle of thy Glory. Well then I Agree with you; I consent to these Excesses in the Church, the simplicity and Devotion of Prayers may possibly sancitify that that would be a Crime in a Prodigal; but in Cloisters, to what purpose are those Paintings Cawing, before people who weep for their Sins. Towards the End of this Treatise he makes an Apologue for what he had said before. I hope in God (says he) that no body will be Offended at what I have writ, for I do not question but that in Reproving Vice so severely, I have a little grated the Ears of some that Practise it. But it may be if God is so pleased to have it, that even those whom I may be thought to have angered, may not be so. But this cannot possibly happen unless they cease to be what they are, unless they cease to Calumniate every day according to Custom; to Judge ill of their Brethren by reason they do not visibly lead so austere a Life; and if on the contrary those that are less mindful of exterior Rigour, do not take care to retrench all their superfluities. Lastly he blames those who through their Inconstancy go from one Order to another. I have known some (says he) who had a mind to change the Moderation of their Order, for the Austerity of ours; What had they a mind to do then? Why what but to deprive their Brethren of the Scandal of their Inconstancy, and bring it to us? and they have not been less troublesome to us by their wretched Conversation, than they were to them by their leaving them; and because they have despised through Pride the profession which they had embraced, and presumed to assume a new one beyond their Abilities, God's Justice has suffered their Baseness to appear, for they have been obliged to quit our Order through the same Imprudence that they engaged in it, and shamefully to resume that which through Inconstancy they had forsaken, for not having entered on it, but by the Impatience they had to continue in their own, and not through an hearty desire of living with us, they have sufficiently shown what they were, and going thus from one to the other, they have left Scandal with both. I don't here mean every Body, for thanks be to God, we have found some, who as they have begun generously, have persevered honestly; for it is much better to persevere in what we undertake, than to undertake what we are not able to persevere in. But above all, let us all take care with the Apostle, that our Actions be conceived in the Spirit of Charity.  
The Treatise in commendation of the New Militia Addressed to Hugh, Great Master of the Knight Templars, was written by St. Bernard, about the Year 1135. This Order had been established in the 
St. Bernard's Treatise in Commendation of the New Militia.  Year 1118. by some pious Knights who had made a Vow to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, that they would live like regular Canons in Chastity, Obedience and Poverty. The first that made this Vow, was Hugh de Paganis, and Geoffrey de St. Aldemar. The King of Jerusalem gave them for their Habitation a place near the Temple, whence they afterwards took upon them the names of Knights-Templars. The Patriarch and Bishops gave them for Employment the guard of the High-Roads that led to Jerusalem, to defend the Pilgrims from Robbers. The first Great Prior of this Order was this Hugh de Paganis to whom this Treatise of St. Bernard is dedicated. In the beginning of this Institution they were but nine Knights, but afterwards their Number soon increased. Their Institution was approved of by the Council of Troy's, in the Year 1128. who drew up the Rules they were to observe; some believe they were drawn by St. Bernard, but it is certain that it was John de St. Michael, named by the Council and by St. Bernard, who drew them up according to the relation of the Great Prior and the other Knights, and as may appear in the Prologue of these Rules. The Treatise of St. Bernard which we spoke of, does not consist of Rules, but is an Elogium on this Order, and an Exhortation to the Knights of the Temple, to acquit themselves well of their Duty. The World hears (says he) with Astonishment, that there is a new Militia established in the Country, which Christ honoured with his Corporal Presence, to the end, that as he had exterminated the Prince of Darkness from thence by the force of his Arm, he might likewise at present drive away his Guards by the prowess of his Courageous Soldiers, and consequently redeem his People anew. This kind of Militia is altogether new, and past Ages, have known nothing like it. They are engaged in two Combats at once, one against the Flesh, and the other against the Enemies of Christ; in one they resist a Corporal Foe by force of Arms, and in the other declare War against Vice and the Devil. He adds, that the occasion and design of this Institution is not less to be admired; for whereas all Wars among Men, are either begun on account of Anger, Ambition or Vain Glory, or out of a desire of getting possession of something, and the end proposed is always some Temporal Interest. These Knights of the Temple acted by a quite different Motive, and had quite another end in their Erterprises. Their Business was to fight the Battles of the Lord, without fear of Sinning, if they killed their Enemies; or Perishing, if they were killed themselves; because whether they kill or were killed, it was altogether to further the cause of Jesus Christ. In a word, the Lives and Behaviour of these Knights ought to shame all those, who nowadays practise the Art of War, for they did nothing but by command of their Prior, had nothing but what he gave them, used nothing superfluous in their Habits, lived regularly without Wives and Children, pretended to nothing of their own, nor even so much as wished for more than they had; they moreover never gave their Minds to any Sports, delighted in no Shows, nor sought after any Honour, but wisely and diligently waited for the Victory of the Lord. After this great Commendation, St. Bernard exhorts them to acquit themselves courageously in their several Posts, having always a strict regard not 
St. Bernard's Treatise of the Degrees of Humility and Pride. His Treatise of the love of God.  to profane the Holy Places upon which he makes divers Mystical Reflections.  
The first of the Works composed by St. Bernard, is his Treatise on the Degrees of Humility and Pride, which follow in order of the Edition the Treatise which we have just mentioned before. The Title sufficiently acquaints you with the Subject: It suffices to observe that it is very moving, consisting of abundance of Piety and good Matter.  
The Treatise of the Love of God was written some time after the foregoing. St. Bernard therein treats of the Manner, Reasons, Source, Degrees and Obligation of loving God. He says, that the manner of loving God, is to love him without Reserve; the reason of loving him, is because he is God, and loves us, for the Recompense of loving him, is the Love itself which makes our Happiness; then that the Source and Origin of this Love is Charity, which God affords us through Mercy. Lastly, that four degrees of this Love may be discovered; the first is that by which Men love themselves; the second, whereby they love God for their own sakes; the third, by which they love God, both for him and themselves; and the fourth, whereby they love God on his account only. This fourth Degree is the supreme perfection to which it is impossible to arrive in this Life, which even the Martyrs never did, and which the Souls of the Blessed cannot attain to, till they are separated from their Bodies, to which they have always a natural Tendency. He moreover distinguishes chaste and Pure Love from that which is interessed; the Love of Slaves from that of Children, and at length, it respect of the Obligation to the Love of God he shows that it is natural so to do, and that it has an universal influence upon Mankind.  
The Treatise of Grace and freewill, Addressed to William Abbot of St. Thierry, was written by St. 
St. Bernard's Treatise of Grace and freewill.  Bernard, about the Year 1128. upon occasion of a Conference in which a certain Person had objected to him, that he had allowed too much to Grace, because that speaking of the Graces which God had done him, he had said that God had prevented him in doing Good, for that he owed to his Divine Grace all the Progress which he had made therein, and that he hoped that he would in time grant him a full Perfection. One of the standers by, hearing him talk thus, said to him, What have you done then of yourself, and what Reward can you expect when you confess God has done all? This Question occasioned St. Bernard to write upon this Subject to explain the agreement of freewill with Grace. He therein follows the principles of St. Austin, and first he says, that freewill is saved by Grace, together with which it cooperates in consenting voluntarily to its Motions; that this Consent is effected by Grace itself, but that it is not less Free, because it is without constraint and voluntary. wherever there is consent (says he) there is a Will, and where there is a Will, there is a Freedom or Liberty. Ubi voluntas, ibi Libertas: The Will is a reasonable Movement, which presides over the Senses, and the Appetite which reason accompanies, follows and instructs without imposing any Force on it, so as that it may either incline to Ill by pursuing inordinate Desires, or to Good, by following Grace. The Will only is capable of both Happiness and Misery, and 'tis by its Consent and Approbation, that Men are either Wicked or Good, Happy or Miserable. He afterwards divides Freedom into three sorts, 1. Freedom or Exemption from Sin. 2. Freedom or Exemption from Misery. 3. Freedom or Exemption from Necessity. He calls the last Freedom that of Nature, the second, that of Grace, and the first, the Freedom of Life or Glory; for first, says he, Man was made an excellent Creature, with a Will altogether Free; secondly, he has been re-established in Innocence to be a new Creature in Jesus Christ; thirdly, he is translated into Glory, to become a perfect Creature in Spirit. The Freedom of Necessity is to be found in all rational Creatures in whatever Condition they be; in Angels as well as Men, in the Blessed as well as the Damned, in the Righteous as well as the Wicked. They that would do well and cannot, are free from this Freedom, but they are not nevertheless free from the freedom of Sin, which ought rather to be called Free Advice than freewill. This second Freedom is found only in such as have Grace, as the Freedom of Misery, which he calls Liberum Complacitum, is to be met with alone among the Blessed, because those only can enjoy the Good that pleases them, and be exempt from the Ill that displeases them, they being only endued with Grace that can do Good, Grace being absolutely requisite to do it; so the Will of freewill to be absolutely perfect, has need of two Gifts of God, viz. of Conversion to Good and Confirmation in it, the first is granted through Grace to the Just in this Life, and the second is the effect of Beatitude. The first Man over and above the Freedom of Nature, had likewise the Freedom of Counsel and the Freedom of Compliance, but nevertheless in an imperfect Degree; for these two Freedoms have both their Degrees, one being superior, and the other inferior. The first Man in the state of Innocence had this last, but lost it by his fall, insomuch that he afterwards retained orly Free Will. He fell by his Crime, and the ill use he made of his Will, but then he could not raise himself again by the same Power, by reason that he might not have fell unless he had so pleased, but being once fallen, it was not allowed him to rise. What then says one, is Man's freewill lost because he cannot avoid Sinning? No, answers he, but rather the Free Warning he had not to Sin. He says moreover, that 'tis by reason of this triple Liberty of the first Man, that he was created after the Image, and in the resemblance of his Maker; that the Blessed have this resemblance in the greatest persection, because they enjoy this triple Freedom, after a more excellent manner than the first Man, and that those redeemed by Jesus Christ, during their stay on Earth, through Grace receive a part of this Freedom, because that though they cannot be altogether free from Sin and Misery, yet with the assistance of Grace, they may be able to prevent being Overcome by Sin and Misery. Let no body think then, says he, that Free Will is so called because it keeps as it were, the Will in balance betwixt Good and Evil, in a manner that it can do one as easily as the other, for if this were so, neither God, the Angels nor Saints, who can do no Ill, could be exempted from doing it no more than the very Devils, who can do no Good. It is rather called freewill, because let the Will be inclined either to Good or Ill, it is still Free, it being in the power of no Person to be either Good or Bad, without the consent of his Will: Now Grace does not take away this Freedom, because it sets the Will at work, and changes the Evil to Good; but nevertheless, by its free Consent: So those who act through fear of Death or Punishment, do not fail to act with Freedom, because the Will cannot be constrained but by its self, and that cannot be forced by a violence purely passive on its own part. That in a word, excepting original Sin only, all others are an effect of the Will which inclines to Sin without being obliged by any exterior Force: That we cannot pretend to any thing meritorious without Grace, but also that Grace cannot make us to merit without our Will. Merit consists in the consent that freewill gives to Grace, but at the same time this Consent does not proceed from freewill, because that cannot have a good Thought of itself, and that God is the occasion of all Good in us, whether it be the product of Thought, W●ll or Action, for he does as it were prevent us by inspiring us with good Thoughts, and changes our bad Will by making us consent to Good, which he alone causes us to perform. That he effects the first without us, the second with us, and the third by us, for the beginning of our Salvation proceeds from God; we ourselves are not the occasions of it, neither are we present at its being done, but the Consent and Action, although they do not proceed from us, yet are they not without us, insomuch, that we ought to take care when we feel good motions in us, not to attribute them to our Will which is weak, but to the sole Grace of God. These are the Principles and Maxims which St. Bernard establishes in this Treatise, which agree 
St. Bernard's Letter to Hugh of St. Victor.  with the Doctrine of St. Austin, concerning the Nature of freewill, and the necessity and efficacy of Grace, without which Man could not perform any thing towards his Salvation.  
The Tenth Treatise of St. Bernard, is a Letter addressed to Hugh of St. Victor, against some Opinions which an Anonymous Author had laid down; which were,  

1. That the Baptism of Jesus Christ had been obligatory ever since our Saviour had said to Nicodemus, Whoever is not born anew by Water and the Holy Spirit, shall never enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.  
2. That no Body can be saved without actually receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, or Martyrdom in its stead.  
3. That the Patriarches of the Old Testament had as clear a knowledge of the Incarnation of the Christians.  
4. That there is no such thing as a Sin of Ignorance.  
5. That St. Bernard was mistaken in that passage of his Homilies, where he says, that even the Angels were not acquainted with God's Design touching the Incarnation.   
As to the first, he says that it would be a hard case, that what Jesus Christ spoke in particular, should be taken for a general Precept, to oblige all Mankind. He is of Opinion, that Original Sin was remitted to the Jews by Circumcision, during the time of the ancient Law, and to the faithful amongst the Gentiles, either by their own Faith, or by that of their Parents, and that the Obligation of being Baptised under penalty of Damnation, did not commence till after the Promulgation of the Gospel.  
As to the second, he is of Opinion that the Adult may be saved without actually receiving Baptism, if so be they cannot be Baptised, although they desire it, because that actual Baptism is here supplied by Faith and Vows. This he proves from divers passages out of St. Ambrose and St. Austin, who (says he) are two Authorities which I cannot possibly descent from, but with whom I am always resolved to be, either in the right or the wrong. He adds, that what supplies Baptism in case of Martyrdom is not the Pain, but the Faith of him that suffers. In relation to Infants who can have no Faith, he owns that they cannot be saved without Baptism, although they might be saved by the Faith of others, when they actually receive it.  
As to the third, he says that if the faithful of the Old Law had as clear a knowledge of our Mysteries, as we ourselves; God would have been either too liberal to them, or too reserved towards us: That the Gospel would not have been then above the Law; that St. Paul would have been in the wrong, to boast that he and the other Apostles received the first Fruits of the Spirit of God; that this would be to do a considerable Injury to St. John Baptist. And lastly, that the Prophets have not been all equally enlightened with our Mysteries, and that even among Christians, some have more knowledge in those matters than others.  
As to the fourth, he affirms that there are Sins of Ignorance, and that the Author of this Proposition ought to agree with him, since he has before maintained that the Precept of Baptism given to Nicodemus in private, obliged those who could have no knowledge of it; that it was moreover evident by the Holy Scriptures, that there are Sins of Ignorance, for th●… the Prophet David expressly prays to God not to lay his Sins of Ignorance to his Charge; also Moses speaks of Sins committed through Ignorance, and St. Paul is said to have persecuted the Church without knowing what the Church was; and our Saviour Christ begged of his Father to forgive them that Crucify'd him, in that they were ignorant of the Sin they committed.  
As to the fifth, he explains what he had said concerning the Angels, knowing nothing of the mystery of the Incarnation before Gabriel came to acquaint the Virgin of the Circumstances of time, and place of the Incarnation, the manner thereof, and the Person chosen to be the Mother of God.  
We will forbear speaking of the Treatise against the Errors of Abaelard, till we come to the History of that Author, so that there remains no more of the Treatises of St. Bernard in this second Tome, than 
The Life of St. Malachy, etc.  the Life of St. Malachy, and the Tract concerning sing, neither of which require any Observation.  
The third Tome contains St. Bernard's Sermons throughout the whole Year, upon the several Feasts, and other matters of Moment. These are his other Works, being writ with as elborate as Spirit, 
St. Bernard's Sermons.  and abounding with lively and solid Thoughts, very proper to move the▪ Heart. He preached most of them to his Monks, whom most commonly he exhorted publicly every day. Father Mabillon shows in his Preface, that although there might have been several Converts among these Monks who did not understand Latin, yet for the most part these Sermons were delivered in that Language, as their style sufficiently demonstrates. He owns also that St. Bernard might sometimes have preached in the Vulgar Tongue, for the benefit of those that did not understand Latin.  
The last Tome of the first Volume of St. Bernard's Works, contains his Sermons upon the Canticles, amounting to the number of 86, and being upon the two first Chapters, and the first Verse of the third Chapter, they comprehend an infinite number of both Moral and Spiritual Thoughts which he draws out of the words of the Text, either by explaining the Text after a mystical manner, or giving it an allegorical Sense, or adapting it to other Subjects. It is a wonderful thing to consider how ready he is at this manner of writing, and how he could be capable of composing so vast a Work of such different matters upon two such short Chapters as those of the Canticles.  
The second Volume of Works that go under St. Bernard's Name, is divided into two Tomes. The first contains a Continuation of the Commentary on the Canticles. This belongs to Gilbert of Hoiland, 
Gilbert Abbot of Hoiland.  a little Island between England and Scotland, where there was a Monastery of Monks and Nuns, whereof he was Abbot, depending on the Bishop of Lincoln. He was of the Order of Cisteaux, and died in the Year 1172, in a Monastery of the Diocese of Troy's in Champagne. This Continuation is of the same Nature with the Work of St. Bernard, and is divided into forty eight Sermons, all which do not go beyond the 10th. Verse of the 5th. Chapter. This is followed by seven other Ascetical Treatises, and four Letters by the same Author.  
This Tome contains several other Tracts, attributed to St. Bernard, although it is certain he was not the Author of them.  
The first is a Letter or a Book addressed to the Friars of Mont-dicu, which is a Charter-House in 
William Abbot of St. Thierry.  the Diocese of Rheims near Mouzon. This Book has been quoted under the name of St. Bernard, by Gerson and others; but nevertheless, several ancient Manuscripts assure us that it was written by William Abbot of St. Thierry, since Monk of Signy, as well as the Treatises of the Contemplation of God, and that of the Nature and Dignity of Love, both which go under St. Bernard's Name, and come next after. This William was native of Liege; he came to Rheims with his Brother Simon; they embraced a Monastic Life in the Monastery of St. Nicaise; afterwards Simon was made Abbot of St. Nicolas, in the Diocese of Laon, and William succeeded Geoffrey, translated from the Abbey of St. Thierry, to that of St. Medard of Soissons, in the Year 1120. He had a very particular Correspondence with St. Bernard, and retired to the Monastery of Signy of the Order of Cisteaux, in the Year 1135, where he died about the Year 1150. His Works over and above the first Book, being the Life of St. Bernard, and the three Treatises just mentioned, comprehend a Treatise called the Mirror of Faith; another entitled the Aenigma of Faith; a Book of Meditation; A Treatise of the Nature of the Body and the Soul; Another against Abaelard; a Book of the Works of William de Conches; A Treatise upon the Sacrament of the Altar; and lastly, an Exposition of the Canticles. All these Works are to be met with in the fourth Tome of the Bibliotheque of Cisteaux. There is moreover mention made of a Collection of Proverbs and Sentences, being only a Manuscript, with some other Works which are lost. The Abtidgment of the two first Chapters of the Canticles, which immediately follows the preceding Works is only an extract of remarkable things in the one and fifty first Sermons of St. Bernard upon the Canticles.  
The Declamations and Discourses on the words of St. Peter with our Saviour Christ, are the Work 
Geoffrey Abbot of Igny. Guigue Author of the Ladder of the Cloister. Works belonging to Anonymous Authors, found among those of St. Bernard.  of Geoffrey Abbot of Igny, extracted out of the several Works of St. Bernard whose Disciple he was.  
The Treatise of the Ladder of the Cloister, or the method of Praying, which was found among the Works both of St. Austin and St. Bernard, has been since restored to Guigue, Prior of the Grand Charter-House, upon the Credit of a Manuscript of the Charter-House of Colen, having in the beginning of it a Letter of this Guigue, addressed to Gervase, and which serves for a Preface to the Book.  
The pious Meditations concerning the knowledge of Human Nature, found amongst the Works of Hugh of St. Victor, belong neither to him nor St. Bernard, but rather to some more Modern Author.  
The Treatise of the Edification the Inner House or of Conscience, found also among the Works of Hugh of St. Victor, belongs to some Monk, in all probability of the Order of Cisteaux, who lived much about the same time with St. Bernard. The same Judgement may be given concerning another Treatise of Conscience, and of another Treatise of the model of Life and Manners, which follows this.  
The Treatise of Charity is composed of Matters drawn out of the Works of Richard of St. Victor, Peter of Blois, and of St. Bernard.  
The Treatise Entitled the Mystical Vine, upon the words of our Saviour Christ, I am the true Vine, though it does not belong to St. Bernard, yet was written by some Author not long after him.  
The Meditation on the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which bears the name of St. Bernard in some Manuscript, yet is not at all like his Style, no more than the Lamentation on the Passion of our Saviour, and the Treatise on the three principal Mysteries of our Religion.  
The Treatise of Virtues is not likewise of St. Bernard's Style, but rather belongs to some Benedictin Monk, who writ it for Probationers, on the three Virtues of Humility, Obedience and Charity.  
The Exposition on the Lord's Prayer belongs to the same Author.  
These Treatises are followed by some Sermons of St. Aelreda, of Nicholas Disciple and Secretary to St. Bernard, who came from the Monastery of Montier-Ramey to Clairvaux, and who left this in disgust to St. Bernard; of Oger, Abbot of Lucedio, in the Diocese of Verceli, who lived a little while after St. Bernard; and of some other Sermons whose Authors are unknown; but which are attributed to St. Bernard, together with some other Opuscula of Piety of the same Nature, without Author's Names, among which there is a Treatise on these Words, Why are you come? Which is printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum, under the Name of David of Ausbourg, of the Order of Minorites, with another Treatise on the manner of living well, dedicated by an Anonymous Author to his Sister.  
This Tome ends with some pieces of Prose, likewise falsely attributed to St. Bernard. 
The Works of Gueric, Abbot of Igny. Lives of St. Bernard. Works of Geoffrey, Disciple to St. Bernard.   
The Sixth Tome contains the Sermons of Gueric, Abbot of Igny, whom St. Bernard brought to Clairvaux, in the Year 1131, from Tournay, where he was a Canon, and whom he had made Abbot of Igny, about the Year 1138, after that Humbert had laid down. Some Spiritual Letters of Guigue, fifth Prior of the Grand Charter-House, Author of the ancient Statutes of this Order. And the Historians of the Life of St. Bernard, whereof the first Book was composed, as we have said before, by William Abbot of St. Thierry. The second by Arnaud, Abbot of Bonneval, and the three last by Geoffrey, Secretary and Disciple to St. Bernard, who had before been a follower of Abaelard, and who after having been Abbot of Igny, succeeded in the Year 1162, in the Abbey of Clairvaux at Fastrede, and in the Year 1175, retired to Fossa Nova in Italy, of which he was Abbot, as also afterwards of Haute-Combe, about the end of this Century. He also writ a Commentary on the Canticles, the Life of St. Peter of Tarantaise, and divers other Treatises or Sermons which were never Printed. Cardinal Baronius has given us a Letter of this Geoffrey, Addressed to Henry Cardinal-Bishop of Albani, against Gilbert of La Porre, which Father Mabillon has also placed at the end of this Volume, together with a Sermon of the same Author for the Anniversary on the Death of St. Bernard, and a Letter of the same to Josbert on the Lord's Prayer.  
The five Books of the Life of St. Bernard are followed by two Others containing an Account of his 
The History of the Miracles of St. Bernard.  Miracles, one whereof consists of divers Pieces, that is of three Letters. One of Philip a Monk of Clairvaux to Samson Archbishop of Rheims. The Other writ by the Monks of this Monastety to the Clergy of Colen, and the third by Geoffrey Abbot of Igny to the Bishop of Constance: The Second is drawn out of the Book entitled The Great Beginning of the Order of Cisteaux.  
Beside these Author's Father Mabillon gives us likewise the Life of St. Bernard composed by Alanus, who from being Abbot of Larivoir was made Bishop of Auxerre in the year 1153. and retired 
Other Lives of St. Bernard.  to Clairvaux in the year 1161 where he died in the year 1181. Also some Fragments of a third Life of St. Bernard which was believed to belong to Geoffrey. And a fourth Life of St. Bernard written toabout the year 1180 by John the Hermit, who had lived with St. Bernard's Disciples. He also Adds a Poem of the Monk Philotheus of the Life and Praises of St. Bernard, with Verses likewise of other Authors in his Commendation. And Lastly the Bull of the Canonization of this Saint together with the Testimonies that divers Authors had given of him which concludes this Volume.  
He might also have put into this Volume the Letters of Nicholas of Clairvaux Secretary to St. Bernard 
Nicholas a Monk of Clairvaux.  Published by Father Picart a Regular Canon of St. Victor, and Inserted in the 22 Tome of the last Bibliotheca Patrum. They are about 55. all full of wit and written in a very engaging Style; but they contain nothing remarkable either on account of Doctrine or Church-Discipline. This Nicholas after having left Clairvaux, retired into his Monastery of Montier-Ramey, where he died about the year 1180. M. Baluze has also given us two of his Letters in the Second Tome of his Miscellaneous Works.  
St. Bernard's Style is Lively, Noble and Concise; his Thoughts Sublime and his Diction Pleasant and Curious. He equally abounds with good Matter, Tenderness and Force. He is sweet and Violent: 
The Character and Judgement of St. Bernard.  He engages the Mind by his Insinuating Manner, and touches the heart with his Movements. His Exhortations are Pressing; His Admonitions full of Gravity; His Reprimands Efficacious; His Reproaches so tempered with good nature that it is easy to perceive that he is in Charity with the Person that he Rallies and reproves rather to correct than to insult or domineer over him. He knows how to commend without Flattery, and to tell Truth without Offending. He diverts, recreates and pleases; He Instills dread and Inspires Love; his knowledge is more useful and wholesome Doctrine than Curious Learning. He is so full of the Holy Scriptures that scarce a Period passes but he has some words or expressions out of them. St. Ambrose and St. Austin are those of the Fathers which he has followed most, and which he considers as two Patterns that he is Indispensably bound to Imitate. He also Understood very well the Canons and Rules of Discipline of the Church; but he more particularly applied himself to Divinity and Morality. His Moral Sentences are noble, lively, weighty, and contain a great deal of sense in few words. He is Ingenious and very fertile in Allegories. He treats of Doctrines after the manner of the Ancients, and not According to the Methods of the Scholasticks, and Controversiaries of his Time, which has gained him the Title of the Last of the Fathers. Although he has taken most of his Thoughts from the Ancients, yet has he managed them with so great Address that they seem to be his own. He was in so great Reputation for Piety and Learning while he lived, that all Potentates desired to have their Differences determined by him, and they looked upon his Decisions as Indispensable Laws. The Proudest Kings and Princes have willingly condescended to obey him; The Bishops not only had recourse to his knowledge, but likewise regarded his Decisions as so many Oracles; and have Referred themselves to him about the most Important Affairs of the Church. The Popes themselves have taken his Advice and looked upon it as the greatest support of the Holy See. And all People had a very profound Respect and particular Veneration for his Person and Character. In a word, it may be said of him that even in his solitude, he governed all the Churches of the West. But what is most remarkable is that he knew how to join the Love of silence and a Retreat with so many Occupations and Employs, as likewise a Profound Humility with so great an Elevation.  
No Father of the Church has had his works so often printed as St. Bernard. The First Edition is that of his Sermons on the Times and Saints, Printed with his Book Dedicated to the Knight's Templars, in 
Editions of St. Bernard's Works.  the year 1475 at Mayence by Peter Schoiffer. About the same time the Treatise of Consideration, the Apology to William Abbot of St. Thierry, and The Treatise of Commands and Dispensations were printed at Rhoan. In the year 1481. his Letters with his Sermons were Printed at Brussels. This Edition was followed by that of Paris in the year 1494. which contains 310 Letters with his Sermons on the Canticles. The Editions of Bresse of the year 1495. of Spire in the year 1501. and of Venice in the year 1503 are also very Imperfect. That of Paris in the year 1508 contains almost all this Saints Works: They were Collected by the care of John Bouchard and Printed by John Petit. In the year 1515 Josse Clictou Printed them at Lions with the Sermons of Gilbert de Hoiland on the Canticles. This Edition has been several times Reprinted at Paris and Lyons. In the year 1520 two Monks of Clairvaux Published a New Edition of St. Bernard's Works more correct than the former, Printed the First time at Lions. Some time after Francis Comestor of the College of Sorbonne revised the works of this Saint, and Printed a new Edition at Paris in the year 1547. Whilst this Edition was selling and Reprinting, Anthony Marcellin published another at Basil in the year 1552. In which St. Bernard's works are ranged after a New Order, and Divided into four Parts: The First containing his Sermons: The Second his Letters: The Third his Treatises: and the Fourth his supposed Works. In the year 1566 Francis Comestor's Edition was reprinted as Printed with the Additions found in the Edition of Basil and some other Treatises. After this John Gillot undertook to present the Public a New Edition of St. Bernard's Works, more Correct and more Ample than the former; This was Printed at Paris by Nivelle in the year 1572. and afterwards reprinted several times, particularly in the year 1586. In the beginning of the following Century, Edmund Tiraqueau a Monk of Cisteaux published a new Edition of St. Bernard's Works, in the year 1601. And Eight years after John Picart gave another which was reprinted several times at divers Places. At length James Merlon Horstius laboured seriously to get a good Edition of this Father's works, and after a considerable time and a great deal of pains taken, he Produced one and Printed it in the year 1641. This Edition was received with Applause, and Reprinted in divers Places. Nevertheless Horstius having passed over several Faults in the Text, which might be corrected by Assistance of the Manuscripts, Father Chantelon of the Congregation of St. Maur undertook to revise his Edition and Presented the Public with his Sermons on the Times, and the Saints corrected, in several Places. This Father dying before he had finished his Design, Father Mabillon was pitched upon to continue what he had so well begun, who Published this Saints Works entire in the year 1666. in a Great and small Volume according to the Model of Horstius, and reviewed and corrected by divers Manuscripts. But as this Edition was the first work of this Learned Monk, he sometime after discovered several Errors which he had pretermitted before, and therefore Undertaken a Second Impression at Paris in two Volumes in Folio in the year 1690. In which the Order is altogether New, and which is moreover enriched with fine Prefaces, and divers short Notes at the bottom of the Pages, and which reach to the end of the first Volume. It is this Edition we have followed in these Extracts which we have made.   

CHAP. V.  
The Life and Writings of Peter, Surnamed the Venerable Abbot of Clunie.  
PEter Maurice Surnamed the Venerable, the Ninth Abbot of Clunie, descended from a Noble Family of Auvergne. His Father Maurice, and his mother Rangarda presented him to the Monastery of 
Peter the Venerable Abbot of Clunie.  Clunie, where he took upon him the Habit of that Order at the hands of Hugh the first Abbot of Clunie of that name. Whilst Pontius was Abbot he was made Prior of Vezelay, and then of Domnus; and at last Elected Abbot of Clunie in the year 1123. on our Lady's Assumption day, when he was but Thirty years Old or thereabouts. He died in the year 1157. on Christmas day.  
Whilst he was Abbot he wrote a great many Letters, of which they have made a Collection divided into six Books. In the Last Book is inserted a Treatise against the Jews, and another Tract against the Petrobusians. He likewise composed two Books containing the Narratives of several Miracles which happened in his time; four Sermons; a particular Letter against those who maintained that Jesus Christ was not in express Terms called GOD in the Gospel; several pieces of Prose, one an Encomium of our Saviour, another upon St. Benedict, a Third upon the Resurrection of our Saviour, and a fourth in Honour of St. Hugh; two Hymns, the one upon the Virgin Mary, and the other upon Mary Magdalen; and a discourse in Prose upon the Virgin Mary. He procured the Alcoran to be turned out of Arabic into Latin, and made a Treatise to refute it in opposition to Mahometanism.  
We have almost all these Works printed apart at Paris in the year 1522. at Ingoldstat in 1546. in the Library of Clunie, and in the last Bibliotheca Patrum.  
Among this Author's Letters there are several which contain several considerable Points both of the History and the Discipline of these times; so that we cannot forbear giving you an Abstract of them.  
The First Letter of the first Book is directed to Pope Innocent II. He acquaints him that the Archbishop of Bourdeaux who was a zealous promoter of the Interests of his Holiness, had given him intelligence of the News he had received: That he was hearty glad at the happy success of his Affairs, and that he congratulated him for the great care he took in Reforming the Church. He declares to him that he is very much concerned that he is not in a posture of being an Assistant in so great an undertaking. He exhorts him to persevere in the vigorous maintenance of his Dignity, in hopes that God, who had already subdued part of his Enemies, would at last bring the rest under his feet. He assures him that he shall always be inviolably at the Devotion of his Holiness, and that where or in what Circumstance soever he should be, he would always regard him as the Sovereign Pontiff. In the Close of this Letter he entreats the Pope to remember that the Church increased at first by Sufferings and Persecutions, and that it surmounted all opposition by Patience: That he had combated against its Enemies Seven years already, that in the Eighth it was to be hoped, he would sing Praises of Joy and Exultation. This Conclusion makes it appear that this Letter was wrote in the seventh year of the Pontificare of Innocent II. Anno Christi 1137.  
In the Second of the same Book he wrote word to the Bishop of Albani, that the Bishop of Troy's was ready to bestow one of the prebend's of his Church on the Monks of Clunie, as formerly the prebend's of Chartres, and Orleans had been bestowed on them. He entreats him to promote this Business at Rome, if he thought in Conscience he could safely do it. He likewise entreats him to prevail upon the Pope to remit to him the Trial of a Priest within his Jurisdiction, who was gone to Pisa, where the Court of Rome then was, in order to have his Cause heard there.  
In the Third he wrote to Haimerick Chancellor of the Church of Rome, concerning the Affair of the Monks of Aniana, who had preferred great complaints against the Bishop of Bezius. He therein takes notice that in his time the Members of the Church were very much disjointed in his Country, that the superiors insulted over the Inferiors, and the Bishops over the Monks; so that (says he) it seems as if their Aim and Design was not to feed their Flocks like Shepherds, but fleece and drain them like Hirelings. 
Peter the Venerable Abbot of Clunie.   
In the fourth he acquainted Hugh Archbishop of Rouen of the Death of one of his Clerks, whom h● had assisted in the last Moment of his Life. He takes notice that they had given him the Extreme Unction before the Viaticum, and that afterwards he received the Sacrament twice.  
In the Eleventh he entreats Pope Innocent to be favourable to the Church of Orleans by confirming t●… Election of Heli Abbot of St. Sulpicius to the Bishopric of that Church.  
By the Fifteenth ●e acquaints Adela of the death of Henry King of England, who departed this L●… on the second of D●cember 1135. after he had received all his Sacraments, as he observes in this Lette●▪  
In the Seventeenth he acquainted Pope Innocent II. of the Murders committed on the Subdean o● Orleans, and Thomas archdeacon of Paris, and prays him to confirm by his Apostolic Authority, the Sentence passed in France against the Murderers.  
The Twentieth directed to Monk Cislebert contains a long Instruction about the Duties and Virtues of Monks.  
In the Twenty Third he declares to Pope Innocent that he had much ado to resolve upon sending any of his Religious to re-establish the Abbey of Luxeu, because he feared it would prejudice his Monastery by drawing off the Monks from thence; and that besides it was easier to found new Monasteries than to re-establish Old Ones: That however in obedience to the Commands of his Holiness, he had offered to the Monks of the Abbey of Luxeu, who had waited upon him, to send them an Abbot and some Officers; but that they had rejected the Religious which he had offered them.▪ He entreats the Pope, that if they were still resolved to have a Monk of Clunie for their Abbot, he would not grant them Liberty to choose whom they pleased, but order them to be satisfied with his Choice.  
In the Twenty Seventh he complains to the same Pope, of the outrages offered to the Arch-Bishops, Bishops and Abbots, among whom he was present in the Town of Luni.  
The Twenty Eighth is an Apology for the Order of Clunie against that of Cisteaux, directed to St. Bernard; wherein after he had passed several Compliments upon him for his Learning and Piety, he relates the Points, upon which the Monks of Cisteaux pretended, that those of Clunie deviated from the Rule of St. Benedict; which are as follow. (1.) That they bestowed the Monastic Habit on Novices as soon as they were presented, without staying till their probation Year was over, according as the Rule prescribes. (2.) That they made use of Habits made with Skins. (3.) That they wore Breeches always, though it was not permitted by the Rule, unless in case of Travelling. (4.) That they had thicker covering on their Beds than was prescribed by the Rule. (5.) That they had more than two Dishes served up at Table with a second Course. (6.) That they always admitted the Religious Apostates, tho' the Rule prescribes that they should admit them only thrice. (7.) That they did not observe the Fasts which the Rule prescribed. (8.) That they did not inure themselves to any Manufacture. (9) That when they entertained Strangers, they did not bow to them, and that the Abbot did not wash their Hands and Feet, as the Rule prescribes. (10.) That the Abbot kept not an Inventory of all the Tools and Utensils of the Monastery. (11.) That when they are out of their Monastery, they do not bow the Knee, as usual in saying their Office. (12.) That the Table of the Abbot is not set apart for the Entertainment of Strangers. (13.) That when two Monks chance to meet, the Younger does not ask Blessing of the Elder. (14.) That they do not make one of the eldest Monks Porter of the Monastery Gate. (15.) That the Porter does not reply Deo Gratias, i. e. Praised be God, to those who knock at the Gate of the Monastery. (16.) That they renew the Vows that they have made in one Monastery, when they admit themselves into another. (17.) That they admit the Monks of another Monastery into theirs, without the leave of their Abbot. (18.) That they would be exempted from the Jurisdiction of their Bishop. (19) That they hold Parishes and Tenths, which are only the Propriety of those who Preach and Administer the Sacraments. (20.) That they are possessors of Lands, and concern themselves with the Affairs and Business of this Life, as if they were mere Seculars having Territories, Seignories, Vassals, Banks, and Monks who are employed as Solicitors and Advocates.  
He returns a Reply to all these Objections, in the Name of the Monks of Clunie, and at first says in General, that they who make those Objections, are an upstart sort of Pharisees, who were for distinguishing themselves from other Folks, and would be reckoned better than them. He asks them how it comes to pass that they who boast to be such strict observers of the Rule, forget at the same time the Observation of one Article, wherein the Monks are enjoined, not only to call, but also sincerely to esteem themselves to be the refuse and vilest of all Mankind. Is it (says he) the effects of this Article, which enjoins us to believe and assert ourselves to be worse than others, to undervalue their Actions, and overprize our own, to contemn them, and set too high an esteem upon ourselves?— You style yourselves the only true Monks now extant in the World, and treat all other Monks as Impostors and Corrupt; you wear an Habit of extraordinary Colour to distinguish yourselves from others, and you brag to be the white Monks in the midst of black ones, though the black habit was made choice of by our Fathers out of Humility; and though we read that St. Martin, that admirable true Monk, wore a long black Habit, and not a short white one as yours is. Now don't you violate the Rule of which you pretend to be so great Observers, since it declares itself against Monks being concerned for the Colour or the Quality of the Stuff which they wear? Are not you Prevaricators in changing that Colour which is most conformable to Humility and Austerity for another more glaring and the emblem of Joy.  
After he had made these Reflections on the Monks of Cisteaux, he maintains that those of Clunie do not transgress the Rule, in following the Traditions of their Fathers, since they derive them from the Saints, who authorise them by the Sanctity of their Lives, and by their Miracles, and who had a Privilege of prescribing Laws to them. Afterwards he returns a more particular and direct Answer to the foremention'd Objections. (1) That as to what related to the Admittance of Novices, they therein 
Peter the Venerable Abbot of Clunie  followed the Rule of Jesus Christ, who ordered the Rich Man in the Gospel who desired to be perfect, immediately to sell all he had, to give it to the Poor and to follow him; and who ordered the man that was willing to go bury his Father before he would follow him, to leave the Dead to bury the Dead, and to follow him without any more ado. And that they therein imitated the Example of the Apostles who followed Jesus Christ as soon as ever he called them, and who received into the Christian Church all those who offered themselves. He owns that the Letter of the Rule is against this Custom; but withal averrs that the End and Intention of the Rule being Charity and the Salvation of our Neighbour, which are in force so long as any one practices the Rule even in the strict and Literal Sense, one may with reason deviate from the Letter of the Rule. He adds that since the Discipline of the Church has been altered with respect to a great many points, 'tis no such extraordinary matter that the Monastical Discipline should be subject to the same Alterations. (2.) That St. Benedict in his Rule had prescribed nothing directly concerning Habits: That he had not where prohibited the Wearing of Leather; that he only ordered that they should be different according to the Variety of Climates: That a Leathern Habit was most suitable to Austerity and Solitude. That the Prophets, Elias, St. John Baptist, and the Ancient Hermits were clothed with Leathern Garments: That we find in story that St. Benedict himself wore such an Habit: That lastly it must be left to the discretion of the Abbot to prescribe the Quality of Habits, according to the Climate, the Season, and the Constitution of those who wear them. (3.) That they wear Breeches for Decency and Modesty's Sake. (4.) That the Rule leaves the Abbot full power to prescribe what sort of Covering the Monks should have on their Beds. (5.) That with respect to Eating, we ought not Scrupulously to adhere to the express Terms of the Rule, since St. Benedict gives the Abbot liberty to Augment the portion of Bread and Wine, if they have worked more than ordinary: And that 'tis well said of him, that 'tis Enough to allow the Monks two dishes of Meat upon the Account of their Infirmities, that so if they have no Stomach to the One they may eat of the other; but that if it should so happen that they could not eat of either of these two dishes, he has no where prohibited the allowing them a third or fourth Dish: Lastly that we ought to proportion the Quality and the Quantity both of Meat and Drink to the Constitution and strength of men, and to refer all to Charity, which is that Sovereign Rule, by which we ought to be ruled and governed. (6.) That in receiving the Religious as often as they were willing to return, they did nothing but what was agreeable to the Evangelical Law, and to the Practice of the Church: That what St. Benedict says on this subject in the Rule was only by way of Commination. (7.) That as to the Fasts they observed what was prescribed by the Rule, viz. from the 13th of September to the Beginning of Lent, they did not eat on any day (except Sundays) till None: but that from Whitsuntide to the 13th of September they did always eat at Noon, tho' the Rule seems to prescribe that on Wednesdays and Fridays they should not eat till the Hour of None, because it leaves the Abbot at his Liberty to augment or diminish the Fast. (8.) That they had particular Reasons for not working with their hands, since such a Labour was enjoined the Monks only to keep them from being Idle, and that they being engaged in other more useful Employments, were dispensed from that. (9) That it was a sort of Childishness to condemn the Order of Clunie, because the Religious and the Abbot of that house did not prostrate themselves before all the strangers that came to them, nor wash their Feet; and besides that this Employment would wholly divert the Monks from all their other Duties by reason of the great Number of the strangers: That however to avoid the total neglect of what the Rule prescribed each Monk every year washes the Feet of three strangers, and presents them with Bread and Wine. (10.) That the Abbot was discharged from the Care of keeping an Inventory of the Tools and Utensils of the Monastery, provided another man did it, since it is impossible for him to do all things himself. (11.) That they do not omit those Genuflections which they are required to make during the Office, tho' they say it abroad, unless when the badness of the Wether hinders them, and that then they say a Miserere. (12.) That the Abbot order an allowance of meat and Drink to be given to all strangers, but that it was not proper to introduce all manner of persons without distinction into the Refectory; nor that he should leave the Religious to wait upon Others. (13.) That the Young Monks do ask blessing viva voce of the Elder, when they meet them out of the Bounds of their Monastery; but that within those Bounds they only ask it by a low Bow without saying any thing, that they might preserve their Silence. (14.) That if they do not place at their Gate an Elderly Monk, yet they set one there of known and approved fidelity and Wisdom; that the Monastery-Gates are almost always open in the day time, and that 'tis sufficient that they have one to open them when they are shut. (15.) That 'tis not at all necessary that the Porter should cry Deogratias to all Comers. (16.) That there was no inconveniency for the Monks when they change their Monastery to renew their Vows, and that the Rule itself in express terms permits the Renewing of the Vow of Constancy. (17.) That they are satisfied that a Monk cannot leave his Monastery without the leave of his Abbot, so long as that Abbot discharges the Duty of a Pastor; that is so long as he takes care to provide for the Bodily necessities of his Religious: But that if it should so happen that a Monk cannot Live or be safe under an Abbot in one Monastery, he may leave that Monastery without the Licence of his Abbot▪ That 'tis upon this account that the Abbot of Clunie has obtained a Privilege from the Holy See, of entertaining all the Religions who are forced to leave their Monastery for either of these reasons. (18) That they have for their Bishop the Chief of all Bishops, and the Bishop of all the Churches, namely the Bishop of Rome, who has granted them the Privilege of being exempted from the Interdictions or Excommunications of all other Bishops besides himself: That notwithstanding this they receive the holy Chrism, the holy Oils, holy Orders, and the Consecration of their Churches from the hands of other Bishops: That to find fault with their Privileges is the same thing as to question the Authority of the Holy See; that several other Monks enjoy the same Privileges; and that Saint Gregory granted such to a great many Monasteries. (19) That the Pope has given them leave to have Parishes, and to enjoy Tenths: That 'tis reasonable 
Peter the Venerable Abbot of Clunie.  for them who offer up continual Prayers for the Faithful to live by the offerings of the Faithful; and that as Secular Clerks have a Right to enjoy the Revenues of Ecclesiastical Estates, because they administer the Sacrament, and preach the Gospel, so the Monks likewise may receive the Oblations of the Faithful, upon the account of the Psalms which they repeat in their behalf, upon the account of the Tears which they pour out to divert the Justice of God, and upon the account of the Alms, and other good Works which they practise. (20.) That the Religious are not forbid holding Temporal Estates of what kind soever; and that they may maintain their Estates by all manner of just and lawful ways. Lastly, he observes that we ought to make a distinction between two sorts of Precepts the one Immutable, which can never be changed, such as our Love to God and our Neighbour, whatever else is commanded by the Laws of God, and others which may be changed for a greater Good, or for the avoiding a greater Evil; and he avers, that whatever they had altered in the Rule of St. Benedict, was of the latter kind; and that they did not change it but only for the greater Benefit, and to fulfil Christian Charity, which ought to be the Supreme Rule and Law.  
☞ [And now upon this whole Debate or Controversy between the Monks of Cisteaux and those of Clunie, we cannot forbear making this one Remark, that according to our old course English Proverb, here has been a great Cry, but little Wool; a great noise and clamour about the Externals, but scarce one Word said, Pro, or Con, about the Internals of Religion; which sufficiently shows, that when Men are once wedded to any party in Religion, their greatest Heats happen about the Circumstantials of Religion, to which that Party adheres, and that they have little or no Concern for the Fundamentals of the truly Catholic and Christian Church.]  
The Twenty Ninth Letter is likewise written to St. Bernard, upon a particular Quarrel about one of the Monks of Clunie elected to the Bishopric of Langres, whereof St. Bernard makes mention in his 164th. Letter, and in those that ensue. Peter of Clunie in this Letter says, that Saint Bernard being prejudiced against this Monk upon some false Reports, opposed his Ordination.  
The Thirty Third is written to Pope Innocent, about another Difference between the Monks of Clunie, and those of Cisteaux. This Pope in the Year 1132, had exempted the Monks of Cisteaux from paying Tenths. This was a considerable Prejudice to the Monks of Clunie, particularly to the Abbey of Gigny, who had considerable Tithes to receive from the Lands belonging to the Monastery of Miroir. The Monks of Gigny were for demanding them, for which the Pope had interdicted their Church; whereupon Peter the Venerable conjures him not to deprive the Monks of Gigny of a Right which belonged to them, and to suspend the Interdiction which he had pronounced against them, that so they might have time to inform him of the justice of their Cause. About the same time he wrote upon the same Subject, the Thirty Fourth Letter to Haimeric, Chancellor of the Church of Rome, whereby he represents to him more at length the injustice which he pretends was done to his Order; and directed another Letter to the Chapter General of Cisteaux, whereby he exhorts them to quit this their Pretention. This is the Thirty Fifth Letter, which is written with a great deal of Smartness and Discretion. However, because several Abbots of the Order of Cisteaux were displeased at it; the next Year he sent them a Letter of Excuse, which is the Thirty Sixth and last of this Book. The Monks of Gigny not being able to obtain of the Pope what they desired, were for doing themselves Justice, and some few Years after went to the Monastery of Miroir, where they committed great Outrages. Pope Eugenius III. Innocent's Successor being informed thereof, wrote to Peter the Venerable about it, and threatened the Monks of Gigny to punish them severely, in case they did not make Reparation for the wrong which they had done to the Monks of Miroir. St. Bernard and Peter the Venerable, met at Clunie to adjust the Affair; the Damage was estimated at above Thirty thousand Sols; but the Monks of Gigny having made but very inconsiderable offers of Reparation, St. Bernard wrote to the Pope about it. At last the Affair terminated in an Accommodation made after the Death of St. Bernard, in the Year 1155.  
The First Letter of the Second Book is wholly Doctrinal. He therein proves against a Man, who was fallen into the Error of the Apollinarists, that the Humanity of Jesus Christ was composed both of Soul and Body.  
The Second is directed to Peter Archbishop of Lions. He congratulates his being advanced to the Primacy of a Kingdom, which acknowledged not other Superior than the Holy See, and which had an Authority over all the Churches of France. He exhorts him to use his utmost Diligence for the Restoration of Piety, particularly within his Diocese. In this Letter, he gives us a Description of the Irregularity of the Manners of the ecclesiastics and Religious.  
In the Third he complains to Pope Innocent of the Coldness which he showed to the Cardinal Bishop of Albany, to whom he lay under great Engagements; and exhorts him to leave him in France with Authority, where he was capable of doing a great deal of Good, till such time as he could recall him with Honour to Rome.  
In the Fourth he exhorts Gilo Bishop of Frescati to abandon the Party of Peter de Leon, which could not be the true Church, since it was reduced to a small Number of People shut up in several Forts of Italy or Poitou. The Thirty Fourth is likewise directed to the same Bishop, upon the same Subject.  
In the Seventh he shows Theotard Prior de la Charité, that he is bound both in Duty and Obedience not to quit his Charge.  
In the Tenth, he with a great deal of Freedom remonstrates to Pope Innocent, that he does not do 
Peter the Venerable Abbot of Clunie.  well in recalling the Cardinal of Albani to Rome.  
In the Eleventh he complains to that Cardinal, that they had turned out several Monks out of the Monastery of Verdun to put some Clerks into their places.  
The Sixteenth is a Circular Letter to all the Superiors of the Monasteries of his Order, whereby he recommends to their Prayers his Mother Raingarda, who departed this Life on the 22d. of June, and orders them to say thirty Masses for the Peace of her Soul, and to feed twelve poor People in the Monasteries where it could be done, and that in the others, the Priests should say two Masses, besides the General Mass.  
In the next Letter, he tells us after what manner he received the News of his Mother's Death, who was become a Religious of Marsigny. He therein makes her Encomium, and describes the Circumstances of her Death, which was wholly Christian. These and the following Letters inform us that she died at the time of his Return from the Council of Pisa, held in the Year 1134.  
The Twenty Sixth is a Letter of Pope Innocent directed to Peter of Clunie, wherein he recommends himself to his Prayers, and dispenses him from coming to Rome, because of his Infirmity.  
In the Twenty Eighth, Peter Abbot of Clunie entreats Pope Innocent, not to take the Prior of Vezelay out of his Monastery, to make him Bishop of Langres.  
The Thirty First is written to William Bishop of Orange, who had interdicted the Monastery of Puy, because the Monks retained a Church which had been given them by the Predecessor of that Bishop. Peter of Clunie, prays him to do them Justice, if not, to appoint a day wherein he would have the Affair discussed before the Pope's Legat.  
The Thirty Third is written to Atto Bishop of Troy's about the Difference which had been between him and the Bishop of Auxerre, about the Ordinations of several Monks of the Order of Clunie, made at La Charité upon the Loire. Peter of Clunie was willing to send him the Privileges of the Holy See, which allow the Monks of Clunie to be Ordained by what Bishop they pleased, when he once could understand that this Affair was adjusted. He desires he would be pleased to send him an account thereof, and writes to him about two other private Affairs, the latter of which relates to a Clerk of his Church named Guarin, who desired to have the first vacant Prebend conferred upon him.  
The next Letter is written to the same Bishop, about Gebwin his Archdeacon, who was gone to Rome about some Difference which he had with his Bishop. In his Journey he stopped at Clunie, and had promised Peter to return to Troy's, and adjust Matters with his Bishop.  
Atto in the Thirty Fifth Letter returns an Answer to the foregoing Letter.  
The following Letters of Peter of Clunie contain nothing in them of moment, till you come to the Seventh of the Third Book; wherein he replies to the Questions which had been proposed to him by one of his Monks named Gregory, who was a great Student. The first Question was, whether the Virgin Mary had received an Increase of Grace, in receiving the Holy Ghost with the Apostles on the day of Pentecost. Peter of Clunie replies, that she had received no increase of Charity or of sanctifying Grace, since throughout her whole Life, she had a fullness of Grace and Sanctity; but that she might have received an Augmentation of some particular Gifts, such as Knowledge, Prophecy, the power of working Miracles, of speaking several Tongues, which yet was not very certain. The second Question is, how the Virgin Mary could possibly be ignorant of any thing after she had conceived the Son of God. Peter of Clunie proves, that she was ignorant of a great many things, nor is he of Opinion, that she had such a perfect Knowledge of God, as the Angels and Souls of good Men made Blessed have; and he positively denies, that here below she enjoyed Beatitude, though he owns that she had more Knowledge and Wisdom with respect 
[We cannot but here observe, that this is one of the most modest accounts of the Perfections of the Virgin Mary to be met with among any Romanists, and such as does not at all favour the Notions of some of the modern Papists.]  to Spiritual things, than all other Mortals? The third Question is upon a passage of St. Gregory, wherein that Father seems to assert that the Word was united to the Manhood, before it was born of the Virgin- Mary. Peter of Clunie says, that this passage has given some an occasion of asserting that our Lord brought down his Humanity from Heaven, which is entirely contrary to the Sentiment of St. Gregory, who explains his Thoughts by saying, that though Jesus Christ was not yet born of the Virgin, yet the Union of the Person of the Divine Logos with the Manhood was already typifyed and foretold, though it was not as yet known or revealed.  
In the Third Letter of the Fourth Book, he writes to Pope Innocent in favour of Lewis the Younger, King of France, and entreats him to have some condescension for him. If his Youth had inclined him to do any thing that was not convenient. This was written upon the occasion of the Difference between that Prince and the Archbishop of Bourges. He likewise gave the Pope to understand, that the Monastery of Luxeu, which he would have reformed the last Year, by sending thither several Monks of Clunie, was still wholly irregular, and in a worse Condition than before.  
The Fourth is that Letter which he wrote to the same Pope about Abaelard.  
By the Fifth, he recommends to that Pope a Canon of Lions named Heraclius.  
In the Seventh, he writes again to that Pope in favour of Arnulphus, Archdeacon of Seez, Elected and Consecrated Bishop of Lizieux, that the Pope might confirm him in spite of the Attempts made by the Count of Angers, to the contrary.  
In the Eighth, he complains to Milo Bishop of Terrovanne, for his having publicly declaimed in his Church against the Monks of Clunie, accusing them of being Proud and Disobedient to Bishops. He shows him, that if he had any thing to say against their Conduct, he ought to let them know of it, and reprove them for it privately, and not to declaim against them so publicly. Afterwards he clears them of the Accusation, and complains that that Bishop had hindered the bestowing a Canonship 
Peter the Venerable Abbot of Clunie.  of Abbeville on them, though it did not belong to his Diocese, but to the Diocese of Amiens.  
In the Ninth, he recommends to Pope Innocent the Bishop of Salamanca, Archbishop Elect of Compostella, and entreats him to approve of this Translation.  
In the Tenth, he entreats him to grant Hugh Archbishop of Tours, leave to return to his Arch-Bishopprick. For Hugh in his Journey to Rome fell sick in the Monastery of La Charite, where he had taken upon him the Habit of that Order.  
In the Eleventh, he exhorts the Archbishop of Narbonne, who was very old and infirm, to quit his Archbishopric, and to retire to Clunie. This Letter was written from Spain, to which place he had traveled.  
The Sixteenth is the Two Hundred and Twenty Eighth Letter of St. Bernard, to which Peter of Clunie replied by the Seventeenth, which is likewise the Two Hundred and Twenty Ninth of St. Bernard's Letters, of which we have given you an Abstract. Peter of Clunie does therein at first declare, that the Difference which had been between them, whether about the Bishopric of Langres, or for Tenths, had abated nothing of the Charity, Friendship or Esteem which he had for him▪ In the close of this Letter he sends him word, that he therewith sent him a Version of the Alcoran, which he had translated whilst he was in Spain, to show the Errors and Follies of the Mahometan Religion. Afterwards he gives him a short account of Mahomet and of his Doctrine.  
The Eighteenth is a Letter of Compliment to Pope Celestine, upon his Advancement to the Pope-dom.  
The Nineteen is written to Pope Lucius, to whom he likewise made several Compliments, and asked him whether he should send him the thirteen Religious, according as he had ordered him when he was at Rome. This Pope by the next Letters returned him Answer, that he would do him a great Favour in so doing.  
The Twenty First is that which he wrote to Heloissa, upon the Death of Abaelard.  
The Twenty Second is written to Lucius, in favour of the Bishop of Orleans, who was accused by several of his Clergy.  
By the Twenty Fourth, he recommends to him the Religious whom he sent him.  
In the Twenty Fifth, he wrote to Pope Eugenius III. in favour of the Archbishop of Besancon.  
In the Twenty Seventh, he exhorts Atto Bishop of Troy's to retire to Clunie.  
In the Thirtieth, he blames those who caused to be sung or recited such Hymns or Histories in the Church, as are full of Fictions; and he says that not long ago he was very much put to the Blush in being forced to hear Sung, and to sing himself in the Church an Hymn in Honour of St. Benedict, which contains twenty falsities at least, without mentioning the Impropriety of the Language, and the falseness of Quantity; which had engaged him to make another Hymn in Honour of that Saint.  
The Thirty Sixth is written to King Lewis the Young, exhorting him to punish the Jews, not by putting them to Death, but by taking away from them such effects as they had unjustly gotten by their Usuries and Extortion.  
In the Fourth Letter of the Fifth Book, he writes to Pope Eugenius III. the Causes which the Abbot de la Chaise-Dieu alleged against the Archbishop of Arles, and the Bishop of Viviers, nominated by his Holiness to take Cognizanae of the Difference which was between the Bishop of Nismes and that Abbey.  
In the Fifth he wrote to the same Pope, about the refusal which the Archbishop of Bourdeaux had made of ordaining him, who had been elected Bishop of Angoulème.  
In the seventh, he replies to several questions which had been proposed to him by Thibald Abbot of St. Colomba of Sens. Among the rest was this, Why they repeat the Unction of the Sick at Clunie. Peter the Venerable says, that the Case is not the same with the Unction of the Sick, as with the Unctions of Baptism and Confirmation, whose Efficacy is simple and only One; nor the same as with the sacerdotal Unction, or the Unctions of Churches and Holy Vessels, which imprint a Consecration which can never be effaced. Whereas the effect of the Unction of the Sick being only Remission of Sins, wherein Men fall after they are recovered of their Sickness, it ought to be repeated in the next Sickness.  
The Sixth Book contains several Letters of Peter of Clunie to St. Bernard, and of St. Bernard to Peter of Clunie, of which the fourth is somewhat remarkable. Peter of Clunie therein entreats St. Bernard to procure an Union between the Monks of Clunie and of Cisteaux, by ordering that whenever the Monks of Clunie should come into the Monasteries of those of Cisteaux, they might be entertained as the Monks of the Monastery, and admitted into the Refectory; the Dormitory, and the other Regular Places.  
There are likewise in the same Book several Letters to Pope Eugenius III. in one of which (viz. the Ninth) he assures him that the Archbishop of Vienna does not at all oppose the Interests of the Order of Clunie, as the Pope had supposed, and sent him word in the preceding Letter.  
In the Twelfth, he advertises him of the Division which was in Chartreux the Great, upon occasion of a Person Elected to the Bishopric of Grenoble.  
In the Twenty Fifth, he gives him to understand of the Irregularities of the Bishop of Clermont.  
In the Twenty Seventh he wrote to him in favour of Humbert of Beaujeu, who returning from beyond Sea, was settled in the Neighbourhood of Clunie, and had put a stop to the Wars and Robberies committed there in his Absence, and had quieted all the Country thereabouts; but because he had quitted the Order of Knights Templars, and taken his Wife again, the Pope could not endure that he should live in the World. Peter of Clunie in this Letter remonstrates to him, that it was very proper for him to use his Indulgence towards this Lord, and to grant him a Dispensation of living with his Wife, and of leading a secular Life. 
Peter the Venerable Abbot of Clunie.   
In the Twenty Eighth he wrote to him against the Provost, Abbot, and other Ecclesiastical Lords of Brioude, who had turned a Clerk out of his Church, and his demeans without any form of Justice, nay, so much as denying him to clear himself by the Trial of Fire, as he had offered them to do.  
The Forty Second, Forty Third, Forty Fourth, and Forty Fifth Letters are likewise written to Eugenius III. The first in favour of the Abbot of Brems, and the second in favour of Guy Lord of Domnus, who had been interdicted by the Pope, for having married a second Wife in the Life time of his first. Peter of Clunie shows the Pope the Reasons upon which he believes that the first Marriage ought not to stand, and prays him to determine this Affair according to this Remonstrance, and to take off the Interdiction which he had issued out against this Lord. The Third is in favour of the People of Placenza, who were unwilling to admit of a Bishop, consecrated by the Archbishop of Ravenna, and they thought they had reason for it, because they were to admit of no Bishop but who was sent by the Pope. In the last, he acquaints the Pope of a Treaty which he had made with a Lord of his Neighbourhood.  
The Fifteenth Letter of this Book, is a circular Letter written by Peter of Clunie, to all the Superiors of the Houses of his Order, wherein he warmly reproves the Abuse which was established among the greatest part of his Religious, of eating Meat every day in the Week except Friday. He shows, that this was forbidden by the Rule of St. Benedict, which enjoins them to eat nothing but Fish, and by the Example and Institution of Odo, one of the Founders of their Order.  
The Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth and Twentieth Letters, are about the Crusade. Peter of Clunie had been invited by Sugerus Abbot of St. Denys, and by St. Bernard to meet at that Assembly which was to be held at Chartres upon this Design, he excuses himself from coming by two of his Letters, but withal commends that design.  
In the Twenty Sixth written to Everard, Grand-Master of the Order of Knight Templars, he commends their Institution, and intercedes for Humbert of Beaujeu, who had left them.  
The Thirty Ninth written to his Nieces, is in commendation of a Virgin Life.  
The Seventh Book contains three Letters written by Peter of Clunie, to Sugerus Abbot of St. Denys, an Answer of that Abbot; three Letters of St. Bernard, and one Letter of Peter of Cells, written to Peter of Clunie.  
Besides the Letters we have already mentioned, there are a great many others, which are either Letters of Compliment, or on Affairs of little Moment, and several other Moral ones about the Spiritual Monastic Life, such as the Ninth and Tenth of the first Book; the Twelfth, Fifteenth, Twenty Second, and Fiftieth of the Second; the Fourteenth, Thirty Ninth, Fourtieth, Forty First and Forty Second of the Fourth Book; the third of the Fifth; and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth of the Sixth. All these Letters are penned with a great deal of Purity and pleasantness of Style, full of Life and solid Thoughts. They are not indeed so Airy as the Letters of St. Bernard, nor so full of Turns and playing upon Words, but the Style is more Correct, Even and Pure.  
These Letters are followed by the Tracts of Peter of Clunie.  
The first is dedicated to Peter of St. John's, who in a Conference which they had together, had told him, that some of those with whom he conversed, had asserted that Jesus Christ is not expressly called God in the Gospel. Peter of Clunie in this Treatise, proves the contrary from all those Passages in the Gospel where Jesus Christ is styled God, and has such Attributes applied to him, as belong to none but God.  
The Second Tract is against the Jews, wherein he proves the Divinity of Jesus Christ, that he is the Messiah who had been foretold by the Prophets, and refutes several Fables of the Jewish Talmud.  
To these two Tracts are annexed two Prefaces, the one is Peter's of Clunie, and the other Robert's of Readiness, upon the Version of the Alcoran, with an Abridgement of the History and Errors of Mahomet. The Five Books which Peter of Clunie has composed against the Alcoran, have not as yet been printed.  
We shall speak of the Treatise against the Petrobusians, when we come to treat of those Heretics.  
The two Books of Miracles contain the Relation of a great many Miracles that happened in his time. In the second we meet with the Life of Matthew Prior of St. Martin in the Fields, and afterwards Bishop of Albani, and the Account of the Contest between Pontius and Peter the Venerable, about the Abbey of Clunie.  
Of the Four Sermons penned by Peter of Clunie, we have only that about the Transfiguration remaining.  
The pieces of Poetry which we have of his, are an Apology in Hexameters, or Pentameters against those who found fault with the Verses of Peter of Poitiers; several pieces of Prose on the Life of Jesus Christ, on the Resurrection, in Honour of the Blessed Virgin, upon St. Mary Magdalen, and in praise of Hugh Abbot of Clunie. Two Hymns, one on the Festival of St. Benedict, and the other upon the translation of his Body; and several Epitaphs on Count Eustachius, Bernard Prior of Clunie, Reginald Archbishop of Lions, and Peter Abaelard. It had been well if he had written as well in Verse as in Prose.  
Peter of Clunie made likewise a Collection of the Statutes of his Order, which were made whilst he was Abbot, and at the end of each Statute, has explained the Reason of their being enacted. These statutes relate to the Divine Service, to Fasts, the form of Habits, and several other Customs of the Monks of that Fraternity.  
Father Mabillon in the third Tome of his Analects, p. 481. has given us two Letters of this Author, of the Association of Prayers for the Dead, between those of Chartres, and the Senators of Venice.   

CHAP. VI  
An Account of the Heresies which prevailed in the Twelfth Century.  
WE have already observed, that in the beginning of the foregoing Century, there appeared in several parts of France, such Heretics as were accused of impious Doctrines, who openly attacked 
The Heretics of the Twelfth Century.  the Sacraments of the Church, and subverted its most sacred Rites and Ceremonies. The Severity with which those who were taken were condemned, did not prevent the Sect from spreading further, nor this Doctrine or some such like, from overrunning the Kingdom, so that in this Century, a great many Heretics appeared, whose chief Aim was to divert Men from the receiving of the Sacraments, and to overthrow the Hierarchy and Discipline of the Church.  
The first who appeared were Peter of Bruis, and an Hermit named Henry, his Disciple. They first began to broach their Doctrine in Provence, from whence the latter went to Lausune, and afterwards 
An account of the Heretic Henry.  into the Country of Mans. We will give you the Description which the Historian of the Bishops of Man's made of him, in speaking of Hildebert. About this time there arose in that Country a certain Hypocrite, who for his wicked Actions, for his corrupt Morals, and for his abominable Doctrines, deserved the severest Punishments. This Man concealed the Rage of a Ravenous Wolf, under the appearances of an innocent Sheep. His Countenance and Eyes looked like a ruffled and tempestuous Sea: He was as yet very young: He wore short Hair, his Beard shaved, was large in stature, but very sorrily clothed; walked apace, and barefooted even in the hardest time of Winter; he was pretty Affable, had a strong terrifying Voice, and lived in a manner quite different from others. His ordinary Retreats were the Cottages of Peasants; he lived all day under Porticoes; eat and slept on some Hill or other in the open Air, and had acquired a great Reputation of Sanctity. The Women applauded him, cried him up for a great Servant of God, and gave out that no person could have a greater Faculty than him of converting the most obdurate Hearts; and that he was endued with the Spirit of Prophecy, to discern the most inward recesses of the Conscience, and the most private Sins. This Fame having rendered him very desirable in the Diocese of Mans. He sent thither two of his Associates and Disciples, who lived in the same manner as he did. Those Men arrived at Man's on Ash-Wednesday, where they were received by the People as Angels. In imitation of their Master they carried Staffs, on the top of which was an Iron Cross, and they wore the Dress of Penitents. Bishop Hildebert was surprised at the Sight, and received them kindly. He just upon his departure for Rome, ordered his Arch-Deacons to give Henry leave to come into his Diocese, and permit him to preach to the People. He was no sooner come, but they flocked from all parts to hear his Sermons, and the Clergy themselves excited the People thereto. He had a Natural Eloquence, and a Tone of Voice resembling Thunder. He soon spread his Errors in his Sermons, and stirred up the People against the Clergy, so that a great many ecclesiastics were abused by them. The Chapter of Man's perceiving this Disorder, wrote to him, and gave him notice by one of the Canons, that they prohibited him from preaching any more, either in public or private within their Diocese. The People had like to have killed the Canon who brought him this Message, and Henry continued to preach in the Churches of St. german and St. Vincent. He taught, that the Women who had not lived continently, aught to strip themselves, to burn their Hair, and to renounce their worldly Goods, to lead a Life of Poverty, by marrying likewise poor Men. 'Tis easy to guests how much disturbance such a Doctrine put in Practice would raise in the Diocese. Hildebert being returned from Rome, Henry retired into the Castle of Calais, and continued there to vent his Doctrines, and the People still followed him, and were so far infatuated, that they would scarce akncowledge their Bishop, or receive his Benediction. The Bishop to undeceive the People, went to Henry, and entering into a Conference with him, asked him what profession he was of. He answered him that he was a Deacon. The Bishop asked him whether he had assisted that day at Divine Service? He said no; then replied the Bishop, let us say our Matins. Henry declared that he could not say his Office; the Bishop began to recite the Psalms of the Office of the Virgin-Mary; but Henry was still as ignorant as ever, so that being in a Confusion, was forced to own that he knew nothing at all, but that he had made it his Study to make Discourses to the People. Hildebert having gained the Conquest over him, prohibited him from preaching or staying any longer in his Diocese. Two of his Disciples named Cyprian and Peter, recanted and left him, after they understood that his Life was infamous, and his Doctrine Heretical, as Hildebert informs us in his 78th. Letter. All this happened about the Year 1110.  
Whilst Henry preached in France, Peter of Bruis continued likewise to publish his Errors in Provence. Peter the Venerable Abbot of Clunie, who has refuted them, makes mention of five. (1.) His denying 
The Errors of Peter of Bruis.  that Baptism was of any advantage to Infants, and maintaining that only adult Persons ought to be Baptised; a Doctrine which they put in practice by Rebaptising all those who initiated themselves into their Sect. (2.) His condemning the use of Churches, Temples and Altars, and beating them down. (3.) His rejecting the Worship of Crosses, and breaking them. (4.) His believing that the Mass was useless, and that none are obliged to celebrate it. (5.) His Teaching, that Alms and Prayers for the Dead are of no avail, and forbidding to sing the Praises of God. He likewise takes Notice that a great many accused them of wholly rejecting all the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, and of not believing either in Jesus Christ, or the Prophets, or the Apostles; but he would not impute the Error to them, which was only attributed to them by common Fame. 'Tis no hard matter to comprehend how much Trouble such a seditious Doctrine must needs raise both in Church and State. In Provence there was nothing else to be seen but Christians rebaptized, Churches Profaned or Destroyed, Altars pulled down, and Crosses burnt. The Laws of the Church were publicly violated, the Priests beaten, abused and forced to marry, and all the most sacred Ceremonies of the Church abolished. These Disorders excited the Zeal of the Bishops of that Country, who with the assistance of the Princes drove out this Heretic, and put a stop to the fury of his Followers. But he went from thence into Languedoc, where he vented the same Errors at Tholouse, and in other Cities, till he was apprehended and burnt alive at St. Giles' in Languedoc.  
His Disciple Henry who was likewise returned to Languedoc, after he had been driven out of Mons, 
The Publication of the Errors of Henry and of Peter of Bruis.  preached there the same Doctrine, and added thereto several new Errors, so that within a short time, that Country was so infested with those detestable Maxims, that there were to be seen (as St. Bernard says) a great many Churches without People, a great many People without Priests, a great many Priests despised by their People, and a great many Christians without Jesus Christ. The Churches there were become like so many Synagogues; the Sanctuary was divested of its Sanctity; the Sacraments looked upon as profane things; the Festivals lost their Solemnity; Men died in their Sins, without Absolution, and without receiving the Communion, Baptism was denied to Infants; they dirided the Prayer and Sacrifices for the Dead, and the invocation of Saints; the Excommunications of Bishops, the Pilgrimages made for the sake of Devotion, the Consecration of the Holy Chrism and of the Holy Oils. And in a Word, a general Contempt was cast on all the Ceremonies and Customs of the Church. St. Bernard brought into that Country by Alberic, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, and Legate of the Holy See; put a stop to those Disorders, and undeceived part of the People by his Preaching and his Miracles. Henry thought of making his escape, but was apprehended and carried in Chains to Tholouse, and put into the Bishop's Hands. St. Bernard undertook the Journey in the Year 1147.  
'Tis very probable that the Heretics of Perigueux were the Disciples of Peter de Bruis and of Henry. We will give you an account which a Contemporary Monk named Herbert has left us of them 
The Heretics of Perigueux.  in a Letter addressed to all Christians, wherein he admonishes them to beware of of these false Prophets. There are (says he) in the Country of Perigueux a great many Heretics, who boast that they lead an Apostolical Life, eat no Flesh, and drink no Wine, unless in a very little quantity, and that from one three days end to another, who fall upon their Knees an hundred times a day, and receive no Money. Their Sect is very Corrupt and Hyyocritical; they do not say the Gloria Patri, but instead of it say, because yours is the Kingdom, and you have a Power over all Creatures for ever and ever, Amen. They make no account of almsgiving, because they believe that no Man ought to possess any thing as his own Property. They bear no regard to the Mass, and teach that one ought not to receive the Communion, but only a piece of Bread. If any one of 'em out of Hypocrisy says Mass, he never recites the Canon, nor receives the Communion, but throws the Host besides the Altar, or into the Missal. They do not adore Crosses or Crucifixes, and condemn those of Idolatry who do them any Honour. This Sect is mightily increased, and not only a great many Persons of Quality leave their Estates to be of their Number, but likewise a great many ecclesiastics, and a great many Religious of both Sexes follow them. The most stupid and senless among them, within less than eight days time became very expert and fit to teach, and be examplars to the rest. 'Tis a hard matter to take them, for wherever they be apprehended, the Devil helps them out of Prison again. They do work some Miracles, such as filling a Vessel with Wine, by pouring some drops of Water into it. The chief of this Sect is called Pontius. St. Bernard in his Journey confronted likewise these Heretics.  
About the same time Tancheline vented the same Errors in Flanders. He was a Laic who ventured to 
The Heresy of Tancheline.  preach, and became so proud, that he caused extraordinary Respects to be paid him, and he carried his extravagant Folly so far, that (if we may believe Abaelard in the Case) he caused himself to be styled by the People the Son of God; and a Temple to be built in Honour of him. That which is more certain, is that he taught that the Churches were only places of Prostitution; that the Eucharist which the Priests consecrated signified nothing. That the Sacraments were rather Abominations than sacred things; that the efficacy of the Sacraments depended on the Sanctity of the Ministers. The Bishop of Tournay established in the Church of St. Michael, a Congregation of twelve ecclesiastics to oppose these Errors. This Church was afterwards bestowed on St. Norbert. Tanchelino went as far as Rome with a Priest named Evervachier, who was one of his principal Followers. 'Tis not known what became of him afterwards, but for the Priest he returned to Utrecht; where he made a great many Disciples. The Bishop of Utrecht sent word thereof to Frederick Archbishop of Cologne, who opposed the Heresy in its very Birth, which began to spread itself in his Diocese, as is observed in the Letter of the Church of Utrecht to that Archbishop.  
In spite of all his endeavours it was established there, and there continued, as we are informed by a Letter of Enervin, Provost of Stemfeld near Cologne written to St. Bernard, wherein he gives him 
The Heretics of Cologne.  to understand, that within a short time they had discovered several Heretics near that City, some whereof had abjured their Errors; and two others having maintained them obstinately, had been burnt by the People. These Heretics taught, that they were the only Persons among whom the true Church had subsisted, because they alone had followed the Example of Jesus Christ, and had possessed nothing of this World's Goods. They forbidden the eating of Milk meats, and the Flesh of Beasts. They would not discover what their Sacraments were; however they had owned that they believe that the Bread and Wine which they did eat every Day was consecrated by the Lord's Prayer, for the nourishment of those who were the Members and the Body of Jesus Christ, that in this Sense it became the Body of Jesus Christ; that Others had not the true Sacraments but 
The Heretics of the 12th Century.  only the Appearance of them, and that they held a false Tradition of men. They admitted of a Baptism by Fire and the Holy Ghost as more Excellent than the Baptism of Water, for which they had no great Esteem. They believed that their Elect had a power of Baptising and Consecrating. They distinguished three sorts of Persons among them, Hearers, Believers and the Elect. Lastly they condemned Marriage without giving any reason for it.  
The same Author likewise takes notice that there were likewise in that Country several other Heretics different from the former, (who had been even instrumental in discovering them) who denied that the Body of Jesus Christ was Consecrated on the Altar, because all the Priests of the Church are not Consecrated, and that the Ministry is corrupted by the secular and profane lives of the ecclesiastics: That therefore they have no other power than to teach and Preach, and that all their Sacraments are Null except the Baptism of Adult persons; for they did not believe that Infants ought to be baptised. They likewise taught that only Marriages contracted between a Man and Maiden were lawful, and that all others were no better than Fornication. They had no trust or Confidence on the Mediation of Saints. They Asserted that Fasts and other Mortifications were not at all necessary for the Just, no nor for sinners themselves. They styled all the Usages of the Church which were not Established by Jesus Christ and the Apostles, Superstitions. They denied Purgatory, and maintained that the Souls departed immediately went into the Place allotted for them, and by consequence they rendered the Prayers and Sacrifiees of the Church for the Dead Null and Void.  
These are the Errors which Enervin attributes to those two Sorts of Heretics to oppose which he excites the Zeal of Saint Bernard, who at that time in discoursing upon these Words in the Cantieles, Take us the little Foxes, took an occasion from this Text to write against those Modern Heretics, whom he compares to Foxes. At the First he represents their Morals in the 65th Sermon, wherein he accuses them of Being Proud, Lovers of Novelties; of making no scruple to swear and forswear themselves; of concealing their Mysteries; of ●eading dissolute Lives; of being too familiar with married Women and Maids; of being Cheats and Hypocrites. Afterwards in the 66th Sermon he refutes in particular their Errors about Marriage, Abstaining from Meats, Infant-Baptism, Purgatory, Prayers for the Dead, the Efficacy of Sacraments and the like. Lastly he speaks of their false Constancy which made them suffer Death and the greatest Torments: and he reproves several Princes, and even several Bishops who tolerated those Heretics by receiving presents from them. Those Sermons of Saint Bernard were written about the year 1140. which serves to fix the Epocha of the time wherein those Heretics of Cologne first appeared.  
These are the same Heretics whom sometime after Ekbert Abbot of St. Florin in the Diocese of Treves opposed in his Tracts dedicated to Reginald Archbishop of Cologne. He had often had Conferences with them whilst he was Canon in the Church of Bonne, and whereas they were frequently discovered to be in the Diocese of Cologne, he thought himself obliged to expose their Errors and refute them. This is what he has done in his six Discourses which are to be met with in the Bibliotheca Patrum. He therein takes notice that those Heretics in Germany were called Cathari, in Flanders Piphri, in France Fisserani, and makes them to be the offspring of the Manichees. We will now give you an Account of the Errors which he attributes to them and refutes in those Discourses. They condemn (says he) Marriage, and threaten Damnation to those who died in a married state. Some among them only condemn such Marriages as are contracted between any beside such as have never been married. They eat no flesh because they believe it to be unclean; which is the Reason which they give of it publicly; but in private they say that Flesh is the Devil's Creature. They have divers Opinions about Baptism: some of them say that 'tis of no use to Infants: in secret they add that the Baptism with Water is of no avail, for which reason they rebaptise those who enter into their Sect in a particular Way, and assert that 'tis the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and of Fire. They Believe that the Souls of the Departed enter the very day of their Death into a State of Everlasting Happiness or of Everlasting Misery; and do not believe Purgatory: By consequence they reject the Prayers, the Alms, and the Masses for the Dead. If they come to Church, hear Mass, and communicate there, 'tis only for show; for they suppose that the Sacerdotal Order is utterly extinct in the Church and only subsists in their Sect. They do not believe that the Body of Jesus Christ is Consecrated on the Altar, but call their own Flesh the Body of Jesus Christ, and in taking of Food say, that they make the Body of Jesus Christ. I have heard (adds He) from a man who had left their Sect, after he had discovered the Turpitude and the Errors thereof, that they asserted that Jesus Christ was not born of the Virgin; that he had not real Flesh; that he did not rise again really, but in a Figure: he believed that 'tis for this Reason that they keep not Easter, but have another Festival which they call Bema. Lastly he accuses them also of teaching that the Souls of Men are those Apostate Angels who were turned out of Heaven.  
This Sect had likewise some Followers in the Diocese of Toul, as we are informed by the Letter of 
The Heretics of Toul.  Hugh Metellus, a Regular Canon of that Diocese, written to his Bishop Henry, wherein he gives him to understand that in his Diocese there were dangerous men who began to start up, whom one might rather style Beasts than Men, because they led a Life wholly Brutal: who detest Marriage; abominate Baptism; deride the Sacraments, and Abhor the Name of Christian.  
In Italy there were likewise Heretics of the same Nature, who went under the Name of 
The Heretics of Italy called Cathuri.  Cathari. Bona-cursus, who had been formerly one of their Teachers at Milan; has given us a Tract of them after his Conversion, published by Father Luke Dachery in the Thirteenth Tome of his Spicilegium. He therein lays that some of them maintained that God created all the Elements: that others say, It was the Devil who created them; but that they all believed that it was the Devil who separated and ranged them in their Order: That they likewise believed that it was he who framed the Body of Adam out of the Clay of the Earth, and that he therein infused an Angel of Light: that he likewise made Eve, and lying with her, begat Cain of her Body: That they assert that the Fruit which Adam was forbidden to Eat, was the Carnal Knowledge of Eve: That they maintain that all the Bodies which are in the Air, on the Earth, and in the Water were made by the Devil: That it was the Devil who appeared to the Patriarches, and who is the God of the Old Testament whom they reject: That they likewise condemn St. John Baptist: That they Teach that Jesus Christ had not a Body animated with a Soul, and that he neither drank, or Eat, or did any other humane Action really, but only in appearance: That they did not believe either his descent into Hell, or his Resurrection, or his Ascension: That they do not believe him to be Equal to the Father: That they affirm that the Cross is the Character of the Beast: That Saint Silvester is Antichrist: that ever since the Pontificate of that Pope the Church had been extinct; and that no person could be said in a Married State: That they condemn the Holy Fathers: That they forbidden the Eating of Flesh, Eggs, Milk and every thing else that proceeds from Animals: That they do not believe that the holy Spirit is conferred by the Baptism of Water; nor that the Visible Substance of the Bread and Wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; and that they ass●rt that all those who swear shall be damned: That they say that no man can be saved but by Imposition of Hands, which they Style Baptism: That they assert that the Sun is the Devil that the Moon is Eve, who ●y together as Man and Wife once a Month: That all the Stars are Daemons; and Lastly that no man can be saved, unless ●e be of their Sect.  
The same Author speaks of other He●●e●icks whom he calls Passagians, who Taught that one 
The Passagians.  ought to observe the Law of M●ses even in the Literal Sense; and that the Sabbath, Circumcision, and the other Ceremonial practices of the Law ought to be still in force: That Jesus Christ was not equal to his Father: That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were distinct Substances.  
Lastly he speaks of the Arnoldists, the Disciples of Arnold Native of Bresse, who went 
The Heresy of Arnold of Bresse.  from Italy into France, where he was the Scholar of Peter Abaelard. Upon his Return to his own Country he took upon him the Habit of a Monk, and his head was full of this thought, that neither the Pope nor the Clergy ought to hold any Demeans. Upon this Footing he set himself to preach, that the Clerks who held any Demeans, as their own Property, the Bishops who w●re possessed of Royalties, and the Monks who enjoyed any Lands could not be saved; that all those things appertained to Princes. Beside this, he taught the same Errors as other Heretics, about Infant Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar. He was forced out of Italy by Pope Innocent II. and obliged to retire into Switzerland. After that Pope's Death he returned into Italy and went directly to Rome, where he stirred up a Sedition against Pope Eugenius III. and afterwards against Adrian IU. who interdicted the People of Rome till such time as they had driven out that Heretic and his Followers. This Menace had its Effect; the Romans seized upon the strong Houses which those Heretics kept in, and forced them to retire to Otricoli in Tusca●y, where they were kindly received by the People, who looked upon Arnold as a Prophet. However he was apprehended sometime after by Cardinal Gerard, and in spite of the Endeavours of the Viscount's of Campania, was brought to Rome, and condemned by the Governor of that City to be tied to a stake and burnt to Ashes, for fear the People should pay any Honour to his Relics.  
Thirty of those Heretics crossed over from France into England about the year 1160. where they would likewise willingly have sown the same Doctrine. But they were apprehended and exterminated, and communicated that Error only to one Woman, who recanted. The Author which makes mention of this takes notice that they were called Poblicans or Publicans. William of Malmsbury the Historian, who did not live much after this time, says that those Heretics being examined; answered pretty well about the Nature of the Heavenly Physician, namely Jesus Christ; but that when they were told of the Remedies which he has left us, namely the Sacraments, they then replied very ill, and declared that they condemned Baptism, the Eucharist, and Marriage; and that they despised the Catholic Unity.  
All that we have hitherto related concerning the Heretics of the Twelfth Century is taken out of Cotemporary Authors, and shows that two sorts of Errors were predominant at that Time; One sort common to all those Heretics, and others were Peculiar. Their Common Errors regarded the Sacraments, the Practices of the Church, and the Hierarchical Order, against which they had all conspired. The particular Errors were such as had some relation to Manichaeism, to Arianism, and other Impieties into which many had been led by a strange sort of Blindness. 
The Condemnation of the Heretics in the Council of Toulouse in the year 1119.   
These Heretics were condemned in several Councils. The first which passed a Law against them was that of Tolouse in the Year 1119. held in the presence of Calixtus II. the third Canon whereof runs thus. We Condemn and turn out of the Church of God as Heretics those who under pretence of Religion reject the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, Infant Baptism, Priesthood, Holy-Orders, and Lawful M●…ages. We enjoin that they be suppressed by the Secular Powers. We subject their Defenders under the same Commendation, if they do not repent. This Canon was repeated in the same Words and confirmed in the second general Lateran Council held under Innocent II. in the year 1139. in the 23d Canon.  
Those who went into England were convicted and Condemned in an Assembly of Bishops held at Oxford in the Reign of Henry II. King of England in the year 1160. This Prince ordered 
The Condemnation of the same in the synod of Oxford. Their Condemnation in the Council of Tours. The Council of Lambez to the Heretics.  them to be branded with a Red hot Iron in their Cheek, to be whipped publicly, to be driven out of the City half-naked, and left them to be starved to Death.  
The Council of Tours held in the year 1163. enjoins that for the suppressing of that Heresy which spread itself in Gascogne and in other Provinces, all those should be Anathematised who held any Correspondence with those Heretics: That the Princes should confiscate their Goods, and prevent their Meeting.  
In the year 1176. A Solemn Sentence was passed in a synod held at Lombez against several of those Heretics; going then under the Name of Bons hommes, who had been apprehended by the Inhabitants of that City. The Judges pitched upon by both Parties were Girald Bishop of Albi, Gaucelin of Lodeba, the Abbot of Castro, and three other Abbots, and Judgement was passed in the presence of Pontius Archbishop of Narbonne, Arnulphus Bishop of Nismes, the Archbishop of Tolouse, the Bishop of Agda, several Abbots and Superiors of Monasteries who assisted at the Synod. The Bishop of Lodeba by the Order of the Bishop of Albi, interrogated those Bons hommes, and in the first place asked them, whether they received the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Books of the Old and New Testament. They replied that they did not receive the Law of Moses, nor the Prophets nor the Psalms, nor any part of the Old Testament; but only the Gospels, the Epistles of Saint Paul, the Seven Canonical Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse. In the Second place he demanded of them an Explanation of their Faith: They returned him Answer that they would not explain it unless they were constrained to do it. The third Question was about Infant-Baptism: They replied that they had nothing to say on that head. The Fourth Question was about the Eucharist, where and by whom it was Consecrated, who were the persons who received it, and whether it were better Consecrated by a Good than by a Wicked Priest. They returned him Answer that those who received it unworthily should be damned, but withal averred that it might be Consecrated by any good man, whether Priest or Laic. The Fifth was about Marriage. They declared that they had nothing else to reply to that than what Saint Paul has said, viz. That a Man and Woman are joined together to avoid Incontinence and Fornication. The Sixth Question was whether Repentance at the hour of Death could save any man; and whether one was obliged to confess one's Sins to the Priests, or whether one might confess them to Laics. They replied that the Sick might confess them to whom they pleased: As to others they were not willing to determine any thing, because the Apostle Saint James speaks only of the Sick. Then they were asked whether Contrition and Confession alone were sufficient to obtain Remission of Sins, without thinking it necessary to make Satisfaction, to observe Penances, Fasts, Almsgiving, and other Austerities. They replied that the Apostle Saint James had ordered nothing else beside Confession as necessary to Salvation. They declared likewise without being asked, that they believed that one ought not to take an Oath: That all those who were ordained without having the Qualifications prescribed by Saint Paul for Bishops, were Wolves and Devourers, to whom no Obedience ought to be paid. Those Errors were refuted by Pontius Archbishop of Narbonne, by Arnulphus Bishop of Nismes, and by two Abbots, which served only as Testimonies of the New Testament. Afterwards the Judges declared these Bons hommes Heretical, condemned Oliver, and his Followers, and all who were of the same Opinion with the Heretics of Lombez, and authorised their Judgement by several Passages out of the Holy Scripture, opposed to the Errors which we have been relating. This Sentence was pronounced by the Bishop of Lodeba. Those Heretics protested against it, by saying that the Bishop who had pronounced it was an Heretic, an Hypocrite, their Enemy, their Persecutor, and that they were ready to demonstrate by the Testimony of the Gospel and the Apostles, that neither he nor any of the Bishops were Pastors, but Mercenaries and Hirelings. The Bishop replied upon them that his Sentence was Juridical, and that he was ready to demonstrate in the Court of Pope Alexandor, in the Court of Lewis King of France, and in that of the Count of Tolouse or of the Countess his present Wise, and of the Lord Trencavelle who was likewise there present, That those whom they had condemned were Heretics. Upon this they being thus convinced turned about to the People, and declared that they would make a Profession of their Faith out of Charity, and for the Honour of the Assistants. The Bishop bid them observe that they did not say for the Honour of God, but for the Honour of the Assistants. They made profession of all the Articles of the Creed, and added that they acknowledged that they ought to confess with their Mouth the Faith which they conceived in their Hearts: That they believed that no person was saved, unless he received the Body of Jesus Christ, which is not preserved but in the true Church; that none else beside Priests had Power of Consecrating it; and that the Bad consecrated it as well as the Good; that no Body could be saved without Baptism, and that Infants are saved by this Sacrament; That Men and Women may be saved though in a Married State: That every one ought to receive with Heart and Mouth Repentance from the Priest, and to be baptised into the Church; and that Lastly they were ready to acknowledge all that could be demonstrated to them by the Authority of the Evangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles: The Bishop urged them to swear that they would keep to the Doctrine, and to declare whether they ever had any other Opinions. They replied that they could not swear, because the Gospel had prohibited all Oaths. The Bishop determined that they ought to swear, if they would be credited, and proved by several Instances taken out of the New Testament, that Oaths were not absolutely forbidden. They replied that the Bishop of Albi had promised them that they should not be obliged to swear at all. The Bishop of Albi denied that he had made them any such promise, and confirmed the Sentence pronounced by the Bishop of Lodeba, which was signed by all the Assistants.  
Some time after this there appeared a great many of those Heretics in Tolouse: The Pope's Legate went thither in the year 1178. attended by several Bishops. They constrained them to 
The Heretics condemned at Toulouse.  submit to public Penance, razed the Forts wherein they met, Excommunicated and Banished those Heretics who retired into Albigensis, where they were secure. For Roger Count of Albi Countenanced and made use of them in detaining the Bishop of his City Prisoner. From this time forward they went under the Common Title of Albigenses. There were a great Number of them not only in that Country, but likewise in all Languedoc and Gascogne. There were likewise Banditi in those Provinces without Law or Gospel, who ran about the Country, ravaged, pillaged and Massacred all without Distinction of Estate, Age or Sex; and in an especial manner Assaulted Churches and Monasteries; some of them were called Barbancons, others Arragonists, Navarrists and Bascani; others Cotteraux and Triverdini. The General Council of the Lateran held in the 
The Condemnation of the Albigenses in the Lateran Council A. D. 1179.  year 1179. Excommunicated all of them, prohibited the Interring them in holy Ground exhorted the Catholic Princes to wage War against them, to confiscate their Goods, and to make them slaves; granted to those who took up Arms against them proportionable to their Services and according to the Discretion of the Bishops, Excommunicated those who gave them any protection, suffered them in their Territories or had any Commerce with them.  
That Council says that the Heretics of Albi were called Cathari, Patarini, Publicans, and went under a great many other Names: which shows that they were descended from the Heretics who appeared in the Beginning of this Century, and were so called. The Publicans or Poblicans held a great many Castles in Gascogne. In the year 1181. Henry Abbot of Clairvaux Bishop of Albi being in the Quality of Legate, raised a great many Troops, and went to give them a Visit. To divert this storm they pretended to Abjure their Errors; but the danger once past they followed their old Course of Life again.  
This Infection spread it itself in several Provinces on each side the Loire. One of those false 
The Heresy of Terrick.  Apostles named Terrick, who lay a long time concealed in a Grott at Corbigny in the Diocese of Nevers, was taken and burnt. Several others suffered the same Punishment in other parts, particularly two old Women in the City of Troy's, to one of whom 'tis said that this Terrick gave the name of Church, and to the other the name of Saint Mary, that so when his followers were examined; they might swear by Saint Mary that they held no other Faith than that of the Holy Church.  
These Publicans were likewise condemned in the Council held at Sens in the year 1198. which 
The Publicans.  deposed the Abbot of Saint Martin's of Nevers, and suspended the Dean of the Church of that City, accused of that Heresy, and referred them to the Holy See.  
There was in the same Century a Visionary who was presented to Pope Eugenius III. at the 
The Errors Eon de l' Etoile.  opening of the Council of Rheims. He was a Gentleman of Bretagne named Eon de l' Etoile, who was so Ignorant, that having heard it sung in the Church: Per Eum qui venturus est judicare vivos & Mortuos, he imagined and asserted that it was he who was to Judge the Quick and the Dead. He was followed as a great Prophet: sometimes walked with a great train of People at his heels, sometimes lived in Solitude, and afterwards appeared in greater splendour than before. 'tis said that he was a Magician and that to draw the Mob after him he made great Entertainments, but that they were mere Illusions, and that the Victuals which were cat at his Table, and the Presents which he made bewitched men's minds. The Archbishop of Rheims having apprehended him, presented him to his Holiness, and the Council. His Answers were so full of Frenzy and Enthusiasm, that they looked upon him as a Fool, and shut him up in a close Prison, where he died soon after. A great many of his Disciples a great deal more senseless than himself, chose rather to be burnt than to renounce him.  
These were the Heretical Sects which appeared in the Twelfth Century, and were so full of Extravagant Errors. If we inquire into the Causes of the Amazing Progress which they made in so short a time, we shall find that the Relaxation of Church Discipline, the Avarice and Covetousness of ecclesiastics, the Common Abuse which was made of the Sacraments, the Credulity and Ignorance of the People, the pretended Virtues of those new Preachers, and the Desire of Reformation contributed very much to the spreading of those Upstart Opinions.   

CHAP. VII.  
The History of Peter Abaelard, of his Writings, Errors and Condemnation.  
THE famous Peter Abaelard has himself given us an account of his Life and Adventures, which 
The Life and Adventures of Abaelard.  are both Diverting and Singular. We have the Relation thereof in his first Letter written to one of his Friends, of which we now give you the Abstract. He was born in the Village called Le Palais, about three Leagues from the City of Nantes. His Father Berengarius, though a Man of Arms, was yet somewhat given to Study, and took care to give all his Children Learning. Abaelard who was the Youngest, and very much inclined to Letters, renounced the Profession of War, to give himself up wholly to the study of Philosophy. With this design he left his Native Country, and after he had frequented several Schools, came to Paris, where that Science was then in Vogue, and chose for his Master William of Champeaux Arch Deacon of Paris, the most famous Professor of that time. After he had lived for some time with him in good Repute, he incurred his Displeasure, because he undertook to refute his Opinions, and to dispute against him with so much Strength, that he sometimes seemed to have the Advantage over him. The great Opinion which he had of his own Parts, made him though but young, very desirous of teaching others and of seeking out a convenient place where he might profess publicly. The Castle of Melun, which was then a Royal Seat, was pitched upon by him as very proper for his Purpose, because of its being near to Paris. He obtained a Licence to teach there publicly, in spite of the Opposition which William of Champeaux made, who did not like that Abaelard should teach so near Paris, for fear that the Reputation which he acquired would lessen his. In effect Abaelard had no sooner begun to teach Logic, but the Reputation of William began to sink, which inclined Abaelard to go and settle at Corbeil, that so being nearer Paris, the Disputes might be more frequent. Some time after, this Abaelard was constrained by a Sickness contracted by his great Application to Study to return to his own Country. During his Absence, William was made Regular Canon in the Monastery of St. Victor, that so (as was supposed) he might with greater ease obtain a Bishopric, as happened accordingly, being within a short time after elected Bishop of Chalons. Whilst he stayed at Paris he continued his Lectures in St. Victor; and Abaelard being returned to that City, had studied Rhetoric under him, and renewed the Disputes in Philosophy, which he had formerly with him, especially concerning that Universal à Parte rei, which he urged so far, that William was forced to change his Opinion, which acquired Abaelard so much Credit, that the Person who had succeeded William in teaching Logic at Paris, surrendered his place to him. William soon after outed both of them, so that Abaelard returned to Melun, from whence he soon came back to Paris, and held his public Lectures at St. Genevieve, where he had a great many Pupils, who were very frequently engaged in Disputes with the Scholars of William. But when his Father became Monk, and his Mother Lucia was desirous likewise to live retiredly, Abaelard was forced to take a Journey into his own Country. At his return, he found that William was made Bishop of Chalons, and he went to that City to study Divinity ●under Anselm, Canon and Dean of the Church of Laon, who professed it with a great deal of Repute. Abaelard did not find that this Man's Learning answered the Fame thereof, and soon left off going to his Lectures. Several of the Scholars having asked him what he thought of reading the Holy Scriptures; he replied, that it was a very useful Study, but that he wondered that Men of Learning should not be satisfied with the Commentaries and Glosses of the Holy Fathers, without having recourse to other Masters. When they smiled at the Proposal, he told them that he was ready to make it appear to them that it was Possible, and to give them an Experiment by explaining to them the most difficult Books of the Scriptures, with one single Commentator. They took him at his Word, and made choice of the Prophecy of Ezekiel. He began to explain it on the Morrow, and those who were present at his Explication, thought he had acquitted himself so well, that they brought a great many others to hear his ensuing Lectures. Anselm began to grow jealous of him, and moved thereto by Alberic of Rheims. and Lotulplus or Leutaldus of Novar, who had the repute of being his best Scholars. He forbidden Abaelard to continue his Lectures, under a pretence, that if he should advance any erroneous Opinion, it might be imputed to him. Hereupon Abaelard returned to Paris, where for some time he professed very quietly, continuing to expound the Holy Scriptures. The Repose which he enjoyed, the Applauses which he received, and the Money which he got by this Profession, puffed him up with Pride, and cast him into a debauched course of Life. But God punished him for both, by permitting him to be deprived of those parts which had served as an instrument to his Lust, and to be constrained to burn with his own Hands that Book which he prided himself most upon; so that he became chaste by necessity, and humble by Force. We will give you now an account how this came about. There was at Paris a young Woman named Helloissa, Niece to Fulbert, Canon of Paris, handsome and well shaped, whom her Uncle who loved her tenderly, brought up to Learning. Abaelard who was her Tutor, immediately fell passionately in Love with her, and that he might the more easily enjoy her, he prayed the young Woman's Uncle to take him to Board, under a pretence that he could bestow more 
The Life and Adventures of Abaelard.  time upon her, lodging in the same House, that besides he would do him a Kindness by easing him of the Trouble of Housekeeping, which was not suitable to a studious Man. The Uncle who neither disinherited the Virtue of his Niece, nor the prudence of Abaelard, who had hitherto lived very regularly, accepted freely of the Proposal, and entrusted him with Helloissa, whom Abaelard courted so much the more easily, because the pretence of study furnished him with an opportunity of being often alone with her. Sub occasione disciplinae (says Abaelard himself) amori penitus vacabomus, & secretos recessus, quos Amor optabat, studium Lectionis offerebat: Apertis itaque Libris plura de Amore quam de Lectione verba se ingerebant, plura erant oscula quam sententiae. i e. Under the pretence of Learning we had our fill of Love, and our study afforded those private Recesses which our Love required. We opened our Books indeed, but Love not the Lesson was the Burden of our Discourse, and more Kisses were intermingled than Sentences read. The young Woman it seems was not so hardhearted, but she answered his Flame, and in a short time the Business was known to every Body; besides the Uncle who was the last that found it out. As soon as he was informed of it, he turned Abaelard out of Doors; within a few days time after, Helloissa, whose Love was still the same, notwithstanding this Separation, writ word to Abaelard that she was with Child. He brought her off from her Unckle's House, and carried her to his own Country, disguised in the Habit of a Nun, where she was brought to Bed of a Boy, who was named Astrolabe. The Uncle of Helloissa overwhelmed with Grief at the loss of his Niece, would have revenged the Affront upon Abaelard's Person, had he not been afraid that she would have underwent the same Fate. Abaelard to pacify him, went to wait upon him, and offered to marry his Niece, provided the Marriage were kept secret. The Uncle consented to it, and Abaelard went away immediately to fetch her and make her his Wife. She opposed the Resolution a long time, foreseeing that she should be the Ruin of the Fortune, and the Reputation of a Person whom she passionately loved. At last, yielding to the pressing Importunities of Abaelard, she returned with him to Paris, where she was married privately in a Church in the presence of her Uncle, and of several of their Friends. After they were married they parted, and came together very seldom and very privately. The Uncle and his Friends immediately published the Marriage abroad; but Helloissa who preferred the Honour and Interests of Abaelard to her own, and who feared that if the Marriage were discovered, he would lose a Prebend which he had, and his Reputation too; swore that nothing could be falser. This gave her Uncle an occasion of abusing her, so that Abaelard resolved upon putting her into the Monastery of Argentevil, where she had been formerly Educated, and making her take upon her the Habit of a Nun, but without the Veil. This made her Uncle and her Relations believe that he mocked them, and designed to abandon her; whereupon they resolved upon being revenged of him after a most barbarous manner, and in effect, entered the Chamber of L'Auberge, where he was; and punished him, by depriving him of those parts whereby he had injured them. It cannot be imagined what Confusion Abaelard was in, to see himself in that Condition. He owns that it was this more than Devotion, which induced him to embrace the Monastic Life, after he had persuaded Helloissa to become a Nun. They both made profession at the same time; Abaelard at St. Denys, and Helloissa at Argentevil. The Disgrace which Abaelard fell into, did not hinder several Persons from waiting upon him at St. Denys, and entreating him to continue his Lectures to them; so that the Abbot and the Religious of St. Denys made use of this pretence, to send him to teach School in one of their Houses, that so they might be free from the Reproaches which he cast upon them for their Disorders. His Reputation drew thither so many Scholars from all parts, that the place where he was, was not capable of receiving them, nor the Country of providing for them. He taught them the Liberal Arts and Theology. This great concourse of Scholars, soon raised the Jealousy and Envy of other Masters against Abaelard, who to suspend him from all sorts of Professions, gave out that it was not proper for a Monk to teach the Liberal Arts, and that he could no longer expound the Holy Scriptures, since he had learned it without a Master.  
The Treatise which he composed about the Unity of God and about the Trinity, gave his Adversaries an occasion of accusing him of Error. Alberic and Lotulphus who taught at Rheims, 
The Council of Soissons.  and who would after the Death of William of Champeaux and Anselm of Laon, succeed alone to their Reputation, being jealous of Abaelard, excited Rodulphus Archbishop of Rheims against him, who having sent for Conon Bishop of Palestrina the Pope's Legate in France, held a Council at Soissons, in the Year 1121. and cited Abaelard thither, ordering him to bring his Book along with him. He obeyed that Order, presented his Book to the Pope's Legate, and submitted it to his Judgement, assuring him, that if he had written any thing contrary to the Catholic Faith, he was ready to correct it, and to make Satisfaction. The Legate ordered him to put his Book into the hands of the Archbishop of Rheims, who ordered it to be shown to his two Adversaries, who read it over and over, to see if they could find any Error in it. Alberic met with a passage, wherein Abaelard denied that God could be said to generate himself. Abaelard justified it by the Authority of St. Augustin, which he had cited, and maintained to his Face, that if he should assert the contrary, he would fall into the same Heresy with those who believed that the Father was the Son of himself. Alberic was not satisfied with this Reply, but continued his Prosecutions against Abaelard. In the last Session of the Council, they put it to the Question, what Order they should make about his Book and about his Person. Geoffrey Bishop of Chartres said, that they ought to interrogate Abaelard, and give him liberty to make his Defence, but his Adversaries would not venture to stand it out with him. The Legate thought it adviseable to refer this Affair to a more numerous Council; and in the mean time to send Abaelard back to his Monastery, 
The Life and Adventures of Abaelard.  where he should be tried. But his Adversaries made the Legate alter his mind, and persuaded him to condemn his Book, to order it to be burnt publicly, and to shut up the Author for ever in a Monastery; saying there was sufficient Grounds to condemn him for having undertaken to ●each publicly, without having had a Mission from the Pope or the Church. When the Bishop of Chartres perceived that this Resolution was taken, he advertised Abaelard of it, and advised him to suffer it patiently, and the rather, because this Violence would be more prejudicial to his Enemies than to himself, assuring him that he should not be long confined, because the I egat who did all this against his Will, would quickly set him at liberty. Upon this Promise he came into the Council, cast his Book into the Fire with his own Hand, and there recited St. Athanasius' Creed as a Declaration of his Faith. Afterwards he was shut up in the Abbey of St. Medard of Soissons. The Monks of that Monastery treated him very civilly, and did what they could to comfort him, but he was a great deal more concerned at the Affront which had been then offered him, than at that Misfortune which happened to him formerly. However the Legate kept to the Promise which the Bishop of Chartres had made him, and within a few days after sent him back to his Monastery. He was as unacceptable to his fellow Monks, as he had formerly been, and they took occasion to give him fresh Disturbance, because he had asserted that St. Denys of France was not the Areopagite, founding his Assertion on what Bede says, that the Areopagite had been Bishop of Corinth, whereas 'tis believed that Denys of France had been Bishop of Athens. This Proposition did so far incense the Abbot and the rest of the Religious against him, that he not thinking himself secure in that Abbey, made his escape by Night, and retired into the Territories of Thibaud, Count of Champagne, and dwelled in Provence in an Hospital belonging to the Monks of Troy's, the Prior whereof was one of his Friends. His Abbot would said have had him out again, but died within a short time after. Abaelard with much ado, obtained leave by the Interest of some great Lords to live in what place of Solitude he would, provided he would not enter into any other Monastery. After he had obtained this leave, he retired to a Solitude near Troy's, where he built a Chapel in a Field, which was given him by some private Persons of the place, by consent of the Bishop of Troy's. He was no sooner settled there, but he was followed by a great number of Scholars, who built little Cells round about his Lodge, so that one would have thought that they were rather Hermits than Scholars. They furnished him with all that he had occasion for, either for his Nourishment or Refreshment, and built him a Church which was dedicated to the Holy Trinity. Abaelard gave it the Title of Paraclete, in memory of the Consolation which he had received in that place. His Adversaries found fault at that Appellation, pretending that one could not dedicate a Church to the Holy Ghost alone. Upon this Abaelard observes, that the name of Paraclete might be very well applied to all the three Persons of the Trinity; and that if it were only the peculiar Title of the Holy Ghost, yet one might without any scruple dedicate a Temple to the Holy Ghost, though it might not be so Customary. His Enemies perceiving that they were not strong enough of themselves to ruin him, stirred up two great Persons against him, who were Men of the highest Esteem. One was the restorer of the ancient Life of the regular Canons, and the other of the Life of the Monks. ('Tis St. Norbert and St. Bernard which he here means.) These two Men declaimed against both his Life and Morals, before the Ecclesiastical and Secular Powers. To escape this Storm, he accepted of the Abbey of St. Gildors of Ruy's in the Diocese of Nantes in Bretagne, though the Monks thereof were very Barbarous and Cruel, with whom it was very difficult for him to converse. This happened at the same time when the Abbot of St. Denys took to himself the Abbey of Argentevil, and the Nuns of that place being dispersed, Abaelard gave to Helloissa, who was Prioress thereof, and to several other of the Religious who had followed her, the Church of the Paraclete and its Dependencies. This Donation was confirmed by the Bishop of Troy's, and by Pope Innocent II. and by Degrees, this Covent which was very poor at its first Rise, was plentifully endowed by the liberality of the Faithful. Abaelard went often thither to assist them in their Needs, which gave occasion to the Malicious of accusing him, of having still a Passion for Helloissa, and of attributing to the Motions of his fleshly Lusts, what he did out of a pure motive of Charity, or to avoid the ill treatment of his Monks, who perpetually sought for an Opportunity to get rid of him.  
This Letter of Abaelard fell into the Hands of Helloissa, whereupon she sent him word, that having known his Handwriting, she could not forbear to read it over with all the eagerness which the Passion 
The Letters of Helloissa to Abaelard.  she had for him could inspire into her. That it was but very reasonable since she had ruined him, that she might at least receive some Consolation by the reading of his Letters. That this however had very much afflicted her, by putting her in mind of the Miseries which had happened to him, and letting her know of the Danger wherein he was: That she conjured him to send her often word how he did, that so she might partake with him either in his Grief or his Joy: That since he had been pleased for the satisfaction of his Friend to send him an account of his Misfortunes, he lay under greater Obligations to write to her and her Religious, whom he ought to esteem not only as his Friends, but as Persons entirely at his Devotion; not as Companions, but as his own Daughters, who were beholden to him alone for the Monastery which they were in possession of: That it was he who first rendered that solitude Habitable, and was the Founder of that House: That it was his Duty likewise to bestow all his Cares upon it; and that having done so much for others, it was very reasonable he should be serviceable to them also. That he was farther obliged thereto, upon Consideration of the Relation she had to him, of the extreme Love which she always had for him, and the great loss which she had suffered by parting from him. Afterwards she expresses the Sentiments of her quondam Passion to him, so as not only to say that she never loved any thing in him beside his own Person, but also that the name of Concubine seemed more Eligible to her than that of Wife, because it would wound his Reputation ●ess, and have made her a greater Sacrifice. She adds, that when the Emperor would have had her in Marriage, and bestowed the whole Empire upon her; yet she chose to be Abaelard's Mistress, rather than Empress. (By this you may perceive the Violence of a Woman's Passion.) To this she subjoins the Remembrance of several other reciprocal Testimonies of Love, which they had given each other; and afterwards she upbraids him for that, though in Obedience to him she was made a Nun; yet that he had so far slighted or rather forgot her, that she had received no Refreshment by his Visits, nor Comfort by his Letters. Is it (says she) because the Bond which tied you to me was rather the Heat of Lust than the Force of Love? She avows, that it was not out of Devotion, but in Obedience to her Husband's Commands, that she had embraced the Monastic Life; that she could not expect any Reward from the Lord for it, for whose Sake she had not done it: That she had followed, or rather preceded her Husband, and that one of those things which troubled her most was, that he had engaged her to dedicate herself to God, before he had resolved upon it himself, as if he had some distrust of her Fidelity. She assures him, that even at present, she had him still in her Mind, and loved him still. She entreats him to consider what a piece of Ingratitude it would be in him to refuse to visit her, and comfort her with his Letters, since that would be a means of her serving God with the less Detraction. And lastly, that since he had formerly writ so many ●ove Letters to excite a dishonourable Passion in her, it was very reasonable that he should write some to her now to incline her to God.  
Abaelard returned an Answer, That it was not out of Negligence that he had deferred writing 
Abaelard ' s Letter to Heloissa.  to her, but because he had so much Confidence in her Piety and Learning, as to think that she stood in no need of his Advice: That if she thought that she wanted it, she might inform him of the Points wherein she desired his Instruction, and that he would satisfy her therein. He thanks her for being so kind as to participate in his Afflictions, and recommends himself to her Prayers, and the Prayers of her Fraternity. From this he takes an occasion to show how grateful the Prayers of Holy Virgins are to God. In particular he takes notice to her of a Form of Prayers which he desired, that they would say for him at the Close of the Canonical Hours; and tells her, that after his Death, he would have his Body be brought to their Monastery to be there interred, that they might pray to God for the quiet of his Soul.  
This Letter very sensibly affcted Heloissa, because Abaelard therein speaks of his Death, as if 
Another Letter of Heloissa.  near at Hand. She had so much Affction for him, that she could not bear this thought, without being very much disturbed at it. She declares those thoughts to him in a very pathetical manner in the Letter, which she sent back to him, wherein she could not forbear reflecting upon the Misfortune which had happened to Abaelard through her means. She desired that she might undergo a Penance worthy of her Fault, and owns that she is still so weak, as not to efface out of her Memory the remembrance of past Pleasures, but that they continually present themselves to her Mind, which gives her great cause of Humiliation, and of rejecting the Praises which he had bestowed upon her.  
Abaelard endeavoured to comfort her by excusing himself of the Reproaches which she had cast 
Abaelard● Reply.  upon him in that Letter, which he reduced to four Heads. The first was about the Complaint which she made of his having named her first in the Inscription of this Letter. The Second about the Reproach which she had cast upon him, of having increased her Grief, rather than afforded her any Consolation. The Third about the Reflections which she had made upon their past Misfortunes. And the last about her refusal of the Praises which he had given her. As to the first Head, he satisfied her by saying, that since she was become the Spouse of Jesus Christ, she was according to St. Jerom's Phrase his Mistress, and that upon that account, he had reason to name her first. From thence he took an occasion to give her some Instructions about the Virtues requisite for the Spouse of Jesus Christ. Upon the Second Head, he says that he had not mentioned any thing of his Death, or the Danger wherein he was in his Letter, if she had not conjured him to do it. Upon the third Head, he approves of her rejecting all Praises, provided it were sincere, and if she did not contemn them out of a principle of Pride. As to the Fourth Head, he entreats her to make no farther Complaints of a Misfortune which he really deserved, as due to his Sins, whereof he was throughly sensible. He advises her rather to give God Thanks for the favour he had shown to both of them, by bringing them out of a disorderly Course of Life, to lead a more regular one. He looked upon that Pain which had been inflicted on him as very light, in Comparison of the Crimes which he had committed, and thought himself very happy in being delivered from that which had been the cause of his Sin. He concludes with a Prayer which the Religious of the Nunnery of Paraclete ought to say for him and Heloissa.  
In the next Letter Heloissa in Obedience to the Order which Abaelard had given her, made no 
The Letter of Heloissa▪  more mention of their Misfortunes, but entreated him on behalf of herself and her Religious, in the first place to inform them of the Original of their Order, and of the Authority thereof. In the Second place, to compose a particular Rule, and such as might he proper for them, which had not as yet been done, the Monks and Nuns professing the same Rule of St. Benedict, wherein were a great many things which were only applicable to Men; as for instance, that which is said about Habits, Functions, the Abbot, the entertaining of Strangers, Manufactures, and other practices which their Sex was not capable of: That if according to the Intention of St. Benedict, the Rule ought to be moderated in favour of the Weak, it was very reasonable to do so in favour of the Virgins; that the external Exercises which are such as they were the least capable of, were likewise the least necessary. For this Reason she exhorts Abaelard to draw up a Discretionary Rule for them, which might be suited to their Weakness, particularly with relation to the Fasts and Service of the Church, it being very reasonable that he who under God was the Founder of their Monastery, should be likewise the Institutor of their Rule.  
Abaelard answers the first Question of Heloissa in the Seventh Letter, wherein he pretends that the Monastical Orders as well of Men as of Women, drew its Original from themanner of Jesus Christ's 
Ab●●l●●ds R●ply ●o Helo●ssa.  living here on Earth. That there were several Examples of this in the Old Law: That the Women who attended our Saviour and the Blessed Virgin, who lived in common with the Apostles; the Virgins and Widows of the Primitive Church, led a Religious Life. Afterwards he enlarges himself on the Praises of the Sex, and particularly on those of Virgins, of whom he makes a learned Encomium throughout the whole Letter.  
He satisfied Heloissa in her second Demand, by sending to her a full instruction about Continence, voluntary Poverty▪ Silence and Solitude, to which are annexed particular Constitutions for the Abbess, and for the other Officers of the Covent, and about the Order which they ought to observe in the Divine Service, in Meats, in Habits, and in reading of the Holy Scriptures, to which he advises them above all things. This Rule is full of very useful Instructions, and of fine Passages out of Scripture, and the Writings of the Fathers applied very much to ●he purpose. There is to be found in the Manuscript of the Abbey of Paraclete another Collection of particular Rules which are attributed to Heloissa.  
●u●●us Prior of Deuil ●ore likewise a share in the Misfortune which happened to Abaelard, and 
The Letters of A●aelard.  wrote him a Consolatory Letter upon that Subject, wherein he advises him to stay in his Monastery, and not to undertake a Journey to Rome to demand justice of the Canon, who had been the Cause of his being so abused. This is the first Letter of the second Collection which relate to Abaelard.  
The Second is a Memoir of Abaelard, directed to Adam, Abbot of St. Denys, and to the Monks of that Monastery, and to prove against the Testimony of Bede, that Denys the A●copagite was not Bishop of Corinth, but Bishop of Athens.  
In the Third directed to a ●●gular Canon, who despised the Monks and extolled the Regular Clerks, and maintained that 〈◊〉 ●…nastical O●der was inferior to the Clerical; Abaelard takes t●… M●●ks p●●t, and maintains 〈◊〉 the Monastical Order was not in the lea●● inferior to ●hat of 〈◊〉 ●●g●●ar Canons, whether one regard the Figure which they make among Men, or ●●at which Religi●… gives them in the sight of God. The Reasons which he alleges for this were, that we see ev●…y day Clerks who embraced the Monastical Life, and that after they had done so, were not permitted re-enter into the Clerical Order. That the Monks who were made c●oice of to execute the Clerical Functions, never quit their Habit: That they often made choice of Monks to make them Bishops, whereas they never chose Clerks to preside ove● Monasteries: That in the Litanies and Prayers of the Church, the suffrages of the Monks were implored: That the Monks are advanced to Holy Orders, and even to Priesthood itself: That St Jerom pr●f●●● the Monastical State to that of Clerks, as being more perfect: That St. John Bapt●st quitted the Priesthood to lead a solitary Life: That the Monks are in less danger of 〈◊〉 Salvation, than the Clerks who are obliged to converse so much with the World: That the M●n● embrace the Contemplative Life which our Saviour preferred before the Active Life: That the Regul●● Canons who●e Institution was but new, imitate the Monks in living in Common in Cloisters: That lastly, the Life of Monks is more painful and more Austere than that of the Clerks.  
The fourth Letter is against those who condemn the use of logic. Abaelard compares them to the Fox in the Fable, who slighted the Fruit at which he could not get. He says, that those Doctors do in the ●●me manner despise Logic, because they have not a Genius to comprehend it. He makes it appear, that the Holy Fathers, and particularly St. Augustine have commended this Art, and thought it necessary for the right Explication of the Holy Scriptures. He owns that one ought to avoid the love of Disputing, and the de●●re of deceiving others by Sophisms; but he would have Men have an insight both into Logic and Sophistry, to discern good Argumentations from false Ones. He maintains, that without Logic 'tis very difficult to refute Heretics.  
The Fifth is writ to St. Bernard, about the Intelligence which Abaelard had received from Heloissa Abbess of Paraclete, that that Saint coming to that Monastery, had observed them to repeat the Lord's- Prayer quite different from what was done in other Churches, and looked upon it as a Novelty, which he though Abaelard had introduced. All the difference consisted in that they said our Super-substantial Bread, instead of our Daily Bread. Abaelard observes, that the first Phrase being in the Text of St. Matthew, who has given us the Lord's- Prayer more entire and complete than Saint Luke, and whose Phrases are followed except in this; it seemed more reasonable to change nothing in the Text, and to make use of the Phrase which St. Matthew has used, than to insert into St. Matthew's Text a Phrase taken out of St. Luke's Gospel. That therefore one ought not to accuse those of a Novelty, who in repeating the Lord's-Prayer, say, Give us our Super-substantial Bread, instead of our Daily Bread, since they are the very Words used by St. Matthew, whose Form was followed. That however he did not blame the contrary Usage; but that he did not believe this Usage was to be preferred to the Truth, and the rather, because the Greek Church had retained the proper Terms of St. Matthew's Gospel. That St. Bernard had the least reason of any Man to find fault with this Alteration, since there were in his Order a great many Novelties contrary to the Ancient Customs and Usages of the Monks and Clerks, even in the Divine Service; such as for instance the Singing of New Hymns, the Singing of the same Hymn on different Festivals; the not repeating the Suffrages which were elsewhere said after the Lord's Prayer; the omitting the Commemoration of the Virgin and of the Saints at the End of the Office; the having excluded almost entirely the Usage of Processions; the Singing Allelujah even to Quinquagesima-Sunday; the not reciting the Apostles Creed at Prime and the Vespers, and the Singing of the Invitatory, the Hymn and the Gloria Patri the last three days in the holy Week. Tho' those Practices were contrary to the common Usage of the Church, yet Saint Bernard did not think himself obliged to leave them, because he esteemed them more reasonable and more Conformable to the Rule. From hence Abaelard concludes, that upon a stronger Reason one could not well disapprove the Alteration which he had made in the Lord's Prayer, tho' it might seem a Novelty; and the Rather because the Novelties which are prohibited are not those of Expressions, but those of Opinions, since the Church has invented new Phrases to explain our Mysteries: That Lastly there be a World of different Customs in the Church with respect to Ceremonies; That in Rome no Church beside the Lateran observes the ancient Usage of the holy See: That in Milan only the Cathedral Church observes its ancient Rites: That the Church of Lions is the only Church which has retained its Ancient Office; and that the Diversity of Ceremonies has likewise its Advantages. Lastly he concludes by saying that every one might abound in his own Sense, and repeat the Lord's Prayer in the way which he should think most proper: That he does not pretend to persuade others to imitate him therein: That he left those who would at their Liberty to change the Words of Jesus Christ, but for his part he would endeavour all he could to keep to the proper Terms of Jesus Christ, as well as to his Words.  
The sixth Letter is an Exhortation to the Religious of Paraclete to study that they might be capable of Reading and understanding the Holy Scriptures: It hardly consists of any thing else but passages out of Saint Jerom upon that Subject. He congratulates their Happiness in having such a Learned Abbess as was able to teach them Latin, Greek, and Hebrew; the Languages which were necessary for their rightly understanding of the Scriptures. He recommends to them the having recourse to the Original Text which is the foundation of all Versions, and to study Hebrew and Greek, the Study whereof he complains was very much neglected in his Time. He wishes that those Nuns would recover that Learning, which the Men had suffered to be lost. And takes notice that they might apply themselves to it the more easily, because they were less Capable of working with their Hands than Men, and were the more obliged to it by the Quietness and Sedateness of their Lives, and because the Weakness of their Sex rendered them more, liable to temptations, which they might divert by being thus employed.  
The Seventh is a Panegyric on Saint Stephen dedicated to the Nuns of Paraclete.  
From the year 1121. wherein Abaelard was forced in the Council of Soissons to cast his Book 
The Charge brought against Abaelard.  of Theology into the Fire, he had met with no disturbance about his Doctrine, tho' he had still continued to write and teach the same things as before. The first who renewed the Charge of Errors against him was william Abbot of Saint Thierry, who having read two Books of Theology composed by Peter Abaelard, and therein found such Propositions as put him to some disturbance, and which he thought to be contrary to sound Doctrine, sent an account of them to Geoffrey Bishop of Chartres and to Saint Bernard Abbot of Clairvaux; exhorting them to declare themselves against those Novelties and to get them to be condemned. His Letter is the three hundred and twenty sixth among the Letters of Saint Bernard. He therein says that he is very much abashed to speak his mind at a time wherein those whose duty it was to do it held their Peace; but that he could not be silent when he saw the Faith of the Church corrupted by Very Dangerous Errors, and the rather because the Contest was about the Faith which related to the Trinity, the Person of our Mediator, the Holy Ghost, the Grace of Jesus Christ, and the Sacrament of our Redemption; and because the New Notions which Peter Abaelard taught and writ, were spread through the World, and taught and Maintained publicly, and had (as 'tis said) some repute even in the Court of Rome. He exhorts Geoffrey and Saint Bernard to undertake the Defence of the Faith, and tells them that he applied himself more particularly to them, because Abaelard feared them more than all the World beside. He afterwards relates thirteen Propositions which he said he had taken out of the Writings of Abaelard: viz. (1.) That the defined Faith to be the Idea of things not seen. (2.) That he asserts that the Names of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are not properly applicable to God. But that 'tis only a Description of the Plenitude of the Sovereign Good. (3.) That the Father is a full Power, the Son a Certain Power, and the holy Ghost no Power at all. (4.) That the Holy Ghost does not partake of the Substance of the Father and the Son, in the same manner as the Son does of the Substance of the Father. (5.) That the Holy Ghost is Anima mundi, i. e. the Soul of the World. (6.) That one may do either Good or Evil by one's own free Will without the Influence and Assistance of the Grace of God. (7.) That Jesus Christ was not made man, and did not suffer to deliver us from the Bondage of the Devil. (8.) That Christ as God-Man is not one of the three persons of the Trinity. (9) That in the Sacrament of the Altar, the form of the Substance of Bread and Wine which was there before the Consecration, remains the same afterwards. (10.) That he maintains that the Suggestions of the Devil are infused into Man by Physical Causes. (11.) That we do not contract the Gild, but the punishment only of Original Sin. (12.) That there is no Sin, unless in the Consent we give to Sin, and in the Contemning of God. (13.) That there is no sin of Concupiscence, Lust or Ignorance. These are the Articles which William Abbot of Thierry says that he drew out of the Book of Abaelard's Divinity. He adds that he heard say that he had written likewise several other Opuscula, whereof one was Entitled the Yea, and the No; another, Know thyself, and several others, the Doctrine of which he was afraid was as Monstrous as the Titles were extraordinary and singular. After this Letter William writes a Treatise levelled expressly against those Errors, which is to be met with in the Library of Cisteaux, and to which this Letter serves as a Preface.  
Saint Bernard returned William this Answer, that he perceived that the Zeal which he expressed against the Errors of Abaelard was reasonable and necessary, and that the Book which he had composed to refute him seemed very useful, tho' he had not as yet time but only to read it cursorily, and not exactly; but that since this was a business of great Consequence, he desired to have a Conference with him about it, which yet he thought could not be before Easter, for fear of interrupting his Devotions in the Season of Lent. That besides he would not have been so long silent, if he had had a perfect Knowledge of the Errors of Abaelard,  
When he was informed of them and had examined Abaelard's Book himself, he very charitably admonished him to retract his Errors and to correct his Books, and advised his Disciples to read them no more. This Admonition served only to exasperate Abaelard, who made loud complaints against Saint Bernard: So that this Saint perceiving that the private Admonition which he had given him proved ineffectual, he thought it his Duty to tell it the Church, and wrote against him to Innocent II. and to several Prelates of the Court of Rome, accusing him of making Degrees in the Trinity with Arius, of preferring freewill before Grace with Pelagius, of dividing Jesus Christ with Nestorius, by excluding him out of the Number of the persons of the Trinity. He exhorts them warmly to oppose those Errors and Condemn them. This is the Subject matter of the hundred and Eightieth, the three hundred and thirtieth, the three Hundred and thirty first, thirty second, thirty third, thirty fourth, thirty fifth, and thirty sixth Letters of Saint Bernard.  
Abaelard seeing himself thus accused, made his Application to Henry Archbishop of Sens, and 
The Decrees of the Council of Sens against Abaelard.  entreated him that he would summons Saint Bernard to the Council which was to be held, that so he might enter into dispute with him about the Principal Errors which he imputed to him. The Archbishop of Sens wrote to Saint Bernard to come on the day appointed on the Octave of Pentecost in the year 1140 to the Synod, that he might enter into a Conference with Abaelard in presence of the Bishops. Saint Bernard made some Scruple at first of coming thither, whether he thought (as he said) that he was too strong for him in Disputes, or whether he thought that the truths of the Christian Faith ought not to be exposed to the Argumentation of Humane Reasonings. He at first answered that the Writings of Abaelard were sufficient to convince him, and that it was not his Business, but the Bishops to whom of right did belong the Determination of the Doctrines of Faith. Abaelard made an Advantage of this Refusal, and spread abroad that he would be at Sens on the day appointed to answer Saint Bernard. Upon this, Saint Bernard's Friends fearing that his Absence would prove an Offence to the People, and create a Confidence in his Adversary, and confirm his Error, advised him to go to the Council of Sens. He advertises the Bishops and his Friends of it in a Circular Letter, which is his hundred and Eighty seventh, and exhorted them to undertake the Defence of a Cause which was more properly their than his own.  
The Bishops met at Sens on the Octave of Whitsuntide, when the Relics were to be shown in the Cathedral Church of that City. All the Bishops of the Province of Sens met there, except the Bishops of Nevers and Paris, viz: Geoffrey of Chartres Legate of the holy See, Elias of Orleans, Hugh of Auxerre, Hatto of Troy's, Manasses of Meaux. Samson Archbishop of Rheims was likewise there with three of his Suffragans, viz: Josselin Bishop of Soissons, Geoffrey of Chalons, and Alvisus of Arras; a great many Abbots, Deans and persons of Learning and Piety were likewise there. The King himself (Lewis the Young) was likewise present with William Count of Nevers. The Council being set, Saint Bernard produced there Peter Abaelard's Book, recited the Erroneous or Absurd Propositions which he had extracted thence, and urged Peter Abaelard either to disown that he had writ them, or if he would acknowledge them to be his, to prove or retract them. Peter Abaelard had recourse to shifts, and would not answer expressly, though ' he had Liberty given him to do it, had very favourable Judges, and was in a place where he need not to fear any thing: But whether he feared an Insurrection of the People, if Otho of Frisingen's Word be to be taken in the Case, or whether he thought he should have greater Advantage at Rome, where were Cardinals and Prelates who thought it an honour to be his Disciples, he appealed to the Pope, and afterwards withdrew from the Assembly attended with those of his Party. Tho' ' the Bishops were of Opinion that this Appeal was not Regular, because he appealed to Judges of his own Choosing; yet out of Respect to the holy See, they would not pronounce any sentence against his person; but they condemned his Opinions after they had been read over several times and refuted Publicly by Saint Bernard. This Sentence being passed, the Archbishop of Sens and his Suffragans, and the Archbishop of Rheims with his three Suffragans who were at the Synod wrote severally to Pope Innocent II. to desire him to confirm the Sentence which they had passed against the Errors of Abaelard and to entreat him to prevent his teaching any Longer, and his having any Countenance at the Court of Rome. Their Letters are the hundred and Ninety first, and the three hundred and thirty seventh among the Letters of Saint Bernard, who doubtless composed them himself. He wrote likewise in his own Name to the Pope the hundred and Eighty Ninth Letter wherein he earnestly exhorts him to proscribe the Errors of Abaelard, and to hinder him from having any Countenance in the Court of Rome. He likewise sent him the Heads which he had found fault with in Abaelard's Book, with an Ample Refutation of his Errors. This is the hundred and Ninetieth, or Ninety first Opuscule. Lastly to prevent Abaelard from making use of that Credit which he had at Rome in his favour, he wrote to three Cardinals his Friends, to do what they could, that Abaelard might not succeed in his Designs. This is the Subject Matter of the hundred and second, the hundred and third and three hundreth and thirty Eighth Letters.  
The Pope returned Answer to the Prelates of the Council of Sens, and to Saint Bernard, that he 
The Confirmation of the Sentence passed by the Council of Sens by the Pope.  commended the Zeal which they had expressed against the Errors of Abaelard: That after he had advised with the Bishops and Cardinals he had condemned the Heads which they had sent him, and all the Errors of Peter Abaelard with the Author of them, on whom he imposed a perpetual silence as on a Heretic, and that he had adjudged that all the Followers and Defenders of his Errors ought to be Excommunicated. This Letter which is the hundred and Ninety fourth among Saint Bernard's bears dare July the 16th in the Year 1140. In an Order of the same or the foregoing day, directed to the same Bishops and Saint Bernard, he joins Peter Abaelard to Arnulphus of Bresse, and orders the Bishops to imprison them, and to burn their Books wherever they found them.  
Abaelard to justify himself composed an Apology, or rather a Confession of Faith, wherein after 
Abaelard's Apology.  he had taken Notice, that it was a hard matter, when one writ, to avoid reproach; he protests in the presence of God, that he is not at all sensible of being guilty of those things whereof they accused him; and that if he were satisfied of his having advanced any Error, he was resolved to maintain it no longer: That it might happen that by carelessness he might have writ what he ought not to have writ; but that he calls God to Witness, that as to those Points whereof he was accused he had advanced nothing out of an ill Design, or Pride; That he always spoke in Public, and never concealed his Writings: That if in that great Number of Lectures which he had held, he had fallen into any extravagancies, he would never be stiff in the Maintenance of them, but would be always ready to give satisfaction by Correcting or blotting out what he might have advanced improperly: But that as it was his Duty to correct the faults which he had committed, he was likewise obliged to refute those Accusations of Error which had been falsely laid to his Charge, because as Saint Augustine says, he who is negligent of his Reputation is an Enemy to himself, and silence is a kind of Confession: That 'tis for this Reason that he Answers those Heads which are published against him, to let all the Faithful know that he is a true Son of the Church; that he received whatever it received; that he rejected whatever it rejected, and that he always continued in the Union of the Church, tho' he were not equal to others in the sanctity of his Life. He thereupon in this Apology rejects the Errors whereof he was accused, and professes the Contrary Truths, by declaring (1.) That he abhorred the Proposition which had been maliciously imputed to him, That the Father had a perfect Power, that the Son had only a Certain Power, and that the holy Ghost had no Power at all; and he professes that he believes that the Son and Holy Ghost are of the same Substance with the Father, and that they have the same Power, and the same Will, and pretends that it was either out of Malice or Ignorance that they had accused him of having said that the Holy Ghost was not of the same Substance with the Father. (2.) That he professes to believe that the Only Son of God was made man to deliver us from the Slavery of Sin and from the Bondage of the Devil, and to open an Entrance to us to Heaven by his Death. (3.) That Jesus Christ is the true and only Son of God, Born of the Substance of the Father before all Worlds; and that the holy Ghost is the third person of the Trinity who proceeded from the Father and the Son. (4.) That the Grace of God is so necessary to all men▪ that neither Nature, nor freewill are sufficient to Salvation, because Grace Prevents us that we may Will, follows that we may do what we Will, and accompanies us that we may persevere. (5.) That God cannot do any thing but what is agreeable to his Nature for him to do, and that he has indeed Power of doing a great many things which he will never do. (6.) That there are sins of Ignorance, especially when it proceeds from an Omission of having learned what we are obliged to know. (7.) That God often hinders Evils, either by preventing the Evil Wills of Wicked men, or by changing them. (8.) That we have All contracted the Gild and Punishment of Adam's Sin, which has been the Cause and Original of all our Sins. (9) That those who crucified Jesus Christ committed a notorious sin by nailing him to the Cross. (10.) That the Perfection of Charity was in Jesus Christ. (11.) That the Power of Binding or Unbinding was granted to the Apostles and their Successors, and that all Bishops be they Worthy or Unworthy have that Power, so long as the Church acknowledges them as Bishops. (12.) That all those who are equal in Charity, are equal likewise in Perfection and Merit. (13.) That the Father is as Wise as the Son, and the Son as Beneficent as the holy Ghost, because the Glory of the three persons of the Trinity is coequal. (14.) That one cannot Attribute to the Father the last Judgement or Advent. (15.) That the Soul of Jesus Christ did not only descend into Hell in Power, but likewise really and substantially. (16.) That he had not maintained, that neither Action, nor the Will, nor Lust, nor Pleasure were sins, and that we ought not to pray for the quenching of our Lusts. Lastly he asserts that they did him wrong attributing a Book of Sentences to him which he had never composed; and conjures all the Faithful not to injure his Innocence, which the Truth shelters from all the faults ascribed to him, and the rather because Charity requires us to put the best Sense on Doubtful matters.  
After he had published this Apology, he set out on his Journey towards Rome; but being arrived at Clunie, he was detained there by Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Clunie. Whilst he was 
The 〈◊〉 of Ab●●ard to Clu●y and his Death.  there, the Abbot of Cisteaux coming thither likewise, endeavoured to bring him to make his Peace with Saint Bernard. Peter the Venerable urged the same thing to him also, persuaded him to go and Wait upon him with the Abbot of Cisteaux, and advised him that in case he had said or writ any thing which might be Offensive to the Ears of the Catholics, to advance no such thing for the future, and to strike it out of his Books. He took his Advice, waited upon Saint Bernard, and was reconciled to him by the Mediation of the Abbot of Cisteaux. He returned afterwards to Clunie, where he resolved to spend the rest of his Days in Repose free from the Hurry and fatigue of the Schools. Peter the Venerable thought himself obliged to allow this favour to his Age, to his Weakness and to his Piety; not questioning withal but that his Learning would be very advantageous for the Instruction of his Monks. He wrote about it to Pope Innocent and prayed him to grant that Abaelard might spend the remainder of his Life with them. 'Tis to be believed that the Pope granted him that favour; for Abaelard resided in that Community till he died, and behaved himself with a great deal of Piety and Humility for two Years together. Towards the End of his Life he found himself very much oppressed with Infirmities, and was sent to the Monastery of Saint Marcellus of Chalons upon the Seyne, as being a more healthful and pleasant place, where he died in the year 1142. in the sixty third year of his Age. Peter the Venerable acquainted Heloissa of his Death by a Letter, wherein he gives her an Encomium of his manner of Living ever since he had retreated to their Society, annexes thereto an Epitaph in his praise, and sent his Body to the Abbey of Paraclete to be there interred. He afterwards went himself to visit that Abbey, where he said Mass, made an Exhortation to the Religious in the Chapter house, gave them the Eucharist, and promised Heloissa to put up Prayers to God for her in the Society of Clunie for thirty days together after her Death. She thanked him for all those Favours in a Letter which she sent to him, and at the same time entreats him to send her Abaelard's Absolution, and to procure a Prebend for her Son Astrolabe. Peter the Venerable sent her this Absolution, and promised her to do his best for the procuring a Prebend for her Son, tho' the Bishops were very Scrupulous in granting those Sort of Benefices.  
The Works of Abaelard which are now extant are the Letters which we have mentioned in the Course of his History, Expositions of the Lords Prayer, of the Apostles Creed, and of the 
The Works of Abaelard.  Creed of Saint Athanasius, A Reply to the Questions or Problems proposed by Heloissa, a Book about Heresies, a Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans divided into five Books, thirty two Sermons on the Festivals of the year, an Introduction into Theology divided into three Books, the last of which is imperfect. Those which are lost, or have not as yet been printed, are his Logic, of which he makes mention in his first Letter and in the third Book of his Theology; his Notes upon Ezekiel, his Morals entitled Nosce Teipsum, Know thyself; another Book entitled, Sic & Non, Yea and No, which is to be met with in Manuscript in the Library of Saint german of Prez, so entitled, because 'tis a Collection of such Sentences out of holy Writ, as are in appearance contrary to each other, and a Treatise of the Creation of the World, dedicated to Heloissa, which is likewise a Manuscript in the same Library.  
In abstracting his Works we will begin with his Introduction into Theology; which is the Book which has made so great a Noise in the World, it being that which Contains the Principles of his Doctrine, and the Heads upon which he was reprehended and condemned.  
He gins the First Book with the Explication of Faith, Hope and Charity; he says that there are three things necessary to Salvation, Faith, Charity, and the Sacrament; for he believes that Hope is comprehended in Faith, as a Species in its Genus. He defines Faith to be the Estimation or Idea of Invisible things; and Hope the Expectation of some Good Faith, according to him, has Respect to Good and Evil, both present and future; whereas Hope has only regard to future Good. He defines Charity to be an honourable Love directed to its due End or Object; and Lust on the Contrary to be a shameful and dishonourable Love. Love in General is that Good Will and Affection which one has for another, whereby one wishesto an other some Good upon the Sole Esteem which he has for him: Charity is the Love of God; Lust or Concupiscence is the Love of the World: God is the Ultimate End or Object of the former, Man is the Ultimate End or Object of the Latter. He observes that Man is the Cause, but ought not to be the End of his Actions, and that what he does for himself ought to have a Respect to God. As for the Sacrament he defined it to be an outward and Visible Sign of the Invisible Grace of God: Thus for instance (says he) when a man is baptised the outward washing of the Body which we behold, is the sign of the Inward Washing of the Soul. Faith is the Foundation of other Virtues, because we only hope for what we believe: For which reason 'tis defined by the Apostle Heb. 11. 1. to be the Substance, i. e. the Foundation and Origin of things hoped for; things Invisible or future are properly the Object of Faith, tho' sometimes we apply this Term to things which are seen. Among the things which may be believed, there be some which 'tis no matter whether they be believed or no; such as whether it please God it should or should not rain to morrow: But when one speaks of Faith, one means only that which relates to such things which we are obliged to believe under the Pain of Damnation; and which belong to the Catholic or Universal Faith, the which is so necessary that without it no man can be saved. This Faith has for its Object the Nature of God and his Benefits shown to mankind. In the first place 'tis requisite to retreat of that which relates to the Nature of God, and to explain how there is but one God and three persons. 
The Works of Abaelard.   
After he had Established the Unity, Simplicity, and Immutability of God, he treats of the Trinity of Persons. He says that one of the Divine Persons is not the Other; That the Father, for Instance, is not the Son, nor the Son the holy Ghost, because they are of the same nature and distinguished only personally; That the Property of God the Father is, not to be begotten: That of the Son, to be begotten, but not made nor Created; That of the holy Ghost, to proceed from the Father and the Son, but not made nor Created. The Names of the three person● comprehend the Essence which is supremely or infinitely perfect. The Power of God is denoted by the Name of Father, the Wisdom by that of the Logos or the Son, and the Love of God towards men by that of the Holy Ghost, the three things which make up the Supreme Good. The Distinction of these three persons serves to persuade men, to render to God the Worship and Adoration which they owe to him; for two things inspire into us Respect, viz, Fear and Love: The Power and Wisdom of God make us to fear him, because we know that he is our Judge; that he can punish▪ us, and that nothing is hid from his Eyes; and his Goodness makes us to love him, because 'tis but just and reasonable to love him who does us so much Good. This likewise serves to render the Works of God the more admirable; since he can do whatsoever he pleases; that he knows how to preserve what he has made, and Wills that every thing should be made and subsist in its Order. He takes notice that yet we ought not to believe that those Attributes do so agree to each of the Divine Persons, but that they may be common to them all; so that we are not to believe that the Father is only Powerful, the Son Only Wise, and the holy Ghost only Merciful; but on the Contrary that these three persons have the same Power, Wisdom and Mercy: That these three Properties are only attributed to the three Divine Persons in an Especial Manner, as their particular Operations are attributed to them, tho' all the Divine Operations which relate to the Creatures, are Common to all the three Persons, namely the Creation to the Father, the Incarnation to the Son, and the Regeneration to the holy Ghost. Afterwards he proves the Mystery of the Trinity by several passages out of the Old Testament, and by the Testimonies of the heathen Philosophers of whom be quotes a great many.  
He foresaw that these Citations out of the Heathen Philosophers concerning the Mystery of the Trinity would seem extraordinary, and displease a great many People, therefore he makes use of part of the Second Book to justifiy himself in this particular. (1.) By the Example and Testimonies of Saint Jerom and the other Fathers. (2.) By demonstrating that Logic and the other Sciences are not useless to Religion, provided a right use be made of them. (3.) By showing that 'tis useful to explain Mysteries as well as one can, by Instances and Comparisons, and to demonstrate that they are not contrary to Reason, especially when they were to treat with Jews, Heathens, and Heretics. (4.) By refuting those who maintained that one ought not to make use of Reason, but only Authority to prove the Mysteries of Faith. (5.) By maintaining that one might have some Knowledge of Mysteries, and that as we have Terms whereby to explain them, 'tis requifite likewise that we have Ideas to answer those Terms. (6.) Because without taking any Notice of Jews and Pagans, there are likewise some Heretics or Persons erroneous about our Mysteries; viz. a certain Laic named Tac●eline in Flanders, who caused himself to be styled by the People the Son of God; and Peter of Bruis in Provence, who had so far subverted the Order and Discipline of the Church, as to oblige a great many People to be rebaptised, and taught that one ought not to Celebrate the Sacrament of the Altar any Longer, nor make use of the Cross; That it was not requisite any longer to pass by in silence the Public Professors who taught Errors contrary to the Catholic Faith and Sound▪ Doctrine, among whom he opposes four, one in France, another in Burgundy, a third in Angers, and a Fourth in Bourges. He gives a particular account of their Errors, which it may not be amiss to insert here. The first (says he) asserts that several of those who lived before the Coming of Jesus Christ were saved without having believed his future Coming; That our Saviour proceeded out of the Virgin's Womb after the same manner as Other Men, and that God begat himself. The Second teaches that the three Properties which distinguish the three Divine Persons, are three Distinct Essences of the same Person, and of the Divine Nature: That the Body of our Saviour did not increase, but was of the same Bigness in the Virgin's Womb and in the Manger, as it was upon the Cross. That the Marriages of Monks or Nuns are Valid, and that one ought not to divorce them, but only to enjoin them Penance. The third not only maintains that the Attributes of the Divine Persons are things distinct from the Godhead, but likewise that all the other Attributes, such as Justice, Mercy, etc. are Qualities and things distinct from God. The fourth has been so Extravagant, as to assert that since things may happen otherwise than God foresaw they would, 'tis possible for him to be deceived.  
From this Digression he returns to his Subject, and treats of the Divine Nature. He says that God is not an Accident, nor properly a Substance, if you take that word to signify an Essence which supports Accidents; that he may be called an Essence; that he is not comprehended under any of Aristotle's Ten Categories; that we want proper Terms whereby to express his Nature and Perfections, but that we make use of Energical and figurative Terms, and give Examples and Similitudes to explain imperfectly what agrees to this ineffable Nature. He produces several of these about the Mystery of the Trinity, and in the first place observes that things may be One, either by Resemblance, or in Number, or in Propriety, and that as in one and the same thing there are a great many properties, so in one and the same Divine Essence there are three distinct Persons who have distinct Properties, because the Father begets; the Son is begotten, and Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. That 'tis true indeed, that we have not among 
The Works of Abaelard.  created Being's any Instance wherein one and the same Essence are three Persons; but that we are not to seek for a perfect Resemblance, since 'tis sufficient to bring some Comparisons. He produces that of a Seal, composed of the Material, and the Figure engraven thereon. The Seal is neither the simple Material, nor the simple Figure, but a sort of an Integer composed of both, and yet in reality the Seal is nothing else but the Material, thus or thus engraven, though the Figure is not the Material, nor the Material the Figure.  
After this he distinguishes between the procession of the Holy Ghost, and the Generation of the Word, in that the Logos being Wisdom, partakes of the power of the Father, and may therefore be said to be of the substance of the Father; whereas the Holy Ghost being denoted by the Name of Love or Charity, which is not a Power, is not of the substance of the Father. He immediately corrects the Notion of Arianism, which those Words seem to imply, by saying that the Holy Ghost is of the substance of the Father, in the Sense that he so proceeds from him, as to have the same substance with him; but that though he be Consubstantial to the Father, yet properly speaking, he is not begotten of his substance. (This is a hard and improper Expression, contrary to the manner of the Father's speaking, and conformable to that of the Arians, though Abaelard rejects their Error.) He says that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, because Love, or rather the effect of Love proceeds from Power and Wisdom, since the Reason of God's doing Good, is because he has Power to do it, and Wisdom to know that it is Good.  
This gives him an occasion of refuting the Opinion of the Greeks concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son alone, and of showing that one might add something to the Creed, provided it were not contrary to the Faith. He explains the Coeternity of three Divine Persons, by the Instance of the Light and Rays which proceed from the Sun, and which exist the same moment with the Sun. Lastly, he pretends that the Heathen Philosophers have acknowledged the Trinity.  
In the Third Book he treats particularly of the Power of God, and maintains that God cannot do any thing but what he does do, and cannot do all that he does not do, because God can only do what he Wills; but he cannot Will to do any thing but what he does do, because it is necessary for him that he should Will whatever is convenient; from whence it follows, that whatever he does not do is not convenient; that he cannot Will to do it, and consequently cannot do it. He himself owns, that this is his own particular Notion, that scarce any Body else is of this Opinion, that it seems contrary to the Doctrine of the Saints and to Reason, and to derogate from the greatness of God. Hereupon he starts a very difficult Objection. A Reprobate (says he) may be saved; for he knows no Being but what God does save, wherefore God may save him, and consequently do something which is not necessary to be done. To this he replies, that one might very well assert that such a Man may be saved by the Relation to the possibility of Human Nature, which is capable of Salvation; but that it could not be affirmed that God could save him, if we have respect to God himself, because 'tis impossible that God should do any thing, but what he ought to do. He explains this by several Examples: A Man who speaks may hold his Tongue, but that 'tis impossible for one who speaks to be at the same time silent. A Man's Voice may be heard, but one who is Deaf cannot hear it. A Field may be Cultivated and Tilled, though a Man may not cultivate it, etc.  
From the Power of God he proceeds to his Immutability; he says that God does not change himself when he produces new effects, because in him there are not such new Motions and new Inclinations as are in us, but only new effects proceeding from an Eternal Will; that he cannot change Places, since he is Omni-present, and that when 'tis said that he descended into the Virgin's Womb, 'tis to denote his Humiliation; but that in being made Man, he was not changed, because the Divine Substance is united to the Humane Nature without a change of its Nature; and that the Person of Jesus Christ is a Compound of the Divine Logos, the Soul, and of the Flesh; That those three Natures are united in such a manner as that they retain each their own Nature; and that as the Soul is not changed into Flesh, so the Divine Nature is not changed, though it be personally united to the Soul and the Flesh. Lastly, he treats of the Divine Knowledge and Wisdom. He says that God has foreseen and preordained all things; and so with respect to God nothing happens by chance, though his prescience does not destroy freewill. He defines it to be a free Determination of the Will, and asserts that it has been frequently experienced, that the Will is not constrained by any Violence, and that it has a power of doing or not doing a thing. He observes that this kind of Freedom in the Will does not relate to God, but only to Men, who may alter their Will, and do or not do a thing. He produces the Opinion of some who believed that this Freedo'm consists in a Power of doing both Good and Evil; but he maintains that those who are so happy as to have no power of Sinning, are nevertheless Free, and are so the more because of their being delivered from the servitude of Sin. From hence he concludes, that generally and properly speaking freewill is when one may voluntarily and without constraint accomplish that which it has resolved upon; a Liberty which is in God as well as in Men, and in all who are not destitute of the Faculty of Willing. He adds several Philosophical Niceties about the Prescience and Determination of Propositions concerning future Contingencies.  
The Explications of the Lord's-Prayer, and of the Creeds of the Apostles, and of St. Athanasius, contain nothing in them which is very remarkable.  
The Problems or Questions which were proposed to him by Heloissa, are almost all of them upon hard Texts of Scripture, which Abaelard explains with a great deal of Justice and Accuracy.  
The Book of Heresies is a summary Account of the principal Errors of the Heretics, against which he produces several Passages out of the Holy Scriptures. He therein particularly refutes the 
Abaelards' Doctrine examined.  Errors against the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Baptism, against the Administration of Penance, against the Ceremonies of the Church, and against the Invocation of Saints. Some have thought that this Piece was not Abaelard's; but 'tis not unworthy of him, and there is nothing to hinder us from thinking it to be his.  
The Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans, is a literal Explication of that Epistle, wherein he shows the Coherence and Consequence of the Apostle's Discourse, and renders his Terms intelligible by paraphrasing upon them.  
Abaelard's Sermons are not very Eloquent, but such Discourses as contain in them Reflections upon the Words of Scripture, which agree to the Mysteries whereof he Treats, together with several Moral Instructions. The Sermon upon St. John the Baptist, is a very sharp satire against some Monks, and several Canons of his time, and particularly against St. Norbert.  
St. Bernard in the general, accuses Peter Abaelard of treating of the Trinity like Arius, 
Abelaard's Doctrine Examined.  of Grace like Pelagius, and of the Incarnation like Nestorius; of having bragged that he was ignorant of nothing, and of being never willing to say, Nescio, i. e. I do not know; of being willing to expound inexplicable things, and to comprehend incomprehensible Mysteries: Of giving a reason for that which was above Reason; of believing nothing but what Reason discovers to us, of placing Degrees in the Trinity, Terms and Limits to the Majesty of God, and Numbers in Eternity. These are the general Reflections which he cast upon him.  
In particular, he finds fault with those Expressions of Abaelard concerning the Holy Ghost, viz. That he is not of the same substance with the Father, as the Son is. He is astonished to find him on one side, owning that he is Consubstantial to the Father and the Son; and on the other side, denying that he proceeds from the substance of the Father and the Son. He maintains that the absolute Attributes of God, such as his Omnipotence, Wisdom and Mercy, does not agree more to one than to another of the Three Divine Persons. He opposes Abaelard's Comparison taken from a Seal and the material whereof 'tis made. He finds fault with the Definition of Faith which Abaelard makes use of, because he therein gives to Faith the name of Estimation, which is of too lose a Signification.  
He omits speaking to several other Propositions of Abaelard; that Jesus Christ had not the Spirit of Fear: That the fear of God will not subsist in the other Life: That the Accidents of the Bread and Wine after the Consecration are in the Air: That the Demons do not tempt Men, but only by the Virtue of some Stones, and of some Herbs, which they know and make use of: That the Holy Ghost is the Soul of the World. Proceeding afterwards to what relates to the Incarnation, he in the first place citys the Proposition wherein Abaelard maintained that Jesus Christ did not come into the World on purpose to redeem Mankind; upon this he urges the Business very home to him, and shows, that neither Scripture nor Tradition acknowledge any other end of the Incarnation, beside the redeeming of Mankind from the Bondage of the Devil, into which they had fallen by the Sin of their first Parent. He charges him with such things as he only advanced in his Commentary by way of Query. He demonstrates in opposition to Abaelard, that the end of Redemption does not consist in the Love of Jesus Christ, since Infants are redeemed by Baptism, before they arrive to the use of Reason, and consequently before they are capable of loving at all. Lastly, he considers three things in the Incarnation: The example of Humility which God has given us by thus abasing himself; The measure of Charity, which he extended so far as to the Death upon the Cross; and the Sacrament of Redemption, whereby he has delivered Men from Death by his Death. These are the Heads whereof St. Bernard treats in his large Letter against Abaelard, directed to Pope Innocent II. which makes the Eleventh of his Opuscula.  
But to come to an exact knowledge of all the Errors charged upon Peter Abaelard, 'tis sufficient only to consult the Collection of the Propositions extracted out of his Works, which was read in the Council of Sens, and sent to the Pope. It consists of Fourteen Propositions. The first is the Comparison which he makes of a Seal of Copper, to explain the mystery of the Trinity. The second is that which he says of the Holy Ghost, viz. That the Holy Ghost is not a Power, nor of the substance of the Father, though the Three Persons of the Trinity are of the same substance. The third, that God cannot do any thing else but what he does do. The fourth, that the end of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, was not only to redeem Mankind, but to enlighten the World with the Lustre of his Wisdom. The fifth, that speaking properly and without a Figure, we cannot say that Jesus Christ is a third Person of the Trinity. The sixth, that God has not given more Grace to him who is saved, than to him who is not, before the former has cooperated with his Grace; that he offers his Grace to all the World, and that it depends on the Freedom of Men's Will, whether they will make use of it or reject it. The seventh, that God ought not nor cannot hinder Evil. The eighth, that when 'tis said that Infants contract Original Sin, this aught to be understood of the Temporal and Eternal Punishment, which is due to them because of Adam's Sin. The ninth, that the Accidents which remain after the Consecration of the Eucharist, are not joined to the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, as they were to the Bread and Wine, but are in the Air: That the Body of Jesus Christ retains its Figure and Lineaments, and that what we see are false appearances under which the Body of Jesus Christ is hid. The tenth, that 'tis not the outward Action, but the Will and the Intention which render Men either Good or Bad. The eleventh, that the Jews who crucified Jesus Christ in ignorance and out of Zeal for the Law, did not commit any Sin in so doing, and shall not be condemned for this Action, but for their former Sins which merited this Blindness. The twelfth, that those Words, whatsoever you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, are to be understood thus: Whatsoever you shall bind in this present Life, 
Abaelard's Doctrine examined.  shall be bound in the present Church: That none but the Apostles had this Power, and that if it had been communicated to their Successors, 'tis to be understood only of those who have the Holy Ghost. The thirteenth, that neither the Suggestion nor the Pleasure which follows it are sinful, but the consenting to an Evil Action, and the contempt of God. The fourteenth, that Omnipotence belongs only to the Father as a Personal Attribute.  
Abaelard in his Apology disowns the Heretical meaning of those Propositions, but the Question which still remains is to know in what Sense he advanced them. It cannot be denied, but that he had Catholic Notions about the mystery of the Trinity, and did believe that the Three Divine Persons were of the same Nature. The Comparison of a Seal which he makes use of to explain this Mystery is not altogether exact, nor does he pretend that it is; but he owns that we can find nothing among the Creatures, which perfectly resembles this incomparable Mystery. Nor does he deny that Power, Wisdom and Love are such Attributes as are common to the Three Divine Persons; he declares the contrary even in express Terms; but he attributes Power to the Father, Wisdom to the Son, and Love to the Holy Ghost, only by way of Appropriation; wherein he seems not to disagree from the Doctrine of the Fathers and Divines. But in the third Proposition, he does not agree with others in the manner of thinking and expressing his Thoughts; wherein he says that God can only do what he does do, and cannot do what he doth not do. This does not proceed from his dis-believing, that the Power of God in its own Nature can extend itself to other Objects; but he pretends that it being considered as joined to the Wisdom and Will of God, he could not do any thing beside what he Wills, nor does any thing besides what he Wills and actually does.  
As to that which relates to the end of the Incarnation, (which is the fourth Proposition) 'tis not to be believed that he denied that Jesus Christ had redeemed and delivered Men from the slavery of Sin by his Death; he asserts the contrary in several places; but he might have pretended that this redemption of Mankind from the Captivity of Sin and the Devil, was not the only Motive of the Incarnation, nor the only Advantage which Men reaped from thence, and the Divine Logos was likewise come into the World to enlighten the Nations thereof, and to give them an Example of Virtue; the Holy Fathers have said the same thing in a great many places of their Writings.  
The fifth Proposition is only a Question about a Name. He owns that the Divine Logos is one of the Persons of the Trinity; but disapproves of this Expression, viz. That Jesus Christ is a Third Person in the Trinity, a way of speaking which is not usual in the Fathers or the Schoolmen.  
The sixth Proposition about Grace, is not agreeable to St. Augustine's Principles, nor is it Pelagianism nor Semipelagianism, since he acknowledges the Necessity of Grace for the producing of any Good in us, and only maintains that God has given equal Grace to all Men, whereof every one might make a good use or reject.  
The seventh Proposition is a Consequence from his way of speaking in the third.  
The eighth is not to be met with in Abaelard's Writings which are now extant; he acknowledges on the contrary in his Apology, that Original Sin consists in the Gild.  
The Ninth depends upon a Philosophical Dispute about the nature of Accidents, and is of no prejudice to the Faith about the mystery of Transubstantiation, which Abaelard owned; and when he says that they are false Appearances, by this he understands that they resemble Bread which is not there.  
The Tenth may be taken in a good Sense, so that by Works we understand only the external Actions, which are not expressly Good or Bad, but as they become Voluntary.  
The eleventh Proposition is insufferable.  
The twelfth is an extraordinary and intolerable Exposition of our Saviour's Words about the Power of Binding and Losing.  
He disowns the thirteenth as that which he never writ.  
With respect to the Fourteenth we have explained in what sense he attributes Power to the Person of the Father. He declares in his Apology, that when he denied the Fear of God to be in Jesus Christ and in his Elect, he thereby only understood a servile Fear and not a filial Fear, which he owns will last to all Eternity: And he therein maintains that he had never denied that the Soul of Jesus Christ descended really into Hell. By the Name of Estimation which he applies to Faith, he does not mean an uncertain Opinion, but an Idea which we form to ourselves of the Mysteries which are revealed to us, and which we firmly believe.  
As to the General Reflections which are cast upon him, it must be owned that his Way of speaking and explaining the Mysteries was Novel; that he relied too much upon his own Reasonings; and that he was for prying too curiously into Incomprehensible Mysteries. But at the same time it must likewise be owned that he happened to be in such times when this kind of Learning was in its Infancy; and that if in some places he swerved from the Truth, yet he argues very justly and very solidly on a great many Subjects. In a Word no body can deny but that he had great parts, much Learning and Logic, a profound Genius and penetration of Thought. We have only one Edition of his Works published by the care of Francis Amboesa Councillor of State, and printed at Paris in 4●●, in the Year 1616.   

CHAP. VIII.  
An Account of the Errors and Condemnation of Gillebert de la Porree, Bishop of Poitiers.  
GILLEBERT DE LA PORREE, a Native of Poitiers, after having been Professor of 
The particular Opinion of Gillebert de la Porree.  Divinity in that City, was chosen Bishop of the same Diocese, A. D. 1141. He had the most able Divines of his time for his Tutors, viz. Hilary at Poitiers, Bernard at Chartres, Anselm and Radulphus at Laon; but forasmuch as it is difficult, when one takes too great a Latitude in Philosophising on the Mysteries of the Christian Religion, not to wander out of the right way; he maintained in his Commentaries on the Book of Psalms, on St. Paul's Epistles, and on the Works of Boethius, certain Propositions about the Godhead, which gave Offence to those who were not accustomed to handle Theological Matters after such a manner. He was more especially censured for asserting four Points concerning the Godhead, viz. 1. That the Divine Essence was not God. 2. That the Properties of the Divine Persons were not the Persons themselves. 3. That the Divine Persons were not an Attribute in any Proposition. 4. That the divine Nature was not incarnate; as also upon account of two other Articles, which were looked upon as less considerable, viz. That there is none that Merits but Jesus Christ, and that the Elect only are truly Baptised.  
Gillebert continuing to maintain this Doctrine, even when advanced to the Episcopal Dignity, and not forbearing to assert those Propositions, in a Discourse that he made to his Clergy; an Information was brought against him by his two Arch-deacons, Arnold and Calon to Pope Eugenius III. who was then at Sienna, ready to set forward in his Journey to France. The Pope deferred the taking cognizance of the Affair till his arrival in that Kingdom; and the Arch-deacons in the mean while engaged St. Bernard on their side.  
The Examination of Gillebert's Doctrine was begun at Auxerre in an Assembly convened there in the beginning of the Year 1147. and continued in another held at Paris on the Festival 
The Council of Paris about the Affair of Gillebert de la Porree.  of Easter in the same Year. Gillebert appeared in the latter before the Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishops and the other Prelates of the Assembly, whilst two Doctors, viz. Adam de Petit Pont Canon of Paris, and Hugh de Champfleuri, the King's Chancellor vigorously opposed him, deposing upon Oath, That they had heard him justify some of the Errors of which he was accused; but St. Bernard was the first and principal of his Accusers. Gillebert denied that he maintained those Opinions that were laid to his charge, and some of the Bishops, who had been his Pupils, were called to Witness on his behalf, among whom were Raoul or Radulphus Bishop of Eureux, and Ives Doctor of Chartres, who declared that they never heard him assert any thing of the like nature. Therefore to convict him, his Adversaries demanded that his Commentary on Boethius' Book of the Trinity might be produced, in which (as they averred) those Errors were laid down in divers places. But this Book not being to be found, certain Propositions were alleged, taken out of the lose Papers of his Scholars, and amongst others, That as Man is called Wisdom, by reason of the Form of Wisdom; after the same manner, God is said to be his Goodness, his Wisdom, etc. St. Bernard opposed that Expression, and Gillebert continued to deny, that he ever taught or wrote, That the Godhead was not God, or that there was in God any Form or any Essence that was not God himself. He proved what he said, by the Testimony of the two Persons but now mentioned, and nevertheless maintained in the heat of the Dispute, That that which constituted God the Father, was different from that which constituted him God: This Expression gave Offence to Josselin Bishop of Scissons. Gillebert was likewise censured for calling the three Divine Persons, in a Prose or Hymn on the Trinity, three SINGULARS; and Hugh III. Archbishop of Roven on the contrary affirmed, that it ought to be said, That God was a SINGULAR. The Pope wearied with these Disputes, which continued two days, and not having at hand, Gillebert de la Porree's Book, that was called in question, thought fit to refer the determination of that Affair to the Council of Rheims, which was held in Lent in the following Year.  
In the mean while Gillebert sent his Commentary on Boethius' Book of the Trinity to Pope Eugenius, who delivered it to be examined by Gotescalchus' Abbot of Mount St. Eloy, of the Order of Premontre, afterwards ordained Bishop of Arras, who having carefully perused it, made an Extract of some Propositions, which he judged to be erroneous, and annexed to them certain Passages of the Father's contrary to those Opinions: He presented this Memorial to the Pope with Gillebert de la Porree's Book. Alberic Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, and Legate of the See of Rome in Aquitaine, in like manner made an enquiry into Gillebert's Life and Conversation, and about the Errors that he had spread abroad; but he died before the meeting of the Council of Rheims. In that Council, the Propositions contained in the Memorial which 
A Council at Rheims.  the Abbot Gotheschalchus had drawn up, were examined, but in regard that he had not a ready Tongue, the Pope caused the said Paper to be put into St. Bernard's Hands. The Council was composed of the Pope, the Cardinals, and divers Bishops of France, Germany, England and Spain; the chiefest among those of France were Geoffrey de Loroux Archbishop of Bourges, Gillebert's Metropolitan, Milo Bishop of Terovane, Josselin Bishop of Soissons, and Sugar Abbot of St. Denis, who had the Administration of the Government in the absence of King Lewis the Young, during his Expedition in the Holy Land. These Prelates publicly condemned Gillebert de la Porree's Propositions, except Geffrey, who acted more cautiously, because he had heard it given out, that the principal Cardinals were inclined to be favourable to the accused Party.  
On the first day of the Assembly, Gillebert caused large Volumes of his Works to be brought, saying, That his Adversaries only produced a few mutilated and misinterpreted Passages taken 
The Condemnation of Gillebert de la Porree, in the Council of Rheims.  out of them. Then a certain Proposition found in his Book, was alleged, viz. That the Name of God does not signify the Substance that is, but that by which he is. When that Proposition began to be debated, St. Bernard told Gillebert de la Porree, That 'twas not necessary to enter upon such Disputes, and that the Scandal proceeded only from hence, that many were persuaded that he was in an Error, and that he gave it out, That the Essence, or the Nature of God, his Godhead, Wisdom, Goodness, and Omnipotence is not God, but the Form by which he is God. Now declare (said he to him) whether this be your Opinion or not? Gillebert had the boldness to reply, That the Form of God, or the Godhead by which he is God, is not God himself. Then St. Bernard said, we have an Answer to our Question, let this Declaration be committed to Writing: The Pope ordered the same thing, and Henry of Pisa, Cardinal brought Pen, Ink and Paper. Gillebert, as he was writing, cried out to St. Bernard, Writ that the Godhead is God: St. Bernard answered without any hesitation, Yea, let it be written with a Steel-pen and on a Diamond, or let it he engraved on Stone, That the Divine Essence, Form, Nature, Godhead, Goodness, Wisdom, Virtue, Omnipotence and Greatness is truly God. Afterwards that Proposition was debated, and St. Bernard pressed Gillebert de la Porree, telling him, That if the Form of God were not God, it would be more perfect than God. He likewise cited divers Proofs out of St. Augustin's Works, which he sent for from the Library of the Church of Rheims, in which that Saint assures us, That the Goodness, Omnipotence and other Attributes of God, are not different from God himself. Geffrey, afterwards Abbot of Clairvaux, objected against Gillebert, that he disowned the preceding Year the same Proposition that he now asserted. Gillebert replied, That whatever he said then, he maintained it at present.  
Afterwards they passed from that Proposition to a second, viz. That one God is not the three Persons, nor the three Persons one Thing; altho' they be one God by the same Godhead, as far as they are one by the same Thing. This Proposition was likewise committed to writing, and St. Bernard opposed divers Passages of the Fathers. The next day, they continued to produce many other Testimonies of the Father's contrary to that Doctrine; and then the other two Articles were proposed and written, viz. That the Personal Properties and the Eternal Attributes of God, are not God, and that it cannot be said, That the Divine Nature assumed the Humane Nature, but that it ought to be said, That the Person of the Son took our Nature. When they had disputed for a long time about those Propositions, the Cardinals declared in the end of the Assembly, that after having duly considered what was alleged on both sides, they would decide the Matter, and determine what ought to be believed. The Archbishops and Bishops being justly offended, that the Cardinals should take upon them arbitrarily to pass their Judgement in that Affair, and fearing lest they should acquit Gillebert de la Porree, whom they apparently favoured; went the next day to meet St. Bernard: Then they drew up with his Advice, a Writing that contained Gillebert's Propositions, as also a contrary Confession of Faith; and after having Signed it, put it into the Hands of Hugh Bishop of Auxerre, and of Milo of Terovane, with Orders to make application to the Abbot Sugar, to get it presented to the Pope and the Cardinals; and to acquaint them, that they had patiently heard several Discourses which ought not to have been made, purely out of respect to their Character; but being informed that they designed to proceed to Sentence, they thought fit to offer them their Confession of Faith, to the end that they might be enabled to pass a right Judgement between both Parties: Lastly, That their Eminences already had Gillebert's Confession, who delivered it with a Protestation to Correct it, if they should judge it expedient; but as for their parts, they protested that they would not suffer any alteration to be made in their Form. The Cardinal at first took it very ill, that the Bishops and St. Bernard had prepared a Confession of Faith beforehand, and by that means prevented their Judgements; imagining, that it belonged only to the Holy See to make such Forms, and to judge definitively of Matters of Faith. But St. Bernard qualified their Resentments, by remonstrating to them. That neither he, nor the Bishops pretended to exhibit a final Decision, but only an Explanation of their Sentiments. Whereupon the Pope declared that they all approved the Doctrine contained in the Bishop's Confession of Faith, and that if some of the Cardinals were favourable to Gillebert's Person, yet none approved his Errors. However, he did not confirm this Determination by a solemn Decree, but contented himself only to cause Gillebert to appear in an Assembly held in the Archbishop's Palace at Rheims; and after having obliged him to retract his four Propositions, he condemned them, and forbidden the reading or the transcribing of his Book, till it were corrected by the Church of Rome. Gillebert promised to do it, but the Pope answered, that he should not be left at liberty to correct it at his pleasure: But nothing was decreed against his Person, so that he returned to his Diocese reconciled with his Arch-deacons. St. Bernard was satisfied, that his Recantation was sincere, and that he really acquiesced in the Judgement of the Synod; nevertheless, some of his followers could not be persuaded to abjure his Opinions, but still persisted to maintain them, and therefore St. Bernard endeavours to confute those Miscreants, in his 80th Sermon on the Canticles, and treats them as Heretics. Those erroneous Doctrines were likewise impugned by Geffrey Abbot of Clairvaux, in a Treatise written purposely on that Subject, in which he collects divers Passages of the Fathers, directly opposite to Gillebert's four Propositions.  
Some other Errors were also attributed to him, but forasmuch as they were not found in his Books, 'twas judged sufficient to tear in pieces the lose Papers that were in the Hands of his Scholars or Pupils, and in which they were written. Geffrey citys a passage taken out of this Author's Gloss on the Psalms, in which he asserts, that the Humanity of Jesus Christ ought not to be adored with a Worship of Latria, but with that of Dulia; as also another extracted out of his Gloss on St. Paul's Epistles, where he says, That the name of God, and of the Son of God, is not attributed to the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ, unless by Adoption.  
The Works of Gillebert de la Porree, were never as yet Printed, except one Letter on the 
The Writings of Gillebert de la Porree.  Eucharist, published by Father Luke Dachery in the Notes on Guibert de Nogent. His Commentaries on the Psalms, and on St. Paul's Epistles, and his Theological Treatise of the Trinity, are extant in Manuscript in divers Places; but we may judge by the Passages that are cited out of them, that the too great subtlety of that Man's Genius, caused him to fall into Expressions contrary to the simplicity of the Faith; a Misfortune that very frequently happens to those, who deviate from the Scripture and Tradition to Philosophise on the Mysteries of the Christian Religion. He died, A. D. 1154.  
The Letter but now mentioned, is directed to Matthew Abbot of St. Florin, who had consulted 
Gillebert de la Porree ' s Letter.  him to know what ought to be done, in reference to a certain Priest, who through inadvertency had performed the Consecration, when there was no Wine in the Chalice, and having perceived his mistake, made a new Consecration of the Bread and Wine. He returns for Answer, that 'twas requisite that that Priest should forbear saying Mass for some time, and that he should do Penance for his Transgression. For the rest, that he had done ill, in making a new Consecration of the Bread and Wine, because the Body of Jesus Christ is altogether entire under each Species, and in regard that his Body and Blood was under the Species of Bread, altho' no Wine were consecrated: And that therefore the Communion might have been administered with the consecrated Bread; as Children receive it under the single Species of Wine, and sick Persons under that of the Bread. This Letter is very remarkable.   

CHAP. IX.  
An Account of the Lives and Letters of the Popes who possessed the See of Rome from Eugenius III. to the end of the Century.  
ANASTASIUS iv was a Citizen of Rome, and was called Conrade before his promotion to the Papal Dignity. He was at first Abbot of St. Anastasius, in the Diocese of 
Anastasius IU.  Velitri, afterwards Cardinal Bishop of St. Sabina, and succeeded Pope Eugenius July 10. A. D. 1153. He possessed the See of Rome only during one Year four Months and some Days, and died December 4. 1154.  
He had for his Successor ADRIAN IU. an English-Man by Nation, who was named Nicolas Breakspear before he attained to that Station, and was Cardinal Bishop of Albano. Eugenius 
Adrian IU.  III. sent him in quality of a Missionary into Norway, where he converted a great number of Infidels. He was generally reputed to be a Man of a gentle and liberal Disposition. In the beginning of his Popedom, Arnold of Brescia and his followers excited some troubles in Rome, and wounded Cardinal Gerard. Whereupon the Pope having suspended the City from Divine Service till the Romans had expelled him and his Adherents, so that the latter were forced to make their escape by flight and retired to Otricoli in Toscany, where they were favourably received by the People; who looked upon Arnold as a Prophet, but he was apprehended soon after, and notwithstanding the opposition made by the Viscounts of Campania, who had rescued him, he was delivered up to the Perfect or Governor of Rome, who caused him to be burnt at a Stake, and his Ashes to be thrown into the River Tiber, lest the People should honour him as a Saint. This Pope pronounced an Anathema against William King of Sicily, who had refused to receive his Letters, because he did not give him the Title of King, and who had seized on some Territories belonging to St. Peter's Patrimony. Then his Holiness went as far as Sutri to meet Frederic, who was arrived in Italy, accompanied him to Rome, and set the imperial Diadem on his Head. A little while after, he made Peace with William King of Sicily, and granted him the Royal Style of King of both Sicily's. In writing to the Emperor Frederick about the Affair of the Bishop of London, he incurred the displeasure of that Prince, by insinuating that the Empire was a Donation received by him from the Holy See; insomuch, that the Pope was obliged to explain himself in a second Letter, and to say, that he meant only with respect to his Coronation and Consecration. However this did not fail to set them at variance, and their Quarrel was inflamed, because his Holiness refused to confirm a certain Person, whom the Emperor had nominated to be Archbishop of Ravenna. 'Tis also reported that the Pope designed to excommunicate the Emperor if he had lived longer, but he died of a Quinsy in the City of Anagnia, September 1. A. D. 1159. But his Body was translated to Rome, and interred in St. Peter's Church.  
After the solemnisation of his Funeral Obsequies, 23 Cardinals met together, and chose at the end of three Days, Roland Cardinal Priest, with the Title of St. Mark, and Chancellor 
Alexander III.  of the Church of Rome, who was named ALEXANDER III. But there were three Cardinals, viz. Octavian, John of St. Martin and Guy of Crema, who undertook to carry on another Election, and Octavian having obtained the Suffrages of the two others, assumed the Quality of Pope, and the Name of Victor III. Afterwards he caused himself to be Clothed in the Pontifical Habit; took possession of St. Peter's Church by force, and set a Guard of Senators over Alexander and his Cardinals, who were confined in the Fort during nine Days. The latter was removed to a Castle on the other side of the Tiber, and after having been shut up therein three Days, the People began to raise a Mutiny, insomuch, that he was conducted with divers Bishops and Cardinals across the City, to a Place called Nero's Victory, and there Consecrated. The Emperor Frederick was then in Italy besieging Cremona, and the two Competitors having made application to him to get their Interest maintained, he ordered them both to repair to Pavia, to take their Trial in a Council. Alexander not thinking fit to go thither, retired to Anagnia; and the Emperor in the mean while caused the Parties to be summoned to the Council which he had convened: The former refused to appear, but Octavian presented himself according to Order. Then the Emperor after having informed the Bishops, that the Right of calling Councils belonged to Princes, referred the Decision of that Quarrel to their Judgement. The Council was composed of fifty Archbishops and Bishops, and of a great number of Abbots. Victor, who was present there without an Adversary, carried the Cause without any difficulty, upon making Proof, that he was first invested with the Pontifical Mantle; put in possession of the Holy See; and acknowledged by the Clergy. Thus his Election, notwithstanding its irregularity, was confirmed by the Council, and that of Alexander declared null: The next Day, the latter and his Adherents were solemnly excommunicated. We have still in our possession the Acts of that Council, held, A. D. 1160. with the Synodical Letter of the Fathers assembled therein, that of the Emperor, that of the Bishop of Bamberg, and that of the Canons of St. Peter at Rome, concerning the Election of Victor, and the Judgement passed in his favour. They accuse the Cardinals, who chose Alexander, of having met together even in Pope Adrian's Life-time, to substitute Roland in his room, and of having carried on the last Election in a tumultuous manner. Alexander being informed of what was transacted against him in the Assembly of Pavia, excommunicated the Emperor Frederick.  
The other Princes of Europe were ready to do more Justice to Pope Alexander; for Henry II. King of England and Philip II. King of France, being persuaded by their Prelates of the equity 
The Declaration of the Kings of England and France, in favour of Alexander.  of their Cause, favoured him under Hand; but not to do any thing rashly in an Affair of that importance, they called Assemblies of the Prelates of their respective Kingdoms, viz. the former at Newmarket in England, and the other at Beauvais in France. It was agreed in those Conventions that Alexander's Right was most preferable; but the Princes before they openly declared their Sentiments, solicited Frederick to own him as Pope, and to abandon Octavian. But perceiving him to be altogether inflexible to authorise their Declaration to the best advantage, they called a general Assembly of the Prelates and Noblemen of their Kingdoms, in which the Legates of the two Competitors were also present, in order to take a full cognizance of the Cause, and afterwards to declare for him, who should be acknowledged as lawful Pope in that Assembly, for hitherto out of respect to the Emperor they did not think fit publicly to espouse Alexander's Cause, altho' they were well informed of the validity of his Right. The matter being debated for some time in the Council, it evidently appeared, from the Relation of the Cardinals, the Testimony of many Witnesses, and even the Confession of those of Victor's Party, That the latter seized on the See of Rome by force; was Clothed in the Pontifical Vestments by Laymen, without any Canonical Form; was excommunicated before his Consecration; and was chosen by three excommunicated Persons: On the other side, That Alexander was elected by all the other Cardinals; that he might have been immediately invested with the Pontifical Ornaments, if he had not at first refused to accept of them through Humility; that he afterwards assumed them in a solemn manner; and received Consecration from the Hands of those, who had a right to administer it. It was also made appear, That the Emperor declared for Octavian, a long time before the meeting of the Assembly of Pavia; that that Convention was not composed of 153 Bishops, as his Imperial Majesty gave it out, but only of 44; that the Prelates had taken a Resolution to suspend their Judgement, and not to own either of the two Competitors as Pope, till a general Synod were called, consisting of the Prelates of divers Kingdoms, or till they knew which of them was approved by the sound part of the Church; that they agreed to give the same Advice to the Emperor; but that he could not be induced to follow it; and that on the contrary, he had compelled the Bishops, to confirm him whom he had already received; except 24, among whom was the Bishop of Pavia, in whose City, that Assembly was held: Therefore the Prelates of England and France, being well satisfied with these Reasons, acknowledged Alexander as lawful Pope, at the same time Excommunicating Octavian with his Adherents, and the two Kings in like manner followed the Judgement of the Council.  
The Emperor being informed of the Transactions in France, held a second Assembly at Lodi; in which assisted Pilgrin Archbishop of Aquileia, Guy elect Archbishop of Ravenna, divers Bishops, a great number of Abbots and some Noblemen. He caused the Election of Octavian to be confirmed therein, and several Letters of Excuse were read, that (as it was given out) were sent by the Kings of Denmark, Norway, Hungaria and Bohemia, as also by six Archbishops, twenty Bishops, and many Abbots, as well of the Order of Clairvaux as of other Congregations, and in which they acknowledged Octavian as Pope: Hubert Archbishop of Milan, the Consuls of that City, and the Bishops of Placentia, Brescia, Bononia and some others were excommunicated in that Council, which was held in the Month of June, A. D. 1161. and continued during some Days.  
In the mean while Alexander took Sanctuary in the Dominions of William King of Sicily, 
Alexander III. passes over into France.  because the Emperor Frederick was Master of a great part of Italy, and waited for a favourable Opportunity to pass over from thence into France, where the distressed Popes always met with a Place of Refuge, during the Persecutions that were raised against them. At last he found means to set out to Sea, and arrived in France on the Festival of Easter, A. D. 1162. where he was received by the Kings of France and England, who went to meet him as far as Torcy sur Loire, alighted in his presence, and conducted him on the Road, each of them holding the Reins of his Horse's Bridle. Frederick perceiving that Alexander retired to a place of safety, and was owned by all the Christians of Europe, except the Germans and some Italians, caused a Proposal to be made to the King of France, that there should be an Interview between them at Avignon, or in some other Frontier-Town; that he would bring Victor along with him, and that the King should in like manner cause Alexander to appear there; that the Election of both should be thoroughly examined in an Assembly composed of the Prelates of Germany, France and Italy, and that all Parties should entirely submit to their final Decision. His Design was to cause both Competitors to be rejected, and to procure the Election of a third Person. However, the King of France approved his Proposal, and went 
A Conference at Avignon.  to the Place appointed, but Alexander being more mistrustful than that Prince, refused to accompany him, and contented himself only to send some Cardinals thither to maintain his Right. The Emperor was highly offended, that the King had not brought Alexander, and forasmuch as he was the stronger 'twas much to be feared lest he should him him in on every side, and take him Prisoner, if the King of England had not speedily caused his Troops to march on purpose to rescue him. This unexpected Recruit having broken Frederick's Measures, he caused another Proposal to be made to the King, viz. that he should come to meet him with the Prelates of his Kingdom, to receive the Sentence that should be pronounced by the Prelates of the Empire, as to the Contest between the Competitors to the Popedom; affirming, That they only had a right to judge of the validity of the Election of a Pope: The King replied, That his Prelates and Clergy being the Sheep of the Pope of Rome, 'twas their Interest to take cognizance of the Person, who was to be their supreme Pastor. Whereupon the intercourse was discontinued, and the King retired with his Forces.  
Pope Alexander arrived at Paris, A. D. 1163. and at his departure from that City, held a 
A Council held as Tours, by Alexander III.  Council at Tours, where he renewed the Anathema's published against Octavian and Frederick. The Antipope Octavian died the next year at Lucca on the Festival of Easter, and his followers substituted in his room, Guy of Crema, who took the Name of Paschal III. The Death of Octavian weakened his Party, and the Italians wearied with the Emperor's tyrannical Government, began to incline towards Alexander's side; besides that Conrade chosen Archbishop of Mentz, and many other Bishops of Germany, declared in his favour. Therefore Alexander 
Alexander III. returns to Rome.  taking the advantage of so favourable a Conjuncture returned to Italy, and made his public Entry into the City of Rome in the Month of November, 1165. after having resided three Years in France. He was joyfully received by the People: But on the other side, Frederick used his utmost endeavours to maintain Paschal the Antipope, and to that purpose called an Assembly at Wurtzburg, A. D. 1166. in which he himself took an Oath, and caused the like Oath to 
An Assemb at Wurtz burg in, 1166.  be given to the most part of the Lords and Prelates of the Assembly, that they would not acknowledge any other Pope but Paschal, and that they would cause all those who depended on them, to submit to his Authority. The Deputies of the King of England, who was at variance with Pope Alexander, by reason of the Contests he had with Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, took the same Oath.  
Afterwards Frederick appeared at the Head of an Army, and passed into Italy to put Paschal in possession of the Papal See: He entered Lombardy, besieged Ancona, and the next Year encamped near Rome; then he defeated the Romans in Battle; took part of the City; seized on St. Peter's Church, and would have made himself Master of the whole City, if a Distemper, that raged in his Army had not obliged him speedily to retire to Lombardy. Alexander being thus delivered form so imminent a danger, had recourse to his thundering Bulls, and pronounced a Sentence of Deposition against Frederick in a Council held at Lateran, A. D. 1168. The Italians animated by that Sentence, revolted against the Emperor, submitted to Alexander, and expelled the Schismatical Bishops. Frederick having attacked the Milanese Troops, lost Twenty thousand Men, and was forced to shut himself up in Pavia, but not believing himself to be safe there, in regard that the whole Country of Lombardy had declared against him, he at last found means to escape into Germany, not without much difficulty. In the mean while Paschal continued in possession of St. Peter's Church, and Alexander resided at Benevento: The latter returned from thence in the end of the Year 1169. and received the City of Frascati under his Protection: Whereupon the Romans were incensed against him, and only promised to give him admittance into Rome, as their Sovereign, on condition that he should cause the Walls of Frascati to be demolished. He did it accordingly; but the Romans not having kept their word, he caused that Place to be fortified again, left a Garrison therein, retired to Anagnia: and from thence passed to Benevento, where he received in 1170. the Proposal made to him by Manuel Comnenus Emperor of the East, to reunite the Greek Church to the Latin, and to own the supreme Authority of the See of Rome, on condition that he should Crown him Emperor of the West. The Pope commended his Design about the Reunion of the two Churches, and promised to contribute, as far as 'twas possible towards the carrying it on; but as for the demand of the Empire, he answered, That the matter appeared to him to be too difficult, and that it did not lie in his Power to grant what he desired.  
Some time after, Paschal the Antipope died at Rome, and those of his Party chose for Pope, John Abbot of Struma: Although Frederick had owned his Authority, yet he did not forbear to send the Bishop of Bamberg to Alexander to negotiate a Treaty of Peace with him. That Prelate had a Conference with Alexander in Campania, and told him that his Master did not design any longer to act contrary to his Interest, but forasmuch as he refused to declare plainly, that he would acknowledge him as lawful Pope, or to promise Obedience to him, they parted without concluding any thing. Although Alexander's Affairs prospered every day more and more; nevertheless the Romans could not be induced to receive him into their City, and he usually resided either at Frascati or in Campania.  
Frederick carried on a War in Italy, A. D. 1175. but not being successful in his Erterprises, he renewed the Negotiations of Peace; so that the Pope sent Legates to treat with him about it, but they were not able to come to any Agreement. The next Year Frederick's Army was entirely defeated by the Milanese Forces, insomuch that he was constrained to send Ambassadors to Alexander to conclude a Treaty of Peace: The Conditions were proposed and were at last ratified in 1177. at Venice, where the Emperor and the Pope had an Interview: The former abandoned the Party of Octavian, Guy and John of Struma, and promised Obedience to Alexander, who took off the Excommunication denounced against Frederick, and readmitted him to the Communion of the Church of Rome. Some Authors relate divers fabulous Circumstances concerning this Reconciliation, and amongst others, that the Pope made an escape to Venice in a Disguise; that he was forced to implore the assistance of the Doge; that the Emperor sent his Son Otho with a Fleet to oblige the Venetians to deliver up the Pope into his Hands; that they defeated him and took him Prisoner; that the same Son agreed upon certain Articles of Peace with the Pope; that Frederick came in Person to confirm the Treaty; that he prostrated himself before all the People, at the Feet of the Pope, who set his Foot on his Neck, pronouncing these Words; It is written, thou shalt tread upon the Basilisk, and trample under Foot the Lion and the Dragon; that Frederick answered, I do not obey you but Peter; and that Alexander replied, both me and Peter. All these particulars are so many Fables, the Falsehood of which is proved by Alexander's Letters, and by the Testimony of the Historians of that time. 'Tis worth the while to observe, after what manner Alexander speaks upon occasion of that Peace in his Letter.  
On the 21st Day of July (says he) by the Emperor's Order, the Son of the Marquis Albert, and his Imperial Majesty's Chamberlain, took on Oath in the presence of divers Ecclesiastical and Secular Princes of the Empire; that upon the Emperor's arrival at Venice, he should ratify by Oath, the Articles of the Peace of the Church that were already agreed upon; that he should grant Peace to William King of Sicily for fifteen Years, and a Truce for Seven, to the Lombard's. On the 24th Day of the same Month, the Emperor came to the Church of St. Nicolas, at the distance of a Mile from Venice, and having abjured the Schism, as well as all the Bishops and Germane Princes, he received Absolution with them; afterwards being arrived at Venice, he gave us the marks of his Obedience, with all manner of Humility, at the entrance of St. Mark's Church, in the presence of an innumerable Multitude of People; received from us the Blessing of Peace; gave us the right Hand; and conducted us with Devotion to the Altar. The next day, being the Festival of St. James, we went to St. Mark's Church to celebrate Mass; the Emperor came to meet us without the Church; gave us the right Hand; reconducted us when Divine Service was ended; held the Stirrup, whilst we got up on Horseback; and performed all the Devoirs and Respects due to us, that his Predecessors were wont to do. The Matters of Fact are thus related by the Pope himself in three Letters.  
The next day, the Emperor went to pay a Visit to the Pope, and on August 1. he himself took an Oath, the same thing being likewise done by the Germane Lords, to observe the Peace that was concluded. Afterwards Absolution was given to those that had taken part with the Antipopes, and who promised for the future, to obey Pope Alexander and his Successors. On September 16. the Pope held a Council of the Bishops of Italy and Germany, in which the Treaty of Peace was confirmed, and the Anathemas renewed against the Schismatics, who were not as yet returned to the Bosom of the Church, and the Emperor ratified it by public Letters. Lastly, the Emperor before he left Venice, concerted with the Pope Matters relating to the restitution of the Revenues of the Church of Rome; and set forward in his Journey to Lombardy, whilst the Pope went to Anagnia, where he arrived December 14. and from whence the next Year, he was recalled to Rome by the Clergy, Senate and People of that City. Thus an end was put to the Schism of the Church of Rome, and Alexander continued in the peaceable Possession of that See till his Death, which happened in the Month of August, A. D. 1181.  
Cardinal HUMBALD, a Native of Lucca, was chosen in his Place, and surnamed LUCIUS 
Lucius III.  III. He was expelled Rome by the Senators, and retired to Verona, where he died, November 25. A. D. 1185.  
LAMBERT Archbishop of Milan, succeeded him under the Name of URBAN III. These 
Urban III.  two Popes had several Conferences at Verona with the Emperor Frederick, about the putting of the Treaty of Peace in Execution, and the Election of the Archbishop of Trier. The latter had also some Contests with the Emperor, about certain Territories left by the Princess Mathilda to the Church of Rome; the disposal of the Estates of the Bishops after their decease, which the Emperor claimed as his Right; and the Taxes that were allotted to be paid to the Abbesses. And indeed, Matters were carried to that height, that Urban threatened to excommunicate the Emperor, and that Prince called an Assembly of the Prelates and Princes of Germany at Geinlenhusen, A. D. 1186. to maintain his Rights, in which it was determined 
An Assembly at Geinlenhusen in 1186.  to write to the Pope about that Affair. Their Letter extremely incensed his Holiness, and caused him to take a resolution to denounce a Sentence of Excommunication against the Emperor, which would have been actually put in Execution, if the Inhabitants of Verona had not entreated him not to do it in their City. Therefore he departed from thence with that design, but was prevented by Death, which happened October 17. A. D. 1187.  
The next day, ALBERT, Cardinal Priest of St. Laurence, and Chancellor of the Church of 
Gregory VIII.  Rome, was placed on that See, and bore the Name of GREGORY VIII. His Popedom did not continue during two entire Months; for he died December 16. in the same Year.  
After a vacancy of twenty days, the See of Rome was filled up by PAULINUS Cardinal of 
Clement III.  Palestrina, chosen Jan. 26. A. D. 1188. and named CLEMENT III. Under his Popedom the Christian Princes undertook a Crusade for the recovering of the Places that Saladin had taken from them in the Levant. The Emperor Frederick, Richard I. surnamed Coeur de Lion King of England and Philip II. King of France, were engaged in that Expedition. The first was drowned in 1190. as he was washing himself in a small River between Antioch and Nice, and his Son Henry succeeded him in the Imperial Dignity. Pope Clement III. died April 10. A. D. 1191.  
HYACINTHUS, Cardinal Deacon with the Title of St. Mary, was chosen in his Place, 
Celestin III.  under the Name of CELESTIN III. and after having been ordained on Holy Saturday, was placed in St. Peter's Chair on Easter-day. At that time, Henry arrived with an Army near Rome, and determined to enter the City to be Crowned Emperor. Forasmuch as the Pope put him off from time to time, the Romans sent Deputies to promise him, That if he would engage to preserve their Rights and Privileges, and to demolish the Castles that were built at Frascati, they would admit him, and would oblige the Pope to solemnize his Coronation. He accordingly consented, and took an Oath before the Pope, at the Door of St. Peter's Church, that he would maintain the Ecclesiastical Rights; restore St. Peter's Patrimony; and raze the Citadel of Frascati. Afterwards the Pope caused him to enter the Church, and actually Crowned him Emperor, and Constance his Wife, the Daughter of Roger King of Sicily, Empress. William surnamed the Good King of Sicily, the Nephew of that Princess, dying, she laid claim to the Crown; but Tancred her Bastard Brother excluded her, and got Possession of the Throne, which gave occasion to the War that Henry undertook to subdue that Kingdom. He marched into Italy with a formidable Army, A. D. 1196. and treated the Nobility of Sicily in so outrageous a manner, that his own Wife being sensibly afflicted with the Calamities of her Nation, joined with them against her Husband, and compelled him by force to grant them reasonable terms of Peace. Henry did not long survive that Reconciliation, for he died at Messina in 1197. Pope Celestin excommunicated him some time before, for detaining Prisoner, Richard King of England, whom Leopold Duke of Austria had sold to him, after having seized on that valiant Prince in his Territories, as he was returning from his Expedition to the Holy Land. Upon account of that Excommunication, the Archbishop of Messina refused to bury him in consecrated Ground, till he had consulted the Pope. Therefore he went to meet his Holiness, and requested of him three Things, viz. 1. A Licence to inter the Emperor's Body according to due Form. 2. The deliverance of Marcowald his Imperial Majesty's Chief Justice, who was besieged by the Romans. And 3. That Frederick the Son of Henry, might be Crowned King of Sicily. Celestin replied as to the first Article, That the Emperor could not be buried without the consent of the King of England, and till the Money were restored to that Prince, which he had exacted from him for his Ransom: As to the second Article, That the setting of Marcowald at Liberty depended on the Pleasure of the Romans. He granted the last Article, on condition that the Sum of a thousand Marks of Silver should be paid to him, and as many to the Cardinals; and after that the Empress had taken an Oath upon the Holy Gospels, That Frederick was begotten in lawful Wedlock of Her and Henry: As for the Succession to the Empire, it was contested between Philip the Brother of Henry deceased, and Otho the Son of the Duke of Saxony, as we shall have occasion to show hereafter. Pope Celestin did not long survive the Emperor Henry; for he fell Sick on the Festival of Christmas in the same Year, and died Jan. 8. A. D. 1198.  
It remains only for completing the History of these Popes, to give some account of their Letters.  
The Letters of Anastasius iv are few in number. In the First, he reprehends Engebaud Archbishop of Tours, for neglecting to acquaint him with the high Misdemeanours of which 
Anastasius IV's Letters.  the Bishop of Treguier is accused, and orders him incessantly to Summon that Prelate to appear in his Court; and if he find him guilty of the Crimes laid to his charge, that is to say, of having riotously wasted the Revenues of his Church; of having conferred Orders contrary to the Canonical Constitutions; and of having committed Simony and Perjury; to send him to the Holy See, to the end that he might be punished according to the severity of the Canons.  
In the Second, he writes to Hugh Archbishop of Sens and to his Suffragans, to look upon the Inhabitants of Vezelay, as under a Sentence of Excommunication, by reason of the Persecutions that they raised against Ponce Abbot of the Monastery of that place. He writes the same thing to the Count and Lords of Burgundy in the Third, which only differs from the former in the Superscription.  
By the Fourth, he order Peter Archbishop of Bourges to excommunicate the Count of Nevers and the Inhabitants of Vezelay, unless they gave Satisfaction to the Abbot and Monastery of Vezelay, within thirty days after the Monition is exhibited to them.  
He writes again on the same Subject to Lewis VII. King of France, to the Bishops of that Kingdom, and to Ponce Abbot of Vezelay, in his Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Letters.  
In the Eleventh, he confirms the Statutes of the Regular Canons of St. John at Lateran.  
In the Twelfth, he takes into his Protection, the Order of the Knights of St. John at Jerusalem, and ratifies their Privileges.  
The First of the Letters attributed to Pope Adrian iv is a Privilege granted to the King of England, to make himself Master of Ireland, referred to by Matthew Paris. But it is a 
Adrian IV's Letters.  very doubtful Piece, and there are no grounds to rely upon it.  
The Second, is the Letter that gave offence to Frederick, and in which the Pope complains, That the Bishop of London was misused in the Emperor's Dominions, as he was returning from the Holy See, and that he did not take care to revenge that Indignity. To induce him to do it, he entreats him to call to mind, with what kindness he was received at Rome the preceding Year, as also the Honour and Dignity that he had conferred upon him in setting the Imperial Crown on his Head. He declares at the same time, That he does not repent of having given him Satisfaction, and that he should be very glad to find an opportunity, to bestow on him greater Favours if it were possible.  
This Letter being delivered to Frederick, by Bernard Cardinal of St. Clement, and by Roland Cardinal Priest of St. Mark, whom the Pope had sent on purpose to bear it: That Prince at first entertained them very honourably, but at the second Audience, having read that Passage of the Letter, in which it was expressed, That the Pope had conferred on him the notable Benefit of the Crown, he fell into so great a Passion, that he could not forbear reviling the two Legates who had brought it, ordering them immediately to retire out of his Dominions. After their departure, he prohibited all his Subjects to go to Rome, and set Guards on the Frontiers to stop those who were about to travel thither. Adrian having heard this News, wrote the Third Letter to the Bishops of France and Germany, in which after having related the Matter as it happened, he entreats them to use their utmost endeavours to oblige Frederick to return to his Duty. At the same time he wrote to him in the Fourth Letter, That it was not his meaning that the Word Beneficium should be taken for a Fee, but for a good Action; that in that sense, it might well be said, That he had done him a Favour in conferring on him the Imperial Crown, because he performed an Act of Kindness in so doing; and that when he wrote, that he gave him the Imperial Crown, Giving denotes no more than that he set it upon his Head: That they who had otherwise interpreted those Terms, were spiteful Persons, that only sought for an opportunity to disturb the Peace of the Church and of the Empire: Lastly, if that Expression were offensive to him, he ought not nevertheless to have acted as he had done, nor to forbid all his Subjects in general to go to Rome, but he might have given him notice of it by his Ambassadors. He gives him to understand that he sent two other Cardinals, by the advice of Henry Duke of Bavaria, and entreats him to receive them favourably, to the end that the Business might be accommodated through the Mediation of that Duke.  
The Letter in which Frederick desires the confirmation of Guy the Son of the Count of Blandrata chosen Archbishop of Ravenna, follows the former. It is written in very respectful and submissive Terms.  
The Pope denies him that favour in the Fifth Letter, under pretence, that he was unwilling to remove Guy from the City of Rome; and in the Sixth, complains of Frederick's Letter, because he set his own Name before that of the Pope, exacted Homage and Fidelity of the Bishops; refused to admit his Legates to Audience, and hindered his Subjects from going to Rome.  
The Seventh is written to the Archbishop of Thessalonica, whom he exhorts to be reconciled with the Church of Rome, and to procure the Reunion of the Greek Church.  
The Eighth is a Confirmation of the Treaty made with William King of Sicily.  
The Fifteen following, are taken out of the fourth Tome of the Historians of France by Du-Chesne. The Ten first and the Twenty Fourth, are written in favour of Hugh, Chancellor of that Kingdom, to whom he grants an Arch-deaconry of Arras, and the Revenues of a Prebend in the Cathedral of Paris: He likewise wrote to the Bishops of Arras and Paris, and to some other Persons on the same Subject. The Three other Letters are directed to King Lewis; and in the Twenty first, he advises him to bring the Inhabitants of Veze'ay under subjection to the Abbots of that place, and to oblige them to restore what they had taken from him.  
The Twenty fifth, twenty sixth, Twenty seventh and Twenty eighth, relate in like manner to the Abbey of Vezelay.  
By the Twenty ninth, he renders the Abbey of Baune in the Diocese of Besanson, subject to the Jurisdiction of that of Clunie, as a Priory that ought to depend on it.  
The Six following, relate to the Primacy of Toledo, and the Affairs of Spain.  
The Thirty sixth, Thirty seventh, Thirty eighth, Thirty ninth and Fortieth, treat of Matters concerning the Primacy, Patriarchate and Rights of the Archbishop of Grado.  
In the Forty seventh and last, published by M. Baluzius and directed to Berenger Metropolitan of Narbonne, he confirms the Declaration made by Ermengarda Lady of the Manor of Narbonne, by which she prohibitted the Alienation of the Revenues and Estates of the Archbishop of that Province after his decease, and denounces an Anathema against those who should presume to do it.  
Father Dachery has inserted in the first Tome of his Spicilegium, a Privilege granted by Pope Adrian iv to the Monastery of Casaure.  
The First Letter of Alexander III is written to the Canons of Bononia about his Election. 
Alexander iii Letters.   
The Second to Arnulphus Bishop of Lisieux on the same Subject, and about the Assembly of Pavia.  
The Third is the Bull for the Canonization of Edward I. King of England.  
The following relate to the Affair of Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury, except the Thirty second, which is an Instruction to the Sul●●n of Iconium, who was desirous to embrace the Christian Religion.  
The Forty fifth, Forty sixth and Forty seventh, are the Letters which were written by him, concerning the Treaty of Peace, that he made at Venice, with the Emperor Frederick.  
In the Forty eighth, he recommends to a certain Indian King, commonly called Prester John, the Legate, whom he sent into his Country.  
In the Forty ninth, he returns thanks to Hugh, for a Book which he had sent to him, and entreats him to endeavour to procure the Reconciliation of the Emperor of Constantinople, with the Church of Rome.  
The Fiftieth, is the Letter for the calling of the General Council at Lateran.  
The Fifty first, is a Letter about the Opinion of Peter Lombard, who maintained, That Jesus Christ, quatenus Man, is not a Thing.  
The Fifty second, is a Confirmation of the Rights and Privileges of the Archbishop of Colen.  
The Two following, relate to the Erection of the Bishopric of Alexandria della Paglia, a City newly built in the Milanese Territory. He nominated the first Bishop, but to the end that that Nomination might not be prejudicial to the Inhabitants, he left them the liberty of proceeding to an Election for the future.  
The Fifty fifth, Fifty sixth and Fifty seventh, contain the Confirmation of the promotion of John to the Bishopric of St. Andrew in Scotland, against Hugh who was nominated by the King.  
By the Fifty eighth, directed to Casimir Duke of Poland, he ratifies certain Constitutions made by that Prince for the preservation of Church Revenues.  
The Fifty ninth, is a circular Letter directed to all the Christian Princes, in which he exhorts them to afford succours to the Christians of the Holy-Land, and renews to those that do so, the Privileges and Immunities granted by Urban and Eugenius his Predecessors, and puts their Estates, Wives and Children under the protection of the Holy See.  
The Sixtieth, is directed to all the Bishops of Christendom on the same Subject, to the end that they might publish the preceding Letter in their respective Dioceses, and induce the Princes and People to so pious an Undertaking.  
In the Three following Letters, directed to certain Prelates of England, he gives them an Account after what manner he concluded a Treaty of Peace with the Emperor at Venice.  
These are the Letters of Pope Alexander III. that are contained in the first Collection, to which three Additions have been since annexed; the first of those Additions comprehends Fifty six Letters, published by Father Sirmondus, in the end of the Works of Peter Abbot of Cells.  
In the first Eighteen, which are almost all directed to Peter Abbot of St. Remy at Rheims, he nominates him in a Commission with others to determine divers particular Affairs.  
The Nineteenth, directed to the Archbishop of Upsal in Sweden and his Suffragans, contains several Constitutions against Simony, and against the Privileges of Clergymen, taken out of the Councils and the Decretals of the Popes.  
In the Twentieth, he recommends to the Charity of the Northern Christians, Fulcus Bishop of the Estons, a People of Sweden.  
In the Twenty first, he exhorts the Northern Kings and Potentates, to perform the Duties of Christian Princes, to endeavour to procure the advancement of the Church by encountering its Enemies.  
In the Twenty second, directed to the Archbishop of Upsal and his Suffragans, he specifies the Pennances that they ought to impose for the Crimes of Incest and Uncleanness, and inveighs against two Abuses that prevailed in their Country, viz. the first, That the Priests were wont to celebrate Mass with the Lees of Wine, or with Crumbs of Bread steeped in Wine; and the second concerning clandestine Marriages, that were contracted without the Benediction of the Priest.  
The following relate to many particular Affairs of Churches or Monasteries, which he himself decides, or for the determination of which he grants a Commission to other Persons in the respective places.  
In the second Addition, are comprised 109 Letters directed to Lewis VII. King of France, or to the Prelates of his Kingdom, the greatest part of which relate to the Affairs of the Churches of France; as also some to the Contest between Alexander and Victor, and others are only recommendatory Letters or full of Compliments. They are taken out of the Collection of the Historians of France, by Du-Chesne.  
The last Addition contains 22 Letters, of which the six first are written on the Schism raised by Victor; the two following treat of the Privileges of the Canons of Challon: In the Ninth, he acquaints Henry Archbishop of Rheims, after what manner he was received in Rome: The five following were written in favour of the Church of Vezelay: In the Fifteenth, he commends Hugh Bishop of Rhodez, for establishing a general Peace in his Diocese: The Seventeenth and Eighteenth, are the Bulls for the Canonization of Edward King of England and St. Bernard: The Twentieth, Twenty fir●… and Twenty second, are Acts of Approbation of the Order of the Knights of St. James in Spain; of that of the Monks of the Abbey of St. Saviour at Messina; and of that of the Carthusians, and of their Constitutions. There are also in the Addition to the Tenth Tome of the Councils, five other Letters attributed to Alexander III. of which the four first relate to the Immunities of the Schools and Chapter of Paris, and the last to those of the Chapter of Anagnia.  
Lucius' III having possessed the See of Rome but a little while, has left us only three 
Lucius iii Letters.  Letters.  
By the First, he takes off the Excommunication of William King of Scotland and the Suspension of his Kingdom, denounced by the Archbishop of York, in Pope Alexander's Life-time, for opposing the Consecration of John, elected Bishop of St. Andrew.  
The Second Letter is directed to Henry II. King of England, in which he exhorts that Prince to permit a Tax to be raised in his Kingdom, for the Relief of the Holy-Land.  
The Third is a Decree against the Heretics of that time, in which he pronounces a perpetual Anathema against the Cathari, the Patarins, those that style themselves the Humbled or the poor People of Lions, the Passagians, the Josepins and the Arnoldists, and prohibits all sorts of Persons to profess Divinity or to Preach publicly, unless they have obtained a Licence from the Holy See, or from the Diocesan Bishop. He likewise condemns all those who presume to maintain any Doctrines or Practices different from those of the Church of Rome, concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, Baptism, the Remission of Sins, Marriage, or the other Sacraments, with their Abetters and Adherents: He ordains That Clergymen, convicted of those Errors shall be deposed, and Laics delivered up into the Hands of the Secular Judges to be punished, unless they immediately abjure them, without allowing any Pardon to Relapses: He enjoins the Archbishops and Bishops to make a Visitation every Year, either Personally or by their Arch-deacons, in order to discover such Miscreants: He exhorts the Counts, Barons, Lords and Magistrates vigorously to aid and assist the Clergymen in the Prosecution of those Heretics, under pain of Excommunication, and Privation of their Dignities: And in that Case, he grants a peculiar Jurisdi●…n to the Archbishops and Bishops, over such Persons as enjoy certain Immunities and are subject only to the Holy See, provided they be obeyed as the Pope's Delegates, notwithstanding all manner of Privileges.  
Urban III gave notice to all the Bishops, of his Election by a circular Letter, dated January 
Urban iii Letters.  11. A. D. 1186. which is the first of his Letters.  
The Second, dedicated to William King of Scotland, relates to the Contest between the Bishops of St. Andrew and Dunckell, the Trial of which was referred to the See of Rome, in the time of his Predecessor, but could not be deter●…d, till the Popedom of Urban, who entreats the King in this Letter to take the Bishop of Dunckell into his Protection, and makes the same Request in the following, to Jocelin Bishop of Glasco.  
In the Fourth, he writes to Baldwin Archbishop of Canterbury, about the building of a new Church in Honour of St. Stephen and St. Thomas.  
In the last, he approves the Foundation of a House of Hospitallers at Bononia, and ratifies their Constitutions and Privileges.  
Gregory VIII. was no sooner advanced to the Papal Dignity, but he wrote a Circular Letter 
Gregory viii Letters.  to all the Faithful, to exhort them to relieve the Holy Land. He gives a lively description of the most deplorable Calamities that befell the Christians, when the City of Jerusalem was taken by Saladin, and earnestly presses the Faithful to undertake an Expedition for the recovery of it out of the Hands of that implacable Enemy of Christianity. He grants Indulgences to those, who shall take upon them the Cross for the Holy War, and renews in their favour, the special Privileges that were allowed by his Predecessors in the like Case.  
In the Second Letter, he ordains, That to deprecate the Wrath of God, the Faithful should be obliged to fast during five Years, on all Fridays from Advent to Christmas, and that they should abstain from Flesh on Wednesdays and Saturdays.  
By a Third Letter, he confirms the Orders that his Predecessors had given to all the Ecclesiastical Judges to determine the Lawsuits of private Persons.  
The Five first Letters of Clement III. relate to the Contest that arose between John and Hugh 
Clement iii Letters.  about the Bishopric of St. Andrew in Scotland.  
In the Sixth, he confirms the Rights and Immunities of the Church of that Kingdom.  
The Seventh, is the Act for the Canonization of Otto Bishop of Bamberg.  
The First Letter of Celestin III is directed to the Prelates of England, whom he order to 
Celestin iii Letters.  excommunicate all those, who shall refuse to obey William Bishop of Ely Legate of the Holy See and Regent of the Kingdom in the absence of King Richard, who was engaged in the Expedition to the Holy Land.  
By the Second, he takes off the Excommunication denounced by Geoffrey Archbishop of York, against Hugh Bishop of Durham.  
The Third is the Act for the Canonization of St. Ubald Bishop of Eugubio.  
The Fourth, is an elegant Exhortation to induce the Christian Princes to make Peace, that they may be in a Condition to regain the Holy Land.  
In the Fifth, directed to the Bishop of Lincoln, he gives him a Commission to take cognizance of the Misdemeanours and Crimes of which the Archbishop of York was accused.  
The Sixth, sent to the Dean and archdeacon of the Church of Lincoln, is written on the same Subject.  
In the Seventh, he constitutes Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury, his Legate in England; and in the Eighth, orders the Bishops of England to acknowledge and obey him in that Quality.  
The Ninth, is a Fragment of a Letter directed to the Archbishop of Sens, in which he declares null the Divorce that Philip King of France had made with Queen Batilda, the Daughter of the King of Denmark, under pretence of nearness of Kin, and enjoins him to re-take her.  
In the Tenth, he entreats Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury, to levy Recruits to be sent into the Holy Land to King Richard.  
The Three following Letters are written about the Disorders caused in the Church of York by the Archbishop: He commits the Care and Reformation of that Church to Simon Dean of the Chapter; and forasmuch as the Archbishop had appealed to the Holy See, before the Bishop of Lincoln exhibited an Information against him, he allows him time to come to Rome till the Festival of St. Martin; but in case he do not then appear, he order the Bishop of Lincoln to proceed against him, and in the mean while suspends him from the Government of his Province.  
In the Fourteenth, he order Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury, to oblige those who had taken upon them the Cross for the Expedition to the Holy Land, to set forward on their Journey, at least, unless they were prevented by a lawful Impediment.  
This Letter is followed by that of Philip Bishop of Beauvais, written to Pope Celestin; in which that Prelate complains, That the King of England enter▪ d the Territories of Beauvaisis with his Forces in a hostile manner, and took him Prisoner. The Pope returned an Answer in the following Letter, That he had no reason to make a Complaint of the Misfortune that befell him, since he presumed to take up Arms contrary to the Duty of his Profession; besides, that the Conduct of the King of England ought not to be blamed, in regard that the King of France had unjustly taken from him divers Towns, contrary to the solemn Promise that he had made to that Prince not to commit any Hostilities against him, till his return to his Dominions: That instead of performing that Promise, he determined to take the advantage of his Confinement: And that the King of England being at last set at Liberty, had good reason to oppose the Erterprises of the King of France.  
In the Sixteenth, he enjoins the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Lincoln, and the Abbot of St. Edmund, to re-establish in one of the Churches of England, the Monks that were turned out under colour of the Pope's Bull got by surprise, upon a false Exhibition.  
In the last, directed to William King of Scotland, he confirms the Rights and Privileges of the Churches of that Kingdom.   

CHAP. X.  
A Relation of the several Contests that Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury had with Henry II. King of England.  
THOMAS BECKET was a Native of the City of London, the Capital of England: His Father was named Gilbert and his Mother Matilda. Gilbert, in his Youth, took 
The Life of Thomas Becket, before he was Archbishop of Canterbury.  upon him the Cross for the Holy War, but upon his arrival at Jerusalem, he was taken Prisoner and made a Slave by the Saracens. During his Imprisonment, he found means to obtain the favour of the Admiral's Daughter, in whose House he was confined, and she conceived so great an Affection for him, that Gilbert having at last made his Escape, she travelled to London on purpose to meet him; was baptised there, and afterwards married to Gilbert, by whom she had our Thomas, who was born A. D. 1119. Before his Birth, Gilbert returned to the Holy Land, where he continued three Years and a half, having left his Wife in England: This Gentlewoman took great care of the Education of her Son, who in the very first blooming of his Youth, showed the marks of what might be expected from him in a riper Age. He began his Studies at London, and after having lost both his Father and Mother, completed them at Paris. Upon his return to England, he was employed in the management of Affairs, and put himself into the Service of Theobald Archbishop of Canterbury. At that time, Henry Bishop of Winchester, Brother to King Stephen, was Legate in England, who abused his Quality and Authority, treating the other Bishops, and even his Metropolitan, with intolerable Arrogancy. Thomas advised Theobald to shake off the Yoke, and was sent by him to Pope Celestin II. to obtain a Revocation of Henry's Commission; insomuch, that being arrived at Rome, he negotiated that Affair so successfully, that the Pope deprived Henry of his Dignity▪ and conferred it on the Archbishop of Canterbury. Thomas was no sooner returned to England, but Theobald entrusted him with the management of the Affairs of his Church, made him archdeacon of it some time after, and bestowed on him many Benefices. Afterwards King Stephen dying, and Henry II. Duke of Normandy succeeding him. Thomas was constituted Chancellor of England, A. D. 1158. and obtained the Administration of the public Affairs of the whole Kingdom.  
At last he was nominated by the King to the Archbishopric of Canterbury in 1161. after the Death of Theobald, and was ordained on Whit-sunday in the same Year. This Prelate was no 
Election of Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury.  sooner advanced to that high Station, but he vigorously applied himself to the maintaining of the Interests and Liberties of the Church. In the beginning of his Government, he found means to wrest the Ecclesiastical Revenues out of the Hands of the Noblemen who had usurped them, and persuaded the King to fill up the Episcopal Sees of Hereford and Worcester, which had been vacant for a long time. But it was difficult for him who had undertaken stiffly to maintain the Rights of the Church, to avoid falling out with his Prince about particular Interests; upon which account, he was obliged to resign the Office of Chancellor. After that step, he made a demand again, with much resolution, of the Revenues and Rights which he pretended to belong to the Church of Canterbury, and which were in the possession of the King and of the Nobility: He vehemently opposed the Outrages and Exactions, with which the great Lords were wont to oppress the People and the Clergy: He endeavoured to abolish the Custom that was introduced in England, of adjudging to Princes the Revenues of vacant Churches, and of deferring to supply those Churches with Ministers, in order to enjoy them longer; and he asserted, That Clergymen, guilty of Misdemeanours, were not under the Jurisdiction of Civil Magistrates; but that they ought to be brought before the Bishop, to be degraded and condemned to Ecclesiastical Penalties, without delivering them up to the Secular Power; nevertheless, if in process of time they committed new Crimes▪ the Temporal Justice might then apprehend them, because they were no longer to be looked upon as Clergymen.  
The obstinate defence of the last Article, chief caused Thomas to incur the King's displeasure, 
The original of the Contests between the King of England and Thomas Becket.  and gave occasion to the Quarrel: For a Canon of Bedford named Philip Brock having abused one of the King's Officers, before whom he was summoned, that Prince determined to bring him to condign Punishment. The Archbishop suspended the Canon from his Ecclesiastical Functions and Benefice for several Years, but the King not being satisfied with those proceed, required that he might be put into the Hands of the Secular Justice: Upon the Archbishop's refusal to do it, the King held an Assembly of the Bishops of his Kingdom, in the Abbey of Westminster; where he made a Remonstrance, that it was expedient for the public Benefit, that Clergymen should be tried by the Civil Magistrates and condemned to afflictive Punishments, by reason that the scandal of Degradation did not at all move those, whom the Sanctity of their Function could not restrain from the committing of Crimes. Thomas, who was at the Head of that Assembly, after having debated with the other Bishops, replied to the King, That the Bishops could not relinquish a Right, which was granted to them by Henry I. his Grandfather, and confirm▪ d by the solemn promise of King Stephen; and that they entreated his Majesty to call to Mind the Oath that he took on the Day of his Coronation, to maintain the Church in its Liberty and Rights. Whereupon the King demanded whether they were disposed to observe the Customs and Constitutions of his Kingdom 〈◊〉 Thomas replied, that they were ready to do it, provided their Rights were secured, Salvo Ordine Suo, and all the Prelates made the same Answer, except the Bishop of Chichester named Henry, who changed the last Words, and said, that he would punctually observe those Customs.  
King Henry, was extremely incensed at the restriction they put on their Promise, after he had so often pressed them to no purpose, to engage absolutely to observe the Customs of the Kingdom without any limitation, and left the Assembly, quite transported with Anger. The next Day, he sent to demand of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Grants for all the Governments that were conferred on him, whilst he was Chancellor of England, and speedily departed from London, showing evident marks of his high displeasure against the Bishops. Insomuch that their dread of his Anger and of the ill effects that it might produce, and the solicitations which that Prince caused to be made, induced many of them to yield to give satisfaction to his Majesty, and these used their utmost endeavours to bring the others to the same Temper. Thomas stood to his Resolution for a long time, but being at last overcome by the frequent and pressing entreaties of the Prelates and of his best Friends, he suffered himself to be prevailed upon; went to meet the King at Oxford, and promised to observe the Customs of the Kingdom for the future, without any manner of Restriction.  
The King to render this Declaration more Authentic, called an Assembly of the Bishops 
An Assembly at Clarendon.  and Noblemen of the Kingdom at Clarenden, A. D. 1164. in which he obliged the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Prelates to take an Oath, that they would carefully observe the Customs of the Kingdom, and at the same time, caused a verbal Process to be drawn up containing the Articles of those Customs that were to be acknowledged by the Bishops, and which were sixteen in Number. The First imports, That when any Contests arise between the Laity and Clergy, about the presentation to Benefices, they ought to be regulated in the King's Court: The Second, That the Revenues of Manors depending on the King's Demeans cannot be made over to Churches, without his Majesty's Concession: The Third, That the Clergymen acqused or impeached by the King's Officers, shall be obliged to repair to his Court, to the and that enquiry may be made, whether they ought to be tried there, or whether they ought to be sent back to the Ecclesiastical Courts of Judicature; and that being thus sent back, the King's Chief Justice, shall depute a Person to be Witness of the Proceed of that Court: That if the Clergyman be convicted, or confess his Crime, the Church cannot have a Right any longer to protect him. The fourth Article declares▪ That the Archbishops, Bishops, and the King's other Subjects cannot departed the Kingdom, without his Majesty's leave, and in case it be granted, they shall give him good assurance, that they will not act contrary to his Interest: The Fifth, That excommunicated Persons shall not be obliged to give security, for their continuing in the Country, but only to stand to the Judgement of the Church▪ when it shall be thought 〈◊〉 to grant them Absolution: The Sixth, That no other Informers or Witnesses shall be admitted against Laics, but such as are allowed by the Laws. The Seventh, That all those who hold any Lands of the King, or are of the number of his Officers, cannot be excommunicated, nor their Territories suspended from Divine Service, unless due notice be first given to the King or to his Chief Justice, to the end that that which belongs to the Jurisdiction of the King's Court, may be tried there, and that which ought to be tried in the Ecclesiastical, may be referred to it: The Eighth, That an Appeal may be brought from the Arch-deacon's Court to the Bishop's, and from the latter to that of the Archbishop, and if the Archbishop has not done Justice, application may be made to the King, to the end that the Cause may be decided in the Archbishop's Court, without liberty to enter an Appeal, unless by his Majesty's special allowance: The Ninth, That in case a Contest arise, between a Clerk and a Layman, about an Estate, which one asserts to depend on the Church and the other on a temporal Lordship, the Chief Justice shall send for twelve Assistants, to examine to what Jurisdiction it ought to be appropriated; that if they judge it to belong to the Church, the Cause shall be tried in the Ecclesiastical Court, but if they find it to belong to the Layfee, it shall be referred to the cognizance of the Lord of the Manor. The Tenth, That if any Person be cited by his archdeacon or his Bishop to answer to an Accusation, and he refuse to appear, he may be suspended, but cannot be excommunicated, till the Chief Justice of the Place has summoned him to make his appearance; and that if that Judge should neglect to do his Duty, the King shall take the matter in Hand: The Eleventh does not relate to Ecclesiastical Affairs: The Twelfth ordains, That the King shall enjoy the Revenues of the Archbishoprics, Bishoprics, Abbeys and Priories during a Vacancy; that to fill it up the King shall issue out a Congee d'Elire to the most eminent Men of the Place, who shall carry on the Election in his Chapel, with the King's Consent, and by the Advice of the Lords, who shall be convened for that purpose, and that the Person elected shall do Homage to the King before he be ordained: The Thirteenth Article imports, That the King shall cause Justice to be done to the Bishops, and the Bishops to the King: The Fourteenth, That cattle seized on for a Trespass shall not be detained by the Clergy, but put into the Custody of the Officers of the Royal Court: The Fifteenth, That Courts of Judicature shall be kept by the King's Justices: The Sixteenth, That the Sons of the Peasants shall not be ordained, but with the Consent of their Lords. These Articles were not signed by the Bishops, but were acknowledged in the Assembly, and three Copies of them were taken, viz. one for the King, the Second for the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Third for the Archbishop of York.  
The Archbishop of Canterbury being retired, his Friends and Domestics began to murmur: Some of them excused him, in regard that he could not act otherwise, by reason of so unhappy 
The Archbishop of Canterbury reputes of having signed the Articles.  a Conjuncture of Affairs, and others complained on the contrary, That all the Immunities of the Church of England were ruined by that compliance. His Cross-bearer who was more bold than the rest, presumed to make a remonstrance to that effect, and the Archbishop being persuaded that he had done ill, was affected with a sensible grief, took a resolution to do Penance, and abstained from celebrating Divine Service, till Pope Alexander III. who then resided at Sens, wrote to him not to do it any longer, and gave him Absolution for the Offence he might have committed, upon condition that he should confess it to a Priest.  
As soon as the King understood, that the Archbishop repent of what he had done, he fell into a strange Passion against him. In the mean while Thomas being informed thereof, retired 
The retreat of Thomas Becket.  to his Abbey of Alintere situated near the Seashore, and embarked twice to pass over into France; but the Wind continuing contrary, he returned to Canterbury, and presumed even to present himself before the King▪ by whom, he was very ill treated. At last that Prince despairing to bring over the Archbishop to his Interest, made application to the Pope, to compass 
Negotiations between the King and the Pope.  his Design; to which purpose, he sent the Bishop of Lisieux and the archdeacon of Poitiers to prevail with him to constitute the Archbishop of York his Legate in England, and to order Thomas and the other Prelates to observe the Customs of his Kingdom. The Pope having refused to do both, the King sent new Deputies to demand the same thing again with greater importunity, and to entreat him to confirm the Customs and Privileges of his Kingdom, by the authority of the Holy See. The Pope absolutely denied the latter request, but to amuse him, he conferred the Dignity of Legate on the Archbishop of York, nevertheless upon condition, that he should not have any jurisdiction over the Person or Archbishopric of Thomas, and without exempting the Bishops of England from the Obedience they owed to their Primate. Forasmuch as this Restriction rendered the authority of the Archbishop of York useless with respect to the King's design, which was to depose Thomas, he sent back the Letter to the Pope, with indignation.  
The Pope wrote another Letter to divert him from making any further attempts on the Rights of the Churches of his Kingdom; but that Prince instead of submitting to his Admonitions, caused the Archbishop of Canterbury to be summoned to appear in Person before his Majesty, to answer to divers Informations that were brought against him. Thomas on the other side, entreated the King not to take it ill, that he stood to the Privileges of his Dignity, which exempted him from appearing before Secular Judges. The King being much more exasperated by that excuse, gave Orders to the Bishops and Temporal Lords of his Kingdom 
An Assembly at Northampton against Thomas Becket.  to meet together in his Royal Castle at Northampton, and compelled the Archbishop of Canterbury to repair thither in quality of a Criminal rather than of a Judge. The First thing done in the Assembly, was to pronounce Sentence against him for neglecting to make a personal appearance, when he received a Summons from the King, and his Estate, Goods and Chattels were Confiscated, upon condition nevertheless, that the execution of that Sentence should depend on his Majesties pleasure. Afterwards he was conveyed into one of the Halls of the Court, where he being locked in, an Account was demanded of him of the Revenues of the vacant Bishoprics and Abbeys, that he had enjoyed for several years, when he was Chancellor. He replied, That he would take advice about the matter. Henry Bishop of Winchester said, that he remembered, that when Thomas Becket was chosen Archbishop, he had a general Discharge. Gilbert Bishop of London proposed that he should resign his Archbishopric to appease the King's Anger, and the other Prelates, except the Bishop of Winchester, were of the same Opinion. Thomas would not hearken to that proposal, but to be set at Liberty, he expressed his desire to speak with two Lords, who were with the King; when they were come, he desired that he might be allowed time till the next day, and said, that then he would make such an Answer as God should direct him. Whereupon the Assembly deputed the Bishops of London and Rochester to deliver that Message to the King; but the former said, that the Archbishop was desirous to have time, in order to look over his Papers, and to prepare to give an account to his Majesty. The King being satisfied with that Declaration, sent him word by the two Lords, with whom he desired to speak, That he was willing to grant him the time he sued for, provided that he kept his word, in giving an account of the things that were committed to his Charge. Thomas forthwith declared that he never made such a promise: However, he was permitted to departed, and that very Night he was seized with a violent fit of the Colic, which hindered him from rising the next Morning.  
The King sent two Lords of his Court to inquire whether he were Sick, and at the same time to give him a Summons. He excused himself for the present, by reason of his Indisposition, of which they were Witnesses, and promised to appear the next day. In the mean while a report was spread abroad, that if he went to the Royal Palace, he would be Assassinated or arrested, the next day several Bishops used their utmost endeavours to persuade him to make a resignation of his Archbishopric and of all his Possessions to the King, in regard that they were much afraid lest he should lose his Life if he did not submit. He did not seem to be at all concerned at their Remonstrance, but forbidden all the Bishops to assist at the Proceed that were to be carried on against him, and declared that he appealed to the Holy See. The Bishop of London protested against the Prohibition ●he then made, and retired with all the Bishops, except those of Winchester and Salisbury, who continued with Thomas Becket. However that Prelate after having Celebrated Mass went to the Palace, bearing his Crosier Staff himself. The King refused to admit him into his Presence, and retiring into a private Chamber, sent for the other Bishops, and made great complaints to them against Thomas Becket. The Bishops approved the King's Resentments, avouching that that Archbishop was a perjured Traitor, and that it was requisite to proceed against him as guilty of High Treason. However they durst not bring him to a Formal Trial, but only sent him word by Hilary Bishop of Chichester, That forasmuch as after having promised Obedience to the King, and Sworn to observe the Customs of the Kingdom, he acted contrary to his Oath, they did not take themselves to be any longer obliged to obey him, that therefore they put their Persons and Churches under the Pope's Protection, and cited him to his Tribunal.  
The King likewise sent him word by Robert Earl of Leicester, that he expected an account 
Thomas Becket's Retreat to France.  of the Things committed to his Charge. Thomas protested that he was discharged by the King's Son, when he was made Archbishop of Canterbury. Afterwards he refused to submit to the Judgement of the King, Bishops and other Lords of the Kingdom; declared that he would acknowledge no other Judge but the Pope; and cited the Bishops before him. After having made this Declaration, he went out of the Palace, the Doors of which he opened, with the Keys that were found hanging on the Wall, and was accompanied to his House by a crowd of poor People. On that very Night he took a resolution to retire, and to the end that it might be done more secretly, he feigned an inclination to lie in the Church, and made his escape, having changed his clothes and Name, but before he embarked he took some turns about the Coasts of England to avoid being apprehended: Then he passed over into Flanders, arrived at Graveline, and retired from thence to the Abbey of St. Berthin, where he discovered himself and sent Deputies to Lewis VII. King of France, to inform him of his present distress, and to entreat his Majesty to permit him to stay in his Kingdom. They were prevented by the Deputies of the King of England; but the French King did not receive them favourably, and declared on behalf of Thomas Becket even before the arrival of his Deputies. These last were kindly entertained, and the King promised all manner of Protection to the Archbishop, in his Kingdom, and said that in that Point, he only followed the Custom of the Kings his Predecessors, who by a very peculiar Privilege, were always in a capacity to afford a Sanctuary in their Dominions, to Persecuted Bishops, and to defend them against all their Enemies.  
The Deputies of the King of England, and those of the Archbishop, went to the Pope, 
The Pope's Declaration in his Favour.  who was then at Sens; The former brought over some of the Cardinals to their side, but the Pope stood for the Archbishop, nevertheless he gave Audience to the Deputies of the King of England, who pressed him to oblige the Archbishop to return to England, and entreated him to send a Legate a latere to take cognizance of that Affair; and to accommodate it, or to determine it without Appeal. The Pope refused to do any thing till the Archbishop arrived in Person; and having declared his resolution to the Deputies, they departed very much dissatisfied. A little after, Thomas Becket accompanied by the Archbishop of Trier, and the Abbot of Berthin came to Soissons, where King L●wis admitted him into his Presence, and reiterated the promises he had made to his Deputies. Afterwards he went to Sens to meet the Pope, whom he soon made sensible of the Justice of his Cause, by showing him the Articles that were drawn up at Clarendon▪ which with common consent were found contrary to the Interest and Liberty of the Church. The next day, he proffered to quit his Metropolitical Dignity, and entreated his Holiness to nominate another Person to supply his place. But the Pope would by no means allow it, ordered him to keep his Archbishopric, and recommended him to the Abbot of Pontigny, into whose Monastery he retired.  
The King of England being informed of the Pope's Answer by his Deputies, confiscated the w●ole Estate and Goods of the Archbishop of Canterbury, with those of his Relations and Friends; banished them from his Kingdom, and published new Ordinances more prejudicial to the Liberty of the Church, than the former. Thomas Becket wrote to him, as also to some Bishops of England about that Matter; but those Remonstrances proved ineffectual. However he proposed a Conference in which the Pope was to assist; but his Holiness being returned to Rome, the King sent Deputies to him, whom he caused to pass through Germany, where they assisted in the Assembly of Wurtzburg against Pope Alexander, and bound themselves by an Oath, with the Bishops of Germany, to stand for Paschal the Antipope; nevertheless they did not forbear to continue their Journey, and to meet Alexander, to whom they delivered the Letter of their Prince, who threatened to withdraw himself from his Obedience, if he did not give him satisfaction as to the affair of Thomas Becket.  
The Pope to advance a Person, whom the King thought fit to depress, constituted him Legate 
Thomas Becket ma●e Legate of the Holy See in England.  of the Holy See throughout the whole Kingdom of England, except the Province of York. Thomas being Invested with this new Dignity, thought himself obliged to sh●w the effects of it. Therefore he condemned and abolished the Customs, that were published at Clarendon; Excommunicated all those who observed 'em, or caused 'em to be observed by others; sent word to the Bishops, that they were by no means obliged to the Oath they had taken, and threatened the King of England with an Anathema. On the other side, the King to prevent him, appealed to the Holy See, by the advice of the Prelates of Normandy, and dispatched John of Oxford to Rome, to entreat the Pope to send a Legate a latere into England, to the end that they might determine or make up the Business. However, he threatened the Monks of Cisteaux to destroy all the Monasteries that they had in his Dominions, if they entertained the Archbishop any longer at Pontigny. Therefore he was forced to departed from thence and made choice of the Monastery of St. Columba in the City of Sens for the place of his abode. He Excommunicated many Persons of the Kingdom of England and some Bishops, more especially the Bishop of London his greatest Enemy.  
In the mean while John of Oxford having gained the favour of part of the Court of Rome, by his Presents, assured the Pope, That the King of England, would no longer in●ist upon the 
John of Oxford's Negotiation at Rome.  Customs that he caused to be received in the Assembly of Clarendon, and procured William Cardinal Bishop of Pavia, to be nominated Legate, to determine the Affair of the Archbishop of Canterbury; but in regard, that he might be surprised, by reason of the intimate Correspondence that there was between him and the King of England, the Pope appointed Cardinal Otho to be his Colleague. He also gave Absolution in particular to John of Oxford, whom Thomas Becket had Excommunicated, granted him the Deanery of Salisbury, and Suspended Thomas' Authority, till the arrival of his Legates. These advantages, which it seems, the King of England obtained at the Court of Rome▪ startled the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Friends; insomuch that Peter Lombard wrote about it to the Pope, as well as Thomas Becket, who excepted against the Judgement of the Cardinal of Pavia. These two Legates being arrived in France, informed the Archbishop of the occasion of their being sent by the Pope, and the Cardinal of Pavia told him, that he came to put an end to the Difference between him and the King of England. Thomas had prepared a very sharp Answer, but he suppressed it by the advice of William of Salisbury, and wrote to him with greater Moderation.  
The two Legates could not immediately execute their Commission, by reason that they were obliged to mediate a Peace between the Kings of England and France. The Cardinal 
The Negotiations of the Pope's Legates in England.  of Pavia openly maintained the Interest of the former, and gave occasion of complaint to the other; nay the Pope upon his solicitation, prohibited Thomas to pronounce any Sentence of Excommunication against the Person of the King of England, or of Suspension against his Dominions. At last the Legates gave notice to the Archbishop, to make his appearance on Novemb. 10th. A. D. 1168. on the Frontiers of the two Kingdoms; but he desired and obtained a delay for seven days, to get together again the Companions of his Exile. At last he appeared with a numerous retinue at guysor's, the place appointed for the Conference, and there met with the two Legates, accompanied by the Archbishop of Roven, who represented to him the inflexibility of the King of England, and the Calamities that the Church endured by the Persecution, of which he was the Cause. Afterwards they insisted upon the Grandeur and Power of that Prince, the Kindness and Respect that he always expressed for the Holy See, and the extraordinary Favours that he had Conferred on the Archbishop of Canterbury: They related with exaggeration the complaints that he made against him, accusing him of having induced the King of France and the Count of Flanders to make War with his Majesty. Lastly they exhorted the Archbishop to humble himself, and to testify his Obedience to his Sovereign, by making a voluntary submission, and by suppressing his Anger, and the fierceness of his natural Disposition.  
Thomas Becket resolutely made his defence, and cleared himself from the suspicions, that the King of England had conceived against him, and more especially, as to the particular accusation, that he had excited the War between that Prince and the King of France, who condescended so far as to give Testimony to his Innocence, by declaring upon Oath, that it was not true, that he solicited him to undertake that War. The A●ch bishop of Canterbu●y added that he was well persuaded, that a Bishop ought not to have recourse to those sorts of means; That he was ready to show to the King all manner of submission and deference, provided that the Glory of God, the Honour of the Apostolic See, the liberty of the Church, the Dignity of the Priesthood, and the Church-Revenues might receive no detriment. They proposed that he should promise the King to observe all the Customs that were in use, in the time of the Archbishops his Predecessors, or at least that he should tolerate them, and conceal his resentments: But he would not engage to do either, no not so much as to keep silence. Then they insisted that he should resign his Archbishopric, in case the King could be prevailed with, to renounce the Customs that were contested, but he likewise rejected that Proposal. Lastly the Legates asked him, whether he were willing to acknowledge them as competent Judges for the deciding of the Differences between him and the King or not. He was somewhat perplexed at this Demand; for on the one side, he was unwilling openly to disown their Authority, and on the other side, he did not look upon it as safe, that he should be tried in any other Tribunal but that of the Pope himself. Therefore he replied; That when the Goods and Chattels, of which he was deprived, were restored to him, he would readily submit to the Judgement of the Pope, or to that of any other Persons to whom he should grant a Commission to be his Judges. Thus ended this Conference, which had no effect.  
Thomas Becket gave an account of all these particular Circumstances to the Pope in a Letter, and the two Legates went to Communicate them to the King of England: Whereupon that Prince and the Prelates of his Kingdom demanded of the Legates, whether they had not received Orders from the Pope to bring Thomas Becket to his Trial, or whether they were not impower'd to do it, by virtue of their Office? They declared that they had no such Power, and that all that they could do, was only to cause the Pope's Letters to be read publicly; by which he prohibited the Archbishop of Canterbury, to Excommunicate the King, or to pass any Sentence of Suspension on his Kingdom; as also to inform him of the purport of them, with a prohibition to attempt any thing to the prejudice of that Order; and to confirm the Absolutions that were given to the Bishops, and other Excommunicated Persons, under pretence, that the Pope allowed that such Absolution should be granted them, in case they were in danger of Death, and that those Persons being constrained by the King's Orders to pass over the Sea, ran the hazard of losing their Lives. But the Pope having permitted it only upon Condition, that they should restore the Church-Revenues, and the greatest part of them not having done it, Thomas Becket wrote to the Legates, that they ought to oblige them to make restitution, if they were desirous that their Absolution should be ratified. The Pope himself likewise wrote to the same effect; but the Cardinal of Pavia eluded that Order; alleging, that he could not put it in execution without offending the King.  
In the mean while Thomas Becket made great complaints against those Proceed, and sent word to the Court of Rome at the same time, entreating the Pope to recall those two Legates, who shown too much partiality; insomuch that his Holiness not being able to withstand the importunity, of those who adhered to the Interest of that Archbishop at Rome, immediately sent for the Legates and deprived them of all manner of Authority. Cardinal Otho before his departure used his utmost endeavours to induce the King of England to do Justice to the Archbishop, whereupon his Majesty replied, that he would consent that that Prelate should return to Canterbury, and possess his Church in Peace, and that he for his part would renounce the Customs, that were not in use in the time of his Predecessors; but that he would not hear talk of doing him Justice, and those of his Party, as to the Estates they enjoyed for a long time, pretending that they had put them to a good use. The Cardinal in like manner spoke to the King much to the same effect, but all their Remonstrances served only to draw upon them the displeasure of that Prince, who complained when they came to take leave of him, that he was betrayed by the Pope and threatened to yield him Obedience no longer, if he did not take care to do him Justice with respect to the Archbishop of Canterbury.  
Afterwards, the King of France interceded at the solicitation of the Pope to accommodate 
An Interview be-between Thomas Becket and King Hen. I●. in the presence of the King of France.  that Business with the King of England, and procured an Interview, during which the Archbishop of Canterbury threw himself at King Henry's Feet, and after having implored his Clemency, declared that he would resign to him, every thing that had occasioned the differences between them, provided that the Glory of God might be indemnifyed. His Majesty received that Restriction, with a great deal of dissatisfaction, and proposed to the King of France, that he would leave Thomas in the quiet possession of the See of Canterbury, saying, That he expected to enjoyed the Rights that were enjoy by the Kings his Precedessors in the time of the Predecessors of the Archbishop; who should likewise enjoy the Immunities that his Predecessors had actually enjoyed. This proposal seemed reasonable to the Assistants, and even to the King of France; nevertheless Thomas Becket, would not accept of it, alleging, that his Predecessors had Tolerated some Abuses, which his Adversaries would fain compel him to approve against his Conscience. This refusal caused a murmuring among the Lords of both Nations, and gave no manner of satisfaction to the two Kings. The Enemies of the Archbishop accused him of Arrogancy, and even many of his Friends did not approve his Inflexibility. However the King of France soon altered his Mind, commended the constancy of that Prelate, and instead of Banishing him out of his Dominions, as it was expected, he admitted him into his Presence, suffered him to reside at Sens, and continued to assist him. King Henry sent Envoys to complain to that Prince, that he treated a Rebel so kindly, who had refused to accept of Peace upon reasonable Terms; but perceiving that the French King, was resolved not to abandon him, he solicited the Pope again by two Deputations, and prevailed with the King of Sicily, and the Estates of Italy to join their entreaties to his, against the Archbishop of Canterbury.  
However all that could be obtained of the Pope, was, that he would send two other Legates to endeavour again to procure a Reconciliation between them. Gratian the Nephew 
Other Legates sent into England and their Negotiation.  of Pope Eugenius III. and Vivian Advocate of the Church of Rome, were chosen for that purpose. The Pope delivered to them the Articles of the Agreement ready drawn up, and obliged them to take an Oath, not to go beyond the Orders he had given them. He prohibited them to receive any thing of the King of England, till the conclusion of the Treaty, and ordered them to declare to that Prince, that if he neglected to make Peace upon the Conditions prescribed by him, he would enjoin the Archbishop of Canterbury, to make use of the Authority of the Church against him. These Legates managed divers Negotiations in the Year 1169, but none of them took Effect. King Henry offered to permit Thomas Becket to return to England, and to re-establish him in his Archbishopric, and in the possession of his Estate, but would have this Condition annexed, Provided always that the Rights of the Kingdom be maintained; but the Legates refused to admit that Clause, unless this were also Inserted Provided that the Liberties of the Church be not infringed. There was also an Interview at St. Denis between the two Kings, the Legates and the Archbishop which proved ineffectual, So that the Legates returned without coming to any manner of Agreement. The King of England who was not well satisfied with these Legates, demanded others of the Pope, with much importunity, and even with Menaces. His Holiness was not of Opinion that his request ought to be denied; and even Suspended the Archbishop's Authority till the Differences were finally determined. He nominated Simon Prior of Mont Dieu and Bernard de Corila, to be his Legates, on that occasion, and gave them two Letters for King Henry, viz. one full of Exhortations and gentle Admonitions, and the other of severe Reprimands and Threats, with Orders to deliver the former at first; and in case he obstinately persisted in his Resolution, to add the second. These two Legates conducted the Archbishop to the Place appointed for the Interview, where the two Kings were Present, and admonished him to humble himself before his Sovereign: He followed their Advice, and only insisted that the Glory of God might be secured in these Terms, Ad honorem Dei. King Henry was offended at that Expression, and required, That the Archbishop should promise and bind himself by Oath, as a Priest, and a Bishop in the presence of the whole Assembly, sincerely to observe the Customs, that were followed by the Reverend Archbishops, under the Kings his Predecessors, which he had also engaged to do upon another occasion. The Archbishop promised to be faithful to him in every particular, as far as it was possible, Salvo ordine suo, and added, That for Peace sake, he would engage to observe, as far as his Dignity would allow, such Customs as were in use amongst his Reverend Predecessors. The King peremptorily insisted, That he should promise to observe the Customs of his Kingdom, without any manner of Restriction; but the Archbishop would by no means consent to it, and upon that refusal his Majesty departed out of the Assembly. The Legates having exhorted him to re-admit the Archbishop to his Favour, and to Restore him to his Church, he replied, That perhaps he might one day be prevailed upon to do the latter, but that he would take care never to make him his Confident. During a second interview between the two Princes, they presented to King Henry, the Pope's menacing Letter, but he was not at all concerned at it, and always insisted upon the Promise that the Archbishop of Canterbury had made to act conformably to the Customs of the Kingdom, which the Archbishops his Predecessors had observed before him: Thomas Becket made Answer, That he was ready to obey his Majesty, as far as it could be done, without infringing the Privileges of his Dignity, and thus this Negotiation took no more effect than the others; insomuch, that the Pope being wearied with the delays of the King of England, revoked the Suspension of the Archbishop's Authority, and left him at liberty to act as he should think fit.  
Some time after, King Henry designing to Crown his eldest Son, appointed the Archbishop of York to perform that Ceremony; but the Pope being informed of his Intention, prohibited that Archbishop and all others, under pain of Suspension, to make any attempt upon a Right that apparently belonged to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Thomas Becket likewise wrote to the Archbishop of York and to his Colleagues to notify to them the same Prohibition; whereupon the King was so extremely incensed, that he took a resolution to oblige his Subjects to take an Oath, That they would not obey the Pope, nor the Archbishop of Canterbury, and caused his Son to be actually Crowned by the Archbishop of York at Westminster, in a Church belonging to the Jurisdiction of Canterbury. The young King in like manner took an Oath, to observe the Customs of the Kingdom, that were published at Clarendon: In the mean while the Pope being pressed by the Remonstrances of the King of France, of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of William Archbishop of Sens, declared the Archbishop of York suspended from all manner of Ecclesiastical Functions, and pronounced the same Sentence against all the Bishops who assisted at that Ceremony. He sent word at the same time to Rotrou Archbishop of Roven, and to Bertrand Bishop of Nevers to meet the King of England, in order to admonish him the last time in his Name to make Peace; and in case he refused to do it, to suspend all his Dominions from Divine Service, that were situated on the hither side, or beyond the Sea. At the same time, he dispatched a smart Reprimand to the King of England, requiring him in the Name of God, and by Virtue of the Apostolic Authority, to be reconciled with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to give Peace to the Church, if he designed to avoid an Anathema, like to that which was pronounced against the Emperor Frederick; insomuch, that those urgent Threats obliged King Henry to bethink himself seriously of an Accommodation, and personally to entreat the Legates to use their utmost endeavours to procure it.  
Whereupon Thomas Becket went to meet the King, accompanied with the Archbishop of 
The King of England reconciled to Thomas Becket.  Sens; and his Majesty received him with such particular Marks of Kindness, as he never showed him since their falling out. The Archbishop demanded Justice for the Indignities put upon the Church of Canterbury, and more especially for the injury he had lately done him, by the Coronation of his Son: The King promised to give Orders that that Prince should be Crowned again, and then Thomas Becket caused Intercession to be made by the Archbishop of Sens (who began to speak,) that his Majesty would vouchsafe, to restore to him the Church of Canterbury, with all the Revenues belonging to it, and to do him Justice, as to what relates to the Coronation of the Prince his Son; he for his part, engaging at the same time, to yield to his Majesty, all the Respect, Obedience and Submission, that is due from an Archbishop to his Sovereign Prince, according to the Ordinance of God. The King accepted of those Terms, and thus the Peace was at last effectually concluded. Afterwards the Archbishop of Canterbury humbly entreated the King his Master, that he might have liberty to take leave of the King of France, to return Thanks for the many signal Favours he had received from him. He also continued some time longer in France, with a design not to pass over into England, till he had received Information, that those Persons were actually put in Possession of the Revenues of the Church of Canterbury, whom he sent thither for that purpose. In the mean while, the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of London and Salisbury, used all possible means to break off the Agreement, and further, to incense King Henry against the Archbishop. At that time, one Renulphus, who was the Minister of the Archbishop of York's Fury, made no difficulty to pillage the Revenues of the Church of Canterbury; but neither that Injury nor the Coldness with which the King then treated Thomas Becket, were sufficient to divert him from the resolution he had taken to return to England, notwithstanding the Advice of his Friends to the contrary, and the Threats of his Enemies.  
Therefore he embarked at Calais in the end of the Year 1170. and arrived at Sandwich; but 
Thomas Becket' s return to England  before his departure, he sent into England, the Letter that the Pope had directed to him and which he kept till that time. By virtue of that Letter, his Holiness suspended the Archbishop of York with the Bishops, who assisted at the Coronation of the young King, and excommunicated or suspended for divers Causes, a great part of the Prelates of the Kingdom. The publication of that Sentence extremely exasperated the Minds of the Prelates and English Nobility. The Archbishop upon his arrival, met with divers Persons who attempted to take away his Life; and he was no sooner at Canterbury, but some of the King's Officers accompanied 
New Broils  with Renulphus and three Clergymen, came (according to the Order they had received from the Archbishop of York and two other Prelates) to require him in his Majesty's Name to absolve all the Bishops who were suspended or excommunicated; alleging, That what he had done against them, was prejudicial to the King himself, ruin'd the Customs of the Kingdom, and was contrary to the Tranquillity of the State. They promised at the same time, That when the Suffragan Bishops of the Metropolitan See of Canterbury were absolved, they would readily submit to his Injunctions, as far as they could do it, without impairing the Dignity of the Crown. The Archbishop replied, That it did not lie in his power to repeal a Sentence passed by the Holy Apostolic See; but they persisted in pressing him more earnestly, and threatened that if he refused to do it, the King would revenge the Indignity on the whole Church. Thomas Becket proffered, That if the excommunicated or suspended Bishops would take an Oath in his presence, in due Form, to submit to what he should think fit to ordain, for the sake of Peace and upon account of the Respect that he bore to his Majesty, he would do all that he could in their favour. But they could by no means be persuaded to take such an Oath, without informing the King of its purport, nor to submit in such a manner to the Will and Pleasure of the Archbishop of Canterbury.  
Then the three Prelates abovementioned, went to meet the King, implored his Assistance, and represented to him, that the Archbishop of Canterbury had disturbed the Peace of the Kingdom by his Arrival, openly accusing him of Arrogancy and Tyranny. The King being highly provoked by that Discourse, said in a Passion, That he was unfortunate in meeting with none that could take Vengeance of one single Prelate, who created him more Trouble, than all his other Subjects, and endeavoured by all manner of Means to make void his Royal Authority. The letting fall of these Words, gave occasion to four of his Courtiers to form a Conspiracy 
A Conspiracy against Thomas Becket, and his Death.  against the Archbishop's Life: For they immediately set out, and being arrived in England, showed him an Order from the King, to absolve the excommunicated or suspended Bishops, and to take an Oath of Allegiance. But the Archbishop having refused it, they took up Arms, entered the Cathedral Church of Canterbury, where he was Officiating, and Assassinated him at the Altar, one of the last days of the Year, 1170. which was the 52 of his Age, and the 9th since his promotion to the Metropolitan Dignity. As soon as the News of that base Act was brought to King Henry, he expressed a great deal of Trouble for his Death, and sent Deputies to Rome to assure the Pope, That he was by no means consenting to the Fact. The Pope was transported with Grief and Indignation; but the King's Deputies having deposed upon Oath, that their Master was not at all accessary to that Murder, and that he was ready to clear himself by Oath; his Holiness contented himself only to excommunicate the Assassins' and their Accomplices, and sent the Cardinals Theodin of St. Vitalis, and Albert of St. Laurence, to receive the King's Oath, and to oblige him to give Satisfaction to the Church.  
These two Legates being arrived in Normandy, found the King altogether disposed to submit to every thing that the Church should enjoin him. He took an Oath upon the Holy Gospels, That he neither commanded nor was desirous, that the Archbishop of Canterbury should be killed, and that he was more sensible of Grief at his Death, than at that of the King his Father; but he confessed, that he had been in some Measure the cause of it, by reason of the Animosity which he so often expressed against his Person, and that therefore he was ready to undergo such Penance, as the Legates should think fit to impose on him. The two Cardinals ordered him, 1. To maintain 200 Soldiers during a whole Year, for the defence of the Holy Land. 2. To revoke all Customs and Ordinances introduced under his Reign to the prejudice of the Church, and to reform by the Pope's advice, such as were established. 3. To restore to the Church of Canterbury all its Revenues and Territories, and to make the same restitution to all others that were pillaged. 4. and lastly, To deliver Spain from the Oppression of the Infidels, in case it were required by his Holiness. They likewise privately enjoined him, Fasting, almsgiving and some other particular Penances. The King accepted of all those Conditions, with the Marks of an extraordinary Humility, and the Legates gave him Absolution at the Church-door. The young King took an Oath to observe the same things, obliging himself, that if his Father died without fulfilling his Penance, to perform, what was ordained, in his stead.  
Afterwards Thomas Becket was canonised for a Saint, A. D. 1173. and King Henry being 
The Canonization of Thomas Becket. His Letters.  attacked by his unnatural Son, who rebelled against him, implored his Assistance, going barefooted to his Tomb, as it were an humble Suppliant.  
There are still extant Six Books of the Letters of this Prelate, and of those that were written to him during his Troubles, which were collected by John of Salisbury, published by Christianus Lupus, and printed at Brussels in Quarto, A. D. 1682. with a Relation of his Life, taken out of four contemporary Authors, viz. Herbert his Clerk, William of Canterbury, the Abbot Alanus and John of Salisbury. The Life and Actions of that famous Man, sufficiently show his Character, viz. That he was resolute, of an undaunted Courage, and inflexible to the highest degree; and his Letters, that he was eloquent, had the Art of stirring up the Affections, and was endued with pious and generous Principles.   

CHAP. XI.  
An Account of the Lives and Writings of the principal Authors who flourished in the Twelfth Century.  

GEFFREY Abbot of VENDOME.  
GEFFREY was a Native of Angers descended of a noble Family, was educated by 
Geffrey Abbot of Vendome.  Garnier archdeacon of that City, and entered very Young, into the Monastery of Vendome, which was founded A. D. 1050. by Godfrey Martel Count of Angers. A little while after, he was made Abbot in 1093. being as yet only a Deacon. Ives of Chartres gave him the Benediction, and exacted of him an acknowledgement, that he should be subject to the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Chartres. However, that Abbot soon repent of what he had done, and caused himself to be freed from that engagement by the Pope; neither could his Successors be induced to renew it, because the Monastery of Vendome depended immediately on the Holy See. To discharge that Obligation to his Holiness, Geffrey took a Journey to Rome, the same Year that he was constituted Abbot, where he did Pope Urban II. a very notable piece of Service, in supplying him with means for the recovery of the Palace of Lateran, out of the Possession of Ferruchius, who kept it for Guibert the Antipope: He received the Order of Priesthood from the Hands of that Pope, who made him Cardinal of St. Prisca. Afterwards returning to France, in 1094. laden with Honour, he took upon him the Government of his Monastery of Vendome, and was employed in the Administration of the most important Affairs of the Church and State. He was invited by the Popes to divers Councils, and was chosen by Lewes the Gross King of France, to be Arbitrator of a Difference that arose between that Prince and the Count of Angers. He vigorously maintained the Interests of the See of Rome; passed over the Alps Twelve times for the Service of the Popes; was taken Thrice by his Enemies, and at last for his own part, was involved in many Lawsuits, with Bishops, Abbots and secular Lords, about the Rights and Possessions of his Monastery, which he preserved entire, and even augmented considerably. 'Tis not precisely known in what Year he died, but he was still living in the time of Pope Honorius II. A. D. 1129.  
The first Book of the Letters of this Abbot contain 31 directed to the Pope's Urban II. Paschal II. Calixtus II. and Honorius II. and to the Legates of the See of Rome. They are almost all written for the preservation of the Immunities and Possessions of his Abbey, demanding the Protection of it of the Popes, as a Right unquestionably belonging to him; in regard that all the Revenues of his Monastery by its Foundation, were an allodial Tenure of the Holy See, for which he paid a certain Duty.  
In the second Book are comprised 32 Letters directed to Ives Bishop of Chartres, and to Geffrey his Successor, in the greatest part of which he vindicates the exemption of his Monastery, avouching that it depends solely on the Holy See; that the Bishop of Chartres has no right either over their Persons or Possessions; that they are not to be looked upon as 
† Destitute of a Head.  Acephala, because they have Jesus Christ for their Head, and after him the Pope; that the Promise he made to Ives Bishop of Chartres, was extorted by surprise, and afterwards declared null by Pope Urban. Some of those Letters relate to the Contests that he had with the Monks of Marmoutier, and the Countess of Vendome. In the Nineteenth, he discusses the Question concerning the Reiteration of Extreme Unction, and concludes with Ives of Chartres, that it ought not to be reiterated, by reason that it is a Sacrament.  
The Third Book comprehends 43 Letters written to several Bishops, more especially to those of Angers and Man's: Some of them purely relate to Morality, others to the Monastical Discipline, and many others to particular Affairs. 'Tis asserted therein that a Monk accused by his Abbot, ought not to be left to his arbitrary Proceed. This Author likewise vigorously opposes the Investitures; shows that Bishops are forbidden to exact a yearly Salary, for the use of the Altars, which they grant to Monks; and lastly observes, that 'tis reasonable, that those Churches which have Possessions in the Territories of other Churches, should pay the Tithes of them to the latter.  
The Fourth Book contains fifty Letters directed to Abbots or Monks, which for the most part relate either to Morality, or to particular Affairs; among which the 47th directed to Robert d' Arbriselles has been much talked of. It is written to advertise that Abbot Founder of the Order of Fonteurault, that there was a report concerning him, about a Business, which did not tend to his Credit, and which he ought speedily to reform, if that report were really true, viz. That he conversed so familiarly with Women, that he permitted them to cohabit with him; that he kept private Correspondence with them; and that he was not ashamed even to lie with them, under pretence of mortifying himself by enduring the Stings of the Flesh, which is a new kind of unheard of Martyrdom, but very dangerous, and of a very bad Example. We have also in our possession another Letter written by Marbodus Bishop of Rennes, which passes the same Censure on Robert d' Arbrisselles. Indeed these two Letters plainly prove, that the Enemies of Robert had caused those false Reports to be spread abroad against him; but they are no proof that he was guilty of such enormities as were laid to his charge, and his Conduct is sufficiently justified, by the advantageous testimonies that are given of him by the Writers of that time, who looked upon him as a Man of great Sanctity.  
However, the Monks of Fonteurault imagined, that the better to vindicate the Memory of their Founder, it was requisite to call in question the truth of those two Monuments, and to make them pass for spurious Pieces. Father Mainferme has exhibited this Charge against them in the Name of his Colleagues, and has made it a part of the Subject of his Book called, The Buckler of the Order of Fonteurault. Amongst all the Conjectures alleged by him against Geffrey's Letter, there is only one direct, that deserves any consideration, viz. that Abaelard in one of his Letters, says that Roscelin, of whom we have made mention in the preceding Century, wrote an invective Epistle against that excellent Preacher of Jesus Christ Robert d' Arbriselles, whence Father Mainferme concludes it to be that of Geffrey, or that of Marbodus, or perhaps both; but he has mistaken Abaelard's meaning: For that Author does not say, that Roscelin composed one or two Letters under the Name of another Person, to declaim against Robert d' Arbriselles, but that he wrote a Letter against him and St. Anselm, so that this has no relation to those of Geffrey and Marbodus. As for that of Geffrey now in Question, it cannot be denied but it belongs to him; for, 1. 'Tis apparently his Style, and if it be never so little compared with the others, we shall soon be persuaded, that it was written by the same Author. 2. It is not only extant in the Manuscript of Man's, which Father Sirmond made use of; but also in Two other Manuscripts, viz. one in the Library of Christina Queen of Sweden, and the other in that of Santa Croce at Florence, which are referred to the time of Robert d' Arbriselles; Father Mabillon having also seen and cited the latter in the Relation of his Voyage to Italy.  
In the fifth Book are contained 28 Letters directed to divers particular Persons, which are full of moral Discourses and Compliments. In the Sixteenth, he asserts the necessity of making Confession of all sorts of Sins; and in the last, he maintains, that a Man, who has once assumed the Monastic Habit, and lived for some time in a Monastery, cannot return to a secular course of Life, altho' he made no express Profession nor received the Benediction.  
These Letters are followed by several Tracts about divers Ecclesiastical Affairs; the First of which is a Treatise of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in which he endeavours to prove the changing of the Bread and Wine into our Saviour's Body and Blood in the Eucharist; so that after the Consecration, nothing remains of the matter or substance of the Bread and Wine, but only the outward appearances, and that 'tis really the very same Body of Jesus Christ, that was born of the Virgin Mary, and which suffered on the Cross. He adds, That the Wicked receive it in the Sacrament, but do not receive the Effects nor Graces of it, which are only bestowed on those, who are in a state of Righteousness.  
The Second is made about the Election of Bishops and against the Investitures: He maintains in the former, that as Baptism makes a Christian, so Election and Consecration Constitute a Bishop; and as it is impossible to be a Christian without receiving Baptism, so it is likewise impossible to be a Bishop without Election and Consecration. That those two Qualifications are so absolutely necessary, that Consecration without Election, and Election without Consecration, are not sufficient to make a Bishop: That Consecration supposes a Canonical Election, and that whosoever receives it without being Canonically Chosen, is rather Cursed than Consecrated; by reason that nothing can disannul the Order of Election and Consecration established by Jesus Christ, who himself chose and consecrated his Apostles: That the Clergy supply our Saviour's Place in the Election and the Bishops in the Consecration: That all the other Christians have a right to demand a Bishop, but they cannot Elect nor Consecrate him: That upon that account, all those who aspire to Ecclesiastical Preferments, by any other means, than Canonical Election, subvert the Order of the Church: That the Church of Rome cannot dispense with that Institution, or permit it to be done otherwise; because the Pope cannot do that, which St. Peter himself had no power to do. Now Jesus Christ only empowered St. Peter to bind that which ought to be bound, and to lose that which was of necessity to be loosed, and not to lose that which ought to be bound, or to bind that which ought to be loosed; and when St. Peter was about to act otherwise, St. Paul tho' a Novice in the Faith, withstood him to the Face: Lastly, that the Church of Rome ought not to repeal the Laws established in the Holy Scripture, but to maintain them, nor to make use of the Power given by Jesus Christ, according to a capricious Humour, but according to our Saviour's Tradition.  
Afterwards he passes to the Investitures, and says, That to know the Doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, as to that Point, 'tis requisite only to peruse the first Article of the Council, held under Gregory VII. in which that Pope excommunicates and treats as Heretics all those Clergymen, who shall presume to receive the Investiture from the Hand of Laics: That that sort of Heresy is a more heinous Crime than Simony, in regard that Simony is only practised in secret, but the Investitures are always made publicly: That the Apostles forbidden Laics to assume the Power of conferring Ecclesiastical Orders, and that therefore the Investiture, which is a Sacrament or sacred Sign, by which the Bishop is distinguished from other Men, and put in possession of the Government of the Church, ought not to be received from the Hands of Laics, but from that of the Clerk, who performed the Consecration: And in fine, that Laymen, who cannot administer the Sacraments of the Church, ought not to deliver the Ring and the Pastoral Staff, which are Sacraments, such as the Salt and Water, the Chrism and the Consecrated Oils, when they are Administered by those who have a rightful Power, and with the requisite Ceremonies.  
The Third Tract is written in like manner against the Investitures, in which he repeats the same Arguments, and concludes that they are to be reputed no less Heresy, than Simony.  
He continues to handle the same Matter in the Fourth Tract, and proves that Kings cannot confer the Investiture even of spiritual Benefices, with the Ring and Staff; because it is an Ecclesiastical Ceremony, and that to speak properly they cannot bestow the Investiture of Ecclesiastical Possessions, by reason that they already belong to the Church. But he acknowledges that after a Canonical Election and Consecration, they may grant the Royal Investiture of Church Revenues, and put him that has the Title, in possession of them, affording him their Assistance and Protection, which may be done by certain outward Signs, that are not at all prejudicial to the Rights of the Church: And lastly that it is not expedient to Exccommunicate Princes upon that account, in regard that such proceed, would occasion a greater Mischief.  
In the following Tract, he lays down a Principle, which also has relation to the business of Investitures, viz. That Condescension may be sometimes allowed, and the granting of Dispensations; but 'tis requisite that it be done with a good intention for the Benefit of the Church, or in case of necessity, and not for Money or Favour; and that that which is absolutely evil, ought never to be tolerated or permitted.  
In the Sixth, he maintains three Principles, viz. That the Church ought to be Catholic, Free and Chaste: That Quatenus Catholic, it can neither be Bought nor Sold; that as it's Free it ought not to be brought into Subjection to any Secular Power; and that as 'tis Chaste, it ought not to be corrupted with Presents.  
The Seventh Tract contains certain Allegorical Explications of the Ark of the Covenant, and of the Tabernacle with reference to the Church.  
In the Eighth, he explains, what are the effects of Baptism, Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and the Eucharist. He says, That Baptism remits Sins by the Vertue-of the Holy Ghost, That in Confirmation the Holy Ghost is invoked that he would vouchsafe to take up his abode in the Habitation which he has Sanctified; that he would also Defend and Protect it: That that Sacrament is Administered by the Bishops to show, that it gives the highest Perfection: That the Extreme Unction of Sick Persons confers on them Remission of Sins; to the end that Christians may obtain Mercy both in their Life time, and at the hour of Death: And lastly, That in the Communion of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Christian Soul is Healed of all the Diseases of its Vices, re-established in a State of Everlasting Salvation, and made one Body with Jesus Christ.  
In the Ninth, he Treats of the re-iteration of the Sacraments, and says, That those are not reiterated; in which it seems, as if there were an intention to begin again that which was already done; but the same Ceremony may be reiterated when 'tis performed for a different end, and has another effect: That therefore the Holy Chrism is put on the Forehead, after having anointed the top of the Head with it; because those several Unctions produce different Effects: But that Extreme Unction cannot be reiterated by reason that it is a Sacrament.  
In the Tenth, he proves, That the Bishops ought not to exact any thing for Benedictions and Ordinations, and asserts it to be a kind of Simony in a Bishop, not only to receive Money for the Benediction of an Abbot, but also to exact of him an acknowledgement, by which he binds himself by promise to his Diocesan.  
The Eleventh is a Constitution about the manner how Monks ought to proceed in accusing others, and in defending themselves in their Chapter.  
In the Twelfth, he explains in a few words, three Virtues necessary for Pastors of the Church, viz. Justice, Discretion and Foresight.  
The Thirteenth and Fourteenth, are certain Dialogues between God, who upbraids the Sinner with his Ingratitude, and the Sinner, who acknowledges his Offences, and implores the Mercy of God.  
The Fifteenth and Sixteenth, are Prayers made by a Sinner to God, in which he humbly sues for his Mercy, and begs pardon for his Transgressions.  
These Tracts are concluded with four Hymns or Proses, viz. one directed to the Virgin Mary, and the three others on the Repentance of Mary Magdalen.  
All these Works are followed by eleven Sermons on the Nativity, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ; On the Purification and Festivals of the Virgin Mary; On Mary Magdalen, whom he confounds with the Sinner; On the penitent Thief; and on St. Benedict. These Sermons are dry and barren, containing nothing that is Eloquent; and indeed, generally speaking, all the Pieces of this Author are not written with much Elegancy or Politeness. However his Compositions are very natural, and his Explications easy and familiar. Father Sirmond caused them to be printed at Paris A. D. 1610. from two Manuscript Copies, and annexed Annotations on the Letters, which are very serviceable to make known the Persons, and to illustrate many Historical Matters of Fact that are mentioned therein.   

HILDEBERT Bishop of Man's, and afterwards Arch bishop of Tours.  
HILDEBERT Born at Lavardin in the Diocese of Man's, of Parents of mean Condition, 
Hildebert Bishop of Mans.  joined the Study of the Liberal Sciences to that of Divinity, and was chosen Bishop of Man's, A. D. 1098. His first Exercises of the Episcopal Functions were disturbed by the War that broke forth between William II. Surnamed Rufus King of England, and Helie Count of Man's, who being taken Prisoner by that Prince, the City of Man's fell into the Hands of Foulques Count of Angers. The King of England was Marching at the Head of an Army to take it, when the Bishop and Inhabitants, fearing lest the Count of Angers should make an Agreement at their Cost, Surrendered it to him, on Condition that their Count should be set at Liberty. Afterwards the Count having got together some fresh Troops, re-entered the City of Man's, and Besieged the Forts that were possessed by King William's Forces; but he was repulsed, and the King remained Master of the City. Hildebert was accused of having been concerned in that enterprise, and obliged to pass over into England to clear himself. The King enjoined him to cause the Towers of his Church to be pulled down, and Hildebert returning with that Order, found his Church laid waste by the outrages that were committed against the Clergy, by the pillaging of its Revenues and the burning of the City. But the King of England dying a little while after, A. D. 1100. Count Helie retook the City, granted a Composition to the King's Soldiers, who were in the Forts, and re-established Order and Peace in those Parts. When Hildebert saw his Native Country restored to its former Tranquillity, he undertook a Journey to Rome, and went to visit Pope Paschal II. by whom he was very kindly entertained and returned from Rome laden with Honours and Preferments. Some time after, he was apprehended at Nogent le Rotrou, where he went to bear the last Will and Testament of the Count of Rotrou, who was detained Prisoner at Mans. At last having procured his Liberty, he solemnised the Consercation of the Cathedral Church of Man's newly rebuilt, and continued to Govern his Diocese in Peace, till the Year 1125. when he was translated to the Archbishopric of Tours after the Death of Guillebert.  
Hildebert, not long after his Promotion to that Dignity, fell out with Lewis the Gross, King of France, having refused to dispose of the Benefices belonging to that Church, more especially the Deanery and Arch-Deaconry at the pleasure of his Prince, who caused the Revenues to be seized on, and prohibited him to enter his Dominions. The Person who was nominated Dean, was at variance with the Canons, who were maintained by the Court, which gave occasion to disturbances in the Church of Tours. At last these dissensions being appeased, he was restored to the King's Favour, and died, A. D. 1132, after having possessed the Episcopal See of Man's 27 Years, and the Metropolitan of Tours, six Years and as many Months.  
The Letters of this Author are the most valuable Pieces amongst his Works. They are written in a fine Epistolary Style, after a very Natural manner, and contain divers Important Points of Morality, Church-Discipline and History. We shall here produce the Extracts of those that Treat of these Matters, omitting the others which relate to mere Compliments, or to particular Affairs, such as the six first.  
Therefore we shall begin with the seventh, in which the Author determines, That a Virgin Betrothed before she was Marriageable, whose Husband died without knowing her Carnally, cannot Marry the Brother of her former Husband; because Marriage does not consist in Carnal Copulation, but in the consent of the Parties. The seventeenth is likewise written on the same Subject.  
In the Ninth, he declares, That he refused to assist at the Consecration of one who was chosen Bishop of Angers; because he was a Young Man, and not as yet in Orders, and was not Canonically Elected by the Clergy, but proclaimed in a Popular Tumult, against whose Election, the Dean, the Chanter, the Arch-Deacons, and the greatest part of the Chapter had protested. He declares the same thing to that Elected Person in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Letter, and exhorts him not to suffer himself to be Consecrated.  
By the Fourteenth, he deposes a certain Person, who had given Money, to be Ordained a Deacon.  
The Eighteenth, is a Letter directed to Paschal II. and Composed with a great deal of Art, to excuse the Canons of St. Martin at Tours, who had given offence to the Pope, by insisting too much on their Privileges.  
In the Nineteenth, he excuses himself for not being able to be present in a certain Council, by reason that his Church and City were pillaged and oppressed by the Tyranny of the Councils; alleging also, that he was obliged to pass over into England, to give an Account why he refused to demolish the Towers of his Church; and that he was ready to undertake another Voyage to Rome, which would put him out of a Capacity of defraying the Charges, that were requisite for a Journey to the Council.  
In the Twenty first, he entreats a certain Bishop of England to furnish him with St. Anselm's Disputation against the Greeks in the Council of Bari concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and returns thanks to that Prelate, in the following Letter, for sending it to him.  
In the Twenty third, he intercedes with an Abbot, in behalf of a Monk who returned to his Monastery, after he had left it, to treat him favourably.  
In the Thirtieth, he sharply reproves a Priest, who caused a Person to be put to the Rack, whom he suspected to have committed a Robbery.  
In the Thirty first, he gives excellent Instructions to a Lady who had forsaken the Vanities of the World, and in the Thirty Third, he reprehends a certain Rich Lord for his Pride and Covetousness.  
In the Thirty fourth, he declares that he refused to approve the intended Marriage of a Count with one of his Kins-women; altho' it might put an end to a War that was carried on between him and his future Father-in-Law.  
In the Thirty sixth, he represents to a Christian Virgin the advantages of a single Life, and gives her wholesome Advice, more especially relating to the Virtue of Humility.  
In the Thirty Seventh, he comforts a certain Person, who was much troubled, in regard that he was diverted from the Contemplative Life, to take upon him the Pastoral Charge, and shows, by Examples taken out of Holy Scriptures, that it is profitable to join the Active to the Contemplative Life.  
In the Thirty eighth, he acquaints the Bishop of Angouleme the Pope's Legate, with the Irregularities of the Monks of St. Euron, to the end that he might send him Word, after what manner he ought to proceed against them.  
The Thirty ninth, is a Circular Letter written to the Bishops and Priests, and in general to all Christians concerning his Imprisonment. He was sent for by the Count of Rotrou, who was then a Prisoner; and having received his Confession, with his last Will and Testament by which that Nobleman bequeathed his Estate to the Church, carried that Will to his Mother, who gave him good Entertainment. But the next day, Hildebert himself was taken Prisoner by Count Hubert Chancellor of Rotrou, who detained him, notwithstanding the entreaties of the Inhabitants of the Country and the Sentence of Excommunication published by the Bishop of Chartres, and would not release him till he paid his Ransom. He declares that such an Act is unworthy of a Bishop, and that he chose rather to lose his Life, than to redeem it with Money.  
In the Fortieth, he exhorts Ser●o Bishop of Seez to Excommunicate Hubert, who kept him in Prison.  
The Forty first contains wholesome Instructions to a Young Widow, who after having lead a disorderly Life for some time, devoted herself to God. He furnishes her with proper Remedies against Temptations.  
In the Forty second, he advertises a Bishop, that Lisiard ought not to be Excommunicated for committing Sacrilege and a Rape; since the Virgin whom he took to Wife, was only put into a Monastery, to be Instructed, and in regard that she left it to Marry him, by the Order of her Mother and Aunt.  
In the Forty fourth, he determines, that a Priest, who offered the Sacrifice of the Mass, with ordinary Bread, having no other at Hand, aught to be punished, rather upon the scandal he had given, than for the Fault, which was not great.  
In the Forty ninth, he commends the Action of a Bishop, who had hindered the removing of certain Persons out of the Church, who had taken Sanctuary therein.  
The Fifty first, is a large Confutation of a certain Person, who revived the Error of Vigilantius, and maintained, that the Invocation of Saints was unprofitable, because they do not hear our Prayers, and have no knowledge of Transactions on Earth. This Man gave it out, that Hildebert was of his mind; which obliged him not only to disown that Opinion, but also to show, by the Testimony of the Fathers, that the Saints hear our Prayers, and that they make Intercession for us with God.  
In the Fifty third, he excuses himself to Clarembaldus' Canon of Oxford, for not having sent to him sooner, the History of the Miracles which happened in that City, because they had slipped out of his Mind: He gives him to understand, That the second Memorandum, which he directed to him, contained some of the same Miracles, with different Circumstances; but nevertheless, he did not judge it expedient to alter his first Relation, yet he left him at liberty, either to correct or to suppress it according to his Discretion.  
In the Fifty fifth, he congratulates the Bishop of Clermont, for bestowing an Arch-deaconry, on one of the Subdeacons of the Church of Man's, a Person very worthy to be promoted to that Dignity, upon account of his Learning and Virtue; and declaims against the Custom that was introduced to retain Spiritual Live in a Family, as it were by right of Succession; citing divers Passages against that Abuse.  
The Fifty sixth, is a consolatory Letter to a King, upon occasion of the Death of his Son. It contains divers excellent Moral and Christian Maxims, touching the Constancy, with which Wise and Christian People ought to bear Afflictions.  
In the Fifty ninth, he dissuades a certain Count, from undertaking a Voyage to St. James of Compostella, because his Duty obliged him to continue in the Country, where his Presence was necessary.  
In the Sixtieth, he writes to the Bishop of Chartres, with reference to a Priest, who having been attacked by a Robber, knocked him on the Head with a Stone, so that he died of the Wound. His Bishop after having suspended him for seven Years from the Celebration of Divine Service; at last consulted Hildebert, to know whether he ought to restore him to his Functions. The latter declares, That it seemed to him, that a Priest who has committed Manslaughter, ought no longer to offer the Holy Sacrifice, although he did it in his own defence. He maintains with St. Ambrose, That it is not lawful for one Man to kill another, even in defending his own Life; and although it were permitted, yet it ought not to be done. He concludes, That if the like case had happened to one of his Diocesans, he would have referred the Matter to the Holy See,  
In the Sixty first, he reproves certain Monks, who refused to entertain the Bishop of Chartres at their Table: He shows, that the perfection of the Monastic Life does not consist in performing the outward Duties, but in the Practice of Humility and Charity: As for what those Monks alleged as an Excuse for their neglect, viz. That they were not able to give Entertainment to the Bishop, by reason of their Poverty; he asserts, That they ought to sell or pawn the Ornaments of their Church, to exercise Hospitality towards their Diocesan.  
In the Sixty second, he recommends to a Widow, who had devoted herself to God, the giving of Alms to the Poor.  
In the Sixty third, he commends the Countess Adela, in regard that after her Conversion, instead of undertaking a Pilgrimage to the Holy Land, she had embraced the Monastic Life.  
In the Sixty fourth, he censures the Custom of a Monastery, where both the Species of the Eucharist were not administered separately; but that of the Bread steeped in the other of the Wine. He maintains, That the sopped Bread which our Saviour gave to Judas was not the Eucharist,  
In the Sixty fifth, written by Hildebert, as well as the next, after his Translation from the Bishopric of Man's to the Archbishopric of Tours; he acquaints the Pope, That he had taken a Journey to Bretagne, where he held a Synod at Nantes, A. D. 1127. for the Reformation of the Church, chief as to what concerns incestuous Marriages, and the Succession of Relations to Ecclesiastical Preferments: That the Prince had remitted in that Synod, the Right which was claimed by the Lords to seize on the movable Goods of deceased Persons, and even his own Royal Prerogative, by virtue of which all manner of Wracks at Sea belong to his demeans: That it was also ordained, That the Bishops should publish in their Synods, and the Priests in their Churches, That those who presume to contract unlawful Marriages, for the future, shall be excommunicated; and that the Children born in such Wedlock were declared illegitimate: That the Ecclesiastical Constitutions were revived, concerning the Qualities requisite in Persons, who design to receive Orders: That it was prohibited to ordain the Sons of Priests, unless they turned Regular Canons or Monks; and that as for those who were already ordained, they were not allowed to serve their Father's Parishes in that Quality, lest they should find means to succeed them: And lastly, That very strict Prohibitions were made that Benefices should be transmitted, as it were by Succession. He entreats the Pope to confirm what they had done, more especially the Resignation that the Prince had made of his Right to the Shipwrecks. Pope Honorius II. grants him this Confirmation in the Letter which immediately follows that of which we have but now made mention.  
In the Sixty seventh, he complains to that Pope, that the King of France had confiscated the Revenues belonging to his Church, and would not suffer him to enter the Territories of his Kingdom, because he refused to dispose of the Benefices according to the pleasure of that Prince. He likewise wrote to him about the Contests that happened in the Church of Tours, between the Dean and some of the Canons, which was carried on to that height, that one of the Canons was maimed, by one of the Colleagues and by the Dean's Friends. The latter was accused of being accessary to the Fact, but he denied it, and no Proof being brought against him, he cleared himself by his own Oath, and by that of seven other Priests.  
In the Sixty eighth, he tells the Pope, that the had done what his Holiness required of him, having restored Bracerius to his Prebend, which he deserved to lose, by reason of the enormity of his Crimes, and in sending to him Radulphus Dean of St. Maurice, of whom mention is made in the preceding Letter. He justifies the Innocence of that Dean, and acquaints the Pope with the Judgement passed in his favour.  
In the Sixty ninth, he entreats the Pope to confirm a Donation, that the King of England made to the Church of Fonteurault.  
In the Seventieth, he comforts the Queen of England for her Barrenness, and gives her to understand, that she ought not to look upon it as a disgrace, but as the means of procuring her Salvation, by adopting the Poor for her Children.  
In the Seventy first, he exhorts to perseverance, a Countess, who had quitted worldly Affairs to embrace the Monastic Life.  
The Seventy fourth, is a Reprimand given to a Clergyman, who did not lead a regular Course of Life.  
In the Seventy fifth, he complains that none of his Friends undertook to maintain the Interests of his Church, in the Court of the King of France.  
In the Seventy ninth, he determines, That Nuns who live in a Monastery, ought not to go out of it alone, but accompanied with one of their Matrons: He reproves those who act otherwise on holidays; and observes, that about thirty Years were passed since he wrote a Treatise of Virginity. Lastly, he declaims against some Nuns, who dwell in private Houses, to lead a more dissolute Course of Life.  
The Eightieth, is a Letter by Marbodus Bishop of Rennes, which we shall mention in its proper place.  
The Eighty second is an excellent Letter directed to Pope Honorius, in which he expresses himself with Submission and Freedom, against the Appeals made to the See of Rome, which were so frequent in that Age. He entreats him at first not to be offended at his Letter, nor to attribute that to Presumption, which he was obliged to do by necessity, and lest the Church should be oppressed by force of Arms; the effects of which he himself knew by Experience. He adds, that he has reason to hope that his Remonstrance will not be unacceptable to him, because it is written for the sake of Justice. Afterwards he declares, That that Custom was never approved on the hither side of the Alps, and that it is not an Article grounded on the Ecclesiastical Laws that all sorts of Appeals should be received at Rome: That if that Innovation prevail, the Authority of the Popes will be disannulled, and the whole vigour of Church-Discipline will be subverted: For (says he) where is the Oppressor that does not enter an Appeal, as soon as he is threatened with an Anathema? Where is the Clerk who will not continue in his exorbitant Courses, defending himself by a declinatory Appeal? Or by what means can the Bishops inflict any Punishment for the least Act of Disobedience? An Appeal will certainly put a stop to his Censure, weaken his Constancy, baffle his Resoluteness, impose Silence upon him, and cause all manner of Crimes to go unpunished. However, Hildebert owns, that the Church on the hither side of the Alps has acknowledged some Appeals, and 'tis but reasonable that those who have lawful Grievances, should get them redressed by that means, as also that those Persons, whose Judges are their Enemies, or suspected, or who fear the Outragiousness of the People, should have the same liberty to secure themselves: But he maintains, that Appeals which are only entered on purpose to put a stop to the Course of Justice, and to procrastinate Affairs, ought not to be authorised; and therefore he entreats the Pope no longer to admit any of that Nature.  
The Eighty third Letter, which is the last of this Collection, does not belong to Hildebert, but is part of the Preface written by Ives of Chartres on his Decree. Therefore that Piece was only inserted amongst Hildebert's Letters by a Mistake.  
Father Dachery published in the Fourth Tome of his Spicilegium, Nine Letters of Hildebert, among which are Three very eloquent ones about the Imprisonment of Pope Paschal II. and afterwards the same Author set forth Fifteen others, which are annexed in the end of the Thirteenth Tome. There are some amongst these last, that relate to the Persecution which Hildebert suffered by reason of the displeasure of the King of France, and the Quarrel that arose between the Dean of Tours and his Canons. In the Ninth, he entreats the Pope not to grant the Pall to the Bishop of Dol.  
Hildebert's other Pieces, are two Hymns on our Saviour's Nativity; A Paraphrase on the Canon of the Mass in Verse; A Sermon on these Words of Isaiah, Chap. 35. Then the Eyes of the Blind shall be opened; Another on th●se Words of Jesus Christ in St. Luke, Chap. 12. Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required; A Synodical Discourse to his Curates. All these Works and Letters are extant in the Collections called Bibliotheca Patrum.  
There are also to be seen in different places, some other Works attributed to Hildebert, viz. The Life of St. Hugh Abbot of Clunie, in the Bibliotheca Cluniacensis, published by Du-Chesne; The Epitaph of Berenger, referred to by William of Malmesbury; A Letter written to Reginald the Monk, and the Preface to the Life of St. Radegonda, set forth by Father Mabillon in the First Tome of his Analecta, with the beginning of that Life, of which that Father has a Manuscript Copy in his Possession. Rosweida makes mention of the Life of St. Marry the Egyptian, in Verse by Hildebert, which (as they say) is kept in the Library of Lipsick. There are also in the Libraries, several Tracts ascribed to Hildebert, but we have lost his Treatise of Virginity. Besides these Works, Father Hommey has likewise published some in his Collection, which he attributes to Hildebert, but it is not probable, that they belong to that Author.  
The other Works of Hildebert, fall very much short of the Elegancy and Politeness of his Letters. His Poetical pieces are gross; neither has he observed the Rules of Quantity. His Sermons are written in like manner, in a weak and very mean Style. However he was a noted Prelate, who showed a great deal of Prudence, Discretion and Constancy in the Management of Affairs, during the whole Course of his Life.   

GUIBERT Abbot of Nogent.  
GUIBERT Abbot of Nogent sous Coucy, was born in a Village belonging to the Diocese of Beauvais, of a rich and noble Family. He lost his Father Eurard in his Youth, and was 
Guibert Abbot of Nogent.  brought up by his Mother, who took a particular care of his Education, but having afterwards retired to a Monastery, and being-informed, that her Son did not follow the Instructions she had given him, she obliged him to take Lodgings in the Abbey of St. German in the Diocese of Beauvais, to live under the conduct of his old Tutor, who became a Monk in that Abbey. Guibert did not continue long there, before he had an inclination to assume the Monastic Habit, and actually put that Design in execution, contrary to the Advice of his Mother and Tutor. After having turned Monk, he was afflicted with many Temptations, but at last was delivered from them, by the means of Prayer and Study, and was chosen Abbot of Nogent sous Coucy in the most remote part of the Diocese of Laon, where he died in 1124.  
A certain small Tract about Preaching, is usually prefixed to Guibert's Works, being the Preface to his Moral Commentaries on the Holy Scripture, which is full of Instructions, and very methodical. He gins with observing, that it is very dangerous for a Person obliged to Preach by the Duty of his Function, to neglect the performance of that Duty, by reason that as it is a matter of pernicious Consequence to show bad Examples; so it is a very great Offence, not to endeavour to contribute somewhat to the reclaiming of Sinners by wholesome Instructions. He adds. That Men have different Motives to abstain from Preaching; that some are induced to do it by Pride, for fear of passing for Preachers, a Quality commonly reputed contemptible in the World; others by Envy, not to communicate their Knowledge to others, and others by Disgust or Slothfulness, in regard that they do not think themselves to lie under any Obligation, because they have no cure of Souls. He maintains, that all Christians, who have attained to any Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, are obliged to Preach the Word of God, and that they ought to propose no other end of their Preaching, but God himself, who is the Subject of it: That Bishops, Abbots, Curates and all Christians in general, are not only obliged to abstain from doing Evil, and from giving bad Examples, but are also under an obligation to do all manner of Good that lies in their power, both by their Example and Doctrine. He concludes from that Principle, that the practice of Virtues and the Instruction of others ought to be joined together: Thus a Preacher ought to lead an innocent Life, and he who lives well, aught to apply himself to the Instructing of others.  
This Author advises that Preaching be preceded by Prayer, to the end that the Soul inspired with the Love of God, may ardently express the Sentiments it has of God, to inflame the Hearts of the Auditors with the same Zeal, with which it is transported itself. For (says he) a Discourse pronounced in a lukewarm and languid manner, not being agreeable even to him that pronounces it, cannot give satisfaction to the Hearers; and it would be wonderful, that a Discourse delivered by a Person who is not animated himself, should be capable of animating others. Care aught also to be taken (continues he) since the Word is spread abroad according to the effusion of the Heart, that the Discourse be not too tedious by reason of its length, and do not clog the Auditors: Therefore how fervent soever the Zeal of the Preacher may be, how copious soever his Subject, how strong soever his Memory, and how extraordinary soever his fluency of Discourse, yet he ought to have regard to the weakness of his Auditors, and to consider, that 'tis more commendable to lay down a few Truths, which will be received attentively, than to deliver an infinite number of Things, that cannot be retained; and that 'tis expedient to leave off before his Auditors be tired, to the end that when there shall be an occasion to Preach to them at another time, they may be disposed to hearken to his Doctrine. He likewise admonishes Preachers, that they ought to render their Sermons profitable both to the Ignorant and to the Learned, and to explain the Matters they handle in such a manner, as may be intelligible to all sorts of Capacities; and that it is requisite, to intermix some Sentences taken out of the Old Testament in their Discourses, because they appear new, and serve to stir up the Affections of their Auditors.  
Afterwards he treats of the Subjects that ought to be chosen by Preachers, and refers them to the Four senses of Scripture, viz. the Literal, the Allegorical, the Tropological and Anagogical. He observes, that altho' Allegories mingled in the connection of a Discourse be agreeable, and it be sometimes convenient to explain the literal sense of some Passages of Scripture; nevertheless the principal aim of a Preacher ought to be, to discover the inward disposition of the Man; that is to say, his Thoughts, Affections and Passions, and to make so natural representations of them, that every one may acknowledge therein the secret impulses of his own Mind. Furthermore, (says he) Admonitions ought not only to be given concerning the practice of Virtues, but also with reference to the connection of Vices, and the means of shunning them— Sometimes a Discourse on the Nature of Vice is no less profitable than one on Virtue: For how can a Man take delight in the beauty of Virtue, if he be not sensible of the deformity of Vice? Or how can he avoid the latter, if he have no knowledge of the former? Therefore 'tis requisite to make known both, to cause a Man to be acquainted with himself, and to represent to him the inward disposition of his Mind.  
This inward Disposition of a Man is perfectly described according to Guibert in St. Gregory's Treatises of Morality and in Cassian's Conferences, but it cannot be well learned, but by Experience and the exercises of a Spiritual Life. He would not advise those that are not accustomed to the practice of it, to venture upon new Allegories, and he gives Rules to those who have attained to perfection in spiritual Exercises, to walk safely in a Path, from whence without due circumspection they may easily go astray.  
He admonishes Preachers, to deliver their Sermons after such a manner, as it may appear that they have no other intention, but to instruct, and to promote the Salvation of their Auditors, and that they do not seek for vain Glory by their Eloquence: For nothing (says he) gives greater offence to an Auditor, than when he is persuaded that the Preacher is only induced to speak, by Ostentation or private Interest; so that a Preacher, that has such a Character, exasperates rather than instructs, and by how much the more his Discourses abound with Rhetorical Ornaments, he renders himself so much the more contemptible to his Auditors.  
Lastly, he treats of the principal Matters, that aught to serve as a Subject for Preachers, and advises them not only to represent to Sinners the everlasting Punishments that they shall undergo hereafter in the future State, but also the Troubles, Torments, Vexations and other Calamities, to which they are obnoxious in this Life. This is the Subject of the Preface, which he apparently made to serve in stead of an Apology against the Opinion of his Abbot, who was unwilling to permit him either to Preach or to Write. It is followed by ten Books of Moral Commentaries upon Genesis, written in imitation of those of St. Gregory on Job, and by Ten other Books of Commentaries of the same Nature on the Prophecies of Hosea and Amos, and on the Lamentations of Jeremiah, on which he imposed the Title of Tropologiae.  
Guilberts Treatise against the Jews is a Confutation of a certain Piece full of Blasphemies against Jesus Christ. He Discourses particularly of our Saviour's Conception in the Womb of a Virgin, and upon occasion of that Question, proceeds to Treat of Original Sin and Concupiscence. There is a remarkable Passage about Images, in which he says, That we honour the Invisible Things in the visible Signs; or rather, that we fix our wand'ring Mind on the Contemplation of spiritual Things, by looking upon Pictures, which serve as it were to admonish us of our Duty.  
In his Treatise of the reality of the Body of Jesus Christ, he debates two Questions, viz. one on the Sop that was given by him to Judas, and the other about the reality of our Saviour's Body in the Eucharist. As to the First, he determines, that Judas received the Sacrament with the other Apostles, but that the Sop which our Lord gave him, was not a Sacrament, or sacred Sign, but the Sign of his Treason. In discussing the second Question, he confutes the Opinion of those, that deny the real Presence, and who believe, that the Body of Jesus Christ is only a Figure in the Eucharist.  
The Treatise of the Praises of the Virgin Mary, contains many Encomium's on the Blessed Mother of our Lord, and the History of some Miracles wrought by her Intercession. He concludes with a Prose or Hymn in her Honour.  
In the Tract about Virginity, he does not only Treat of its Excellency, but also of the means of preserving it; of the Virtues that ought to accompany it, and of the Vices that are destructive of it.  
In the Treatise of the Pledges or Relics of the Saints, Guibert after having justified himself in the Preface, as to the Expression uttered by him that the Eucharist supplies the Place of Jesus Christ, ●he proceeds to treat of the Honour due to Saints, of their Relics, and of the Abuses committed upon that account; alleging, 1. That the Customs of Churches may be different, as to matters of Discipline, as about Fasts, the manner of Singing, etc. 2. That it is necessary to receive the Sacrament of Baptism and of the Lord's Supper; in such manner nevertheless, that one cannot be Saved without being Baptised, and yet one may attain to Salvarion without actually receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, as it appears by the Examples of some Martyrs, who never received the Communion, and of some Hermits, who received it very seldom. 3. That there are some Customs, which are not necessary for Salvation, and yet are observed in the Churches, as the Relics of Saints, and certain Things that served for their use, which we respect and honour to follow their Example, and to obtain their Protection. 4. That they only ought to be taken for Saints, who are acknowledged as such either by an ancient Tradition, or by authentic Records, and not those to whom that quality is attributed by Fancy or in some fabulous Relations. 5. He censures those who invent false Tales, and requires that the Histories of the Lives and Actions of the Saints be carefully examined, and that those only he Honoured of whose Holiness we have a certain Account, and who undoubtedly died the Death of the Righteous. 6. He distinguishes several sorts of Persons, by whom God thinks fit to work Miracles; some of them being as it were the Canals or Instruments that he makes use of in the performing of preternatural Operations, which tend to the advantage of others, and are unprofitable to themselves: God bestows special Graces on others, which they never deserved, and makes them worthy by his mere Mercy: Sometimes he affords them to the Faithful, as a recompense for their Faith and Uprightness. 7. He insists, that severe Punishments ought to be inflicted on those who Forge false Miracles. 8. He inquires who they are that ought to be Honoured as Saints; of these the Martyrs are the First, but it ought to be certainly proved, that they suffered for the Christian Faith. As for Confessors, he determines, that they only are to be respected in that Quality, who were eminent for their extraordinary Sanctity, and of whose Salvation we are morally certain: For when there are grounds to doubt of it, he would by no means have them invoked. Upon that occasion, he proposes the Example of the Church, which would not avouch that the Body of the Virgin Mary was raised from the Dead and Glorified, altho' there are many Reasons that induce us to believe it. 9 He observes, in reference to the acknowledged and avouched Saints, that there are many Errors concerning their Relics; in regard that the Body, Head and other Members of the same Saint are to be found in different Places, and every one pretends to have the true Relic. 10. He maintains, That forasmuch as the Bodies of the Saints are made of Earth, as those of other Men; it were more expedient to leave them in their Tombs, than to set them in Shrines of Gold and Silver, to carry them about; and to divide them, as it is usually done. Indeed (says he) if the Bodies of the Saints had continued in the Places where they were, according to the order of Nature, that is to say, in their Tombs; there would have been no mistake nor contest about the reality of their Relics: For that happens, only because they are taken out of their Tombs; cut in Pieces; and carried about from one place to another. 'Tis true, that Piety gave occasion to the removing of them, but Curiosity, in process of time, corrupted that which was done at first with simplicity— Let others judge as they shall think fit; for my part, I make no scruple to assert, that they have not done a thing acceptable to God or his Saints, in opening their Tombs, or in dividing their Members after such a manner; since the Heathens themselves had a respect for the Sepulchers of the Dead. St. Gregory returned for Answer to an Empress who importuned him upon the like occasion, that he durst not send her St. Peter's Head, and the Saints have often shown notable marks of their Indignation against those, who have presumed thus to dismember their Bodies. 11. He acknowledges nevertheless, that those, who honour false Relics without knowing them to be so, and supposing them to belong to some Saint, do not Sin, and that he that invokes a Person, who is no Saint, believing him to be really so may be heard of God, who knows his good Intention. Lastly, he condemns the filthy Lucre that is made of those Relics, by selling them, or by exacting Money for showing them; carrying them in Procession; exposing them, etc. These are the principal Points decided by Guibert in his first Book of the Pledges of the Saints, and they are accompanied with great variety of Examples of real and counterfeit Miracles, of true and false Saints, and of genuine a●… supposititious Relics, which are capable of affording much satisfaction and delight to the Reader.  
In the second Book, to confute those, who set a great value on certain Relics, which they asserted to belong to our Saviour, as his Teeth, Foreskin, etc. our Author treats of the Mystery 〈◊〉 which he has really left us his Body: He maintains, That Jesus Christ left no Relics of his Body, but that he has given it us entire in the Eucharist: That that Body is not divided and distributed to the Faithful by Parcels, but that it is given altogether entire under every Host: That this Sacrament is received by the Unworthy, as well as by the Worthy, altho' the former do not receive the Grace of the Sacrament: That it may perhaps be devoured by Rats and other Animals and pass through their Belly, yet nothing unworthy can befall the Body of Jesus Christ; so that the corruption and other alterations that appear to our Senses happen only to the Species, and not to the real Body of our Saviour: Lastly, That that Body is no in the Eucharist in the state of a dead or crucified Person, but in that of a living and glorified Redeemer. He 〈◊〉 another Question by the way, viz. Whether the Bread that remained in the Pyx●on the Altar, during the Consecration, unknown to the Priest, were Consecrated; He determines in the negative, and that if an Host were put under the 
† A square Past board covered with white Linen which is usually laid upon the Chalice in Popish Churches.  pall, or a Drop of Wine in the Chalice, without the knowledge of the Priest; they would not be consecrated.  
After having discoursed of the true Relic of Jesus Christ in the second Book, Guibert proceeds in the Third, to confute the false ones, which some Persons pretended to have in their possession. He gins with this fine Maxim. 'Tis requisite to approve the Devotion and Respect that People have for God and the Saints, but only as far as that Devotion does not deviate from the bounds of true Religion; otherwise it happens, that the devout Person, instead of receiving the recompense of his Action, becomes culpable by his Error: For when any thing is said of God, or a Worship is rendered to him, contrary to the testimonies of Truth, the Party sins so much the more dangerously, in regard that Pretty is made use of for a Pretence; since nothing is more pernicious, than to do Evil and at the same time to imagine it to be a good Action: For how can any Man correct a Fault, if he do not only not believe it to be an Error, but is also persuaded, that it is an action which deserves to be well rewarded? Afterwards he vigorously opposes the Opinion of the Monks of St. Medard, who boasted, that they had a Tooth of Jesus Christ, and grounds his assertions chief on this Argument, that our Saviour being raised from the Dead, all his Members and Parts ought to be reunited to his glorified Body. 'Tis true indeed, that those Monks might object, that it may reasonably be supposed, that our Saviour's first Teeth were shed, as those of other Children, and that which they had was one of those. Guibert in like manner proposes this very Objection in their Name, and eludes it, by averring, that there are many other Reasons to disprove their Argument, and that they had none to establish it. The principal that he alleges is, that 'tis not probable, that the Hair, Teeth, Foreskin and other Things that fell from the Body of the Child Jesus, were kept at that time, and that there are no grounds to believe that they were preserved by the Virgin Mary. He likewise derides the pretended Milk of the Blessed Virgin, which was kept in the Church of Laon, and in some other Places. The Monks of St. Medard having alleged divers Miracles in vindication of their Relic, Guibert replies, that that Tooth perhaps might be the Tooth of some Saint, or that those Miracles were wrought, upon account of the Faith of those Persons, who came thither to honour a Relic, which they supposed to belong to Jesus Christ.  
In the last Book that bears this Title, Of the Internal World, he Treats of Visions and of the Apparitions of Demons or Souls, and shows that the Visions of the Prophets, were Visions of Corporal Things: He acknowledges that Demons are dispered in several places, and that they are present in this Visible World. He maintains, That the Happiness of the Elect, and the punishments of the Reprobates, are not Corporeal, for the present, but Spiritual, and is of Opinion that Hell-fire, with which the Devils are Tormented, is not a Material and Corporeal Fire, but the extreme anguish they have, to see themselves deprived for ever of the blissful State, and of the Beatific Vision; as the Happiness of the Blessed Spirits consists, in the delight they take in beholding the Glory of God. Lastly, he proves that Souls are of a Spiritual Nature; That they have no Figure; That they are only capable of Spiritual Sympathies, and that Bodies cannot act on them.  
His Piece called, Gesta Dei per Francos, or an Account of the Actions that God performed by the French, is divided into Eight Books, and Dedicated to Lisiard Bishop of Soissons. It contains a large and accurate History of the first Crusade undertaken by the French, and of the Conquests they made in the Levant, and in the Holy-Land, more especially under the Conduct of Boemond Duke of Apulia, and of Godfrey of Bovillon King of Jerusalem. This Work is written in a swelling Style, some Verses being intermixed with the Prose; but the Author has every where acted as a very faithful Historian, and has ever declined to insert such Narratives, as had no other Grounds but popular Reports.  
The Life of Guibert written by himself, is not a simple Relation of what befell him, but a Work partly Moral in imitation of St. Augustin's Confessions, and partly Historical. He makes long Digressions on different Subjects, relating the History of the Abbeys of St. German, and Nogent sons Coucy, with that of the Churches of Laon, Soissons, etc. There are also divers Narrations, as a great number of Miracles, Visions and Apparitions, and of other Historical Matters of Fact that happened in his time.  
Among the Works, of St. Bernard is likewise to be found a Sermon on these words of the last Verse of the XI. Chapter of the Wisdom of Solomon. Vice shall not prevail against Wisdom; she reacheth from one end to another mightily, and sweetly doth she order all things, which is attributed to Guibert of Nogent; because he intimates in the XVI. Chapter of the first Book of his Life, that he made a Sermon on that Text.  
Besides these Works Guibert wrote a Treatise on the Sentences taken out of the Gospels, and the Books of the Prophets, of which he makes mention in the XVI. Chapter of the first Book of his Life; but this Work was not brought to Light and perhaps was never Completed. Father Oudin informs us, that he found in the Library of the Abbeys of Vauclair and Igny, certain Commentaries written by Guibert in the Prophecies of Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Zachariah, Joel, Nahum, Habbakuk and Zephaniah.  
This Author having spent much time in the Study of Grammar and Poetry, wrote in a very clear Style, and Composed indifferent good Verses. He argues with a great deal of Judgement in his Dogmatical Treatises and handles the Matters Methodically. He gives a very Natural Description of the inward Dispositions and Passions of Men, in his Treatises of Morality, but is too florid and prolix in the Historical.  
His Works were publi'shd by Father Luke Dachery, in Folio, by Billaine at Paris, A. D. 1651. He has Illustrated them with Learned Notes and large Observations, in which he refers to a great number of Ancient Monuments, and produces the History of divers Abbeys. He has likewise inserted in the same Volume to render it of a Competent largeness, the Lives of St. German, St. Simon, Count of Crepy, and St. Salberga the first Abbess of St. John at ●…on, who Founded that Monastery, A. C. 640. as also three Books of Hugh Archbishop of Roven against the Heretics of his Time, and the Continuation of Sigebere's Chronicle by Robert of Torigny Abbot of St. Michael's Mount, with a Treatise of the same Author about the Reformation of divers Abbeys, and several Lists of the Deans of the Cathedral Church of Laon, and of the Abbots of St. John and St. Martin's in the same City. Guibert's History of the Crusade was already set forth by Jacobus Bongarsius in his Collection of Historians, printed in 1611. under the same Title that Guibert imposed on his Work, viz. Gesta Dei per Francos.   

SIGEBERT A Monk of Gemblours.  
SIGEBERT a Monk of Gemblours, after having been public Professor of Divinity in the 
Sigebert Monk of Gemblours.  Monastery of St. Vincent at Mets returned to his own Convent, where he applied himself entirely to Study, and to the Composing of Books. He vigorously maintained the Interest of the Emperors Henry IU. and Henry V against the Popes, and died A. D. 1113. The following Catalogue of his Works was made by himself.  
He Composed during his abode at St. Vincent at Mets, the Life of St. Thierry Bishop, of the same City, and Founder of the Abbey, with an Encomium on that Saint in Heroic Verse. The Passion of St. Lucia in Alcaic Verse: An Answer to those, who censured the Prophecy of that Saint, in which (as it is reported) she foretold that the Persecution would cease within a little while, upon the Expulsion of Dioclesian and the Death of Maximilian: A Sermon in commendation of the same Saint, in which he relates the History of the several translations of her Body from Sicily to Corfu, and from thence to M●●s: And the Life of St. Sigebert King of France, who founded the Church and Abbey of 〈◊〉 Martin near Mets.  
Sigebert after his return to the Monastery of Gemblours, composed the following Works, viz.  
The History of the Passion of the Theb●… Martyrs in Heroic Verse, and the Life of St. Guibert Founder of the Church of Gemblours: He likewise corrected the old Relation of the Life of St. Lambert, and made a new one illustrated with Comparisons taken out of the ancient Writers, as also an Answer to a Letter that Pope Gregory VII. wrote to Herman Bishop of Mets. To these Pieces are to be added, an Apology for the Emperor Henry, against those who inveigh against Masses said by married Priests: A Letter written in the Name of the Churches of Liege and Cambray, against Paschal II's Letter, in which that Pope excites the Count of Flanders to make War with the People of those Territories: An Answer to the Inhabitants of Trier concerning the Fast of the Ember-Weeks. The Book of Ecclesiastes in Heroic Verse, according to the literal, allegorical and mythological Senses: The continuation of Eusebius' Chronicle after St. Jerome to the Year 1111. A Treatise about the Reformation of the Cycles, and another of Illustrious Personages in imitation of St. Jerom and Gennadius.  
Of all these Works there only remain in our Possession, the continuation of St. Jerom's Chronicle from A. C. 381. to 1112. The Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers: The Letter written in the Name of the Clergy of Liege and Cambray: And the Lives of St. Sigebert, St. Guibert and St. Maclou, referred to by Surius.  
This Author is very accurate in his Writing, and attained to considerable proficiency in the Study of the Liberal Sciences, and in all sorts of Humane Learning.   

HONORIUS SOLITARIUS A Scholastic Divine of the Church of Autun.  
HONORIUS, a Priest and Scholastic Divine of the Church of Autun surnamed the Solitary, flourished under the Emperor Henry V A. D. 1120. We have little account of his 
Honorius Solitarius, a Scholastic Divine of Autun.  Life, but many of his Works are still extant.  
The most considerable, is his Treatise of the Lights of the Church, or of the Ecclesiastical Writers, first published by Suffridus, and afterwards by Aubertus Miraeus in their Collections of Authors, who wrote those that treated of Ecclesiastical Affairs. Honorius has divided this Work into four Books, the Three first of which are only an Abridgement of the Treatises on the Ecclesiastical Writers by St. Jerom, Gennadius and Isidorus. He gives an account, in the last, of some Authors since Venerable Bede to his time. This Treatise contains almost nothing else but the Names and Characters of the Authors, and the Titles of their Works: It is followed by another Treatise of the same Nature, containing the Names of the ancient Heretics and their principal Doctrines Printed at Basil in 1544. To these two Treatises may be added a Chronological Table of the Popes, from St. Peter to Innocent II. which is extant among the other Works of this Author.  
The Treatise called, The Pearl of the Soul; or, Of the Divine Offices, is divided into four Books. In the First, he treats of the Sacrifice of the Mass; Of its Ceremonies and Prayers; Of the Church; Of its Parts and Ornaments; Of the Ministers of the Altar and their Habits, etc. In the Second, he discourses of the Canonical Hours, and of the Ecclesiastical Offices for the Day and Night. In the Third, of the principal Festivals of the Year; And in the Fourth, of the Concord or Agreement of the Offices of the whole Year, with the particular Days and Times on which they are celebrated. These Books are full of a great number of Arguments and mystical Explications that have no other Grounds but the Author's Imagination. They were printed at Lipsick, A. D. 1514. and in the Collections of the Writers who have treated of Ecclesiastical Offices.  
The Treatise of the Image of the World is divided into three Books: In the First of these, he treats of the World and of its Parts: In the Second, of Time and its Parts; and the Third is a Chronological Series of Emperors, Kings and other Sovereign Princes, from the Creation of the World to the Emperor Frederick Barberossa.  
The Piece that bears the Title of The Philosophy of the World, divided into four Books, is a Treatise of the System of the World, and of its principal Parts: It is followed by another Tract of the same Nature, touching the Motion of the Sun and Planets.  
The Treatise of Predestination and of freewill, is written in form of a Dialogue, and has for its Subject the Explication of that common Question, How can freewill be reconciled with the Certainty of Predestination? He defines Predestination to be an eternal preparation to Happiness, or Misery of those that have done Good or Evil: He affirms, That it imposes no necessity of doing either; because God does not predestinate to Happiness or Misery, but with respect to the Merits of the Person: He rejects the Opinion of those who assert, That freewill consists in the Power of doing Good or Evil, and defines it to be a Capacity of performing Righteousness voluntarily and without constraint: He maintains, That Man by his Nature, is endued with a Power to act according to the Rule of Righteousness, although he stands in need of Grace to do it, and is capable of resisting that Grace: He says, That God made all reasonable Creatures for his Glory, but that he left them free to do either Good or Evil by their own Will, and that he would have all Men to be saved, but that 'tis their free Will, which is the cause of their Damnation. Afterwards he explains, why God made Creatures, when he foreknew that they would sin against him, and that they would be damned: Why the Word was incarnate: Upon what account, Mankind having deserved nothing but Punishment, after the committing of Sin, God leaves some in the Mass of Perdition, who are damned by their free Will, and saves others by his special Grace, which they by no means deserved: And how Salvation ought rather to be attributed to Grace than to free Will, although free Will co-operates with Grace. He observes, That Children, that incur Damnation, are justly condemned to that Punishment; and that those who attain to Salvation, are saved by Grace, which they never merited: And as for adult Persons, that they are saved by Grace and free Will, and that those who are damned, are doomed to that Sentence by Justice, and by their free Will: That Predestination neither saves nor damns any Person by force; although all the Elect are infallibly saved, and the Reprobates infallibly damned: But forasmuch as 'tis not known, whether one be of the number of the Elect or of the Reprobates, that 'tis requisite to use all possible endeavours for the attaining to Salvation: And that the number of the Elect is certainly determined, because God from all Eternity, knew those who would die in that State. He adds, That Man since Adam's Transgression, may fall by his free Will, but that he cannot rise again but by Grace; and that God sometimes denies that Grace, to those who are too Presumptuous: That every Thing which happens in the World, aught to be referred to God; either because he does it, or because he permits it, or in regard that he does not prevent it; that he causes all things to tend to the promoting of his own Glory; that he shows Mercy on whomsoever he thinks fit, by affording them his Grace; that he hardens others at his Pleasure, by leaving them in their Wickedness and in the State of Reprobation. Lastly, after having made some Moral Reflections, our Author concludes this Work, with a Recapitulation of the Principles that he had already established.  
In the Catalogue of the Works of Honorius of Autun, no mention is made of certain Questions relating to the Books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, but they come very near his particular Style and Genius.  
His Commentary on the Canticles is preceded by a Preface, concerning the different senses of Holy Scripture, the Division of the Sacred Books, and the general Questions which relate to that Book in particular. He explains the Text of it according to the four Senses expressed in his Preface, viz. the Historical, the Allegorical, the Tropological and the Anagogical.  
This Treatise is followed by another called. The Seal of the blessed Virgin Mary; in which he applies to Jesus Christ and to the blessed Virgin, what is expressed in the Book of Canticles, concerning the Bridegroom and the Spouse.  
All these Works were collected by Andrea's Schottus and Joan. Covenius, and printed in the Twelfth Tome of the Bibliotheca Patrum of the Colen Edition, and in the Twentieth of that of Lions.  
The following Works composed by the same Author are lost, viz. An Illustration divided into three Books, the first of which treats of Jesus Christ; the second of the Church, and the third of Eternal Life. It cannot be that which is attributed to St. Ansehn, and which is extant amongst his Works, because the Subject of the three Books written by the latter, is altogether different: The Mirror of the Church consisting of Moral Discourses: A Treat see called, The Scandal raised by the Incontinency of Priests: An Historical Abridgement: A Treatise of the Eucharist: The Knowledge of Life; or a Treatise of God, and of Eternal Life: The Ladder of Heaven, or the Degrees of Vision: Some Extracts out of St. Augustin, in form of a Dialogue between God and the Soul: A Treatise of the Pope and the Emperor: A Commentary on the Books of Psalms and Canticles: Certain Homilies on those Gospels that were not explained by St. Gregory: The Key of natural Philosophy, concerning the Nature of Things: The spiritual Nutriment, about the Festivals of our Saviour and the Saints, and some Letters. Mention is made of these Works; and of those that are still extant, in the end of his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers, and in Trithemius.  
In the end of the Works of Honorius of Autun, is annexed a certain Commentary on the Canticles, that is more Moral than Mystical, and which some attribute to him; but it is not his genuine Commentary. This Author is not of good esteem, upon account of his Style or Accuracy, but for his Industry, and the Pains he has taken in making Inquiries.   

ERNULPHUS or ARNULPHUS Bishop of Rochester.  
ERNULPHUS or ARNULPHUS, a Monk of St. Lucian at Beauvais, left his Monastery 
Ernulphus or Arnulphus Bishop of Rochester.  by reason of the Disorders that happened therein, and made Application to Lanfrank Archbishop of Canterbury, under whom he had studied in the Abbey of Bec. He continued for a long time in the Quality of a simple Monk in his Monastery at Canterbury, was made Prior of it by St. Anselm, and afterwards Abbot of Burck. At last he was ordained Bishop of Rochester in 1115. and governed that Church during nine Years and some Days. He died, A. D. 1124. in the 84th Year of his Age.  
Father Dachery published two Letters written by this Prelate in the second Tome of his Spicilegium, which are two small Tracts The first is directed to Waquelin Bishop of Windsor, as an Answer to a Question, which that Bishop proposed to him in a Conference they had together at Canterbury; viz. Whether a Woman, who has committed Adultery with her Husband's Son, whom he had by another Wife, aught to be divorced from her Husband? He maintained the Affirmative, and the Bishop to whom he wrote, asserted the Negative. In this Treatise Ernulphus answers the Objections of that Prelate; showing, that all the Passages of Holy Scripture, in which 'tis forbidden to part Man and Wife, ought only to be understood of a voluntary Separation, between Persons who are not guilty of Adultery, and afterwards confirms his Opinion, by making it appear, that the Bishops, to prevent Disorders, have often condemned Adulterers, to abstain for ever from the use of Marriage; that it is the usual Custom of the Church; that this Punishment is ordained in the Penitential Books; and that a Divorce is justly allowed upon account of Spiritual Alliance, although it be not expressed in the Scripture as Adultery. He adds, that 'tis not unjust, that a Husband should be divorced from his Wife, although he be innocent of the Crime committed by her, and that there are many other Causes, for which a Husband is obliged to put away his Wife.  
The second Letter of the same Author, is directed to a certain Person named Lambert, who had proposed five Questions, although he was unknown to him. The first is to know why the Eucharist is administered at present after a different and almost contrary manner, to that which was observed by Jesus Christ; because it was customary at that time, to distribute an Host steeped in Wine to the Communicants; whereas Jesus Christ gave his Body and Blood separately? Ernulphus replies to that Question, That our Saviour, being come into the World, for the Salvation of Men, prescribed to them what was necessary to be done in order to obtain it, without expressing the manner in particular: That therefore, he did not tell them, Baptise in this or that manner; let the Baptised Person be plunged three several times in the Water; do not permit the Catechumen to be consecrated at first with Holy Chrism, etc. but only said simply, Baptise them: That by this means, the Things which are absolutely necessary may be easily known, and those that may be sometimes omitted or altered: That upon that very account, some Customs, which were in use in the Primitive Church, were not long observed: That it is certain, for Example, That the Apostles received the Communion after Supper, although it be now received Fasting: That they celebrated it on a wooden Table, although at present it is offered on a Stone-Altar; that the Bread they made use of was ordinary Bread, and that that which is now used is finer and more lose: That therefore 'tis not to be admired, if this Bread be given steeped; although there was no such Custom heretofore, that the Priest should mingle some part of the Species of Bread with the Wine: That this manner of Administration is observed, lest any ill Accidents should happen in the distribution of the Wine alone, and lest it should stick on the Hairs of the Beard or Whiskers, or should be spilt by the Minister.  
The second Question is, Why a fourth part of the Host is put into the Chalice? He answers, That it is not customary to divide the Host into four Parts, but only into three; yet that third part, which is put into the Chalice, is as large as the fourth part of the Host; although care be taken in some Churches, to make it exactly of the bigness of the third part. He affirms that this Custom was introduced, because the Priest or Bishop who Officiates, aught to communicate with that part which is put into the Chalice, and to distribute the two others to the Deacon and Sub-deacon, who are Assistants. He produces another mystical Reason of the same Custom, viz. That the Body of Jesus Christ which is offered upon the Altar, is the Sacrament or the Figure of his Mystical Body, which is the Church, composed of three Orders; that is to say, Superiors, Virgins and married Persons; or else that it is done to be a Figure of the Mystery of the Trinity, or to denote the three States of Jesus Christ, viz. the Mortal, the Dead and the Raised.  
The Third Question is, Why the Blood of Jesus Christ is received separately from his Body, and why it is received in his Body? He returns for Answer, That they who receive the two Species separately, do it in imitation of Jesus Christ; and although his Body be received entire, under each Species, nevertheless each Species is received separately, because our Saviour has distinguished those two Things; designing to express to us by his Body, his Flesh and Members, such as they appeared, solid and entire, and by his Blood, that which was shed by him on the Cross.  
The Fourth, is to know, Whether the Body of Jesus Christ be received with, or without a Soul? He answers at first, That these sorts of Questions are usually started by Persons who affect to seem learned, and who endeavour to lay Snares for the Faith of weak Christians, who humbly believe what the Holy Ghost teaches them: That 'tis most expedient not to enter upon the debate of such Questions: That although one cannot comprehend how the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; nevertheless it cannot be doubted, since our Saviour said, This is my Body, this is my Blood: That it argues Foolishness to endeavour to penetrate into the incomprehensible Secrets of the Mysteries of Christianity, and into that in particular, which is a Mystery of Faith: That it is certain, that the Substance of the Bread and Wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; although it still appear to the Senses to be Bread and Wine, and that it retains all the Qualities of them: Lastly, that as the Qualities of the Bread and Wine are to be found, although the Substance does not appear; so it may be said after the same manner, That the Qualities of the Body, are not to be found therein, although its Substance remains: And that therefore 'tis impertinent, to ask whether the Body of Jesus Christ, in the Eucharist, be dead or immortal, or whether it be endued with a Soul or not.  
The last Question is about the Sense of these Words of the Prophet Joel, Chap. 2. vers. 14. Who knoweth if God will turn and repent, and leave a Blessing behind them? He says that the turning of God consists in the remission of Sins, which he grants to those who are converted; and that when it is said, That he leaves a Blessing behind him, the meaning is, to those who follow him.   

St. BRUNO and GUIGUE, Priors of the Carthusian Monastery at Grenoble.  
ST. BRUNO, Founder of the Carthusian Order, was born in the City of Colen, and his 
St. Bruno.  Parents, tho' of mean Condition, took care that he should apply himself to study; in which he soon made a Considerable Progress, and attained to much skill both in Divinity and Humane Learning: After having officiated for some time in Quality of Canon of St. Cunebert at Colen, he was invited to Rheims, made Canon and Scholastic Divine or Prebend of that Church, and nominated public Professor of Divinity. He had some Contests with Manasses his Metropolitan, whose Irregularities he could not endure, and was one of his Accusers. Whereupon he was obliged to leave the City of Rheims, and took a resolution to retire entirely from Worldly Business. He had for his Assistants in carrying on that Design, Lauduin, two Canons of St. Rufus, both named Stephen, one of Burgos and the other of Die; Hugh whom they called their Chaplain, because he was the only Priest among them, and two Laymen named Andrew and Guarin. These seven Persons, who were excited by an earnest desire to promote their own Salvation, seeking for a place convenient to lead a solitary Life, separated from all manner of Commerce with other Men, went to Grenoble, and made Application to Hugh Bishop of that City, a Prelate of great Sanctity, who received them with all the Marks of Charity, that they could wish for, and appointed the solitude of La Chartreuse for their Habitation, where they settled, A. D. 1086. St. Bruno, who was the most able Divine among them, was chosen their first Prior; but he was sent for to Italy, in 1090. by Pope Urban II. and retired with his Permission to a solitude of Calabria, called La Torre, where he died October 6. 1101. Lauduin succeeded him in the Priory of La Grand Chartreuse, and one Peter supplied his Place; after whom John was promoted to that Dignity, whose successor was Guigue de Castre a Native of Valence in Dauphine the fifth Prior of that famous Monastery, who committed the Statues of the Order to Writing, and governed it during 27 Years, that is to say, from A. D. 1110 to 1137.  
The Works of Bruno Bishop of Segni, was commonly attributed to this St. Bruno, and among those that bear his Name, printed at Colen in 1611. and published by Theodore de Camp a Carthusian Monk of that City; there are only two Letters that really belong to St. Bruno, which were written concerning his solitude in Calabria; one of them being directed to Radulphe le Verd, Provost of the Church of Rheims, whom he exhorts to retire from the World, and the other to his Monks of La Chartreuse.  
GUIGUE in like manner composed divers Works, besides the Statutes of his Order, lately printed in the first Tome of the Annals of the Carthusian Monks, viz. the Life of St. Hugh 
Guigue Prior of La Grande Chartreuse.  Bishop of Grenoble, referred to by Surius in April 1. Certain Meditations, or rather Moral Notions, printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum: A Treatise of the Contemplative Life, or the Ladder of the Cloister; or of the four Exercises of the Monastic Cell, which are annexed to St. Bernard's Works: A Treatise of Truth and Peace, a Manuscript Copy of which is kept in the Library of the Carthusians at Colen; And divers Letters, four of which are still extant, and were set forth by Father Mabillon, in the second Tome of St. Bernard's Works.  
The First is directed to Haimeric Chancellor of the Church of Rome; in which he inveighs against the Pride and Luxury of the Clergymen of his time, especially those of the Church of Rome; and asserts, that recourse ought not to be had to Arms or to the Secular Power, to maintain the Interest of the Church, or to augment its Grandeur.  
In the Second, written to Hugh Prior of the Knight's Templars, he declares, That he does not exhort him to make War with the visible Enemies of the Church, but to oppose its invisible Enemies, and that he would advise him to subdue Vice, rather than to attack the Infidels.  
In the Third, he comforts Pope Innocent II. and exhorts him, not to be surprised at the Efforts made against him by the Schismatics; avouching at the same time, that there can be but one Pope, and that the whole World ought, in a manner, to be looked upon as his Diocese.  
In the last, he writes to the Monks of the Carthusian Convent at Durbon near Marseilles, That he had caused a Collection to be made of St. Jerom's Letters, and had corrected a great number of Faults which had crept into them; declaring also, That he retrenched from that Collection those Letters, which the meanness of the Style, or the difference of the Conceptions, made it appear to be unworthy of that great Man. He likewise makes a Catalogue of the latter, and passes a very judicious Censure upon them; which shows that Solitude and the practice of Piety, do not hinder a Man from applying himself to Study, and that the Art of Critic is not incompatible, with Morality and Spiritual Exercises.   

St. NORBERT.  
ST. NORBERT, a Native of Santen, a Village of the Country of Cleves; the Son of Herbert and Hatwiga, was educated in the Palace of Frederick Archbishop of Colen, and 
St. Norbert.  afterwards brought to the Court of the Emperor Henry V He was admitted among the Clergy, and received the Orders of a Deacon and Priest on the same day. He was made a Canon in his native Country, and enjoyed divers other Spiritual Live: But being afterwards transported with an extraordinary Zeal, he addicted himself to Preaching, with the Permission of Pope Gelasius II. and having quitted his Benefices, and distributed his whole Estate to the Poor, he embraced a more regular Life. He converted by his Preaching, many Heretics and a great number of Sinners. Upon his arrival at Laon, being entreated by Bartholomew Bishop of that City, not to leave his Diocese, he was prevailed upon, by the request of that Prelate, and chose for the place of his abode, a dismal solitude called Premontre, where he retired A. D. 1120. and there founded the Order of Regular Canons which bears that Name, and which was confirmed five Years after, by Pope Honorius II. in 1126. Some time after, St. Norbert was sent for to Antwerp to confute Tanchelin or Tanchelm, accused of Heresy, and was constrained the next Year to accept of the Archbishopric of Magdeburg. He assisted in the Council held at Rheims, A. D. 1131. in favour of Innocent II. took a Journey to Rome, when that Pope was reestablished by the Emperor Lotharius, and died in 1134. There is only extant a small moral Discourse written by him in form of an Exhortation, and directed to the Monks of his Order.   

STEPHEN HARDING Abbot of Cisteaux.  
ROBERT, Abbot of Molesme, who first founded the Monastery of Cisteaux, A. D. 1098. with 
Robert Abbot of Molesme.  21 Monks of his Abbey, whom he brought into that Solitude, had not long the Government of it; for the next Year, he was obliged by the Pope's special Order, to return to his own Monastery. Alberic, who succeeded him, and governed Cisteaux during nine Years and a half, gave no other Rule to his Monks but his Example. Afterwards STEPHEN HARDING 
Stephen Harding Abbot of Cisteaux.  descended of a noble Family in England, one of the 21 Monks who came from Molesme with Robert, being chose Abbot of Cisteaux, applied himself to the completing of that Order, and may justly be reputed the Founder of it: For he was the first that held general Chapters of the Convents of the Cistercian Monks and made a kind of Rule, which was common to all those Monasteries. He called it the Charter of Charity, and published it in 1119. It was approved by Pope Calixtus II. It is divided into Thirty Chapters, which contain the particular Rules to be observed by those Monks, and is comprised in the Monologia Ordinis Cisterciensis, printed at Antwerp in 1635. and in the Annals of the same Order, printed at Lions in 1642. There are also extant in the Bibliotheca Cisterciensis, a Treatise called, The small beginning of the Cistercian Order: A Sermon on the Death of Alberic: And a Discourse made to St. Bernard, when he received the Monastic Habit, which bear the name of that Abbot of Cisteaux.   

BRUNO Bishop of Segni.  
BRUNO of Asti, Canon of the Cathedral Church of that City, and afterwards of that 
Bruno Bishop of Segni.  of Sienna, went to Rome in the time of Pope Gregory VII. in whose presence he disputed against Berengarius, and by way of recompense, was made Bishop of Segni: He retired to Mount Cassin under Paschal II. who was offended at his retreat, and drew him out of that Monastery, to send him in Quality of his Legate into France and Sicily. He governed the Abbey of Mount Cassin for some time, but afterwards returned to his Bishopric, and died there A. D. 1123.  
The Works of this Author were published by Maurus Marchesius, a Monk of Mount Cassin, who caused them to be printed in two Tomes at Venice in 1651.  
The First contains his Commentaries on the Pentateuch, on the Books of Job, Psalms and Canticles, and on the Revelation of St. John; in which he adheres more to the Moral, than to the other Senses of the Text.  
In the Second, are comprised Forty five Sermons on the Gospels of the whole Year, the greatest part of which were printed under the Name of Eusebius of Emisa and St. Eucherius; A Treatise on the Song of Zachariah: Another of the Incarnation and Burial of Jesus Christ, in which he inquires how long our Saviour continued in the Sepulchre: A Tract to prove the use of Unleavened Bread against the Greeks: An Explication of certain Ceremonies of the Church: The Life of Pope Leo IX. A Treatise about the Corruption of the Age, proceeding (as he says) from Simoniacal Practices; in which he discourses of the Invalidity of Ordinations made by Simonists, and of those of Persons guilty of that Crime: The Life of St. Peter of Anagnia: Two Letters, viz. One directed to the Bishop of Porto, and the Other to Pope Paschal: Six Books of Sentences or Moral Discourses on divers Subjects, which some have attributed to St. Bruno Founder of the Carthusian Order, and which Marchesius restored to Bruno of Segni upon the Credit of Petrus Diaconus, by reason of the conformity of the Style, and in regard that the Author of these Discourses makes it appear, that he observed St. Benedict's Rule, and that he wrote on the Apocalypse.  
To these Works are annexed a Commentary on the Book of Psalms, by ODO a Benedictin 
Odo a Benedictin Monk of Asti.  Monk of Asti, dedicated to Bruno of Segni.  
The Treatise of the Sacraments or Rights of the Church, by Bruno Bishop of Segni, were published by Father Luke Dachery, in the Twelfth Tome of the Spicilegium, as a new Piece, although it was printed in the Venice Edition.   

MARBODUS Bishop of Rennes.  
MARBODUS, flourished at Angers in the end of the preceding Century in quality of Canon, 
Marbodus Bishop of Rennes.  archdeacon and principal Master of the Schools of that Church. Afterwards he was nominated for the Bishopric of Rennes by Pope Urban II. was ordained in the Council of Tours, A. D. 1096. and governed that Church during twenty eight Years. When he perceived himself to draw near his end, he left his Bishopric, and retired to the Monastery of St. Aubin at Angers, where he assumed the Habit of St. Benedict, and died in the beginning of the Month of September, A. D. 1123. Sigebert assures us that he wrote a Commentary on the Book of Canticles, but it is no longer extant.  
Marbodus composed divers Poetical Works Printed at Rennes, in 1524. in which Edition are to be found certain Hymns on Mary Magdalen: Three Prayers to God: One to the Virgin Mary: Several Epigrams and Letters in Verse: Divers moral Poems: A Piece on the casting away of Ionas: Another on the Martyrdom of the Maccabees: The Passions of divers Martyrs in Verse: The Life of St. Maurillus of Angers in Verse: Sixty Poetical Pieces on the precious Stones, and on other Subjects: Ten other Poetical Pieces on the following Subjects, viz. on the manner of Writing; on Time; on Eternity; against lewd Women; in commendation of virtuous Women; on Old Age; against those who imagine that the Stars have any influence over the Bodies of Men; against Voluptuousness; on true Friendship, and on the Advantages of Death and of the Resurrection.  
These Poems are followed by six Letters, in the First of which directed to Renaud Bishop of Angers, Marbodus complains, That that Prelate after having persecuted and traduced him, publicly condemned him, for writing to the Pope, that the disturbances raised by the Bishop of Angers hindered him from going to Rome. He upbraids him with the Services he did him, in causing him to be chosen Bishop, and the assistance he gave him in expediting his Journey to Rome, to get his Election confirmed; that in stead of a grateful acknowledgement of that Kindness, he was no sooner returned from Rome, but he deprived him of those Favours and Privileges, which were granted to him by his Predecessors, without so much as allowing him six months' Respite, to make an honourable retreat; and, that after having made complaint of his being treated so unworthily, the Bishop of Angers cited him to Rome, knowing that he was not in a condition to go thither; obtained power to condemn him, and actually pronounced Sentence against him under colour, that he had received Induction into two Churches. After having thus smartly reprehended Renaud, he advises him to moderate his Anger; not to be too far transported with the heat of his Youth; to have a greater respect for his Elders; and to take care lest his irregular Conduct should verify the report given out by some Persons, viz. that Prosperity and the high Station to which he aspired, had sufficiently discovered the corruption of his Manners. Marbodus adds, that he does not give him this Admonition to the end that he might be more favourable to him, but lest he should abuse his Authority in treating others after the same manner.  
The second Letter is directed to Robert d' Arbriselles, whom he reproves, as Geffrey of Vendome had done, for keeping too familiar a correspondence with Women, and for suffering Men and Women to cohabit together. He represents to him the danger of that intimate Converse, and the Scandal that it might occasion. He likewise blames him for wearing a torn Garment, as not being suitable to the Profession of a Regular Canon, which he embraced at first, or to the Sacerdotal Dignity, to which he was afterwards advanced. He accuses him of affecting singularity in that particular, and advises him to resume the Habit of a Regular Canon, and to return to his former course of Life. But he is much more offended at him for taking upon him to reprove the Vices of absent Clergymen in his Sermons, and for inveighing against certain Orders and Persons of great Eminency: He affirms, that that serves only to bring Superiors into contempt, to subvert the order of the Church, and even to induce many to believe, that his design in declaiming against others, was only to gain popular Applause. He declares at the same time, that altho' he had a better Opinion of him, yet it cannot be denied that his Preaching has the same effect, and that many of his Hearers abandon their Curates and refuse to receive the Sacraments from them, or to pay them Tithes; whereas they run after him incessantly, being excited by Curiosity and an inclination to Novelty rather than a true principle of Piety; since it does not appear, that there is any manner of reformation in their Lives and Conversations: Lastly, he rebukes him, for giving the Monastic Habit, to all those who being moved by his Sermons, were desirous to receive it, without making any trial of their integrity and constancy, as also in regard that he took no care, that they should be thoroughly converted, provided the number of his Followers were increased: That after they had once given in their Names, he took no farther cognizance of their Affairs, but left them at liberty to act as they thought fit: That some of them met together, and ran about the Towns and Countries, clothed with Habits of several Colours, wearing long Beards, and walking barefooted: And that when they were asked who they were, they made Answer, That they belonged to their Master. Our Author is unwilling, to impute to him the Extravagances committed by those People, but observes it to be a matter of dangerous Consequence, that they should thus make use of his Authority for a cloak to their Fol●y, and call themselves his Disciples.  
As for the Nuns which Robert d' Arbriselles in like manner caused to be shut up in Cells; without any Probation, he says, that some of them broke through the Passages to make their Escape, and that others were brought to Bed in their Apartments, which would not have happened (continues he) if the prudence of the Governor, had made a trial of their Strength. He concludes with remonstrating to him, that he was censured for quitting the Canonical Life which he had embraced, and for leaving the Monastery, where he had made a Vow of Constancy, and where he was constituted Superior of his Colleagues, to lead an extraordinary kind of Life, and to take upon him the Government of a Nunnery. There o●e Marbodus demands of him a satisfactory Answer, as to those particular Articles, otherwise he declares that he should have very good reason to doubt of his Salvation. 'Tis probable, that Robert d' Arbriselles cleared himself from these Imputations that were la●d upon him, even to our Author's satisfaction; but there is no likelihood, ●hat th●s Letter was Forged, as Father Mabillon has asserted. In a certain Manuscript of the Abbey of St. Victor, it is attributed to Hildebert Archbishop of Tours, nevertheless the style comes nearer to Marbodus' manner of Expression than to that of the former  
In the third Letter, he reproves a certain Hermit named Ingilquier▪ and those of his Congregation for their indiscreet Zeal against unworthy Priests, with which they were transported too far; insomuch that they not only refused to assist at their Obl●tions, but also forbidden the Laics to receive the Sacraments from their Hands. He shows by many Passages of St. Augustin, that the Sacraments may be duly administered by unworthy Priests, and that they ought not to be despised by reason of the unworthiness of those who administer them. The Hermit having returned for Answer, that he did by no means recede from the Doctrine of the Church relating to the validity of the Sacraments administered by unworthy Priests, but that he was persuaded that Heretics ought to ●e shunned, and that Priests guilty of Fornication ought to be deposed; Marbodus replies in his fourth Letter, that he is of his Opinion, but that he conceives that it does not belong to every one to try or Condemn them, and that it ought only to be done according to the Rules of the Church. Therefore he advises those Hermits, to reprehend such Offenders with gentleness; to pray for them; and to accuse them (if they shall think fit) before competent Judges who have a right to bring them to their Trial; to the end that they may be deposed if they be convicted, or confess their Crime.  
The Fifth is a request that he makes to Vitalis, the Founder of a Nunnery to receive a certain poor Orphan who altho' she was well instructed in matters of Religion, yet could have no hopes of being admitted into the old Monasteries, where, by an ill Custom, that was then too common, Money was preferred before Learning and Piety.  
The last Letter is directed to a Nun named Agenorida, to whom he gives a great deal of wholesome Advice, for her instruction in the Christian course of Life and religious Exercises.  
These are all the Works that are contained in the old Edition of Ma●bodus, which is become very scarce. His Copies of Verses are not very elegant, nor of a very Poetical strain, but comprise many judicious and solid Notions. His Letters are accurately written, and full of good Maxims and Passages of the Holy Scripture and the Fathers, admirably well applied. The Monks of St. Aubin at Angers, wrote a Circular Letter, to give notice of his Death, according to the Custom of the Order of St. Benedict, in which they celebrate his Praise, and Ulger Bishop of Angers likewise wort a Copy of Verses in his Commendation: These two Monuments are prefixed to Marbodus' Works.   

ARNULPHUS Bishop of Lisieux. 
Arnulphus Bishop of Lisieux.   
ARNOUL or ARNULPHUS, Bishop of Lisieux, archdeacon of Seez, was installed in the Bishopric of Lisieux, A. D. 1141. and in 1147. accompanied Lewes surnamed the Young King of France in his Expedition to the Holy Land. In 1160. he was sent into England by Pope Alexander III. in quality of his Legate, and afterwards employed in the Negotiations between King Henry II. and Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury; but having too obstinately taken part with the latter, he incurred the King's displeasure, and was obliged to retire in 1180. to the Monastery of St. Victor near Paris, where he died August 11. A. D. 1182.  
This Arnulphus made a Collection of his own Letters at the request of giles Archbishop of Rouen, to whom he Dedicates them by his first Letter. These are written in a fine Style, being full of ingenious Notions and moral Sentences, which render them both useful and delightful. There are many that contain only Compliments, or relate to certain private Concerns; but there are others about Ecclesiastical Affairs, comprehending divers Points of Discipline▪ particularly, those directed to Pope Adrian iv in the First of which, this Bishop recommends to him the doing Justice to a certain Person, who had recourse to the See of Rome, to get satisfaction for the ill treatment he had received in his own Country, where he could not obtain any relief of his Diocesan. Arnulphus observes in that Letter, that People began not to have the same Respect for the Holy See as formerly, and that those who appealed to it, were so far from getting their Grievances redressed, that they were more injuriously treated than before, which befell him in whose favour he wrote, who had no sooner entered an Appeal, but he was put in Prison; neither could he procure his liberty, but by paying a Sum of Money to his Persecutor, and by submitting to the Bishop's Sentence. Therefore he exhorts the Pope to revenge the Indignity, by reason that if they were suffered thus to elude the Decisions of the Holy See, its Protection would become altogether unprofitable.  
In another Letter directed to the same Pope, he entreats him to send back the Bishop of Baieux, whose presence was much wanted in his Diocese, where he had done a great deal of good.  
He wrote again to that Pope, about the Contest that arose between the Abbot and the Monks of Jumieges. Those Monks had accused their Abbot of many Crimes, and more especially of Incontinency, and divers Witnesses had made Depositions against him, but they gave their Testimony about different matters of Fact, so that there was not any complete positive Proof against him, because every Fact was proved only by one single Witness. Whereupon Arnulphus admitted him to clear himself by his own Oath, and by that of three Abbots and three Monks of known Probity. The Monks appealed from his Court to the See of Rome, and demanded Letters of Reference, which he calls Apostolos (this is the first time I met with this Term in that Signification.) He acquaints Pope Adrian, that he had granted their Request, and that in the mean while, he ordered both Parties to do nothing, that might tend to the prejudice of the Appeal.  
He likewise wrote to the Abbot of St. Eurou, that he was obliged to discharge the Debts that were actually contracted by his Predecessors, and threatens to suspend him, unless he gives satisfaction to his Creditors before Whitsuntide. He enjoins that Abbot by another Letter, under pain of Suspension, to re-admit a certain Monk, whom he had turned out of his Monastery, without hearing what he alleged in his own Defence.  
In another Letter to William Bishop of Man's, he desires him to appoint another Place in stead of Poitiers, for the Trial of the Treasurer of Roven; because he would be obliged to take a much longer Journey thither, than his Adversary, who was nearer that City.  
Arnulphus being at variance with a certain Lord, who refused to acknowledge his Jurisdiction, it was ordered by the Legates of the See of Rome, That the said Lord should restore what he had taken from him; that he should cause satisfaction to be made by those of his Vassals, who were excommunicated; that he should make a due presentation of a Priest to govern that Church and People, under his Authority, as belonging to his Diocese. The Nobleman offered Arnulphus to present a Priest to him by the Hands of Hugh Archbishop of Roven; but Arnulphus replied to that Archbishop, who made him the Proposal, That if matters were so ordered, it might be taken for granted, that the possession of that Place was not adjudged to him, but only resigned by way of sequestration, which would be prejudicial to his Right, when the 
† Petitoire.  Claim should come to be debated: Besides that 'twas not sufficient to present a Priest to him, but that 'twas requisite that every thing which was ordained, should be effectually put in Execution: Lastly, as for the rest, that if they were willing to come to such an Agreement, as would entirely put an end to the Difference, he would readily take such Measures, as should be judged most expedient; but that 'twas not reasonable, for him to supply his Adversary with Arms, who was preparing with all his might for the Encounter.  
The Schism that happened in the Church of Rome after the Death of Pope Adrian iv between Alexander III. and Octavian, gave occasion to Arnulphus to write many Letters; the First of which is directed to Alexander III. to congratulate his Election. He assures him in that Letter, That God, who never abandons his Church, altho' he suffers it to be sometimes Persecuted; would give him the Victory over his Enemies, and put him in the peaceable possession of the Holy See, as he had done Pope Innocent, altho' he had a more formidable and a more potent Antagonist than Octavian: He expresses the great Joy he had at his Promotion, and gives him to understand, that he had taken care to prepossess the King his Master (meaning Henry II. King of England) with respect to that Affair, and to make him sensible of the validity of his Election, and of the Deficiency of that of his Adversary; That upon his Testimony that Prince had declared for him, and had promised with a great deal of satisfaction, that he would not acknowledge any other Pope; That having afterwards received a Letter from the Emperor, who entreated him to defer the declaring in his favour, he had superseded the publishing of his Declaration; but that he still persisted in his former Resolution, and that whatever course the Emperor might take, he would not follow him, if he did not find it expedient.  
Pope Alexander replied to Arnulphus, That he was very sensible of the Affection that he expressed towards him in his Letter; that he had caused it to be read publicly as a proof of the sincerity of his Intentions and of his Eloquence; that he was not ignorant by what means an end was put to the Schism which arose in the time of Pope Innocent; that he hoped that through the divine Assistance, the Storm which at present disturbed the tranquillity of the Church of Rome, would ere long be dispersed; that he gave Thanks to God, that King Henry continued strenuously to maintain the Unity of the Church; that he entreated him to use his best Interests with his Majesty to hinder the frequent solicitations of the Emperor from obliging him to alter his Mind; and that to that purpose he thought fit to nominate him his Nuncio in the Court of that Prince, with Authority over the Bishops of his Dominions. He acquaints him, That the Emperor Frederic never ceased, since his accession to the Imperial Crown, to persecute and oppress the Church of Rome; that in Adrian's Life-time he caused the Prelates, who were returning from Rome, to be taken Prisoners; that he misused the Legates of the Holy See; that he seized on the Revenues belonging to the Church of Rome; and that he used his utmost efforts to expel Adrian, and to cause Octavian to be made Pope in his stead: That what he was not able to put in execution, whilst that Pope was yet living, he endeavoured to compass, after his death, by favouring the intrusion of that Man, who attempted to get possession of the Holy See, and whose usurpation was abetted only by three Prelates, to the prejudice of the Canonical Election of himself, which was carried on by the others in due Form: That to maintain it, he called an Assembly of the Prelates at Pavia, and that Octavian resigned the Marks of the Papal Dignity in his Presence: That the Emperor afterwards restor▪ d 'em to him, invested him with the Pontifical Habits and Ornaments, particularly with the Ring and Crosier-staff, and by force constrained the Bishops of that Council to own him as Pope. Lastly, he further informs Arnulphus, that he had actually excommunicated Frederic and his Adherents.  
Arnulphus having received this Letter, wrote one to the Archbishops and Bishops of England, to make 'em sensible of the Justice of Alexander's Cause. He says, That if the Persons of the two Competitors be compared, it will appear, that Alexander is endued with all the accomplishments of Learning and Virtue, that can be wished for in a Prelate; whereas his Adversary has no other personal Merits to recommend him but his Quality; and if the two Elections be duly examined, one may be soon convinced, that that of Alexander, is regular, solemn and reasonable, and that that of the other, on the contrary, is rash and altogether unreasonable. For can it be affirmed (says he) that an Election managed by a single Bishop and two Cardinals, aught to be set up in opposition to the Authority of the whole Church? Or that a precarious Consecration made by a few private Persons, aught to be preferred to that which was performed with the requisite Solemnities, and with the general approbation of all the People? Can Octavian's Proceed be justified, who assumed the Pontifical Habits, who by an unheard of rashness placed himself in St. Peter's Chair, and seized on the Palace, whilst Alexander chosen with an unanimous Consent refused, through Humility and Modesty, to accept of that Dignity? Or can the violence that Octavian afterwards offered, in besieging Alexander and his Electors with armed Men give him any manner of Right or Title? Or could he under that pretence aver, that he was in possession of the Holy See nine Days before Alexander? Indeed the latter was chosen by the Senate, and conducted to the Wardrobe, where the Pontifical Habits were kept: He was also ordained by the Bishop of Ostia, to whom the Right of consecrating the Popes legally belongs; he was acknowledged by the Legates, who resided in different Countries; and the whole Church would have continued in Peace; if his Adversary had not fled for refuge to the Emperor, whom he knew to be ready to afford him his Assistance. He adds, That that Prince was glad to meet with so fair an opportunity, which he sought for after the example of his Predecessors, who had long ago formed a Design to bring the Church of Rome under subjection to their Dominion, and upon that account favoured the Schismatics, and excited Divisions in that City: That Octavian had absolutely made him the Master of his Fortune; that he laid the Marks of the Pontifical Dignity at his Feet; and that he afterwards received from him the Investiture of the Church of Rome, by the Ring and Staff, causing the Imperial secular Power to triumph over the Priesthood: That the Emperor called a Council to confirm that Choice, and compelled the Bishops by force to sign a Writing, by which they owned Octavian as lawful Pope: That that Writing was full of manifest Untruths, and that the Bishops could not by their definitive Sentence render an Election valid, that was null in its Original. Besides that the Gallican Church which always had the good fortune to maintain Justice and Truth, and to afford a Sanctuary to the Popes when persecuted by the Germane Princes, after having examined the Elections of Alexander and Octavian in a Council called by the King's Order, for that purpose, had determined in favour of the former; but that the King had prudently deferred the Publication of that Resolution, by reason of the union between him and the King of England, to the end that they might act jointly together: That the latter had in like manner sufficiently declared on Alexander's behalf, in regard that he received his Letters, and more especially protested, that he would not own any other Pope, having also rejected those of Octavian. In the mean while, he admonished them to take care that Injustice might not prevail over the Truth, through the sinister practices of some English Noblemen, who gave it out, that they were related to Octavian, and exhorted them, when ever they met together, strenuously to maintain the Truth without fear of offending those Opponents.  
In another Letter written to the Cardinals, he gives a particular account of divers remarkable Circumstances of the Elections of Alexander and Octavian, viz. That the Bishop of Frascati, who was the first of the three Electors of the latter, being a voluptuous Man, took great delight in Feasting, and soon retired from the Conclave because Dinnertime drew near: That one of the two others took it ill, that he was denied the Office of Chancellor, and that the third was Octavian's Kinsman: That as soon as those three had given their Votes for him, he himself took the Cope, and thr●w it over his Shoulders with so great Precipitation, that that part which ought to lie on the Neck, fell to the Ground; that he got upon the Papal Throne in that Equipage; and that having caused the Doors of the Church to be set open, it was immediately filled with his Guards, who conducted him to the Palace: That the King of France called an Assembly of the Estates of the Realm, as well of the Clergy as of the Nobility, to determine which of the two Elections ought to be ratified: That some were of Opinion, that nothing should be done in a hurry about an Affair of that importance, and that it ought to be deferred for some time longer, because it was dangerous to excite a misunderstanding between the King and the Emperor upon that account: That they also added, that the Church of Rome was always burdensome to Princes; that 'twas requisite to shake off the Yoke, since so fair an Occasion offered itself to that purpose; that the Death of the two Competitors would put an end to the Contest; and that the Government of the Bishops might be sufficient, till God should more clearly make known his Will: Lastly, that the Respect due to the Emperor's Ambassadors, who were present, and to the King of England, whose Sentiments the King of France declared himself ready to follow, caused those Measures to be taken in the Assembly. Arnu●phus, in the end of this Letter, advises the Cardinals not to exasperate the King of England by their Threats, but to pacify him, since the Obedience of the Kingdoms of England, France, Spain, Ireland and Norway depended on his Declaration.  
Although Arnulphus had done such notable Services to Alexander III. nevertheless that Pope, upon the Accusations brought against him by Sylvester, Treasurer of his Church, and by John, Nephew to the Bishop of Seez, did not forbear to nominate the Bishops of Man's and Avranches Commissioners, to take cognizance of that Cause. Arnulphus appeared before them, and William Bishop of Paris and Cardinal, was present at the Trial. The Treasurer owned before the Judges, the Falsehood of the Complaints that he had made against his Diocesan, and promised that he would not renew them for the future. John still maintained what he had averred, but the Sentence not being favourable to him, he appealed from that Court to the See of Rome, although the Pope gave Commission to the two Bishops to pass Judgement without any Appeal. However Arnulphus, who upon that account might have exempted himself from going to Rome, and might have refused to suffer his Cause to be tried again there; after having informed the Pope of the manner of the Proceed, assured his Holiness, that he would repair to Rome, as soon as it was possible, and entreated him to detain John till he arrived, to show how that Person and the Bishop of Seez his Uncle, have committed a Trespass against the Church and the Holy See.  
He explains this in the following Letter directed to Alexander. One of his Relations was sometime Bishop of Seez, who substituted Regular Canons in that Church in the room of Secular. This Reformation was approved by the Pope's Honorius II. Eugenius III. and Adrian III. and by Henry II. King of England, who made them a Donation. These Canons were to have all their Goods in Common, according to their Original Institution, and the Bishops his Successors were likewise obliged, before they were installed, to maintain that Settlement. The Bishop than incumbent, designed to ruin it, or at least to obtain a Licence of the Pope, to confer the Archdeaconries on Laymen, that he might have wherewithal to bestow on his Nephews and Relations. Arnulphus sent word to the Pope, That that Bishop palliated his Carnal Affections with the pretence of Piety; giving it out, That there was not any Person in that Diocese, capable of performing those Functions; as if the Simplicity of the Canons were not to be preferred to the worldly Wisdom of others; or in case there were none to be found at Seez, worthy of possessing those Benesices, some might not be taken out of the Church of St. Victor and St. Rufus. He adds, that having been archdeacon of Seez, and educated in that Church, he thought himself obliged to maintain its Rights and Privileges, and that for that reason, he judged it expedient to certify his Holiness thereof by a Letter.  
Notwithstanding this Information, the Pope granted to the Bishop of Seez a Licence to Secularize his Arch-deaconry; but Arnulphus wrote a very smart Letter to him on that Subject, in which he remonstrates, That he had no Authority thus to abolish an Institution made by his Predecessors, under colour that they could not impose Laws on their Successors: He maintains, That that Maxim is false, and that it tends to the ruin of all the Establishments of the Saints: That the Privileges of the Popes of Rome, are as it were Testaments, which are not made void, but rather confirmed by the death of the Testators: That 'tis true indeed, that the Errors of Predecessors may be corrected by their Successors, and that the latter may make some alteration for the better in the Sanctions of the others, when 'tis requisite for the public Advantage, and when it may be done without any detriment to Religion: That for that very reason, Secular Canons may be changed into Regular, because the Order of the latter is more perfect; but a more strict Institution cannot be changed into one less perfect; by which means Remissness in Discipline would be authorised: And lastly, that there are some Persons so prodigal of Dispensations, that they retain nothing as an unalterable Law, and Sacrifice every thing to the Interests and inordinate Passions of private Men. He reproves the Pope for not showing sufficient Constancy in maintaining the Rights of the Church; and gives him to understand, that he had scandalised it by revoking the Sentence of Excommunication, denounced by his Predecessors against Laics who shall attempt to get themselves admitted into the Chapter of Seez; by adjudging to a Layman all the Revenues of the Arch-deaconry that the Regular Canons enjoyed in Common, and part of which they distributed to the Poor; and by permitting a Man, adorned with gorgeous Apparel to take place amongst the Canons clothed in Sackcloth. He adds, That 'tis further to be feared, lest the Arch-deaconry should be left vacant, by reason that it is already appointed for another young Nephew, when he shall be of Age: That in the mean while, the Bishop has turned out the Prior of the Canons, and substituted a Person of no Repute in his Place, to the end that he might make himself Master of the Church-Revenues. Therefore he exhorts the Pope to revoke what was extorted from him by surprise, in order to re-establish the Rule in that Chapter, and to put an end to the Complaints and Murmur occasioned by that Innovation.  
The four following Letters are directed to the same Pope, and contain an account of particular Affairs. In the last he accuaints him, That the King of England was dissatisfied with his Holiness, because he denied him those Favours he sued for at Rome.  
He congratulates in another, Gilbert Bishop of London, in regard that the Pope had ordained, that his Cause should be decided without an Appeal, and observes that Appeals to Rome often put false Accusers in a Capacity to oppress innocent Persons, and give them an opportunity to avoid the Punishment due to their Crimes,  
In another Letter, he reproves a certain Abbot for leaving his Monastery to solicit Lawsuits at Court, and enjoins him to return thither.  
In a Letter that he wrote to Henry Cardinal Bishop of Pisa, sending him the Works of Ennodius; he passes a very disadvantageous Judgement on that Author.  
In his Letter to the Bishop of Angoulesme, he determines that the Engagements that a certain Child was under, whom his Uncle had bound to a Clerk, upon Payment of a Sum of Money, ought not to be ratified, and that that Bishop cannot suffer the said Child to be detained by him.  
In a Letter written to Arnold Abbot of Bonneval, he treats of the Usefulness of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Nothing (says he) can be offered up more precious than JESUS CHRIST; nothing more efficacious than this Sacrifice; nothing more advantageous both to him who offers it, and to him for whom 'tis offered, if the unworthiness of the Persons doth not render it unprofitable: 'Tis requisite that he who offers it have pure Hands, and that he, for whom it is offered, should know the Value of it by Faith; that he should earnestly desire it; and that he should embrace it with a perfect Charity. Oh, how great is this Benefit, which is sufficient for the Person who receives it, and for him that administers it! For how extensive soever the Priest's Charity may be towards certain Persons, this Sacrifice remains altogether entire for every one in particular. It is communicated to many, so as its Efficacy is not diminished, with respect to every Individual; and altho' different Persons partake of it, yet it does not suffer any Division. Quoscunque enim Sacerdos effusa charitatis latitudine complectatur, totum simul omnium, totum uniuscujusque est Sigillatim, nec integritatem dividit communicatio plurium, nec soliditatem minuit participatio diversorum.  
He has also inserted amongst his Letters, a Discourse that he made in the Council of Tours, A. D. 1163. in the presence, and by the Order of Pope Alexander III. In the beginning of it he says, that there are three Qualities requisite in a Preacher, viz. Sanctity of Life, to procure respect for what he delivers; a perfect Knowledge, to be capable of teaching the necessary Truths; and Elcquence to cause them to be approved, to the end that his Sermons may be Holy, Learned and Sublime. In the Body of this Sermon, he treats of the Unity and Liberty of the Church, showing that those two Qualities are necessary therein, and that the Ministers ought to use their utmost endeavours to maintain them, more especially at a time when both are attacked; that is to say, the former by the Ambition of Schismatics, and the other by the Oppression of Tyrants: That nevertheless, 'tis impossible that either should compass their Design: For although the former separate themselves from the Communion of the Church, yet it is not divided by that means, but the Chaff is only separated from the Wheat; and although the latter seizes on the Temporal Revenues of the Church, nevertheless it does not cease to be free, and to exercise its Power with Spiritual Authority. However, that the Bishops ought to make use of all possible means to reunite the former to the Communion of the Church, and to oblige the others to quit their unjust Claim to the Ecclesiastical Revenues. This is the Subject of a long and very pathetical Exhortation made by him to the Bishops of the Council; and in the sequel of the same Discourse, he wishes that the Emperor would humble himself under the Almighty Hand of God; that he would acknowledge that the Dominion of the Church is above his, and that he would submit to the See of Rome, which conferred the Empire on his Predecessors. He observes that Bishops may possess large Revenues, provided they do not take themselves to be the Proprietors, but only the Dispenser's of them, and are persuaded that the Patrimony of JESUS CHRIST is the Inheritance of the Poor, which ought to be distributed to them, and that they who put it to another use are to be looked upon as Robbers.  
This Discourse is followed by another, pronounced in a Synod held for the Ordination of a Bishop. He gins with the Commendation of the Church, and afterwards rejects the Person of Girard, who was proposed, alleging, That although there was a form of Election in his favour, nevertheless he ought not to be ordained, by reason that it is not to be endured that the Liberty of Elections, which was introduced for the Benefit of the Churches, should be made prejudicial to them, and therefore that the Election of Girard was null as having been carried on only by some few Persons devoted to his Interest.  
He acquaints that Pope in another Letter, That he had passed Sentence in favour of Hugh Abbot of Senlis, in a Cause that was depending between that Abbot and Garnier a Priest, concerning the Church of Marine, for the Trial of which he was nominated a Commissioner with Henry Bishop of Senlis. He likewise gave him notice in the following Letter, that the King of England had favourably received his Letters and Nuncio's, and that he had reinstated the Archbishop of Canterbury; but he complains that the Nuncio's did not promote the making of Peace, and entreats the Pope to do it.  
In another Letter, he informs the same Pope, That he had put an end to the Contest between the Abbot of La Couture and Hermier the Priest, about the Church of Breule.  
In one of the Letters directed to the Pope's Legates, Albert and Theodin, he determines, That it is not expedient to bestow Altars, that is to say, Benefices on the Sons of Priests, lest it should occasion disorders.  
Afterwards he writes to Pope Alexander against those Monks, who refuse to obey their Bishop, and claim a right to retain Cures and Tithes.  
He complains in particular of the Abbot of St. Eurou, who presumed to celebrate Divine Service; notwithstanding the Sentence of Suspension he had pronounced against him.  
The Poems of this Author are not very considerable as to the Subjects, but they are exact in reference to the Rules of Poetry, and the Verses are very fine. The first is on the Nativity of Jesus Christ, the second is an Encomium of the Bishop of Windsor; and the rest on the alteration of the Seasons, and on some other profane Subjects. There are also two Epitaphs of Queen Mathilda, one of Algarus Bishop of Coutances, and another of Hugh Archbishop of Rouen.  
Father Dachery has published in the second Tome of his Spicilegium, an excellent Discourse dedicated to Geffrey Bishop of Chartres, and composed by Arnulphus, when as yet archdeacon of Seez, against Peter de Leon the Antipope, and Gerard Bishop of Angoulesme his Legat. It is written with a great deal of earnestness and energy, so that the Author gives us a very lively description of the Irregularities and Vices of that Antipope and of his Legate; maintains the Election and Proceed of Innocent II. and makes it appear that the latter is the true Pope.  
Father Dachery has likewise set forth in the end of the Thirteenth Tome of the Spicilegium, a Sermon upon the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, and five Letters by the same Author.  
The other Works of Arnulphus, Bishop of Lisieux, were printed at Paris, from a Manuscript of Adrian Turnebus' Library, A. D. 1585. and afterwards in the Bibliotheca Patrum.   

PETER de CELLS Bishop of Chartres.  
PETER, surnamed the Cells, from the Name of his first Abbey, commonly called Monstierla-Celle, 
Peter de Cells Bishop of Chartres.  in the Suburbs of the City of Troy's, was descended of an honourable Family of Champagne. He applied himself to Study at Paris, and was apparently a Novice in the Monastery of St. Martin des Champs. He was chosen Abbot of Cells, A. D. 1150. translated from thence to the Abbey of St. Remy at Rheims in 1162. and at last made Bishop of Chartres in 1182. in the place of John of Salisbury. After having governed that Church during five Years, he died Feb. 17. 1187.  
The following Works of this Author, were collected and published by Father Ambrose Januarius, of the Congregation of St. Maur, and printed by Lewis Billaine in 1671. But the first of his Works is a Course of Sermons on all the Festivals of the Year, which were never as yet printed. However, notwithstanding the Reputation they might have in his time, Father Januarius observes, that they are weak, and that Peter de Cells is not very solicitous to prove a Truth thoroughly, but passes lightly over from one Subject to another; although his Writings are full of pious Conceptions, Flowers of Scripture and very useful Instructions. He might also take notice, that they are full of Puns, affected Antitheses, sorry Allusions, mean Descriptions and Notions, which have not all the Gravity that is requisite in Discourses of that Nature. In his Eighth Sermon on the Lord's Supper, we find the Term of Transubstantiation, which is also in Stephen Bishop of Autun, who lived in the same Century: And indeed, those two Authors are the first that made use of it. The three Books of Bread, dedicated to John of Salisbury, contain a great number of mystical Reflections on all the sorts of Bread mentioned in the Holy Scripture. The Mystical and Moral Exposition of the Tabernacle is a Work almost of the same Nature. The Treatise of Conscience, dedicated to Aliber the Monk, relates altogether to Piety, and that of the Discipline of the Cloister, comprehends many Moral Instructions in the Exercises of the Monastic Life, which he followed above Thirty Years. This Piece was set forth by Father Dachery, in the third Tome of his Spicilegium.  
The last Work in this Edition, is a Collection of the Letters of Peter de Cells, which were already published with Notes by Father Sirmondus, A. D. 1613. They are divided into nine Books, and relate either to pious Subjects or to certain particular Affairs, or are merely Complimental. Indeed, they are written with grea●er Accuracy than his other Works, being of a more natural and less affected Style; nevertheless they are full of verbal Quibbles and Puns. In this Collection are three Letters on the Festival of the Conception of the Virgin Mary, in which Peter de Cells strenously maintains St. Be●nard's Sentiments on that Subject. NICOLAS, a Monk of St. Alban, was of a contrary Opinion, and averred, That 
Nicolas Monk of St. Alban.  the blessed Virgin was never obnoxious to Sin. This is the Subject of the Twenty third Letter of the Sixth Book; but the Monk vindicates his Opinion in the Ninth Letter of the last Book, and confutes that of St. Bernard, yet not without expressing a great deal of Respect for the Person of that Saint. However, he does not treat Peter de Cells with the same Moderation, who being nettled, returns him a somewhat sharp Answer in the Tenth Letter of the same Book. Peter was then Bishop of Chartres.   

JOHN of SALISBURY Bishop of Chartres.  
JOHN of Salisbury the intimate Friend of Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury, and his 
John of Salisbury Bishop of Chartres.  Companion during his Exile, was at last made Bishop of Chartres, A. D. 1179. and died three Years after. He was one of the most ingenious, most polite and most learned Men of that Age, as is evident from his Book called P●licraticon; or, A Discovery of the Fopperies of the Lords of the Court. Justus Lipsius assures us, that many considerable pieces of Purple and Fragments of a better Age, are to be found in that Work: Peter of Blois in like manner declares that he was even charmed with it, having discovered therein a well regulated sort of Learning and abundance of Things, the Variety of which renders them extremely delightful. And indeed, 'tis an excellent Work, treating of the Employments, Occupations, Functions, Virtues and Vices of the Men of the World, but more especially of Princes, Potentates and great Lords; in which is contained a vast Treasure of Moral Notions, Sentences, fine Passages of Authors, Examples, Apologues, Extracts of History, common Places, etc. 'Tis divided into Eight Books, and composed in a plain and concise Style.  
But this Style is more proper for the numerous Letters which the same Author wrote to the Pope's Adrian and Alexander; to the Kings of England and divers other Princes; to Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury; to several English Bishops; and to many other Persons; either about general Occurrences and Transactions, as the Schism of Octavian the Antipope, and the Election of Alexander III. the contest between the Pope and the Emperor Frederick; and that between the King of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury; or relating to particular Affairs of the Churches of England; or to certain Points of Doctrine and Discipline: As the 172d Letter concerning the Number of Writers of the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament; the 67th about the nullity of a second Marriage which a certain Woman had contracted after she was divorced from her former Husband who was a Priest; the 68th about the cohabitation of Women with Clerks; and the 69th about the Sums of Money that were exacted of the Vicars of Churches. In these Letters he appears to be much addicted to the Interest of Thomas of Canterbury, whose conduct nevertheless he sometimes censures, and seems likewise to be much devoted to the Pope's Service, although he does not always approve every thing that is done at Rome, and condemns the Vices of the Cardinals on certain Occasions. He openly approves the deposing of the Emperor Frederick, and the Proceed of Pope Alexander against him. His Letters are full of Allusions to the Sacred History, and of Examples taken out of Holy Scripture; in which he also intermixes many Passages of Profane Authors. The number of these Letters amounts to 301. and they were printed at Paris, A. D. 1611. with the Life of Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury, by the same Author; to whom are likewise attributed certain Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul, printed at Amsterdam in 1646.   

PETER of BLOIS Archdeacon of Bath.  
PETER, surnamed of Blois, from the Place of his Nativity, deriving his extraction from 
Peter of Blois archdeacon of Bath.  Bretagne, studied the Liberal Sciences at Paris; the Civil and Canon Law at Bononia, and after having attained to a profound skill in all sorts of Humane Learning, applied himself entirely to the Study of Divinity, under the Tuition of John of Salisbury Bishop of Chartres. It is also probable that Peter of Blois was Canon of that City; however, having passed into Sicily, A. D. 1167. with Stephen the Son of the Count of Perche, and the Cousin of the Queen of Sicily, he was chosen Tutor and afterwards Secretary to William II. King of Sicily, but he was soon obliged to leave that Country, when Stephen Count of Perche, who was made Chancellor of the Kingdom and Archbishop of Palermo, was banished from thence. Upon his return to France, he was invited over into England by King Henry II. and after having spent some time at Court, he retired to the Palace of Richard Archbishop of Canterbury, and became his Chancellor. He was sent by that Archbishop to King Henry II. and to the Pope's Alexander III. and Urban III. to negotiate Affairs relating to the Church of Canterbury, and after the Death of King Henry, he continued for some time in the Court of Queen Eleonora. In the end of his Life, he was deprived of the Arch-Deaconry of Bath, which was conferred on him at his arrival in England, but some time after, he obtained that of London; in the discharging of which Duty, he took a great deal of pains, and enjoyed only a small Revenue. He died in England A. D. 1200.  
Peter de Blois himself made a Collection of his Letters, by the Order of Henry II. King of England, as he intimates in his first Letter directed to that Prince, in which he observes, That they are not all alike; that sometimes the great number of urgent Affairs obliged him to write with less accuracy; that sometimes the Subject did not allow him to enlarge; and that sometimes the meanness of the Capacity of those Persons to whom he wrote, constrained him to make use of a more plain Style. He excuses himself for citing profane Authors, as also, for speaking freely, and even for presuming to reprove his Prince. He protests, that to the best of his remembrance, he never wrote any thing with a Design to Flatter, but that Integrity and an unfeigned Zeal for maintaining the Truth, always excited him to set Pen to Paper.  
The Second is a Letter of Consolation directed to the same King on the Death of his Son Henry III. in which he induces him to hope for the Salvation of that young Prince, who died in a course of Repentance.  
In the Third, he severely reprehends a certain great Lord, who had reproached his Chaplain with the meanness of his Birth, and gives him to understand, that none ought to be puffed up, either upon account of Nobility or Riches.  
In the Fourth, he congratulates the Prior of Cisteaux upon the Tranquillity he enjoyed in his Solitude, protesting that he even envied his Condition, and entreats the same Prior to remember him in his Prayers and Oblations.  
In the Fifth, he reproves Richard the Successor of Thomas Becket in the Archbishopric of Canterbury, for applying himself with greater earnestness to the maintenance of the Temporal Interests of his Church, than to the Spiritual Government of his Diocese; remonstrating, that his Diocesans and Prince are very much scandalised at those Proceed.  
In the Sixth, to wipe off the reproaches that a certain Schoolmaster who undertook to teach the Liberal Sciences, had put upon the Clerks, who live in the Palaces of Bishops; he asserts, That his Profession was more contrary to the Ecclesiastical Function, than the conduct of those Clergymen.  
In the Seventh, he rebukes a Professor, who was addicted to Drunkenness.  
In the Eighth, he vindicates the comparison he made of the different States of the Church, to the various Phases or Apparitions of the Moon, and maintains, that Terms and Maxims of Philosophy and of the Civil Law may be used in treating of matters of Religion, when it can be done conveniently.  
In the Ninth, he reproves one of his Pupils, who after having completed his Philological Studies, determined to rest for two Years, before he applied himself to that of Divinity; and shows, that that negligence would be extremely prejudicial to him.  
In the Tenth, written to one of the Chaplains of the King of Sicily, against the Design which that Prince had, to cause to be installed in the Bishopric of Agrigento, a certain young Lord, who was by no means capable of performing the Functions of the Episcopal Dignity, he admonishes the said Chaplain, that his Office obliges him to continue to make Remonstrances to the King, to hinder him from disposing of the Bishopric after such a manner.  
In the Eleventh, he exhorts a Clergyman, who had solemnly engaged to embrace the Monastic Life, to perform his Vow.  
The Twelfth is a consolatory Letter directed to one of his Nephews, afflicted with the Death of his Uncle, the burning of his House, and a Wound he received in his Foot.  
In the Thirteenth, he reprehends a Young Monk, who endeavoured to get a Priory, under pretence, that he should thereby have an opportunity of converting more Souls, and makes it appear, That a Monk ought not to covet Secular Employments, nor to aspire to Dignities, not to affect to instruct others.  
In the Fourteenth, directed to the Chaplains of the King of England, he communicates to them certain Reflections that a Fit of Sickness caused him to make on the miserable condition of those Clergymen, who are obliged to reside in the Courts of Princes; of which he gives a very lively Description, and exhorts them to follow his Example in quitting that course of Life.  
The Fifteenth is an Instruction to Rainaud newly chosen Bishop of Chartres, concerning the Episcopal Qualities and Functions. He says, That the first thing that is sometimes done, is to make enquiry into the Revenues belonging to the Bishopric, and not into the present condition of it: He censures the Luxury and Magnificence of some Bishops of his time, the pains that they took to heap up Riches and to gratify Princes, and the Secular Course of Life that they lead.  
In the Sixteenth, he exhorts a certain Bishop immersed in the management of many Affairs to make choice of a more quiet manner of Living, in order to promote his own Salvation.  
In the Seventeenth, he shows, That a Clerk who drives a Trade, is no less culpable than one that follows Usury, and that all manner of inordinate endeavours to get and heap up Riches are unworthy of a Clergyman.  
In the Eighteenth, he gives us a lively description of the Irregularities of a certain Bishop, who was addicted to that Vice.  
In the Nineteenth, he resolves two Questions, which were proposed to him by one of his Friends who studied the Law at Paris, viz. 1. Whether a Woman, who turned Nun, upon a supposition that her Husband was dead, be obliged to leave the Convent, if he return? And 2. In case she be obliged to follow her Husband, whether she ought to assume the Veil again after his Death? He answers, That the Vow of Chastity made by her, being in the Husband's Power, is not obligatory; and that she ought to return with her Husband, and may marry again after his Decease. In that Letter, there is a remark very advantageous to the Schools of Paris, of which he says, that as there was formerly a Proverbial saying, that those who had any Question to propose aught to repair to Avila; so in like manner at present it passed into a Proverb, that those who were desirous to have any Question decided need only go to Paris, where the greatest Difficulties are fairly resolved.  
In the Twentieth he complains, That the Domestic Servants of Rainaud Bishop of Chartres removed him from the Palace of that Prelate, whom he blames for his too great Liberality.  
In the Twenty first, he reprehends the haughtiness and arrogancy of a Canon, who was formerly one of his particular Friends.  
In the Twenty second, directed to John of Salisbury, he commends his Constancy, and that of Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, and advises them to persevere, and not to suffer themselves to be moved by any manner of Adversity or Persecutions.  
In the Twenty third, written to Octavian the Pope's Legate, he declames against the Abuse that was then predominant, to fill up the vacant Bishoprics with unworthy and uncapable Persons, who obtained them by the means of sinister practices or purchased them with Money.  
In the Twenty fourth, he entreats the Friends of Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury to prevail upon that Prelate, to forgive the Archdeacon of Salisbury, who was desirous to be reconciled with him.  
In the Twenty fifth, he exhorts an Official to quit that Employment, which he looks upon as very dangerous. I am apt to believe (says he) that the Officials were so called, not from the name of their Office, but from the Verb Officio, which signifies to be hurtful, or to do Mischief: For the whole Function of an Official is to sheer and flea at the pleasure of the Bishop the poor Sheep that are under his Jurisdiction: They are the Bishop's Horseleeches, that cast up the Blood they have sucked out, and which as it were so many Sponges, that being squeezed restore the Water wherein they were soaked, pour into their Master's Bosom the Treasure that they have extorted; insomuch that of all those execrable Purchases they have only left the stain of Sin: For that which is thus hoarded up by oppressing the Poor, serves to gratify the unruly Appetite of the Bishops, and draws Punishments on the Officials; who may be well compared to those private Doors, through which the Priests of Bel were wont secretly to convey the Sacrifices that were laid on the Altar of that False God; since the Bishops make use of their Hands to pillage the Estates of other Men, casting upon them all the marks of Infamy and the whole guilt of those Crimes, of which they make the sole advantage,— The Office of the Officials at present, is to confound Right, to create Lawsuits, to disannul Agreements, to prolong Trials, to suppress the Truth, to maintain Falsehood, to seek for nothing but filthy Lucre, to sell Justice, to commit all manner of unjust Actions, and to devise Cheats and Artifices to deceive the People. These are the Men, who over-load their Landlords with a numerous Retinue of Attendants and costly Equipages; who hunt after dainty Dishes; being very prodigal of the Estates of other Persons, and as covetous of their own: They are very critical in searching out the etymology and signification of Words, and make Glosses upon all manner of Syllables, on purpose to lay Snares for others, in order to drain their Purses: They take upon them to interpret the Laws according to their own capricious Humour, admitting some, and rejecting others at their Pleasure; they corrupt that which is sound, overrule just Allegations, foment Divisions, conceal Crimes, make void lawful Marriages, penetrate into the Secrets of Families, defame innocent Persons, absolve the Guilty, and in a Word, leave no Stone unturned to get Mony. This is the Character that Peter of Blois gives us of the Officials of his time, very different (as 'tis to be hoped) from that of those Gentlemen, who now discharge those Functions in our Churches.  
In the Twenty sixth, he advises a Friend of his to enter upon a Course of Divinity at Paris, after having left the study of the Civil-Law, to which he applied himself at Bononia; because a Clergyman ought not to be entirely immersed therein. He censures, by the way, the sinister Practices of the Advocates of his Time, who made it their whole business to get Money and to enrich themselves.  
In the Twenty seventh, he acquaints the Canons of Beauvoir with the Death of Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury, and tells them that there was reason to be so far from bewailing his Death, that they ought to rejoice at his Happiness. He likewise makes mention of the Dissensions that happened in his Church, about the Election of a Successor.  
The Twenty eighth, is written in the Name of Rotrou Archbishop of Roven, to William Archbishop of Sens and the Pope's Legate, whom he exhorts to use his utmost endeavours to divert those Calamities, which were ready to break forth in the Territories belonging to the Church of Rouen by reason of the War that was carried on by the two Kings.  
In the Twenty ninth directed to the Abbot and Monks of St. Alban, he complains that one of their Priors had refused to entertain him at his Table, and shows how much Hospitality is recommendable, more especially in Monks.  
In the Thirtieth, he communicates to his Friend Rainaud chosen Bishop of Bath, the Dream that he had upon his promotion to the Episcopal Dignity.  
The Thirty first is written to the Abbot of Fontaines, concerning a Distemper with which Peter of Blois was afflicted.  
The Thirty second is a recommendatory Letter directed to the Prior of Canterbury.  
The Thirty third is written in the Name of Rotrou Archbishop of Rouen to Henry III. the Son of Henry II. King of England, who was preparing to make War with his Father, to entreat him to take into his Protection, Andely and the other Territories of the Church of Rouen.  
In the Thirty fourth, he excuses himself to the Bishop of Perigueux, who had offered him his House; for not accepting of his Proposal, because he was detained by the Promises of his old Patron.  
The Thirty fifth and Thirty sixth, are Exhortations to a certain Nun.  
The Thirty seventh, is a Letter of Excuse to the Prior of Jumieges for neglecting to send back a Book that he had borrowed of him.  
The Thirty eighth, is an Apology directed to Albert Cardinal of the Church of Rome, for the Conduct of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was accused of being ignorant of the Laws, covetous and too much inclined to raise his Family.  
The Thirty ninth, is a Letter written by way of a secret Trust to one of his Friends, in which he sends him word, That the Court of Rome, according to the usual Custom had charged him with many Debts, and that if he could once find means to discharge them, he would take care not to fall into that Abyss for the future.  
In the Fortieth, he condemns the Deportment of a certain Bishop who spoke ill of his Prince.  
In the Forty first, he entreats Henry II. King of England to give him notice of the Place where he was, to the end that he might wait on him, and acquaints him that his Majesty's Envoys are returned from Rome, cleared of their Silver and loaded with Lead, without being honoured with any considerable Presents, and that the Ambassadors of the King of Spain were come to meet him to constitute him Mediator of the Peace between them.  
The Forty second, is written to Robert Provost of Air in Flanders elected Bishop of Cambray, to whom he gives a smart Reprimand for contenting himself to enjoy the Revenues of his Bishopric, without taking care to perform the Episcopal Functions, and for leading a Secular and Scandalous course of Life.  
The Forty third, is a very apposite Consolation composed by him upon occasion of the Sickness of a certain Person, in which he sufficiently makes it appear that he had studied the Art of Physic.  
In the Forty fourth, he advises Arnulphus Bishop of Lisieux not to leave his Bishopric, by reason of any opposition that might be made by his Prince, his Chapter or the People of his Diocese; but he would persuade him to resign it, in case he aspired to that Dignity by underhand deal.  
In the Forty fifth, he vindicates Rainaud Bishop of Bath, from the imputation of having persecuted or occasioned the Death of St. Thomas of Canterbury, and observes; that if he made somewhat too severe a Reflection upon him, at the time when that Archbishop excommunicated the Bishop of Salisbury, it ought to be forgiven him, as well as what he might have done against him through Ignorance, and so much the rather, in regard that he had expiated that Fault by a very rigorous Penance.  
In the Forty sixth, directed to Richard Bishop of Syracuse, after having excused himself for returning to Sicily, he enlarges on the Commendation of Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury.  
The Forty seventh is written in the Name of Richard Archbishop of Canterbury, who exhorts Henry the Son of Henry II. King of England to desist from making War with his Father, and threatens to excommunicate him, unless he submit to his Remonstrances.  
In the Forty eighth, he congratulates William Cardinal Bishop of Pavia, upon account that at last an end was put to the Quarrel between Pope Alexander and the Emperor Frederick▪ by his mediation, and declames against Octavian and his Electors.  
In the Forty ninth, he complains, That some of the Canons of Chartres, whom he took for his Friends, had brought an Information against him in a Trial depending between him and Robert of Salisbury, for a Prebend of Chartres, and that not being able to ●ully his Reputation, they had slanderously traduced the Memory of his Father.  
In the Fiftieth, he entreats the Bishop of Bayeux to absolve a certain Person, who had committed Manslaughter in his own defence, and who being afflicted with a very sensible Grief for that unfortunate Accident, had done Penance in due Form.  
In the Fifty first, he admonishes Jocelin Bishop of Salisbury to pay his Debts, and not to bestow too great Favours upon his Nephews.  
In the Fifty second, he acquaints the Archbishop of Canterbury, who had sent him to the King of England, That he met with a furious Storm, during his passage into Normandy, and assures him, that he was ready to undertake every thing, and to endure all manner of hardship in his Service.  
The Fifty third, is a Circular Letter to all the Bishops of England, written in the Name of Richard Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of the Kingdom, in which he enjoins them, not to suffer Persons, whose Ordination is not valid, to exercise the Episcopal Functions in their Dioceses, and to denounce a Sentence of Excommunication against those who forge the Pope's Bulls or counterfeit the Seals of the Bishops.  
In the Fifty fourth, he advises the archdeacon of Poitiers, not to compel Adelicia his Niece, to become a Nun; because the Monastic State, ought not to be embraced with less freedom than that of Marriage.  
In the Fifty fifth, he congratulates Adelicia, upon the desire she expressed to take the Veil, and in regard that she had actually made a Vow to that purpose, and exhorts her to put so laudable a Design in execution with all convenient speed.  
In the Fifty sixth, he endeavours to divert Walter Bishop of Rochester from the strong Inclination he had to Hunting.  
In the Fifty seventh Letter, directed to one of his Friends a Monk of the Abbey of Aulnay in Normandy, who expected to be delivered from Temptations immediately after his admittance into a Religious Order; he treats of the continual Conflict between the Flesh and the Spirit, and sends him a Prose or Sermon on that Subject.  
In the Fifty eighth, he complains to Renaud Bishop of Bath, by reason that the latter had suspended his Vice-Arch-deacon, without dispatching any Canonical Monitions beforehand, and to the prejudice of a Privilege that was granted him in the Council of Lateran, that he should not be excommunicated nor any Person that belonged to him by any Bishop, and declares that he had so much the greater reason to take it ill, in regard that that which gave occasion to those rigorous Proceed, was only a small sum of Money that was due to the Bishop, and that he had already given Orders for the payment of it.  
In the Fifty ninth, he exhorts that Bishop to be reconciled with a certain Person named Henry, and to turn one Simon out of his Company, who was a dangerous Flatterer and a Sycophant.  
In the Sixtieth, he approves the Complaints made by one of his Friends, who was much offended that the Bishops should enrich their Nephews with the Church-Revenues, instead of maintaining the Poor. He observes that that was no new Disorder, and that Poverty ought to be preferred before Riches.  
In the Sixty first, he dissuades an Archdeacon from the exercise of Hunting.  
In the Sixty second, he writes in the Name of Geffrey Bishop of Lincoln to one Le Blond, whom he reproves for his Disobedience in leaving that Bishop to follow divers Employments, and forbids him to oppose the Interest of the Archbishop of Canterbury.  
The Sixty third, is a Letter of Thanks to Peter Bishop of Arras.  
The Sixty fourth, is written in the Name of Gautier Archbishop of Rouen and of the Bishops of Normandy, to Pope Celestin III. to entreat his Holiness to use his utmost endeavours to procure the deliverance of Richard King of England, who was taken Prisoner at his return from the Holy Land by the Duke of Austria.  
The Sixty fifth, is written against the Superstitions of those, who pretend to foretell future Events by Dreams, or by other means of the like nature.  
In the Sixty sixth, he congratulates Gautier Archbishop of Palermo upon his promotion to that Dignity: He gives that Prelate a Character of Henry II. King of England, and clears him from the Murder of Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury.  
In the Sixty seventh, he proves by many Reasons to King Henry II. that he ought to cause his Son to apply himself to Study.  
The Sixty eighth, is written in the Name of Richard Archbishop of Canterbury to Pope Alexander III. against the Abbot of Malmesbury, who endeavoured to withdraw himself from the Jurisdiction of his Bishop. He declames in that Letter, against the Privileges that are granted at Rome to the Abbots for Money, which gives them occasion to insult over their Primates and Diocesans, to lose the Respect they ought to have for them, and by degrees to shake off the Yoke of Obedience, which was formerly the only means to reclaim them, and to restrain their Ambition. The Abbots (says he) cannot endure to have a Superior set over them, to reform the Abuses committed by them; They would willingly have an absolute power to do every thing with impunity, and neglect the Monastical Discipline to gratify their unruly Passions. Upon which account it is, that almost all the Revenues of the Monasteries are left at Rack and Manger, and are liable to be pillaged by every Invader: For on the one side, the Abbot's mind nothing else but following their Pleasures, and are intent only on making good Cheer; and on the other side, the Monks being as it were destitute of a Head, spend their Life in Idleness and continual Quarrels. The mischief (adds he) requires a speedy remedy; for if it be not timely applied, 'tis to be feared lest as the Abbots shake off the Yoke of the Bishops, so the latter should throw off that of the Archbishops, and the Deans and Arch-Deacons should likewise find means to exempt themselves from the Jurisdiction of their Diocesans. Alas what form of Justice is this! or rather, what manner of deformity of the Law! to hinder Pupils from harkening to their Tutors; Children from obeying their Parents; Soldiers from serving their Prince; and Servants from submitting to their Masters! What is it to free Abbots from the Jurisdiction of their Bishop, unless it be to authorise Disobedience and Rebellion, and to arm Children against their Father? 'Tis their Office, who sit as supreme Judges, to determine this Case, and to take care l●st unjust Actions should take their rise from the Courts of Judicature, where application is made for the redressing of Grievances.  
In the Sixty ninth Letter, directed to Radulphus Bishop of Angers, he laments the Failings of the Inhabitants of that City, who had abandoned King Henry II. in the War that he maintained against his Son.  
In the Seventieth, he advises John Bishop of Chartres, rather to bestow Benefices on his Nephews, who were upright and poor Men, than on Foreigners, who are not so worthy of them.  
The Two following Letters contain nothing remarkable.  
The Seventy third, written in the Name of Richard Archbishop of Canterbury to all the Bishops of England, is against a Custom that prevailed in that Kingdom, only to punish with Excommunication, those who assassinated Bishops and other Clergymen, whereas capital Punishments were inflicted on other Murderers.  
The following Letters to the Eighty second comprehend nothing very remarkable relating to Church-Discipline.  
In the Eighty second, directed under the Name of Richard Archbishop of Canterbury to the Cistercian Monks, after having commended that Order, he takes notice of one Fault committed by them, which is their refusing to pay Tithes to Clerks and Monks: He gives them to understand, that it is an Act of Injustice; that altho' they might enjoy that Immunity, whilst they were Poor, yet they had no right to it at present, since they were become Rich; and that what Privileges soever they might obtain from Rome, they could not in Conscience make use of them to usurp the Estates of others: Lastly, he threatens to excommunicate them if they continue to retain those Tithes.  
In the Eighty third, written in the Name of Walter Archdeacon of Oxford to Bartholomew Bishop of Exeter, he advises him to declare the Marriage null, that was contracted between Robert and Ismenia his Kinswoman; according to the express Order he had received from the Pope.  
The Eighty fourth is directed to Pope Alexander III. under the Name of Richard Archbishop of Canterbury to vindicate the Conduct of the Bishops, who reside in the King's Court, in order to maintain the Interest and Rights of the Church. For (says he) if there were no Bishops in the Council, nor in favour with the Prince; the Wicked would soon find means to harrass the Church, and the Presumption of Laics would oppress the Clergy after an intolerable manner: But at present, if any thing be attempted to the prejudice of the Church, the Bishops are ready to oppose it; and if the King should be exasperated against innocent Persons, his Anger is appeased by their Entreaties. By this means, the rigour of Justice is moderated; the Cries of the Poor reach the Prince's Ear; the Dignity of the Church is maintained; the Indigence of distressed People is relieved; the Devotion of Laymen is increased; Religion is protected; the Sentences in Courts of Judicature are directed; the Laws are submitted to; the Decrees of Rome are received; and the Revenues of the Churches are augmented: He adds, That the Archbishops and Bishops of Sicily were wont in like manner to reside in the Court of their Prince, and that there was a Design on foot in England to abrogate that Custom, but that divers prudent and judicious Persons had determine▪ d that it was absolutely necessary for them to continue there, and that if they were hindered from having access to the Prince; at the same time the Monasteries would be deprived of their Tranquillity, the Afflicted of Consolation, and the Church of its Liberty. Therefore our Author concludes, That although the Bishops were very desirous to leave the Court, by reason of the Inconveniences they suffer in that Station, nevertheless they are detain▪ d, as it were by force, upon account of the Public Advantage.  
The Eighty fifth Letter, contains a sharp Reprimand made to Robert Bishop of Salisbury, for taking too great delight in Feasting, and for laying out so vast Expenses in furnishing his Table, that he let the Buildings of his Church fall to ruin.  
In the Eighty sixth, he diverts a Carthusian Monk named Alexander, from the Design he had to quit his Order, under pretence that Mass was not said every day in the Monastery; and shows, That St. Benedict never was a Priest, and that he spent a great deal of time without hearing Mass, even not knowing one Easter-day, that it was that great Festival: That St. Paul and St. Antony, the first Hermits, passed many days without hearing Mass, and that we do not read that some great Saints offered up the Holy Sacrifice daily: That such a frequent Administration of the Sacraments might render them contemptible, and that the seldomness of it, increases the Respect due to them: That indeed we sin incessantly, and that a continual Remedy is requisite for the expiation of our Gild; but that nevertheless this Host, of an infinite Value, ought not to be offered up, but with a Spirit of Humility and a contrite Heart. To that purpose, he quotes many Passages of the Fathers, and at last affirms, That the secret Motive which induced that Monk to think of quitting his Order, was to lead a less austere, and a more free Course of Life.  
In the Eighty seventh Letter, he comforts William Bishop of Ely, who was discharged from the management of the Affairs of State in England, by the treachery of certain Noblemen, who had misrepresented him to King Richard; which gave an occasion to Peter of Blois to declaim against those Counsellors who give bad Advice to Princes. The Eighty ninth is written on the same Subject to a Bishop, who had contributed to the said William's disgrace at Court.  
In the Eigty eighth, he entreats an Abbot to receive a certain Monk, who was desirous to return to his Monastery.  
In the Ninetieth, he gives an account to his Brother William Abbot of Mani, of the reasons of his departure from Sicily, and takes notice at the same time of the News that was spread abroad, That that Abbot had obtained a Licence of the Pope, to wear the Mitre, Ring and Sandals. He maintains, That the use of those Ornaments in any other Person but a Bishop, is an arrogant Vanity, and a presumptuous Ostentation; That they ought only to be used on some extraordinary Occasions; such as the Dedication of Churches, the Consecration of Virgins, and the Ordination of Clerks, and that therefore they can be of no use to an Abbot, who has no right to perform those Functions; That they are actually more chargeable to him than profitable, and that they do him a greater dishonour than credit; That that Abuse has no Grounds neither in the Gospel, nor in St. Benedict's Rule; That it foments the Refractoriness of the Abbots and the Contests they have with the Bishops, and that no Man ought to flatter himself, that the Privilege of Rome can be a sufficient excuse for such Acts of Disobedience before God. Therefore he conjures him by the Salvation of their common Father, and by the Breasts of their Mother, to lay aside those Pontifical Ornaments, or if it cannot be done without Scandal, to choose rather to quit his Dignity. William being moved with this Remonstrance, resigned his Abbey into the Pope's Hands, as it appears by the 93d Letter, in which Peter of Blois congratulates him; That he preferred the Humility of a simple Monk to the Dignity of an Abbot, and a place of abode in France to one in Sicily.  
In the Ninety first, he taxes Radulphus Bishop of Lisieux with Covetousness, and the practice of Usury, more especially in regard that he did not open his Granaries in a time of scarcity and dearness of Provisions.  
The following Letters contain nothing very remarkable.  
In the Ninety seventh, directed to the Abbot of Evesham, he shows that the diversity of Monastic Orders is advantageous to the Church, but that none ought to pass lightly from one Order to another. He observes in the end, that singing of Psalms for a considerable time, is very useful, if it could be continued with Devotion, and that although it be accompanied with wearisomeness, yet it does not cease to be a good Employment. As for Handiwork, he neither blames, nor commends it in a Monk, Labores autem manuales in Monacho nec arguere, nec laudare praesumo.  
The Ninety eighth and the Ninety ninth, are written in the Name of Richard Archbishop of Canterbury; viz. the former to his Suffragans about the necessity of relieving the Holy Land, and the second to Pope Urban III. to congratulate his promotion to the Pontifical Dignity, and to thank his Holiness for the Pall, which he had sent to him.  
In the Hundred Letter, he vindicates an Archbishop who was accused of being too meek and moderate.  
The Hundred and first, directed to Robert archdeacon of Nantes, is a Judgement that he passes on the Disposition of two of his Nephews, whom he had put under his Tuition.  
The Hundred and second, contains a long Complaint made by the Abbot of Redding who was desirous to renounce his Dignity, with Peter of Blois' Answer, in which he advises him not to do it.  
The following Letters contain nothing of any great moment as to Ecclesiastical Discipline.  
In the Hundred and twelfth, sent to the Bishop of Orleans, he maintains the Immunities of the Church, and asserts that the King of France ought to exact no other Supplies of the Clergy, than their Prayers to carry on the War, that he was preparing to manage against the Saracens in the Holy Land.  
In the Hundred and thirteenth, he exhorts Geffrey Archbishop of York, to oppose the new Heretics who appeared in his Diocese, and to publish so strict an Ordinance against them, that the others might be terrified with the Severity of their Punishment.  
In the Hundred and fourteenth, he congratulates John of Salisbury upon his Instalment in the Bishopric of Chartres, and commends the Relation that he wrote of the Life of Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury.  
In the Hundred and fifteenth, after having shown in what degrees of Consanguinity Robert and Adelecia were related one to another, he produces the several Impediments of their Marriage, and comprehends them in six Verses.  
The Hundred and sixteenth, is written to Hugh Abbot of St. Denis, to whom he sends one of his Books to be examined, and comforts him for the Indignity that was put upon him by the King of France.  
In the Hundred and seventeenth, he reprehends Geffrey Abbot of Marmoutier, by reason that he had caused an Action to be commenced against the Prior of St. Come, for certain Lands which he claimed, as belonging to his Jurisdiction.  
There is nothing remarkable in the following Letters to the 123d, in which he refuses to accept of the Sacerdotal Dignity, not through contempt, but an extraordinary respect for that Function.  
In the Hundred twenty fourth, he comforts Gautier Archbishop of Rouen, banished from his Church, and justifies his retreat.  
In the Hundred twenty fifth, he admonishes the same Prelate, to avoid slothfulness during his Exile, and to apply himself to the reading of the Holy Scriptures.  
In the Hundred twenty sixth, directed to the Abbot of Gloucester, he gives an Encomium of Odo Chanter of Bourges chosen Bishop of Paris; to whom he writes the Hundred twenty seventh, to renew their old Friendship and the Correspondence that formerly passed between them.  
In the Hundred twenty eighth, Peter of Blois complains to William Archbishop of Sens, that he had not as yet performed the Promise that he made to entertain him in his House, and to confer a Benefice upon him.  
In the Hundred twenty ninth, he writes against the archdeacon of Orleans, who had introduced Simoniacal Practices into his Church.  
In the Hundred and thirtieth, directed to John Bishop of Chartres, he clears himself from the Charge brought against him, that he made use of the Recommendation of the King of England, of divers Lords, and of the Pope, to procure a Prebend in the Church of Chartres.  
In the Hundred thirty first, he reproves one of his Nephews, the Prior of a Monastery, by reason that neglecting the study of the Liberal Sciences and abandoning his Solitude, he frequented public Places, and endeavoured to curry favour with Noblemen.  
The Hundred thirty second and the Hundred thirty fourth, directed to Persons newly made Abbots, contain very useful Instructions for the conduct of Superiors.  
In the Hundred thirty third, written to the Dean and Chapter of Salisbury, he maintains that he is not obliged to reside in his Prebend in that City, in regard of the smallness of the Revenue, which was not sufficient for defraying the Charge of a Journey thither.  
The Hundred thirty fifth, is a Dispensation for Nonresidence granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to a Canon of Salisbury.  
The Hundred thirty sixth, is a Letter from Henry II. King of England to Alexander III. in which he complains of the Rebellion of his Children, and implores the assistance of that Pope.  
In the Hundred thirty seventh, he congratulates a Novice Monk, and gives him wholesome Advice.  
In the Hundred thirty eighth, he expresses to Gautier Archbishop of Rouen, the Joy that he had upon his return from his Exile.  
In the Hundred thirty ninth, he entreats the Abbot and Monks of Cisteaux to put up their Prayers to God, that he would vouchsafe to grant him his Grace, to enable him worthily to perform the Functions of the Priesthood, to which Dignity he was lately raised▪ and explains the reasons why he deferred the receiving of that Order till that time.  
In the Hundred and fortieth, he exhorts Petrus Diaconus to quit the study of the Law, and to apply himself altogether to that of the Holy Scriptures and of Divinity. In this Letter, he makes use of the Term of Transubstantiation in treating of the Eucharist. Thus you see (says he) in one single Sacrament a deep Abyss impenetrable to Humane Reason; I mean, in the Bread and Wine transubstantiated by Virtue of the Heavenly Words, into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST, the Accidents that were therein, remaining without a Subject; and although the Body of JESUS CHRIST be Flesh and not Spirit, nevertheless it Nourishes the Soul rather than the Body. The same Body is to be found in several Places and on divers Altars, against the nature of Bodies, without ceasing to be in Heaven: For although by its Nature it can only be in one Place after a circumscriptible Manner, yet it is in many Places by its omnipotent Virtue and Energy, and after a spiritual Manner.  
In the Hundred forty first, he complains to Gautier Archbishop of Rouen, that a certain private Person had detained the Revenues of a Prebend that belonged to him, and entreats that Prelate to cause Restitution to be made.  
In the Hundred forty second, he comforts the Prior and Monks of Evesham, who were in great Trouble, and exhorts them to bear it with Patience.  
The four following Letters relate to the Confinement of Richard I. King of England, and were written to procure his Liberty.  
In the Hundred forty seventh, he reproves Robert Bishop of Bangor, who determined to retain a certain Benefice, which he had conferred on another Clerk.  
In the Hundred forty eighth, he exhorts Savaric Bishop of Bath to return to his Diocese, and not to leave his Church with a design to travel.  
In the Hundred forty ninth, he complains, that they were about to deprive him of his Arch-deaconry in the end of his Life.  
In the Hundred and fiftieth, he mollifies what he had said in the fourteenth Letter, against those Clergymen, who reside in the Courts of Princes.  
In the Hundred fifty first, he entreats Pope Innocent III. to augment the Revenues of the Arch-deaconry of London, which was lately conferred upon him. He gives his Holiness to understand, that there were about Forty thousand Men within the Jurisdiction of his Arch-deaconry, and above One hundred and twenty Churches; nevertheless that he was not able to collect any of the Duties that are customably paid to the Arch-deacons.  
In the Hundred fifty second, he entreats that Pope, to change a Chapter of which he was Dean, into a Monastery of the Cistercian Order.  
The Hundred fifty third, is written in the Name of Retrou Archbishop of Rouen, and of Arnulphus Bishop of Lisieux, to Henry II. King of England; in which they give him an account of the Negociations in the Court of the King of France, where they were sent by that Prince.  
The Hundred fifty fourth, is likewise written in the Name of the same Archbishop, who entreats Eleonora, Queen of England, and her Sons, to be reconciled with King Henry II.  
In the Hundred fifty fifth Letter, that Archbishop excuses himself to the Prior and Monks of La Charite, for not retiring to their Convent, by reason that he could not leave his Flock during the War.  
The following Letters to the Hundred eighty third and last, contain nothing very remarkable as to Ecclesiastical Affairs, and many of them are Consolatory.  
There is no Author, who has filled his Letters with a greater number of Quotations, out of the Holy Scriptures and Ecclesiastical and Profane Writings, than Peter of Blois; insomuch, that they are scarce any thing else but a Contexture of such Passages. That which is properly his own Matter, is full of Antitheses and Puns: However, he discourses with much freedom, sharply reproves Vices, and maintains Church Discipline and the Ecclesiastical Constitutions.  
His Sermons are written almost after the same manner as his Letters, in a concise and sententious Style, to the number of Sixty five; neither does he explain therein the Points of Morality in their utmost extent, but he fills them with divers Maxims and Notions, which are accompanied with no other Ornaments, but Antitheses and nice Comparisons of Words: But he handles Matters more at large in his Tracts, which are Seventeen in Number.  
The First is a Moral Discourse on the Transfiguration of JESUS CHRIST.  
The Second, is another Discourse of the same Nature on St. Paul's Conversion.  
The Third, is a compendious Chronicle on the beginning and the end of the Book of Job.  
The Fourth, is a very pathetical Exhortation to induce the Christian Princes to send succours to the Holy Land.  
The Fifth, is an Instruction written in the Name of Pope Alexander III. to the Sultan of Iconium.  
The Sixth, is a Treatise of Sacramental Confession and Penance.  
The Seventh, is a Tract concerning the Functions and Qualities of a Confessor, and the manner how he ought to demean himself in the Administration of the Sacrament of Penance.  
The Eighth piece, called the Episcopal Canon, contains Instructions for Bishops.  
The Ninth, is an Invective against one who passed a Censure on his Works, and charged him with being a Flatterer of Princes, and a false Accuser of Clergymen and Monks: He clears himself from both Imputations, by producing a Catalogue of his Writings; in which he asserts, there is nothing to be found that can convict him of what was laid to his charge, and several particulars to the contrary. He enlarges in Commendation of the Monastic Life, and explains some Passages of his Works, that were objected against him; and amongst others, what he had laid down concerning Free Will, which he was accused of having confounded with Grace: He maintains, That the former is supported by, and depends on the latter, after such a manner, that the Mercy of God is not prejudicial to Merit, nor Grace to Free Will.  
The Tenth, is a Treatise against the Jews, in which he has accurately collected all the Prophecies that relate to JESUS CHRIST.  
The Eleventh, is a large Treatise of Christian Friendship, of the Love of God, and Charity to our Neighbour; in which he insists on the Causes, Duties, Parts and Effects of those Virtues.  
The Twelfth, is of the Usefulness of Afflictions, of which he shows the several Advantages.  
The Thirteenth, called, What are they, quales sunt? is a satire against unworthy Pastors. He justifies at first, what he is about to write against them, and declares that 'tis not his design to attack the Worthy Pastors, but only the Unworthy, who have no Faith; who have not entered the Sheep-fold through the Gate; who do not deserve the Names of Pastor, Pope, Bishop or Prelate; because they have not any of the Qualities signified by those Terms; who every their Relations with the Church-Revenues; who confer Canonries and other Spiritual Live upon them; or who being of mean Extraction, and of an unknown Family, are endued with no generous Principles, but with a great deal of forbid Baseness without Humility, whose Dignity soon corrupts their Manners. He shows, that these sorts of Bishops ought not to be flattered, but that their Faults ought to be exposed, to the end that those Persons who present themselves to be admitted into Holy Orders, may be duly examined, and that a considerable time may be taken, to be well assured of their demeanour, and of their Course of Life.  
The Fourteenth, is a Fragment of a Letter, that he wrote about Silence.  
The Fifteenth, is a Fragment of his Book of the Changes of Fortune.  
The Sixteenth, is a Tract concerning the Sacred Books and Writers of the Old and New Testament.  
The Seventeenth, is a Poetical Piece on the Eucharist.  
The first Edition of Peter of Blois' Works, was printed at Mentz; the second at Paris, A. D. 1519; the third at Mentz in 1600. by Busaeus, who annexed an Addition of some Tracts in 1605. This Edition was copied out in the Bibliotheca Patrum, printed at Colen; but in all these Editions, the Sermons of Peter Comestor, were inserted instead of those of Peter of Blois: At last M. de Goussainville, published a new Edition of all Peter of Blois' Works, in which are to be found the Genuine Sermons of that Author, printed at Paris in 1667. This was followed in the last Bibliotheca Patrum, set forth at Lions.   

STEPHEN Bishop of Tournay.  
STEPHEN, Abbot of St. Genevieve, and afterwards Bishop of Tournay, was born at Orleans, 
Stephen Bishop of Tournay.  A. D. 1135. and completed his Studies in the Schools of the Cathedral Churches of that City and of Chartres: He applied himself more especially to that of the Canon-Law, and became a Regular Canon in 1165. in the Monastery of St. Everte, where St. Victor's Rule was established in 1158. by Roger, who was the first Abbot since the Reformation. Stephen succeeded him in that Office, but the Abbey of Genevieve being vacant in 1177. by the Death of the Abbot Aubert, he was chosen in his Place. He was promoted to the Bishopric of Tournay in 1192. and governed it to the Year, 1203. which was that of his Death.  
This Author wrote a Commentary on Gratian's Decretal, with divers Sermons and Letters. All his Works are extant in Manuscript; but Father du moulinet did not judge, that the Commentary on the Decretal, and the Sermons were w●●…o be brought to light, and therefore he only published the Preface to that Commentary, ●…e first Sermon and the Texts of Scripture, on which the Thirty others were composed, with his Letters, which he divided into three Parts; the First of which contain the Letters which he wrote being as yet Abbot of St. Everte, from A. D. 1163. to 1177.  
The First, is a very pathetical Complaint, which he recited in the Synod of the Bishops of the Province held at Sens, concerning the Murder committed on the Person of John Dean of Orleans, by a certain Lord, out of whose Hands, he endeavoured to wrest some Revenues belonging to the Chapter of Orleans, which he had usurped.  
He was enjoined by the same Assembly, to write to the King, to demand Justice for that execrable Fact. He did it after such a manner, as was capable of exciting him to take vengeance for so heinous a Crime. However, the King did not approve that Letter, and conceived much Displeasure against Stephen upon that account; which gave occasion to his Enemies to persecute him, and to threaten to pillage his Estate, and to cause him to be put to Death, unless he desisted from the prosecution of that Suit. Whereupon he had recourse to William Bishop of Chartres, the Son of Thibaud or Theobald Count of Champagne, who appeased the King's Anger, and restored Stephen to his Favour, as the latter had entreated him to do in his second Letter.  
The Third is a Letter written by Ponce Bishop of Clermont, in which he desires Maurice Bishop of Paris, and Stephen Abbot of St. Everte to give a resolution of a Case of Conscience touching the validity of the Baptism of Infants that are dipped in the Water, these Words being recited, viz. In the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, without expressing the Action by these Terms, I baptise thee. A certain Father had Baptised his Child after that Manner, and it was customary to do so, in case of Necessity.  
Maurice returns an Answer in the fourth Letter that that Baptism is null, and determines the matter with a great deal of assurance, in a few Words▪ Stephen replies on the contrary, in the fifth Letter, that that Baptism is valid, provided the three Persons of the Trinity be invoked, and that 'tis not absolutely necessary to add these Words, I Baptise thee; because it is not said in the Gospel, Go and Baptise the Nations saying, I Baptise you in the Name of the Father, etc. but only, Baptise them in the Name of the Father, etc. He confirms his Opinion by divers Passages of the Fathers, which only require the Invocation of the Holy Trinity, for the validity of Baptism. He affirms, that these Terms I Baptise thee, are added by the Church, that they only have regard to the solemnity of the Action, and do not belong to the substance of the Sacrament: de solemnitate Ministerii, non de substantia Sacramenti. He adds, that if a different Opinion were admitted, an infinite number of Children must unavoidably be Damned, who were Baptised by Laics in case of Necessity; by reason that the greatest part of those ignorant People, were wont to Baptise only saying, En nome Patres & Files, & Espirites Santos. However he declares, that those Priests ought to be censured and put to Penance, who through negligence or ignorance omit any thing that relates to the solemnity of the administration of Baptism. But he maintains, that a Child which was once Baptised in the Name of the Trinity, ought not to be Baptised again, altho' the Father did not express the Action by these Words, I Baptise thee. Lastly, he says that he who Baptises a Child, contracts a spiritual Affinity with the Mother, which renders him uncapable of Marrying her; or of co-habiting with her as his Wife, if they were Married before.  
The other Letters contained in this first Part, are either recommendatory in favour of divers Persons, or relate to particular Affairs; as the rebuilding of the Church of St. Everte which was burnt by the Normans, to which purpose, he desires supplies of the Chapter of St. Martin at Tours, and of his Friends: The restauration of a Prior who had wasted the Revenues of his Monastery: The Contest between the Church of St. Samson, and the Chapter of St. Croix, etc.  
In the second Part, are comprehended the Letters written by Stephen of Tournay whilst he governed the Abbey of St. Genevieve, from A. D. 1177. to 1192. The greatest part of these Letters are complimental or recommendatory, and contain nothing very remarkable. There are several written in favour of the Archbishop of Tours, about the Contest that he had with the Bishop of Dol, as the Fortieth, the Hundred and seventh, the Hundred and eighth, the Hundred and tenth and the Hundred and fortieth: Others against the Regular Canons of St. John des Vignes, who were desirous to enjoy their private Estates, and who being provided of good Live, endeavoured to withdraw themselves from their Obedience to the Abbot, to depend only on the Jurisdiction of the Bishop. He maintains, That they ought always to be subject to the Abbot, and to submit to his Will, according to the Custom, which (as he says) was always put in practice; otherwise all manner of Regular Discipline would be entirely abolished, and there would be as many Abbots as Curates: See the Sixty first, the Ninety fifth and the Hundred sixty second Letters.  
In the Seventy first, he proves, That those who have made a Vow to pass from the Order of Grandmont to that of Cisteaux, aught to perform that Vow, and in general, that Translations from a remiss Order to a more austere are lawful and expedient. In the Hundred forty third, he relates a Sentence passed by the King, in favour of certain Clerks of the Order of Grandmont against the Prior and some Lay-brothers of the same Order, and writes to the Pope in his own Name, in that of the Abbots of St. german des Prez and of St. Victor; and even in that of his Clergy; to confirm that Sentence. In the Hundred forty first, he advises the Dean of the Church of Rheims to hinder the Canons of that Cathedral from abrogating what was left of their ancient Rule, viz. to eat always in common in the same Refectory, and to live together in the same Cloister.  
The Hundred forty sixth, the Hundred forty seventh, the Hundred forty eighth, the Hundred forty ninth and the Hundred fifty third are written to the King of Denmark, and to some Bishops of that Kingdom and of Sweden to induce them to procure Lead in England to cover the Church of St. Genevieve, which was burnt and pillaged by the Normans. He makes by the way, a very ingenious Antithesis, between the Lead that is purchased at Rome for Bulls, and that which is bought in England; saying, That one serves to impoverish the Churches, and the other to cover them: Anglico Plumbo t●guntur Ecclesiae, nudantur Romano. He entreats the Pope to grant two Dispensations, viz. one in the eighty second Letter for the Chancellor of France, who was denied admittance into Holy Orders, because he was not born in lawful Wedlock, and the other in the Hundred and thirteenth upon the same occasion, in favour of a certain Person who had exercised the Office of an 
† Procurer Fiscal.  Attorney General: He observes in the former that the Canon of not admitting base born Persons among the Clergy, was not generally received in all the Churches. He likewise makes a request to the Pope, to confirm the Immunity of the Abbey of St. Everte at Orleans in the Fifty eighth and Fifty ninth Letters, and in the Hundred fifty fifth, to maintain the Revenues belonging to the prebend's of the Cathedral of Paris, appropriated to the Church of St. Victor.  
The Hundred fifty ninth, is concerning the difficulty of leading a solitary course of Life, and of the means of attaining to it. Eurard of Av●snes Bishop of Tournay dying, A. D. 1191. the Clergy at first chose Peter Chanter of the Church of Paris, to supply his Place, and Stephen wrote the Hundred seventy fifth and last Letter of the second Part, in his behalf, but that Election being adjudged to be null, he himself was installed in the Bishopric of Tournay, and caused his Nephew to be chosen Abbot of St. Genevieve in his stead.  
The first Letters of the third Part, relate to his promotion to that Dignity. In the Two hundred and second, he determines, That the Marriage of a Novice who has left his Convent for that purpose is valid. In the Two hundred and eighth, he gives a particular account of his Life and Conversation, to justify himself against Bertier Archdeacon of Cambray, who accused him of not leading a Life conformable to that of a Bishop. I very seldom go (says he) out of the City: I assist as often as is possible, at the celebration of all the Divine Offices; I Preach the Word of God to my Diocesans, after the best manner that I can; I declaim against the modern Heresies: I freely administer the Sacraments, which I have freely received. I detest Simoniacal Practices: I do not receive Bribes or unlawful Presents: I give wholesome Advice to all those, who make Confession to me; and impose on them profitable Penances: I comfort the Afflicted as far as it lies in my Power: I spend my spare Hours in reading and meditating on the Holy Scripture: I exercise Hospitality in entertaining my Guests cheerfully, and keeping a good Table, never eating my Bread alone; yet I do not rioutously waste the Patrimony of JESUS CHRIST in maintaining Stage-players and Farce-actors. Such is my outward demeanour, and as for the inward disposition of my Mind, it is known to none but God.  
The Two hundred twenty fourth, Two hundred twenty fifth and the Two hundred twenty sixth Letters have reference to the Abbot of St. Martin at Tournay, whom he suspended for leading a disorderly Life, and re-established him at the request of the Bishop of Arras, on condition that he should observe the Rules, that were prescribed to him, and which are specified in the Two hundred twenty fourth Letter. The Two hundred thirty first and the following are written against the Sentence of Suspension, which Melior the Pope's Legate was about to denounce against the Country of Flanders: In the Two hundred forty third, and the next, he puts up Complaints against the Inhabitants of Tournay, who refused to submit to his Authority. In the Two hundred forty eighth and Two Hundred forty ninth, he complains, that the Archbishop of Arras conferred Orders on the Monks of St. Amand without his leave. The Two hundred fifty first is a Declamation directed to the Pope, on this Subject, viz. That the Study of the Fathers was then generally neglected to follow that of Scholastic Divinity, and of the Decretals. The Students (says he) having a relish for nothing but Novelties, and the Tutors endeavouring to enhance their own Reputation, rather than to promote the Instruction of others, compile every Day new Sums or Systems of Divinity, and new Theological Works, on purpose to amuse and deceive their Auditors; as if the Writings of the Fathers were not sufficient, who have explained the Holy Scriptures, by the same Spirit with which the Prophets and Apostles were inspired when they wrote them. But these modern Doctors bring in new, unknown and strange ●orts of M●●ses, when the King's Wedding Feasts are quite made ready, when the Oxen and Fowl are killed, and when it only remains that the Guests should sit down at Table to eat: Public Disputations are set on foot against the Decisions of the Church, touching the incomprehensible Godhead: Flesh and Blood take upon them irreverently to dispute about the Incarnation of the Word: The Holy Indivisible Trinity, is as it were divided and tor● in pieces (with reverence be it spoken) in the Public Places; insomuch, that there are almost as many Errors as Doctors, as many Scandals as Auditories, and as many Blasphemies as Places. If there be occasion to pass from Theological Disputes to the Trial of Causes that are usually decided by the Canon Law, as soon as the Judges delegate are appointed, or when the Ordinaries have taken cognizance of the Matter; a prodigious Labyrinth of Decretal Letters is immediately produced, under the Name of Alexander of happy Memory, from whence 'tis impossible for any Man to extricate himself; neither is any regard had to the ancient Canons, but on the contrary, they are rejected and contemned. During which confusion, it so falls out, that the wholesome Ordinances of the ancient Councils are not followed in the Modern, and matters are not debated according to their natural Order, with respect to the true merit of the Cause, by reason that the Decretal Letters have the Pre-eminence, which perhaps are forged under the Name of divers Popes of Rome by Modern Canonists. These are collected into an entire Volume, which is read in the Schools, and publicly sold to the great profit of the Writers, who by that means take less pains, and get more Money, by copying out those suspected Works. The third Objection that may be made against the present manner of Studying, is, that the Liberal Arts and Sciences have lost their ancient Liberty, and are brought under so great Subjection, that the Professors Chairs are filled with young Persons▪ and the quality of Tutors is attributed to such as do not deserve to be looked upon as Pupils, who without adhering to the Rules of Art, employ themselves in setting Words in order and devising Sophisms, with which they surprise ignorant and unthinking People; after the same manner as silly Flies are soon catched in a Cobweb. Philosophy may well cry out, that her Garments are snatched away and that her Body is torn in Pieces; so that there is no Elder left to comfort her; neither is she any longer capable of administering comfort to any Elder. These Abuses most Holy Father, require your powerful Hand to reform them, and that you should establish by your sovereign Authority an Uniformity of Teaching, Learning and Disputing, lest the most noble Science of Divinity should become contemptible; lest it should be said that JESUS CHRIST is here, or there; or lest Holy Things should be thrown to Dogs, and Pearls cast before Swine.  
In the Two hundred fifty fifth Letter, he inveighs against another Abuse, that is to say, Appeals made to the Holy See by Inferiors to avoid the correction of their Superiors, and requires that Prelates and Abbots should be invested with an absolute Power to correct their Inferiors, and to change the Officers that depend on their Jurisdiction, without any manner of obstruction made by the means of Appeals to the Court of Rome. In the Two hundred sixty second Letter, he enlarges on the Commendation of Queen Ingelburga, the Wife of Philip King of France, and advises her in the following, not to suffer her Marriage to be dissolved. The other Letters do not contain any thing very remarkable. The whole number of them amounts to Two hundred eighty and seven in the last Edition set forth by Father du Moulinet, and Printed at Paris, A. D. 1689. altho' there were only Two hundred and forty in that of Masson in 1611. The Style of these Letters is concise and close, but the Terms are not always pure, nor well Chosen; nevertheless they afford much satisfaction to the Reader, by reason that the Conceptions are regular and natural.   

The Authors who wrote against the Albigeois and Vaudois.  
GRETSER brought to light, A. D. 1614 three Authors who wrote against the Albigeois and Vaudois in the end of the Twelfth Century: These three Writers are Ebrard of Bethune in the Province of Artois, Bernard Abbot of Fontcaud and Ermengard or Ermengaud. 
Ebrard of Bethune.   
EBRARD OF BETHUNE, confutes in his Work, 1. The Error of the Manichees, concerning the Law of Moses, and the Prophets; by showing, That the Law ought not to be rejected; that the Patriarches and the Prophets were Saved; and that it is the true God, who gave the Law, and created the World. Afterwards he passes to other Errors common to all the Heretics of that time, about the Sacraments, and the Customs of the Church; and establishes against them the following Doctrines, viz. That Children ought to be baptised; that it is lawful to marry; that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, contains the Body of JESUS CHRIST; that none but Priests have the Power or Right of offering, and that they ought to do it in the Churches: That the Unction of the Sick is profitable; that Pilgrimages upon account of Devotion, are commendable; that it is lawful to take a true Oath; that Malefactors may be punished and even put to Death; that we shall rise again in the the future State with the same Body that we now have; that Faith ought to be preferred to good Works; that Crosses ought to be honoured; that Women shall be Saved, and rise again with the distinction of their Sex; that Salvation may be obtained by different means, and in different States; and that it is lawful to eat Flesh: Lastly, he shows that those Heretics are culpable, in regard that they conceal themselves, and that altho' they boast of renouncing the Possessions of this World, yet they endeavour to enrich themselves by other means; that they mistake the meaning of Holy Scripture; and that all the Characters of Heretics agree with them. He adds, That some of them call themselves Valois, and others Xabatates; that they are wont to tear off their Shoes, and that they continually expose themselves during the whole Day to the heat of the Sun, till Suppertime, when they appear in the public Places. He concludes this Treatise with a Catalogue of all the Heretics taken out of Isidorus, and with the Resolution of divers Questions proposed by him. 
Bernard Abbot of Fontcaud.   
The second Author, who is BERNARD Abbot of Fontcaud, dedicated his Book to Pope Lucius III. and consutes the Vaudois, whom Bernard Archbishop of Narbonne had twice condemned after having heard their several Pleas. He makes particular mention of the Obedience due to Popes and Prelates; He declaims against the permission that those People allow Laymen and even Women to Preach; against their Assertion that the Alms, Fast, Sacrifices and Prayers of the Living do not avail any thing with respect to the Dead; against those who deny Purgatory, and maintain that Humane Souls are neither in Heaven nor Hell till the Day of Judgement; and against their Asseverations, that the People ought not to meet in the Churches to pray. Thus this Author positively opposes none but the Vaudois. 
Ermengard.   
The Third named ERMENGARD, at first impugns the Errors of the Manichees about the old Law, Marriage, the Incarnation, Passion, Death and Resurrection of JESUS CHRIST, and afterwards passes to other Errors concerning the Sacraments and Church-Discipline. He proves, that it is requisite to have Churches and Altars; That the singing of the praises of God is useful and reasonable: That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST ought to be celebrated in the Church, and that the Words of its Institution, aught to be understood in a proper and not in a figurative Sense: That Baptism is necessary for Salvation, and that it ought even to be administered to young Children: That Repentance is likewise necessary for those who have fallen into Sin, and that it is composed of three Parts, viz. Contrition, Confession and Satisfaction, and that it is requisite to make Confession to a Priest. He refutes in particular the Custom that was in use among those Heretics in the imposition of Hands, which they call Consolation, and which they administered in the following manner:  
The Superior amongst those People, after having washed his Hands, took the Book of the Gospels, and exhorted those, who came to receive the Consolation, to put their whole trust and hope of their Salvation therein, and afterwards laying the Book of the Gospels on their Head, repeated Seven times, the Lord's Prayer and the beginning of St. John's Gospel from In principio to these Words, Gratia & Veritas per Jesum Christum facta est i. e. Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ. Thus ended the Ceremony of their Consolation; but if it should happen that no Superior is present, than one of the Comforted performs the same Ceremony, and even Women do it to sick Persons in the absence of Men: They believe that this Consolation remits Sins, even mortal ones, and that without it 'tis impossible to be Saved: Lastly, they maintain, that those who have actually committed a mortal Sin, are uncapable of adrainistring it effectually. Afterwards Ermergard proves against them, that 'tis lawful to eat Flesh, and to take an Oath, and establishes the Doctrines of the Resurrection of the Dead, the Invocation of Saints, and Prayers for deceased Persons.  
These three Authors scarce make use of any other Proofs but Passages of the Holy Scripture to confute the Errors they oppose, and to establish the Truths they maintain; nay they produce a great number of them, amongst which there are some which do not clearly prove, what they assert.    

CHAP. XII.  
Of the Ecclesiastical Authors of less note, who flourished in the Western Countries in the Twelfth Century.  
AFTER having treated in the preceding Chapter of the most noted Ecclesiastical Writers, whose Works are more numerous, or more considerable, we shall now give some account in this, of a great number of others less known, who have composed divers small Tracts, reserving the particular enumeration of the Historians and Greek Authors, for the following Chapters.  
ANSELM, Dean of the Church of Laon, flourished in the beginning of the Century, and 
Anselm Dean of Laon.  made public Divinity-Lectures at Chalons, in which he gave Explications of the Holy Scripture. He is also supposed to be in part the Author of the Ordinary Gloss. Some attribute to him the Commentaries on the Book of Canticles, on St. Matthew's Gospel, on St. Paul's Epistles, and on the Revelation of St. John, which were printed under the Name of St. Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury, but they really belong to Hervaeus a Monk of Bourg near Dol, whose Name they bear in the Manuscripts.  
GISLEBERT or GILBERT, surnamed CRISPIN, St. Anselm's Pupil, after having followed 
Gislebert or Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster.  his Study in the Abbey of Bec, took a Journey to Rome; and upon his return, had a Conference with a certain Jew of Mentz. Afterwards he was made Abbot of Westminster, A. D. 1106. He wrote a Relation of that Conference, and dedicated it to St. Anselm, amongst whose Works it is inserted in the last Edition by Father Gerberon. Dr. Cave assures us, That there are still extant in the Libraries of England, divers Manuscript Homilies written by Gilbert Crispin on the Book of Canticles, and several Discourses on St. Jerom's Prefaces to the Bible, with a particular Treatise against the Sins of Thought, Word and Deed. The Relation of the Conference made by this Author, is different from that which is annexed to St. Augustin's Works, under the Title of, The Contest between the Synagogue and the Church, and is much more accurate. He died A. D. 1114. as some Writers aver, or according to others in 1115.  
PETRUS ALPHONSUS, a Spanish Jew, who formerly bore the name of Moses, was 
Petrus Alphonsus, a Spanish Jew converted.  converted A. D. 1106. was baptised at Huesca, and had Alphonsus' King of Portugal for his Godfather. He composed a Treatise by way of Dialogue between a Jew and a Christian, concerning the Truth of the Christian Religion, divided into Twelve Chapters; in the first of which he shows. That the Jews explain the Writings of the Prophets too carnally, and that they mistake their meaning: In the second, he makes it appear, that the Cause of the Captivity of the Jews, is the putting of the Messiah to death; that it was foretold by the Prophets, and that it will not cease till the end of the World. In the third, he confutes the Opinion of the Jews, who believe, that their dead shall be raised again one day to dwell on the Earth, and that they shall multiply therein. In the fourth, he proves that the Jews do no longer observe the principal Articles of the Law of Moses, and that what they do observe, is not acceptable to God. In the fifth Chapter, which is written against the Mahometan Superstitions; he shows, that Mahomet was a false Prophet, who wrought no Miracles, and was destitute of Learning, Religion and Probity. In the sixth, he proves the Doctrine of the Trinity, by Passages of the old Testament. In the seventh, he demonstrates by the Writings of the Prophets, That the Messiah was to be born of a Virgin, and conceived by the Operation of the Holy Ghost. In the eighth, That the Word of God was made Man, and that CHRIST is God and Man, In the ninth, That JESUS CHRIST came at the time foretold by the Prophets, and that the Prophecies concerning the Messiah are accomplished in him. In the Tenth, That he died voluntarily to redeem Mankind, according to the prediction of the Prophets. In the eleventh, That he arose again from the dead, and ascended into Heaven. And in the twelfth, That the Law of the Christians is not contrary to that of the Jews. This Treatise is one of the best that we have of that kind, and the Author handles these Matters very methodically, with a great deal of clearness and solidity of Argument.  
THIBAUD or THEOBALD, Clerk of the Church of Etampes, and afterwards Professor 
Theobald Clerk of the Church of Etampes.  of Divinity in the Schools of Caen and Oxford, flourished in the beginning of the Century, and wrote several Letters, which were published by Father Dachery in the Third Tome of his Spicilegium.  
The First is written to the Bishop of Lincoln, about certain Persons who were doubtful of the Mercy of God: He shows, That a Sinner may have recourse to Repentance at all times; That he may obtain the Remission of his Sins, and that a good Disposition is sufficient for an entire Conversion.  
In the Second, directed to Faricius Abbot of Abbington; he proves, That Children who die without receiving Baptism are damned.  
The Third, is a Complimental Letter to Margaret Queen of England.  
The Fourth, is a Consolatory Letter to one of his Friends, who was unjustly slandered.  
The Last Letter is written against Roscelin; in which he shows, That the Sons of Priests are uncapable of being admitted into Holy Orders.  
RADULPHUS surnamed ARDEN'S, a Native of Poitiers and Chaplain to William III. 
Radulphus Arden's.  Duke of Aquitaine, flourished in the beginning of this Century. He composed a great number of Sermons on the Sundays and Festivals of the Year, printed at Paris, A. D. 1568. & 1583. at Antwerp in 1576. and at Colen in 1604.  
ODO, Abbot of St. Martin at Tournay, was ordained Bishop of Cambray, A. D. 1105. and expelled for refusing to receive the Investiture from the Emperor Henry IU. He retired to 
Odo Bishop of Cambray.  Douai and died there in 1113. He wrote a Commentary upon the Canon of the Mass, in which he explains the Text literally, with a kind of Paraphrase: Three very Scholastic Books concerning Original Sin: A Treatise in form of a Dialogue against a Jew, touching the necessity of the Incarnation of the Son of God, and of the Grace of JESUS CHRIST: Another of the Sin against the Holy Ghost: A Tract to explain the Harmony of the Evangelists, and a Sermon on the Parable of the unjust Steward. There is a great deal of Philosophy in these Treatises.  
GILBERT, Bishop of Limerick in Ireland, and the Pope's Legate in that Country, held a Council there A. D. 1110. to regulate the Limits of the Bishoprics of that Kingdom, and 
Gilbert Bishop of Limerick.  assisted in 1115. at the Ordination of Bernard Bishop of St. David's, which was performed at Westminster. But being no longer able to discharge the Functions of his Legateship, he resigned it to the Pope in 1139. and died a little while after. He wrote a small Tract about the State of the Church, and two Letters, viz. one to the Bishops and Priests of Ireland, and the other to St. Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury, which are inserted in the Collection of the Letters of Ireland, published by Archbishop Ʋsher.  
FRANCO, the second Abbot of the Monastery of Afflighem near Brussels, composed in the beginning of the Century, Twelve Books concerning the Grace and Mercy of God, which 
Franco Abbot of Afflighem  contain an History of the principal Benefices that God has bestowed on Men from the Creation of the World, to the day of everlasting Happiness: A Letter in which he shows, That a Monk, who has quitted his Habit and Profession cannot be saved: Another Letter directed to certain Nuns, to serve them instead of a Consolation and Exhortation. The Poetical Piece about the Glory of the future State, apparently is not different from certain Copies of Verses on that Subject, which are to be found at the end of his Twelfth Book of the Grace of God; but his Sermons on the Virgin Mary, mentioned by Trithemius, are no longer extant. This Author was made Abbot, A. D. 1111. and died under Pope Innocent II. He began these Works being as yet a simple Monk and completed them, when advanced to the Dignity of an Abbot.  
WILLIAM de CHAMPEAUX, so called from the Name of the Village of Champeaux near Melun in the Province of Brie, after having applied himself to study at Laon under Anselm 
William de Champeaux.  Dean of the Cathedral Church of that City, was ordained archdeacon of Paris, and appointed to read Lectures of Logic in the Schools of that Church. Some time after, he retired with some of his Pupils to a Monastery, in which was St. Victor's Chapel near Paris, and there founded the Abbey of Regular Canons. He continued to teach in that Convent, and (as it is generally believed) was the first public Professor of Scholastic Divinity. He was made Bishop of Chalons, A. D. 1113. and died in the end of the Month of January, 1121. 'Tis very probable, that being a Person of so great Learning, he wrote some Works, yet we have none of them in our Possession: For the Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew, which was published under his Name in the Bibliotheca Patrum of the last Edition at Lions, belongs to Gilbert of Westminster. However, 'tis reported that he wrote a Book of Sentences before Peter Lombard, of which a Manuscript Copy is still kept in the Library of Notre Dame at Paris.  
STEPHEN, ordained Bishop of Autun in the Year 1113. left that Bishopric in 1129. to turn Monk in the Abbey of Clunie, and spent the rest of his Life there. He is the Author 
Stephen Bishop of Autun.  of a Treatise concerning the Prayers and Ceremonies of the Mass, and about the Functions of the Ministers of the Altar, set forth by John de Montalon, Canon and Chanter of Autun, and inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum.  
GAUTIER or GAUTERIUS, Bishop of Maguelone in Languedoc and the Pope's Legate, governed that Bishopric from A. D. 1103. to 1129. He published in the beginning of the 
Gautier Bishop of Maguelone.  Century a Treatise called Flowers on the Psalms, composed by Letbert or Lietbert Abbot of St. Rufus, and dedicated it to Robert Provost of Lisle, his Kinsman, and to the Chapter of that Church, by an Epistle which Father Mabillon has set forth in the first Tome of his Analecta.  
DROGO or DREUX, Prior of St. Nicasius at Rheims, was constituted the first Abbot 
Drogo Cardinal Bishop of Ostia.  of St. John at Laon, by Bartholomew Bishop of that City, A. D. 1128. and afterwards invited to Rome in 1136. by Pope Innocent II. who made him a Cardinal and Bishop of Ostia. He wrote the following Tracts, viz. a Sermon on the Passion of JESUS CHRIST: A Treatise of the Creation and Redemption of the first Man: Another of the seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost, and a third on the Divine Offices. This Author died in 1138.  
PETER the Library keeper of Mount Cassin, was put into that Monastery, A. D. 1115. 
Peter Library keeper of Mount Cassin.  being then aged only eleven Years, by his Father named Giles, who was descended of a noble Family at Rome. After having completed his Studies under the Abbot Girard, from whom he received the Monastic Habit, he was made Deacon of the Church of Ostia, and Library keeper of Mount Cassin. He was turned out of that Monastery in 1128. through the envy of his Colleagues; and afterwards employed in several Negociations by the Emperor Lotharius, who gave him good Entertainment in his Court, and constituted him his Chaplain and Secretary of State: He composed a Treatise of the Illustrious Personages of Mount Cassin, printed at Rome in 1655. and inserted in the last Bibliotheca Patrum. He is likewise the Author of the Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Mount Cassin, and of another Tract about the Roman Letters, dedicated to the Emperor Conrade, which was printed at Venice in 1525. In the last Chapter of his Treatise of Illustrious Personages, he gives us a Catalogue of his Works; in which are reckoned up, the Lives of divers Saints; several Sermons; the History of the famous Men of Mount Cassin; an Exposition of St. Benedict's Rule; certain Scholia or Notes on the Old Testament; and Hymns; divers Books relating to History or Humane Learning, and some Letters.  
His Book of the Illustrious Personages of Mount Cassin, was continued by RICHARD 
Richard Abbot of Mount Cassin.  Abbot of that Monastery, who died in the following Century. These two Writers (after St. Jerom's Example) usually produce a Catalogue of the Works of those Authors who are mentioned by them.  
ANSELM, Bishop of Havelberg, in the Marquisate of Brandenburg, flourished under the 
Anselm Bishop of Havelberg.  Emperor Lotharius II. who sent him in quality of his Ambassador to the Court of the Greek Emperor at Constantinople. He had divers Conferences there, about Matters of Religion, which were afterwards collected by him, and committed to writing in three Books, dedicated to Pope Eugenius III. This Work was published by Father Luke Dachery in the Thirteenth Tome of his Spicilegium. In the first Book, he shows, That Faith was always the same, even from the Creation of the World, although Customs and the particular manner of Living were different, He applies to the seven States of the Church, what is expressed in the Apocalypse, concerning the opening of the seven Seals, and the Horses that went out as they were opened. The first is that of the Primitive Church, famous for its Miracles, and the purity of the Faith and Manners of the Believers: The second is that of the Church, persecuted by the Jews and Gentiles: The third is that of the Church, infested by Heresies: The fourth is that of the Church, full of false Brethren and Hypocrites; to whom he opposes the Orders of Monks and Regular Canons: The fifth is the State of the Souls of the Righteous, who are at rest, waiting for the Resurrection: The sixth is the Persecution raised by Anti-christ; and the last is the State of everlasting Happiness. In the second Book, composed by way of Dialogue, between himself and an Archbishop of Nicomedia; he confutes the Opinion of the Greeks, touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and discusses divers Questions relating to the Mystery of the Trinity. The third is likewise written in form of a Conference with the same Archbishop, about the other Controversies that were on foot, between the Greeks and the Latins; more especially as to what concerns the use of Unleavened Bread, in the sacred Mysteries, Primacy, and the Authority of the Church of Rome, which he vigorously maintains. In like manner, he inveighs against the Custom of the Greeks, who were wont to put no Water in the Chalice, till after the Consecration, and censures another Custom that prevailed among them, viz. to make use of Unction, upon the reception of those Latins, who were admitted into their Communion. Lastly, a General Council is proposed on both sides to procure the Reunion of the two Churches. This Treatise is learned and very accurately written.  
HERVAEUS, a Benedictin Monk of Dol, flourished in the Year of our Lord 1130. He 
Hervaeus a Benedictin Monk of Dol.  wrote a Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles, which is annexed to St. Anselm's Works of the Colen Edition. Father Labbe assures us, that there is also extant a large Manuscript Commentary on the Prophecy of Isaiah by this Author, in the Library of the College of Clermont. An account of his Life is continued in a Circulatory Letter written by the Monks of that Monastery after his death. They also produce a Catalogue of his Works; which are, an Exposition of the Book called, The Hierarchy of the Angels, attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite: Certain Commentaries on the Book of Isaiah, on the Lamentations of Jeremiah, on the end of the Prophecy of Ezekiel, on the Books of Deuteronomy, Ecclesiastes, Judges, Ruth and Tobit; in which he applies himself to illustrate the literal Sense, for the benefit of Persons of a mean Capacity: A large Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles: Another on the Twelve lesser Prophets, and on the Book of Genesis: Divers Sermons on the Gospels, and on some of the Canticles: A Treatise of the Lessons, that are read in the Churches, in which he shows the different readings of those Lessons from the Sacred Text: A Book of the Miracles of the Virgin Mary; and an Explication of the Treatise of the Lord's Supper, attributed to St. Cyprian.  
HUGH de FOLIET, a Monk of Corby, flourished A. D. 1130. and composed divers Treatises, which are ascribed to Hugh of St. Victor, viz. The four Books of the Cloister of 
Hugh de Foliet a Monk of Corby.  the Soul: That of the Physic of the Soul: The two first Books of Birds, dedicated to Rainier: Two Books of the Carnal and Spiritual Wedding: A Treatise of the shunning of Marriage: And a Piece called, The Sinner's Mirror, printed among the supposititious Works of St. Augustin.  
STEPHEN, Bishop of Paris, had a Contest in the Year 1132. with an archdeacon of his Diocese, who had unadvisedly suspended the People of his Arch-deaconry from Divine 
Stephen Bishop of Paris.  Service, and with Stephen de Guarlande his Adversary. These Quarrels are the Subject of divers Letters written by this Prelate, by Henry Archbishop of Sens, by Geffrey Bishop of Chartres, by the Clergy of Paris, and by some others, which are inserted in the Third Tome of Father Dachery's Spicilegium, page 153. & sequ.  
HUGH passed over from Amiens, the place of his Nativity, into England, and was made Abbot of Redding in that Kingdom. Afterwards he was chosen Archbishop of Rouen, and 
Hugh Archbishop of Rouen.  consecrated A. D. 1130. He was one of the greatest, most pious, and most learned Prelates of his time, and governed the Church of Rouen with a great deal of Reputation, to the Year 1164. which was that of his death. He wrote three Books to serve as an Instruction for the Clergy of his Diocese, against the Heretics of his time. In the first, after having explained in a few Words, what ought to be believed concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation; he treats of the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Lord's Supper, and confutes the Errors of those Heretics, who deny the necessity of Baptism, more especially of that of Infants, and the usefulness and necessiety of the Eucharist. In the second, he treats of Holy Orders, and of Ecclesiastical Functions. In the last, he discourses of the Dignity of the Clergy; Of the Manners of Clerks; Of the Celibacy which they are obliged to observe; Of the Vow of Chastity; Of Unity, and of other Marks of the Catholic Church. There are also two Letters written by this Archbishop, viz. one dedicated to Thierry or Theodoric Bishop of Amiens, concerning the Absolution that was granted to Penitents, who took care of the building of the Church, provided they made Confession of their Sins, did Penance, and were reconciled with their Enemies: The second is a complimental Letter to the Count of Toulouse. These Pieces were published by Father Luke Dachery, at the end of the Works of Guibert of Nogent.  
HUGO METELLUS, a Regular Canon of the Abbey of St. Leon in the Diocese of Toul, and the Pupil of St. Anselm at Laon, flourished in the beginning of this Century, and 
Hugh Metellus a Regular Canon.  wrote divers Letters which are to be found in Manuscript, in the Library of the Jesuits College at Clermont. Father Mabillon caused one of them to be printed in the Third Tome of his Analecta, which was directed to a certain Monk named Gerard or Gerland; and in which he proves the real Presence of the Body of JESUS CHRIST in the Eucharist, and answers the Passages of St. Augustin, on which that Monk grounded his Doubts, as to that Article.  
THOMAS, Abbot of Maurigny, wrote a Letter to St. Bernard, which is contained in the Miscellaneous Works by M. Baluzius, Tom. 4. p. 459. 
Thomas Abbot of Maurigny Bernard Monk of Clunie. Ulger Bishop of Angers.   
Under the Tuition of Peter, Abbot of Clunie, there was a certain English Monk of that Convent, named BERNARD, who dedicated to him three Books on the Contempt of the World, in rhyming Verse. This Work was printed at several times in Germany, particularly at Bremen in 1597. and at Luneburg in 1640.  
ULGER, Bishop of Angers, sent a Letter to Pope Innocent II. on behalf of the Abbey of St. Mary at Roe, which was at variance with that of Vendome, about the Right they claimed to a certain Church. This Prelate not only obtained his Request of the Pope, but also a peculiar Privilege in favour of the Abbey of Roe, and another for his own Church at Angers. This Letter and a Copy of those two Privileges were set forth by M. Baluzius in the second Tome of his Miscellaneous Works. Ulger likewise made an Encomium in Verse on Marbodus Bishop of Rennes, which is prefixed to the Works of that Author.  
RODULPHUS, a Native of Munster, after having followed his Studies for some time at 
Rodulphus Abbot of St. Trudo.  Liege, travelled into Germany, during which Journey, he took a Resolution to embrace the Monastic Life, and entered divers Monasteries: But finding none that were well regulated, he retired at last to that of St. Trudo or St. Tron in the Diocese of Liege, which was less irregular than the others, and the Instruction of the young Monks was committed to his Care. Thierry, who was then Abbot, chose him for Prior; and they both used their utmost endeavours jointly to bring about an entire Reformation of that Monastery. Upon the death of Thierry, Rodulphus was elected Abbot in his place, A. D. 1108. but his Monastery was pillaged and burnt a little while after. However, he restored it to its former State, yet was expelled from thence, and took two Journeys to Rome. He in like manner reformed the Monastery of St. Pantaleon at Colen, made Sibert one of the Monks of his Abbey, Prior of it, and died after the Year 1136.  
Rodulphus Composed a Chronicle of the Abbey of St. Trudo, from its first Foundation to the Year 1136. which was published by Father Dachery, in the Seventh Tome of the Spicilegium. It is very large, and divided into Thirteen Books, the Five last of which contain a Relation of the Affairs that were Transacted in his time in that Abbey.  
He is likewise the Author of the Life of St. Lietbert, Bishop of Cambray, which is annexed at the end of the Seventh Tome of the Spicilegium. Besides, these Pieces, he compiled several other Works, more especially a Treatise against Simonists, divided into Seven Books, which Father Mabillon found in Manuscript in the Library of Gemblours, with a Letter written by Sibert, Prior of St. Pantaleon, to Rodulphus, and the Answer that was made to it by the latter.  
We shall here subjoin the Arguments of the Books of Simony, as they are related by Father Mabillon. Rodulphus shows in the First Book, that Simony is the first and greatest Heresy. In the Second, he complains of an Abuse that was then predominant, viz. that there was nothing that belonged to the House of God, that was not exposed to Sale. In the Third, he gives an account, after what manner Spiritual Live are disposed of in the Country: In the Fourth, he describes the manner of Trading for prebend's, and other more considerable Benefices. In the Fifth, he says, that perhaps it might be objected against him, that he endeavoured to conceal the Simoniacal Practices that were committed by the Monks, and relates the Censures that were passed frequently upon them. In the Last, he returns an Answer to the Objections, and clears them from that Imputation.  
Father Mabillon has published a certain Letter written by SIBERT, of whom we have 
Sibert, Prior of St. Pantaleon.  already made mention, and Rodulphus' Answer. Sibert is desirous to be informed by that Prelate, what Answer aught to be made to a certain rich and covetous Person, who designed to put his Son into the Monastery of St. Pantaleon, without giving him his Portion; that is to say, whether the Monks ought to exact any thing of the Party, or to receive him Gratis. Rodulphus does two things in his Reply: On the one side, he condemns the Avarice of that rich Man, and accuses him of a kind of Sacrilege, in regard that having determined to dedicate his Son to God, he denies him that share of his Estate, which belongs to him by right of Inheritance: He observes also, that the Monasteries are not established for the benefit of Opulent Families, but to receive and maintain the Poor, who are devoted to the Service of God. On the other side, Rodulphus does not allow the Monks to exact any thing for the Reception of Children, and says, That they would do well to admonish their Parents, that 'tis their Duly to offer part of the Hereditary Portion of their Children, but that they ought not to be Constrained to do it by force: That as the Monastery may either admit or reject a Monk according to Discretion; so the Parents ought to be left at liberty, either to bestow Children in such a manner, or to retain them, and that nothing can be exacted for the Admission of a Monk, without incurring the Gild of Simony. For (says he) every Thing that is exacted, or is demanded, or even every Thing that is done in hopes of getting a Recompense, as for what relates to Ecclesiastical Affairs, is Simony, and altho' it does not appear so to the Eyes of Men, nevertheless 'tis looked upon as such by God. At the end of this Letter, a Discourse is subjoined, in which he advises those who take upon them the Monastic Vows, to divide their Estate into three Parts; to the end, that one may be given to the Poor, another to the Monastery where they retire, and the third to be left to their Family. He likewise exhorts Parents who would make their Sons Monks, to allow them some part of their Hereditary Portion to be brought along with them into the Monastery, where they are admitted.  
Rodulphus wrote in an indifferent good Style, was well versed in the Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Constitutions, and had perused the Writings of the Latin Fathers.  
WASELINUS, surnamed MOMALIUS, Prior of the Monastery of St. Laurence, in the 
Waselinus Momalius, Prior of St. Laurence at Liege.  Suburbs of Liege, who died A. D. 1147. wrote a Letter directed to Gauselin, Abbot of St. Florin, in the same Diocese, in which he Debates this Question, viz. Whether a Man and his Wife, who have coupled together Carnally in the Night preceding a Festival, may receive the Communion the next Day? He makes it appear by many Arguments and Authorities cited to that purpose, that Continency is enjoined those Persons who are desirous to partake of the Holy Sacraments; nevertheless, he is of Opinion that those, who having fallen in the Night into that inconveniency through frailty, may be admitted to the Communion, provided they beg Pardon of God the next day, make Confession of their Offence; and do Penance for it. Lastly, he leaves it to the Discretion of the Priest, either to permit them to Communicate, or to deny them that Privilege. This Letter was Published by Father Mabillon, in the first Tome of his Analecta.  
AMEDEUS, Abbot of Haute-Combe, a Monastery of the Cistercian Order, and sometime 
Amedeus, Bishop of Lausanna.  Bishop of Lausanna, viz. from A. D. 1144. to 1149. is reputed to be the Author of Eight Sermons, in Commendation of the Virgin Mary, which were Printed at first at Basil, in 1537. afterwards Published by Richard Gibson, Jesuit, Printed at Antwerp, in 1600. and inserted in the Collection of Sermons written by St. Leo, and other Fathers, as also in the Bibliotheca Patrum.  
POTHO, a Monk of Prom, flourished under the Emperor Conrade, and wrote Five very 
Potho, Monk of Prom.  Mystical Books, on the State of the House of God, that is to say, of the Church-Militant and Triumphant, in which he produces a great number of very abstruse Notions, as well as in another Treatise called, The Palace of Wisdom.  
PHILIP, Bishop of Taranto, the Favourer of Leo the Antipope, was deposed upon that account in the Council of Lateran, held A. D. 1139. and retired to the Monastery of Clairvaux. 
Philip, Bishop of Taranto.  where he received the Habit of a Monk from St. Bernard. He was made Prior of that Convent in 1150. and Six Years after, Abbot of the Alms-Monastery of the Cistercian Order, in the Diocese of Chartres. Some time before the end of his Life, he returned to Clairvaux, and died there. Charles de Wisch, has annexed at the end of his Collection of the Authors of the Cistercian Order, Twenty five Letters, which (as he says) belong to this Philip.  
SERLO, a Monk of Cerisy, chosen Abbot of Savigny, A. D. 1146. Composed divers Sermons which were Published by Father Tissier, in the Sixth Tome of the Bibliotheca Cisterciansis. 
Serlo, Monk of Cerisy.  He retired to Cisteaux, not long before his Death, which happened in 1158. There is also to be seen in M. Colbert's Library, a certain Manuscript, which contains a Treatise by Serlo, on the Lord's Prayer.  
GAUTIER, or GAUTERIUS, of MAURITANIA, Bishop of Laon, flourished in the Year 1150. and wrote several Letters published by Father Dachery, in the Second Tome of 
Gauterius of Maurit●… Bishop of Laon.  his Spicilegium.  
The First is directed to a certain Monk named William, who doubted whether Children Baptised by Heretics, received the Spiritual Grace appropriated to that Sacrament: He proves the Affirmative, because it is JESUS CHRIST, who effectually Administers Baptism.  
In the Second, he explains the Mystery of the Incarnation.  
In the Third, he confutes the Opinion of a certain Doctor named Thierry, who maintained, That God was Omnipresent by his Power, but not by his Essence.  
In the Fourth, he opposes the Opinion of another Doctor called Albericus, who asserted, That JESUS CHRIST was not afraid to Die, and was not sensible of any Grief or Trouble before his Passion. Gauterius explains, in what Sense Death might be formidable to our Saviour, and of what sort of Fear and Sorrow he was capable.  
In the Fifth, he reproves Peter Abaelard, for going about to give a Definitive Explanation of the Mystery of the Trinity, and to Demonstrate it by Reason, and opposes in particular, some of the Propositions that he asserted, or which were maintained by his Followers.  
The Last is a Letter directed to Hugh of St. Victor, and published by Father Matou, in his Notes on Robert Pullus.  
WOLBERO, Abbot of St. Pantaleon at Colen, Composed in the Year 1150. a Commentary on the Book of Canticles, divided into Four Books, and Printed at Colen in 1650. This 
Wolbero, Abbot of St. Pantaleon at Colen. Luke, Abbot of St. Cornelius.  Author died in 1167.  
LUKE, Abbot of St. Cornelius, of the Order of Premontre near Liege, in like manner wrote a Commentary on the Song of Solomon, which was Extracted out of that of Aponius, and Dedicated to Milo, Bishop of Terovane. This Abbot died in 1157. and his Book was Printed at Friburg in 1538. as also in the Bibliotheca Patrum.  
BARTHOLOMEW DE FOIGNY, Bishop of Laon, was suspended, A. D. 1142. by Ives, Cardinal and Pope Innocent II's Legate, for Authorising the unlawful Divorce of Radulphus, 
Bartholomew de Foigny, Bishop of Laon.  Count of Vermandois from his Wise. Afterwards he made an entire Resignation of his Bishopric, and entered into a Monastery of the Cistercian Order. He wrote a Letter to Samson, Archbishop of Rheims, to clear himself from an Accusation that was brought against him, for wasting the Revenues of the Bishopric of Laon; by showing, that what he had bestowed on the Cathedral and on the other Churches of his Diocese, that stood in need of some Supplies, was but a very small Matter, and that his Successor, would be to blame if he deprived them of it. This Letter is to be found in the last Collection of the Councils. Tom. 10. p. 1184.  
RADULPHUS NIGER, A Monk of St. Germer, in the Diocese of Beauvais, flourished A. D. 1157. and Composed Twenty Books of Commentaries on that of Leviticus, Printed 
Radulphus Niger, a Monk of St. Germer.  in the Seventeenth Tome of the last Bibliotheca Patrum. Another Commentary on the Book of Canticles is likewise attributed to him, which was inserted among St. Gregory's Works; and 'tis also reported, that he wrote a Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles, an History of France, and a Chronicle: but we have no knowledge of these Works.  
S. AELRED, or S. ETHELRED, of the Cistercian Order, Abbot of Reverby, in the Province of York in England, flourished in the middle of the Twelfth Century, and died A. D. 
St. Aelred, Abbot of Reverby.  1166. He addicted himself to a Spiritual Life, and affected to imitate St. Bernard in his manner of writing. The following Works written by him are still Extant, viz. Thirty Sermons on the Thirteenth Chapter of Isaiah, concerning the Calamities of Babylon, and of the Philistines, and Moabites: A Treatise called, The Mirror of Charity, divided into Three Books, with the Abridgement of that Treatise: Three Books of the Spiritual Friendship, and a Discourse on these Words of St. Luke, JESUS CHRIST being aged Twelve Years: A Fragment of his History of England, and Twenty five Sermons Printed in the Bibliotheca Cisterciensis. His Mirror of Charity is a very fine Piece, full of solid Maxims on the Love of God, and on other Christian Virtues. In the Treatise of Friendship, which is Composed in form of a Dialogue, he shows, That there can be no true Amity, but amongst Christian and Virtuous Persons. Surius has published divers Lives of English Saints under the name of this Author, but he wrote them himself in his Style. We have also among the Historians of England the Life of St. Edward, written by St. Aelred, and some other Historical Tracts relating to the Affairs of that Kingdom. His other Works were set forth by Gilbo the Jesuit, and printed at Douai, A. D. 1631. as also in the Biliotheca, Cisterciensis, and in the last Bibliotheca Patrum. The Rule for Nuns falsely attributed to St. Augustin, is inserted under the Name of St. Aelred, in the Collection of Rules published by Holstenius; and Gilbert of Hoiland, has made an Encomium on the same Saint, in the Continuation of St. Augustin's Commentary on the Book of Psalms.  
S. HILDEGARDA, born at Spanheim in Germany, A. D. 1098. was the Daughter of 
St. Hildegarda, Abbess of St. Rupert's Mount.  Hildebert and Mathilda; she received the Veil at the Age of Eight Years, and in process of time was chosen Abbess of St. Rupert's Mount near Binghen on the Rhine. The Fame of her Revelations and Miracles, procured her so great Reputation, that when Pope Eugenius III came to Trier in 1148. Henry Archbishop of Mentz, and St. Bernard took an opportunity to acquaint him with the wonderful Operations that God performed by his Servant Hildegarda; insomuch that the Pope being much surprised at the Relation, sent Albert Bishop of Verdun with some other Persons worthy of Credit, privately to make an Enquiry into the Truth of what was reported concerning that Nun. These Persons having interrogated her, she gave them a plain Account of her Condition, and delivered to them several Books, which she avouched to have written by Divine Inspiration. The Pope caused them to be read publicly in the presence of all the Prelates, and perused a considerable part of them himself: Whereupon all the Assistants were surprised, and entreated his Holiness not to suffer so great a Light to be extinguished. Then the Pope wrote a Letter to Hildegarda, to Congratulate her upon account of those transcendent Graces which God had bestowed on her, and to exhort her to preserve them; granting her at the same time a permission to reside in the Place that she had chosen, to lead a Regular course of Life with the other Nuns, according to St. Benedict's Rule. The Popes who succeeded Eugenius, viz. Anastasius IU. Adrian IV. and Alexander III. honoured her in like manner with their Letters and Admonitions, as well as the Archbishops of Mentz, Colen, Trier, Saltsburg, and many other Prelates of Germany, not to mention the Emperors Conrade and Frederick: She returned an Answer to their Letters, without deviating from her Character, that is to say, in a Mystical and Prophetical Style. The Collection of all these Letters is still Extant, with divers Visions directed to particular Persons; Answers to several Questions about the Holy Scriptures, and certain Explications of St. Benedict's Rule, and of St. Athanasius' Creed. These Works were printed at Colen, A. D. 1566. and in the Bibliotheca Patrum. There are also Three Books of Revelations which bear the name of this Saint, printed with those of St. 
Thierry, Abbot of the Order of St. Benedict, St. Elizabeth Abbess of Schonaw.  Brigit at Paris, in 1533. and at Colen, in 1628. St. Hildegarda died in 1180. and her Life was written in 1200. by Thierry or Theodoric, an Abbot of the same Order of St. Benedict.  
S. ELIZABETH, Abbess of Schonaw, in the Diocese of Trier, near the Monastery of St. Florin, which her Brother Ecbert governed in Quality of Abbot, was likewise famous for her Revelations. She flourished A. D. 1155. and died in 1165. aged 36 Years. There are Three Books of Visions or Revelations, written by this Saint, and a Volume of Letters printed at Colen, in 1628. Her Brother ECBERT Composed, besides the Thirteen Discourses, 
Ecbert, Abbot of St. Florin.  against the Cathari, of which we have already made mention, the Life of his Sister, which is prefixed to her Revelations: 'Tis also reported that he was the Author of some other Letters.  
ODO, a Regular Canon of St. Augustin, wrote A. D. 1160. Seven Letters about the 
Odo, a Regular Canon.  Duties and Functions of Regular Canons, which are inserted in the Second Tome of the Spicilegium, by Father Luke Dachery.  
JOHN of CORNWALL, had Peter Lombard for his Tutor, but afterwards fell at 
John of Cornwall.  variance with him upon several occasions. He studied for a long time at Rome, and obtained a great share of the Favours of Pope Alexander III. We have not any of his Works printed, but Dr. Cave mentions two Manuscript Treatises of this Author, viz. one Dedicated to Pope Alexander, under the Title of A Discussion of Humane Philosophy, and of Heresies; and the other called A Summary of the Manner how the Sacrament of the Altar is made by the Virtue of the Cross, and of the Seven Canons or Orders of the Mass.  
In the time of Pope Alexander III. FOLMAR, Provost of Trieffenstein, near Wurtzburg 
Folmar, Provost of Trieffenstein.  in Franconia, was accused of maintaining the Errors of Nestorius and Elipandus, concerning the Person and Adoption of JESUS CHRIST, and of spreading them abroad in Bavaria. Two Monks of that Country, viz. GEROCHUS, Provost of the Abbey of Reichersperg, and another who was Dean of the same Monastery, wrote against him; the 
Gerochus, Provost of Reichersperg. A nameless Dean of Reichersperg.  former in a Treatise of Antichrist, and the other in a Book written on purpose. Their Works are still Extant in the Libraries of Germany, according to the report of Stevart, who assures us, that they are worthy to be brought to light; altho' those Authors seem to have fallen into an Error directly opposite to that of the Eutychians, or Ubiquitarians, in maintaining, That the Divine Perfections passed into the Humane Nature of JESUS CHRIST, and that the latter is become equal to the Godhead. Stevart has produced in his Collection the Epistle Dedicatory of the Dean of Reichersperg's Treatise, directed to Henry, Dean of the Church of Wurtzburg, and it is also inserted in the Twenty third Tome of the last Edition of the Bibliotheca Patrum.  
GILBERT FOLIOT, an English Man by Nation, and Abbot of Liecester, was translated A. D. 1161. from the Bishopric of Hereford, which he obtained in 1149. to that of 
Gilbert Foliot, Bishop of London.  London, and was one of the principal Adversaries of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. He wrote a Commentary on the Book of Canticles, which was published by Junius, and printed in Quarto at London, in 1638. There are also Seven of his Letters in the Collection of those of Thomas Becket. He died in 1187.  
PHILIP of HARVENGE, Abbot of Bonne Esperance, of the Order of Premontre in 
Philip of Harvenge, Abbot of Bonne Esperance.  Hainaut, surnamed the Alms-giver, by reason of his extraordinary liberality to the Poor, flourished A. D. 1150. and died in 1180. His Works were published by Nicolas Chamart, Abbot of Bonne Esperance, and printed at Dovay, in 1621. according to the following Catalogue, viz. Twenty one Letters: A Commentary on the Canticles: Moral Observations on the same Book. Several Discourses on King Nebuchadnezzar's Dream, on Adam's Fall, and on the Damnation of King Solomon: Six Treatises of the Dignity, Learning, Uprightness, Continency, Obedience, and Silence of Clergymen. A Relation of the Lives of St. Augustin, Bishop of Hippon, and of St. Amand, Abbot of Tongres: The Passion of St. Cyricius, and St. Julitta, with that of St. Salvius: The Lives of St. Foillan, St. Gislen, St. Landelin, St. Ida, and St. Valtruda: The Passion of St. Agnes in Elegiac Verse, with divers other Poetical Pieces, and some Epitaphs.  
ADAMUS SCOTUS, a Regular Canon of St. Augustin, of the Order of Premontre, 
Adamus Scotus, a Regular Canon.  flourished A. D. 1160. and died in 1180. He Composed a Commentary on St. Augustin's Rule: A Treatise of the Triple Tabernacle of Moses: Another of the three kinds of Contemplation, and Forty seven Sermons. Those Works were printed at Antwerp in 1695. and Father Ouden says, That he saw Fifty three other Sermons, and a Soliloquy of the Soul, by the same Author, in the Library of the Celestine Fathers of Mante.  
JOANNES BURGUNDUS, a Magistrate and Citizen of Pisa, was sent to Constantinople, to negotiate certain Affairs for that Republic at the Court of the Emperor Manuel 
Joan. Eurgundus, a Magistrate of Pisa.  Comnenus, where he met with some Copies of St. Chrysostom's Homilies, on St. John and St. Matthew, and translated them into Latin. He likewise translated St. John Damascenus' Treatise of the Orthodox Faith, and Nemesius' Eight Books of Philosophy. The latter of those Works was printed at Strasburg, in 1512. This Author flourished in 1150. and died in 1184. His Translations are not very polite, but extremely faithful.  
PETER of RIGA, Chanter and Canon of the Church of Rheims, flourished A. D. 1170. He Composed Seven Books under the Title of Aurora, which contain the Two Books of 
Peter of Riga, Canon of Rheims.  Kings, and the Four Gospels in Verse, according to the Literal and Allegorical Sense. This Piece is still to be found in the Libraries; and Father Oudin assures us, That he had them all ready to be printed. However the Public may well excuse him from taking that pains, without suffering much detriment; in regard that such sort of Works are of no great usefulness.  
HENRY, Archbishop of Rheims, dispatched two Letters, A. D. 1170. in favour of Dreux, Chancellor of the Church of Noyon, whom Pope Alexander III. determined to condemn, viz. 
Henry, Archbishop of Rheims.  one to the Cardinals, and the other to the Pope himself: They are both written with a great deal of Freedom, and he complains, that notwithstanding the signal Services he had done to the Holy See, so little regard was had to Persons, for whom he had a particular Esteem. However the Pope, returned a very Civil Answer, without granting his Request, showing, That if he did not do what was expected, it ought not to be inferred from thence, that he was not desirous by all means to give him Satisfaction; but that the present Conjuncture of Affairs, would not admit of such a Compliance. Both the Letters written by this Archbishop, were published by M. Baluzius, in the Second Tome of his Miscellaneous Works.  
ROBERTUS PAULULUS, a Priest of Amiens, Composed A. D. 1178. Three Books 
Robertus Paululus, Priest of Amiens.  of the Offices of the Church, which were printed separately, and under the Name of Hugh of St. Victor, among the Works of that Author. The Treatise called the Canon of the Mystical Purification, which is also inserted among the Works of Hugh of St. Victor, aught in like manner to be restored to the same Robert of Amiens.  
MAURICE, surnamed DE SULLY, from a small Town of that Name, situated on 
Maurice de Sully, Bishop of Paris.  the River Loire, (which was the place of his Nativity) was Born of mean Parentage, nevertheless upon account of his singular Merits and extraordinary Learning, he was promoted to the Bishopric of Paris, A. D. 1164. after the Death of Peter Lombard. Henricus Gandavensis assures us, that he composed Sermons for all the Sundays and Festivals of the Year, and certain Instructions for the Priests of his Diocese; the Manuscript Copies of which are kept in the French King's Library, and in that of St. Victor. He died A. D. 1196. and was buried in the Abbey of St. Victor.  
GERVASE, a Priest of Chichester, one of the Favourers of Thomas Becket Archbishop of 
Gervase a Priest of Chichester. Odo Abbot of Bel.  Canterbury, was in good repute for his Learning, and wrote a Commentary on the Prophet Malachy, which (as we are informed by M. James) was kept in the Lomley Library.  
ODO, of the County of Kent, Prior of the Monastery of Canterbury, and afterwards Abbot of Bel, was likewise the Friend and Protector of Thomas Becket. He wrote divers Works, but we have none left, except a certain Letter directed to his Brother a Novice in the Abbey of Igny, in which he exhorts him speedily to assume the Monastic Habit. This Letter was published by Father Mabillon in the first Tome of his Analecta.  
LABORANTIUS, Cardinal with the Title of St. Mary, who flourished in the Year 1180. 
Laborantius Cardinal.  composed a Collection of Canons: A Treatise of Justice and Equity divided into four Parts, and dedicated to the Governor of Sicily: Another to Hugh Archbishop of Palermo: A Letter directed to the same Hugh against the Sabellians: And another Letter to Vivian Cardinal of St. Stephen concerning Appeals. All these Pieces are contained in a certain Manuscript of St. Peter's Church at Rome, cited by Baronius and Possevinus.  
ALULPHUS, a Monk of St. Martin at Tournay, compiled a Collection of Sentences and 
Alulphus Monk of St. Martin at Tournay. Baldwin. Archbishop of Canterbury.  Maxims, taken out of the Works of St. Gregory, and called it The Gregorial. It is extant in Manuscript in several Libraries, and Father Mabillon has produced the Preface to it in the First Tome of his Analecta.  
BALDWIN, a Native of Exeter, in the County of Devon; of a Schoolmaster, became an Archdeacon, afterwards turned Monk, and was made Abbot of Ferden: From that Abbey he was translated to the Bishopric of Winchester, A. D. 1181. and at last advanced to the dignity of Archbishop of Canterbury in 1185. He accompanied King Richard I. in his Expedition to the Holy Land, and died there in 1191. or 1192. 'Tis reported that Pope Urban sent him a Letter, the Superscription of which was to this effect: To Baldwin a most zealous Monk, a fervent Abbot, a lukewarm Bishop, and an effeminate Archbishop. The following Works written by this Prelate are contained in the fifth Tome of the Bibliotheca Cisterciensis set forth by Father Tissier, viz. sixteen Treatises of Piety on different Subjects, particularly, on the Love of God, the twofold Resurrection, the efficacy of the Word of God, the Angelical Salutation, etc. A Treatise of the recommendation of Faith: And another of the Sacrament of the Altar dedicated to Bartholomew Bishop of Exeter.  
ISAAC, Abbot of L'Etoile, of the Cistercian Order in the Diocese of Poitiers, flourished in 
Isaac Abbot of L'Etoile  the end of the Century: He composed divers Sermons published in the sixth Tome of the Bibliotheca Cisterciensis, with a Treatise of the Spirit and the Soul, attributed to St. Augustin: He is also reputed to be the Author of a certain Letter on the Canon of the Mass, which is contained in the first Tome of the Spicilegium.  
The Abbey of Clairvaux, has produced in the end of this Century three Abbots who may 
Henry, Peter and Garnier Abbots of Clairvaux  be reckoned amongst the Ecclesiastical Writers, viz. HENRY the seventh Abbot, who wrote a Treatise called, De peregrinante Civitate Dei, and some Letters. PETER the eighth Abbot, who was the Author of some Letters, and GARNIER his Successor, who composed divers Sermons. If any Persons are desirous to consult those Works, they may have recourse to the third Tome of the Bibliotheca Cisterciensis.  
GILBERT OF SEMPRINGHAM, an English Man, and Founder of the Order of 
Gilbert of Sempringham  the Canons called Gilbertines in England, flourished in the end of this Century. He compiled two Books of Constitutions for his Order, which are to be found in the Monasticon Anglicanum.  
In the Library of St. german des Prez is to be seen, a Manuscript Collection of divers Sermons, which bear the Name of CHRISTIAN: Some are of Opinion, That this Author 
Christian.  was Abbot of St. Peter An Val, in the Diocese of Chartres: Others attribute this Piece to Christian Archbishop of Mentz, who died, A. D. 1183. and who wrote (as it is generally believed) an History of the Emperor Frederick's Expedition to the Holy Land: But others with greater probability ascribe it, to one of the two Christians, Monks of Clairvaux, and the Pupils of St. Bernard, who were made Abbots and Bishops in Ireland, and of whom mention is made in Chap. 8. of the second Book of St. Bernard's Life. Let the case be how it will, this Author has apparently taken many Notions out of the Works of that Saint.  
GAUTIER, surnamed DE CHATILLON, a Native of Lisle in Flanders, was the Author 
Gautier de Chatillon.  of the Alexandreiss, or Poem on the Actions of Alexander, printed at Strasburg, A. D. 1531. and at Lions in 1558. He also composed three Books in form of Dialogues against the Jews, which Father Oudin says he has seen in Manuscript in the Library of the Monastery of Premontre at Brain.  
GARNIER, a Canon and Superior of the Abbey of St. Victor at Paris, compiled in the 
Garnier of St. Victor.  end of the Century, a Treatise called The Gregorian, containing certain Allegorical Explications on the Bible, taken out of the Writings of St. Gregory Pope. This Work was printed at Paris, A. D. 1608.  
THOMAS, a Monk of Cisteaux, is the Author of a Commentary on the Canticles divided into twelve Books, and dedicated to Pontius Bishop of Clermont; altho' some Persons have 
Thomas Monk of Cisteaux.  attributed it to other Authors of the same Name, and Paul de Reatino a Cordelier took the boldness to cause it to be printed at Rome, A. D. 1655. under the Name of John Duns surnamed Scotus; but he was soon opposed by the Solicitor General of the Cistercian, Order, who obtained a Decree of the Master of the Sacred Palace, by which it was declared, that that Commentary was unadvisedly printed under the Name of Scotus, and a Prohibition was made at the same time, to sell or publish it for the future under that Name, but only under that of Thomas of Cisteaux. Charles de Wisch, who caused this Work to be printed in the Bibliotheca Praemonstratensis attributed it to divers Thomas', and afterwards John le Page the Collector of the Library of Premontre, ascribed it to one Thomas Canon of that Order in the Monastery of Quesnoy; but the true Author of it is Thomas Monk of Cisteaux, as it appears from the ancient Manuscripts which are extant in the Libraries of the same Order. It likewise bears his Name in the first Editions set forth by Badius at Paris, A. D. 1521. and at Lions in 1571. This Author flourished in the end of the Centu●y.  
PETER, surnamed COMESTOR, or the Eater, a Native of Troy's in Champagne, Priest 
Petrus Comestor Dean of St. Peter at Troy's.  and Dean of the Church of St. Peter in that City, acquired so great Reputation, that he was invited to Paris, and made Chancellor of the University. He retired near the end of his Life to the Monastery of St. Victor, and died there A. D. 1198. His principal Work, is a Scholastical History divided into sixteen Books, which comprehends an Abridgement of all manner of Sacred History, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Acts of the Apostles; but he intermixes therein divers Passages of profane History, and some fabulous Narrations. This Work was first printed at Rutlingen, A. D. 1473. and afterwards at Strasburg in 1483. as also at Basil in 1486. and at Lions in 1543. The Sermons, which Busaeus caused to be printed under the Name of Peter of Blois, belong to this Author, as well as some others which are extant in the Libraries.  
ROBERT OF FLAMESBURY, a Regular Canon of St. Augustin, and Penitentiary in 
Robert of Flamesbury.  the Abbey of St. Victor, was in good repute for his Learning. He composed a large Penitential, which is kept in Manuscript in the Library of St. Victor, and in that of the College Des Cholets.  
The English were always very accurate in their penitential Books, and two Authors were 
Bartholomew Bishop of Oxford. Odo of Chirton.  more especially famous for writing on that Subject in the end of the Twelfth Century. The first is BARTHOLOMEW Bishop of Oxford, a Manuscript Copy of whose Work is to be seen in the Library of St. Victor; and the other is ODO OF CHIRTON, whose Piece called The Summary of Repentance, is extant in divers Libraries of England, with several Homilies by the same Author.  
ELIE OF COXIE, so called from the Name of a Village in the Territory of Furnes in 
Elie of Coxie Abbot of Dunes.  Flanders, the place of his Nativity, was at first a Monk of Cisteaux and afterwards Abbot of Dunes. He has left us two large Discourses made by him in the Chapter of Cisteaux, which are contained in the Bibliotheca Ordinis Cisterciensis. He died A. D. 1203.  
JOHN, a Carthusian Friar of the Monastery of Des Portes, flourished in the end of this 
John a Carthusian Monk of des Portes.  Century, and composed five Letters on pious Subjects, viz. the First about shunning of the World; The Second and Third of Prayer, the Fourth of the care that ought to be taken to observe the Inclinations of the Heart; and the Fifth of Perseverance in the State that one has once embraced, dedicated to Bernard his Nephew, a Carthusian Monk, who was tempted to quit that Order.  
There is also a Letter written by another Monk of the same Carthusian Convent, named 
Stephen de Chaulmet a Carthusian Monk. Zachary Bishop of Chrysopolis.  STEPHEN DE CHAULMET, about continuing in the Order into which one has been admitted, which was dedicated to the Novices of the Monastery of St. Sulpicius of the Cistercian Order. These two Authors wrote in the end of the Century.  
ZACHARY, a Regular Canon (as some say) of the Order of Premontre in the Monastery of St. Martin at Laon, or according to others, Bishop of Chrysopolis, wrote a Commentary on Ammonius' Evangelical Concord, which was printed at Colen, A. D. 1535. and in the Nineteenth Tome of the Bibliotheca Patrum. We have no certain Account of the Life and Character of this Author, or of the time when he flourished.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Of the Writers of Ecclesiastical History of the Twelfth Century.  
THE Twelfth Century has produced so great a Number of Historians, and Historical Works, as well Ecclesiastical as Profane, that 'tis in a manner impossible to give a particular Account of every one of them; nevertheless we have endeavoured to make a Catalogue of them, and at least to represent the Authors, and their Works in general: In order to do which more conveniently, and more methodically, we have distributed them under several Articles and Divisions.  

The Writers of General History.  
FLORENTIUS BRAVO, an English Monk of Winchester, wrote a Chronicle from the Creation 
Florentius Bravo, Monk of Winchest.  of the World to the Year of our Lord 1118. taken in part from that of Marianus Scotus, printed at London, A. D. 1595. and at Francfurt in 1601. as also a Genealogical Account of the Kings of England, which is likewise annexed to the London Edition. He died A. D. 1119.  
ECKARD, Abbot of Urangen, in the Diocese of Wurtzburg, flourished A. D. 1130. and left a 
Eckard, Abbot of Urangen.  Chronicle to Posterity. Trithemius makes mention of a Work of this Author, called, The Lantern of Monks, there are also extant certain Letters and Sermons written by him.  
HUGH, a Monk of Fleury, composed A. D. 1120. a Chronicle from the Creation of the World 
Hugh, Monk of Fleury.  to the Year 840. which was printed at Munster in 1638. The same Author wrote two Books concerning the Royal Authority and the Sacerdotal Dignity, which were dedicated to Henry I. King of England, and published by M. Baluzius, in the Fourth Tome of his Miscellaneous Works.  
ORDERICUS VITALIS, born in England at Attingesham on the River Severn, A. D. 1075. 
Ordericus Vitalis, Monk of St. Eurou.  was sent at the Age of eleven Years to Normandy, and placed in the Abbey of St. Eurou, where he assimed the Habit of a Monk, and completed his Studies. He likewise entered into Holy Orders, and spent his whole Life in that Monastery; leaving XIII Books of Ecclesiastical History, from the Nativity of Jesus Christ to the Year 1142. which were published by M. du Chesne, in the Volume of the Historiographers of Normandy.  
ANSELM, Abbot of Gemblours in Brabant, continued Sigebert's Chronicle from the Year 1112. to 
Anselm, Abbot of Gemblours. Otho, Bishop of Frisinghen.  1137. This Continuation, with two others, the first of which is extended to the Year 1149. and the second to 1225. was set forth by Albertus Miraeus, and printed at Antwerp, A. D. 1608.  
The Birth of OTHO, Bishop of Frisinghen, is no less illustrious than the Reputation he acquired by writing his History: For he was the Son of Leopold Marquis of Austria, and of Agnes the Daughter of the Emperor Henry IU. That Princess was twice married, viz. at first to Frederick Duke of Suevia or Schwaben, to whom she brought forth two Sons, namely, Conrade the Emperor, and Frederick Duke of Suevia: But by her second Marriage with Leopold, she had Leopold Duke of Bavaria, Henry Duke of Austria, Gertrude Duchess of Bohemia, Bertha Duchess of Poland, Ita Marchioness 〈◊〉 Montferrat, Otho and Conrade. These two last being designed by their Father for the Ecclesiastical Functions, Otho obtained the Government of a College, which his Father had founded at Neu●…g, and where he ordered himself to be buried: But Otho soon resigned his Office to Opoldus, and being incited with an ardent desire of becoming Master of the Liberal Sciences, went to Paris, where he completed his Studies: Some Years after he turned Cistercian Monk, in the Abbey of Morimond, with Fifteen of his Companions. In 1138. the Emperor Conrade, his Brother, conferred 〈◊〉 him the Bishopric of Frisinghen in Bavaria, and honoured him with the Dignities of Chancellor and Secretary of State. He accompanied that Prince in his Expedition to the Holy Land. A. D. 1147. and at last in 1156. leaving his Bishopric, retired to the Abbey of Morimond, where he died in the Month of September in the same Year.  
This Prelate composed a Chronological History from the Creation of the World to his time, divided into Seven Books, and annexed an Eighth concerning the Persecution to be raised by Anti-christ, and the Resurrection of the Dead. He wrote a very fine Style, with respect to the Age in which he lived, and much more politely than the other Historians of those Times. He was well versed in Scholastical Divinity, as also in Aristotle's Philosophy; and was one of the first, who (as Rad●ic has observed) introduced that Science into Germany. Upon which Account, 'tis not to be admired that he has been very favourable to Gillebert de la Porréc, in the Dissertation prefixed before his History: It was first published by John Cuspinian, and printed at Strasbourg, A. D. 1515. afterwards at Basil in 1569. and among the Germane Historiographers at Francfur● in 1585. and 1670. Otho, in like manner, wrote two Books containing the History of the Actions of Frederick Barbe●ossa, which are subjoined at the end of his Chronicle Moreover Wolfgangus Lazius says, that he saw an History of Austria composed by the same Otho, but there has been no talk of it since; neither has it as yet appeared any where in Print.  
GODFREY OF VITERBO, so called from the Name of his Native Country, who was a 
Godfrey of Viterbo.  Priest, Almoner, and Secretary of State to the Emperors Conrade III. Frederick I. and Henry VI. wrote an Universal Chronicle, dedicated to Pope Urban III. and called Pantheon, by reason of the great Variety of Occurrences contained therein: It ends at the Year 1186. and is inserted among the Works of the Germane Historians collected by Pistorius, and printed at Francfurt in 1584. It is reported that this Writer spent Forty Years in travelling; that he made a prodigious Collection of all sorts of Observations during his Voyages; and that he understood the Hebrew, Chaldaick, Greek, and Latin Tongues. Lambecius makes mention of another Work by the same Author, which is to be seen in Manuscript in the Emperor's Library, bearing this Title, The Mirror of Kings, or Genealogies of all the Kings and Emperors from the universal Flood to the time of Henry VI.  
ROBERT OF TORIGNY, a Monk, afterwards Prior of Bec Abbey, and at last Abbot of St. Michael's 
Robert of Torigny, Abbot of Mount St. Michael.  Mount, composed a Supplement of Sigebert's Chronicle, and a Continuation to the Year 11●4. as also a Treatise of the Monasteries and Abbeys of Normandy; the History of that of St. Michael's Mount, a Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles taken from St. Augustin; and the History of the Reign of Henry II. King of England. Father Luke Dachery has caused to be printed at the end of Guibert's Works the Supplement and Continuation of Sigibert's Chronicle, and the Treatise of the Abbeys of Normandy, with a Letter written by the said Robert, and his Preface to the Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles.  
OTHO OF S. BLAISIUS, continued the Chronicle of Otho of Frisinghen to the Year 1190. 
Otho of St. Blaisive. John Brompton, Abbot of Jorval.   
JOHN BROMPTON, an English Monk of the Cistercian Order, and Abbot of Jorval in the Diocese of York, is the reputed Author of a certain Chronicle from the Year 588. to 1198. but the learned Mr. Selden assures us, that it was not written by him; that he only caused it to be transcribed, and that he did not live in this Century.   

Historians of England.  
THE Kingdom of England has brought forth so many approved Authors, who have ●mploy'd their Pens in writing the History of their Native Country, that they well deserve to be referred to a particular Article.  
HENRY OF HUNTINGTON, the Son of a married Priest named Nicolas, and the Pupil of Albinus Andegavius Canon of Lincoln, was made Canon of the same Church, and afterwards 
Henry, archdeacon of Huntingdon.  archdeacon of Huntingdon, by Alexander Bishop of Lincoln, whom he accompanied in his Journey to Rome. He wrote the History of the English Monarchy from its first Foundation till the Death of King Stephen, which happened in 1154. It is dedicated to the said Bishop Alexander, and divided into Eight or Ten Books, being contained among the Works of the English Writers in Sir Henry Savil's Collection, printed at London A. D. 1596. and at Francfurt in 1601. Father Luke Dachery has likewise published in the Eighth Tome of his Spicilegium a small Tract of this Author, concerning the Contempt of the World, dedicated to Gauterius. He there shows how the Things of this sublunary World ought to be contemned, relating many Examples of Misfortunes that happened to the Great Personages of his Age, and the miserable Death of divers profligate Wretches: He declares, in the Preface to this Tract, that he had before made a Dedication to the same Person of a Collection of Epigrams, and of a Poem about Love. There are also in the Libraries of Oxford and Cambridge several other Manuscript Works of this Author, particularly a Letter concerning the British Kings, dedicated to Warinus; a Treatise of the Counties of Great Britain; another of the Image of the World; and a Third of the English Saints.  
WILLIAM LITTLE, known by the Name of Gu●i●lmus Neubrigensis, was born at Bridlington near York, A. D. 1136. and educated in the Convent of the Regular Canons of Neutbridge, where 
Gulielmus Neubrigensis.  he embraced the Monastic Life: He composed a large History of England, divided into Five Books, from the Year 1066. to 1197. This History is written with much Fidelity, and in a smooth and intelligible Style. It was printed at Antwerp A. D. 1567. are Heidelberg in 1587. and lastly at Paris with John Picard's Notes in 1610. It is believed that he died A. D. 1208.  
WALTER, born in the Principality of Wales, archdeacon, and even (as some say) Bishop of Oxford, translated out of English into Latin the History of England, composed by Geffrey of Monmouth, 
Walter, archdeacon of Oxford. John Pike.  and continued to his time.  
JOHN PIKE, wrote an History of the English, Saxon, and Danish Kings of England, and flourished with the former Historian under King Henry I.  
GERVASE, a Monk of Canterbury, composed several Treatises relating to the History of England, which are contained in Mr. Selden's Collection of the English Historiographers; particularly 
Gervase, Monk of Canterbury.  a Relation of the burning and repairing of the Cathedral Church of Canterbury; an Account of the Contests between the Monks of Canterbury, and Baldwin their Archbishop; a Chronicle from the Year 1122. to 1199. and the Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury.  
GEFFREY ARTHUR, archdeacon of St. Asaph, was chosen Bishop of that Diocese A. D. 1151. He left his Bishopric by reason of certain Commotions which happened in Wales, and retired 
Geffrey Arthur, Bishop of St. Asaph.  to the Court of Henry II. King of England, who gave him the Abbey of Abbington in Commendam. Afterwards in a Council held at London, A. D. 1175. the Clergy of St. Asaph caused a Proposal to be made to Geffrey by the Archbishop of Canterbury, either to return to his Bishopric, or to admit another Bishop to be substituted in his room: He refused to return, designing to keep his Abbey; but both the Abbey and the Bishopric were disposed of, and he was left destitute of any Ecclesiastical Preferment. He wrote, or rather translated out of English into Latin, an History of Great Britain from the beginning to his time; which is full of Fables, dedicated to Robert Duke of Gloucester, and divided into Twelve Books. It was printed at Paris A. D. 1517. at Lions by Potelier in 1587. and by Commelin in the same Year; it is also inserted among the Works of the English Historians printed that Year at Heidelberg. It is reported that he, in like manner, translated out of English into Latin, the ancient Prophecies of Merlin, which were printed at Francfurt with Alanus' Observations, A. D. 1603.  
The History of the Church of Durham was written by several Authors, the first of whom is 
Turgot, Monk of Durham.  TURGOT, a Monk of that Diocese, who composed one from its first Foundation to the Year 1096.  
SIMEON OF DURHAM, copied out Turgot's History almost word for word, from the Year 
Simeon of Durham.  635. to 1096. and continued it to 1154. He likewise wrote an History of the Kings of England and Denmark, from the Year 731. to 1130. A Letter to Hugh Dean of York, about the Archbishops of that City; and a Relation of the Siege of Durham. These Three last Pieces were published by Father Labbé, in the first Tome of his Library of Manuscripts. The Historians of the Church of Durham, by Turgot and Simeon, were printed at London, with the Works of the other English Historiographers, A. D. 1652.  
WILLIAM OF SUMMERSAULT, a Monk of Malmesbury, is justly preferred before all the other 
William of Somerset, Monk of Malmesbury.  English Historians. His History of England, divided into Five Books, contains the most remarkable Transactions in this Kingdom, since the arrival of the Saxons to the 28th Year of King Henry I. that is to say, from the Year of our Lord 449. to 1127. He afterwards added Two Books, continuing the History to A. D. 1143. and annexed to the whole Work Four Books, containing the History of the Bishops of England, from Augustin the Monk, who first planted Christianity in these Parts, to his time. These Works were printed at London, and published by Sir Henry Savil, A. D. 1596. and at Francfurt in 1601. Father Mabillon has likewise set forth, in the first Tome of his Benedictin Centuries, the Life of St. Adelm Bishop of Salisbury, composed by this Author, who died A. D. 1143.  
JOHN OF HEXAM, a Native of the County of Northumberland, Monk and Provost of the 
John of Hexam, Provost of Hagulstadt. Sylvester Girald, Bishop of St. David's,  Monastery of Hagulstadt, flourished about the Year 1160. He made a Continuation of Simeon of Durham's History of the Kings of England and Denmark, from A. D. 1130. to 1154. This Work is extant among those of the other English Historians, printed at London in 1652.  
SYLVESTER GIRALD, born in Wales, flourished in the end of the Reign of King Henry II. to whom he dedicated a Natural History, a Topography of Ireland, and a History, in form of a Prediction, of the Conquest of Ireland by that Monarch, printed at Antwerp. These Works were published by Mr. Camden, and printed at Francfurt in 1602. He also wrote an Itinerary of Wales, upon a Visitation there made by him, with Baldwin Archbishop of Canterbury, to excite the People of that Country to undertake a Voyage to the Holy Land. This last Work is extant among the others, and was likewise printed at London in 1585. with a Description of the same Country of Wales. Besides these Pieces, he wrote the Lives of several Saints, and died Bishop of St. David's in the beginning of the following Century. One of his Letters is contained in Archbishop Usher's Collection of the Letters of Ireland, and divers other Works of this Author are found among the Manuscripts of the public Libraries of England.  
ROGER OF HOVEDEN, an Officer under King Henry II. and afterwards Regius Professor 
Roger Hoveden, Regius Professor of Divinity.  of Divinity in the University of Oxford, composed the Annals of England from the Year 731. where Venerable Bede ends to 1202. This Work is among those of the English Historians published by Sir Henry Savil, and printed at London A. D. 1595, as also at Francfurt in 1601.   

Historiographers of the Crusade.  
THE History of the Famous Crusade, instituted under Pope Urban II. and the Conquests which the Western People made in the Levant, from the Year 1095. to 1099. have afforded Matter to many contemporary Historians, the greater part of whom were Eye-witnesses of the Transactions related by them.  
The First of these Historiographers is PETRUS THEUTBODUS, who saw the most part of 
Petrus Theutbodus. A Nameless Italian Author.  the memorable Actions which he has committed to Writing; and from whom those that wrote after him, took a considerable Part of their Relations.  
The Second is a NAMELESS Italian Author, who accompanied Boamond King of Sicily in the Expedition to the Holy Land. His Work is known by the Title of, The notable Exploits of the French, and other Christians of Jerusalem, and divided into Four Books.  
The Third is ROBERT, a Monk of St. Remy at Rheims, who assisted in the Council of Clermont 
Robert, Monk of S. Remy at Rheims.  in the Year 1095. and afterwards made a Voyage to the Holy Land. At his return, he wrote the History of the War of Jerusalem, divided into Eight or Nine very short Books: He excuses himself in the Preface, upon account of the roughness of his Style.  
The Fourth is BAUDRY, Abbot of Bourgueil, who was afterwards ordained Bishop of Dol, A. D. 
Baudry, Bishop of Dol.  1114, and died January 27. 1131. His History is divided into Four Books; but he was not an Eye-witness of what he relates, although he assisted in the Council of Clermont: Therefore he contents himself only to follow, and to supply the defects of an ancient nameless History, which was ill written, inserting such Accounts as he had received from others. This Author likewise wrote the Life of St. Hugh Archbishop of Roven, and a Tract concerning the Monastery of Fescamp, published in the Book called Neustria pia. To him also is attributed the Life of Robert d'Arbrisselles, which is in Surius, and the History of the Translation of St. Valentin's Head, which is extant in Bollandus' Collection in Febr. 14. Moreover it is observed that he is the Author of the Life of St. Samson, and that he promises certain Notes on the Pentateuch, in the Preface to his History. Lastly, 'tis reported that there is a small Manuscript Tract of the same Bishop Baudry, concerning the Visitation of the Sick, in the Library of Vienna in Austria. He was employed in writing his History near the end of his Life.  
The Fifth is RAIMOND D'AGILES, Canon of Puy, and Chaplain to the Count of Thoulouse, 
Raimond d'Agiles.  who was an Eye-witness. He wrote this History at the Request of Peter Ponce de Baladin, a particular Friend of the said Count, who was killed in the Siege of Arache, and dedicated it to the Bishop of Viviers.  
The Sixth is ALBERT, or ALBERIC, Canon of Aix in Provence, who composed his History 
Albert, or Alberi●, Canon of Aix. Foucher, Monk of Chartres. Gautier, the Chancellor.  from the Relations of others: It is extended to the Second Year of the Reign of Baldwin II. that is to say, to A. D. 1120.  
The Seventh is FOUCHER, a Monk of Chartres, who accompanied Robert Duke of Normandy in the Expedition to the Holy Land, A. D. 1095. His History is carried on to the Year 1124. But Guibert of Nogent accuses him of having written fabulous Narrations.  
GAUTIER, or GAUTERIUS, who assumes the Quality of Chancellor, is the Eighth: He published an History of the Advantages obtained by the Western Christians at Antioch, A. D. 1115. and of the Misfortunes that befell them in 1119. He was an Eye-witness of those Occurrences, and was taken Prisoner in the War; but his History is not very accurate.  
The Ninth is GUIBERT, Abbot of Nogent, an Author of great Note, whose Works deserve 
Guibert, Abbot of Nogent. A Nameless Author. Another Nameless Writer. William, Archbishop of Tyre.  to be specified in a separate Article.  
The Tenth is a NAMELESS Writer, who has only made an Abridgement of Foucher's History, to the Year 1106. where he ended.  
The Eleventh is another Anonymous Author, who composed a Relation of the same Transactions, under the Title of the History of Jerusalem: It was divided into Two Parts, but the Second is only extant, which gins at the Year 1110. and ends in 1124. This Author has in like manner only followed Foucher.  
The Twelfth, and most considerable of the Writers of this History, is WILLIAM Archbishop of Tyre, who has deduced it from the beginning of the Crusade to the Year 1183. in XXIII. Books. It is probable that this Author was a Native of Syria; however he passed very young into the Western Countries, and having completed his Studies, returned to the Levant, where he was ordained archdeacon of the Church of Tyre, A. D. 1167. Afterwards he was employed in the Negociations that were transacted between the Kings of Jerusalem, and the Greek Emperors; and at last was advanced to the Dignity of Archbishop of Tyre, in the Month of May 1174. In 1179. he assisted in the Council of Lateran, the Acts of which were drawn up by him: He returned from Italy by Constantinople, and after having resided some time at the Court of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus, arrived at Tyre twenty Months after his departure. The Patriarchal See of Jerusalem being then vacant, William of Tyre was nominated to fill it up; but a certain Clerk of Auvergne, named Heraclius, Archbishop of Coesarea, was preferred before him; nevertheless William refused to acknowledge his Election, and cited him to Rome; where he went incontinently, and was kindly entertained by the Pope. In the mean while Heraclius, before he came thither, sent a Physician, who poisoned William of Tyre: But the later foretold before his Death, that the Christians should lose the City of Jerusalem, and the real Cross, under the Government of Heraclius, which happened a little while after.  
William of Tyre wrote his History by the Order of Amaury King of Jerusalem: He makes use of the Memoires of other Historians to the Reign of Baldwin III. and afterward relates such Matters as fel● within the compass of his own knowledge, but the Twenty third Book is not finished. His Style is plain and natural, showing much Sagacity of Judgement, Modesty, and Learning, with respect to the time when he lived. He likewise composed the History of the Levantine Princes, from the Year 614. to 1184. but this Work is not as yet come to our Hands.  
The Thirteenth Historiographer is JAMES DE VITRY, who did not flourish till the following 
James de Vitry, Cardinal.  Century. This Author, after having been Curate of Argentevil, became a Regular Canon in the Monastery of Oignies, in the Diocese of Namur. He preached up the Crusade against the Albigeois, and afterwards against the Saracens, and took upon him the Cross for the Holy War in Palestine▪ He was ordained Archbishop of Ptolemais, and at last, by way of Recompense for the Services he had done the See of Rome, was invited thither by Pope Honorius III. and created Cardinal: He was also sent into France in Quality of Legate, to preach up a new Crusade against the Albigeois, and at his return to Rome died there A. D. 1244. after having ordered his Body to be conveyed to Oignies. His History is divided into Three Books; in the First of which, he gives an Account of the State of the Eastern Churches; in the Second, of that of the Western; and in the last, of the Occurrences which happened in the Levant in his time. There is also extant a Letter by the same Author about the taking of Damietta, which follows his History; and another Letter, containing a Relation of the Transactions before Damietta, which was written in 1219. to Pope Honorius III▪ and published by Father Dachery in the Eighth Tome of his Spicilegium.  
The Fourteenth is a NAMELESS Author, who lived at that time, and wrote the History of 
A Nameless Author. Oliver of Colen.  Jerusalem, from the Year 1177. to 1190.  
To these Histories may be added divers Letters written by several Kings, Princes and Prelates, to Lewes the Young, King of France; as also a Relation of the taking of Damietta by Oliver of Colen, and some other Monuments gathered together by Bongarsius, in his Collection of the Historiographers of the Crusade, called Gesta Dei per Francos, printed at Hanaw A. D. 1611. in which all the Works but now recited are contained. Some of them were printed separately, as the History by Robert Monk of St. Remy, of which there is an old Edition without the Printer's Name, or the Date of the Year; and another at Basil in 1533. There is only one part of Foucher's History in this Collection, but M. du Chesne has published it entire among the Works of the French Historiographers. Alberic's History was printed at Helmstadt in 1589. under the Title of the Chronicle of Jerusalem; that of William of Tyre was published by Poisnot, and printed at Basil in 1546. and afterward by Henry de Pantaleon, printed at the same Place in 1560. And lastly, James the Vitry's History was printed at Douai in 1597.   

Writers of Chronicles, and particular Histories.  
HUGH, a Monk of Verdun, and afterwards Abbot of Flavigny in the Duchy of Burgundy, 
Hugh, Abbot of Flavigny.  composed a Chronicle of Verdun divided into Two Parts, one of which gins at the Nativity of Jesus Christ, and ends in the Year 1002. and the other continues the History to 1102. This Work was published by Father Labbé, who gives a very great Character of it, in the first Tome of his new Library of Manuscripts; but the second Part is much more valuable than the first.  
BAUDRY, Secretary to Gerard I Lietbert and Gerard II. Bishops of Cambray, afterward Chanter 
Baudry, Bishop of Noyon, and Terovane. Leo, Cardinal.  and Canon of Terovane, and at last Bishop of Noyon and Terovane, wrote the History of the Churches of Cambray and Arras, under the Title of the Chronicle of Cambray, published by Colvenerius and printed at Douai A. D. 1615. This Author was ordained Bishop in the Year of our Lord 1097. and died in 1112.  
LEO OF MARSI, a Monk and Library-Keeper of Mount Cassin, was made Bishop of Sessa, and Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, by Pope Paschal II. A. D. 1101. He escaped by flight from Rome, with John Bishop of Frescati, when that Pope was apprehended by the Emperor Henry V and run all about Italy to excite the People to take up Arms in his defence: He also signed a Bull of the same Pope Paschal II. in 1115. and died a little while after. He wrote a Chronicle of the Abbey of Mount Cassin divided into Three Books, which gins at the time of St. Benedict, and ends in that of the Abbot Desiderius, who was chosen Pope under the Name of Victor III. This Chronicle was printed at Venice A. D. 1513. at Paris with that of Aimoin in 1603. at Naples in 1616. and again at Paris in 1668. It is reported that there are some other Manuscript Tracts of this Author, 
Another Cardinal Leo.  particularly certain Sermons, and Lives of the Saints, etc. In the Vatican Library are to be seen several Letters of another LEO, in like manner Cardinal Deacon, who was promoted to that Dignity by Urban II. and who made a Register of the Letters written by the same Pope.  
HARIULPHUS, a Monk of St. Riquier, composed a Chronicle of his Abbey, printed in the 
Hariulphus, Monk of S. Riquier.  fourth Tome of Father Dachery's Spicilegium; the Life of St. Arnoul of Soissons, published by Surius; a Treatise of the Miracles of St. Riquier; and the Life of St. Maldegi●ilus, set forth by Father Mabillon in his Benedictin Centuries. This Author wrote in the beginning of the Twelfth Century.  
RAINERIUS, a Monk of St. Laurence at Liege, who flourished A. D. 1130. is the Author of a 
Rainerius, Monk of S. Laurence at Liege. Herman, Abbot of St. Martin at Tournay. Falco of Beneventum.  Treatise of the illustrious Personages of his Monastery, and of the Bishopric of Liege, published by Chapeaville, in his Collection of Monuments relating to the Church of Liege.  
HERMAN, a Monk of St. Vincent at Laon, and afterwards Abbot of St. Martin at Tournay, flourished in the beginning of this Century. He wrote a large Narrative of the Restauration of the Church of St. Martin at Tournay, which contains the History of that Abbey, from the Reign of Philip I. King of France, to his time; that is to say, to the Year 1150. being inserted in the Twelfth Tome of Father Dachery's Spicilegium. He likewise compiled Three Books of the Miracles of St. Mary of Laon, printed with the Works of Guibert of Nogent, and another Manuscript Treatise about the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, dedicated to Stephen Archbishop of Vienna.  
FALCO OF BENEVENTUM, who was created Magistrate of that City by Pope Innocent II. left a Chronicle or History from the Year 1102. to 1140. in which he gives a particular Account of Matters relating to his Native Country. This Work was published by Father Caracioli of the Theatine Order, and printed at Naples A. D. 1626.  
UDASCALCHUS, a Monk, composed a Relation of the Controversies between Herman Bishop 
Udascalchus, a Monk.  of Augsburg, and Egino Abbot of St. Ulric, with a Poem concerning the Voyage and Death of the said Egino, published by Canisius in the Second Tome of his Collection. This Author wrote in the time of Pope Paschal II. and of Arnulphus Archbishop of Mentz, some of whose Letters are inserted by him in his Relation.  
ALEXANDER, an Abbot in Sicily, compiled Four Books of the Life and Reign of Roger King 
Alexander, Abbot in Sicily.  of Sicily, which were printed at Saragossa, A. D. 1578. and in the Book called Hispania illustrata. This Author wrote after the Death of King Roger, which happened in 1154.  
JOHN, a Monk of Marmotuier, wrote the History of the Actions of Geffrey Plantagenet, Count 
John, Monk of Marmoutier. Geffrey, or Walter de Vinesauf.  of Angers and Duke of Normandy, published by M. du Bouchel, and printed at Paris A. D. 1610. as also in M. du Chesne's Collection of the Historians of Normandy.  
GEFFREY, or WALTER DE VINESAUF, of Norman Extraction, but born in England, after having run through a Course of Learning in his Native Country, travelled beyond Sea, and acquired a great deal of Reputation. He composed a Work in Hexameter Verse, dedicated to Pope Innocent III▪ under the Title of The new Poesy, or the Art of Speaking; and another Treatise about the planting and improving of Trees. Both these Works are only in Manuscript; but in the Second Tome of the English Historians, printed at Oxford in 1687. is contained his History, or the Itinerary of King Richard I. to the Holy Land, which was attributed to other Authors; in the same Place are also found certain Copies of Verses on King Richard.  
ODO OF DEVIL, Abbot of St. Cornelius at Compeigne, and afterward Successor to Sugar in 
Odo, Abbot of St. Cornelius at Compeigne. Laurence, a Monk of Liege. Sugar, Abbot of St. Denis.  the Abbey of St. Denis, wrote a Relation of the Voyage of Lewes VII. King of France to the Levant, published by Father Chifflet in his Treatise of the Nobility of St. Bernard, printed at Paris A. D. 1660. This Author died in 1168.  
LAURENCE, a Monk of Liege, being sent to Verdun resided in the Monastery of St. Vito, and was employed in writing a Chronicle of the Bishops of that Diocese to the Year 1148. printed in the Twelfth Tome of the Spicilegium: It is reported that he lived till A. D, 1179.  
SUGAR, Abbot of St. Denis, famous as well for his Learning and Zeal in maintaining the Rights of the Church, as on account of the Nobleness of his Birth, and the considerable Employments he obtained in the State, wrote the Life of Lewes the Gross King of France; divers Letters relating to the public Affairs of the Kingdom, during his Administration of the Government; a Treatise of his Transactions in the Abbey of St. Denis; a Narrative of the Consecration of that Church; with certain Constitutions, and his last Will and Testament. These Monuments are extant in the Fourth Tome of the Historians by du Chesne; except the Account of the Consecration of the Church, which is not there entire, and to which Father Mabillon added a Supplement, in the First Tome of his Analecta. Sugar was chosen Abbot of St. Denis A. D. 1122. during his residence at Rome, and consecrated in 1123. He died in 1153.  
ALDEBERT, or ALBERT, Abbot of Hildesheim, flourished in the Year 1160. He wrote a Relation of the Restauration of his Monastery to the Benedictins under Pope Eugenius III. which 
Aldebert, or Albert, Abbot of Hildesheim. Teulphus, Monk of Maurigny. Hugh, of Poitiers, Monk of Vezelay. Richard, Prior of Hagulstadt. Thierry, or Theodoric, a Monk. A Nameless Author. Geffrey, Prior of Vigeois. Gonthier, Monk of St. Amand.  was published by Gretser, and printed at Ingolstadt A. D. 1617.  
TEULPHUS, a Monk of Maurigny, composed in the Year 1150. a Chronicle of his Monastery, from A. D. 1008. to 1147. which is to be found in the Three Tomes of the Historians by M. du Chesne.  
HUGH OF POITIERS, a Benedictin Monk, Secretary to the Abbey of Vezelay, began in the Year 1156. by Order of Ponce Abbot of Vezelay, the History of that Monastery, and completed it in 1167. under William Abbot of the same Abbey. It is divided into Four Books, and was published by Father Dachery in the Third Tome of his Spicilegium.  
RICHARD, an English Man of the County of Northumberland, Monk and Prior of the Monastery of Hagulstadt, flourished An. Dom. 1180. and died in 1190. His Works were published among those of the English Historians, printed at London in 1652. They are, an History of the Church and Bishops of Hagulstadt; that of the Actions of King Stephen; and that of the War managed by Standardius from A. D. 1135. to 1139.  
THIERRY, or THEODERIC, a Monk, wrote about the Year 1180. a compendious History of Ecclesiastical Affairs, and of the Kings of Norway, published with another Piece of a NAMELESS Author, concerning the Expedition which the Danes undertook to the Holy Land, A. D. 1185. which was set forth by Gasper Kirkman, from the Memoires of John Kirkman of Lub●● his Uncle, and printed at Amsterdam in 1684.  
GEFFREY, a French Monk of the Monastery of St. Martial at Lymoges, and afterward Prior of Vigeois in the same Diocese, who was ordained Priest in 1167. by Geraud Bishop of Cahors, wrote a Chronicle or History of France from the Year 996. to 1184. which was published by Father Labbe in the Second Tome of his new Library of Manuscripts.  
GONTHIER, or GONTHERIUS, a Monk of the Abbey of St. Amand, had the Reputation of being a good Poet, and composed a Poem of the Exploits of the Emperor Frederick Barberossa in Lombardy and Liguria, which on that Account was called The Ligurine, and was printed at Strasburg A. D. 1531. as also at Basil in 1569. at Francfurt in 1584. and among the Germane Historians▪ He likewise wrote a Treatise of Prayer, Fasting and almsgiving, printed at Basil in 1504 and 1507. The Lives of St. Cyricius, and St. Julia in Verse, are also attributed to the sam● Author,  
SAXO, surnamed the Grammarian, by reason of the purity of his Style, was a Dane by Nation, of the Isle of Seeland. He was Provost of the Church of Roschild, and Chaplain to Absalon 
Saxon Grammaticus, Provost of Roschild.  Archbishop of Lunden, who sent him to Paris A. D. 1177. to conduct the Monks of St. Genevieve into Denmark. He wrote the History of his native Country to the Year 1186. Erasmus extols the vivacity of his Conceptions, the nobleness of his Expressions, the fluency of his Rhetoric, and the admirable variety of his Figures, and wonders much, by what means a Dane could arrive at such a height of Eloquence in that Age. He chief affected to imitate Valerius Maximus. His History was published by Christian Petri, Canon of Lunden, and printed at Paris A. D. 1514. John Bebelius caused it to be printed at Basil in 1534. as also did Philip Leonicier, and John Fichard at Francfurt in 1576. Lastly, Johannes Stephanius set forth a more large and correct Edition of it, with Prolegomena and Annotations, at Sora in 1644. This Author died in 1204.  
RALPH DE DICETO, an English Man by Nation, and Dean of St. Paul's at London, a Person 
Ralph de Diceto, Dean of St. Paul ' s at London.  well known on account of his Learning and Travels into Foreign Countries, wrote a compendious Chronicle from the Creation of the World to the Year 1198. The first Part of it ending at the time of Pope Gregory the Great was never published, because it only contained trivial Matters. He also composed certain Historical Tracts called Portraitures, from A. D. 1148. to 1200. These Works are among those of the English Historians printed at London in 1652.   

Writers of Relations of the Lives and Miracles of Saints.  
ANSCHERUS Abbot of St. Riquier composed in the Year 1110. a Relation of the Life and 
Anscherus, Abbot of St. Riquier. Theofredus, Abbot of Epternach. Rainaud of Semur, Archbishop of Lions.  Miracles of St. Angilbert Abbot of the same Monastery, which was published by Father Mabillon in the first Tome of his Benedictin Centuries.  
THEOFREDUS, Abbot of Epternach in the Duchy of Luxemburg, wrote a large Account of the Life of St. Wilbrod the first Bishop of Utrecht; Four Books of Epitaphs of Saints, printed at Luxemburg A. D. 1619. and certain Sermons, which are inserted in the Book called Bibliotheca Patrum.  
RAINAUD, or RAINOLDUS OF SEMUR, the Son of Dalmace de Semur and Aremberge du Vergey, of an illustrious Family in Burgundy, being the Brother of Hugh Abbot of Clunie, was chosen Abbot of Vezelay, and assisted in that Quality in the Council of Troy's, A. D. 1104. He was afterwards promoted to the Archbishopric of Lions, and died in 1109. in the 85th. Year of his Age, leaving a Narration of the Life of Hugh his Brother Abbot of Clunie, which is extant in the Bibliotheca Cluniacensis published by M. du Chesne.  
NICOLAS, a Monk of Soissons, wrote in the Year 1120. the Life of St. Godfrey Bishop of 
Nicolas, Monk of Soissons. Domniso Priest.  Amiens, dedicated to Rohard Bishop of Soissons, and referred to by Surius in Novemb. 8.  
DOMNISO, an Italian Priest, lived in the end of the preceding Century, and in the beginning of the present, under the Emperors Henry IU. and Henry V He wrote in Heroic Verse, the Life of the Princess Mathilda printed by Sebastian Tingnagelius at Ingolstadt A. D. 1612. with the Letters of Gebhard of Saltzburg, Sigefred of Mentz, and Stephen of Halberstadt, relating to the contest between the Emperor and Pope Gregory; as also the Treaty of Bertholdus of Constance about excommunicated Persons; the Lives of St. Altman of Passaw, Thiemo of Saltzburg, and Anselm of Lucca, written by nameless Authors. and Hesso's Treatise concerning the Transactions between the Emperor Henry V and Pope Calixtus II. in 1119.  
AELNOTH, a Monk of St. Augustin at Canterbury, flourished in the beginning of this Century, 
Aelnoth, Monk of Canterbury.  and spent a considerable part of his Life in Denmark, where (as 'tis reported) he resided 24 Years. He wrote about A. D. 1120. an Historical Account of the Life and Passion of Canut King of that Country, which was published by Arnold Whitfield A. D. 1602. and afterward printed with Meursius' Notes at Hanaw in 1631.  
GUALBERT, a Monk of the Abbey of Marchiennes, composed in the Year 1125. or 1126. Two 
Gualbert, Monk of Marchiennes. Pandulphus of Pisa. Fabricius Tuscus, Abbot of Abbington. Auctus, Abbot of Vall'Ombrosa. Odo, Abbot of St. Remy at Rheims. Geffrey the Gross, Monk of Tiron. Ulric, Bishop of Constance▪ Archard, Monk of Clairvaux.  Books, concerning the Miracles wrought by St. Rictruda.  
PANDULPHUS OF PISA flourished A. D. 1130. and wrote the Life of Pope Gelasius II. who died at Clunie in 1119. It was printed at Rome in 1638.  
FABRICIUS TUSCUS, Abbot of Abbington in England, wrote a Relation of the Life and Actions of St. Adelm an Abbot in Scotland. He flourished in the beginning of the present Century.  
AUCTUS, a Native of FLORENCE, and Abbot of the Monastery of Valombra, or Vall'Ombrosa, in the Territories of that City, who flourished in the beginning of the Century, has left us the Life of St. John Gualbert, and that of Bernard Hubert Cardinal, with a Narrative of the Translation of the Head of St. James the Apostle.  
ODO, Abbot of St. Remy at Rheims, sent a Letter to Count Thomas Lord of Coucy, which is still extant, and contains the Relation of a Miracle, which he heard at Rome from the Mouth of a certain Archbishop of India concerning the Body of St. Thomas the Apostle, which was interred in his Church. This Letter was written about A. D. 1135. for the next Year, Odo returned from Rome to France, and gave Lands to the House of Mont-Dieu belonging to the Carthusians.  
GEFFREY THE GROSS, a Monk of Tiron, wrote in the Year 1135. the Life of St. Bernard Abbot of that Monastery, referred to by the Bollandists in April 14.  
ULRIC, a Monk of St. Blasius in the Black Forest, who was afterwards promoted to the Bishopric of Constance A. D. 1120. wrote the Life of St. Gebehard Bishop of Augsburg cited by Canisius, and that of St. Conrade, Bishop of the same City, whose Canonization he had obtained of the Pope. In the end of his Life he left his Bishopric, and returned to the Monastery of St. Blasius in 1138. where he died in 1140.  
ARCHARD, a Cistercian Monk, and Tutor to the Novices in the Abbey of Clairvaux, in St. Bernard's time, composed a Relation of the Life of St. Geselin a Hermit, which was published by Arnoldus Raisius, and printed at Douai A. D. 1626. It is also reported, that he made certain Sermons for the use of the Novices. He flourished in 1140.  
At the same time SIFRED, EBBO, THIMO, and HERBORD, wrote the Life of St. Otho, 
Sifted, Ebbo, Thimo, and Herbord. Robert, archdeacon of Ostervandt a nameless Author. Turstin, Archbishop of York. Thibaud, Monk of St. Peter at Beze. Hugh, Monk of Clunie. Gautier, Canon of Terovane. Nicolas, Canon of Liege. Alanus, Bishop of Auxerre. Sibrand, Abbot of Mariegard. Bertrand, Abbot of La Chaise-Dieu. Radulphus Tortarius. Stephen, Abbot of St. James ' s at Liege. Hugh, Monk of St. Saviour at Lodeve. Herman, a converted Jew of Colen. Thomas, Monk of Ely.  who first planted Christianity in Pomerania, and died A. D. 1139. This Piece is inserted by Canisius in his Antiquities.  
To these Writers may be added ROBERT, archdeacon of Ostervandt in Haynaut, who composed a Narrative of the Life of St. Aibert, a Monk and Priest of the Monastery of Crespin, referred to by Surius, and a NAMELESS Author, who wrote the Life of St. Ludger in Verse.  
TURSTIN, Archbishop of York, who near the end of his Life retired to a Monastery of his Diocese called Rippon-Springs of the Cistercian Order, wrote a small Tract concerning the Original of that Monastery.  
THIBAUD, or THEOBALD, a Benedictin Monk of Peter at Beze in Burgundy, compiled in the middle of the Century Four Books, concerning the Acts, Translation, and Miracles of St. Prudentius Martyr, published by Father Labbé in his new Library of Manuscripts.  
HUGH, a Monk of Clunie, wrote in the Year 1160. a Letter giving an Account of the excellent Endowments of St. Hugh, sometime Abbot of the same Monastery, and afterwards the entire Life of that Saint, which is inserted in the Bibliotheca Cluniacensis, and in Surius.  
GAUTIER, or GAUTERIUS, a Canon of Teroaune, composed a Narration of the Life and Martyrdom of Charles surnamed the Good, Count of Flanders, which was set forth by Father Sirmond, A. D. 1615.  
NICOLAS, a Canon of Liege, wrote the Life of St. Lambert, published by Chapeaville in his Collection of Pieces relating to the said Church of Liege.  
ALANUS, a Native of Lisle in Flanders, a Monk of Clairvaux, and afterwards Abbot of Larivoir, a Monastery of the Order of Clairvaux in the Diocese of Trier, was made Bishop of Auxerre A. D. 1153. and composed an Abridgement of the Life of St. Bernard, published by Father Mabillon. He left his Bishopric to return to Clairvaux in 1161. and died in 1182.  
SIBRAND, Abbot of Mariegard in Frieseland, is the Author of an Account of the Life of St. Frederick, Founder of that Abbey, who died A. D. 1175. Sibrand wrote some time after.  
BERTRAND, Abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, compiled the History of the Life and Miracles of Robert the first Founder of that Abbey, which is divided into Three Parts, and was published by Father Labbé in the Second Tome of his new Library of Manuscripts.  
ROUL, or RADULPHUS, surnamed TORTARIUS, wrote a Book concerning the Miracles of St. Benedict, set forth by Father Mabillon in the Fourth Benedictin Century.  
STEPHEN, Abbot of St. James at Liege, wrote in the beginning of the Century the Life of St. Modoaldus Archbishop of Trier, divided into Three Books, and the History of the Translation of that Saint, published by Surius and the Bollandists.  
HUGH, a Monk of St. Saviour at Lodeve, composed a Relation of the Conversion of Ponce de Laraze, Founder of that Monastery, which was set forth by M. Baluzius in the Third Tome of his Miscellaneous Works.  
HERMAN, a Jew of Colen, being converted by the Sermons of Egbert Bishop of Munster, and by the Conferences he had with Abbot Rupert, retired to a Monastery of Regular Canons in his native Country. He wrote a small Tract about his Conversion, published by Carpzovius in the last Edition of Raimond, printed at Lipsick in 1687.  
THOMAS, a Monk of Ely in England, wrote an Account of the Life and Translation of St. Etheldrith the first Abbess of Ely, who died A. C. 679. This Piece was published by Father Mabillon in the Second Benedictin Century,    

CHAP. IU.  
An Account of the Lives and Writings of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the Levant in the Twelfth Century.  
THE Country of Greece has produced in this Century a great number of Writers of good Note, who attained to much skill as well in Divinity, as in the Canon and Civil Law. Of the chief of these we shall give a particular Account in this Chapter.  
EUTHYMIUS ZYGABENUS, a Greek Monk of the Order of St. Basil, flourished in the beginning 
Euthymius Zygabenus, a Greek Monk.  of this Century, under the Emperor Alexis Comnenus, by whom he was highly esteemed. He applied himself very much to the reading of the Writings of the Ancient Greek Fathers, and composed the following Works. Viz.  
A Collection of Passages taken out of the Fathers on divers Points of Religion against the Errors of the Heretics, which is divided into Two Parts, and called Panoplia Dogmatica, or the Defence of the Orthodox Faith against all Heresies. The Greek Text of this Work never as yet came to our hands, only a Latin Version made by Zinus, printed at Lions A. D. 1536. at Paris in 1556. at Venice in 1575. and in the Bibliotheca Patrum. A large Commentary on the 150 Psalms, and the 10 Canticles, taken out of the Works of the Fathers, which was printed in Greek at Verona A. D. 1530. and in Latin of Saulius' Translation at Paris in 1543. and 1547. as also at Venice in 1568. M●…le Moine has published in the First Tome of his Collection of Monuments the Preface to this Commentary, in which the Author treats of several Questions relating to the Psalms. A Commentary on the four Gospels, printed in Greek at Verona in 1530. and in Latin of Hentenius' Version at Louvain in 1544. as also at Paris in 1560. Simlerus assures us, that there is a Manuscript Copy in Sambucus' Library, of a Commentary by this Author on the Catholic Epistles; and some Ecclesiastical Writers make mention of his Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles. The Commentaries of Euthymius Zygabenus are Literal, Moral, and Allegorical; in the Literal, he makes it his Business to explain the proper signification of the Terms; his Moral Discourses are solid, and his Allegories natural, and fitly adapted to the Matter in debate.  
PHILIP surnamed THE SOLITATY, a Greek Monk, composed in the Year 1105. a Work 
Philip the Solitary, a Greek Monk.  called Disptron, or The Rule of Christian Life, dedicated to Callinicus, and divided into Four Books, a Version of which made by Jacobus Pont●mus was printed at Ingolstadt A. D. 1604. and afterwards inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum. It is written by way of Dialogue between the Soul and the Body, the Author introducing the former as a Tutoress or Guardian, and the other as the Pupil: The Soul gives many moral Instructions to the Body, who acknowledges and approves the Truths laid down, owns her natural Infirmities, and even sometimes gives advice to the Soul. The Author in this Discourse produces great variety of fine Passages out of the Greek Fathers, and takes an Occasion to discuss some Doctrinal Points, amongst others the necessity of Confession is more particularly inculcated, He also proves that the Souls of the Righteous, after their Death, are translated to Heaven, and there enjoy everlasting Happiness; and explains several Questions about the Resurrection; but he chief treats of Points relating to Morality, and the State of Human Nature.  
PETRUS CROSOLANUS, or CHRYSOLANUS, being translated from a certain Bishopric 
Petrus Chrysolanus.  to the Metropolitan See of Milan, in the beginning of this Century, was sent in Quality of Legate by Pope Paschal II. to the Court of Alexis Comnenus Emperor of Constantinople; where he disputed with much earnestness, both by word of Mouth and Writing, against the Opinion of the Greeks, concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost. Upon his return, the Archbishopric of Milan was contested with him by Jordanes, and he was condemned in a Council held at Lateran in 1116. to leave it, and to return to his Bishopric. The Discourse is still extant which he made to Alexis Comnenus about the Procession of the Holy Ghost: It is in Latin in Baronius, under the Year 1119. and in Greek and Latin in the First Tome of Allatius' Book, called Graecia Orthodoxa.  
EUSTRATIUS, Archbishop of Nice, was one of those Persons who replied to Chrysolanus: He 
Eustratius, Archbishop of Nice.  was a Man of profound Learning and Skill, as well in Ecclesiastical as Civil Affairs. His Treatise against Chrysolanus is extant in Manuscript in several Libraries, and Leo Allatius makes mention of Five other Treatises of this Author; but we have none printed, except certain Greek Commentaries on Aristotle's Analytics published at Venice A. D. 1534. as also his Commentaries on the Ethics of the same Philosopher, printed in Greek at Venice in 1536. and in Latin at Paris in 1543.  
At the same time NICETAS SEIDUS wrote a Treatise against the Latins, the Design of 
Nicetas Seidus.  which was to prove, that Antiquity is not always most Venerable, and therefore that greater Honour is not due upon that account to Old Rome than to the New. Leo Allatius produces a great number of Fragments taken out of this Treatise, in his Books of the Concord between the Greek and Latin Churches. L. 1. c. 14. §. 1, 2. L. 2. c. 1. §. 2. L. 3. c. 12. §. 4.  
ISAAC, an Armenian Bishop, being separated from the Communion of his Countrymen, and 
Isaac, an Armenian Bishop.  turned out of their Society, composed against them in the Year 1130. divers Works, in which he confutes their Errors. In the first and chief of these Writings, he accuses them of being addicted to the Heresy of the Aphthartodocites, that is to say, of believing that the Body of Jesus Christ was not like ours, but impassable, immortal, uncreated, and naturally invisible; that by the Incarnation it was changed into the Divine Nature, which absorbed it, as a drop of Honey thrown into the Sea, is so far intermixed with the Water that it entirely disappears. He adds, that by reason of this Error, they did not attribute to the Holy Mysteries of the Eucharist the Name of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, but that of his Divinity or Godhead. Isaac confutes his Adversaries by several Passages of Holy Scripture, and the Testimonies of St. Athanasius, and St. Cyril of Alexandria. Afterwards he reproves them upon account of divers Matters which relate only to Discipline, although he makes as many Errors of them as Heresies. Viz.  
1. That they neglected to celebrate the Festival of the Annunciation in any Month of the Year, under pretence that the Virgin Mary did not conceive in March: Isaac maintains that she conceived on the 25. day of that Month, and endeavours to prove it by the Testimonies of Eusebius, St. Athanasius, and St. Chrysostom; but they are taken out of supposititious Pieces.  
2. That they do not celebrate the Nativity of Jesus Christ with due Solemnity, contenting themselves only to commemorate in a mournful manner, without any Ceremony, the Annunciation of our Saviour's Nativity and Baptism in one Day.  
3. That they do not mingle Water with the Wine in the Chalice in order to the Consecration.  
4. That in the Administration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, they make use of unleavened Bread. Isaac confutes this Custom, and affirms, that Jesus Christ used leavened Bread in the Institution of the Eucharist; and that although it were granted, that he made use of unleavened, yet that would not infer a necessity of imitating him, in regard that the Church observes many Things in the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries, which are not conformable to what our Saviour did at that time. He produces several Examples in the Eighth Chapter to that purpose.  
5. That they were wont to make an Oblation of Oxen, Sheep and Lambs, at the Altar.  
6. That they have not a due Veneration for the Sign of the Cross.  
7. That they sometimes join Three Crosses together, and impose on them the Name of the Trinity.  
8. That they usually sing the Trisagion, with Petrus Fullo's Addition; that is to say, in adding to these Words, Holy God, Almighty God, Immortal God, these, who wast crucified for us.  
9 That they do not receive Ordination from the Archbishop of Coesarea.  
10. That they do observe a very rigorous Fast called Artoburia, in the Week preceding Tyrophagia; that is to say, the Week before the beginning of Lent, during which the Greeks abstain from eating Flesh, and live on White-meats. Isaac condemns this Custom as superstitious, and the original of that Fast, refuting the Reasons alleged in vindication of it. Afterwards he makes an Exhortation to the Armenians to renounce their Errors, and absurd Customs contrary to the Faith and Discipline of the Church established in the Councils, and by the Bishops of Rome.  
Bishop Isaac's Second Treatise against the Armenians is not so large as the former: He there reckons up 29 Articles of Heretical or Erroneous Opinions to be imputed to them, the most part of which may be referred to those we have but now observed; adding,  
11. That they do not solemnize the Festival of 
* Lights.  Lumieres, on the Sixth day of January, in commemoration of the Baptism of Jesus Christ.  
12. That they usually make their Consecrated Oils of Rape-seed, and not of Olives, and that they do not administer Unction at the Sacrament of Baptism.  
13. That they permit none but those Persons who Officiate to say the Lord's Prayer.  
14. That they do not blow upon baptised Persons.  
15. That they do not show a due Respect to the Images.  
16. That during the time of Lent they do not resort to the Church, nor adore the Crosses.  
17. That they were wont to eat Cheese on Saturdays, and Sundays in Lent.  
18. That they do not rightly honour the Saints.  
19 That they do not observe the Week of Tyrophagia.  
20. That they appear before the Altar with their ordinary Habits, and that they keep their Hats on during the Celebration of Divine Service.  
21. That they do not administer the Communion on Holy Thursday.  
22. That they imitate the Jews in eating a Paschal Lamb on Easter-day, with the Blood of which they sprinkle their Door-Posts, and keep the rest to serve for Benedictions, causing a Victim painted red to be brought to the Church-door, where they sacrifice it with a great deal of Ceremony.  
About that time the Armenians sent Legates to Rome to Pope Eugenius III. to enter into a Union with the Latin Church, whose Custom they followed in the use of unleavened Bread, and in some other Matters. This Embassy is referred to by Otho of Frisinghen.  
MICHAEL GLYCAS, a Sicilian, composed in the beginning of this Century his Annals, divided into Four Parts; which is not only an Historical Work, but also has some relation to Divinity, 
Michael Glycas, a Sicilian.  and natural Philosophy. In the First Part he treats of the Creation of the World: The Second contains an History from the Creation of the World to the Nativity of Jesus Christ: The Third continues the History from our Saviour to Constantine the Great: And in the Fourth it is brought down to the Death of Alexis Commenus. These Annals were printed in Latin, of Lewenclavius' Version at Basil A. D. 1572. But they were published in Greek and Latin by Father Labb●, and printed at Paris in 1660. Jacobus Pontanus likewise set forth two Discourses of the same Author, with the Dioptron of Philip the Solitary, printed at Ingolstadt in 1604. Leo Allatius produces several Fragments of divers Letters written by Michael Glycas, and citys a Treatise which he composed about the Procession of the Holy Ghost, dedicated to Maximus Semenieta; another Piece concerning the Question, Whether Jesus Christ made use of unleavened Bread at his last Supper? And a Tract of the State of Souls separated from the Body. Lastly, Possevainus observes, that there are certain Treatises of this Author on the Holy Scripture, in the Emperor's Library at Vienna.  
At the same time NICETAS, a Philosopher or Monk of Constantinople, wrote an Apologetical 
Nicetas of Constantinople.  Treatise for the Council of Chalcedon against a certain Prince of Armenia, which was published by Allatius in the First Tome of his Graecia Orthodoxa.  
CONSTANTIN MANASSES flourished in Greece A. D. 1150. and wrote an Epitome of 
Constantin Manasses.  History, dedicated to Irene the Sister of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus, from the Creation of the World to the Reign of Alexis Commenus, that is to say, to the Year 1081. The Latin Version of this Chronicle by Lewenclavius was printed at Basil in 1573. The Greek Text was published separately by Meursius at Amsterdam in 1616. but it was printed in Greek and Latin with the Notes of Lewenclavius, Meursius, Allatius, and Fabrottus in Folio at Paris A. D. 1655.  
CONSTANTINUS HARMENOPULUS, a Judge of Thessalinaca, flourished A. D. 1150. at the 
Constantinus Harmenopulus.  time when the Heresy of the Bogomiles began to appear: He was an able Lawyer, and compiled a Dictionary of the Civil Law, which was printed in Greek at Paris in 1540 in Latin at Lions in 1556. and in Greek and Latin, with the Notes of Joan. Mercerus, and Dionysius Gothofredus at Geneva in 1587. as also a Collection of Canons divided into Six Titles or Articles, and published in Greek and Latin by Lewenclavius in the First Tome of his Jus Graeco-Romanum, or Collection of Greek and Roman Laws. To these Works may be added his Treatise of the Sects of Heretics, with a Confession of Faith, which is inserted in the first Tome of Fronto Ducaeus' Supplement to the Bibliotheca Patrum.  
JOHN, a Monk of the Island of Oxia, and Patriarch of the Greek Church of Antioch, A. D. 1150. 
John, Patriarch of Antioch.  is the Author of a small Treatise against the Custom that was then introduced of conferring Monasteries on Noble men or Laics. This Tract is mentioned by Balsamon and Blasteres, and was published by Cotelerius in the First Tome of his Monuments of the Greek Church. Perhaps it may not be improper here to show after what manner he treats of the Original and Progress of the Monastic Life.  
Our Lord Jesus Christ (says he) having descended from Heaven to Earth for the Salvation of Mankind, having also actually redeemed us by his Death, and established his Religion throughout the whole World; the Devil used his utmost Efforts to cause Men to return to their former exorbitant Courses: To which purpose he at first excited the Emperors and Potentates to raise cruel Persecutions against the Christians. Afterwards, when the Christian Religion was embraced by Kings and Princes, he caused Heresies to succeed Superstitions; but when these means in like manner proved ineffectual, he made use of another Method, which was to induce the Christians to defer the Administration of Baptism: But our Ancestors the Successors of the Apostles, perceiving the damage such Procrastinations brought to the Catholic Church, and that many Persons died without Baptism, ordained that all Infants should be Baptised and Educated in the Christian Religion by their Parents, or by their Godfathers and Godmothers. The Devil being thus defeated, had recourse to another Artifice; which was to corrupt the Manners of baptised Persons, well knowing that Faith without good Works is unprofitable to Salvation: Whereupon the Church enjoined Penance as an Antidote against these Disorders; but the Devil often caused the Penitents to fall again into the same vicious Courses, before the time of their Penance was expired.▪ This difficulty of living Virtuously and Soberly in the World, caused many Persons to take a Resolution to retire to Solitary Places, there to lead an Ascetic Life; insomuch that their Reputation drew many People thither, who imitated their manner of Living; and their Number being thus increased, they formed Regular Societies, and erected Monasteries.  
This Institution began in Egypt, and from thence was spread abroad throughout the whole World, as St. Athanasius and Theodorus Studita have observed. The Bishops, to render the Monastic Life more recommendable, thought fit to confer on the Monks a kind of Consecration, or Benediction, which is as it were a renewing of the Baptismal Vows. There were among the Monks a great number of Saints who wrote excellent Books relating to the Monastic Discipline, and by that means brought it to perfection. In the mean while the Devil not being able to endure their Proceed, at first attacked them by Leo the Image-breaker, who endeavoured to extirpate their Order; but this Emperor was destroyed, and after his Reign the Monks obtained so great Reputation, that they were permitted to receive Confessions, to impose Pennances, and to give Absolution. How many Attempts has the Devil made to ruin an Order so well established? He has caused Monasteries and Hospitals to be made over by Princes and Patriarches to Laymen: Indeed at first they were not consigned to such Persons, to the end that they might make any Advantage of them, but that they might be reestablished and improved. Afterwards Covetousness being cloaked with this specious Show, the Emperors and Patriarches began to grant Monasteries and Hospitals to Laics, to gain profit by them. The Patriarch Sisinnius opposed this Abuse, which prevailed from time to time, and which is at present so great, that almost all the Monasteries of Monks and Nuns are in the possession of Laymen, nay even of those that are married.  
The Patriarch of Antioch condemns the said Custom in the remaining Part of this Treatise, alleging the following Reasons: viz. 1. That the very Title of Donation imports a kind of Blasphemy; in regard that a Monastery, or Church, which bears the Name of our Saviour, of the Virgin Mary, or of the Saints, is given to a mere Man. 2. That the Donor has no Propriety in such Possessions. 3. That the Monasteries are Places of Retreat for Persons who are desirous to serve God, where his Praises are sung, and the Revenues of which are appointed for the maintenance of the Saints, and of the Poor. 4. That the Government of the Church is subverted by such irregular Proceed, when Secular Persons are substituted in the room of Monks. 5. That Monasteries, which are thus made over to Laymen, are soon ruined or demolished; and that under Pretence of enfranchising them under the protection of some Lord, they are made subject to the Jurisdiction of such as are ready to pillage and ruin them; treating the Priors and Monks as Slaves, and allowing them only a very small Portion of the Revenues, and that too grudgingly, and as it were out of ●ure Charity. Besides that these Patrons cannot be persuaded to keep their Monasteries in repair, nor to give Alms, neither do they take care that Divine Service be celebrated therein, nor that a regular Course of Discipline be duly observed: But, on the contrary, they apply the Revenues altogether to profane Uses. That without having any regard to the Monastic Rules and Constitutions, which import, that whoever presents himself in order to be admitted to the Profession, shall undergo a Probation of Three Years; they usually nominate Monks at their Pleasure, and enjoin the Priors to admit them by virtue of their Mandamus. Lastly, that the Monks who are placed there, after so irregular a manner, generally make no scruple to live as dissolutely, eating Flesh inordinately, committing Outrages upon the Laics, setting forth public Shows, driving Trades, haunting Alehouses or Taverns, and making their Monasteries common Receptacles for all sorts of Secular Persons.  
6. That greater Disorders were occasioned on that account in the Convents of Nuns; the Ladies to whom they are consigned often usurping their Revenues: That they take up their abode, and cause Houses to be built within the Bounds of the Monasteries; and that they introduce Secular Persons, and entirely subvert the Monastic Discipline. From all these Arguments he concludes, that it is a very high Misdemeanour, and a kind of Impiety equal to Heresy, to put Monasteries into the hands of Laics; and that 'tis a mortal Sin for such Persons to take possession of them; and that they who die in that State, without doing Penance for their Offence, (which frequently happens) incur Damnation. The Name of Charistochairi was then usually imposed among the Greeks on those Laymen, who had any Abbeys consigned to them. Theodorus Balsamon, in his Remarks on the 13th. Canon of the Seventh Synod, and Matthaeus Blastares, are of a different Opinion from this Author, and approve the Donations of Monasteries which are made by Bishops, provided they be done on good Grounds.  
There are extant Two Homilies of GERMANUS Patriarch of Constantinople; viz. one published by Gretser, on the restauration of Image-worship, under the Empress Irene, an annual Commemoration 
Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople. Arsenius. Andronicus Camaterus.  of which was made on the First Sunday in Lent, and the other by Father Combefis, on the Burial of the Body of Jesus Christ.  
Arsenius, a Monk of Mount Athos, composed in the Year 1150. a compendious Collection of Canons, which is inserted in M. Justel's Library of the Ancient Canon Law.  
ANDRONICUS CAMATERUS, Governor of the City of Constantinople, and the Kinsman of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus, wrote at the same time a Treatise against the Latins, in form of a Dialogue, between the Emperor Manuel and certain Cardinals of Rome, concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost. This Book was afterwards refuted by Veccus. Andronicus is also the Author of another Tract, written by way of Conference between the same Emperor, and Peter Patriarch of the Armenians; and of a Treatise of the Two Natures in Jesus Christ. These Works are not as yet printed, but 'tis reported that they are in the Library of Bavaria.  
GEORGE, Archbishop of Corfu, was sent into Italy by the Emperor Manuel Comnenus, to assist in a Council held at Rome; but he did not pass beyond Brundisium, where he fell sick. However 
George, Archbishop of Corfu.  being recalled by the Emperor, he was present in a Patriarchal Council convened at Constantinople. He wrote a Treatise of Purgatory, and another against the Latins, in vindication of the use of leavened Bread in the Eucharist. Allatius makes mention of both these Works, which are in Manuscript in the Library of Barberino. Baronius has also published in Latin a Monodia, composed by this Archbishop in honour of the Abbot Nectarius, with several Letters in his Annals.  
ANTONIUS, surnamed MELISSUS, by reason of his singular Eloquence, a Greek Monk, 
Antonius Melitius.  apparently lived in this Century: He compiled a Collection of Common Places, or Maxims, taken out of the Writings of the Greek Fathers, on the Virtues and Vices, which are divided into Two Books, and were printed in Greek and Latin at Basil A. D. 1546. as also at Geneva in 1609. and in Latin at Paris in 1575. and 1589. They are likewise inserted in Latin in the Bibliotheca Patrum.  
BASIL OF ACRIS, Archbishop of Thessalonica, being importuned by Arian iv to come to an 
Basil of Acris, Archbishop of Thessalonica.  Accommodation with the Church of Rome, wrote a Letter to that Pope, to show that the Greek Church is not Schismatical, and that the Roman is not superior to it. Baronius published this Letter with that of Adrian in Anno 1155. of his Annals. It is also extant, but somewhat different, in Greek and Latin, in the Collection of the Greek and Roman Law, with an Answer by the same Archbishop to certain Questions about Marriage.  
LUCAS, surnamed CHRYSOBERGIUS, promoted to the Patriarchal See of Constantinople A. D. 1148. or 1155. held a Council in that City in 1166. and died the Year following. In the 
Lucas Chrysobergius, Patriarch of Constantinople.  Collection of the Greek and Roman Laws are contained Thirteen Statutes by this Patriarch, relating to Ecclesiastical Matters; among others, one to prohibit Marriages between Relations to the Seventh Degree of Consanguinity; another against Clerks who intermeddle with Secular Affairs; as also to forbid the performing of rash Oaths, with a Discourse about the Baptism of Captive Children.  
MICHAEL OF THESSALONICA, Master of the Rhetoricians, and principal Defender of 
Michael of Thessalonica.  the Church of Constantinople, being condemned in the Year 1160. for maintaining the Heresy of the Bogomiles, retracted his Errors, and made a Confession of Faith, referred to by Allatius in the Second Tome of his Concordia Ecclesiae Orientalis & Occidentalis. L. 2. c. 12.  
ALEXIS ARISTENES, Oeconomus, or Steward of the Church of Constantinople, assisted in a 
Alexis Aristenes, Steward of the Church of Constantinople. Simeon Logotheta. Joannes Cinnamus.  Council held in that City A. D. 1166. and there cited the 37th. Canon of the Council in Trullo, against Nicephorus Patriarch of Jerusalem. He wrote Annotations on a Collection of Canons printed in Dr. Beverege's Pandects.  
SIMEON LOGOTHETA, who lived at the same time, in like manner composed Notes on the same Collection of Canons, but they are lost. He is also reputed to be the Author of a Piece concerning the Creation of the World, a Manuscript Copy of which M. du Cange had in his possession.  
JOANNES CINNAMUS, surnamed the Grammarian, Secretary to the Emperor Manuel Comnenus, under whom he likewise served in the Army, composed a History of the Reigns of the Two Emperors named Comneni, viz. John and Manuel, from the Year 1118. to 1176. Leo Allatius gives us this Character of the Author: His Style is fine, (says he) although he often makes use of foreign Terms, and Figures, taken out of the Sophister's Storehouse; his Periods are concise and full; but the new Method of their Composition, renders them somewhat harsh and obscure. This Author every where affects to imitate Procopius, and highly extols Manuel Comnenus: He was still living when Andronicus Comnenus usurped the Imperial Throne, by causing Alexis to be put to death. His History, divided into Four Books, was published in Greek and Latin, by Cornelius Tollius, and printed at Utrecht. A. D. 1652. M. du Cange, in like manner caused it to be printed at the Lovure, divided into Six Books, and illustrated with Annotations.  
THEORIANUS was sent into Armenia by Manuel Comnenus, to endeavour to procure a reunion 
Theorianus.  between that and the Greek Church. Upon his Arrival there, May 15. 1170. he acquainted Nausesius their Patriarch with the Design of his Embassy, and delivered to him the Emperor's Letter: The Patriarch received it with due Acknowledgements of his Imperial Majesty's Favour, and agreed to enter into Conference with Theorianus about the Opinions and Customs in which the Armenians differed from the Greeks. Their First Conferences were concerning the Error of the Armenians, with respect to our Saviour's Incarnation. Theorianus endeavoured to convince them by a great number of Testimonies of the Fathers, that there were Two Natures in Jesus Christ; and after having discoursed largely of that Doctrine, he discussed the other Questions of less Consequence, which were in debate between the Greeks and Armenians, relating to the Festival of of Christmas-day, the Trisagion, the Confection of consecrated Oils with Olives, and not with Rape-seed; and the Custom of singing the Divine Office without the Church, which was disapproved by the Greeks. Theorianus vindicated the Practice of the later in those Points, and obliged the Armenian Patriarch to acknowledge that they were not blame-worthy, and that these different Customs ought not to be insisted on, provided they were agreed as to the same matters of Faith. In order to fix his Judgement, Theorianus produced the Decree of the Fourth General Council, and showed that it was conformable to St. Cyril's Doctrine. The Armenian Patriarch approved it, and engaged to use his utmost endeavours to get the consent of those of his Nation, and to cause the Bishops to sign a Confession of Faith, by virtue of which they should acknowledge the Council of Chalcedon, and anathematise Eutychius, Dioscorus, Severus, Timotheus, Aelurus, and other Adversaries of that Council; and lastly, for that his part, he would always adhere to the Faith of the Greek Church, and continue in its Communion. Theorianus wrote, with his own hand, a faithful Relation of these Conferences, and of every thing that was said and proposed on both sides. He solidly confutes, and in a very methodical manner, the Error of the Monophysites, and discourses with a great deal of moderation, of those Points that relate to the different Customs in use among the Armenians and Greeks. This Work was published by Lewenclavius, and printed at Basil A. D. 1578. as also afterwards in the Greek and Latin Edition of the Bibliotheca Patrum, by Fronto Ducaeus.  
HUGO ETHERIANUS flourished at the same time, and under the same Emperor Manuel, 
Hugo Etherianus.  being a Native of Tuscany, from whence he passed to Constantinople, and resided in the Court of that Emperor, who had a very great respect for him. However he did not forbear to write a Treatise in vindication of the Latins against the Greeks, in which he proves, that the Holy Ghost proceeds both from the Father and the Son. It is divided into Three Books, and dedicated to Pope Alexander III. He is also the Author of another Piece, concerning the State of the Soul separated from the Body, in which he treats of the Original and Nature of the Soul; of its Union with the Body, and Separation from it; of its Sentiments and Functions in the future State; of the Resurrection of the Body; and of the Day of Judgement. These Works were printed at Basil A. D. 1543. and are also contained in the Bibliotheca Patrum.  
NICEPHORUS BRYENNIUS, a Macedonian, the Grandson of that Nicephorus, whose 
Nicephorus Bryennius.  Eyes the Emperor Nicephorus Botaniata caused to be put out, for aspiring to the Empire, and the Son-in-Law of Alexis Conmenus, had the greatest share in the Administration of State-Affairs under that Emperor. He improved his Skill in Politics by an assiduous application to the Study of the Liberal Sciences, and has left us a Byzantine History from the Year 1057. to 1081. which was printed in Greek with Father Poussin's Version and Notes at Paris A D. 1661. and with those of M. du Cange at the end of Cinnamus, in the Volume of the Byzantine History set forth in 1670.  
In the same Place is likewise to be found the Alexias of ANNA COMNENA, the Wife of Nicephorus, 
Anna Comnena.  and the Daughter of the said Emperor Alexis Comnenus; she relates therein the History of her Father's eign, from the Year 1069. to 1118. All Learned Men generally give great Encomiums of this Work, by reason of its elegancy, and extol the Genius and Learning of that Princess. The Alexias is divided into Fifteen Books; the Eight first of these were published in Greek with Hoeschelius' Version and Notes at Augsburg A. D. 1610. and the entire Work was afterwards printed with the Translation and Notes of the same Author at Paris in 1651. This last Edition was followed with that of M. du Cange, who likewise illustrated it with excellent Annotations.  
At the same time lived JOANNES ZONARAS, Secretary of State to the Emperor Alexis 
Johannes Zonaras, Secretary of State at Constantinople.  Commenus, who having lost his Wife and Children embraced the Monastic Life, and to mitigate his grief applied himself to study, and to the compiling of Books; insomuch that we are indebted to his learned Lucubrations for a great number of very useful Works. Viz.  
His Annals, or a compendious History from the Creation of the World to the Death of Alexis Comnenus, which happened A. D. 1118. This Work was taken out of divers Authors, by way of Extracts, and divided into Three Tomes. It was printed in Greek with Wolfius' Latin Version at Basil A. D. 1557. and afterwards M. du Cange set forth a new Edition at the Lovure in 1686. which he divided into Eighteen Books.  
Commentaries on the Canons of the Apostles, as also on those of the Councils, and of the Canonical Epistles of the Greek Fathers; which were printed in Greek and Latin at Paris A. D. 1618. and 1622. and in Dr. Beverege's Collection at Oxford in 1672.  
A Discourse of Impurity, inserted in the Fifth Book of the Jus Graeco-Romanum.  
A Canon of the Virgin Mary, or a kind of Hymn, containing certain Collects, or short Prayers, made to the blessed Virgin against all Heretics. Some Part of this Work was published in Latin in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and was afterwards set forth entire in Greek and Latin, in the Third Tome of Cotelerius' Monuments of the Greek Church.  
A Preface to St. Gregory Nazienzen's Poetical Pieces, printed at Venice A. D. 1563. and a Treatise to prove that a Widow cannot marry her Husband's Cousin German.  
Fifty six Letters, that are in the Emperor's Library at Vienna, and some of which were published by Vulcanius in his Notes on the Treatise of St. Cyril of Alexandria, concerning the Anthropomorphites.  
Besides these Works, Lambecius makes mention of an Explication of the Canons relating to the Festival of Easter, some Fragments of which were published by Gretser. Allatius likewise citys his his Discourse on the Adoration of the Cross; the Life of St. Sylvester; a Discourse about the Presentation of Jesus Christ in the Temple; and a Panegyric on Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem. Pontanus makes mention of some of his Poems on the Procession of the Holy Ghost; and lastly, Henry Stephen had a Lexicon supposed to be written by the same Zonaras.  
JOANNES PHOCAS, a Native of Crete, after having served in the Wars under the Emperor 
Joannes Phocas, a Greek Monk.  Manuel Comnenus, embraced the Monastic Life, and made a Journey to the Holy Land, A. D. 1185. Upon his return, he wrote a Relation of what he had seen and heard, which was published by Allatius, in his Collection of Miscellaneous Works, and bears the Title of, A brief Description of the Places from Antioch to Jerusalem, and those of Syria and Phoenicia.  
NEOPHYTUS, a Greek Priest, and Recluse Monk, flourished A. D. 1190. M. Cotelerius set 
Neophytus, a Recluse. John, Bishop of Lydda. George Xiphylin. Patriarch of Constantinople. Demetrius Tornicius,  forth a Piece written by this Monk, containing a Relation of the Calamities that befell the Island of Cyprus, when taken by the English, A. D. 1191.  
JOHN Bishop of Lydda, flourished in the Year 1194. and M. Baluzius has published a Letter by this Author to Michael chosen Patriarch of Jerusalem.  
GEORGE XIPHYLIN, elected. Patriarch of Constantinople in the Year 1193. besides an Ordinance about the Jurisdiction of Territories, which is extant in the Collection of the Greek and Roman Laws; Two Synodical Statutes, concerning the Right of consecrating Churches by setting up Crosses in them; of which Custom Allatius makes mention in the Treatise of the George's, and of their Writings. This Author died A. D. 1199.  
DEMETRIUS' TORNICIUS wrote in the Year 1193. under the Name of the Emperor Isaac, a Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, which is extant in the French King's Library. Allatius has likewise produced the beginning of it, in his Book called Concordia Ecclesiae Orientalis ac Occidentalis.  
LUPUS PROTOSPATUS, Captain of the Eastern Emperor's Life-Guards, and a Native of 
Lupus Protospatus.  Apulia, composed a Chronicle of Occurrences in the Kingdom of Naples, from the Year 860. to 1102. This History was published by Antonio Caraccioli, a Theatin Monk, who caused it to be printed at Naples in 1626. with a Continuation to the Year 1519.  
MICHAEL ANCHIALIUS, who was promoted to the Patriarchal See of Constantinople in 
Michael Anchialius, Patriarch of Constantinople.  the Year 1167. and honoured by Balsamon, with the Title of most excellent of the Sages, compiled certain Synodical Statutes, prohibiting Clergymen to take upon them any secular Employments, or to ordain Clerks in another Diocese, etc. which are contained in the Collection of the Roman Laws, L. 3. p. 227. He also wrote an Account of the Conference he had with the Emperor Manuel Comnenus, when the Pope's Legates came to Constantinople to negotiate an Union between the Two Churches; some Fragments of which are produced by Allatius.  
THEODORUS BALSAMON, Chancellor and Library-keeper of the Church of Constantinople, 
Theodorus Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch.  and Provost of that of Blachern, was nominated Patriarch of Antioch; but in regard that that City was taken up by the Latins, he was never able to get himself actually installed, and was also flattered by the means of the Emperor Isaac Commenus, with the vain hopes of being advanced to the Patriarchal See of Constantinople. He flourished from the Year 1180. to 1203. and during that time composed divers excellent and very useful Books, relating to the Canon Law of the Eastern countries': The chief of which are his Commentaries on the Apostolical Canons; the General and Particular Councils; and the Canonical Letters of the Greek Fathers. He undertook this Work by the special Order of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus, and of Michael Anchialius Patriarch of Constantinople, and completed it under the Patriarch George Xiphylin, to whom he dedicated it. It was printed in Greek and Latin at Paris A. D. 1620. and in Dr. Beverege's Pandects of Canons, printed at Oxford in 1672.  
Balsamon in like manner wrote a Commentary on Photius' Nomocanon, and a Collection of Ecclesiastical Constitutions, printed in the Second Tome of the Bibliotheca Juris Canonici by Justellus; as also Answers to divers Questions relating to the Canon-Law, particularly, of the Erection of Bishoprics into Metropolitan Sees; of such Persons as are chosen Bishops of the Eastern Churches; of the Right of the Patriarches over the Monasteries; of Festivals, etc. These last Works are to be found with an Answer to certain Questions proposed by Mark Patriarch of Alexandria, and Resolutions to several others in the Second, Fifth, and Seventh Book of Lewenclavius' Collection of the Greek and Roman Laws. M. Cotelerius has likewise furnished us with Two Letters of this Author, viz. One written to the People of Antioch, about the Fasts they ought to observe; and the other to Theodosius, Superior of Papicius' Monasteries, concerning the Custom of Shaving, Admitting, and Investing with the Habit, such Persons as present themselves to embrace the Monastic Life, a little while after their appearance, without obliging them to submit to a Probation of Three Years. The First of these Letters is inserted in the end of the Second Tome of the Monuments of the Greek Church; and the Second, in the Third Tome of the same Work. Balsamon without doubt is the most able Canonist that appeared among the Greeks in these later Times.  
JOANNES CAMATERUS, Chartophylax, and afterward Patriarch of Constantinople, in the 
Joannes Camatetus.  end of this Century, wrote in the Year 1199. a Letter to Pope Innocent, in which he declares that he ca●…t but admire that the Church of Rome should assume the Title of the Catholic or Universal Church. There is also in the Collection called Jus Graeco-Romanum, a Statute of this Patriarch about the Marriages of Cousin Germane: He died A. D. 1206.   

CHAP. XV.  
Of the Original of Scholastical Divinity, and of the first Divines of that Faculty who flourished in the Twelfth Century.  
THE Manner of treating of the Christian Religion, and of its Mysteries, has not been 
Of the Original of Scholastical Divinity, and of the first Schoolmen.  always uniform in the several Ages of the Church; but has been changed at several times, according to the various Occasions, or the different Inclinations of Men. The Apostles contented themselves only to teach with much simplicity the Doctrine they received from Jesus Christ; to propose it to Believers as the Object of their Faith; and to render it credible by the Means of Authority, by the Testimony of the Prophets, by our Saviour's Resurrection, and by Miracles. They never observed the difficult Points that might be formed from the sacred Mysteries; neither did they take any Pains to make a thorough search into them, nor to discover all the Consequences arising from them, much less to explain them according to the Principles of Philosophy and human Reason. Neither were the holy Fathers, nor Ecclesiastical Writers, who lived in the First Ages of the Church, more careful to insist on the Explication of these Mysteries; nor did they make use of Philosophy, but only to extirpate the Errors of the Pagans, relating to their Gods, Idols, and false Worship, which might be easily confuted by the Light of Reason, and the Authority of the Philosophers. As for the Jews, and Primitive Heretics, they only alleged to convince them, the Authority of the holy Scriptures, and of Tradition, and the general Belief of all the Churches in the World; and in the Disputes they had with them, they never undertook to give particular Reasons for the several Mysteries, but only to prove, that they ought to be believed. It is true indeed, that in Process of time, the Heresies gave occasion more thoroughly to examine the Doctrines, and to fix the Terms that ought to be used in explaining them, and to draw Consequences from the Articles of Faith which were formally revealed; but the Fathers entered upon the Discussion of those Points, being only incited by a kind of necessity: Neither were they so bold as to start a great number of new Questions relating to the Mysteries, nor to resolve them according to Philosophical Principles. Upon the whole, as they did not commit to writing any Speculations about Doctrinal Points, but only with respect to the Heretical Opinions; so neither did they compose any particular Theological Treatise concerning the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, of set purpose, but they treated of them whenever there was occasion to refure some new Heresy.  
Origen was the first who undertook to compile as it were a Body of Divinity, in his Work called The Principles: But this new Undertaking did not at all prove successful, insomuch that the Author relying too much upon his own knowledge, and being desirous to accommodate the Doctrines of Christianity to the Maxims of Plato's Philosophy, had the misfortune to fall into many Errors, which have sullied his Memory. But such Inconveniences did not happen to those Divines, who contented themselves only to teach with the simplicity of Catechists, the principal Mysteries of our Religion contained in the Apostles Creed, and to prove them by Passages taken out of the holy Scriptures. In the Ages following the great Heresies of the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, etc. the Reverend Fathers were obliged to treat at large of the Mysteries of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation; but the holy Scriptures, and Tradition, were the only Principles on which they grounded their Proofs, and they only made use of Argumentations to discover the Sense of the Passages of Scripture, and of the Ancient Fathers. The same thing was done with respect to other Heresies; and we do not find any other Arguments alleged to refute them, nor any other Rules made use of in the Councils to condemn them: But by little and little an overweening Curiosity induced Men to start divers new Questions relating to Theological Matters, particularly the Mysteries and other difficult Points of the Christian Religion. Indeed at first the Authority of holy Scriptures, and of Tradition, was only brought to decide them, but afterwards Philosophy was also called in to their assistance, more especially the Platonic, that was then most in vogue, and which seemed most conformable to the Rules of Christianity. The Author of the Works ascribed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, who wrote in the end of the Fifth Century, followed this Method, and treated in his Books of the Divine Attributes, and Hierarchy, of divers Theological Questions, according to the Principles of the Platonic Philosophers.  
Some time after, Boethius, a Man well versed in Aristotle's Philosophy, made use of his Maxims to explain the Mysteries of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation; which engaged him in Debates about some very subtle and intricate Questions. But St. Joannes Damascenus is the first who undertook methodically to discuss all sorts of Theological Questions, and to reduce them into an entire Body. In the Ninth Century, Joannes Scotus Erigena applied Aristotle's Method and Principles to the resolution of several Questions relating to Points of Divinity; but his subtle Notions having lead him into divers Errors; his Doctrine and Method were rejected by the Divines of his Time. The study of the most necessary and most obvious Points being neglected in the Tenth Century, it is not to be admired, that no application was made to those abstruse and difficult Questions; so that Aristotle's Philosophy was not begun to be taught in the Public Schools, according to the Method of the Arabians, till the beginning of the Eleventh Century; neither was there any use of it made at first, in Theological Matters: But in process of time, Men, whose Heads were filled with those Notions, insensibly introduced, them into Divinity, and applied them not only to illustrate and decide ordinary Questions, but to form a great number of new ones, which were never heard of before. John the Sophister, Roscelinus, and St. Anselm, were the first who put this Method in practice; and after them Abaelardus, Gillebert de la Porrée, and many others, brought it into vogue, and made public Lectures on that subject. Otho of Frisinghen introduced it into Germany, and within a little while after, it took place almost throughout all Christendom.  
But forasmuch as it is difficult not to go astray in following a new Track, some of the first Authors of this manner of handling Theological Points, particularly Roscelinus, Abaelardus, Gillebert de la Porrée, as also Amaury or Amalaricus, and many others, in the beginning of the following Century, fell into divers Errors; or at least expressed themselves in such a manner as was condemned by those Persons, who adhered to the Sentiments and Method of Discourse used by the Ancient Fathers. There also happened another Inconvenience, which was, that the different Opinions of these Authors, about the most part of those Questions, gave occasion to many Contests and Disputes among the Divines; and in regard that the number of the Questions increased daily, and every one to maintain his Opinions had recourse to the most subtle Topics of the Aristotelean Logic and Metaphysic; the Disputes were almost innumerable, and became so full of Obscurities, Intricacies, and Evasions, that only those who were well versed in that Art, were able to comprehend any thing, and thus it was impossible to come to any determination. Besides the uncouth manner of handling the several Subjects, and the barbarous Terms that were used, rendered this kind of Study much more agreeable.  
To prevent these Inconveniences, PETER LOMBARD, Bishop of Paris, undertook to make 
Peter Lombard, Bishop of Paris.  a Collection of the Passages of the Fathers, and chief of St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. Jerom, and St. Augustin, on the principal Questions that were then in debate among the Schoolmen; imagining by that means to put an end to their Disputes, and to form such Decisions, as the Authority of those Persons, on whose Testimonies they were grounded, might render venerable, and might even cause them to be received with common consent. This Collection was called, The Book of the Sentences, (a Title then usually imposed on Theological Works) and being preferred before all others, was received with so general approbation, that in a little time, it became the only Model of Scholastical Divinity that was publicly used in the Schools; insomuch that the Author of it was called, by way of excellency, The Master of the Sentences: But the Doctors of the Faculty, not contenting themselves with the simplicity of this Work, made voluminous Commentaries on the Text, in which they renewed their Contests; revived the same Questions; and again intermixed, with Theological Matters, the Principles of Philosophy, and the Maxims of Aristotle, which were never used by the Master of the Sentences: Nay, some proceeded so far, as to find fault with his Decisions, although they were expressed in the very words of the Fathers. Thus Pope Alexander III. censured one of his Expressions; the Abbot Joachim wrote a Book against him; and the Faculty of Paris drew up a Catalogue of Articles, in which the Master of the Sentences was not usually followed. However, he may be esteemed as the chief of all the School-Divines; for although in his Work he has made use of a Method quite different from the others, as to the manner of discussing the Theological Questions, yet his Book has always served as their Model or Groundwork, and apparently they have done nothing else but commented upon it. Upon which account we are obliged to enlarge somewhat more on the Life, and Personal Endowments, of Peter Lombard, as also on the Contents of his Work.  
He was born in a Village near Novaria in Lombardy, from whence his Surname was taken, and performed part of his Studies at Bononia, where there was at that time a famous University, more especially for the study of the Civil Law; but in regard that those of France were much more noted, with respect to the Faculty of Divinity, he took a Resolution to go thither, having obtained a Letter of recommendation from the Bishop of Lucca to St. Bernard, in which he entreated him to take a particular Care of Peter Lombard's Education, whilst he applied himself to study in France. St. Bernard provided all things necessary for his Subsistence, as long as he resided at Rheims; and upon his departure for Paris, recommended him to Gildin Abbot of St. Victor, to the end that he might maintain him Gratis. Peter, in a little time, acquired a great deal of Reputation, and was nominated Professor of Divinity in the University of Paris, of which he is also styled Precedent by the contemporary Writers. He followed this Employment with so good suceess, that the Bishopric of Paris being vacant in 1150. Philip archdeacon of Paris, the Son of King Lewes the Gross, who was chosen B●shop of that City by the Chapter, resigned his Place to him, and condescended so far as to permit a Stranger of an obscure Parentage, and of as mean Fortunes, to be preferred before him, by reason of his extraordinary Learning; although he was the Son and Brother of a King: A singular and rare Example of Humility! However, Peter Lombard did not long enjoy this Dignity; for he died July 20. A. D. 1164. and was buried in St. Marcel's Church, where the Licentiates of the Faculty of Paris are obliged every Year to compose a Form of Divine Service in honour of his Memory.  
This Author wrote, besides the Book of Sentences, certain Commentaries on the Psalms, and on St. Paul's Epistles, which in effect are almost nothing else but Extracts out of the Commentaries of St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. Augustin, Cassiodorus, and Remegius, or Remy of Auxerre. The Commentary on the Book of Psalms was printed at Paris A. D. 1541. and that on St. Paul's Epistles at the same Place in 1535.  
His Collection of the Sentences is divided into Four Books, and every Book into several Sections; the Division of the whole Work being grounded on St. Augustin's Axiom, That Knowledge has Two Objects, viz. Things, and Signs; that Things are divisible into those that may be enjoyed, and those which are only to be used; that is to say, God and the Creatures. In the First Book he treats of those Things that ought to be enjoyed, particularly the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, and the Divine Attributes. In the Second, he specifies those Things the use of which is only allowed, namely, the Creatures; discoursing of the Creation of the World; of the Fall of the Angels, and that of Man; of Grace and Free Will; of original and actual Sins, etc. In the Third, he gives an Account of the Mystery of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, by virtue of which Mankind is delivered from Sin; of Faith, Charity, and the other practical Virtues; and of the Commandments of God, which must be observed for the attaining to Salvation. The Fourth and last Book, contains Matters relating to the Signs or Sacraments of the Church, except the Seven last Sections, in which he treats of the Resurrection; of the last Judgement; and of the future State.  
In the First Section of the First Book, he examines what are the Things which ought to be enjoyed, and what are those that are only to be used, as also, what it is to enjoy and use Things; ●ho are the Persons capable of enjoying and using them, and by what means both the one and the other is done. Then he proceeds to resolve these Questions according to the Maxims of St. Augustin, who maintains that we ought to enjoy God alone; that is to say, we ought only to adhere to him as our ultimate End, and to love him upon his own Account; and that we ought not to set our Affections on the Creatures; that is to say, not to love them but for God's sake, and not to adhere to them any farther than it seems good to the Will of God.  
He proves, in the Second Section, the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, by Passages taken out of the Old and New Testament.  
In the Third, he explains after what manner God may be known by the Creatures, and brings Comparisons taken from the Creatures, that may serve to give some Idea of the Mystery of the Trinity; and insists more particularly on that of the Soul consisting of divers Faculties, which are nothing but the Soul itself. He observes, at the same time, that this Comparison, is not alike in all Points, and shows the Difference.  
In the Fourth, he discusses this Question, Whether it may be said, that God the Father is begotton himself; or whether it ought to be said, that he begot another God? And concludes with St. Augustin, that it ought to be affirmed, that God the Father begot another Person, who is God, and the same with him in Substance.  
In the Fifth, he examines another Question about the Generation of the Word; viz. Whether it may be said, that the Father begot the Divine Essence, or the Divine Essence begot the Son; or whether one Essence produced another; or whether the Essence be neither produced, nor producing? He relates divers Passages of the Father's concerning these Questions, and maintains, that it cannot be said, that God the Father produced the Divine Essence; or that the Essence produced the Son; or that the Essence produced another Essence: But that it must be expressed, that the Father produced the Son and the Holy Ghost, who are two Persons of the same Substance, and of the same Essence with the Father.  
In the Sixth, he inquires, Whether the Father begot the Son, Volens aut Nolens; (as it is usually termed,) that is to say, by Necessity, or by his own Will? He replies, with St. Augustin, that the Son of God was begotten according to Nature, and not according to Will; and that although God was willing to beget him, yet his Generation is not an Effect of that Will.  
In the Seventh, he proposes another more subtle Question; viz. Whether the Father were endued with a particular Will and Power to beget his Son? If an Answer be made Affirmatively, it than follows, that the Father has a Power and Will which the Son has not, in regard that the latter is neither able nor willing to beget. He resolves this Difficulty by saying, that Generation is not an Effect either of the Will, or of the Power, but of Nature, and that is not a Thing. Afterwards he explains in what Sense St. Augustin said, that the Son had Power to beget; that is to say, that it is not by reason of Impotency that he did not beget,  
In the Eighth Section, he treats of the Nature, Immutability, and Purity of God: He affirms, that he is improperly called a Substance, and that there is nothing in God, that is not God himself.  
In the Ninth, he discourses of the Generation of the Son from Eternity.  
In the Tenth, he gins to treat of the Holy Ghost, and shows in what Sense he is called Charity.  
In the Eleventh, he proves that he proceeds from the Father and the Son.  
In the Twelfth, he explains in what Sense it may be said, that the Holy Ghost proceeds chief from the Father; viz. in regard that the Son, from whom he proceeds, as well as from the Father, receives his Nature from the Father. He adds, that in this Sense it is said, that the Father sends the Holy Ghost by his Son.  
In the Thirteenth, he shows, that human Understanding cannot comprehend the Reason of the Difference between the Generation of the Word, and the Procession of the Holy Ghost; and declares in what Sense the Holy Ghost may be said to be Ingenitus.  
In the Fourteenth, he treats particularly of the temporal Procession, or Communication of the Holy Ghost; and maintains, that it is really imparted to Men; and that Men, though never so. Holy, cannot have power to confer it, but only the Father and the Son.  
He adds, in the Fifteenth Section, that the Holy Ghost likewise communicates himself; and debates on that occasion divers Questions relating to the Mission of the Son.  
The same Subject is continued in the Sixteenth Section.  
In the Seventeenth, the Author represents several Questions about the Mission of the Holy Ghost.  
He explains, in the Eighteenth, in what Sense the Holy Ghost is called a Gift, and how he is given to us.  
In the Nineteenth, he treats of the Equality of the Three Persons in the Holy Trinity, and of their Union in the same Essence.  
In the Twentieth, he proves the Equality of Power among the Three Divine Persons.  
In the Twenty first, he shows in what Sense it may be said, that the Father is God alone, the Son God alone, and the Holy Ghost God alone.  
In the Twenty second, he distinguishes the Terms that agree with the Three Persons in common, and do not agree with any in particular, as that of the Trinity: Those that agree with every one of the Three Persons, which express the absolute Attributes, or relative to the Creatures; as the being Infinite, Almighty, Creator, etc. And lastly, those that agree with one Person, but not with another; as to be the Father, to be Begotten, to be Given, etc.  
He shows, in the Twenty third, that all the Terms relating to the Substance cannot be said in the Plural Number, of the Three Persons of the Trinity, but only in the Singular. Thus it is not said, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are Almighty; although every one of these Persons is declared to be Almighty. He excepts the word Person, which cannot be said of the Three Divine Persons in the Singular Number, but only in the Plural; for it cannot be said, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are one Person, but that they are Three Persons, or according to the Greeks, Three Hypostases.  
In the Twenty fourth, and in the Twenty fifth, he examines divers Questions about the Terms of Unity, Trinity, and the Distinction in speaking of the Trinity.  
In the Twenty sixth, Twenty seventh, Twenty eighth, and Twenty ninth, he discourses of the Relative Properties of the Three Divine Persons among themselves.  
In the Thirtieth, he treats of the Relative Properties of God, with respect to Men; as to be a Creator, etc. and shows, that they do not imply any Change or Alteration in the Divine Nature.  
In the Thirty first, he shows, that the Equality and Likeness of the Three Persons are not grounded on their Relative Properties, but on the Identity of their Nature.  
In the Thirty second, he lays down Two principal Difficulties; viz. Whether the Father and the Son mutually love one another by the Holy Ghost; or whether the Father be Wise by the Wisdom he h●… begotten? He acknowledges these Questions to be difficult; yet declares, that there is in God a certain Love, and a certain Wisdom, which are common to the Three Persons, although the Son be a Wisdom which is not the Father, nor the Holy Ghost; and the Holy Ghost a Love, which is neither the Father, nor the Son; nevertheless without imagining Two Wisdoms, or TWo Loves, to be in the Trinity.  
In the Thirty third, he proposes this Question; viz. Whether the Properties of the Persons are to be distinguished from the Persons themselves, and from the Divine Essence?  
He maintains the Negative, and condemns the contrary Opinion as Heretical.  
He opposes the same Opinion, in the Thirty fourth Section. and shows, that the Persons are not distinguished from their Nature.  
In the Thirty fifth, he gins to treat of the Attributes of God, which deserve a particular Consideration; such are his Omniscience, Omnipotency, Providence, Will, Predestination, etc. The Author shows, in this Section, that these Attributes are relative to the Creatures.  
In the Thirty sixth, he makes it appear, that all Things are exposed to God's Omniscience, as well Good as Evil; although Evil be not an Effect that proceeds from him.  
In the Thirty seventh, he treats of the manner of God's being every where, by his Presence, Power, and Essence; discoursing by the way, of the manner how Spiritual Creatures are in a Place, and how they pass from one Place to another.  
Afterwards, returning to the Question about the Foreknowledge of God, he says, that it is not the Cause of Things, if it be taken for a simple Knowledge; but if his Will, Decree, and Inclination, be comprehended under that Name, in that Sense it is the Cause of all Things. That upon this account God cannot be the Author of Evil, because he does not require, nor ordain it, although he knows it. In the end of this Section, is produced the famous Distinction of the Composit, and divided Sensation, to explain how God's Foreknowledge cannot be erroneous, although the Things might happen otherwise. It is impossible that that should not happen which God has fore-seen; that is to say, that it cannot so fall out that God should foresee it, and yet that it should not happen; but perhaps it might not happen, and then God should not have fore-seen it.  
In the Thirty ninth, he proves, that the Omniscience of God has always been the same, and that it cannot be diminished or augmented.  
In the Fortieth, he gins to treat of Predestination, and distinguishes it from Foreknowledge, in regard that the former has respect only to the Good which God ought to do. Then he again makes use of the Distinction of Composit, and Divided Sensation; to explain in what Sense it may be said, that none of the Predestinated Persons can be damned, nor any of the Reprobate saved. He makes Predestination to consist in an eternal Decree of God, by which he elected those whom he thought fit, and prepared Graces for them; and Reprobation, in the Foreknowledge of their Sins, by virtue of which he prepared everlasting Punishments to be inflicted on them.  
In the Forty first Section, he treats of the Causes of Predestination, and shows that it is purely Gratuitous; and that God has not chosen the Elect, because he knew them to be Righteous, but that he called them to be so by his Grace.  
From Predestination he passes to Omnipotency; and explains, in the Forty second Section, in what Sense God is Almighty.  
He proves, in the Forty third, that God can do an infinite number of Things, which he does not, and confutes the Arguments and Allegations brought by some Persons to evince the contrary.  
In the Forty fourth, he shows, that God can absolutely make Things more perfect than he has done, if respect only be had to the Quality of the Creature; but cannot do so, if the Wisdom and Intention of the Creator be taken into consideration. He adds, that God can always do what he has done, because he always has the same Power; although it happens that he cannot do in particular what he has already done.  
He treats at large, in the Forty fifth Section, of the Will of God, of its Nature and Effects, and of its different Kind's.  
In the Forty sixth, he explains in what Sense the Will of God cannot be ineffectual; and in what Sense he is willing, or unwilling, that Evil be committed: He has no inclination to Evil, yet he is not absolutely willing to prevent it.  
He proves, in the Two following Sections, that the Will of God is always efficacious; that whatever he thinks fit inevitably comes to pass, and nothing happens but by his Will: That although he does not approve all the Inclinations of Men, nevertheless he willingly admits the Effects of their depraved Will, but does not approve the Act of it.  
In the First Section of the Second Book, the Author confutes the Error of those Heretics, who admitted Two Principal or Sovereign Being's; shows that God created Angels and Men, and discourses in general of their Nature, and of the End for which they were created.  
In the Second, he examines when, and in what Place, the Angels were created.  
In the Third, he treats of the State in which they were created; and maintains, that they were created in Uprightness, and that their Fall happened but some Moment's after their Creation.  
He adds, in the following Section, that they did not enjoy perfect Blessedness, till they were confirmed in Good.  
In the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Sections, he debates divers Questions about the Fall of the Wicked, and the Confirmation of the Just.  
In the Eighth, he follows St. Augustin's Opinion, who believed that the Angels have A●rial Bodies; and upon occasion of that Question, he inquires after what manner God was wont to appear to Men, and in what Sense it is said, that the Devils enter into human Bodies.  
In the Ninth, he treats of the different Orders of the Angels.  
In the Tenth, he examines whether any Angels of different Orders were sent, and gives an Account of the different Opinions of the Fathers, with respect to these Questions.  
He proves, in the Eleventh, that every one of the Elect has a Guardian Angel, yet owns that the same Angel may serve as a Guardian to several Persons; and afterwards proceeds to examine in what particulars the Knowledge of the Angels may be augmented.  
In the following Sections, to the Sixteenth, he explains the Work of the Creation.  
In the Sixteenth and Seventeenth, he treats of the Creation of Man; and inquires in what his likeness to God consists, when his Soul was created, and in what Place he was set.  
He discourses, in the Eighteenth, of the Formation of Woman; and endeavours to explain, why she was taken out of the Man's Rib.  
In the Nineteenth, he treats of the State of Immortality, in which the First Man was created.  
In the Twentieth, he debates concerning the Manner how Men were to be brought into the World, and how they were to be nourished, in case the State of Innocence had continued.  
In the Twenty first, he gives an Account after what manner the Devil tempted Man.  
He discusses, in the Twenty second, divers Questions relating to the Quality and Circumstances of the Sin of Adam and Eve.  
In the Twenty third, he resolves this difficult Point, Why God permitted Man to be tempted, knowing that he was to Fall? And afterwards treats of the Knowledge with which the First Man was endued.  
In the Twenty fourth, he gins to discourse concerning the Free Will, and Grace, inherent in the First Man; and treats in general, in the Two following Sections, of the Freedom of Grace, according to St. Augustin's Principles.  
In the Twenty seventh Section, he discourses of Virtue and Merit, which are the Effects of Grace and Free Will.  
In the Twenty eighth, he confutes the Errors of the Pelagians, as also those of the Manichees, and of Jovinian.  
In the Twenty ninth Section, he returns to the State of the First Man; and after having shown, that Man even in the State of Innocency stood in need of operating and co-operating Grace, for the doing of Good, he debates certain Questions about the manner how he was expelled Paradise, and concerning the Tree of Life which preserved him from Death.  
In the Thirtieth, Thirty first, Thirty second, and Thirty third, he treats of Original Sin, and inquires in what it consists; how it is transferred from Parents to their Children; after what manner it is remitted by Baptism; whether Children contract the Sins of their Parents, as Original Sin, etc.  
In the Thirty fourth and Thirty fifth, he discourses of the Nature of Actual Sin.  
In the Thirty sixth, he shows, that there are Sins which are both the Cause, and the Punishment of Sin.  
He makes it appear, in the Thirty seventh, that God is the Author of the Actions, by which Sin is committed, and of the Punishments of Sin, although he is not the Author of Sin.  
In the Thirty eighth, he demonstrates, that it is the End and Intention of the Will which renders the Action either Good or Bad; and that in order to its being Good, it must of necessity be terminated in God.  
In the Thirty ninth, he inquires into the Reason, Why, of all the natural Faculties, the Will only is susceptible of Sin?  
In the Fortieth, he continues to show, that an Action to be denominated Good, aught to have a good End and Intention.  
In the Forty first, he produces divers Passages of St. Augustin, about the necessity of Faith, and of an upright Will, to avoid the committing of Sin; and shows, that the corrupt Will is the cause of Sin.  
He inquires, in the Forty second, Whether the Will and the Action be two different Sins? And Afterwards explains the Division of the Seven Capital Sins; showing, that they derive their original from Pride and Concupiscence.  
In the Forty third, he relates the Opinions of St. Ambrose, and St. Augustin, concerning the Sin against the Holy Ghost.  
Lastly, he makes it appear, in the Forty fourth Section, that the Power of committing Sin proceeds from God; and that the Power the Devil has to tempt us to Evil, aught to be resisted.  
The Third Book gins with the Questions relating to the Mystery of the Incarnation. In the First Section, the Author lays down the Reasons, Why it was more expedient that the Son should be Incarnate, rather than the Father, or the Holy Ghost; and discusses this Question, Whether Two Persons were in like manner capable of being Incarnate.  
In the Second Section, he treats of the Union of the Word, with the Body and the Soul.  
In the Third, he shows, that the Body taken by the Word was free from the corruption of Sin; that the Virgin Mary herself was then also free from Sin; and that in the very moment that the Humanity of Jesus Christ was conceived, the Word was united to it.  
He inquires, in the Fourth, Why the Incarnation is attributed to the Holy Ghost, rather than to the other Persons of the Trinity; and in what Sense it is said Jesus Christ was conceived and born of the Holy Ghost?  
In the Fifth Section, he treats of the Union of the Person of the Son with the Human Nature; and shows, that the Word was not united to the Person, but to the Nature.  
In the Sixth, he gives an Account of these Propositions; viz. God was made Man, God is Man; and produces Three several Explications of them made by the Fathers.  
The same matter is farther handled in the Seventh Distinction.  
In the Eighth, he resolves this Question, Whether it may be said, that the Divine Nature was born of the Virgin Mary? And discourses of the twofold Nativity of Jesus Christ.  
In the Ninth, he produces certain Passages of the Fathers, concerning the Adoration of the Body of Jesus Christ.  
In the Tenth, he proposes this Question, viz. Whether Jesus Christ, quatenus Man, be a Person, or a Thing? He maintains the Negative, and afterwards proves that the Quality or Title of adoptive Son cannot be appropriated to him.  
In the Eleventh, he asserts, that neither ought Jesus Christ to be called a Creature, without adding quatenus Man.  
In the Twelfth, he discusses divers Questions; viz. Whether it may be said of Jesus Christ as Man, that he always was, or that it was possible that he might not be God? He determines, that it cannot be said of the Person of Jesus Christ, but only of his Human Nature.  
In the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Sections, he treats of Knowledge, Grace, and the Power of Jesus Christ, quatenus Man.  
In the Fifteenth and Sixteenth, he proves, that Jesus Christ took upon him the Infirmities of Human Nature, Sin and Ignorance only excepted, and that he was capable of undergoing Sufferings.  
In the Seventeenth, he explains the twofold Will of Jesus Christ.  
In the Eighteenth, he discourses of what Jesus Christ merited for himself, and of what he merited for us.  
In the Nineteenth, he treats of Redemption.  
In the Twentieth, he inquires, Why Jesus Christ redeemed us by his Passion and Death? And whether he could not have done it by some other means?  
In the Twenty first, he proposes this Question; viz. Whether the Word remained united to the Body of Jesus Christ, as well as to his Soul, after his Death? And concludes in the Affirmative.  
In the Twenty second, he inquires, Whether it may be said, that Jesus Christ was Man during the time that his Body lay in the Supulchre?  
In the following Sections, he treats of Faith, Hope, and Charity.  
In the Thirty third, he discourses of the Four Cardinal Virtues.  
In the Thirty fourth, of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost, and chief of the Fear of God.  
In the Thirty fifth, he explains the difference between Wisdom and Knowledge.  
In the Thirty sixth, he treats of the Connexion of all the Virtues, and of the Relation they have to Charity.  
The Four last Sections of this Book, contain a compendious Explication of the Decalogue.  
The Holy Sacraments are the principal Subject treated of in the last Book.  
In the first Section, he gives a Definition of the Sacraments; shows the Causes of their Institution; observes the difference between those of the Old and New Law; and treats in particular of Circumcision, which he believes to have been so necessary for the remission of Original Sin, that he affirms, that the Children of the Jews, who died without partaking of that Sacrament, were consigned to Damnation.  
In the Second, after having nominated the Seven Sacraments of the New Law, he discourses of the Baptism by St. John the Baptist.  
In the Third, he treats of the Baptism of Jesus Christ, and after having confirmed St. Ambrose's Opinion, that Baptism might be absolutely administered in the Name of Jesus Christ, he inquires, When the Baptism of Jesus Christ was instituted, and under what Form the Apostles baptised Persons? As also, Why Water is used in the Administration of this Sacrament, and no other Liquor; and how many Immersions ought to be made in Baptising?  
In the Fourth Section, he treats of the Effects of Baptism; showing how some Persons receive the Sacrament, and the Grace of the Sacrament; and how others receive the Sacrament without the Grace, and the Grace without the Sacrament. He proves that Infants receive both; and adds, that they even receive Actual Grace, which afterwards enables them to perform good Actions.  
In the Fifth, he makes it appear from St. Augustin's Principles, that Baptism administered by an unworthy Priest, is no less Holy than that which is performed by the Hands of a worthy one; because the effective Power of Baptising is inherent in Jesus Christ, which he does not communicare to the Ministers.  
In the Sixth Section, he observes, that the Bishops, or Priests, have a Right to administer this Sacrament; although in case of necessity it may be done by Laymen, and even by Women: And that it is valid by whomsoever it be administered, nay when performed by Heretics, provided it be done in the Name of the Holy Trinity. He asserts, that an Infant cannot be baptised in the Mother's Belly, and afterwards handles several other Questions relating to the Form and Ceremonies of Baptism.  
In the Seventh Section, he treats of the Sacrament of Confirmation; and at first observes, that the Form of this Sacrament are the Words pronounced by the Priest, when he anoints the Forehead of the Baptised Persons with the Holy Chrism. The Author adds, that the Administration of this Sacrament was always reserved to the Bishops; that they alone are capable of administering it effectually in due Form; and that it cannot be reiterated.  
He gins, in the Eighth Section, to discourse of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; and after having shown some of the ancient Figures of this Sacrament, proceeds to treat of its Institution; of its Form, which he makes to consist in these Words, This is my Body, this is my Blood; and of the Things contained therein. He says, Three Things are to be distinguished in the Eucharist; viz. the Sacrament consisting in the visible Species of the Bread and Wine; the Sacrament and the Thing, which is the proper Body, and the proper Blood of our Lord, contained under the Species; and the Thing, which is not the Sacrament; that is to say, the mystical Body of Jesus Christ, 〈◊〉 the inward Grace.  
In the Ninth Section, he distinguishes Two Manners of receiving the Body of Jesus Christ, viz. one Sacramental, which is common to the worthy, and to the unworthy Communicants; and the other Spiritual, which is peculiar only to the former.  
In the Tenth, he proves the Real Presence, and the changing of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and refutes the Opinion of those, who believe the Eucharist to be only a Figure.  
In the Eleventh, he at first inquires of what Nature this Change is, and proves it to be substantial; insomuch that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are under the Accidents, which before covered the Substance of the Bread and Wine, which is annihilated or returned to the first Matter. He confutes those Persons who asserted, that the Substance of the Bread remained after the Consecration; and afterwards gives an Account, why the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are administered to us under Two different Kind's, and why Water is intermixed with the Wine.  
In the Twelfth, he endeavours to explain divers Questions relating to the Eucharistical Species, and affirms, that the Accidents remain therein without the Subject; and that they only are broken and divided into many Parts. Afterwards he discourses of the Quality which is peculiar to this Sacrament, as also of its Institution and Effects.  
In the Thirteenth Section, he acknowledges, that unworthy Ministers may consecrate the Elements; but denies, that it can be done by excommunicated Persons, and declared Heretics.  
In the Fourteenth, he gins to treat of Repentance; distinguishing the Virtue of Repentance from the Sacrament of Penance: He gives divers Definitions of Repentance, and shows the Necessity of it, as also that it may be often reiterated.  
In the Fifteenth, he proves that one cannot be truly penitent for one Sin, without actually repenting of all.  
In the Sixteenth, he distinguishes the Three Parts of Repentance; viz. the Compunction of the Heart, the Confession of the Mouth, and the Satisfaction of Works; and discourses in particular of the Satisfactions that ought to be made for venial Sins.  
He treats of Confession, in the Seventeenth Section, and shows, that is requisite to confess one's Sins to a Priest, in order to obtain the remission of them.  
In the Eighteenth, he treats of the Sacerdotal Power, and of the use of the Keys; and after having produced different Opinions relating to that matter, concludes. That God alone has the Power of absolutely binding and losing the Sinner, by cleansing the Pollution of his Sin, and remitting the Penalty of Eternal Damnation: That the Priests do indeed bind and lose, by declaring that such Persons are bound or loosed by God, and by imposing Penance, or by readmitting to the Communion those whom they have excommunicated.  
In the Nineteenth, he discourses of the Qualities requisite in Ministers, who are employed to bind and lose Sinners; nevertheless he acknowledges that unworthy Priests have the Power of the Keys as well as the worthy.  
The Twentieth Section, contains the Opinions of the Father's concerning the Repentance of dying Persons.  
In the Twenty first, he discourses of the Expiation of light Sins by the Pains of Purgatory; of the general Confession of venial Sins; and of the Penalties to be inflicted on Priests, who divulge matters related to them in Confession.  
In the Twenty second, he proposes this Question; viz. Whether Sins that have been once forgiven, return by the Commission of following Sins? And after having produced the Reasons on both sides, leaves the Question undecided.  
In the Twenty third Distinction, he treats of the Sacrament of Unction, which he believes to have been instituted by the Apostles; the Effect of it being the remission of Sins, and the comfort of the Sick Person: He also proves that this Sacrament may be reiterated.  
In the Twenty fourth, he treats of the Functions and Dignity of the Seven Orders, and of the different Dignities among Bishops.  
In the Twenty fifth, he discourses of the validity of Ordinations made by Heretics; and after having produced different Opinions, seems to approve that of those who affirm, that Persons who were ordained in the Church still retain the Power of ordaining, though they turn Heretics; but deny that those whom they ordain have the same Power. Afterwards he treats of Simoniacal Ordinations, and of the Age requisite for admission into Orders.  
In the Twenty sixth, he shows the Antiquity of the Sacrament of Marriage.  
In the Twenty seventh, he inquires in what Marriage consists, and distinguishes a Promise of future Marriage, from Marriage contracted by the present Consent of the Parties.  
In the Twenty eighth, Twenty ninth, and Thirtieth, he gives a farther Account of the Conditions that ought to be annexed to such a Consent as is necessary for the Consummation of Marriage.  
In the Thirty first, he explains the Advantages of Marriage, which are Fidelity, the Lawful Procreation of Children, and the Benefit of the Sacrament, and treats of the contrary Vices.  
In the Thirty second, he discourses of Matters relating to the Continency of married Persons at certain times.  
In the Thirty third, he relates divers Considerations of the Fathers, with respect to the Polygamy of the Patriarches.  
In the Thirty fourth, he treats of the Impediments that render Persons uncapable of contracting Marriage, and which make their Marriage void and of none Effect.  
In the Thirty fifth, he shows that a Man may be divorced from his Wife upon the Account of Adultery, and that they may be afterwards reconciled. The Author adds, that he who has committed Adultery with a Woman may marry her, after her Husband's decease, provided he were not accessary to his Death, and did not promise his Wife to marry her in his Life-time.  
In the Thirty sixth Section, he treats of the Impediment that arises from the difference of Age, and Condition between the Parties, who contract Marriage.  
In the Thirty seventh, he discourses of the Injunction of Celibacy observed by Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, and of Pope Calixtus' Ordinance, declaring such Marriages null.  
In the Thirty eighth, he treats of the Impediment of a Vow.  
In the Thirty ninth, of that of difference in Religion.  
In the Fortieth, Forty first, and Forty second, of the Degrees of Cansanguinity and Affinity, as well Temporal as Spiritual.  
The other Sections, contain divers Questions concerning the Resurrection; the State of the Elect, and of the Reprobates after their Death; Prayers for the Dead; the Invocation and Intercession of the Saints; the Circumstances of the last Judgement; the several Degrees of Beatitude and Glory; and the State and Torments of the Damned, with which ends the Fiftieth Section of the Fourth Book, by the Master of the Sentences.  
This Work was published by John Aleaume, and printed at Paris A. D. 1565. and at Lions in 158●. It was also revised by Antony de Mouchy, and reprinted in the same City in 1618. and in other Places. The Author makes it his chief Business (as we have already hinted) to collect the Opinions of the Father's concerning all the Questions discussed by him: He adds very little of his own, except sometimes in reconciling certain Passages which seem to be contradictory; and when he cannot bring them to an Agreement, he usually leaves the Question undecided. He avoids to meddle with Questions concerning which the Fathers have writ nothing, and scarce ever makes use of Philosophical Terms and Arguments, much less of Aristotle's Authority, who is often cited by the other Schoolmen.  
The Book of Sentences, by ROBERT PULLUS, is not a Collection of Passages of the Fathers, 
Robert Pullus, Cardinal.  as that of Peter Lombard, but a Theological Work, in which he himself resolves certain Questions which are proposed, either by Ratiocination, or by Proofs taken out of holy Scripture. This Author, surnamed Pullus, Pullen or Pully, being an English Man by Nation, passed over into France, and flourished in the Schools of Paris. He returned to England about the Year 1130. and there reestablished the University of Oxford in 1133. He was made archdeacon of Rochester, and although he enjoyed that Benefice, yet forbore not to go back to Paris, where he resided in Quality of Professor of Divinity. However, his Metropolitan thought fit to recall him, and not being prevailed with, even upon St. Bernard's Request that he might still remain at Paris, caused the Revenues of his Arch-deaconry to be seized on, to oblige him to return to England. Whereupon Pullus appealed to the See of Rome, and having much Interest in that Court, was not only vindicated against the Archbishop, but also invited to Rome by Pope Innocent II. and created Cardinal and Chancellor of the Church of Rome by Lucius II. in 1144. This Dignity was enjoyed by him till the Third or Fifth Year of the Pontificate of Eugenius III. when he died A. D. 1150.  
Cardinal Pullus' Book of Sentences is divided into Eight Parts, in the First of which he treats of the Existence of God, of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, and of the Divine Attributes.  
In the Second, of the Creation of the World, of the Angels, of the Nature of Man, of the Origine of the Soul, of Adam's Fall, of the Corruption of human Nature, and of Original Sin.  
In the Third, of the Law, of the Circumcision, of the Law of Grace, and of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.  
He continues his Discourse concerning that Mystery in the Fourth Part; where he also treats of Faith, Hope, and Charity; of Purgatory; and of the State of Souls after their Separation from their Bodies.  
In the Fifth, he treats of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, of the Gift of Faith, of the Sacraments, of Baptism, of Confirmation, of the Remission of Sins, of Charity, and of Sin.  
In the Sixth Part, he discourses of the Effects of Sin; of Concupiscence; of Ignorance, and other Punishments of Sin; of the Temptations of the Devil; of the Assistance of good Angels, and their Functions; of Repentance; and of the Priest's Power of binding and losing, and of the Use that they ought to make of it.  
The same Subject is farther handled in the Seventh Part, where he also treats of the Fruits of Repentance; of Church-Discipline; of Ecclesiastical and Civil Power; of the Distinction of Sacred Orders; of the Qualities of Ministers; and of Marriage.  
In the Eighth Part, he treats of the Eucharist; of the last Judgement, and of the State of the Blessed and Damned Spirits.  
This Author is somewhat obscure, but argues with a great deal of Judgement: His Style is not altogether rude, neither is it perplexed with Scholastical Terms and Distinctions: He does not start any Subtle and Metaphysical Questions, but only such as relate to Points of Doctrine, Discipline or Morality; neither does he resolve them by Principles of Logic or Philosophy, but by Passages of the holy Scripture, and according to the received Doctrine of the Church, and of the Fathers, which he makes use of as a firm Basis or Groundwork. He sometimes produces certain particular Opinions, which nevertheless are common to him with many of these Ancient Schoolmen; and he is one of those who have maintained the fewest erroneous or dangerous Opinions. In the First Part he says, that the Father and the Son are Two Principles of the Holy Ghost; but this Expression may be taken in a good Sense, and he never asserted, that the Father and the Son were Two Principles or Essences of a distinct Substance; but Two Persons, who produced a Third by an Action, which, although really the same, may be virtually distinct. He shows, in discoursing of the Sacrament of Penance, that it does not take away the Gild of Sin, but only remits the Punishment; and that the Priest's Absolution is a Declaration that the Penitent is absolved from the Gild of his Sin, and that he is freed from the Punishment due to it, by the Satisfaction made by him to God: An Opinion which the Author holds in common with many Ancient School-Divines. There are also found in his Book some other Opinions which are not approved; and amongst others, That the Union of the Word was not made with an animated Body, but with the Mass of Flesh, of which the Body was first formed, and afterwards the Soul: That the Torments of the Damned may be diminished: That the Devils are not as yet cast into everlasting Flames, and that they Sinned even at the very instant of their Creation: That if the First Man had not committed Sin, those who are Damned would not have been brought forth into the World: That the Saints do not really descend on Earth in Apparitions: And that St. Benedict had a clear Knowledge of God in this World, even such as the blessed Spirits have in Heaven.  
This Author is one of those who have most peremptorily affirmed, That the Souls are immediately created by God at that instant when they are united to their Bodies, and that the Angels are pure Spirits. He likewise maintains, That the inward Intention of the Minister is not necessary for the Validity of the Sacrament; that without the Love of God Sin could not be forgiven; that Infants dying without Baptism are damned, and that for that Reason they are not buried in consecrated Ground. For matter of Discipline, it may be observed, That Confession made to Laics for Venial Sins, and even for Mortal ones, in case of necessity, when there was no Priest present, was in use at that time: That not only the Communion, but also Absolution, was also denied to Criminals condemned to Death: That Priests were wont to Discipline their Penitents: That Parents were prohibited to enter the Church till their Children were Baptised: That it was permitted to receive, but not to exact Money, for the Administration of the Sacraments, and even for the Celebration of Mass: That Fast was usually broke at Noon, or at the Hour of 
* One of the Canonical Hours.  None, but that there was no Collation: That the Custom of Fasting on Fridays was observed, although not reputed to be of very great Antiquity, and that Saturday-Fasts were not so regularly kept: That in many Churches some repast was taken on Holy Thursday in the Evening, and that this Custom began to prevail: That Baptism, even that of Infants, was reserved for Solemn Days! That the Participation of the Cup in the Communion among the Laity was still in use, but seldom put in practice: And that the Belief of the corporal Assumption of the Virgin Mary was established by the Custom of the Church.  
This Work, by Robert Pullus, was published by Father Mathoud of the Congregation of St. Maur, illustrated with learned and curious Notes, and printed at Paris A. D. 1655. The Ecclesiastical Writers, who cite this Author, mention some other Works composed by him; particularly a Commentary an the Psalms of David, another on the Revelation of St. John, a Treatise of the Contempt of the World, Four Books concerning the Sentences of the Doctors, a Volume of his Lectures, and several Sermons. We have none of these Works printed; neither is it known, whether any of them be still extant in Manuscript, except certain Sermons which were in Petavius' Library.  
PETER OF POITIERS made use of a more Scholastic Method than any of the abovementioned 
Peter of Poitiers, Chancellor of the Church of Paris.  Authors: He succeeded them in the Divinity-Chair of the Schools at Paris, and was promoted to the Dignity of Chancellor of the Church of that City, which he enjoyed during 38 Years. He compiled his Collection of the Sentences in the Year 1170. dedicated it to William Archbishop of Sens, and died in 1200. In Doctrinal Points, he follows the Master of the Sentences, but uses a quite different Method, as to the manner of handling the Matters: For he explains and resolves all the Questions by the Principles of Philosophy, and treats of them as a Logician, with formal Arguments after a very dry and uncouth Manner. This Work was set forth by Father Mathoud, at the end of that of Robert Pullus. Peter of Poitiers likewise wrote certain Allegorical Commentaries on the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers; a Commentary on the Book of Psalms; and other Works; some of which are to be found in the Libraries.  
ROBERT DE MELUN lived at the same time, and in the end of his Life was ordained Bishop 
Robert de Melun, Bishop of Hereford. Gautier, Regular Canon of St. Victor.  of Hereford A. D. 1163. His System of Divinity in Manuscript is kept in the Library of St. Victor at Paris, and often cited by Father Mathoud, in his Notes on Robert Pullus.  
GAUTIER, or GAUTERIUS, a Regular Canon of St. Victor, in the end of this Century, took upon him to confute the new Method of these Divines, and composed a Work which he called, A Treatise against the Four Labyrinths of France, viz. Peter Abaelard, Gillebert de la Porrée, Peter Lombard, and Peter of Poitiers, whom he accuses of having asserted many Heresies and Errors, in treating of the ineffable Mysteries of the Holy Trinity, and of the Incarnation, according to the uncertain Scholastic Method, and Aristotle's Principles, with which they were intoxicated. There are indeed sufficient Grounds for this Censure on Three of these Authors, but he had no reason to fall foul upon Peter Lombard, whose Work is only a Collection of Passages of the Fathers, in which Aristotle is not cited: However, it must be acknowledged, that the Master of the Sentences, as well as the others, started a great number of Opinions that were not approved by the succeeding Divines, and of which the Doctors of the Faculty at Paris made a Catalogue in the Twelfth Century, under this Title, Articles in which the Master of the Sentences is not generally followed.   

CHAP. XVI.  
Of the Commentaries on the holy Scripture composed in the Twelfth Century, and of the Three famous Commentators, Rupert Abbot of Duyts, Hugh and Richard of St. Victor.  
A New Method of commenting upon holy Scripture was likewise introduced in this Century: 
A new Method of Commenting on holy Scripture.  The Ancient Fathers, in their Commentaries on the sacred Books, were wont to explain the Text either Literally or Allegorically, in reference to the Instruction of the People; and the Ecclesiastical Authors of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries, who wrote on the Bible, only made it their Business to compile or collect divers Commentaries of the Fathers, of which they composed Catena's, or continued Collections of Commentaries. Some also then brought in the use of Glosses for the Explication of the Letter; but in the Century we now speak of, they began to explain holy Scripture, almost after the same manner, as they treated of Theological Matters; that is to say, according to the Principles of Logic, discussing divers subtle Questions concerning the Doctrinal Points, and producing a great number of Common Places.  
This Method was followed by RUPERT, Abbot of Duyts near Colen, in his Commentaries on 
Rupert, Abbot of Duyts.  the holy Scripture; where he proposes to treat of the Holy Trinity, and its Works, and divides them into Three Parts; the First of which is extended from the Creation of the World to the Fall of Adam; the Second, from the Fall to the Passion of Jesus Christ; and the Third, to the Day of the last Judgement: The First Period of Time is appropriated to the Father, the Second to the Son, and the Third to the Holy Ghost. The First Part contains Three Books of Commentaries on the Three first Chapters of Genesis: The Second comptehends Six other Books on the Remainder of Genesis; Four on Exodus; Two on Leviticus; as many on Numbers and Deuteronomy; One on Joshua; One on the Book of Judges; One on some Places of the Books of Kings and Psalms; One one Isaiah; One on Jeremiah; One on Ezekiel; Two Books on Daniel, Zachariah and Malachy; One Book on the History of the Macchabees; and another on some Places of the Four Gospels. The Third Part relating to the Works of the Holy Ghost, being divided into Nine Books, is not a continued Commentary on any particular Book, but on divers Passages of Scripture chosen by him, with respect to the Matters of which he designed to treat.  
The Commentaries of this Author on the 12 lesser Prophets, and on the Book of Canticles, are more continual, come nearer to the Form of Commentaries, and recede less from the manner of Writing in use among the Ancients; but they are extremely mystical, and full of too subtle Reflections, and of Remarks which have not all the Accuracy that might be expected.  
The Thirteen Books of the Victory of the Word of God, contain a great Number of Questions and Common Places on divers Passages of Scripture.  
The Commentaries of the Glory and Dignity of the Son of God on St. Matthew, and the Commentary on St. John's Gospel, and his Revelation, are very like those on the lesser Prophets.  
The Treatise of the Glorification of the Trinity, and of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, divided into Nine Books, contains the Explication of many Passages of Scripture, that have some relation to the Questions, which he proposes concerning the Three Divine Persons, and more especially that of the Holy Ghost.  
As for his Treatise of Divine Offices, it is a Work of another Nature; in which he treats of the Divine Service, and of its Ceremonies, and gives mystical Reasons of them. He there seems to start a particular Notion concerning the Eucharist, viz. That the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ, by the Hypostatical Union with his Soul; nevertheless some Authors have vindicated the Assertion, and affirm that it may be explained in a good Sense; but we shall not now examine this Question.  
The most part of Rupert's Works are dedicated to Cuno Abbot of Siegberg, and afterwards Bishop of Ratisbon, to whom he was recommended by Berenger Abbot of St. Laurence at Liege, in which last Monastery Rupert sometime resided in Quality of a Monk. His Works were printed at Colen A. D. 1578. in Three Volumes, and in Two at Paris in 1638. He himself gives us a Catalogue of them, in the Preface to his Treatise of Divine Offices: He there makes mention of all those that are still extant, and we have every one of them, except his Treatise of the Glorious King David, of which he had then only composed Eleven Books.  
There are Two sorts of Commentaries on the holy Scripture that bear the Name of HUGH OF 
Hugh of St. Victor.  St. VICTOR; the former are certain Literal and Historical Annotations on the Text, to which is prefixed a Critical Preface concerning the sacred Writers, and the Books written by them: The others are Allegorical Commentaries intermixed with a great number of Questions and Common Places. These last are called A Volume of Extracts, and divided into XXIV Books: The Ten first of these, which are inserted in the Second Tome of the Works of Hugh of St. Victor, contain general Remarks on the Arts and Sciences: The Nine following, which are in the first Tome, comprehend variety of Allegories and Questions relating to the Histories of the sacred Books, from the Creation of the World till the time of the Macchabees, that is to say, to all the Historical Books of the Bible: The Tenth, is a Collection of Moral Homilies on Ecclesiastes: In the Four last, are comprised divers Questions relating to the Four Gospels. To these are annexed, to render the Work complete, Explications of the same Nature, but more at large, on all the Epistles of St. Paul.  
These XXIV Books of Commentaries are attributed by Trithemius, and several other Authors, to Richard of St. Victor; and the First Part is to be seen under his Name in a certain Manuscript very near his time, which is extant in M. Colbert's Library; some part of it is also printed among the Works of that Author. However, it is affirmed by some Persons, that this Work cannot belong either to Hugh or to Richard, by reason that in the Chronological Table which the Author makes of the Kings of France, in the Tenth Chapter of the Tenth Book, he ends with Philip the Son of Lewes the Young, before whose Reign these Two Writers were dead. Indeed this Reason may serve to prove, that the said Work was not composed by Hugh of St. Victor deceased in 1142. but it is not so evident a proof to show, that Richard is not the Author of it; because the latter not dying till the Year 1173. and Philip being born in 1165. he might join him with King Lewes the Young his Father. However, this very Passage makes it appear, that the Author of that Work could not have written later than the Reign of Philip Augustus; since he is the last of the Kings of France mentioned by him, and consequently the said Author flourished in the Twelfth Century. As for the Literal Notes, it cannot be doubted, that they were the Genuine Works of Hugh of St. Victor, of which the following are still extant; viz. his Preface concerning the sacred Books, and the inspired Penmen of them; his Notes on the Pentateuch; on the Book of Judges; on the Books of the Kings; and on some Psalms. These Notes are concise, and do not recede from the Literal and Historical Sense. Those that he made on the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and on the Prophecies of Joel and Obadiah, are larger, and Allegories are intermixed with them. To these Explications of the Books of the holy Scripture are annexed others, which he wrote on the Book of the Hierarchy attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite. We might also add his Explication of the Decalogue, and those of St. Augustin's Rule, which are of the same Style.  
The Four Books of the Cloister of the Soul; the Four other Books of the Soul; the small Tract of the Physic of the Soul; the Two Books of Birds; and those of the Spiritual and Carnal Marriages, belong to Hugh de Foliet, a Monk of Corby: I also ascribe to the same Monk, the Dialogue between the Flesh and the Spirit, the Style of which is different from that of Hugh of St. Victor; nay, perhaps he is the Author of the Four Books of the Mystical Ark, and of the Ark of Noah, which bear the Name of the Benedictin Monk of Saxony: Insomuch that in the Second Tome of the Works of Hugh of St. Victor, there are but very few of his Genuine Pieces; viz. the Soliloquy of the Soul; the Encomium of Charity; the Discourse on the manner of Praying; the Discourse of the Love of the Bridegroom, and of the Spouse; the Four Books of the Vanity of the World, and the 100 Sermons.  
The last Tome contains Dogmatical Works; the First of which is called Didascalick, or Instructive Institutions, being divided into Seven Books, in which are certain Rules for studying, and general Notions of the Sciences. In the Fourth, he treats of the sacred Books, of the Writings of the Fathers, and of the Councils and Canons: In the Fifth, of the Sense of the holy Scriptures: In the Sixth, of the manner of reading it; and in last, which is the largest, of the manner of attaining to the Knowledge of God, and of the Trinity, by the Creatures.  
The Second, relates to the Will and Omnipotence of God; in which he examines this Question; viz. Whether his Power be of a larger extent than his Will?  
The following Tracts are composed on divers Questions relating to the Mystery of the Incarnanation, particularly in reference to the Will of Jesus Christ, his Wisdom and Knowledge, concerning the Union of the Word with the human Nature; against the Opinion of the Master of the Sentences, that Jesus Christ is not a Thing; and touching several other Scholastical Questions; besides Three Conferences about the Incarnation, and a Treatise of the Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary.  
To these Treatises are subjoined Five Books, called Miscellanies of Theological Learning, which contain many Common Places concerning Passages of the holy Scripture, and divers Points of Divinity and Morality.  
The Three Books of Divine Offices, and that of the Canon of the mystical Offering, belong to Robert Paululus, a Priest of the Church of Amiens, of whom we have made mention elsewhere.  
The small Tract, by way of Dialogue between Master and Scholar, concerning the Law of Nature, and the written Law, contains brief Resolutions of a great number of Theological Questions.  
The Summary of the Sentences, divided into Seven Treatises, is a compendious System of Divinity.  
But his chief Theological Work, is a Treatise of the Sacraments, divided into Two Books, of which the First comprehends twelve Parts, and the Second eighteen. It is one of the largest Treatises of Divinity that were composed in the Twelfth Century, and the Author therein explains the Questions after a very clear manner, altogether free from the Logical Method and Terms, without involving himself in the Labyrinth of obscure and intricate Speculations. He proceeds to resolve these Questions by Passages of the holy Scripture, and according to the Principles of the Fathers, more especially of St. Augustin, whose Doctrine he follows, affecting even to imitate his Style; which gave occasion to some Persons to call him, The Tongue of that Father. He was a Native of Flanders, born in the Territories of Ypres, and not in Saxony, as it was generally supposed: But he spent his Life in France, in the Monastery of St. Victor, of which he was a Regular Canon and Prior. He died Febr. 11. A. D. 1142. aged Forty Years. His Works were printed at Paris in 1526. at Venice in 1588. at Mentz in 1617. and at Roven in 1648.  
This Author had for his Pupil RICHARD, a Scotch Man by Nation, and a Regular Canon of the same Monastery, who likewise attained to the Office of Prior in the Year 1164. and acquired 
Richard of St. Victor.  much Reputation by the great number of his Writings. We have but now observed, that to him may be attributed the Collection of Questions on the Bible, part of which is printed amongst his Works, and the rest among those of Hugh of St. Victor. The following Works on the holy Scripture and undoubtedly his. Viz.  
Three Treatises of Critical Remarks and History; that is to say, the First to explain the Form and Parts of the Tabernacle; the Second, to give a Description of Solomon's Temple, and of every Thing that was contained therein; and the Third, to adjust the Chronology of the Books of Kings and Chronicles, concerning the Kings of Judah and Israel. To these Treatises must be added a larger Explication of the Temple in Ezechiol. These Four Treatises relate altogether to critical Matters, and have no regard to Allegories, nor to Mystical or Moral Significations.  
His other Commentaries are not of the same Nature, as not being Literal, but Allegorical, Moral or Dogmatical: They consist in Explications of divers Psalms; a Commentary on the Book of Canticles; Questions on certain difficult Passages of St. Paul's Epistles; and a large Commentary on the Apocalypse. The other Works of Richard of St. Victor are of Two Sorts; some of them being Pieces relating to Points of Doctrine, and others being Treatises of Piety and practical Divinity.  
Among the former are to be reckoned his Treatise of the Trinity, divided into Six Books: A Tract dedicated to St. Bernard, concerning the Attributes appropriated to every one of the Divine Persons: His Treatise of the Incarnation: Two Treatises of the Emmanuel, or on these Words of the Prophet Isaiah, Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Emmanuel; in which he proves against a certain Jew, that these Words can be interpreted of none but the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ: A Treatise of the Power of Binding and Losing, in which he follows the common Opinion of the School-Divines of his time, concerning the Effect of the Keys, and the Power of the Ministers: A Discourse of the Sin against the Holy Ghost: Certain Explications dedicated to St. Bernard on some difficult Places of Scripture: A Discourse to explain in what Sense the Holy Ghost is said to be the Love of the Father, and of the Son: And a Treatise of the difference between Mortal and Venial Sins.  
His Works of Piety and Morality are these; viz. A Treatise of the means of rooting out Evil, and promoting Good: A Discourse on the State of the inward Man: Three Books of the Instruction of the inward Man, or of the Spiritual Exercise, upon occasion of the Dreams of Nabuchadnezzar and Daniel: A Treatise of the Preparation of the Soul for Contemplation: Five Books of the Grace of Contemplation, on the Ark which was set in the Tabernacle, with an Addition containing some Allegories on the Tabernacle: A Discourse or Meditation on the Plagues that will happen on the Day of Judgement: Another Discourse on the Day of the last Judgement: A Treatise of the Degrees of Charity: Another of the Four Degrees of fervent Charity: A Discourse of the Two Passovers, with a Sermon on the Festival of Easter: A Discourse of the Baptism of Jesus Christ: A Sermon on the Effusion of the Holy Ghost: A Tract concerning the Comparison that is made of our Saviour to the Flower, and of the Virgin Mary to the Branch: Another about the Quality of Standard of the People, attributed to Jesus Christ: And lastly, Two Discourses; viz. One concerning the difference between Abraham's Sacrifice and that of David; and the other relating to the difference between the same Sacrifice, and that of the Virgin Mary.  
This Author died March 10. A. D. 1173. and his Works were printed at Paris in 1518. and in 1540 as also at Venice in 1592. at Colen in 1621. and at Roven in 1650. He shows a great deal of subtlety in his Theological Treatises, and argues methodically with an Exactness befitting an able Logician. His Critical Pieces are very accurate for his time, but his Style is not very lofty, and upon that Account it is, that his Treatises of Piety, though full of excellent Matter, have not all the Grandeur, nor all the Energy that might be wished for.   

CHAP. XVII.  
Of Gratian's Collection of Canons.  
ALthough many Collections of Canons, Decretals, and Passages of the Fathers, relating to the Canon-Law, were compiled before the Twelfth Century; yet none of them was generally followed, or publicly taught: They were looked upon as the Work of private Persons, and the Decisions contained in them had no greater Authority than the Monuments out of which they were taken; whilst every one applied them to his particular Benefit, but none made them the subject of public Lectures. The Collection which GRATIAN a Monk of St. Felix 
Gratian.  at Bononia, and a Native of Chiusi in Toscany, completed in the Year 1151. met with much better Success; for as soon as it appeared, it was so favourably received, that the Canonists taught it publicly, and in a little time, a great number of Commentaries were written on that Work.  
In the Ancient Manuscripts, and in the First Editions, it bears this Title, viz. The Concord of disagreeing Canons, and afterwards was called, The Book of Decrees, or simply, The Decrees. It is divided into Three Parts, the First of which contains Matters relating to the Law in general, and the Ministers of the Church, under the Name of Distinctions; the Second, divers particular Cases, upon occasion of which are debated many Questions that are called, The Causes; and the Third, entitled, Of the Consecration, such Matters as relate to the Divine Offices, and the Sacraments.  
In the First twenty Distinctions of the First Part, he treats of the Division of the Law; of the different sorts of Laws, as well Civil as Ecclesiastical; of the Authority of the Canons, of the Councils, and of the Decretals of the Popes; of the sacred Orders; of the Qualities of Persons who ought to be ordained; of the Form and Ceremonies of Ordination; of the Functions and Conduct of Clergymen; of the Power of the Pope, and of the Bishops; of the use of the Pall, and of every Thing that relates to the Ministers of the Church. This Part is divided into 101 Distinctions.  
In the Second, containing Thirty six Causes, every one of which comprehends divers Questions, every Question being likewise divided into several Chapters; the Author treats of Simony; of Appeals; of Incumbents deprived of their Benefices; of the Quality of Witnesses and Accusers; of Elections; of the Government of Churches; of Ecclesiastical Censures; of last Wills and Testaments; of Burials; of Usury; of what ought to be observed with respect to 
* Furieux.  outrageous or distracted Persons; of Sentences passed contrary to the due Forms of Law; of Monks and Abbots, and their Rights; of those who assault Clergymen; of Commendams; of Oaths; of War; of Heresies; of Infractions of the Canons; of Sorcerers; of Marriage, and its Impediments; of the Degrees of Consanguinity; and of Rapes. In the Thirty second Cause, he has inserted a Dissertation concerning Repentance, in Seven Sections; in which he follows the Error of some Writers of Penitentials, who do not believe Confession to be of Divine Right, or absolutely necessary for the remission of Sins.  
The Third Part contains Five Distinctions, or Sections; viz. the First, concerning the Consecration of Churches, the Celebration of Mass, and the Divine Service: the Second, concerning the Eucharist; the Third, about the solemn Festivals of the Year, and the use of Images; the Fourth, about the Sacrament of Baptism, and its Ceremonies; and the Fifth, concerning Confirmation, Fasts, manual Labour, and some other Points of Discipline. Some Articles have been since added from time to time, under the Title of Palea; which is supposed to be the Name of the Author of these Additions, which were called Protopalea, or Palea.  
The First Edition of this Work was printed at Mentz, A. D, 1472. and the Second at Venice, Four Years after: The Third is that of Paris in 1508. which is the First that bears the Name of Gratian; whose Text is to be found in these Editions after the same manner that it was written by him; that is to say, full of false or erroneous Quotations: For Gratian has not only cited in his Collection, the false Decretals of the Popes, and other supposititious Works, but is also often mistaken in quoting one Author, or one Council for another, or in relating Passages otherwise than they are in the Original; upon which account it was judged Expedient to correct the Faults of this Author. Antony de Mouchy, and Antony Contius, were the first that undertook to do it in France, in the preceding Age, and the whole Work was printed with their Notes at Antwerp in 1570. and 1573. At the same time the Pope's having considered the Importance of this Undertaking caused several Persons to be employed in it, in order to publish a new Edition of Gratian's Decretal, corrected, and at least cleared of the principal Errors: They began to set about the Work under the Popedom of Pius IU. and carried it on under his Successor Pius V. but did not complete it till the time of Gregory XIII. They applied themselves more especially, 1. To correct the Errors that had crept into the Text of Gratian, through the Negligence of the Transcribers or Printers, by revising it exactly according to the Ancient Manuscripts. 2. By substituting the Name of the true Author of the Passages cited by Gratian, in the room of that which he had set down, when it was evident that he was mistaken. 3. By observing the differenees between the genuine Text and that which is quoted by Gratian, and even correcting it in the Text of Gratian in those Places, where he only Copies out their Words.  
When this Work was completed, it appeared at Rome in 1580, with the Approbation of Pope Gregory XIII. who prohibited it to be published after another manner. Whereupon it was soon printed according to the Copy of the Roman Edition in many Places; viz. at Venice in 1584. at Paris in 1585. at Francfurt in 1586 and 1590. and at Lions in 1591. and a great number of Editions of it have been since set forth. Whilst the Roman Edition was preparing for the Press, the Famous Antonius Augustinus, Archbishop of Taragona, composed certain Dialogues concerning the Correction of Gratian, and afterwards made Additions to the same Edition, when he had procured a Copy of it. This Piece was printed at Taragona A. D. 1587. the next Year after his Death, and some time after at Paris, but it was published with much more accuracy by M. Baluzius in 1682. Antonius Augustinus discovers a vast number of Faults, Oversights, and Errors in Gratian's Decretal, and makes many curious and very useful Remarks; to which may be added those of M. Bulusius, which are no less judicious. But whatsoever Correction of this Work has been already, or can be made for the future, it is difficult, or rather impossible, to bring it to that perfection which is requisite for a general Collection of the Canons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions, that is to serve as it were a perpetual Standard.  
However Gratian's Collection was generally received and taught in the Schools as soon as it appeared, but within a little while after, were added to it certain new Decretals of the Popes, particularly of Alexander III. of which were made Collections like those that are found in the end of the Third General Council of Lateran, and these were likewise explained publicly. It is against this new Body of Law, which began to be in vogue, that Stephen de Tournay declames, in his 251 Letter, of which we have already related the Passage, to which we desire the Reader to have recourse upon this Occasion, because it may serve as a Conclusion to what we have said in this, and in the preceding Chapters.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
Of the General Councils held in the Twelfth Century.  
ALthough the Name of Ecumenical, or General Council, denotes an Assembly composed of Bishops of all the Churches of the World; nevertheless the Eight first General Councils held in the Levant, chief consisted in Bishops of the Eastern Churches, those of the Western being represented by the Legates of the See of Rome, who often were accompanied with few or none of the Prelates of the Western Churches: But after the Separation of the Latin Church from the Greek, it was scarce possible any longer to hold Councils, in which the Latins and Greeks were willing to assemble together, in order to pass their Judgements in Ecclesiastical Affairs, or unanimously to make common Constitutions. Therefore the succeeding General Councils were composed only of a great number of Prelates of the Western Churches convened by the Popes, who were wont to publish Decisions conformably to the Doctrine and Discipline which the Bishops of these Councils had approved and confirmed. There were Three of this Nature held at Rome in the Twelfth Century; viz. the First under Pope Calixtus II. the Second under Innocent II. and the Third under Alexander III. We have already produced a Relation of the First, with the Extract of its Canons, in treating of the Investitures; so that it remains only to give the like Account of the Second and the Third.  

The Second General Council of Lateran.  
POPE Innocent II. having obtained the quiet Possession of the See of Rome, by the Death of 
The Second General Council of Lateran.  Peter of Leon, convened in the Month of April A. D. 1139. a Council in the Palace of Lateran, called, the Second General; which (as they say) was composed of near a Thousand Prelates, and of which Thirty Canons were published.  
The First imports, That all Clergymen, who were ordained by Simony, shall be deposed from the Dignity which they have unjustly usurped.  
The Second, That all those, who have bought or sold any Benefice, shall be deprived of it, and branded with Infamy; and that nothing shall be exacted for the conferring of Ecclesiastical Dignities and Live.  
The Third, That none shall entertain those who are Excommunicated by their Bishop.  
The Fourth, That the Bishops, and the rest of the Clergy, shall endeavour to please God and Men, by their inward Disposition, as well as by their outward Behaviour: That they shall give occasion of Scandal to none, neither by the Colour nor Fashion of their Habits: That they shall be clothed after a regular and modest Manner: And that they, who neglect to observe this Rule, shall be deprived of their Benefices, unless they be reformed, after having been admonished by their Bishops.  
The Fifth, forbids the Pillaging of the Goods, or Revenues, of the Bishops after their Death.  
The Sixth, ordains, That those who officiate as Subdeacons, or have entered into Orders of a higher Station, if they marry, or keep Concubines, shall lose their Offices or Benefices.  
The Seventh, prohibits the hearing of Mass of Priests who are married, or keep Concubines; declares the Marriages of Priests to be null; and ordains, that those who have contracted it shall be divorced, and put to Penance.  
The Eighth, regulates the same Thing, with respect to Virgins consecrated to God, if they marry.  
The Ninth, forbids Regular Canons, or Monks, to study the Civil Law, or the Art of Physic, in order to make profit by the Practice of those Sciences.  
The Tenth, enjoins Laics, who have Churches or Tithes in their Possession to restore them to the Bishops under pain of Excommunication; prohibits the conferring of Archdeaconries or Deaneries on any Persons but Priests and Deacons; declares that those who have procured them without entering into Orders, shall be deprived of them, if they refuse to be ordained: And in like manner forbids the granting of them to young Men, who are not admitted into Orders, or the demising of Churches to Priests for Rent.  
The Eleventh, ordains, That Priests, Clerks, Monks, Travellers, Merchants, and Country People, shall have free Liberty to come and go with Safety at all times.  
The Twelfth, specifies the Days and Times when it is forbidden to make War, and exhorts the Christians to Peace.  
The Thirteenth, condemns Usury and Usurers.  
The Fourteenth, prohibits military Combats that were practised at Fairs, and ordains, that those who are mortally wounded in such Rencounters shall be deprived of Christian Burial; although Penance, and the Viaticum, ought not to be denied them.  
The Fifteenth, denounces an Anathema against those who abuse a Clergyman, or a Monk, and prohibits the Bishops to give them Absolution, except in case of necessity, till they have made an Appearance before the holy See. The same Canon re-establishes the right of Sanctuary for Churches and Churchyards.  
The Sixteenth, is a Prohibition to lay claim to prebend's, or other Benefices, by right of Succession.  
The Seventeenth, re-enforces the Laws against Marriages amongst Relations.  
The Eighteenth, denounces an Anathema against Incendiaries, and declares them to be unworthy of Christian Burial; forbids to give them Absolution, till they have made Restitution for the Damage done by them; and enjoins them for Penance to take a Journey to the holy Land, or to Spain, for the Service of the Church.  
The Nineteenth, suspends for a Year, and condemns to restitution, the Archbishops or Bishops, who shall take upon them to remit the Rigour of the Punishment ordained in the preceding Canon.  
The Twentieth, imports, That Kings and Princes have a Power to execute Justice, in consultation with the Bishops and Archbishops: A Canon which cannot be understood but in reference to Ecclesiastical Persons.  
The Twenty first, forbids to admit into Orders the Sons of Priests; unless they have led a Religious course of Life in Monasteries, or in Canonical Houses.  
In the Twenty second, Priests are admonished not to suffer Laics to be deceived by false shows of Penance; and it is observed therein, that that Penitence is of none Effect, when only one Crime is repent of, without reforming the others; or when one continues to dwell in the confines of Sin, by retaining an Office or Employment that cannot be exercised without Sin; or when one bears Malice in the Heart; or when one refuses to give Satisfaction to an injured Person; or when we do not freely forgive those who have done us an Injury; or lastly, when an unjust War is maintained.  
The Twenty third, is against Heretics who condemn the Sacraments.  
The Twenty fourth, forbids to exact any Thing for the holy Chrism, for the consecrated Oils, and for officiating at Burials.  
The Twenty fifth, deprives those Persons of their Benefices, who receive them from the Hands of Laymen.  
The Twenty sixth, prohibits Nuns to reside in private Houses.  
In the Twenty seventh, they are likewise forbidden to appear in the same Choir with Monks or Canons, in order to sing the Divine Offices.  
The Twenty eighth, prohibits the Canons of Cathedral Churches, under pain of Anathema, to exclude Persons of known Piety from the Election of Bishops, and declares those Elections to be null, that they make without sending for, and advising with them.  
The Twenty ninth, denounces an Anathema against Slingers and Archers.  
The Thirtieth, declares to be null the Ordinations made by Peter of Leon, and other Heretics or Schismatics.   

The Third General Council of Lateran.  
POPE Alexander III. convened in the Year 1179. a great Council at Rome, which is called, 
The Third General Council of Lateran.  the Third General of Lateran, to reform a great number of Abuses that had crept into the Church; to make Constitutions about Matters of Discipline; to condemn the Albigeois, and other reputed Heretics; to maintain the Immunities of the Church; and to redress many Grievances that were become very common. This Council which began to fit on the Second Day of March, was composed of about Three hundred Bishops, and published Twenty seven Capitularies, or Articles of Canons.  
The First, is a Decree for preventing the Schisms of the Church of Rome in the Election of the Popes, ordaining, That if all the Cardinals cannot agree to choose the same Person, he shall be esteemed as Lawful Pope, who shall obtain Two thirds of their Suffrages in his Favour; but that he cannot be ordained, or acknowledged as such, who has less than Two thirds of the Votes: Provided nevertheless that this Constitution shall not be prejudicial to the Custom of other Chapters, in which the Consent of the greater and sounder Part usually prevails; by reason that the Contests which arise in those Bodies, may be determined by the Judgement of the Higher Powers, whereas the Church of Rome cannot have recourse to any Tribunal that is Superior to it.  
The Second, declares to be null the Ordinations made by the Three Anti-popes', Octavian, Guy, and John de Struma; deprives those of Benefices who received them from their Hands; abrogates the Alienations of Church-Revenues made by the said Anti-popes'; and suspends from Orders those Clergymen, who took an Oath to maintain the Schism.  
The Third ordains, That a Person nominated to be chosen Bishop shall be Thirty Years old; that he shall be born in Lawful Wedlock, and noted for his Learning, and the probity of his Manners: That when his Election is confirmed; when he has taken Possession of the Revenues of his Church; and when the time prescribed by the Canons for his Ordination is expired; he who had a right to dispose of the Benefices, which he enjoyed before he was made Bishop, shall have free Liberty to confer them: That the Deaneries, Archdeaconries, Curacies, and other Church-living, with the Cure of Souls, shall be granted only to those who have attained to the Age of Twenty five Years: That they who are advanced to a higher Dignity, if they do not cause themselves to be ordained in due time, shall be deprived of their Benefices, without a possibility of reinstating themselves by virtue of an Appeal. It is also declared, that this Constitution shall be observed not only with respect to those who shall receive induction to Benefices for the future, but also in reference to Incumbents, if the Canons require it: That those who neglect to observe it in carrying on their Elections, shall be deprived of their Right of Electing, and even of their Benefices for Three Years: And lastly, if the Bishop infringe it, or consent to the Infringement of it, he shall lose the Right of conferring Spiritual Live; which shall be granted by the Chapter, or by the Metropolitan.  
The Fourth Constitution, regulates the Number of Horses which the Prelates may keep for their Equipage, during the Visitation of their Dioceses; that is to say, Forty or Fifty are allowed to Archbishops; Twenty five to Cardinals; Twenty or Thirty to Bishops; Five or Seven to Arch-deacons, and Two to Deans: Now in regard that this Number is very considerable, it is declared in the end of the Canon, that what is granted by way of toleration, ought only to be put in execution in Churches which have large Revenues, and that in those Places where the Ecclesiastical Revenues are very mean, the Superiors shall take care not to over-burden their Inferiors in visiting them; and that it is not the meaning of the Decree, to enlarge the Privilege of those, who were not accustomed to have so great a Retinue. The Bishops are likewise forbidden to oppress the inferior Clergy with Taxes and Impositions, although they are permitted upon urgent Occasions to demand of them necessary Supplies: But the Arch-deacons and Deans are absolutely prohibited to lay any Taxes upon the Priests or Clerks of their Jurisdiction.  
The Sixth, regulates the Formalities of Ecclesiastical Judicature, in which are observed Two common Abuses, viz. One, that the Superior Clergy, fearing lest the Inferior should withdraw themselves from their Jurisdiction by an Appeal, frequently begin with Suspending or Excommunicating them, without having sent them any Monitory before; and the other, that the Inferior, on the contrary, who fear the Censure of their Superiors, appeal without having received any Wrong, and to maintain their unjust Practice, make use of the Remedy appointed for the Relief of the Innocent. Therefore to prevent these Abuses, it is ordained, That the Superiors shall pronounce no Sentence of Suspension or of Excommunication against the Inferior Clergy, unless it were preceded by a Canonical Monition; if the Crime of which they are guilty be not of the Number of those, that render the Persons ipso facto excommunicated or suspended; and the Inferior are forbidden to enter an Appeal, before Issue be joined: As for those, who make a Lawful Appeal, it is decreed, that a competent Time shall be allowed them to prosecute it, and that in case they neglect to do it, within the limited Time, the Bishop, after the expiration of that Term, may make use of his Authority: Lastly, that if the Party summoned present himself in Court, and the Appe●lant does not appear, the latter shall be obliged to reemburse the former all his Charges. It is also required, that this Ordinance be regularly observed, more especially in Monasteries, and with respect to Religious Persons.  
The Seventh, condemns the Abuses which passed into a Custom, of exacting Money for Induction to Benefices; for the Burial of the Dead; for the Benediction of Marriages, and for the Administration of the Sacraments. The Bishops are likewise forbidden to impose new Duties on the Churches, to augment the old Ones, and to appropriate any part of their Revenues to their own private use, and they are enjoined to maintain the Liberty of their Churches.  
The Eighth, prohibits to bestow, or even to promise, Spiritual Live, before they become vacant; ordains Patrons to make their Presentations within Six Months after the Vacancy; and grants to the Chapter the Right of nominating to such Benefices, as are too long left Vacant by the Bishop, when they are in his Gift; also to the Bishop, the like Right of nominating to those that aught to be conferred by the Chapter, upon the same Default: But if both Parties neglect to do it, the Right is declared to devolve on the Metropolitan.  
The Ninth, reforms the Abuses that prevailed under colour of Privileges granted to the Knight's Templars, and other Religious Societies, who by virtue of these Privileges attempted many Things against the Authority of the Bishops: For they received Churches from the Hands of Laics; admitted excommunicated Persons to the Participation of the holy Sacraments; allowed them Christian Burial; placed and displaced Priests in several Churches by their own Arbitrary Power, and without acquainting the Bishops; frequently celebrated Divine Service in Churches that lay under a Suspension; and weakened the Episcopal Authority by Combinations and Fraternities. To put a stop to the career of these Abuses, the Council prohibits all Privileged People to entertain excommunicated Persons; enjoins them to present to the Bishops those Priests whom they would have put in the Churches, which do not by undoubted Right belong to their Jurisdiction; and that these Priests shall give an Account of their Spiritualities to the Bishops, and of their Temporalities to the Religious Society on whom they depend; so that these Benefices cannot be taken from them without the consent of the Bishops. It is also farther declared, that if the Knight's Templars come into Places lying under a Suspension, they shall only have Liberty to perform Divine Service once in them; and that the Members of their Society shall not be exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Bishops. This Regulation is extended to all the other Societies, that enjoy any Privileges, and make an ill Use of them.  
The Tenth imports, That Money shall not be exacted for the admitting of Monks into Monasteries; that they shall not be suffered to have any Personal Estate; that they shall not live privately in Towns, Villages, or Parishes, but in large Convents; that they shall not go out of them alone; that the Monks, who give any Thing for their Entrance into a Monastery, shall not be advanced to Sacred Orders; and that they who exact any thing upon that account, shall be deposed from their Office; that he who enjoys private Possessions, unless they were given him by the Abbot for his Office, shall be excommunicated; that an Abbot, who neglects to put this Order in execution, shall be degraded from his Dignity; that Priories, or Commissions, shall not be given for Money; that Conventual Priors shall not be changed, unless for a just Cause, as in the Case of Dilapidation, or Irregularity, or if it be judged expedient to remove them to higher Station.  
The Eleventh, renews the Prohibitions so often reiterated with respect to Clergymen who are in Orders, to keep Company with Women; condemns Sodomites to very severe Punishments; and forbids Ecclesiastical Persons to frequent the Monasteries of Nuns, unless upon some emergent Occasion.  
The Twelfth, forbids all Clerks, who are maintained by Church-Revenues, to exercise the Functions of Attorneys or Solicitors in Lawsuits, unless it be to manage their own Affairs; or those of the Churches, or those of the Poor, who are not able to defend themselves. They are also prohibited in this Canon, to serve as Receivers or Judges to Lay-Lords, under the Penalty of being suspended from the Exercise of their Ministerial Functions. The same Thing is likewise more rigorously forbidden to Monks.  
The Thirteenth, enforces a Prohibition to the same Person to possess several Benefices, with the Cure of Souls, and ordains residence therein.  
The Fourteenth, in like manner, prohibits the Plurality of prebend's, and condemns the Proceed of Laics, who put Clergymen in the Churches, and turn them out whenever they think fit; who take upon them to distribute the Goods and Revenues of the Church at their Pleasure; and who exact Duties, and lay Taxes on the Churches, and on Ecclesiastical Persons. Therefore they who persist in such Practices for the future, are threatened to be anathematised; and the Priests and Clerks, who receive Benefices from the Hands of Laymen, to be deposed: The latter are also forbidden, under pain of Excommunication, to summon Clergymen before their Judges; and it is decreed, that they who retain the Tithes, and other Church-Revenues, shall be deprived of Christian Burial.  
The Fifteenth ordains, That the Estate or Goods which Clergymen have got out of the Revenue of their Benefices, shall be left to the Churches to which they belong, whether they have so disposed of them by their last Will and Testament or not. By this Canon is also abolished the Custom of Deans commissionated by the Bishops to exercise Episcopal Jurisdiction, who upon that account exact a certain Sum of Money.  
The Sixteenth determines, That in Chapters, affairs shall be transacted according to the Advice of the greater, and more sound part of the Canons.  
The Seventeenth, provides a Remedy for the Inconvenience that happens, when the Lay Patrons are divided, and present several Clerks for the same Church. It is ordained, That he shall be preferred who is the most worthy, and has the greatest Number of Suffrages.  
The Eighteenth, orders the Settlement of a Schoolmaster in all the Cathedral Churches, for the Instruction of Youth, to whom is to be allotted a Benefice of a sufficient Revenue for his Maintenance; in consideration of which, he is forbidden to exact any Thing for granting a Licence to teach, and obliged to deny it to those who are not capable of performing that Employment.  
The Nineteenth prohibits, under the Penalty of an Anathema, the Taxes and Impositions laid by Magistrates on the Churches, and Ecclesiastical Persons; at least unless the Bishops and the rest of the Clergy, having regard to the Exigencies of the State, especially when the Revenues of the Laity are not sufficient for the discharging of them, shall judge it expedient that the Churches should contribute somewhat to that purpose.  
The Twentieth, condemns the Tournaments, in which Soldiers fight, and often kill one another, to show their Courage and Dexterity.  
The Twenty first prescribes, under pain of Excommunication, the observing of a Truce, that is to say, of a Cessation of all manner of Acts of Hostility, from Wednesday-Evening at Sunset to Munday-Morning, from Advent to the Octave after the Epiphany, and from Septuagesima till the Octave after Easter.  
The Twenty second ordains, That Monks, Clerks, Pilgrims, Merchants and Peasants, who come and go to manage the Affairs of Husbandry, shall pass on the Roads with Safety, and that no new Tolls shall be exacted of them.  
The Twenty third, grants to Lepers, who are sufficiently numerous for the keeping of a Church, a Churchyard, and a Priest, a Licence to that purpose, upon Condition that they do no Injury to the Ancient Churches, as to their Parochial Rights.  
The Twenty fourth, forbids Christians to furnish the Saracens with Iron, Arms, Ship-tackle, or other Instruments of War, and excommunicates those who list themselves in their Service at Sea, as also such Persons as seize on the Goods of those that have suffered Shipwreak.  
The Twenty fifth ordains, That Public Usurers shall be deprived of the Communion during their Life-time, and of Christian Burial after their Death.  
The Twenty sixth declares, That it ought not to be endured that the Saracens should have Christian Slaves, nor that the Christians should reside among them. It gives permission to receive the Testimony of Christians against the Saracens, and ordains that those who are converted to the Christian Religion, shall remain in the quiet Possession of the Estates which they enjoyed before.  
The Twenty seventh Canon is that which relates to the Albigeois, and others, who were reputed Heretics in those Times, of which we have already given some Account elsewhere.  
These are all the Regulations that were made in the Third General Council of Lateran. Bartholomew Laurens, surnamed Poîn, who published the Acts of this same Council, has annexed to it a large Collection of divers Constitutions of Alexander III. and of the Popes who preceded or succeeded him, which he looked upon at least in part, as a Sequel of this Council, because he found it in the same Manuscript: But this Work does not in any manner belong to the Council, and ought not to be esteemed as a part of it; so that we shall take no farther Notice of it in this Place.    

CHAP. XIX.  
Of the Provincial Councils held in the Twelfth Century.  
WE shall only treat in this Chapter of those Councils which made Regulations of the Church-Discipline, or that determined any important Ecclesiastical Affairs, and we shall pass by in silence a very great Number of lesser Councils, which were held only to re-establish or confirm the Privileges of particular Churches and Monasteries; or to consecrate certain Churches; or to translate the Relics of Saints; or to pass Judgement concerning the Differences between Churches and private Persons about Temporalities; or lastly, to condemn or to acquit some Persons accused of Crimes.  

The Council of Valence held in the Year 1100.  
IN the Year 1100. John and Benedict the Pope's Legates, arrived in France, and called a Council 
The Council of Valence, A. D. 1100.  at Autun, which was held in the Month of September at Valence. It was composed of Twenty four Prelates, as well Archbishops as Bishops and Abbots, and the Deputies of the Archbishop of Lions assisted therein. The Canons of Autun accused their Bishop of Simony, and the Matter was warmly debated on all sides, but the Determination of it was referred to the Council of Poitiers. Hugh Abbot of Flavigny, who was turned out by the Monks, obtained Letters of Restauration in this Council of Valence.   

The Council of Poitiers held in the Year 1100.  
THIS Council was assembled on the Octave of St. Martin in the same Year. The Bishop 
The Council of Poitiers in 1100.  of Autun, not having sufficiently cleared himself of the Accusation brought against him, was deposed and excommunicated, notwithstanding his Appeal to the Pope in this Council, and in the preceding: For the Legates had declared, that no regard ought to be had to that Appeal, since they were invested with the whole plenitude of the Pontifical Power. This Council was composed of Eighty Dignitaries, as well Bishops as Abbots, and in it was pronounced a solemn Excommunication against King Philip for retaking Bertrade. The Abbot of St. Remy at Rheims was confirmed in his Abbey; the Case of Drogo, Treasurer of the Church of Châlons, was argued, and it was made to appear, that he could not possess that Benefice, having another in another Diocese: Lastly, a certain Church was adjudged to Ives Bishop of Chartres, which had been usurped from him, and Sixteen Canons were made in this Council.  
The first imports, That only the Bishops or Abbots shall be empowered to administer Clerical Tonsure to the Monks, that is to say, to engage them in the Monastic Life by virtue of that Ceremony, and that they ought only to confer it on those Persons who actually tum Monks.  
The Second, That nothing shall be exacted upon account of such Tonsure, nay not so much as for the Sizzers and Napkins that are used in performing the Ceremony.  
The Third ordains, That Clerks shall not do Homage to Laymen, and shall not receive Church-living from their Hands.  
The Fourth, That the Benediction of the Sacerdotal Habits, and of the Utensils belonging to the Altar, shall be reserved to the Bishop.  
The Fifth, That the Monks shall not be allowed to wear the Maniple, unless they exercise the Office of Subdeacons.  
The Sixth, That the Abbots shall not make use of Gauntlets and Sandals, nor of the Ring, in officiating, unless they have obtained a Privilege from the See of Rome.  
The Seventh, That prebend's shall neither be bought nor sold, and that no Household-Provisions shall be exacted for the conferring of them.  
The Eighth, That no prebend's, nor any other Benefices, shall be disposed of during the Life-time of the Incumbents.  
The Ninth, That the Clerks and Monks shall not buy any Altars or Tithes of the Laics.  
The Tenth declares, That the Regular Canons may Baptise, Preach, enjoin Penance, and Bu●… the Dead, with a Licence from the Bishop.  
The Eleventh, That the Exercise of these Functions is forbidden to Monks.  
The Twelfth ordains, That those Clerks, who carry about Relics to get Money by them shall not be suffered to preach.  
The Thirteenth, That the Archbishops shall not exact of the Bishops, nor the Bishops of the Abbots, any Copes, Carpets, Basins, or Napkins, for their Consecration.  
The Fourteenth, That Laics shall have no share in the Offerings made at the Altar, nor in the Gratuities allowed to the Priests, especially upon the account of Burials.  
The Fifteenth, That not authorized Judges shall seize on the Revenues of the Bishops, either in their Life-time, or after their Death.  
The Sixteenth, and last Canon, confirms every Thing that Pope Urban had ordained in the Council of Clermont; particularly concerning Tithes and Altars unjustly retained by Laics, as also concerning the Celibacy of Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, and Canons, and the Prohibition to hold Two prebend's, or Two Dignities in Two several Churches. Moreover it is related in a certain Ancient Chronicle, that this Council ordained, that the Bishops should have a Right to recover their Possessions.  
King Philip, to cause the Excommunication which was denounced against him in the Council of Poitiers to be taken off, wrote to the Pope, that he was ready for the future, not to have to do carnally with Bertrade. Whereupon the Pope referred the Management of that Affair to Richard Bishop of Albano his Legate, who held at Beaugency a Council of the Bishops of the Provinces of Rheims and Sens, in which the King and Bertrade took an Oath upon the Holy Gospels, that they would no longer have carnal Copulation together, and that they would not see one another, but in the presence of such Persons as could not be suspected, till they had obtained a Dispensation from the Pope. However the Bishops and the Legate durst not give them Absolution, but reserved the Determination of the Matter to the Pope: Afterwards Richard being departed from France, the Pope granted a Commission for that purpose to Lambert Bishop of Arras, with the Archbishops and Bishops of the Provinces of Rheims, Sens and Tours, whom he impower'd to absolve the King, in case he renounced his unchaste Correspondence with Bertrade, and engaged no longer to see her, unless it were in the presence of unsuspected Persons. At last, Lambert Bishop of Arras, Diambert Archbishop of Sens, Radulphus Archbishop of Tours, and many of their Suffragans, being convened at Paris A. D. 1105. received the Oaths of the King, and of Bertrade, conformably to the Tenor of the Pope's Letter, and gave them Absolution upon those Conditions.   

The Council of Anse.  
IN the Year 1100. the Archbishops of Canterbury, Lions, Tours, and Bourges, and Eight Bishops, 
The Council of Anse in 1100.  assembled at Anse near Lions, held a Council, in which they debated Matters relating to the Voyage to the Holy Land, and excommunicated all those Persons, who had taken upon them the Cross, but had not made the Journey, till they should perform their Vow.   

The Council of Troy's.  
RICHARD Bishop of Albano, Legate of the See of Rome, held a numerous Council at Troy's 
The Council of Troy's in 1104.  in Champagne A. D. 1104. in which Godfrey was chosen Bishop of Amiens, and Hubert Bishop of Senlis accused of Simony cleared himself by Oath: This Council approved of, and confirmed the Privileges of the Monasteries of the Church of St. Peter at Troy's, and of the Abbey of Molesme.   

The Council of Beauvais held in the Year 1114.  
GODFREY, who was ordained Bishop of Amiens in the preceding Council, being ill used in that 
The Council of Beauvais in 1114.  Country, took a Resolution to quit his Bishopric; insomuch that in the Year 1114. Conon, the Pope's Legate, having called a Council at Beauvais, the People of Amiens demanded another Bishop, and Godfrey's Letter was read, in which he declared, that he had renounced his Bishopric. The Council, that nothing might be done with precipitation, reserved that Affair to be determined in the Council of Soissons. However they made a Constitution, in which it was declared, That the Revenues, of which the Churches had a quiet Possession during a Year and a Day, should belong to them for ever; provided that this Possession should take Place only against Laymen, and that a Possession of Thirty Years shall be requisite to transfer a Right from one Church to another.   

The Council of Rheims held in the Year 1115.  
CONON, held a Council the next Year at Rheims, in which he excommunicated the Emperor 
The Council of Rheims in 1115.  Henry, and obliged Godfrey to return to Amiens.   

The Council of Toulouse held in the Year 1119.  
POPE Calixtus II. being arrived in France, held June 6. A. D. 1119. a Council at Toulouse. 
The Council of Toulouse in 1119.  composed of certain Cardinals, and of the Archbishops and Bishops of Aquitaine, in which he published Ten Canons.  
The First, is against those who buy or sell Spiritual Live.  
The Second imports, That no Man shall be made a Provost, Archpriest, or Dean, who is not a Priest; nor an archdeacon, who is not a Deacon.  
The Third ordains, That Heretics, who contemn the Communion of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Baptism of Infants, Holy Orders, and Lawful Wedlock, shall be excommunicated, and that the same Punishment shall be inflicted on their Adherents.  
The Fourth, forbids Princes and Laymen to possess Tithes, Oblations, Monasteries, or other Revenues belonging to the Churches.  
The Fifth, prohibits to make Slaves of Freemen.  
The Sixth ordains, That Clergymen shall not be obliged to perform any manner of Service to Laics for Church-Revenues.  
The Seventh, That none shall seize on the Fourth Part of the Offerings which belong to the Bishop.  
The Eighth, That neither Bishops, nor Priests, nor any other Ecclesiastical Persons, shall be permitted to leave their Benefices to their Heirs, as an Inheritance by Right of Succession.  
The Ninth, That nothing shall be exacted for the consecrated Oils, Holy Chrism, or the Burial of the Dead.  
The Tenth, That the Monks, Canons, or Clerks, who quit their Profession, shall be Excommunicated.   

The Council of London held in the Year 1125.  
IN the Year of our Lord 1125. John de Crema, Legate of the See of Rome, William Archbishop 
The Council of London in 1125.  of Canterbury, Turstin Archbishop of York, Twenty Bishops, and about Forty Abbots, assembled at London, made Seventeen Decrees, in which they prohibit Simony; to give or to receive any Thing for Ordinations; to receive a Spiritual Living from the Hands of Laics; to choose a Successor to such Live; to confer them on Persons who are not in Orders; to deprive a Clergyman of a Benefice without a Legal Sentence passed against him by his Bishop; to ordain One who belongs to another's Diocese; to entertain One who has been excommunicated by his Bishop. Clerks are likewise forbidden to cohabit with strange Women, and to follow Usury; Witchcraft is condemned; and Marriages are prohibited between Relations to the seventh Degree; but it is declared, that Husbands, who endeavour to get their Wives divorced, under pretence of Consanguinity, are not allowed to make proof of it by Witnesses.   

The Council of London held in the Year 1127.  
WILLIAM Archbishop of Canterbury held another Council at London Two Years after the 
The Council of London in 1127.  former, in which he renewed the most part of those Constitutions, adding some others against the Plurality of Benefices, also concerning the Restitution of Tithes, and the Plainness that ought to be observed by the Abbesses in their Habits and Attire.   

The Council of London held in the Year 1138.  
Partly of the same Constitutions were revived in the Council held at London, A. D. 1138. during 
The Council of London in 1138.  the Vacancy of the See of Canterbury, by Alberic Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, the Pope's Legate in England. This Council was composed of Eighteen Bishops, and about Thirty Abbots, and in it were published Seventeen Canons; of which the following are not comprehended in the preceding Councils: viz. The Second, which forbids the keeping of the consecrated Elements in the Eucharist above Eight Days, and ordains, that they shall be reverently carried to the Sick by the Priests or Deacons, and even by Laymen, in Case of Necessity: The Fourth, which prohibits a Bishop, who is sent for by another Bishop to consecrate a Church, to exact any Thing besides his Right of Procuration: The Tenth, in which is referred to the Pope the giving of Absolution to those who have misused Priests, or Persons consecrated to God: The Twelfth, being a Prohibition to build a Chapel without a Licence from the Bishop: The Thirteenth, in which Churchmen are forbidden to engage in Warlike Affairs, and to bear Arms: The Fourteenth, prohibiting Monks to quit their Profession: The Fifteenth, which forbids Abbesses to be attired, and to have their Heads dressed after the manner of Secular Women: And the Seventeenth, which imports, That Schoolmasters shall not be permitted to let out their Schools to others for Money. Lastly, Theobald Abbot of Bec, was chosen Archbishop of Canterbury in this Council, and divers means were treated of for the making Peace between the Kings of England and France.   

The Council of Rheims held in the Year 1131.  
POpe Innocent II. as it has already been declared, held a Council at Rheims, A. D. 1131. in 
The Council of Rheims in 1131.  which he Crowned Lewes Surnamed the Young, King of France, and published Seventeen Canons very advantageous to the Church, but since they are recited in the Second General Council of Lateran, it were needless to produce an Extract of them in this Place.   

The Council of Rheims held in the Year 1148.  
THis Council convened by Pope Eugenius III. March 22. A. D. 1148. published Eighteen Canons, 
The Council of Rheims in 1148.  which are all among those of the Second General Council of Lateran. We have already given an Account of the Transactions therein, relating to the Condemnation of Gillebert de la Porré●.   

The Council of Tours held in the Year 1163.  
THis Council held at Tours by Pope Alexand●r III. on the 28. Day of April, was composed of 
The Council of Tours in 1163.  Seventeen Cardinals, 127 Bishops, and of a very great Number of Abbots, and other Ecclesiastical Persons. Arnulphus, Bishop of Lifieux, made an excellent Discourse before mentioned; Alexander renewed his Bulls of Excommunication against Octavian, and the Ten following Canons were publicly set forth.  
The First, forbids the dividing of prebend's, and the changing of Dignities.  
The Second, condemns Usury, more especially that by virtue of which the Interest of Things left in pawn by poor People, amounts to a greater Sum than the Principal.  
In the Third, Clergymen are forbidden to bestow Churches, Tithes, or Offerings on Laics.  
The Fourth, is against the Albigeois, which we have already recited in discoursing of those People.  
The Fifth, prohibits the letting out of Churches to Priests for an Annuity or yearly Rent.  
The Sixth, forbids the exacting of any Thing for admission into Orders; for Nominations to Benefices; for the Burial of the Dead; for the Holy Chrism; and for the consecrated Oils.  
The Seventh, is a Prohibition to Bishops to grant Commissions to Deans, or to Archpriests, for the carrying on of Judiciary Proceed in their room, or instead of Arch-deacons.  
By the Eighth, Monks are forbidden to go out of their Cloisters in order to study, or to become Professors of the Civil Law, or to practise Physic.  
The N●nth, declares the Ordinations made by Octavian, and by the other Schismatics or Heretics, to be void and of none Effect.  
The Tenth, proposes new Methods for maintaining the Revenues and Liberty of the Churches, and ordains, That whenever the Chaplains, who reside in the Castles, perceive any Injury to be done the Church, they shall make an Address to the Lord of the Castle, to demand Restitution; and if he neglect to do it within the space of Eight Days, the Celebration of the Divine Offices shall be suspended in the Castle; except that of Baptism, Confession, and the Communion, in case of Danger of Death: Only it is permitted to say Mass privately once a Week in a neighbouring Village, to consecrate the Host: It is added, That if the Inhabitants of the Castles continue in their obstinacy Forty Days, the Chaplains shall absolutely abandon the Place. They are also ordered to retire in Three Months, if they be charged with any manner of Serucies, and enjoined to get Information when the Booty is brought in; whether any of it belong to the Churches, or be claimed by Clergymen: All the Vicars and Chaplains are required to take an Oath to observe these Injunctions.  
By this Canon, the Innkeepers and Inhabitants of Towns or Villages, are forbidden to entertain excommunicated Persons: Churchyards and Ecclesiastical Revenues are exempted from all manner of Rent-charges and Assessments: The Excommunication to be inflicted on those who misuse Clergymen is revived, with a Reservation of that Cause to the See of Rome. All manner of Converse or Correspondence is prohibited with Persons who lie under a Sentence of Excommunication: The ●eans are enjoined to take care that these Ordinances be duly put in execution, and to give notice to the Bishop or archdeacon, of the Trespasses that shall be committed upon them. The Abbots, Monks, Priors, Abbesses and Prioresses, are likewise freed from all manner of Rent-charges, and Impositions. Lastly, an Anathema is denounced against Clergymen and Laics, who shall presume to buy or to sell any Revenues or Possessions, which they know to belong to the Church.   

The Council of Cassel in Ireland.  
IN the Year of our Lord 1172. Henry II. King of England, having made himself Master of 
The Council of Cassel in Ireland, held A. D. 1172.  Ireland, called a Council at Cassel, composed of the Prelates and other Clergy of Ireland, in which the following Canons were established.  
The First imports, That all the Faithful in Ireland shall be obliged not to intermarry with their near Relations, but to contract Lawful Marriages.  
The Second, That all the Children shall be made Catechumen at the Church-door, and shall be baptised in the Church.  
The Third, That all the Faithful shall pay to their respective Parish-Churches Tithes, as well of cattle, and of the Fruits of the Earth, as of their other Revenues.  
The Fourth, That all the Church-Revenues shall be exempted from all manner of Taxes and Impositions.  
The Fifth, That when a certain Sum is made up, that is to say, stipulated or agreed to be paid for the Murder of a Person; the Clergymen, who are the Heirs of the deceased Party, shall not be obliged to pay any part of the Fine.  
The Sixth, That all the Faithful when fallen Sick shall make their last Will and Testament in the presence of their Confessor; and that they, who have a Wife and Children, shall divide their movable Goods into Three Parts; One of which shall be allotted to the Wife, another to the Children, and the Third for the Funeral Expenses: That if they have no Children, they shall leave one Moiety of their Goods to their Wives; and if they have no Wife, their Children shall have a Moiety.  
The Seventh, That a Mass and 
* A sort of Service for the Dead.  Vigils shall be said for those who die after having made Confession, and that the accustomed Duties shall be paid to them.  
The Eighth, That Divine Service shall be celebrated in all the Churches, according to the Rites and Customs of the Church of England.   

The Council of Avranches held in the Year 1172.  
THirteen Canons were published in the Council which was held at Avranches A. D. 1172. by 
The Council of Avranches in 1172.  the Cardinals Theoduin and Albert, for the giving of Absolution to Henry II. King of England.  
The First, forbids the conferring of Benefices with the Cure of Souls on Children.  
The Second, is a Prohibition to bestow on the Sons of Priests, the Churches that were possessed by their Fathers.  
The Third, is likewise a Prohibition to give part of the Offerings to Laics.  
The Fourth, prohibits the appointing of Churches to be served by annual Vicars.  
The Fifth, obliges the Curates of large Parishes to provide a Vicar, when they have means to do it.  
By the Sixth, the Ordination of Priests without a Title is prohibited.  
The Seventh, forbids the letting out of Churches to farm for a Year.  
The Eighth, prohibits the depriving the Priests, who perform their Functions therein, of a third Part of the Tithes belonging to them.  
The Ninth, grants a Licence to those Persons, who are in possession of Tithes, to bestow them on such Clerks as they shall think fit, on condition that they shall afterwards return to the Church to which they belong of very good Right.  
The Tenth, forbids a Husband to turn Monk, whilst his Wife remains in the Secular State; unless they be both too old to get any Children: The same Thing is forbidden with respect to the Wife.  
The Eleventh, advises Fasting and Abstinence during the time of Advent.  
The Twelfth, prohibits the placing of Clergymen as Judges in the Civil Courts of Judicature.  
The Thirteenth, determines nothing as to the Estates of excommunicated Persons; the Perquisites claimed for the Benedictions of Marriages and Baptism; and for the giving of Absolution to those who lie under a Sentence of Excommunication; by reason that the Bishops of Normandy refused to admit that Decree.   

The Council of London held in the Year 1175.  
THE Two Henry's, Kings of England, being arrived at London, met with Richard Archbishop 
The Council of London in 1175.  of Canterbury, and the rest of the Prelates of the Realm, who held a Council on the Sunday preceding the Festival of the Ascension, in which the Archbishop Richard published the following Nineteen Canons.  
The First ordains, That they who have entered into Holy Orders, and keep a Concubine, whom they refuse to expel, shall be deprived of all manner of Ecclesiastical Office and Benefice: That the Clerks who are in Orders, below the Degree of a Sub-deacon, and are married, shall not be divorced from their Wives; but shall no longer enjoy their Spiritual Live: That they who are Subdeacons, or in superior Orders, and contract Marriage, shall be compelled to part with their Wives: And lastly, That the Sons of Priests shall be uncapable to succeed their Fathers in the Churches possessed by them.  
The Second, forbids Clergymen to enter Victualling Houses, to eat or to drink there, except when they are travelling on the Road.  
By the Third, Clerks, who are in Orders, are forbidden to assist at Trials in Capital Cases.  
The Fourth ordains, That the archdeacon shall oblige those Clergymen who wear long Locks of Hair to cut them off, and that they shall be clothed modestly.  
By the Fifth, Bishops are prohibited to ordain the Clergy of another Diocese, by reason of the Inconveniences that may arise from that Practice.  
The Sixth, forbids the Trial of Criminals to be managed in Churches, or in Churchyards.  
The Seventh and Eighth, renew the Prohibitions to exact any Thing for the Administration of the Sacraments; for the burying of the Dead; or for admittance into Orders, or the Monastic State.  
The Ninth, in like manner, forbids the making over of Churches to any Person under Pretence of endowing them; as also the exacting of any Thing for the Presentation to a Benefice.  
The Tenth, prohibits Religious Persons to follow the Trade of Merchandizing, or to be Farmers, and likewise Laymen to take Spiritual Live to farm.  
By the Eleventh, Clergymen are prohibited to bear Arms.  
The Twelfth imports, That the Vicars who endeavour to retain the Benefices of those who have the Title, contrary to their Promise or Engagement, shall be no longer suffered to exercise their Functions in the same Diocese.  
The Thirteenth ordains, That Tithes shall be paid of all Things.  
The Tenor of the Fourteenth is, That a Clergyman, who is cast in his Trial, aught to be condemned to defray the Charges of it; and that if he has not wherewithal to pay, he shall be punished according to the Bishop's Discretion.  
The Fifteenth ordains, That there shall be only Ten particular Prefaces, for the Festivals which are specified in that Canon.  
The Sixteenth, prohibits the administering of the consecrated Bread in the Communion steeped in Wine.  
The Seventeenth, forbids the Consecration of the Eucharist any otherwise than in a Gold or Silver-Chalice, and abolishes the Use of Tin-Chalices.  
By virtue of the Eighteenth, clandestine Marriages are forbidden.  
The Nineteenth, is a Prohibition to marry Children, who have not attained to a competent Age of maturity, unless it be in case of Necessity, or for the promoting of Peace.   

The Synod of York held in the Year 1195.  
HUBERT Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Pope's Legate in England, held at York a Synod 
The Synod of York in 1195.  of the Clergy of that Church in the Month of June, A. D. 1195. in which, after having deposed Robert Abbot of St. Mary, by reason of his Weakness and continual Distempers, he published certain Ordinances relating to Church-Discipline, more especially about the Celebration of the Eucharist.  
The First imports, That the salutary Host, being the most excellent of the Sacraments, the Priest ought to use all possible Diligence and Application, to the end that it may be consecrated with Humility, received with Fear, and distributed with Reverence: That it is requisite that the Minister of the Altar be sure that he offer Bread and Wine with the Water in the Sacrifice; and that he cannot celebrate the Mass, unless he have a Minister who is endued with some measure of Knowledge: That care ought to be taken to keep the Host in a neat Box, to renew it every Sunday, and to carry it to the Sick in a Clerical Habit, and with Discretion.  
The Second, enjoins the Arch-deacons to take care that the Canon of the Mass, which he calls Secretum Missae, be very correct.  
The Third, forbids Priests to oblige Laics to cause a certain Number of Masses to be said in stead of Penance, or to make Bargains for the price of Masses.  
The Fourth, contains a Prohibition to require more than Three Persons to stand as Sureties for a Child at the Baptismal Font; that is to say, Two Godfathers and One Godmother, when it is a Boy; or Two Godmothers and One Godfather, if it be a Girl: Deacons are likewise forbidden to Baptise, except in a Case of very great Extremity, or to administer the Eucharist, or Penance; but Priests are enjoined to go readily whenever they are sent for to baptise Children, or to give the Holy Communion to sick Persons.  
The Fifth, provides for the keeping of Churches, and their Ornaments, in good repair; and ordains, That the Eucharist shall be consecrated in a Silver-Chalice, in those Churches that have means to procure one.  
The Sixth imports, That the Clergymen, who have received the Crown from the Hands of the Bishop, shall have Tonsure with it; but if they neglect to observe this Ordinance, they shall be compelled to do it by the Forfeiture of their Benefices; and they who have received neither, by the order of the archdeacon or Deans. He recommends to Priests the wearing of Habits suitable to their Profession.  
Sy the Seventh it is enjoined, That Ecclesiastical Justice shall be administered Gratis.  
The Eighth, ordains the payment of Tithes without any diminution.  
The Ninth, prohibits Monks to take Offices or Licences from their Superiors to farm, and to travel or to go our of their Monastery without a just Cause, and without a Companion: As for the Nuns, they are likewise forbidden to go out of their Convents, unless accompanied with their Abbess or Prioress.  
The Tenth, forbids the letting out of Tithes to farm to Laics, although they were associated with a Clergyman.  
The Eleventh ordains, That the Curates shall publish thrice a Year the Excommunication against Perjured Persons with extinguished Candles, and shall denounce them excommunicated every Sunday. This Case is reserved to the Archbishop, to the Bishop, or to the Grand Penitenciary.  
The Twelfth, renews the Prohibitions so often made, That Clergymen should keep unchaste Correspondence with Women, and regulates the manner of trying those who are accused of that Crime.   

The Council of Montpellier held in the Year 1195.  
M. MICHAEL, Legate of the See of Rome, passing over to Spain A. D. 1195. upon occasion 
The Council of Montpellier in 1195.  of an inroad which the Saracens had made against the Christians in the Territories of his most Catholic Majesty, who was obliged to retire to those of the King of France; held a Council of the Bishops of the Province of Narbonne at Montpellier, in which he revived and published many Decrees of the latter Councils and Popes; amongst others, some about Peace and Truce; against Robbers and Pirates; concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and the Prohibition to lay Taxes on Churches; against Usurers; about the Habits and Manners of the Clergy; the Frugality to be observed by Bishops in keeping their Tables, etc. He leaves the Archbishop of Narbonne, and his Suffragan Bishops, at liberty to denounce Ecclesiastical Censures against the Infringers of these Ordinances, or to supersede them, accordingly as they shall judge most expedient, lest the Heretics should take an occasion from a general Suspension of long continuance, to pervert the Faithful, and to corrupt their Principles.    

CHAP. XX.  
Observations on the Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Twelfth Century.  
THE Illustrations that we have inserted in the Body of this Work, as to the most important Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Twelfth Century, may serve to supersede any farther Pains that might be expected here, in making several Remarks on the Doctrine and Discipline of that Age. For, as to the original and progress of Scholastic Divinity, recourse may be had to what we have said in the XV Chapter. As to the manner of explaining the Holy Scriptures, it would be requisite to consult the Observations made in Chap. XVI. And as to the Reception of Gratian's Decretal, only to peruse what has been related in Chap. XVII. Neither is it necessary to enlarge on the Heresies and Errors which appeared in the Church in those Times, or on the Doctrines that were established against them, since we have already treated of them in particular Chapters. Indeed the Affair of the Investitures might supply us with some Reflections, if we had not discoursed at large on that subject in the Second Chapter; so that nothing more remains to be said, concerning the Schisms of the Popes, and the Contests they had with the Emperors and Kings, which rend the Church, and occasioned innumerable Calamities. I shall only observe here, That these Dissensions were so far from diminishing the Power of the Popes, that 
Of the Authority of the Pope.  they served even to corroborate and augment it: For it was in this Century, that they established their Sovereignty in Rome, and their Independency of the Emperor, and even assumed to themselves a Right of conferring the Imperial Crown: They extended their Jurisdiction and Authority over the Churches farther than they had hitherto done, and met with much less Opposition in their Attempts than in former Times. The most part of the Councils were called either by them, or by their Legates, and they were the Authors of the Constitutions that were made therein, and to which the Bishops scarce did any Thing else but give their Consent. Appeals to the Pope in all sorts of Causes, and in favour of all sorts of Persons, were become so frequent, that no Affair was transacted, the Determination of which was not immediately referred to the Court of Rome; which obliged those Persons, who had any Zeal for the maintaining of Church-Discipline, and among others St. Bernard, publicly to complain of the Abuse. And indeed, they were constrained to find out some means to prevent it, in the Third General Council of Lateran, by forbidding Appeals that were entered before the Sentence was pronounced, and by ordaining that the Appellants should be obliged to prosecute them within a limited Time.  
The Discipline of the Church was likewise weakened by the frequent use of Dispensations, which were granted at Rome, with so much facility, that that Abuse is esteemed by St. Bernard as one of the most notorious Disorders that ever happened in the Church. The Popes had a very great share in the Collating of Bishoprics: For although the Bishops were then chosen by the Clergy, and ordained by the Metropolitan; nevertheless the Decision of the Differences that arose about the Validity of the Election, being of necessity referred to the Consistory of Rome, the Popes had an absolute Power to favour whom they should think fit; and if the Metropolitan refused to ordain him, whose Election was approved by them, they were in a Capacity to ordain him themselves. Sometimes they sent a Legate to assist on their behalf in the Election, where certain Persons were recommended to the Electors, or to the Patrons of the Benefices, and it would be difficult to have no regard to such Recommendations. The Elections of the Popes were reserved solely and wholly to the Cardinals, whose Dignity was advanced to such a degree of Height, that they were not only reputed to be superior to Bishops, but also to Patriarches and Primates. These Cardinals were then chosen indifferently out of all Nations, and France produced above Fifty in that Age.  
The Manners of the Clergy were more regular in this Century than in the Two preceding; insomuch that Simoniacal Practices, and other Enormities were not committed by Ecclesiastical Persons, neither so frequently, nor so publicly: It was forbidden to exact any Thing for the Administration of the Sacraments, for Ordination, or for the Collation of Benefices; yet this was practised at Rome, and elsewhere, under divers Pretences. Hitherto it was strictly prohibited, that they who were in Orders should marry; nevertheless when they did so, they were not divorced from their Wives; but only were degraded, turned out of the Clergy, or put to Penance: 'Twas only in this Century, that these Marriages were declared null, and that those Persons who had contracted them were constrained to be divorced; at least the first Ordinance which imports such an Injunction, is that of the First General Council of Lateran. The Constitution which excluded the illegitimate Sons of the Priests from the Clergy, was generally received, and many were enacted to prevent the Continuance of Spiritual Live in Families, as it were a peculiar Inheritance. The Clergymen used their utmost Efforts to exempt their Persons and Estates from the Jurisdiction of the Secular Powers, and the Bishops, who as yet were wont to administer Ecclesiastical Justice personally, began to have Officials, whose Name and Functions were unknown till that time: They likewise communicated their Episcopal Authority to Deans and Curates; which Custom was forbidden by the Third General Council of Lateran: They excommunicated or suspended the Laics, who usurped or retained the Revenues belonging to the Church, or who meddled with the disposal of Spiritual Live: However they themselves sometimes bestowed Altars, that is to say, Benefices on Laymen to enjoy the Revenues of them for a time; and these sorts of Benefices were called Personats: This Custom prevailed in like manner amongst the Eastern Churches, where the Emperors and Patriarches granted the Revenues of certain Monasteries to Laics. The Visitations of the Ordinaries became so very chargeable to the Curates, that there was a Necessity of regulating their Retinue. Lastly, all the Bishops were obliged to have in their Cathedrals a Person capable of teaching the Arts and Sciences, and Universiries began to be formed in the great Cities; amongst which those of Paris and Bononia were the most Famous; the former for the study of Divinity, and the other for that of the Civil Law.  
The Doctrine of the Sacraments was reduced in form of a methodical System in this Age, and 
Observations on the Discipline of the Sacraments.  divers Questions were discussed on that Subject, which never were started before. We shall not at present insist on them, but only observe certain particular Points of Discipline: The Administration of Baptism, even that of Infants, was reserved for solemn Days; but Parents were not allowed to assist at that of their Children, and the triple Immersion was still in use. The Custom of public Penance for public Offences was not entirely abolished; but it was very seldom put in practice, by reason that Remission of Sins must be obtained by other means, more especially by Crusades and Pilgrimages. The granting of Absolution for certain Crimes began to be reserved to the Pope, and the Bishops: At First, the Species of a Sin in general was not reserved, but a particular Action which appeared to be enormous; and afterwards the Offence of those Persons, who abused Clergymen, was generally referred to the Pope's Cognizance. Public Confessions at the point of Death were likewise in use; but the Benefit of Absolution, and of the Communion, was denied, at least in France, to Malefactors condemned to Death: Persons who were in Distress, out of a Principle of Devotion, often caused themselves to be laid on Ashes, having their Bodies covered with a Haircloth, or clothed in the Habit of a Monk: Voluntary Mortifications, such as the Penitential Shirt, the Haircloth, and the Scourging Discipline which Penitents gave themselves, or caused to be given by others, were very much used in those Times: They were wont to eat only once a Day, on the Days of Abstinence; but they began to break their Fast at the Hour of 
* One of the Canonical Hours.  None in 〈◊〉, and at Noon at another time: Fridays Fast was observed more regularly than that on Saturdays. The Participation of the Eucharist under both Kind's was customary during the whole Century; although in the beginning of it some took the Two Species both together, by steeping that of the Bread in that of the Wine, and in the end of the same Century, some took only one. The Term of Transubstantiation was then used by certain Writers, to express the Change of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Then also the Priests received Alms for their Masses, but it was forbidden to demand any; and although they offered the Sacrifice for certain Persons in particular, yet it was not doubted but that it was offered by them at the same time for all the Faithful; to which purpose see a remarkable Passage of Arnulphus of Lisieux, which we have related in the Account of the Works of that Prelate. Constitutions were published about the time, during which the Hosts might be kept; but the Ordinations, and even the Consecrations made by Schismatics, or by Heretics, were reputed to be void, and of none effect.  
To say somewhat in like manner concerning the Monastic State, we shall observe that the 
Remarks on the Monastic Life.  Benediction of Monks, which was first introduced in the Eastern, and afterwards in the Western Churches, became as it were necessary, and that an express Profession was enjoined, which till then was never required. This Benediction was usually given by a Bishop, or by an Abbot; nevertheless a simple Monk might also perform the Ceremony, and it was not forbidden to be reiterated: When a Monk was made Abbot, he received the Benediction from his Diocesan; yet such Benediction was not judged absolutely necessary. It appears that it was customary in those Times, both in the Levant, and in the Western Countries, that the Monasteries should receive Money or Goods of those Persons, who were to be admitted into them; but that it was prohibited to exact any Thing on that account. The Cistercian Order, which was small and poor in the beginning, soon became so Numerous and Rich, that it gave some cause of Jealousy to that of Clunie, and to all the other Black Friars. There arose several Contests betwixt them, as well by reason of the Difference of their Customs, as upon account of Temporal Interests, and more especially, because the Cistercian Monks received those of the Order of Clunie, who were desirous to pass over to them: It likewise fell out sometimes, that the Cistercians retired to Clunie, and were there entertained; but they procured a Dispensation from the Pope for that purpose, and it does not appear, that those of Clunie, who went to Cisteaux, observed the same Formality. This Custom of passing thus from an Order of a moderate, to another of a more austere Discipline, began to be introduced in the Twelfth Century. The greatest part of the Monasteries obtained Exemptions of the Popes to withdraw themselves from the Bishop's Jurisdiction; an Abuse that was condemned by St. Bernard, and which the Prelates were afterwards obliged to restrain in the Third General Council of Lateran. Some considerable Abbots were permitted by the Pope to wear the Episcopal Ornaments; viz. the Mitre, the Dalmatick, the Gloves, the Sandals, and even the Crosier: Although those who were of a more moderate Temper disliked this Custom; nevertheless it became so frequent, that many Abbots usurped that Right, without any Licence from the Pope; and it was necessary that the Third General Council of Lateran should forbid it them, as well as the simple Monks, who were not in Orders, the wearing of Maniples. Monks were likewise prohibited, in the First General Council of Lateran, to administer the Sacraments, and to exercise any of the Functions of Curates; but this Prohibition did not hinder, but that many were taken out of Monasteries to be made Bishops and Cardinals. It was also very Customary for Bishops to retire in the end of their Life into Monasteries, and having spent the remainder of their Days in pious Exercises, to die in those Places of retreat. The Order of Grandmont was founded in the beginning of the Century, by Stephen Muret; this Society being composed of Hermits dwelling in little Cells, which were separated and shut up within the same Enclosure: The Rule which he enjoined them to follow, was very judiciously composed, and approved of by the Popes, Urban III. and Clement III. It is also affirmed, That the Order of the Carmelites began to be established in the Year 1121. by certain Hermits of Mount Carmel, whom the Patriarch of Antioch got together to form a Religious Society: They were Laymen, who were wont to say the Office of the Virgin Mary, and were obliged to no other Vow but that of Obedience.  
The Regular Canons were employed in administering the Sacraments, and in exercising the 
Regular Canons.  Functions of Curates, when they were authorised to that purpose, by their Bishops: But some Prelates made a Scruple to admit them to such Employments, and the Regular Canons themselves were not very willing to be taken off from their Solitary Life. At that time there arose a kind of Contrast between them, and the Monks, about the Preeminence and Dignity of their Stations: The Order of Regular Canons was augmented by a new Congregation, of which St. Norbert was the Founder, A. D. 1120. They were called Canonici Tunicati, by reason of their Habit, whereas those who bore the Name of St. Augustin were styled Superpelliceati.  
With these Regular Canons may be joined the Military Orders, which became very numerous in that Century, and were under the same Conduct and Rule: The most Ancient were those of St. John of Jerusalem, or the Knights Hospitallers, instituted in the beginning of the Century, to entertain the Pilgrims who were travelling to that City. The Second, are the Knight's Templars, who had their Institution in the Year 1118. and whose Office it was to provide for the Safety of the Pilgrims, by encountering those who disturbed them in their Journey. The Knights of the Teutonick Order, who professed ●o perform both these Employments, were established some time after. Lastly, in imitation of these Orders, those of St. James, and of Calatrava, were instituted in Spain, for the Pilgrimages of St. James in Galicia, and some others, in other Countries.  
FINIS.   

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES, And other Necessary Indices and Tables.  
 Popes. Western Emperors and Kings. Eastern Emperors. Ecclesiastical Affairs. Councils. Ecclesiasticol Writers. 1100 
Paschal II.  
I. The Death of Guibert the Antipope.  
Albert d'Atella, chosen Antipope in his Place, is taken at the end of Four Months by Pope Paschal's Party, and shut up in a Monastery.  
Theodoricus, afterwards made Antipope by the Inhabitants of la Cava, quitted that Dignity 3 Months after, to become a Hermit.  
Maginulphus, who succeeded him, under the Name of Sylvester iv died a little after.  
Henry IU. Emperor.  
XLIV. Philip I. K. of France, in the 40th Year of his Reign.  
William Rufus King of England, and Robert his Brother, Duke of Normandy.  
William is killed in hunting, and Henry the youngest of the Three Brothers succeeds him in the Kingdom of England.  Alexis Comnenus. XX. Hugh, Abbot of Flavigny, who was expelled by his Monks, is restored to his Abbey by the Council of Valence. 
A Council at Valence held in the Month of September.  
A Council at Poitiers assembled on the Octave of St. Martin, in which Philip I. King of France is excommunicated.  
A Council at Etampes in which Philip Bishop of Troy's is cited.  
A Council at Anse, in which 'tis debated concerning the Pilgrimage to the Holy Land.  
St. Bruno.  
Leo Cardinal Deacon.  
Robert Monk of St. Remy.  
Domnizon.  
Ives of Chartres.  
Marbodus Bishop of Rennes.  
Bruno Bishop of Segni.  1101 II. XLV. The Death of Conrade, Son of the Emperor Henry. XXI. 
Leo of Marsi, Bishop of Sessa, is made Cardinal Bishop of Ostia.  
St. Bruno dies on the 6th of October, and Lauduinus succeeds him in the Priory of La Grande Chartreuse.   
Leo of Marf● Cardinal Bishop of Ostia.  
Geffrey Abbot of Vendome.  
Hildebert Bishop of Mans.  1102 III. 
XLVI. Lewes the Gross, made King of France in his Father's life-time, assumes the Administration of the Government.  
The Emperor Henry obliges himself by a Vow to take a Journey to Jerusalem.  XXII. The Pope abolishes the Bishopric of Lavello, and confirms the Rights of the Church of Melfi. 
A Council at Rome in which the Emperor Henry iv is Excommunicated.  
A Council at London.  
Baudry Bishop of Noyon.  
Sigebert a Monk of Gemblours.  1103 IU. XLVII. Robert Duke of Normandy is deprived of his Dukedom, and taken Prisoner by his Brother Henry, who causes his Eyes to be put out: He dies in Prison. XXIII. Gauterius is made Bishop of Maguelone in Languedoc.   1104 V. XLVIII. XXIV. 
Godfrey Abbot of Nogent is chosen Bishop of Amiens in the Council of Troy's, and Guibert succeeds him in that Abbey.  
The Privileges of the Church of St. Peter of Troy's, and the Abbey of Molesme are confirmed in the same Council.  
A Council at Troy's held the 27th of March, where Hubert Bishop of Senlis being accused of Simony, clears himself by Oath.  
A council at Beaugency July the 30th concerning the Divorce of King Philip from Bertrade.  
Rainoldus of Semur, Archbishop of Lions.  
Guibert, Abbot of Nogent.  1105 VI. 
XLIX. Henry 5th having Revolted against his Father, is Received and Proclaimed King by the Saxons.  
He feigns a Reconciliation with his Father, whom he afterwards causes to be Imprisoned in the Castle of Bingen, and thence to be conveyed to Ingelheim; where he makes his escape, and retires to Liege.  XXV. 
Henry V banishes Erlong Bishop of Wurtzburg, and Substitutes Robert in his Place.  
Henry iv being again Excommunicated in the Council of Mentz, is forced at Ingelheim to Abdicate the Empire, and on his Knees to implore Absolution of Bishop Albanus the Pope's Legate, who denies it him, and refers him to the Pope.  
His Son Henry is Proclaimed and Crowned King of Germany in the same Council.  
Henry iv being retired to Liege, causes a Declaration there to be published, to which his Son returns an Answer.  
Odo Abbot of St. Martin at Tournay is made Bishop of Cambray, but afterwards Expelled his Bishopric, for refusing to admit the Emperor's Investiture.  
An Assembly at Northausen, May the 29th.  
A Council at Paris, November the 2d where K Philip and Bertrade are Divorced after having solemnly sworn to live separately.  
A Council at Mentz held in the end of the Year against the Emperor Henry IU.  
Philippus Solitarius a Greek Monk Composes his Dioptron or Rule of a Christian Life.  
Odo Bishop of Cambray.  1106 VII. The Pope comes into France to implore the King's Protection against the Emperor. I. Henry V succeeds his Father Henry IU. who died at Liege, August 7. XXVI. 
The Inhabitants at Liege to obtain Pardon of the new Emperor, are obliged to dig out the dead Body of Henry IU. which is transported to Spire, and laid in a Stone Coffin without the Church.  
The Decrees against the Investitures are renewed in the Council of Guastalla.  
The Pope takes away from the Metropolitan See of Ravenna the Suffragan Dioceses of Aemilia, in the same Council as a punishment for their Defection.  
Gillebert or Gilbert surnamed Crispin, is Installed Abbot of Westminster in this Year.  
Petrus Alphonsus a Spanish Jew is Converted to the Christian Religion; Baptised at Huesca; and held at the Font by Alphonsus' King of Spain.  A Council at Guastalla Octob. 19 under Paschal II. in which are regulated Matters relating to the Churches of Germany and Lombardy that were engaged in the Schism. 
Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster.  
Petrus Alphonsus a Converted Jew.  1107 VIII. II. The Death of Edgar K. of Scotland. XXVII. 
The Deputies of the Assembly of Mentz enter into Conference with the Pope at Châlons about the Affair of the Investitures, but nothing is concluded therein.  
The Emperor sends an Envoy to the Council of Troy's, which allows him a Years space to be in a capacity to plead his own Cause in Person at Rome in a General Council.  
An Assembly at Mentz held in the beginning of the Year about the Investitures.  
A Conncil at Troy's in Champagne held by Pope Paschal on the Festival of the Ascension, concerning the Investitures and against Simony.  
Stephen Abbot of St. James at Liege.  
The Death of Manasses, Archbishop of Rheims.  1108 IX. 
III. The Death of Philip K. of Fr. on July 26.  
Lewes the Gross his Son Crowned at Orleans 5 days after.  XXIX. Rodulphus is chosen Abbot of St. Trudo after the Death of Thierry.  
Anselm Dean of Laon.  
William de Champeaux.  
Stephen Harding, Abbot of Chichester.  1109 X IU. XXIX.   
The Death of St. Hugh Abbot of Clunie. April 30th.  
The Death of Rainoldus of Semur, Archbishop of Lions.  1110 XI. 
V Henry V comes into Italy.  
He is crowned King of Lombardy at Milan, by the Archbishop Chysolanus.  XXX. 
The Heretic Henry, who began to Dogmatise in Pro●ence with Peter de Bruis, and passed from thence to Lausanna; arrives this Year at Man's, where he divulges his Errors for some time, and whence he is at last Expelled by Bishop Hildebert.  
Guigue de Castre succeeds John in the Priory of lafoy Grandee Chartreuse.  
An Assembly at Ratisbon held in the beginning of the Year, in which the Emperor declares that he is resolved to go to Rome, there to receive the Imperial Crown, and to accommodate the Difference between him and the Pope.  
A Council in Ireland held by Gilbert Bishop of Limerick the Pope's Legate, to regulate the Limits of the Bishoprics of that Kingdom.  
Anscherus, Abbot of St. Riquier, writes this Year the Life and Miracles of St. Angilbert.  
Theofredus Abbot of Epternach.  
Thibaud or Theobald, a Clerk of Etampes.  
Radulphus Arden's.  1111 XII. The Pope having refused to Crown the Emperor, by reason of the Contests that arose about the Execution of the Treaty concerning the Investitures, is made a Prisoner with the Cardinals, and constrained to give Satisfaction to the Emperor, by granting him the Investitures. 
VI Henry after having made a Treaty with the Pope, concerning the Investitures, which is signed and sworn to, and Hostages given on both sides, enters Rome February 11th and at last obliges the Pope to grant him the Investitures, and to Crown him Emperor on April 13.  
The Emperor returns to Germany, and being arrived at Spire in the Month of August, causes the Body of Henry IU. his Father, to be there interred with a Magnficent Funeral Pomp, according to the permission which he had obtained of the Pope, upon the Testimony that was produced, that he died in a State of Repentance.  XXXI. 
Bruno Bishop of Segni and Abbot of Mount-Cassin is Deprived of his Abbey by the Pope, who gives it another, because this Bishop took the liberty to speak too freely concerning the Investitures, and against the Pope's Proceed  
Leo of Marsi, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia escapes by flight out of Rome after the taking of Paschal II. and traverses all Italy, to incite the People to take up Arms in Favour of the Pope.  
Franco is made Abbot of Afflighem.  
An Assembly of Cardinals at Rome, which disannuls all the Pope's late Proceed, renews and confirms the Decrees of his Predecessors against the Investitures.  
A Council at Jerusalem, in which Conon Cardinal Bishop of Palestrino and the Pope's Legate in the Levant, Excommunicates the Emperor Henry.  
Nicetas Seidus.  
Hariulphus a Monk of St. Riquier.  
Hugh Abot of Flavigny.  
Odo a Benedictin Monk of Asti.  
Raimond d' Agiles.  
Turgot a Monk of Durham.  1112 XIII. VII. XXXII.  
A Council at Lateran which annuls the Pope's Treaty with the Emperor relating to the Institures.  
A Council at Vienna held September 16. by Guy Archbishop of that City and the Pope's Legate, in which the Privilege of the Investitures is abrogated, and the Emperor Excommunicated.  
John Pike.  
Walter archdeacon of Oxford.  
Euthymius Zygabenus a Greek Monk.  
Philippus Solitarius.  
The Death of Baudry Bishop of Noyon and Terovanne, who was advanced to the Episcopal Dignity, A. D. 1097  1113 XIV. VIII. XXXIII. 
St. Bernard retires to Cisteaux, with 30 of his Companions, there to embrace the Monastic Life.  
The Foundation of the Abbey de la Ferté the first Daughter of Cisteaux in the Diocese of Châlons.  
William de Champeaux is Ordained Bishop of Châlons.   
The Death of Odo Bishop of Cambray at Douai, whither he had retired.  
The Death of Sigebert Monk of Gemblours.  1114 XV. IX. XXXIV. 
The Church of Amiens sends Deputies to the Council of Beauvais, to re-demand Godfrey their Bishop, who had retired to La Grande Chartreuse.  
This Bishop writes a Letter to that Council, in which he declares, that he had resigned his Bishopric.  
The Foundation of Abbey of Pontigny in the Diocese of Auxerre.  
Baudry, Abbot of Bourgueil is made Bishop of Dol.  
Ernulphus or Arnulphus is translated from Burk Abbey to the Bishopric of Rochester.  
Stephen installed Bishop of Autun, the preceding Year quits his Bishopric to become Monk in the Abbey of Clunie.  
A Council at Beauvais, December 6th in which Conon the Pope's Legate excmmunicates the Emperor.  
A Council at Beauvais, December. 6th in which Conon the Pope's Legate Excommunicates the Emperor.  
Udascalchus' a Monk.  
Florentius Bravo, a Monk of Westminster.  
Ernulphus or Arnulphus Bishop of Rochester.  
The Death of Gillebert or Gilbert, Ab of West. in this Year or the next.  1115 XVI. X. The Emperor Henry returns to Italy, where he takes Possession of the Territories left by the Princess Mathilda, who died on the 24th day of July. XXXV. 
The Council of Rheims obliges Godfrey to return to his Bishopric of Amiens.  
The Contest that arose between the Chapter of St. John and that of St. Stephen at Besanson for the Metropolitan Right, is decided in favour of the former, in the Council of Tornus.  
Bernard chosen Bishop of St. David's in England, is ordained at Westminster.  
The Foundation of the Abbeys of Clairvaux and Morimond in the Diocese of Langres.  
St. Bernard installed Abbot of Clairvaux, by William de Champeaux Bishop of Châlons; the Episcopal See of Langres, to which this right of Instalment belonged, being vacant.  
Peter, afterwards Library-Keeper of Mount Cassin, is put at the Age of Five Years into into that Monastery.  
A Council at Soissons held Jan. 6th which enjoins the Carthusian Monks to send back Godfrey to his Bishopric of Amiens.  
A Council at Rheims March 27.  
A Council at Colen held on the second Festival of Easter.  
A Council at Châlons, July the 12th.  
In these three Councils called by Conon the Pope's Legate, and in another held at Colen in the Christmas holidays the Emperor Henry is again Excommunicated.  
A Council at Tornus.  Yves Bishop of Chartres died December 23. 1116 XVII XI. XXXVI. The Contest between Chrysolanus and Jordanes for the Archbishopric of Milan, is determined in favour of the latter in the Council of Lateran. A Council at Lateran March the 6th which revokes the Privilege of the Investitures granted to the Emperor Henry, and renews the Decrees of the Popes against those Investitures. Gauterius Bishop of Maguelone. 1117 XVIII. The Pope at the approach of the Emperor's Army leaves Rome, goes to Mount Cassin, and passes from thence into Apulia to seek for Succour. 
XII. Henry returns to Rome with an Army, causes himself to be Crowned again by Maurice Burdin, Archbishop of Braga.  
He retires afterwards into Toscany.  XXXVII The Pope confirms the Institution of the Order of Fonteurault.   1118 
Paschal returns to Rome, with's Forces. He dies there Jan. 18. GELASIUS II. is Elected in his place six days after.  
Cincius of Franchipani being offended at this Election, takes Gelasius Prisoner, but he is soon rescued by the Romans.  
Gelasius being solicited to confirm the Privilege of Investitures, and refusing to proceed in that Affair, is obliged upon the Emperor's approach to provide for his own safety at Cajeta, where he causes himself to be Consecrated.  
The Emperor residing at Rome, causes Maurice Burdin Archbishop of Braga to be Proclaimed under the Name of Gregory VIII.  
Gelasius passes into France, and retires to Clunie.  XIII. 
XXXVIII. The Death of Alexis Comnenus.  
JOHN COMNENUS his Son Succeeds him.  The Institution of the Order of Knights Templars, the first of whom were Hugh de Paganis, and Geffrey de St. Ald●mar.   1119 I. Gelasius dies at Clunie, Jan. 29. after having appointed for his Successor Guy, Cardinal, Archbishop of Vienna, who is chosen at Clunie, Feb. 1. and Consecrated October 14th under the Name of CALIXTUS TWO XIV. I. 
William deChampeaux, Bishop of Châlons and Pontius, Abbot of Clunie, are sent by Pope Calixtus to the Emperor Henry, he Commences the Negotiation about the Investitures.  
The Emperor sends 'em back with fair words.  
The Pope deputes to him again two Cardinals to put an end to that Negotiation. They agree upon the same things in Writing, with the Emperor, who promises to give the Pope a Meeting at Mouzon to consummate this Affair.  
Calixtus, after the opening of the Council of Rheims, being arrived at Mouzon, cannot come to any Agreement with the Emperor. He returns to the Council, where he condemns the Investitures, and solemnly Excommunicates the Emperor Henry, the Antipope Burdin and their Adherents.  
Turstin chosen Archbishop of York in 1115. but Radulphus Archbishop of Canterbury having refused to Ordain him, till he had acknowledged the Primacy of the Church of Canterbury, at last receives Episcopal Ordination from the Pope's Hands in the Council of Rheims.  
An Assembly at Tribruria to accommodate Matters relating to the Investitures.  
A Council at Thoulouse, held Jun. 6. in the Presence of Pope Calixtus, in which the new Heretics are condemned.  
A Council held Octob. 21. at Rheims against the Investitures.  
Stephen Harding, Abbot of Cisteaux publishes his Charter of Charity, or the Institutes of the Cistercian Order.  
Petrus Chrysolanus dedicates to the Emperor Comnenus his Discourse concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost.  
The Birth of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury.  
The Death of Florentius Bravo, Monk o● Winchester.  1120 
II. Calixtus passes into Italy, and enters Rome, as it were in Triumph.  
Maurice Burdin, who is driven out from thence, retires to Sutri.  XV. II. 
The Institution of the Order of Premontré by St. Norbert.  
Stephen the Nephew of Calixtus, succeeds Poppo in the Bishopric of Mets, is Consecrated at Rome by that Pope, and Created Cardinal.  
William is made Abbot of St. Thierry in the place of Geoffrey, translated to the Abbey of St. Medard at Soissons.  
Ulricus, Monk of St. Blasius in the Black Forest, is promoted this Year to the Bishopric of Constan●●.   
Eutrathius Archbishop of Nice.  
Stephen Bishop of Autun.  
Nicephorus Bryennius.  
Joannes Zonaras  
Honoratus of Autun.  
Nicolas, Monk of Soissons.  
Aelnotus a Monk of Canterbury.  1121 III. Burdin is taken at Sutri, and confined in the Monastery of Cava, where he spends the rest of his Life-time in a kind of forced Penance. XVI. Saxony Revolts against the Emperor. III. 
Bruno Bishop of Spire and Arnoldus Abbot of Fulda, are deputed to Rome by the Assembly of Wurtzburg, there to Negotiate an Accommodation between the Pope and the Emperor.  
The Foundation of the Abbey of Foigny, in the Diocese of Laon.  
The Heretic Tanchelmuus, or Tanchelinus' Dogmatizes in Flanders.  
The Institution of the Order of Carmelites by a Patriarch of Antioch, who having gathered together certain Hermits of Mount Carmel, enjoined 'em to lead a Monastic Life.  
An Assembly at Wurtzburg, that appeases the Commotions of the Empire.  
A Council at Soissons which obliges Petrus Abaelardus to burn his Book of the Trinity.  
The Death of William de Champeaux Bishop of Châlont, in the end of January.  
Thomas a Monk of Ely.  
St. Norbert.  
Guigue Priot of La Grande Chartreuse.  
Geffrey Bishop of Chartre.  1122 IU. XVII. iv 
The Pope confirms the Right of the Cathedral adjudged to the Church of St. John at Besanson, by the Council of Tornus.  
The Deputies of the Assembly of Wurtzburg, having agreed upon at Rome, certain Conditions of an Accommodation between the Holy See and the Empire, The Pope sends into Germany, Lambert Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, and two other Cardinals, who conclude with the Emperor a Treaty concerning the Investitures; which put an end to a Quarrel of above 50 Years continuance.  
Albero Primate of the Church of Mets, and Brother to Godfrey Duke of Louvain, succeeds Frederick Bishop of Liege.  
Adam Abbot of St. Denis being deceased, Sugar, who was at Rome, is chosen in his place, and Consecrated in the following Year.   
Gilbert Bishop of Limerick.  
Franco Abbot of Afflighem.  
Peter, Library-Keeper of Mount Cassino.  
Ulricus, bishop of Constantz.  
Baudry, Bishop of Dole.  1123 V. XVIII. V 
Petrus Mauritius, Surnamed the Venerable, is made Abbot of Clunie, on the Festival of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.  
●and the Emperor relating the Investitures.  The I. General Council of Lateran, held in the Month of March, confirms the Treaty between the Pope to the Affair of 
The Death of Marbodus Bishop of Rennes.  
The Death of Bruno Bishop of Segni.  1124 VI. Calixtus II. dies December 13th After his Death the Cardinals choose Theobald Cardinal of St. Anastasia, and are ready to proclaim him under the Name of Celestin II. but the People disliking this Election, proclaim Lambert Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, who assumes the Name of HONORUS II. and who is afterwards admitted by the Cardinals and peaceably enjoys the Papal Dignity. XIX. VI Stephen is Ordained Bishop of Paris, and Rainaud, or Rainoldus, Archbishop of Rheims.  
The Death of Ernulphus or Arnulphus Bishop Rochester.  
The Death of Guibert Bishop of Nogent Sous Covey  1125 I. 
The Emperor Henry V dies at Utrecht May 23. without Male Issue.  
LOTHARIUS, Duke of Saxony, is elected King of Germany, proclaimed and crowned at Mentz, August 30th.  
Conrade and Frederick, Nephews of the Emperor Henry V. who endeavour to get possession of the Empire, and make War with Lotharius, are Excommunicated by the Pope. I.  VII. 
The Pope approves the Institution of the Order of Premontré.  
Matthew, Prior of St. Martin in the Fields, is ordained Bishop and Cardinal by Pope Honorius II. and sent Legate into France.  
Hildebert, Bishop of Man's, is installed Archbishop of Tours in the place of Gilbert.  
The Heretic Tanchelinus or Tanchelmus spreads his Doctrine in Flanders.  A Council at London held September 9th. for the Reformation of the Manners of the Clergy.  1126 II. II. VIII. 
Otho of Frisinghen embraces the Monastic Life in the Abbey of Morimond.  
Albericus the Fellow-Disciple of Petrus Abaelardus, and an able Divine, being chosen Bishop of Châlons after the Death of Ebalus, St. Bernard entreats the Pope to confirm that Election.  
The Heretic Peter de Bruys divulges his Opinions in Provence and Langued●c.  
St. Norbert is sent for to Antwerp to confute the Heretic Tanchelmus.    1127 III. The Pope declares War against Roger Duke of Sicily, who presumed to enjoy the Dutchies of Casabria and Apulia without any dependence upon the See of Rome. III. IX. 
St. Norbert is made Archbishop of Magdeburg.  
The Bishops of the Province of Sens having suspended the Dominions of King Lewes the Gross from Divine Service, by reason of the Persecutions raised by him against Stephen Bishop of Paris; that Prince has recourse to Pope Honorius, and prevails with him to take off the Suspension.  
St. Bernard congratulates the Abbot Sugar, upon his introducing a Reformation into the Abbey of St. Denis.  
The Foundation of the Abbey of Igny in the Diocese of Rheims.  
A Synod at Nantes against incestuous Marriages, and Successions to Benefices among Kinsfolks, as also, about the Fiscal Right relating to Wrecks.  
A Council at London, held in the Month of May, in which are renewed the most part of the Ordinances of the Council of London. A. 1125.  St. Bernard composes his Treatise of the Duties of Bishops, which he dedicates to Henry Archbishop of Sens, and at the same time makes a Discourse to the Clergy of Paris, called, Of Conversion. 1128 IU. The Pope Excommnicates Roger Duke of Sicily. iv X. 
The Death of Albero Bishop of Liege, January the 1st.  
Stephen Abbot of St. John at Chartres is made Patriarch of Jerusalem.  
Drogo or Dreux, Priof St. Nicaise of Rheims, is constituted first Abbot of St. John at Laon by Bartholomew de Foigny, Bishop of that City.  
Peter, Library-Keeper of Mount Cassin is expelled that Monastery by the envy of his Companions, and retires to the Emperor, who Constitutes him his Secretary and Chaplain, and employs him in several Negotiations.  A Council at Troy's held Jan. 13. which confirms the Institution of the Order of the Knight's Templars, and prescribes 'em a Rule and a Form of a White Habit, upon which Pope Eugenius III. afterwards ordained that a red Cross should be worn. 
St. Bernard composes this Year, his Treatise of Grace and Free Will.  
Drogo or Dreux.  1129 V. Lewes the Gross, King of France, causes his Son Philip to be crowned, April the 14th. V XI. The Pope sends Legate to Denmark Gregory deCrescentia, Cardinal of Theodorus. A Council at Châlons, held Feb. 2. in which Henry Bishop of Verdun resigns his Bishopric according to St. Bernard's advice, and Ursio Abbot of St. Denis at Rheims is substituted in his place. The Death of Gauterius Bishop of Maguelone. 1130 
The Death of Honorius II. Feb. 14.  
INNOCENT II. is chosen the same day.  
The Schism of Peter de Leon, who assumes the Name of Anacletus.  
Innocent is acknowledged in the Assembly of Etampes and goes into France. I.  
VI Lewes the Gross, King of France, magnificently entertains Pope Innocent at Orleans.  
Henry I. K. of England, receives him in the like manner, and owns his Authority.  XII. 
St. Bernard speaks earnestly in favour of Pope Innocent in the Council of Etampes, and his judgement is followed by the Council.  
Hugh, a Native of Amiens, and Abbot of Redding in England, is made Archbishop of Rouen.  A Council at Etampes, which acknowledges Innocent as lawful Pope. 
Eckard Abbot of Urangen  
Hugh, Monk of Fleury.  
Isaac an Armenian Bp writes against the Errors of the Armenians.  
Anselm Abbot of Gemblours.  
Ordericus Vitalis.  
Anselm Bishop of Havelberg.  
Hervaeus Monk of Dol.  
Hugh de Foliet.  
Stephen Bishop of Paris.  
Rainier Monk of St. Laurence at Liege.  
Gualbert Monk of Marchiennes.  
Pandulphus of Pisa.  
Fabritius Tuscus Abbot of Abendon.  
Auctus Abbot of Valombre.   1131 
II. An Interview between Pope Innocent and the Emperor Lotharius at Liege.  
The Pope visits the Abbeys of Clunie and Clairvaux, at his return from Liege.  VII. Philip the Son of Lewes the Gross, is killed by accident, and his Brother Lewes the Younger, surnamed the Godly, is crowned by the Pope in the Council of Rheims Octob. 25th. XIII. 
The Emperor proposes the re-establishment of the Investitures in his Interview with the Pope at Liege, but St. Bernard opposes it, and persuades that Prince to insist no longer upon that Demand.  
St. Bernard refuses the Bishopric of Châlons, and causes Geffrey Abbot of St. Medard at Soissons to be chosen Bishop of that Diocese.  
The Pope grants a Privilege to the Abbey of Même.  
St. Bernard invites to Clairvaux Gueric, Canon of Tournay.  
An Assembly at Liege, March the 2●th.  
A Council at Rheims, held in the Month of October, where the Antipope Anacletus is Excommunicated.  
In this Year St Bernard composes his Treatise of Injunctions and Dispensations.  
Albericus, Canon of Aix.  
Foucher a Monk of Chartres.  
Gauterius the Chancellor.  
Anna's Comnenus.  
Mich●el G●●cas.  
The Death of Baudry Bishop of D●●▪  1132 III. The Pope returns to Italy. VIII. XIV. 
The Death of St. Hugh, Bishop of Grenoble.  
St. Bernard accompanies Innocent II. to Italy, and by the way, reconciles the Inhabitants of Genova and Pisa, and obliges 'em to declare for the Pope. Albero, who had succeeded another Albero in the Dignity of Primate of Mets, when the latter was made Bishop of Liege, is chosen Archbishop of Triers.  
A Contest between the Abbey of Clunie and that of Cisteaux, on occasion of a Privilege grantby Pope Innocent, which exempted the Monks of Cisteaux from paying Tithes to the Abbey of Clunie.  
Differences between Stephen Bishop of Paris, and an Archdeacon of his Diocese, who had unadvisedly Suspended his Arch-Deaconry from Divine Service, with Stephen de Garland his Adversary, which is the Subject of the Letters written by that Bishop.   
T●●stin Archbishop of York.  
The Death of Hildebert Archbishop of Tours.  1133 
IU. Lotharius re-establishes Pope Innocent in the See of Rome, but this Prince is no sooner departed thence to return to Germany, but the Antipope Anacletus constrains Innocent to retire a second time to P●sa.  
Roger Duke of Sicily, upon the Solicitation of Anacletus, who had given him the Title of King, in vain endeavours to withdraw the Inhabitants of Pisa from their Obedience to the Pope.  IX. Lotharius is crowned Emperor at Rome by Pope Innocent. XV. 
The Pope ratifies the Immunities and Donations made to the Church of Pistoia in Tuscany: He likewise confirms the Right of Superiority of the Archbishop of Hamburg over the Bishops of Denmark, Sweden and Norway.  
Thomas, Prior of St. Victor, is killed near Gournay by the Relations of Theobald Archdeacon of Paris, as he was returning with Stephen Bishop of Paris from the the Abbey of Chelles, where they they went to reform some Abuses. This Bishop Pronounces a Sentence of Excommunication against those Murderers, and retires to Clairvaux.  
Archembald, Subdean of Orleans is likewise Assassinated at the instigation of John Archdeacon of St. Croix of the same City.  
Robert Pullus, who had passed from France to England, in the Year 1130. and had since obtained the Arch-Deaconry of Rochester re-establishes the Universitiy of Oxford.  A Council at Joarre, which Excommunicates the Assassins' of Thomes, Prior of St. Victor at Paris, and of Archembald●●, Subdean of Orleans, and all those that entertained 'em. The Pope confirms this Sentence, and adds in a Letter, that Divine Service should cease to be celebrated in all those places where these Assassins' were present, and that those Ecclesiastical Persons that were abetters to these Murders, should be deprived of their Benefices.  1134 V. X. A Treaty of Peace concluded between Lotharius and Conrade, by the Mediation of St. Bernard. XVI. 
St. Bernard, after the breaking up of the Council of Pisa, is sent to Milan, to reconcile the Milaneses with the Church of Rome.  
He is accompanied with 2 CardinalLegates, Guy Bishop of Pisa, and Matthew Bishop of Albano, as also with Geffrey Bishop of Chartres.  A Council at Pisa, held by the Pope against the Antipope Anacletus. 
Hugh of St. Victor.  
The Death of St. Norbert, Founder of the Order of Premontré.  
The Death of Stephen Harding, Abbot of Cisteaux.  1135 VI. Roger Duke of Sicily takes possession os Benevento and Capua that belonged to the See of Rome. XI. Henry I. K. of England dies without Male Issue, by reason that his Three Sons were drowned A. 1120. Stephen Count of Boulogne, the Son of Adelae his Sister, seizes on the Kingdom of England, and disputes Normandy with Mathilda or Maud the Daughter of that Prince, and Wife of Geffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou. XVII. 
St. Bernard returning from Italy to France, is sent into Guyenne with the Legate of the Holy See, where he obliges the Duke of that Province, to own Pope Innocent II. and to re-establish the Bishops of Poitiers and Lymoges, whom he had expelled.  
Alexander Bishop of Liege is deposed and Albero iv of that Name, Primate of the Church of Mets, substituted in his place.  
William, Abbot of St. Thierry, leaves his Abbey and becomes a Monk in that of Segni of the Cistercian Order.   
〈◊〉 St. Bernard composes this Year his Treatise of the Commendation of the new Militia, Dedicated to Hugh, Grand Master of the Knight's Templars.  
Odo, Abbot of Remy at Rheims, writes his Letter concerning a Miracle of St. Thomas the Apostle.  
Rupert, Abbot of Duyts, dies March 3d.  1136 VII. XII. XVIII. 
Helias, Abbot of St. Sulpitius of Bourges is chosen Bishop of Orleans, and Consecrated in the Month of April in the Year following.  
Drogo or Dreux, Abbot of St. John at Laon, is sent for to Rome by Pope Innocent, who Creates him Cardinal, and Bishop of Ostia.  
Odo, Abbot of St. Remigius at Rheims, gives the Revenues of the House of Mont-Dieu to the Carthusians.   
Geffrey the Gross, Monk of Tiron.  
Rodulphus Abbot St. Tron.  
William Abbot of St. Thierry o● Theodoric.  
Peter the Venerable Abbot of Clunie.  1137 VIII. XIII. The Death of Lewes VI surnamed the Gross, King of France, August 1. Lewes the Young succeeds him. XIX St. Bernard is recalled to Italy by the Pope, who afterwards sends him to Roger Duke of Sicily, to oblige him to abandon the Antipope Anacletus' Party. This Saint enters into Conference with Peter Cardinal of Pisa, who was about to maintain the Anti-pope's Cause, and persuades him to change his Opinion and Party.  The Death of Guigue, Prior of the La Grande Chartreuse. 1138 
IX. The Death of the Antipope Anacletus.  
The Schismatics Substitute in his place Gregory Cardinal, who takes the Name of Victor, but this last soon abdicates the Pontificate, and puts an end to the Schism.  
XIV. The Death of the Emperor Lotharius, Decemb. 3.  
The King of France gives Normandy to Eustache the Son of Stephen King of England.  XX. 
William, Bishop of Langres dying this Year, a Contest arises for that Bishopric: Peter Archbishop of Lions, and Hugh Son of the Duke of Burgundy, cause a Monk of Clunie to be chosen Bishop of that Diocese: But the Chapter of Langres opposes this Election, and appeals to the See of Rome. However the Monk does not forbear to cause himself to be ordained by the Archbishop of Lions, and the Bishops of Autun and Mascon. The Pope condemns this Ordination, and requires 'em to proceed to a new Election conformably to the Advice of St. Bernard: Godfrey, Prior of Clairvaux, and the Kinsman of this Saint is Elected Bishop of Langres the Year next ensuing.  
Theobald, Abbot of Bec, is chosen Archbishop of Canterbury in the Council of London.  
Otho the Son of Leopold Marquis of Austria, is made Bishop of Frisinghen.  
Ulric, Bishop of Constance, leaves his Bishopric and returns to the Monastery of Saint Blaise.  
Guerric is constituted Abbot of Igni this Year, in the place of Humbert, who had retired from thence.  
Arnold of Bres●●a divulges his Opinions in Italy.  A Council at London, held Decemb. 13th in which 'tis debated about means to conclude a Treaty of Peace between the Kings of France and England. 
Gueric, Abbot of Igni.  
The Death of Drogo or Dreux, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia.  1139 X. Pope Innocent waging War with Roger Duke of Sicily, who seized upon the Duchy of Apulia, is taken Prisoner by that Prince, and obliged by an Agreement to confirm the Donation that Honorius II. had made to him of the Kingdom of Sicily, the Duchy of Apulia and the Principality of Capua, with the Title of King. 
I. CONRADE, Duke of Franconia, is proclaimed King of Germany.  
Geffrey Count of Anjou, recovers part of Normandy.  XXI. 
Philip, Bishop of Taranto, a favourer of the Antipope Anacletus is deposed upon that account in the General Council of Lateran.  
William, Abbot of St. Thierry sends to Geffrey Bishop of Chartres, Legate of the Holy See, and to St. Bernard 13 Propositions which he had taken out of the Theological Writings of Petrus Abaelardus▪  
Alberic Elected to the Bishopric of Châlons in 1126, but not having been Ordained nor put in Possession of that Bishopric, is advanced to the Archbishopric of Bourges.  
St. Malachy, Primate of Ireland, takes a Journey to Rome.  
Gillebert or Gilbert, Legate of the See of Rome, in Ireland, resigns his Office into the Pope's Hands.  
The Death of St. Otho the Apostle of Pomerania,  
The Death of Rainoldus, Archbishop of Rheims, Jan. 13. Samson is chosen in his place.  
The Death of Peter, Archbishop of Lions, who has for his Successor Falco, Dean of that Church.  The II. General Council at Lateran, held in the Month of April against the Followers of the Antipope Anacletus, and Arnold of Brescia, who is expelled Italy.  1140 XI. II. XXII. 
St. Bernard sends to Italy some of his Monks to inhabit the Monastery of St. Anastasius, newly rebuilt, and Bernard afterward Pope under the Name of Eugenius III is made Abbot of it.  
Turstin, Archbishop of York being dead, this Metropolitan See is contended for between William the Nephew of King Stephen, and Henry of Murdach, Abbot of Fontaines; William causes himself to be Consecrated by Henry Bishop of Winchester, but the Pope denies him the Pall, and grants it to Henry, confirming his Election. However the King did not acknowledge Henry till three Years after.  
Geffrey de Loroux Archbishop of Bourdeaux, incurs the displeasure of King Lewes the Young, for having ordained Grim●ard Bishop of Poitiers Canonically Elected.  
The Pope confirms the Sentence of the Council of Sens against Petrus Abaelardus.  
Heretics discovered in the Diocese of Colen this Year.  
The Church of Rheims having remained near two Years destitute of an Archbishop, and St. Bernard having refused to accept of this Dignity, Samson Provost of the Church of Chartres, is ordained Archbishop of that Diocese in the end of the Year.  A Council at Sens begun on the Octave of the Feast of Pentecost, in which St. Bernard confutes the Errors of Petrus Abaelardus, who appleas to the See of Rome, but afterwards desists from that Appeal by the Advice of Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Clunie, into whose Monastery he had retired. 
St. Bernard writes his Sermons 65 and 66 against the Heretics of Colen.  
He likewise writes to the Canons of Lions, his fa●●us Letter concerning the Festival of the Conception of the Virgin Mary, which those Canons had lately introduced.  
Petrus Abaclardus about the same time composes his Apology.  
Philip a Monk of Clairvaux.  
Samson Archbishop of Rheims  
Robert Pullus.  
William of Malmesbury.  
Hugo Metellus.  
Thomas de Maurigny.  
Bernard a Monk of Clunie.  
Ulgerus Bishop of Angers.  
Antonius Melissus.  
Waselinus Momalius.  
The Death of Turstin Archbishop of York.  
The Death of Ulric Bishop of Constance.  1141 XII. III. The King of France maintains a cruel War against Thobald Count of Champagne, for having detained the Archbishop of Bourges in his Territories. XXIII. 
Albericus Archbishop of Bourges being dead, Peter de la Châtre is chosen in his place, and Consecrated by the Pope. but the King of France refusing to admit him, his Kingdom is suspended from Divine Service by the Pope, who afterwards takes off the Suspension, the King having acknowledged this Archbishop.  
Arnold Archdeacon of Sees, is chosen Bishop of Lisieux.  
Gillebert de la Porrée is ordained Bishop of Poitiers.    1142 XIII. iv XXIV. 
The Death of Fulk King of Jerusalem.  
Melisinda his Wife obtains the Administration of the Government during the Minority of her Son.  
Cardinal Yves, who was sometime a Regular Canon of St. Victor at Paris, is sent to France by the Pope, there to pronounce a Sentence of Excommunication against Radulphus Count of Vermandois, who had divorced Petronilla, the Sister of the Count de Champagne his Wife, in order to Marry the Duke of Aquitaines Daughter.  
The Bishops Bartholomew of Laon, Simon of Noyon, and Peter of Senlis, the promoters of this Divorce, are suspended ab Officio.  
Bernard, who of Prior of Portes had been made Bishop of Belie, leaves that Bishopric to return to his Monastery.   
Hugh of St. Victor dies, February 11.  
The Death of Petrus Abaclardus.  1143 
The Death of Pope Innocent, September 24th.  
CELESTIN II. is substituted in his place the same Day. I.  V 
The Death of John Comnenus in the Month of April.  
MANUEL COMNENUS succeeds him. I.  
Yvo Bishop of Frascati is sent into England in Quality of the Pope's Legate.  
The Death of John Bishop of Sees, who has for his Successor, Girard a Regular Canon: The latter cannot peaceably enjoy this Bishopric, by reason that he endeavoured to introduce into his Church, Secular Canons in the place of the Regular, who were in possession of it.   The Death of William of Somerset a Monk of Malmesbury. 1144 
I. The Death of Celestin II. March 8th. LUCIUS' II. is chosen in his place a few days after.  
He makes a Truce with Roger King of Sicily, and implores the Assistance of the Emperor Conrade against the People of Rome, who had revolted from him, and proceeded to the Election of one Patricius.  VI A Treaty of Peace concluded between the K. of France and the Count of Campagne by the Mediation of St. Bernard. II. 
Pope Lucius confirms the Primacy of the Church of Toledo above all the others of Spain.  
He grants a Privilege to the Abbey of Clunie, and renders the Monastery of St. Sabas subject to that Abbey.  
Robert Pullus, who had been invited to Rome, by Pope Innocent II. is made Cardinal and Chancellor of the Church of Rome by Lucius II.  
Hugh Abbot of Pontingy, succeeds Henry in the Archbishopric of Sens.  
Amedeus Abbot of Haute-Combe is ordained Bishop of Lausanna.   
Amedeus Bishop of Lansanna.  
Potho a Monk of Prom.  
Henry Bishop of Troy's.  
Herman Abbot of St. Martin at Tournay.  
Archardus a Monk of Clairvaux.  1145 II. Lucius dies February 25th. EUGENIUS III is chosen in his place, and Consecrated March 4. I. VII. III. 
Pope Eugenius exhorts the Christians to the Crusade, confirms the Privileges granted upon that account, by Urban II. and orders St. Bernard to Preach up the Crusade throughout all Christendom.  
Thierry Abbot of St. Eloy at Noyon, is Consecrated Bishop of Amiens by Samson Archbishop of Rheims.  
St. John Bishop of Valence being dead, Oribert Prior of La Chaise-Dieu is Elected in his place.    1146 II. The Heretic Arnold of Brescia returning to Italy, causes the Inhabitants of Rome to revolt against the Pope, who is forced to retire into France. VIII. Lewes the Young, King of France, causes himself to be crowned at Bourges on the Festival of Christmas, before he undertakes his Voyage to the Holy Land. iv 
The Pope re-establishes the Bishopric of Tournay, which for above 500 Years had been United to that of Noyon, and constitutes Anselm Abbot of St. Vincent of Laon, Bishop of that Diocese.  
Helias Bishop of Orleans resigns his Bishopric according to the Advice of St. Bernard.  
Serlo a Monk of Cerisy is chosen Abbot of Savigny.  
It was the Custom of the Kings of France to cause themselves to be crowned on the principal Festivals of the Year, and conformably to this Custom, Samson Archbishop of Rheims having performed the Ceremony of the Coronation of King Lewes at Bourges, to the prejudice of the Archbishop of that City (Peter de la Châtre) who alleged that this Right apparently belonged to him in his own Church; He is deprived of the Use of the Pall by Pope Eugenius, to whom the Archbishop of Bourges had made his Complaint.  
A certain Monk named Radulphus, Preaches to the All es engaged in the Crusade, that before their departure for the Holy Land, they ought to destroy all the Jews, as being greater Enemies to Jesus Christ than the Mahometans.  
St. Bernard Preaches up the Crusade, but Admonishes the Christians of France and Bavaria, not to suffer the Jews to be put to death, nor so much as to be persecuted.  A Council at Chartres held the third Sunday after Easter, in which St. Bernard is chosen Chief of the Crusade for the Expedition at the Holy Land. 
Nicolas a Moci Cha●vaux.  
Simeon of Da●●●●.  
Gauterius 〈◊〉 Mauritania 〈◊〉 shop of Lam.  
Wolbero 〈◊〉 or of St. Pa●●● leon at Colen.  1147 III. The Pope being arrived in France, is magnificently entertained at Paris by the King. 
IX. The Emperor Courad marches into the Levant with an Army for the relief of the Holy Land.  
The King of France follows him soon after, with another Army upon the same design.  V 
The Examination of the Doctrine of Gillebert de la Porrée Bishop of Poitiers is begun in the Pope's Presence in the Councils of Auxerre and Paris, and the Determination of that Affair is referred to a Council appointed to be held at Rheims the next Year.  
Otho Bishop of Frisinghen accompanies the Emperor Conrade in his Expedition to the Holy Land.  
Arnold Bishop of Lisieux, in like manner accompanies the King of France into the Levant.  
Sugar, Abbot of St. Denis, and Regent of the Kingdom, establishes Regular Canons in the Abbey of St. Genevieve in the place of the Monks that resided there.  
St. Bernard takes a Journey to Guienne with Albericus Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, the Pope's Legate, and Geffrey Bishop of Chartres: He there impugns the Errors of the Heretic Henry, and confutes 'em by his Preaching and a great number of Miracles. This Heretic endeavouring to make his escape, is seized, and conveyed, laden with Fetters, to Thoulouse, and delivered into the Bishop's Custody.  
The Abbey of Baume is changed into a Priory by the Pope, by reason of the contempt that the Monks of that Abbey had shown of the Authority of the See of Rome; nevertheless this Title is restored some time after.  
A Council at Etampes, held on Septuagesima-Sunday concerning the Expedition of the Holy Land, and the Regency of the Kingdom of France, which is given to Sugar, Abbot of St. Denis.  
A Council at Auxerre held in the beginning of the Year.  
A Council at Paris, held on the Festival of Easter.  The Death of Waselinus Momalius, Prior of St. Laurence at Liege. 1148 IU. The Pope after having held several Councils in France, returns to Italy. X. VI 
Lucas Chrysobergius, according to some Writers, is advanced this Year to the Patriarchate of Constantinople; but as others will have it, not till An. 1155.  
Eon de l'Etoile, a Visionary Heretic is brought before Pope Eugenius in the Council at Rheims, who condemns him to close Confinement, so that he dies in Prison a little while after.  
Gillebert de la Porrée being convicted by St. Bernard, in that Council, retracts his Errors.  
The Pope performs the Ceremony of the Dedication of the Church of Toul: He writes to St. Hildegarda, Abbess of Mount St. Robert, commending her Spirit of Prophecy.  
St. Malachy, who undertook a second Journey to Rome, in order to obtain the Pall, of the Pope, dies by the way, at Clairvaux, November the 2d.  
A Council at Rheims, held in the Month of March against Gillebert de la Porrée, Bishop of Poitiers.  
A Council at Triers, held in the presence of Pope Eugenius, which approves the writings of St. Hildegarda.   1149 V. XI. The King of France returning from the Holy Land, invests Henry the Son of Mathilda, Countess of Anjou, with the Duchy of Nomandy. VII. 
Henry, the Brother of the King of France, and Monk of Clairvaux, is made Bishop of Beauvais.  
Gilbert Foliot, Abbot of Leicester in England, is ordained Bishop of Hereford.   
St. Bernard writes his first Book Of Consideration.  
The Death of Amedeus, Bishop of Lausanna.  1150 VI. Eugenius after his return to Italy, having sustained many shocks, at last makes himself Mafter of St. Peter's Church. XII. Lewes the Young, King of France, divorces his Wife Eleonor, the Daughter of William Duke of Guienne, whom he had married in 1137. VIII. 
Hugh, Abbot of Trois-Fontaines in Champagne, is created Cardinal Bishop of Ostia. Henry and Roland Monks of Clairvaux, are likewise made Cardinals at the same Promotion.  
Philip, Archdeacon of Paris, the Son of King Lewes the Gross, is chosen Bishop of that City; but he resigns this Bishopric to Peter Lombard, surnamed Master of the Sentences.  
Godeschalcus, Abbot of St. Martin succeeds Alvisius in the Bishopric of Arras.  
Philip, who had been deposed from the Bishopric of Taranto. A. 1139. and who had afterward retired to Clairvaux, there to take the habit of a Monk, is made Prior of the same Monastery by St. Bernard.  
John, a Monk of the Isle of Oxia, is advanced to the Patriarchate of tioch this Year.  
Peter de Cells, is made Abbot of Cells in the same Year.   
St. Bernard writes his second Book Of Consideration, and sends it to Pope Eugenius.  
Arsenius, a Monk of Mount Athos, makes his Collection of the Canons.  
Otho, Bishop of Frisinghen.  
Serlo, Abbot of Savigny.  
Lucius, Abbot of St. Cornelius.  
Bartholomew de Foigny, Bishop of Laon.  
Peter Lombard, Bishop of Paris.  
Falco.  
Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon.  
Hugh, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia.  
Constantinus Manasses.  
Constantinus Harmenopulus.  
Robert Pullus, Cardinal, dies this Year.  
The Death of William, Abbot of St. Thierry in the same Year.  1151 VII. XIII. IX. 
The Pope confirms the Rights and Privileges of the Church of Colen.  
Jourdain des Ursins, Cardinal, is sent Legate into Germany. St. Bernard wrote his 190th Letter against this Prelate.  
Geffrey Arthur, Archdeacon of St. Asaph, is ordained Bishop of the the same Church.  
Bartholomew, Bishop of Laon after having governed his Church 38 Years, retires to the Abbey of Foigny, and there turns Monk. Gauterius, Abbot of St. Martin at Laon, succeeds him in that Bishopric, but he leaves it three Years after, and becomes a Monk at Premontré.  
Turoldus is chosen Abbot of Trois-Fontaines in the room of Hugh, made Cardinal in the preceding Year.  
The Death of Hugh, who of Abbot of Pontigny had been ordained Bishop of Auxerre: Whereupon many Contests arise about the Succession to that Bishopric.  A Council at Beaugency, held on the Festival of Easter, which approves the Divorce between the King of France and his Wife Eleonor, by reason of their being too near of kin. 
Gratian completes his Collection of Canons.  
John, Patriarch of Antioch.  
Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople.  
Andronicus Camaterius.  
George, Archbishop of Corfu.  
Lucas C●rysobergius, Patriarch of Constantinople.  
Robert, Archdeacon of Ostrevant.  
Theobaldus, a Monk of St. Peter at Beze.  
Gauterius, Canon of Terovane.  
Herbert a Monk.  
Haimo, Archdeacon of Châlons.  
Herman a converted Jew of Colen.  
Nicetas Constantinopolitanus  
Teulfus, a Monk of Morigny.  1132 VIII. 
The Death of Conrade.  
FREDERICK I. succeeds him.  
I. Stephen, K. of England, being deceased, the Kingdom returns to Henry II. Duke of Normandy.  X. 
Odo, Abbot of St. Cornelius at Compeigne, is chosen Abbot of St. Denis in the place of Sugar.  
The Pope order the Bishop of Saints to permit a new Church to be built at Rochel.  
He conf●… the Primacy of ●●●●do, and enjoins the Bishops of Spain to acknowledge it.  
He likewise ratifies the Constitutions and Privileges of the Cistercian Order.   
The Death of Sugar, Abbot of St. Denis, January 15.  
St. Bernard finishes his other Books, Of Consideration.  
John, Monk of Marmoutier.  
Alexander, Abbot in Sicily.  
Radulphus Niger, Monk of St. Germer.  
St. Elizabeth, Abbess of Schonaw.  
St. A●●●ed, Abbot of Reverby.  1153 
IX. Eugenius dies, July 8th at Tivoli.  
ANASTASIUS iv is chosen in his place two days after. I.  II. XI. 
Pope Eugenius grants by a Bull to the Canons of St, Peter at Rome, the fourth part of all the Offerings that were made in that Church.  
Alanus, a Native of Burg de Reninghen near Ypres in Flanders, and Abbot of Larivoir, is ordained Bishop of Auxerre.  
Henry Archbishop of York being dead this Year, William his Competitor, who had been Chosen and Consecrated Archbishop of that Church in 1140. but before whom Henry was preferred by Pope Innocent, takes a Journey to Rome, where he obtains of Pope Anastasius, the confirmation of his Archiepiscopal Dignity, and the Pall. However he does not long enjoy this Archbishopric, dying in the next Year.  
The Cardinals Bernard and Gregory, the Pope's Legates in Germany, depose H●●●y, Archbishop of Mentz.  
Robert, Abbot of Dunes, succeeds St. Bernard in the Abbey of Clairvaux.   The Death of St. Bernard, August 〈◊〉. 1154 
II. Anastasius dies Decemb. 4th having for his Successor ADRIAN IU.  
Reign of Henry II. his Successor according to the truest Opinion.  III. The Death. of Stephen, K of England, and the beginning of the XII. 
Gauterius of Mauritania is ordained Bishop of Laon, in the place of another Gauterius, the Successor of Bartholomew of Foigny.  
Pope Anastasius confirms the Statutes of the Regular Canons of St. John at Lateran; takes into the Protection of the See of Rome, the Order of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem; and ratifies their Privileges.   The Death of Gillebert de la P●… Bishop of Poitiers. 1155 
I. Arnold of Brescia excites Commotions in Rome against Pope Adrian, who suspends the City from Divine Service, till the Romans should expel that Heretic and his Followers: These last are forced to escape by flight to Otricoli in Tos●any, where they are well received by the People: But some time after, Arnold of Brescia is taken Prisoner and delivered up to the Perfect of Rome, who causes him to be burnt, and his Ashes to be cast into the River Tiber, lest the People should show any honour to his Relics.  
The Pope pronounces Anathema against William King of Sicily, who had refused to receive his Letters, because he did not give him the Title of King, and had taken possession of some Territories belonging to the Patrimony of the Church of Rome.  iv Frederick is crowned Emperor at Rome by the Pope. XIII. The Contest that arose An. 1132. between the Abbey of Clunie and that of Cisteaux, as to the Affair of Tithes, is at last terminated by an Accommodation.  Basil of Acris Archbishop of Thessalonica, returns an Answer to the Letter which was writ to him by Pope Adrian, to induce him to be reconciled to the Latin Church. 1156 II. The Pope concludes a Treaty of Peace with William, King of Sicily, and grants him the Title of King of both Sicily's. V The Emperor being offended at the Letter which the Pope had writ to him, drives the two Legates, who brought it, out of his Dominions, forbids all his Subjects to take any Journeys to Rome, and sets Guards upon the Frontiers to hinder the passage of those that should attempt to enter. XIV 
A Difference arising between Adrian IU. and Frederick, concerning the Terms of a Letter writ by this Pope to the Emperor, which imported that Adrian had conferred upon that Prince the notable Favour of the Imperial Crown.  
The Pope is obliged to give another Explication of the Terms of his Letter, to afford satisfaction to the Emperor; but takes an occasion to complain that Frederick had prefixed his own Name before that of the Pope in one of his Letters; that he exacted Fealty and Homage of the Bishops; that he refused to receive his Legates; and that he prohibited his Subjects to go to Rome.  
Otho, Bishop of Frisinghen, quits his Bishopric, and retires to the Abbey of Morimond, where he lived a Monk before his advancement to the Episcopal Dignity, and dies there in the Month of September, in the same Year.  
Philip, formerly Bishop of Taranto, and afterwards Prior of Clairvaux, is constituted Abot of Aumône of the Cistercian Order.   
Hugh of Poitiers, a Monk of Vezelay, gins to write his History of that Monastery.  
The Death of Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Clunie, on Christmass-day.  1157 III. VI XV.   The Death of Luke, Abbot of St. Cornelius. 1158 IU. VII. XVI. 
Thomas Becket is made Lord Chancellor of England by King Henry II.  
The Reformation of the Regular Canons of St. Victor at Paris is established in the Monastery of St. Everte at Orleans, by Roger its first Abbot.    1159 V The Death of Adrian. The greatest part of the Cardinals choose ALEXANDER III. Octavian is Elected Antipope by others and maintained by the Emperor. He takes the Name of Victor III. VIII. The Emperor being present at the Siege of Cremona, the two Competitors for the Papal Dignity present themselves before him to be supported. He appoints 'em to come to Pavia, there to be judged by a Council. XVII.    1160 I. Alexander, who refused to appear in the Council of Pavia having been informed of what was there transacted against him, excommunates the Empereror Frederick. IX. XVIII. 
Thirty Persons, the Followers of Arnold of Brescia, called Publicans, having taken a resolution to pass into England, to divulge their Doctrine, are there seized on, publicly whipped, stigmatised with a hot Iron on their Foreheads, harrass'd, and at last starved to death with hunger and cold.  
Arnold, Bishop of Lisieux, is sent Legate into England.  
A Council at Pavia held in the Month of February, which declares the Election of Alexander to be void, and Excommucates him with his Adherents; but confirms that of Victor.  
A Council at Oxford, in which the Publicans or Vaudois are convicted and condemned.  
Hugh, a Monk of Clunie.  
Hugh Archbishop of Rouen.  
Michael of Thessalonica, condemned for the Heresy of the Bogomiles, retracts his Errors and makes a Confession of his Faith.  
Philip, Bishop of Taranto.  
Odo de Devil.  
Gilbert, Abbot of Hoiland.  1161 II. X. Lewes the Young, King of France, marries Adella, or Alix, Daughter of Theobald, Count of Champagne, who died in 1152. XIX. 
Alanus abdicates his Bishopric at Auxerre, and retires to Clairvaux.  
The Kings of Denmark, Norway, Hungary, and Bohemia, as also six Archbishops, twenty Bishops and many. Abbot's writ (as 'tis reported) Letters by way of excuse, to the Assembly at Lodi, by which they own Victor as lawful Pope.  
The Death of Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury.  
He has for his Successor in that Archbishopric, Thomas Becket, Chancellor of England, who is Consecrated on Whit-Sunday.  
Dr. Gilbert Foliot is translated from the Bishopric of Hereford to that of London.  
An Assembly at Newmarket, in the Month of July, in which the Election of Alexander III is declared Legitimate, and that of Victor Illegal.  
An Assembly at Beauvais at the same time, which passes alike Judgement with that of Newmarket, in favour of Pope Alexander.  
An Assembly of the Prelates of England and France, in which both Kings assisted, where were present the Legates of Alexand Victor, and Deputies from the Emperor Frederick.  
Alexander is there owned as lawful Pope, and Victor Excommunicated with his Adherents.  An Assembly at Lodi, held June 20. in the presence of the Emperor Frederick, which confirms what was transacted in that of Pavia the preceding Year, in favour of Victor. 
Peter de Roy, a Monk of Clairvaux.  
Enervinus, Provost of Stemfeld.  
Ecbert, Abbot of St. Florin.  
Bonacursius.  
Ebrard de Bethune.  
Michael of Thessalonica.  
Odo, a Regular Canon.  1162 III. The Pope who had fled for Refuge to the Territories of William K. of Sioily, waiting for a favourable opportunity to pass into France, arrives there at last on the Festival of Easter, and is received by the Kings of France and England, who go before him upon the River Loire as far as Torey, land to meet him, and conduct him on the Road, each holding one of the Reins of his Horse's Bridle. XI. An interview between the King of France and the Emperor at Avignon, where the Antipope Victor is present, and where the Emperor is incensed against the King, by reason that Alexander was not come according as he had engaged, to bring him, and having the strongest Party, designs to take him Prisoner; but the King is delivered from this trouble, by the Army that the King of England had caused to march that way. XX. 
John de Bellemains is ordained Bishop of Poitiers.  
Peter, Abbot of Cells, is translated to the Abbey of St. Remigius at Rheims.  
Geffrey, Abbot of Igny succeeds Fastredus in the Abbey of Clairvaux.  A Conferance at Avignon, which was proposed by the Emperor to put an end to the Schism, but was broke off by reason that Pope Alexander refused to appear. 
Hugh of P●●tiers, a Monk of Verelay.  
Albert, Abbot of Hildesheim.  
John of Heram, Provost of Hagulstadt.  
Falstredus, Abbot of Clai●vaux.  1163 IU. XII. XXI. 
Henry, the Brother of the King of France, is translated from the Bishopric of Beauvais, to the Archbishopric of Rheims.  
John, Dean of Orleans, is assassinated by a certain Lord, from whom he endeavoured to recover some Goods belonging to the Chapter of Orleans, which he had Usurped.  
The beginning of the Contests between Henry II. King of England, and Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury.  
A Council at Tours, held in the Pope's Presence, May 28. against the Antipope Victor, and his Adherents, and against the Heretics of this Age.  
An Assembly at Westminster, in which Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury incurs the Displeasure of the King of England, by refusing▪ to observe the Customs of the Kingdom, without any Limitation.  
A Council at Sens concerning the Murder of John, Dean of the Church of Orleans.  Arnold, Bishop of Lisieu●, pronounces his Discourse concerning the Unity and Liberty of the Church in the Councils at Tours. 1164 
V. The Death of the Antipope Victor, at Lucca.  
His Adherents and Followers proceed to the choice of Guy of Crema, who assumes the Name of Paschal III.  XIII. XXII. 
Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, reputes of what he did in the Assembly at Clarendon, and abstains from celebrating Divine Service, till the Pope who then resided at Sens, had given him Absolution for that Offence.  
The King of England sends to the Pope to desire, that the Archbishop of York may be made Legate of the Holy See in England, and that the Customs of this Kingdom may be confirmed by its Authority, and observed by the Bishops of England.  
The Pope only grants the Office of Legate to the Archbishop of York with this restriction, that the same Legate should have no Jurisdiction over the Person of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that the Bishops should continue to obey him as their Primate.  
Thomas Becket retires to France after the Sessions of the Assembly at Clarendon, which required him to resign his Archbishopric: He is very favourably received by the French King and the Pope, who order him to keep his Station of Archbishop.  
William of Champagne the fourth of the Brothers of Adella Queen of France, is chosen Bishop of Chartres after the Death of Robert.  
Maurice de Sully succeeds Peter Lombard in the Bishopric of Paris.  
Richard of St. Victor is constituted Prior of that Monastery.  
An Assembly at Clarendon, held in the Month of January, in which Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the other Prelates of England are compelled to confirm certain Customs of the Kingdom, and to oblige themselves by Oath to observe 'em without restriction.  
An Assembly at Northampton against Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury.  
Richard of St. Victor.  
Hugh, Monk of St. Saviour at Lodeve.  
Laurence a Monk of Liege. St Hildegarda, Abbess.  
The Death of Peter Lombard, Bishop of Paris.  1165 VI. Alexander returns to Italy, and makes his public entry into Rome, in the Month of November. XIV. The Nativity of Philip fir-named Augustus, King of France. XXIII. Stephen, who was sometime Bishop of Tournay, becomes a Regular Canon in the Monastery of St. Everte at Orleans.  
Philip de Harveng, Abbot of Bonne Esperance.  
Alanus Bishop of Auxerre.  
John of Salisbury.  
Arnold, Bishop of Lisieux.  
Adamus Scotus.  
Geffrey Arthur, Bishop of St. Asaph.  
The Death of St. Elizabeth, Abbess of Schonaw.  1166 VII. XV. The Emperor Frederick marches into Italy with an Army, to put the Antipope Paschal in Possession of the See of Rome. XXIV. 
Alexis Aristenes Oeoconomus, or Steward of the Church of Constantinople, citys in the Synod of that City the 37th Canon of the Council in Trullo against Nicephoru●s, Patriarch of Jerusalem.  
The Deputies of the King of England having assisted at the Assembly of Wurtzburg, repair to Rome, there to demand satisfaction as to the Affair of Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury. The Pope returns an Answer to the King their Master with so much Resolution, that this Prince is obliged to disown what these Deputies had done in the Assembly of Wurtzburg.  
Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, is Constituted Legate of the Holy See in England, and in that Character condemns and abrogates the Customs that were Published at Clarendon; Excommunicates all those that should observe, or cause 'em to be observed; and threatens the King of England with an Anathema.  
A Synod of Constantinople, held by Lucas Chrysobergius, Patriarch of that City.  
An Assembly at Wurtzburg, held on the Fest●ival of Whitsuntide, in which the Emperor obliges by Oath the greater part of the Lords and Prelates of whom it was composed, to acknowledge no other Pope but Paschal.  
The Deputies of the King of England, who was at variance with Pope Alexander, by reason of the Differences between him and Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, take the same Oath.  
Peter of Cellos.  
Gilbert Foliot.  
The Death of St. Aelred, Abbot of Reverby.  1167 VIII. XVI. The Emperor defeats the Romans in a Battle, makes himself Master of part of the City of Rome, and of St. Peter's Church: But the Diseases that rage in his Army afterwards, oblige him to retire speedily to Lombardy. XXV. John of Oxford, deputed to Rome by the King of England, obtains a promise of the Pope, that he would send two Legates to determine the Affair of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and causes the Authority of the Archbishop to be suspended till the arrival of those two Legates. 
Michael Anchialus is advanced to the Patriarchal See of Constantinople.  
William of Tyre is made Archdeacon of that Church.  
Peter of Blois repairs to Sicily, where he's chosen to be Tutor, and afterward Secretary to William II. King of Sicily.  
Geffrey, Prior of Vigeois is ordained Priest by Giraldus Bishop of Cahors.   
Hugh of Poitiers Monk of Vezelay, completes his History of the Monastery.  
Michael Anchisalus, Patriarch. of Constantinople.  
The Death of Lucas Chrysobergius, Patriarch of Constantinople.  
The Death of of Wolbero, Abbot of St. Pantaleon at Colen.  1168 IX. The Italians animated by the Sentence of the Council of Lateran, revolt against the Emperor, own Pope Alexander, and expel the Schismatical Bishops. XVII. XXVI. 
William of Champagne is translated from the Bishopric of Chartres, to the Archbishopric of Sens.  
Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, refuses to admit as Judges of the Controversy between him and the King of England, the Pope's Legates in the Assembly at guysor's, and pleads his own Cause so resolutely, that it breaks up, without concluding any thing. He obtains of the Pope sometime after, the revocation of those two Legates.  
A Council at Lateran, in which Pope Alexander pronounces a Sentence of Deposition against the Emperor Frederick.  
An Assembly at guysor's, in the Month of November.  The Death of Odo de Devil, Abbot of St. Cornelius, at C●●peigne. 1169 
X. Pope Alexander who had retired to Benevento, returns thence in the end of the Year.  
The Romans refuse to admit him, but on condition that he should order the Walls of Frascati to be demolished, which he had fortified.  
The Pope does it accordingly, but the Romans having broke their word, he causes Frascati to be refortfyed, and returns to Ben●●●nt●.  
XVIII. The Emperor is defeated by the Milanese, and escapes with much ado to Germany.  
An Interview between the Kings of England and and France at St. Denis, about the Affair of Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, where they come to no Agreement.  
The King of England causes his Son Henry to be Crowned by the Archbishop of York, to the prejudice of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to whom this Right belonged.  XXVII. 
The fruitless Negotiations of two other Legates of the See of Rome concerning an accommodation of the Differences between the K. of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury.  
The King of England being dissatisfied with the proceed of these two last Legates, desires two others to be sent, which suit is granted; but they have no better success in their Negociation than the former.  
The Pope revokes the Suspension of the Authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury.  
He Suspends the Archbishop of York and the Bishops who assisted at the Coronation of the King of England, ab Officio, etc.    1170 
XI. The Antipope Paschal dies.  
His Partisans Substitute John. Abbot of Seruma in his place under the Name of Calixtus III.  XIX. An Interview between the Kings of England and France at St. German en Say, who conclude a Mutual Treaty of Peace. XXVIII. Manuel Comnen●s, causes a Proposal to be made to the Pope for the reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches, in case he would cause him to be Crowned Emperor of the West; but the Pope replies, that the Matter being of too great difficulty, he could not grant his request. 
Theorianus is sent to Armenia by the Emperor Manuel Comnenus, to endeavour to procure a reunion between that and the Greek Church. He finds means to gain the Patriarch of the Armenians.  
The Interview between the the two Kings at St. german en Say, where were present the Legates of the Pope, and Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, produce no effect, as to the reconciliation of this Prelate with his Prince.  
Rotrou, Archbishop of Rouen and Bernard Bishop of Nevers, are sent by the Pope to the King of England, with Orders to suspend the whole Kingdom from Divine Service, if he refused to be reconciled to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to restore Peace to the Church. This Prince yields to their Remonstrances and even entreats 'em to promote the Accommodation, which is at last terminated this Year.  
Theo●old, the Kinsman of William of Champagne; Archbishop of Sens, is ordained Bishop of Amiens.  
The Archbishop of York, and the Bishops of London and Salisbury, whom Thomas Becket had Excommunicated, create him new Troubles in England, and he is no sooner arrived at Canterbury, but he is Assassinated in his Church on the Festival of Christmas.  
Pontius the fifth, Abbot of Clairvaux, is made Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne.  
The Birth of St. Dominick.   
Henry, Archbishop of Rheims writes to the Pope and Cardinals, in favour of Dreux or Drogo, Chancellor of the Church of Noyon.  
Peter of Poitiers, Chancellor of the Church of Paris, composes his Book of Sentences.  
Robert of Melun, Bishop of Hereford.  
Alexis Aristenes.  
Simeon Logotheta.  
John of Cornwall.  
Gerochus, Provost of Reichersperg.  
Peter de Riga, Canon of Rheims.  1171 XII XX. XXIX. 
The King dispatches an Envoy to Rome to clear himself of the Murder of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. The Pope sends two Legates, to oblige him to make satisfaction to the Church, and in the mean while Excommunicates the Murderers. The King meekly submits to the Penance imposed on him by the Legates; dis-annuls the Customs published at Clarendon, and at last receives Absolution at the Door of the Church.  
Richard succeeds Thomas in the Archbishopric of Canterbury.  
The Assassins' of Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury come to Rome to get Absolution; where the Pope enjoins 'em to take a Journey to Jerusalem in the Habit of Pilgrims: One of 'em perishes by the way, and the two others spend the remainder of their Lives in doing Penance, being shut up in a place called Monte-Nigro.    1172 XIII. XXI. XXX. 
Guarinus or Warinus is constituted the fifth Abbot of St. Victor at Paris.  
Henry II. King of England, is absolved in the Council of Avranches.  
A Council at Lombez, in which the Heretic Oliverius and his Followers called Bons Hommes, or Good Men are convicted and condemned.  
A Council at Cassel in Ireland held in the Month of October.  
A Council at Avranches.  The Death of Gilbert, Abbot of Hoiland. 1173 XIV. XXII. The Young King of England Rebels against his Father, who is obliged to repair to the Tomb of Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, to implore his Assistance. XXXI. The Canonization of Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury,  Richard of St. Victor dies March 10. 1174 XV. XXIII XXXII. 
The Canonization of St. Bernard, Jan. 18.  
William, Arch Deacon of Tyre, is advanced in the Month of May, to the Dignity of Archbishop of that Church.    1175 XVI. XXIV. The Emperor makes War in Italy. XXXIII. 
The Pope approves the Institution of the Order of the Knights of St. James in Spain, and of that of the Monks of the Abbey of St. Saviour at Messina.  
Nivelon de Cherisy, is made Bishop of Soissons.  
Geffrey Arthur, Bishop of St. Asaph, who had quitted his Bishopric, by reason of some Disturbances that happened in Wales, and had retired to King Henry's Court, who gave him the Abbey of Abington, is solicited in the Council of London, to return to his Bishopric; but upon his refusal, other Incumbents are provided both for his Bishopric and Abbey, and he remains destitute of a Benefice.  
Geffrey, who was translated from the Abbey of Igni to that of Clairvaux, going into Italy, is there made Abbot of Fossanova, and some Years after, of Hautecombe.  A Council at London, held on the Sunday before the Festival of the Ascension, in which were present the two Henrys, Kings of England. 
Geffrey, Abbot of Clairvaux.  
William, Archbishop of Tyre.  1176 XVII. XXV. The Emperor's Army is entirely defeated by the Milanese Forces, and that Prince is obliged to send Ambassadors to Pope Alexander, to sue for Peace. XXXIV. The Pope approves the Institution and the Constitution of the Carthusian Order.   1177 
XVIII. An Interview between Pope Alexander and the Emperor Frederick at Venice, in the Month of July, where the Peace of the Church is established.  
By virtue of this Treaty, William, King of Sicily obtains a Truce of fifteen Years with the Emperor, and the Lombard's one of seven.  XXVI. XXXV. 
William of Champagne, the Brother-in-law of the King of France, is translated from the Archbishopric of Sens, to that of Rheims, and made Cardinal.  
Stephen of Tournay, is translated from the Abbey of St. Everte at Orleans, to that of St. Genevieve at Paris, after the Death of the Abbot Aubert.  
The Pope sends a Legate to a King of the Indies, commonly called Prester John.  A Council at Venice held by the Pope September 16. in which the Peace is confirmed, and the Anathema renewed against those that were not returned to the Bosom of the Church.  1178 
XIX. The Pope is recalled from Anagnia to Rome, by the Clergy, Senate, and People of that City.  
The Antipope Calixtus obtains Pardon upon his Prostration at the Pope's Feet.  XXVII. XXXVI. 
Escilus, Archbishop of Lunden, Primate and Legate of the See of Rome in Denmark and Sweden, and Regent of both Kingdoms, quits all these Dignities, to turn Monk at Clairvaux, where he dies four Years after. Absalon succeeeds him in the Archbishopric of Lunden.  
Saxon Grammaticus, Provost of Roschild, is sent to Paris by Absalon Archbishop of Lunden, to bring Monks of St. Genevieve into Denmark.  
A great number of Dissenters from the Church of Rome are discovered at Thoulouse, who being branded with the odious Name of Heretics, are Excommunicated and Banished by the Pope's Legate, with the assistance of some Bishops; and who retire to the Country of Albigeois, where Roger, Count of Ally, receives 'em favourably, and makes use of 'em to detain the Bishop of his City Prisoner, since that time these People were called Albigenses, or Albigeois.  
The Pope confirms the Rights ●nd Privileges of the Archbishop of Colen.    1179 XX. XXVIII. Lewes, the Young King of France causes his Son Philip to be Anointed and Crowned at Rheims. XXXVII. 
William, Archbishop of Tyre, assists in the Council of Lateran, and draws up the Acts.  
The Albigeois, or People of Alby, are Condemned and Excommunicated in the General Council of Lateran, which declares that they were called Cathari, Parians and Publicans, and that they had many other Names.  
Laborant is made Cardinal  
John of Salisbury ordained Bishop of Chartres.  A III. General Council at Lateran, begun March 2.  1180 XXI. 
XXIX. The Death of Lewes, the Young King of France, on the 10th or 20th Day of September.  
His Son Philip Augustus succeeds him.  
XXXIII. Manuel Comnenus dies Octob. 6th.  
ALEXIS COMNENUS succeeds him.  
Arnold, Bishop of Lisieux, having incurred the displeasure of the King of England, retires to the Monastery of St. Victor at Paris.  
Peter, Abbot of Cisteaux is ordained Bishop of Arras.   
John the Hermit writes this Year the Life of St. Bernard.  
Thierry or Theodoricus, a Monk, in like manner composes his History in the same Year.  
Richard, Prior of Hagulstadt.  
Stephen, Bishop of Tournay.  
The Death of St. Hildegarda, Abbess of Mont St. Robert.  
The Death of Philip de Harveng, Abbot of Bonne Esperance.  
The Death of Adamus Scotus a Regular Canon.  
The Death of Nicolas, a Monk of Clairvaux in the same Year.  1181 
XXII. Alexander III. dies on the 27th day of August, or on the 21. of September.  
LUCIUS' III. is chosen to supply his place.  XXX. I. 
Henry, Bishop of Alby, having in quality of the Pope's Legate, levied certain Troops, marches into Gascogne, to expel thence the People called Publicans, who were Masters of a great number of Castles: They make a show, to avoid the Storm, of abjuring their Opinions, but the Bishop being gone, they live as before.  
John de Bellemains is translated from the Bishopric of Poitiers to the Archbishopric of Narbonne, and afterwards to that of Lions.  
Baldwin of Devonshire, Abbot of Ferden, is ordained Bishop of Winchester.   The Death of Alanus at Clairvaux. 1182 I. XXXI. II. Peter de Cells, Abbot of St. Remigius, at Rheims installed Bishop of Chartres in the place of John of Salisbury.  
Cardinal Laborant writes his Collection of Canons.  
The Death of John of of Salisbury, Bishop of Chartres.  
The Death of Arnold, Bishop of Lisieux, August 31.  1183 II. XXXII. Henry, the Youngest of the three Sons of the King of England, dies. I. ANDRONICUS COMNENUS causes Alexis to be put to Death, and Usurps the Imperial Throne. Above seven thousand Albigeois are destroyed in Berri, by the Inhabitants of the Country.   1184 III. XXXIII. II.   A Council at Verona, held in the presence of the Pope and the Emperor Frederick, concerning the Execution of the Treaty of Peace concluded at Venice. 1185 
IU. Lucius III. dies at Verona, Novemb. 25.  
URBAN III succeeds him.  XXXIV. III. ISAAC ANGELUS kills Andronicus, and taketh Possession of the Empire. 
Contests arise between Pope Urban and the Emperor Frederick concerning certain Lands left by the Princess Mathilda to the Church of Rome; about the Goods of Bishops after their Decease, to which the Emperor laid claim as his Right, and about the Taxes that were levied for the maintenance of Abbesses.  
Baldwin of Devonshire is translated from the Bishopric of Winchester to the Archbishopric of Canterbury after the Death of Richard the Successor of Thomas Becket.   
Baldwin Archbishop of Canterbury.  
Joannes Phocas, a Greek Monk, goes in Pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and at his return writes a Relation of what he had seen and observed.  
Petrus Comestor.  
Peter of Blois.  
Sylvester Girald, Bishop of St. David.  1186 I. The Pope being offended at a Letter sent by the Assembly of Geinlenbausen, resolves to Excommunicate the Emperor, but the Inhabitants of Verona entreat him not to publish this Excommunication in their City. XXXV. Henry, the Son of the Emperor Frederick, marries Constance, the Daughter of Roger, King of Sicily. I. 
The Pope sends the Pall to Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury.  
St. Hugh, Prior of the Carthusian Order is made Bishop of Lincoln.  An Assembly at Geinlenhausen, in which a Resolution is taken to write to the Pope concerning the Rights claimed by the Emperor. 
Godfrey of Viterbio completes his Universal History, and Dedicates it to the Pope.  
Hermengard.  
John the Hermit.  
Bernard, Abbot of Fontcaud.  
Joannes Cinnamus.  1187 
II. The Pope departing from Verona with a design to Excommunicate the Emperor, dies October 17. before he could effect it.  
GREGORY VIII. succeeds him the next day, but dies two Months after, December 16.  XXXVI. The Nativity of Lewes VIII. King of France, the Father of St. Lewes, September 5th. II. The City of Jerusalem is taken from the Christians October 2. 〈◊〉 Saladin King of Syria and Egypt. Thus at the end of 88 Years, ends the Kingdom of Jerusalem. 
A Circular Letter of Pope Gregory to all the Faithful, exhorting them to the relief of the Holy Land.  
A Fast appointed by this Pope during five Years, on all the Fridays from Advent till Christmas, with abstaining from Flesh on Wednesdays and Saturdays.  
Robert de Bar succceeds Peter de Cells in the Bishopric of Chartres.   
Theorianus.  
Hugo Etherianus.  
Robertus Paululus.  
Gervase, a Priest of Chichester.  
Odo, Abbot of Bel.  
Cardinal Laborant.  
Geffrey, Prior of Vigeois.  
Thierry or Theodoric, a Monk.  
Joannes Burgundus.  
The Death of Peter de Cells, Bishop of Chartres, on the 17. day of February  1188 I. After a Vacancy of 20. days, CLEMENT III. is Elected in the place of Gregory VIII. January 6. XXXVII. III. Philip Augustus, King of France, imposes a Tax in his Kingdom for his Voyage to the Levant, which is called by the Name of Saladin's Tithes.   1189 II. 
XXXVIII. Henry II. King of England dies, and Richard his Son succeeds him.  
The Kings of England and France set forward in their Journey to the Holy Land.  
The Queen Mother, and her Brother William of Champagne, Cardinal Archbishop of Rheims obtain the Government of France during the King's absence.  
William, the Good King of Sicily, dies without Issue. Constance his Aunt, the Wife of Henry the Son of the Emperor, lays claim to the Succession, but Tancred, the Natural Brother of the Princess, gets possession of the Kingdom.  iv William, Bishop of Ely, and Legate of the See of Rome, in England, is made Regent of the Kingdom during the absence of King Richard, who is about to undertake an Expedition to the Holy Land.   1190 III. 
XXXIX. The Death of the Emperor Frederick in the Levant.  
His Son Henry iv succeeds him.  
The Kings of England and France arrive in the Month of August at Messina, and reside there above six Months.  V   
Neophytus.  
John Bishop of Lydda.  
The Death of Richard, Prior of Hagulstadt.  1191 I. Clement III. dies April 10. and CELESTIN III is substituted in his place. 
I. Henry is Crowned Emperor by Pope Celestin, and his Wife Constance Empress.  
Richard, K. of England, takes possession of the Kingdom of Cyprus, carries off a rich Booty from thence, and gives this Kingdom to Guy of Lusignan, in exchange for that of Jerusalem, which Richard hoped ere long to wrest out of the Hands of the Infidels.  VI 
Eurard d'Avesnes, Bishop of Tournay dying, Peter, Chanter of the Church of Paris, is chosen in his place, but William, Archbishop of Rheims opposes this Election, and causes Stephen, Abbot of St. Genevieve at Paris, to be Elected the next Year.  
The taking of the City of Acre by the Christians from the Infidels in the Levant.  
Pope Celestin order the Bishops of England to Excommunicate all those that should refuse to obey the Bishop of Ely, Regent of the Kingdom.    1192 II. The Pope Excommunicates the Emperor, because he detains Prisoner Richard, King of England, II. Richard K. of England is taken Prisoner in returning from the Holy Land, by Leopold Duke of Austria, and delivered up to the Emperor Henry, who confines him 14 Months. During his Imprisonment, John his Brother, surnamed Without Land, gets Possession of the Kingdom of England. VII. 
The Pope confirms the Rights and Privileges of the Churches and Kingdom of Scotland.  
The Canonization of St. Ubald, Bishop of Eugubio.  
Stephen of Tournay, causes his Nephew to be chosen in his place Abbot of St. Genevieve. at Paris.   Baldwin of Devonshire, Archbishop of Canterbury, dies in the Levant this Year or in the following. 1193 III. III. Philip, King of France, Marries Batilda according to some Authors, or Isemburga (as others will have it) the Sister of Canutus King of Denmark, but is Divorced from her some time after, under pretence of being too near a kin. VIII. George Xiphylin is chosen Patriarch of Constantinople.  Demetrius Tornicius writes this Year his Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost. 1194 IU. iv Richard, K. of England being released out of Prison, resumes the Government of his Kingdom. IX. 
The Pope appoints the Bishop of Lincoln to take Cognisance of the Misdemeanours and Crimes committed by Geffrey, Archbishop of York.  
Michael de Corbeil, Dean of the Church of Paris, who had been chosen Patriarch of Jerusalem, is made Archbishop of Sens.   The Death of Joannes Burgundus, or John Burguignon, Magistrate of Pisa. 1195 V. V X. Isaacus Angelus, is deposed, and ALEXIS ANGELUS is placed on the Imperial Throne. I. 
The Pope Constitutes Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury his Legate in England, and enjoins the Bishops of this Kingdom to submit to his Authority.  
He grants a Commission to Simon, Dean of the Church of York, to govern that Church; and Summons Geffrey, who was Archbishop of it, to appear at Rome to clear himself there, of the Crimes laid to his Charge.  
A Synod at York, held in the Month of June.  
A Council at Montpellier in the Month of December.  
Gauterius a Regular Canon of St. Victor.  
Thierry or Theodoric, Abbot.  
Ogerus, Abbot of Lucedia and of Mount St. Michael.  
Robert de Torigny.  
Otho de St. Blaise.  
John Brompton, Abbot of Jorval.  
Lupus Pro●●spatus.  
Alulphus, Monk of St. Martin at T●●nay.  
Isaac, Abbot of L'Etoile.  1196 VI. VI The Emperor Henry marches into Italy with a numerous Army, and makes himself Master of Sicily, which belonged to his Dominions in right of his Wife. He treats the Sicilians so cruelly, that this Princess Commiserating their Misfortunes, constrains her Husband by force, to grant 'em a Peace upon reasonable Terms. II. 
Eustach is ordained Bishop of Ely in England in the place of William.  
Odo de Sully succeeds Maurice in the Bishopric of Paris.   
Henry, Abbot of Clairvaux.  
The Death of Maurice de Sully Bishop of Paris▪ September 3.  
Gilbert of Sempringham.  
Peter, Abbot of Clairvaux.  
Garnerius, Abbot of Clairvaux.  
Nicolas, a Canon of Liege.  
Sibrandus, Abbot of Mariegarde.  1197 VII. The Pope consents that Frederick, the Son of the Emperor Henry, should be Crowned King of Sicily for 1000 Marks of Silver to be paid to him, and as many to the Cardinals. 
VII. The Death of the Emperor Henry at Messina.  
The Right of Succession to the Empire is disputed between Philip the Brother of Henry, and Otho, Duke of Saxony.  III. 
The Archbishop of Messina, going to consult the Pope about the deceased Emperor who died Excommunicated; cannot obtain a Licence for the Interring of that Prince in Consecrated Ground, but with the consent of Richard, King of England, and after having restored the sum of Money that was exacted for his Ransom.  
Jourdain du Hommel, is ordained Bishop of Lisieux. Under his Government, the Building of the Cathedral of Lisieux was finished, and that Church was much enriched by the Liberality of this Bishop.   
Bertrand, Abbot of lafoy Chaise-Dieu.  
Radulphus Tortarius.  
Christina, a Monk of Clairvaux.  
Gauterius of Chatillon.  
Thomas. a Monk of Chichester.  
Garnerius, a Monk of St. Victor.  
The Death of Peter Comestor, Dean of St. Peter at Troy's.  
Robert of Flamesbury.  
Bartholomew, Bishop of Oxford.  1198 
VIII. Celestin III. dies Jan. 8.  
INNOCENT III. succeeds him. I.  VIII. Philip Augustus, King of France is Excommunicated, Decemb. 6th by the Pope's Legate Peter of Capua, and his Kingdom suspended from Divine Service, because he refused to retake his Wife Batilda whom he had put away, and to quit Mary the Daughter of the Duke of Aquitaine, whom he had Married; nevertheless the Publication of this Sentence is deferred till after the Festival of Christmas. iv Pope Innocent reduces Dol and the other Bishoprics of Bretagne under the Jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Tours. A Council at Sens which deposes the Abbot of St. Martin at Nevers, suspends the Dean of the Church of that City, who were accused of the Heresy of the Publicans, and remits 'em both to the Judgement of the See of Rome. 
Odo de Chitton. John, a Carthusian of des Portes.  
Stephen de Chaulm, a Carthusian Monk.  1199 II. IX. The Death of Richard, King of England. John, surnamed Without Land, takes Possession of his Dominions to the prejudice of Arthur, Duke of Bretagne, the Son of Geffrey, the elder Brother of the said John. V The King of France is freed from the Sentence of Excommunication which the Pope's Legate had published against him; by quitting the Daughter of the Duke of Aquitaine and retaking his former Wife. However the forbears not to put her away again some time after.  
William le Petit, a Regular Canon of Newbridge.  
Gervase, a Monk of Canterbury.  
Gonthier, a Monk of St. Amand.  
Theodorus Balsamon.  
Oliver of Colen.  
Radulphus de Diceto.  
Gautier de Vinesauf.  
Richard, Abbot of Mount Cassin.  
Elias of Coxie Saxo Grammaticus.  
Joannes Camaterus.  
Zacharias Chrysopolitanus.  
Roger de Heveden.  
The Death of George Xiphylin, Patriarch of Constantinople.    

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE Ecclesiastical Writers IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY.  

S. BRUNO. FOunder of the Carthusian Order; flourished at Rheims in the Year 1075. retired to La Grande Chartreuse, or the Great Charter-House in 1086, went to Italy in 1090. died in 1101.  
LEO. Cardinal Deacon, flourished under the Pontificate of Urban II. in the end of the preceding Century.  
PETRUS THEUTBODUS, Flourished in the end of the XI. Century, and in the beginning of the XII.  
A Nameless Italian AUTHOR, Flourished in the end of the preceding Century.  
ROBERT, A Monk of St. Remigius at Rheims, flourished in the end of the preceding Century.  
DOMNIZON, A Priest, lived in the end of the XI. Century, and in the beginning of the XII.  
RAINAUD, or RAINOLDUS, Of Semur, Archbishop of Lions, born in the Year 1024. translated from the Abbey of Vezelay to the Archbishopric of Lions after 1104. died in 1109.  
BAUDRY, Bishop of Noyon and Terovanne, ordained Bishop A. D. 1097. died in 1112.  
SIGEBERT, A Monk of Gemblours, flourished in the end of the preceding Century, and in the beginning of the present XII. died in 1113.  
ODO, Bishop of Cambray, translated from the Abbey of St. Martin at Tournay, to that See, A. D. 1105. died in 1113.  
YVES. Bishop of Chartres, made Abbot of the Regular Canons of St. Quentin at Beauvais, A. D. 1078. made Bishop in 1092. died in 1115.  
GISLEBERT, or GILBERT CRISPIN, Abbot of Westminster, made A. D. 1106. died in 1114. or 1115.  
LEO of Marsi. Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, made A. D. 1101. died a little after in 1115.  
PETRUS ALPHONSUS, A Spanish Jew, converted A. D. 1106.  
STEPHEN, Abbot of St. James at Liege, flourished in the beginning of this Century, about A. D. 1107.  
PASCAAL II. Pope, advanced to that Dignity, A. D. 1099. died in 1118.  
ANSELM, Dean of the Church of Laon, flourished in the beginning of this Century.  
ANSCHERUS, Abbot of St. Riquier, fllourished in the beginning of this present XII. Century.  
THEOFREDUS, Abbot of Epternack, flourished about the same time.  
THEOBALDUS, A Clerk of the Church of Etampes, flourished and was Professor in the Divinity-Schools of Caën and Oxford at the same time.  
RADULPHUS, or RAOUL L'ARDENT. Lived about the same time.  
NICETAS SEIDUS, Flourished at the same time.  
HARIULPHUS, A Monk of St. Riquier. flourished at the same time.  
HUGH, Abbot of Flavigny, lived about the same time.  
ODO, A Benedictin Monk of Ast, flourished at the same time.  
RAIMOND D' AGILES, A Canon of Puy, flourished at the same time.  
TURGOT, A Monk of Durham, flourished about the same time.  
JOHN PIKE, An English Writer, flourished about the same time.  
WALTER, Archdeacon of Oxford, lived about the same time.  
EUTHYMIUS ZYGABENUS, A Greek Monk, flourished about the same time.  
PHILIPPUS SOLITARIUS, A Greek Monk, lived about the same time.  
UDASCHALCUS, A Monk, flourished under Pope Pasehal II. in the beginning of this Century,  
GELASIUS II. Pope, chosen A. D. 1118. died in 1119.  
FLORENTIUS BRAVO, A Monk of Winchester, flourished at the same time, died in 1119.  
WILLIAM de CHAMPEAUX, Bishop of Châlons, flourished in the beginning of this Century, in the Divinity-Schools at Paris, ordained Bishop A. D. 1113. died in 1121.  
MARBODUS, Bishop of Rennes, flourished in the end of the preceding Century, made Bishop A. D. 1096. died in 1123.  
BRUNO, Bishop of Signi, flourished in the beginning of Century, died in 1123.  
CALIXTUS II. Pope, chosen A. D. 1119. died in 1124.  
GUIBERT, Abbot of Nogent Sous Covey, elected A. D. 1104. died in 1124.  
ERNULPHUS or ARNULPHUS, Bishop of Rochester, ordained A. D. 1114. died in 1124.  
GAUTERIUS, Bishop of Maguelone, made A. D. 1103. died in 1129.  
GEFFREY, Abbot of Vendôme, chosen A. D. 1093. took several Voyages into Italy, died in 1129.  
HONORIUS II. Pope, elected A. D. 1124. died in 1130.  
HILDEBERT, Bishop of Man's, and afterwards Archbishop of Tours, made A. D. 1098. translated to Tours in 1125. died in 1132.  
STEPHEN HARDING, Abbot of Cisteaux, made A. D. 1108. died in 1134.  
PETRUS GROSOLANUS, or CHRYSOLANUS, Flourished A. D. 1120.  
EUSTRATIUS, Archbishop of Nice, flourished A D. 1120.  
STEPHEN, Bishop of Autun, made A. D. 1113. left his Bishopric in 1129. to retire to Clunie, died in 1130.  
NICEPHORUS BRYENNIUS, Of Macedonia, flourished A. D. 1120.  
JOANNES ZONARAS, Secretary of State to the Emperor of Constantinople, flourished A. D. 1120.  
HONORIUS SOLITARIUS, Professor of Scholastical Divinity of the Church of Autun, flourished A. D. 1120.  
NICOLAS, A Monk of Soissons; flourished A. D. 1120.  
AELNOTHUS, A Monk of Canterbury, flourished A. D. 1120.  
THOMAS, A Monk of Ely, lived at the same time.  
St. NORBERT, Founder of the Order of Prémontré, retired to that Monastery A. D. 1120. died in 1134.  
RUPERT, Abbot of Duyts, flourished in the beginning of this Century, died in 1135.  
GUIGUE, Prior of La Grande Chartereuse, chosen A. D. 1113, died in 1137.  
DROGO, or DREUX, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, translated from the Dignity of Prior of St. Nicasius at Rheims, to that of Abbot of St. John at Laon A. D. 1128. and to that of Cardinal, in 1136.  
PETER of LEON, Antipope; under the Name of ANACLETUS, chosen A. D. 1130. died in 1138.  
GEFFREY, Bishop of Chartres, chosen A, D. 1115. died in 1138.  
GEFFREY the Gross, A Monk of Tiron, wrote A. D. 1135.  
PETER, Library-Keeper of Mount-Cassin, turned Monk A. D. 1115 in the Abbey of Mount-Cassin, and was expelled in 1128.  
RODULPHUS, Abbot of St. Troudo, chosen A. D. 1108. died in 1140.  
GILLEBERT, or GILBERT, Bishop of Limerick, ordained before the Year 1110. died in 1140.  
FRANCO, Abbot of Afflighem, made A. D. 1111. died in 1140.  
TURSTIN, Archbishop of York, chosen A. D. 1115. ordained in 1119. died in 1140.  
ULRICUS, Bishop of Constance, made A. D. 1120. quitted his Bishopric in 1138. died in 1140.  
BAUDRY, Bishop of Dol, made A. D. 1114. died in 1141.  
INNOCENT II. Pope, elected A. D. 1130. died in 1143.  
CELESTIN II. Pope, elected A. D. 1143. died in 1144.  
LUCIUS' II. Pope, chosen A. D. 1144. died in 1145.  
ECKARD, Abbot of Urangen, flourished 1130.  
HUGH, A Monk of Fleury, lived A. D. 1130.  
ANSELM, Abbot of Gemblours, flourished A. D. 1130.  
ORDERICUS VITALIS, A Monk of St. Eurou, born A. D. 1075. flourished in 1130. died in 1142.  
ANSELM, Bishop of Havelberg, flourished after the Year 1130.  
HERVEUS, A Monk of Bourg de Dol, flourished A. D. 1130.  
HUGH de FOLIETH, A Monk of Corbie, flourished A, D. 1130.  
STEPHEN, Bishop of Paris, made A. D. 1127.  
RAINERIUS. A Monk of St. Laurence at Liege, flourished A. D. 1130.  
GUALBERT, A Monk of Marchiennes, flourished A. D. 1130.  
PANDULPHUS of Pisa, Flourished A. D. 1130.  
FABRITIUS TUSCUS, Abbot of Abington, flourished A. D. 1130.  
AUCTUS, Abbot of the Order of Valombre, flourished A. D. 1130.  
ALBERTUS or ALBERICUS, A Canon of Aix, flourished A. D. 1130.  
FOUCHER, A Monk of Chartres, flourished A. D. 1130.  
GAUTERIUS, The Chancellor, flourished A. D. 1130.  
ANNA COMNENA, The Daughter of Alexis Comnenus, flourished A. D. 1130.  
ISAAC, An Armenian Bishop, flourished A. D. 1130.  
MICHAEL GLYCAS, A Sicilian, flourished A. D. 1130.  
ODO, Abbot of St. Remigius at Rheims, wrote about the Year 1135.  
HUGH, of St. Victor, Born A. D. 1098. flourished in 1130.  
PETRUS ABAELARDUS, Flourished in the beginning of this Century, in the University of Paris, was condemned in the Council of Soissons in 1121. and in that of Sens in 1140. died in 1142.  
WASELINUS MOMALIUS, Prior of St. Laurence at Liege, flourished A. D. 1140. died in 1147.  
AMEDEUS, Bishop of Lausanna, and Abbot of Hautecomb, was made Bishop of that See A. D. 1144. died in 1149.  
St. BERNARD, Abbot of Clairvaux born A. D. 1091. retired to Cisteaux in 1113. made Abbot in 1115. assisted in the Councils of Troy's and Châlons in 1128, and 1129. He maintained the Cause of Pope Innocent II. with great resolution in 1130, and 1131. He accompanied him to Rome, in 1132. assisted there in a Council, and was sent to Milan in 1134. He returned to France, and was sent by the King to the Duke of Guienne in 1135. He was recalled into Italy by the Pope in 1137. He confuted Abaelardus in the Council of Sens in 1140. He was sent for into Aquitaine against the Heretic Henry and his Followers in 1147. He convicted Gillebert de la Porrée in a Council held at Rheims in 1148, He died in 1153.  
WILLIAM, Abbot of St. Thierry, or Theodoric, made A. D. 1120, ritired to Signi in 1135. died in 1150.  
ARNOLD, Abbot of Bonneval, chosen in 1151. died in 1154,  
PETER, the Venerable, Abbot of Clunie, born in 1093. made in 1123. died in 1156.  
GUERRIC, Abbot of Igny, came to Clairvaux A. D. 1131. was made Abbot in 1138.  
PHILIP, A Monk of Clairvaux, flourished A. D. 1140.  
SAMPSON, Archbishop of Rheims, advanced to that Dignity in 1140.  
ROBERT PULLUS, Cardinal, flourished in the Divinity-Schools of Paris A. D. 1120. re-established the University of Oxford, in 1133. was made Cardinal in 1144. and died in 1150.  
WILLIAM of Somerset A Monk of Malmsbury, flourished A. D. 1130. died in 1153.  
SUGAR, Abbot of St. Denis, chosen A. D. 1122. died in 1153.  
GILLEBERT DE LA PORREE, Bishop of Poitiers, chosen A. D. 1141. His Opinions condemned in an Assembly held at Auxerre in 1147. and in the Council of Rheims, in 1148.  
HUGO METELLUS, A Regular Canon of St. Leon, at Toul, flourished A. D. 1140.  
THOMAS, Abbot of Maurigny, flourished A. D. 1140.  
BERNARD, A Monk of Clunie, flourished A. D. 1140.  
ULGER, Bishop of Angers, flourished A. D. 1140.  
ANTONIUS MELISSUS, A Grecian Monk, flourished in this Century, but 'tis not certainly known in what Year, although some reckon it to be in 1140.  
HERMAN, Abbot of St. Martin at Tournay, flourished A. D. 1140.  
SIFREDUS, EBBO, THIMON and HERBORDUS, Flourished A. D. 1140.  
ARCHARDUS, A Monk of Clairvaux. flourished A. D. 1140.  
HENRY, Bishop of Troy's, flourished A. D. 1140.  
EUGENIUS III. Pope, made A. D. 1144. died in 1153.  
ANASTASIUS IU. Pope, chosen A. D. 1153. died in 1154.  
OTHO, Bishop of, Frisinghen, made A. D. 1138. retired to the Abbey of Morimond in 1156. and died in the same Year.  
POTHO, A Monk of Prom, flourished A. D. 1145.  
SERLON, Abbot of Savigny, made in 1146. died in 1156.  
HUGH. A Monk of Clunie, flourished A. D. 1160.  
PHILIP, Bishop of Tarentum or Tarento, made A. D. 1130. deposed in 1139. retired to Clairvaux, where he was chosen Prior in 1150. and Abbot of Aumône in 1156. died in 1160.  
HUGH, Archbishop of Rouen, made A. D. 1130. died in 1164.  
NICOLAS, A Monk of Clairvaux, and St. Bernard's Secretary, left his own Monastery of Monstier-Randy to meet that Saint at Clairvaux, A. D. 1146. departed thence in 1151. and returned to Monstier-Randy in 1160. died in 1180.  
SIMEON of Durham, Flourished A. D. 1150.  
BARTHOLOMEW of Foigny, Bishop of Laon, made A. D. 1113. founded the Abbey of Foigny A. D. 1121. was suspended in 1142. abdicated his Bishopric a little after, and retired in 1151. to Foigny, where he became a Monk.  
GAUTERIUS of Mauritania, Bishop of Laon, ordained A. D. 1154.  
WOLBERO, Abbot of St. Pantaleon at Colen, flourished A. D. 1150.  
LUKE, Abbot of St. Cornelius. flourished A. D. 1150. died in 1157.  
GRATIANUS, A Monk of St. Felix at Boulogne, flourished A. D. 1150.  
PETER LOMBARD. Bishop of Paris, flourished after 1120, ordained Bishop in 1150. died in 1164.  
FALCO, A Magistrate of Benevento, flourished A, D. 1150.  
HENRY, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, flourishd A. D. 1150  
Two nameless AUTHORS, Epitomizers of Foucher, flourished A. D. 1150.  
HUGH, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, flourished A. D. 1150.  
CONSTNTINUS MANASSES, Flourished A. D. 1150.  
CONSTANTINUS HARMENOPULUS, A Judge of Thessalonica, flourished A. D. 1150.  
JOHN, Patriarch of Antioch, flourished A. D. 1150.  
GERMANUS, Patriarch of Censtantinople, flourished A. D. 1150.  
ARSENIUS, A Monk of Mount Athos, flourished A. D. 1150.  
ANDRONICUS CAMATERUS, Flourished A. D. 1150.  
GEORGE, Archbishop of Corfu, flourished A. D. 1150. died in 1167.  
LUCAS CHRYSOBERGIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, made A. D. 1140. or 1155.  
ROBERT, Archdeacon of Ostrevant, flourished in the middle of this Century.  
A nameless AUTHOR, Of the Life of St. Ludger, flourished in the middle of the same Century.  
THEOBALD, A Monk of St. Peter at Beze, lived in the middle of the same Century.  
GAUTERIUS, A Canon of Terovane, flourished in the middle of the same Century.  
HERBERT, A Monk, flourished A. D. 1150.  
HAIMO, Archdeacon of Châlons, flourished A. D. 1150.  
HERMAN, A converted Jew of Colen, flourished in the middle of this Century.  
NICETAS of Constantinople, Flourished A. D. 1150.  
BASIL of Acris, Archbishop of Thessalonica, flourished A. D. 1150  
TEULPHUS, A Monk of Maurigny, flourished A. D. 1150.  
JOHN, A Monk of Marmoutier, flourished about the middle of this Century.  
ALEXANDER, An Abbot in Sicily, flourished after the Year 1164.  
ADRIAN iv Pope, made A. D. 1154. died in 1159.  
ALEXANDER, III. Pope, chosen A. D. 1159. died in 1181.  
LUCIUS' III. Pope, elected A. D. 1181. died in 1185.  
URBAN III, Pope, advanced to that Dignity A. D. 1185, died in 1188.  
GREGORY VIII. Pope, obtained the See of Rome A. D. 1188. and died in the same Year.  
RADULPHUS NIGER, A Monk of St. Germer, flourished A. D. 1157.  
St. ELIZABETH, Abbess of Schonaw, born A. D. 1129. flourished in 1155. died in 1165.  
St. AELRED or ETHELRED, Abbot of Reverby, flourished A. D. 1150. died in 1166.  
OTHO of Devil, Abbot of St. Cornelius, flourished A. D. 1160. died in 1168.  
THOMAS BECKET, Archbishop of Canterbury, born A. D. 1119. made in 1161. was assassinated in 1170.  
GILBERT, Abbot of Hoiland, flourished after the Year 1150. died in 1172.  
RICHARD of St. Victor, Flourished A. D. 1160. died in 1173.  
PETER de Roye, A Monk of Clairvaux, flourished A. D. 1160.  
ENERVINUS, Provost of Stemfeld, flourished A. D. 1160.  
ECBERT, Abbot of St. Florin, flourished A. D. 1160.  
BONACURTIUS, Mediolanensis, Flourished A. D. 1160,  
EBRARD of Bethune, Flourished A. D. 1160.  
MICHAEL of Thessalonica, Defender of the Church of Constantinople, flourished A. D. 1160.  
ODO, A Regular Canon of St. Augustin, flourished A. D 1160.  
HUGH of Poitiers, A Monk of Vezelay, flourished A. D. 1160.  
ADELBERT or ALBERT, Abbot of Heldesheim, flourished A. D. 1160.  
JOHN of Hexam, Provost of Hugulstadt, flourished A. D. 1160.  
FASTREDUS, Abbot of Clairvaux, flourished A. D. 1161.  
HUGH, A Monk of St. Saviour at Lodeve, flourished A. D. 1161.  
LAURENTIUS, A Monk of Liege, flourished after the Year 1150. died in 1179.  
St. HILDEGARDA, Abbess of Mount St. Robert, born A. D. 1098. was in great repute in 1150. died in 1180.  
PHILIP de HARVENG, Abbot of St. Bonne-Esperance, flourished after the Year 1150. died in 1180.  
ADAMUS SCOTUS, A Regular Canon, Flourished A. D. 1160. died in 1180.  
GEFFREY ARTHUR, Bishop of St. Asaph, chosen Bishop A. D. 1151. died in 1180.  
ALANUS, Bishop of Auxerre, of Abbot of Larivoir, was advanced to that Dignity A. D. 1153. retired to Clairvaux in 1161. died in 1181.  
JOHN of Salisbury, Bishop of Chartres, flourished after the Year 1160. was ordained Bishop in 1179. died in 1182.  
ARNULPHUS or ARNOLDUS, Bishop of Lisieux, made A. D. 1141. accompanied Lewes the young, King of France, in his Expedition to the Holy Land, in 1147. was sent Legate into England in 1160. retired to the Monastery of St. Victor in 1180. died in 1182.  
PETER of Cells, Bishop of Chartres, elected Abbot in 1150. translated to the Abbey of St. Remigius at Rheims, in 1162. ordained Bishop in 1182. died in 1187.  
NICOLAS, A Monk of St. Alban, flourished A. D. 1160.  
GILBERT FOLIOT, Bishop of London, made Bishop of Hereford, A. D. 1149. and translated thence to London in 1161. died in 1187.  
MICHAEL ANCHIALUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, advanced to that Dignity A. D. 1167.  
ROBERT of Melun, Bishop of Hereford, flourished A. D. 1170.  
ALEXIS ARISTENES. Oeconomus or Steward of the Church of Constantinople, flourished A. D. 1170.  
SIMEON LOGOTHETA, Flourished A. D. 1170.  
JOHN of Cornwall, Flourished A. D. 1170.  
GEROCHUS, Provost of Rheichersperg, and a nameless Author, Dean of the same Church, flourished A. D. 1170.  
PETER of Riga, A Canon of Rheims, flourished A. D. 1170.  
HENRY, Archbishop of Rheims, flourished A. D. 1170.  
GEFFREY, Abbot of Clairvaux, a Disciple of St. Bernard, made Abbot of Igny, and afterwards Abbot of Clairvaux, A. D. 1162. and of Hautecombe in 1175. died in the end of this Century.  
WILLIAM, Archbishop of Tyre, ordained A. D. 1174. died in 1190.  
RICHARD, Prior of Hagulstadt, flourished A. D. 1180. died in 1190.  
CLEMENT III. Pope, chosen A. D. 1188. died in 1191.  
BALDWIN, Archbishop of Canterbury, first made Abbot of Winchester, and afterwards Archbishop, A. D. 1185. died in 1192.  
ERMENGARDUS or ERMENGALDUS. Flourished A. D. 1180.  
JOHN, A Hermit, flourished A. D. 1180.  
BERNARD, Abbot of Font●aud flourished A. D. 1180.  
JOANNES CINNAMUS, The Grammarian, flourished A. D. 1180.  
THEORIANUS, Flourished A D. 1180.  
HUGO ETHERIANUS, Flourished A. D. 1180.  
ROBERTUS PAULULUS, A Priest of Amiens, flourished A. D. 1180.  
GERVASE, A Priest of Chichester. flourished A. D. 1180.  
ODO, Abbot of Bel, lived A. D. 1180.  
LABORANT, Cardinal, flourished A. D. 1180.  
GEFFREY, Prior of Vigeois, flourished A. D. 1180.  
THIERRY or THEODORIC, A Monk, flourished A. D. 1180.  
JOANNES BURGUNDUS, A Magistrate of Pisa, flourished after the Year. 1150. died in 1194,  
MAURICE DE SULLY, Bishop of Paris, made A. D. 1164. died in 1196  
CELESTIN III. Pope, chosen A. D. 1191. died in 1198.  
PETRUS COMESTOR, Dean of St. P●ter at Troy's, flourished in the end of this Century, died A. D. 1198.  
JOANNES PHOCAS, A Greek Monk, flourished A. D. 1190.  
NEOPHYTUS, A Grecian Monk, flourished A. D. 1190.  
A nameless AUTHOR, Of the Expedition of the Danes to the Holy Land, flourished A. D. 1190.  
DEMETRUS TORNICIUS, Wrote about the Year 1193.  
JOHN, Bishop of Lydda, flourished A. D. 1194.  
GAUTERIUS, A Regular Canon of St. Victor, flourished in the end of the Century.  
THIERRY or THEODORIC, An Abbot, flourished at the same time.  
OGERUS, Abbot of Lucedia, flourished at the same time.  
GODFREY of Viterbo, Flourished in the end of the Century.  
ROBERT of Torigny, Abbot of Mount St. Michael, flourished at the same time.  
OTHO of St. BLAIS, Flourished at the same time.  
JOHN BROMPTON, Abbot of Jorval, flourished at the same time.  
LUPUS PROTOSPATUS, Flourished about the end of the Century.  
ALULPHUS, A Monk of St. Martin at Tournay, flourished in the end of the Century.  
ISAAC, Abbot of L'Etoile, flourished in the end of the Century.  
HENRY, Abbot of Clairvaux, flourished in the end of the Century.  
PETER, Abbot of Clairvaux, flourished at the same time.  
GARNERIUS, Abbot of Clairvaux, flourished in the end of the Century.  
GILBERT of Sempringham. Flourished at the same time.  
NICOLAS, A Canon of Liege, flourished at the same time.  
SIBRANDUS, Abbot of Mariegard in Friesland, flourished at the same time.  
BERTRAND, Abbot of La Chaise-Dieu, flourished at the same time.  
RADULPHUS TORTARIUS, Flourished in the end of the Century.  
A nameless AUTHOR, Of the History of Jerusalem, flourished in the end of the Century.  
CHRISTIAN, A Monk, of Clairvaux, flourished at the same time.  
GAUTERIUS of Chastillon, Flourished at the same time.  
THOMAS, A Monk of Cisteaux, flourished at the same time.  
GARNERIUS of St, Victor, Flourished in the end of the Century.  
ROBERT of Flamesbury, Flourished in the end of the Century.  
BARTHOLOMEW, Bishop of Oxford, flourished in the end of the Century.  
ODO DE CHIRTON, Flourished in the end of the Century.  
JOHN, A Carthusian Monk of des Portes, flourished in the end of the Century.  
STEPHEN DE CHAULMET, A Carthusian of des Portes, lived at the same time.  
WILLAM LE PETIT, A Regular Canon of Neutbrige, or Neuburg, flourished at the same time, died in 1208.  
GERVASE, A Monk of Canterbury, flourished in the end of the Century.  
GONTHERIUS, A Monk of St. Amand, flourished in the end of the Century.  
OLIVER of Colen, Flourished in the end of the Century.  
RADULPHUS DE DICETO, Dean of St. Paul's at London, flourished in the end of the Century.  
GEFFREY or GAUTERIUS DE VINESAUF, Flourished under the Popedom of Innocent III. in the very end of the Century.  
GEORGE XIPYLIN, Patriarch of Constantinople, advanced to that Dignity A. D. 1193. died in 1199.  
PETER of Poitiers, Chancellor of the Church of Paris, flourished A. D. 1170. died in 1200.  
PETER of Blois, Arch Deacon of Bath, went to Sicily A. D. 1167. returned to France a little while after, passed into England, and flourished there till the end of the Century.  
SYLVESTER GIRALDUS, Bishop of St. David's, flourished A. D. 1170. died in the beginning of the following Century.  
RICHARD, Abbot of Mount-Cassin, flourished in the end of this Century, died in the beginning of the following.  
STEPHEN, Bishop of Tournay, become a Regular Canon A. D. 1165. was chosen Abbot of St. Genevieve in 1177. and Bishop of Tournay in 1192.  
THEODORUS BALSAMON, Patriarch of Antioch, flourished from the Year 1180. to 1203.  
ELIAS of Coxie, Abbot of Dunes, flourished in the end of the Century, died in 1203.  
SAXON GRAMMATICUS, Provost of Roschild, flourished at the same time, died in 1204.  
JOANNES CAMATERUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, advanced to that Dignity A. D. 1199, died in 1206.  
ZACHARIAS, Bishop of Chrysopolis, is supposed to have lived in the XII. Century.  
ROGER DE HOVEDEN, A Professor of Oxford, flourished in the beginning of the following Century.  
JAMES DE VITRY, Cardinal, flourished in the end of the Century, died in A. D. 1194.    

A TABLE OF THE WORKS OF THE Ecclesiastical Writers IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY.  

S. BRUNO, Founder of the Carthusian Order.  


His Genuine Works still extant.  
TWO Letters.    


Spurious Works.  
All the other Works that are attributed to him, and which really belong to Bruno, Bishop of Segni.     

LEO, Cardinal Deacon. Manuscript Works.  
Letters.   

PETRUS THEUTBODUS, A Genuine Work.  
The History of the Crusade.   

A nameless Italian Author. His Genuine Works still extant.  
Four Books of the History of the Crusade.   

ROBERT a Monk of St. Remigius at Rheims. A Genuine Work.  
The History of the Crusade.   

DOMNIZON, a Priest. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of the Princess Mathilda.   

RAINOLDUS of Semur, Archbishop of Lions. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of St. Hugh, Abbot of Clunie.   

BAUDRY, Bishop of Noyon and Terovanne. A Genuine Work  
A Chronicle of the Churches of Cambray and Arras.   

SIGEBERT, a Monk of Gemblours.  


Genuine Works.  
A Continuation of St. Jerom's Chronicle.  
A Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers.  
A Letter written in the Name of the Clergy of Liege and Cambray.  
The Lives of St. Sigebert, St. Guibert, and St. Maclou.    


Works lost.  
The Life of St. Therry, or Theodoricus.  
The History of the Passion of St. Lucy, and her Defence, with a Sermon in Commendation of this Saint.  
The Passion of the Theban Martyrs in Verse.  
And Apology for the Masses of Married Priests.  
An Answer to the Inhabitants of Trier, concerning the four Ember-Weeks.  
The Book of Ecclesiastes, in Heroic Verse.  
A Treatise of the Reformation of the Cycles.     

ODO, Bishop of Cambray. His Genuine Works which we now have.  
A Commentary on the Canon of the Mass.  
Three Books of Original Sin.  
A Treatise in form of a Dialogue against a Jew, concerning the the necessity of Incarnation and Grace of Jesus Christ.  
A Tract concerning the sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.  
A Tract explaining the Harmony of the Four Evangelists.  
A Sermon on the Parable in the Gospel of the unjust Steward.   

YVES or YVO Bishop of Chartres.  


Genuine Works.  
Two Hundred and Eighty Nine Letters.  
A Treatise called Pannormia.  
Another called the Decree.    


Supposititious Works.  
Two Chronicles.     

GISLEBERT, or GILBERT CRISPIN. Abbot of Westminster.  


A Genuine Work still extant.  
A Conference with a Jew concerning Religion.    


Manuscript Works.  
A Homily on the Book of Canticles.  
A Discourse upon St. Jerom's Preface to the Bible.  
A Treatise of Sins.     

LEO of Marsi, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia. A Genuine Work.  
A Chronicle of Mount-Cassin.   

PETRUS ALPHONSUS, a Spanish Jew Converted. A Genuine Work.  
A Dialogue concerning the Truth of the Christian Religion.   

STEPHEN Abbot of St. James at Liege. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of St. Modoaldus.   

PASCHAL II. Pope.  


Genuine Works still in our Possession.  
Letters.  
Fragments of some other Letters.    


Works lost.  
Commentaries on the Books of the Holy Scripture, and several other Treatises.     

ANSCHERUS, Abbot of St. Riquier. A Genuine Work  
An Account of the Life and Miracles of St. Wilbrod.   

THEOBALDUS, a Clerk of the Church of Etampes. Genuine Works.  
Five Letters.   

RADULPHUS or ARDEN'S. Genuine Works.  
Several Sermons   

NICETAS SEIDUS. A Manuscript Work.  
A Treatise against the Latinss concerning the Primacy of the Church of Rome, of which there are some Fragments in Allatius.   

HARIULPHUS, a Monk of St. Riquier. Genuine Works still extant.  
A Chronicle of St. Riquier.  
The Life of St. Arnold.  
A Relation of the Miracles of St. Riquier.  
The Life of St. Maldegilisilus.   

HUGH, Abbot of Flavigny. A Genuine Work.  
A Chronicle of Verdun.   

ODO, a Benedictin Monk of Ast. A Genuine Work.  
A Commentary on the Book of Psalms.   

RAIMOND D'AGILES, a Canon of Puy. A Genuine Work.  
The History of the Crusade.   

TURGOT, a Monk of Durham. A Genuine Work.  
The History of the Church of Durham, to the Year 1096.   

JOHN PIKE, an English Writer,  
The History of the English, Saxon, and Danish Kings that have Reigned in England.   

WALTER, Archdeacon of Oxford.  
A Translation of Geffrey of Monmonth's History of England.   

EUTHYMIUS ZYGABENUS, a Greek Monk. Genuine Works.  
Panoplia Dogmatica, or a Treatise of the Orthodox Faith.  
Commentaries on the Book of Psalms, Canticles, and the Gospels.   

PHILIPPUS SOLITARIUS, a Greek Monk. A Genuine Work.  
Dioptron; or the Rule of the Christian Life.   

UDASCHALCUS, a Monk. A Genuine Work.  
A Relation of the Controversy between Herman, Bishop of Augsburg, and Egino Abbot of St. Ulrick.   

GELASTUS II. Pope, Genuine Works.  
Seven Letters.   

FLORENTUS BRAVO, a Monk of Winchester. Genuine Works still extant.  
A Chronicle.  
A Genealogy of the Kings of England.   

WILLIAM DE CHAMPEAUX, Bishop of Châlons. Works lost.  
A Book of Sentences.  
Several other Treatises.   

MARBODUS, Bishop of Rennes. Genuine Works.  
Divers▪ Poems.  
Six Letters.   

BRUNO, Bishop of Segni. Genuine Works,  
Commentaries on the Pentateuch, Books of Job, Psalms, Canticles, and Apoealypse.  
145 Sermons.  
A Treatise on the Song of Zacharias.  
A Treatise of the Incarnation and Burial of Jesus Christ.  
A Tract concerning the use of unleavened Bread, against the Greeks.  
The Life of Pope Leo IX.  
A Treatise of the Corruption of the Age,  
The Life of St. Peter of Anagnia.  
Six Books of Moral Discourses attributed to St. Bruno.  
Two Letters.  
A Treatise of the Sacraments, or Ceremonies of the Church.   

CALIXTUS II. Pope.  


Genuine Works still extant.  
Thirty Six Letters.    


Spurious Works.  
Four Sermons on St. James.     

GUIBERT, Abbot of Nogent sous Coucy.  


Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of Preaching.  
Ten Books of Moral Commentaries on the Book of Genesis.  
Tropologia, or an Explication of the Prophecies of Hosea and Amos, and on the Lamentations of Jeremiah.  
A Treatise against the Jews.  
A Treatise of the Real Presence of the Body of JESUS CHRIST in the Eucharist.  
A Treatise of the Encomiums of the Virgin Mary.  
A Treatise of Virginity.  
Three Books of the Relics of Saints.  
The History of the Crusades, under the Title of Gesta Dei per Francos.  
The Life of Guibert by himself.  
A Sermon on the last Verse of the 7th Chapter of the Wisdom of Solomon.    


Works lost.  
Sentences taken out of the Gospels.  
Commentaries on the other lesser Prophets, Manuscripts.     

ERNULPHUS or ARNULPHUS, Bishop of Rochester. Genuine Works still extant.  
Two Letters.   

GAUTERIUS, Bishop of Maguelone. A Genuine Work.  
An Epistle, serving instead of a Preface to Lietbert's Commentary on the Book of Psalms, published by him.   

GEFFREY, Abbot of Vendôme. Genuine Works.  
Five Letters  
A Treatise of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST.  
A Treatise of Elections against the Investitures.  
Two other Treatises against the Investitures.  
A Treatise of Dispensations.  
A Discourse on the Qualities of the Church.  
Explications of the Ark of the Testimony.  
A Treatise of the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Extreme Unction of the Sick, and the Lord's Supper.  
A Treatise of the Reiteration of the Sacraments.  
A Treatise to prove that Bishops ought not to exact any thing for Blessings and Consecrations.  
A Rule for the Confessions of Monks.  
A Discourse on the Three Virtues of Pastors.  
A Dialogue between God and the Sinner.  
Four Hymns.  
Eleven Sermons.   

HONORIUS II. Pope. Genuine Works still extant.  
Eleven Letters.   

BAUDRY, Bishop of Dol. Genuine Works.  
The History of the Crusade.  
A Memoire concerning the Monastery of Fecamp.  
The Life of St. Hugh, Archbishop of Roven.  
Other Lives of the Saints.   

HILDEBERT, Bishop of Man's, and afterwards Archbishop of Tours.  


Genuine Works.  
Eighty Three Letters.  
Nine other Letters published by F. Dachery.  
Two Discourses on the Nativity of our Lord.  
A Paraphrase in Verse on the Canon of the Mass.  
Two Sermons.  
A Synodical Discourse.  
The Life of Hugh Abbot of Clunie.  
The Epitaph of Berengarius.  
A Letter to Reginoldus.  
A Preface to the Life of St. Radegonda.    


A Work lost.  
A Treatise of Virginity.     

STEPHEN HARDING, Abbot of Cisteaux. Genuine Works still extant.  
The Charter of Charity.  
The small beginning of the Order of Cisteaux.  
A Discourse on the Death of Albericus.  
A Discourse Dedicated to St. Bernard.   

PETRUS GROSOLANUS, or CHRYSOLANUS. A Genuine Work.  
A Discourse before Alexis Comnenus.   

EUSTRATIUS, Archbishop of Nice. Manuscript Works.  
A Reply to Chrysolanus.  
Some other Treatises.   

STEPHEN, Bishop of Autun. A Genuine Work.  
A Treatise of the Prayers and Ceremonies of the Mass.   

NICEPHORUS BRYENNIUS of Macedonia. A Genuine Work still extant.  
The Byzantine History, from the Year 1057. to 1081.   

JOANNES ZONARUS, Secretary of State to the Emperor of Constantinople.  


Genuine Works.  
Annals, or an Ecclesiastical History.  
Commentaries on the Canons.  
A Discourse of Impurity.  
A Canon of the Virgin Mary.  
A Preface to the Poems of St. Gregory Nazienzen.  
Fifty Six Letters.    


Works lost.  
An Explication of the Canons for the Festival of Easter.  
Several Sermons.  
A Poetical Work on the Procession of the Holy Ghost.     

HONORIUS SOLITARIUS. Professor of Scholastical Divinity in the Church of Autun.  


Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of the Lights of the Church, or of the Ecclesiastical Writers.  
A List of Heretics.  
A Chronological Table of the Popes.  
The Pearl of the Soul, or a Treatise of Divine Offices divided into Four Books.  
A Treatise of the Image of the World, in Three Books.  
The Philosophy of the World.  
A Treatise of Praedestination and Free Will.  
Questions upon the Book of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.  
A Commentary on the Book of Canticles.  
The Seal of the Virgin Mary.    


Works lost.  
An Illustration of the Church, of the Doctrine of JESUS CHRIST, and of Eternal Life.  
The Mirror of the Church.  
The Scandal against the Incontinence of Priests.  
An Historical Summary.  
A Treatise of the Eucharist.  
A Treatise of Eternal Life.  
The Ladder of Heaven.  
Extracts out of St. Augustin's Works in form of a Dialogue.  
A Treatise of the Pope and the Emperor.  
Commentaries on the Books of Psalms and Canticles.  
Certain Homilies on those Gospels that were not explained by St. Gregory.  
The Key of Natural Philosophy.  
The Nutriment of the Mind in the Festivals of our Lord, and the Saints.  
Several Letters.    


A Spurious Work.  
A Moral Commentary on the Book of Canticles.     

NICOLAS, a Monk of Soissons. A Genuine Work still extant.  
The Life of St. Godfrey.   

AELNOTHUS, a Monk of Canterbury. A Genuine Work.  
The History of the Life and Passion of Canutus King of Denmark   

THOMAS, a Monk of Ely. A Genuine Work.  
An Account of the Life and Translation of St. Etheldrith.   

S. NORBERT, Founder of the Order of Premontré. A Genuine Work.  
A Moral Discourse in form of an Exhortation.   

RUPERT, Abbot of Duyts. Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of the Trinity and its Operations, divided into Three Parts, and containing Commentaries almost on the whole Bible.  
Cammentaries on the XII. lesser Prophets, and on the Book of Canticles.  
XIII Books of the Victory of the Word of God.  
A Commentary on St. Matthew, of the Glory of the Son of God.  
Commentaries on the Gospel of St. John, and o● the Apocalypse.  
A Treatise of the Glorification of the Trinity, and of the Procession of the Holy Ghost.  
A Treatise of the Divine Offices.   

GUIGUE, Prior of La Grande Chartreuse, or the Great Charter-House.  


Genuine Works still extant.  
Statutes of the Carthusian Order.  
The Life of St. Hugh, Bishop of Grenoble.  
Meditations.  
A Treatise of the Contemplative Life, or the Ladder of the Cloister.  
Four Letters.    


Works lost.  
A Treatise of Truth and Peace, kept in Manuscript in the Charter-House, or Carthusian Monastery of Colen.  
Some other Letters.     

DROGO or DREUX, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia. Genuine Works.  
A Sermon on the Passion of JESUS CHRIST.  
A Treatise of the Creation and Redemption of the first Man.  
A Tract on the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost.  
A Treatise of the Divine Offices.   

PETER of Leon, Antipope, under the Name of ANACLETUS II. Genuine Works.  
XXXVIII Letters.   

GEFFREY, Bishop of Chartres. A Genuine Work still extant.  
A Letter to Stephen, Bishop of Paris.   

GEFFREY the Gross, a Monk of Tiron. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of St. Bernard, Abbot of Tiron.   

PETER, Library-Keeper of Mount Cassin.  


Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of Illustrious Personages of Mount-Cassin.  
The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Mount-Cassin.  
A Treatise of the Roman Letters.    


Works lost.  
Semons.  
〈◊〉 of the Saints.  
〈◊〉 History of the Righteous Men of Mount-Cassin.  
〈◊〉 Exposition of the Rule of St. Benedict.  
〈◊〉 or Notes on the Old Testament.  
〈◊〉 Hymns, Letters, etc.     

RODULPHUS, Abbot of St. Tron.  


Genuine Works still in our Possession.  
chronicle of the Abbey of St. Tron.  
〈◊〉 Life of St. Li●tbert, Bishop of Cambray.  
●…ter to Libertus, a Monk of St. Puntaleon.    


A Manuscript Work.  
〈◊〉 Treatise against Simony, of which F. Mabillon ●…s published the Arguments.     

GILLEBERT, or GILBERT, Bishop of Limerick. Genuine Works.  
Two Letters.   

FRANCO, Abbot of Afflinghem.  


Genuine Works.  
XII Books of the Grace and Mercy of God.  
A Letter against the Monks, who leave their Monasteries.  
A ●etter to certain Nuns.    


Works lost.  
Sermons on the Life, etc. of the Virgin Mary.     

TURSTIN, Archbishop of York. Genuine Works.  
A Letter to William, Archbishop of Canterbury.  
The Original of the Monastery of Rippon.   

ULRICUS Bishop of Constance. Genuine Works still extant.  
The Lives of St. Gibhard and St. Conrade.   

WILLIAM of Somerset, a Monk of Malmesbury. His Genuine Works.  
The History of England.  
The History of the Bishops of this Kingdom.  
The Life of St. Adelmus.   

INNOCENT II. Pope. Genuine Works.  
XLVIII. Letters.   

CELESTIN II. Pope. Genuine Works.  
Three Letters.   

LUCIUS', TWO, Pope. Genuine Works.  
Ten Letters.   

ECKARDUS, Abbot of Urangen.  


Genuine Works.  
A Chronicle.  
Letters and Sermons.    


Works lost.  
The Lantern of Monks.     

HUGH, a Monk of Finery. Genuine Works still extant.  
A Chronicle.  
Two Books of the Royal Prerogative, and the Sacerdotal Dignity.   

ANSELM, Abbot of Gemblours. A Genuine Work.  
A Continuation of Sigebert's Chronicle.   

ORDERICUS VITALIS, a Monk of St, Eurone. Genuine Works.  
XIII Books of Ecclesiastical History.   

ANSELM, Bishop of Havelburg. A Genuine Work.  
A Conference between him and certain Grecians, concerning the Controversies between the Greek and Latin Churches.   

HERVAEUS, a Monk of Bourg de Dol.  


A Genuine Work.  
A Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul.    


Works lost.  
An Exposition of the Book of the Celestial Hierarchy of St. Dionysius the Areopagite.  
Commentaries on the Books of Genesis, Isaiah, the Lamentations of Jeremiah, the end of the Prophecy of Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, Judges, Ruth, Tobit, the XII dat Prophets, and the Epistles of St. Paul.  
Divers Sermons.  
A Treatise of the Lessons of the Divine Offices.  
A Book of the Miracles of the Virgin Mary.  
An Explication of the Treatise of the Lord's Supper, attributed to St. Cyprian.     

HUGH DE FOLIET, a Monk of Corbie.  


Genuine Works still extant.  
Four Books of the Cloister of the Soul.  
Four other Books of 〈…〉  
The Book of Phys●…  
Two Books of Birds.  
A Treatise of the 〈…〉 or 〈…〉 Carnal and Spiritual 〈…〉  
The Mirror of a Si●…    


〈…〉  
A Discourse of the 〈…〉  
Four Books of the the Mystical Ark, and that 〈◊〉 Noah.     

STEPHEN, Bisho●… Paris. 〈…〉  
Several Letters.   

RAINERIUS, 〈…〉 St. Lawrence at 〈…〉 A Genuine Work.  
A Treatise of 〈…〉 of his ●…y, and of Liege.   

GUALBERT, a Monk of Marchiennes. Genuine Work.  
Two Books of the Miracles of St. Rictruda.   

PANDULPHUS of Pisa. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of Pope Gelasius II.   

FABRICIUS TUSCUS, Abbot of Abington A Genuine Work.  
The Life of St. Adelmus.   

AUCTUS Abbot of the Order of Valombre. Genuine Works,  
The Life of St. John Gualbert  
The Life of Bernard Hubert.  
An Account of the Translation of the Head of St. James.   

ALBERTUS or ALBRICUS. a Canon of Aix. A Genuine Work still extant.  
The History of the Crusade to the Y●… 1120.   

FOUCHER, a Monk of Chartres. A Genuine Work.  
The History of the Crusade to the Year 1124.   

GAUTIER LE chancellor. A Genuine Work.  
The History of the Crusade from A. D. 1115. to A. D. 1119.   

ANNA COMNENA, the Daughter of Alexis Comnenus. A Genuine Work.  
Alexius, or the History of the Reign, etc. of Alexis Comnenus.   

ISAAC, an Armenian Bishop. Genuine Works.  
Two Treatises against the Armenians.   

MICHAEL●… of 〈…〉 A Genuine Work.  
A●… World, to th●… Death of A●…   

ODO, Abbot 〈…〉 at 〈…〉 A Genuine Work●… Possession.  
A Relation of a Miracle of 〈…〉   

HUGH of 〈…〉 ●… Genuine Work●…  
Literal No●… the Books 〈…〉 Judges and King●… and 〈…〉 of the 〈…〉  
Explications of the Lamentations of 〈…〉 〈…〉  
Notes on the 〈…〉 of the 〈…〉 rarchy▪  
The Soliloquy of the Soul●…  
The 〈…〉  
A Discourse 〈…〉 Praying.  
A Discour●… and the Spo●…  
Four Books of the 〈…〉  
A Hundred Sermons.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
A Treatise of the Power and Will of God●…  
Tracts concernin●… t●… of 〈…〉 CHRIST.  
Miscellanies of Theological Learning.  
A Dialogue between Master and S●…  
The sum of the Sentences.  
A Treatise of the Sacraments.   

PETRUS ABAELARDUS  


Genuine Works, still ext●…  
Letters to Heloiss●… and others.  
An Introduction to Theology.  
His Apo●…  
Explication●… on the Lo●…'s 〈…〉 Creeds of the 〈…〉  
A Reply to the 〈…〉 Heloissa.  
A Treatise of H●…  
A Commentary on the 〈◊〉 to the 〈…〉  
Sermons.    


Work●…  
Dia●…  
Notes on the Prophecy of 〈…〉  
A Treatise of 〈…〉 thyself.  
A Book called Yea and Nay▪ 〈…〉 These two last●…  
A Treatise of the Work of Manuscripts in the the Creation. 〈…〉 of S●… 〈…〉     

WASELINUS' MO●… 〈…〉 ●… A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to Gauselinus, Abbot of St. Flo●…   

AMEDEUS, Bishop of Lausanna Genuine Works.  
Eight Sermons in Commendation of the Virgin Mary.   

S. BERNARD, Abbot of Clairvaux.  


Genuine Works still extant.  
Four Hundred and Seventeen Letters.  
Five Books of Consideration.  
A Treatise of the Manners and Duties of Bishops.  
A Treatise of Conversion.  
A Treatise of Injunctions and Dispensations.  
An Apology for William Abbot of St. Thierr  
A Commendation of the New Militia.  
A Treatise of the Degrees of Humility and Fried.  
A Treatise of the Love of God.  
A Treatise of Grace and Free Will.  
A Letter to Hugh of St. Victor.  
The Life of St. Malachy.  
●…ons proper for the Sundays and Festivals of the whole Year, and on other Subjects.  
Sermons on the Book of Canticles.  
The Arbitrator's Sentence between the Bishop and the Count of Auxerre.  
The Draught of a Letter relating to the Crusade.    


Spurious Works.  
The 418th Letter and others following to the Number 423.  
A Pious Meditation on the Knowledge of Human Nature.  
A Treatise of the Building of the Inner-House.  
A Treatise of Charity.  
The Mystical Life.  
●…ditations on the Passion and Resurrection of JESUS CHRIST.  
A Treatise of Virtues.  
〈◊〉 Exposition of the Lord's Prayer.  
〈◊〉 Sermons, etc.     

WILLIAM, Abbot of St. Thierry or Theodoric. Genuine Works still extant.  
The first Book of the Life of St. Bernard.  
A Letter to the Carthusians of Mont-Dieu.  
A Treatise of the Contemplation of God.  
A Treatise of the Dignity of Love.  
The Mirror of Faith.  
The Mystery of Faith.  
The Book of Meditations.  
A Treatise of the Nature of the Body and Soul.  
A Treatise against Abaelardus.  
A Book of the Works of William of Conches.  
A Treatise of the Sacrament of the Altar.  
An Exposition of the Book of Canticles.   

ARNOLDUS, Abbot of Bonneval.  


Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of the Words of JESUS CHRIST on the Cross.  
A Treatise of the Cardinal Works of J. C,  
A Treatise of the Six Days Work.  
A Discourse of the Commendation of the Virgin Mary.  
Meditations.  
The Second Book of the Life of St. Bernard.    


Manuscript Works.  
A Commentary on the 44th Psalm.  
A Tract of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost.     

PETER the Venerable, Abbot of Clunie  


Genuine Works still extant.  
Letters.  
A Treatise of the Divinity of JESUS CHRIST.  
A Work against the Jews.  
A Treatise against the Petrobusians.  
Two Books of Miracles.  
A Sermon on our Saviour's Transfiguration.  
Divers Poetical Tracts.  
The Statutes of his Order.    


Works lost.  
Five Books against the Alcoran.  
Three Sermons.     

GUERRIC, Abbot of Igny. Genuine Works.  
Several Sermons.   

PHILIP, a Monk of Clairvaux. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to Samson, Archbishop of Rheims.   

SAMPSON, Archbishop of Rheims. Genuine Works.  
Letters to Pope Innocent II.  
A Charter in favour of the Abbey of Clairvaux.   

ROBERT PULLUS, Cardinal.  


A Genuine Work still extant.  
A Book of Sentences.    


Works lost.  
A Commentary on the Book of Psalms.  
A Commentary on the Revelation.  
A Treatise of the Contempt of the World.  
Four Books of the Speech of the Doctors.  
A Book of Lessons.  
Divers Sermons.     

SUGAR, Abbot of St. Denis. Genuine Works.  
The Life of Lewes the Gross.  
Several Letters.   

GILLEBERT DE LA PORREE, Bishop of Poitiers.  
A Genuine Work.   

HUGO METELLUS, A Regular Canon of St. Leon at Toul. Genuine Works.  
A Letter concerning the Eucharist, published by F. Mabillon.  
Two other Letters among those of St. Bernard.  
And many other Manuscripts in the Library of the College of Clermont.   

THOMAS, Abbot of Maurigny. A Genuine Work still extant.  
A Letter to St. Bernard.   

BERNARD, a Monk of Clunie. Genuine Works.  
Three Books in Verse of the Contempt of the World.   

ULGERUS, Bishop of Angers. Genuine Works.  
A Letter to Pope Innocent TWO, in favour of the Abbey of St. Marry de Roe.  
A 〈…〉 Ren●es▪   

ANTONIUS ME●●●SSUS 〈…〉 〈…〉  
A Collection of 〈…〉 Maxims taken out of the 〈…〉 of the Father's   

HERMAN, Abb●● of St. 〈◊〉 at Tournay.  


Genui●… W●…ks.  
A Relation of 〈…〉 of the Church of 〈…〉  
Three 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 of St. Mary at Laon.    


〈…〉  
A Treatise of t●… of Jesus Christ.     

〈…〉 THIMO, and 〈…〉 A Gen●… Work ●…ll extant.  
The Life of St. Oho, the Abostle of 〈…〉   

ARCHARDUS, a Monk of ●…aux A 〈…〉 Work.  
The Life of St. 〈◊〉.   

H●… of Troy's. A 〈…〉 W●….  
The Charter of ●onatio● to the Abbey of Clair▪ ●●ux.   

EUGENIUS. III. Pope. Genuine Works.  
Seventy Six Letters.  
A Privilege in favour of 〈◊〉 Bishops of the Pro●… of Bour●es.  
T●… to St. Bernard, when resided in the 〈…〉 St Anastasius.   

ANASTASIUS IU. Pope. Genuine ●…ks.  
Twelve Letters.   

OTHO, Bishop of Frisinghen. Genuine Works.  
A Chronological History, divided into Eight Books.  
Two Books of the Acts▪ etc. of Frederick Barb●rossa.   

POTHO, a Monk of ●…. Genuine Works 〈…〉  
Five Books of the State of the House of God.  
A Treatise of the Grand ●…ce of Wisdom.   

SERLO 〈…〉 Savigny. A Manuscript Works.  
A Treatise of the Lord's Prayer.   

HUGH, a Monk of Clunie. Genuine Works.  
A Letter concerning the Virtues of Hugh, Abbot of Clunie.  
The Life of the same Abbot.   

〈…〉 or Taranto. ●…s.  
Twenty Five Letters.   

HUGH, 〈…〉 Rouen. ●….  
Three 〈…〉 to his Clergy concerning the 〈…〉 time.  
Two ●….   

NICOLAS, a Monk of Clairvaux, and 〈…〉 Genuine Works.  
Divers Sermons.  
Four 〈…〉   

SIM●… of 〈◊〉 G●… W●….  
The History of Eng●… copied out of T●… and continued to the Year 1154.  
The 〈…〉 Denmark.  
A Letter to Hugh, Dean of York.  
A Relation of the Siege of Durham.   

BARTH●●OMEW of Foigny, Bishop of Laon A Genuine Work  
An Apologetical Letter.   

GAUTERIUS, of Mauritania, Bishop of Laon Genuine Works.  
Five Letters.   

WOLBERO, Abbot of St. Pantaleon at Colen. A Genuine Work.  
A Commentary on the Book of Canticles.   

LUKE, Abbot of St. Cornelius. A Genuine Work.  
A Commentary on the Song of Solomon.   

GRATIAN, a Monk of St. Felix at Bologna A Genuine Work still extant.  
The Concord of disagreeing Canons, or the Book of ●…, commonly called, The Decretal.   

PETER LOMBARD Bishop of Paris. Genuine Works.  
A Book of Sentences.  
Commentaries on the Book of Psalms, and on the Epistler of St. Paul.   

FALCO, 〈…〉 of Beneventum. A Genuine Work.  
A Chronicle to the Year 1140.   

HENRY, Archdeacon of Huntingdon.  


Genuine Works.  
The History of England to the Year 1154.  
A Treatise of Contempt of the World.    


Manuscript Works.  
A Letter concerning the British Kings.  
A Tract about the Province of Britain.  
The Lives of the Saints of England.     

Two nameless AUTHORS the Epitomizers of Foucher. Genuine Works still extant.  
Two Abstracts of Foucher's History, viz. the first to the Year 1106. and the second from A. D. 1110. to 1124.   

HUGH, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter concerning the Death of Pope Eugenius III.   

CONSTANTINUS MANASSES. A Genuine Work.  
A Compendious History from the Creation of the World to the Reign of Alexis Comnenus.   

CONSTANTINUS HARMENOPULUS. a Judge of Thessalonica. Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of the several Sects of Heretics.  
A Confession of Faith.  
A Dictionary.   

JOHN Patriarch of Antioch. A Genuine Work.  
A Treatise against the Custom of giving Monasteries to Lay-Men.   

GERMANUS, Patriarch of Constantinople. Genuine Works still extant.  
Two Homilies.   

ARSENIUS a Monk of Mount-Athos. A Genuine Work.  
A Collection of Canons.   

ANDRONICUS CAMATERUS. Manuscript Works.  
A Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost.  
A Conference between the Emperor Manuel and the Patriarch of the Armenians.  
A Treatise of the two Natures in Jesus Christ.   

GEORGE, Archbishop of Corfu.  


A Genuine Work.  
Monodia in honour of the Abbot Nectarius.    


Manuscript Works,  
A Treatise of Purgatory.  
A Treatise of the use of leavened Bread.     

LUCAS CHRYSOBERGIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople. Genuine Works.  
Thirteen Statutes relating to Discipline.   

ROBERT, Archdeacon of Ostrevant. A Genuine Work still extant.  
The Life of St. Aibert.   

A nameless AUTHOR. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of St. Ludger.   

THEOBALDUS, a Monk of St. Peter at Beze. A Genuine Work.  
The Acts and Miracles of St. Prudentius.   

GAUTERIUS, a Canon of Terovanne. A Genuine Work.  
The Life and Martyrdom of Charles the Good, Count of Flanders.   

HERBERT, a Monk. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter against the Heretics of Perigueux.   

HAIMO, Archdeacon of Châlons. Genuine Works.  
Two Letters.   

HERMAN a Converted Jew of Colen. A Genuine Work still extant.  
An Account of his Conversion.   

NICETAS, of Constantinople. A Genuine Work.  
An Apologetical Treatise for the Council of Chalcedon against the Armenians.   

BASIL of Acris, Archbishop of Thessalonica. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to Pope Adrian.   

TEULPHUS, a Monk of Maurigny. A Genuine Work.  
A Chronicle of Hildersheim.   

JOHN, a Monk of Marmoutier. A Genuine Work.  
The History of the Acts of Geffrey Plantagenet.   

ALEXANDER, an Abbot in Sicily. Genuine Works.  
Four Books of the History of the Life and Actions of Roger King of Sicily.   

ADRIAN IV, Pope. Genuine Works.  
Forty seven Letters and a Privilege.   

ALEXANDER III. Pope. Genuine Works still extant.  
A Hundred and Fifty Letters, and several Collections.   

LUCIUS' III. Pope. Genuine Works.  
Three Letters.   

URBAN III. Pope. Genuine Works.  
Five Letters.   

GREGORY VIII. Pope. Genuine Works.  
Three Letters.   

RADULPHUS NIGER, a Monk of St. Germer. Genuine Works.  
Twenty Books of Commentaries on the Book of Leviticus.   

S. ELIZABETH, Abbess of Schonaw. Genuine Works,  
Three Books of Visions and Revelations.  
A Book of Letters.   

S. AELRED, or ETHELRED, Abbot of Reverby. Genuine Works still extant.  
Thirty Sermons on the 13th Chapter of the Prophecy of Isaiah.  
The Mirror of Charity.  
A Treatise of Spiritual Amity.  
Twenty Six Sermons.  
A Fragment of the History of England.  
The Life of St. Edward.   

ODO of Devil. Abbot of St. Cornelius. A Genuine Work.  
A Relation of the Expedion of Lewes XII. King of France, to the Levant.   

THOMAS BECKET, Archbishop of Canterbury. Genuine Works.  
Six Books of Letters written by him, and by others to him.   

GILBERT, Abbot of Hoiland. Genuine Works.  
A continnation of the Commentary of St. Bernard on the Book of Canticles.  
Seven Ascetic Treatises.  
Four Letters.   

RICHARD of St. Victor. Genuine Works.  
A Collection of Questions on the Holy Scriptures, divided into ten Books, attibuted to Hugh of St. Victor.  
Critical▪ Tracts concerning the Tabernacle, and the Temple. and the Chronology of the Books of Kings and Chronicles.  
An Explication of Ezekiel's Description of the Temple.  
Allegorical Commentaries on the Books of Psalms and Canticles.  
Questions on the Epistles of St. Paul.  
A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John.  
Dogmatical Tracts concerning the Trinity; the Attributes appopriated to the Divine Persons; the Incarnation of Immanuel; the Power of Binding and Losing; the Sin against the Holy Ghost; the Difficuties that occur in Holy Scripture; the Holy Ghost; and the difference between Mortal and Venial sins.  
Several Treatises of a Spiritual Life.   

PETER DE ROY, a Monk of Clairvaux. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to the Provost of the Church of Noyon.   

ENERVINUS, Provost of Stemfeld. A Genuine Work.  
A Treatise against the Heretics of Colen.   

ECBERT, Abbot of St. Florin. Genuine Works still extant.  
XIII. Discourses against the Heretics called Cathari.  
The Life of St. Elizabeth, Abbess of Schona●, his Sister.  
Two Sermons.   

BONACURSIUS of Milan. A Genuine Work.  
A Treatise against the Cathari, and other Heretics of his Time.   

EBRARD, of Bethune. A Genuine Work.  
A Treatise against the Manichees of his Time.   

MICHAEL of Thessalonica, Defender of the Church of Constantinople. A Genuine Work.  
A Confession of Faith.   

ODO, a Regular Canon of St. Augustin. Genuine Works.  
Seven Letters concerning the Functions and Duties of Regular Canons.   

HUGH of Poitiers, a Monk of Vezelay. A Genuine Work.  
A Chronicle of the Abbey of Vezelay.   

ADELBERT, or ALBERT, Abbot of Hildesheim. A Genuine Work still extant.  
An Account of the Restitution of his Monastery to the Benedictins.   

JOHN of Hexam, Provost of Hagulstadt. A Genuine Work.  
A continuation of Simeon of Durham's History of the Kings of Denmark, to the Year 1154.   

FASTERDUS, Abbot of Clairvaux. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to an Abbot of his Order.   

HUGH, a Monk of St. Saviour at Lodeve▪ A Genuine Work.  
The Life of Pontius Larazus.   

LAURENTIUS, a Monk of Liege. A Genuine Work.  
A Chronicle of the Bishops of Verdun.   

S. HILDEGARDA, Abbess of Mount St. Rober● Genuine Works still extant.  
Spiritual Letters.  
Visions.  
Answers to several Questions concerning the Ho●● Scriptures.  
An Explication of St. Benedict's Rule, and of St. Athanasius' Creed.   

PHILIP DE HARUNG, Abbot of Bonne-Esperance. Genuine Works.  
Twenty One Letters.  
A Commentary on the Book of Canticles.  
Moral Discourses on the same Book.  
A Discourse concerning Nebuchadnezzar's Dream; the Fall of Adam, and the Damnation of Solomon.  
Six Treatises of Dignity, Knowledge, Justice, Continency, Obedience, and the Silence of Clergymen.  
The Lives of St. Augustin and St. Amand.  
The History of the Passion of St. Cyricius, and St Julitta.  
The Passion of St. Salvius.  
The Lives of St. Foillanus, St. Gis●enius, St. Landelinus, St. Ida, and St. Valtruda.  
The Passion of St. Agnes in Elegiac Verse.  
Divers Poetical Pieces.  
Several Epitaphs.   

ADAMUS SCOTUS, a Regular Canon. Genuine Works still extant.  
A Commentary on St. Augustin's Rule.  
A Treatise of the Triple Tabernacle of Moses.  
A Tract of the three kinds of Contemplation.  
Forty Seven Sermons.   

GEFFREY ARTHUR, Bishop of St. Asaph. A Genuine Work.  
The History of Great Britain.   

ALANUS, Bishop of Auxerre. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of St. Bernard.   

JOHN of Salisbury, Bishop of Chartres.  


Genuine Works.  
A Treatise called Polycraticon, or of the Fopperies of the Courtiers.  
Three Hundred and One Letters.  
The Life of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury.    


A Doubtful Work.  
A Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul.     

ARNULPHUS, or ARNOLDUS, Bishop of Lisieux. Genuine Works still extant.  
Divers Letters.  
Several Poems.  
A Discourse against Peter of Leon, Antipope.  
A Sermon on the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary.   

PETER of Cells, Bishop of Chartres. Genuine Works.  
Several Sermons.  
Thrce Books of the Loaves, etc.  
A Mystical and Moral Exposition of the Tabernacle.  
A Treatise of Conscience.  
A Treatise of the Discipline of the Cloister.  
Nine Books of Letters.   

NICOLAS, a Monk of St. Alban. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter on the Festival of the Conception of the Virgin Mary.   

GILBERT FOLIOT, Bishop of London. Genuine Works.  
A Commentary on the Book of Canticles.  
Seven Letters.   

MICHAEL ANCHIALUS, Patriarch of Constantinople.  


Genuine Works still extant.  
Certain Synodical Statutes.    


A Manuscript Work.  
A Conference with the Emperor Manuel.     

ROBERT of Melun, Bishop of Hereford. A Manuscript Work.  
A Body of Divinity.   

ALEXIS ARISTENES, Oeconomus, or Steward of the Church of Constantinople. A Genuine Work.  
Notes on a Collection of Canons.   

SIMEON LOGOTHETA,  


A Work lost.  
N●tes o● a Collection of Canons.    


A Manuscript Work.  
A Treatise of the Creation of the World.     

JOHN of Cornwall. Manuscript Works.  
A Discussion of Human Philosophy, and of Heresies.  
A Treatise of the Sacrament of the Altar, and of the Canon of the Mass.   

GEROCHUS, Provost of Reichersperg, and a nameless AUTHOR, Dean of the same Church. Manuscript Works.  
A Treatise of the Incarnation against Folmarius, Provost of Trieffenstein.   

PETER DE RIGA Canon of Rheims. A Manuscript Work.  
A Book called Aurora, containing the History of the Book of Kings and the Gospels in Verse.   

HENRY, Archbishop of Rheims. Genuine Works still extant.  
Two Letters in favour of Dreux, Chancellor of the Church of N●yon.   

GEFFREY, Abbot of Clairvaux, the Disciple of St. Bernard.  


Genuine Works.  
Declarations, or Discourses on the Words that passed between JESUS CHRIST and St. Peter.  
The Third Book of the Life of St. Bernard.  
A Panegyric on St. Bernard.  
A Description of Clairvaux.  
A Letter to Cardinal d'Albano, against Gillebert de la Porrée.  
Another Treatise against the same Author.  
A Letter to Josbert about the Lord's Prayer.  
A Letter to the Bishop of Constance.    


Works lost.  
A Treatise on the Book of Canticles.  
The Life of St. Peter of Tarentaise.  
Certain Sermons.     

WILLIAM, Archbishop of Tyre.  


A Genuine Work still extant.  
The History of the Crusade to the Year 1183.    


A Work lost.  
The History of the Eastern Emperors, from the Year 614. to 1184.     

RICHARD, Prior of Hagulstadt. Genuine Works.  
The History of Hagulstadt.  
The History of the Acts of King Stephen.  
The History of the War of Standardius.   

CLEMENT III. Pope. Genuine Works.  
Seven Letters.   

BALDWIN. Archbishop of Canterbury. Genuine Works still extant.  
Sixteen Treatises of Piety.  
A Treatise of the Recommendation of Faith.  
A Treatise of the Sacrament of the Altar.   

ERMENGARDUS. or ERMENGALDUS. A Genuine Work.  
A Treatise against the Manichees, and other Heretics of his Time.   

JOHN, the Hermit. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of St. Bernard.   

BERNARD, Abbot of Fontcaud. A Genuine Work.  
A Treatise against the Vaudois.   

JOANNES CINNAMUS, the Grammarian. A Genuine Work.  
The History of the Emperors John, and Manuel Comnenus.   

THEORIANUS. A Genuine Work.  
Conferences with the Armenians.   

HUGO ETHERIANUS. Genuine Works still extant.  
A Tract in Defence of the Latins against the Greeks.  
A Treatise of the State of the Soul.   

ROBERTUS PAULULUS, a Priest of Amiens. Genuine Works.  
The Books of the Offices of the Church.  
The Canon of the Mystical Offering.   

GERVASE, a Priest of Chichester. A Manuscript Work.  
A Commentary on the Prophecy of Malachy.   

ODO, Abbot of Bel. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to his Brother, a Novice in the Abbey of Igny.   

LABORANT, Cardinal. Manuscript Works.  
A Collection of Canons.  
A Treatise of Justice.  
Three Letters to Hugh, Archbishop of Palermo.   

GEFFREY, Prior of Vigeois. A Genuine Work.  
A Chronicle of the History of France.   

THIERRY, or THEODORICUS, a Monk. A Genuine Work still extant.  
The History of Norway.   

JOANNES BURGUNDUS, a Magistrate of Pisa. Genuine Works.  
A Translation of St. John Damascenus' Treatise of the Orthodox Faith, and of Nemesius' Eight Books of Philosophy.   

MAURICE of Sully, Bishop of Paris. Manuscript Works.  
Sermons for the Sundays of the Year.  
Instructions for Priests.   

CELESTIN III. Pope. Genuine Works.  
Seventeen Letters.   

PETRUS COMESTOR, Dean of St. Peter at Troy's. Genuine Works.  
A Scholastic History.  
Sermons, Printed under the Name of Peter of Blois.   

JOANNES PHOCAS, a Grecian Monk. A Genuine Work still extant.  
A Relation of a Voyage to the Holy Land.   

NEOPHYTUS, a Greek Monk. A Genuine Work.  
A Relation of the Calamities of the Island of Cyprus.   

A Nameless AUTHOR. A Genuine Work.  
The Expedition of the Danes to the Holy Land, A. D. 1185.   

DEMETRIUS' TORNICIUS. A Manuscript Work.  
A Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost.   

JOHN, Bishop of Lydda. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to Michael, Patriarch of Jerusalem.   

GAUTERIUS, a Regular Canon of St. Victor. A Work lost.  
A Treatise against the four Labyrinths of France.   

THIERRY, or THEODORICUS, Abbot. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of St. Elizabeth, Abbess of Schonaw.   

OGERUS, Abbot of Lucedia. Genuine Works still extant.  
Fifteen Sermons on the Lord's Supper.   

GODOFREDUS of Viterbo.  


A Genuine Work.  
An Universal Chronicle, called Pantheon.    


A Manuscript Work.  
A Geneology of all the Kings.     

ROBERT of Torigny, Abbot of Mount St. Michael.  


Genuine Works.  
A Supplement and Continuation of Sigebert's Chronicle.  
A Treatise of the Abbeys of Normandy.  
An Epistle and Preface to a Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul.    


Manuscript Works lost.  
A Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul.  
The History of the Monastery of Mount St. Michael.  
The History of Henry II. King of England.     

OTHO of St. Blaise. A Genuine Work.  
Acontinuation of the Chronicle of Otho of Frisinghen, to the Year 1190.   

JOHN BROMTON, Abbot of Jorval. Genuine Works still in our Possession.  
A Chronicle from the Year 588. to 1198.   

LUPUS PROTOSPATUS. A Manuscript Work.  
A Chronicle.   

ALULPHUS, a Monk of St. Martin at Tournay. A Manuscript Work.  
The Gregorian Decretals, the Preface of which was published by F. Mabillon.   

ISAAC, Abbot of L'Etoile. Genuine Works.  
Sermons.  
A Treatise of the Mind and Soul.  
A Letter concerning the Canon of the Mass.   

HENRY, Abbot of Clairvaux. Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of the City of God.  
Several Letters.   

PETER, Abbot of Clairvaux. Genuine Works.  
Divers Letters.   

GARNERIUS, Abbot of Clairvaux. Genuine Works still extant.  
Certain Sermons.   

GILBERT of Sempringham. Genuine Works.  
Two Books of Constitutions for his Order.   

NICOLAS, a Canon of Liege. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of St. Lambert.   

SIBRANDUS, Abbot of Mariegard in Friesland. A Genuine Work.  
The Life of St. Frederick, Founder of that Abbey.   

BERTRAND, Abbot of La Chaise-Dieu. A Genuine Work.  
The History of the Life and Miracles of Robert the first Founder of that Abbey.   

RADULPHUS TORTARIUS. A Genuine Work.  
A Book of the Miracles of St. Benedict.   

A nameless AUTHOR. A Genuine Work still extant.  
The History of Jerusalem from A. D. 1177. to 1190.   

CHRISTIAN, a Monk of Clairvaux. A Manuscript Work.  
A Collection of Sermons.   

GAUTERIUS of Chastillon.  


A Genuine Work.  
A Book called Alexandreis.    


Manuscript Works.  
Three Books of Dialogues against the Jews.     

THOMAS, a Monk of Cisteau. A Genuine Work.  
A Commentary on the Book of Canticles.   

GARNERIUS of St. Victor. A Genuine Work.  
The Gregorian Decretals.   

ROBERT of Flamesbury. A Manuscript Work.  
A Penitential.   

ODO of Chirton. Manuscript Works.  
A Summary of Penance.  
Several Homilies.   

JOHN a Carthusian Monk of Portes. Genuine Works still extant.  
Five Letters.   

STEPHEN DE CHAULMET, a Carthusian Monk of Portes. A Genuine Work.  
A Letter to certain Novices.   

WILLIAM LITTLE, a Regular Canon of Neutbrige, or Neuburg. A Genuine Work.  
The Hist of England from the Year 1066. to 1197.   

GERVASE, a Monk of Canterbury. Genuine Works.  
A Chronicle from the Year 1122 to A. D. 1199.  
The Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury.  
A Relation of the burning and rebuilding of the Cathedral-Church of Canterbury.  
A Representation of the Controversies between the Monks of Canterbury, and Baldwin their Archbishop.   

GONTHERIUS, a Monk of St. Amand. Genuine Works still extant.  
A Poem called Ligurinus.  
A Treatise of Fasting and giving Alms.  
The Life of St. Cyricius and St. Julitta.   

OLIVER of Colen. A Genuine Work still extant.  
A Relation of the taking of Damiata.   

RADULPHUS DE DICETO, Dean of St. Paul at London. A Genuine Work.  
A Chronicle to the Year 1198.   

GALFREDUS, or GAUTERIUS DE VINESAUF. A Genuine Work.  
The Itinerary of Richard, I. King of England.   

GEORGE XIPHYLIN, Patriarch of Constantinople. Genuine Works.  
Certain Ecclesiastical Constitutions.   

PETER of Poitiers, Chancellor of the Church of Paris.  


A Genuine Work still extant.  
A Book of Sentences.    


Works lost.  
A Commentary on the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.  
Another Commentary on the Book of Psalms.     

PETER of Blois, Archdeacon of Bath. Genuine Works.  
A Hundred and Eighty Three Letters.  
Sixty Five Sermons.  
Sixteen Tracts.   

SYLVESTER GIRALDUS, Bishop of St. David's Genuine Works.  
The Natural History of England.  
The Topography of Ireland.  
The History of the Conquest of Ireland by Henry II. King of England,  
The Itinerary of the Country of Wales,  
The Lives of the Saints and Letters.   

RICHARD, Abbot of Mount-Cassin. A Genuine Work.  
A Continuation of Peter the Library-Keeper's History of the Illustrious Men of Mount-Cassin.   

STEPHEN, Bishop of Tournay.  


Genuine Works still extant.  
CCLXXXVII Letters divided into Three Parts.    


Works lost.  
A Commentary on the Decretal of Gratian.  
Several Sermons.     

THEODORUS BALSAMON, Patriarch of Antioch. Genuine Works.  
Commentaries on the Canons, and the Nomocanon of Photius.  
A Collection of Ecclesiastical Constitutions.  
The Resolution of divers Canonical Questions.  
Answers to the Questions of Mark Patriarch of Alexandria.  
Two Letters.   

ELIAS of Coxie, Abbot of Dunes. Genuine Works.  
Two Discourses before the Chapter of Cisteaux.   

SAXON GRAMMATICUS, Provost of Roschild. A Genuine Work.  
A History of Denmark to the Year 1186.   

JOANNES CAMATERUS, Partriarch of Constantinople. A Genuine Work still extant.  
A Letter to Pope Innocent III.   

ZACHARIAS, Bishop of Chrysopolis. A Genuine Work.  
A Commentary on the Concordia of Ammonius.   

ROGER DE HOVEDEN, Professor of Oxford. A Genuine Work.  
A Continuation of Ven. Bede's History of England to A. D. 1202.   

JAMES DE VITRY, Cardinal. Genuine Works.  
The History of the Levant, divided into Three Books.  
Two Letters of the Taking of Damiata.    

A TABLE OF THE ACTS, LETTERS, and CANONS OF THE COUNCILS HELD IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY.  
Councils. Years. Acts. Letters. Petitions. and Canons A Council at Etampes, 1100 A Synodical Letter of this Council in Ives de Chartres. A Council held at Valence, 1100 Extracts of the Acts of this Council in the Historians of the time. A Council held at Poitiers, 1100 Extracts of the Acts in Ives de Chartres, and in the Historians of that time, and Sixteen Canons. A Council held at Anse, 1100 Extracts of the Acts in Hugh de Flavigny. A Council held at Rome, 1102 Extracts of the Acts in the Authors of that time. A Council held at Troy's, 1104 Extracts of the Acts in the Writers of that time. A Council held at Beaugency, 1104 Extracts of the Acts in Ives of Chartres. A Council held at Paris. 1105 The Acts of this Council in a Letter to to the Pope. An Assembly at Northausen 1105 Extracts of the Acts in the Authors of that time. A Council held at Mentz. 1105 The History of it in the Authors of that time. A Council held at Guastallo, 1106 Acts of this Council and three Regulations. A Council held at Mentz. 1107 The History of it in the Authors of that time. A Council at Troy's, 1107 Mention made of it in Ives of Chartres and other Authors. A Council in Ireland. 1110 Extracts of the Acts in the Writers of that time. An Assembly at Ratisbon, 1110 Mention made of this Assembly in the Contemporary Authors. A Council held at Jerusalem, 1111 Mention made of it in the Writers of that time. A Council held at Lateran. 1112 Acts, Letters and Testimonies of the Authors of that time. A Council held at Vienna. 1112 Acts, and a Letter of Guy Archbishop of Vienna. Beauvais, 1114 Fragments of Acts and Rules. A Council held at Rheims, 1115 An Extract of the Acts taken out of a Contemporary Author. A Council held at Châlons, 1115 Mention made of it in the Writers of that time. A Council held at Tornus, 1115 Mention made of this Council in the Letters of Pope Paschal II. A Council held at Colen, 1115 Mention made of it in the Authors of that time. A Council held at Lateran, 1116 Acts referred to by the Abbot of Ursperge. A Council held at Toulouse, 1119 Ten Canons. A Council held at Rheims, 1119 Acts and Five Canons. An Assembly at Tribruria. 1119 Mention made of it in the Authors of that time. A Council held at Soissons 1121 Mention made of it in Petrus Abaelardus, and other Authors. A Council held at Lateran, I. General, 1123 Acts and 22 Canons. A Council held at London, 1125 Seventeen Decrees. A Council held at Nantes, 1127 Acts of this Council in Hildebert of Mans. A Council held at London, 1127 Twelve Canons. A Council held at Troy's, 1128 Extracts of the Acts of this Council, with the Rule of the Knight's Templars, published therein. A Council held at Etampes, 1130 Mention made of it in the Authors of that time. A Council held at Jovare, 1130 The History of it in the Writers of that time with the Letters of the Bishops. A Council held at Rheims, 1131 Acts taken out of divers Authors, and 17 Canons. A Council held at Liege, 1131 Mention made of it in the Writers of that time. A Council held at Pisa, 1134 Mention made of it in the Contemporary Writers. A Council held at London, 1138 Acts and 17 Canons A Council held at Lateran Gen. II.  Thirty Canons. A Council held at Sens, 1140 The History of it in the Writers of that time, with a Letter of the Bishops to Pope Innocent. A Council held at Chartres, 1146 Mention made of it in the Contemporary Authors. A Council held at Etampes, 1147 Mention made of it in the Authors of that time. A Council held at Paris, 1147 An Extract of the Acts in the Authors of that time. A Council held at Rheims, 1148 Extracts of the Acts in the Writers of that time. The Recantation of Gillebert de la Porrée, 18 Canons. A Council held at Trier, 1148 Mention made of it in the Letters of Pope Eugenius III. and in Trithemius. A Council held at Pavia, 1160 Acts. Letters of the Emperor Frederick and the Bishops. A Council held at Oxford, 1160 Acts referred to by William of Newbury. An Assembly at Newmarket. 1161 Mention made of it in Robert's Addition to Sigebert's Chronicle. An Assembly at Beauvais, 1161 Mention made of it in Robert of Torigny, and Arnold of Lisieux. A Council at Toulouse, 1161 Acts related by the Authors of that time. An Assembly at Lody, 1161 An Extract of the Acts in the Authors who flourished at that time. An Assembly at Avignon, 1162 Mention made of it in the Contemporary Writers. A Council at Tours, 1163 Extracts of the Acts in the Writers of that time. A Sermon of Arnold, Bishop of Lisieux, and 10 Canons. An Assembly at Westminster, 1163 Mention made of it in the Authors of that time. A Council at Sens. 1163 A Complaint drawn up by Stephen of Tournay and a Letter to the King of France. An Assembly at Clarendon, 1164 Acts. An Assembly at Northampt. 1164 The History of it in the Authors of that time. An Assembly at Wurtzburg. 1166 Mention made of it in the Writers who lived at that time. An Assembly at guysor's, 1168 The History of it in the Contemporary Writers. A Council held at Avranches, 1172 Acts related by Roger de Heveden, containing the Absolution of Henry King of England. A Letter of Albericus the Pope's Legate, and 13 Canons. A Council held at Cassel in Ireland, 1172 Eight Canons. A Council held at London, 1175 Nineteen Canons. A Council held at Lombez, 1176 Acts. An Assembly at Venice, 1177 The History of it in the Authors of that time, particularly in the Letters of Pope Alexander III. and of the Emperor Frederick. A Council at Lateran, III. General. 1179 XXVII. Chapters. An Assembly at Geinlenhausen, 1136 Mention made of it in the Contemporary Authors. Councils held at York, 1195 Acts of it containing XII. Canons, Councils held at Montpellier, 1195 Acts which contain divers Rules. Councils held at Sens, 1198 Extracts of the Acts.   

A TABLE of the WORKS of the Ecclesiastical Writers of the Twelfth Century; disposed according to the Subjects they Treat of.  

Treatises against the Jews.  
ODO, Bishop of Cambray's Dialogue against a Jew.  
Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster's Conference with a certain Jew.  
Petrus Alphonsus, a Converted Jew's Dialogue.  
Guibert, Abbot of Nogent's Treatise against the Jews.  
Peter, Surnamed the Venerable of Cluny's Treatise on the same Subject.  
Herman, a Jew of Colen's Tract concerning his own Conversion.  
Peter of Blois' Treatise against the Jews.  
Euthymius Zygabenus' Panoplia, or Complete Armour of the Orthodox Faith.  
Rupert, Abbot of Duyts' Treatises concerning the Trinity, with some other Pieces by the same Author.  
Hugh of St. Victor's Treatise, called Eruditio Didascalica, or an Instructive Institution.  
— His Treatise of the Power and Will of God.  
— His Tracts concerning the Incarnation.  
— His Miscellanies of Theological Learning.  
— His Dialogue between Master and Scholar.  
— His Summary of the Sentences.  
— His Notes on the Hierarchy attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite.  
Petrus Abaelardus'. Introduction to the Science of Divinity.  
— His Apology.  
— His Explications of the Lord's Prayer, and of the Apostolical and Athanasian Creeds.  
— His Treatise against Heresies.  
St. Bernard's Letter to Hugh of St. Victor.  
William, Abbot of St. Thierry's Treatise against Abaelardus.  
— His Tract of the Natures of the Soul and Body.  
Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny's Treatise of the Divinity of Jesus Christ.  
Robert Pullus' Book of Sentences.  
Gauterius of Mauritania's Letters.  
Peter Lombard's Treatise of the Sentences.  
Constantine Harmenopulus' Confession of Faith.  
Richard of St. Victor's Dogmatical Works.  
Michael of Thessalonica's Confession of Faith.  
Geffrey, Abbot of Clairvauxes Treatise and Lerter against Gillebert de la Porrée.  
Peter of Poitiers' Book of of Sentences.   

Treatises concerning Original Sin, Grace and Predestination.  
Odo, Bishop of Cambray's three Books of Original Sin.  
Honorius of Autun's Treatise of Predestination and Free Will.  
St. Bernard's Treatise of Grace and Free Will.  
— His Letter to the Canons of Lions about the Festival of the Conception of the Virgin Mary; with those of Nicolas, a Monk, and of some other Authors on the same Subject.   

Treatises against the Heretics.  
Isaac an Armenian Bishop's Two Treatises against the Armenians.  
Nicolas' Treatise on the same Subject.  
Theorianus' Conference with the Armenians.  
St. Bernard's Letters against the Heretics of his time.  
Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny's Treatise against the Petrobusians.  
Hugh, Archbishop of Roan's Instructions and Letters.  
Herbert, a Monk's Treatise against the Heretics of Perigueux.  
Enervinus' Treatise against the Heretics of Colen.  
Ecbert's Tract against the Cathari.  
Bonacursius' Treatise against the same Heretics.  
Ebrard of Bethane's Book against the Manichees.  
Ermengard's Treatise against the Manichees of his time.  
Bernard, Abbot of Fontcaud's Treatise against the Vaudois.   

Treatises against the Greeks.  
B●uno of Segni's Treatise of the use of unleavened Bread.  
Pe●rus Chrysolanus' Tract, with Eustratius' Answer.  
Rupert, Abbot of St. Duyts' Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost.  
Anselm, Bishop of Havelberg's Conference with the Greeks.  
Basil of Acris, Archbishop of Thessalonica's Letter to Pope Adrian.  
Hugo Etherianus' Treatise against the Greeks.  
Joannes Camaterus' Letter to Pope Innocent III.   

Works Treating of the Sacraments.  
Geffrey, Abbot of Vendôme's Eighth and Ninth Tracts.  
Arnold, Abbot of Bonneval's Treatise of the principal Works of Jesus Christ, in which the Author likewise Treats of Baptism, the Eucharist, and Confirmation.  
Hugh, Archbishop of Roan's Treatises.   

Upon the Eucharist.  
Guibert, Abbot of Nogent's Treatise of the Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.  
Ernulphus or Arnulphus, Bishop of Rochester's Letter on the same Subject.  
Geffrey, Abbot of Vendôme's first Tract.  
William, Abbot of Sr. Thierry's Treatise of the Sacrament of the Altar.  
Hugo Metellus' Letter.  
Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury's Treatise of the Sacrament of the Altar.   

Books of Church-Discipline.  
Sigebert of Gemblours' Letters written in the Name of the Clergy of Liege and Cambray, against Pope Paschal II.  
Odo, Bishop of Cambray's Commentary on the Mass.  
Ives, Bishop of Chartres' Hundred and eighty nine Letters.  
— His Pannormia and Decretal.  
Pope Paschal II's Letters.  
Thibaud or Theobaldus, a Clerk of the Church of Etampes' Five Letters.  
Pope Gelasius II's Letters.  
Marbodus, Bishop of Rennes' Letters.  
Bruno, Bishop of Segni's Treatise of the Sacraments and Ceremonies of the Church.  
— His Treatise of the Corruption of the Age, and the invalidity of Simoniacal Ordinations.  
— His Two Letters.  
Pope Calixtus II's Thirty six Letters.  
Guibert, Abbot of Nogent's Treatise of the Relics of the Saints.  
Ernulphus or Arnulphus, Bishop of Rochester's Two Letters.  
Geffrey, Abbot of Vendôme's Letters.  
— His Treatise of I●vestitures and other Tracts▪ Pope Honorius II's Eleven Letters.  
Hildebert, Bishop of Mans' Letters.  
Stephen, Bishop o● Autun's Treatise of the Ceremonies of the Mass.  
Joannes Zonaras' Commentaries on the Canons, with his Letters.  
Honorius of Autun's Treatise of the Divine Offices.  
Rupert, Abbot of Duyts' Treatise on the sa●… Subject.  
Guigue's Letters.  
Drogo, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia's Treatise of the Divine Offices.  
Peter de Leon, Antipope, under the Name of Anacletus, his Letters.  
Stephen, Bishop of Paris' Letters, with those of Geffrey, Bishop of Chartres, and Henry, Archbishop of Sens.  
Rodulphus, Abbot of St. Trudo's Letter to Sibe●●, about the Offerings to be made upon admittance into Holy Orders.  
— An Extract of his Book against Simony.  
John, Patriarch of Antioch's Letter about the O●…ginal and Progress of the Monastick-Life.  
Gilbert, Bishop of Limerick's two Letters.  
Pope Innocènt II's Letters.  
— Celestin II's Letters.  
— Lucius II's Letters.  
Petrus Aba●lardus's Letters.  
Waselinus Momalius' Letter to G●usselin.  
The greatest part of St. Bernard's Letters.  
St. Bernard's five Books of Consideration.  
— Treatise of the Manners and Functions of Bishops.  
— His Treatise of Injunctions and Dispensations.  
Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny's Letters.  
Gillebert de la Porrée's Letters about the Consecration of the Eucharist without Wine.  
Hugo Metellus' Letters.  
Pope Eugenius iii Letters.  
— Anastasius IV's Letters.  
Bartholomew de Foigny's Apologetical Letter.  
Gratian's Decretal.  
Arsenius, a Mount of Mount-Athos's Collection of Canons.  
Lucas Chrysobergius' Thirteen Statutes.  
Pope Adrian IV's Letters.  
— Alexander iii Letters.  
— Lucius iii Letters.  
— Urban iii Letters.  
— Gregory viii Letters.  
Odo, a Regular Canon's Letters about the Duties of his Order.  
Arnulphus, Bishop of Lisieuxes Letters.  
— His Discourse against Peter of Leon.  
Michael Anchialius' Synodical Statutes.  
Alexis Aristenes and Simeon Logatheta, their Notes on the Canons.  
Pope Clement iii Letters.  
Robertus Paululus' Three Books of the Offices of the Church.  
— His Canon of the Mystical Offering.  
Maurice de Sully's Instruction for Priests.  
Pope Celestin iii Letters.  
Isaac, Abbot of L'Etoile's Letter about the Canon of the Mass.  
X●phylin, Patriarch of Constantinople's Ecclesiastical Ordinances.  
Peter of Blois' Letters.  
— His Tracts.  
Stephen of Tournay's Letters.  
Theodorus Balsamon's Commentaries on the Canons, and his other Works.   

Critical Works upon the Bible.  
Odo, Bishop of Cambray's Tract, explaining the Harmony of the Gospels.  
Petrus Abaelardus' Answers to Heloissus' Questions.  
Richard of St. Victor's Treatises of the Tabernacle, the Temple; the Chronology of the Books of Kings and Chronicles, with an Explication of the Temple described in Ezekiel.  
Philip of Harveng's Discourse on King Nebuchadnezzar's Dream; the Fall of Adam, and the Damnation of Solomon.  
Zachary, Bishop of Chrysopolis' Commentary on Ammonius' Concordia.   

Commentaries upon the Holy Scripture.  
Arnold, Abbot of Bonneval's Treatise on the Six Days Work.  
Bruno, Bishop of Segni's Commentaries on the Pentateuch; the Books of Job, Psalms, Cancles, the Revelation of St. John.  
— His Treatise on the Song of Zacharias,  
— His Treatise of the Burial of Jesus Christ.  
Radulphus Niger's Twenty Books of Commentaries on Leviticus.  
Guibert, Abbot of Nogent's Ten Books of Commentaries upon Genesis.  
— His Five Books on the Prophecies of Hosea and Amos, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah. Hugh of St. Victor's Literal Notes on the Pentateuch, the Books of Judges, Kings, and some Psalms.  
— His Explications on the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and of the Prophecies of Joel and Obadiah.  
Richard of St. Victor's Questions upon the whole Bible.  
— His Commentaries on the Books of Psalms, Canticles, St. Paul's Epistles, and the Apocalypse.  
St Bernard's Sermons on the Book of Canticles.  
Gilbert of Hoiland's Continuation of the Sermons upon the Canticles.  
William, Abbot of St. Thierry's Exposition of the Book of Canticles.  
Wolbero, Abbot of St. Pantaleon's Commentary on the same Book of Canticles.  
Luke, Abbot of St. Cornelius' Commentary on the Canticles.  
Philip of Harveng's Commentary on the same Book.  
Gilbert Foliot, Bishop of London's Commentary on the Book of Canticles.  
Thomas, a Monk of Chichester's Commentary on the same Book.  
Gervase, a Priest of Chichester's Commentary on the Prophecy of Malachy.  
Odo, a Monk of Asti's Commentary on the Book of Psalms.  
Euthymius Zygabenus' Commentaries on the Canticles and Gospels.  
Gauterius, Bishop of Maguelonne's Preface to Lietbert's Commentary on the Book of Psalms.  
Honorius of Autun's Questions on the Books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.  
— His Commentary on the Book of Canticles.  
Rupert, Abbot of Duyts' Commentaries upon the whole Bible, called a Treatise of the Trinity.  
— His Commentaries on the Twelve lesser Prophets, the Book of Canticles, the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John, and the Apocalypse.  
— His Treatise of the Victory of the Word of God, the Glorification of the Trinity, and the Procession of the Holy Ghost.  
Hervaeus, a Monk of Bourg de Dol's Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles.  
Abaelardus' Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.   

Works relating to General History.  
Sigebert of Gemblours' Continuation of St. Jerom's Chronicle.  
— His Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Writers.  
Florentius Bravo ' s Chronicle.  
Nicephorus Bryennius's Byzantine History.  
Joannes Zonaras' Church-History.  
Honorius of Autun's Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Writers.  
— His List of Heretics.  
— His Chronological Table of the Popes.  
Eckard, Abbot of Urangen's Chronicle.  
Hugh, a Monk of Fleury's Chronicle.  
Anselm, Abbot of Gemblours' Continuation of Sigebert's Chronicle.  
Ordericus Vitalis' Ecclesiastical History.  
Anna Comnena's Alexias, or History of the Reign of Alexis Comnenus her Father.  
Michael Glycas' Annals.  
Otho of Frisinghen's Chronological History.  
— His History of the Actions of the Emperor Frederick Barberossa.  
Falco's Chronicle.  
Constantinus Manasses ' s History.  
Constantinus Harmenopulus' Treatise of the Sects of the Heretics.  
Joannes Cinnamus' s History.  
Geffrey, Prior of Vigeois' Chronicle of the History of France.  
Thierry or Theodoricus' History of Norway.  
Petrus Comestor's Scholastical History.  
Godfrey of Viterbo's Universal Chronicles.  
Robert of Torigny's Continuation of Sigebert's Chronicle.  
Otho of St. Blasius' Continuation of Otho of Frisinghen's Chronicle.  
John Brompton' s Chronicle.  
Gervase, a Monk of Canterbury's Chronicle.  
Radulphus de Diceto ' s Chronicle.  
Histories of the Crusades, or of the Conquests obtained by the Christians in the Levant.  
Petrus Theutbodus ' s History.  
A Nameless Italian Author's History.  
Robert, a Monk of St. Remigius at Rheims' History.  
Raimond d'Agiles ' s History.  
Guibert, Abbot of Nogent' s History, called Gesta Dei per Francos.  
Baudry, Bishop of Dol's History.  
Albericus, a Canon of Aix's History.  
Foucher, a Monk of Chartres' History.  
Gautier or Gauterius the Chancellor's History.  
Histories by two Nameless Epitomizers of Foucher.  
A Relation of the Expedition of Lewes VII. King of France to the Levant.  
William, Archbishop of Tyre's History.  
Joannes Phocas' Relation of a Voyage to the Holy Land.  
Neophytus' Relation of the Calamities that befell the Island of Cyprus.  
A Nameless Author's Narrative of the Expedition of the Danes to the Holy Land.  
The History of Jerusalem by another Nameless Author.  
Oliver of Colen's Relation of the taking of Damiata.  
James de Vitry ' s History.   

Histories of England.  
Turgot's History of the Church of Durham.  
John Pyke's History of the Kings of England,  
Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford's Translation of Geffrey of Monmouth's History of England.  
Florentius Bravoes Genealogy of the Kings of England.  
William of Malmesbury's History of England, and of the Bishops of that Kingdom.  
Simeon of Durham's History of England, and some other Works by the same Author.  
Henry of Huntington's History of England.  
St. Aelred's Fragment of the History of England.  
John of Hexam's Continuation of Simeon of Durham's History of the Kings of Denmark.  
Geffrey Arthur' s History of Great Britain.  
William of Newbridge or Gulielmus Neebrigensis ' s History of England.  
Gervase, a Monk of Canterbury's Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, and other Relations concerning that Church.  
Geffrey de Vinesauf ' s Itinerary of King Richard.  
Sylvester Girald, Bishop of St. David's History of England, and his other Tracts.  
Roger de Hoveden' s Continuation of Venerable Bede ' s Ecclesiastical History.  
Saxon Grammaticus ' s History of Denmark.   

Particular Chronicles.  
Baudry, Bishop of Noyon's Chronicle of the Churches of Cambray and Arras.  
Leo of Marsi's Chronicle of Mount-Cassin.  
Hariulphus' Chronicle of St. Riquier.  
Hugh de Flavigny's Chronicle of Verdun.  
A Relation of the Contest between Herman Bishop of Augsburg and Egino of Abbot St. Ulric.  
Peter, Library-Keeper of Mount-Cassin's Treatise of the Illustrious Personages of that Abbey, and the Fourth Book of the Chronicle of the same Convent.  
Rodulphus' Chronicle of the Abbey of St Trudo.  
Turstin, Archbishop of York's Treatise of the Original of the Monastery of Rippon-Springs, with a Letter, by the same Author.  
Baudry, Bishop of Dol's Memoires touching the Monastery of Fecamp.  
Rainerius, a Monk of St. Laurence at Leige's Treatise of the famous Men of that Abbey.  
Herman's Account of the Restauration of the Church of St. Martin at Tournay.  
Teulphus' Chronicle of Hildesheim.  
John, a Monk of Marmoutier's History of the Acts of Geffrey Plantagenet,  
Alexander's History of the Life and Actions of Roger, King of Sicily.  
Hubert of Poitiers' Chronicle of the Abbey of Vezelay.  
Albert's Relation of the Restitution of the Monastery of Hildesheim to the Benedictin Monks.  
Laurence, a Monk of Liege's Chronicle of the Bishops of Verdun.  
Richard's History of Hagulstadt.  
Robert of Torigny's History of the Abbeys of Normandy.  
Richard, Abbot of Mount-Cassin's Continuation of Peter the Library-keeper's History of the Illustrious Personages of that Abbey.   

The Lives of the Saints and of other Persons.  
Domnizon's Life of the Princess Mathilda.  
Rainoldus of Semur's Life of Hugh, Abbot of Clunie; with two other Relations of the same Life by Hildebert, Bishop of Man's; and by Hugh, a Monk of Clunie.  
Sigebert of Gemblours' Lives of St. Sigebert, St. Guibert, and St. Maclou.  
Stephen, Abbot of St. James at Liege's Life of St. Modoaldus.  
Anscherus' History of the Life and Miracles of St. Angilbert.  
Theofroy or Theofredus' Life of St. Wilbrod.  
Hariulphus' Life of St. Arnulphus, with a Relation of the Miracles of St. Riquier and the Life of St. Maldegisilus.  
Bruno of Segni's Lives of Pope Leo IX. and of St. Peter of Anagnia.  
Guibert Abbot of Nogent's Life written by himself.  
— His Encomium on the Virgin Mary.  
Nicolas, a Monk of Soissons' Life of St. Godfrey.  
Aelnothus' History of the Life and Passion of Canutus, King of Dnmark.  
Thomas, a Monk of Ely's Account of the Life and Translation of St. Etheldrith.  
Guigue's Life of St. Hugh, Bishop of Grenoble.  
Geffrey, Surnamed the Gross' Life of St. Bernard, Abbot of Tiron.  
Rodulphus, Abbot of St. Trudo's Life of St. Lietbert.  
Ulric, Bishop of Constance's Lives of St. Gebehard and St. Conrade.  
Baudry, Bishop of Dol's Life of St. Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen, and of some others.  
Gualbert, a Monk of Machiennes' Two Books of the Miracles of St. Rictrude.  
Pandulphus of Pisa's Life of Pope Gelasius II.  
Fabricius Tuscus' Life of St. Adelm.  
William of Malmsbury's Life of the same Saint.  
Auctus' Lives of St. Gualbert and Bernard Hubert, with the History of the Translation of St. James' Head.  
Odo, Abbot of St. Remigius at Rheims' Relation of Miracle wrought by St. Thomas.  
St. Bernard's Life of St. Malachy.  
— The Life of St. Bernard, written by William Abbot of St. Thierry; by Arnold, Abbot] of Bonneval, by Geffrey, Abbot of Clairvaux, and by Alanus, Bishop of Auxerre, with other Relations of his Life and Miracles.  
William, Abbot of St. Thierry's History of the Actions of William of Conches.  
Peter the Venerable's Two Books of Miracles.  
Sugar, Abbot of St. Denis' Life of Lewes the Gross, King of France.  
Herman, Abbot of St. Martin at Tournay's Three Books of the Miracles of St. Mary at Laon.  
The Life of St. Otho, the Apostle of Pomerania, by divers Authors.  
Archard's Life of St. Geselin.  
Hugh, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia's Letter about the Death of Pope Eugenius III.  
Robert, Archdeacon of Ostrevant's Life of St. A●bert.  
The Life of St. Ludger, by a Nameless author.  
Thibaud or Theobald, a Monk of St. Peter at Beze's Relation of the Acts and Miracles of St, Prudentius.  
Gautier or Gauterius, a Canon of Terouanes' History of the Life and Martyrdom of Charles, Surnamed the Good.  
St. Aelred's Life of St. Edward.  
The Life of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, by divers Authors, with the Letters of the same Prelate.  
Ecbert and Theodoric's Relations of the Life of St. Elizabeth, Abbess of Schonaw.  
Hugh, a Monk of St. Saviour's Life of Pontius Larazius.  
Philip of Harveng's Lives of divers Saints.  
Nicolas, a Canon of Liege's Life of St. Lambert. Sibrand's Life of St. Frederick.  
Bertrand's History of the Miracles of Robert, Abbot of La Chaise-Dieu.  
Radulphus Tortarius' Book of the Miracles of St. Benedict.  
Gonthier or Gontherius' Life of St. Cyricius and St. Julitia.   

Works of Morality and Piety.  
Philip, Surnamed the Solitary's Dioptron or the Rule of a Christian Life.  
Bruno of Segni's Moral Discourses attributed to St. Bruno.  
Guibert, Abbot of Nogent's Treatise of Virginity. Geffrey, Abbot of Vendôme's Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Tracts.  
Honorius of Autun's Treatise of the Philosophy of the World.  
St. Norbert's Discourse.  
Guigue's Meditations, with a Treatise of the Comtemplative Life, or the Ladder of the Cloister.  
Franco, Abbot of Afflighem's Treatise of the Mercy of God, and his Letter to certain Nuns.  
Eckard, Abbot of Urangen's Letters and Discourses.  
Hugh, a Monk of Fleury's Two Books of the Royal Power and the Sacerdotal Dignity.  
Hugh de Foliet, a Monk of Corbie's Works.  
Hugh of St. Victor's Soliloquy of the Soul.  
— His Encomium of Charity.  
— His Discourse on the manner of Praying.  
— His Discourse of the Love of the Bridegroom and the Spouse.  
— His Four Books of the Vanity of the World.  
St. Bernard's several Letters.  
— His Treatise of Consideration.  
— His Tract of the Manners and Functions of Bishops.  
— His Treatise of Conversion.  
— His Treatise of Injunctions and Dispensations.  
— The Commendation of the New Militia.  
— His Treatise of the Degrees of Humility.  
— His Treatise of the Love of God.  
William, Abbot of St. Thierry's Letter to the Carthusian Monks of Mont-Dieu.  
— His Treatise of the Contemplation of God.  
— His Tract of the Dignity of Love.  
— His Mirror of Faith.  
— His Mystery of Faith.  
— His Meditations.  
Arnold, Abbot of Bonneval's Treatise of the Words of Jesus Christ upon the Cross.  
— His Treatise of the Principal Works of Jesus Christ.  
— His Treatise of the Six Days Work.  
— His Meditations.  
Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Clunies Letters.  
Antonius Melissus, a Greek Monk's Collection of the Maxims of the Fathers.  
Potho, a Monk of Prom's Five Books of the House of God, and a Treatise of Wisdom.  
Sérlo's Treatise of the Lord's Prayer.  
Nicolas, a Monk of Clairvauxes Letters.  
Henry of Huntington's Treatise of the Contempt of the World.  
St. Elizabeth, Abbess of Schenaw's Visions and Letters.  
St. Aelred's Mirror of Charity.  
— His Treatise of Spiritual Amity.  
Gilbert of Hoiland's Ascetic Treatises and Letters.  
Richard of St. Victor's Treatises of Piety.  
St. Hildegarda's Letters, Visions, and Answers to certain Questions.  
Philip of Harveng's Moral Discourses on the Book of Canticles.  
— His Letters.  
— His Treatises on the Virtues and Endowments of Clergymen.  
Adamus Scotus' Treatises about Moses' Triple Tabernacle, and the Three kinds of Contemplation.  
John of Salisbury's Polycraticon; with a Letter by the same Author.  
Peter of Celles' Letters and other Works,  
Geffrey, Abbot of Clairvauxes Letters.  
Baldwin, Archbishop Canterbury's Sixteen Treatises of Piety, and a Tract of the Recommendation of Faith.  
Isaac, Abbot of L'Etoile's Treatise of the Mind and the Soul.  
Henry, Abbot of Clairvauxes Treatise of the City of God in Exile.  
Peter, Abbot of Clairvauxes Letters.  
Garnier of St. Victor's Treatise, called The Gregorian.  
John, a Carthusian Monk of Portes' Letters.  
Stephen de Chaulmet, a Carthusian Friar of the same Monasteries Letters.  
Gonthier or Gontherius' Treatise of Fasting and almsgiving.   

Sermons.  
Guibert, Abbot of Nogent's Treatise of Preaching.  
Odo, Bishop of Cambray's Discourse concerning the the Sin against the Holy Ghost, and the Parable of the Unjust Steward.  
Radulphus Ardens' Sermons.  
Bruno of Segni's CXLV. Sermons.  
Guibert, Abbot of Nogent's Sermon on the last Verse of the 7th Chapter of the Book of Wisdom.  
Geffrey, Abbot of Vendôme's Eleven Sermons.  
Hildebert, Bishop of Mans' Two Sermons, with his Synodical Discourse.  
Drogo, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia's Discourse,  
Hugh of St. Victor's Hundred Sermons.  
Petrus Abaelardus' Sermons.  
Amedeus of Lausanna's Eight Sermons in Commendation of the Virgin Mary.  
St. Bernard's Sermons on the Sundays, Festivals, and other days of the Year, and on divers other Subjects.  
Arnold, Abbot of Bonneval's Discourse in Commendation of the Virgin Mary.  
Petrus, Surnamed the Venerable, his Sermon on our Saviour's Tranfiguration,  
Guerric, Abbot of Igny's Sermons.  
Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople's Sermons.  
St. Aelred's Sermons.  
Adamuus Scotus' XLVII. Sermons.  
Ecbert's Two Sermons.  
Arnulphus, Bishop of Lisieuxes Sermons on the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary.  
Peter of Celles' Sermons.  
Geffrey, Abbot of Clairvauxes Discourse on St. Peter's Words.  
Maurice de Sully, Bishop of Paris' Sermons.  
Petrus Comestor's Sermons.  
Oger, Abbot of Lucedia's Sermons.  
Isaac, Abbot of Etoile's Sermons.  
Bernard, Abbot of Clairvauxes Sermons.  
Peter of Blois' LXV. Sermons.   

Works about the Monastic Life.  
St. Bruno's Two Letters.  
Geffrey, Abbot of Vendôme's Eleventh Tract.  
Stephen Harding's Charter of Charity; or Constitutions of the Order of Lisieux.  
— His Treatise called, The small beginning of the Cisterian Order, and Two other Tracts.  
Guigue's Statutes of the Carthusian Order.  
Franco's Letter against the Apostate-Monks.  
St. Bernard's Apology to William, Abbot of St. Thierry.  
— His Treatise of Injunctions and Dispensations.  
— Several Letters.  
Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny's Letters.  
— His Collection of the Statutes of the same Order.  
Peter de Roy, a Monk of Clairvauxes Letter.  
Fastredus, Abbot of Clairvauxes Letter.  
St. Hildegarda's Explication of St. Benedict's Rule.  
Adamus Scotus' Commentary on St. Augustin's Rule.  
Odo, Abbot of Bel's Letter.  
Gilbert of Semprimgham's Constitutions.  
Elie of Coxie's Discourse.   

Poetical Works.  
Marbodus, Bishop of Rennes' Poems.  
Geffrey of Vendôme's Four Hymns.  
Hildebert, Bishop of Mans' Two Proses or Hym●● on the Nativity of Jesus Christ, and a Paraphrase in Verse of the Canon of the Mass.  
Peter the Venerable's Poetical Pieces.  
Bernard, a Monk of Cluny's Three Books in Rhyming Verse, of the Contempt of the World.  
George of Corsu's Monodia, or Poem in favour of the Abbot Nectarius.  
Philip of Harvong's Poems.  
Arnulphus, Bishop of Lisieuxes Poetical Pieces.  
Gonthier, a Monk of St. Amand's Poem called Ligurinus.    

A GENERAL INDEX OF THE Principal Matters Contained in this VOLUME.  

A.  
ABbesses, their Habits ought to be plain, 213. Abbot's: that 'tis not so much the Benediction of a Bishop, as the Election of the Monks that makes an Abbot, p. 9 Bishop's forbidden to exact any thing for the Blessing of Abbots, p. 2. 1. Pontifical Habits usurped by 'em, 218. A Privilege granted by the Pope to the Abbot of Clunie to have a Cross and Mitre, p. 36. This Custom disapproved, p. 163. Ornaments which they cannot wear in Officiating, without 〈◊〉 ●…cense first obtained of the Pope, 210.  
Absolution denied to Criminals condemned to Death, 218.  
Abstinence, how to be observed on Fridays and Saturdays, 231.  
Benedictin Monks enjoined to forbear eating Meat; in like manner those of Clunie, 85.  
Academies, their beginning, 97.  
Accidents; Questions, about the Nature of the Accidents that remain in the Eucharist after Consecration, 111.  
Adela Countess of Chartres; the Remonstrance made to her by Ives Bishop of the same Diocese, 21. The Controversies between that Countess and the Bishop and Clergy of Chartres, 12. 13.  
Adelecia, Lady of the Manor of P●iset; her Agreement with ●ves Bishop of Chartres, concerning the Extorsions imposed upon the Church of Chartres by the Inhabitants of Puiset, 7. The continuation of those Oppressions followed with Excommunications, 9 18.  
Adultery, punished with Excommunication, 3. A case in which it does not disannul Marriage, 13. Whether an Adulteress ought of necessity to be Divorced from her Husband, 18. That a Woman suspected of Adultery without any proof, ought not to clear herself, by the Trial of Fire-Ordeal, but by Oath, 20. 21. That they who have been accomplices in an Adulterous Fact, or are guilty of it, are uncapable of giving evidence against the Adultress, 19 20. Ill grounded Suspicions concerning Adultery, 18.  
Albert of Atella Antipope, taken Prisoner and confined, 23.  
Almsgiving; a Bishop commended for giving his Goods to the Poor in his Life-time, 47. 57  
The difference between Alms given in one's Life-time and Legacies, 47.  
Altar, that the Consecrated Stone of an Altar loses its Consecration by being removed out of its place, 9 But that the same thing does not happen to portable Altars, ibid. Altars provided under the Title of Personals. 3.  
Anchorites, the Opinion of Ives Bishop of Chartres concerning them. 17.  
Angels, a Treatise of Angels composed by the Master of the Sentences. 196.  
Annunciation, of the Virgin Mary; a Dispute concerning the Day of that Festival, 185. 186.  
Antichrist, the Opinion that he was to come in the XII. Century, 49.  
Apparitions, whether they be real, 143.  
Appeals, of Appeals in Judgements, 18. The abuses of Appeals to the See of Rome, 55. A Rule for such Appeals, 208. Letters of Appeal, called Apostoli, 152.  
Archdeaconries, to be conferred only upon Deacons, 33. 206. 207. 212.  
Archpriests, aught to be Priests, 33  
Armenians; their Errors and Practices confuted, 185. 186.  
Arnold of Brescia; his History, Opinions, and Condemnation, 8. 9 His Condemnation by the Pope, 40. 41. 57  
Arras; the Division of this Church, and of that of Cambray, 34. 35, etc.  
Asylum, the Right of the Asyla preserved to the Churches. 206.  
Actributes; of the Divine Attributes, 103, etc. Other Questions about the distinction between the Attributes of the Divine Essence, and of the Persons, 113. Questions about the Divine Attributes discussed by the Master of the Sentences, 194. of the Omnipresence of God, 173.  
Author's Profane, whether recourse may be had to them in discoursing of matters of Religion, 107. 158.   

B.  
BAptism; the necessity of it for Salvation, 141. The effects of Baptism, 135. Ceremonies used in the Administration of it in the XII. Century, 213. 217. Of the number of Sureties, 216. A Question about Baptism discussed, 76. A Question about its Validity when administered under an extraordinary Form, 66. The Errors of the Petrobusians and other Heretics of the XII. Century concerning Baptism, 86. 87. 169.  
Beauvais, that Church for a long time governed by ill Bishops, 10. An Exhortation by Ives Bishop of Chartres to choose a good one, 10. 11.  
Bec-Abbey; an Agreement between the Monks of that Abbey and those of Molesme, made by Ives Bishop of Chartres. 5.  
Benediction, See Blessing.  
Benefices; how and on whom they ought to be conferred 6. 11. 207. 208. 209, etc. ought not to be received from the hands of Lay-Men, 206. 210. Ought not to be claimed by Right of Succession, 206. 212. A Collation of Benefices with a Cure of Souls, cannot be made without the consent of the Bishop, 33. A Prohibition to exact any thing for Presentations to Benefices, 215. The plurality of Benefices forbidden, 10. 61. 209. That two cannot be possessed without the Pope's Dispensation, 21. A prohibition to divide prebend's, 213. Whether an Archbishopric ought to be accepted, or refused, 46. prebend's united to a Monastery, 79.  
Besanson; a Contest between two Churches of that City about the Right of the Cathedral, 36. 37.  
Bishops, of their Election, 13. 53. 57 134. 136. 207. Conditions requisite to be promoted to a Bishopric, 207. That he who is chosen Bishop, loses his other Benefices, ibid. Of the Age requisite to be made a Bishop, ibid. Of the Right of Kings in the Elections of Bishops, 7. Of their Functions, Duties, Virtues and Vices, 70. 150. 159. 167. Of the Obedience due to 'em, 17. Of the Trial of Bishops, 4. That they cannot be cited to a Council without their Province, except by the See of Rome. 19 The Pretensions of a certain Legate concerning the Ordinations of the Bishops of France confuted by Ives Bishop of Chartres, 6, etc. The Life and Conversation of a Bishop, 168. Whether it be expedient that one should reside at Court, 159. 162. The irregular Conduct of some Bishops, 52. 55.  
Blessing, that that which Abbots receive at their Promotion, is only a simple Prayer, 90. Of that which Monks receive in the Entrance upon their Profession, 5. 94.  
Bonneval-Abbey; a Donation made to it by Ives Bishop of Chartres, 21.  
Bread, see unleavened Bread.  
Burial Christian; that it ought not to be denied those who die in the Communion of the Church, 11. Forbidden to Usurpers of Church-Revenues or Possessions, 18. A case in which 'tis denied a Monk, 6.   

C.  
CAmbray, the complaints of the Church of Cambray against the Pope, 34. The Division of this Church and that of Arras, ibid.  
Canon-Law; Gratian's Decretal received and taught publicly as soon as it was set forth, 204. Collections of false Decretals, 168.  
Canons, their Differences, 22.  
Canon's Regular; Observations upon their Institution, 218. Their Quality above that of Monks, 5, That they are impower'd to administer the Sacraments, and to peform the Functions of Curates, 8. 18. 210. That they who enjoyed Benefices, depended on the Abbot, and might be removed from their Parsonages at his pleasure, 167. The Conduct of a Regular Canon, who had left his Cure to return to his Abbey, disapproved, 50. Regular Canons received into Monasteries, 45, Cannot be readmitted among the Clergy, after having turned Monks, 6. A reproof given to a Canon, who had quitted the Regular Course of Life, 45. They who abandon their Profession to be deprived of the Communion of the Church, 212. Footsteps of the Regular Discipline in the Chapter of Rheims. 168.  
Cardinals; their Dignity, 217. Chosen out of all Nations, ibid.  
Carmelites, the Foundation of their Order, 218.  
Cases reserved to the Pope; the Absolution of such Persons as have assaulted a Clergyman, 213. 217.  
Catechumen, the Ceremony of making Children Catechumen at the Church-door, 214.  
Celibacy, ordained by the Canons to Clergy. Men, who have entered into Sacred Orders, and the Punishments inflicted upon Married Clerks, and those who keep Concubines, or cohabit with Women, 18. 24. 30. 34. 35. 36. 206. 208, etc. That a Married Man cannot lead a single life▪ but with the consent of his Wife, 20.  
Chalices, of what Matter they ought to be made, 216.  
Charity, the Duties and extent of that Virtue, 166.  
Chartres,▪ The Custom of that Church concerning certain Retributions, condemned by Ives Bishop of Chartres, 12. 13. And abolished, 21. They who were not capable of obtaining Benefices in that Church, 14. A Contest between the Church of Chartres, and the Abbey of Marmoutier for the Church of St. Nicolas at Courbeville, 21.  
Church; of the Unity and Liberty of the Church, 155. The Ordinances of Pope Paschal II. reformed in France, because they were not favourable to the Liberties of the Gallicane Church, 12. The Heretics of the XII. Century, had neither Church, Temple, nor Altars, 86, etc. 169, etc.  
Church of Arras, see Arras.  
Church of Beauvais, see Beau●ais.  
Church of Cambray, see Cambray.  
Church of Chartres, see Chartres.  
Church of Jerusalem, see Jerusalem.  
Church-Possessions; that Princes and Lay-Men ought not to have the dispoal of 'em, 33. See Revenues of the Church.  
Christmas, with what Solemnity that Festival ought to be celebrated, 186.  
Cisteaux, the Foundation of that Monastery, ●2. Other Monasteries of that Order, ibid. The State of the Cistercian Order in the XII. Century, 218.  
Clergymen; Authorities cited by Ives Bishop of Chartres, to advance the Dignity of Clerks above that of Monks, 5. Of the Law not to admit among the Clergy such Persons as are not born in lawful Wedlock, 168. What manner of Habits ought to be used by Clergy Men, 206, 215. Clerks forbidden to manage Secular Offices or Employments, 208. 209. To exercise Judicature, 214. To assist in the Judgement of Capital Cases, ibid. They are prohibited to engage in Milary Affairs, and to bear Arms, 212. The manner of clearing themselves when suspected of Crimes, 18. The Cognizance of their Causes forbidden to Lay-Men, 13. They cannot be Tried by Lay-Judges, but for Capital Crimes, 11. Proud and Dissolute Clerks, 32.  
A Prohibition to pillage their Goods after their Decease. 206.  
Clunie, the State of that Order in the XII. Century, 218. Controversies between the Order of Clunie and the Cistcrcian, 58. 82, etc. The irregular practices of the Order of Clunie, 82, etc.  
Commendations, see Praise  
Communion, ordained under both kinds apart, 35. Denied to Criminals condemned to Death, 218.  
Conception of the Virgin Mary; St. Bernard's Letter about the Festival of the Conception, 54. The Opinions of other Authors upon the same Subject, 157.  
Concubine; whether it be lawful for a Man to marry his Concubine? 3.  
Confession, the necessity of it, 134. That that of small sins may be made to all the Faithful, 17.  
Confirmation, the effects of it, 135.  
Coronation of Kings; the Pretensions of the Church of Rheims to the Right of Crowning the Kings of France, opposed by Ives Bishop of Chartres,  
Councils; General Councils, 33. 205. The Authority of the Popes in the later Councils. 217.  
Court of Rome; the Usurped Dominion and Exactions of it condemned, 59 68 160.  
Cross; the respect due to it, 186. The Dissenters from the Church of Rome in the XII. Century, rejected the Worship of the Cross, 86, etc. 16. 169, etc.  
Crusade; Indulgences and Privileges granted to those who were engaged in it, 33. 40. 123.  
Curates, their Functions prohibited to Monks, 210. Allowed to Regular Canons. 210.   

D.  
DIambert, Archbishop of Sens, when chosen, 7. The Exceptions made by Hugh, Archbishop of Lions against his Ordination opposed by Ives Bishop of Chartres, ibid. He is Ordained by the Pope, notwithstanding those Oppositions, 9  
Dead; Prayers for the Dead rejected by the Dissenters from the Church of Rome in the XII. Century, 86.  
Deaneries, aught to be given to none but Priests, 206.  
Dispensations, of their different kinds; 70, etc. That Diipensations given without Reason are insignificant, 45. 217. Rules for Dispensations, 70, etc.  
Divine Service, see Offices Divine.  
Divinity Scholastic, its Original and Progress, 191, etc. The first Professors of it, 192, etc. Peter Lombard, the Chief of those Professors, 192. An Epitome of his Theology. 192. That of Robertus Pullus. 199.  
Petrus Abaelardus' Introduction to Divinity, 106. The Method of the Scholastic Divines Censured, 200. 201. A Vindication of it, 106. Censures upon Abaelardus' Method, 173. The abuse of Scholastic Divinity, 168.  
Dominion, that of the Court of Rome condemned, 58. 68   

E.  
ECclesiastical Judicature, see Judicature.  
Ecclesiastical Persons, see Clergymen.  
Election, that of Popes reserved to the Cardinals, 217. A Decree for the Election of Popes, 207. How the Proceed ought to be carried on in the Election of a Bishop, 53. 57 The necessity of Election and Consecration to make a Bishop, 134. That the Election ought to be made by the Clergy, 11. 12. 136. That the Canons ought to summon Persons of known Piety to the Elections of Bishops, 207. That in the Election, the greater and more sound Party is to be followed, 209. By what Means the Popes become Masters of Elections, 217.  
Empire, that the Empire is not in the Pope's Gift, 116. 121.  
England, the Rights claimed by the King of England over the Clergy and Churches of his Dominions, 125, etc.  
Entrance into Holy Orders, a Prohibition to exact any thing upon that account, 218.  
Eon de l'Etoile, a ridiculous Heretic, 91.  
Eucharist, divers Questions about the Celebration of it, 146. 147. Questions about the nature of the Accidents that remain in the Eucharist after the Consecration, 112. That Consecrations performed by dissolute Ministers, are valid. 15●. The Real Presence proved, 134. 142. That Jesus Christ is altogether entire under every Host. ibid.  
The Eucharist administered under both kinds, 138. 147. A Prohibition to give it steep● in Wine, 138. Whether the Sop which our Saviour gave to Judas were his Body or not? 141. That the Eucharist ought to be reverently carried by Clergymen to sick Persons, 212. That 'tis not absolutely necessary for Salvation, 141. Forbidden to be kept longer than eight days, 212. Of the use of unleavened Bread in the Celebration of the Eucharist, according to the Custom of the Armenians, 186. The Errors of divers Heretics in the XII. Century about the Eucharist, 86. 169. St. Bernard presents the Eucharist to the Duke of Guienne to confound him, 38.  
Eudes Chief Justice of Normandy; the Advice given him by Ives Bishop of Chartres, concerning the manner of proceeding against a Bishop accused of Simony, 4.  
Eunuch, a Case in which one may be admitted into Holy Orders. 19  
Excommunication, the cause for which that Punishment may be inflicted, 34. Denounced for breaking the Peace, 21. That Kings ought not to be Excommunicated, 34. That one Bishop may Excommunicate the Persons of another's Diocese with the Pope's leave, 9 That a Person ought not to be Excommunicated before he be brought to his Trial, 15. That they who confess secret Sins cannot be Excommunicated, 17. Whether a Priest ought to abstain from outward Communion with a Criminal who has privately confessed to him a C●ime worthy of Excommunication, 15. A Prohibition to admit to the Eucharist Persons Excommunicated by their Bishop, 12. 206. Whether one be obliged to shun all sorts of Excommunicated Persons, 17. Relief that may be administered to Excommunicated Persons, ibid. Several Chapters of Canons that have a Right to denounce Excommunication, 12. The Privilege of Kings to cause Excommunicated Persons to be absolved, 8.  
Exemptions, the abuse of 'em, 69. 162. 218. Those of Monks forbidden, 34. 37. Exemptions maintained, 133.  
Extreme Unction, that it may be reiterated, 84.   

F.  
FAsts, how observed in the XII. Century, 218.  
A Rule for that of Ember-Weeks in the Month of June, 24. Fasting advised during the time of Advent, 214. An extraordinary Fast for the War maintained in the Holy Land, 123. The Fasts of the Armenians, 186.  
Festival of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary; a Dispute about the Day of that Festival, 185.  
Festival of Christmas, the Solemnity with which it ought to be Celebrated, 186.  
Festival of Candlemass, the time when to be kept, ibid.  
Fire-Ordeal, see Trial.  
Flambard, Bishop of Durham, his design upon the Bishopric of Lisieux, 14. 15.  
freewill, the Concord of freewill and Grace, 75. A Definition of freewill, 75. The Opinions of the Master of the Sentences concerning freewill and Grace, 195   

G.  
GAuterius or Walter, Abbot of St. Maur des Fossez, the Advice given him by Ives Bishop of Chartres concerning the Government of his Monastery, 4.  
St. Genevieve-Abbey, the Reformation made therein by Sugerus, 41.  
Geffrey, Bishop of Chartres, deposed, and Ives substituted in his room, 1. 2. Endeavours used for his Restauration, 2. 3.  
Geffrey, Abbot of Vendôme, reproved by Ives Bishop of Chartres, 18.  
Geffrey, Canon of Tours, the Contest between him and Gislebert the Nephew of the Archbishop of the same Diocese, 17.  
Gillebert de la Porrée, his Doctrine and Life, 113, etc. His Errors confuted by St. Bernard, 113. 114. And condemned in a Council held at Rheims, 113.  
God; of his Omnipresence, 173. Certain Questions about his Attributes discussed by the Master of the Sentences, 194. Whether God can do what he does not? 107. 194. 202. In what particulars his Immutability consists, 108. 109. Of the Duty and Manner of loving God, 74.  
Goods of the Church, see Revenues of the Church.  
Grace, the Concord between Grace and freewill, 75. The Opinions of the Master of the Sentences concerning Grace and freewill, 195. Abaelardus' Opinion about Grace, 111, 112.  
Grandmont, the Order of Grandmont, when, and by whom Instituted, 218.  
Gualon chosen Bishop of Beauvais, his Election opposed by some Persons, but maintained by Ives Bishop of Chartres, 11. 12. He is translated to the Episcopal See of Paris, 14. 15, And afterwards to that of Beauvais, 20.  
Guibert Antipope, the time of his Death, ●3. His dead Body dug up and thrown into the Common-shore, 25.  
Guy of Puise●, his Oppression of the Church of Chartre's followed with Excommunication, 18.   

H.  
HAbits, what sorts of 'em are requisite for Clergymen, 206. Those of Abbesses 213. The Blessing of Sacerdotal Habits reserved to the Bishops. 210.  
Hebrew; that the Study of the Hebrew Tongue is necessary for the understanding of the Holy Scriptures, 97  
Henry IV. Emperor, the Quarrels between him and Pope Paschal TWO, 24, etc. He is Excommunicated by that Pope in a Council, ibid. The Form of the Excommunication, ibid. A Proposal made by him to undertake an Expedition to the Holy Land, ibid. The cause of his Son's Rebellion, ibid. He is dethroned and cast into Prison, 25. He escapes to Liege, and there causes a Declaration to be published against his Son, ibid. His Son's Reply to that Declaration. ibid. The time of his Death, ibid. His dead Body carried to Spire, and laid in a Sepulchre without the Church, ibid.  
Henry V Emperor, rebels against his Father, 24. He is proclaimed Emperor by the Saxons, ibid. Although his Father defeats him; yet he finds means to re-establish himself on the Imperial Throne, and to get possession of his Treasures, ibid. His unnatural Treachery towards his Father▪ 2●. His Contests-with Pope Paschal about ●he Rights of Investitures, 25, etc. He forces the Pope to grant 'em to him, 26. He is Excommunicated upon that account in several Councils, 28. The differences between him and Pope Calixtus about the same Affair of the Investitures, 30. His Reconciliation with that Pope, 30.  
Henry, a Heretic, an account of his Life and Errors, 86.  
— His Opinions confuted by St. Bernard, 44. 59  
Hildebert, or Aldebert, Archdeacon of Man's, the Advice given him by Ives Bishop of Chartres, concerning his former Conduct, and his Election to the Bishopric or Man's, 21.  
Hilgodus, Bishop of Soissons, leaves his Bishopric to retire into a Monastery, 10. The Oppositions made against his Promotion to the Dignity of an Abbot removed by Ives Bishop of Chartres, ibid.  
The Hospital of Chateaudun put under the Protection of the Church of Chartres, 2●.  
Hubert, Bishop of Senlis, Letters written by Ives Bishop of Chartres in favour of that Bishop when accused of certain Crimes, 20.  
Hugh, Archbishop of Lions, the Remonstrances made by Ives Bishop of Chartres to procure the Legateship of France for that Metropolitan, 12. The Rights claimed by him in Quality of Legate, 7. These Rights disputed by Ives Bishop of Chartres, 7.  
Hugh, Bishop of Grenoble, his Canonization, 148.  
Hugh, Count of Troy's, the Advice given him by I●es Bishop of Chartres concerning the King's Marriage, 18. And about Celebacy. 20.  
Hugh, Viscount of Chartres, his Contest with Count Rotroc, 15.  
Hugh, Lord of Puiset, Excommunicated for oppressing the Church of Chartres, 12. The Restitutions which he made, ibid.   

I.  
JErusalem, the Rights of the Patriarches of Jerusalem and there Jurisdiction, 35.  
Jesus Christ, his Divinity clearly maintained in Scriptures, 85. And proved against the Jews, 170. That the Body of Jesus Christ was real and true, 185.  
Ignorance, sins of Ignorance, 75.  
Images, the Use and Worship of them, 141.  
The Immutability of God in what it consists, see God.  
Incarnation, the Incarnation of the Son of God known to the Prophets, 76. And to the Angels, ibid. A Treatise of the Incarnation, by the Master of the Sentences, 196.  
Incendiaries, Punishments to be inflicted on them, 206.  
Indulgences, granted to those, that visit the Tombs of the Apostles, 29.  
Injunctions and Dispensations. of their differe●● kinds and obligations, see Dispensations.  
Investitures, their Original, Progress and Ceremonies, with an account of the Contests about them, 31. 32. The use of Investitures in England and among other States, 33. The Claim to this Right by the Kings of France, vindicated by Ives Bishop of Chartres, 7. The Opinions of the said Ives of Chartres and some other Bishops of France concerning the Investitures, 19 They are opposed by Geffrey, Abbot of Vendôme, 134. 135 Maintained by Pope Paschal, 36. And condemned in the Council of Guastalla, 25. The Emperor Henry iv claims 'em with respect to the Pope, 25. His Right to 'em is disputed by Pope Paschal, ibid. The Arguments produced on both sides, 26. Proposals made by the Emperor to the Pope, relating to the Investitures and accepted by the later, ibid. The Bishops of Germany oppose that Treaty, ibid. The Pope's Bull set forth to oblige 'em to accept it, 27. The Pope being taken Prisoner, grants the Investitures to the Emperor, ibid. The Cardinals declare the Pope's Proceed to be void and of none effect, ibid., The Council of Lateran revokes 'em, ibid. Several Councils do the same thing, and condemn the Emperor Henry, 28. A second Council at Lateran disannuls all the Pope's Transactions relating to the Investitures, ibid. Proposals for an Accommodation as to the Affair of the Investitures, 29. They are rejected in the Council of Rheims, ibid. The Conclusion of the Treaty about the Investitures between the Pope and the Emperor made at Worms, 30. Confirmed in the Council of Lateran, 31. 37. The Emperor Lotharius endeavours to cause the Investitures to be re-established, 38.  
John, Archbishop of Lions. his Claims opposed by Ives Bishop of Chartres in the Name of the Archbishop of Sons, and of his Suffragans, 19 The Rpplies made by the Archbishop of Lions, 19  
John, Bishop of Orleans, his Intrigues in aspiring to that Bishopric, 6. 8. Which he obtains by causing Sanction his Predecessor to be deposed, 8. He is ordained notwithstanding the opposition made by Ives Bishop of Chartres, 8. 9 A Contrast between him and Ives of Chartres about an Excommunication, which the latter had published against certain Diocesans of the Bishopric of Orleans, 9  
St. John Du Val-Abbey; its Foundation, 21.  
Judicature Ecclesiastical; When the Administration of Ecclesiastical Judicature began to be committed to Officials, 217. It ought to be administered Gratis, 216. Litigious Suits and Evasions in Ecclesiastical Courts condemned, 68 That Kings and Princes have Power to Judge Clergymen in consulting the Bishops, 206.  
Judicature Civil, forbidden to be administered by Clergymen, 214.  
Ives, Bishop of Chartres, Constituted Superior of the Regular Canons of St. Quentin at Beauvais, 〈◊〉. Afterwards made Bishop of Chartres in the room of Geffrey deposed, 1. Consecrated by the Pope after having received a repulse from the Archbishop of Sens, 2. Being summoned to a Council, and refusing to appear, his Ordination is revoked, 2. He Appeals from the Judgement of this Council to the Pope, 2. 3. His endeavours to hinder the Marriage between King Philip and Bertrade, 3. His Imprisonment for opposing the said Marriage, 3. The Means he rejects, and those that are proposed by him for his Liberty, 3. Remonstrances made by him to the King concerning his Marriage, 4. The Reasons that engage him not to repair to the Court, 4. Nor to appear in the Council of Rheims, where he had been summoned, 5. He resigns the Provostship of St. Quentin at Beauvais into the Hands of the Bishop of that Diocese, 4 He dissuades the Pope from giving Absolution to King Philip, Excommunicated by reason of his being Married to Bertrade, 6 He refuses to take an Oath of Fidelity to the Count of Chartres and Blois, without his City, 6. The Controversies between him and King Lewes the Gross, 12, The time of his Death. 2,   

K.  
KEys, the Sentiments of the Ancient Schoolmen concerning the Power of the Keys, 203.  
Kings, The Conduct that ought to be observed with respect to 'em, 58. What Liberty is to be taken in speaking to 'em, 58. That they ought not to be Excommunicated, 34.  
Knights, divers Orders of Knighthood, 218.  
The Institution of that of Knight's Templars, 74.   

L.  
LAy-Men, that they are capable (according to Peter of Clunie) ofreceiving Tithes and Ecclesiastical Revenues, 61. 62.  
Legates of the Pope; their Authority, 7. They are not always impower'd to call Councils, 6. Disorders committed by Legates, 62.  
Lepers, a Church and Priest granted to 'em, 209.  
Lewes the Gross, King of France, a Manifesto to justify the Coronation of that Prince, 17. The cause of his Displeasure against Ives Bishop of Chartres, 11. The same Prince reproved by Ives Bishop of Chartres concerning a Present which he demanded of that Prelate, 17. 18.  
Live, see Parsonage.  
Logic, a Prohibition of it, 96.  
Lord's Prayer; whether it ought to be said therein, Our daily Bread, or Our Supersubstantial Bread, 96.  
Love of God, divers sorts and degrees of it, 74.  
Lions, the Primacy of Lion's owned by St. Bernard, 6.   

M.  
MAccabees, why they only of all the Saints of the Old Testament have their Festivals Solemnised by the Church, 51.  
Manasses II. his Promotion to the Archbishopric of Rheims, 6.  
Manasses Bishop of Meaux, his Election approved by Ives Bishop of Chartres, who likewise consents to his Ordination, 12. Means proposed by Ives Bishop of Chartres, to put an end to the Opposition made against that Election, ibid.  
Manichées, certain Heretics who in the XII. Century revived the Errors of the Ancient Manichees, 88  
Marriage, of the Penance that ought to be imposed on a Priest, who in the Nuptial Blessing has changed the Ceremonies and Words, 12. Marriage condemned by certain Heretics of the XII. Century, 88  
The Impediments of Marriage, 164. That of near Relations forbidden and declared null, 6. 15. 20. 33. 206. 212. 214. Whether it be lawful for a Virgin espoused to a Man, who died without performing the Act of Carnal Copulation with her, to marry his Brother, 136. Whether the Crime of an unchaste Correspondence committed with the Mother of a Man's Wife, be capable of disolving the Marriage? 19 What Punishment ought to be inflicted on a Person who has had to do Carnally with his Wife's Sister before their Marriage? 19 Reasons that hinder the Divorcing of a Woman who has married her Husband's Murderer, 15. The Marriages of Clergymen in Orders declared void, 34. 206. 218. Whether those of Monks are so, 71. The Judgement of Ives Bishop of Chartres concerning the Marriage of a certain Canon of Paris, 18. That a Man who having made a promise of Marriage to a Woman, has taken another to Wife, aught to be divorced from her whom he has actually married, 15. That the proof of a Promise of Marriage ought not to be made out by a single Combat or Duel, but by Witnesses, 16. Clandestine Marriages forbidden, 215. A Divorce between Married Persons allowed in the Case of Adultery and some others, 146. A Contract of Marriage between two Children in the Cradle declared to be null, 20. Prohibited also between Children that are not Marriageable, 215. Whether Children of six Years Old or under, are capable of being Betrothed or Married, and if they be, whether if one of 'em happens to die, the Survivor may Marry the Brother or Sister of the Deceased? 11. Whether a Virgin promised in Marriage by her Father, before she has attained to the use of Reason, be engaged to keep that Promise, 13. That two Sisters cannot be married one after another, although the Marriage were not consummated with the former, 20. Whether it be lawful for a Man to Marry his Concubine? 3. That a Person who has Married a sick Concubine, is obliged to own her as his Wife, 14. That a Woman brought to Bed Two or Three Months after her Marriage, ought not to be Divorced from her Husband, 17. Whether the Marriage-bond between a Jew and a Jewess ought to continue, when either of 'em has embraced the Christian Religion, 12. 19 Whether that between a Freeman and a Female Slave ought to be reputed valid, 18. Formalities to be observed in the Divorce of a Freeman married to a Slave, 20. Whether a Woman, who has made a Vow in her Husband's life time, be obliged to keep it? 159. Whether a Woman big with Child be capable of being married? 14.  
Marmoutier-Abbey; a Confirmation of two Grants made to that Abbey, 21. A Contest between the Diocese of Chartres and the same Abbey▪ concerning a certain Church, 21.  
Mass, Precautions that ought to be taken in order to a due Celebration of it, 215. What ought to be done by the Priest, when there happens only to be Water in the Chalice, 50. 115. The ill practice of those who made use of Lees of Wine and Crumbs of Bread in the Celebration of the Mass, 122. That 'tis not necessary to say it every day, 163. The usefulnessof the Sacrifice of the Mass, 155. That it ought to be offered for all Persons, ibid. and 163. That it cannot be Celebrated by a Priest guilty of Murder, 138. That no difficulty ought to be made to hear Mass of a Priest suspected to lead an ill course of life, 14. A Prohibition to hear Mass of a Priest who keeps a Concubine, 206. Fees for Masses in use, 219. A Prohibition to make Merchandise of Masses or to give 'em for Penance, 216. The Errors of the Heretics of the XII Century concerning the Mass, 86, etc.  
Metropolitans; that they ought not to attempt any thing in the Churches of their Suffragans, without their consent, 9  
Ministers, that the Consecration of wicked Ministers is valid, 151. That 'tis not lawful to separate from them, till they be condemned, ibid.  
Monasteries, that 'tis an Abuse to give 'em to Lay-Men, 215. The Abuse of Exemptions granted to them, 218.  
Monition, the necessity of Canonical Monitions, 208.  
Monks, the Original and Progress of the Monastic Life, 96. 187. The diversity of the several Orders of Monks is advantageous, 163. The Sentiments of Ives Bishop of Chartres concerning the Monastic course of Life, 5. Whether the State of Monks be more excellent than that of Regular Canons, 96. Various Observations concerning Monks, 218. Of the Offering of a Child to a Monastery by the Parents, 44. The Ceremonies of that Oblation, 45. Whether a Monk, who has been already blessed by a simple Monk, aught to receive another Blessing from the Abbot, 5. Whether their Profession may be reiterated, 5. Under what Obligation they are to observe their Rule, 70, etc. Of the Obedience they own their Superiors, 17. They are subject to Bishops and their Exemptions are forbidden, 34. 37. Wherein consists the perfection of the Monastic Life, 138. A Monk is allowed to pass into another Monastery, where the Rule is more pefectly observed, 46. 47. 49. 50. 168. Rules for the departure of a Monk from his Monastery, 71. 81. Of the Obligation a Monk lies under to reside in his Monastery, 71. That a Monk ought not to leave his Monastery to go to another, and that he ought to return thither, 45. 46. 47. 61. Monk's ought not upon their own Authority, to leave their Cloisters, nor to intermeddle with Secular Affairs, yet they may do so if called for that purpose, 48. 60. 164. They are forbidden to abandon their Monastery, either to learn or teach the Civil Law, or to Practice Physic, 213. A Regular Canon, who has turned Monk, cannot return to his Station among the Clergy, 6. Monks or Regular Canons who have quitted their Profession Excommunicated, 212. Whether they ought to Possess Churches, or not, 66. 82. Their Privileges maintained, 82. That they ought neither to have Altars nor Tithes, 210. Are not capable of performing the Functions of Curates, 210. The vicious Courses and irregular Practices of Monks, 72. etc.  
Murder, or Manslaughter, a sin although committed se defendendo, 138. Excludes a Priest from the Sacrifice of the Mass, 138. Whether a Woman, who has Married the Murderer of her Husband, may be Divorced, 15.  
Mysterium Fidei, why these Words are added to those of Jesus Christ, in the Consecration, 20.   

N.  
THe Nativity of our Saviour Jesus Christ, the Solemnity with which that Festival ought to be Celebrated, vid. Incarnation.  
St. Nigsius at Meulan, the Donation of that Church to Bec-Abbey, 21.  
Nicolaitans, Clergymen who keep Concubines so called, 24.  
St. Nicolas at Courbeville, the Right to that Church disputed between the Bishop of Chartres and the Monks of Marmoutier, 21. Commissioners appointed to take cognizance of that Affair, ibid. Determined by the Bishop and the Count of Chartres, ibid.  
Normandy, the Bishops of Normandy Excommunicated, 21.   

O.  
OAth of Allegiance or Fidelity, may be dissolved, when taken to any other than a lawful Sovereign or Lord, 9  
Obedience, how far it ought to be extended, 45. 71.  
Oblations or Offerings, Exactions palliated under the name of Oblation and Benediction, 13.  
Offices Divine, of the Divine Office and its Parts, 145. Whether it be expedient to add new Prayers, and by whom they ought to be made, 66. 84. The Means used by Ives Bishop of Chartres to oblige his Canons to give more constant attendance at Divine Service, 18.  
Officials. Their Settlement in the XII. Century, 217. The danger of that Employment, 159. Abuses committed therein, ibid.  
Ordination, a Prohibition to confer the Order of Priesthood without a Title, 2●8. 214. A Prohibition to ordain the Clergymen of another Diocese, 215. Ordination of the Sons of Priests forbidden, 138. 156. 206. Permitted in England, 36. Of the Law of not admitting into Orders, such Persons as are not born in lawful Wedlock, 168. A Case in which an Eunuch may be advanced to Orders, 19 What Punishment a Priest deserves to incur, who in taking Holy Orders has had no other end than Temporal Gain, 19 What Penalty is likewise proper to be inflicted upon a Deacon, who has caused himself to be Ordained without receiving Clerical Benediction, 16. That Ordinations performed by wicked Ministers are valid. 151. Those of Schismatics declared void and of none effect, 33. 36, 207. 213. Nevertheless sometimes confirmed, 25. A Privilege claimed by the Monks of Clunie to cause themselves to be Ordained by any Bishop whom they shall think sit to choose. 83.   

P.  
PAlace, what in the Decretals of Gratian, 204.  
Pains or Torments of the Danmed, are not Corporal according to Guibert, 143.  
Pall, its use forbidden to Richerus Archbishop of Sens, 2. 6.  
Peace, Excommunication for violating the Peace, 21. Rules concerning the Peace of God, 209.  
Penance, that they who confess secret sins cannot be put to public Penance, 17. False Penances 206. Means proposed by Ives Bishop of Chartres, for the reconciliation of the Impenitent, 15. 16.  
Perjury, a solemn Excommunication upon that account, 216.  
Personats, their Orginal, 3. 217.  
St. Peter at Chateaudun, the Donation of that Church made by Ives Bishop of Chartres to the Monastery of Bonneval, 21.  
Peter of Anagnia, his Canonization and Festival, 35.  
Peter de Bruis, the History of that Heretic and his Errors, 86. 87.  
Petrobusians, Heretics of the XII. Century and their Errors, 86.  
Petrus Abaelardus, his Accusation by St. Bernard, 56. 64. His Condemnation, 56. His Condemnation by the Pope, 40. 44. 56. An Account of his Life, Doctrine, and several Condemnations, 92. etc. Errors imputed to him, 97. His Apology, 103. An Examination of his Doctrine, 111  
Philip Bishop of Troy's, Summoned to a Council, where he does not appear, 9  
Philip I. King of France, Letters written by Ives Bishop of Chartres, to oppose the Marriage between that Prince and Bertrade, 5. The Persecution raised by him against the same Bishop, 3. The Remonstrances he received upon that account, 3. 4. Letters of Ives Bishop of Chartres concerning the Excommunication of King Philip, 10. 11. 14. He is Excommunicated a second time in a Council at Poitiers, 211. He is absolved from that Excommunication after having put away Bertrade, ibid.  
Popes, their Election reserved to the Cardinals, 217. A Rule for their Election, 287. That the Emperor ought to have a share in their Election, 26. What manner of Election of a Pope is Canonical, 153. The Qualities, Duties and Obligations of Popes, 68 69. etc. The Augmentation of the Papal Power in XII. Century, 217. Certain Cases, the cognizance of which is reserved to them, 206. 212. 213. 217. That the Popes make no difficulty to revoke what has been obtained of 'em by surprise, 56.  
Poverty, a Commendation of that Virtue, 47. 51.  
Praise, an Opinion that Commendations given ought to be accepted, 47.  
Prayers, Whether it be expedient to make new Prayers for the Divine Service, and by whom they ought to be composed, 66. 84. Those for the Dead rejected by the Dissenters from the Church of Rome in the XII. Century, vid. Dead. Of the usefulness of Prayers for the Dead, 16.  
Preaching, Institutions about the manner of Preaching, 140.  
Predectination explained by the Master of the Sentences, 195.  
Prefaces, the number of Prefaces, 215.  
Prémontré, the Foundation of that Order, 218.  
Presentations, a Prohibition to exact any thing for Presentation to Benefices, 216. 217.  
Priests, not to be Ordained without a Title, 208. 214. That the Ordination of dissolute Priests is valid, 151. That none ought to separate from 'em till they be judicially condemned, ibid. What Punishment a Priest ought to incur, who has Profaned the Sacraments before the Statue of a Woman, 15. What Punishment ought to be inflicted on a Priest who has played the Incendiary, 17. That they ought to be deprived of their Benefices and expelled the Clergy, if they Marry, see Clergymen  
Primacies in France, that Right disputed between Richerius Archbishop of Sens, and Hugh Archbishop of Lions, 6. King Lewes demands the Revocation of that of Lions, 37. The Confirmation of that of Bourges, 42.  
Privileges, the abuse of 'em reformed, 208.   

Q.  
St. QUintin at Beauvais, when and by whom that Abbey was Founded, 1. Of its Privileges, 5. 6.   

R.  
RAdulphus, Archbishop of Rheims, a Controversy between King Lewes the Gross, and that Archbishop determined by Ives Bishop of Chartres, 17. A Judgement passed by that Archbishop, disproven by the same Ives of Charcres, 20.  
Radulphus, Archbishop of Tours, his Accusations against the Abbot of Marmoutier disproven by Ives Bishop of Chartres, 11.  
Radulphus, Bishop of Rochester, translated to the Archbishopric of Canterbury, 20.  
Relics, the abuse of them, 141. False Relics of Jesus Christ and the Saints, 142. The abuses practised by those who carry 'em about to get Money, 210.  
Revelations, those of St. Hildegarde and St. Elizabeth approved, 41. 174.  
Revenues of the Church, that Princes and Lay-Men ought not to have the disposal of 'em, 33. Rules against such Persons as seize on 'em, 15. 18. 33. An obligation to restore to the Bishops those that belong to 'em, 18. That Lay-Men ought to have no share in the Offerings nor Tithes, 210. 212. 213. The Immunity of church-good, 212. That the Possession of 'em a Year and a Day, is a sufficient Title for the respective Churches, 211. That a Bishop cannot give to an Abbot the Goods of a Religious Society, 18. St. Bernard is of Opinion, that Lay-Men have a Right to restore 'em to Monks, 63. And Peter of Clunie maintains that Lay-Men may receive the Tithes and Goods of Ecclesiastical Persons, 81, 82. That the Goods, which Clergymen have procured by Church-Revenues, aught to be appropriated to the use of the Churches, 209. Taxes upon Church-Possessions forbidden, 209. They are to be freed from all manner of Duties, 213. Ordinances for the preserving of 'em, 213. A Prohibition to pillage the Goods of Clergymen after their Death, 206.  
Rheims, the Footsteps of strictness of Discipline in the Chapter of the Church of that City, 168.  
Richerius Archbishop of Sens, opposes the Ordination and Settlement of Ives Bishop of Chartres in his Bishopric, 1. 2. 4. He is forbidden the use of the Pall upon that Account, 2. A Permission to make use of it in the Ordination of the Bishop of Paris, 6. Of his Contest with the Archbishop of Lions about the Primacy, 6. The time of his Death, 6.  
Robert d' Arbrisselles, reproved upon false Reports by Geffrey, Abbot of Vendôme, 133. And by Marbodus Bishop of Rennes, 150.  
Roscelinus, Clerk of the Church of Compeigne, Advice given him by Ives Bishop of Chartres, 2.  
Rules, what is the Obligation to observe Monastic Rules, and under what Penalies they oblige, 70.   

S.  
SAcraments, cannot be Consecrated nor Administered, but by such Persons as have entered into Holy Orders, 8. That they are not rendered unprofitable by the unworthiness of the Ministers, 17. A Prohibition to take any thing for the Administration of them, 207. 212. 213. 217. Of the re-iteration of the Sacraments, 135. Errors of Heretics in the XII. Century concerning the Sacraments, 86. etc. Questions discussed by the Master of the Sentences about the Sacraments, 197.  
Saints, who ought to be acknowledged as such, 142. Other Questions relating to the Saints and their Worship, ibid. Of the Intercession of Saints and Prayers made to them, 137.  
Sanctio Bishop of Orleans, Ordained by Ives Bishop of Chartres, 6. Advice given him by the same Ives of Chartres, 7. He is Deposed by Hugh, Archbishop of Lions, Legate of the See of Rome, 8.  
Sanctuaries, the Right of 'em belonging to the Churches, vid. Asylum.  
Schoolmaster, the appointment of a Schoolmaster in every Cathedral Church, 209. Those Schoolmasters forbidden to let out their Schools, 212.  
Schools, a Commendation of those of Paris, 159.  
H. Scripture, that the Study of the Hebrew Tract is necessary for the understanding of the Holy Scriptures, 97. A new Method of writing Comments on the Holy Scripture, 201.  
Service, see Divine Service.  
Silvester IU. Anti pope, the last of the Anti-popes' who opposed Paschal II. 23  
Simon, Count of Niofle, Excommunicated for committing Adultery, 3. A Contest about his Absolution, ibid.,  
Simony, a Treatise of it, 172. Condemned in the Councils, 30. Bishops obliged to forbear Exactions, 135. 136. A Prohibition to exact any thing for the Administration of the Sacraments, 207. 208. 212. 217. Or for Presentations to Benefices, 216. Or for Monastical Tonsure, or the Benediction of Abbots, 210. Or for the Consecration of a Church, 212. Or for the buying or selling of Benefices, 214. A Punishment to be inflicted on Persons convicted of Simony, 206.  
Sins, the Doctrine of the Master of the Sentences concerning them, 196. etc. Sins of Ignorance, 76. A Question about the Remission of Sins, 19  
Sodomites, condemned to very severe Punishments, 206.  
Soissons, the designs of Manasses Archbishop of Rheims, against the Clergy of the Church of Soissons, 9 Condemned by Ives Bishop of Chartres, 10.  
Solitary Life recommended by Ives Bishop of Chartres to a Monk, 21.  
Souls, their Spiritual Nature, 143.  
Stephen de Guarlande, esteemed unworthy of the Bishopric of Beauvais, in the Judgement of Ives Bishop of Chartres, 10. Who is nevertheless obliged to write in his Favour to Pope Paschal, who does not forbear to disapprove his Election, ibid. Gualo chose in his place, 11. His scruple of being Elected Bishop of Paris, removed by Ives Bishop of Chartres, 20.   

T.  
TAnchelmus or Tanchelinus, his Errors, 87.  
Taverns and Alehouses, not to be frequented by Clergymen, 215.  
Templars, the Institution of the Order of Knights of the Temple, or Knights Templars, 74.  
Testament, of things that ought to be dispo●ed of by Last Will and Testament, 214.  
Theobaldus or Thibaud, Count of Chartres, his Contest with William, Count of Nevers, whom he detained in Prison, 21.  
Theodoricus, Antipope, lays aside the Title of Pope to turn Anachorite or Hermit, 23.  
Thomas, Prior of St. Victor at Paris, the Murder of that Holy Man. 52.  
Tithes, Decrees concerning them, 213. 214. An Obligation to pay 'em to Bishops, 206. They ought not to be appropriated to Lay-Men, 212. 213. That Lay-Men may possess them, according to Peter of Clunie, 61. 62. That Monks ought not to purchase 'em of Lay-Men to convert 'em to their own profit, 16. The Cistercian Order refuses to pay 'em, which seemed unjust to Peter of Blois, 162.  
Title, an Ecclesiastical Title necessary for Ordination, 208  
Toledo, the Primacy of that Church confirmed by the Pope, 34.  
Tombs, Indulgences granted to those Persons who visit the Tombs of the Apostles, 28.  
Tonsure, or Shaving, that of Monks reserved to Bishops or Abbots, 210. A Prohibition to exact any thing upon that account. ibid.  
Tournaments, forbidden. 206. 207. 210.  
Tournay, Reasons alleged by Ives Bishop of Chartres to dissuade Pope Paschal II. from nominating a Bishop for the Church of Tournay, 20. The Restauration of the Bishopric, 42.  
Translations, Those of Bishops Prohibited, unless in cases of necessity, 28. That they cannot be effected without the Permission of the See of Rome, 14.  
Transubstantiation, this Term used by Peter of Cells and Stephen of Autun, 156. And by Peter of Blois, 165.  
Trinity, certain Questions concerning this Mystery discussed by the Master of the Sentences, 193, etc. The Principles of Abaelardus for explaining the Trinity, 105. 111.  
That Method rejected, 173.  
Trisagion, an Addition to the Trisagion in use among the Armenians, 186. 189.  
Trials or Proofs. that by hot Irons for clearing the Innocency of a Woman suspected of Adultery, disapproved by Ives Bishop of Chartres, 20. 22. That Bishops ought not to undergo any Trial, to clear themselves of an Accusation, 9   

V  
VIaticum, that it ought not to be given to Persons who are subject to Vomiting, 20.  
Vicars, the Curates of great Parishes obliged to provide them, 214. Those who endeavour to obtain the Benefices of which they only have the Tithes excluded, 215. Annual Vicars forbidden, 214.  
Virgin Mary, her Commendation, 141. Questions concerning her Knowledge and Graces, 83.  
Visitation, the Rights of Visitation limited, 207. The Right of Procuration, 214.  
Universities, their beginning, 97.  
Unleavened Bread, in use among the Armenians, 186.  
Vows, the most excellent make void the less perfect, 409. Whether a Woman who has made a Vow in her Husband's Life-time, be obliged to keep it? 159.  
Usury, condemned, 206. 209. 214. 215.  
Vulgrinus, Chancellor of the Church of Chartres, refuses to accept the Bishopric of Dol. 16.   

W.  
WAlo, Bishop of Beauvais, see Gualo.  
William, Archdeacon of Eureux. made Bishop of Lisieux, 15.  
William, Clerk of the Church of Chartres, ordained Bishop of Paris, 5.  
William, Duke of Guyenne, the means used by St. Bernard to confute that Duke, 38.  
Witnesses, such as are liable to be accepted against in the case of Adultery. 19 20.  
Women, that their Conversation with Ecclesiastical Persons is Scandalous, 17. 20.   

Y.  
YVes, Bishop of Chartres, see Ives.   
FINIS.   

L. E. DU PIN's Ecclesiastical History OF THE THIRTEENTH, FOURTEENTH, and FIFTEENTH CENTURIES: Which make the ELEVENTH, TWELFTH, and THIRTEENTH VOLUMES.   

THE TRANSLATOR TO THE READER.  
AS Monsieur Du Pin has merited the Applause of the Learned World, for his former Volumes of Ecclesiastical History; so in these three which are now published, he continues still to write like himself, and maintain the same Character which has been given of him; he is no less faithful in his Relations, judicious in his Reflections, exact in his Criticisms, and moderate in his Censures of those who differ from him; and even more impartial than would be expected from one of a contrary Party. The two first Ages treated of in this Volume, viz. the 13th and 14th, were covered with some Remains of that Ignorance and Barbarism, which reigned in the last preceding Ages: But this is so far from being any just Prejudice against this History, that it should rather invite the Ingenious Reader's Curiosity, when he considers, that the excellent Historian has enlightened these dark Ages, by giving a clearer account of them than any one Writer before him; for he has brought to light some notable Pieces of History which seemed to be buried in Oblivion, and collected together the several Fragments which were scattered in many Volumes, and placed them in such a clear light, that the Darkness of the Times serves to set off and commend the Judgement of the Historian. It is his peculiar Excellency, that he gives a just Idea of the most considerable Ecclesiastical Writers in all the Ages of the Church, not▪ by general Characters, but by giving an account of the Matters handled in their Works, and taking judicious Extracts out of them; and particularly in this Volume, he has added to the History of each Century such useful Observations, as give the Reader a general Idea of the great Transactions then on foot: So that nothing seems to be wanting to render this Translation complete, but some Remarks which may be use to the Protestant Reader, of which I shall therefore present him with a few, relating to the Controversies between the Roman Church and the Church of England.  
It has been observed by Monsieur Du Pin and others, That School-Divinity was corrupted in the 13th Century, by introducing into it the Principles of Aristotle's Philosophy, whereby all Matters of Doctrine were resolved into a great many curious and useless Questions, and decided by the Maxims of that Philosophy (which yet was learned not from the Greek Originals, but the corrupt Versions of the Arabians) as if they were of equal Authority with the Scriptures: And as this mixture corrupted the Simplicity of the ancient Christian Faith, so it was the cause of many Mischiefs, among which I reckon this to be none of the least, that it furnished Men with such Principles as were subservient to maintain the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantion, which begun in this Century to be established. As for instance, This Philosophy taught Men, that Quantity is an Accident distinct and separable from Body, from whence they inferred the Possibility of the Replication and Penetration of Bodies, and maintained, as the Schoolmen do to this Day, That the same Body may be in a thousand distant Places at the same time; That the same Man may be alive at London and killed at Rome; That the whole Body of a lusty Man, with all its several parts, may be crowded within the Compass of a Pins head, by which Doctrines they defended some of these Absurdities, which are implied in Transubstantiation, viz. That the Body of Christ is at the same time in Heaven and Earth, and in all the several Places where the Eucharist is celebrated, that it is whole in the whole Loaf, and whole in every the least part of it, and many other such like Absurdities, which are real Contradictions to the Nature of a Body, if Extension is essential to it, as it is held to be by the best Philosophers both Ancient and Modern.  
The first pretended General Council in which Transubstantiation is said to be established, was the fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III. in the Year 1215. But Du Pin has plainly proved, that the Canons which go under the Name of this Council, were Du Pin 13 Cent. not made by the Council itself, but only by Pope Innocent III. who read some of them in the Council, and after its Dissolution added many more as he pleased, Dissert. 7 de Antiq. Eccl. Discipl. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. which is a Trick that the Popes had commonly used in the 12th Century, who published their own Constitutions as the Decrees of Councils, Du Pin. Hist. Eccl. 10th Cent. p. 217.  
I shall not pretend to give an Account what was the Doctrine of the first Eight Ages of the Church concerning the Eucharist, which may be learned from Archbishop Usher, Bishop Cousins, and others. But to me it seems an Invincible Argument, that Transubstantiation was not then believed, That the Jews and Heathens did not charge the Christians with the Absurdities and Contradictions which are the obvious and natural Consequences of that Doctrine.  
As to the Term of Transubstantiation, Du Pin says it was first used by Cells Bishop of Chartres, and Stephen Bishop of Autun, in the 12th Century, p. 156. As to the Doctrine itself, it appears to have been first published by Paschasius in his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Saviour about the Year, 832. wherein he asserts, That after the Consecration under the Figure of Bread and Wine there is nothing but the Body and Blood of Christ; and which is yet more wonderful, he adds, It is no other Flesh than that which was born of Mary, suffered on the Cross, and risen again from the Grave. He might very well call it wond●…ul Doctrine, not only for its apparent Absurdity, but for its Novelty (since the like Expressions had never been used before) which is ingenuously confessed by Bellarm. de Scriptor. Eccl. ad annum 850. and by Sirmondus in the Life of Paschasius prefixed to his Works, Par. 1618. and may be plainly proved from the Writings of the most learned Men in this Century. For, first, Claudius Bishop of Turin, asserted the contrary Doctrine eighteen or nineteen Years before Paschasius' Book upon this Subject was published (which Doctrine was never opposed by those who cenfured some other Opinions of his) as Dr. Allix shows from a Manuscript Commentary of this Author's upon St. Matth. Remarks upon the Ancient Church of Piedmont, p. 62, etc. II. In the same Century, after this Doctrim was published, it met with great Opposition from many eminent Men, such as Ratramnus, Joannes Scotus, Amalarius, Florus, Druthmarus and Erigerus, all which are owned by Du Pin to have opposed the Doctrine of Paschasius, Cent. 9th p. 77. to whom may be added Theodolphus Bishop of Orleans, Walafridus Strabo Abbot of Richenou, Ahyto Bishop of Basil, and Rabanus M●●rus Archbishop of Mayence, who did also oppose the Doctrine of Paschasius in the same Century; and particularly R●banus in his Penitential, which was written in the Life-time of Paschasius, censures his Doctrine about the Eucharist as a Novel Error, as is proved in a Dissertation about Bertrams Book of the Body and Blood of Christ annexed to the Translation of it, and printed at London in 1686.  
I shall only add, that the Doctrine of Bertrams Book against Paschasius about the Eucharist appears plainly to have been generally received by the Church of England in the 10th Century, from the Paschal Homily which Elfric Archbishop of Canterbury translated into the Saxon Tongueabout the Year 970. which is published at London in 1566. and attested to be a true Copy by the hands of fifteen Prelates and several Noblemen; for this Book was commanded by a Canon to be read publicly to the People, as is observed by Dr. Cave Hist. Lit. p. 589. and contains the same Aguments, and for the most part the same Expressions which were used by Bertram against Transubstantiation, as is proved by A. B. Usher in his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge, c. 3.  
And that Bertrams Book was directly levelled against Transubstantiation, as it is now defined by the Council of Trent will plainly appear, by citing a few passages out of many that are in that little Book to this purpose: For first he says expressly, that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ, not Corporally but Spiritually, and then he proves, That what is Orally received in the Sacrament is not Christ's natural Body, because it is incorruptible; whereas that which we receive in the Eucharist, is corruptible and visible: And again, Christ's natural Body had all the Organical parts of a humane Body, and was quickened with a human Soul, whereas his body in the Sacrament hath neither; he proves that the Words of the Institution are figurative, because the Symbols have the Name of the thing signified by them. 2. He says expressly, That as to the Substance of the Creatures, what they were before Consecration, they remain after it. Bread and Wine they were before Consecration, and after it we see they continue Being's of the same kind and nature: He denies any natural Change, and affirms it to be only spiritual and invisible, such as was made of the Manna and Water in the Wilderness, into the Body and Blood of Christ.  
These things are so plainly and frequently asserted in this Book, that I must Transcribe the greatest part of it, if I would produce all the Passages which are to this Purpose; and therefore I cannot but wonder to find Du Pin so far mistake the Questions which are handled by Bertram, as he does, in the Hist. of the 9th Century, where he makes the sense of the first Question to be this; Whether the Body and Blood of Christ be in the Eucharist without a Veil, so as to appear to our outward Eyes; and the meaning of the 2d to be no more than this, Whether the Body of Christ be in the same manner in the Eucharist, as it was on Earth, and is in Heaven, and Whether it be there in as visible and palpable a manner? for it cannot be suppossed that ever any Man in his Wits should maintain that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is visible to our Eyes, with all its Lineaments and distinction of Parts, and that the Flesh and Bones there are palpable to our hands; or that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is both Earthly and Corruptible as it was upon Earth, and Spiritual and Incorruptible as it is now in Heaven. These are such wild Imaginations as could never enter into the Mind of any Man of sound Senses; and therefore Bertram cannot be supposed such a Fool, as to confute them seriously with many Arguments, and that in a Letter to the Emperor; which were no less Ridiculous, than if a Man should write a Book on purpose to prove that a Man does not appear visibly in the shape and figure of a Horse, or a Mouse like an Elephant. The main Question of Bertrams Book than is not, as Du Piu puts it, Whether the Body of Christ be in the Eucharist in as visible and palpable a manner as when he lived upon Earth; which I believe was never affirmed by any, either in that Age, or any other. But, Whether in the Sacrament we receive the same Body of Christ which was Born of the Virgin, Crucified, and Rose again (supposing what is agreed on all hands that it is not visibly there) and this he flatly denies, and plainly disproves, in direct opposition to Paschasius, and the Doctrine of the present Roman Church. He says indeed, the Elements are truly Christ's Body and Blood; but then he explains himself, they are not so as to their sible Nature, but by the Power of the Divine Word; and then he adds, the visible Creature feeds the Body, but the Virtue and Efficacy of the Divine Word feeds and sanctifies the Souls of the Faithful. From which, and many other such like Expressions, it plainly appears that he did not believe the Sacrament to be a mere Sign and Figure of Christ's Body and Blood, but thought they were Really present, not in a Carnal but Spiritual Sense. 1, In regard of the Spiritual Virtue and Efficacy of them, which by the Divine Blessing is communicated to the Faithful; in which sense only they can be profitable to the Soul, for the Flesh profits it nothing. and if Du Pin contends for the Real Presence only in this sense, the Church of England will readily grant it; which has taught her Catechumen to say, that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's-Supper. But if he contends for a Corporal Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood, the Doctrine of Bertram is no less expressly against it, than that of the Church of England; and the latter may as easily be reconciled to Transubstantiation, as the former.  
And this I have the longer insisted upon, both because most of the Writers of that Age, whom we have alleged against Transubstantiation, follow the Principles, and make use of the Arguments and Expressions in Bertrams Book, and chief because this Book seems to have been the Model by which the first Reformers framed this Article of the Eucharist; for so Bishop Ridley, who had a great hand in Compiling this Article intimates; as we find in the Preface of a Book De Coena Domini, Printed at Geneva, in 1556. where he says, That it was this Book which first put him upon Examining the Old Opinion, about the Presence of Christ's very Flesh and Blood, by Scripture and Fathers, and Converted him from the Errors of the Church of Rome in this Point; which is also affirmed by Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation, Part II. Book I. p. 17. And this is what I thought fit to Remark, for the benefit of the English Reader, concerning the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, which is said to be Established in the Thirteenth Century, by Innocent III. concerning whom, I Observe in the 2d Place,  
That this Pope was the first who published a Crusade against the Albigenses, which is a way of enlightening Men's Understandings, by beating out their brains, and converting them by the irresistible force of Sword and Gun; the same way which Mahomet used for propagating his Religion in the World was followed by this Pope, whose Cruel and Barbarous Actions are no less agreeable to the Spirit of Mahomet, than they are contrary to that of Christ. The same Pope Founded the Office of the Inquisition, which at first did only draw up a Process against Heretics, and solicit the ordinary Judges to Condemn them, but in a little time the Power of Judging and Condemning Heresy was committed to them, and the Secular Judges did only execute their Sentence And it is observable that the Inquisition was established much about the same time with Transubstantiation; the Cruelty of the one being a fit Match for the absurdity of the other: And indeed this Holy Office was a necessary Engine to cram down the throats of Mankind such a choking Morcel as Transubstantiation.  
Mr. Du Pin in this History has given us some account of the barbarous Proceed against the Albigenses by the Crusade and the Inquisition, without passing any Censure upon these Actions; but lest any should suspect by his Silence, that he approved them, I will now briefly show you what Opinion he had of all Corporal Punishments, when they are used by ecclesiastics. And this will appear from his Book of Ecclesiastical Discipline, Dissert. 7. where 1st in the Preface he tells us, That the Civii Power respects men's Bodies, which may be forced to a Compliance, and therefore the Civil Magistrate may Punish Men with Corporal Punishment and Death; but the Ecclesiastical Power respects men's Minds which cannot be forced; and therefore the Governors of this Society can only reclaim Men from their Vices by Exhortations and Commands, which if they do not obey, they can inflict no other Punishment but that of Excommunication. And then 2dly, in Ch. 1. Sect. 5. of the same Dissertation, he proves that the Church has no Authority in Temporal Affairs, because it cannot force Men by Corporal Punishment, and Deprivation of their Goods: For, says he, 'tis a thing unheard of among the Ancients, that the Church should inflict any other Punishment than that of Excommunication, or Deposition. He owns, that after the Emperors became Christian, their affection to the Christian Religion, and desire to preserve the Empire in Peace, moved them sometimes to Banish or Fine those who were Ringleaders of Heresy; which was very often done of their own proper motion; and sometimes, but seldom, at the desire of the Fathers of the Church: But it was only in the latter Ages that the Church obtained of the Emperors a Power to inflict Corporal Punishment. For proof of this he shows, 1st, That Christ gave to the Church no Power but what is Spiritual, nor did order the Obstinate and Disobedient to be otherwise Punished, than by excluding them from Communion. But this is not all, for he shows in the 2d place, (whatever Power Churchmen may have received from Magistrates over Men's Bodies) That nothing is more contrary to the Design of the Gospel than such a Power as strikes terror into the Minds of Men, which he proves from the words of our Saviour to the Apostles, when they would have called for Fire from Heaven upon the Samaritans, Luke 9 25. Ye know not what Spirit ye are of, for the Son of Man came not to destroy Men's Lives, but to save them. 3dly, He shows, That Christ forbade his Apostles to use the Temporal Sword in defence of Religion, from the Rebuke that he gave to St. Peter for drawing his Sword; Put up thy Sword into the Sheath, for all they that take the Sword, shall perish by the Sword, Matth. 26. And lastly, he proves, That ecclesiastics cannot use the Temporal Sword, or Civil Power, to Force and Punish Men, from the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers, whom he there Quotes. And this may suffice to show what Opinion Du Pin had of this Wolf of a Pastor, Innocent III. and the Sanguinary Methods he used to Extirpate Heretics, by the Crusade, and the Inquisition; since he declares, not only that Churchmen have no such Power from Christ, and that it was never practised in the first and best Ages of the Church, but also, that it is contrary to the Design of the Gospel to use such Cruelties; and to the Mind of Christ to Defend, and much more to Propagate, Religion by such violent and bloody Methods.   

ADVERTISEMENT.  
THE Preceding Volumes of Monsieur Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History, wherein an Abridgement is given of the Writings of the Primitive Fathers, and all other Ecclesiastical Writers from the Time of our Saviour, with a Preliminary Dissertation of the Authors of the Bible; and an Impartial Relation of all Affairs Transacted in the Church; is Printed for, and Sold by Timothy Child, at the White-Hart, at the West-End of St. Paul ' s Churchyard.  
And those Gentlemen that have the former Volumes, wanting those last Published, viz. The Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth, being the History of the Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Centuries; may be Furnished with them by Tim. Childe.   

A TABLE of the CONTENTS of the ELEVENTH VOLUME.  

CHAP. I.  
THE History of the different Revolutions in the Empire and Italy, during the Thirteenth Century. Page 1  
Contests about the Empire between Philip and Otho. Ibid.  
Otho acknowledged Emperor. 2  
Otho goes into Italy andmakes War there. 2  
Sentence of Excommunication against him. 2  
Frederick elected Emperor, and goes into Germany. 3  
Crowned Emperor by Honorius III. 3  
But differing with the Pope, is also excommunicated. Ibid.  
Pope Honorius dies, and is succeeded by Gregory IX. Ibid.  
Frederick departs for the Holy Land. Ibid.  
Gregory excommunicates him. Ibid.  
Frederick makes Peace with the Pope. 4  
Henry his Son, whom he had caused to be chosen King of Germany, revolts from him. 4  
Frederick wars again with the Pope. 4  
The Sentence of Pope Gregory against him. 4  
The Opinion of the French upon the Deposition of Frederick. 5  
The Death of Gregory, and Election of Celestin IU. and Innocent IU. Ibid.  
A General Council at Lions. 6  
Wherein the Pope complains of the Emperor. 6  
Frederick's Defence. 7  
The Landgrave of Thuringen and Earl of Holland, chosen Emperors by some of the Princes of Germany. 7  
The Death of Frederick. 8  
The Government of Manfred in Sicily. 9  
Troubles in the Empire and Sicily. 9  
The Elections of Alphonsus, and Richard Earl of Cornwall, Emperors. 9  
Charles Earl of Anjou defeats Manfred, and makes himself Master of Italy. 9  
Conradin disputes the Kingdom of Sicily with Charles. 9  
Defeated and put to death. 9, 10  
The Election of Rodolphus to the Empire, and his Actions. 10  
Charles of Anjou despoiled of his Authority by the Pope. 10  
Sicily rebels against Charles. Ibid.  
The Sicilian Vespers. Ibid.  
The Defeat of Charles, and his Death. Ibid.  
The Division of the Kingdom of Sicily. Ibid.  
The Reign of Adolphus. Ibid.  
He is deposed. Ibid.  
Election of Albert D. of Austria. Ibid.   

CHAP. II.  
THE Life and Letters of Pope Innocent the Third. 11  
The Life of Pope Innocent. Ibid.  
His Letters. 11, to 48   

CHAP. III.  
THE History and Writings of the Popes from the Death of Innocent III. to the End of this Century. 48  
Honorius III. Ibid.  
Collections of the Pope's Decretals. 49  
Gregory IX. 49  
Celestin IV. 49  
Alexander IV. 50  
Urban IV. 50, 51  
Clement IV. 51  
Gregory X. 51  
Institution of the Conclave. 51  
Innocent V. 51  
Adrian V. 51  
John XXI. 51  
Nicholas III. 52  
Martin IV. 52  
Honorius IV. 52  
Nicholas IV. 52  
Celestin V. 52   

CHAP. IV.  
THE Lives and Writings of the Authors that flourished in the West in the Thirteenth Century. 53  
A Judgement upon the Works of the Authors of this Age. Ibid.  
Joachim Abbot of Flora. 54  
John Beletha Doctor of Paris. 54  
Peter the Chanter of the Church at Paris. 54  
Gilbert Abbot of Gemblours. 57  
Hervardus Archdeacon of Liege. 57  
William of Segnelay Bishop of Paris. 57  
Robert of Corceon. 57  
Alanus of Lisle, the Universal Doctor. 57  
Simon a Priest of Tournay. 57  
Peter of Corbeil Archbishop of Sens. 57  
Absalon Abbot of Spinkerbac. 58  
Wernerus Abbot of St. Blaise. 58  
Tagenon Dean of Pavia. 58  
An Anonymous Historian. 58  
Walter Archbishop of Rouen, William the Pilgrim, and Richard Canon of London. 58  
Albert Patriarch of Jerusalem. 58  
Dodechim Abbot of St. Disibode. 58  
Andreas Silvius Abbot of Marchiennes. 58  
Baldwin Emperor of Constantinople. 58  
Geoffry of Villehardwin. 58  
Gonthier a Monk of Paris in the Diocese of Basil. 58  
Arnold Abbot of Lubeck. 58  
Gervais of Tilbury. 58  
Walter Mapes Archdeacon of Oxford. 58  
Wilbrandus of Oldenburg Canon of Hildesheim. 58  
Robert and Hugh Canons Regular of St. Marian of Auxerre. 59  
Lambert of Liege Monk of St. Laurence of Duits. 59  
Anonymous. 59  
Peter Monk of the Valleys of Cernay. 59  
William of Philaurent. 59  
John of Oxford Dean of Salisbury. 59  
John Abbot of Fordeham 59  
Joceline Brakelonde Monk of Uske. 59  
John Grace Bishop of Norwich. 59  
Hugh White Monk of Peterburgh. 59  
Prepositivus a Divine of Paris. 59  
Cesarius of Hesterbac Prior of Villiers. 59  
Stephen of Langton Cardinal. 59  
Alexander Necham Abbot of Exeter. 60  
Helinand Monk of Troimont. 60  
Conrade of Lichtenau Abbot of Urspurg. 60  
St. Francis of Assisi. 60  
St. Anthony of Milan. 60  
Ricerius Companion of St. Francis. 60  
Roderick Ximenes Archbishop of Toledo. 60  
Henry Abbot of Richenou. 60  
Conrade Prior of Schur. 61  
Ekerard Dean of St. Gall. 61  
William Monk of St. Denis. 61  
Rigord Historiographer of France. 61  
William of Nangis. 61  
Fabian Hugelin a Friar Minor. 61  
Conrade Abbot of Everbak. 61  
John Gale Abbot of Fontinelle. 61  
Albert Prior of Mont de Vignes. 61  
Two Anonymous Authors. 61  
Maurice Archbishop of Rouen. 61  
William Abbot of Andres. 61  
John Algrin of Abbeville Cardinal. 61  
Jordan General of the Preaching Friars. 61  
Walter Cornu Archbishop of Sens. 61  
Gerard Monk of St. Quentin. 61  
Hugh Regular Canon of Premontre. 61  
Conrade of Marpurg. 62  
Philip of Greve Chancellor of the University of Paris. 62  
Thomas de Celano a Franciscan Friar. 62  
James of Vitry Cardinal. 62  
Luke Bishop of Tuy. 62  
Godfrey Monk of Pantaleon. 62  
St. Edmond Archbishop of Canterbury. 62  
Robert Grosthead Bishop of Lincoln. 62, 63  
William Bishop of Paris. 63, 64, 65  
Vincent of Beauvais a Friar Preacher. 66  
St. Raimond of Pennafort or Rochfort. 67  
Giles of Astisi a Franciscan Friar. 67  
John of Rochel, Franciscan Friar. 67  
John of Hales. 67  
Albertus Magnus' Bishop of Ratisbon. 67, 68  
Richard of St. Laurence. 68  
St. Bonaventure. 68  
St. Thomas Aquinas. 69  
Hugh de St. Charus, or Theodorick, Cardinal. 71  
Conrade of Halberstadt. 71  
William Perrault Preaching Friar. 72  
Thomas de Chantprè. 72  
Roger Bacon Friar Minor. 72  
Peter des Vines Chancellor to the Emperor Frederick II. 72  
Humbert General of the Dominicans. 72  
Gerard of Frachet Preaching Friar. 72  
Bartholomew of Bresse Professor of Canon Law. 73  
Godfrey the Bald Archbishop of Bourges. 73  
William Monk of St. Martin of Tournay. 73  
Giles Monk of Orval. 73  
Bernard of Compostella Chaplain to Innocent IV. 73  
Conrade a Germane Bishop. 73  
Albert General of the Friars Minors. 73  
Alberick Verus Canon Regular of St. Augustin. 73  
Walter Bishop of Poitiers. 73  
Roger Historiographer of Hungary. 73  
Constantine of Orvieto▪ 73  
Engelbert Abbot of the Cistertian Order. 73  
Robert Rich and Robert Bacon. 73  
John de Dieu Canon of Bologn. 73  
John Colonna Archbishop of Messina. 74  
Anonymous Author of the Life of St. Clare. 74  
Rainier Sachon Friar Preacher. 74  
Matthew Paris Monk of St. Alban. 74  
William of Rishanger. 74  
Henry Susa Cardinal Bishop of Ostia. 74  
John Semeca Provost of Halberstadt. 74  
Anonymous Author of the Life of Godeberte. 74  
John of Parma General of the Friars Minors. 74  
John Christophle Preaching Friar. 74  
Robert of Sorbonne. 74 *  
Hannibal of Annibaud Cardinal. 74 *  
John de Galls Friar Minor. 75 *  
John Genes a Franciscan. 75 *  
William of Sanvic a Carmelite. 75 *  
William Guarron Friar Minor. 75 *  
Thomas Spott, and William Thorn English Monks. 75 *  
Tho. of Lentini Archbishop of Cosenza. 75 *  
Martin a Polander, Archbishop of Guesna. 75 *  
Nicholas of Hanaps Patriarch of Jerusalem. 75 *  
Bonaventure Brocard Friar Preacher. 75  
Mark Paul a Venetian. 75  
Matthew of Vendosm Abbot of St. Denis▪ 75  
Geoffry of Beaulieu Confessor to St. Lewis. 75  
John Peckham Archbishop of Canterbury. 75  
William Durants Bishop of Menda. 75  
Two Anonymous Authors Friars Preachers. 75  
John de Hayde. 76  
William de la Mare Friar Minor. 76  
Rupert or Robert of Russia Friar Minor. 76  
Ulric of Strasbourg Preaching Friar. 76  
St. Gertrude and St. Matilda Benedictine Nuns. 76  
Thierry of Apolda Preaching Friar. 76  
Gobelin and Egehard Abbots of Urangen. 76  
Conrade a German, Friar Preacher. 76  
Stephenard a Divine of Milan. 76  
Ralph of Colonna Canon of Chartres. 76  
Thomas Palmeran Doctor of Sorbon. 77  
Guy de Baif Archdeacon of Boulogn. 77  
Gregory Cairguent an English Benedictine Monk. 77  
Raimond des martin's Preaching Friar. 77  
Nicholas the Gaul General of the Carmelites. 77  
Sigeard Monk of St. Alban. 77  
Matthew d' Aquasporta Cardinal. 77  
Arlott General of the Franciscans. 77  
Luke of Milan Friar Minor. 77  
Simon Monk of Afflighem. 77  
Henry Monk of Afflighem. 77  
William Prior of Afflighem. 77  
Alexander of Dol. 77  
Gerard of Liege Friar Preacher. 78  
Peter Provincial of the Dominicans. 78  
Engelhard Abbot of Lanckaim. 78  
Henry of Gaunt Archdeacon of Tournay. 78  
Richard of Middleton Friar Minor. 78  
James de Voraggio Archbishop of Genova. 78  
Guy de Munoise Abbot of St. german de Auxerre. 79  
Ptolemy of Lucca Bishop of Toricelli. 79  
John the Teutonick Bishop of Bossena. 79  
Garsias a Spaniard. 79  
Henry or Amand Susan, Friar Preacher. 79  
Walter of Exeter Friar Preacher. 79  
Francis de Moncade Marquis of Ayetone. 79  
Authors whose Works are only in Manuscript. 80   

CHAP. V  
THE History of the Greek Church, and the Authors who flourished in the East during the Thirteenth Century. 81  
Projects set on foot for the Reunion of the Greeks and Latins. 82  
The Reunion of the Greeks and Latins under Michael Palaeologus. 82  
Rupture of that Union in the time of Andronicus. 84  
The Succession of the Patriarches of Constantinople during this Century. 84  
Nicholas d' Otrantes. 85  
Nicetas Archbishop of Thessalonica. 85  
Nicetas Acominatus, Choniates Logothetes. 85  
Michael Acominatus, Choniates Archbishop of Athens. 85  
Joel. 85  
George Acropolita Logothetes. 85  
Pantaleon Deacon of Constantinople. 86  
Manuel Charitopula. 86  
Germanus Nauplius. 86  
Nicephorus Blemmidas. 87  
Arsenius Autorianus. 87  
Theodore Lascaris. 87  
George Pachymeres. 87  
John Veccus. 88  
George Metochita, and Constantine Meliteniosa, Deacon and Archdeacon of Constantinople. 88  
Simon of Crete Preaching Friar. 88  
George Gregory Patriarch of Constantinople. 89  
George Moschamper Register of Constantinople. 89  
Constantine Acropolita Logothetes, Mark and Job Jasites. 89  
Gregory Abulpharaje. 89   

CHAP. VI  
OF the Councils held during the Thirteenth Century. 89  
The Council of Sens. Anno 1198, 89  
The Council of Dalmatia. 1199, 90  
The Council of London. 1200, 90  
The Council of Lambeth 1206, 90  
The Constitutions of Cardinal Gallo. 90  
The Council of Avignon. 1209, 91  
The Council of Paris. 1212, 92  
The Council of Montpelier. 1215, 94  
The forth General Lateran Council. 1215, 95  
The Council of Melun. 1216, 103  
The Council of Mentz. 1225, 105  
The Council of Narbonne. 1227, 105  
The Council of Tholouse. 1229, 106  
The Council of Chateau Gontier. 1231, 107  
The Council of Beziers. 1233, 108  
The Council of Arles. 1234, 109  
The Council of Narbonne. 1235, 110  
The Council of Tours. 1236, 110  
The Council of London. 1237, 111  
The Council of Cognac. 1238, 112  
The Council of Tours. 1239, 113  
The Council of Laval. 1242, 114  
The first General Council of Lions. 1245, 114  
The Council of Beziers. 1246, 115  
The Council of Valenza. 1248, 115  
The Council of Saumur. 1253, 115  
The Council of Alby. 1254, 116  
The Council of Bourdeaux. 1255, 116  
The Council of Beziers. 1255, 117  
The Council of Ruffec. 1258, 117  
The Council of Montpellier. 1258, 117  
The Council of Cologn. 1260, 118  
The Council of Arles. 1260, 118  
The Council of Cognac. 1260, 118  
The Council of Lambeth. 1261, 119  
The Council of Cognac. 1262, 119  
The Council of Bourdeaux. 1262, 119  
The Council of Na●tes. 1264, 119  
The Decrees of Engelbert Archbishop of Cologn. 120  
The Council of Vienna in Austria. 1267, 120  
The Council of London. 1268, 120  
The Ordinance of St. Lewis. 1268, 121  
The Council of Chateau Gonthier. 1268, 122  
The Council of Angers. 1269, 122  
The Council of Sens. 1269, 122  
The Council of Compeign. 1270, 122  
The Council of Avignon. 1207, 122  
The Council of St. Quentin. 1271, 122  
The Council of Rennes. 1273, 122  
The second General Council of Lions. 1274, 123  
The Councils of Saltzburg. 1274, & 1281, 125  
The Council of Arles. 1275, 126  
The Synodal Statutes of Robert Bishop of Duresm. 127  
The Council of Saumur. 1276, 127  
The Council of Bourges. 1276, 127  
The Council of Langeiss. 1278, 127  
The Council of Ponteaudemer. 1279, 128  
The Councils of Avignon in 1279, & 1282, 128  
The Council of Reading. 1279, 129  
The Council of Buda. 1279, 129  
The Council of Angers. 1279, 130  
The Synodal Statutes of Sifroy Archbishop of Cologn. 131  
The Synodal Constitution of Geofry Bishop of Saintes. 131  
The Constitutions of Walter Bishop of Poitiers. 131  
The Council of Lambeth. 1281, 131  
The Council of Tours. 1282, 132  
The Synodal Statutes of the Diocese of Nismes. 132  
The Council of Ravenna. 1286, 132  
The Council of Bourges, 1286, 133  
The Synodal Canons of Peter Bp of Exeter. 134  
The Council of Wurtzburgh. 1287, 134  
The Council of L'Isle in Provence. 1288 135  
The Synodal Statutes of Gilbert Bishop of Chichester. 135  
The Council of Nogarol 1290, 135  
The Council of Saltzburgh. 1291, 136  
The Council of London. 1291, 136  
The Council of Saumur. 1294, 136  
The Synodal Statutes of Robert of Winchelsea Archbishop of Canterbury. 1295, & 1300, 136  
The Synodal Constitution of Guy Bishop of Saintes. 136  
The Council of Rouen. 1299, 136   

CHAP. VII.  
AN Account of the Contests between the Divines of Paris, and the Dominican Friars: And of the Writings of William de Sancto Amore. 137  
The Contests between the Divines of Paris and the Dominicans. 137  
Contests between William de Sancto Amore and the Dominicans. 138, etc.  
An Abridgement of the Writings of William de Sancto Amore. 140  
A Judgement on his Style and Doctrine. 144   

CHAP. VIII.  
OF the Errors advanced by Amaury, Abbot Joachim, and several others, and of the Condemnation of them. 144  
The Doctrine of Amaury, and his Condemnation. 144  
Of his Disciples. Ibid.  
Aristotle's Works condemned. Ibid.  
The Opinions of Abbot Joachim. 145  
The Book entitled the Eternal Gospel. 145  
Condemnation of that Book, and its Errors. 145  
Condemnation of the Joachimites in the Council of Arles. Anno 1260, 145  
Propositions condemned by William of Paris. 146  
Recantation of William a Franciscan Friar. 146  
Propositions condemned by Stephen Templar Bishop of Paris. 146   

CHAP. IX.  
THE History of the Sects of the Waldenses, Albigenses, and others; of their Doctrines, Condemnation, Adversaries: And of the Inquisitions, Crusades and Wars made against them. 147  
The Rise of the Sect of the Vaudois or Waldenses. 147  
Their Opinions. 147  
Several other Sects. 149  
The Inquisition and Crusades against the Albigenses. 150  
Their Opinions. 153  
The Treatise of Luke de Tuy against them. 153  
Stadings, Heretics of Germany. 153  
Schismatics of Germany. 153  
Flagellantes. 153   

CHAP. X.  
ECclesiastical Observations on the Thirteenth Century. 154  
Heresies and Errors raised in this Age. 154  
Establishment of the Inquisition. 154  
Origin of Censures. 154  
History of the University of Paris. 155  
Of the Authority of the Popes. 155  
Of Election and Collation to Benefices. 155  
Difference between the Medicant Friars and the Clergy about Confession. 156  
Institutions of divers Religious Orders. 156  
The poor Catholics. 157  
The Humbled. 157  
Friars Preachers. 157  
The Minor or Franciscan Friars. 157  
Augustine's. 157  
Carmelites. 157  
The Order for Redemption of Captives. 157  
Sylvestrines 157  
The Order of St. Mary of Mercy. 157  
Servites. 157  
Celestines. 157  
The Order of the Valley of Scholars. 157   

The Tables.  
A Chronological Table for the History of the Thirteenth Age.  
A Chronological Table of the Ecclesiastical Authors of this Century, and their Works.  
A Chronological Table of the Councils held in the Thirteenth Century, and their Acts, Letters, Canons and Ordinances.  
A Table of the Works of the Ecclesiastical Writers of this Century, disposed according to the Subjects they treat on.  
A General Index of the principal Matters contained in this Volume.    

An Alphabetital TABLE of the Authors mentioned in this Volume.  

A  
A Bsalom Abbot of Spinkerback. Page 58  
Adam of Barkinghen. 59  
Adam of Chamilly. 80  
Alanus of L'Isle, the Universal Doctor. 57  
Alanus. 49  
Alberick Cistertian Monk. 80  
Alberick Verus Regular Canon of St. Augustin. 73  
Albert Patriarch of Jerusalem. 58  
Albert Abbot of Stade, etc. 73  
Albert Prior of Mont des Vines at Pavia. 61  
Albertus Magnus' Bishop of Ratisbon. 67  
Albertanus Advocate of Bresse. 80  
Alexander IV. Pope. 9, 50, 82, 138  
Alexander of Dol. 78  
Alexander of Hales Friar Minor. 67  
Alexander Neckam Abbot of Exeter. 60  
Alexander of Somerset, Prior of Esbi. 80  
Armand Suzon Friar Preacher. 79  
Andrew Silvius Abbot of Marchennes. 58  
St. Antony of Padus. 60  
Anlo●us General of the Order of Franciscans. 77  
Annoldus Abbot of Lubec. 58  
Ansenius Autorianus Patriarch of Constantinople. 87   

B  
BAldwin Regular Canon of Premontrè. 80  
Baldwin Emperor of Constantinople. 58  
Bartholomew of Bresse Professor of the Canon Law. 73  
Benedict Bishop of Marseilles. 79  
Bernard Bishop of Fayence. 49  
Bernard of Compostella Chaplain to Innocent IV. 73  
St. Bonaventure Cardinal. 68  
Bonaventure Brocard of the Order of Dominicans. 75   

C.  
CElestin V Pope. 52  
Cesareus of Heisterbac Prior of Villiers. 59  
Clement IV. Pope. 51, 83  
Conrade Abbot of Everbak. 61  
Conrade, a Germane, of the Order of the Dominicans. 76  
Conrade a Germane Bishop. 73  
Conrade Prior of Schur. 61  
Conrade of Halberstad. 71  
Conrade of Lichtenau Abbot of Ursperg. 60  
Conrade of Marpurgh of the Order of Dominicans. 62  
Constantine Acropolita Logothetes. 89  
Constantine Meliteniotes Archdeacon of Constantinople. 88  
Constantine of Orvieto. 73   

D.  
DAvid of Augsburg of the Order of Franciscans. 73  
Dodechim Abbot of Disibode. 58   

E.  
ECkerhard Dean of St. Gal. 61  
St. Edmond Archbishop of Canterbury. 62  
Egehard Abbot of Urangen. 76  
Engelbert Abbot of the Cistertian Order. 73  
Engelhard Abbot of Lankaim. 78   

F.  
FAbian Hugelin of the Order of Franciscans. 61  
St. Francis of Assisi. 60  
Francis of Moncade Marquis of Ayeton. 79   

G.  
GArsias the Spaniard. 79  
Geofry of Beaulieu Confessor of King St. Lewis. 75  
Geofry of Villehardwin. 58  
George Acropolites Logothetes. 85  
George of Cyprus, surnamed Gregory, Patriarch of Constantinople. 89  
George Metochites Deacon of the Church of Constantinople. 88  
George Moschamper Keeper of the Archives of the Church of Constantinople. 89  
George Pachymeres. 87  
Gerard Monk of St. Quentin of Lisle. 61  
Gerard of Frachet of the Order of Dominicans. 72  
Gerard of Liege of the Order of Dominicans. 78  
Germanus Nauplius Patriarch of Constantinople. 86  
St. Gertruda Abbess of Helfenden. 76  
Gervais of Tilbury. 58  
Gilbert Abbot of Gemblours. 57  
Gilbert Martin Abbot of Gemblours. 57  
Gilbert of Tournay of the Order of Franciscans. 75 *  
Giles Monk of Orval. 73  
Giles of Assisi of the Order of Franciscans. 67  
Gobetinus. 76  
Godfrey Monk of St. Pantaleon. 62  
Godfrey the Bald Archbishop of Bourges. 73  
Gonthier Monk of Paris in the Diocese of Basil. 58  
Gregory IX. Pope. 49  
Gregory X. Pope. 41  
Gregory Abulpharaje an Arabian. 89  
Gregory of Winchester Monk of Gloucester. 77  
Guy of Baif Archdeacon of Bologn. 77  
Guy of Munoise Abbot of St. Germains of Auxerre. 79   

H.  
HAnnibal of Annebaud Cardinal. 74 *  
Helinand Monk of Froimont. 60  
Henry Count of Calva Abbot of Richenou. 60  
Henry Monk of Afflighem. 77  
Henry of Susa Cardinal. 74  
Henry of Gaunt Archdeacon of Tournay. 78  
Henry or Amand Suson of the Order of Dominicans. 79  
Hervard Archdeacon of Liege. 57  
Honorius III. Pope. 3, 48, 54  
Honorius IV. 52  
Hugh Regular Canon of Floreff. 61  
Hugh Regular Canon of St. Marian of Auxerre. 59  
Hugh of St. Charus' Cardinal. 67, 71  
Hugh White Monk of Peterburgh. 59  
Humbert of Romans General of the Order of Dominicans. 72   

I  
JAmes of Vitry Cardinal. 62  
James of Voragines ABp. of Genes. 78  
Innocent III. Pope. 1, 11, etc. 49, 57, 95, 154  
Innocent IV. 5, 49, 63, 137  
Innocent V. 52  
Joachim Abbot of Flora. 54  
Job Jasites. 89  
Joceline of Brakelonde. 59  
Joel the Greek. 85  
John XXI. Pope. 51  
John Abbot of Fordeham. 59  
John Algrin of Abbeville Cardinal. 61  
John Beletha a Parisian Doctor. 54  
John Christophilus a Dominican. 74  
John Colonna Archbishop of Messina. 74  
John de Dieu Canon of Pologn. 73  
John de Galls a Franciscan. 75 *  
John Gal Abbot of Fontenelle. 61  
John Genes de la Caille. 75 *  
John Grey Bishop of Norwich. 59  
John of Hayde. 76  
John of Nusco of Mons-virginiss. 80  
John of Oxford Dean of Salisbury. 59  
John of Parma. 74  
John Peckham. 75, 129, 131  
John of Rochel a Franciscan. 67  
John Semeca Provost of Halberstad. 74  
John the Teutonick Bp. of Bossena. 79  
John Veccus. 88  
Jordanus General of the Dominicans. 61   

L.  
LAmbert of Liege. 59  
Luke Bishop of Tuy. 62  
Luke of Milan. 77   

M.  
St. MAtilda a Benedictine Nun. 76  
Manuel Charitopula. 86  
Mark a Greek Monk. 89  
Martin IV. Pope. 52  
Martin the Polander. 75 *  
Matthew of Aquasporta Cardinal. 77  
Matthew Paris Monk of St. Alban 74  
Matthew of Vendome. 75  
Maurice Archbishop of Rouen. 6●  
Michael Acominates ABp. of Athens. 8●  
Moneta a Dominican. 80   

N.  
NIcephorus Blemmidas. 87  
Nicetus ABp. of Thessalonica. 85  
Nicetas Acominates Choniates Logothetes. 85  
Nicholas III. Pope. 52  
Nicholas IV. 52  
Nicholas of Hanaps. 75 *  
Nicholas the Gaul. 77  
Nicholas of Otrantes. 85   

O.  
ODo Rigald Archbishop of Rouen. 80   

P.  
PAntaleon Deacon of Constantinople. 86  
Peter of Auvergno a Dominican. 71  
Peter Chanter of Paris. 54  
Peter Monk of the Valleys of Cernay. 59  
Peter a Dominican Provincial. 78  
Peter of Benevento Cardinal. 49, 94  
Peter of Corbeil Archbishop of Sens. 57  
Peter des Vignes. 6, 72  
Peter of Tarentum, see Innocent V.  
Philip of Greve. 62  
Prepositivus a Divine of Paris. 59   

R.  
RAimond of Martin's a Dominican. 77  
St. Raimond of Pennafort. 67  
Rainier Sacho a Dominican. 74  
Ralph Bocking a Dominican. 75 *  
Ralph the Black an Englishman. 80  
Ralph of Colonna Canon of Chartres. 76  
Ricerus the Disciple of St. Francis. 60  
Richard Canon of London. 58  
Richard of St. Laurence. 68  
Richard of Middleton a Franciscan. 78  
Rigord Historiographer of France. 61  
Robert Regular Canon of Premontrè. 59  
Robert Bacon Doctor of Oxford. 73  
Rober Corceon Cardinal. 57  
Robert Grostead Bp. of Lincoln. 62  
Robert Rich of Abindon. 73  
Robert or Rupert of Russia. 76  
Robert of Sorbonne. 75  
Roderick Ximenes. 60  
Roger Historiographer of Hungary. 73  
Roger Bacon a Franciscan. 72   

S.  
SIgehard Monk of St. Alban. 77  
Simon Monk of Afflighem. 77  
Simon Priest of Tournay. 57  
Simon of Crete a Dominican. 88  
Stephanard a Divine of Milan. 76  
Stephen Monk of Cella-Nova. 80  
Stephen Langton. 59, 90, 104   

T.  
TAgenon Dean of Pavia. 58  
Theodore Lascaris, surnamed Ducas, the Greek Emperor. 87  
Thierri of Apolda. 76  
St. Thomas Aquinas. 69  
Thomas Bockingham. 80  
Thomas of Celano a Franciscan. 62  
Thomas of Chantprè. 72  
Thomas of Lentini. 75 *  
Thomas Palmeranus. 77  
Thomas Spott or Sprott. 75 *   

V  
VEccus, see John Veccus.  
Vincent of Beauvais. 66  
Ulric of Strasburgh a Dominican. 70, 76  
Urban IV. Pope. 9, 50, 82   

W.  
WAlter of Constance. 58  
Walter Bishop of Poitiers. 73  
Walter Cornu Archbishop of Sens. 61  
Walter of Exeter a Dominican. 79  
Walter Mapes Archdeacon of Oxford. 58  
Wernerus Abbot of St. Blaise. 58  
Wilbrand of Oldenburgh. 58  
William Abbot of Andrews. 61  
William Deacon of Bourges. 80  
William Bishop of Paris. 57, 63  
William Monk of St. Denis. 61  
William Monk of St. Martin. 73  
William Prior of Affighem. 77  
William the Briton. 61  
William of Bresse Archbp. of Sens. 80  
William of Chartres. 75  
William Durant Bp. of Menda. 75, 76  
William Guarron a Franciscan. 75 *  
William de la Mare a Franciscan. 76  
William of Nangis. 61  
William the Pilgrim. 58  
William Perault a Dominican. 72  
William of Puilanrent. 59  
William of Rishauger. 74  
William of Rusbrock. 80  
William of St. Amour. 138, 139, etc.  
William of Sanvic. 75 *  
William of Segnelay. 57  
William of Tripoli. 80    

An Alphabetical TABLE of the Councils in the Thirteenth Century.  
A. Years. Pages. ALby. 1254, 116 Angers. 1269, 122 Angers. 1279, 130 Arles. 1234, 109 Arles. 1260, 118 Arles. 1275, 126 Avignon. 1209, 91 Avignon. 1270, 122 Avignon. 1282, 128 E. BEziers. 1233, 108 Beziers. 1246, 115 Beziers. 1255, 117 Bourdeaux. 1255, 116 Bourdeaux. 1262, 119 Bourges. 1225, 152 Bourges. 1276, 127 Bourges. 1286, 133 Buda. 1279, 129 C. CAnterbury. 1295, 136 Chateaugonthier. 1231, 107 Chateaugonthier. 1268, 122 Chichester. 1289, 135 Chichester. 1292, 125 Clermont. 1263, 156 Cognac. 1238, 112 Cognac. 1260, 118 Cognac. 1262, 119 Cologn. 1260, 118 Cologn. 1266, 120 Cologn. 1280, 131, 156 Compeign. 1270, 122 Constantinople. 1277, 83 Constantinople. 1284, 84 D. DAlmatia. 1199, 90 Durham 1276, 127 E. EXeter. 1287, 134 L. LAmbeth. 1206, 90 Lambeth, 1261, 119 Lambeth. 1281, 131 Langeiss. 1278, 127 Lateran IV. General. 1215, 95 Lavaur. 1213, 151 Laval. 1243, 114 Lions I. General. 1245, 114 Lions II. General. 1274, 123 Lisle in Provence. 1288, 135 London. 1200, 90 London. 1237, 111 London. 1268, 120 London. 1291, 136 M. MElun. 1216, 103 Melun. 1232,  Ments. 1225, 105 Merton. 1300, 136 Montilly. 1209, 150 Montpellier. 1215, 94 Montpellier. 1224, 152 Montpellier. 1258, 117 N. NAntes. 1264, 119 Narbonne. 1207, 150 Narbonne. 1227, 105 Narbonne. 1235, 110 Nismes. 1284, 132 Nogarol. 1290, 135 Nimphea in Bythinia. 1233, 82 O. OXford. 1222, 104 P. Parish. 1209, 144 Paris. 1212, 92 Paris. 1223, 152 Paris. 1226, 152 Poitiers. 1280, 131 Poitiers. 1284, 131 Ponteaudemer. 1279, 128 Q. QUentin. 1271, 122 R. RAvenna. 1286, 132 Reading. 1279, 129 Rennes. 1273, 122 Rome. 1210, 2 Rouen. 1299, 136 Ruffec. 1258, 117 S. SAintz. 1298, 136 Saltzburgh. 1274, 125 Saltzburgh. 1281, 125 Saltzburgh. 1291, 136 Saumur. 1253, 115 Saumur. 1276, 127 Saumur. 1294, 136 Sens. 1198, 89 Sens. 1269, 122 T. THolouse. 1229, 106 Tours. 1236, 110 Tours. 1239, 113 Tours. 1282, 132 V. VAlence in Dauphine. 1248, 115 Vienna in Austria. 1267, 120 W. WIrtzburgh. 1209, 2 Wirtzburgh. 1222, 3 Wirtzburgh. 1287, 135   

A HISTORY OF THE Controversies in Religion, And other AFFAIRS transacted in the CHURCH DURING THE Thirteenth Century.  
CHAP. I.  
The History of the different Revolutions in the Empire and Italy, during the Thirteenth Century.  
THE Affairs of the Church in this Century are so interwoven with those of the Empire, that before we can enter upon Ecclesiastical Matters, we must lay down a Scheme of the State of Germany, and Italy, of the principal Revolutions that have happened in them, and of the scuffles that the Popes had with the Emperors, and the Princes of Italy. This is what I design to do in this Chapter.  
The Emperor Henry VI. dying at Messina about the end of the year 1197. or, as others 
Contests about the Empire between Philip and Otho.  will have it, at Palermos', at the beginning of 1198. left behind him a Son named Frederick, of about seven years of Age. Him by his last Will he made Heir and Successor to all his Estates, as well as the Empire, to which he himself had been chosen some time before by the Princes of Germany. He desired the Pope to settle him in the Possession of them: and to engage him, ordered that he should receive from Frederick, for the benefit of the Holy See, all those Estates that had belonged to the Princess Mathilda, and some other Towns. In the mean while he constituted his Brother Philip, the Duke of Suabia, Regent of the Empire. Constantia the Mother of Frederick demanded of the Pope to have him crowned King of Sicily, which was accordingly done; but as for the Empire, Frederick was not put into possession of it: that being disputed by Philip Duke of Suabia, who was chosen by the major part of the Electors, and crowned at Mentz by the Bishop of Tarentaise; and also Otho Son of Henry Duke of Saxony, was elected by the Archbishop of Cologn, and some other Germane Princes: to whom the Country of Cologn, the Palatinate, Thuringen, and Livonia submitted; while all the rest of Germany were for Philip. The King of France stood for Philip, and England for Otho. Pope Innocent III. declared for Otho, confirmed his Election, and rejected that of Philip, who nevertheless had the better of it in Germany, and by the force of his Arms had brought many of those that had acknowledged Otho to submission. Upon this, in the year 1201. the Pope sent his Legate Cardinal Guy Bishop of Palestrina into Germany, to countenance Otho's Party; who strait declared Philip no better than a Rebel, and commanded all the Germans, under pain of Excommunication, to acknowledge Otho for their Emperor. Still this did not put a stop to the Progress of Philip's Arms; who having drawn over Adolphus Archbishop of Cologn to his side, got himself crowned a second time by the hands of this Archbishop in the year 1204, at Aix la Chapelle, maugre all the opposition of the Pope's Legate; and, understanding that Conrade Archbishop of Mentz was dead, he got the Vacancy supplied by the Election of Diepold, or Lupold Bishop of Worms: but he was no sooner gone from thence, but that the greater part of the Canons protested against the freedom of the Election; and thereupon having put in an Appeal to the Holy See, they reassembled themselves at Bingen, and elected Sifroy to the Archbishopric of Mentz, whose Election w●● confirmed by the Pope, who likewise excommunicated Lupold, and the next year by his Legate deposed Adolphus Archbishop of Cologn, and chose Bruno into his place. In the year 1206. Otho was besieged in Cologn by Philip, and not thinking himself in a condition to sustain the Siege, retired with some Troops, accompanied by the new Archbishop Bruno; but being set upon by Philip, he was defeated, Bruno taken Prisoner, and Cologn forced to receive Philip for its Master. Otho secured himself in Saxony, and from thence passed into England. The Princes of Germany, being at length desirous to settle an entire Peace in the Empire, dispatched their Envoys in the year 1207. to Pope Innocent, desiring him to acknowledge Philip, and apply himself to the reconciling of the two Pretenders to the Empire. The Pope agreed to the Proposition, but upon this condition, that Philip's Daughter should be given in Marriage to Richard his Nephew. In hopes to make this design succeed, he sends three Legates into Germany, who were present at an Assembly held at Northuse upon the Christmass-Holydays, where the two Kings concluded a Peace; Otho giving up the Empire to Philip, on condition of marrying his Daughter, and being his Heir. Adolphus was in this Assembly absolved by the Legates, and Bruno set at liberty by the Emperor. Philip did not enjoy the Peace long, for he was the next year killed at Bamberg by Otho Count Palatine of Witilspach, who was incensed against him for engaging himself to give that Daughter to another, which he had before promised him in marriage. Philip being dead, without any consideration of the right that Frederick King of Sicily had to the Imperial Crown, Otho was by universal consent of the Princes of Germany chosen Emperor.  
No sooner was Otho raised to this Dignity, but his old Adherents got the upper hand again, 
Otho acknowledged Emperor.  and routed those that had been for Philip. Bruno reentered upon his Archbishopric of Cologn, and Adolphus was deposed; Sifroy took possession of the Archbishopric of Mentz, and drove out Lupold: only Conrade Bishop of Spire, who had been Philip's Chancellor, retiring into a very strong Castle, would not make his Peace with Otho, nor pay him Allegiance, but upon condition of continuing in his former Charge; which Otho was forced to allow him.  
Pope Innocent having notice of Otho's Election, sent his Legates into Germany, to invite 
Otho goes into Italy, and there makes War.  him to Rome, there to receive the Imperial Crown from his hands. His Legates were received in an Assembly held at Wirtzburg in 1209, where they gave their Approbation of the Marriage that had been agreed upon between Otho, and the Daughter of Philip. The same year Otho took a Journey into Italy, and came to Rome, where he was received by Pope Innocent III. and crowned in St. Peter's, the 4th of October. The Pope obliged him to take an Oath to defend the Patrimony of St. Peter; and the Romans demanding of him what was customary for Emperors to give in this Ceremony, there arose a Disturbance, in which the Romans coming to blows with the Germans, there were many killed on both sides: which made Otho remove, instantly from Rome, and ravage all the Church-Lands, as well to revenge the Affront, as to mortify the Pope whom he began now to be jealous of. Upon this the anger and hatred of the Pope broke out against Otho to that degree, that he threatened to excommunicate and depose him, if he did not cease those Hostilities: but Otho was so far from regarding it, that he took a resolution to seize upon Romagna, and make himself Master of Sicily and Apuleia, which belonged to Frederick, and whereof the Pope had had the Government ever since the death of Constantia the Mother of that Prince. The Pope willing to put a stop to such designs as these, excommunicated the Emperor, and afterwards called a Council at Rome, wherein he declared the 
Sentence of Excommunication out against Otho.  Empire void, and all the Subjects of it free from their Oath of Fidelity to Otho, forbidding them any more to acknowledge him for Emperor. He made this Sentence be published in Germany in the year 1211, by Sifroy Archbishop of Mentz, who quickly repent of having done it; for the Count Palatine, the Duke of Brabant, and some other Princes of the Empire entered the Territories of his Archbishopric with an Army, where they laid all waste, forcing him to retire for safety into Thuringen. The Disturbances that the Publication of this Sentence had made in Germany hastened Otho's return home. He called an Assembly at Nuremburg, about Whitsuntide the same year; wherein he declared War against Herman Count of Thuringen, for protecting Sifroy Archbishop of Mentz, and for refusing any longer to acknowledge him Emperor. Strait he gathered his Troops, entered Thuringen, took two of the strongest Towns, and put all the Country to Fire and Sword. Being returned to Northuse, he celebrated his Marriage with the Daughter of Philip, who died within few days after the Ceremony.  
In the mean while Sifroy Archbishop of Mentz, the King of Hungary, the Archbishop of 
Frederick chosen Emperor, goes into Germane 〈◊〉.  Treves, and the Count of Thuringen, with some other Princes of the Empire, resolve to revive the old Election of Frederick, and to make him Emperor in the stead of Otho. They brought their Resolution into practice, and having made a solemn Election of him anew, they sent two Deputies to carry him the Decree of his Election, and to invite him to come and take possession of the Empire. Frederick made no scruples but what he thought necessary to satisfy himself of their fidelity, and being assured of that, he parted for Germany. He took Rome in his way, and there desired Pope Innocent to crown him, but was put off by him with an excuse, that he would send a Cardinal into Germany with him in the Quality of a Legate, to order the Princes of the Empire to relinquish Otho, and acknowledge him. Frederick went on his Journey till he arrived at Constance, where a number of the Germane Princes, especially those of Suabia, came to meet him with their Troops. Otho would fain have come and set upon him with his Army, but his Troops by little and little dropping away from him, he was forced to shift for himself. Frederick on the contrary was kindly received every where, and in a little time made himself Master of Mentz, Cologn, and Aix la Chapelle, where he was crowned Emperor in the year 1214. Afterward he entered into an Alliance with Philip Augustus' King of France. Otho who on his part was in league with John King of England, Renaud Earl of Bologn, and Ferdinand Earl of Flanders, having raised a numerous Army against the King of France, joined Battle with him at Pont de Bowines in Flanders, the 15th of July in the year 1214. King Philip's Person was there in great danger, but the Confederate Army was entirely routed, and Otho after having lost his whole Army forced to fly. He with much ado got into Saxony, where he died, some say in the year 1216, others in 1218, never caring to meddle in State Affairs after this Defeat.  
Otho by his death left Frederick in peaceable possession of the Empire. This Prince made himself be crowned a second time by the hands of Sifroy Archbishop of Mentz; and again a third time by the Pope's Legate. At this last Coronation he made a Vow to go to the assistance of the Holy Land, and gave to the Holy See the Earldom of Fondi in the Kingdom of Naples. Upon this Pope Innocent wrote to the Princes of Germany in his behalf, and engaged Theodorick Archbishop of Treves to get that City to acknowledge him: so that in 1215 Frederick saw himself in a peaceable possession of the whole Empire.  
In the year 1220 he was crowned Emperor by Honorius III. the Successor of Innocent; 
Frederick crowned Emperor by Honorius III.  and for an acknowledgement he gave to the Holy See some Lands in Italy, and engaged himself anew to go the Holy Voyage: but within a while after he and the Pope fell out about two Earls of Tuscany, whom he had robbed of their Lands, and who were fled to Rome for relief. The City of Bologn, and some other places in Italy rising against him, he came to 
Scuffles between the Pope and Frederick.  Rome, and broke entirely with the Pope, by attempting to turn those Bishops out of the Churches which the Pope had put in, and to put in some of his own; pretending it to be a right of the Kings of Sicily, which Pope Innocent III. had encroached upon during his minority. The Pope rebuked him sound for his boldness, and threatened him with Excommunication, if he did not let things continue as they were. Frederick not minding to hearken to 
The Sentence of the Pope against Frederick.  him, Honorius the Third darted the Thunderbolt of Excommunication upon him, declared him to have forfeited all his Kingdoms, and freed all his Subjects from the Oath and Allegiance they had sworn to him: Which was afterwards the occasion of a multitude of Misfortunes to the Church and Empire. This Sentence nevertheless did then little or no execution, not any one thereupon revolting from Frederick: but on the other side, in an assembly of the Princes of Germany held at Wirtzburg in the year 1222, Frederick got his Son Henry, then but twelve years old, chosen King of Germany, and crowned at Aix la Chapelle by Engelbert Archbishop of Cologn.  
Honorius the Third died before he could push the Sentence home against Frederick; Gregory 
Frederick's departure for the Holy Land.  the IX. who in the month of April in the year 1227 succeeded him, contented himself to warn Frederick of his Journey to the Holy Land, as he feared an Anathema. Henry King of Germany called a General Assembly of all the Princes of the Empire at Aix la Chapelle at the beginning of the year 1227, where the Expedition for the Holy Land was resolved upon. Upon this all that belonged to the Crusade repaired to Brines ready to embark, where Frederick, who had engaged himself to command them, made them wait a pretty while, pretending himself very ill. At last he makes shift to come to them by August, and embarks to go into Asia, but he was no sooner there but he was back again. The Pope having notice 
Gregory the IXth's Excommunication of Frederick.  of his return, rubs up the old Sentence that his Predecessor had set out against him; yet with a Promise of Absolution if he would undertake the Voyage to the Holy Land. Frederick hereupon published four Manifesto's against the Popes and Cardinals: the first he addressed to all Kings; the second to the Cardinals; and the third to the People of Rome; in all which he complains of the Excommunication which the Pope had thrown at him: and a fourth is presented to all Princes, giving them advice against Churchmen. For all this, not 
Frederick's Voyage to the Holy Land.  long after Frederick took a Resolution of going into Syria, and put it in execution in August 1228. When he went he sent Ambassadors to the Pope to demand the Absolution. But the Pope absolutely refused him, gave order to the Knight's Templars, and Hospitalers, to cross him in all his Designs, as a professed Enemy of the Church; and forbidden all that were upon the same Expedition in Lombardy and Apuleia to join him. In the mean while Renaud Son of the Duke of Spoletto, whom Frederick had left Regent of the Kingdom of Sicily during his absence, had entered into the Marquisate of Ancona, and the Valley of Spoletto; against whom the Pope raised his Troops on the other side, and sent them into Apuleia under the command of John de Briennes King of Jerusalem, who made himself Master of many Towns. Frederick receiving this News in Syria, where he had successfully taken some Towns from the Saracens, was obliged to clap up a Treaty with the Sultan; the Conditions of which were advantageous enough to the Christians, viz. That the Sultan should deliver into their hands the City and all the Kingdom of Jerusalem, except the Temple and some Castles; and that there should be a Truce of ten years between the Christians and Saracens. In pursuance of this Treaty Frederick took possession of Jerusalem, and made himself be crowned King thereof in the Lent of the year 1229. He gave notice to the Pope that he had made such a League with the Sultan: at which the Pope shown no small dissatisfaction, and accused Frederick of having treated with an Infidel, still stirring up his Subjects what he could against him. Frederick hearing of this, made a quick return into Apuleia, where bringing in an Army from Germany, he recovered all the Towns that were taken or had revolted from him, and made a reprisal upon the Church, by taking the Duchy of Spoletto, the Marquisate of Ancona, and the City of Benevento. This 
Frederick's Peace made with the Pope.  success did not make him so high but that he was willing to sue for the Pope's friendship: to gain which he dispatched the General of his Army with the Archbishop of Messina to the Pope to desire his Absolution; which the Pope still refused to agree to, but upon condition that he should pay 26 thousand Ounces of Gold to the Church of Rome for the damage he had done it; and should restore all the Lands that belonged to it. Frederick's Deputies being returned, he himself went to meet the Pope at Anagni, where he received his Absolution, was reestablished in his Empire, and declared King of the two Sicily's, and of Jerusalem. The Pope and the Emperor seemed to be very well reconciled upon the occasion, they eat together, and one would have hoped here had been a firm Peace established between them: yet 'twas not long before they broke again; for the Romans rebelling against the Pope, and Frederick coming to assist him with his Troops, there happened a misunderstanding between them: the Pope accusing Frederick for underhand dealing with his Enemies, and Frederick again reproaching the Pope for secretly treating with the Romans, and telling them that it was without his consent that Frederick set upon them near Viterbo. Howsoever it was, Frederick left the Pope, retired to Pisa, and from thence passed into Germany; but the Pope drew good part of his Soldiers from him, by promising those that would come into his Camp good Entertainment.  
Frederick found himself crossed in Germany by the Factions of the Princes, and suspecting 
Frederick's Son Henry revolts against his Father.  his Son Henry, he deprived him of the Government, and sent him into Sicily, which very much displeased most of the Princes of Germany: but yet he made shift to keep Germany in Peace, and having gathered his Troops together, he returns to Italy in 1235, and sets upon those Towns of Lombardy which had entered into League against him; he takes Verona and Vicenza, and lays all the Country round waste. His Son Henry being discontented, enters himself into the League with the Towns of Lombardy, and had drawn over many of the Germane Princes to his Party, had not Frederick applied a ready remedy, by getting the Pope's Letter, charging the Princes of Germany not to take the Son's part against the Father: and thereupon he arrested and deposed his Son, and banished him into Apuleia, where he ended his Life the following year in a Prison. Frederick gets his second Son Conrade elected King of Germany, and brings Vienna, and all Austria, which had hitherto opposed him, to an acknowledgement of their Duty. While he was thus labouring to establish his Power in Germany, he did not forget his Pretensions to the Kingdom of Jerusalem; and thinking that they had been encroached upon, he wrote to Pope Gregory by the Archbishop of Ravenna to do him justice in that matter. The Pope gave the Archbishop commission in quality of his Legate to take care of the preservation of the Rights of Frederick, which is an evident proof that from the year 1230, the Pope had not made an open breach of his Agreement with Frederick till 1238. But in this year their Differences began to grow very hot, because Frederick had made war 
The War of Frederick against the Pope.  upon those Cities of Lombardy that would not acknowledge him. The Pope sent the Cardinals to him to make him desist from carrying on the War in Italy, but all in vain; for Frederick who was strongest continued his Progresses, defeated those of Milan that opposed his passage, took Brescia, and all the other Cities of Lombardy, except Bologna and Parma. The Pope seeing that Affairs went but ill with him, would have retired to Rome, but there John Cincius, a Senator of Rome that the Emperor had gained, procured the Gates to be shut against him; yet the Pope by the assistance of his Friends that were in possession of the Capitol, got into Rome, drove out Cincius, procured a Peace between the Venetians and Genovese, and taking courage, made the States of Italy enter into a League against Frederick. He moreover exercised his spiritual Arms against him, in publishing a Sentence of Excommunication 
The Sentence of Pope Gregory against Frederick.  against his Person, and in declaring all his Subjects dispensed with for the Oath of Fidelity to him: and in fine, to raise a powerful Enemy against Frederick, he sends his Nuncio's into France to offer the Imperial Crown to Earl Robert, Brother of St. Lovis King of France; but that Prince refused it, and by the advice of the French Lords sent back his Answer in these words: What strange spirit, or what boldness indeed is this in the Pope, that he should go 
The Opinion of the French upon the Deposition of Frederick.  about to rob of his Estates, and depose so great a Prince as Frederick, without either proof or acknowledgement of the Crimes of which he is accused; and who, did he deserve such deal, could not be lawfully deposed but by a General Council? for his Enemies (of whom its evident the Pope is one of the chief) ought not to be credited in those things of which they accuse him. As for Us, We see no reason hitherto to think him otherwise than innocent; he has dealt with us as a good Prince and Neighbour, and we have nothing to find fault with either in his Fidelity or Religion which is truly Catholic. Do not We know that he has made war for the Name of JESUS CHRIST, and has exposed himself both by Sea and Land for the Church? This is greater Religion than we can yet discover in the Pope, who, instead of aiding and defending him that fought God's Battles, did all he could to cross and destroy him. We do not desire to throw ourselves into so evident a danger as attacking a Prince so powerful as Frederick, who would be assisted by so many Kingdoms, and whom the Justice of his Cause alone is sufficient to uphold. We see very well how little the Romans care how lavish we are of our Blood, so we be but the Instruments to satisfy their passions; and We cannot but foresee if the Pope should happen to conquer by our means, how he would trample all the Potentates of the Earth under his Feet, exalted with the Pride of having crushed so great an Emperor as Frederick. He promised however to send his Deputies to Frederick to know what his Sentiments were about Religion, assuring him that he was ready to persecute and destroy all those who had any evil Principles in that, though it were the Emperor or the Pope himself. Accordingly he sends his Deputies to the Emperor, who acquainted him with the Propositions that the Pope's Nuncios had made. The Emperor assured them that he was a Catholic, and thanked the Deputies of France, who satisfied him that their Prince had no designs against any Christian Prince whatsoever, counting it sufficient to be Brother to the King of France, which in their opinion was more glorious than Emperor; the one being a King born, the other receiving his Title only by Election.  
The Emperor and the Pope accused one another mutually in their public Manifestos. The 
The War between Frederick and the Pope.  Emperor complained that the Pope had broken the Peace by entering with Arms into Sicily, while he warred in the East, by opposing his passage into Italy, by assisting the Lombard's against him, and by having excommunicated him unjustly. The Pope in answer to these Reproaches says, That he was obliged to employ both his spiritual and temporal Arms for the recovery of those Lands which Frederick detained from the Church, to which they belonged: That he had offered himself to mediate a Peace between the Emperor and the Lombard's, and that the Emperor refused to hearken to it: That he had heaped a multitude of Favours upon Frederick, and that that Prince in acknowledgement of them had aimed at nothing less than the destruction of the liberty of the Churches, the robbing them of their Possessions, the stopping and hindering Crusades, and ruining the Authority of the Holy See. These Accusations on one side and the other, were followed by an intestine War; most of the Provinces and Cities in Italy being divided into two Parties, that of the Gibelins which held with the Emperor, and that of the Guelphs which was for the Pope. The party of the Gibelins, being encouraged by the presence of the Emperor and his Army, almost always had the upper hand, so that the greatest part of the Cities were brought under obedience to the Emperor; and there had been good reason to fear that he had taken Rome itself, where he kept secret correspondence with the principal Citizens, had not the Pope made all the People of Rome take upon them the Cross for their defence. The noble resistance of these religious Soldiers obliged Frederick to leave Rome, only laying all the Country about it waste; his Army dispersed themselves all over Italy, and wherever they came made havoc of the Goods of the Church, of Monasteries and religious Orders. The Pope, to oppose this Torrent, published plenary Indulgences for all those that would undertake the Holy War against Frederick, and called a General Council at Rome, to make a more solemn matter of his Deposition. Frederick that he might put by this thrust, and prevent the sitting of this Council, taketh care to have all passages by Sea and ●…nd well guarded for the stopping those Prelates that would come to it. The Pisans who were let to guard the Sea Coasts having met with the Genoese Galleys, which were bringing a good number of Cardinals, Bishops, and other Prelates to the Council, set upon them, and having taken them, brought all the Prelates to Frederick, who put them all in prison. Much about the same time Frederick took a Castle of Campania, and in it many of the Pope's Relations, whom he caused all to be hanged. Gregory could not bear up under the grief of so many dismal Misfortunes, and so falling sick, died at Rome the 30th of September in the year 1241.  
Pope Celestin the Fourth, who succeeded him, seemed very inclinable to a Peace; but living 
The Election of Celestin IU. and Innocent IV.  but eighteen days, had not time to make any thing of it. After his death the Holy See was vacant nineteen months, because of the Imprisonment of the Cardinals; but Frederick having at last set them at liberty at the request of Baldwin Emperor of Constantinople, they chose Cardinal Sinibaud a Genovese, Pope, who took the name of Innocent the Fourth. This Pope it was hoped would conclude the Peace, having been a Friend of Frederick's while he was Cardinal: and indeed he said as much at the beginning of his Popedom, and made use therein of the mediation of Baldwin. 'Twas agreed that the Pope and Frederick should have a meeting at Castellane; but the Pope, not willing to trust him, being afraid of being taken Prisoner, never came to the place; or, if he did, made great haste away again, took ship at Civita Vecchia, and passed into France: where being kindly received by order of King St. Lovis, he seated himself at Lions; and thither called a General Council, citing Frederick to make his appearance.  
This Council began about the end of the month of June, in the year 1245. Baldwin Emperor 
A General Council at Lions in the year 1245.  of Constantinople assisted there in person, with the Patriarches of Constantinople and Antioch, and the Archbishop of Aquileia or Venice notwithstanding the opposition of some, took his place among the Patriarches. The Kings of France and England sent thither their Deputies, so that what with Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, and the Deputies of those that could not come themselves, there were present about a hundred and forty six. The Emperor Frederick did not appear himself, but sent Thadaeus of Sessa with a joint Deputation to act in his name with the Bishop of Strasburg, Hugh General of the Teutonic Order, and Peter des Vignes. The Pope assembled the Prelates on the Monday after the Feast of St. John Baptist, to consider of the things which should be proposed in Council. The Patriarch of Constantinople laid open the miserable estate and condition of the Latins in the East, and the great danger that the City of Constantinople was in. To this the Pope said not a word. Then another proposed the Canonising of St. Edmond Archbishop of Canterbury; but the Pope put that off till another time. Then Thadaeus proposed an Accommodation with Frederick, declaring, That he was ready to make peace, and be reconciled to the Pope: That he proffered to reunite all Greece to the Holy See; to oppose the Progress of the Tartars and Saracens, by carrying on a War against them at his own charge; to restore to the Church of Rome whatsoever he had taken from it, and to make the Pope full satisfaction. To this the Pope made answer, That there was no reason to trust him that had often cajoled them with as fair promises as these, which he had broken, and that he did this only for the present to evade the Judgement of the Council: and moreover that Thadaeus had no special Order to make any such Proposals. Then the Bishop of Beritus made a Discourse upon the apparent danger that the Holy Land was in, and read a very mournful Letter from the Christian Lords that remained in Palestine to desire some Supplies. These were the Preliminaries of the Council, whose first Session was upon St. Peter's Eve. After the Pope had sung the Veni Creator, wherein he was assisted by all present, and had made a Prayer for the Assistance of the Holy Spirit, he preached a Sermon, wherein he took for his Text those words of the 94th Psalm, In the multitude of the Sorrows that I had in my Heart, thy Comforts have refreshed my Soul. He told them that he had five Sorrows; the Cause of the first was the Irregularity of the Clergy and Laity; that of the second was the haughty Insolence of the Saracens; that of the third the Schism of the Greeks; that of the fourth the Cruelty of the Tartars; and lastly, that of the fifth, the Persecution of the Emperor Frederick. He enlarged upon every one of these heads: First, he exclaimed against the Irregularities of the Clergy and common Christians. Secondly, he laid forth the Cruelties that the Saracens had exercised against the Faithful, when they took the Holy City, and the Sepulchre of our Lord. Thence he passed on to the Progress that the Emperor of the Greek Heretics had made, insomuch that the City of Constantinople itself was in danger. Fourthly, he spoke of the Destruction that the Tartars had made in Hungary, where they had put every thing to fire and sword. And, Fifthly, of the Persecution that he pretended Frederick had raised against the Church; of the Injuries that he had done his Predecessor Pope Gregory, and of those that he was every day labouring to do him, while he boasted that 'twas not the Church, but the Persons of the Popes that he aimed at; which was absolutely false, seeing that during the Vacancy of the Holy See, he was so far from ceasing from Hostilities, that he took that advantage of oppressing the Church and Clergy the more. About the end of his Discourse he exhibited against Frederick a particular Charge of Heresy and Sacrilege, for having built a City upon Christian Ground which he peopled with Saracens, only to curry favour with the Sultan of Babylon and the Saracen Princes; for keeping Saracen Ladies for his Mistresses; and for having broke the Oath he had taken. To prove this last Accusation, he caused the Edict of Frederick which was called the Golden Bull, and other Declarations of his to be read, wherein he promises Obedience and Allegiance to the Pope, acknowledges that the Kingdom of Sicily and Apuleia is a dependence on the Holy See, and by which he had restored to the Church of Rome many Lands. This Discourse being finished, Thadaeus risen up, and answered to all the Pope had advanced against his Master, and in his turn accused the Pope of having done many things very injurious to him: and produced some Letters of the Pope, which shown that he had not been as good to his promise as it became him; and as for the Accusation of Heresy, he replied, That that Prince if he were there could easily justify himself in that, but that they might judge he was a true Catholic by this, that he would suffer no Usurers in his Kingdom: which was, says Matthew Paris, A touch for the Court of Rome, where every one knows there is store of this sort of Cattle. He added, that if his Master was in any Confederacy with the Sultan, or any other Saracen Princes, or if he suffered the Saracens to settle in his Dominions, it was that he might make use of them in keeping under his rebellious Subjects, choosing rather to expose their Persons than those of Christians: and for the other thing, that he had no Saracen Ladies for his Mistresses; that indeed he suffered some of them in his Court, but 'twas for the diversion they gave him by their conversation; but that he had sent them back again, and that he would have no more for the future. After he had done, Thadaeus required time to give his Master notice, and to desire him to come to the Council in person: the Pope answered that he could not in wisdom allow any delay, that he was afraid of some Plots which he had already narrowly escaped; that if the Emperor came, he must be gone; that he was in danger of his life, and that he did not much care for dying a Martyr, or being clapped up in Prison. However the next day by the intercession of the English and French Deputies, they gained five days. Thadaeus' having given his Master notice how things went in that Council, that Prince saw plainly that the Pope was set upon it to condemn him, and therefore thought it would not be wisdom in him to expose his Person in a Council that he knew were his Adversaries. When the News came to Lions that Frederick would not come to Council, his Enemies made triumph of it, and his Friends so much discontented, that they did not dare to favour his Interests openly; insomuch that at the second Session of the Council, which was eight days after the first, one Apuleian, and two Spanish Bishops made very violent Discourses against him, particularly for daring to stop and imprison the Cardinals and other Prelates, who were coming to assist at the Council called at Rome by Pope Gregory. Thadaeus with a great deal of courage defended his Master, and affirmed that he could not have done otherwise, because that those Prelates were going to Rome to assist his Enemies in their design to depose him. The Pope gave his Vote against the Emperor, and this Session was wholly spent in disputes. Before it risen, Thadaeus demanded some longer time, making them hope that Frederick himself would come. The Pope put off the next Session for eight days, and then, being satisfied that the Emperor did not design to come, the third Session was upon the appointed day. They then treated of some other matters; as, of the means of recovering the Holy Land, upon which the Pope ordered certain old Constitutions to be read; and likewise confirmed all those Privileges and Rights that Emperors and Princes had granted to the Holy See. The Deputies of the King of England made their complaints of the excessive Taxes that the Court of Rome raised in England; and desired the Pope to take order about his Legate Martin, who had taken upon him to dispose of the Benefices of that Kingdom to the Italians, to the great prejudice of their Patrons; and had tried a great many new devices which were very chargeable both to the Church and State. He would not give them an Answer to this out of hand, but put it off till another time, that he might be more at leisure for Frederick's business. At last Thadaeus seeing that the condemnation of the Emperor was resolved upon, appealed in the name of this Prince to another Pope, and a more General Council; alleging that there were many Bishops and Deputies that were not come to the Council. The Pope made answer, that the Council was General enough, that all the World was invited to it, and that the Bishops and Princes that were absent, were such as depended upon Frederick, whom he would not permit to come to the Council, and that consequently there was no regard to be had to the appeal of Thadaeus; so as upon the account of it to forbear proceeding against the Emperor. After he had made a Speech, wherein he enlarged upon the friendship that had formerly been between that Prince and him, and upon his rare Qualities, he pronounced Sentence against him, by which he deprived him of his Empire, of all his Estates, and all his Dignities. This he afterwards put into form, and made it be publicly read in the Council. The substance of it was, that ever since his first being raised to the Sovereign Dignity of Pope, his chief business had been to re-establish the Peace of Christendom: that upon this design he had sent some Cardinals to Frederick, who was the Author and occasion of the War, and who had been excommunicated by his Predecessor Pope Gregory, with Proposals of an Accommodation; and that he had by them remonstrated to him, that for this he must begin with the setting all those Prelates, and ecclesiastics, and other Persons at liberty, which he had taken in the Galleys of Genoa; that at the same time he had assured him of his readiness to treat with him about a Peace, and to hearken to any Proposals which he would please to make for the satisfaction of the Holy See in those things for which he had been excommunicated; and that he had fairly offered to make reparation in case the Holy See had done him any injury; that if he would stand it out that he had done no injury to the Church, he would call an Assembly of the Kings, Prelates, and Ecclesiastical and Secular Princes to some free and safe place, and willingly stand to their Determination: and that if it should be the judgement of the Council that the Church had in any thing injured him, he was as ready to repeal any thing that had been so acted against him, as he was to receive satisfaction in case the Council should determine on the other side: that Frederick would not at first hearken to any Propositions; that at last he had sent the Earl of Tholouse, Peter de Vignes, and Thadaeus of Sessa, to make Articles of Obedience and Submission, and had promised with an Oath to make the Church satisfaction: but that having so often failed of his word, and now continuing his Violences, he found himself forced to punish him for his faults. Particularly he accused him of three principal Crimes: namely of Perjury, because he had often sacredly sworn to reunite the Church and Empire, and had as often broken his Oath: Of Sacrilege, for arresting those Prelates that were coming to the Council: Of Heresy, because he had laid aside that Fealty which he owed the Holy See, had slighted its Authority, had invaded its Possessions, had stopped its regular Elections, had robbed the Churches, and persecuted the ecclesiastics and Religious Orders; all which justly rendered him suspected of Heresy, as well as his League with the Saracens, whom he made use of against the Christians, and his other many Irregularities. As a just consequence of these Crimes, and Disorders, he declared this Prince, who by his Sins had made himself unfit to reign, despoiled of all his Honour and Dignity; of which he is by this Sentence deprived, and all his Subjects discharged from the Obligation of the Oath of Fidelity which they had taken to him, and forbidden under pain of Excommunication, ipso facto, to acknowledge him for their Emperor and King: and finally, those whose business it was to elect an Emperor, were ordered to choose him a Successor, leaving it to the Pope to take care for the Kingdom of Sicily. This Sentence was read to the astonishment of all that were present, and was published and sent about on all sides.  
Frederick in his defence writ a Letter to the King of France and other Princes of Europe, 
Frederick's Defence.  wherein, having first acknowledged the spiritual Authority of the Bishop of Rome, he denies his Power to extend to the disposing of the Empire, and the punishing of Kings and Princes, by depriving them of their Temporalties: alleging, that though he have the Privilege of consecrating Emperors, yet he has no more right to depose them, than other Bishops have those Kings whom it is the custom for them to anoint. But supposing he had that Authority, which he has not, yet that he could not make use of it against whom he pleased, as he had done in his procedure against the Emperor, without due form of Law. For that he had no Accuser, no lawful Summons to appear, nor Charge against him; nor did they make a just and fair Information, but only declared that the things were notorious, which they were not; that there were very few in the Council which had deposed any thing against him, namely one Bishop of Apuleia, whose Brothers and Nephew he had hanged for Treason, and two Spanish Bishops, who were too far off to have good information of what had passed in Italy: that had the Pope proceeded against him in due form, and he had been allowed to have his Accusers and Witnesses, yet he could not have cast him, because he was not present, nor lawfully summoned; and had by his Deputies given such good Reasons for his absence, that no one could interpret it to have been out of pride and contumacy; and that had he been present, he could not have been condemned by a peremptory Sentence: nay, more than all, had the whole Procedure been according to Law and Justice, yet the Sentence was not justifiable, because it was founded on facts notoriously false, and because the Punishment inflicted exceeded as well the Power of him that gave sentence (which reaches no farther than spiritual things) as the demerit of the Crimes laid to his charge. About the end of the Letter he gave the King's notice how it was their common Interest to disallow this Sentence; that they were in danger of being served at the same rate; that the Pope had begun with him, but would end with them if they did not side with him for the support of their Authority. He wrote in particular to the King of France, making him Umpire of his Differences with the Pope, and referring himself to his Judgement, and that of his Peers. The King of France sensibly touched with these Letters, offers Proposals of Accommodation to the Pope, assuring him that Frederick was ready to give him due satisfaction, and would spend the rest of his days in warring against the Infidels in the Holy Land. The Pope did but laugh at it, and replied, That he had often promised as much, and more, but never performed any thing. The King of France remonstrated to the Pope that he ought to forgive sixty, or seventy times seven times; and therefore counselled and entreated him in the name of a great number of Holy Soldiers that were in a readiness to go for the Holy Land, for the good of the Catholic Church, and the benefit of Religion, in imitation of JESUS CHRIST who submitted himself even to the Death of the Cross, to accept of that humble Proposition that he made him on the Emperor's part: but the Pope still refusing to hearken, St. Lovis went away very much disturbed, says Matthew Paris, that he could not find that Humility in the Servant of the Servants of God which he himself was master of. Many other Princes cried out against this Sentence of the Pope, maintaining that 'twas not in his power to raise and put down Kings at his pleasure; and the greatest part of 
The Landtgrave of Thuringen, and Earl of Holland Elected Emperors by some of the Princes of the Empire.  the Electors and Princes of Germany always received Frederick for their lawful Emperor. Only a few Malcontents that had been gained by the Pope's Agents, elected Henry Landtgrave of Thuringen King of Germany, who made no great advances; but was killed before Ulme in the year 1247. William Earl of Holland was chosen in his stead, and having taken Aix la Chapelle, was there Crowned in 1248. All this while Frederick with no small success was carrying on the War against the Guelphs in Italy; but his Son Entius, who was his Lieutenant General, being taken by the Bolognians, and put into prison, abated his heat, and retired into Apuleia, where he ended his days in 1250, leaving his Son Conrade Heir to his Estates. The Pope confirmed William in the Empire, excommunicated Conrade, and sent his 
The Death of Frederick.  Legates into Sicily to hinder that Kingdom from receiving any other Sovereign than the Holy See.  
Conrade, whose Affairs went but ill in Germany, did nevertheless raise an Army, and pass 
The History of Conrade Frederick's Son.  into Italy to secure the Estates his Father had left him: and after having spent some time in Lombardy, he went into Apuleia, where his natural Brother Manfred governed with the Title of Viceroy; but with the design of making himself Sovereign. Conrade was received and acknowledged by all the Cities of Sicily and Apuleia, except that of Naples, which he laid Siege to; and took at the end of eight months. But William in the mean while making great progress in Germany, Conrade was forced to return in the year 1251, and took the City of Ratisbone with the help of Henry Duke of Bavaria; but understanding that William was in his march to set upon him with a numerous Army, he betook himself back again into Apuleia, where he died, not without suspicion of being poisoned by his Brother Manfred, the 22d of May in 1254, leaving his Son Conradine Heir to Sicily. Manfred, who did not care for 
The Government of Manfred in Sicily.  parting with Sicily, pretended a desire of being friends with the Pope, and thereupon invites him to come to Sicily. Accordingly the Pope comes with an Army to make himself acknowledged Sovereign of that Kingdom; but Manfred quickly picks a quarrel with him, and routs part of his Army; which so seized upon Innocent's Spirits, that he died at Naples the 7th of December, 1254. Alexander the 4th, who succeeded him, did not lay down his Predecessor's design upon Sicily: but he had no better fortune; Manfred defeated his Troops, and made himself Master of Apuleia and Sicily. The Pope seeing he was not able to maintain this War, gave the Kingdom to Edmund Son of the King of England, and dispensed with the Vow of that King to go for the Holy Land, on condition he would make war upon Manfred, against whom he also appointed a Crusade.  
While Manfred was strengthening himself in the Kingdom of Sicily, Ecelin, who took the 
Troubles in the Empire and Italy.  part of Frederick's Heirs, had made himself master of Lombardy; and the Pope to drive him from thence, had published a Crusade against him too at Venice. The greatest part of Germany had acknowledged William for their Sovereign, and as he was preparing to take a journey into Italy, there to receive the Imperial Crown, he was forced to march against the Friezlanders who had entered into Holland; but going against them, he fell into a Fen that was frozen, and was there killed by an Ambuscade of his Enemies, in December 1256. After his death the Germane Princes were divided about the Election of an Emperor, some of them declaring for Richard Brother to the King of England, and the others for Alphonsus' King of 
The Elections of Alphonsus and Richard to the Empire.  Castille. The former was Elected at Francfort on the Octave of the Epiphany, in the year 1257, by Conrade Archbishop of Cologn (who was also Proxy for Gerard Archbishop of Mentz) by Lewis Count Palatine of the Rhine, and Henry Duke of Bavaria; the other in Lent, by Arnold Archbishop of Treves as Proxy for the King of Bohemia, the Duke of Saxony, the Marquis of Brandenburg, and many other Princes. Thus did the Germane Princes basely sell the Honour of their Nation, and their own Votes to Strangers, who for many years together disputed the Empire without ever agreeing the matter. All which time Lombardy was the Seat of the War between the Guelphs and Gibelines; of the former of which Albert, of the latter Ecelin was the Head. The latter was wounded, and taken Prisoner in 1260, and died of his wounds, after having for four and thirty years been master of the most considerable Cities in Lombardy. His death set Italy at rest, which was not long after broken by the War between the Venetians and Genovese.  
Richard and Alphonsus were elected Emperors, but got nothing by it save the bare Title. Alphonsus never set foot in Germany; and Richard being come to Francfort, after having spent all that he was worth, was forced to return to England. In their absence Ottogar King of Bohemia extended his Dominions in Germany, so that in a short time he was become one of the most powerful Princes in Europe. In Italy Urban the 4th, who succeeded Alexander, had published a Crusade against Manfred, and all that sided with him in Apuleia or Lombardy, and stirred up some French Lords to come into Italy. Manfred on his part entered with his Troops into the Estate of the Church, and to strengthen himself against the Pope, entered into an Alliance with Jame's the 3d King of Arragon, by marrying his Daughter Constantia to Peter the King's eldest Son. The Pope on his side seeing that Edmund could not prosecute the Conquest of the Kingdom of Sicily, by reason of the Troubles that were in England, invested Charles Earl of Anjou Brother of St. Lovis therewith, who came to Rome in 1265, and was there crowned King of Sicily on the 28th of June, by Clement the 4th Urban's Successor, 
Charles Earl of Anjou defeats Manfred, and seizes himself upon Sicily.  who also made him Senator of that City. He was followed with an Army by Sea and Land; and giving Battle to Manfred on the 26th of February the following year near Benevento, he gained an absolute and bloody Victory over his Troops, Manfred himself being killed upon the spot. After his Death the Kingdom of Sicily submitted to the Conqueror; but Conradin, whose right this Kingdom was, wrote a Letter to the Princes of Europe, wherein he laid open the justice of his Pretensions, and implored their assistance for its recovery. He got together an Army composed for the most part of Volunteers, with which, by the advice 
Conradin disputes the Kingdom of Sicily with Charles; he is defeated and executed.  of Henry Brother of Alphonsus, he made a Descent into Tuscany, where he surprised and cut in pieces those Forces which Charles, whom the Pope had constituted Vicar of the Empire in that Country, had left there; and at the same time Conrade, a Son of one of the Emperor Frederick's Bastards, who was come from Antioch, drew off all Sicily from their Obedience, except Messma and Palermos', while Conradin by the assistance of the Gibelines, made himself Master of all Tuscany and Romagna, and entered in Triumph into Rome, where he was proclaimed Emperor by the People. But being entered into Campania with a design to go into Sicily, Charles met him at the Lake of Fucin, called the Lake of Celano, where he gave him Battle on the 25th of August 1268, in which Charles got the day. Conradin, Frederick Duke of Austria, and Henry of Castille betook themselves to flight; but happening to be known in the way, were brought back again to the Conqueror, who put them into prison, and gave them their Trial the next year. Conradin and Frederick were put to death, and Henry of Castille confined to Prison. Just about the same time too Conrade was taken by some of Charles' Party, who hanged him up; and a short time after Entius, the only one remaining of the Princes of Suabia, died in his Prison of Bologna. Thus unhappily perished the whole Race of the Emperor Frederick.  
The House of Austria quickly succeeded that of Suabia in Glory and Power: for Richard 
The Election of Rodolphus to the Empire, and his Actions.  being dead, and Alphonsus having no friends left him in Germany, the Electors assembled themselves in October 1273 at Francfort, according to the counsel of Pope Gregory X. and there elected Rodolphus Earl of Haspurge, without any regard had to the Remonstrances of the Deputies of Alphonsus, or the Solicitations of those of Ottogar King of Bohemia, who thought the Empire had been assured to him (though some Historians say that he refused it.) Rodolphus was crowned the same year at Aix la Chapelle, and the next was confirmed by the Pope in the Council at Lions, and acknowledged in an Assembly at Nuremberg, by all the Princes of Germany, except Ottogar King of Bohemia, who refused to be there. Rodolphus declared him a Rebel, and required him to deliver up Austria, and many other Provinces which he pretended belonged to the Empire. Ottogar refusing to deliver them, Rodolphus declares War against him, and lays siege to Vienna in 1276. Ottogar came with an Army to its assistance, and the King of Hungary to that of Rodolphus; but yet they did not come to a Battle, the Princes of Germany interposing their Authority to make up these Differences. 'Twas agreed that King Ottogar should content himself with Bohemia and Moravia, and should restore Austria, Stiria, Carinthia, Carniola, and the other Provinces to Rodolphus, for the performance of which he should take his Oath; and to the King of Hungary those Cities which he had taken from him, as well as the Hostages and Treasures that he had of his. This Peace did not last long, for the King of Bohemia, not caring faithfully to perform these Articles, and being very angry that he should be thus forced to submit to Rodolphus, provides a new Army, and comes to set upon the Emperor, but he lost the Battle and his own life. Rodolphus took Moravia from Wenceslaus the Son of Ottogar about eight years old, leaving him Bohemia, under the Tuition of his Uncle Otho Marquis of Brandenburg. He gave Austria to his eldest Son Albert, whose Posterity took the name of Austria, as more illustrious than that of Haspurge.  
The Establishment of Rodolphus lessened Charles the King of Sicily's Authority in Italy. Pope 
Charles despoiled of his Authority by the Pope.  Nicholas III took from him the Vicariate of Tuscany, and the Quality of Senator of Rome; and in recompense received of Rodolphus, Romagna, and the Lieutenancy of Ravenna which he gave to the Holy See, leaving all the other States of Italy in a sort of liberty dependant upon the Empire. But it would not content the Pope that he had deprived Charles of his Authority in the upper Italy; he had a design to get the Kingdom of Sicily from him too: and about this, deals with Peter King of Arragon, as Heir of the House of Suabia by his Mother Constantia the Daughter of Manfred. This gave occasion to the Conspiracy that was laid by 
Sicily rebels against Charles. The Sicilian Vespers. Charles his defeat and death.  John Lord of the Island of Crocida, whom Charles had robbed of his Possessions, against this Prince, and all the French that were in Sicily, which did not break out till after the death of Nicholas, when the Sicilians massacred all the French in the Kingdom, on Easter Sunday 1282. Charles coming to revenge this cruel Action, the King of Arragon enters into Sicily with his Army, and amuses Charles with a Truce. His Admiral Soria lays siege to Naples in the year 1284, and, having defeated Charles his Troops, takes his Son Charles the Lame Prisoner, and sends him into Arragon. Charles had enough to do to keep Apuleia and Calabria, and not being able long to survive his Misfortunes, died at Foggia in Apuleia the 7th of January 1285, leaving his Son Charles the Lame his Heir, who got out of Prison in 1287, but on condition that he should renounce all Pretences to Sicily. Yet he was no sooner got out but he made himself 
The division of the Kingdom of Sicily.  be crowned at Rome King of Sicily and Apuleia, on the 28th of May 1289. Alphonsus' dying some time after, Charles made up the matter with Dangianus his Successor, the latter renouncing his Pretensions to the Kingdom of Sicily, on condition that Charles of Valois should lay down his to Arragon. Yet for all this, Charles the Lame could not enjoy Sicily in peace, for Frederick the younger Brother of Dangianus, to whom Alphonsus by his Will had left this Kingdom, got himself crowned King by the Sicilians, so that Charles was never in possession of any but the Continent; the Kingdom of Sicily as it is called being from that time divided into two: one beyond the Pharos of Messina which is the Island of Sicily; the other on this side of that Tower, called the Kingdom of Naples.  
The Emperor Rodolphus ended his days at Germesheim near Spire, the last day of September 
The Reign of Adolphus.  1291, having reigned eighteen years. He laid the foundation of the prodigious Greatness of the House of Austria; but he laid down as it were the Empire of Italy, by neglecting to go thither, as well as by selling his Power over many Cities of Tuscany. Adolphus Earl of Nassaw was chosen into his place the 6th of January 1292, and crowned at Francfort. He peaceably enjoyed the Empire for some years; but the Germane Lords being discontented that he had not allowed them a share in a sum of Money that the King of England had given for help 
The deposing of Adolphus.  against France, and seeing that he had not authority nor strength sufficient to maintain the peace of Germany, deposed him in 1298, and in his stead elected Albert Duke of Austria, Son of the Emperor Rodolphus. Adolphus defended his right, but the fortune of War quickly decided 
Election of Albert Duke of Austria.  the case in favour of Albert; Adolphus being defeated and killed in the first Engagement near Worms, in the month of July. After his death Albert was elected anew, and crowned at Aix la Chapelle, and remained in peaceable possession of the Empire of Germany.   

CHAP. II.  
The Life, Letters, and other Writings of Pope Innocent the Third:  
INNOCENT the Third before he was raised to the Pontifical Dignity, went by the 
The Life of Pope Innocent III.  name of Lotharius. He was born at Anagni, being the Son of Thrasimond of the Family of the Earls of Signi, and of Claricia a Roman Lady. He studied at Rome, Paris, and Bologn; and being upon his return to Rome, was ordained Subdeacon by Gregory the 8th, and when he was but 29 years old, was made Chief Deacon by the Title of S. Sergius and S. Bacchius, by Clement the 3d. His Learning and Merit made him be unanimously chosen by the Cardinals on the very day of Celestin the 3d's Death, which happened on the 8th of January 1198; although he was then but very young, and no more than Deacon. He was consecrated Priest the 21st of February the same year, and raised to the Pontifical Throne on the Sunday next after the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Antioch. After having satisfied the People by the ordinary Largesses, and received an Oath of Allegiance from them, he made an Order, forbidding all Officers in the Court of Rome to take any Fee or Gratuity for what should be done at Rome, except the Rights that were due to those who drew up and writ the Bulls, on which he laid a very moderate Impost. Having remedied this Abuse, he applied himself wholly to decide in cases that should be brought before him. Thrice a week he had a public Consistory, where he in person gave Judgement in all principal Causes, leaving the meaner ones to his Commissaries. This quick dispatch brought him a multitude of Causes from all parts of the world; so that an Author that lived in his time remarks, that he in his Popedom decided more and more weighty Affairs than had ever been decided in thrice the time in the Church of Rome. This was the occasion of his writing such a vast number of Letters, of which there is a Collection divided into nineteen Books according to the years of his Pontificate. The two first were published in the last Century, by Cardinal Sirlett, printed at Rome in 1543, and reprinted at Cologn in 1575., and at Venice in 1578. Monsieur Bosquet found four others, viz. the thirteeenth, and the three following Books at Tolouze in the Library of the College of Foix, and printed them in 1635. Monsieur Baluze has since published the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth, with part of the fifth, and a Collection of the Letters that concern the Empire, and caused them to be printed at Paris in 1682, with some other Books that had been out before. The third, and the following Books to the tenth, were found in Manuscript in the Vatican Library. The three last are wholly lost. Because these Letters contain many Historical Facts and Points of Discipline, which may show us what the Ecclesiastical Polity of the Church of Rome was in the time of Innocent, by which the Popes have ever since taken their measures, I thought it might be worth while to make an extract (at least of part) of them, by particularising the Subject of each Letter.  
The first than is a Circular Letter about his Election, certifying all the Faithful how that 
The Letters of Innocent III.  after the death of Celestin his Predecessor, his Funeral being over, he was chosen Pope by the Cardinals; and recommending himself to all their Prayers, that God would give him Grace and strength to bear that heavy Burden of the Papal Chair. This Letter is full of expressions of Humility. The 2d and 3d are nothing but this same Letter directed, with some few Alterations, to the King of France, and to the Abbots, Priors, and other Religious of that Kingdom.  
There is an expression in the second which is no small honour to the King of France— In Consideration, says he, that the Kingdom of France has always remained in unity with the Church, We address the first fruits of Our Letters to You, that are the first and eldest Son of the Church of Rome.  
He writ also a particular Letter to the Patriarch of Jerusalem upon the same Subject, in which he tells him what a fervent desire he has to recover the Holy Land, and deliver the City of Jerusalem. This is the eleventh Letter of the first Book.  
In the fourth Letter of the same Book he writes to the Bishop of Paris, to put him in mind of exhorting King Philip to take the Queen his Consort again, and to use her kindly.  
In the fifth he forbids the Archbishop of Strigonia to perform that Vow he had made of going to Jerusalem, unless the Kingdom of Hungary should be in peace. In the next Letter he entrusts him with the Reform of a Monastery.  
In the seventh he reprimands the Abbot of St. Martin of Hungary, for being in a Conspiracy with a Lord of that Country against the King, contrary to the Injunction of Pope Celestin.  
In the eighth he entrusts the Bishop of Ferrara with the care of the temporal and spiritual Affairs of the Abbey of Nonantule, with Authority to punish the Abbot.  
The ninth is a permission to the King of Hungary to remove a Monastery from one place to another.  
In the tenth he advises one of the Sons of the King of Hungary to make a Voyage to the Holy Land to acquit himself of a Vow which his Father had made, and which he had obliged himself to perform.  
The thirteenth is a moral Exhortation to the Princes of Germany, inviting them to take up 
Pope Innocent's Letters.  Arms against the Infidels.  
In the fourteenth he appoints the Dean Elect, and Nicholas de Levennes Canon of Cambray, Commissioners to give judgement in a difference about a Church that was between the Abbey of Prom, and that of Premontre: but because about the end of the Commission he had added these words, quantum de jure poteritis, after these, probationes praesentis partis recipere; and consequently the Commissioners seemed to have power to prepare things for a hearing without observing this Clause, the Pope explains himself in the 62d Letter, and declares that this Clause respects as well the Preparation for, as the Judgement of the Cause.  
The fifteenth, which is written to two Cardinal Legates, is against an Agreement entered into without his knowledge by a Prior, and the Prelates and Consuls of the Cities of Tuscany, which he pretends is a Demesne of the Holy See.  
In the sixteenth, written to the Chapter of St. Anastasia, having first established this for a Maxim, that all important Causes are to be carried to Rome; he declared the Election of a Bishop, which this Chapter was forced to by the Secular Power, to be null, and ordered the Canons to proceed to the choosing another, who more desired to do good, than to enjoy the Dignity, qui non minus prodesse desideret, & noverit, quam prae●sse. He writ two Letters at the same time to the same purpose, the one to the Archbishops of Capua, Regglo, and Palermos', the other to the Empress, to procure a free Election. These make the 17th and 18th.  
In the nineteenth, addressed to the Bishop of Paris, he declares, That a Priest who by the advice of his Physicians has been gelt for prevention of the Leprosy, is not thereby rendered uncapable of discharging his Ministerial Office.  
By the twentieth he commissions the Bishop of Troy's, and the Abbot of St. Loup to absolve a Priest that had been accused of murder, if he could clear himself canonically, and his Accuser did not appear.  
In the twenty first he order the Archbishop and Archdeacon of Trani to inform against the Bishop of Vesti, for not having observed an agreement which he made with his Church, for the restitution of many things that he had taken from it.  
In the two and twentieth he gives leave to the Archbishop of Milan to ordain those Deacons and Priests who had received the Clericature of the Pope, because of the necessity he found himself in of having Priests.  
The twenty third is an Oath of Fidelity taken by Peter the Perfect of Rome, and by two other Officers to Pope Innocent the Third.  
In the twenty fourth he order the Bishops of Spire, Strasburg, and Worms, to command a Germane Lord to set the Archbishop of Salerno, whom he kept Prisoner, at liberty; and if he would not, to suspend the Diocese wherein he was detained.  
In the five and twentieth he order the Bishop of Sutri, and the Abbot of St. Anastasius to absolve Philip Duke of Suabia, provided he set the Archbishop of Salerno at liberty.  
In the twenty sixth, which is superscribed to the same Persons, he order them to charge the Germane Princes to set all the Sicilians at liberty that they had prisoners, and upon their refusal to excommunicate them, and interdict their Estates.  
In the seven and twentieth he recommends the assistance of his Legates which he had sent into the Exarchate, to the Archbishop of Ravenna, and his Suffragans.  
In the twenty eighth he desires the Archbishop of Sens, and the Bishop of Meaux to comfort the Countess of Champagne about the death of her Son, and to make use of Ecclesiastical Censures for the prevention of any one's doing her any injury.  
The twenty ninth is to the Bishop of Ferentino, and contains a decision of the following Case. A Man had promised another by Oath to marry his Daughter; and there was nothing to hinder the performance of it but the Daughter's unwillingness to comply: Two or three years after another man espoused her, per verba de praesenti. The Pope's Judgement is, That the second Contract ought to stand, if it were certainly made per verba de praesenti; but if it was entered into like the other, per verba de futuro, than the former should take place.  
The thirtieth he writes to the Chapter of Strasburg, to certify them, that for the preservation of the peace of their Chapter, the Provost of St. Thomas (in consequence of the Grant that he had made him of it by his Legate the Cardinal of St. Cecilia) had given up into his hands the right that he claimed to one of their prebend's, and had thereby put an end to the Suit that was between them and that Provost.  
In the one and thirtieth, written to the Archbishop of Tarragon, and the Sacrist of Wie, he entrusts them with the Judgement of a Difference about the Election of an Abbot of St. Bennet of Bage.  
The thirty second is an Act by which he confirms the Settlement that the Archbishop of Colocza had made of some Churches upon the Provost of that Church.  
The thirty third is addressed to two Canons of Pisa, ordering them to take care that a certain Man's Goods which he had mortgaged for a sum of Money should be restored him, he paying the Principal of that Sum for which his Estate was mortgaged.  
In the thirty fourth he warns the Sovereign Magistrate, and the Counsellors of Viterbo, not to go on in that Treaty which they and those of Pisa had begun to make with the Governors of Tuscany, without the Consent of the Holy See. He gives order in the following Letter to his Legates to interdict the Pisans, if they did not obey this Command.  
In the six and thirtieth he gives judgement that a Priest, who at the point of death has received a Monachal Habit from the hands of a simple Monk, and has thereupon been carried into a Monastery, but afterwards upon his recovery has quitted the Habit, and left the Monastery with the leave of the Abbot, is not afterwards thereby obliged to lead a Monastical Life.  
The seven and thirtieth is the decision of a Suit that was between the Archbishop of Milan, and the Monastery of St. Donatus of Scozula.  
In the thirty eighth he confirms the Excommunication of Marcovald by his Legates, for having seized upon the goods of the Church; and forbids all his Subjects to obey him, freeing them all from any Oath of Allegiance that they might have taken to him.  
The thirty ninth is a Decree, ordering the Bishop of Lodi to settle a Clerk, named James, in the Prebend of the Church of Novara, which had been given him by his Predecessor, except it could be proved that the two Persons who were in possession of the vacant prebend's were chosen before his Predecessor forbade the choosing any other but James. The next Letter is but the same over again, in respect of the other that had been chosen by the Holy See for the other Prebend.  
By the forty first and forty second, he puts a Monastery, that depended before immediately upon the Holy See, under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Luni.  
In the forty third he gives order to the Archbishop of Gnesn and his Suffragans to make use of their Ecclesiastical Censures upon the Princes of Poland that troubled the Duke of that Country.  
In the forty fourth he gives the Bishop of Worm's notice, to take care of the celebration of the Feast of St. Paul's Conversion in his Diocese.  
The forty fifth is the confirmation of a Privilege granted by the Bishop of Chartres to the Curates of the Deanery of Esp●rnon, and to the other Archdeaconries and Deaneries in his Diocese.  
In the six and fortieth, addressed to the Archpriest and Canons of Perusa, he confirms the Rules they had made for the government of their Church: which were, that there should be eight regular Canons and professed Monks in their Chapter, two other Clerks, Subdeacons' or Acolites: that among the Canons there should be three Offices, an Archpriest, an Ordinary, and a Chamberlain: that the Archpriest should be the chief, and should have the care of the Society: that the Ordinary should be entrusted with the care of the Cloister of the Divine Office, and of the Reading, and should be Precedent in the absence of the Archpriest: and that it should be the Chamberlain's business to take care of the temporal Affairs: for the Election of an Archpriest three persons should be chosen out of their Canons, who should take the Votes of all the others: that the Ordinary and the Chamberlain should be appointed by the Archpriest, but with the consent of the Society; and many other Rules doth this Letter contain for the Settlement of this House.  
The forty seventh is a Letter written to the Pope, by the Consuls and Inhabitants of the Castle of Mon●●-Bello, whereby they give themselves up to the Church of Rome.  
In the forty eighth to the Bishop of Marsi he decides the following Case. A Man married a Woman with whom he had before been carnally acquainted; and after that married another of whom he had had Children: the first Woman demands either that he may live with her, or else she may have leave to marry another. The Pope's Answer is, that if this Man married the former per verba de praesenti, he then ought to return her; but if per verba de futuro, they must then both have a Penance enjoined them, and the Woman be at liberty to marry whom she would.  
In the forty ninth, to the Abbot and Religious of the Monastery of St. Prosper of Riom, he declares null the Alienation of the Possessions of this Monastery by Guy, a former Abbot thereof.  
By the fiftieth he suspended the Patriarch of Antioch from the Power he had of ordaining Bishops, because he had, without permission from the Holy See, translated him that had been chosen Bishop of Apamea to Tripoli, and made him Bishop of that City. In the next he suspends this Bishop too.  
The fifty second, fifty third, and fifty fourth are writ about a Church newly built at Compeign, which they would have under the Bishop of Soissons. He writes to him to dedicate it, and that he is willing it should belong to him, so the Bishop of Arras would but consent. And to him too he writes to bring him to agree to it.  
The fifty fifth is a confirmation of the Judgement of his Predecessor against the Canons of Lymoges, for abusing and driving out a Priest that the Bishop of Perigeux would have made a Canon of that Church: whereby he ordered the Archbishop of Bourges to excommunicate the Canons, and interdict their Church till they gave the Bishop satisfaction. The Archbishop executed the Orders of Pope Celestin the Third. Innocent in this Letter confirms what his Predecessor had done, and orders the Archbishop of Bourdeaux to carry on the procedure against the Canons.  
In the fifty sixth he settled the right of Metropolitan of all the Bishoprics in the Isle of Corsica, upon the Archbishop of Pisa, and grants him the Primacy of the Provinces of Sardinia.  
The fifty seventh is to forbid giving any Fiefs or Benefices to those that were concerned in the Murder of the Bishop of Vicenza.  
By the fifty eighth he took off the Sentence of Excommunication that the Legate of his Predecessor had pronounced against the Bishop of Zamora in Spain.  
The fifty ninth is written to the Deans of the Churches of St. Mary, and St. Peter of Laon, and to the Chancellor of the Church of that City, about the Presentation to a Benefice disputed between the Archdeacon, who had presented a young man not twenty, and another who had provided a Priest. Innocent decides in favour of the last, if the thing was so as it was represented.  
In the sixtieth he commits to the Bishop of Luques and two other Persons the decision of a Difference between the Bishop of Orense in Spain, and the Abbot of Cella-Nova, about the pretended Exemption of this Abbot.  
In the sixty first to the Archbishop of Sens he revokes the Privilege granted by his Predecessor to the Bishop of Chartres, which deprived that Archbishop of the Power of absolving those whom this Bishop had excommunicated till their cause should be examined by the Abbots of St. Colombus, and of St. german des Prez.  
In the sixty second he determined, that Women may come into the Church in a short time after their lying in; but yet, if they think fit to stay away out of respect, their Devotion is not to be condemned.  
In the sixty fourth he makes null all the Presentations to Benefices by the Secular Power in the Archbishopric of Aversa. And in the next Letter he does the same for the Archbishopric of Salerna, in all those Presentations that had been so made while that Archbishop was kept Prisoner.  
In the sixty sixth he gives leave to the Monks of Gualdo, to change their confinement for liberty.  
By the sixty seventh he commits the Reform of the Abbey of St. Maixant to the Bishop of Poitiers, and orders him to do Justice to the Prior of Azay.  
In the sixty eighth he ordered the Bishop of Lodi not to have any regard to those forged Letters by which he had hindered the Election of a Bishop by the Chapter of Novara.  
In the sixty ninth he discharged the Bishop of Troces from a Vow which he had made of going to the Holy Land, upon condition that he should send some religious Person thither, who for the relief of the Country should carry with him the Sum which he would have spent in his Voyage. In this Letter he mentions a Letter of Pope Alexander his Predecessor, which says, that the Vow of going to the Holy Land may be exchanged.  
In the seventieth he commissions the Bishop of Liege, the Abbot of St. Tron, and the Provost of Utrecht to inform against the Archbishop of Treves, with Power to suspend him, if they should find him guilty of the Crimes whereof he stood accused by the Dean of his Church.  
By the seventy first he entrusted the Bishop of Zamora in joint Commission with an Abbot and a Prior, to put in execution the Decree of his Predecessor Pope Lucius the 3d, which constituted the Archdeacon of Troischateaux Bishop of Leon, notwithstanding a contrary Decree of his Legate published some time after.  
The seventy second is written to the Bishop of Alifa, to excommunicate those that pretended to make him answer before Secular Judges.  
The seventy third is an order to the Grand Master, and the Brothers Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, to restore to the Church of Tripoli the Church of Nephin, and all its Dependencies, according as it had been ordered by the Holy See.  
By the seventy fourth he permitted the Bishop of Anagni, with the consent of his Chapter, to mortgage the Church Lands, for to purchase a Castle which was for his conveniency.  
The seventy fifth is a solemn Decree for confirming the Election of Ademar to the Bishopric of Poitiers, which there had been a Suit about at the Pope's Tribunal. After the death of William Bishop of Poitiers the Chapter agreed to refer the Election of a Bishop to six of the Canons: these having let six Months slip without any Election, the agreement was renewed in the presence of the Archbishop of Bourdeaux, and Ademar was chosen. The Election was confirmed by that Archbishop; but on the other side the Dean, the Subdean, and some Canons opposed it, pleading that the time of agreement was expired; that 'twas true it had been renewed, but upon condition that the Election should be the same day; that the Electors had put it off to another day, and had done it privately, without making the Chapter acquainted, contrary to the Appeal which the Dean had made to the Holy See. Upon these grounds they proceeded to another Election, and named the Bishop of Nants. Some of those that had made the former Election, seeing that the Earl of Poitiers did not much like it, came over to them. The rest stood to their Election, answering that Ademar was chosen the very day of the renewal of the agreement, and that the Archbishop of Bourdeaux notified it to the Chapter, which agreed to it; that they dared not make it public, because of the Earl of Poitiers, which was the occasion of the Electors securing themselves in some safe place before they ventured to publish what they had done in the City: and as for the rest, that the consent of that Prince was not at all necessary for the validity of the Election. The Pope having heard the Attorneys of both Parties in a public Consistory, gave Judgement in favour of Ademar, though the King of England was against him.  
In the seventy sixth he declared that though his Predecessors had considered the Ordination of the Clergy that had no Titles, as nothing, yet he being willing to act with more Lenity towards them, meant that those, or the Successors of those who had ordained them, should provide for their Subsistence till they had Benefices: and this he enjoins the Bishop of Zamora in particular in the case of a poor Clerk whom his Predecessor had ordained Subdeacon, without any Title either to a Benefice or Estate.  
By the seventy seventh he advised the Dean of Astorga to content himself with the Privileges and Rights that his Predecessors had enjoyed, without overloading the Chapter.  
In the seventy eighth he ordered the Archbishop of Magdeburg to expel him that had been thrust into the Bishopric of Prague by the Secular Power, and to give the Chapter the liberty of choosing one according to form.  
In the seventy ninth he commanded the Archbishop of Auch to hinder all ecclesiastics obtaining Benefices by means of the Laics. He ordered him also in the eightieth, eighty first, and eighty second, to make all the rambling Monks to return to their Monasteries; to take care for the Punishment of Heretics; and to oppose Pluralities either of Live or Abbeys.  
In the eighty fourth he condemned the deal of two Parsons who would have changed Live; the one of which put a trick upon the other by making him resign his Living to a Kinsman of his, and then refusing to give him his own. The Pope ordered his Living to be restored him.  
In the eighty fifth he wrote to the Archbishop of Milan to excommunicate his Advocate called Passeguerre, for having spoken disdainfully of a Decree he had made, if he did not give surety to make satisfaction within a fortnight.  
The eighty sixth is an order to the Archbishop of Sens, to put the Curates of the Bishopric of Chartres in possession of that Privilege of Exemption that their Bishop had granted them, and which had been confirmed to them by the 45th Letter.  
In the next he ordered him to take care to provide for those who had been presented to Benefices in that Diocese, and whom the Bishop had put by without any reason.  
In the eighty eighth he vindicated himself from a reproach that the Magistrates of Tuscany cast upon him for intending to deliver up the City of Assisi to the Duke of Spoletto. He says, that he was fo far from that, that he had excommunicated the Duke, and had not given him Absolution but upon condition that he should deliver up the Country which he was in possession of, which he had in part performed by restoring the Cities of Foligni and Terni, and he had done the same by the Castle of Assisi had not the Citizens of that City and those of Perusa opposed it: as for the rest, the Reason he did not like that Treaty which they had made with his Legates, was only because there seemed to be some things in it which were not for the honour of the Church.  
The eighty ninth is an Act of a Grant made to one Peter, of a Prebend of St. Hillary of Poitiers which had belonged to his Uncle.  
In the ninetieth he adjudged a Prebend of the Church of Antwerp to him that the Chapter had provided, against one that his Predecessor had given a Canon's place to for his subsistence; because this last had concealed his having any more Benefices sufficient for his maintenance.  
In the ninety first he gave leave to the Bishop of Alifa to hire an Estate to help forward the payment of some Debts that he had contracted by the repairing of his Church.  
The ninety second is against the incestuous Marriage of the King of Castile's Daughter with the King of Leon. He charges Cardinal Rainier to excommunicate them if they did not part. He order him also to excommunicate the King of Navarr if he had broken that Treaty which he had made with the King of Castille, and to keep all the Kings and Princes of Spain in peace. The following Letter is to the same purpose.  
In the ninety fourth he recommends it to the Archbishop of Aix to assist the Commissaries of the Holy See in their Proceed against the Heretics of Provence, and the Vaudois, Catares, Patarins, and others. This same Letter is likewise directed to the Archbishops of Narbonne, Auch, Vienne, Arles, Embrun, Tarragon, and Lions, and their Suffragans, and to all the Princes, Barons, Earls, and in general to all the People of those Provinces.  
In the ninety fifth he exhorted all the ecclesiastics to favour the Brothers of the Hospital of the Holy Spirit founded at Montpellier: and in the ninety seventh he confirms the Privileges of that Hospital.  
In the ninety sixth he ordered the Archbishop of Trani, and the Bishop of Bitonto to take care of the restitution of those things that had been taken from the Monastery of Pont de Brinde, by excommunicating those that were in possession of them, till they should restore them.  
In the ninety eighth he gave Judgement that the Canons newly created in the Chapter of Ferrara ought to have part of the additions to the Revenues of that Chapter.  
In the ninety ninth he puts the King of Portugal in mind of paying that acknowledgement which his Father Alphonsus had engaged himself to pay to the Holy See every year after having received the Title of King, and informs him that he has given order to his Legate to force him, if he would not do it willingly.  
In the hundredth he ordered the Chaplains of St. John of Persiceto to pay their Archpriest the right of Procuration, which he should give the Bishop of Bologn for his Visit.  
In the hundred and first he ordered the Archbishop of Vienne to put him that had been named by the Abbot of Chaise-Dicu, in possession of the Abbey of Faverni, if he found that Abbot's right was well grounded.  
In the hundred and second he answered the Chapter of Spoletto, that the Marriage of a Man with a Concubine which he kept while his Wife was alive, is valid, except it could be proved that one of them had a hand in her death.  
The hundred and third is in favour of a Man who had a Canonry of the Church of Laon resigned him, but had been opposed in it by another that the Holy See had provided, and cast after a great deal of charges, in a Suit at Rome under Pope Celestin. The Pope willing to deal favourably with him, ordered that he should be acknowledged and considered as a Canon by the Chapter of Laon, and should enter upon the first Canon's place vacant in that Church, notwithstanding a Decree of the Holy See to the contrary. This is the Subject of this Letter written to the Archbishop of Sens, and the Bishop and Chapter of Laon.  
In the hundred and fourth he determines that a Man who has entered into any Order when he was very young, and afterwards has changed it, because of his weakness, for one less rigid and severe, and has in this last received all Orders, may without scruple perform the Functions incumbent on those Orders, remaining a Monk in the latter Monastery.  
In the hundred and fifth, and the hundred and sixth, he declared to the Archbishop of Monreal in Sicily, that he is obliged to redeem all the Estates of his Church which he had alienated to no good purpose, and forbids him to alienate them any more.  
In the hundred and seventh he determined that Beneficiaries are obliged to reside in the Church where their Benefices lie.  
In the hundred and eighth he confirmed a Treaty made between Walter Archbishop of Roven, and Richard King of England, by the consent of the Chapter and Bishops of the Province of Normandy; by which the Archbishop of Roven was to give Andely to the King, except the Churches, prebend's, Fiefs, and the Land of Fresne: and the King in lieu was to give him all the Mills which he had at Roven, the Towns of deep, and Boteille, with the Land of Louviers, and the Forest of Aliermont.  
In the hundred and ninth, to the Bishops of Arras, Tournay, Terovane and Cambray, he laid open the whole Suit that had been about the Election of a Provost into the Church of Seclin in Flanders. The Countess of Flanders who claimed the Patronage of that Church had named a Provost for it: the Canons being unwilling to receive him, she appealed to the Holy See; notwithstanding which Appeal the Canons had chosen John of Bethune for their Provost, who had obtained a Rescript from the Predecessor of Innocent, ordering the Bishop and Provost of Soissons to maintain the Election, and excommunicate the Countess if she should oppose it. In pursuance of this the Commissaries had excommunicated the Countess, and their Judgement had been likewise seconded by other Commissaries: but at last the Case being brought before Innocent, he declared, That the Rescript in favour of John of Bethune had been obtained by a Trick, that the Countess had been unjustly excommunicated; and therefore he revoked all that had been acted by the Commissaries. This is the Substance of this Letter and the next to the Archbishop of Rheims.  
In the hundred and eleventh he forbade the Archbishop of Canterbury to build a Chapel that might any way be a prejudice to his Cathedral.  
In the hundred and twelfth he declared it meritorious to reform Women from their jewdnesses, and to marry them.  
By the three following he ordered that the Monastery of Baume should be subject to that of Cluni.  
In the hundred and sixteenth, written to the Canons and Provost of St. Juvenca of Pavia, he ordered them to entertain the Canon to whom his Predecessor had given a Mandate to be admitted into their Chapter.  
In the hundred and seventeenth to the Archbishop of Bourges, he declared, That the Pope alone has Authority to permit Bishops to change one See for another.  
By the hundred and eighteenth he entrusted the Bishop, the Chanter, and a Canon of the Church of Paris with the execution of a Mandate which his Predecessor had given to Bernard of Lisle, for a Canonship of Tournay, in which he had been invested by the Dean of Paris.  
In the hundred and nineteenth he gave Commission to the Bishop of Lamego, to a Monk that had before been Bishop of that City, and to a Prior, to be Judges in a difference between the Archbishop of Brague, and the Canons of St. Martin's of Castre about Immunity.  
In the hundred and twentieth he ordered the Archbishop of Milan to confer the Dignity of Chancellor of his Church on Henry Subdeacon of the Church of Rome.  
The three next were written to procure the restitution of those things to the Cardinal of Sancta Maria, which had been taken from him by Hubert the Son of Palavicin. He ordered that unless within a fortnight they gave satisfaction for the damage done to that Cardinal, the Churches of Placentia and Parma should be deprived of their Bishoprics, and subjected to the Archbishop of Ravenna.  
In the hundred twenty fourth, he gives leave to the Bishop of Oviedo to make a Monastery of a house of Regular Canons.  
In the hundred twenty fifth, he gave permission to take off the Censure that had been published against the Kingdom of Leon, and to absolve the King; but not before he had restored the Bishop of Leon, and made him reparation for the Injury he had done him.  
In the hundred twenty and sixth to the Archbishop of Tarragon, he said, That having heard that his Church was too full by reason of the Benefices that had been given to a great many Persons both within and without his Diocese, he would have him for the next seven years let alone the filling of Vacancies, that by this means it might be eased.  
The hundred and twenty seventh is a Confirmation of a Mandate granted by his Predecessor for a Canonry of the Church of Cambray.  
The two next have nothing in them worth taking notice of.  
The hundred and thirtieth is the Confirmation of a Treaty between the King of France and Earl of Flanders.  
In the hundred and thirty first, to the Abbots of Citeaux, and of Clairvaux, he forbade the Archbishop of Roven to act in any thing against Philip King of France, to the prejudice of that Appeal which he had put in to the Holy See; and he trusts these two Abbots to see the Order executed.  
In the hundred thirty second he granted the Bishop of Tortona the power of forcing the Monks of his Diocese to observe the Interdict which he had published.  
In the hundred and thirty third he gave order that the Parishioners of St. Achindanus at Constantinople, dependent upon the Archbishop of Grado, should pay their Tenths to this Archbishop, though they had been used to pay them heretofore to the Bishops his Suffragans.  
In the hundred and thirty fourth he answered the Abbot and the Religious of Belleville, that they might build Oratories wheresoever they had Religious sufficient to celebrate Divine Office, provided still that they first have leave of the Bishop of the place. By the next Letter he freed them from that excessive Duty of Procuration which they owed the Religious of St. Irenaeus.  
The hundred and thirty sixth is an Approbation of the Statutes of the Abbey of St. Waast of Arras.  
In the hundred and thirty seventh he confirms the Customs and Privileges of the Abbey of Vezetai, and grants it some new ones, particularly that of singing Gloria in excelsis on the day of the Translation of St. Mary Magdalen in Lent.  
In the hundred thirty and eighth he revoked a Privilege granted to a certain Chapter, that their Church should never be interdicted upon the account of any injury done by the Lords of the place to the neighbour Churches, because they had abused this Grant.  
In the hundred and fortieth he confirmed the Decree of the General Council of Lateran for settling the number of Domestics that Prelates might take with them when they went a visiting.  
In the hundred and forty first he gave his Approbation of the Agreement which the Abbot and Religious of Vezelai had made with the Earl of Nevers. He writes in the next to the Archbishop of Sens, to the Bishops of Autumn, Langres, Auxerre and Nevers, to take care that this Agreement be observed by the Count of Nevers and his Successors.  
In the hundred forty and third he determined that a Clerk who had bragged of his having abused a Woman, aught to be turned out of his Living, and that the Husband of the Woman should take her again.  
In the hundred forty fourth he enjoins one who had been elected Bishop, to whom his Predecessor had given leave to be for some time absent from his Diocese for the studying of the Holy Scriptures, and who had abused this allowance, so as to apply himself to the study of the Civil Law; he enjoins him, I say, to return to his Diocese, and to take with him one well versed in the Holy Scripture to instruct him.  
In the hundred forty fifth he gave order to execute a Mandate which his Predecessor had given his Secretary for a Canonry of Poitiers.  
The hundred forty and sixth is about the Reform of the Monastery of Caduin in Poictou. In the following he ordered that the Abbot of this Monastery should be upheld against the Abbots that had been forcibly put in by the Monks.  
The three following concern the Privileges of the Abbey of Vezelai.  
In the hundred fifty and first he allows him that had been chosen Bishop of Cambray to give up his right, and would have the Chapter to proceed to a new Election; and if they could not agree upon a Man, then that the Archbishop of Rheims, to whom this Letter is written, should provide one.  
In the hundred fifty and second he gives leave to that Archbishop to erect the Abbey of Mouzon into a Bishopric, or to build a Cathedral in the place according to a Grant made him by his Predecessor; provided all the while that the Monks be not driven out of their Monastery.  
By the next Letter he gives him leave as long as he lives to appoint the Bishops of this new Bishopric.  
In the hundred fifty fourth he confirmed the Judgement which Cardinal William Archbishop of Rheims had given in favour of the Chancellor of the Church of Tournay.  
The next five Letters are written in favour of the Chapter of the Church of Tournay, to hinder the Alienation of their Estate, and about the Division to be made thereof between them.  
The four following are in favour of the Church of St. Waast of Arras.  
In the hundred and sixty fourth he commissions the Archbishop of Grado to give Judgement in a Difference between the Archdeacon of Trevisi and the Clergy of that Church.  
The hundred and sixty fifth is addressed to all the Prelates and Christian Lords, to exhort them to assist his Legates Rainier and Guy, and to employ their spiritual and temporal Authority against the Heretics which they should find.  
In the hundred and sixty sixth he gave leave to the Abbot of St. Waast of Arras to send back the Regular Canons to a Church they had been of before, although they had been settled there since the Monks.  
In the hundred and sixty seventh he ordered that all those that had a hand in the murder of a certain Bishop should come to Rome for Absolution, except they were in danger of their lives, or could not come thither in person.  
In the hundred and sixty eighth and ninth he cited the Archbishop of Tours to Rome before the Feast of St. Michael, for the decision of a Difference between him and the Bishop of Dol.  
In the hundred and seventieth he entrusted the Archbishop of Tarentaise, the Bishop of Aosta, and the Abbot of Bonnemont to prepare things for a hearing between the Bishop of Lausanna and his Chapter, who accused him of having rob and wasted the Goods of the Church. The three hundred and thirty fourth is upon the same subject.  
The hundred and seventy first is a Letter of advice to Philip Augustus' King of France, earnestly exhorting him to take his Wife again, and to put away her that he had married.  
In the hundred and seventy second he appointed the Archbishop of Rheims to take care of the preservation of the Rights of the Abbey of St. german des Prez: which he confirms in the next Letter, as he doth those of the Abbey of St. Dennis in the hundred and seventy fourth, and fifth.  
In the hundred and seventy sixth he recommends himself to the Prayers of the Religious of Citeaux and other Societies.  
By the hundred and seventy seventh he ordered the Archbishop of Armagh, to allow the Bishop of Robogh, who had resigned his Bishopric to another, to retire, and the other to whom he had resigned it to remain in it, provided the Canons of that Church would choose him.  
In the hundred and seventy eighth he approved of the Judgement that the Cardinal of St. Mary had given in a Suit between two private Men, about a Canonship in the Church of Pavia.  
The hundred and seventy ninth is a Confirmation of the Election of an Abbot of St. Dennis.  
In the hundred and eightieth he gave leave to the Bishop of Agrigento to remove the Monastries in his Diocese, which stood too much exposed, into places more secure, and to recover the Possessions of his Church which had been alienated.  
In the hundred and eighty first he gave leave to the Abbot and Religious of St. german of Auxerre, in case the Bishop of Auxerre who was at fall out with them should deny, or purposely to their prejudice defer giving them holy Chrisom for the Dedication of their Altars and Churches, or consecrating their Abbots, and ordaining their Monks gratis, to apply themselves to any other Bishop whom they pleased: and likewise forbids this Bishop to require any thing for the absolution of those belonging to this Abbey that he had excommunicated. By the hundred and eighty fourth he determined, that if this Bishop excommunicated them unjustly, his Excommunication shall be null: and by the hundred and eighty fifth he allows them to apply to the Archbishop of Sens for protection from the Injustice and Violences of their Bishop.  
In the hundred and eighty second he appointed the time for the Trial of the Suit between the Bishop of Langres and his Chapter, to be at Michaelmas.  
In the hundred and eighty third he nominated the Bishops of Arras and Senlis to take care of the Privileges of the Abbey of St. Dennis.  
By the hundred and eighty sixth he appointed the Bishop and Dean of Mascon, Judges in the Difference between the Bishop of Au●un and the Monastery of Baume.  
By the hundred and eighty seventh he ordered the Chapter of Milan to let the Bishop of Tortona still enjoy the Canonry which he had in their Church before he was Bishop.  
In the hundred eighty and eighth he wrote to the Archbishop of Sens to oblige the Bishop of Autun to observe the Sentence which the Cardinal, Bishop of Ostia, had given in the case between this Bishop of Autun, and the Abbot of Flavigny.  
In the hundred and eighty ninth he confirmed the Election of Hugues to the Abbey of Vezelai, and advises him to discharge his Duty.  
In the hundred and ninetieth he wrote to the Archbishop and Archdeacon of Sens, not to turn out of his Living a Clergyman that had by chance killed a Child as he was shooting an Arrow at a Tree, and had had Absolution for his Fault from the former Archbishop, who had absolved him, and permitted him still to keep his Benefice.  
In the hundred and ninety first he empowered the Bishop of Troy's to oblige the Clergy of his Diocese that had Pluralities to leave them, and to force those whom he should have occasion for in higher Orders, to receive Ordination.  
In the hundred and ninety second, to the Archbishop of Sens, and the Bishop of Troy's, he disannuls a new Order made by the Canons of Troy's; which was, That the Canons who had been already made, should receive their Incomes whether present or absent, whereas those that should be made for the time to come should not receive them but only when they were present.  
In the hundred and ninety third he confirmed an Agreement made between the Bishop of Troy's and the Order of Premontre.  
By the hundred ninety fourth, and fifth, he ordered the Bishop of Xaintes to depose the Prior of a Society of Regular Canons, for having wasted the Estate of the Monastery, and overthrown their Government.  
By the hundred and ninety fourth, written to the Abbot and Religious of Premontre, he confirmed a Grant made them by his Predecessors, of taking in, and turning out whom they pleased of their Order, without so much as submitting to the Letters of the Pope, for the taking in those again whom they had cast out.  
The next is a Confirmation of a Statute of the Chapter General of the Order of Premontre, forbidding all the Abbots of their Order to wear a Mitre and Gloves like a Bishop. In the hundred and ninety eighth too he confirms another of the Statutes of their Chapter, by which they had ordered that they should not be obliged to receive any Nuns into their Order. In the two hundreth he gives them protection from any trouble that might be given them under the pretence of the Right of Procuration. By the two hundred and second, and the two hundred and third he ordered that the Canons of this Order should be subject to their respective Abbots and Superiors, and those to the Abbot and Chapter General of Premontre, before which they should appear at the times appointed by their Orders. Lastly, he recommends in the two hundred and fourth, the Privileges and Rights of this Order to the care of all the Prelates in Christendom.  
In the hundred and ninety ninth he ordered the Archdeacon of Laon to restore to Hugues the Abbot of Peirrepont the Horse which he had exacted of him on the day of his Promotion to that Dignity.  
In the two hundred and first he wrote to the Bishop and Dean, and Archdeacon of Soissons about an Oath which the Religious of the Abbey of St. Eloy of Noyon had made before they chose an Abbot, that he who should be chosen should have it in his Power to dispose of only three Obediences, and that he should not appeal to the Holy See, or to the Pope's Legate. Innocent determined, That they ought to have a Penance laid upon them for this Oath, and that there should be no obligation upon any one to observe it.  
In the two hundred and fifth he reprimands the Bishop of Senlis for giving half a Prebend to a man that had a Mandate of the Popes; contrary to an Order of the Council of Tours, which forbids the dividing of prebend's. He ordered him to give this Man the first Canon's place that should be vacant in his Church, on pain of being deprived of the conferring of them, till he had provided him one; and forbids the Canons to receive any other.  
The two hundred and sixth Letter to the King of England, is a mystical Moral upon the Stones of four Rings which he had sent him.  
In the two hundred and seventh he gave leave to the Bishop of Lizieux, to reduce all the Pensions upon the Churches in his Diocese which were contrary to the Decree of the Council of Lateran.  
In the two hundred and eighth to the same Bishop, after having taken notice that he ought not to admit of those Appeals which were made only to evade Judgement, he granted him power of fixing a competent time to those of his Diocese, who had appealed to the Holy See, to prosecute their Appeal; which if they failed to do in that time, Judgement should be executed on them.  
The two hundred and ninth is against a Dean of Roven, and a Chaplain who had abused a Priest, and done other Violences. He ordered the Archdeacon's of Bayeux and Coutances to suspend them ab officio & beneficio, and to excommunicate them till such time as they should make satisfaction.  
In the two hundred and tenth he ordered the Bishop of Eureux, and the Archdeacon of Lizieux to inform about a design of a certain Lord that had many Benefices in his Gift, of founding in his own Land a Collegiate Church of Regular Canons, which should enjoy the Incomes of the Churches of which they were Patrons.  
In the two hundred and eleventh he wrote to the King of Navarr to restore certain Castles to the King of England. If he should refuse, he threatened to proceed against him with Ecclesiastical Censures.  
In the two hundred and twelfth, to the Prior and Religious of Bourgueil, he declared it not to be in the power of their Abbot to alienate or mortgage the Estate of their Monastery, unless with the consent of the greatest and wisest part of their Society.  
In the two hundred and thirteenth he ordered that the Knights should pay the Tenths of the Lands that had been given them, to the Church to which they belonged.  
In the two hundred and fourteenth, he entrusted the Archbishop of Bourges, the Abbot of St. Cibar of Angouleme, and the Dean of Perigueux with the Regulation of a Difference between the Bishop of Angouleme and his Chapter, about the number of Canons in that Church.  
In the two hundred and fifteenth he gave judgement in a Contest about a Prebend of a Church, in favour of him to whom this Letter is written.  
In the two hundred and sixteenth he gives leave to the Abbot of Beza to send some of his Religious into the Obediences of Cluni, and to take some of the Religious of Cluni into his Monastery, for the reestablishment of it after its being very much damaged by fire.  
In the two hundred and seventeenth he determined that the Merchants ought to pay to the Bishop of Bergues the usual Tithes.  
In the two hundred and eighteenth he ordered the payment of the yearly penny for every Family, which the Earl of Couthnes had obliged himself to make all his Subjects pay as an Alms to the Holy See; and because the new Bishop of that Country had been the occasion of stopping the payment of that Duty, he empowered the Bishops of Kirchval and Rosse to force him to it by Ecclesiastical Punishments.  
By the two hundred and nineteenth he declared null the Grant which his Predecessor had made of a Church to a Canon of Mascon, not knowing that he had been excommunicated by his Chapter.  
The two hundred and twentieth is written against a certain Chaplain that used to require Money for the burial of the Dead, and the benediction of Marriages, and would pretend some hindrance or other if they would not pay him.  
By the two hundred twenty first he committed to the Bishop of Lisbon and two Priors the Judgement of a Case between the Bishop of Coimbra and the Templars.  
In the two hundred and twenty second he sent back to the Abbot, and two Monks of the Abbey of Alcobacius in Portugal, the Examination of the Difference which was between the Bishop of Coimbra, and the Monastery of the Religious of the Holy Cross of Arganil, about an Exemption they pretended to under covert of a Privilege which they had by a trick gained of Pope Clement, by feigning that the Mother-Church was not the Cathedral Church, but the Church of Rome. His Determination is, That if this were all they went upon, they must even be subject to the Jurisdiction of that Bishop.  
The five following are likewise written to maintain the Privileges of the Bishop of Coimbra.  
The two hundred and twenty eighth is written to the Archbishop of Roven, forbidding him to absolve those Persons which his Suffragans had excommunicated; and ordering him to send them back to their Bishop, and then if he should refuse to absolve them, giving him leave to do it, first taking security of the Accused upon Oath, and upon condition of full satisfaction being made to the Bishop, if he do not find that the man was unjustly excommunicated.  
In the two hundred and twenty ninth he granted the Bishop of Lizieux the Privilege of not appearing before the Bishop of Roven as Judge Delegate in case he suspected him, unless his Letters of Commission should have this particularly in them.  
The two hundred and thirtieth is to the King of England, wherein he gave him an account of what he had done as to the Restitution of that Money which the Germans had exacted of him for his Ransom: and of what he had done against the King of Navarr to make him restore those Castles which belonged to him. Lastly, he makes a relation of the complaints and differences between the Kings of France and England, and protests that it was not his design to declare for either side, but to do all he could to make peace between them.  
In the two hundred and thirty first he ordered the Archbishop of Bourges to inform against the Bishop of Angouleme, accused by his Chapter of wasting the Estate of his Church, and a great many other Irregularities.  
In the two hundred and thirty second, to the Abbot and Religious of Cherlieu, he decided, That one of their Monks who was gone over into the Order of the Black Monks, and had there taken the Order of Priesthood, could perform the Offices of his Order.  
In the two hundred and thirty third he determined moreover, that the Canons may be Witnesses in the Civil Causes of their Church, and that credit ought to be given to their Testimony.  
In the two hundred and thirty fourth he commissions the Bishop of Autun, and the Abbots of Oigny, and of St. Margaret, to reform the Monastery of St. John of Autun.  
The two hundred and thirty fifth is written to the Archbishop of Rheims, and to the other Archbishops and Bishops of the Kingdom of France, against the forging of the Pope's Bulls; and to prevent it for the time to come, he ordered that the Bulls should be received either from the hands of the Pope, or of them who are commissioned by him to deliver them. And for the remedying what was past, he would have a Provincial Council called, and all that pretended to have any Letters from the Pope ordered to produce them, that they might be compared with the true ones: and if they were found to be forged ones, those who forged them should be punished; the Laics with Excommunication, and the Clergy by being suspended ab officio & beneficio. Lastly, he ordered that it should be published, That all those who to their knowledge had any of these forged Letters, should be bound to produce them within a fortnight, under pain of Excommunication not to be taken off by the Pope himself, except at the point of death.  
In the two hundred and thirty sixth he wrote to the Archbishop of Magdeburg, to force the Duke of Suabia to restore that Money to the King of England which the Emperor Henry had exacted from him for his Ransom. The two hundred and fifty second is to the Duke of Austria upon the same subject.  
In the two hundred thirty seventh he empowered the Bishop of Tarentaise to absolve those Incendiaries that could not come to Rome within three years, by reason of their sickness or hindrance by their Enemies.  
In the two hundred and thirty eighth he settled upon the Bishop of Neytrach or Bezzenza all the Possessions that he might have, and exempts all the Lands of his Church which he kept in his own hands from all sorts of Tithes.  
In the two hundred and thirty ninth, he determined that the Bishop of Oviedo was not obliged to restore the fruits of a piece of Land which belonged to the Bishop of Zamora, until he had paid what was owed him, that he might be in a condition to pay his debts.  
By the two hundred and fortieth, and forty first, he revoked that Privilege which he had granted the Bishop of Lizieux, of not answering, if he did not please, before the Archbishop of Roven; but he ordered that this Archbishop should never proceed against him till after having thrice admonished him; and that whensoever he appealed a futuro gravamine, the Archbishop should have no power to attempt any thing farther either against him or his Church.  
In the two hundred and forty third he gave leave to the Prior of Locheier to keep the Estate of his Church in his own hands, paying the Chapter the Rents which the Farmers used to pay them.  
In the two hundred and forty fourth, to the Bishop and Chapter of Angouleme, he determined, That the nonresident Canons should have no power to oppose any Orders made by the Chapter in their absence.  
In the two hundred and forty fifth, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to the Bishops of Lincoln and Worcester, and to the Abbot of Tewksbury, he ordered, That the Monks be reestablished in the Church of Coventry, who had been turned out by the Bishop of Chester, under pretence of a Brief gained by a Trick from his Predecessor.  
By the two hundred and forty sixth he commissioned the Archbishop of Bourdeaux, and the Abbots of St. Cibar of Angouleme, and of Nantevil, to be Judges in a Difference between the Bishop of Angouleme, and the Archdeacon of Mairinac.  
In the two hundred and forty seventh he committed to the Bishop of Nevers the examination of a Difference between the Bishop of Autun and the Abbot of Bussiere, about the goods of an Archpriest who had desired to be made a Monk in this Abbey, and had let them enjoy his Goods while he lived, of which the Bishop of Autun stripped them when he was dead, pretending that when this Archpriest offered himself to the Monastery, he was not well in his senses; but, as he answered the Monks who asked him, Will you be a Monk? Yes, I will; so he answered another, who asked him, Will you be an Ass? Yes, I will. The Pope ordered that if the Bishop could prove that the Archpriest was beside himself at the time he made this Donation, than the Monastery should be condemned to restore his Estate and the Use of it; but if he could not prove that, they belonged to the Monastery.  
In the two hundred and forty eighth he entrusted the Abbot of St. Eucher, the Dean, and a Canon of Treves, with the Judgement of a Suit about a Prebend of St. Mary Magdalen of Verdun.  
In the two hundred and forty ninth he ordered Cardinal Rainier to oblige the Kings of Portugal and Castille to observe the Conditions of peace which they had agreed upon.  
The six next Letters have nothing worth notice in them.  
In the two hundred and fifty sixth he determined, That the Acts of Judges are not authentic unless they are authorised by the Witnesses.  
In the two hundred and fifty seventh he confirmed some Rules made by the Magistrates of Benevento, about the deuce of Officers of Justice.  
By the two hundred and fifty eighth he ordered the execution of a Mandate granted by Pope Celestin for a Canonship of Benevento.  
In the two hundred and fifty ninth he ordered the Archbishop and Chapter of Roven to proceed according to the Resolution of the greatest and wisest part of the Chapter, that every Canon should contribute out of his Revenue towards the repairing of the Church.  
In the two hundred and sixtieth, written to the same Archbishop, he exhorts him not to yield to the agreement which the Kings of France and England had made together, by which they resolved to appoint four ecclesiastics to examine whether the Judgements he had given, or should give, aught to be executed by them against their Subjects; and in case they should not give Judgement, that they ought to force them by seizing on their Estates to revoke their Judgement.  
In the two hundred and sixty first he wrote to the Bishop of Winchester to punish the Simoniacs in his Diocese, notwithstanding their appeal to the Holy See.  
In the two hundred and sixty second, to the Bishop and Chapter of Vesca, he ordered them to turn a certain Clergyman out of his Living for having forged Letters, by which he got his Living again after having left it.  
In the two hundred and sixty third he gave leave to the Bishop of Amiens to put what Canons he pleased into a House which he had given the Abbot of St. Martin of the Twins to place his Canons in, if the Abbot should neglect to do it after being put in mind by the Bishop.  
In the two hundred and sixty fourth, to the Archbishop of Roven, he determined, That a person who hath the Patronage of a Living cannot present himself to it, however fit he be for the Place.  
In the two following to the same Person, he declared, That all the Diocesans as well ecclesiastics as Laics are obliged to submit to the Sentences of Interdiction published by the Bishop.  
In the two hundred and sixty seventh, written to the Bishop, Archdeacon, and Sacrist of Maguelone, about a Difference between this Bishop and the Provost of his Church concerning a Person nominated to the Archdeaconship of this Diocese, after having related the reasons urged on one side and the other, he declared, That following the Footsteps of his Predecessors, who were of opinion, that the Judgements of the See of Rome might be altered when it was found there had been a Trick, he revoked the Donation of this Archdeaconship made by the Bishop, although approved of by his Predecessor Pope Alexander; and ordered the Chapter to proceed to a new Election. By the five hundred forty and first he settled the Archdeaconship upon him who had had it conferred upon him by the Archbishop of Arles.  
In the two hundred and sixty eighth he recommended the protection of the Monastery of St. Victor of Marseilles to the Archbishops of Arles, Aix, and Embrun, and to the Bishops their Suffragans.  
In the two hundred and sixty ninth he ordered the Bishop of Varadin to come to Rome to receive the Absolution of the Excommunication which he had incurred.  
In the two hundred and seventieth he gave leave to the King of Hungary to keep back an Earl, and some other Holy Soldiers to the number of twenty, whom he had need of to keep himself firm in his Kingdom.  
In the two hundred and seventy first he exhorted an Hungarian Lord to be loyal to his King.  
In the two hundred and seventy second he confirmed a Judgement given by his Legate Cardinal Gregory in favour of the Bishop of Transilvania.  
By the two hundred and seventy third he entrusted the Archbishop of Arles with the Reform of the Monastery of Lerins, with leave to put in some of the Monks of Citeaux, if he did not find any of that Order there.  
In the two hundred and seventy fourth he gave leave to this Archbishop to put some of the Monks of Citeaux into an Island in the stead of the Canons which were there, but had not subsistence.  
In the two hundred and seventy fifth he ordered the Archbishop and Archdeacon of Narbonne to nullify all that the Abbot of St. Saviour of Lodeve had done against the Monks of his Monastery, and other Persons, to the prejudice of their Appeal put into the Holy See.  
In the two hundred and seventy sixth he gave leave to the Canons of St. John of Besancon to settle another House with the consent of their Bishop.  
By the two hundred and seventy seventh he discharged the Archbishop of Besancon from the accusation which his Canons had laid against him, they not caring to prosecute it; and he forbids them for the future to propose any thing against their Archbishop: but in the mean while he sets the Bishop of Challon and the Abbot de la Fertè to inform him of the Conduct of this Archbishop.  
By the two hundred and seventy eighth he commissioned the Abbots of Citeaux and de Toul to proceed against the Treasurer of Besancon, to oblige him to residence, because, says he, it is agreeable to reason and equity, that he who has the honour and the profit should bear the charge of it, and that the Ecclesiastical Dignities were established for this end that those who enjoyed them should do Service to the Lord.  
In the two hundred and seventy ninth he complained to the Archbishop of Milan of his saying that he had been deceived in the meaning of Letters from the Holy See for want of attention to what they contained, and ordered him for the future to take care of the execution of those that should be directed to him or his Diocesaus, except they had been gotten by suppressing and hiding the Truth, or by telling a Falsehood.  
The two hundred and eightieth is a Confirmation granted to the Chapter of Colocza to receive the Tithes of certain Villages.  
In the two hundred and eighty first he committed the Reform of the Monastery of St. Stephen to the Archbishop of Colocza.  
In the two hundred and eighty second, to the Patriarch of Grado, he ordered the execution of a Treaty made between the Church of St. Saviour, and that of St. Bartholomew of Venice.  
In the two hundred and eighty third he determined, That the Church of St. Proculus should be totally subject to the Monastery of St. Zeno of Verona, and that the Archpriest and Clergy of that Church should be subject to the Abbot of St. Zeno, and should receive the Holy Chrism from his hands. He leaves them to take care of all that belonged to the Church of St. Proculus, the Chapels and Offices which depended on it, and the Privilege of choosing the Archpriest.  
The two hundred and eighty fourth is a Confirmation of the Institution of the Order of Regular Canons of the Abbey of S. Osytus of Chuc, and of its Privileges.  
In the two hundred and eighty fifth he ordered that the Bishop of Segovia should have the Privilege of putting Canons into his Church with the consent of the greatest and wisest part of the Chapter, notwithstanding the opposition of some of the Canons.  
The two hundred and eighty sixth is a Confirmation of the Privileges of the Abbey of St. german of Auxerre.  
In the two hundred and eighty seventh, to the Bishop of Pampeluna, he empowered this Bishop to celebrate, or cause to be celebrated during the General Interdict, the Divine Office in a low Voice, the doors of the Church being shut, without ringing the Bells, upon condition that he should not assist any of those that were interdicted or excommunicated.  
By the two hundred eighty and eighth he gave commission to the Bishop of Riez to give the Dean of St. Quintin who was in Lombardy, notice to appear before the Archbishop of Rheims, and the Bishop of Arras, whom he had appointed Judges in the Difference between the Dean and his Chapter, jointly with any other whom the Dean should please to name. The following Letter is the Commission to the Archbishop of Rheims and the Bishop of Arras.  
In the two hundred and ninetieth he confirmed the Election of Sifroy to the Provostship of Augsburgh.  
By the two hundred and ninety first he commissioned the Archbishop of Bourges to inform against the Abbot of Esterpe.  
In the two hundred and ninety second he gave leave to the Bishop of Aquino to retake the Possessions which had been alienated from his Church. In the two hundred and ninety fourth he gave the Bishop of Malta the same permission.  
In the two hundred and ninety third he confirmed the Order which the Bishop of Vatz in Hungary had made to oblige the Curates of his Diocese to come to his Synod.  
By the two hundred ninety fifth he commissioned the Archbishop of Trani, and the Archdeacon of Brindesi to be Judges in a Difference between two private Men about the Chantership of Otranto.  
In the two hundred and ninety sixth he confirmed the Power of the Canons of St. Peter of Rome over divers other Churches.  
In the two hundred ninety seventh he determined, That a Man who had been distracted, and was thereupon turned out of his Canonship, and made a Monk of, and being now come again to his Senses had protested against this dealing, should be put off a while, and reestablished in his Living.  
In the two hundred and ninety eighth, to the Archdeacon of Milan, he declared that Heretics cannot be chosen into Live, nor have any right to choose.  
In the two hundred and ninety ninth he entrusted the Bishop of Nevers, and the Abbots of Vezelai, and Maizeries, with the Judgement of a Difference between two Competitors to the Abbey of Flavigny.  
By the three hundredth, to the Archbishop of Magdeburg and his Suffragans, he ordered them to make use of Ecclesiastical Censures to make the Estates of the Holy Soldiers, which had been taken from them while they were in the Holy Land, be restored them.  
In the three hundred and first he commits to the Bishop of Lizieux, and the Abbot of Valricher, the Cause of the Abbot of Conches.  
In the three hundred and second he exhorted the Bishop of Syracuse, and the Bishops of Apuleia, Calabria, and Tuscany, to preach the Crusade, and earnestly exhort all their Diocesans to go to the Holy Land.  
In the three hundred and third he advised the Religious of St. Saviour of Telesa to proceed to the Election of a new Abbot, their Abbey being vacant by the voluntary Resignation of the former.  
The three hundred and fourth is a Mandate directed to the Bishop of Lymoges, and the Canons, for a Prebend of their Chapter.  
In the three hundred and fifth he declared that the judgement of the greatest and wisest part of the Chapter ought to carry it.  
In the three hundred and seventh he decided this Case, That a Man who wanted his left hand, and had been chosen Abbot without its being known that he was so maimed, aught to be turned out, as not being capable upon that account to receive Holy Orders.  
In the three hundred and eighth he wrote to the Archbishop of Lions about the absolution of his Archdeacon.  
The three hundred and ninth is written to the Bishop of Milan against those Canons that lived more like Laics than ecclesiastics, who wore the Habit of Laics, and made no scruple of living publicly with Concubines; he ordered the Bishop to take care of them, to oblige them to live honestly, to wear a Clergyman's Habit, and to part with their Concubines, to eat in common, and never to lie out of their Cloister.  
In the three hundred and tenth he wrote to the Archbishop of Montreal in Sicily, that the Holy See always kept the absolution of those that abused the Clergy in its own hands, to the end that if the honour and respect which was due to ecclesiastics could not keep men within their duty, at least the pains and trouble of a Voyage to Rome might restrain them: that the Church of Rome did sometimes abate of this Rigour by an especial Dispensation, where 'twas reasonable: that in this it did not seek its own private advantage, but aimed at the preservation of the Privileges of the Clergy, and the Salvation of those that failed in that point. Upon these grounds he gave power to this Archbishop for three years to absolve such of his Diocese who were guilty of this Crime, as either for age or infirmity were not in a condition to come to Rome.  
In the three hundred and eleventh he confirmed the Orders which had been made by the Bishop of Rennes, commissioned by the Legate of the Holy See, in regard to the Duty of the Abbot of Bourgueil and his manner of living; namely, that he should be obliged to eat in the Hall, and sleep in the Dorter, except he had some allowable excuse to assist in the Office, to take the advice of his Chapter in Affairs relating to the House, etc. He appointed in the next Letter the Bishop and Dean of Rennes to see these Orders executed.  
In the three hundred and thirteenth he determined, That a Laic who had the Tithes in his hands might give them to a Monastery with the consent of the Bishop of the Diocese, without having need of taking that of his Clergy too.  
In the three hundred and fourteenth he confirmed a Judgement given between two Priests of Trevisi, by a Cardinal whom he had commissioned for that purpose, in a Suit which they had about a Benefice.  
In the three hundred and fifteenth he ordered the Archbishop of Milan to give a Canon's place in his Church to Bonacausius a Clergyman of that City, who had been sent on the part of this Archbishop to the Pope, and had gained a Mandate about a Benefice in that Church.  
In the three hundred and sixteenth he confirmed the Privileges of the Archbishop of Montreal.  
The three hundred and seventeenth is an account of a long Case between the Abbot of Pegaw, and the Bishop of Morsburg. This Abbot being accused of many Crimes, was called on by the Bishop to answer, who passed sentence upon him for Non-appearance, which was confirmed by the I egate of the Holy See. To avoid the Consequences of this Sentence, and without telling a word of what had passed, he obtained a Grant from Pope Celestin, which exempted him from the Jurisdiction of this Bishop. Returning into Germany, and there showing his Grant, he was cited to the Court of the Emperor who had an account of it. From thence he appealed to the Holy See, and got Commissaries named. In the mean time the Archbishop of Magdeburg having interdicted, and having a mind to turn him out of his Abbey too, he was forced to put himself into the hands of this Archbishop, who gave an arbitrary Sentence. The Abbot not being pleased with this, made his complaints to Rome, and had Commissaries appointed not very favourable to the Bishop of Mersburg: they made their Information: it is carried to Rome, the Affair is sent back again from thence to other Commissaries, and at last made up by an agreement between the Parties. Notwithstanding this, the Abbot still applied himself to Rome, and got two of the prime Judges appointed Commissaries; the one of them gave his Information, and the Bishop appealed from it. The Pope gave them Commissaries, and upon their report of the Case, doth by this Letter confirm the decisive Sentence of the Archbishop of Magdeburg, except what regarded the validity of the Privilege. He revokes whatsoever is contrary to that, and ordered that the Monastery should remain free, and exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop, till such time as the matter could be fully tried. By the following Letter he appoints Commissaries upon the place to inform of the matter.  
In the three hundred and nineteenth he appointed the Archbishop, the Dean, and the Chanter of Lions to judge in a Case between two Archdeacon's of Challon. He there determined, That a Man who hath been excommunicated for two causes, and hath been absolved upon the score only of one, remains still excommunicated.  
In the three hundred and twentieth he warned the Clergy of Island to take some order about the Disorders which reigned in their Country. The three hundred and twenty first is written upon the same Subject, and in the same Terms, to the People of that Island.  
In the three hundred and twenty second, to the Archbishop of Otranto, he determined, That the Son of a Woman who passed for the Concubine, and was afterwards declared the lawful Wife of a Man, is Legitimate.  
In the three hundred and twenty third, he declared, That a Deacon who had been deprived of his Benefice by an Abbot, who was afterwards out of revenge, without his knowledge, killed by his Kindred, and who out of sorrow for this accident turned Monk, and forbore executing the Functions of his Order for two years, might not only execute them, but be also raised to the Priesthood, if there was no other bar, but his suspected Innocence.  
In the three hundred and twenty fourth he wrote to the Bishop of Arras and the Dean of Cambray, to put the King of France in mind of paying the Duke of Lorraine his Wife's Portion.  
By the three hundred and twenty fifth he determined, That a Girl who was not eight years old, could neither contract Marriage, nor make any Promise that could oblige.  
In the three hundred twenty sixth, he gave leave to the Bishop of Faience to remove to the Bishopric of Pavia, to which he had been elected. There are very pretty things in this Letter about the spiritual Marriage of a Bishop with the Church his Spouse. What is said in Scripture about the indissolubility of the carnal Marriage, he presumes may be as well applied to the spiritual. He adds, that it should seem then as if it were not in the power of the Pope to break the spiritual Marriage of a Bishop with his Church: and yet Custom, which is the Interpreter of the Laws, and the Holy Canons always gave full Power to the Holy See, to which alone belong the placing, the deposing and translating of Bishops: wherein he sayeth the Popes do not exercise human Authority, but that of Jesus Christ, whose Vicars they are. He takes notice that the Church of Pavia ought not to have elected, but have asked for him. Lastly, he declared, That he consents to this Translation only for the good which will thence accrue to the Church of Pavia.  
In the three hundred and twenty seventh he confirmed the Decree made by the Bishop and Chapter of Orense in Spain to admit of but six and twenty Canons.  
In the three hundred and twenty eighth he recommended the Bishop of St. George to the Monks of Montecassino that they might entertain him, and supply him with whatsoever was necessary during his abode in their Monastery.  
In the three hundred and twenty ninth he commissioned the Archbishop of Cagliari, and two other Bishops of Sardinia, to sit Judges in a Difference which was between the Bishop of Oristagni and his Chapter.  
In the three hundred and thirtieth he gave in charge to the Bishop of Lymoges to reprehend and correct the Clergy of his Diocese.  
The three hundred and thirty first is an Approbation of the Order of Premontre, and a Confirmation of its Customs and Privileges.  
In the three hundred and thirty second he entrusted the Dean of Lisbon and two Priors to examine the Privilege granted by the Bishop of Coimbra to his Chapter.  
In the three hundred and thirty third he determined, That a deaf and dumb Person may marry.  
In the three hundred thirty fifth he suspended the Bishop of Hildesheim, for removing to the Bishopric of Wirtzburg without the leave of the Holy See, and deprived the Canons of Wirtzburg of the power of Election for this time, for having chosen him.  
The three hundred and thirty sixth is a circular Letter, exhorting all Princes and People to take up Arms for the defence of the Holy Land against the Saracens.  
The three hundred and thirty seventh is a Mandate granted to a Clerk for a Canon's place in the Church of Trevisi.  
In the three hundred and thirty eighth, written to the Archbishop of Sens, he declared, That in case the Dean and Chapter of Sens had with an Oath fixed the number of Canons before the Pope granted his Mandate to the Clerk, than the Mandate should be null: and that all the Clerk had to do, was to make them come to Rome to maintain their pretended right: because, says he, as we expect to be punctually obeyed when we command any thing, so we would not command any thing which is unjust.  
The three hundred and thirty ninth is a Mandate granted to a Clergyman for an Archdeaconship vacant in the Church of jurea.  
In three hundred and fortieth he exempts the Chapter of St. Domnin's- Burg from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Parma.  
In the three hundred and forty first, to the Bishop of Otranto, he advised him to put the Religious of Citeaux into a Chapel, and into a Monastery, in compliance with the desire of the Earl the Founder of the Chapel, and Patron of the Monastery.  
The three hundred and forty second is a Confirmation of a Privilege of Exemption granted to the Church of St. Nicholas du Mont near Narni.  
In the three hundred and forty third he exhorted the Bishop of Lydda to continue his care and preaching in Sicily, to promote the raising of an Army for the Recovery of the Holy Land. By the next he gave him power to absolve those Excommunicated, whose Cases belonged only to the Holy See to remit, on condition that they would go in person to the Holy Land.  
In the three hundred and forty fifth, addressed to the Prelates of France, he recommended to them the Legate whom he had sent into that Kingdom to make peace between the King of France and the King of England, and to gain them to assist against the Saracens.  
In the three hundred and forty sixth he gave power to his Legate to summon such English Prelates as he thought necessary to procure the Peace. By the following he ordered him to proceed by way of Interdict against the Kingdom of France, if King Philip did not take his Wife again within a month. He exhorted this Prince to make and conclude the Peace with the King of England, in the three hundred and forty eighth Letter.  
In the three hundred and forty ninth, written to the Archpriest and Canons of Milan, he discovered a Forgery which had been practised in a Bull, by taking the Seal from another Letter, and fastening it to this forged one. He ordered the punishment of him who was suspected of it, and at the same time takes notice of the different ways that the Letters of the Pope might be forged. The first is to fasten a false Bull to them. The second is to tear the Bull from another Letter, and fasten it to a false one, by putting another Thread through it. The third is to cut one of the sides of the Thread of the Bull, and to fasten it to another Letter, by joining the Thread together again with Flax of the same Colour. The fourth is to slit the Load in two, and take out of it one side of the Thread, and afterwards to join it together again. The fifth is to raze out the writing of the Letters, and change them as we please. The sixth is to carry false Letters, and to mingle them rightly among the others, and so get the Bull fastened to them. This last sort is the hardest to be found out, and cannot be discovered but by the Style, or by the Hand, or by the Parchment; whereas the others might be found out only by inspection.  
In the three hundred and fiftieth he declared, That all Believers might appeal to the Holy See, and that no one ought to act against them in prejudice to that Appeal, or to proceed against those who would appeal. And in the following he says, That no one can proceed against a Person who is gone to Rome, for this is as it were an appeal in facto, and aught to be more considered than a verbal one.  
By the three hundred and fifty second he ordered the Bishop of Ariano to inform about the Election of an Abbot of Benevento, that he might know whether it was fit to confirm it or no.  
In the three hundred and fifty third he exhorted the Emperor of Constantinople to aid the Holy Land against the Saracens, and to labour for the union of the Greek and Latin Churches. In the next Letter he gave the same exhortation to the Patriarch of Constantinople.  
In the three hundred and fifty fifth he exhorted the Kings of France and England to peace, and to furnish out Troops for the assistance of the Holy Land.  
In the three hundred fifty sixth he ordered the Magistrates, the People, and the Great Lords of the Duchy of Spoletto to obey his Legate, as being Subjects of the Holy See, to which the Duke of Spoletto had given up his Estates. This same Letter is also written to many other Cities of Italy.  
In the three hundred and fifty seventh he wrote to the King of England, about a Chapel which the Archbishop of Canterbury had newly built, and had a mind to put Canons into, and make his ordinary residence at: The Pope is earnestly against this Establishment, and exhorted the King of England not to promote it.  
In the three hundred and fifty eighth he recommended himself to the Prayers of the Abbots met together in the Chapter General of Citeaux, and desires them to excuse one of their Brothers whom he employed to preach in Sicily.  
In the three hundred and fifty ninth he gave order to the Bishop of Ostia to consecrate some Altars which they said were not yet consecrated, in obedience to a Vision which a Priest said he had seen, in which St. Peter appeared to him many times, and ordered him to give the Pope notice that there were a great many Altars which wanted consecration, and that he was careful to have them consecrated. Innocent says at the end of the Letter, That tho, according to the caution of the Apostle, we must not believe every spirit, yet because in a matter of this nature it is not likely that an Angel of Satan would transform himself into an Angel of Light, it is better to believe piously than to doubt rashly; and because the thing is otherwise good in itself, though it had not been revealed, he was resolved to have it put in execution.  
In the three hundred and sixtieth he justifieth his conduct to those of Milan in having excommunicated their Advocate Passeguerre, for failing in that respect which was owing to the Judgement of the Holy See.  
In the three hundred and sixty first he granted the Inhabitants of Montefiascone an abatement of half the Tribute they were to pay to the Pope, upon condition they should maintain some Troops of Horse and Foot for his Service.  
In the three hundred and sixty second he decided the case of a Man that was accused of Adultery by his Wife, thus; That Judgement could not be given upon an Information that was made lite non contestata, and all that could be done was to excommunicate the Man for refusing to make his appearance.  
In the three hundred and sixty third he ordered the Goods of a Church, which had been alienated from it, to be restored.  
The three hundred and sixty fourth is about a Difference between two Irishmen for the Bishopric of Rosse: He sends back his Judgement of it to the Archbishops of Armagh and Cassil, and to the Bishop of Laom. The three hundred and sixty sixth is a Confirmation of the Election of the Bishop of Laghlin in the same Country. And by the three hundred and sixty seventh he ordered a Lord of this Country not to oppose this Bishop in taking possession of his Bishopric, but to take care about the restitution of those Goods which had been taken from his Church.  
The three hundred and sixty fifth is a Confirmation of the ancient Customs of the Society of St. Agathus.  
In the three hundred and sixty eighth he decided a considerable Affair about the Chancellorship of the Church of Milan. The Pope had given it to a Subdeacon, a Canon of that Church, and had directed the Mandate for it to the Archbishop of Milan: he received it, and sent word back again that he had not given it him, because he had need of the Revenues of it. The next day he changed his note, and declared that he had given it above ten months before to Henry of Lampune; strait the Archbishop was cited to Rome before the Pope, and having sent his Attorney with Witnesses to Rome, he proved that the Chancellor being dead in the month of January, he had by the application of his friends secretly in his Chamber given his place to this Henry, they having promised to let him enjoy the Revenues; that he had invested him in it by giving him the Book, and had received his Oath of Fidelity, but had not indeed given him the Patent till after having received the Pope's Mandate. This Donation was encumbered with many Difficulties. 1. The bargain made with his Kindred was unwarrantable. 2. It was made privately. 3. The Investiture was performed with an extraordinary Ceremony. 4. 'Twas maintained that the Chancellorship being a spiritual Benefice could not be conferred after such a manner. 5. That he on whom it was conferred, not being an ordinary Canon, was not capable of it. The Pope appointed Commissioners upon the place to inform about these matters, and interdict the Chancellor the right of enjoying it. Upon this he applied himself to the Pope, desiring to have all things restored him; alleging, that the Patent had been given him before the receipt of the Mandate. As to the form of the concession, he defended that by maintaining that there was no Simony in keeping of the Income, as well because the Office of Chancellor is not spiritual, nor has any spiritual Functions annexed to it, as because there was no buying or selling in the case, and that the Fruits which he had given up had been separated from the Office, and kept back by the Archbishop before this Donation; that as for the rest, he was capable of the Office, being a Canon of the Church of Milan, and having a voice in the Chapter, and a place in the Choir. That lastly he had had no hand in the bargain which they said his Friends had made, but had been purely and simply put into the Chancellorship. Upon these Allegations the Pope judges that the Archbishop was in the fault. 1. In giving different Answers. 2. In not providing a person more capable. 3. Because he ought not to bestow a Benefice upon any one, and keep the Income of it to himself, nor to make a Bargain to keep them before he will confer the Benefice. For his Punishment, he deprived him of the Privilege of conferring the first Prebend vacant in his Church. And as for the Chancellorship, how great a mind soever he had, if he could do it with justice, to give it to the Subdeacon whom he had provided, yet he declared he had not found Henry in fault sufficient to deserve being turned out, because he had made no bargain: and besides, it was not proved that the Chancellor had any spiritual Functions incumbent on him; the proposing the Ordainers and the examining of them, and the putting the Abbots and Abbesses in possession, which was customary for the Chancellors to do, belonging properly to the Archdeacon's, and being done by the Chancellor's only by the Commission of the Bishops. He took off also the Interdict which his Commissaries had pronounced against him, and judged that the trouble of taking two Journies to Rome was punishment sufficient.  
The three hundred and sixty ninth is an Order directed to the Magistrates and Inhabitants of Castellane, to take the Oath of Fidelity to those whom he had sent on his part to receive it.  
By the three hundred and seventieth he ordered the Archbishop of Canterbury to retake those Goods which had been alienated from his Church, and confirmed the Reunion which he had already of some that had been alienated.  
In the three hundred and seventy first he confirmed the Declaration of Richard King of England, importing, that the subvention and help which had been granted him by the Clergy of England should be no hurt or prejudice to the Ecclesiastical Immunity.  
By the three hundred and seventy second he approved of the Donation which the Archbishop of Louden had made to the Church of Roschild, on condition that he should enjoy it during his life.  
In the three hundred and seventy third he confirmed the foundation of six prebend's which the Bishop of Arhusen had made in his Church.  
The three hundred and seventy fourth is written to the Archbishop of Upsal about the Pallium which he sent him.  
In the three hundred and seventy fifth he takes those of Perusae into his protection, and confirms their Privileges.  
In the three hundred and seventy sixth he forbids the Clergymen whom he had made his Commissaries to do justice in Lombardy, to exact any Money of the Parties, or to make any bargain with them for their Salaries.  
By the three hundred and seventy seventh he commissioned the Bishop of Narni to prepare things for a hearing between the Abbot of Ferentillo and some Noblemen.  
In the three hundred and seventy eighth he took into the possession of the Holy See two Italian Marquesses.  
The three hundred and seventy ninth is a permission to one who had made a Vow to be a Hospitaller to enter into the Order of St. Bennet.  
In the three hundred and eightieth he declared a Marriage null between a Man and a Woman, because the Woman had before they were married been Godmother to a natural Son which the Man had by another Woman.  
In the three hundred and eighty first he answered divers Questions which had been proposed to him by the Archbishop of Drontheim: as, Whether an Altar upon which one that was excommunicated had celebrated the Office, aught to be consecrated anew? If one might communicate with an excommunicated Person, who had given surety to obey the Church in that which it commanded him, though he had not yet received absolution? Who those were that might communicate with excommunicated Persons? What Punishment those deserve who do it? What is to be thought of those Priests that stir up others to the Combat, and are Commanders of Navys, though they do not fight themselves? The Pope resolves these Questions in the following manner: That the Altar need not be consecrated anew on which an excommunicated Person hath celebrated: That we must not communicate with an excommunicated Person before he hath received absolution: That they who are excepted from not communicating with them are comprised in the Chapter quoniam multos: That other Persons who communicate with such of them as are accused, aught to be excommunicated themselves; and those who communicate with a Person who hath been excommunicated with his Accomplices, incur the punishment of Excommunication: That those Priests mentioned in the Question ought to be deposed. He adds some Answers to other Questions which were not demanded; namely, That such as resign their Benefices to Laics, and take them again out of their hands, aught to be turned out of them: That the Table of an Altar which is consecrated, loses its holiness if it be removed out of the place, or have a considerable crack in it: That one may mix Oil that is not consecrated with consecrated: That such of the Clergy as are excommunicated or were ordained by such, aught to be deposed.  
The three hundred and eighty second is written to the Archbishop of Drontheim, and to the Prelates of Norway, against a Prince of that Country who tyrannised over the Church. By the following he desired the Kings of Denmark and Sweden to take the part of the Churches of Norway against this Tyrant; and in the three hundred and eighty fourth enjoined the Archbishop of Drontheim to suspend the Bishop of Berghes for favouring him.  
In the three hundred and eighty fifth he determined, That a Clergyman who was guilty of homicide, ought not to be put in again though he was not punished with death.  
In the three hundred and eighty sixth he warned the Abbot of Montebassino, who was Cardinal, to labour for the Reformation of his own manners, and those of his Monastery.  
In the three hundred and eighty seventh he ordered the Magistrates of Venice to revoke an Order which they had given to a Lawyer never to appear more at the Court of Venice.  
The three hundred and eighty eighth is written for the preservation of the Liberty and possessions of the Churches of Hungary: and because some of them who had taken an Oath to defend the Church thought to dispense with their keeping of it by appealing to the Holy See, the Pope by the following Letter declared, That this Appeal doth not hinder but that they may be proceeded against as perjured Persons.  
The three hundred and ninetieth is a Letter of the Archbishop of Regio's, wherein he puts this Question to the Pope; Whether, when he was commissioned with the Archbishops of Capua and Palermo, to judge in the Suit between the Archbishops of Montreal and Rossano about the Tithes, and finding himself sick could not come, the other two could proceed in the Judgement of the Suit without him, and condemn the Archbishop in prejudice to the Appeal which he had put in to the Holy See after he was cited? The three hundred and ninety first is the Archbishop of Montreal's Letter upon the same Subject. And by the next the Pope determined, That if the case was really so as it had been made appear to him, the Commissioners had done ill to proceed to a Judgement in the case, and that all that in consequence of that Judgement had been taken from the Archbishop of Montreal, aught to be restored him.  
By the three hundred and ninety third he granted to the City of Parma the right of the recovery of those Sums which had been stolen from the Cardinal Legate passing through their Country, which they had reimbursed to him.  
In the three hundred and ninety fourth he ordered that the Religious of the Monastery of Feltri of the Order of Citeaux, should not bury where their Oblates did; and that they should give the fourth part of whatsoever they left in their Will to the Churches wherein their Oblates lived: but this without prejudicing the Church's Rights, or the Customs of the Order of Citeaux.  
By the three hundred and ninety fifth he empowered his Legate Rainier to reform all the Churches which he should pass through.  
In the three hundred and ninety sixth he ordered the Archbishop of Aix to accept the Resignation of the Bishop of Frejus, and put another Bishop in his place.  
In the three hundred and ninety seventh he exhorted the Earl of Tholouze to undertake the War for the assistance of the Holy Land.  
By the three hundred ninety eighth he gave leave to the Cardinal Foulques to take Monks and Regular Canons, and employ them in preaching the Gospel in the East.  
In the three hundred and ninety ninth, addressed to all the Prelates of France, he ordered Usurers to be punished, notwithstanding all Appeals whatsoever.  
By the four hundredth Letter he gave leave to the Archbishop of Siponto to turn a Collegiate Church into a Monastery of Regular Canons.  
In the four hundred and first, after having compared the Spiritual and Pontifical Authority to the light of the Sun, and the Temporal and Kingly Authority to that of the Moon, he exhorted the Governors of Tuscany to be faithful to the Holy See, and assured them of his protection.  
In the four hundred and second he gives the Archbishop of Naples and the Chapter of Aversa till Easter to appear at Rome to have their Trial in a difference between them.  
In the four hundred and third he ordered the Archpriest and the Clergy of the Church of Borgo San Donino to obey the Bishop of Parma.  
The four hundred and fourth is written to his Commissioners about the Letters of the Pope being charged with an Error. He says, That he who made the Charge to put off the Judgement of the Suit, and then could not make it good, aught to lose his Cause.  
The four hundred and fifth is about the validity of a Mandate for a Canonship in the Church of St. Juvenca of Pavia, granted by the Pope to a Person whom they pretended to be unworthy of it: the Pope commissions Judges to see him put in possession if they could not prove his unworthiness.  
In the four hundred and sixth, to the Archbishops of Embrun, Arles, and Aix, and their Suffragans, he recommended it to them to make some order in their Provincial Councils for the Provision of some Relief for the Holy Land.  
In the two next he invited an Earl to go to that War.  
The four hundred and ninth is written to a Legate who had raised Money for the Holy Land, about the use which he should make of it.  
The four hundred and tenth is an Act whereby he acknowledges Frederick King of Sicily, upon condition that he should pay Homage and Fealty to the Holy See, and likewise some acknowledgement.  
In the two following he regulates the manner of choosing Bishops in the Kingdom of Sicily, according to what followeth. The Episcopal See being vacant, the Chapter shall give notice to the King of the Bishop's death: It shall then proceed to an Election, and shall ask the consent of the Prince for the Person it shall choose, who shall not be enthronised till the King have agreed to it, nor shall perform his Office till the Pope have confirmed him.  
In the four hundred and thirteenth he ordered all the Prelates of the Kingdom of Sicily to obey his Legate.  
The four hundred and fourteenth is written against a Clergyman who had Pluralities in the Church of Naples.  
In the four hundred and fifteenth he declared, That an Oath taken by a Person always to observe judiciary Forms, doth not take place in such Causes where one is not obliged to observe those Forms.  
In the four hundred and sixteenth he forbade the alienation of the Possessions of the Monastries of Naples without leave of the Archbishop; and he declared in the next Letter that the Archbishop of Naples might sell the Goods of the Church to pay its debts.  
In the four hundred and eighteenth he ordered the execution of a Mandate for a Canonship of Poitiers, which the Chapter of this Church would not obey.  
In the four hundred and nineteenth he confirmed the Primacy of the Archbishop of Lunden over the Churches of the Kingdom of Sueden.  
In the four hundred and twentieth he ordered the Prelates of Jutland to re-establish the Canonical Doctrine in their Country, and to put down that Custom which had been introduced of paying but one piece of Money for satisfaction for all sorts of Crimes.  
The four hundred and twenty first is a Mandate directed to the Archbishop of Lunden.  
In the four hundred and twenty second he confirmed that Custom of giving Estates to the Church which was used in Denmark, by laying a little piece of the Land upon the Altar in the presence of Witnesses.  
In the four hundred and twenty third he confirmed the Collation of the Provostship of Strand in Denmark; and in the following ordered the Goods which had been taken from that Church to be restored it.  
By the four hundred and twenty fifth he confirmed the Privileges and Donations of the Abbey of Sora.  
The four hundred and twenty sixth is an Act by which he takes the City of Todi into the Protection of the Holy See, and confirmed its Privileges.  
In the four hundred and twenty seventh he gave Judgement in a difference between the Abbey of Calana, and that of Montsacre, and declared that the Abbey and Religious of the former of these should lay down all Pretensions to any right they might have on that of Montsacre, on condition that that should give them up a Church, and pay them every year an acknowledgement of Olives.  
The three next are written about the Election of a Bishop of Cambray. It was said that he whom the Chapter had chose, was crooked, and had married a Widow, by whom he had had a Son that succeeded him immediately in the Provostship of St. Peter of Dovay. The Pope wrote upon this to the Chapter, and commissions the Bishop of Paris and Arras to examine if matters were really so, and in case they were, he declares this Election null.  
By the four hundred and thirty first he nominated the Archbishop of Senlis to defend the Privileges of the Abbey of Compiegne.  
In the five following Letters he condemns the undertaking of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who would build a Church notwithstanding all the Pope's Commands to the contrary; and ordered that he should restore to the Monastery of Canterbury all that he had taken from it to endow this new Church with.  
By the four hundred and thirty seventh he takes Almeric King of Jerusalem into the Protection of the Holy See.  
By the four hundred and thirty eighth he exhorted many Princes of the East to assist the King of Cyprus against the Saracens.  
In the four hundred and thirty ninth he ordered that those who had been dispensed with, for performing their Vow of going to Jerusalem in person, should pay a sum of Money towards the defraying of the Charges of the Holy War.  
In the four hundred and fortieth he forbids the augmenting the number of Canons in the Church of Acre in the East.  
By the four hundred forty first he puts the King and Kingdom of Portugal under the Protection of the Holy See.  
In the two next he forbade the Chapter of Auranches, and the Archbishop of Roven, to proceed against the Theologal of the Church of Auranches, to the prejudice of the Appeal which he had put in to the Holy See.  
In the four hundred and forty fourth he ordered the Archbishop of Upsal to hinder Bastards being admitted into Orders, or any Ecclesiastical Preferment.  
By the four hundred and forty fifth he empowered the Bishop of Perigeux to make what Orders he should think fit for his Diocese and Abbey, and to see them put in execution, notwithstanding any Appeal. He ordered him by the next to make the vagabond Monks return to their Monastries.  
In the four hundred and forty seventh he wrote to the Archbishop of Tours, that only the Pope could give leave to Bishops to remove to another Bishopric.  
In the four hundred and forty eighth he puts the King of Portugal in mind of paying the Tribute which he owed the Holy See; and by the next he ordered Rainier to oblige him to do it.  
In the four hundred and fiftieth he ordered the Archbishop of Lunden to see that Men of no scandalous and ill lives were employed in the Church for receiving the Alms towards the War in the Holy Land.  
In the four hundred and fifty first he confirmed the judgement given by the Bishop of Lodi in favour of the Canons of Novara, against a private Person who pretended to a Prebend of that Church, belonging to him by a Mandate.  
By the four hundred and fifty second he accepted of the Resignation of the Bishop of Urgel; and by the next he ordered the Chapter of that Church to proceed to the Election of a new Bishop; whom in the four hundred and fifty fourth he recommended to the Archbishop of Tarragon.  
He determined in the four hundred and fifty fifth, That a Religious Vow made before the year of probation is valid: but that the Abbots ought not to accept of it, and that that of a married Person ought not to be accepted, except she likewise to whom he is married makes a vow of perpetual continence.  
The four hundred and fifty sixth is written in favour of a Priest who had had some forged Letters of the Pope's given him, and had made use of them, thinking them true. The Pope excused him upon account of his ignorance, and ordered the Archbishop of Siponto to put him to no trouble upon this matter.  
In the four hundred and fifty seventh he gave leave to the Abbot and Religious of St. Edmond to get their Church dedicated, and likewise to let such Crosses and Images as were not easily taken out remain in their places.  
In the four hundred and fifty eighth he confirmed the Sentence given in favour of the Church of St. Paul, about the Privilege of having a Font, and baptising, which was disputed by the Church of St. Mary of Cervaro, near Montecassino.  
In the four hundred and fifty ninth he forbids the Prior and Religious of Durham to do any thing but with the consent of the Bishop of that City, which was to them instead of an Abbey.  
In the next he upholds the Bishop of Durham in the right of conferring such Benefices as the Patrons had left vacant.  
By the four hundred and sixty first he ordered the Bishop of Cesena to take off the Censure pronounced against those of that City, on condition they would take an Oath to submit to the Pope in those things for which they were interdicted.  
In the four hundred and sixty second he declared that Laics could not under any pretence whatsoever claim the Tithes of Churches.  
In the four hundred and sixty third he confirmed the Orders for the Chapter of Arles; and in the four hundred and sixty seventh he forbids the receiving of any Canon into this Church who doth not make profession of the Order of St. Augustin.  
By the four hundred and sixty fourth he gave leave to the Archbishop of Arles to proceed against the Abbot of St. Gervais of Fos, who would not obey him, and made no scruple to admit those to divine Service whom he had interdicted, and to give them Ecclesiastical Burial.  
By the four hundred and sixty fifth he confirmed the Privileges of the Abbey of Compeigne.  
In the four hundred sixty and sixth he ordered the Suffragans of the Archbishop of Arles to be obedient to him.  
In the four hundred and sixty eighth he gave leave to the Bishop of Chonad in Hungary to give absolution in Cases reserved for the Holy See, to the sick and old of his Diocese, upon condition, that as soon as they were well they should come to Rome.  
In the four hundred and sixty ninth he ordered this same Bishop to make such Deacons and Subdeacons' as were married, to quit their Wives.  
In the four hundred and seventieth he confirmed the Institution of the prebend's created in the Church of Durham.  
In the four hundred seventy first he forbids plurality of Live.  
In the four hundred and seventy second, and third, he forbids the Provost of the Church of Arles to borrow any thing without the consent of his Chapter, and would have him give them an account of what he received, and what he laid out.  
In the four hundred and seventy fourth he ordered that the Archbishop of Arles should have the disposal of the Personates of his Church; and in the four hundred and seventy sixth he advises him to make a Reform in the Monastery of St. Gervais.  
In the four hundred and seventy seventh he ordered the execution of his Mandates for the Canonships in the Church of Xainte.  
In the three next he ordered Peter of Corbeil, famous for his Learning and Knowledge, to be put in possession of a Prebendary, and the Archdeaconry of York, which had been given him by that Archbishop.  
The four hundred and eighty first contains a Rule of the Order of Trinitarians, which he confirms.  
By the four hundred and eighty second he gave to the Provost of Alba the Privilege of presenting to the Custody of his Church.  
In the four hundred and eighty third he exhorted the Bishop of Poitiers to reform the Churches of his Diocese, and gave him power for that purpose.  
By the four hundred and eighty fourth he confirmed the Privileges of the Abbey of St. Peter of Corbie; and by the four hundred and eighty eighth and ninth Letters, defended them against the Bishop of Tournay.  
The four hundred and eighty fifth is written to the King of England in favour of the Monks of Canterbury, who had not been well dealt with by their Archbishop. He sends it in the next to the Archbishop of Roven and the Bishop of Ely, that they might give it the King.  
The four hundred and eighty seventh is a Letter of exhortation to Almeric King of Jerusalem.  
The four hundred and ninetieth, ninety first, second and third, are written about the Translation of Maurice Bishop of Nantes to the Bishopric of Poitiers, which the Pope permits and approves of.  
In the four hundred and ninety fourth he accepted of the Resignation of the Bishop of Carcassonne.  
By the four hundred and ninety fifth, and sixth, he named Commissaries to defend the Privileges of the Church of St. Martin of Tours.  
In the four hundred and ninety seventh he ordered the Bishop of Coventry in England to dispose of the Benefices of those Clergymen that were convicted of Simony, and to oblige those who were suspected of it to clear themselves canonically.  
The four hundred and ninety eighth is an Act by which Guy Earl of Auvergne gave a Castle to the Pope, and desired his Protection against the Bishop of Clermont his Brother, who ravaged his Lands with a Troop of Biscayans.  
In the four hundred and ninety ninth he commended the design which the Archbishop of Colocza had of reforming a Monastery, and gives him leave to put Regular Canons into it.  
In the five hundredth he wrote to the King of Hungary to oblige the Sclavonians to pay their Tithes to the Archbishop of Colocza.  
In the five hundred and first he determined, That no one ought to make a Promise of a Benefice before it is vacant.  
In the five hundred and second he gave permission to the Bishop of Tripoli to stay in that Diocese, although he was chosen to the Bishopric of Apamea, and had been translated to that of Tripoli without the consent of the Holy See. In the next he takes off the suspension which had been pronounced against the Patriarch of Antioch for having made this removal without the Authority of the Holy See.  
By the five hundred and fourth he suspended the Bishop of Langres, accused by his Chapter of having wasted the Estate of his Church, for not making his appearance at Rome, and commits the examination of this Affair to the Bishop of Paris.  
In the five hundred and fifth he cited the Patriarch of Jerusalem to Rome, about some differences between him and the Patriarch of Antioch.  
By the five hundred and sixth, and five hundred and seventh, he confirmed the sale of some Possessions, and a Translation made by the Templars of Montpellier.  
The five hundred and eighth is written to the Bishop of Syracuse, and an Abbot of that Country, about the Crusade to oblige the Prelates and ecclesiastics of Sicily to furnish out sums towards the War in the Holy Land, in proportion to their Revenues, and to employ those of the vacant Churches.  
In the five hundred and ninth he exhorted this Bishop to labour for the conversion of Apostates, and to use Censures against them.  
In the five hundred and tenth he ordered the Archbishop of Colocza, and two other Commissioners, to declare null the Elections of the Archbishops of Otranto and Spalatro, if they found that they had correspondence with the Brother of the King of Hungary, who was excommunicated by the Pope.  
In the five hundred and eleventh he advised the Prelates of Hungary not to excommunicate the Counsellors and Friends of the King, except it were upon some public and necessary account.  
In the five hundred and twelfth he forbids making any Imposition upon the ecclesiastics of the Patriarchate of Antioch.  
In the five hundred and thirteenth he declared that such Witnesses as were to depose concerning the exceptions of a Process, could not be understood, nor obliged to give witness about the Principal, unless one of the Parties desired it.  
In the five hundred and fourteenth he determined, That the Marriage of Infidels with such as were of kin to them could not be dissolved when they turned Christians.  
In the five hundred and fifteenth he declared, That Patriarches and Prelates had no right of taking the first Trials of Clergymen who desired to be tried by their Bishop.  
In the five hundred and sixteenth he judges, That Persons who have quitted the Cities where they were settled to go and live in others, ought not to pay their Tithes to the Bishops of the Cities which they left, but to him of the place which they removed to.  
In the five hundred and seventeenth he declared, That a Man who hath taken the Habit of a Regular Canon, and has made the ordinary Vows, although he has for a long time failed of performing them, aught to take his Habit again, and remain in the Monastery he belonged to.  
The five hundred and eighteenth is Advice mixed with Reprimand to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, about his carriage to the King and Queen of Jerusalem.  
In the five hundred and nineteenth he granted the Abbot of Corbie the Privilege of wearing a Ring.  
In the five hundred and twentieth he ordered the Bishop of Coventry to recover the Goods which had been alienated by his Predecessors.  
In the five hundred and twenty first he declared, That when the Patrons of a Church are in dispute about the right of Presentation, if their Suit be not ended within four months after the Vacancy, the Bishop is to put in a Vicar.  
In the five hundred and twenty second he gave order to the Archbishop of Arles to inform himself of the State of the Church of Riez and its Bishop, that he might know whether it was fitting to grant him the Petition which he made to quit his Bishopric.  
In the five hundred and twenty third he declared null the Election of a Man to the Abbey of Luxens, because he never had been Monk.  
In the five hundred and twenty fourth he determined, That such as when they were sick made a Vow to their Priests of becoming Monks, although they receive not the Habit, yet are under the obligation of the Vow.  
By the four following he appoints and recommends his Legates for the Kingdom of Dalmatia.  
The five hundred and twenty ninth is a Mandate for a Prebend of Tripoli.  
The five hundred and thirtieth is the Act of the Canonization of St. Homobonus, addressed to the Clergy and People of Cremona.  
In the five hundred and thirty first he declared that an Abbot who had some forged Letters of the Pope's, without knowing of it, is not in fault.  
In the five hundred and second, having proved that a Man who is chosen to a Bishopric cannot be removed to another without permission from the Holy See, because the Election is as it were a Chain which fastens a Man to a Church; yet, through the abundance of his Power, he gives leave to a Man who had been consecrated Bishop of Angers, after having been chosen Bishop of Auranches, to possess the Bishopric of Angers, and takes off the suspension of the Archbishops of Tours and Roven who had consecrated him.  
In the five hundred and thirty third he decided a difference between two Competitors to the Priory of St. Savinus in the Diocese of Spoletto, in favour of him who had been chosen by the Chapter, against him whom the Bishop had nominated.  
The five hundred and thirty fourth is a Confirmation of the Possessions and Privileges of the Church of Coimbra.  
In the five hundred and thirty fifth he determined, That the Pallium aught not to be given but to Archbishops whose Predecessors have enjoyed it.  
By the five hundred and thirty sixth, to the Archpriest and Canons of the Church of St. Peter, he gives them the Revenues of the Seals of Letters granted to such as came to Rome for devotion.  
By the five hundred and thirty seventh, and thirty eighth, he citys the Bishop of Lesina upon the Coasts of Dalmatia, who was called to the Archbishopric of Zara, and some Canons of that Church to give an account of this Translation.  
In the five hundred and thirty ninth he forbids the Venetians to assist or furnish the Saracens with Arms.  
In the five hundred and fortieth he named Commissioners to judge the Persons who had cut off and taken away a Letter from the Register of his Predecessor Alexander, and afterwards had maimed it. The five hundred and forty ninth is upon the same subject.  
By the five hundred forty second he exhorts the Prior and Religious of Grandmont to receive the submission of a Prior and Religious of a Monastery of their Order which was in the Diocese of Avignon.  
In the five hundred and forty third he declared, That a Person who had taken twenty days for the execution of a Sentence, or his Appeal from it, could not be admitted to appeal when this Term was passed.  
The five hundred and forty fourth is a Commission about a difference between the Abbot of Felduar, and the Bishop of five Churches concerning a Privilege.  
In the five hundred and forty fifth he confirmed the Judgement given by the Cardinal of St. Laurence, by which Alberic Prior of St. Laurence of Spello was turned out.  
The five hundred and forty sixth is a Commission to the Archbishop of Strigonia, and to two other Bishops, to examine into the difference between the Bishop and Chapter of Varadin.  
The five hundred forty and seventh, and five hundred forty and eighth, and five hundred fifty and seventh, are Confirmations of the Privileges of Monastries.  
By the five hundred and fiftieth he appointed Commissioners for the difference between the Bishop of Coventry and his Monks, about some Exemptions which had been granted them by the Predecessor of this Bishop.  
By the five hundred and fifty second he granted the Protection of the Holy See to the Monastery of Cerfroy, of the Order of the Trinity.  
In the five hundred fifty third he commissions the Bishop of Paris, and Peter of Corbeil, to judge the Bishop of Langres who was accused by his Canons.  
In the five hundred and fifty fourth he explained the difference between a General Interdict, and a Particular Interdict; because when the Interdict is general, the Churches which have Privileges of the Holy See cannot celebrate Divine Office, except with the door shut, in a low Voice, and without ringing the Bells: whereas in a particular Interdict they pretended to a Privilege of doing it publicly. To avoid any abuses that might arise from this Dispute, the Pope decides that an Interdict is to be accounted general, not only when a whole Kingdom or Province, but likewise when a City or Castle are interdicted.  
In the five hundred and fifty fifth he recommended it to the Archbishop and Chapter of Pisa to persuade the Pisans to enter into the General Peace of Tuscany.  
In the five hundred and fifty sixth he frees the King of Navarr from an Oath, which the Kings of Castille and Arragon entering with an Army into his Kingdom had forced him to take, of giving his Sister in Marriage to the latter of them, who was her Kinsman in the third degree.  
In the five hundred and fifty seventh he ordered the Bishops of the Kingdom of Sicily to stir themselves against Marcovaldus.  
In the five hundred and fifty eighth he exhorted those of Capua to a vigorous defence against the Troops of Marcovaldus. The three next are upon the same subject.  
In the five hundred and sixty second, third, fourth and fifth, he declared the Cardinal of St. Marry his Legate and Vicar in Sicily, Guardian to Frederick the young King, and exhorts this Prince and his Subjects to follow his Counsels.  
By the five hundred and sixty sixth he entrusted the Archbishop of Palermo with the Reform of a Monastery in his Country.  
In the five hundred and sixty seventh he exhorted the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem to make use of the methods of Justice, and not of Force, to right themselves in their differences with the Templars.  
In the five hundred and sixty eighth, and sixty ninth, he declared, That all Churches are bound to pay the right of Procuration to the Legate of the Holy See, and none were exempt from it.  
By the five hundred and seventieth he gave his Approbation of the Rules of the Teutonick Order.  
In the five hundred and seventy first he ordered that the Bishop of Passaw should judge the Causes of those that were under his Jurisdiction.  
In the five hundred and seventy second he gave him Power to absolve the Incendiaries.  
The five hundred and seventy third is the Judgement in a Suit about a Living.  
In the five hundred and seventy fourth he ordered the Bishop of Hildesheim to remain in the Church where he was, and forbids him to remove to that of Wirtzburg, of which he had taken the Title without the permission of the Holy See.  
In the five hundred and seventy fifth he ordered an Earl to keep a strict Guard upon the Prisoners which he had taken of the Party of Marcovaldus.  
The import of the five hundred and seventy sixth, to the Bishop of Coimbra, is, That those Clergymen who call themselves Canons of the Holy Cross, or other privileged Orders, and live in their own Diocese in a secular Habit, and receive the Sacraments of the Church, are obliged to pay all Episcopal Duties. This Letter, which is the last of the first Book, bears date the 17th of February in the year one thousand one hundred and ninety nine.  
Monsieur Baluze has added some Letters or Pieces made in the first year of the Pontificate of this Pope.  
The two first are Oaths taken to Pope Innocent, the one by the Perfect of Rome, the other by Count Ildebrandin.  
The third is the Decree for the Confirmation of a Treaty made between the Church of Penna in Abruzzo, and the Monastery of St. Vit of Fourche.  
The fourth, fifth, and sixth, are written in favour of the Monks of Canterbury, concerning the difference which they had with their Archbishop about a Chapel he was building. And the last, which is the five hundred and eighty third in all, is a Letter of these Monks to the Pope upon the same subject.  
In the first Letter of the second Book, to the Magistrates and People of Viterbo, the Pope in general forbids all sorts of Persons, in any manner whatsoever, to receive, protect or favour the Heretics, and declares all that shall so do infamous, unworthy of any Voice active or passive in Elections, to have forfeited their right of Succession, and to be incapable of all sorts of Offices. He adds, that those who converse with Heretics, whom they know to be so, incur the danger of an Anathema, and ordered that the Estates of Heretics should be confiscated.  
In the second he determined, That the Marriage of a Girl which had been nullified, because it was contracted before she was marriageable, might be renewed with the consent of the Woman after she was to come to that age.  
The third is a Confirmation of the Privileges of the Abbey of Lundors in Scotland.  
In the fourth he exhorted the Magistrates and People of the City of Jesi, to do all that was possible to bring the rest of the Marquisate of Ancona under the obedience of the Pope.  
In the fifth, to the Bishop of St. Andrews in Scotland, he ordered him to provide for vacant Churches if the Patrons did not provide within the time set by the Council of Lateran. In the twentieth Letter he gave the Archbishop of Magdeburg the same orders.  
In the next, written to the same Bishop, he gave him leave to build a new Church in his Diocese, because those which were already there were not proportioned to the number of his Docesans which increased every day.  
By the seventh he declared null the alienation of the Fiefs and Estates of a Church which was made in the form required by the Ecclesiastical Constitutions.  
In the eighth he ordered the Patriarch of Aquileia to re-establish the Church of Ceneda.  
By the ninth he recommended to the King of Marock the Religious of the Order of the Trinity, who employed one part of their Revenues to buy Pagan Slaves and exchange them for Christians.  
In the tenth he approved of the Order made by the Chapter of Xainte, by which the number of their Canons was fixed at forty.  
In the eleventh he declares that a Regular Canon could not leave his Monastery to remove into another, without the leave of his Abbot.  
In the twelfth he ordered that no one trouble the Camaldolites for Estates which they have had the possession of for forty years.  
In the thirteenth, to the Bishop of Modena, he ordered that the Appeal of such as are notorious Criminals, should not stop the Judgement of the Ordinary: because the remedy of an Appeal was never intended to serve the Criminal, but to be a relief to such as were unjustly dealt with.  
In the fourteenth he declared that excommunicated Incendiaries ought not to be allowed Christian burial; that this is a Case reserved to the Holy See, and that if they could not come to Rome not one else could give them Absolution, but upon condition of obeying whatsoever the Holy See should order them.  
By the fifteenth and sixteenth he confirms a Judgement which had been given by the Cardinal whom he had appointed Commissary in the Case between the Bishop of Spoletto, and the Religious of the Monastery of St. Peter.  
The seventeenth is a Confirmation of the Privileges and Possessions of the Bishopric of Achoury in Ireland.  
In the eighteenth he commanded the Dean and Chapter of Auranches to proceed to a new Election of a Bishop, because he whom they had chosen was not fit, and the Election ●esides had not been made in form.  
The nineteenth is a Confirmation of the Privileges of the Abbey of St. Mary of Casanova.  
He settled by the twenty first the Deanery of Magdeburg upon him who had been chosen to it.  
In the following he confirmed the Judgement given by the Archbishop of Lion in favour of the Abbot and Religious of St. Rufus of Valence.  
The twenty third, twenty fourth, and twenty fifth, are written about the Treaty concluded between the King of England and the King of France, for which he expressed a great deal of joy.  
In the twenty sixth he discharged the Chapter of Trevisi of answering the demand of a Clergyman, who by virtue of a Mandate required their Provostship.  
The twenty seventh, to the Magistrates and People of Trevisi, is full of Reprimands and Threaten for the Exorbitances and Crimes which they were guilty of.  
In the twenty eighth, which is written to the King of Arragon about a difficulty which he had proposed to him, concerning an Oath which he had made of keeping the Money of the King his Father, which was counterfeited and diminished very much in its weight, he determined, That he ought not to suffer it to be any longer current in his Realm.  
In the twenty ninth he ordered the Punishment of those who had counterfeited his Letters.  
By the thirtieth he appointed Commissioners to examine into the Election of an Abbot.  
The two following are Confirmations of the Privileges of two Monastries.  
The thirty third is a Letter of the Bishop and Magistrate of Castellane, who send their Tribute to the Pope, and desire his assistance.  
In the thirty fourth he commanded the Archbishop of Embrun to declare the Bishop of V●… excommunicate, for not observing the Suspension which the Holy See had pronounced against him.  
In the thirty fifth he ordered the Bishops of Avignon and Treguier to be no hindrance to the Provost and Canons of Cisteron's opposing the forming of a Church of Templars.  
In the thirty sixth he declared, That the Order made by the Chapter of Bazas, which 〈◊〉 their number of Canons at 18, ought not to be observed if the Revenues of that Church w●… sufficient to maintain a greater number; and he commissioned the Archbishop of Bourdeaux, the Bishop of Again, and the Abbot of Sauve Majeur to inform of it, and to settle what number of Canons they thought fit therein.  
The thirty seventh is the Judgement of a Process in favour of the Abbot of St. Donatus of Scozula. And the next is the Judgement of another Suit in favour of the Abbot of Conches.  
By the thirty ninth he exhorted the Abbot of Lucedia to procure a Peace between those of Placentia and those of Parna.  
The fortieth, forty first, and forty second, are written about the Absolution which he would have given to the Earl of Flanders.  
The forty third and forty fourth are written against the Earl of Nevers, who did not observe the Agreement which he had made with the Earl of Flanders.  
In the forty fifth he took Baldwin Earl of Flanders, and the Princess Mary his Wife, into the Protection of the Holy See.  
By the forty sixth, and forty seventh, he confirmed the Judgement which had been given in a Case about a Prebend of Cambray.  
In the forty eighth he determined, That when one doth not know the motives and circumstances of a Sentence, one ought to presume that it was just.  
By the forty ninth he declared, That a Priest cannot celebrate Divine Office, nor administer the Sacrament of Penance, nor any other Sacrament in any Diocese, without the consent and permission of the Bishop; and that a Metropolitan cannot place a Priest in the Diocese of any of his Suffragans, without his agreeing to it.  
In the fiftieth he determined, That though the Marriage between Infidels is dissolved when one of them is converted to the Faith, yet it is not the same thing in respect of those who were married while they were Believers, when one of them becomes an Heretic or Pagan.  
The fifty first is a Mandate for a Canonship of Orleans in favour of Peter of Corbeil.  
The fifty second is a Commission to the Bishop of Nocera for the reestablishment of a Monastery.  
The fifty third is a Confirmation of the Privileges of the Order of Calatrava.  
In the fifty fourth he wrote to the Chapter of Hildesheim, to nominate a new Bishop in the stead of him whom they had, who would remove to the Bishopric of Wirtzburg. In the next he committed the Execution of this Decree to the Abbots of Corbic in Saxony, and of Herveden, and to the Dean of Paderborn.  
In the fifty sixth he determined, That a Canon Regular of St. Austin, who had been made a Knight of the Hospital, had done well to return to his former Order; because it is not allowable to remove out of a stricter Order into a more remiss, as it is out of a remisser into a more strict.  
By the fifty seventh he exhorted the King of England to put the Archbishop of York into possession of the Estate of his Church again, of which he had stripped him, and to give him liberty of performing his Functions. The two next are upon the same Subject. And in the sixtieth he declared, That all the Presentations made in the Archbishopric of York without the consent of that Archbishop, upon pretence of his being suspended, were nothing.  
In the sixty first he determined, That an excommunicate Person, who before he died acknowledged his fault, and designed to come to Rome to receive Absolution, ought not to be denied Ecclesiastical Burial. Here are the words of his Answer, which may very well deserve your attention. The Judgement of God is always founded on infallible Truth, but the Judgement of the Church often depends upon an opinion which may be under a mistake: Upon this account it sometimes happens that he who is bound before God, is free before the Church; and he that is free before God, is bound by an Ecclesiastical Sentence. The Chain wherewith the Sinner is bound before God, is loosened by a Remission of the Fault; but that wherewith he is bound in respect of the Church, is loosened only by Absolution from the Sentence; which appears in the Resurrection of Lazarus, whom our Saviour first raises again, and then order the Apostles to untie him. So the Man, concerning whom he is talking, having promised with an Oath to obey the Church, and to give signs of his penitence, might very well be absolved in the sight of God, but not having received Absolution, he is not so in respect of the Church. Yet the Church could and ought to remedy this, that is, because his penitence was true by the plain marks he gave thereof while he lived, it could give him Absolution after his Death: And it signifies nothing that the power of binding and unbinding was not granted the Church in respect of dead men; so that it cannot bind or unbind any but what are upon the Earth, or, as it is written, cannot communicate with a man that is dead, with whom it did not communicate while he was living; for although it did not communicate with him, yet it ought to have done it, it not being any ill will to Religion, but an inevitable accident which hindered him from receiving absolution. And we read in the Canons that the Church has bound and unbound the dead. He ordered that this Absolution be desired of the Holy See, the case for which he was to be absolved being a reserved case; that it should be performed with a penitential Psalm, the Lord's Prayer, and the Prayer used upon that occasion; and that his Heirs should make satisfaction.  
In the sixty second he ordered a certain Lord to reserve a Treasure which had been found in a Country of the Patrimony of St. Peter, as belonging of right to the Holy See.  
The sixty third is written to the Archbishop of Sens, about the Dean of Nevers, whom having been suspected of Heresy, he sends back to him with orders to re-establish him, after he had canonically cleared himself by the witness of fourteen Priests.  
In the sixty fourth he confirmed the Order made by the Bishop of Osma in Spain, to have none but Regular Canons in his Church, and some other Constitutions which he had made.  
In the sixty fifth he wrote to the same Bishop, and determined that such of the Clergy as were notoriously scandalous in keeping Concubines, aught to be condemned without Witnesses or Accusers; but that such whose Crime was not so notorious but that it might admit of some doubt, could not be condemned but upon the deposition of Witnesses, and not on simple Declarations.  
In the sixty sixth he declared, That those Laics who keep any of the Clergy in prison incur excommunication, as well as those who give them ill treatment. That such as communicate with an excommunicated Person so as to partake of or contribute to his Crimes, cannot be absolved of the Excommunication which they incur, but by him who excommunicated the Person with whom they communicated, or by his Superior. But if they communicated with them only so as to eat or drink with them, or in any other manner without partaking of their Crimes, than they might be absolved by their own Bishop, or any other Priest. Lastly, he determined that not only those who have contracted two valid Marriages are to be accounted Bigamous, but those too who have contracted such as were nulled, because that although they were not in facto Bigamous for want of the Sacrament, yet the Intention of being so was the same, and there was a Fault committed besides: therefore he would not have a Dispensation granted such, as there is to other Bigamous Persons.  
By the sixty seventh he confirmed the Dean of Toledo in his Benefice, and puts him under the protection of the Holy See.  
By the next he confirmed an Archdeacon in his Benefices.  
The sixty ninth is a Confirmation of the establishment of the Abbey of St. Michael of the Order of Premontre.  
In the seventieth he ordered that the Saracens should be forced to pay their Tithes to the Parishes.  
By the seventy first he named the Bishops of Lincoln and Ely, with the Abbot of St. Edmund, to make up the difference between the Archbishop and Monks of Canterbury, or to give Judgement in it.  
The 72d, 73d, 74th, 76th, 79th, 89th, 90th, 92d, 93d, 98th, 100th, 101st, 102d, 108th, 109th, 110th, 116th, 153d and 274th, are Confirmations of the Privileges of Monastries.  
By the seventy fifth he ordered the Archbishop of Compostella to make use of Ecclesiastical Censures to oblige the King of Leon to put away the Daughter of the King of Castille, whom he had married, though she was his kin within the prohibited degrees.  
In the seventy seventh, to the Archbishop of Tours, he determined, That a Metropolitan who is infirm, or has any other reasonable excuse, may commission another Bishop to consecrate his Suffragans.  
In the seventy eighth he ordered the Bishop of Castellane to take off the Interdict pronounced against the Inhabitants of his City; because they had submitted and rejected him whom they had chosen Governor of the City without the consent of the Pope.  
In the eightieth he committed to the Abbot of Fertè, and to the Archdeacon's of Challons, the ordering of the difference between the Church of Autun, and the Monastery of Baume.  
The eighty first contains the Judgement in a Process between the Monastery of St. Owen, and that de la Croix-Saint-Leufroy. His Judgement is in favour of the latter, according to the first Sentence in this case, though there had been a second which seemed to contradict it.  
The seven following Letters contain a famous Sentence in favour of the Archbishop of Tours against the Church of Dol, by which the Bishop of Dol is declared his Suffragan, and hath the Pallium taken from him.  
In the ninety first, after having first given his Judgement that the Monks of Citeaux had acted rashly in changing the Abbeys of Regular Canons which were in the Islands of Hieres, into Monastries of their Order, he nominated the Bishops of Marseille and aged to make a Reform among these Regular Canons.  
The ninety fourth is a Judgement in favour of the Templars against the Canons of St. Quentin.  
In the ninety fifth he nullifies the Election of a Bishop by the Chapter of Cambray; because he whom they had chosen was nothing but a simple Shaveling before the Election, and had had a Child too by a Widow.  
In the ninety sixth and seventh he warned the King of Hungary to restore to the Bishop and Church of Vatz the possessions he had taken from them.  
In the ninety ninth he ordered his Legate in France and the Bishop of Paris, to look into the case of the Abbot of St. Martin of Nevers, who was accused of Heresy; and if he was found guilty, to depose him and shut him up in a Monastery.  
In the hundred and third he decides, That the Bishops of Lisbon and Evora are Suffragans to the Metropolis of Compostella, and not to that of Brague. In the hundred and fifth he declared, That this Sentence doth not at all prejudice the Rights of the Archbishop of Brague. And in the hundred and sixth he advised the Archbishops of Brague and Compostella to make up the difference which they had about carrying the Cross, by agreeing that each of them should have it carried before him in the others Diocese.  
In the hundred and fourth he wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to hinder the Bishops exacting any thing for the Holy Chrism.  
In the hundred and seventh he declared null the Order of the Canons of Tours, who had given four prebend's to sixteen Persons, on condition that four should be content with the Revenues of one Prebend among them, till the others were dead, so that he who died last should have the whole, as contrary to the Laws of the Church, which forbids divisions or succession in Benefices.  
The hundred and eleventh, and twelfth, contain a Confirmation of the Election of the Bishop of Placentia.  
The hundred and thirteenth contains a Judgement of a Suit between the Provost of the Church of Aquileia, and the Chapter of that Church, about the disposing of the Revenues, wherein he gives the cause to the Chapter.  
In the hundred and fourteenth, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, he empowered him to force all sorts of Persons to pay Tithes, notwithstanding any Appeal.  
In the hundred and fifteenth, to the same Person, he ordered that the Churches should be freed from the new Pensions.  
The hundred and seventeenth is a Commission to the Bishop of Tuy, the Dean of Zamora, and the Prior of St. Ifidorus of Leon, to inquire into a Suit between the Bishop of Orense, and the Abbot of Cella-Nova.  
By the hundred and eighteenth he upholds the Abbey and Religious of Waltham in the right of presenting to the Live of their Church. In the hundred and nineteenth he eases them from those excessive rights of Procuration which the Archdeacon's exacted of them, and nullifies the Censures which had been made use of to force them. By the two next Letters, and by the 126th, 127th, 128th, 129th, 131st, and 132d, he confirmed the Rights and Privileges of this Monastery.  
The hundred and twenty second is a Letter by which he makes Rainier his Legate in the Provinces of Embrun, Aix, Arles and Narbonne, with Power to reform and settle the Monastries and Churches, to give Judgement in such Causes as presented themselves, to absolve such as were excommunicated for having struck any of the Clergy, provided Homicide did not follow upon it; to encounter the Heretics, and to have them punished. By the next he ordered the Archbishops of these Provinces to acknowledge this Legate, and to obey and assist him.  
By the hundred and twenty fourth he ordered the Chapter of Aquileia to put the Provost of that Church in again.  
In the hundred and twenty fifth he upholds a Canon in the Possession of the Revenues of his Prebend.  
The 133d, 134th, 135th, 136th, 137th, 138th, 139th, 140th, 143d, 144th, 145th, 146th, 147th, 149th, 150th, 151st, and 152d, are written about the accommodation of the differences of the Church of Compostella and the Church of Brague, which was ended by an agreement of the Parties, and about some other things relating to the Church of Compostella.  
The hundred and forty first, and second, are written against some Laics of Metz, who had private Assemblies in contempt of the Church, and there had the Evangelists, the Epistles of St. Paul, the Morals of Job read in French, and took upon them to dogmatise and preach against the Priests.  
The hundred and fifty fourth and fifth contain a Confirmation of the Reform which the Religious of Pontigny had made in the Abbey of Caduin.  
In the hundred and fifty sixth he gave permission to the Bishop of Assisi to accept of the offer which the Archpriest of Peruse had made, of clearing himself canonically of the Crime of Simony, by the witness of three Persons.  
The hundred and fifty seventh is a Confirmation of the Archdeaconship of Cirenza to him who had been presented to it.  
By the hundred and fifty eighth he takes the Church of St. Michael of Travalde under the Protection of the Holy See.  
By the hundred and fifty ninth he advertised the Suffragans of the Archbishopric of Cirenza, that he would in a short time send them a Metropolitan fit to fill the place, and exhorted them to receive him with all due respect; and by the next he gives the same notice to the Chapter of Anglone.  
In the hundred and sixty first he gives leave to the Archbishop of Cirenza to take his Friends into his Church.  
The three following Letters are concerning the Immunities of the Canons of Matera and Cirenza.  
In the hundred and sixty fifth he ordered that the Inhabitants of Matera should pay the whole Tithe to the Churches to which it belongs.  
In the hundred and sixty sixth he wrote to the Bishop of Assisi that he should not think that those whom he had excommunicated were absolved, or that they had any Letters of Absolution from the Holy See, or from its Commissaries.  
The hundred and sixty seventh and eighth are written about the absolution of Marcovaldus, and contain the Oath that was taken by him on that occasion. He did not observe it, and the Pope was forced to write against him again in the hundred and seventy ninth Letter.  
In the hundred and sixty ninth he determined, That the Bishops may absolve those who are excommunicated for striking any of the Clergy, when they cannot commodiously come to Rome, unless they had been excessively rude indeed.  
The two following have nothing remarkable in them.  
In the hundred and seventy second he determined, That he who was chosen Abbot of Gemblours, and whose Election they had got confirmed by giving Money without his knowledge, was not at all in the fault.  
The hundred and seventy third is the Judgement in a Suit about a Canon's place of the Island in Flanders.  
In the hundred and seventy fourth he ordered the Clergy and People of Regio to receive their Archbishop.  
By the hundred and seventy fifth he forbids the Aretins to rebuild a Castle.  
The hundred and seventy sixth is a Letter written to the Pope by the King of Dioclia and Dalmatia, by which he recommends and submits himself to his Holiness, and desires him to write to the King of Hungary to drive the Heretics out of his Kingdom. The next is such a Letter from the Prince of Servia.  
The hundred seventy eighth is a Letter written by the Archbishop of Dioclia and Antivari, by which he thanks the Pope for the Pallium which he had sent him, and presents him with the Orders made by the Legates of the Holy See, and by the Prelates of Dalmatia against Simony, about the Celibacy of the Clergy, concerning the payment of Tithes, about the secrecy of Confession, against those that abused the Clergy, or dragged them before Civil Magistrates; about the degrees of Affinity within which it is not allowable to marry; about the Clergys' being shaved for the presentation to Benefices, and the preservation of the Possessions of the Church; and lastly, a Prohibition from putting the Children of Priests or Bastards into Holy Orders, and from ordaining any one Priest under the age of thirty.  
The hundred and eightieth is written by the Pope to the Archbishop of Antivari about the Bishop of Soacino, who, upon suspicion of Homicide, had quitted his Bishopric; the Pope ordered that he be allowed wherewithal to maintain himself.  
In the hundred and eighty first he gave notice to the Archbishop of Canterbury, that he ought not to allow the Secular Clergy to sit in the same place with the Monks at the Cathedral, or to go before them at a Procession.  
By the hundred and eighty second he takes an Earl and his Lands into the Protection of the Holy See.  
The hundred and eighty third, to the Bishop of Trevisi, is written against such of the Clergy as did not wear Clergymens' Habits, nor were shaved; he ordered him to suspend them, and forbidden the Archdeacon to let them take any higher Orders.  
The hundred and eighty fourth is a Letter of Frederick King of Sicily to the Inhabitants of Montefiascone, to make them obey the Sovereign Pontiff.  
In the hundred and eighty fifth he declared, That a Bishop elect, who has taken possession before the Election was confirmed, aught to be turned out of that Bishopric.  
In the hundred and eighty sixth he commissions the Bishop of Fiesoli to give Judgement in a Case that concerned a Monastery of Camaldolites.  
In the hundred and eighty seventh he ordered the Metropolitan and the Bishops of Sicily to redeem the Estates of the Kingdom of Sicily which they had alienated.  
The hundred eighty eighth is written to the Archbishop of Magdeburg, about the divorce of the Duke of Bohemia from his Wife, pronounced by the Bishop of Prague, without any regard to the Appeal which this Princess had put in to the Holy See, in consequence of which this Duke had married the Sister of the King of Hungary; he ordered the Archbishop to inquire into the truth of the matter, and write him word of it.  
The hundred and eighty ninth is addressed to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, to the Bishop of Lydda, and to the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, and of the Temple, to whom he recommends it with wisdom and fidelity to distribute the Alms which he had sent them, and to make him acquainted with the State of their Country.  
In the hundred and ninetieth he ordered the Chapter of Capua to proceed out of hand to the Election of a Bishop.  
In the hundred and ninety first he recommends to the People of Saxony, Westphalia and Sclavonia, the assistance of the Bishop and Clergy of Livonia against the Pagans their Enemies.  
In the hundred and ninety second, and two hundred fifty and eighth, he ordered the Bishop and People of Civita to obey the Earl of Chieti, and take him for their Protector.  
The hundred and ninety third is a Reprimand for the Chapter of Fondi which had made two faulty Elections, having chose Men who had not in them the Qualities requisite for a Bishop.  
In the hundred and ninety fourth he decided, That a Monk who had his Forefinger cut off, was incapable of saying Mass.  
The hundred and ninety fifth is a Mandate for a Canonship of Poitiers.  
The hundred and ninety sixth is a Commission to the Archbishop of Brague and two Monks, to judge in a Difference between the Bishop of Coimbra and the Templars.  
By the hundred and ninety seventh he exhorted the Prelates of France, to whom it is written, to do all that was in their power to bring the King to obey the Holy See, and to put away his Concubine, to take his Wife again.  
The two following are Commissions about private affairs.  
By the two hundredth he made the Archbishop of Tarento his Legate in Sicily.  
In the two hundred and first he empowered Conrade Archbishop of Mentz to confer those Benefices, to which the Bishop of Hildesheim had presented, in the Bishopric of Wirtzburg, upon whom he pleased, notwithstanding the Presentations of that Bishop.  
In the two hundred and second, and two hundred and third, he ordered the Bishops and People of Italy to receive his Legate, and obey him.  
In the two hundred and fourth he commands the Archbishops of Magdeburg, Mentz and Treves, and their Suffragans, to publish Excommunication against the Bishop of Hildesheim, who would remove to the Bishopric of Wirtzburg without leave from the Holy See.  
In the two hundred and fifth he exhorted an Earl of Italy to preserve that Fidelity which he had promised to the Holy See, and to observe the Peace.  
In the two hundred and sixth he advertised the Bishop of Autun to provide maintenance for the Jews newly converted.  
In the two hundred and seventh he exhorted the Magistrates of Viterbo to observe that Peace which they had made with the Romans.  
The two hundred and eighth is a Letter of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Pope, in answer to a Letter which he had written to him, wherein he tells him that the name of Universal, which he had given to the Church of Rome, puzzled him, and he could not tell the meaning of it. He takes it ill too that he should accuse the Eastern Churches of being Schismatics, since they professed the Faith of the Council of Nice, and believed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Substance of the Father. At the end of this Letter he praises the Emperor of Greece. Pope Innocent answers this Letter in the two hundred and ninth, and after having been pretty large upon the Primacy of St. Peter, which he proves to be by divine Right from many places of Scripture, he explains in what sense the Church of Rome might be styled Universal. He says that one doth not mean by this name all particular Churches, but this name we give to a Church that hath all other Churches under it; that it is likewise called the Mother of other Churches, not because it is the ancientest, but because it has the Preeminence over all the rest. He tells him afterwards that he designs to call a General Council for the Reformation of Manners, and invites him to it to settle an union and good understanding between the two Churches. The Emperor Alexis too writ to the Pope the two hundred and tenth Letter about the Recovery of the Holy Land, and the Reunion of the two Churches, as of a very feasible thing. The Pope answered him in the two hundred and eleventh, and says much the same to him as to the Patriarch of Constantinople.  
In the two hundred and twelfth the Pope writ to his Vicar at Constantinople, not to suffer the Latin Priests to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation, which belonged to none but Bishops to do.  
By the two hundred and thirteenth he ordered all the Latin Priests which were at Constantinople to obey his Legate.  
By the two hundred and fourteenth, and two hundred and fifteenth, he citys the Prior and Religious of Sainte-Croix in Spain, to appear about the difference between them and the Bishop of Coimbra.  
In the two hundred and sixteenth he frees the Canons of Wirtzburg from the Oath which the Bishop of Hildesheim had made them take to pay a certain Sum of Money after his death to those as he would leave it to.  
The two hundred and seventeenth, and two hundred and nineteenth, are Letters of the King of Armenia to the Pope; and the two hundred and eighteenth, and two hundred and twentieth, are the Pope's Answers to them.  
By the two hundred and twenty first he stirs up the People of Sicily to war against Marcovaldus.  
The two hundred and twenty second to a private Person, is the Confirmation of a Prebend.  
The two hundred and twenty third is a Commission to the Abbots of Lucedia, and St. Saviour of Pavia for the reestablishment of the Monastery of St. Colombanus. In the next he declared, That this Monastery shall still enjoy the exemption from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Bobio, but not so as to be any prejudice to the Rights of that Bishop.  
In the two hundred and twenty fifth he ordered the Punishment of the Man that had killed the Magistrate of Benevento.  
In the two hundred and twenty sixth he exhorted the Saracens of Sicily to be faithful to King Frederick, and not take the part of Marcovaldus.  
In the two hundred and twenty seventh he determined, That a Priest who discovered to some Rogues a Person that they were looking for, and whom they afterwards killed, without knowing what they searched after him for, not being in any fault, might have leave to celebrate Mass which he had been forbidden by the Bishop.  
In the two hundred and twenty eighth he ordered the Cardinal Bishop of Verona, to examine whether those that were accused of Heresy were really guilty; and that if he should find after having questioned them that they had no Errors in their Doctrine or Manners, he should declare them Catholics; and if they had, and were ready to renounce them, he should give them Absolution after having taken the ordinary Oath.  
In the two hundred and twenty ninth he declared, That such as let their Lands under borrowed names are obliged to pay the Tenths, and that Clergymen are not to be allowed to have any Women live with them except they be of their kindred.  
By the two hundred and thirtieth he granted the Bishop of Laghlin in Ireland not to be within the Power of any but the Pope's Excommunication; and in the next, allows him to turn out a Man that had gotten into the Archdeaconry of his Church, and to dispose as he thought fit of the Benefices of his Diocese.  
In the two hundred and thirty second he declared, That a Woman who had taken upon her a Vow of Chastity to avoid being married, but upon condition of tarrying in her own house, and had afterwards married a Man by whom she had Children, aught to take her Religious Habit again, and observe her Vow.  
In the two hundred and thirty third he determined, That a Girl of not above seven years of age could not be engaged by any promise of Marriage.  
In the two hundred and thirty fourth he ordered an Abbot to provide for the subsistence of a Jew that was newly converted.  
By the two hundred and thirty fifth he appointed the Abbots of Citeaux, Morimond, and la Crest to make strict search after Heretics.  
In the two hundred and thirty sixth he commissioned the Archbishop of Naples, and the Cardinal Legate in that Country, to inform against the Archbishop of Benevento.  
In the two hundred and thirty seventh he forbids the turning the Revenues of Abbeys, which were intended for the maintenance of Monks, and the keeping of the Poor, to other uses.  
In the two hundred and thirty eighth he forbids all the Bishops of Scotland any ways meddling against an Abbey which was immediately subject to the Holy See.  
In the two hundred and thirty ninth he judged that the alienation of the Estate of a Monastery by the secular Authority is not to be minded.  
In the two hundred and fortieth he gave leave to the Provost of the Chapter of St. Gaudentius of Novara to correct the Faults of the Canons.  
In the two hundred and forty first he decided, That such Clerks as are under Interdiction, cannot be chosen to any Ecclesiastical Benefices.  
In the two hundred and forty second he declared, That all Believers are bound to pay Tithes to their Parish, and that they cannot upon any pretence whatsoever exempt themselves from paying any part thereof.  
In the two hundred forty third he ordered the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London to pronounce a Sentence of Excommunication against all such as had a hand in the Violences offered to an Abbot who was putting a Sentence of the Pope's in execution.  
In the two hundred and forty fourth he says, That one ought to provide against the Commissaries that are appointed, not by way of appeal, but by challenging them.  
By the two hundred and forty fifth, to the Prelates and People of Sicily, he appointed a Cardinal Legate in this Kingdom, and ordered them to obey him.  
In the two hundred and forty sixth, to the Canons and Clergy of Brinde, he citys them to Rome to give an account of the Rout which they had made to hinder him that had been chosen of taking possession of the Bishopric. The two hundred and forty seventh is upon the same Subject.  
The three following Letters, and the two hundred and sixty third and sixty fourth, are Confirmations of private Men in their Live.  
In the two hundred and fifty first he desired the King of France to send aid to the King of Jerusalem against the Saracens, and to write to the Emperor of Constantinople to maintain a Peace with this Prince.  
The two hundred fifty second is a Letter of Leo King of Armenia, complaining that the Earl of Tripoli, and the Great Masters of the Orders of the Templars, and St. John of Jerusalem, would dispossess the lawful Heir of the Prince of Antioch, and desiring the Pope to protect him, and send him some assistance against the Saracens. The Pope makes answer in the two hundred and fifty third Letter, that he will send to his Legates upon the place to judge in all these Differences, and that in the mean while he'll order the Earl of Tripoli not to meddle. By the two hundred and fifty fourth Letter, he ordered the Lords and People of Armenia to assist their King in making war against the Saracens; and by the next he sends him the Standard of St. Peter to encounter the Enemies of the Cross.  
By the two hundred and fifty seventh he revoked a Judgement given by the Bishop of Sidon in Syria, who was commissioned by the Holy See against the Templars: And by the two hundred fifty ninth he ordered the King of England to restore the Templars a Castle which belonged to them.  
In the two hundred and sixtieth he appointed Commissaries to inform of the matters for which the Abbot of Pomposa was accused.  
In the two hundred and sixty first, to the Bishop of Rossano, he answered divers Questions which this Bishop had proposed to him. 1. That the Kindred of a Woman might marry the Kindred of her Husband. 2. That although a Husband and Wife are Godfather and Godmother to a Child, yet they do not thereby contract any such Compaternity as can hinder them from living as Man and Wife. 3. That the Latin Priests might neither have Wives nor Concubines. 4. That he might force the Abbots and Priests to come to his Synod. 5. That the Chaplains of the Castle of Rossano had nothing to do to judge of the validity or invalidity of Marriages.  
In the two hundred and sixty second he gave some Lands to the Judge of the Archbishop of Fermo's Temporal Jurisdiction, or his Theologal.  
In the two hundred and sixty fifth he ordered, That a Clergyman who had gained a Commission about an Affair that had been decided before by telling a false Story, should have no advantage by this Commission.  
In the two hundred and sixty sixth he gave a Lord notice to receive the Legate which he sends him with all due respect.  
The two hundred and sixty seventh is a Mandate for a Canonship in the Church of Brevil.  
In the two hundred sixty eighth, and two hundred and seventy second, he enjoins the Abbots of Citeaux and Premontre to give the fourth part of the Estates of their Abbeys towards the Holy War.  
By the next two he required of all the Bishops of Europe supplies of Men and Money for that War; and of all the Faithful the same, in the two hundred and seventy first.  
In the two hundred and seventy third he appointed the Archbishop of Tyre and the Bishop of Sidon his Commissaries to judge in a Suit between the Church of Tripoli and the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem about a Church.  
The two hundred and seventy fifth and sixth are written about the Process concerning the prebend's of the Church of Milan.  
The two hundred and seventy seventh is written about the Election of an Archbishop of Capua by two thirds of the Chapter, maugre the opposition of the Pope's Legate and some Canons: the Pope found no fault in the form of the Election; and because he was not yet satisfied that the Person elected was thirty years old, he puts off the Confirmation of the Election, and in the mean while till the thing was settled, appointed the elected Person, who was Subdeacon of Rome, to administer both Spirituals and Temporals.  
The two hundred and seventy eighth is also written about the removal of the excommunicated Bishop of Hildesheim, because he would without the permission of the Holy See take the Bishopric of Wirtzburg: The Pope gave order to the Bishop of Bamburg to inform whether he observed and was obedient to the Interdict; that he might know whether it was fit to pardon him.  
By the two hundred and seventy ninth he confirmed the Institution which the Bishop of Amiens had made of four Religious in a Church.  
In the two hundred and eightieth he advised the Lords and Magistrates of Sicily to labour with his Legate to promote the good of that Realm.  
By the two hundred eighty first he confirmed an Agreement made between the Templars of Sclavonia and the Monastery of St. Cosmus and St. Damienus of the same Country.  
In the two hundred and eighty second he declared null a Resignation made for fear of the King of England.  
In the two hundred and eighty third he finished a Suit that had been depending at Rome about the Election of the Bishop of Sutri.  
The four following are the same with some before.  
By the two hundred and eighty eighth he confirmed the new Bishop of Hildesheim, who was chosen in the place of him who would remove to Wirtzburg, and declared null all the Alienations that the latter had made of the Possessions of the Church of Hildesheim.  
In the two hundred and eighty ninth he empowered some Abbots in his name to present to the vacant prebend's of the Archbishopric of Magdeburg, which the Archbishop and Chapter had neglected to fill within the time appointed by the Council of Lateran.  
Monsieur Baluze takes notice after this Letter that this second Book of the Register of Pope Innocent's Letters is not complete; because Roger of Hoveden quotes a Letter of this Pope's of the year 1199, about Giraudus Bishop of St. David's, which is not to be found among these; and he adds, for a Supplement, some Letters which he had taken from divers places.  
The first, which is the two hundred and ninetieth of this Book, is addressed to the Clergy of the Diocese of Penna in the Province of Abruzzo, whom he order to submit to the Jurisdiction and Justice of the Bishop, as well in what respects their Tithes and Incomes, as what concerns the Causes of Marriage and Penance.  
The two hundred and ninety first is a Confirmation of the Privileges of the Church of Volterra.  
The two hundred and ninety second is a Protection granted to a Priest.  
In the two hundred and ninety third and fourth he exhorted all the Princes of Germany to labour for the Peace of the Empire, and for an Accommodation between Otho and Philip.  
By the two hundred and ninety fifth he commits to the Bishop of Verceil, and the Abbot of Lucedia, the Judgement of a Process between the Monks and Canons of Milan.  
The two hundred and ninety sixth is a Confirmation of the Privileges of the Abbey of Mariadura.  
By the two hundred and ninety seventh he takes the Earl of Montpellier into his protection, and tells him in the next that he will send him Legates to labour for the destroying of Heresy.  
The two hundredth and ninety ninth, and three hundredth, are written about the Removals of Bishops. He of the Isle of Lesina upon the Coasts of Dalmatia had been required for the Archbishopric of Zara, and before this Demand was admitted in the Court of Rome, he had forsaken his Bishopric of Lesina, and had done his Duty in the Archbishopric of Zara: The Chapter of Lesina had chosen in his place the Bishop of Spalatro. The Pope puts off the execution of the matter till he was fully informed how things were, and appoints Commissaries for that purpose.  
The three hundred and first is the Confirmation of a Treaty between the Archdeacon of Paris and the Abbess of Chelles.  
The three hundred and second is a Constitution which forbids using any force to make the Jews be baptised, or doing them any injury, or offering them any violence.  
By the three hundred and third he granted Indulgences of forty days to the Monastery of Vezelai, in which they say is preserved the Body of St. Mary Magdalen.  
The three hundred and fourth is a Confirmation of the Privileges of the Church of Placentia.  
The three hundred and fifth and last of the second Book, is a Letter to the Clergy of Normandy, exhorting them to contribute the fourth part of their Revenue towards the carrying on of the Holy War.  
Mr. Baluze not being able to recover the third and fourth Books of the Letters of Pope Innocent, has supplied their place with a very ancient Collection of the Decretals of this Pope, made by Rainier, Deacon and Monk of Pomposa: It contains many Letters of the first and second Books, and some of the following ranged under different Titles. We have already made an Extract of the first, and we have nothing left but to do the same with the latter. That which is in the first Title of this Collection is of that number; it contains a Resolution of some Difficulties about the expressions which are used in the Mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. Here he takes notice that the Terms of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, signify the relative distinguishing Properties of the Divine Persons. He distinguishes in the Father three Particulars, his Innascibility, Paternity, and Emission. Then he examines in what sense Jesus Christ may be called Man; and having scholastically discussed that Point, and given the Solutions of it which are given in the Schools, he remarks to the Archbishop of Compostella, to whom this Letter is written, that to answer in an Apostolical manner, which is the plainest and best, one may say that Men in this world cannot comprehend the true nature of God, and have no proper words to express it by, and therefore are forced to make use of Relative Terms.  
The second Letter is a writing given to the Ambassadors of Philip Duke of Suabia, by which he sets the Priesthood above the Imperial Dignity, and pretends that it belongs to the Pope to decide the Difference about the Empire; because it was he that brought the Eastern Empire into the West, and crowned the Emperors.  
In the third, to the Emperor Alexis Comnenus, he also extols the Sacerdotal Dignity, and tells this Prince that he should not suffer the Patriarch of Constantinople to sit at his feet or on his left hand.  
The other Letters of this Collection are almost all in the first and second Book, and have nothing worth notice in them, except some under the fortieth Title about Divorces and Polygamy.  
In the first Letter of the fifth Book, Innocent III. determined that such Nuns as have fought, or have beaten any of their Sisters, or of the Clergy, may receive absolution of the Bishop who shall give it them in the name of the Pope.  
The second is a Confirmation of the Statutes and Privileges of the Order of Grandmont.  
The third is a Law made between the Clergy and Laics of that Order.  
The fourth is written to the Pisans against Marcovaldus.  
By the fifth he gave Judgement in divers differences between the Bishop of Spoletto, and the Prior and Clergy of the Church of St. Gregory of that City.  
In the sixth he approved of the Translation of the Bishop of Imola to the Archbishopric of Ravenna.  
In the seventh he determined that the Son of a Godfather could not marry the Daughter of the Godmother to the same Child, although he was born before they baptised the Child. That if these two Persons had married they ought to be parted, and that whosoever knew of any such thing ought to discover it.  
In the eighth he wrote to the Cardinal Bishop of Palestrina his Legate in France, to absolve ad cautelam the Archbishop of Magdeburg, whom he had excommunicated for not appearing at Corbeil, whither he had cited him, upon condition that he should promise to make his appearance, or send his Deputy, if he had not appealed to the Holy See before excommunication.  
By the ninth he confirmed the Privileges of a Chapter of Regular Canons of the Diocese of Magdeburg, and by the next grants them the Privilege of eating meat, because the Order of St. Austin, which they made profession of, did not oblige them to abridge themselves of it.  
The eleventh Letter is to the Archbishop of Sens to absolve the Bishop of Nevers.  
By the twelfth he nominated Commissaries to judge the Archdeacon of Chartres, who was accused of Simony.  
By the next he commissioned the Cardinal Bishop of Palestrina, his Legate, with the Abbots of Citeaux and Beaulien, of the Diocese of Verdun, to inform about the matters whereof the Bishop of Toul was accused by his Archdeacon.  
In the fourteenth he confirmed the Election of Sifroy to the Archbishopric of Mentz, and rejected the demand of the Bishop of Worms his Competitor.  
The following Letters have nothing in them worth taking notice of.  
In the twenty second he declared that when those Persons, the Judgement of whose Causes he had committed to his Commissiaries, could not safely come to the place appointed, they might then appeal to the Holy See, though the Letters of Commission excluded any Appeal.  
The twenty third is written to the Bishop of Worcester against the Religious, who made use of Appeals to hinder the Bishop from visiting their Monastery, and to avoid correction. He ordered him to take a course with them for all their Appeal. He gave the same Order to the Bishop of Verona in the thirty second and thirty third Letters.  
The twenty fourth and twenty seventh, are written to the Chapters of Chalons and Angers, about the Election of their Bishops.  
In the twenty fifth and twenty sixth he nominated the Cardinal of St. Praxeda to be his Legate in the East, with him of St. Marcellus, and orders all the Faithful to obey them.  
By the twenty eighth he acquainted the Chapter of Prague that he has absolved their Bishop.  
The thirty fifth is addressed to the Archbishop of Bourges, the Bishop of Nevers, and the Abbot of Cluni, whom he commissioned to examine the Inhabitants of an Hospital who were accused of Heresy, and condemned by the Bishop of Auxerre, though they had acquitted themselves at Rome.  
The thirty sixth is written about a Difference in the Election of a Prior of the Church of St. Austrillus of Bourges, which he ordered the Theologal of Orleans to inquire into; and in case he should find the two Elections which had been made faulty, to make them proceed to a new Election in the ordinary forms.  
By the thirty seventh and thirty eighth he recommended to the Prelates and Lords of Sicily, Walter Earl of Brain, whom he sends into Sicily with his Legates, and a Marshal, to carry on the War against Marcovaldus.  
In the thirty ninth, to the Bishop of Auxerre, who had demanded of him, 1. Whether the Power which he had of disposing of the Estate of the Clergy that died intestate, extended itself to Canons as well as others; 2. Whether such as left their Estates to be disposed of at the will of another, might not be accounted to have died intestate: The Pope answered, That under that name of Clergy were comprehended Canons, and that it was not to be thought that those Persons made no Will who left other Persons Masters of their Estates.  
The forty first is a Confirmation of the Privileges of the Bishop of Siponto.  
The forty second is a Letter of the King of Armenia, complaining of the Templars promising to remain in unity with the Holy See, and desiring him to grant that neither he, nor his Subjects, nor his Country, nor the Latins which were in it, might be excommunicated or interdicted by any other than the Holy See. The Pope grants him his Request by the following Letter.  
The forty fourth is a Letter of the Patriarch of Armenia to the Pope, desiring help of him. The Pope promises it him by the next, and exhorts him to keep the Churches of Armenia in union and submission to the Holy See.  
The forty sixth is written to the Pope by another Archbishop of Armenia, who asks for a Pallium, which the Pope grants in the next Letter.  
The forty eighth is written by the Pope to the Archbishop of Rheims about the Design of Philip King of France to get himself separated from his Wife. He tells him that it's fit the Queen should have liberty to produce her Witnesses and Proofs as well as the King, and that he ought to advise the King not to demand what cannot be in justice granted. In the next, which is written to that Prince about this Affair, he talks with him about that which his Ambassadors had complained of, that he had had harder usage in this case than other Princes had received upon the like occasions; seeing that King Lewis his Father, and the Emperor Frederick, and very lately John King of England had been separated from their Wives by the Judgement of their Prelates and Estates, which the Holy See had without any scruple confirmed. The Pope answers, that they were his Legates who separated the Emperor Frederick, and that King Lewis and the King of England were parted by their Prelates, but that was because there had been no complaint made to the Holy See; which was the very Reason that the Judgement was not revoked, because no body protested against it: but the matter now in hand had been laid before the Holy See; Pope Celestin had revoked the Sentence of Divorce, and had sent his Legates into France, who might perhaps have put an end to the Affair, if he had not eluded their Judgement; that it was in the power of the Holy See, if it would go to the rigour of the business, not only to annul the Sentence, but likewise to use Censures against those that had given it, as Pope Nicholas had done against Gontierus Archbishop of Cologn, and Tetg●…dus Archbishop of Treves, for having divorced King Lotharius of Tetberge: that he had offered his Ambassadors to send two understanding Persons into his Kingdom to hear the Witnesses, and to go to Denmark, if there was need, to receive the Queen's Evidence, to the end that they might give a true Judgement in the matter: that he was very willing if the Queen would consent, that he should choose two Persons out of his own Kingdom. In fine, he advises him to observe due form of Law in the Sentence, and to use his Queen well.  
In the fiftieth he ordered his Legates in Sicily and his Marshal, to make up the Marriage of King Frederick with the Sister of the King of Arragon.  
In the fifty first and fifty second, he forbids the Archbishop of Bourges to meddle in a business if separation which had been brought before the Holy See, and says, that an action against a Marriage which has for so long time remained firm, ought not to be easily admitted.  
In the fifty third he gives Judgement in a difference about the Archdeaconry of Richmond, in favour of him who had been first chosen by the Archbishop of York. The fifty fourth is about the same business.  
The three next concern particular Affairs of some Churches in England.  
In the fifty eighth he takes off the suspension of the Archbishop of Messma.  
By the fifty ninth he declared that the Desertors of the Order of Citeaux should not be received, though they had Letters of Reestablishment from the Holy See, except these Letters expressly said that it should be no prejudice to the Discipline of the Order.  
The sixtieth contains three Collects, and three Prayers for the Feast of St. Bernard.  
The three next have nothing remarkable.  
By the sixty fourth and sixty fifth he forbids giving of Benefices to the Children or Nephews of the Patrons.  
In the sixty sixth he checks the King of England for the Violences he had done to the Bishop of L●noges.  
The three next are about the Election of a Bishop and two Abbots.  
The seventieth is a Confirmation of a Treaty made between the Abbot and Monastery of D●…e on one side, and Andrew of Chavigni Lord of Chatearoux on the other.  
By the seventy first he confirmed a certain Person's right to a Canonship.  
By the seventy second he commissioned the Archbishop of Arles, and the Abbots of St. G●…a, and of Vallemagne, to publish the Deposition of the Abbot of St. William, and to get another chosen.  
The seventy third is written against the Canons of St. Antoninus of Placentia, who would not receive a Canon who had a Mandate from the Holy See for a Prebend of their Church.  
The seventy fourth is written to the Archbishop of Melphi to excommunicate all that took the part of Marcovaldus.  
By the seventy fifth he forbids turning a Church into a Monastery without the consent of the Bishop.  
By the seventy sixth he granted the Monks that lived in the place whither St. Bennet re●…ed, six Livres of Money every year out of the Apostolic Chamber, beside the Subsistence which they had from the Monastery of Sublac.  
In the seventy seventh he imposes this Penance upon a Soldier that had cut out a Bishop's Tongue; to go naked, with his tongue tied with a string fastened about his neek, carrying Rods in his hand; to present himself in this posture at the Church door for fifteen days together, where he should have Discipline given him, fasting all this time only with Bread and Water; and then to go for the Holy Land, where he should carry Arms for three years, and fast every Friday with only Bread and Water.  
In the seventy eighth he imposes this Penance upon a Man who having been Prisoner among the Saracens, had killed his Wife and Daughter by the command of the Saracen Prince, and eaten of their Flesh; to abstain for the future from eating any meat; to fast every Friday on bread and water, and the Mondays and Wednesdays of Advent and Lent; to eat only one Meal all the other days of Advent and Lent, and on all Vigils; to go naked footed, with a woollen Coat, and a very short Scapulary, carrying a Staff a Cubit long in his hand, taking no more of any person than would just serve him that day, not remaining above two days in one place, never daring to enter into the Church without first having received Discipline, and to recite every day a hundred Pater Nosters, kneeling at every one of them; and after having observed this Penance for three years, to return to the Holy See to desire Absolution.  
In the seventy ninth, to the Abbot and Chapter of St. John of Sens, he granted them the Privileges of not being interdicted or excommunicated but upon an evident and reasonable Account.  
Hitherto the Letters of the fifth Book go on without any interruption, the rest of it is imperfect, many omissions there are, but those that we have I present you with: namely,  
The eighty second, which contains the Rules for the Reform of the Monastery of Sublac.  
The eighty fourth about the Affairs of Sicily, to Earl Walter Governor of Puglia or Apuleia.  
The eighty ninth about the Death of Marcovaldus, at which he expresses a great deal of joy.  
A Fragment of the ninety sixth, by which he annuls the Postulation of the Bishop of Leit●●rs to the Archbishopric of Ausche, because this Bishop was troubled with the Falling Sickness.  
A Letter by which he checks the Bishop of Penna for several Irregularities.  
The hundreth by which he commissioned the Abbot of St. Columbus of Sens, and the Theologal of Orleans, to confirm the League made between the Bishop of Paris and the Abbot of St. Genevieva du Mont, provided it had nothing in it which might derogate from the Authority of the Holy See, upon which the Church of St. Genevieva immediately depended.  
The hundred and seventh to the Archbishop of Besanson, about some Persons in his Diocese who carried the Religious of Citeaux before secular Judges, and obliged them likewise to clear themselves by hot or cold Water, or by Duel. The Pope forbids all such usage of them for the time to come.  
The hundred and fifth, which is a Letter of the King of Bulgaria, submitting himself to the Church of Rome. And the hundred and sixth, which is the Pope's Answer to him, wherein, after having recounted the usage which the Legates of Pope Adrian met with in Bulgaria, and how the Bulgarians had driven out the Roman Priests to take in the Greeks, which was the cause that the Holy See never sent any more Legates among them, he tells him that at his Request he would send a Legate into his Kingdom, there to act in his name. The hundred and seventeenth, which is a Letter of the Bishop of Zagora in Bulgaria upon the same Subject: And the hundred and nineteenth, which is the Pope's Answer to the Bishop.  
The hundred and twenty first, which is an Answer to the Demand of John the old Archbishop of Lions, what Form Christ Jesus could make use of to transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood, and why these words were added in the Canon of the Mass, the Mystery of Faith, which were not to be met with in any of the Evangelists? Innocent takes notice, 1. That not only these words, but those also, Having lifted up his Eyes to Heaven, and those of the Eternal Testament are not in the Evangelists, but that it is not to be thought that the Evangelists have omitted nothing, and that those omissions are to be supplied from other places of the Holy Scripture. 2. That some Persons have made use of those words, The Mystery of Faith, to maintain an Error, that the real Body of Christ was not in the Sacrament, but only the Appearance and Figure; that these Persons were deceived, because, although we say that the Sacrament of the Altar is a Figure, we do not thereby deny that it is real, for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ was an Example and Image too, and yet it was real; so that the reason why the Sacrament of the Altar is called The Mystery of Faith is, because we therein believe otherwise than we see: we see for example the Species of Bread and Wine, and we believe the reality of Flesh and Blood, and the virtue of Unity and Charity: that three things are to be distinguished in this Sacrament, the visible Form, Bread and Wine, the reality of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and the virtue of Union and Charity; that the first is Sacramentum & non res; the second, Sacramentum & res; and the third, Res & non Sacramentum. 3. He maintains that the Apostles received from Jesus Christ, and delivered to the Church that Form of words which is in the Canon of the Mass. This Archbishop had put another Question to the Pope too; namely, Whether the Water which was ●…gled with the Wine in the Cup, was likewise turned into the Blood of Jesus Christ? The Pope answered, that it is the opinion of some, that as Blood and Water flowed from the side of Jesus Christ, being Figures of the Redemption and Regeneration of Man, so the Wine and Water in the Chalice are changed into these two things: That others believed that the Water being changed into Wine was transubstantiated into the Blood of Jesus Christ, which is contrary to the opinion of Philosophers, who say it may be separated from it: That in the third place it may be said that the Water is not turned into Blood, but remains mingled with the accidents of the Wine, as new Wine doth when it is mixed with consecrated. He doth not condemn this opinion, but he rejects that of those Men who say that the Water is changed into the Phlegm of the 〈◊〉 of Jesus Christ; and embraces as most probable that opinion of the Water's being turned with the Wine into the Blood of Jesus Christ. The third Desire of this Archbishop, is to know how that change came to be made in the Secret of St. Leo: for where one reads in the ancient Missals, Lord grant that this Offering may profit the Soul of thy Servant Leo, there the new ones have it, Lord grant that this Offering may profit us by the intercession of St. Leo. Innocent answers, that he doth not know by whom or when this Change was made, but that it was not without reason, because seeing it is an injury to a Martyr to pray for him, all the Prayers therefore that are made for the Saints, aught to be applied to us, or to be understood in this sense, that we pray they may be glorified more and more upon Earth, although there are some that think that the Glory of the Saints may be augmented till the day of Judgement, and therefore the Church may pray for their Glorification. In fine, he leaves him to judge whether the Rule of St. Austin about Prayers for the dead may not be applied here.  
The hundred and twenty second to the Emperor of Constantinople, who had written to the Pope, desiring him to hinder the Latins from invading his Estates; to give no Countenance to the Party of Alexis the Son of Isaac the Angel, who was gone to desire help of Philip Duke of Suabia to regain the Throne of his Father; and not to suffer Philip to be Emperor of the West. The Pope answers him that this Alexis had come to Rome to complain of his having deposed his Father, and put out his Eyes, and kept him in Prison: That afterwards he went to Philip and other Christian Princes, promising them that if they would re-establish him, he would assist them in the Conquest of the Holy Land; that he had been consulted about this too, but would give no answer till he had heard his Deputies, though many had counselled him to favour the Design, because the Greek Church was not yet subject to the Holy See: that he was so far from favouring Philip, that he upheld Otho in his Pretensions: that he exhorted him in token of the respect which he had for him, to labour for a Peace.  
The hundred and twenty eighth to William Earl of Montpellier, who had by the Archbishop of Arles desired the Pope to legitimate his Children. Innocent proves therein first of all that the Legitimation of the Holy See is valid, not only in what concerns the Spirituals, but the Temporals too: and because this Earl alleges the Example of the King of France's Children, which Philip had by a Wife whom he took after having left Isemburga, to obtain the same favour for those whom he had had by a Wife that was married in the same manner, Innocent tells him there is a great deal of difference; 1. Because the King of France by his lawful Wife had a Son who was presumptive Heir of the Crown, whereas he had no Son by his lawful Wife. 2. Because the King of France had no more from the Holy See than what concerned the Spirituals, whereas he desired it both for Spirituals and Temporals. 3. Because the King had not left his Wife till he was divorced by the Archbishop of Rheims, and had these lawful Issue by the other Wife before the Holy See had forbid him to live with her, whereas he had observed no Form nor Law in the matter. 4. Because the King acknowledging no Superior in Temporals, had submitted himself to the Holy See in this case, though perhaps he could have given himself this Dispensation as to Temporals; but as for him who depended upon other Sovereigns, this Dispensation could not be granted him without encroaching upon their Right, and he could not grant it to himself. About the end he gins to establish the Power which he had not over the Temporalty of St. Peter's Patrimony only, but over that of other States. And he concludes that he cannot grant his desire, unless he can prove to him that his Fault is less, or his Authority greater than it was thought.  
The hundred and sixtieth to the King of England, wherein he reproaches him for having forsaken the Party of Otho.  
The hundred and sixty seventh, to the Holy Soldiers, which is full of Reproaches too about the taking of Zara in Dalmatia, which the Venetians had attacked and taken by storm with the help of these Crosses, and had divided the Booty of with them.  
Monsieur Baluze has added to these Letters two Privileges granted by this Pope, the one to the Monastery of St. Laurence of Aversa, and the other to that of St. Paul and St. Peter of Canterbury, and some other Letters which had never been printed, which serve to clear some of those in this Book; namely, the Letters and Acts about the Accommodation between the Bishop of Paris, and the Abbot of St. Genevieva du Mont, confirmed by the Abbot of St. Columbus of Sens, and by the Theologal of Orleans, in pursuance of a Letter of Innocent's, viz. the hundredth, and by the Pope himself in a private Letter which Monsieur Baluze speaks of; and the Act of the Legitimation of the Children of King Philip the Beautiful, of which he spoke in the hundred and twenty eighth Letter.  
The fifth Book is followed by a Collection of Letters which concern the Contest for the Empire between Philip and Otho, with this Title; The Register of Pope Innocent III. about the Affair of the Roman Empire. There are to be found not only the Letters of the Pope upon that Subject, but those likewise of the two Contenders, and of those of their Parties. There are several considerable Circumstances of this History to be learned there, and we may by them see the disposition of the Pope and Princes, and the different Motives which made them act on this or that side. At first the Pope seems to be neuter, and to desire nothing else but that the Germane Princes would agree and live in peace. The first and second Letters. Otho writes him a very submissive Letter. The King of England, and other Princes which were for him, writ to the Pope in his behalf. The fourth, fifth, and following Letters. Those who had chosen him give the Pope an account of his Election, and desire his confirmation of it. The tenth Letter. The Pope answers them in general Terms. The eleventh Letter. On the other side the Princes of Germany that were for Philip, demand of the Pope four things; 1. That he would acknowledge Philip for King of Germany. 2. That he would do nothing against the Rights of the Empire. 3. That he would not refuse to crown him Emperor, when he should come to Rome for this Ceremony. 4. That he would not make war against Marcovaldus. The fourteenth Letter. The Pope answered them that he is very sorry for the Differences in Germany, that he has no design of entrenching upon the Privileges of the Empire; that he will give the Crown to him whose Election he shall find to have been according to form; but that he cannot favour Marcovaldus, who is a Rebel against the King of Sicily, and who had seized upon the Lands of the Holy See. The fifteenth Letter. Philip Duke of Suabia likewise wrote to the Pope by Ambassadors that he sends him. The seventeenth Letter. And Philip King of France earnestly recommends his Affair. The thirteenth Letter. The Pope answers the Ambassadors in a full Consistory, that it belonged to the Holy See to give Judgement in this difference. The eighteenth. Otho who found himself the weakest of the two, writes very submissive Letters to the Pope, and makes offers of peace, and to yield to all that the Holy See should think fit to order. The nineteenth and twentieth. The Pope wrote a Letter to the Princes of Germany; having recounted what was said on one side and the other to maintain the Validity of each Election, he lays open to them the mischiefs that this division might produce, and exhorts them unanimously to choose one only Prince. In the mean while the Archbishop of Mentz having called an Assembly at Andernach and at Coblentz, had there made the Prince's promise that they would execute what should be ordered in the first Assembly that should be held. The Pope was angry that this was done without his having a hand in it, and wrote thereof to the Archbishop in the twenty second Letter.  
Hitherto the Pope had not declared himself, but now seeing that there was a necessity of doing it, he weighs the Reasons and Interests that the Holy See might have, and finds that it is most for its advantage to declare for Otho. He himself has told us his Motives in his Memoir, Entitled, The Deliberation of Pope Innocent upon the three Competitors for the Empire; Frederick, Philip, and Otho. He examines the matter by three Principles: Quid liceat; quid deceat; quid expediat. He says that it seems to him quod non liceat to reject the Election of Frederick, which was the first that the Princes of Germany made; quod non deceat, because he was put by his Father under the protection of the Holy See; quod non expediat, because there was reason to fear that when he should become powerful, and see that the Holy See had balked him of the Empire, he should cast its Authority out of Sicily, and not make to it the ordinary Submissions, that he might revenge himself upon that which had taken the Empire from him. But then he sets against this, that his Election had been gained by force, and an Oath to maintain if had been taken by violence; that he was elected at a time when he was not capable of managing the Empire; and that supposing he had been chosen in a time that the Empire had been vacant in▪ yet non decet, because it is not reasonable that he who is under the Tutorage of others, should command and govern them: that non expedit, because the Kingdom of Sicily would by this means be united to the Empire, and there was reason to fear that the King of Sicily being become so powerful, would not do homage to the Holy See. For the Election of Philip he alleges, quod non liceat to reject it, because it had been made by the greatest number: non deceat, for fear he should think that the Holy See minded only to revenge the Injuries done it: non expediat, because he was the most powerful. Then against his Election he says, quod non liceat to approve it, because he had been excommunicated, and elected while he was excommunicated; which is so true, that he would since have gotten his Absolution, which was nevertheless 〈◊〉 given him in due form, because he was a favourer of Marcovaldils, because he had taken an Oath to Frederick, and in the mean while acted contrary to this Oath: quod deceat to oppose him in it, because else it would seem as if the Empire was hereditary, when one Brother succeeded another: quod expediat, because he is a Persecutor, and of a persecuting Race. Against Otho, quod non liceat to acknowledge him, because he was chosen by the least number: quod non deceat, for fear it should seem to be out of partiality: quod non expediat, because his Party seemed to be the weakest. For this Prince, because sanior pars consentit; because he is the most proper; because God will assist him. The Conclusion is to counsel the Princes of Germany to agree upon one person, and to advise them to declare for Otho. The twenty ninth Letter. After having made this Resolution, he wrote a Letter to the Archbishop of Cologn, and his Suffragans, and to the Princes of Germany, wherein he tells them that it belongs principally and finally to the Holy See to decide all Differences that should arise about the Empire, that they might be made up: principally, because 'twas that See that translated the Greek Empire to the Latins; and finally, because 'tis that that gives the Imperial Crown: that he had waited to see whether the two Contenders would agree; but since that was not done, he had sent the Cardinal of Palestrina his Legate into Germany, with Philip a Notary, and had ordered Octavian Bishop of O●… his Legate in France to repair thither, if he could, and see what was to he done. The thirtieth Letter. He wrote the same thing to the Prelates and Princes of Germany. The thirty first. In fine, he declared openly for Otho, acknowledging him to be King of Germany lawfully elected, made a Declaration of it to the Princes of Germany, and ordered them to obey him. The thirty second, and following Letters. He wrote likewise to the King of France to draw him to the same side with himself, and to the King of England to keep him firm on it. The forty seventh, and forty muth Letters.  
The Princes of Philip's Party, astonished at what the Legate had done, complained of the Court of Rome's meddling in the Election of an Emperor, any more than the Emperor did in the Election of a Pope, which he might pretend to a right of doing. They said that the Cardinal of Palestrina could not do as he had done, either in quality of an Elector, for that did not belong to him; or of a Judge, because he had given Judgement in the absence of one of the Parties, and because he had no power to judge in this matter. The sixty first Letter. The Pope answered, That he acknowledges that the right of choosing a King who is afterwards to be made Emperor, lies in the hands of the Germane Princes, but that he hath a right to see what this Person is, because he is to consecrate and confirm him: That his Legate had acted the part neither of an Elector nor of a Judge, but of a Denunciator, by declaring that Duke Philip was unworthy, and Otho worthy of the Empire: That the Election of Philip was disorderly, etc. The sixty second Letter. Philip King of France complains of the Election of Otho, and tells the Pope that if he still protected him he would take his own measures, and assures him he had no reason to fear any thing from Philip. The sixty third Letter. The Pope answered, That he had no design to do any thing that might be a prejudice to France: That he had a greater affection for the King of France and his Subjects, than for all other Kings and States, Utpote in cujus exaltatione exaltars' credimus Apostolicam sedem, & in cujus depressione, quod absit, ipsam deprimi crederemus. Then he gave the Reasons why he put by Philip; 1. Because he is of a Family that had been Enemies to the Holy See. 2. Because he is excommunicated. 3. Because one cannot trust him. But as for Otho, he assures him that he had engaged him to follow his Counsels in respect of France: That he is of Kin to Lewis the Son of the King of France: That it's none of his Interest to defend the English, and that he had not assisted them: That if he should take any measures against France, the Holy See would strait oppose him: Usque adeo enim Regni Francorum diligimus libertatem, ut non solummodo contra eum, sed contra omnem hominem qui illud molestare praesumeret, pro cujus immunitate staremus, & ejus defenderemus pro viribus dignitatem. He exhorts him to live in Peace, and touches upon some other Reasons of State, which should keep him from opposing the Empire of Otho. The sixty fourth Letter. The Pope wrote moreover many other Letters to the Princes and Prelates of Germany in favour of Otho, who had taken an Oath to obey the Church of Rome, and to restore it all the Lands which belonged to it, and among others the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Marquisate of Ancona, the Duchy of Spoletto, the Lands of the Countess Mathilda, etc. The seventy seventh Letter. The Party of Otho growing every day weaker and weaker, the Pope exhorts the two Parties to come to a Treaty that there might be a Peace. The seventy ninth. Otho to get him on his side, promises to make a peace with the King of France. The eighty first Letter. The Report goes that the Pope's a going to leave him. He complains thereof. The Pope assures him that he has not changed his Sentiments; that he had sent no Letters against him, and that those which went about were forged. The eighty fifth and following Letters. On the contrary he excommunicated the Bishops that were against Otho, and exhorts all the Ecclesiastic and secular Princes of Germany to be on Otho's side. Philip, whose Party was very much strengthened, thought that he might at last perhaps gain the Pope; he wrote him a Letter to justify his Conduct, in which he says that his design at first was to keep the Empire for his Nephew Frederick: That the Electors refused to confer it on him: That he received the Empire whether he would or no, without any looking after it, or caring for it: That some Malcontents, corrupted by the King of England's Gold, had chosen Otho: That Lupold had been Canonically chosen Archbishop of Mentz. And he ends his Letter with promises of obedience, and submission, and respect, protesting that it is a falsehood that he was excommunicated by the Pope his Predecessor; that all he wished was to be as certain of not being excommunicated out of the Church Triumphant, as he was of not being so out of the Church Militant.  
Within a while after things looked towards a Peace; the Pope sends Hugolin Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, and Leo Cardinal of the Holy Cross, in quality of his Legates into Germany to conclude it. They received Philip's Oath of obeying the Pope in all things for which he had been excommunicated, and gave him absolution after he had taken it. They obliged him to set Bruno of Cologn at liberty, to turn out Lupold, and put Sifroy into possession of the Archbishopric of Mentz. They made him disband his Army, and enter into a Truce for a year. The hundred and forty second Letter. Philip was killed not long after. You may see the Circumstances of his death in the hundred and fifty second Letter of Cardinal Hugolin. Otho is afraid that some body would dispute the Empire with him: The Pope promises stoutly to maintain him in it, and to hinder any one from rising up against him. The hundred and fifty third Letter. He wrote upon the same Subject to the Princes of Germany. Otho desires him to write in his behalf, and the Pope doth it, and exhorts the King of France too to make peace with him. To strengthen him still more, he empowered Hugolin to grant a Dispensation for his marrying the Daughter of Philip. He writes him a pretty Letter about the Union which there ought to be between the Sacerdotal Power, and the Imperial: That they are the two Swords which ought to assist one another, and recommends his Legates to him. The hundred and seventy ninth Letter. In fine, Otho being come into Italy to receive the Imperial Crown, takes an Oath to the Pope, whereby he consents to the liberty of Elections, allows of Appeals, renounces all pretence to the Revenues of vacant Churches, leaves the ordering of all spiritual Affairs to the Pope, promises to exterminate Heresy, and to render to the Church of Rome all its Lands; and particularly the Marquisate of Ancona, the Duchy of Spoletto, the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Estates of the Countess Mathilda, etc. and promises assistance and obedience to the Pope. This Oath was taken in the year 1209. at Spire, the twenty first of March; the hundred and eighty ninth Letter: And was confirmed by the hundred and ninety second.  
We do not think fit to enter upon the rest of the Letters contained in the rest of the Books of Innocent's Register, which are about an infinity of private Actions and Affairs, the recital of which would be more tedious than useful. There you may find a great many Privileges granted or confirmed to many Abbeys; many Confirmations of the Elections of Bishops; divers Suits brought before the Holy See, and Judgement given in them, or else they returned to the Commissaries; Mandates for Live; Letters to animate the Christians to relieve the Holy Land, or to set the Catholics about the exterminating all Heretics; Advice to Princes and Bishops; Questions about Marriages and Divorces, and particularly about that of Philip King of France, and that of Peter King of Arragon; and the decision of some Questions in the Canon Law. There are some too about the Regal Right as well in France as England, of which we shall speak in their place. The greatest part of these Letters are written in a formal and practical Style. This Pope had a wonderful insight into Affairs, and a very particular Knack of hitting the joints of the Business in a few words, and of setting off the Reasons both on one side and the other in their full force; which he did with so much impartiality, that as the Author of his Life takes notice, one can hardly discover which side he inclines to till he pronounces Sentence.  
He composed many other Works both before and after his being Pope. Here's a Catalogue of them. A Treatise of despising the World, or of the misery of Man's Estate; in three Books: A Work of Piety much like that of the Imitation of Christ, of which there have been many Editions, as at Paris in 1482, and 1594. at Venice in 1538. at Antwerp in 1540 and at Cologn in 1681. A Treatise of the Mysteries of the Mass, divided into six Books, printed likewise by itself at Leipsick in 1534. and at Antwerp in 1540 A Commentary upon the seven Penitential Psalms, printed at Antwerp in 1550, at Venice in 1578, and at Cologn the same year. Three Prayers in honour of the Saints. Sermons for the whole year, and for the Saints days, with four Discourses for the Consecration of the Pope. A Treatise of Almsgiving. A Treatise in the praise of Charity. Hymns or Proses in honour of Jesus Christ and the Virgin, and Prayers upon the Passion of Jesus Christ. Two Discourses to the second General Council of Lateran. The Acts and Canons of this Council. All his Works were printed with two Books of Letters in Folio at Cologn in 1552, and in 1575. These Works are full of Piety and Spirituality. The Book of the Contempt of the World may be very useful, and contains very lively Draughts of the Estate and Misery of Man. The Books of the Mysteries of the Mass are full of Mystical Reflections upon the Ceremonies of the Mass. The Style of the Sermons is close, full of Divisions, Antitheses, Allegories, and many Passages of Holy Scripture.   

CHAP. III.  
The History and Writings of the Popes who have been of the Holy See, from the Death of Innocent to the end of the Century.  
POPE Innocent dying at Perusa the sixteenth of July 1216, Cencius Sabellius, the Son of 
Honorius the Third.  Almerick a Roman, who had been made Cardinal Deacon by Celestin the 3d, and Cardinal Priest by the Title of St. John and St. Paul by Innocent the 3d, was elected Pope the eighteenth of the same month, and took the name of HONORIUS the Third. He exhorted the Germane Princes who had taken upon them the Holy War, to make a Voyage beyond Sea, and ordered solemn Processions for the success of the Expedition: but for all that it had not the success that one could have wished; for the Christians were forced at last to give up Damiata which they had taken at the beginning of the Expedition, and to throw up the Design. The Pope also caused war to be made upon the Moors of Spain, and the Albigenses of Tholouse, and earnestly exhorted Philip Augustus' King of France, and Lewis the eighth his Son, to exterminate them. He died the eighteenth of April 1227.  
The Registers of this Pope's Letters, and of those of many of his Successors, are in the Vatican Library, but were never yet published entire: Rinaldus has inserted almost all of them in his Continuation of the Annals of Baronius, and particularly those that have any thing to do with the History. Some of them too may be found in Bzovius, and many in the History of the Minor Brothers composed by Vaddingus, who has put all that concern his Order together at the end of every Volume of his History. There are some of them inserted in the Bullaries, particularly those which concern the Institution or Confirmation of Religious Orders, and their Statutes; the Canonization of Saints; the Crusades against the Saracens and Heretics; the Establishment, Laws and Privileges of the Inquisition; the Erection of Universities, etc. There are some too in the last Collection of the Councils; but the most considerable things in these Letters about the Canon Law, were put together in the ancient Collections of the Decretals of the Popes under different Titles, according to the Order which Justinian has observed in his Codes. There are five famous Collections of these Decretals before that of Gregory the Ninth, which is in the Body of the Law.  
The first, which was made a little while after the Collection of Gratian, was composed by Bernard 
Collections of the Pope's Decretals.  Provost of Pavia, and Bishop of Fayence, who collected the Constitutions of the Popes since Gratian, and particularly those of Alexander the Third, and Lucius the Third, and ends at Celestin the Third.  
Some time after three persons undertook to make a Collection of the Decretals of the Popes which were omitted by Bernard, or written since his time: Gilbert, Alanus, and John Gallus of Volterra. That of the last was the largest and best, and it is that which is counted for the second. It contains some Letters of the Popes omitted by Bernard, those of Celestin the Third, and the first of Innocent the Third. 'Tis thought that Alanus' is that which is inserted among the Councils after the third General Council of Lateran.  
The third Collection was begun by Bernard of Compostella, but the Romans being offended that a Stranger should meddle with that Work, desired Pope Innocent to have it done by his Order. Peter of Benevento, Deacon and Secretary to the Pope, was chosen out for the Business, and composed it out of the twelve first Books of this Pope's Letters, and it was published in the Pope's name.  
The fourth Collection was made five years after by the order of the same Pope. It contains the Canons of the fourth General Council of Lateran, and the other Decretals made since that Council. These four ancient Collections with their Commentators, have been presented to the public by Antonius Augustinus, and printed at Paris by Cramoisy in 1621.  
The fifth Collection is composed of the Letters of Honorius the Third, of whom we are speaking, who caused it to be made and presented to himself by Tancredus Archdeacon of Bologn, whom he commanded to receive it, and get it received as well in Schools as Ecclesiastical Tribunals. This was published by Ciro Professor of the Canon Law, and Chancellor of the University of Tholouse, and printed in that City with learned Comments in the year 1645.  
Monsieur du Chesne had the Manuscript Register of Honorius the Third, some of whose Letters he published in the Fifth Tome of the Historians of France. We find three Letters of this Pope in the Collection of the Councils, in the last of which he abolishes the Avows of Churches. There are three more too in the same place about the Primacy of Toledo, and three more which concern the Order of Minor Brothers in the Collection of Vaddingus. Monsieur Baluze too has given us some in the second Tome of his Miscellany Works. Lastly, we find ten Bulls of this Pope in the last Bullary, of which the first is a Confirmation of the Laws of the Emperor Frederick, and the others contain the Confirmation of the Rules of divers religious Orders, and particularly those of the Minor Brothers, and the Carmelites, and of the Privileges of Citeaux, and the Canonization of St. Laurence Archbishop of Dublin.  
Cardinal Hugolin succeeded Honorius the Third, and took the name of GREGORY the Ninth; 
Gregory the Ninth.  he was of Anagni, descended of the Illustrious Family of the Earls of Signi. He had been made Cardinal Bishop of Ostia by Innocent the Third, and Chief of the Embassy for the Crusade under that Pope, and under his Successor Honorius the Third; an Employ which gained him a great deal of Credit and Authority: so that it was no wonder that the first thing he did after his Election, was to press the Emperor Frederick and the rest of the Crosses to go for the Holy Land, and that he used the Sword of Excommunication against this Emperor for putting off his Voyage. We shall not here repeat what we have before spoken of his deal with the Emperor, which were at last the cause of his Death, that fell out on the 30th of September 1241.  
The Letters of this Pope are much better written than the greatest part of the Letters of any of the Popes of that time. There are a great many about his Differences with Frederick; others against Heretics; some to St. Lovis King of France and the Queen his Mother about the Differences of that Prince with the King of England; against the Albigenses, and in favour of some Bishops of France. This is the Subject of one and thirty Letters of this Pope, which are in the Collection of the Councils. There are ninety seven of his in Vaddingus, and a great number besides in the Ecclesiastical History of Rainaldus, who has amassed them almost all together. The great Bullary furnishes us with a dozen, among which are the Bulls of the Canonization of St. Francis, of St. Anthony of Milan, of St. Dominick, and of St. Elizabeth. Father Dachery has published thirteen of them in the third Tome of his Spicilegium. Lastly, there are many Fragments of his Decretal Letters in the Collection of five Books of Decretals which he had made by Raimundus of Pennafort, and which he approved of, forbidding the use of any other Collection in the Schools and Ecclesiastical Tribunals, or the making of any other without an express order from the Holy See.  
Thirty days after the Death of Gregory the Ninth, Godfrey of Chastillon a Frenchman, Cardinal 
Celestin the Fourth.  of St. Sabina, was by his singular Piety and complete Learning recommended to the Popedom, and took the name of CELESTIN the Fourth: but he enjoyed it but eighteen days, at the end of which he died, overloaded with old Age and Infirmities, so that we must not wonder we have no Letters of his.  
After his Death the Holy See was vacant for about nineteen months, and then Sinibaud Cardinal 
Innocent the Fourth.  of the Title of St Laurence, was chosen Pope the 24th of June in the year 1243. and took the name of INNOCENT the Fourth, and was consecrated at Anagni the 28th of the same month. He lived in the Holy See three years and some months, and so has left us many Letters written during his Popedom. There are nineteen of them in the Collection of Councils, without counting those four that are in the General Council of Lions. In the tenth, to his Legate in Cyprus, he resolves divers Questions concerning some Contests between the Bishops of the Greek and Way in that Kingdom; and he there determines, 1. That the Greeks ought to observe the Custom of the Roman Church in the Unctions of Baptism. 2. That yet it may be allowed them to anoint the whole Body of the Baptised. 3. That it signifies nothing whether they use hot or cold Water in Baptism. 4. That none but Bishops have right to anoint the Forehead of the Baptised with Holy Chrism. 5. That every Bishop might consecrate the Holy Chrism: That if the Greeks had a mind to follow their own way, according to which the Bishops are to consecrate it with their Archbishop, and the Archbishop with the Patriarch, they might be easily allowed it. 6. That Priests ought not to give Unction to Penitents, instead of Satisfaction. 7. But that extreme Unction ought to be given to sick People. 8. That the Greeks might make use of hot Water or cold as they pleased in the Sacrifice of the Altar, provided they thought one might consecrate as well with the one as the other. 9 That they ought not to be allowed to keep the Eucharist a year, but that it ought to be renewed every five days. 10. That the Greeks might be left to use their own Ceremonies in the Mass, provided they used the same Form of Consecration that Jesus Christ did, and did not stay till past the None Hour. 11. That the Priests may call the Hours as they please, and are used, but that they should not celebrate when they had not said Matins. 12. That the Priests ought to be examined to see whether they are fit and capable of reading the Office, and celebrating the Mass. 13. That every Priest should offer the Sacrifice in a Chalice of Gold, or Silver, or Tin, with a white clean Linen Corporal, and upon an Altar decently set forth. 14. That Women are by no means to be suffered to serve at the Altar. 15. That though the Greeks would do better if they fasted every day of the Lent, yet they might be left to the way they were used to. 16. That married Priests who had the care of Souls, ought not to be hindered from taking the Confessions of their Parishioners, and imposing Penances on them. 17. That for all that it shall be free for the Bishops to settle and appoint Priests in their Dioceses to take the Confessions of Penitents, to enjoin Penances, and to act in their name. 18. That Fornication Soluti cum soluta is a deadly Sin. 19 That the Greeks should be obliged to give the seven Orders, although they had hitherto neglected it, still omitting the three lower one's. 20. That the Greeks ought not to condemn all third and fourth Marriages. 21. That nevertheless Priests should not give their Blessing upon second Marriages. 22. That they should not marry, so as they did, within the fourth degree of Kindred and Affinity. 23. That those Greeks, who acknowledged that the Souls of those who died without being wholly cleansed from their Sin might exist after death, and be eased by the Prayers of the Living, were obliged to call this place where they are, Purgatory. 24. That those who die in a state of deadly Sin, shall be damned for ever. 25. That the Souls of Infants who are baptised, and of just men who have no more satisfaction to make, go directly at their Death to an eternal Country. 26. That Abbots and Monks should observ● the Rules of the Holy Fathers. The thirteenth Letter is a Confirmation of the Laws made by the Emperor Frederick against Heretics: And the eighteenth forbids excommunicating or interdicting the Estates of the King of France without particular Orders from the Holy See. R●●naldus recounts many other Letters of this Pope in his Annals. There are sixteen of them in the Great Bullary, of which some are the same with those in the Collection of the Councils, and the others are Confirmations or Privileges of Orders, and the Canonisations of Saints. Father Vaddingus has got together 98 which concern his Order. This Pope died the seventh of December 1254.  
His Successor was Rainaud of Anagni of the Family of the Earls of Signi, a Kinsman of Innocent 
Alexander the Fourth.  the Third's, and Gregory the Ninth's, the latter of which had made him Cardinal. He was elected on the 21st of the same month December, and consecrated on Christmas Day, taking the name of ALEXANDER the Fourth. He was six years five months and three days in the Holy See, and writ in this time many Letters. There are no more than three of them in the last Collection of Councils, but there are a great many in Rainaldus, twenty four in the Great Bullary, which are most of them for the Confirmation or Settlement of Orders, or for the Establishment of the Inquisition, and the persecution of Heretics; a Constitution for the Island of Cyprus, which is in the Addition to the eleventh Tome of the Councils; and a hundred and twenty four Letters in favour of the Order of Minor Brothers, which are in Vaddingus. There are six Letters more of this Pope to St. Lovis in the sixth Tome of Father Lu●● Dachery's Spicilegium, in which he declares that the Chapels of the King cannot be interdicted, nor any part of his Estates, without a special Order of the Holy See; and gives leave to the King and Noblemen to put those of the Clergy into prison as were guilty of enormous and notorious Crimes; and declares such of the Clergy, as meddle in Merchandise or Business, stripped of their Privileges. This is confirmed by two Letters of Clement the Fourth, which are related in the same place.  
The Death of Alexander the Fourth fell out upon the 24th of June in 1261, and was 
Urban the Fourth.  followed by a Vacancy of three months and three days, by reason there were but nine Cardinals, eight of which that were present at the Election could not agree with one another; so that at last they were forced to bring it to this, that they would look for one out of their own College: They cast their Eyes strait upon the Patriarch of Jerusalem, named Simon Pantaleon, a Native of Troy's in Champagne, and of a very mean Extraction; but one whose merit had raised him by degrees to this Dignity, having first been Canon of Troy's, then archdeacon of Laon and Liege, and then Bishop of Verdun. He was chosen the 28th of August ●… the year 1261, and taking the name of URBAN the Fourth, was put in possession of the 〈…〉 See the 4th of September following.  
〈…〉 Pope instituted the Feast of the Holy Sacrament for the Honour of that Holy Mystery, 〈…〉 in obedience to the Revelation which he heard many pious Persons had had concerning it, 〈…〉 particularly St. Juliana of Liege, and for the satisfaction of many Christians who ardently 〈…〉 this Institution. The Letter by which the Pope established it in the year 1264 is preserved 〈…〉 the eleventh Tome of the Councils, and in the Great Bullary, and another Letter to a Reli●… 〈◊〉 of Liege named Eve. There are in the Bullary too, eight other Letters of this ●…, some of which are written in favour of the Inquisitors, who, he declares, cannot be ex●…ed by the Legates of the Holy See, and to whom he grants some other Privileges. 〈…〉 are some more of them too in Rainaldus; and Vaddingus has got together thirteen of them ●…ing to his Order. Lastly, you may find in the last Bibliotheca Patrum, a Paraphrase upon 〈…〉 ●…rst Psalm attributed to this Pope, who died at Perusa the 3d of October in the year 1264.  
〈…〉 months' after Guy the Gross a Frenchman, Cardinal Bishop of St. Sabina, who took upon 
Clement the Fourth.  〈…〉 the Name of CLEMENT the Fourth, was elected February the 5th, 1265. The first 〈…〉 his Letters is an authentic Proof of his Humility: It is written to a Kinsman of his, Peter 〈…〉 Gross of St. Giles, whom he tells that he was as much troubled for his being raised to be ●…, as others seemed joyful; and that he ought not to be proud upon this, or seek hereupon a more 〈…〉 Match for his Sister: That if he did so, he would not show him any kindness; 〈…〉 if he would give her to the Son of that Cavalier to whom he had before designed to ●…, he would advance three hundred Tournoise Livres: That he did not mean any of ●…ed should far better for it than if he had still been a simple Clergyman; and that 〈…〉 given notice to one of them not to come from Suza, nor to make any Petitions to him for 〈…〉 nor, if any one offered him any Presents to do it, to take them. He writes all this 〈…〉 secretly, and with a Charge not to speak of it: and that's the reason, he tells him, that he 〈…〉 not make use of a Bull, but of the Fisherman's Ring, of which the Popes make use when 〈…〉 write privately to any of their Friends: which is a plain Proof that this Letter was not 〈…〉 a vain ostentation of Humility, but that they were his real thoughts. This Letter we 〈…〉 in the Councils with two others, which are Confirmations of the Elections made to the Arch●… of Saltzburg, and the Bishopric of Passaw. There are many other of this Pope's 〈…〉 in the Annals of Rainaldus and Bzovius, sixteen of his Bulls in the Great Bullary, w●… 〈…〉 the Confirmations of Orders, or Canonisations, or Orders against Heretics, and in 〈…〉 of the Inquisition. Vaddingus has collected thirty four of them which concern his Order▪ 〈…〉 Father Luke Dachery has given us five which concern the Kings of France, Arra●…, 〈◊〉 〈…〉 England, in the sixth, seventh and ninth Tomes of his Spicilegium. This Pope departed 〈◊〉 〈…〉 October the 29th, 1268.  
The Divisions and Intrigues of the Cardinals retarded the Election of a Pope for almost three 
Gregory the Tenth.  ●…. At last when they saw they could not agree otherwise, they agreed to refer it to six Car●…, who chose on the 1st of September 1271, Theobalde Archdeacon of Liege, a Native of Pla●…, who was then in Syria with an Army of Crosses. Their Choice was approved of by all ●…dinals, who wrote to him in very respectful Terms. When he had notice of his Electi●… parted from Syria, arrived in Italy at the beginning of January in 1272, and was 〈…〉 at Rome the 27th of March, having taken the name of GREGORY the Tenth. 〈…〉 called and kept the second General Council of Lions in the year 1274. There 〈…〉 Letter of the Indiction of this Council, and many other Letters of this Pope about the 〈…〉 of the Greeks and Latins, in the Acts of this Council. There is another there too, 〈…〉 to the Bishop of Liege, who was deposed in this Council for his Incontinence. There 〈…〉 five more in the Great Bullary, and one against the Christians that turned Jews; and 〈…〉 which are preserved by Rainaldus and Vaddingus. This Pope died the 10th of January ●…. 'Twas he that first made that Law of shutting up the Cardinals after the death of the ●…, in a place called the Conclave, and of keeping them there till they had ●●ected a Pope, 〈…〉 oblige them to make a quick Dispatch with the Election, and to prevent the Holy see's 〈…〉 so long vacant as it had been after the Death of his Predecessor. This Order was 〈◊〉 〈…〉 Successor Adrian V and John XXI, but having been renewed by Celestin, the 〈◊〉; and 〈…〉 the 8th, it has ever since been observed.  
His Successors were not long in the Holy See; the first of them was Peter of 〈◊〉 of 
Innocent the Fifth.  〈…〉 Order of Preaching Friars, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, who was elected the 21st of January 〈…〉 ●ame year, and took the name of INNOCENT the 5th. He had studied and been Pro●… in the University of Paris, and his Merits had raised him in 1271 to the Archbishopric 〈…〉 Lion's, and then to the Cardinalship. We have an Abridgement of Theology of his printed 〈…〉 Paris in 1551, and a Commentary upon the four Books of the Master of the Sentences, 〈…〉 at Thoulouze 1562. Thirthe●… makes mention of a great many Commentaries of his ●…on the ●●●red Writings. He died the 22d of June the same year. And Cardinal Ot●obon a ●…, who was chosen into his place the 12th of July under the name of ADRIAN the Fifth▪ 
Adrian the Fifth.  〈…〉 on the 18th of August at Viterbo, without Consecration.  
Five and twenty days after, Peter the Son of Julian a Portugese, Cardinal Bishop of 〈◊〉▪ ●…cceeded him with the name of JOHN the 19th, according to us, or according to the common 
〈◊〉 the twenty first.  Accounted JOHN the 21st. His Pontificate was of no long Date, for he was killed by the ●●ll of a Ceiling at Viterbo on the 20th of May the next year. He was well skilled in Physic and Philosophy, and has left us some Books in these Sciences, and some Letters written while he was Pope. There's one of them to the King of England in the 10th Tome of the Councils, and many others mentioned by Rainaldus, and four by Vaddingus.  
The twenty fifth of November the same year, John Cajetan a Roman, of the Family of the 
Nicolas the Third.  Ursino's, was chosen Pope, and named NICOLAS the Third, by the name of the Title of St. Nicolas, of which he was Cardinal. We have a good many of his Letters in Rainaldus, and there are two celebrated one's in the Great Bullary, one against the Jews, and the other against Heretics. He made a famous Decretal too, by which he reserved to the Holy See the Demesne of all things that should be granted to the Order of Minor Friars; leaving them only the Usus fructus, which was repealed by the Extravagante ad Conditorem of John the 22d. Vaddingus relates likewise five Letters of this hope, who died the 22d of August in 1280.  
The Troubles raised by the Intrigues of the Ursins and Hannibands put off the Election of a 
Martin the Fourth.  Pope till the 22d of February the 〈◊〉 year: when Simon of Bri●, Cardinal of St. Cecilia, who before had been Treasurer of the Church of St. Martin of Tours, was elected; and having been consecrated the 23d of March, took, in memory of his former Preferment, the name of MARTIN the Second, commonly called the Fourth. He gave a Token of his Humility at the beginning of his Popedom, by sending back his Brother, who upon notice of this Preferment was come to Rome to meet him, and giving him but just what was necessary for his Journey; saying, That what he had did not belong to himself but the Church, and that he ought not to make use of it for the enriching his Kindred. He shown his Acknowledgements to the Church of St. Martin of Tours, by confirming its Privileges, and granted the Order of Minor Friars the power of preaching and confessing. These are the Subjects of those two Letters of the Pope which are in the Councils. He condemned Michael Pal●plog●s the Greek Emperor, who had broken the Treaty of Union with the Roman Church, in the Council of Lions, and the Letter of his Condemnation is in the Bullary. There are other Let●…s of this Pope's to be seen in Rainaldus and Vaddingus. He died th● the 25th of March in the year 1285.  
HONORIUS the Fourth, whose name before was James Sabelli, Cardinal Deacon of the Title of St. Mary of Cosmedin, was chosen in his place the second of April 1285, and consecrated 
Honorius the Fourth.  the twentieth of May following. He lived but two years after his Election, in which time he writ many Letters recorded by Rainaldus, Bzovius and Vaddingus. There are two considerable ones in the Bullary, by one of which he condemns a new Order of Mendicants erected under the name of Apostolic, and by the other declares that the Sons and Grandsons of such as have been punished for Heresy, are not capable of any Living or Ecclesiastical Office.  
After the Death of Honorius the Fourth, which happened April the 3d 1287, the Holy See was 
Nicolas the Fourth.  vacant till the 22d of April in 1288, when it was filled by Jerom of Ascalon, Cardinal of th● Title of St. Pudenci●…, of the Order of Preaching Friars, who took the name of NICOLAS the Fourth. He made many Statutes in favour of those of his own Order, and was a great Encourager of learned Men. He wrote Commentaries upon the Holy Scriptures, and upon th● Master of the Sentences, with many Sermons, Works which we have quite lost. His Letters, which are very numerous, compose three Manuscript Volumes in the Vatican Library; Rainaldu● 〈◊〉 and Vaddingus afford us a great many of them, and we meet with six in the Bullary▪ the first against the Jews; the second an Approbation of the third Order of St. Francis; th● third a Confirmation of the Declaration of Gregory the Ninth about the Order of Cluni; th● fourth the Institution of an Hospital; the fifth about the Recovery of the Holy Land; and th● last a Privilege for the Order of Mercy. He died at Rome the 14th of April in the year 1292.  
His Death was followed by a Vacancy of two years three months and ten days: but at last 
Celestin the Fifth.  the Cardinals, after not being able for so long time to come to an Agreement, resolved upon Pet●… of Mourrhon, an Hermit of Puglia, the Founder of a new Congregation, which took the name 〈◊〉 Celestine, from the name of CELESTIN the Fifth, which was given this Pope. But this good Monk, who accepted of the Dignity with much unwillingness, let himself be easily persuaded by Cardinal Benedictus 〈◊〉 to quit it for a quiet Life; so that he was but a very little while upon the Holy See, having been chosen Pope the 10th of July 1294, and having voluntarily resigned the Dignity the 12th of December the same year. He renewed Gregory the Te●th's Constitution of shutting up the Cardinals in a Conclave till they had elected a Pope, to hinder the Holy see's remaining so long vacant as it had done before his Election. He made another Constitution likewise, that ●…pes might have the freedom of resigning the Popedom wh●… they pleased, which might as well have been ●et alone, no Pope since him having followed his example, as no Pope before him ever set it him. He solemnly gave his Approbation of the Order of Celestines, which is recorded in the Great Bullary. There are some little pieces attributed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are nothing but Collections of Passages out of the Holy Scripture, the Fathers, the Popes, and the Canonists, upon divers heads; they were printed in his name, and published by Celest●● Telera of 〈◊〉 but there's no more certainty of these being the Genuine Works of Celestin the Fifth, that there is that the six Letters and Prayers published by the same Author are his; all which have nothing in them worth taking notice of Benedict Cajetan, who got him to resign, got himself chosen in his place under the name of BONIFACE VIII. We shall have occasion to speak of this Pope in the next Century.   

CHAP. IU.  
The Lives and Writings of the Authors that flourished in the West in the Thirteenth Century.  
THE great number of Authors which wrote in the Thirteenth Century of the Church, seems 
A Judgement upon the Works of the Thirteenth Century.  to promise a great variety of very diverting matters. And therefore no doubt it will be a surprise to find nothing in this Chapter almost but just the Names, the Employments, and the Time of the greatest part of the Authors, with a simple Catalogue of their Writings. But if one considers the nature of the Works, and the manner of their Composition, he must confess that we have used them as we ought, seeing the Extracts that might have been made of them would have been neither useful nor pleasant: and therefore we shall content ourselves in making some general Reflections upon the different sorts of Subjects which busied the Authors of the Thirteenth Age, and upon the manner of their writing.  
The most considerable are the Commentaries upon the four Books of Sentences of Peter Lombard Bishop of Paris, whose Work was then in such request, that it was the only Divinity that was taught or learned in the Schools. But instead of pursuing his Method, and solving the Questions which he has proposed by passages out of the Fathers, they make use of nothing almost but Philosophical Principles, and Metaphysical Niceties: they don't think it enough to explain the Text of the Book of the Master of the Sentences, but they must take his Questions, and handle them after a different manner. So that this cannot so properly be called a Commentary as another Work. They have added many other Questions to those of the Master of the Sentences, which are either inserted in the Commentaries, or are treated of in separate Pieces, which are commonly called Quodlibetick Questions. Some Divines finding themselves too much straitened in the Method of the Master of the Sentences, and being willing to give themselves more scope, left off following his Model, and made a new one of their own in their Works, to which they commonly gave the name of A Sum of Theology. There they beat about an infinite number of Theological or Philosophical Questions, they set out the Reasons on one side and the other, and most commonly decide the Question by Philosophical Reasonings and Testimonies, making use very often of the Authority of Aristotle, and now and then of that of the Fathers, whose Passages they commonly get upon trust out of the Master of the Sentences, Gratian, or the ordinary Gloss; so that their Quotations are very often nothing to the purpose, because they are taken upon the Credit of another body, because they never had recourse to the Original itself, and because they very much wanted Critics. The Style of these Works is ordinarily dry and barbarous, and seldom wants obscurity.  
Their manner of delivering the Word of God to the People had got a tang of this Scholastical Method: the Sermons were full of Divisions, and Distinctions upon Distinctions, and pitiful mean Comparisons; it's very rare to find any Points of Morality explained in their full Extent, set in their true Light, founded upon solid Principles, and enforced with Eloquence: But if they do meddle with them, 'tis only to propose them drily, to explain them after the common rate, and to strengthen them with some Passages of Scripture brought in to prove what their natural sense will not bear.  
The Commentaries upon the Holy Scripture are of two sorts; the one called Postilles, are short Notes, for the most part giving Grammatical Explications of the words, and taking notice of every little Trifle; the other larger, composed of Allegories and mystical Thoughts.  
Some of their spiritual Works about Piety, though plain, yet are pretty solid; but then again some of them are so mystical that they are not intelligible.  
The Authors that wrote about the Rights and Ceremonies of the Church have made it their business to find out, or else to invent some mystical Reasons for them, with which they have stuffed their Works.  
The Collections of and Commentaries upon the Decretals of the Popes, took up the time of those that studied the Canon Law. And they have in this Labyrinth of the Laws found work enough for to exercise their Pens, and matter enough to fill great Volumes.  
Ancient History, especially that of the Church, lay extremely neglected in this Age: yet some of its Authors have pretended to give us Abridgements and immethodical Collections of Universal History. Many of them have made particular Chronicles of their own Churches or Monastery, which they filled with things that did not deserve notice: Others have writ the History of the Crusades of their Times, or Relations of the Journeys into Palestine; and these are the most considerable of all the Historians of that time. The Lives of the Saints are rather Panegyrics than Historical Narrations.  
I shan't speak of the prodigious multitude of Commentaries upon Aristotle, and the many other Works in Philosophy, in which the greatest Men of this Age very uselessly spent their time and pains: because, besides that these matters do not belong to my business, no body now makes any account of these Books, which are no more looked after or made use of, except it be to make the Shelves of great Libraries groan again under the weight of their numerous Volumes.  
JOACHIM, a Native of Calabria, a Monk of the Order of Citeaux in the Monastery of 
Joachim.  San-Bucchino, in the Diocese of Anglone, now in Lucania, afterwards Abbot of Curiaco in Calabria, and at last Abbot of Flora in his own Country, the Founder and Institutor of that Congregation, flourished from the year 1181, to the year 1200, which some will have to be that of his Death; but it is more probable that he lived some years in the Thirteenth Cent●…. He had while he lived the Reputation of Sanctity, and likewise of having the Gift of Prophecy. He composed some mystical Commentaries upon the Holy Scriptures, in which he has inserted divers Prophecies of things which he thought must happen in that State which he saw the Church in in his Time. Some of his Predictions chanced to prove true, and others false, as it generally▪ happens to that sort of Prognosticators; but they always gave him occasion of reprehending the irregularities of the Age he lived in with more freedom, and of representing the Consequences of them. His Works which were printed at Venice in 1519, are these.  
The Harmony of the Old and New Testament, in three Books: A Work which he under took by order of the Pope's Lucius the Third, and Urban the Third, and which he compleat●… under the Pontificate of Clement the Third, who approved his Work: A Commentary upon the Prophet Jeremy. A Commentary upon Isaiah: Commentaries upon some Chapters of the Prophets Nabum, 〈◊〉, Z●chavials and Malachi: A Commentary upon the Revelation o● St. John: The Psalter for ten strings, in which he treats of the Trinity, and of the distinction of the three Divine P●●sons. Trithemius makes mention of the following ones too; A Commentary upon the Prophet Danial: Another Commentary upon the Gospel of St. John: A Bo●… dedicated to the Emperor Henry VI A Treatise of the Seven Seals: Prophecies about fift●… Popes: A Prediction concerning the times to come: Some Treatises against the Jews; 〈◊〉 he omit his Work, against the Master of the Sentences.  
In this last Treatise the Abbot Joachim oppugns that which the Master of the Sentences 〈◊〉 asserted in his fifth Distinction, in the first Book: That the Divine Essence is in such sort co●… mon to the Three Persons, that it is neither begotten, nor begetting, nor proceeding; so t●… one cannot say that the Father begot the Essence, nor that the Essence begot the Son, etc. 〈◊〉 his Opinion that, admitting this Principle, we must grant four things in God; namely, the Th●… Persons, and the Essence distinct from them: and that is the reason he engages on this side●… maintain that there is nothing in the Deity which is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, although▪ agrees that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are of one and the same Essence, Substance and 〈◊〉 true; so that one may very well say that the Three Persons are the same Essence, but not 〈◊〉 the same Essence is the three Persons. He seems too to grant that this Essence is a real and pro●… Unity, but to consider it as only a Collective and Metaphorical Unity; because he makes 〈◊〉 such Passages of Scripture to explain it as the word Unity is taken in this sense in; as w●… it is written that all Believers have but one Heart, that they are but one Body, that 〈◊〉 are but one, etc. Yet there's no reason hereupon to believe that this Abbot was an Arian; 〈◊〉 is more probable that all his Error consisted in his way of expressing himself: but as for the 〈◊〉 it is very hard to know or guests what his real Sentiments of the thing were, and perhaps it 〈◊〉 more than he knew himself. However it was, the matter remained undecided from the Pontificate of Alexander III. until that of Innocent III. who gave it for the Master of the Sent●… against Abbot Joachim in the fourth General Lateran Council, but without any disgrace to memory of that abbot, who submitted his Doctrine to the Judgement of the Holy See, and clare● he would never have any other Sentiments than those of the Church of Rome; with 〈◊〉 which this might have done no small hurt to the Abbot and Order of Flora, of which he was▪ Institutor. Upon this it was that Honorius III having heard that under colour of this Cond●…tion the Abbot and Religions, of this Monastery were taxed with Heresy, he writes to a 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉, who both did it himself, and allowed it in his Diocesans likewise, forbidding 〈◊〉 there to do or suffer it for the future.  
As for the Gift of Prophecy which is commonly attributed to the Abbot Joachim, William, Paris, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Trithemius, take notice that it was not really the spirit▪ Prophecy, but that being a Man of deep Penetration, and great Knowledge, he would by 〈◊〉 lectures for●… things to come, though he was often enough out in his Predictions. Trith●… mentions the Predictions of this Abbot about fifteen Popes; those which have been printed so many times are the same which Trithemius. saw. An Explication of a Book of St. Cyril about the great. Tribulations is ascribed to him, but that is a supposititious Piece. We have none of the other: Prophecies of this Abbot that Trithemius speaks of Roger of Hoveden relates, that whe●… Richard king of England was in Sicily in 1190, he would have entertained this Abbot Joachim who told him a great many Predictions, to which this Author gives the name of Fables.  
JOHN BELETHA, Doctor of Paris, is placed by Henry de Gand and Trithemius amo●… 
Jòhn Beletha.  the Authors which flourished at the beginning of this Age. He has left us a Treatise of Divine Officer, printed at An●…p in 1553, and in 1570, at Dilinghen in 1572, at Lions in 1574, and at many other places Trithemius assures us that he was likewise the Author of some Sermons.  
PETER CHANTER of the Church of Paris, who flourished and taught, about the same 
Peter Chanter.  time in the University. of Paris, has composed a Book, called, The Word abridged: A Wo●… of great Renown among the Authors of the next Centuries, of which a part which was written against the Proprietary Monks, hath been printed. He likewise made another Book, intitu●ec●, A Grammar for Divines, very necessary for the understanding of the Holy Scriptures: He composed a Treatise of Distinctions: A Piece about some Miracles: Three Books of Sacraments: and Sermons, of which Trithemius makes mention. In Libraries are to be seen some Glosses of his upon the Books of the Bible, and a Collection of Cases of Conscience.  
GUIBERT or GILBERT, whose Surname was MARTIN, taken by him upon 
Gilbert Martin.  the account of a particular respect he had for that Saint, and because he had lived some while in the Monastery of St. Martin of Tours, was a Monk of Gemblours, whence he was called to the Abbey of St. Florin, and afterwards chosen Abbot of Gemblours in the year 1194. But ten years after he resigned this Abbey, and retired into the Monastery of Villiers, from whence he took a Journey to Tours, and at last returned to die at Gemblours very old, after having been Priest 63 years. He has written many pious Letters to divers Persons: A History in verse of the Life and Miracles of St. Martin, dedicated to Philip Archbishop of Cologn: Eleven Letters to the same Archbishop, and others to Hervens Abbot of Marmoustier, and to the Religious of that Monastery; and some others to St. Hildegardus and other Persons. All these Letters have never been printed; but Father Mabillon who had the sight of them in Manuscript, has given us an Extract of them in his second Tome of Analecta, with a Letter of HERVARDUS archdeacon 
Hervardus.  of Liege to a Canon of Laon, desiring him, in Guibert's name, to make a Poem in honour of St. Martin, as he had in honour of St. Servatus.  
One of the first Schoolmen of the Thirteenth Century, is WILLIAM of Segnelay, Bishop 
William.  of Auxerre, who had been Professor of the University of Paris, and was translated by Honorius III. to the Bishopric of Paris. He died at St. Cloud the 23d of November 1223, and was interred in the Abbey of Pontigny. He composed a Sum of Theology, and a Work about Divine Offices. The last hath not yet seen the light: The Sum of Theology has been printed at Paris in 1500, and once since.  
ROBERT of Corceon an Englishman, who was made Cardinal by Innocent the Third, flourished 
Robert.  about the beginning of this Century, and held a Council in quality of a Legate in 1212 at Paris: He was one of the neatest Divines of his time, and composed a Sum of Theology, which may be seen in Manuscript in the Library of St. Victor of Paris, and is quoted by Monsieur De Launoy, and other Authors.  
ALANUS of Lisle in Flanders, flourished in the University of Paris, where for a long 
Alanus.  time he taught Divinity from the beginning of this Age, till towards the end. He was called the Universal Doctor, because he was equally excellent in Divinity, Philosophy and Poetry. He wrote many Works both in Prose and in Verse: those that are printed are, A Commentary upon the Song of Songs to the praise of the Virgin, printed at Paris in 1540: A Sum of the Art of Preaching: A Penitential with this Title, The Corrector: A Work upon the Parables, which has been printed a great many times: A Book of Sentences or memorable Say: A Work in Verse about an honest and perfect Man in all sorts of Virtue, Entitled, Anticlodianus, printed at Basil in 1536, and at Antwerp in 1621.: A Piece with this Title, The Complaint of Nature against the Vice of Sodomy: Two Books against the Albigenses and Vaudois: Eleven Sermons: Six Books of the Wings of the Cherubims, falsely ascribed to St. Bonaventure: Two Proses, one upon the Incarnation, and the other upon the weakness of Human Nature. All these Works were collected by Charles Visch, and printed at Antwerp in 1653, to which in 1656 he added two more Books of this same Author against the Albigenses, Vaudois, Jews and Pagans. There's a Manuscript Work of this Author's too, which is a Sum of Moral Theology, entitled, After how many manners, because he there discourses in an Alphabetical Order, in how many manners things may be taken well or ill. This is plainly that Work which Trithemius calls, The Sum of Virtues and Vices. Trithemius mentions likewise a Treatise upon the Sentences: A Treatise called, The Eye of the Scripture: A Treatise of Learning: Two Commentaries upon the five Books of Moses; About Mystical Equivoques; Of the nature of Animals: A Book of Letters and Commentaries upon many Books of the Holy Scripture, all composed by Alanus. You must take care not to confound this with the Alanus Bishop of Auxerre who lived in the Century before, and there is reason to doubt whether this were ever a Citeaux Monk as the former was. The Commentary upon the Prophecies of Merlin, and the Treatise of the Philosopher's Stone, the former printed at Franckfort 1608, the latter at Leyden 1600, under the name of Alanus, are two forged Pieces.  
SIMON a Priest of Tournay taught Divinity too about the beginning of this Age with no 
Simon.  small Reputation in the Schools of Paris. Henry de Gand, and Trithemius take notice that tying himself up to the Doctrine of Aristotle, he has fallen into some Errors: We have none of his Works printed, but they may be found in Manuscript in Librarys. These are the most considerable of them: A Theological Sum upon the Sentences: Divers Questions: An Exposition of the Athanasian Creed: A Commentary upon Boethius' Book of the Trinity, and of Institutions upon the Holy Scripture. The English claim this Author for their Countryman, and accordingly a great many of his Works are to be found in England.  
PETER of Corbeil, Doctor in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, was Professor there a great while with great Reputation. He had for his Scholar Lotharius, Son of the Earl of Signi, afterwards 
Peter.  Pope with the name of Innocent III. who in one of his Letters counts it an honour to have studied under him, and in acknowledgement gets him the Archdeaconry of York, and some time after the Bishopric of Cambray, and at last the Archbishopric of Sens, which he entered upon in the year 1200. He died the third of June in 1222. His Sum of Theology is not printed, whereof the late Monsieur De Launoy had a Manuscript. This Archbishop had a great name in his Time. He wrote a Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul, and upon many other Books of the Holy Scripture; with Sermons, and divers Treatises.  
ABSALON a Regular Canon of St. Victor of Paris, and afterwards Abbot of Spink●rbac 
Absalon.  in the Diocese of Treves, flourished at the beginning of this Century. He has left us fifty Sermons upon the Feasts of the year, printed at Cologn in 1554, by the care of Daniel of Silinga Abbot of Spink●rbac.  
WERNERUS Abbot of St Blaize in the Dark-Forest of the Diocese of Constance, flourished 
Wernerus.  about the year 1210. He made a Collection of Sermons composed of divers Passages of the Fathers, which are called by the name of Postillar Sermons: they were printed at Basil in 1549.  
TAGENON Dean of Pavia, who flourished about the beginning of this Age, has wrote 
Tagenon.  a History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa in Palestine, published by Freherus in his Collection of the Germane Historians.  
There's an Anonymous Historian too of the same time in the fifth Tome of the Antiquities of 
A nameless Historian. Walter, William, and Richard.  Canisius, who wrote upon the same Subject.  
The Expedition of Richard King of England in Palestine, was wrote by WALTER Bishop of Lincoln, and afterwards Archbishop of Roven; by WILLIAM the Pilgrim an Englishman, and by RICHARD Canon of London, who accompanied him in the Voyage.  
ALBERT Patriarch of Jerusalem, Resident at Acre, after the taking of that City by the Saracens, made about the beginning of this Century an Order for the Carmelites of Syria, published 
Albert.  by the Bollandists in the Month of April.  
DODECHIN a Germane Priest of the Church of Longenstein, and afterwards Abbot of 
Dodechin.  St. Disibode, flourished about the year 1200. He wrote at the desire of Conon Abbot of St. Disibode, a Relation of the Voyage which he had made into the Holy Land, and continued on the Chronicle of Marianus Scotus to the year 1200.  
ANDREA'S SILVIUS Monk, and at last Abbot of Marchiennes in the Diocese of 
Andrea's Silvius.  Tournay, composed about the year 1200, at the desire of Peter Bishop of Arras, a short History of the Kings of France of the race of the Merovingians, printed at Dovay in 1633. He likewise wrote two Books of Miracles of St. Rictruda, published by the Continuers of Bollandus to the 12th of May.  
BALDWIN Earl of Flanders, and Emperor of Constantinople, has writ a long circular 
Baldwin.  Letter, being a Relation of the taking of Constantinople by the Latins in 1204; wherein he takes care to forget nothing that may render the Greeks odious. It is to be met with in the Annals of Rainaldus, and in a Collection of some Pieces by Aubert de la Mire.  
GEOFFREY Lord of Villehardwin near Troy's in Champagne, composed in French the 
Geoffrey.  History of the taking of Constantinople by the Latins, where he himself assisted: It is written in an old Style, but after a noble and impartial manner.  
GONTHIER a Monk in the Monastery of Paris in the Diocese of Basil, who flourished about 
Gonthier.  the beginning of this Century, has left us the History of the taking of Constantinople by the Latins, the Circumstances of which he had from Abbot Martin an Eye-witness. It was published by Canisius in the first Tome of his Antiquities.  
ARNOLD Provost of the Church of Hildesheim, and afterwards Abbot of Lubeck, flourished 
Arnold.  in the Reigns of the Emperors Philip and Otho IU. He is the Author of the Continuation of the Chronicle of the Sclavonians made by Helmoldus from the year 1171, to the year 1209. This Work was printed at Lubeck in 1659., larger in the first Edition of Helmoldus at Franckfort in 1556, which contains only the nine first Chapters. Yet this wants the four last Chapters, which have been published by Meibomius with the Opuscula Historica, and printed at Helmstadt in 1660. Vossius' Remarks upon this Author is, that he is to be credited in what relates to the History of the Sclavonians, but not in what he has written of the Histories of Italy, Sicily, and Greece.  
GERVAIS, Surnamed of Tilbury, from the name of the Town where he was born, 
Gervais.  which is in England upon the Thames, of the Family of Henry the II. King of England, and Great Marshal of the Kingdom of Arles, flourished much about the year 1210, and wrote divers Historical Works: among others, An Universal History of the Kingdoms of the West, with the Title of Otia Imperialia: An History of England, and some others which are kept up in Libraries, out of which there's no great likelihood of their quickly being set free.  
WALTER MAPES an Englishman, distinguished himself by his Wit under Henry II. 
Walter Mapes.  John, and Richard Kings of England. Though he was Canon of Salisbury, Chanter of Lincoln, and afterwards Archdeacon of Oxford; yet he could not forbear making Satirical Verses upon the Popes, Cardinals, and other ecclesiastics, wherein he very freely censures their Irregularities. You may see these Poetical Pieces themselves in the first Tome of the memorable Lessons of Voltius, and a Catalogue of them here; The Revelation of Priest Goliath: Four Pieces against disorderly ecclesiastics: and one against the Irregularities of the Court of Rome.  
WILBRANDUS of Oldenburg, Canon of Hildesheim, in the year 1211, made a Voyage 
Wilbrandus.  into the Holy Land, whereof he has given us a Relation, a part of which was published by Allarius in his Collection of Pieces, printed at Cologn in 1653. Allatius commends this Author for a learned and curious Man; his Style is close and Historical, but he does not make use of many barbarous words.  
ROBERT a Regular Canon of the Order of Premontre in the Monastery of St. Marianus 
Robert and Hugh.  of Auxerre, composed a Chronology from the beginning of the World to the year 1212, the time of his Death. It was published by Nicholaus Camuzatus Canon of Tours, and printed at Troy's in 1608, with a Continuation of it by HUGH Canon Regular of the same Monastery.  
LAMBERT of Liege a Benedictine Monk of St. Laurence of Duitz, is thought most probably 
Lambert.  to have flourished at the beginning of this Age. He wrote the Life of Herbert Archbishop of Cologn; some Hymns, and some Epigrams.  
About the same time the Life of St. William Abbot of Roschild, who died in 1202, was wrote 
A nameless Author.  by an Anonymous Author.  
PETER a Monk of the Valleys of Cornay, of the Order of Citeaux in the Diocese of Paris, 
Peter.  accompanied his Abbot Guy, afterwards Bishop of Carcassonne, in his Voyage to Languedock to encounter the Albigenses, he being one of the 12 Abbots appointed by Innocent III. for this purpose. Peter by the Order of Innocent III. has wrote a History of the Albigenses, printed at Troy's in 1615, and in the Library of Citeaux, published by Father Tissier. We shall have occasion to talk of him when we come to the History of the Albigenses.  
About the same time WILLIAM of Puil●●rent wrote a Chronicle of the Heresy of the 
William.  Albigenses, printed at Thoulouse in 1623., and among Duchesne's French Historians.  
JOHN of Oxford, Dean of Salisbury, flourished about the beginning of this Century, and 
John of Oxford.  wrote a History of England, and a Relation of his Voyage into Sicily.  
About the same time with him lived JOHN Abbot of Fordeham, Confessor to John 
John of Fordeham.  King of England. He wrote the Life of St. Wolfrick, the Actions of King John, and a Chronicle of Scotland.  
About the year 1214, JOCELINE BRAKELONDE an English Monk of the Monastery 
Joceline of Brakelonde. John Grace.  of Usk, composed a Chronicle of his Monastery; a Treatise of the Election of Hugh, and the Life of St. Robert, Martyr.  
JOHN GREY Bishop of Norwich much about the same time wrote a Chronicle, as did Adam of Barking.  
HUGH WHITE a Benedictine Monk of Peterborough, has wrote a History of his own 
Hugh White.  Monastery, and of the Foundation of the Church of Mercy.  
PREPOSITIVUS a famous Divine of Paris, flourished about the year 1225. He composed 
Prepositivus.  a Sum of Scholastical Divinity, which has not yet been printed, but is very common in Manuscript in Libraries. St. Thomas sometimes quotes it in his Sum.  
CESAIRE Monk of the Order of Citeaux in the Monastery of Heisterback, into which he 
Cesaire.  was entered in 1199, and was afterwards made Prior of that of Villiers in Brabant, composed a great Work in 12 Books, Dialogue-wise, in imitation of St. Gregory; containing an account of the Miracles and Visions that happened in his time, particularly in Germany. He assures us in the Preface that none of it is his own Invention, but all that he wrote he had from others But yet he is not to be excused for his too easily crediting those who did not deserve it, and upon their relation heaping together as he has done in this Work a great many idle and forged Stories. He likewise composed in 1226, three Books of the Life and Passion of St. Engelbert Archbishop of Cologn: and Homilies upon the Sundays and Holidays of the whole year. These Works have been printed, viz. His History of Miracles at Cologn in 1591., and in Father Tissier's first Tome of the Writers of the Order of Citeaux. The Life of St. Engelbert in the Month November of Surius, and at Cologn in 1633, with the Notes of Gelenius; and the Homilies published by Andrew Coppenstein, with the Title of A Collection of Moral Discourses, printed at Cologn in 1615. He also was the Author of other Sermons and other Works, whereof there is a Catalogue in a Letter of his which Andrew Coppenstein has published at the beginning of the Collection.  
STEPHEN of Langton, though an Englishman, after having gone through the course of his 
Stephen of Langton.  Studies at Paris, was chosen Chancellor of that University, and Canon of Paris, where he for a good while professed Divinity, explaining the Holy Scripture with no small reputation. He was afterwards made Dean of Rheims, and at last sent for to Rome by Innocent III, who made him Cardinal. The Archbishopric of Canterbury falling, he was chosen by some of the Canons, and consecrated by the Pope at Viterb● the 17th of June in 1206; but John King of England would not acknowledge him, as not having been chosen by the best and wisest part of the Chapter, nor suffer him to enter into possession of the Church. Stephen strait has recourse to Ecclesiastical Censures, and interdicts the Kingdom of England: The King did not think himself obliged to submit to the Interdict: but at last the poor condition of his Affairs having forced him to yield to the Pope, he was likewise obliged to acknowledge Stephen for Archbishop. This Prelate was not long faithful to him, but took part with Lewis Son of Philip King of France, and remained his Friend till the Death of John, after which he found a way to get himself for a Sum of Money discharged from the crime of Rebellion. He died the 9th of July in 1228, in his House in the plane of Slindon in the County of Sussex.  
There are in the Libraries of England and other places, a great number of Manuscript Commentaries of this Author upon the Holy Scripture, but there are not any of them printed: We have only his History of the Translation of the Body of St. Thomas at the end of that Archbishop's Letters, printed at Brussels in 1682. The latter which he wrote to King John, and that Prince's Answer, in the third Tome of Father Dachery's Spicilegium; and eighty eight Orders made in the Council which he held at Oxford in 1222, of which we shall have occasion to speak.  
ALEXANDER NECKHAM, an Englishman, Native of Hertford, after having 
Alexander Neckham.  studied in England, perfected himself in the Academies of France and Italy, and returning into his own Country, was made a Regular Canon of St. Austin at Exeter, and afterwards Abbot of the Monastery in that City in 1215, and died 1227. He is the Author of divers Works which have not yet seen the light, lying buried in the obscurity of some English Libraries; among others, A Commentary upon the four Gospels: An Exposition of Ecclesiastes: A Commentary upon the Song of Songs: The Praises of the Divine Wisdom: A Treatise of the nature of things: The Clearing of a Library, which contains an Explanation of many places of the Holy Scripture.  
HELINAND a Monk of the Abbey of Froimont, of the Order of Citeaux in the Diocese 
Helinand.  of Beauvais, flourished about the beginning of this Century, and died in 1227. He composed a Chronological History from the beginning of the World, to the year 1204, the four last Books of which were published by Father Tissier in the 8th Tome of his Library of the Writers of the Order of Citeaux, with some Sermons, and a Letter to Walter an Apostate Monk about the Recovery of a Man fallen into that condition. He has likewise written the Martyrdorn of St. Gereon, and his Companions related by Surius, in the tenth of October. The Verses upon Death, published by Loisel, are ascribed to him. In the Library of Longpont there's a Manuscript Treatise of this Author's upon the Apocalypse, and in other Libraries a Treatise in praise of a Monastical Life, and another of the Government of Princes. Trithemius and others speak well of this Author; but for all that there is more of Labour in his History than of Judgement: for 'tis nothing but a Collection from other Authors made without any discretion. His other Works are but little worth.  
About the same time flourished CONRADE of Litchtenau Abbot of Urspurg in the Diocese 
Conrade.  of Augsburg, who composed a Chronicle from Belus King of Assyria, to the year 1229, taken from divers Authors: It contains many remarkable things about the History of Germany in his time, and the foregoing Centuries. He was made Abbot of Urspurg in 1215, and died in 1240.  
St. FRANCIS born in the year 1182 at Assisi, Founder of the Order of Minor Friars, or 
St. Francis.  Minims, died in 1226. He not only by his Example taught us Humility, Patience, Submission and Freedom from the Cares of the World, but likewise by his Writings which are the Picture of his Virtues. Here's a Catalogue of those that were published under the name of this Saint by Father de la hay, and printed at Paris in 1641, with the Works of St. Antony of Milan: Sixteen Letters, Advice to those of his Order, containing twenty seven Chapters: An Exhortation to Humility, Obedience and Patience: A Treatise of the Virtues of the Virgin, and of every Soul: A little Piece of true and perfect Joy: An Explanation of the Lord's Prayer: The Praise of the Lord God Most High, eleven Prayers: His Will: Two Orders for his Religious: A Rule for the Monastries: The Statute of the third Order: Twenty eight Conferences: The Office of the Passion: Three Songs upon the Love of God; of Apothegms; of familiar Discourses; of Parables and Examples; of Benedictions; of Oracles and common Sentences: There are likewise seven Sermons, giving the Reasons for the establishing of this Order of Minor Brothers, and a little Treatise of the ten Perfections of a true Religious, and of a real Christian.  
St. ANTONY, Surnamed of Milan, because he died in 1231 in that City, was born at 
St. Antony.  Lisbon in Portugal. After having professed Divinity at Thoulouse, Bologn and Milan, he became St. Francis' Disciple, and entered into his Order. He applied himself particularly to preaching, and was in his Time accounted a very neat Preacher, though his Sermons seem to us now very plain and empty. They have been printed at Paris in 1521, at Venice in 1575., and since at Paris again in 1641, by the care of Father de la Hay, who has also presented us with a mystical Exposition of this Author upon the Holy Scriptures, and five Books of moral Concordances upon the Bible: And lastly, Father Pagi has added a Supplement of some Sermons upon the Saints and other matters, which he got printed at Avignon in 1684.  
RICERUS an Italian of the Marquisate of Ancona, one of the Companions of St. Frances 
Ricerus.  of Assisi, has wrote a little Treatise to teach the means of coming easily to the Knowledge of the Truth. It was printed at Louvain in 1554.  
RODERICK XIMENES of Navarre was raised in 1208 to the Archbishopric of 
Roderick Ximenes.  Toledo. The next year he persuaded Alphonsus' King of Arragon to establish the Academy of Palenza, which in 1239 was translated to Salamanca. He went in 1215 to Rome, where he made a fine Discourse in the Council of the Lateran. He died in 1245. He wrote nine Books of the History of Spain from the coming of Hercules into that Country, to the year 1243, published by Father Andrew Scot in the second Part of his Hispania Illustris; A History of the Ostrogoths from the year 453, to 555. A History of the Huns and Vandals to the same time: The History of the Arabians from 570, to 1150: A History of the Romans from Janus to the year 708, which are to be found in the place abovementioned. Justus Lipsius gives him the Character of a good Author for his time. His Tomb is in a Monastery of the Order of Citeaux in Arragon, called Horta, with this Inscription: Mater Navarra, Nutrix Castilia, Schola Parisius, Sedes Toletum, Hortus Mausolaeum, Requies Coelum.  
HENRY Earl of Kalwa Abbot of Richenou, wrote about the year 1220 the Life of St. Pirminus 
Henry.  first Abbot of that Monastery, and afterwards Bishop of Meaux or Metz.  
About the same year CONRADE Prior of Schur in Bavaria, wrote the History of his 
Conrade.  Monastery, and the Lives of his Abbots.  
ECKERARD Dean of St. Gall, wrote about the same time the Life of St. Notgerus of 
Eckerard.  Begue, which is to be seen in the sixth Tome of the Antiquities of Canisius.  
WILLIAM Monk of St. Dennis in France is put by Trithemius among the Authors that 
William.  flourished under the Reign of Frederick II. about the year 1220. He ascribes to him three Books of History, and many Letters.  
RIGORD Physician and Historiographer of Philip Augustus King of France, composed the 
Rigord and William.  History of that Prince under the Reign of Lewis VIII. his Son, to whom it is dedicated: It was printed at Francfort in the year 1596, with the Philippid of WILLIAM the Britain, which is likewise the Life of Philip Augustus in Verse, and the History of St. Lewis and Philip the Hardy, by WILLIAM of N●…gis, a Monk of St. Dennis, who flourished about the 
William.  beginning of the next Century.  
FABIAN HUGELIN of the Order of Minor Brothers, wrote about the year 1230, the 
Fabian Hugelin.  Life of St. Francis and his Companions, printed at Cologn in 1623.  
CONRADE Abbot of Everback of the Order of Citeaux, wrote a Treatise of the Origin 
Conrade.  of that Order, divided into six Books, published by Father Tissier, in the first Tome of his Library of the Writers of the Order of Citeaux. It's thought this Author wrote about the year 1230.  
JOHN GAL Abbot of Fontenelle hath left us the Life of St. Vulfran Archbishop of Sens, 
John Gal.  related by Surius in the 20th of March. He flourished about the year 1230.  
ALBERT Prior of the Monastery of Mont des Vines at Pavia, wrote about the year 1230, 
Albert.  the Lives of St. B●●●●●, St. Aldegond●, and St. Amandus.  
About the same time two Anonymous Authors wrote, one the Life of the blessed Joseph Herman 
Two Anonymous Authors.  of the Order of Premontre, recorded by Surius in the 7th of April; and the other that of St. Antony of Milan, recorded by the same Surius in the 13th of June.  
In the second Tome of Father Luke Dachery's Spicilegium, there are five Letters of MAURICE 
Maurice.  Archbishop of Roven, the three last of which are the Interdict which he pronounced against his Diocese, because King St. Lewis had seized upon the Revenues of his Archbishopric. It is remarkable that he interdicts all the Chapels and Churches which the King had in his Diocese, except that where the King and Queen should assist in Person. This Archbishop died the next year.  
WILLIAM Abbot of Andres in the Diocese of Terovane, wrote a Chronicle of his Monastery 
William.  from the year 1082, to the year 1234, which may be seen in the ninth Tome of Father Luke Dachery's Spicilegium.  
JOHN ALGRIN of Abbeville, a Parisian Divine, Chanter of Abbeville, and Dean of 
John Algrin.  Amiens, was made Archbishop of Besanson in 1225, and nominated Cardinal Bishop by the Title of St. Sabina in 1227, by Gregory the Ninth, who had been before acquainted with him in the University of Paris, and had sent him into Spain to preach the Crusade, and afterwards to the Emperor Frederick II. to treat of a Peace with him. He died in 1236, and had while he lived the Reputation of a good Preacher, and made Sermons upon the Sundays and Holidays of the year, in which after he has in a few words explained the meaning of the Text, he makes a long Discourse full of such a vast quantity of Scripture, that one can scarce imagine how he could collect it all or get it by heart. This is what Henry of Gand, and Trithemius say of him. They may be met with in Libraries, but no body has thought them worth publishing. They have printed nothing but his Notes upon the Song of Songs at Paris in 1521, with the Commentary of St. Thomas of Citeaux upon the same.  
JORDAN, born at Bort●rge in Saxony in the Diocese of Mentz, entered himself into the Order 
Jordan.  of Preaching Brothers (or Jacobines) in the year 1220, and succeeded St. Dominick in the Generalate of his Order in 1222. He composed a History of the beginning of this Order of Preachers: Some Letters of advice to his Religious; and many Sermons. The first of these works hath been printed at Rome with the Notes of Maffeus', and Bzovius hath given us the Circular Letter which he wrote upon the Translation of the Body of St. Dominick. You must take care not to confound him with another Jordan, of Saxony too, surnamed, of Quedelimbourg, a Hermit of St. Austin, of whom we shall speak hereafter. To the former of these is ascribed likewise a Treatise entitled, The Crown of the Virgin Mary: But there is no likelihood that that belongs to either of these Jordans.  
WALTER CORNU Son of Simon Cornu, Lord of Ville-Neuve near Montereau-faut-Yonne, 
Walter Cornu.  Dean of the Church of Paris, and made Archbishop of Sens in 1223, was chosen by St. Lovis with Bernard Bishop of Annary, to go in the year 1239 to receive the Crown of Thorns of our Lord, which he had recovered out of the hands of the Venetians, to whom it had been engaged by Baldwin II. Emperor of Constantinople. He hath wrote the Relation of this History, printed among Duchesnes' French Historians.  
The same History was likewise written by Gerard a Monk of St. Quentin of Lis●e, who also 
Gerard.  composed the Life and Office of St. Elizabeth of Thuringen. Henry of Gand speaks of this Author.  
HUGH, a Regular Canon of the Order of Premontre in the Abbey of Floreff in the Diocese 
Hugh.  of Namur, wrote about the year 1230, by order of his Abbot, the Life of St. Ivetta, a Widow and Recluse of Hue, that died in 1227, published by Bollandus in the 13th of January, and those of St. Ida of Nivelle, and of St. Ida of Leurve, two Nuns of a Monastery of the Order of Citeaux in Brabant.  
CONRADE of Marpurg a Religious, a Germane of the Order of Preaching Friars, 
Conrade.  wrote about the year 1230, a History of the Life and Miracles of St. Elizabeth Princess of Thuringen, whose Confessor he had been, dedicated to Pope Gregory IX. published by Allatius in his Collection of Pieces, printed at Cologn in 1653.  
PHILIP of Greve, Professor and Chancellor of the University of Paris, flourished about the 
Philip.  year 1230. He composed 300 Sermons upon the Psalms of David, which were printed at Paris in 1523, and at Bresse in 1600. They were mightily looked upon in their time, and the Preachers made a common use of them to that degree, that there was a Sum made out of them which is in Manuscript in Monsieur Colbert's Library: In the Libraries of England are likewise to be seen two Commentaries of this Author, one upon Job, and the other upon the Gospels.  
THOMAS de CELANO, of the Order of Minor Friars, composed about the year 1235, 
Thomas.  a Book of the Life and Miracles of St. Francis, approved by Gregory IX.  
We have already spoken in the foregoing Century of JAMES of Vitry, and his History of 
James.  the East and West: all that we are to observe now is, that besides this Work, and the two Letters there mentioned, he composed Sermons upon all the Epistles and Gospels of the year, upon the Feasts, and upon the different Estates of Men, part of which were printed at Antwerp in 1575., and that he likewise wrote the Life of St. Mary of Oignies related by Surius in the 23d of June.  
LUKE Deacon of the Church of Tuy in Spain, after having traveled into Italy, Grece, and 
Luke.  Palestine, and gained the Friendship of Cardinal Hugolin, afterwards Pope, under the name of Gregory IX. was at last made Bishop of that Church. He composed three Books of Controversies against the Albigenses, printed at Ingolstadt in 1612, and in the last Bibliotheca Patrum; and a History of Spain from the beginning of the World to the year 1274 of the Spanish Aera, that is according to our account 1236, into which he inserts the Chronicle of St. Isidorus, which he continues down to his time, and makes divers Additions to and Alterations in. Lastly he is the Author of St. Isidore's Life, related in Bollandus in the 4th of April, and in the second Benedictine Age of Father Matillon. He was no more than Deacon when he wrote his Chronicle, which plainly shows he was not made Bishop till after 1236, but how long he remained so, or when he died we cannot tell. We shall have occasion to speak of this Author's Works against the Albigenses, when we treat of those Heretics.  
GODFREY Monk of St. Pantaleon of Cologn composed an Historical Chronicle from the 
Godfrey.  year 1162, to the year 1237, which is in the Collection of the Germane Writers by Freherus.  
EDMOND RICH born at Abington in England, after having gone through his Studies 
St. Edmond.  at Oxford, gave himself wholly to Divinity and Preaching, and taught Philosophy with applause in the University of Oxford. He was then made Canon of Salisbury, and lastly Archbishop of Canterbury in 1234, by the recommendation of Gregory IX. When he came to his Dignity he thought it was his Duty vigorously to check the Irregularities of the Courtiers, which procured him the hatred of them, and of King Henry the third to that degree, that he was fain to get himself to Rome for security from them. He did not there meet with all the satisfaction he could desire, and so returning into his own Country, he went into a voluntary Exile some while after, and in 1240 retired to the Monastery of Pontigny in France, and two years after into the House of Regular Canons at Soisy, where he died on the 16th of November 1246. He was canonised the next year by Innocent IU. He wrote a Treatise of Piety, entitled, The Mirror of the Church, printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum. He treats therein of a spiritual Life, and of the Perfection of a Christian; of the Articles of the Creed; of the seven Sacraments; of the seven mortal Sins; of the seven Beatitudes; of the seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit; of the four Cardinal Virtues; of the seven Works of Mercy; of the seven Petitions in the Lord's Prayer; of the Mysteries of our Lord; of the Godhead, and of the Trinity; of the different degrees of Contemplation; of the Love of our Neighbour, and of Humility. He speaks of all these things without entering upon any Controversy, in a very edifying way, and proper to instruct ordinary Believers. Linwood has given us twelve Ecclesiastical Constitutions of this Archbishop.  
ROBERT GROSTESTE or GROSTEAD, born at Stratbrook in the County of 
Robert Grostead.  Suffolk, after having studied at Oxford and Paris, was made Archdeacon of Leicester, and in the year 1235 succeeded Hugh of Velles in his Bishopric of Lincoln. He stoutly opposed the Designs of the Court of Rome, and of the Monks about the Jurisdiction of Ordinaries, and had a considerable Dispute with Innocent the Fourth, about a Mandate which that Pope had granted to a young Italian named Frederick of Lavania, his Nephew, who was under age, for the first Canon's place that should be vacant in the Church of Lincoln. This Mandate was directed to the Archdeacon of Canterbury, and to Innocent the Pope's Secretary in England, who sent to Lincoln and gave notice of it to Robert, who by a Letter answered them, that he would with all submission and respect obey the Orders of the Holy See; but that he would oppose whatsoever was contrary to Orders that were truly Apostolic, and that no one could account those Apostolic Orders, which were contrary to the Doctrine of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, as the things contained in the Letter to him manifestly were: First, Because the Clause non obstante which was in this Letter, and many others of the like nature, was an Inundation of Uncertainty, Boldness and Temerity, and an Inlet to Falsehood and Deceit. Secondly, That there was no greater crime in the World, setting aside that of Lucifer and Antichrist, nor any thing 
Robert Grostead.  more contrary to the Doctrine of the Gospel and of the Apostles, nothing more displeasing to Christ Jesus, more detestable and abominable, than destroying Souls by robbing them of the care of their Pastors; which is done when such People receive the Incomes appointed for the subsistence and maintenance of Pastors, as are not capable of executing their Offices; that it was impossible that the Apostolic See, which had received all power of Jesus Christ for edification and not for destruction, should order so horrid and pernicious a thing to humane kind, because this would be a manifest Abuse of its Power; that therefore one is so far from being obliged to obey such Commands as these, that it is one's duty to oppose them, though they were published by an Angel from Heaven, and that it is really an Act of Obedience not to receive them; and therefore that the Commissaries of the Holy See could do nothing herein against him. In one word he concludes, That the Power of the Holy See being given only for edification and not destruction, and the things hereby ordered tending manifestly to destruction, and not edification, it was impossible they should be granted by the Holy See. This Letter of Robert's related by Matthew Paris, being carried to Rome, put the Pope in such a passion that he could not forbear expressing himself in very hard Terms, if we may believe the abovementioned Author, who makes him speak thus; What a doting, old, deaf, impertinent Fellow is this, that daresthus rashly and impudently call my Conduct in question: By St. Peter and St. Paul, were it not for the respect I have for his Ingenuity, I would so utterly confound him, that he should become the Talk and Astonishment, and Example of all the World, and should be looked upon as a Prodigy. Is not his Master the King of England, who can with the least sign of Ours cast him into prison, and cover him with Shame and Infamy, Our Vassal, or rather Our Slave? But the Cardinals (says the same Author) represented to him how unfitting it was to act any thing against this Bishop; that what he said was true, and could not be refuted; that he was a true Catholic, and a very holy Man; that he had more Piety and Religion than the best of them; that he was of so exemplary a Life, that there was not a Prelate of greater merit than he; that all the Churches of England and France could bear witness to this; that the truth of his Letter, which was already no secret, might raise the Court of Rome a great many Enemies; that he had the name of a great Philosopher, a Man well read in Greek and Latin, zealous for the Truth, and had professed Divinity, and preached it with no small Reputation; that his Life was blameless, and that he was a Persecutor of Simoniacs. Upon these accounts they advised the Pope to let it pass, and make as if he had never seen the Letter. But another English Historian, named Henry of Knighton, says, that the Bishop was excommunicated: But let it be how it will, he remained steady to his opinion, and died in it on the 9th of October 1523, giving this Character of it to Master John of St. Giles a Dominican, that it was a Heresy and an Opinion contrary to Holy Scripture, to think that the Cure of Souls might be entrusted with a Child, or that the Vices of the great ones were not openly to be reproved. He composed many Discourses, in which with a great deal of Liberty he checks the Vices and Disorders of the Clergy: and some Letters which Mr. Brown has taken care to have printed in the second Volume of Fasciculus Rerum expetendarum, printed at London in 1690. There was likewise printed at London in 1652, a Work of this Author's about legal Observations. He made a Commentary upon the Works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, whereof that which belongs to the Book of mystical Divinity was printed at Strasburg in 1502. He likewise translated into Latin the Testament of the twelve Patriarches, printed at Paris in 1549, and in the Bibliotheca Patrum. In the Libraries of England there are many other Works of this Author to be met with; among the rest, A Treatise about Confession; another upon Marriage; a Work of the Pastoral Care; Constitutions about Penance: A Work of Piety with this Title, The Moral Eye; another with this, The Doctrine of the Heart: A Book of Meditations: A Treatise upon the Articles of Faith; Another upon the Precepts of the Decalogue, etc. Letters and Sermons, not to speak of his profane Works, as his Abridgement of the Sphere, printed at Venice in 1508, and his Commentary upon Aristotle's Analytics, printed likewise at Venice in 1504, 1537, and 1552. By what we have said of the Life and Writings of this Author, it is plain enough what his Genius and Character was, and that he had great Learning and Knowledge joined with an ardent Piety, and a Zeal for the heat of it, perhaps hardly excusable.  
WILLIAM a Native of Auvergne, chosen Bishop of Paris in 1228, died in 1240, is one 
William.  of the most considerable Authors of this Age for true Knowledge and solid Parts. He has sufficiently showed them both in his Works, by keeping close to that which regards Piety, and the Conduct of human Life, without running out upon Questions of mere speculation. This is the Scope to which his Principles tend, and the Design which he proposed to himself in the greatest part of his Works.  
The first of which is a Treatise, entitled, Of Faith and Laws, in which after having shown that the Knowledge of true Religion is the most excellent of all Knowledge, and the most useful; he demonstrates Faith to be the Foundation of all Religion, which consists in the Belief of those things which God hath revealed to us, although they be not evident. Then he discovers the Causes of Error and Impiety, which are, 1. The ignorance of the true extent of human Knowledge. 2. The distance of it from the things which we ought to believe. 3. The subtlety of those things. 4. Their height. 5. The folly of Men who would fain by the natural Force of their Parts comprehend that which is incomprehensible. 6. The want of Proofs. 7. The neglect of begging help and necessary assistance of God. Then he distinguishes two sorts of Articles of Faith; namely, those which he calls Radical and Primitive, which are the Belief of 
William of ●aris.  the Existence of a God, and the Trinity of Persons; and those which he calls consequential and derivative, which comprehend all the Articles of Christian Faith which God has revealed to his Church. Then he passes on to Laws, and after having spoken of the Law of Nature, he with some largeness treats of the Law and Commandments of God in the Old Testament. He refutes by the by the Laws and Religion of Mahomet, and sets upon the Opinion of those that hold that any one may be saved in his own Law and his own Religion; he stoutly encounters the different sorts of Idolatry, and passing on to what concerns the Christian Religion, he shows the necessity of a new Law, and what the Spirit and Worship therein required is. This Treatise is followed by a long Work upon the Virtues, in which after having spoken of natural Virtues, he shows that they are not sufficient for Salvation, and according to the Principles of St. Austin, demonstrates that the real and true Virtues are the Gifts of God, and the Effects of Grace and Charity. He treats in particular of the Virtues and Passions, of the Union of Virtues, and of the Increases and Decreases incident to them.  
The second part of his Treatise of Virtues is entitled, Of Manners. He there brings in all the Virtues one after another, each of them making a Panegyric upon them, and describing their Advantages and Effects.  
The third part is of Vices and Sins, where he treats largely of Original Sin.  
This is followed by a Treatise of Temtations, and of the means of resisting them; another of Merit, and the Rewards of good Works in this Life; another of the Rewards of the Saints, wherein he treats of their State and Blessedness; and another of the Immortality of the Soul, which he proves by Philosophical Arguments. The Proof of this brings him necessarily to talk of the Soul of Beasts, which he will have to be material, because its Original is from, and its Operations depend upon Matter, and because it is destroyed with the Body.  
All these Treatises are one Work, and are tied one to another by Transitions.  
That of Divine Rhetoric or Prayer is a separate Treatise, and full of very solid Precepts and Maxims about that Duty; the disposition of mind requisite thereto; the manner in which it ought to be performed, and the wonderful Effects of it.  
The Treatises of this Author upon the Sacraments are not near so scholastical as those of the other Authors of this time upon the same Matters. The greatest part of what he meddles with have some relation either to Morality or Practice, and for the Resolution of the Questions which he handles, he makes use of Principles fetched from the Holy Scripture, the Fathers, the Usage of the Church, and Morality.  
The next Treatise about the Causes of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the matter necessarily requiring it, is more scholastical.  
That is followed by a Treatise of Penance, which is wholly moral, and abounds with very useful Rules.  
The great Work of the Universe is a General Treatise of universal Knowledge, divided into two parts, each of which is again subdivided into three others. In the first he treats of the Principles of this World, of its Creation, and of created Being's, of its duration, of Eternity, of Judgement, of the happiness of the Saints, and the pains of the Damned, and of God's Providence in governing the World, which is the Subject of the third part of this first Book. His Discourse in the second is of the spiritual World; of the Angels, of the Devils, of Souls; of their Natures, Operations, Names, Divisions, and Apparitions, etc. All these Works mentioned, are in the first Tome of the last Edition, and had been printed before in the Venetian one of 1591.  
The second Tome consists of four Treatises of this Bishop's, newly published by Monsieur Le Feron Canon of Chartres, and Doctor of the Sorbonne, from a Manuscript of the Church of Chartres.  
The first is a Treatise of the Trinity, and of the Divine Attributes, quoted by him in his Treatise of the Universe.  
The second is a Treatise of the Soul, wherein he discourses of its Existence, its Nature, and Qualities, and the difference of a Man's Soul from a Beast's: He makes no doubt that this is mortal; and yet he does not scruple to call it spiritual, though it depend upon Matter both as to its Existence and Operations. He confutes the opinion of those that think the Souls of Beasts only Accidents, that is, that they consist only in a certain disposition of Particles of Matter. He discusses many other Questions about the Nature and Operations of the Soul. These two Treatises are more scholastical than any other of the Bishops, and therefore there is reason to doubt whether they belong to him or no, especially that of the Soul, where the Style and Doctrine about the nature of the Soul of Beasts do not agree with those of the Treatise of the Soul in the first Volume.  
This is not the Case of the third Treatise which is about Penance, for that is nothing but the latter part of the Treatise about Penitence in the former Tome, in which he discourses of Confession and Satisfaction.  
The last of the four Treatises is about the Collation of Benefices. He therein treats of the Call of those that are to enjoy Live, of the sincerity wherewith they ought to enter on them, of the Duty of Pastors, and other Beneficiaries, and of the Plurality of Benefices. He declames against the Neglect and Irregularities of the Beneficiaries of his time, against such as entered upon the Ministry without a Call, who considered Live only as Places, and looked after nothing but the Revenues of them; and against the Collators, who out of a temporal and carnal Prospect gave them to such as were unfit for them: He shows that their Duty is to make use of the Power which they have of conferring Ecclesiastical Dignities, to the honour and good of the Church, by putting in Persons capable of performing all the Duties of them, such as should be of age to acquit themselves in their Station, whose Life should be blameless, and who designed to live regularly and like Clergymen. He compares a Canonical to a Monastical Life, and shows that the Canons are no less obliged to lead a Life conformable to their Station, than Monks are to observe the Rules of their Order; and that as an Abbey is to be accounted vacant when possessed by a false or secular Monk, so likewise a Canon's place should be accounted vacant when enjoyed by a Man that lives not like a Clergyman; that it was the intention of the Founders that only such should enjoy the Incomes of the Church as were Men of a spotless Life, and those who possessed them and yet lived disorderly, were Usurpers and enjoyed them against Right and Justice. As for Pluralities he says, that only the doubt whether they were lawful or not, should be sufficient to deter People that had any care for their Conscience, from venturing upon more Cures than one, because our Salvation is not to be risked, and because in a doubtful Case one is obliged to take the safest side. He than opposes it with many Arguments, 1. Because those who defend the Affirmative speak for their Interest, whereas those who maintain the Negative, put themselves out of a Capacity of ever after ejjoying more Live than one. 2. Because he who labours not according to the Apostle, is not worthy to eat; therefore he who labours not doubly and triply ought not to eat doubly and triply; that is, to have two or three different Live which demand two or three different Services. 3. Because it is the Intention of the Founders of prebend's that there should be as many Prebendaries as Titles, for which reason there can be no one allowed to have two prebend's in one Church, and if not in one Church, much more not in two, where the distance of the places renders a Man less capable of satisfying his Duty. 4. Because this Plurality of Benefices in the same Person, took away a great many Members from the Church, and deprived it of a great number of Ministers. 5. Because it is not Charity, but Covetousness and Ambition that made Men desire more Benefices than one. 6. He says that it is as impossible that a Man should have two Benefices, as that the same Member should assist two Bodies at once, or the same Tree be planted in two places. He answers an Objection that came naturally in his way: namely, that seeing there are Live, the Revenues of which are far more considerable than those of others, it seemed as allowable to have many little ones with a small Revenue, as one great Living which was worth ten or twelve others: He says that this Thought proceeds from a false Opinion that one is in Live only to look upon the Revenue without regarding the Charge and Offices; for every Living, though o● never so small Revenues, having a particular Office which the Person that enjoys it is oblige● to perform, it is irregular to have any more Persons in it than one; that the Live which are not sufficient to maintain one Man, either do not require a particular Service, or if they do, the Revenue of them is augmented by the addition of some other: That if any one shall allege that there are some Live which do not require residence, he is deceived; because all Benefices do by their Establishment and Foundation oblige to Residence, and that the contrary is nothing but an evil Custom introduced by the Wickedness of the Clergy. Lastly he says, that if any one pleads against him the Dispensations of the Pope; he answers, That those are things above him, and that if any one throughly considered them he would find them to signify nothing; that whatever Virtue the Dispensations which the Pope granted certain Persons to enjoy more Live than one might have, yet he could not dispense with their Covetousness, with their Ambition and Greediness; he could not grant them Indulgences for their Vices, or give leave for such Irregularities, nor was it his intention that the temporal Estate of the Church, appointed for the entertainment of God's Servants, and dedicated to the Lord to be employed in his Service, should ever be perverted to the nourishment and maintenance of wicked Men. 'Twas upon these Reasons that William of Paris founded that Order which he got passed within a while after he was Bishop by the Doctors of the Faculty of Paris, that it should not be allowable to enjoy more than one Living, when that was sufficient for the provision and maintenance of one Person, which it was supposed then to be when the Revenue amounted to 15 Paris Liures.  
The Sermons abscribed to William of Paris make another part of the second Volume of his Works: But there's some reason to doubt whether they are really his, or not rather William Perraults, a Religious of the Order of Preaching Priars of Lions, with whose name they are to be seen in some Manuscripts, and were printed at Paris in 1494, at Lions in 1567., and at Cologn in 1629; though in many other Manuscripts, and in the Tubingen Edition of 1499, and the Paris one of 1638, they have the name of William Bishop of Paris affixed to them: but it is most likely that they by right belong to the former, 1. Because they are not in the other's Style, but in a more dry, concise and compact one. 2. Because the Author of them quotes the Fathers, and particularly St. Austin, oftener. 3. Because they are quoted with the name of William of Lions, by William a Dominican of Paris, who lived three hundred years ago, in a Postille upon the Epistles and Gospels of the year, printed at Paris in 1509, and at Strasburg in 1513, and 1521. 4. Because all those that speak of William Perrault ascribe these Sermons to him. 5. Because they are full of Passages and Thoughts out of the Holy Scripture, the Character which Gerson gives of the Works of William Perrault.  
The Dialogues of the seven Sacraments, printed at Leipsick in 1512, and at Lions in 1567., under the name of William of Paris, are not certainly his; because the Author himself tells us, That he took part of his Work from St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, which makes me think that it is William the Dominican of Paris', of whom we spoke before.  
William of Paris was the Author of many more Books which Trithemius mentions, and particularly of Commentaries upon the Psalms, upon the Proverbs, upon Ecclesiastes, upon the Gospel of St. Matthew, and upon the Song of Songs, of Letters and other Treatises: The Commentaries upon the Song of Songs, and upon the Proverbs may be seen in Manuscript in the Library of the Abbey of Longpont in the Diocese of Soissons, as Oudin tells us, who also would have the Commentary upon St. Matthew, printed in the Edition of St. Anselm's Works at Cologn in 1630, under the name of that Saint, to be William of Paris', notwithstanding that Father Gerberon ascribes them to one Herveus a Monk of the City of Dol; and indeed the Author of this Commentary in the 6th Chapter quotes a Treatise which he had written of the Virtues and Vices, and William of Paris seems to refer to this Commentary in his Treatise upon the Manners in the 10th Chapter: besides, that in the Catalogue of Herveus' Writings made by the Monks of his Monastery, in the Circular Letter about his Death, there's no mention of this Commentary upon St. Matthew; so that what Father Gerberon says of the Commentaries attributed to St. Anselm, is to be understood only of the Comment upon St. Paul's Epistles.  
The Style of this Author is plain, intelligible, natural, and not near so barbarous as that of the greatest part of the Schoolmen of his time; yet it hath nothing of a fine delicacy in it: He doth not run out upon Metaphysical Notion near so much as the other Divines of his time, and particularly keeps close to what concerns Morality, Discipline, and Piety. He sometimes confutes Aristotle, and makes use of the Principles and Arguments of Plato. He very well understood the Opinions of the profane Philosophers, throughly read and digested the Holy Scripture, but he was but meanly versed in the Fathers. We took notice before that his Works were printed at Venice in 1591., and some years ago there was a new Edition of them printed at Orleans in 1674, which is that that we have here all along followed.  
VINCENT, Surnamed of BEAUVAIS, because he lived in that City, was a Burgundian, 
Vincent of Beauvais.  and a Religious of the order of Preaching Friars. He undertook in the Reign of St. Lovis, who was at the expense of it, a sort of Encyclopaedia of Science in a great Work, entitled, The Mirror. It is divided into four parts, which are four quite distinct Works: The Doctrinal, which comprehends the Principles of all Sciences, beginning at Grammar and ending at Divinity: The Historical, containing a Universal History from the beginning of the World to the year 1244: The Natural, which treats of natural things, as of Plants, Birds, etc. and The Moral, which treats of the Passions, of Law and Grace, of the Virtues and of the Vices. These Works are nothing but a Collection out of divers Authors, as he acknowledges in his Preface. The last of them is almost word for word the same with the second Second of Thomas Aquinas' Sum, which is very hard to be reconciled with the Chronology of these two Authors; for St. Thomas not dying before 1274, and his Sum being one of his last Pieces, it is not easy to imagine how Vincent of Beauvais, who is supposed to have died in 1256, should have copied from it. The Critics divide upon the Resolution of this Difficulty; some say that perhaps Vincent did not die till 1264, and St. Thomas might before that have composed his second Second, which might have been communicated to Vincent: others say that this Book of Morals is not the Work of Vincent; but that this Author not having meddled with them, or what he wrote therein being lost, some body put in these Extracts of St. Thomas to make Vincent's Works complete. These Opinions are not very probable; for first, almost all Authors that have spoken of Vincent of Beauvais make him die in 1256; and if one should suppose that he lived till 1264, it is pretty hard to imagine how he should copy a Work which was then neither published nor finished. Besides, it cannot be thought that Vincent of Beauvais did not compose a Moral Treatise, because he in his Preface tells us, that this is one of the parts of his Work, and because the old Authors, such as Henry of Gand and Trithemius, make mention of this very one, which gins with the very words that are related by Trithemius for the beginning of Vincent of Beauvais' Work of Morality. But then on the other side, it appears that the Sum of St. Thomas is all in the same Style, and he quotes the second Second in his other Works; whereas the Work of Vincent of Beauvais is a Rhapsody taken from different Authors; and it is likewise said that he quotes the Sum of St. Thomas in his Natural Treatise. These are the Difficulties that occur, and the Conjectures that are brought on each side, upon which I shall leave the Reader to make what Reflections he shall think fit, not seeing any thing sufficient to determine me on one side or other.  
The entire Work of Vincent of Beauvais is a vast Collection that showeth the laborious diligence of the Author more than his Judgement and Palate. His Historical Mirror was printed separately at Nuremberg in 1473, and at Mentz in 1474. The Moral Part at Nuremberg in 1485, and at Venice in 1493. The Doctrinal at Nuremberg in 1486, and all the four Parts at Basil in 1481, at Venice in 1484, and in 1591., and at Dovay in 1524, with the Title of, The Library of the World. Trithemius mentions some other Works of Vincent of Beauvais; namely, a Treatise of Grace, or of the Redemption of Jesus Christ: A Discourse in praise of the Virgin, and another in praise of St. John the Evangelist: A Treatise about the Instruction of King's Sons, and a Consolatory Letter to St. Lovis upon the Death of one of his Friends, and some other Letters. These two last pieces were printed at Basil in 1481.  
RAIMOND of Pennafort or Rochfort, born in 1175 at Barcelona, studied in the University 
Raimond of Rochfort.  of Bologn, and after having taken his Degrees, did there teach the Canon Law. He was afterwards recalled to Barcelona by his Bishop, and made by him Canon and Provost of his Cathedral. He left this Dignity in 1218, to enter into the Order of Preaching Friars, and was in a short time after chosen by John Algrin Cardinal of St. Sabina Legate in Spain, to accompany him in his Embassy. Pope Gregory the Ninth being acquainted with his Merit, invited him to Rome, made use of him in his Affairs, and made him his Chaplain, his Penitentiary, and his Confessor. He refused the Archbishopric of Tarragon, but being obliged to return by the advice of his Physicians to Barcelona, he was chosen third General of his Order in 1238, and resigned that Dignity within two years to live a simple Monk. He was nevertheless industrious for the rooting out the Vaudois and Saracens, persuading James I. King of Arragon to set up the Inquisition in his Realm. He died in 1275, being a hundred years old. He was canonised by Clement VIII. in 1601. 'Tis he that was the Author of that Collection of five Books of ●●●●●tals which is in the body of the Law, which he made by the Order and with the Approbation of Pope Gregory the IX. who recommended it to the Doctors and Students of the University of 〈◊〉 in his own name, to serve them for a Rule in their Schools, and a Law in their Judgements. He likewise made a Sum of Cases of Conscience, which was printed at Rome in 1603. It is divided into three parts: In the first he treats of Sins committed against God: In the ●●cond, of those against our Neighbour: In the third, of Irregularity, of Hindrances to the taking of Holy Orders, Dispensations, Canonical Purgations, Sentences, Penances, and Absolutions; to which is joined a Treatise in reference to Matrimony. The greatest part of these Cases he decides by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the Canons, the Decretals, or the Fathers, and vary rarely by their own Evidence. An Example which all that wrote after him upon these Matters ought to have followed. Some Authors take notice of a Treatise of his about the Visitation of Dioceses and the care of Souls; and another of War and Duelling; and another concerning the means of trading without Injustice. But these we have none of.  
GILES of Assisi, a Companion of St Francis, is Author of a little piece, entitled, Words 
Giles of Assisi.  of Gold, printed at Antwerp in 1534, and of many other little Works which are not where but in Manuscript. He died in 1262.  
ALEXANDER, surnamed of Hales, from the place where he was born, which is in Glocestershire 
Alexander of Hales.  in England, after having gone through the Course of his Studies in his own Country, came to the University of Paris, where he followed Divinity, and the Canon Law, and gained such a Reputation in them, that he was surnamed the Irrefragable Doctor, and the Fountain of Life. In 1222 he entered into the Order of Friars Minims, and made Paris the place of his Residence, where he died in 1245, on the 27th of August.  
By the Order of Innocent the iv he made a Commentary upon the four Books of Sentences, or a very subtle Sum of Divinity, which hath been printed at Nuremberg in 1482, at Basil in 1502, at Venice in 1575., and 1576, and at Cologn in 1622; for we must not make two distinct Works of his Commentary, and of his Sum, as some have done: It is one and the same Work, as is plain in the Manuscript of the Library of St. Victor where it is, with the Text of the Master of the Sentences, and this Title, A Sum and Commentary upon the Master of the Sentences: So that the Commentary upon the Sentences printed at Lions in the year 1515 with Alexander of Hales' name to it, is not really that Author's. And I doubt too whether the Sum of the Virtues, printed at Paris in 1509, or the Treatise entitled, Destructorium Vitiorum, which was printed at Nuremberg in 1496, and at Venice in 1582, aught to be ascribed to him. It is certain that he composed a Postille upon the whole Bible; but the Commentary upon the Psalms printed in his name at Venice in 1496, in right belongs to Hugh of St. Charus: and there's reason to doubt whether the Commentary upon the Revelations published under the name of Alexander of Hales, and printed 〈◊〉 Paris in 1647, is really his. The Commentary upon Aristotle's Physics belongs to Alexander of Alexandria, Doctor of Barcelona, who flourished about 1313. We can give no Judgement of the Commentaries upon the Prophets, upon the four Evangelists, and upon all the Epistles of St. Paul, which go under this Author's Name, and are to be met with in the Libraries of Milan and Oxford. We have lost the Commentary which he made upon the Statutes of the Minor Friars, and a Treatise of the Harmony of Divine and Human Law, which Trithemius mentions. Lastly, we have none of the Lives of St. Thomas of Canterbury, or of Richard King of England; nor have we a Treatise against Mahomet, which some Authors say he wrote: and indeed we have none of his Works left us, that we can certainly say are his, except his Sum, which discovers that he had more subtlety than skill in the Antiquities of the Church.  
JOHN of Rochel of the Order of Minor Friars, a Companion of Alexander of Hales, 
John of Rochel.  if we may believe Trithemius, composed a Treatise upon the Sentences; a Sum of Virtues and Vices; and a Treatise of the Soul. Some Commentaries upon the Holy Scripture, and some Sermons are likewise ascribed to him.  
ALBERT the Great (so called because of his vast Learning) descended from the Lords of 
Albertus Magnus.  Bolstadt, was born at Lavingen in Suabia, according to some Authors in 1193, and according to others in 1205. In 1221 he entered himself into the Order of Preaching Friars, and having signalised himself by his profound Knowledge, upon the Death of Jordan General of his Order, he was chosen in 1236 to govern it in quality of Vicar, which he did two years; and by many Votes was nominated General, as was also Hugh of St. Charus, but neither of them was chosen: Albert was made Provincial of his Order in Germany, and made his abode at Cologn, where he taught Divinity with no small Reputation. Pope Alexander iv chose him in 1260 for Bishop of Ratisbon; but he was soon weary of a Dignity which he never sought, and within three years resigned his Bishopric that he might retire into his Monastery at Cologn, where he died November 15. in the year 1280.  
There is no Author that hath more Works printed under his name than this, for they make one and twenty Volumes in Folio, published at Lions in 1651. We have nothing to say of what is in the six first, because they are only Logic and Physics.  
The five next are Commentaries upon the Holy Scripture, viz. the seventh, A Commentary upon the Psalms; the eighth, upon Jeremy, Baruc, Daniel, and the twelve Minor Prophets; the ninth, upon the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark; the tenth, upon the Gospel of St. Luke; the eleventh, upon the Gospel of St. John, and the Revelations.  
The twelfth Tome contains Sermons for all the year, and for the Saints; Prayers upon the Gospels of all the Sundays in the year; two and thirty Sermons on the Eucharist which are among the Works of St Thomas too; but, 'tis more likely, belong to Albert: and a Discourse upon a Woman of Fortitude.  
The thirteenth is Commentaries upon the Books ascribed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, and an Abridgement of Divinity in seven Books.  
The three next Volumes are Commentaries upon the four Books of the Master of the Sentences.  
The seventeenth and eighteenth contain a Sum of Divinity.  
The nineteenth is a Work, entitled, A Sum of the Creatures: In two Parts, the second of which is of Man.  
These that have been mentioned are, no body doubts, the Works of Albert the Great, but the twentieth Volume hath many in it which are doubtful, or forged: The first is not of that number; it is a Discourse in honour of the Virgin, with the Title of Marialis, upon these words of the Gospel, The Angel Gabriel was sent, etc. but the twelve Books of the Praises of the Virgin which follow it are RICHARD's of St. LAURENCE, a Penitentiary of Rome, 
Richard of St. Laurence.  about the year 1240, if we may credit the Manuscripts. And there's as much reason to doubt whether the Bible of Mary, the Author of which applies to the Virgin whatsoever is contained in the Scripture, which had been printed at Cologn before, belongs to Albert the Great.  
The twenty first contains some Works which are not without suspicion: A Treatise of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Sacrament of the Eucharist: The Paradise of the Soul; or, A Treatise of Virtues: and the Treatise of cleaving to God. It is not certain that these are really his.  
St. BONAVENTURE, surnamed the Seraphic Doctor, was born at Bagnarea in Tuscany, in the year 1221. He entered himself in 1243 into the Order of Minor Friars, and studied in 
St. Bonaventure.  the University of Paris, where he afterwards taught Divinity, and took his Doctor's Degree with St. Thomas Aquinas in 1255. The next year he was chosen General of his Order, and reform its Discipline, and regulated its Habit. 'Tis said that he introduced the Custom of making a Prayer to the Virgin after Compline, and of ringing the Bell to call the Faithful together, and that he was the occasion of the Institution of Confreries, after the example of that which he settled at Rome in 1270. 'Tis reported that it was he who, when the Cardinals could not agree about the Election of a Pope after the Death of Clement iv proposed to them the choosing of Theobald Archdeacon of Liege, who took the name of Gregory X. This Pope in acknowledgement made him Cardinal Bishop of Albanon in 1274, some while before the second General Council of Lions, at the first Session of which he assisted on the 7th of May, but died before it risen, on the 15th of July the same year. He was Canonised by Sixtus the 4th in 1482.  
See the Judgement that Gerson gives of this Author and his Works in his Treatise about the Books which Monks ought to read: In my opinion, says he, one of the best Authors that a Man can read is Eustachius, for so one may translate his name of Bonaventure; he is the Man of all the Catholic Doctors, not to derogate from the rest, that seems to me the most proper and safe for the enlightening of the Judgement, and inflaming the Heart. To be convinced of this one need not read any more than two of his Works; I mean his Breviloquy and his Itinerary, which are written with so much art and brevity, that nothing can be beyond them; and though they are more difficult and scarce than his other Works, yet all Christians ought to search and examine them, Mystical Theology being proper for the Faithful. In another place (in his Book of the examination of Doctrines) he says, That if any one should ask him which of the Doctors he thought most proper for the instruction of the Faithful; his Answer should be, without detracting from the rest, St. Bonaventure: because he is solid, safe, pious, just and devout, and keeps as far as he can from Niceties, not meddling with Logical or Physical Questions, which are alien to the matter in hand, disguised under Theological Expressions, as too many do: and because by clearing the Understanding, he sets off Religion and Piety in their true Colours; which is the reason, adds he, that the indevout Schoolmen which, the more is the Pity, make the greater number, cast him by, though there is nothing more noble, more divine, more conducive to Salvation, and fit for Divines than the Doctrine of this Author. Trithemius makes almost the same Judgement of him in these words: St. Bonaventure wrote many very deep and devout Works: all his Expressions are full of heat, and inflame the Hearts of those that read him, as well as enlighten their Minds by a holy Light; for his Works surpass all those of the Doctors of his time in their usefulness, the Spirit of the Love of God, and of Christian Devotion shining through them: He is deep without Prolixity, subtle without Nicety, eloquent without Vanity; his words are full of spirit, yet not bombastick; which is the reason that such as are touched with the Love of God read him with the more safety, understand him with the greater ease, and remember him with the greater profit. Many Authors teach Doctrine, and others preach Devotion, but there are very few to be met with who have joined these two things together in their Writings: But in St. Bonaventure they are united, for his Devotion instructs in Doctrine, and his Doctrine inspires with Devotion: So that whoever desires both Knowledge and Devotion cannot do better than apply himself to the reading of his Works. Much of the same opinion is St. Antoninus, who remarks, That such as desire Divine Knowledge more than Aristotelical Vanity, find his Works easy to be understood. Indeed the greatest part of St. Bonaventure's Works are mystical and spiritual: they make eight Volumes, printed at Rome in 1588.  
The first contains Commentaries upon some Books of the Old Testament, viz. A sort of Preface, entitled, Principles of the Holy Scripture: Thirty three Sermons upon the Six days Work, or the Creation of the World: Explications or Postilles upon the Psalms, upon Ecclesiastes, upon the Book of Wisdom, and upon the Lamentations of Jeremy.  
The second Volume contains Commentaries upon the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, with Conferences upon the last of them.  
The third is Sermons of time and of the Saints.  
The fourth and fifth are Commentaries upon the four Books of the Master of the Sentences.  
The sixth Tome contains the first and second parts of his Opuscula, the Titles of which are, Of the reducing of Arts to Divinity: The Breviloquy: The Centiloquy: The Quiver: An Explanation of the Terms of Theology: An Abridgement of the Books of the Sentences: Four Books of Sentences in Verse: Of the four Cardinal Virtues: Of the seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit: Of the three Ternaries of Sins: Of the Resurrection from Sin to Grace: The Diet of Salvation: Of the Hierarchy of the Church. Those of the second Part are the Soliloquy: Meditations upon the Life of Jesus Christ: Of the seven Degrees of Contemplation: Of the five Feasts of the Child Jesus: The Office of the Passion: The Elegy of the Cross: The Wood of Life: The Mirror of the Praises of the Virgin: The Crown of the Virgin: The Compassion of the Virgin: The Nightingale of the Passion of our Lord, fitted to the seven hours: On the seven Words of our Saviour on the Cross: The Great Psalter of the Virgin: The Little Psalter on the Salutation of the Angel, and the Salve Regina.  
The seventh Tome contains the third Part of his Moral Opuscula, which are, Of the ordering of a Christian Life: Of the Government of the Soul: The Mirror of the Soul: Of the ten Commandments: Of the degrees of Virtues: The Itinerary of the Spirit of God: Of the seven Paths of Eternity: The Spur of Divine Love: The Fire of Love: The Art of loving: The Book of Spiritual Exercises: The Fas●iculary: The five and twenty Memorials: The Confessional: Of the manner of confessing: Of Purity of Conscience: Of the Priest's Preparation for the Mass: An Explication of the Mass: Of the six Wings of the Cherubims, and the six Wings of the Seraphims.  
The eighth Volume contains the Opuscula which concern the Religious, the Catalogue of which I shall set down: A Treatise of the threefold Estate of Religiouses: The Mirror of Discipline for Novices, which some call in question: The twenty steps of Novices: Of Advancement in Religion: Of the Contempt of the World: Of the Reformation of the Spirit: The little Alphabet of a good Monk, which is Thomas a Kempis': Of the Perfection of a Religious Life: An Explanation of the Rule of the Minor Friars: Questions about this Rule: Why the Minor Friars preach: Of the Poverty of Jesus Christ: That Jesus Christ and his Apostles went barefoot: An Apology for Evangelical Poverty: A Treatise against the Reviler of the Order of St. Francis: An Apologetic against the Adversaries of the Order of Minor Friars: A Treatise entitled, De non frequentandis quaestionibus: Conferences to the Brothers of Tholouse which are not St. Bonaventures: A Treatise of the Reform of the Minor Friars, addressed to the Provincials of the Order. In this Tome there is an Appendix containing, An Abridgement of Theology: Treatises upon the Essence, Invisibility and Immensity of God, and a Work of Mystical Divinity.  
The Life of St. Francis related by Surius in October 4. is likewise ascribed to St. Bonaventure.  
St. THOMAS of Aquino, Surnamed the Angelical Doctor, of the House of the Earls of 
Thomas Aquinas.  Aquino, descended from the Kings of Sicily and Arragon, was born in 1224 in the Castle of Aquino, which is in the Country of Lavoro in Italy. After having been educated in the Monastery of Montecassino, he was sent to Naples, where he studied Humanity and Philosophy. He entered in 1241 into the Order of Preaching Friars, notwithstanding all his Mother could do, who laid hold on him and kept him close up in a Castle; but nothing could conquer his Resolution, for finding means to escape out of his Confinement, wherein he was kept for two years, he came to Paris in 1244, and from thence went to Cologn to study under Albert the Great. Returning again to Paris, he took the Doctor of Divinity's Cap in 1255. He went back into Italy in 1263, and after having gone through most of the Universities, teaching Scholastical Divinity, he settled at Naples, the Archbishopric of which City offered him by Clement the iv he refused. In 1274, Gregory the X. called him to the Council of Lions, and parting from Naples on his Journey thither, he fell sick by the way in the Monastery of Fossa-Nova near Terracena, and there died, being fifty years old, on the seventh of March the same year.  
The number of St. Thomas' Works is prodigious. They make seventeen Volumes in Folio, and were printed at Venice in 1490, at Nuremberg in 1496, at Rome in 1570, at Venice in 1594, and at Cologn in 1612. The five first Tomes are Commentaries upon the Works of Aristotle: The sixth and seventh, a Commentary upon the four Books of the Sentences: The eighth, Theological Questions; namely, ten Questions about the Power of God, sixteen Questions about Evil, one Question about spiritual Creatures, another about the Soul; a Question of the Union of the Word; a Question of Virtue in general; a Question of Charity, another of brotherly Correction: A Question of Hope, another of the Cardinal Virtues, and nine and twenty of Truth, and twelve Quodlibetick Questions. The ninth contains the Sum of the Catholic Faith against the Gentiles, divided into four Books: The tenth, eleventh, and twelfth, are a Sum of Divinity, with the Commentaries of Cardinal Cajetan: The thirteenth is composed of many Commentaries upon the Old Testament: namely, A Commentary upon the Book of Job: A literal and mystical Explanation of the five first Psalms: An Exposition upon the Song of Songs, which they say he dictated upon his deathbed to the Monks of Fossa-Nova: Commentaries upon the Prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and on the Lamentations, which the best Critics think rather belongs to the English Thomas than this. The fourteenth Volume contains Commentaries upon the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John, but that upon St. Matthew was made by Peter Scaliger, Dominican of Verona. That upon St. John was put into Method by Renaldus a Companion of St. Thomas, from an Explanation which he heard of it from the Mouth of St. Thomas. The fifteenth is a Chain upon the four Gospels taken from the Fathers, and presented to Pope Urban IU. The sixteenth contains a Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul, and Sermons. The seventeenth Volume contains divers little Pieces of Divinity; namely, A Treatise against the Errors of the Greeks, to Pope Urban IU. An Abridgement of Divinity, to Renaldus a Monk of his Order, which some with a great deal of probability ascribe to Ulric of Strasburg: An Explanation of some Articles against the Greeks, Armenians, and Saracens, addressed to the Chanter of Antioch: A Treatise of the two Precepts of Charity, and of the ten Commandments of the Law: An Explication of the Lord's Prayer: An Explication of the Salutation of the Angel: An Answer about the hundred and eight Articles taken out of the Works of Peter of Tarentaise, to John of Verceil, General of the Order of Preaching Friars, which is commonly thought to be none of St. Thomas': Another Answer addressed to the same Person, about the forty two Articles: An Answer about six and thirty Articles, to the Reader of Venice: Another Answer about six Articles, to the Reader of Besanson: A Treatise about the difference between the Divine Word, and the Human Word: A Treatise about the Nature and Origin of the Word of the Understanding: A Treatise about separate Substances, or of the Nature of Angels: A Treatise of the Unity of the Understanding, against the Averroists, who hold that all Men have but one Understanding: A Work against such as dissuade Men from entering themselves into a Religious Order: A Treatise of the Perfection of a spiritual Life: A Treatise, entitled, Against those that oppose the Worship of God and Religion, wherein he defends the Orders of Mendicants against the Books of William of Holy Love: Four Books of the Government of Princes, which cannot be St. Thomas', because they talk of Adolphus succeeding Rodolphus in the Empire, and Albert, Adolphus, which was not till many years after the Death of St. Thomas; besides, that the Style is different from that of St. Thomas' Works: A Treatise of the Government of the Jews: A Treatise of the Form of Absolution: An Explanation of the first Decretal: Another Explanation of the second: A Treatise of Spells: Another of Judicial Astrology: A Treatise of the Eternity of the World: A Treatise of Destiny: Thirty seven other Treatises of Logical and Physical Matters, which it is not worth while to make a Catalogue of here: Seven Books of the Education of Princes, which are only in the Roman Edition: The Office for the Feast of the Holy Sacrament, composed by Order of Pope Urban the Fourth, the Institutor of that Solemnity. There is reason to doubt whether St. Thomas was wholly the Author of this, or whether he made use therein of an Office for that Feast, which had been before composed by John a Clerk of Liege: which is proved by the Testimony of the Author of the Life of St. Juliana the Virgin, who assures us that this John did make such an Office, which consisted of Hymns, Anthems, Responses, Lessons, Chapters, and Collects; and by the ancient Books of the Church of St. Martin of Liege, among which is found a piece of this Office of the Holy Sacrament which is ascribed to St. Thomas. Father Alexander the Dominican on the other side maintains that it is St. Thomas', and proves it by the Authority of William of Toco an Author contemporary with St. Thomas, who puts it in the Catalogue of his Works, and Ptolemy of Lucques, Bishop of Toricelli, a Scholar of St. Thomas', and St. Antoninus; but I believe it is pretty easy to reconcile these two Opinions, by saying that St. Thomas made use of the Office composed by John Clerk of Liege, and inserted part of it in that which goes under his name; for it is true that some of that Office is his own, and he reduced it into the Form it now is in; which is the reason that in the History of the Translation of the Body of St. Thomas, it is only said that it was he that digested, ordinavit, the Office of the Holy Sacrament: A Treatise of the Holy Sacrament of the Altar in two and thirty Chapters, which Trithemius makes Albert the Great Author of, and which is to be found among his Works divided into many Sermons: Another Treatise of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which is not St. Thomas', at least not beyond exception, any more than all the following Treatises: Of the Humanity of Jesus Christ: Of the Love of Jesus Christ, and one's Neighbour: Of Divine Manners: Of Blessedness: Of the manner of Confessing: Of purity of Conscience: Of the Office of a Priest: Of the Mass: of buying and selling for a time, attributed by some to James of Viterbo: A Letter concerning the manner of acquiring Divine and Human Knowledge: A Treatise of the Vices and Virtues: Of Concordance: Of Usury, not to speak of the two Commentaries upon the Books of Boetius; the one upon his Treatise of Weeks, the other upon that concerning the Trinity, which is thought to be St. Thomas'. There is likewise at the end of this Volume a Commentary upon the four Books of Sentences, which some call in question.  
Under St. Thomas' name some other Commentaries upon the Holy Scripture have been printed by themselves, viz. upon Genesis, upon the Prophecy of Daniel, upon the Books of the Maccabees, upon the Canonical Epistles, and upon the Revelation; but these are not his, the greatest part of them belonging to the English Thomas. Lastly, there is a Commentary of St. Thomas upon the Books of Boetius of the Consolation of Philosophy, printed at Louvain in 1487, and at Lions in 1514, which we may very well allow to be his.  
There have been some Difficulties raised in our Age about St. Thomas' Sum, which have made it doubted whether it be really his. We have already spoken to one of them, which arose from the second Part of the Second of that Work, being found in Vincent of Beauvais. Monsieur De Launoy has proposed another from the silence of Pope Clement the VI who doth not mention this Work in that exact Catalogue of St. Thomas' Works, which he makes in the Panegyric upon that Saint, spoken some time after his Canonization. But Father Alexander has vindicated this Work by the Testimony of contemporary Authors, or such as lived not long after him, as William of Toto one of those that solicited his Canonization, who made a Catalogue of St. Thomas' Works, at the head of which stands this Sum. William de la Mare of the Order of Minor Friars, who about the end of the Thirteenth Century wrote against the Doctrine of St. Thomas in a Book, entitled, Correctorium Operum Fratris Thomae, and takes most of the Points which he opposeth out of his Sum of Theology, as out of his principal Work: Giles a Roman, the Scholar of St. Thomas, who defended him against William de la Mare: John the German, and Nicholas Trivet, who about the beginning of the next Century made a Catalogue of St. Thomas' Works: St. Antoninus and many others, not to mention Demetrius Cydonius, who translated this Sum into Greek, with not a few Praises of the Author of it; so that the silence of Clement VI will scarce do any thing against the Testimony of so many Authors, and those so ancient, and so much more ancient too than that Pope. St. Thomas did not finish his Sum, but the end of the last part was added by Peter of Auvergne, a Scholar of his, about 1280, who took the greatest part of this Supplement out of the other Works of St. Thomas, and particularly out of his Commentary upon the Master of the Sentences. This Author likewise wrote many Commentaries upon the Books of Aristotle which we shall not here speak of, but shall conclude this Article of St. Thomas with a General Scheme of his Sum.  
In the first Part, after having in the first Question spoken of the sacred Doctrine in general, he treats of God; of his Essence; of his Attributes and Operations; of Blessedness; of the three Divine Persons; of their Processions and Relations: And lastly, he considers God in relation to the Creatures as their Creator and Preserver.  
In the first Part of the second Part he treats of the Motions of a reasonable Creature towards God, of its ultimate end, and of the Actions conducing thereto; of their Principle; of Virtues and Vices in general; of Laws, and of Grace.  
In the second Part of the Second, he in particular treats of the Theologal and Moral Virtues, and of whatsoever may have any relation to them.  
In the third part he treats of the means of coming to God, viz. the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and the Sacraments, and they make the Subject of this Part, which ends in Questions about the four ends of Man.  
HUGH the Cardinal was of Barcelonette in Dauphine, and not of Barcelona in Spain, as 
Hugh of St. Charus.  some Authors have made him. He was surnamed of St. CHARUS or St. THEODORICK, and entered into the Order of Preaching Friars. He studied in the University of Paris, and there took the Degree of Doctor in Divinity; Authors do not agree whether before or after his professing it. He was sent by Pope Gregory IX. to Constantinople, to labour for the reuniting the two Churches, and created Cardinal by the Title of St. Sabina in 1245, by Innocent the iv and afterwards employed in many Legations. He died the 19th of March 1260. They say he expressed about the latter end of his Life, no small Grief for his having been raised to the Cardinal Dignity, confessing that he had rather have lived a simple Religious in his own Order, than have had the weight of a Cardinal's Hat on his head. He composed Postilles; that is to say, short Notes or Glosses upon the whole Scripture, wherein he explains the Text according to the four Senses that it might bear. He wrote a larger Commentary upon the Psalms, which some ascribe to Alexander of Hales, but St. Antoninus assures us it is Cardinal Hugh's. Under his name there are some Sermons printed too, and a Work with this Title, The Priest's Mirror: But the most useful thing that ever he did, and which will eternize his Memory, is the Concordance of the Bible, of which he was the Inventor, and which he made many Monks of his Order labour at; who made a Concordance of all the Names and all the Verbs in the Bible. CONRADE of Halberstadt added the indeclinable Particles to it, and a while after it 
Conrade of Halberstadt.  was perfected. The Postilles of Hugh upon the Bible were printed in 1504 at Basil, in 1548 at Paris, and in 1600 at Venice: His Sermons were printed in 1479 at Zuvol, and the Priest's Mirror at Lions in 1554. Conrade of Halberstadt was likewise the Author of some other little Works, of Sermons and Commentaries upon the Bible, which Trithemius mentions.  
WILLIAM PERRAULT a simple Monk of the Order of Preaching Friars in the 
William Perrault.  Monastery of Lions, and not Archbishop of that City as some have made him, had the Reputation of a good Preacher, and a good Divine. He made a Sum of the Virtues and Vices, which was in good esteem that Age and the next, and is quoted with an Encomium by Gerson, who says, That this Author did not heap together stuff out of his own head, but took what he wrote from the bottom of the Holy Scriptures; and that if one should go to compare the new Fancies of some with this Doctrine, he would soon see that they had neither solidity nor truth on their side. This Sum has been printed a great many times, and among others at Venice in 1492, and 1497, and Basil in 1497, at Lions in 1551, and at Paris in 1629. He likewise was the Author of many Sermons, and 'tis not without reason thought that those which go under the name of William of Paris belong to this Author. Trithemius mentions a Work of his for the Instruction of Religious. This Author was contemporary with William of Paris, and St. Thomas of Aquino, and died as 'tis thought in the year 1275.  
THOMAS of Chantprè born at Leuwe or Loo near Brussels, was at first a Regular Canon 
Thomas of Chantprè.  in the Monastery of Chantprè near Cambray, whence he removed into the Order of Preaching Friars; and after having studied at Cologn under Albert the Great, about the year 1255 he was made Subprior and Reader of the Dominicans of Louvain, and lastly consecrated Bishop, to serve as a Suffragan and Assistant to the Bishop of Cambray. The year of his Death is not certainly known; Justus Lipsius places it on the 15th of May 1263. Others some years after.  
The principal Work of this Author is a Book, entitled, The Universal Good, or, The Bees; because he therein makes use of the Figure of Bees to give us Precepts about the Carriage and Duty as well of Superiors as Inferiors. This Work was printed at Dovay in 1597, 1607, and 1627. The last of these Editions published by George Colvenerius a Dominican, Doctor and Chancellor of the University of Dovay, is the perfectest. In this Work Thomas makes mention of another Work of his about the nature of things, in composing which he spent fifteen years. He likewise wrote the Lives of St. Christina, of St. Lutgarda, and of St. Mary of O●gnies, related by Surius in the 16th and 23d of the Month June, and that of St. Margarita of Ypres, printed by itself at Dovay in 1618. 'Tis said that he understood the Greek, and that he made a Latin Version of the Works of Aristotle at the desire of St. Thomas of Aquino, who made use of it for his Commentaries upon that Philosophy; but others will have the Version which St. Thomas used to be more ancient. Be it how it will 'tis a very vicious Translation, and some believe it was not made from the Greek of Aristotle, but from a Greek Translation, from an Arabic Translation of him.  
ROGER BACON of an illustrious Family, born about the year 1206, at Ilchester in the 
Roger Bacon.  County of Somerset in England, was surnamed, The Admirable Doctor, for his extensive Knowledge and penetrating Wit: But though he was a Religious of the Order of Minor Friars, yet he applied himself more to the study of the Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry, than of Divinity, and had entered so far into the Secrets of them that he was more than once accused for a Conjurer, and thereupon referred to his General, who condemned him in 1278. He was likewise next year put in prison by order of Pope Nicholas IU. He is the Author of a great many Works of which some are in print, and the rest in Manuscript; but as they are all Physical or Mathematical, except one Abridgement of Divinity not printed, 'twill be of no use to make a Catalogue of them here. He died in 1284.  
PETER de VIGNES a German, Secretary of State, and Chancellor to Frederick II. 
Peter de Vignes.  defended bravely the Rights of the Empire, and the Cause of his Prince against the Assaults of the Popes; he was deputed by his Master to the Council of Lions in 1245, and there did his utmost to hinder his Condemnation; but his Services were but scurvily rewarded, for being accused the next year of unfaithfulness, Frederick put out his Eyes, and kept him in prison at Capua, where he died in 1249. We have six Books of Letters written by him to divers Persons about the Business of the Empire, printed at Basil in 1566, and at Augsburg in 1609, and a Discourse containing the Complaints of the Emperor Frederick for his Deposition against the Pope and Cardinals, composed in 1230, and printed at Haguenau in 1539.  
HUMBERT, Surnamed of Romans, from the place of his Birth, a Town of Dauphine, 
Humbert.  took his Degrees in the University of Paris, and made profession in 1225 in the Convent of Jacobines of that place, where he taught Divinity. He was in 1254 chosen fifth General of his Order; voluntarily resigned that Charge in 1263, and retired to Lions, where he died a simple Monk in 1277. He is Author of the following Works: The Mirror for Religious, or six Books of spiritual Instructions for a religious Life, printed at Louvain in 1575., and at Paris in 1622. A Letter about the three Vows of Religion, and the Virtues that ought to accompany them, printed with Sermons at Haguenau in 1508, and at Venice in 1603. A Commentary upon the Rule of St. Augustin, printed at Cosma in 1605, and at Mons in 1645. Two hundred Sermons printed as we said before at Haguenau and Venice: Two Books for the instruction of Preachers, which Trithemius calls the Preachers Sum, printed at Vicenza in 1604, and at Barcelona in 1607. Some attribute to him the History of the Rise and illustrious Men of the Order of the Preaching Friars, entitled, The Lives of the Brothers: But this Work belongs to GERARD de FRACHET 
Gerard de Frachet.  a Native of Lymoges, a simple Monk, who composed it by the Order of Humbert his General. This Work was printed at Dovay in 1519: Gerard de Frachet likewise composed a Chronicle from the beginning of the World, to the Coronation of Charles King of Sicily; that is, to the year 1266, which may be seen in Manuscript in many Libraries. He died the 4th of October 1271.  
BARTHOLOMEW of Bresse Professor and Interpreter of the Canon Law, who flourished 
Bartholomew of Bresse.  about the year 1240, composed divers Treatises of the Law: namely, A Repertory of the Decree divided into three Books, five Books upon the Decretals, divers Letters, and a Chronicle of the Cities of Italy. We have none of these Works. He died in the year 1258, being 84 years old.  
GODFREY the Bald Archbishop of Bourges is Author of the Life of St. William Bishop 
Godfrey the Bald.  of St. Brieux, related by Surius in the 29th of July. He flourished about the year 1240.  
WILLIAM a Monk of St. Martin of Tournay, made about the year 1246 a Collection 
William of St. Martin.  of Sentences, or Flowers taken out of the Works of St. Bernard, printed at Paris without a name in 1499, and at Lions in 1556. This we find in Manuscript with the name of this Monk to it, in the Library of Citeaux.  
GILES a Monk of Orval of the Order of Citeaux in the Duchy of Luxemburg, composed 
Giles of Orval.  about the year 1246, a History of the Bishops of Liege, published by Chapeaville, and printed at Liege in his Collection in the year 1613.  
BERNARD Priest and Sacrist of the Church of Compostella was in favour with Pope Innocent 
Bernard of Compostella.  VI who made him his Chaplain. He composed a Commentary upon the first Books of the Decretals, printed at Paris in 1516, and a Treatise of notable things, and Cases upon the five Books of Decretals, printed at Nuremberg in 1493, and at Strasburg in 1498; not to speak of his Collections of the Pope's Bulls, and of the Chronicle of the ancient Kings of Spain, which is in the fourth Volume of Hispania Illustris.  
CONRADE Bishop Coadjutor, or Vicar of the Archbishop of Mentz, composed a Chronicle 
Conrade.  of the History of Mentz from the year 1140, to the year 1250, printed at Basil in 1535, 1569, and among Urstitius' Historians of Germany. He likewise made a Chronicle of the former times, printed at Francfort in 1584.  
ALBERT a Monk of Stade in the Archbishopric of Bremen was chosen Abbot of that 
Albert.  Monastery in 1232; but desiring to put in execution a Bull which he had obtained of Pope Gregory IX. for the Reform of it to the Order of Citeaux, and the Monks refusing to comply with him therein, he removed into the Order of Minor Friars in the year 1240, of which he was afterwards General. He made a Chronicle from the beginning of the World to the year 1256, taken from the best Authors, whose Words he relates, and clears from a great deal of false History, which the Authors of that Age used carefully to collect. This Work was published in 1587., by Reinerius Reineccius, and printed at Helmstadt, and since reprinted at Wittenberg in 1608.  
DAVID of Augsburg of the Order of Minor Friars, flourished about the year 1250. He is the Author of three little Pieces of Piety; the first entitled, The Novice's Formula for the 
David of Augsburg.  Reformation of the outward Man; the second, A Formula for the inward Man; and the third, A Mirror of the seven steps of Religious: The two first were printed by themselves at Augsburg in 1593., and the last under the name of St. Bonaventure at Antwerp in 1591. They are all three, with the name of David of Augsburg to them, in the Library of the Fathers, of Cologn, and in the last. Trithemius assures us that this Author made many Sermons, which have not yet seen the light.  
ALBERICK VERUS or VERE of the Family of the Earls of Oxford and Clare, a 
Alberick Verus.  Regular Canon of St. Austin, flourished about the year 1250. He composed a Treatise of the Eucharist, the Life of St. Osithus, and the Antiquities of his Monastery, which bore the name of this Saint. The Life is in Surius in the 7th of October.  
WALTER of the Order of Minor Friars and Bishop of Poitiers, flourished about the 
Walter.  year 1250. He composed a Sum of Theology upon the Books of the Master of the Sentences, quoted by St. Thomas in his Sum of Quodlibetick Questions, and Sermons for the whole year, written by order of Pope Alexander IU.  
ROGER wrote a History about the year 1250 of the piteous Estate of the Kingdom of Hungary 
Roger.  ruined by the Tartars, which is at the end of the Chronicles of Hungary.  
CONSTANTINE of Orvi●to flourished about 1250. There's no other Work ascribed 
Constantine.  to him but the Life of St. Dominick.  
ENGELBERT Abbot of the Order of Citeaux who flourished about the same time, wrote 
Engelbert.  the Life of St. Edwiga related by Surius in the 15th of October.  
ROBERT RICH of Abington, Monk of Pontigny, and ROBERT BACON an 
Robert Rich, and Robert Bacon.  Oxonian Doctor, wrote the Life and History of the Translation of St. Edmond Archbishop of Canterbury, who died in 1240. Their Work was written ten or twelve years after: It is in Surius in the 16th of November.  
JOHN de DIEU a Spaniard, Doctor in the Canon Law in the University of Bologn, and 
John de Dieu.  Canon of that City, flourished about the middle of this Century, and composed many Treatises of the Canon Law, and a Penitential addressed to the Bishop and Chapter of Bologn. None of these Works have been yet printed. The late Monsieur Le Feron Canon of Chartres, and Doctor of the Faculty of Paris, whose Learning and Piety are well known to the Learned World, had a Manuscript of it, from which Monsieur Petit the Publisher of the Penitential of Theodore took those Extracts which he hath put at the end of it. 'Tis likewise in Manuscript in the Cambridg Library. The other Works that Trithemius mentions of this Author are, His Sum of otherwise. A Sum of the Government of Life: The Ordinary; or, The Alphabet of a Religious Life: A short Discourse of the Worth and Abuse of Philosophy: Another Discourse of the four Cardinal Virtues of the ancient Princes and Philosophers: An Abridgement of the Lives of the famous Philosophers, printed at Lions in 1511: A Sum of Conferences, printed at Paris in 1516, and 1561. The Morals to the Fables of Ovid, printed at Paris in 1509, not to speak of the second Collection of Decretals which we have already mentioned. There are many other Manuscript Works of this Author.  
GILBERT or GUIBERT of Tournay of the Order of Minor Friars, flourished in the 
Gilbert of Tournay.  University of Paris about the year 〈◊〉. He wrote at the desire of John Bishop of Tournay, the Life of St. Fleutherius the first Apostle of that Country, published by Bollandus in the 10th of February. There are in the Library of the Father's two Treatises of this Author's, one of the Functions of a Bishop, and the Ceremonies of the Church, and the other of the peace and tranquillity of the Soul. He is likewise the Author of many Sermons printed at Paris in 1518. Lastly, Henry of Gand assures us that this Author made the History of the first Voyage of St. Lovis into the Holy Land. He died before the year 1293, for Henry of Gand who died in that year mentions his Death.  
RALPH BOCKING of Chichester, a Monk of the Order of Preaching Friars, wrote 
Ralph Bocking.  about the year 1270, the Life of St. Richard Bishop of Chichester, the Abridgement of which is in Surius in the ●d of April, and was published by the Bollandists on the same day. He composed some Sermons.  
JOHN GENES de la CAILLE of the Order of Minor Friars, wrote a Treatise of 
John Genes.  the City of Jesus Christ, printed at Reggio in 1501, and at Rome in 1523. He flourished about the year 1270.  
WILLIAM of Sandwich, an Englishman, of the Order of Carmelites, composed about 
William of Sandwich.  the year 1270, a Chronicle of the increase of the Carmelites in Syria and Palestine; of the ruin of their Monastries in that Country, and their removal into Europe. He stayed a long time upon Mount Carmel, and in the Holy Land, and did not return into England till after the taking of Acre, or Ptolemais by the Saracens, which fell out in 1251. The Carmelites have not forgot to put this Author in the Collection of the Historians of their Order, which they made in four Volumes in Folio, with the Title of The Mirror of the Carmelites, printed at Antw●● 〈◊〉 1680; and the Bollandists have put him in their Historical Treatise of the Patriarches of Jerusalem, which is at the beginning of the 3d Tome of the Month March. He likewise, if we may believe Trithemius, composed a Commentary upon the Master of the Sentences, Remarks upon the Rule of his Order, and a Collection of Decretals for the Religious.  
Trithemius among the School-Divines of the Thirteenth Century, about the year 1270, ●…ces 
William Guarron.  WILLIAM GUARRON, an Englishman, of the Order of Minor Friars, who 〈◊〉 says was Scotus his Master, and very expert in Aristotle's Philosophy, according to the Custom●… the Modern Divines. He wrote a Commentary upon the four Books of Sentences.  
THOMAS SPOTT or SPROTT a benedictine Monk of the Monastery of St. A●●gustin 
Thomas Spott, and William Thernus.  in England, about the year 1257 wrote the Lives of the Abbots of his Monastery, which were also written some time after by WILLIAM THORNUS Monk of the same Monestry, who copied the History of S●… only adding some Circumstances.  
THOMAS of Lentini a Sicilian of the Order of Preaching Friars, after having been a 
Thomas of Lentini.  Voyage into the Holy Land, was made Archbishop of Cosensa, and sent again into the East in 1272 by Pope Gregory X in quality of his Legate, to govern the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. He died there about the year 1277. He wrote the Life of St. Peter Martyr of his Order, related by the Bollandists in the third Volume of April.  
MARTIN a Polander, and a Religious of the Order of Preaching Friars, had the Office of 
Martin.  Pen●●ary of the Church of Rome under the Pope's 〈◊〉 XXI. and Nicholas III. He was by the latter of those ●amed to the Archbishopric of Gnesne in Poland the 23d of June in 1278, and died at Bolo●● the same year as he was in his way thither. He composed a Chronicle from the Birth of Jesus Christ to the year 1277, containing the History of the Emperors and Popes. Many Additions have been made to this Chronicle, and among others the History of the She Pope Joan, which are in the Basil Edition of 1559, and the Antwerp one of 1574. But these Additions are retrenched in the Edition of John Fabricius a Regular Canon of the Order of Premontre from an old Manuscript of that time, printed at Cologn 1616. They ascribe to hi● also Sermons printed at Strasburg in 1486, and 1488. Some Authors take notice of a Sum of the Canon Law made by this Author, and by him called Martiniana, and of a Treatise of the memorable things of Rome.  
NICHOLAS of Hanaps, so named from a Village in the Diocese of Rheims where he was 
Nicholas of Hanips.  born, was of the Order of Preaching Friars. He performed the Office of Penitentiary at Rome about the year 1270, and was made Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1281, by Pope Martin the iv He died at Prolemais in 1288. He made an Historical Collection of Examples of Vices and Virtues taken from the Holy Scripture, in 34 Chapters, commonly called, The Poor Man's Bible: Some have falsely ascribed this to St. Bonaventure, and among his Works it is printed: But the Manuscripts give their Testimony for Nicholas of Hanaps, and it hath been printed under his name at Tubingen in 1533, at Venice in 1537, at Paris in 1547, and at Basil in 1550.  
BONAVENTURE BROCARD Native of Strasburg of the Order of Preaching Friars, made 
Bonaventure Brocard.  the Voyage of the Holy Land about the year 1280, and hath left us a very exact Description of it, one part of which hath been published by Canisius in his sixth Tome of Antiquities. Andricomius, who made use of it for the making his Map of the Holy Land, assures us that this Description is entire in a Manuscript of the Library of the Croisiers of Cologn. They attribute to him the Annals of the Actions of the Emperor Frederick II. in the Holy Land, which Wolfangus, Lasius, and Simlerus mention.  
MARK PAUL a Venetian, Son of Nicholas Paul, after having traveled for a long time, 
Mark Paul.  wrote in Italian a Relation of his Travels, which hath been translated into Latin and printed at Rosil in 1532, and 1535, and at Helmstat in 1585.  
MATTHEW of Vendome, so named from his Country, Abbot of St. Dennis, flourished 
Matthew of Vendome.  under the Reign of St. Lovis, and was one of those to whom this Holy King left the Administration of his Kingdom, when he went his second Voyage to the Holy Land; and the Man whom he named Executor of his Will. He governed the Abbey of St. Dennis from the year 1260, to the year 1286, in which he died. They ascribe to him a Poem in Elegiac Verse, containing the History of the Tobies, dedicated to Bartholomew Archbishop of Tours: It is well enough, considering the time it was written in, and very sententious; it hath been printed at Lions in 1505, at Basil in 1563, and at Breme in 1642.  
GEOFFREY of Beaulieu of the Order of Preaching Friars, and Confessor to St. Lewis, 
Geoffrey of Beaulieu. William of Chartres.  whom he assisted at his Death, wrote the Life of that King by order of Pope Gregory X. Another Deminican named WILLIAM of Chartres, Chaplain to that King, added to it a second Book of the Life and Miracles of that Saint. These two Books are printed in the 5th Tome of Duchesne's Collection.  
JOHN PECKHAM of the County of Sussex in England, entered himself into the Order 
John Pecham.  of Minor Friars; after having studied at Oxford he went to perfect himself at Paris, and returning into England he publicly professed. But he was soon called back again to Paris, and from thence to Lions, where he had a Canon's Place, which he enjoyed till his Death. From Lions he went to Rome, where he got so into the Pope's favour that the Archbishopric of Canterbury happening to be vacant by the Resignation of Robert Killwarbey, the Pope made choice of him to fill the place; and accordingly he was consecrated at Rome the 6th of March in 1278. so he returned into his own Country, raised to the chief Dignity in the Realm: but he was to pay a good Sum for it to the Pope, and he had great Differences with the Archbishop of York. Yet he peaceably enjoyed his Archbishopric, and enriched, and raised his Kindred, who were poor and of mean Extraction. He died in 1291. He composed a Book, entitled, Collectanea, or, Collectorium Bibliorum, printed at Paris in 1514, and at Cologn in 1541. We have forty seven Ecclesiastical Constitutions of this Archbishop, and in the Libraries of England many other Treatises of his in Manuscript, as, A Book of the Trinity: Conferences for all the Sundays in the year: Meditations upon the Body of Jesus Christ: Disputes between St. Thomas and this Author.  
WILLIAM DURANTS born at Puy in Languedoc, a Scholar of Henry of Susa's, first 
William Durants.  studied at B●logn, and having there taken the Doctor's Cap, he taught the Canon Law at Modena, from whence Pope Clement iv called him to be his Chaplain, and Auditor of the Palace. He was by Gregory X. sent Legate to the Council of Lions in 1274, and at last made Bishop of Mende in 1286. He afterwards refused the Archbishopric of Ravenna offered him by Boniface VIII. but he accepted the Legation to the Sultan of Egypt, and having gone thither, he died at Nicosia in the Island of Cyprus on the 6th of July in the year 1296. He was so excellent at dispatch of business, that he was surnamed, The Father of Practics. He hath left us a Book intitused, The Mirror of the Law, in three Parts, dedicated to Cardinal Ottobon, afterwards Adrian V The Repertory of the Law taken out of this Work, and the Rationale of Divine Offices: A Commentary upon the Canons of the Council of Lions, and an Abridgement of the Glosses, and the Text of the Canon Law. The Mirror and the Repertory of the Law have been printed with the Rationale, at Lions in the year 1516, and 1551. The Mirror was likewise printed by itself at Basil in 1574, and at Franckfort with the Repertory in 1592. The Rationale is the most common, and hath been printed many times in many places. The Commentary upon the Canons of the Council of L●●ns ●…h been printed at Fano in 1569, and the Abridgement of the Glosses at Paris in 151●.  
An Anonymous Author of the Order 〈◊〉 Pr●…ng Friar's, who began the Annals of the D●…inicans 
Anonymous Authors.  of Colm●●, which are printed among the Historians of Germany, wrote ●…out the year 1280; but this Chronicle has by some other been continued down to the year 1302. It is full of Trifles.  
JOHN of Hayde flourished under Edward King of England about the year 1280. He 
John of Hayde.  wrote the Passion of St. Laurence, 〈◊〉 the Life of St. Maclius.  
WILLIAM de la MARE of the Order of Minor Friars, flourished about the year 
William de la Mare.  1280. He wrote a Commentary upon the Master of the Sentences, and having undertaken to criti●… upon the Works of St. Thomas, he wrote a Book, in●…ed, The Correctory of the Works of St. Thomas, and of the Additions to the Works of St. Bonaventure.  
RUPERT or ROBERT of Russia, of the Order of Minor Friars, flourished about the 
Rupert of Russia.  year 1●…. He taught Divinity with Reputation. He is the Author of many Works. Trithemius tak●… notice only of these: An Explanation of the Rule of St. Francis, dedicated to A●m●n an Englishman General of his Order: Four Books upon the Sentences, and many Sermons. Bellarmine adds to these a Book of the Soul. I could not get notice of any of his Works, or know whether they are printed or no.  
ULRIO 〈◊〉 at Stra●burg, of the Order of Preaching Friars, flourished in the University 
Ulric of Strasburg.  of Paris about the year 1280. He composed a Sum of Divinity; a Treatise upon the Sentences; a Treatise of the Soul; another Treatise of Cases of Conscience, and Questions of the Law; and Commentaries upon some Books of Aristotle. None of these Works are to be 〈◊〉 with in print; but some attribute an Abridgement which is among the Works of St. Thomas Aq●…nas to him. He died young, and before he had gotten a Doctor's Cap.  
St. GERTRUDE and St. MATILDA Sisters, and Religiouses of the Monastery of 
St. Gertrude, and St. Matilda.  Benedictines of Helfen●en in the County of Mansfeld, composed about the end of this Century Books of Piety in Germane, which have since been translated into Latin; namely, St. Ge●… Spiritual Exercises, and St. Matilda Revelations. These little Pieces have been printed 〈◊〉 Paris in 1513, at Cologn in 1536, at Venice in 1522, and 1588., and in other places. Th●● died about the year 1290. The former of them was made Abbess of Rodalsdorf in 12●● whence she was the next year with her Nuns removed to Helfenden.  
THEODO●…CK of Apolda in Thuringen, of the Order of Preaching Fria●… 
Thierri of Apolda.  the year 12●9, the Life of St. Elizabeth Daughter to Andrew King of Hungary, 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Land●grave of Thuringen, in eight Books, published by Canisius in the 5th 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Antiquities. He ●…eth in his Preface that he was above sixty years old when he began th●… W●… and had been two and forty years in his Order. Whatsoever Volfius says, it doth 〈◊〉 appear 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of St. D●… in seven Books belongs to another Thierri; but one may t●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S●rius who publish●● it, according to his Custom, hath changed the Style in m●n● place.  
About the end of this Century they place GOBELINUS, who wrote the Life of St. M●… 〈◊〉 
Gobelin.  Archdeacon of 〈◊〉, published by Brouverus in 1616, with the Life of St. 〈◊〉 Bishop of that City.  
EGEHARD Abbot of Urangen wrote about the same time a Chronicle of the Bishops of 
Egehard.  Hildesheim from Charlemain to the year 1290, published in the same place by Brouverus, with the ●ife of Godehard Bishop of Hildesheim.  
Those who have written of the Authors of the Dominican Order, join two of them together 
Conrade and Stephanardus.  who lived about the end of this Age. CONRADE a Germane, who about the year 1200 wrote: Life of 〈◊〉 Dominick, and STEPHANARDUS a Milan Divine, who made a Chronicle of M●… in ●…se: He seems to be the same with Stephanardus Fl●mmius who wrote a His●… in verse of the Snares ●…d by the Bishop of Co●o for Viscount Otho, where he accuses the Fo●… of having h●d a hand in it, spoken of by Paulus ●ovius, and perhaps that is nothing but a fragment of his Chronicle. We have none of these Works.  
They place in this Century one RALPH of Colonna Canon of Chartres, who about the 
Ralph of Colonna.  year 1290 composed a Treatise of the Translation of the Empire, dedicated to Lambert of Castille Professor of the Law, wherein he would prove that they were the Popes who removed the Greek Empire to the Latins, published by Goldastus in the second Tome of his Monarchy. The Treatise is well enough written, and full of very important matters; but it is likewise full of Prejudices for the Court of Rome, which make him maintain a false Proposition.  
THOMAS PALMERAN an Irishman, Doctor of the House of Sorbonne, is the Author 
Thomas Palmeran.  of two Collections, one taken out of the Holy Scripture, the other out of the Fathers, entitled, Flowers of the Bible, and Flowers of the Fathers, and printed at Paris in 1556, and at Lions in 1678, and 1679. He flourished about the year 1290, as it is set dow●… some Manuscripts of his Works.  
GUY de BAIF born at Reggio, a Lawyer and Archdeacon of Bologn, flourished about the 
Guy de Baif.  year 1290. He composed three Books of Commentaries upon the Decree, and five upon the Decretals: A Work called, The Rosary: It was printed at Venice in 1580, with the Notes of Superans and Tretius.  
GREGORY CAIRGUENT, or of Winchester, a Benedictine Monk of Gloucester, 
Gregory Cairguent.  wrote the Annals of his Monastery from the year 680, to the year 1291. He took the Habit in 1217.  
RAIMOND of Martin's a Catalonian, of the Order of Preaching Friars, professed in 
Raimond of martin's.  the Monastery of Barcelona; and recommended himself by his Knowledge in the Oriental Tongues which was very rare in that time: He undertook that study by the advice of Raimond of Pennafort, that he might confute the Jews and Saracens out of their own Works. In pursuance of which he wrote that Book called, The Dagger of Faith, in which he encounters the Jews and Saracens at their own Weapons. Porchet the Carthusian made use of it, and took out of it almost all that he wrote in his Book entitled, The Victory over the Jews, but he acknowledges to whom he is beholden; whereas Peter Galatin of the Order of Minor Friars, 〈◊〉 confidently copied Porchet and Raimond in his Book of the Secrets of the Catholic Faith without so much as naming either of them; although all the Rabbinical Learning he there makes a noise with be taken out of their Works. That of Raimond hath been printed with the Learned Notes of Monsieur Voisin at Paris in 1651, and at Leipsick in 1687, with an Introduction by Benedict Cap●…ius, and a Treatise by Herman a converted Jew. This Author flourished about the end of this Century.  
NICHOLAS the Gaul seventh General of the Carmelite Order, after having discharged 
Nicholas the Gaul.  that Employ for twenty years, retired into a Solitude about the end of the Century. He is placed among the Church-Authors, because of a Piece of his, entitled, The Arrow of Fire, wherein he deplores the mischance which happened to the Monastery of Mount Carmet of his Order, which had been burned by the Saracens, and many Monks killed.  
SIGEARD Monk of St. Alban in England, wrote the Life of that Saint, which Trithemius 
Sigeard.  〈◊〉 ●…d which Vossius says is that which is in the fifth Tome of the Antiquities of Canisius. He flour●… at the end of this Century.  
MATTHEW of Aquasporta, twelfth General of the Order of Minor Friars, Penitentiary 
Matthew of Aquasporta.  of Rome, afterwards Bishop of Porto, and made Cardinal by Nicholas the iv distinguished himself by divers Works he is Author of▪ namely, A Treatise of Divinity upon the Master of the Sentences: An Inventory, or an Abridgement, with a Table of the Sentences: Quodlibetick Questions: A Commentary upon St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans: Postilles upon the Psalms, and upon the Epistles of St. Paul, and divers Sermons. He died when Boniface VIII. was Pope.  
ARLOTTE of Tuscany, General of the Order of Minor Friars about the year 1290, is 
Arlotte of Tuscany.  Author of a Concordance of the Old and New Testament. He likewise wrote some Sermons.  
About the same time flourished LUKE of Milan, a Religious of that Order, who composed 
Luke of Milan.  some Sermons.  
SIMON Monk of Afflighem, who flourished about the end of this Century, particularly applied 
Simon, William, and Henry of Afflighem.  himself to the making Extracts and Abridgements of the Writings of the Fathers, and composed after this manner a great many Works. Those that Henry of Gand and Trithemius mention are: An Abridgement of the Morals of St. Gregory upon Job: Sermons upon the Song of Songs: The Vision of a Lay-brother of the Monastery of Postela, of the Order of Premontre: Extracts of the Sermons of St. Gregory upon Ezekiel: Extracts of the Conferences of the Fathers, and of the little Treatise of St. Richard of St. Victor concerning the 12 Patriarches. About the same time WILLIAM a Monk and Prior of the same Monastery of Afflighem, translated into Germane Verse the Life of St. Lutgardus, written in Latin by Thomas of Cha●…re; and into Latin he translated a Relation of the Visions of a Nun of the Order of Citeaux who had written it in Germane. Henry of Gand speaks of these two Authors, and of a third, a Monk of the same Monastery named HENRY, a Native of Brussels, who made a Calendar, in which he set down not only the days, but the hours and minutes too of the Lunatio.  
Henry de Gand makes mention of one ALEXANDER of Dol who wrote a Book in Verse, 
Alexander of Dol.  entitled, Doctrinal, which was very m●…n vogue among the Grammarians of his time. Trithemius ca●ls him Alexander of Ville-D●e●, and says that it was commonly believed that he was a Dominion. He ascribes to him Treatises of the Calendar, of the Sphere, and of Arithmetic.  
About the same time flourished GERARD a Dominican, who taught Divinity at Paris, 
Gerard o● Liege.  and afterwards at Liege, whence 〈◊〉 the Surname of Gerard of Liege; he is Author of a Treatise in seven Books, entitled, ●●e Mirror of Preachers, or, The Doctrine of the Heart, which contains the matters wherein Preachers ought to instruct Believers, printed at Naples in 1607.  
Henry of Gand makes mention of a religious Dominican Provincial of France named PETER, 
Peter the Provincial.  who made Sermons upon all the Sundays and Holidays of the year, which he says were made common use of in his time.  
ENGELHARD Abbot of Lan●aim about the year 1290, wrote the Life of St. Matilda 
Engelhard.  Daughter to Ber●oul Earl of ●●dechs, Abbess of Diessen, and afterwards of Oelstisten; it is in the ●●ftl ●●me of the Antiquities of Canisius.  
HENRY GOETHALS, commonly called Henry of Gand, from the name of his 
Henry of Gand.  Country, Arc●● cacon of T●●rnay, took his Degrees in the Facalty of Paris, and taught there with 〈◊〉, which according to the custom of those times got him the name of The Sole●● Doctor. He composed a 〈◊〉 of Divinity, printed by As●●nsius Badius at Paris in 1520, and Quod●…tick Questions in Divinity upon the four Books of the Master of the Sentences, printed at P●ris in 518, and at V●●ice in 1615. A Treatise, of famous Men or Ecclesiastical A●thors in which continues the Works of St. Jerom, and Sigchert of Gemblours down to his own time, beginning with ●●shertus Bishop of Ch●rtres, and ending at Eurard of Bethune. The Work was printed with those of St. Jerom and Sigebert in the Editions of Sifroy at Cologn 〈◊〉 1580 and Au●…us de la Mire at Antwerp in 1639. He likewise is the Author of a Treatise o● V●…ty. Treatise of Penance, Sermons, and the Life of St. Eleutherius Bishop of T●…nay, not to ●●eak of his Commentaries upon Aristotle, Works which Trithemius speaks 〈◊〉 and which may be seen in Manuscript in some Libraries in Flanders. This Author died the 29● of James 1293.  
RICHARD of Middleton, in Latin De media villa, surnamed, The Solid Doctor, an Englishman 
Richard of Middleton.  of the Order of Minor Friars, after having gone through his Studies at Oxford, ●…rished in the University of Paris about the year 1290, and returning into his own Country, 〈◊〉 there teach with great reputation, and died there in 1300. He composed four Books of Questions upon the Master of the Sentences, printed at Venice in 1509, and 1589, and at Bresse in 1591.; and eighty Quodlibetick Questions of Divinity, which are at the end of his Commentaries upon the Sentences. He likewise wrote a Commentary upon the four Gospels, a Commentary upon the E●…es of St. Paul: A Treatise of Law about the Order of Judgements: but these Works have not been yet printed.  
JACOBUS de VORAGINE, so called from the name of the City of Warragio ●●ar 
James de Voragine.  Genes where he was born, entered himself into the Order of Preaching Friars, and after having been Provincial in Lombardy, he was made General of his Order, and at last in the year 1292 raised to the Archbishopric of Genes, wherein he remained till 1298 the year of his Death. He is Author of the Golden Legend which contains the Lives of the Saints, where he hath amassed together without judgement or Discretion a heap of Stories for the most part fabulous. See what a Judgement Melchior Canus gives of him, That Legend, says he, was written by a Man that had a Mouth of Iron, and a Heart of Lead, and who had neither Justice nor Prudence in him. The ●…racles that we read there are rather Monsters of Miracles than true ones. Yet it has sold mightily, and it was one of the ostenest printed Books in the Fifteenth Century, in which it was printed at Nuremberg in 1478, and 1493, at Deventer in 1479, and 1483, at Venice in 1483, at Basil in 1486, at Strasburg in 1496, and at the beginning of the Sixtenth Century, at Lions in 1510, and at Strasburg in 1518. There is an Abrigdment made of it printed at V●●ice in 1498. The same Author made a great many Sermons: namely, for the Lant, for the Sundays of the year, for the Saints days, upon the Griefs of the Virgin, and a Work, entitled, Mariale Aur●●um, containing a hundred and sixty Discourses in an Alphabetical Order in praise of the Blessed Virgin; but they are just as much worth as his Legend, both for the Style which is mean and trivial, and for the matters they contain. These Sermons have been often printed singly, and altogether at Mentz in 1616. But though his Works will not comment this Archbishop, yet certainly his Life and Piety will; for he was very devout, and very charitable to the Poor, to whom he distributed almost all the Revenues of his Archbishopric. He very much studied the Works of St. Austin, and had made an Abridgement of him. He likewise procured a Version of the Bible into the Italian Tongue.  
GUY of Munois in the Diocese of Autun, was Monk of the Abbey of St. german of Auxerre, 
Guy of Munois.  and afterwards Abbot thereof in 1277. This Dignity was disputed with him, and he was forced to go twice to Rome to plead his Right to it, where after eight years he at last gained his Cause. In 1309 he voluntarily resigned his Abbey, and retired into a private Cell, where he died the 23d of February in 1313. He studied Divinity and the Canon Law at Orleans, and at Paris for nine years. Father Labbe hath published a History of the Abbots of St. german of Auxerre from the year 1189 to 1277, composed by this Author.  
PTOLEMY of Lucques of the Order of Preaching Friars, was a Scholar of St. Thomas 
Ptolemy of Lucques.  Aquinas, and afterwards Bishop of Torcello. He has wrote the Lives of the Popes to Celestin V in whose time he lived.  
JOHN the Teutonick of the Order of Preaching Friars, Bishop of Bosnia in Hungary, flourished 
John the Teut●…  at the end of this Century, and the beginning of the next. He composed a Sum for Preachers, printed at Rutli●gen in 1487; and the Confessor's Sum, printed at Lions in 1518. They say too that it was he that made the Table of the Sum of the Apparatus of Raimond of Pennafort.  
Among the Authors that flourished at the end of this Century, Trithemius places a Spaniard 
Garsias.  named GARSIAS, who taught the Civil and Canon Law with reputation, and composed many Works upon that Subject, and particularly a Commentary upon the Decretals.  
HENRY, or as others call him AMANDUS SUSAN of the Order of Preaching Friars, 
Henry Suson.  lived at the end of this Century, or in the next, for some place his Death in 1306, and some put it off till 1365; but be that how it will, he is the Author of divers little Works of Piety in Germane, which have been translated by Surius, and printed at Cologn in 1588. The Titles of them are these: The Clock of Wisdom: A hundred Meditations upon the Passion of Jesus Christ, with as many Prayers: A Discourse of the nine Rocks: A Dialogue about Truth: Sermons for all the year, for the Holydays of the Saints, and for Lent: Divers Letters full of pious Thoughts. The first of these Works was printed at Venice in 1492, and in 1539; at Naples in 1558, and in other places. There is another Work of Piety of this Author's, called, The daily Office of the Eternal Wisdom.  
WALTER of Exeter of the Order of Preaching Friars, made the Life of Guy Earl of 
Walter of Exeter.  Warwick about the year 1301.  
FRANCIS of Moncade Marquis of Ayttone, and Earl of Ossona, to the nobleness of his Extraction 
Francis of Moncade.  joined the Love of Knowledge and Learned Men. He wrote at the beginning of the Fourteenth Century, the History of the Expedition of the Catalonians and Arragonians, under Roger Vice-Admiral of Sicily, against the Turks and Greeks: which he composed from the Memoirs of Raimond of Montaner who was present in the Expedition, and from the Writings of George Pachymere, and Nicephorus Gregoras thereon.  
Thus you have the greatest part of the Authors that wrote in the Thirteenth Century. No 
Author's whose●…ks are only in Manuscript.  doubt there were more whose Names are quite lost, and others whose Works are not come out of the Libraries where they are in Manuscript. Among such we may take notice of these. WILLIAM a converted Jew, and Deacon of the Church of Boarges (a Disciple of St. William Archbishop of Burges from the year 1199, to the year 1210) who after his Conversion wrote a Work against the Jews, which is in Manuscript in the Library of the Jacobines of the Great Convent of Paris. ADAM of Chamilly, a Monk of Citeaux, made Bishop of Senlis in 1230, and died in 1250, many of whose Sermons we find in Manuscript in the Library of Longpont. MONETA of the Order of Preaching Friars, who flourished about the year 1240, and hath left us a Sum of Divinity: ALBERICK a Monk of Citeaux that made a Chronicle to the year 1241. ALBERTANUS a Lawyer of Bresse in Italy, who flourished about the year 1250, some of whose Treatises of Piety we have in Manuscript; viz. A Treatise of the Love of God and our Neighbour: A Treatise of Consolation and Advice, and a Treatise to teach one to hold one's Tongue and speak. WILLIAM BROSSE raised to the Archbishopric of Sens in the year 1258, composed a Sum of Virtues and Vices which is in the Library of Monsieur Colbert. BENEDICT Bishop of Marseille Elect in 1229, who died in 1254, and left a Treatise of Faith which is in the same Library. THOMAS BOCKINGHAM Chancellor of the University of Oxford, who flourished about the year 1270, and made a Commentary upon the Master of the Sentences, and some other Commentaries upon the Books of the Holy Scripture, which are in the Libraries of England. ODO RIGAUD of the Order of Minor Friars, made Archbishop of Roven in 1247, who died in 1275, whose Sermons and Commentaries upon the Pentateuch, upon the Psalms, and upon the Gospels we have. WILLIAM of Tripoli of the Order of Preaching Friars in the Monastery of Acre in Syria, who wrote the History of the Saracens a●… Mahomet; and WILLIAM of Rubrock of the Order of Minor Friars, who wrote an Itinerary, or a Relation of a Journey into the East upon the same Subject. BALDWIN a Regular Canon of Premontre, Author of a Chronicle from he Birth of Jesus Christ to the year 1294. STEPHEN a Monk of Cella-Nova in Spain, who composed a Relation of the Miracles of St. Rodosindus' Bishop and Monk. JOHN of Nusco Monk of Montevirgine in the Kingdom of Naples, Author of the Life of St. William Founder of his Order: CONRADE Monk of Schru, a Chronicle of whose is to be seen. RALPH of Noir an Englishman, who composed two Chronicles, one a large one, the other an Abridgement. ALEXANDER of Somerset Prior of the Monastery of Regular Canons of Esby in England, who wrote the Lives of many Saints, and made a Calendar in Verse, Works which are in Manuscript in some English Libraries: And in short, many other Authors whose Works may be found in some Library of other.   

CHAP. V.  
The History of the Greek Church, and of the Authors who Flourished in the East during the Thirteenth Century.  
THE State of the Eastern Empire, and of the Greek Church in the Thirteenth Century, was Subject 
The History of the Greek Church.  to various Revolutions. The Emperor isaac Angelus, after he had Reigned Nine Years, was dethroned in the Year 1195, by his own Brother Alexius, who took upon him the Surname of Comnenus, and after he had put out his Brother's Eyes, cast him and his young Son into Prison. The Son having made his Escape from Constantinople, went into Germany to wait upon his Brother-in-Law the Emperor Philip, by whose Advice he made his Application to the Army of the Crusade, which was ready to march for the Conquest of the Holy-Land. He desired that before they marched into Palestine, they would Re-establish him in Constantinople, and Expel the Usurper, withal promising afterwards to join Forces with them, and to help them to considerable Supplies. This Proposal being made to the Crusade, at their Rendezvous at Venice, by the Emperor's Ambassadors and the Deputies of Alexius, was accepted by the Venetians and French, whose Army marched to, and besieged Constantinople in the Year 1203, and within Eight days took it. Alexius the Elder fled by the Bosphorus and the Euxine Sea to Zagora, an Isle of Thrace. Isaac was set at liberty, and Re-established on the Throne with his Son Alexius. This Prince promised to recognize the Pope, to put an end to the Schism, and to reconcile all his Subjects to the Church of Rome: But not being as yet altogether in a Capacity of performing what he had promised to the Princes of the Crusade, he prevailed upon them to put off their Expedition into the Holy-Land till Easter following. During this time the Latin Army sat down before the Gates of Constantinople, and that natural Aversion which they bore to the Greeks, was the cause of frequent Quarrels and Contests between them; in one of which Rencounters, several Soldiers of the Army were so far incensed by those who lived in the Suburbs of the City, that they set it on Fire, and destroyed Part of it. This Accident rendered not only the Latins, but also the two Emperors whom they had re-established, odious to the Greeks, and gave occasion to one of their Kinsmen named Murzulphus, to Usurp the Government. It was by his Advice that Alexius had refused to grant to the Croisado what he had promised them. At last they broke out into an open War with them, wherein the Greeks not meeting with that Success which they hoped for, the Constantinopolitans, who supposed they were betrayed by their Princes, Proclaimed Nicolas Cannaba Emperor. Murzulphus having seized upon Alexius, caused himself to be acknowledged Emperor by the People, clapped Cannaba into Chains, strangled Alexius in Prison, and put an end to the Life of Isaac. But he was soon after Chastised for his Treason by the Crusade, who immediately laid Siege to Constantinople, and took it by Storm on the 12th of April 1204. Murzulphus made his escape the Night before, and Theodorus Lascaris was Elected in his room by the Greeks. The City was given up to be Plundered by the Soldiers, who committed all manner of Cruelties and Outrages. After the taking of this City the Latins Elected Baldwin Count of Flanders for Emperor, and Thomas Morosini a Venetian for Patriarch: For they had agreed that if the Emperor were a Frenchman, the Patriarch should be a Venetian. They became Masters of all the Churches, and supplied them with Latin Priests: And afterwards enlarging their Conquests in Greece, they reduced under their Obedience almost all that had belonged to the Grecian Emperors in Europe, and divided it among them. Murzulphus and Old Alexius fell into the Hands of the Latins, the former was put to death, and the latter Imprisoned: So that, there only remained Theodorus Lascaris, who having escaped into Asia, set up the Imperial Seat at Nice.  
The New Emperor Baldwin wrote a Letter to the Pope upon the taking of Constantinople, wherein he heaps up a great many Reproaches upon the Greeks, exaggerates their Perfidiousness, their Wickedness, and their Hatred to the Church of Rome, and gives a Narrative of the Abuses which had crept in amongst them. Pope Innocent III. upon the Receipt of this Letter wrote to the Emperor Baldwin, to the Bishops and Priests of the Latin Church, who were at Constantinople, to use their endeavours to reduce the Greeks under the Obedience of the Holy See. But notwithstanding all their endeavours, and tho' the Pope's Legates made use of very harsh and rigorous Methods to constrain them to it, yet they could not gain their end, and the Emperor, Henry Baldwin's Successor, was forced to put a stop to these Proceed; to open the Greek Churches, and to set their Priests and Monks at liberty in spite of Pelagius the Pope's Legate who opposed it. The Bulgarians in the year 1204, returned to their Obedience to the Pope. Theodorus Comnenus Prince of Epirus abjured the Schism under the Pontificate of Honorius III. and afterwards having taken upon him the Title of Emperor of Constantinople, and become Master of Thessalonica, he was Excommunicated by Pope Gregory IX. in the Year 1229.  
The Emperor Baldwin did not long enjoy his new Dignity, for he was taken on the 15th of August 1205, by John King of the Bulgarians, who kept him in Prison for Sixteen Months, at the end of which he died a cruel Death. After his Death, his Brother Henry was advanced to the Empire in the Year 1206, who Reigned Ten Years or thereabouts, and had for his Successor Peter of Courtnay Count of Auxerre, who had married Jolanta the Sister or Daughter of Henry. But that unfortunate Prince never entered into the Possession of the Empire: For being on his way thither, after he had been Crowned at Rome by Honorius III. he was taken in his passage through Thrace, by Theodorus Prince of Epirus, and sent to the Emperor Theodorus Lascaris, who put him to death. His Son Robert Succeeded him in the Year 1221, who dying in the Year 1228, was Succeeded by his Brother Baldwin II. from whom the Greeks retook Constantinople in the Year 1261.  
During this the Greeks had an Emperor at Nice in Bythinia: Theodorus Lascaris was the first, and in the Year 1222, John Ducas his Son-in-Law Succeeded him. This John retook from the Latins a Part of those Countries which they had Conquered, and after he had Reigned Three and thirty Years, left his Son Theodore Lascaris Heir to his Estates, which he did not long enjoy, being taken away by death in the Fourth Year of his Reign, A. D. 1259. His Son John being in his Minority was soon turned out of the Empire by Michael Palaeologus the Son of Andronicus Palaeologus, and by the Mother's side descended from the Family of the Comneni, who put to death the Man whom Theodore had nominated for the Young Prince's Tutor, caused himself at first to be declared Regent, afterwards Associate of the Empire, and at last rid himself of his Colleague, after he had caused his Eyes to be put out. Michael had an happy Beginning of his Reign by the taking of Constantinople, which Alexius Strategopulus Caesar had seized upon by the Treachery of some Greeks, who were in the City in the Year 1261, and drove out thence the Latins.  
Under the Empire of John Ducas Pope Gregory IX. entered into a Negotiation in the Year 1233, with Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople, Residing at Nice for the Reunion of the Two Churches. 
Projects set on f●ot for the Reunion of the Greeks and Latins.  That Pope wrote a Letter to the Patriarch (related by Matthew Paris) about the Differences in Religion which were between the Greeks and Latins; and made choice of Two Monks of the Order of the Preaching Friars, named Hugh and Peter, and two of the Order of the Minor Friars, named Aimo and Radulphus, to treat with the Patriarch. They met at Nice, where they had several Conferences with the Greeks about the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and the Celebration of the Eucharist with unleavened Bread. But they came to no Conclusion, and the Patriarch of Constantinople told them, that he would call a Synod, where the Patriarches of Jerusalem and Antioch would meet him, with whom he might resolve upon something in the Case. The Pope's Advocates retired to Constantinople, from whence they were called to Nymphea in Bythinia, near the Euxine Sea, where that Council of the Greeks was held on the morrow after Easter-day, in the Year 1233. They there repeated all that had been said on either side at Nice concerning the Two Points in Question; and after several Disputes, the Greeks gave in Writing a Declaration, wherein they maintained, That one might celebrate the Eucharist with Unleavened Bread, and the Latins presented a Profession of Faith, concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost. The Latins refuted the Opinion of the Greeks about Unleavened Bread by the Authorities of Scripture, and of the Greek Fathers: The Greeks opposed the Testimonies of others against them, and the Dispute lasted till late at Night. They had no Conference afterwards for several days together; and at last the Emperor John Ducas proposed to the Latins, to leave out that Addition made in the Creed about the Procession of the Holy Ghost; and to permit the Greeks to adhere to their Opinion; and that the Greeks should acknowledge and approve of the Sacrament of the Latins, celebrated with Unleavened Bread: But the Pope's Legates replied, that the Pope would not part with the least Iot● of the Faith; and that the Greeks ought to believe, and Preach to others concerning the Body of Jesis Christ, that it may as well be done with Unleavened as with leavened Bread. And concerning the Holy Ghost, that he proceedeth as well from the Son as from the Father; and that they should inculcate this Doctrine to the People: But that the Pope would not force them to add this Clause expressly in their Creed, when they Sung it in the Church, nor condemn the Sacrament of the Greeks celebrated with leavened Bread. The Greeks were very much nettled at this Proposition, and having called together the Pope's Legates a second time, ordered their Profession of Faith about the Procession of the Holy Ghost to be read before them, and offered several Passages of the Fathers to refute it. The Pope's Legates adhered stiffly to their Sentiments, and both sides parted looking on each other as Heretics. Afterwards the Pope's Legates obtained Leave to departed. The Greeks sent in all haste after them, to regain the Declaration which they had given them concerning Unleavened Bread; and gave them another concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost, wherein they produced a great many Passages out of the Greek Fathers to prove that he proceeds only from the Father.  
There was likewise another Treaty of Reunion set on foot, between Pope Alexander IU. and the Emperor Theodore Lascaris. This Pope sent him the Bishop of Orvieto as his Legate, and gave him an Instruction containing the Articles of Obedience to the Holy See, granted by the Greeks in the time of Innocent III. with the Demands of the Greeks, and the Answers which the Legate ought to return them. But this Negotiation had no success, and the Legate was sent back without having done any thing in the Business.  
Michael Palaeologus overseeing that the Pope would not fail to arm the Princes of the West against him for the Retaking of Constantinople, resolved upon proposing the Reunion of the Greeks with 
The Reunion of the Greeks and Latins under Michael Palaeologus.  the Roman Church, that by this means he might free himself from the fear of those terrible Croisade-Men. He thereupon sent as his Ambassador to Pope Urban IU. Nicholas Bishop of Crotona a Greek by Nation, but brought up in the Church of Rome; to assure his Holiness, that he was persuaded the Greeks and Latins did not differ in the Faith; that the Bishop who came to wait upon him, had given him to understand, That the Latin and Greek Fathers were of the same Mind; that he entreated his Holiness to send him a Legate for the more speedy reuniting of the Two Churches: Urban iv replied to those Proposals in a very obliging manner, and sent him Two Nuncio's of the Order of the Minor Friars, with the Bishop of Crotona. The Affair however dropped for the present, because Michael Palaeologus seeing himself out of Danger, was not so urgent in pressing the Accommodation; but the Pope's Nuntios having granted to the Greeks several Points which did not very well please Clement IU. Urban's Successor: That Pope wrote to Michael Palaeologus, and sent him a Profession of Faith, containing the Articles of the Creed explained in very clear Terms, and particularly the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son; to which he added the Doctrine of the Roman Church touching Baptism, Purgatory, Hell, the Seven Sacraments, especially the Eucharist Celebrated with Unleavened Bread; the Indissolubility of Marriage; the Permission of Third and Fourth Marriages; and Lastly, about the Pope's Primacy. He declares to him, that it was needless to call a Council to canvas these Positions; but that if the Greeks would receive them, a Council might be held to Ratify the Union of the Two Churches. This Profession of Faith was carried to the Emperor Michael by Two Monks of the Order of the Preaching Friars the Pope's Legates. That Emperor having received Intelligence of the Preparation which Saint Lewis King of France, and Charles Duke of Anjou King of Sicily were making at that time for the East, and fearing the Storm would fall upon him, wrote to Saint Lewis a little after the Death of Clement, declaring, That he was willing to abjure the Schism; that he had sent for that purpose several Ambassadors to Rome, some of whom had been stopped by the way, and the others had received no satisfactory Answer; that he made choice of him as Umpire of this Difference, and conjured him to do his utmost to put an end to it. Saint Lewis returned that Emperor Word, That he could do nothing in this business, but only press the Holy See to put an end to it. Thereupon he referred the Emperor's Ambassadors to the Cardinals, to whom he wrote, desiring them to make up this Reunion as soon as possible. Upon those Instances the Cardinals wrote about it to the Bishop of Albany in Greece, and sent him the Profession of Faith drawn up by Clement iv with orders to cause the Emperor and the Bishops to Subscribe it.  
Gregory X. being advanced to the Papal Chair, the Emperor Michael immediately dispatched Ambassadors to him with a Letter, declaring the Desire he had of the Reunion; and the Pope for his part wrote him another Letter, wherein resuming all that had passed from the beginning of the Treaty under Urban IU. and Clement IU. he declares to that Emperor, That the shortest and best way to put an End to the differences of the two Churches, was to cause the Patriarch, the Bishops and the Greek Clergy to subscribe to the Profession of Faith drawn up by Clement IU. and afterwards invites him to come in Person, or to send his Ambassadors to a General Council, which he intended to hold. He sent him four Legates of the Order of the Minor Friars to treat with him. Palaeologus upon the Receipt of this Letter from the Pope, used his utmost Endeavours to bring about the Union, and to that End had recourse to Artifice, Persuasion and Force. The Greeks at first made a very vigorous Opposition, and the Patriarch Jeseph could by no means be brought over. John Ueccus Treasurer of the Church of Constantinople, a Man of Parts and Learning, was one of the warmest in opposing it at first; but afterwards having read over the Writings of Nicephorus Blemmidas, and Consulted the Passages of the Greek Fathers concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost, he inclined to Peace. However the Patriarch continuing to oppose it, the Emperor sent Ambassadors to Pope Gregory, to acquaint him, he had done his utmost to promote the Reunion; but that this Business could not be adjusted in so short a time, because it was requisite to Convene several Bishops who were at some distance off. The Pope in his Reply to the Emperor, takes notice to him, that it was the Opinion of a great many Persons, That the Greeks did not act sincerely in their Endeavours after the Reunion, and that their Design was only to draw this Affair out in length.  
The Emperor to remove this Suspicion and to put an End to the Business, obliged the Patriarch Joseph to retire into a Monastery of Constantinople, till such time as the Reunion were concluded, or fell to nothing; on condition, That if the business did not succeed, than he should hold his See; but if it did, and he would not approve of the Treaty of Union, than another Patriarch should be Elected in his stead. Most of the other Greek Bishops followed the Emperor's Sentiments, so that he made no longer scruple to send his Ambassadors with a Letter, wherein he declared That the Greek Church approved of the Profession of Faith sent from Rome, and recognised the Primacy of the Church of Rome, and only desired, that they might be permitted to repeat the Creed without the Addition. The Greek Bishops sent likewise a Deputy with a Letter from the Metropolitan of Ephesus, and Thirty Greek Bishops who approved of the Union, and disapproved of the Opposition made by the Patriarch Joseph. These Letters were delivered to the Pope and the General Council held at Lions in the Year 1274. George Acropolita Swore for the Emperor, That he held the Profession of Faith, recognised the Primacy of the Church of Rome, and abjured the Schism. The Deputy of the Greek Bishops did the same in their behalf, and the Union being thus concluded, the Pope sung Te Deum, and caused the Profession of Faith to be recited in Greek and Latin repeating the Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost twice. The Pope testified his joy by his Letters written to Michael Palaeologus, to his Son Andronicus, and to the Greek Bishops, congratulated their Reunion, and recommended to them the finishing of all, by bringing those over who had not as yet submitted. Upon the Return of the Ambassadors the Patriarch Joseph was Deposed, and John Ueccus was Elected in his Place, who recited the Name of Gregory in the Mass styling him the Ecumenical or Universal Pope. This New Patriarch laboured earnestly to complete the Reunion, and the Emperor sent Ambassadors to the Pope to acquaint him that all was over. However a great many Greeks were still dissatisfied at the Reunion. John XXI. desiring fully to complete it, sent Legates to the Emperor Michael, who received them honourably, and promised to perform all that his Ambassadors had agreed to in the Council of Lions. That Emperor went still farther, and sent Ambassadors to Rome to assure the Pope, That having called a Synod of Greek Bishops, they had approved de Novo of all that was done in the Council of Lions. Those Ambassadors were entrusted with Letters from the Emperor Michael, from his Son Andronicus, and with a Letter from Ueccus and the Council of the Greeks, which contained a Profession of Faith, a little differing from that of Clement IV; particularly on the Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, tho' the same in substance. Those Letters written in the Year 1277. were not delivered to John; but to his Successor Nicholas III. who complained of the Alteration which the Greek Bishops had made in the Profession of Faith, and was for requiring them to Sign the Profession of Clement IU. and to add to their Creed the Clause Filioque. He wrote upon this Subject to the Emperor, to his Son Andronicus, and to the Greek Bishops; and sent his Legates with Instructions, that they should engage the Emperor to cause the Patriarch and all the Greek Bishops to Subscribe to the Profession of Faith, the Recognition of the Pope's Primacy, the Abjuration of the Schism, and the Promise of Submission to the Holy See: That they should prevail upon him to Order the Clause Filioque, to be Sung in all the Greek Churches: That as for the particular Rites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church, such might be Tolerated as were not contrary to the Sound Faith. Their Instruction likewise contained a draught of the Deed of Submission which the Bishops and Clergy of each Church were to Sign. The Legates were likewise Enjoined to go to as many Churches as they could, to get it Subscribed, and to let the Greeks know, That the Romans wondered that neither the Patriarch nor the Greek Bishops had as yet demanded of the Holy See, the Confirmation of their Dignities, and the Absolution from their Censures. The Greek Bishops made no Answer to these Proposals of Pope Nicholas, neither were they Executed, and the Emperors Michael and Andronicus only Subscribed over again a Declaration much like to that which George Acropolita had Signed in the Council of Lions. Their Letters were not delivered to Pope Nicholas, but to his Successor Martin IU. who being in Alliance with Charles King of Naples and Sicily, in the Year 1281. Excommunicated the Emperor Palaeologus as a Schismatic, and a favourer of the Schism of the Greeks. Michael was so incensed at it, that once he forbade the Pope's Name to be recited in the Mass, and he was just ready to break the Union. However he did not do it, tho' Martin renewed his Censures; and it lasted till the Death of Michael; tho' several Greek Monks gave it some disturbance, by those many Writings which they Published against the Patriarch Veccus, who Refuted them very vigorously.  
But after the Death of Michael Palaelologus, which happened in December 1283. his Son Andronicus 
The Reunion between the Greeks and Latins is broken in the time of Andronicus the Emperor.  declared himself against the Union, and would not so much as pay those Honours to his Father's Funeral, as were usually paid to Emperors. Veccus retired into a Monastery, and Joseph was resettled in the Patriarchal See of Constantinople, but he was disturbed by the Partisans of Arsenius, and at last George of Cyprus Surnamed Gregory was made Patriarch after the Death of Joseph. He caused Veccus to be Banished to Mount Olympus, from whence he was recalled to appear at a Council which Andronicus held against him in the Year 1284. in the Palace of Blacherna at Constantinople. In the Council he was condemned, and all the Arch-Bishops and Bishops, who had been most for the Union, were Deposed. Afterwards Veccus who bravely defended his Cause in the Council, was by the Emperor's Order sent Prisoner to the Castle of Saint George in Bythinia, with two of his Clergy named Constantine Meleteniota and George Metochites. Veccus died there sometime after, and his two Companions being discharged out of Prison without changing their Minds, and persisting still in the defence of their Opinion, were at last sent into Exile, where they died.  
'Tis something difficult to set down the Succession of the Patriarches of Constantinople during this 
The Succession of the Patriarches of Constantinople during the Thirteenth Century.  Century, by reason of the various Opinions of Historians in the Case: But let us see what can be said the most probable, and the most conformable to the History of that Time. When Constantinople was taken by the Latins, John Camatera who was Patriarch of that City, retired to Didymoteca, or Dimatuca, a City of Thrace, where he died two Years after, without going to Nice, tho' earnestly invited thither by Theodore Lascaris. About two Years after his Death, this Prince willing to preserve all the Ensigns of the Empire, thought fit to make a Patriarch of Constantinople, who should reside at Nice. The first who was Elected, was one Named Michael Saurianus or Autorianus, who enjoyed that Post for Six Years. Theodore Irenicus Hyppatus or Coppas Succeeded him in the Year 1215, and was almost as long on the See. In his stead they Elected in the Year 1221. Maximus Abbot of the Armet Monks, who enjoyed the Place only Six Months, and died. Manuel Charitopula Succeeded him, and died a little before the Emperor John Ducas, in the Year 1226. After his Death, several proposed Nicephorus Blemmidas Monk of Mount Athos, to be Advanced to the Dignity: But upon his Refusal Germanus Surnamed Nauplius was advanced to that Post, and enjoyed it Seventeen Years and an half. After his Death, Methodius Abbot of the Monastery of Saint Hyacinthus, had the honour of being Patriarch of Constantinople the space of Three Months. Manuel Succeeded him, and was invested with this Dignity Fourteen Years. At last Arsenius Autorianus was made Patriarch, under the Emperor Theodore Lascaris, in the Year 1257. This Man has himself given us an Account of his Life, in his last Will and Testament, where he says, That during the Empire of that Religious Prince, he had not Contest about Religious Matters, but employed himself wholly in relieving the Widows, the Fatherless, and the Oppressed. That after the Death of that Prince, the Bishops, Senate, the Officers of the Army and the People met together in his absence, to Constitute Michael Palaeologus Regent, and that upon his coming to Court, he found him at the Helm: That in a short time after, he made himself Colleague in the Empire; that they had forced him to Crown Palaeologus, but upon Condition that the Young Emperor John should have the Pre-eminence: That afterwards perceiving that this Agreement was not put in Execution, and that Michael did many things irregularly, he retired; and that Michael set up in his stead, Nicephorus a Bishop of Ephesus, who dying within a Year after, Michael recalled him: That the City of Constantinople being retaken, that Prince had used all his Endeavours, to bring him over to own, that the Archbishop of Ephesus had been lawful Patriarch, and to make him admit of those whom he had Promoted to Holy Orders; but that he would not consent to either: That notwithstanding this Palaeologus re-established him in his Patriarchial See, but withal continued to Persecute him: That after this, the Young Emperor's Eyes were put out; that having understood that Michael had committed that Crime, he had Excommunicated him for it: That he hoped, he 
Writers in the Greek Church.  would have been sensible and repent of his Fault, and merit Absolution, by remitting a Part of the Taxes: But that Prince having not changed his Mind, he had Three Years after, absolutely Excommunicated him, in a Council composed of the Bishops, Clergy and Senate: That ever since that Prince had persecuted him, and drove him out of his Church, under a pretence that he had Administered the Communion to the Sultan's Children, tho' it was evident, that it was the Metropolitan of Pisidia, who had Administered to them Baptism and the Eucharist: That afterwards he had sent him into Exile, after he had caused him to be Excommunicated in a Synod; and had often used him unkindly in the place of his Exile. Arsenius being turned out, Joseph was put up in his Place, in the Year 1266. but several would not acknowledge him, and adhered to the Interests of Arsenius, which caused a division betwixt the Greeks of Constantinople, that lasted till the Death of Joseph. After Joseph was Deposed in the Year 1274. John Veccus was set up, so that there were at that time Three Patriarches of Constantinople, Arsenius, Joseph and Veccus. Arsenius died first in Exile: Veccus was in Possession of the Patriarchship during the Reign of Palaeologus; but after his Death, he was immediately Deposed, and Joseph re-established; who dying a while after, the Patriarchship was bestowed in the Year 1284. on George of Cyprus Surnamed Gregory, who wrote very warmly against Veccus and the Latins. He had nevertheless many Adversaries, so that perceiving himself despised, and growing infirm and sick, he retired into a Monastery, where he died, after he had been Patriarch Five Years.  
The Greek Church in this Century, produced a great many Famous Men, who Wrote about the Contests between the Greeks and Latins, and have given us an History of the great Revolutions of the Eastern Empire. An Account of the most Considerable of these Authors, we here give you.  
NICHOLAS d'OTRANTES flourished at Constantinople, the beginning of this Century. He made use of an Interpreter in the Conferences which Cardinal Benedict (sent in the Year 1201. to Constantinople 
Nicholas d'Otrantes.  by Pope Innocent III.) had with the Eastern Bishops about the Differences in Religion. He composed divers Treatises against the Latins, among the rest, a Treatise concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost, against Hugh Etherianus: A Treatise to prove, That Jesus Christ made use of leavened Bread in the Last Supper; and a Treatise concerning Saturday's Fast, concerning the Marriage of Priests, and the other Controverted Points between the Latin and the Greek Church. Those Tracts are cited by Allatius, who produces some Fragments of them in his Works.  
About the same time flourished NICETAS, who from being Librarian of the Church of Constantinople, 
Nicetas Archbishop of Thessalonica.  was advanced to the Archbishopric of Thessalonica. He has composed a Treatise concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost, against Hugh Etherianus, divided into Six Dialogues. Leo Allatius has quoted some Fragments of it. We have likewise in the Jus Greco-Romanum, an Answer of this Author to the Queries of Basil the Monk.  
NICETAS ACOMINATUS Surnamed CHONIATES, from the Place of his Nativity, after he 
Nicetas Acominatus Choniates Logothetes.  had spent his Youth with his Brother Michael Archbishop of Athens, was made Secretary of State to the Emperors Alexius, and Isaac Angelus; and afterwards Advanced to the Chief Posts in the Government: Viz. to be Lord Treasurer, Secretary of State, and Lord High Chamberlain to the Emperor. When Constantinople was taken by the Latins in the Year 1204. he retired with his Wife and Children to Nice in Bythinia, where he died in the Year 1206. He has composed One and twenty Books of History, which begin at the Death of Alexius Comnenus, which Zonaras has continued, to the Year 1203. Vossius and Lipsius commend his Style, his Genius and his manner of Writing, and observe, that he has affected to imitate the Style of Homer and the Ancient Poets. The same Author, has composed a Tract Entitled, A Treasure of the Othodox Faith, divided into Twenty seven Books, the Five first of which, are Translated into Latin by Morellus, and to be met with in the Bibliotheca Patrum; and a Fragment of the Twentieth Book, has been likewise Published, concerning the Order which ought to be observed, in admitting the Saracens when they turn Christians.  
The History of Nicetas was Printed in Greek with the Latin Version of Wolfius, at Basil in the Year 1557. at Paris, in the Year 1566. at Francfort, in the Year 1568. at Geneva, in the Year 1593. and at Paris in the Body of the Byzantine History, in the Year 1647. The Five Books of the Treasure of Othodox Faith, were Printed at Paris, in the Year 1580. and at Geneva, in the Year 1592. The Fragment of the Twentieth Book, is to be met with in Greek and Latin, in the Second Volume of the Additions to the Bibliotheca Patrum, Printed in the Year 1624.  
MICHAEL ACOMINATUS CHONIATES, Archbishop of Athens, survived his Brother for 
Michael Acominatus Choniates Archbishop of Athens.  some time, whose Panegyric he made, Printed with the Works of Necetas. He has likewise Composed several other Tracts, and among the rest, One upon the Cross, which is to be met with in Manuscript in the French King's Library.  
About the same time, one JOEL made a Chronological Abridgement from the beginning of the World, to the taking of Constantinople by the Latins, which was Translated by Leo Allatius, 
Joel.  and Printed in Greek and Latin at Paris, in the Byzantine History, in the Year 1651. with the History of GEORGE ACROPOLITA LOGOTHETES. This George was promoted 
George Acropolita Logothetes.  in the Court of the Emperor John Ducas at Nice, and applied himself to the study of the Sciences. He was afterwards made Lord High Treasurer, and Employed in the most important Affairs of the Empire. Theodore Lascaris made him Regent of all the Western Provinces of his Empire. He was taken Prisoner by Michael Angelus, but set at Liberty, by the Emperor Palaeologus, who sent him on an Embassy to Bulgaria. Upon his Return from this Embassy, he applied himself wholly to the Instruction of Youth, and behaved himself well in that Employment, for several Years. He was one of the Judges Nominated in the Year 1272. to Determine the Affair of John Veccus Patriarch of Constantinople. The next Year he was sent into the West, by the Emperor, to conclude the Peace and the Reunion of the two Churches with Pope Gregory X. and Swore to it in the Year 1274. at the Council of Lions. In the Year 1282. he was sent again to the King of Bulgaria, and died upon his Return. He continued the Greek History, from the taking of Constantinople by the Latins, till it was retaken by Michael Palaeologus, in the Year 1261. This Work being found at Pera, was bought of Catachuzenus, brought from Constantinople by George Douza, and Published with a Translation by his Brother Theodore, who caused it to be Printed with Notes, at Leyden, in the Year 1614 The next Year the Text was Printed at Geneva. Afterwards Leo Allatius Published this History in a larger Volume, and thus it was Printed at Paris, in the Year 1651. The Modern Greeks have bestowed great Encomiums on this Author, and looked upon him as a Prodigy of Learning and Eloquence. However, were we to judge of him by his History, we should not say such fine things of him. He likewise Composed several other Tracts, among the rest, Thirteen Prayers, and a Discourse upon the taking of Constantinople by the Greeks, of which he makes mention, in his History; a Commentary on the Sermons of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, and a Treatise of Faith, of Virtue and of the Soul; which are to be met with in Manuscript, in several Libraries.  
Whilst Constantinople was in the Hands of the Latins, PANTALEON Deacon of that Church, 
Pantaleon Deacon of the Church of Constantinople.  Composed a Treatise against the Greeks, about the Procession of the Holy Ghost, the State of departed Souls, Unleavened Bread, and the Submission due to the Church of Rome. This Treatise is to be met with in Latin, in Stewart's Addition to the Antiquities of Canisius, and in the last Biblotheca Patrum. 'Tis probable, that he was the Author of the Sermons attributed to Pantaleon; who is referred to the Seventh Century, tho' this latter, goes under the Quality of Priest of the Church of Constantinople: For it might be that he was Priest of that Church, after he had been Deacon.  
MANUEL CHARITOPULA Patriarch of Constantinople. We meet with in the Jus Graeco-Romanum 
Manuel Charitopula Patriarch of Constantinople.  of Lewenclavius several Ecclesiastical Institutions, under the Name of Manuel, which some have attributed to the Emperor Manuel Comnenus, but which are the Answers of Manuel Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Questions of the Bishop of Pella. But whereas there were Two Manuels honoured with that Dignity, during this Century, viz. Manuel Charitopula, who in the Year 1221 Succeeded Maximus Abbot of the A●mets; and lived to the Year 1226. another Manuel, who Succeeded Methodius, in the Year 1244. and was Patriarch Fourteen Years together; 'Tis very difficult to know, to which of the two these Works belong; however, they are commonly ascribed to the former.  
The First Question is, Whether Women forsaken by their Husbands, of whom they have heard no News of for Five Years together, may afterward Marry? The Answer is, that the Husbands who leave their Wives ought to be Excommunicated, and that the Wives of those of whom they have had no News, may Marry again after Five Years time: But those who know where their Husbands are, aught to go and wait upon them.  
The Second Question is, What Penance ought to be inflicted on such Priests, by whose Negligence it happens, that the Consecrated Bread be eaten by Rats: And what ought to be done when the Priest being at the Altar, a Mouse by chance happens to eat the Consecrated Host? The Answer is, The Priests by whose negligence this happens, aught to be Suspended for some time: And as to the latter Case, if it does not happen through the Fault of the Minister, he is not to be blamed for it; but another Oblation ought to be set upon the Altar, and the Sacrifice to be concluded with Consecrating it.  
The Third Question is, What Punishment the Priests deserve, who contemn the Excommunication of their Bishops, and still continue to celebrate and perform their Functions tho' interdicted? The Answer is, That they ought to be deposed.  
The Fourth Question is, Whether Laics who are above Forty, have been Married twice, and have Children, may Marry again? The Answer is, That they are not to be allowed it.  
The Fifth Question is, Whether one may Celebrate the Holy Eucharist without an Anti-table? (that is, as it is explained in that place, a piece of a Tablecloth or Napkin Blessed by the Bishop in the Ceremony of the Dedication of the Church.) The Answer is, That 'tis not requisite to make use of them on all Altars, but only on Altars of whose Consecration we are not very well satisfied.  
The Sixth Question is, What Punishment those Priests deserve who Celebrate Marriages during Lent; and what one ought to think of such Marriages? The Answer is, That if those Priests did it out of Ignorance or Simplicity, they ought to bear less Punishment, than if they did it wilfully; but that such Marriages were valid.  
GERMANUS II. Surnamed NAUPLIUS Patriarch of Constantinople, was advanced to that Dignity 
Germanus Nauplius Patriarch of Constantinople.  by the Greeks, in the Year 1226; when Constantinople was in the Possession of the Latins, and died in the Year 1243. So that he was only Titular Patriarch of Constantinople, having his constant Residence at Nice. We have already observed, That most of the Works attributed to Germanus I. Patriarch of Constantinople, belong to this Man, and among others the Mystical Theory, which is not in the same Condition wherein it was first composed; there being many Additions and Alterations since made. We ought likewise to attribute rather to this Author than to the former, the Discourse upon the Dedication of the Church of the Virgin Mary, and upon the Nursing of our Saviour, Published by Father Combefis in his Book de Originibus Constantinopolitanis: A Panegyric of the Virgin, and a Sermon on the Nativity, Published by the same Author in the same Piece: But as for the Third, which is upon the Death of the Virgin, Allatius observes, that the Ancient Manuscripts, as well as the Style, and the manner wherein it is wrote, make it appear, that it belongs to George of Nicodemia. We must likewise ascribe to Cermanus II. the Sermons on the Beheading of Saint John, on the Presentation, Annunciation, and Death of the Virgin Mary, Published by the same Father in his Addition to the Bibliotheca Patrum: But we must except the Discourse upon our Saviour's Burial, which belongs to a more Ancient Author. 'Tis likewise probable that the Two Discourses on the Cross, and the Two Sermons on Fasting, Published by Gretser under the Name of Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople are his; since it appears, that the Person who composed them, wrote at that time when the Greek Emperors were at War with the Latins. Lastly there is no Question to be made, but that the Two Letters directed to the Greeks of the Isle of Cyprus, Published by Cotelerius, in the Second Tome of his Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae, belong to Germanus II. since he warmly exhorts the Greeks of his Communion, not to communicate with those who observed the Rites and Usages of the Latins, or who were united to them, and opposes the Addition of the Phrase Filioque made to the Creed, and the other Customs of the Latins. He Likewise wrote against the Latins a Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, a Synodal Epistle in answer to the Minor Friars and the other Latin Missionaries; several Opuscula upon Unleavened Bread, upon Purgatory, and upon the Three ways of Administering the Sacrament of Baptism, which are found in Manuscript, and made mention of by Allatius. This Patriarch is likewise Author of Three Constitutions concerning the Patriarchal Monasteries, which are to be met with in the Third Tome of the Jus Graeco-Romanum of Lewenclavius.  
NICEPHORUS BLEMMIDAS, Priest and Monk of Mount Athos, where he led a very Holy Life, 
Nicephorus Blemmidas Monk of Mount Athes.  was very favourable to the Latins, and more inclinable to the Peace than any other Greek of this Century. 'Tis in this Temper of Mind, that he composed Two Treatises of the Procession of the Holy Ghost: The one is directed to James Patriarch of Bulgaria, and the other to the Emperor Theodore Lascaris. He therein very strongly confronts the Opinion of several Greeks who maintained, that we could not say, that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son; and proves, that this Expression was very Orthodox, and Conformable to the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, and of the Holy Fathers of the Greek Church. These Two Tracts are Printed in Greek and Latin, at the end of the First Tome of Raynaldus, and in the Graecia Orthodoxa of Allatius, who has likewise given us in the Second Book of his Tract, concerning the Concord of the Greek and Latin Churches, a Letter which Nicephorus wrote, after he had with disgrace turned out of the Church belonging to his Monastery, Marchesina the Mistress of the Emperor John Ducas, as unworthy to enter that Holy Place. There is likewise Printed in Greek, at Augsburgh in the Year 1605, under the Name of this Author; an Abridgement of Logic and Natural Philosophy. There are also several other Theological Pieces of the same Author in the Vatican Library, and in the Library of Bavaria, such as the Panegyric of Saint John the Evangelist, a Discourse concerning the Soul; another concerning the Body; several Commentaries on the Psalms, and Opuscula on Faith, Virtue, and Religion. His Treatise on the Procession of the Holy Ghost, shows him to be a Man of a just Reason, well versed in the Scriptures and the Fathers, and full of good Principles of Divinity.  
ARSENIUS AUTORIANUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, Monk of Mount Athos, was Advanced in the Year 1257. as we have already observed, to be of Patriarch of Constantinople; and 
Arsenius Autorianus Patriarch of Constantinople.  he had not only the Title of it, as his Predecessors had; but likewise the happiness of re-entering that Church, after the Greeks had retaken Constantinople from the Latins. Having fallen into disgrace with Michael Palaeologus, he was turned out and deposed in the Year 1268. and sent into Exile, where he lived several Years. He has Composed an Abridgement of the Canons, extracted from the Fathers and Councils, and divided into One Hundred forty one Heads, which is to be met with in the second Tome of the Bibliotheca Juris Canonici by Justel. Cotelerius has since Published in the second Tome of his Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae, the Last Will and Testament of this Patriarch, wherein he gives an Account of the Contests he had with the Emperor Michael Paloeologus, and renews the Excommunication which he had Issued out against him.  
THEODORE LASCARIS Junior, Surnamed DUCAS the Greek Emperor, (Grandson to that Theodore Lascaris who took upon him the Quality of Emperor at Nice, after the taking of Constantinople 
Theodore Lascaris Surnamed Ducas the Greek Emperor.  by the Latins, and Son of John Ducas, who was likewise Emperor of the Greeks at Nice, by Virtue of his Wife Irene, Daughter to Theodore the Elder,) Succeeded his Father about the Year 1255. But not being able to undergo the Fatigue of the Empire, he retired soon after into a Monastery, where he died, in the Year 1259. in the 36th. Year of his Age. This Prince who minded his Studies more than the Affairs of the State, Composed several Pieces of Theology, among others, a Treatise concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost, against the Latins, Directed to the Bishop of Corona; the Preface of which, Dr. Cave makes mention of, as taken out of a Manuscript of this Treatise, which is in England. Allatius makes mention of several Theological discourses, belonging to this Prince, upon the Trinity and the Incarnation. Freherus speaks of a Book which he made, concerning Natural Communication, and these are to be met with in the French King's Library, several Manuscript-Tracts of this Author's, such as a Treatise of the Trinity, a Discourse of Virtue, a Treatise of Fasting, etc. The Medals of this Emperor represent him to us holding a Cross in his Right Hand, and a Book in his Left, an Emblem of his Learning and Piety.  
GEORGE PACHYMERES flourished about the Year 1280. He was Born at Nice, in the Year 
George Pachymeres.  1242. where he had his Education. He afterwards entered into Orders, had the greatest share with the Patriarch of Constantinople in all Affairs, both Ecclesiastical and Civil, and gained so great a Repute, that he was Chosen in the Year 1267. to Try Arsenius Patriarch of Constantinople, who was Accused of High Treason. In the Year 1273. he Composed a Book concerning the Union of the Greek and Latin Churches. He lived several Years in the ensuing Century, when he died is uncertain. His History is divided into Thirteen Books, which contain what occurred under the Emperors Michael and Andronicus Palaeologus, from the Year 1258, to the Year 1308. There have been Published several Extracts of it by Wolfius, at the End of the History of Nicephorus Gregoras, Printed at Basil, in the Year 1562. Petavius Published a part of the rest, with the Abridgement of the Patriarch Nicephorus, in the Year 1616. But at last Father Poussin has Published this History complete, in Greek and Latin, in two Volumes in Folio, Printed at Rome in 1666, and 1669. Pachymeres is likewise the Author of a Commentary on the Works of Saint Dionysius, Printed several times with the Works of the Author; and of a little Piece, concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost, Published by Allatius, in the first Tome of his Graecia Orthodoxa. He likewise Composed an Abridgement of Aristotle's Logic, Printed in Greek at Paris, in the Year 1548. in Latin at Basil 1560. and in Greek and Latin, at Oxford, in the Year 1666. with several Pieces of Rhetoric which are in Manuscript in the French King's Library, of which, Allatius has given us a Catalogue. The same Allatius observes, that the Style of this Author is uncorrect, and his way of Writing is too much like the Writings of the Ancient Tragic Poets, which is too bombastical for History; that his Syntax is obscure and perplexed; but yet that he is smooth and Wise enough for an Age wherein the greatest Extravagancies passed for Wisdom. Allatius in his Graecia Orthodoxa, has likewise given us a little Treatise of Pachymeres, against those who maintained, that it was said, That the Holy Ghost had his Essence from the Son, because he is of the same Nature with the Son.  
JOHN VECCUS Patriarch of Constantinople, Studied these Points the most of any Greek of his time, 
John Veccus Patriarch of Constantinople.  and was one of a very piercing Genius, and Wrote well. This made Nicephorus Gregoras say, That there might be some Greeks, who had a greater insight into Profane Learning, than John. Yet they were all Children, when compared to him, with respect to the subtlety of Genius, to Eloquence, and penetration of Thought in Ecclesiastical Points. He was at first very much wedded to the Opinions of the Greeks, and (as we have already hinted) very strongly opposed the Design of the Union, set on foot by Michael Palaeologus. But the Emperor having shut him up in a frightful Prison, where he ordered the Works of Nicephorus Blemmidas to be put into his Hands, he changed his Opinion; and Collected a great many Passages of the Greek Fathers, which favoured the Doctrines of the Roman Church, about the Procession of the Holy Ghost; of which he made an advantageous Use, in defending the Union, which he maintained by several Tracts. Allatius has Published several of them, of which this is the Catalogue; Two Books concerning the Union of the Churches of Old and New Rome, wherein he Proves the Opinion of the Latins about the Procession of the Holy Ghost, by the Testimonies of the Greek Fathers, and Refutes the Arguments which Photius, John Furnes, Nicholas of Metona, and Theophylact make use of to Oppose it. A Tract containing Twelve Chapters, about the Procession of the Holy Ghost, wherein he handles the several Questions, and explains a great many Passages of the Greek Fathers on that Subject. A Letter to Alexius Agallianus Deacon of the Church of Constantinople, upon the Procession of the Holy Ghost. A Synodal Decree, wherein it is Ordered, that the Preposition Ex should be Writ over again in a Manuscript of a Tract of Saint Gregory Nyssene, which had been Erased by the Chancery-Clerk of the Church of Constantinople, a professed Enemy to the Latins. His Last Will and Testament, wherein he persists in his Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Ghost. A Treatise of the Agreement of his, with the Doctrines of the Fathers. A Discourse upon the Injustice which had been done him, by turning him out of his Patriarchial See. An Apology of that Discourse against the Injustice which he had suffered, wherein he Derects the false Glosses of a certain Scribe. Another Apology, wherein he Proves, That the Reunion did not destroy the Customs of the Greeks. Three Books to Theodore Bishop of Saddai about the Procession of the Holy Ghost. Four Books upon the same Subject, directed to Constantine. Two Discourses against the Writings of George of Cyprus, and against his new Errors. The Refutation of the Remarks of Andronicus Camatera, on those passages of Scripture relating to the Procession of the Holy Ghost. Thirteen Heads, or Remarks on the Words and Thoughts of the Fathers. These Works are to be met with in the first and second Tome of Allatius' Graecia Orthodoxa, who makes mention of several other Tracts of Veccus in the second Book of the Agreement between the Greek and the Latin Churches, Chap 15.  
Veccus had for the Companions of his Fortune, of his Exile and of his Studies, GEORGE METOCHITA 
George Metochita Deacon, & Constantine Meliteniota Archdeacon of the Church of Constantinople.  Deacon of the Church of Constantinople, and CONSTANTINE MELITENIOTA his Archdeacon, who Composed several Works in the defence of the same Doctrine and of the same Cause.  
The former whose Style is harsh, has composed a Treatise on the Procession of the Holy Ghost, divided into five Dissertations, of which Allatius has given us a Fragment in his Book of Purgatory taken out of the Fifth Book, and another Fragment out of the same Book in his Treatise against Hottinger. And Father Combefis has given us a Fragment taken out of the Fourth Book, in his Additions to the Bibliotheca Patrum: A Refutation of three Chapters of Planuda the Monk Published by Allatius in the Second Tome of his Graecia Orthodoxa: The Refutation of what Manuel Nephew of Cretois wrote, Published by the same Author in the same Tome: A Dissertation, containing the History of the Union of the two Churches, of which Allatius has given us some Fragments: An Anti-heretical Dissertation against the Writings of George of Cyprus. Another Dissertation of what was the Consequence of the two foregoing.  
The Latter (viz. Constantine Meliteniota) has left behind him Two Treatises, One concerning the Union of the Greeks and Latins, and the other about the Procession of the Holy Ghost, Published by Allatius, in the Second Tome of his Graecia Orthodoxa.  
About the same time SIMON a Native of Crete, of the Order of Preaching Friars, Composed 
Simon of Crete of the Order of Preaching Friars.  Three Treatises for the Latins in the form of Letters about the Procession of the Holy Ghost, the First directed to Manuel Olobola; the Second to Sophronia; and the Third to John, Keeper of the Archives. Allatius who has seen them, has only left us part of this Last in his Treatise against Hottinger.  
The Greek Schismatics had likewise their Champions, who wrote in defence of their Doctrine; at the head of whom we may place GEORGE of Cyprus Surnamed GREGORY, Patriarch of Constantinople, who was a Man of Spirit, Eloquent and Polite in his Discourse, of great Learning and Parts, and pretty well Versed in the Ecclesiastical Points. His chief Piece, called, The Synodal Tome, 
George of Cyprus Surnamed Gregory Patriarch of Constantinople.  which he styles The Pillar of Orthodoxy, was writ against Veccus. He likewise composed other Works against the Latins, divers Panegyrics, and several Letters which are to be met with in Manuscript in Libraries.  
GEORGE MOSCHAMPER, Register of the Church of Constantinople, was likewise one of the 
George Moschamper.  Adversaries of Veccus, against whom he wrote several Tracts, which that Patriarch refuted.  
CONSTANTINE ACROPOLITA LOGOTHETES, signalised himself likewise by his Writings 
Constantine Acropolita Logothetes, Mark, and Job Jasites.  against Veccus; and so did a Monk named MARK, and JOB JASITES, who composed a Book sometime before the other two, against a Writing of the Emperor Michael, and an Apology for Joseph.  
We may likewise reckon among the Greek Authors, GREGORY ABULPHARAJE an Arabian, 
Gregory Abulpharaje an Arabian.  of the Sect of the Jacobites or Melchites, who composed an History of the Dynasties which ends at the 683 year of the Hegira; that is, Anno Christi 1284. He was in great esteem in the East. His Tract was Published in Arabic and Latin by Dr. Pocock, and Printed at Oxford in the Year 1663.   

CHAP. VI  
Of the Councils held during the Thirteenth Century.  
THere is scarce any Age wherein more Councils were held in the West, and wherein more Laws, Constitutions and Ordinances were made, than in this, of which we are giving you an History. 
The Councils held during the Thirteenth Century.  The Popes, Arch-Bishops and Bishops, were all in a particular manner engaged in reforming the Church, in regulating the Manners and Conduct of ecclesiastics, and in informing them of their Duties. This is the Subject matter of most of the Canons and Ordinances of the Councils and Synods held in this Century. Therein the manner how the Clerks ought to be habited, and the Life they ought to lead, are adjusted; the Luxury and the Disorders of several are Condemned with the utmost Severity. Therein they have a great many Instructions about the Administration of the Sacraments, the Celebration of Mass, and the Ceremonies of the Church. There the Bishops, Priests and the other Clergy are informed of their Functions and Office. Therein Plurality of Benefices is Prohibited, and Residence Enjoined and a great many Provisoes made about the Collation of Benefices. Therein a great many Laws are Enacted relating to Ecclesiastical Causes, and to prevent the Abuses which several made of the Commissions they took out of the Holy See. Therein are Renewed and Confirmed the Privileges and Immunities of the Clergy, and the Penalties inflicted on those who offer any Violence to their Persons or Estates, or seize upon their Tithes. Therein new Methods are found out to Punish Heretics, and to support the INQUISITION lately set up. Therein Sorcerers and Usurers, are Condemned. Therein all the Faithful are enjoined to be present at the Parochial Mass on Festivals and Sundays, and to confess themselves and receive the Communion at least once a Year. These are the Principal Matters treated of in the Canons of the Councils of which we are going to give you a Particular Account according to the Order of Time wherein they were held.  

The Council of Sens in the Year 1198.  
MIchael Corbeil, Archbishop of Sens, being come to the Town of La Charité, at the instance of the Bishop of Auxerre, whether the Bishops of Nevers and Meaux were likewise come, and having 
The Council of Sens in the Year 1198.  made enquiry what Heretics there were in that Place, they found that Reginald Abbot of Saint Martin at Nevers, and the Dean of the Cathedral Church of that City were accused of Heresy, and that there were a great many Accusers and Witnesses against them. They Suspended them, and Cited them to Auxerre, where they made their Appearance. The Abbot would not make his Defence, but appealed to the Holy See before his Process was drawn up. The Archbishop of Sens without regarding this Appeal, continued the drawing up his Process, and cited him to the Council which was to be held at Sens. The Trial of the Dean was likewise referred to that Council, that so they might have time to receive the Depositions of Witnesses on both sides.  
The Council was held at Sens in the Year 1198, and the Bishops of Troy's, Auxerre and Nevers were there present. The Abbot of St. Martin appeared before these Prelates, and endeavoured to make his Defence; but seeing his Affair was like to have no success, he renewed his Appeal. Tho' it was against all Form, and the Bishops were not obliged to take any notice of it; yet they would not pronounce any thing against him upon the account of Heresy, but condemned him for other Crimes whereof he stood Convicted, and for the Scandal he gave, and deposed him for ever. They afterwards sent to the Pope the Depositions drawn against him; which imported, that he had asserted, That the Body of Jesus Christ went into the Draught, and that all Men would one day be saved.  
As to the Dean, there were not Evidences strong enough to Convict and Condemn him, but since there were a great many Presumptions against him, because of his intimacy with Heretics; they would not give him Absolution, but sent him to Rome, Innocent III. after he had heard him, and examined his Process, ordered that he should clear himself by the Testimony of Fourteen Witnesses, and wrote to the Archbishop of Sens, that he would admit him to clear himself, and restore to him his Benefice after he had done it. The Abbot of St. Martin having likewise removed his Cause to Rome, the Pope referred him to Peter, Cardinal of St. Marry his Legate in France, and to Odo Bishop of Paris. We are informed of this Piece of History by the Letters of Innocent III. and by the Chronicon of Auxerre, wherein 'tis said, that those two Heretics were of the Sect of the Poblicans.   

The Council of Dalmatia, in the Year 1199.  
TWo Legates of Pope Innocent III. in Dalmatia, one of whom named John, being only a Chaplain, 
The Council of Dalmatia, 1199  and the other called Simon a Sub-deacon, made Twelve Orders for the Clergy of that Kingdom, wherein they prohibited Simony, renewed the Law of the Celibacy of ecclesiastics, fixed the Times of Ordinations and the Intervals betwixt them, approved of the Ancient dividing of the Church-Revenues into four Parts, enjoined the Secrecy of Confession, provided for the security of ecclesiastics by declaring those Excommunicated who abused them, and by prohibiting them from being carried before secular Judges; prohibited Marriages between Relations to the Fourth Degree; enjoined Clerks to have the Clerical Tonsure; condemned the Laics who collated Benefices, and those who received them from their Hands; excommunicated those who retained the Treasures of the Church, and such who left their Wives; prohibited Bastards from being admitted into Holy Orders, and forbade the Ordaining any one who was not full Thirty Years Old.   

The Council of London in the Year 1200.  
HUbert Archbishop of Canterbury called a Council at London in Westminster-Castle against the Prohibitions 
The Council of London, 1200.  which the Earl of Essex Lord Chancellor of England had made, wherein he Published several Injunctions.  
By the First he orders, That the Words of the Canon of the Mass shall be pronounced distinctly and sincerely by the Priests, without relying too much upon them.  
In the Second, He prohibits Priests from saying two Masses a day without urgent Necessity, and when a Priest shall be obliged to Celebrate twice, he enjoins that after the first Celebration he shall take care to drink up what is left in the Chalice, to wipe his Fingers, to wash them, and to take care to have Water to Wash after the Second time of Celebrating, at least that there should not be any Deacon or any other Minister assisting at the first Celebration, who should be capable of this Ablution. He likewise Order, That the Eucharist shall be kept in a proper and decent Box, and shall be carried to the Sick, covered over with a White Cloth, a Taper and Cross being carried before it; and that it shall not be given but in public, and only to those who desire it.  
The Third imports, That such Children as are exposed shall be Baptised; that no Person shall be presented to Confirmation by his Brother, by his Mother, or his Uncle, or his Mother-in-Law; and that Deacons shall not Administer Baptism, or enjoin Penance, unless in case of necessity.  
The Fourth enjoins the Priests in inflicting of Pennances to consider the Circumstances and the Qualities of the Sins, and the Condition of the Persons, and to take care not to impose any Penance which may discover the Crime; as for instance, not to make a Woman suspected by her Husband. He prohibits Priests who have fallen into any Sin to approach the Altar to Celebrate Mass before they have confessed their Sins. And Lastly, He Order, That the Priests should not enjoin the Laics as a Penance, to Order so many Masses to be said for them. The other Constitutions of this Council, are taken out of the Lateran Council under Alexander III.   

The Council of Lambeth, in the Year 1206.  
IN the Year 1206, Stephen of Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, held a Synodal Assembly at his 
The Council of Lambeth, 1206  Palace of Lambeth, wherein he made Three Institutions: The First, about the Right of Mortmain which was paid to Churches: The Second against Drunken Clubs; and the Third to prohibit Priests from saying above one Mass a day, except in the Christmas or Easter holidays, or when a Curate is obliged to bury a Corpse in his Church, in which Case, he who celebrates ought not to receive the Ablution but at the last Mass.   

The Constitutions of Cardinal Gallo, drawn up in the Year 1208.  
GAllo Cardinal Deacon of St. Mary's, who lived under the Pontificate of Innocent III. and was sent 
The Constitutions of Cardinal Gallo, in the Year 1208.  by that Pope as his Legate into France, has left us several excellent Constitutions about the Behaviour of the Clergy drawn up in the Year 1208.  
In the First, he condemns all the Priests and other ecclesiastics who kept in their Houses suspicious Women, excepting those Clerks who were of the Minor Orders, who might marry, but not hold their Benefices with their Wives. He orders, That the ecclesiastics should be admonished not so much as to keep their Mothers, or their Wives, or any of their Nearest Relations in their Houses.  
In the Second he prohibits under pain of Excommunication, the demanding any thing for Baptism, Burial, Benediction, and the rest of the Sacraments of the Church; and yet he allows, that Laics should be admonished not to refuse out of a Motive of Avarice, what the Faithful were used to give out of Devotion to testify the respect they bore to the Sacraments.  
The Third and Fourth prohibit the Clergy and Beneficed Persons from wearing red Habits, or such as were made in the fashion of the Laics Habits.  
The Fifth prohibits Monks from wearing sumptuous Robes, or of any other Colour than Black.  
The Sixth prohibits the Clerks and Monks from being Usurers or Merchants under the Penalty of Excommunication.  
The Seventh enjoins the Superiors to put these Constitutions in Execution.  
The Eighth and Ninth import, That they shall admonish the Scholars to observe them, and if they will not, than they shall be declared Excommucate by the Chancellor, who shall have no correspondence with them till they have made satisfaction, and received Absolution from the Bishop, or in the Bishop's Absence from the Abbot of St. Victor. Lastly, He enjoins the Schoolmasters to explain these Constitutions themselves. These last Articles show, that these Orders were made at Paris.   

The Council of Avignon in the Year 1209.  
IN the Year 1209, Hugh Raymond Bishop of Riez, and Milo Legates of the Holy See, held a Council 
The Council of Avignon, 1209  at Avignon the 6th of September, at which were present the Arch-Bishops of Vienna, Arles, Ambrun and Aix, with Twenty Bishops, several Abbots and several Curates. There they made these following Constitutions.  
By the First, Bishops are enjoined to Preach the Word of God, and cause it to be Preached in their Dioceses.  
The Second imports, That the Bishops shall make use of Censures (if occasion require) to oblige the Earls, Lords and other Persons to swear, That they will extirpate the Heretics, and turn the Jews out of all manner of Offices.  
The Third, That Usurers shall be Excommunicated.  
The Fourth, That the Jews shall be hindered from exacting Usury, from working on Sundays, and from eating Flesh on days of Abstinence.  
The Fifth, Order the paying of Tithes to the ecclesiastics, and forbids the Alienation of them.  
The Sixth Prohibits unjust Exactions and Taxes, made by the Lords without the Authority of the Prince; and Orders, That the Territories of those Lords who exact them shall be interdicted.  
The Seventh prohibits Laics under Pain of Excommunication, from exacting any Taxes from the Clergy, and from seizing upon the Estates of Bishops or ecclesiastics after their Death.  
The Eighth likewise Prohibits the Laics from intermeddling with the Elections, or from hindering the freedom of them.  
The Ninth, Prohibits the Building of Churches Fortified with Castles, and enjoins the Fortifications of such as have them, to be Demolished, except such as are necessary for the Repulsing the Pagans.  
The Tenth, Confirms the Laws made for the preservation of Peace, and condemns the Arragonese, the Barbanzonese and Routiers, who disturb it.  
The Eleventh, Enjoins the Ecclesiastical Judges, speedily and with Resolution to Dispatch the Causes which shall brought before them.  
The Twelfth, is against the forwardness of some in taking off an Excommunication or Interdiction. 'Tis declared according to a Decretal of Pope Innocent III. That no Excommunication made for some Damage done, shall be taken off, till such time as the Excommunicate Person shall Swear to make Reparation; and if it be for having committed a default in Judgement, till such time as he likewise Swear to appear before the Judge  
The Thirteenth, Contains a new Law against Perjured Persons, by which the Absolution of those who are guilty of that Crime, is reserved to the Pope, as well as the Absolution of Sacrilegious Persons and Incendaries.  
The Fourteenth, Renews the Law of the Lateran Council to oblige the Collators of Benefices to Present within Six Months.  
The Fifteenth, Prohibits Bishops, Abbots, and other Superiors from allowing the Monks to hold any thing by way of Property; and the rather, because the Pope himself cannot allow it, as Innocent III. has declared in one of his Decretals.  
The Sixteenth, is against those who exercise any Violence, and take Men by force.  
The Seventeenth, Prohibits the allowing of Dancing in Churches on the Vigils of Festivals, or the singing of Profane Songs.  
The Eighteenth, is about the Habits of Monks; it is ordered, That the Monks shall have such an Habit and Tonsure as is conformable to their State, that their clothes shall be of plain Stuff, of a modest Colour, and with Sleeves. And with respect to Seculars, that they shall have a Coronet, and close Habits, but neither Red, nor Green, nor made with Silk.  
The Nineteenth, imports That the Superiors and the other Clergy, shall be promoted to Holy Orders according to the Mandamus of their Bishop; and that those that are in Holy Orders, shall not engage themselves in Civil Offices, nor make Cabals.  
The Twentieth, Declares the Relations to the Fourth Degree of those who Murdered Peter of Chateauneuf Legate of the Holy See, and Geoffrey Canon of Geneva, incapable of holding Benefices.  
The Last, is an Injunction to the Arch-Bishops and Bishops, to take care that the foregoing Constitutions be observed.   

The Council of Paris, in the Year 1212.  
RObert Corceo Cardinal and Legate of the Holy Sea, Held a Council at Paris, in the Year 1212. 
The Council of Paris 1212.  wherein he published several Constitutions, relating to the Life, Manners and Conduct of ecclesiastics, which are divided into Four Parts: The First contains those which relate to the Secular Clergy; the Second, those which relate to the Regulars; the Third, those which relate to the Nuns, Abbesses and Abbots; and the Fourth, those which concern the Arch-Bishops and Bishops.  
1. He order the Secular Clergy to be Modest in their external Behaviour, to wear their Hair cut round, to abstain from frequent and dangerous Conversations in the Church or in the Choir, from useless walking in the Fields, and not to departed the Choir during Divine Service.  
2. He forbids any Distributions to be made to those who are at the beginning and end of the Service, and are absent in the middle.  
3. He prohibits the Clergy from keeping Hounds or Hawks, and having magnificent Equipages.  
4. He prohibits them from having Women in their Houses.  
5. He enjoins them to be submissive to their Superior, to Confess themselves to him, and no other, unless it be with his Consent.  
6. He forbids the Clergy who have Benefices, the exercising the Function of Advocates, for Money, or out of any base Design.  
7. He prohibits ecclesiastics from swearing that they will Lend nothing, nor be Security for any Man, and declares such Oaths null.  
8. He would not that such Preachers should be tolerated, who Preach to get Money, and to whom Pledges are given for so doing, let them have Relics about them, or not: He would have only those to Preach, who are approved by their Bishop; and prohibits the Preach of others.  
9 He order that unknown Priests should not be suffered to say Mass.  
10. That one should not admit to the Communion, or Bury any Excommunicated, Interdicted, or unknown Person, or one of another Parish.  
11. To suppress the enormous Avarice of Priests, he order that Laics should not be obliged to bequeath any thing, by their Last Will and Testament, for the saying of Masses, and that no Contract should be made, nor any thing required for Saying them, under what pretence soever. He forbids the great number of Yearly Masses, which were too great a burden to the Priests, and condemns those frivolous Masses, which some Said only for Forms sake.  
12. He prohibits those who have Churches by way of Property, from Farming them out for the injuring of others. He orders that the Priests shall not hear Confessions in a Church, without the leave of the Superior, or of him who has the Cure of the Parish, unless in case of Necessity.  
13. He forbids the dividing of Benefices.  
14. He forbids the bestowing of Rural Deaneries for a set time, or for ever, for a certain sum of Money.  
15. He forbids Arch-Deacons to exact the Duty of Procuration, from the Churches which they do not visit Personally.  
16. He declares, That they should not suffer in the Cloister's Assemblies for Play or Debauchery, no not so much as in the Places where they were forced to sell Wine.  
17. He admonishes the Canons of the Conventual Chapters, to choose a stranger for their Superior, if they have not one capable of that Office, among themselves.  
18. He orders, That when there is an Election to be made in a Chapter, the Day of Election shall be published, that so those who are absent may be there.  
19 He prohibits the Plurality of those Benefices that have the Cure of Souls.  
20. He orders, That no Person shall pretend that a Benefice belongs to him, by right of Succession, and prohibits the exacting any thing for the granting a Licence to Teach School.  
The Second part of those Constitutions, relate to the Regular Canons and Monks.  
He gins with forbidding to exact any thing for Admittance into the Order, and that the Monks ought not to hold any thing, by way of Property; excepting Priors and those who are in some Employment, who may by the permission of the Superiors, retain what shall be necessary for the discharge of their Office.  
2. He fixes the Age wherein any one shall be Admitted into any Order, viz. Eighteen Years Old.  
3. He orders, That the Bishops shall cause the little Wickets, which are in the Abbeys and Priories, to be shut.  
4. He recommends to the Monks the Distributing to the Poor, Infirm and Sick, the Revenues which are allotted for their Refreshment, and to be Hospitable.  
5. To give to the Poor their accustomed Alms.  
6. He prohibits the refusing to Admit any Person into a Religious Order, under pretence of his being of another Country.  
7. He Interdicts the Usuerers and Excommunicated Persons, from Entrance into a Religious Order, and from Ecclesiastical Burial.  
8. He prohibits the Admitting a Monk of another Monastery, if there be not a very strong Presumption, that he has a mind to change upon a Motive of sincere Devotion, and that he does it with the consent of his Abbot.  
9 He prohibits the Monks from wearing White Gloves, gaudy Shoes, and any thing like those of the Laity, and from making use of any other coloured Cloth, than White or Black.  
10. He forbids them to have any Chambers out of their Dormitory (unless they be Officers of the House to whom it is allowed) to quarrel in the Chapter, to make any noise in the Cloister, to entertain Women, to play at unlawful Games, to go a Hunting, and enjoins them to be silent in the Refectory.  
11. He orders, That they should give to a Monk who is obliged to go a Journey, a Horse and necessaries for his Journey, so that he may not be forced to beg upon the Road.  
12. He admonishes the Inferiors to obey with Humility, and the Superiors to command with Discretion and Prudence.  
13. He forbids Abbots to let out Provostships or Priories, to Farm.  
14. He enjoins the Ordinaries of the Place, to Excommnicate those who have quitted their Religious Habit.  
15. He orders, That if Excommunicated, Interdicted, or Irregular Persons present themselves to be Admitted into a Religious Order, they shall declare their Irregularity; that if the Abbot can Absolve them, he shall do it, if not, he shall refer them to the Major Superior, who has the power of doing it: That if it happen any such be Admitted by surprise, or otherwise, and afterwards it be discovered, he shall receive Absolution from his Abbot, or the Major Superior.  
16. He renews the 10th. Canon of the Third Lateron-Council, which forbids the permitting Monks alone in Towns, or Villages, or so much as in Cures.  
17. He renews the Prohibition made in the same Council, That no Monk should have two Priories, or two Offices.  
18. He relates a Decree of the Council of Chalcedon, which forbids the Monks making any Cabals.  
19 He forbids them to be Advocates for the Causes which concerned their Monastery, or any other Religious House, especially if they did it without the permission of their Abbot.  
20. He Excommunicated the Monks who left their Monastery, to Study Physic, or Law, in pursuance of the Lateran Council.  
21. He forbids the Monks to lie two in a Bed.  
22. He prohibits the diminishing the numbers of the Monks of Priories.  
23. He forbids the Custom of some Monks, who swore that they would Lend out no Books.  
24. He orders, That those who cause any discord in Monasteries to have a Cell apart for themselves, shall be shut up in the Cloister.  
25. He declares, That 'tis Usury to sell Commodities dearer because of a longer Term allowed for Payment.  
26. He prohibits the Clergy and Bishops from buying of Priories.  
27. He forbids the demanding a Treat, or Habits, from those who would enter into a Religious Order.  
The Third Part contains the Constitutions relating to Nuns, and some about Abbesses and Abbots.  
1. He orders, That they should not suffer the Clergy, or suspicious Servants to come nigh them.  
2. That they lie single.  
3. That they shall not go out to visit their Relations, unless with Persons of approved Integrity, and for a short time.  
4. That they have no Dancing in their Cloisters.  
5. That they shall live and be attired meanly and decently,  
6. That they shall live in Common of the Goods of the Monastery.  
7. That they shall have sage and discreet Confessors, of the Bishop's Appointment.  
8. That the Abbesses who will not do their Duty, shall be Suspended, and if upon Admonition, they do not mend, they shall be Deposed.  
9 He order what is to be observed, by those who are appointed to serve in the Infirmaries, or Hospitals.  
10. He orders, That the Abbots who neglect their Duty, shall be punished, and prohibits them from performing the Functions of an Advocate, or a Judge, upon pain of being Deposed.  
11. He inflicts the same Punishment upon those who live disorderly.  
12. He forbids their having a great Retinue, or Young Lackeys.  
13. He orders, That that they should not bestow the Goods of the Monastery on their Relations, unless they be Poor, or so accounted.  
14. He prohibits them from suffering Young Women to enter their Monasteries, and from bestowing Priories on their Relations: And orders them twice a Year to receive the Accounts of the Priors or Officers.  
15. He forbids them to regulate any Affair of Consequence, or to raise a considerable Sum of Money, without the advice of their Elders, at least of Seven chosen for that purpose, by the Chapter.  
16. He enjoins them to be tender towards their Repenting Brethren, and not to sell Offices.  
17. He forbids them to menace or abuse those who make any Proposition to the Chapter about the Reformation of the House.  
18. He enjoins them not to suffer the Priors, or Officers to live Irregularly.  
19 He forbids them to Eat in their Chambers, unless in case of necessity.  
20. He prohibits those who are Admitted into a Monastery, from going out to Study; and orders those who are gone out, to return within two Months.  
21. He admonishes the Abbots, to keep Chaplains of a mature Age and good Morals.  
The Last Part, contains the Constitutions relating to Arch-Bishops and Bishops.  
1. He order them to have their Coronets large enough, and wear their Hair cut round, that so it may not be seen below their Mitre; to be prudent and modest in their Conversation and Conduct.  
2. Not to hear Marins a-bed, and not to concern themselves with Secular Affairs, during the time of Divine-Service.  
3. To Celebrate the Office themselves upon High Festivals, and to Preach the Word of God, or cause it to be Preached.  
4. Not to go a Hunting, nor wear fine Furs, nor Play at Dice or Cards.  
5. To have Reading at their Tables the beginning and end of their Meals.  
6. To have Prudent Almoners, to exercise Hospitality, to give their Audiences for the Administration of Justice, and to hear the Poor at stated Hours, to receive often the Confessions of others, and as often to Confess themselves.  
7. To reside in their Cathedral Churches, especially on the High Festivals, and in the time of Lent.  
8. To cause the Profession they made when Consecrated, to be Read over to them at least twice a Year.  
9 Not to carry along with them in their Visits a great Train and needless Equipages.  
10. To make choice of prudent Friends, Men of good Morals, and to keep their Families in due Order.  
11. To have such Officers as have all the Qualifications necessary for the well discharging of their Trust, and especially, such as are Grave and Prudent, who will do Justice Gratis.  
12. To tolerate nothing that shall border upon Simony in the Collation of Holy Orders or Benefices, in the Dedication of Churches, in the Benediction of Virgins, etc. provided none of the honest and allowed Customs be prejudiced hereby.  
13. Not to give Benefices with the Cure of Souls, to young or unworthy Persons; not to Excommunicate, or pass Censures with precipitation, not to exchange the Punishment of the Excommunicated for pecuniary Mulcts; not to give a Dispensation for the three Forms of Marriage for Money; not to Collate Benefices which are not vacant; and not to promote to Holy Orders such Clerks whose Ability and Virtue are not known.  
14. To take nothing for the Seal, for doing Justice, for redeeming the right of Procuration, for the Burial of Excommunicated Persons, or for tolerating Clerks to converse with Women.  
15. Not to suffer Justice to be done in Churchyards, or Consecrated Places.  
16. Not to be at the Feasts of Fools.  
17. To hold a Synod every Year, to confer the Sacrament of Confirmation, to correct the Disorders of their Diocese.  
18. Not to suffer the Women to Dance in the Churchyards, or any Consecrated Places, nor to Work on Sundays.  
19 To prevent the Cancelling of Last Wills and Testaments.  
20. To Extirpate that Crime which is Odious to name.  
21. Lastly, to Punish that Disorder with severity, according to the Rule made in the Lateran Council on that Subject.   

The Council of Montpellier in the Year 1215.  
IN the Council held at Montpellier, in the Year 1215, by Peter of Benevento Cardinal, upon the Affair 
The Council of Montpellier 1215.  of the Earl of Montfort, they Published Forty six Decrees.  
The Four first relate to the manner how the Bishops and the other Clergy ought to be Habited. It is therein ordered, That the Bishops shall wear a Linnen-Vest, and a long Habit sewed on their Shoulders, and tied with Ribbans on their Breast. That the Canons and other Beneficed Persons, shall not make use of any guilded Loops or Shoes, and that they shall not frequent the Court, or Taverns, nor have any familiar Converse with Women; that they wear not coloured, or close-bodyed Coats. That the Arch-Deacons and others promoted to any Dignity in Cathedral, or Collegiate Churches, shall wear a long Habit closed from the Top, whether it be of Woollen or Linen: That the Curates shall observe the same thing: That the Beneficed Clerks shall wear a round Coronet about their Heads, that so the Hair above and below may be parted by an equal Circle.  
The Three next relate to the Manners of the Clergy. He forbids them to Lend upon Usury, or to keep Hawks.  
The Eighth, prohibits the giving prebend's to Laics.  
The Two next, provide for the Execution of the former.  
In the Eleventh and Twelfth, the Bishops are enjoined to bestow Benefices Gratis on Persons capable of Holding them, and are Prohibited from granting them to Young Persons, who are as yet in the lesser Orders.  
The Two next, relate to the Abbots and Monks, and contain the Ordinances so often repeated at that time, about the Modesty which they ought to have in their Habits, their Renouncing of all Property, the forbidding the Exacting of any thing for Admittance into a Monastery, the prohibition of being Advocates, the Alms which they ought to give to the Poor of what is remaining at their Tables.  
The Five next, concern the Regular Canons. They are enjoined to wear great Coronets, and the Monks to wear larger; to be meanly shod, not to go out of the Monastery wherein they are to enter into another; to have Surplices over their Habits, and when they Travel a close black Cassock; and to give nothing for a Prebend.  
By the Twenty nineth, the Priests and Monks are Prohibited to admit of Usurers, Excommunicated, and Interdicted Persons to the Communion, or to give them Burial.  
In the Thirtieth and Thirty first, it is enjoined, That three Monks at least, should be put into the Priories, and if the Revenues be not sufficient to maintain them, more should be united to them, that so there might be in each a Prior and two Monks.  
The next, are Laws for the Observation and Preservation of Peace.  
In the Last, the Arch-Bishops and Bishops are ordered to have a Priest, and two or three Laics in each Parish, who are obliged by Oath, if need be, to declare to the Bishop, the Lords and Judges of the Place, the Heretics which they have discovered in their Quarter.   

The Fourth General Lateran Council, Held under Pope Innocent III. in the Year 1215.  
THis Council was Appointed by Inoncent III. the 20th. of April 1213. to be Held two Years and an half after; that is, just the beginning of November, in the Year 1215. The Pope in his Letters 
The iv Geneneral Lateran Council held 1215.  of Indiction, gives his Reasons, why he thought that Council necessary, viz. The recovering of the Holy-Land, and the Reformation of the Catholic Church. He says, That whereas those two Things affect the General State of the Church, he had resolved according to the Advice of his Brethren, and other judicious Persons, to call a General Council for the Salvation of Souls, for the eradicating of Vice, and planting of Virtue, to correct Irregularities, reform the Manners, condemn Heresies, put a stop to Divisions, establish Peace, prevent Outrages, re-establish Liberty, and to engage the Princes and People to Retrieve the Holy Land: That in the Interim, till the Council should meet, he had taken care to inform himself of the Abuses which needed Reformation, and to send Persons into the several Provinces, to dispose them for the Expedition to the Holy-Land. He enjoins the Arch-Bishops and Bishops to come to the Conncil (excepting one or two Bishops who should remain in each Province) and those who could not come in Person, to send Deputies, and admonishes them, to order all the Chapters to send likewise their Deputies thither. In the mean time he recommended to them, the diligent Enquiring into whatever was necessary to be Reform or Amended, in their Provinces, that so they might speak of it in the Council, and to Contribute all they could towards the promoting the Expedition to the Holy Land. This Circular Letter was directed to the Patriarches, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and Sovereign Princes of all Christendom.  
The Council met at Rome in the Church of St. Saviour, on the time prefixed (in November 1215.) and consisted of Four hundred and twelve Bishops in Person, near Eight hundred Abbots and Priors, and a great many Deputies of the absent Prelates, or of the Chapters. The Latin Patriarches of Constantinople and Jerusalem were there in Person: The Patriarch of Antioch who was sick, sent a Bishop thither; and there came a Deacon the Deputy of the Patriarch of Alexandria, which was then under the power of the Saracens. The Ambassadors of the Emperor of Constantinople, of the King of Sicily the Emperor Elect, of the Kings of France, England, Hungary, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Arragon, and of the other Princes, were there.  
The Pope opened the Session by Preaching on those Words of our Saviour, With desire have I desired to eat the Passeover with you. He therein took notice of three sorts of Passovers which he desired to Celebrate with the Fathers of the Council, the Corporeal, the Spiritual, and the Eternal: The Corporeal, which was the passing from one Place to another, for the Deliverance of Jerusalem; the Spiritual, which was the passing from one State to another, by the Reformation of the Church; and the Eternal, which is the passing from the Temporal State to the Glory of Heaven. Upon the first Head, he exhorts the Ecclesiastscks to do all they could for the succouring of the Holy Land. Upon the Second, he exhorts them to make use of Spirstual Punishments on the Delinquents, that so they might reduce them from their Error. He exhorts them in particular, to Correct the ecclesiastics; because the Disorder proceeded chief from the Clergy, whose evil Example the People followed. He observes, That from hence chief proceed the Evils which infest the Church of God. 'Tis this (says he) that overthrows the Faith, disfigures Religion, destroys Liberty, treads Justice under Foot, increases the number of Heretics, makes the Schismatics Insolent, the Infidels Proud and the Saracens Powerful. He concludes all with the third Passeover, which is the passing to Glory, where he Prays he may one Day meet with them. He Preached likewise another Sermon to the Fathers of the Council, which is only a Moral Exhortation.  
Afterwards he Order the Reading in a full Council the Chapters or Canons upon the Discipline of the Church, which were already drawn up. Matthew Paris says, That those Canons seemed tolerable to some of the Prelates, but grievous to others. His Words are these, Facto prius ab ipso Papa exhortationis Sermone, recitata sunt in pleno Concilio Capitula Septuaginta quae aliis placabilia, aliis videbantur onerosa. Let the Case be how it will, 'tis certain, That these Canons were not made by the Council, but by Innocent III. who presented them to the Council ready drawn up, and ordered them to be Read, and that the Prelates did not enter into any Debate upon them, but that their Silence was taken for an Approbation.  
These Seventy Chapters or Canons, begin with a Form of Faith, drawn up in these Terms. We do firmly Believe, and sincerely Confess, That there is but One True, Eternal, Immense, Omnipotent, Immutable, Incomprehensible, Ineffable God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who are Three Persons, but only One Essence, One Substance, and One Simple Nature. The Father derives his Substance from none, the Son has it from the Father, and the Holy Ghost proceeds from Both, without Beginning and without End. The Father begets, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Ghost proceeds. They are Consubstantial and Coequal in all things, equally Powerful, equally Eternal, One Individual Principle of all things, the Creator of things Visible and Invisible, Spiritual and Corporeal, who by His Omnipotent Power, Created out of Nothing at the Beginning of Time, and all together, two sorts of Creatures, Spiritual and Corporeal; and afterwards the Humane Nature, which is a Compound of Soul and Body. For the Devil and the other Daemons were Good when God Created them, and became by their own fault Wicked, and Man Sinned and Fell by the suggestion of the Devil. This Holy Trinity, which is Indivisible with respect to its Essence, and distinguished according to its Personal Properties, has given to Mankind a Salutary Doctrine by the Ministry of Moses, the Prophets, and the other Servants of God, according to the Order and Disposition of Times. And at last Jesus Christ the only Son of God, who was Incarnate by the Power of the whole Trinity, and Conceived of the Virgin Mary (always a Virgin) by the Power of the Holy Ghost, who was true Man, made up of a reasonable Soul and humane Body, one single Person compounded of two Natures, has more clearly shown us the Way of Life, who being Immortal and Impassable as to his Divinity, as to his Humanity became Passable and Mortal: And he suffered for the Salvation of Mankind on the Cross; he Died and Descended into Hell; is Risen from the Dead, and Ascended up into Heaven; but he Descended in his Soul, and Rose again with his Body, and is Ascended into Heaven with his Body and Soul, and shall come again at the End of the World, to Judge both the Living and the Dead, and to give to all Men according to their Works, as well the Reprobates as the Elect, who shall all rise again with their own Bodies which they at present bear about them, that so they may receive according to their Deserts, whether they be Good or Bad; the latter Eternal Glory with Jesus Christ, and the former Eternal Damnation with the Devil. There is but one Catholic Church of the Faithful, out of which none is Saved; wherein Jesus Christ is both Priest and Sacrifice, whose Body and Blood are contained really in the Sacrament of the Altar under the Species of Bread and Wine; the Bread being Transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Wine into his Blood by the Power of God, that so to render the Mystery of the Unity perfect, we might receive of His Nature what he received of Ours. No Person may Consecrate the Sacrament, but the Priest who has received Lawful Ordination, by the power of the Keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ has given to his Apostles and their Successors. The Sacrament of Baptism, which is Consecrated by Invocation of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, on the Water, is the Cause of Salvation as well of Infants as of Adult Persons, when 'tis Conferred according to the Form of the Church, whoever it be that Administers it. If any one falls into Sin after Baptism, he may be always restored to Grace by a true Repentance: Not only Virgins and those who live Continently; but also Married Persons, who please God by their Faith and Good Life, merit Eternal Life. This is the Abstract of the Doctrine of the Church contained in the Profession of Faith of this Council. Which is the first Chapter or Canon of it.  
In consequence to this, the Council condemns in the Second Chapter, the Treatise Composed by the Abbot Joachim against Peter Lombard, about the Unity of the Essence of the Trinity; because that Abbot had treated him as a Fool and an Heretic, for having said in his Book of Sentences, That the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are one Supreme or Sovereign Being, which is neither begetting, begotten nor proceeding: A Proposition from whence he pretends it follows, That there is a Quaternity in the Godhead, namely Three Persons of the Trinity, and one common Essence. The Council explains and confirms the Doctrine of the Master of the Sentences, and rejects that of Joachim; who pretended, That the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, where not the same thing, tho' they be one Substance and one Nature; which yet he explained in such a manner, that he seemed to admit of only a Specific Unity, or resemblance between those Three Persons. The Council declared those to be Heretics, who would maintain the Opinion of the Abbot Joachim. However, they ordered, That the Condemnation should be no prejudice to the Monastery of Flora, of which Abbot Joachim was the Founder, because there they lived Regularly, and put in practice a very good Discipline; but especilly because that Abbot had submitted his Books to the judgement of the Holy See, and had protested in Writing, That his Belief was the same with that of the Church of Rome, which is the Mother and Mistress of all the Faithful. The Council likewise, condemned in the same Chapter, the Errors of Amaury, of whom 'tis said, That the Father of Lies, had so obscured his Understanding, that his Doctrine may rather pass for Nonsense than Heresy.  
In the Third Canon, they Excommunicated and Anathematised all the Heretics, who oppose the Catholic and Orthodox Faith, as before Explained: And 'tis therein Ordered, That the Heretics shall be delivered up after their Condemnation to the Secular Powers, or to their Officers, to be Punished according to their Demerits, the Clerks being first Degraded: That their Goods shall be Confiscated, if they be Laics: And if Clerks, than they shall be applied to the use of the Church: That those who lie under violent suspicions of Heresy shall be likewise Anathematised, if they do not give proofs of their Innocence, and they shall be avoided, till they have given satisfaction, and if they be in a State of Excommunication during a Year, they shall be condemned as Heretics: That the Lords shall be admonished and obliged by Ecclesiastical Censures, to take an Oath, that they will Extirpate Heretics and Excommunicate Persons, who shall be within their Territories: That if they neglect to do it after Admonition, they shall be Excommunicated by the Metropolitan and Bishops of the Province, and that in case they persist a Year without making satisfaction, the Sovereign Pontiff shall be advertised thereof, that so he may declare their Vassals absolved from their Oath of Fealty, and bestow their Lands upon such Catholics as will Seize upon them, who shall be the Lawful Possessors of them, by Extirpating Heretics, and preserving the purity of the Faith in them; but without prejudice to the Right of the Superior Lord, provided he offer no obstruction or hindrance to the putting this Ordinance in Execution. The same Indulgences are granted to those Catholics, as shall undertake to Extirpate Heretics by force of Arms, as are granted to those who go to the Holy Land. They Excommunicated those who entertained, protected, or supported Heretics, and declare, That those who shall be Excommunicated upon that account, if they do not make satisfaction within a Year, shall be declared Infamous, and divested of all Offices, as well as of Votes in the Elections; that they shall not be admitted as Evidences; that they shall be deprived of the Faculty of making a Will, or succeeding to an Estate; and Lastly, That they may not perform the Functions of any Office. 'Tis likewise farther ordered, That those who will not avoid the Company of such Persons as are by the Church denounced Excommunicate, shall be Excommunicated themselves, till they have given satisfaction. But above all, ecclesiastics are forbidden to Administer the Sacraments to them, to give them Christian Burial, to receive their Alms or Oblations, upon pain of being Suspended from the Functions of their Orders, wherein they may not be re-established without a special Indulto from the Pope. The same Punishment is likewise inflicted on the Regulars, and besides this, that they be not any longer tolerated in the Diocese, wherein they shall have committed such a Fact. All those are Excommunicated who shall dare to Preach without having received a Licence from the Holy See, or a Catholic Bishop. Lastly, The Arch-Bishops and Bishops, are obliged to visit in Person, or by their Arch-Deacons or by other Persons, once or twice a Year, the Dioceses where it is reported that there are any Heretics, and to put a certain number of Inhabitants upon their Oath, to discover to the Bishop such Heretics as may be detected. They are likewise enjoined to cause the Aecused to appear, and to punish them if they do not clear themselves, or if they relapse after they have been cleared. Lastly, The Bishops are threatened to be Deposed if they neglect to Purge their Diocese from Heretics.  
The Fourth Canon relates to the Greeks. It imports, That tho' the Council would honour and favour the Greeks, who threw themselves under the Obedience of the Holy See, by maintaining as far as possible their Customs and Ceremonies, yet it could not tolerate, what might be prejudicial to the Salvation of Souls and to the Ecclesiastical Dignity: That the Greeks, after they had shaken off their Obedience to the Holy See, have had so great an abhorrence to the Latins, that they would not Celebrate on the Altars whereon the Latins had Celebrated, till they had washed them; that they had Rebaptised those who had been Baptised by the Latins. They are here forbidden to do any such thing for the future, and are exhorted to conform themselves to the Church of Rome, that there may be one Flock under one Shepherd. They who shall for the future undertake the like, are menaced with Excommunication and Deposition.  
The Fifth regulates the Order of Patriarches, and orders, That next to the Church of Rome, which has the Primacy over all other Churches according to the Appointment of our Saviour, the Church of Constantinople shall have the First Place, that of Alexandria the Second, the Church of Antioch the Third, and that of Jerusalem the Fourth: And the Patriarches of those Churches are Impower'd to grant the Pall to the Arch-Bishops who depend on them, and to demand of them a Profession of Faith and of Obedience to the Holy See, after they themselves have received the Pall from the Holy See (which is here styled the Ensign of the Plenitude, of the Pastoral Power) and have taken an Oath of Fealty and Obedience to it. They are likewise allowed to have the Cross carried every where before them, except in the City of Rome, and other Places where the Pope shall be in Person, or his Legate, having the Marks of the Apostolic Dignity. They are also allowed the Privilege of Trying the Appeals of all the Provinces within their Jurisdiction, except Appeals to the Holy See, to which all the World ought to pay a Deference.  
In the Sixth it is ordered, That according to ancient Custom, the Metropolitans shall every Year call Provincial Councils, wherein they shall Treat of the Reformation of Manners, especially of those of the Clergy, and cause the Canons to be Read over, especially those that are made in this Council, and that the Bishops shall take care to have in their Dioceses several prudent and grave Persons, who without exercisingany Jurisdiction, shall inform themselves of such things as are necessary to be Reformed or Corrected, and shall make their Report to the Metropolitan and his Suffragans in the next Council, that so a Remedy may be applied.  
The Seventh, Enjoins the Ordinaries to be careful in Reforming the Manners of the Clergy within their Dioceses, and to correct the Abuses and Disorders; and that they might with the greater freedom, it declares, That they may not be hindered in doing it, under the pretence of any contrary Custom, or by any Appeal. With respect to the disorders of the Canons of Cathedral Churches, which the Chapters were used to Correct; 'tis here ordered, That they shall be Corrected at the time prefixed by the Bishop, if not, that then he shall make use of Ecclesiastical Censures to correct them: That he shall likewise take care to Reform the other Irregularities of his Clergy, by observing in all things the Rule and Order prescribed him: That moreover, if the Canons forbear to Say the Office in their Church, without any evident Reason, the Bishop shall not forbear to Celebrate, and upon his Complaint the Metropolitan shall make use of Ecclesiastical Censures against them. Lastly, The Ordinaries are admonished in this Canon, not to abuse this Ordinance, to get any profit to themselves by it, or to oppress those of their Diocese.  
The Eighth Canon, Regulates the Process which ought to be minded in the Accusations of ecclesiastics. 'Tis therein declared, That 'tis not to be tolerated to Accuse them lightly: That they ought to be present when they are informed against, unless they absent themselves out of Contumacy: That they ought to be told the Heads of the Information against them, and to know their Accusers, and to be admitted to put in their Replications and Lawful Exceptions: That there are three ways of proceeding against a Criminal, by way of Accusation, by Denunciation and by Inquisition. That the Accusation, aught to be ushered in by the complaint of the Accuser, the Denunciation, by a Charitable Admonition, and the Inquisition, by common Report: That yet it was not requisite to observe this Method precisely, with respect to Regulars, and that one might Divest them of their Offices when it was expedient, without observing all these Formalities.  
The Ninth orders, That the Bishops of Dioceses, wehrein there are People of different Nations, and who have different Customs, shall take care to provide Persons who may Celebrate Divine Service according to those different Rites, without putting themselves to the trouble of having two Bishops in one and the same Diocese.  
The Tenth imports, That the Bishops shall take care to have in the Churches of their Dioceses Eminent Persons to Preach the Word of God, and Administer the Sacrament of Penance.  
The Eleventh Confirms the Decree of the Council of the Lateran, Held under Alexander III importing, That there shall be in all Cathedral Churches a Master to Teach Gratis the Clergy of those Churches, and theothe● Poor Scholars, on whom they shall bestow the Revenue of a Benefice; and extends this Rule to other Churches, that so the same might be observed for the Master of a Grammar-School: And that in the Metropolitan Church, besides the Grammar-Master, there shall be a Divine to Teach the Priests and other ecclesiastics the Holy Scripture, and what relates to the Cure of Souls; that they shall bestow on him the Revenue of a Benefice, tho' he might be a Canon at the same time, and that he shall hold it so long as he shall be a Teacher: That if the Metropolitan Church have not wherewithal conveniently to keep a Theologician, and a Grammar-Master, the Theologician shall be kept there, and the Grammar-Master provided for in another Church.  
The Twelfth imports, That every three Years there shall be Held in all Kingdoms or Provinces, without prejudice to the Rights of the Diocesan Bishops, Chapters of Abbots, and Priors of Monasteries, who never were used to hold any such before: That they shall invite to them two Abbots of the Order of Cisteaux, who were accustomed to hold such: That Four of them shall Preside over the Chapter, which shall be Held several Days: That there they shall lay out themselves upon Reforming the Order, and making the Regular Discipline to Flourish: That whatever shall be Ordered with the Approbation of the Four Precedents, shall be Inviolably Observed notwithstanding any Opposition, or Appeal whatever: That all those who come to the Chapter shall live in Common whilst it is Held: That there they shall Nominate Visiters to Visit the Monasteries of Men and Women, and to Correct and Reform whatever shall want it in them; so that if they find themselves obliged to Depose any Superior, they shall acquaint the Bishop of him, who shall not fail to Depose him; and in case he does not do it, that then they should acquaint the Holy See with it. It order the same thing with respect to Regular Canons. However it does not discharge the Bishops from taking care of the Monasteries; on the contrary, it enjoins them with the utmost Diligence to keep up the Discipline, that so the Visiters may find nothing to Reform. Lastly, it order the Bishops and Precedents of Chapters to make use of Ecclesiastical Censures against the Seculars who shall do any wrong to the Monasteries.  
The Thirteenth prohibits all manner of Persons from Erecting a New Order, and imports, That those who would embrace the Monastic Life shall enter into an Order already approved; and that those who are willing to Found a New Monastery shall follow one of the Rules, and be one of the Orders already approved. It likewise forbids one and the same Person to be a Monk, or Abbot of two Monasteries.  
The Fourteenth enjoins, That the Incontinent Clerks shall be punished: That if any one being taken up for that Crime, shall dare to Celebrate, he shall be divested of his Benefices and Deposed: That the same Severity shall be used to Bishops, who shall countenance those Irregular Persons for any Interest: And that the ecclesiastics who are in Countries where they have Liberty to Marry, shall be more severely punished, if they fall into the Sin of Incontinence.  
The Fifteenth, Is against the Drunkenness of ecclesiastics, and forbids them to go a Hunting, and to keep Hounds or Hawks.  
The Sixteenth forbids them to concern themselves in Secular Trades, especially in such are dishonest: To go to Comedies or Farces; to frequent Public Houses, unless in a Journey, or in case of Necessity; and to play at any Games of Dice: And it enjoins them to wear a Coronet and Tonsure suitable to their Quality; to have Habits closed before, which should be neither too long nor too short; not to wear coloured clothes, or such as are set off with Trimming; not to wear at Church Copes with Sleeves, not to wear Clasps or Ribbans of Gold and Silver, nor Rings, unless by their Dignity they have a Right to wear them. It is likewise ordered, That Bishops shall wear in Church and out of Church Surplices of Linen, except those who ought to wear the Monachal Habit; and that the Mantles which they make use of, shall be fastened before or behind with Clasps.  
The Seventeenth is against the Effeminacy of some Clerks who spent part of the Night in Feasting, or in Profane Company, slept till Daylight, and in Saying their Matins left out one half of the Office: And against those who Celebrate Mass but four times a Year, and who were present at it but very seldom, and without any manner of Devotion. Those Irregularities were forbidden under pain of Suspension, and the Clerks are exhorted to Celebrate the Morning and Evening-Service constantly and Devoutly.  
The Eighteenth prohibits them from pronouncing the Sentence of Death, from assisting at Executions, from writing or dictating Letters to demand the Death of any Person, from being Inquisitors, from exercising any part of Chirurgery, wherein it was necessary to apply Iron or Fire; from giving Benediction for the making of a Trial by hot or cold Water, or by hot Iron.  
The Nineteenth forbids the putting any household-goods into Churches, unless in cases of necessity; and orders, That they shall keep the Utensils and Ornaments of the Church of their own.  
The Twentieth orders, That the Holy Chrism and the Eucharist shall be kept under Lock and Key; and that if the Person to whose Care they are entrusted, leaves the Place where they are, open, he shall be Suspended ab Officio for three Months, and if any Accident happen to them through his fault, he shall be Punished for it very severely.  
The Twenty first is the Famous Canon which enjoins, That all the Faithful of both Sexes who are arrived to Years of Discretion, shall Confess all their Sins at least once a Year to their own proper Priest (that is, the Curate, as appears by the Thirty second Canon, where this Title is given to Curates:) That they shall complete the Penance imposed on them, and receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist devoutly at least every Easter, unless they believe that they ought to abstain from it for some time, upon some reasonable Account, and with the Advice of their own proper Priest. Those who shall not discharge this Duty, shall be Condemned to the being deprived of entering into the Church whilst they Live, and of Eccesiastical Burial when they Die. And it is ordered, That this Canon shall be often Read publicly in the Church, that so none may plead Ignorance in the Case. 'Tis here added, That if any one would confess his Sins to a Priest that is a Stranger, he ought to ask and get leave for it of his own proper Priest, because otherwise he can neither bind nor unbind. The Priests are likewise admonished to be Discreet and Prudent, to handle like good Physicians the Wounds of their Patient; to pour into them Oil and Vinegar by informing themselves exactly of the State of the Sinner, and of the Circumstances of his Sins; and to know what Counsel he ought to give him, and what Remedies he ought to make use of to Cure him, to take care never to discover by Word or Sign the Sins of those who are Confessed; and if he wants Advice in the case, to ask it without discovering the Person. Lastly, That those who shall disclose any Sin that has been revealed to them in Confession, shall be condemned not only to be Deposed, but also to be Confined during Life in a Monastery, there to do Penance for it.  
The Twenty second imports, That the Physicians of the Body shall Advise their Patients to send for the Physicians of the Soul before they Prescribe any thing to them, that so they may provide for the Salvation of their Souls, before they lay out any care for the Health of their Body. It likewise forbids Physicians under pain of Excommunication to prescribe any thing to their Patient for the Health of his Body, which may put his Soul in any danger.  
The Twenty third imports, That a Cathedral or Regular Church shall not be vacant above three Months; and if those whose Right it is to Elect, do not proceed to an Election within that time, they shall forfeit the Right of Electing Pro hac vice, which shall lapse to their immediate Superior, who shall be obliged to do it within three Months.  
The Twenty fourth prescribes the Forms of Elections: Namely, That in the Presence of all those who ought to be there, three creditable Persons be chosen out of their Body, who shall Collect and exactly count the Voices of all who shall give their Suffrages; and who having put them in Writing, shall immediately publish them, without being liable to any Appeal, that so he may be Elected, who has all the Votes, or the Votes of the Major and Sounder Part of the Chapter: Or that they may commit the Power of Electing to a certain Number of capable Persons, who shall provide for the Vacant Church in the Name of All. The Elections made otherwise are declared Null; if they are not made by the Unanimous Vote of all the Electors as it were by Inspiration. These than are the three ways of Election, by Scrutiny, by Compromizing, and by Inspiration. They who observe not this Form shall forfeit their Right of Election pro hac Vice. It prohibits the Constituting a Procurator in the Business of Election, if he who Constitutes be not absent, and in a Place from whence he ought to be Summoned, where he is detained by a Lawful Obstruction, of which Oath shall be made; and in this Case 'tis allowed to Commissionate one of the Body in his Place. Lastly, It rejects clandestine and secret Elections, and enjoins, That the Election shall be solemnly published immediately after it be made.  
The Twenty fifth deprives him, who consents to an Election made by the Authority of Secular Powers, of the Benefice to which he has been Elected, and renders him uncapable of being Elected to another: And with respect to those who proceeded to the Election, it Suspends them for three Years ab Officio & Beneficio, and deprives them of the Right of Electing.  
The Twenty sixth imports, That he whose Right it is to Confirm the Person Elected ought carefully to inquire into the Form of the Election, and the Person Elected, that in case the Election be according to Form, and the Person Elected have the Qualifications requisite, he shall Confirm it. Those who Confirm an unworthy Person, shall forfeit their Right of Confirming, and be Suspended from their Benefices. The Bishops are admonished to promote only such to Holy Orders, who can acquit themselves of their Duties worthily. As for those who are under immediate Subjection to the Holy See, 'tis ordered, That if they can conveniently, they shall Personnally appear before the Pope to obtain the Confirmation of their Election, or shall send able Persons by whom one may be informed of the Qualifications of the Person elected, and of the Form of the Election; provided notwithstanding that those who are out of Italy, if their Election be not Disputed, shall have the Administration both of Spirituals and Temporals. As to the Consecration or Benediction, 'tis declared, That it shall be given according to Custom.  
The Twenty seventh enjoins the Bishops to Instruct, or cause those to be Instructed on whom they Confer Priests-Orders, of the manner of Celebrating Divine Service, and of Administering the Sacraments. They are threatened to be Punished who shall for the future Ordain Ignorant Priests; because 'tis more Eligible to have a few good, than a great many bad Ministers.  
The Twenty eight orders, That those who shall have asked and obtained leave to quit their Benefices, shall be bound to do so; if not, that then they shall be forced to it.  
The Twenty ninth renews the Canon of the Lateran Council Held under Alexander III. which prohibits one and the same Person from holding several Benefices, that have the Cure of Souls; and that this may be put in Execution, it orders, That any Ecclesiastic who shall accept of a Benefice having the Cure of Souls, when he has another of the same Nature, shall forfeit his Right to the first, and if he will hold it, he shall likewise be turned out of the latter: That the Patron of the first Benefice shall forthwith bestow it on whom he pleases, and if he delays Presenting the space of three Months, not only the Right of Presenting shall lapse to another, as is ordered in the former Lateran Council, but also that he shall bestow so much of his Revenues on the Church, as he has gained by the Vacant Benefice. The same thing is ordered with respect to Personats, and therein 'tis prohibited the having two Personats in one and the same Church, tho' they have not the Cure of Souls. However 'tis declared, That the Holy See may dispense with this Law with respect to Persons of Merit and Learning, who ought to be Dignifyed with Considerable Benefices, when there shall be sufficient Reason for it.  
The Thirtieth orders, That those who shall Collate Benefices on in-sufficient Persons, shall be Suspended from their Right of Collating, and that this Suspension shall not be taken off, but by the Authority of the Pope, or Patriarch.  
The Thirty first imports, That the Children of Canons, and especially Bastards, may not have prebend's in the Churches where their Fathers are Canons.  
The Thirty second orders the Patrons of Parochial Churches to allow the Curates a sufficient Part of the Revenues for their Maintenance, and enjoins the Curate to serve their Cures themselves and not by Vicars, at least, that a Parish-Church shall not be annexed to a Prebend or a Dignity in which Case he who is the Incumbent being obliged to do Duty in the Great Church, shall substitute in his Place for the Cure a constant Vicar, to whom he shall allow a Competency. It prohibits the laying a Pension on the Revenues of Curates.  
The Thirty third orders, That the Bishops, or their Arch-Deacons shall not exact the Right of Procuration, but when they shall Visit in their own Persons; that they shall observe the Regulation made in the Lateran Council. This Law likewise extended to the Legates and Nuncio's of the Holy See; and they who Visit are recommended not to seek their own Profit, but the Glory of Jesus Christ, and to apply themselves to the Reformation of Manners and to Preaching.  
The Thirty fourth prohibits the Exactions made under a pretence of paying the Duty of Procuration to Legates or any others.  
The Thirty fifth prohibits the Appealing from a Judge to a Superior before he has passed Sentence, unless there be a lawful Cause for such an Appeal, which shall be represented to the Judge before it can be brought before the Superior; which is enjoined without prejudice to those Constitutions, which order, That the greater Causes shall be referred to the Holy See.  
The Thirty sixth imports, That if the Judge revoke a Comminatory or Interlocutory Sentence which he has passed, he may continue the drawing up of the Process, when an Appeal has been made from this Sentence.  
The Thirty seventh prohibits the granting of Commissions for the allowing Persons to appeal before Judges above two days Journey distant from the Place where the Person assigned is; and the obtaining such Commissions without special Orders from the Lord of the Place.  
The Thirty eighth enjoins the Judges to have a Public Officer, or two sufficient Persons, who shall write down all the Form of the Processes, which shall be communicated to the Parties concerned keeping the Minutes by them.  
The Thirty ninth orders, That the Person who has been turned out of any Place, shall be first put in it again, before his Right to it be tried.  
The Fortieth imports, That the Possession of a Year shall be computed from the Day of its being settled by a Decree; tho' the Person in whose favour Sentence is passed, cannot by reason of the malice of his Adversary, be put into possession of the thing which is adjudged to him, or may have been turned out of it. It prohibits ecclesiastics from committing the Trial of Ecclesiastical Causes to Laics.  
The Forty first imports, That the Prescription which is not Bona fide made shall be of no force, and that 'tis necessary that he who makes use of Prescription, shall not remember any time when what he holds did not belong to him.  
The Forty second prohibits ecclesiastics from enlarging their Jurisdiction to the prejudice of Secular Justice.  
The Forty third prohibits Laics from exacting Oaths of Fidelity from ecclesiastics, who hold no Temporality of them to oblige them to it.  
The Forty fourth declares, That the Constitutions of Princes which are prejudicial to the Rights of the Church shall not be observed, whether they be for the Alienation of Fiefs, or for the Encroaching on the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, or for any other Goods.  
The Forty fifth prohibits Patrons and Vouchers of Churches from undertaking more than is allowed them, and deprives them of the Right of Patronage, who shall wound or kill the Clerks of the Churches under their Patronage.  
The Forty sixth revives the Excommunication issued out by the Lateran Council against those who exact Tallies and other Taxes from ecclesiastics. Notwithstanding it allows Bishops in cases of Necessity to engage ecclesiastics to give something, provided they have advised with the Pope about it first. It declares those Sentences Null that are made by Excommunicated Persons, and it observes, that those who have been Excommunicated whilst they were in an Office, are not discharged from their Excommunication for their having quitted that Office.  
The Forty seventh regulates the Form of Excommunication as follows. The Excommunication ought to be preceded by Admonition made in the Presence of several Witnesses: It ought to be founded on a public and reasonable Cause. If the Excommunicated Person finds himself aggrieved, he may complain of it to the Superior Judge, who shall send him back to be absolved by the Judge who Excommunicated him, if there be no danger in such a delay; but if it is to be feared, that this Delay may have dangerous Consequences, he may himself give him Absolution. When the Injustice of the Excommunication shall be proved, he who has Excommunicated shall be condemned to repair the Damages of him who has been Excommunicated, and be punished according as his Superior judges requisite. But if he who complains of the Excommunication does not bring any sufficient reason, he shall be condemned to Damages and punished as the Superior pleases, if he be not excusable by some probable Error, and he shall remain Excommunicated till he has made Satisfaction, or given Security for doing it. If a Judge finding himself in a mistake revoke his Sentence, and he in whose favour it was made will appeal, no notice shall be taken of such Appeal, unless the Error be such as admits of no Question: in which Case he shall absolve the Excommunicated Person, upon Condition that he will submit to the Judgement of him to whom the Appeal has been made.  
The Forty eighth imports, That when any Person has a Judge whom he suspects, and will refuse to be Tried by him, he shall allege the Reasons of his Suspicion before Umpires who shall be pitched upon, and if they think them Just, the refused Judge shall refer the Process to another Judge or the Superior. That if it happens that he who has received Admonition, does Appeal, and yet his Disorder be certain either by the Evidence of the Fact, or by his own Confession, or by any other way, that then no notice shall be taken of that Appeal; and in case the Crime be dubious, the accused shall be obliged in appealing to notify before the Judge the reason of his Appeal, which ought to be such, that if it be proved, it shall be allowed Lawful: That he shall be likewise obliged to prosecute his Appeal before the Judge in a competent time, if not, than the First Judge shall proceed against him notwithstanding his Appeal, and if he has made a wrong Appeal, he shall be sent back to the first Judge. However these Orders are not to be understood to touch the Regulars.  
The Forty ninth prohibits the Excommunicating or Absolving any Person for Interest, and orders that in the Places where they impose a pecuniary Mulct in giving Absolution, they shall be obliged to make Restitution in case the Excommunication was unjust.  
The Fiftieth repeals the Prohibition of contracting Marriage in the second and third Degree of Affinity, and between Children issuing from a second Marriage, and the Relations of the former Husband, and restrains the Degrees wherein Marriages were unlawful to the fourth Degree of Consanguinity and Affinity.  
The Fifty first prohibits Clandestine Marriages, and orders, That the Priests shall publish the Banns in Churches, that so such Impediments as are lawful may be objected against them. Penalties are likewise inflicted on those who Countenance or Authorise Incestuous or Clandestine Marriages.  
The Fifty second imports, That they shall admit of no Evidences with respect to Marriage-Impediments, who only give in their Evidences by Hear-say, unless they be very creditable Persons, and who depose, that they have heard it said by several Persons before the Process was drawn up: That those Witnesses shall swear that they are not induced thereto by any Motive of Hatred, of Fear, of Friendship, or of Interest: That they shall mention the Degrees of Kindred: And Lastly, That they shall not be credited, unless they depose, that they have seen several of those Persons treat one another as Relations.  
The Fifty third prohibits the giving of Lands to such Persons as have not used to pay Tithes to Churches.  
The Fifty fourth imports, That the Tenth ought to be taken of all sorts of Revenues before any thing is raised upon it for the payment of the Tax or Tribute.  
The Fifty fifth orders, That the Demeans which for the future shall be purchased by the Monks of Cisteaux, or by any others shall pay Tithes.  
The Fifty sixth prohibits the Secular or Regular Clergy, when they let out Inheritances, or bestow them in Fief, from stipulating, that they shall pay them the Tenths thereof, and that those to whom they give them shall be interred among them.  
The Fifty seventh to redress the Abuses of several Privileges granted to Regulars, ordains, That the Privilege granted to the Friars of several Orders of being always interred in Holy Ground, at least if they were not formally Excommunicated or Interdicted, ought not to be understood but only of such who are consecrated and have changed their Habit, or of those who have bestowed their Estate upon them, of which they have only retained to themselves the Usufructus of it. The Privilege likewise is restrained which they had of opening the Churches of an interdicted Place upon their Arrival there, to only one single Church.  
The Fifty eighth grants to the Episcopal Churches during an Interdiction, the favour granted to several Monks of Celebrating Divine Service in their Churches with a low Voice without ringing the Bells, at least when this was not expressly prohibited by the Interdiction, or when those of that Church had not been the occasion of the Interdiction; and upon condition that the Excommunicated and Interdicted Persons shall not be present.  
The Fifty ninth extends to all the Monks the Prohibition that was made to particular Persons of being Surety for any one, or raising any Sum without the Abbot's and the major Part of the Chapter's Leave.  
The Sixtieth prohibirs the Abbots from encroaching on the Rights of Bishops, by trying the Causes of Matrimony, by imposing public Pennances, by granting of Indulgences, and by performing any other Functions peculiar to the Bishops, unless they have leave, or a lawful reason for so doing.  
The Sixty first revives the Canon of the Lateran Council, which prohibits the Monks from receiving Tithes from the Hands of Laics, and enjoins them to present to the Bishops such Priests to serve in the Churches which do not depend on them Pleno Jure, who shall be responsible to the Bishops for the Spiritualities, and may not be turned out without their permission.  
The Sixty second imports, That having understood that Religion was often dishonoured by exposing of Relics to Sale, to put a stop to this Scandal for the future, it prohibits the showing of Reliks' out of their Cases, the exposing them to Sale, and the honouring any new ones, unless approved by the Pope's Authority. It admonishes the Prelates not to suffer, that those who come out of Devotion to their Churches, be imposed upon by Falsities and sham's, as it happened in most Places where this Practice prevailed for Interest. And they are prohibited from admitting of any Questors, who have not the Pope's permission, of which the Form is here given. Lastly, The Abuse of indiscreet Indulgences is regulated, and 'tis ordered, That the Indulgences for the Dedication of a Church, shall last no longer than a Year, and that on the Anniversary of that Feast, they shall grant remission of Penance enjoined for Forty Days only. It likewise requires, That the number of Indulgence-days be likewise limited in all other Acts by which they are granted.  
The Sixty third abolishes the Use, or rather Abuse, which was crept into some Churches of exacting a certain Sum for the Benediction of Abbots, and for the Conferring of Holy Orders, and declares those who exact or receive any thing upon that account to be guilty of Simony.  
The Sixty fourth prohibits likewise the exacting of any thing for being admitted into any Religious Order, and enjoins, That the Nuns who shall give or exact any thing under any Pretence whatsoever shall be turned out of the Monastery, and enjoined Penance in a more Austere Monastery. And as to those who have been admitted for Money before this Decree, 'tis ordered that they shall retire into another Convent of the same Order, or shall be admitted afresh into the Monastery wherein they are, and shall take their Places only from the Day of this latter Admission. The same thing is ordered with respect to Monks and the other Regulars, and the Bishops are enjoined to publish this Decree every Year in their Dioceses, that it might be observed.  
The Sixty fifth prohibits the Bishops from interdicting a Church after the death of the Curate, in order to exact a Sum of Money of his Successor, or from demanding any thing to permit a Secular to be admitted into any Religious Order or to be interred there.  
The Sixty sixth prohibits the demanding any thing for the Burial of the Dead, for the Benediction of Marriage, or for any such like things. However 'tis not pretended by this Decree to put a stop to the pious Customs which some out of an Heretical Spirit would abolish.  
The Sixty seventh is against the exorbitant Usury of the Jews. It orders, That those among them who exact any from the Christians, shall be debarred from having any Commerce with Christians; as well as those who will not give the Church satisfaction for the Tithes and the other Oblations due upon the account of the Houses or Inheritances which they Possess.  
In the Sixty eighth 'tis ordered, That the Saracens and Jews shall wear particular Habits to distinguish them from others, and they are prohibited to go abroad on Good Friday, because at that time they were used to express their joy in insulting over the Christians. Princes are enjoined to prevent them from uttering Blasphemies against Jesus Christ.  
The Sixty ninth revives the Canon of the Council of Toledo, which forbids the bestowing any Public Charges or Offices upon them.  
The Seventieth imports, That the Jews who are Converted and have been Baptised, shall be hindered from observing their Ceremonies, and from mixing Judaisme with Christianity.  
Those Chapters, or at least part of them, being Read in the Council, the Pope caused the Decree for the Crusade to be Published, being drawn up in these Terms. Being earnestly desirous to recover the Holy Land from the Hands of the Profane, We Order by the Advice of Prudent Persons, who are acquainted with the favourable Circumstances of Times and Places, and by the Approbation of the Sacred Council, that the Croisado-Men shall be ready by the first of June in the Year ensuing; and that all those who are resolved to go by Sea shall Rendezvouz in the Kingdom of Sicily, some at Brinda and others at Messina, and the adjacent Places, where we are resolved to be in Person, that so that Army may be Regulated by our Councils, Aided by our Succours, and departed with the Divine and Apostolic Benediction. Those who will go by Land, shall be likewise ready by the same time, and shall give us notice thereof, that so we may send them a Legate to Conduct and Secure them. That the Priests and other ecclesiastics from the Highest to the Lowest, who shall be in the Christian Army, take care to apply themselves to Prayer and Preaching, and to Instruct others by their Doctrine and Examples, that so they might have the Fear of God always before their Eyes, and that they neither say nor do any thing which may offend the Divine Majesty: And if they should fall into any Sin, they rise again by Repentance. He grants to the ecclesiastics who shall be in that Army, the Right of receiving the Revenues of their Benefices for three Years, as if they were Resident. He order all the Prelates to admonish all those who are Engaged in the Crusade, That they are obliged to perform their Vow, and to constrain those who will not do it by Excommunicating their Persons and Interdicting their Demeans, if they have no lawful Hindrance, which the Holy See judges sufficient to dispense them from their Vow. He recommends to them likewise the Exhorting and Inviting all the Princes and all their Subjects to provide Soldiers, Arms, Provisions and Ships for the Expedition, in order to obtain the Remission of their Sins: And to set an Example himself, He declares, That he will furnish them with Thirty thousand Pounds of his Estate, besides the Charges of the Journey of those Croisado-Men in and about Rome, upon which Three thousand Marks of Charity-Money, lying in his Hands, shall be expended. He enjoins all Beneficed Men to give the Twentieth Penny of their Ecclesiastical Incomes during three Years for the Relief of the Holy Land, and to deposit those Sums into the Hands of those who shall be Commissioned by the Holy See to be Collectors of it: He excepts out of this several Monks, and those who shall go in Person to this Expedition: He engages himself and the Cardinals to pay the Tenth of their Revenues. He puts the Estates of those who are engaged in the Crosaide, under the Protection of the Holy See, that so no Tax might be laid upon them. He would have the Interests of the Money which they owed during this Expedition to be remitted, and that the Jews be obliged to remit it to them. He Excommunicates those who shall assist or secure the Corsairs and Pirates, that take and Rob those who go to the Holy Land; those who shall supply the Saracens with Arms, or other Warlike Ammunitions, to be made use of against the Christians; all those who shall aid or give them any Assistance; those who shall carry any Ships into the East, during the four ensuing Years; and those who shall hold any Tournaments. He enjoins, That all the Christian Princes who are at War shall make Peace, or at least a Truce for four Years, and that they shall be constrained thereto by Excommunicating their Persons and Interdicting their States. Lastly, he grants to all who shall go to the Holy Land in their own Persons, and at their own Charges, a plenary Indulgence of all their Sins for which they shall have Contrition, and which they shall have Confessed: And he promises them a more perfect Degree of Eternal Happiness than to others. He grants likewise a plenary Indulgence to all those that shall send Persons to it at their own Charges, or to those who shall go at the Charges of others, and grants a proportionable Part of this Indulgence to those that shall Contribute to the Relief of the Holy Land either by their Goods or their Advice. And Lastly, He declares, That the Universal Synod joins with him in his good Wishes, to all those who shall Contribute towards so Good a Work.  
Historians tell us of several other Matters which were Regulated by this Council, or rather by the Pope. The Cause of the Empire was there Agitated between the Deputies of Otho and Frederick, and Adjudged in favour of the latter. Therein they likewise Treated of the Affair of the Counts of Toulouse and Foix, who requested to be re-setteled in their Estates. The Brother of the Count of Montfort maintained that they ought not to be restored to them, and upon their Contest, it was Ordered, That the City of Toulouse, and the other Countries which the Croisado Men had Conquered, should be given to the Count of Montfort. And with respect to the Demeans which the Count of Toulouse had in Provence, that they should be Sequestered to be Surrendered either in whole or in part to the Son of the Count of Toulouse, if he gave any signs of the sincerity of his Faith and of his good Life. This Decree is related by Father Luke Dachery in the Seventh Tome of his Spicilegium, by which it appears, that there was likewise reserved to Raimond Count of Toulouse a certain Annual Sum upon his Revenues, and his Wife the Sister of the King of Arragon had reserved to her the Lands which belonged to her as her Dowry. The Pope Confirmed the Sentence of Suspension passed by his Legates against Stephen Archbishop of Canterbury, Charged with having held Intelligence with the Barons of England who would have Deposed the King. Those Lords were Excommunicated. 'Tis said likewise said, that the Patriarch of the Maronitae, Reunited those of his Nation to the Church of Rome in this Council; that there they Debated the Question about the Primacy of Toledo: That the Pope did then Institute the Order of the Cross, and Approved of the Dominican and Franciscan Orders.  
This Council which was so Numerous at first, broke up in less than a Month. The Prelate's weary with staying at Rome, begged leave one after another to departed; and the Pope (if Matthew Paris may be believed) granted them leave, by obliging them before their Departure to take up great Sums from the Merchants of Rome to give him. The War between those of Pisa and the Genoese, and the Troubles of Italy, immediately obliged the Pope to put an end to the Council, and to quit his Care for the Affairs of the Church, to put in order those of Italy. Being set out from Rome on that Design he Died at Perusa the 16th. of July 1216.   

The Council of Melun in the Year 1216.  
POpe Innocent III. having Wrote to Peter of Corbeil Archbishop of Sens and his Suffragans, against King Philip Augustus, whom he suspected of supporting his Son Lewis, whom he had Excommunicated, 
The Council of Melun, 1216.  because he carried on a War against John King of England, tho' he was Crossed for the Holy Land; they met at Melun, in the Year 1216. to return an Answer to the Pope, and at the same time made several Orders relating to Church-Discipline. They order, That those who shall continue in a State of Excommunication above a Year and a Day without being Absolved, shall be constrained thereto by the Secular Power, which shall Seize upon their Persons and Effects. They prohibit a Prior, if he be not a Coventual, from Borrowing more than Forty Sols without the leave of his Abbot. They enjoin the Abbots and Priors to give an Account every Year in the Chapter, of the Income and the Expenses of the Monastery. They prohibit them from Borrowing any Sum without the Consent of the Chapter and the Advice of the Bishop, in case the Abbot be absent. And Lastly, they order, the Abbots and Monks to be Habited according to their Quality.   

The Council of Oxford, in the Year 1222.  
STephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury, of whom we have already made mention; held a Council 
The Council of Oxford, 1222.  at Oxford in the Year 1222. wherein he made a great many Orders for Reforming the Church of England, and especially the Monastical Discipline. He therein Condemned an Impostor who called himself The Christ, and showed marks in his Hands, in his Feet, and in his Side, as the Scars of those Wounds made in his Suffering upon the Cross. We have the Canons of this Council, divided into Forty nine Chapters.  
The first declares all those Excommunicated who wrong the Church; those that disturb the quiet of the State; false Witnesses, especially in the Case of Marriage, and Disinheriting; false Accusers; those who unjustly or maliciously oppose the Patronage, or the taking Possession of Benefices: and those that obstruct the Execution of the Orders of the Prince against Excommunicated Persons.  
The Second concerns the Duties of Bishops who are recommended to have honest and grave Almoners, to be Charitable, to give Audience to the Poor, and to do them Justice, to hear Confessions- to see that their Dioceses be Visited, to be resident at their Cathedrals on the Great Festivals and during Lent, and tosee that the Profession of Faith which they made at their Consecration be read.  
By the Third, they are prohibited from exacting any thing for the Collation of Benefices; and by the Fourth, from delaying to give Institution and Induction to such as are presented to them for to supply the Benefices. However in case there be two Persons presented by two Patrons, it is ordered by the Fifth, That neither of them shall be promoted by the Bishop till the Cause be determined.  
The Sixth imports, That the Priests shall celebrate Mass and administer the Sacraments with Devotion; that they shall repeat the Words of the Canon entirely; that they shall not take the Ablution, if they are to celebrate again the same day. They are likewise prohibited from celebrating the Mass often on one and the same day, except on Christmas and Easter-day: or when a Corpse is to be interred, in which case they shall say the First Mass of the Day, and the Second for the Deceased.  
The Seventh prohibits the ecclesiastics who are Beneficed or in Orders, from being Farmers, Judges, Bailiffs, or Officers, and from giving or passing Sentences of Death. Prohibitions are therein likewise made from holding a Session to try a Criminal in Consecrated Places, such as the Church and Church-yard.  
The Eighth contains the Catalogue of Feasts that ought to be Solemnised, which are all Sundays, the Five Days of Christmas, the Circumcision, the Epiphany, all the Festivals of the Blessed Virgin, except that of the Conception, to celebrate which no Man is obliged (these are the very Words of the Council) the Conversion of St. Paul, the Chair of St. Peter, all the Festivals of the Apostles, the Feast of St. Gregory, Holy Thursday, the Second, Third and Fourth Holydays in Easter-Week, Ascension-day, the Second, Third and Fourth holidays in Whitsunweek, the Feast of St. Augustin in May, the Two Feasts of the Holy Cross, the Translation of St. Thomas the Martyr, the Two Feasts of St. John, the Feast of St. Margaret; that of St. Mary Magdalene, the Feast of St. Peter in bonds the Feasts of St. Laurence, St. Michael, St. Edmund the Confessor, St. Edmund the King and Martyr, Sr. Catharine, St. Clement, and St. Nicholas, the Feast of the Dedication of each Church, and the Feast of the Holy Patron. There are likewise reckoned several other Feasts of a Second Rank which are to be celebrated with less Solemnity, and several of a Third Rank, on which they might go to work after Mass, with a List of the Vigils and Fasts of the Year.  
The Ninth enjoins the Curates to Preach often, and to take care to visit the Sick.  
The Tenth imports, That every Church shall have a Silver-Chalice, with other necessary Utensils, a White Surplice, Altar-clothes, Books and Ornaments proper and suitable, and that the Arch-Deacons shall take care of it.  
The Eleventh prohibits a Man who resigns a Benefice, from retaining the Vicarage thereof.  
The Twelfth forbids the dividing a Benefice into several, and the giving it to divers Persons.  
The Thirteenth prohibits the giving the Vicarage of a Church to a Man who will not serve that Church in Person.  
The Fourteenth orders the Residence of the Beneficed Clergy.  
The Fifteenth adjusts what Allowance is complete for a Vicar.  
The Sixteenth declares, That there ought to be two or three Priests in the great Parishes.  
The Seventeenth imports, That the Bishop shall cause him who is presented to a Benefice to take an Oath, that he has given nothing to him who Presented him.  
The Eighteenth, That there shall be settled in every Arch-Deaconry Confessors for the Rural Deans, end the other ecclesiastics, who will not Confess themselves to their Bishop.  
The Nineteenth prohibits Rural Deans from taking Cognizance of Matrimonial Causes.  
The Twentieth forbids all manner of Persons to keep Robbers in their Service ..  
The Twenty first forbids the Arch-Deacons to be any Charge to the Churches in their Visits.  
The Twenty second prohibits the Leasing out of Benefices.  
The Twenty third and the four next order the Arch-Deacons to inform themselves whether the Canon be as it ought to be, and whether the Priests know how to recite it and to pronovoce the Words of Baptism; to inform themselves whether the Eucharist and the Holy Chrism be under Lock and Key, and to take an Account of the Ornaments and Goods of the Churches.  
The Twenty eighth prohibits the Ordinaries, or their Officers from Issuing out any Sentences which are not preceded by a Cononical Admonition.  
The Twenty ninth imports, That nothing shall be demanded for Burial, nor for Administering the Sacraments.  
The Thirtieth and Thirty first prohibit the Ecclesiastical Judges from hindering the Agreement of the Parties, and from obliging any Person to clear himself, unless he has been Accused by Men of Probity.  
The following Chapters regard the Manners of the ecclesiastics. They are ordered to wear the Clerical Habit, to have close Sleeves, and a Cronet and short Hair, to avoid Drunkenness, and to keep no Concubines.  
The Thirty sixth and seventh prohibit the Alienation of the church-good, and the giving them in Fief to Laics.  
The Thirty eighth and ninth have relation to the Nuns. They are prohibited to wear Silk-Vails, or such as are Embroidered with Silver, to have Habits with Trains, and to demand any Money for being Admitted into the Nunnery.  
The Fortieth prohibits the Farming out of Churches, unless for some Reason to be Allowed by the Bishop, and to a Person who, one may be assured, will make a good use of it.  
The Forty first prohibits the granting to any Person the enjoying a Benefice with the Charge of Souls, any Revenue in another Church, tho' it be sub Titulo Gratiae.  
The Forty second imports, That the Advocates, who shall Dispute the Validity of a Marriage, which shall be declared Good by the Sentence of the Judge, shall be Suspended from their Function for a Year, if the Judge do not Discharge them by the Sentence itself.  
The following Chapters relate to the Monks. 'Tis therein ordered, That they shall live in Common, that they shall Lie in the same Dormitory, and Eat in the same Refectory: That no Monk shall be Admitted before the Age of Eighteen: That the Nuns shall not go out of their Nunnery; That silence shall be kept in the Monasteries; That the Monks shall not go out of their Monastery without the leave of their Superiors: That the Superiors may send a Monk into another Monastery, if they think fit: That the Nuns shall have only such Confessors as are Appointed by the Bishop, etc. Lastly, The Council Confirmed whatever had been Ordered in the Lateran Council under Innocent III.   

The Council of Mentz in the Year 1225.  
IN the Year 1224. Honorius III. sent as his Legate into Germany Cardinal Conrade Bishop of O-Porto, 
The Council of Mentz 1225.  who had formerly been Monk and Abbot of Cisteaux, to endeavour to Reform the Manners of that Kingdom. This Legate Held a Council at Mentz the Ninth of December in the Year 1225. where he made several General Constitutions for all Germany.  
The Three first are against the Clerks who keep Concubines.  
The Fourth prohibits the Issuing out any Excommunication, without a precedent Admonition.  
The Fifth declares the Legacies of church-good made by Clerks to their Natural Children, or their Concubines Null.  
The Sixth enjoins, That the Clerks who being Excommunicated or Suspended by their Bishops, continue to perform their Functions, shall be Deposed from their Offices and Benefices, without hopes of being Restored.  
The Seventh declares those Persons Excommunicated, who Celebrate the Holy Mysteries before Persons declared Excommunicated.  
The Eighth imports, That the Bishops shall Certify to the Neighbouring Bishops the Persons whom they shall have Excommunicated, that so they may shun them and cause them to shunned by others, and declares, That if any of them shall wittingly Communicate with those whom his Brethren have Excommunicated, the Canons of his Cathedral Church shall separate themselves from his Communion so long as he persists in defiance of this Rule.  
The Ninth Anathematizes the Patrons, who in bestowing of Benefices that are in their Gift, shall keep back part of the Tithes, or of the Ecclesiastical Revenues. In the next 'tis ordered, That those who shall be Advanced on that Condition, shall be Deprived of their Office, or their Benefice.  
In the Eleventh the Bishops and Arch-Deacons are forbidden to receive any of those who are Presented to them by Patrons, till he has taken an Oath, that he has not committed Simony.  
By the Twelfth it is prohibited to put any Hireling-Priests into Churches: And in those where there ought to be Vicars, 'tis ordered, That they shall be perpetual, and shall be allowed an honourable Subsistence.  
The Thirteenth inflicts the Penalty of Suspension on those who shall Tempt any Virgin's Consecrated to God, and the Penalty of Excommunication ipso facto, on those who shall Debauch them. Lastly, it is ordered, That those Constitutions shall be Published throughout all Germany.   

The Council of Narbonne in the Year 1227.  
LEwis VIII. King of France being at Pamiez in the Year 1226. made a Law against those who despised 
The Council of Narbonne in 1227.  the Keys of the Church, by which he Condemns to a Mulct, those who shall permit themselves to be Excommunicated, and orders, That all the Goods of those who shall remain under Excommunication above a Year shall be Sequestered. This Law was Confirmed the next Year in a Provincial Council Held in Lent at Narbonne. This is the first Article of that Council.  
The Second, Third and Fourth are against the Jews, by the last, they are adjudged to pay Yearly Six Pence each to the Parish wherein they live.  
The Fifth Regulates the Forms of the Last Wills and Testaments, and imports, That they shall be 
The Council of Narbonne in 1236.  made in the Presence of the Curate and some Catholic Persons.  
The Sixth is against perjured Persons and false Witnesses.  
The Seventh orders, That the Names of those who Confess themselves, shall be Registered, and that those who will not come at least once a Year to Confession, shall be deprived during their Lives from entering into the Church, and after their Death of Ecclesiastical Burial. It is likewise enjoined, That the Confessions ought to be made Publicly, and not Privately.  
The Eighth imports, That every Lord's Day they shall Excommunicate public Usurers, Incestuous Persons, such who keep Concubines, Adulterers, Ravishers, and those who obstruct the Executing of Last Wills and Testaments.  
The Ninth imports, That there shall be given to Priests who serve the Churches a competent and suitable Allowance.  
The Tenth, That there shall not be less than three Monks, or three Canons in Religious Houses.  
The Eleventh, That the Monks, or Regular Canons shall not perform the Office of Advocates.  
The Twelfth, That the Clergy shall not be Taxed.  
The Thirteenth, That they shall not impose any new Customs.  
The Fourteenth, That there shall be in every Parish Inquisitors after Heretics.  
The Fifteenth, That the Lords, Governors, Judges, etc. shall be obliged to drive out Heretics.  
The Sixteenth, That Heretics shall be turned out of all Offices of Trust.  
The Seventeenth, That they shall be declared Excommunicated who give any Countenance to Raimond the Son of the Count of Toulouse, to the Count of Foix, and to the Viscount of Beziers.  
The Eighteenth, That those who have Benefices with the Cure of Souls, shall be Advanced to Priesthood.  
The Nineteenth, That those who beg Alms shall not Preach in Churches but shall only Read their Letters.  
The Twentieth, That the Feast of St. Mathias shall always be Celebrated in Leapyear the second of the two Bissextile Days: That the Emberweek in September shall always be observed the first Wednesday of that Month; and that every Year a Provincial Council shall be Celebrated on the Sunday called Laetare.   

The Council of Toulouse in the Year 1229.  
RAimond Junior Count of Toulouse having made his Peace with King Saint Lewis, and being returned 
The Council of Toulouse 1229.  to his Estates, Romanus Cardinal of St. Angelo, Legate of the Holy See, followed him in order completely to destroy Heresy in that Country, and Held there a Council in the Year 1229, which begun in July and ended in November, at which were present Peter Amelli Archbishop of Narbonne, Gerard of Malemort Archbishop of Bourdeaux, and Amaneus Archbishop of Ausche, and several Bishops of those Provinces: The Counts of Toulouse and the other Barons and Lords of the Country, except the Count of Foix, were likewise there, with the Seneschal of Carcassonne and the two Consuls of Toulouse, who were to Swear to and Approve of the Peace. The Legate proceeded therein against several Heretics, Reconciled several of them who Recanted, and made Forty five Orders for the Rooting out of Heresy.  
In the First, He enjoins the Arch-Bishops and Bishops to settle in each Parish a Priest and two or three approved Laics, to make Inquisition after Heretics, and to engage them upon Oath to use their utmost Endeavours to find them out, to Present them forthwith to the Bishop, and to the Lords or their Bailiffs.  
In the Second, the same thing is enjoined to Abbots exempted with respect to the Places where they have Jurisdiction.  
In the Third, the Lords of the respective Places are recommended to search after Heretics, and to ruin the Places whither they resort.  
In the Fourth, there is added the Penalty of Losing their Estates, against those who know that a Heretic lives in their Territories, and will suffer it. And with respect to those who shall neglect to make Inquisition after them, 'tis ordered in the next Canon, That they shall likewise be punished for their neglect. The Houses where Heretics shall be found are not so much as spared; and in the Sixth Canon, 'tis declared, That they shall be destroyed, and that the Ground shall be Confiscated. The Bailiffs are Condemned to the loss of their Offices and Estates, who shall be careless and negligent in searching after Heretics.  
But to prevent the Abuse that might be made of these Constitutions, in making those pass for Heretics who were not so; 'tis ordered in the Eighth, That no Person shall be Condemned as an Heretic, who has not been judged to be one by the Bishop of the Place.  
The Ninth gives leave to the Lords and their Officers to Apprehend Heretics upon the Territories of other Lords.  
The Tenth imports, That the Heretics who voluntarily Recant, shall not remain in the Villages where they were, if they are suspected of Heresy, but shall be Transported into other Catholic Villages, which are free from suspicion; that they shall wear two Crosses on their clothes, and have Certificates from their Bishops of their being Reconciled: That they shall not be admitted any more into Public Offices, nor do any Public Acts till they shall have been qualified for it again by the Pope, or his Legate.  
In the Eleventh, 'Tis ordered with respect to those who are Converted by the fear of Death, or for some other such Account, that they shall be shut up in a Walled Place, that so they may not corrupt others.  
The Twelfth imports, That all Men above Fourteen Years Old, and all Women above Twelve, shall make an Abjuration of all sorts of Heresy, and a Profession of the Faith of the Roman Church, and that they shall be engaged to persecute Heretics.  
In the Thirteenth 'tis ordered, That all Persons who have the use of their Reason, shall Confess themselves twice a Year to their own proper Priest, and Receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist at Christmas, Easter and Whitsuntide, so that Confession shall go before the Communion, unless the Priest think fit for some just Cause, that they should abstain one time from receiving the Eucharist, and that those who shall abstain from it upon other Accounts, shall be suspected of Heresy.  
The Fourteenth prohibts Laics from having the Books of the Old or New-Testament, unless it be a Psalter or a Breviary, and the Rosary, and does not permit them so much as to Translate them into the Vulgar Tongue. This Restraint was doubtless founded on that frequent Abuse which was made of them in that Country.  
In the Fifteenth, They who are suspected of Heresy are prohibited the Practice of Physic, and Heretics are forbidden to come near the Sick, after they have received the Viaticum.  
The Sixteenth orders, That the Last Wills and Testaments shall be received by the Curates.  
The Seventeenth prohibits the Prelates and Barons from bestowing Offices which depended on them on Heretics, and from having for their Domestics suspected Persons, or of an ill Reputation.  
The Eighteenth declares those to be of a bad Repute, who are notoriously Infamous, or against whom Persons of Worth give in Evidence.  
The Nineteenth maintains the Churches and Religious Houses in their Privileges, and orders the entire Payment of Tithes.  
The Twentieth prohibits the laying any Tax on the Clergy.  
The Twenty first discharges them from all manner of Tributes and new Duties, and extends this Favour to the Monks and Pilgrims, provided they do not concern themselves in Merchandise.  
The Twenty second obliges those who receive Taxes, to take care of the Highways, and makes them Responsible for the Robberies committed between Sun and Sun.  
The Twenty third forbids Laics from laying any Tax on the Servants of Churches or of Churchmen, if they do not hold any Estate of them.  
The Twenty fourth orders, That if any Person shall throw a Clergyman into Prison, even tho' he has not the Tonsure, the Bishop shall be acquainted of it: That the Lay-Judge shall be obliged to remit him into the Hands of the Ecclesiastical Judges, and that if he refuse to do it, he shall be declared Excommunicated and forced to deliver him up by his Lord.  
The Twenty fifth orders all the Masters and Mistresses of every House, every Sunday and Holiday to be at Church, to hear the Preaching and Divine Service, and not to go out till Mass be quite over: That if they both cannot be there, one of them shall, and that if both miss without being Sick, or having any Lawful Excuse, they shall be obliged to pay Twelve French Deniers; one Moiety whereof shall go to the Lord, and the other to the Priest and the Church. They are likewise recommended to go to Church on Saturday-nights' in Honour of the Virgin Mary.  
The Twenty sixth contains the Catalogue of the Festivals, which are as follow: Christmassday, the Feasts of St. Stephen, of St. John the Evangelist, of the Holy Innocents', of St. Sylvester, of the Circumcision, of the Epiphany, of the Purification, of the Annunciation, of the Assumption, of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, Easter-Day, and the two next Days, the three Rogation-Days, Whitsunday and the two following Days, the Nativity of St. John Baptist, the Invention and Exaltation of the Holy Cross, the Feasts of the Twelve Disciples, of St. Mary Magdalen, of St. Laurence, of St. Martin, of St. Nicholas, of the Dedication of St. Michael, the Dedication of each Church, the Feast of the Holy Patron and every Sunday.  
In the Twenty seventh 'tis ordered, That during all those Festivals, they shall abstain from all manner of Work according to Custom, and according to the Order which shall be prescribed by the Bishop, and that the Curates shall give notice of them every Sunday at Mass.  
The other Canons relate to the observing of Peace, and contain Orders for Civil Affairs.   

The Council of Chateau Gonthier in the Year 1231.  
IN the Year 1231. Francis Cassardi Archbishop of Tours and the Prelates of the Province, being met 
The Council of Chateaugonthier in 1231.  in a Council at Chateaugonthier, being desirous to Redress several Abuses which were in that Province, made Thirty seven Canons.  
The First enjoins, That Prelates ought not to tolerate Clandestine Marriages, and to proceed without delay and without excuse, to the Divorcing of those who had Contracted them.  
The Second prohibits the Archpriests and Rural Deans from taking Cognizance of Matrimonial Causes.  
The Third orders the Institution of a Curate into a Church, to be after this manner: The Patron whether an Ecclesiastic, or a Laic shall Present to the Archdeacon, or the Rural Dean, and afterwards to the Bishop, or to him who has the Episcopal Power, the Person whom he has Chosen within the time prescribed by Law: He shall be obliged to Swear, that he has neither given nor promised any thing for that Benefice, and that he does not know, that any one has given, or promised any thing for him: Lastly, The Bishop, or he who has the Episcopal Power, shall give him the Cure of Souls, and he shall be obliged to Swear, That he will obey his Bishop, maintain the Rights of his Church, and recover the Estates which are Alienated.  
The Fourth orders the Bishops to oblige all the Clergy who have Benefices with Cure of Souls, to serve them in Person, unless they judge that they ought to be dispensed from it upon a just cause.  
The Fifth imports, That when a Church shall be farmed out, a sufficient part of the Revenue shall be reserved for the Maintenance of the Caplain.  
The Sixth, That the Number of the Canonships of each Chapter shall be fixed, that so the prebend's may not be divided but given whole to one and the same Person.  
The Seventh, That they shall no more give the Presentation of the Prebend which shall be first vacant in Cathedral Churches.  
The Eighth, That the Customs of Cathedral Churches shall be set down in Writing.  
The Ninth, That those who communicate with Excommunicated Persons, if they do not abstain from so doing after notice given them, shall be debarred entering the Church.  
The Tenth, That the Ordinaries and Delegates shall be very sparing in Issuing out General Excommunications.  
The Eleventh, That the Priests and other ecclesiastics shall not be Tributary to Laics, and those who shall become such, shall be Suspended ab Officio & Beneficio.  
The Twelfth prohibits Archpriests, Arch-Deacons and others who are invested with Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from having their Offices out of Town, and enjoins them to discharge their Functions themselves in Person.  
The Thirteenth forbids the Prelates and others who have Jurisdiction, from receiving the Right of Procuration in Money.  
The Fourteenth prohibits the Prelates from demanding Money in Farming out of Churches.  
The Fifteenth imports, That the Patrons who give Presentations to uncapable Persons, shall forfeit their Right of Presenting pro hâc vice.  
The Sixteenth, That those on whom Benefices are bestowed with Cure of Souls, shall understand the Vulgar Language of the Country.  
The Seventeenth prohibits the selling of the Election of Guardianships.  
The Eighteenth orders, That no Priest shall be admitted to perform his Functions unless Licenced by his Bishop, or unless his Ordination be evident.  
The Nineteenth forbids the Laics to Vend their Actions to ecclesiastics, in order to trick the Tribunal of the Secular Judge.  
The Twentieth imports, That ecclesiastics taken in any enormous Crime, shall be put into the Bishop's Hands, who shall degrade them if convicted of any Crime which deserves that Punishment, and that afterwards if they do not amend, the Church shall no longer protect them.  
The Twenty first orders, That Debauched Clerks shall be shaved, that so their Clerical Tonsure may not be seen.  
The Twenty second, That such of the Crusade who are guilty of Enormous Crimes, shall be declared to have forfeited their Privileges by the Ecclesiastical Judge, and if they continue to commit such Crimes, they shall be Punished by the Secular Judge.  
The Twenty Third is against Tyrants or great Lords, who caused the Estates of ecclesiastics to be riffled by Persons of ill fame.  
The Twenty fourth orders the Monks to keep Silence, and to see, That those of the same Order be habited in the same manner agreeable to their Rule.  
The Twenty fifth prohibits the putting young Monks who are not quite Fifteen years Old into any other Priories besides Conventuals.  
The Twenty sixth prohibits all Monks from having any thing de Proprio.  
The Twenty seventh orders them to observe the Rule about abstaining from Meat.  
The Twenty eighth imports, that an Abbot shall not go in the Country without a Monk attending him, nor a Monk without a Footboy.  
The Twenty ninth, That a single Monk shall not be put into Priories, but that there shall be two who shall say the Office which is done at twice, for the Patrons.  
The Thirtieth is against Usurers; 'tis therein Ordered, That they shall be Excommunicated every Sunday, and that such as are suspected of that Crime shall be obliged to justify themselves and to renounce it publicly.  
The Three next are against the Jews, to hinder them from insulting over the Christians; and to deprive them of the Right of being Witnesses.  
The Thirty fourth prohibits under pain of Excommunication the Contracting of Marriage, till after the Banns have been published after the usual manner; that so an Engagement to Marry may be granted and given in the Face of the Congregation.  
The Two next prescribe what Oaths the Judges and Lawyers ought to take.  
The Last confirms the Canons made in the Council held at Laval.   

The Council of Beziers in the Year 1233.  
GAuthier de Marvis Bishop of Tournay and Legate of the Holy See, held a Council at Beziers in the 
The Council of Beziers in 1233.  year 1233, wherein he Published the Twenty six following Orders.  
The First is, That they shall every Sunday Excommunicate the Heretics and their Favourers.  
The Second, That any Person whatever may apprehend an Heretic and carry him before the Bishop.  
The Third, That the Favourers of Heretics may not buy bailiwicks.  
The Fourth, That Converted Heretics who will not wear a Cross shall be treated as Heretics and their Good confiscated.  
The Fifth, That the Priests shall carefully observe the Decrees of the Council of Toulouse against the Heretics, and against those who are not present at Divine Service.  
The Sixth, That Examination shall be made into the Capacity and Morals of those who are promoted to Holy Orders, and that none shall be admitted, who has not a Patrimonial Title to the value of a Hundred French Sols.  
The Seventh, That the Tonsure shall be only given to those who can Read and Sing, who are the Children of Freemen, and born in lawful Wedlock, unless the Bishop of the Place grant a Dispensation.  
The Eighth prohibits Bishops from exacting Oaths for their Interest of those upon whom they shall confer Orders.  
The Ninth imports, That the Bishops shall supply the Archdeaconeries with Persons zealous for the Salvation of Souls, and capable of instructing both Clergy and Laity.  
The Tenth, That the Constitutions of the Fourth General Lateran Council against those who Excommunicate unjustly shall be read.  
The Eleventh, That the Patrons, as well ecclesiastics as Laics shall present to the Bishops, Curates, or perpetual Vicars of the vacant Churches before the Feast of All-Saints.  
The Twelfth, That those who have Benefices with Cure of Souls, shall be constrained to take Orders forthwith, or else lose their Revenues: That if a Cure be united to a Prebend or Dignity, he who enjoys them, shall put a perpetual Vicar in his stead into the Cure, to whom he shall give a competent Maintenance: And that every Parish-Church shall have a perpetual Priest who shall serve the Cure in Person.  
The Thirteenth, That the Constitutions made in the Fourth General Lateran Council about the Life and Morals of the Clergy shall be observed.  
The following Canons relate to the Monks.  
The Fourteenth prohibits their having any thing de Proprio, and declares, That this is so annexed to the Monachal Order, that not only the Abbots may not exempt a Monk from this Law, but also that the Pope cannot dispense with it, any more than he can with the Observance of Celibacy.  
The Fifteenth and Sixteenth prescribe to the Abbots, Monks, and Regular Canons how they ought to be clothed.  
The Seventeenth enjoins the Monks to shut up their Cloisters, and not to suffer any Seculars to enter without necessity.  
The Eighteenth orders the Reading in the Refectory, and that a Chapter be held every Day.  
The Nineteenth enjoins them to stay in the Cloister from the Chapter-Hour till Tierce, and forbids them to go out without leave of their Superior.  
The Twentieth imports, That every Week Distribution shall be made to the Poor.  
The Twenty first, That there shall be in the Monasteries a Monk, or a Secular to teach Grammar.  
The Twenty second prohibits the giving of Estates to Monasteries in prospect of having Benefices bestowed upon them, divests those of them who came to them by such methods, and deprives those likewise who gave them, of their Privilege. A Prior or an Abbot is likewise forbidden to possess the Priory of another Monastery, unless he be called by a Canonical Election to some Conventual Priory.  
The Twenty third imports, That they shall not sell Wine in a Monastery, nor suffer Persons of Scandalous Profession to enter therein.  
The Twenty fourth, That they shall not admit Laics to possess prebend's, or the Revenues of those Benefices, as given by way of Oblation.  
The Twenty fifth, That they shall not suffer one Monk to be in a Priory alone, that there shall be three or four, but no Irregular Monks shall be sent thither.  
The Twenty sixth, That they shall oblige all those who are arrived to the Age of Fourteen to swear that they will keep the Peace.   

The Council of Arles, in the Year 1234.  
John Baussanus Archbishop of Arles held a Provincial Council in the Year 1234, wherein he 
The Council of Arles in 1234.  made Twenty four Constitutions.  
In the First, He orders that the Canons of the Fourth General Lateran Council shall be put in Execution.  
By the Second, He obliges the Bishops to Preach the Faith themselves, and to cause it to be Preached by Persons of Merit.  
In the Third, He admonishes the Bishops to make use of Exhortations and even Censures to oblige the Officers of Justice and the Lords to root out Heretics out of their Jurisdiction.  
In the Fourth it is ordered, That every Sunday an Excommunication shall be Published against Heretics and their Favourers.  
The Fifth imports, That in each Parish a Priest, and two other Persons shall be settled as Inquisitors.  
The Sixth, That the Heretics Convict shall be condemned to perpetual Imprisonment, and that those who will not recant shall be delivered up to the Secular Power.  
The Two next are for the Observation of Peace.  
In the Ninth, He Prohibits the Confraternities and Societies which are not allowed by the Bishop.  
The Tenth imports, That they shall not give Absolution to those who are Excommunicated for having done any Injury till such time as they have made Satisfaction.  
In the Eleventh, He orders, That the Bodies and Bones of those who after their death shall be discovered to have been Heretics, shall be dug up again.  
In the Twelfth, 'Tis prohibited to bestow Benefices on Laics.  
In the Thirteenth, He declares, That the Excommunication ought to be ushered in by an Admonition, and if the Excommunicated do not get themselves absolved within a Month, they shall not receive Absolution till they have paid 50 Sols a Month from the time of their Excommunication.  
In the Fourteenth, He exhorts the Bishops to be vigilant in reforming the Manners of their Clergy.  
In the Fifteenth, He orders, That they should Excommunicate every Sunday the Usurers, Public Adulterers, Diviners and Sorcerers.  
In the Sixteenth, That the Jews and Jewesses shall be distinguished from Christians by a Badge which they shall wear on their Habits.  
In the Seventeenth, He declares, That if the Privileged Persons will not submit to the Sentences of Prelates and to their Censures, one may refuse to do them Justice.  
In the Eighteenth, That all the Bishops of the Province ought stiffly to maintain the Rights of the Regale of the Church of Arles.  
In the Nineteenth, That each Church of the Country ought to have a Curate, or at least to be supplied by the Bishop's Order.  
In the Twentieth, That Bishops and other Prelates having the Cure of Souls, shall proceed according to the Forms of the Canons in the Affairs relating to Tithes, Legacies, Chapels and other Ecclesiastical Rights.  
In the Twenty first, He prohibits the making any Last Will and Testament but in the Presence of the Curate.  
In the Twenty second, He prohibits the raising any new Taxes.  
In the Twenty third, He pronounces an Anathema against those who treat for the Tithes or other Rights of the Church with the Monks without the Consent of the Bishop.  
In the Twenty fourth, He orders, That no Bishop may turn an Ecclesiastic out of his Benefice without taking cognizance of the Cause.  
This same Archbishop held a Second Council at L'isle in Provence, in the year 1251; wherein he has renewed these Constitutions and Explained them, and Couched them in Thirteen Chapters, the last of which is against Clandestine Marriages.   

The Council of Narbonne, held about the Year 1235.  
PEter Amelli Archbishop of Narbonne, John Baussanus Archbishop of Arles, and Raymond Archbishop 
The Council of Narbonne held 1235.  of Aix, being met, as 'tis believed, at Narbonne about the Year 1235, made Decrees about the Punishment of Heretics, directed to the Brethren Inquisitors of theirs and the Neighbouring Provinces, who had proposed to them several Doubts on that Subject, wherein they return them this Answer; That they ought to impose for Penance on the Heretics and their Favourers (who voluntarily recant, and to whom they have promised that they shall not be cast into Prison) the wearing of Crosses, the presenting themselves every Sunday in the Churches with part of their Body naked, and with Wands in their Hands between the Epistle and Gospel in order to receive the Discipline; To do the same thing at the solemn Processions, to be present every Sunday at Mass, at the Vespers and at Sermon, to Fast, to visit the Holy Places, to defend in Person or by others maintained at their Charge the Faith of the Church against the Saracens and Heretics (but not to order them to go beyond Sea) to make them shift their Country, and build Places to shut up the Poor Converts. Moreover, They leave it to the Discretion of the Inquisitors to impose such Pennances as they shall think Convenient, to increase or moderate them. They would have them to oblige the Converts to make a public Confession of their Faults. They commit to the Curates the taking care to see that the Converts observe the Pennances which the Inquisitors shall have imposed on them. With respect to other Heretics, who ought to be confined according to the Law of the Council of Toulouse; they say, That there being so great a Number of them, that this cannot easily be done, the Pope shall be acquainted with it, and only such shall be confined who are most Capable of Corrupting others. As for the Rebels, Apostates, Favourers of Heretics and those who conceal or neglect to punish them, they would have them be treated variously according to the Variety of their Faults. They Admonish the Jacobine Friars, not to impose any pecuniary Mulcts, nor to demand any. They would not have Persons suspected of Heresy, or New Converts to be admitted into a Religious House. They prescribe several Laws about the Proceed of the Inquisition, such as keeping the Names of the Private Witnesses, the receiving all sorts of Witnesses, not to hear them above once, not to credit the Confessors, about the Points on which Heretics ought to be interrogated; about the Errors of the Vaudois, and the signs whereby to discover them.   

The Council of Tours in the Year 1236.  
JEwellus de Mayenne Archbishop of Tours, on the Tuesday before St. Barnabas' day, in the Year 
The Council of Tours 1236.  1236, held an Ecclesiastical Assembly in that City, wherein he Published Fourteen Decrees for the Ecclesiastical and Civil Polity.  
By the First, The Croisado-Men are deprived of their Privileges, when they Commit such Crimes as deserve Punishment, and they and the other Christians are prohibited from killing or abusing the Jews.  
In the Three next 'tis ordered, That none shall be admitted Lawyers, who have not studied the Law for Three Years, nor Officials, who have not studied it Five Years, nor Notaries who are not acquainted with the Style and Constitutions of the Palace.  
In the Fifth, To Obviate the Frauds of those who made an ill use of the Letters of the Holy See, the Commissaries delegated in the Province of Tours, are prohibited from Executing their Commission till they have showed the Original Copy of it, and unless He that has it, swear that he has procured those Letters, that they are true, and that he will not carry him with whom he has to do before other Judges.  
By the Sixth, The Judges are ordered to have regard to Appeals.  
In the Seventh, The Bishops are recommended to take care, that the Last Wills and Testaments be duly Executed.  
The Eighth declares, Those who contract two Marriages at a time to be Infamous, and condemns them to be whipped.  
The Ninth orders, That every Sunday the Sorcerers shall be Excommunicated, and condemns them to severe Correction.  
The Tenth, Renews the Prohibitions of Communicating with Excommunicated Persons, made in the Council held at Chateaugonthier, under Penalty of a Pecuniary Mulct.  
The Eleventh imports, That those who pretend to be exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Ordinary, shall be obliged to Exhibit their Letters of Exemption.  
In the Twelfth, False Witnesses are Condemned to severe Punishments.  
In the Thirteenth, The Bishops are enjoined to take care that the New Converts of their Dioceses be instructed, and to provide a Subsistence for them, lest they return to their Errors under the pretence of Poverty.  
In the Fourteenth, The Abbots and Priors are ordered to use Hospitality.   

The Council of London in the Year 1237.  
HEnry III. King of England in the Year 1237, sent for Cardinal Otho Legate of the Holy See. At first the Clergy and Laity were alarmed at his Coming, but that Cardinal behaved himself with 
The Council of London 1237.  a great deal of Moderation and Prudence. He reconciled the Lords, refused part of the Presents which they offered him, and appointed a Synod to be held at London for the reforming the Discipline. The King of England showed him a great deal of Respect, which made the Grandees of the Kingdom to murmur. The King of Scotland was more reserved, and would not permit the Legate to enter his Dominions, telling him that he had no occasion for a Legate in his Kingdom; that all was well enough there; that they had never seen any Legate there; that he would never suffer any; that besides he would not do well to expose his Person by coming thither, because the People of his Country were Savage and Cruel, and might perhaps abuse him.  
The Council Appointed to be Held at London by the Legate, was Held there on the next Day after the Octave of St. Martin, The Legate appeared there seated on a Magnificent Throne, the Archbishop of Canterbury on his Right-Hand, and the Archbishop of York on his Left, who both of them made Protestations for the preservation of their Privileges. Afterwards the Legate made a Speech to the Prelates of the Council on the Prudence and Wisdom of ecclesiastics. On the Morrow the King sent Commissioners to the Council, who should warn the Legate, That he did nothing which might infringe the King's Prerogative; and one of them stayed in the Council to take care of it. The Legate ordered the Letters of his Legation to be Read. On the third Day they made an end of Reading the Decrees, which the Legate proposed in the Council, which began to be Read the first Day. They are Thirty one.  
The First concerns the Dedication of Churches, and implies, That it derived its Original from the Old and New Testament, and has been observed by the Holy Fathers under the New. That it ought to be Solemnised with greater Dignity and Care, since than they only Offered Sacrifices of Dead Beasts, whereas now they Offer on the Altar, by the Hands of the Priest, a Living and True Sacrifice, namely the Only Son of God: Therefore the Fathers have with Reason ordered, That so Sublime an Office, should be Celebrated only in Consecrated Places, at least, when no necessity requires its being done elsewhere, Having therefore seen and understood that a great many despise or neglect this Sacred Ministry, and having met with a great many Churches, even Cathedrals, which tho' Ancient, have not as yet been Consecrated with the Holy Oil; to remedy this Neglect, they order, That all Cathedral, Conventual and Parochial Churches which are completely Built, shall be Consecrated within two Years by the Diocesan Bishops, or by their Authority; and the same time is prescribed for those which shall be Built hereafter. And that this Stature may be observed, they prohibit the Celebration of Mass in those Churches which shall not have been Consecrated within two Years after they shall be Built. They forbidden the Abbots and Curates to pull down old Consecrated Churches, under a pretence of making them finer, without the consent of the Bishop of the Diocese, who shall take care to see whether it be fit to be granted, or no; and if he grants it, he shall see that the new One be finished forthwith. As to Chapels, they order nothing in particular with respect to them.  
The next Canons contain the Doctrine of the Sacraments: In the Second the number of them is determined, and 'tis declared. That they ought to be Celebrated with Purity and Gra●…tously.  
The Third is upon Baptism, 'tis therein determined, That the time of Administering it Solemnly is Holy Saturday, and the Saturday in Whitsun-Week, that Infants ought to be Baptised on those Days, and it enjoins Curates to Teach their Parishioners the Form of Baptism, that so they may Administer it in Case of necessity.  
The Fourth is against those who require Money for, giving Absolution and the other Sacraments.  
The Fifth imports, That the Bishops shall take care to Nominate in each Deanery Prudent and Wise Confessors, to Confess the Clerks who are ashamed to Confess themselves to the Deans, and that there shall be in Cathedrals a General Penitentiary.  
The Sixth, That those who are to be Ordained shall be Examined, and that a Register shall be kept of those who shall be Approved, that so others might not mix themselves with them.  
The Seventh prohibits the Farming out of Benefices, and especially Dignities.  
The Eighth imports, That if any Churches be Leased out, it shall be only for five Years.  
The Ninth, That they shall not Let out Leases for ever.  
The Tenth, That the Vicars shall be Priests, and obliged to Personal Residence in the Churches which they are to Serve.  
The Eleventh, That they shall not give away the Benefices of the Absent upon the Report of their being Dead, unless they are assured of it.  
The Twelfth prohibits the dividing of Benefices.  
The Thirteenth renews the Decrees concerning Residence, and against those who have Pluralities,  
The Fourteenth regulates the manner of the Habits of the Clergy, and recommends to the Bishops to be the first in giving an Example to others.  
The Fifteenth to prevent the Marriages which some Clerks contracted Clandestinely to save their Benefices, declares the Children born of such Marriages uncapable of holding Benefices.  
The Sixteenth renews the Ecclesiastical Statutes against Clerks who kept Concubines.  
The Seventeenth prohibits the Children of Clerks from Possessing the Benefices of their Fathers.  
The Eighteenth is against those who Protect, and give Shelter to Highwaymen.  
The Nineteenth prohibits, all the Monks from Eating Flesh, and orders, That their Novices shall be obliged to Profess at the end of their Year: Which is likewise extended to Regular Canons.  
The Twentieth enjoins the Arch-Deacons to do their Duty with Diligence, and not to burden the Churches by excessive Duties of Procuration.  
The Twenty first forbids the Ecclesiastical Judges to hinder the Parties from Agreeing.  
The Twenty second exhorts the Bishops to Reside in their Churches; there to Celebrate Divine Service on the chief Festivals of the Year, on the Sundays of Advent and Lent, and to see that their Dioceses be Visited.  
The Twenty third imports, That Care shall be taken to Place able Judges, especially in Matrimonial Causes; and that the Judges of Abbots who are in Possession, shall not pass a definitive Sentence, till after they have Consulted the Bishop of the Diocese.  
The Eight other Constitutions relate to the various Forms of Justice, and the Conditions which make these Acts Authentic. These Decrees were Read in the Council, and the Prelates of England harkened to them very quietly. There was only the Bishop of Worcester who Remonstrated touching the Prohibition of having Pluralities, That this Law could not be observed in England, because there were a great many Persons of Quality that enjoyed several Benefices, who lived honourably upon them, and bestowed large Alms. He said likewise, That it would be very difficult to observe the Abstinence from Meat, according to the Rule of St. Benedict, in all Monasteries, and he desired the Legate to send the Pope Word of these things. The Legate consented thereto, provided the other Prelates of the Council would join with him. Lastly, Because several gave out, That the Orders which should be made by the Legate, should only be of Force during his Legation, he caused: Decretal to be Read which Authorised them for ever.   

The Council of Cognac in the Year 1238.  
IN the Year 1238. Gerard Archbishop of Bourdeaux called a Council at Cognac the Monday after 
The Council of Cognac, 1238.  the Octave of Easter, wherein he Published Thirty nine Decrees.  
The First Excommunicates those what made use of several sorts of Tricks, which are expressed in particular.  
The Second likewise declares those Men Excommunicated, who Conspire against ecclesiastics; the Persons who Cite any one before them without having seen the Authentic Letters of their Commission; and those who enlarge them, and those who detain the Goods or the Persons of ecclesiastics.  
The Third Excommunicates the Laics who detain Churches, Hospitals, or Religious Houses.  
The Fourth forbids the Arch-Deacons, Archpriests, and Deans to have Vicars: And the Fifth forbids Curates to be Vicars in other Churches.  
The Sixth orders, That every Parish shall have a particular Seal.  
The Seventh, That no Person shall be Cited before the Commissaries of the Holy See, till the Original of the Letters of the Commission be Exhibited, and a Copy be given thereof.  
The Eighth prohibits the Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Judges from taking off Excommunications made for Offences committed, till such time as they have obliged the Party Offending to make Satisfaction.  
The Ninth enjoins the Bishops to see that the Sentences of Excommunication Issued out by their Colleagues be duly Executed in their Dioceses.  
The Tenth orders, That none shall be Commissioned to Try Causes of Matrimony, but able And Discreet Persons.  
The Eleventh, lays the Penalty of Excommunication on such Lay-Judges as oblige the ecclesiastics to Plead before them.  
The Twelfth and Thirteenth prohibit the Monks and Priests from being Advocates and Proctors.  
The Fourteenth orders, That Advocates shall be appointed for Pauper's.  
The Fifteenth, That if two Lords have Vassals who are subject to them promiscuously, they shall be Interdicted for the Faults of either of them.  
The Sixteenth, That the Lords shall restore to the Churches, what they have taken away from them upon the account of the Interdiction Issued out against them.  
The Seventeenth prescribes the Formalities which ought to be observed in the Excommunication of Barons.  
The Eighteenth condemns them to a Fine of Ten Livres, who remain in a State of Excommunication for 40 Days.  
The Nineteenth, deprives those who Apprehend or Abuse the Clergy, of the Right of being admitted into Holy Orders, and of Possessing Benefices themselves, or by their Descendants to the Third Generation.  
The Twentieth prohibits the Abbots from giving Money to the Monks or Regular Canons for their Subsistence, and from receiving any thing for Admission into their Monasteries.  
The Twenty first orders, That the Stewards shall give an Account of their Management every Month, and the Abbot, every Year, and that the Cloisters shall be shut up at seasonable Hours.  
The Twenty second prohibits the Monks from going out of their Monastery without leave of their Abbots, and from staying, or Eating abroad.  
The Twenty third prohibits them likewise from preferring any Petition in a Court of Judicature, without the Order of their Abbot.  
The Twenty fourth prohibits the Monks and Regular Canons from wearing Cloaks in their Monastery, or in the Places of their Abode.  
The Twenty fifth forbids them to have any thing de Proprio, under the Penalty of being deprived of Ecclesiastical Burial.  
The Twenty sixth prohibits them likewise from having certain kinds of Habits, and from wearing a Gown which is not close, and which has not Sleeves.  
The Twenty seventh enjoins the Abbots twice every Year to publish an Excommunication against the Monks who shall have any thing by way of Property, or who shall not be Habited conformably to their Quality.  
The Twenty eighth prohibits Monks from being Bail for any, and from borrowing more than Twenty Sols.  
The Twenty ninth, enjoins them to observe the Rule of Saint Benedict about abstaining from Meats.  
The Thirtieth prohibits them from holding Curacies, unless in case of necessity, and with the leave of the Bishop their Diocesan.  
The Thirty first prohibits the Monks and Regular Canons from being alone in Priories, or in Barns.  
The Thirty second orders, That no Co-Friaries shall be established without the leave of the Diocesan Bishop.  
The Thirty third imports, That a Competent Allowance shall be given to those that Serve the Cures, enough to maintain them.  
The Thirty fourth prohibits the Building of New Monasteries, or Hospitals, without the leave of the Bishop.  
The Thirty fifth, renews the Prohibitions against Alienating the Goods of the Church, without special Licence from the Bishop.  
The Thirty sixth orders, That the Curates who have Parishioners in Common shall be obliged to divide them between them.  
The Thirty seventh prohibits the allowing ecclesiastics of another Diocese to Celebrate Divine Service, unless they have Testimonials from their Bishop of their Orders, of their Morals, and of the occasion of their Journey.  
The Thirty eighth prohibits him who Presents to a Benefice, the demanding of him whom he Presents an Oath, whereby he engages himself to take nothing of any Person, because this looks like Simony.  
The Thirty ninth imports, That no Person shall provide for the Vacant Churches, the Presentation of which is lapsed to the Ordinary.   

The Council of Tours in the Year 1239.  
JEwellus de Mayenne Archbishop of Tours Held another Council in that City in the Year 1239, in 
The Council of Tours 1239.  which he made the following Decrees.  
The First is, That the Bishop shall Nominate in each Parish three Clergymen, or at least three Creditable Laics, of whom he shall take an Oath to speak the Truth about the Scandals which shall happen in that, or the Neighbouring Parishes in matters of Faith, or other Ecclesiastical Crimes.  
The Second imports, That the Clerks Convicted of Crimes, shall at first be punished according as the Bishop pleases, and for the second Offence by the forfeiture of their Benefices.  
The Third orders, The Priests to wear close Habits, under the Penalty of five Sols Fine.  
The Fourth imports, That nothing shall be demanded, or exacted before the Administration of the Sacraments, but that they might demand the usual Deuce after they have been Administered.  
The Fifth and Sixth prohibit the Priests and Curates from Excommunicating their Parishioners by their own Authority.  
The Seventh, declares those legacies Null, which are made by a Beneficed Clergyman, or one in Orders to his Natural Son.  
The Eighth, renews the Prohibition made in the Council of Chateaugonthier, against Arch-Deacons and other inferior Prelates having of Officials.  
The Ninth forbids the Prelates to Issue out Sentences of Excommunication hastily, and enjoins them to do it maturely, and after the Admonitions prescribed by the Laws, and made in a competent distance of time, at least if the Affair does not require speed. The same Canon does afterwards prescribe the order that is to be observed in the pronouncing of Excommunication.  
In the Tenth, 'tis prohibited to Excommunicate in general Terms all those who Communicate with Excommunicated Persons.  
The Eleventh prohibits the giving of Money to the Regulars for their Maintenance.  
The Twelfth prohibits the Clergy and Monks from having Servant-Maids in their Houses, or in their Priories.  
The Thirteenth, interdicts the Monks from the Right of serving Curacies, if the Bishop has not entrusted them with the Cure of Souls,   

The Council of Laval in the Year 1242.  
THE same Archbishop of Tours Held a Third Council at Laval in the Diocese of Man's in the Year 
The Council of Laval in 1242.  1242, wherein in the first place he renewed the Statutes about the Monastical Habits and Discipline.  
2. He ordered that the Abbots should take care to keep the Priories in good Condition.  
3. He prohibited them from changing the Priors.  
4. He prohibited the Arch-Deacons from taking Cognizance of Matrimonial or Simoniacal Causes without a special Power from the Bishop, and from having Officials out of the City.  
5. He renewed the Penalties inflicted by the Canons on Clergymen, who Plead in Secular Courts of judicature.  
6. He regulated the manner of Celebrating Divine Service during the Interdiction.  
7. He likewise renewed the Prohibition made against Monks having Money of their own to buy themselves clothes.  
8. He declared, That he who remained a whole Year Excommunicated oughtto be banished from the Place where he dwelled.  
9 He ordered, That those who were accused of having injured the Churches, and against whom there were strong Suspicions, aught to clear themselves Canonically, and that if they cannot come off with this Purgation, they ought to be Punished.   

The first General Council of Lions in the Year 1245.  
WE will not here repeat what we have already said concerning the History of this Council, and 
The first General Council of Lions 1245.  of the Sentence which the Pope herein passed against the Emperor Frederick; but since we have not spoken of the other Affairs which were Transacted, nor of the Decrees which were made in it, we are obliged to say something of them in this Place.  
There were three principal Affairs besides that of Frederick: The Relieving of the Empire of Constantinople against the Greeks; that of the Empire of Germany against the Tartars; and that of the Holy Land against the Saracens. The Pope willing to provide for those three urgent Necessity's orders for the Relief of Constantinople, That a Moiety of the Revenues of all Benefices, on which the Incumbents did not actually Reside, should be given. However excepts out of this Act the Clergy of the Church of Rome, the Crosaido-Men, and those who have Lawful Excuses for their Nonresidence. He likewise joined to this Supply the Third Part of what any Benefices might be worth above an Hundred Marks. He promised likewise that the Church of Rome should give a Third Part of its Revenues towards the Relief of the Empire of Constantinople. He Excommunicates the Beneficed Clergy who should use any Fraud, and grants Indulgences to all those that shall go to the Succour of that Empire, equal to those which they had who go to the Holy Land.  
To put a stop to the Incursions of the Tartars into Poland, Russia and Hungary, he could find no better way than to make Trenches and Forts, in order to prevent their Inroads till such time as the Holy See consider of it, and be able to provide for their Relief.  
Lastly, As to what concerns the Relief of the Holy Land, where the Affairs of the Christians were in a very bad Posture, he admonishes the Priests and other ecclesiastics in the Army of the Christians, to Pray continually, and to exhort the Croisado-Men to Repentance, and the Practice of Virtue; and grants to those Clergymen the Privilege of enjoying their Benefices. In the second place, he appoints for the Relief of the Holy Land the Twentieth Part of all the Revenues of Benefices for the space of three Years, and the Tenth of the Revenues of the Pope and Cardinals. He exempts the Croisado-Men from Taxes and all manner of Contributions. He discharges them from the Interest of those Sums which they had Borrowed. He pronounces an Anathema against the Pirates and against all those who supplied the Saracens with Ships, Arms, or other Ammunitions. He order a Peace to be made between the Christian Princes for four Years, under the Penalty of Excommunicating and Interdicting those who opposed it. He prohibited Tournaments, and Lastly heaped very large Indulgencies on the Croisado-Men.  
He made use likewise of another method of Raising Funds for the Relief of the Holy Land and the Empire, which was to admonish those who had the Cure of Souls, to incline the Faithful to give something by their Last Wills and Testaments, or otherwise, to be employed in this Good Work, and to take care to keep it.  
The Pope likewise in this Council made several Decrees relating to the Canon-Law, such as about Commissions, Elections, the providing of a Delegate-Judge; about Processes, Appeals and Accusations; about Excommunication, and Debts Contracted by Churches, and other Points of Law which are to be met with in the Decreetals, and which are related by Matthew Paris in his History.  
Some of these Decrees were made in the Council, and others before or after the Council: But the Decree about Raising the Pence, displeased several Prelates, who openly opposed it; and the more, because it was said, That it was to be done by the Pope's Commissaries, and they complained that the Court of Rome had often Robbed them of their Revenues under this Pretence.   

The Council of Beziers in the Year 1246.  
IN the Year 1246. William de Broa Archbishop of Narbonne Held a Council of the Bishops of his 
The Council of Beziers in 1246.  Province in the Town of Beziers, wherein he made a Collection of Forty six Canons Extracted out of the preceding Councils: Namely, the Fourth General Lateran Council, the Council of Narbonne, in the Year 1228, and the Council of Avignon. He likewise drew up Thirty seven Decrees for the Inquisitors of that Country, containing several Rules of the things which they ought to observe.   

The Council of Valenza in the Year 1248.  
PEter Cardinal Bishop of Albany and Hugh Cardinal Priest of Saint Sabina, in the Month of December 
The Council of Valenza in 1248.  1248. Held at Valenza a Council of the Bishops of the Provinces of Narbonne, Vienna, Arles, and Aix, in which they Published Statutes against the Emperor Frederick and his Adherents, about the Inquisition and Excommunication; against Perjured and Sacrilegious Persons, Sorcerers, Relapsers and other Criminals,   

The Council of Saumur in the Year 1253.  
PEter de Lambale Archbishop of Tours, after he had Visited his Province, called a Council at Saumur 
The Council of Saumur in 1253.  in December 1253, to Reform the Disorders and Abuses which he had taken notice of in his Visitation. He thereupon made Thirty two very useful Decrees.  
By the First it is ordered, That they shall recite the Offices for the Canonical Hours in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches at the times appointed, and with requisite Devotion; and that one side of the Choir shall not begin a Verse, till the other side has ended the foregoing Verse.  
By the Second, The Arch-Deacons, Archpriests, Rural Deans and others are enjoined to take Care, that the Sacristy, the Fonts, the holy Oils, the holy Chrism be kept under Lock and Key, and that the Sacraments in populous Places and especially in Cities be carried with Veneration.  
The Third imports, That the Corporals shall be washed by the Priests habited with Surplices in a very clean Vessel, and set apart for that use, and that the first Water shall be cast into the Pond; that the Linen of the Altar and of the Priests shall be washed by a Woman or by a Girl separately from others, and that they shall take care to keep them well.  
The Fourth renews the Statute made in the Council of Laval about the Inventory of the Ornaments and Goods of churches, which ought to be kept by the Archdeacon.  
The Fifth enjoins, That the Arch-Deacons, Priests and Rural Deans shall be obliged to take Holy Orders within a Year.  
The Sixth prohibits the holding of Plead in Churches and in their Porticoes.  
The Seventh prohibits the Arch-Deacons and other Inferior Prelates from holding their Plead in the presence of their Bishops.  
The Eighth prohibits them from having Officials out of Town.  
The Ninth prohibits the Exacting the Duty of Procuration unless they actually Visit.  
The Tenth revives the Statute made in the Council of Chateaugonthier to prevent the dividing of prebend's.  
The Eleventh prohibits the Admitting any Canon who is not born in lawful Wedlock.  
The Twelfth prohibits the Prelates from exacting any Subsidy from their Inferiors, unless they have occasion for it, and then to receive a Moderate one with Charity.  
The Thirteenth revokes the Pensions laid on Curates.  
The Fourteenth and Fifteenth enjoin the Regulars to observe the Rules prescribed in the Letters of the Pope which relate to them, and to keep Copies of 'em by them.  
The Sixteenth revives the Statute of the Council of Chateaugonthier, which prohibits the Monks from having any thing de Proprio.  
The Seventeenth prohibits the Monks from concerning themselves with Secular Plead.  
The Eighteenth prohibits the Abbots from bestowing Regular Places on Seculars.  
The Nineteenth orders, That the Ancient Number of Monks shall be reestablished in each Monastery.  
The Twentieth and Twenty first prohibit the Abbots from exacting New Pensions of Priories, and from retrenching their Revenues.  
The Twenty second imports, That the Abbots or Priors shall not keep their Registers out of the Monastery.  
The Twenty third prohibits the Clergy from concerning themselves with Merchandise, and from making any Contracts of Society with Merchants.  
The Twenty fourth prohibits the Ecclesiastical Judges from commissioning several Persons to cite without distinction such as they please before them.  
The Twenty fifth and sixth are against those who hinder the Exercise of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, or the Execution of the Sentences.  
The Twenty seventh prohibits Clandestine Marriages.  
The Twenty eighth is against an Abuse which was practised at that time of granting several Curacies in Commendam to one and the same Person, who has already one in Title. They who receive those Benefices are deprived of them, and those who Collate them, of the Power of Presenting.  
The Twenty ninth prohibits Bishops from applying to their Profit a part of the Revenues of Parochial Churches, and from charging them with New Pensions.  
The Thir●ieth prohibits the Clergy from bequeathing any thing to their Natural Children or their Concubines.  
The Thirty first orders, That those who have Sacerdotal prebend's in Chapters, shall take upon them Priests Orders, and serve them in that Quality.  
The Thirty second orders, That all the Canons made by the Arch-Bishops of Tours, Predecessors to Peter, shall be inviolably observed under Pain of Excommunication.   

The Council of Alby in the Year 1254.  
THis Council was held by Zoan Bishop of Avignon and Legate of the Holy See, and consisted of 
The Council of Alby in 1254.  several Bishops of the Provinces of Narbonne, Bourges, and Bourdeaux. Therein they revived a great many Decrees made in the Preceding Councils.  
The Twenty eight First, relate to the Inquisition and the Punishment of Heretics.  
The Twenty ninth orders the Execution of the Canon styled Omnis utriusque sexus concerning the Easter-Confession; and obliges all the Faithful to Receive the Communion at Christmas, Easter and Whitsuntide.  
The next to the Fortieth revive the Decrees of the Councils of Narbonne, Valenza, and Toulouse, about being present at the Divine Service of the Parish, about Ecommunications, Persons Excommunicated, and Last Wills and Testaments.  
The Forty first prohibits the Priests from keeping Women within the Enclosures of the Church.  
The Forty second orders, That there shall be Silver-Chalices in all Churches which have Fifteen Pounds a Year Revenue.  
The Forty third enjoins the Bishops to make use of Ecclesiastical Censures to oblige those who hold Churches to repair and maintain them.  
The Forty fourth and fifth revive the Laws which prohibit ecclesiastics from having any secular Employments or Offices.  
The Eight next prescribe the Modesty which ecclesiastics and Regulars ought to observe in their Habits and in their way of Living.  
The Fifty fourth and fifth import, That there shall be at least Three Monks or Two Regular Canons in each Priory.  
The Fifty sixth orders the Patrons to present the Benefices in their Gifts to able Persons within the time perfix'd, without any Compact and without diminishing the Revenues: And prohibits the Applying the Revenues of a Vacant Church to any other Uses than to the Interest of that Church.  
The Four next fix the Duties of Visitations.  
The Sixty first and Second revive the Decrees of the Council of Avignon against Perjured Persons and Usurers.  
The Eight next are against the Jews.  
The Seventy first prohibits any new Imposts under pain of Excommunication.   

The Council of Bourdeaux in the Year 1255.  
THis Council properly speaking is only a Synod of the Clergy of Bourdeaux held the 13th of April 
The Council of Bourdeaux in 1255.  in the Year 1255, wherein Gerard de Malemort Archbishop of that Church published the following Constitutions.  
1. He ordered the Clergymen who have Churches to be resident, and to present themselves in time to receive Orders under the Penalty of losing their Benefices.  
2. He prohibits the Priests and Curates from tolerating Questors in Churches without his or the Holy see's Order.  
3. From admitting of strange Clergymen without his Leave.  
4. From Executing the Letters of Commission issued out of the Holy See, when a great part of the time perfix'd is elapsed  
5. From giving Consecrated Hosts to Children on Easter-day; instead of which he permits the giving them Consecrated Bread.  
6. He order the Curates to write in the Missals the Inventory of the Goods of their Church, and forbids them to alienate them without the Consent of the Bishop.  
7. He forbids the presenting of Relics to Laymen to swear by them in the seasons wherein 'tis unlawful to swear upon the Evangelists, upon any other account than that of Peace, which Seasons are from Septuagessima Sunday to Easter; from the beginning of Advent to the Octave of Epiphany, during the Rogation-days, and every Sunday in the Year.  
8. He forbids the Priests to carry any Process before a Secular Judge, unless it be with the Consent of the Bishop.  
9 He orders, That they shall not any more bring any Relics out of their Cases to expose them to the Wether, and that no new ones shall be honoured till they have been approved of by the Pope.  
10. He prohibits the Clerks from taking any Cognizance or passing any Sentence in Criminal Matters.  
11. He prohibits the giving of Absolution to Excommunicated Persons at the point of Death, till they have satisfied all Parties, and given security for so doing, and makes them Responsible for it who absolve them otherwise.  
12. He orders, That no Plead shall be in the Cloisters of the Monks under pain of Interdiction.  
15. He made several Decrees relating to Tithes. He Excommunicates and deprives of Ecclesiastical Burial the Laics who possess or detain them: Declares that the Tithes belong to the Curates: Prohibits the Engaging or Alienating of Tithes, and beside the Tithes would have the Laics pay the first fruits, which is the Thirtieth, Fortieth or Fiftieth Part, and the other Deuce which they owe to their Curates. This is the Subject Matter of Ten of these Constitutions.  
In the Twenty sixth, He forbids the exacting any thing for the Administration of Sacraments, or for the Collating to Benefices.  
In the Twenty seventh and eighth, He revives the Temporal Punishments against those who infringe the Excommunication, or who despise and neglect to take it off  
In the Two Last, He reforms the Abuses which were crept into the Societies, and prohibits them from making Constitutions or Choosing an Head without the consent of the Curate, and for the good of the Church.   

The Council of Beziers in the Year 1255.  
PEter d'Antevil Chief Justice of Carcassonne and Beziers, laying Siege to Querbus in behalf of King 
The Council of Beziers in 1255.  Saint Lewis in the Year 1255, gave orders to William de Broa Archbishop of Narbonne, and the Bishops his Suffragans to give him Supplies. They met upon that account the 8th of May the same Year at Beziers, where they concluded on what they should do, and in the Council they Published the Laws made in the foregoing Year by Saint Lewis, which have been published by Baluzeius, and are to be met with in the last Editions of the Councils.   

The Council of Ruffec in the Year 1258.  
GErard de Malemort Archbishop of Bourdeaux Held a Synod in August 1258, at Ruffec for Maintaining 
The Council of Ruffec in 1258.  the Rights of the Church. He therein ordered, That for three Sundays successively They should be Excommunicated, who hindered the Jurisdiction of Churches, or Violated the Rights and Liberties and Seized upon the Revenues of them. He condemned severely the Monks who despised the Censures of their Bishops. He prohibits ecclesiastics from making their Answers before Secular-Judges, and from having any Secular Employments. He regulates the Forms of Last Wills and Testaments, according to the preceding Councils, as well as the Absolution of Excommunicated Persons at the Hour of Death. He admonishes the Commissaries of the Holy See of what they ought to observe in the Executing of their Commission, and prohibits the Trying of Causes in Monasteries. This is the Subject Matter of Ten Chapters of this Council.   

The Council of Montpellier in the Year 1258.  
JAmes Archbishop of Narbonne Revived in a Synod Held at Montpellier the Sixth of September 1258. 
The Council of Montpellier in 1228.  the following Decrees.  
The First is against those who Violate the Rights and Liberties of Churches and Churchmen.  
The Second prohibits the Bishops from Granting the Tonsure, or Holy Orders to those who are not of their Diocese, and enjoins them not to Confer it on Persons under Twenty Years of Age, who require it out of a sense of Devotion, and to Serve the Church, and who have some Tincture of the Clerical Learning.  
The Third, declares the Clerks who do not live Clerically, and who are concerned in any Secular Business, to be deprived of their Immunities and Privileges.  
The Fourth imports, That those who shall Interdict or Excommunicate any Person as Delegates or Subdelegates of the Holy See, shall show their Commission.  
The Fifth, That the Jews may not exact Usury.  
The Sixth, renews the Second Canon of the Council of Bourdeaux in the Year 1255, against Questors.  
The Seventh, orders the Execution and Publication of these Orders.  
The Eighth imports, That the Decree against those who Seize on the Goods of the Church, shall be Published every Sunday at the Homily.   

The Council of Cologne in the Year 1260.  
Conrade Archbishop of Cologne Published in the Year 1260, several Constitutions for the Reforming 
The Council of Cologne in 1260.  of Churchmen and Monks. He therein revives the Canons against Clerks who keep Concubines, against the Simoniacal and Merchandizing Clergy: He orders, That they shall be able at least to Read and Sing the Praises of God. He recommends to them the being Habited Clerically. He makes several Orders about the Life and Offices of Canons. Lastly, He makes several particular Orders in the second Part about the Monastical Life. There are Fourteen of those Rules for the Clerks and Twenty eight for the Monks.   

The Council of Arles in the Year 1260.  
THis Council was Held by Florence Archbishop of Arles, and consisted of the Bishops of his Province. 
The Council of Arles in 1260.  In the Preface there is an Account of the Errors of those who are styled Joachites, who defended the Doctrine of a Book called, The Eternal Gospel, and they are Condemned in the First Canon.  
In the Second 'tis ordered, That the Curates shall Teach their Parishioners the Form of Baptising Infants in Case of Necessity.  
In the Third 'tis ordered, That they who Administer and those who Receive the Sacrament of Confirmation ought to be at the Fast.  
In the Fourth 'tis forbidden to Contract Marriage without the Authority of the Church.  
In the Fifth 'tis ordered, That there shall be at least, perpetual Vicars in all Parish-Churches.  
In the Sixth, That the Office of the Trinity shall be Celebrated the Sunday after Whitsuntide.  
By the Seventh 'tis prohibited to make use of Torches of Wood in Churches; and 'tis ordered, That they shall make use of Wax-Tapers.  
In the Eighth 'tis ordered, That the Jews shall be distinguished from the Christians by some Mark.  
In the Ninth, The Clerks who have Benefices are prohibited from Exercising the Functions of Advocates in a Lay-Court.  
In the Tenth, The Monks and Regular Canons are prohibited from receiving any Salary for their Preaching.  
In the Eleventh, The Regular Canons are ordered to live according to the Rule of St. Augustine, to Eat in Common in one and the same Refectory, and to Wear a Habit agreeable to their Condition.  
The Twelfth is against an Abuse which was then Practised by the Knights-Templars, who being themselves and their Servants exempted from the Jurisdiction of Ordinaries, bestowed that Quality on several Clerks who still retained their Habit, that so they likewise might be exempted from the Jurisdiction of their Bishop. This Council orders, That the Exemption shall only extend to those who are really of that Order, and that the others shall be subject to the Correction and Jurisdiction of the Ordinaries.  
In the Thirteenth 'tis ordered, That Religious Persons shall be settled in the Hospitals to take care of them.  
The Fourteenth imports, That no Credit shall be given to the Deeds by which the Bishops raises Money, unless sealed with his own Seal.  
In the Fifteenth, The Monks are prohibited from admitting Laics into their Churches on Sundays or holidays, and from Preaching in the time of the Parochial Divine Service.  
In the Sixteenth, The Penitentiaries who are sent into Parishes to Absolve Men in such Cases as are reserved to the Bishop, are enjoined not to hear any Confessions, but in such Cases; and to refer them in other Cases to the Curate.  
The Seventeenth, is against those who use any force to keep their Relations or Friends in Benefices, or to cause them to be Elected into them.  
The other Canons of this Council are lost.   

The Council of Cognac in the Year 1260.  
PEter de Roscidavella who in the Year 1259, succeeded Gerard de Malemort in the Archbishopric 
The Council of Cognac in 1260.  of Bourdeaux, Held a Provincial Council in the Year 1260, at Cognac, wherein the following Decrees were Published.  
The First prohibits the Holding of Nocturnal Assemblies, called Vigils, in the Churches and Church-Yards, because several Lewd things were committed in them, and sometimes Murder; which obliged them to send for the Bishops to Reconcile those Churches. However it permits Luminaries and other Acts of Devotion which were used to be observed.  
The Second Abolishes the Balls which were used to be kept in Churches on Innocents-Day, and the Custom of choosing on that Day one of the Company, on whom they Conferred the Title of Bishop.  
The Third orders, That the Revenues of Vacant Churches shall be reserved for the Successors.  
The Fourth, That the Commendams and Collations of Vacant Benefices shall belong to the Bishop, or Archbishop.  
The Fifth prohibits the Curates from Marrying of Women of another Parish without the consent of their Curate.  
The Sixth prohibits the admitting of Priests of another Diocese to the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries.  
The Seventh prohibits cockfighting, which was a kind of Sport practised in Schools.  
The Eighth is a Revival of the Orders about the Habits of ecclesiastics.  
The Ninth prohibits the giving the Holy Chrism to Exempt Persons who will not Pay to the Bishop of their Diocese what they own him; and from Administering the Sacraments to those who are under their Jurisdiction.  
The Tenth orders the Beneficed Clergy who are absent for their Studies or for some other lawful Cause with the Leave of their Bishop, to put Vicars into their Benefices, to whom they shall allow a sufficient Pension for their Maintenance.  
The Eleventh enjoins the Patrons to allow convenient Salaries to the Curates who depend on them.  
The next Canon orders, That those who have Priories shall maintain two Monks in each.  
The Thirteenth prohibits the Priests from holding Cures by Lease.  
The Fourteenth revives the Prohibitions against laying New Pensions on Churches.  
The Fifteenth and Sixteenth prohibit the Interring any Corpse out of the Parish.  
The Seventeenth orders, That the Curates shall have a particular House of their own.  
The Eighteenth and Nineteenth renew the Constitutions of the former Councils concerning Tithes, and enjoin the Curates to take Possession of the Tithes, under pain of Excommunication and Forfeiture of their Benefices.   

The Council of Lambeth in the Year 1261.  
BOniface Archbishop of Canterbury Held a Council the beginning of May 1261, at Lambeth, wherein 
The Council of Lambeth in 1261.  he made several Constitutions for the maintenance of the Immunities, Privileges and Liberties of the Church of England. There are likewise several about the Ecclesiastical Judgements and Officers, about Confession and Penance, and about the Clerical Tonsure and Crown.   

The Council of Cognac in the Year 1262.  
PEter de Roscidavella Archbishop of Bourdeaux in the Year 1262, Held a Council at Cognac, wherein 
The Council of Cognac in 1262.  he ordered:  
1. That the Places where any Clerks are detained by force, shall be Interdicted.  
2. That those who molest the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction shall be Excommunicated.  
3. That the Lords shall be engaged by Ecclesiastical Censures to force those who slight Excommunications to re-enter into the Communion of the Church.  
4. That they shall not Absolve the Excommunicated, till they have made Satisfaction and Restitution.  
5. That during the Interdiction the Parishioners shall be prohibited going to Divine Service in any Interdicted Church.  
6. That the Arch-Deacons, Archpriests and Curates shall not cause their Benefices to be Served by Vicars.  
7. That these Constitutions shall be Published every Year in the Synods.   

The Council of Bourdeaux in the Year 1262.  
THE same Archbishop made several other Constitutions of the like Nature, in a Synod Held the 
The Council of Bourdeaux in 1262.  same Year at Bourdeaux.  
The First imports, That the Excommunicated shall be esteemed such, till they have received Letters of Absolution from their Bishop.  
The Second, That those who shall continue in a State of Excommunication during a Year, shall be deemed Heretical.  
The Third, That a Curate shall not Bury one of another Parish.  
The Fourth, That the Curates shall Exhort those who are of Age, to present themselves to receive Confirmation, at the time of the Bishop's Visitation.  
The Fifth, That those who shall Contract Clandestine Marriages, both the Ministers and Witnesses shall be Excommunicated and Suspended ab Officio & Beneficio, and that those Marriages shall be reckoned Clandestine, which are not Contracted by the proper Curate or Pastor of the Husband or the Wife, with the consent of the other Curate.  
The Sixth, That each Curate shall have in his Parish a List of the Excommunicated.  
The Seventh, That Absolution from Excommunication cannot be granted, but by the Judge who Issued out the Excommunication, and that in Case the Excommunicated Person happen to Die, after his Death Absolution shall be required of that Judge.   

The Council of Nants in the Year 1264.  
VIncent de Pilenes Archbishop of Tours Held a Council at Nants the Tuesday after the Feast of 
The Council of Nants in 1264.  St. Peter and St. Paul, and therein made the following Constitutions.  
By the First, The Patrons of Live are prohibited from engaging themselves to give any Benefice which is not yet Vacant.  
By the Second, He forbids the diminishing the Number of Monks.  
By the Third, He prohibits the Clergy from Hunting.  
By the Fourth, He forbids the establishing of Vicaridges.  
By the Fifth, He regulates the Treats which ought to be given to Bishops during their Visitation.  
The Sixth is against the Clergy who are not resident, or hold Pluralities.  
The Seventh exempts the Clergy from paying Taxes.  
The Eighth prohibits the Ecclesiastical Judges from citing by Virtue of an Extraordinary Power, any Persons to Places of no Note, and from citing before them any more than four Persons by Virtue of the Clause: Et quidam alii.  
The Ninth imports, That Provision shall be made for ecclesiastics against Laics.   

The Decrees of Engelbert Archbishop of Cologne in the Year 1266.  
ENgelbert Archbishop of Cologne, published on the 10th of May 1266, Forty five Canons about 
The Decrees of Engelbert in 1266.  the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; against those who assaulted the Persons of Clergymen, who drew them before Secular Judges, who hindered them in the Exercise of their Jurisdiction, who violated the Rights and Immunities of the Churches, seized upon their Goods, or kept back the Tithes; against Excommunicated Persons who slighted the Excommunication or Interdiction, etc. These Decrees were ratified by Henry Archbishop of Cologne in the Council which he held in the Year 1322.   

The Council of Vienna in Austria in the Year 1267.  
Guy Cardinal Legate in Germany held a Council at Vienna in Austria, consisting of Six Bishops, 
The Council of Vienna in 1267.  on the 10th of May 1267, wherein he published Twenty one Heads for the Reforming the Discipline of the Churches of Prague and Saltzburg.  
In the First, He order the Clerks to live and be choathed Clerically.  
In the Second, He enjoins the Bishops not to be any Charge to their Inferior Clergy in their Visitations.  
By the Third, He recommends Continency to the Clergy, and orders the Punishing of those who kept Concubines.  
The Fourth and Fifth are against those who offer any Violence to the Persons or Estates of Churchmen.  
The Sixth is against those who hold Pluralities without a Dispensation.  
The Seventh is against Laics who are in Possession of Tithes.  
The Eighth is against Usurers.  
The Ninth is against the Clerks who oppose by force the Correction of their Superiors, and against Patrons who bestow Benefices on Persons under the Age of Eighteen.  
The Tenth is against those who Seize on the Goods of the Church during the Vacancy.  
The Eleventh imports, That the Lay-Patrons shall not institute into Benefices, but only the Ordinaries.  
The Twelfth, That the Curates are obliged to Actual and Personal Residence on their Benefices.  
The Thirteenth orders the Bishop of Prague and the Bishops of the Province of Saltzburg, to Visit the Monasteries of the Blackfriar, being attended with the Monks of the Order of Cisteaux.  
The Fourteenth prohibits the Abbots from Consecrating Chalices, Patins, and from Blessing the Holy Vestments, and from performing any of the Episcopal Functions.  
The Five last are about the Jews.   

The Council of London in the Year 1268.  
OTtobon Cardinal Legate of the Holy See in England, Held a Council at London in the Year 1268, 
The Council of London 1268.  wherein he Published Fifty four Decrees upon several Points of Church-Discipline.  
The First contains an Instruction about the Sacrament of Baptism.  
The Second forbids the demanding any thing for the Administration of the Sacraments, and prescribes the Form of Absolution.  
The Third orders, That the Churches shall be Consecrated.  
The Fourth prohibits the Clergy from bearing Arms.  
The Fifth is about the manner how Clerks are to be Habited.  
The Sixth and Seventh prohibit them from being Advocates, or Judges in Secular Causes.  
The Eighth renews the Laws against the Clerks who keep Concubines.  
The Ninth orders those that are Advanced to Benefices with the Cure of Souls, to take Priests Order forthwith, and to be Resident.  
The Tenth and Eleventh relate to the Collation of Benefices, to the Qualifications requisite in Persons who are to be Presented to them, and fix Penalties on Intruders, who get themselves to be Presented to a Benefice before 'tis Vacant.  
The Twelfth prohibits the dividing a Benefice into several, and the Imposition of new Pensions.  
The Thirteenth denounces Excommunication against the Clergy, who shall Violate the Sanctuary of Churches.  
The Fourteenth is against those who obstruct the Celebration of Matrimony.  
The Fifteenth relates to Last Wills and Testaments, and obliges the Executor to renounce the Right which he has to Plead in his Jurisdiction.  
The Sixteenth prohibits Patrons from retaining the Fruits of Vacant Benefices, if they have not a Right to it by some acquired Title, or by Ancient Custom.  
The Seventeenth imports, That the Chaplains of Chapels granted without prejudicing the Rights of Parish-Churches, shall be bound to give to the Curates the Offerings which are made in those Chapels.  
The Eighteenth enjoins the Beneficed Clergy, to keep the Buildings of their Benefices in Repair; and if they do it not, it allows the Bishops to see that it be done at their Cost and Charges.  
The Nineteenth prohibits the demanding the Duty of Procuration, unless they actually Visit, and renews the Canon of the Fourth General Lateran Council upon that subject.  
The Twentieth prohibits the Arch-Deacons from taking Money for a scandalous and Notorious Offence, and from exchanging a Canonical Penalty, for a Pecuniary Mulct.  
The Twenty first prohibits the Leasing out of Ecclesiastical Dignities, Benefices, or Offices.  
The Twenty second declares, The Bishops obliged to Residence, both by Divine and Ecclesiastical Laws.  
The Twenty third prohibits the Bishops from granting a Church of their Diocese to another Bishop, or to a Monastery, if it be not out of Charity, and to relieve a very poor Church.  
The Twenty fourth imports, That the Goods of those who die Intestate, shall be converted to Pious Uses.  
The Four next Canons concern the Judiciary Forms.  
The Twenty ninth orders, That when Absolution shall be given from Censures, it shall be Published.  
The Thirtieth relates to the Collating of Benefices, and prohibits Pluralities.  
The Thirty first prohibits Commendams.  
The Thirty second declares the Presentations of Benefic●● made to Persons who already have Benefices which oblige them to Residence, to be Null and Void.  
The Thirty third, To hinder Collusion in Resignations of Benefices, prohibits the restoring a Benefice to him who has Resigned it.  
The Thirty fourth declares, All the Compacts made for the Presentations of Benefices, and the Pensions newly imposed, to be Null.  
The Thirty fifth prohibits the holding of Markets, or exercising any other Trade in Churches.  
The Thirty sixth orders Processions and Solemn Prayers for the Peace of the Kingdom, and of the Holy Land.  
The Thirty seventh, That these Statutes shall be Read every Year in the Provincial Councils.  
The following Articles relate to the Regular Canons and Monks, about the Profession, and the time of the Noviceship; the Observation of the Decretals of the Popes about the Monks, the Prohibitions against the Monks having any thing de Proprio, the Vestments, Churches, Urensils, the manner of the Monks Living, their Number and Employments, the Cloistering and the Affairs of Nuns. The Monks are desired to Confess themselves and to Celebrate Mass often.   

The Ordinance of St. Lewis in the Year 1268.  
THE substance of this Ordinance is as follows, Lewis King of France, ad perpetuam rei memoriam, 
The Ordinance of St. Lewis in 1268.  for the Safety and Tranquillity of the Church within our Dominions, for the increase of Divine Worship, for the Salvation of the Faithful Christians, and for obtaining the Succour of Almighty God, to whose Power alone our Kingdom always has been subject, and to whom alone we would that it should be always subject: We have Decreed and Ordered by this most Wise Decree, which shall be Perpetual:  
That the Prelates of the Churches within our Kingdom, and the Patrons and usual Collaters of Benefices shall fully enjoy their Privilege, and that each of them shall preserve his Jurisdiction.  
Item, That the Cathedral and other Churches of our Kingdom shall have free Elections, and that they shall be duly Executed.  
Item, We Will and Command, That the Sin of Simony, the Pest of the Church, be entirely banished our Kingdom.  
Item, We Will and Command, That the Promotions, Collations, Provisions and Disposals of Prelacies, Dignities, and of other Ecclesiastical Benefices and Offices of the Kingdom, be made according to the Orders and Determination of the Common Law, of the Holy Councils, and of the Ancient Decrees of the Holy Fathers.  
Item, We prohibit the Levying or Raising the too burdensome Taxes and Exactions, Imposed, or to be Imposed by the Court of Rome on our Kingdom, which have miserably impoverished it; unless it be for a very urgent Cause of Religion, an indispensible Necessity, and by our Voluntary and Express Consent, and by the Consent of the National Church.  
Item, We Renew and Confirm the Liberties, Franchises, Prerogatives, Rights and Privileges Granted by the Kings of France our Predecessors, of Blessed Memory, or by Us to the Churches, Monasteries, Places of Piety, Monks, or Ecclesiastical Persons.  
Afterwards he order all his Officers to take care to Execute this Ordinance, which bears Date May in the Year 1268.  
Some question the Truth of this Constitution, but without Reason: And we find it quoted in the Articles presented by the Parliament to Lewis XI. at the Convention of the States at Tours in the Year 1483. and in the Act of Appeal made by the University of Paris in the Year 1491.   

The Council of Chateaugonthier in the Year 1268.  
VIncent de Pilenes Archbishop of Tours Held a Council in August 1268. at Chateaugonthier, wherein 
The Council of Chateaugonthier in 1268.  he revived the Decrees of the former Councils against those who Seized on Church-Lands, who obstructed the Exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and who continued Excommunicated during a Year; to prevent the rifling of Vacant Priories: That the Monks shall not keep their Registry out of the Monastery; about the Habits which Arch-Deacons and Deacons ought to wear, and about the Power of the Bishop to Absolve Men from Excommunications. They are Eight Articles in all.   

The Council of Angers in the Year 1269.  
THere are Two Canons of the Council Held at Angers in June 1269. The one against those who hinder 
The Council of Angers in 1269.  any from making Legacies to Churches: And the other to prevent the Clergy from being Advocates in Secular Courts.   

The Council of Sens in the Year 1269.  
IN the same Year a Council was Held at Sens the Saturday before the Festival of Simon and Judas, in 
The Council of Sens in 1269.  which they revived the Ecclesiastical Decrees against the Clergy who kept Women in their Houses, against Usurers, the Canon called Omnis Utriusque Sexus, the Prohibitions against Citing the Clergy before Secular-Judges, and against the Abuses of Privileges.   

The Council of Compeign in the Year 1270.  
JOhn of Courtnay Archbishop of Rheims on the Monday before Ascension-Day 1270, Held a Council 
The Council of Compeign in 1270.  at Compeign, consisting of Seven Bishops of his Province, wherein he Published a very severe Decree against those who Seized on the Goods of Churches, against their Abetters, and those that harboured them, or received the Goods which they had taken.   

The Council of Avignon in the Year 1270.  
THE same Year Bertrand of Malferrat Archbishop of Arles, Held a Council at Avignon the 15th, 
The Council of Avignon in 1270.  of July, in which he ordered:  
1. That those who Alienate the Goods of Churches without the consent of the Diocesan Bishop, shall be forced by Censures to Cancel such Contracts.  
2. That the Money Bequeathed to be made use of according to the Will of the Executors, be Employed in Pious Works, and according to the Advice of the Bishop.  
3. That the Arch-Bishops and Bishops shall assist each other in Publishing and Executing their Sentences.  
4. That those who have Benefices with the Cure of Souls, shall take Priests Orders within a Year, except Arch-Deacons, for whom 'tis enough to be only in Deacon's Orders.  
5. That the Expenses in Receiving the Legates and Nuntios of the Pope, shall be defrayed by the whole Diocese.  
6. That the Bishops and Chapters shall give Competent Revenues to Churchmen settled in Personates, or Dignities.  
7. That the Clergy who have recourse to the Secular Power against their Bishop, shall be Excommunicated, and if they slight the Excommunication, they shall lose their Benefices.  
8. That the Clergy who have by Words or Actions injured a Bishop, a Provost, or any other Person placed in Authority, shall be incapable to hold any Benefice in their Church, till after they have made them satisfaction.   

The Council of St. Quentin in the Year 1271.  
IN the Year 1271. The See of the Church of Rheims being Vacant, Milo Bishop of Soissons 
The Council of St. Quentin in 1271.  Appointed a Provincial Council according to Custom to be Held at St. Quentin. The Canons of Rheims opposed it, pretending it was their Right to appoint it: The Difference being adjusted, the Council met, in which they made several Orders about the Privileges of Churches and Churchmen.   

The Council of Rennes in the Year 1273.  
JOhn de Montfereau Archbishop of Tours the Monday after Ascension-Day 1273, Held a Council at 
The Council of Rennes in 1273.  Rennes, wherein he renewed the Orders against those who abused ecclesiastics, and Monks, who Rob them of their Goods, or Seize upon the Goods of the Churches; and the Decree of the Council of Chateaugonthier against those who rifled Priories. This is contained in Seven Articles.   

The Second General Council of Lions in the Year 1274.  
GRegory X. Appointed this Council two Years before it was Held, for three Reasons which are taken 
The second General Council of Lions in 1274  notice of in his Bull of Indiction. 1. For the Reunion of the Greek Church, with whom they were in a fair way of Agreement. 2. For the Relief of the Holy Land. 3. And for the Reforming the Church-Discipline and the Lives of the Clergy. The Pope himself presided there in Person. The Latin Patriarches of Constantinople and Antioch were likewise there, with about Five hundred Bishops, Seventy Abbots, and a Thousand other inferior Prelates: The Ambassadors of the Kings of France, Germany and Sicily, and those of Michael Palaeologus Emperor of the East were sent thither by their Masters. James King of Arragon was present at the First Session; but because the Pope would not Crown him, till he had paid the Tribute which his Father had engaged to give every Year to the Holy See, he retired in a great Passion with the Pope.  
The First Session of the Council was Held in the Great Church of Lions the Seventh of May 1274. After the usual Prayers the Pope made a Speech, and proposed to the Assembly, The three Reasons for which he had Appointed that Council, and Adjourned the Second Session to Monday the Eighteenth of the same Month. He made another Harangue in the Second Session, and Adjourned the Council to the Eight and twentieth of the same Month, after he had dismissed several of the inferior Prelates. Between these Two Sessions the Pope prevailed upon the Bishops and Abbots to give the Tenth of their Revenues for Six Years, for the Relief of the Holy Land.  
The Third Session was not Held till the Seventh of June, and then the Cardinal of Ostia made a Speech to the Council: They therein Read Part of the Constitutions of this Council about Discipline, and afterwards the Pope having made a Speech, permitted the Prelates to retire and go Abroad, but not above six Leagues from thence. He did not appoint a Day for the next Session, because it was uncertain when the Ambassadors of the Greeks would arrive. They came the Twenty fourth of that Month, presented their Letters to the Pope, and were very well received by him: They were present at High-Mass the 28th. of the same Month, in which they Sung the Gospel and the Creed in Latin and Greek, and the Greeks repeated thrice the Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. Between this and the next Session the Pope obliged the Bishop of Liege, and the Abbot of St. Paul at Rome, Accused of Irregularities, to lay down their Dignities. He likewise gave Audience to the Envoys of the Tartars.  
The Fourth Session was Held the sixth of July: Therein the Letters of the Grecian Emperor were Read, and one of the Ambassadors swore to the Reunion, and Obedience to the Church of Rome. Afterwards they Sung Te Deum, the Creed with the Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, and with the other Prayers. The Pope Communicated the Letters of the King of Tartars to the Council, and concluded this Session with a Speech; appointing the Fifth Session for the Tuesday following. It was put off to the sixteenth Day of the Month, because the Pope Negotiated in particular with the Prelates and Cardinals, to get them to pass a Constitution which he had drawn up about the Election of a Pope.  
The Fifth Session was ushered in with the solemn Baptising of one of the Tartar-Ambassadors. They therein Read several other Constitutions, and put off the rest till the Morrow, on which was Held the Sixth and last Session. They therein made an end of Reading the two Canons which remained; after which the Pope made a Speech, wherein he declaimed against disorderly Churchmen, and threatened if they did not Reform to proceed against them. He promised to apply likewise Remedies, whereby to oblige the Curates to Residence in their Parish-Churches, and to supply them only with able Persons. The Council afterwards was Concluded with the usual Prayers.  
The Constitutions Read and Published in this Council by Pope Gregory, which he ordered, and which should be observed and inserted in the Decretals under Heads, are One and thirty in all.  
The First has for its Title De Trinitate & fide Catholicâ; concerning the Trinity and the Catholic Faith, It is therein declared, That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, as from one single Principle and by one single Spiration: And they are Condemned who deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, and those who dare aver, That he proceeds from the Father and the Son, as from two Principles.  
The following Articles to the Fifteenth are under the Title, Of the Election and Promotion of the Elected.  
The Second contains several Rules about the Conclave and the Election of a Pope.  
The Third obliges those who oppose the Elections and Postulations, to declare in their Letters of Appeal the Causes and Reasons of the Nullity, which they think fit to make use of, and prohibits them from alleging any others afterwards.  
In the Fourth, A Person Elected to a Benefice, is prohibited from taking Possession thereof till his Election be Confirmed.  
The Fifth declares, That he who is Elected, shall be bound to give his Consent to the Election within a Month, reckoning from the Day on which the Election shall be Notified to him, and to get it Confirmed within three Months.  
The Sixth imports, That those who give their Vote for an unworthy Person, ought not to forfeit the Power of Electing, unless the Person they Vote for be Elected; tho' their Action be very Criminal.  
The Seventh, That he who has given his Vote for a Person, or consented to his Election, is not to be admitted to oppose it afterwards; unless he discovers in that Person some Vice or Defect which lay concealed before.  
The Eighth, That when there are two Thirds of Votes for one Person, the other Third is not to be allowed to object any thing against the Electors, or the Elected.  
In the Ninth 'tis declared, That tho' Pope Alexander III has with Reason placed the Causes of the Elections of Bishops in the number of Greater Causes, yet if it happens that an Appeal be injudiciously made for an apparently frivolous Cause; those kinds of Appeals shall not be brought before the Holy See. But that 'tis requisite in order to have any Cause brought immediately before it, that the Appeal be grounded upon a probable Reason, and which would upon Proof appear to be Lawful: That the Parties are allowed to de●●●t from the Appeal, provided there be no Trick in such a desisting; for if the Judges to whom it belonged to take Cognizance thereof, do find that there is any, they ought to enjoin the Parties to appear before the Holy See within a convenient Time.  
The Tenth imports, That if it be objected against a Person, That he is incapable because of his Ignorance; it shall be referred to a Trial, and if in the Issue he be found Capable, no regard shall be had to any of the Reasons of his Adversary.  
The Eleventh Issues out Excommunication against those who do any wrong to the Electors; because they would not give their Votes for those whom they recommended to them.  
The Twelfth likewise Issues out Excommunication against those who would the Novo take up the Regalia, the Care and the Title of the Defender of Churches and Monasteries, or who favour those who do so: And for those who enjoy those Privileges, either by Virtue of the Foundation or by any ancient Custom, they are prohibited from abusing their Power, and from Seizing during the Vacancy, the Goods of the Church which are not Part of the Incomes or Revenues thereof, and from suffering the Goods of the Church to be rifled.  
The Thirteenth declares, The Presentations of Cures made by Persons under Five and twenty Years of Age, to be Null and Void, and obliges the Curates to Residence, and to take Priest's Orders in the Year of their Promotion.  
The Fourteenth prohibits the giving a Curacy in Commendam to a Person under Age, or for above six Months.  
The Fifteenth has for its Title, Of the Seasons of Ordinations, and of the Qualification of those who are to be Ordained. They are therein Suspended from the Power of Ordaining for a whole Year, who shall Ordain the Clerks of another Diocese.  
The Sixteenth has for its Title, Of Bigamy. The Pope therein Determines, That those who have been Married twice, have forfeited all the Privileges of the Clergy, and that they are prohibited from having so much as the Clerical Habit and Tonsure.  
The Two next are under the Title, Of the Office of Ordinary Judges.  
The Seventeenth imports, That the Chapters who would be discharged from several Offices, aught before they Cause it to cease, to exhibit a Declaration in Writing of the Reasons why they are willing to have that Office cease: And that 'tis not Lawful to throw down the Images or Statnes of the Virgin Mary, and of the other Saints.  
The Eighteenth imports, That all those who have Pluralities of Dignities, or Benefices with the Cure of Souls, shall bring their Dispensations to the Ordinaries, and if they shall not be found to be Canonical; then they shall appear before the Holy See. It likewise prohibits the Ordinaries from bestowing such sort of Benefices on those who have the like already.  
The Nineteenth has for its Title, de Postulatione: It relates to the Oath which Advocates and Proctors are bound to take.  
The Twentieth, under the Title, Of what is done through force or fear; declares the Absolutions of Excommunication extorted by Force or by Fear, to be Null and Void.  
The Twenty first moderates the Canon of Clement V of Benefices Vacant in Curiâ, the Presentation of which belongs to the Pope, by granting the Ordinaries leave to Collate them within a Month.  
The Twenty second prohibits the Bishops from Alienating the Goods of Churches in any manner whatever, without the Consent of the Chapter, and Declares the Alienations otherwise made to be Null and Void.  
The Twenty third cancels and puts down all the Orders of Mendicant Friars established since the Lateran Council under Innocent III. which have not been approved by the Holy See; and with respect to those which have been approved of by the Holy See, he allows those who are admitted Monks to live in their Houses; but forbids them to admit Novices, and to make any new Acquisitions: And as to those Houses and Estates which they have acquired, he would have them be reserved for the use of the Holy Land. He declares, That this Constitution does not extend to the Orders of Minor and Jacobine Friars, and allows the Orders of the Augustine Carmelites and Hermits established before this Council to remain in their present State and Condition, till there shall be some new Order made upon their account. Lastly, He permits those of the Orders which are not approved of to go into another Order, provided notwithstanding that no entire Order, nor Monastery shall enter into another without special Leave from the Holy See.  
The Twenty fourth Renews the Prohibitions of Exacting or even receiving any thing for the Right of Procuration, without Personal Visitation.  
The Twenty fifth is about the Sanctity of Churches: 'Tis therein forbidden to hold Assemblies, Plead, Markets, etc. in Consecrated Places.  
The Twenty sixth and seventh are against Usurers, who are Condemned to very severe Penalties.  
The Twenty eight abolishes the Use of Reprisals.  
The Three last Canons are about Excommunication. The First imports, That the Canonical Admonition ought to express by Name those who are to be Excommunicated, and that it ought to be done three times one after another within the space of some Days. The Second, That the Absolutions ad Cautelam cannot be of force in the Sentences of General Interdictions of Towns or other Places. The Third which is the Thirty first and Last Canon of this Council declares those Men Excommunicated who would force the Ecclesiastical Judges by the seizure of their Temporalities to revoke the Sentences of Interdiction or Excommunication which they have passed.  
These Constitutions bear date November the First, in the third Year of the Pontificate of Gregory X.   

The Council of Saltzburg in the Years 1274 and 1281.  
FRederick Archbishop of Saltzburg and Legate of the Holy▪ See, in the Year 1274, held a Provincial 
The Council of Saltzbourg in 1274 & 1281.  Council in his Metropolis, wherein he Published the Canons of the Second General Council of Lions, and ordered the Reading the Constitutions published by Guy Cardinal and Legate of the Holy See, in the Council held at Vienna in Austria in the Year 1267, to which he added Twenty Four Articles.  
By the First, He Order the Abbots of the Order of Saint Benedict to hold Provincial Chapters▪ every Year for the Reforming the Monastical Discipline.  
By the Second, He orders, That the Runaway Monks shall be fetched back again, That those who Commit Enormous Crimes shall be put into Prison. He prohibits Abbots from dispensing from their Obedience the Monks who pass into a more Austere Order.  
In the Third, He reproves the Abuse of several Abbots who sent Monks into other Monasteries for slight Faults: He orders, That they shall punish them for their Faults in the Monasteries where they have Committed them, and that they shall not make the Monks change their Monastery unless the Bishop consents to it.  
In the Fourth, He prohibits the Abbots the Use of Pontifical Habits, the Blessing of Holy Vestments and Vessels, the Power of granting Indulgences and the other Sacerdotal Functions, if they do not justify their Privileges in the first Provincial Council.  
In the Fifth, He prohibits the Regular Canons the same thing, and leaves the other Abuses to be reformed at a Provincial Chapter.  
In the Sixth, He repeals the Powers given to Monks of Confessing, of granting Indulgences, or of doing any other Sacerdotal Functions.  
The Seventh imports, That those who have Pluralities of Benefices, shall be contented with the Last that has been given them, and shall be turned out of the rest, unless before the holding of the first Provincial Council, they make it appear, that they have obtained a Dispensation to hold them from the Superior who has the Right to grant it.  
The Eighth obliges all the Clergy who have Benefices with the Cure of Souls to Residence, on pain of forfeiting the Incomes and the Benefit of the Temporalities of their Benefices.  
The Ninth subjects to the same Penalty those who take not Orders within the time prescribed by the Canons.  
The Tenth orders, That in Benefices where there ought to be Vicars, a competent Stipend shall be allowed them for their Maintenance.  
The Eleventh revives the Laws about the Clerical Tonsure and Habit.  
The Twelfth and Thirteenth Suspend the Clerks who frequent Taverns or play at Dice.  
The Fourteenth Excommunicates those who shall break a Prison, in favour of a Clerk Imprisoned by the Order of his Bishop.  
The Fifteenth prohibits Men and Women from taking upon them the Religious Habit, if they do not make Profession of a Rule in an Order already approved, and design to enter a Monastery.  
The Sixteenth prohibits the giving any thing to Vagrant Scholars.  
The Seventeenth prohibits certain Sports which were kept in Churches.  
The Eighteenth orders the Bishops to see that the Censures passed by other Bishops be observed.  
The Nineteenth imports, That they shall cut their Stubble in all the Province on the Festivals of St. Rupert, St. Vigilius, and St. Augustine Patrons of Saltzburg.  
The Twentieth prohibits the Monks from choosing Confessors out of their Order, unless it be by the Bishop's Leave.  
The Twenty first orders, That the Clerks or Monks shall be cast into Prison, who make use of the Secular Powers to exempt themselves from the Correction of their Bishop, and declares them unworthy to Possess Benesices or Ecclesiastical Offices.  
The Twenty second imports, That they ought to make use of a general Interdiction to punish the Imprisonment or Persecution of a Bishop.  
The Twenty third prohibits the Receiving of Curacies from the Hands of Laics, and from entering into Possession of them before they are Instituted and Inducted by the Bishop.  
The Twenty fourth prohibits the Advocates of Churches from Molesting them, and exacting more than their Deuce of them.  
The same Archbishop held another Provincial Council at Saltzburg in the Year 1281, consisting of Fourteen Bishops, in which he Published the following Canons.  
The First, Which prohibits the Alienation of Abbey-Lands unless it be with the Consent of the Bishop and the Monks.  
The Second, which Orders, That the Superiors shall every Year give an Account to the Bishop of the Use that has been made of the Revenue of the Monasteries.  
The Third, Which prescribes to the Monks the Fasting from the Festival of St. Martin to Christmas, and the beginning Lent at Quinquagesima Sunday.  
The Fourth is against the Monks who have any thing de Proprio.  
The Fifth and Sixth relate to the Habits and Behaviour of the Monks.  
The Seventh Revives the Canons for holding general Chapters for the Order of St. Benedict.  
The Eighth Moderates the Charges of the Visitors.  
The Ninth is against the Nuns who do not live in Common, though shut up in one and the same Monastery.  
The Tenth prohibits the Plurality of Benefices with the Cure of Souls.  
The Eleventh obliges the Titulars of Benefices to reside, and puts down the Vicars.  
The Twelfth is about the Rights pretended to by the Patrons of Churches.  
The Thirteenth is against those who offer any Violence to the Clerks.  
The Fourteenth Condemns those who are the Cause of a Church's or Church-yard's Pollution by shedding of Blood, to pay the Charges of its being reconciled.  
The Fifteenth is against the Patrons or Judges, who seize on the Demeans of the Benefices of deceased Clerks.  
The Sixteenth orders the Prayers for Peace, namely the Psalm, called Domine quid Multiplicâsti, the Lord's Prayer, the Versicle, called Fiat pax in Virtute tuâ, the Collect called Deus a quo Sancta Desideria, which shall be said every Day at Mass after the Agnus Dei.  
The Seventeenth is against the Clerks who forge Writings.  
The Eighteenth prohibits the Clerks from receiving Churches at the Hands of Laics.   

The Council of Arles in the Year 1275.  
THis Council was held by Bertrand of St. Martin Archbishop of Arles. 
The Council of Arles in 1275.   
The Four first Canons are lost.  
In the Fifth 'tis ordered, That the Bishop shall cause the Sentences of Excommunication and Interdiction passed by their Brethren to be published and observed.  
The Sixth imports, That an Inventory shall be made of the Goods of Churches and of Hospitals.  
The Seventh prohibits the Selling or Mortgaging the Chalices, or other Ornaments of the Church, without the Bishop's leave.  
The Eighth imports, That the Last Wills and Testaments shall be made in the Presence of the Curate.  
The Ninth, That the Curates shall take care that the Legacies bequeathed to Pious Uses, be duly Discharged.  
The Tenth, That no Persons shall be solicited to be Interred out of their own Parish.  
The Eleventh, That the Rules of the Law in Ecclesiastical Affairs shall be observed.  
The Twelfth contains the Cases which are to be reserved to the Pope, which are Heresy, Simony, the Non-observation of Eccommunication or Interdiction, the Ordination per Saltum, or without the Bishop's leave, Fires, the touching the Eucharist or the Holy Chrism in order to put it to an ill use; Homicide, Sacrilege, Incests with one's Aunt, Sister, Kinswoman or a Nun, the Debauching of a Maiden, the Sin against Nature, the Exposing of a Child, and Abortion.  
The Thirteenth contains the Cases reserved to the Bishops, or their Penitentiaries; which are false Witnesses, a Marriage Contracted by a Person who is engaged on Oath to Marry another, the being present at the Office of an Excommunicated or Interdicted Person, the Celebration of Divine Service in an Interdicted Place, the Burying in an Interdicted Churchyard, the Seizing and retaining of Tithes, or of things bequeathed to the Church by Last Wills and Testaments: The Priests are prohibited from granting Absolution in such Cases, unless those whom they Confess are at the Point of Death, or uncapable of waiting on the Bishop or his Penitentiary.  
In the Fourteenth and Fifteenth, the Clergy are prohibited from Buying up Corn to Sell it again for profit.  
In the Sixteenth 'tis ordered, That they shall have Silver-Chalices in all Churches.  
In the Seventeenth 'tis ordered, That they shall Rebuild the Country-Churches and the Houses belonging to them.  
In the Eighteenth, That the Usurers and Adulterers shall be Excommunicated every Sunday.  
In the Nineteenth, That the Curates shall keep a Register of the Names of those who present themselves at the Sacrament of Penance during Lent, and that after Easter they shall give the Bishop an account of those who are not Confessed, and if there be any Monks who take Confessions in the Parish, they shall give in the Names of those whom they have Confessed to the Curate.  
In the Twentieth, That if one of those who are not Confessed to the Curate Die within the Year, he shall not be Interred in Holy Ground.  
In the Twenty first, That the Curates shall hear the Confessions of the Sick, or give leave to the Secular Priests or Monks to hear them.  
In the Twenty second the Curates are prohibited from leaving their Churches to go into others, before they have given their Bishop an Account of their Conduct.   

The Synodal Statutes of Robert de L'Isle Bishop of Durham in the Year 1276.  
THese Statutes contain Six Articles for the Rights of Tithes, and a Sentence of Excommunication 
The Synodal Statutes of Robert de L'Isle Bishop of Durham in 1276.  against all Persons whatever, who shall either directly or indirectly molest the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, or who obstruct the Execution of its Sentences, or the Execution of the Last Wills and Testaments.   

The Council of Saumur in the Year 1276.  
JOhn de Montsoreau Archbishop of Tours, Held a Provincial Council at Saumur the Monday after 
The Council of Saumur in 1276.  the Festival of St. John Baptist, wherein he Published Fourteen Decrees about the Ecclesiastical and Monastical Discipline.  
In the First 'tis ordered, That there shall be always kept a lighted Taper in the Churches.  
In the Second 'tis prohibited to put any Chests, or profane things in Churches.  
The Third is against Plurality of Benefices with the Cure of Souls.  
The Fourth and Fifth concern the Habits of Clerks and Monks.  
The Sixth prohibits the Abbesses from retaining the Goods of Beneficed Men.  
In the Seventh the Monks are prohibited from having several Places in distinct Monasteries.  
The Eighth prohibits the sending Young Monks into any Priories but what are Conventual.  
The Ninth renews the Laws against those who take away the Revenues of Priories.  
The Tenth prohibits the giving of Priories to Secular Clerks.  
The Eleventh enjoins the Secular-Judges to see that Justice be done to ecclesiastics.  
The Twelfth deprives Excommunicated Persons of the Right of bringing any Action in Law, of Pleading, or of giving any Evidence.  
The Thirteenth permits the Bishop to Absolve in such Cases wherein the Council inflicts the Penalty of Suspension or Excommunication.  
The Fourteenth orders the Observation of the Decrees of the former Councils.   

The Council of Bourges in the Year 1276.  
SImon Cardinal of St. Cecilia Legate of the Holy See, Held a Council at Bourges in the Year 1276. 
The Council of Bourges in 1276.  and having therein Debated on several Points of Discipline, drew up Sixteen Articles of the things Determined therein; about the freedom of Elections, the Power of Delegate-Judges and Ordinaries, Tithes, Last Wills and Testaments, the Immunities of Churches and other Matters concerning the Ecclesiastical Court.   

The Council of Langeiss in the Year 1276.  
JOhn de Montsoreau Archbishop of Tours Held a Council at Langeiss, wherein he Published Sixteen Canons. 
The Council of Langeiss in 1276.   
The First regulates the Dues of Visitation.  
The Second prohibits the Archpriests and Arch-Deacons from having Officials out of Towns.  
The Third is against Clandestine Marriages.  
The Fourth prohibits the Priests from keeping in their Houses their Children Born of their Concubines, and from bequeathing any thing to them.  
The Fifth is about Last Wills and their Executors, who are prohibited from Buying the Goods contained in the Last Will.  
The Sixth declares those who despise the Keys of the Church unworthy of Legacies.  
The Seventh is against those who abuse the Pope's Letters.  
The Eighth prohibits the Leasing out of Curacies.  
The Ninth orders, That a General Excommunication shall not be passed on all who Cemmunicate with Excommunicated Persons.  
The Tenth obliges those who have Rights granted by another, to affirm before the Action be brought, That there is no Fraud in that Grant.  
The Eleventh prohibits the sending of Young Monks into Priories.  
That Twelfth prohibits the Admitting of any more Monks, or Nuns than the Monasteries can maintain.  
The Thirteenth obliges them to put more than one Monk into each Priory.  
The Fourteenth prohibits the Rifling of Priories.  
The Fifteenth turns the Secular Advocates out of Spiritual Courts.  
The Last obliges the Officials to Swear that they will take no Bails; and that they will Administer Justice Faithfully.   

The Council of Ponteaudemer in the Year 1279.  
William de Filla-Cour Archbishop of Rouen, Held a Provincial Council at Ponteaudemer the Thursday 
The Council of Ponteaudemer in 1279.  before Ascension-Day in the Year 1279, wherein he made the following Canons about Church-Discipline.  
The First imports, That the Excommunicated Clergy shall lose the Revenues of their Benefices, and that if they continue Excommunicated during a Year, they shall be turned out of the Benefices themselves.  
The Second, That the Chaplains or Curates who do not Celebrate Mass, if they do not amend after they have been Admonished, shall be turned out of their Benefices.  
The Third, That the Canons of the Councils of Bourges and Lions against the Disturbers of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, shall be observed.  
The Fourth, That those who are Excommunicated by the Canon, for having abused the Clergy, shall be Denounced such and Punished, if they do not get themselves Absolved.  
The Fifth, That the Canon of the Lateran Council about Confession and the Communion, shall be observed.  
The Sixth, That the Lords or Judges who detain the Clerks to the prejudice of the Demands of the Ecclesiastical Judges, shall be Excommunicated.  
The Seventh, That the Personal Causes of ecclesiastics shall not be brought before Secular Judges.  
The Eighth, That the Grand Decimators are bound to Repair the Churches.  
The Ninth, That no Christians shall be Slaves to Jews.  
The Tenth, That no Vigils nor Dance shall be kept in Churches or Churchyards.  
The Eleventh, That the Clergy shall not go a Hunting.  
The Twelfth, That there shall be the old Number of Monks in Abbeys and Priories.  
The Thirteenth, That the Monks who are in Priories, shall observe the Constitutions of Pope Gregory about abstaining from Meats, Confessions, Fasts, etc. and that they shall be forced thereto by Censures.  
The Fourteenth, That the Regulars shall not dwell with Seculars, unless by the Abbot's leave.  
The Fifteenth, That they shall Borrow nothing without the Abbot's consent.  
The Sixteenh, That the Rural Deans shall not Issue out any Excommunication or Suspension, but by Writing.  
The Seventeenth, That the Excommunicate Persons shall be Denounced such, till they shall get themselves Absolved.  
The Eighteenth, That no General Excommunication shall be Issued out, unless for Robberies and Damages done, and after Admonition.  
The Nineteenth, That the Chaplains on whom Churches are bestowed for a certain Time, shall be examined about their Abilities and Ordination.  
The Twentieth, That the Clergy shall forbear Secular Employments, shall wear the Tonsure, and live Clerically.  
The Twenty first, That those who will not wear the Clerical Habit and Tonsure after being Admonished of it, shall be no longer Defended or Vindicated by Ecclesiastical-Judges.  
The Twenty second, That the Beneficed Clergy who are Excommunicated for not having paid the Tithes, shall get themselves Absolved before Christmas.  
The Twenty third, That the Clergy who are of the Crusade, shall not abuse the Privileges Granted to them by the Bulls of the Popes, or by their Legates.  
The Twenty Fourth, That the Regular Canons shall not be admitted to be Curates till after they have been Examined by the Bishop, and that they shall not be removed by their Superiors, but by the consent of the Bishop.   

The Councils of Avignon in the Years 1279 and 1282.  
Bertrand of St. Martin Archbishop of Arles, who was afterwards Cardinal Bishop of St. Sabina, 
The Councils of Avignon in 1279 & 1282.  Held a Council at Avignon the Seventeenth of May 1279. wherein he made Constitutions for the maintaining the Immunities and Privileges of church-good and Churchmen; the Liberty of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for the putting in Execution the Excommunication against the Clergy who concerned themselves with Merchandise and Secular Affairs, and about Last Wills and Testaments. These Canons are Comprised under Fifteen Heads.  
The same Archbishop Held another Council in the same City in the Year 1282, wherein he made Eleven more Decrees.  
The First is against Usurers.  
The Second orders Prayers to be made for the Church.  
The Third prohibits the Alienation of church-good, without the consent of the Bishop.  
The Fourth orders the appointing of Proctors to maintain the Causes of ecclesiastics, which are perplexed before Secular-Judges.  
The Fifth obliges all the Parishioners to be present at the Parish-Mass on Sundays and holidays, and to Receive the Eucharist on Easter-Day and Whitsunday from their own Curates.  
The Sixth prohibits the Privileged and Exempt Persons from infringing the Censures of the Ordinaries.  
The Seventh Excommunicates those who carry Ecclesiastical Affairs before Secular Courts.  
The Eighth declares the Leagues, Associations, and Confraternities made contrary to the Ecclesiastical Laws, to be Null and Void.  
The Ninth imports, That Privileged Persons may be Excommunicated out of the Place of their Exemption, if their Privileges do not expressly exempt them from that Excommunication.  
The Tenth relates to the Forms of Last Wills and Testaments.  
The Eleventh is imperfect.   

The Council of Redding in England in the Year 1279.  
John Peckam Archbishop of Canterbury having Convened the Bishops his Suffragans at Redding in 
The Council of Redding in 1279.  the Year 1279, did there renew the Constitutions of Ottobon, and made several others about the Collations of Benefices, the Sentences of Excommunication and the Clergy who kept Concubines. There was also one about Infant-Baptism, wherein 'tis ordered, That all those who should be Born Eight Days before Easter and Whitsuntide, shall be kept to be Baptised Solemnly on those two Festivals.  
Besides these Canons for the Clergy, which were Published the Thirtieth of July, John Peckam the same Year and probably in the same Council, made other Constitutions relating to the Monks and Nuns, wherein he is very particular in what relates to the Order and Discipline which ought to be observed in Monasteries.   

The Council of Buda in the Year 1279.  
PHilip Bishop of Fermo Legate of the Holy See in Hungary, Poland, Croatia, Servia, etc. Held a 
The Council of Buda in 1279.  Grand Council of the Prelates of those Countries at Buda, which broke up the Fourteenth of September 1279. In which he made Sixty nine Canons about Church-Discipline, which are as it were an Abstract thereof.  
The Twelve first are about the Habits and Conduct of the Clergy.  
The First orders the Prelates to wear a large Crown.  
The Second and Third regulate the Form of their Habits.  
The Fourth prohibits the Clerks who have no Prelacy from wearing Rings.  
The Fifth prohibits them from frequenting Taverns.  
The Sixth enjoins the Monks who are made Bishops to wear their Religious Habit.  
The Seventh orders the Clerks to refrain from all Military and Violent Actions.  
The Eighth forbids them dishonourable Exercises, Playing at Dice and frequenting of Shows.  
The Ninth prohibits them from passing Sentences of a pungent Pain.  
The Tenth prohibits the Arch-Deacons from bestowing Vicaridges on Laics, or Married Clerks.  
The Eleventh prohibits the Clergy from bearing Arms.  
The Twelfth renews the Prohibition against having Women in their Houses.  
The Thirteenth recommends to the Clergy the Celebrating the Holy Mysteries with due Reverence, and in a decent Habit.  
The Fourteenth prohibits the Bishops who Visit Churches or Parishes from being burdensome to them, by excessive Duties.  
The Fifteenth prohibits the receiving of a Benefice from a Lay-Patron.  
The Sixteenth enjoins Curates and other Beneficed Persons having a Cure of Souls, to Reside and Serve their Churches in Person, and not by Vicars.  
The Seventeenth prohibits the Conspiracies, or Combinations of the Clergy.  
The Eighteenth recommends to the Curates the Visiting the Sick, before going to the Synod.  
The Nineteenth prescribes the Manner how they ought to appear there.  
The Twentieth imports, That all those who have Benefices with the Cure of Souls, shall be Ordained Priests.  
The Twenty first, That the Eucharist and the Holy Oils shall be kept under Lock and Key.  
The Twenty second, That no Person shall be suffered to serve at the Altar or Read the Epistle without a Surplice and a Cassock; and that the Priests shall recite Divine Service Distinctly and Devoutly.  
The Twenty third Excommunicates the Intruders, and obliges them to make Restitution of their Income.  
The Twenty fourth and fifth prohibit the Clerks from Answering or Appearing before Secular Judges, unless for Secular Affairs.  
The Twenty sixth prohibits them from keeping in their Houses the Children which they have had whilst in Holy Orders, and declares those Children to be the Vassals of the Church. It likewise prohibits the Clergy from keeping Dice and other Instruments for to Play at Hazards.  
The Twenty seventh prohibits the showing of Relics out of their Cases, unless on great Festivals, and when there are a great many Pilgrims; from exposing them to Sale, and from Honouring new Ones, without the Pope's Approbation.  
The Twenty eighth imports, That no Persons shall be suffered to Preach but such as are Approved of by the Bishop, or by the Holy See; and that no other Questors shall be Tolerated but such as have Commissions from the Pope or the Bishop.  
The Twenty ninth, That the Goods of Churches shall not be Mortgaged.  
The Thirtieth, That the Curates shall not give away the Goods of Churches.  
The Thirty first, That no Clerk shall go in Pilgrimage without his Bishop's leave.  
The Thirty second, That unknown Persons shall not be Admitted to the Celebration of the Mass.  
The Thirty third obliges the Faithful to be present at the Parochial Divine Service, and especially at the Parochial Mass of Sundays. It prohibits the Curates from Administering the Sacraments to any others but to their own Parishioners, except to Travelling Clerks, or Pilgrims, or to those that go to a certain Church out of Devotion, and with the Pope's leave.  
The Thirty fourth obliges all those who have the management of Ecclesiastical Goods, to give an Account of their Administration.  
The Thirty fifth ascertains the Sums which the Abbots and Superiors may Borrow.  
The Thirty sixth is against the Alienations of the Church.  
The Thirty seventh prohibits unreasonable Exactions.  
The Thirty eighth obliges the Arch-Deacons to Study the Canon-Law Three Years.  
The Thirty ninth reserves the Cognizance of Matrimonial Causes to Prudent and Discreet Persons.  
The Fortieth declares all the means used to hinder the Visitation of Ordinaries, to be Null and Void.  
The Forty first prohibits the Locking up of Profane Utensils in the Church.  
The Forty second orders the Curates to have Church-Books.  
The Forty third, That no Profane Actions shall be done in the Church.  
The Forty fourth prohibits the Vigils which the Laics kept in Churches.  
The Forty fifth, That those who shall not assist at the Canonical Hours shall lose their share in the Distributions.  
The Forty sixth prohibits a Custom of that Country, by which they demanded a Sum for Interring those who came to an Accidental Death.  
The Forty seventh prohibits the ecclesiastics from keeping Concubines.  
The Forty eighth prohibits all manner of Persons from tolerating Debauched Women in their Houses or Estates.  
The Forty ninth prohibits the Seizing upon the Goods of Deceased ecclesiastics.  
The Fiftieth prohibits the Alienation of the Goods or Rights of Churches, under very severe Penalties.  
The Fifty first imports, That those who have the Rights of Patronage cannot give nor transfer them to others, without the Bishop's Consent.  
The Fifty second and third are against those who usurp the Revenue of Churches, or Monasteries.  
The Fifty fourth recommends to the Ecclesiastical Judges the doing Justice, and not to suffer themselves to be Corrupted by Interest or Favour.  
The Fifty fifth deprives the Excommunicated Persons of the Right of Acting in Courts of Justice, of Pleading, of giving Evidence, etc.  
The Fifty sixth enjoins the Ecclesiastical and Civil Judges to admit of the Exceptions which the Parties allege for not Answering in their Courts.  
The Fifty seventh, That the Secular Judges shall Punish those who are Refractory to the Judgements of ecclesiastics, and shall see that their Senteuces be Executed; and that the Ecclesiastical Judges shall likewise make use of Censures, that the Lay-Judges may be obeyed.  
The Fifty eighth Excommunicates the Lords and others, who obstructed those who Appealed to the Holy See.  
The Fifty ninth and Sixtieth are concerning the Immunity of ecclesiastics.  
The Four next Canons relate to the manner how the Monks and Regular Canons are to be Habited, to the Abstinence and Confinement they ought to observe.  
The Sixty fifth and sixth prohibits them from taking up Churches by Lease, from Serving them above Eight Days, and from going to Secular Schools, without the leave of their Superior.  
The Sixty seventh renews the Prohibitions against Communicating with Excommunicated Persons, and recommends the Observation of the Interdictions.  
The Sixty eighth Excommunicates those who Ravage the Fields and Meadows.  
The Sixty ninth is against those who Seize on the Revenues of the Churches.   

The Council of Angers in the Year 1279.  
IN the Year 1279, John de Montsoreau Archbishop of Tours Held a Provincial Council at Angers the 
The Council of Angers in 1279.  Sunday after the Festival of St. Luke, wherein he Published Five Canons.  
The First Excommunicates those who Cite ecclesiastics before Secular Judges for Personal Affairs.  
The Second prohibits the Officers of Bishops from exacting any thing for Sealing the Instruments of Ordination.  
The Third is against those who Inter in Holy Ground the Corpses of those to whom such Interment is forbidden.  
The Fourth deprives the Beneficed Clergy who are Excommunicated of the Revenue of their Benefices during the time they are Excommunicated, and orders, That they shall be turned out of the Benefices themselves, if they continue in a State of Excommunication above a Year.  
The Fifth declares, That the Bishops have Power to take off the Censures passed in this Council.   

The Synodal Statutes of Sifroy Archbishop of Cologne in the Year 1280.  
SIfroy Archbishop of Cologne Published in the Year 1280, several Synodal Statutes for the Instruction 
The Synodal Statutes of Sifroy Archbishop of Cologne in the Year 1280.  of ecclesiastics. He therein at first Treats of the Conduct, the way of Living, the Habits and the Duties of ecclesiastics, the Rules which the Monks ought to observe, and how the Curates ought to behave themselves in the Administration of the Sacraments. He afterwards Treats of what relates to the Administration and Ceremonies of each Sacrament in particular; of Burials, and Churchyards, of the Alienation of church-good, of the Privilege of Sanctuaries. He therein renews the Laws against Usurers, and the Prohibitions of holding Benefices of Laics. He therein confirms the Decrees of the Council of Cologne and what relates to Last Wills and Testaments, and the observance of the Ecclesiastical Interdiction.   

The Synodal Constitutions of Geoffrey of Saint Brice Bishop of Saints in the Years 1280, and 1282,  
THis Bishop Published in the Year 1280, several Synodal Decrees about the Church-Discipline. It is therein Ordered, That all his Curates shall appear at the Synod: That the Fonts shall be 
The Synodal Constitutions of Geoffrey of Brice Bishop of Saints in the Years 1280, and 1282.  shut up: That the Holy Chrism shall be kept in proper Vessels: That there shall be Three Sponsors at Baptism: That the Body of Jesus Christ shall be attended when carried out to the Sick: That no Corn nor Measures shall be put in Churches: That the Commissions shall be Directed to the Curates and Executed by them. He reserves a great many Cases to the Bishop, and Lastly, He therein forbids the Vilifying the Jacobine or Minor Friars who take Confessions, by accusing them of discovering the Confessions of their Penitents.  
The same Bishop Published other Constitutions in the Year 1282, about Excommunicated Persons about the Right of Visitation, and about Last Wills and Testaments.   

The Constitutions of Gautier Bishop of Poitiers in the Years 1280, and 1284.  
IN the Year 1280. Gautier of Bruges Bishop of Poitiers made likewise several Synodal Decrees, 
The Constitutions of Gantier Bp. of Poitiers in the Years 1280, and 1284  wherein he prohibited the Sealing of Blank-Letters. He therein prohibited the Archpriests from having Officials, and the Curates from serving their Benefices with Vicars. He therein prohibited the ecclesiastics from making use of any other Confessors than those who are Nominated by the Bishop to Administer to them the Sacrament of Penance; the Confessors from granting Absolution in Cases reserved to the Bishop; and the Deacons from granting Absolution: He likewise made several Orders against the Greeks and Usurers; about Judgements; against those that detain the Letters of the Bishops their Predecessors; against those who disturb the Synod; about the Right of Nominating Questors which he reserves to the Bishop, and about the Rights of Bishops, Arch-Deacons, and Vestry-Keepers.  
In the Year 1284, the same Bishop made likewise other Synodal Canons, wherein he prohibits. (1.) The Celebrating of Divine Service in the Presence of Excommunicated Persons. (2.) The Granting a Benefice to a Man who already has a Curacy, (3.) The Receiving the Sacraments from a Priest who has not Power to Administer them. (4.) He order the Payment of Tithes. (5.) He enjoins the Abbots and Superiors to leave in the Priories and Curacies which become Vacant, a sufficient Provision for maintaining the Prior or Curate till the next Harvest.   

The Council of Lambeth in the Year 1281.  
JOhn Peckham Archbishop of Canterbury, of whom we have already spoke, Held an Assembly of Bishops at Lambeth in the Year 1281, the Tenth of October, wherein after he had ordered the 
The Council of Lambeth in 1261.  Executing of the Orders made in the last Council of Lions, and of the Constitutions of Ottobon, and the Canons of the Council of Lambeth under Boniface his Predecessor, he Published Twenty seven Decrees.  
The First is about the Reverence due to the Eucharist. It is therein ordered, That the Priests shall Confess themselves at lest once a Week: That the Holy Sacrament shall he kept in a Pyx close Locked up in the Tabernacle: That every Sunday the Hosts shall be renewed: That at the Elevation the Bells shall Ring, and all that hear them even out of Church, shall down on their Knees. The Priests likewise are admonished of the Instructions which they ought to give the People about this Sacrament.  
The Second is about the Annuities of Masses which are Said for the Dead. It is therein declared, That a Priest ought to acquit himself of all the Masses, with which he is Charged, and that it is not true, that he may satisfy by one Mass several, to whom he has promised to Say an entire Mass for them.  
The Third is about Baptism. It is therein prohibited to Re-baptize those who are Baptised with the Form of Words, though by Laics: And ordered to Re-baptize them on Condition, That a Question be made whether the Baptism was Administered according to the Lawful Form.  
The Fourth is about Confirmation: Therein they are blamed who neglect the Receiving of this Sacrament.  
The Fifth is about Holy Orders: It is therein prohibited to Grant Holy Orders with the Four Minor Orders, and therein is commended the Practice of Conferring the Four Minor Orders separately.  
The Sixth prohibits the Priests from Granting Absolution to those who are obstinate in their Sins, and to those who have Pluralities of Benefices, and will not quit them.  
The Seventh prohibits Privileged Persons from Confessing and granting Absolution, if they be not Approved by the Ordinary.  
In the Eighth 'tis ordered, That a Public and Solemn Penance shall be imposed for Great, Public, and Scandalous Sins: And the Absolution of Homicide is reserved to the Bishop.  
The Ninth renews the Order importing, That there shall be in each Deanery a General Confessor for all the Clergy.  
The Tenth contains an Abridgement of the Instructions which the Pastors ought to give to their Parishioners.  
The Three next concern Processes, as well as the Twenty fourth.  
The Fifteenth prohibits the Leasing out of Churches to Laics.  
The Sixteenth imports, That all the Houses of Regular Canons shall come to the General Chapter.  
The Four next are against the Corrupters of Nuns, and against the Apostate Monks.  
The Twenty first prohibits the Nominating of Monks for Executors of Last Wills and Testaments.  
The Twenty second is about the Clerical Habit.  
The Twenty Third prohibits the Granting of Benefices to Clergy-Men's Sons.  
The Twenty fifth is against the Clerks who have Pluralities.  
The Twenty sixth prohibits the Admitting any one for an Advocate who has not Studied the Canon and Civil Law for Three Years.  
The Last orders all the Priests of a Diocese to Say a Mass for their Bishop after his Decease.  
The same Archbishop Wrote a Letter to King Edward in favour of the Liberties of the Churches and ecclesiastics of England, wherein he relates the Examples of his Predecessors, to incline him to be favourable to them.   

The Council of Tours in the Year 1282  
John de Montsoreau Archbishop of Tours the Wednesday after the Festival of St. Peter in Vinculis in the 
The Council of Tours in 1282.  Year 1282, Held a Provincial Council in his Metropolitan City, wherein he made Thirteen Canons.  
The First is against those who bring Processes against Persons merely to get something of them, to free them of trouble.  
The Second, against those who excite and foment Processes.  
The Third prohibits the Clergy and Monks from frequenting Taverns.  
The Fourth is against those who tear the Books or abuse the Ornaments of the Church.  
The Fifth orders the Observation of Processions.  
The Sixth is against Usurers.  
The Five next relate to the Freedom and Jurisdiction of Churchmen.  
The Twelfth is against those who hinder the Receiving of Tithes.  
The Thirteenth orders the Execution of the Decrees made in the former Provincial Councils.   

The Synodal Statutes of the Diocese of Nismes, Published about the Year 1284.  
THese Statutes were made under the Episcopacy of Bertrand de Languisel who was Bishop of Nismes, 
The Synodal Statutes of Nismes in the Year 1284.  from the Year 1280, to the Year 1323. These are properly the Instructions of a Ritual about the Sacraments, the Ceremonies, and Church-Discipline.   

The Council of Ravenna in the Year 1286.  
BOniface Archbishop of Ravenna on the Eighth of July 1286, Held a Provincial Council in his Metropolis, 
The Council of Ravenna in 1286.  wherein he made Nine Canons.  
By the First he prohibits the Clerks from entertaining or nourishing the Players or Dancers, which are sent to them when their Relations are Advanced to Offices, or are Married.  
By the Second he exhorts the ecclesiastics to give Alms to the Poor, and grants Indulgencies to those who maintain them.  
The Third condemns to a Pecuniary Mulct the Clergy who bear Arms without the leave of their Bishop, and without a just and necessary Cause; and those who do not wear a Clerical Habit, Tonsure and Crown.  
The Fourth orders the Execution of the Thirteenth Canon of the Second General Council of Lions, which obliges those who are Advanced to Benefices with the Cure of Souls to take Priests Orders.  
The Fifth obliges the Canons to be more constant at Divine Service; orders that there shall be Distributions made, which shall be given only to those who are there present.  
The Sixth forbids the Notaries from receiving the Last Wills and Testaments of Usurers, unless in the Presence of a Priest.  
The Seventh orders the Prelates to Excommunicate those who refuse to pay Tithes, and that in case the Persons Excommunicated neglect to take off the Excommunication, recourse shall be had to the Secular Power.  
The Eighth declares what Cases are reserved to Bishops, which are the Absolution of a Major Excommunication, the Absolution of Incendiries, Blasphemers, Murderers of their Children; the Dispensing of Vows; the Absolution of Homicides, Forgers of Deeds, of those who make any Attempt on the Immunities and Ecclesiastical Liberties; of Sorcerers; of those who are guilty of Beastiality; of the Incestuous, and those who Debauched Nuns; the Cases of Larceny, when one cannot tell to whom Restitution ought be made; Perjurers, and Clandestine Marriages.  
The Ninth declares those Persons to be Excommunicated with the Major Excommunication, who under the Pretence of Custom and Privilege, offer any Violence to the Immunities and Liberties of Churches.   

The Council of Bourges in the Year 1286.  
SImon de Beaulieu Archbishop of Bourges, on the Seventeenth of September in the same Year held a 
The Council of Bourges in 1286.  Provincial Council at Bourges, wherein he renewed the Constitutions of his Predecessors by Thirty five Decrees.  
The First orders the Ecclesiastical Judges to proceed with all manner of Precaution and Prudence in the Trials of Matrimonial Causes, and enjoins the Curates to inform the Bishops or their Officers of the unlawful Marriages contracted in their Parishes.  
The Second prohibits the Contracting Marriage before the Lawful Age, and condemns Clandestine Marriages.  
The Third prohibits the Ecclesiastical Judges from taking Cognizance of Matrimonial Causes out of the Limits of their Jurisdiction.  
The Fourth renews the Prohibitions made to Arch-Deacons of having Officials out of Towns.  
The Fifth deprives the Curates of the Revenues of their Curacies till they be otdained Priests.  
The Sixth prohibits the Admitting of Priests or Clerks to Confess, Preach or Administer the Sacraments, if they be not approved by the Ordinary.  
The Seventh revives the Prohibition made to ecclesiastics of having Suspicious Women in their Houses.  
The Eighth Prohibits them from keeping and maintaining their Bastards in their Houses.  
The Ninth declares, That those who continue above a Year in the State of Excommunication shall lose their Benefices.  
The Tenth enjoins the Curates to keep the Names of the Excommunicate by them, and to denounce them every Festival.  
The Eleventh orders them to read the Constitution of Gregory X. in the Council of Lions, and that of Simon Legate of the Holy See, made at the Council of Bourges about the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.  
The Twelfth contains and order the Executing of the Decretal of Gregory X. called, Quia nonnulli de Rescriptis.  
The Thirteenth orders all the Faithful to confess themselves every Year, and to receive the Eucharist at Easter; enjoins the Curates to keep a List of their Communicants; and declares, That those who shall die without having discharged this Duty, shall be deprived of Ecclesiastical Burial.  
The Fourteenth orders the Reading and Executing of the Canon, called Omnis utriusque Sexus of the Lateran Council under Innocent IU. and the Constitutions of Clement IU. and Martin. iv which grant to the Minor Friars the Power of Preaching and Hearing Confessions.  
The Fifteenth orders the Curates to take notice of those who communicate with the Excommunicated, and to send in their Names to the Bishop, or his Official.  
The Sixteenth prohibits the Absolution of an Excommunicated Man by his Bishop, unless it be at the Point of Death, or to be Interred in Holy Ground.  
The Seventeenth is against the Usurers, and revives the Constitution made against them in the Council of Bourges under Simon.  
The Eighteenth enjoins the Regulars to observe their Rule strictly.  
The Nineteenth prohibits the Monks from having any thing de Proprio.  
The Twentieth does not allow the Prior to borrow above 60 Sols without the Consent of his Abbot.  
The Twenty first orders the removing of Coffers and other profane things out of Churches.  
The Twenty second prohibits the Dancing there.  
The Twenty third orders, That no Monks shall be sent into Priories under Twenty Years of Age.  
The Twenty fourth prohibits Women from inhabiting in the Houses of Monks.  
The Twenty Fifth Excommunicates the Monks who receive Tithes from the Hands of Laics.  
The Twenty sixth prohibits the rifling or diminishing the Priories during the Vacancy.  
The Twenty seventh renews the Eighth Canon of the Council of Tours in the Year 1133, about Last Wills and Testaments against those who concealed them.  
The Twenty eighth is against the Executors of Wills who buy or detain the Goods of the Testator.  
The Twenty ninth enjoins the Bishops to take care of the Execution of Wills, if the Executors be remiss.  
The Thirtieth orders, That the Last Wills and Testaments shall be received by the Bishop.  
The Thirty first imports, That they shall proceed against those who neglect to get themselves absolved from the Excommunication, and that recourse shall be had to the Secular Power to oblige them to it.  
The Thirty second orders, That they shall be Punished who do not keep the Festivals.  
The Thirty third enjoins the Suffragans and their Judges to pay a deference to Appeals.  
The Thirty fourth prohibits the Official of Bourges and the other Judges of that Archbishopric, from obstructing the Execution of the Jurisdiction of the Suffragan Bishops.  
The Thirty fifth enjoins all the Ecclesiastical Judges to order the Execution of the Sentences passed against those who offer any Violence to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.   

The Synodal Canons of Peter Bishop of Exeter in the Year 1287.  
PEter Bishop of Exeter held a Synod of his Clergy at Exeter in the Year 1287, wherein he drew up 
The Synodal Canons of Peter Bishop of Exeter in 1287.  an Instruction for his Clergy about the Seven Sacraments; the Building of Churches and their Ornaments; the Churchyards; the Immunity of Churches; the Life, Conduct, and Residence of Clergymen; the Divine Service; the Assisting at the Parochial Mass on Sundays and Holy Days; the Festivals which ought to be Celebrated; the Trades, Trafficks and Employments Prohibited to the Clergy; the Chapters; the Rural Deans; the Provisions of Benefices; the Visitations of Arch-deacons and their Deuce; the Immunities of Clerks; the Celebration of Marriage; Appeals; Questors; the Relics of the Saints; Last Wills and Testaments; Mortuaries; Tithes; Offerings; Excommunications; and several other Points of Discipline comprised in fifty five very large Articles, and which contain several remarkable things.  
There is at the end of this Synod an Instruction about the manner of Confessing and imposing Pennances, which is supposed to have been made by the same Bishop. Therein are explained the Points upon which the Penitent aught to be examined; the Cases reserved to the Pope and the Bishop; the Temper in which the Penitent aught to be; the Pennances which the Confessor ought to inflict; and the things he ought to instruct his Penitent in.   

The Council of Wirtzburgh in the Year 1287.  
JOhn Bishop of Frescati Legate of the Holy See in Germany, held in the Year 1287, an Ecclesiastical 
The Council of Wirtzburgh in 1287.  Assembly at Wirtzburgh, wherein he would have exacted a Contribution of the Tenth Penny of the Revenues of the Clergy; but he could not gain his End, and only published Forty two Decrees about the Church-Discipline.  
The Five first concern the Morals and the Conduct of the Clergy; order them to be habited in a manner agreeable to their Quality, and prohibit them from going to Taverns, from Gaming, from being familiar with Nuns; from bearing Arms, and from having Women lodged in their Houses.  
The Sixth issues out the Penalty of Excommunication against those who seize on Benefices to which they have no Right.  
The Seventh prohibits the Priests from celebrating above one Mass per Diem, to put a stop to the Abuse which was introduced by several Priests of celebrating twice without necessity only to get double Contributions.  
The Eighth orders, That the Most Holy Body of Jesus Christ shall be carried to the Sick, and to Women near their Travel with due Veneration by a Priest in a Surplice with a Hood, a Clerk going before with a lighted Taper and a Bell: That those who go by shall down on their Knees, and repeat three Paternosters and as many Ave-maries'; which shall exempt them from ten Days of the Pennances enjoined them.  
The Ninth prohibits the Alienation of church-good.  
The Tenth is against those who have two Curacies.  
The Eleventh prohibits the giving of Curacies to Persons under Five and twenty Years of Age.  
The Twelfth orders the Patrons to Present the Benefices in their Gift, to Persons of requisite Qualification.  
The Thirteenth prohibits the Secular and Regular Clerks from Publicly Singing or Celebrating Divine Service in Interdicted Places, as well as from Ringing of Bells.  
The Fourteenth prohibits the receiving of Benefices from Laics.  
The Fifteenth prohibits the making of Contracts for Burials or Benedictions.  
The Sixteenth and Seventeenth order those who have Chapels or Curacies in their Gift, to put Vicars into them, whom they shall allow a competent Maintenance.  
The Eighteenth and Nineteenth concern the Regularity which ought to be observed by the Monks and Nuns.  
The Twentieth and Twenty first are against the Laics, who Seize upon church-good or Benefices.  
T●e Twenty second, adjusts the Rights and Duties of Church-Advocates.  
The Twenty third renews the Ecclesiastical Laws against Usurers.  
The Twenty fourth declares them Excommunicated who offer any Violence to ecclesiastics.  
The Twenty fifth inflicts the same on those who offer any injury to the Nuncio's of the Pope.  
The Twenty sixth Excommunicates likewise those who Seize on the Goods of Vacant Churches.  
The Twenty seventh recommends to the Arch-Bishops and Bishops the Visitation of their Dioceses ..  
The Twenty eighth prohibits the Fortifying of Churches, in order to make use of them as of Castles.  
The Twenty ninth prohibits the Excommunicating of Children or Women for the Debts of their Dead Husbands or Fathers.  
The Thirtieth declares Highwaymen and those who give them shelter, Excommunicated ipso facto.  
The Three next are for the preservation of church-good.  
The Thirty fourth is against the false Apostles. The Clerks are forbidden to entertain or give them any Subsistence.  
The Thirty fifth forbids the Laics the Administering of church-good, under pretence of Repairing the Buildings of Churches.  
The Thirty sixth Excommunicates those who hinder the bringing of Complaints before Ecclesiastical Judges.  
The Thirty seventh Excommunicates the Forgers of Apostolical Letters.  
The Thirty eighth orders, That the Interdiction Issued out by the Bishop, shall be observed.  
The Thirty ninth prohibits the Conservators appointed by the Pope for Religious Houses and Monasteries, from meddling with those things which are not comprehended in their Commission.  
The Fortieth is against those who Exact new Duties.  
The Forty first orders the Execution of these Canons.  
The Forty second revokes the Privileges Granted to particular Persons, which exempted them from Excommunications and Interdictions.   

The Council of L'Isle in Provence in the Year 1288.  
ROstaing Archbishop of Arles and the Bishops of his Provence being met at L'Isle a little Town of 
The Council of L'Isle in Provence in 1288.  the Diocese of Cavaillon in the Country of Venaissin in Provence, made a Collection of the Canons of the former Councils of their Province, and drew up Eighteen of them, of which the Thirteen first are taken out of the former Councils.  
The Fourteenth is against those who give Poison or Physic to cause Abortion.  
The Fifteenth prohibits the carrying in of Corn, till the Tithe be taken of it.  
The Sixteenth discharges the Churches and Churchmen from Paying of Taxes.  
The Seventeenth, for the preventing the Charges at Christen, which were the Cause that Children Died Unbaptised, orders, That they shall not give any thing but a White Habit to the Baptised.  
The Eighteenth orders the Observation of the Canons of the former Councils.   

The Synodal Statutes of Gilbert Bishop of Chichester, Published in the Years 1289 and 1292.  
THese Canons contain divers Regulations about the Life, Morals, Conduct and Duties of the 
The Synodal Statutes of Gilbert Bishop of Chichester Published in the Years 1289 & 1292.  Priests; about Marriages, Benefices, Excommunications, Processions, Church-Ornaments and Ceremonies.  
This very Bishop in the Year 1292, added other Constitutions to the former, whereby he forbids the suffering of Beasts to graze in Churchyards, the restraining the Oblations to a Penny. He therein Excommunicates the Detainers of Tithes; orders the Parishioners to hear Mass with Silence; prohibits the Interring in Churches, and putting any Chests therein without the Bishop's Leave.   

The Council of Nogarol in the Year 1290.  
Ameneus' of Armagnac Archbishop of Ausche on the Saturday after the Assumption of the Virgin Mary 1290, held a Provincial Council at Nogarol in the Country of Armagnac, wherein they 
The Council of Nogarol in 1290.  ordered Roger Bernard Count of Feix to restore to the Bishop of Lascar the City of Lascar, the Castles and Places belonging thereto under pain of Excommunication; and inserted this Sentence among the Provincial Decrees of this Council ad perpetuam rei memoriam. This is the First Head.  
By the Second, They ratified the Sentence of Excommunication against those who retain the church-good of that Province.  
In the Third, They prohibit the stretching of the Powers granted in the Apostolical Letters beyond their Contents.  
In the Fourth, They Excommunicate the Sorcerers.  
By the Fifth, They pronounce the Sentence of Excommunication against those who cite Clerks before Secular Judges. They likewise exempt the Leprous from their Jurisdiction, and order them to wear a distinguishing Badge under forfeiture of Five Sols.  
In the Sixth and Seventh, They revive and augment several Penalties inflicted on those who offer any Violence to the Persons or Estates of ecclesiastics.   

The Council of Saltzburgh in the Year 1291.  
THF City of Aera having been taken from the Christians by the Sultan of Babylon in the Year 
The Council of Saltzburgh in 1291.  1291, Pope Nicholas X. Ordered Provincial Councils to be held for the finding out ways and means of re-entering into Possession of the Holy Land. The Knight's Hospitalers, Templars and teutonics were accused of not having done their Duty. This gave occasion to the Council Held the same Year at Saltzburgh, of Proposing to the Pope the Uniting these Three Orders into One.  
There are Three Decrees of a Council at Saltzburgh under Archbishop Conrade without Date, which are commonly attributed to this Assembly.  
By the First 'tis ordered, That to remedy the Abuse of Marriages clandestinely Contracted, there shall be Six Honest and Creditable Persons of the Neighbourhood, or Parish of the Contracters, who shall be Present and serve as Witnesses of the Marriage. The same Canon Issues forth the Penalty of Excommunication ipso facto against those who shall transgress this Order, or shall be present at Clandestine Marriages, or shall suffer them to be Contracted in their Houses.  
In the Second the Secular and Regular Clergy are prohibited from Acquiring, Enjoying, or Retaining under any Title whatsoever, any Offices or Employments depending on Secular Princes, or Lords, under the Penalty of Forfeiting their Priveleges and Benefices.  
The Third is against several Vagrant Scholars of a lose Life, who styled themselves Clerks, and ran about the Country.   

The Council of London in the Year 1291.  
THis Council was Held by Bernard Bishop of Grosseto Legate of the Holy See, who therein ordered 
The Council of London in 1291.  an Edict to be made whereby the Jews were entirely and perpetually Banished the Kingdom of England: King Edward demanded and obtained an Impost on the Clergy, under Pretence of going to the Relief of the Holy Land: And he therein would renew, in spite of the Legate's Opposition, the Prohibition made against ecclesiastics and Monks Buying of Inheritances.   

The Council of Saumur in the Year 1294.  
REginald of Montbason Archbishop of Tours, Held a Provincial Council at Saumur in October 1294, 
The Council of Saumur in 1294.  wherein the Published Five Canons.  
By the First, the Clerks and Monks are enjoined to be Habited agreeably to their State and Condition, and are prohibited from wearing coloured clothes.  
The Second adjusts the Conditions under which Absolution ought to be given to the Excommunicate at the Point of Death.  
The Third prohibits the Ecclesiastical Judges the imposing of a Pecuniary Mulct for the Punishment of Enormous Crimes.  
The Fourth prohibits the Arch-Deacons, Archpriests, and others who have Authority, from sending Clerks throughout the Diocese to hear Confessions.  
The Fifth is against those who obstruct the Churchmen from Receiving the Tithes.   

The Synodal Statutes of Robert of Winchelsea Archbishop of Canterbury, Published in the Years 1295, and 1300.  
THese Constitutions which are Forty seven in all, contain several Rules about the Functions of 
The Constitutions of Robert of Winchelsea in 1295 & 1300.  Advocates and Ecclesiastical Judges, and about the Instructions, Proceed and Forms which ought to be observed in the Trying of Processes.  
There are likewise other Constitutions of the same Archbishop in the Year 1300, which relate to the Payment of Tithes and to the Ornaments of Churches.   

The Synodal Constitutions of Guy de Neuville Bishop of Saintes, Published in the Year 1298.  
THe Constitutions of this Bishop are upon the ordinary Matters contained in the Canons made in 
The Constitutions of Guy de Neaville in 1298.  this Century, Namely about the Habits of Clerks and Monks; the Residence of Curates, the Tithes, Excommunications, and the Seizures of church-good.   

The Council of Rouen in the Year 1299.  
WAlliam de Flavacourt Archbishop of Rouen, and the Bishops of the Province of Normandy on the 
The Council of Rouen in 1299.  Thursday after the Octave of Whitsuntide 1299, Held a Council in the Church of St. Marry d●… Prae, at present called the Church de bonne Nouvelle, wherein they made Seven Canons.  
The First is against the Irregularities of the Clergy.  
The Second prohibits the Holding of Courts of Judicature on Festivals.  
By the Third, the Clerks are prohibited from submitting themselves in Personal Causes to Civil Justice.  
The Fourth prohibits the Secular Judges from taking Cognizance of Matters of Fact which relate to Churchmen.  
The Fifth is against those who offer any Violence to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.  
The Sixth prohibits the Bishops from Granting to the Regulars the Power of Absolving in Reserved Cases, unless it be only to some of whose Prudence and Ability they are very well satisfied, and likewise upon condition, that this Grant shall nor extend to the Confession which ought to be made to the proper Curate or Pastor, unless by his Consent.  
The Last orders the Publishing and Executing of the foregoing Decrees.    

CHAP. VII.  
An Account of the Contests between the Divines of Paris, and the Dominican Friars: And of the Writings of William de Saint Amour.  
IN the Year 1229, during the Minority of King Lewis the Saint, and the Regency of Queen 
The Contests between the Divines of Paris and the Dominican Friars.  Blanch of Castille, the University of Paris not being able to have Justice done them, for the Death of some of its Scholars, who had been Killed by the Soldiers, left off their Public Lectures, and retired part to Rheims and part to Angers, according to the Grant which they pretended to have for so doing in such Cases, by the Bull of Gregory IX. In the absence of the Secular Doctors, the Dominicans who had not hitherto taken the Degree, applied themselves to the Bishop of Paris and to the Chancellor of the University, to be admitted Doctors, and took Possession of one of the Divinity-Chairs. Four Years after the University being re-established in Paris, and Regulated by Order from the Holy See, the Dominicans not only kept what they were in Possession of, but likewise set up another Divinity-Professorship among them in spite of the Chancellor of the University. They afterwards spread themselves in the other Cities of France, and there opened Public Schools. The University of Paris fearing the Consequences of these New Establishments, and that other Regulars would likewise set up two Divinity-Professorships, which would put a stop to the Profession of the Secular Doctors; made a Decree, whereby it was ordered, That none of the Regulars for the future might have two Divinity-Professorships at one and the same time. The Dominicans stood out against this Decree, and the University being again obliged in the Year 1250, to cease its Lectures, because they could not get Justice done them for the Injuries done to their Scholars (some of whom were Imprisoned, others Beaten, and others Killed) the Dominicans declared, That they would not put this Prohibition in Execution, unless the University would Grant them two Professorships by an Authentic Deed. The University Remonstrated to them, That their Concern was not about two Divinity-Professorships, nor about the particular interests of the Members of the University; but about an Injury offered to the whole Body; and that they had done very ill in making their Advantages by the Misfortunes of the University. These Contests lasted about two Months; but at last the University having obtained the Satisfaction which they required, and being at quiet, came to another Resolution; whereby it was resolved, That no Person should for the future be Promoted to a Doctor's Degree, till he had first taken a Solemn Oath to observe the Decrees and Constitutions of the University: And that the Dominicans might make no scruple of taking of it, 'tis added. Provided there be nothing in these Statutes Prohibited by the Rule of the Dominican Friars which I Profess, nor any thing dishonourable, or contrary to the Salvation of Souls, to Humane and Divine Right, to the Public Interest, or to the Holy Church of God. Notwithstanding this, the Dominicans refused to take that Oath, unless the University would Grant them two Professorships in Divinity. The University to Chastise their Disobedience, after fifteen day's Delay and divers Admonitions, Expelled ●…em from their Society, by a Solemn Decree which was Published in all the Colleges. The Dominicans petitioned Pope Innocent IV. to Re-establish them, and obtained of him a Commission Directed to the Bishop of Eureux for their Re-establishment in their University, with Authority of making use of Ecclesiastical Censures against the Members of the University who opposed their Re-establishment. The University being advertized thereof, applied themselves to the Count of Poitiers who Governed the Kingdom jointly with Queen Blanch in the Absence of King Saint Lewis her Brother who was in the Holy Land, and Remonstrated to him, That out of respect to the Holy See, they were ready to receive the Dominicans, Provided their Statutes remained in full force, till the Pope, who Determined this Affair without Hearing both Parties, should order otherwise. However the Dominicans prevailed upon the Bishop of Eureux to Delegate for the Executing the Bull which was directed to him, a Canon of Paris named Luke which they backed by a Letter immediately directed to him in Person, in pursuance whereof, that Canon Suspended all the Members of the University from their Functions, and ordered this Decree of Suspension to be Published, notwithstanding the Appeal made to the Holy See. The University for their parts caused the Decree for the Expulsion of the Dominicans to be Published, and in the Year 1253, Wrote a circular Letter to all the Prelates of the Kingdom, to prevail upon them to succour them in the Oppression under which they groaned. At last in the Year 1254, Pope Innocent iv having by his Decretal restrained the Pretensions of Regulars, by prohibiting them from admitting Parishioners into their Churches on Sundays and holidays, and Administering the Sacrament of Penance without the leave of the Curates, from Preaching in their Churches during the time of the Parochial Divine Service, and from Preaching in Parish-Churches, unless invited thereto by the Curates, or had obtained their leave, and from performing any other Hierarchical Office in Defiance to the Ordinaries, tho' it pronounced nothing about the Affair of the University of Paris; this Decree rendered the Dominicans more moderate in the pursuit of their Pretensions. But Innocent iv Dying December 13. 1254. His Successor Alexander iv revoked the Decretal of Innocent on Christmasday the same Year, and on the Fourteenth of April 1255, he Published the Bull which begun with these Words, Quasi Lignum Vitae, by which he ordered the Academics of Paris to admit all the Dominicans, especially those who were Advanced to the Divinty-Professorships, into their Society, to permit them to enjoy all their Rights and Privileges, and to have as many Professorships as they pleased. And for the more speedy Execution of this Bull, he sent another the same Day to the Bishops of Orleans and Auxerre, by which he Granted them a Commission to see that the former was observed, with Power of using Ecclesiastical Censures against those who opposed it. Those two Bishops in pursuance of that Bull, Proceeded against the Seculars of the University, who being retired for a time from their Colleges, and being returned again to the City; returned Answer, That they were no longer of the University, and consequently that the Pope's Bull did not reach them. However they wrote a Letter to the Pope, whereby they declared to him, That not being willing to oppose his Bull, tho' they had several Lawful Exceptions to offer against it, that they might not be engaged in such Processes as were not agreeable to their Profession; but that considering that it was more for their Advantage to be deprived of the Rights and Privileges of the University, than to join in one Body with the Dominicans, which by Experience they knew would be prejudicial to them, and which they were afraid would prove Pernicious to the whole Church; they had withdrawn themselves and renounced the Rights and Privileges of the University, that they might not have any thing to do with the Dominicans, yet without contradicting the Bull of his Holiness: That having recourse to his Clemency, they humbly pray him to revoke the Sentence of Excommunication issued out against them, and to Re-place them in the same Liberty and Condition in which they were before; assuring him at the same time, that they were so far persuaded that they could not in Conscience admit the Dominicans, that they would rather Transplant their Schools into another Kingdom, or go back to their own Country, where they might have their Liberty; than be put under the intolerable Yoke of a forced and disadvantageous Society. Before this Letter came to the Hands of the Pope, the Dominicans obtained three Bulls, almost the same Day, directed to the Bishops of Orleans and Auxerre, which ordered the Execution of the First Bull, and enjoined these two Commissioners to declare all the Members of the University who would not admit the Dominicans, and even those who were retired to avoid entering into a Society with them, to have forfeited all their Offices and Benefices. The Execution of these Bulls was stopped by the Order of King Saint Lewis, who was minded to restore Peace to the University, and suppress these Contests. To attain this, he joined his Remonstrances with those of the Bishops Convened at Paris, to engage the Secular Doctors and Dominicans to refer themselves to the Arch-Bishops of Bourges, Rheims, Sens and Rouen. These Four Prelates having Herd both Parties, and Consulted with other Bishops, put an end at last to this Contest the First of March 1256, by an Accommodation, in which the Seculars consented, that the Dominicans should for ever enjoy the two Divinity-Professorships, upon Condition, That those Monks remained separate from the Scholastical Society of the Secular Doctors and Scholars of Paris, provided that they renounced the Bulls which they had, or might obtain contrary to these Conditions; that they would endeavour to have them revoked, and that they would no more set upon the whole University, or any of its Members. This Treaty one would have thought should have restored Peace to the University, but at Rome they were not inclined to suffer a stop to be thus put to several Bulls, by an Accommodation in which the Holy See had no Hand. At the same time the Treaty was concluded Alexander made a Bull, by which he ordered the Bishop of Paris to Excommunicate all those who hindered the Dominicans from Confessing, Preaching, Teaching, or being admitted into the Schools of others. Sometime after (in the beginning of May) he ordered by another Bull, directed to all the Members of the University of Paris, the Execution of the former Bulls, and by a Second Dated the same Day, he enjoined the Bishop of Paris to make use of Canonical Penalties to oblige those of the University who had molested the Dominicans, to give them satisfaction, by calling in, if need were, the Secular Power. He exhorted King Saint Lewis by a Third Bull, To secure the Bishop of Paris in quelling the Insolence of those who opposed the Execution of the Bulls. The Dominicans, not willing that it should seem they had any Hand in the Non-Execution of the Treaty, requested the Pope, That he would Revoke his Bulls, and Approve of the Accommodation. But the Pope on the contrary in his Bull Dated June 18, 1256, declared, that, That Treaty having been made without his knowledge, and to the Prejudice of what he had ordered, he Disapproved it, and by Name declared William of Saint Amour, Odo of Douai, Doctors in Divinity, Master Nicholas de Bar-sur-Aube, and Christian Canon of Beauvais, as the Principal Authors of this Disturbance, to have forfeited all their Dignities and Benefices: He forbids their Teaching, and all manner of Persons from Hearing their Lectures; ordered, That they should be Banished the Kingdom; declared, That he would inflict the same Punishment on the rest, if they did not submit within Fifteen Days after the Publication of his Bulls, and enjoined the Bishop of Paris to Excommunicate them, and to give away their Benefices. He Revived and Confirmed those very Orders by two other Bulls Issued out about the end of the same Month.  
The Contest between the Body of the University and the Dominicans, became at last a Private 
The Contests between William of St. Amour and the Dominicans.  Quarrel, between the Monks and William de Saint Amour Doctor of the Sorbonne, and Divinity-Professor, one of the most zealous Defenders of the Privileges of the University, and of the greatest Adversaries the Dominicans had to deal with. In the Year 1254, they Accused him of having advanced several things contrary to the Honour of the Holy See, and of having made a Scandalous Libel against the Pope. This Charge being brought before the King upon the Complaints of Cregory the Apostolic Nuncio, the matter was referred to the Bishop of Paris, before whom William of Saint Amour clearly Proved his Innocence, and the falsity of that Accusation. The Dominicans afterwards invented another, and under pretence of several Propositions, which the University of Paris had advanced against the lusty Mendicants, without Naming any Person, they Accused William of Saint Amour of Calumniating their Order, and Presented to the King a Writing containing several Erroneous Propositions, which they imputed to him. William of Saint Amour having procured a Copy thereof, proved in a Sermon which he Preached in the Church of Innocents', That he had never Taught those Errors, and had only advanced such Truths as were maintainable by several Passages of the Holy Scriptures. Sometime after he Composed his Book concerning The Perils of the Last Times, which occasioned the Dominicans to renew their Complaints against him. He Composed it, as 'tis said, by the Order of several Bishops, to discover by Holy Writ the Character of the False Prophets, who were to come in the Last Times, and to oppose the Book called The Eternal Gospel, the Doctrine of which began to spread itself. Pope Alexander iv in rejecting the Accommodation made between the University and the Dominicans, Condemned by Name William of Saint Amour, the principal Author of that Treaty, deprived him of a Chapel which he had, prohibited him from Teaching, declared him to have forfeited all the Offices and Benefices which he might have, and required that he should be Banished the Kingdom. This Sentence was not Executed against him, William of Saint Amour was not Proscribed, but still lived at Paris. The Dominicans Delated him before the Bishops of the Provinces of Sens and Rheims, who met at Paris in the Year 1256, and Accused him of having advanced several False and Erroneous Propositions, contrary to good Manners and the Honour of their Order. William of Saint Amour Appeared before those Prelates, and declared to them, That he had never advanced any Proposition contrary to Truth and to the Salvation of Souls, that he had not Condemned any Order, that had been Approved by the Church of Rome; that he was ready to maintain what he had advanced, or to correct and retract, if they thought it proper. Those Bishops offered the Dominicans and William of Saint Amour to Hold a Council, and to Invite thither the Bishops of the Neighbouring Provinces and several Learned Doctors, to Try their Contests. William of Saint Amour and his Party accepted of the Proposal; but the Dominicans would not refer themselves to the Determination of the Council, so the Affair remained Un-decided, and the Quarrel rose higherthan ever. Then the University thought it was their Duty to send Deputies to Rome in their own Defence. They made choice of William of Saint Amour, Odo of Douai, Nicholas de Bar-Sur-Aube, John of Gastiville, and John Bellin, to demand the Re-establishment of the Peace of the University, and with Orders to maintain the Book concerning the Perils of the Last Times, made by William of Saint Amour, and to urge the Condemnation of the Book called The Everlasting Gospel. These Deputies procured Recommendatory Letters from the Chapters of the Churches of the Province of Rheims, and prepared for their Journey to Rome; but the Dominicans were beforehand with them, and having sent the Book concerning the Perils of the last Times to the Pope, it was examined by the Cardinals, and afterwards condemned by Alexander iv as containing perverse Opinions, contrary to the Power and Authority of the Pope and of other Bishops, contrary to the Honour of those who make Profession of Poverty for God's sake, and who do a great deal of good in the Church by their Zeal; contrary to the Salutary State of poor Mendicant Friars, especially the Dominican and Minor Friars; lastly, as a Book capable of raising great Scandals and Disturbances, of causing the ruin of several Souls, and of diverting the Faithful from Devotion and Charity, from Conversion and Embracing Religion. 'Tis upon these Grounds that the Pope declares this Book to be Wicked, Criminal and Execrable, and Prohibits all manner of Persons from approving, maintaining, reading and keeping it by them. He wrote at the same time to the King and to the Bishops of France several Bulls against this Book full of Expressions of Indignation, and exhorted the University to treat the Dominicans kindly, and to condemn sincerely the Book of William of St. Amour. But because he was afraid, that his Orders would not punctually be executed, he heaped Bulls upon Bulls, and made use of all the Methods he could to get them to be executed. However the Deputies of the University not in the least startled at all these Efforts, continued their Journey; but being come to Anagnia where the Pope then was, there was only William of St. Amour who stood firm, the other three condemned his Book: As for his part he defended himself so well that the Pope sent him away Absolved. However he was no sooner gone and returned Sick from Rome, but the Pope sent him a Letter, by which he forbade him to go into France, under the Penalty of Excommunication and of losing all his Benefices, and debarred him from ever Teaching or Preaching as a punishment of several Faults, especially for having composed the Abominable and Pernicious Book concerning the Perils of the last Times. At the same time he sent several other Bulls into France, to procure at any rate the Execution of his Decree, against the Book and Person of William of St. Amour, and drew up an Act containing all the Points which he would have to be Executed in the University of Paris about the Mendicant Friars, which are (1.) That they shall be admitted into the Body of the University, and that the Bull Quasi Lignum Vitae, shall be Executed according to the Form and Tenor thereof without any Opposition. (2.) That the Dominican and Minor Friars, especially Thomas Aquinas and Bonadventure shall be admitted bonâ fide among the Doctors and Professors of the Faculty. (3.) That they shall not force the Mendicant Friars to take any Oath, or make any Treaty contrary to this Order. (4.) That the University of Paris shall not be allowed to Translate themselves elsewhere under any Pretence whatsoever. (5.) That they shall Preach and Teach in Paris, that the Book condemned by the Pope deserves it; That the Pope may send Preachers and Confessors where he pleases without the consent of the Inferior Prelates or Curates: That the Archbishops and Bishops may likewise do the same without the consent of the Curates: That a State of Poverty embraced for the sake of Jesus Christ, is a State of Salvation and Perfection: That the Poor Monks who have forsaken their All for the sake of Jesus Christ may Beg for their living without Working with their Hands, tho' they be strong and lusty, especially those who are employed in Reading, Preaching and Expounding the Word of God: That it shall be declared, That what is said in that Book, concerning False Prophets, false Apostles, forerunners of Antichrist who crept into Houses, ought not to be understood of the Orders of the Dominican and Minor Friars: And that lastly, it shall be acknowledged, That there have been Miracles wrought by the Saints who have been of those two Orders. The Pope ordered the Cardinals to draw up this Writing, and sent it to the Bishop of Paris, with Orders to get it Approved of and Executed by Odo of Douai, and Christian Canon of Beauvais, and in case they would not do it, to declare them Perjured. Notwithstanding all these Bulls, the Secular Doctors of the Faculty of Paris would not Admit the Dominicans, and persevered in their Separation from the Regulars, tho' William of Saint Amour to avoid the Storm that threatened him, retired into his Village of Saint Amour in the Franchecounty. Alexander iv thundered out fresh Bulls against them in the Year 1259, directed to the Bishop of Paris, and carried the Point so far by his Threats and Censures, That he obliged most of the Members of the University to Reunite themselves with the Mendicants who were Admitted into the Body of the University, by a Decree Dated February 21. 1259, upon Condition, That they should always have the lowest Place in the Acts and Assemblies, even after those of the other Regular Orders. At last the Pope Died on the 24th. of June in the Year 1261, after he had Granted above Forty Bulls in favour of the Dominicans, against the University of Paris, or against its Members. After his Death there was a little Quiet in the University of Paris. William of St. Amour returned thither, and to justify himself, he altered the Title and the method of his Book concerning the Perils of the Last Times, and sent it to Pope Clement IU. that he might Examine it. That Pope returned him Answer, That he ought to forget what was passed, and beware of falling into the same Extravagancies: That the Book which he had sent him contained the same in substance as his First, tho' a little disguised; but that not having Read it quite through, he could not give him his Opinion of it, as he would do when he had made an end of Reading it. and had conferred with Persons of Judgement about it. This Letter bears Date October 17, 1266. The Year of the Death of William of Saint Amour has never yet been taken notice of by any Author. But his Epitaph which is in the Church of Saint Amour in the County of Burgundy where he was Interred, informs us, that he Died in the Year 1272. The Funeral Register-Book of the Church of Mascon, informs us that it was the Thirteenth of September. This was communicated to us by Monsieur Francatel who made search after it. The Works of William of Saint Amour were Printed in the Year 1632, by the care of a certain Doctor of the Sorbonne, who has concealed his Name under that of Alitophilus; as well as the Name of the City where they were Printed, and the Printer's Name, under this Enigma, Constantiae ad Insigne bonae fidei apud Alitophilos.  
The Book concerning the Perils of the Last Times, is preceded by a Preface on the Book of Psalms, 
The Works of William of St. Amour.  an imperfect Commentary on the First Psalm, and a Sermon on the Parable of the Publican and Pharisee, in which William of Saint Amour describes the Characters of the Pharisees set down in Scripture, and applies them to the Hypocrites of his Time, and chief (says he) to those who pretend by their Habit and outward Behaviour, by a more Austere Life, and by Spiritual Exercises which they have Invented and Established by their Traditions, to an External semblance of Sanctity and Religion in order to be Praised and had in Honour by Men: These are (adds he) the Impostor-Monks, as may be proved by their Works, as it is Written by St. Matthew Chap. 7. You shall know them by their Fruits: I do not mean by those Works which they show to make themselves believed to be Holy: For they seem to be good, and for that Reason it is, that 'tis observed in the Glossary on that Place, That in the Eyes of Men they seem to be Righteous by their Fasts, their Prayers, and their Alms; but these are not their Fruits, because these Works are imputed to them as Sinful, by reason of that Vainglory, which they aim at: Therefore they are known by the Works which they do not show, tho' they do them to obtain the Glory and Pleasures of the World; because there are some among them, who, as the Apostle says, in the Second Epistle to Timothy Chap. 3. are rather Lovers of Pleasure than Lovers of God. He afterwards sets down Four infallible Signs whereby to discover them, taken out of the same Gospel: They love the first Places in the Feasts, the chief Seats in the Synagogues, to be saluted in public Places, and to be called by Men Rabbi. He afterwards explains those Tokens after the following manner: On the First (says he) it ought to be observed, That they may be said to love the First Places in Feasts, who frequent the Tables of Kings, Princes and Prelates, who are the first at them to get the best of the Treat; which is unbecoming Regulars, and especially Preachers, etc. He likewise adds another Proof of the Love they have to the Uppermost Places in Feasts, viz. The Curiosity they have of diving into the Affairs of Great Men, and of intermeddling with them: Upon the second token, which is the Loving of the Uppermost Seats in the Synagogues; he observes, That they are justly to be charged with this, who get themselves to be nominated by the Secular Powers for to Preach in Churches on the Great Festivals, without having any deference to the Authority of the Bishops and other Prelates, who intrude themselves into the Ministry without being Called thereto, and who aim more at showing their own Parts and Eloquence, that at Preaching the Word of God. Upon the Third Sign or Token of Loving to be Saluted in the Public Places, he applies it to the Regulars, who get themselves to be summoned into the Consistories of Princes and Prelates, who frequent them, who concern themselves in giving their Judgements and Counsels in them, in order to attract the Respect of those who have any Business there. Lastly, on the Last Token, viz. Their Desire of being Called Rabbi, Rabbi, he Observes, That it is very Applicable to the Regulars who make use of Excommunication, and raise a Scandal in the Church in order to obtain the Quality of Masters.  
This Discourse is only an Introduction of that which William of Saint Amour establishes in his Book concerning the Perils of the Last Times. In the First Chapter he Proves from that Place of St. Paul, 2 Tim. 2. 1. That at the Latter End of the Church there should happen Perilous Times. In the Second he describes the Characters of those who shall be the Cause of those Perils, as they are set down in the same Place: Men Lovers of themselves, Covetous, Boasters, Proud, Blasphemers, Disobedient to Parents and Superiors, Unthankful, Unholy, Unnatural, false Accusers, Incontinent, without Charity, Traitors, Heady, highminded, Lovers of Pleasure more than Lovers of God: Such as creep into Houses, etc. He adds, That they are those false Teachers, and false Prophets foretold by our Saviour, which he applies to those who Preach without a Call, without a Mission, and without the leave of the Curates, under Pretence, That they have Permission from the Pope, or the Bishop. He observes, That he would not Dispute the Authority of the Pope, or of the Diocesan Bishop; but that the Licence which they Grant to some to Preach, signifies only in case they be Invited thereto; since the Bishops themselves can do nothing out of their own Diocese, unless called by their Brethren, and that 'tis not to be supposed, That the Pope Grants a Power to a great many Persons of Preaching to one and the same Auditory, if they be not invited to it by the Curates. In the Third he demonstrates what those Characters were by which those Dangerous Men shall sow those Disorders, Namely, a semblance of Piety, Religion and Charity, which shall make them to pass for true Christians. In the Fourth he explains the Perils to which the Faithful shall be exposed by the Imposture of those false Preachers, who shall resist the Truth as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, that is to say, who shall seduce Princes and the Christian People by their show of Wisdom, and shall divert them from obeying the Counsels of their Lawful Superiors in order to follow their Corrupt Maxims and Morals. In the Fifth he shows the ways which they shall make use of to seduce them; viz. by creeping into Houses, by making them discover their Secrets in Confessions, by seducing Women and the Simple; by making themselves Lords and Masters of their Souls, and by forcing them to make Vows; and by diverting them from the Submission which they owe to their Pastors. In the Sixth he says, that those who shall not foresee those Perils shall be in danger of perishing by them. He proves in the Seventh, That those who are the Cause of them shall perish. In the Eighth he endeavours to prove by the Signs set down in Scripture, That these Perils are not far off. In the Ninth he shows, That it chief belongs to the Prelates to foresee, discover, and divert those Perils. In the Tenth he demonstrates the Punishments to which they are liable in this World and the next, if they do not oppose them. In the Eleventh he proves, That tho' those Perils have been foretold, yet they might be diverted for a time, if vigorously opposed. In the Twelfth he explains the Methods which ought to be made use of in order to divert them: Which are, (1.) To consider who those Persons are who creep into Houses, and whether there be any such in the Church. (2.) When one shall have discovered them, to inform others of them. (3.) To Enjoin them to avoid such. (4.) To hinder them from Preaching and Teaching. (5.) To oblige those who are of their Sect to withdraw themselves from them. (6.) To hinder others from entering into their Sect, and in general to shun the False Prophets, the Idle who will not work with their Hands, and the Inquisitive. He in this place oppugns the Practice of begging when one is strong and Lusty, and when a Man may get his Living by his Labour, and says, That 'tis a piece of Injustice. In the Thirteenth he examines among what sort of Persons we ought to search after these Seducers, and pretends, That 'tis not among the Pagans, nor among the Wicked or Ignorant Christians that this Search aught to be made; but amongst the Wise Persons, among those who profess to follow the Dictates of Jesus Christ, who seem to be most Holy and most Prudent, that one would think them to be the Elect of Jesus Christ. In a word, in the last Chapter he reckons up Forty one Marks to distinguish the False Apostles from the True, of which, says he, some are Infallible, and others Probable. In the beginning he protests that he had no Design of advancing any thing against any particular Person, or against any State or Order of Men, but only in general to declaim against the Sins of the Wicked, and the Perils of the Church: However 'tis easy to see, that he means the Dominican Friars, and that 'tis at them he aims, and whom he sets upon in this Book which he submits to the Correction of the Church.  
This Treatise is followed by two Pieces wherein he resolves two Queries, viz. In the First, Whether it be lawful to give all one's Estate to the Poor and be reduced to Beggary? In the Second, Whether one ought to bestow any Alms on a lusty Mendicant? He resolves both in the Negative, found'st his Resolutions on several Passages out of the Scriptures and Fathers, and proposes to himself the Objections which might be made to it, to which he returns his Answers. He concludes the Second Query by asserting, That the Preachers ought not to ask any Money lest it be an occasion to them of Covetousness, and lest they should seem to be guilty of Simony.  
Those Writings are followed by the Answers which William of St. Amour made to the Erroneous Propositions which were laid to his Charge. He therein shows either that he never had advanced any such thing, or that they had put a false Construction on what he had said; or that they had added to and perverted his Expressions. (1.) They accused him of having said, That he who Preaches commits a Mortal Sin, if he receives or asks any thing of those to whom he Preaches. He replies, That he had never advanced this Proposition; that on the contrary he had said, That the Preacher who has a Lawful Mission may receive for his Subsistence, and that 'tis his Due. (2.) Of having said, That the Monks may not be Doctors nor hold Dignities. He replies, That he had not said that; but had only said, That the Monks who have abandoned the World, ought not to be over-solicitous in being made Doctors, as they ought not to hunt after the Riches, Honours, and Pleasures of the World. (3.) Of having said, That 'tis not lawful for Monks to reside in the Courts of Princes and Prelates. He Replies, That he had only said, that it was dangerous for them. (4.) Of having said, That he who presents himself to Preach without being called thereto, is guilty of a Mortal Sin. He replies, that he had only said, That one ought not to intrude into that Ministry without being Called thereto. (5.) That he who admitted fewer Parishoner to Confession, was guilty of a Mortal Sin: To which, he replies, That he had added, without the Permission of the Superior, (6.) That a Bishop who Preaches out of his own Diocese, commits a Mortal Sin. He Replies, That he had never said thus; but had only said, That 'tis not Lawful for a Bishop to Execute his Episcopal Functions out of his own Diocese, without the leave of the Ordinary. (7.) Of having said, That he who gives away his whole Estate to live himself upon Charity, is not in a State of Salvation. He Replies, That he had only said, That a Man in Health, who has not wherewithal to live, ought to Work with his Hands to get himself a Livelihood: And to give a full Resolution to this Head, he declares, That he who is not Skilled in any Trade, may Beg till he has Learned a Trade: That those who are naturally incapable of Working, such as Children, Aged, and Infirm Persons might likewise Beg: That the same might be extended to those who are Habitually rendered incapable of Working; that those who cannot get Work, or cannot get a Livelihood by Working, may likewise Beg. Lastly, That those who by their Duty being Employed in Spiritual Functions have not Time to Work, may likewise Beg. (8.) Of having Asserted, That all those who are in an Order, who have no Revenue, who are able to Work and do not, but Live on Alms; are not in a State of Salvation, and cannot be excused upon the Account of Preaching. He Replies, That he had only said this upon the Account of the great number of Mendicants who are in the Nation, and especially upon the Account of certain Young Persons who were called Bons-Valets, and of certain Nuns, called Beguines, who are not of any Order Approved by the Holy See. (9) Of having said, That the Handsomeness of Habits is not profitable nor unprofitable to Salvation. He Replies, That he never said this, but only, That it was Lawful to wear a Fine Habit, provided it were not above the Quality of him who wears it, and against the Custom of the Country. (10.) Of having said, That he who wears a mean Habit beneath his Quality, sins more than he that wears one above his Quality. He Replies, That he had never said this, but, That there might be something of Pride in wearing a Habit beneath one's Quality, and that this Pride is a greater Sin because of the Hypocrisy that attends it. That moreover in these two Articles, he aims at the Beguines and Bons-Valets, who say, That one may not wear a fine Habit without endangering one's Salvation. (11.) Of having said before the Bishop of Mascon, That the Spiritual Functions do not excuse a lusty Mendicant, who lives upon Alms. He Replies, That he had already Answered that Head. (12.) Of having said, That Women who take upon them the Religious Habit, or cut off their Hair, and still lead a Secular Life, Sin heinously. He Replies, That he never said this, but only, That it was not Lawful to take upon them an Habit different from that of their Profession. (13.) Of having said, That Jesus Christ and the Apostles did not Beg. He Replies, That he had never Read in Scripture, that they had any Right of Receiving of those to whom they Preached, things necessary for this Life: That after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Apostles Preached, and that they Received what was voluntarily offered to them, with a great deal of Difficulty. (14.) Of having advanced several things against the Pope's Decree, by which it was ordered to admit the Dominicans into the University of Paris, and such things as were prejudicial to that Order, and of having declared, That he was afraid, that they were the Men who crept into Houses, who are Idle and Inquisitive, who would be called Rabbi, Rabbi, etc. He Replies, That it was true, that he was present at the Treaty which was made between the Mendicants and the University; that he had heard those Objections started by those who Defended the Cause of the University; but that he had not Proposed them, as being neither the Proctor nor the Governor of the University. (15.) Of having said, That they could not Condemn the Books of Abbot Joachim, because there were several Persons who supported him. He Replies, That he never said this, but only, That several Errors of that Abbot had been already Condemned, and that the others could not as yet have been condemned, because they could not be Detected in so short a time, by Reason of the great number of them, of the Business of those who were Employed to Examine them, and of the Credit of those who maintained them. I omit the following Heads, which contain only either general Reproaches, or particular matters of Fact, or are only a Repetition of what relates to the Habits and Poverty: And shall only speak of that which relates to the Preaching and Mission of the Mendicant Friars. They had Accused him of having maintained, That all those who Preached without being Called by the Curates, tho' Approved by the Pope, were False Prophets. He Replies, That he never said this, but only of those who had no Mission either from their Ordinaries or the Pope. They Accused him likewise of having said, That tho' the Priests Approved by the Bishop may Confess, yet they may not Administer the Sacrament of Penance. He Replies, That he had only said, That none but those who have the Charge of Souls, or who have received their Mission from them, may Confer the Sacrament of Penance. They farther Accused him of having said, That the Bishop in Collating a Curacy, granted the Whole, and retained the Whole. He Replies, That he had said, That where a Bishop gives a Cure to a Priest, the Priest has the immediate Jurisdiction thereof, and that the Bishop has it mediante Presbytero; tho' he might sometimes Exercise it immediately by himself, and that the Priest discharges the Bishop non à toto sed à tanto. Lastly, he cleared himself of the Charge laid against him, That he had advanced a great many Propositions against the false Prophets of his Time who crept into Houses, not only before Men of Learning, but also before the Simple and Ignorant, and when the Seculars and Regulars were at Variance: He cleared himself, I say, of this Charge, by declaring, That he had no Design of saying these things against the Order of the Dominicans, nor against their Persons, but only in General against all the false prophets who crept into Houses: That it was a very Scandalous thing for those Religious to say, That they were pointed at by the Works of these false Prophets, because they could not pretend any such thing, if those Works did not in some measure appear in their Actions: That tho' it might have been applied to them, yet the Truth ought not to be silenced upon that Account; and that the Scandal which they said would ensue thereon aught to be no hindrance for Publishing the Truth. That moreover with respect to the Book which they said had been Condemned by the Pope, and of which they made him the Author, it was Composed by the Doctors of Divinity, and in Justification of the University of Paris, to satisfy the Prelates of the Gallican Church, who being admonished to beware of the Perils which should happen in the Last Times, had desired that a Collection should be made of the Passages of Scripture, wherein those Perils were denoted; that he had set upon this Work jointly with several other Doctors, and reduced those Passages under different Heads: That it had been Altered Five times, and that it was the Third Edition which had been Disapproved by the Cardinals which had been Corrected in the Two next: That the Pope had only Disapproved of the Form of the Composure; that he was persuaded, that if he had seen the Fourth and Fifth Editions, he would never have Condemned them: And that Lastly, in the beginning of ●ach Edition, they submitted the Work to the Correction of the Church, the Pope and the other Prelates: That the Authors had Corrected it themselves, and had no Design of maintaining the things which the Pope had Condemned.  
The largest Collection of William of Saint Amour on this Subject is that which he made during his Exile, and which he sent to Pope Clement IU. It is divided into Five Parts.  
In the First he Examines who those false Prophets are of whom he speaks, and shows how dangerous they are to the Church in general. In particular he shows in this Part, That the Honour, Jurisdiction, Order and Peace of the Church consist chief in maintaining the Rights of the Ordinaries, so that there be but one Bishop in a Diocese, one Archdeacon in an Arch-Deaconry, and one Curate in a Parish. That 'tis true, that in Cases of Necessity one may have recourse to extraordinary Supplies, and that the Pope who is the Superior of Bishops and the Ordinary of Ordinaries; may upon Lawful Occasions, send into several Churches Persons to Preach the Gospel, and to Preside over others. But that if he gave to a great many Persons a General Commission of Preaching and Administering the Sacrament of Penance, it was not probable that by this General Grant he would give them Liberty of Exercising those Functions in all Churches without ask leave of the Prelates, and even in Defiance of them: That this would be to overthrow the Order of the Church, to disturb its Peace and subvert its Laws. As to the Maintenance of those Preachers, he owns, That he who Preaches has a Right to receive of those to whom he Preaches the Gospel wherewithal to Live; but he says, That the Ordinaries, that is, the Bishops and Curates have a Right to take what is necessary for them, as the Reward of their Labour: That those who are Delegated by the Pope, may likewise receive their Subsistence from those to whom they are sent; but that those who are sent by the Bishops or by the other Prelates who have settled Revenues for the Cure of Souls, aught to be maintained by those who send them. That moreover it is not probable, That the Pope intended to send an infinite number of Preachers who should be a Charge to the People, and the rather because Preaching and Administration of the Sacraments is forbidden to the Monks by the Canons, and reserved to the Prelates: That the General Licence which the Pope Grants to an infinite Number of Regulars, of whom he has no knowledge, can signify no more than to render them capable of Preaching and Administering the Sacraments, when they shall be Invited, and Employed by the Ordinaries in Case of Necessity.  
In the Second Part, he Treats of the Idleness and Begging of those New Apostles. He maintains, That it is not Lawful for Persons in Health who can get their Living by their Labour, to live Idle and to Beg. He owns, that Ecclesiastical Employments dispense Men from Working with their Hands, but he particularizes several sorts of Spiritual Employments: Those of Prelates and Curates who have a Right of Receiving their Subsistence of those who are under their Care: Those of the Monks in their Churches and Monasteries, who ought to Live of their Revenues, and for whom the Bishop in case they have not enough may provide: Those of Persons who study to render themselves Serviceable to the Church; such as Secular Students, who ought to be assisted, and may require it in case they are not provided for: That Persons who are strong and in a Condition of getting their Living by their Work, do Sin so long as they are Idle, and that Begging engages them in such Circumstances, as render them in danger of their Salvation. That the Monks and Regular Clerks who attend at Prayers, Preaching and Study, are not thereby excused from Working with their Hands, and have no Right to Beg: That Jesus Christ and his Apostles did never Beg. He speaks likewise by the way, against the Monks being familiar with Women. Lastly, he demonstrates by several Arguments, That Labour is requisite to a Monastic Life, opposes the Curiosity and Ambitus of the Monks.  
The Third Part contains the Methods which those false Teachers make use of to insinuate themselves into the Affections of the Simple, which are Disguises, Hypocrisy, the affectation of a singular Sanctity, the meaness of their Habit, and the Austerity in their way of Living.  
The Fourth Part contains the Marks whereby the false Prophets might be known, and the Methods, of Distinguishing them from the true Teachers, which are Fifty in all.  
Lastly in the last Part he relates the means of preventing those Perils, and shows the Obligation which the Bishops and Pastors lie under of applying a Remedy thereto, and how they shall be Punished who are negligent therein.  
There is likewise a Sermon of William of Saint Amour on the same Subject, Preached on the Festival of St. Philip and St. James, which contains the same Maxims.  
The Style of that Author is plain, he Advances nothing but what he Confirms by a Passage of Scripture, or of the Ordinary Comment, or of the Canon-Law. In his great Work he likewise Cites the Fathers, particularly the Treatise of Saint Augustine about the Labour of Monks, Saint Jerome, Saint Gregory, Saint Isiodore, Saint Anselm, the Prophecies of Saint Hildegarda, etc. The Abstract of his Works which we have already given you, and the Answers to the Objections made against him, are enough to acquaint us of his Real Sentiments; but one cannot tell how to justify the Malicious Application which he made of the Passages of Holy Writ to the Orders of the Mendicant Friars approved by the Holy See, and chief to that of the Dominicans: For tho' he declared, that he did not aim at them, yet the occasion of his Writing, and the Motive of undertaking th●● Task put it out of all question, that he had them in his Eye, and that 'tis them he attacks without naming them, but by describing them in a way wherein he could hardly be blamed.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Of the Errors advanced by Amaury, Abbot Joachim, and several others, and of their Condemnations.  
IN the beginning of the Thirteenth Century a Clerk Student at Paris, named Amaury, Born in 
The Doctrine of Amaury and his Condemnation.  Village in the Diocese of Chartres, called Bena, after he had for a long time Taught Logic, 〈◊〉 Expounded the Scriptures, kept still a particular Method and singular Opinions. Among ot●… things he maintained, That every Christian was obliged to believe as an Article of Faith, that 〈◊〉 was a Member of Jesus Christ. This Opinion having been Disputed in the Schools of Paris, the Deb●… was brought before Pope Innocent III. who after he had Herd the Propositions of Amaury, and 〈◊〉 Refutation of them by the University of Paris, Condemned the Opinion of Amaury. Being retur●… to Paris, he was obliged to retract his Opinion with his Mouth, tho' not with his Heart. Within short time after, he Died and was Interred near the Monastery of Saint Martin in the Fields.  
After his Death, some of his Disciples Published other Errors more dangerous than the former, 〈…〉 
The Errors of the Disciples of Amaury and their Condemtion.  for instance, That since the time of the Law was past, the Sacraments were useless, and that e●… one is Justified by the Internal Grace of the Holy Spirit: That the Virtue of Charity takes away 〈…〉 sinfulness of an Evil Action; and according to this Maxim, they committed Crimes contrary to 〈…〉 stity with the Women who followed them, and which they suffered to go unpunished, under the Pret●… of Charity. Other Authors Accuse them likewise of Teaching. (1.) That the Body of Jesus C●… was no more on the Altar in the Consecrated Bread, than in any other Loaf. (2.) That God 〈…〉 spoken by Ovid, as well as by St. Augustine. (3.) That there was no Resurrection, nor any 〈…〉 Heaven or Hell, than good Thoughts and Mortal Sins. (4.) That one ought not to Honour 〈…〉 Saints or their Relics. A Goldsmith named William was the Head of this Sect: He called hi●… the Ambassador of God, and Prophesied, That before Five Years the World should be smitten 〈…〉 Four Plagues; with Famine on the People, with the Sword on the Princes, with Earthquakes w●… should swallow up Cities, and with Fire on the Prelates of the Church. He called the Pope 〈…〉 Christ, Rome Babylon, and all the Churchmen Members of Antichrist. He likewise fore-●… That King Philip Augustus and his Son should soon Reduce all Nations under the Obedience of 〈…〉 Holy Ghost. Peter Bishop of Paris, and Jarin the King's Counsellor, being informed of this 〈…〉 Sect, to discover who were of it, made use of a Man, who likewise pretended to be of it. By 〈…〉 means several were Discovered and Apprehended, who being brought to Paris were Condemned i●… Council Held 1209, and afterwards Burnt by the Order of King Philip. The Authors of that t●… reckon up Fourteen of them, whose Names and Qualities they tell us: There were some Priests, 〈…〉 almost all had Studied Divinity. Of those Fourteen Ten were Burnt, Three were Condemned 〈…〉 perpetual Imprisonment, and one who became a Monk before he was Apprehended. They C●… demned the Memory of Amaury, his Bones were dug up and thrown into the Common Sewer. 〈…〉 who discovered those Heretics by pretending to be of their Sect, applied himself to the Abbot 〈…〉 Saint Victor, to Master Robert and Friar Thomas, who Consulted the Bishop of Paris and Three oth●… Masters about it, by whose Advice, he who had Discovered those Heretics continued with anothe●… Priest to feign himself to be one of them.  
They Condemned in the Council of Paris Aristotle's Books of Metaphysics and Physics, newly 
Aristotle's Works Condemned.  brought from Constantinople and Translated into Latin: They ordered them to be Burnt, and forbade the Reading them under pain of Excommunication. This Prohibition was Confirmed about the Year 1215, by the Pope's Legate who endeavoured to Reform the University; but he allowed th●… Teaching of the Logicks of that Philosopher. Gregory IX. in the Year 1231, renewed it, but witha●… adding, That he did not forbid the Reading Aristotle's Books, but till such time as they were Corrected. In the Year 1265, Simon Legate of the Holy See, in Reforming the University, Confirmed the Constitution of the Year 1215, about the Books of Aristotle, without taking any Notice of the Correction. But in the Reform of the University in the Year 1366, they permitted the Reading the Books of Physics, as well as the rest. This was the Fortune of the Works of that Philosopher at that time.  
Abbot Joachim having in his Books advanced several Propositions against the Irregular Morals 
The Opinions of Abbot Joachim.  of his time, and Exhorted Men to aspire after a greater Perfection, than that which was Practised in the World: Some took occasion from thence to believe, That the Law of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which they thought imperfect, would suddenly expire, and that the Law of the Spirit a great deal more perfect, would succeed it. This Doctrine spread among a great many Spiritual Men, and one of ●hem made a Book to establish it, to which he gave the Title of The Eternal Gospel. This Piece 
The Book called the Eternal Gospel.  appeared about the beginning of this Century; but what is the Author's Name, is not known: Matthew Paris ascribes it to the Order of the Jacobines, Aimeric to John the Seventh General of the Franciscans. Let the Case be how it will 'tis certain, that a great many Monks approved of this Work, and that some of them would have Taught this Doctrine Publicly in the University of Paris in the Year 1254, but the Bishops opposed it: And the Book of the Eternal Gospel was Condemned to be 
The Condemnation of that Book.  Burnt in the Year 1256, by Pope Alexander IU. who at the same time Proscribed those who maintained the Doctrine of that Book, as William of Saint Amour and Ptolemey of Lucca, assure us.  
All the Errors of this Book turn upon this Principle, That the Law of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was 
The Errors of that Book.  imperfect, in comparison of the law of the Spirit, which was to succeed it: For according to this Book, the Law of the Gospel was to last no longer than Twelve hundred and sixty Years, and consequently was upon expiring. The Author of that Book advanced, besides this, several particular Errors, viz. That none but Spiritual Men had the true Knowledge of the Scriptures: That only those who went Barefoot were capable of Preaching the Spiritual Doctrine: That the Jews tho' adhering to their Religion, shall be loaded with good things and delivered from their Enemies: That the Greeks were more Spiritual than the Latins, and that God the Father should Save them: That the Monks were not obliged to suffer Martyrdom in Defence of the Worship of Jesus Christ: That the Holy Ghost received something of the Church, as Jesus Christ as Man had received of the Holy Ghost: That the Active Life had lasted till Abbot Joachim; but that since his time it was become useless: That the Contemplative Life had begun from his time, and that it should be more perfect in his Successors: That there should be an Order of Monks by far more perfect, which should flourish when the Order of the Clergy was perished: That in this Third State of the World the Government of the Church would be wholly Committed to those Monks, who should have more Authority than the Apostles ever had: That those Preachers persecuted by the Clergy, should go over to the Infidels, and might excite them against the Church of Rome. These are some of the Extravagancies, which the Authors relate, as extracted out of the Book of the Eternal Gospel.  
The Maintainers of this Work are called Joachites, or rather Joachimites in the Council of Arles 1260, 
The Condemnation of the Joachimites in the Council of Arles 1260.  wherein their Doctrine was Examined and Condemned in these Terms: Among the False Prophets who appear at this time, none are more Dangerous than those who taking for the Foundation of their Folly several Ternaries, in part true, and making false Applications of them, established a very pernicious Doctrine, and wickedly affecting to do Honour to the Holy Ghost, do impudently derogate from the Redemption of Jesus Christ, by aiming to include the Time of the Reign of the Son and his Works within a certain Number of Years; after which the Holy Ghost shall Act: As if the Holy Ghost were to Act with more Power and Majesty for the future, than he has done yet since the beginning of the Church. These Joachites by a Chimerical Concatenation of certain Ternaries, maintain, That the time of the Holy Ghost shall for the future be enlightened with a more perfect Law; laying down for the Foundation of their Error, this Holy and Celestial Ternary of the Ineffable Persons of the Everblessed Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and are for establishing their Error on the Basis of all these Truths. They add to this Sovereign Truth other Ternaries, by asserting, That there shall be Three States or Orders of Men, who have had, or shall have each their proper Season: The First is that of Married Persons, which was in Repute in the time of the Father, that is, under the Old Testament: The Second is that of Clerks, which has been in esteem in the time of Grace by the Son in this Age of the World: The Third is the Order of the Monks, which shall be glorified in time with a larger measure of Grace, which shall be given by the Holy Ghost. Three sorts of Doctrines answer to these Three States, the Old Testament, the New, and the Eternal Gospel, or the Gospel of the Holy Ghost. Lastly, They distinguish the whole Duration of the World into Three Ages: The time of the Spirit of the Law of Moses, which they attribute to the Father; the time of the Spirit of Grace, which they attribute to the Son, and which has lasted 1260. Years; and the time of a more Ample Grace and of unveiled Truth, which belongs to the Holy Ghost, and of which Jesus Christ speaks in the Gospel, when he says, When that Spirit of Truth shall come, he will teach you all Truth. In the First State, Men lived according to the Flesh; in the Second, between Flesh and Spirit; and in the Last which shall endure to the end of the World, they shall live according to the Spirit. The Consequence which they draw from this Fiction of Ternaries, is, That the Redemption of Jesus Christ has no more place, and that the Sacraments are Abolished; which the Joachites have almost the Impudence to Advance, by asserting, That all Types and Figures shall be Abolished at this time, and that the Truth shall appear all naked without the Veil of Sacraments. Maxims these are which ought to be Abominated by all Christians who have Read the Holy Fathers, and who firmly believe that the Sacraments of the Church are visible Signs and Images of Invisible Grace; under the Elements of one of which the Son of God abides, as he has promised, in his Church to the End of the World.  
This Council adds, That tho' this Doctrine had been Condemned a while ago by the Holy See in its Censure of the Book of The Eternal Gospel; yet because several Persons maintained it under a pretence, That the Books which served as a Foundation to that Error had not been Examined nor Condemned, (viz. the Book of Concordances, and the other Books of the Joachites, which till then remained undiscussed, because they lay concealed in the Hands of some Monks, and began then to appear in the World and to Infatuate the Minds of many) it Condemns and Disapproves of those Works, and prohibits the making use of them under pain of Excommunication.  
In the Year 1240, William Bishop of Paris having Convened all the Regent Doctors of the University, 
The Propositions Condemned by William of Paris.  Condemned Ten Propositions which had been Taught, as Matthew Paris observes by the Professors of the Dominican and Franciscan Orders, who willing to Dispute with too much Subtlety, and to dive too far into Mysteries, were fallen into Error by the just Judgement of God, says that Author, to whom the Wisdom and Simplicity of a firm Faith is more acceptable than too great Subtlety in Divinity; it being more Safe and Meritorious to receive and believe with Simplicity, what the Fathers have Taught, than to adhere to that which must be Proved and Discovered by Humane Reason. The Ten Propositions are these. (1.) That the Essence of God shall not be seen by Men, or Angels. (2.) That the Divine Essence, tho' the same in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, yet as it is, that Essence and the Form, 'tis one in the Father and the Son, and not in the Holy Ghost. (3.) That the Holy Ghost proceeds not from the Son, since he is Love and Unity, but only from the Father. (4.) That there are several Eternal Truths which are not God himself. (5.) That the first moment, the Creation and the Passion, are neither the Creator nor the Creature. (6.) That the Wicked Angel had been Wicked from the first instant of his Creation. (7.) That the Souls in Bliss and even that of the Blessed Virgin herself shall not be in the Empyreal Heaven with the Angels, but in the Crystalline Heaven. (8.) That an Angel may be in many Places at one and the same time, and even every where. (9) That he who is endued with better Natural Parts, shall have more Grace than another. (10.) That the Devil had no Support to keep him from falling, nor Adam to keep in his State of Innocence. The Assembly after they had Censured these Propositions, declared, That Men ought firmly and without doubt to Believe, (1.) That the Substance, Essence and Nature of God shall be seen by the Holy Angels and the Blessed Souls. (2) That there is but only one Substantial Essence and only one Nature in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, even as it is the Form. (3.) That the Holy Ghost as Unity and as Love proceeds from the Father and the Son. (4.) That there is but only one Eternal Truth which is God, and that no other has been from all Eternity. (5.) That the first Moment, the Creation and the Passion are Creatures. (6.) That the Bad Angels have been Good, and became Bad by their Sin. (7.) That the Souls of the Blessed and their Bodies shall be in the Empyreal Heaven, as well as the Holy Angels. (8.) That the Angels are in a distinct Place, so that they cannot be in two Places at once, much less every where. (9) That Grace and Glory are granted according to the Order and Predestination of God. (10.) That the Wicked Angels and Adam had Support to keep them from Falling, tho' not sufficient to carry them on into Perfection.  
About the same time William Professor of the Franciscan Friars having Advanced in a Sermon 
The Recantation of William the Franciscan.  Preached on the Festival of St. John Baptist in the Church of his Monastery, several Propositions about Free Will and Free Grace, was obliged to Retract the two following, in an Assembly of the Doctors of Divinity of Paris. (1.) Free Will has a Natural Power to receive Grace, but not an Effective, or Co-operating Power for the entertaining of Grace. (2.) He who is Damned, has never been in a State of Grace, but has been always an Ishmael or a Judas, never a Saint John.  
In the Year 1270, in December, Stephen Templar Bishop of Paris Condemned other Propositions 
Propositions Condemned by Stephen Templar Bishop of Paris.  Taught by several Professors in Philosophy and Divinity of the University of Paris, which are Thirteen in Number. (1.) That the Understanding of all Men is one and the same in Number. (2.) That this Proposition Homo intelligit, is false and improper. (3.) That the Will chooses and wills by necessity. (4.) That all Sublunary things are subjected to the Influences of the Heavenly Bodies. (5.) That the World is Eternal. (6.) That there never was a first Man. (7.) That the Soul of Man as being the Form of him, is Corruptible. (8.) That the separated Soul does not suffer Eternal Fire. (9) That Free Will is a Passive, not an Active Power and that 'tis led by the Sensitive Appetite. (10.) That God has no knowledge of singular things, (11.) That he knows nothing Externally without himself. (12.) That the Actions of Men are not Governed by Providence. (13.) That God cannot give Immortality, or Incorruptibility to a Mortal, and Corruptible Creature. The Bishop of Paris ordered the Rector of the University not to suffer that Questions of Faith should be Disputed in the Philosophy-Schools, and the University provided against it by a Statute made April the First 1271, by which it declared, That all those who after they have proposed Questions which may concern Faith and Philosophy, shall Decide them against the Faith, or shall maintain those Propositions true, according to the Principles of Philosophy tho' contrary to the Faith; shall be expelled the University.  
Notwithstanding this Maxim, That one and the same thing may be true according to Philosophy, and false according to Faith, spreading itself: The same Bishop being admonished by Pope John XXI. forbade it in the Year 1277, and Condemned a great many Errors which they took the liberty to maintain under this Pretence, as if there might be two Truths, one according to Philosophy, and another according to Faith. He likewise Condemned a Book called, Of Love, or Of the God of Love, and some Writings of Geomancy, Necromancy and Witchcraft.   

CHAP. IX.  
An Account of the Sects of the Vaudois and Albigenses, and other Heretics: Of their Errors, Condemnation, Adversaries, of the Inquisitions, Croisades and Wars Raised against them.  
ABout the Year 1160. Peter Valdo a Rich Merchant of Lions being in an Assembly of his Brethren 
The Rise of the Sect of the Vaudois.  was so sensibly affected at the sudden Death of one of them, that he took upon him a Resolution of altering his way of Living, and explaining the Words of Jesus Christ against Riches in a Literal Sense, he distributed all his Goods to the Poor of the City, to make a Profession of Voluntary Poverty, and to revive, as he pretended, the way of Living among the Apostles. Several Persons having followed his Example, they Formed a Sect of People whom they called the Vaudois, or Waldenses from the Name of their first Founder; The Poor of Lions, because of the Poverty of which they made Profession; Leonists, from the Name of the City of Lions, and Insabbates, upon the Account of certain Shoes or Sandals which they wore, cut on the Top to show their bare Feet, in imitation of the Apostles, as they supposed. Valdo having some Learning, explained to them the New Testament in the Vulgar Tongue. He Instructed them so well, that they took the Fancy upon them not only of imitating the voluntary Poverty of the Apostles, but also of Preaching and Teaching, tho' they were Laics and had no Mission. The Clergy of Lions having reproved them for it, they began to declaim against the ecclesiastics and against their Irregularities, giving out with a great deal of Haughtiness, That the only Reason why they opposed their Preach, was because they envied the Sanctity of their Morals, and the Purity of their Doctrine. The Pope enjoined them Silence, judging that it did not belong to Laics who had but very little Learning to Preach the Word of God; but they did not hearken to the Voice of his Holiness, and continued to Preach boldly. Pope Lucius III. Excommunicated and Condemned them with other Heretics. His Bulls only served to Exasperate them, to Confirm them in their Obstinacy, to put them upon shaking off entirely the Yoke of Obedience, and to engage them to maintain divers Errors. Their Sect spread itself in several Places, which obliged Alphonso King of Arragon to Condemn them in the Year 1194. Bernard Archbishop of Narbonne Proscribed them, and some time after Held a Conference with them, wherein they were Convicted of several Errors. Notwithstanding these Condemnations, some among them applied themselves to the Pope, to obtain from the Holy See the Confirmation of their Institution; but the Pope having learned that there was Superstition in their Conduct, rejected them, and in their stead Approved of the Order of the Franciscans, who tho' they were not guilty of those Superstitious Practices, yet went barefoot, and made a Vow of Voluntary Poverty.  
The Waldenses or Vaudois in their first Rise were not guilty of any great Errors; but they fell into 
The Errors of the Waldenses or Vaudois.  them by Degrees. We may find out the Progress of them from the Authors who have Treated of them. The Design of Valdo was not to establish a New Sect, nor to maintain new Tenets; but to set up a Society of Persons who should Practise according to the Letter, the Advices of the Gospel, and who should revive the Apostles way of Living. There was nothing to be blamed in all this, if they had not made an Ostentation of Voluntary Poverty, and adhered to such Superstitious Practices, such as cutting their Shoes to show their naked Feet, the wearing of particular Habits, and never cutting the Hair of their Heads. They afterwards assumed to themselves the Power of Preaching, tho' Laics and without a Mission. At first they only Exhorted others to imitate their way of Living; but the Clergy opposing their Preaching, they began to Rebel against the Prelates, and to shake off the Yoke of Obedience: They Declaimed against the Manners of the ecclesiastics, and maintained, That their Unworthiness rendered them incapable of their Ministry, that they were not obliged to Obey them, and that Laics may Preach without their Permission. But going still farther, they Taught, That the Ministers whose Manners were Irregular could neither Consecrate, nor Grant Absolution, because they did not lead an Apostolical Life, and they Usurped that Right to themselves, even tho' they were only Laics: They likewise maintained, That all Pastors were obliged to embrace a Life of Poverty, by entirely renouncing all their Estates: That it was not Lawful to Swear upon any Account whatever, nor to put Men to Death, tho' for an Offence. They afterwards oppugned the Doctrine of the Church about the Worshipping of Saints, their Relics, the Indulgencies and Ceremonies of the Church, the Sacraments and Purgatory.  
This was the State and Condition of the Sect of the Waldenses or Vaudois about the Year 1250, as we are informed by Rainerius Sacho, who reduced their Errors to Three Heads. The First contains the Blasphemies which they uttered against the Church, its Institutes, and against the whole Body of the Clergy: The Second Comprehends the Errors which they advanced against the Sacraments of the Church and against the Saints; and the Third the Declamations which they made against the Laudable Customs approved by the Church. A particular Account of those Errors we here give you, as they are related by Rainerius.  
In the First place they say, That the Church of Rome is not the Church of Christ, but a Church of Wicked Men, and that it has ceased from being so, ever since the time of St. Sylvester, when the Poison of Temporalities entered the Church. They add, That they are the Church of Jesus Christ, because they follow the Doctrine of Jesus Christ and the Apostles in their Words and Actions. The Second Error which they Teach is, That the Church is full of Vices and Sins, and that they are the only Persons who live holily. The Third, That scarce any besides them hold the Doctrine of the Gospel. The Fourth, That they are the truly poor in Spirit, who suffer Persecution for Righteousness sake, and for the Faith. The Fifth, That they are the True Church of Jesus Christ. The Sixth, That the Roman Church is that Harlot mentioned in the Apoclypse, because of its superfluous Ornaments, of which the Eastern Church is not so nice. Seventhly, They despise the Laws of the Church, as being too many and too burdensome. Their Eighth Error is, That the Pope is the Author of all Errors. The Ninth, That the Prelates are the Scribes, and the Monks are the Pharisees. The Tenth, That the Pope and all the Bishops are Homicides because of the Wars which they tolerate. The Eleventh, That they ought not to obey the Prelates but only God. The Twelfth, That all the Members of the Church are equal. The Thirteenth, That no Person ought to bow the Knee before a Priest. The Fourteenth, That they ought not to pay Tithes. The Fifteenth, That Clerks ought not to have Estates in Land. The Sixteenth, That neither Clerks nor Regulars ought to have prebend's. The Seventeenth, That the Bishops and Abbots ought not to have any Royalties. The Eighteenth, That one ought not to divide the Land and the People. The Nineteenth, That 'tis ill done to Found and Endow Churches. The Twentieth, That nothing aught to be beqneathed to Churches by Last Wills and Testaments. They likewise maintained, That no Person ought to pay any Rent to the Church. They condemned the ecclesiastics for their Idleness, and pretended that they ought to work with their Hands as the Apostles did. They rejected the Titles of Prelacies, of Pope, of Bishops, etc. They considered all the Ecclesiastical Benefices as Null and Void. They had no regard to the Privileges of the Church. They despised the Exemptions of church-good and Churchmen. They valued not Councile and Synods. They pretended, That all the Privileges of Curates were of Humane Invention, and that the Rules made by the Monks are Pharisaical Traditions.  
In the Second place, They condemned all the Sacraments of the Church, and First about Baptism they say, That the preliminary Admonition is worth nothing; that the Washing of Infants is o● no avail to them; That the Sureties do not understand what they answer to the Priest: Lastly, They reject all the Exorcisms and all the Benedictions of that Sacrament. They Likewise reject the Sacrament of Confirmation, and wonder that only Bishops are allowed to Administer it. Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist they say, That the Priests who are in any Mortal Sin cannot Consecrate, and that Transubstantiation was not effected in the Hands of him who Consecrated Unworthily, but in the Mouth of him who received the Eucharist Worthily, and that one might consecrate on a common Table, according to what the Prophet Malachy says, They shall offer in all Places a pure Offering in my Name. They likewise condemned the Custom of Christians who Communicated only once a Year, because themselves Communicated daily. They said, That Transubstantiation ought to be made with Words in the Vulgar Tongue. That the Mass was nothing, because the Apostles never said it, and they only said it for their own Interest. They received not the Canon of the Mass, but only made use of the Words of Jesus Christ in the Vulgar Tongue. They called the Chanting of the Church an Infernal Crime. They rejected the Canonical Hours. They maintain, That the Offering made to the Priest at Mass signifies nothing, and disapproved of kissing the Pyx and the Altar. About the Sacrament of Penance, they said, That no body could be absolved by a Wicked Priest; and on the contrary a good Laic has that Power. That they remit Sins and confer the Holy Ghost by the Imposition of Hands. That it was better to confess one's self to a good Laic than to a bad Priest: That they ought not to impose large Pennances, but to follow the Example of Jesus Christ, who said to the Adulteress, Go and sin no more. They reject the Public Pennances and the Annual general Confessions. They likewise cast a blemish on the Sacrament of Marriage, by maintaining, That it was a Mortal Sin for a Man to have to do with his Wife, when she was passed Childbearing. They did not acknowledge the Spiritual Alliance, nor the Impediments of Affinity and Consanguinity appointed by the Church, no more, than those of Public Order and Decency. They hold, That Women have no need of Benediction after their Lying in; That the Church was in the wrong in prohibiting the Clergy from Marrying, and that they who live continently do not Sin by Kisses and Embraces. They do not approve of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, because it was only given to the Rich, and aught to be administered by a great many Priests; That all the Laics are as so many Priests; That the Prayers of Wicked Priests signify nothing. They laughed at the Clerical Tonsure. They say, That the Laics ought not to pray in Latin, that all the Laics even the Women may Preach; That whatever is not in the Scriptures is Fabulous. They Celebrate and Administer the Sacraments in the Vulgar Tongue. They learn by heart all the Text of the Scriptures, and reject the Decisions and Expositions of the Fathers. They despise Excommunication, and have little or no regard to Absolution. They laugh at Indulgences and Dispensations. They do not allow of any Irregularity. They believe no other Saints but the Apostles, and invocate no Saints, but God alone. They despise the Canonisations, Translations, and Vigils of the Saints. They laugh at the Laics who make choice of Saints in the Lots which they draw upon the Altar. They never say any Litanies. They do not believe the Legends. They ridicule the Miracles, and have no esteem for Relics. They look upon Crosses as Common Wood They Teach that the Doctrine of Jesus Christ and the Apostles is sufficient to Salvation, without being obliged to observe the Laws of the Church, and that the Tradition of the Church is the Tradition of the Pharisees. They do not allow of any Mystical meaning in the Scriptures, nor in the Practices or Ceremonies of the Church.  
In the Third place these are the Errors which they held concerning the Usages of the Church. They despised all the approved Customs which are not to be met with in the Gospel, such as the Festivals of Candlemass, and Palm-Sunday, the Reconciling of Penitents, the Adoration of the Cross, the Festival of Easter, with those of Jesus Christ and the Saints. They say, That all Days are equal, and work on holidays as well as on other Days. They do not observe the Fasts of the Church. They despise the Dedications, the Benedictions, and the Consecrations of Wax-Tapers, Boughs, Chrism, Fire, the Paschal Lamb, Lyings-in-woman, Pilgrims, Holy Places, Sacred Persons, Ornaments, Salt and Water. They would have no Walled Church; and disapprove of the Dedication of Churches and Altars, and their Ornaments; the Sacerdotal Habits, the Chalices and the Corporals. They would not have any lighted Tapers, nor any Incense offered, nor any Holy Water used. They condemn Images, the Chanting of the Church, Processions on Festivals or Rogation-Days. They find fault, That a Priest is allowed to Say many Masses on one Day. They make Merry during the time of Interdiction. They go not to Churches, and perform the Duties of Christians only in appearance and Hypocritically. They Condemn the Ecclesiastical Burial, the Ceremonies of Interments, the Masses and Prayers for the Dead, and the Confraternities. They deny Purgatory, and maintain, That there are only Two States after Death, one for the Good and Elect in Heaven, and the other for the Reprobate and Damned in Hell. They Teach, That all Sin is in its own Nature Mortal, and that there is no such thing as a Venial Sin. They pretend, that it is Unlawful to Swear; whereupon those that are perfect among them choose rather to Die than to Swear. Those who are not so perfect, Swear, but do not think themselves obliged to keep their Oath, and look upon those who exact it of them as more guilty than Homicides. They Condemn all Princes and Judges, being persuaded, That 'tis not Lawful to Punish Malefactors. Lastly, They Condemn the Ecclesiastical Judgements.  
Pelicdorfius who Wrote about an Hundred Years after Rainerius against the Vaudois, relates the Original of them after the same manner, and observes, That at first they only oppugned the Discipline and the Ceremonies of the Church without reflecting on the Sacraments, but that afterwards they thought ●it to hear Confessions, to impose Pennances, and to grant Absolution, and that within a while after some among them intruded to Consecrate the Body of Jesus Christ, and to Communicate to others; but that several of their Sect had disapproved of that Conduct. The Errors of the Vaudois which Pelicdorfius refutes in his Work, are, (1.) That the Sacerdotal Order was sunk ever since the time of St. Sylvester, and that the True Faith was obscured, and only a few Elect in the World. (2.) That the Priests and the other Clergy of the Church of Rome being Fornicators, Usurers, Drunkards, etc. have not the Holy Ghost, cannot Confer it, and are not to be Obeyed. (3.) That the Blessed Virgin and the Glorified Saints do not regard what is done here on Earth, and do not Pray for us, that therefore it is needless to Invocate them, and that God alone is to be Praised, Honoured, and Prayed to. (4.) That there are but Two States after Death, and consequently no Purgatory. (5.) That 'tis not better to be Interred in a Churchyard than elsewhere: That 'tis needless to Consecrate Churches, Altars, Sacerdotal Habits; to Bless Water, Ashes, Wax-Tapers, etc. (6.) That the Chanting of the Church is Condemnable: That the Canonical Hours and all the other Prayers are useless, except the Paternoster, which is the only Prayer that ought to be used, and that all that is said at Mass ought to be rejected, as being of Humane Institution, except the Words of Consecration and the Lord's Prayer. (7.) That Pilgrimages, Indulgences and the Jubilee, aught to be rejected. (8.) That Excommunication is of no force. (9) That one ought not to have any Images, or to pay them any Worship. (10.) That the Exorcisms which some Priests make over the Possessed are Superstitions, and the rather because no Man since the Passion of Jesus Christ can be possessed by the Devil. (11) That the Study of the Languages and the Sciences are hurtful. (12.) That all Oaths tho' Judiciarily and Truly made, are Condemnable and Sinful. (13.) That the Pastors and Ministers of the Word of God ought to have nothing the Proprio, in imitation of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.  
We do not think fit to add any thing to the Testimonies of these two Authors concerning the Errors of the Waldenses or Vaudois, which they have very largely insisted on. This Sect increased very much in the Thirteenth Century, inspite of the Inquisitors, and spread itself in Arragon, and in the Valleys of Piedmont, where it has remained, still holding the same Maxims till it was United in the Year 1530, with Oecolampadius and the other Sacramentarians, to whom the Vaudois sent Peter Mason, and George Morel who entered into a Treaty with Oecolampadius and Martin Bucer: These two latter proposed to them the Rejecting of several of their Errors, by acknowledging, That a Christian might Swear Lawfully, and exercise the Office of a Magistrate; that the Ministers might Possess something the Proprio; That one might Punish Malefactors with Death; that Wicked Ministers might Administer the Sacraments, etc. And they engaged them to maintain others which they had never maintained before, particularly, That the Body of Jesus Christ is not in the Eucharist, and that there was no necessity of Confessing their Sins, a Doctrine which the Vaudois never till then openly opposed. However notwithstanding this Union, most of the Vaudois persisted still in their own Principles till necessity forced them in the Year 1630, to take the Calvinists for their Pastors.  
Rainerius likewise mentions several other Sects of Heretics of his time, viz. the Buncaires who Espoused 
Several other Sects.  the Errors of the Patarini, and who maintained, That no Mortal Sin was Committed by the lower Part of the Body, and upon this false Principle abandoned themselves to all manner of Irregularities. These Men Disguised their Sentiments and never gave a direct Answer to the Questions they were asked. The Siscidois, who held the same Opinions with the Vaudois, only they had a greater Respect for the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Ortlibenses or Orbibarians, who denied the Mystery of the Trinity; Taught that Jesus Christ was the Son of Joseph and Mary; believed the World to be Eternal; denied the Resurrection and the Last Judgement; and maintained, That Jesus Christ had not suffered really; Annulled all the Sacraments of the Church, and Asserted, That the Eucharist was only Bread. The Cathari, whose Sect was divided into Three Parts, that of the Albanois, that of the Concoresois, and that of the Bagnolois. This Sect prevailed chief in Lombardy. Their Common Errors were, That the Devil was the Author of this World, that the Sacraments are of no avail to Salvation, that Marriage is a Mortal Sin, as well as the Eating of Flesh, Eggs and Cheese; that there is no Resurrection, and that 'tis not Lawful to Punish Malefactors, nor to Kill Animals: That there is no Purgatory. They allowed of Four Sacraments, but such as had nothing besides the Name agreeable with those of the Church: For instead of Baptism, they made use of the Imposition of Hands: Instead of Consecrating the Eucharist, they Blessed a Loaf before Meals, and after having said the Lord's Prayer they broke and distributed it to all there present: About Penance they Taught, That Eternal Glory is not diminished by Sin, nor the Punishment of Hell augmented by Impenitence, that no Person shall go into Purgatory, that the Imposition of Hands remits entirely the Punishment and the Gild of Sin. They made no other Confession besides a Public acknowledgement of their Sins in General, and impose no less Pennances on the least than they do on the greatest Sinners. They allowed of Four Degrees of Orders, the Bishop, the First Son, the Second Son, and the Deacon. Rainerius reckoned up Sixteen Churches of those Cathari, and observes that the Sect of the Albanois was divided into Two Parts; viz. One, of which Gelesinanza their Bishop of Verona was the Head, and the Other which had for its Head John of Lions. He in particular related the several Errors of those Sects, which Held the Extravagancies of the Manichees and Bulgarians, besides they were of the Opinions of the Vaudois and Albigenses with whom they were United. For in this Century as well as the foregoing, all those Heretics agreed to oppose the Hierarchical Order of the Church, its Usages, its Ceremonies, and its Sacraments, and several particular Sects were fallen into Extravagant Errors and Abominable Disorders.  
The Great Sect of the Albigenses was a Mixture and Composure of all those particular Sects: It spread itself in Languedoc, Provence, Dauphiné and Arragon: Raymond Count of Toulouse supported 
The Inquisition and Croisades against the Albigenses.  their Party, which was become very Numerous and Powerful, especially in Languedoc, and grew every Day stronger and stronger by the Remissness of the Prelates, and the Irregular Manners of the ecclesiastics. Pope Innocent III. (being minded to put a stop to them) sent in the Year 1198, two Legates Rainerius and Guy into those Provinces, to endeavour the Extirpation of those Heretics, recommended them to the Bishops and Lords, that they would assist them in this Undertaking, and Employ their Authority for to Punish the Heretics. In the Year 1199, he Ordered their Estates should be Confiscated. This First Mission having had no great Success, Pope Innocent gave Commission to Arnold Abbot of Cisteaux to employ the Abbots and Monks of his Order●, and particularly Peter de Chauteauneuf and Radulphus Monks of Fontfroide, not only to Preach against those Heretics, but likewise to excite the Princes and People to Extirpate them, and to form a Crusade against them. These Missionaries making no great Progress at first, Held a Council in the Year 1207. wherein they Debated on the Methods of Converting the Albigenses. Didacus' Bishop of Osma declared, That in order to succeed in this Affair it was requisite, that they should lay aside the Fastus, the Pomp and the Magnificence which appeared in their Habits and Equipage, that they should embrace the Poverty of Jesus Christ, and demonstrate their Faith not only by their Words but also by their Actions, that so they might Save the Souls of those whom these Heretics Deceived by a false Semblance of Piety and Virtue. This Advice seemed to them very good, all of them promised to follow it, and he was the first who put it into Execution by dismissing all his Equipage, and retaining only a few Clerks among whom was Dominick afterwards Founder of the Jacobine Friars. The rest▪ followed his Example and continued their Preach. The greatest Adversary they had in those Errors was Raymond Count of Toulouse. They Issued out against him Ecclesiastical Censures, and excited the Lords of his Province, who obliged him in appearance to Abandon the Party of the Albigenses, and to receive Absolution. But forasmuch as his Repentance was not sincere, he changed every Moment, and at last having had a Conference at St. Giles' in Provence with the Pope's Missionaries, he caused Peter de Chateauneuf to be Assassinated in going out of that City. The Pope had no sooner heard of it but he Issued out his Bulls against the Murderers, and especially against Raymond Count of Toulouse, whom he believed to be the Author of that Action, and exhorted Philip Augustus' King of France and the other Princes and Lords of the Kingdom, to raise a Crusade to Fight the Albigenses and to Seize on the Demeans of Raymond. That Count to avoid the Storm which was coming upon him, sent to assure the Pope, That he would do whatever they required of him, that he would endeavour to destroy the Heresy, and that he would receive Absolution from the New Legate, which he entreated he would send him, because the Abbot of Cisteaux was too severe upon him. The Pope sent one of his Chaplains named Milo, and Theodosius Canon of Genes, with Order however to do nothing but by the Advice of the Abbot of Cisteaux. These two Legates having Held an Assembly of Prelates in the Castle of Montilly in Provence, agreed upon the Propositions which were to be made to Count Raymond, Milo afterwards sent for him to come to Valenza, and obliged him to deliver up for the security of his Word Seven Towns of Provence or Languedoc, to cause it to be declared by the Consuls of Avignon, Nismes, and Saint George, That if he did not obey the Orders of the Legate, they should not think themselves obliged to keep any longer their Oath of Allegiance to him; and to Grant a County of that Country to the Church of Rome. The Count of Toulouse constrained by the necessity of his Affairs, granted those Conditions, and promised to do whatever that Legate would prescribe to him. He began by delivering up the Seven Towns to Theodosius, and afterwards came to St. Giles' where Milo was to Reconcile him. He was brought Naked in a Sheet to the Church-porch of St. Giles', and Swore upon the Body of Jesus Christ and upon the Relics of the Saints, in Presence of the Legate and Twenty Bishops who were met at that Place, to Obey the Church of Rome, to do whatever the Pope and his Legate would order him, to abandon the Heretics and to Expel them, to restore to the Church what he had taken away from it; submitting himself and his Successors to the Forfeiture of his Estate and to Excommunication, if he did not observe what was contained in his Oath, Afterwards the Legate put the Stole on his Neck, struck him with the Wand, and brought him into the Church after he had given him Absolution. He ordered him to Re-establish the Bishops of Carpentras and Vaison in all their Estates and Privileges, to drive out of their Territories the Arragonois, the Routiers, the Coteraux, and the other Heretics, to exclude the Jews from all manner of Offices; to Treat as Heretics those who should be Delated to him by the Bishops as such; and to Sign the Articles of Peace which the Legates of the Pope should draw up. The Counts, Barons and Consuls of Avignon and Montpellier took likewise their Oaths, and at last the Count of Toulouse made a Declaration, whereby he engaged himself to maintain the Liberties and Immunities of Churches.  
The Army of the Crusade having no more Contest with the Count of Toulouse, turned its Forces against Beziers where the Albigenses were Fortified. The Town was Besieged, taken, and Burnt, and all the Inhabitants put to the Edge of the Sword. The Count of Beziers who was a Catholic made a Manifesto against the Cruelties offered to his Subjects, and retired to Carcassonne. The Army of the Croisado Besieged it, the Count held it out a long time; but he being taken, the Town was Abandoned and left to the Croisado-Men, who Elected Simon Count of Montfort for their General. He carried on the War, and took a great many Places and Castles, not only from the Heretics, but likewise from other Lords. The King of Arragon was offended at it, and the Count of Toulouse went himself to Rome to p●efer his Complaints to the Pope, and to make his Agreement with him. The Pope promised to do him Justice, and on his part he engaged himself to drive out the Albigenses out of his Territories. When this Count was upon his Return, there was a Treaty of Peace set on foot between him and the Count of Montfort. They met at Narbonne with the King of Arragon who was the Mediator of the Peace. The Abbot of Cisteaux proposed to the Count of Toulouse, the Extirpating of all the Heretics who were in his Territories; promising to Restore to him all his Towns and Castles, if he would do it. Proposals were likewise made of making a Peace with the Count of Foix, and of Restoring to him all his Castles except Pamiez. This Peace was not Concluded, and the Count of Toulouse still persisting to secure the Albigenses, and to make War for the recovering of his Territories; was Excommunicated by the Pope's Legate, who caused War to be Proclaimed against him as well as against the Count of Foix, by Simon of Montfort, to whom they gave the Pillage of these two Princes. The Count of Montfort immediately drew out the Army of the Croisado into the Field, took from the Counts of Toulouse and Foix part of their Dominions, and forced them to shut themselves up in Towns, leaving him Master of the Field. Hitherto the King of Arragon had stood Neuter; but now declared himself for the Count of Toulouse, and being come to that City he proposed to the Archbishop of Narbonne, the Re-establishment of the Counts of Toulouse, of Comminges, of Foix and of Bern, offering in behalf of the Count of Toulouse, to give the Church Satisfaction for all the Wrongs which he might have been the Cause of, and in case they would not grant this Favour to the Father; he desired it for the Son: He likewise desired, That they would Restore to the Counts of Foix, Comminges and Bern, who were not Heretics, the Lands and Castles which the Croisado-Men had taken away from them, upon Condition, That they would give the Church Satisfaction. The King of Arragon having given in those Proposals in Writing to the Prelates, met in the Year 1213, at Lavaur: They replied, That as to the Count of Toulouse, he had no farther Favour to expect; and for the rest, it was requisite, that before they demanded Justice of the Church, they should give it Satisfaction, and get themselves Absolved, and that afterwards they should have Justice done them. The King of Arragon perceiving, that they had rejected his Proposals, required a Truce to be made till Pentecost, with a Design of retarding the Progress of the Crusade, and when they would not grant him that, he Appealed to the Pope, informed him of the Proposals which he had made, and sent him the Submissions of the Count of Toulouse, Foix, Comminges, and Bern. The Prelates Protested against this Appeal: Yet the Pope seemed to have some regard for it, and at first appeared favourable to the Demands of the King of Arragon; but the Deputies of the Council and of Simon of Montfort being Arrived at Rome, and having given him their Instructions, he declared himself entirely in favour of the Croisado, and Wrote about it to the King of Arragon. That Prince being incensed at this Repulse, Raised an Army of 100000 Men, and being joined with the Counts of Toulouse, Comminges and Foix, laid Siege to a Place near Toulouse, named Muret, in which the Count of Montfort had placed a Garrison. The latter having thrown himself into the Place with a Thousand or 1200 Men, made so Vigorous a Sally on the Besiegers, that he Defeated and cut them in pieces. The King of Arragon lost his Life in the Engagement. This Defeat was followed by the surrendering of the City of Toulouse, and the Conquest of a great part of Languedoc and Provence. In the Year 1215, the Pope in pursuance of a Decree of the Council of Montpellier granted to the Count of Montfort all the Territories of the Count of Toulouse and the others which had been Conquered by the Croisade-Men, but with a Charge, That he receive the Investiture of them from the King, and Pay him the Feodal Rights. The Fourth General Lateran Council Held in November the same Year, having Herd the Counts of Toulouse and Foix, and the Brother of the Count of Montfort, granted to the latter the County of Toulouse, and only reserved to the Son the Lands which he had in Provence, and Four hundred Marks per Annum. At this time Simon of Montfort took upon him the Name of Count of Toulouse, received the Investiture of the County from the King of France, and continued to carry on the War, against the Albigenses and the Men of Toulouse, whilst Saint Dominick and Cardinal Bertrand the Legate to Pope Honorius III. endeavoured by their Missions to Convert the Heretics. In the mean time Raymond Count of Toulouse who had withdrawn himself to Arragon, returned with Forces into his own Country and seized upon the City of Toulouse: Simon of Montfort laid Siege to it immediately, and after he had invested it Seven whole Months, he was killed in a Sally about the end of the Year 1218. His Son Amaury Succeeded him in his Conquests, and was assisted by Philip Augustus' King of France, who sent his Son Lewis and some Forces to his Relief: But that Prince being recalled, the Counts of Toulouse, of Comminges and of Foix retook in a little time what had been taken away from them. Amaury perceiving himself too weak, quitted his Pretensions, and yielded his Rights to Lewis VIII. who had succeeded his Father in the Kingdom of France. Raymond Count of Toulouse being dead, his Son of the same Name succeeded him, who to keep himself in his Estates was for being reconciled to the Pope, to whom he promised entire Submission. Honorius III. Commissioned the Archbishop of Narbonne to make up the Peace, and that Prelate having in the Year 1224, called a Council at Montpellier, he therein took the Oaths of the Count of Toulouse and his Barons, by which they engaged themselves to reduce their Country to the Obedience of the Roman Church, to restore to the ecclesiastics their Revenues, to pay them Fifteen Thousand Marks within Three Years for Damages sustained, to see Justice done upon the Heretics, and to extirpate them out of their Country. In the foregoing Year the Albigenses created an Antipope in Bulgaria and Dalmatia, against whom Conrade Cardinal Bishop of Porto and Legate of the Holy See, held a National Synod of France at Paris. In the Year 1225, Cardinal Romanus held another National Council at Bourges, in which the Count of Toulouse and the Count of Montfort appeared and maintained the Rights and Pretensions which each had to the County of Toulouse. After they had been heard, Cardinal Romanus had a private Debate with the Prelates but came to no Conclusion. This Legate had Orders to demand for the Pope the Revenues of Two prebend's in all Cathedral Churches, two Places in the Abbeys, and one Prebend in the other Churches. He would likewise appoint Proctors to receive those Revenues, and Four Abbots to be Visitors of all Monasteries of France. But the Prelates resolutely opposed this Project, and declared boldly that they would never suffer such an Oppression. The next Year the same Cardinal held a National Council at Paris, wherein he Excommunicated Raymond Count of Toulouse, and gave his Demeans to Lewis King of France and his Successors, to whom Amaury yielded his Pretensions. The King and Lords immediately took the Cross from the Hands of the Legate, who caused the Crusade to be Preached up throughout the whole Kingdom. The King Marched at the Head of the Croisade-Men, took Avignon and became Master of all Provence. The Count of Foix submitted to the King and the Pope, but he kept not his Word, and was again Excommunicated with Count Raymond, the Tolosians, and Trinavel Viscount of Beziers in the Council of Narbonne Held 1227. At last in the Year 1228. Raymond Count of Toulouse was obliged to submit to to King Lewis and the Pope, and to make a Treaty with them upon what Terms they pleased. It was begun at Meaux, and ended at Paris in the Presence of Cardinal Romanus the Pope's Legate and of the Lords of the Land. The Count promised the Legate and the King, That for the future he would be Faithful to the Church and to the King of France: That he would Extirpate the Heretics and their Favourers out of his Territories; that he would set up the Inquisition in them: That he would pay a certain Sum to those who should Detect an Heretic; that he would take care to Punish the Routiers: That he would maintain the Persons and the Privileges of ecclesiastics: That he would cause the Sentences of Excommunication to be duly Executed: That he would shun the Excommunicate, and oblige them to Re-enter into the Bosom of the Church: That he would set up Judges unsuspected of Heresy: That he would restore to Churches and Churchmen all the Estates which belonged to them before the Croisado; that he would cause the Tithes to be paid to the Churches: That he would give Seventeen Thousand Marks for the Damages done to the Churches, of which Ten Thousand should be distributed by the Direction of the Legate, Four Thousand to the Abbeys of Cisteaux, Clairvaux, Grand-Selve, and Candeil, Six Thousand to Fortify the Castle of Narbonne, and the others which shall be put into the King's Hands, Four Thousand to Found an University at Toulouse: That after he had received Absolution, he would take the Cross from the Hands of the Legate, and departed within two Years to make War against the Saracens for Five Years: That he would give his Daughter in Marriage to the King's Brother, upon Condition, That after the Death of the Count, the City of Toulouse and the Diocese thereof should belong to that Prince, and that in case he should Die without Heirs, that Country should be annexed to the Crown, and no other Children or Heirs of Count Raymond to make any Pretensions thereto: That they would likewise leave him the Dioceses of Again and Cahors, and part of that of Albi, but that the King shall retain the City of Albi, and what is on the other side the River Tarn towards Carcassonne: That he would do Homage to the King for the Territories left him, and that he would quit all his Pretences to the Country on this side the Rhone; That he would stand by what had been done by the Count of Montfort; that he would make War against the Count of Foix and the other Enemies of the Roman Church; that he would demolish the Fortifications of the City of Toulouse and Thirty other Castles; that for a Guarantee of this Treaty he would put into the King's Hands the Castle of Narbonne, and several others, which the King should detain for Ten Years, and keep at the Charges of the Count This Treaty was Concluded at Paris on April 18. 1228. Afterwards the Count and those of his Retinue, who had been Excommunicated went into the Church of Notredame at Paris on Good Friday barefoot in a Sheet to receive Absolution from the Legate. This done the Count remained Prisoner at Paris, till the Conditions of the Treaty were performed. About the Feast of Pentecost the King sent him into his own Country, whither the Legate accompanied him, and held a Council at Toulouse in the Year 1229. wherein he set up the Inquisition, and made several Orders for the Extirpation of Heretics. Count Raymond was not at first so violent against the Albigenses, for which the Pope's Legate upbraided him in the Year 1232, in an Assembly held at Melun, where he was resolved that this Count should make Laws against them according to the Instructions of the Archbishop of Toulouse, and of a Lord who should be Nominated by the King. The Archbishop drew up the Heads, according to which the Count in the Year 1233, made a very large Declaration against the Heretics which he Published at Toulouse on the 14th of February. This last B●●w put an end to the Contest of the Albigenses, who were afterwards left to the Inquisitors who totally destroyed the Unhappy Remainder of those Heretics.  
This Sect being (as has been already observed) composed of several other particular Sects, 'tis hard 
The Errors of the Albigenses.  to determine what Errors were common to all the Sect, and what were only taught by particular Sects. The following are such as are charged upon them by Alanus Monk of Cisteaux, and Peter Monk of Vaux de Cornay, who wrote against them at that time. They accuse them (1.) Of owning Two Principles or Two Creators, the one Good, and the other Bad; the former, the Creator of Invisible and Spiritual things, the latter, the Creator of Bodies and the Tutor of the Old Testament. (2.) Of admitting Two Christ's, the one Bad, who appeared upon Earth; and the other Good, who never lived in this World▪ (3.) Of denying the Resurrection of the Flesh, and of believing that our Souls are Demons, confined to our Bodies for the Punishment of their Sins. (4.) Of Condemning all the Sacraments of the Church, Of rejecting Baptism as useless, Of Abominating the Eucharist, Of Practising neither Confession nor Penance, and of believing Marriage to be Unlawful. (5.) Of Ridiculing Purgatory, the Prayers for the Dead, Images, Crucifi●…s, and the other Ceremonies of the Church. These are the Heads to which the Principal Errors charged upon the Albigenses may be reduced. As to their way of Living▪ There were two sorts of People among them, the Perfect, and the Believers; the Perfect boasted of living Continently, did neither Eat Flesh, nor Eggs, nor Cheese, abhorred Lying, and never Swore. The Believers lived as other Men, and were as Irregular in their Manners, but were persuaded, That they were saved by the Faith of the Perfect, and that none of those who received the Imposition of their Hands were Damned.  
Luke Bishop of Tuy in Spain has Composed a Work against the Albigenses divided into Three Parts, 
The Treatise of Luke of Tuy, against the Albigenses.  In the First, he refutes their Errors about the Intercession of Saints, Purgatory, the Prayers for the Dead, the State of departed Souls, by Passages taken out of the Dialogues of Saint Gregory and Saint Isidore. In the Second, he refutes their Errors about the Sacraments and Sacramental things, Benedictions, Sacrifices, the Authority of the Holy Fathers, the Worship of the Cross and Images. In the third Part, he detects the Fallacies which the Heretics were guilty of, whether in denying of Truths, or by dissembling their Sentiments, or by spreading of Fables and setting up false Miracles, or in imposing on the Church, or in corrupting the Writings of the Catholic Doctors, or by affecting to suffer with Constancy.  
Among all the Sects which started up during the Thirteenth Century, there was none more detestable 
The Stading.  than that of the Stading, which shewed itself by the Outrages and Cruelties which it exer●…s'd in Germany 1●30, against the Catholics, and especially against the Churchmen. Those Impious Persons Honoured Lucifer, and inveighed against God himself, believing, That He had unjustly Condemned that Angel to Darkness, that one Day he would be re-established, and they should be ●●ved with him. Whereupon they Taught, That till that time it was not requisite to do any thing that ●as pleasing to God, but the quite contrary. They were persuaded that the Devil appeared in their Assembly. They therein committed Infamous things and uttered strange Blasphemies. 'Tis said, that ●…er they had received the Eucharist at Easter from the Hands of the Priest, they kept it in their ●ouths without swallowing it to throw it into the Jakes. Those Heretics spread themselves in the bishopric of Br●●ne and in the Frontiers of Fri●●land and Saxony, and getting to a Head Massacred the ecclesiastics and Monks, Pillaged the Churches, and committed a World of Disorders. Pope Gregory IX. excited the Bishops and Lords of those Countries to make War against them, in order to extirpate ●●at Wicked Race. The Archbishop of Br●…, the Duke of Brabant and the Count of Holland having raised Forces Marched in the Year 1234, to Engage them. They made a vigorous Defence, but were at last Defeated and cut to pieces, Six thousand were Killed upon the spot; the rest Perished after several ways, and they were all Routed; so that there were but a few left who were Converted and returned to their Obedience the next Year.  
In the Year 1248, during the heat of the Contests between the Emperor Frederick II. and Pope In●●cent 
The Schismatics of Germany.  IU. there risen up several People in Germany, who under Pretence of defending the Emperor's ●●terest, set upon Preaching, That the Pope was an Heretic; That all the Bishops were Heretical and Simoniacal; That all the Priests being in Mortal Sin had no longer the Power of Binding and Un●●ding, nor of Consecrating the Eucharist; That they were Seducers; That neither the Pope nor the ●●shops, nor any Man alive had the Power of Interdicting Divine Service, and that those who did it ●ere Heretics and Deceivers; That the Franc●scans and Dominicans Perverted the Church by their 〈◊〉 Preach, and that the Life which they ●…d was Unlawful; That none but them Preached the 〈◊〉, or lived according to the Gospel. After they had Preached those Maxims, they declared to 〈◊〉 Auditors, That they would give them Indulgences, not such as the Pope or Bishop's pretended 〈◊〉 Grant, but an Indulgence which comes from God himself, and by our Order. These Preachers 〈◊〉 more harm than good to the Interest of Frederick and Conrade; for they were the occasion that ●…y Catholics abandoned Conrade, which was in part the cause of his Ruin.  
The Sect of the Flagellantes or Whippers in its rise was only the effect of an Indiscreet and Immode●… 
The Flagellantes or Whippers.  Zeal, but had fatal Consequences. It began at Perusa about the Year 1260. When a great many 〈◊〉 of all Ages Marched in Procession two and too with naked Bodies, Whipping themselves pub●…y till the Blood came, to implore the Mercy of God. These Processions were preceded by Priest's 〈◊〉 carried the Cross, and consisted of Men of all sorts of Quality and Age. The Women and Maid exercised the ●ame Rigour upon themselves at Home. At first these Instances of Penance were attended with Reconcilations, Restitutions, and Works of Charity. This Custom afterwards prevailed not only in other Towns of Italy, but likewise in Germany: And as Men are always inclinable to set a Value on their Performances, some of those Whippers Preached, That one could not obtain Remission of one's Sins without thus Whipping one's self, and to obtain it they should Confess their Sins to one another. The Prelates and Princes foreseeing the Abuses and Disorders which might ensue on this New institution, opposed it, and put a stop to this Superstition for some time. But it revived with more Fury and Disorder in the next Century, especially in Hungary and Germany, where there was an Impostor who gave out, That an Angel had brought him a Letter from Heaven, which Promised those who would Whip themselves for Thirty four Days together, the Pardon of all their Sins. They admitted none into their Society, but such as had wherewithal to Live, obliged them to Confess their Sins, and Pardon their Enemies before their Admission, and required if they were Married, that they should obtain the consent of their Wives. They at last carried themselves to such great Extravagancies. That they raised Seditions, Massacred the Jews, Rifled the Estates of Laics, and committed a great many other Crimes. King Philip de Valois hindered them from coming into his Kingdom by the advice of the Doctors of the Sorbonne of Paris, who remonstrated to him, That the Practice of this New Sect was contrary to the Law of God, contrary to the Customs of the Church, and prejudicial to the Salvation of Souls. They likewise acquainted Pope Clement VI of it, who Condemned that Sect, and Prohibited those kinds of Public Whip, and the rather, because several of those Wh●ppers supported by Priests and incensed Monks, Broached Opinions contrary to the Doctrine of the Church, saying, That the Blood which they shed in Whipping themselves was mixed with the Blood of Jesus Christ, and Advanced several other as Extravagant Errors: This is what is observed, by the Continuato● of William de Nangis on the Year 1349, wherein that Sect renewed its Extravagancies upon the account of a great Mortality which raged on the Earth. Gerson has likewise Composed a Treatise against these Whippers, of which we shall speak in its proper Place.   

CHAP. X.  
Ecclesiastical Observations on the Thirteenth Century.  
THere were in ●his Century two sorts of Errors against Religion, and the Church had two so●… 
The Heresies and Errors raised in the Thirteenth Century.  Adversaries to struggle with, The first were those Notorious Heretics, who subverted th●… damentals of the Christian Religion, by openly oppugning the Authority, the Sacraments, the 〈◊〉 moneys. and the Discipline of the Church. The others were the rash Divines, who desirous 〈◊〉 stinguis● themselves by maintaining nice and new Notions, Advanced such Propositions as were 〈◊〉 mo●s, Rash, Erroneous, and contrary to the Tradition of the Church, and the Faith of Jesus 〈◊〉 The Pope and the Prelates (perceiving that the former contemned the Spiritual Power, and th●… communication and the other Ecclesiastical Penalties, were so far from reducing them, that th●… dread them more insolent, and put them upon using Violence) were of opinion, That it was 〈◊〉 to make use of Force, to see whether those who were not reclaimed out of a sense of their Sa●… 
The Inquisition is Established.  might be so by the fear of Punishments, and even of Temporal Death. There had been already 〈◊〉 ral Instances of Heretics Condemned to Fines, to Banishments, to Punishments, and even to D●… self, but there had never yet been any War Proclaimed against them, nor any Croisado Preached 〈◊〉 the Extirpation of them. Innocent III. was the first that Proclaimed such a War against the Alb●… and W●●lenses, and against Raymond Count of Toulouse their Protector. War might subdue the H●… and reduce who●e Bodies of People; but it was not capable of altering the Sentiments of particul●… Persons, or of hindering them from Teaching their Doctrines secretly. Whereupon the Pope thoug●… it adv●sable to se● up a Tribunal of such Persons whose Business should be to make Inquiry after Heretics, and to draw up their Processes. For this purpose he made choice of the Dominican and Franc●… Friars who were newly Established, to whom he gave Commission to make an exact Inquiry af●… Heretics, and to draw up Informations against them: And from hence this Tribunal was ca●… The INQUISITION. By degrees the Authority of those Inqusitors increased, and whereas a●… first they only drew up the Process of Heretics and solicited the ordinary Judges to Condemn th●… they afterwards had the Power granted them of Trying the Crime of Heresy conjunctly with the 〈◊〉 s●ops. The Emperor Frederick II. approved of this Tribunal, took the Inquisitors into his Protecti●… and attributed to the ecclesiastics the taking Cognizance of the Crime of Heresy; leaving only 〈◊〉 the Secular Judges, the Power of inflicting the Punishment of Death on those who were Condemn●… This Tribunal of the INQUISITION was at first set up at Toulouse, and in the other City's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Hersy of the Albigenses and Waldenses had the deepest Rooting. The Po●… likewise set it up in Italy, from whence it passed a long time after into Spain; but it was banished Fra●… and could never be introduced into Germany.  
As to the Rash Divines who advanced Errors contrary to Sound Doctrine, no more proper Me●… 
The Original 〈◊〉 Censures.  could 〈◊〉 found out to put a stop to their Progress, than to cause them to be Censured by other 〈◊〉 vines; to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them to be Retracted by those who had Advanced them, and to hinder them fr●…●eing ●aught the Schools. This was the Original of the Censures of the Faculties, which bega●… 〈◊〉 in use in th●t Century, but became very frequent in the succeeding Centuries.  
The Academies or Universities. which were already Established, in this Century were reduced to 
The History of the University of Paris.  a Form, and there were several newly Established: Among the rest, that of Paris, which had begun to be Formed in the foregoing Century, became Powerful and Famous, upon the Account of the great number of Scholars who flocked thither from all Parts, and of the Masters with which it furnished all Europe. In its first rise it was composed of Artists who Taught the Sciences and Philosophy; and of Divines, who made Commentaries on Peter Lombard's Book of Sentences, and Explained the Holy Scriptures. There is mention only made of these two Faculties in the Constitutions made in the Year 1215, by the Cardinal of Saint Stephen Legate of Innocent III. and in the Act of Donation made to the Jacobines in the Year 1217. Those Monks and the Franciscan Friars were soon after joined to the Secular Divines, and afterwards the Bernardines. The Faculties of Law and Physic were a short time after made Part of the University. There is mention made of that of the Law in the Reform of the University by Gregory IX. and of all Four in the Letter which the University Wrote in the Year 1253, to all the Prelates of the Kingdom against the Jacobines, wherein it compares the Four Faculties to the Four Rivers of the Garden of Eden. At first the University was Composed only of Scholars and Masters, and there were no particular Ceremonies used for the acquiring of that Degree: The time which they had spent in their Studies. and their Capacity alone conferred it on them. Afterwards they distinguished several Degrees, and fixed the time they ought to Study, or Learn to acquire them. Gregory IX. seems to be the first who distinguished the Degrees of Bachelor, Licentiate, and Master or Doctor. They were the Bachelors who Taught Publicly: They began by Reading and Explaining the Holy Scriptures, and afterwards Composed Treatises on the Master of the Sentences. The former were called Biblici, and the latter Sententiarij. They bore the Name of Bacillarij, or Baca●●rij à Bacillà, either because they were admitted by giving them a little Wand, or because they so called the Novices of the Militia, who Exercised with Sticks in order to Learn to Fight with Arms. The Bachelors were often exercised in Disputes, of which the Masters and Doctors were Moderators. This was the Original of School-Acts. When they had completed the time prescribed for their Studies, and their Courses, they were Licentiated by the Chancellor of the Church of Paris, and were afterwards Admitted Masters or Doctors. The Chancellor of Genevieve pretended likewise to the ●ame Right, and enjoyed it for some time; but these Chancellors could only give Degrees to such as had went through the Course of their Studies in the Faculties, and passed the usual Examinations. So that John of Orleans Chancellor of Paris in the Year 1271, having attempted by Virtue of his own Authority to give a Doctor of Divinity's Cap to Ferdinand the King of Arragon's Son, tho' his Quality might have seemed to have a Privilege of Dispensing with the usual Laws; yet the University opposed it, and deprived the Chancellor of the Right of Licentiating and Nominated another in his ●…ead. This was the cause of a Trial between the University and the Church of Paris, which did last till the Death of the Chancellor. When the Chancellors would have exacted Duties for granting of Licenses, they were hindered from it by several Orders. The first Divinity-Schools were in the Cloister of Notredame, at Saint Genevieve, and at Saint Victor. Afterwards there were more in several other Places, and several Colleges were Founded, where they held Public Lectures. In the time of William of Saint Amour about the middle of this Century, there were Twelve Divinity-Professorships, Three in the Cloister of Notredame, Seven among the Secular Doctors, and Two of the Dominicans: The other Monks increased the Number of them. The Sciences and Philosophy were Taught in several Schools by Masters; the Head of those Masters is called in the Edict of King Philip the Fair of 1200, Capital Scholarium, and afterwards had the Quality of Rector of the University. The Scholars and Masters were divided into Four Classes, who had their Proctors or Syndicks.  
The Authority of the Popes was as great in this Century as the last. The difference of the Princes 
The Authority of the Popes.  of Germany in the Election of the Emperor, gave them an opportunity of maintaining their Right over the Empire, and of strengthening their Temporal Power in Italy. The Collection and Publication of the Decretals gave the last Blow towards the entire Ruin of the Ancient Law, and the Establishing the absolute and unlimited Power of the Pope, and were the cause of a world of Processes, which were brought before the Court of Rome.  
The Election of Bishops belonged to the Chapters, and those of Abbots or Abbesses to the Societies 
Of Elections and Collations of Benefices.  in Italy, France, England, and Germany. The prebend's of Cathedrals were likewise bestowed by the Election of the Chapter, sometimes by the Bishop, and sometimes by both. But the Popes made use of several methods to get to themselves the Disposal of Benefices, as Favours in Expectance, as Reserves Process upon Elections, Compromising between the Contending Parties, and lastly by the Right of Lapsing. This Right was established to supply the Negligence of the ordinary Collators, in case they did not present to the Benefices within a set time, or in case those whom they should have Presented became unworthy or incapable. In these Cases the Right devolved to the Metropolitan or the Pope. Clement iv reserving to himself all the Benefices Vacant in Curiâ, declared in his Bull Dated 1266. That the Disposal of all Benefices belonged of Right to the Pope. The Princes were maintained by the Decretal of the Council of Lions in the Royalties they were in Possession of, and enjoyed not only the Revenues of Vacant Churches, but had likewise the Presentation of those Benefices which depended on them.  
In this Century was introduced the Commendam's of Benefices, and the distinction between Benefices with the Cure of Souls and simple Benefices. Pluralities were very common, but yet Condemned by several Canons, and by the Decision of the Divines of Paris in the Year 1238. The Age of those who were Promoted to Holy Orders was fixed: A Sub-Deacon to be Eighteen Years Old, a Deacon Twenty, and a Priest Twenty five: Several Canons were made about their Habits, and their External Duties. The Jurisdiction, Privileges, and Immunities of the Clergy were stretched to the utmost Degree. However they were charged with Supplies by the Princes for the Necessity of the State, and by the Popes with Imposts for the Croisadoes, or under other Pretences.  
There is scarce any thing Remarkable in this Century about the Administration of the Sacraments and the Discipline of the Church, besides what relates to the Right of Confessing and granting Absolution. 
The Contests between the Clergy and the Mendicant Friars about Confession.  The Canon called Omnis utriusque sexus of the General Lateran Council, Held in the Year 1215, under Innocent III. Orders all the Faithful to Confess themselves to their proper Curate or Pastor, or if they would Confess themselves to another, to get leave of their proper Priest; because otherwise they could not be Absolved. This Canon is Confirmed and Explained to mean the Curate by several Provincial Councils of this Century, such as the 13th. Canon of the Council of Toulouse 1229, by the 46th. of the Council of Beziers 1260, by the 4th. of the Council of Sens 1269, by the 19th. 20th. and 21st. of the Council of Arles 1275, by the 8th. of the Synod of Cologne, 1280, by the 7th. and 9th. of the Council of Lambeth 1281. by the Synod of Nismes 1284, by the 5th. Canon of the Synod of Exeter 1287, by the 6th. of the Council of Rouen 1299, and by the 108th. of the Council of Bayeux in the Year 1300. Notwithstanding the Mendicant Friars presuming upon the Privileges granted them by the Pope, pretended to have a Right of Confessing and giving Absolution to the Faithful without ask the leave not only of the Curates, but of the Bishops themselves▪ Gregory IX. was the first who gave leave to the Dominicans to Preach and hear Confessions by his Bull Dated at Anagnia, September the 26th. 1227, directed to all Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and other Prelates of Christendom. The Dominicans desirous to make use of this Privilege, and to Confess not only without leave of the Curates, but also of the Bishops; raised the whole Body of the Secular Clergy against them. Innocent IU. maintained them in their Privilege by his Bull Dated May 14. 1244. Directed to the Bishops of England, where this Dispute was then highest. But those Prelates insisting on the Canon of the Fourth General Lateran Council, rejected that Privilege, and the Divines of Paris being Consulted with upon that Subject in the Year 1250, returned for Answer, That it was not Lawful to Confess one's self to the Pope himself, nor to the Bishop, nor to their Penitentiaries nor to those whom they should Commission, without the consent of the Curate. Innocent IU. tired with the continual Complaints of the Ordinaries, and concerned at the Abuses which were occasioned by that Privilege which the Monks pretended to have of Confessing the Faithful without the leave of their Curates; prohibited the Monks according to the Determination of the Lateran Council, from Confessing the Faithful without their Curates leave. This Bull is Dated at Naples November the 21st. 1254. But Alexander iv Repealed it by his Institute Dated likewise at Naples December 22. the same Year, and by another Dated October the 21st. 1256. He Confirms the Privilege granted to the Monks of Confessing without the leave of the Curates; which was likewise Regulated by another Bull granted about the 2d. of October the Year ensuing against the Propositions of Odo of Douai and Christian of Beauvais, who together with William of Saint Amour had asserted, That the Monks might not Preach, Confess, or give Absolution without the consent of the Curates and Ordinaries, tho' they had a Mission from the Pope. Clement IU. likewise Condemned that Doctrine by his Bull of the 20th. of June 1265. Notwithstanding the Synod of Clermont in the Year 1263, and the Provincial Council of Saltzburgh in the Year 1274, Ordered the Execution of the Canon, called Omnis Utriusque Sexus, and declared, That the proper Priest was the Curate. This last Council entirely Repealed the Permissions of Preaching and Confessing granted to the Mendicants. Martin IU. willing to silence the Contest, granted to the Monks by his Bull of the 10th. of January 1282, the Permission of Confessing, upon Condition however, That those who Confessed themselves to them, should Confess themselves once a Year to their proper Curate. This Accommodation was seconded by the Council of Bourges in the Year 1286. But there arose another Difficulty; for the Bishops and Curates pretended, That those who were Confessed to the Monks were obliged to Confess the same Sins to their Curates. The Monks maintained the contrary, and pretended, That the Precept was Obeyed by making a Confession once a Year of some Sins to the Curate. It was necessary to have recourse to the Holy See to get its Sense on this Matter, and in the mean time it was determined, That it was necessary to Confess to the Curates. The Clergy of France sent Deputies to Pope Nicholas IU. But he would not Decide this Controversy. Boniface VIII. undertook it in his Decretal Super Cathedram, whereby he Ordered, That the Superiors of the Religious Houses should make their Application to the Prelates, and ask their leave to Administer the Sacrament of Penance for the Friars which they should make choice of to Employ in this Ministry; that if they grant it them, they may Confess and give Absolution; and if they refuse it, he would grant it to them by the Plenitude of his Power; after they should come to demand it of him. Benedict XI. altered something of this Constitution by his Decretal called inter Cunctos, and expressly declared, That those who were Confessed to the Monks were not obliged to Confess the same Sins to their Curate, excepting Excommunication, or in Case one was fraudulently Confessed. He likewise orders, That the Superiors of the Monks shall demand this Licence in Writing of the Diocesan Bishops, and that if they do not grant it, they may Administer this Sacrament without Licence: Yet he exhorts them to Admonish the Faithful to Confess all their Sins once a Year to their proper Curate. This Decretal of Benedict was afterwards Repealed by Clement V in the Council of Vienna, by the Clementine called Dudum, which re-establishes the Practice enjoined in the Decretal Super Cathedram of Boniface VIII.  
The Original, Confirmation, and Progress of the Mendicant Friars is one of the great Events of 
The Institutions of several Religious Orders.  this Century. The Waldenses gave occasion for this Institution; for as they made Profession of Renouncing all their Worldly Goods, of leading a Life of Poverty, of being constant in Prayer, in Reading the Scriptures, and in Preaching, and of Practising in the literal Sense the Advices of the Gospel; so there were several Zealous Catholics who would Imitate them. Two New Converts of that Sect, Bernard and Durand of Osca were the first who made Profession of this sort of Life, and Instituted in the Province of Tarragon a Congregation which they called the Poor Catholics, in opposition 
The Poor Catholics.  to the Poor of Lions. They Practised the Advices of the Gospel in the Literal Sense, gave all their Goods to the Poor, Studied the Holy Scriptures, Worked with their Hands, Disputed against the Heretics, attended the Prayers, preserved their Chastity, Lived in Common, Paid the Tithes and Offerings, but affected nothing of singularity in their Shoes, that they might not give that Scandal 
The Humbled or Humilies.  which the Poor of Lions did. Innocent III. Approved of that Order, and Confirmed the Order of the Humbled or Humilies, who Lived much after the same manner, and applied themselves to Preaching. There were at the same time a great many Zealous Persons who would have set up New Orders of Monks, so that the Lateran Council in the Year 1215, was obliged to restrain the Inventing of new Rules, or Establishing of new Orders of the Religious. Notwithstanding a little after, the Principal Orders of the Mendicants were Established, and afterwards Approved by the Popes. For the same Year Dominick de Gusman, who had Preached a long time against the Albigenses, took up a Resolution, with Nine more of his Companions, to Establish the Order of Preaching Friars. 
The Order of the Preaching Friars.  He went to wait upon Pope Innocent III. to obtain the Confirmation of it. That Pope made a scruple of granting it to him, because of the Prohibition of the Lateran Council; but being admonished (if the Historians of that Order may be Credited) by an Heavenly Vision of the Good which the Order of Saint Dominick would do to the Church, he commended his Design, advised him, That he might not contradict the Decree of the Council, to take the Rule of Saint Augustine, and sent him to Toulouse to acquaint his Companions of it; which he did, and returned afterwards to Rome. Whilst these Transactions passed Innocent Died, and Honorius III. Approved of that Order; and in the Year 1218, consented, That those Monks should quit the Habit of Regular Canons, which they hitherto Wore, and take up a particular Habit, and observe new Constitutions. They were at first Established at Toulouse, and a little after spread over all Christendom. In the Year 1217, they had a Monastery at Paris, which was at first between the Archbishop's Seat, and L'Hôtel Dieu, and the same Year in the House of Saint James, from whence they were called Jacobines. In the first times, before they had altered any thing of the Rule of Saint Augustine they had Abbots, as the Regular Canons, but afterwards they Created to themselves a General over all the Order and Priors or Superiors. Saint Dominick Founded also Nuns of his Order.  
The Order of Minor or Franciscan Friars had been Instituted some time before in the Year 1208, by 
The Minor or Franciscan Friars.  Francis of Assissy, who had drawn up a new Rule: It was Approved in the Year 1215, by Innocent III. and Confirmed by Honorius III. in the Year 1223. They increased in a short time, and in the Year 1216, were Established in Pari●, where they had their House given them in the Year 1218. and in the Year 1219, they went over to England.  
The Institution of the Hermits of Saint Augustine is not so well known. Some carry it so high as 
The Augustine Friars.  Saint Augustine, but without grounds; others make William Duke of Aquitaine to be the Author of it, who Lived in Saint Bernard's time, and who being returned from his Journey to Jerusalem Founded in Italy several Monasteries of Hermits, who were called Williamites, and not Augustine's, This Order which was almost extinct, was revived by John Bon of Mantua, who Founded in Italy several Monasteries of Hermits, who were called the Friars of John Bon, or Zambonites. He Founded likewise several other Orders of Hermits, of which some called themselves Friars of the Order of Fabala, others Britini, the others, the Friars of the Penitence of Jesus Christ, or Saccites. Innocent had a Design of Uniting all these Orders into One, and it was Executed by his Successor Alexander IU. who made one Conventual of them under a General, and called them the Hermits of Saint Augustine, tho' he had drawn them from their Hermitages to Live in Towns, and to Employ them in the Affairs of the Church.  
The Order of Carmelites which had been Founded about the Year 1121, received a Rule the 
The Carmelites.  Year 1199, from Albert Patriarch of Jerusalem, which was Approved by Honorius III. They came into the West in the Year 1238, Founded a Conventual, and spread there. Their Rule was afterwards Explained and moderated by Innocent iv in 1245.  
Besides these Four Orders of Mendicants, there were a great many other Religious Congregations 
The Order of the Redemption of Captives. The Sylvestrines.  Founded in this Century; such as the Order of the Holy Trinity, or of the Redemption of Captives, Founded in the Year 1211, by John of Matha, of Provence Doctor of Paris, and by Felix an Hermit of Valois, and Approved by Innocent III. Three Years after. The Order of Sylvestrines, who followed the Rule of Saint Benedict, Founded in the Year 1231, at Montefano by Sylvester Guzolini, who from a Canon, became an Hermit, and drew a great many into his Society. The Order of Saint Mary of 
The Order of St. Mary of Mercy.  Mercy, Founded by Peter Nolascus at Barcelona in the Year 1223, under the Authority of James I. King of Arragon, and by the Advice of Raymond of Pennafort, and Approved by Gregory IX. in the Year 1235. The Order of Servites, which began at Florence in the Year 1233, was Approved by Alexander IU. and Benedict XI. The Order of Celestines, Founded by Peter of Moron, who afterwards was Pope 
The Servites. The Celestins.  under the Name of Celestin V and solemnly Approved of his Order by a Bull Dated August 28. in the Year 1294, which was Confirmed by Benedict IX. in the Year 1304. The Order of the Valley of Scholars, 
The Order of the Valley of Scholars.  Founded in France by William, Richard, Everard and Manasses, Doctors of Divinity in Paris, and by Frederick Doctor of Law, who retired into the Diocese of Langres in the Year 1219, with Thirty seven Scholars, who followed the Rule of the Regular Canons of Saint Victor, and had some particular Constitutions, which are to be met with in the Eighth Tome of the Spicilegium by Father Luke Dachery: This Order was Approved by Honorius III. in the Year 1218. There were many other Orders, whose Number grew so great, that Gregory X. was obliged in the General Council of Lions Held 1274, to prohibit the Founding of new Ones, to abolish all that had been Founded since the Fourth General Lateran Council, without the Approbation of the Holy See, and even to order, That the Monasteries of such as had been Confirmed by the Pope, but had not wherewith to subsist, should Admit no more Novices, nor make any more Progress. However he excepts the Dominican and Franciscan Friars, and as to the Carmelites and the Augustine Hermit's, whose Institution he said, had preceded the General Lateran Council of the Year 1215, he orders, That they should remain in the same State wherein they were till the Holy See should provide otherwise. Notwithstanding this Prohibition, about the latter end of this Century, there risen up the Frerots, Begards, Beguines, and other sorts of Religious, who were suppressed in the next Century.  
The End of the History of the Thirteenth Century.   

A Chronological TABLE For the Thirteenth CENTURY.  
A. C. Popes. Eastern Emperors. Western Emperors and Kings. Ecclesiastical Affairs. Councils. Ecclesiastical Writers. 1200 Innocent III. III. 
Alexius Angelus Reigns at Constantinop. having turned his Brother Isaac Angelus out of the Throne.  
VI John Comatera Patriarch of Constantinople.  
The Empire disputed between Philip Brother of the Emperor Henry VI who was Crowned at Mentz, by the Archbishop of Tarentaise, and Otho D. of Saxony, Crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle, by Adolphus Archbishop of Cologne.  
Philip had the most apparent Right, whose Years we shall reckon.  
III. Philip Augustus' King of France the ●…h year of his Reign.  
John Without Land, King of England the 1st year of his Reign.  
Alphonso VIII. King of Castille the 42d year of his Reign.  
Alphonso King of Leon, the 12th year of his Reign.  
Peter II. King of Arragon.  
Alphonso II. King of Portugal.   The Council of London. 
Abbot Joachim dies about this year.  
Bernard Bishop of France.  
John Beleth.  
Peter Chanter of the Church of Paris.  
Dodochin Abbot of St. Disibede.  
Albertus' Patriarch of Jerusalem.  
Hervard Archdeacon of Liege.  
Robert de Corceon, Cardinal.  
These all Flourished at this time.  
Peter of Corbeil is made Archbishop of Sens.  
Alanus of Lisle Flourished from the Beginning to the End of this Century.  
Simon of Tournay teacheth at Paris.  1201 IU. VII. iv The Pope sends a Legate into Germany to support the Interest of Otho.  The Council of Soissons held in April, wherein Philip Augustus retook his first Wife. 
Nicholas of Otrantes is sent to Constantinople and writes against the Greeks.  
Absalon Abbot of Spinkerbac.  
Andrea's Silvius Abbot of Marchiennes.  1202 V. VIII. V The Death of William Abbot of Roschilda.  
Tagenon Dean of Pavia.  
Anonimous Author of the History of Frederic's Expedition.  
William the Pilgrim.  
Walter of Coûtances' Archbishop of Rouen.  
Richard Canon of London.  
Nicolas Archbishop of Thessalonica.  1203 VI. Constantinople taken by the French and Venetians, who drive out the Emperor Alexius Angelus, and take out of Prison the old Isaac Angelus, whom they reseated on the Throne with his Son Alexis, who is Crowned Aug. 1. The Constantinopoli●…s dissatisfied with them, Proclaim Nicetas Co●…abas Emperor. VI   
Stephen of Stella Nova.  
John de Nusco Flourished.  1204 VII. 
Al●…us Angelus falls upon the Latins, by the Advice of Murzulphus.  
They Besiege t●… City. Murzulphus Seizes on Connabas, ●rids himself of Alex●…s; and continues the War.  
Murzulphus Flies.  
Theodorus Lascaris, Son in Law to Alexius Angelus, i● 〈◊〉 up in his place by the Greeks.  
Constantinople is taken by the Latins, April 12. who choose for Emperor Baldwin Count of Flanders, and become Masters of the Dominions of the Greek Empire in Europe. The Greek Princes maintain those of Asia, where they set up several Sovereignty's. Theodorus Lascaris sets up the See of his Empire at Nice in Bythinia Michael of the Family of the Comneni Seizes on part of Epirus; David on Heraclea, Pontus and Paphlagonia; and Alexius his Brother on the City of Trebizonde; where he set up an Empire, which was always distinct from that of Constantinople.  
Thomas Morosini is elected Parriarch of Constantinople by the Latins,  
I. Bal●…in Emperor.  VII. Philip Crowned King of Germany a second time by A●…phus Archbishop of Cologne. 
The Bulgarians are reunited to the Roman Church.  
The Emperor Baldwin writes to the Pope about the taking of Constantinople.  
Co●… Archbishop of Mentz being dead, King Philip caused Diepold; or Lupoldus Bishop of Worms to be Elected in his stead by some Canons.  
〈◊〉 is Elected by the Majority, his Election confirmed by the Pope, and that of Lupoldus rejected.   
Nicetas Ac●minates compiles his History.  
Baldwin Count of Flanders, writes his Letter about the taking of Constantinople.  
Gi●…ert Martin quits the Abbey of Gemblours, and retires into the Monastery of Villiers.  1205 VIII. II. Baldwin is taken 〈◊〉 15. near ●…ple by the, Bulgarians, who p●… him to a C●… Death, after r●…s Imprisonment. VIII. Adolphus Archbishop of Cologne is deposed by the Pope's Legate, for having Crowned Philip of Swabia, and Bruno put into his Place.  
Geoffrey of Ville-hardovin and Gonthier wrote against this time.  
Lambert of Liege, Monk of Duitz.  
Helinand Monk of Froimond.  
Anonimous Author of the Life of St. William of Roschilda, Flourished.  
Albertus Magnus Born.  1206 IX. 〈◊〉 th●… Brother of B●… is Elected Emperor of Constantinople. I. IX. Otho is besieged in Cologne by Philip, is forced out of the Place, and defeated: He escapes to Saxony, and from thence goes over to England to beg Assistance. Cologne surrenders, and Archbishop Bruno made Prisoner. Stephen of Langton in●…ts the Kingdom of England, because the King would not own him Archbishop of Canterbury; which yet he was obliged to do afterwards. The Council of Lambeth in England. 
Stephen of Langton Elected Archbishop of Canterbury.  
The Death of Nicecetas Acominates. His Brother Michael Ar. Bishop of Athens makes his Panegyric.  
Joel Composes his Chronology.  
Roger Bacon Born.  1207 X. II. The Death of John Comatora Patriarch of Constantinople. X. Peace concluded at Northusa, between Philip and Otho. The Empire to remain to Philip, and his Daughter is promised in Marriage to Otho, who is declared his Successor. 
The Inquisition and Croisades against the Albigenses.  
Adolphus Archbp. of Cologne Absolved by the Legates of the Pope, in the Assembly of Northu●…a; and Bruno set at Liberty.  
A Council held in the Province of Narbonne against the Albigenses.  
The Assembly of Northusa held in the Christ-mas holidays.  
William of Segnelay made Bishop of Auxerre.  
Gautier of Coutances' Archbishop of Rouen, dies Nou. 16.  1208 XI. 
III. Theodotus Lascaris causes a Patriarch of Constantinople Residing at Nice to be Elected.  
Michael Autorianus is the first.  
Philip killed at Bamberg Jun. 1. by Otho of Wil●●pach.  
Otho Duke of Saxony is Elected at Francfort King of Germany in his place. I.  
Bruno causes Adolphus to be deposed from the Archbishopric of Cologne, and takes possession of it again.  
Sifroy takes possession of the Archbishopric of Mentz, after he had turned out Lupoldus, who enjoyed it till Philip's Death.  
The Institution of the Order of St. Francis.  The Assembly of Paris, wherein Gallo Cardinal Legate in France drew up several Orders. Roderick Ximenes Advanced to the Archbishopric of Toledo. 1209 XI. iv 
II. Otho Crowned Emperor by Pope. Innocent III. October 4.  
An Insurrection of the Peo. of Rome against Otho.  
The Memory of Ainaury condemned in the Council of Paris, his Bones dug up and cast into the Common Sewer. Several of his Disciples condemned also in that Council, and afterwards burnt.  
The Metaphysics and Physics of Aristotle, newly brought from Constantinople, and transtated into Latin, are condemned to be burnt by the same Council, which forbids the reading them under pain of Excommunication.  
An Assembly of Wurtzburgh, wherein the Pope's Legates approved of the Marriage to be contracted between Otho the Emperor and Philip's Daughter.  
The Council of Montilly against Raymond Count of Toulouse.  
The Council of Avignon, Sept. 6.  
The Council of Paris.   1210 XIII. V III. Otho Revenges himself of the Romans by Acts of Hostility, which obliged the Pope to Excommunicate him, and to declare him divested of the Empire in a Council ussembled at Rome.  The Council of Rome against the Emperor Otho. 
The Death of Gilbert Martin about this Year.  
Arnold Abbot of Lubec Writes his Chronicon.  
Vermerus Abbot of St. Blaise. Peter de Vaux de Cernay. William of Puilaurent. Gervais of Tilbury. Gautier Mapes. Gilbert. Alanus. John Gall. Bernard of Compostella.  
These all Flourished.  1211 XIV. VI Frederick II. Elected King of Germany. I. 
The Pope causes the Sentence of Excommunication against the Emperor Otho to be Published in Germany by Sifroy Archbishop of Mentz.  
The Institution of the Order of the Trinity, or of the Redemption of Captives by John of Matha Dr. of Paris, and by Felix Hermit of Valois, approved by the Pope three Years after.  The Assembly of Nuremberg, held about Pentecost, Wherein the Emperor Otho declared War against the Count of Thuringa, who had given shelter to the Archbishop of Mentz. Wilbrand of Oldemburgh writes his Itenery of the Holy Land. 1211 XV. VII. II. Frederick goes into Germany, where he is very well received and makes great Progress against Otho.  The Council of Paris. Robert of Marian finishes his Chronicon. 1213 XVI. VIII. III. Peter of Arragon, killed September 10. His Son James I. Succeeds him.  The Council of Lavaur against the Count of Toulouse and the Albigenses. 
John of Oxford.  
John of Fordeham.  
Jocelin of Frakelonde.  
John Grace.  
Adam of Barkingen.  
Hugh le Blanc, Flourished.  1214 XVII. IX. 
iv Frederick Crowned Emperor at Aix-la-Chapelle. Otho is entirely routed July 15. at Bouvines by Philip Augustus' King of France.  
Alphonso King of Castille dies Octob. 〈◊〉. His Son Henry Succeeds him.     1215 XVIII. X. Theodorus Irenicus Coppas nominated Patriarch of Constantinople by the Greeks. V Simon Count of Montfort General of the Crusade against the Albigenses, takes upon him the Name of Count of Toulouse; that County being granted to him by the Council of Montpellier and the Pope. 
The Decree of the Council of Montpellier, which grants to Simon General of the Crusade against the Albigenses, all the Territories of Raimond Count of Toulouse, Favourer of those Heretics, with a Charge of receiving the Investiture of them from the King of France. The Pope confirmed this Decree, yet reserving to the Count's Son some Demeans in Provence, and 400 Marks a Year.  
The Pope's Legate, in reforming the University of Paris, confirms the Prohibition of Reading Aristotle's Works; but permitted the Teaching of his Logicks.  
The Pope approves of the Order of Minor Friars, which began this Year to be founded at Paris.  
The Institution of the Order of St. Dominick.  
The Council of Montpellier, the beginning of this Year.  
The Fourth General Lateran Council held in November.  
Alexander Neckam is made Abbot of Exeter.  
Conrade of Lichtenau is likewise made Abbot of Ursperg.  
St. Francis of Ass●sy.  
William Deacon of Bourges then Flourished.  1216 XIX. Innocent III. dies July 16. two days after, Honorius III is Elected in his stead. I. 
XI. Henry Emperor of Constantinople dies June 10.  
Peter of Courtnay Count of A●xerre, who had married his Daughter Jolanta is Elected in his stead. I.  
VI The Death of the Emperor Otho.  
John King of England dies Oct. 17. He●●y III. his Son Succeeds him.   The Council of Melun. Anonymous Author of a Collection of the Decretals of Innocent III. 1217 II. II. Peter of Courtnay Crowned Emperor of Constantinople by Pope Honorius III. in the Suburbs of Rome April 18. He is taken in his Journey to Constantinople, by Theodorus Comnena Prince of Epirus. His Wife Jolanta governs the Empire three Years. VII. Henry of Castille dies, leaving his Sis●er Berengaria Queen of Leon his Heiress, who gave the Kingdom to her Son Ferdinand, who Succeeded his Father Alphonso in the Kingdom of Leon. 
The Dominicans are founded in Paris in the House of S. James, from whence they were called Jacobines.  
The Foundation of the Order of the Valley of Scholars in the Diocese of Langres, approved by the Pope the Year ensuing.   Matthew Paris enters into the Monastery of St. Alban. 1218 III. I. Theodorus Comnena Prince of Epirus renounces the Schism of the Greeks, and is reunited to the Latin Church. VIII. Simon of Montfort General of the Crusade against the Albigenses, having laid Siege to Toulouse, was killed in a Salley: His Son Amaury Succeeds him in his Conquests. The Franciscans obtain an House in Paris, in which they are Established.  Ramond of Pemafort enters into the Order of Franciscans. 1219 IU. II. IX. The Franciscans go from France to establish themselves in England.  Maurice made Bishop of Mans. 1220 V. III. Maximus made Patriarch of Constantinople at Nice. X. Frederick Crowned Emperor at Rome by Pope Honorius III.   William of Segnelay is translated to the Bishopric of Paris. Jourdain enters into the Order of the Dominicans. Ricerus the Companion of S. Francis. S. Anthony of Milan. Henry of Kalva Abbot of Richenou. Conrade Prior of Schur. Eckethard Dean of S. Gal. William Monk of S. Denis. These Flourished at this time. 1221 VI. 
Robert Son of Peter of Courtnay declared Emperor of Constantinople.  
I. Manuel Charitopulus succeeds Maximus in the Patriarchship of Constantinople.  XI. Frederick falls out with the Pope who Excommunicates him.   
Albertus Magnus enters into the Order of the Dominicans.  
S. Bonaventure born.  
Radulphus Niger.  
Alexander of Somerset.  
Conrade Monk of Schur.  
These Flourished at this time.  1222 VII. II. Theodore Lascaris being dead, John Dieas his Son in Law Succeeds him. XII. The Emperor Frederick causes his Son to be Elected King of Germany, in an Assembly held at Wurtzburgh, & to be Crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle. An Impostor who called himself the Christ, and showed marks in his Hands, Feet and Side, as the Scars of the Wounds upon the Cross; is condemned in a Council at Oxford, and afterwards burnt. 
The Assembly of Wurtzburgh.  
The Council of Oxford.  
Jourdain made second General of the Dominicans.  
Alexander of Hales enters into the Order of the Franciscans.  
The Death of Peter of Corbeil, Archbp. of Sens.  1223 VIII. III. The Birth of Theodorus Lascaris Surnamed Ducas. XIII. Philip Augustus dies July 25. and his Son Lewis VIII. succeeds him in the Kingdom of France. 
The Pope confirms the Order of Franciscans.  
The Foundation of the Order of S. Mary of Mercia by S. Peter Nolascus, at Barcelona, under the protection of James I. King of Arragon, and by the Advice of Raymond of Pemafort.  The Council of Paris against the Albigenses. 
Gautier Cornu is made Archbishop of Sens.  
The Death of William of Segnelay Bp. of Paris.  1224 IX. iv 
XIV. The Death of Alphonso King of Portugal, his Son Sancho succeeds him. His Brother Alphonso is declared Governor.  
Raymond Count of Toulouse dying, his Son of the same Name succeeds him, submits to the Church of Rome, and makes his Peace in the Council of Montpellier.   The Council of Montpellier held in August, for the Reconciling of the Count of Toulouse to the Church of Rome. 
The Birth of S. Thomas Aquinas.  
Rigord Historiographer of France.  
William the Breton, Flourished.  1225 X. V XV. Cardinal Romanus Legate, of the Holy See, demands for the Pope in the Council of Bourges the Revenue of 2 prebend's in all the Cathedrals, 2 Places in the Abbeys, and o●e Prebend in each Church of the Kingdom, and the Power of nominating 4 Abbots to visit all the Monasteries of France. But the Council opposed it. 
The Council of Bourges, Nou. 30. against the Albigenses, and concerning the Contests betw. the Count of Toulouse and the Count of Montfort, wherein nothing was concluded.  
The Council of Mentz held Dec. 10.  
John Algrain of Abbeville is made Archbishop of Besancon.  
Humbert de Romans enters into the Order of the Dominicans.  
Prepositivus flourished.  1226 XI. VI Germanus II. Surnamed Nauplius Elected Patriarch of Constantinop. at Nice after the Death of Manuel Charitopulus. XVI. Lewis VIII. K. of France dies the beginning of Nou. Lewis IX. called St. Lewis succeeds him at Eleven Years and a half Old under the Tutelage of Queen Blanch his Mother. Raymond Count of Toulouse is Excommucated in the Council of Paris, and his Dominions given to Lewis King of France, to whom Amaury Count of Montfort had surrendered his Title. 
The Council of Paris held Jan. 18. against the Albigenses.  
The Edict of Lewis VIII. K. of France against the Excommunicated.  
Caesareus of Heisterbac writes the Life of S. Engelbert Archbp. of Cologne, and Homilies on the Sundays and Festivals of the Year.  
The Death of Francis of Assisy.  1227 Pope Honorius dies April 18. and two days after Gregory IX is Elected. VII. XVII. Pope Gregory IX renews the Sentence of Excommunication issued by his Predecessor against the Emperor Frederick, because he did not go into Syria with the Crusade. Frederick orders four Manifestoes against the Popes and Cardinals to be Published. Raymond Count of Toulouse is afresh Excommunicated with the Men of Toulouse, and Trincavel Count of Beziers in the Council of Narbonne. The Decree of the same Council which orders, that the Feast of S. Mathias shall always be Celebrated in Leap-year, on the latter of the two Bissextile days. The Bull of Pope Gregory, Sept. 26. which gives leave to the Dominicans to Preach and Hear Confessions. But those Monks using this Privilege without the Consent of the Bishops and Curates, raised the Secular Clergy against them. 
The Assembly of Aix-la-Chapelle, wherein the Expedition of the Emperor and the Crusade to the Holy Land is resolved upon.  
The Council of Narbonne held in Lent.  
The Death of Alexander Neckam.  
The Death of Helinand.  
John Algrain made Cardinal.  
Hugh of St. Marian Flourished.  1228 II. VIII. Robert Emperor of Constantinople dies. His Brother Baldwin II. Succeeds him. 
XVIII. Frederick goes into Syria.  
The Pope in his Absence seizes on a great many Towns of Apulia.   The Assembly of Paris in Apr. wherein Raymond Count of Toulouse makes his Accommodation with the Pope and King Lewis, and receives Absolution. 
The Death of Stephen of Langton.  
William Elected Bp. of Paris.  1229 III. I. Theodore Comnena being become Master of Thessalonica, and having assumed the Title of Emperor of Constantinople, is Excommunicated by the Pope. XIX. Frederick makes a Treaty with the Sultan, and causes himself to be Crowned King of Jerusalem. He returns into Italy, & retakes the Towns which had been taken from him in his Absence. The University of Paris, not able to have Justice done them for the Death of some of their Scholars, killed by Soldiers, retired some to Rheims, and some to Angers. The Dominicans took advantage of their Absence, and procured Degrees for themselves and leave to Teach; which was the Cause of the Contests which they afterwards had with the University. The Council of Toulouse against the Albigenses. 
Benet made Bishop of Marscilles.  
Conrade of Lichtenau finishes his Chronicon.  1230 IU. II. 
XX. Frederick is Absolved by the Pope, and reconciled to him at Anagnia.  
The Death of Alphonso King of Leon. He leaves his Kingdom to his two Daughters: But his Son Ferdinand who was already King of Castille, Siesed upon it.  Stadings, A New Sect of Heretics in Germany.  
Fabian Hugelin.  
Conrade of Everbach.  
John Gal Abbot of Fontenelle.  
Albertus' Prior of Mount de Vignes.  
Hugh of Floreff. Conrade of Marpurg. Philip of Grev●, Cardinal James of Vitry. Adam of Chanilly made Bishop of Senlis. Pantaleon Deacon of the Church of Constantinople, writes against the Greeks. Peter de Vignes makes a Discourse about the Deposing of Frederick against the Pope and Cardinals.  1231 V. III. XXI. Frederick distrusting his Son Henry, banishes him to Sicily. Pope Gregory renews the Prohibition of Reading Aristotle's Works, but only till they were Corrected. The Council of Chateva-gonthier. 
Maurice Bishop of Man's is Translated to the Archbishopric of Rouen.  
The Death of S. 〈◊〉 thony of Milan.  1232 VI. iv XXII.  The Council of Melun. Albertus' Monk of Stada is made Abbot of his Monastery. 1233 VII. The Pope writes to Germanus Patriarch of Consta●tinople about the Reunion of the two Churches, and sends Legates to treat with him. V XXIII. 
The Institution of the Order of Servites at Florence.  
The University of Paris is reestablished, and Reformed by the Order of the Holy See. It afterwards made an Order to hinder the Regulars from having any more than one Divinity-Professorship in Paris.  
Statutes of Raymond Count of Toulouse against the Albigenses, ordered by the Council of Melun the Year before, and Published February 14. of this Year.  
The Council of Beziers.  
The Council of Nymphea in Bythinia, held the morrow after Easter, for the Reunion of the two Churches, but they came to no Conclusion.  Maurice Archbishop of Rouen, interdicts his Diocese, and dies the Year after. 1234 VIII. VI XXIV. The Stadings Heretics of Germany getting to an head against the Catholics are Defeated and Cut to pieces by the Forces of the Archbp. of Breme, Duke of Brabant, and of the Count of Holland, who entirely extirpated that Sect. The Council of Arles, July 10. 
William Abbot of Andreas finishes his Chronicon.  
Edmund Rich is made Archbishop of C●●terbury.  1235 IX. VII. 
XXV. The War of Frederick in Lombardy. His Son Henry joins with the Cities of Lombardy against him.  
Frederick causes him to be Apprehended and Deposed, and Banished him to Apulia, where he died in Prison the Year after.  The Pope approves of the Order of Mercy. The Council of Narbonne held about this Year. 
Robert Grostest is Elected Bishop of Lincoln.  
Alexander of Hales.  
John of Rochel.  
Thomas of Celano.  
Two Anonymous Authors of the the Lives of Herman the Blessed, and of St. Anthony of Milan, Flourished at that time.  1236 X. VIII. XXVI. Conrade the Second Son of Frederick is Elected King of Germany after the Death of his Brother Henry. Albertus' Abbot of Stada endeavours to no purpose to bring in the Reformation of Citeaux into his Monastery, by Virtue of Pope Gregory's Bull. The Council of Tours. 
Albertus Magnus is made Vicar General of his Order.  
Luke Bishop of Tuy finishes his Chronicon.  
John Algrin dies.  
Jordain dies about this Year.  1237 XI. IX. Baldwin comes to desire Supplies in the West against Batarzes the Emperor of the Greeks. XXVII. Frederick goes into Italy where he retakes almost all the Towns of Lombardy.  The Council of London, November 19 
Godfrey of S. Pantaleon finishes his Chronicon.  
Gregory of Caerguent enters into the Monastery of Gloucester.  1238 XII. X. XXVIII. Frederick is Excommunicated and Deposed by the Pope, who offers the Empire to Robert Brother of S. Lewis K. of France, who refuses it. 
The Divines of Paris by a Decision condemn the Plurality of Benefices.  
Several Carmelites come from the East to the West, where they set up a Convent.  The Council of Cognac the Monday after the Octave of Easter. Raymond of Pennafort made General of his Order. 1239 XIII. XI. 
XXIX. The War between the Gu●… and Gibelins, who lay Italy waste.  
Frederick is repulsed before Rome.  
The League of the Pope against the Emperor.   The Council of Tours. 
Gerard Monk of S. Quentin at Lisle Flourishes.  
Walter Cornu, Archbp, of Sens, and Bernard Bishop of Annecy, went by the Order of King S. Lewis to receive the Crown of Thorns of our Saviour, which that Prince had redeemed from the Venetians to whom Baldwin II. Emperor of Constant●… 〈◊〉 pawned it.  1240 XIV. A Council appointed at Rome against the Emperor by the Pope. XII. XXX. 
William of A●●rgne Bishop of Paris condemns ten Propositions advanced by the Professors of the Mendicant Friars.  
William Professor of the Order of Franciscans is obliged to retract two Propositions which he had advanced about freewill and Freegrace.   Edmund Rich Archbp. of Canterbury retires into the Monastery of Fontigny in France Raymond of Pennasort quits his Generalship. Albertus' Abbot of Stada goes into the Order of Franciscans. Richard of S. Laurence. Moneta Flourished. William d' Auvergne Bishop of Paris dies, Conrade of Litchtenau dies. 1241 XV. Gregory IX. dies Sept. 30 Celestin IU. who is Elected in his room survives but 18 days after his Election. The Holy See is Vacant for 19 Months or thereabouts. XIII. XXXI. The Prelates who went to the Council appointed to be held at Rome are aprehended and taken Prisoners. Frederick takes a Castle of Campania, where there were several of Pope Gregory's Relations whom he caused to be hanged.   
S. Thomas enters into the Order of the Dominicans.  
Alberick Monk of Citeaux finishes his Chronicon.  
Walter Cornis Archbishop of Sens dies.  1242  XIV. XXXII.  The Council of Laval. 
Edmund Rich goes from the Monastery of Pontigny to the House of the Regular Canons of Soisy.  
George Pachymera born.  1243 〈…〉 iv is 〈…〉 ●ope on the Feast of S. John Baptist, and Consecrated at Anagnia on the Festival of St. Peter and Paul. I. XV. The Death of 〈◊〉 Nau●lius Patriarch 〈◊〉 Constantinople. XXXIII.    1244 II. XVI. Methodius is made Patriarch of the Greeks at Nice, and dying within there months' 〈◊〉 succeeds him. XXXIV. The 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 iv May 14 which 〈◊〉 the Dominicans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Privilege of Preaching and Confessing.  James of Vitry dies. St. Thomas Aquinas comes to Paris, from whence he went afterwards to Cologne, to study there under Albertus Magnus. 1245 III. Innocent iv retires to France, and appoints a Council at Lions. XVII. XXXV. Frederick is excommunicated and Deposed in the Council of Lions. The Rule of the Order of the Carmelites is explained and moderated by the Pope. The first General Council of Lions. 
Roderick Ximenes dies.  
Alexander of H●les dies.  
〈◊〉 of S. Cherseoli made Cardinal.  
Vincent of Beauvais enters upon his Work. Peter de Vignes is deputed on the behalf of the Emperor Frederick at the Council of Lions.  1246 IU. XVIII. XXXVI. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Elected 〈…〉 〈◊〉 are of 〈◊〉 King of Germany o● 〈◊〉.  The Council of Beziers. 
Bartholomew of Bresse.  
Godfrey of Bald.  
William Monk of S. Martin at Tournay.  
Giles Monk of Orval.  
〈◊〉 of Compostella Flourished.  
Peter of Vines accused of Disloyalty, has his Eyes put out and Imprisoned at Capua.  
The Death of Edmund Rich who is Canonised the next Ye●●.  1247 V. XIX. XXXVII. 〈◊〉 of Thuringen being dead, 〈◊〉 Count of 〈◊〉 i● Elected in his 〈◊〉.   O●● Rigaud is made Archbishop of R●●. 1248 VI. XX. XXXVIII. William, 〈◊〉 〈…〉 ●… and is there Crowned. 〈…〉 departs from France to 〈…〉 War against the Saracens. The ●…matical 〈…〉 of Germany. The Council of Valence in Dauphiny held the Saturday after the Festival of St. Andrew.  1249 VII. XXI. 〈◊〉.   Peter of Vignes dies. 1250 VIII. XXII. 
〈◊〉. The Emperor Frederick dies, who leaves his 〈…〉 to 〈◊〉 Son Conrade.  
The Pope confirms the Empire to William Count of Holland, and declares him Sovereign of Sici●●.  
St. Lewis is de●●ated in Egypt, and taken Prisoner by the Saracens.  
The Determination of the Divines of Paris; which imports, That 'tis not lawful 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one's self to any ●erson whatever without the consent of the Curate.  
The University of 〈◊〉 causes its Public Lectures to cease, because of several 〈◊〉 committed against the Scholars, for which it could not get Justice done. The Dominicans not regarding this Prohibition, nor conforming themselves to the Statutes of the University, it was no sooner re-established, but by a Decree it Expelled those Monks.   
John of Parma made General of the Dominicans.  
Conrade Coadjutor of Mentz gins his Chronicon.  
David of Augsburgh.  
Albericus Verus.  
Walter Bishop of Poitiers.  
R●ger Historiographer of Hungary.  
Constantine of Orvie●a.  
〈◊〉 Abbot of 〈◊〉.  
Rrtaqo Rich. Robert Bacon. John de Dieu. John Christophilus. William Perauld. Alber●anus, Flourished. Adam of Chamilly, Bishop of Senlis dies.  1251 IX. XXIII. I. Conrade goes into Ap●dia and take● Possession of the Kingdom of Sicily.   St. Gertruda made Abbess of Rodaledorf. 1252 X. XXIV. II. The Death of Ferdinand K. of L●●n and Castille, Jun. 1. His Son Alp●…o Succeeds him. The Foundation of the College of Sorbonne, by Robert of Sorbonne.  S. Gertruda is translated with her Nuns to Helfre●den. 1253 XI. XXV. III. The Circular Letter of the University of Paris to all the Prelates of the Kingdom to engage them to stand by it against the Dominicans. The Council of Saumur held in December. Robert Grostest Bp. of Lincoln dies. 1254 XII. XXVI. iv Conrade dies May 22. being Poisoned by his Natural Son Mainfroy. He left his Son Conradin heir to his Dominions. The Pope would have seized upon Sicily, Mainfroy opposes it. Pope Innocent restrains the Pretensions of the Regulars, by his Decreetal of Nou. 21. which prohibits them from performing any Hi●…chical Functions without the leave of the Ordinaries. But this Decretal is repealed by his Successor Alexander, Decemb. 22. following. William of S. Amour Doctor of Paris clears himself before the Bishop of Paris, and in a Sermon which he Preached in the Church of S. Innocents', of the Accusations brought against him by the Dominicans. The Council of Alby. 
Humbert de Romans is made General of his Order. Rainier Sacho Flourishes.  
Bennet Bishop of Marseilles dies.  1255 I. XXVII. John Ducas dies after he had reigned 33 Years. Theodorus Lascaris succeeds him. 
Mainstay defeats the Forces of the Pope and ●…comes Mast●… of Apuli● and Sicily. Al●… IU. in●… Ed●…d the Son of the King of England with that Kingdom.  
Ecelinus' Exercises his Authority over several Towns of Lombardy.  The Bulls of the Pope, One, which order the Reestablishment of the Dominicans in the University of Paris; & the other directed to the Bishops of Orleans and Auxerre for the executing of the former. The 〈◊〉 of the University of Paris to the ●…ite him to revoke his Bull 〈◊〉 re-establishing the Dominicans. 〈…〉 other Bulls of the Pope to the Bps. of Orleans and Auxerre for the Executing of that Bull, which Orders the Reestabishment of the Dominicans i● the University▪ The Execution of those Bulls stopped by the King's, Order. 
The Council of Bourdeaux.  
The Council of Beziers May 8.  
S. Bonadventure and S. Thomas take their Drs. Degree at Paris.  
Hugh of S. Cherseoli is made Cardinal.  
Thomas of Chantpre.  
Giles of Assisy.  
Robert of Sorbonne.  
John Colonna is made A-Bishop of Messina.  
An Anonymous Author of the Life of S. Claire.  1256 II. XXVIII. William Count of Holland Elected King of Germany. Dies in December. 
The Accommodation of March 1. for putting an end to ●…e Contests between the University of Paris and the Dominicans.  
Several Bulls of the Pope against this Accommodation, and against several Members of the University supposed to be the Authors of it. One of those Bulls, dated October 21. confirms the Privilege granted to the Monks of Confessing without the Curates leave.  
William of S. Amour is again dela●ed by the Dominicans to the Bishops met at Paris, who could not adjust their Difference.  
The Book called, The Everlasting Gospel, is condemned by the Pope to be burnt, and those who maintain its Doctrine pr●scrib'd.  The Assembly of Paris about the Differences between the University of Paris and the Dominicans. 
S. Bonadventure Elected General of his Order. Vincent of Beauvais dies.  
Albertus' a Franciscan finishes his Chronicon.  
Nicephorus Blemmida writes abt. the Procession of the H. Ghost.  1257 III. XXIX. Arsenius Auto●… is elected 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 by the Greeks. 
The Electors of the Empire being divided one Part chose Richard the K. of England's Brother for Emperor, at Francf●rt in January▪ and the others i● Le●t chose Alphonso King of Castille.  
〈◊〉 II. King of Portugal dying, his Brother Alphonso III Succeeds him.  William of S. Amour, Odo of Douai, and Christian of Beauvais, Doctors of Paris, having maintained, that the Monks could not Preach, Confess or give Absolution without the Consent of the Curates and Ordinaries, tho' they had received the Pope's Mission; This Doctrine is condemned by a Bull of Alexander dated October 2.   1258 IU. XXX.   
The Council of Ruffec held in April.  
The Council of Montpellier, Sept. 6.  
Henry of Susa is made Archbp. of Ambr●….  
William of Bresse advanced to the Archbishopric of Sens.  
Bartholomew of Bresse dies.  1259 V. XXXI. Th●…orus L●●c●ris dies, lea●ing his Son Jo●● about Six years old, under the Tuition of A●…ius Patriarch of Constantinople, and George Muzalon. But M●… Palaeologus, who by Mother's side descended from Alexis Com●●na Usurps the Gover●…, and causes himself to be declared Regent.  The Pope does so much by his Bulls against the Secular Members of the University, that he at last obliged most of them to reunite themselves to the Medicant Friars.  Matthew Paris ●…nishes his History 〈…〉 dies this Year. 1260 VI. XXXII. M●… Pal●… is made Colleague of the Empire▪ He causes Arsenius 〈…〉 Deposed, and 〈◊〉 Ni●… of E●… in his ●…. Eceline dies. 
The Joachites or Joachimites, and the 〈◊〉 of the Eternal 〈◊〉, are condemned by the Council of 〈◊〉  
The Sect of the Flagellantes or Whippers gins at Perusa about this time.  
The Council of Cologne.  
The Council of Arles.  
The Council of Cognac.  
John Semeca.  
John Christophil●….  
John de Gailes ●…rish'd.  
Albertus Mag●… made Bishop of ●●tisbon.  
Matthew of Vendome made Abbot of St. Denis.  
An Anonymous Author of the Life of S. Godeberta.  
Cardinal Hugh of S. Cherseoli dies.  
Rainier Sacho dies about this 〈◊〉.  1261 VII. Alexander IU. 〈…〉 24. The Holy See 〈…〉 and 3 Days The Cardinals who proceeded to the Election, not being able to p●●ch on one among themselves; chose Francis Patriarch of Jerusalem, who takes upon him the 〈◊〉 of Urban IU. and is Consecrated Sept. 4. I. 
XXXIII. Michael Palae●…logus retakes Constantinople from the 〈…〉 by the intelligence of the Greeks who were in the 〈◊〉. Th●●●…ed the Empire of the Latins 〈◊〉 Constantinople, after it had lasted 58 Years.  
I. Arsenius is reestablished, and put into Possession of the Patriarchal See of Constantinople by Michael.    The Council of Lambeth held the beginning of May.  1262 II. II. Michael Palae●logus causes the Eyes of John Son of Theodor●… Lascaris to be put out, and ●surps the Empire. Pope Urban Invests Charles Count of Anjou Brother to St. Lewis with the Kingdom of Sicily.  
The Council of Cognac.  
The Council of Bourdeaux.  
Henry of Susa made Cardinal Bp. of O●….  
Annibal of Anneb●●● made Cardinal.  
George Acropolita writes his History.  
Giles of Assisy dies.  1263 III. III.   The Synod of Clermont. 
Humbert de Romans lays down his Generalship and Albertus Magnus his Bishopric of Ratisbonne to retire to Cologne.  
S. Thomas Aquinas retires into Italy.  
The Death of Thomas de Chantpre according to Justus Lipsius  1264 Urban IU. dies at Perusa, Oct. 3. iv  The Festival of the Holy Sacrament instituted by Pope Urban. The Council of Nantes held the the Tuesd. after the Festival of S. Peter & S. Paul.  1265 After a Vacancy of 4 Months, Cardinal Guy, the Gross, born in Provence is Elected Pope, Feb. 5. and Consecrated March 18, under the Name of Clement IU. I. V Charles Count of Anjou goes to Rome, where he is Crowned King of Sicily Jun 28. and made Senator. 
Simon Legate of the Holy See in Reforming the University of Paris, confirms the Rule or Order of the Year 1215, about Aristotle's Books without mentioning the Correction.  
Pope Clement's Bull of June 20, which condemns the Propositions of several Parisian Doctors, contrary to the Privilege of the Regulars, whereby they were empowered to Preach and Confess without the Leave of the Curates and Ordinaries, and confirms that Privilege.    1266 II. VI Arsenius is turned out of the Patriarchship of Constantinople, and Joseph Galesius put into his Place. Mainfroy is defeated and killed in a Battle, Feb. 26. and Charles becomes Master of all Sicily. 
The Bull of Clement iv by which he declares, that the Disposal of all Benefices belongs to him.  
The Pope's Answer to William of S. Amour about his Book.  The Council of Cologn under Archbp. Engelbert, May 10. Gerard of Frachet finishes his Chronicon. 1267 III. VII. Conradin the Son of Conrade marches into Italy with an Army to retake the Kingdom of Sicily. He becomes Master of Tuscany and Romania, and enters Rome, where he is Proclaimed Emperor by the People.  The Council of Vienna in Austria May the 10th. 
William of Bresse lays down the Archbishopric of Sens.  
The Death of John Semeca.  1268 
IU. Clement IU. dies Oct. 29.  
The Holy See lies Vacant for two Years, nine Months, and two Days.  VIII. Conradin is Defeated and taken Prisoner in Aug. by Charles King of Sicily.  
The Council of London held in April.  
The Constitution of St. Lewis King of France in May. The Council of Chauteau-Gonthier held in August.   1269 V. IX. Conradin is put to death October 27.  
The Council of Angers held in June.  
The Council of Sens held in October.  William of Bresse dies Feb. 8. 1270 VI. X. St. Lewis King of France goes again into afric, where he dies August the 25th. Philip the Hardy his Son Succeeds him. 
A Confraternity established at Rome by S. Bonadventure, which gave rise to the Institution of Confraternities in the Church.  
Stephen Templar Bp. of Paris, in December, condemns 13 Propositions taught by several Professors in Philosophy and Divinity of the University of Paris.  
The Council of Compeign held the Monday after Ascension-day.  
The Council of Avignon, July the 15th.  
Gilbert of Tournay.  
Ralph Bocking.  
John Genes of Caille.  
William of Sanvic.  
William Gnarron.  
Godfrey de Beaulieu.  
William of Chartres.  
Thomas Bockingam.  
William of Tripoli.  
William of Rubrock.  1271 The Cardinals after a long Debate on Sept. 1. by way of Compromisal elected Thibald Archdeacon of Liege Native of Placenza, who was then at Ptolemais. XI.   The Council of St. Euentin. 
Peter of Tarentaise is made Archbishop of Lions.  
Gerard of Frachet dies.  
The Cardinal of Ostia dies.  1272 Thibald arrives in ●taly the beginning of January, and is Consecrated at Rome, March the 27. having taken upon him the Name of Gregory X. I. XII.    
Thomas of Lentini made Archbishop of Cosenza, is sent Legate into the East there to Govern the Patriarchship of Jerusalem.  
William of S. Amour dies Sept. 13.  1273 II. XIII. Ralph Count of Habspurgh Elected Emperor in October at Francfurt on the Main, & Crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle. I.  
The Council of Renes held the Monday after Ascension-day.  
The Assembly of Francfurt for the Election of Ralph to the Empire.  
William of Rishanger finishes his Continuation of Matthew Paris.  
George Pachymeres writes.  
Robert of Sorbonne dies.  1274 III. XIV. Joseph retires into a Monastery▪ Veccus is Elected soon after in his Place. II. 
Gregory X. caused the Council of Lions to approve of the Institution of the Conclave for the Election of the Popes.  
The Reunion of the Greek with the Latin Church confirmed in the Council of Lions. The Permission of Preaching and Confessing granted to the Mendicant Friars, is revoked by the Council of Saltzburgh.  
The Second General Council of Lions.  
The Assembly at Nurembergh, where Radulphus or Ralph is recognised Emperor by all the Princes of Germany except Ottogar K. of Bohemia, who would not be there. The Council of Saltzburgh.  
S. Thomas dies Mar. 7.  
S. Bonadventure is made Cardinal.  
He dies July the 15.  
George Acropolita Logothetes Swears to the Reunion in the Council of Lions in behalf of the Emperor of Constantinople.  1275 IU. XV. III.  The Council of Arles. 
William Perault dies.  
Odo Rigald dies.  
Raymond of Pennafort dies.  
Thomas Spott and Thomas of Lentini Flourish.  1276 V. Gregory X. dies Jan. 10. Peter of Taren●aise Cardinal Bishop of Ostia is Elected the 21st under the Name of Innocent V After his Death which happened June the 2d. Cardinal Ottobon a Genoese is Elected in his Place July the 12th. and takes upon him the Name of Adrian V He dies at Virerbo Aug. 18. without having been Consecrated. Twenty five days after, Cardinal John Peter the Son of Julian a Portugese is Elected and Consecrated Sept. 15. under the Name of John XXI. XVI. 
iv Radulphus having declared War against Ottogar King of Bohemia, the latter is obliged by the Mediation of the Princes of Germany, to yield to him by a Treaty Austria and the other Provinces which he had seized upon and to take an Oath to him.  
The Death of James I. King of Arragon, his Son Peter III. Succeeds him.   
The Synod of Durham.  
The Council of Saumur held the Monday after the Festival of St. John Baptist.  
The Council of Bourges Sept. 1.   1277 I. John XXI. is crushed by the fall of the Ceiling of the Palace of Viterbo, and dies May the 20th. Novemb. 25. John Cajetan is Elected, and takes the Name of Nicholas ●II. and is Consecrated Decem. 26. XVII. V The Bp. of Paris renews the Censure of several Propositions which he had formerly Condemned, and Condemns several others. The Council of Constantinople. 
Guy de Munoys is made Abbot of S. german at Auxerre.  
Humbert de Romans dies.  
John de Lentini dies about this Year.  1278 I. XVIII. VI  The Council of Langeiss. 
Martinus Polonus made Archbishop of Genes, finishes his Chronicon and dies.  
John Peckam made Archbp. of Canterbury. Roger Bacon accused of being a Conjurer, is condemned by his General.  1279 II. XIX. VII. Alphonso III. King of Portugual dies. His Son Denis Succeeds him.  The Council of Ponteaudemer held the Thursd. before Ascension-day. The Council of Avignon, May 17. The Council of Reading held in July. The Council of Buda held in September. The Council of Angers held in October. Roger Bacon is imprisoned by the Pope's Order. 1280 
III. Nicholas dies August 22.  
The Holy See is Vacant six Months.  XX. VIII.  
The Council of Cologn.  
The Synod of Saintes.  
The Synod of Poitiers.  
Albertus' Magnus dies.  
Bonaventure Brocard.  
Mark Paul the Venetian.  
Anonymous Author of the Annals of the Dominicans of Colmar. John de Hayde. William de la Mare. Robert of Russia. Ulrick of Strasburgh. Henry of Gand. S. Gertrude, & S. Mattildis.  1281 Simon de Brie Cardinal of S. Caecilia, is elected Pope Feb. 22. at Viterbo! Consecrated at Orvieto March 23. and takes upon him the Name of Martin iv because of the Office of Treasurer which he formerly had in the Church of S. Martin at Tours. I. XXI. IX.  
The Council of Saltzburgh.  
The Council of Lambeth.  Nicholas de Henaps is made Patriarch of Jerusalem. 1282 II. XXII. 
X. The Sicilian Vespers.  
Peter King of Arragon seizes on Sicily.  
Alphonso King of Castille is dethroned by his Son Sancho.  
Henry III. King of England dies Nou. the 25th. His Son Edward I. Succeeds him.  The Pope's Bull dated Jan. 10. which grants to the Mendicants the Power of Preaching and Confessing, upon Condition, that those who confessed themselves to them, should confess themselves once a Year to their proper Curate according to the Determination of the Fourth General Lateran Council. 
The Council of Avignon.  
The Synod of Saintes held the Easter holidays.  
The Council of Tours held the beginning of August.  George Acropolita dies. 1283 III. 
XXIII. Michael Palaeogus dies. His Son Andronicus Succeeds him.  
The Patriarch Veccus is turned out and Joseph re-established.  XI. The Reunion of the Greeks and Latins is broken after the Death of the Emperor Michael.   1284 IU. 
I. George of Cyprus called Gregory is made Patriarch of Constantinople after the Death of Joseph.  
Veccus is Deposed and Banished.  
XII. Charles K. of Sicily is defeated by the K. of Arragon, and his Son Charles the Cripple is taken Prisoner.  
Alphonso King of Castille dies, his Son Sancho remains in quiet Possession of the Kingdom.   
The Council of Constantinople against the Patriarch Veccus and the Bishops who had maintained the Union of the Greeks and Latins.  
The Synod of Nismes.  
The Synod of Poitiers.  
George Metochites.  
Constantine Meliteniota. George of Cyprus.  
George Moschamper, & Constantine Acropolita Flourish.  
Mark a Greek Monk and Job Jasites writ against Veccus.  
Simon of Crect writes for the Latins.  
Gregory Abulpharaje finishes his History.  
Roger Bacon dies.  1285 Martin IU. dies Mar. 25. Cardinal James Sabëllus is Elected in his place, Apr. 2. and Consecrated at Rome, May 20. under the Name of Honorius IU. I. II. XIII. Charles K. of Sicily dies Jan. 7. his Son Charles the Cripple succeeds him. Philip the Hardy King of France dies Oct. 6. His Son Philip the Fair succeeds him▪ Peter III. K. of Arragon dies Nou. 9 his Son Alphonso succ. him.   
Simon Monk of Afflighem.  
William Prior of the same Monastery.  
Henry Monk of the same.  
Alexander de Dol or of Ville de Dieu.  
Engelhard Abbot of Lanckaim.  1286 II. III. XIV.  
The Council of Ravenna held July 8.  
The Council of Bourges Sept. 17.  
William Durant is made Bishop of Menda.  
Matthew of Vendome dies.  1287 
Honorius IU. dies on April 3.  
The Holy See vacant till April of the next year  IU. XV. Charles the Cripple is set at Liberty.  
The Synod of Exeter held April 16.  
The Council of Wurtzburgh.   1288 Nicholas IU. is Elected Apr. 22. I. V XVI.  The Council of Lisle in Provence. Nicholas of Hanaps dies. 1289 II. VI George of Cyprus Patriarch of Constantinople, dies, Anastasius Succeeds him. XVII. Charles the Cripple causes himself to be Crowned K. of Sicily at Rome May 28. Dangianus K. of Arragon surrenders Sicily to him; but his Bro Frederick contests it with him.  The Synod of Chichester. Thierry of Apolda writes the Life of S. Elizabeth Countess of Thuringa. 1290 III. VII. XVIII.  The Council of Nogarol held in August. 
Conrade of Halberstad makes his Additions to the Concordance of the Bible.  
Gobelinus.  
Egehard Abbot of Urangen. Conrade the Dominican. Stephanard. Ralph of Cologn. Thomas Palmeran. Guy of Baif. Raymond of martin's. Nicholas the Gaul. Egehard Monk of S. Alban. Matthew d'Aqua Sporta and Arlotus General of the Franciscans. Luke of Milan. Richard of Middleton Flourish.  1291 IU. VIII. 
XIX. The Emperor Radulphus dies the last of September.  
Alphonso King of Arragon dies in June. His Son James, Surnamed the Just, Succeeds him.   
The Synod of Saltzburgh.  
The Council of London.  
Gregory of Caerguent finishes his Chro●icon.  
Peter the Dominican.  
Gerard of Liege.  
John Peckam dies.  1292 Nicholas IU. dies on April 4. The Holy See Vacant 2 Years 3 Months and 2 Days. IX. Adolphus Count of Nassaw is Elected Emperor January the 6. I.  The Synod of Chiche●ter. James de Vor●… made Archbishop of Genes. 1293  X. II.   Henry of Gand d●…. 1294 Peter Maron the famous Hermit is Elected Pope the 10th of July, and named Celestine V. Benedict Cajetan persuades him to lay down the Popedom: He does it Decemb. 12. and Cajetan causes himself to be Elected the 24th of the same Month, and takes upon him the Name of Boniface VIII. XI. III. Celestine V renews the Constitution of Gregory X. for keeping the Cardinals locked up in the Conclave till they had Elected a Pope. He approves by a Bull dated Aug. 28. of the Order of the Celestines which he had founded. The Council of Saumur held in October. 
Ptolemey of Lucca writes the Lives of the Popes.  
Baldwin Regular Canon of Premontre Finishes his Chronicon.  1295 I. XII. iv Sancho King of Castille dies, his Son Ferdinand Succeeds.  The Synod of Canterbury.  1296 II. XIII. V   The Death of William Durant. 1297 III. XIV. VI The Frerots Condemned by Boniface.   1298 IU. XV. 
VII. Adolphus is Deposed by the Princes of Germany, and Albert Duke of Austria the Son of the Emperor Radulphus elected in his stead.  
Adolphus is Conquered and killed in Battle. I.   The Synod of Saintes. 
John the Teutonick.  
Garsias. Henry o● Amand Suson.  
Gantier or Walter of Exeter. Francis of Moncade. James de Voragine dies.  1299 V. XVI. II.  The Council of Rouen held the Thursday after the Octave of Whitsuntide.    

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE Ecclesiastical Writers OF THE Thirteenth CENTURY: And of their WORKS.  

JOACHIM, ABbot of Flora: Flourished from the Year 11●1, to the Year 1200: which is thought to be the Year of his ●●ath. 

Genuine Works still extant.  
See the Catalogue of them p. 54.   

Works Lost Ibid.    
BERNARD, Provost of Pavia, and afterwards Bishop of Fayence: Flourished about the beginning of this Century. 

A Gevinne Work, etc.  
A Collection of Decretals.    
JOHN BELETH, Doctor of Paris: Flourished about the same time 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Treatise of the Divine Offices.   

Works Lost.  
Several Sermons.    
PETER, Chanter of Paris: Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Book called, A Word in Short.   

Manuscripts, or Works lost.  
See the Catalogue of them p. 54, 57    
DODECHIN, Abbot of St. Disibode; Flourished about the same ●ime. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The Relation of an Expedition to the Holy Land.  
The Continuation of the Chronology of Marianus Scotus.    
ALBERTUS, Patriarch of Jerusalem; Flourished about the same Time. 

A Genuine Work etc.  
The Rule of the Order of Carmelites.    
HERVARD, Archdeacon of Liege; Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work etc.  
A Letter to a Canon of Laon,    
INNOCENT III. Pope; Elected Idn. 8. 1198. Consecrated and seated in the Papal Chair Feb. 21 1199. Died July. 16. 1216 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Treatise of the Contempt of the World.  
A Treatise of the Mysteries of the Mass.  
A Commentary on the Seven Penitential Psalms.  
Prayers.  
Sermons.  
A Dissertation on the Consecration of the Pope.  
A Treatise of almsgiving.  
A Treatise in praise of Charity.  
Hymns or Pieces of Prose.  
Two Discourses to the General Council of Lateran, and the Acts of that Council.  
The First, Second, part of the Fifth, the Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth. Fifteenth and Sixteenth Books of Letters, with a Collection of Letters about the Affair of the Empire.   

Manuscripts.  
The Third, Fourth, part of the Fifth, the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Books of Letters.   

Works Lost.  
The Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and Nineteenth Books of Letters.    
ROBERT Of Corceon Cardinal; Flourished about the beginning of the Century. 

A Genuine Work still Extant.  
A Body of Divinity.    
ALANUS Of Lisle; Flourished at the University of Paris about that time. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Commentary on the Canticles.  
A Summary of the Art of Preaching.  
A Penitential.  
A Treatise on the Parables.  
A Book of Sentences, or of Memorable Say.  
A Treatise of an Honest Man, in Verse, called, Anticlodianus.  
Nature's complaint against the Sin of Sodomy.  
Four Books against the Albigenses and Waldenses.  
Eleven Sermons.  
Six Books concerning the Wings of the Cherubims.  
Two Pieces of Prose.   

Manuscripts.  
A Body of Divinity, called, Quot Modis, and other Works of which see the Catalogue, p. 57    
SIMON, Priest of Tournay; Flourished about the same time. 

Manuscripts.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 57    
NICHOLAS, Of Otrantes; Flourished about the same time. 

Manuscripts.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 85.    
ABSALON, Abbot of Spinkerbac; Flourished about that time. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Fifty Sermons.    
ANDREA'S SILVIUS, Abbot of Marchiennes; Flourished at the same time. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The History of the merovingian.  
Two Books of the Miracles of Saint Rictruda.    
TAGENON, Dean of Pavia; Flourished about the same time. 

Genuine Works still Extant.  
The History of the Expedition of the Emperor Henry Barbarossa.  
An ●…mus AUTHOR, Who Flourished about the same time.   

Genuine Works, etc.  
Another History of the same Expedition.    
GAUTIER, Of Coutances, Archbishop of Rouen, made Bishop of Lincoln in 1182. Archbishop of Rouen in 1184. Died Nou. 16. 1207. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The Relation of the Expedition of Richard King of England in Palestine.    
WILLIAM, The Pilgrim, and RICHARD, Canon of London; Flourished the beginning of the Century. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The Relations of the Expedition of the same King Richard in Palestine.    
STEPHEN, Monk of Ce●●a Nova in Spain; Flourished the beginning of this Century. 

Manuscripts.  
The Relation of the Miracles of Saint Rodosin, Bishop and Monk.    
JOHN, Of Nusco Monk of Mont-virginiss in the Kingdom of Naples; Flourished about the same time. 

A Manuscript.  
The Life of S. William the Founder of his Order.    
NICETAS, Archbishop of Thessalonica Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
An Answer to the Queries of Monk Basil.   

Manuscripts.  
A Treatise concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost against Hugo Er●erianus.    
NICETAS ACOMINATES CHONIATES LOGOTHETES, Flourished the beginning of the Century; Died in the Year 1206. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
One and Twenty Books of History.  
A Treatise of the Orthodox Faith.    
MICHAEL ACOMINATES CHONIATES, Archbishop of Athens; Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work etc.  
A Panegyric on his Brother Nicetas Choniates.   

Manuscripts.  
Several Sermons.    
JOEL, The Greeks, 〈◊〉 about the same time. 

A Genuine Work etc.  
A Chronological Abridgement.    
GILBERT MARTIN, Abbot of Gemblours, Elected in the Year 1194. lays down the Abbotship in 1204. Died a few Years after. 

Manuscripts, or Works Lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 〈◊〉.    
BALDWIN, Emperor of Constantinople, made so in 1204, taken Prisoner by the Bulgarians, 〈◊〉. 15. 1205. Died 16 Months after. 

A Genuine Work etc.  
A Letter about the taking of Constantinople by the Latins.    
GEOFFREY, Gf Ville-hardovin; Flourished the beginning of the Century. 

A Genuine Work still Extant.  
The Relation of the taking of Constantinople.    
GONTHIER, Monk of Paris, in the Diocese of Basil; Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Relation of the taking of Constantinople.    
PETER, Of Corbeil, Archbishop of Sens, made Bishop of Cambray, in 1200, translated the same Year to the Archbishopric of Sens. Died June 3. 1●●2. 

A Manuscript.  
A Summary of Theology.    
STEPHEN, Of Langton Cardinal; Flourished in the University of Paris, the beginning of the Century: Made Cardinal by Innocent III. afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The History of the Translation of the Body of St. Thomas of Canterbury.  
A Letter to King John.  
Forty eight Statutes.   

Manuscripts.  
Commentaries on the Holy Scripture.  
Several Sermons.    
WILLIAM, Of Segnelay Bishop of Auxerre, Elected in 1207. Translated to the Archbishopric of Paris in 1220. Died in 1223. 

A Genuine Work etc.  
A Body of Divinity.   

A Work Lost.  
A Treatise of the Divine Offices.    
LAMBERT, Of Liege Monk of St. Laurence of Duitz; Flourished the beginning of the Century. 

A Genuine Work etc.  
The Life of Herbert, Archbishop of Cologne.    
An Anony●●ous AUTHOR, Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work etc.  
The Life of St. William Abbot of Roschild.    
WILLIAM, Of Puil Aurent; Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work etc.  
A Chronology of the Albigenses.    
WERNERUS, Abbot of St. Blaise; Flourished about the Year 1210. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Several Postilary Sermons.    
ARNOLD, Abbot of Lubet; Flourished under the Empire of Philip and Otho. 

A Genuine Work etc.  
The Continuation of He●●oldus's Chronology of the Scalvonians    
GERVAIS, Of Tilbury; Flourished about the Year 1210. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Universal History of the West.  
The History of England.    
GAUTIER MAPES, Archdeacon of Oxford; Flourished under the Reigns of Henry II. John and Richard Kings of England. 

Manuscripts.  
Pieces of Poetry against the Irregularities of the ecclesiastics.    
GILBERT, ALANUS, JOHN GALLUS of Volterra, and PETER of Benevento, Flourished about the beginning of the Century. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Collections of the Decretals.    
BERNARD Of Compostella: Flourished the beginning of the Century. 

Genuine Works still Extant.  
A Collection of the Decretals of Innocent III.  
A Commentary or the Decretals.  
A Treatise of Cases on the five Books of Decretals.  
A Collection of the Bulls of the Pope.    
An Anonymous AUTHOR, Who Flourished under Innocent III. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Collection of the Decretals of Innocent III. Writ during and since the General Council of Lateran.    
WILBRAND Of Oldemburg, Canon of Hildesheim: Flourished the beginning of the Century. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Relation of the Expedition to the Holy Land.    
ROBERT, Regular Canon of Premontre, Flourished the beginning of the Century. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Chronology from the beginning of the World, to the Year, 1212.    
JOHN Of Oxford, Dean of Salisbury, Flourished the beginning of the Century. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The History of England.  
The Relation of his Voyage into Sicily.    
JOHN, Abbot of Fordeham, Flourished the beginning of the Century. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The Life of S. Wolfric.  
The Actions of John, King of England.  
The Chronicle of Scotland.    
JOCELIN Of Brakelande, Monk of Uske: Flourished at the same time. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The Chronicle of the Monastery of Uske.  
A Treatise of the Election of Hugh.  
The Life of S. Robert.    
JOHN GREY, Bishop of Norwich: Flourished the beginning of th● Century: Dyed in the year 1216. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
His Chronicle.    
ADAM Of Barkingen, an Englishman: Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
His Chronicle.    
HUGH WHITE, Monk of Peterburgh: Flourished at the same time, 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The History of the Monastery of Peterburgh.  
The Original of the Church of Mercia.    
S. FRANCIS Of Assisy, Born in 1182. Founded his Order in the year 1208. Dyed in the year 1226. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Treatises of Piety.    
WILLIAM, Deacon of the Church of Bourges: Flourished in the beginning of the Century. 

A Manuscript.  
A Treatise against the Jews    
MANUEL CHARITOPULA, Patriarch of Constantinople, from the year 1221. to the year 1226. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
An Answer to the Queries of the Bishop of Pella.  
Two Decrees about Marriage.    
HONORIUS III. Pope. Elected July 8. 1216. Died April 18. 1227. 

Genuine Works still Extant.  
A Collection of his Decretals.  
Several Letters in the Annalists, in the Councils, in the Bullary, in the Decretals, and in the Miscellanies of Monsieur Baluze.    
ALEXANDER NECKAM, Abbot of Exeter: Made Abbot in the year 1215. Dyed in the year 1227. 

Manuscripts.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 60.    
HELLINAND, Monk of Froimont: Flourished the beginning of the Century. Dyed in the year 1227. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The four last Books of his Chronological History.  
A Letter concerning an Apostate Monk.  
The History of S. Gereon, the Martyr.   

Manuscripts.  
A Treatise of the Apocalypse.  
An Encomium on the Monastical Life.    
SANTHONY Of Milan, the Disciple of S. Francis: Flourished. the beginning of the Century. Dyed in the year 1231. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Sermons.  
A Mystical Exposition of the Holy Scriptures.  
A Moral Concordance on the Bible.    
RICERUS, The Disciple of S. Francis: Flourished the beginning of the Century. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Treatise of the Methods of easily attaining the Knowledge of the Truth.    
MAURICE, Archbishop of Rouen: Made Bishop of Man's, in 1219. Translated to Rouen in 1231. Dyed in 1234. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Three Letters.    
JOHN ALGRIN Of Abbeville, Cardinal. Made Archbishop of Bezancon in 1225. Cardinal in 1227. Dyed in 1236. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
Notes on the Canticles.   

A Manuscript.  
Several Sermons.    
JORDANUS, Of the Order of Preaching Fryats'. Made General of his Order, in the year 1222. Dyed in the year 1236. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The History of the first Rise of the Order of Dominicans,  
A Circular Letter, about the Translation of the Body of S. Dominick.    
GERMANUS NAUPLIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople. Made so in 1226. Dyed in 1243. 

Genuine and Spurious Works.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 86.    
CAESAREUS Of Heisterbac, Prior of Villiers: Flourished from the year 1199. to the year 1226. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Two Books of the History of Miracles.  
The History of S. Engelbert.  
Sermons.    
PRAEPOSITIVUS, A Divine of Paris: Flourished about the year 1225. 

A Manuscript.  
A Body of Divinity.    
HUGH, Regular Canon of S. Marian of Auxerre: Flourished about the year 1230. 

A Genuine Work still Extant.  
The Continuation of the Chronicle of Robert of S. Marian.    
CONRADE Of L●●chtenau, Abbot of Ursperg. Made Abbot in 1215. Dyed in the year 1240. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Chronicle to the year 1229.    
RODERICK XIMENES, Archbishop of Toledo. Advanced to that See in the year 1208. Dyed in the year 1245. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The History of Spain.  
The History of the Huns and Vandals.  
The History of the Arabians.  
The History of the Romans.    
HENRY, Count of Calva, Abbot of Richenou: Flourished about the year 1230. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Life of S. Pirr●in.    
CONRADE, Prior of Schur: Flourished about the year 1230. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The History of the Monastery and Abbots of Schur.   

A Work lost.  
A Chronicle.    
ECKERHARD, Dean of S. Gal. Flourished about the year 1230. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Life of S. Notger.    
WILLIAM, Monk of S. Dennis: Flourished about the same time. 

Works lost.  
Three Books of History.    
RADULPHUS NIGER, An Englishman: Flourished the beginning of the Century. 

Manuscripts.  
Two Chronicles: the one Copious, the other Abridged.  
The History of William the Conqueror, of John, and of Henry III. Kings of England.  
The Relation of an Expedition to Jerusalem.    
ALEXANDER Of Somerset, Abbot of Esby: Flourished about the year 1220. 

Manuscripts.  
The Lives of the Saints.  
A Calendar in Verse.    
CONRADE, Monk of Schur: Flourished about the ye●● 1220. 

A Manuscript.  
A Chronicle.    
RIGORD and WILLIAM The Britain: Flourished about the year, 1230. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The History of Philip Augustus King of France; by Rigord.  
The Life of the same King in Verse; by William the Briton.    
FABIAN HUG●●IN, Of the Order of 〈◊〉: Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Life of S. Francis, and his Companions.    
CONRADE Of Everba● Abb●●: Flourished about the same time. 

〈◊〉 A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Treatise of the 〈◊〉 of the Order of Citeaux.    
JOHNGAL, Abbot of Fontenelle: Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Life of S. Walfran.    
ALBERTUS, Prior of Mont des Vignes: Flourished about the same time. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The Lives of 

S. Beatrice,  
S. Aldegonda and  
S. Amand.      
GERARD, Monk of S. Quentin of Lisle: Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work still Extant.  
The Relation of the Translation of our Saviour's Crown of Thorns.    
HUGH, Regular Canon of Premontre at Floreff: Flourished at the same time. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The Lives of 

S. Iva, and  
S. Ivetta.      
CONRADE Of Marpourg, of the Order of Dominicans: Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The History of the Life and Miracles of S. Elizabeth.    
PHILIP Of Greve, Chancellor of the University of Paris: Flourished about the same time. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Sermons on the Psalms.    
WILLIAM, Bishop of Paris: Elected in the year 1228. Dyed in the year, 1240. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Treatise of Faith, and of the Laws.  
A Treatise of the Virtues, Manners, Vices, and Sins.  
A Treatise of Temptations.  
A Treatise of the Merit of Good Works.  
A Treatise of Divine Rhetoric.  
A Treatise of the Sacraments.  
A Treatise of the Causes of the Incarnation.  
A Treatise of Penance.  
A Work of the Universe.  
A Treatise of the Trinity.  
A Treatise of the Soul.  
A Second Treatise of Penance.  
A Treatise of the Collation of Benefices.   

Spurious Works.  
Sermons.  
A Dialogue about the Seven Sacraments.   

Works Lost.  
See the Catalogue, p. 66.    
WALTER CORNU, Archbishop of Sens, Elected in the Year 1223. Did in the Year 1241. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Relation of the Translation of our Saviour's Crown of Thorns.    
GREGORY IX. Pope, Elected the 20th. of April 1227. Died the 30th. of September 1241. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
One and thirty Letters in the Councils.  
Several others in the Annalists.  
Twelve in the Bullary.  
Thirteen in the Thirteenth Tome of the Spicilegium.  
The Fragments of several others in the Collection of the Decretals of Pennafort.    
JAMES, Of Vitry, Cardinal; Flourished about the Year 1230. Died in the Year 1244. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The History of the East and West.  
Two Letters.  
The Life of St. Mary d'ye Oignies.  
Sermons on the Epistles and Gospels,    
PANTALEON, Deacon of the Church of Constantinople; Flourished about the Year 1230. 

Genuine Works still Extant.  
A Treatise concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost and the other Points in Controversy between the Greeks and Latins,  
Sermons.    
ALEXANDER, Of Hales of the Order of Franciscans, entered into that Order in the Year 1222. and Died in the Year 1245. 

A Genuine Work, &c,  
A Commentary on the Master of the Sentences, or a Body of Divinity.   

Works Spurious and Lost.  
See the Catalogue of them p. 65.    
JOHN, Of Rochel of the Order of Franciscans; Flourished about the same time. 

Manuscripts or Works Lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 67.    
ADAM, Of Chamilly Bishop of Senlis, made Bishop in the Year 1230. 

Manuscripts.  
Several Sermons.    
WILLIAM, Abbot of Andrews; Flourished about the Year 1235. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Chronicle of his Abbey.    
Two Anonymous AUTHORS Flourished about the Year 1235. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
the Lives of 

Herman the blessed and  
St. Anthony of Milan.      
THOMAS, Of Celano of the Order of Franciscans; Flourished about the Year 1235. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Life and Miracles of St. Francis.    
LUKE, Bishop of Tuy; Flourished about the Year 1235, and was made Bishop after the Year 1236. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Three Books against the Albigenses.  
The Life of St. Isidore Archbishop of Sevil.  
The History of Spain.    
WILLIAM, Monk of St. Martin at Tournay; Flourished about the Year 1240. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
Flowers taken out of the Works of St. Bernard.    
GILES, Monk of Orval; Flourished about the Year 1240. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The History of the Bishops of Liege.    
ALBERTUS, Monk of Stada, and afterwards a Franciscan, Elected Abbot of Stada in the Year 1232. went over to the Order of Franciscans in the Year 1240, of which he was made General a little after. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Universal Chronicle to the Year 1256.    
GODFREY, Monk of St. Pantaleon of Cologne; Flourished about the Year 1240. 

A Genuine Work etc.  
A Chronicon from the Year 1162, to 1237.    
St. EDMUND, Archbishop of Canterbury, Elected in the Year 1234. Died in the Year 1246. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Mirror of the Church.    
RICHARD, Of St. Laurence Penitentiary of Rome; Flourished about the Year 1240. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
Twelve Books in the Praise of the Virgin Mary.    
MONETA, Of the Order of Dominicans; Flourished about the Year 1240. 

A Manuscript.  
A Body of Divinity.    
ALBERIC, Monk of Citeaux; Flourished about the Year 1240. 

A Manuscript.  
A Chronicle to the Year 1241.    
PETER des Vignes, Chancellor of the Emperor Frederick II. sent by him in the Year 1245, to the Council of Lions. Died in the Year 1249. 

Genuine Works still Extant.  
Six Books of Letters.  
A Discourse containing the Complaints of the Emperor Frederick about his being Deposed.    
GODFREY the Bald, Archbishop of Bourges; Flourished about the Year 1240. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Life of William Bishop of St. Brieux.    
BENEDICT, Bishop of Marseilles, Elected in the Year 1229. Died in the Year 1254. 

A Manuscript.  
A Treatise concerning Faith.    
ROBERT GROSTEAD, Bishop of Lincoln, Elected in the Year 1235, Died in the Year 1253. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Discourses and Letters against the Irregularities of the ecclesiastics.  
A Treatise of Observations of Law.  
The Testament of the Twelve Patriarches.    
INNOCENT IU. Pope, Elected the 24th. of June 1243. Consecrated the 29th. of the same Month, Died the 17th. of Decemb. 1254. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Nineteen Letters in the Collection of the Councils.  
Several others in the Annalists.  
Sixteen in the Great Bullary.    
BARTHOLOMEW, Of Bresse, Professor of the Canon-Law; Flourished about the Year 1240, and Died in the Year 1258. 

Works Lost,  
Works of the Canon-Law; of which see the Catalogue, p. 71.    
CONRADE, Adjutant Bishop of Mentz; Flourished about the Year 1250. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Chronicle of Mentz.    
DAVID, Of Augsburgh of the Order of Franciscans; Flourished about the Year 1250. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Formula for Novices.  
A Rule for the Inward Man.  
The Mirror of Seven Degrees of Perfection of the Monks.    
ALBERIC VERUS, Regular Canon of St. Augustin; Flourished about the 1250. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Life of St. Osytus.  
A Work Lost, A Treatise about the Eucharist.    
GAUTIER, Of the Order of Franciscans, Bishop of Poitiers; Flourished about the Year 1250. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
Synodal Statutes.   

Manuscripts.  
A Body of Divinity.  
Quodlibetical Questions.  
Sermons.    
ROGER, Historiographer of Hungary; Flourished about the Year 1250. 

A Genuine Work still Extant.  
The History of the State of the Kingdom of Hungary.    
CONSTANTINE. Of Orvieto; Flourished about the Year 1250, 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Life of St. Dominick.    
JOHN, Of Parma of the Order of Franciscans; was Elected General of his Order about the Year 1250, Deposed in the Year 1256, and retired to an Hermitage, where he Lived 30 Years longer. 

Manuscripts,  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 72.    
ENGELBERT, Abbot of the Order of Cîteaux; Flourished about the 1250. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Life of St. Edwiga.    
ROBERT RICH, Of Abingdon Monk of Pontigny, and ROBERT BACON, Doctor of Oxford; Flourished about the Year 1250. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The History of the Life and Translation of St. Edmund.    
JOHN DE DIEU, Canon of Boulogne; Flourished about the Year 1250. 

Manuscripts.  
Several Tracts of the Canon-Law.  
A Penitential.    
ALBERTANUS, Advocate of Bresse, Flourished about the Year 1250. 

Manuscripts.  
See the Titles of them, p. 79.    
MATTHEW PARIS, Monk of St. Alban; Flourished from the Year 1220, to the Year 1259. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The History of England.  
The Lives of the Two Offa's and of the Twenty three First Abbots of the Monastery of St. Alban.   

Manuscripts.  
An Abridgement of his History.  
An Universal History.    
HUGH, Of S. Cherseoli, or S. Thierry Cardinal, Entered into the Order of Dominicans, and Flourished in the University of Paris from the Year 1230, was Nominated Cardinal in the Year 1245, and Died the 19th. of March in the Year 1260. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Postillaries on the whole Bible.  
Commentaries on the Psalms.  
The Concordance of the Bible.  
The Mirror of the Priests.    
RAINIER SACHO, Of the Order of Dominicans; Flourished about the Year 1254, and Died in the Year 1260. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Treatise against the Waldenses.    
GILES, Of Assisy, of the Order of Franciscans; Flourished about the middle of the Century, and Died in the Year 1262. 

Manuscripts.  
A Writing called Aurea Dicta.  
Several other Works of Piety.    
THOMAS Of Chantpré Bishop Coadjutor of Cambray; Flourished about the Year 1250, and Died in the Year 1263. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Moral Treatise called, The Universal Good.  
The Lives of 

St. Lutgarda.  
St. married ' Oignies.  
St. Christina and  
St. Margaret of Ypres.      
JOHN COLONNA, Archbishop of Messina, Made Archbishop in the Year 1255. 

A Work Lost,  
The Ocean of Histories.    
An Anonymous AUTHOR; Who Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work still Extant.  
The Life of St. Clara.    
NICEPHORUS BLEMMIDAS, Monk of Mount Athos; Flourished under the Empire of John Ducas and of his Son Theodore Lascaris. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Two Treatises upon the Procession of the Holy Ghost in favour of the Latins.   

Manuscripts.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 87.    
THEODORE LASCARIS, Surnamed DUCAS, The Greek Emperor, Advanced to the Empire in the Year 1255. Died 1259. 

Manuscripts.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 87.    
ALEXANDER iv Pope, Elected the 21st of Decemb. in the Year 1254, Died the 24th. of June in the Year 1261. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Three Letters in the Collection of Councils.  
Several others in the Annalists.  
Twenty four in the Bullary.  
Six more to St. Lewis in the Sixth Tome of the Spicilegium.    
An Anonymous AUTHOR, Who Flourished about the Year 1260. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Life of the Blessed Godeberta.    
JOHN CHRISTOPHILUS, Of the Order of Dominicans; Flourished about the Year 1260. 

A Work Lost,  
A Commentary on the New Testament.    
JOHN SEMECA, Provost of Halberstadt; Flourished about the Year 1250, and Died in the Year 1267. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Glossary on the Decree of Gratian.    
VINCENT, Of Beauvais of the Order of Dominicans; Flourished under the Reign of St. Lewis. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The Doctrinal, Historical, Natural, and Moral Mirror.  
An Instruction for the King's Children.  
A Consolatory Letter to King St. Lewis.   

Works Lost,  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 64.    
St. RAYMOND, Of Pennafort, or of Rochefort of the Order of Dominicans; Flourished in the University of Boulogne from the beginning of the Century, Entered into the Order of Dominicans in the Year 1218, was Elected General of that Order in the Year 1238, and Died in the Year 1275, at an Hundred Years Old. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Collection of Decretals.  
A Summary of the Cases of Conscience.   

Works Lost,  
Treatises concerning 

The Visitation of Dioceses.  
The Cure of Souls.  
War and Duels, and  
The Methods of Trading without Injustice.      
ROBERT Of Sorbonnne: Flourished from the year 1250. Founded the College of Sorbonne, in the year 1252. Dyed between the years 1271. and 1274 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Three Discourses of Piety.    
URBAN VI Pope, Elected August 28. 1261. Consecrated the second of September, the same year. Died October the third, 1264. 

Genuine Works still Extant.  
The Bull for Instituting the Feast of the Holy Sacrament.  
Several Letters in the Annalists.  
Eight in the Bullary.  
A Paraphrase of the first Psalm.    
WILLIAM Of Bresse Archbishop of Sens. Made Archbishop in the year 1258. Laid down his Archbishopric in 1267. And Died February the 8th, 1269. 

A Manuscript.  
A Summary of Virtues and Vices.    
HENRY Of Susa Cardinal. Made Archbishop of Ambrun in the year 1258. Cardinal in the year 1262. Dyed in the year 1271. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Golden Summary of the Law.  
A Commentary on the Decretals.    
HANNIBAL Of Hannebold, Cardinal. He was of the Order of the Dominicans. After he had taught for some time at Paris, he became Master of the Sacred Palace under the Popedoms of Alexander IU. and Urban iv Made Cardinal in the year 1262. Dyed in the year 1272. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Commentary on the Master of the Sentences, among the Works of S. Thomas.    
CLEMENT IU. Pope, Elected February 5th. 126●. Died October 29. 1268. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Letter to one of his Kinsmen upon his Advancement to the Popedom.  
Several others in the Annalists.  
Sixteen in the Bullary.  
Five in the Sixth and Seventh Tomes of the Spicilegium.    
WILLIAM Of Saint Amour, Doctor of Paris: Flourished ever since the year 1250. And Died in the year 1272. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Treatise concerning the Perils of the last Times.  
Two Questions about Begging.  
A Reply to the Erroneous Propositions charged upon him.  
A Collection of Passages of Holy Writ, against the false Preachers and Mendicants.  
A Sermon on the same Subject, Preached on the Festival of S. Philip and S. James.    
ODO RIGAUD Archbishop of Rouen. Elected in the year 1247. Dyed in the year 1275. 

Manuscripts.  
Commentaries on the Pentateuch. On the Psalms. And on the Evangelists.  
Sermons.    
JOHN De Galls, of the Order of Franciscans: Flourished about the year 1260. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Moral Essays, of which see the Catalogue, p. 73.    
GREGORY Pope. Elected the 1st of September, 1271. Consecrated the 27th of March, 1272. Died the 10th of January, 1276. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Letter for the Calling of the Council of Lions.  
A Letter to the Bishop of Liege.  
Several others in the Annalists.  
Five in the Bullary.    
ALBERTUS MAGNUS Of the Order of Dominicans, and afterwards Bishop of Ratisbonne. Born in the year 1205. Entered into the Order of the Dominicans in the year 1221. Is chosen Vicar General of his Order, in the year 1236. Made Bishop of Ratisbonne in the year 1260. Lays down his Bishopric three years after; and retires to Cologne, where he Dies in the year 1280. 

Genuine and spurious Works. Works lost, or Manuscripts.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 67, etc.    
S. BONADVENTURE Cardinal. Born in the year 1221. Enters into the Order of Franciscans, in the year 1243. Is admitted Doctor of Paris, in the year 1255. Elected General of his Order the year following. Made Cardinal in the year 1274. and Died the 15th of July, the same year. 

Genuine and Spurious Works, Works lost, or Manuscripts.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 69.    
S. THOMAS AQUINAS. Born in the year 1224. Enters into the Order of Dominicans, in the year 1241. Takes his Doctor's Degree at Paris, in the year 1255. And Dyed March 7. 1274. 

Genuine and Spurious Works. Works Lost, or Manuscripts.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 66, 69, etc.    
WILLIAM PERAULT Of the Order of Dominicans: Flourished from the year 1250. And died in the year 1275. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Summary of Virtues and Vices.  
Sermons ascribed to William of Paris.    
HUMBERT De Romans, of the Order of the Dominicans. Enters into that Order in the year 1225. Is Elected General of it, in the year 1254. and Dies in the year 1277. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The Mirror, or the Instruction of the Monastic Life.  
A Letter on the three Vows of Monkery.  
An Instruction of the Preachers.  
Two hundred Sermons.  
A Commentary on the Rule of St. Augustin.    
GERARD Of Frachet, of the Order of Dominicans: Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The History of the Famous Men of his Order.   

A Manuscript.  
A Chronicle.    
INNOCENT V. Pope. Who was formerly called Peter of Tarentum, Doctor of Paris, of the Order of Dominicans. Advanced to the Archbishopric of Lions, in the year 1271. Elected Pope, January 21. 1276. Died the the 22th of June the same year. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
An Abstract of Divinity.  
A Commentary on the four Books of Sentences.   

Works Lost.  
Commentaries on the Holy Scriptures.    
JOHN XXI. Pope. Elected the 15th of September, in the year 1276. Died the 20th of May, the year following. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Treatises of Philosophy and Physic.  
Several Letters related by the Annalists.    
THOMAS Of Lentini, Archbishop of Cosenza: Flourished about the year 1270. Dyed in the year 1277. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Life of S. Peter the Martyr, of the Order of Dominicans.    
ARSENIUS AUTORIANUS, Patriarch of Constantinople. Advanced to that See in the year 1257. Deposed in the year 1268. 

Genuine Works still Extant.  
A Collection of Canons.  
His last Will and Testament.    
GEORGIUS ACROPOLITA LOGOTHETES. Flourished chief under the Empire of Michael Palaeologus; And Died about the year 1282. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Byzantine History.   

Manuscripts.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 85.    
MATTHEW Of Vendome, Abbot of S. Dennis: Governed that Monastery, from the year 1260. to the year 1286. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Poem containing the History of Tobit and Tobias.    
GILBERT Of Tournay of the Order of Franciscans: Flourished about the year 1270. and Died before the year 1293. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Treatise of the Episcopal Functions, and of the Ceremonies of the Church.  
A Treatise of the Peace and Tranquillity of the Soul. Sermons.  
The Lives of 

S. John, Bishop of Tournay.  
S. Eleutherius,      
RALPH BOCKING, Of the Order of Dominicans: Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Life of S. Richard, Bishop of Chichester.    
JOHN GENES De la Caille a Franciscan: Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Treatise of the City of Jesus Christ.    
WILLIAM Of Sanvie, a Carmelite: Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Chronicle of the Increase of Carmelites.    
WILLAM GUARRON, A Franciscan: Flourished about the same time. 

A Work Lost.  
A Commentary on the Book of Sentences.    
WILLIAM Of Tripoli, a Dominican: Flourished about the same time. 

A Manuscript.  
The History of the Saracens, and of Mahomet.    
WILLIAM Of Rusbrock, a Franciscan: Flourished about the year 1270. 

A Manuscript.  
An Itinerary, or the Relation of an Expedition into the East.    
GEOFFREY Of Beaulieu, a Dominican; and  
WILLIAM Of Chartres, Chaplain to King S. Lewis: Flourished under the Reign of that Prince. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Ten Books of the Life of S. Lewis.    
WILLIAM Of Rishauger, Monk of S. Alban: Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Continuation of the History of Matthew Paris, down to the year 1273.    
THOMAS BOCKINGHAM, Chancellor of the University of Oxford: Flourished about the year 1270. 

Manuscripts.  
Commentaries on the Master of the Sentences, and on the Books of the Holy Scriptures.    
NICHOLAS III. Pope. Elected the 25th of November, in the year 1277. Died the 12th of August, 1280. 

Genuine Works, still Extant.  
Letters related by the Annalists.  
Two Decretals in the Bullary.    
MARTINUS POLONUS, Archbishop of Gnesna. Was Penitentiary of the Church of Rome, under the Popedoms of John XXI. and Nicholas III Advanced to the Archbishopric of Gnesna, in the year 1278. And Died the same year. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Chronicle to the year 1277.  
Sermons.   

Works lost.  
A Collection of the Canon-Law.  
A Treatise of the most Remarkable things of Rome.    
ROGER BACON, Of the Order of Franciscans: Flourished about the year 1270. And died in the year 1284. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Philosophical Treatises.   

A Manuscript.  
An Abstract of Divinity.    
THOMAS SPOTT A Benedictine Monk, of the Monastery of S. Augustine in England: Flourished about the year 1275. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The Lives of the Abbots of his Monastery.    
MARTIN IU. Pope. Elected the 22th of February, in the year 1281. Consecrated the 23d of March the same year. Died the 25th of March 1285. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Two Letters in the Councils.  
A Letter Condemning the Emperor Palaeologus, in the Bullary.  
Other Letters in the Annalists.    
NICHOLAS Of Hanaps of the Order of Dominicans, Patriarch of Jerusalem, Nominated Patriarch in the Year 1281, Died in the Year 1288. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
An Historical Collection of the Examples of Virtues and Vices, called the Poor Man's Bible.    
BONAVENTURE BROCARD, A Dominican; Flourished about the Year 1280. 

Works Lost,  
A Relation of an Expedition to the Holy Land.  
An History of the Actions of the Emperor Frederick in Palestine,    
MARK PAUL A Venetian; Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Relation of Expeditions.    
JOHN PECKHAM, Archbishop of Canterbury, Elected in the Year 1278. Dyed in the year 1291. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Collections Of the Bible.  
Ecclesiastical Constitutions.   

Manuscripts.  
Mention made of them, p. 75.    
HONORIUS IU. Pope, Elected the 2d. of April 1285. Consecrated the 20th. of May the same Year, Died the 3d. of April 1287. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Several Letters related in the Annalists.  
Two in the Bullary.    
WILLIAM DURANTS, Bishop of Menda: Flourished from the middle of the Century. Was made Bishop in the year 1286. And Died in the year 1296. 

Genuine Works still Extant.  
The Rationale of Divine Duties.  
The Mirror of the Law.  
A Repertory of the Law.  
A Commentary on the Canons of the Council of Lions.  
An Abridgement of the Glosses and Text of the Canon-Law.    
An Anonymous AUTHOR, Of the Order of Dominicans; who Flourished about the Year 1280. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Chronicle of the Dominicans of Colmar.    
JOHN, Of Hayde; Flourished about the Year 1280. 

Manuscripts.  
The Passion of St. Laurence.  
The Life of St. Macle.    
PETER, Of Auvergne a Dominican; Flourished about the same time. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Supplement of the Sum of St. Thomas.  
A Commentary on the Books of Aristotle.    
WILLIAM de la Mere, A Franciscan; Flourished about the same time. 

Manuscripts.  
A Commentary on the Master of the Sentences.  
A Correctory of St. Thomas.  
Additions to the Works of St. Bonaventure.    
ROBERT, Of Russia a Franciscan; Flourished about the same time. 

Works Lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 76.    
ULRIC, Of Strasburgh a Dominican; Flourished about the same time. 

Works Lost.  
See p. 76.    
St. GERTRUDA and St. MATILDIS, Benedictine Nuns; Flourished about the Year 1280, and Died about the Year 1290. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Works of Piety.    
GEORGE PACHYMERES, Born in the Year 1242. Flourished about the Year 1280. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The Greek History.  
A Treatise concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost.  
A Commentary on the Works of St. Denis.  
Another Treatise concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost.    
JOHN VECCUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, Advanced to that Dignity in the Year 1275, turned out in the Year 1283, Deposed in the Year 1284. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 88    
GEORGE METOCHITA and CONSTANTINE MELITENIOTA, Deacons of the Church of Constantinople; Flourished about the same time. 

Works Printed and Manuscripts.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 88    
SIMON, Of Crete a Dominican; Flourished about the end of this Century. 

Manuscripts.  
Three Treatises for the Latins about the Procession of the Holy Ghost.    
GEORGE, of Cyprus, Surnamed GREGORY, Patriarch of Constantinople. GEORGE MOSCHAMPER, Keeper of the Archives. CONSTANTINE ACROPOLITA LOGOTHETES, A Greek Monk, and JOB JASITES, Flourished about the end of this Century. 

Manuscripts.  
Works against Veccus, and against the Latins.    
GREGORY ABULPHARAJE, An Arabian; Flourished at the end of this Century. 

A Genuine Work still Extant.  
An History of the Dynasties down to the Year 1284.    
SIMON, Monk of Afflighem; Flourished about the end of the Century. 

Works Lost or Manuscripts.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 77.    
WILLIAM, Prior of Afflighem; Flourished about the end of this Century.  
The Life of St. Lutgarda. 

Works Lost,  
A Narrative of the Visions of a Nun of the Order of Citeaux.    
ALEXANDER Of Villa-Dei: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

Works Lost.  
A Doctrinal.  
A Treatise of the Calendar and the Sphere.    
HENRY, Monk of Afflighem: Flourished about the same time. 

A Work lost.  
A Calendar.    
THIERRY Of Apolda, a Dominican: Flourished about the year 1290. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The Lives of 

S. Dominick, and  
S. Elizabeth.      
GOBELINUS' Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Life of S. Meinulphus.    
EGEHARD, Abbot of Urangen: Flourished about the year 1290. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Chronicle of the Bishops of Hildesheim    
NICHOLAS iv Pope. Elected April 22. 1288. Died April 14. 1292. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Three Volumes of MSS. Letters; Several of which are related in the Annalists; Six in the Bullary.    
ENGELHARD Abbot of Lankaim: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Life of S. Matildis.    
HENRY Of Gand, Archdeacon of Tournay: Flourished in the University of Paris, about the end of the Century. And Died in the year 1295. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Body of Divinity.  
Quodlibetical Questions.  
A Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Writers.   

Manuscripts, or Works lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 78.    
CONRADE and STEPHANARD, Dominicans: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

Works lost.  
The Life of S. Dominick.    
RALPH Of Cologne, a Canon of Chartres: Flourished about the year 1290. 

A Genuine Work still Extant.  
A Treatise of the Translation of the Empire.    
THOMAS PALMERANUS, Doctor of Sorbonne: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
Flowers gathered out of the Bible and Fathers.    
GUY Of Baif, a Laywer, and Archdeacon of Boulogne: Flourished about the year 1290. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Commentary on the Decretal and Decretals, called the Rosary.    
GREGORY Of Winchester, Monk of Gloucester; after he had taken upon him the Habit in that Monastery, in the year 1237. Dyed after the year 1291. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Annals of his Monastery.    
RAYMOND Of martin's, a Dominican: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Sword of Faith.    
NICHOLAS The Ga●…: Of the Order of the Carmelites: Was General of his Order about the end of the Century. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The fiery Beam.    
SIGEHARD Monk of S. Albon; Flourished about the end of the Century. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Life of S. Alban.    
MATTHEW D'AQUASPORTA Cardinal. Was the Twelfth General of the Order of the Franciscans; and nominated Cardinal Bishop of Porto, by Nicholas IU. 

Works Lost, or Manuscripts.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 77.    
ARLOTUS Of the Order of Franciscans: Was General of his Order, about the year 1290. 

Works lost.  
A Concordance of the Old and New Testament. Sermons.    
LUKE Of Milan, of the Order of the Franciscans: Flourished about the same time. 

Manuscripts.  
Several Sermons.    
GERARD Of Liege, of the Order of Dominicans: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Mirror of the Preachers.    
PETER, A Dominican: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

Works lost.  
Sermons.    
BALDWIN Of Ninove, Regular Canon of Premontre: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

A Manuscript.  
A Chronicle to the year 1294.    
JAMES De Voragine, Archbishop of Genes. Was made General of the Order of Dominicans; afterwards Archbishop of Genes, in the year 1292. And died in the year 1298. 

Genuine Works still extant.  
The Golden Legend.  
Sermons.  
The Golden Marial.    
RICHARD Of Middleton, a Franciscan: Flourished in the University of Paris, in the year 1290. And Died in the year 1300. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Commentary on the Sentences.  
Quodlibetical Questions.   

Manuscripts, or Works lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 78.    
GUY Of Munois Abbot of S. german, of Auxerre. Made Abbot in the year 1277. Dyed in the year 1313. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
An History of the Abbots of S. german at Auxerre.    
CELESTINE V Pope, Elected July 10th 1294. Lays down the Papacy voluntarily, on the 12th of December, the same year; and Dies a while after. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Three Constitutions.   

Spurious Works.  
Several Opuscula of Piety.  
Letters and Prayers.    
JOHN The Teutonick, a Dominican; Bishop of Bossena: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Summary of the Preachers.  
A Summary of Confessors.  
A Table of Apparatus of Raymond of Pennafort.    
GARSIAS A Spaniard: Flourished the latter end of the Century. 

Works lost.  
A Commentary on the Decretals, and other Works of the Canon-Law.    
HENRY or AMAND SUSON, A Dominican: Flourished, according to some, the end of the Thirteenth: according to others; the beginning of the Fourteenth Century. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Works of Piety.    
GAUTIER Of Exeter, a Dominican: Flourished about the year 1301. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Life of Guy Earl of Warwick.    
FRANCIS Of Moncade, Marquis of Ayetone: Flourished the end of this and the beginning of the next Century. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Narrative of the Expedition of Catalonians and Arragonians, against the Turks and Greeks.      

A Chronological TABLE of the COUNCILS held in the Thirteenth Century, and of their Acts, Letters, Canons, etc.  
Councils. Anno Acts, Letters, Canons, etc. The Council of Since, 1198 Mention of this Council in the Letters of Pope Innocent III. and in the Chronicle of Auxerre. The Council of Dalmatia, 1199 Twelve Canons. The Council of London, 1200 Several Canons. An Assembly of Coblentz 1200 Mention of this Assembly in the Letters of Innocent III. and in the Contemporary Historians. The Council of Lambeth, 1206 Canons. A Council held in the Province of Narbonne, 1207 Mention of this Council, in the Life of St. Dominick and in Vincent of Beauvais. An Assembly of Northusa. 1207 Mention of this Assembly in the Contemporary Historians. An Assembly of Paris, 1208 Ten Constitutions. An Assembly of Wurtzburgh, 1209 Mention of this Assembly in the Contemporary Historians. The Council of Montilly, 1209 Acts of that Council. The Council of Avignon, 1209 Twenty one Decrees. The Council of Paris, 1209 Mention of this Council in the Contemporary Historians. The Council of Rome, 1209 Mention of this Council in the Contemporary Historians. An Assembly of Nuremburg, 1211 Mention of this Assembly in the Contemporary Authors. The Council of Paris, 1212 Acts and Canons. The Council of Lavaur, 1213 Acts of this Council. The Council of Montpellier, 1215 Acts and Canons. The 4 General Council of the Lateran, 1215 Acts and Canons. The Council of Melun, 1216 Seven Decrees An Assembly of Wurtzburgh, 1222 Mention of this Assembly in the Germane Historians. The Council of Oxford, 1222 Decrees in Chapters. The Council of Paris, 1223 Mention of this Council in the Contemporary Authors. The Council of Montpellier, 1224 Mention of this Council in the Contemporary Authors The Council of Bourges, 1225 Extracts of the Acts of this Council. The Council of Mentz 1225 Fourteen Decrees. The Council of Paris, 1226 Mention of this Council in the Chronicle of Tours. The Council of Narbonne, 1227 Twenty Canons. An Assembly of Aix-la-Chapelle. 1227 Mention of this Assembly in the Germane Historians, An Assembly of Paris, 1228 A Treaty between King St, Lewis, and Raymond Count of Toulouse: And Ten Statutes of that King in Favour of the Churches of France. The Council of Toulouse, 1229 Forty nine Canons. The Council of Chateaugonthier, 1231 Thirty seven Canons. The Council of Melun, 1232 Mention of this Council in William of Puilaurent, and Statutes of Raymond Count of Toulouse against the Heretics. The Council of Beziers, 1233 Twenty six Canons. The Council of Nymphea in Bythynia, 1233 Professions of Faith of the Greeks and Latins. The Council of Arles, 1234 Twenty four Constitutions The Council of Narbonne, 1235 Twenty nine Canons. The Council of Tours, 1236 Fifteen Canons. The Council of London, 1237 Thirty one Canons. The Council of Cognac, 1238 Thirty nine Canons. The Council of Tours, 1239 Thirteen Canons. The Council of Laval, 1242 Nine Decrees. The Council of I. General of Lions, 1245 Acts and Canons. The Council of Beziers, 1246 A Collection of 46 Canons. The Council of Valence, 1248 Twenty three Decrees. The Council of Saumur, 1253 Thirty two Canons. The Council of Alby, 1254 Sixty one Canons. The Council of Bourdeaux, 1255 Thirty Decrees. The Council of Beziers, 1255 Laws of King Lewis. Published in this Council. An Assembly of Paris, 1256 An Accommodation between the University of Paris and the Dominicans. The Council of Ruffec, 1258 Ten Decrees. The Council of Montpellier, 1258 Eight Decrees. The Council of Cologne, 1260 Forty two Decrees. The Council of Arles, 1260 Seventeen Canons. The Council of Cognac, 1260 Nineteen Decrees. The Council of Lambeth, 1261 Several Statutes. The Council of Cognac, 1262 Seven Decrees. The Council of Bourdeaux, 1262 Seven Canons. The Synod of Clermont, 1263 Mention of this Synod in Mr. Launoy on the Canon Omnis Utriusque Sexus. The Council of Nants, 1264 Nine Decrees. The Council of Cologne, 1266 Forty five Statutes. The Council of Vienna in Austria, 1267 Nineteen Canons. The Council of London, 1268 Fifty four Canons. The Ordinance of St. Lewis King of France. 1268 In Five Articles. The Council of Chateaugonthier, 1268 Eight Canons. The Council of Angers, 1269 Two Canons. The Council of Sens, 1269 Six Decrees. The Council of Compeign, 1270 A Statute. The Council of Avignon, 1270 Eight Decrees. The Council of Quentin, 1271 Five Decrees. The Council of Rennes, 1273 Seven Canons. An Assembly of Francfort on the Mainy, 1273 Mention of this Assembly in the Contemporary Historians. The Second General Council of Lions, 1274 Acts and Thirty one Constitutions. The Assembly of Nuremberg, 1274 Mention of this Assembly in the Contemporary Writers. The Council of Saltzburgh 1274 Twenty four Canons. The Council of Arle●, 1275 Twenty two Canons, the Four first Lost. The Synod of Durham, 1276 Six Decrees. The Council of Saumur, 1276 Fourteen Decrees. The Council of Bourges, 1276 Sixteen Decrees. The Council of Constantinople, 1277 Mention of this Council in the Contemporary Writers. The Council of Langeiss, 1278 Sixteen Decrees. The Council of Ponteaudemer, 1279 Twenty four Decrees. The Council of Avignon, 1279 Fifteen Decrees. The Council of Redding, 1279 Five Rules about the Ecclesiastical Discipline, and several others about the Monastical Discipline. The Council of Buda, 1279 Sixty nine Decrees. The Council of Angers, 1279 Five Canons. The Synod of Cologne, 1280 Eighteen Statutes. The Synod of Saintes, 1280 Fifteen Decrees. The Synod of Poitiers, 1280 Eleven Statutes. The Council of Saltzburg, 1281 Eighteen Decrees. The Council of Lambeth, 1281 Twenty seven Statutes. The Council of Avignon, 1282 Eleven Decrees. The Synod of Saintes, 1282 Five Constitutions. The Council of Tours, 1282 Thirteen Decrees. The Council of Constantinople, 1284 Mention of this Council in the Contemporary Writers. The Synod of Nismes, 1284 Decrees in 17 Chapters. The Synod of Poitiers, 1284 Five Statutes. The Council of Ravenna, 1286 Nine Canons. The Council of Bourges, 1286 Thirty five Decrees. The Synod of Exeter, 1287 Fifty five Decrees. The Council of Wurtzburgh 1287 Forty two Decrees. The Council of List in Provence, 1288 Eighteen Decrees. The Synod of Chichester, 1289 Forty one Decrees. The Council of Nogarol, 1290 Twelve Decrees. The Synod of Saltzburgh, 1291 Three Decrees. The Council of London, 1291 Mention of this Council in the Contemporary Authors. The Synod of Chichester, 1292 Seven Decrees. The Council of Saumur, 1294 Five Decrees. The Synod of Canterbury, 1295 Forty seven Constitutions. The Synod of Saintes, 1298 Seven Constitutions. The Council of Rouen, 1299 Seven Statutes. The Council of Merton under the Archbp. of Canterbury, 1300 Four Constitutions.   

A TABLE of the WORKS of the Ecclesiastical Writers of the Thirteenth Century; disposed according to the Subjects they Treat of.  

Works on the Truth of the Christian Religion.  
THe Sword of Faith, of Raymond of Martin's a Dominican. Nicetas' Treatise of the Orthodox Faith.  
Treatises on the Differences between the Greeks and the Latins.  
Pantaleon's Treatise on the Procession of the Holy Ghost, Unleavened Bread, and Obedience to the Church of Rome.  
Nicephoras Blemmidas' Two Treatises about the Procession of the Holy Ghost.  
Pachymeres' Two Treatises about the same.  
John Veccus' Works.  
The Works of George Metochites, and Constantine Melitenites.   

Commentaries on the Books of Sentences.  
The Commentary of Peter of Tarentum, afterwards Pope under the Name of Innocent V.  
Alexander of Hales' Commentary on the Master of the Sentences or a Body of Divinity.  
Another Commentary under his Name.  
Albertus Magnus' Commentary.  
St. Bonaventure's Commentary.  
St. Thomas Aquinas' Commentary.  
Cardinal Annebaud's Commentary, among the Works of St. Thomas.  
Richard of Middleton's Commentary.   

Systems of Divinity and Quodlibetical Questions.  
Peter of Tarentum's Abridgement of Divinity.  
William of Segnelay's Body of Divinity.  
Praepositivus' System in Manuscript.  
Albertus Magnus' Body of Divinity.  
— His System of the Creatures.  
St. Thomas' Body of Divinity.  
Peter of Auvergne's Supplement of that Body.  
Henry of Gand's System of Divinity, and Quodlibetical Questions.  
Richard of Middleton's Quodlibetical Questions.   

Theological Tre●….  
Abbot Joachim's Treatise of the Trinity, or a Psalter on Ten Strings.  
— His Treatises against the Master of the Sentences.  
Alanus of Lisle's Four Books against the Albigenses and Waldenses.  
Peter des Vaux de Cernay's History of the Albigenses.  
Luke of Tuy's Three Books against the Albigenses.  
William of St. Amour's Treatises, 

Of the Sacraments.  
Of the Causes of the Incarnation.  
Of the Trinity, and  
Of the Soul.    
Vincent of Beauvais' Doctrinal Mirror.  
St. Bonaventure's Treatises.  
St. Thomas' Treatises.  
Rainier Sacho's Treatise against the Waldenses.   

Treatises on the Discipline of the Church.  
A Word in Short, by Peter Chanter of Paris.  
Innocent IIId's Two Discourses to the General Council of the Lateran, and the Acts of that Council.  
— His Four Discourses on the Consecration of the Pope.  
— His Letters.  
The First Collection of Decretals made by Bernard Bishop of Fayence.  
The Collections of Decretals by Alanus, Gilbert and John Gallus.  
The Third Collection of Decretals, by Peter of Benevento.  
The Fourth Collection of Decretals, by an Anonymous Author.  
The Fifth Collection of the Letters of Honorius III.  
The Letters of Honorius III.  
The Letters of Gregory IX.  
Raymond of Pennafort's Collection of Decretals.  
The Letters of Innocent IU.  
The Letters of Alexander IU.  
Urban IVth's Bull of Instituting the Feast of the Holy Sacrament, and other Letters of that Pope.  
The Letters of Clement iv to one of his Relations, and other Letters of the same Pope.  
The Letters of Gregory X. for calling the Council of Lions to the Bishop of Liege and others.  
The Letters of John XXI. and of Nicholas III.  
The Letters of Martin IU.  
The Letters of Honorius IU.  
The Letters of Nicholas IU.  
The Letters of Clement V.  
Alanus' Penitential.  
A Letter and Statutes of Stephen of Langton.  
Helinand's Letter about an Apostate Monk.  
The Letters of Maurice Archbishop of Rouen.  
Robert Grostea's Discourses and Letters against the Irregularities of the ecclesiastics.  
— His Treatises of the Legal Observances.  
William of Paris' Tracts of Penance, and the Collation of Benefices.  
The Letters of Peter des Vignes.  
— His Dissertation.  
Nicetas' Reply to the Queries of Basil the Monk.  
Manuel Charitopula's Replies to the Queries of the Bishop of Pella.  
— His Two Decrees.  
Germanus Nauplius' Letters and Decrees.  
Arsenius Autorianus' Collection of the Canons, and his Last Will and Testament.  
Canons and Decrees of Councils.  
William of St. Amour's Tracts.   

Treatises of the Canon-Law.  
A Collection of Decretals, by several Hands.  
Bernard of Compostella's Commentary on the Decretals.  
— His Treatise on the Cases of the Five Decretals.  
— His Collection of the Bulls.  
The Golden System and Commentaries on the Decretals, by Henry of Susa Cardinal.  
John Semeca's Glossary on Gratian's Decree.  
The Mirror of the Law.  
The Repertory of the Law.  
A Commentary on the Canons of the Council of Lions.  
An Abstract of the Glosses and Texts of the Canon-Law.  
By William Durants Bishop of Menda.  
Ralph of Cologne's Treatise of the Translation of the Empire.  
Guy of Baif's Commentary on the Decree and Decretals.   

Treatises on the Rituals.  
John Beleth's Treatise of the Divine Offices.  
Innocent IIId's Treatise of the Mysteries of the Mass.  
S. Thomas' Office of the Eucharist.  
Several Tracts of Bonaventure.  
Gilbert of Tournay's Treatise of the Functions of the Bishops, and of the Ceremonies of the Church.  
William Durants's Rationale of Divine Offices.   

Commentaries, and other Works on the Holy Scriptures.  
Abbot Joachim's Commentaries on the Prophecies of Jeremiah, Isaiah, Nahum, Habbakuk, Zachary, and Malachy etc. and on the Apocalypse.  
Alanus' Commentary on the Canticles.  
— His Treatise on the Parables.  
S. Anthony of Padua's Mystical Expositions of the Holy Scriptures.  
John Algrin's Notes on the Canticles.  
Albertus Magnus' Commentaries on the Bible.  
— His Commentary on the Scriptures.  
Cardinal Hugh of S. Cher's Commentaries on the whole Bible.  
— His Commentary on the Psalms.  
— His Concordance of the Bible.  
Nicholas of Hanaps' Poor Man's Bible.  
John Peckham's Collections of the Bible.   

Universal, or General Histories.  
A Continuation of Marianus' Chronicle, by Dodochine.  
Arnoldus' Continuation of the Chronicle of the Sclavonians.  
Gervase of Tilbury's Universal History of the West.  
— His History of England.  
The Chronology of Robert of S. Marian, continued by Hugh of S. Marian.  
John of Oxford's History of England.  
John Grey's Chronicle.  
Helinand's Chronological History.  
Conrade of Lichtenau's Chronicle,  
Roderick Ximenes' History of Spain.  
— His History of the Huns and Vandals.  
— His History of the Arabians.  
— His History of the Romans.  
James of Vitry's History of the East and West.  
Luke of Tuy's History of Spain.  
The Chronicle of Godfrey Monk of S. Pantaleon.  
Vincent of Beauvais' Historical Mirror.  
The Chronicle of Albertus of Stada.  
Matthew Paris' History of England.  
The Chronicle of Martinus Polonus.  
Ralph of Cologne's Treatise of the Translation of the Empire.  
Nicetas Choniates' History.  
Joel's Chronological Abridgement.  
Michael Acominates Choniates' History.  
George Pachymeres' History.  
Gregory Abulpharaje's History of the Dynasties.   

Particular Histories, and the Lives of the Saints.  
Tagenon's History of the Expedition of Frederick Barbarossa the Emperor.  
Another History of the same Expedition, by an Anonymous Writer.  
A Relation of the Expedition of Richard King of England in Palestine, by Walter the Pilgrim and Richard.  
A Relation of an Expedition to the Holy Land, by Dodechin.  
The History of the Me●ovingians, by Andrea's Silvius, Abbot of Marchiennes.  
— His Two Books of Miracles.  
The Letter of Baldwin, Emperor of Constantinople, upon the Taking of that City by the Latins.  
An Account of the same, by Ville-hardovin.  
The same by Gonthier.  
Wilbrand of Oldenburgh's Relation of an Expedition to the Holy Land.  
The Life of Herbert, Archbishop of Cologne, by Lambert of Liege.  
The Life of S. William, Abbot of Roschild, by an Anonymous Writer.  
The History of the Albigenses, by Peter des Vau● de Cernay.  
A Chronicle of the same History, by William of Puilaurent.  
John of Oxford's Relation of an Expedition to Sicily.  
Historical Tracts of Fordeham.  
The Chronicle of the Monastery of Uske: The Relation of the Election of Hugh: And the Life of S. Robert the Martyr, by Jocelin Brakelonde.  
Hugh White's History of the Monastery of Peterburgh, and of the Church of Mercia.  
Caesareus of Heisterb●●'s History of Miracles.  
— His Life of S. Engelbert.  
Stephen Langton's History of the Translation of the Body of S. Thomas of Canterbury.  
Helinand's History of the Martyrdom of S. Ger●●n, and his Companions.  
The Life of S. Pirmin, by Henry of Calva.  
The History of Schur, and of the Abbots of that Monastery, by Conrade Prior of Schur.  
The Life of S. Notger, the Lisper by Eckerh●●d.  
The Histories of Philip Augustus, Lewis VIII. and Philip the Hardy, Kings of France, by Rigord, William the Briton, and William of Nangis.  
The Life of S. Francis, by Fabi●● Hugeline.  
Conrade of Everbak's Treatise of the Original of the Order of Citeaux.  
The Life of S. Wulfran, by John Gal.  
The Lives of S. Bearice and Aldegonda, and of S. Amand, by Albertus.  
The Lives of the blessed Joseph Herman, and S. Anthony of Milan, by two Anonymous Writers.  
The Chronicle of the Abbey of S. Andrew, by William Abbot of that Abbey.  
The History of the beginnings of the Order of Preaching Friars; and a Circular Letter, on the Translation of the Body of S. Dominick, by Jordanus.  
The Narrative of the Translation of our Saviour's Crown of Thorns, by Walter Co●●● and Gerard Monk of Lisle.  
The Lives of S. Ivetta and S. Ives, by Hugh of ●oreff.  
The History of the Life and Miracles of S. Elizabeth, by Conrade of Mapurg.  
The Life and Miracles of S. Francis, by Thomas of Celano.  
The Life of S. Marry d'Oignies, by James of Vitry.  
The Life of S. Isidore, by Lu●e of Tuy.  
The Lives of 

S. L●●garda.  
S. Marry d'Oignies  
S. Christina, and  
S. Margaret of 〈◊〉.   By Th●●●● of 〈◊〉.  
Gerard of Frachet's ●istory of the Illustrious Men of the Dominican Order.  
The Life of S. William, Bishop of S. Brieu, by Godfrey the Bald.  
The History of the Bishops of Liege, by Giles, Monk of Orval.  
The Chronicle of Mentz by Conrade a Germane Bishop.  
The Life of S. Osith, by Alberic Verus.  
The History of the State of Hungary, by Roger.  
The Life of S. Dominick, by Constantine of Orvie●o.  
The Life of S. Ed●iga, by Engelbert.  
The History of the Life and Translation of S. Edmund, by Robert Rich, and Robert Bacon.  
The Life of S. Claire, by an Anonymous Author.  
The Lives of the two Offa's, Kings of Mercia; and of the twenty three first Abbots of S. Alban, by Matthew Paris.  
The Life of S. Godoberta, by an anonymous Author.  
The Lives of John Bishop of Tournay, and of S. Eleutherius, by Gilbert of Tournay  
The Life of S. Richard, Bishop of Chichester.  
A Chronicle of the Order of Carmelites, by Sanvic.  
The Lives of the Abbots of the Abbey of S. Augustine, in England, by Thomas Spott.  
The Life of S. Peter the Martyr, a Dominican, by Thomas of Lentini.  
Mark Paul's Relation of Expeditions.  
The History of Tobit and Tobias in Verse, by Matthew of Vendome.  
The Life of S. Levis, by Geoffrey of Beaulieu, and William of Chartres.  
The History of the Dominicans of Colmar, by an Anonymous Author of that Order.  
The Lives of S. Dominick and S. Elizabeth, by Thierry of Apolda.  
The Life of S. Meinulphus, by Gobelinus.  
The Chronicle of the Bishops of Hildesheim, by Egehard.  
The History of the Monastery of Gloucester, by Gregory of Winchester.  
The Life of S. Alban, by Sigeard.  
The Life of S. Mattildis, by Engelhard.  
A Treatise of Famous Men, by Henry of Gand.  
The Golden Legend of James of Voragines.  
The History of the Abbots of S. german of Auxerre, by Guy of Munois.  
The Life of Guy Earl of Warwick.  
The Relation of the Expedition of the Catalonians and Artagonians, against the Turks and Greeks.   

Works of Morality.  
Innocent III. His Treatise of Alms, and the Praise of Charity.  
Alanus' Book of Sentences, or of Memorable Say.  
— His Treatise concerning the honest Man; Entitled Anticlodianus.  
— His Complaint of Nature against the Sin of Sodomy. Walter Mapes' Poetical Pieces.  
S. Anthony of Padua's Moral Concordances on the Bible.  
Ricerus' Treatise of the Methods of easily attaining the Knowledge of Truth.  
Treatises 

Of Faith and the Law.  
Of the Virtues.  
Of the Manners.  
Of Vices.  
Of Sins.  
Of Temptations.  
Of the Merit of Good Works.  
Of Divine Rhetoric, or Prayer.  
Of Penance.   By William Bishop of Paris.  
A Moral Mirror, by Vincent of Beauvais.  
— His Instruction for the Children of Kings.  
— His Consolatory Letter to King S. Lewis.  
Raymond of ●●●nafort's Cases of Conscience.  
A Body of Virtues; And the Treatise Entitled, The Destroyer of Vices; ascribed to Alexander of Hales.  
Several Treatises of S. Bonaventure.  
Several Works of S. Thomas.  
William Perault's Body of Virtues and Vices.  
Thomas of Chantpre's Piece, Entitled The Universal Good.  
Flowers taken out of S. Bernard, by William Monk of S. Martin of Tournay.  
Works of John de Galls.  
An Historical Collection of the Examples of Virtues and Viecs, by Nicholas of Hanaps; called, The Poor Man's Bible.  
John the Teutonicks System of Confessors.  
William of S. Amour's Treatises.   

Works of Piety.  
Innocent III. His Treatise of the Contempt of the World.  
— His Commentaries on the seven Penitential Psalms.  
— His Prayers.  
— His Hymns.  
Works attributed to S. Celestine the Pope.  
S. Francis' Works of Piety.  
S. Anthony of Padua's Mystical Expositions.  
S. Edmund's Mirror of the Church.  
S. Thomas' Office of the Holy Sacrament; and his other Works.  
Cardinal Hugh's Mirror of the Priests.  
David of Augsburgh's Works of Piety.  
Robert of Sorbonne's Three Discourses of Piety.  
Gilbert of Tournay's Treatises of the Tranquillity of the Soul.  
The Treatise of the City of Jesus Christ, by John Genes of La Caille.  
The Works of S. Gertruda and of S. Mattildis.  
Thomas Palmeran's Flowers of the Bible and of the Fathers.  
Anand Suson's Works of Piety.  
Richard of S. Lawrence's Twelve Books of the Praises of the Virgin Mary.   

Monastical Treatises.  
The Carmelites Rule, by Albertus' Patriarch of Jerusalem. S. Francis' Works.  
Several Treatises of S. Bonaventure.  
Humbert the Romans' Works.  
Three Tracts of David of Augsburgh.   

Sermons and Works for Preaching.  
Alanus' Summary of the Art of Preaching.  
Pope Innocent III. his Sermons.  
— His Discourse for the Consecration of the Pope.  
Absalon Abbot of of Spinkerbac's Sermons.  
Wernerus' Postillary Sermons.  
Caesareus of Heisterbac's Sermons.  
S. Anthony of Padua's Sermons.  
Philip of Greve's Sermons on the Psalms.  
James of Vitry's Sermons.  
Albertus Magnus' Sermons.  
William Perault's Sermons, fathered on William of Paris.  
Sermons, and an Instruction for Preachers, by Humbert of Romans.  
Gilbert of Tournay's Sermons.  
Martinus Polonius' Sermons.  
Gerard of Liege's Mirror for Preachers.  
James ' of Voragine's Sermons and Marial.  
John the Teutonicks System of Preachers.  
The Panygericks of Nicetas Acominates Choniates, by Michael Acominates Choniates, his Brother.  
Germanus Nauplius' Sermons.   

Philosophical Works.  
John XXI. His Philosophical Works.  
Vincent of Beauvais' Doctrinal and Natural Mirror.  
Albertus Magnus' Philosophical Works.  
Philosophical Works and Commentaries on Aristotle, by S. Thomas.  
Bacons' Philosophical Works.    

A General INDEX of the Principal Matters contained in this Volume.  

A.  
Abbesses. Of their Duties, page 93  
Abbeys. The Alienation of their Goods prohibited, 125  
Abbots. The Election of an Abbot, nul, if he were not a Monk, 31. The exacting of any thing for the Benediction of Abbots, prohibited, 102. Of their Conduct and Duties, 93, 103, 108, 109, 114, 115, 131. The Functions which they are prohibited to perform, 101, 102, 120, 125  
Absolution. Who have the Right of giving it, 132. Deacons are not to give it, 131. The granting it for Money forbidden, 112. What Persons are to be refused it, 132. Declared null, when extorted by force, 124. Of the Absolution of reserved Cases, 137. The Metropolitan may absolve a Person Excommunicated by a Bishop his Suffragan, when the latter refuses to do it, 20. In what manner it may be given to an Excommunicate dead Person, who repent, 35.  
Of Absolution ad Cautelam, 125  
Abstinence from Meats, recommended to the Mon●●s, 108, 112, 113  
Acts in the Schools. Their Original, 153  
Admission into Religious Houses. Prohibition of requiring any thing for it, 92, 94, 102, 105, 113  
Adolphus Archbishop of Cologne. The reason why he was deposed, 2. Bruno put into his place, ibid. Adolphus re-established, ibid. Deposed again ibid. And Bru●● re-placed in possession of the Archbishopric, ibid.  
Adolphus the Emperor. The Causes of his being Deposed, 10. His Death, ibid.  
Advocats. Studies necessary for to be admitted in Advocate, 111, 132. The Clergy prohibited that Function, 118, 122  
Adulterers. Excommunicated, 106. Ordered to be Excommunicated every Sunday. 110, 126. Whether one might try an Adulterer upon an Information made lite non Contestatu, 26  
Adultery. A Case wherein it does not break the Marriage, 17. Deprivation from a Benefice for it, ibid.  
Spiritual Affinity. Renders a Marriage null, 42  
Albanians. Heretics of the Sect of the Cathari, 150  
Albertus Patriarch of Jerusalem. Author of the Rule of the Order of Carmelites, 157  
Albigenses. The Inquisition and Crusade against them, 150, etc. Called by several Names, 151. An Antipope created by those Heretics, 152. Their Errors, 153  
Alexander IV. Pope. Bulls of this Pope in favour of the Jacobins, for their Re-establishment in the University of Paris. 183. The consequences thereof, 138, 139 His Death, 139  
Alexius Angelus the Greek Emperor. The Letter of Pope Innocent III. Upon the Supplies which that Prince demanded to re-place him on the Throne 45  
Competent Allowances. Ordered by Councils in favour of those who served the Churches, 100, 104, 105. 109, 113, 125.  
Alienations of church-good, Null when made without the Forms required, 33.  
almsgiving. Recommended to the Clerks, 132. and to the Monks, 92, 94. Whether one ought to give any thing to the lusty Mendicants, 141, 143  
Altar. Whether an Altar on which an Excommunicated Person has Celebrated aught to be Consecrated anew, 27. In what Cases an Altar forfeits its Consecration, Ibid. the Vision of a Priest about Unconsecrated Altars, 26  
Amaneus of Armagnac Archbishop of Aûche. The S●…utes which he Published in a Council, 125  
Amaury. His Doctrine and Condemnation, 96, 144. His Disciples how discovered, ibid. Their Errors and Condemnation, ibid.  
Amaury of Montfert Count of Toulouse. Succeeds his Father in his Dominions 152, but being driven out of them, yields all his Rights to Lewis VIII. King of France, ibid.  
Annuals of Masses. The Obligation of Priests to discharge them, 131  
Antioch. The Reasons which obliged Innocent III. to Suspend the Patriarch of that Church, 13  
Anti-table. What it is, and when one ought to make use of it to offer the holy Sacrifice, 86  
Apostolicks. An Order of Religious Mendicants, Abolished by Honorius IV. 52  
Appeals. That all the Faithful might Appeal to the Holy See. 25. Those who hinder such Appeals Excommunicated, 130. Of Appeals in the Causes of the Elections of Bishops, 124. Of Appeals in Ecclesiastical Judgements, 100 The Judges obliged to have regard to such, 111, 134. The Nullity of Processes made in prejudice of such an Appeal, 22. When an Appeal may take place in spite of the Commission which excludes it, 42 That an Appeal has no force when the time prescribed for Appealing is lapsed, 32. That the Appeal cannot supersede the Sentence of the Ordinary against Notorious Offenders, 33. The Appeal à Futuro Gràvamine, which may hinder a Bishop from being Tried by his Metropolitan, 21. An Abuse in the Appeals to the Holy See Redressed by Innocent III. in favour of a Bishop of Lizieux, 19  
Arch-Deacons. Canons concerning their Duties, 104, 105, 108, 110, 115, 119, 121, 129, 130, 131, 136. That they cannot take Cognizance of Matrimonial Causes and Simony, without the Bishop's leave, 114. That they cannot have Vi●…s, 112, nor Officials out of Towns, 114, 115  
Archpriests. Of their Duties, 112, 115, 119.  
Aristotle. His Books Condemned in this Century, 144.  
Ails. The Canons of that Church obliged to Profess the Rule of S. Augustin, 30. Its Rights of the Regale preserved, 10.  
Armenians, United with the Church of Rome, 42, 43. A Privilege granted to them of not being Excommunicated, but by the Holy See, 42  
Arms. The Clerks prohibited from bearing of Arms, 120, 129, 132, 134.  
Arnold Abbot of Citeaux. Commissioned by Pope Innocent III. to endeavour with the Monks of his Order to Convert the Albigenses, 150. His Proposals to the Count of Toulouse against the Heretics, 151  
Private Assemblies of Laics about Religion prohibited, 37  
Augustine's, Vid. the Hermits of S. Augustin.  
Avignon. Taken by Lewis VIII. King of France, 152  
Austria. The Acquisition of this Duchy by the Emperor Rodolphus, from whence his Successors derived their Title, 10. The Original of the growing greatness of the House of Austria, Ibid.  
Authority Spiritual and Temporal. Of the Pre-eminence of the Spiritual Authority over the Temporal, 41. A Comparison on the difference between the Papal and the Regal Authority, 28   

B  
Bachelors, Why so called, 153  
Bagnalois▪ Heretics of the Sect of Cathari and 〈◊〉 Errors, 150  
Baldwin Count of Flanders. Made Emperor of Constantinople, 81. His fruitless endeavours to reduce the Greeks under the Obedience of the Holy See, Ibid. His Tragical Death, Ibid. His Successors in the Empire of Constantinople, Ibid. etc. Banns of Marriage. The dispensing with them for Money forbidden, 91. Ordered to Publish them, 101, 108  
Baptism. The time of Administering solemn Baptism, 112. Of the Baptism of Infants Born about Easter or Whitsuntide, 129. Deacons forbidden to Administer it, 90. Of the Administration of this Sacrament by Laics, 118. The repeating of it forbidden, 131. That Foundlings ought to be rebaptised, 90. Of the Number of Sureties at Baptism, 131. An Abuse redressed in Baptism, 125. Of Baptism among the Greeks, and of their Customs in the Administration of this Sacrament, 50  
Basas. The Number of the Canons of that Church, 34  
Bastards. The Clergy prohibited from admitting, or entertaining in their Houses their Bastards, 133. They are excluded from Benefices, 29, 100, 132, and from Holy Orders, 29, 37, 90. Declared incapable of Succeeding their Fathers in their Estates and Benefices. 114, 116, 128  
The Monastery of Baume, Subjected to that of Clunie, 16  
Bearn. The Count of Bearn driven out of his Territories by the Army of the Crusade, raised against the Albigenses, 151. Proposals for His Re-establishment rejected, Ibid.  
Believers. What is meant by that Name among the Albigenses, 153  
Benedictions. 'Tis prohibited to require any thing for the Benedictions of Abbots, of Marriage, etc. 102  
Benefices. Of Collations to Benefices, 64, 65, 91, 94, 100, 104, 105, 108, 112, 113, 116, 118, 120, 121, 129, 134, 155. The Collating them before Vacant, prohibited. 31, 119. Their Collation by Secular Authority and without the Consent of the Bishop, declared Null, 14, 35. That the Bishop has the Right of Collating those which the Patrons suffer to be Vacant, 30. Forbidden to receive them at the Hands of Laics, 15, 27, 90, 99, 125, 126, 129, 131, 134. And to supply them with Laics, 94. That none ought to pretend to them by right of Succession, 92. Forbidden to bestow them on the Children or Nephews of those who Possess them, 43. That the Suspended Clerks cannot be promoted to them, 39 Nor Heretics, 23. No● a Man that has lost one Hand, Ibid. Of the Collation of Benefices vacant in ●●riâ, 124. The grant of a Benefice made by the Popes to an Excommunicated Person declared Null, 20. The Methods of acquiring them Condemned, 93, 109. Those who forcibly Seize upon them Excommunicated, 134. The Resignation of a Benefice declared Null when made for fear of the Secular Power, 41. The Frandulent Permutation of Live declared Null, 15. Plurality of Benefices Condemned, 15, 18, 28, 30, 65, 92, 100, 105, 112, 120, 121, 124, 126, 127, 131, 132, 134, 155. What Benefices oblige the Incumbents to take Holy Orders, 106, 109, 120, 122. and to Residence, 129. The dividing of them prohibited, 19, 36, 92, 104, 108, 112, 115, 120. Exempt from Pensions, 120. 'Tis forbidden to Farm them out, 104, 105, 121, 130. Upon what Conditions 'tis lawful to Farm ou● Churches, 112. Of the Fruits of Vacant Benefices, 121  
Beneficiaries. That it belongs to the Bishop to Institute them, 120. They are obliged to take Priest's Orders, 129, 132. Of their Duties, 115, 121. Those who continue above a Year Excommunicated forfeit their Benefices, 133. 'Tis forbidden to Seize on their Goods after their Decease, 126  
Bertrand Cardinal. The Pope's Legate for the Conversion of the Albigenses, 151  
Bertrand of Languisil, Bishop of Ni●…. Statutes made under his Episcopacy, 132  
Bertrand of Malferrat Archbp. of Arles. An Order which he Published in a Council, 122  
Bertrand of S. Martin Archbishop of Arles, and afterwards Cardinal. The Orders which he Published in the Councils, 126, 128  
Beziers. The Damages which the Count of Beziers sustained in the Protection which he gave to the Albigenses, 151, 152  
Bigamy. Forbidden, 111. Those who are guilty of it excluded the Clergy 124. That those who have Contracted Marriages declared Null, are to be reputed guilty of Bigamy, 35  
Bishops. That a Bishop ought to be deprived of his Bishopric, if he take Possession thereof before he get his Election Confirmed, 38. Of their Habits, 94, 98. Of their Duties, 94, 97, 99, 100, 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112. 120, 121, 122, 125, 127, 129, 134, 137, 141. Of their Elections, 155. Obliged to Publish the Censures of their Brethren, 125, 126. Of their Rights and Jurisdiction, 41, 119, 143. That they have a Right of Visiting the Monasteries and Correcting the Monks. 42. Punishments inflicted on those who Poison, or Persecute them, 12, 125. Pennance imposed on a Soldier who had cut out a Bishop's Tongue, 43. The Absolution of the Murder of a Bishop, reserved to the Pope, 18. Masses ordered to be said for deceased Bishops, 502  
Boniface, Archbishop of Canterbury. The Constitutions which he Published in a Council of Lambeth, 119  
Boniface, Archbishop of Ravenna. The Constitutions which he Published in a Council, 132  
Books. Those of the Old and New Testament forbidden to be read by the Laics, 107  
Books of Prayers. The Laics prohibited from having them Translated into the Vulgar Tongue, ibid.  
The Church of Borgo San Domino. Subjected to that of Parma, 28  
Bourgueil. Orders concerning the Duties and Way of Living of the Abbots of that Abbey, 23  
The Churches of Bragua and Compostella. Of the Accommodation of the Differences between those two Churches 37  
Unleavened Bread. The Greeks Proposal of acknowledging, that one might Consecrate with Unleav'nd Bread, provided the Latins would renounce the Addition made to the Creed, 82  
Britins. An Order of Hermits, reunited to that of the Augustins in this Century, 157  
Bucer. The Pains he took of uniting the Waldenses with the Calvinists, 149  
Bulgaria. Subjected to the Church of Rome, 44, 82  
Bulls. Abuses in the issuing out of Bulls, redressed by Pope Innocent III. 11. Rules for avoiding the Forgeries of Bulls, 20, 22. How one might detect those Forgeries, 25  
Burial. The demanding any thing for Ecclesiastical Burial, prohibited, 102, 105, 134. The exacting any thing for the Burial of Persons who come to an Accidental Death, abolished, 130. What persons are deprived of it by the Canons of Councils, 92, 94, 97, 106, 117, 127, 133, Whether one ought to refuse it to a dead Excommunicated Person, who has acknowledged his Fault, and had a design of getting himself absolved, 35. Prohibitions from interring in Churches, 135, and out of the Parish, 119, 120   

C.  
CAdwin, The reform made in that Abbey, 37  
The Abbey of Calane. Its Differences with the Abbey of Montsacre, adjusted by Innocent III. 29  
The Order of Calatrava, The Confirmation of the Privileges of that Order, 34  
Canons of the Councils of this Century, from p. 89. to p. 137  
The Canon of the Mass. The Reasons of several Alterations made in that Canon, 45  
Canons. The Qualifications requisite to enable one to possess a Canonship, 115, obliged to eat in Common, and not to lie out of their Cloister, 23. The distributions for those who assist at Divine Service, 133. That those who are Non-Resident may not oppose the Regulations which shall be made by the Chapter, in their absence, 21. Benefices of which their Children are deprived, 100  
Canterbury. The Precedence of the Monks of that Church over the Secular Clergy, 37. An Establishment prejudicial to that Church, Condemned by Pope Innocent III. 25, 29, 33  
Captives. Orders made in this Century, for the Redemption of Captives, 157  
Carcassone. This City taken from the Albigenses, 151  
Carmelites. Of the Institution of this Order, and of their Rule, 157. This Order confirmed by Pope Honorius III. 49  
Cases reserved, to the Pope, 126. to the Bishops, 126, 132. When 'tis lawful for Bishops to Absolve such Cases as are reserved to the Holy See, 30, 37  
Cathari. A Sect of Heretics divided into three parts, and their Errors, 150  
Cathness, Duties exacted from the County of Cathness in Scotland, by the Holy See, 19  
Celesti●s. The Institution of that Order, 52, 157  
Celibacy. Enjoined the Ecelesiasticks, 30, 37  
Ecclesiastical Censures. Their Original, 154, Of the Obligation of having regard to them, 128  
Chalices. Of their Consecration, 120. That there ought to be Silver-Chalices in all Churches, 116, 126  
Chaplains. Ought to be Examined, 128. Obliged to celebrate Mass regularly, 127  
Chapels. That the Offerings made in private Chapels belong to the Curates, 121  
Chapters. Of the holding of General Chapters, 98. Ordered to hold every Year Provincial Chapters, in the Order of S. Benedict, 125, 126  
Charles, Count of Anjou. Crowned King of Sicily, by Pope Clement IV. 2. Subdues Sicily by his Arms, in defeating his Competitors, 9 Stripped of his Authority, by Pope Nicolas III. 10. And of the Kingdom of Sicily, ibid. His Defeat and Death, ibid.  
Chastity. That the Vow of Chastity renders a Marriage null, 39  
Chests. The having any in Churches without the Bishop's leave, prohibited, 135  
Chrism. Prohibitions of demanding any thing for the Holy Chrism, 36. When 'tis unlawful to give it to exempt Persons, 119. That one may mix unconsecrated Oil with the Consecrated, 27. It must be kept under Lock and Key, 99 129. The Custom of the Greeks in their Consecrating of it, 50  
Christian, Canon of Beauvais, and Doctor of Paris. The Proceeding of Pope Alexander iv against this Canon, and several other Doctors of Paris, 138  
Christ. An Impostor, who called himself the Christ, Condemned in England, 104  
Church. A Judgement concerning the Works made on the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church in this Century, 53. The Errors of the Waldenses concerning the Church; its Ministers, its Laws, and its Customs, 148, etc.  
church-good. The Curates obliged to write the Inventory of them in their Missals, 117. Constitutions against those who seize on or detain them, 12, 15, 108, 112, 117, 120, 122, 126, 127, 130, 134, 135, 136. Prohibitions against Mortgaging them, 129. and alienating them, 13, 16, 17, 105, 116, 117, 124, 128, 130, 131, 134. In what Cases their Alienations are null, 2●, 29, 34, 39, 122. The Obligation of redeeming those that are Alienated, 26, 27. Of their Division into four parts, 90. Of their Use, 39 Those of Vacant Churches reserved to the next Incumbents, 118. Of the Grants of church-good made by the Bishops, 121. A Custom practised in Denmark when any thing was given to the Church, 28, 29. The Administration of church-good, Prohibited to the Laics, 135  
Churches or Temples. Constitutions about the Building and Consecrating of them, 111, 120. Of their Reparations and Provision, 116. Of the Conservation of their Rights and Immunities, ibid. Prohibitions against keeping of Meetings, Trials, Markets, and Dance in them, 124, 128, 130. And fortifying them, 135. Penalties against those who are the occasion of their Pollution, 126  
Church-Yards. Prohibitions against letting cattle graze in them, 135, 136  
Conventual Churches. The Laics excluded those Churches on Sundays and Holydays, during the Parish-Service, 118  
The Gallican Church. Constitutions of King S. Lewis, for the Preservation of the Rights, Privileges, and Immunities of the Gallican Church, 146  
The Greek Church. Projects set on Foot for the Reunion of that Church with the Latin, 39, 82. A Profession of Faith, drawn up by Clement iv in order to bring the Reunion about, 83. This Reunion concluded under the Emperor Michael Palae●logus, 83, etc. And confirmed in the General Council of Lions, ibid. 123. This Reunion broken under the Emperor Andronicus, 84, etc. The Customs of this Church condemned, 97, Constitutions for Reforming the Greek Ritual in the Island of Cyprus, 50  
The Order of Citeaux, or, The Cistercian Order. A Canon against the Deserters of that Order, 43  
Clement IV. Pope. Marks of his Humility, 51  
Clerks. Constitutions concerning the Trial of Clerks, and against those who abuse them, 37, 38. The Excommunication of Laics who keep them in Prison, 35. That they ought not to work at any Trade, 50. That they ought not to have any Servant-Maids, 114. Or any other Women in their Houses, 39 Of the Trial of Clerks who keep Concubines. 38. See ecclesiastics.  
Collators. Of their Duties in Collating of Benefices, 65, 91, 109, 116, 155. That they may not detain the Fruits of Vacant Benefices, 121. Preserved in their Privileges in France, by King S. Lewis, 121  
Collations of Benefices. Lapse to the Pope or Bishop, if not collated within the time prefixed by the Canons, 33. Ought to be given gratis, 94, 104, 105, 108, 116, 117, 121. To capable persons 100, 108, 116, 120, 121, 134. In what Cases declared null, 121  
Colocz. The Tenths acquired by the Archbishop of that Church, 31  
C●lomban. The Re-establishment and Exemption of that Monastery, 39  
Commendams. Their Establishment, 156. That those of Vacant Benefices belong to the Bishop, 118. Prohibited, 121  
Comminges. The Damages which the Count of Comminges, suffered by the Crusade against the Albigenses, 151  
Commissaries delegated by the Holy See. The Formality required before they executed their Commissions, 111, 112, 117, 120  
That one might be provided against the deputed Commissaries, not by way of Appeal, but by way of Challenge, 40  
Communion. Ordered to receive it at Christmas, Easter, and Whitso●tide, 116. When the Parishioners are obliged to receive the Communion at the Hands of the proper Curate, 128  
Conclave. It's Institution, 51. Confirmed, 52  
Concoresois. Heretics of the Sects of the Cathari, and their Errors, 150  
Concubines. The Clerks forbidden to keep any, 130. Incapable of pious Legacies, 116  
Confession. Of the Duty of Priests in Confessions, 90, 99 Of Confession, and the manner of inflicting Pennances, 134. Of the Obligation of Confessing one's self to one's proper Curate, 99, 107. The revival of the Canon Omnis Utriusque Sexus, 116, 122, 128, 133, 156. Canons concerning Confession, 38, 92, 131, 132. Touching the Confession at Easter, 126, 133. And the Confessions of the Sick, 126. Of the power of hearing Confessions granted to the Mendicant Friars, 133. The Monks prohibited this Function by a Council, 125. The Contests between the Mendicants and the Ordinaries about Confession, adjusted according to the Decretal of Boniface VIII. super Cathedram, 136. Of the privacy of Confession, 90  
Confirmation. The Qualifications necessary for the Administering or Receiving this Sacrament, 118. That only Bishops can administer it, 39, 50. That none ought to neglect the receiving it, 120, 132. Who are not to be allowed to be Sureties at Confirmation, 90  
Confraternities. Canons against the Founding of New Confraternities, 110, 113, 117, 129  
Conimbra. The Rights and Privileges of that Church, 32, 33  
Conjurer's. Ordered to be Excommunicated every Sunday, 110, 111  
Conrade Cardinal, Bishop of Forto. The Constitutions which he Published, during his Legation in Germany, 105. The Council which he held in France against the Albigenses, 152  
Conrade Archbishop of Cologne. The Constitution which he published in a Council, 118  
Conrade Archbishop of Sal●zburgh. Synodical Statutes of that Archbishop, 136  
Conrade, the Son of the Emperor Frederick Elected King of Germany, 4. Excommunicated by the Pope, 8● His Expeditions in Italy and Germany, and his Death ibid.  
Conradin the Son of Conrade the Emperor. Disputes Sicily with Charles Count of Anjou, who takes him Prisoner, and puts him to Death, 10  
Conspiracies. Punished with Excommunication, 112  
Constantinople. Taken by the Latins, who set up for Emperor, Baldwin Count of Flanders, 81, etc. The Succession of the Patriarches of Constantinople in this Century, 84  
Corbey. A Privilege granted to the Abbot of this Abbey, of wearing a Ring, 31  
S. Corneille in Compeign. The Privileges of this Abbey confirmed, 30  
Corporals. By whom they ought to be wished, 115  
Councils. Observations on the Councils held this Century, 89. Reasons of holding the second General Council of Lions, 123. The Tart●● Ambassador Baptised in this Council, ibid. The Obligation of holding Provincial Councils every Year, 97  
Crimes. Of the Punishment of Enormous Crimes, 136  
Crusade. A 〈◊〉 for the Crusade resolved upon in the Fourth Lateran Council, 102. Privileges and Indulgences granted to the Croisado Men, ibid. The Crusade ordered in the First general Council of Lions, 115. The Crusade against the Albigenses, 150. Letters of Innocent III. in favour of the Crusade and Croisado Men, 23, 25, 29, 31, 32. That their Vow of going to the Holy Land may be commuted, 14. Deprived of their Privileges when they commit Crimes, 108, 111  
Curacies. Of the Age required for to Possess them, 124, 134. Forbidden to receive them from the Hands of Laics, 126, and from having Pluralities of them, 134. They may not be held by Monks, 113, 114. That the Bishops may not apply the Revenues of them to their own use, 116. Prohibited from being given in Commendam for above Six Months, 124. See Benefices.  
Curates. A Canon concerning the Institution of Curates into Churches, 108. Deprived of the Revenue of their Cures till they be Priests, 133. Competent Allowances granted to Curates and Vicars, 100, 104, 106, 113, 119, 125. A particular House for each Curate, 119. Of their Duties, 100, 104, 126, 129, 130. 131, 132, 133. Obliged to Residence, 120   

D  
DEans Rural. Of their Duties, 115, 128. That they cannot have Vicars, 113  
D●cre●als. A Collection of the Decretals of Popes, 49  
Dedication. Of the Celebration of that of Churches, 111  
Degrees in the Schools. How Established, and of the Right of Conferting them, 155  
The Abbey of St. Denis. The Confirmation of its Privileges, 18  
Didacus Bishop of Osma. His Remonstrances in a Council for the more speedy and easy Converting of Heretics, 150. An Example of Humility which he gives upon that Occasion, Ibid  
Dieppe. This City yielded by way of Exchange to the Archbishopric of Rouen, 16  
Dispensations. Whether those of the Pope's for enjoying Pluralities be Valid, 65  
Divines. Of their Establishment in the Churches, 98  
Divorce. That a Process against a Marriage of along standing ought not to be easily admitted, 43  
Dol. This Church subjected, to the Archbishopric of Tours, 36  
St. Dominick. Made use of to Preach to the Albigenses, 150, 151. Institutes the Order of Preaching Friars, 157  
St. Domnin. An Exemption granted to that Church, 25  
Donation. That a Donation is Null when he who gives it, is not Compos Mentis, 21  
Dormitory. That the Monks ought to lie alone, 93  
Drunkenness. Forbidden to ecclesiastics. 98, 105.   

E  
ecclesiastics. Of their Habits, 91, 94, 98, 105, 112, 116, 118, 119, 120, etc. Of their Manners, Conduct and Duties, 23, 90, 91, 92, etc. Ought to be well skilled in the Vulgar Tongue, 108. That the Priests of one Diocese may not Celebrate in another Diocese without their Bishop's Letter, 113, 117. Exempted from Civil Trusts and Charges, 91, 134. That they ought not to appear nor bring any Processes before Lay Judges, 113, 114, 117, 120, 122, 129. That they ought not to keep any suspicious Women in their Houses, 90, 117, 122, 129, 133. Canons against Incontinent Clerks, 98, 105, 108, 117, 120. Their Natural Children declared Slaves of the Church, 129. Punishment of those who Rebel against their Bishop, 122, 126. Punishments of Excommunicated Clerks, 127. The Reasons why the Pope reserves to himself the Absolution of those who have abused ecclesiastics, 23. Exempt from Taxes and Imposts, 100, 106, 107, 108  
Easter, That there are three sorts of Easter; a Corporeal, a Spiritual, and an Eternal, 95.  
Ecolampadus. Proposals which he made to the Waldenses, for their Union with those of his Sect, 149  
Elections. Forms prescribed for them, 99 Of the Freedom of them, 91, 121, 127. Of Elections and of the power of the Elected, 123, 155. That Heretics have no Right to Elect, 23. That the Election is null, if the Person Elected be interdicted, 39 Or if made by the Secular Power, 12, 15. That it ought to be confirmed before Possession be taken, 38. The Age prescribed for to be capable of being Elected Bishop, 40. The Election of a Bishop to another Church null, without the permission of the Holy See, 24. The Incapacity of a Person Elected to the Bishopric of Cambray, 36. Of Conventual Elections, 92. The Election of an Abbot of Gemblours declared valid, tho' Money were given for the Confirming of it, 37  
Abbey of S. Eloy at Noyon. A Convention for the Election of an Abbot of that Abbey, condemned by Innocent III. 19  
Empire of the East. The Division of that Empire, 81. A Supply granted in the General Council of Lions, for the Empire of Constantinople, 114  
Empire of the West. Contested between Philip Duke of Suabia, and Otho Duke of Saxony, 1, 2, 45, etc. The Pope's Pretensions upon this Contest, 42, 46. This Pretention contested, 47. At last the Empire is granted to Philip, who declares Otho his Successor, 2. This Empire bestowed on several Princes by the Holy See, 8, 9  
Engelbert Archbishop of Cologne. The Statutes of this Archbishop, 120  
Eucharist. Questions touching the Form which I. C. made use of to Transubstantiate the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood, 44. Ordered to renew the Eucharist every Fifteen Days, 50. and every Sunday, 131. How it ought to be carried to the Sick, and Indulgences for those who attend it, 96, 134. Of the Respect due to this Sacrament, 131. An Abuse in Administering the Eucharist redressed, 117. It ought to be kept under Lock and Key, 99, 129. The Error of Reginald Abbot of St. Martin of Nevers about the Eucharist, 89  
Evora, This Church subjected to that of Compostella, 36  
Examination. A Comparison between the Examination of Conscience, and that of Students who stand for Degrees, 73  
Excommunication. Forbidden to be Issued frequently, 108, or lightly, 114. Constitutions about the Form of Excommunication, 101. That it ought to be preceded by an Admonition, 105, 110. Rules prescribed for the Excommunication, or Interdiction of Lords and their Vassals, 113. That they ought not to be Universal, 128. Ordered to be Published every Sunday against Heretics, 110. When they may be Issued against Privileged and Exempt Persons, 129. That every Parish-Priest is obliged to pay a Deference to the Excommunications Issued out by the Bishop, 21. Of the obligation of getting one's self speedily Absolved, 21. That the Priests who contemn the Excommunication of their Bishop ought to be Deposed 86. A Case wherein Excommunication is incurred, 12●  
Excommunicated Persons. Canons against them, 91, 92, 95, 100, 101, 104, 105, 108, 110, 113, 114, 117, etc. Whether one Excommunicated for two Faults is sufficiently Absolved in acknowledging only one, 24. Whether one may Communicate with an Excommunicated Person, who has given Security to be Obedient to the Church, tho' he has not yet received Absolution, 27. Who are the Persons that may Communicate with the Excommunicated, and what Punishment they deserve who do it, ibid. 35, 111, 127. Of the Absolution of those who Communicate with Excommunicate Persons, 35   

F  
The Order of FAbale. An Order of Hermit-Friars, reunited to the Order of Augustine's this Century, 157  
Faith. Of Faith, 63. Two sorts of Articles of Faith, 63. Prohibitions against handling Questions of Faith in the Schools of Paris according to the Principles of Philosophy, 146. A Form of Faith Published in the Fourth General Council of Lateran, 96  
Falling Sickness. Renders the standing for a Bishopric Null, 44  
False Witnesses. Excommunicated, 104, 106. Condemned to very severe Punishments, 111  
Fasts. A Constitution for the Monks, touching the Fasts of Advent and Lent, 126  
Feltri. A Rule concerning the Oblations and Burial in this Monastery, 28  
Ferdin●nd the King of Arragon's Son. Takes his Doctor's Degree in the University of Paris, 155  
Festivals. The number of Festivals ordered in the Council of Oxford in the Year 1222, 10●. and in the Council of Toulouse in the year 1229, 107. The Obligation of observing the Festivals, 134.  
The Festival of the Holy Sacrament. The Institution of it, 51. The Office of this Feast by whom Composed, 70  
Fight. That the Priests who stir up others to Fight aught to be Deposed, 27  
Filioque. The Proposal made by the Greeks to the Pope's Legates about this Addition to the Creed, 82. The Legates Reply to that Proposal, ibid. Contests between the Greeks and Latins about this Expression, 83  
First Fruits. The Laics obliged to Pay this Duty to their Curates, 117  
Flagel●a●es. The Rise of this Sect and its Errors, 153, etc.  
The Abbey of Flora. Its Founder, 54  
Foix. The Count of Foix divested of his Territories by the Count of Montfort General of the Crusade against the Albigenses, 151. The Propositions of the King of Arragon in his favour to the Pope rejected, ibid. Joins himself with the King of Arragon and the Count of Toulouse against the Crusade, ibid. Is obliged to Sue for the Restitution of his Territories in the Lateran Council, ibid. Submits himself to the King of France and the Pope, 152  
Fondi. The County of Fondi granted to the Holy See, ●3  
Forgers. Excommunicated, 135. Canons against the Clerks guilty of Forgery, 126  
Fornication. A Question concerning For●ication, 50  
France. The respects of the Holy See for the King of France, 11, 47. That the Kingdom of France could not be Interdicted without a special Mandate from the Holy See, 50  
Francis Cussardi Archbishop of Tours. The Canons which he ordered to be Published in a Council, 107  
Frederick II. Emperor. Crowned King of Sicily by Pope Innocent III. 1. His Election to the Empire, 2. Defaults started by the Pope touching his Election, 46. His several Coronations, 3. The original of his Differences with the Holy See, 3. Excommunicated by the Pope, Ibid. Causes his Son Henry to be Crowned King of Germany, Ibid. Obliged to undertake an Expedition to the Holy Land under pain of Excommunication; and his Waver therein, Ibid. The Excommunication renewed against him, Ibid. Causes Four Manifesto's to be Published against the Pope and the Cardinals, Ibid. His Expedition to the Holy Land, Ibid. The Reasons which obliged him to make a Treaty with the Saracens after he had caused himself to be Crowned King of Jerusalem, 4. The Conditions of his Agreement with the Pope who gives him Absolution, Ibid, New Contests betwixt him and the Pope, Ibid. The Rebellion of his Son Henry, whom he causes to be Deposed and clapped into Prison, Ibid. Causes his Second Son Conrade to be Elected King of Germany after Henry's Death, Ibid. The War which he carried on against the Pope, who obliged the Italians to enter into a Confederacy against him, and Excommunicated him afresh, 5. He hinders the holding of the General Council at Rome, and Hangs the Pope's Relations, Ibid. The Proposals which he caused to be made at the General Council of Lions, 6. The Accusations of the Pope brought against this Prince, Ibid, 7. His replies to those Accusations, 6. The Sentence of this Prince's Deposition, 7. His Remonstrances to the Princes of Europe against that Sentence, 8. The Proposals of Accommodation which he in vain made to the Pope, Ibid. His Competitors to the Empire, ibid. His Death, Ibid.  
Minor Friars. Of the Institution of their Order, 157. Confirmed by Honorius III. 49. Of the Power of Preaching and Confessing, granted to the Minor Friars 52, 157  
Preaching Friars. Of the Founding of their Order, 157. They change their Habit and Constitutions in the Year 1218, ibid. Why called Jacobines, ibid. Their Contests with the University of Paris, 137, etc. The Form of the Oath which the University would have had them take in order to be Admitted Doctors, ibid. Why expelled the University, ibid., Their Proceed and the Bulls of Alexander iv for their Re-establishment, ibid. etc. Admitted at last Members of the University, 140, 155   

G  
GAllo Cardinal. The Constitutions which he Published in France, 90  
Games at Hazard. Prohibited to ecclesiastics, 94, 98, 125  
Gelesinanza Bishop of Verona, Head of a Party among the Albanians Heretics, 150  
The Abbey of St. Genevieve du Mont. The Letter of Innocent III. concerning the Accommodation made between the Bishop of Paris and that Abbey, 44  
Geoffrey Canon of St. Genevieve. Penalties inflicted on his Murderers. 91  
Geoffrey of St. Brice Bishop of Saintes. His Synodal Constitutions, 131  
George Morrel. Deputed by the Waldenses to Treat of their Union with the Calvinists, 149  
Gerard of Malemort Archbishop of Bourdeaux. The Constitutions which he Published in the Councils, 112, 116, 117  
Abbey of St. german at Auxerre. The Confirmation of the Privileges of this Abbey, 22. The Behaviour of a Bishop of Auxerre against the Monks of this Abbey, condemned by Innocent III. 18  
Abbey of St. german of Prez. Its Privileges Confirmed, 18  
H. Ghost. Of the Process or of the Holy Ghost, 123  
Gilbert Bishop of Chichester. His Syn●●al Statutes, ●35  
St. giles a City of Provence. An Assembly held in this Place against the Albigenses, ●50  
Gloria in excelsis. The Monks of Vezelay allowed to Sing it in Lent the Day of the Translation of St. Mary Magdalene, 17  
Gospel. Times wherein it was prohibited to Swear on the Evangelists, 117  
The Eternal Gospel. A pernicious Book under that Title, 139. ●45. William 〈◊〉 St. Amour Writes against this Book, ●39. The Errors of this Book and its Condemnation, 118, 145  
Grado. The Tenths restored to this Church, 17  
Grammar-Masters. Of their Establishment in the Churches, 98  
The Order of Gramm●nt. The Confirmation of its Statutes ●ud Privileges, 42  
Guardianships. Prohibited to Se● the Election of them, 108  
Guelphs and Gibelins. The Rise of these two Faction in Italy, 42  
Guy Cardinal Legate in Germany. The Constitutions which he Published in a Council, 120  
Guy Count of Auvergne. A Donation made to the Pope by that Count, 31  
Guy of Nevil Bishop of saint, His Constitutions, 136   

H.  
HEnry Landgrave of Thuring●. His Election to the Empire and his Death. 8  
Heresies. The Causes of Heresies, 63. The Punishment for Heresy Exclusion from Benefices and Ecclesiastical Offices to the third Degree, 52  
Heretics. The different Sects of Heretics, and their Errors Opposed and Condemned in this Century. 14, to p. 154. Canons against them, 91, 95, 96, etc. 109, 110. Penalties inflicted on those who entertain, Protect, Favour or Communicate with them, 33, 106, etc.  
Hermits of the Order of St. Augustine. Their Institution, 157  
S. Homobon. The Act of his ●…tion, ●2  
Hospitals. That no New One may be Erected without the leave of the Bishop, 113. Of their Government, 118. The Privileges of the Hospitals of the Holy Ghost of Montpellier, confirmed by Innocent III. 15  
Hospitality. Recommended to the Bishops, 54. and to the Monks, 93, 111.  
The Host. Questions about consecrated ●osts which should chance to be eaten by Rats and Mice, 86  
The Canonica Ho●…s. The Manner of Reciting them, 115  
Herbert Arch Bishop of Canterb●ry. The Constitutions which he Published in a Council, 90  
Hugh Cardinal Bishop of Sabi●a, One of the Legates who presided at the Council of Valenza in the Year 1248. 115  
Hugh Raymond Bishop of Riez. Presides at a Council in quality of Legate of the Holy See, 91  
The Humiliati or Humbled. Mendicant Friars established in this Century. 157  
Hunting. Prohibited to ecclesiastics, 92, 94, 98, 120.   

I.  
JAmes Archbp. of Narbonne. The Constitutions which he revived in a Council of Montpellier, 117  
Jews. Constitutions concerning them, 41, 120, 105. Other Constitutions against them, 19, 116, 120, 131. Obliged to be distinguished from Christians by several particular Badges on their clothes, 102, 110, 118. Incapable of being Evidences against the Christians in Courts of Judicature. 108. The Christians Prohibited to kill or abuse them, 111. They may not have any Christian Slaves, 128  
Images of the Saints. Prohibited to be defaced, 124  
Imposts. Prohibited, 110. Those Levied without the Prince's Authority Condemned, 91. A Penalty on those who Raise new ones, 116  
Incarnation. Of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, 41  
Incendiaries. Penalties against them, 33. Their Absolution reserved to the Pope, 91. Their Bishop permitted to Absolve them if they cannot come to Rome, 20  
The Incestuous, Excommunicated, 106  
Incontinence. A Bishop Deposed for Incontinence, 51  
Indulgences. Of their Grant, 102  
Infants. When an Infant Born of a Concubine may be said to be Legitimate, 24  
St. Innocent's Festival. Abuses practised in several Churches on that Day, abolished, 118  
Innocent IV. Pope. His Election, 5. His Differences with the Emperor Frederick, 6. His Enterprises on Sicily, 8. His Decreral against the Pretensions of the Regulars, 137. His Death, 9  
Inquisition. When Established against the Heretics, 152, 154. Of the Instituting of Inquisitors, 109. Of their Duties, 110, Privileges in their favour, 51  
Insabbatez. Why the Waldenses were so called, 147  
Interdictions. Constitutions concerning them, 102. Of the difference between a general and a particular Interdiction, 32. That it renders a Clerk uncapable of Benefices, 39 Conditions prescribed to a Bishop of Pampelona for Celebrating Divine Service in a General Interdiction, 22. Of the observation of Interdictions, 21, 135  
Intruders into Benefices. Excommunicated, 129  
Joachim Abbot of Flora. Several Propositions of his Books Condemned, 145  
The Joachites, or Joachinites. Their Errors and Condemnation, 118, 145, etc.  
The Abbey of St. John of Sens. A Privilege granted to that Abbey, ●44  
John Bishop of Frescati Legate in Germany Endeavours in vain to raise the Peter ●ence, 134. Constitutions which he Published in a Council, Ibid.  
John Baussanus Archbishop of Arles. Constitutions which he Published in a Council, 109  
John le bon Mantuan. Founder of the Hermits in Italy, 157  
John of Courtnay Archbishop of Rheims. The Council which he held in Compeigne, 122  
John Ducas the Greek Emperor. Projects of Reunion between the Greeks and Latins under his Reign, 82  
John of Lions. Head of a Party among the Albanians, Heretics, 150  
John of Mata, Doctor of Paris. Founder of the Order of Trinitarians, called Mathurini, 157  
John of Montsareau, Archbishop of Tours. Constitutions which he Published in the Councils, 122, 127, 130, 132  
John of Orleans, Chancellor of the Church of Paris. An Attempt of this Chancellor quashed by the University of Paris, 155  
John Peckam, Archbishop of Canterbury. Constitutions Published by this Archbishop, 129, 131. His Letter to King Edward. 132  
Joseph, Patriarch of Constantinople. His Opposition of the Reunion of the Greeks with the Latins, 83. His Deposition, ibid.  
Judges of the Bishop's Court. A Canon concerning their Conduct, 100  
Ecclesiastical Judges. Of the Right of Ecclesiastical Judges, 130. Of the Qualifications of those who take Cognizance of Matrimonial Causes, 112. May not Condemn any Person to afflictive Punishments, 129  
Juellus of Mentz, Archbishop of Tours. The Constitutions which he Published in the Councils, 110, 113, 114  
Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical. Canons concerning this Jurisdiction, 91, 100, 105, 108, 116, 120, 127, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136. Of the Process that ought to be observed in the Prosecution of ecclesiastics, 107, 108. The taking Cognizance, and the Trial of Capital Crimes forbidden to this Jurisdiction, 117. Abuses which were committed in this Jurisdiction, condemned by Innocent III. 29. Those who give any disturbance to it Excommunicated, 119, 122, etc.  
Jurisdiction Secular. Secular Judges forbidden to take Cognizance of Ecclesiastical Causes, 137   

K.  
KIngs. That they could not be deposed by the Pope, 8  
King of France. That this Title is more Noble than that of Emperor, 5. What Esteem the Holy See aught to have for the Kings of France, 11, 47  
Knights of Religious Orders. Of their Exemptions, 118   

L.  
The Church of LAghlin in Ireland. A Privilege granted to a Bishop of that Church, of not being Excommunicated by any but the Pope, 39  
Laics. That they ought not to concern themselves in Preaching or Teaching Others. 37  
Holy Land, See Palestine.  
Lascar. Restitutions made to a Bishop of this City, 135  
S. Laurence Archbishop of Dublin. Canonised by Honorius III. 49  
Laws. Of the Ecclesiastical Laws, 63  
Legates of the Holy See. Of defraying the Expenses made for their Reception, 122. They who refuse to obey them liable to Excommunication, 42. The Power which Innocent III. granted to one of his Legates in France, 36. The Robbing a Legate of his Effects, punished with the Deprivation of the Episcopal Dignity, with respect to several Churches, 16  
Leonistae. Why this Name was given to the Waldenses, 147  
Lepers. Obliged to wear a Badge to distinguish them, 135  
Letters Apostolical, Prohibited to enlarge the Powers of them, ibid.  
Lewis VIII. King of France. The Law of that Prince against Excommunicated Persons, 105. The Advantages which he got by the Crusade against the Albigenses, 152  
S. Lewis King of France. His Remonstrances to Pope Innocent iv touching the Sentence of Deposition passed against the Emperor Frederick, 8. The Contract he made by a Treaty with Raymond Count of Toulouse, about the Succession of the Territories of that Count, 152  
Lymoges. Censures issued out against the Canons of that Church, 16  
Lisbon. That Church subjected to the Church of Compostella, 36  
Litigious Persons. Excommunicated, 112  
The Church of Londen. The Confirmation of its Primacy over all the Churches of Sweden, 29  
Luke, Canon of Paris. The Decree of Suspension which he caused to be Published against the Members of the University of Paris, 137  
Lupoldus Bishop of Worms. His Election to the Archbishopric of Mentz Condemned by the Pope, who confirms that of his Competitor Sifroy, 2. Enjoys that Archbishopric till the Death of the Emperor Philip, ibid.   

M  
MAdness. That a Priest, Non compos mentis, from whom a Benefice has been taken, aught to have it restored him, if he recovers his Senses, 23  
Maguelone. The Contest about the Arch-Deaconry of that Church, decided by Innocent III. 21  
Mainfroy, The Natural Son of the Emperor Frederick II. Seises upon Sicily, for which he incurs the Displeasure of the Holy See, 9 The Crusade Published against him, ibid. His Defeat by Charles Count of Anjou, King of Sicily; and his Death, 9  
Mandates of the Holy See. Letters of Pope Innocent III. about Mandates, and the Execution of them, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 38, 40, 43, 62  
Marcowaldus an Officer of Frederick King of Sicily. Letters of Innocent III. against this Officer, 13, 32, 37, etc.  
The Abbey of Mariadura. The Confirmation of its Privileges, 41  
The Order of S. Maria of Mercia. The Institution of this Order, 157  
Maronites. Reunited to the Church of Rome, in the Fourth General Council of Lateran, 103  
Marriage. Prohibited from contracting Marriage without the Authority of the Church 108. That a Curate may not Marry the Parishioner of another Curate, 118. Prohibitions not to make any without Contract, 136. That a Contract of Marriage made per verba de praesenti, aught to subsist in Exclusion of that per verba de futuro, 12, 13. That a Girl of Seven years old, can neither contract Marriage, nor make any promise of doing it, that can be of force, 24, 39 That a Marriage contracted extra aetatem, and declared null, may be renewed, 33. That one Dumb and Deaf may Contract a Marriage, 24. 'Tis forbidden among Relations, 15, 36, 37. The Degrees Prohibited, 90, 101. That it ought not to be dissolved between Infidels who are related, if they turn Christians, 31. That the Wife's Relations may Marry her Husband's Relations, 40. Declared null when there is any Spiritual Affinity between the Man and the Woman, 27. Null between the Son of a Godfather, and the Daughter of a Godmother, 42. Whether a Marriage contracted in Lent, is valid, and what punishment the Priest merits who has celebrated it, 86. Whether it be valid with a Concubine which a Man has kept in his Wife's life-time, 15. That Marriage is dissolved between two Infidels when one of 'em turns Christian; but not between two Christians when one of 'em becomes an Heretic, 34. That the Wives of those Husbands of whom they have not had any News, may Marry again at five years' end, 86. Forbidden among the Greeks to Marry a third time, if one has had Children by the two former Marriages, 86. Clandestine Marriages forbidden 101, 108, 110, 112, 116, 133. Declared Clandestine when they are not celebrated by the proper Curate, 119. Clandestine Marriages liable to Excommunication, ibid. Of the Trial of Matrimonial Causes, 112, 130, 133. The Archpriests and Rural Deans forbidden to take Cognizance of them, 105. Rules prescribed in the matter of Marriage-Impediments, 108. Canons against those who obstruct the Celebration of Marriages, 104, 105, 121. Of the Spiritual Marriage of a Bishop with the Church his Spouse 24  
Martin IV. Pope. Tokens of his great Humility, 52  
Mass. Of its Celebration, 90, 98, 104. Of reading the Epistle at Mass, 129. The Obligation of Beneficed Persons to celebrate it, 127. Prohibitions against suffering unknown Priests to celebrate it, 92. That the loss of the Forefinger renders a Man incapable of celebrating Mass, 38. Prohibited to celebrate above once a day, 134. Prohibitions against bequeathing any thing by a last Will for the saying of Masses, 92. The Obligation of being present at the Parish-Mass, 129, 130. Ordered to hear it in silence, 135. Women forbidden to serve at the Mass, 50. Of the celebration of Mass among the Greeks, ibid. The use of cold or hot Water permitted among the Greeks in the Sacrifice of the Mass, ibid.  
S. Mathias. Of the celebration of the Festival of that Saint, 106  
Mendicant Friars. Of the Original and Progress of the Mendicants in this Century, 156. Of their Beggary, 143. Of the Commissions granted to them to Preach, ibid. Their Contests with the Ordinaries about the Right of Preaching and Confessing, 155. Determined in Favour of the Mendicants, 156  
Metropolitan. When he may Commission another Bishop to Consecrate his Suffragan, 36. That a Metropolitan cannot put Priests in the Diocese of his Suffragan, without his leave, 34  
Abbey of S. Michael, of the Order of Premontre. It's Establishment confirmed by the Pope, 35  
Michael of Corbeil, Archbishop of Sens. The Council which he held against two Heretics, 89  
Michael Palaeologus, the Greek Emperor. How he came by the Empire of Constantinople, 82. Procures the Reunion of the Greeks with the Latins, 83. Why Condemned by Pope Martin IV. 52  
Milan. An Extraordinary Collation of the Chancellorship of that Church made to the prejudice of the Pope's Mandate, 26  
Milo, Legate of the Holy See. Is Precedent of a Council, 91. The Satisfactions which he demands of Raymond Count of Toulouse for an Assassination whereof he was accused, 151  
Milo, Bishop of Soissons. The Council which he called at S. Quentin, 122  
Monks. That the Profession made before the Year of Probation is out, is valid, 29. That a Man cannot be made a Monk, unless his Wife make a Vow of perpetual Chastity, ibid. That a Priest who becomes a Monk at the point of Death, and quits the Habit upon his Recovery, is not obliged to lead a Monastical Life, 13. That a Man who has been made a Monk, when out of his Senses, may return to the World again, when he has recovered them, 23. Constitutions concerning the Monastical Discipline, 92, 94, 98, 101, 103, 105, 112, 113, 115, 121, 125, 127, 128, 130, 132, 133, 134, 136, 137, 140. Concerning the Habits of Monks, 91, 93, 94, 103, 108, 109, 113, 116. Of the Habit of Monks who are made Bishops, 129. Obliged to confess themselves to their Superior, 92. To have nothing the proprio, 91, 92, 94, 108, 109, 113, 115, 125, 133. Nor borrow Money without the leave of their Superiors, 103. Prohibited to give them Money for their Maintenance, 113, 114. That they may not go from one Monastery to another, 94. That a Monk who passes from an austere Order, to another more mild, where he receives Orders, may there perform the Functions of his Orders, 16, 20. Ordered to have more than one in each Priory, 93, 94, 108, 109, 113, 116, 119, 127. That they may nor enjoy Curacies, 113, 114. Subjected to their Ordinaries, 30, 39, 42, Obliged to observe the Interdiction issued out by their Bishop, 17. Of the Visitation of the Monasteries of Blackfriar in Germany, 120. Privileges granted to the Italian Monks of the Order of S. Benedict, 43. The Tokens that William of St. Amour prescribes, whereby to discover the false Monks, 140, 143  
Monasteries. Constitutions concerning their Cloister, 92. Prohibitions against Building of new ones without the Bishop's leave, 113. The leave of turning a Church into a Monastery, to be granted by the Bishop, 43. Prohibitions against holding Trials in them, 117  
The Abbey of Montsacre. The Differences between this Abbey and that of Calane, adjusted by Innocent III. 29  
The Church of Montreal. The Confirmation of the Privilege of its Archbishop, 23  
Abbey of Mouzon. The Pope's Grant of raising it to a Bishopric, 17  
Murder. Deprives a Clerk of his Benefices, 27. That an involuntary Murder committed by a Clerk, does not deprive him of his Benefices, 18. Whether a Priest, who is the innocent Cause of a Murder, may continue his Functions, 39 The Absolution of this Crime reserved to the Bishop, 132. The Penance imposed on a Man who had killed his Wife and Daughter, 44  
Muret. This City Besieged by the King of Arragon, who lost his Life before it, 151  
Mysterium Fidei. Why these Words were added to the Canon of the Mass, 44   

N  
NArbonne. A Peace set on Foot in this City, between the Crusade and the Albigenses, 151  
Church of Nephin. Restored to that of Tripoli, 14  
New Converts. The care the Bishops ought to have of them, 111  
Nicholas de Bar sur Aube, Doctor of Paris. The Proceed of Pope Alexander iv against this Doctor and several others of his Brethren, 138. Is one of the Embassy to Rome, 139  
The Church of S. Nicholas of the Mount, near Narni. It's Privilege of Exemption confirmed, 25, 29  
Notaries. What they ought to know in order to be admitted into such an Office, 111  
Nuncios of the Pope. Those who offer them any Injury Excommunicated, 134  
Nuns. Constitutions concerning their Conduct and Duties, 93. 102, 105. Obliged to live in Common, 126. That the Nuns who have beaten other Nuns or Clerks, may receive Absolution from the Bishop, 42   

O  
OAths. When forbidden to exact the Oath of Fidelity of Ecclesiasiicks', 100 When one is not bound to keep it in Justice, 28  
Odo of Douai. Doctor of Paris. The Proceed of Alexander iv against this Doctor and several of his Brethren, 138. Is sent to Rome with William of S. Amour, 139. The Rules for the University which the Pope would have him approve of, and made him to execute, 140  
Offerings. That those of private Chapels belong to the Curates, 121  
Officials. The Study requisite for being admitted an Official, 111. Of their Duties, 127  
Orbibarians. A Sect of Heretics, and their Errors, 149  
Ordinations. Of the Times of Ordinations, and the Qualifications of those who are to be Ordained, 109, 112, 117, 124, 125. The Age prescribed for taking Priest's Orders, 90, 155. And the other Orders, ibid. That an Eccesiastick, who is the cause of a Murder, without being an Accomplice in it, may be promoted to Holy Orders, 24. That a Man who has lost his Right Hand, may not be admitted to take Holy Orders, or enjoy Benefices, 23. Of the Duties of Bishops in Ordinations, 99 That a Bishop who has Ordained any Clerks, without the Title of a Benefice, or a Patrimony, aught to provide for their Subsistence, 14. Ordinations made by Excommunicated Persons, null, 27. Prohibitions against demanding any thing for conferring Orders, 102, 130  
The Minor Orders. Three of the Minor Orders omitted by the Greeks, 50  
Religious Orders. The Institutions of several Religious Orders in this Century, 156. etc. Their Number Restrained, 124. And Prohibitions against Founding new Ones, 98. That 'tis not lawful to pass from a more strict to a more remiss Order; but rather from a more remiss to a more strict One, 34. The Laics forbidden to wear the Habit of any Religious Order, without having made Profession of it, 125  
Teutonick Order. Its Rules approved of by Innocent III. 33  
Orensa in Spain. The number of its Canons fixed to thirty six, 24  
Ornaments of the Church. The Abbots prohibited to Consecrate or bless them, 120. Of those which are requisite for every Church 104. Of the care that ought to be taken of them, 98, 115. 132. Prohibited from pawning them without the Bishop's leave, 126  
Osyth of Chu. The Confirmation of the Institution of the Order of Regular Canons of that Abbey, and of its Privileges, 22  
Osma in Spain. Rules confirmed for this Church, 35  
Cardinal Otho. The Council which he held at London, during his Legation in England, 111  
Otho Duke of Saxony and Emperor. Disputes the Empire with Philip Duke of Suabia, 45. The Motives which induced the Pope to declare for him, and to confirm his Election, 46, 47. Is recognised for Emperor, after the Death of Philip, and Crowned at Rome, 2, 47. The Oath which he takes of the Pope, ibid. The cause of his breaking with the Pope, who Excommunicates and Deposes him, 2. His Attempts to maintain himself on the Throne, 2, 3. His Defeat by Philip Augustus, King of France, 3. And his Death, ibid.  
Cardinal Ottobon. The Constitutions which he Published during his Legation in England, 120  
Ottogar, King of Bohemia. Takes an Advantage of the Divisions of Germany, to Aggrandise his own Authority, 9 His Differences with the Emperor Rodolphus, 10. His Death, ibid.   

P  
PAlestine, or the Holy Land. The Obligation of the Vow of going to to the Holy Land, 14. The Letters of Pope Innocent III. for the Relief of the Holy Land, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 40, 41, 48  
Pall. That it ought only to be granted to such Arch-Bishops whose Predecessors have enjoyed it, 32  
Peace. Prayers for it enjoined, 126. Decrees for the Observation of it, 109  
Perfect. Who are counted such a▪ among the Albigenses, 153  
Perjurers. Canons against them, 106. 116. Their Absolution reserved to the Pope, 91  
Patriarches. Of the Rank and Privileges of Patriarches, 97. That they ought not immediately to take upon themselves the Trial of Clerks, who desire to be tried by their Bishop, 31  
Patriarches of Constantinople. What Rank they held in the Conventions, wherein the Emperor was in Person, 42  
Patronage. Of the Right of Patronage, 130. That no Man can present himself to a Benefice, of which he has the Right of Patronage, 21  
Patrons. Penalties to be inflicted on those who abuse the Clerks of their Patronage, 100  
The Church of S. Paul, near Mount Cassin. The Privilege of having Tenths, and of Baptising granted to this Church, 30  
Pegaw. A Contest about the Exemption of this Abbey, 24  
Canonical Penalties. The commutation of them for Pecuniary Fines, forbidden, 121  
Penetintiaries. Ordered to have one General Penitentiary in every Cathedral Church, 112. Of their Duties in Absolving reserved Cases, 118  
Penance. Of the enjoining of Pennances for Public Sins, 132  
Penitentiary Friars. Hermits reunited to the Order of Augustin Friars in this Century, 157  
Pensions. Forbidden to lay any on Benefices, and particularly on Curacies, 100, 115, 119, 121  
Personats. A Constitution in Favour of those who are provided with them, 122. The having two in one and the same Church, forbidden, 100 Chose of the Church of Arles at the Disposal of the Archbishop, 30  
Perusa. Rules for that Church, 13  
S. Peter's Abbey at Corbie. The Confirmation of the Privileges of this Abbey against the Bishop of Tournay, 30  
The Church of S. Peter at Rome. A Privilege granted to the Canons of that Church, 32  
Peter Cardinal Bishop of Albania. One of the Precedents of the Council of Valenza in the Year 1258. 115  
Peter Bishop of Exeter. His Synodal Statutes, 134  
Peter Amelli Archbishop of Narbonne. Constitutions which he Published in a Council, 110  
Peter of Chateauneuf. One of the Legates of the Holy See against the Albigenses, 150. Assassinated by the Orders of Raymond Count of Toulouse, Ibid. Punishments inflicted on his Murderers, 91  
Peter of Corbeil Archbishop of Sens. Constitutions which he Published in a Council, 103  
Peter of Lambale Archbishop of Tours. Constitutions which he Published in the Council of Saumur in the Year 1253, 115  
Peter Mason, Deputed by the Waldenses for their Union with the Calvinists, 149  
S. Peter Nolascus, Founder of the Order of S. Maria of Mercia, 157  
Peter of Roscidavalle Archbishop of Bourdeaux. Constitutions which he Published in Councils, 118, 119  
Peter Waldo. Author of the Sect of the Waldenses, 147  
Philip Bishop of Fermo Legate in Hungary, etc. Constitutions which he Published in a Council, 129  
Philip Duke of Suabia and Emperor. His Contests with Otho Duke of Saxony for the Empire, 2, 45. His Election rejected by the Pope, and that of Otho confirmed, 47. His Advantages over Otho who is obliged to yield him the Empire, 2, 47 His Tragical Death, 2, 47.  
Philip Augustus King of France. The Pope's Remonstrances concerning the Divorce of this Prince and his Wife, Queen Isemburga, 25, 43. Invests Simon Count of Montfort with the County of Toulouse, 152  
Philip the Fair King of France. Of the Legitimation of this Prince's Children by the Pope, 45  
Physic. The Monks forbidden to study it, 193  
Physicians. Of their Duties towards the Sick, 99  
Pilgrimages. Of those of Clerks, 129  
Pilgrims. Exempt from paying Taxes, 107  
Pilicdorf. The Errors of the Waldenses related by this Author, 149  
Pisa. The Privileges of Primacy and Metropolitanship confirmed to this Church, 13  
Plays. ecclesiastics forbidden to see any, 98  
Plead. Forbidden to be held on Holydays, 136. In Churches or Church-Porches, 115, 124. Or in the Cloisters of Monasteries, 117  
Bishopric of Poitiers. Contested between Ademar of Peyrat, and Maurice of Blazon Bishop of Nantes, 14  
Portugal. A Tribute exacted of that Kingdom by the Holy See, 15, 29  
The Papal and Imperial Power. Of the Union which ought to be between those two Powers, 47  
Poor Indulgences granted to those who maintain them, 132. Advocates allowed to Plead their Causes, 113  
Poor Catholics. An Order of Religious Mendicants, Founded in this Century, 157  
Poor of Lions. Why the Waldenses were so called, 147  
Poverty. Whether 'tis Lawful to give all one's Estate to the Poor, and reduce one's self to Beggary, 141, 143  
Popes. Of their Authority in this Century, 155  
Preachers. The Marks which William of S. Amour sets down to discover the false Preachers, 153  
Preach. By whom they are to be performed, 129. That they ought to be gratuitous, 92, 118. Of the Rights of Ordinaries with regard to the Power of Preaching and administering the Sacraments, 143. Punishments to be inflicted on false Preachers, 97  
prebend's. The dividing of them Prohibited, 19, 115  
Predicants. Schismatics of Germany and their Errors, 153  
Prelates. A Constitution for the Number of Servants which Prelates may carry along with them in their Visitations. 17  
Order of Premontie. The Approbation of this Order, 24. Privileges granted in its favour, 19 Confirmed, 24  
Preseription, That a Possession of 40 Years makes a Prescription, 33  
Presentation, The Bishop's Sewer when the Right of Presentation is contested, 31. An Abuse in the Presentation of Benefices condemned, 113  
Priests. The ●…ctions which they may not do without the Approbation of the Ordinaries, 34 138, whether a Married Priest may perform his Functions, 12, Obliged to Confess themselves every Week, 131. Those who Abuse them Excommunicated, 19  
Priories. Prohibited to give them to Secular Clerks, 127  
Prison. A Case wherein breaking of Prison deserves Excommunication, 125  
Privileged or Exempt Persons. Subject to the Ordinary, 110  
Procession of the Holy Ghost. Opposed by the Greeks, and maintained by the Latins, 82, 83  
Processes. Canons against those who excite or foment them, 132  
Procuration-Dues. When forbidden, or allowed to demand it, 92, 100, 115, 820, 124. Prohibitions against receiving it in Money, 108. All Churches obliged to pay it to the Legates of the H. See, 33  
Monastical Profession. Ordered to make it after one Year of Probation 112  
Prophecies. Of those of Abbot Joachim, 54  
Purgatory. The Greeks obliged to believe Purgatory, 50   

Q  
QUerbus a City of Languedoc. Supplies granted for the Siege of that City, 117  
Questors Of the Right of Nominating them, 131. Forbidden to admit of any without the leave of the H. See, or the Bishop, 102, 117, 129  
Quodlibetical Questions. Most of the Works of the Authors of this Century Composed under this Title, 53   

R  
RAimond Archbishop of Arles. Assists at the Council of Narbonne in the Year 1235.  
Raymond Count of Toulouse. Why Excommunicated and afterwards Absolved, 150. The Assassination of which he was the Author, ibid. The satisfactions he was obliged to make for it, and the Protection he gives to the Albigenses, 151. Why Excommunicated afresh, ibid. The Mediation of the King of Arragon for to get this Count restored to his Lands, which the Croisado-Men had taken from him, ibid., The King of Arragon declares himself for him, and is Killed by the Croisado-Men in Besieging a Town, ibid. The Estates of this Count given to the Count of Montfort, ibid. The Count of Toulouse re-established in part of his Estates, 152. His Son of the same Name who succeeded him reconciled to the Pope, Ibid. He is Excommunicated in a Council, and his Estates given to the King of France, 105, 152. Makes his Peace with the Pope and the King, ibid. The Conditions of this Accommodation, ibid. After what manner Absolved in the Church of Notre-Dame, ibid. Sets up the Inquisition at Toulouse, and declares himself absolutely against the Albigenses, ibid. & 153  
Ravenna. It's Exarchat restored to the Holy See by the Emperor Rodolphus, 10  
Ravishers. Excommunitated, 106  
Rector, Of the Quality of the Rector in the University of Paris, 155  
Regalia. This Right reserved to Princes, Ibid  
Reginald Abbot of St. Martin at Nevers. Accused of Heresy, and Condemned in a Council, 89  
Reginald of Montbason Archbishop of Tours. Constitutions which he Published in a Council, 136  
Registers. Of those in Monasteries, 122  
Religion. Of being admitted into a Religious House, 92, 93, 94, 105. The Age prescribed to be Admitted, 105, 113  
Relics. Of the Worshipping of them, 102, 117, 129. Forbidden to Swear on Relics for any other Causes than that of Peace, 117  
Reparations of Churches. Who are bound to do it, 128  
Reprisals. The use of them abolished in the Church, 124  
Resignations. A Canon to prevent Collusion in them, 121. Declared Null when made for fear of the Secular Power, 41  
Restitution. An Exempt Bishop to make Restitution to another Bishop before the latter has made him any, 20  
Revelations. When it's proper to credit them, 26 Ecclesiastical Revenues. That Canons newly made aught to have a Dividend of the Augmentation of the Revenues of the Chapter, 15  
Richard King of England. The Letters of Innocent III. to get the Sums demanded for that King's Ransom to be restored to him again, 20  
Rings. Peculiar to Prelates. 129  
Rouen. The Church of Notre-Dame of that City. The Canans of that Church obliged to Repair it, 21. Lands granted to this Church by way of Exchange, 16. The Convention of the Kings of France and England, against the Sentences passed by an Archbishop of Rouen, Condemned by the Pope, 21  
Robbers on the Highway, Excommunicated, 125  
Robert the Brother of King St. Lewis. The Refusal which he made of accepting the Imperial Crown, and his Answer to the Pope concerning the Deposition of the Emperor Frederick TWO,  
Robert Grostest Bishop of Lincoln. His Quarrel with Pope Innocent IV, about a Mandate which he would not admit of, 62. The Reproaches which the Pope cast on this Bishop, 63  
Robert of Lisle Bishop of Durham. His Synodal Statutes, 128  
Robert of Winchelsea Archbishop of Canterbury, His Constitutions. 136  
Rodolphus Count of Habspurg. His Election to the Empire and Coronation, 10. His Differences with Ottogar King of Bohemia, ibid. The Restitutions which he made to the H. See, ibid. Neglects his Authority in Italy, to settle himself the firmer on Germany, Ibid. His Death, Ibid.  
Rodolphus Monk of Fon●froid, One of the Missionaries, made choice of to Preach to the Albigenses, 105  
Roger Bernard Count of Foix. The Restitutions which he is condemned to make in a Council of Negarol, 135  
Romania. This Province restored to the Holy See, by the Emperor Rodolphus, 10  
Romanus Cardinal Legate in France, Canons which he Published against the Heretics, 106. The Opposition the French Prelates made against the Attempts of this Legate in the Council of Bourges, 152. The Conditions which he together with King S. Lewis Imposed on Raimond Count of Toulouse, by the Treaty of Accommodation, Ibid.  
The Church of Rome. Of its Primacy; and in what sense it is styled the Universal Church, 38  
The Court of Rome. The Constitution of King S. Lewis against the Exactions of that Court in France, 121  
Rostaing Archbishop of Arles. Constitutions which he Published in a Council, 135  
Runcaires. A Sect of Heretics and their Errors, 149   

S  
SAcraments. Of the Administration of them, 131 That no Priest may Administer them without the leave of his Diocesan, 34. Forbidden to demand any thing for their Administration, 90, 105, 111, 114, 117, 120. But allowed to accept of what the Faithful give out of Devotion, 90, The Errors of the Waldenses about the Sacraments, 148  
Sacrilegious Persons. The Absolution of them reserved to the Pope, 91  
Church of Saintes. The number of its Canons fixed to Forty, 33  
Saints. Whether one may Pray for them, 45  
Sanctuary. Preserved to Churches, 131. The Clerks who Violate the Sanctuary of Churches, Excommunicated, 120  
Saracens. Obliged to pay Tithes in the Parishes where they reside, 35  
Vagrant Scholars. A Sect condemned in Germany, 136  
Scholastic Divinity. Much in use in this Century, 53  
Schools. That the Licence of Teaching in Schools ought to be given Gratis, 92. Sports abolished in small Schools, 119  
H. Scripture. Judgement upon the Works made on the Holy Scriptures in this Century, 93  
Seal. That every Church ought to have its own particular Seal, 112  
Church of Seclin in Flanders. A Contest for the Provostship of this Church, 16  
Sermons. A Judgement on those which were Composed in this Century, 53  
Divine Service. Obligation of Celebrating it Devoutly, 94, 98, 126. Bishops obliged to Celebrate it on the great Festivals, 94. Prohibitions against suffering Vegabond Priests to Celebrate it, 113. Of its Celebration in Interdicted Places, 101, 134. Forbidden to Celebrate it before ●xcommunicates, 131. Qualifications required for to enable one to do any Office in the Church, 124  
Services. The Institution of their Order, 157  
Sicily. The Attempts of several Popes on that Kingdom, 8. Bestowed by the H. See on Edmond King of England's Son, who could not become Master of it, 9 And afterwards on Charles Count of Aujou, who subdued it by his Forces, 10. How Invaded by the Kings of Arragon, 10. This Kingdom divided into two, ibid. The Tribute, Fealty and Honage exacted by the H. See for this Kingdom, 28. A Canon for the Election of the Bishops of this Kingdom, Ibid.  
Sifroy Archbishop of Cologue. His Statutes, 131  
Silence, Enjoined the Monks, 108  
Silvestrines, An Order of Hermits established in Italy, 157  
Simon, Cardinal of S. ●●cila. Is Precedent of the Council of Bonrges, 127  
Simon Count of Montfort. Elected General of the Crusade against the Albigenses, 151. His Conquests gained over the Heretics, ibid. Which are granted to him by the Councils, ibid. Is Invested in them by the King of France, and assumes the Name of Count of Toulouse, ibid. His Death at the Siege of the City of Toulouse, 152. His Son Amaury succeeds him in his Conquests, Ibid.  
Simon of Beaulieu, Archbishop of Bourges. The Constitutions which he revives in a Council, 133  
Simony. Condemned in the Councils, 37, 90, 92, 102, 121. Simoniacal Clerks deprived of their Benefices, 31. The Punishment ordered the Simonical, notwithstanding their Appeal to the H. See, 21. Allowed to clear one's self of this Crime by Witnesses, 37  
Sins. Of the means of attaining Pardon of Sins, in order to obtain Salvation, 73  
Siscido●. Heretics little different from the Waldenses, 149  
Sore. The Privilege; of this Abbey Coufirmed, 29  
Souls, Decisions concerning the State of Departed Souls, 50. The Opinion of William of Paris concerning the Soul of Beasts, 64  
Duchy of Spoletto. Subjected to the H. See, 25  
Stadings, Heretics of Germany. Their Errors, 153. This Sect suppressed by force of Arms, ibid. Stephen Archbishop of Canterbury. Suspended in the Fourth Council of Lateran, and why, 103  
Stephen Templier, Bishop of Paris. Several Erroneous Propositions condemned by him, 146  
Surgery. ecclesiastics forbidden to exercise it 98  
Synods. The Abbots and Priests obliged to be present at the Synods of their Bishop, 40   

T  
TAper. Ordered to have a lighted Taper in each Church, 127. The use of Wooden Tapers prohibited, 118  
Taverns. The ecclesiastics forbidden to frequent them, 98, 125, 129, 132, 134  
Taxes. Forbidden to lay any on ecclesiastics, 100, 106, 107  
Tithes. Canons concerning the Payment of Tithes, 36, 37, 39, 101, 107, 117, 127, 128, 131, 132, 135, 136. That one ought to pay them only to the Bishop of the Place where one dwells, and not to the Bishop of the Place which one has left, 31. The Lands which a Bishop has of his own exempt from Tenths, 20. That Laics may not Possess, Detain, or Demand them under what Pretence soever, 30. Of the grant of Tithes to Monasteries, 23. Tithes adjudged to the Bishop of Bergues, 19  
Testaments. Canons of several Councils concerning Last Wills and Testaments, 120, 127, 128, 132, 133, 134. Ordered to be made in presence of the Curate, 106, 110, 126, 134. And received by him, 107. That the Disposal which a Dying Man makes of his Estate to the Discretion of another, stands as a Will in Law, 42. A Canon against those who hinder the leaving Legacies to Churches, 122. Of their Execution, 111, 122. The Persons who obstruct the Execution of them Excommunicated, 196. Of the use to be made of the Estates of those who Die Intestate, 121  
Testimony. That the Canons may be Witnesses in the Civil Causes of their Churches, 20  
Theodore Comnenus, Prince of Epirus. His Reunion with the Church of Rome, 81. Why Excommunicated by Gregory IX. Ibid.  
Theodore Lascaris. The Establishment of his Empire at Nice in Bythinia, 81, 82  
Theodosius Canon of Genes. Legate of the H. See against the Albigenses, 150  
Clerical Tonsure. Age and Qualifications required for receiving it, 109, 117. ecclesiastics obliged to wear it, 90, 125, 128. Penalties against those who neglect it, 38, 132  
Toulouse. This City taken by the Count of Montfort, 151, retaken by the Count of Toulouse, 152  
Trade. The ecclesiastics forbidden to exercise any, 50, 91, 98, 107, 116, 117, 126, 128  
Translations. Those of Bioshps reserved to the Pope, 16, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 42. Null without the Permission of the H. See, 24, 38, 40  
Trials, or Proofs by hot or cold Water, or by Duel. Forbidden with respect to Monks, 44  
Trials. Whether if one of the Judges Delagated for the Trial of a Process fall Sick, the rest may proceed to the Trial without him, notwithstanding the Appeal of one of the Parties to the H. See, 27. The ecclesiastics forbidden to pronounce the Sentence of Death, 98, 104  
Tribunal Ecclesiastical. See Jurisdiction Ecclesiasti.  
Tribunal Secular, See Jurisdiction Secular.  
Trincavel Count of Beziers. A favourer of the Albigenses, Excommunicated in a Council, 152  
H. Trinity. Of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, 42. Of the Unity and Essence of the Trinity, 96. The Opinions of Abbot Joachim contrary to those of the Master of the Sentences about the Trinity, 54, Of the Celebration of the Festival of the H. Trinity, 118  
The Order of the H. Trinity, or of the Redemption of Captives. This Order when and by whom Instituted, 157. It's Rule Cofinrmed, 30  
Troyes. The Canon made by the Chapter of this Church for the Distribution of its Revenues, Annulled by Innocent III. 18   

V  
VAl des Ecoliers. The Institution of that Order, 157  
Sicilian Vespers. The Cause and Author of this Conspiracy, 10  
Abbey of Vezelay. The Grant and Confirmation of its Privileges, 17. The Body of St. Magdalene preserved in that Abbey, 41  
Vicaridges. Forbidden to establish any, 119, 129  
Vicars of Churches. That there ought to be some in all Parish-Churches, 118, 134. Canons which grant the perpetual Vicar's competent Allowances, 105, 106, 109  
Vigils, or Nocturnal Meetings, prohibited in Churches and Church-yads, 118, 128, 130  
Vincent of Pilenes Archbishop of Tours. Canons which he Published in the Councils, 119, 122  
Visitations. Canons concerning the Visitations of Bishops, 17, 120, 127, 129, 130, 134. Of the Duties of Bishops and Arch-Deacons in their Visitations, 92, 100 The Privilege of Visiting Monasteries, confirmed to the Bishops, 42  
Virtues. Of Virtues and Vices according to William of Paris, 62  
University of Paris. Of its Establishment, 155. Of its Schools, ibid. Of its Studies, ibid. Of the Degrees in its Faculties, ibid. and of the Right of conferring them, ibid. Its Bachelors why so called, and their Functions. ibid. Divided into Four Faculties, and Four Classes, ibid. Its Differences with the Preaching Friars, 137. The Decree of the Divines for the maintenance of their Privileges, ibid. Expels the Preaching Friars, ibid. Writes to the Bishops of the Kingdom to oblige them to stand by it. It's Members Suspended from their Functions, ibid. The Bull of Alexander iv against it in Favour of the Dominicans, etc. See the Preaching Friars.  
Church of Volterra. Confirmation of its Privileges, 41  
Vouchers of Churches. Those who Usurp this Title, Excommunicated, 124. A Canon about their Conduct, 100 Abolished by Honorius III. 31, 49  
Usury, Forbidden to the ecclesiastics, 91, 126. To the Jews, 117. A Decision concerning Usury 93  
Usurers. Canons against them, 28, 93, 94, 102, 106, 108, 110, 116, 120, 122, 124, 126, 128, 131, 132, 133  
Utensils Sacred. Forbidden to Pawn them without the Bishop's leave, 126   

W  
WAldenses or Vaudois. Their Original, 146, 147. The several Names which were given them, 147. Their Errors, ibid. etc. The Growth of this Sect, 149. Their Union with the Calvinists, ibid.  
Walter of Bruges Bishop of Poitiers. His Constitutions, 131  
Walter of Marvio Bishop of Tournay. The Cano●s which he Published in his Legation in France, 108  
Waltham-Abbey. The Confirmation of the Privileges of this Abbey, and the Grant of new ones, 36  
William Bishop of Paris. Ten Erroneous Propositions condemned by him, 146  
William a Franciscan, Two Propositions which he was obliged to retract, ibid.  
William the chief of Amaury's Disciples. His Errors and false Prophecies, 144  
William Count of Holland. His Election to the Empire and Coronation, His Death, 9  
William Count of Montpellier. Pope Innocent III. refuses to Legitimate his Natural Children, 45  
William of Broa Archbishop of Narbonne. The Councils which he held at Beziers, 115, 117  
William of Fillac●ur Archbishop of Rouen. Canon's which he caused to be Published in a Council, 128  
William of Flavacour Archbishop of Rouen. Statutes Published by him in a Council, 136  
William of St. Amour Doctor of Paris. His Contests with the Preaching Friars, 139. Justifies himself of the Erroneous Propositions laid to his charge, ibid. Condemned by Alexander IU. ibid. His Book concerning the Perils of the Last Times, Condemned by the Pope, ibid. Is Deputed to Rome with several other Members of the University, ibid. The Pope's Proceed against him, ibid. He retires into Burgundy, 140. Returns to Paris, and sends his Book to Clement iv to peruse, ibid. That Pope's Answer to him, ibid. The Doctrine of that Book, ibid. His Death, Ibid.  
Williamites. Permits Instituted in Italy, by William Duke of Aquitaine, 157  
Wine. Forbidden to Sell any within Monasteries, 109  
Witnesses. Of the Testimony on the Exceptions to a Process, and on the Principal, 31. Excommunicated Persons debarred from giving Evidence in Courts of Judicature, 127, 130  
Women. What Women the Clerks may be allewed to keep in their Houses, 39 Forbidden to have any in Monasteries, 133. That they may go to Church a little after their Lying in, 14. Canons against Debauched Women, 130. That its a Meritorious Act to reclaim Women from their Debancheries and Mary them, 16   

Z  
ZAmbonites. Hermits Instituted in Italy, by John the Good Mantuan, 157  
Zara in Dalmatia. The Pope's Invectives on the taking of this City by the Croisade-Men, 45  
Abbey of St. Zeno at Verona, The Church of St. Proculus Subjected to this Abbey, 22  
Zoan Bishop of Avignon. The Council which he held are Alby, 116   
FINIS.   

A NEW Ecclesiastical History, Containing an ACCOUNT of the CONTROVERSIES IN RELIGION; THE LIVES and WRITINGS OF Ecclesiastical Authors; AN Abridgement of their Works, And a JUDGEMENT on their STYLE and DOCTRINE: ALSO A Compendious HISTORY of the COUNCILS AND All Affairs Transacted in the Church. Written in FRENCH By Lewis Ellies du PIN, Doctor of the SORBON.  
VOLUME the TWELFTH. Containing the HISTORY of the FOURTEENTH CENTURY.  
LONDON, Printed for TIMOTHY CHILD, at the White-Hart in St. Paul's- Churchyard, MDCXCIX.   

PREFACE.  
THE Fourteenth Century furnishes us with many Subjects very Pleasing; for it represents to us the Contests between the Regal Dignity and Priesthood, or rather the Kings and Popes (for the Kingly Function and Priesthood do always fully Agree, although the Men who are raised to those Great Dignities, differ much about the bounds of their Power) the Destruction of a famous and powerful Order, the Church of Rome divided by a Schism of Forty Years continuance, the decay of the Greek Empire, endangering the Ruin of it, the Greek Church disturbed with frivolous Questions, the Order of Franciscan Monks torn in pieces by odd Opinions, and extravagant Practices; Divers Errors taught by Divines, and condemned by the Bishops, or Universities, and several Disorders suppressed by the Constitutions of Councils, and Bishops. The Divines which flourished in this Age followed the Method of the Schools, as their Predecessors had done. The Commentators upon Holy Scripture, the Preachers, and Monks produced nothing great, nor excellent, and the Historians nothing exact, or perfect. But the Study of the Civil Law came to its Perfection almost, and Humane Learning, which had been a long time neglected, was much studied and improved about the middle of this Age by a certain number of ingenious Men, who by imitating the Ancients, were eminent for their Skill in Languages, Oratory and Poetry, and brought again into the World a Desire of Antiquity, and a Love of Profitable and certain Sciences.   

A TABLE of the CONTENTS.  

CHAPTER I.  
THE History of the Quarrels of Philip the Fair, King of France, and Boniface VIII. as well under the Pontificate of that Pope, and Benedict XI. his Successor, as during the Vacancy of the Holy See, and the beginning of the Papacy of Clement V Page 1  
The Election of Benedictus Cajetanus, named Boniface VIII. Ibid  
The Beginning of the Broil of the Pope with that King upon the account of the Earl of Flanders, Ibid  
The Bull of Boniface forbidding to raise any Taxes upon the Clergy, 2  
That King's Prohibition to carry any Silver out of his Realm, Ibid  
The Pope's Bull against that Prohibition, Ibid  
The King's Manifesto against the said Bull, Ibid  
The Letter of the French Bishops to the Pope about his Bull, 3  
An Embassy to continue the Truce, Ibid  
The Explication of the first of the Pope's Bulls, Ibid  
The Pope's Proceed against the Colonni, and their Condemnation, Ibid  
Boniface's Bull in favour of the Earl of Flanders, 4  
The Appointment of a Jubilee by Boniface, Ibid  
Boniface quarrels afresh with the King, Ibid  
The Bishop of Pamiez sent to the King, to whom speaking ill, he is Arrested, Ibid  
A Bull against the King's Prerogative, 5  
Bulls about the Supremacy of the Pope, and against the Right of the Kings, Ibid  
An Assembly of the States against the attempts of Boniface, Ibid  
The Answers of the King and States, to the Pope, 6  
The Replies of the Pope and Cardinals, to the King and States, Ibid  
Writings against the Pretences of the Pope, 7  
The Petition of William de Nogaret against the Pope, Ibid  
The Publication of the Bull Unam Sanctam, Ib.  
The Propositions of Cardinal Lemoine, the Pope's Nuncio in France, Ibid  
The King's Answer to the Articles proposed by the Nuncio, 8  
Bulls against the King, Ibid  
An Assembly of the States at the Lovure, Ibid  
Accusations brought against the Pope, Appeals to a Council, 9  
The Pope taken by Nogaret at Anagnia, Ibid  
The Deliverance of the Pope, and his Death, Ibid  
The Letters of Boniface VIII. Ibid  
The Election of Benedict XI. Ibid  
The Accusation of Boniface, before Benedict XI. Ibid  
The Revocation of the Bulls of Boniface VIII. against France and the Colonni, 10  
The Excommunication of Nogaret, and those who assisted him in taking Boniface, Ibid  
The Death and Letters of Benedict XI. Ibid  
The Petition of Nogaret and the French, against the Memory of Boniface, Ibid  
The Election of Clement V Ibid  
The Revocations of Boniface's Bulls by Clement V 11  
A Rule of Process against the Memory of Boniface VIII. Ibid  
The Judgement of the General Council of Vienna, concerning the Affair of Boniface. 12   

CHAP. II.  
THE History of the Condemnation of the Templars, 12  
The Original, Progress and Decay of the Templars, Ibid  
The Accusers of the Templars, Ibid  
The Templars arrested, and their Goods seized, 13  
Informations against the Templars, Ibid  
The Crimes of which they were accused, Ibid  
The Pope forbids the Bishops and Inquisitors meddling with the Cause of the Templars, 14  
The Answer of the Doctors of Divinity in Paris, about the business of the Templars, 15  
The Pope himself questions the Templars, Ibid  
The Promises of the Pope to proceed against the Templars, Ibid  
The Informations taken by three Cardinals at Chinon, Ibid  
Bulls against the Templars, Ibid  
Judges Commissioned by the Pope to proceed against the Order of the Templars, 16  
Informations taken by the Pope's Commissioners, Ibid  
A Provincial Council held at Paris against the Templars, 17  
The Execution of the Templars at Paris, 18  
Prosecutions against the Templars in several Kingdoms, Ibid  
The Judgement of the Pope in the Council of Vienne against the Templars, Ibid  
The Execution of the Grand Master, and a Templar at Paris, 19  
The Use which the Templars Estates were put to in divers Nations, Ibid  
Objections alleged in Justification of the Templars, 20  
Reasons to prove the Justice of the abolishing the Order of the Templars, Ibid   

CHAP. III.  
THE History of the Popes that had their Residence at Avignon, from Clement V to the Death of Gregory XI. and what Remarkable Things happened in the Empire, Italy, and the Church in their Papacies, and among other things, the Contest of Lewis of Bavaria with the Popes. The Contest of the Grey-Friars with John XXII. and the Question about the Happy estate of Souls after this Life, moved by that Pope. 21  
The Election of Pope John XXII. Ibid  
The Elections of Archbishoprics and Bishoprics by John XXII. 22  
The State of the Empire and Italy, Ibid  
Nicolas V. Antipope. 24  
The Death of John XXII. Ibid  
The Contest of the Grey-Friars about the fashion of their Habits, Ibid  
The Disputes of the Grey-Friars, concerning the Property of such things as they consumed, 25  
The Condemnation of the Errors of Petrus Joannes Oliva de Sorignan, 27  
A Dispute between the Emperor and Pope concerning the Property of the things consumed by the Grey-Friars, Ibid  
The Question of the Happiness of the Saints immediately after their Death moved, and debated by Pope John XXII. Ibid  
The Letters of John XXII. 28  
The Election of Benedict XII. 29  
A Determination of the Question of the happiness of the Saints by Benedict XII. Ibid  
Benedict XII. confirms the Judgement of his Predecessors against Lewis of Bavaria, and the Grey-Friars, Ibid  
Rules made by Benedict XII. and his Death, 30  
The Works of Benedict XII. Ibid  
The Election of Clement VI Ibid  
Rules made by Clement about the Affairs of Italy, Ibid  
Lewis of Bavaria Excommunicated anew by Clement, 31  
The Election of Charles iv to the Empire, Ibid  
The Enterprise of Nich. Laurentius in Rome, Ibid  
The Death of Clement VI Ibid  
The Election and Actions of Innocent VI Ibid  
The Election of Urban V and his Actions, 32  
The Election and Actions of Gregory XI. Ibid   

CHAP. IU.  
THE History of the Schism of the Popes of Rome and Avignon, and what happened in Christendom on that Account, until the holding of the Council of Pisa, 33  
The Election of Urban VI made by force, Ibid  
The beginning of the Papacy of Urban VI 34  
The Cardinals retire to make another Election, Ibid  
The Election of Clement VII. 35  
The Division of the Christian Princes about the two Popes elected, Ibid  
Clement VII. goes to Avignon, 36  
Wars in Italy, between Lewis Duke of Anjou and Charles de Duras, Ibid  
Urban VI arrested by Charles de Duras, and constrained to fly to Genoa, 37  
Clement VII. being acknowledged by the Kings of Castille and Arragon, would raise a Tax in France, 37  
The Death of Charles de Duras, and Urban VI. Ibid  
The Election of Boniface IX. by the Roman Cardinals, Ibid  
Lewis Duke of Anjou Crowned King of Sicily by Clement VII. 38  
The Contrivance of the University of Paris to remove the Schism, Ibid  
The Death of Clement VII. 39  
The Election of Benedict XII. at Avignon against the King of France's Will, Ibid  
An Assembly of the Prelates of France, which advised the way of Session, Ibid  
Benedict revokes the way of Session, Ibid  
An Act of Appeal of the University of Paris, Ibid  
A withdrawing of Obedience from the two Contendants for the Papacy, resolved and published in France, 40  
The Withdrawing agreed on upon certain Conditions, 41  
Proposals of Union made to Boniface, 42  
The Death of Boniface, Ibid  
The Election of Innocent VII. at Rome, and his Actions, Ibid  
Projects for Union among the Contendants, 43  
The University of Paris renewed the Substraction, Ibid  
The Death of Innocent VII. and the Election of Gregory XII. Ibid  
Proposals of Peace between Gregory and Benedict, 44  
The King of France sends Ambassadors to procure the Peace of the Church, Ibid  
Gregory and Benedict evade the Session, Ibid  
The Revolt of the Cardinals from Gregory, 45  
The Act of the Appeal of the Cardinals, Ibid  
The Proceed of Gregory, against the Cardinals that revolted, Ibid  
Abusive Bulls sent by Benedict to the King of France, Ibid  
The Proceed against Benedict and his Bulls, Ibid  
The Publication of the Neutrality in France, 46  
Gregory and Benedict appoint Councils, and the Cardinal's order One at Pisa, Ibid  
A Synod of French Bishops, who made Rules for the time of the Neutrality, 47  
The Punishment of certain Couriers, who brought Pope Benedict's Bulls into France, Ibid   

CHAP. V.  
THE Lives, and Writings of the Authors who flourished in the Fourteenth Century, 48  
Three Ages of the Schoolmen, Ibid  
The Study of the Civil and Canon-Law in the Fourteenth Century, Ibid  
Dinus de Mugello, Professor of the University of Bononia, Ibid  
Engelbert Abbot of Admont, 49  
Jacobus Cajetanus a Cardinal, Ibid  
Stephanus de Salagnac a Dominican, Ibid  
Andreas Novo-ca●trensis a Dominican, Ibid  
Rainerius de Pisâ a Dominican Ibid  
William de Nangis a Monk of S. Denys, 49  
Thomas Wicke a Canon-Regular, Ibid  
Henry Stero a Monk of Altaich, Ibid  
Eberardus Archdeacon of Ratisbonne, Ibid  
Joannes de Joinville Governor of Champagne, Ibid  
Suffridus a Priest of Misnia, Ibid  
Haito a Canon-Regular of the Praemonstratenses, 50  
Joannes Le-Moine a Cardinal, Ibid  
William of Paris a Dominican, Ibid  
Joannes Parisiensis a Dominican, Ibid  
Joannes Parisiensis a Canon-Regular, 51  
Thomas Joyce a Cardinal, Ibid  
Joannes de Geminiano a Dominican, Ibid  
Jacobus de Benedictis a Franciscan, Ibid  
Justus an Abbot of the Cistertians, 52  
Joannes Duns Scotus a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
Raimundus Lullus of the same Order, Ibid  
Joannes de Friburg Bishop of ●…a, 54  
Aegidius Romanus Archbishop of Bourges, Ibid  
William Durant Bishop of Menda, Ibid  
Victor Porchet de Salvaticis a Carthusian, 55  
Malachias a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
William le More Bishop of Angers, Ibid  
William de Mandagot a Cardinal, Ibid  
Berengarius de Fredol a Cardinal, Ibid  
James de Thermes Abbot of Charlieu, Ibid  
Antonius Andreas a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
Harvaeus Natalis a Dominican, Ibid  
Ptolomaeus Lucensis Bishop of Torcello, Ibid  
Philip Bishop of Aichstat, Ibid  
Hugo Pratensis a Dominican, 56  
Joannes de Neapoli a Dominican, Ibid  
Petrus Aureolus Archbishop of Aix, Ibid  
Nicholas Trivet a Dominican, Ibid  
Augustinus Triumphus an Augustine- Friar, Ibid  
Albert of Milan an Augustine Hermit, Ibid  
Joannes Bassolis a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
Jacobus de Lausanna a Dominican, Ibid  
Henry de Carret Bishop of Lucca, 57  
Dominicus Grenerius Bishop of Pamiez, Ibid  
Petrus Alverniensis, a Canon of Paris, Ibid  
Vitalis è Furno a Cardinal, Ibid  
Marinus Sanutus or Sanudo surnamed Torsellus, Ibid  
Alexander de S. Elpidio, Archbishop of Ravenna, Ibid  
Alvarez Pelagius Bishop of Silves, Ibid  
William Ockam a Grey-Friar, 58  
Marsilius of Milan a Lawyer, 60  
Radulphus de Praelles, 61  
Philippus Maserius, Ibid  
Ubertinus de Cassalis a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
Michael Caesonas General of the Grey-Friars, Ibid,  
Joannes de Janduno or of Gaunt, 62  
Bernardus Guido, Bishop of Tuy, Ibid  
Guy de Perpignan Bishop of Elne, Ibid  
Arnoldus de Terrenâ Sacrist of Perpignan, Ibid  
Franciscus Maronius a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
Bertrandus de Turre a Cardinal, 63  
Durandus de S. Porciano Bishop of Meaux, Ibid  
Odericus de Port-naon a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
Guido Abbot of S. Denys, Ibid  
William of Nottingham Canon of York, Ibid  
William Mount Canon of Lincoln, Ibid  
Philip de Montcalier a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
Astesanus of the same Order, Ibid  
Nicolas de Lyra, Ibid  
Peter Bertrandus a Cardinal, 64  
William de Rubion a Grey-Friar, 66  
Guido de Montrocher a French Divine, Ibid  
Monaldus a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
Ludolphus the Saxon, a Carthusian, Ibid  
William de Montledun Abbot of Monstierneuf, Ibid  
Simon Boraston an Englishman, 67  
Bartholomew de S. Concordiá a Friar-Preacher, Ibid  
Bartholomew Bishop of Urbino, Ibid  
Bartholomew Albicius a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
William Baldensel a Germane Knight, Ibid  
Arnoldus Cescomes Archbishop of Tarragon, Ibid  
Daniel Trevisi a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
Henry de Urimaria an Augustinian, Ibid  
Robert Cowton a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
Durandus de Champagne of the same Order, Ibid  
Clement of Florence of the Order of the Servites, 67  
Lupoldus de Bamberg a Lawyer, Ibid  
Walter Burley a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
John Canon of the same Order, 68  
Petrus de Palude Patriarch of Jerusalem, Ibid  
Francis Petrarch a Lawyer, Ibid  
John Bacon a Carmelite, Ibid  
Joannes Becanus a Canon of Utrecht, 69  
Simon Fidatus de Cassiá an Augustine Hermit, Ibid  
Joannes Andreae a Lawyer, Ibid  
Robert Holkot a Dominican, Ibid  
Richard Hampole an Augustine, Ibid  
Joannes Honsemius, a Canon of Liege, Ibid  
Gerard Odonis, Ibid  
James Folquier an Augustine, Ibid  
Bernardus Abbot of Mont-Cassin, 70  
Thomas Bradwardin a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
Albericus de Rosate a Lawyer, Ibid  
Petrus de Paternis an Augustine, Ibid  
Peter a Monk of Clarâ Valle, Ibid  
Richard Fitz-Ralph Archbishop of Armagh, Ibid  
Roger Conway a Grey-Friar, 71  
Gregorius Ariminensis, General of the Hermits of S. Austin, Ibid  
Thomas of Strasburg General of the same Order, Ibid  
Adam Goddam a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
Ralph Higden a Benedictine, Ibid  
Joannes Thaulerus a Dominican, 72  
Petrus Bercherius Prior of S. Eligius, Ibid  
Bernardus Dapifer a Monk of Melch, Ibid  
Joannes Calderinus a Lawyer, Ibid  
Bartholomew Glanville a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
Alphonsus Vargas Archbishop of Sevil, Ibid  
Matthew de Cracovia Professor at Prague, Ibid  
Gallus Abbot of Konigsaal, Ibid  
Henry a Monk of Rebdorfe, Ibid  
Hugolinus Malebranchius Bishop of Ariminum, Ibid  
Thomas Stubbs a Dominican, Ibid  
S. Bridget, Ibid  
S. Catharine of Sienna, 73  
Matthew Florilegus a Benedictine, Ibid  
Albert of Strasburg, Ibid  
John Scadland Bishop of Worms, Ibid  
Nicholas Oresme Doctor of Paris, Ibid  
Robert Gervais Bishop of Senez, 74  
Jordanus Saxo an Augustine, Ibid  
Philip Cabassolas Cardinal, Ibid  
Gerhardus Groot a Canon-Regular, Ibid  
Peter de Natalibus Bishop of Jesol, Ibid  
John de Rusbroeke a Canon-Regular, Ibid  
Philip de Leyde a Canon of Utrecht, 75  
Bonaventure of Milan a Cardinal, Ibid  
John de Burge Chancellor of Cambridge, Ibid  
Philip Ribot a Carmelite, Ibid  
Jacobus de Teramo Archdeacon of Aversa, Ibid  
Guido d'Eureux a Dominican, Ibid  
Augustin d'Ascoli an Augustine Hermit, Ibid  
Henry Boich a Doctor of Law, Ibid  
Simon de Cremona an Augustine Hermit, Ibid  
Peter Quesnel a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
Marsilius ab Inghen a Doctor of Paris, Ibid  
Henry Knighton a Canon-Regular, Ibid  
William Thorn a Benedictine, Ibid  
Gerhardus de Zutphen a Canon-Regular, 76  
Nicholas Eymericus a Dominican, and Inquisitor, Ibid  
Matthew d'Eureux a Dominican, Ibid  
Nicholas de Gorham a Dominican, 77  
John Bromiard of the same Order, Ibid  
William of Woodford a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
Rodolphus de Rivo Dean of Tongres, Ibid  
Joannes Tombacus Master of the Sacred Palace, Ibid  
Raimundus Jordanus Abbot of Cella, Ibid  
Francis Ximenius Bishop of Elna, Ibid  
Antonius de Butrio a Lawyer, Ibid  
Lucius Coluccius a Lawyer, 78  
Henry de Palmâ, or de Baûme, a Grey-Friar, Ibid  
Bertrand de Trille a Dominican, Ibid  
Joannes Grossus a Carmelite, Ibid  
Michael Aigrianus a Carmelite, Ibid  
Francis Zabarell a Cardinal, Ibid  
Jacobus Magnus an Augustine, Ibid  
Baldus a Lawyer, Ibid  
Petrus Harentalius Abbot of Floreff, Ibid  
The Authors of the Fourteenth Century, whose Works are Lost, 19   

CHAP. VI  
AN History of the Greek Church, and the Authors, who flourished in the East in the Fourteenth Age of the Church, 82  
The History of the Greek Emperors, Ibid  
The Inclination of the Greeks towards the Latins, 83  
Some Proposals of Union under Andronicus, Ibid  
Some Projects of Union under Cantacuzenus, 84  
The Union of Joannes Palaeologus, Ibid  
The Contest between the Barlaamites and Palamites, Ibid  
The First Council of Constantinople against the Barlaamites in 1340. 85  
The Second Council of Constantinople against Acindynus, Ibid  
The Third Council of Constantinople against the Palamites, Ibid  
The Fourth Council of Constantinople against the Palamites, Ibid  
The Fifth Council of Constantinople against the Barlaamites, Ibid  
Barlaam made Bishop of Hieracium, 86  
Gregory Acindynus a Greek Monk, 87  
Gregory Palamas Archbishop of Thessalonica, Ibid  
Nicephorus Callistus a Greek Monk, Ibid  
Andronicus the Elder, the Greek Emperor, 88  
Maximus Planudes a Greek Monk, Ibid  
Matthew Blastares, a Greek Monk, Ibid  
Nilus Cabassilas Archbishop of Thessalonica, Ibid  
Nicholas Cabassilas Archbishop of the same place, 89  
Nicephoras Gregoras, Chartophylax of the Church of Constantinople, Ibid  
Callistus Patriarch of Constantinople, 90  
Philotheus Patriarch of Constantinople, Ibid  
Theophanes Archbishop of Nice, Ibid  
Nilus Archbishop of Rhodes, Ibid  
John Cantacuzenus Emperor of the Greeks, Ibid  
Joannes Cyperissiota, Ibid  
Manuel Calecas a Dominican, Ibid  
Isaac Argyrus a Greek Monk, 91  
Manuel Palaeologus the Greek Emperor, Ibid  
Nilus Damila a Greek Monk, Ibid  
Maximus a Greek Monk, Ibid  
Demetrius Cydonicus, Ibid   

CHAP. VII.  
THE Councils held in the Fourteenth Century, 92  
The Council of Melun in 1300. Ibid  
The Synodal Constitutions of Wichboldus Archbishop of Colen in 1300. Ibid  
The Synodal Constitutions of Baieux made about 1300. Ibid  
The Council of Auscheim in 1300. Ibid  
Of Compeigne in 1301. 93  
Of Nogarol in 1303. Ibid  
Of Compeigne in 1304. Ibid  
Of Auch in 1308. 94  
Of Presburg in Hungary in 1309. Ibid  
Of Saltzburg in 1310. Ibid  
Of Colen in 1310. Ibid  
The General Council of Vienna in Dauphine in 1311. 95  
The Council of Ravenna in 1311. 97  
Of Ravenna in 1314. 98  
Of Ravenna in 1317. 99  
Of Paris in 1314. Ibid  
Of Saumur in 1315. 100  
Of Nogarol in 1315. Ibid  
The Councils of Senlis in 1316. and 1317. Ibid  
Of Sens in 1320. and of Paris in 1323. Ibid  
Of Valadolid in the Diocese of Palenza in Castille in 1322. and in Toledo in 1323. Ibid  
The Council of Toledo in 1324. 101  
Of Colen in 1322. 102  
Of Avignon in 1326. Ibid  
Of Avignon in 1337. 103  
The Councils of Marsac in 1326. and 1330. Ibid  
Of Senlis in 1326. and Compeigne in 1329. 105  
Of Complutum in 1326. and Pennafiel in 1302. Ibid  
The Council of Ruffec in 1327. Ibid  
Of Salamanca in 1335. Ibid  
Of Rouen in 1335. 106  
Of Bourges in 1336. Ibid  
Of Chateaugonthier in 1336. Ibid  
Of Toledo in 1339. Ibid  
Of Noyon in 1344. 107  
Of Paris in 1346. 107  
Of Toledo in 1347. Ibid  
Of Beziers in 1351. Ibid  
Of Toledo in 1355. 108  
Of Angers in 1365. Ibid  
Of Lavaur in 1368. Ibid  
Of Narbonne in 1374. Ibid  
Of Saltzburg in 1386. 109  
Of Palenza in 1388. Ibid  
Councils held in England in the Fourteenth Century, 110  
The Council of London in 1321. Ibid  
Of London in 1328. Ibid  
Of Lambeth in 1330. Ibid  
Of Macclesfield in 1332. 111  
The Councils of London in 1341, 1342, and 1343. Ibid  
Of Lambeth in 1351. Macclesfield and Lambeth in 1362. Ibid  
Of York in 1367. Ibid   

CHAP. VIII.  
HEresies and Errors published and condemned in the Fourteenth Century. 112  
The Sect of the Frerots or Shavelings, Ibid  
The Errors of Petrus Joannes Oliva, Ibid  
The Practices of the Spiritual Friars, Ibid  
The Begards and Beguines, Ibid  
Gerhardus Segarelli, Ibid  
Dulcinus de Novaria, Ibid  
Herman de Pongeloup, Ibid  
Arnoldus de Villâ Nouâ, 113  
The Lollards a German Sect, Ibid  
Ceccus Asculanus, Ibid  
The Errors of Eckard, Ibid  
Marsilius of Milan, 114  
Propositions of John Mercourt Condemned by the Faculty of Divinity at Paris, Ibid  
The Recantation of Nicholas Utricourt, Ibid  
Of Doctor Simon, Ibid  
Of Friar Guy, Ibid  
Of Lewis a Divine, Ibid  
Of John de Chaleur. Ibid  
The Condemnation of the Errors of Dionysius Soulechat, Ibid  
The Errors of Berthoul Rorbach, 115  
The foolish Opinions of Martin Gonsalvus, Ibid  
Other Follies of Nicholas of Calabria, Ibid  
The Visions of Jenovez, Ibid  
The Opinions of John de Latona and Bonagette, about the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, Ibid  
The Errors of Arnoldus Montanier, Ibid  
Turlupins, Ibid  
Errors condemned by Simon Langham, Ibid   

CHAP. IX.  
ECclesiastical Observations upon the Fourteenth Age, 116  
The Question of the Ecclesiastical Power above the Temporal, Ibid  
The Effects of the Pope's Residence at Avignon, Ibid  
The Settlement of the First fruits of Benefices, Ibid  
The Settlement of the Jubilee, Ibid  
The Question of the Poverty of Christ and his Apostles, Ibid  
The Question of the State of Souls after Death, Ibid  
The Discipline of the Church about Benefices and beneficed Persons, 117  
Several Rules about the Manners, and Practices of Clergymen, Ibid  
Observations about the Monastic State, Ibid  
Rules for Curates and Mendicant Friars about their Preaching and Administration of Sacraments, 118  
New Congregations settled in the Fourteenth Age, Ibid   

The Titles of the Tables.  
A Chronological Table of the Ecclesiastical History of the 14th. Age of the Church.  
A Chronological Table of the Ecclesiastical Authors, and their Works.  
A Chronological Table of the Councils held in the 14th. Age, and their Acts, Letters, Canons, and Articles.  
A Table of the Works of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the 14th. Age, disposed according to the Order of the Matters they treat on.  
An Alphabetical Table of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the 14th. Age.  
An Alphabetical Table of the Councils held in the 14th. Age.  
A Table of the Principal Matters contained in this Volume.    

An Alphabetical Table of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the Fourteenth Age of the Church.  

A.  
ACindynus, see Gregory Acindynus.  
Adam Goddam, or Woddam, a Grey-Friar, Page 71  
Aito, see Haito.  
Albericus Rosatus, or Roxiati, a Lawyer, 70  
Albert de Bresse a Friar-Preacher, 79  
Albert of Milan an Augustine-Hermit, 56  
Albert of Strasburg, 73  
Alexander of Alexandria, a Grey-Friar, 79  
Alexander de S. Elpidio, Archbishop of Ravenna, 57  
Alphonsus Vargas Archbishop of Sevil, 72  
Alvarus Pelagius Bishop of Silves, 57, etc.  
Andrew of Newcastle a Friar-Preacher, 49  
Andronicus Senior the Greek Emperor, 82, & 88  
Anonymous or a Nameless Author, 7  
Antonius Andrea's a Grey-Friar, 55  
Antonius de Butrio a Lawyer, 77  
Arnoldus Cescomes Archbishop of Tarragon, 67  
Arnoldus Terrena Sacrist of Perpignan, 62  
Astesanus a Grey-Friar, 63  
Augustine D'Ascoli an Augustine Hermit, 75  
Augustinus Triumphus of the same Order, 56   

B.  
BAldus or Ubaldus a Lawyer, 78  
Barlaam Bishop of Hieracium, 83, 84, to 87  
Bartholomew Bishop of Urbino, 67  
Bartholomew a Grey-Friar, 80  
Bartholomew Albicius of the same Order, 67  
Bartholomew de S. Concordiâ a Friar-Preacher, Ibid  
Bartholomew de Glanville, a Grey-Friar, 72  
Benedict XI. Pope, 9, 10, & 28.  
Benedict XII. Pope, 29, & 30  
Benedict XIII. Pope, 38, etc. to 47  
Berengarius of Fridol Cardinal, 55  
Bernard Abbot of Mount-Cassin, 70  
Bernard Dapifer a Monk of Melch, 72  
Bernard Guidonis Bishop of Tuy, and after of Lodeve, 62  
Bernardo de Parenzo a Friar-Preacher, 80  
Bertamus of the same Order, 81  
Bertrandus de Turre Cardinal, 63  
Bertrandus de Trille a Friar-Preacher, 78  
Blaisus Andernarius a Carmelite, 82  
Bonaventure of Milan a Carmelite, 75  
Boniface VIII. Pope, 1, etc. 116  
Boniface IX. Pope, 37 to 42, & 116  
S. Bridget, 72, 73, & 118   

C.  
CAllistus Patriarch of Constantinople, 90  
Cantacuzenus, see John Cantacuzenus.  
S. Catharine of Sienna, 73  
Clement V Pope, 10, etc. to 21, 26, 28, & 118  
Clement VI Pope, 30, 31  
Clement VII. Pope, 35, to 39  
Clement of Florence a Servite, 67  
Conradus Canon of Ratisbonne, 81  
Conradus d'Altzey, Ibid   

D.  
DAniel de Trevisi a Grey-Friar, 67  
Demetrius Cydonius a Greek, 91  
Dinus de Mugello a Lawyer, 48  
Dominicus Grenerius Bishop of Pamiez, 57  
Durandus of Champeigne a Grey-Friar, 67  
Durandus de S. Porciano Bishop of Meaux, 28, 48, & 63   

E.  
EBerardus, Archdeacon of Ratisbonne, 49  
Eckard a Friar-Preacher, 79 & 113  
Engelbert Abbot of Admont, 49   

F.  
FOrtanerius Vassalli Cardinal, 80  
Francis Martin a Carmelite, 81  
Franciscus Mayronius a Grey-Friar, 62  
Francis Petrarch a Lawyer, 68  
Franciscus Ximenius Bishop of Elne or Perpignan, 77  
Francis Zabarell Cardinal, 78   

G.  
GAllus Abbot of Konigsaal, 72  
Gerhard Bishop of Savonna, 80  
Gerhard de Bononia a Carmelite, 79  
Gerhard Groot, or the Great, a Canon-Regular, 74, & 118  
Gerhardus Odonis a Grey-Friar, 69  
Gerhard of Sienna an Augustine-Hermit, 79  
Gerhard of Zutphen a Canon-Regular, 76  
Giles Colonnior of Rome, Archbishop of Bourges, 54  
Gregory XI. Pope, 32  
Gregory XII. Pope, 43, to 47  
Gregory Acindynus a Greek Monk, 85, 86, 87  
Gregorius Palamas Archbishop of Thessalonica, 84, 85, 86, 87  
Gregorius Ariminensis an Augustine-Hermit, Bishop of Ferrara, 71  
Guy Abbot of S. Denys, 63  
Guy d'Eureux a Preaching-Friar, 75  
Guy Bishop of Ferrara, 79  
Guy de Montrocher, a French Divine, 66  
Guy de Terrenâ Bishop of Elne, or Perpignan, 62   

H.  
HAito, or Aito, a Canon-Regular of the Premonstratenses, 50  
Henry a Monk of Rebdorfe, 72  
Henry Andernac a Carmelite, 82  
Henry de Palmâ or de Baume, a Grey-Friar, 78  
Henry Boich a Lawyer, 75  
Henry de Carret Bishop of Lucca, 57  
Henry de Dolendorp, a Carmelite, 81  
Henry D Erford a German, 80  
Henry Euta or Oyta, a Germane, 82  
Henry de Kalkar a Carthusian, 81  
Henry Knighton a Canon-Regular, 75  
Henry Stero a Benedictin Monk of Altaich, 49  
Henry de Urimaria an Augustin Hermit, 67  
Herenus de Boy a Carmelite, 79  
Herman de Schilde an Augustin Hermit, Ibid  
Harvaeus Natalis a Friar-Preacher, 55  
Hugolinus Malebranchius Bishop of Ariminum, 72  
Hugh de Prato, a Friar-Preacher 56   

I.  
JAcobus de Benedictis a Grey-Friar, 51  
Jacobus Cajetanus Cardinal, 49  
Jacobus Folquier an Augustine-Hermit, 69  
Jacobus Magnus of the same Order, 74  
Jacobus de Alta Villâ a Germ. 81  
Jacobus de Lausannâ a Preaching Friar, 56  
Jacobus de Teramo Archdeacon of Aversa, 75  
Jacobus de Termes Abbot of Charlieu, 55  
Jacobus de Viterbo Archbishop of Naples, 79  
Idiota, vid Raimondus Jordanus.  
Innocent VI Pope, 31, etc.  
Innocent VII. Pope, 42, etc.  
John XXII. Pope, 21, etc. to 29. 60, 61, & 116.  
John Abbot of S. Bavon, 82  
John a Benedictin Monk of castle, 81  
John d'Alier a Carmelite, 79  
Joannes Andreae a Lawyer; 69  
John Bacon, or Baconthorp a Carmelite, 68  
John Balistaris of the same Order, 81  
John Bassolis a Grey-Friar, 56  
Joannis Becanus of Utrecht, 69  
Joh. Blomendal a Grey-Friar, 79  
John de Burgo Chancellor of Cambridge, 75  
John Brammart a Carmelite, 80  
John Bromiard a Friar-Preacher, 77  
John Calderin a Lawyer, 72  
Joh. de Campsen a Carmelite, 82  
John Canon a Grey-Friar, 68  
Joannes Cantacuzenus the Greek Emperor, 82, 85, etc. & 90  
John Cyparissiota a Greek, 90  
John Duns, surnamed Scotus, a Grey-Friar, 52, etc.  
John Erford of the same Order, 80  
John of Friburg, surnamed Runsic, Bishop of Osmo, 54  
John Fustgin de Creutznac a Carmelite, 81  
Joannes de S. Geminiano, 51  
John Gluel a Carmelite, 82  
Joannes Golenius of the same Order, 81  
Joannes Grossius of the same Order, 78  
John de Hesdin Knight, Hospitaller of S. John of Jerusalem, 82  
Joh. Hildesheim a Carmelite, 81  
Joannes Honsemius or Hoxemimius, Canon of Liege, 69  
Joannes de Janduno or John of Gaunt, or Laon, 62, & 113  
John d'Imanhusen a Germane, 81  
John de Joinville, 49  
John Malverne of Winchester, 71  
John Lemoine surnamed Descranches, Cardinal, 7, & 50  
John of Naples a Friar-Preacher, 56  
Joannes Oliva, vid. Petrus Joannes Oliva.  
John d'Olney a Carthusian, 80  
John of Paris a Canon-Regular of S. Victor, 51  
John of Paris a Friar-preacher, 50  
John de Regne a Carmelite, 79  
Joannes de Rupescissâ, 80  
Joannes Rasybrokius Prior of Waure, 74  
Joannes Saxo a Grey-Friar, 80  
Joannes de Saxonia of the same Order, Ibid  
John Schadland B. of Worms, 73  
Joh. de Schodehove a Carmel. 81  
Joannes Tacesphalus a Carm. 80  
John de Tambach a Friar-Preacher, 77  
Joannes Thaulerus the same, 72  
John Walsgram a Carmelite, 80  
John de Werden a Grey-Friar, 82  
Jordanus Saxo, an Aug. Herm. 74  
Isaac Argyrus a Greek Monk, 91  
Justus an Abbot of the Cistertians, 52   

L.  
LApus de Chastillon, Abbot of S. Miniatus, 79  
Leonarde de Gifton Cardinal, 81  
Lucius Colutius Salutatus de Stignano a Lawyer, 78  
Ludolphus or Laudolphus Saxo a Carthusian, 66  
Lupoldus or Ludolphus de Bamburg a Lawyer, 67   

M.  
MAlachias a Grey-Friar, 55  
Manuel Calecas a Greek Preaching-Friar, 87. 90, & 91  
Manuel Palaeologus the Greek Emperor, 82, 84  
Marinus Sanutus de Torsello, 57  
Marsilius ab Inghen a Canon of S. Andrew of Colen, 75  
Marsilius of Milan, called Menandrinus a Lawyer, 60, etc. 113  
Martin a Preaching-Friar, 79  
Mathias or Matthew de Cracoviâ, 72  
Matth. Blastares a Greek Monk, 88  
Matthew d'Eureux a Preaching-Friar, 76  
Matthew Florilegus a Benedictin Monk of Westminster, 73  
Maximus a Greek Monk, 91  
Maximus Planudes a great Monk 88  
Michael Angrianus or Aignanus, a Carmelite, 78  
Michael Caesenas a Grey-Friar, 27, & 61.  
Michael de Massà an Augustin-Hermit, 80  
Monaldus a Grey-Friar, 66   

N.  
NIcephorus Callistus a Greek Monk, 87  
Nicephorus Gregoras Chartophylax of the Church of Constantinople, 89  
Nicholas Cabasilas Archbishop of Thessalonica, Ibid  
Nicholas Dorlini a Carmelite, 80  
Nicholas Eymericus a Friar-Preacher, 53, & 288  
Nicholas Gorham of the same Order, 77  
Nicholas Lyra a Grey-Friar, 63  
Nicholas Oresmius or Orem Bishop of Lisieux, 73  
Nicholas Ritzon a Carmelite, 81  
Nicholas Treveth or Trevet a Friar-Preacher, 56  
Nilus Cabasilas Archbishop of Thessalonica, 88, etc.  
Nilus' Metropolitan of Rhodes, 90  
Nilus Cabasilas Archbishop of Thessalonica, 88  
Nilus Damila a Greek Monk 91   

O.  
ODericus de Port-naon a Grey Friar, 63  
Osbert a Carmelite, 80   

P.  
PAlamas, see Gregory Palamas.  
Paulus de Lyazares, 79  
Paulus de Perusa a Carmelite, 80  
Petrarch, see Francis Petrarch.  
Philip Abbot of Otterburg, 82  
Philip Bishop of Aichstat, 55  
Philip Cabassolas Cardinal, 74  
Philip de Ferrieres Bishop of Badajoz, 81  
Philip de Leydis Canon of Utrecht, 75  
Philip de Meserius Knight, 61  
Philip de Montcalier a Grey-Friar, 63  
Philip Ribot a Carmelite, 75  
Philotheus Patriarch of Constantinople, 86, & 90  
Philotheus Achillinus, see Philip de Meziers.  
Peter a Monk of Clara Vallis, 70  
Petrus Aureolus Archbishop of Aix, 56  
Peter d'Auvergne Canon of Nostre-Dame in Paris, 57  
Peter Bercherius Prior of S. Eligius, 72  
Peter Bertrand Cardinal, 32  
Petrus Boherius Abbot of S. Aignan, 80  
Petrus de Bosco Advocate of the French King, 7  
Petrus de Casa Bishop of Vaiso, 80  
Petrus de Dacia, 79  
Peter de Harentals Abbot of Floreff, 28, & 78  
Peter John Oliva a Grey-Friar, 27, & 112  
Peter de Lunà, see Benedict XIII.  
Peter de Natalibus Bishop of Jesol, 74  
Petrus de Palude Patriarch of Jerusalem, 68  
Petrus de Paternis an Hermit of S. Augustine, 70  
Peter de Perpignan a Cardinal, 79  
Peter Quesnel a Grey-Friar, 75  
Petrus Raimondus a Carmelite, 80  
Petrus de Saxonia a Grey-Friar, 79  
Peter Thomas a Carmelite, 80  
Porchet de Salvaticis, see Victor Porchet.  
Ptolomaeus Lucensis Bishop of Torcello, 55   

R.  
RAdulphus or Ralph de Higden, or Hikeden, a Benedictin Monk of Chester, 71  
Raimundus Jordanus, called Idiot, Abbot of Cells, 77  
Raimundus Lullus a Grey-Friar, 48, 52, & 53  
Rainerius de Pisâ a Preaching-Friar, 49  
Ralph de Praelles a Master of Requests, 61  
Ralph de Rivo Dean of Tongres, 77  
Richard Fitz-Ralph Archbishop of Armagh, 70, 71, & 118  
Richard de Hampole an Hermit of S. Augustin, 69  
Richard de Lavinham a Carmelite, 82  
Richard de Maydescon of the same Order, 81  
Richard de Sienna a Cardinal, 12, & 79  
Robert a Carmelite, 80  
Robert a Preaching Friar, 79  
Robert Conway a Grey-Friar, see Roger.  
Robert Cowton of the same Order, 67  
Robert Gervais Bishop of Senez, 74  
Robert Holkot a Friar-Preacher, 69  
Roger Chonoe or Conway, 71   

S.  
SIbertus de Beka a Carmelite 79  
Siffridus a Priest of Misnia, 49  
Simon Boraston an Englishman, 67  
Simon de Cremonâ an Augustin-Hermit, 75  
Simon Fidatus de Casnâ of the same Order, 69  
Simon de Spira a Carmelite, 80  
Stephen Petringon a Carmelite, 81  
Stephen of Provence a Lawyer, 79  
Stephen de Salagnac a Preaching-Friar, 49   

T.  
THeophanes A. B. of Nice, 90  
Thomas Bradwardin Archbishop of Canterbury, 70  
Thomas Jorsius, or Joycius, a Cardinal, 51  
Thomas Lamb a Carmelite, 81  
Thomas of Strasburg an Hermit of S. Augustin, 71  
Thomas Stobbs or Stubbs a Friar-Preacher, 72  
Thomas Wicke a Canon-Regular of S. Augustin, 49  
Tilman a Carmelite, 80   

U.  
UBoldus, Vid. Baldus.  
Ubertinus de Cassalis a Grey-Friar, 61  
Victor Porchet de Salvaticis a Carthusian, 55  
Vitalis de Furno a Cardinal, 57  
Urbanus V Pope, 32  
Urbanus VI Pope, 33, etc. to 37   

W.  
WAlter Burley a Grey-Friar, 67, 68  
Walter Disse, 81  
William de Baldensel or Boldesele or de Boldensleve, a Germane Knight, 67  
William Durandus, Bishop of Menda, 19, & 54  
William de Kayott a Friar-Preacher, 80  
William de Major Bishop of Angers, 55  
William de Mandagot Cardinal, Ibid  
William de Montledun Abbot of Monster-neuf, 66, & 67  
William Mount Canon of Lincoln, 63  
William de Nangis a Monk of S. Denys, 49  
William of Nottingham Canon of York, 63  
William Ockam a Grey-Friar, 48, 58, etc.  
William Oppenbach a German 82  
William of Paris a Friar-Preacher, 50  
William Rubion a Grey-Friar, 66  
William Thorn a Benedictine Monk of Canterbury, 75, & 76  
William de Wallingford, an Englishman, 81  
William Wodford or Wilford, a Grey-Friar, 77  
The End of the Alphabetical Table of the Ecclesiastical Authors of the Fourteenth Age.    

An Alphabetical TABLE of the Councils hold in the Fourteenth Age of the Church.  
A. Years. Pag. THE Council of Angers, 1365 108 The Council of Avignon, 1326 102 The Council of Avignon, 1337 103 The Council of Ausche, 1300 92 The Council of Ausche, 1308 94 B. THE Synod of Bayeux, 1300 92 The Synod of Beziers, 1351 107 The Council of Bourges, 1336 106 C. THE Council of Chateaugonthier, 1336 106 The Synod of Colen, 1300 92 The Council of Colen, 1310 94 The Council of Colen, 1322 102 The Council of Compeigne, 1301 93 The Council of Compeigne, 1304 ibid. The Council of Compeigne, 1329 105 The Council of Complutum, 1326 ibid. The Council of Complutum, 1347 107 The Council of Constantinople, 1340 85 The Council of Constantinople, 1341 ibid. The Council of Constantinople, 1344 ibid. The Council of Constantinople, 1346 ibid. The Council of Constantinople, 1341 ibid. The Council of Constantinople, 1355 86 F. AN Assembly at Francfort, 1338 29 L. THE Council of Lambeth, 1330 110 The Council of Lambeth, 1351 111 The Council of Lambeth, 1362 ibid. The Council of Lavour, 1368 108 The Council of London, 1310 18 The Council of London, 1321 110 The Council of London, 1328 ibid. The Council of London, 1341 111 The Council of London, 1342 ibid. The Council of London, 1343 ibid. The Council of London, 1382 77 The Council of London, 1391 ibid. The Council of London, 1396 ibid. M. THE Council of Macclesfield, 1332 111 The Council of Macclesfield, 1362 ibid. The Council of Mentz, 1310 19 The Council of Marsiac, 1326 103 The Council of Marsiac, 1330 105 The Council of Melun, 1300 92 N. THE Council of Narbonne, 1374 108 The Council of Nogarol, 1303 93 The Council of Nogarol, 1315 100 The Council of Noyon, 1344 107 P. THE Council of Palenza, 1388 109 An Assembly of Paris, 1302 5 An Assembly of Paris, 1303 8, 9 The Council of Paris, 1310 17, 18 The Council of Paris, 1314 99 The Council of Paris, 1323 100 An Assembly of Paris, 1329 64 A Council of Paris, 1346 107 An Assembly at Paris, 1398 40 An Assembly at Paris, 1403 41 An Assembly at Paris, 1406 43 An Assembly at Paris, 1408 47 The Assembly of Pisa, 1408 45, 2 The Council of Pennafiel, 1302 105, 1 The Council of Presburg, 1309 94 R. THE Council of Ravenna, 1310 18 The Council of Ravenna, 1311 97 The Council of Ravenna, 1314 98 The Council of Ravenna, 1317 99 The Council of Rouen, 1325 106 The Council of Ruffec, 1327 105 S. THE Council of Salamanca, 1310 18 The Council of Salamanca, 1335 105 The Council of Saltzburg, 1310 94 The Council of Saltzburg, 1386 109 The Council of Saumar, 1315 100 The Council of Senlis, 1316 ibid. The Council of Senlis, 1317 ibid. The Council of Senlis, 1326 105 The Council of Sens, 1320 100 T. THE Council of Toledo, 1323 101 The Council of Toledo, 1324 ibid. The Council of Toledo, 1339 106 The Council of Toledo, 1347 107 The Council of Toledo, 1355 108 An Assembly at Tours, 1308 15 V THE Council of Valladolid, 1322 100 The General Council of Vienne in Dauphine, 1311, 1312 12, 18 & 95 Y. THE Council of York 1367 111   

AN Historical Account OF THE CONTROVERSIES IN RELIGION AND OF OTHER Ecclesiastical Affairs, IN THE Fourteenth CENTURY.  
CHAP. I.  
Of the Differences between Philip the Fair, King of France, and Boniface VIII. as well during his Papacy, and his Successor Benedict XI, as in the Vacancy of the Holy See, and in the Beginning of the Papacy of Clement V.  
BEnedictus Cajetanus, a Native of the City of Anagni [in the Campaign di Roma] was 
The Election of Benedictus Cajetanus, named Boniface 8.  chosen Pope December 24. A. D. 1294, after the Voluntary resignation of Celestine V and assumed the Name of Boniface VIII. He immediately after his Elevation to the Papal Dignity, entertained a Design of rooting entirely the Gibeline-Party out of Italy, and so make himself absolutely Supreme as well in Temporal, as Spiritual Affairs over all the Kingdoms of Christendom. And of this he gave plain intimations, not only in the Accommodation, which he purposed to make between Philip the Fair 
The beginning of the quarrel between the King of France and the Pope, about the Earl of Fland●●●  King of France, and Edward II. King of England, by his own Authority; but also in receiving the Appeal of Guy Earl of Flanders, made to him against the said King of France: and to that end, sending his Legate the Bishop of Meaux to that King, to require him to give Satisfaction to the Earl of Flanders, and in case he refused, to Summon him to Appear before the Pope, that the Difference between them might be decided before his Tribunal. Philip the Fair, being highly offended at these Proceed, told the Legate, That it belonged not to the Pope to concern himself with the Temporal Affairs of Princes and Sovereign Lords; That he had a Court of his own to administer Justice to his Subjects and Homagers, and that he would Acknowledge none his Superior, but God only. The Legate departed without effecting any thing; but the Pope in the Year 1296. published a Bull, wherein, having complained, that 
The Bull of Boniface, forbidding to Levy any Tax upon the Clergy.  Kings exacted from the Clergy, Subsidies, Tithes and other Imposts, which the Clergy paid them, without leave from the Holy See; He forbids all the Clergy to pay any thing out of their Estates to the Laity, or to give their Consent to any Imposition, without Permission from the Pope. And all Emperors, Kings, Princes, or other Lords, and Judges to exact nothing of them upon Pain of Excommunication, and Interdict. This Bull concerned the King of France, more than any other, because he had levied Money upon the Clergy, to defray the Charge of the War; whereupon this Prince put out a Declaration on the 17th. of 
A Prohibition of the King, to carry Money out of the Kingdom.  August, the same Year, whereby he Prohibited the carrying of any Silver coined, or uncoined out of his Kingdom; or any Strangers to remain there. The Pope thereupon sent him a very sharp Bull, in which he sets forth, that this general Prohibition is prejudicial to his Subjects; and if he had a design to extend it to Ecclesiastical Persons, it is a rashness, which he styles Folly, and that deserves Excommunication; and if he had been induced to set out this Edict upon occasion of the Ordinance made lately in favour of the Liberty of the 
The Pope's Bull against this Prohibition.  Clergy, it was an ill Pretence, because his Decree contained to new Constitution, but only confirmed what had been formerly ordained by Canonical Decrees, under new Penalties, and that he did not therein absolutely forbid the Clergy to grant any Aid to the King for the Defence and Necessity of the State, but to do it without special leave from the Holy See; and that, upon consideration of the intolerable Exactions, which the King's Officers had made upon the Clergy in his Kingdom: Moreover, that the Holy See had always been, and likewise for the time to come should be ready, in the pressing Necessities of the State, to oblige the Clergy of the Kingdom of France, to afford Succour to their King, without sparing even the Chalices, the Crosses, and other Sacred Utensils, if need were, rather than suffer so great a Kingdom, and so dear to the Holy See, to want Necessary Succours for its Defence; but that at this juncture all Kings and Princes, Neighbours to France, complained of his Invasions; and among others, that the King of the Romans alleges, That the King of France has seized on divers Imperial Towns, especially on the County of Burgundy; and the King of England says, That he likewise keeps from him a Country in Gascony; that these Princes would very willingly refer themselves to the Holy See, to whom the Judgement belongs, in regard it is a Sin to detain that which is another's, and to make an Unjust War: In fine, the Pope declares, That he would not be understood in his Decree to speak of the Impositions and Aids, which the Prelates and other Ecclesiastical Persons, own the King on the account of the Fiefs which they hold, dependant on the Crown. He conjures the King to follow his Advice, and to revoke his Ordinance, being desirous to use all gentle means with him, before he would make use of Ecclesiastical Censures. He sent the Bishop of Viviers to him at the same time, that he might represent the thing to him Viva voce, and gave him a Letter of particular Credence, bearing Date the 22d. of the same Month.  
The King set forth a Manifesto, in Answer to the Pope's Bull, wherein he observes, that before there were any Clergy in France, the King had the Protection of his Kingdom, and 
The King's Manifesto against the Pope's Bull.  Power to make Laws which he judged necessary for its Defence; so that he could forbid the carrying Money and Arms out of his Kingdom, for fear his Enemies should get some Advantage by them, that he had not absolutely forbid the doing it, but only without his Permission, with a design to grant it to the Clergy, in case that it brought no Prejudice to the Kingdom; that were it true, that the King detained by Violence the Persons, and Goods of the Clergy, it would be surprising enough, that the Pope should not pronounce him Excommunicate; that the Church is not only composed of the Clergy, but also of the Laity, and that they are not only the Clergy, but likewise the Laity whom Jesus Christ has delivered from the Slavery of Sin, and set at Liberty: That the Clergy have in truth particular Privileges, which have been granted to them by the Decrees of Popes, by the Bounty, or at least by the Permission of Secular Princes; but that they ought not to deprive Princes of the Government, and defence of their Kingdoms, nor of the Things necessary to that End: That we must give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and that every one, whether Churchman, or Laic, who is not willing to contribute to the Necessities of the State, is an unprofitable Member, which must be cut off: That if the Enemy prevailed, the Clergy would be they, who would Suffer most, and their Goods be most liable to the Spoil: That it overthrows the Ancient and Natural Right, to hinder one from succouring one's self: That it is a shame for the Vicar of Jesus Christ to forbid the Paying of Tribute to Caesar, and to thunder out his Censures against the Clergy, who lend their Assistance to the King and Kingdom, or rather to themselves, while they are permitted to bestow their Riches on Players, and their Friends, and to waste them in superfluous Expenses: That it is Unjust; that the Churchmen enriched by the Bounty of Princes, should refuse them necessary Aids for the defence of the State: That this is, to assist the Enemy, to commit Treason, and betray the State, to maintain such a Prohibition; As to what concerns the King of England, the War, which he hath with him, arises from this, because that Prince would not make his Appearance when Summoned to do Homage for the Lands, he held of France, His Majesty was obliged to seize them, till he had done his Duty; but in stead of doing it, he had declared War against him, and had renounced the Fealty, and Homage, which he owed him for those Lands: And, as to the King of the Romans, that he had offered that Prince to refer himself, as to the Differences between them, to Four Umpires: That he had not taken the County of Burgundy, till after that King had declared War, and bid him public Defiance. In fine, the Kings his Predecessors had been very liberal to the Clergy, who could not, without Ingratitude, refuse to grant him such Aids; to the end he might be in a Condition to oppose his Enemies.  
The King was not the only one, that opposed this Undertaking of the Pope, the Archbishop 
The Lett●● of the French Prelates.  of Rheims, and the other Bishops of his Diocese sent him a Letter, wherein they humbly presented to him, That the King, the Princes, Barons, and other Lords of the Kingdom, finding his Decree burdensome and prejudicial to their Rights, had resolved to Summon all the French, chief such as owed Fealty to the King, of whom almost all the Prelates of the Kingdom had taken the Oath of Fidelity, to defend and preserve the Rights and Honour of His Majesty and his Kingdom: That they could not live in quiet, if they were not protected by the King: That if the Clergy did not grant the King, what he demanded, the Church of France, which hitherto had enjoyed Peace, and Liberty, would be in danger of falling into Trouble, and be tossed with a Tempest, which might occasion its Ruin: Wherefore they beseech his Holiness to find out a Way to appease this Disturbance, and to maintain Peace between the Church and State: That they therewith had sent to him two Bishops, to set forth more particularly by word of mouth the Danger, to which the Gallican Church is like to be exposed.  
In the mean time, the Pope sent two Nuncio's to France, namely, Berardus Bishop of 
An Embassy from the Pope for the continuance of the Truce.  Albania, and Simon Bishop of Praeneste; to whom he gave Order to Levy the Money in that Kingdom for the Holy See, to transmit it to Italy, and to Declare the King, and his Officers Excommunicate, if they opposed them in it. He likewise sent by them a Bull, by which he continued the Truce between the King of France, the King of England, and the King of the Romans, for the space of two Years longer, under the Pain of Excommunication, to him, that should break it. These two Nuncio's being desirous to present this Bull to King Philip the Fair, before he had read it, he protested, That the Temporal Government of his Kingdom belonged to him only: That he owned no Person above him in it; neither would he submit himself therein to any Man whatever, and that his Resolution was to maintain all his Rights, and defend them against all Men: That he meant not to be bound by the Bull, which mentioned the continuance of the Truce; but as to what related to his Soul and Spiritual Matters, he was ready to submit to the Advice and Command of the Holy See, as far as he ought, and was obliged. He demanded of the two Nuncio's an Allowance of this Protestation, before the reading of the Bull, for lengthening of the Truce, the 20. of April, 1297.  
On the 31. of July, of the same Year, the Pope declared by a Bull granted at Orvietum; 
The Explication of the Pope's first Bull.  that he had no Design by his first Bull, to hinder the free Gifts, which the Bishops were willing to present to the King, or his Lords, nor the Feodal Rights, and other Services due to the King from the Clergy, no more than the Case of the Exigency of State, on which Occasion the King and his Successors have Power to oblige the Clergy to grant him a Subsidy, even without consulting the Pope: And that this Exigency shall be declared by the King, and his Successors, if they have attained to the Age of One and Twenty Years; or in case they have not, by the Assembly of the States.  
Whilst Boniface softened Matters with the King of France, he carried them to Extremity 
The Proceeding of the Pope against the Colonni, and their Condemnation.  against the Gibelines, and particularly against the Colonni, who were the Heads of the Party. He had then two Cardinals of that House, James Colonni, Cardinal of the Title of St. Mary in Viâ latâ, and Peter Colonni, Cardinal by the Title of St. Eustachius. The Pope accused them of Robbing the Treasury of the Church, after the Death of his Predecessors, and of Dispersing defamatory Libels against him: And on that account, he caused them to be Summoned the Fourth of May, to appear personally the same Evening before him, and the Consistory of Cardinals, there to hear what he had to allege against them, and to know of them whether he was Pope. On the 10th. of May, these two Cardinals drew up a Writing, in the Castle of Longetia, wherein they declared, That they would not appear to the Summons given them by the Pope, because they believed it was not safe for them to repair to the place, where he was; but since Benedictus Cajetanus has noted in the close of the Summons, that he would know of them, whether he were Pope? They declared to him, That they held him not to be lawful Pope; that they had brought their Accusation of it to the Cardinals, and demanded, that they would take Care of the Welfare of the Church, by examining, whether Benedict were a lawful Pope, having heard it from Persons of good Credit often said, that there was room to doubt, whether the Renunciation made by Celestine V were Lawful and Canonical, because God alone being the Bestower of the Papal Sovereignty, it could not be taken away by any Man; and if Bishops cannot be deposed, nor translated, no nor voluntarily resign their Bishoprics, but by Authority of the Pope their Superior; by an Argument, à fortiori the Pope, who has no Superior, cannot be divested, no, not voluntarily, of the Papacy, the acceptance of which is in a manner a Vow which is ever obliging; and that altho' Celestine did renounce the Papacy, the Renunciation that he made was not Valid, because he was engaged to do it by Fraud and Surprise; That, in fine, though his Renunciation might stand good, several things have since happened, which had made Void the Election of Benedict; That these Reasons had made them of Opinion that he was no Pope; That they insisted on it, that a General Council ought to be called, to decide this Question, being ready to submit to their Determination; That in the mean time they forbidden him all the Functions of the Papacy, and Appealed, as to all he could do against them, or against others, to a General Council, to the Holy See, or a future Pope; That they made open Protestation of it, and that not being able to have this Protestation signified to him, for fear he should Arrest those, that should signify it to him; according as he had threatened them, they would publish it to the whole World. In conclusion they exhorted all Christians to procure the Assembling of a General Council, and to withdraw themselves from the Obedience of Benedict, till a General Council shall have decided this Matter. This Act was passed in the presence of an Apostolic Notary of Praeneste, and divers Witnesses, the greatest part whereof were Frenchmen.  
The same day Boniface published a thundering Bull against the Colonni, wherein after having 
The Pope Proceeding against the Colonni, etc.  at large recounted the Mischiefs which that House had done to the Holy See, and complained, That the two Cardinals Colonni would not cause to be yielded up, by Stephen Colonni their Nephew, the City of Praeneste, and the Castles he Possessed, with a Design to employ them in Favour of Frederick the King of Sicily, an Enemy of the Church, he deposeth these two Cardinals, declares them to have forfeited all their Benefices, and incapable to enjoy any Ecclesiastical Dignity, no not so much as any Benefice situate an Hundred Miles from the City of Rome, and Excommunicates not only them, but all others, that shall acknowledge them to be Cardinals, or admit them to assist at the Election of a Pope. He deprives for ever John and Odo, Sons of John Colonni, the Brother of Cardinal James, and all his Posterity of all Benefices, declares them uncapable to be promoted to a Cardinalship, or the Papacy, or to enjoy any Benefice even to the Fourth Generation; Orders, That these two Cardinals shall appear within Ten Days before the Consistory; and in default thereof, he deprives them of all their Goods, movable and immoveable. The Publication of this Bull was followed by a Crusade, which the Pope set on foot to make War upon the Colonni; by means whereof, he spoilt them of their Estates, took their Places, and their Castles, and drove them out of Italy. Sciarra Colonni, one of the Heads of this Family, being withdrawn from Praeneste, was there Besieged, and for fear of falling into the Pope's hands, escaped by Night with his Nephews, and retired to the Woods, where he remained a long time concealed and wand'ring, till he fell into the hands of Pirates, who put him in Fetters; from which Philip the Fair rescued him. Stephen Colonni, and others fled into France, where they were well received by the King: This very much displeased the Pope. But that which made the Pope, and the King of France fall out downright, was the Judgement, which the former gave, between the King, the Earl of Flanders, and the King of England; by which he ordained, that Philip the Fair, should restore to the Earl his Daughter (whom he kept Prisoner since the Year 1296.) to Marry her, as he pleased, as also some Lands he had taken from him; and that he should go into the East to make War upon the Infidels. The Pope dispatched a Bull of this Judgement, 
The Pope's Bull in favour of the Earl of Flanders.  and put it into the hands of the English Ambassador, who carried it to Paris: But when it was read in the Presence of the King, of Charles Earl of Valois his Brother, of Robert Earl of Artois, and the Earl of Eureux; the Earl of Artois snatched away the Bull in a rage, and threw it into the Fire, Swearing, That it should not be so, and the Pope should not revenge himself at the Cost of the Kingdom. The King protested, That he would not put in Execution, what the Pope had Decreed; but as soon as the Truce was expired, he would begin the War afresh.  
In the Year 1300. Boniface published a Jubilee, in which he granted Plenary Indulgences 
The appointment of a Jubilee by Boniface.  to all, who should visit the Churches of St. Peter and St. Paul, at Rome; decreeing, that the same thing should be renewed every Hundred Years. The opening of the Jubilee drew a great Concourse of People to Rome; and Boniface to make the Sovereign Authority, which he pretended to have over the Temporality, to be owned, appeared at the Ceremony, one while in his Pontifical Habit, and another in Imperial Robes, and took for his Motto, Ecce duo gladii.  
The King not willing to quarrel with the Pope downright, sent to him the same Year 
Boniface quarrels anew with the King.  William of Nogaret, Baron of Calvisson, in Quality of an Ambassador, to give him Advice of the Alliance he had made with the Emperor, who on his part likewise sent him an Ambassador. The Pope had no great regard to the one or the other, blamed the Election of the Emperor, and threatened him, that he would cross it if he did not give him Tuscany, said many disobliging things of the King, and did all he could to break off the Alliance between the two Princes. Nogaret, who understood the ill Designs of the Pope, upbraided him therewith to his Face, which exasperated his Spirit, and made him yet more a verse, than before, to the King's Interests.  
Boniface proposed to the Christian Princes a Crusado to go into the East against the Infidels. 
The Bishop of Pamiez. Envoy to the King, giveth ill Language, and is Arrested.  He sent Bernard Saisset, Bishop of Pamiez (a Bishopric he had Erected in the Year 1296. in spite of the King) with Orders, not only to set forward this Expedition with Philip the Fair, but likewise to demand the Enlargement of the Earl of Flanders, and his Children. The King refusing to hearken to these Proposals, the Bishop forgot the respect he owed the King, telling him, That he held nothing of his Majesty, but that he owed all to the Pope, whose Subject he was, both as to Spiritual and Temporal Concerns, threatened to Interdict the Kingdom, and maintained the Pope's Temporal Power over Sovereign Princes. The King offended at this Procedure, caused this Bishop to be accused of divers Monopolies which he had exacted, and of Rebellion; and ordered him to be cited before the Parliament; where appearing, he was sent to Prison.  
Boniface enraged at this Imprisonment, in the Month of February, in the Year 1301. sent James Norman, Archdeacon of Narbonne, to the King, to order him to set this Bishop at Liberty: The which the King did, putting him nevertheless under the keeping of the Archbishop of Narbonne, his Metropolitan, to punish him for his Rashness, according to the rules of the Canon. Boniface not content herewith, required that the King should set him at full Liberty, and give him a Grant of all his Goods.  
After that, by a Bull of the 4th. of December, in the same Year, he suspended the Favours, 
A Bull against the King's Privileges.  and Privileges, he had granted to the King of France and his Successors, and to his Counsellors, Clergy, or Laity, and particularly, those he had granted for the Relief of the State; and decreed, that the Clergy, without his consent, should not Pay the King, what he demanded under the Title of Tenths, or Aid, though he had consented to it, and had given time, till the 1st. of November, in the Year following, to make Report of the Privileges to the Holy See, to the end they might be Examined.  
Two days after he set forth another Bull, wherein he declares, that God had established him 
A Bull of the Sovereignty of the Pope, and against the Rights of the King.  over Kings, and Kingdoms, to pluck up, to destroy, to scatter, to build; that the King of France ought not to think, he has no Superior, and is not Subject to the Pope; that he, who is of that Opinion, is a Fool and an Infidel. He therein Discourses with the King about the Sums of Money which he exacted of his Subjects: He therein complains that he had filled the Benefices, and prebend's vacant in the Court of Rome, without the Pope's Leave; that he had seized on the Goods of the Clergy; that he vexed them with several Grievances; particularly the Church of Lions, though it be out of the Bounds of his Kingdom; by receiving the Revenues of the Cathedral Churches during the Vacancy, which he falsely calls a Right belonging to the Crown. He order the Prelates, Chapters of Churches, and Doctors of Divinity in the Kingdom to attend him, in order to provide for the Reformation of the Realm. He inveighs against the King's Evil Counsellors, and exhorts this Prince to undertake the Holy War. By another Bull of the same Date, directed to the Prelates, Chapters of Cathedrals, and other Doctors of the Realm, he writes to them, that not being ignorant of the Oppressions which the Clergy suffer from the Kings, his Officers, Earls or Barons, he has taken up a Resolution, after he had communicated it to the Cardinals, to Summon them to Rome: He order them to appear there on the First of November following, with Pours and Instructions necessary, and Promises them, that Care should be taken for the Preservation of the Honour and Freedom of the Gallican Church, and the Reformation of the State. He writes the same thing to the Abbots in a Bull very like it: But to the end his Bull might make the deeper Impression, he made an Abridgement of it, in these words: Boniface the Bishop, a Servant of the Servants of God, to Philip King of France: Fear God, and keep his Commandments. We will you to know, that you are Subject to us, both in Spirituals and Temporals. You have no Right to bestow Benefices, and prebend's; and if the Custody of the Goods of some Vacant Benefices belongs to you, you ought to reserve the Profits to their Successors. If you have bestowed any Benefices, we declare the Donation Void, and revoke the actual Possession which ensued thereon. We declare them Heretics, who believe the contrary. Given at the Palace of Lateran, on the 5th. of December, in the 7th. Year of our Papacy.  
These Bulls were delivered, and published in the Kingdom by the Archdeacon of Narbonne. 
The Assembly of the States against the Attempt of the Pope.  The King to obviate the ill Consequences, which they might have, caused the short Bull to be publicly burnt on the 8th. of February 1302. and called together the Three Estates of his Kingdom to advise about Ways of Self-preservation. This Assembly was held in the Church of our Lady at Paris, 10th. of April 1302. The King proposed there the Pope's Pretensions to the Temporalties of his Kingdom, and the Summons he had sent to the Prelates to appear at Rome. Peter Flotte, who spoke for the King, represented to the Assembly the pernicious Designs of the Pope, the Injuries which the Court of Rome did to the Gallican Church by her Reservations, by 
* Grants before the Death of the present Incumbents then called, Mandata de providendo, & Gratiae expectativae, by Civilians. Much may be seen enacted against them in our Statutes, especially in the reign of Edw. 3.  Provisions of Archbishoprics, Bishoprics and other Benefices, which she bestowed on Strangers, that were Nonresident, and by other Methods, by which she assumed the disposal of all Benefices, by Impositions upon the Clergy; by the right she challenged to take Cognisance and to Judge of all Causes. He Protested on the King's behalf, that he owned God only his Superior in Temporals; that it was his intent before the Arrival of the Nuncio, if there were Occasion, to regulate the Behaviour of his Officers towards the Clergy; but that since he had Superseded the doing it, for fear the Pope should take Advantage by it, and believe it to be done at his instance and by his order. The King demanded the Opinion of the Assembly upon all these Points, and chief about his Sovereign Jurisdiction in Temporals. The Nobility, having withdrawn awhile to Deliberate, answered by the Earl of Artois, That they thanked his Majesty for the good Will he had to maintain the Rights and Honour of his State, and declared, that they were ready to expose their Lives and Fortunes in its Defence; and though his Majesty would suffer, or pass by these Attempts, they would oppose it; and said, that they owned not other Superior, but the King. The Clergy was unwilling suddenly to give their Answer, and desired time to deliberate more fully; but the King pressing them to speak their Mind, the Prelates declared, That they believed themselves bound to Defend the King, and the freedom of the Kingdom, and that some of them were engaged thereto by Oath, and others by Duty. Nevertheless they besought the King to permit them to attend the Pope, who had sent them a Summons; but the King refused it, by the Advice of the Nobility. The third Estate was of the same Opinion, with the Nobles.  
This Assembly being broke up, the King sent the Pope a short Answer, like his abridged Bull, in these terms. Philip by the Grace of God, King of France to Boniface, who styles 
The Answer of the King and States to the Pope.  himself Supreme Bishop, little or no Greeting. May your great Extravagance know, that we are not Subject to any Person whatsoever, in Things Temporal; that the bestowing of Vacant Churches and prebend's, does of Regal right belong to us; that we can Appropriate the Fruits of them to ourselves; that the Grants we have made, or shall make for the time to come, are Valid; that we will Maintain powerfully, those that are in Possession thereof, and we declare them Fools, and Senseless, that think the contrary. The Dukes, Earls, and Barons of France, wrote to the Cardinals the same Day, That though they desired to maintain the Ancient Union, which ever had been between the Holy See, and the Realm of France, yet they could not suffer the Attempts, which Boniface made upon the They send them word, what was resolved in the King, and Kingdom. Assembly of the States; Prove that the King is not Subject to the Pope, in Temporals; and that the Pope has no right to send for the Prelates of the Kingdom, nor undertake to reform it; they represent the Prejudice, the Prelates going out of the Realm would cause to the State; upbraid Boniface, that he has taken great Sums of Money for the Grants of Ecclesiastical Dignities; that he had filled the Benefices, with Persons of no Merit; that he bestowed Benefices, the Grant of which belonged to the King. They besought the Cardinals to hinder the Consequences of this Undertaking, that the Church may continue in Peace. The Prelates wrote a little after the same things to Boniface, informed him what passed in the Assembly; the Complaints the King there made; in what manner the Nobility there spoke; how that being asked, they desired time to Consult, with desire to appease his Majesty, and to Establish the Union between him and the Holy See; but that being obliged to answer upon the spot, that they might not be looked on as Enemies to the State, they had declared, they thought themselves bound to Assist the King, and Preserve his Person, his Honour, his Liberty, his Rights, and those of his Kingdom, as well by the Oath of Allegiance, which some of them had taken to the King upon account of their Fiefs, as by the Duty of Faithful Subjects; They added, that they had besought his Majesty to permit them to go to Rome, whither his Holiness had cited them; but that the King and the Lords had forbid them: They earnestly besought the Pope to apply a Remedy to the Mischiefs that would necessarily ensue, if the Dissension, which is begun between him and the King, continued; and prayed him to re-establish the Union, and revoke the Summons, he had caused to be given them by his Nuncio. The third Estate wrote likewise a Letter to the Cardinals to the same Effect.  
The Pope's Answer to the Prelates contained nothing, but Complaints against the Assembly, which the King had caused to be held at Paris, and principally against Peter Flotte, whom he 
The Replies of the P●●e and Cardinals to the King and States.  calls Belial semividens corpore, & ment totaliter excaecatus, and reproaches, against them that had not taken his part. He affirms, That the Doctrine delivered in this Assembly is Schismatical, because it tends to the Establishment of two Supreme Heads; and that the Design of those Persons who composed this Assembly, was to separate the Gallican Church from the Union of the Church Universal, and to Erect a See against the Vicar of Jesus Christ. In the Conclusion, he exhorts the Prelates to do their Duty, and to obey him, despising Temporal Riches, and the Threats of Secular Judges. The Cardinals answered the Nobility, That the Pope had never pretended that the King ought to be Subject to him in Temporals, or to hold his Kingdom of him: And that the Archdeacon of Narbonne had not insinuated it, neither by word of Mouth, nor in Writing, and therefore the Proposal made by Peter Flotte was without Ground; that the Pope had sent for the Prelates and Doctors of France to consult with them, as with Persons who could not be suspected by the King; that 'twas no new thing for the Holy See to assemble Provincial, and General Councils; that the Pope had favoured the King, in not calling a General Council, where there would appear Prelates of other Kingdoms, which are not well affected to that of France; that if the Letter were considered. which he wrote to the King, 'tis so far from being a ground of Complaint, that there is reason to Thank him for his Paternal Care of the King and Kingdom, to procure their Quiet, and discharge the Clergy, and People from Taxes; that if the Pope had burdened the Church of France, it was in favour of the King, in allowing him to Levy the Tenth part of the Church-Revenues for several Years; that the Benefices, and Ecclesiastical Dignities, which he had granted within the Kingdom, he had given with regard to the King; that he had likewise granted him several Dispensations; that he had filled the Archbishoprics, or Bishoprics of France, with no Strangers, except the Archbishop of Bourges and the Bishop of Arras, who were not suspected by the King, and whose Merit was well known; that as to the Canonries he had conferred them on Natives of the Realm, and chosen Persons worthy to supply them, and that for one Stranger, there were in them an hundred French; In fine, They complain that the Prelates had not given to Boniface the Title of Supreme Bishop in their Letter, and had not used the terms of Respect, which were usually given him. This Letter of the Cardinals is Dated the 26th. of June, in the Year 1302. They wrote the same day another Letter to the third Estate, containing much the same things, but shorter. The same things likewise are to be found in three Letters of three Cardinals directed to Robert Duke of Burgundy, who had written to them to find out Ways how to remove this Disturbance, on Condition the Pope would revoke the Suspension of the Privileges, and the citation of the Prelates, and other Ecclesiastical Persons to Rome. They answered him about this Proposition, that the King ought to put himself in a posture to receive these Favours of the Pope; that he should first make him Satisfaction by acknowledging he had done amiss. The same year the Pope held a Consistory, wherein Cardinal Porto spoke boldly for the Authority of the Pope over the Temporalties of Kings. Boniface did the like, and spoke several things against the King, concluding, that he could depose him, and persisted in his resolution to force the Prelates to come to Rome. The King on the other side forbade them to departed, or carry any Gold or Silver out of his Kingdom, and caused the Estates of those to be seized, who were gone out of the Kingdom without his Leave.  
While the Potentates thus disputed their Rights, the King's Officers and the Divines endeavoured 
Treatises against the Pope's Claim.  for their parts to maintain the Rights of the Kingdom, and the Truth. We have among others, a Writing of one Peter Bosco, the King's Advocate at Constance, against the short Bull of Boniface, wherein he maintains that the Pope's Claim is Heretical. We have besides another Treatise more at large, where the Question concerning the King's Sovereignty in Temporals is discussed Pro and Con, and decided in favour of the King, by very solid Reasons, and by Quotations out of the Scripture, and the Fathers.  
In the Year 1302. the King foreseeing, that the Pope would push Matters farther, and desiring to prevent it, received the Accusation of William Nogaret against the Pope, contained 
William Nogaret's Petition against the Pope.  in a Petition of his to the King, which he presented to him in the Lovure, in the presence of divers Prelates and Lords, the 12th. of March. He therein sets forth, that Boniface is no lawful Pope, because he was chosen during the Life of Celestine, whom he deceived and seduced, and in fine, caused to be put to Death; and that his Intrusion could not be rectified by a new consent of the Cardinals, it being null in its beginning. He there says, That it is the King's part to make use of the Authority which God had put into his Hands, to oppose this Usurper of the Holy See. He propounds afterwards Four Heads of the Accusation against him. 1. That he is no Pope; but that he holds the Holy See unjustly. 2. That he is an apparent Heretic. 3. That he is Guilty of Notorious Simony. 4. That he is Guilty of several open Crimes, in which he is hardened, viz. The Robbing of Churches, Tyranny, Blasphemy, Extortion, etc. He declares, That he is ready to make good all these things in a General Council, which he demands to be held, and in the mean time, that Boniface be Imprisoned, and that one be Substituted to Govern the Church, until there be a Pope chosen; and adds, That he Addresses himself to the King for this. 1. Because of his Religion. 2. Because of his Dignity Royal, which engages him to extirpate all Criminals. 3. Because of the Oath he has taken to defend the Churches of his Kingdom, which this ravening Wolf tears in pieces. 4. Because he is the Patron, and Protector of the Churches. 5. Because he ought to follow the Footsteps of his Ancestors, in Delivering the Roman Church from the Oppression she lies under.  
The Pope for his part published on the 16th. of November, his famous Decretal, Unam 
The Publication of the Bull, Unam Sanctam.  Sanctam, wherein he declares, That the Church, which is one, has two Swords, one Spiritual and the other Temporal; that the Temporal is Subject to the Spiritual; and that none can deny this Truth, without admitting of two Supreme Heads, with the Manichees. The King having received the News of what passed in the Court of Rome, Summoned the First of December a new Assembly of his Prelates, repeated the Prohibitions made to all his Subjects, neither to Depart the Kingdom, nor to carry out of his Dominions, Gold or Silver, Arms, Horses, etc. and wrote to the Pope by the Bishop of Auxerre, that he should Prosecute none of his Clergy, for Non-appearance; but that he should blame him, who hindered it.  
The Pope sent into France John Lemoine, Cardinal of the Title of St. Marcellinus, and 
Proposals of Cardinal Lemoine Nuncio in France.  St. Peter, to Treat with the King upon these Points in difference, and charged him to propound to him the following Articles. 1. To revoke the Prohibition made to the Prelates of going to Rome. 2. To own that the Pope has Sovereign Power to dispose of Benefices vacant in Curiâ, or otherwise; and that no Lay Person has right to confer them without his Leave. 3. That the Pope has Power to send Legates, and Nuncio's into all Places, without ask Leave of any Person. 4. That the Supreme Administration of the Churches-Revenues belongs to the Pope, who alone has right to dispose thereof, and require a part of them. 5. That neither the King, nor other Princes have any right to seize, or possess themselves of the Goods and Rights of the Church, nor to accuse the Clergy before them for Personal Actions, nor for Real, which are not held of them in Fiefe. 6. To send a special Proctor to Rome to clear himself for burning of his Holiness' Bull, to make him Satisfaction, and to hear the Pope's Resolution, which is to revoke all the Privileges granted by the Holy See to the Kings of France. 7. Not to Abuse the Guardianship of Cathedral Churches, that are Vacant, by a right called abusively, Regal, to hinder any waist or wrong to the Revenues of Churches, and to reserve all the Fruits to succeeding Prelates, except the reasonable Charges of the keeping them. 8. To restore to the Clergy the Spiritual Sword, and permit them to make use of it, notwithstanding all Privileges pretended by the King, and his Officers. 9 To let him understand, that the change of the Coin, which he hath now twice practised, ruins his State, and he is bound to Restitution. The 10. and 11. To confess, That the City of Lions is no part of his Kingdom, and to restore to the Church of that City, and its Archbishop, the Lands which belong to them by absolute Right. 12. To signify to the King, that he satisfy the Holy See about all these Articles, within a certain time; if not, that he will take order therein, by proceeding against him Spiritually and Temporally.  
The King made Answer to these Articles: To the First, That the Prohibition he had made, 
The King's Answer to the Articles propounded by the Nuncio.  was not upon the account of the Clergy, nor to injure the Church of Rome; but with respect to the Rebellion of the Flemings, and to provide against any Conspiracy, which might be made in his Territories: That his intent was not to hinder his Subjects from going to Rome, and returning thence, and that he will give Orders, that the Goods of the Bishops offending, which he had caused to be seized, shall be restored. To the Second, That the Granting of Benefices belonged to him, and that he enjoyed it but as St. Lewis and his Predecessors had done, time out of Mind. To the Third, That he hindered not the Popes Nuncio's and Legates from coming into his Kingdom, if they were not suspected by him, or if he had not some just reason to do it. To the Fourth and Fifth, That he designed to do nothing, but what is justified by Right and Custom, and if his Officers exceed their Commission, he is ready to punish them. To the Sixth, That the Bull was not burnt in Contempt; but the Bishop of Laon, and the Sheriffs of that City having a Suit depending before the Parliament, and the Bishop having procured a Bull, the Sheriffs complained of a Design to remove the Business into another Court, whereupon the Parties were agreed not to make use of the Bull, and burned it as useless. To the Seventh, That he pretended to innovate nothing, as to the Regale, or right of Patronage, but he enjoyed it as his Predecessors had done, without waist or abuse, and if his Officers committed any, he would take order about it. To the Ninth, That he hinders not the Churchmen from using the Spiritual Sword, in such case as belong to them. To the Ninth, That he made a change in the Coin upon Necessity, and to be in a Condition to Defend the Kingdom, as his Predecessors had done on like Occasions, and that he had already eased the Complaints of his Subjects, as to any ill Consequence, that might attend it. To the Tenth and Eleventh, That he pities the Archbishop of Lions, and his Church, for what they had suffered on the account of the Differences they have had with the People of that City, and for what the Archbishop has suffered for refusing to take the Oath of Fidelity to his Majesty; but 'tis the Archbishop's Fault; nevertheless he is ready to Debate this Matter, and to make it appear clearly, that the City of Lions is part of his Kingdom, and that he is not willing in any wise to invade the Rights of the Church. In fine, In answer to the Last, he declares, That his intent is, to preserve and increase the Union, which ever was between his Predecessors and the Holy See, entreats the Pope to prosecute the same Design, and not to cross him in the Enjoyment of his Liberties, Franchises, and Privileges; adding, That if his Holiness be not satisfied with these Answers, he is ready to submit herein to the Judgement of the Earls of Britain and Burgundy, whom even the Pope himself offered to take for Mediators.  
The Pope was not at all satisfied with these Answers, and not only showed his resentment 
Bulls against the King.  by the Letters he wrote the 13th. of April, to the Earl of Alencon, the Bishop of Auxerre, and Cardinal of St. Marcellinus; but he again commands this latter, to give a fresh Summons to the Prelates of the Realm, to appear at Rome within Three Months, and sent him a Bull, wherein he declared, that the King had incurred the Penalty of Excommunication, ordered the Nuncio to signify it to him, to declare all those Prelates, and others of the Clergy Excommunicate, who should Celebrate or Administer the Sacraments to him, or in his Presence; and to cite his Confessor to appear within Three Months, before his Holiness. The Nuncio having received these Bulls by the hand of Nicholas de Benefracto, gave out Copies of them; but this no sooner came to the Knowledge of the King, but he gave Order to Arrest those that dispersed them; the Nuncio not thinking his Person in Safety, withdrew: The Archdeacon of Constance, and Benefracto were Arrested at Troy's, and the King renewed the Order he had given and after Superseded, to Seize the Goods of the Clergy, who were out of the Kingdom.  
On the 13th. of June, was held in the Castle of the Lovure, an Assembly of the Prelates and 
The Assembly of the States in the Lovure.  Nobility, in presence of the King; in which Lewis Earl of Eureux, Guy Earl of St. Paul, John Earl of Dreux, and William du Plessis, made Complaint against Boniface, accused him of Heresy, and divers other Crimes, which they engaged to prove by Oath upon the Evangelists in a full General Council, and besought the King, as Protector and Defender of the Church, to call one. The Prelates judging this Affair to be of great Importance, demanded time to deliberate on it. On the Morrow, the Assembly yet Sitting, William du Plessis read the Heads of the Accusation, which he offered against the Pope; namely, That he was an Heretic; that he did not believe the Immortality of the Soul, nor an Eternal Life; that he doubted the reality of our Lord's Body in the Eucharist, and showed it no respect; that he affirmed Fornication to be no Sin: That he approved of the Book of Arnoldus de Villa-Nova, Condemned by the Bishop of Paris, and burnt: That he had caused Images to be set up in Churches, to be adored: That he was a Sorcerer, and Simoniack: That he maintained the Pope could not commit Simony: That he forced the Priests to reveal Confessions; That he Eat Flesh at all times: That he Debased the Order of Cardinals, and some Orders of Monks: That he was a Sworn Enemy of France, and that he had a Design to destroy the Kingdom: That he had caused Celestine, his Predecessor, to die in Prison: That he had nulled the Marriage of several Persons, and had made the Nuns, without any Ground, to leave their Convents. After he had read these Accusations, he protested, 'twas not out of any hatred to Boniface, that he produced these Crimes, but for the good of the Church; and declared, he was ready to prove them in a General Council, which he desired to be Called; and because he feared, that Boniface would thunder against him, he appealed to the next Council, next Pope, or to the Holy See, adhering to the Allegations insinuated by Peter Nogaret, and demanded an Act of his Declaration. The King said, That he consented to the Calling of a Council, that he would thereto contribute his whole Power, desiring the Prelates to join with him; and to avoid the Prosecutions of the Pope, he appealed, as to all he might be able to do, to the next Council, or Pope. The Prelates likewise owned, that the calling of a Council was Necessary, and adhered to the Appeal of the King unto the next Council. In pursuit of the Requests of this Assembly, the King wrote to all the Cities, Churches, and Communities of his Kingdom, that he might gain their consent to the calling of a Council, and to the Appeal to be made to the next Council; and in a little time after, the Clergy, the Nobility, the Commons, the Chapters, the Universities, the Secular Orders, and the Regular, even the Mendicants (except that of the Cistercians) and several single Prelates of the Realms of France and Navarre, signed Acts in form of their Consent and their Appeal. The King gave Order for the calling of a Council, and gave Notice to the Kings and Princes of Europe, of his resolution. The Pope on the other hand sent out his thundering Bulls against the King, and all that adhered to his Appeal, Interdicts the Universities and other Societies, deprives the Chapters of their right of Election, complains loudly of what passed in the Assembly, opposes the calling of a General Council, and threatens to proceed against the King, notwithstanding his Appeal.  
Nogaret was then in Italy, where he received the Resolution of the Assembly held in the Lovure, 
The Pope taken by Nogaret at Anagni.  with order to publish it, and signify it to the Pope, who was withdrawn to Anagni, where he caused, on our Lady's Birthday, to be published a Bull, whereby he Excommunicated the King of France; and released his Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance. He went to Anagni, attended by Sciarra Colonni, Renaldus de Supino, and Three hundred Horse, and some Foot; and having gained some of the Inhabitants of Anagni by Money, he entered the City the 8th. of September, with his Troops, carrying the Standard of France, and crying, Let Pope Boniface Perish, but let the King of France Live; Muoia Papa Bonifacio, è viva il Ré di Francia. Their design was to go directly to the Pope's Palace, but having been Attaqued by the Marquis Cajetan his Nephew, in passing before his Palace, they were obliged to force his Palace, and the Houses of those who had embraced the Pope's Party. Sciarra Colonni Attacked the Castle where the Pope was, took it, seized Boniface, and rifled his Treasury. Nogaret twitted the Pope with what he had done in France, challenged him to call a Council; Sciarra Colonni would oblige him to renounce the Papacy; but Boniface having made him Answer, that he would sooner lose his life, Sciarra struck him on the Face with his Gauntlet, and had killed him, if Nogaret had not interposed. The Pope thus deserted by all his Friends, and in the hands of his most cruel Enemies, raised 
The Pope's Deliverance and his Death.  the Compassion of the Citizens of Anagni, who declared for him, and set him at Liberty. He was conducted by his own Order to a public place, spoke to the People, pardoned those of the City, except such as had plundered the Treasures of the Church; declared, that he would be reconciled to the King of France, and the Colonni, and that he would Pardon them, and even Nogaret himself. Nevertheless he soon left this City, and went to Rome, attended with some Troops. He arrived there Five Weeks after his being taken, and died with Grief and Melancholy, the 12th. of October 1303. in the Ninth Year of his Papacy. This was the end of this Pope, who had, whatever his Enemies may say, great Endowments, and a great deal of Wit; but Ambition and an itch to exercise an Authority, which belonged not to him, did cast him headlong into inevitable Mischiefs, never to be escaped by any, that attempt to usurp the Rights which appertain to such Princes, as are in a condition to defend them.  
This Pope caused to be Composed and Published a new Body of Decretals, Entitled, Sextus, 
The Letters of Boniface VIII.  divided into Five Books, containing some Decretals of his Predecessors, from the time of Gregory the Ninth, and many of those which he made in his own Pontificate. This Collection was not only rejected in France, but there was even a time when no body durst make use of it, or quote it. Rainaldus, Bzovius, and Waddingus had inserted divers of his Letters, and Decrees into their Annals, and there are some of them likewise in the Registers of the Bulls.  
Ten days after the Death of Boniface VIII. on the 22. of October, in the Year 1302. Nicholas, 
The Election of Benedict XI.  the Cardinal, Bishop of Ostia, Native of Trevisi, who was of the Order of the Friars Preachers, was chosen Pope, and took the Name of Benedict XI. He was a Man of good Morals and of a very Holy Life. Soon after his Advancement Peter Peredo, Prior of la Chesa, whom the King had sent into Italy after the Death of Boniface, presented to him a large Memoir, wherein he 
The Accusation of Boniface, before Benedict XI.  demanded the holding of a General Council, and propounded several Heads of Accusation and Complaint, which the King and Kingdom made against Boniface. Nogaret signified likewise, that he would continue his Prosecution; but Benedict having desired him by the Archbishop of Tolouse to proceed no further till he received fresh Orders from the King; assuring him, that he would remove this Scandal, and re-establish the Union between the Church of Rome, and the King of France, he yielded to this Request, and returned into France, to report this News, and advised the King to send Ambassadors to the Pope, furnished with sufficient Power to treat of this Accommodation. He was joined with the other Ambassadors, who were Bernard Lord of Mercoevil, William du Plessis, and Peter de Belleperche; but the Pope would never Treat with him. His Holiness, who earnestly desired Peace, began with Absolving the King from the Censures he had incurred, by a Bull of the 4th. of April 1304. By another of the 17th. of 
Revocation of the Bulls of Boniface VIII. against France, and the Colonni.  the same Month he revoked the Reservation which Boniface the Eighth had made to provide for all the Cathedral and Regular Churches in the Kingdom: And by a Third of the 13th. of May, in the same Year; he also gave Absolution to all Prelates, Lords and other Officers, who had hindered the King's Subjects from going to Rome, and even those, who had a hand in the taking of Boniface, except William Nogaret. He made void likewise all the Sentences, and Bulls of Boniface, by which he revoked the Privileges granted to the King of France, and his Officers, re-established the Universities; and in fine, to extinguish entirely the whole Matter of Difference, he revoked by other Bulls the Sentence given by Boniface against the Families of the Colonni, and Montenigro, and all their Adherents, re-established them to their former Condition, excepting to the Dignities of Cardinal, Benefices, Goods confiscate, and the Capacity of being advanced to the Papacy. Notwithstanding all these Revocations the King's Agents insisted upon the calling of a Council, and William Nogaret desired to be cleared, or absolved at any rate. But the Pope was so far from doing it, that being at Perus, he published on the 7th. of June a thundering Bull, wherein he declares Nogaret Excommunicate 
* Excommunication of Nogaret and his Assistants in taking of Boniface. , with all those who had assisted at the taking of Boniface, and Summons them to appear before him, to receive Judgement; otherwise he declares, that he shall proceed against them according to Law. This was the last Bull of 
‖ Death and Letters of Benedict XI.  Benedict, for he died at Perusia the 8th. of July following. He left behind him divers Letters, whereof some are mentioned by the Writers of the Annals [of the Church.]  
After his Death the Holy see remained void for the space of three Months; the Cardinals assembled at Perusia not coming to an Agreement about the Choice, by reason of the Contests of two 
The Petitions of Nogaret and the French, against the Memory of Boniface.  Factions, of which the one was for France, the other for Boniface. Nogaret believing this Vacancy favoured him with an Opportunity to do something towards his Justification, passed two Acts the 7th. of September, before the Official of Paris; One by which he sets himself against the Partisans, and Adherents of Pope Boniface, and Appeals to the next Council, to the Church, and to the next Pope, to hinder the Cardinal's Electing for Pope any of that Party, who are Excommunicated by the Canons; The other contains his Protestations, and his Excuses, and a Declaration he makes, that all he said against Boniface is true; that he is well informed of it, and though he demand Absolution ad cautelam, he does not believe he is in any manner bound by this Pope. Then he renews his old Accusations framed against Boniface, and recites a History of all that passed, as well under this Pope, as under Benedict his Successor; offers to justify his Innocence before a General Council, and even before the Holy See, provided, he may be Herd, and be assured of the Safety of his Person; because he cannot otherwise venture thither. There are besides three other Acts of Nogaret of the same Nature, and the Letters of Attorney, which he gave to Bertrand d Aguassa, to prosecute his Business in his Name, before the Holy See, and to demand safe Conduct, that he might accuse the Memory of Boniface, and justify himself from the Robbing the Church Treasure, which was laid to him, and demand Absolution in case it were necessary. The French and the Colonni did likewise make request to the King, that the Process against Boniface might be hastened. These latter making use of the Opportunity, procured a re-establishment in their Estates and Dignities by a Decree of the People of Rome, who condemned Peter Cajetan, Boniface his Nephew, to give Peter and James Colonni an Hundred Thousand 
* An Ancient Golden Coin, anciently Current in France, worth 2 S. sterling.  Florins of Gold, or Lands of the same Value, to recompense them for the Losses they had sustained; made void and null all that had passed against them, and ordered Poncellus Ursi to restore to the People of Rome the Town of Nepi, which Sciarra Colonni had given them.  
The Cardinals of the two Factions beginning to be weary of being confined to the Conclave, 
The Election of Clement V.  Cardinal du Prat, Chief of the French Party, conferred with Cardinal Francis Cajetan, represented to him, that they did great Injury to the Church by this delay; and demanded, if he had not some Expedient to bring Matters to an Agreement. Cardinal Cajetan found out one; That the Italian Party should choose Three Ultramontane Archbishops, and the other should choose out of the Three, One, whom they pleased, Forty Days after. Cardinal du Prat having accepted of this Proposal, Cardinal Cajetan named the Three Archbishops; the first of which was Bertrand Got, who had been heretofore Bishop of Comminges, and was then Archbishop of Bourdeaux, Born a Subject of the King of England at Villandreau in Bajodois, and the King's Enemy. Du Prat forthwith gave Advice hereof to Philip the Fair, who wrote presently to this Archbishop, and ordered him to meet him in a Wood near to St. John d' Angeli, where he declared to him, that 'twas in his Power to make him Pope, and that he would do it with a Proviso, that he would Promise to do him Six Favours, which he should demand of him. The Archbishop threw himself at his Feet, and said to him, Sir, Now I know that you love me, and that you render me Good for Evil, do you but Command, and I will Obey: The King raised him up, embraced him, and said thus to him, The First is to reconcile me throughly with the Holy Church, and to Pardon me the Mischief I may have done in causing Pope Boniface to be Arrested. The Second is, to restore me to the Communion of the Church, and them that assisted me. The Third, to Grant me all the Tithes of my Kingdom for Five Years, to make good the Charge I have been at in my War with Flanders. The Fourth, to blot out the Memory of Pope Boniface. The Fifth, to restore to the Dignity of Cardinals, the two Colonni's. As for the Sixth, I reserve myself, says the King, to declare it to you, in convenient time and place, in regard it must be very Secret. The Archbishop promised all these things with an Oath, by the Body of JESUS CHRIST, and gave him his Brother, and two of his Nephews for Hostages: The King on his part Swore, That he would cause him to be chosen Pope. They parted, after they had said these words; and the King wrote presently to the Cardinals of his Party, that they should choose the Archbishop of Bourdeaux. The thing was done with so much Diligence, that the Answer was returned to Perusia in Five Weeks. As soon as it Arrived, they proceeded to the Election, and Bertrand Got was chosen Pope, according to the Agreement made the 5th. of June, 1305. He accepted the Popedom gladly, was named Clement V and was Invested in the Month of August at Lions, whither the Cardinals came to meet him. The King, his Brother Charles of Valois, and a great Number of Princes and Lords of France assisted at this Ceremony. The King having for some Paces held the Reins of the Pope's Mule, resigned them to his Brother Charles, and the Duke of Britain, to mount on Horseback, and ride by the Side of the Holy Father. In the Cavalcade an old Wall loaden with a throng of People fell down, crushed to Death John Duke of Britainy, and a Brother of the Pope's, dangerously Wounded the King's Brother and slightly, the King himself, and beat off the Pope's Mitre.  
The first thing which Clement did, was to confirm the Absolution, that Benedict XI. had given 
The Revocation of Boniface's Bulls by Clem. V.  to the King; to revoke the Bull of Boniface, touching the Subsidies to be demanded from the Clergy, and all that followed thereupon; and to declare, That the Bull Unam Sanctam, should do no Prejudice to the King, or Kingdom of France; and that all things should remain in the same posture they were in before that Bull. In fine, he reestablished the Cardinals Colonni in their Dignities, and thus acquitted him of Four of the Articles, he had promised to the King. It was more difficult to satisfy him in the Fifth, which concerned the Memory of Pope Boniface. The King observing, that Clement did nothing in that point, spoke with him about it at Poitiers 
The preparing of the Process against the Memory of Boniface VIII.  in the Year 1307. and pressed him to proceed against the Memory of Boniface. This Proposal gave the Pope much trouble, and to shift off the performance of it, he answered by advice of Cardinal Prat, that this Business required the Meeting of a General Council, which he ever since designed to call. Nevertheless being solicited by the King, and his Creatures, to set this Affair on foot, he heard some Witnesses, Summoned the Accusers, part whereof appeared, and among others Nogaret and du Plessis. The first boldly maintained his Accusation against Boniface, and undertook to make it good. Cardinal Francis Cajetan defended his Uncle's Memory: Divers Writings there were on both Sides, and the King daily pressed the Conclusion of this Affair; on the contrary, the Defenders of Boniface put off Judgement as much as possible. The Pope considering the Importance of this Affair, used his utmost endeavour to pacify the King, and to spin out the time; and to bring it to Effect, he wrote to the Earl of Anjou, in a manner to cause the King his Brother to submit, touching this Dispute, to what should be Decreed by the Church and the Pope. The King was sometime before he could resolve; but at last being pressed by the great Ones of the Kingdom, he declared by his Letters Patents given at Fontainbleau, in the Month of February 1310. that he left the Judgement of this Affair to the Pope and a Council: Lewis Earl of Eureux, and Guy Earl of St. Paul, did the like. The Pope continued to carry on the Process, received Petitions, Writings, Memoirs and Deeds, named the Cardinals to Examine the Proceed, caused to be made thereof a tedious Verbal Process, which contained all that had been said on both Sides, from the 16th. of March 1310. till toward the close of the said Year. It contained likewise the Informations of Fourteen Witnesses, who Swore horrid Crimes of Impiety, Sodomy and Uncleanness against Boniface. At last 
The Revocation of Boniface's Bulls by Clem. V.  the Pope, to rid himself of this Affair, gave out a Bull the 17th. of April, in the Year 1311. wherein he revoked all the Sentences, Decrees, and Declarations of Boniface, which were not inserted in the Sixth Book of the Decretals, so far forth as they imported any prejudice to the Honour, Rights and Liberties of the King of France, the Kingdom, and his Subjects, except those two Extravagants, Unam Sanctam and Rem non novam, which were to stand according to the Modifications heretofore made by his Holiness. He annuls likewise all the Revocations and Suspensions of Privileges, Excommunications, Interdicts, Deprivations, Depositions, and all other Processes of Deed or Right, made as well by Boniface, as Benedict his Successor, since All Saint's Day in the Year 1300. as well against the King, as his Children, his Brothers, and his Subjects, even against Informers and Accusers, by reason of any Informations, Appeals, Demands of a General Council, Blasphemies, Ill Language, taking the Person, invading the House of Boniface, and other parts of the Difference the King had with this Pope, he Abolished the Spot of Infamy and the Mark of Reproach that might, in these Cases, stick upon the King, his Posterity, on the Accusers, Prelates, Barons, or others; Discharges them from all Condemnations, sets them to Rights, and restores them▪ to their ancient State; Ordains, That the Sentences, Suspensions, and other Acts made against them, should be razed out of the Registers of the Church of Rome, but all this without prejudicing the principal Cause, and the Prosecution, which might be made thereupon: He declares nevertheless, That he comprises not in this Abolition and Remission, William Nogaret, nor Sciarra Colonni, and some others which he Name's. As for Nogaret, who had demanded to be Absolved ad cautelam, the Pope grants it him, upon condition he would undertake some Pilgrimage, and upon the first Opportunity go into the Holy Land with Horse and Arms, there for ever to remain, at least till the Pope permit him to return. By another Bull of the same Date, he declares, That the King, nor his Successors shall not in any wise be molested, nor involved in the Prosecution, that shall be made in the Affair of Boniface. By another Bull he extends the Absolution mentioned in the preceding Bull to the Inhabitants of Anagni, except such, as he has named: And by the last, he not only Excludes Nogaret; but also some other Lords and Prelates of the Kingdom of France, from the Favour granted by his Bull.  
The General Council was opened at Vienne in Dauphiné, in the Month of October, in the Year 1311. King Philip came thither, the Year following in Mid-Lent, with a great Company 
The Judgement of the General Council at Vienne, about the Affair of Boniface.  of Princes and Lords, and was present at the opening of the Second Session. The Affair of Boniface was there brought into debate, as 'twas promised the King, but he had therein no Satisfaction; for it was Voted, That Boniface had ever been a good Catholic, and that there was no proof of his being a Heretic; There was no mention made of other Crimes, whereof he was accused, and which had been Sworn by the Witnesses. The Reasons of his Justification were alleged by Cardinal Richard of Sienne, Doctor at Law; by the Cardinal John of Namure, Doctor of Divinity; and by Cardinal Gentil, Doctor and Canonist. There appeared also two Knights of Catalonia, who maintained that Boniface was a good Catholic by a Challenge to the Combat, which was not accepted by any body. The Pope and the Cardinals, to content the King, made a Decree, importing that the King, nor his Successors should never be disturbed, nor called to account for what had been done against Pope Boniface. Thus ended the Contest, which lasted for many Years, between the King of France and the Holy See, about the Differences of Philip the Fair, and Pope Boniface.   

CHAP. II.  
The History of the Condemnation of the Templars.  
THE Affair of Boniface was not quite finished, when Philip the Fair, undertook another, 
The Settlement, Progress, and Declension of the Order of Templars.  which he brought to Effect more successfully, and with greater Ease; this was against the Order of the Templars, which he was resolved wholly to Extirpate. This Order was Established, as we have said, in the Year 1118. by Hugo de Paganis, Jeoffry of St. Omer, and Seven other Knights, who made a Vow between the Hands of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, to live according to the Rule of the Canons Regular. They were appointed to Guard the Roads, and to defend Pilgrims, that went to Jerusalem. Baldwin II. King of Jerusalem, gave them for some time only a House near the Temple; from whence they took the Name of Templars. The Council of Troy's held in the Year 1118. approved of their Institution, gave them a Rule, and ordered their Habit they were to wear for the time to come, should be white. Eugenius III. added hereto a red Cross, and ordered, that the Knights and the Friars should wear it on their Cloak. In the beginning they were Poor, and few in Number; but by little and little they Multiplied, grew very Rich, and spread over all Christendom, where they had an infinite number of Houses, and vast Riches. Their Wealth made them Proud and Insolent: They shook off the Yoke of Obedience, which they owed the Patriarch of Jerusalem, exempted themselves from the Jurisdiction of the Ordinaries, and from paying of Tithes, and their Power carried them out to do several Unjust Erterprises, and rendered them formidable to Princes and Kings. While they resided at Jerusalem, they employed their Strength against the Infidels: This City being taken by Saladin in the Year 1187. they retreated to St. John of Acre, and after that to a Castle near Caesarea; from thence they continued to make War upon the Infidels, but they were almost all Slain at the Sacking of the City of Acre or Acon, in the Year 1191. There remained of them but Ten, who withdrew to the Isle of Cyprus; from whence they made Inroads upon the Saracens. They possessed themselves of the Island of Tortosa, from whence the Sultan of Babylon expelled them. They Equipped a Fleet in Sicily, with which they overrun all the Coasts of Greece, which they Plundered and Ransacked, invaded Thrace, took Thessalonica, laid waste the Hellespont and Peleponnesus, took Athens, where they slew Robert de Brenne, who commanded there; insomuch, that abusing their Strength and Power, they turned those Arms against the Christians, which they ought to have employed only against the Infidels. They no longer made War from a Principle of Devotion, as did their Predecessors, but to enrich themselves, and oftentimes engaged the Saracens to make Incursions upon the Christians, to make themselves Necessary, and to draw great Sums of Money from Christian Princes, not being able to endure any other, but themselves should engage in this War. They had no sooner forsaken their Duty, but they fell into Disorders and Outrages, which Licence and Impunity 
The Informers against the Templars.  increased, and pushed on to a strange Excess. They remained a long time concealed, but were at last discovered by two Knights, Condemned for their Crimes; the one, the Prior of Montfaulcon of the Province of Tholouse, an Apostate condemned by the Great Master of the Order, Brother to Squinus of Foriano, put in Prison for his Crimes; The other named Noffo-Dei, a Florentine, condemned to rigorous Punishments by the Provost of Paris. These two Criminals took a Resolution to rescue themselves out of the Misery wherein they were, or else to involve their whole Order in the same Infamy, to discover the hidden Disorders of their Brethren. King Philip the Fair, who hated the Templars, and sought occasion to do them a displeasure, ordered that these two Informers should be examined, and their Depositions taken. They declared things so strange, and Crimes so heinous, that the King hardly believed them. Nevertheless, he would have the Matter searched to the bottom, and know the Truth: But in regard this Affair concerned an Order spread through all Christendom, he discoursed of it with Pope Clement the Fifth, when he assisted at his Coronation, and also had it spoken of to him at Poitiers by his Ambassadors. The Pope could not believe the Crimes charged on them to be true, they were so very incredible, and appeared impossible. The Great Master of the Temple, and many Templars of divers Countries, whose Concern it was to justify their Order, besought him to inform himself of these Accusations, submitting to the most severe Punishments, if they were found Guilty of what was charged on them. The Pope let the King understand it, by his Bull of the 23d. of August, in the Year 1306. in which he sends him word, that in a few days he should go to Poitiers, and there begin to make Inquisition concerning this Order; praying the King to transmit to him the Informations he had already taken.  
Nevertheless the King fearing, lest this Business being discovered might cause Disturbance in 
The Templars Arrested, and their Estates Seized.  the Kingdom, the Order of the Templars being so very Powerful in France, sent Letters to all the Judges of his Kingdom, with a Command to Arrest all the Templars on the same Day; and that the Matter might be kept the more Secret, they had Orders not to open the Letters, till the Evening before the Day 'twas to be put in Execution. This was punctually observed, and all the Templars throughout the Kingdom saw themselves Arrested and clapped into Prison the 5th. of October, in the Year 1307. if we may credit the Historians. But there are Bulls of the Pope dated in the Second Year of his Papacy, which ended in the Month of June 1305. and by consequence before October 1307. which suppose the Templars already Arrested: which might make it be thought, that that Accident ought rather to be referred to the Year 1306. than to that of 1307. if all the Historians of that time did not with one consent relate it done in the Year 1307. and Clement V himself in a Bull dated the 11th. of July, in the Third Year of his Popedom. Wherefore it is most probable, that there is some Mistake in the Dates of Clement's Letters. The Great Master of the Order named James Molay, of the City Besancon, who was present in the Temple of Paris, was Arrested among the rest; The King possessed himself of the Temple, and caused the Estates of the Templars to be seized. On the Morrow after the King Assembled the University, and caused it to be told them by Peter of Nogaret, who was the principal Actor in this Affair, what were the Reasons which had induced him to cause the Templars to be Arrested, and the heinous Crimes whereof they stood accused. The Pope took the Proceeding of the King ill, and sent him a Bull dated the 27th. of October, in the Second Year of his Papacy, Complaining, That he had caused the Templars, Subjects of the Roman Church to be Imprisoned absque medio, and had seized their Estates, though it belonged not to the Secular Powers to judge Ecclesiastical Persons. He adds, That he has so much greater reason to complain of this proceeding, for that he had given him intimation, that he was getting Information against them, and sending to him two Cardinals [Berengarius Cardinal of the Title of the Saints, Nerea, and Aquileia, and Stephen, Cardinal of the Title of St. Ciriaca] to treat with him about this Affair, that he might put into their hands the Prisoners, and their Effects.  
While these things were transacting, the King gave a Commission to William Paris, of the 
Informations against the Templars.  Order of the Friars Preachers, Inquisitor for the Pope in France, to make ready the Process against all the Templars, and ordered all the Lords of the Kingdom, and his Officers, to Arrest all the Templars they could light on, and thereupon to refer the Judgement and Cognisance to the Ecclesiastical Judges.  
The detestable Crimes, whereof they were accused were, 1. That they obliged all those that 
The Crimes they be Charged with.  entered into this Order, at the time of their Admission, to abjure Jesus Christ, and to spit three times upon a Crucifix. 2. That they obliged them, to Kiss him that admitted them, on the Mouth, on the Navel, and on the Extreme part of the Back. 3. That they forbade them to converse Carnally with any Woman; but allowed them to commit Sodomy with their Brethren of the Society. 4. That they made them worship a Silver and Gilt wooden Head, with a great Beard; which they likewise exposed to be Adored in their General Assemblies. William Paris examined upon these Interrogatories an Hundred and four Templars in the Month of November, in the Year 1307. touching these Pranks. The Three first Heads were Confessed by almost all that were Impeached. The Fourth was owned to be true by some, but the others said, they knew nothing of it. There were in this great Number of Examinants', but Three, who said they had never seen any ill in the Order, and that they had taken notice of nothing therein, but what was of good Repute. James Molay, the Great Master of the Order, Hugh Perraut, and Guy, Brother of Dauphin de Viennois, who were the most considerable Persons among the Templars, were heard to this Information, and Confessed one Part of these Deeds. One of the Examinants', which was Jeffery of Gonneville, who had been received in England, declared, That at his Admission, having refused to abjure JESUS CHRIST, the Governor Swore to him, that it could not hurt him; that it was the Custom of the Order, which had been introduced by a wicked Great Master, who having been taken Prisoner by a Sultan, had not been set at Liberty, but on Condition he would introduce this Custom into the Order; that others said, this had been brought up by Roncelin, Great Master of the Order, others by Thomas Beraldus, a Great Master likewise of the Order; and others, in fine, that it was in imitation of St. Peter, who denied JESUS CHRIST thrice. The greater part of the Examinants' testified, they did not this, but with regret, that they had confessed and repent of it.  
There were several other Inquisitions, taken in divers places; to wit, one of an Hundred and Eleven Templars, by the same William Paris at Troy's, who agreed in all the Articles, except the Adoration: Another taken at Bigorre, by Bertrand d' Agassa; Precedent of that City, who allowed hearing to five Templars: Another of thirteen Templars at Caen, by the Monks, who received a Commission for this purpose, from William Paris: One of these Thirteen denied the Articles; but being put to the Question, he confessed them: Another of seven Templars taken at Cahors, by John d' Arreblay: Another of ten Templars taken at Pont de l' Arch, by the Bailiff of Rouen, and others: In fine, that, which was taken the same Year at Carcassonne, wherein seven Templars were Examined, who confessed the Articles, and thereto added remarkable Circumstances; among others John de Cassanhas Master to the House of Nogarede near Pamiez, who declared, that when he was admitted into the Order, they sent to him two Knights, who demanded of him, whether he would enter into it? who having answered, 'twas his intention; they told him, that it was a great Undertaking, and that their Rules were hard to be observed, and he saw nothing, but the outside; that persisting in his Resolution, they admitted him; that he fell on his Knees before the Master, assisted with about ten Brethren of the Order, who held a Book in his Hand, and asked him what he Craved? and that having made Answer, he desired to enter into the Order, he made him put his Hand upon the Book, which he held, and Swear that he had no Encumbrance of Debts, Marriage, or any other servile Obligation whatever; That next to this, he said to him, You must Promise to God and us, that you will live without Property, keep Chastity, and observe the Usages and Customs of the Order, and that you believe in God the Creator; that he is Dead, and shall not Die; the same, which he Swore. He after that clothed himself with a Cloak, whilst a Priest read the Psalm, Ecce quam bonum, etc. That this being done, the Master kissed him on the Mouth, and next to that lay down on the Bench, whereon he sat; that he kissed the Master about the Fundament, upon his Garments, and the same being set, the other Brethren kissed him on the Navel: That after this, the Master plucked out of a Box a Copper Image of a Humane Shape, placed it on a Chest, and said; Sirs, behold a Friend of God, who speaks to him, when he will; give him Thanks for that he hath brought you unto the Dignity you have so much desired, and hath accomplished all your Wishes; that forthwith they worshipped this Image three times, falling on their Knees, and they produced a Crucifix, to show, that they renounced it, and spat thereon; that the Master gave him a small Girdle of Cord, and gave him leave, when he felt any Provocations of the Flesh, to make Use of his Brethren; that this being finished, he was conducted to another place invested with the habit of the Order, and brought back to the Master, who instructed him how he must behave himself at Church, in the War and at Table: Another of the Templars added to these Particulars, That the Master showing the Image, kissed it, Saying, Yalla, which is a Saracen word. It is related in the History of Provence, That one of the Commissioners deputed by the King about Beaucaire, named Odoardus des Moulins, wrote to his Majesty, how he had Arrested Five and forty Templars, whereof there were five Knights, and one Priest; who being examined, they all Agreed as to the Denial of JESUS CHRIST, the Permission of Sodomy, and the shameful Kissing: That as to the Image, they said, that they never worshipped it, but once at a Provincial Chapter held at Montpellier; That the Priest added, how he that did admit him, had enjoined him never to Pronounce the Words used at the Consecration of the Host; the which he had observed in his distribution of it to the Brothers of the Society, but not as to that, which he shown to the People, though he had been commanded not to Consecrate it. Some Authors accuse them further of other Crimes; as of burning the Body of those who died firm in their Idolatry, and of giving their Ashes to be Swallowed down by Novice-Templars; of Roasting the Children of the Women they had Abused, to rub their Image in the Grease, that dripped from them, and to cover it all over with the Skin of a Man; but these Accusations were not Proved by their Interrogatories. The greatest part of these Inquisitions were taken at the end of the Year 1307. and the beginning of the Year 1308.  
The Pope, to put a stop to these Proceed, which he thought entrenched upon his Authority; 
The Pope forbids the Ordinaries and the Inquisitor to meddle with the Affair of the Templars.  forbade the Archbishops, Bishops and Inquisitors of France to intermeddle herein, and ordered the Cause to be Herd before himself: The King hereupon signified to him his Resentment, and represented to him, that he was amazed, that his Holiness showed so great coldness in the Prosecution of this Affair; that 'twas, as if he consented to the Crimes of the Impeached, and would show them a way to defend themselves; that he ought rather to stir up the Prelates, and Ordinaries of Places to do their Duty in the Extirpation of this Order; that they could better search out this Matter in their Dioceses, than Strangers; that 'tis a great Injustice to take from the Bishops without reason, the Administration wherewith God hath entrusted them, and the Merit of Defending the Faith; that neither the King, nor they could endure it; that the Suspension of the Inquisitors Power gave hopes to the Templars to find Favour in the Pope's Court, and to spin out the time. The King, who desired to dispatch it out of hand, proposed it to the Divinity-Faculty at Paris, to be satisfied, whether he could not order Process against the Templars before Secular Judges. They answered him by their Resolve of 25. March, in the Year 1308. Showing, 1. That the Authority of a Secular Judge, cannot extend so far as to 
The Answer of the Divinity-Faculty at Paris.  proceed against any one for the Crime of Heresy, if it be not required by the Church, and she hath not resigned up the Criminal to him; nevertheless, in case of Necessity, and where there is Danger, the Secular Judge may order Heretics to be Arrested; but with a Resolution to resign them into the Power of the Church. 2. That those who are listed for the Defence of the Faith, and have made Profession of a Religion established by the Church, aught to pass among the Religious, and enjoy the benefit of Exemption. 3. That their Estates ought to be reserved to be employed to the Ends for which they were conferred on them. This Resolve discovered the Wisdom and Steadiness of the Divinity-Faculty of Paris, which seeks not to please the King by agreeable Answers, and conform to his Designs, but explains to him the Truth sincerely without any Evasion or Disguise.  
The King, that he might take just Measures, resolved to go himself to Poitiers, and before he 
The Pope himself examines the Templars.  repaired thither, he appointed at Tours a Meeting of the Deputies of the Cities of the Kingdom by Letters Patents sent to the Bailiffs on the 25th. of March, in the Year 1308. But in Conclusion, having no way to do it otherwise, he resigned into the hands of two Cardinals sent to him by the Pope, some of the Principal Templars, and ordered them to be conveyed to Poitiers, where the Pope was, to the end he might know the Truth from their own Mouth. The Pope having examined them in presence of the two Cardinals, who had been sent to the King, and of three others; they confessed the Crimes, whereof they were accused, and persisted in their Testimony. He understood likewise the same things from one of his Domestics, a Knight of this Order, who confessed ingenuously all the Evil which was committed among them. The Pope being by this convinced of the Necessity of prosecuting this Affair, by a Bull 
The Pope permits the carrying on the Process against the Templars.  directed to the Archbishops, Bishops, and to the Inquisitors of the Kingdom, dated the 5th. of July, in the Year 1308. he took off the Suspension of their Power, and permitted them to proceed in their Dioceses against the Templars, even to the Sentence, which should be pronounced in their Provincial Councils, reserving nevertheless to himself, and the Holy See the Process against the Great Master of the Temple, and against the Masters and Heads of that Order in France, the Lands beyond the Seas, Normandy, Poictou, and Provence. He took Care of the keeping and preservation of their Estates by four other Bulls of the same Month, willing, that they should be reserved to the same end for which they had been given; that is to say, for the Relief of the Holy Land, without prejudicing the Rights, which the King, and the other Lords might have to them; that to this Effect he would Name two Administrators-General to make up the Account with them, who should be named on the King's behalf; and that the Money should be employed for the Relief of the Holy Land, according to the Appointment of the Pope. The King consented to this Business, and named Administrators on his part: As to the Persons of the Templars, the Pope Commissioned Peter Capella Cardinal, Bishop of Praenoste, that they should be put into his Custody, and joined to the Ordinaries, to prepare the Process against the Templars, two Canons of each Church, and two Grey Friars. The King represented to him, that he meant not that what he had done in this Affair should be prejudicial to his Rights, and the Pope consented thereto in one of his Letters.  
The Pope whether it were, that he had no entire Confidence in the Inquisitors of France, or 
Inquisitions taken by three Cardinals at Chinon.  rather, that he was willing to testify, he had done nothing in this Affair, but with great Precaution, deputed three Cardinals, Berengarius, Stephen, and Landulphus, to understand from the Prisoners themselves, whether the Examinations taken by the Inquisitors were true. The King made the Principal Prisoners to be removed to Chinon, where they were again Examined by the Cardinals, and they persisted in the Confession they made at Paris, among others the Great Master of the Order, Hugh Perrant and the Master of Cyprus; these three last and divers others prayed Absolution, and received it. The Cardinals made Entries of all this, on the 15th. of August, in the Year 1308. and gave the King to understand, that they entreated him to show the Templars some Favour, on consideration they had Acknowledged, what they had done; but both the Pope and the King had a design wholly to break this Order. Whereupon the former, upon the Information of these Cardinals, in the close of the Month of August, in the 
Bulls against the Templars  Year 1308. directed several Bulls to the Archbishops, and Bishops of Christendom, wherein after the Recital of what had been already discovered of the Templars Exploits; he order them to make ready their Process, and sends them likewise the very Articles, on which they were to be Examined. The King on his part held an Assembly at Tours, where were present the Deputies of the Archbishops, Bishops, Lords, and Commonalty of the Towns, furnished with Letters of Attorney, giving them Power to appear before the King and the Pope, there to entreat of this Affair. After the Meeting of this Assembly, the King accompanied with one part of the Deputies, went to meet the Pope at Poitiers, and having conferred with him, they Agreed upon the Articles following: That the Templars should be kept in Custody by the King's Authority, at the Request of the Pope and the Prelates; That the Prelates might Judge the Templars in their respective Dioceses, except some few, whose Judgement was reserved to the Pope. That in case of putting down the Order, their Wealth should be employed for the Relief of the Holy Land, and that no other use might be made thereof: That the Estates of the Templars should be put into the Hands of the Administrators named by the Pope; in the mean while the Pope ordered, that all the Templars should be Arrested, and put into the Hands of the Inquisitors, and named by his Bull dated the 11th. of August, of the Third Year of his Papacy (which must fall in the Year of our Lord 1307. if the Years of his Papacy be counted from the 5th. of June 1305. but according to the Authors of that Age, in the Year 1308.) the 
Judges deputed to Proceed against the Order of the Templars.  Archbishop of Narbonne, the Bishops of Bayeux, Manned, and Lymoges, with Four other Clergymen of the second Order; to make Process against the whole Order of the Templars in any of the Towns in the Province of Sens. These Commissioners met at Paris, in the Month of November, of the Year 1309. to hear the Depositions of the Witnesses, and the Answers of the Accused. James Molay, Great Master of the Order being Convened before them, they asked him, if he would defend his Order: He made Answer, That his Order having been approved of, and honoured with divers Privileges by the Holy See, had no need of a Defender; that he 
An Inquest taken by the Commissioners of the Pope.  was surprised, they would so suddenly abolish a considerable Order, since the Sentence of Deposition against Frederick had been deferred for Two and thirty Years: that he was not wise enough to Undertake this Defence, but he would do what he could; That he had been a Captive, neither had he a Sous to defray the Charge; he demanded, that they would allow him Council, and some Assistance; he desired, that, to know the truth of what concerned his Order, they would take not only his Deposition, and those of his Order; but likewise the Testimonies of all the Kings in the Earth, of the Princes, Barons, Earls, and also of the Prelates. The Commissioners advised him to have a care what he adventured on, after the Deposition he himself had given against his Order; and told him, that in a Plea of Heresy, and of what concerned the Faith, they proceeded singly, and without assistance of Council or Advocate. The Commissioners hereupon caused their Commission to be read to him; and when they came to the Place, where mention was made of the Points, which, 'twas said he had confessed, he appeared amazed, made the sign of the Cross, and said, That if the Commissioners were of another quality, he knew what he would say to them; and as to their reply, that they were not in condition to accept a Challenge, he returned, that that was not his meaning, but he prayed God to use his Slanderers in the same manner, as the Turks and Saracens used Impostors, whose Heads they cut off, or cleaved them asunder. The Commissioners told him, That the Church Judged Heretics, and delivered up the Obstinate to the Secular Power. He withdrew, and having conferred with a certain Lord, he asked time till Friday, which was granted him; and appearing on that day, and being demanded, if he would defend his Order, he said, he was Poor and wanted Skill, but had understood in one of the Bulls read to him, that the Pope had reserved the Judgement of him, and some other Masters of the Order to himself; so that he could do nothing at present but declare, he was ready to appear before the Pope; and entreated them to bring it about, that his Holiness might admit him to his Presence. The Commissioners showed to him, that they were not entrusted with the Judgement of particular Persons, but that of the Order, and that he had liberty to speak, if he would offer any thing to hinder their insisting upon the making this Matter ready for a Hearing: He said, No; but he demanded of them only to behave themselves with Justice and Fidelity: as for the rest he thought himself obliged to lay before them, for discharge of his Conscience, three Things on the behalf of his Order. The First, That he believed, there were no Churches, except Cathedrals, which had better Ornaments, more Relics, or where they performed Divine Service better, than in those of his Order. The Second, That no Religious Order was more Charitable, than theirs, in regard they had a general Rule in all their Houses, of giving Alms three times a Week to all that presented themselves to receive it. The Third, That he knew no Order, nor Nation, which exposed their Lives more freely for the Defence of the Faith against the Enemies of the Christian Religion, and which was more feared by the Infidels. The Commissioners told him, that this was to no purpose without Faith: He replied, that was true; but that he believed in God, in a Trinity of Persons, and all that which is of Faith; that he was persuaded, there was but one God, one Faith, one Baptism, one Church; and that, when the Soul shall be separated from the Body, we shall know the Good and the Bad, and that every one shall know the Truth of what passes at present. Nogaret affirmed to him, that their Order had obeyed Sultan Saladin, and that this Tyrant had upbraided them with the Vice of Sodomy: He excused the Agreement he made with Saladin, from the Necessity they were in, to preserve the Towns and Castles, which they could not have Defended, if they had not Compounded with him.  
A great many other Templars of several Provinces in the Kingdom, being after this by the King's Order at Paris brought before the Commissioners, the Articles were read to them, upon which they were Impeached, and about which they were Examined. Threescore and Fourteen maintained the Innocence of their Order, and declared they were ready to defend it, and named Peter of Bononia for their Proctor, publicly averring, that all those shameful, foul, unreasonable, detestable and horrid Articles, upon which they were Impeached, were so many Falsities, Lies, and Slanders, forged by their Enemies, and attested by false Witnesses; that their Order was pure, without Stain, and free from all Crimes; they demanded their Liberty to be in a Condition to defend it, and leave to go in Person to a General Council; they answered to the Depositions of their Brethren, who had confessed these Crimes, That it was 〈◊〉 Confession, which fear of Death and Torments had extorted from them, or that they had done it, to save themselves, being corrupted by Entreaties, or Promises. In fine, they entreated, that Justice might be done them, and they delivered from the Oppression they lay under. Bononia, by Virtue of this Power, with Nine other Templars presented a Memorial, in which he declares as well for himself, and these Eight Knights, as for the rest, they are ready as well in the general as in particular to defend themselves in a General Council, or any where else, when they shall be set at Liberty; They protest, that whatever any of their▪ Brethren have said against their Order, ought not to hurt nor prejudice them; they desired that the Brethren of their Order, who had quitted their Habit, should be put into Prison: That when any of their Brotherhood shall be Examined, no Lay Man be present; they say, it is strange more credit should be given to the false Depositions of some few, extorted by Fear, or surprised by Promises, than to those of so many Martyrs, who suffer with Constancy, Torments and Imprisonment; They add, that out of the Kingdom of France, none of the Templars had said any such thing of their Order; which makes it plain, that those who have deposed these things in France, have been constrained by force, or wrought upon by Money; That in defence of their Order they say plainly, it is founded on Charity and Brotherly Love, in honour of the Virgin Mary, and to defend the Holy Church, and the Christian Faith, and to destroy the Enemies of the Cross principally in the Holy Land; that their Religion is pure, and without spot, before God; that the Rules and the Discipline of it are; and ever have been most exactly observed; that it hath been approved, and honoured with many Privileges by the Holy See; that those, who enter into it, make Four principal Vows, of Poverty, of Obedience, of Chastity and of Warfare, to Conquer, or to Preserve the Holy Land; that they are admitted with a Kiss of Peace; that the Habit is delivered to them together with a Cross, which they always carry in honour of JESUS CHRIST crucified; that they are instructed in their Rule, and the Customs, which they observe by the Church of Rome, and the Holy Fathers; that such is the Ceremony of the Profession, which is observed, and hath always been generally observed through their whole Order; that the heinous and abominable things charged on them are Lies invented by Apostates from their Order, expelled for their Crimes, who have been suborned by others, and have deceived the King and the Pope: that many of those who have Confessed through fear of Torments, are ready to retract, if they had freedom to speak the Truth, and did not fear being burnt for contradicting their Oaths. One of these Eight Templars added, That all the Depositions made use of against them are void, because that by a special Privilege none of their Number ought to Answer, unless before the Pope, and that no one can renounce that Privilege: That particular Persons ought not to be admitted to give Testimony against their Order; and that those who had been Sworn, were forced to speak what they knew not. The Commissioners replied, That it was not in their Power to set them at Liberty, because it was not they, who had put them in Prison; but they were the Pope's Prisoners, in whose Hands were the Revenues of their Order; that they had been very much traduced; that in respect to the Privileges, which they alleged, they took not place in Point of Heresy; that for themselves they had no other Charge, but to inquire into Matters of Fact, comprehended in the Memorial sent them by the Pope. So the Commissioners began their Inquisition, notwithstanding the Declarations of these Templars, who moreover gave in another Memorial, in which they set forth, that they had observed no judicial Form in making ready their Process, that several Violences had been exercised upon them, they had been Arrested, put in Prison, their Estates had been seized without any reason, they had been compelled by force of Torture, or by Promises, or by Rewards to Swear false things against their Order; that all the reasonable Presumptions were on their Side. 1. Because it was not to be believed, that any Body should have been so much a Fool as to engage, or continue in an Order so abominable. And, 2. Because their Order was made up of People of Quality, of good Morals, who would never have suffered these Disorders: They demanded a Copy of their Commission, the Articles of their Impeachment, and the Names of the Witnesses which had Sworn, or of those that designed to Swear hereafter; that they would distinguish them, that had already been Sworn, from those that were yet to make Oath; that they should be made to depose, they would speak the Truth; and that they would Suborn no Person; that inquiry might be made into the manner, how some of their Brethren came to their end, and the reason, why some of them declined to appear; that among others, it may be known of Friar Adam of Valencour, who had deserted their Order, to be entered in that of the Carthusians, and after that came back to it again, whether what was reported of their Order, were true.  
While the Pope's Commissioners were informing themselves against the whole Order, the 
A Provincial Council held at Paris against the Templars, in the Year 1310.  Archbishop of Sens held a Provincial Council at Paris, in the Month of May, in the Year 1310. wherein he undertook to proceed against the particular Members. The Knights engaged in the defence of their Order in General, set forth that it was not just, while the Pope's Commissioners were taking their Inquest, the Archbishop of Sens should attempt to make out their Process: That they appealed from all this Archbishop could do; and that if in bar of this Appeal any Execution were brought against them, 'twere an Injustice: That they would put themselves under the Protection of the Pope: That they prayed the Commissioners to forbid the Archbishop of Sens, and other Bishops of the Realm, to proceed against any Templar, and that they would give them leave to signify this Appeal to the Archbishop of Sens, and to make it Public. The same Evening they presented another Writing directed to the Archbishop of Sens, containing their Appeal. The Commissioners made Answer, That the Matter, which was handled by the Archbishop of Sens, and his Suffragans in their Council, was far different from that which they treated of: That they were likewise deputed by the Holy See, and that they had no Authority over them; and hereupon they did not believe, they could oblige them to delay the making out Process against the particular Members of the Order; nevertheless they should debate it more fully. The Commissioners went on with their Inquest, and heard Two hundred and one and thirty Witnesses, who took their Oaths against the Order, from the close of the Year 1309. to the Month of June, in the Year 1310. The greater part confessed the Facts, whereof their Order stood accused; but some denied them, and others, after their Confession, retracted, and said they had not Sworn those things, but for fear of Punishment, or because they had perceived, they did design to Burn such of their Fellows, as had asserted the Innocence of their Order. But before the Inquisition of the Commissioners was finished, the Provincial Council of Sens pronounced several Judgements upon particular Men of this Order: Some were Absolved, others Condemned to certain Penances, and afterwards released: some confined more closely, or condemned to perpetual Imprisonment, and Nine and fifty, who persisted in the disowning of what they had confessed, were degraded as Relapsed, and delivered up to the Secular Power, and condemned to be Burnt; which was accordingly put in Execution without the 
The Execution of the Templars at Paris.  Gate of St. Anthony, in the Month of May in the Year 1610. These poor Wretches declared to the last moment, that they were Innocent. They dug up the same Year the Body of John de Turreio, who had been Treasurer of the Temple, to burn his Bones.  
They proceeded likewise in other Kingdoms against the Templars, in pursuance of the Pope's Bulls. In Italy the Archbishop of Ravenna caused those of his Diocese to be Arrested, and got 
Prosecutions of the Templars in several Kingdoms.  Information against them. After that, he assembled a Council of his Province, wherein he made Report of the Charge he had against them, and asked, whether they ought to be put to the Rack: it was concluded in the Negative, though the Inquisitors maintained, that Heretics ought to be put to it; It was demanded, whether they should be sent back to the Pope; they said, No; seeing a General Council was suddenly to be called; that they ought to be absolved, or clear themselves. On the next day, the Bishops being met, declared, That the innocent aught to be dismissed with Absolution, and the guilty punished according to the Law: that the Order ought to be kept up, if the greater part were found and innocent. The Examinations taken by the Archbishops of Pisa and Florence, and other Persons Commissioned by the Pope, to inquire in Lombardy and Tuscany, were less favourable to the Templars; for the Witnesses deposed, that they had seen, heard, and had Knowledge of the horrid and detestable Crimes, of which they were accused. James II. King of Arragon, having received a Letter from the King of France against the Templars, charged the Bishops of Valentia and Saragosa, and the Inquisitor General of his Kingdom, to get Information against them; and notice being given him that the Templars retreated to their strong Forts, he caused all to be Arrested, that he could light on, and prepared to force the others in their Castles, while the Inquisitor General, who had cited them to Valentia, made ready their Process. The Knights of this Kingdom writ to the Pope, that they were falsely accused; that their Innocence was known to all the World; that they were so far from denying JESUS CHRIST, that there were now a great Number of their Brethren in the hands of the Infidels; who chose rather to continue in Captivity, and suffer divers Torments, than renounce the Faith: That if some had confessed Abominable Crimes, they ought to be Punished; but that it was not just, the whole Order, or the Innocent should Suffer: they besought the Pope to grant them his Protection, declaring, that they submitted to his Judgement, and that waiting for his Answer, they were retired to their Fortresses. The King of Arragon took several of their Castles, and the Pope commissioned the Bishop of Valentia to proceed upon them, who were taken. In Castille King Ferdinand iv caused all the Templars to be Arrested, and took Informations against them, by the Archbishops of Compostella and Toledo, and by the Inquisitor Aimerick. Their Estates were seized, and the Bishops appointed Guardians. The Matter having been debated in the Provincial Councils, the Templars were declared Innocent, and nevertheless sent back to the Pope. In England they were all Arrested the same day, examined in an Assembly held at London, which lasted for two Months, and they there confessed the Crimes whereof they were accused. The Pope sent a Commissioner into Germany to Examine those of that Country, and Exhorted the Princes and Prelates of Germany to prosecute the Templars; but it appears not that they did any thing against them. He gave Order also to Arrest them in the Isle of Cyprus, but Almericus, Lord of Tyre and Governor of the Kingdom, sent him word, that he could not put that Order in Execution, because the Templars had taken Arms upon the Notice they had of it: that nevertheless Ten of the Chief came and resigned themselves into his Hands, and had promised to obey. In Provence Charles II. King of Sicily, and Earl of Provence Arrested them all, the 24th. of January, in the Year 1308. and seized their Estates. They were condemned to Death and Executed, their Personal Estates divided betwixt the Pope and the Earl, and the Real kept for the Hospitallers.  
The time of the General Council, which the Pope had appointed, drawing near, King Philip 
The Pope's Judgement in the Council of Vienne, against the 〈◊〉.  the Fair, wrote to the Pope in the beginning of the Year 1311. That since the Templars appear to be Charged so fully by the Informations, they ought to be rooted out by the Judgement of the future Council. He besought his Holiness to order it so, that their Goods might be employed in some new Expedition, or rather be transferred to some Military Order already established for the Relief of the Holy Land. The Pope agreed to this Proposal, by his Bull of the Month of March, in the same Year.  
In fine, the General Council of Vienna being Assembled, and the First Session held the 16th. of October in the Year 1311. the first thing, that the Pope proposed, was the Affair of the Templars. There were divers Opinions about them. Some were of the Mind, that they ought to be heard before they abolished the Order; others on the contrary were of Opinion, that it ought to be no longer deferred; and that if it were, 'twould be a great Scandal to the Church, after the enormous Crimes, of which they stood Convict. William Durantus, Bishop of Menda, was of this Opinion, and delivered a Memorial to the Pope to prove it. On Wednesday in the Holy Week, in the Year following, which was the 19th. of March, the Pope held a particular Assembly of Cardinals and Prelates, in which the Destruction of the Order of the Templars was resolved on. The Bull of it was Published in the following Session held the 22. of May 1312. at which the King was present. The Substance of it was this; That the Templars being convicted of a great Number of Crimes, he decreed the Abolishing of them, with the Approbation of the Council, not in form of a definitive Sentence, because it could not in rigour of Justice be carried so far, according to the Informations and the Process, which had been made, but in form of Provision, or an Apostolical Direction, and that he forbidden any whomsoever to enter into that Order for the future, and to take, or wear their Habit, on Pain of Excommunication ipso facto. That all their Estates should remain in the disposal of the Holy See; and that from this present time, after Mature Deliberation, and by the Advice of the Prelates of the Council, he did unite them for ever to the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, as well Movables, as Immovables, together with all their Rights, and their Privileges, excepting nevertheless the Goods which they had in the Kingdoms of Castille, Arragon, Portugal and Majorca, which shall not be given to the Hospitallers, and yet reserved to the disposal of the Holy See. In fine, he enjoins, under Pain of Excommunication, all Persons of what Degree soever, even Kings themselves, who have any thing in Possession belonging to the Templars, to return it into the hands of the Hospitallers, within one Month after the Publication of this Bull. And to that end, the Pope commissioned the Bishop of Nevers, the Abbot of St. German des Prez, and the Dean of Chartres, to put the Knights of the Hospital into Possession of the Goods, which the Templars had in France; and gave out several other Bulls, upon this Subject. The Judgement upon the Processes of particular Members of the Order were sent away to the Provincial Councils, and it was decreed, That those who were found Guilty, should be severely Punished, and that Pensions should be assigned to the Innocent, out of the Goods of the Order. As to the Great Master, the Brother 
The Execution of the Great Master and another Templar at Paris.  of the Dauphin, and some others, whom the Pope had reserved to his own Judgement, he sent Cardinals to Paris, to declare what he would have done on their score. These Cardinals ordered a Scaffold to be Erected before the great Gate of the Church of our Lady, in the Month of March, in the Year 1313. and having caused the Great Master, the Brother of the Dauphin, Hugh Perrauld, and another Knight to be fetched, they read to them the Sentence of the Pope, by which they were deposed and condemned to perpetual Imprisonment. The Great Master, and the Dauphin's Brother upon hearing this Judgement, declared, That what they had Sworn against their Order, was false; that they had done it at the instance of the Pope and the King, and that they were ready to Die in defence of this Truth. The Cardinals delivered them up to the Provost of Paris; and the News thereof being carried to the King, he presently called his Council together, in which it was resolved, that in the Evening the Great Master, and the Brother of the Dauphin should be Burnt at the Point of the Isle of the Palace, between the King's Garden, and the Augustin Friars; which was performed accordingly. These Wretches endured the Punishment with Resolution, and persisted unto the last to assert their own Innocence and that of their Order: this made many believe that they died innocent. The two others, which said nothing, had their Lives saved.  
This was the End of the Order of Templars, which was abolished in all the Countries of Christendom, 
The use of the Templars Estates in several Kingdoms.  except Germany; where they stopped the Publication of the Bull, and procured Absolution in a Provincial Council. The Knights Hospitallers in France were put in Possession of their Immovables, but they were obliged to leave to the King two Thirds of their Movable Goods, for the Expense he had been at in the Prosecution of the Templars, according to the Agreement made between King Lewis Hutin and the Great Master of the Hospital, on the 14th. of February, in the Year 1315. In Arragon the Pope, at the instance of King James, annexed the Estates of the Templars to those of that Order of Calatrava, which was made an Order separate and independent from that of Castille of the same Name, having a Great Master resident in Arragon, and depending on the Order of Cistercians. The King of Arragon detained nevertheless Seventeen strong Forts, which had belonged to the Templars. Ferdinand IU. King of Castille, would not comply with the Sentence of the Pope, which joined the Templars Estates to the Order of St. John of the Hospital, but laid to the ancient Inheritance of the Crown, the Towns, Lands, and other Goods, which they had in his Estate. Dionysius King of Portugal, by advice of the Pope, instituted in his Kingdom, an Order of Knights of Christ, which was approved by Pope John XXII. and founded out of the Goods of the Templars, whose principal Employment was to make War upon the Moors. In England, it was resolved in a Parliament held in the Year 1324. that the Estates of the Templars should be united to the Order of Hospitallers; which gave occasion to some English of that Order, to think they were discharged from their Vows, and at liberty to Marry, which the Bishops of England opposed.  
It is one of the famous Questions in History, to wit, whether the Templars were Guilty of all 
Arguments which may be alleged for the justification of the Templars.  the Crimes, whereof they were accused, and justly condemned; or whether they were imputed to them falsely, and whether they were not compelled by the violence of Torments and Fear, to confess things which they had not done, to grow rich by their Spoils, and seize on their Effects, as some Historians have asserted. It may be alleged in their Defence, 1. That the Informers were two Wretches condemned for their Crimes, no way worthy of Credit, who thought of this Project, to rescue themselves from the Punishment, to which they were condemned. 2. That the Crimes whereof they stand accused are so horrid and execrable, and at the same time so extraordinary, that they must, if Guilty, have lost not only all sense of Honour and Religion, but also Modesty, Common Sense, and Understanding. Now is it credible, that a vast Number of Men of all Nations and Degrees, spread throughout all Christendom, should all fall into so horrid an Excess of Wickedness and Extravagance; and that neither Religion, nor Shame, nor fear of Discovery, nor any distaste, which any of the Order might have taken, should induce none of them to reveal their Actions? This Silence is strange, if the Thing be true: A Silence, which lasted for almost an Hundred Years, which was observed religiously by all those of the Order. During this time many Malcontents left the Order; how could it possibly be, that not one of them, to justify his Desertion, should offer for a Reason the Disorders he had there met with? How could an infinite Number of People, who presented themselves to be admitted with a good intent, and not being yet corrupted, resolve at their Admittance to make so damnable a Profession, and therein persevere? 3. That they confessed not these Crimes, but for fear of Torments, wherewith they were threatened, and in hopes, which were given them, of being well used, and likewise rewarded for their Confession: that such as refused to own them, were put to the Rack, that Torments might force from their Mouths the Confession of what was False: that notwithstanding there were some, who would never Swear against their Order, and honourably asserted their Innocence: that the greater part of those, who were Cowardly enough to yield to Fear, or be wrought on by Promises, had recanted, and persisted in that Recantation to their Death, ever protesting, that they had been imposed upon, or that they had spoken falsely, and that these Confessions were extorted from them by Threats or Promises, or by Violence: that they had shown as much Constancy in this Retractation, as they had testified Weakness and Change from their former Deposition: In fine, that they chose rather to be Burnt alive, and going to Execution they declared aloud, that they died innocent; the time, in which the fear of Hell, and the Judgement of God before whom they must appear, forces the Truth from the Heart and Tongue of the most Wicked. 4. That there were found no other Witnesses against them, than themselves: that 'twas only in France, where they were constrained to confess these Crimes: that every where besides, whatever Prosecution was made against them, they were not found Guilty of these Crimes, neither did they confess them. 5. That their Judges were Parties; That Philip the Fair, had a Mind to this for a long time, accusing them of raising and fomenting Sedition against him: that he was the particular Enemy of the Great Master: that he owed them Money: that he desired to enrich himself with their Spoils, as it came to pass: that he engaged himself in the Prosecution of this Affair, with Zeal and Partiality: that he practised unheard of Cruelties on the accused: that the Pope was unwilling at the first to enter on this Business, as being acquainted with the Injustice of it; but that at the last he suffered himself to be prevailed with by the importunity of the King of France, and the offers he made him to leave the disposal of the Templars Possessions to his Holiness: that in fine, the Pope, the King of France, and other Princes found the Destruction of this Order would turn to Account, and made Advantage of their Estates in whole or in part. 6. That the Proceed against them were Irregular, and against the Forms prescribed by the Law: that at the first they were arrested upon slight Suspicions by the Authority of the King, and without having consulted the Pope; unto whom alone it belonged to judge them, because of their Privileges: that the first Examinations were taken either by the King's Officers or by the Inquisitor: that their Proceed were not against the whole Order: that they were not Summoned, nor their Process prepared according to Form: that the Pope acknowledged all these things, in declaring, that he could not of right give a definitive Sentence against this Order, according to the Inquest, and the Method wherein the Process was prepared: Non per modum definitivae Sententiae, cum eam super hoc secundum inquisitiones & processus super his habitos non possumus ferre de jure. That he Condemned them nevertheless and Abrogated their Order, by way of Provision, as if the utter abolishing of an Order could be decreed by Provision, when 'twas acknowledged, it could not be decreed of right.  
It may be answered to these Arguments, That in Matters of Fact, we are not to make use of 
The Reasons, which p●… the Justice of abolishing the Order 〈◊〉 T●…  Conjectures, and Reasonings against the Depositions and Confessions themselves of the Criminals, upon which they were legally Condemned: That we have the Interrogatories of a vast number of Templars, who have Acknowledged the Crimes whereof they were accused: That it matters not, who are the Informers, provided that in the Sequel the Fact be Evident: that the Crimes, whereof they are accused, are in good earnest very heinous; but Men that give themselves over to their Passions and Lusts, are capable of all of them, and there is no disorder so strange, into which they may not fall▪ That those, whereof the Templars are accused, are of two Sorts, Impieties, and a kind of Idolatry, and the Vice of Sodomy; that the Commerce which they had with the Saracens, might engage them in the former, which is the more Extraordinary, and that Debauchery hurried them to the Second: that these Disorders had been a long time kept secret, because all the Members were concerned to conceal them: that 'twas the Order gave them their Settlement and Fortune, and that they could not accuse it without undoing themselves, and accusing themselves of Shameful Crimes; besides that it was dangerous to bring about their Ears an Order so powerful, on which they had their dependence: which was likewise the Reason, why those, who had deserted the Order, made no Discovery: that some had revealed these filthy acts to particular Persons; who did not dare to mention them: that many of them, who had confessed these Crimes, had done it voluntarily, and without Constraint: that they all agreed in their Depositions; but that some had not Sworn to all the Articles, because they had knowledge but of part, which proves their Sincerity: that they all speak of Circumstances so particular, that it is hard to imagine they should be invented: that the greatest part stuck to their Depositions: that such as had retracted, did it not, till they saw they must undergo the Punishment their Fault deserved, and to cover their Disgrace: that since they kept these Disorders very secret, and discovered them not, but to those of their Order, it is not to be wondered at, if the principal Witnesses were such as were accused: that tho' they prepared not their Process in Form in other Kingdoms; yet for all that there was proof enough found against them to pull down their Order: that King Philip the Fair acted not in this Matter, but upon a Principle of Justice: that he had not ordered them to be Arrested so suddenly, but because it was to be feared, lest, since they were Powerful, if they had had notice of the Design, they should have made an Insurrection in the Kingdom: that he had caused an Inquisition upon them to be taken for his own Justification, and thereupon left the Judgement to the Pope, into whose hands he resigned them: that he enriched not himself with their Estates, but always offered they should be employed for the good of the Holy Land: that he consented to the Incorporation of them into the Order of the Hospitallers, and had restored them to it without any Deceit, retaining only what he was obliged to expend in Suing out the Process: that the Proceed, and Examinations taken against them, were sufficient to prove the Irregularities of the Order in general: that it was Necessary to abolish it, and there was no Remedy to be applied otherwise, though possibly according to the Formalities of Law there must have been another manner of Proceeding, in order to the giving a Definitive Sentence: Yet this hindered not, but that by way of Provision, that is to say, of Discipline, Equity and Justice, the Order might be wholly abolished, and their Estates given to an Order, which ought to put them to the use to which they were designed. These Reasons are sufficient to maintain the Judgement given by the Pope in the Council of Vienna, against the Order of the Templars, and to justify the Behaviour of Philip the Fair, in this matter.   

CHAP. III.  
An History of the Popes, who had their Residence at Avignon from Clement V to the Death of Gregory XI. and of what Remarkable Things happened in the Empire, Italy, and in the Church, under their Pontificates. And among other Things, what Quarrels Lewis of Bavaria had with those Popes. The Contests between the Grey-Friars, and Pope John XXII. And about the Question concerning the Happiness of Souls, moved by that Pope.  
AFter the Death of Clement the Vth. Three and twenty Cardinals, which were at Carpentras, 
The Election of Pope John XXII.  where that Pope held his Court, entered into the Conclave, and remained there from May to July 22. in the Year 1314. but could not fix upon the Election of a Pope. The Italian Cardinals were very desirous to have a Pope of their Nation, who might have his Residence at Rome, and the Gascoignes were for a Frenchman, who might reside on this side the Alps. The Italians propounded the Cardinal of Praeneste, who had been before a Bishop of Aix, and wrote for him to the King; but he was not at all liked by the French. These Contests lasted so long, that the People gathering together under the Conduct of Bertrandus, and Raimondus Gott, the Nephews of the deceased Pope, and coming Armed to the Conclave, demanded, that the Italian Cardinals should be delivered to them, and crying out, That they would have a Pope, set Fire on the Conclave. The Cardinals hereupon made their Escape and were dispersed, and it was a very hard thing to get them together again after this Accident; for the Cardinals of Gascoigne were eager that the Conclave should be held at Carpentras, where Pope Clement V died, or at least at Avignon; but the Italian Cardinals thinking it not safe or consistent with their Liberty to meet in those Cities, were importunate it should be at Rome. They had perhaps both proceeded to a separate Election, which would have caused a Schism, if Philip the Fair had not written to them to dissuade them from it, by proposing to them the City of Lions, as a proper place for an Election, which could not be suspected by either Party. The Cardinals nevertheless could not agree upon a Meeting, till after the Death of Philip the Fair, which happened Nou. 29. 1314. and in the Reign of Lewis Hutin, who Succeeded him, Philip that King's Brother, Earl of Poitiers, was sent to procure the Cardinals to meet, and to proceed to an Election of a Pope. He caused them to meet at Lions, and having had several Conferences with them, without bringing them to an Agreement, he sent them on a certain Day to the House of the Friars-Preachers at Lions; and having exhorted them to come to an Agreement about the Election of the Pope, he withdrew, and left them shut up in the House, having given order, that they should not be let out, till they had chosen a Pope. In the mean time, he received the News of the Death of Lewis Hutin, which happened June 5. 1316. who having left his Wife Clemence great with Child, he was forced to return on a sudden to the Court of France, without recalling the Orders which he had given. Lastly, The Cardinals Forty days after they had been shut up, upon Aug. 17. choose James d Osa, or Eusa, a Native of Cahors, who had been Bishop of Frejus and after of Avignon, and was then Cardinal Bishop of Porto. Some Authors write, that the Cardinals having put it in his Power to choose a Pope, he chose himself; but this is not certain, and it was never objected to him by his Adversaries, but on the other side the Historians of the time agree, that he was chosen by the Votes of the Cardinals. Some Author's report, That he had Sworn that he would not ride upon any Horse or Mule, that did not carry him to Rome; but this also is a Story without Ground. This Pope after his Election took the Name of John XXII. was Crowned at Lions, Sept. 25. and immediately went from thence to take up his Residence at Avignon, where he Arrived, Octob. 2. Queen Clemence was brought to Bed of a Son, Nou. 15. who dying Eight days after, Philip was Crowned Jan. 6. 1317. Some time after that Pope John XXII. was arrived at Avignon, he discovered that Hugh Giraldi, Bishop of Cahors, had contrived to Poison him, and was Guilty of divers other Crimes. He thereupon had him Examined before the Cardinals, caused him to be formally Degraded, and Condemned to perpetual Imprisonment in April, the same Year, and having delivered him to the Secular Power, he was Condemned to be Flayed, Drawn through the City, and Burned; which Sentence was Executed upon him in August, of the same Year.  
At the same time John XXII. endeavoured to make a new Archbishopric and several Bishoprics 
Pope John Erects new Archbishoprics and Bishoprics.  in France. The Diocese of Tholouse was of a great Extent, and very considerable for its Revenue. Clement V had some Thoughts to make it a Province, and John XXII. being resolved to put his Design in Execution, made Tholouse a Metropolis, taking it from the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Narbonne, and preferred John de Cominges, who had been Bishop of Magalona— to be Archbishop of it, having deprived Hugh de Pressac, Pope Clement Vs. Nephew of that Bishopric. He divided the Diocese of Tholouse into Six Bishoprics, and placed their Sees in Six small Cities, viz. Montalbanum, which was before partly in the Diocese of Cahors, S. Papoul, Rieux, Lombez, Lavaur, and Maripoix, to which he added the Bishopric of Pamiez, then newly Erected. He also Created two new Bishoprics in the Archbishopric of Narbonne, viz Alet and S. Pons. He took away Castres' from the Diocese of Albi to make a Bishopric of it, Toul from that of Lymoges, Surlac from that of Perigueux. S. Flour from that of Clermont, Vabres from that of Rhodes, and made two of that of Poitiers, Maillezais and Luçon. He also Erected several Colleges in the Province of Tholouse, and in the Diocese of Albi. In the following Year he divided the Province of Tarragon into two Parts, made Saragosa a Metropolis, and Subjected the five Suffragans of Tarragon to it. Some say he also made a Bishopric of the Abbey of Mont Cassin; but we find before his Pontificate Bishops of that Title.  
While John XXII. lived in Peace at Avignon, Italy was distrubed with the Factions of the 
The Stare of the Empire, and Italy.  Guelphs, and Gibelines, who continually ma●● War one against the other, and put the City of Rome into strange Confusion. The Emperors of Germany had no Authority almost in Italy. Apu●ia and all the Kingdom of Naples were under the Dominion of Robert the Son of Charles II. King of Sicily, who maintained the Party of the Guelphs against the Gibelines. The Empire was then under Contest between Lewis Duke of Bavaria, and Frederick Duke of Austria; for after the Death of Albert Duke of Austria, who was Slain in the Year 1308. by one of his Nephews, Henry Earl of Luxemburg was chosen Emperor, and his Election was Confirmed by Clement V. who had favoured him privately, by breaking his word with Philip the Fair, who would have had his Brother Charles de Valois chosen Emperor. Henry, who was the Seventh Emperor of that Name, spent the Year 1311. in Italy, to appease the Troubles of that Country, and to cause himself to be Crowned Emperor, as he had promised the Pope; he required the People of Florence and Aretium,— that they would entertain him and his Army, but they refused; yet he kept on his March, seized on Milan, where he was Crowned, brought the greatest part of the Cities of Italy into Subjection to him, marched directly to Rome, where he was received in spite of the Contrary Faction, and was Crowned there by the Cardinals. Notwithstanding the Opposition of Clement V and took an Oath of the People of Rome; but presuming to impose a Tribute upon them they revolted, and by the Assistance of Robert King of Apulia, constrained Henry to retire to Tivoli; from whence he went to Pisa, where he began the Quarrel with King Robert, against whom he declared War, and departing from thence to go into Apulia with his Troops to invade that Kingdom, he fell Sick by the way, Aug. 15. at the Castle of Ben●ovent, where he died the 24th. of the same Month, being Poisoned, as our Historians relate, by a Dominican Friar called Peter de Chasteau-Renaud, who gave him a Poisoned Host. Nevertheless, the Dominicans obtained a Letter several Years after, dated May 17. 1346. from John King of Bohemia; in which that Prince declares, That the Reports, which have been spread abroad against these Monks, were False and Groundless.  
The Electors of Germany being Assembled at Franckfort in the Year 1314. were divided in 
Two Emperors Elected in Germany.  their Choice of an Emperor to Succeed him: The Archbishop of Mentz, and Treves, John King of Bohemia, and Wolemarus Marquis of Brandenburg, gave their Votes for Lewis Duke of Bavaria; but the Bishop of Colen, and Rodolphus of Bavaria Count Palatine, gave their Votes for Frederick Duke of Austria. Lewis was Crowned at Aix la Chapelle, by the Archbishop of Mentz; and Frederick at Bonne, by the Archbishop of Colen. The Cities of Germany took part, some with Lewis, and others with Frederick. The first was Acknowledged by the Cities of the Lower Rhine, as far as Strasburg, and by the Cities of Suabia; and the other by the Cities of the Higher Rhine, and Suitzers. Lewis of Bavaria applied himself to Pope John XXII. to have his Election confirmed as the only Lawful One, since he had the greatest Number of Votes; but the Pope refused to do it, not only because 'twas contested, but because he had attempted to do some Things, which he affirmed to be above his Power; whereupon he declared the Empire vacant, and that the Administration of Affairs belonged to the Holy See; and upon that account Deposed the Governors and Deputies, which the Emperor had set up in Italy: This was the beginning of the Quarrel between John XXII. and Lewis of Bavaria: These two Competitors for the Empire, made War against each other, while Italy was troubled with the Factions of the Guelphs and Gibelines. Matthew Viscount of Milan being in League with the Gibelines, Besieged Genoa. The Genoeses having put themselves under the Protection of Pope John XXII. and Robert King of Apulia; this last came to relieve them, and the Pope thundered out Excommunications against Matthew, and invited Philip of Valois to Succour Genoa; but that Prince being retired without doing any thing, the Pope published a Crusado against Matthew, and begged of Frederick Duke of Austria to furnish him with some Troops, promising him to confirm his Election to the Empire, and make his Brother Archbishop of Mentz. Frederick alured by these Promises sent his Brother Henry with 300 Men into Lombardy, who should join themselves with the Soldiers of the Cross; but Matthew having humbly showed him, that he acted contrary to the Interests of the Empire, because if King Robert and the Church got the Possession of the City of Milan, they would make themselves Masters of all Tuscany, he recalled his Brother. The Pope thereupon clapped up a League between Robert King of Apulia, and Frederick King of Sicily, upon condition, that the City Rhegio, and whatever Frederick had Conquered in Calabria, should be put into the hands of his Holiness; which he had no sooner gotten, but he delivered them to Robert. This provoked Frederick so much, that he broke the League, which brought on him the Pope's displeasure; but he escaped the dint of it, by giving his Kingdom to his Son Peter.  
While these things passed in Italy, Germany was involved in Wars, but at length Lewis of Bavaria, 
The Wars in Germany, between the two Emperors.  in September 1323. defeated the Army of Frederick Duke of Austria, and took him Prisoner, with his Brother Henry. Their third Brother Leopold appealed to the Pope, who pronounced the Sentence of Excommunication against Lewis of Bavaria; by which he Commands him to renounce his Election within three Months, and to appear before him in Person to justify himself against an Accusation brought against him, that he was a favourer of Heretics, Schismatics, and other Rebels against the Church; forbids all Christians to own him, as Emperor, and declares all such as favoured him, if they were of the Clergy, suspended from their Offices and Benefices, and if Laymen Excommunicate. Lewis of Bavaria appealed from this Judgement to a General Council, which he resolved to Call, or to the next Pope lawfully Chosen, and accuses John XXII. to be the Cause of the Troubles of Germany and Italy, to overturn the Church and Empire, to Invade the Rights of Princes, to Rob the Church, and lastly, to Teach an Heretical Doctrine concerning the Poverty of JESUS CHRIST, and his Apostles. A Copy of this Appeal dated in the Year 1324. is published by Mr. Balusius, among the ancient Acts, which he joined to the Lives of the Popes of Avignon. Lewis of Bavaria at the same time sent Ambassadors to Rome to justify himself, promising, that he would be kind to the Church; but the Pope would not give over the Prosecution, but excommunicated Lewis of Bavaria, and condemned him as an Heretic. Lewis appealed again from all these Proceed. Italy suffered much by this Division between the Empire and the Church. The Pope invites into Tuscany Charles the Son of Robert King of Apulia, who made himself Master of Florence, and publishing Plenary Indulgences, raised Soldiers, which he sent into Italy against the Gibelines, and particularly against Galeasius and his Brethren, Viscounts of Milan, who Succeeded to their Father, who died excommunicated. These Troops were defeated, and the Pope obliged to fly to the King of France, to raise a Tax upon the Clergy of that Realm to keep the War still on foot; which the King granted him, upon condition, that he might receive the Tenths for himself the two next Years. The Tax, which the Pope imposed, was unreasonable, being almost the Value of the whole Revenue of all their Benefices. Galeasius and the Gibelines on their part, prayed Lewis of Bavaria to come into Italy. The Senators and the People of the City of Rome, sent Ambassadors to the Pope to beg of him to come, and reside at Rome, and threatened him, if he did not, that they would in due time and place provide another Pope for the Holy See, and Church. The Pope having excused himself, they sent to Lewis of Bavaria, to pray him to come to Rome. This Prince promised them, and sent away their Ambassadors very well satisfied, and called the Princes of the Empire together at Spire, to consult about that Voyage. Here it was resolved on, and in the Year 1327. Lewis of Bavaria passed the Alps with a Body of Horse, and arrived at Trent, where he held a Meeting of the Deputies of the Cities of Lombardy, and then he went to Milan, where he was Crowned. The Pope renewed his Excommunication, against Lewis of Bavaria, and condemned him as an Heretic and an Excommunicate Person; and after he had Summoned him once more, he declared, That he had forfeited all his Goods, Movable and Immoveable, his Rights, Estates, and Jurisdictions, which he possessed. Lewis of Bavaria did not yet desist from advancing his Interests in Italy, and having gotten a considerable Sum of Galeasius and the Viscounts, whom he deprived of the Government of Milan, he made himself Master of the greatest part of the Cities of Italy, went to Rome, was received by the Clergy and Senators, who came to meet him, and was Crowned Emperor there Jan. 17. 1328. by the Order of the Clergy and the People of Rome, and by the hands of Cardinal Steven Colonni.  
Sometime after the Coronation of Lewis of Bavaria, the Romans consulted to choose a Pope 
Nicholas 〈◊〉 Antipope.  who should make his Residence at Rome; grounding their Fact upon this Pretence, That when a Pope being required by the People of Rome would not, or did delay to come to the Holy See, the Power and Right of choosing another Pope was devolved upon the Canon of St. Peter and St. John of the Lateran. Lewis of Bavaria consented freely to this Election, and to effect it, deposed John XXII. by a solemn Edict, dated Apr. 28. and made a Law, that the Pope, which shall be chosen by the consent of the Emperor and People of Rome, shall reside at Rome only, shall not go above Three days Journey from it, nor stay above Three Months in the Year from it, and if he be longer absent, and being required Three times, does not return, he shall be deprived of his Papal Dignity. In pursuance of the People's Request, and with the Emperor's Consent, they proceeded to the Election of another Pope, and chose Peter Rainalluci of Corbario, a City of the Diocese of Riatino, a Monk of the Order of the Friars Preachers, Apostolic Penitentiary in Rome, who was reputed of for his great Sanctity. He was Crowned May 12. 1328. placed according to the Custom upon the Chair of St. Peter, and named Nicholas V Be immediately created several Cardinals, but all of them almost Friars Mendicants, and of the Gibeline Faction; he Crowned the Emperor a Second time, and Confirmed the Judgement, which he had given against John XXII. who on his part proceeded against this Antipope and his Adherents. Peter de Corbario tarried at Rome as long as Lewis of Bavaria continued there, but went from thence with him, and came to Pisa, where he kept his Court, till he became odious to the Inhabitants there, which obliged him to conceal himself, and at length to withdraw himself to the Castle of Count Boniface, who delivered him in Aug. 1330. into the hands of the Archbishop of Pisa, and William Bishop of Lucca, who caused him to be carried to Avignon; where he humbly confessed his Fault before the Pope and Consistory, on the 25th. of the same Month, and acknowledged, that Lewis of Bavaria was an Heretic, and that it went against him to Acknowledge him for Emperor; That he had suffered himself to be chosen and consecrated Antipope; That he had created Cardinals and made Bulls; That he had approved of the Doctrine of Michael de Cesenna, General of the Order of Grey-Friars, consented to the Deposition of John XXII. Persecuted, Deposed, Interdicted and Excommunicated those who were of his Party, disposed of the Goods of the Church of Rome, etc. Promised and Swore to obey the Pope, and desired Absolution. The Pope granted his Desire, with reservation of imposing Penance on him, and caused him to be strictly Guarded in a Chamber of his Palace; where he died three Years after, in his Pious and Penitential Sentiments.  
The Departure of Lewis of Bavaria, was followed with new Troubles in Italy; John King of 
The Death of John XXII.  Bohemia, being invited thither, seized upon several Cities, which held Intelligence with the Pope. The Romans sent to Lewis of Bavaria to pray him to return, but his Affairs kept him in Germany; and in the midst of these Matters Pope John XXII. died at Avignon, Dec. 24. 1334. in the 19th. Year of his Papacy.  
But now to return to the Affairs of the Church, which happened under this Pope; the Course 
The Contest of the Grey Friars about their Habit.  of which we have interrupted to relate the Transaction of the Empire: we will begin with the History of the Contest, which he had with the Grey-Friars all his Papacy. Some Persons of that Order had for a long time differed about the Sense, and Practice of some Things, or Points belonging to their Rule, and particularly about the form of their Habits. Some would wear an Hood and short Gown, straight, and of very course Stuff; and called themselves, Spiritual Brethren. Others, who called themselves, The Brethren of the Community; wore a lose Garb, long, and of finer Stuff. The Popes used their Endeavour to regulate and decide these Differences among these Monks, and to that end ordered them to refer the Controversy of their Habits to their Superiors, and to submit to the form and manner that they prescribe. Nicholas IU. and Clement V put out some Bulls upon this Subject; but the Spiritual Brethren being intent upon the Practice, would not desist from it, separated themselves from the Community, made a Body by themselves, and betook themselves into Languedoc, where the Convents of Beziers, Narbonne, and some other Cities, were made up of these Spiritual Brethren. Pope John XXII. to extinguish this Schism in the First Year of his Pontificate, Summoned the Brethren of this Faction, who sent their Deputies to Avignon, of whom the Chief was Bernard Delitiosi de Mompelier. The Conrest was debated before the Pope, who gave Judgement in favour of the Brethren of the Community by his Bull, Quorundam, in which he leaves it in the Power of the Superiors to determine of what length and largeness, courseness or fineness, form or figure the Habits of the Grey-Friars should be, as well as to their Hood, as Gown; and thereupon order them to follow the Will of their General, their Provincials, and Guardians; as also declares, That they may have Granaries and Cellars, and keep their Corn and Wine, if their Superiors judge it convenient, leaving the Ordering of them to the Guardian, and grave Persons of every Convent, and enjoining all the Grey-Friars to leave their short and ill-shapen Habit, and conform themselves to the Usage of the Brethren of the Community. This Sentence did but enrage the Spirituals, and confirm them in their Obstinacy. They set themselves to Preach arrogantly, that they ought not to obey any Superior, who should order them, who professed the Rule of St. Francis, to leave their short and straight Habit to assume the Habit of the Community contrary to their Rule, and consequently to the Gospel and to the Faith, because their Rule made use of the Gospel; That to oppose this Practice, and to oblige those who wore the short Habit to leave it, and to persecute them, was contrary to the Truth of the Gospel and the Faith; That the Pope had no Power to make such a Constitution, as that called Quorundam; That they ought neither to obey him, nor their Superiors, as to the Contents of that Constitution; because it was contrary to the Counsel of JESUS CHRIST, and their Rule, which the Pope could not destroy. The Pope gave a Commission to Friar Michael, Inquisitor in Provence and Languedoc, to proceed against these Stubborn Friars. This Commission is dated Nou. 1317. This Inquisitor, according to his Commission, Prosecuted Four Grey-Friars, named John Barani of Tholouse, Deodate de S. Michael, and William Sauton Priests, and Poncius Roche a Deacon, and some others, who being Arrested, maintained, That Pope John XXII. had not Power to make these Declarations, which he had published in his Decretal, called Quorundam, concerning the Habit and manner of Living of the Grey-Friars; because such Declarations were contrary to the Rule of St. Francis, and derogated from the perfect Poverty, that JESUS CHRIST and his Apostles had practised, These Four Grey-Friars being questioned, obstinately persisted in that Opinion. Notwithstanding the Requests of the Inquisitor, and Bishop of Marseilles; insomuch, that the Inquisitor having taken Advice of several Divines, who declared the Doctrine of these Grey-Friars to be Heretical, being assisted by the Bishop of Marseilles, and several other Persons of Ecclesiastical Dignity, condemned them as Heretics, degraded them from their Orders, and delivered them to the Secular Power, which Condemned them to be Burnt, and the Sentence was executed upon them at Marseilles. A Fifth, who had asserted the same Doctrine as the others, but declared his Repentance for it, was Degraded, and Condemned to be kept immured the rest of his Life, and to wear two yellow Crosses; the one on his Breast, and the other on his Back. These Punishments were not sufficient to repress the Boldness of these Monks, so obstinate were they: They gave themselves greater Liberty to declaim with more violence against the Pope, and publicly Preached, That he was the Mystical Antichrist, or the forerunner of Anti-christ; That the Church of Rome was the Synagogue of Satan; That they ought not to obey John XXII. nor look upon him as Pope; That the Grey-Friars who were Burnt were true Martyrs, and that they were ready to suffer the same Punishment; and some of them were such Fools, as to go and offer themselves to the Stake. Bernard Delitiosi, who was, as is abovesaid, the Chief of the Deputies sent by the Grey-Friars of Languedoc to Pope John XXII. was Apprehended a little after his Arrival at Avignon, upon the Information of the Inquisitors of his Country, who accused him for a Design to procure the Death of Pope Benedict XI. Clement's Predecessor, for soliciting the Towns of Carcassone and Alby to Revolt, for encouraging the People of the latter of these Cities against the Inquisitors, and for forcing open the Prisons of the Inquisition. The King's Guards demanded him of the Pope, and prayed him to appoint him Judges in partibus. His Holiness committed him to the Archbishop of Narbonne, and the Bishops of Pamiez, and S. Papoul, the last of whom, having been informed against the accused Person, and finding him Guilty of the Crimes laid to his Charge, except the first, they degraded him and condemned him to end his Days in Prison loaded with Irons, and to eat nothing but Bread and Water. This Sentence was passed on him by these two Bishops, and three others, which they had called to their Assistance, Dec. 8. 1319. It was Executed, and the Pope allowed the Commissioners to mitigate the Punishment, as to the Eating, and Chains, if they saw convenient, and that Friar Bernard were not able to bear them: But the King's Proctor appealed, à minimâ, from the Judgement of the Commissioners, and the Pope by a Brief dated at Avignon, Febr. 1320. ordered that it should be executed in its full Rigour, and condemned him to die in Prison, loaden with Chains. We are indebted to Mr. Baluzius for these Monuments of Antiquity, of which we have spoken, and which he hath published in the First Tome of his Miscellanies.  
In 1322. there risen another Dispute among the Grey-Friars, in which almost all the Order 
The Dis●…c of the Grey Friars about the Property of the things they spent  engaged themselves against the decision of John XXII. The Grey-Friars affirm, That according to their Rule, they make a Vow, not to have any thing either in Property or in Common, and consequently, that they have no Dominion or Property in any thing, but only a right to use those things that are Necessary, by a simple Usage de facto, and that the Property and Dominion of all they have belongs to the Church of Rome; That it was in this absolute Abjuration of all Property, that the Perfection of the Evangelical Life consisted, which JESUS CHRIST and his Apostles lived, who had nothing either in Property, or in Common; and that they ought to practise this depth of Poverty, to follow the Counsel of the Gospel, and observe the Rule of St. Francis. Gregory IX. had declared in the Year 1230. that according to the Rule of St. Francis, the Grey-Friars ought not to have any Property, either in Common, or by themselves; but only the Use of their Goods, Books, and other Movables. That they could not sell them or alienate them any manner of way, unless the Cardinal-Protector of the Order gave a Power to the General or Provincials. Innocent IU. declared in 1245. That the Propriety of those things, of which the Grey-Friars had the use allowed them, belonged to the Holy See. Nicholas III. in his Decretal, Exiit, qui seminat, determines, That to renounce a Property in all things, as well in particular as in common, is Meritorious and Holy; and that JESUS CHRIST, who hath showed us the Way of Perfection, hath taught it by his Words, and confirmed it by his Example, That the first Founders of the Church Militant practised it, and declared those Excommunicated, who were of a contrary Opinion. Martin IU. who Succeeded him, declared also, That the Grey-Friars had no right of Property, nor Dominion over the things, as well movable as immoveable, which they used. This Judgement was confirmed by Nicholas iv in the Year 1298. and by the Decretal of Clement V. which gins with Exivi, in which having compared the Order of Grey-Friars to a Paradise upon Earth, and recommended the Life, which their Rule prescribes them, as conformable to that of JESUS CHRIST, He explains several Articles of their Rule, which were something ambiguous; and among other things he declares concerning their Poverty, That the Vow which they take to renounce all Property, aught to be understood as well in particular, as in common. That the Property of all things given to them belongs to the Holy See, and that they have nothing, but a mere use de facto, which extends also to every thing, that is necessary for Life.  
In this State and Condition were things, when John XXII. was raised to the Papacy, and the Grey-Friars were persuaded, that they had no Property, or Dominion in the things they had the use of; no, not in those things, which perish in the use, as Meat and Drink; They also protested in a General Chapter held at Perusia; That they would practise this Poverty in the literal sense, and conform to the Determination of Nicholas iv upon that Subject. John XXII. who was a subtle Pope, could not endure that that Order, which he did not love, should have the Honour of renouncing all Propriety; which neither rendered them poorer, nor gave the Holy See any Property, which could be of Profit to it. He considered, that the Property of things which perished in the use, was not distinguished from the use itself. As for Example: It is undeniable, that he that Eats and Drinks, must have a Property in those things he Eats and Drinks actually, and in that case the Property can't be separated from the use; and consequently, that if the Vow of the Rule of St. Francis were to have no Dominion, the Grey-Friars are obliged not to Eat, but to die with Hunger, to uphold their practice, or break it, that they might Live; That the Poverty, of which the Grey-Friars bragged, was a mere Cheat, since that their Renunciation of Property, was such a Chimaera as made them no whit the poorer, that their Intention was no other, than theirs, who have the Advantage of those things they use; That the Property and Dominion which they attributed to the Church of Rome, was more Charge than Profit, since nothing was got by it; That JESUS CHRIST, and his Apostles, never dreamt of this Poverty; and that it was an Error and Heresy to maintain, that JESUS CHRIST had no right nor property in the things which he used. On these Grounds he published two Decrees: In the First, which is the Extravagant, Ad Conditorem, dated at Avignon, Dec. 7. having observed that it belongs to those who have a right to make Canons, to Revoke, or Change them, which they have made, either themselves, or their Predecessors, when it happens that they do more hurt than good; and that the absolute Renunciation of Property in common, or particular by the Grey-Friars, built upon the Constitutions of his Predecessors, who grant them only the mere use de facto of the things, which they use, reserving the Property to the Church of Rome, is neither profitable to themselves, nor the Church; and besides, in things which perish in the use, the Property or Dominion can't be separated from the use, since they are destroyed by the very use. He declaees, That the Church of Rome hath no property by virtue of the Constitutions of his Predecessors in any thing given the Grey-Friars for their use, and consumed by them, but yet retains a Spiritual Dominion of Direction over their Order, besides the Common Dominion which it hath over all the Goods of the Church, and over the Houses, Churches, Chapels, Books, Ornaments, and other Goods, which belong to the Grey-Friars, which do not perish in the use. In his Second Decretal, Cum inter nonnullos, which is dated the 12th. of the same Month, he declares, 1. That it is an Erroneous and Heretical Proposition, to assert, That it is Heresy to deny that JESUS CHRIST and his Apostles, had nothing in Common, or in Proper. 2. That for the future it shall be an Error and an Heresy to maintain positively, that JESUS CHRIST and his Apostles had no right to enjoy the things they used, to sell, or give them, or to make use of them to obtain another thing. The Pope did well to publish these Constitutions, but yet they did not convince the Grey-Friars of their Error; yea, several of them obstinately maintained, that they had no Property in those things, which they consumed, and accused the Pope of Error and Heresy. Lewis of Bavaria was not backward to take upon him their Defence, and to make use of this Pretence to accuse the Pope of Heresy in his Act of Appeal, which he published in 1324. wherein he confuted the Decretals, Ad Conditorem, and cum inter nonnullos, accusing them of Blasphemy, Error, and Heresy, and proves the contrary Doctrine by the Rule of St. Francis, the Authority of the Popes; John's Predecessors holding, That that Practice is conformable to the Life that JESUS CHRIST and his Apostles lived; and that the Wound, and Scars of St. Francis were as a Seal, which no Leaden Bull of a Mortal Man can deface. The Pope for the defence of this Article published, Nou. 10. of the same Year the Decretal, Quia quorundam mentes, against those, who had opposed his two former; in which, after he has explained the Constitutions of his Predecessors, and stated the Question clearly, he declares them Heretics and Rebels to the Church, who shall maintain Positions contrary to those, which he hath laid down in his two former Constitutions.  
In the Year 1325. he condemned the postils of Petrus John Oliva; a Grey-Friar of great repute, 
The Condemnation of the Errors of Petrus Oliva.  of Serignan in the Diocese of Beziers, upon the Revelations; from whence the Grey-Friars took the Principles of their Doctrine, and the things, which they asserted against the Pope and the Church of Rome; for this Monk to magnify his own Order, contrived to distinguish the Sixth Estate of the Church, beginning with the time of St. Francis, who was the Head of it, and the Angel foretold in the Revelation, the Estate, which should continue, till the time of Antichrist. That as heretofore the Synagogue was rejected to settle another Church, in like manner a corrupted Church, which was the Whore of Babylon, shall be rejected to give place to a Church more perfect, animated by the Holy Spirit, and illuminated by a new Light; That this last should be opposed by a Carnal Church; but yet it should flourish in spite of all Opposition and Persecutions. These are the principal Heads of the Notions which Petrus John Oliva propounds in his Comment upon the Revelation, which were Condemned by Twelve Doctors of Divinity, appointed thereto by Nicholas Cardinal Bishop of Ostium, to whom the Pope had given a Commission for the proceeding in this Affair; whose Doctrinal Advice is related by Mr. Baluzius in the First Tome of his Miscellanies. This Author composed divers other Treatises, and among others, a Treatise of Poverty, in which he maintains, that an absolute Renunciation of all property, both in particular and common, is the chief perfection of the Gospel: He was also accused to have broached some Errors condemned in the Council of Vienna, viz. That Infants do not receive any Grace or Virtue by Baptism; That the Soul is not the form of the Body; That the Divine Essence begets, and is begotten; That the Side of JESUS CHRIST was open before his Death. Pope John XXII. having examined his Postill, and having taken the Judgement of the Doctors, contained in several Propositions picked out of that Work, and with the Mitigations which they Judged, that they deserved, condemned the Work and the Author in the Month of Feb. 1325. and likewise defaced his Memory, by causing his Bones to be taken out of the Ground and Burnt, for he was Dead before his Papacy, and as some say, before the Pontificate of Clement V The Grey-Friars made several Apologies for him, and asserted, that he was wrongfully accused, and that the Propositions taken out of his Work and condemned, had a clear different sense, if considered, with what goes before and follows. Some of them also gave it out, that he had done several Miracles after his Death. Lastly, The concern which the Grey-Friars have for this Friar Oliva, is so Great even to our Time, that Sixtus iv was Zealous to justify his Memory, and having Examined his Works, declared, That they contained nothing expressly contrary to the Catholic Faith, and which could not be taken in a good sense.  
The Sentence of Deposition, which Lewis of Bavaria published in 1328. against John XXII. 
The Dispute between the Emperor and Pope concerning the Property of the things spent by the Grey-Friars.  is principally grounded upon the Errors and Heresies, which he pretends, that Pope had delivered in his three Decretals against the Grey-Friars. He sums them up under Eight Heads: 1. That in things which perish in the usage, the Property is not distinguished from the Use. 2. That there is not a mere simple use of those things that perish in the usage, but instead of using them, they abuse them. 3. That a Renunciation of Property is no perfection, and does not make him awhit the poorer, who makes profession of it. 4. That it is an Heresy to deny that JESUS CHRIST and his Apostles had nothing in proper, and had no right to sell, or give those things they had. 5. That an Use de facto, is not just, if there be not a right of usage. 6. That to call in doubt, whether JESUS CHRIST commanded his Apostles, when he sent them out to Preach, to carry no Money with them. 7. To doubt, whether the Key of Knowledge be in the Catholic Church. 8. To teach, that One Pope can revoke those Decisions, and Constitutions of his Predecessors, which relate to Faith and Manners. These Propositions are confuted at large, and treated on as Heresies in that Sentence of Deposition. The Pope, that he might defend himself, and put an end to this Question, sent for Friar Michael de Cesena, General of the Order of Grey-Friars to Avignon, and commanded him upon penalty of Disobedience, to write an Explication of their Rule as touching the Vow of Poverty, agreeable to his Decretals, being persuaded that the Grey-Friars would rather submit to the Judgement of their General than his; but the General would not obey him, but answered the Pope proudly. Nevertheless, he desired Eight days Consideration, and in the mean time fled with two other Grey-Friars to Marseille. The Pope sent after him to seize him, but he was Embarked to Sail into Italy, whither he was going to Lewis of Bavaria, and the Antipope John de Corbario. John XXII. proceeded against Michael de Cesena, deposed him, and ordered the Grey-Friars to choose another General.  
This Pope had another Contest of greater Consequence, concerning the time when the Beatific 
The Question of the Happiness of the Saints after death, debated by Joh. XXII.  Vision of God is granted to those who die in a State of Religion? In a Sermon which he preached the Third Sunday in Advent 1329. he maintained, That the Blessed should not see the Trinity before the Day of Judgement. He taught the same Doctrine in another Sermon which he preached on the Feast of All-Saints 1331. which he caused to be transcribed, and he gave out several Copies of it. Lastly, In a Third Sermon, which he preached on the Eve of Epiphany in 1332. he asserted, That till the Day of Judgement the Souls of the Saints were under the Altar, and did not see the Holy Trinity; but only the Humanity of Jesus Christ. This Opinion offended several persons, and moved the Divines of the Contrary Judgement. A White-Friar named Thomas de Wallis, had the Boldness to preach the Contrary Doctrine at Avignon, by which he incensed the Pope so much, that he put him in Prison, and caused him to be fed with Bread and Water only. Durandus à S. Portiano, of the Order of Friars Preachers, and Bishop of Meaux, made a Treatise against that Opinion, which much disturbed the Pope's Mind, whereupon he Summoned him before him, and Examined his Work. The Cardinals, and other Divines of his Court, who were before offended at his Opinion, remained silent for Fear, or out of respect to the Pope, and some also embraced and maintained that Opinion; but the Doctors of Paris openly disapproved it, and made a great Noise about it. The Pope after this sent two Legates to Paris, viz. Gerhard, Minister-General of the Grey-Friars, and another Monk of the Order of Preaching-Friars, to Treat of a Peace between the Kings of England and Scotland, and charged them to insinuate their Opinion to the Doctors of Paris. The first of them attempting to teach it publicly at Paris in a Meeting of the Students, caused a great Disturbance; so that his Companion had much ado to appease them. King Philip of Valois was much troubled at the Offence, and false Doctrine which that Monk had taught; and the latter went to his Majesty to pacify him. The King fearing lest he should perplex himself with the Theological Question, answered him, That he would not discourse him, but in the presence of some Divines; and having Summoned Ten of the most Able Doctors of Paris, of whom Four were Grey-Friars, he asked them in the presence of this Minister, What was their Judgement concerning the Doctrine which he had taught? They all Condemned it, as False and Heretical; but they could not agree about it. A few days after, the King caused all the Doctors of Divinity, Bishops, and Abbots about Paris to meet in the Castle of St. Vincent, and invited this Minister thither, and propounded two Questions in French to them. I. Whether the Souls of the Saints see the Face of God as soon as they are Dead? II. Whether the Vision, which they have presently after their Death, shall cease at the Day of Judgement, and another come in stead of it? They all answered Affirmatively to the First Question. And to the Second, they said, That the Vision that the Saints have presently after Death shall not cease at the Day of Judgement, but remains for ever; but some of them said, that it shall be more perfect after the Day of Judgement: The Minister consented to the Opinion of these last, at least in appearance. The King desired a Certificate of what was thus concluded by this Assembly, which they composed, and was sealed with the Seals of 29 Divines then present. They wrote about it to the Pope, and the King wrote to him also himself, that he thought it safest to follow the Judgement of the Doctors of Divinity of Paris, who knew better, what ought to be held and believed in Matters of Faith, than Civilians, or other Divines, who knew little of Divinity; That he would Punish those that taught the Contrary, threatening him (if we may believe Cardinal Peter d' Ailly) to Burn him, if he did not retract. The King also published by Mistake the Judgement of the Faculty. The Pope in his Answers to the King, complains, That his Majesty fixed on the Affirmative so positively, and prays him not to rush upon things with so much Passion, assuring him, that he had no Design fully to determine that Question, but to debate it, and search out the Truth. He wrote to the University to allow the Bachelors of Divinity to defend either of the Opinions, and caused his Divines to collect such Passages, as might be alleged Pro & Con, to put things in a way to the Decision of it. The Faculty of Divinity would not endure that delay, but stuck close to their Doctrine. Lastly, When John XXII. had resolved to determine this Question in a Consistory, which he appointed to meet, Dec. 2. 1334. he fell Sick and retracted, as some say, just at the point of Death, his Opinion by an Authentic Declaration, in which he owns, That Souls separated from the Body, which are purged from their Sins, are in the Kingdom of Heaven, and in Paradise with JESUS CHRIST, in the Company of Angels. That they see God Face to Face, and the Divine Essence, as clearly as the state and condition of a Soul separated from the Body will permit; That he recanted all that he had said, preached or written against this Doctrine. This Declaration is dated Dec. 3. 1334. a few moments before his Death, and related by Peter Harantals', a Canon Regular of the Order of Praemonstratenses in the Life of this Pope.  
John XXII. in the Second Year of his Pontificate, Octob. 21. published the Decretals of his Predecessor Clement V made in the Council of Vienna, or a little before, and after that Council, 
The Letters of John XXII.  which Clement V had already digested in his Life-time, which make up the Five Books of Clementines, which are in the Body of Civil Law, and joined 20 others of his Constitutions to it, which he calls Extravagants; to which Five other Books of Common Extravagants have been added, among which are several Decretals of Boniface VIII. Benedict XI. and John XXII. In one of his Constitutions, He Abrogates the Society of the Fratricolli, Beghardi, or Beghinae, which had spread themselves in all places. They were a kind of Monks, or Nuns, who made a Vow of Poverty and Beggary, and assumed a particular Habit and Way of Living, but entered into no Order, lived a free kind of life, and taught many dangerous Maxims contrary to the Doctrine of the Church, concerning the Sacraments and Obedience due to Superiors. Nevertheless, he declares in a private Letter written to the Bishop of Strasburg, that he did not intent to include in that Constitution those Pious Women, who had made a Vow of Chastity, and remained with their Parents, or in Societies, practising the Humility and Obedience that is due to their Pastors, and giving Examples of Virtue and Piety. This Letter is published in the Second Tome of the Works of the Popes of Avignon, put out by Mr. Baluzius, with the Sentence by which that Pope declared the Marriage between Charles the Fair, King of France, and Queen Blanch, to be Void, and several other Letters of his, and Pope Clement V's. his Predecessor. There are also several of them in the Annalists, and divers Bulls in the Bullary. John XXII. was Ingenious, Active, Crafty, of a good Life, Studious, and versed in the Sciences, but chief in the Canon Law.  
The Holy See after his Death was not long Vacant, for Benedict the XIIth. was chosen, Dec. 16. 
The Election of Benedict XII.  and Crowned the 20th. of the same Month, in the Church of the Friars-Preachers at Avignon. He was called before James Fourniter, a Native of Savardun, in the County of Foix, which was a Castle of the Diocese of Pamiez, and since of that of Rieux. He had in his Youth been a Monk in the Abbey of Balbone, of the Order of Cistertians in the Diocese of Mirepoix, from whence he came to Paris to follow his Studies, where he commenced Doctor of Divinity. Then he was made Abbot of the Monastery of Fontfroidus, afterward Bishop of Pamiez, then of Mirepoix, and lastly, nominated a Cardinal-Priest of the Title of St. Priscus, by John XXII. in December 1327. He had a Design to settle his Residence in Italy, and chose Bononia for his Seat, but having caused the Inhabitants to be tried, whether he should be welcome there, found, that that People, which had expelled the Legate of his Predecessor, would not entertain him; which made him take up the resolution of abiding at Avignon, and Build himself a Palace there; although the People of Rome sent Ambassadors to him, to beg of him to come and reside in their City.  
At his Entrance upon the Papacy he found two Affairs in the Church that wanted Regulation, 
The Determination of the Question of the Happiness of Souls, by Benedict XII.  viz. 1. The Question concerning the Happiness of the Souls of the Righteous, after their Separation from the Body; which had been much debated a little before the Death of his Predecessor. 2. The Second was the Difference of the Church of Rome with Lewis of Bavaria. To prepare men's Minds for the Decision of the First, he Preached a Sermon on that Subject upon the Purification, in the Year 1335. in which he maintained, that the Souls of the Just, which were absolutely pure, did enjoy the Beatific Vision of God before the Day of Judgement. Two days after he held a Consistory, to which he Summoned such as had maintained the contrary Opinion in his Predecessors time; and that he might proceed circumspectly in the Determination of that Point of Doctrine, he Assembled many Able Doctors of Divinity, and with them examined that Question, as oft as he had leisure, in the Year 1335. which he passed at Pont de Sorgue: And at length the Matter being fully ordered, he made his Constitution, Feb. 22. of the following Year, in which he determines, That the Souls of the Saints that died before our Lord's Passion, as also of the Apostles, Confessors, Martyrs, Virgins, and other baptised Christians which are pure, when they are separated from their Bodies, or are united with it, as also the Souls of Infants, which die after Baptism, before they have the use of Reason, are in Heaven and Paradise with JESUS CHRIST, and the Angels, immediately after the Separation from the Body, or after their Purification, and enjoy the intuitive and immediate Vision of the Divine Essence, without the Mediation of any Object; because he discovers himself nakedly, clearly, and openly to them; and consequently, they are happy, and enjoy eternal Rest; but on the contrary, the Souls of those that die in Mortal Sin, descend actually right down into Hell, where they suffer the Pains of the Damned; That nevertheless all Men shall rise, and appear before the Tribunal of JESUS CHRIST, to receive every one in their Body Reward, or Punishment for what they have done; and declares all those Heretics, that obstinately maintain any one of the contrary Articles.  
As to the Contest of the Pope with Lewis of Bavaria, Benedict XII. before he would engage 
Benedict XII. Confirms the Judgement of his Predecessors, against Lewis of Bavaria and the Grey-Friars.  in the Contest with that Prince, which his Predecessor had begun, Exhorted him to return to his Duty and Obedience to the Church. Lewis of Bavaria sent two Ambassadors to him in 1335. to desire Absolution; which Benedict seemed ready to grant him, if the Ambassadors of the King of France, and Apulia, and the Cardinals had not deterred him from it; insomuch, that the Ambassadors of Lewis returned without doing any thing. In the next Year he sent other Ambassadors in the Name of the Princes of the Empire, to desire it again. The Pope received them kindly, and told them, that he wished he could do it; but he feared the King of France. Upon this Answer Lewis of Bavaria addressed himself to that King, and sent his Ambassadors in 1337. to pray him to join with him, that he might obtain Reconciliation. The King of France sent his Ambassadors to the Pope, with those of Lewis of Bavaria, to demand Absolution. The Pope hearing that, answered, That it being a Matter of Consequence, he would consider of it; and that he was not obliged to treat Lewis of Bavaria, as an Heretic, or Catholic at the King of France's Pleasure, and when he had delayed them a long time, he would give Lewis' Ambassadors no other Answer, than this, That their Master did not truly repent. Thus this Business hung, and Benedict would not recede any thing from what his Predecessors had done against that Prince. When these Ambassadors were returned into Germany, Lewis of Bavaria held a Synod at Francfort, in August 1338. in which he made a Solemn Protestation against the Proceed of John XXII. which he proved before them to be null and void.  
Benedict also maintained what John XXII. had decided against the Grey-Friars concerning Poverty, and we know, that in his Papacy, a Grey-Friar named Francis de Pestorio, was Condemned to be Burnt at Venice, for maintaining, contrary to the Decision of John XXII. That JESUS CHRIST and his Apostles had nothing their own.  
He made, during his Papacy, several excellent Rules for the Reformation of the Church. He 
Orders made by Benedict XII. and his Death.  revoked all the Commendams of Cathedral Churches and Abbeys, granted by his Predecessors to all Persons whatsoever, except Cardinals and Patriarches. He compelled all Bishops to reside in their Churches, forbade plurality of Benefices, made void all Favours Expectant which were not agreeable to the Rules of the Civil Law, he deprived all Persons unworthy of their Benefices, and carefully put in fit Persons, where he had Power; he abolished the use of several Dispensations, remedied many Abuses and Clancular Deal, made use of in gaining Bulls, employed rightly the Revenues of the Church of Rome, by giving Alms, and bestowing Charity on the Poor during the Famine. He took great pains to unite the Christian Princes, and did all he could to procure Peace with all Kings. He revoked the Tax of Tenths, which his Predecessor had granted to Philip King of France, for his Voyage into the Holy Land; because that Prince could not go through with his Design. He shown his Zeal to Justice by causing those Officers to be punished severely, who had delivered the Ambassadors of Edward King of England, which were come to Avignon to the King of France: He made a Reformation among the Black-Monks, as well as Cistertians, who lived loosely; he appointed persons of Merit and Learning to visit their Monasteries, that they might inform him of such Abuses as aught to be amended, and made Constitutions for the Reformation of them. He had also made several Rules for the Friar's Mendicants, if he had not been prevented by Death. He only ordered, that such Monks, as were in his Court without any permission obtained, should return to the Monasteries, and forbade them leaving their Order to go over to the Cistertians, or Cluniacks, without the express permission of the Pope. Lastly, That Pope lived in a way suitable to so great a Bishop, keeping close to his Duty, being Zealous for Religion, and for the Discipline and Reformation of the Church, Virtuous, Charitable, free from Ambition, and worldly Interests. He did not (as several other Popes have done) raise his Nephews and Relations to the great Offices and Dignities of the Church, nor enrich them with the Goods of the Church; or by impoverishing private Men. He preferred but One of his Relations, whom he made Archbishop of Arles for his Merit, which he did not do without some difficulty, at the earnest Request of the Cardinals. He married but one of his Neices, whom he bestowed upon a Merchant, refusing several great Lords, who offered themselves, as being above her Quality. This is the Relation which all the Historians of his Time give of his Piety and Virtue, who are more to be relied on than some Modern Authors; who will have him to have been a Man of a disorderly Conversation. He died at Avignon, April 25. 1342. which was the Eighth Year of his Papacy.  
This Pope Composed several Works. Rainaldus has published his Opuscula, or small Tracts 
The Works of Benedict XII.  concerning the Poverty of JESUS CHRIST, and his Apostles, and about the Vision of God. There is a more considerable Treatise of this Pope's in the Vatican Library, upon the last of these Subjects. He also made a large Commentary upon the Gospel of St. Matthew, which is yet in MS. in Mr. Colbert's Library, with Three other Treatises against Ockham. Most of his Letters and Bulls are extant in the Annalists, and Register of Bulls.  
Clement VI was chosen Pope, May 7. 1342. and Crowned the 9th. of the same Month. He 
The Election of Clement VI  was called before Petrus Rogerius, Born in the Castle of Maumont, in the Diocese of Lymoges. He was a Monk of the Abbey of Casa-Dei in Auvergne; and having taken his Degrees in Divinity, he went to the Court of John XXII. at Avignon. This Pope gave him the Abbey of Fescamp, and made him afterward Bishop of Arras. He received as much Favour at the Court of France, as Avignon; for there he was admitted into the Council of that King, who had a particular respect for him, insomuch, that he was translated from the Bishopric of Arras, to the Archbishopric of Sens, and in the next Year to that of Roven; and lastly, was raised to the Dignity of a Cardinal, of the Title of S. Nereus, and Achilleus by Benedict XII.  
The First thing that he did after his rise to the Papal Dignity, was to send his Legatees to 
Rules made by Clement, about the Affairs of Italy.  make way for a Peace between the Kings of France and England. He sent also a Cardinal-Legate into Italy, to appease the Troubles and Wars which were in that Country. Robert King of Apulia died about that time, and his Kingdom fell to Jane his Daughter, than an Infant, who was married to Andrew King of Hungary. The Pope took upon him the Government of that Realm, till that Prince came to take Possession of it, which he was scarce come to do, but he was Slain by Treachery. The Romans sent to the Pope 18 of their principal Citizens, to desire Three Things of him. I. To make the Senators, Governor, and other Magistrates of their City Friends, who presented themselves to him as Petrus Rogerius, and not as Clement VI who was Pope for his Life only. II. To come, and make his Residence at Rome. III. That since the Life of Man is so short, that few lived to an Hundred Years, to which Age Boniface VIII. had annexed a Plenary Indulgence for those who visited the Church of S S. Peter and Paul at Rome, he would please to reduce that time to the Fiftieth Year. The Pope granted the First and Last of their Demands, for he reconciled the Magistrates presented to him, upon Condition, that it should be no Prejudice to his Rights, and brought the Jubilee to the 50th. Year, appointing, That every 50th. Year there should be a Jubilee; but for the Second he put it off, by declaring, That the design, which he had of coming to Rome, he could not put in Execution for the present, and he could not tell them when he should be able to do it.  
Lewis of Bavaria used all his Endeavours in this Papacy to be reconciled to the Church, and 
Lewis of Bavaria Excommunicated anew by Clement.  prayed the King of France to intercede for him. This Prince told him, That he must submit himself; and humbly beg Absolution. The Ambassadors of Lewis desired such a Form, as the Pope would accept; but they gave him such an intolerably severe one, that he would not subscribe it, when he was in Prison; for it signified, that he gave Power to Humbertus the Dauphin's Uncle, to the Provosts of Augsburg and Bemberg, and to Henry his Arch-Chancellor, to confess all the Errors and Heresies that he was accused of, to make a Renunciation of the Empire with a Promise never to resume it, but by the Pope's consent, and to put his Children and Goods into the hands of his Holiness. They annexed also other Clauses, which concerned the Empire. These Ambassadors approved of this Proposal; but when it was presented to Lewis, and seen in the Assembly held at Francfort in September 1344. it was declared contrary to the Interests of the Empire, and the Assembly refused to permit that Lewis of Bavaria should Sign it; and sent their Ambassadors to the Pope and Cardinals, to persuade them not to require it. The Pope seeing himself deceived, renewed his Process against Lewis of Bavaria, Condemns him in his Excommunication, and Deposes him entirely; and orders the Electors of the Empire to proceed to the Election of another King of the Romans, to whom he might give the Title of Emperor, unless the Holy See should provide one. At the same time he deposed Henry Archbishop of Mayence, and nominated in his Place Gerlacke, the Count of Nassau's Brother; who going into Germany. joined himself to the Electors of Cologne, Treves, Dukes of Saxony, King of Bohemia, and some other Princes of the Empire, who being Assembled at the end of August at Rens, chose Charles of Moravia, the Son of the King of Bohemia, Emperor; his Election was solemnly Confirmed by the Pope, and the War began between the two Competitors in Germany, but it soon ended by the Death of Lewis of Bavaria, which happened October 11. 1347. After his Death, Charles got Possession of the greatest part of the Cities of the Empire; But Henry the old Archbishop of Mentz, the Marquis of Brandenburg, the Count Palatin of the Rhine, and the Duke of Saxony, resolved to choose another Emperor, and offered the Empire first to Edward the Third King of England, and after to Frederick Marquess of Misnia, but both of them having refused it, they chose Gontherius Count of Thuringia, who died the same Year, and left Charles the Peaceable Possession of the Empire.  
While the Princes of Germany were contending for the Empire, a Roman named Nicholas Laurentius, 
The Attempt of Nicholas Laurentius in Rome.  took upon him the Title of Tribune Augustus, the Deliverer of the City of Rome, and Defender of Italy. He made himself Master of Rome, seized upon the Capitol, and made a League with the greatest part of the People of Italy. He wrote to the Pope, That if he did not come to Rome within a Year, he would have another Pope chosen, and stirred up Lewis and Charles the Competitors for the Empire, and the Electors to appear before the Magistrates of the People of Rome, declaring, that the City of Rome was the Seat of the Empire; That it belonged to him, and that the Empire ought to be in Italy, and not in Germany. This Enterprise fell almost immediately; for this pretended Deliverer being constrained by the Contrary Faction to fly from Rome, and having the Boldness to go in Disguise to Charles' Court, he was known, Arrested there, and carried from thence to Avignon, where he was put into the Pope's hands, who cast him into Prison; but he escaped out of it, as some say, and returned to Rome, where he was Killed.  
Clement VI died Decemb. 6. 1352. in the 11th. Year of his Papacy. This Pope had a great 
The Death of Clement VI  deal of Learning, and a fine Wit, to which he had joined a bountiful Disposition, much Meekness, Affability and Liberality. He loved Peace, and took a great deal of Pains to unite the Christian Princes, without siding with any Party. In the Year 1344. he put forward an Expedition against the Turks, of which the Dauphin was Captain; but it had no good Effect. He laboured to unite the Greek Church, and accomplished it among the Armenians. He made the Church of Prague in Bohemia into an Archbishopric in the Year 1344. and made a Constitution in 1350. concerning the Conclave, by which he allows all the Cardinals to have in the Conclave, every one two Clergymen to wait on them, their several Lodgings, and a Dessert. A little before his Death he made a Declaration, by which he revoked all that he had delivered, either in Disputation, Teaching, or Preaching, or otherwise against the Catholic Truths, and against Faith and good Manners. A Protestation, which his Successors Innocent VI Urban V and Gregory XI. also made at the Point of Death. Several Letters of Clement V are found among the Annalists [Bzovius ad an. 1342. and Waddingus Tom. 3. ad an. 1342.] There is an Epistle of his against the Whipping-Monks in the 11th. Tom of the Councils, and Mr. Baluzius hath published several, sent to the Kings of France and Arragon in the Ancient Acts, which he hath joined to the Lives of the Popes of Avignon.  
Innocent VI was Chosen in the Room of Clement V Decemb. 18. and Crowned the 23d. or 
The Election and Actions of Innocent VI  30th. of the same Month. He was called before Stephanus Albertus, and was a Native of Mont near Pampadour, in the Diocese of Lymoges. He had been before Grand Seneschal of Tholouse, and after was made Bishop of Noyon in 1338. and translated to the Bishopric of Clermont in 1340. Clement VI raised him to the Dignity of a Cardinal of the Title of St. John and St. Paul, and made him Bishop of Ostia and Grand Penitentiary. He began as soon as he was made Pope to revoke the Reservations, and Commendams of Benefices, which his Predecessor had two easily granted, and took all the Care he could to fill the Dignities of the Church with Persons eminent for Virtue and Knowledge. He sent into Italy, Giles Alvarez, a Spanish Cardinal of the Title of St. Clement, to resume the Castles and Cities that belonged to the Church of Rome, of which several small Lords had made themselves Masters. This Legate found in all Italy, only the Castles of Montefiascone and Montifalco willing to receive him; but a little after, he put the Pope in Possession of a part of his Dominion. The City of Rome was troubled with some stirs by Francis Baroncellus, who took upon him the Title of Tribune, but the Pope set up Nicholas Laurentius, whom he delivered out of Prison on purpose. He destroyed Baroncellus, and was himself Slain a little time after. Under the Papacy of this Pope, Charles King of the Romans went to Rome by the consent of his Holiness, and was Crowned Emperor in 1355. by the Cardinals Petrus Bertrandus and Giles Alvarez, after he had taken an Oath, that he would not stay in Rome, nor Italy; Lewis Marquis of Brandenburg, Son of Lewis of Bavaria, was absolved of the Censures, which he had incurred by maintaining his Father's Party. Innocent VI maintained the Decrees of his Predecessors against the Grey-Friars, which rebelled against the Holy See, and Burnt two of them at Avignon in 1353. because they obstinately maintained their Opinion concerning the Poverty of JESUS CHRIST; and Imprisoned one named John Roquetaillade of S. Flour, because he took upon him to Prophesy, and foretold, that Wars should increase; That the Earth should be desolate; That the Clergy should be Abused and despoiled of their Goods, and after this time of Affliction is passed, there shall come an Angel, the Deputy of JESUS CHRIST, who shall bring the Clergy to live after the Ancient Way of the Apostles, shall Convert the Jews and Turks, and purify the whole Earth. Innocent VI ordered also his Inquisitor in Germany to banish all the Begards, and Beguines, and condemned an Heresy risen in England, concerning Original Sin, and the Merit of good Works. This Pope died Sept. 12. 1362.  
A Register of his Letters is preserved in the Vatican Library, several of which are published 
His Writings. The Election of Urban, and his Actions.  by Rainaldus, Bzovius and Waddingus, in their Annals.  
Octob. 28. following, the Cardinals being Assembled in the Conclave, chose William Grimoardus, a Native of Grisac in the Diocese of Menda, Doctor of Law, and Abbot of S. Victor at Marseilles, who assumed the Name of Urban V and was Consecrated and Crowned Pope at Avignon, Nou. 6. After he had had a Conference at Avignon in the Year 1365. with the Emperor Charles, he took up a Resolution to go to Rome, to set in Order the Affairs of Italy; and accordingly departed from Avignon the last day of April 1367. and taking Ship at Marseilles May 20. he Arrived four days after in Italy. Having stayed some time at Viterbo, He made his Entry into Rome Octob. 6. and was there received with great Joy by the Romans. He had the honour to receive two Emperors there, viz. Charles the Emperor of Germany, who came in 1368. with an Army to bring the People, and Cities of Italy into Obedience to the Pope, and Joannes Palaeologus Emperor of the Greeks, who came to Rome the next Year; and united himself to the Roman Church. Urban having put the Affairs of Italy in order, resolved to return to Avignon, under a Pretence of endeavouring to make a Peace between the Kings of France, and England. He left Italy Sept. 5. 1370. came the 16th. of the same Month to Marseilles, and the 24th. to Avignon; where he died, Decemb. 19 of the same Year.  
This Pope had several great Accomplishments, and was very Noble, very Zealous to do his 
His Character and 〈◊〉.  Duty, and a lover of Justice. He erected divers stately Buildings, Reform many Abuses in the Court of Rome, punished Irregular Clergymen very severely, prosecuted Usurers, and Persons guilty of Simony, and such as used Unlawful Trades, forbade Plurality of Benefices, favoured Learning, established several Public Universities, and entertained 1000 Students at his own Charge: He was Liberal and Charitable to the Poor; made a good Use of the Revenues of the Church; forbade Ecclesiastical Immunities, and Privileges; and preferred only two of his Relations to Ecclesiastical Dignities, because they were worthy of them. His Constitution against Plurality of Benefices is in the 11th. Tom of the Councils. The Annalists [Bzovius ad an. 1365. and Waddingus add an. 1363.] have published several of his Letters, [and there is a Volume of them in the Vatican Library.]  
After the Death of Urban, the Cardinals chose Petrus Rogerius, Nephew to Clement VI being 
The Election of Gregory XI.  about Forty Years old. He was a Native of Maumont, in the Diocese of Lymoges. He took the Name of Gregory XI. and was Consecrated and Crowned at Avignon, Jan. 4. 1371. Italy was afflicted with Wars under the Pontificate of this Pope, and the Florentines revolted, and drew away Bononia, and several other Cities. After the Pope had thundered out his Excommunications, he published a Croisado, and Levied an Army against them; which he sent into Italy under the Command of the Cardinal of Geneva; And lastly, resolved to go and make his Residence in Italy, and fix his See at Rome. Some affirm, That he did this by the Persuasion of Baldus the Lawyer, who had been his Master. Others say, That it was done upon the Reflection of a Bishop, who was reproved by him, for Nonresidence; Others say, That he did it by the Advice of St. Catharine of Sienna. However that be, he left Avignon without the Knowledge of the French, Sept. 13. 1376. being accompanied with all the Cardinals, except five, who would stay there, and made his Entrance into Rome, Jan. 7. in the next Year. His Arrival did not at all alter the state of Affairs, the Revolt continued, the Romans themselves would not submit to him, and kept up their Magistrates. Their Governor invaded Viterbo, and some other Cities belonging to the Patrimony of St. Peter, which obliged Gregory to retire to Anagnia, under a Pretence of avoiding the heat of the Wether. He returned to Rome in November, and having accommodated things with the Governor of Rome, he treated with the Florentines, and the other Revolters about a Peace. During the time of this Negotiation, Gregory died March 27. 1378. Gerson says, That this Pope made a Declaration when he died, in which he exhorted all present not to believe the Visions of Private Persons; because he had himself been deceived by the advice of one of these Enthusiasts, and upon that Account had like to have created a dangerous Schism in the Church, but that he foresaw the ill Consequence of it. This he said with a respect to the Advice, which Catharine of Sienna had given him to go to Rome. However that be, the Death of Gregory made a Way to a Schism; of which we shall speak in the following Chapter. The greatest part of the Letters of this Pope are published by Waddingus [in his Annal. Minor. add an. 1371.] and by Bzovius [in his Annals add an. 1372.]   

CHAP. IU.  
The History of the Schism of the Popes of Rome and Avignon, and of what passed in Christendom on that Account, till the Council held at Pisa.  
GRegory the XIth. being Dead at Rome, the Romans were desirous to take this Opportunity 
The Election of Urban VI made by source.  of resettling the Pope's Court in their City, by promoting the Choice of a Roman, or at least of an Italian. There were at that time Sixteen Cardinals at Rome, Four Italians; which were Peter of Corsinis' a Florentine, Bishop of Porto, styled Cardinal of Florence, Simon of Brossana, a Milanese Cardinal-Priest of the title of St. John and St. Paul, Francis of Thebaldeschis, Cardinal-Priest of the title of St. Sabina, commonly called the Cardinal of St. Peter, James Des Ursini, a Roman, Cardinal-Deacon of the title of St. George, and Twelve Ultramontanes, i. e. of the Nations beyond the Alps; to wit, the Cardinals John of Grosso, a Limoisin Bishop of Praeneste, called Cardinal of Lymoges, Robert of Geneva Cardinal-Priest of the title of the Twelve Apostles, Gerard du Puy Abbot of Marmoutier, Cardinal-Priest of the title of St. Clement, Peter Flandrini, Cardinal-Priest of the title of St. Eustace, Willam of Aigrefeüille, Cardinal-Priest of St. Stephen in Monte Coelio, Bertrand Larger of Glandeva, Cardinal-Priest of the title of St. Cecily, Hugo of Montelais of Nants, of the title of the four Crowns, Guy of Malesicco, Cardinal-Priest of the title of the Holy-Cross in Jerusalem, styled Cardinal of Poitiers, Peter of Sortenac, Cardinal-Priest of the title of St. Laurence, named of Viviers, William Noellet, Cardinal-Deacon of the title of the St. Angelo, Peter of Vergne, Cardinal-Deacon of the title of St. Maria in viâ latâ, and Peter de la Lune, Cardinal-Deacon under the title of St. Mary in Cosmedin. These latter being much more in number, than the Italians, there was small likelihood they would choose an Italian; wherefore the Romans were resolved to obtain by force, what they could not bring about, if they left things to go on in their ordinary Channel. They began with demanding it of the Cardinals, even before they entered the Conclave; giving them to understand, that unless they yielded to them, it should be the worse for them. The Cardinals being urged to speak Positively, made answer, That they could not Discourse of the Election of a Pope out of the Conclave, and when they were met there, they would do, what they judged most conducible to the good of the Church; moreover, they desired them to make no such Demands as were joined with Threaten, and which occasioned them to fear some Violence; declaring that if they offered any, to compel them in their Choice; he that should be chosen, would not be Legitimate Pope, but an Intruder. The Romans, whose interest it was, not to let slip this Opportunity, persisted in their first Demands; and for fear the Cardinals should quit Rome, they set a Guard at the Gates and Avenues of the City, expelled thence the Nobility and the Principal Citizens, and admitted a great number of People out of the Country, whom they ordered to Arm, that they might control the Election. The Obsequies of the deceased Pope being ended, on the 5th. of April, the Cardinals prepared to go into the Conclave, though with regret, and discontented, under the Apprehension of what might happen; Protesting, That in case they were obliged to choose an Italian, they should not Acknowledge him for Pope. They entered on the 7th. into the Conclave, the Guard whereof was committed to the Bishop of Marseilles; but the Officers of the Romans also went in, and departed not thence, till they had made diligent Search in all the Lodgings, and possessed themselves of the Gate, while the Conclave was Surrounded with an innumerable Company of People, which cried, We will have a Roman Pope; Romano lo volemo lo Papa, Romano lo volemo. When it was represented to them, that these tumultuary Cries were Unbecoming; they made two Officers enter the Conclave, and declared to the Cardinals, That if they chose not a Roman Pope, they were in danger of their Lives. The Cardinals having given them the same Answer as they gave before, that the Election of a Pope ought to be made with Freedom; they continued the same Threats, and withdrew in the Evening, after the Cardinals had told them, that on the Morrow, when they had said one Mass of the Holy Ghost, they would act according as he should inspire them. The People, who were not contented with this Answer, continued to cry all Night long, Romano lo volemo lo Papa, O almanco almanco Italiano, è se non lo fanno tutti quanti questi Cardinali è Francesi saranno tagliatia pezze. One of the Cardinals to appease them, told them out at the Window of the Conclave, That to Morrow they should be satisfied. On the next day, the 8th. of April, the People being again gathered together in greater Numbers at the Sound of the Alarm-Bell of St. Peter's Clock, came with greater Fury to the Conclave, threatening to break down the Gate. The Cardinals having notice of it from the Bishop of Marseilles, sent the Cardinal d' Aigrefeüille to speak to the People, whom he could bring to no other terms, but that they should make Choice of a Roman, or an Italian, if they desired to save their Lives. The Cardinal d' Aigrefeüille having Reported this to the Conclave, they deputed Cardinal Florentin, Dean of the Sacred College, to go and Promise the People, they should have Satisfaction. The Cardinal would not accept this Commission, first, because he judged it contrary to the freedom they ought to have, and for fear of being killed by the Romans, if they failed in the Performance of this Promise. The Cardinal d' Aigrefeüille, Dean of the Cardinals-Priests, having taken him by the hand, together with James Des Ursini, Dean of the Cardinals-Deacons, led him to the Gate of the Conclave; where they promised the People, that they were upon choosing an Italian Cardinal. Being returned, they chose in a hurry Bartholomew Pregnano, Archbishop of Bari, not designing this Election should stand: for the Ultramontanes had a Mind to a Pope which was no Italian, and the Italians were desirous, that one of their Number should be advanced to this Dignity; and not a Man who was not of the Sacred College. There were likewise some, who declared, That they made this Election against their Judgement, to avoid the Danger they were in, and with an Intention, that he whom they chose, should not be Pope. The Cardinal Florentin gave his Vote for the Cardinal of St. Peter, and James Des Ursini refused to give his Voice. The report being afterwards spread Abroad, that the Archbishop of Bari was chosen Pope; the People mistaking him for John of Bar a Frenchman, Chamberlain to the deceased Pope, began again their Tumults. The Cardinal of St. Peter having appeared at the Window, some said, It is the Cardinal of St. Peter, the common People supposing he had been chosen Pope, began to cry, Viva, viva Santo Pietro, and went away of that Opinion. But some time after, perceiving they did not open the Conclave, they returned with greater Violence, broke open the Gates of the Conclave, seized the Cardinals, Plundered their Goods, demanding without intermission a Roman Pope, and some of the Domestics of the Cardinals having said to them, Have you not the Cardinal of St. Peter, they took him, and arrayed him in Pontifical Robes, placed him on the Altar, and worshipped him, though he cried out, that he was not Pope, neither would he be. The Cardinals escaped with great difficulty. Some were stopped, and rudely handled; others were forced to disguise themselves: Some retreated to their Houses, and others left the City, or betook themselves to the Castle of St. Angelo. On the Morrow, the Archbishop of Bari chosen in the forementioned manner, designed to be Proclaimed; but seeing himself deserted by the Cardinals, who would not own him, he told the Magistrates of Rome, They had done nothing, unless they reassembled the Cardinals, to the intent they might Proclaim his Election, and put him in Possession of the Holy See. The Magistrates having put this Order in Execution, they caused Twelve or Thirteen to meet, who Proclaimed the Archbishop of Bari Pope, under the Name of Urban VI clothed him in the Pontifical Habit, and gave him Possession of the Holy See. On the 17th. of the same Month, which was Easter-Day, he was crowned in presence of the Cardinal Des Ursini.  
Urban the VIth. was a Neapolitan: he had formerly been Archbishop of Otranto, from 
The beginning of the Papacy of Urban VI.  whence he was newly translated to that of Bari, by Gregory XI. who also gave him charge of the Apostolic Court of Chancery, in the absence of Cardinal de Pampelune, who remained at Avignon: He passed for an able Doctor of the Canon Law, and had the repute of an Humble, Devout, Honest Man, an Enemy to Simony, Regular in his Morals, Studious, a Lover of Justice. The Cardinals cast an eye upon him, fancying, that he would not make an Advantage of this Election, thus carried on by force; nevertheless it is apparent, that he had laboured underhand for this Dignity, and the News of his Election was no sooner brought him, but he looked on himself as Pope, and gave Order to the Magistrates of Rome to oblige the Cardinals to come together, to the end he might be Acknowledged, and placed on the Throne. The next day after his Coronation, the Cardinals who were at Rome wrote to those of Avignon, that they had chosen for Pope the Archbishop of Bari. We have their Letter in the Tenth Tome of the Spicilegium; but at the same time the Cardinal d' Aigrefeüille, and some others, sent private notice to the King of France, and other Christian Princes, that this Election was not valid, and they designed not, that Urban should be owned as Pope. Nevertheless, whether out of 
The Cardinals withdraw to make another Election.  Fear, or Dissimulation, they owned him at Rome, and obeyed him in appearance: Perhaps likewise they would have practised nothing against him, and had left him in quiet Possession of the Holy See, if he had treated them with Mildness; but Urban, who was naturally severe, would oblige the Prelates to reside at their Benefices, reproved sharply the Behaviour of the Cardinals, in a Speech he made in the Consistory a Fortnight after Easter, upbraided some in particular with their carriage, which disobliged them, and put them upon a Resolution of choosing a new Pope. Urban further drew upon himself the Anger of Otho Duke of Brumswick, who had Married Jane Queen of Sicily, after the Death of the Prince of Tarentum. This Queen at the first rejoiced very much at the Election of Urban, Born her Subject; but Urban treated the Duke of Brumswick with Disdain, and refusing to accept the Conditions of the Peace, which that Prince had negotiated by order of Gregory XI. with the People of Tuscany and Liguria, he lost a Defender, which he had need of, considering the Posture of his Affairs. He committed also another Fault, in taking from the Rostaings the Government of the Castle of St. Angelo, of which they were in Possession, and which they refused to Surrender to him; but on the contrary declared against him. The Thirteen Ultramontane Cardinals being dissatisfied, withdrew from Rome one after another, in the Month of May, under pretence of avoiding the excessive heat of the Summer, and resorted to Anagni. Urban then seeing himself deserted, and plainly foreseeing their Design, did all he could to oblige them to return; and that he might deal more kindly with them, he went as far as Tivoli, where the Italian, and Ultramontane Cardinals held divers Conferences, and proposed the calling of a Council to prevent the Schism which was then hatching; but not being able to agree on the Place, nor the Conditions, things remained in the same posture. The Duke of Brumswick was willing to interest himself in bringing Matters to an Agreement, and had effected it, if Urban would have consented to the Marriage of Mary, the Heiress of the Kingdom of Sicily beyond the Pharos, to the Marquis of Monferrat, his Kinsman; but this Pope, who had a Design this Kingdom should fall to his Nephew Francis Pregnano, would not hearken to that Proposition; and this made a perfect Quarrel between him and Otho, who no longer would interest himself in his Affairs, but forsook him, though without withdrawing from his Obedience. The Cardinals at Anagni, before the doing any thing to provide for their Safety, caused the Lord Bernard de la Salle, with his Troops, to approach unto Viterbo for to Guard the Sacred College; The Romans attempting to Waylay them, as they marched by near Rome, were defeated, and the Troops arrived at Anagni. When the Cardinals saw they were secure, they began to intimate unto Urban, that he had not been lawfully chosen, but by force, as he himself very well knew; and by consequence he was an Intruder, and obliged to resign the Popedom. Urban made Protestations to the contrary, and wrote a Letter to the Cardinals in the Name of all Christians, wherein he asserts his Election to be Canonical, and exhorts the Earl of Fondi not to afford his Protection to those revolted Cardinals. Wherefore the Cardinals seeing no likelihood of his voluntary relinquishing the Papacy, on the Second day of Angust, made a Declaration, in which they recite after what manner the Archbishop of Bari was chosen, set forth, That he ought not to be acknowledged, as lawful Pope; and Protest against whatever they have done, and written about this Election. On the 9th. of the same Month, after having celebrated One Mass of the Holy Ghost, they made an Award, wherein they declare, That the Archbishop of Bari ought to be looked on as Excommunicate, an Usurper, and a Tyrant. They made known this Sentence to the Kings, to the University of Paris, and to all Christians. Urban perceiving there was no hopes of an Accommodation, returned to Rome, where he made Nine and twenty Cardinals. The old French Cardinals withdrew to Fondi, to proceed to the Choice of a new Pope. But that it might be less liable to Dispute, they believed they ought to call thither the three Italian Cardinals, which remained (for the Cardinal of St. Peter was dead some days before). These three Cardinals, who had stood as Neuters, were retired to a Castle belonging to Cardinal Ursini. The Ultramontanes assured each of them in particular, That if he would come to them at Fondi, they would order it so, that he should be chosen Pope: With these hopes, they all departed and came to Fondi. Upon their Arrival, the Cardinals entered the Conclave on the 20th. of September, and proceeded to the Election of a Pope. The Cardinal of Lymoges gave his Voice first, because the Cardinal of Florence, who was Dean of the Sacred College, had excused himself from giving the first Vote; he said, That since the French were for a French Pope, and the Italians for an Italian, he judged it convenient to nominate one, which was neither French nor Italian; and thereupon he gave his Vote for Robert Cardinal of Geneva, by Nation a German, and would choose him for Supreme Bishop: All the Cardinals, except the three Italians, gave him their Votes: He took the Name of Clement 
The Election of Clement VII.  VII. and was Crowned on the 21st. of the same Month: He was Brother to Amidéus' Earl of Geneva, had been Bishop of Teroüane, and afterwards of Cambray, and made Cardinal by Gregory the XIth. though not above Thirty six Years of Age: He was Quick, Eloquent, Active, fit for Business and Labour: These Qualifications contributed to the Choice they made of his Person, but more, the Nobility of his Birth, whereby he was of Kin and Allied to the most Potent Princes of Christendom; which gave the Cardinals who chose him, ground to hope he would be owned without Difficulty, and that his Competitor Urban, would be forsaken by all 
The Division of Christian Princes on account of the two Popes elected.  the World; but God permitted not Matters to go thus; for Christendom was divided, divers Kingdoms continued under the Obedience of Urban, and others acknowledged Clement; this caused a bloody Schism in the Church. Urban was in Possession of Rome, but the Castle of St. Angelo was firm to Clement, and very much galled the Romans, who besieged it, took it in conclusion, and in part demolished it. Almost all the Cities of Tuscany and Lombardy also owned Urban: Germany and Bohemia stuck to his Party; for that being at Tivoli, he had confirmed the Election Wenceslaus King of Bohemia, Son to the Emperor Charles, chosen King of the Romans in the Year 1376. Though his Predecessor Gregory XI. made a Scruple to approve it. Lewis King of Hungary likewise owned him; and these two Princes sent Ambassadors to Clement, and to the Cardinals, to represent that they ought to Acknowledge Urban as Legitimate Pope, and desist from their Pretensions: Clement having ill received them, provoked these two Princes, and confirmed them in the resolution to take Urban's part: Poland, Prussia, Denmark, Swedeland, and Norway, followed the Example of Germany. In England the Envoys of the two Competitors having been Herd in a Parliament held at Gloucester, in the beginning of the Reign of Richard the Second; the Election of Urban was approved, and that of Clement rejected. The Earl of Flanders, though a near Kinsman to Clement, yet so far declared against him, that he would not see the Cardinal, who was sent to him on his behalf. Clement was Acknowledged by France and Scotland, by the Dukes of Lorraine and Bar, by the Earls of Savoy and Geneva, and by Jane Queen of Naples; which yet hindered not many of her Subjects from adhering to the Party of Urban. He sent Legates into all Parts to show his Right. Cardinal de Grosso was dispatched to France, Cardinal Aigrefeüille to Germany and Bohemia, Cardinal de Malesicco into England and Flanders, and Cardinal Peter de la Lune to Spain, Portugal, and Navarre. He, finding that Spain had declared for Urban, left not the place, but tarrying there, gained so much Ground by his Cunning, and Intrigues, that at length Clement was there Acknowledged. This Pope to reinstate the Cardinals, whom he had sent as his Legates, nominated Six of them in the Month of December, in the Year 1678. whereof two had been already named by Urban, and had refused to accept that Dignity. The Cardinal d' Aigrefeüille, Legate in Germany, found Wenceslaus, who Succeeded his Father who died that Year, altogether in the Interests of Urban, and could do nothing in favour of Clement. In France, King Charles V. who was a very Wise and Prudent Prince, that he might do nothing hastily in a Business of this Consequence, sent some Persons of his Privy-Council unto the Cardinals, to know how Matters went, and to take an Oath of them, what they thought in their Conscience of these two Elections. The Cardinals after having Sworn by the Body of JESUS CHRIST, protested, That they had been constrained by Violence to pretend the Election of the Archbishop of Bari, and that he, whom they had since chosen, was the true Pope. The King not as yet satisfied with this Declaration, was desirous to Discourse some of the Cardinals, and having obliged them to come to the Castle of Vincent, together with the Prelates, and the Doctors of Divinity; the Matter being put in Debate, and maturely Examined, it was at last concluded, that only the Election of Clement was valid, and that the King ought to Acknowledge him; the which he did, and gave intimation of it to all Christian Princes his Allies.  
Nevertheless Clement left Fondi, and withdrew to the Castle of Spelongue near to Cajeta, from 
Clement VII. retires to Avignon.  whence he went to Naples with the Cardinals; but the Neapolitans not being able to endure him, he bethought himself of going to Avignon, where he Arrived in the Month of June in the Year 1379. His Departure wholly ruined his Affairs in Italy. The Castle of St. Angelo Surrender'd, and what Succours he was able to afford to those of his Party, were overborne by the Urbanists, who were the Stronger. Urban joined the Spiritual Arms to the Temporal, to subdue them, and ordered Process to be made against Queen Jane, the Earl of Fondi, the Ursini, and the other Favourers of Clement; and declared them to have forfeited their Estates, their Lands, their Goods, and their Dignities and to be uncapable to enjoy them. He declared likewise Clement the Antipope, and his Cardinal's Schismatics, and deprived them of all kinds of Dignities and Benefices. Clement on his part made use of the same Weapons against Urban, his Cardinals and Adherents. These reciprocal Condemnations caused great Disorders through all Christendom, each of the two having their Partisans, who made War one upon another, and endeavoured to deprive each other of the Benefices and Dignities obtained from the Pope, whom they Acknowledged; insomuch, that the Benefices were for a Booty, and seized by such as found themselves the Strongest: The Popes bestowed them on those that sued for them, though undeserving, and being not yet of Age, only to enlarge the Number of their Creatures, or else they Sold them to supply their Wants. Impunity reigned every where; there was no such thing as Order or Obedience, and the Church was in a dreadful confusion.  
Italy was the Part of the World which suffered the most; because this was the Place where 
Wars in Italy, between Lewis Duke of Anjou, & Charles de Duras.  the Partisans of the two Popes had most Liberty. Urban, to make himself sole Master, and to put in Execution the Judgement he had given against Queen Jane, gave away her Kingdom to Charles Duke of Duras, a Kinsman of the Queen's, and called him out of Hungary, where he than was, to come and take the Possession: When he had arrived at Rome, he crowned him King of Sicily, after he had obliged him to give the Dutchies of Capua and Melphi to him, and divers other Earldoms to his Nephew Francis Pregnano, Surnamed Butillo. But because this Prince wanted Money to undertake an Enterprise so considerable, as was the Conquest of the Kingdom of Sicily; the Pope Pawned the Goods of the Churches in the City of Rome, and Sold the Chalices, Crosses, and the other Ornaments, to make up a round Sum, which he gave him. Queen Jane to set up a Power capable to Support her against the Attempts of Urban, made a Gift of her Estates to Lewis Duke of Anjou, and exhorted him to come speedily to her Relief. Nevertheless, Charles of Duras, with some Troops, entered the Kingdom of Naples, made himself Master of that City, surprised Otho the Husband of Jane by Treachery, and took him Prisoner; and at last having Stormed Chasteau neuf, whither the Queen was retired, with her Sister Mary, he made her Prisoner of War, and some time after ordered her to be Strangled. Clement on his part importuned the Duke of Anjou to pass into Italy; the which at length he resolved, and parted from France with a considerable Army, in the Year 1382. to Conquer the Kingdom of Sicily; he marched cross Lombardy, and instead of going directly to Rome, to seize the Person of Urban, he passed into the Kingdom of Naples; and with the assistance of two Germane Commanders, whom he found in this Country, he made himself Master of several Towns in Apulia; whilst that Charles, who tarried at Naples, fortified the Places that were left him, and lengthened out the War, that he might waste the Duke of Anjou's Army. He succeeded in that Design. This Prince's Troops were so weakened by Scarcity and Sickness, that they could Undertake Nothing: His Money fell short, and at last he died, either by a Disease, or by Poison, on the 20th. of September, in the Year 1384 at Bari.  
Urban some time before had passed into the Kingdom of Naples, either to prevent an Agreement 
Urban Arrested by Charles de Duras, and forced to retire to Genoa.  between Charles, and the Duke of Anjou, or to put his Nephew in Possession of the Dutchies of Capua, and Melphi, Charles went to receive him near Aversa, and a while after caused him to be Arrested, and brought to Naples into the New Castle, where he permitted him to give Audiences, and kept him under Confinement: But the Cardinals being employed to make up this Breach, Charles asked the Pope's Pardon, and allowed him Liberty to go forth of the Castle, and to abide near the Cathedral Church. Sometime after the wantonness of Urban's Nephew, who deflowered a Nun, led him to renew the Quarrel Charles had with the Pope; because Charles was obliged to bring him to Punishment for this Crime. But the Pope upheld his Nephew, stopped the Execution of the Sentence, and obliged Charles to give his Nephew Seventy Thousand Florins, for the Revenue of his Dutchies, together with the Castle of Luceria, whither he retired with part of his Court, resolving there to pass the Winter, in hopes that he should soon make himself Master of Naples; for he designed to revenge himself for the Injury Charles had done him, and to deprive him of his Kingdom, trusting to the Correspondence he had with some Neapolitans. On the other side Cardinal Reatino, and some others in Naples combined against him, and put out a Manifesto, importing, That if the Pope neglected the Government, or were not fit for it, or adhered too much to his own sense, and would rule Absolutely, without advising with the Cardinals, they had right to nominate Overseers, by whose Counsel all things should be managed. Urban having had notice of this Project, ordered Six of these Cardinals to be arrested, and created hereupon divers others, either Germans, or Neapolitans. These Six Cardinals were put into Dungeons, loaded with Chains, and often examined by the Rack. Charles incensed with these Attempts of Urban, who had begun to proceed against him, besieged the Castle of Luceria; but Urban escaped with his Followers, carrying along with him the Cardinal's Prisoners, and having reached to a Seaport, Embarked in the Galleys of Genoa; he sailed to Palermo, and from thence to Genoa, where he put to Death Five of the arrested Cardinals, having granted the Cardinal of St. Cecily his Life, at the Request of Richard, King of England, after degrading him, and depriving him of all his Benefices and Dignities. These Cruelties alienated the Minds of many from the Affection they had to Urban; two of his Cardinals, the one named Pileus de Prato Archbishop of Ravenna, and the other Galeo de Petramala withdrew to Clement, who received them, and confirmed them in their Dignities.  
While these things passed in Italy, Clement made himself to be owned by the Kings of Castille 
Clement owned by the Kings of Castille and Arragon, attempts to raise money in France.  and Arragon, who having, at the instance of the King of France, made inquiry at Avignon, concerning the Elections of the two Competitors, understood that of Urban to be void, because made by force, and on the contrary, that of Clement to be Legitimate and Canonical; but because he wanted Money to support his Dignity, and could raise it not where but in France, he sent the Abbot of St. Nicasius of Rheims, to Levy half the Revenues of the Benefices. The Clergy could not bear this Exaction, the University of Paris complained thereof to the King, who sent for the Abbot of St. Nicasius, ordered him to departed the Kingdom, stopped all the Revenues of the Benefices, to be employed one Third upon Reparations, another Third to defray incident Charges, and the Remainder for the Subsistence of the Clergy: He likewise deputed Arnold of Corbie, first Precedent of Paris, to go to Avignon; there to lay open the Injustice of this Demand; so that Clement and his Cardinals were forced to be content without this Supply.  
In the Year 1385. Charles of Duras being gone into Hungary, to be Proclaimed King, as next 
The Death of Charles Duras and Urban VI.  Heir to the Crown; he was there Murdered in the Month of January, in the Year following. At the same time Otho escaped out of Prison, and came to Sicily; from whence he passed into Apulia, and made himself Master of Naples; having driven out Margaret, the Relict of Charles Duras, who made her escape with her two Children to Cajeta. Urban went from Genoa to Perusia, where he tarried a full Year. The Germans proposed to him an Agreement with Clement, but he would not hearken thereto; some time after he took up a Resolution to return into Sicily, and being on the Way thither, his Mule fell down and wounded him desperately. He caused himself to be carried to Tivoli, with a Design to proceed on his Journey; but being in no condition to do it, he was conveyed to Rome, where he died, in the Month of October, in the Year 1389.  
The Death of this Pope rendered the Peace of the Church more easy to be brought about, 
The Election of Boniface IX. by the Roman Cardinals.  if the Cardinals in Italy, would have forborn to make another Election; but on the contrary, being met in the Conclave presently after the Death of Urban, they chose on the Second of November, Cardinal Peter de Thomacellis, a Neapolitan, who called himself Boniface IX. and was acknowledged by those, who had obeyed Urban. Boniface augmented the Revenues considerably, and the Temporal Authority of Popes, and heaped together great Riches in the time of his Papacy. If we may credit Thierri of Niem, a contemporary Author, one of his Domestics, he made a public Merchandise of Benefices at the beginning of his Popedom, and afterwards willing to palliate it, he, the first, settled the Annates, that is to say, the Right of receiving the first Year's Revenues of Bishoprics and Abbeys which became Vacant, and the Dates for all sorts of Benefices void by Death, which he granted to different Persons at the same time for Money; he revoked all Grants of Reversions, to make new ones, invented particular Clauses of Provisions, which annulled all the former; he granted all sorts of Dispensations and Pardons for Money: His Court was full of Apostate Monks, whom he made his Officers, or provided of Employments and Benefices. For Money he gave licence to the Friars-Mendicants, to quit their Order and Convent, and to enjoy Benefices. He fully settled the Sovereign and Immediate Dominion of the Popes over the City of Rome: He reduced Perusia, Viterbo, Montefiasco, and several other Towns, and Castles, under the Power of the Popes; Rebuilt the Castle of St. Angelo, and restored the Capitol. He imposed many Tributes and Taxes, and had a Troop of Regular Guards. He reinstated some Cardinals, whom his Predecessor had degraded, and among others the Cardinal of St. Cecily. The Cardinal Pileus de Prato, who had deserted his Predecessor, and went to Clement, came to wait on him, and was nicknamed, The Cardinal with Three Caps. He crowned the King of Sicily, Ladislaus Son of Charles Duras, after he had given Absolution both to him, and his Mother and Sister, from the Censures thundered out against him by Urban.  
Clement on the other side, crowned King of Sicily, Lewis the Duke of Anjou, in the presence of Charles VI who was come to Avignon, to give his Holiness a Visit, and proceeded against 
Lewis Duke of Anjou, Crowned King of Sicily, by Clement.  Boniface, as an Usurper of the Holy See. Lewis Duke of Anjou newly crowned marched with a good Number of Troops into the Kingdom of Naples, was received into that City; and after having secured the principal Places of the Country, he returned to Provence. Upon his departure, Ladislaus entering the Kingdom with a Powerful Army, led by Alberic Barbiane, expelled thence all such as took part with the Duke of Anjou.  
The University of Paris highly concerned at these Disorders, occasioned by the Schism, and the Attempts which Pope Clement made upon the Liberties of the Gallican Church; Petitioned 
The Advice of the University, for taking away the Schism.  the King, that he would apply some Remedy to these Evils. A while after, two Monks of the Order of Carthusians going to Rome to wait on Boniface, exhorted him so vehemently to Peace, that they drew from him a Letter directed to the King, wherein he encourages his Majesty to set about the Work, offering on his part to contribute thereto. Clement having notice of this Negotiation, was forthwith for the Arresting of these two Carthusians; but the King having taken them into his Protection, he pretended likewise he was for Peace, and ordered Public Prayers to be made upon this Occasion. He sent at the same time into France, Cardinal Peter de la Lune. He was no sooner arrived there, but the University began afresh their earnest Suit to the King for the Peace of the Church; to which his Majesty declared the means ought to be sought out. For this purpose, a Meeting of the University was Appointed, wherein they gave their Opinions by way of Scrutiny, and the greater part was of this Judgement, That the Methods of yielding, and Arbitration, would be the surest to put an end to the Differences between the two Popes. The University having made known his Resolution to the Cardinal-Legate, he answered them roughly; and forbidden them for the time to come to use any the like Discourses. The Pope to appease them, desired the King to send to him Peter d' Ailly, and Giles des Champs, Doctors of Divinity, of great Repute; but they refused to go to him. The Legate engaged the Duke of Berry in the Interests of Clement; he declared against the University, and put a stop to their Prosecutions: They had recourse to the Duke of Burgundy, who procured them Audience from the King, to whom they presented a Letter; wherein they most humbly besought him to consider seriously of the Peace of the Church; representing to him, that the University had thought of Three principal Means of compassing it; First, the way of Session, that each of the Competitors should recede from all Right. A Second, the way of Arbitration, whereby they should refer their Right to Persons nominated by themselves, or others, who might absolutely decide their Differences. The Third is, the calling of a General Council; declaring, That if either of the Competitors accepted not of one of these three Expedients, he should be looked on as a Promoter of Schism. And as to what might be demanded touching the last Article, which gives Authority to a General Council, the University answers, that it is the consent of all the Faithful, and the words of JESUS CHRIST in the Gospel, whereby he Promises to them, who shall meet together in his Name, the Assistance of his Holy Spirit. The King attended by several Princes, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and a great number of other Prelates, received this Letter, heard it Read, commanded it should be Translated into French, and told the University he would answer them in a little time; but Peter de la Lune prevailed so much, by his Credit, that the King altered his Resolution; insomuch, that when they returned, the Chancellor was ordered to tell them from the King, That his Majesty had no further Intention to pursue this Affair; and gave them a Prohibition to make any mention of it, upon pain of Disobedience. The University dissatisfied, gave the Chancellor to understand in presence of the Legate, who went back again soon after, That they would leave off their Exercises, and Preaching: They wrote at the same time to Clement, what they had resolved in their Convocation, touching the Union of the Church. The Pope having received this Letter, was therewith very much offended, and would send no Answer by the Messenger of the University. The Cardinals met together without the Pope's Leave, who sent to them, and upbraided them therewith. They answered him, That they had seen, and examined the Letter of the University, and that one of the Three Ways, which they proposed, aught of Necessity to be chosen, if he aimed at the Union of the Church. Clement conceived so great a Grief at these Proposals, that he fell Sick, and died of an Apoplexy 
The Death of Clement VII.  on the 16th. of September, in the Year 1394. By his Death ended the Male Line of the Earls of Geneva; which had never before happened in that Family. Imbert de Villars, Son of Clement's Sister, succeeded in the Earldom of Geneva.  
As soon as the King of France was informed of the Death of Clement, he called his Council 
The Election of Benedict XII. at Avignon, in spite of the King of France.  together, who gave it as their Opinion, That it was fit for the good of the Church, the King should write to the College of Cardinals, to Supersede the Election, till they understood his Mind by a special Ambassador. The King of Arragon wrote to the same Effect. The University of Paris took this Opportunity to beseech the King to interpose for putting off the Election, till it were Agreed on, what Method might be taken to settle Union; to call an Assembly of the most famous Universities in his Kingdom, and the Magistrates of Cities, to provide for it; to write to Boniface then at Rome, and to the Chief of his Party, to oblige them to accept these Methods of Union, and to give Leave to the University to write to other Universities. The King yielded to their Requests, and signified to them that he was displeased with the intermission of their Public Lectures and Sermons, and ordered them to begin them again; which was done accordingly. The same day the King called his Council together, in which it was resolved, that two Ambassadors should be sent to Avignon. Nevertheless, the Cardinals met to proceed to the Choice of a Pope, and entered into the Conclave to the Number of One and Twenty, on the 26th. of September: They received the King's first Letter before the Election; but suspecting what were the Contents, they resolved not to open it till the Choice were over. Nevertheless, before they entered upon it, they drew up an Instrument, which they all Subscribed; whereby they Promised and Swore, that they would all use their Endeavours for Union; and that whoever of them were chosen Pope, should procure it, by all kinds of Ways, even by that of Session, or Resignation; if it were judged most convenient by the major part of the Cardinals. After this Protestation, they chose on the 28th. of the same Month, Peter de la Lune, Native of Arragon, Cardinal-Deacon of the title of St. Mary in Cosmedin, Pope, who was named Benedict XII. or XIII. ordained Priest by the Cardinal of Praeneste on the 3d. of October, and crowned by the Bishop of Ostia, on the 11th. of the same Month. He was no sooner advanced to this Dignity, but he took a resolution to keep it, and acted as one that would continue always Pope. Nevertheless to show, that he desired Peace, he sent to the King of France the Bishop of Avignon, and Peter Plan, to acquaint him with his Election, and to add, that he accepted the Papacy very unwillingly, and that he was ready to procure the Peace of the Church, by all Methods which should be judged reasonable. The University sent Deputies to him to exhort him to Union; to whom he made answer, That he was as ready to resign, as he was to put off his Cope; which he immediately pulled off. He made the same answer to Peter d'Ailly, Envoy from the King; so that in all likelihood, it would not be his Fault if the Schism were not soon ended.  
Charles the VIth. appointed a Meeting of the Prelates of his Kingdom. It was there concluded 
The Assembly of the Prelates of France, which were for the way of Session.  unanimously, that the Resignation of the two Antagonists was the best Expedient, utterly to abolish the Schism; and to effect this, the King sent to Benedict an Honourable Embassy, consisting of his Uncles, John Duke of Berry, and Philip Duke of Burgundy, and his Brother Lewis Duke of Orleans, accompanied with the Bishops of Senlis, Poitiers, and Arras, and several Lords, to whom it was given in Charge to demand this Resignation, as the most proper way to settle the Peace of the Church. Benedict received them with due respect; but answered not their Proposal, but in general terms, and offered himself another Expedient, which was, 
Benedict rejects the way of Session.  that the two Competitors should come to a safe place, near the Kingdom of France, under Protection of the King; and there the two Colleges of Cardinals being Assembled should search into ways of Accommodation. The Ambassadors rejected this Offer, and insisted upon yielding up their Right. All the Cardinals, except Cardinal de Pampelune, were for the Session. The Pope stood firm, and after several Conferences, set out a Bull, by which he declared his Resolution to meet his Adversary, and his College in an uninterested place, to find out a way of Accommodation; and in case this could not be done, he was ready to embrace all reputable and just ways to terminate this Difference, provided God and the Church be not therewith offended. The Ambassadors not satisfied with this Answer, had a meeting in the Convent of the Cordeliers, or Grey-Friars at Avignon, where Eighteen Cardinals met the Delegates of the University of Paris, who all declared for the Session. The Cardinals exhorted Benedict thereto; but he persisted in his Resolution, and forbade them to Sign the Instrument, which the French Ambassadors had presented, or to hearken to any other Proposal, than what he had made. The Ambassadors and Cardinals made him yet fresh Petitions, to bring him over to this way of yielding; but 'twas all to no purpose, and the Ambassadors went away without obtaining it. The King zealously desiring to procure the Union of the Church, was not discouraged by this Refusal, and resolved according to the Advice of the University, to send Ambassadors to other Christian Kings and Princes, that they would join with him to procure a Union. The University very hot in this Quarrel, published an Act of Appeal concerning all, which might be transacted by Benedict 
An Act of Appeal by the University.  and his Adherents, to the next only, true and universal Pope, or to the Apostolic Holy See. Benedict set forth a Bull against this Act; notwithstanding which, the University renewed their Appeal, and answered to Benedict's Bull, that many Popes had been rejected, or deposed; that Popes have corrected one the other, and revoked the Decrees of their Predecessors, as Clement V had revoked the Decretal of Boniface VIII. against which the King, the Lords and Prelates of the Kingdom had likewise brought an Appeal. This second Act of Appeal being come to the Cognisance of Benedict, he published a new Bull; wherein he Excommunicated all such as should appeal from him or his Successors. The University continuing their Prosecution, met at Mathunins, and declared afresh, the way by Session to be the best. Seventeen Cardinals wrote likewise to the King, that they approved of this Expedient. While these things passed in France, the Ambassadors, whom the King had dispatched to all the Courts of Christendom, persuaded the greater part of the Princes, that the way taken in France, to put an end to the Schism, was the best and the surest; so that they joined their earnest Desires to those of the King of France, to oblige the two Competitors to consent to it.  
The University finding Benedict to remain obstinate in his Opinion, proposed to the King, 
A Substraction from the Obedience of both the Contenders declared and published in France.  the withdrawing of Obedience. The King after he had waited a while, Assembled the Prelates and Universities of his Kingdom to consult upon this Matter. The Meeting was held the 22. of May, in the Year 1398. The King falling Sick, could not be present; but the Dukes, of Berri, Burgundy, Orleans, and Bourbon; in whose presence the Patriarch of Alexandria recounted the Story of the Schism from its beginning, showed, that Benedict had Sworn before his Election, that he would do his utmost for Peace, coming even up to the way of Session: He set forth all the King had done to procure the Peace of the Church, and the Opposition made by Benedict. He declared, That the way of Session had been approved, not only by the King of France; but moreover, by the Kings of Hungary, Bohemia, England, Arragon, Castille, Navarre, and Sicily; and concluded, That it was the Intention of the King to pursue this way, and to procure Union by this means. The Bishop of Mascon, seconded by Six Doctors, spoke there for Benedict. The Question was debated for Eight Hours, and the Assembly adjourned to the Month of July. The Opinions were divided; Some gave it for a general Substraction, others for a particular, in 
i e. Withdrawing Obedience to the Pope.  what concerned the Donation of Benefices. Some maintained, That such as obeyed Boniface, aught to do the same on his account. The Princes propounded yet once more to give Benedict notice, before they came to this Extremity. The Archbishop of Tours, the Bishop of Puy, and the University of Tholouse were against the Substraction; which nevertheless was followed by the greater Number. The King being recovered, made the Opinions to be counted up to him, and judged they ought to comply with the Major part, and gave order to the Chancellor, to publish the Substraction. The Chancellor made Report of the King's Resolution to the Assembly, and declared, That they should wholly withdraw themselves from the Obedience of Benedict, till he accepted the way of Session; nevertheless that it was not the King's intent, the Gallican Church should be deprived of her ancient Liberties. The Sunday following, there was a Solemn Procession to St. Genivieve, where the Substraction was published by Giles de Champs, who then Preached; after that, the Chancellor ordered Letters of Substraction, Dated the 27th. of July, wherein the King, after having laid open his earnest Endeavours to purchase the Peace of the Church, and the refusal of Benedict to perform his Oath, he declares, That he ordered not the Substraction, till he had Communicated it to the Christian Princes, who had Agreed to the way of Session; That the King of Castille, likewise had already put it in Execution; That this Proceeding was neither extraordinary, nor without Precedent; That many Clergymen for less Cause, had renounced Communion with Anastasius; That Guy Archbishop of Vienna, who was after Calixtus II. with his Prelates of the Council of Vienna, had resolved to withdraw their Obedience from Pope Paschal II. That for greater Reason under the present Circumstances, where there was a notorious Scandal, a Schism form and fomented by the Ambition of two Competitors, it was seasonable to apply this Remedy. Upon this Ground he declares, That himself, the Church, the Clergy, and the People of his Kingdom, do wholly withdraw from the Obedience of Benedict, and his Adversary, of whom he said nothing, because he never had obeyed him; and enjoins his Subjects not to obey him, nor pay any thing to him, Orders, that henceforward Benefices, which are Elective, shall be supplied by way of Election, and others by the gift of the Ordinaries, to whom the filling of them up does of right belong. And as to the Benefices held by the Adherents, or Partisans of the Competitors, the Ordinaries should hold them in Commendam, till they can be Canonically provided for.  
The same day the King wrote to the Cardinals, to inform them what he had done, and to exhort them to join with him in the execution of this good Work. He likewise published other Letters, wherein he declared, That he intended not during this Substraction to enrich himself with the Advantages, Profits, and other Deuce, which the Popes, or their Officers, are accustomed to take; he Discharged the Collectors of them, and ordered, That the Elections, Demands, and Grants of Benefices, should be gratuitous, and without Charge. He enjoined the Apostolic Notaries to set down the Dates of Acts, which should pass for the future, in these words, Ab electione Domini Benedicti ultimo in Papam electi anno, etc. and not, Anno Pontificatus Domini nostri Papae, etc. The Abbey of St. Denys becoming Vacant at this time, the Monks Assembled by the King's Leave, chose Philip de Villette, whose Election was confirmed by the Bishop of Paris, and the same thing was practised in other Elective Benefices. The Kings of Castille and Navarre, the Queen of Sicily, and many other Princes, and free Towns followed the Example of France, and decreed likewise the Substraction, and Eighteen Cardinals also made an Act of the like Substraction. Benedict not being able to make them alter their Resolution by his Censures, designed to order them to be Arrested; they withdrew to Villa-nova in the King's Dominions, and called Marshal Baucicant to their Aslistance, who Besieged Benedict in his Castle of Avignon. The Brother of Benedict defended himself Valiantly, and at length the Siege was raised by a Treaty, and the Prisoners on both Sides released. The Cardinals of Poitiers, Tury, and Saluces came to wait on the King, to desire him in the Name of the Sacred College, to seize into his hands the Person of Benedict, to cause that the Princes under the Obedience of Boniface might likewise make a Substraction, and a General Council be held: They besought him also to advise the King of Arragon, not to afford any Succour nor retreat to Benedict, to maintain them in their Rights, to order their Pensions to be paid them, to secure to their Followers the Benefices promised them before the Substraction, not to dispose of the Dignities, which should become Vacant till one only Pope were chosen, and to reserve the Revenues of them for defraying the Charges, which must arise in the Prosecution of the Union. The Chancellor gave Answer to the Cardinals, That the King had resolved to hold an Assembly, on the 20th. of February, wherein he would take advice about their Demands: But there was no further mention made of them; and the King very backward in Arresting Benedict, ordered Marshal Baucicant, not to prosecute the War against him; and only to take care, that he went not out of Avignon, with the Treasure of the Church. Nevertheless, Cardinal Pampelune, and another named Boniface, who remained faithful to Benedict, designing to make their Escape in Disguise were Arrested by Baucicant, who put them into such a harsh Prison, that one of them died there, and the other after having Suffered very much, was forced to pay a great Ransom.  
Though the King had ordered his Troops to withdraw, Benedict was under a continual distrust of the Cardinals, and the Inhabitants of Avignon; which made him resolve to Promise the King's Ambassadors, that in case the Usurper (Boniface) should resign, die, or be expelled, he would resign; that they might proceed to the Choice of a Third Person, on condition the King would put a stop to the Actions of those of Avignon, and the Cardinals, promising he would disarm his Party: He further engaged to be present at the Assembly to be held for the Union of the Church, in case the King would grant him his Protection for an Hundred Persons of his Retinue, and furnish them with Necessaries, not hereby at all to prejudice the Substraction, which he had Published. When Benedict had Sworn to observe these Articles, the Ambassadors of the King delivered to him the Patent, by which he took him under his Protection, and put him into the Custody of the Archbishop of Narbonne, the Precedents of Beauvais and Provence, and two other Lords, and obliged the Cardinals, and People of Avignon, to Promise, that they would make no manner of Attempt upon either the Person, or Goods of Benedict, upon condition he would Disarm, and order the Garrison that was in the City to march out. Benedict not thinking those named for his Guard strong enough to defend him; demanded, That the King would consent to give him the Duke of Orleans: But his Majesty judged it not fit to send his Brother so far off, and permitted him only to Name the Guards under his Authority, to defend the Person of Benedict. The King foreseeing that, the Year following, which was the Year 1400. the Jubilee might draw many of his Subjects to Rome, who would carry Money thither, forbade them to go, and confirmed the Decree of Substraction, and the voiding all Grants of Benefices in Reversion.  
The Princes of Germany, and the King of Arragon, Agreed not to the Substraction, nor to 
The Substraction taken off on certain Conditions  the way of Session; and in France itself the Duke of Orleans disapproved it; and maintained strongly against the Dukes of Berry and Burgundy, that the Schism was more tolerable, than to have no Pope at all; and that it was great Injustice to keep Benedict in Confinement. The University of Paris preached up the contrary; but that of Tholouse was of the same Opinion with the Duke of Orleans, and declared themselves to the King against the Substraction. The Ambassadors of Castille complained of the Restraint of Benedict, and the Substraction; and the Bishop of S. Pons spoke of it to the King with freedom. The Cardinals altered their Judgement about the Substraction, and bethought themselves of being reconciled to Benedict. Lewis of Anjou King of Sicily, declared likewise for him, Swore Obedience to him, and promised him his Assistance. In fine, Benedict found means to escape from the Castle of Avignon, and set himself at Liberty; after which he reconciled himself to the Cardinals, reduced the People of Avignon to Obedience, and at last sent to the King of France, the Cardinals of Poitiers and Saluces, to put him upon revoking the Substraction. They had Audience of the King on the 15th. of May 1403. in which the Cardinal of Poitiers being Spokesman, represented to the King, That the Substraction had brought no good to the Church; That the Cardinals had closed with it, only for Peace sake, and having found it of no use, they were reunited to their Head; That his Majesty ought to do the same upon the assurance, that Benedict gives way for all things to be done, which the King and his Council should judge fit. The King made Answer, That he was about calling the Bishops of his Kingdom, to conclude, what is to be done. The Agents of the Universities of Orleans, Angers, Montpellier and Tholouse, were of the Cardinal's Mind; and said, That they never had approved of the Substraction. That of Paris was divided by the Contentions of the great Lords who were of different Parties. Cardinal Turi, Cramault Patriarch of Alexandria, and some Bishops, who took part with the Dukes of Berry and Burgundy, opposed the disannulling of the Substraction. The others siding with the Duke of Orleans, pursued with heat the restitution of Obedience. This Prince to effect it, assembled on the 28th. of May, the Prelates and the University in the Hospital of St. Paul, where the King resided, and having collected their Votes in the absence of the Dukes of Berry and Burgundy; he found, that those, who were for the restitution of Obedience, were the major part: went forthwith together with some Prelates to inform the King thereof, and engaged him to declare himself of this Opinion, and to Swear an entire restitution of Obedience to Benedict. The Dukes of Berry and Burgundy, were at first dissatisfied with what had passed; but the former of the two next day came over, having seen the Articles, which the Duke of Orleans promised the Pope should perform: To effect this restitution of Obedience, with some kind of order, on the 30th. of the same Month, he contrived an Assembly of the Prelates, and other Clergymen in the Mansionhouse of the Duke of Berry, where the Chancellor, in presence of the Dukes of Berry and Burgundy, laid open what had passed, the Resolution which the King had taken, and the Articles, which Monsieur the Duke of Orleans had undertaken to oblige Benedict to comply with; which were, 1. To consent to a Session, in case his Adversary did the same, happened to Die, or were Expelled. 2. To revoke all he had done against the way of Session, and the Processes made upon occasion of the Substraction. 3. To confirm all the Grants, and Promotions made during the Substraction. 4. To call a General Council for the Peace of the Church, and the moderating the Impositions, which the Court of Rome Levies upon the Gallican Church, according to the Judgement of Persons, whom the King shall send thither for that purpose. The Chancellor demanded of the Assembly, if there were any thing else to be added? The greater part declared, they were ready to obey what the King had determined: Some few said, They would first consult with the Bishops of their Provinces. Thereupon the King sent to the Princes to come to him, and enjoined them to follow him to the Church of Our Lady; whither he went accompanied with the Princes, and a great Number of Prelates and Deputies. He there heard Mass said by the Bishop of Praeneste, and a Sermon preached by Peter d'Ailly, Bishop of Cambray, who published by his Order, the restitution of Obedience to Benedict; and the Articles which the Duke of Orleans promised he should perform. The King the same day Signed certain Letters Patents, by which he enjoined all his Subjects to obey Benedict the XIIth. as they were wont to do preceding Popes; but these Letters were not Registered in Parliament, till the Month of June, in the Year following. The University being met, after some Debates, resolved at last to do, as the King desired, on condition Benedict should perform what he promised; but there lay the difficulty to make Benedict agree to it. Ambassadors were dispatched to him for that purpose, to whom he gave no Positive Answer; and the Duke of Orleans himself going to him, was a long time without being able to obtain any thing of him. Insomuch, that the King was forced on the 19th. of December, to set forth a Declaration, wherein he ordered all such as had been provided of Benefices in his Kingdom during the Substraction, should be maintained in Possession without paying any Imposition.  
Nevertheless, Benedict, willing to make it appear that he was well inclined to the Peace of the 
Proposals of Union made to Boniface.  Church, sent to Rome in the Year 1404. the Bishop of St. Pons, and other Ambassadors unto Boniface, to propose an interview, together with their Cardinals in a place to be agreed on; to the intent they might consult of means of Union, and procuring the Peace of the Church. The Cardinals of Boniface were very much inclined to hearken to this Proposal; but Boniface received it with disdain, and answered these Ambassadors, That their Master was an Antipope, with whom he would not treat. The Ambassadors, offended with this foul Language, which he gave them, told him, That their Master was no Simonist; thereby insinuating the shameful Traffic Boniface made of Benefices. This reply incensed him, and he commanded them to departed from Rome; and these Ambassadors having made answer, That they had a Passport, whose Date was not as yet expired, Boniface was enraged to that degree, that he fell Sick, and died in 
The Death of Boniface.  three days after, on the First of October. The Captain of the Castle of St. Angelo, a Kinsman to Boniface, Arrested the Ambassadors of Benedict, and suffered them not to departed, but at the entreaty of the Cardinals, and upon the Payment of a great Ransom. These Ambassadors before they departed, conjured the Cardinals to forbear an Election, assuring them, that if they did it, they should quickly hear good News from their Master, and that the Peace of the Church might easily be reestablished; But these Cardinals, without regarding their Demand, entered into the Conclave to choose a Successor to Boniface, and on the 12th. of October in the Year 1404. choose Cosmatus Melioratus of Sulmo, Cardinal-Priest of the title of the Holy Cross 
The Election of Innocent VII. at Rome, and his Actions.  of Jerusalem, having taken an Oath, That whoever of them were elected Pope, he should yield up the Papacy, to attain to a Union, in case that Peter de la Lune likewise renounced his right. The new Pope took the Name of Innocent VII. He was very much crossed in the beginning of his Papacy, by the Faction of the Gibelines, which were at Rome, who were desirous to re-establish the freedom of their City, and restore the Government of it to Magistrates nominated by the People, as it had been practised, before they yielded it up to Boniface. The Guelphs on the contrary maintained, That it was more Advantageous for the People to be governed by the Church, than by the Citizens. This Quarrel occasioned a Civil War in Rome. The Gibelines drew to their Aid Ladislaus King of Apulia; who willing to make Advantage of this Opportunity, called upon the Pope to Surrender the Temporal Dominion of the City of Rome, together with the Castles and Fortifications, to the Roman People. Innocent to bring him over to his Side, gave him the Government of Campania, and made him Umpire of his Quarrel with the Gibelines; who ordered it so, that the Gibelines were put in Possession of the Capitol, and the Government of the City yielded to the Magistrates, who were to be nominated by the Pope, to whom he reserved the Bridges and the Gates, whereof he was in Possession. After this Agreement Innocent was Crowned. The Peace lasted not long, for the Magistrates, who governed the City of Rome, secretly encouraged by Ladislaus, who had a Mind to make himself Master of this City, made divers Attempts against the Pope contrary to the Treaty. The Nephew of Innocent, named Lewis Melioratus, to revenge himself, surrounded them one day as they went out of Rome; and having Taken them, put them to Death. This barbarous Action caused a general Revolt of the People, which obliged the Pope, the Cardinals and the whole Court forthwith to leave Rome, and escape to Viterbo. Ladislaus on his part, presently sent an Earl to seize the Supreme Power of Rome; but the Romans would not suffer it, took up Arms to defend their Liberty, besieged the Capitol, and in a short time drove out the Partisans of this King, recalled Innocent, and received him gladly.  
While these things were acted in Italy, Benedict pretended continually to desire Union, and 
Projects of Union between the two Adversar es.  offered, in order to obtain it, to go into Italy. He granted in show to the King the Propositions which the Duke of Orleans had made for him, who brought back Bulls in manner and form, which implied the Confirmation of them, in consequence of which the King in the Month of June 1405. published a Declaration, whereby he confirmed afresh the restitution of the Obedience, and revoked his Patents of the 19th. December, of the preceding Year: He also sent to Benedict the Archbishop of Ausch, and the Archdeacon of Paris to assure him, in his Name, and the Name of the Queen, and the Dauphin his Son, of his Friendship. Some time after, Benedict took up a resolution to go to Genoa; but to enable him for this Journey, he levied the tenth Penny on the Revenues of the Gallican Church, and on the other Churches under his Obedience. The University of Paris zealously opposed him in it, and it alone was exempted. The King nevertheless by his Letters Patents, of 28th. of February, in the Year 1405. forbidden the Payment of First Fruits and other Impositions, which the Officers of Benedict levied in the Kingdom. Innocent on his part wrote into France, that it was not his Fault, that the Peace of the Church is not settled; that his Predecessor, and he had never rejected the way of Session; but that the Ambassadors of Benedict had never offered it. Ambassadors were sent to him, who found him well enough inclined to Peace; nevertheless Benedict passed into Italy, and came to Genoa, from whence he sent Cardinal Challant Legate into France, to contradict the Design of the Princes, who had resolved upon the way of Session.  
The University perceiving that Benedict acted not sincerely for the Union, demanded the Substraction 
The University procures the Substraction to be renewed.  afresh; that the Letter of those of Tholouse should be Condemned, as Injurious, and that the Gallican Church be delivered from the Exactions introduced by the Court of Rome. This Affair was referred to the Parliament of Paris, which by an Ordinance of 17. July 1406. condemned the Letter of the University of Tholouse; and by a Second of the 11th. of September, the same Year, ordained, That for the time to come, the Gallican Church should be exempted from all Aids, Tenths, Procuration-Fees and other Inventions brought in by the Court of Rome. As to what concerned the Substraction, the Affair was put off to the Assembly of the Prelates of the Realm, which was called about Martlemas. Twelve Divines, and Canonists were named to defend the Right of the Pope, and as many on the side of the University, to show the Necessity of the Substraction: They disputed a long time Pro and Con before the Dauphin, the Princes, and the Lords of the Council. Several Questions were discussed there with heat, touching the Power, and Attempts of Popes; and in fine, after many Debates, it was resolved in the Council, That it was Necessary to call a General Council, to reform the Church, as well in her Head, as her Members; and yet in the mean time they would order a Substraction from the Obedience of Peter de la Lune, called Benedict; That the Church of France should be restored to her ancient Liberties; and that for supplying of Benefices, it should be done in the same Method, as during the Substraction. This was Decreed on the 21st. of December, in the Year 1406.  
At the same time came the News of the Death of Innocent VII. who departed at Rome, the 6th. 
The Death of Innocent VII. and Election of Gregory XII.  of November. The Cardinals under his Obedience, who were then present at Rome to the Number of Fourteen, debated, whether they should proceed to, or put off the Election of a new Pope; but at last they concluded to choose one, upon condition, that he should renounce the Papacy, as soon as his Adversary should do the like. The Ambassador of the Republic of Florence exhorted them to delay it: But they made Answer, That they could not do it, but that they would make him sensible who should be chosen, that he had rather the quality of a Proctor, to lay down the Papacy, than that of Supreme Bishop. And, indeed, they all Signed an Instrument by which they obliged themselves, that whosoever of them should be chosen, should resign the Papacy, absolutely and sincerely, provided the Antipope did the same thing on his part, and that the Anti-Cardinals would proceed in Conjunction with them, to the Choice of a new Lawful Pope, and that soon after the Election, he should write to the King of the Romans, to the Antipope, and his College, to the King of France, and to other Princes, and People of Christendom, that he was ready to recede for Peace sake; and in the mean time, while Endeavours were using to promote this Union, he would create no Cardinals. After they had Signed this Writing, they chose a Venetian called Angelus de Corario; who took the Name of Gregory XII. He wrote a civil Letter to Benedict, to exhort him to put an end to the Schism, by renouncing the Papacy, as he was ready to do on his part, to the intent the Cardinals of the two Colleges, might with common Consent choose a Lawful Pope, signifying to him at the same 
Proposals of Peace between Gregory and Benedict.  time, that he should make no Cardinals, unless it were to equal the Number of those of his College, on condition he would not make any on his part. He wrote likewise to the same Effect unto all Christian Princes. Benedict about the end of January, in the Year 1407. written a very civil Answer to Gregory's Letter, wherein he signified to him his no less desire to procure Union and Peace; but before the making of a Session, he wished, that the two Colleges might meet in one place, to the end they might put in their hands the Instrument of Renunciation. He promised him in conclusion to observe the Condition he had prescribed him, to make no Cardinals. Gregory solemnly renewed his Promise on the day of his Coronation, and sent three Ambassadors to Benedict, namely, Anthony his Nephew, whom he made Bishop of Bononia; Guilin Bishop of Todi his Treasurer, who was a Norman; and Anthony de Butrio, a Bononian Doctor of Law, to treat of the Method to put in Execution the proposed Union: They agreed, That the two Antagonists should meet in the Month of September, at Savona, with the Cardinals of both Colleges, to end this Business about Michaelmas; and they drew up a Form of a Treaty consisting of sundry Articles.  
While these things were Transacting between the two contending Popes, the King of France 
The King of France sends Ambassadors to procure the Peace of the Church.  having confirmed the Resolution of the Assembly, settled the Elections, voided the Grants of Reversions, the reserved Rents, the Fees of Procuration, First Fruits, and other Impositions of the Court of Rome, published on the 12th. of January, in the Year 1407. Letters Patents of Obedience to neither of the Competitors, if they yielded not up before Ascension-Day; which were confirmed by a Declaration of the 18th. of February in the same Year. He nominated at the same time several Persons of Note, as well Laymen, as Churchmen, to attend Gregory and Benedict, and oblige them to make Peace. They conferred with the Ambassadors of Gregory at Aix, and having found them inclined to the Session; they went after that to Benedict, who made them an Harangue in Public, wherein he promised to give up; but being pressed to engage for the doing of it by a Bull, he refused it; so that the Ambassadors went away dissatisfied, without making nevertheless any mention of the Substraction; some of them tarried at Marseilles, others went unto Gregory to Rome, and some returned to the King, to make Report to him of what had passed. Nevertheless, the Ambassadors of Gregory being come to Paris, imparted to the King the good Intentions of their Master; and declared it should not be his Fault, if the Union were not suddenly concluded. The King defrayed their Charges, during their stay at Paris, received them kindly, and dismissed them with Letters to Gregory, and to the Cardinals at Rome, to exhort them to continue firm in their good Resolution. The Genoeses and those of Savona, sent Deputies to Gregory, to give him all manner of assurance, and to Congratulate him upon the future Union. The Ambassadors of France arrived at Rome on the 5th. of July; but they found Gregory had altered his Mind by the Counsels of Ladislaus, and his Nephew, who diverted him from the Session for their private Interests: and so seeking to evade it, he answered the Ambassadors of France, That whatever desire he had to finish the Union, he could not possibly repair to Savona; because he thought it not a safe place, and he had no Galleys to convey him thither, the Venetians having denied to lend him any; and that he was not able to travel thither by Land. The Ambassadors offered to furnish him with Galleys from Genoa, and all manner of assurance of Safety; and declared, That it was not the King's Design to transferr the See to Avignon, but only to procure the Peace of the Church. They had many Conferences with Gregory upon this Subject, but they could not bring him to a Resolution of going to Savona; and all that he promised them was, that he would go to Petra-Santa, where he would confer face to face with Benedict. The Ambassadors not able to draw any other Answer from Gregory, came to Genoa; from whence on the 22nd. of August, they wrote a Letter full of Reflections, and went next to Marseilles, where they related to Benedict, what they had done. He would not consent to change the place of interview, and to make it appear, it was not his Fault, that the Treaty went not on, he repaired to Savona.  
Sometime after the departure of the Ambassadors of France, the City of Rome feared to be 
Gregory and Benenedict shift off the Session.  surprised by the Colonni, and the Followers of Ladislaus, who held Correspondence with Gregory: But Paul Ursini having defeated them, and taken the Heads of the Conspiracy Prisoners, Gregory who was retired to the Castle of St. Angelo, testified his Joy for it, and rewarded Paul Ursini, by enlarging the term of time in his Possession of the Earldom of Narni, which was given him for a certain space by Innocent VII. After this Gregory left Rome to go to Viterbo, giving it out, that he took this Journey to conclude the Union. When he was arrived at Viterbo, the Cardinals pressed him to repair to Savona, to procure the Union; and because he seemed to be detained only upon the score of his three Nephews, whom he had a Mind to prefer, they consented he should give them the Lands of the Church, and reserve for himself the Patriarchship of Constantinople, the Archbishopric of York in England, and two other Bishoprics in the State of Venice. Notwithstanding they had granted him these Advantages, he still was very backward to go to Savona, whither Benedict and his Cardinals were already come, and tarried some time at Sienna, to which place he went, upon his leaving Viterbo; from thence he went next to Lucca. The Ambassadors of the Christian Princes, and the Deputies of the People of Italy importuned Gregory and Benedict to agree at length upon a place of Interview. They wrote likewise to and fro to one another, and propounded divers Places, and divers Expedients; but agreed upon nothing, having in truth no Design either of them to quit the Papacy, whatever Testimony they gave, that they would do it; but that which utterly dashed all hopes of a Union was the Entrance of Ladislaus into the City of Rome, of which he made himself Master on the 25th. of April 1408. This News very much rejoiced Gregory and his Nephews; and Ladislaus sent word to his Ambassadors, who were with the Pope, to let his Holiness know, that he was unwilling the Union should go forward, unless he were there in Person for the maintaining of his Rights. Gregory finding himself backed by Ladislaus, no longer observed any means, and nominated four new Cardinals, whereof two were his Nephews. The Cardinals 
The Cardinals withdrawing from Gregory.  incensed at the Actions of Gregory, deserted him: John Cardinal of Liege, a Norman, was the first that left him: His Goods were soon Plundered by the Pope's Nephews: The other Cardinals followed his Example, and by degrees the Pope was left alone with his four Cardinals, in spite of the Prohibitions which he made the Cardinals not to leave him, and the Censures, he pronounced against them, to which they opposed Writings, whereby they rendered his Conduct odious.  
The First Act which they made, being come to Pisa, was an Act of Appeal the 15th. of 
The Cardinal's Act of Appeal.  May, from the Three Orders which Gregory had made at Lucca. 1. Not to departed that City without his Leave. 2. Not to meet together. 3. Not to have any Communication with the Ambassadors of Peter de la Lune, or the French. They make appear the Injustice of these Decrees, and Appeal from them to a Pope better informed, to JESUS CHRIST, to a General Council, and to the next Pope. On the day after, they directed a Circular Letter, to the Princes and Prelates of Christendom; wherein they set forth, That having observed Gregory to evade the Union, that he would have made an Attempt upon their Persons, that he had forbid them to have any Communication with the Ambassadors of Peter de la Lune, and the King of France, and in fine, that he had created Cardinals; they withdrew on the 11th. of the Month from the City of Lucca, and were come to Pisa, with Design to promote the Union of the Church, and exhort them to agree to their Design.  
Gregory on his part, ordered Proceed by Cardinal Anthony his Nephew, and his Chamberlain, 
The Proceed of Gregory against the Cardinals that withdrew.  whom he made a Commissioner on that behalf, against the Cardinals, the other Prelates and Officers of the Court of Rome, who were at Pisa, who published two Mandates, the one on the 17th. of May, the other the 16th. of June, by which he ordered, That all such, as returned not to Lucca by a time prefixed, should be deprived of all their Dignities, and Benefices: Which Punishment he declared, they had incurred, by his Sentence pronounced on the Third of July, and Posted up the Day following. The Cardinals and Officers of the Court of Rome appealed from these Proceed, and declared by an Act made at Leghorn, the First of July, That it was Necessary to withdraw from the Obedience of Gregory; That all his Adherents and Favourers, carried on the Schism; That all the Warrants and Grants, and in general whatever he had done as Pope, is of no Validity; That they would cause it so to be declared by the future Pope; That they Prayed and Exhorted all the Prelates, and other Clergymen, or Tenants of the Church of Rome, to Pay in no Money to him, or into the Apostolic Chamber, promising Recompense to such as shall, or have been deprived of their Benefices or Offices, for withdrawing from the Obedience of Gregory.  
While all these Matters passed in Italy, the King of France, to reduce Benedict, sent to him in 
Benedict's affronting Bulls sent to the King of France.  the beginning of the Year two Ambassadors, John de Chateaumorant, and John de Toursay, to declare to him, That if on Ascension-Day next, the Union were not re-established in the Church, that neither he, nor his Clergy, nor any of his Subjects should obey either him, or his Adversary; but would stand Neuters. Benedict was extremely troubled at this Message, and gave in Answer to the Ambassadors, That he should let the King know his Mind by the Persons, which he would send to him: And indeed, in a little time after, he sent two Couriers to the King, who arrived at Paris on the 14th. of May, and presented to his Majesty a Bull written at Porto-Venere the 18th. of April; by which he declared to him, That if he put in Execution the Neutrality he had projected, he would not only incur the Penalties of the Law; but also those mentioned in the Bull, which he sent to him, to acquit himself of his Duty towards God. This latter Bull was dated the 19th. of May, in the preceding Year, and it Prohibited all Christian People to Authorise or Approve the Substraction, or to Appeal in any manner from the Decrees of the Pope, under Pain of Excommunication, of Interdiction, of Deprivation of Dignities and Benefices, and likewise, as to the Laity, of their Goods and Estates. The Couriers, who brought these Bulls delivered them to the King fast sealed, and withdrew before they were opened. The King 
The Proceed against Benedict and his Bulls.  having called to him the Princes, made them be broke open in their Presence; and after they had been read, it was deliberated by the space of three Days, what was hereupon to be done. On Monday 21st. of the same Month, the King sent for the Princes, the Lords, the Parliament, the Prelates and the University, heard the Harangue, which was made in the presence of the People by John Courtecuisse Doctor of Divinity, who having taken for his Text these words, Convertetur dolor ejus in caput ejus, etc. declaimed against the Conduct of Benedict, and shown, that his Bulls were Unjust, and that they deserved to be condemned and torn to pieces, seeing they tended to perpetuate the Schism, to vilify the Authority of the King, and to divest him of his Power. He accused Peter de la Lune to have said, That though all Christendom should be of Opinion for the Session, he would not change his Resolution, and to have threatened France with great Misery, in case of the Substraction. He maintained next, That Peter de la Lune was a Schismatic and a Heretic; that he deserved, not only to be deprived of the Papacy, but likewise to be dispossessed of all Ecclesiastical Dignities; That he ought not to be called Pope any more, nor be obeyed; That all the Gifts and Grants, which he had passed since the Third of May, of the preceding Year, were actually Void, and that they ought to be proceeded against, who upheld, or assisted him in France, as against Persons guilty of Treason. When John de Courtecuisse had ended his Discourse, another Person of the University made five Demands of the King, and his Council for the Good of the Church, the Preservation of the Peace of the Kingdom, and the Honour of the Crown. The First, That there be Examination had touching these Bulls, and that all those be Arrested, who shall be found to have supported, or entertained the Followers of Peter de la Lune, or taken his part, as there are many in the Kingdom, whom the University would Name to the King in time and place. The Second, That the King would receive no Letter from Peter de la Lune. The Third, That it would please the King to enjoin the University to Preach the Truth of this Doctrine through his whole Kingdom. The Fourth, That the Bishop of St. Flour be recalled from his Embassy, and that the Dean of St. German of Auxerre and of St. Lupus, be Punished. The Fifth, That the Letter in form of a Bull be torn, as giving a Wound to the Faith, and being injurious, seditious, and offensive to his Royal Majesty. The King approved of the Demands of the University, ordered the Dean of St. German of Auxerre to be Arrested immediately, took the Bull, and sent it to his Chancellor. The Chancellor caused it to be torn into Three Pieces; whereof one was given to the King, the other to the Princes and the Council, and the third to the Clergymen, who pulled it to pieces. The next day the King sent Order to Marshal Baucicaut, who was at Genoa, to seize, by any means, the Person of Peter de la Lune; recalled the Bishop of St. Flour, whom he had sent to the King of Spain to persuade him to the Neutrality; because some had written to him, that in stead of following his Instructions, he had acted contrary: He sent for the Archbishop of Rheims, the Bishop of Cambray (Peter d'Ailly) and several others, who were taxed with adhering to Peter de la Lune; but they obeyed not, fearing to be put in Prison: Some were Arrested, viz. the Bishop of Gap, the Abbot of St. Denys, some Canons of Paris, and other Persons, who were kept Prisoners in the Lovure, as guilty of High Treason, for having had Cognisance of these Bulls, and not discovering it to the King. They made search for the two Couriers, that brought them; one of them a Castilian, was taken about Lions; and the other named Sancius Lupus, an Arragonian, was Arrested in the Church of St. Clairvaux; and both of them being brought back to Paris, they acquitted some that were accused, affirming positively, that they knew nothing of the Contents of those Bulls; nevertheless the Commissioners, who were Members of the University, left not off the pursuit of the Process, and kept them long in Prison.  
After this, the King caused the Neutrality to be Published; that is to say, the Substraction 
The Publication of the Neutrality in France.  of Obedience to the two Adverse Popes, wrote to the Christian Princes, and sent them Ambassadors to exhort them to take this Method, which was accepted by the Germans, Hungarians, and Bohemians. The King wrote likewise on the 22. of May, to the Cardinals on Gregory's side, to meet together with those of Benedicts, in order to cure the Schism, and the University of Paris wrote a very Eloquent Letter to one and tother, wherein they are exhorted to procure Peace to the Church; by choosing one absolute Pope by common Consent. This Letter bears Date the 29th. of May. The two Colleges answered the King, and the University, that they had taken up this Resolution before the receipt of their Letters; and that they were assembled to put it in Execution. Their Letter is dated from Leghorn on the last of June. Nevertheless, the King on the 18th. of the same Month, by his Letters Patents published to all his Subjects his Commands, that they should not regard any Bulls, or Letters sent by Benedict, since the Date of the injurious Bulls, to present, receive or perform them.  
The two Contending Popes, then found themselves very much entangled: Gregory desirous 
Gregory and Benedict appoint Councils, and the Cardinals likewise do it at Pisa.  to lay the Fault on Benedict, wrote a Circular Letter to all the Faithful on the 20th. of June, to insinuate, that it was not his Fault, but Benedicts, that the Union was not settled. Also to elude the Design of the Cardinals, he called a Council at Aquileia, by his Letters of the 2d. of July; and having passed the Winter at Sienna, and Ariminum, where he created some Cardinals, he came to this City about Easter in the following Year, and there held a kind of a Council, made up of a very small number of Prelates. Benedict seeing himself deserted by the French, took a Resolution to retreat to the Kingdom of Arragon, and left Porto-Venere in the beginning of June, having written a Letter to Gregory, wherein he protested it was not his Fault that the Union was concluded; from whence he proceeded to Perpignan, and Assembled a Council of the Prelates of Spain and Catalonia, who owned him, and declared him the true Catholic Vicar of JESUS CHRIST, who had never been a Schismatic or Heretic; commended the Design he had to procure an Union, even by the way of Session, yet not excluding other Methods; besought him to extend the Promise of Session to the Case, that his Adversary should be deposed, and to send Ambassadors to the Cardinals, who were at Pisa, to find out means of procuring the Union. Benedict was accompanied only by Four Cardinals, Eight or Nine others deserted him, and went to Leghorn or Pisa, to find the Cardinals of Gregory, and consulted with them to Assemble a Council of such as were Subject to both Popes in a free place, to procure Peace to the Church. At last they pitched on Pisa, which was granted them by the Florentines; where they declared a Council to be held at the Feast of the Annunciation, the Year following. The Cardinals of the two Colleges assembled the Prelates of their respective Parties thither, and cited to the Council the two Competitors.  
Nevertheless, the King of France called together the Prelates of his Kingdom, in the Chapel 
An Assembly of the Prelates of France, which made Rules for the time of the Neutrality.  of his Palace at Paris, to order the manner in which the Church of France should be Governed during the Neutrality. The Archbishop of Sens presided in this Assembly, which continued from the 11th. of the Month of August, until the 5th. of November, and therein they made the following Rules; 1. That the Absolution from Excommunications, reserved of right to the Pope, shall be given by the Penitentiary of the Holy Apostolic See; and in case there be any difficulty, whereby they cannot have recourse to him, then by the Ordinary. 2. That as to Dispensations for Disorders, which the Penitentiary has Power to grant, Application shall be made to him; or, if that cannot be done, to the Bishop. 3. That for Dispensations with Impediments of Marriage, an Address shall be made to the Penitentiary, or to a Provincial Council. 4. That the Elections of Bishops shall be confirmed by the Metropolitans; or in case the Holy See of the Metropolis be Vacant, by the Chapter of the Metropolitan-Church, and the Election of Archbishops, by the Primates, or by a Council of the Bishops of the Province, to whom it belongs to consecrate the Archbishops, on condition nevertheless that he shall not take the Pall, if there be found no Person, who hath a right to give it him: And that the Elections of Abbots of Monasteries, even the Exempt, shall be confirmed by the Ordinaries, who shall likewise give the Benediction to them that are Elected. 5. That the Dispensations hitherto granted by Peter de la Lune shall be available, and may be put in Execution. 6. That the Metropolitans shall every Year assemble a Council of the Bishops of their Province, wherein they shall all be obliged to assist, and tarry there for a Month; that the Monks of the Order of St. Benedict, and Canons Regulars shall likewise hold Provincial Chapters, every Year. 7. That in all Appeals, there shall be observed the Degrees of Jurisdiction; and if the Suit be Commenced before the Archbishop, Appeal shall be made to the Provincial Council, which shall nominate Commissioners, from whose Judgement Appeal may again be made to the Council, which may again appoint other Commissioners, to give a Definitive Sentence; so that nevertheless the three Sentences may agree: That in case of Appeal, in expectance, till the Provincial Council meets, the Dean of the Bishops shall have Power to give the Excommunicate Absolution ad Cautelam; that all Appeals and Causes, which were brought to the Apostolic Holy See, may be referred to a Provincial Council, and determined by Commissioners of their Appointment, and the Affairs of the Order of Cluniacks by their General Chapter; and that no notice be taken of any Appeals made to the Court of Rome, during the Neutrality: That nevertheless, the Sentences given at the Court of Rome before the Publishing of the Neutrality, may be executed within a Month. 8. That all Proceed in the Judgement of Matters shall be according to the Direction of the Common-Law, and not according to the Rules of Chancery; nevertheless, the Judgement of Ecclesiastical Causes may not be referred to a Secular Court. 9 That Elections, Gifts, Presentations, Nominations to Benefices, shall be made by such as of right they belong to; That the University shall keep a Record of all such as are presented to Benefices, wherein shall not be comprised those worth Four Hundred Livres a Year; unless they have annexed some Title, or Dignity. 10. That all the Revenues of Benefices in France, possessed by those, who are in the Service of Peter de la Lune, shall be seized and put into the King's Hands, to be employed in the Prosecution of the Union. This Assembly confirmed the Election of Lewis d' Harcourt, to the Archbishopric of Rouen, made by the Chapter of that Church, and the Change made by the Bishops of Tharbes, and Treguier; and declared the Grant, which Benedict had made of the Archbishopric of Ausch, to one of his Creatures, void. It was said in Conclusion of these Rules, which they made, Saving the Rights of the Crown, and the Liberties of the Gallican Church; Saving likewise the respect due to the Apostolic Holy See, and to the next Lawful Pope, Clave non errante. There were nevertheless some Prelates, who disapproved them, and Guy de Roye, Archbishop of Rheims had the Confidence to write to the Bishops of the Assembly, that the Neutrality they had published, was Nonsense; Protested, that he would not admit it, that he believed what the Council had done without the Authority of the Holy See, could be of no force; and he advised them to meet at the Council, which Peter de la Lune was to hold at Perpignan. The Prelates of the Assembly were highly incensed with this Writing, and the University obtained an Order of the King to fetch this Prelate; but he would not obey it, alleging, That as First Peer of France, he owned no Judge above him but the King. The University likewise obtained of the King, that Peter d' Ailly Bishop of Cambray, who had sided with Benedict, should be Arrested and brought to Paris, by the Earl of St. Pol: But this Prelate prevented that Compulsion, by getting a Protection of the King, and referring his Cause to the Court.  
While the Assembly was Sitting, Sancus Lupus and the Courier of Benedict, who had been 
The Punishment of Benedict's Couriers.  Arrested, having been convicted of bringing the Abusive Bulls to the King and State, were Condemned, on the 20th. of August, by the Commissioners, and in Execution of the Sentence, being attired with Paper-Mitres, and Coats of black Cloth, on which were Painted the Arms of Benedict, reversed; together with Libels, implying, that they were Counterfeits sent from a Traitor, were Conducted in this Equipage on a Dung-Cart from the Lovure to the Palace, accompanied with such, as had been accused of favouring them; and there they were mounted on a Scaffold, where they served for a Show to the People. On the next day, they were brought again in the same Posture, to the Church-Porch of our Lady, where one of the Commissioners of the Order of the Mathurins, Doctor in Divinity, made an Harangue full of Affronts and Reproaches against Peter de la Lune, and these Wretches; Declared, That Saucius Lupus was Condemned to Perpetual Imprisonment; and the Courier to remain in Prison Three Years. He added, That some others Accused, were also Condemned. But that was not so, and the same Day, the Queen and Duke of Guyenne caused them to be yielded up to the Bishop of Paris, to whom they referred the Cognisance of what concerned the Schism, and to the Court of Parliament the Crime of High Treason. The Bishop of Paris kept them in Custody for a Month, after which he Discharged the Canons; and in a little time, the Queen and Princes made Demand of the others, and set them at Liberty. Thus you see, what passed in France concerning the Schism, to the time of holding a Council at Pisa; whereof we shall treat in the following Century.   

CHAP. V.  
The Lives, and Writings of the Authors which flourished in the Fourteenth Age.  
THE Authors which Flourished in the West in the 14th. Age, having composed Works of the same Nature, and written in the same manner, that the Authors of the foregoing Age did, I will not repeat the Censures here, which I have already passed upon them; but will only set down some particular Remarks, which concern the Authors of this Age.  
The Learning of the Schools is commonly divided into Three Ages. The First, is from Abilardus to Albertus Magnus, the Master of Thomas Aquinas. The Second, from Albertus to Durandus 
Three Ages of Sch●clmen.  à Sancto Porciano, who died in the Year 1333. The Third and Last, from Durandus to Gabriel Biel, who died A. D. 1495. The Famous Divines of the First Age were, Peter Lombard, Robert Pullein, or Pullus, Petrus Pictaviensis, Hugo de Sancto Victore, Raymundus de Pennaforti, Wilhelmus Parisiensis. In the Second Age the School-Learning was not yet reduced to an Act, but they followed the Aristotelian Philosophy, according to the Method of the Followers of Averrhoes. In this Age Albertus Magnus, a Monk of the Order of the Friars-Preachers, and Alexander Hales, of the Order of the Grey-Friars; and after them Thomas Aquinas and Scotus, were the Heads of the two Sects of Schoolmen; who divided all the Schools among them. For after the Monks of these two Orders became the most Eminent in the Universities, and Taught Divinity with greater Diligence and Applause than the Secular Priests, who applied themselves closer to the Civil and Canon-Law, than School-Divinity; their manner of Teaching, and their Opinions were established and settled there in a little time. This gave rise to two Parties or Sects in the Schools; the one followed S. Thomas, and the other Scotus. But some few there were, who endeavoured to make a Third Party, and reviving the Method of the Nominals opposed those Divines, who were the Followers of Averrhoes, or the Realists. Ockam was one of the Heads of this Party. Raymundus Lullius invented a new way of Arguing, but it was so obscure, so extraordinary, and full of Difficulties, that he had but few Followers. Durandus à Sancto Porciano, Bishop of Meaux, was the first that would not tie himself to follow the Principles of any other, but took from both, what he thought best, and so broached many new Opinions. Since his time, the Divines have taken a greater Liberty, and made several Systems for themselves.  
The Study of the Law became more exact in this, than in the former Age. Many excellent 
The Study of the Law.  Wits applied themselves to it, and made great progress in it; and although they accepted the Decretals of the Popes for Law, yet they began to examine them more nearly, and to bring them to Common Right. The Debates about the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power which were much agitated in this Age, gave occasion to search into these Matters, and we must own, that there were many excellent and very learned Treatises written upon that Subject; which are a clear Proof, that the Knowledge and Value of Antiquity was not quite lost in this Age.  
As to the Sermons, Commentaries upon Holy Scripture and History, there was no Alteration in this Age from the former; but the Study of Human Learning, Tongues, and Poetry began to be revived, and came to a great Perfection in the next Age; and at length induced the Divines to apply themselves to the Study of Antiquity. These Reflections being premised, I shall give you a List of the Divines, Canonists, Historians, Writers of Books of Devotion, and other Ecclesiastical Authors, who flourished in the Fourteenth Age of the Church in a Chronological Order.  
Dinus de Mugello, [or Mugellanus] so called from Mugellum, a Town in the Territories of 
Dinu● de ●u●●llo.  Florence, Professor of Law in the University of Bononia, was invited to Rome by Boniface VIII. to Compose the Sixth Book of the Decretals, with a Promise of making him a Cardinal; but being disappointed of his Expectation he died of Melancholy, as is said, in the Year 1●03. He wrote several Books of Civil Law, and a Commentary upon the Rules of the Canon Law, which has been printed at Colen, An. 1569, 1594. and [with some Additions by Nicholas Boerius] 1617. [8]  
Engelbertus, a Germane, Abbot of Admont in Styria, Flourished at the End of the Thirteenth 
Engelbert.  and in the Beginning of the Fourteenth Age. There is a Treatise of his printed at Basil, Anno 1553. and put into the 25th. Tom of the last Part of the Bibliotheca Patrum, Concerning [the Rise] Progress and End of the Roman Empire, and an Heroic Poem, containing an Encomium of Rodolph of Habspurg [the Germane Emperor] made [at his Coronation] Anno 1273. which is also found in most of the Collections of the Germane Historians. Trithemius makes mention of some Sermons written by this Author, and a Treatise of Virtues and Vices. Possevin● also attributes to him several Books of Divinity, viz. A Commentary upon the Psalm, Beati Immaculati. Some Treatises upon the Articles of our Faith. Of the Body of JESUS CHRIST; Of the Passion of our Lord, and the Mystery of the Cross; Of Grace, Salvation, and Justice; Of Damnation; Of freewill; Of the Chief Good; Of Providence; Of the Miracles of JESUS CHRIST; Of the State of the Dead. Upon the Gospel, In Principio; and several other Philosophical Tracts which were preserved in MS. in the Monastery of Admónt. He adds, That there is at Vienna, a Tract in MS. of the same Author, Of the Instruction of a Christian Prince.  
Jacobus Cajetanus, Nephew of Pope Boniface the VIIIth. who was made a Cardinal, An. 1295. 
Jacobus Cajetanus.  wrote a Book concerning the Jubilee every 100th. Year. It was published by Roseus with Notes, and printed in the 13th. Tom of the Bibliotheca Patrum, of the Colen Edition.  
Stephanus de Salagnac, a Monk of the Order of the Preaching-Friars of the Convent of Lymoges; 
Stephanu● de Salagnac.  wrote, as is credible, at the end of the former Age, or beginning of this, A Treatise in Honour of his own Order; alleging Four Things, wherein God had made them principally Eminent, viz. 1. For a Good and Learned Head. 2. For an Illustrious and Noble Family. 3. For an Honourable Name. And 4. For a particular Profession.  
Andrea's Novo-Castrensis, or Andrew of Newcastle, an Englishman, and Dominican-Friar, Doctor 
Andrea's Novo-castrensis.  of Divinity, flourished in the beginning of this Age. He hath composed a Comment upon the First Book of the Sentences, printed at Paris 1514. Bale [Cent. 10. p. 44.] attributes to him a Commentary upon Boethius' Book, De Consolation Philosophiae, or, The Comfort of Philosophy.  
Rainerius Pisanus, or de Pisâ, a Divine, and Lawyer of the same Order, Composed a Book 
Rainerius Pisanus.  which is entitled Pantheologia, or a Theological Dictionary; in which all Heads of Divinity are disposed and treated on in an Alphabetical Order. Jacobus Florentinus, a Minorite or Grey-Friar, hath added several things to this Work, and caused it to be printed at Noremburg in 1473. He also printed it in the same manner at Venice in 1486. at Lions in 1519. at Bresse in 1580. and since it hath been printed at Paris, with the Additions of Father Nicholas, a White-Friar.  
William de Nangis, or de Nangiaco, a Monk of S. Denys [at Paris] hath Composed a Chronicle 
William de Nangis.  from the beginning of the World to the Year 1301. But because the greatest Part of that Work was Copied from other Authors; Father Luke Dacherius in the 11th. Tom of his Spicilegium hath printed it no further, than to the Year 1113. where he gins his Continuations, which he hath made out of Sigebert of Gemblours, as far as the Year 1301. adding something more out of two other Authors; the one as far as 1340. and the other to 1348. This Author hath also written a Chronicle of the Kings of France, the Lives of S. Lewis, and Philip the Hardy; which are also found in the Collections of the French Historians put out by Pithaeus and Du-Chesne.  
Thomas Wicke, a Canon Regular of S. Augustine, of the Abbey of Osney in England; who flourished 
Thomas Wicke.  in the Reign of Edward I. hath a Chronicle of the History of England, from the coming of William the Conqueror in 1066. to the Death of Edward I. in 1304. This Work is found in the last Collection of the English Historians, printed at Oxford in 1687. He also wrote a Tract of the Abbots of Osney from the Foundation of that Abbey, which was in 1129. to the Year 1290.  
Henry Stero, a Germane, and a ●enedictin Monk of the Abbey of Altaich, Composed certain 
Henry Stero.  Annals from the first Year of the Emperor Frederick Barberossa, which was in the Year of Christ 1152. to the Election of the Emperor Rodolphus in the Year 1273. and the History of the Emperors Rodolphus of Habspurg, Adolphus of Nassan, and Albert of Austria, from the Year 1273. to the Year 1305. which was carried on by two Germane Monks. These Works are found among the Germane Writers put out by Friherus, and the more large Annals in the First Tome of Canisius' Antiquities.  
Eberardus, a Monk of the same Monastery, and Archdeacon of Ratisbone, hath continued 
Eberardus a Monk.  these Annals of Stero as far as 1305. taking almost all he has writ out of the same Author. This Work is in the first Tome of Canisius' Collection.  
Joannes de Joinville Governor of Champagne, is the Author of the Life of S. Lewis, whom he 
Joannes de Joinville.  accompanied in his Expedition to the Holy Land. It hath been printed several times in French; but the best Edition is that put out by the Learned Mr. Du-Cange, printed by Cramoisy, An. 1668. Joinville lived till about 1310.  
Siffridus, a Priest of Misnia in Saxony, is a different Person from him, though of the same 
Siffridus, a Priest of Misnia.  Name, who was of the Order of the Friars-Preachers, and who flourished at the end of the Fifteenth Age. This of whom we are now speaking, lived in the beginning of the Fourteenth Age. He Composed a Chronicle from the beginning of the World to the Year 1307. But Georgius Fabricius who first published it at the end of his History of Saxony, Printed at Leipsick 1569. and at Jena 1598. hath pared off all the Years, which preceded 457. It is found in the same manner printed among the Germane Historians, put out by Pistorius.  
Haito or Aito, a Prince of the Family of the Kings of Armenia, after he had made War with the Infidels, entered the Order of the Praemonstratenses about the Year 1290. and professed in a 
Haito, a Praemonstratensis.  Monastery of that Order in the Isle of Cyprus, as he himself tells us in his History of his Voyage into the Holy Land; which he wrote in French in the Year 1307. and was translated into Latin by Nicholas Fulke, and printed at Haguenau 1529. at Basil among the Historians of the New World in 1532, and 1555. and at Helmstadt 1585. in the Second Part of the Authors of the History of Jerusalem, printed by Reineccius, [and in Italian at Venice 1553.]  
John the Monk, Surnamed Descranches, a Native of Cressy near Abbeville, a Learned Canonist, 
John the Monk, a Cardinal.  was raised to the Dignity of a Cardinal-Priest of the Title of S. Marcellinus, and S. Peter, in the Year 1294. He Founded a College of his own Name at Paris in the Year 1302. He was appointed Legate by Pope Boniface, in the Contest he had with Philip the Fair. He died at Avignon the 22d. of August 1313. He is the Author of the Apparatus, or Commentary upon the 6th. Book of the Decretals printed at Paris 1535. and at Venice 1586. with the Additions of Probus.  
William Paris, of the Order of Friars-Preachers, who was constituted Inquisitor in France by 
William of Paris, a Dominican.  Clement V and who drew up the Process against the Templars, is the Author of the Dialogues upon the Seven Sacraments, printed at Lipsick in 1512. at Lions in 1567. under the Name of William Bishop of Paris, and a postil upon the Epistles and Gospels of the Year, printed at Paris in 1509. and at Strasburg in 1513. and 1521.  
The two Dominicans called Joannes Parisiensis, both Doctors and Professors of Divinity of 
John of Paris, a Dominican.  the Faculty in Paris must be distinguished. The former lived in the Thirteenth Age, about the Year 1220. He was Surnamed Pungens Asinum, the Ass-pricker, and is mentioned by Joannes de Salagnac, speaking of the Authors of his Order, who lived before the time of S. Thomas. He Founded two Chapels to S. Eustathius, and is meant in an Information made in 1221. as the Records of those times make it evident. It is undoubtedly he that Composed the Commentary upon the Sentences, of which Trithemius speaks. The other John of Paris was not a Licentiate in Divinity, till 1304. when he brought himself into a great deal of Trouble, by asserting, That Transubstantiation was not a Point of Faith, and that the Real Presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament might be explained after another manner, viz. By supposing, that the Bread being united with the Word, mediante corpore Christi, becomes the Body of Christ, or that the Change be made after some other manner. This new Doctrine, which had never been taught in the Schools of Paris before, made a great Noise, and was opposed by Three other Divines, who maintained, That Transubstantiation was an Article of Faith, according to the Decretal in the Chapter, Firmiter. John of Paris nevertheless maintained his Opinion with great Resolution; and not only wrote a Book to prove it, but defended it several times before many Doctors, and Bachelors of Divinity; and more particularly, before William D' Orillac Bishop of Paris, who having examined that Doctrine, and taken advice with Giles of Rome, Archbishop of Bourges, Bertrandus Bishop of Orleans, William Bishop of Amiens, and several other Doctors, enjoined Silence to Friar John of Paris, under the Penalty of Excommunication, and strictly forbid him to Teach or Preach any more in Paris. John of Paris appealed from this Sentence to the Court of Rome, and went to Pope Clement V then at Bourdeaux, who appointed him Judges; but he died before the Matter was decided upon S. Maurice's Day [Jan. 15.] 1306. The Book which John of Paris wrote about Transubstantiation, was Entitled, The Determination of Friar John of Paris, Preacher of the Manner, how the Body of Jesus Christ is in the Sacrament of the Altar [different, from that, which hath been commonly held in the Church.] 'Tis nothing else, but the very same Explication of his Opinion, which he delivers to the Assembly of the Doctors of Divinity abovementioned. It was found in MS. in the Library of S. Victor, and has been often quoted about that Point by the Authors of the Reformed Religion. It hath lately been published by Mr. D Allix entire [with a large and learned Preface] and printed at London in 1686. There is a Treatise concerning the Regal, and Papal Power, printed at Paris in the Year 1506. and in the Collection of Goldastus' [Monarchia S. Rom. Imp. Tom. 2. p. 107.] which bears the Name of John of Paris. It was written upon the Account of the Difference between Pope Boniface VIII. and Philip the Fair. This Author observes in his Preface, that they, who seek to avoid one Error often fall into another; and thereupon brings an Example from the Controversy, which was between the Monks and Seculars concerning Confession, and the Administration of the Sacraments; The one, saith he, asserted, That the Monks ought not to meddle with them at all, because they renounced all Secular Affairs: The other said, That they properly belonged to them by their Order. The Truth lies in the middle between these two Errors, which is, That it is not altogether unfit that they should do it, although they have no right to it upon the account of their Order. And much the same thing happens in this Question about the Spiritual and Temporal Power, concerning which there are contrary Errors. The first of them is the Error of the Waldenses, who hold, that Clergymen ought not to have any Power or Temporal Estates; the other is something like the Opinion of Herod, who thought that Jesus Christ was Born to be an Earthly King; so these Men suppose, that the Pope as Pope, hath a Power in Temporal Things above Kings. The True Opinion lies between these two Errors, and is this; That the Successors of the Apostles may exercise a Temporal Jurisdiction, and enjoy Temporal Estates by the Allowance and Grant of Princes; but it does not belong to them as the Vicars of Jesus Christ, and Successors of the Apostle. To prove this Proposition, he shows, 1. That the Regal Power is founded upon the Law of Nature, and Law of Nations. 2. That the Priesthood is a Spiritual Power given by Jesus Christ to his Church, to Administer Sacraments. 3. That 'tis not Necessary, that all the Kings upon Earth should depend upon one Person only, as all the Ministers of the Church upon one Head. 4. That the Regal Power was erected before the Priesthood in time; but the Priesthood is before the Regal Power in Dignity. 5. That the Pope has not the sole Jurisdiction over the Church's Revenues, but they belong to Bodies, and Societies, which possess them; and that the Pope can't dispose of them as he pleaseth, nor deprive the Owners of them without a just Cause; That he may much less dispose of the Goods of Laymen, but only in case of urgent Necessity to use censures to oblige them to assist and help the Poor, or the Church in their Needs. 6. That he hath no Jurisdiction over the Temporal Goods of Laymen, nor any Secular Power; because Jesus Christ as Head of the Church had none himself, nor did give any to his Apostles; but all the Power, that he has given to the Church, is purely Spiritual; yea, even that which belongs to the Exterior Ecclesiastical Court, which may concern itself only in Spiritual Causes; That the Pope may indeed Excommunicate an Heretic King, and inflict Ecclesiastical Censures on him, but cannot depose him. He Answers all the Objections that may be made to this Doctrine, and at last shows, that the Pope may be judged, and may either resign, or be deposed.  
Besides these Treatises of John of Paris, Mr. Baluzius assures us, that there are in the Library of Mr. Colbert, Cod. 3725. three Sermons preached by this Monk at Paris; the one in Advent, the other on the Second Sunday in Lent, and the Third on the First Sunday after Easter. Some Englishmen also tell us, That there is in the Library at Oxford, a MSS. which contains a Treatise, which proves the Truth of the Christian Religion from the Testimony of the Heathens, and some other Treatises about the Confessions of Monks. Some also attribute to him a Book, Entitled, The Correction of the Doctrine of S. Thomas, against William de la Mare; printed under the Name of Aegidius Romanus, or de Columna. It is credible, that he did Compose a Book of that Title; but there is no reason to believe it that which is printed in the Name of Aegidius.  
About the same time flourished John of Paris, an Englishman and Canon-Regular of S. Victor 
John of Paris, a Canon-Regular.  at Paris, who Composed an History, Entitled, Historical Memoirs, or the Flowers of History to the Year 1322. which is found in a MSS. in the Library of S. Victor, and in some Libraries in England, [particularly in Bennet-College Library.] Mr. Duchesne hath published some Fragments of it in the First Tome of the French Historians, [and Miraeus has put several Parts of it into his Chronicon.]  
Thomas Joisius, or Joyce, an Englishman, a Monk of the Order of Friars-Preachers, and a 
Thomas Joyce, Cardinal.  Scholar of Albertus Magnus, Confessor and Counsellor of State to King Edward, and at last promoted to be a Cardinal by the Title of S. Sabina, in the Year 1305. by Pope Clement V died at Grenoble Decemb. 1310. as he was going in an Embassy to the Emperor Henry. We have observed in the last Age, that there are several Commentaries upon Holy Scripture, printed under the Name of S. Thomas, which belong to this Author: Besides these, there is a Work printed under his own Name, Entitled, Opus Aureum, a Golden Work upon Seven Psalms [C. 27.] at Venice in 1611. and a Commentary upon S. Augustine, De civitate Dei, or the City of God, printed at Tholouse 1488. Some other Commentaries upon the Holy Scripture, and other Treatises, are found with his Name in the Libraries [of New-College, Cod. 90. Magdalen-College, Cod. 47. Merton, Cod. 200. and Exeter-College, Cod. 25. in Oxford; and Pembroke. Hall, Cod. 46. Peterhouse, Cod. 87. & 99 and the Public Library, Cod. 179. at Cambridge] in England.  
Joannes de S. Geminiano, a Monk of the Order of the Friars-Preachers, flourished in the beginning 
Joannes de S. Geminiano, a Monk.  of this Age, and gave himself particularly to Morality and Preaching. His chief Work is, The Sum of Examples and Comparisons, printed at Venice in 1577, and 1582. at Antwerp in 1583, and 1599 at Lions in 1585. and at Cologne 1670. He also Composed some Funeral Sermons, printed at Lions in 1510. and at Paris in 1511. and some Sermons upon Lent, printed at Venice in 1584. and at Cologne in 1612. [Altamura in his Biblioth. Praedicat. reckons up other Writings of his.]  
Jacobus de Benedictis, a Native of Todi [in Italy] of a good Family, being entered into the 
Jacobus de Benedictis, Franciscan.  Order of S. Francis, propounded it as a Design to himself to pass for a Fool and Madman in the Eyes of Men, and make himself despised; which he brought to pass, by delivering several strange Revelations, and by publicly reproving the Life of Pope Boniface, who put him in Prison in the City of Praeneste, where he died in the Year 1306. He cannot be accounted an Ecclesiastical Writer, but upon the account of some Hymns both in Verse and Prose, which he Composed in a very uncouth Style, divided into Seven Books, which have been published by Francis Fresatus a Grey-Friar, who caused them to be printed at Rome in 1558. and since at Venice 1617. Some attribute to him a Piece of Prose beginning with these words, Stabat mater dolorosa, and another Hymn, De contemptu Mundi; which gins thus, Cur mundus militat sub variâ gloriâ, Raderus hath inserted some Sentences, and wholesome Admonitions attributed to this Author in his Viridarium Sanctorum.  
Justus, an Abbot of the Cistertian Order, who flourished in the beginning of this Age, is the Author 
Justus, a Cistertian.  of a Sermon pronounced in an Assembly of his own Order, printed by itself at Paris, and in the 14th. Tom of the Bibliotheca Patrum, put out at Cologne.  
Joannes Duns, Surnamed Scotus, and called commonly Doctor Subtilis, or the Subtle Doctor, 
Joannes Duns Scotus, a Grey-Friar.  was the Author of a New Sect of Schoolmen, and taught Principles different from those of S. Thomas; which were followed by the Divines of the Order of Grey-Friars, of which he was himself. It is disputed, whether he was an Englishman, Scotchman, or Irishman. They, who hold him to have been an Englishman, say, he was of Dunston in Northumberland; but they, who make him an Irishman, lay the place of his Nativity at Down, a City in Ulster in Ireland; and they, who will have him a Scotchman, make him a Native of Duns, a Village Eight Miles distant from the Confines of England. He entered very young into the Convent of the Grey-Friars at Newcastle in England, and attended his Studies at Oxford, where he taught Divinity afterward. He went into France in the beginning of the Fourteenth Age, and read Lectures at Paris after he had taken his Degrees. Some have written, That he there maintained the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary in a Public Conference; and that he defended it so strongly, that the University of Paris being convinced of it, made an Order, that all her Members should maintain that Doctrine, and engaged them by Oath so to do. But this is a false Story; for it is evident that the Decree of the University, was not made till the Year 1496. after the Meeting of the Council of Basil; and besides, Scotus did not propound the Opinion of the Immaculate Conception, as the certain Doctrine of his time; but with some doubt about it. For after he hath put the Question in his Third Distinction upon the Thirteenth Book of the Sentences, viz. Qu. 1. Whether the Virgin was conceived without Original Sin? He answers in Three Propositions; 1. That God could have caused her to be Born without Original Sin. 2. That he could have caused, that she should not continue in Original Sin one moment. 3. That he could have caused, that she should have remained in it for some time; and then in the last instant of that time have purified her from it. After he has proved these three Propositions, he concludes, That none but God can know, which of these three Things are possible to be done; that it seems nevertheless most probable to him, that that which is most perfect be attributed to the Virgin; provided, that it be not contrary to the Authority of the Church, nor Holy Scripture. In this manner did Scotus propound his Sentiments of the Immaculate Conception: From Paris he went to Cologne, where he died a little after of the Falling Sickness, or rather of an Apoplexy, Nou. 8. 1308. in the 43d. Year of his Age, according to some, but 34 according to others. What some writ concerning him, that he was Buried in a Fit of the Falling Sickness, and being recovered and come to himself, had turned himself in his Grave, is a Fable that hath 
His Works in Twelve Volumes.  no likelihood; as Waddingus hath proved, who hath published his Life and Works, and printed them in Twelve Volumes at Lions, in 1639.  
The First Tome contains the Life of Scotus, and the Testimonies of Eminent Men about his Works; his Speculative Grammar, which some have falsely attributed to Albert of Saxony; a Monk of the Order of S. Augustine; His large Questions upon all Logic, with the Commentaries of Maurice de Porto, Archbishop of Tuam, which were before printed at Venice, in 1512. and 1600.  
The Second Tome contains his Commentaries upon the Eight Books of Aristotle's Physics, with the Notes of Francis de Pitigianis of Aretium [in Italy] which had been printed before at Venice, in 1504 and 1597. and after at Lions [1597.] Lucas Waddingus proves, that they are not Scotus'. There are in the same Tome some imperfect Questions upon Aristotle's Books de Animâ. With the Notes of Hugh cavel, Archbishop of Armagh.  
The Third Tome contains divers Treatises of Philosophy.  
The Fourth Tome has his Commentaries upon Aristotle's Physics, with his Metaphysical Conclusions and Questions.  
The Six following Tomes contain his Commentaries upon the Four Books of the Sentences, which he made at Oxford; with the Notes of cavel, Lichet, Poncius, and Hiquaeus. These Books had been printed before at Venice in 1516. and 1597. at Antwerp in 1620. and elsewhere.  
The Eleventh Tome contains Four Books called, Reportata Parisiensia; which are an Abridgement made at Paris of his Larger Comment, with the Notes of cavel and Waddingus; who observes that this Work is much inferior to the former in Style and Doctrine. It hath been printed by itself at Paris in 1519. and 1600, and at Venice in 1597.  
The last Tome contains his Quodlibetical Questions, with the Notes of cavel and Lichet, which had been before printed at Paris in 1519.  
Trithemius makes mention of some Sermons of Scotus' upon Time and upon the Saints, a Commentary upon the Gospels and Epistles of S. Paul, with some other Treatises. Bale also attributes to him a Commentary upon Genesis, a Treatise of the Perfection of the Monks, in which this Question is treated of, Whether the Condition of Prelates ought to be preferred before the State of Monks [but time must bring them forth to light, with many others Works, which lie yet undiscovered.]  
The Famous Raimundus Lullus, descended of a Noble Family in Catalonia, was Born in the 
Raimundus Lullus.  Isle of Majorca, in the Year 1236. He spent the first part of his Life in the Court of [James] King of that Isle, and did not retire from the World, till he was Forty years old, to enter (which is hardly credible) into the Order of Grey-Friars. From that time he began to Study with so great Diligence, that in a little time he made a great Progress in the Oriental Tongues, and Liberal Sciences. He found out afterward a New Method of Arguing, and did all he could to get a Permission to teach at Rome; but not obtaining it of Pope Honorius IU. he resolved to put in execution a Design, which he had of a long time conceived, to Convert the Mahometans. Being therefore arrived according to this Resolution at Tunis, he had a Conference there with the Saracens, in which he was in great danger of losing his Life, and had not been saved, but upon Condition that he should departed out of Africa; and if ever he returned should be put to Death. He then came to Naples, where he taught his Method till the Year 1290. when he went again to Rome 〈…〉 get Leave to teach in that City; but Beniface VIII. who was then in the Holy See, de●… him. From thence he went to Genoa, where he Composed several Works; and passing from thence through Majorca, he came to Paris, where he taught his Art: Then he returned to Majorca, where he had frequent Disputations against the Saracens, Jacobites and Nestorians. Then he returned to Genoa and Paris, to confirm his Disciples in his Doctrine, and again desired a Permission of Pope Clement V to teach at Rome, and being again refused, he returned into afric, where he was put in Prison; but being delivered from thence at the entreaty of the People of Genoa, he Landed at Pisa, having lost all his Books in his Voyage by a Shipwreck. He then set himself to Preach up the Holy War, and having gathered a good Sum of Money in Italy for that end, he came to Pope Clement V at Avignon; but not meeting with a kind Reception from him, he returned to Paris, where he taught, till the Council of Vienna; to which he went, and was earnest with them to establish Colleges in all places, where he had taught the Oriental Tongues, to Unite all the Military Orders of Monks into One, to undertake the Holy War, and to Condemn the Writings of Averrhoes; but these Propositions were not regarded by the Council. The rest of his Life is very fabulous. Some say, that after he had traveled into France and Spain, and Sailed into England [to solicit those Kings to undertake the Holy War] where he exercised Chemistry; he returned into Majorca, from whence he again passed into Africa, and was Imprisoned there by the Saracens; who treated him so ill, that he died of his Blows, as he returned in a Genoa Ship, June 29. 1315. in the 80th. Year of his Age.  
The Knowledge and Learning of Raimundus Lullus was as extraordinary, as his Life. He found a Secret, by ranging certain general Terms under different Heads in a Method, which he had contrived, to make such an hotchpotch Language fit to talk of all manner of Things, and yet the Hearers shall understand nothing particularly by it; So that after a Man has heard a Lullist talk a long time upon any Matter, he is no wiser, nor learned, than he was before. They, that will take the Pains to learn this Method, may read his Introduction, which is the First of his Works; and his Cabala, which is his Second; in which he explains himself in a brief manner. He has written also his Principles of Philosophy, which are nothing else but Logic, accommodated to his Method; his Rhetoric; his Great Art, which contains an Application of his Method to all sorts of Subjects; His Book of the Articles of Faith, in which he proves Religion by Reason: These Works are printed with some Commentaries of the Lullists at Strasburg in 1651. But there are a great Number of other Works written by this Author, printed severally in divers places; and among others, The Philosophy of Love; which is one of his principal Works, Composed in 1298. and printed at Paris in 1516. A Treatise of Substance and Accident, in which he undertakes to prove the Trinity by Reason; Composed in the Year 1313. and printed at Valentia in Spain in 1520. A Tract of the Nativity of Jesus Christ, Composed in 1310. and printed at Paris 1499. His Treatise [called Blanquerna, or] of the Five States of Men, viz. Married, Monks, Prelates, Cardinals, and Popes; printed at Valentia in Spanish, in 1521. A Treatise of Prayers, Meditations, and Contemplations; or, Of the Lover and Loved, printed at Paris in 1505. The Praise of the Virgin, or the Art of Inventions; printed at Paris in 1499. with his Book for the Clergy, and his Treatise Entitled, The Fantastic; in which he makes a Defence for himself, and confutes the title, which some had given him of a Fantastical Person, written in 1311. His Book of Proverbs, printed at Paris in 1516. A Commentary upon the First Chapter of the Gospel of S. John, printed at Amiens in 1511. A Disputation, which he had with [Homerius] a Sarazen, in 1308. printed at Valentia in 1510. The Disputation of Five Learned Men, written in the Year 1294. printed at the same place in 1520. His Questions upon the Four Books of the Sentences Composed in 1298. printed at Lions 1491. and at Palermo in 1507. with the Questions of Mr. Thomas d'Arras resolved according to Art. A Treatise of the Immaculate Conception, printed at Brussels. The Tree of Knowledge, printed at Lions in 1514. and 1515. and several other Philosophical Works printed at other places. For as for those Treatises, Of the Invocation of Daemons, Of the Secrets of Nature, and other Books of Chemistry, printed in several places, they are very Wicked Books, which are none of Raimundus Lullus', but of Raimundus de Tarraga, a Converted Jew; which contain in them many Errors, and manifest Follies. Out of the Works of Raimundus Lullus, Nicholas Eymericus hath Extracted an Hundred Erroneous Propositions, which he Presented to Pope Gregory XI. that they might be Condemned, with all his Works: That Pope caused them to be Examined, and at last Condemned; but Peter King of Arragon wrote to his Holiness to revoke his Sentence; and desired him by a Letter dated Jan. 7. 1377. to send the Examination of the Books of Raimundus Lullus immediately; but it had no effect. As to the Errors which are imputed to him by Eymericus, we must own, that several of the Propositions which he hath recited, may be defended; but some of them are unsufferable, that the Method of Raimundus Lullus, and his way of reasoning, is no way helpful to the Knowledge of things; and that by his Principles, an Error may be maintained as well as the Truth.  
John of Friburg, Surnamed Runsick, a Monk of the Order of the Friars-Preachers, and Bishop 
John of Friburg, Bishop of Osmo.  of Osmo in Hungary, the most able Preacher of his Time, and so Pathetic, that having preached at Bolen against Usury, he made the People drive out all the Usurers of the Town. He flourished in the beginning of this Age, and died in the Year 1314. after he had left his Bishopric, and was retired into a Convent of his own Order. He made a Sum for Preachers, printed at Ruthingia in 1487. A grand Sum for Confessors, divided into Four Parts, printed at Lions in 1518. A Gloss upon the Sums of Raimundus de Pennaforti, which is joined with the Impression of the former Sum [at Rome] in 1603. The Author of the Bibliotheca Praedicatorum [i. e. the Collection of the Authors of the Order of the Friars-Preachers] makes mention of a Commentary of this Author upon the Books of the Sentences, and Glosses upon the Decrees [and some other of his Writings, but they are none of them Public.]  
Aegidius Romanus, or Giles of Rome, of the House of Columnâ, a Monk of the Order of the 
Aegidius Romanus, Archbishop of Bourges.  Hermit's of S. Augustine, Studied at Paris under Thomas Aquinas; whose Doctrines he always held and defended. He was made the Master of Philip the Fair, and taught Philosophy and Divinity in the University of Paris. In the Year 1292. he was constituted General of his Order, and promoted in the Year 1294. by Pope Boniface to the Archbishopric of Bourges, by the consent of Philip the Fair. Some say he was made a Cardinal in 1315. but it is a false Opinion. He died Decemb. 22. 1316. He had made several Books in Philosophy and Divinity, which got him the Name of Doctor Fundatissimus, [the most Well-grounded Doctor.] The Books of his, which are in Print, are, A Question about the Ecclesiastical and Temporal Powers, composed in 1304. upon the occasion of the Difference between King Philip the Fair, and Pope Boniface, containing Six Articles; in which he shows, 1. That God hath established both those Powers. 2. That they are distinct and several. 3. That God, in re-establishing the Spiritual Power, hath not given him any Temporal Dominion. 4. That the Temporal Power is not Subject to the Spiritual, but only in Spiritual Causes. 5. That the King of France holds his Kingdom of none but God, and has no other Superior. He next Answers the Objections brought against this Doctrine. This Treatise is in the Second Tome of Goldastus' Monarchia, p. 95. The Defence of S. Thomas' Books against the Correctory of William de la Maze, printed at Venice in 1601. and 1624. A Treatise upon the Four Books of the Sentences, printed at Basil in 1513. A Commentary upon the First Book of the Sentences, printed at Venice in 1571. Some Questions upon the Second Book of the Sentences, printed in the same City in 1581. Certain Questions upon the Third Book of the Sentences, printed at Rome in 1623. A Treatise of the Being, Essence, Knowledge and Motion of Angels, printed at Venice in 1598. A Tract of Original Sin, printed at Oxford in 1479. A Treatise of the Subject of Divinity, and some other small Tracts, printed at Venice in 1501. A Comment upon the Six days Work of the Creation, printed at Venice in 1521. Three Books of the Government of Princes, made in favour of Philip the Fair, printed at Rome 1482. and at Venice 1598. Bellarmine makes also mention of these following Treatises, written by the same Author, as if they were printed. Nineteen Lectures upon the Song of Songs. A Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans. An Exposition upon the Chapters, Firmiter, & Marthae. A Treatise of the Body of Jesus Christ, or certain Theorems upon the Sacrament of the Altar. A Treatise of the Distinction of the Articles of Faith. A Writing of the Renunciation of the Pope. Another Writing Composed upon the Occasion of a Clerk not worthily promoted to the Office of a Subdeacon. A Question, viz. Whether Kings can dispose of the Goods of their Kingdoms; A Treatise against persons Exempt; A Writing concerning the Influence of God upon the Blessed; Another of the Praises of the Divine Wisdom. A Treatise of the Defect of the Evil of Fault. A Tract of Predestination, Of Prescience, Paradise, and Hell. There is also mention made of all these Works by Trithemius; and besides of a Commentary upon the Epistles of S. Paul, A Treatise of the Office of the Mass, an Abridgement of Divinity, and divers Sermons [but we have not come to the sight of any of them.] I pass over his Philosophical Tracts, both Printed and MSS. which are very numerous; for he Commented upon all the Books of Aristotle, and several other Books. The Works upon the Lord's Prayer, and the Angel's Salutation [of Mary] belong not to Giles of Rome, but some other Author.  
Gulielmus Durantus, or William Durant, the Nephew of the famous Canonist Durantus, Bishop 
Gulielmus Durantus, Bishop of Menda.  of Menda, of whom we have spoken in the last Age, was Archdeacon to his Uncle, and Succeeded him in his Bishopric in 1296. and governed that Church, till 1328. Being Summoned to the Council of Vienna in 1310. by Pope Clement, he composed an Excellent Treatise of the Manner of Celebrating a General Council, divided into Three Parts, in which he hath collected and disposed under several Titles, a great number of Rules out of Councils and Fathers, to reform the Abuses and Disorders of all sorts of States and Conditions, and particularly the Popes and Court of Rome, Prelates, Clergy, and Monks. Philip Probus, a Lawyer of Bourges, caused this Work to be printed at Paris in 1545. and dedicated it to Pope Paul III. to the Cardinals, Bishops, and Abbots, and other Christians, who were to meet in the Council of Trent, as very useful to those, that would endeavour a Reformation of Manners among Christians. It hath been since printed at Paris in 1535. and lastly, in a Collection of several Works of the same Nature; which heretofore Mr. Faure, a Doctor of the Faculty of Divinity in Paris, caused to be printed there by Clous●…r, in 1671.  
The time is not certainly known, when Victor Porchet de Salvaticis, a Carthusian of Genoa flourished; 
Victor Porchet.  but 'tis probable, it was about 1315. He Composed a Treatise, Entitled, A Conquest quest for the Defence of the Christian Religion against the Jews, printed at Paris 1520. by the Care of Augustine Justinian Bishop of Nebio in Corsica. He shows a great deal of Jewish Learning and reading of their Books in it. He has made use of a Book written by Raimundus Martin, called Pugio Fidei, i. e. the Sword of Faith, out of which he owns, that he hath transcribed much of what he has written in that Work.  
Malachias, a Grey-Friar, a Divine of Oxford, and Preacher to Edward II. King of England; 
Malachias.  was in very great Reputation at the beginning of this Age. We have a Treatise of Piety written by him, and printed in 1518. by Henry Stevens, named, Of the Poison of Mortal Sins, and their Cure.  
William le Mair, or Gulielmus Major, a Penitentiary and afterwards Bishop of Angers, governed 
William Major.  the Church of that City from 1290. to 1314. in which Year he died. He wrote an History of what passed in his Church, while he was Bishop, published by Mr. Luke Dacherius in the Tenth Tome of his Spicilegium, p. 247. and has made a Collection of the Synodal Orders and Decrees of his Predecessor Nicholas Gelant and of his own, made in the Synods held twice a Year, viz. at the Feast of Pentecost, and on S. Luke's Day, from the Year 1271. to 1314. in which there are many remarkable things concerning Discipline; which are also published by F. Dacherius, in the 11th. Tom of his Spicilegium, p. 201.  
William de Mandagot, or Gulielmus Mandagotus, Born of the Illustrious Family of Lodeve, archdeacon 
William de Mandagot.  of Nismes, and Provost of Tholouse; was made Archbishop of Ambrun by Boniface VIII. in 1295, from whence he was translated to Aix, and at last made Cardinal-Bishop of Praeneste by Clement V in 1311. after whose Death the Italian Cardinals intended to make him Pope. He Composed the Sixth Book of the Decretals, and made a Treatise of the Election of Prelates, printed at Colen in 1573. and in other places. He died at Avignon in November 1321.  
Berengarius de Fredol, Canon, and after Chanter of S. Nazarus, Abbot of S. Aphrodisius of 
Berengarius de Fredol.  Beziers, and afterward made Bishop of that City in 1298. a Famous Canonist, composed the Sixth Book of the Decretals with Richard Siennensis, and Gulielmus de Mandagot. He hath dedicated an Explication in an Alphabetical Order, upon the Sum of Cardinal Ostionsis, to which he gave the title of Oculus, which was printed with that Sum at Basil. He wrote also a Treatise about Excommunication and Interdiction, which is found in MS. in the Library of Mr. Colbert, Cod. 249. and 3345. He was appointed Cardinal-Priest by the Title of the S. S. Nereus and Achilles by Clement the Vth. and in the Year 1309. he was made Cardinal-Bishop of Frescati, and died in 1323. June 10. He had a Nephew, who was made Bishop of Beziers in 1309. and made Cardinal-Priest in the room of his Uncle, and afterward Cardinal-Bishop of Port●, in the Year 1317.  
Jacobus de Termes, Abbot of Charleiu, an Abbey of Cistertians in the Diocese of Senlis, Composed 
Jacobus de Termes.  in the Year 1311. during the Sitting of the General Council of Vienna, a Work against those, who opposed the Exemptions and Privileges of the Monks, and chief against Giles of Rome, Archbishop of Bourges. This Treatise is printed in the Fourth Tome of the Bibliotheca Cistertiorum [i. e. the Collection of Writers of the Cistertian Order] p. 261.  
Antonius Andreas, a Grey-Friar of Arragon, and Scholar of Scotus, flourished from the beginning 
Antonius Andreas.  of this Age to the Year 1320. He Composed a Commentary upon the Books of the Sentences, printed at Venice in 1578. and 1584. A Book about the Principles of Gilbert Porritanus, printed at the same place in 1512. and 1517. Divers Comments upon the Books of Aristotle and Boethius, printed at the same place in 1480. 1509. and 1517.  
Harvaeus Natalis, a Britain in France, and a Friar-Preacher, of whom he was the Fourteenth 
Harvaeus Natalis.  General made in 1318. hath Composed a Comment upon the Four Books of the Sentences, printed at Venice in 1405. and at Paris in 1647. Four great quodlibetical Questions printed at the same place in 1513. A Treatise about the Pope's Authority printed at Paris, with his Commentary on the Sentences in 1647. and an Apology against those who opposed the Orders of the Friars-Preachers, and reproached them that they did not lead an Apostolical Life, printed at Venice in 1516. He died at Narbonne [Aug. 10.] in the Year 1323.  
Ptolemaeus Lucensis, a Monk of the Order of the Friars-Preachers, a Scholar of S. Thomas Aquinas, 
Ptolemaeus Lucensis.  and Con●essor to John XXII. was made Bishop of Torcello in 1321. hath Composed Annals from the Year 1060. to 1303. and a Chronicon of the Popes and Emperors. These two Works were printed at Lions in 1619. There is found in several Libraries an Ecclesiastical History of this Author, divided into 24 Books to the Year 1303. which is sometimes quoted by Rainaldus.  
Philip, an Abbot of the Cistertian Monks, and afterward made Bishop of Aichstat in the 
Philip.  Year 1305. died in the Year 1322. He wrote the Life of S. Walpurgis, Abbess of Hildesheim, at the desire of Ann Queen of Hungary, the Emperor Albert's Daughter. He took it out of the Collections of Wolfarus. It is in the Fourth Tome of the Collections of Canisius. He hath also Composed an History of the Patrons and Bishops of Aichstat, published by Gretser, and printed at Ingolstads, in the Year 1617.  
Hugo Pratensis, sive de Prato Florido, Born at Pratum, a Town near Florence, a Dominican 
Hugo Pratensis.  Monk, died in the Year 1322. He was one of the most famous Preachers of his time. His Sunday-Sermons upon the Gospels and Epistles for the whole Year, and upon the Festivals of the Saints, have been printed at Lions in 1528. and those of Lent, at Venice in 1578. and 1584. [8]  
Joannes de Neapoli, or John of Naples, a Friar-Preacher, flourished in the beginning of this 
John of Naples.  Age, and died about the Year 1323. He taught some time at Paris, and there are printed at Naples 42 Questions of Philosophy and Divinity, which he explained at Paris. His other Works, which are a Commentary upon the Sentences, his quodlibetical Questions, and his Sermons [are mentioned by Altamura in Bibl. Praedic. but] were never printed.  
Petrus Aureolus, a Native of Verberie upon Oise, a Grey-Friar, after he had taught Divinity 
Petrus Aure●lus.  for a time at Paris, was made Archbishop of Aix in 1321. The Year of his Death is not known, but some believe, that Jacobus de Concos succeeded him the next Year; and if that be true, 'tis not like, that he lived ' long; or we have the Comment of this Author upon the Four Books of the Sentences, of which the First Book was printed at Rome in 1596. and the Three other with his Quodlibetical Questions in 1605. He also made an Abridgement of all the Bible, according to the Literal Sense, printed at Venice in 1507. and 1571. at Strasburg in 1514. at Paris in 1565. and 1585. This Author also hath some Sermons upon the Immaculate Conception, printed at Tholouse in 1514. He Composed also several others upon the whole Year, which are not yet made Public, no more than his Writings, Entitled, The Distinctions of the Rose, and his Treatise of Poverty, and the poor use of things, which is said to be in MS. in the Monastery of the Grey-Friars at Seez. He is commonly Surnamed, Doctor facundus, The Eloquent Doctor,  
Nicholas Triveth, or Trivet, the Son of Sir Thomas Trivet of Norfolk, was brought up at London, 
Nicholas Trivet.  among the Dominicans, and entered into their Order. He received the Drs. Cap at Oxford, and went to Paris, where he completed his Studies. Being returned to London, he was made Prior of the Dominicans in that City, where he died in 1328. being 70 years of Age, in great Reputation for his Holiness. F. Dacherius in the Eighth Tome of his Spicilegium, has published a Chronicle of this Author from 1136. to 1307. In every Year he observes the Years of the Popes, Emperors of the West, Kings of France and England, and relates the Accidents at large, particularly those that related to the History of England, and his own Order. There is also another Work of this Author printed at Tholouse in 1488. and at Venice in 1489. which is a Commentary upon the Books of S. Austin, De Civitate Dei. Divers MS. Treatises of this Author are found in the Libraries in England; and among others, an History of the Acts of the Emperors, Apostles, and Kings [in Magdalen-College Library at Oxford, Cod. 138.] A Commentary upon the Book of Boethius de Consolation, [in the Public Library at Cambridge, Cod. 236.] Flowers upon the Rule of S. Augustine [in the Lumleian Library, Cod. 291.] and a Treatise upon the Mass [in Merton College Library in Oxford, Cod. 147. No. 1. and in the Archbishop of Canterbury's Library at Lambeth, and elsewhere.]  
Augustinus Triumphus, of Ancona, an Hermit of the Order of St. Augustine, flourished from the 
Augustinus Triumphus.  Year 1274. when he was present at the Council of Lions, to 1328. when he died at Naples, April 2. in the 85th. Year of his Age. He Composed a Sum concerning the Ecclesiastical Authority, dedicated to Pope John XXII. and printed at Augsburg in 1473. and at Rome 1479. and 1582. He first began a Book, called, Milleloquium, out of the Writings of S. Augustine, which was after finished by Bartholomew Urbinas. Some attribute to him certain Commentaries upon the Lord's-Prayer, the Angelical Salutation, and the Magnificat, printed [at Rome] in 1590. and 1592. which some impute to Steuchus de Eugubio: But Trithemius makes mention of the last of these Commentaries in his Catalogue of the Works of Augustine of Ancona, and of certain Commentaries of the same Author, upon Ezekiel, upon the New Testament, upon the Four Books of the Sentences, a Book of Quodlibetical Questions, a Treatise of the Spirit against the Greeks, a Work upon the entrance into the Land of Promise, a Treatise of the X Strings, and a Book of the Powers of the Soul; Sermons upon all the Sundays in the Year, and the Saints Days. But we have none of these Works: They are kept close in some Libraries [viz. at Ancona, and in the Vatican.]  
Albert of ●adua, an Augustine Hermit, the Scholar of Aegidius Romanus, and a Dr. of Paris, 
Albert of Milan.  died in that City in the Year 1323. or 1328. He Composed a Commentary upon the Books of the Sentences; and others upon the Pentateuch, Gospels, and St. Paul's Epistles, which are kept in MS. at Milan. His Sermons only are printed at Paris in 1544. and 1550. and at Venice in 1584. and his Explication of the Gospels upon all the Sundays of the Year at Venice in 1476.  
Joannes Bassolis, a Grey-Friar, a Scholar of Scotus', commonly called Doctor Ordinatissimus, 
Joannes Ba●●olis.  the most Orderly Doctor, flourished about the Year 1420▪ and taught at Rheims and Mechlen. He has a Comment upon the Four Books of the Sentences printed at Paris in 1517. [where also some Miscellanies of his in Philosophy and Physic were also printed; when he died is not known.]  
Jacobus de Lausanna, a Monk of the Order of the Friars-Preachers, a Dr. of Paris, and after 
Jacobus de ●ausanna.  the Provincial of his Order, is the Author of a great Work of Morality, divided into Twelve Books, and printed at Lymoges in 1528. and of several Sermons, which are also printed. The time and quality of this Author are not very certain. Some have written, that he was a Licentiate at Paris in the Year 1317. others make him Bishop of Lausanna about 1320. but there is no certainty of it; for it is more probable, that he took his Name from Lausanna, because he was Born in that City.  
Henry de Carret, a Grey-Friar, made in the Year 1300. Bishop of Lucca, by Boniface VIII. 
Henry de Carret.  and driven from his Bishopric in the Year 1326. by Lewis of Bavaria, hath Composed a Treatise upon the Prophet Ezekiel; which is in MS. in Mr. Colbert's Library.  
Dominicus Grenerius, a Doctor of Paris, a Preaching-Friar, Apostolick-Penitentiary, was 
Dominicus Grenerius.  made Mr. of the Holy Palace by Pope John XXII. in the Year 1326. and promoted the same Year by the same Pope to the Bishopric of Pamiez, hath made postils upon all the Historical Books of the Bible; which are found in the Library of Mr. Colbert, Cod. 114, 115, 116, 117, 118. He lived till after the Year 1342.  
Petrus Alverniensis, or Peter of Auvergne, a Canon of the Church of Paris, Composed a Sum 
Pet. de Auvergne.  of Quodlibetical Questions about 1320. 'Tis in Mr. Colbert's Library, Cod. 963.  
Vitalis è Furno, a Native of Bazas [in Guienne] a Grey-Friar, was employed by Pope Clement 
Vitalis è Furno.  V to Examine the Errors of John Oliva, and made Cardinal of the Title of S. Martin in 1312. John XXII. gave him the Title of the Bishopric of Albania after the Death of the Cardinal of Aux, which happened in 1320. He maintained in the Consistory in the Year 1322. against the Judgement of the Pope, That it was not Heretical to assert, That neither Jesus Christ, nor his Apostles had nothing of their own, but lived in Common, and was so bold as to declare, that it was an Heresy to hold the contrary; but the Pope being very much enraged against him, he begged Pardon and retracted his Assertion. He died 1327. He hath left us a Book, called, Speculum Morale, or a Moral Looking-glass upon the Scripture; which puts a Mystical Sense upon almost all Passages both of the Old and New Testament. This Work was Composed by this Author in 1305. and printed at Lions in 1513. and at Venice in 1514. and 1600. where also the Comments of this Author upon the Proverbs of Solomon, upon the Four Gospels, and the Revelation are printed. The Treatise upon the Preservation of Health, and the Cures of Diseases, printed in his name at Mayence in 1531. belong to an Author of greater Antiquity, who lived in the time of Bola King of Hungary, of whom he speaks; as Mr. Baluzius has already observed. They, who have written of the Authors of the Order of S. Francis, do make mention of some other Works of this Author in MS. and among others, his Commentaries upon the Sentences, which are said to be in the Vatican Library.  
Marinus Sanutus, or Sanudo, Surnamed Torsellus, from an Instrument so called, of which he 
Marinus Sanutus.  was the Inventor, a Native of Rivoalti, a Town under the States of Venice, after he had spent his Youth in an Expedition to the Holy Land, Composed a Work to which he gave the Title, The Secrets of the Faithful of the Cross, in which he undertakes to prescribe a Way, how the Christians may recover the Holy Land, divided into Three Books. In the First Book he shows, That the way to weaken the Infidels, is to hold no Trade nor Commerce with them. In the Second he shows, How they must be Attacked, in what Places, and with what Forces. In the Third he gives an History of the Holy Land, and the Expedition of the Christians thither; that he may instruct them in such Methods, as may Succeed in the Conquest of it, by avoiding the Faults of the one, and imitating the Conduct of the other. Sanutus' presented this Work in the Year 1312. to Pope John XXII. with Geographical Tables, and dedicated it to the Kings of France, England and Sicily, Exhorting them to undertake the Conquest of the Holy Land. He hath also written several Letters upon the same Subject to the Princes, Cardinals and Prelates, which are printed at the End of his Work, published by Bogarsius in his Collection, Entitled, Gesta Dei per Francos, the Acts of God done by the French, printed at Hanover in 1611.  
Alexander de S. Elpidio, a City of Italy near Rome, was chosen in 1312. General of the Order 
Alexander de S. Elpidio.  of Augustine-hermites', and made in the Year 1325. Archbishop of Ravenna, Composed by the Order of Pope John XXII. a Treatise about the Jurisdiction of the Empire, and Authority of the Pope, divided into two Books, and printed at Lions in 1498. and at Ariminum in 1624. It is said, That there are some MS. Treatises of the same Author; and among others, a Treatise of Evangelical Poverty and the Unity of the Church [with some Commentaries upon Aristotle's Works, preserved in the Library of the Augustine-Friars at Bononia, by Josephus Pamphilus, in Chron. Erem. p. 46.]  
Alvarus Pelagius, a Native of Galecia in Spain, Dr. of Law in the University of Bononia, entered 
Alvarus Pelagius.  into the Order of Grey-Friars in 1304. when he had studied Divinity at Pisa, and afterward at Paris under Joannes Scotus. He was made by Pope John XXII. about the Year 1330. Apostolic Penitentiary, and afterwards honoured with the Dignity of Bishop of Coronna in Achaia; and lastly, made Bishop of Silves in Portugal. He defended John XXII. against Michael de Caesenas. We have an excellent Treatise composed by him, called, Planctus Ecclesiae [i. e. The Church's Complaints] dedicated to Petrus Gomesius General of his own Order, which he finished at Compostella in 1340. and has been printed at Ulm in 1474. at Lions 1517. and at Venice in 1560. A Sum of Divinity printed at Ulm in 1474. A MS. Treatise, which is found in the Vatican Library, and in Mr. Colbert's Cod. 2071. Entitled, Collyrium Fidei contra Haereses, [i. e. A Salve to preserve the Faith against Heresies.] A long Discourse of the Vision of Souls made before Pope John XXII. in which he defends the Judgement of that Pope. It is in MS. in the Library of the Grey-Friars at Toledo. Trithemius makes mention of a Treatise of this Author, Entitled, The Mirror of Kings, and an Apology divided into Four Books. The Treatise of Alvarus Pelagius, De planctu Ecclesiae, is divided into two Books. In the First, he treats of the State of the Church, its Foundation, Jurisdiction, Power, and Sanctity; the Pope and Cardinal's Authority. In it he maintains as well the Temporal, as Spiritual Sovereignty of the Pope; That none can Appeal from his Judgement; That he has none that can Judge him upon Earth; That he has two Swords; That he is above Emperors and Kings, and may depose them. He also in it treats of the Pope's dispensing Power, the Authority of his Legates, Ecclesiastical Censures, and the Power of Bishops, Duty of Kings, Qualities of the Church, and particularly its Unity; Of Schism and Schismatics. The Second Book contains many Passionate Declamations against the Disorders and Unruliness of the Members of the Church of all Degrees, and the means to remedy them. In it he also treats of the Obligation of Bishops to Residence, of Simony, of such Faults as the Popes may be guilty of, of their Obligations and Duties; as also of the Cardinals, Patriarches and Bishops. He describes the Vices into which they commonly fall, and spares not the Abbots and Monks. From the Clergy he passes to the Laity; and having run through all Estates and Employments, Conditions, Ages and Sexes, he discovers their Sins, to which they are Subject, and opposes the Errors of the Begards. In it also he debates the question about the Poverty of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and endeavours to reconcile the Decretal, Exiit, with the Opinion of John XXII. and proves, that it is not Heretical to assert that Jesus Christ and his Apostles had not any Dominion either in common, or particular to themselves, nor any property, nor any right of Use, but the more actual usage of them. Upon this Subject he enlarges with the respect to the Franciscans, and the Questions debated in Pope John XXII's time, but defends his Constitutions notwithstanding; affirming, That it belongs to the Pope to explain the Rule. He after speaks of the other Virtues of the Monks; as their Obedience, Humility, Charity, Silence, and the Opposite Vices, and ends this Work with an Explication of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit.  
William Ockam, born in a Village of the same Name in the County of Surrey, in England, a Grey-Friar, and Surnamed, The Singular Doctor; was the Head, or Leader of the Sect of 
William Ockam.  Schoolmen, called Nominals, because they did not multiply things according to the difference of their Names; but attempted to know, and explain the Proprieties of terms. He flourished in the University of Paris in the beginning of this Age, and made a Work of the Ecclesiastical and Secular Power, in the defence of Philip the Fair, against Boniface VIII. He after fell in with a Party of his own Order, who maintained that Jesus Christ had nothing in Proper nor in Common, and was one of the great Adversaries of John XXII. who Condemned him to Silence under the Penalty of Excommunication; but in the issue, he declared himself openly for the Emperor Lewis of Bavaria, and for the Antipope Petrus Corbarius, and wrote against John XXII. who Excommunicated him in 1330. whereupon he left France and went to Lewis of Bavaria, who received him favourably. He finished his Life in that Court, and wrote always in his defence. It is said, that he used to speak to the Emperor thus, O Prince, defend me with thy Sword, and I will defend thee with my Pen. He died at Munick [April 10.] 1347.  
His Works were never Collected into one Body, but printed severally. They are of Three Sorts: 1. Works of Philosophy. 2. Treatises of School-Divinity. 3. Books of Controversy. His Philosophical Books are, his Exposition upon Logic, printed at Bononia in 1496. A Sum of Logic printed at Venice in 1508. and 1591. and at Oxford 1675. His great Sum of Logic, printed at Venice in 1532. His Questions upon the Eight Books of Aristotle's Physics, printed at Strasburg in 1491. and 1506. His Natural Philosophy, or an Abridgement of a Sum taken out of the Books of Physic, printed at Venice in 1606. and at Rome in 1637. His Works of School-Divinity, are his Questions upon the Four Books of Sentences, printed at Lions in 1495. his Centiloquium, containing the whole Science of Speculative Divinity in a Hundred Conclusions, printed in the next Year in the same place. A Commentary upon the first Book of the Sentences, printed in 1483. Seven Quodlibetical Questions, with a Treatise upon the Sacrament of the Altar, or of the Body of Jesus Christ, printed at Paris in 1487. and 1513. at Strasburg in 1491. and at Venice in 1516. [and at Paris 1487. and 1513.]  
His Books of Controversy against the Pope's Boniface VIII. and John XXII. are put together by Goldastus into his Collection, Entitled, Monarchia. The First is about the Ecclesiastical and Secular Power, in the form of a Dialogue between a Soldier and a Clergyman; in it he confutes the pretended Claim of Pope Boniface VIII. to a Superiority over the Temporal Affairs of Kings. This Treatise was printed before at Paris in 1598. The Second is a Treatise, containing a Resolution to Eight Questions about the Ecclesiastical and Secular Power. In it he discusses these following Questions, I. Whether the Supreme Spiritual Power and the Supreme Temporal Power may meet in the same Subject, and whether the Pope hath them both? He recites the Reasons and Answers on both sides, and at last concludes, That although both these Powers may meet in the same Man, yet it is not at all fit, that they should meet in him; and that the Pope hath only a Spiritual Jurisdiction. II. Whether the Lay-Power hath any thing proper to it, which is immediately derived from God, and whether it depends on the Pope? He treats of this Question in the same manner as the former, and gives us to understand, that the true Opinion is this, That Kings depend immediately on God, and not on the Pope, as far as concerns their Temporal Power. III. Whether the Pope, and the Church of Rome have by the appointment of Jesus Christ, a Power to give a Temporal Jurisdiction to the Emperor and Kings, and whether they hold it from him? He recites the Reasons on both sides; but manifestly shows what Opinion he was of. iv Whether the Election of a King of the Romans, or of the Emperor, entitles to a Supreme Power, and whether it depends upon the Ceremony of Unction used at the Coronation. He treats of the Distinction between the King of the Romans, and the Emperor, of the Right of Charles the Great to the Empire, and of the Right of his Successors, as well to the Empire, as Kingdom of France, of the Right of Election; and concludes, that the Electors in choosing a King of the Romans, which he looks upon, as not differing from the Emperor, confer on him a Right to Govern the Empire. V Whether in those Kingdoms, where there is a Succession established, the Unction performed by the Clergy, gives any Temporal Authority? VI Whether Kings are Subject to them that Crown them? VII. Whether a King, who shall suffer himself to be Crowned by any other Bishop, than him, to whom it belongs of Right, loses his Title of King, and his Regal Authority? VIII. Whether the Canonical Election of the Prince's Electors gives the King of the Romans a Right to any other than the Hereditary Countries. He treats of all these Questions after such a manner, that though he does not plainly lay down his own Judgement; yet he shows where the Truth lies. In the end of his Treatise, he relates the Errors, of which John XXII. was accused, as well concerning the Poverty of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, as about the Vision of God. His Third Work is a large Treatise in the form of a Dialogue, divided into several Books, in which he examines the Questions controverted in his time, between John XXII. and his Adversaries in the same Method; as in his former Treatise. In the First Book he inquires whether it belongs to Divines, or Canonists to judge of Heresies and Catholic Truths. In the Second he lays down, what is Heresy and what Catholic Truth. In it also he Treats of several Curious Questions concerning the Principles of Faith, and the Condemnation of Heresies by Councils and Popes. In the Third he Examines, who are Judges of Heresies, and shows, that none but such as are obstinate in their Error are to be treated as Heretics; and so adds, what are the Conditions necessary to repute a Man an Heretic. In the Fourth Book also he treats of the same Question, and prescribes the means to convince a Man of Obstinacy. In the Fifth he shows who may fall into Heresy, and particularly, whether the Pope or College of Cardinals may err; In it also he treats of the Primacy of the Church of Rome, and of the Infallibility of a General Council, and of the whole Church. In the Sixth he treats of the Punishment of Heretics, and particularly of a Pope, who is either Suspected, or Convicted of Heresy; the Method of Proceeding against him, the Judges which he may have upon Earth, and the Penalties which may be inflicted on him. He also considers, what share Lay-Princes have in the Decisions and Executions of such Judgements as concern the Faith. In the Seventh he treats of such as give Credit to Heretics, who defend and protect them, and particularly of such as follow an Heretical Pope; who obey him, and maintain his Heretical Doctrines and Communicate with him. After he has explained these Questions in the First Part of this Dialogue, he opposes in the Second the pretended Heresy of John XXII. concerning the Vision of God, and confutes the Reasons brought to excuse him. The Third Part is divided into two Treatises. The First is about the Authority of the Pope, and the Second about that of the Emperor. In the First Book he inquires how far the Pope's Power extends itself, and whether he hath any Temporal Authority. In the Second he examines, whether it be convenient for all Christians to be Subject to One Head, and the State of the Church to be Monarchical. Whether there may be several Supreme Bishops, or Independent Patriarches. In the Third Book he inquires what that Authority is, to which Men must yield a Belief under pain of Damnation. In it he handles many Curious Questions concerning the Authority of Scripture, General Councils, Popes and Fathers in Matters of Faith. In the Fourth he discourses of the Supremacy of S. Peter, viz. Whether Jesus Christ made him the Head and Prince of the Apostles, and whether he had Power over them. It is easy to discern, that he is for the Affirmative.  
In his Second Treatise, which is concerning the Power of the Emperor, he examines in the First Book, Whether it is convenient that all the World should be Subject to one Prince; how far the Authority of the Emperor extends; whether it depends upon the Pope, or God only; whether the Empire may be Translated, Divided, or Separated. In the Second he treats of the Emperor's Authority in things Temporal; declares the difference between the Spiritual Power of the Pope and that of the Emperor; and shows, how far the Power of this latter extends. In the last Books, he discourses of the Emperor's Power over the Persons of Churchmen, and Revenues of the Church; He inquires, whether the Right of choosing a Pope belongs to him, or the Romans; whether these last may encroach upon him, if the Emperor be the Pope's Judge, and have Authority over him. He had promised in the Preface to the Third Part of that Work, Seven other Treatises; The First concerning the behaviour of John XXII. whether he died an Heretic, or Orthodox Person. The Second of the Life of Lewis of Bavaria, to show, whether he were a Lawful Emperor or no. The Third of the Carriage of Benedict XII. whom several Acknowledged to be Pope. The Fourth of the Life of Friar Michael Caesena. The Fifth of the behaviour of Friar Gerhard Odonis, whom some reputed the Lawful General of the Grey-Friars. The Sixth of the demeanour of William Ockam. And the last, of the Conduct of the Princes, Bishops, and other Christians, who had adhered to, favoured and maintained those of whom he had spoken. These Treatises, 'tis not certain, whether they were ever finished by Ockam, or whether they are lost.  
But we have two Treatises more of this Author's against John XXII. The one Entitled, An Abridgement of the Errors of Pope John XXII. as well in respect to the Poverty of Jesus Christ, and his Apostles, as about the Vision of God, the Trinity, and Power of God, in which he answers the Reasons brought to excuse that Pope, and accuses Benedict XII. to have been a Favourer of the Heresies of John XXII. and to have broached a New One, in forbidding that when any Question is brought to the Pope, to choose either the Negative or the Affirmative Part, before the Pope has decided it. The other is a large Work, Entitled, Ninety Days; because he spent so much time in Composing it; in which he confutes word by word the Four Decretals of John XXII. Quia Vir reprobus, Ad conditorem, Cum inter, and Quia quorundam.  
Lastly, There is also another Treatise of Ockam's Composed upon the Occasion of the Divorce of Margaret Duchess of Carinthia, and the Son of the King of Bohemia; in which he explains the Right of the Emperor and Princes in Matrimonial Causes. All these Books of Controversy are found, as we have observed in the First and Second Tome of the Monarchy of Goldastus, and have been printed severally at Lions in 1496. There is in the Library of M. Colbert, a MS. Treatise of Ockam's against Benedict XII. divided into Seven Books; and a Letter to the General Chapter of the Grey-Friars met in 1334. at Assisi.  
Marsilius Patavinus, or Marsilius of Milan, Surnamed Menandrinus, a famous Lawyer of his 
Marsilius Patavinus.  time, stoutly defended the Party of the Emperor Lewis of Bavaria against the Pope; and about the Year 1324. Composed a large Work upon that Subject, Entitled, A Defender of the Peace against the Jurisdiction usurped by the Pope of Rome, dedicated to the Emperor; It is divided into Three Parts. In the First he settles the Civil and Temporal Authority and Jurisdiction, its Extent and Bounds. In the Second he shows the Nature of the Ecclesiastical Power, what is its Extent, and what are the Effects of it, and how it differs from the Civil Authority. In it he maintains, That the Church, properly speaking, hath no Compulsive Authority or Jurisdiction; That all the Apostles were equal in Power; That all Bishops and Ecclesiastical Ministers have their Power immediately from God; That all Bishops have Power to decide Matters of Faith; That a General Council is the Supreme Judge of the Church, and that the Government of the Church belongs to that; That the Bishop of Rome is not the Head of other Bishops, nor has any Primacy above them; That he is the first in a Council, and has Power to execute its Rules and Decrees. In it he also shows, wherein the Popes have exceeded their Authority and Power, as well in Spiritual as Temporal Things, and answers the Objections that may be made against that Doctrine, and the Passages of the Fathers usually against it. In the last Part he draws 42 Conclusions from the Principles laid down in the Two former Books, of which these are some of the Principal: 1. That only the Doctrine contained in the Divine, and Canonical Scripture, or that which is deduced from thence by the Interpretation of a General Council is true, and necessary to believe in order to Salvation. 2. That General Councils only can settle such Articles of Faith, as oblige us to believe them, as necessary to Salvation. 3. That the Gospel does not appoint to Compel Men by Mulcts, and Temporal Punishments to observe the Commandments of the Law of God. 5. That no Mortal Man can dispense with the Commands of the Gospel; and nothing but a General Council can forbid what the Gospel permits. 7. That the Popes cannot Condemn to any Secular, or Temporal Punishment. 14, & 15. That Bishops, as Bishops, have not any compulsive Jurisdiction; but it belongs to Princes only. 16. That Bishops can't execute their Excommunications, or Interdicts; but by the Authority of the Magistrates. 17. That all Bishops are equal by Divine Right. 18. That Bishops may excommunicate the Bishop of Rome, as well as he excommunicate them. 19 That they cannot give a Dispensation to celebrate such Marriages as are forbidden by the Law of God, and it belongs to Princes to dispense with such as are forbidden by Human Laws, to Legitimate Children, and make them capable not only to inherit, but to be promoted to Ecclesiastical Orders. 23. That it belongs to Princes to bestow Ecclesiastical Offices and Benefices. 27. That Magistrates for the Public Good, may make use of the superfluous Revenues of the Church. 29. That it belongs to them to allow, or hinder the Erecting of Colleges, or Monasteries. 30. That it belongs to them only to Punish Heretics with Temporal Punishments. 32. That a General Council can Erect a Metropolis only. 33. That it belongs to Princes to call a General Council. 34, 35, & 36. That none but a General Council, or a Prince, can appoint Fasts, or new days of Abstinence, canonize Saints, or make Rules of general Discipline. 38. That Evangelical Perfection requires a Poverty, which consisteth in having no Movables, and enjoying Goods without Dominion, and without a design of defending them, or recovering them before a Secular Judge. 39 That Maintenance and Provision is due to Bishops and Ministers of the Gospel; but Men are not obliged to pay them Tithes if they have a Subsistence otherwise. 41. That it belongs only to a Prince, or a General Council to raise or depose the Bishop of Rome. These Conclusions plainly demonstrate, That Marsilius designing to defend the Rights of the Empire against the Attempts of the Popes, fell into the Opposite Extreme, and that he rather wrote as a Lawyer, than as a Divine; although in the Second Part he quotes many excellent Passages of the Fathers, Councils, and Ecclesiastical Writers.  
The same Author composed another Treatise after the former, concerning the Translation of the Empire, in which he gives us an History of the Ancient State of the Roman Empire, the Translation of the Greek Empire to the French, and of the French to the Germans, and of the Institution of Electors, and a Consultation about the Divorce of Jane, the King of Bohemia's Daughter, and Margaret Duchess of Carinthia; in which he proves the Right of a Prince about Marriages. These three Treatises are inserted in the Second Tome of Goldastus' Monarchy, and the first was printed by itself at Basil in 1522. and at Francfort in 1612. John XXII. condemned this Treatise by an express Decree recited in Rainaldus. He was also opposed by Alvarus Pelagius in his Book, De Planctu Ecclesiae, by Alexander de S. Elpidio, by Peter de Palude, and by Cardinal Turrecremata.  
The same Question concerning the Supreme Power of Kings, was also debated in France under Charles V and the Pretences by which the Popes endeavoured to raise themselves above the Temporal Jurisdiction of Kings, mightily opposed. Several other Treatises were made to defend the Sovereignty of Princes, and to prove that the Pope's Power did not extend to Temporal Things. We have two considerable Ones of them still extant.  
The first is Radulphus de Praelles, a Counsellor, and Master of Requests to the French King; 
Radulphus de Praelles.  who Composed a Treatise in Latin, and after translated it into French by the said King's Order. The Other is a larger Treatise in Latin, Composed also by the Order of the same Prince, Entitled, Somnium Viridarij [or the Dream of the Orchard] in the form of a Dialogue between a Clergyman and a Soldier. The Author of it conceals himself under the Name of Philotheus Achillinus, a Counsellor of the King; But some Attribute it to Philip Mazerius, or De Mazeriis, 
Philip Mazerius.  a Soldier, who was heretofore a Chancellor of the Kingdom of Cyprus, and after Secretary to Pope Gregory XI. and last of all put himself into the Service of Charles V from which he retired into the Monastery of Caelestines at Paris, where he died. These two Treatises are in the First Tome of the Monarchy of Goldastus. The other was printed in French, at Paris in 1491. and in Latin 1503. and with the Imprimatur of the Parliament in 1516. Radulphus de Praelles Composed another Treatise, Entitled, Rex Pacificus, of which he makes mention, and translated the Books of S. Austin, De Civitate Dei, into French, printed at Abbeville in 1486. and at Paris in 1531.  
The Soldier Mazerius wrote also the Life of S. Thomas, or Petrus Thomasius, Archbishop of Crete, published by Bollandus on Jan. 29.  
Ubertinus de Cassalis, a Grey-Friar, was one of the Chief of the Spiritual part of the Monks 
Ubertinus de Cassalis.  against the Community, and maintained before Clement V the Writings of Petrus Oliva. He also Composed several Books in defence of that Party before and after the Council of Vienna, of which one of them gins with these words, Sanctitati Apostolicae, i. e. To the Apostolic Holiness; and the other with these words, Super tribus sceleribus; i. e. Concerning Three Wickednesses; and the last, which he Composed since the Council of Vienna, with these words, Nè imposterum, i. e. Lest for the future. He defended himself before Pope Clement V and obtained a Bull of Absolution. But he was accused anew by Friar Bonagratia, under the Papacy of John XXII. who assigned him for his Judge, William Cardinal-Bishop of S. Sabina, to whom the Friar presented a Writing in 1321. against the Behaviour and Writings of Ubertinus de Cassalis; in which he quotes the Writings, of which we have spoken. In the Year 1322. Ubertinus being asked his Opinion by the Pope concerning the Poverty of Jesus Christ; he answered in Writing, That Jesus Christ, and his Apostles as Heads of the Church, had Goods to distribute to the Poor, and Ministers of the Church; but if they be considered, as private Persons, who attained and practised a Perfection in Religion, we must distinguish the two Ways of having any thing; The one Civil and Worldly, by which they had right to defend what they had, and recover it from any that had taken it; The other Civil and Natural by a Right of Common Charity; That Jesus Christ and his Apostles had nothing in the first sense, but in the second they had all things necessary for Life; This Answer being read in the Consistory, was approved by the Pope; and Ubertinus de Cassalis defended it again in 1330. These two Treatises are published by Mr. Baluzius, in the First Tome of his Miscellanies. There are two other Books attributed to Ubertinus, the one entitled, The Tree of a Crucified Life, printed at Venice in 1485. and the other, The Seven Estates of the Church; printed in the same place 1516.  
Michael Caesenas, who was chosen General of the Grey-Friars in 1316. undertook a Defence 
Michael Caesenas.  of the Opinion of the Divines of his Order concerning the Poverty of Jesus Christ, against John XXII. and caused it to be determined in a General Chapter held 1322. at Paris; That neither Jesus Christ, nor his Apostles had any thing in Proper. But maintaining the same Doctrine obstinately before the Pope at Avignon in 1327. he was Arrested and put in Prison; but while he was proceeding further against him, he escaped, and appealed from all that John XXII. had done, or should do against him, and published his Appeal at Perusia; but notwithstanding this Appeal, the Pope published a Bull against him, by which he deposes him, and orders a General Chapter to be called by Bertrandus de la Tour, the Vicar-General of that Order, which was held at Paris; and in it the Deposition of Michael de Caesenas, he was approved and confirmed. In the Year 1331. he caused another Chapter to be held about the same Subject, at Perpignan, to choose another General, and to reject the Common Opinion of that Order concerning the Poverty of Jesus Christ. Michael Caesenas wrote a Treatise, which he addressed to this Assembly to turn them from that Resolution; in which he accuses John XXII. of Twelve Errors. He also sent another Treatise to all the Monks of his Order, to engage them to maintain his Opinion; and presented a Petition to the Emperor, and the Princes of the Empire, against John XXII. in which he delivers and confutes the Twelve Errors, of which he accused that Pope. These three Treatises are published in the Second Tome of Goldastus' Monarchy. Michael flying to the Protection of the Emperor Lewis of Bavaria valued not the Pope's Curses, but kept the Title of General of the Grey-Friars till the Day of his Death; which happened at Munick in 1343.  
Joannes de Janduno, or John of Gaunt, so called from his Native Country; was one of the Divines, 
John of Gaunt, or de Janduno.  who were of the Party of Lewis of Bavaria. He Composed a Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Power. Goldastus at first believed, that that was the Treatise which bore this Title, An Information of the Nullity of the Processes made by John XXII. against the Emperor Lewis of Bavaria, Composed in 1338. which he therefore Published under his Name in the First Tome of his Collection; but he has since owned, as he declares in his Preface, that it is a different Work. He also observes, That Marsilius Ficinus hath published a Commentary of John of Gaunt, upon the Sentences, and some Quodlibetical Questions; but we cannot find that Edition. We have only several Philosophical Commentaries of that Author, printed in several places.  
Bernardus Guido, a Native of Lymoges, was Born in 1260. and entered into the Order of 
Bernardus Guido.  Friars-Preachers in 1280. and after he had been Prior of the Abbeys of Albi, Carcassone, Castres', and Lymoges, was appointed Inquisitor against the Albigenses in 1305. and Procurator-General of his Order in 1312. Four Years after he was sent into Italy by John XXII. and received as a Reward for his Labour in 1323. the Bishopric of Tuy in Gallaecia; from whence he was translated in the following Year to the Bishopric of Lodeve. He died Dec. 13. 1331. He Composed several Works; of which these are in the Library of Mr. Colbert, viz. A Catalogue of the Roman Popes, Roman Emperors, Bishops of Tholouse and Lymoges, and Earls of Tholouse; A Chronicle, or Genealogy of the Kings of France; A Description of the Gauls; A Book of the Names of the Apostles; Another of the Names of the Disciples; The Names of the Saints of the Diocese of Lymoges; A Book of the Foundation of the Monks of Grandmont; Another of the Monks of Artigia, and a third of the Foundation of the Monastery of S. Augustine of Lymoges; A Treatise of the Times and Years of the Councils, and several Tracts of the Articles of Faith, and Sacraments of the Church; On the Ten Commandments, Original Sin, The Office of the Mass, and of the Accidents that may happen in the Celebration of it; A Part of his Sanctorale, or the Mirror of Saints. There are Five other Treatises in the Library of the Friars-Preachers at Tholouse, viz. A Treatise of the Advantages of the Blessed, Two Volumes of Sermons, and a Work entitled, The Practice of the Office of an Inquisitor. He also continued, and augmented the Book of Stephen the Salagnac's History of the Establishment of the Order of Friars-Preachers; The Mirror of Popes, Emperors, and Kings of France, to the Year 1322. dedicated to Pope John XXII. which is in the Library of the Friars-Preachers at Avignon. Such of these Works, as have been printed, are as follow; Two Lives of Clement V and two other Lives of John XXII. published by Mr. Bosquet, and Mr. Baluzius in his Collection of the Lives of the Popes of Avignon; The Life of S. Fulchran, printed by Bollandus, Feb. 13. The Life of S. Glodesindis by Surius, July 25. An History of the Monks of Grandmont, and the Monastery of S. Austin at Lymoges to the Year 1313. by F. Labbé in his Bibliothecâ. The Epistle Dedicatory, and Preface to his Mirror of Saints by the same Person, and the Acts of the Earls of Tholouse, by Catellus.  
Guido de Terrend de Perpiniano, a Native of Rousillon, a Doctor of Paris, and a Carmelite, was 
Guido de Perpiniano.  made General of his Order in 1318. and afterward appointed Inquisitor-General by Pope John XXII. who made him Bishop of Majorca in 1321. from whence he was translated to the Bishopric of Elne. He died Aug. 21. 1342. He Composed a Sum of Heresies with the Confutation of them, dedicated to Goncelin Cardinal-Bishop of Albania, printed at Paris in 1528. and at Cologne in 1631. with an Harmony of the Four Evangelists. There is in the French King's Library a Commentary of this Author upon Gratian's Decrees, and a Treatise of the Perfection of Life, in Mr. Colbert's; where he treats of the Poverty of Jesus Christ, and his Apostles. He made this Treatise at Paris. Mr. Baluzius hath published the Synodal Decrees of this Bishop, in the Appendix of his Work, Entitled, Marcha Hispanica, P. 1454.  
There is another Terrenâ, named Arnoldus, who is thought to be the Nephew of the former, 
Arnoldus de Terrenâ.  of whom we have spoken. He was a Doctor of Law, and Sacrist of Perpignan, who flourished about the End of this Age, and wrote about the Year 1373. a Treatise of the Mass and Canonical Hours, and Theological Questions, which he Compiled at Avignon; which Works are found in MS. in Mr. Colbert's Library.  
Franciscus Mayronius, Born at Digne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Grey-Friar, a Scholar of Scotus, being Bachelor 
Francis Mayronius.  of Divinity in the University of Paris, first introduced by his Example, an Act in the Sorbonne, which is held from Morning to Night in the Schools of the Sorbonne by one Respondent without any Precedent, and without interruption. There he received the Doctor's Cap in 1323. and died at Placentia in 1325. His Comments upon the Four Books of the Sentences, and some other Treatises of School-Divinity, have been printed at Venice, in 1517, 1520, 1556, and 1567. His Sermons upon Lent, and the Saints-Days, were printed in the same City in 1491, and 1493. and at Basil in 1598. The following Treatises of the Poverty of Jesus Christ, and his Apostles, of the Cardinal Virtues and Vices, Of the Articles of Faith, Of Baptism, Of Humility, Of Indulgences, Of the Body of Jesus Christ, Of the Angels, Of Prayers for the Dead, Of Penances, Of Fasting, Of the Last Judgement, Of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, Upon the Lord's Prayer, and the Magnificat, were printed at Basil in 1498. He has an Explication upon the Ten Commandments, which is printed at Paris in 1619. Theological Truths upon S. Austin, and the City of God, printed at Tholouse in 1488. and at Venice in 1489. His Commentaries upon the Predicaments, upon the Categories, and upon Aristotle's Books of Physics, were printed at Venice in 1517. and some other Works, yet in MS. are in several Libraries, [as that of Mr. Waddingus, and the Grey-Friars at Liege.]  
Bertrandus de Turre, a Grey-Friar of the Diocese of Cahors, and General-Minister of the Province 
Bertrandus de Turre.  of Aquitain, was made Archbishop of Salerne in 1319. and in the following Year Cardinal-Priest of S. Vitalis by John XXII. and lastly, Bishop of Frescati. He was appointed in 1328. Vicar, or Administrator-General of the Order of Grey-Friars, and approved of the Deposition of Michael de Caesenas in the Assembly of a General Chapter of that Order held at Paris in 1329. He died in 1334. He Composed several Sermons, which are in several Libraries; Two Volumes of them are in the Library of Cardinal de Bovillon, and Three in that of the Sorbonne. His Sermons upon the Epistles of the Year, were printed at Strasburg, in 1501.  
Durandus de S. Porciano, a Village in the Diocese of Clermont in Auvergne, of the Order of 
Durandus à S. Porciano.  Friars-Preachers, a Doctor of Paris, flourished in that University from 1313. when he was Licentiate, to 1318. when he was made Bishop of Puy or Annecy by the Pope; from whence he was translated in 1326. to the Bishopric of Meaux, which he governed to 1333. in which he is said to have died. His chief Work is a Treatise of Divinity upon the Four Books of the Sentences, which he began when he was very Young, and finished a little before his Death, as he himself tells us: In them he departs much from the Opinions of S. Thomas and Scotus, and taught several Doctrines very particular, and bold; which gave him the Name of the Most resolute Doctor. This Commentary was printed at Venice in 1561. several times, and at Lions in 1595. He also Composed a Treatise about the Ecclesiastical Power upon the Occasion of the Question, which was disputed upon that Subject in France in 1329. between the Bishops and Peter de Cuguieres; of whom Peter Bertrandus makes mention upon the Sixth Book of the Decretals, which was printed at Paris in 1506. He also Composed a Treatise against the Opinion of John XXII. about the State of Souls, but we have it not; as also an Instruction for his Clergy, and some Sermons.  
Odericus de Port-Naon in Friuli, a Grey-Friar, after he had traveled a long time in the East, 
Odericus de Port-Naon.  and Preached the Gospel in Asia and the Indies, Composed a Relation of the Wonders of the Eastern Tartars, which is in MS. in some Libraries in England, and a short Chronicle from the beginning of the World to the Papacy of John XXII. Some Sermons and Letters.  
Guido, Abbot of S. Denys in France, flourished about the Year 1320. and was Abbot of 
Guido.  that Abbey between Giles de Pontoise, who died in 1325. and Walter de Pontoise, who succeeded him in 1333. He made some Notes upon Usuardus' Martyrolegy, which is in MS. in the Library of S. Victor.  
William of Nottingham, a Canon and Chanter of the Church of York, and after a Franciscan 
William of Nottingham.  Monk, flourished in England about 1320. and died Octob. 5. 1336. None of his Works are printed, but there are several of them in the Libraries of England; and among others some Questions upon the Four Gospels, Reflections upon all the Gospels of the Year, Questions upon the Lord's Prayer, and a Treatise against the Errors of Pelagius.  
William Mount, an Englishman, Canon of Lincoln, flourished in 1330. and Composed several 
William Mount.  Works, which are in MS. in the English Libraries. These are the Titles of some of them, which are published; Collections with a Paraphrase upon the Psalms, The Mirror of Penance, A Sum for Pastors, Theological Distinctions, Sermons, A Numeral, A Similitudinary, and a Treatise of Tropes.  
Philip de Montcalier in Piedmont, became a Monk in the Convent of Grey-Friars at Tholouse, 
Philip de Montcalier.  and was after Divinity-Lecturer at Milan. He Composed in 1330. a postil upon all the Gospels of the Year, and Sermons for the whole Year. The Abridgement of his Sermons drawn up by Janselmus de Canova, Keeper of the Covent of Cordeliers at Cuma, was printed at Lions in 1510. and 1515. This Author lived to 1350. or thereabouts.  
Astesanus, so called from the Village of Ast in Piedmont, where he was Born, a Grey-Friar, 
Astesanus.  is the Author of a Sum of Cases of Conscience, divided into Eight Books; which was printed at Noremburg in 1482. by the Care of Bellatus and Gometius, and since at Venice in 1519. from whence Antonius Augustinus hath taken his Penitentiary Canons printed at Venice in 1484. This Author lived to the Year 1330. There is another Astesanus of the same Order; who flourished some time after, whom Waddingus believes to be the Author of some Commentaries upon the Books of the Sentences, upon the Revelation, and some Sermons, which are not printed.  
Nicholas de Lyrâ, a Town of the Diocese of Eureux, was Born of Jewish Parents, who taught 
Nicholas de Lyra.  him the Hebrew Tongue; but being converted, he became a Monk in the Monastery of Grey-Friars at Vernevill in 1291. and having stayed some time there, he went to Paris, where he read Lectures several Years upon the Holy Scripture in the Great Covent of Cordeliers at Paris, where he died Octob. 23. 1340. He made use of the Learning, which he had gotten when he was a Jew, to explain the Holy Scripture literally, and made postils upon all the Holy Books. He began this Work in 1293. and ended it in 1330. In them he shows a great deal of Jewish Learning, and makes a very good use of the Comments of the Rabbis; and among others, of Rabbi Solomon, Isaac, or Jarchi. The first Edition of this Work was put out at Rome, under the Papacy of Sixtus iv in 1471. by the Care of John D' Allena. It has been since printed at Basil in 1508. and at Lions in 1529. But the most perfect Edition is that of Francis Fevardentius, John Dadreus, and James de Cuilly at Lions in 1590. which they put out after they had compared it with the MSS. It is printed since in the Bible with Glosses, at Douai in 1617. at Antwerp in 1634. and in the great Bible of Father Le hay in 1660. He hath also Composed some Moral Comments upon the Holy Scripture, which were printed at Venice in 1516. and in 1588. Large postils or Explications upon the Gospels of all the Sundays in the Year. We have also a Treatise of his concerning the Person that Administers, and him that Receives the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which has been printed in Germany without Date, with a Work of S. Thomas upon the same Subject. A Disputation against the Jews, printed at Venice, with his Commentaries; A Book against a Jew, who made use of the New Testament to oppose the Doctrine of Jesus Christ; printed with the Edition of his postils in 1529. Waddingus attributes to him a Writing of the Life and Actions of S. Francis; but because no other Authors mention it, I believe it is not his. Trithemius makes mention of his Sermons, and we meet with some Large Commentaries upon the Holy Scriptures, in Libraries, which bear his Name. Some Authors say, That he made some Comments upon the Books of the Sentences, Some Quodlibetical Questions, a Treatise upon the Beatific Vision, An Exposition upon the Ten Commandments, and some other Works.  
PETRUS BERTRANDUS, a Native of Annonay in Vivarois, the Son of Matthaeus Bertrand, and 
Peter Bertrand.  Agnes the Empress; after he had Professed the Civil Law with great Reputation in the Universities of Avignon, Orleans and Paris, was made in 1320. the Chancellor of Joanna Queen of France and Duchess of Burgundy, who made him Executor of her Will; and a little time after was made Bishop of Nevers, from whence he was translated in 1325. to the Bishopric of Autun. The Conference that he had in 1329. with Peter de Cuguieres, in which he defended the Rights of the Church in the presence of Philip de Valois, King of France; got him Abundance of Reputation. He was made Cardinal of the Title of S. Clement in 1331. by John XXII. through the recommendation of the King and Queen of France. He Founded the College of Autun at Paris in 1341. and died June 24. 1349. in the Priory of Monsault, which he had built near Avignon.  
He reduced into Writing the Acts of the Conference held in 1329. in the King's Presence between the Bishops of the Realm, the Chief of whom was Roger, then nominated to the Archbishopric of Sens and Peter de Cuguieres, the King's Advocate; who spoke for the King's Officers and Judges, about the extent of the Ecclesiastical and Civil Jurisdiction. The occasion of this Conference, were the Complaints, which the Prelates, Officials, and all the Clergy made against the Judges and King's Officers, and against the Barons, pretending that they encroached upon their Jurisdiction. The King to support them, and maintain a good Intelligence among all his Subjects, as well Ecclesiastic as Civil, gave a Command by his Letters dated Sept. 1. as well to the Prelates as Barons of the Kingdom to meet at Paris upon the Octaves of the Feast of S. Andrew. to propose whatever they had to allege against one another, that they might live orderly for the future. The Archbishops of Bourges, Ausche, Roven and Sens met accordingly, together with the Bishops of Beauvais, Chalons, Laon, Paris, Noyon, Chartres, Coutances, Angiers, Poitiers, Meaux, Cambray, S. Flour, S. Brieu, Chalon upon Saone, and Autun. The King being come also thither with his Council and some Barons, Peter de Cuguieres, Knight, and Counsellor of State spoke for the Rights of the King, taking for his Text these words, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are Gods; from whence he proved two things: 1. That due Honour and Reverence ought to be paid to the King. 2. That the Spiritual Authority ought to be separated from the Temporal, of which the former belongs to the Prelates, and the latter to the King and his Lords; which he proved by several Reasons drawn from Fact and Right; and in the end concludes, That the Bishops ought to be contented with the Spiritual Power, and the King ought to Protect them in Matters, which are Subject to him. This Discourse being finished, he said in French, That the intention of the King, was to put himself in Possession of the Temporal Power; and presented several Articles containing the Grievances, and Attempts, which he affirmed to be done by the Prelates and Clergy of the Realm of France or their Officers, against the Temporal Jurisdiction of the King, Barons, and other Lords. The greatest part of these Articles respect the Encroachments which the Ecclesiastical Judges had made upon Civil Justice, in taking upon them the Cognizance of Civil and Real Causes under divers Pretences, and presuming to forbid the Lay-Judges. The Prelate's desired time to consider before they gave their Answer, and obtained till Friday following, when Roger the Archbishop of Sens Elect carried word to the King, who was at the Castle of S. Vincent, and after he had protested, that what he was about to say, was not with an intention to submit himself to the Judgement of the King; but only to instruct his Majesty and the Conscience of his Attendants, he took for his Text these words of the First Epistle of S. Peter, Fear God, Honour the King; and shown from them, that Fear and Love was due unto God, which engage Men to give Liberally to him, to Honour him reverently, and give him all his Deuce. Secondly, That all Men are obliged to obey their Prelates, and that the Kings of France, who had honoured them more than other Princes, have been always most happy. Thirdly, That we must render to God, what is really his, and in this Point he opposed what Peter de Cuguieres had said of the two Jurisdictions, maintaining, that though they were distinguished, yet they were compatible, and might be united in one Subject; That the Temporal Power is Subject to the Spiritual; That the Clergy have both; which he endeavours to prove by the Old Testament and New, by Natural, Ecclesiastical and Civil Law, by Custom, and by the Privileges granted by the Kings of France to the Clergy of his Realm.  
Upon the Second part of the Text, Honour the King, he said, That truly to Honour the King, was to advise him not to attempt any thing against his Conscience, and that would bring a general Odium upon himself by engaging him to make void what his Predecessors had done. Secondly, That it was not to honour him to put him upon any thing, that would lessen his Power by persuading him, That his Predecessors had no Power or Right to grant those Privileges, Thirdly, It was not to honour the King, to advise him to do any thing contrary to his Reputation, Conscience, or Oath which he had taken to preserve the Privileges and Liberties of the Church. He concludes with a Supplication to the King, That it would please the King to confirm their Just and Canonical Privileges, to recall the Attempts made to the contrary at their Complaint and Request, and to preserve the Church of France in its Franchises, Liberties, and Customs. And as to the Articles proposed, Some of them they were obliged to maintain; because otherwise they should lose and weaken all their Ecclesiastical Power: But the others contained nothing but certain Abuses, which they could not believe their Officers had been guilty of, and which they would neither approve, nor tolerate.  
The next Friday, which was Dec. 29. the King being in his Palace, with his Counsellors and Barons, Peter Bertrandus, Bishop of Autun, delivered his Speech, having taken for his Text these words in Genesis, Let not the Lord be Angry, if I speak; and these other words of Scripture, Lord, thou art our present Refuge. And having proved, That it is the Duty of Kings to be the Protectors of the Church; he answers Peter de Cunguieres, yet with a Protestation, that he did it only to instruct the King, and not to answer as in Judgement. He maintains, That the Jurisdiction in Civil causes belongs to the Clergy both by Divine and Humane Right, and that Kings had bestowed that Privilege on the Church, and the rather, because the Church had granted Kings several Spiritual Revenues. Then he answers to the Articles propounded, and says, That they are of Three sorts; Some concerned the perpetual Rights of the Church, and belong to it by Right and Custom, which it justly used, and they were ready to defend it. Others contained several Abuses and Errors, which they would not endure, and were ready to correct, if they were really used. The last Sort were partly just and partly unjust. Then he makes some Remarks upon the 66 Articles propounded by Peter Cuguieres, and maintains the greatest part of them. Lastly, The Bishop presented a Petition, in which they requested a Confirmation of their Privileges, and a Revocation of all that had been done and attempted to the contrary.  
The Assembly being met on the 8th. day at the Castle of S. Vincents before the King, Peter de Cuguieres answered the Bishops in the Name of his Majesty, in a Discourse which had for the Text these words of Jesus Christ, I give you Peace, I am with you, fear not; and told the Bishops, That the King's intention was not to deprive the Church or Bishops of the Rights and Privileges, which they could claim by Right, or any Reasonable Custom; but he proved that they had no right to Judge in Civil causes; and in the Conclusion adds in the Name of the King, That if any one would inform the King of the Custom and Use, he was ready to hearken to them. Bertrand replied, and says in his Reply, That the King's Answer was very general, and prayed his Majesty to explain himself further. He was answered in the King's Name, That his intention was not to oppose the Customs of the Church which were made appear by good Authority. The next Sunday, the Bishops being come to the King at the Castle of S. Vincents, The Archbishop of Bourges said to them, That the King had declared, That they should fear nothing, for they should lose nothing during his Reign; but he would maintain them in all their Rights and Customs. The King owned that he had made such a Declaration, and the Bishops thanked him by the Mouth of the Archbishop of Sens, who humbly represented to his Majesty, That he had published many things Prejudicial to the Jurisdiction of the Clergy, which they prayed his Majesty to revoke. The King answered them himself, That they were not done by his Order, and that he would not retifie them. The Archbishop of Sens added, That the Bishops would reform some Abuses, which the Laiety had complained of, provided, that the King and others would be content. Lastly, He besought his Majesty to comfort them with a Clear Answer. Peter de Cuguieres answered, That the King was resolved so to do, provided, That the Bishops would correct and reform whatever he desired, and that the King would give them time to do it till Christmas; but if they did not in that time work the Reformation Agreed on, he would use such a Remedy himself, as should be approved by God, and the People; and with this Answer he sent away the Bishops, but they were not satisfied with it. Some affirm, That the Clergy continued their Erterprises, and thereupon he put out an Edict in favour of the Secular Judges: But however that be, it is certain, That from that time, the Clergy lost the Temporal Jurisdiction, which they exercised, and which they had extended so far, that they determined almost all Causes upon the account of Sin, or Swearing; as you may see in the Articles propounded and maintained by the Prelates in that Conference. The false Opinion, defended then by the Bishops, was at that time abandoned. That the Temporal Jurisdiction belonged by Divine Right to the Clergy.  
Bertrandus made also another Treatise upon this Subject, Entitled, Of the Original, and Use of Jurisdictions, or of the Spiritual and Temporal Power; in which he handles, and determines these following Questions: I. Whether the Secular Power, by which the People is governed, as to their Temporal Rights, is from God. II. Whether there ought to be any other Power, or Jurisdiction for the good of the People. III. Whether these two Powers may meet in One Person. iv Whether Spiritual Power is Superior to the Temporal, or the Temporal to the Spiritual. He answers the first Question thus; That the Power of governing the People, cometh from God, as to the Right, but not as to the obtaining, or use of it; because it is by the Law, and according to the Order of God, that there is any such Power; but as to the manner of coming to it, it is not by Divine Right, but is often Unjust, and Kings do also abuse their Power. As to the Second, he says, That besides the Secular Power, whose end is the Moral and Civil good; there is a Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Power to govern the People, in order to Everlasting Life. As to the Third, It is evident that these two Powers may meet in the same Subject, and that they did actually meet in the Priests of the Old and New Law; but the difficulty is to know, whether the Ecclesiastical Power or Jurisdiction extends itself to that which belongs to the Temporal Jurisdiction, of which sort are the personal and mixed Actions of the Laiety, either in its own Nature, or by Usage, or by Custom; That the Ecclesiastical Power in its own Nature extends itself over all Persons, which are Subject to it as Christians; That the Pope hath this Jurisdiction over all Christians and other Prelates in their Dioceses, in such sort nevertheless, that the Pope may exempt certain Persons from it; and that it extends also to all personal Actions, as far, as they may be sinful, and consequently, that Ecclesiastical Judges may take Cognisance of them, as well as Lay. Nevertheless, although the Church hath this Right, yet it hath not always made use of it, either to avoid Scandal, or to prevent men's Thoughts, that it seeks its own Interest; or lastly, because of the Opposition of Tyrants: But in France ever since the Kings have become Christians, it hath always peaceably enjoyed that Right; That as to Causes Real, the Church hath determined them by Custom, or a Privilege granted by Princes. His Answer to the last Question is, That the Spiritual aught to rule over the Temporal, alleging for his Proof Pope Boniface's Decretal Unam Sanctam: And lastly, Endeavours to answer some Objections which are brought against it. All the false Reasonings which are in that Treatise proceed from hence, that the Author distinguishes well between the two Powers, but does not determine in what manner each Jurisdiction ought to Act, its Power, and End. It is true, that all Men as Christians are subject to a Spiritual Jurisdiction; and that all their Actions, as they are Virtues or Vices, are to be regulated, and ordered by the Spiritual Power; but it is not true, that it therefore can exercise a Temporal Jurisdiction over all Men and their Actions, nor force them by Temporal Punishments, or a Deprivation of their Estates. It can only use Threats and Punishments purely Spiritual, instruct Men, admonish them, enjoin them, and forbidden them under the Pain of Excommunication, Deposition, etc. and not under the Penalty of Deprivation of Goods, Corporal Punishments, etc. and consequently it hath not a Jurisdiction to decide Controversies in relation to things Temporal, and it doth not belong to it to judge in Foro exteriori. The first of these Treatises of Bertrandus, hath been printed alone at Paris in 1495. and is found also in the Second Tome of Goldastus' Monarchies; The others among the Treatises of Law, printed at Venice in 1584. They are both in the last Bibliotheca Patrum, printed at Lions, Tom 26.  
WILLIAM de RUBION, a Grey-Friar, hath Composed some Disputations upon the Sentences; 
William de Rubion. Guido de Montrocher.  printed at Paris in 1518. Some hold, that he flourished about the Year 1333.  
GUIDO de MONTROCHER, a French Divine, hath Composed an Instruction for Curates about 1333. dedicated to Raymund Bishop of Valence, printed at Venice in 1491. and a Treatise of the manner of celebrating the Mass, printed at the same place in 1570.  
MONALDUS, a Grey-Friar, is the Author of a Sum of Cases of Conscience, called Golden; 
Monaldus.  printed at Lions in 1518. He must not be confounded with two others of the same Name, one of whom was Martyred March 22. 1288. by the Saracens at Arzenga; and the other was Archbishop of Beneventum, who died Decemb. 11. about the beginning of the Age. This, of whom we are speaking, was not Archbishop of Beneventum, and died Novemb. 9 1332. Trithemius says, That he also Composed some Questions upon the Books of the Sentences, and some Sermons, which are in MS. in the Vatican Library.  
LUDOLPHUS or LANDOLPHUS the Saxon, after he had passed almost Thirty Years in the Order 
Ludolphus.  of Friars-Preachers, became a Carthusian, in the Monastery of Cologne, and was afterward made a Carthusian Prior at Strasburg about 1330. He Composed the Life of Jesus Christ out of the Four Evangelists, and other Ecclesiastical Authors, with Commentaries and Prayers upon every Chapter, which have been printed at Strasburg in 1483. at Paris in 1509. at Venice in 1536, 1564. 1572, 1578. and with the Lives of S. Ann, S. Joachim, and the Virgin at Paris in 1589. He also has made a Commentary upon the Psalms, according to the Spiritual Sense taken out of S. Jerom, S. Austin, Peter Lombard, and Casnodorus, printed at Paris in 1506. and 1528. at Venice in 1521. and at Lion's 1540  
WILLIAM de MONTLEDUN, Abbot of Monstierneuf in Poitiers, a famous Lawyer in his time, 
William de Montledun.  flourished in the University of Tholouse in the Papacy of Benedict XII. and Composed divers Books of Canon Law, A Sacramentary, which is in MS. in Mr. Colbert's Library, Cod. 349. Lectures upon the Sixth Book of the Decretals, cited by Rusaeus and Probus, and augmented by Blaisus, the Golden Doctor of Tholouse, which are in the Library of the Cathedral Church at Cambray; An Apparatus to the Constitutions of Clement V cited by Rusaeus and Aufrerius, which are in the Libraries of the Monasteries of S. Serguis and S. Albinus at Angers, and an Apparatus upon the Extravagants of John XXII. cited also by Rusaeus and Probus, which is in the Library of the Monastery of S. Albinus at Angers, and Mr. Colbert, as also his Treatise upon the Clementines, which has been printed several times in the Repetitions of the Canon Law; A Treatise of Cardinals cited by Aegidius Magister, which is observed by Mr. Baluzius in his Addition to Chap. 4. of the Sixth Book of the Concord of Mr. de Marca, and in his Notes upon the Lives of the Popes at Avignon.  
SIMON BORASTON an Englishman, who flourished about 1336. Composed several Works, which 
Simon Boraston.  are found in the Libraries in England, and among others, Of the Unity and Order of the Church, A Work of the Order of Judgement, and some other Treatises of Philosophy.  
BARTHOLOMAEUS de S. CONCORDIA, a Native of Pisa [a City in Italy] a Preaching Friar, Composed 
Bartholomaeus de S. Concordiâ.  about the Year 1338. A Sum of Cases of Conscience, printed with his Sermons upon Lent at Lions 1519. We must not confound him with Bartholomaeus Urbino, a Scholar of Augustin Tryumphus, an Hermit of the Order of S. Austin, who was made Bishop of Urbino in 1343. and died in 1350. after he had finished the Milleloquium, begun by Augustin Tryumphus, printed at Lions in 1555. and Composed the Milleloquium of S. Ambrose, printed at Lions also at the same time. This last was written for the Pope against Lewis of Bavaria, and the Augustins at Rome have a Treatise of his in MS. against the Errors discovered in the time of Lewis Duke of Bavaria: He also Composed some Spiritual Treatises, as a Writing upon the Four Gifts, Two Books of the Spiritual War, An Explication upon the Gospels of Lent, and an Abridgement of the Book of Aegidius Romanus, about the Government of Princes. We must distinguish him also from Bartholomew Albicius a Native of Pisa also, a Grey-Friar, who flourished about 1380. and 
Bartholomew Albicius.  wrote a Work of the Conformity of S. Frances with our Lord Jesus Christ, printed at Milan in 1510. and Six Books of the Life and Praises of the Virgin Mary, or the Conformity of the Virgin with Jesus Christ, printed at Venice in 1596. Several Sermons upon Lent, are also attributed unto him, printed in several places. This last died Decemb. 10. 1401.  
WILLIAM de BALDENSEL, or BOLDESELE, or de BOLDENSLEVE, a Germane Knight, wrote an 
William Baldensel.  History of his Voyage into the Holy Land, at the entreaty of Cardinal Taleran, who caused it to be made upon the Occasion of the Crusado, which was made that Year. This Work is in the Fifth Tome of the Antiquities of Canisius.  
ARNOLDUS CESCOMES, Archbishop of Tarragon, wrote about the same time (viz. in 1337.) 
Arnoldus Cescomes.  Two Letters; the one to Pope Benedict XII. and the other to John Bishop of Porto, to desire Assistance against the Saracens of Spain, which are published by Mr. Baluzius, in the Second Tome of his Miscellanies.  
DANIEL de TRIVISI, a Grey-Friar, after he had made several Voyages, and stayed some time 
Daniel de Trivisi.  in the Kingdom of Armenia, was sent by Leo King of that Country to Benedict XII. in 1338. and Composed for the Justification of the Armenians, a Treatise entitled, The Answer of Daniel de Trivisi, of the Order of Grey-Friars, and Ambassador of Leo King of the Armenians in the time of Benedict XII. which is in MS. in Mr. Colbert's Library, Cod. 1653.  
HENRY de URIMARIA, a Native of Thuringia, of the Order of the Hermits of S. Augustine, 
Henry de Urimaria.  flourished about 1340. He joined a most Devout Piety with a continual Study, and Composed several Works of Science and Piety, the Commentaries, or Additions to the Books of the Sentences, printed at Cologne in 1513. are of the first sort, The Treatise upon the Four Instincts, printed at Venice in 1498. under the Name of another Author, is of the second sort, as also his Sermons upon the Passion of Jesus Christ, and the Saints, printed at Haguenau in 1513. and at Paris with the former Treatise in 1514. There are several other Works of Piety of that Author which have not yet been published.  
ROBERT COWTON, an Englishman and a Grey-Friar, flourished about the same time, and 
Robert Cowton.  Composed a Commentary and an Abridgement upon the Four Books of the Sentences, which are in some Libraries in England.  
DURANDUS de CHAMPAGNE, a Grey-Friar, Confessor of the Queen of France and Navarre, 
Durandus de Champagne.  flourished also about the same time, and Composed a Sum of Confessions, or a Directory for Confessors divided into Four Parts, which is in the Library of Mr. Colbert, Cod. 451.  
CLEMENT de FLORENCE of the Order of Servites, a Divine of Paris, which flourished about 
Clement de Florence.  the Year 1340. wrote upon the Psalms, and Composed a Golden-Chain, upon all the Epistles of S. Paul, which are in MS. in the Library of the Great Duke of Tuscany, and Concordances dedicated to Annebald Cardinal, the Protector of his Order, which are in the Library of the Servites at Florence. He died in the 78th. Year of his Age, after he had gone through divers Offices in his Order.  
LUPOLDUS de BAMBERG, a Lawyer, the Scholar of John Andreas de Bologne, has Composed 
Lupoldus de Bamberg.  two Works full of Learning; the one dedicated to Rodulphus Duke of Saxony, concerning the Zeal and Fervour of the Ancient Germane Emperors towards the Religion of Jesus Christ, and the Ministers of the Church, in which he produces abundance of Examples of French Kings and Germane Emperors, upon that Subject. The other is a Treatise of the Rights of the Empire, dedicated to Baldwin Archbishop of Treves, printed at Strasburg in 1508. These two Treatises have been printed at Paris in 1540 at Cologne in 1564. at Basil in 1497, and 1566. and at Strasburg in 1603. and 1609. This Author flourished about the Year 1340.  
WALTER BURLEY, an Englishman, whom some assure us to have been a Grey-Friar, and others 
Walter Burley.  a Secular Priest, studied under Scotus at Oxford, and at Paris; but followed not his Doctrines. He was the Master of Edw. III. King of England, and died about 1340. His Commentary upon the Books of the Sentences, was never printed; but only several Commentaries upon the Books of Aristotle, which have been printed alone in several places, and a Book of the Lives of the Philosophers, printed in 1472. but very full of Faults; as Vossius has observed.  
JOHN CANON, an Englishman and a Grey-Friar, after he had finished the first course of his 
John Canon.  Studies at Oxford, came to Paris to hear the Lectures of Scotus; where having received a Drs. Cap., he returned to Oxford, where he taught till he died, which was in about 1340. He Composed a Comment upon the Mr. of the Sentences, Some Lectures and Questions, and a Treatise upon the Eight Books of Aristotle's Physics, printed at Venice in 1492.  
PETER de PALUDE, [or PALUDANUS] the Son of Gerhard Varembonius, a Lord in Bresse, of the 
Peter de Palude.  Order of the Friars-Preachers, a Licentiate in 1314. in the University of Paris, flourished in that University, and was nominated Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1330. He made a Voyage into the East in 1331. and being returned preached a Crusade. He died at Paris, Jan. ult. 1341. He Composed a large Commentary upon the Four Books of the Sentences, of which that Part which is upon the Third and Fourth Books was printed at Paris in 1514, and 1517. and since in 1530. Sermons for all the Year printed at Antwerp in 1571. at Venice in 1584. and at Colen in 1608. A Treatise of the Immediate Cause of the Ecclesiastical Power, printed at Paris in 1506. in which he Treats of the Power of S. Peter, the Apostles, Disciples, Popes, Bishops and Curates. His MS. Commentary upon the First and Second Book of the Sentences, was fallen into the hands of Damianus Zenarius, a Printer at Venice, who had a Design to publish it, but never brought it to pass. There are in the Covent of Jacobins in Paris, some Comments of this Author upon all the Books of Scripture, and in the Library of Mr. Colbert, Cod. 566. A Treatise upon the Poverty of Jesus Christ, and his Apostles, against Michael de Caesena. It is said also, That there is a Treatise printed by this Author to prove, That the Friars-Preachers may have Goods and Revenues. It is observed by the Continuer of the Chronicon of William de Nangis, that in the Year 1331. Peter de Palude, and some other Doctors were of Opinion, That a Friar-Preacher, who knew by Confession, the Story of the Forgery of certain Letters produced by Robert d'Artois, to prove his Right to that County, might do it without Sinning; yea, he was obliged to discover it, because that Story was not the Sin, which made part of the Confession; and his Opinion was followed by all the Doctors that were present, although it was not the Common Opinion.  
FRANCIS PETRARCH, Born July 20. 1304. at Arezzo, of a Father a Native of Florence, but 
Francis Petrarch.  banished his Country: He was brought up at Ancisa till he was 18 Years old, when he returned with his Parents to Pisa, and from thence was brought to Avignon. He Studied Grammar, Rhetoric and Philosophy at Carpentras, and Civil Law at Montpellier and Bononia. Having tasted of Law, because he was not to be of that Profession, he left it, when he was 22 Years of Age; and having taken a Journey into Italy and France, he retreated into the Valley of Clausa, near Avignon; where he gave himself up wholly to the Study of Human Learning, Oratory, History and Poetry; and arrived at such Perfection in them, that his fame being spread far, he was invited to Rome, where he was Crowned with Laurels in 1343. He was the first that recovered the Ancient Love of Human Learning, and revived it in Europe, which had lain buried a long time, and caused Men to return from that Barbarism, which had reigned till then by inspiring many with a desire to imitate him. About the end of his Life he was made a Canon of Milan, and died near that City, July 14. 1374.  
It is not upon the account of his Eloquence, or Pieces of Poetry, or Works of Profane Learning, which he made in great Numbers, that we put him among Ecclesiastical Writers; but because he Composed several Books of Morality, in which he establishes the Principles and Maxims of Religion, viz. Two Books of the Remedies of both Fortunes, which are full of Christian Morality; Two Books about a Solitary Life, in which he relates several Examples of Christian Monks; Two Books of the Leisure of Monks, in which he commends the Holy quiet of Religious Persons; Two Books of the Contempt of the World, full of excellent Morality; A Paraphrase upon the Seven Penitential Psalms; to which we may join a Treatise against Covetousness, and some others. There are also several Letters of his which concern the Affairs of the Church of his time, in which he treats of some Points of Christian Morality. He speaks very freely against the Popes at Avignon, and against the Disorders of the Court of Rome. The Works of Petrarch have been printed at Basil in 1554. and in 1581.  
JOHN BACON, or BACONTHORP, so called from a Village in Norfolk in England, a Carmelite; 
John Bacon, or Baconthorp.  having accomplished his Studies at Oxford, came to Paris, where he took his Degrees; and returning into his Country, was made Provincial of his Order in 1329. Four Years after he made a Voyage to Rome; he died at London in 1346. This Monk was a famous Averrhoist. He Composed a Comment, or some Questions upon the Sentences printed at Milan in 1510, and 1511 at Cremona, in 1518 at Paris and Venice. An Abridgement of the Life of Jesus Christ, and some Quodlibetical Questions printed at Venice in 1527. He also Composed a Treatise upon the Rule of the Carmelites an Abridgement of the History and Rights of that Order; Some Comments upon St. Austin, De Civitate Dei, and the Trinity, and upon a Treatise of S. Anselm, Entitled, Why God was made Man? A Treatise against the Jews; A Treatise of Poverty; Some Commentaries upon all the Scripture; A Treatise of the Beatific Vision against John XXII. and several Sermons.  
JOHN BECANUS, a Canon of Utrecht, hath Composed a Chronicon of the Bishops of Utrecht, 
John Becanus.  and Earls of Holland, from S. Wilbrod to the Year 1346. This Chronicon has been continued to 1524. by William Hedanus, Canon of Harlem; printed at Franeker in 1612. and at Utrecht in 1643.  
SIMON FIDATUS de CASSIA, a Village near Rome, an Hermit of S. Austin, Founder of the Monastery 
Simon Fidatus.  of S. Catharine of Nuns of his own Order at Florence, died Feb. 11. 1348. He was famous for his Devotion, and in great Reputation for his Spiritual-mindedness, and having a Gift of Prophecy. He made a considerable Work about the Actions of Jesus Christ, divided into Five Books dedicated to a Lawyer named Thomas de Corsinis', printed at Colen in 1540 A Book of Virginity, printed at Basil in 1517. Trithemius makes mention of these following Treatises of this Author, A Book of the Christian Doctrine, A Treatise of Patience, An Explication of the Creed, The Mirror of the Cross, The Discipline of the Monks called Spiritual, and some Letters.  
JOANNES ANDREAE, [not Joannes Andreas, as some style him] the most famous Lawyer of his 
Joannes Andreae.  time, was a Native of Mugello [in Italy.] He taught 45 Years in the University of Bononia, and died in that City July 7. 1348. These Works of his are Extant; Novels, or Commentaries upon the Five Books of Decretals, printed at Venice in 1581. Two Commentaries upon the Sixth Book; One of them he made, when he was young, called, His Apparatus; the other, when he was older, called, A Novel; The first is in the Body of Law, the other is printed with his Novel upon the Decretals. His Glosses upon the Clementines, printed at Lions in 1572. His Additions to the Mirror of William Durandus. A Tree of Consanguinity, Affinity, and Propinquity, as well Spiritual as Legal, printed at Basil in 1517. Some Feudal Questions, as also upon Marriage, and Interdicts, printed at Venice in 1584. A Sum about Affiances, Marriage, and Degrees of Consanguinity printed in Vol. VI of Tractatus Tractatuum.  
ROBERT HOLKOT, a Native of Northampton in England, a Preaching-Friar, flourished in the 
Robert Holkot.  University of Oxford before the Year 1349. in which he died of the Plague, after he had began his Lectures upon Ecclesiastes. His printed Works are these, A Commentary upon the Four Books of the Sentences, printed at Lions in 1497. 1510. and in 1518. Two Hundred and Thirteen Lectures upon the Book of Wisdom, which are attributed in several MSS. to Arnoldus D' Aln●, a Cistertian, printed at Spires in 1483. at Ruthlingen in 1489. and at Venice in 1509. and 1586. His Moral Histories for the use of Preachers, with a Table of S. Thomas upon the Gospels and Epistles of all the Year, printed at Venice in 1505. and at Paris in 1510. His Lectures upon the Canticles, and upon the Seven first Chapters of Ecclesiasticus, printed at Venice in 1509. A Treatise about the Imputation of Sin, and Four other Questions, printed at Lions in 1497. and in 1518. A Commentary also upon the Proverbs of Solomon is attributed to him, printed at Paris in 1515. but it belongs rather to Thomas Gualensis. There are some other Works of Holkots in MS. in the Libraries at Cambridge, as his Quodlibetical Questions [in Pembroke-Hall] Sermons and Allegories [in Peterhouse.]  
RICHARD HAMPOLE, Born in Yorkshire in England, an Augustine Monk, died Sept. 29. 1349. 
Richard Hampole.  has Composed several Treatises of Piety. Some of them were printed at Cologne, and are extant in the 26th. Tom of the Bibliotheca Patrum. A Treatise of the Amendment of a Sinner, An Explication of the Lord's Prayer, Another of the Apostles and Athanasius' Creed; The Praise of the Name of Jesus, A Treatise of the Embraces of the Love of God, An Exposition upon these words of the Canticles of Solomon, The Daughters will love thee affectionately, in which he also treats of the Love of God. These Treatises are full of the Spirit, and very affecting. He also Composed several other Spiritual Commentaries upon the Holy Scripture, as the Psalms, Job, Lamentations of Jeremiah; A Treatise Entitled, The Sting of Conscience, Scala Mundi, A Book of the Contempt of the World. The Commendation of Chastity, and some other Treatises, which are found in the Libraries of England [as the Cotton, Archbishop of Canterbury's at Lambeth, and Bodleian.]  
JOANNES HONSEMIUS, or HOXEMIUS, a Dutchm●n, 〈◊〉 Canon of the Church of Liege, made a 
Joannes Honsemius.  Continuation of the History of the Bishops of Liege, composed by Aegidius Aureae Vallis from 1247. to 1348. It is printed in the Collection [of Historians upon the same Subject put out] by [Joannes] Chapeavillus [and printed at Liege in 1613.]  
GERARDUS ODONIS, a Native of Rovergne [in France] a Grey-Friar, was chosen General of 
Gerardus Odonis.  that Order in 1329. in the place of Michael de Caesena, and after preferred to the Dignity of Archbishop of Antioch by John XXII. he died at Catana in 1349. He Composed a Comment upon the Ten Books of Aristotle's Morals, printed at Venice in 1500. The Office of the Marks of S. Francis is attributed to him. There is in the Covent of Cordeliers at Mirepoix [in Languedoc] a MS. Treatise of the Figures of the Bible, which bears his Name, and in the Vatican Library a Comment upon the Books of the Sentences, Two Philosophical Questions, and some Commentaries upon several Books of Scripture [as Waddingus testifies in his Biblioth. Frat. Min. p. 145.]  
JACOBUS FOLQUIER, an Hermit of S. Austin, a Doctor, and Reader of Divinity at Tholouse, 
Jacobus Folquier.  dedicated in 1345. to Clement VI a Work Entitled, Viridarium Gregorianum, or Allegories upon all the Books of Scripture which are found in MS. in the Library of the Great Augustine's at Paris.  
BERNARDUS, Abbot of Mont-Cassin, who flourished about 1347. Composed a Book, Entitled, 
Bernard.  The Mirror of the Monks of the Order of S. Benedict, printed at Paris in 1507. A Commentary upon the Rule of S. Benedict, which is found in MS. in some Libraries. Trithemius also mentions, a Book of Regular Precepts and Sermons for his Monks.  
THOMAS BRADWARDIN an Englishman, of the Order of Grey-Friars, Chancellor of the University 
Thomas Bradwardin.  of Oxford, Confessor to Edward III was chosen Archbishop of Canterbury in 1348. by a Chapter of that Church, two several times; for the King of England and the Pope, having preferred John Ufford the first time before him, he was not consecrated; but this last dying a little time after, he was chosen a Second time, and his Election being confirmed by the Pope, and approved by the King, he was consecrated at Avignon by Cardinal Bertrandus; but he died within Forty Days after his Ordination, and before he had taken Possession of his Archbishopric.  
This Author, Surnamed the Profound Doctor, Coomposed a large Work Entitled, The Cause of God, and the truth of Causes against Pelagius, published by Sir H. Savil, and printed at London in 1618. in which he strongly maintains the Principles of S. Austin and S. Thomas, concerning the Operation and Power of God over the Actions of his Creatures. Some attribute to him also a Treatise of Geometry and Arithmetic, viz. a Treatise of Proportions, printed at Venice in 1505. A Treatise of Speculative Arithmetic, printed at Paris in 1502. and a Treatise of Geometry, printed at Paris in 1512. and 1530.  
Bradwardin in his Work [De Caussâ Dei, etc.] does not only treat of Liberty and Predestination, but also of the Existence of God; his Perfections, Eternity, Immutability, Immensity and other Attributes, particularly his Knowledge, Power and Will. He shows that God preserves all Being's that he hath Created; That he doth all things immediately, that are done by his Creatures; That his Will is effectual, invincible, and immutable; That all that he Wills, infallibly comes to pass; That the things which he knows are not the cause of his Knowledge, but his Will. He explains in what sense God Wills, or Wills not Sin. He proves the Necessity of Grace against Pelagius, and shows that it is gratis given, and that Man deserves not the first Grace; That it is the immediate Cause of all good Actions, and principally of Repentance. He holds Predestination to be gratuitous, and rejects the middle Knowledge. These are the Chief Points he treats of in his First Book. His Second Book is upon Free Will: He affirms, That it consists not in being able to Will, or not Will, the same thing, but in a Power of Willing freely all that we ought to choose, and willing all that we ought not to choose. He shows that no Second Cause can necessitate the Will, but that the free Will cannot conquer Temptations without the special Assistance of God, which is nothing else, but his invincible Will; That without this help, no Man can avoid Sin; That Perseverance is the Effect of Grace: Lastly, He explains the Co-operation of Man's Will with God's. He affirms, That God hinders not Liberty, though he causes a kind of Necessity. He treats of several Kind's of Necessity and Contingence, and recites several Opinions of Philosophers and Divines about the Contingency of things, which he numbers as far as 33. and concludes that all future things happen by one kind of Necessity, with relation to Superior Causes, which agrees nevertheless with Liberty; but that is not Absolute, Natural, violent, or forced. He concludes his Works with a brief Recital of the Errors which he hath opposed, and the Truths he hath established, which he hath reduced to 36 Propositions.  
ALBERICUS de ROSATE, or ROXIATI, Born in Bergamo, a Lawyer, flourished about 1350. He hath Composed a Commentary upon the Sixth Book of the Decretals, printed in the Collection 
Albericus de Rosate.  of the Treatises of Famous Lawyers made at Venice in 1584. A Dictionary of the Civil and Canon Law, printed at Venice in 1573. and 1601. and some other Treatises of Civil Law.  
PETRUS de PATERNIS, an Hermit of the Order of S. Augustine, flourished about 1350. and 
Petrus de Paternis.  wrote a Work of the Necessity and Sufficiency of the Human Life, which is found in MS. in Mr. Colbert's Library, Cod. 1517. with a Treatise against the Jews, Cod. 978.  
PETRUS de CLARA VALLE, writ several little Works about the Reformation of Manners; and 
Peter de Clarà Valle.  among others, an Epistle in the Name of Jesus Christ to Pope Innocent VI dated 1353. A Letter from Lucifer to the Worldlings, dated 1351. and a Treatise of the Power of the Pope, which are in MS. in Mr. Colbert's Library, Cod. 1502.  
RICHARD FITZ-RALPH, that is to say, the Son of Ralph, Born at Dundalke in Ireland. He 
Rich. Fitz-Ralph.  was first Archdeacon of Lichfield, than Chancellor of Oxford, about 1333. and afterwards raised to the Dignity of Archbishop of Armagh, in 1347. He made War with the Begging-Friars, and not only Preached against them in England; but when they complained of him to the Pope, he went himself on purpose to Avignon in 1357. to maintain what he had asserted, and to demand of Pope Innocent VI a Revocation of their Privileges, and to complain of the Attempts they made upon the Rights of Bishops and Cures. The Pope minded him, and appointed Commissioners; but he died December 16. 1360. before he had finished this Business. An Ancient Author who wrote the Life of Innocent VI observes, That the Begging-Friars rejoiced much at his Death, and that they rather Sung a Gaudeamus, than a Requiem at it.  
He wrote two Treatises against the Begging-Friars; The one Entitled, A Defence of the Curates against the Mendicants; and the other, Of such as are to hear Confessions, De Audientia Confessionum; This last is in MS. only, the first is in the Collection of Goldastus, and has been printed several times at Paris, viz. in 1496. 1525. and 1623. from a MS. of the Library of S. Victor. We have also a Sum of this Authors against the Errors of the Arminians, printed at Paris in 1511. and in 1612. and Four Sermons in Praise of the Virgin, preached at London in 1356. printed with the former Work. His other Sermons and Sum upon the Sentences are in MS. in England. Some say, he has translated the Bible into the Irish Tongue.  
His Treatise for the Defence of Curates, is nothing but a Discourse which he made before the Consistory of the Pope and Cardinals at Avignon, Nou. 8. 1357. which has for the Text these words of S. John Chap. 7. Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous Judgement. He protests in the beginning, that he had no intention to deliver any thing against the Doctrine of the Church, nor did desire the destruction of the Begging-Friars; but only their Settlement in their ancient Purity. Then he relates the Subject and Occasion of the Contest he had with them in the manner following. He says, That being at London, he met with some Doctors who disputed among themselves about the begging Condition of Jesus Christ and his Apostles; and being invited to Preach upon that Subject, he had laid down Nine Conclusions in Seven or Eight Sermons; which had given occasion to the Begging-Friars to bring a frivolous Accusation against him. The First of these Conclusions was this, That Jesus Christ was poor in his Life, because he was born in it; not that he loved, or chose Poverty. The Second was, That Jesus Christ never voluntarily begged. The Third, That he never taught Men to beg voluntarily. The Fourth, That he taught the contrary. The Fifth, That no Man ought to make a Vow always to live in a voluntary Poverty. The Sixth, That the Rule of the Grey-Friars does not oblige them to a voluntary Poverty. The Seventh, That the Bull of Alexander IU. who Condemned the Books of the Doctors of Paris, is not contrary to any of these Conclusions. The Eighth, That we ought rather to confess in our Parish-Churches, than in the Chapels of the Begging-Friars. The Ninth, That it is better to confess to the Bishop, than Monks. He gins his Apology with these two last Propositions, and proves them by Principles of Law. In it he shows, That according to the Canon, Omnis utriusque Sexus, all Christians are obliged to confess their Sins once in a Year to their own Curate; That the pretended Privileges of the Begging-Friars are Abuses, contrary to their Institution and Rule, and are more Prejudicial to them than Advantageous. Then he proves his other Conclusions concerning Begging. This Discourse is followed with a Memoir, which he presented to the Four Cardinals, to answer the Reasons which the Begging-Friars alleged to justify their Opinion concerning Begging, and another Writing presented to the same Cardinals, against the Abuses committed by the Begging-Friars in their Preaching, Confessions, Celebration of their Prayers, etc.  
Goldastus hath joined to his Defence of Curates, an Answer made by Roger Chonoe, or 
Roger Conway.  Conway, a Grey-Friar, who lived at the same time, concerning Confessions made to Begging-Friars. The same Author also confuted him in his Opinion about Poverty in Three Questions; which Waddingus saw in MS. He died at London in 1360. His Work doth not equal Richards either in Solidity, or Eloquence.  
Mr. Baluzius hath also two Treatises, MSS: of Richard's, the one of Begging and the Privileges of Friars, and the other, A Reply to the Work of Robert Conway. In the first he takes notice, that he had already Composed Seven Books of the Poverty of our Saviour; and in the second he mentions an Answer to the Book of F. John de Terinis. He also observes in the Continuation of Rodolphus of Chester, that he had also Composed several good Sermons.  
GREGORIUS ARIMINENSIS, or de ARIMINO, an Hermit of S. Austin, of which Order he was 
Gregorius Ariminensis.  chosen General May 24. 1357. flourished in the University of Paris. He hath left a Commentary upon the First and Second Book of the Sentences, printed at Valence in 1500. at Venice in 1503. Additions to that Work, printed at Venice in 1522. Commentaries upon the Epistles of S. Paul, and upon the Canonical Epistle of S. James, with a Book about Usury, printed at Ariminum in 1522. He died in 1358. at Vienna in Austria. Authors say, that he also made Sermons upon the whole Year.  
THOMAS de STRASBURG, an Hermit of S. Austin, was chosen their General in 1345. and died 
Thomas de Strasburg.  at Vienna in Austria in 1357. He is the Author of a Commentary upon the Four Books of the Mr. of the Sentences, printed at Strasburg in 1490. and at Venice in 1564. and at Geneva in 1585. Trithemius also relates, That this Author made a Book upon the Constitutions of his Order. There was another Thomas de Strasburg, a Friar-Preacher, who flourished about the end of the 15th. Century, who Composed some Sermons, Meditations, Letters and Questions, which some attribute to the former.  
ADAM GODDAM, or WODHAM, an Englishman, a Grey-Friar, who is ordinarily called, Anglicus, 
Adam Goddam.  flourished in England from 1330. and died 1358. He Composed a Commentary upon the Books of the Sentences, printed at Paris in 1512.  
RADULPHUS, or RALPH HIGDEN, or HIKEDEN, a Benedictine Monk of Chester, is the Author 
Ralph Higden.  of a large Historical Work, Entitled, Polycronicon, from the Creation of the World to the Year 1357. which was translated into English in 1397. by John de Trivisi, and continued in Latin by John Malvarne, a Monk of Winchester, who also Composed a Treatise of Visions about the Year 1342. There are abundance of MSS. of the Original of this Polychronicon in the Libraries of England, and a Version printed in 1482. by William Caxten the first Printer in England, with a Continuation to 1460. Higden also Composed some Theological Distinctions, The Mirror of Curates, a Commentary upon Job and the Canticles, and some Sermons. He died in 1363. having lived a Monastic life 64 Years.  
JOANNES THAULERUS, a Germane, a Dominican of Cologne, was one of the famousest Preachers 
Joannes Thaulerus.  of his time; Surius has translated his Sermons into Latin, and caused them to be printed at Cologne in 1548. with some other Small Treatises of Piety gathered from the Writings of Thauler, and some others. They have been also printed in the same City in 1572. and 1603. This Author died in 1361. May 17. There is a great deal of Piety in his Works.  
PETRUS BERCHERIUS, a Native of Poitiers, a Benedictine Monk, and Prior of S. Eligius at 
Petrus Bercherius.  Paris, died there in 1362. He Composed a Moral Dictionary of all the Bible, which contains the principal Words of the Bible, with Moral Reflections on them. His Moral Reductory of the Bible, in which he rehearses all the Histories in a Moral Sense, and his Moral Inductory divided into Three Parts, have been printed at Paris in 1521. in Four Volumes (which is the best Edition) at Basil the same Year, at Venice in 1583. and 1589. in Three Volumes, and at Cologn in 1620. also in Three Volumes.  
BERNARDUS DAPIFER, a Monk of Melch in Austria, wrote about 1360. the History of S. Gotholinus, 
Bernard Dapifer.  published by Lambecius in Tome II. of his Biblioth. Vindob. p. 618.  
JOANNES CALDERINUS, a Lawyer of Bononia, the Scholar and Adopted Son of Joannes Andreae, 
Joannes Calderinus.  flourished about 1360. and has left us divers Works of Civil and Canon Law, and among others, his Commentaries upon the Decretals, which were never printed. A Treatise of Ecclesiastical Interdicts printed at Venice in 1584. A Table of all the Passages of Scripture, cited in the Decretals printed in 1481. at Spires. His Councils printed at Lions in 1536. and at Venice in 1582. and his Repetitions of Civil Law, printed at Lions in 1587.  
BARTHOLOMEW de GLANVIL, an Englishman, of the Family of the Earls of Suffolk, a Grey-Friar, 
Bartholomew de Glanvil.  applied himself to search after, and discover the Morals hidden under the outward Appearance of Natural Things, of which he Composed a large Work divided into Nineteen Books; The First is, Of God; The Second, Of Angels and Devils; The Third, Of the Soul; The Fourth, Of the Body, and the Rest of the other Creatures: and some Person hath added a Twentieth, Of Accidents; as Numbers, Measures, Weights, Sounds, etc. A Treatise of the Properties of Bees. This Work hath been printed at Nuremberg in 1492. at Strasburg in 1505. and at Paris in 1574. under the Title of Allegories, and Tropes upon the Old and New Testament. We have some Sermons printed under the Name of this Author at Strasburg in 1495. He flourished about the Year 1360.  
ALPHONSUS VARGAS, a Native of Toledo, an Hermit of the Order of S. Austin, after he had 
Alphonsus Vargas.  professed Philosophy and Divinity in the University of Paris Ten Years, was made Bishop of Badajos, and then of Osma; and lastly, Archbishop of Sevill, where he died Decemb. 26. 1366. as some relate; but Octob. 13. 1359. as others. He Composed a Commentary upon the First Book of the Sentences, printed at Venice in 1490. and some Questions upon the Three Books of Aristotle, De Animi [i. e. Of the Soul] printed at Venice in 1566. and at Vincentia in 1608.  
MATTHEW, or MATHIAS de CRACOVIA, a Pole, Professor of Divinity at Prague, and a Friend 
Matthew de Cracovia.  of S. Bridget's, flourished about 1370. Trithemius attributes these following Works to him; A Treatise of Predestination, by way of Dialogue between Father, and Son, which he Entitles, A Rationale of the Divine Works, A Treatise of Contracts, a Work about the Celebration of the Mass, and some Letters. There is in a College-Library at Cambridge in England, a Treatise of this Authors, Entitled, The Conflict between Reason and Conscience about Receiving the Body of Jesus Christ, or Abstaining from it.  
GALLUS, a Germane, a Cistertian Monk, and Abbot of the Monastery of Konigsaal near Prague, 
Gallus.  Composed a Book, which he calls, Pomegranade, in the form of a Dialogue between Father and Son, for the Instruction of his Monks. It is divided into Three Books: In the First of which, he treats of the State of Beginners; In the Second, of the Estate of Improvers; And in the Third, of the Estate of the Perfect: A Work full of Ingenuity, and of great use for Monks, as Trithemius hath observed. It was printed in Germany in 1481. Trithemius says, he Composed some Sermons for the Use of his Monks. He flourished about the Year 1370.  
HENRY, or HAINRICUS, a Germane Monk of Rebdorfe, hath Composed certain Annals, which 
Henry.  contain the History of the Emperors, Adolphus, Albert I. Frederick III. Lewis of Bavaria, and Charles iv from the Year 1295. to the Year 1372. they are published by Marquardus Freherus, in his Collection of Germane Historians, printed at Francfort in 1600. Tom. 1. p. 411.  
HUGOLINUS MALEBRANCHIUS, an Hermit of S. Augustin, a Doctor of Paris, and the Successor 
Hugolinus Malebranchius.  of Gregorius Ariminensis in his Divinity Chair, was chosen General of his Order in 1368. made Bishop of Ariminum by Urban V in 1370. and last of all dignified with the Title of Patriarch of Constantinople, has Composed Commentaries upon the Books of the Sentences, a Treatise of the Trinity, and another of the Communication of Idioms; which are yet in MS. in the Libraries of the Augustin-Friars at Bononia and Cremona. He was alive in the Year 1372.  
THOMAS STOBAEUS, or STUBBS, an Englishman of Yorkshire, a Preaching-Friar, wrote the 
Thomas Stubbs.  Lives, or a Chronicle of the Archbishops of York, from the Foundation of that See to the Year 1373. This Chronicle was printed at London in 1652. with other English Historians. The Authors, that speak of him, attribute to him several Books of Divinity, which have never yet been published.  
S. BRIDGET, a Princess of the Family of the Kings of Sweden, the Wife of Wulfo, Prince of 
S. Bridget.  Nericia, after she had had Seven Children by her Husband, engaged him to become a Cistertian Monk, in the Monastery of Alvastrâ, where he died a little after. Then she instituted the Order of S. Saviour, and gave it a Rule, as if she had received it from Jesus Christ himself. She undertook to go into the Holy Land, and after she had traveled there some Years, she came to die at▪ Rome, July 23. 1373. She was canonised by Boniface IX. in 1391. and her Canonization was confirmed by the Council of Constance. This Saintess was famous for her Revelations, which are reduced into Eight Books; besides several which are added since to that Collection. She wrote some Sermons, One about the Excellency of the Virgin Mary dictated by an Angel, and Four others, which she assures us, were revealed to her, as her Rule was; which she affirmed to be dictated to her by the Mouth of Jesus Christ. These Works are printed at Lubeck in 1492. at Nuremburg in 1521. at Rome in 1557. and 1628. at Antwerp in 1611. at Colen in 1628. and at Munick in 1680.  
At the same time flourished S. Katherine of Sienna, who is not less famous for her Revelations, 
S. Katherine of Sienna.  than S. Bridget; She was Born in 1347. Vowed Virginity at Eight Years old, and a little time after took the Habit of a Dominican. She was very ingenious, wrote very well, and was very Charitable and Zealous. She advised Gregory XI. to return to Rome, followed him thither, remained after his Death under the Obedience of Urban VI and died April 30. 1380. She was canonised by Pius II. in 1461. She wrote several Letters in Italian to the Pope, to the 
N. B. The Revelations of S. Bridget and S. Katherine, though admired by the Church of Rome, are Enthusiastic Dreams, and mere Dotages.  Cardinals, Kings and Princes, which are gathered into One Volume containing 364 Letters, and are printed in Italian at Venice in 1506. 1548. and 1584. and translated into French at Paris in 1644. There are also Six Treatises of hers in form of a Dialogue, Concerning the Providence of God, printed at Ingolstadt in 1583. at Collen 1601. and at Venice in 1611. a Discourse upon the Annunciation of the Virgin, and some others translated into Latin by Raymundus de Vineis, a Dominican Monk of C●●●a, her Confessor, printed at Ingolstadt in 1583. and a Treatise translated, or composed by the same Person, Entitled, The Divine Doctrine delivered by the Eternal Father speaking to the Spirit, printed at Collen in 1553.  
MATTHAEUS FLORILEGUS, a Benedictine Monk of Westminster, flourished about 1377. He 
Matthew Florilegus.  Composed certain Annals from the beginning of the World to the Year 1307. which he Names, The Flowers of History, printed at London in 1567. and at Francfort in 1601. He Copies out Matthew Paris only in his First Part; Ball says, That he continued his Annals to the Year 1377. and Composed the Chronicles of the Monasteries of Westminster and S. Edmond's-Bury.  
ALBERTUS de STRASBURG, or de ARGENTINA, made Ambassador by the Bishop of that City, 
Albert de Strasburg.  to go to the Pope at Avignon, made a Chronicle from the Empire of Rodolphus of Habsperg to the Death of Charles IU. i e. from 1270. to the Year 1378. Cuspinian published a part of it, printed at Basil in 1553. and in 1569. but Urstisius since has put it out entire in his Collection of Germane Historians printed at Francfort in 1585. Tom. 2. pag. 97. This Author also wrote the Life of Bartholdus de Bucheke, Bishop of Strasburg and Spires, from the Year 1328. to the Year 1353. published by Arstisius, and printed by itself at Basil in 1553. and in 1566.  
JOANNES SCHADLAND, a Germane of the Order of the Friars-Preachers, first Bishop of Culme 
John Schadland.  in Poland, then of Hildesheim, and lastly, as some say, of Worms; died in 1377. He Composed a Treatise of the Estate of the Cardinals, which is in MS. in Mr. Colbert's Library, Cod. 289. He made that Work at the Desire of Petrus de Prato, and began to Compose it, when that Cardinal died; He intitules it, Culmensis, because (as he renders the reason) the State of the Cardinals may be called Culmensis à Culmine, i. e. from the top of Dignity and Virtue; and the Cardinals may be called Culmenses, from their sublimity of Virtue; and the Writer was Culmensis Episcopus, i. e. Bishop of Culmi: He had been Inquisitor of the Faith in Germany, as he says, in several places. He tells us in that Work, That in that time he had burnt several Heretics, which asserted, That the Church of Rome had lost the Keys of S. Peter, since it possessed great Worldly Revenues; That the Popes and Cardinals were Covetous, Ambitious and Voluptuous, to whom Jesus Christ had not committed the Church his Spouse; but to the truly Poor, full of Humility, and Contemners of this World, among whom the Church resides. He also Composed a Treatise of the Dignity and State of Bishops.  
NICHOLAS ORESMIUS, or ORESME, a Norman, a Doctor of Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, 
Nicholas Oresmius.  and of the School of Navarre, of which he was made Governor in 1356. and chose by K. John Mr. for his Son; who was after Charles V Surnamed the Wise. He was appointed Treasurer of the Holy Chapel in 1361. and afterwards Dean of the Chapter at Rouen, and then left his Government of Navarre. He was sent in 1363. to Urban V and made a Discourse before the Pope and his Cardinals; in which he speaks boldly against the Irregularities of the Court of Rome. This Book is printed in a Book put out by Fl. Illyricus, Entitled, A Catalogue of the Witnesses of the Truth; and is published alone by Gesner, in the Edition of Wittenberg in 1604. He also made another Discourse about the Change of Money, in which he Declaims against those Princes that Coin Money, which is not full Weight; and snews that Princes have not a Power to change the Money when they please, and set what Value they please upon it. This Treatise is printed in Tom. IX. of the Bibliotheca Patrum, at Paris in 1589. and in the Twenty Sixth of the last Edition. He translated the Bible into French, by the Order of Charles V and Composed several other Translations of Profane Author's [as Aristotle's Ethics and Politics; some Parts of Tully, and Petrarch's Book, De Remediis utriusque fortun●]. There are several other Works of this Author in MS. in the Libraries of Navarre, Mr. Colbert, and others; among which are 115▪ Sermons. A Treatise of the Communication of Idio●…; Of the Affirmation, De omni, in respect to Divinity; Three Treatises against Judiciary Astrology; The Art of Preaching; A Treatise of Antichrist, and his Ministers, and the Signs which shall foreshow him; A Writing against the Begging-Friars; And several other Treatises of Philosophy, of which we may see a Catalogue in the History of Navarre, put out by Mr. Launoy, Tom. II. p. 455, etc. Oresmius was Bishop of Lifieux in 1377. and died Seven Years after in 1384. He was buried in his Cathedral Church, on the Left side of the Choir.  
ROBERT GERVAIS, Born in the Diocese of Nismes, a Friar-Preacher, was made Bishop of Senes 
Robert Gervais.  by Urban V in 1369. hath Composed in 1388. a Treatise of Schism against John de Lignano and Baldus, who defended Bartholomew de Bari, which is in MS. in Mr. Colbert's Library, Cod. 2761. and another Treatise, Entitled, The Royal Mirror; published about the beginning of the Reign of Charles VI. which is in MS. in the same Library.  
JORDANUS SAXO, or de SAXONIA, Surnamed Quedlinburgensis, an Hermit of S. Augustin, flourished 
Jordanus Saxo.  about the middle of this Age, and died in 1380. He wrote a Sum of Sermons for all the Sundays in the Year, printed at Strasburg in 1483. and Sermons for all the Saints Days, printed at Paris in 152●. He also wrote a Treatise of the Four Communions, necessary for them that profess a Monastic Life, and a Collection of divers Pieces for the Hermits of S. Augustin, viz. Twenty two Sermons for the Friars Hermits, attributed to S. Augustin, and some others. The Rules of the same Saints, and the Life of S. Monica, taken out of his Works. These two Treatises are in MS. in the Library of the great Augustine's at Paris. Some also attribute to Jordanus, a Chronicle of the Translation of the Roman Empire to the Germans, printed at Basil in 1559. Trithemius makes mention of a Commentary of this Author's upon the Revelation, and an Apology for his Order.  
PHILIP CABASSOLAS, of Cavaillon in Provence, Canon, Archdeacon, Provost, and lastly, Bishop 
Philip Cabassolas.  of that City in 1334. made Chancellor to Joanna Queen of Sicily, by her Husband Robert, in 1343. and after sent upon several Embassages, honoured with the Dignity of Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1366. and charged with the Care of the Bishopric of Marseille the same Year, appointed Legate to the Pope at Avignon the following Year; and lastly, created Cardinal-Priest of the Title of S. Peter and S. Marcellinus, Sept. 22. by Urban V the same Year, and privileged in 1370. with the Title of S. Sabina, died in 1382. Aug. 27. There are in the Library of S. Victor, two Books of the Life and Miracles of S. Mary Magdalen, which bear the Name of this Cardinal.  
GERHARDUS MAGNUS, or GROOT, of the City of Deventer, Studied Divinity at Paris, and 
Gerhardus Groot.  obtained a Cap at the Age of Eighteen Years, returning into his Country, he was made Canon of Utrecht and Aix-la-Chapelle; but he left his Benefices to establish at Deventer the Clerks, or Friars of the Community for the Instruction of Youth. He died Aug. 20. 1384. in the 44th. Year of his Age. He Composed divers small Tracts, of which there are only Three printed among the Works of Thomas à Kempis; which are, A Declaration of the manner of Preaching with Truth; Some Conclusions and Propositions. Of the Study of the Holy Scriptures. His other Small Works are found in the Libraries in Flanders. Albertus' Miraus gives us this Catalogue of them. Some Treatises of Contracts and Usury; Of the Instruction of Novices; Of the Reward of a Pastor's Labour; The Inconveniences of Marriage; De Focariis, Against the Encompassing of Utrecht; Of Poverty; Of the Four sorts of things which are fit Subjects of Meditation; Of Detraction; Some Sermons upon the Nativity of our Saviour, on the Sunday, called Dominica in Ramis, or Palm-Sunday, and on other Subjects; A Letter about Schism, and some others; Of Simony; Of Benefices with Cure; Of the Company and Exercises of the Devout; Of the Agreement of the Evangelists about the Passion of our Saviour; A Commentary upon the Lessons read at the Burial of the Dead; A Treatise of Compunction, and the Instruction of Scholars. 'Tis to be hoped, that these Works will be shortly published.  
PETRUS de NATALIBUS, Bishop of Jesol in the Province of Grado, has Composed a Catalogue 
Petrus de Natalibus.  of Saints to May 26. 1382. printed at Strasburg 1502. [at Lyons 1542. Dr. Cave places this Author in 1470. and says, he brings down his Catalogue of Saints to 1482. which if true, our Author is under a Mistake.]  
JOANNES RUYSBROKIUS, or de RUSBROEK, A Village upon the River Senna, between Brussels 
Joannes Ruysbrokius.  and Hall, a Priest of Brussels, and first Prior of the Monastery of Canons-Regular of Waure in the Forest of Soigni's, was one of the most Eminent Monks of his time, and upon that Account Surnamed, The Divine, or Contemplative Doctor: He died Dec. 2. 1381. in the 88th. Year of his Age. He Composed in Dutch several Mystical Works, which are translated into Latin by Surius, who caused them to be printed at Colen in 1552. and 1609. The Titles of them are as follow: The Sum of a Spiritual Life; The Mirror of Eternal Salvation; A Commentary upon the Tabernacle of Moses, and all its Parts; A Treatise of the Cardinal Virtues; A little Book of Faith and the Last Judgement; A Treatise of the Four Temptations; Of the Works of the Seven Vigils; Of the Spiritual School; Of the Seven degrees of Love; Three Books of the Spiritual Marriage; Of the Perfection of the Sons of God; The Reign of the Lovers of God; A Treatise of Contemplation; and Seven Letters of Piety; Two Spiritual Songs; Samuel, or of Deep Contemplation; A short Prayer. The Treatise of Spiritual Marriages has been opposed by Gerson, because in it Ruysbrokius says, That the Soul, which Contemplates God fully, becomes one with God himself; Gerson though●●his Doctrine was Erroneous and condemned in Amaury; John de Scho●awe undertook the defence of Rusbo●k, and made an Apology for him; and Gerson afterward asserts, that he can't be excused, because he has said in another place, That the Creature shall never lose its essence▪ but he maintains that the words he cited out of the Third Part, are apt not only to lead the simple, but more understanding Persons into Error, and he observes that Contemplative Persons are very apt to advance Errors▪ and it is not fit that they should either teach or write without much Precaution, and unless their Works be examined by learned Men; for otherwise their Books are full ordinarily of Falsities, and corrupt Explications, which often misled the simple.  
PHILIP de LEYDE, or de LEYDIS, an Hollander, made Doctor of Law at Orleans and Professor 
Philip de Leyde.  at Paris, was afterward Canon of S. Marry de Conde, and lastly, Canon and Grand-Vicar of Utrecht, where he died June 8. 1386. He wrote a Treatise of the Care of a Commonwealth, and the Lot of Sovereigns, published by Joannes Severinus, and printed at Leyden in 1516. He also Composed some Lectures upon the Third Book of the Decretals.  
BONAVENTURE of Paduâ, an Hermit of S. Augustine, a Doctor of Paris, and chosen General 
Bonaventure.  of his Order in 1377. was made Cardinal-Priest of the Title of S. Cecilia, by Urban VI in September in the next Year. Francis Carrara Governor of Milan, caused him to be murdered in Rome in 1388. The Mirror of the Virgin Mary, printed at Augsbourgh in 1476. is attributed to him; As also a Commentary upon the Four Books of the Sentences, and some Meditations upon the Life of Jesus Christ; which some say are printed in Germany▪ Some say, That he Composed a Commentary upon the Canonical Epistles of S. James and S. John. Trithemius attributes to him no more, than some Sermons for the Year, and upon the Saints Days.  
JOHN de BOURG, or JOANNES de BURGO, an Englishman, Chancellor of the University of 
John de Bourg.  Cambridge, and Rector of the Town of Collingham in Nottinghamshire, Composed in 1385. a Treatise, Entitled, The Apple of the Eye, for Priests; in which he treats of the Administration of Sacraments, the Ten Commandments, and other Ecclesiastical Offices, printed at Paris in 1510. at Strasburg in 1514. and at Rouen in 1516.  
PHILIP RIBOTT, a Spaniard of Catalonia, a Carmelite of Gironne, was Provincial of his Order 
Philip Ribot.  in 1368. and died in 1391. He Composed a Work, Entitled, A Looking-Glass for the Carmelites, divided into Ten Books, in which he treats of the Beginning, Progress, Privileges, and History of his own Order, which was printed at Venice in 1507. and at Antwerp in 1680. He also wrote a Treatise of the Famous Men of his Order, and some Sermons.  
JACOBUS de TERAMO in Abruzzo, [a Province in Italy] Canon of the same Church, and archdeacon 
Jacobus de Teramo.  of Aversa, Composed about the Year 1390. a Commentary upon the Sentences, and a Book upon the Redemption of Mankind, Entitled, The Consolation of Sinners; These two Works are only in MS. in the Libraries in England. Trithemius also observes, That this Author also wrote upon the Clementines.  
GUIDO d'EUREUX, a Friar-Preacher, Composed in 1390. some Sermons, and a Rule for Merchants; 
Guido d'Eureux.  which Works are found in MS. in some Libraries.  
AUGUSTINUS d'ASCOLI; an Hermit of S. Augustine, flourished about the End of this Year in 
Aug. d'Ascoli.  the University of Milan, and made some Sermons, which are yet preserved in MS. in the Libraries of the Augustin-Monks at Bononia, Milan, and Cremona.  
HENRY BOICH, Dr. of Law in the Diocese of S. Paul of Leon in Britain, flourished at the End 
Henry Boich.  of this Age, and Composed a Commentary upon the Five Books of the Decretals, upon the Sixth, and upon the Clementines, printed at Venice in 1576. and are in MS. in the Library at the Cathedral Church at Cambray.  
SIMON de CREMONA, an Hermit of S. Augustine, flourished and preached a long time at Venice, 
Simon de Cremona.  in the latter end of this Age. He Composed some Commentaries upon the Mr. of the Sentences; A Treatise of the Indulgence of Assisi; and several Sermons. These Works are in MS. in the Libraries of the Augustin-Friars in Italy, with a Postill upon the Gospels of the Year, printed at Ruthlingen in 1484. He died in 1400.  
PETER QUESNEL, a Grey-Friar of the Convent of Norwich, a Divine and Canonist, flourished 
Peter Quesnel.  about the end of this Age, and wrote a Directory of Law in the Court of Conscience, and in the Court Judicial; A Treatise of the Trinity, of the Catholic Faith, and of the Seven Sacraments; A Treatise of the Sins, which hinder us from receiving the Sacraments, and the Penalties to be enjoined for these Sins; A Treatise to order such things as respect the Instructions of Judgements. These Treatises are in MS. in some Libraries in England; and the first is in the Vatican and Mr. Colbert's, Cod. 228. and 2302.  
MARSILIUS ab INGHEN, a Germane (though Trithemius and Bale make him an Englishman) 
Marsilius ab Inghen.  Dr. of Paris, Canon and Treasurer of the Church of S. Andrew at Colen, Founder and first Rector of the College of Heidelburg, died Aug. 20. 1394. He Composed a Commentary upon the Book of the Mr. of the Sentences, printed at Strasburg in 1501.  
HENRY KNIGHTON, Canon-Regular of Leicester, Composed an exact Chronicle of the History 
Henry Knighton.  of England, divided into Five Books, from 950. to 1395. and the History of the Deposition of Richard II. King of England, which happened in 1399. These Works are in the Collection of English Historians, printed at London in 1652.  
WILLIAM THORN, a Benedictin Monk of S. Augustin of Canterbury, Composed an History of 
William Thorn.  the Abbots of that Abbey to 1397. copied as far as 1272. out of the History of Thomas Scott, This Chronicle is also in the Collection of English Historians, printed at London in 1652. p. 1757. 'Tis said also, that he wrote an History of the King● of Kent, the Lives of some Saints, and a Chronicle of the Counties, Bishoprics, and Abbeys of England [which is not printed, but is in MS. in Bennet-College Library at Cambridge, Cod. 67.]  
GERHARDUS de ZUTPHEN, one of the first Canons Regular of the Order of S. Jerome, or 
Gerhard de Zutphen.  Clerks of the Community instituted by Gerhard Groot, died in the 31st. Year of his Age, Dec. 4. 1398. He has left us some Ascetic Treatises; One, Of the inward Reformation of the Powers of the Soul; The other about our Spiritual Progress, printed with the Works of Thomas à Kempis, who wrote his Life, and in the Biblioth. Patr. [Tom. 26. p. 234. as also at Paris and Colen, in 1539.]  
NICHOLAS EYMERICUS, born at Gironne, a City of Catalonia, a Friar-Preacher, flourished in the Papacies of Innocent VI Urban V. Gregory XI. and Clement VII. He was first Inquisitor-General 
Nicholas Eymericus.  for Innocent VI about 1356. and coming to Avignon in the Papacy of Gregory XI. was made the Pope's Chaplain, and Judge of Heresies. He died at Gironne, Jan. 4. 1399. His Principal Work is a Book, Entitled, A Directory for Inquisitors; printed the first time at Barcelona in 1503. and after at Rome in 1578. with the Corrections and Scholies of Penna, and after in the same City in 1587. and at Venice in 1595. with the Commentaries of the same Author. This Work is divided into three Parts. In the First he treats of the Articles of Faith: In the Second of the Punishment of Heretics, and the Inflictions which they deserve according to the Canon-Law and Decretals; What is Heresy and Error; Of the Differences of Heresies; And lastly, Of those, which are subject to the Jurisdiction of the Inquisition, and the Crimes, which are out of its Knowledge. The Third part is about the manner of ordering the Process at the Tribunal of the Inquisition, of the Power and Privileges of the Officers, of the Witnesses, Criminals, and the Execution of Judgement upon them.  
He Composed several other Treatises, which are in MS. in Mr. Colbert's Library, No. 2846, and 2847. The Titles of them are these, A Letter to the Cardinals against the Election of Urban VI A Letter to the King [of France] in favour of Clement VII. Some Verses upon Schism; A Treatise upon this Question, Whether the Three Persons of the Trinity be in the Eucharist, composed on the Occasion of a Controversy raised on that Subject in the Kingdom of Valence. The Curates had a Custom, when they administered the Sacrament to the Sick, to ask them, Do you believe, that this is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? and they were to answer, Yea. A Curate having put the same Question to a Doctor, to whom he administered the Sacrament, He answered, No; But that he believed, that it was the Body of Jesus Christ, who was the Son of God, and not the Father, or the Holy Spirit. This Answer being divulged, the Matter was brought to the Inquisitor, and he found the Abuse was Common, and when the Cardinal of Valentia sought out means to remedy it, the Business was made worse by Sermons Preached Pro & Con. A Monastic Doctor preached, that the Question of the Curate was impertinent, and that the Sick Man's Answer was false. The Curates were Angry at this Sermon, and one of them preached in one of the Parishes of the City, That there being Three things in Jesus Christ, his Body, Soul and Divinity, if it be asked, whether the Flesh of Christ be in the Sacrament, the Answer must be, Yea; and if his Soul were there, the Answer must also be, Yea. And lastly, if we speak of his Essence, and of his Divine Nature, and ask, Do you believe that this last is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? A Christian must Answer, Yea, yea, yea; because the Three Persons are essentially there. This Curate was not content to Preach this Doctrine, but he published it by Writing. He was contradicted by some that stood by, and this caused a great Scandal, which the Inquisitor could not appease. The Cardinal of Valentia called the Divines together, and made the Curate retract his Assertion; but he went from Valentia, and appealed to the Holy See, and caused the Inquisitor to be Summoned thicher. 'Twas to instruct Pope Clement VII. in this Matter, that Eymericus Composed this Treatise in 1390. Let us now come to the other Treatises, which are in that MS. This last is followed with a Treatise against Raymundus Lullus, presented the same Year to Pope Clement VII. who gave it to the Cardinal of S. Angelo, to be examined; a Dialogue against the Followers of Lullus; Another Treatise, entitled, The Enchantment of the Lullists, and a Tract against such as Pray to Daemons. The 2847 Volume contains these following Treatises; A Treatise against those, that oppose the Pre-eminence of Jesus Christ and the Virgin; A Confession of the Faith of Jesus Christ; A Tract against the Oath taken by the Pope and Cardinals after the Death of Clement VII. and against the Letter of the University of Paris (which proves that Eymericus was not dead in 1393. as some have assured us) a Treatise against the Chemists; The Correctory of the Reprimand; A Treatise against those, who will define the Time of the End of the World; A Treatise against Astrologers, Necromancers, and other Diviners; The Illustration of his Explication; A Treatise against those, who had broached this Heresy, That St. John the Evangelist was the Natural Son of the Virgin Mary; A Treatise of the Admirable Sanctity of the Mother of God-Man; The Enchantment of the University of Lerida, concerning the Twenty Articles dispersed by Anthony Riera, Student of the University of Valentia; and a Treatise upon the Explication of the 22 Articles, in which he does not commonly follow the Master of the Sentences.  
MATTHEW d'EUREUX, a Preaching-Friar, flourished in the Reign of Charles VI King of 
Matthew d'Eureux.  France. He is the Author of a Commentary upon the Pentateuch, and postils upon Isaiah, and upon several other Books of the Bible, which are in MS. in the Library of the Friars-Preachers at Eureux, where they were put by Robert B●gard Doctor of Divinity, and Confessor to Charles VII.  
NICHOLAS de GORHAM, a Preaching-Friar, is certainly an Author of the XIVth. Age; but 
Nicholas Gorham.  some make him an Englishman and others a Frenchman, and some place him about 1304. and others about 1350. but the last about 1390. or 1400. which is most likely. He has Composed several Works, particularly Commentaries upon several Books of Scripture and Sermons. His Commentaries upon the Four Evangelists, the Acts of the Apostles, St. Paul's Epistles, the Canonical Epistles, and the Revelation have been printed in divers places [as at Colen in 1537. at Haguenau 1502. and Paris 1521.] and with his Sermons upon the whole Year, at Antwerp in 1617. and 1620.  
JOHN BROMIARD of Hartford in England; a Preaching-Friar, a Doctor of Oxford and Professor 
John Bromiard.  of Divinity at Cambridge, was one of the Adversaries of Wickliff, in the Council held at London in 1382. and died in the following Age. He has left us a Sum for Preachers, in which he has ranked in an Alphabetical Order many Common-places of Morality. It was printed at Nuremburg in 1485. and at Venice in 1586. There are some other Treatises of this Author in MS. in the Libraries in England; and among others, a Treatise of the Civil and Canon-Law, applied to Morality; His Explications concerning the Ceremony of the Mass, and his Exhortations [viz. in the Public Library, and that of Pembroke-Hall in Cambridge, and New-College in Oxford.]  
WILLIAM WODFORD, or WILFORD, an Englishman of the Order of Grey-Friars, a Doctor 
William Wodford.  of Oxford, chosen in a Council held at London in 1396. to confute by Writing these Propositions taken out of Wickliffe's Trilogus, and condemned in that Council, composed a Treatise upon that Subject dedicated to Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, which is printed in the Fasciculus rerum Expetendarum [at Colen 1535. p. 96.] In it he confutes 18 Articles, of which we shall speak in treating of the Heresy of Wickliff. There are also in the Libraries in England, some other MS. Treatises of this Authors; and among others, An Apology against Richardus Armachanus, concerning the Poverty and Begging of Jesus Christ; An Extract of the Errors of that Author; A Treatise of the Sacrament of the Altar. A Sum of Virtues. William Wodford died at Gloucester in 1397.  
RODOLPHUS de RIVO, a Native of Breda, Dean of the Church of Tongres, died at Rome in 
Rodolphus de Rivo.  1401. or as others hold, Nou. 2. 1403. He Composed an Excellent Treatise upon the Divine Offices, entitled, Of the Observation of the Canons; in which he treats with exactness upon the Usage and Rules of the Ecclesiastical Offices, and shows, that Men ought to follow, as much as is possible, Antiquity, and avoid Novelties in the Divine Offices, from whence he concludes in his 22d. Proposition, that Men ought to keep to the ancient Breviaries, and not follow that in use at Rome, because it is not the Service of the ancient Roman Church, but a shorter Office sung in the Pope's Chapel, gathered in the time of Innocent III. and which the Grey-Friars followed. He treats in the last Article of the Mass, its Ceremonies and Prayers. This Treatise is printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and by its self at Louvain in 1568. The same Author has Composed an History of the Three Bishops of Liege, viz. Engelbert de la Marca, John de Arkel, and Arnold de Horn, from 1347. to 1386. published by Chapeaville in his History of Liege, printed at Liege in 1616. Tom. 3.  
JOANNES TAMBACUS, or de TAMBACH, a Town in Alsatia, a Monk of the Order of Friars-Preachers 
John de Tambach.  in the Monastery of Strasburg, afterward Rector of the University of Prague, and created Master of the Sacred Palace by Urban V in 1366. He died in the following Age, being above 80 Years old; He Composed a Work, entitled, The Consolation of Theology, or the Looking-glass of Wisdom [or Patience] finished in 1386. printed at Paris in 1493. at Colen in 1502. at Nuremburg in 1509. Father Alexander citys another Work of this Author's, of Nature and Grace, which is in MS. in the Library of the great Convent of Jacobins, or Whitefriars at Paris. Trithemius also mentions a Treatise of John Tambacus, Of the Delights of Paradise, and some Sermons.  
RAYMUNDUS JORDANUS, whose Works have gone a long time under the Name of Idiota, lived 
Raymundus Jordanus.  about the End of this Age, and was a Canon-Regular, Provost [of that Order] in Usez, and then Abbot of Cella in Berry. All his Works, which have been printed several times in the Bibliotheca Patrum, under the Name of Idiota, were put out under his Name, by the Jesuit Theophilus Raynaudus, and printed at Paris in 1654. They consist of Eleven Contemplations upon different Subjects; A Treatise of the Virgin; Three Books of a Monk's Life; The Spiritual or Mystical Eye, which Waddingus attributes to Joannes Guallensis; Rules of a Christian Life; which rather belong to Picus Mirandula; A Paraphrase upon the 15th. Psalm.  
FRANCISCUS XIMENIUS, of Gironne in Spain, Bishop of Elne, or Perpignan, and dignified with the 
Francis Ximenius.  Title of Patriarch of Jerusalem; flourished at the End of this Age, and in the Beginning of the next: He left us some Works of Piety, and among others, A Book of the Angelical Life, printed at Alcala [or Complutum] in 1527. A Treatise De Scalâ Coeli [or the Ladder of Heaven] printed at Barcelona in 1501. A Treatise for the Instruction of Bishops and Superiors, entitled Pastoral [or a Pastoral] printed at the same place in 1495 Four Books of a Christian Life, printed at Valentia in 1484. and at Granada in 1496.  
ANTONIUS de BUTRIO, a Lawyer of Bononia, flourished at the end of this Age, and in the beginning 
Anthony de Butrio.  of the next. He has Composed a Commentary upon the Five Books of the Decretals, printed at Venice in 1578. Another Comment upon the Sixth printed at the same place in 1575. A Repertory of the Canon and Civil Law printed several times in several places; and some other Treatises of the Civil Law. He died as some say, Octob. 7. 1408. and as others, in 1417.  
LUCIUS' COLUCCIUS PIERUS SALUTATUS de STIGNANO, Chancellor of Florence, and Secretary 
Lucius Coluccius.  to Urban V and Gregory XI. succeeded Petrarch in the Imperial Dignity of Learning [i. e. was made Poet Laureate after him] He flourished from 1360. and died not till May 12. 1406. We have only two Letters of his. The one in Commendation of Cardinal Nicholas de Capocia, dedicated to Nicholas Auximus, the Chief Notary of the Pope; The other to Brunus the Pope's Secretary, containing the Commendation of Urban V and a Petition addressed to the King of France in the Name or the People of Florence, against the Faction of the Gibelines presented in 1404. Ancient Pieces, which have been published by Mr. Baluzius, in the Fourth Tome of his Miscellanies. This Author also wrote two Books of the true Religion; A Discourse of the Excellency of the Civil Law above Physic; A Book of Fortune and Destiny; Several-Letters; A small Work, entitled, Loculum Noctis, or, The Night-Pouch; which are in MS. in the Libraries of Florence. The Letters of his which Mr. Baluzius has published, give us a sufficient Proof of the Ingenuity, Elegancy, and Politeness of this Author.  
Some attribute to HENRY de BAUME, or de PALMA, a Grey-Friar, who lived about the end of 
Henry de Baume.  this Age, a Treatise of Mystical Divinity, which is printed among the Works of S. Bonaventure, and which others attribute to John de Parma.  
BERTRAND de TRILLE of the Diocese of Nismes, of the Order of Preaching-Friars, flourished 
Bertrand de Trille.  about the end of the Age. He Composed a Commentary upon the Books of the Sentences, which is in MS: in the Library of S. Victor. Some attribute to him certain postils upon the Scripture, and some Works of Philosophy.  
JOANNES GROSSIUS, or GROSSUS, a Native of Tholouse, General of the Carmelites from 1389. 
John Grosse.  till after 1409. has Composed two Works in honour of his own Order; the one entitled Viridarium, or the Orchard of the Order of the Carmelites; and the other, of the Illustrious Men of that Order, Printed with the Mirror of the Carmelites, made by Ribotus at Venice in 1507. and in the New Mirror of the Carmelites, printed at Antwerp in 1680 [Tom. IU.]  
MICHAEL AIGRIANUS, or AIGNANUS, a Carmelite of Bononia, and Doctor of Paris, was chosen 
Michael Aigrianus.  General of his Order in 1381. and died Dec. 1. 1416. He is the Author of a Commentary upon the Psalms, published several times under the Name of an Unknown Author, and printed under that Title at Alcala, or Complutum in 1524. at Lions in 1588. and 1602. at Venice in 1603. and in his own Name at Lions in 1652. and 1673. Trithemius attributes to him these following Works; A Book of the Conception of the Virgin; Four Books upon the Sentences; A Book of Questions upon the Sentences; Commentaries upon the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Luke; A Table of S. Gregory's Morals; A Table of Decrees; His Sermons for Lent; A Dictionary in Three Volumes, which his Death prevented the finishing of; Notes upon Valerius Maximus, and upon the Books of Aristotle's Morals.  
FRANCIS ZABAREL, [or de ZABARELLIS] a Doctor of Law of Milan, Professor at Florence, and 
Francis Zabarel.  Master of the famous [Nicholas] the Panormitam [Abbot] was raised to the Dignity of Archpriest for his Merit, and after made Bishop of Milan, but he refused this last Preferment; as also the Archbishopric of Florence, and was at length made Cardinal of the Title of SS. Cosmus, and Damianus by John XXIII. He was present at the Council of Constance, and died in that City in 1417. Nou. 6. in the 78th Year of his age. He composed Commentaries upon the Five Books of Decretals printed at Venice in 1602. a Commentary upon the Clementines, printed at the same place in 1481. A Treatise of the Authority of the Emperor to suppress Schisms, printed at Basil in 1587. and at Strasburg in 1609. and 1618. Councils of Right, and Repetitions of Law, printed also at Venice in 1581. and 1587. and several other Works of Civil Law, Morality and Divinity, which are lost, or in MS. and among others a Treatise of Canonical Hours. A Commentary upon the Old and New Testament; The History of the Acts of the Councils of Pisa, and Constance, a Volume of Prayers and Letters; A Commentary upon Moral and Natural Philosophy; His Opuscula, or small Treatises of the Liberal Arts; The History of his own Times; Three Books of Happiness; and a Treatise of the Nature of divers things.  
JACOBUS MAGNUS, or MAGNI, of Toledo in Spain, an Hermit of the Order of S. Augustin, 
James Legrand.  flourished and taught Philosophy and Divinity at Milan about 1400. He was Confessor to King Charles VII. and refused the Archbishopric of Bourdeaux; He lived till about 1420. We have a Work of his, entitled Sophologium, or a Discourse about an Inquiry into the Divine Wisdom, printed at Lions in 1495. and 1585. There are in the Libraries some other Works of Morality and Philosophy of this Author [as his Questions upon Aristotle's Books De Anima, and his Abridgement of Natural and Supernatural Philosophy, etc.]  
BALDUS, a famous Lawyer of the Family of the Ubaldi of Perusia, the Scholar of Bartholus, 
Baldus.  Professor of Law at Pavia, who died in July 1423. hath not only Composed several excellent Treatises of Civil Law; but also a Commentary upon the Decretals printed at Venice in 1595. a Consultation about the Right of Urban VI and Clement VII. in which he determines for Urban, printed by Raynaldus at the end of his XVII. Tom of his Annals.  
PETRUS HERENTALIUS, or de HERENTALIS, a Citizen of Brabant, a Canon-Regular of the 
Herentals.  Praemonstratenses, and Abbot of Floreff, flourished about the end of this Age, and lived as some say, to the Year 1436. He is the Author of a large Commentary upon the Psalms, taken out of the Fathers, and other Commentators, printed at Colen in 1487. at Ruthlingen in 1498. at Rouen in 1504 and at Colen in 1554. He also made a Commentary of the same Nature upon the Evangelists, which is in MS. in the Library of the Abbey of Floriff, and a Chronicle to the Year 1385. which is in MS. in the Library of Mr. Colbert▪ Mr. Baluzius has put out an Abridgement of the Lives of the Popes at Avignon Composed by this Author.  
Although the Number of the Authors, of which we have already spoken, be great; yet there 
Authors of the Fourteenth Century, whose Works are Lost.  are many others, whose Works are lost, or hidden in some Libraries, whose Names are preserved to us; and perhaps there were several others, whose Memory is lost. What Trithemius has recovered of them, and saved from Oblivion by mentioning them, and their Works, are as follow.  
RICHARD de SIENNA, Vicechancellor of the Church of Rome, and afterwards Cardinal-Deacon, by the Title of S. Eustachius; was one of those whom Pope Boniface ordered to Compile the Sixth Book of the Decretals, and Composed some other Works of the Law.  
PETRUS de DACEA, made a Calendar about the beginning of this Age.  
These Authors flourished under the Empire of Albertus of Austria.  
JACOBUS de VITERBO, an Hermit of the Order of S. Augustin, Archbishop of Naples, Composed a Book of the Government of Christians, dedicated to Clement V a Writing upon the Sentences, and made some Quodlibetical Questions. This Author flourished under the Empire of Henry de Luxemburgh, in the beginning of this Age.  
ALEXANDER of Alexandria, a Grey-Friar, wrote upon the Sentences, and made some Commentaries upon the Books of Aristotle.  
ECKARD, a Germane, of the Order of the Friars-Preachers, who being much addicted to the Terms of Philosophy, brought into Divinity some Opinions erroneous, and contrary to the Judgements of other Divines; insomuch that Seventeen of his Propositions were condemned by the Pope, and he was forced to Recant them at the end of his Life. They were taken for the most part out of his Exposition upon the Gospel of S. John. They were also condemned in 1430. by the Faculty of Divinity at Heidelburg. Nevertheless, Trithemius says, That there were learned and profitable Matters in this Author's Writings, when he wrote conformable to the Doctrine of the Church, and of this sort he mentions the Works following; A Commentary upon the Four Books of the Sentences; Commentaries upon Genesis, Exodus, the Book of Wisdom, the Canticles, the Gospel of S. John, and the Lord's-Prayer; A Discourse held in the Chapter of the Friars-Preachers; Some Theses and Sermons.  
GUIDO, a Priest, and afterward as some think, Bishop of Ferrara, wrote some Works in Verse and in Prose, and among others, a Poem of the History of the Old and New Testament, dedicated to Clement V. which Trithemius had seen, and bears this Title, The Pearl of the Bible.  
PETRUS de SAXONIA, a Grey-Friar, Composed a Sum of Cases and Sermons.  
GERHARDUS de BONONIA, the Eleventh General of the Carmelites, Composed a Commentary upon the Sentences, some Sermons, certain Ordinary and Quodlibetical Questions, and began a Sum of Divinity, which his sudden Death at Avignon in 1317. hindered him from finishing.  
MARTIN, a Friar-Preacher, Penitentiary of Rome, Composed a Table of Decrees, a short Chronicle, some Sermons, and a Collection of divers Miracles.  
SIBERTUS de BEKA, a Carmelite of Germany, Composed a Commentary upon the Sentences, a Sum of the New-Law, a Commentary upon his Rule, and corrected the Office of his Order.  
Another Carmelite, named PETER de PERPIGNAN, is the Author of a Commentary upon the Master of the Sentences, of a Work upon the Psalms, and some Sermons.  
HERENUS de BOY, a Britain of the Order of the Carmelites, wrote upon the Sentences, and Composed divers Questions.  
ROBERT, a Preaching-Friar, flourished about the Year 1320. and wrote upon the Sentences, and Composed some Sermons.  
JOANNES d'ALIERUS, a Native of Tholouse, was chosen the 13th. General of the Carmelites in 1321. and Composed a Treatise upon the Sentences, and some Notes upon Ecclesiasticus.  
JOANNES de REGNO, a Carmelite also, is likely the Author of a Commentary upon the Master of the Sentences, Notes upon the Gospel of S. Matthew, and some Sermons upon Lent, and all the Sundays, and Feasts of the Year.  
STEPHAN de PROVENCE, Professor of Civil Law, wrote on the Clementines, and made divers Questions.  
JOANNES de BLOMENDAL, a Grey-Friar, is the Author of some Sermons for the Sundays, and Feasts of the Year.  
GERHARDUS de SIENNA, an Hermit of the Order of S. Augustin, a Schoolman, Canonist, and Cotemporary with Joannes Andreae, Composed a Commentary upon the Sentences, and a Treatise of Contracts, Usury, and a Book of Prescriptions.  
PAULUS de LYAZARES, a Scholar of Joannes Andreae, Composed a Commentary on the Clementines.  
LAPUS de CHASTILLON, Abbot of S. Mirriate, of the Order of S. Benedict, wrote also upon the Clementines.  
ALBERT de BRESSE, a Preaching-Friar, is Author of a Sum of Cases, and several Letters.  
HERMAN de SCHILDE, an Hermit of the Order of S. Augustin, is said by Trithemius to be the Author of the following Works; A Treatise upon the First Book of the Sentences; Two Treatises upon the Creation; Two Books upon Genesis; A Commentary upon the Canticles; A Book upon the Subject of the Canticles; A Work upon the Lord's-Prayer, and another upon the Ave Maria; A Treatise upon the Four Senses of Scripture; A Manual for Priests; The Cloister of the Soul; A Breviloquium; An Explication of the Mass; Some Treatises about the Mortal Sins; Of the Conception of the Virgin; Of the Manner of Studying; Of true and False Friendship; Of the Five Senses; Of the Canonical Hours; Of the Two and Forty Stations of the Israelites [in the Wilderness] against the Flagellantes [or Whipping Monks;] Of the Mass; Upon the Canon, Omnes utriusque Sexus; Some Sermons; Some Conferences Sermon-wise; An Introduction to the Civil Law; Divers Questions; Of the Division of Philosophy; A Commentary upon Aristotle's Rhetoric, and several other Works, which Trithemius says, were not yet come to his Knowledge.  
WILLIAM de KAYOTH, a Preaching-Friar, has abridged the Sum for Confessors made by Joannes Germanus, and is the Author of some Sermons.  
PETRUS de CASA, a Native of Lymoges, was chosen the 14th. General of the Carmelites in 1330. and afterwards Bishop of Vasco, and lastly, Patriarch of Jerusalem. He is the Author of a Treatise upon the Sentences, and some Sermons.  
PAUL de PERUSIA, a Monk of the same Order, Composed a Work upon the Sentences in the University of Paris; which Trithemius says, was very Famous and almost Divine, and some Quodlibetical Questions.  
BERNARD de PARENZO, a Preaching-Friar, made an Explication of the Mass for the Instruction of the Clergy; and Composed some Sermons.  
OSBERT, an English Carmelite, wrote upon the Sentences; and made some Determinations, and Sermons.  
JOHN d'OLNEY, an English Carthusian, Composed Six Books of the Miracles of the Virgin, and some Meditations for Monks.  
PETRUS RAYMUNDUS, was made the 15th. General of the Carmelites in 1343. He wrote upon the Sentences.  
SIMON de SPIRA, a Carmelite, a Doctor of Paris, who taught Divinity at Colen, made a Commentary upon the Sentences, a postil upon the Bible, and a Treatise against the Jews.  
FORTANERIUS VASSALLI, whom Trithemius calls falsely Sertorius, a Grey-Friar, a Frenchman of Cahors, and not an Englishman, was chosen their 19th. General in 1343. made Archbishop of Ravenna in 1347. after Patriarch of Grudo in 1351. and last of all elected Cardinal by Innocent VI in 1360. and died the following Year in October, as he went to receive his Hat. Trithemius attributes to him a Commentary upon S. Augustin, De Civitate Dei.  
JOHN de SAXONIA, a Grey-Friar, a Schoolman and Canonist, made a Sum of Cases.  
JOHN de RUPE SCISSA, a Grey-Friar, who undertaking to foretell the Destruction of the Catholic Church, was put in Prison for it by his Superiors, and wrote upon the Revelations, while he was in Prison. He had before Composed a Commentary upon the Sentences.  
GERHARDUS, an Hermit of the Order of S. Augustine, Bishop of Savona, a Divine and Canonist, wrote a Commentary upon the Sentences, two Quodlibetical Questions, a Commentary upon the Canticles, and upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, and a Work upon the Sixth Book of the Decretals.  
ROBERT, a Carmelite, Composed several Sermons, a Commentary upon the Sentences, and S. Paul's Epistles.  
MICHAEL de MASSA, a Hermit of the Order of S. Augustine, was the Author of the following Treatises; A Commentary upon the Sentences; A Commentary upon the Prophet Isaiah, and the Four Evangelists. A Book upon the Life of Jesus Christ; Another of the Passion of Jesus Christ; A Treatise upon the Four Virtues, and divers Sermons. All these Authors flourished according to Trithemius, under the Empire of Lewis of Bavaria, till about the Year 1350.  
JOHN WALSGRAM, a Carmelite, and Doctor of Paris, wrote a considerable Book upon the Sentences, and divers Questions.  
JOANNES SAXO, a Grey-Friar, wrote a Sum of the Civil Law, and some Sermons for the Sundays, and Festivals of the Year.  
JOHN BRAMMART, of the same Order, wrote Works of the same Nature.  
HENRY d'ERFORD, a Germane, wrote an Historical Account of things Memorable.  
JOHN TACESPHALUS, an English Carmelite of the Convent of Norwich, wrote upon the Sentences, Composed several Sermons, and made a Commentary upon the Revelations.  
NICHOLAS DORHIN, of the same Country and same Order, wrote upon the Sentences, and made some Questions.  
TILMAN, a Carmelite of Aix la Chapelle, a Doctor of Colen, wrote upon the Sentences, made a Commentary upon the Evangelist S. Matthew, and upon other Books of Scripture, and several Sermons.  
PETRUS THOMAS, of the same Order, Bishop of Patti in Sicily, and after Archbishop of Crete, and last of all honoured with the Title of Patriarch of Constantinople, was sent by the Popes on several Embassages, and died in Reputation for his Sanctity; He was a famous Preacher in his time, and has left us several of his Sermons, and a Commentary upon the Sentences.  
BARTHOLOMEW, an Englishman, a Grey-Friar, is the Author of several Sermons, and of a Treatise of the Properties of Things.  
PETRUS BOHERUS, Abbot of S. Anianus, of the Order of S. Benedict, Composed several small Tracts for his Monks; and among others, A Treatise upon the Rule of S. Benedict, in which he compares all the Precepts and Councils of that ●●le with the Canon-Law. He also Composed a Treatise upon the Mirror of Monks, and a small Work or the Marks or Words.  
JACOBUS de ALTA VILLA, of Rhi●gaw near Mayence; is the Author of a Treatise upon the Sentences, and some other Questions.  
JOHN d'IMENHUSEN, a Germane, wrote also upon the Sentences, and made some Sermons.  
LEONARD de GIFTON, the 24th. General of the Grey-Friars, made Cardinal by the Title of S. Sixtus by Clement VII. in 1378. while he abode at Naples after the decease of Clement, was put in Prison, but being again released, was present at the Election of Benedict XIII. in 1394. He has left several Works. Trithemius makes mention of a Commentary upon the Sentences; Of a Considerable Sum; A Commentary upon the Canticles, and several Sermons.  
JOANNES BALISTARII, a Catalonian, the 17th. General of the Order of Carmelites, is the Author of a Treatise dedicated to Pope Gregory XI. Of the War of the Church Militant against the Assaults of Antichrist. He also Composed a Treatise upon the Sentences, and some Sermons. He died in 1374. in the Convent of Majorca.  
JOHN de HILDESHEIM, a Carmelite, Servant of Thomas the General of that Order, Composed several Works in Verse and Prose, and among others, a Large Book of the Three Kings made Saints, dedicated to the Bishop of Munster, a Chronicle; An Apology for his Order; A Book of the Monsters of the Church; Another of Antichrist; Of the Fountain of Life; A Book against the Jews; A Writing against such as Comb the●● obs●… Parts, Twenty four Letters, and divers Sermons.  
JOHN GOLEIN, a Norman, of the same Order, Composed a Commentary upon the Sentences, a Book upon the Office of the Mass and divers Questions.  
HENRY de DOLENDORP, of the same Order, wrote upon the Sentences.  
JOHN FUSTGIN, of Creutznach, of the same Order, Prior of Strasburg, made some Sermons for Lent, and the whole Year; which were preserved in the Original in the Convent of Carmelites at Creutznach in Trithemius' time.  
All these Authors flourished, according to Trithemius, under the Empire of Charles iv to the Year 1380. The rest flourished in the Reign of Wencislaus to the End of the Age.  
WILLIAM of Wallingford in England, a Carmelite, flourished in the University of Cambridge, and has left some Commentaries upon the Scripture, and some Sermons.  
FRANCIS MARTIN, a Catalonian of the same Order, Composed a Treatise of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, to which he gives the Title of Abridgement, which yet contains Seven Books. He flourished in the Convent of Barcelona in the time of Weucislaus, and Boniface IX.  
CONRADUS d'ALTZEY, in the Palatinate, of the Diocese of Mayence, Composed a Volume of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, a Book of Figures, a Book of Poetry, and some Letters.  
STEVEN of Petringon in England, a Ca●●nelite, made a Treatise against the Followers of Wickliff; Another Treatise, entitled, A Repertory of Arguments; One notable Lecture and some Sermons.  
THOMAS LAMB, an English Carmelite, a Doctor of Oxford. Composed a Work upon the Sentences; a Treatise upon the Incarnation, a Writing against the Lollards, some Sermons and Questions.  
NICHOLAS de RITZON, a Native of Tholouse, of the same Order, Provincial in Sicily, and a great Preacher, had some Sermons in the time of Tritherius.  
HENRY de KALKAR, a Germane, a Canon of S. Geerge at Colen, after a Carthusian and Prior of several Houses of that Order, and a Definer, died in 1408. in the 80th. Year of his Age, after he had lived 43 Years in his Order. He Composed several Works of Piety, of which the most part are preserved in the Carthusian Monastery at Colon, viz. A Treatise of the Beginning, and Progress of the Order of Carthusians; An Instruction in Rhetoric; An Instruction in Music; a Treatise of the Subjects, and the Distinction of sciences: ●●vers Letters; Some Sermons made in their Chapters; A Ladder of Spiritual Exercise in form of 〈◊〉 Oration; The Daily Holocaust, or Burnt-Offering of Spiritual Exercise; An Exhortation to the Carthusians of Coblentz; A Psalter of the Virgin, or a Prose, which contains an 150 words in Six Aves; The Manner of holding Conferences after the Carthusian Custom.  
RICHARD de MAYDESCON, an English Carmelite, wrote a Treatise against the Lollards, and Composed several Sermons  
JOHN, a Benedictin Monk of castle, in the Diocese of Aichstet, Composed a considerable Work upon the Rule of S. Benedict; An Abridgement of the Bible; Some Sermons for the Sundays, and Feasts of the Year; 42 Sermons upon the Passion of our Sav●●r, and some Letters.  
CONRADUS, a Germane, Doctor of Paris and Canon of Ratisbonne, Composed some Books of Moral Philosophy.  
JOHN de SCHODEHOVE, Prior of the Carmelites at Malines, wrote a Work for the Use of Preachers, upon the Virtues and Vices, and other Matters for Preaching, put into an Alphabetical Order, entitled, Polypodium, and several Sermons.  
PHILIP de FERRIERES, a Native of Tholouse, Bishop of Badajos in Spain, a famous Preacher, has left us Sermons for all the Sundays, and Festivals of the Year.  
WALTER DISSE, an Englishman and a Carmelite, Legate of Boniface IX. into England, Spain, and France, to Preach a Crusado there. He Composed a Treatise against the Lollards, a Treatise of Schism, a Commentary upon some Psalms, and Sermons.  
JOHN de HISDEN, a Knight ●●spitaller of S. John of Jerusalem, has left his Explications upon the New Testament, which he made at Paris, and some Sermons.  
WILLIAM OPPENBACH, a Germane, and Doctor of Paris, wrote upon the Sentences, and Composed some Questions and S●●●ons.  
JOHN GLUEL, of 〈◊〉 C●apelle, Prior of the Carmelites at Colen, is the Author of a Treatise of the Original and P●●gre●● of his Order, entitled, The Mirror of the Carmelites, and some Sermons for Lent, and for all the Year.  
HENRY EUTA, or OTTA, a Germane, Professor at Vienna in Austria, wrote upon the Sentences, a Treatise of the Conception of the Virgin, a Treatise of Contracts, and some Sermons.  
HENRY d' ANDERNAC▪ a German Carmelite, has also written upon the Sentences, some Sermons and Questions.  
BLAISUS ANDERNARIUS, a Frenchman of the same Order, wrote upon the Sentences, some Sermons and Questions.  
JOHN, Abbot of S. Bavon, of the Order of S. Benedict, has wrote a Treatise of the Use of Flesh, in which he proves, that by the Rule of S. Benedict, it is not allowed to the Monks, which are not Sick, to eat of it.  
RICHARD de LAVENHAM, an English Carmelite, wrote a Treatise against the Lollards, a Book of the Foundation of his Order, a Defence of St. Bridget's Book, and some Sermons.  
JOHN de WERDEN, a Grey-Friar, Composed double Sermons for all the Sundays and Festivals of the Year, and One Lent Sermon.  
JOHN de CAMPSEN, an English Carmelite, wrote some Sermons.  
PHILIP, Abbot of Otterburg, in the Diocese of Worms, wrote a Commentary upon the Canticles, some Sermons, and Letters.  
Lastly, 〈◊〉 carry longer, to make a tedious Enumeration of the Names, and Works of the Divines and ●…ists of this Age, which we can gain the Knowledge of; it shall suffice to observe, That there was hardly any Doctor of Divinity, which did not make a Commentary upon the Master of the Sentences, and postils, or Lectures upon some Books of the Holy Scripture, which they deliv●red publicly in the Universities to obtain their Degrees, and then they applied themselves wholly to Preaching; from whence comes the great Number of Commentaries upon the Sentences, postils, and Sermons. The Canonists employed themselves usually to Commen● upon the D●…, and particularly, the Sixth Book of Boniface's. I will not speak of the famous Lawy●… of this Age as Peter de Belleperche, James d' Aren●, Nicholas of Naples, James of Ravenna, Francis Accursus, Martin de Fano, William de Cumes, Richard de Malombre, Lambertinus de Rampons, Cinus de Pistoy, Oldrad de Laude, Nicholas de Moden●, Bartholus; nor of such as were eminent for Physic, as Dinus, Thomas de Garb●, Gentiles de Faligm, Peter d' Aponâ, Philip de Bergamo; or for Astronomy, 〈◊〉 de Liguieres, John D●…k, John Eshcidi, John Eliger de Gondersleven; nor of those who have excelled in the Study of Human Learning, as Dantes, Aliger, and Paul de Perusia; because their Works have no Relation to Ecclesiastical Matters.   

CHAP. VI  
The History of the Gr●●k Ch●…, and th● Authors, that flourished in the Fast, in the Fourteenth Century.  
THE Greek Empire continued to be governed by the Palaeologi; Andronicus, the Son of 
The History of the Greek Emperors.  Michael, having lost his Son, caused young Andronicus his Grandchild, to be declared Emperor, who revolted from him, and forced him to quit the Empire in 1328. Four Years before his Death. This Man reigned till the Year 1341. and left at his Death two Children in their Minority, John and Maruel, Palaeologi, to whom he nominated John Cantacuzenus Guardian; but the Empress ●oon drove hi● from Constantinople: He retired into Macedonia, whither many of the Lords of the Empire being come to him, obliged him to assume the title of Emperor; he was Crowned at Adrianople by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, made War upon the young Princes, and having five Years after in 1347. recovered the City of Constantinople, he treated with John Palaeologus, and joined him in the Empire, on the condition he might govern alone, till he came of Age; he gave him likewise his Daughter in Marriage: Nevertheless, this Agreement lasted not long: The War being again renewed, John Palaeologus had the better, and made himself Master of Constantinople; Cantacuzenus yielded up the Empire, and retired in the Year 1357. into a Monastery, where he died a considerable time after. John Palaeologus remaining in the sole Possession of the Empire, had upon his hands a troublesome War with the Turks, and came into the West to demand Assistance of the Latins. In his absence, Andronicus his eldest Son, had a mind to postess himself of the Empire, and left his Father in the hands of the Venetians, who had detained him for Money, that he owed, without any thoughts of releasing him. But Manuel his Third Son, Governor of Thessalonica, having gotten together a Sum of Money, paid his Father's Debts, and deserved by this Kindness to be made Partner of the Empire, in the Year 1384. Andronicus incensed at this, that his younger Brother was preferred before him, applied himself to Bajazet, and having obtained Aid of him, took Constantinople, and put his Father and Brother in Prison. They remained there Three Years; but having found means to get out, and flying unto Bajazet, who was displeased with Andronicus, they recovered the Empire, and delivered up Andronicus to the Turks. John Palaeologus died in a short time after in the Year 1391. Manuel was not more fortunate than his Father; for Bajazet held Constantinople, in his Reign, besieged Ten Years. He came in vain to demand Succours of the Latins against him; but by good Fortune unlooked for, Tamerlane, King of the Tartars, forced Bajazet to raise the Siege, Vanquished him and took him Prisoner; After this, Manuel made Peace with Mahomet II. and left the Empire to John his Son, who reigned to the Year 1449. when he was succeeded by his Son Constantine, the last of the Greek Emperors in Constantinople, which was taken by the Turks, in the Year 1453.  
Under these Emperors, the Government of the East and of the Greek Church fell to decay, 
The Inclination of the Greeks to the Latins.  by the Victories which the Turks obtained over the Christians, from whom they presently took the Provinces, they had in Asia, and then passing into Europe, they possessed themselves by degrees of all the Cities in the Greek Empire. This Progress of the Infidels could not induce the Greeks to unite themselves to the Church of Rome, but they appeared on the contrary more averse than ever from Peace, and more incensed against the Latins, as many Books set forth by their Authors against the Procession of the Holy Ghost, against the use of Unleavened Bread in the Eucharist, and against the Primacy of the Pope, written with sharpness, do testify. Nevertheless there were some among them, who declared for the Latins, and also writ in their favour. As to their Emperors, the Necessity of their Affairs, and the need they had of the help of the Latin Princes, rendered them more inclinable, at least in show, to a Union.  
About the Year 1339. young Andronicus sent Barlaam Abbot of the Monastery of S. Saviour 
The Proposal of Union under Andronicus.  from Constantinople, with a Lord named Stephen Dandulus, unto Philip de Valois▪ King of France, and to Robert King of Sicily, to desire Assistance of them; and because he could not hope to prevail, but by uniting himself to the Church of Rome, he gave them this matter in charge. These two Envoys came to Benedict XII. with Letters of Recommendation from both these Kings, and Barlaam proposed to this Pope in the presence of the College of Cardinals, to call a General Council, wherein should be discussed the Question concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost, that the Latins, and the Greeks, after having on both Sides urged their Arguments for their respective Opinions, might come to an Agreement; but above all things he besought his Holiness to cause, that the Princes of Europe should afford their Assistance to the Greeks, for the recovery of their Cities, which the Turks had seized. The Pope demanded of them, whether they had a full Power from the Emperor, the great Lords, and chief Prelates of Greece? They made Answer, That they had it not in Writing, and yet the Pope gave them leave to propound the Means of Reunion, which they judged might be successful. Barlaam after having made a Protestation, that he spoke sincerely, and had nothing in Prospect, but the good of the Church, and the Agreement of all Christians, declared, there were two Ways to attain to a Union; the one by force, the other voluntary, by way of Instruction: That it was not convenient to think of the first, but to adhere to the latter, which one may distinguish into two, in reference to the Learned, and to the Common People; that as to the Learned, it would be easy to agree with them, because if Thirty or Forty were sent from the East, they would make no difficulty to join issue; but that would not be enough for the People, because these Persons upon their return would be accused of being corrupted, and would not be credited; that the only way were to call a General Council, whose decision would be received of all the World with respect; if it be objected to this, that there had been one already held at Lions, it ought to be observed, that the Greeks never allowed of it, because those from Greece, who assisted at that Council, were not sent thither by the four Patriarches, nor by the People; but the Emperor singly: That if the Pope designed to call a Council, to which the Greeks should submit, he must first send Legates into the East, full of Piety, Mildness and Humility with Letters, by which his Holiness would entreat the four Patriarches, and the other Bishops, to meet in some place to search into means of Union; that if it were managed thus, the Emperor, the Patriarches, and the People would admit of a General Council, whose Determinations would be received without Contradiction. After this, Barlaam gave his Reasons, why the Latins ought to assist the Grecians against the Turks, even before the Union. The Pope having advised with the Cardinals, made answer to the Deputies of the Grecian Emperor, That the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, being a matter decided, was no more liable to dispute, nor debate. The Greek Deputies proposed, that at the least the Greeks be left at liberty to continue in their same Judgement: it was replied, they could not dispense with it, because there was but one Faith in the Church; and there was propounded to them an easy way of Agreement, viz. That the four Patriarches should depute some Persons of note in the West, with sufficient Power to confer with such as the Pope should nominate, not to dispute, but to be instructed in the Truth, and to remove their Scruple: That for the Meeting of a General Council, it was to no purpose, neither could it be effected, especially at this Juncture. Barlaam returned, That though the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son went for currant truth among the Latins, the Greeks notwithstanding were in a doubt of his Proceeding from the Son, and that they could not be convinced herein, but by the way of discussion; that this was ever practised in the Church; that if it were refused them, they should suspect, the Latins disinherited the goodness of their Cause; That General Councils had ever been Useful, and done the Church credit; In fine, he propounded to make a Reunion, and leave both Parties free to hold what they pleased as to this Question, to oblige the Greeks to grant the Church of Rome the Honours which the ancient Patriarches had allowed, and which were determined by the Laws of the Emperors, and by the Canons of the Holy Fathers; and that the Latins on their part should give way, to allow to the Church and Empire of Constantinople the Rights they enjoy by ancient Custom, by the Laws, and by the Canons. He concludes with demanding of Succours. The Pope denied him, for fear the Greeks, when strengthened and raised by the Holy See, and by the Catholic Princes of Europe, should afterwards desert them, as they had done before. Barlaam before his departure delivered a fresh Memorial to the Pope; wherein he set forth, That it was impossible to send Deputies from the East, as he demanded, because whatever good Design the Emperor might have to settle the Union, he durst not discover it; and that the Patriarch of Constantinople could not send Legates, without consulting the other Patriarches, which he could not do, by reason of the Wars, and that otherwise he was not certain the other Patriarches would consent to it; he added a Promise, that notwithstanding he would do his utmost. This Project had no issue, and things remained in Greece in the posture they were in, as to the Latins.  
Andronicus being Dead in the Year 1341. the Empress to strengthen herself against Cantacuzenus, 
Projects for Union under Cantacuzenus.  writ to Pope Clement VI that if she were able to conquer her Enemies, she would embrace the Doctrine and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome. The Pope commended her Design, exhorted her to persist in it, and promised her Succours. Cantacuzenus sent some time after George Spanopulus, Master of his Wardrobe, and Sigerus, Praetor of the People, in Quality of Ambassadors; to whom he joined a Latin named Francis, a Friend of the Pope's, giving them in Charge to remove any Prejudice he might have against this Prince, and to demand Aid against the Infidels. Clement VI▪ gave these Ambassadors a kind Reception, and sent with them two Bishops, one of the O●… of the Grey-Friars, and the other of the Order of Friars-Preachers to treat of the Union. They agreed with the Emperor, that the Pope should call a Council; that he should give the Emperor notice of the time and place, and that the Emperor should call the Patriarches together, to the intent they might send Deputies thither. The Pope accepted this Proposal; but he wrote to the Emperor, that he could not put it in Execution suddenly, because of the Wars in Italy. C●…zenus gave him Thanks for his good Intentions, and entreated him to do what was possible for the assembling of this Council; but the Pope died, and it was no more mentioned.  
In the Year 1369. the Emperor John Palaeologus, seeing himself hard beset on all sides by the 
The Union of John Palaeologus.  Turks, made a Voyage into Italy, to demand Succours of the Christian Princes in Europe. He was well received there, and repaired to Rome, where Pope Urban V came to meet him on the 13th. of October, and on the 18th. of the same Month, he made a Profession of Faith, which he Signed with his Hand, and Sealed with his own Seal in the presence of Five Cardinals, and other Witnesses, to the end he might be received into Communion, whereby he acknowledged the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, the Pains of Purgatory, Prayers for the Dead, the Vision of Souls purged from all Sin soon after Death, the Seven Sacraments, the Validity of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist offered with Unleavened Bread, the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST, the validity of Second, Third and Fourth Marriages, the Primacy of the Church of Rome over the whole Catholic Church, given with full Power by JESUS CHRIST to ●t. Peter, to whom the Pope of Rome is Successor, to whom recourse ought to be had in all Causes that concern the Church; to whom all Churches and all Bishops own Obedience and Submission, who hath the fullness of Power, etc. He promises and engages by Oath upon the Holy Gospels inviolably to hold this Doctrine, and utterly renounces the Schism. Notwithstanding this Act of Submission, John Palaeologus drew not much Assistance from the Western Princes; but was Arrested by the Venetians for the Payment of his Debts, and was not released, till his Son Manuel had discharged them. This latter coming to the Empire, went also to the West about the end of this Century, there to demand Succours against Bajazet, who had laid Siege to Constantinople; but he in vain went over Italy, France, England, and Germany, and could obtain but very little Aid from the French King, insomuch, that he not only rejected the Opinion of the Latins, but also wrote against them about the Procession of the Holy Ghost.  
The Greeks had likewise in the Fourteenth Century Disputes among them upon Points of 
The Contests between the B●rlaamites and Palamites.  Doctrine, which were pushed on with great heat on both Sides. The Heads of the two Parties were Barlaam, and Palamas; The first was a Monk of Calabria, Learned and Cunning, who being come to Constantinople, buoyed up by the Authority of the Emperor, the young Andronicus, undertook the Monks, styled Hesicasts, or Quietists, examined their Method of Prayer, and having therein observed things he did not like, he writ against them, and accused them of reviving the Errors of the Euchites, and the Messalianists, giving them a new Name of Omphalo Psychi, that is to say, Navellists; because as we have noted, in speaking of Simeon of Xeroxerce, one of the Maxims of these Hesicasts was to have the Eye fixed on the middle of the Belly, as the place, where was the Seat of the Faculties of the Soul; insomuch that being in that posture: they imagined to see a Light altogether Divine. When they were asked, What kind of thing this Light was; they answered, That it was Light itself, and the Glory of God which had appeared on Mount Tabor, and asserted, that this Light was uncreated and incorruptible, though it were not the Essence of God: They said the same thing of all the occasions God had to make his Glory appear to Men, and pretended that the Saints themselves and the Angels saw not the Divine Essence, but this uncreated Light, which they named the Operation of God. They laid it down as a Principle, that this Operation was distinguished from the Divine Essence, and yet eternal, uncreated and incorruptible, and that one might also give it the Name of Divinity. Barlaam impeached Palamas, and the other Monks, who held these Opinions before the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople. A Council was called in this City in the Year 1340. 
The first Council of Constantinople, against the Barlaamites, in the Year 1340.  where two of the Points, which we have touched upon, concerning Prayer, and the Light of Tabor were there chief debated. Barlaam asked a great many Questions, and opposed the Opinion of Palamas, by maintaining, that this Light could not be uncreated and incorruptible, if it were not the very Essence of God, and that nothing could be perceived by the Eyes of the Body, but that which was created. The Palamites defended their Opinion, and affirmed, That this Light, which had appeared on Mount Tabor, was uncreated; That the Holy Fathers called it Divine, though it was not the Essence of God, but his Virtue, his Grace, his Glory, his Brightness, which issued from the Essence of God; that the Saints and Angels saw this Eternal Glory, though they saw not the Essence of God: They maintained likewise, that the Name of Divinity might be given to this Light, and to other Divine Operations; so that in this they seemed to allow many Subordinate Divinities, flowing from the Substantial Divinity. The Opinion of Barlaam was rejected in this first Convention.  
Some time after, another Monk, named Gregory Acindynus, continuing to maintain the Opinion 
The Second Council of Constantinople, against Acindynus.  of Barlaam, though he made as if he opposed it, and stoutly attacking that of Palamas, was cited to a Synod held in presence of John Cantacuzenus, a little after the Death of Andronicus in the Vestry of St. Peter's Church in Constantinople, by John Patriarch of that City; where Thirteen Bishops were present. Acindynus was there convicted to be of Barlaam's Opinion concerning the Light of Tabor, and to believe it created and limited, of the same Nature with other Lights, and condemned with Barlaam. 'Twas in this Second Convention, they prepared a Volume, wherein they collected divers Passages of the Greek Fathers, concerning the Light of Tabor, and Prayer, which appeared to favour the Opinion of Palamas. They condemned the Doctrine and Person of Barlaam, and Acindynus, silenced these Contests, and forbidden on pain of Excommunication to accuse the Monks of Heresy.  
The Palamites puffed up with this Victory, grew more Positive for their new Doctrine than 
The Third Council of Constantinople, against the Palamites.  ever, and pushing their Principles farther, separated the Husbands from their Wives, shaved them for Monks, and raised new Disturbances in Constantinople. The Patriarch after Admonition resolved to Expel them the City, caused the most mutinous to be Arrested, and required a Profession of Faith from the Clergy, cited Palamas and Isidore, elected to the Bishopric of Mcnembase, to render an account of their Carriage, and their Doctrine. These two persisting obstinate in their Errors, were condemned and deposed in a Synod, held by John Patriarch of Constantinople, in which assisted the Patriarch of Antioch, and divers Bishops. The condemned paid no respect to this Judgement, and continued to exercise the Functions of their Priesthood; which put the Patriarch upon making a Discourse addressed to all the Faithful, to Exhort them to separate from Palamas, and all his Followers. This passed in the time, that Cantacuzenus was Banished under the Empress Anne; but when Cantacuzenus had made himself Master of Constantinople, the Empress Anne and John Palaeologus willing to make use of Palamas to make their Peace, got him Absolved in a Convention, in which the Patriarch John was condemned, and sent him afterwards to Cantacuzenus, to the end he might do the Palaeologi good offices with the Conqueror. John dying a little time after, Cantacuzenus proposed Palamas to fill his place, but not being able to compass it, he procured his Friend Isidore to be chosen Patriarch of Constantinople, and Palamas was some time after made Archbishop of Thessalonica. Their Adversaries 
The Fourth Council of Constantinople, against the Palamites.  complained loudly of this Promotion, Protested it was void, and against the Canons, forbidding to give Bishoprics to Persons deposed in a Synod; accused them of Blasphemy and Heresy, of admitting two Deities, of not observing the Easts prescribed by the Church, of despoiling the Images, of breaking the Sacred Vessels; and upon this ground they refused to Communicate with them, demanded a Synod, to depose them. And indeed, ten Bishops of this Party being Assembled at Constantinople, authorized as they pretended, by the Letters of more than Twenty others gave Sentence of Deposing against Isidore and Palamas, and exhorted all the Faithful not to hold Communion with them. This Sentence is dated in July, in the Year 1347. Notwithstanding Isidore remained in Possession of the Patriarchal See of Constantinople, as long as he lived, and Callistus, who succeeded, upheld the same Party.  
This Patriarch purposing to subdue entirely the remainder of the Party of Barlaam and 
The Fifth Council of Constantinople, against the Barlaamites, i n the Year 1355.  Acindynus, which was supported by Nicephorus Gregoras and divers others, assembled a Council at Constantinople, which was held in presence of Cantacuzenus, and John Palaeologus in a Hall of the Palace of Blacherne, and consisting of Twenty five Metropolitans, of some Bishops, and many Priests and Monks, before whom were cited the Adversaries of Palamas, of whom they demanded the Reasons, which they had to make a Schism, and to rise against the Emperors, and the Patriarch. They alleged hereupon two Reasons, The First, the Addition to the Profession of Faith, which they were obliged to make, when they were ordained Bishops: And the Second, the Promotion of Palamas to the Archbishopric of Thessalonica. Palamas, who was present at this Council, cast in their ●eeth, that they were of Opinion with Barlaam, and Acindynus; and the Council told them, that as to the Addition they complained of, it was but the Exposition of the Sixteenth Ecumenical Council, and the Co●emnat●●● of Barlaam, and Acindynus. After this it was Day to enter upon the discussion of the Queestion, and the Dispute was adjourned till the next Day. Palamas and his Adversaries debated it at the next Meeting. At the Third these brought their Profession of Faith, at the close of which they declared, they were of the Church's Opinion touching Barlaam and Acindynus: Next they objected to Palamas, that he had writ several times in his Books, that there were many Divinities. The Emperor asked them, if they condemned that Expression or the Thing, which Palamas designed to signify by this term; for, said he, if it be the Thing, why do you insist upon the Term; but if it be the Term only, you quarrel at, and in the Thing you agree with him, why do you find ●…lt with an Expression, which has a good meaning? Palamas declared, That he would dispute only upon the Opinions, and not upon the Expressions; and protested, That he admitted not three Divinities separate from the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but one sole Divinity in three Persons; though according to the Expression of the Fathers, he had given the name of Divinity to the Operations and external Processions of God; That he made use of this Expression only to defend himself against such as said, that the Operations and Divine Virtues were created, and that nothing but the Divine Essence was Uncreated and Eternal; and in fine, That he had not set it on foot, with a design to assert many Divinities; but on the contrary, he had ever made Profession of maintaining one sole Divinity in three Persons, Almighty, and Efficacious. The Emperor and the Council approved of his Declaration, but they said, that the Distinction of the Operation, and the Essence ought to be examined more largely. In the Fourth Session the Light of Tabor was treated of, and the Passages of the Fathers recited, which had been already quoted in the Book against Barlaam and Acindynus; from whence it was concluded, that the Divine Essence was distinct from the Operation, and that this Operation might be styled a Divinity. The Patriarch after this used his endeavour to make this Doctrine to be approved by those, who had opposed it, and not able to effect it, he declared Ephesus and Gannus Deposed.  
Some days after, the Synod reassembled, to handle the Questions throughly, which concerned the Divine Essence nnd the Operation. The Emperor propounded them himself, and the Council collected severa●●…aces out of the Fathers to explain them. The Works of Barlaam and Acindynus were examined. The Deputies of the Monks of Mount Athos were heard, who expounded the Opinions of that Society, according to the Books which Philotheus, then Metropolitan of Heraclea, and after Patriarch of Constantinople had written, while he was among them. In Conclusion they approved the Doctrine of Palamas, who delivered a Profession of Faith, in which he declares, that he believes one sole Divinity. The Doctrine of Barlaam and Acindynus was Condemned, and all those were Anathematised that were of their Opinion, and that did not acknowledge the Operations of God to be Eternal and Uncreated, and that the Light of Mount Tabor was not of this Nature. Thus Council was held about the Year 1355. Father Combefisius hath set down the Acts in his last Addition to his Bibliotheca Patrum, in the Year 1672. in the last Part, P. 136. together with the Refutation, which had been made thereof by Manuel Calecas, and by John Cyparissiotes.  
BARLAAM, after his Condemnation in the East, retreated into the West, sided with the Latins, and was made Bishop of Hieracium in Calabria. Wherefore 'tis not to be wondered at, 
Barlaam, Bishop of Hieracium.  that he has written for and against the Latins and it is not Necessary for this reason to distinguish of two Barlaams. He has written aga●… the Latins a Treatise of the Pope's Primacy, printed at first in Greek and Latin at Oxford ●…e Year 1592. and afterwards at Haynault, in the Year 1608. with the Notes of Salmasius, who since has reprinted it, together with his own Treatise of the Primacy of the Pope at Amsterdam in the Year 1645. And a Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, containing Eighteen Articles, whereof Allatius has given us the Titles: For the Latins, a Discourse of the Union of the two Churches, related by Allatius and Bzovius; and five Letters: The First directed to his Fr●…ds in Greece, about the Union with the Church of Rome. The Second, of the Primacy of the Church of Rome, and of the Procession of the Holy Ghost addressed to the same. The Third, an Answer to Demetrius of Thessalonica, touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost. ●●e Fourth to Alexis Calochetus, to demonstrate, that the Greeks, who do not obey the Latins, are not only Schismatics, but also Heretics. The Fifth, containing the Proofs of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. Allatius makes mention of these Works, and Bzovius has given them us in Latin in his History. They are to be met with also in the Collection of Canisi●s, Tom. 6. and in the last Edition of Bibliotheca Patrum, together with two Books of Morality. They are printed separately at Strasburg in the Year 1572. and at Paris in 1600. a Treatise of Arithmetic and Algebra, by the same Author.  
In his Treatise of the Pope's Primacy he thus Propounds the Question, viz. Whether JESUS CHRIST did commit his Church to St. Peter, and settled a common Pastor, and Doctor of the Church? whether the Bishop of Rome, as his Successor, aught to Command and Preside over all, and can decree what he pleases, without being to be contradicted by any, and that the whole World on the other side be obliged to receive his Decrees without Examination, as the Word of God. He asserts, That JESUS CHRIST gav● to all the Apostles the same Power of binding and losing, which he gave to St. Peter; and that when he said to him, Feed my Sheep, this concerns all the Apostles; that St. Peter had done nothing, but what the other Apostles had done; that they were not Bishops of one City only, but exercised the same Power in different places; that those whom they ordained for their Successors, are particular Pastors of different Churches; that nevertheless St. Peter was the first of the Twelve Apostles, and their Superior, in that he was the first in instructing, and had the first Place; that the Church of Rome was the first, as so settled by the Laws of the Emperors, because this was the first City▪ that of Constantinople was equal to it in Power, though it were but second in Rank; that it belonged not to the Pope to ordain Patriarches, seeing the Ecclesiastical Laws say expressly, they shall be ordained by the Metropolitans, and the Metropolitans by the Patriarches; but there is no Law that obliges the Patriarches to receive Ordination from the Pope; that the Canons give him nothing but the first rank, and the first place; that he is subject to Errors like others; That the Church of Rome ought not to be confounded with the Catholic Church, nor Profession be made of believing in the Roman Church, as one believes in the Catholic Church. Thus you see what he offers in the Treatise of the Primacy, set forth by Salmasius.  
But he destroys these Principles in his Letters which he wrote to the Greeks, while he was in the West; for he there maintained, that every Church ought to be Subject to the Church of Rome, and her Bishop, who hath received his Ordination from JESUS CHRIST; that his Decrees ought to be considered, as the Divine Scriptures; that we own them a blind Obedience; that it belongs to him to correct all other Bishops, and to examine their Judgements, and to confirm them, or make them void; that he has right to ordain other Patriarches; that St. Peter received this Primacy from JESUS CHRIST; that his Successors have ever enjoyed it; that the Schism of the Greeks took beginning but Four Hundred Years ago; that since this time the Greek Church is fallen to decay, and sensible she is reduced to the last Extremity; that the Latines cannot be accused of Heresy for using Wafers, nor for holding the Procession of the Holy Ghost, seeing they follow in it the Opinion of the ancient Doctors of their Church, and the Practice of their Ancestors; and that the Greeks, who obstinately assert, that the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father, are not only Schismatics, but also Heretics, seeing they deny a Truth grounded upon the Holy Scriptures, and on the Tradition of the Fathers.  
GREGORY ACINDYNUS followed not the example of Barlaam, in his Union with the Latins, 
Gregorius Acindynus a Greek Monk.  but remained concealed in Greece, continually writing against the Palamites. Gretser has set forth two Books of Acindynus, concerning the Essence and Operation of God, written against Palamas, Gregoras, and Philotheus, printed at Ingolstadt, in the Year 1626. Allatius has published in his Graecia Orthodoxa, [i. e. Orthodox Greece] a Poem in jambick Verse, made by Acindynus against Palamas, and two Fragments against the same; in one of which he makes mention of Five Volumes, which he wrote against Barlaam to defend the Monastic Discipline of the Greeks.  
The Works of GREGORY PALAMAS, which are extant, follow; Two Prayers upon the Transfiguration 
Gregory Palamas Archbishop of Thessalonica.  of our Lord, wherein he explains his Doctrine of the Light, which appeared on Mount Tabor; that it was Uncreated, and is not of the Essence of God, set out in Greek and Latin by Father Combefisius in his Addition to the Bibliotheca Patrum: A Prosopopoeia, which contains two Declamations, one of the Soul against the Body, which she accuses of Intemperance and Disobedience; and the other of the Body, which defends itself against the Soul, together with the Sentence given by a third Party, set forth in Greek by Turnebus, printed at Paris in the Year 1553. and in Latin in the last Bibliotheca Patrum: Two Discourses of the Procession of the Holy Ghost against the Latins, printed at London. The Confutation of the Expositions of Johannes Veccus on the Procession of the Holy Ghost, set forth in Greek and Latin, together with the Answers of Cardinal Bessarion by Arcudius, and printed at Rome in 1630. He made a great many Works for the Defence of his Opinions, whereof divers are cited by Manuel Calecas, and by other Greeks, which wrote against him; and among others, A Treatise of Divine Participation; A Catalogue of Absurdities, which follow from the Opinion of Barlaam; Dialogues, Letters, Discourses, etc. of which the Extracts are to be seen in Manuel Calecas. There is in the Library of Augsburg, a Treatise in MS. of Palamas on the Transfiguration of our Lord, more large than the Prayers beforementioned. The other Authors, who have written for or against Palamas, shall be inserted in the Succession of Greek Authors of this Century, which we proceed to recite according to the Order of the times.  
NICEPHORUS, the Son of Callistus Xanthopylus, a Monk of Constantinople, a studious and laborious 
Nicephorus Callistus, a Greek Monk.  Man, undertook under the Empire of Andronicus the elder, to Compose a New Ecclesiastical History, which he dedicated to that Prince; it was divided into Twenty three Books, began at the Birth of JESUS CHRIST, and ended at the Death of the Emperor Leo, the Philosopher, that is to say, at the Year 911. we have no more, than the Eighteen first Books, which end with the Emperor Phocas, that is to say, in the Year of our Lord 610. He collected his History out of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Evagrius, and other good Authors, but he has mixed it with a great many Fables, and has fallen into many Mistakes: the style is not disagreeable, and is Correct enough for his time. The only Copy of this History, which was in the Library of Mathias King of Hungary at Buda, was taken by a Turk and Sold at an Auction in Constantinople, where it was bought up by a Christian, and after carried to the Library of the Emperor at Vienna, where it is at this present. Langius has translated it into Latin, printed at Basil in 1553. at Antwerp in 1560. at Paris in 1562. and 1573. and at Francfort in 1588. and Fronto Ducaeus hath since published it in Greek and Latin, printed at Paris in the Year 1630. Father Labbe has set out a Catalogue of the Emperors and Patriar●… of Constantinople, collected by Nicephorus in his Preliminary Treatise of the Byzantine History, printed at Paris in 16●8. and there was printed at Basil in 1536. An Abridgement of the Scripture in jambick Verse, which a●… bears the Name of Nicephorus.  
There is ex●… under the Name of ANDRONICUS of Constantinople, a long Dialogue between a 
Andronicus the Elder, a Greek Emperor.  Jew and a C●…n; wherein the Christian proves the principal Points of the Religion of JESUS CHRIST by Quotations out of the Old Testament. This Work is published in Latin, in the Translation of Liveneius; by Stuart, and printed at Ingolstadt in the Year 1616. and in the Bibliothecis Patrum. It is doubtful, who is the Author, but the time is certain; for the Author counts 1255. Years from the Captivity of the Jews, which, reckoning since the taking of Jerusalem by Titus, fall in the Year 1527. from JESUS CHRIST; which makes it appear, that Liveneius is deceived in ascribing this Work to Euthymius Zigabenus, who died before that time. The Politic Verses, which he found in the Front of the Book, seem to intimate, that this Andronicus was of the Family of the Commeni, but one may likewise understand them otherwise, and perhaps not much strain his Faith. The Greek Original is in the Library of the Duke of Bavaria, where also are to be found other Dialogues, which ●…ry the Name of Andronicus, the Emperor, viz. A Dialogue between the Emperor and a Cardinal concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost, a Dispute of the Emperor's with one Peter, an Armenian Doctor, a Treatise of the two Natures in JESUS CHRIST, and a Manuscript against Johannes Veccus. I easily believe, that the Dialogue against the Jews is by the same Author, namely the Emperor Andronicus the Elder, so much the rather, because the Name, the Time, the Nature of the Subject, and the manner of Writing, agree well to this Emperor.  
MAXIMUS PLANUDES, a Greek Monk, flourished under the Emperor, Andronicus the Elder, 
Maximus Planudes, a Greek Monk.  who sent him in an Embassy to Aquileia in the Year 1327. with Leo Orphanotrophus, to assure the Venetians, that he had no hand in the Murder of some of their Citizens, who had been Assassinated by some Galatians at Constantinople. He wrote a Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost against the Latins, published in Greek and Latin by Arcudius, in the Collection he caused to be printed at Rome, in the Year 1630. He translated likewise into Greek St. Augustine's Fifteen Books of the Trinity. His Translation is to be met with entire in a MS. of the Emperor's Library, and Leunclavius, and Arcudius have put forth some Fragments of his. Allatius in his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Greek Books, set down a Fragment of a Discourse of Planudes, upon the Burial of JESUS CHRIST, and the Lamentations of the Virgin, to prove that this Author believed, with many other Modern Greeks, that JESUS CHRIST being descended into Hell, preached the Gospel to all that were there, and that all those, who were willing to believe in him, were saved. This Discourse was printed entire in Latin at Paris in the Year 1639. The Homily upon St. Peter and St. Paul, set out in Greek and Latin, under the Name of Gregory Nyssen by Gretser, and printed at Ingolstadt in the Year 1620. belongs to Planudes, as Lambecius has observed. This Author hath also writ several L●…ed Treatises, of which some are Printed, and the rest in Manuscript.  
MATTHEW BLASTARES, a Monk of Greece, flourished about the Year 1335. and made in the 
Matthew Blastares, 〈◊〉 Greek Monk.  compass of a Year an Alphabetical Table of the Canons, which is found in the Pandects of Dr. Beveredge, printed at Oxford in 1672. He is likewise the Author of a Treatise of Causes, and Questions upon Marriage, printed in the Graeco-Roman Law of Leunclavius, and he translated into Greék Constantine's Donation, printed with that of Balsamon.  
NILUS CABASILAS, Archbishop of Thessalonica, flourished at Constantinople in this Century, under 
Nil. Cabasilas.  the Empire of the Andronicus's. He wrote two Treatises against the Latins; The First to make it appear, that the Cause of the Division of the Greeks and Latins, arises from this, that the Pope is not willing any controverted Question should be decided by the Judgement of an Ecumenical Council; but will be the sole Judge, and others must hearken to him, as their Master. He demonstrates by the Examples of Ancient Popes, by the usage of the Church, and by divers reasons, that it is seasonable to call a Council; and that it is the only expedient to settle Union, and to decide the Question about the Procession of the Holy Ghost. The Second Treatise is of the Pope's Primacy, in which he pretends to prove, that the Pope hath from St. Peter the Episcopacy of Rome, but that he holds his Primacy by Laws▪ Councils, and Princes. He there asserts, That the Pope is not infallible, and proves it by the Example of Honorius. He grants him the Primacy of Honour; but he pretends, he has no Jurisdiction over other Patriarches, seeing he does not ordain them. He observes, that the right of Appeal gives him no Authority over other Patriarches, seeing the Patriarch of Constantinople hath the same right over the Patriarchates, wherein he hath no Jurisdiction, according to the Ninth Canon of the Fourth General Council. He shows, That it is not true, that the Pope cannot be judged by any Person, or that he is of an Order more sublime than the Bishops; That he is Subject to Councils and Canons; that he is not properly Speaking Bishop of the whole World; that the See of Rome is not the only one, that may be called Apostolic; that it belongs not to him alone to call a General Council; and that if Canons cannot be made without him, neither can he make any without others. These Treatises of Nilus are writ in a good Method, clearness, and full of Learning. They were at first printed in Greek at London without a Date, in Greek and Latin at Basil in 1544. at Francfort in 1555. and with the Notes of Salmasius at Haynault, in 1608. and in his Treatise of the Primacy of the Pope, printed at Amsterdam in 1645. Nilus also made a large Work of the Procession of the Holy Ghost against the Latins, divided into Nine and Forty Books, whereof Allatius makes mention in his Dissertation of the Nilus.  
NICOLAS CABASILAS, Nephew to Nilus Cabasilas, flourished under the Empire of Cantacuzenus, 
Nicolas Cabasilas, Archbishop of Thessalonica.  and succeeded his Uncle in the Archbishopric of Thessalonica. He was one of the most vehement Adversaries of the Latins, and Composed a Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost against them, and a Work called, An Accusation against the Latins, wherein he sets upon St. Thomas. He made an Exposition of the Liturgy, in which he treats of the Mass, its Parts and its Ceremonies: He observes in the entrance of his Work, that the effect of the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries, is the changing of the Elements into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST; that the End is the Sanctification of the Faithful, the Remission of Sins, and the Kingdom of Heaven; that the Preparation and the Means are Prayer, Singing of Psalms, and Reading the Holy Scriptures, and all that is done before or after the Consecration of the Elements. He shows the Necessity of those Prayers, and explains the Ceremonies of the Oblation, which precedes the Receiving; why, but one part of the Host is given; why, the Sign of the Cross is made upon the Host at the mention of the Death of JESUS CHRIST; of the Thanksgiving after the Oblation; of the Prayers of the Mass; of Presenting the Sacred Elements on the Altar; of the Sanctification of these Elements: He attacks the Latins upon this Subject, and pretends, that it is not by the sole Virtue of the Words of JESUS CHRIST that the Consecration is made, but by Prayer. He says, that the Sacrifice consists in this, That the Bread, which was not sacrificed, becomes the Body of JESUS CHRIST sacrificed. He explains in what sense, the Saints are prayed for in the Liturgy, by observing that those Prayers are Thanksgivings, and that we rather pray them to help us by their Prayers; but that the Priest prays for himself, and for the living, and for the Protection of a good Guardian Angel. He adds, that at the Elevation of the Host, he says, Sancta Sanctis, to signify, that Saints only ought to partake of those Mysteries. He renders a reason of the usage of the Greeks, who mingle warm Water in the Chalice before the Communion. He affirms, that this Ceremony implies the descent of the Holy Ghost. He speaks of the Communion and the Prayer said after it. In fine, he affirms, That the Sacrifice is offered for the Dead, as well as for the Living, as to the Effect of the Intercession, but not as to the Participation. He treats of the Effects of the Communion, and chief of the internal Sanctification of the Soul, or of the Spiritual Communion, by which JESUS CHRIST imparts himself spiritually to such, as are worthy to receive him, a Communion, which is more complete in the Saints after their Death, than in the Living. He enlarges upon the Commemoration of the Saints. This Treatise of Cabasilas is to be met with in Greek and Latin, in the Addition to the Bibliotheca Patrum, printed at Paris in the Year 1624. It had been already printed in Latin at Venice in 1545. and at Antwerp in 1560.  
There is another Work of Nicolas Cabasilas, Of the Life in JESUS CHRIST, divided into Six Books, translated into Latin by Pontanus, out of a Manuscript in the Library of the Duke of Bavaria, and printed at Ingolstadt, in 1604. and since in the Bibliotheca Patrum, wherein he treats of the Sacrament of Baptism, of Chrism, and the Eucharist, which give, and maintain the Life in JESUS CHRIST, and speaks in a most sublime style, of the wonderful Effects of these Sacraments, and of the Graces they produce.  
There is moreover a Discourse of Cabasilas against Usury in Latin, of the Translation of the same Pontanus, in which he undertakes to prove, That all Usury is against the Law of God, and a Sin, though the Laws of Princes allow it. This Discourse was printed separately at Augsburg, and to be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum. Henschenius has published on the 5th. of April, an Encomium of the Widow Theodora, which he attributes to Nicolas Cabasilas. There is in the Vatican Library a Work in Manuscript upon the Vision of Ezekiel, which bears the Name of Cabasilas. This Author writ clearly, and methodically, and treats of the Virtue, and Effects of the Sacraments in a very Instructive, and most Profitable manner.  
NICEPHORUS GREGORAS, Born about the End of the Thirteenth Century, flourished under the 
Nicephorus Gregoras Chartophylax, Charterkëeper of the Church of Constantinople.  Empire of the Andronicuses, John Palaeologus and Cantacuzenus. He was the Favourite of Andronicus the Elder, who made him Keeper of the Charters of the Church of Constantinople, and sent him on an Embassy to the Prince of Servia. He accompanied that Emperor in his ill Fortune, and was present at his Death. He was afterwards in the Court of young Andronicus, and he it was who diverted the Greeks from entering into Conference with the Legates of John XXII. In the Contest between Barlaam and Palamas, he sided with Acindynus, and upheld him stoutly, seeing he is mentioned in the Synod held in the Year 1355. as one of the chief Adversaries of Palamas; it is not known, how long he lived after that Council. His principal Work was his Byzantine History, from the taking of Constantinople by the Latins, to the death of Andronicus the younger, that is to say, from the Year 1204. to the Year 1341. divided into Eleven Books; it is full of Errors, and he is accused of being too partial to Andronicus the Elder. Wolfius has translated it into Latin, and his Translation was printed at Paris in 1567. at Francfort in 1568. and 1587. in Greek and Latin at Basil in 1562. at Geneva in 1615. Father Petavius has published at the end of the Abridgement of the History of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, printed at Paris in 1616. some Fragments, which were wanting in the Eighth Book of Gregoras: the Funeral Oration of Theodorus Metochites, made by Gregoras, was printed at Amsterdam in 1618. and in the end of Glycas, at Paris in 1660. He moreover made Scholia upon Synesius his Treatise of Dreams, printed with the Works of that Author. Henschenius, and Papebrochius put out on the 10th. of March, the Sufferings of St. Cordatus of Corinth, and of other Martyrs of Achaia, which they father upon Nicephorus Gregoras. The Books, which he writ against Palamas were never printed. There is a Manuscript in the Library at Augsburg, which is a Dispute he had with Palamas in the presence of the Emperor John Palaeologus, and another in that of the Vatican, Composed in Six Books, written against the Synod, which condemned B●●laam and Acindynus. There are divers other Treatises in Manuscript of the same Author, in the Vatican Library; and among others, a Treatise of Easter, how the Mistake arises in the time of its Celebration, and the means of reforming that Error.  
CALLISTUS, a Monk of Mount Athos, was raised to be Patriarch of Constantinople, after the 
Callistus, Patriarch of Constantinople.  Death of Isidore, about the Year 1354. He presided, as we have made mention, in the Council held in the Year 1355. against the Adversaries of Palamas; and having no mind to Crown the Son of Cantacuzenus, he retired to a Monastery, but he was restored a little after by John Palaeologus, who sent him into Servia, to conclude a Treaty of Peace, where he died, in the Year 1358. Some attribute to him an Homily upon the Exaltation of the Cross, set forth by Gretser, and two Sermons, the one upon the Death of the Virgin, and the other upon the Beheading of John the Baptist. The Work entitled, Monastic Method, or Rule, a MS. in the Library of Cardinal Barberini, attributed to Ignatius and Callistus, belongs not to this Callistus, but another, who was also Patriarch of Constantinople about the Year 1406. seeing he makes mention of Nicolas Cabasilas, who did not write, till after the Death of the first Callistus.  
PHILOTHEUS, Monk and Abbot of Mount Athos, made Archbishop of Heraclea, before the 
Philotheus Patriarch of Constantinople.  Year 1354. was chosen Patriarch of Constantinople in the room of Callistus, who was expelled thence about the end of the Year 1355. John Palaeologus afterwards becoming sole Master of Constantinople restored Callistus, and Philotheus was forced to abscond, till the Death of Callistus, which fell out in the following Year, after which Philotheus again obtained Possession of the Patriarchship, and enjoyed it to the Year 1371. which was that of his Death. This Patriarch, whom Cantacuzenus affirmed to have been commendable for his Sanctity and his Eloquence, writ many Books, but very few of them were printed; one of the chiefest was his Treatise of the Substance, Operation, and Power, and Light of Mount Tabor, divided into Fifteen Books, against the Ten Books of Nicephorus Gregoras, which are in Manuscripts in the Duke of Bavaria's Library, and the Vatican; Homilies upon the Gospels, and upon the Annual Feasts, in the Library of Bavaria, and that of the King of Spain; An Abridgement of the Oeconomy of the Man JESUS CHRIST, and a Panegyric upon the Holy Martyr Demetrius in the Vatican Library. These are the Works of Philotheus in Manuscript. Those, that are printed under his Name, follow: A Treatise of the Ministry, or the Functions of a Deacon, in Latin, in the last Bibliotheca Patrum; A Panegyric of St. Basil, of St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. John Chrysostom, printed in Greek and Latin in the Addition to the Bibliotheca Patrum, of the Year 1624. Two Sermons, one on the Cross, the other upon the Third Sunday in Lent, set forth in Greek and Latin, by Gretser in his Second Tome of the Cross.  
THEOPHANES, Archbishop of Nice, flourished under the Empire of Cantacuzenus, and John 
Theophilus, Archbishop of Nice.  Palaeologus. He Composed a considerable Work against the Jews, and concerning the Truth of the Christian Religion, which hath not been yet printed; An Instruction to the Clergy, and à Letter of the Contempt, which a Christian ought to show, of the Pleasures, and Evils of this Life. The first of these Treatises is in Manuscript, in the Jesuite's Library at Rome, and the two latter in the Vatican. Gonsalvus Pontius procured to be printed at Rome in the Year 1590. certain Hymns, which bear the Name of this Author.  
NILUS, Metropolitan of Rhodes, an Adversary of the Barlaamites, aught to be placed among 
Nilus, Metropolitan of Rhodes.  the Authors of this Age, seeing he concludes his Historical Abridgement of the Ecumenical Councils, at that of Constantinople against Barlaam, under Isidore. This Work was printed with Photius his Nomocanon, set forth by Justellus in his Bibliotheca Juris Canonici, and in the last Edition of the Councils. Allatius has published a Discourse, which this Author made in Praise of a Lady in the Isle of Chios.  
The Emperor JOHN CANTACUZENUS, writ in his Retirement, an History of the reign of the 
John Cantacuzenus, Greek Emperor.  Andronicuses, and his own, under the Name of Christodulus. It is divided into Four Books, and Prefaced with a Catalogue of the Greek Emperors, since the Year 1195. to the Year 1320. This History is well written, and faithfully; it was printed in Latin in the Translation of Pontanus at Ingolstadt in 1603. and in Greek and Latin at Paris, in 1645. He likewise made an Apology, or four Treatises for the Faith of JESUS CHRIST against the Saracens, and Three Discourses against the Mahometans, printed at Basil in 1543. and 1555. There is a Treatise of his in MS. in the Vatican Library, entitled, Contradictions against Prochorus Sidonius.  
JOHN CYPARISSIOTA, was one of the Opponents of Palamas, against whom he made a large Work, 
John Cyparissiotes.  entitled, Palamick Transgressions, divided into five Books, and each Book cantoned into several Discourses, which is found in MS. in the King of France's Library, and of which Father Combefisius has set down two Discourses, in his last Addition to the Bibliotheca Patrum. He is moreover the Author of another Work, divided into Six Decades, entitled, A Substantial Exposition of what Divines say of God. A Work of Mystical and Symbolical Divinity, put out by Turrianus in Latin, and printed at Rome, in the Year 1581. and in the Bibliotheca Patrum.  
MANUEL CALECA, or CALECAS, a Greek turned Latin, commonly believed to have been of the 
Man. Calecas, of the Order of S. Dominick.  Order of St. Dominick, has writ against the Greeks, and against the Palamites. The Treatise he made against the Greeks, was translated by Ambrose Camaldulensis, by Oder of Martin V. whereof the Translation was put out by Stuart, and printed at Ingolstadt, in 1616. and in the Bibliotheca Patrum. It is divided into Four Books, he there confutes in the Three first Books the Opinion of the Greeks about the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and confirms that of the Latins; and in the Fourth, after having justified the Addition made to the Creed by the Latin Church▪ he Answers all that, which the Greeks blamed in the Usages of the Latins, and proves the Primacy of St. Peter, and the Pope. His Treatise against the Palamites, of Essence and Operation, was put forth by Father Combefisius, in Greek and Latin, in his last Addition to the Bibliotheca Patrum. He there confutes the Work, or Decision of the Synod held under Callistus, Patriarch of Constantinople. We have in the same place another Doctrinal Treatise concerning Faith, and the Principles of the Catholic Faith, in which he Discourses of the Unity of God, of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, of the Seven Sacraments, and of the Resurrection from the Dead. Allatius further makes mention of another Treatise concerning the Trinity, by Calecas, which has not been printed.  
ISAAC ARGYRUS, a Greek Monk, Composed about the Year 1375. a Calendar for the Feast 〈◊〉 
Isaac Argyrus, a Greek Monk.  Easter, according to the Principles of Nicephorus Gregoras. This Work was printed at H●idel●erg▪ 1611. and Father Petavius has inserted it in a Book o● the Doctrine of Times, wherein he has moreover set forth another Calendar, out of a MS. in the King's Library, which he likewise fathers on this Author.  
MANUEL PALAEOLOGUS II. Emperor of Constantinople, may pass in the Number of the Ecclesiastical 
Manuel Palaeologus. a Greek Emperor.  Writers of this Age, seeing he has made divers Works of Morality and Devotion. The Treatises of Devotion are Prayers for the Morning, The Subjects of Compunction, or Confession of Sins unto God in Verse, A Psalm of Thanksgiving for the Captivity of Bajazet. Those of Morality▪ are Precepts of the Education of a Prince to his Son John. Seven Discourses of Virtues and Vices▪ and of the Study of good Learning. These Works have been printed in Greek and Latin at Basil in 1578. by the care of Leunclavius. Father Combefisiu● in his Second Tome of his first Addition to the Bibliotheca Patrum has inserted a long Panegyric, which Manuel Palaeologus made in Honour of Theodorus, his Brother, Prince of Peloponnesus, upon the settling of his Son in his room▪ He writ also a Treatise against a Work of a Latin, who had made a Summary Discourse, to prove the Procession of the Holy Ghost, from the Father and the Son, whereof Allatius makes mention.  
NIL DAMYLA, a Greek born in Italy, a Monk of a Monastery in the Isle of Crete, wrote about 
Nil Damyla, a Greek Monk.  the end of the Century, against the Latins, a Treatise of the Order of the three▪ Divine Persons, and the Procession of the Holy Ghost, which is in MS. in the Vatican Library, and three other Treatises Manuscripts, in the Library of the King of France, whereof the first▪ is a Collection of Passages out of the Scripture, against such as assert, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son; The Second, to show that the Church of Rome was not of this Opinion in the time of Damasus, and that it began not to be there, till under the Papacy of Christophilus, and Sergius; And the Third, about the two Synods held on account of Photius. Some Fragments of these Works Allatius recites.  
DAMYLA, in his Books, opposes a Greek Monk named Maximus, who had wrote Letters for 
Maximus, a Greek Monk. Deme●rius Cydonius.  the Latins against the Greeks.  
DEMETRIUS' CYDONIUS, the Author of two Discourses inserted by Father Combefisius, in the Second Tome of his Addition to the Bibliotheca Patrum, is not that Favourite of Cantacuzenus which accompanied him in his Retreat, and entered into the same Monastery; for these two Discourses were made under the Empire of John Palaeologus, the Son of Manuel, about the Year 1424▪ The First is to persuade the Greek● to keep a good Correspondence with the Latins, that of them they might obtain Succours; and the Second to demonstrate that the City of Gallipolis ought not to be Surrendered to Amurath, who demanded it to make up the Peace. There is mention made in the First, of a Voyage of the Emperor John Paleologus, Manuel's Son into Hungary, which he made about the Year 1424. there to Sue for Aid; and the Second is written in the time, that▪ Amurath reigned over the Turks, who began not to reign till the Year 1421. Thus there is no probability, that the Author of these Discourses is the same, who in the Year 1357▪ had already passed part of his Life; besides, that he, of whom we speak, abode almost all his time in Italy, there studied the Divinity of the Latins, and at last went to die in a Monastery, in the Isle of Crete. He was one of the Antagonists of the Palamites, and wrote against them a Treatise, entitled, The execrable Doctrines of Gregor as Palamas, put out by Arcudius, with a Treatise of the same Author about the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and printed at Rome in 1630. He has encountered the Opinion of the Greeks concerning the Pr●cession of the Holy Ghost, and confuted the Work of Nicolas Cabasilas, against St. Thomas. He translated into Greek the Treatise of S. Anselme concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost, the Letter about the Use of Unleavened Bread to Valerian Bishop of Naumburgh, the Books of St. Thomas against the Gentiles, and the Second Part of the Sums of that Author, of which there be divers Manuscripts in the King's Library. Where is found likewise a long Discourse about Preaching of the Gospel, wherein he treats of the Fall, and Recovery of Man, according to the Principles of St. Thomas. There was printed at Basil in 1552. and 1559. a Discourse of the Contempt of Death, which bears the Name of Demetrius Cydonius, and it may well enough be his, of whom we treat; but for the Letter directed to Barlaam, against the Procession of the Holy Ghost from ●●e Son, inserted by Canisius in the Sixth Tome of his Antiquities, it is rather to be fathered on the ancient Demetrius Cydonius, than upon this Man.   

CHAP. VII.  
Of the COUNCILS held in the Fourteenth Age.  

Of the Council of Melun held in 1300. 
The Council of Melun, in 1300.   
STEPHAN ●●ECARDUS, Archbishop of Sens, and the Bishops of his Province met at Melun in January in 1300. and there Published some Decretals of the Popes, concerning the Judge's delegated by the Holy See and their Commissioners, concerning Heretics and Excommunicate Persons, and a Decree of Simon Legate of the Holy See in the Council of Bourges, against those who hinder the Execution of Eccle●…tical Judgements.   

The Synodal Decrees of Wichboldus Archbishop of Colen, in 1300. 
The Synodal Decress of Colen.   
WICHBOLDUS' Archbishop of Colen, and Chancellor of the Empire, Composed certain Constitutions for his Diocese in 1300. which were comprised in 22 Articles.  
The First forbids, that Cures of Souls should be given to Infants, or Persons who have not attained to the Age of Twenty one Years.  
The Second enjoins the Rural Deans to return the Names of such Curates, as did not reside upon 〈◊〉 Charge, or were not ordained.  
The 3d. forbids Curates employing Clergymen, who wandered up and down, or were unknown, who had ●ot 〈◊〉 Letters from their Bishops, and have not been examined by the Deans.  
The 4th. forbids having more than One Benefice in the same Church.  
The 5th. 〈◊〉, T●●t the Clergy at their Deaths cannot dispose of such Goods, and Revenues of the Church, as they have gathered for themselves, to their Relations; but only of such, as arise from their 〈◊〉 fallen to them by Succession, or which they have Purchased.  
The Five following Canons concern the Wills of Laymen.  
The 11th. is against such as seize upon the Goods of Clergymen after their Death.  
The 12th. is against Usurers, and against Questors▪ i. e. those Hucksters, who undertake to preach up, and distribute Indulg●●ces.  
The 13th. is also against 〈◊〉 ●alse Preachers.  
The 14th. is against those, that keep the Gifts appropriated to the Fabric of the Church of Colen.  
The 15th. enjoins all the Clergy to advance, as m●ch as they can, the Profit of that Fabric.  
The 16th. forbids the Churchwardens to dispose of any thing without the consent of the other Parishioners.  
The 17th. orders, that the Singers of the Parishes should be able to read, that they may assist a● Mass, when others are 〈◊〉.  
The 18th. is against the Coiners of Bad Money, and those that conceal them.  
The 19th. forbids the Ex●…on of the Writs o● the Per●ons appointed Judges in such cases, as 〈◊〉 not comprised in the ●…, or approved by the Ordinary or his Officials.  
The 20th. denounces them Excommunicated, who publish certain Bills, in which they threaten M●n, unless they give them a Sum of Money.  
The 21st. orders the Payment of the Tribute due to the Church.  
The Last enjoins the Deans to take Copies of these Constitutions.   

Synodal Constitutions made at Bayeux about 1300. 
The Synodal Constitutions at Bayeux.   
THESE Constitutions co●… Instructions for Priests about the Manner, in which they ought to come to a Synod, Concerning the A●…nistration of Sacraments, the Celebration of the Mass, Divine Service. The Ornaments of the Church. The Priestly Habits; The Manners of Clergymen▪ Excommunication▪ The Feasts, Fasting-Days. The Assistance of the Sick, Ordinations, The Age and Capacities of such as may be Ordained, a●d several other Points of Discipline. These ●ort of 〈◊〉 〈…〉 came very often, and were almost always a Repetition of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ The 〈◊〉 of the Last Collection of Councils did not think it convenient to set them d●wn; and therefore we s●all take the Liberty to pass them over in the following part of this History.   

Th● Council of Ausche in 1300. 
The Council of Ausche in 1300.   
THE Canons of this Council chief concern Benefices, and Beneficed Persons.  
The First is to preserve the Liberty of Elections.  
The 2d. is against those, who possess themselves of the Goods of Vacant-Churches.  
The 3d. forbids Bishops, and other persons, who have the Care of Vacant Churches, to detain any part of the Revenues, and orders them to keep them for those who shall fill them.  
The 4th. and 5th. declares, That such Persons as intrude themselves by Violence into Benefices are thereby deprived of all the Right, to the Benefices they had before.  
The 6th. forbids Patrons exacting any thing of such, as they present to Benefices.  
The 7th. forbids also presenting a Person to a Benefice, unless he hath one settled on him to pay the Bishop his Dues, and to maintain himself.  
The 8th. Excommunicates those who raise Impediments about the Possession of Benefices.  
The 9th. allows Seven Years Study to those who are provided of Benefices.  
The 10th. forbids taking a Curate to enjoy his Revenues One Year without being Ordained.  
The 11th. forbids Pluralities of Benefices.  
The 12th. orders that Bishops should not allow Tonsure to Infants, Married Persons, or such as can't Read, nor Persons of another Diocese.  
The 13th. forbids allowing a Cure to Persons not 25 Years old.   

The Council of Compeigne in 1301. 
The Council of Compeigne, in 1301.   
THIS Council was made of the Bishops of the Province of Rheims, and held at Compeigne in November 1301. and made Six Canons to maintain the Jurisdiction and Immunities of the Clergy, and a Seventh concerning Excommunicate Persons.   

The Council of Nogarol in 1303. 
The Council of Nogarol, in 1303.   
AMANAEUS, Archbishop of Ausche, and his Suffragan Bishops held a Council in December in 1303. at Nogarol; in which they confirmed and published 19 Constitutions.  
The First orders, That strange Clergymen should not be received without a Letter from their Bishop.  
The 2d. That they, who leave them to Administer Sacraments, shall be Excommunicated.  
The 3d. That none shall molest the Ecclesiastical Judges or Inquisitors.  
The 4th. That none shall hinder the Bishop's Delegates from executing their Orders.  
The 5th. That Princes, and Secular Judges shall not meddle with Church Matters.  
The 6th. That no Man shall seize or molest such as have fled into Churches.  
The 7th. That Perjured Persons shall be Excommunicated.  
The 8th. That no Man shall be Buried in the Church.  
The 9th. That the Bodies of such as desire to be Buried out of their Parish, shall be carried to their Parish-Church and pay their Deuce.  
The 10th. That such as detain their Tithes shall be Excommunicated, deprived of Christian Burial, and be incapable, both themselves and their Children to the Fourth Generation, of taking Holy Orders, or having the Possession of a Benefice.  
The 11th. That Arch-Deacons shall receive no Presents in the Course of their Visitation.  
The 12th. That if a Church, or Churchyard be polluted by Murder, or the Burial of a Pagan, or Heretic, or Excommunicate Person, it shall be purified with Holy Water.  
The 13th. That Civil Causes, especially Criminal, shall not be tried in the Church.  
The 14th. and 15th. denounces Excommunication against such as keep Concubines, open Adulterers, Usurers, and those that detain Bonds, or Obligations for things Paid.  
The 16th. lays an Interdict upon such places, as receive and hid things taken from Churches, Clergymen, and Monks.  
The 17th. is against those, that lay a Tax upon Lepers, shut up for their Diseases.  
The 18th. forbids engaging Ecclesiastical Persons, or Revenues for others.  
The 19th. orders, That they shall be Excommunicated, who take away such things, as are put into the keeping of Churches.   

The Council of Compeigne, in 1304. 
The Council of Compeigne, in 1304.   
ROBERT de COURTRAY, Archbishop of Rheims, and his Suffragan Bishops met at Compeigne, on the Friday after the Feast of Circumcision, and there published Five Articles.  
The First orders, That Excommunicate Persons, and such as have contracted Clandestine Marriages, with all Persons that procured them, or were present at them, should not be admitted to the Divine Service of the Church, nor allowed Christian Burial.  
The 2d. forbids imposing Taxes, or other Charges upon the Clergy.  
The 3d. deprives those of Christian Burial, who have remained Excommunicate two Years.  
The 4th. declares those Contumaceous, who being Summoned to a Synod, would not appear, and orders, that they clear themselves Canonically before the Bishops of their Diocese.  
The 5th. orders, That all Clergymen should content themselves with their Pottage, and two Plates for their Meals, unless any Persons of Quality come to them, in which case they may have dainty Dishes.   

The Council of Ausche in 1308. 
The Council of Ausche in 1308.   
AMANAEUS, Archbishop of Ausche, held a Second Council of the Bishops of his Province at Ausche, Nou. 16. 1308. in which he published these Rules.  
The First enjoins the Clergy to defend valiantly the Rights of their Offices, and Benefices.  
The 2d. orders, That all the prebend's of Cathedral Churches should execute their Office in their turns every Week.  
The 3d. is against Usury.  
The 4th. forbids Abbot's parting between themselves and their Monks, the Goods which ought to be Common, or to allow them Pensions, and orders that all Monks should eat in the same Refectory [or Hall] and lie in the same Dormitory.  
The 5th. forbids bestowing Benefices or Pensions on those Mendicant Monks who go into other Orders.  
The 6th. renews, and confirms, the precedent Constitutions.   

The Council of Presburg in Hungary, in 1309. 
The Council of Presburg in 1309.   
THE Cardinal GENTILIS de MONTFLORE, who had been a Grey-Friar, was sent in 1307. by Clement V a Legate into Hungary, and there held a Council at Presburg, Nou. 10. 1309. to remedy some disorders in that Realm, in which he published Nine Canons.  
The First threatens terrible Penalties as well Spiritual as Temporal, to those who shall assault the Legates, Deputies, or Ambassadors of the Holy See.  
The 2d. forbids Clergymen of what condition soever they be to give any assistance, or counsel to any against the Persons of Clergymen.  
The 3d. forb●… receiving an Ecclesiastical Benefice from the hands of a Layman.  
The 4th. renews the Penalties to be inflicted on those who seize upon, or detain the Revenues of the Church.  
The 5th. renews the Decretal of Benedict XI. against such Clergymen as keep Concubines, and deprives such as are Beneficed of the Fourth part of their Revenues, if they observe it not.  
The 6th. forbids Wars and Plundering.  
The 7th. orders the same Proceed against such as remain Excommunicate a Year, as against Heretics.  
The Eighth forbids Christian Women to marry with Infidels.  
The Ninth recommends Obedience to the Decrees of the Pope, and his Legates.   

The Council of Sal●●●urg in 1310. 
The Council of Saltzburg in 1310.   
THIS Council held by CONRADUS Archbishop of Saltzburg, and his Suffragan Bishops ordained nothing, but the Payment of Tithes to Pope Clement V and renewed the 12 Canons of the Council of Saltzburg in 1274. the Second of the Council of the same City in 1281. the Decretal of Boniface against the Clergy, who exercised the Art of Stage-Players, or Buffoons, and that of Clement, which moderated the Penalty inflicted by the Decretal of Boniface VIII. Clericis Laicos. This Council also moderated the Penalty appointed by a Constitution, which Conradus had made in 1291. against Clandestine Marriages.   

The Council of Colen in 1310. 
The Council of Colen in 1310.   
HENRY Archbishop of Colen, and his Suffragan Bishops met in the same City in 1310. and published Twenty eight Decrees.  
By the First, they revoke all Ordinances and Customs contrary to the Liberty of the Church.  
In the 2d. they treat at large of the Punishments, which they incur, who put to Death, Abuse or Imprison Clergymen, and they give many Cautions, that no Man does them any wrong.  
In the 3d. they forbidden Confessors of Churches to require any thing for their Services.  
The 4th. and 5th. renew the Punishments denounced against them, who seize upon the Goods, which belong to▪ or are bequeathed to Churches.  
In the 6th. they confirm the Statute of Suffridu concerning the Life and Manners of the Clergy.  
In the 7th. they order the Deans of Chapters to oblige the Vicars to read Service in the absence of the Canons.  
The 8th. imports that none shall be ordained Priests, but such as are 25 Years old.  
The 9th. confirms the Punishments denounced against Clergymen, that keep Concubines.  
The 10th. forbids, that Clergymen should do public Penances.  
The 11th. ordains, That none shall read the Epistles and Gospels in the Church, but such as are admitted into Holy Orders.  
The 12th. appoints, That none shall be Curates, but such as are instituted by the Bishop, or his Archdeacon.  
The 13th. is, That they that have the Pope's Provisions for any Benefices, shall provide for themselves within the Time, otherwise their Benefices shall be Vacant.  
The 14th. That the Fruits of the Year of Grace of the Canons that die Suspended, shall belong to the Church, and not to their Successors.  
The 15th. That Beneficed Persons cannot bequeath to their Bastards the Year of Grace (i. e. the Revenue of a Year of their Benefice after their Death) and that the Vicars of Churches shall be obliged to reside and take the Revenues.  
The 16th. That Singers shall be able to read, and shall wear Albs during Divine Service.  
The 17th. That Rural Deans and Curates shall take care to provide convenient Ornaments for their Churches.  
The 18th. That the Revenues of Canons Suspended shall belong to the Chapter.  
The 19th. That no Man shall found a Church, or Churchyard, who doth not endow it.  
The 20th. That Parishioners shall receive the Sacrament of their Curate only.  
The 21st. That no Man shall curse, or rail at any Man in the Churches, if it be not with a special Permission of the Bishops.  
The 22d. That no Man shall be present at Clandestine Marriages, but the Banns of all Marriages shall be published.  
The 23d. That for the future, the Year shall begin at the Feast of the Nativity, according to the Custom of the Church of Rome.  
The 24th. contains some Rules concerning Notaries.  
The 25th. confirms the Decree of Siffridus concerning the Administration of Sacraments.  
The 26th. commands, that the Holy Chrism and Holy Oil shall not be denied the Curates, and that it shall be given them gratis.  
The 27th. renews the Rules made concerning the Chapters of Monks.  
The 28th. contains divers Rules about Poverty, Retirement, the Cloisters of Monks, and a Prohibition to require any thing for an Entrance into Religion.   

The General Council of Vienne in Dauphine, held in 1311.  
THIS Council was Summoned by Clement V to judge of the Accusations brought against the 
The General Council of Vienne, in 1311.  Order of Knights Templars, by his Bull dated Aug. 11. 1307. by which it ought to have met Octob. 1. 1309. but was Prorogued by another Bull to October 1311. Many Prelates being come to Vienne at the time appointed, the first Session of this Council was held Octob. 16. of the same Year. The Number of Archbishops and Bishops which were present at it, is not very certain. It is commonly thought, that they were near 300. There was a considerable time between the first and Second Session, which was spent in consultation. This last was held May 22. 1312. Philip King of France was present at it. The Dissolution of the Templars was resolved on in it, and the Bull was published about it, as we have said. We have also observed what passed in it about the Memory of Pope Boniface, which was condemned to Oblivion, notwithstanding the Earnest Requests of that King. Some say, that a Crusado also was resolved on there, The Begards and Beguins were condemned there, and their Errors rejected with Detestation, and the Pope made in this Council divers Constitutions; which are in the Five Books of Clementines, published by John XXII. and are inserted in the Body of the Civil Law.  
Some of these Constitutions are about the Doctrines of the Church, and particularly those which are under the first Title of the first Book; in which he defines, 1. That the only Son of God subsisting from all Eternity with the Father, who is in every place, where the Father is, hath taken both parts of our Nature Hypostatically united together; insomuch, that though he is the true God, he was also a real Man; that is to say, had an Human Body passable, and an intellectual, and reasonable Soul informing the Body by itself. 2. That the Side of Jesus Christ was opened after his Death, and that there came out of it Blood and Water to make a Church, which is One, without Spot, Holy, the Mother of the Faithful, and the Spouse of Jesus Christ. 3. That the Soul is really the form of the Body essentially and by itself. 4. That we must acknowledge one only Baptism, to be the Means of attaining Salvation, as well for the Adult, as Infants. 5. That the Opinion of those, who believe, that by that Sacrament Sanctifying Grace, and the habit of Virtue is infused into the Soul of Infants, is very probable, and conformable to the Expressions of the Holy Fathers, and Doctrine of the Modern Divines, and therefore is to be followed.  
The Errors 
* The Begards, and Beguines, who are by this Council of Vienne Condemned as Heretics, and many Heterodox Assertions and Doctrines either feigned, or by depraving some unwary Expressions of theirs laid to their Charge, were, as our Historians relate, a very Religious sort of Men, and much reverenced by many Learned Men of that time, but detesting the Errors of the Church of Rome, and not fearing to teach, that the Roman Church was not the true Catholic Church, that Boniface VIII. and John XXII. were not lawful Popes, that the Emperor was not Subject to the Pope in Temporals, that the Host was not to be adored, with many other things not agreeing to the Doctrines of the present Church of Rome, they fell under the displeasure of those Popes, and their Bishops, who Excommunicated them, and Condemned in their Councils; but as Ockam wrote for them against John XXII. so at the latter end of this Age Gregory XI. stood up in their Defence, and Absolved them from their Excommunication, so that they spread much in Italy and Germany.  of the Begards and Beguines are condemned in the Constitution contained in the Third Chapter Tit. 3. of the Fifth Book, and are these: 1. That a Man in this Life may acquire such a degree of Perfection, that he may become without Sin, and above the Estate of growing in Grace. 2. That they, which are arrived at that Perfection need not Fast or Pray, because in that estate the Senses are so subject to the Spirit, and to reason, that a Man may then freely allow his Body, what he pleases. 3. That they, who have attained this Spirit of Liberty are no ways obliged to obey, or tied to practise the Precepts of the Church. 4. That a Man may attain the highest degree of Happiness in this Life, and have the same degrees of Perfection as in the other. 5. That every Intelligent Creature is naturally happy, and that the Soul hath no need of the Light of Glory to raise it to the Vision and Enjoyment of God. 6. That the Practice of Virtue is for imperfect Men, and the Soul of the Perfect may dispense with the Practice of them. 7. That to Kiss a Woman is a Mortal Sin, but the Carnal Knowledge of her is no Sin. 8. That in the Elevation of the Body of Christ, it is not necessary for the Perfect to rise up, or pay it any respect; because it would be an Imperfection in them to descend from the Purity and height of their Contemplation to think of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, or the Passion of Jesus Christ.  
In the fifth Title of the Fifth Book concerning Usurers, not only Clement V forbids the Practice of it, but he condemns also them for Heresy, who obstinately hold and assert that it is no Sin.  
In the fifth Title of the third Book, he forbids the Administration of Baptism out of the Church, and in the fourteenth of the same Book, Chap. 1. he makes divers Rules for the Celebration of Divine Service.  
The sixteenth Title of the same Book, contains a Bull for the Institution of the Feast of the Holy Sacrament by Urban iv confirmed by Clement V.  
He renews in the eighteenth Title of the fifth Book, the Laws and Penalties imposed upon those that assault or imprison Clergymen.  
In the tenth Title of the same Book, he appoints, that Penance shall be granted to Persons Condemned to Death for their Crimes, notwithstanding the contrary usage.  
In the thirteenth Title of the first Book, Chap. 2. he declares, That the Cardinals, during the Vacancy of the Holy See, have not the Pope's Power, but may nevertheless provide for the Offices of Chamberlain and Penitentiary, if they, that are in these Offices, happen to die; That the Election of a New Pope ought to be made in the place, where the last died; That if any of the Cardinals go out of the Conclave before the Election, they ought to be compelled to return; That no Cardinal ought to be hindered from giving his Vote under a Pretence of Excommunication, Suspension, or Interdict, etc.  
The other Clementines concern the Collations of Benefices, Elections, Renunciations, Right of Lapses, Patronages, the Age of Beneficed Persons, the Manners of Clergymen, Wills, Burials, the Inquisition, and the Office of Inquisitors, Treasurers, Excommunications, Interdicts, the Authority of Judges Delegates, the manner of Proceed, and other Matters of the Canon Law.  
Lastly, There are several, that concern the Reformation of Monks, as Chap. 1. and 2. of the tenth Title of the third Book, which contain divers Rules for Monks and Nuns, and Chap. 1. of the eleventh Title of the fifth Book, which contains the famous Decretal, Exivi, concerning the Rule of S. Francis. In the Second Chapter Tit. 7. Lib. 2. he regulates the difference between the Mendicant-Friars and the Ordinaries concerning their Preach and Confessions, and allows the former to Preach in their own Churches, Schools, and Public Places; but it forbids them Preaching in their Parishes, unless invited by the Curates, if the Bishop does not order them. And as to Confessions, he order the Provincials and Priors to address themselves to the Bishops, that they would permit them to choose a certain Number of their Monks to hear Confessions, whom they would present to them, to have their Approbation; That if the Bishops think fit to reject some of them, they shall name others; but if they shall absolutely refuse to grant them such a Permission, the Monks may do it by virtue of the Power, which the Holy See shall give them. In Chap. 1. Tit. 7. Lib. 5. he forbids the Monks to Administer the Sacraments of Extreme Unction, the Lord's Supper, and Marriage, without the Permission of the Curate; or to Absolve the Excommunicated; He forbids them to speak ill of the Bishops in their Sermons; to discourage the Faithful from going to their Churches; to make Restitutions; absolve Special Cases; to vex the Clergy; by citing them unfitly before the Judge's Delegates. And in Chap. 1. Tit. 9 Lib. 3. he declares, that they, who have made Profession in the Order of Begging-Friars, if they go over to another Order, shall bear no Offices in it, nor have a Vote in the Chapter.  
All these Constitutions were not made in the Council of Vienna, but some before, and some after, and of those, which were published during the Session of that Council, none but such, as concern the Faith and the Condemnation of the Errors of the Begards and Beguins, the Constitution concerning the Privileges of the Mendicant-Friars, the Study of Tongues in the Universities, and the Inquisition, were approved in it.   

The Council of Ravenna in 1311. 
The Council of Ravenna in 1311.   
RAYNALDUS, Archbishop of Ravenna, held a Council of the Bishops of his Province, June 21. 1311. in which he renewed several Constitutions of Councils and Popes, which he divided into Thirty two Articles.  
The First orders, That when any Churches shall be Vacant, Public Prayers, and Processions shall be made for the Ordination of the Bishop.  
The 2d. That the Funerals of Bishops deceased, shall be solemnly celebrated, that their Bodies shall be clothed with their Pontifical Habits; That the Chapter shall give Notice of the Day of their Death to the other Bishops of the Province; who, for a Month, shall cause Mass to be said every day for them; shall relieve three Poor People every day, and cause a Solemn Mass to be celebrated in their Cathedral for the Expiation of their Souls.  
The 3d. That every Year on July 20. shall a Solemn Anniversary be kept in all Cathedral Churches for the deceased Bishops, and a Dozen Poor folks shall be relieved that Day.  
The 4th. That the same thing shall be done for the Patrons, and Benefactors of Churches.  
The 5th. That the Relics of Saints, of which there is a good Assurance, shall on these Days be exposed upon the Altars to be adored by the People, but those which are not certain, shall be hidden under the Altar, or elsewhere, and shall not be exposed to Public Worship.  
The 6th. That the Sacraments shall be Administered by the Ministers fasting, with convenient Ornaments, and without Charge.  
The 7th. That the Lord's Supper, Holy Chrism, and Holy Oils shall be locked up carefully, and that care shall be taken to renew the Elements, which are kept for a Viaticum.  
The 8th. That Care be taken to keep clean the Linen, and Ornaments for the Churches, to have Books, and Altar-Cloaths sufficient, and Chalices of Silver, if it may be, and the Bells be consecrated with the Ceremonies prescribed in the Pontifical.  
The 9th. That every Bishop shall be careful to Instruct the Priests, and other Ministers of his Diocese in the Offices of their Ministry, and that a Priest do not Celebrate above One Mass a day, unless in the Cases allowed by the Law; That no Stranger shall Preach, Celebrate, or Perform any Function, to which he is not presented by the Ordinary; That they shall every Sunday consecrate fresh Water; and all the Parishioners shall hear Mass every Sunday in their own Parish, under the Pain of Excommunication, if they do not do it after they have been admonished of it three times.  
The 10th. That the Feasts of the Patrons of Cathedral Churches be kept, and the Curates shall be careful every Sunday at Mass, after the Gospels and Offertory, to give Notice of the Feasts and Fasts in the following Week.  
The 11th. That three times in the Year the form of Baptism shall be published in the Churches.  
The 12th. That no Markets, Parliaments, or Courts of Justice shall be held in Churches.  
The 13th. That none shall be allowed to Preach under 30 Years of Age.  
The 14th. That the Abbots, and Priors of the Benedictine Monks and Canons-Regular shall hold a Provincial Chapter every Year.  
The 15th. That the Curates shall take Care to publish in Advent and Lent, the Canon, Omnis utriusque Sexus, and that all Christians, that shall not do that Duty, shall be punished by the Bishop, That Physicians shall not Visit the Sick a Second time, unless they have called the Physician of the Soul.  
The 16th. That Benefices shall not be given to Persons, that can't Read nor Sing.  
The 17th. That all the Abbots and Priors of the Order of S. Benedict shall conform to one Service.  
The 18th. That all Bishops shall hold a Synod Once a Year.  
The 19th. That the Banns of Marriages shall be published, that the Curates may know, whether there be no Impediments; That Marriages shall not be celebrated from the first Sunday in Advent till after the Octaves of Epiphany, from Septuagesima Sunday till the Octaves of Easter, from the day before the Ascension to the Octaves of Pentecost.  
The 20th. That they, who cause themselves to be chosen, and get Pos●…on of Benefices by the Secular Authority, shall be Excommunicated, and made uncapable to ta●● any other Benefice in the Province.  
The 21st. That such as resist their Superiors shall be suspended, till they make Satisfaction.  
The 22d. That Monks, that relinquish their Profession as Apostates, shall not be admitted into any Benefice, nor Ecclesiastical Office.  
The 23d. That the Jews shall have a Mark to distinguish them from Christians.  
The 24th. That no Bishop shall exercise any Authority in the Jurisdiction of another; That no Secular nor Regular Clergyman shall be admitted to Holy Orders, without Letters dimissory from the Bishop, in whose Diocese he is Born, dwells, or has a Benefice, unless it be such as are of the Order of Mendicant-Friars, or other Privileged Persons; That no strange Bishop shall be allowed to perform the Episcopal Office, if his Metropolitan be not certified of his Ordination.  
The 25th. That none shall be made Governors of Hospitals, but such as are not Married, and will reside in them.  
The 26th. renews, and greatens the Punishments denounced against them, who assault, abuse, or molest Clergymen.  
By the 27th. the Blasphemers of the Name of God, the Virgin, or the Saints are excluded the Church for a Month, and if they do not do Penance, they shall be deprived of Christian Burial.  
The same Punishment is ordained by the 28th. against those who remain above one Year Excommunicated, although they have received Absolution at their Death.  
The 29th. orders, that Censures be made use of against Adulterers, and if they are Excommunicated a Month without leaving the Practice of their Sin, they shall be deprived of Christian Burial, although they make Satisfaction at their Death.  
The 30th. orders, That the Bishops, Chapters, and Monasteries give general and orderly Alms, and maintain the Poor. The Bishops also are enjoined to use their Endeavour to make Peace in the Towns, where there are any Quarrels, and to cause the Collect for Peace to be said till the Quarrels are ceased.  
The 31st. orders, That Notaries should use Expedition about such Wills, as contain any Legacies to the Bishops, to be Paid in one Month, and if the Executors of such Wills do not take Care to execute them, the Bishop shall see to it.  
The 32d. regulates the Dues of the Secretaries, and Notaries of Bishops.   

The Council of Ravenna in 1314. 
The Council of Ravenna in 1314.   
THE same Archbishop held another Council in the Castle of Argenta in his Diocese, Octob. 10. 1314. in which he made twenty Constitutions.  
The 1st. commands, That none but Canons in Holy Orders shall have Votes in the Chapters.  
The 2d. That none shall be ordained Priest, but such as be of 25 Years of Age, Deacon at 20. and Sub-deacon at 16.  
The 3d. That no Stranger, or unknown Person, shall be ordained Bishop, nor Persons known without the Consent of the Archbishop and Bishops of the Province; and that no Suffragan of Ravenna shall go out of the Province to consecrate a Bishop in another Province.  
The 4th. That Persons Exempt shall not invite unknown Bishops to exercise their Episcopal Function, or Ordinations in their Churches.  
The 5th. That Legates, or Delegates, or other Ambassadors of the Holy See, shall be obliged to show their Commission to the Ordinaries, except Legates à Latere, or such as have some Special Commissions.  
The 6th. That the Chapters shall receive their Bishops with the Sound of Bells, and that the Canons shall go before them to the Door of their Church in their Robes, with Incense, Holy Water, and the Cross; That they shall take their Blessing; That the Bishops of the Province must celebrate in their Pontifi●… in 〈◊〉 places where they go, provided they stay not above 10 Days; That when the Legate of the Holy See, or Archbishop of Ravenna, shall solemnly celebrate in any place, the Bishops and Abbots in the Neighbourhood shall be present in their Ecclesiastical Habits.  
The 7th. order's Notaries, under the Pain of Excommunication, to deliver the Acts which they have made, to the Persons concerned in them.  
The 8th. says, That none can be exempted from Visitation by any Prescription.  
The 9th. That those, who Appeal from the Sentence of Excommunication, and do not pursue their Appeal, shall be deprived of all their Bene●….  
The 10th. That the Clergy shall be modestly Apparelled, and shall not wear Arms, nor coloured clothes, and that they shall have a close Cassock, a Crown, and their Hair cut so short, as that their Ears may be seen.  
The 11th. That no Man shall be admitted into Nunneries, and Nuns shall not go out.  
The 12th. That no Man shall have a Prebend, who is not 16 Years old, and such as obtain them, shall enter into Holy Orders.  
The 13th. That Priests shall celebrate their first Mass within three Months after their Ordination, and afterw●…s, as often as they can, at least once a Year.  
The 14th. That ●…ates shall teach the form of Baptism three times a Year to their Parishioners.  
The 15th. prescribes a Form of Confession to be used at the Introites of the Mass.  
The 16th. That the Clergy shall Fast and give Alms three Days before they hold Provincial Councils.  
The 17th. Renews the Punishment against Detainers of Ecclesiastical Revenues.  
The 18th. Excommunicates the Secular, and Regular Clergy, which keep back the Profits, which belong to the Table of Bishops, Monasteries, or Chapters.  
The 19th. forbids to pronounce the Sentences of Interdict, or Excommunication for mere Money-matters.  
The 20th. recalls the Permissions given Monks to publish and preach Indulgences.   

The Council of Ravenna in 1317. 
The Council of Ravenna in 1317.   
LAstly, This Archbishop, who always applied himself to his Duty, and Reformation of Discipline, called a Council at Ravenna, Octob. 27. 1317. in which he confirmed the two former, and published new Rules in 22 Articles.  
He order in the First that Bishops should appoint Stewards to manage the Revenues of Vacant Churches.  
The 2d. orders, That no Man shall enter into the Ministry of the Church, who has not received his Mission from the Bishop.  
The 3d. That those, who have gotten Benefices, shall enter into Holy Orders within a Year, as their Benefices require.  
The 4th. renews the Rules concerning the Habits and Conversation of Clergymen, and imposes Pecuniary Mulcts upon such as shall contradict them.  
The 5th. forbids receiving a Canon of a Cathedral, or a Monk out of a Monastery, without the Special Licence of the Ordinary.  
The 6th. That none shall be received into a Monastery upon the Credit of Laymen.  
The 7th. That Notice shall be given to the Metropolitan of Ravenna, what Benefices are fallen to him.  
The 8th. That the Number of the Canons of Cathedral and Collegiate Churches shall be regulated, if not already done, and the Number reduced to a proportion of the Revenues.  
The 9th. is against Beneficed Persons that do not reside.  
The 10th. orders, That there be daily Distributions in Cathedral Churches, and One Table for the Canons.  
The 11th. concerns the Taxes and Impositions, that Churches ought to bear.  
The 12th. appoints, that the Glergy be present at Solemn Masses, and that Private Masses shall not begin in the Churches, till the solemn One is finished.  
The 13th forbids Archbishops, Provosts, and inferior Bishops, the Knowledge, Instruction, or Judgement of what concerns the Persons of Clergymen.  
The 14th. forbids all Christians to let out their Houses to the Jews.  
The 15th. lays down divers Cautions to prevent Usury.  
The 16th. ordains, that the Restitutions of such Goods, as the Owners are not known, shall be made by the Bishop's Order, and they shall be obliged in their Wills to specify the Cause of such Legacies.  
The 17th. forbids Clergymen or Monks to Hunt.  
The 18th. ordains, That Clergymen taken carrying Arms, committing any Crime, shall be put into the hands of the Bishop, without defaming Reflections on them.  
The 19th. That only One Punishment shall be inflicted for One Crime.  
The 20th. leaves it to the Liberty of the Bishops to dispense with the Age, and Qualifications, which such as are to be ordained, aught to have by the Canons of the former Councils, provided, that the Persons, whom they ordain, be capable.  
The 21st. imposes a Punishment upon the Chapters, who do not give notice of the Death of their Bishop to the Bishops of the Province.  
The 22d. gives the Ordinaries a Power to Absolve such as offend against the Rules of this Council, but this Archbishop reserved for the future the Punishment of the Breakers of the Canons to himself, and the Power to moderate, or interpret the Laws of these Councils. And by virtue of this Power, he added two Articles to these 22 Rules. In one of them he allows the Nuns to speak through a Lattice to Persons not Suspicious; and in the second, he sets down a Table of the Deuce, which Notaries and Secretaries ought to take.   

The Council of Paris in 1314. 
The Council of Paris in 1314.   
PHILIP de MARIGNY, Archbishop of Sens, celebrated a Council of the Bishops of his Province at Paris, on Tuesday before the Translation of S. Nicholas in 1314. and four days after, in which he published three Rules.  
The 1st. appoints, That the Curates should admonish such as unjustly detain the Goods of their Churches, to restore them, and if they do not do it, to Excommunicate them.  
The 2d. That Ecclesiastical Judges shall no longer grant General Citations in these terms, Summon all those, whom the Bearer of these Presents shall appoint, etc. and if they do grant any, they shall be of none effect.  
The 3d. That no Person shall be Summoned for having kept Company with an Excommunicate Person, unless the Person cited has been admonished first, and unless the Person, that requires the Citation will Swear, that he knows that the Persons he would have cited, have knowingly accompanied with Excommunicate Persons in the Cases, which are not permitted by the Law.   

The Council of Saumur in 1315. 
The Council of Saumur in 1315.   
THIS Council was held by JEFFREY de la HEYE, Archbishop of Tours, and made up of the Bishops and Abbots of his Province. In it were published four Canons.  
The First orders, That all those Laymen, which hereafter shall detain any Ecclesiastical Goods shall be Excommunicated, and those who have held them for 40 Years past, shall be thrice admonished to restore them, and if they do not do it, they shall be Excommunicated.  
The 2d. declares all those ipso f●ct● Excommunicated, who hinder the Execution of Ecclesiastical Judgements, and lays an Interdict upon the Lands of those Lords, whose Bailiffs, Stewards, or other Judges, make Attempts upon the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.  
The 3d. forbids Arch-Deacons, and others entrusted with the Examination of such Clerks, as are ordained, or provided of Benefices to take any thing of them, upon Pain of Suspension, if they are Priests, or Excommunication, if they are not.  
The 4th. says, That Land cannot be interdicted before any thing is ordained against the Person of the Lord or Bailiff, and reserves to Bishops the Absolutions of Excommunications, and the taking of the Interdicts imposed by this Council.   

The Council of Nogarol in 1315. 
The Council of Nogarol, in 1315.   
AMANAEUS d'ARMAGNAC, Archbishop of Ausche▪ held a Council of his Province in 1315. at Nogarol, in which he published five Rules.  
The 1st. forbids under Pain of Excommunication, Temporal Lords to invade the Goods of Vacant Churches.  
The 2d. declares the Children of such as have contributed to lay Taxes upon the Clergy, incapable of receiving Holy Orders to the 4th. Generation, and deprives their Family of Christian Burial.  
The 3d. forbids to deny the Sacrament of Penance to Persons Executed, at their Death.  
The 4th. Excommunicates those who do any Wrong to Bishop's Servants, and interdicts the place where the Action was done.  
The 5th. orders the Publication of the Decretal gratis, against those who hinder the Execution of Interdicts and Excommunications of the Church.   

The Councils of Senlis in 1316. and 1317. 
The Council of Senlis.   
KIng LEWIS X. called a Council at Senlis, Aug. 16. 1315. that Peter Bishop of Chalons, who was accused of divers Crimes, might be tried by it. This Council was Prorogued by Peter Courtney, Archbishop of Rheims, to May 15. 1316. and Peter of Chalons was Absolved by it.  
In the next Year the same Archbishop held another Council March 27. in the same City, where he renews the Punishments denounced against those that invade the Church's Dues.   

The Councils of Sens in 1320. and of Paris in 1323. 
The Council of Sens in 1320.   
PHILIP de MARIGNY, Archbishop of Sens, held a Council in that City on the Thursday after Penteoost 1320. where he published four Decrees.  
The 1st. was, That the Bishops should order the People of their Dioceses to Fast on the Vigil of the Feast of the Holy Sacrament, and should grant 40 days Indulgence to those that did it.  
The 2d. That the places, where any Clerk is kept by force, shall be interdicted.  
The 3d. That Monks, and Nuns, that have taken an habit, shall make Profession at the end of the Year.  
The 4th. is against Canons, Curates, and other Priests, who are not modestly Apparelled, and wear their hairs and Beard Long without cutting.  
These Constitutions were renewed and confirmed in another Council of the same Province held 
The Council of Paris in 1323.  at Paris in 1323.   

The Councils of Valladolid, in the Diocese of Palenza in Castille in 1322. 
The Council of Valladolid in 1322.  and of Toledo in 1323.  
THE First of these Councils was held in the End of August 1322. by the Authority of William Cardinal Bishop of S. Sabina, Pope John XXII's Legate, who published the following Constitutions, and ordered all the Bishops to have them promulgated in their Cathedrals within 8 days.  
The 1st. orders, that Provincial Synods be held once in two Years, and Diocesan every Year.  
The 2d. That the Curates be careful to declare Four times a Year to the People in the Vulgar Tongue the Creed, Ten Commandments, Number of Sacraments, and the several sorts of Virtues, and Vices.  
The 3d. That the Decretal of Boniface VIII. be published, which forbids the Clergy to appeal to the Tribunals of Secular Judges.  
The 4th. That all Persons abstain from servile Works on Sundays and holidays, and no Husbandman or Artificer work on their Trades upon those days, unless it be in cases of Necessity, or for some Pious Uses, or by the Permission of the Priest.  
The 5th. Excommunicates false Witnesses, and all such as excite and encourage them to be such.  
The 6th. enjoins Bishops to wear Garments suitable to their Function, and not made of Silk, to celebrate the Mass publicly in their Churches upon solemn Feast-days, to bring with them portable Altars to celebrate every day before them, to recite the Canonical hours with their Clergy, and to celebrate Divine Service in their Cathedrals. It also forbids all Clergymen to be present at the Marriages of their Children, or Nephews.  
The 7th. is against Clergymen, that keep Concubines.  
The 8th. is against Non-Resident Clergymen and deprives them of the Revenues of their Benefices.  
The 9th. orders, that Benefices be not parted, that none be ordained, but such as have some Letters; that no more Clerks be put into Churches, than the Revenues will maintain; that Monks shall not give their Habits to the Secular Clergy, to exempt them from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop, and Benefices shall be conferred in the Chapter by public and Authentic Acts.  
The 10th. That the Bounds of Parishes shall be fixed, and the Curates shall not receive other's Parishioners.  
The 11th. That the Frauds of Monks in paying their Tithes be prevented.  
The 12th. renews divers Constitutions about Monastic Discipline.  
The 13th. exhorts the Curates to use Hospitality to Monks, Poor, and Pilgrims, and takes care that the Hospitals be fit to receive them.  
The 14th. orders, That Patrons shall not Present to Churches before they are Vacant, nor Present Infants, nor put in Persons by force; nor shall require any Provision, or other Obligations of the Curates of those Churches of which they are Patrons.  
The 15th. That the Consecration of the Chrism belongs to the Bishops, and every Year the Curates shall go to provide New, and shall not be allowed to use the Old.  
The 16th. forbids Eating Flesh in Lent, and on other Fasting Days, under the Pain of Excommunication ipso facto.  
The 17th. forbids holding Meetings about Secular Affairs in the Church, and Markets and Fairs in the Churchyards; fortifying Churches, or violating the Privileges of Asylum, or Refuge.  
The 18th. ordains, That the Decree of the General Council of Vienne, against such as Contract Marriages within the degrees prohibited, shall be published every Year.  
The 19th. is against Simony, and particularly against that of receiving any thing for the Collation for Benefices, or for Ordination.  
The 20th. renews the Canon of the Fourth General Council of Lateran, De Magistris, exhorts Clergymen to Study, and grants them three Years for that end, and more if it be necessary, in which they may take the Revenues of their Benefices without being Resident on them.  
The 21st. contains divers Decrees about men's demeanour towards Jews ●nd Saracens.  
The 22d. is against Public Adulterers.  
The 23d. is against Ravishers of Women, and Spoilers of men's Goods.  
The 24th. is against Lotteries.  
The 25th. forbids the use of Canonical Purgation, unless in Cases authorized by Law.  
The 26th. abolishes the use of Purgation by Fire, or Water.  
The 27th. orders that the Canon, Omnis utriusque Sexus, be published every Sunday in Lent.  
This Archbishop held a Council at Toledo in 1323. in which he published 17 Articles concerning 
The Council of Toledo in 1323.  the Doctrine of the Sacraments, the Manners, and Duties of Clergymen, and the Discipline of the Church.   

The Council of Toledo in the Year 1324. 
The Council of Toledo in 1324.   
THE Constitutions of the Council of Valladolid were published in 1324. by John Archbishop of Toledo, in a Council of his Province held in November, which added 8 other Rules to them.  
The 1st. is against Bishops who neglect to come to the Council.  
The 2d. is about the Habits and Manners of Clergymen.  
The 3d. is against those that Appropriate the Revenues of Chapels without naming the Titular Clerks, who shall take them.  
The 4th. ordains, That all Beneficed Clerks, with Cure of Souls, shall be instituted by the Bishops.  
The 5th. That Clergymen cannot bequeath the Goods gotten by the Church to their Children.  
The 6th. forbids Priests to require any Salary for saying Mass, but allows them to take what is given them in Charity, without any Bargain or Agreement.  
The 7th. forbids every Priest to celebrate more than one Mass in a Day, and exhorts them to celebrate it often, at least Four times a Year, allowing them, in case they have no Curate, to confess themselves to another Priest: And lastly, Order other Clergymen to Communicate three times a Year.   

The Council of Colen in the Year 1322. 
The Council of Colen in 1322.   
HENRY Archbishop of Colen, having assembled a Council of the Prelates of his Province Octob. ult. 1322. in his Archiepiscopal Palace, confirmed the Canons of his Predecessor Engelbert in 1266. and ordered that they should be observed in all his Province.   

The Council of Avignon in the Year 1326. 
The Council of Avignon in 1326.   
THIS Council was not made up of the Bishops of one Province only, but the Archbishops of Arles, (GUABERT de VALLE) Aix, (JAMES de CONCOS) and Embrun (BERTRAND d'EUX) were at it with several of their Suffragans and Deputies of their Chapters. It was held in the Monastery of S. Rufus, June 18. 1326. They made 59 Canons concerning the Discipline of the Church.  
It is ordained in the First, That the Mass, De Beatâ, should be celebrated every Saturday, and Indulgences be granted to all that are present at it.  
In the three following Indulgences are also granted to those, who accompany the Sacrament, when it is carried to the Sick; to such as pray devoutly for the Pope; and such as bow the Head at the Name of Jesus.  
The 5th. orders, That the Fonts for Baptism be kept under a Lock.  
The 6th. That the Sentences pronounced by a Bishop against any one of his Diocese, shall be confirmed by the Metropolitan, and that all the Bishops of the Province shall observe them.  
The 7th. is against those that contemn Ecclesiastical Censures.  
The 8th. Excommunicates those who force Clergymen to relate the Titles of the mixed Jurisdiction, which they are in Possession of.  
The 9th. forbids Secular Judges to Summon Clergymen before their Tribunals.  
The 10th. forbids the Clergy to have recourse to the Secular Judges for Justice against other Clerks.  
The Five following, renew the Laws against such as invade the Goods of the Church, or keep Clergymen Prisoners.  
The 16th. forbids to employ Excommunicate Persons in any Public Office.  
The 17th. and 18th. are against Poisoners, and Sellers of Poison.  
The 19th. is against Persons Exempt, who abuse their Privileges.  
The 20th. and 21st. concern Wills.  
The 22d. contains Cases reserved to the Bishop.  
The 23d. forbids Clergymen to bring their civil Causes before Ecclesiastical Judges, under the Pretences of Donation, Session, etc.  
The 24th. forbids all Persons to enter upon the Goods of Vacant Churches, unless they have a Right by some Privilege or Custom.  
The 25th. forbids under pain of Excommunication Clergymen, that are in Favour in the Courts of Princes, to give their Advice against the Liberties of the Church.  
The 26th. forbids Clergymen in Holy Orders, or that have Benefices, with charge of Souls, to have any Civil Offices.  
The 27th. allows, That such as desire to be Buried among the Preaching, or Grey-Friars, should be Buried among them, the Right of being carried to their Parish-Church being preserved, according to the Custom.  
The 28th. declares, That no Collation of a Benefice shall be made, upon condition of paying a new Rent, or augmenting the old.  
The 29th. orders, That the Monks, who have the Revenues of Churches, shall be obliged to present to the Bishop within Six Months perpetual Vicars to perform Divine Service.  
The 30th. says, That Patrons, who have only a right to present, do not confer by full right.  
The 31st. That all Persons presented, shall be instituted by the Bishop.  
The 32d. and 33d. That the Goods and Persons of the Clergy shall be exempted from Taxes and Imposts.  
The 34th. That the Laiety shall not hinder the Clergy carrying Corn from their Lands.  
The 35th. That Lords shall not hinder their Curates from taking their Tithes.  
The 36th. That Laymen shall not take upon them to make Orders about Tithes, Burials, or Oblations in prejudice of the Customs, and Liberties of the Church.  
The 37th. is against Associations, and Fraternities made for ill Ends, which the Council forbids under Pain of Excommunication, declaring nevertheless, that they did not include in this Prohibition Brotherhoods Established for the Honour of God, the Virgin and Saints for the Relief of the Poor, in which there are no Oaths taken, nor Conspiracies entered into.  
The 38th. and 39th. forbids Clergymen fortifying their Churches, or bearing Arms.  
The 40th. orders, That Bishops, their Officials, or Great Vicars shall give Absolution in the Cases reserved to their Diocesans, whenever they are required.  
The 41st. That Lords and Secular Judges, at the request of the Clergy, shall make use of their Authority and Temporal Punishments, to oblige persons Excommunicate to receive Absolution.  
The 42d. and 43d. inflicts Censures on such, as hinder the Clergy from exercising their Jurisdiction.  
The 44th. Excommunicates those that Abuse the Bishop's Officers.  
The 45th. declares, That the Reformation of the Clergy belongs to the Church, and that they shall not be condemned by Secular Judges.  
The 46th. allows the Bishops of these three Provinces to give their Blessing to the People in all places in which they meet them, except in their Metropolis', and where the Diocesan Bishop is present.  
The 47th. orders that the Sentences given by one Bishop, shall be published and observed by his Brethren.  
The 48th. Excommunicates those, that go out of their Diocese to contract a Marriage out of their Parish.  
The 49th. Excommunicates those that abuse the Pope's Writs.  
The 50th. forbids to take the Tithes, or other Parochial Deuce, without the Authority of the Bishop.  
The 51st. forbids Beneficed persons to alienate the Goods of their Churches without the consent of the Bishop, unless it be in giving Lands altogether unfit for Leasing out to Farmers.  
The 52d. orders, that if any Man leave his Benefice, he shall leave so much of the Fruits in the House, as is necessary to maintain his Successor till the next Harvest.  
The 53d. That all Beneficed persons, shall exhibit an Authentic Inventory of all the Goods, Movable and Immoveable of their Benefices.  
The 54th. renews the Laws of the foregoing Councils about Wills.  
The 55th. revokes all Statutes and Ordinances contrary to the ancient reasonable and approved Customs.  
The 56th. orders, that the Division of the Necessary Charges for the Legates and Nuncio's of the Holy See, shall be laid Equally upon the Cities and Dioceses.  
The 57th. That the Jews shall have a Mark to distinguish them, shall be forced to pay a Tribute to the Church for their Tithes, Oblations of their Houses, and the Goods they possess.  
The 58th. That Interdicts inflicted by these Canons shall be executed, when the Ordinary, his Official, or Grand Vicar shall appoint.  
The 59th. That the Bishops may Absolve in the Cases reserved to the Holy See in this Synod, and dispense with, or moderate these Constitutions.   

The Council of Avignon in the Year 1337. 
The Council of Avignon in 1337.   
THE Decrees of the Council, which we have just spoken of, were renewed, repeated, and confirmed in another Council of the three Provinces held at the same place in 1337. with some other New ones, which were added, for this last Council contained 70 Articles. The New ones are,  
The 4th. which order for the Execution of the Canon, Omnis utriusque Sexus, that the Curates shall not permit any Person to receive or administer the Sacrament of the Eucharist out of their Parishes.  
The 5th. enjoins Beneficed Clergymen, and such as are in Holy Orders, to abstain from Flesh on Saturday, unless there be need to do otherwise, which is left to their Conscience, or in case the Feast of Nativity happen on that Day, and that upon Pain of being excluded a Month from the entrance of the Church. And they ordain the same thing for Laymen.  
The 8th. That Ecclesiastical Censures shall not be extended beyond their bounds, by exercising them upon Excommunicate Persons for new Inventions, as to cast Stones against their Houses, to carry a Bier thither, to cause a Priest to come in his Sacerdotal Habit, etc.  
The 15th. That such as have any of the Church's Goods, shall be obliged to declare it.  
The 18th. and 19th. are against those that hinder the Exercise of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and invade the Goods of the Church.  
The 27th. and 28th. concern Bills of Debts.  
The 38th. forbids Clerks to hold Inns, or to Merchandise.  
The 41st. and 42d. enlarge the Canons concerning the Habits of Clerks.  
The 48th. 49th. and 50th. relate to the Distributions made to Canons.  
The 51st. orders, That they, who have any Church-Dignities or Benefices, shall take Holy Orders, within the time that such Benefices require.  
The 59th. forbids to make use of the Jews, as Physicians.   

The Councils of Marsac in the Years 1326. and 1330. 
The Councils of Marsac in the Years 1326. and 1330.   
WILLIAM FLAVACOURT, Archbishop of Ausche, held a Council of the Bishops of his Province in a place within his Diocese called Marsac, Decemb. 8. 1326. in which he published 56 Constitutions.  
The 1st. orders, That Bishops should put none into Benefices, but such, as they are assured to be of Good Life and Manners.  
The 2d. and 3d. That Strangers, Clergymen, shall not be entertained, unless they have their Bishop's Letters, and they that suffer them to administer Sacraments, shall be Excommunicated.  
The 4th. forbids Archdeacon's the Cognizance of Matrimonial Causes.  
The 5th. renews the Constitutions of Pope Benedict X. and Cardinal Simon, about the Power of Legates.  
The 6th. forbids Monks, and others of the Clergy, to molest the Ordinaries in the Exercise of their Jurisdictions.  
The 7th. 8th. 9th. 10th. and 11th. are Rules common in this Age about the Jurisdiction and Immunities of the Church.  
The 12th. 13th. 14th. 15th. 16th. and 17th. concern Affairs brought to the Ecclesiastical Judges concerning the breach of Oaths.  
The 18th. renews the Constitutions about the Life and Modesty of Clergymen, and orders that Priests at the Celebration of Mass, shall have at least one Clerk in a Surplise to assist him.  
The 19th. orders, That all the Clergy, which are in Holy Orders, or have Benefices, and chief Curates and Monks, shall be careful to recite the then Canonical Hours, and be at Church at the usual Hours, but in the time of an Interdict shall read Divine Service in their Churches, if they have not been polluted, but with a low Voice and the Doors shut: without found of Bells, except upon the Feasts of the Passover, Pentecost, and the Assumption of the Virgin, on which they shall celebrate solemnly notwithstanding the Interdict. And lastly, That the Distributions shall be given only to those that are at the Service.  
The 20th. That a Clergyman shall not go out in the Night without a Candle.  
The 21st. 22d. 23d. 24th. and 25th. concern Burials. They forbidden Monks to persuade dying Persons to be Buried among them, and order that none shall be Buried in their Churches without the Bishop's leave; that nothing indecent shall be done at Funerals; that the Corpse shall be carried to the Parish Church, and that the Parts of a Body shall not be separated to be Buried in divers places.  
The 26th. orders the Parishioners to be present every Sunday and Holiday at the Mass of their Parish.  
The 27th. That the Decretal of Boniface VIII. Super Custodiam, concerning the Peace between Prelates and Curates, shall be observed.  
The following Eight, are about Payment of Tithes to Curates.  
The 36th. says, That Persons presented to Bishops by Religious Patrons, and instituted into Benefices shall not be deprived but by the Bishop, and for a reasonable Cause.  
The 37th. That Monks, although Exempt, shall not erect new Oratories without the Permission of the Ordinary.  
The 38th. regulates the Payments of Visitation, and Procuration Deuce to Arch-Deacons.  
The 39th. commands Arch-Deacons to do their Duty in their Visitation.  
The 40th. asserts, That if a Church, although it be not consecrated, or a Churchyard are polluted with the Effusion of Blood, or Seed, or by the Burial of any Excommunicate Person, Heretic, Infidel, or Jew, they shall be reconsecrated by the Bishop with Holy Water.  
The 41st. ordains, that the Feasts of the Apostles and four Evangelists shall be Solemnly kept, and the ancient Relics shall not be exposed to Sale, nor new ones suffered to be reverenced, unless allowed of, and that the 
* Questors were such as went up and down by the Popes or Bishop's Connivance or Permission to sell Relics, and Preach up the Virtues of them.  Questors shall be hindered to carry them about, and Preach up the Virtues of them.  
The 42d. orders also, That the Feast of S. Martha shall be kept July 29.  
The 43d. That Care be had of the Revenues, and Ornaments of the Churches.  
The 44th. That the Sacrament and Holy Chrism shall be kept under Lock and Key.  
The 45th. grants Indulgences to such, as shall visit Cathedral Churches upon the Day and Feast of the Patron, and on the Octave of it, if they be truly contrite and Penitent.  
The 46th. forbids any Civil Assemblies to be held in Churches.  
The 47th. Excommunicates those Lords, that forbidden their Tenants to Sell or Buy any thing of Ecclesiastical Persons, to grind their Corn, etc.  
The 48th. orders, that such as keep Concubines, Usurers, and Adulterers be Excommunicated; as also such Monks as put off their Habit.  
The 49th. Excommunicates those, who make or compose Ordinances against the Liberties of the Church.  
The 50th. commands, that Gregory X's Decretal, Pro eo shall be published.  
The 51st. is against those who keep a Bond for a Debt Paid.  
The 52d. Interdicts the places, where the Goods or Persons of the Clergy taken away by force, are concealed and kept.  
The 53d. is against those who impose Taxes on Clergymen, Monks, or Lepers shut up.  
The 54th. forbids Pawning any Goods of the Church.  
The 55th. forbids to interdict a place for a Debt purely pecuniary.  
The Last, orders the Bishops to cause the former Constitutions to be published every Year in their Synods, and take care to have them executed.  
The same Archbishop held another Council in the same place in 1330. against the Murderers 
The Council of Marsac in 1330.  of Anesance Bishop of Air, whose Acts are Dated Decemb. 11. 1330.   

The Councils of Senlis in 1326. and of Compeigne in 1329. 
The Council of Senlis in 1326.   
WILLIAM de BRIE, Archbishop of Rheims, held the first of these Councils in 1326. which was made up of the Bishops of Soissons, Laon, Beauvais, Chalons, Noyo●, Senlis, and the Deputies of the other Bishops of his Province, and there published Seven Rules.  
The 1st. concerns the Ceremonies of the Celebration of a Council.  
The 2d. forbids such as have Benefices to engage in any other Employments.  
The 3d. orders the Payment of Tithes.  
The 4th. declares such as are Excommunicated with the Great Anathema, incapable of acting, pleading, or giving a Testimony in Judgement.  
The 5th. preserves the Rights of being Asylum to Churches.  
The 6th. forbids Clandestine Marriages.  
The 7th. renews the Canon of the Council of Bourges in 1276. against those that hinder the Execution of Ecclesiastical Judgements. 
The Council of Compeigne in 1329.   
This very Archbishop held another Council at Compeigne in 1329. in which he published the Ordinary Rules of this Age, concerning the Immunities and Jurisdiction of the Church.   

The Councils of Alcala [or Complutum] in 1326. and of Pennasiel in 1302. 
The Council of Alcala in 1326.   
JOHN Archbishop of Toledo, held the first of these Councils June 25. and in it published two Canons; By the first of which he forbids his Suffragans to ordain a Bishop without the Permission of the Metropolitan; and in the other, he confirms the Rule of the Council of Pennafiel, held under Gonsalvus his Predecessor, concerning the Immunities of the Church.  
This last Council in the MSS. bears the Name of Giles, who was Archbishop of Toledo in 1337. 
The Council of Pennafiel in 1302.  but the Canon of the Council of Alcala, leaves no room to doubt but that it was held under Gonsalvus III. in 1302. which date it bears. It contains 15 Heads.  
The 1st. orders, That such as are in Holy Orders, or have Benefices, do recite their Canonical Hours upon Pain of losing the Revenue of their Benefices, for them that have any, and for such as have none, of being suspended.  
The 2d. is against Clergymen that keep Concubines openly.  
The 3d. orders Curates to take care, that Sickpeople die not without giving them their Viaticum.  
The 4th. advertiseth them not to give the Communion to any, but such of whose Confession, Contrition, and Satisfaction they are well assured.  
The 5th. condemns to perpetual Imprisonment those Priests, who discover the Secrets of Confession.  
The Sixth, orders the Publication of Boniface VIII. Decretal, Clericis Laicos, against those that abuse Clerks.  
The 7th. That the Tithes of all things be Paid.  
The 8th. That the Priests shall consecrate the Sacramental Elements themselves, or procure some Ministers of the Church to do it.  
The 9th. renews the Decrees against Usury.  
The 10th. orders, That the Jews, or Saracens, which are Baptised, shall not lose their Goods.  
The 11th. That the Feast of Ildephonsus, Archbishop of Toledo, shall be double and solemn.  
The 12th. That Salve Regina, shall be Sung every day after Complins [i. e. Evensong.]  
The three last are for the Immunities, and Preservation of the Goods of the Church.   

The Council of Ruffec in 1327. 
The Council of Ruffec in 1327.   
ARNALDUS de CANTELOUP, Archbishop of Bourdeaux, held a Council at Ruffec in the Diocese of Poitiers, in January 132●. in which he published an Interdict against all the places, where the Secular Judges should keep Clergymen Prisoners, and ordered, that Clergymen might argue, and Plead at the Bar gratis for the Churches, or for Ecclesiastical Persons in the Secular Court.   

The Council of Salamanca in the Year 1335. 
The Council of Salamanca in 1335.   
THIS Council was held by JOHN Archbishop of Compostella, in the Cathedral Church of Salamanca, May 24. 1335. in which he published 17 Canons, of which the Cardinal D'Aguine gives us the Titles in his Notitia of the Spanish Councils, and which are about the Matters usual in this Age, the greatest part of them being taken out of the Canons of other Councils.   

The Council of Rouen in 1335. 
The Council of Rouen in 1335.   
PETRUS ROGERUS, Archbishop of Rouen, held a Council in Septe●ber in the Church of S. Marry de Prato (at present the 〈◊〉 N●ntio) where the Bishops of Auranches and Seez appeared in Person, and the other Bishops his Suffragans by their Deputies. They made 13 Constitutions.  
The 1st. orders that 〈◊〉 Service be celebrated in his Churches with that Devotion, that is ●…dered by the Cle●…, G●….  
The 2d. and 3d. renew t●e Rules concerning the Habit and Behaviour of Clerks and Monks.  
The 4th. orders the Chaplains to take the Revenues of their Benefices.  
The 5th. forbids Patrons to take Money for Presentations to Benefices.  
The 6th. Excommunicates those that hinder the Payments of Tithes to their Curates.  
The 7th. 〈◊〉 the Bishops and 〈◊〉 to Pray for the Expedition into the Holy Land, and diligently stir up the Faithful to undertake it, and raise Moneys for that end.  
The 8th. renews the Rules about Rep●●●tions, and the Revenues of Churches and their Ornaments.  
The 9th. 〈◊〉, that C●…ates instituted by others than the Bishop of the Diocese, shall be obliged to present themselves within 40 days after they have taken Possession, to show their Titles, and take the Oath of Obedience.  
The 10th. That on every first Sunday in the Month, the Cases which incur Excommunication, shall be published.  
The 11th. That the Bishops in their Synod●…d Deans in their Calends, shall publish the Cases reserved to the Holy See and Bishops.  
The 12th. That the Curates shall use the Preaching and Grey-Friars favourably and kindly.  
The Last ordains, That these Constitutions shall be published in the Diocesan Synods.   

The Council of Bourges in the Year 1336. 
The Council of Bourges in 1336.   
THIS Council was held under FULCRAN, or FULCALD de ROCHECHOVART, Archbishop of Bourges, Octob. 17. 1336. It was made up only of the Bishops of Lymoges, Cahors, and Tulle, who renewed in 14 Articles divers Rules concerning the Clergy, Monks, and Nuns, and Ecclesiastical Immunities, which are for the most part in the Decretals. It is ordained in the 13th. that Priests should celebrate Mass at lest once or twice a Month.   

The Council of Chateaugonthier in 1336. 
The Council of Chateaugonthier in 1336.   
PETER FREROT, or FRETOT, Archbishop of T●…, held a Council at Chateaugonthier in November 1336. in which he published the Ordinary Constitutions against those that usurped the Ecclesiastical Jurisdicti●… or detained the Goods of the Church, who abused their Superiors, who exacted Taxes, or other Imposts of the Clergy, who hindered the Oblations made to the Church; These Rules were divided into 12 Canons, of which the first 10 import, that from the Permission which the Bishops give the Lords to celebrate Divine Service in their Private Chapels, the following Days are to be excepted; the first Sunday in Advent, the Sunday in the Octaves of Epiphany; the first Sunday in Lent, Passion-Sunday, the Sunday in the Octaves of Pentecost, and the Sunday in the Octaves of the Assumption.   

The Council of Toledo in the Year 1339. 
〈◊〉 Council of Toledo in 1339.   
THIS Council was held under GILES ●…BERNOZ, Archbishop of Toledo, May 19 1339. It contained no more than 5 Canons.  
The 1st. forbids the Alienation of the Church's Goods.  
The 2d. renews the Constitution of the Council of Valladolid, concerning the capacity that such Persons ought to have, who are made Curates, and put into Benefices with Charge of Souls.  
The 3d. renews another of the same Council concerning the appointing of a Master of Divinity in every Chapter.  
The 4th. 〈◊〉 the Canon of John Archbishop of Toledo, Giles' Predecessor, concerning such Proctors, as th'bishops are obliged to send to a Council, when they can't come themselves.  
The 5th. o●●ers the Execution of the Canon, Omnis utr●●sque Sexus; and that they may observe it, enjoins the Curates to set down in Writing the Names of their Parishioners, and to present them to him, that are not confessed, and have not received the Communion.   

The Council of Noyon in the Year 1344. 
The Council of Noyon in 1344.   
JOHN de VIENNE, Archbishop of Rheims, held a Council of his Province at Noyon, July 26. 1344. in which he published 17 Canons.  
The 3 first, and the 5th. 6th. 8th. 13th, and 15th. are for the securing of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Clergy.  
The 4th. orders, That the same Service shall be celebrated in the Parochial Churches, which is in the Cathedrals.  
The 7th. forbids the Abuse of certain Stage-Players, who carried about Candle's light, as in Procession.  
The 9th. enjoins the Begging-Friars to exhort the People to Pay their Tithes to the Curates.  
The 10th. exhorts Chapters, and Bishops to communicate their Titles.  
The 11th. That Deans of Chapters, and other Superiors of the Church, should oblige the Clergy subject to their Government, to wear the Tonsure, and the Habits of Clergymen.  
The 12th. forbids publishing new Miracles without the Bishop's allowance.  
The 14th. Excommunicates Laymen that assume the Habit of the Clergy by their own Authority.  
The 16th. forbids Ecclesiastical Proctors to proceed against any Person, of whom they have no just cause of Complaint.  
The Last is against the excessive Exactions of the Proctors of the Ecclesiastical Courts.   

The Council of Paris in the Year 1346. 
The Council of Paris in 1346.   
WILLIAM de MELUN, Archbishop of Sens, held a Council of his Province at Paris, March 14 1346. in which he published 13 Constitutions.  
The 1st. is about the Immunities of the Clergy, and 2d. about their Habits.  
The 3d. is against such Excommunicate Persons as continue so above one Year, and orders, that they should be proceeded against as persons suspected of Heresy.  
The 4th. Excommunicates those Lords, and Judges, who do cause Persons suspected of Heresy to be Apprehended.  
The 5th. forbids applying the Legacies given to the Church, to other uses.  
The 6th. and 7th. prescribes forms of Letters for Deputies sent to a Council, as also of Citation.  
The 8th. ordains, That Priories and Curacies be united in places where there are not Revenues sufficient.  
The 9th. renews the Laws concerning Houses for Lepers, and Hospitals.  
The 10th. enjoins Beneficed Persons to Uphold their Churches, and the Buildings of their Houses, and lay out a part of their Revenues upon them, according to the Bishop's order.  
The 11th. forbids Bishops to reserve any part of the Revenues of the Benefices, that belong not to their Table.  
The 12th. respects the way of Proceeding, which ought to be observed, in Causes of Matrimony, Usury, and Tithes.  
The 13th. confirms the Indulgence granted by John XXII. to those, who say, Ave Maria, three times in the Evening, and grants 50 days Pardon to those who pray at that Hour for the Prosperity of the Church and Realm, for Peace, for the King and Queen of France, and their Children, and who say, a Pater Noster, and an Ave Maria.   

The Council of Toledo in 1347. 
The Council of Toledo in 1347.   
THIS Council was held April 24. 1347. at Alcala, under the same Archbishop as that of the Year 1339. In it were published 4 Constitutions.  
The 1st. is about the Habits, which the Clergy ought to wear in their Journeys.  
The 2d. is against those, who attempt any thing against the Clergy, or Revenues of the Church.  
The 3d. is against Questors; And the Last, against such as are guilty of Simony. It condemns all such as oppose these Ordinances, to be Fined certain Sums.   

The Council of Beziers in the Year 1351. 
The Council of Beziers in 1351.   
PETER JUDEX, Archbishop of Narbonne, Summoned a Council, Novemb. 7. 1351. and invited the Bishops and Chapters of his Province to it by Letters. It was held upon a day appointed, and published 8 Decrees.  
By the 1st. is granted 10 days Pardon to those who bow their heads at the Name of Jesus, when it is mentioned in reading Divine Service.  
The 2d. grants Pardons to those, who accompany the Body of Jesus Christ with Wax Tapers, when it is carried to the Sick.  
The 3d. does the like to such as Pray for the Pope, King of France, and Bishops at Mass.  
The 4th. orders, That the Fonts for Baptism should be locked up.  
The 5th. is against them that invade the Goods of the Churches.  
The 6th. forbids the Curates to give their Parishioners leave to communicate out of their own Parish within Fifteen days after Easter.  
The 7th. exhorts the Clergy to abstain from Flesh on Saturdays.  
The 8th. is against those who dare Excommunicate their Superiors.   

The Council of Toledo in 1355. 
The Council of Toledo in 1355.   
THIS Council was held Octob. 1. 1355. by Blaisus Fernandez, Archbishop of Toledo, who seems to have called it to discharge himself of many Scruples, which he had upon the account of the great Number of Constitutions made by his Predecessors, declaring, That the Canons of the former Provincial Councils, and Council of Valladolid, were only Penal Laws, which did not oblige under the Penalty of Sin, at least, it was otherwise ordained.   

The Council of Angers in 1365. 
The Council of Angers in 1365.   
SIMON RENULPHI, Archbishop of Tours, held a Council of the Bishops of his Province at A●gers, March 12. 1365. in which he published 34 Articles, or Rules, the greatest part of which are taken out of the Decretals, and concern Ecclesiastical Causes, the Collation, or Lapses of Benefices, the Residence of the Beneficed Clergy, the Obligations of such to take Orders, the Rights of Arch-Deacons, to whom it is forbidden by the 10th. to take any thing for the Examination of such, as are to be promoted to Orders, and grants them by the 11th. 50 or an 100 Sols Tournois [i e. a Crown or Ten Shillings of our English Money] at the Death of every Curate for a Mortuary, concerning the Habits of Clergymen; their manner of Living; the Distributions of Canons; the Habits of Monks, and Canons-Regular; the Immunities of Churches, and Clergymen; the Punishments to be inflicted on those that violate them, etc.  
In the 14th. it is ordained, That no Priest shall celebrate the Mass for the Dead, till Divine Service is ended.  
In the 15th. That a Solemn Mass, De Beata, shall be said every day in Cathedral, Regular, and Collegiate Churches.  
The 22d. enjoins to abstain from Milk and Butter in Lent.  
In the 33d. the Rule of the Council of Chateaugonthier, concerning Private Chapels, is renewed.   

The Council of Lavaur in the Year 1368. 
The Council of Lavaur in 1368.   
THIS Council was called together by the Order of Pope URBAN V by PETRUS JUDEX, Archbishop of Narbonne, and was made up of the Bishops of the Province of Narbonne, Tholouse, and Ausche, and held June 3. 1368. In it was published and approved a very large Collection of Ecclesiastical Canons, divided into 133 Articles.  
The 1st. contains a large Instruction in Doctrine and Morality.  
The 7 following, concern the Order and Ceremonies to be observed in the Celebration of Provincial Councils.  
The rest renew divers Canons of the Councils of Avignon, Ausche, Nogarol, and Marsac, concerning Collations of Benefices, Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, Immunities of the Clergy, the Administration of the Revenues of Vacant Churches, Tithes, Rights of Curates, Administration of Sacraments, Assistance at the Mass of the Parish, Ornaments of Churches, Excommunications, and other Rules, which we have already repeated several times in the former Councils, from whence all the Canons almost of this latter are taken.   

The Council of Narbonne in 1374. 
The Council of Narbonne in 1374.   
THIS same Archbishop of Narbonne called another Council by the Order of GREGORY XI. of the Bishops of his Province, which was held at Narbonne, April 24. 1374. in which he made 28 Canons.  
The 4 first concern the holding of a Provincial Council.  
The 5th. orders, That such Persons, as take on them to Preach without a Mission be apprehended.  
The 6th. That the Sentences of Excommunication, Suspension, or Interdict pronounced by any one of the Bishops of a Province, shall be published in all the other Dioceses.  
The 7th. forbids Bishops to bestow Bailiwicks, Secretaries Places, or other Offices, which depend upon them, for the whole Life of them, whom they promote, without reserving to themselves a Liberty of Revocation.  
The 8th. forbids the seizing of Goods put into the Churches keeping.  
The 9th. obliges the Archbishops and Bishops to give a Complete Sett of Ornaments for their Cathedral Church once in their Life, or an 100 Florins of Gold [i. e. Ten Pound, and Twelve Shillings Sterling.]  
The 10th. appoints, That the same Deuce for the Funeral of a Body shall be Paid to the Curates, when it is carried into another Parish, as if it were Buried there.  
The 11th. and 12th. are against Laymen, who keep the Clergy Prisoners, or hinder the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.  
The 13th. forbids Clergymen to exercise Merchandise.  
The 14th. order's Beneficed Persons and Curates to say Mass at least once a Month.  
The 15th. is against the Blasphemers of Jesus Christ, the Virgin, and the Saints.  
The 16th. is against them, that will not discover such Persons.  
The 17th. renews the Penalties denounced against those, that invade the Goods of the Church.  
The 18th. allows Priests to confess their Sins to such Priests, as they think fit.  
The 19th. grants Pardon to those that accompany the Body of Jesus Christ, when it is carried to the Sick.  
The 20th. and 21st. are against those that attempt any thing against the Jurisdiction of the Church.  
The 22d. is against Clandestine Marriages.  
The 23d. forbids entertaining the Questors, which have not the Letters of their Ordinary, and to suffer them to Preach.  
The 24th. orders, That fit Persons shall be chosen to take an Account of the Receipt of the Ecclesiastical Money received by the Bishop's Treasurer.  
The 25th. forbids the putting the Names of Clergymen upon the Goods of Laymen by Counterfeit Donations, that they may be exempted from Taxes.  
The 26th. forbids Christian Burial to Excommunicate Persons.  
The 27th. grants Pardon to those, who Pray for the Pope, or the Church.  
The Last confirms the Constitutions made by the Predecessors of this Archbishop.   

The Council of Saltzburg in 1386. 
The Council of Saltzburg in 1386.   
PILGRIN, a Bishop of Saltzburg, Legate of the Holy See, held a Council of the Bishops of his Province in January 1386. in which he published 17 Heads.  
In the 1st. 'tis ordered, That Divine Service shall be celebrated in all the Churches of the Diocese according to the same manner, as it is in the Cathedral.  
In the 2d. That the Priests shall not Absolve in Cases reserved to the Bishop, or the Holy See, if they have not a Special Power given them.  
In the 3d. That those that have the Power of Absolving, shall not abuse it by doing it for Money.  
In the 4th. That in doubtful Cases, Confessors shall have recourse to their Superiors.  
The 5th. and 6th. are about the Habits of Clergymen.  
The 7th. orders, That the Ornaments of the Church be kept neat and clean.  
The 8th. forbids the Begging-Friars to Preach, when they are not required by the Curates, and the Curates to employ them without the Permission of their Superiors, and not to admit them to Preach or Confess in the places of their Residence, unless approved by the Bishop of the Diocese.  
The 9th. and 11th. concern the Immunities of the Clergy.  
The 10th. is against those that contemn the Sentences of Excommunication.  
The 12th. is against those that invade the Goods of the Church.  
The 13th. is against Usurers.  
The 14th. forbids to Summon Clergymen before Secular Judges.  
The 15th. to admit unknown Priests to read Divine Service.  
The 16th. That none shall be allowed for Notaries, unless they are approved by the Ordinary, or Official of Places.  
The 17th. obliges Bishops and Arch-Deacons to take a Copy of these Decrees.   

The Council of Palenza in 1388. 
The Council of Palenza in 1388.   
CArdinal PETER de LUNA, being Legate in Spain, published in an Assembly of Prelates and Lords held at Palenza, Octob. 4. 1388. Seven Articles, or Constitutions.  
In the 1st. he order the Bishops to take special Care to correct Clergymen guilty of Crimes.  
In the 2d. he renews the Constitution of Valladolid in 1322. against Clerks, that keep Concubines.  
In the 3d. he orders, That married Clerks should wear the Clerical Crown and Tonsure, if they will enjoy the Privileges of their Priesthood.  
In the 4th. he forbids the alienation of the Church's Goods, and the Establishment of new Commendams.  
The 5th. contains Rules about Jews and Saracens.  
The 6th. obliges them to observe Holidays.  
The 7th. is against Adulterers, and such as keep Concubines publicly.   

COUNCILS held in England, in the Fourteenth Century.  
WE have reserved the Councils of England, to a place by themselves, that we may see the Canons made in that Kingdom, concerning the Discipline of the Church together.  

The Council of London in 1321. 
The Council of London in 1321.   
THE First Council of England, which made Canons about Discipline, was that which was held at London in November 1321 pursuant to an Order of King Edward, by WALTER Archbishop of Canterbury, in which 8 Constitutions were published.  
The 1st. forbids Ecclesiastical Officers to take any thing for Registering of Wills, and sets the Fee to be paid for the Inventories of the Goods of Persons deceased.  
The 2d. regulates the Charges of Archdeacon's in their Visitations, and what shall be paid to them for Procurations.  
The 3d. regulates also the Fees due for Institution to Benefices.  
The 4th. orders those that own for Provisions.  
The 5th. ordains, That Clergymen shall not be retained, nor judged by Laymen, under a pretence of Bigamy.  
The 6th. forbids celebrating Divine Service in Private Chapels.  
The 7th. regulates the time and place of holding the Chapters of Officials and Archdeacon's.  
The 8th. appoints, That the Bishops shall not have above two Apparitors in their Company, one on Horseback and the other on Foot, and Archdeacon's but one.   

The Council at London in 1328. 
The Council of London in 1328.   
SIMON MEPHAM, Archbishop of Canterbury, held a Provincial Council at London in February 1328. in which he ordained.  

1. That no Servile Works should be done on Good-Friday.  
2. That the Feast of the Conception of the Virgin should be solemnly kept, because 'twas the beginning, though at some distance, of our Salvation.  
3. That the Churchmen should be preserved in their Immunities.  
4. That Servants shall not be hindered from giving their Testimony.  
5. That nothing shall be taken for Registering of Wills.  
6. That Appeals may be made before the Definitive Sentence.  
7. That none shall hinder the Payments of Oblations and Tenths.  
8. That Marriages shall not be solemnised without the Publication of the Banns.  
9 That the Buildings of Benefices shall be kept in good Repair.    

The Council of Lambeth held about the Year 1330. 
The Council of Lambeth in 1330.   
THE same Archbishop held a Council at Lambeth about 1330. in which he made 10 Canons.  
The 1st. orders, That the Ornaments of Altars shall be kept clean, and the Linen shall be washed by Persons appointed by the Canons; That Priests shall rehearse the words of the Canon with Attention and Devotion, yet without Affectation; That they shall not say Mass, till they have said the Service for the Third Hour of the Day; That the Clergy, who serve at the Mass, shall be clothed with a Surplice; and that during the Mass, one or two Wax Tapers shall be Burning.  
The 2d. respects the Duty of Priests in Confession; it enjoins them to be well informed, of the Nature, and Circumstances of Sins; to impose Penances proportionable to men's Crimes; to confess Men in Public; not to receive the Parishioners of another Parish.  
The 3d. forbids Priests to celebrate in the State of Mortal Sin; to discover Confessions; and Monks to administer the Sacrament of Penance to Parishioners without the consent of the Curates.  
The 4th. orders, That the Administration of the Sacrament of Supreme Unction to the Sick, shall be from 14 Years old, and that the Holy Oils and Chrism shall be kept under Lock and Key.  
The 5th. That Priests shall not celebrate Marriages, which are Clandestine, or without publishing of Banns.  
The 6th. That none shall be Ordained, but such as are Examined, and that such as are Ordained in Ireland and Scotland, without the Permission of their Bishop shall not be suffered to execute the Offices of their Priesthood.  
The 7th. and 8th. forbidden the Alienation of the Goods of the Church, and letting Benefices out to Farm.  
The 9th. That no Monk or 〈◊〉 shall ●e suffered without the Bishop's Permission.  
The 10th. That Sorcerers, Perjured Persons, Incendiaries, etc. whose Absolution is reserved to the Bishop, shall be Excommunicated three o● four 〈◊〉 a year.   

The Council of Macclesfield in 1332. 
The Council of Macclesfield in 1332.   
THIS Archbishop made also another Order in July 1332. by which he sets down the Number of Feasts, in which Men should abstain from Servile Works.   

The Councils of London in 1341. 1342. and 1343. 
The Councils of London in 1341, etc.   
THESE three Councils were held by JOHN STAFFORD, Archbishop of Canterbury.  
The 1st. in 1341. made an Excellent Constitution against Ambitious Clergymen, who invaded Benefices.  
The 2d. held in Octob. in 1342. renews 1● Canons of the former Councils.  
The 3d. which was in January 1343. contains 17 Articles, of which the greatest part are taken out of the former Councils, and some respect the Habits, and Conversation of the Clergy, or the Temporal Revenues of Benefices.   

The Councils of Lambeth in 13●● and of Macclesfield and Lambeth 
The Councils of Lambeth and Macclesfield in 1551. and in 1362.  in the Year 1362.  
SIMON Archbishop of Canterbury, held these three Councils.  
The 1st. contained but one Canon, which ordains, that Clergymen made Prisoners for their Crimes by Secular Judges, which are put into the hands of Ecclesiastical Persons, shall be shut up again.  
The 2d. appoints, what Feasts shall be Solemnly kept.  
The Last of the Councils taxes the Rewar●… 〈◊〉 Chaplains, and forbids to receive any thing from thence.   

The Council of York in 1367. 
The Council of York in 1367.   
JOHN Archbishop of York, held a Council of his Province in September 1367. in which he published 10 Articles, or Constitutions.  
It is forbidden by the 1st. to hold any Markets, or Plead in Churches, or Churchyards.  
In the 2d. to commit any Disorders in Churches upon the Vigils of Saints, or at the Funerals of the Dead.  
The 3d. orders the Contributions of Chaplains, according to the Constitution of William Zouches, his Predecessor.  
The 4th. forbids Fathers, Mothers, and Nurses to give Children Suck, as they Lie in their Beds, for fear of Stifling them.  
The 5th. orders the Payment of Tithes.  
The 6th. forbids the Alienation of the Church's Goods.  
The 7th. appoints Modest Apparel for Clergymen.  
The 8th. is concerning Matrimonial Cause●.  
The 9th. is against Clandestine Marriages and such as are without Publication of Banns.  
The 10th. orders, That these Canons be published, and observed in the Dioceses of his Province.  
These are all the Councils of England, which have made Decrees concerning Discipline, so far as we know. There were some others about the End of this Age, which made some Definitions of Doctrine, against the Errors of Wickliff, of which we shall speak in the next Age.     

CHAP. VIII.  
Heresies and Errors Published and Condemned in the Fourteenth Century.  
THERE went out in th●s Century of the Order of Grey-Friars, a great Number of Libertine 
The Sect of Frerots, or Fratricelli.  Monks, who under a Pretence of leading a more retired and a more strict Life, shook off the Yoke of Obedience, rebelled against the Church, and fell into extravagant Opinions, they were called Frerots ●isechi Spiritual Friars, or from their Poor Life Begar●s, Beguines; for though there were some difference between them, they had all very near the same Principles, and the same way of Living; insomuch, that they are often confounded, or joined one with the other by the Authors of those times. The Ringleaders of this Sect, were two Vo●aries of the O●●er of the Grey-●riars, Pe●er de Macerata, and Peter de Foro-Sempronio, who obtained from Pope Celestine V a lover of Retirement, leave to live as Hermits, and to Practise the Discipline of St. Francis, in the literal Sense. They had many Followers, and there was form at Apulia, a Sect of Volunteer Monks, Vagabonds, Loiterers, without any Rule, without Superiors, who lived as they listed, and made all their Perfection to consist in a seeming Poverty. Pope Boniface VIII, having Condemned them, ordered the Inquisitors to proceed against them, as Heretics. They retired into Sicily, and began to rail against the Prelates and the Church. About the same 
The Errors of Peter John Olivius.  time, Friar PETER JOHN OLIVA de SERIGNANA, a Grey-Friar of the Province of B●ziers, made his Commentary upon the Revelations, which the revolted Monks found very fit to authorise their Errors; for he therein ●reats the Church of Rome, as Babylon: He there Promises a new Church more perfect than that of Jesus Christ had been to that time: He brags of the Institution of St. Francis, as an Evangelical Rule observed by JESUS CHRIST, and the Apostles: He there foretells the Destruction of the Carnal Church, or Babylon, under the happy Influence of St. Francis. This Book having been brought into Italy by a Grey-Friar, named the Bodicis was received as a Fifth Gospel by the Frerots and the Begards. Some undertook upon the Ground of this Prediction even to choose a Pope of this new Church. They made themselves a peculiar 
The Practices of th● Spiritual Brethren.  General, and Superiors, built ●ew Monasteries, took up a straight and close Habit, continued to rail against the Church of Rome, and to maintain with obstinacy the Errors, which they had drawn out of Peter Oliva; they added thereto, That the Sacraments of the Church were useless, because they which administered them, had no Power of Jurisdiction or Authority. John XXII. Condemned them, as we have observed, in the beginning of his Papacy, cried down the Commentary of Peter Oliva, and ●as at open War with them.  
Many retired into Germany, where they were at quiet under the Protection of Lewis of Bavaria. 
The Begards and Beguine.  They joined themselves there to the Begards and the Beguines. This was an Institution, or a Sect of Men, and Women, who wore a grey Habit, professed to lead a Religious Life, without being shut up in Monasteries, or Subject to Superiors, who believed themselves arrived at the State of Perfection in thi● Life, who railed against Popes, against the Church, and made no account of the Sacraments, ●or the Practice of good Works. Their Errors were Condemned, and their Institution abolished in the Council of Vienna. It is pretended, that they were settled by GERHARD SEGARELLI of ●arma, who after having given all his Estate to these Libertines, 
Cerard Segarelli.  betook himself to Begging, ●nd had mustered up a company of poor People, whom he had taught, that the Kingdom of the Son, who had governed with Wisdom, being at an end, that of the Holy Ghost, which was a Kingdom of Love and Charity, had succeeded it, and that in this latter, all things ought to be in common, even the very Women. DULCINUS of Novaria, the 
Dulcin●s of Nov●ria.  Disciple or Segarelli increased this Sect, and to render it more considerable, he taught, that the Church of Rome, her Prelates, and her Ministers had lost all their Authority, and that she was surpassed by those of his Sect, which was the true and Spiritual Congregation. This Dulcinus having drawn, a great Number after him, was set upon by the Troops, which the Bishop of Verceil had ●aised, taken on Hol●-Thursday in the Year 1308. with a Woman, whom he abused, named Margaret, and conducted to Verceil, where he was burnt? Some of his Disciples were killed, or taken, and the rest dispersed.  
There was moreover in the beginning of this Century, or rather at the close of the preceding, 
Herman de Po●ge●oup  one of Ferrari●, named HER●●AN de PONGELOUP, who was accused to have revived the shameful Doctrine of the Ancient Gnostics, and to have maintained, that it was not permitted to Christians to exercise Magistracy. He died in Peace, but his Heresy having been discovered after his Death, Boniface VIII. ordered him to be dug up, and his Bones to be Burnt. It is said, That the Disciples of both these, made up the Sect of the Begards, and the Beguines; but there is more 
Sega●●● and Beguine●  likelihood that it was form by several Persons, Men and Women, some of which by an ill governed Devotion, others out of a Spirit of Libertinism, were desirous to live after a singular manner, and imitate in show the Poverty of the Friars Mendicants, without being tied to Obedience, or to the observance of any particular Rule. It was impossible, that these ignorant People, and without Conduct, abandoned to their own Will and Genius, should continue long in that state in the Purity of Doctrine, and Manners. The natural Pride of Men inclined them to esteem themselves better than othe●s, and to blame the Prelates; and the Inclination which Men naturally have to Pleasures, drew them on into Disorders. They sh●●k off at length entirely the Yoke of Obedience, fell into strange Extravagancies, and received into their Society all the Malcontents and Revolters from the Church. Insomuch, That this Sect was made up of People of all Nations, and all Opinions, which had nothing common, but the hatred they bore to the Pope, the Prelates and the Church of JESUS CHRIST, and the affectation of a voluntary Poverty, under which they covered an infinite number of Disorders.  
In the beginning of this very Century ARNOLDUS de VILLA NOVA, a Catalonian, Physician to 
Arnold of Villa Nova.  James King of Arragon, an Eloquent Man, broached some Errors at Paris, which were condemned in the Year 1317. by John Longerus of the Order of Friars-Preachers, Inquisitor, and by the Grand Vicar of the Church of Tarragon, during the Vacancy of that See. Eymericus relates 5 Articles of the Errors of this Man. The First was, That the Humane Nature in JESUS CHRIST is in every thing equal to the Divinity. The Second, That the Soul of JESUS CHRIST presently after its Union knew all that the Deity knew. The Third, That the Devil hath perverted all Mankind, and destroyed the Faith. The Fourth, That the Monks corrupt the Doctrine of JESUS CHRIST; that they are without Charity, and shall be damned. The Fifth, That the Study of Philosophy ought to be banished the Schools, and that Divines do very ill in making use of it. The Sixth, That the Revelation made to Cyril is of more value, than the Holy Scriptures. The Seventh, That works of Mercy are more pleasing to God, than the Sacrifice of the Altar. The Eighth, That the Establishment of Benefices, or Masses is useless. The Ninth, That he, who rakes together a great number of Beggars, and that found'st Chapels, or Perpetual Masses incurs Eternal Damnation. The Tenth, That the Priest, which offers up the Sacrifice of the Altar, and he, which causes it to be offered, offer nothing of theirs to God. The Eleventh, That the Passion of JESUS CHRIST is better represented by Alms, than by the Sacrifice of the Altar. The Twelfth, That in the Sacrifice of the Mass, God is not praised in deed, but only in word. The Thirteenth, That in the Decrees of Popes, there is nothing but the Knowledge of the Works of a Man. The Fourteenth, That God has not threatened eternal Damnation to them that Sin, but only to such as give a bad Example. The Fifteenth, That the World shall end in the Year 1335.  
The Sect of the Lollards spread throughout Germany, had for their Leader WALTER LOLLARD, 
The Lollards.  who began to disperse his Errors about the Year 1315. They despised the Sacraments of the Church, and derided her Ceremonies, and her Constitutions, observed not the Fasts of the Church, nor its Abstinences, acknowledged not the Intercession of the Saints, and believed, that the damned in Hell, and the evil Angels should one day be saved. Trithemius, who recites the Errors of these Sectaries, says, that Bohemia and Austria were infected with them; that there were above Twenty four Thousand persons in Germany, which held these Errors, and that the greater part defended them with obstinacy even unto death.  
JOHN VILLANI relates, That one CECCUS of Asculum, ginger to Charles Duke of Calabria, 
Ceccus.  was Condemned to be Burnt in the Year 1327. at Bononia, for maintaining, That there were certain evil Spirits in the Heavens, who might be obliged by virtue of the Constellations to do wonders, and he affirmed, That the influence of the Stars imposed an absolute Necessity upon things, and on the Will; insomuch that JESUS CHRIST had not been Poor, nor suffered a shameful Death, if he had not been Born under a Constellation, which necessarily produced this Effect; and on the contrary, that Antichrist should be rich and powerful, because he should be Born under an opposite Constellation.  
ECKARD, a Germane Divine of the Order of Friars-Preachers. though a Learned Man, nevertheless 
The Errors of Eckard.  delivered Opinions erroneous or dangerous, which were Condemned by John XXII. in the Year 1329. Rainaldus recites a Letter of this Pope, in which he damns Four and twenty Propositions drawn out of the Writings of Eckard, wherein he asserts, That the World was made from all Eternity, that the Glory of God shines equally in all his Works, even in the Evil of Sin and in Blasphemy; that in Prayer we ought to ask of God nothing in particular, not so much as internal Holiness, or the Kingdom of Heaven; that righteous Men are changed into God, as the Bread is changed into the Body of JESUS CHRIST in the Eucharist; that God communicates to them, whatever he communicated to his Son; That a good Man ought so to conform his Will to that of God, that he ought not to wish, he had not committed the Sins, which he hath committed; that God hath commanded no outward Work; that a righteous Man is one with God; that there is no distinction in God; that the Creatures are a mere Nothing; that there is in the Soul something uncreated, and to speak properly, one cannot say, that God is good. John XXII. declares, That some of these Articles are Heretical, and others to be suspected, though one may by Explications and Additions put upon them a Catholic Sense. He spares the Person of Eckard, because he had submitted his Works to the Judgement of the Holy See. It is plain, that this Author fell into the Excesses, to which counterfeit Piety over-strained, ordinarily betrays.  
MARSILIUS of Milan, and JOHN de JANDUNO, or of Gaunt, or according to others, de Laon, in 
Marsilius of Milan.  opposing the false Pretensions of the Pope, over the Temporalties of Kings, fell into the contrary Errors, attributing to Princes too much, and debasing the Authority of the Prelates: what is to be blamed in their Writings is reducible to four Propositions. The First, That JESUS CHRIST paid Tribute by bounden Duty. The Second, That JESUS CHRIST, ascending into Heaven left no visible Head upon Earth, and that St. Peter had no greater Authority, than the other Apostles. The Third, That it belongs to the Emperor to correct, and displace the Popes, and to govern the Church during the Vacancy; that all Bishops, and even Priests are equal, and have the same Authority, according to the Institution of JESUS CHRIST, and that the difference had been made only by Princes. The Fourth, That neither the Pope, nor the whole Church, nor any Prelate had any Coercive Jurisdiction; and has no Power to pronounce Sentence of Interdict, or Excommunication, without the leave of Princes. These Errors were Condemned by Pope John XXII. and the Book of Marsilius, entitled, A Defender of the Peace; being after translated into French, without the name of the Author, Gregory XI. complained of it to the Deputies of the Divinity-Faculty of Paris, who declared by an Authentic Act, that none of their Members had any hand in that Translation; and that Marsilius of Milan, and John of Gaunt, who 'tis believed had traveled that way, were not of the Body of the Faculty.  
In the Year 1347. The Bishop of Paris, and the Faculty of Divinity condemned several Propositions asserted by JOHN MERCOURT, Professor of Divinity in the Convent of the Bernardines, 
The Propositions of John Mercourt condemned by the Faculty.  and among others these, That JESUS CHRIST could avouch a thing that is not true, and desire according to his Humane Will, that which may not come to pass; that God wills effectually what ever he wills; that God makes Man to Sin, and that he wills with a Will of good Pleasure, that Man be a Sinner; that a Man, who falls into an act of Sin, yielding to violent Temptation, which he cannot withstand, does not Sin; that the habit of Sin renders us, as guilty as the act; that God hath Predestinated Men for the sake of their future good Works, and the good use he foresaw they would make of Free Will, and not gratuitously, and by his mere Mercy.  
The Year following, the same Faculty obliged NICOLAS d' UTRICOURT to revoke a great many 
The Recantation of Nicolas d' Utricourt. The Recantatim of Dr. Simon. The Recantation of 〈◊〉 Guy.  Philosophical Opinions, of which some appeared contrary to the Principles of Religion; and others to the common Tenants of School Philosophy.  
In the Year 1351. It compelled a Doctor, called SIMON, to recant the Propositions he affirmed in his Act of Vespers, which derogated from the Dignity of JESUS CHRIST, such as these: This Proposition is possible, JESUS CHRIST is not God, the Son of God began to be, etc.  
In the Year 1354. Friar GUY of the Order of the Hermits of St. Augustine, a Bachelor of Divinity, was moreover forced to recant divers Propositions, which he had taught, chief about the impossibility of losing Charity and concerning Merit, such as these; Charity, which one loses, never was true Charity; a righteous Man performs no Action, that merits eternal Life; a Man may merit eternal Life ex condigno, yet so as God may refuse to give it him without Injustice; that tho' there were no Free Will, there would not fail to be Sin; Merit comes so from God, that Free Will has no share in it; God sometimes necessitates the Will of Men, so that there remains in them no Power to the contrary.  
Another Divine, named LEWIS, in the Year 1362. by order of the Faculty, recanted divers Propositions, 
The Recantation of Lewis.  concerning the Attributes, and this among others, There is something, which is God according to his Real Essence, which is not so according to his Formal Essence, which the Faculty rejected as contrary to the Faith; and this, The Will of God loves one Predestinated more than another; The Wills in God are distinguished, as God is from the first Matter. And this, The Will of God cannot choose but will Sin, etc.  
In the Year 1365. JOHN de CHALEUR explained and revoked some extraordinary Propositions, 
The Retractation of John de Chaleur. The Condemnation of Dionysius Soulechats Errors.  which he delivered in his Act of Vespers.  
In fine, DIONYSIUS SOULECHAT, of the Order of Grey-Friars, Bachelor of Divinity, having taught some Propositions condemned by John XXII. touching Poverty, such as these: The Law of Love takes away all Property, and right of Inheritance; the renouncing of temporal Riches, which is not absolute and actual, but only in the intention of the Mind, is imperfect; JESUS CHRIST taught this total Renunciation by his Example, having kept nothing for himself, etc. they were condemned by the Chancellor of the Church of Paris, and by the Faculty of Divinity in the Year 1364. as Heretical, contrary to the Judgement of the Church, and Scandalous. Soulechat was forbid to teach them any more. Soulechat thereupon appealed to Pope Urban V and going to him, he promised to submit to his Determination, and to Recant his Opinions, if his Holiness judged it meet. But when the time of deciding this Matter came, he withdrew.  
STEPHEN, Bishop of Paris, caused him to be cited, as an Heretic: He returned to Avignon, where he made a large Explanation of the Propositions, he had laid down, and some of them he recanted, in the presence of two Cardinals, the Master of the Holy Palace, Nine Doctors of Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, and recalled his Appeal: but this Recantation not having been Satisfactory, and some observing, that there were beside Propositions as liable to be Condemned as the former, Urban V sent him back to Paris, and by his Bull dated the 20th. of December, in the Year 1368. turned over the Judgement of this Affair to John Cardinal Bishop of Beauvais, unto whom he gave order to decide it, calling to him the Chancellor, and the Doctors in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, and to oblige Soulechat to recant his Errors; the which he did the following Year, in the Church of the Jacobines, on Low-Sunday, renouncing moreover the Propositions contained in his first Recantation. Peter d' Ailly, in the Treatise he wrote in the Name of the University of Paris against Mount●son, draws from this Matter of Soulechat, the following Conclusions. 1. That the Doctors of Divinity of the Faculty of Paris are obliged in Point of Duty, to take cognisance doctrinally, of what concerns the Faith, as it is proved by these words of Urban V Doing herein, that which is their Duty, Suum in hac parte debitum exequentes. 2. That they have Power, not only to give their Opinion in Doctrinal Points, but further to punish the Members of their Body, who lay down Conclusions contrary to the Faith, in depriving them of the Privilege of Professing, and forcing them by their Sentence to recant. 3. That they have this Power, not only in regard of Propositions apparently Heretical, or clearly contrary to the Determination of the Church, but also in respect of those, that are scandalous. 4. That an Appeal to the Holy See, by such a one as will not recant his Errors and obey the order of the Doctors in Divinity, excuses not his obstinacy. 5. That in the Case of Mounteson, which was altogether Parallel, the Faculty ought not to be hindered from proceeding to a Debate, and to further a Judgement; and in fine, that John Mounteson ought to be sent back to be Punished at Paris, as Soulechat was by Urban V We refer the speaking of the business of Mounteson to another Century. One may read in the Bibliotheca Patrum the Censures and Recantations, of which we have been treating.  
In Germany one BERTOLUS de ROREARCH at Wortsburgh delivered Errors, which he was compelled 
Errors of Bertolus de Rorbarch.  to renounce; but proceeding to teach them at Spire, he was condemned, as a Person relapsed, and delivered up to the Secular Power, which Sentenced him to be burnt in the Year 1359. He had taught, 1. That JESUS Christ was forsaken upon the Cross; that he had doubted of the Salvation of his Soul, cursed the Virgin, that bore him, and the Earth, that received his Blood. 2. That a Man in this life might attain to so great a degree of Perfection, that he had no need of Fasting, nor Prayers. 3. That a Layman might be so enlightened, and have such perfect Illuminations, that he ought to be believed, before the Gospel, or the holy Doctors. 4. That a righteous Man might get as much Grace, by eating common Bread, as by receiving the Eucharist. These last Errors make it plain, that he was of the Sect of the Begards.  
We ought rather to place in the rank of fanatics, than Heretics, one MARTIN GONSALVUS, a 
The Mad Opinion of Martin Gonsalvus.  Native of Cuenza, in Spain, condemned by the Archbishop of Toledo, who would have us believe, that he was the Angel St. Michael, for whom God had reserved the place of Lucifer, and was one day to encounter Antichrist. The Fire which consumed him made it appear to him, that he was no Angel, but a Man, like others.  
Nevertheless there was found one of Calabria named NICOLAS, yet a greater Fool than he, who 
Other Follies of Nicolas the Portuguese.  had a Mind to make himself pass after his death, for the Son of God, preached, that the Holy Ghost must one day be Incarnate, and that at the Day of Judgement Gonsalvus should deliver all the Damned by his Prayers. This poor Wretch having preached up these Whimsies at Barcelona, was condemned by Eymericus, and by the Grand Vicar of the Bishop, and delivered up to the Secular Power, which ordered him to be Burnt.  
Behold another kind of Folly: JANOVEZ of Majorca made a Book, in which he undertook to 
The Visions of Janovez.  foretell that Antichrist should come at Whitsuntide, in the Year 1360. That the Sacraments of the Church, and the unbloody Sacrifice should then cease; that the Christians, who should have on them the Mark of Antichrist, should never be converted; but that Children, Jews, Saracens, and Infidels, should be converted after the Death of Antichrist.  
The Opinion of JOHN de LATONA, and d'Bonaget●, of the Order of Grey-Friars, is not so extravagant; 
The Opinion of John de Latona about the Sacrament.  they erred by paying too much respect to the Sacrament, in preaching, that if a consecrated Host fell into a dirty place, the Body of JESUS CHRIST would re-ascend to Heaven, though the Elements remained, and the Substance of Bread returned; that the same would happen, if the Host were eaten by Rats or other Beasts, and that the Body of JESUS CHRIST returned to Heaven, while we were eating the Host, and descended not into the Stomach. We have Divines of the Ninth and Eleventh Centuries, who were of the like Sentiments. This Doctrine was also current in this Century in the Provinces of Saragoza, and Tarragona; but Pope Gregory XI. having caused it to be enquired into by two Cardinals, they ordered the Archbishops of these two Cities to forbid the Preaching of these Propositions, on Pain of Excommunication.  
The same Year ARNOLDUS de MONTANIER, of the Order of Grey-Friars, a Native of Puicerda 
The Errors of Arnold de Montanier.  in Catalonia, who had already been informed against to Nicolas Roselli, Inquisitor of the Faith, continuing to publish his Errors, was condemned by Eymericus, and by Berengarius, Bishop of Urgel, and Arrested by order of Gregory XI. He taught, according to the report of Eymericus, that JESUS CHRIST and the Apostles had nothing in peculiar, nor yet in common; that none of those, that wear the Habit of St. Francis shall be Damned; that St. Francis every Year went down to Purgatory, and took thence them of his Order, to conduct them to Paradise; and in fine, that the Order of St. Francis must last to Eternity: This is a Chain of the Errors of the Spiritual Brethren condemned by John XXII.  
The TURLUPINES who swarmed about the close of this Century in Provence and Dauphine, were 
The Turlupines.  so called for their infamous Practices; for besides the Errors of the Begards, they held, That we ought not to be ashamed of the Parts, which Nature has given us; they went all naked, and did, in the presence of all People, actions, which Modesty teaches us to conceal: Divers of them were Burnt at Paris, and other places; and Gregory XI. exhorted Amadeus, Duke of Savoy, to lend a helping hand to the Inquisitors to extirpate them.  
In England SIMON LANGHAM, Archbishop of Canterbury, gave Judgement at Lambeth in the 
Errors condemned by Simon Langham.  Year 1368. by the Advice of many Divines, against Thirty erroneous Propositions, taught in his Province, which for the most part are resolved into this Principle, That all Men, even Infidels, and Children dying without Baptism, have a Vision of God before their Death, and if they are willing then to be converted to God, they shall be saved; that thus Baptism is not necessary to Salvation; that none are damned for Original Sin alone, and that no Person shall be damned, even for any Actual Sin, if he refuses not to be converted, having had the Vision of God; the which is a Sin not to be forgiven, for the atonement whereof, even the Suffering of JESUS CHRIST is in-sufficient. There are also some erroneous Propositions concerning other Matters, such as these, That the Father, and the Son are finite, and that only the Holy Ghost is Infinite; that JESUS CHRIST, the Virgin, and all the Saints are yet Mortal; that the Virgin, and the Saints may yet Sin, and be damned: and that all the Devils may be saved.  
Although Wickliff appeared, and taught these Errors in this Century, we put off the treating of them to the following Age; to the end we may at once give an History of them, and their Condemnation.   

CHAP. IX.  
Ecclesiastical Observations on the Fourteenth Century.  
WE will not dwell upon Scholastical Questions discussed by the Divines of this Age. It would 
The Question of the Ecclesiastical Po●er over Matters Temporal.  be an intolerable Task only to repeat all their Disputes. We will only make some Observations upon the Questions of Consequence, which have made a noise in the Church. One of the Chief is that of the Power of the Pope, and the Church over the Temporalties of Kings. The Pope's pretended to make a new Doctrine of it; but in coveting too much, they lost, what they had Usurped. Till then, no Man had any Thoughts to examine their Right, and they seemed thereupon to be put in possession. The haughtiness, wherewith they had a Mind to practise it over Philip the Fair, and over Lewis of Bavaria, made it plain, of what consequence it was, and induced Princes to search into the Matter. Thence they discovered the weakness of their Pretence, and opposed it; they recovered out of their Error, the Sovereignty of Princes was confirmed, as to Temporals, and the bounds of both Powers fixed. They began to dispute with the Clergy the Right, of which they were possessed, to exercise Temporal Jurisdiction, and to take cognisance of many Civil Causes under colour of Excommunication, an Oath, and Sin. They had a Mind likewise to invade the Privileges of the Clergy, and the Revenues of the Church. But they defended themselves stoutly, and maintained their Jurisdiction and Immunities, by a great number of Canons and Regulations, wherein they used all the ways imaginable to maintain themselves in their Privileges; nevertheless they owned some Abuses of their Jurisdiction, and applied Remedies thereto; but notwithstanding all this, they lost by degrees part of their Temporal Jurisdiction.  
The Residence of the Popes, and the Court of Rome at Avignon, whatever may be suggested, did 
The Effects of the residence of Popes at Avignon.  not lessen the Power of the Holy See. The French Kings made no sinister use thereof to obtain favours of the Popes, which might prove prejudicial to their Authority. But as Monsieur Baluzius observes, after Nicolas Clemangis, the Italians brought into France the Debaucheries and Luxury of their Country Vices, from which till then it had been wholly free. The Court of Rome likewise introduced a way of litigious wrangling at Law. The Popes levied the Tenths on the Clergy, or else permitted the Kings to do it, on divers Pretences. The Schism, which followed, involved the Church in Troubles, overthrew the Method observed in Elections, and Collations of Benefices, filled the Churches with mercenary Pastors, obliged the Competitors to do many mean things with the Princes to be upheld, to sell Benefices, or bestow them on their Creatures, and exorbitantly to levy the Tenths on the Clergy. It is hard to determine, which of the two Adversaries had the right on his Side; nay, it was never judged meet, in order to the removing of the Schism, to search into the right, it was round so very obscure; and when the Councils of Pisa and Constance engaged in the Controversy, they entered not upon this Question, and offered not Prejudicated Opinion against the right of either; but they condemned and deposed them, because they would not renounce the Papacy, as they had engaged, and, as the case of the Peace required. The Schism has no way diminished the certain Authority▪ which the Supreme Bishops have received from JESUS CHRIST; but it has showed, that they have a Superior Judge on Earth; which is a General Council.  
BONIFACE IX. was the first, that settled First-fruits to be Paid by Bishoprics and Abbeys (that 
Settlement of Annates, or First fruits.  is to say, the reserve of One Year's Revenue) whereof John XXII. had already given an Example, in putting a like Imposition on Benefices for an Expedition into the Holy Land, and by settling first of all the Taxes for the Secretaries, that dispatched Grants of Benefices, in Proportion to the Revenue.  
BONIFACE VIII. appointed a Jubilee for all such, as should visit the Churches of St. Peter and 
The Institution of the Jubilee. The Question of Poverty. The Question about the State of the ●ouls of the Just af●… Death.  St. Paul, in the Year 1300. and so for every Hundred Year. Clement V ordered the same every Fiftieth Year, upon the Petition of the Romans.  
JOHN XXII. had a great Dispute, as we have said, with the Grey-Friars, about the Propriety of those things, which they consumed in the using. This Question drew on that concerning the Poverty of JESUS CHRIST. There are great Volumes made on both sides upon this Subject.  
The Opinion of this Pope touching the state of Souls after Death, made a great noise; but this Question was soon decided by Benedict XII. his Successor, who determined clearly, that the Souls of the Just, who die Purged from their Sins, enjoy the intuitive Vision of God, wherein he makes the chief Happiness immediately after their Death, or after they have been purified in Purgatory, before the Day of Judgement, to consist.  
Provincial Councils, and particular Synods of Bishops were frequent in this Century. All the Bishops were boun● to Appear there, at the Command of the Metropolitan, or to send Proxies, and a lawful Excuse. The Abbots, and the Deputies of the Chapters of Cathedrals were likewise 
The Discipline of the Church, about Benefices and Incumbents.  sent for thither. The Rules and Decrees which were made in the Provincial Councils were published, and put in execution by the Bishops in their respective Dioceses: The Elections were yet Legal, and according to Custom for the Bishoprics and Abbeys. The Ordinaries for the most part provided for other Benefices. There was of these a great number in Patronage; but such as were presented by Patrons, were forbidden to take Possession, till they were instituted by the Bishop, or his Archdeacon; but as for those, who were provided with Benefices with charge of Souls, by the Donors, who had right both to confer and institute, they were enjoined to present themselves to the Bishop of the place in due time. The Commendams of Abbeys became very frequent; Clement V. who gave several of them, saw good cause to repent it, his Successors continued them; and notwithstanding the Revocation of Benedict XII. the most part of the Abbeys began to be given in Commendam. Clement iv reserved to himself the bestowing of all Benefices vacant in Curiâ. Gregory X. restrained it to a Month. John XII. in prohibiting the Plurality of Benefices, decreed, That those, who had Money, should be obliged to resign, and herein appropriated to himself the Donation. Benedict XII. reserved to himself for his life only, all the Benefices vacant in Curi●, and all such as were void by the translation of Incumbents, to other Benefices. Clement VI made the like Reservations; but Edward III. King of England, prevented the Execution of it in his Kingdom. Innocent VI revoked the Reserves by his Bull Pastoralis; but they presently returned to the old wont. Gregory XI. recalled them afresh; but during the Schism, which came on, the two Antagonists made use of all Methods to render themselves Masters of the Benefices, and the Mischief became so great, that the Princes were obliged to seek a Remedy. After the Death of the Incumbents there were nominated Administrators to manage the Profits of the Benefices; but the right of the Crown took place in most part of the Bishoprics, and consequently the King, or such as of Custom, or Right, had the Administration of the vacant Bishoprics, presented to the Benefices thereon depending. In some places a Prebendary, when he came to die, might dispose of a Year's Revenue of his Benefice, after his Death.  
The Plurality of Benefices was very common, in spite of the reiterated Prohibitions; they were herein so remiss, that Licence was given even to the same Person to enjoy two Benefices, provided they were not inconsistent, and that only one of them be with cure of Souls. Residence likewise was recommended, and such as were provided of Benefices, were obliged to take the Orders thereunto requisite. Command was given to pay the Tithe of all kind of Fruits: from this the Immunity of the Clergy, and the Revenues of the Church were exempted, and many Decrees were made against them, that should attempt them; this Immunity was extended to the Leprous, who were shut up in the Hospitals. Never were Excommunications and Interdicts more frequently made use of, and all other Ecclesiastical Censures, than in this Age. The denial of Christian Burial was an ordinary Punishment, and the Councils condemned Men to Pecuniary Mulcts for faults purely Ecclesiastical. The Excommunicate were not only deprived of Church Communion, but also of civil converse, and such as kept them Company, were excommunicated. Nevertheless, it was Prohibited to make use of Excommunications for Matters merely Pecuniary, and to use violence against the Excommunicate.  
The greatest care of the Prelates in the Councils was to regulate the Conversation and Morals 
Divers Regulations made of Manners of the Clergy, and of the Practices of the Church.  of the Clergy; they made many Rules in reference to their Habits, and their Shaving. As to their Knowledge, they required not that it should be of any large Extent; they contented themselves, if the Unbeneficed Clergy were lettered, that is to say, if they could Read and Writ, and understood the Rudiments of Grammar; and as to the Priests, and such as had Benefices with cure of Souls, they desired they should be instructed in the Articles of our Faith, and the Ceremonies of the Church. They forbidden the receiving any Priests or Clerks, who were Strangers and Unknown, or to permit them to exercise the Functions of their Order. They enjoined the Priests to say Mass at least once a Month. They made divers Constitutions touching the Service of the Church, Reparations, and the Maintenance of the Churches, and the Ornaments. The distributions made to the Canons, that assisted at Divine Service, of which the absent had no share, were settled almost in all places. The Church wardens and the Clerks, or Masters of Schools in Parishes saw themselves confirmed in this Century. Many Laws were made for the Preservation of the Goods of the Church, to prevent Alienation, and to oblige the Clergy to use them carefully. They were forbid to bequeath, or dispose of the Church's Goods, which they had got together. It was ordained, that the Fonts for Baptism should be enclosed; that the Host and the Holy Chrism, and the consecrated Oils, shall be kept under Lock and Key. They revived all the Constitutions, which enjoined all the Faithful to assist at the Mass of the Parish every Sunday. They granted Indulgences to them, that would accompany the Holy Sacrament, when it was carried to the Sick, to such as should pray for the Pope, the King and the welfare of the State, to those, who should bow their Heads at the Name of JESUS, who should assist at the Mass de Beat, etc. John XXII. granted them, to such as should repeat the Salutation of the Angel in the Evening, and this practice was approved in several Councils. They made many Decrees against them that eat Flesh in Lent, or on Fasting Days. As to the Abstinence on Saturdays, they made a Law for the Clergy; but it was not yet binding to the Laity.  
The Number of Mendicant-Friars continued very much to increase in this Century; but they 
Observations on a Monastic Life.  degenerated from their ancient Simplicity, and their former strictness. Many forlook their Order, and turned Seculars, or went over to other Orders, that they might be capable of Benefices, Pensions and Offices. The number of those that did it, became so great, that they were forced to debar them, who deserted the Order of the Mendicants from the holding of Benefices, or receiving Pensions, and having Offices in other Orders. They were also made uncapable to give, or receive any Vote. The Monks were forbid to admit any Persons to Profess before the Age of Fifteen, to suffer them to make Profession, or detain them, before they had passed a Year of Probation, nor to delay their Admission after the Year is expired. It was forbid to exact any thing for entrance into a Monastic Life. The keeping of the Nuns within their Cloister was ordered under the most severe Penalties. In fine, divers Canons were made for reforming the ancient Monks, who began to live loosely: and to oblige them more strictly to observe the Discipline of their respective Orders, they were enjoined to hold frequent Chapters.  
Clement the Vth. in the Council of Vienne, renewed the Decretal of Boniface touching the Preaching, 
Regulation between the Curates and the Religious Mendicants about Preaching and Administering the Sacraments.  and Confessions of the Friars Mendicants, whereby they are permitted to Preach in their Churches, and in the Schools, or Public places, and not in the Parishes, if they are not desired by the Curates, at least if the Bishops give them not express order. As to Confessions it is said, That their Provincials or Superiors shall present some of their Monks to the Bishop for his Approbation; that leave is given to the Bishop to reject some, but he may not absolutely refuse to grant the Monk's licence to Confess; and if he does, they may hear Confession, by virtue of the Power given them by the Holy See; but they are wholly forbidden to Administer the Sacraments of the Eucharist, or Extreme Unction, or to marry any without the leave o● the Curate.  
Notwithstanding this Decision, there were Divines, who asserted, That such, as confessed their Sins to the Monks, which had a general leave to take Confessions, were obliged to Confess a new to the Curate; that the Pope could not dispense with the Parishioners confessing once a Year to their Curates, nor give a general Power unto the Monks to confess. John de Apulia, a Divine of Paris, was cited by the Pope, John XXII. for maintaining these Propositions, and constrained to recant them; and consequently this Pope condemned them by his Unlimited Power, in the Year 1321.  
After this, Richard Archbishop of Armagh, undertook, as we have already noted, to defend the Rights of the Curates, against the Friar's Mendicants, and the matter was brought before the Tribunal of Innocent VI where it was argued in the Year 1357. and there it hung; but he appointed, till further order, that the Mendicants should be let alone in the Possession they were in, of Confessing, Preaching and Burying, yet without Prejudice to the main Question.  
Nevertheless, there were divers Councils held in this Century, which revived the Canon, Omnis utriusque Sexus, and explained it, as meant of the Curate; and likewise some, which forbidden the Curates to suffer their Parishioners to go to Confession out of their own Parish. Yet, excepting the Priests, to whom they gave leave, to confess themselves to such other Priests, as they should make choice of. As to Burials, they permitted the Monks to bury those, that desired to be interred in their Covents; but on condition that the Corpse should be carried to the Parish according to the Custom, and the Duties Paid to the Parish Churches. It was forbid likewise to build Chapels without leave of the Bishop, and that they submit them to the Odinaries, as to what concerned the outward Service. Notwithstanding the Prohibition of the Lateran Council, they settled in this Age some new Congregations, but they pitched on, to satisfy the Orders of the Council, one of the approved Rules, and ordinarily chose that of St. Augustin, which was the most General; whereto they joined particular Constitutions.  
GERHARD the Great, of Deventer, instituted in that City a Congregation of Canons Regular, 
Congregations settled in this Century.  which he styled Brethren of the Common Life, because they brought all they possessed to the Community, without Power to draw it back, in case they had a Mind to quit it; they employed themselves in writing Works, and instructing the Youth in the Principles of Religion. The jesuits were settled at Sienna by John Columbanus, and were so called, for that they often had the Name of JESUS in their Mouths, and lived according to the Rule of St. Augustin. Urban V approved of their Congregation in the Year 1367. St. Bridget instituted about the Year 1360. the Order of St. SAVIOUR under the same Discipline of St. Augustin, which was confirmed by the same Pope. The Order of Hieronymites was founded in Castille, by Peter Guadastinaria; Gregory XI. ratified their Constitutions, and ordered them to follow the Rule of St. Augustin. He gave the same Rule to the Order of St. Ambrose, which he approved. There were also divers Military Orders instituted in this Age, as the Order of CHRIST established in Portugal under the Papacy of John XXII. That of Alcantara in Castille, which depends on the preceding Age, not to mention the Knights of the Fleece set up by the King of France; and the Knights of the Garter, by Edward III. King of England, which were very different from the Military Orders.   

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY Of the Fourteenth AGE of the CHURCH.  
Years of Christ Popes. Emperors and Kings of the West. Emperors of the East. Ecclesiastical Affairs. Councils. Ecclesiastical Authors. 1300 Boniface VIII. the sixth year of his Papacy, ending Dec. 24. 
Albert of Austria Emperor of the West, the third year of his Reign.  
III. Philip the Fair King of France, the 16th year of his Reign.  
Ferdinand King of Castille from 1295.  
James II. King of Arrag●● from 1291.  
Dionysius King of Portugal from 1279.  
Edward I. King of England from 1272.  
Andronicus Senior, the 17th year of his Reign.  
XVII. Ottoman the first Emperor of the Turks, whose Reign is counted from 1297.  
The Publication and Opening of the Jubilee.  
Boniface appeared at Rome in his Pontifical Habits with this Inscription, Ecce duo gladii, i. e. Lo! here are two Swords. He published a Crusado, and sent Bernard de Saisset Bish. of Pamiez into France, who was there Arrested.  
The Council of Melun held in January.  
The Synod of Colon, under the Archbish. Wichboldus.  
The Synod of Bayeux.  
The Council of Auch.  
Dinus de Mugello.  
Engelbert Abbot of Admont.  
Jacobus Caietanus, Cardinal.  
Henry de Garret is made Bishop of Lucca.  
Steven de Salagnac.  
Andrea's Novocastrensis.  
Ramerius de Pisâ flourished.  1301 VII. iv XVIII. 
The Bishop of Pamiez set at Liberty. Decemb. 4. Boniface suspended the Graces, and Privileges, granted the Kings of France, and hindered the Levy of a Subsidy upon the Clergy.  
He declares himself Supreme in things Spiritual and Temporal.  The Council of Compeigne held in November. 
William de Nangis finished his Chronicle.  
Jacobus de Benedictis.  
Justus à Cisterts, an Abbot.  
Joannes Duns Scotus.  
Richard of Sienna.  
Peter de Dacia flourished.  1302 VIII. V XIX. 
A Petition presented to K. Philip the Fair against Boniface VIII. by Will. Nogaret March 12.  
An Assembly of the States of France against the Pretensions of Boniface Apr. 10.  
The Writings and Proceed on both sides upon that Subject.  
The Publication of the Bull, Unam Sanctam, Nou. 16.  
An Assembly at Paris, April 10.  
The Council of Pennafiel, May 13.  
Joannes Monachus; Cardinal, founded a College bearing his Name at Paris.  
Petrus de Boseo. A nameless Author of the Treatise against the Authority of the Pope flourished.  1303 
IX. The Death of Boniface, Octob. 12.  
Benedict XI. chosen the second of the same Month.  VI XX. 
The Appeal of the K. of France to the next Council.  
The Proceed against Boniface.  
He is Arrested at Agnonia, Sept. 8. illuded by Sciarra Colonna, and dies sometime after his deliverance.  
An Assembly at Paris, June 13.  
The Council of Nogarol held in December.  
Ptolemaeus Lucensis, finishes his Ecclesiastical History.  
The Death of Dinus de Mugello.  1304 I. The Death of Benedict, July 8. The Holy See remained vacant till the next year. VII. XXI. 
Pope Benedict revokes his Bulls published against France.  
Joannes Parisiensis broaches an erroneous Opinion concerning the Eucharist. It was condemned by the Bishop of Paris, who silenced that Monk.  The Council of Compeigne held the Friday after the Feast of Circumcision. 
Joannes Parisiensis a Dominican, is made Licentiate of Divinity at Paris, and a little after composes his Treatise of the Eucharist.  
Aegidius Romanus wrote his Question about the Ecclesiastical and Temporal Powers.  
Alvarus Pelagius enters into the Order of Grey-Friars.  
Thomas Wiche finishes his Chronicles of England.  1305 I. Clement V is chosen Pope June 5. He is crowned at Lions, Nou. 11. and resides in France. VIII. XXII. 
Pope Clement revokes the Bulls of Boniface against France, particularly, Unam Sanctam.  
The Templars are threatened, and K. Philip the Fair undertakes to proceed against them.   
Henry Stero finishes his History of the Emperors of Germany.  
Everardus finishes his Continuation of the Annals of Stero.  
Vitalis de Turno wrote his Moral Mirror upon Scripture.  
Joannes de Janduno.  
Thomas Joyce is made a Cardinal.  
Philip a Cystertian Abbot is made Bishop of Aichstat.  
Bernardus Guidonis is appointed Inquisitor against the Albigenses.  1306 II. IX. XXIII. The Pope promises by his Bull, Aug. 23. to inform against the Templars.  
The Death of Joannes Parisiensis, the Dominican, Sept. 22.  
The Death of Jacobus de Benedictis, Sept. 25.  1307 III. X. XXIV. 
The Templars are arrested through all France, October 5.  
Informations brought against them at Pa●is, by Gulielmus Parisiensis, and in other places by others.   
Sustridus, a Priest of Misnia finishes his Chronicle.  
Also, a Premonstratensis finishes his History of his Voyage into the Holy Land.  
Nicholas Trivet finishes his Chron.  1308 IU. 
The Emperor Albertus is slain by one of his Nephews, May 10.  
Henry of Luxenburgh succeeds him, Nou. 1.  
The Death of Edward I. K. of England, to whom Edward II. succeeds.  XXV. 
The Pope calls the Cause of the Templars to the Holy See.  
The Judgement of the Divines of Paris about the Templars.  
The Pope questions the Templars, who are put into his power, and giveth leave to the Inquisitors and Bishops to draw up a Process.  
He appoints Commissioners to proceed against their Order.  
Dulcinus the Heretic, who had drawn many Persons after him is arrested near Verceil, is carried & burnt in that City, & his followers dispersed.  The Council of Auch held Novemb. 26. 
Gulielmus Parisiensis a Dominican.  
Joannes de S. Geminiano flourished.  
The Death of Joannes Duns Scotus, Novemb. 8.  1309 V. I. Robert the Son of Charles II. was King of Naples, and powerful in Italy. XXVI. The Pope's Commissioners form a Process against the Templars. The Council of Presburg in Hungary held Nou. 10. Beringarius de Fredol, was made Cardinal and Bishop of Frescati, and his Nephew succeeds him in the Bishopric of Beziers. 1310 VI. II. XXVII. 
The Templars are condemned in a Provincial Council at Paris, and several put to Death in May.  
Informations through all Christendom against the Templars.  
The Pope causes the Errors of John Oliva to be examined by Vitalis de Furno, a Grey-friar  
The Council of Saltzburg.  
The Council of Colen.  
The Council of Paris begun in May.  
The Council of Ravenna.  
The Council of Salamanca, July ult.  
A Synod at London.  
A Council at Mentz.  
Jacobus de Viterbo.  
Alexander de Alexandria.  
Joannes de Friburg, Bishop of Osnia.  
Malachas a Grey Friar flourished.  
Gulielmus Durandus Bishop of Menda, composed his Treatise of the manner of celebrating a General Council.  
Ubertinus de Cassalis wrote that year in favour of Petrus Oliva.  
The Death of Thom. Joyce Cardinal.  
The Death of Joannes de Janduno about this year.  1311 VII. III. XXVIII. A solemn Revocation of all that Boniface had done against France by the Bull of Apr. 27. 
The Council of Ravenna, held June 21.  
The General Council of Vienna, which was opened, Octob. 16.  
William de Mandagot is made Cardinal.  
Raimundus Lullus composed his Treatise, entitled, The Fantastic Jacobus de Termes wrote his Treatise of the Exemptions and Privileges of Monks.  1312 VIII. 
iv The Emperor Henry VII. went into Italy, and was Crowned at Rome.  
Ferdinand of Castille died, & his Son Alphonsus XI. succeeded him.  XXIX. 
The Dissolution of the Order of Templars is resolved upon in the Council of Vienna & published May 22.  
The Errors of the Begardi & Beguinae were condemned in the same Council.   
Vitalis de Furno is made a Cardinal.  
Alexander de S. Elpidie is made General of the Augustine Monks.  
Bernardus Guidonis is made Procurator General of the Friar's Preachers.  
Nichephorus Calvistus.  
Eckard a Dominican.  
Guido Bishop of Ferrara.  
Petrus Saxo.  
Gerhardus de Bononia flourished.  1313 IX. V The Emperor Henry died in Italy Aug. 24. and there was an interregnum 4 Months. XXX. The Great Master of the Order of the Templars, and the Dauphin's Brother were executed at Paris, March 11.  
Raimundus Lullus wrote his Treatise of Substance and Accident.  
Bernardus Guidonis finished his History of the Monks of Grand-mont.  
The Death of Cardinal Monachus.  1314 
The Death of Clement V May 17. and a contest between the Italian and French Cardinais about electing a Pope.  
The Dispersion of the Cardinals, and a Vacancy of the Holy See 2 years 3 months and 17 days.  
The Electors of the Empire are divided, one part chose Lewis of Bavaria, and the other Frederick the Son of Albert of Austria which caused a War in Germany.  
I. Philip the Fair King of France dies, Nou. 19 and Lewis X. surnamed Hutin succeeded him.  XXXI.  
A Council at Paris held on Tuesday before the Translation of S. Nicholas.  
The Council of Ravenna held Octob. 10.  
The Death of Joannes de Friburg.  
William le Meure Bishop of Angers finished his Collection of Synodal Statutes and died.  
Petrus de Palude a Licentiate of Divinity in the University of Paris.  1315  II. XXXII. Walter Lollard began to teach his Errors. The Council of Saumur held at Michaelmas. The Council of Nogarol. 
Victor Porchet dè Salvaticis composed about this year his treat. again the Jews.  
Antonius Andreae.  
Hugh de Prato.  
Joannes de Neapolis.  
The Death of Raimundus Lullus, June 29.  1316 Philip Earl of Poitiers assembled the Cardinals at Lions, & there chose John 22. Aug 6. who was crowned in that City, Sept. 5. and went to reside at Avignon. III. Lewis Hutin King of France died, June 5. leaving his Queen Clement with Child, who brought forth a Son, Nou. 15. He died 8 days after Philip the Long the Brother of Lewis was declared King and Crowned at Rheims Jan. 6. the next Year. XXXIII.  The Council of Senlis held May 15. 
Michael de Cesena was chosen General of the Grey Friars.  
Oderick de Port-naon finished his Chronicle.  
Martin, a Dominican.  
Sibert Becanus.  
Petrus de Perpignan.  
Herenus de Boys flourished.  
The Death of Aegidius Romanus, December 22.  1317 II. IV XXXIV. 
A Process made by the Pope against Hugo Giraldns Bishop of Cahors.  
An Erection of Archbishoprics and Bishoprics in France.  
A Publication of the Clementines by John 22.  
The Grey Friars called Spirituals are cited by John 22, who condemned the Pretensions by his Bull Quorundam.  
Proceed against the Monks, who disobeyed that Bull, of whom 4 were Burnt at Marseilles.  
Arnaldus de Villa nova vented some Errors at Paris, which were condemned.  
The Council of Senlis, Mar. 27.  
The Council of Ravenna held Octob. 27.  The Death of Gerhardus de Bononia, which hindered his finishing his sum of Divinity. 1318 III. V XXXV.   
Durandus à S. Porciano nominated by the Pope Bishop of Puy, or Annecy.  
Harvaeus Natalis is made XIV General of the Grey Friars.  
Guy Terrena de Perpignan, a Carmelite, made also General of his Order.  1319 IU. VI XXXVI. 
The Process and Condemnation of Bernard Delitiosi a Grey Friar.  
The Establishment of the Order of Christ in Portugal, to which the Revenues of the Templats in that Kingdom were applied.   
Bertrandus de Turre is made Bishop of Salerno, and the next year a Cardinal.  
Robert a Dominican flourished.  1320 V. VII. XXXVII.  The Council of Sens held the Thursday after Whitsuntide. 
Augustine Triumphus.  
Albert of Milan.  
Joannes Bassolis.  
Jacobus de Lausanna.  
Peter Auvergne Canon of Paris wrote about this Year.  
Card. Vitalis è Furno obtained the Title of B. of Albania.  
Petrus Bertrandus is made Chancellor of Joan Queen of France, and a little after Bishop of Nevers.  1321 VI. VIII. XXXVIII. Ubertinus de Cassalis is accused to the Pope who appointed the Cardinal of S. Sabina to examine his Writings. The Council of London in November. 
Petrus Aureolus is made Archb. of Aix. Ptolomaeus Lucensis is made Bishop of Torcello. Guy Terrena is chosen Bishop of Majorca and after translated to the Bishopric of Elne.  
John d' Alier is chosen XIII. General of the Carmelites.  
Marinus Sanutus presents to the Pope his Treatise of the Secrets of the Faithful of the Cross.  
The Death of William Mandagot in November.  1322 VII. IX. The Death of Philip the Long, to whom succeeded Charles the Fair his Brother. XXXIX. 
The Decretals of John XXII. Ad Conditorem, & cum inter nonnullos, concerning the Property of things spent by the Greyfriars.  
The Pope obliges Cardinal de Furno to recant his Opinion, contrary to his Holiness' concerning the Poverty of J. Christ.  
Ubertinus de Cassalis being questioned by John the XXII. concerning the Poverty of J. Christ, answers in Writing, which is approved by the Pope in Consistory.  
Michael Caesenas General of the Greyfriars, causes the Opinion of John XXII. concerning the Poverty of J. Christ to be condemned in a General Chapter of his Order at Paris.  
The Council of Valadolid in the end of August.  
The Council of Colen, Octob. 31.  
Johannes Parisiensis, a Canon Regular finishes his Memoirs of History.  
Bernard Guidonis ends his Mirror of the Popes, Emperors, etc. which he dedicated to John XXII.  
John de Regne.  
Stephen de Provence.  
John de Blomendal flourished.  
The Death of Philip Bishop of Aichstat.  
The Death of Hugh de Prato.  1323 VIII. X. Frederick is defeated, and taken Prisoner by Lewis of Bavaria. XL. 
The Pope excommunicates Lewis of Bavaria, who appeals the next year to a Gen. Council.  
Francis Maronius a Grey-friar, who first introduced the Sorbonick Act into the Schools of the Sorbonne takes his Doctor's Degree.  
The Council of Paris held in February.  
The Council of Toledo.  
Bernard Guidonis is made Bishop of Tuy in Gallicia, and translated the next year to the Bishopric of Lodeve.  
Berengarius of Fridol died June 10.  
The Death of Harvaeus Natales.  
The Death of John of Naples about this year  1324 IX. XI. XLI. The Bull, Quia quorundam mentes. The Council of Toledo ●●eld in November. Marsilius of Milan, a Lawyer, wrote his Treatise against the Authority of the Pope about this year 1325 X. XII. The Death of Dionysius K. of Portugal, to whom his Son Alphonsus iv succeeded. XLII. The Condemnation of the Errors of Petrus Oliva a Grey-Fryer.  
Petrus Bertrandus translated to the Bishopric of Autun.  
Alexander de S. Elpidio made Archbishop of Ravenna.  
Guy chosen Abbot of S. Denis.  
William of Nottingham.  
Astesan.  
Monaldus.  
Gerhardus de Sienna flourished.  
The Death of Francis Maronius.  1326 XI. XIII. The Death of James II. King of Arragon, and Alphonsus iv succeeds him. XLIII. Urchan, or Orcham the Son of Ottoman succeeds him.  
The Council of Avignon, June 18.  
The Council of Complutum, June 25.  
The Council of Marsac, Dec. 8.  
The Council of Senlis.  
Durandus de S. Porciano is translated to the Bishopric of Meaux.  
Henry de Carret is driven out of the Bishopric of Lucca by Lewis of Bavaria.  
Dominicus Grenerius is made Master of the sacred Palace by the Pope, and after Bishop of Pamiez.  1327 XII. 
XIV. Lewis of Bavaria goes into Italy.  
Edward King of England is deposed, and his Son Edward III. set up in his stead.  XLIV. 
Ceccus of Asculum is condemned to be burnt at Bononia for maintaining, that the influence of the Stars necessitates Man's Will.  
The Book of Marsilius of Milan condemned by John XXII.  
Michael Caesenas General of the Greyfriars maintains his Opinion concerning the Poverty of J. Christ, before the Pope at Avignon, and is Imprisoned, but he escapes a little after, and appeals from all the Pope had done, or could do to a General Council.  The Council of Ruffec held in January. 
Maximus Planades is sent Ambassador to Aquileia.  
The Death of Vitalis de Farno, Cardinal.  1328 XIII. Lewis of Bavaria causes Michael Corbario to be chosen Antipope, who takes the name of Nicholas V and is enthroned, May 12. He was driven out of Rome, Aug. 4. 
XV. Lewis of Bavaria is crowned Emperor at Rome by Cardinal Colonni, Jan. 17.  
The Death of K. Charles the Fair.  
Philip of Valois succeeds him, and is crowned at Rheims, May 28.  XLV. Andronicus jun. deposes his Grandfather from the Empire. 1. The Pope causes Process to be form against Michael de Caesena General of the Greyfriars, and appoints Cardinal Bertrand de Turre, of the same Order, Vicar General. The Council of London in February. 
The Death of Augustine Triumphus, Apr. 2.  
The Death of William Durandus Bishop of Menda.  
The Death of Nicholas Trivet.  1329 XIV. XVI. II. 
John 22. gins to Preach his Doctrine against the Vision of God immediately after death.  
This Pope deposeth by his Bull Michael Caesenas from his Generalty, and causes his Deposition to be approved and confirmed in a General Chapter of the Greyfriars, held this year at Paris. Gerard Odonis is chosen General in his place.  
The King of France harkening to the Petitions of his Clergy, maintains them in their Rights and Customs.  
The Errors of John Eckard a Germane Divine condemned by the Pope.  
The Council of Compeigne begun the Monday after the Nativity of the Virgin & ended the Friday after the exaltation of the Hol. Cross.  
Conferences held at Paris in Dec. about the Church Power.  
Michael Caesenas wrote in defence of his Opinion concerning the Poverty of J. Christ against John 22.  
John Bacon a Carmelite is made Provincial of his Order in England.  1330 XV. Peter de Corbario is delivered to Joh. 22. and renounces his Papal Dignity. XVII. III.  
The Council of Lambeth.  
The Council of Marsac held, from Dec. 6. to 11.  
William Ockam is excommunicated by the Pope for writing against him in favour of Lewis of Bavaria, and flies to that Prince.  
Ubertinus de Cassalis maintains his Opinion concerning the Poverty of J. Christ.  
Alavarus Pelagius is made Apostolic Penitentiary by the Pope about this Year.  
Petrus de Casa is chosen the XIV General of the Carmelites.  
Lupoldus Saxo.  
Nicholas Lyra finishes his postils upon the Scripture.  
Philip de Montcalier writes his Postill and Sermons.  
William Mount.  1331 XVI. XVIII. iv Petrus de Palude, & some other Doctors, are of Opinion, that a Friar Preacher, who in Confession had known the falsehood of certain Letters produced by Robert d'Artois, to prove his pretended Right to his Earldom, might, without sin discover it, yea, was obliged to do it.  
Petrus Bertrandus is made Cardinal.  
Petrus de Palude made Patriarch of Jerusalem the year before, takes his Voyage thither.  
The Death of Bernard Guidonis December 13.  1332 XVII. XIX. V  The Council of Maxfield in July. Alvarus Pelagius is honoured with the Title of Bishop of Coronna, and after is made Bishop of Silves. 1333 XVIII. XX. VI The Publication of a General Crusado for the Holy-Land.  
Richard Fitz-Ralph is made Chancellor of Oxford.  
William de Rubion & Guy de Montrocher flourished.  
The Death of Durandus à S. Porciano Bishop of Meaux.  1334 XIX. The Death of John the XXII, which happened December 4. and Benedict XII. is chosen the 16th. and is Crowned four days after. XXI. VII. King Philip of Valois causes the Doctors of Divinity of the Faculty of Paris to condemn the Opinion of Joh. XXII concerning the Vision of God, and wrote to that Pope, that he should revoke it.  
The Letter of William Ockam to the Chapter General of his Order assembled at Assisi.  
Philip Cabassolas is made Bishop of Cavaillon.  
The Death of Cardinal Bertrandus de Turre.  1335 I. XXII. VIII. 
Pope Benedict XII. debates the Question about the Beatific Vision.  
The Ambassadors of Lewis of Bavaria to the Pope rejected.  
The Revocation of Commendams of Cathedral-Churches, and Abbeys by Pope Benedict XII.  
A Bull concerning Residence.  
The Council of Salamanca May 24.  
The Council of Rouen held in September.  
William Montledun  
Simon Boraston.  
Walter Burley.  
John Canon.  
Matthew Blastares.  
Nilus Cabasilas flourished.  1336 II. XXIII. The Death of Alphonsus King of Arragon to whom Peter IU. succeeded. IX. 
The Pope decides by his Constitution of Feb. 22. that the Souls of the Saints purged from sin see God intuitively immediately after Death  
The Revocation of the Tenths, which had been granted to King Philip de Valois, upon the Clergy of France, in consideration of his intended Expedition into the Holy Land.  
The Council of Bourges Oct. 17.  
The Council of Chateaugonthier held in November.  
William de Baldensel wrote the History of his Voyage into the HolyLand.  
The Death of William of Nottingham Octob. 5.  1337 III. XXIV. X. Francis Pistorio a Grey-friar is condemned to be burnt at Venice, for maintaining that J. Christ and his Apostles had nothing in property, contrary to the Decision of John XXII. The Council of Avignon in September. Arnoldus Cesiomes wrote his two Letters. 1338 IU. XXV. XI. 
An Ambassage of Lewis of Bavaria, and the King of France to the Pope to obtain Absolution, but is denied the first time.  
The Solemn Protestation of Lewis of Bavaria against the Proceed of John XXII.  
Barlaam sent by the Emperor Andronicus propounds to the Pope an Union between the Greek, and Latin Churches, which is rejected.  
Daniel de Trevisi is sent by Leo King of Armenia to Pope Benedict XII, and composes a Treatise for the Justification of the Armeni●…  The Assembly of Francfort held in August against the Proceed of Joh. 22. 
Joannes de Janduno, wrote his Treatise, entitled, an Information of the Nullity of the Process made by John 22. against the Emperor Lewis of Bavaria.  
Bartholomew de St. Concordia wrote about this Year.  1339 V. XXVI. XII.  The Council of Toledo, May 19  1340 VI. XXVII. XIII. 
Barlaam accuses the Palamites.  
He is condemned in the Council of Constantinople.  The Council of Constantinople. 
Alvarus Pelagius finishes his Treatise de Planctu Ecclesiae.  
Henry Urinaria.  
Robert Cowton.  
Durand de Champeigne.  
Clement of Florence.  
Lupoldus de Bamberg.  
Simon Fidatus de Cassia and Joannes Andreae flourished.  
The Death of Nicholas Lyra, Oct. 23  1341 VII. XXVIII. 
The Death of Andronicus jun. in May, who left two Sons, John and Manuel Palaeologus, and made Cantacuzenus their Tutor.  
Anne the Empress, the Widow of Andronicus drives away Cantacuzenus, who fled to Adrianople.  
Cardinal Peter Bertrandus founded the College of Autun at Paris.  
The Palamite: compose a Synodical Writing about their Doctrine.  
The Council of Constantinople against Acindynus.  
The Council of London.  
The Death of Petrus de Palude Jan. 31.  
Paul de Lyazares.  
Lapu de Chastillon.  
Albert de Bresse.  
Herman de Schiloe.  
William de Kayoth.  
Paul de Perusia, and Bernard de Parenzo flourished.  1342 VIII. Benedict XII. died Apr. 25. and Clement VI was chosen May 7. and crowned May 19 I. XXIX. Cantacuzenus is proclaimed Emperor at Adrianople. I. 
Pope Clement labours for the Peace of Italy and France.  
Anne the Empress Widow of Andronicus propounds to the Pope the Union of the two Churches.  
The Palamites are driven from Constantinople.  The Council of London held in October. 
John de Malverne composes his Treatise of Visions.  

Osbert a Carmelite.  
John Olney.  
Simon de Spires.  
Joannes Saxo.  
John de Rupescissâ.  
Gerhard de Savona.   flourished. 
The Death of Guy de Parpignan Aug. 21  1343 II. XXX. The Death of Robert King of Naples, after which the Kingdom fell to his little Daughter, who was married to Andrew King of Hungary. II.  The Council of London held in January. 
Philip Cabasselas is made Chancellor of Joan Queen of Sicily.  
Fortanerius Vassalli is chosen the XIX General of the Greyfriars.  
Bartholomew an Augustin is made Bishop of Urbino.  
Petrus Raimondus is made XV General of the Carmelites.  
Francis Petrarch a Poet is crowned with Laurels at Rome.  
The Death of Michael Caesenas.  1344 II. XXXI. III. 
The Pope removes the Jubilee to the 50 Year at the Request of the Romans. He accepts a Present of the Magistrates, but refuses to go to Rome.  
A Croisado against the Turks.  
The Church of Prague made an Archbishopric.  
Palamas and Isidore are condemned in a Council of Constantinople by John the Patriarch.  
The Council of Constantinople.  
The Council of Noyon in July 26.   1345 III. XXXII. Andreus King of Hungary is slain, and Joan his Wifemarries Lewis Prince of Tarentum. iv   


Holkot.  
Robert.  
Richard Hampole.   flourished Jacobus Tolquier dedicates his Viridarum Gregorianum to the Pope.  
Thomas of Strasburg is chosen General of the Augustins.  1346 V. 
XXXIII. The Electors of Colen and Treves at the end of August chose Charles of Luxenburg Emperor, and set him up against Lewis of Bavaria.  
The Pope confirms this Election.  V 
The Pope renews the Process against Lewis of Bavaria, and deposes him.  
Palamas is absolved, and John Patriarch of Constantinople deposed.  
The Council. of Paris, Mar 14.  
The Council of Constantinople.   1347 VI. 
Lewis of Bavaria died, Octob. 11. and Char. IU. gets possession of the Empire.  
The Electors chose Gontherius Earl of Turingia, who dies the same year.  
Charles is crowned Emperor at Aix La Chapelle, & holds the Empire Peaceably. I.  Cantacuzenus obtains Constantinople, and makes Peace with Palaeologus whom he makes Emperor with him. 
Isidore is chosen Patriarch of Constantinople, and Palamas Archbishop of Thessalonica.  
The Enemies of Isidore and Palamas condemn them in a Council of Constantinople.  
The Propositions of John Mercourt condemned by the Bishop, and Faculty of Divinity at Paris.  
The Council of Toledo held at Complutum, Apr. 24.  
The Council of Constantinople against Isidore and Palamas.  
Richard Fitz-Ralph is made Bishop of Armagh, and F●…anerius Vass●●li Archbishop of Rav●…a.  
The Birth of S. Catharine of Sienna.  
Bernard Abbot of Mont. Cassin died.  
The Death of William Ockam.  1348 VII. Nicholas Laurentius having assumed the title of Roman Tribune endeavoured to make himself Master of Rome, but was driven out of it. II. VII. A Recantation of the Doctrines delivered by Nicholas Utricourt made by the Order of the Faculty of Divinity at Paris.  
Simon Fidatus de Cassia died Feb. 11. & Joannes Andreae, July 7.  
Joannes Hensimius finished his Continuation of the History of the Bishops of Liege.  
Thomas Bradwardin is chosen Archbishop of Canterbury, and dies 40 days after.  1349 VIII. III. VIII.   
The Death of Cardinal Peter Bertrandus, June 24.  
The Death of Rich. Hampole Sept. 29  
The Death of Gerhard Odonis.  
The Death of Robert Holkot.  1350 IX. 
iv The Death of Philip de Valois King of France, Aug. 25. to whom his Son John succeeded, who was crowned at Rheims Sept. 26.  
The Death of Alphonsus K. of Castille, who left his Kingdoms to his Son Peter I.  IX. 
The Constitution of the Pope concerning the Conclave, which allowed the Cardinals to have there two Clerks a piece, and their several Lodgings.  
The Emperor Cantacuzenus sends Ambassadors to the Pope about this year to treat of the Union of the two Churches.   


Albericus de Rosate.  
Pet. de Paternis.  
Adam Goddam, or Woddam.  
Nicholas Cabasilas.  
Nicephorus Gregoras.  
Theophanes.  
Robert the Carmelite.  
Mich. de Massâ.  
Joan. Wilsgram.  
Joannes Saxo.  
Joan. Brammart.   flourished.  
The Death of Bartholemew d'Urbin.  1351 X. V X. A Recantation of some Doctrines delivered by Dr. Simon, made by the Order of the Faculty of Divinity at Paris. 
The Council of Lambeth.  
The Council of Beziers, Novemb. 7.  
Peter a Monk of Claravallis wrote his Letter in the Name of Lucifer to the Worldlings.  
Fortinerius Vassalli is made Patriarch of Grado.  1352 XI. Clement VI died Dec. 6. and Innocent V chosen Dec. 18. and crowned the 23. VI XI.   

Henry and Joh Erford.  
John Tacesphalus.  
Nicholas Dorhm.  
Tilman.  
Peter Thomas.  
Bartholomew a Grey-friar.   flourished 1353 I VII. XII. Two Greyfriars burnt at Avignon for their Opinion about the Poverty of J. Christ.  Petrus de Claravalle wrote his Epistle in the Name of Jesus Christ to Innocent VI 1354 II. VIII. XIII. A Recantation of certain Doctrines delivered by one Guy an Augustine Friar, made by the Order of the Faculty of Divinity at Paris.  Callistus a Monk of Mount Athos is made Patriarch of Constantinople. 1355 III. IX. The Emperor Charles is crowned at Rome on Easter-day, Apr. 5. XIV. A Dispute among the Greeks about the Light on Mount Tabor, the Essence, and the Operation of God, decided by the Council of Constantinople. 
A Council at Constantinople against the Enemies of Palamas.  
The Council of Toledo Oct. 1.  
Joannes Tharlerus.  
Petrus Bercherius.  
Alphonsus Vargas flourished.  
Philotheus is chosen Patriarch of Constantinople in the room of Callistus, who was put out about the end of this Year.  1356 IU. X. XV.   
Nicholas Oresmius is made Head of the College of Navar.  
Nicholas Eymericus is appointed Inquisitor General by the Pope about this year.  1357 V. XI. The Death of Alphonsus IU. K. of Portugal. He left Peter the Cruel his Son, Heir of his Kingdom. Cantacuzenus leaves the Empire to John Palaeologus, and retires into a Monastery. I. Richard Archbish. of Armagh in Ireland opposes the Begging Friars about the Offices of the Clergy, and their Begging, and went to Avignon about it, where he delivered a discourse upon that Subject Nou. 8. before the Pope and Cardinals.  
Gregorius Ariminensis is chosen General of the Augustine Monks, May 24. in the room of Thomas of Strasburg, who died this year.  
Richard of Armagh.  
Robert Conway flourished.  
Ralph Higden finished his Chronicon, which was continued by John Malverne.  1358 VI. XII. II.   
The Death of Callistus Patriarch of Constantinople.  
The Death of Gregorius Ariminensis.  
The Death of Adam Goddam.  1359 VII. XIII. III. Amurath succeeds his Father Orcham. 
Bertholus de Rorbach is condemned to be burnt at Spires for his Errors.  
Jenovez of Majorca foretells, that Anti-christ shall come at Pentecost in 1360.   The Death of Alphonsus Vargas Oct. 1●. as some say, but as others, Dec. 26. 1366. 1360 VIII. XIV. iv 
Martin Gonsalvus calls himself the Angel St. Michael, and is condemned by the Archbishop of Toledo, and burnt. His Scholar Nicholas of Calabria declares himself the Son of God, and is burnt at Barcelona.  
Gerhardus Groot institutes the Order of the Friars of a Common Life.  
The Jesuits are instituted at the same time.  
The Order of S. Saviour is erected by St. Bridget.   
Bernard Dapifer wrote his History of St. Gothalmus.  
Fortanerius Vassalli is made Cardinal, and dies the next Year in October.  
Joannes Calderinus.  
Bartholomew Glanvile.  
Jordanus Saxo.  
Joannes Cyparissota.  
Manuel Calecas flourished.  
The Death of Robert Conway.  
The Death of Richard Archbishop of Armagh, Decemb. 16.  1361 IX. XV. V   
John Scadland gins his Treatise of the State of the Cardinals.  
Nicholas Oresmius is made Treasurer of the Chapel at Paris.  
The Death of Joan. Thaulerus, May 17  1362 X. Innocent VI died Sept. 12. and Urban V was chosen Octob. 28. and crowned November 5. I. XVI. VI  
The Council of Maxfeild.  
The Council of Lambeth.  
Peter Boherus.  
Jacobus de Altâ villâ.  
John Imenheusen flourished.  
The Death of Peter Bercherius.  1363 II. XVII. VII. A Recantation of certain Doctrines of Mr. John Chaleur made by the Order of the Faculty of Divinity at Paris.  
Nicholas Oresmius delivers his Discourse against the Irregularities of the Court of Rome before the Pope and his Cardinals.  
The Death of Ralph Higden.  1364 III. XVIII. John King of France died in England, April 8, and Charles V his Son, Surnamed the Wise, was Crowned, May 19 VIII. 
The Condemnation of the Doctrines of Dionysius Soulechat a Grey Friar, concerning Poverty by the Faculty of Divinity at Paris, with a Prohibition to him to teach.  
Soulechat Appeals to the Pope.    1365 IU. XIX. IX. The Recantation of Suolechat at Avignon judged Insufficient. The Council of Angers, March 12.  1366 V. XX. X.   
Philip Cabassolas, made Titular Patriarch of Jerusalem.  
He is appointed a Legate, and Created Cardinal, Sept. 22. the next Year.  
John de Tambachis made Master of the Sacred Palace by the Pope.  1367 VI. Urban leaves Avignon to go to Rome, Apr. 20. and Arrived there, October 6. XXI. XI.  The Council of York, held in September.  1368 VII. 
The Emperor Charles went into Italy, and brought the Cities of Italy into Subjection to the Pope.  
The Death of Peter the Cruel King of Portugal, to whom his Son Ferdinand Succeeds.  XII. 
The Business of Saclechat. referred to John, Bishop of Beauvais, Cardinal Chancellor of the Church of Paris, and of the Faculty of Divinity.  
The Condemnation of divers Errors, by Simon Langham Archbishop of Canterbury.  The Council of Lavaur, June, 1 
Hugolnus Malebranchius chosen General of the August●nes.  
Philip Ribot made Provincial of the Carmelites.  1369 VIII. Peter I. King of Castilles Slain, & Henry XI. Succeeds him. The Emperor John Palaeologus came to Rome, & Signan Union with the Roman Church. He was Arrested some time after by the Venetians, and released by Maoug, his 3d Son, who paid his Debts. The Recantation of Soulichat made at Paris in the Church of the Jacobins, on the Sunday, Quasimo do, or Low-Sunday.  Robert Gervais is made Bishop of Senez. 1370 IX. Urban V returns to Avignon, Sept. 24, and died December 19 Gregory XI. is chosen, December 18, and Consecrated, and Crowned, Jan. 4, of the next Year. XXIV. XIV. The Sect of the Turlupins settle themselves in Provence. 
Matthew of Cracovia.  
Gallus, Abbot of Konigsaal.  
S. Bridget.  
S. Katherine of Sienna Flourished.  
Hugolina, Malebranchius is made Bishop of Ariminum.   1371. I. XXV. XV.   
Joannes Rusbrokius.  
John Balistari.  
John of Hildisheim.  
Joannes Golenius Flourished.  
The Death of Philotheus, Patriarch of Constantinople.  1372 II. XXVI. XVI.  
The Opinion of John de Latona, concerning the Eucharist, Condemned by two Cardinals appointed by the Pope.  
Arnoldus de Pucierda a Grey Friar is Condemned for his Errors.  
Henry the Rebdorf ●inishes his Annals.  
Henry of Dolendorp▪  
John Fustgin, Flourish.  1373 III. XXVII. XVII.   
Arnoldus de Terrenâ wrote about this Year.  
Thomas Stubs finished his Chronicon.  
Isaac Argyra Composed his Calendar.  
S. Bridget died, July 23.  1374 IU. XXVIII. XVII.   
Francis Petrarch died, July 14.  
The Death of John Balistari.  1375 V. The Florentines revolt, & engage Bononia, and other Cities of Italy to their Party. XXIX. XIX. 
Wickliff began to divulge his Doctrines  
The Order of Hieronymites is approved by the Pope.  
The Order of S. Ambrose is confirmed by the Pope.   Radulphus de Praelles, Philip de Meserius Flourished. 1376 VI. Gregory XI. went to Rome September 13, & arrived there Jan. 7, in the next Year. XXX. W●nceslaus K. of Bohemia, the Emperor, Charles his Son was chosen K. of the Romans.  The Doctrines of Wickliff Condemned by the Archbishop of Canterbury.   1377 VII. Pope Gregory retires to Anagnia, and returns to Rome in November. XXXI. The Death of Edward II●. King of England. XXI. Peter King of Arragon, Wrote to the Pope to Revoke his Censure, passed on the Works of Raimundus Lullus.  
Matthaeus Florilegus, Nicholas Oresmius is made Bishop of Lisseux.  
The Death of John Schadland.  1378 
Gregory XI. died, March the 27th.  
The Cardinal entered the Conclave at Rome, Apr. 7. The Romans require a Roman or an Italian Pope. The Archbishop of Paris chosen in a Tumultuous manner, Apr. 9, and Crowned 17, under the Name of Urban the VI  
The Cardinals fly into Anagni in May, and protest against the Election of Urban.  
They came to Fondi, Aug. 27, enter the Conclave, and chose Sept. 20th. the Cardinal of Geneva, who took the Name of Clement VII, which caused a Schism in the Church  XXXII. Charles IU. the Emperor died, Nou. 29, and Wenceslaus his Son succeeded him. I. XXII.   
Albert of Strasburg finished his Chronicon.  
Bonaventure of Milan, chosen General of the Augustine's in the foregoing Year, is made Cardinal in Sept. of this Year, by Urban VI.  
Leonard de Giffon is made Cardinal by Clement VII.  1379 
Clement VII. flies to Naples, and from thence goes to Avignon, where he arrived, June 10.  
The Competitors for the Papacy condemn one another.  II. The Death of John King of Castille, who leaves his Son John the Heir of his Kingdom. XXIII.   Cardinal Giffon stayed at Naples after the departure of Clement the VIIth, and is put into Prison there. 1380 
Urban VI. declares Joanna Queen of Hungary, fallen from her Kingdom, and gives it to Charles Duras.  
Queen Joan gives it to Lewis Duke of An●ou.  
Charles Duras makes himself Master of Naples, and takes Queen Joan Prisoner.  
III. Charles V. K. of Fr●nce, died Sept. 16.  
Charles VI, succeeded him under the Tuition of the Duke of Anjou, and is Crowned, Nou. 24, at Rhei●s.     
Gerard Groot, or the Great.  
Philip de Leydis.  
William of Wallingford.  
Conradus Altzey.  
Bertamus flourished.  
S. Catherine of Sienna died, Apr. 30.  
The Death of Jornus Saxo about this Year.  1381  IV. XXV.   
Michael Aigrianus ' or Agrinanus is chosen General of the Carmelites.  
The Death of John Rusbrokius, December 2.  1382  V. XXVI. The Condemnation of the Doctrines of Wickliff, in a Council at London. The Council at London. 
Peter de Natalibus finishes his Catalogue of Saints.  
Joannes Braniardus disputes against Wickliff in the Council of London.  
The Death of Cardinal Philip Cabassolas, Aug. 27.  1383 
Lewis Duke of Anjou goes into Italy, and gets the Kingdom of Naples.  
Charles Duras causes Queen Joan to be Strangled.  
VI The Death of Ferdinand of Portugal without Children.  
John his Brother succeeds him.  XXVII.    1384 
Lewis of Anjou dies at Bar●, Sept. 20.  
Urban VI quarrels with Charles Duras, who causes him to be Arrested; but after lets him go again.  VII. XXVIII. Manuel III. the Son of John Palaeologus is admitted to the Empire by his Father. The Death of Wickliff.  The Death of Gerhard Groot, Aug. 2. 1385 
Urban flies to the Castle of Luceria, and resolves to revenge himself of Charles Duras; who Besieges him in it.  
Urban escapes to Genova, where he put five Cardinals to Death for Conspiring against him.  VIII. XXIX.   
John de Burg composed his Treatise, called, Pupilla Gruli, for Curates.  
Peter de Harentalis finished his Chronicle.  
Conradus Canon of Rati●bone flourished.  1386 Charles Duras is Slain in Hungary, in Jan. and Otho Duke of Brunswick, the last Husband of Queen Joan, being delivered out of Prison, reenters Naples, and drives out Margaret, the Widow of Charles Duras, and her Children. IX. XXX. Androniais the eldest Son of John Palaeologus takes Constantinople, and puts his Father & Brother into Prison.  The Council Saltzburg, held in January. 
Joannes Tanbachus finishes his Mirror of Wisdom.  
The Death of Ph●… lip de Leydis, Jun● 8.  
Cardinal Bo●a●●●ture of Milan is Assassinated at Rome.  1387  X. The Death of Peter, King of Arragon. His Son John succeeds him. XXXI. 
The Recantation of John Monson a Friar Preacher.  
His Appeal to Pope Clement VII. Ambassadors of the University of Paris sent to Avignon.   The Death of Bertamus. 1388  XI. 
XXXII. John and Manuel Palaeoiogus getting out of Prison, recover the Empire, and deliver Andronicus to the Turks.  
Bajazet the Son of Amurath succeeds his Father.  William de Wallo, Bishop of Eureux, is forced to recant what he had said in defence of John Monson. The Council of Palenza, Octob. 4. Rob●rt Gervais wrote his Treatise of Schism. 1389 
Urban VI, died in October, and the Cardinals of his Party chose Peter de Thomasselles, who took the Name of Boniface IX.  
Ladislaus, Son of Charles Duras, was Crowned King of Naples, by Boniface.  XII. XXXIII.   John Grossus is chosen General of the Carmelites. 1390 
Lewis the younger, Duke of Anjou, is Crowned K. of Naples, by Clement VII.  
This Prince went into Italy, and Conquered several Places; but at his return, Ladislaus regained them.  XIII. The Death of John King of Castille his Son, Henry III, succeeded him. XXXIV. Bajazet Besieges Constantinople, but retreated when he had made a League with the Greek Emperor.   
Jacobus de Teramis, and Guy d'Eureux wrote.  
Nicholas Eymericus composes his Treatise of the Eucharist.  
Augustinus Ascoli.  
Henry Boich.  
Simon de Cremonâ.  
Bartholomew Albicius.  
Peter Quesnel.  
Marsilius d'Inghen flourish.  1391 The University of Paris desire to compose the Schism, and propound the Means. XIV. XXXV. The Canonization of S. Bridget, by Boniface IX. The Council of London. 
Matthew d'Eureux.  
Nicholas Gorham.  
Walter Disse.  
Ralph de Rivo.  
Raimundus.  
Jordanus flourished.  
The Death of Philip Ribott.  1392  XV. XXXVI. The Death of John Palaeologus, after whom Manuel Reigned alone. I.   
Francis Ximenius.  
Lucius Colatius.  
Antonius Batrio.  
Henry de Beaume, or de Palmâ.  
Bertrandus Trille.  
Francis Martin flourished.  1393  XVI. II.    1394 
The University of Paris writ to Clement VII, about the means of ceasing the Schism, and he dies with Grief, Sept. 16.  
The Cardinals of his Party chose on the 26th of the same Month, Peter de la Luna, who took the Name of Benedict XIII.  
The way of Session is resolved on in France, and propounded to the Contending Popes, and to the Princes of Europe.  XVII. III.   
Cardinal Leonard Giffon is present at the Election of Benedict XIII.  
The Death of Marsilius d'Inghen. Aug. 20.  1395  
XVIII. The Death of John King of Arragon without Heirs.  
Martin his Brother succeeded him.  iv  
Henry Knighton  
Gerhard Zutphen.  
Stephen Petringon.  
Thomas Lombe.  
Nicholas Ritzon.  
Henry de Kalekar.  
Richard de Maydescon.  
John de castle.  
John de Schonehove flourished.  finishes his Chronicle 1396  XIX. V The Condemnation of the Doctrine of Wickliff in a Council at London. A Council at London. 
William de Wilford is chosen in the Council of London. to confute by Writing the Doctrines of Wickliff delivered in his Book called, Trialogus.  
Philip de Ferrara.  
John de Hesdin.  
William de Oppenbach.  
John Gluel.  
Henry Euta, or Oyta flourished.  
The Death of Michael Angrianus or as others say in 1416.  1397  XX. VI Bajazet the Emperor of the Turks is defeated, and taken by Tamerlain the Cham of the Tartars, and kept Prisoner in an Iron Cage; He died in that Captivity in 1405, leaving five Children, Isa Zelebis governed.   
John Trevisi translated the Polycronicon of Ralph Higden into English.  
William Thorn finished his History of the Abbots of St. Augustine in Canterbury.  
The Death of William Wilford.  1398 A Substraction of Obedience from the two Contendants for the Papacy published in France and other places. XXI. VII.  An Assembly of the Clergy in France, which ordered the Substraction, May 22. 
Henry Andernacus.  
Blaisus Andernarius  
John de S. Bavon.  
Rich. de Lavenham.  
John de Werden flourished.  
The Death of Gerhard de Zutphen, Dec. 4.  1399  XXII. Rich. II. K. of England is deprived of his Kingdom, and Henry Earl of Lancaster chosen King. VIII.   The Death of Nicholas Eymericus, Jan. 4. 1400  
The Electors of the Empire depose the Emperor Wenceslaus.  
Joseph Marquis of Moravia his Nephew was chosen in his room, by the Archbishops of Mentz and Colen, but died six Months after.  
Robert Duke of Bavaria, and Count Palatine of the Rhine is chosen and crowned Emperor. I.  IX.   
Maximus.  
Nilus Damilas.  
Demetrius Cidonius.  
John de Campscen.  
Philip d'Otterburg flourished.  
The Death of Simon of Cremoxa.  1401  II. Robert goes into Italy with an Army, and is beaten by Galeaccius Viscount of Milan, and forced to return into Germany. X.   The Death of Bartholomew Albicius, December 10. 1402  III. XI. Isa-Zelebis is slain by his Brother Soliman who is declared Emperor of the Turks.    1403 The Subtraction of Obedience to Benedict XIII. is taken off in France on certain Conditions. iv XII.  An Assembly of the Clergy in France, held at Paris May 28. which took off the Subtraction.  1404 
Benedict proposes ways of Union to Boniface, who died, Octob. 1.  
The Cardinals of his Party chose on the 12 of the same Month, Cosmatus Melioratus de Sulmona, who took the Name of Innocent VII.  
Ladislaus King of Naples makes himself Master of Rome, and drives out Innocent.  V XIII.   Lucius Colutius presents to the King of France a Petition for the Florentines against the Faction of the Gibelines. 1405. Innocent VII. is recalled to Rome, and Ladislaus' party driven out. VI XIV.    1406 
A New Subtraction of the French from their Obedience to Benedict.  
Innocent VII. died, and the Cardinals of his Party chose Angelus de Corario, who took the Name of Gregory XII. upon condition he should procure the Peace of the Church by way of Session.  VII. XV.  An Assembly of the Clergy of France held at Paris, Dec. 21. which renewed the Subtraction. The Death of Lucius Colutius, May 12. 1407 
A Neutrality published in France in regard of the two Contenders for the Papacy.  
Divers Embassages by the two Contending Popes and King of France, to heal the Schism, but all to no purpose.  IX. XVI.    1408 
King Ladislaus makes himself Master of Rome, April 25.  
The Cardinals withdraw their Obedience from the two Contendants, and retreat to Pisa to make a new Election. Gregory excommunicates them.  
Benedict sends abusive Letters to the King of France: His Couriers are arrested, Process made against them, and they are put in Prison.  IX. XVII.  An Assembly of the Clergy of France, held at Paris from Aug. 11. to Nou. 5. which prescribed the manner of men's behaviour under the Neutrality, so long as the Schism lasted. 
The Death of Hen. Kalkar.  
The Death of Antonius Butrio, Octob. 7. as some say, but as others in 1417.    

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE Ecclesiastical Authors Of the Fourteenth AGE, and their WORKS.  

BONIFACE VIII. Choose in 1294, died Octob. 12. 1303. 

His Genuine Works, which we have.  
A Composure of Decretals, called, Sextus, divided into five Books.  
Constitutions, Letters, and Bulls, extant in the History of the Difference of this Pope with Philip the Fair. In the Collection of Bulls, and in the Annalists.    
JAMES CAYETAN Cardinal, Nephew of Pope Boniface was made Cardinal in 1295. 

His Genuine Work, etc.  
A Treatise of the Hundred Year of Jubilee.    
DINUS de MUGELLO, Professor of Law, Flourished in the beginning of this Age, and died about 1303. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Several Books of Civil Law.  
A Commentary upon the Rules of the Canon Law.    
ENGELBERT Abbot of Admont, Flourished at the same time. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Treatise about the Rise, Growth, and Fall of the Roman Empire.   

Works Lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 49.    
STEVEN de SALAGNAC, a Preaching Friar, Flourished in the beginning of this Age. 

His MS. Work.  
A Treatise of the Original of the Friar's Preachers.    
ANDREW of Newcastle, a Preaching Friar, Flourished in the beginning of this Age. 

His Genuine Works, which we have.  
A Commentary upon the first Book of the Sentences.    
RAINERIUS de PISA, a Preaching Friar, Flourished in the beginning of this Age. 

His Genuine Work.  
Pantheologia, or a Theological Dictionary.    
WILLIAM de NANGIS, a Monk of S. Dennis, Flourished till 1301. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Part of his Chronicle.  
His Chronicles of the Kings of France.  
The Lives of S. Lewis, and Philip the Hardy.    
BENEDICT XI. Pope, Raised to the Papacy, Octob. 22. 1303. died July 8. 1304. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Letters about the quarrel of Boniface, and Philip the Fair: In the Acts of Boniface and Philip the Fair.    
THOMAS WICKE. An Englishman and Canon Regular. 

His Genuine Work, etc.  
A Chronicle of England.   

A Work Lost.  
A Treatise of the Abbots of Osney.    
JACOBUS de BENEDICTIS, Flourished in the beginning of the Age, died in 1306. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Hymns and Proses.    
JUSTUS, a Cistercian Abbot. Flourished in the beginning of this Age. 

His Genuine Work, etc.  
A Sermon at a Chapter of his Order.    
JOANNES DUNS, Surnamed, Scotus a Grey Friar. Flourished in the end of the third, and beginning of the fourth Age, and died in 1308. 

His Genuine Works, which we have.  
See the Catalogue. p. 52.    
RICHARD de SIENNA, Cardinal, Flourished in the beginning of the Age, and was one of those, whom Boniface employed to compose the sixth Book of the Decretals. 

Works Lost.  
Some Treatises of Law.    
PETRUS de DACIA, Flourished about the same time. 

A Work Lost.  
A Calendar.    
PETRUS de BOSCO, an Advocate, and a Nameless Author. Flourished in the beginning of this Age. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Two Treatises against the Pretended Authority of the Pope over the Temporalties of Kings.    
HENRY STERO, A Monk of Altaich, flourished till 1306. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The Annals of Germany.  
The History of the Emperors, Rodolphus, etc.    
EVERARDUS, archdeacon of Ratisbonne, flourished about 1310. 

A Genuine Work.  
The Continuation of the Annals of Stero.    
JOANNES de JOINVILLO, Martial of Champeigne, flourished till 1310. 

A Genuine Work.  
The Life of S. Lewis.    
SIFFRIADUS, A Priest, flourished about 1310. 

A Genuine Work.  
Part of his Chronicle of Germany.    
HAITO, A Canon Regular of Praemonstre.  
Entered the Order of Praemonstre in 1290, and flourished till 1310. 

A Genuine Work, which we have.  
The History of his Voyage into the H. Land.    
JOANNES MONACHUS, Cardinal, was made a Cardinal in 1294, and died, 1313. 

A Genuine Work.  
An Apparatus to the Sextus.    
CLEMENT V Pope, raised to the Papacy in 1305, and died, May 17, 1314. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Several Letters, and Bull concerning the Business of Boniface, and that of the Templars, in the History of Mr. du Puis, in the I Tome of the History of the Popes of Avignon, of Mr. Balaesius, and others.  
The Decretals gathered by John XXII, under the Title of Clementines, in the Body of the Law.  
Other Letters, and Bulls in the Annalists.    
WILLIAM PARISH, A Preaching Friar, flourished about 1310. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Dialogue upon the VII Sacraments.  
A Postil upon the Epistles and Gospels.    
JOHN of PARISH, A Preaching Friar, a Licentiate in the Faculty of Divinity at Paris, in 1304, and died in 1306. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Treatise upon the Eucharist.  
A Treatise upon the Regal, and Priestly Authority.   

Works in MSS.  
Three Sermons.  
A Treatise of the Christian Religion.  
A Correctory of the Doctrine of S. Thomas.    
THOMAS TOICIUS, or TOYCE. An Auglish Monk of the Order of Preaching Friars and Cardinals.  
Chosen Cardinal in 1305, died in 1310. 

His Genuine Works.  
A Commentary on the seven Penitential Psalms, Printed at Venice, 1602.  
A Commentary on St. Augustine's Books of the City of God.  
His other Commentaries on the H. Scripture, among the Works of St. Thomas.    
WILLIAM LE MORE, Bishop of Angers.  
Made Bishop in 1290, died in 1314. 

Genuine Works.  
An History of the Church of Angers.  
A Collection of Synodal Statutes.    
MALACHY, A Grey Friar, and Chaplain to Edward TWO, King of England, flourished in 1310. 

A Genuine Work.  
A Treatise of the Infection of mortal Sins, and of their Remedies.    
JAMES DE TERMES, Abbot of Charlieu, flourished in 1310. 

A Genuine Work.  
A Treatise of Exemptions and Privileges of the Monks.    
JAMES of VITERBO, Of the Order of Hermit's of St. Augustin, Archbishop of Naples.  
Flourished in 1310. 

Works lost.  
A Book of the Government of the Christians.  
A Commentary on the Sentences.  
Quodlibetical Questions.    
ALEXANDER of ALEXANDRIA, A Preaching Friar.  
Flourished in 1310. 

Works lost.  
Commentaries on the Book of the Master of the Sentences, and on those of Aristotle.    
JOANNES de S. GEMINIANO, A Preaching Friar.  
Flourished in 1315. 

Genuine Works.  
A Summary of Examples and Comparisons.  
Sermons for Lent.  
Funeral Orations.    
RAIMUNDUS LULLUS, A Grey Friar, Born in 1236, retired from the World in 1280, and died in 1315. 

Genuine and Supposititious Works.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 53.    
PETRUS JOANNES OLIVA, Of Serignan, a Grey Friar, flourished in the beginning of the Century. 

Works in Manuscript, or lost.  
A Postil on the Apocalypse.  
A Treatise of Evangelical Poverty.    
JOHN of FRIBURG, Of the Order of Preaching Friars, Bp. of Osma, flourished in the beginning of the Century, and died in 1314. 

Genuine Works.  
A Summary for Preachers.  
Another Grand Sum for Confessors.  
A Gloss upon the Sums of Raimundus de Pennaforti.    
ANDRONICUS The Elder, Greek Emperor, Reigned from 1283, to 1328, died in 1333. 

A Genuine Work still extant.  
A Dialogue between a Jew and a Christian, about Matters of Religion.   

Manuscript Works.  
Treatises against the Armenians, and against Joannes Vexus.    
NICEPHORUS CALLISTUS XANTOPULUS. A Greek Monk, flourished under the Emperor Andronicus the Elder. 

A Genuine Work.  
An Ecclesiastical History.    
AEGIDIUS ROMANUS, or GILES Of Rome, Archbishop of Bourges.  
Was of the Family of Colonni, and Pupil to Thomas Aquinas, Constituted of the Order of Augustin Hermit's in 1292, Installed Archbishop of Bourges in 1294, died in 1316. 

His Genuine and lost Works.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 54.    
ECKARD, A Germane of the Order of Preaching Friars.  
Flourished in the beginning of the Century. 

Works lost.  
A Commentary on the four Books of the Sentences.  
Commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, the Book of Wisdom, the Gospel according to St. John, and the Lord's Prayer.  
A Discourse made in a Chapter of Grey Friars. Theses and Sermons.    
GUY, Bishop of Ferrara.  
Flourished in the beginning of the Century. 

Works lost.  
A Poem concerning the History of the Old and New Testament, called, the Pearl of the Bible.  
Some other Pieces in Prose and Verse.    
PETRUS DE SAXONIA. A Preaching Friar.  
Flourished in the beginning of the Century. 

Works lost.  
A Sum of Cases.  
Several Sermons.    
GERHARDUS DE BONONIA, General of the Carmelites.  
Flourished in the beginning of the Century, and died in 1317. 

Works lost.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.  
Quodlibetical Questions.  
Divers Sermons.  
Part of a System of Divinity.    
GULIELMUS DURANTUS, Bishop of Menda.  
Advanced to that Bishopric in 1296, died in 1328. 

A Genuine Work.  
A Treatise of the manner of Celebrating a General Council, Printed at Paris, in 1671.    
JOHN of PARISH, A Regular Canon of St. Victor.  
Flourished in 1320. 

Manuscript Works.  
Historical Memoirs, or Flowers of History.    
VICTOR PORCHET DE SALVATICIS, A Carthusian Monk.  
Flourished in 1320. 

A Genuine Work.  
A Defence of the Christian Religion against the Jews.    
WILLIAM DE MANDAGOT, Cardinal, made Archbishop of Embrun, in 1295.  
Translated to the Archbishopric of Aix, and C reated Cardinal in 1311, died in 1321 

A Genuine Work still extant.  
A Treatise of the Election of Prelates.    
BERENGARIUS DE FREDOL, Cardinal, Ordained Bishop of Beziers, in 1298.  
Cardinal Priest, by Pope Clement V.  
Cardinal Bishop of Frascati, in 1309, and Cardinal Bishop of Porto, in 1317, died June 10. A D. 1323. 

A Genuine Work.  
A Commentary upon the Cardinal Bishop of Ostia's Sum, under the Title of Oculus.   

A Manuscript Work.  
A Treatise of Excommunication and Interdiction.    
ANTONIUS ANDREAS, A Grey Friar, and Pupil to Scotus.  
Flourished about the Year 1320. 

Genuine Works.  
A Commentary upon the Books of the Sentences.  
Commentaries upon those of Aristotle and Boethius.  
A Treatise about the Principles of Gilbertus Porretanus.    
HERVAEUS NATALIS, A Preaching Friar.  
Made the Fourteenth General of his Order, in 1313, died in 1323. 

His Genuine Works.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 55.    
PTOLEMAEUS LUCENSIS. Bishop of Toricelli.  
Made Bishop in 1321. 

Genuine Works.  
Annals from the Year 1060, to 1303.  
A Chronicle of the Popes and Emperors.    
PHILIP, Bishop of Aichstat, made Bishop in 1305, died in 1322. 

A Genuine Work.  
The Life of St. Walpurgis.    
HUGO PRATENSIS, A Dominican Monk.  
Flourished from the beginning of the Century, to the Year 1322, which was that of his Death. 

Genuine Works.  
Sermons for the whole Year, and upon the Festivals of the Saints.    
JOHN of NAPLES, A Preaching Friar.  
Flourished in the beginning of the Century, and died in 1323. 

Genuine Works.  
Questions of Philosophy and Divinity.   

Works lost.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.  
Quodlibetical Questions.  
Sermons, etc.    
PETRUS AUREOLUS, Of the Order of Grey Friars, Archbishop of Aix, was Professor of Divinity at Paris, in the beginning of the Century made Archbishop of Aix, in 1321, died a little while after. 

Genuine Works still Extant.  
A Commentary upon the Book of Sentences.  
An Abbridgment of the Bible.  
Quodlibetical Questions.  
A Sermon upon the Immaculate Conception.   

Works Lost,  
The Distinctions of the Rose.  
Sermons for the whole Year.  
A Treatise of Poverty.    
MARTIN, A Preaching Friar, Penitentiary of Rome: Flourished in the Beginning of the Century. 

Works Lost,  
A Table of Decrees.  
A Short Chronicle.  
Certain Sermons.  
A Collection of divers Miracles.    
SIBERTUS de BEKA, A Carmelite: Flourished in the Beginning of the Century, and Corrected the Office of his Order. 

Works Lost.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.  
A Summary of the New Law.  
A Commentary upon his Rule.    
PETER of PERPIGNAN, A Carmelite: Flourished in the Beginning of the Century. 

Works Lost,  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.  
— Another on the Book of Psalms.  
Some Sermons.    
HERENUS de BOY, A Carmelite: Flourished in the Beginning of the Century. 

Works Lost,  
A Commentary upon the Book of Sentences.  
Divers Questions.    
ALBERT of MILAN, An Augustine Hermit, Was the Pupil of Aegidius Romanus, and Flourished in the University of Paris, where he Died in 1323, or 1328. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
An Explication of the Gospels upon all the Sundays in the Year.   

Manuscript Works.  
A Commentary on the Book of the Sentences.  
Commentaries on the Pentateuch, the Gospels, and St. Paul's Epistles.    
JOHN XXII. Pope Chosen Aug. 6. A. D. 1316. Crowned Septemb. 5. Died Decemb. 4. 1334. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Collection of the Clementines.  
Twenty Extravagancies.  
Several Letters, Constitutions and Bulls, in the Annalists and in the Bullary.  
Sermons upon the Beatific Vision.    
NICHOLAS TRIVET, A Preaching Friar: Flourished in the End of the XIII. Century, and Died in 1328. Aged 70 Years. 

Genuine Works. etc.  
A Chronicle.  
A Commentary upon St. Augustine's Books, De Civitate Dei.    
AUGUSTINUS TRIUMPHUS, An Hermit of the Order of St. Augustine: Flourished from A. D. 1274, to 1328. When he Died Aged 85 Years. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Summary of the Ecclesiastical Power.  
A Commentaries on the Lord's Prayer and upon the Angelical Salutation.  
The beginning of a Book called, Milleloquium, out of the Writings of St. Augustine.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 56.    
JOHANNES BASSOLIS, A Grey Friar: Flourished in 1320. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
Du Pin 14 Cent.  
A Commentary upon the Book of Sentences.    
JACOBUS de LAUSANNA, A Preaching Friar: Was a Licentiate in the Faculty of Divinity, at Paris, A. D. 1317. 

Genuine Works still Extant.  
Treatises of Morality, and Sermons.    
PETRUS ALVERNIENSIS, or PETER of AUVERGNE, A Canon of the Church of Paris: Flourished in 1320. 

A Manuscript Work,  
A Summary of Quodlibetical Questions.    
HENRY de CARRET, Of the Order of Grey Friars, Bishop of Lucca: Flourished from the Year 1300, to 1326. when he was turned out of his Bishopric. 

A Manuscript Work.  
A Treatise upon the Prophet Ezekiel.    
FRANCISCUS MAYRONIUS, A Grey Friar and Doctor of Paris: Flourished A. D. 1320. Died in 1325. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Commentary on the Four Books of the Sentences.  
Sermons for Lent and upon the Festivals of the Saints.  
Certain small Tracts of Divinity and Piety.  
An Explication of the Ten Commandments.  
A Treatise of the Theological Truths, upon St. Augustine's Book, Of the City of God.  
Divers Philosophical Pieces.    
ROBERT, A Preaching Friar; Flourished in 1320. 

Works Lost,  
A Commentary upon the Sentences and some Sermons.    
JOHANNES d' ALIERUS, A Carmelite, made General of his Order in 1321. 

Works Lost,  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.  
Notes upon the Book of Ecclesiasticus.    
JOHANNES de REGNO, A Carmelite: Flourished in 1320. 

Works Lost,  
A Commentary upon the Book of the Sentences.  
Annotations upon the Gospel according to St. Matthew.  
Sermons for Lent, and for all the Sundays and Festivals of the Year.    
STEPHEN de PROVENCE, Professor of Laws: Flourished in 1320. 

Works Lost,  
A Commentary upon the Clementines.  
Several Questions,    
JOHN de BLOMENDAL, A Grey Friar: Flourished in 1320. 

Works Lost,  
Sermons for the Sundays and Festivals of the whole Year.    
BERNARDUS GUIDO, Of the Order of Preaching Friars, Bishop of Tuy, Born A. D. 1260. Entered into the Order of Dominican Monks in 1280. Made Inquisitor General 1305. Bishop of Tuy 1323. Died Decemb. 13. 1331. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The Lives of Two Popes, viz. Clement V and John XXII.  
The Lives of St. Fulchran and St. Glodesindis.  
An History of the Order of Grandmont, and of the Monastery of St. Augustine at Lymoges.  
An Acount of the Actions of the Counts of Toulouse.   

Manuscript Works,  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 62.    
DOMINICUS GRENERIUS, Of the Order of Preaching Friars, Bishop of Pamiez, was made Master of the Sacred Palace, and afterwards Bishop of Pamiez in 1326. Died in 1342. 

A MS. Work.  
postils upon all the Books of the Bible.    
VITALIS è FURNO, A Grey Friar, Cardinal; Flourished after 1310. Made Cardinal Priest in 1312. Cardinal Bishop in 1320. And Died in 1321. 

Genuine Works which we have.  
His Mirror of Morality.  
Commentaries upon the Proverbs of Solomon.  
Upon the Four Evangelists and Revelation.    
MARINUS SANUTUS, Surnamed Torsello; Flourished in 1321. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
The Secrets of the Faithful of the Cross; or the Means to recover the Holy-Land.  
Divers Letters.    
DURANDUS de S. PORCIANO, A Preaching Friar, and Bishop of Meaux: Flourished in the University of Paris from 1313, to 1318. When he was made Bishop of Puy, or Annecy, and Translated to the Bishopric of Meaux in 1326. and Dyed in 1333. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Commentary upon the Books of the Sentences.  
A Treatise about the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.   

Works lost.  
A Treatise about the Beatisick Vision, against Pope John XXII.  
Instructions for his Clergy.  
Some Sermons.    
ALEXANDER de S. ELPIDIO, An Hermit of S. Augustine, and Archbishop of Ravenna. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Treatise of the Jurisdiction of the Emperor, and the Authority of the Pope.   

Works in MSS.  
Treatises of Evangelical Poverty, and of the Unity of the Church.    
BERTRANDUS de TURRE, A Grey Friar, Cardinal. Was made Archbishop of Salerno in 1319. Cardinal in 1328. and Dyed in 1334. 

Manuscript Works.  
Sermons.    
ALVARUS PELAGIUS, A Grey Friar, and Bishop of Silves. Entered into his Order in 1304, was made Apostolic Penitentiary, in 1330. Bishop of Coronna in 1332. And after of Silves in Portugal. He Died after the Year 1340. 

His Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of the Complaints of the Church.  
A Summary of Divinity.   

Works in Manuscript, and lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 57, 58.    
WILLIAM OCKAM, A Grey Friar: Flourished in the University of Paris, from the beginning of the Century; and afterwards in Germa●y: He Died at Munich, in 1347. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Philosophical Treatises, of which the Catalogue is in p. 58.  
A Commentary upon the first Book of the Sentences.  
Questions upon the Sentences.  
Cent●l●quium.  
Q●…berical Questions.  
A Treatise upon the Sacrament of the Altar.  
A Treatise of the Ecclesiastical and Secular Power.  
Eight Questions upon the same Subject.  
A Treatise in the Form of a Dialogue, upon the Questions controverted by John XXII. Divided into Four Books.  
A Treatise of the Power of the Emperor.  
An Abbridgment of the Errors of Pope John XXII.  
A Treatise of 90 days against John XXII.  
A Treatise of the Divorce of Margaret, Princess of Bohemia, from her Husband.   

Works in Manuscript.  
A Treatise against Benedict XII.  
A Letter to the General Chapter of the Grey Friars.   

Works lost.  
Seven Treatises against John XXII.    
ODERICUS de PORT NAON. A Grey Friar: Flourished about 132●. 

A Manuscript Work.  
A Chronicon to the Pontificate of John XXII.    
GUY, Abbot of S. Denis: Flourished about the same time, and Died in 1333. 

A Manuscript Work.  
Notes upon Usuardus' Martyrology.    
WILLIAM of NOTTINGHAM, A Chanter of York, and after a Grey Friar: Flourished from 1320, and Died 1336. 

His Manuscript Works.  
Questions and Observations upon the Gospels and Lord's Prayer.  
A Treatise against the Errors of Pelagius.    
ASTESANUS, A Grey Friar: Flourished from 1320, till about 1330. 

A Genuine Work.  
A Summary of Cases.    
MONALDUS, A Grey Friar Flourished from 1320, and Died 1332. 

His Genuine Works.  
A Summary of Cases. called Summa Aurea.   

Works in Manuscript.  
Questions upon the Sentences.  
Sermons.    
GERHARD de SIENNA, An Hermit of S. Augustine: Flourished about 1320. 

Works lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 79.    
WILLIAM MOUNT, A Canon of Lincoln: Flourished about 1330. 

Works in Manuscript.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 63.    
WILLIAM de RUBION, A Grey Friar: Flourished about 1333. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Disputation upon the Sentences.    
GUY de MONTROCHER, A French Divine: Flourished about the same time. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
An Instruction for Curates.  
A Treatise of the manner of Celebrating the Mass.    
LUDOLPHUS, or LANDOLPHUS SAXO, A Carthusian; After he had been a Preaching Friar 30 Years, became a Carthusian in 1330. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
The Lives of Jesus Christ, S. Ann, S. Joachim; and the Virgin Mary.  
Some Divine Commentaries on the Psalms.    
SIMON BORASTON, An Englishman: Flourished from 1336. 

Works in Manuscript.  
A Treatise of the Unity and Order of the Church.  
A Composure of the Order of Judicial Acts.  
A Treatise of Philosophy.    
BARTHOLOMEW de S. CONCORDIA. A Preaching Friar: Flourished about 1333. 

His Genuine Work, etc.  
A Summary of Cases of Conscience.    
WILLIAM de BALDENSEL, A Germane Knight; Flourished about 1336. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Voyage into the Holy Land.    
ARNOLDUS CESCOMES, Archbishop of Tarragon: Flourished about the same time. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Two Letters.    
DANIEL de TREVISI, A Grey Friar: Flourished about 1340. 

A Manuscript Work.  
A Relation of a Voyage into America.    
HENRY d'URIMARIA, An Hermit of S. Augustine: Flourished about 1340. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Commentary upon the Master of the Sentences.  
A Treatise of the four Instincts.  
A Sermon upon the Passion.    
ROBERT COWTON, A Grey Friar; Flourished about 1340. 

A Manuscript Work.  
A Short Commentary upon the Sentences.    
DURANDUS de CHAMPAGNE, 

A Manuscript Work.  
A Directory for Confessors.    
CLEMENT of FLORENCE, A Servite Flourished about 1340. 

His Works in Manuscript.  
A Treatise upon the Psalms.  
A Golden Chain upon S. Paul's Epistles.    
LUPOLDUS or LEOPOLDUS. Of Bamberg, a Lawyer: Flourished about 1340. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Treatise of the Zeal of the Germane Princes towards Religion.  
Another Treatise of the Rights of the Empire.    
WALTER BURLEY, A Grey Friar: Flourished about 1340. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Divers Commentaries upon Aristotle's Works.  
The Lives of the Philosophers.   

A Manuscript Work.  
A Commentary upon the Book of the Sentences.    
JOHN CANON, A Grey Friar: Flourished about 1340. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Commentary upon the Master of the Sentences.  
Lectures and Questions.  
A Treatise upon the 8 Books of Aristotle's Physics.    
MARSILUS PATAVINUS, A Lawyer: Flourished from 1320, to the middle of the Century. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Defender of the Peace against the Usurped Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop.  
A Treatise of the Translation of the Empire.  
A Treatise about the Divorce of the Princess of Bohemia.    
UBERTINUS de CASALIS. A Grey Friar: Born in 1259. Entered into the Order of Grey Friars in 1273. Wrote his Book of a crucified Life in 1305, and Flourished from 1310, to 1340. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
An Answer and Writing about the Poverty of Jesus Christ, and the Grey Friars.  
The Tree of a Crucify'd Life.  
A Treatise of the Seven States of the Church.   

Works lost.  
Some Writings in favour of Petrus Cliva.    
MICHAEL CAESENAS, A Grey Friar Chosen General of his Order in 1316, Deposed in 1329, and died in 1343. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Three Writings against John XXII. concerning the Poverty of Jesus Christ.    
PETER de CASA, A Carmelite, chosen General of his Order in 1330, and afterwards made Bishop of Vasio. 

Works Lost.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.  
Sermons.    
JOANNES de JANDUNO, de Gaunt, or de Laon, A Lawyer, Flourished from 1330, to the Middle of the Century. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Some Treatises of Philosophy.   

Works Lost.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.  
A Treatise of the Power of the Church against J●hn XXII.  
Some Quodlibetical Questions.   

A Spurious Work.  
An Information of the Nullity of the Process formed by John XXII. against the Emperor Lewis of Bavaria, Composed by an Author of that time.    
NICHOLAS de LYRA, A Grey Friar, entered into that Order in 1291, and died 1340. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
postils upon all the Scripture.  
A Treatise about the Administration of the Sacrament of the Altar.  
postils, or Explications upon the Gospels of all the Sundays in the Year.  
A Dispute against the Jews.  
A Treatise against a Jew.   

His Works in Manuscript or Lost.  
Large Commentaries upon Scripture.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.  
Quodlibetical Questions.  
A Treatise about the Beatific Vision.  
An Exposition of the Decalogue, and some other Works.    
BENEDICTUS XII. Pope, Chosen Pope Decemb. 16. 1334, Crowned Decemb. 20. and died April 25. 1342. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Treatise about the Poverty of Jesus Christ.  
A Treatise of the Beatific Vision.  
Letters, Constitutions and Bulls in the Annalists, Register of Bulls, and Councils.    
PAUL de LYAZARES, A Lawyer, Flourished about 1340. 

A Work Lost.  
A Commentary upon the Clementines.    
LAPUS de CHASTILLON, Abbot of S. Miniatus, Flourished about 1340. 

A Work Lost.  
A Commentary upon the Clementines.    
ALBERT de BRESSE, A Preaching-Frier, Flourished about the same time. 

Works Lost.  
A Summary of Cases, and several Letters.    
HERMANNUS de SCHILDE, An Hermit of St. Augustine: Flourished about the same time▪ 

Works Lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 79, 80.    
WILLIAM KAYOTH, A Preaching Friar, Flourished about the same time. 

Works Lost.  
An Abbridgment of the Summary of John the German. Some Sermons.    
PAUL de PERUSIA, A Carmelite, Flourished about the same time. 

Works Lost.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.  
Decisions and Sermons.    
JOHN d' OLNEY, A Carthusian, Flourished about the same time. 

His Works Lost.  
Six Books of the Miracles of the Virgin.  
Meditations in Solitude.    
PETRUS RAIMUNDUS, A Carmelite made the XVth General of his Order in 1343. 

A Work Lost.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.    
SIMON de SPIRES, A Carmelite, Flourished about 1340. 

Works Lost.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.  
A Pestle upon the Bible.  
A Treatise against the Jews.    
JOANNES SAXO, A Grey Friar, Flourished about the same time. 

A Work Lost.  
A Summary of Cases.    
JOANNES de RUPESCISSA, A Grey Friar, Flourished about the same time. 

Works Lost.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.  
Sermons upon the Desolation of the Catholic Church.    
GERARDUS, An Hermit of S. Augustine, and Bishop of Savona, Flourished about the same time. 

Works Lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 80.    
FRANCIS PETRARCH, Born July 20. 1304, Flourished about 1340, died 1374. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Two Books of the Cures of both Fortunes.  
Two Books of a Solitary Life.  
Two Books of the Seizure of the Monks.  
Two Books of the Contempt of the World.  
A Paraphrase upon the Seven Penitential Psalms.  
A Treatise against Covetousness.  
Some Letters.    
JOHN BACON, A Carmelite, made Provincial of his Order in 1329, and died in 1346. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
An Abbridgment of the Life of Jesus Christ.  
Quodlibetical Questions.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.   

Works in Manuscript Lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 68    
SIMON FIDATUS de CASSIA, An Hermit of S. Augustine, Flourished about 1340, and died, Feb. 11. 1348. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Treatise of the Actions of our Lord.  
A Discourse about the Virgin.   

Works Lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 69.    
JOANNES ANDREAE, A Lawyer, Flourished in the University of Bononia about 45 Years, and died in 1348. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Novels, or a Commentary upon the Five Books of the Decretals.  
Two Commentaries upon the Sixth Book.  
Glosses upon the Clementines.  
An Addition to the Mirror of Gulielmus Durantus.  
A Tree of Consanguinity.  
Feudal Questions about Marriages, and Interdicts.  
A Summary of Affiances, Marriages, and Degrees of Affinity.    
GERHARD ODONIS, A Grey Friar, and Archbishop of Antioch, was chosen General of his Order in 1329, made Archbishop of Antioch by Pope John XXII. and died in 1349. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Commentary upon the Ten Books of Aristotle's Morals.  
The Office of the Marks of St. Francis.    
ROBERT HOLKOTT, A Preaching Friar, Flourished in the University of Oxford about 1340, and died in 1349. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Commentary upon the Four Books of the Sentences.  
203 Lectures upon the Book of Wisdom.  
Historical Morals for Preachers.  
A Table of S. Thomas upon the Gospels, and Epistles of the Year.  
Lectures upon the Song of Songs, and the Seven First Chapters of Ecclesiasticus.  
A Treatise upon the Imputation of Sin and Others.    
RICHARD HAMPOLE, An Hermit of St. Augustine▪ Flourished about 1340, Died in 1349. 

His Genuine Works.  
Treatises of Piety, of which see the Catalogue, p. 69.    
JACOBUS FOLQUIERUS, An Hermit of St. Augustine: Flourished about 1345. 

A Manuscript Work.  
Viridarum Gregoriinum, or Allegories upon all the Books of the Bible.    
MAXIMUS PLANUDES, A Greek Monk: Flourished in the Reign of Andronicus the Elder, and was sent Ambassador to Aquileia in 1327. 

His Genuine Works.  
A Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, against the Latins.  
Some Fragments of his Translation of St. Augustine's 15 Books of the Trinity into Greek.  
A Sermon upon the Burial of Jesus Christ.  
A Sermon upon St. Peter and St. Paul.    
MATTHEW BLASTARES, A Greek Monk: Flourished about 1335. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Table of Canons.  
A Treatise of the Causes, or Questions about Marriage.    
NILUS CABISILAS, Archbishop of Thessalonica: Flourished under the two Andronicus' the Greek Emperors. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Treatise of the Causes of the Division of the Greek and Latin Churches.  
A Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy.    
BARLAAM Bishop of Hieracium sent to Pope Benedict XII. in 1338. Excuses the Palamites in 1340, but being Condemned flies into the West, where he was made Bishop of Hieracium. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy.  
A Discourse about the Union of the two Churches, the Greek and Latin.  
Five Letters.  
Two Letters of Morality.    
GREGORIUS ACINDYNUS, A Greek Monk: Condemned in the Council of Constantinople in the Year 1341. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Two Books of the Essence and Operation of God.  
A Poem in Jambick Verse, against the Palamites.   

Works Lost,  
Five Volumes against Barlaam.    
CREGORIUS PALAMAS, Archbishop of Thessalonica: Accused in 1340. Absolved in 1346. Made Archbishop of Thessalonica, in 1347. 

His Genuine Works, and Lost,  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 87.    
GUY de TERRENA, A Carmelite, Bishop of Perpignan, was made General of his Order in 1318. Bishop of Majorca in 1331, and after of Elne, or Perpignan. He Died in 1342. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Summary of Heresies.  
Synodal Decrees.   

Works in Manuscript.  
Commentaries upon Gratian's Decrees.  
A Treatise of the Perfection of Life, or a Treatise of the Poverty of Jesus Christ.    
PHILIP de MONTCALIER, A Grey Friar: Flourished at Milan in 1330, and Died in 1350. 

A Genuine Works, etc.  
An Abbridgment of his Sermons.   

Works Lost,  
postils upon the Gospels.  
Sermons for all the Year.    
PETRUS BERTRANDUS, Cardinal: Flourished in the Law-Schools before 1320, was made Bishop of Nevers, about the same, Year Translated to the Bishopric of Autun in 1325. Made Cardinal in 1331. Died in 1349. 

His Genuine Works.  
The Acts of the Conference between the Clergy of France and Peter Cuguieres, about the Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions.  
A Treatise of the Original and Use of Jurisdiction, or of the Ecclesiastical and Temporal Powers.    
WILLIAM de MONTLEDUN, Abbot of Monstierneuf: Flourished in the University of Toulouse under the Papacy of Benedict XII. 

Works in Manuscript.  
Divers Treatises of Canon-Law, of which see the Catalogue, p. 67.    
PETRUS de PALUDE, A Preaching Friar, Patriarch of Jerusalem, was a Licentiate in Divinity in the University of Paris in 1314, made Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1330, and died in 1341. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Comment. upon the 3d. and 4th. Books of the Sentences. Sermons.  
A Treatise of the immediate Cause of the Ecclesiastical Power.   

Works in Manuscript.  
A Comment. upon the 1st. and 2d. Books of the Sentences.  
Commentaries upon the whole Bible.  
A Treatise of the Poverty of Jesus Christ, against Michael Caesenas.    
CLEMENT VI Pope, Chosen May 7. 1342. Crowned May 12. Died Decemb. 6. 1352. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Letters set down by Annalists, by M. Balusius, in the Second Tome of the Lives of the Popes of Avignon, and in the Register of Bulls.    
BARTHOLOMEW d'URBIN. An Hermit of St. Augustine, and Bishop of Urbino. Made Bishop in 1343, and Died in 1350. 

A Genuine Work.  
Milleloquium of St. Augustine, finished by this Author.  
Milleloquium of St. Ambrose.   

Works Lost.  
A Treatise against Lewis of Bavaria.   

Works of Piety.    
NICHOLAS CABASILAS, Archbishop of Thessalonica, Flourished under the Emperor Cantacuzenus. 

His Genuine Works.  
The Life of Jesus Christ.  
An Exposition of the Liturgy.  
A Treatise against Usury.   

Works in Manuscript.  
A Treatise against Thomas Aquinas.  
A Commentary upon the Vision of Ezekiel.    
NICEPHORUS GREGORAS, Chartophylax of the Church of Constantinople: Flourished under the Emperor Cantacuzenus. 

His Genuine Works.  
The Byzantine History.  
A Funeral Oration upon the Death of Theodorus Metochita.  
Notes upon the Book of Synesius, of Dreams.  
The Sufferings of St. Cordatus.   

Manuscript Works.  
A Treatise against Palamas.  
A Treatise of Easter, and others.    
CALLISTUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, Chosen Patriarch in 1354. Died in 1358. 

A Genuine Work.  
An Homily upon the Exaltation of the Cross.   

Works in Manuscript.  
Two Sermons.   

A Spurious Work.  
A Method or Rule for Monks.    
JOHN HONSEMIUS, or HOXEMIUS, Canon of Liege: Flourished in 1350. 

A Genuive Work, etc.  
The History of the Bishops of Liege.  
Du Pin 14 Cent.    
JOHANNES BECANUS, Canon of Utrecht: Flourished in 1350. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Chronicle of the Bishops of Utrecht, and Earls of Holland.    
BERNARD, Abbot of Mount-Cassin: Flourished about the Year 1350. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Mirror of the Monks of St. Benedict.   

A Manuicript Work.  
A Commentary upon the Rule of St. Benedict.   

Works Lost.  
Sermons, and Regular Precepts.    
THOMAS BRADWARDIN, A Grey Friar, and Archbishop of Canterbury. Made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1348. Died the same Year. 

His Genuine Work, etc.  
A Treatise of the Cause of God, against Pelagius, and of the Virtue of Causes.    
ALBERICUS ROSATUS, or ROXIATI, A Lawyer: Flourished about 1350. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
A Commentary upon the Sextus.  
A Dictionary of Civil and Canon-Laws.    
PETRUS de PATERNIS, An Hermit of St. Augustine: Flourished about 1350. 

A Manuscript Work, etc.  
A Treatise of the Necessity and Sufficiency of Man's Life.    
ROBERT, A Carmelite: Flourished about 1350. 

Works Lost.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences and Epistles of S. Paul.  
Several Sermons.    
MICHAEL de MASSA, An Hermit of St. Augustine: Flourished about the Middle of the Century. 

Works Lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 80.    
JOHANNES WALSGRAM, A Carmelite: Flourished about the Middle of the Century. 

Works Lost.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.  
Divers Questions.    
JOHANNES SAXO and JOHN BRAMART, Grey Friars: Flourished about the Middle of the Century. 

Works Lost.  
See their Titles, p. 80.    
HENRY D' ERFORD, A Grey Friar: Flourished about the Middle of the Century. 

Works Lost.  
See the Catalogue, p. 80.    
JOHANNES TACESPHALUS, NICHOLAS DORHIN, TILMAN and PETER THOMAS, Carmelites: Flourished about the Middle of the Century. 

Works Lost.  
See their Titles, p. 80.    
BARTHOLOMEW, A Grey Friar Flourished about the Middle of the Century. 

Works Lost.  
A Treatise of the Property of Things.  
Sermons.    
PETER, A Monk of Clara-Vallis: Flourished about 1350. 

Works in Manuscript.  
Two Letters.  
A Treatise of the Pope's Power.    
THOMAS of STRASBURG, An Hermit of St. Augustine: Chosen General of his Order in 1345, and Died in 1357. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Commentary upon the Four Books of the Sentences.   

A Work Lost.  
A Book upon the Constitutions of his Order.    
GREGORIUS ARIMINENSIS, An Hermit of St. Augustine: Chosen General of his Order in 1357, and Died in 1358. 

Genuine Works still Extant.  
A Commentary upon the 1st. and 2. Books of the Sentences.  
An Addition to that Work.  
Commentaries upon St. Paul's Epistles, and the Canonical Epistle of St. James.  
A Treatise of Usury.   

Works Lost,  
Sermons.    
ADAM GODDAM, or WODHAM, A Grey Friar: Flourished from 1330, and Died in 1358. 

A Genuine Work still Extant.  
A Commentary upon the Books of the Sentences.    
TORTANERIUS VASSALLI, Cardinal: Chosen General of the Grey Friars in 1343. Made Archbishop of Ravenna in 1347. Patriarch of Grado in 1351. and Cardinal in 1360. Died in 1361. 

A Work Lost,  
A Commentary upon St. Augustine's Books, De Civitate Dei.    
JOHANNES THAULERUS, A Preaching Friar: Flourished in 1350. Died in 1361. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Sermons Translated out of the Germane Language into Latin, by Surius.    
INNOCENT VI Pope: Chosen Pope Decemb. 18. 1352. Crowned Decemb. 23. Died Sept. 12. 1362. 

His Genuine Works. etc.  
Several Letters Published by the Annalists, taken out of his Register, which is in Manuscript in the Vatican Library.    
PETRUS BERCHERIUS. Prior of St. Eligius: Flourished about 1350. Died in 1362. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Moral Dictionary.  
A Reductory of the Bible.  
A Moral Induction.    
ALPHONSUS VARGAS, Archbishop of Sevil: Flourished about 1350, and Died in 1366. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Commentary upon the 1st. Book of the Sentences.  
Questions upon the Three Books of Aristotle, De Anima.    
RICHARD FITZRALPH, Archbishop of Armagh, Chancellor of Oxford about 1333. Chosen Archbishop of Armagh in 1347. Died in 1360. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Defence of the Curates, against the Begging Friars.  
A Summary against the Armenians.  
Four Sermons in Praise of the Virgin.   

Manuscript Works.  
A Treatise about those who are to hear Confessions.  
A Treatise of Begging.  
A Reply to Robert Conway.  
Several Sermons.  
A Summary upon the Sentences.    
ROGER CHONOE, or ROBERT CONWAY, A Grey Friar: Flourished about the same time. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
An Answer to the Defence of the Curates, by Richard of Armagh.   

A Manuscript Work,  
A Confutation of the same Richard of Armagh, concerning Begging.   

Works Lost,  
Seven Books about the Poverty of our Lord.  
An Answer to Friar John de Terinis.    
RALPH HIGDEN, or HIKEDEN, A Benedictine Monk of Chester: Flourished about 1350, and Died 1363. 

A Manuscript Work, etc.  
A Polychronicon Translated into English, by John de Trevisi.   

Works Lost,  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 71.    
JOHN MALVERN, A Benedictine Monk of Winchester, Flourished about 1350. 

Works in Manuscript, or Lost.  
A Treatise of Visions.  
The Continuation of Ralph Higden's Poly-Chronicon.    
BERNARD DAPIFER, A Monk of Melk, Flourished about 1360. 

A Genuine Work.  
The History of St. Gothalmus.    
JOHN CALDERINUS, A Lawyer, Flourished about 1360. 

Works of the Common Law, etc.  
A Treatise of Ecclesiastical Interdicts.  
A Table of the Texts of Scripture quoted in the Decretals.   

A Manuscript Work,  
A Commentary upon the Decretals.    
BARTHOLOMEW de GLANVILE, A Grey Friar, Flourished about 1360. 

His Genuine Works.  
Nineteen Books of Morality and Sermons.    
PETRUS BOHERUS, Abbot of S. Aignan, Flourished about the same time. 

Works Lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 80, 81.    
JACOBUS de ALTA VILLA, A Germane, Flourished about the same time. 

Works Lost.  
A Treatise upon the Sentences.  
Some Questions.    
JOHN d'IMENHUSEN, A Germane, Flourished about the same time. 

Works Lost.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.  
Sermons.    
URBAN V Pope, Chosen Pope Octob. 28. Consecrated and Crowned Nou. 6. 1362. He died Decemb. 19 1370. 

His Genuine Works.  
A Constitution against the Plurality of Benefices, which is found in the Councils.  
Several Letters in the Annalists.    
PHILOTHEUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, Chosen Archbishop of Heraclea in 1354, Driven out in 1355, Restored in 1367, and died in 1371. 

His Genuine Works, and Manuscripts.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 90.    
THEOPHANES, Archbishop of Nice, Flourished under the Emperor Cantacuzenus. 

Works in Manuscript.  
A Treatise against the Jews.  
An Instruction to Clergymen.  
A Letter concerning the Contempt of the World.    
NILUS, Archbishop of Rhodes, Flourished about 1360. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The History of the Ecumenical Councils.    
JOANNES CANTACUZENUS, The Greek Emperor, After he had left the Empire in 1357 lived a long time. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
The History of the Reigns of the Andronicuses, and his own.  
A Treatise against the Saracens and Mahometans.   

Works in Manuscript.  
The Contradictions of Prochorus Cydonius.    
JOANNES CYPARISSIOTA, Flourished in the Reign of Cantacuzenus and Joannes Palaeologus. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Part of his Errors, while a Palamite.  
A Material Exposition of what Divines say of God.   

A Manuscript Work, etc.  
The greatest part of his Sins, while he was a Palamite.    
MANUEL CALECA, or CALECEAS, Flourished under the Empire of Palaologus. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Treatise against the Greeks about the Procession of the Holy Ghost.  
A Treatise of the Essence and Operation of God.   

A Manuscript Work.  
A Treatise of the Trinity.    
ISAAC ARGYRA, A Greek Monk, Flourished about the Year 1373. 

A Genuine Work etc.  
A Calendar.    
MAXIMUS, A Greek Monk, Flourished about the same time. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Letter about the Procession of the Holy Ghost for the Latins.    
S. BRIDGET, Flourished about 1360, and died in 1373. 

Her Genuine Works, etc.  
Eight Books of Revelations.  
Six Sermons, and A Rule.    
GREGORY XI. Pope, Consecrated, and Crowned Jan. 4. 1371, and died March 27. 1378. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Letters set down by Waddingus and Bzovius.  
Bulls in the Register of Bulls.    
JOANNES BALISTARII, General of the Carmelites, Flourished under the Papacy of Gregory XI. and died in 1374. 

Works Lost.  
See the Titles of them, p. 81.    
S. CATHARINE of SIENNA, A Nun of S. Benedict, Born in 1374, Flourished about 1370, died in 1380. 

Her Genuine Works,  
Letters.  
Six Treatises of Providence.  
A Discourse of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary.  
The Divine Doctrine of the Eternal Father.    
JORDANUS SAXO, An Hermit of S. Augustine, Flourished about 1360, and died in 1380. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Summary of Sermons.  
A Treatise of the Translation of the Roman Empire to the Germans.   

Works in Manuscript.  
A Treatise of the Four Communions.  
A Collection of Days for the Hermit's of S. Augustine.   

Works lost.  
A Commentary upon the Revelations.  
An Apology for his Order.    
JOANNES RUYSBROKIUS, A Canon Regular, Abbot of Waure: Flourished about 1470, Died in 1381, being 88 Years old. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Treatises of Piety, Translated out of the Germane Language into Latin, by Surius.  
Of which, see the Catalogue, p. 74, 75.    
JOHN de HILDESHEIM, JOANNES GOLENIUS, HENRY DOLENDORP, and JOHN FUSTGIN. Carmelites: Flourished till about 1380. 

Works lost.  
See the Titles. p. 81.    
RALPH de PRAELLES, Councillor and Masters of Request to the King of France:  
Flourished in the Reign of Charles V King of France. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Power.  
A Translation of S. Augustine's Books, De Civitate Dei.   

A Work lost.  
The Pacifick King.    
PHILIP de MESERIIS, Knight: Flourished about the same time. 

His Genuine Work, etc.  
A Treatise of the Ecclesiastical and Secular Power, under the Name of Philotheus Aquilinus.    
PHILIP CABASSOLAS, Cardinal; Made Bishop of Cavaillon in 1334. Patriarch of Jerusalem, in 1336. Cardinal Priest the same Year, and Cardinal Bishop of S. Sabina in 1370. Died 1382. 

A Manuscript Work.  
The Life and Miracles of S. Magdalene.    
GERHARD GROOT, or GRAND, A Canon Regular: Flourished from 1360. And died in 1384. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
An Explication of the way of Preaching the Truth.  
Conclusions and Propositions.  
A Treatise of the Study of Scripture.   

Works in Manuscript.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 74.    
PHILIP de LEYDIS. Canon and Great Vicar of Utrecht; Flourished about 1370.  
And died in 1386. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Treatise of the Care of a Commonwealth, and the State of Sovereign Princes.    
ARNOLDUS de TERRENA, Sacrist of Perpignan: Flourished about 1360. 

Works in Manuscript.  
A Treatise of the Mass and Canonical Hours.  
Theological Questions.    
MATHIAS, or MATTHEW de CRACOVIA. A Doctor of Prague: Flourished about 1370. 

Works in Manuscript, or lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 72.    
GALLUS, Abbot of Konigsaal: Flourished about 1370. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Book called The Pomegranade.    
HENRY, A Monk of Rebdorf: Flourished about 1375. 

A Genuine Work.  
Annals from 1275, to 1372.    
HUGELIN MALEBRANCHIUS, An Hermit of S. Augustine, Bishop of Ariminum, and Patriarch of Constantinople; Chosen General of his Order in 1368. Made Bishop of Ariminum in 1370. And died after 1372. 

His Works in Manuscript.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.  
A Treatise of the Trinity.  
A Treatise of the Communication of Idioms.    
THOMAS STOBBS, or STUBBS, A Preaching Friar: Flourished about 1375. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Chronicle of the Arch-Bishops of York.    
MATTHEW FLORILEGUS, A Benedictine Monk of Westminster: Flourished to 1377. 

A Genuine Work.  
Flowers of History.    
JOHN SCADLAND, A Preaching Friar; Bishop of Hildesheim: Flourished about 1360, died in 1377. 

Works in Manuscript.  
A Treatise of the Estate of the Cardinals.  
A Treatise of the Estate and Dignity of Bishops.    
ALBERT of STRASBURG. Flourished about 1370. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Chronicle from 1270, to 1378.  
The Life of Bertholus Bishop of Strasburg.    
BONADVENTURE of MILAN, Cardinal: Chosen General of the Hermit's of S. Augustine in 1377. Made Cardinal by Urban the VIII. in 1378. And died in 1386. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Mirror of the Virgin Mary.  
Works in Manuscript, or lost. See the Catalogue of them, p. 75.    
WILLIAM of WALLINGFORD, FRANCIS MARTIN, and STEPHEN of PETRINGTON. Carmelites: Flourished about 1380. 

Works lost.  
See the Titles of them, p. 81.    
CONRADUS d'ALTZEY. A Germane: Flourished in 1380. 

Works lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 81.    
BERTAMUS, A Preaching Friar; Bishop of Theseus': Flourished about 1380.  
And died in 1387. 

Works lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 81.    
PHILIP RIBOT, A Carmelite; Chosen Provincial of his Order in 1368. And died in 1391. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The Mirror of the Carmelites.   

Works lost.  
A Treatise of the Illustrious Men of his Order.  
Sermons.    
MARSILIUS d'INGHEN. Treasurer of the Church of Colen: Flourished about 1380. And died in 1394. 

A Genuine Work.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.    
WILLIAM of WODFORD, or WILFORD, A Grey Friar: Flourished at the end of the Century: And died in 1397. 

A Genuine Work etc.  
A Treatise against Wickliff.   

Works in Manuscript.  
An Apology against Richard of Armagh.  
And other Works.    
GERHARD de ZUTPHEN, A Canon Regular: Flourished about the end of the Century, And died in 1398. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Two Ascetic Treatises.    
NICHOLAS EYMERICK, A Preaching Friar: Flourished from 1350, to the end of the Century. And died in 1399. 

A Genuine Works, etc.  
A Directory for Inquisitors.   

Works in Manuscript.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 76.    
LEONARD de GIFFON Cardinal; The 24th General of the Grey Friars: Made Cardinal in 1378. Died after 1394. in which Year he was present at the Election of Pope Benedict XIII. 

Works Lost,  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 81.    
NICHOLAS ORESMIUS, bishop of Lisieux; Made Head of the House of Navarre, in 1356. Treasurer of the H. Chappel at Paris in 1361.  
Sent to Urban V in 1363. Made Bishop of Lisieux in 1377.  
Died in 1384. 

His Genuine Works.  
A Discourse before the Cardinals against the Irregularities of the Court of Rome.  
A Discourse about the Change of Money.   

Works in Manuscript.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 73. 74.    
URBAN VI Pope. Elected April. 9 1378. And Crowned April 17. And died in October, 1389. 

His Genuine Works still Extant.  
Letters and Bulls of this Pope in the Annalists.  
And Register of Bulls.    
CLEMENT VII. Pope at Avignon. Elected September the 20. 1378. Died September 16th. 1394. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Letters Printed by M. Balusius, and the Annalists.    
ROBERT GERVAIS. A Preaching Friar, and Bishop of Senez. Made Bishop in 1369. And died in 1388. 

His Manuscript Works.  
A Treatise of Schism.  
The Mirror Royal.    
PETER de NATALIBUS, Bishop of Jesol: Flourished about 1380. 

A Genuine Work.  
A Catalogue of Saints.    
JOHN de BURGO, Chancellor of Cambridge: Flourished about 1380. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Treatise called, Pupilla Ocuii, [i. e. The Apple of the Eye] for the Instruction of Priests.    
JACOBUS de TERAMIS, Archdeacon of Aversa: Flourished about 1390. 

Works in Manuscript,  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.  
A Consolation for Preachers.    
GUIDO D'EUREUX, A Preaching Friar: Flourished about 1390. 

Works in Manuscript.  
Sermons.  
A Rule for Tradesmen.    
AUGUSTINE D'ASCOLI, An Hermit of St. Augustine: Flourished about 1390. 

Works in Manuscript.  
Sermons.    
HENRY BOICH, A Lawyer: Flourished about 1390. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Commentaries upon the Five Books of the Decretals, upon the Sextus and the Clementines.    
BONIFACE IX. Pope at Rome: Chosen Pope 1389, and Died in 1404. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Constitutions related by Historians.    
BENEDICT XIII. Pope at Avignon: Chosen Pope Sept. 26. 1394. Died in the next Century. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Divers Letters concerning the Obedience which he claimed as due to him, Related by the Historians of the Schism.  
Constitutions, and other Letters, related by the Historians of that time.    
SIMON de CREMONA, An Hermit of St. Augustine: Flourished about the End of the Century. Died in 1400. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Postils upon the Gospels.   

Works in Manuscript,  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 15.    
BARTHOLOMEW ALBICIUS, A Grey Friar: Flourished at the End of the Century, and Died in 1401. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Treatise of the Conformity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and St. Francis.  
A Treatise in Praise of the Virgin Mary.  
Sermons.    
WALTER DISSE, A Carmelite: Flourished in the Papacy of Boniface the IX. whose Legate he was in England, Spain and France. 

Works Lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 81.    
PETER QUESNEL, A Grey Friar: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

Works in Manuscript.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 75.    
HENRY KNIGHTON, A Grey Friar: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

His Genuine Works, still Extant.  
A Chronicle of England to 1395.  
The History of the Deposition of Richard II. King of England.    
WILLIAM THORN, A Benedictine Monk of S. Augustine at Canterbury: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
The History of the Abbots of S. Augustine at Canterbury.    
MATTHEW D'EUREUX, A Preaching Friar: Flourished at the end of the Century. 

Works in Manuscript.  
A Commentary upon the Pentateuch.  
postils upon Isaiah, and other Books of Scripture.    
NICHOLAS de GORHAM, A Preaching Friar: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Commentary upon the New Testament.  
Sermons for all the Year.    
JOHN BROMIARD, A Preaching Friar: Flourished to the end of the Century, and died in the next. 

A Genuine Work.  
A Summary for Preachers.   

Works in Manuscript.  
A Treatise of the Civil and Canon-Law.  
An Explication of the Ceremonies of the Mass.  
Exhortations.    
THOMAS LAMB, and NICHOLAS de RITZON, Carmelites: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

Works Lost.  
See the Titles, p. 81.    
RADULPHUS de RIVO. Dean of Tongres: Flourished in the end of the Century, and died in 1403.  
JOHN de TAMBACH, A Preaching Friar: Chosen Master of the Holy Palace in 1366. Died in the next Century being above 80 years Old. 

A Genuine Work.  
The Comfort of Divinity, or Mirror of Wisdom.   

A Manuscript Work.  
A Treatise of Nature and Grace.   

Works Lost.  
A Treatise of the Pleasures of Paradise. Sermons.    
RAIMUNDUS JORDANUS, Surnamed Idiota; a Canon Regular, and Provost of Usez:  
Flourished about the end of the Century. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Works of Piety.  
Of which see the Titles, p. 77.    
FRANCIS XIMENIUS. Bishop of Elne, or Perpignan, and Patriarch of Jerusalem: Flourished at the end of this Century, or beginning of the next. 

His Genuine Works. etc.  
A Book of the Angelical Life.  
Four Books of the Christian Life.  
Instructions for Pastors.    
LUCIUS' COLUTIUS SALUTATUS de STIGNANO, Chancellor of Florence: Flourished from 1360 to 1406. in which he died. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Two Letters, and one Petition.   

Works Lost.  
See the Titles. p. 78.    
ANTONIUS de BUTRIO, A Lawyer: Flourished at the end of this Century, and beginning of the next: And died in 1408, or 1417. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Commentary upon the Sextus.  
A Repertory of the Canon and Civil Law.    
HENRY de KALKAR, A Carthusian: Flourished about the end of this Century: And died 1408. 

Works Lost.  
See the Catalogue, p. 81.    
HENRY de BAUME, or de PALMA: Flourished about the end of this Century. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
Mystical Divinity.    
BERTRANDUS de TRILLE, A Preaching Friar: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

A Manuscript Work.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.    
RICHARD de MAYDESCON, A Carmelite: Flourished about the end of this Century. 

Works Lost,  
A Treatise against the Lollards.  
Several Sermons.    
JOHN, A Benedictine Monk of castle: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

Works Lost,  
See the Titles, p. 81.    
CONRADUS, A Canon of Ratisbon: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

Works Lost.  
Several Books of Moral Philosophy.    
JOHN de SCHODEHOVE, A Carmelite: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

Works Lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 81.    
PHILIP de FERRIERES, Bishop of Badajoz: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

Works Lost.  
Sermons for the whole Year.    
MICHAEL AIGRIANUS, or AIGNANUS, A Carmelite; Chosen General of his Order in 1381. Died in 1396. Or as others, in 1416, but out of his Office. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Commentary upon the Psalms, without a Name.   

Works Lost.  
See the Catalogue, p. 78.    
JOHN de HESDIN, A Knight, Hospitaller of S. John at Jerusalem: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

Works Lost.  
Commentaries upon the New Testament.  
And Sermons.    
WILLIAM de OPPENBACH, A Germane, and Doctor of Paris: Flourished about the end of the Century. 

Works Lost.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences.  
Questions and Sermons.    
HENRY EUTA or OYTA, A Professor; Flourished about the end of the Century. 

Works Lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, p. 82.    
JOHN GLUEL, HENRY D'ARDENAC and BLAISUS ANDERNARIUS Carmelites; Flourished about the end of the Century. 

Works lost.  
See the Titles, p. 82.    
JOHN, Abbot of S. Bavon; Flourished about the end of the Century. 

A Work lost.  
A Treatise of the Use of Food, p. 82.    
RICHARD de LAVENHAM, and JOHN de CAMPSCEN, English Carmelites; Flourished about the end of the Age. 

Works lost.  
See the Titles, p. 82.    
JOHN de WERDEN, A Grey Friar; Flourished about the end of the Century. 

Works lost.  
Sermons.    
PHILIP Abbot of Otterburg; Flourished about the end of the Century. 

Works lost.  
A Commentary upon the Canticles.  
Sermons and Letters.    
INNOCENT VII. Pope at Rome; Chosen Pope Octob. 12. 1404. Dyed in 1407. 

Genuine Works, etc.  
Divers Letters related by Historians.    
MANUEL PALAEOLOGUS, A Greek Emperor; Was assumed into the Government by his Father, in 1384. Began to Reign alone, 1392. and Dyed in the next Century. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Prayers for the Morning.  
Subjects of Compunction.  
Psalms of Thanksgiving for the taking of Bajazet.  
Precepts for the Education of a Prince.  
Seven Discourses of Virtues and Vices.  
A Panegyric of Theodorus.   

A Manuscript Work.  
A Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost against the Latins.    
NILUS DAMILA A Greek Monk; Flourished under the Empire of Manuel Palae●logus. 

Works in Manuscript.  
Four Treatises of the Procession of the Holy Ghost against the Latins.    
JOHN de GROSSE, A Carmelite; General of his Order from 1389. to 1409, when he was present at the Council of Pisa. 

His Genuine Works, still Extant.  
The Viridarium of the Order of Carmelites.  
A Treatise of the Illustrious Men of that Order.    
FRANCIS ZABAREL, Cardinal; Made Bishop of Milan about the end of the Century. Cardinal by John XXIII. Dyed in 1417. Aged 78 Years. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Commentary upon the Five Books of the Decretals.  
A Commentary upon the Clementines.  
A Treatise about the Authority of the Emperor, to extinguish Schisms.   

Works lost.  
See the Titles of them, p 78.    
JACOBUS MAGNUS, An Hermit of S. Augustine; Flourished about 1400. And Died 1420. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
Sophologia.    
BALDUS A Lawyer; Flourished from 1400. to 1423. 

A Genuine Work, etc.  
A Commentary upon the Decretals.    
PETRUS de HARENTALS, A Canon Regular, and Abbot of Floreff; Flourished at the end of the Fourteenth, and in the beginning of the Fifteenth Age, and lived to 1436. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Commentary upon the Psalms.  
The Lives of the Popes at Avignon.   

Works in MSS.  
Commentaries upon the Gospels.  
A Chronicle.    
DEMETRIUS' CYDONIUS. Flourished in the beginning of the Fifteenth Age. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Two Discourses.  
A Treatise of the Execrable Doctrines of Palamas.  
A Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost for the Latins.  
A Discourse of the Contempt of Death.   

Works in MSS.  
A Translation of the second Part of Thomas Aquinas' Sum into Greek; as also of his Treatise against the Gentiles. And S. Anselm's Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, with his Letter about the use of Unleavened Bread.  
A Discourse concerning Evangelical Preaching.   

A Spurious Work.  
A Treatise of another Demetrius, more ancient, concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost against the Latins.      

A Chronological TABLE of the COUNCILS held in the Fourteenth Century, and of their Acts, Letters, Canons, etc.  
Councils. Years Acts, Letters, Canons, etc. The Council of MElun, 1300 A Renewal of Eight Ecclesiastical Constitutions. The Synod of Colen, 1300 Twenty two Constitutions. The Synod of Bayeux, 1300 Constitutions divided into 113 Articles. The Council of Auch, 1300 Thirteen Articles. The Council of Compeigne, 1301 Six Articles. An Assembly at Paris, 1302 Acts. The Council of Pennafiel, 1302 Fifteen Canons. An Assembly at Paris, 1303 Acts. The Council of Nogarol, 1303 Nineteen Articles. The Council of Compeigne, 1304 Five Articles. The Council of Auch, 1308 Six Canons. An Assembly at Tours, 1308 Mentioned in Historians with the Deputations of such as were at it. The Council of Presburg, 1309 Nine Canons. The Council of Saltzburg, 1310 Five Constitutions renewed with a particular Decree abo●t Clandest. Marriages. The Council of Colen, 1310 Twenty eight Articles. The Council of Paris, 1310 History of that Council. The Council of Ravenna, 1310 Mentioned by the Authors of that time. The Council of Salamanca, 1310 Mentioned by the Authors of that time. The Council of London, 1310 Mentioned by the Authors of that time. The Council of Mentz, 1310 Mentioned by the Authors of that time. The Council of Ravenna, 1311 Twenty two Constitutions. The General Council of Vienna, 1311, 1312 Clement V's Letter to call that Council. The Sentence and Letters against the Templars. The Clementines particularly. 1. Of Faith. 2. Against the Errors of the Begards and Beguines, and 3. concerning the Begging Friars. The Council of Paris, 1314 Three Articles. The Council of Ravenna, 1314 Twenty Canons. The Council of Saumur, 1315 Four Articles. The Council of Nogarol, 1316 Five Canons. The Council of Senlis, 1316 Letters of Peter de Courtnay Archbp. of Rheims. The Council of Senlis, 1317 A Rule concerning Ecclesiastical Privileges. The Council of Ravenna, 1317 Twenty two Constitutions The Council of Sens, 1320 Four Canons. The Council of London, 1321 Eight Articles. The Council of Valladolid, 1322 Twenty seven Canons. The Council of Colen, 1322 A Confirmation of Rules. The Council of Paris, 1323 A Renewal of the Constitutions of the Council of Sens in 1320. The Council of Toledo, 1323 Sixteen Canons. The Council of Toledo, 1324 Eight Articles. The Council of Avignon, 1326 Fifty nine Articles. The Council of Complutum, 1326 Two Articles. The Council of Marsiac, 1326 Fifty six Canons. The Council of Senlis, 1326 Seven Constitutions. The Council of Ruffec, 1327 A Sentence of Interdiction, and a Rule for the Clergy. The Council of London, 1328 Nine Articles. The Council of Compeigne, 1329 Seven Canons. The Council of Paris, 1329 Acts. The Council of Lambeth, 1330 Ten Constitutions. The Council of Marsiac, 1330 Acts. The Council of Macclesfield, 1332 A Rule about the Festivals. The Council of Salamanca, 1335 Seventeen Articles. The Council of Rouen, 1335 Thirteen Decrees. The Council of Bourges, 1336 Fourteen Canons. The Council of Chateaugonthier, 1336 Twelve Constitutions. The Council of Avignon, 1337 A Renewal of the Decrees made the last Council at Avignon, with some new Ones, in all 70 Articles. An Assembly at Francfurt, 1338 A Protestation against the Proceed of John xxii. against Lewis of Bavaria. The Council of Toledo, 1338 Five Articles. The Council of Constantinople, 1340 Mentioned by the Greek Authors of that time. The Council of Constantinople, 1341 Mentioned by the Greek Authors of that time. The Council of London, 1341 A Rule against Ambitious Clergymen. The Council of London, 1342 Twelve Canons. The Council of London, 1343 A Rule about the Privileges of the Clergy. The Council of Constantinople, 1344 The History of it, and the Sentence of the Patriarch. The Council of Noyon, 1344 Seventeen Articles. The Council of Paris, 1346 Thirteen Canons. The Council of Constantinople, 1346 Mentioned in the Authors of that time. The Council of Toledo, 1347 Four Articles. The Council of Constantinople, 1347 A Letter of that Council. The Council of Lambeth, 1351 A Rule for the Immunities of the Clergy. The Council of Beziers, 1351 Eight Rules. The Council of Constantinople, 1355 Acts of this Council. The Council of Toledo, 1355 Constitutions. The Council of Macclesfield, 1362 A Rule for Festivals. The Council of Lambeth, 1362 Rule for Taxing Chaplains The Council of Angers, 1365 Thirty three Articles. The Council of York, 1367 Ten Canons. The Council of Lavaur, 1368 A Collection of Ecclesiastical Rules in 133 Articles. The Council of Narbonne, 1374 Twenty Canons. The Council of London, 1382 Acts and Judgement of this Council. The Council of Saltzburg, 1386 Seventeen Constitutions. The Council of Palenza, 1388 Seven Chapters. The Council of London, 1391 A Rule about Ecclesiastical Discipline. The Council of London, 1396 The Condemnation of Wickliff's Doctrines. An Assembly of the Clergy of France, 1398 Acts. An Assembly at Paris, 1403 Acts. An Assembly at Paris, 1406 Acts. An Assembly at Paris, 1408 Acts. An Assembly of the Cardinals at Pisa, 1408 An Act of Appeal, an Appointment of a Council, and the Citation of the Two Popes.   

A TABLE of the WORKS of the Ecclesiastical Writers of the Fourteenth Century; disposed according to the Subjects they Treat of.  

Works about the Truth of the Christian Religion, against the Jews.  
THE Defence of the Christian Religion against the Jews, by William Porcher.  
A Dispute against the Jews, and a Treatise against a Jew, by Nicholas de Lyra.  
A Dialogue between a Jew and a Christian, by Andronicus.  
The Treatises of Cantacuzenus against the Saracens and Mahometans.   

Treatises of Controversy between the Greeks and Latins about the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and the Pope's Supremacy.  
A Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, against the Latins, by Planudes.  
A Treatise of Nilus Cabasilas, of the Causes of the Division of the Greeks and Latins.  
A Treatise of the same Author, of the Pope's Supremacy.  


A Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy.  
A Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Ghost against the Latins.  
A Discourse of the Union of the two Churches.  
Five Letters for the Latins.   By Barlaam.  
Palamas' Treatises against the Latins.  
A Treatise of Manuel Calecas for the Doctrine of the Latins about the Procession of the Holy Ghost.  
A Discourse of Demetrius Cydonius, about the Union of the Greeks and Latins.  
A Treatise of the same Author about the Procession of the Holy Ghost, for the Latins.   

Treatises of the Greeks about the Contest of the Palamites.  
Two Books of the Essence and Operation of God, by Acindynus.  
A Poem in jambick Verse, against the Palamites, by the same Author.  
Treatises and a Discourse of Palamas against the Barlaamites, and to Explain his own Opinion.  
The Errors of the Palamires, by Cyparissiota.  
A Material Exposition of what Divines assert of God, by the same Author.  
A Treatise of Essence and Operation, against the Palamites, by Manuel Calecas.  
A Treatise of the Execrable Doctrines of Palamas, by Demetrius Cydonius.   

Commentaries upon the Four Books of the Sentences of P. Lombard, Bishop of Paris.  
Andrew of Newcastle upon the First Book.  
John Duns, Surnamed Scotus.  
Aegidius Romanus upon the Books of the Sentences.  
Antonius Andreas, a Scholar of Scotus.  
Harvaeus Natalis.  
Petrus Aureolus.  
Joannes Bassolis.  
Ockam's Questions upon the Sentences.  
— His Commentary upon One Book of the Sentences.  
The Commentary of Franciscus Mayronius.  
The Commentary of Durandus de S. Porciano.  
Questions upon the Sentences, by William Rubion.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences, by Henry de Urimaria.  
The Commentary, Lectures, and Questions of John Canon.  
The Commentary of Peter de Palude upon the 3d. and 4th. Book of the Sentences.  
A Commentary and Questions of John Bacon.  
The Commentary of Robert Holkott.  
A Commentary upon the Master of the Sentences, by Tho. Strasburg.  
A Commentary upon the 1st. and 2d. Books of the Sentences by Gregory of Ariminum, with Additions.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences, by Adam Goddam.  
Alphonsus Vargas' Commentary upon the 1st. Book of the Sentences.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences, by Marsilius D' Inghen.   

Quodlibetical Questions,  
By Scotus.  
John of Naples.  
Ockam.  
Harvaeus Natalis.  
Aureolus.  
John Bacon.   

Other Works of Divinity.  
Pantheologia, or a Theological Dictionary, by Rainerius of Pisa.  
A Sum of Heresy, by Guy de Perpignan.  
A Sum of Divinity, by Alvarus Pelagius.  
A Dialogue of the Seven Sacraments, by Gul. Parisiensis.  
John of Paris' Treatise upon the Eucharist.  
Scotus' Works.  
A Defence of S. Thomas' Works against La Mare, by Aegidius Romanus.  
Other Treatises of the same Author, of which see the Titles, p. 54.  
A Treatise of Antonius Andreas upon the Principles of Gilbertus Porretanus  
Sermons and Bulls of John XXII. and Benedict XII. about the Beatific Vision.  
Ockam's Centiloquium.  
A Treatise of the Sacrament of the Altar, by the same Author.  
A Treatise of the Beatific Vision, by Benedict XII.  
Divers Treatises of Franciscus Mayronius.  
A Treatise about the Imputation of Sin, and others, by Robert Holkot.  
A Treatise of Thomas Bradwardin, Of the Cause of God, upon Liberty, Grace, Predestination, and the Knowledge of God.  
The Summary of Richardus Armachanus, against the Armenians.  
A Treatise of William Wilford against the Followers of Wickliff.   

Works about Church-Discipline.  
The Letters of Boniface VIII. concerning the Difference between himself and Philip the Fair King of France, and others in the Register of Bulls and Annalists.  
A Treatise of Jacobus Cajetanus of the Jubilee of an Hundred Years.  
The Letters of Benedict about the Affair of Boniface.  
The Letters of Clement V about the Affair of Boniface and the Templars.  
The Clementines, by the same Author.  
Other Letters and Bulls, by the same Author.  
A Treatise of the manner of Celebrating a General Council, by William Durant.  
Synodal Decrees, by Nicholas Gelant, and William le More Bishops of Angers.  
A Treatise of the Exemptions and Privileges of Monks, by Jacobus de Termes, Abbot of Charlieu.  
The Apology of Ptolemaeus Lucensis for the Preaching Friars.  
The Extravagantes of John XXII.  
Other Letters and Constiutions of John XXII. against Lewis of Bavaria, and the Grey Friars, about the Poverty of Jesus Christ.  
A Treatise of Alvarus Pelagius, of the Complaint of the Church.  
A Treatise of Ockam, against John XXII. and others, about Poverty, the Beatific Vision, and Church-Power.  
Treatises of the Divorce of Margaret Duchess of Carinthia Married to the King of Bohemia, by Ockam and Marsilius Patavinus.  
Three Writings of Michael Caesena, against John XXII.  
A Treatise of the Poverty of Jesus Christ, by Benedict XII.  
Synodal Statutes, by Guy de Terrena, Bishop of Perpignan.  
Treatises of Franciscus Mayronius.  
A Summary of Cases, by Astesanus.  
A Treatise of the Administration of the Sacrament of the Altar, by Nicholas de Lyra.  
An Instruction for Curates, and a Treatise of the manner of Celebrating the Mass, by Guy de Montrocher.  
Some Letters of Petrarch.  
The Defence of the Curates, against the Mendicant Friars, By Richard Archbishop of Armagh.  
The Answer of John Conway, to the Defence of Curates, by the same Richard.  
An Exposition of the Liturgy, by Cabasilas.  
A Treatise against Usury, by the same Author.  
A Discourse of Nicholas Oresmius, before Pope Urban V against the Irregularities of the Court of Rome.  
A Discourse upon the Change of Money, by the same Author.  
The Apple of the Eye. For the Instruction of Priests, by John de Burgo.  
A Directory for Inquisitors, by Nicholas Eymericus.  
Letters of the same Author.  
A Treatise of the Observation of the Canons, or the Divine Office, by Radulphus de Rivo.  
The Instruction of Pastors, by Franciscus Ximenius.  
Letters and Bulls of Pope Clement VI Innocent VI Urban V and Gregory XI.  
Letters, Acts, and divers Pieces concerning the Popes which sat at Rome and Avignon; in which are several things Remarkable about the Schism, and the Contendants for the Papacy.  
An Alphebetical Table of Canons, by Matthew Blastares.  
A Treatise of the Causes, or Questions about Marriage, by the same Author.  
The Calendar of Isaac Argyrus.  
Canons and Rules of Councils in the VIIth. Chapter.   

Treatises about the Ecclesiastical, and Civil Power and Jurisdiction.  
The greatest part of the Letters of Boniface VIII. and the Acts made about that time.  
A Treatise of the Regale and Sacerdotal Power, by Peter de Bosco.  
The Treatise of an Anonymous Author upon the same Subject.  
A Treatise of the same Matter, by John of Paris.  
A Treatise of Aegidius Romanus.  
A Treatise of Harvaeus Natalis.  
The Summary of Augustinus Triumphus, about the Power of the Church.  
A Treatise of the Jurisdiction of the Emperor, and the Authority of the Pope.  
The Treatise of Alvarus Pelagius, of the Complaint of the Church.  
A Treatise of the Eccesiastical and Secular Power, by Ockam. who also Composed Eight Questions upon the same Subject.  
— His Treatises against John XXII. and,  
— His Treatise of the Power of the Emperor.  
The Defender of the Peace against the Usurped Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop, by Marsilius Patavinus, who also made,  
A Treatise of the Translation of the Empire.  
A Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Power, by Radulphus de Praeles.  
The Dream of the Green, by Philip Mesorius.  
An Information of the Nullity of the Procession formed by John XXII. against Lewis of Bavaria.  
Some Treatises of Franciscus Mayronius.  
A Treatise of Durandus about the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.  
The Acts of the Conference of the Clergy and John Cugieres about the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, by Petrus Bertrandus.  
A Treatise of the Original and Use of Jurisdictions, or of the Spiritual and Temporal Powers, by the same Author.  
A Treatise of the Zeal, and Affection of the Princes of Germany to Religion, by Lupoldus de Bamberg.  
A Treatise of the Rights of the Empire, by the same Author.  
A Treatise of the immediate Cause of the Ecclesiastical Power, by Petrus de Palude.   

Works of the Canon-Law,  
A Commentary upon the Rules of the Canon-Law, by Dinus de Mugillo.  
An Apparatus to the Sextus, by Cardinal Le Moin.  
A Gloss upon the Summary of Raimundus de Pennaforti, by John de Friburg.  
A Treatise of the Elections of Prelates, by William de Mandagot.  
A Commentary upon the Summary of the Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, called Oculus, by Berengarius de Fredol.  
Novels, or a Commentary upon the Five Books of the Decretals.  
Two Commentaries upon the Sextus.  
Glosses upon the Clementines.  
The Tree of Consanguinity.  
Feudal Questions about Marriage, and Interdicts.  
A Summary of Affiances, Marriage, and degrees of Consanguinity, by Johannes Andreae.  
A Commentary upon the Sextus, by Albericus Rosatus.  
A Dictionary of the Civil and Canon-Law.  
A Treatise of Ecclesiastical Interdicts, and a Table of the Texts of Scripture, quoted in the Decretals, by John Calderin.  
The Commentary of Henry Boich upon the Five Books of the Decretals, the Sextus, and the Clementines.  
A Commentary upon the Sextus, and a Repertory of Civil and Canon-Law, by Antonius de Butrio.  
The Commentaries of Zabarel upon the Five Books of the Decretals.  
— His Commentary upon the Clementines.  
A Treatise of the Authority of the Emperor to suppress Schism, by the same Author.  
A Commentary upon the Decretals, by Baldus.   

Commentaries and other Works upon the Holy Scripture.  
An Abbridgment of Scripture, by Petrus Auroelus.  
The Postil of William of Paris upon the Epistles and Gospels.  
A Commentary upon Seven Psalms, by Tho. Jeisius.  
Other Commentaries of his upon the Scripture, and the Works of Thomas Aquinas.  
Commentaries upon the Proverbs of Solomon, the Four Gospels, and Revelation, by Vitalis de Furno.  
Postils upon all the Books of the Bible, by Nicholas de Lyra.  
— His Moral Commentaries.  
A Commentary of Ludolphus upon the Psalms in their Spiritual Sense.  
230 Lectures upon the Book of Wisdom, by Robert Holkot.  
Lectures upon the Song of Songs, and upon the Seven first Chapters of Ecclesiasticus, by the same Author.  
The Commentary of Gregorius Ariminensis upon St. Paul's Epistles, and the Epistle of St. James.  
A Postil upon the Gospels, by Simon de Cremona.  
The Commentary of Nicholas Gorham, upon the New Testament.  
A Commentary upon the Psalms, by Michael Aignanus, under the Name of an unknown Person.  
A Commentary upon the Psalms, by Peter Herentals.   

Works of General History.  
A Treatise of the Rise, Growth, and End of the Roman Empire, by Engelbert.  
The Chronicle of William Nangis, and his Continuers.  
The Chronicle of the History of England, by Thomas Wicke.  
The Annals and History of Germany, by Henry Stero, and his Continuers.  
The Life of St. Lewis, by Joinville.  
A Chronicle of Germany, by Siffridus.  
A History of the Voyage into the Holy Land by Haito.  
Letters and other Acts concerning the Difference between Boniface VII. and Philip the Fair. See Chapter 1st.  
Letters and other Acts concerning the Affairs of the Templars. See Chapter 2d.  
The Annals of Ptolemaeus, Lucensis from 10 to 1303, who also Composed, a Chronicle of the Pope and Emperors.  
The Chronicle of Nicholas Trivet.  
The Secrets of the Faithful of the Cross, or the means to recover the Holy Land, by Manuel Sanutus, who has Letters upon the same Subject.  
A Treatise of the Translation of the Empire, by Marsilius of Milan.  
Other Treatises upon the same Subject, by Jordanus Saxo.  
The Lives of Clement V and John XXII. by Bernard Guidodonis, who has Written,  
The Lives of St. Fulchran, and St. Glodesindis, and the History of the Order of Grandmont, and the Monastery of St. Augustine at Lymoges, and the Acts of the Earls of Tholouse.  
The Lives of Jesus Christ, St. Joachim, St. Ann, and the Virgin Mary, by Ludolphus a Carthusian.  
The Chronicle of Henry a Monk of Ribdorff, from 1275, to 1372.  
The Flowers of History, by Matthew Florilegus.  
The Chronicle of Albert of Strasburg, from 1270, to 1378.  
The Chronicle of England by Henry Knighton.  
— His History of the Deposition of Richard the IId.  
The Ecclesiastical History of Nicephorus Callistus.  
The Life of Jesus Christ, by Cabasilas.  
The Byzantine History, by Gregorias.  
An Abridgement of the Ecumenical Councils, by Nilus.  
The History of Cantacuzenus.   

Works of Particular History.  
The Treatise of Stephen Salagnac, a Preaching Friar, in Honour of his own Order.  
The History of the Church of Ageris, by William le Maire.  
A Chronicle of the Kings of France, by William Nanges, who also Writ, the Lives of St. Lewis and Philip the Hardy.  
The Life of St. Walpurga, by Philip Bishop of Eichstat.  
The Life of Thomas Archbishop of Crete, by the Knight Meserius.  
A Voyage into the Holy Land, by Baldensel.  
The Letters of Arnoldus Cescomes to require Aid against the Saracens.  
A Chronicle of the Bishops of Utr●cht, and Earls of Holland, by John Becanus, Canon of that City: With Additions.  
The History of the Bishops of Liege, from 1247, to 1348. by Hortensius.  
The History of S. Gothalmus, by Bernard Dapifer.  
A Chronicle of the Arch-Bishops of York▪ by Thomas Stubbs.  
The Life of Bartholus Bishop of Strasburg, by Albert de Strasburg.  
A Catalogue of Saints, by Petrus de Natalibus.  
The Mirror of Carmelites, by Ribot.  
The Viridarium of that Order, and their Illustrious Men, by John Grossius.  
The History of the Abbots of Canterbury, by Thorn.  
The History of the three Bishops of Liege, by Radulphus de Rivo.  
The Letters of Lucius Colutius Stignano.  
The Lives of the Popes at Avignon, by Peter Herentals.  
The Passion of S. Cordatus, by Nicephorus Gregoras.   

Works of Morality.  
A Summary for Confessors, by John de Friburg.  
A Treatise of the Poison of Mortal Sins, and their Cure; by Malachias.  
A Moral Mirror, by Vitalis de Furno.  
A Treatise of the Seven Estates of the Church, by Ubertinus de Cassalis.  
Some Treatises of Franciscus Mayronius.  
A Summary of Cases, by Astesanus.  
A Summary of Cases called, The Golden Summary, by Monaldus.  
A Summary of Cases, by Bartholomew de S. Concordia.  
Two Books of the Remedies of both Fortunes.  


Two Books of a Solitary Life.  
Two Books of the leisure of Monks.  
Two Books of the Contempt of the World.  
A Paraphrase upon the Penitential Psalms.  
A Treatise against Avarice.  
Some Letters.   By Petrarch.  
An Addition to the Mirror of Durantus, by John Andreae.  
A Treatise of Usury, by Gregory Ariminens.  
Nineteen Books of Morality, by Bartholomew Glanvile.  
A Treatise of the Care of a Commonwealth, and the State of Sovereign Princes, by Philip de Loydis.  
The Consolation of Divinity, or the Mirror of Wisdom, by John de Tambach.  
Sophologia, by Jacobus Magnus.  
Two Letters of Morality, by Baralam.  
Works of Morality, by Manuel Palaeologus, the Greek Emperor.   

Works of Piety and Mortification.  
Hymns and Proses, by Jacobus de Benedictis.  
A Commentary of Augustinus Triumphus, upon the Lord's Prayer, and Angelical Salutation.  
The Tree of a crucified Life, by Ubertinus de Casalis.  
Five Treatises of Franciscus Mayronius.  
The Works of Ludolphus a Carthusian.  
A Treatise of the four Instincts: And Sermons of the Passion, by Henry de Urimaria.  
A Treatise of the Actions of Jesus Christ, and a Treatise of the Virgin, by Simon de Cassia.  
The Treatise of Richard Hampole.  
The Mirror of the Monks of S. Benedict, by Bernard, Abbot of Mount Cassin.  
The Pomegranade, by Gallus Abbot of Konigsael.  
The Revelations, Sermons, and Rules of St. Bridget.  
The Letters of St. Catharine of Sienna.  
A Treatise of Providence by her, as also,  
A Discourse of the Annunciation of the Virgin.  
The Divine Doctrine of the Eternal Father to the Holy Spirit, by Raimundus de Vignes.  
Three Works of Gerhard Groot.  
The Works of Piety of Ruysbrokius.  
The Mirror of the Virgin, by Bonaventure of Milan.  
The Ascetic Treatises of Gerhard de Zutphen.  
The Works of Raimundus Jordanus.  
The Angelical and Christian Life of Fr. Ximenius.  
The Mystical Divinity of Henry de Palma.  
The Conformity of Jesus Christ and St. Francis, by Bartholomew Albicius.  
The Treatises of Piety of Manuel Palaeologus.  
A Discourse of the Contempt of Death, by Demet. Cydonius,  
Six Books of the Praises of the Virgin, by Barthol. Albicius.   

Sermons and Works about Preaching.  
A Summary of Examples and Comparisons for Preachers, by John de S. Geminiano.  
Funeral Orations and Sermons for Lent, by him,  
A Sermon of Justus in a Chapter of the Carthusians.  
A Sum for Preachers, by John of Friburg, Bishop of Osmo.  
Sermons upon Sundays, Lent, and the Festivals of the Saints, by Hugh de Prato.  
Sermons upon the Immaculate Conception, by Petrus Aureolus.  
Sermons and Explications of the Gospel, by Jacobus de Lausanna.  
The Sermons of Franciscus Mayronius.  
An Abbridgment of Sermons, by Philip de Montcalier.  
The Sermons of Peter de Palude.  
Historical Morals for Preachers, by Robert Holkot.  
Sermons in commendation of the Virgin, by Richard of Armagh.  
The Sermons of Thaulerus.  
The Dictionary, Reductory and Inductory of the Bible, by Petrus Bercherius.  
A Sum of Sermons, by Jordanus Saxo.  
Sermons for all the Year, by Nicholas Gorham.  
A Sum for Preachers, by John Bromiard.  
The Sermons of Bartholomew Glanvile.  
The Sermons of Bartholomew Albicius.  
The Sermons of Planudes, upon the Burial of Jesus Christ.  
— His Sermon upon St. Peter and St. Paul.  
The Funeral Oration of Theodorus, by Gregorius Metochita.  
A Homily upon the Exaltation of the Cross, by Callistus Patriarch of Constantinople.  
The Sermons of Philotheus.  
The Panegyric of Theodorus, by Manuel Palaeologus.   

Commentaries upon the Books of the Fathers.  
A Commentary upon the Books of St. Augustine, De civitate Dei, by Tho. Joisius.  
Another Commentary upon the same Work, by Nicholas Trivet.  
A Milleloquium of St. Augustine, begun by Triumphus, and finished by Bartholomew Urban; who also made the Milleloquium of St. Ambrose.  
A Translation of St. Augustine's Books De Civitate Dei, by Radulphus de Praelles.  
A Treatise of Franciscus Mayronius upon St. Augustine De Civitate Die.   

Philosophical Works.  
A Commentary of Joannes Scotus upon Aristotle, and other Treatises.  
Some Treatises of Raymundus Lullius.  
The Commentaries of Antonius Andreas the Scholar of Scotus upon the Books of Aristotle and Boethius.  
The Philosophical Treatises of Ockam.  
The Philosophical Treatise of John de Gaunt.  
The Treatises of Franciscus Mayronius.  
The Treatises of Walter Burley.  
A Treatise upon the Eight Books of Aristotle's Physics, by John Canon.  
A Commentary upon the Ten Books of Aristotle's Morals, by Gerhard Odonis.  
The Questions of Alphonsus Vargas upon the Three Books of Aristotle De Anima.    

An INDEX of the Principal Matters contained in this Volume.  

A  
Abbot's. Of their Election in France, etc. 47. They ought not to part those Goods which are common with their Monks, 94  
The Act of the Sorbonne first Introduced, 62  
Public Acts. A Clause observed by the Apostolic Notaries, 40  
Adam de Valencour. 17  
Adulterers Excommunicated, 93. And deprived of Christian Burial, 98  
Aleth made a Bishopric, 22  
Amanaeus, Archbishop of Ausche. His Constitutions, 94, 100  
Appeals. A Rule concerning them, 47  
Aquileia. A Council held there by Gregory XII. 46  
Archbishoprics. Erected by Pope John XXII. 22  
Arch-Bishops. How Elected in the Neutrallty for the Schism, 47  
Arch-Deacons. Not to exact in their Visitations, 93  
Armenians. United to the Church, by Clement VI 31  
Arnoldus de Canteloup. His Constitutions, 105  
Arnoldus de Montanier. His Errors, 115  
Arnoldus de Villa Nova. His Errors, 113  
Avignon. The Popes that resided in that City, 21, 22, 29, 30, 31, 32.  
Asylum. The Right of Churches to be Asyla, 93, 105  
Attributes. Some Propositions concerning the Divine Attributes, recanted as Erroneous, 114   

B  
BAns of Marriage, Necessary, 95, 97, 110  
Baptism. The necessity of it, 95. Its effects, ibid. Forbidden to be administered out of the Church, 96. The People to be instructed in its Form, 97, 98. Errors about it condemned in England, 115  
Barlaamites. The subject of their contests with the Palamites, 84, 85. Condemned by several Greek Councils, 85, 86.  
Begards and Beguines. Their Establishment and Errors, 28, 112. Condemned in the Council of Vienna, 95. Prosecuted by Innocent VI in Germany, 32  
Begging. The Conclusions of Richard Archbishop of Armagh, about the Mendicant Friars, 71  
Bells. Their Consecration, 97  
Benefices. Their Presentation, 95, 117.  
The Age necessary to attain them, 98. Not to be received from Lay-Men, 94. They belong to the King in France, to present to them, 6, 8. Their Collations during the Schism of the Popes, 40, 42, 43, 47. Ought not to be divided, 101. Plurality of them forbidden, 30, 92, 93, 117. Rules concerning Benefices, 30, 92, 93, 99, 101  
Beneficed Persons. Their Qualifications, 97, 98, 101  
Benedict XII. His Commendations 30. Marries his Niece to a Merchant, ibid.  
Benedict XIII. The Agreement among the Cardinals before his Election, 39 He promises to recede from his Papacy, after his Election, ibid. A Famous Embassy from France to this Pope, to propound the way of Session, ibid. His refusal of it, approved by most of the Christian Princes, ibid. Is Besieged at Avignon, but raises the Siege by an Accommodation, 41. The History of the rest of his Actions, ibid. & sequ. p. 48.  
Bernard d' Aspa. Punished for Rebelling against John XXII. 25  
Bernard Delitiosi. Sent to John XXII. 24. Arrested and Imprisoned, 25. The Punishment inflicted on him for his Crimes, ibid.  
Bermard Saisset, Bishop of Pamiez. Why Arrested and Imprisoned, 4, 5  
Bernard de la Salle. Set to Guard the Conclave, at the Election of Clement VII. 35  
Bertholus de Rorbarch. His Errors, and their Condemnation, 115  
Bertrandus Latger. Cardinal, present at the Election of Urban VI 33. Why Degraded and Deprived of his Benefices, 37. Restored by Boniface IX. 38  
Bills. The Punishment of such as put up threatening Bills, 92  
Bishops. Their Election in France during the Neutrality, 47. Public Prayers and Processions at the Ordination of Bishops, 97. Their Ordination by the Metropolitan, 98. Their Reception when they take Possession ibid. Rules for their Duties, 93. Obliged to reside in their Churches, 30. And to be present at Provincial Councils, 47. Their Jurisdiction, 60. Prayers for Bishops deceased, 97  
Bishoprics. Erected by Pope John XXII. in France, 22  
Blaisus Fernandez, Archbishop of Toledo. A Council held under him, 108  
Blasphemers. Their Punishment, 98  
Bonagetus, a Grey Friar. His Opinion concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper,  
Boniface VIII. His Differences with Philip the Fair. His Attempts to raise his Authority above Princes, 1, 4, 5. Accusations brought against that Pope, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  
Boniface IX. Induced by two Carthusian Monks, to put an end to the Schism, 38. The Abuses cast on him by the Ambassadors of Benedict XIII. 42. The Testimonies of Thierri de Niem, given of that Pope, 37  
Bononia in Italy. Pope Benedict XII. His Design to go and reside in that City, 29  
Boucicaut, Marshal of France. Besieged Avignon, 41. The Cardinals he Arrested, ibid. Peter de Luna imprisoned by him, 46  
Bulls. Amended in their Expedition, 30  
Burial Christian. Forbidden in Churches, 93. The Rights of Burial preserved to Churches of the Parishes, ibid. With Monks, on what condition allowed, 102, 104, 118. Such as be deprived of it, 93, 98, 109. The Parts of a Body not to be Buried separately 104   

C  
Canon's for the Discipline of the Church, 92  
Cardinals. A Promotion of them by Urban VI 35. By Clement VII. 36. By Gregory XII. 45, 46. Their Power and Rights, 96. An Assembly of such as opposed Gregory XII's Party at Pisa, 45. Their Acts against the Pope, ibid.  
Cases reserved. Which Priests can't Absolve, 109  
Castle of S. Angelo. In part demolished, 35. By whom rebuilt, 38  
Castres'. Made a Bishopric, 22  
S. Catharine of Sienna. Gregory XII's. Declaration, concerning the Resolution which she had made him take, to go and reside at Rome, 33  
Ceccus Asculanus. His Errors, 118  
Celestine V. His Renuntiation of the Papacy, 3  
Challant Cardinal. Sent Legate into France, 43  
Canons. Their number and distributions, 99 Such as are not in Orders, have no Vote in the Chapter, 98. The Revenues of Canons Suspended, fall to the Chapter, 95  
Chapters Provincial. Appointed, 47, 97  
Charles IV. Emperor. His Election to the Empire, 31. His Coronation at Rome, 32. His Competitors, 31. His Interview with Urban V. 32  
Charles the Fair, King of France. His Marriage with Queen Blanch made void, 29  
Charleses V King of France. His Precautions before he would own Pope Clement the VII. 36  
Charles VI King of France. The Letter of the University of Paris to him, to Extinguish the Schism, 38. He writes to the Cardinals at Avignon, to forbid them to Elect a new Pope, 39 Forbids his Subjects to go to Rome, 41. His other Actions, ibid. & sequ, to p. 48.  
Charles of Duras, King of Naples. Invested in that Kingdom, by Urban VI 36. gets Possession by destroying Queen Jane, ibid. The way he took to keep it, 18, 37. His Differences with Urban VI 137. His Tragical Death, ibid. His Widow deprived of the Kingdom, ibid.  
Chrism. The Consecration of it reserved to the Bishops, 101. It's distribution to the Curates, gratis, 95. Ought to be kept under a Lock and Key, 97  
Churches. New ones Founded, 95. Polluted one's cleansed, 93, 104. The Obligation to provide them of suitable Ornaments, 95. Markets, Conferences, or Courts of Justice forbidden in them, 97 101, 104. The Right to be Asyla or Sanctuaries for Malefactors, 105  
Church of France. It's Jurisdiction and Rights contested, 64. 65. Maintained in all its Franchises, Liberties and Customs, 65. Rules for the Government of it in the Neutrality, upon account of the Schism, 47  
Church Greek. Projects to Unite it with the Latin, 83, 84. Means propounded by Benedict. XII. and Barlaam, ibid.  
Citations ought to follow Admonitions, and ought not to be general, 99  
Clement V Pope. How he got the Papacy, 10. A dreadful Accident which happened at his Coronation, 11  
Clement VII. Hindered from raising a Tax in France, 37. The Employment of those that had been levied, ibid. The cause of his Death, 37, 39 The ancient Family of the Earls of Geneva ended in him, 39  
Clergymen. Rules for their Conversation, 94, 104, 117. May not officiate in another Diocese, unless allowed by the Bishop, 92, 93, 97. Their Modesty in Apparel, 98, 100, 109. Rules for their Diet, 93. A Prohibition to levy any Tax on them without the Pope's leave, 2. That they ought not to pay Taxes, 93. Rules against those that abuse them, 94, 100, 104, 105, 109. A Clergyman not to go out in the Night without a Candle, 104  
Clergy of France. Oppose the Exactions of the Court of Rome, 37  
College of Autun. When and by whom Founded at Paris, 64. Cardinal le Moine's College. The time of its Foundation, 50. Orders about Building its Church, 92  
Colonni. Pope Boniface's Prosecution of that Family, 3, 4. Their Restauration, 10, 11  
Commendams. Become frequent, 117. Those of Abbeys and Cathedrals revoked by Benedict XII. 30. The Revocation of several, granted by Clement VI 31  
Communion. The Canon, Omnis Utriusque sexus, renewed, 95, 97, 101, 103, 106, 108, 118  
Conception of the Virgin Mary. Scotus' Opinion about it, 52. The Immaculate Conception received by the University of Paris, ibid.  
Conclave. The Constitution of Clement the VI about it, 31  
Concubine-Keepers. How punished, 93, 94  
Confession. The Obligation of making it to one's own Curate, 71. Allowed to be made to begging Friars, ibid. & 118. A Canon made between the Begging Friars and Bishops about Confessions 96. The Duty of Priests in them, 110. Allowed to Priests to choose whom they please for it, 109. A Question about the Secrecy of Confession, 68  
Confessors. Ought not to require any thing for doing their Duty, 94  
Conradus Archbishop of Saltzburg, renews several Constitutions in a Council, ibid.  
Councils. The Celebration of them, 47, 116. The Authority of a General Council, 60  
County of Burgundy, why seized on by Philip the Fair, 3  
Court of Rome. Reformed by Benedict XII. 30. Its Exactions opposed in France, 40, 42, 43, 44  
Cramault Patriarch of Alexandria. His Remonstrance to the Assembly of Paris, 40. Opposes the disannulling of the Substraction. 41  
Criminals. In matters of Faith may be proceeded against without Counsel or Advocate, 16. When such as are Condemned to Death, may have the Sacrament administered to them, 86, 100  
Croisado. Against the Colonni in Italy, 4. Against the Florentines, 32. Against the Turks, under Clement VI 31  
Curio Mundus Militat, etc. The Author of that Prose, 51  
Cures. The Collation of them, 92, 93, 95   

D  
DAtary of Rome. By whom made, 38  
Dead. Prayers for Dead Bishops and others, 97  
Decret●ls of Popes. The Compilers of them, 48  
Dionysius Soulechat a Grey Friar. His Errors and their Condemnation, 114, and 115  
Deposita. Or things put into the keeping of the Church, a Canon in their favour, 93  
Diet. A Rule about the Diet of the Clergy, 93  
Discipline of the Church. A Canon about it 92, divers Points of it, 117, 118, & sequ. to 111  
Dispensations. Their Grant 47. 60. The common use of them abolished 30  
Dulcinus de Novara. His Errors and Tragical Death, 112  
Charles of Duras. See Charles.   

E  
Ecclesiastical Revenues. See Revenues. Eckard a Preaching Friar. His Errors, 79, 113  
Edward II. King of England. His Quarrels with Philip the Fair, 2. His Ambassadors delivered to the French, 30. He refuses the Empire of Germany, 31  
Edward III. His Institution of the Order of the Garter, 118  
Elections. Rules about them, 92. Why restored in France, 40, 43, 44. Rules about them in France, during the Neutrality, 47  
Emperors of the Greeks. Their Succession in the 14 Century, 82. Their disposition to Unite the Greek and Latin Churches, 83, 84  
Empire of Germany. Contended for between Lewis of Bavaria, and Frederick of Austria, 23  
Engelbert Archbishop of Colen. His Canons confirmed by his Successors, 102  
Entrance into the Monastic Life. A Prohibition to take any thing for it, 95  
Epistles and Gospels. Who are to Read them in the Church, 94  
Essence. A Dispute about Essence and Operation amongst the Greeks, 84, 85, 86  
Eucharist. A Dispute, Whether the Three Persons of the Trinity are in the Eucharist, 76. John of Paris the Dominicans Opinion about it, 50, as also of John de Latona and Bonagetus 115. Indulge●ces granted those that attend it, when carried to the Sick, 102. Ought to be under Lock and Key, 97  
Excommunication. Forbidden for Money-Matters, 98. Absolution from it reserved to the Pope by whom given, 47. Rules concerning Excommunications, 117  
Excommunicate Persons. Rules against them, 92, 93, 94, 105. Of their Burial, when they remain a Year, 98, 107  
Extreme Unction. Who are to Administer it, 110   

F  
THe Faculty of Divinity, at Paris. It's ●…wisdom and constancy to its Decisions, 15. It's power to maintain the Faith, 114, 115.  
False Coiners. A Canon against them, 92  
Festivals. The Institution of the Feast of the H. Sacrament confirmed, 96. Christians exhorted to Fast on its Vigil, 100 Those of the Apostles and four Evangelists Commanded, 104, and also of St. Martha, ibid., and St. Ildefonsus, 105, and of the Conception, 110. The solemnity of the Feasts of Patrons, 97  
Favours. See Gratiae Expectativae, 7, 8  
First Fruits. Their Establishment, 37 116. Forbidden in France during the Schism, 43, 44  
Flanders. The Pope's Bull in favour of the Count of Flanders against the King of France, 4. That King refuses to set the Count and his Children at Liberty, ibid.  
Florentines. Their Revolt from Gregory XI. 32  
St. Flour, made a Bishopric. 22  
France. Its Privileges opposed by Pope Boniface, and maintained by King Philip the Fair, 5  
Francis Baroncelle's Attempts at Rome, and his Tragical End, 32  
Francis de Pistorio, a Grey Friar. Burnt at Venice, and why, 30  
Francis Pregnano Nephew of Urban VI The Design of that Pope to Advance him, 35. The Estate he procured him, 36 The effects of his Dissoluteness in Naples, 37  
Francis Thebaldesches, called Cardinal of St. Peter. How acknowledged Pope, 34. His Death, 35  
Fratricelli. A sort of Monks abolished, 28  
Frederick Duke of Austria. His Election to the Empire, 23. Confirmed by the Pope, ibid. Defeated and taken Prisoner by his Competitor Lewis of Bavaria, Ibid.  
Frederick Marquis of Misnia. Refuses the Empire, 31  
freewill. According to Bradwardin, 70  
Friars Minors, or Grey Friars. Divided into Two Parties, and how Named, 24. The causes of that Division, ibid. A Canon made by John XXII. of the Form of their Habit, 25. The Prosecution and Condemnation of such as disobeyed it, ibid. and 32. A Dispute about what they spent, 25, 26, 27  
Friars Spiritual. Their Errors, 24, 25, 32, 112  
Friars of the Common Life, Their Institution, 118  
Frerots. Their Errors, 112  
Fulcranus, or Fulcaldus de Rochechovart Archbishop of Bourges. A Council held under him 106   

G  
GAllican Church. See Church of France.  
Garter. The Order of that Name, when Established in England, 118  
Geneva. The Ancient Race of its Counts extinct by the Death of Clement VII. 39  
Gentilis de Mon●flore, Cardinal. Some Canons which he Published in a Council in Hungary, 94  
Geoffrey, See Jeffrey.  
Gerhard Minister. General of the Grey Friars is Pope JohnIId's Legate to Paris, 28. The scandal, his Doctrine about the Saints Happiness caused, ibid.  
Gerhard Sagarel. His Errors, 112  
Gerlac, Archbishop of Mentz, Succeeds Henry Deposed, 31. Much forwarded the Election of Charles of Moravia to the Empire, ibid.  
Gerson. See John Gerson.  
Giles D' Albernoz, Archbishop of Toledo. His Constitutions in divers Councils, 166, 167  
Giles Alvarez, Cardinal. The effects of his Legateship in Italy, 32  
Giles Des Champs, Doctor of Paris. Refuses to go to Clement III. 38. Publishes the Act of Substraction, 40  
Gonsalvus III. Archbishop of Toledo. A Council held under him, 105  
Gontherius, Count of Thuringia. His Election to the Empire, and his Death, 31  
Grace. Of Grace and freewill, 70  
Gratiae Expectativae. Reformed by Benedict XII. 30. Abolished in France, 41, 44  
Gregory XI. Pope. By whom advised to leave Avignon, and Reside at Rome, 32. He follows the Advice, but reputes of it, ibid. & 33. The Schism after his Death, ibid. & sequ to p. 48  
Gregory XII. The Agreement between the Cardinals before his Election, 43, Sends to Benedict to exhort him to cease the Schism, ibid. Benedict's Answer to his Letter, 44. His Embassy to Benedict and the Treaty with him, ibid. The rest of his Actions, ibid. 41  
Guelphs and Gibelines. The Troubles caused by these Factions in Italy, 22, 42, 43, etc.  
Guy an Augustine Hermit. Obliged to Recant several Propositions, which he had delivered, 114  
Guy de Malesicco, called Cardinal of Poitiers. At the Election of Urban VI 33. And Deputed by the College in France against Benedict XIII. 41, and for the Pope, ibid.  
Guy de Roye, Archbishop of Rheims. Protests against the Neutrality Published in France, and is Summoned for it by the University of Paris, but refuses to Appear, ibid.   

H  
HAbits. The Clergy to be modest in them, 98, 100, 101, 104, 109. A Contest amongst the Grey Friars about the Form of their Habit, 24, 25, 32  
Happiness, of the Souls of the Just after Death, Disputed. 27, 28. The Opinion of John XXII. on that Subject opposed by the Faculty of Divinity at Paris, 28. That Question determined by Benedict XII. 29  
Hesychasts or Quietists. Their Opinion about the Light which appeared upon Mount Tabor, 84, 85  
Henry VII. Emperor. His Election, 22. Coronation at Milan and Rome, ibid. His Death, ibid. & 23  
Henry Archbishop of Colen. The Canons made by him in several Councils, 94, 102  
Henry Archbishop of Mentz. Deposed by Clement VI 31  
Heretics. Rules against them, 92  
Hieronymites. Their Institution, 118  
Hugh Giraldi Bishop of Cahors. The Crimes for which he was Condemned and Executed, 22   

I  
JAmes Molay Great Master of the Templars. The Prosecution of him and ●is Order, 13, etc. Is Absolved with some other Knights Templars, 15. His Execution, 19  
Jane Queen of Naples. Succeeds her Father in his Dominions, 30. The Murder of the King her Husband, ibid. She deserts Urban VI's interest, 34, 36. Who deprives her of her Kingdom, 36. Her Tragical Death, ibid.  
Janovez of Majorca. His foolish Visions, 115  
Jeffrey de la hay Archbishop of Tours. The Canons which he made in a Council, 109  
Jesuates. Their Institution 118  
Jews, Distinguished from Christians by a Mark▪ 97  
Immunities of the Church, The Preservation of them, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 107, 109, 110  
Incarnation, The Mysteries of it explained in the Council of Vienna, 95  
John XXII. His Differences with Lewis of Bavaria, 23, etc. Why Deposed by that Prince and the Romans, 24, 27. The History of his Contest with the Grey-Friars, 25, 26, 27. His Opinion concerning the Happiness of the Saints after Death, 27, 28. His vain Attempts to establish it, 28. His Recantation of it when he Died, ibid. His Death. 24  
John Archbishop of Compostella. The Council held by him, 105  
John Archbishop of York. His Constitutions in a Council, 111  
John Archbishop of Toledo, His Canons made in several Councils, 101, 10●  
John 〈◊〉 ●●ssanhas a Templar. His Deposition against that Order, 14. The Ceremonies observed at his Admission into it, ibid. ●is Interrogatories and Depositions for and against his Order, 14, 15, 16  
John de Chale●r Dr. of Paris. Obliged to Recant some Doctrines he had Taught, 114  
John Columbanus. Institutes the Order of ●esuates, 118  
John de Courtecuisse a Dr. of Paris. His Speech before King Charles VI against Benedict XIII. 45  
John Gerson. His Opinion concerning the Contemplative Monks, 74, 75  
John de Janduno, or of Gaunt. His Errors concerning the Spiritual and Temporal Power, 113, 114  
John de Latona a Grey Friar▪ His Opinion of the Eucharist, 115  
John of Liege, Cardinal. How he drew the Cardinals by his Example, to leave Gregory XII. 45  
John Mercourt a Bernardine. His Doctrine Condemned, 114  
John Palaeologus the Greek Emperor, his Voyage into Italy, and his Profession of Faith, 32, 84  
John of Paris a Dominican, his Doctrine about the Eucharist 50. And about the Regal and Priestly Power, ibid. 51  
John de Roquetaillade, a Grey Friar▪ The Punishment his Predictions brought on him, 32  
John Stratford Archbishop of Canter●u●y, Councils held under him, 111  
John de Turreis Treasurer of the Temple; taken out of his Grave and his Bones burnt, 18  
John de Vienne Archbishop of Rheims, Rules which he published in the Council, 107  
Isidore Patriarch of Constantinople, A follower of Palamas, and how he obtained that Dignity, 85. Deposed by a Council of Constantinople, ibid. He Assembled a Council against the Adversaries of Palamas, 85, 86  
Jubilee; Its Establishment, 4, 30, 116  
Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, Canons against those that hindered the Execution of its Judgements, 92, 93. Causes which are forbidden to it, ibid. One Bishop has none in the Diocese of another, 97. The Rights of the Ecclesiastical and Secular Jurisdictions, 64, 65, 66. Rules concerning it in France during the Neutrality, 47. The Decision of the University of Paris, concerning the Secular Jurisdiction in Spiritual Affairs, 15   

K.  
KIngdom of France. Its Prerogatives by whom traversed, and by whom maintained, 5, 6, etc.   

L.  
LAdislaus King of Naples. By whom Crowned, 38. Gets that Kingdom, Ibid. Attempts to take Rome, 43. He becomes Master of it at last, 45. He dissuades Gregory XII. from the Session▪ Ibid.  
Laymen. The Pope's Authority over their Goods, 51  
Lavaur, made a Bishopric, 22  
Legates of the H. See. The Respect and Obedience due to them, and their Orders, 94. Obliged to show their Commissions to the Ordinaries, 98  
Lent. A Prohibition to eat Flesh in Lent, 101  
Lepers. Taxes not to be laid upon them, 93  
Lewis a Divine. Obliged to recant his Doctrine, 114  
Lewis Duke of Anjou King of Naples. The Donation of it to him, 36. Died in getting Possession of it, 37. His Son Lewis Crowned King of Naples by Clement VII. possesses himself of it, but dies soon after, 38  
Lewis Duke of Bavaria Emperor. His Election, 23. Declared null by John XXII. Ibid. His Appeals from him, Ibid. The Antipope he sets up against him, 24. His Attempts to obtain favour of Benedict XII. 29. Of Clement VI 31. Is Excommunicated and Deposed by this last Pope, Ibid. His Death, Ibid. The Absolution of his Son Lewis, 32  
Lewis Harcourt Archbishop of Rouen. His Election to that See confirmed, 47  
Lewis de Moliorato, Nephew of Innocent VII. His Cruelty to the Magistrates of Rome, 43  
L●llard. A Sect of Heretics and their Errors, 118  
L●mbez, made a Bishopric, 22  
L●con, made a Bishopric, 22   

M.  
MAillezais made a Bishopric 22  
Marriage. Necessity of Banns, 97. 110. Time of Celebrating it, 97▪ Dispensations of Marriage forbidden, 47, 60. Canons against Clandestine Marriages, 93, 94, 95. With Infidels forbidden, 94  
Mary Princess of Sicily. The Motives of Urban VI to oppose her Marriage with the Marquis of Montferrat, 35  
Mars●lius Patavinus. His Errors concerning the Spiritual and Temporal Power, 113, 114  
Martin Gonsalvus. His Errors and condemnation, 115  
Mass. Its Parts and Ceremonies, 89. The obligation of Priests to Celebrate it, 98, 106, 109. The necessity of Celebrating it in Parishes, 97. Confession to be used at the introitus, 98. Nothing to be taken for Celebrating it, nor more than one to be said on a day, 101. When the Mass de Beata is to be said, 102, 108  
Mirepoix made a Bishopric, 〈◊〉  
Monkery. See Religion.  
Monks. Reformed by Benedict XII. 30. Rules concerning them, 47, 94, 117. Monks Apostatised, excluded from Benefices and Ecclesiastical Offices. Begging Monks that enter into any other Order, to be deprived of their Pensions and Benefices, 97. A Regulation about them and the Ordinaries, 96, 109, 118  
Montsault, A Priory, by whom Founded, 64  
Montauban made a Bishopric, 22   

N  
NAme of Jesus, An indulgence to such as pronounce it with the bowing of the Head, 102, 107  
Naples. Charles Duras, by whom made King of it, 36. Jane the Queen gives it to Lewis Duke of Anjou, ibid.  
Neutrality, Published in France during the Schism, 46. Disapproved by several Bishops of France, 47  
Nicholas V. Antipope, The Reasons of ●is Election, 24. He is delivered to John XXII. and dies penitent, 24  
Nicholas of Calabria his Errors and Condemnation, 115  
Nicholas Laurentius. His Attempts in Rome, and his Tragical end, 31, 32  
Nominals, A sort of Schoolmen, Antagonists to the Averroists, or Realists, 48  
Notaries, Rules concerning them, 95, 98  
Nuns, A Canon relating to them, 98   

O  
OFfice Divine, Its Celebration, 94, 97 107. The Obligation of Clergymen to be at it and say it, 104, 107. The Office of the Order of S. Benedict ought to be the same in all the Monasteries, 97  
Omphalopsychi, Greek Quietists, Why so called, 84  
Operation, Disputes among the Greeks about the Essence and Operation of God, 84, 85, 86  
Oratories, Not to be built without the permission of the Bishop, 118  
Ordinations, Of Bishops ought to be by Metropolitans, 98. Public Prayers and Processions for their Ordination, 97. The Age prescribed to receive Orders, 94; 98. The Qualities of such as are to be Ordained, 110. None to receive them without Letters Dimissiory from his Bishop, except Mendicant Friars, 97. Beneficed Persons obliged to be Ordained, 117  
Order of Alcantara, Its Establishment, 118  
Order of S. Ambrose, Approved by Gregory XI. Ibid.  
Order of Christ, Its Establishment, Ibid.  
Order of the Star, When Instituted in France, Ibid.  
Order of S. Francis, A Contest amongst them about the Meaning and Practice of some parts of their Rule, 24, 25. An Order of the Pope about the Form of their Habit, Ibid.  
Order of Hieronymites, Their Institution, 118  
Order of the Garter, By whom Instituted in England, Ibid.  
Orders Military, Such as are Established for the defence of the Faith, aught to enjoy the same Privileges as other Monks, 15  
Order of S. Saviour, By whom Instituted, 73, 118  
Ornaments of the Churches, What care ought to be had of them, 97  
Otho Duke of Brunswick, Forsakes the Interests of Urban VI 35. Taken Prisoner by Charles Duras, 36. Gets out of Prison, and recovers the Kingdom of Naples. 37   

P  
PAlamites. Their Contests with the Barlaamites, 84, 85, 86  
Pamiez. Made a Bishopric 4. Subject to the Archbishop of Tholouse, 22  
S. Papoul. Made a Bishopric, ibid.  
Paul Ursmi. Hinders the City of Rome from submitting to Ladislaus King of Naples, 44. The Recompense he had for that Action, ibid.  
Pennance Public. Forbidden to Clerks, 94  
Perjured persons. Canons against them▪ 93  
Perpignan. A Council held there by Benedict XIII. 46  
Peter Bishop of Chalons. Accused of Crimes, and Absolved in a Council, 100  
Peter d'Ailly, Bishop of Cambray. Refases to go to Clement VII. 38. Sent by King Charles VI to Benedict XIII. 39 Publishes the Restitution of Obedience to that Pope, 42. Accused afterwards for Adhering to him, 46. And prosecuted for it, 47. The Conclusions of that Bishop in favour of the University of Paris, 114  
Peter of Bononia, Proctor for the Templars. His Reasons brought for the Defence of that Order, 16, 17  
Peter de Chasteau-Renaud, a Dominican. Accused of Poisoning the Emperor Henry VII. 22, 23. Testimonies against it, 23  
Peter de Corbario. Chosen Antipope by the Clergy of Rome, 24. Loses that Dignity soon after, and dies Penitent, ibid.  
Peter de Courtenay, Archbishop of Rheims. Canons made by him in a Council, 100  
Peter de Cuguieres, Counsellor to the King of France. His Discourse of the Ecclesiastical and Secular Powers, 64  
Peter Flotti. An Officer of Philip the Fair. His Declaration to the States of the Realm, against the Attempts of Boniface upon the Temporalities of Kings, 5  
Peter Frerot or Fretot, Archbishop of Tours. His Constitutions in a Council, 106  
Peter Guadaffinaria, Founder of the Order of Hieronymites, 118  
Peter le Juge, Archbishop of Narbonne. Canons made by him in a Council, 108, 109  
Peter de Luna Cardinal, afterwards Pope Benedict XIII. Sent as Legate to Spain, under Clement VII. 36. The Council he called there, 109  
Peter de Macerata and Peter de Foro Sempronio, Authors of the Sect of Frerots, or Spiritual Friars, 112  
Peter Roger, Archbishop of Rouen. The Constitutions he made in a Council, 106  
Peter John Oliva de Serignan, a Grey Friar. His Errors, 27, 112  
Philp the Fair, King of France. His Difference with Boniface VIII. 1 & sequ, to 12. His Death, 22  
Philip the Long, King of France. How he obliged the Cardinals to proceed to an Election of a Pope at Lions, 22. His Coronation, ibid.  
Philip de Marigny, Archbishop of Sens. His Canon's Published in a Council, 99  
Philip de Valois King of France, His Threats of John XXII.  
Philip de Villette, Abbot of S. Denis. His Election to that Abbey, 40  
Pileus de Prato, Cardinal. Why called the Cardinal with three Caps, 37, 38  
Pilgrin, Archbishop of Saltzburg. His Canons made in a Council. 109  
Pisa. An Assembly of Cardinals there, 45. They appoint a Council, ibid.  
Plurality of Benefices forbidden 32, 92  
Poisoners. A Canon against them, 46, 102  
S. Pons made a Bishopric, 22  
Popes. Their Authority, 50, 51, 54, 59, 60, 61. The Different Opinions of Barlaam about the Pope's Supremacy, 86, 87. As also the Judgement of Nilus Cabasilas, 88 That they can't Depose Kings, 51. But may be deposed themselves, ibid. That they correct one another, 29, 40. The Protestations of several Popes at the point of Death, concerning their Life past, 31. Such as resided at Avignon, 21, 22, 29, 30, 30, 31, 32. When their Residence was removed into Italy, 32. The Pretensions for the Pope's Residence at Rome, 24, 30. The ill effects of their Residence at Avignon, 116. The substraction of Obedience from the Pope's Benedict XIII. And Boniface IV. 40, 41. That Substraction taken off in France, as to Benedict, on certain Conditions, 41, 42. Removed in that Kingdom again, 43  
Prague made an Archbishopric, 31  
Predestination. Bradwardin's Judgement of it, 70  
Prelates obliged to reside in their Churches, 30  
Priesthood. Age to receive it, 94, 98  
Procuration. The Right of it abolished in France during the Schism, 43, 44  
Profession of Monkery. Novices obliged to make it at the end of the year, 100  
Power Ecclesiastical and Secular, Of both of them, 116. John of Paris the Dominican, his Judgement, 50. As also of Aegidius Romanus, 54. Marsilius Patavinus, 60. Ralph de Praelles and Philip Meserius, 61. Peter Bertrand, 65, 66. Attempts of Pope Boniface upon the Temporalities of Kings, 1, 4, 5, 7. These Attempts opposed in France, 5, 6, 7, 50, 51  
Purgation Canonical, Where it takes place, 101   

Q  
QUestors, A Canon against them, 92 Quietists, or Hesycasts, Their Opinion about the Light that Appeared upon Mount Tabor, 84, 85   

R  
RAinoldus Archbishop of Ravenna, Published several Constitutions in a Council, 97, 98, 99  
Recluses, Forbidden, 111  
The Rule of S. Augustine, Imposed upon several Orders in the 14 Century, 118  
Religion. Of the Entrance into it, 95  
Relics, Of their Worship, 97, 104  
Reservations, Several of them recalled by Innocent II. 31  
Residence. Commanded, 101, 117. To Bishops, 30. Curates, 92. Vicars, 95  
Revenues of the Church. Canons for the Preservation of them, 93. Forbidden to be alienated, 103, 109, 111. That the Pope cannot dispose of them as he pleases, 51. May not be bequeathed to Lay-Men, 92, 95. Constitutions against those that seize on them, 92, 93, 94, 99, 100, 102, 104, 109  
Rieux made a Bishopric, 22  
Robert Duke of Burgundy, His endeavours to make King Philip and B●niface Friends, 7  
Robert King of Apulia, Assists the Genoeses, 23. The Advantages Pope John XXII. Procured him. Ibid. The Succession to his Estates after his Death, 37  
Robert de Courtenay Archbp. of Rheims, His Canons made in a Council, 93  
R●ger Archbp. of Sens, His Discourse before K. Philip of Valois to maintain the Rights of the Ecclesiastical Power, 64, 65  
Rome, The H. See when removed from thence to Avignon, 21, 22. And when it was restored to it, 32. Pope John XXII's refusal to the Romans to reside there, 23. The Pretences of the Romans for the Pope's Residence at Rome, 24, 30. Proposals of the Romans to Clement VI 30. The Contest between the Guelphs and Gibelines about the Government of that City, 42, 43. A Conspiracy against its Liberty, 44. Made subject to Ladislaus King of Naples. 45   

S  
THE Holy Sacrament. The Institution of the Festival of it confirmed, 96. Christians exhorted to Fast on the Vigil of it, 100 See Eucharist.  
Sacraments. The Qualifications of such as Administer them, 97. Their Administration by Monks, 50  
S. Papoul made a Bishopric, 22  
S. Pons Made a Bishopric, ibid.  
Salve Regina ordered to be sung after Complines, 105  
The Salutation of the Angel. An Indulgence for such as say it in the Evening 107  
Sanceloup the Arragonian. How used in France, for carrying the Bulls of Benedict XIII. 46, 47, 48  
Sarlac made a Bishopric, 27  
Saragossa made an Archbishopric, by John XXII. ibid.  
Saturday. A day of Abstinence, 103  
Savonna. The meeting of the Pope's Benedict XIII. and Gregory XII. there, but the effect hindered by the last, 44  
Schism of the Popes of Rome and Avignon. Means proposed by the University of Paris to suppress it, 38 & sequ. A Neutrality Published in France during it, 46. Rules for the Government of the Church of France in the Neutrality, 47 The Schism of Peter de Corbario, 24  
Schoolmen. Their different Ages, 48. The several Authors that Flourished in those Ages, ibid. Sects made among the Schoolmen, ibid.  
Service Divine, See Office.  
Sciarra Colonni. Incurs the displeasure of Boniface VIII. 4. He is revenged of that Pope, 9 Excommunicated by Benedict XI. 10. And cannot obtain Absolution, 11  
Shaving or Ecclesiastical Tonsure. To whom not allowed, 93  
Sicily. Pope Urban VI His Design to get it for his Nephew, 35  
Simon, Archbishop of Canterbury. Councils held by him, 111  
Simon a Doctor. Obliged to revoke his Doctrines, 114  
Simon Mepham, Archbishop of Canterbury. The Constitutions he made in Councils, 110, 111  
Simon Ranulphus Archbishop of Tours. Canons made by him in a Council, 108  
Simony Condemned, 32. Banished from the Court of Rome by Benedict XII. ●30. A Prohibition to take any thing for Orders, or Presenting to Benefices, 100, 101, 106  
Sin Original. The Condemnation of an Heresy touching Original Sin, 32  
Singers of Parishes. Obliged to be able to read, 92, 95. And to be clothed with Albs in executing their Office, ibid.  
Soul. The Form of the Body 95. The Happiness of Souls, 27, 28, 29  
Stabat Mater. The Author of that Prose, 51  
Stephen B●card, Archbishop of Sens. Canons made by him in a Provincial Synod, 92  
Stew●rds appointed for Vacant Churches, 99  
Synods of Bishops. Ordered every Year, 97. The Obligation to appear when Summoned, 93   

T  
TAxes. Clerks exempted from them, 93. Those imposed on Lepers condemned, ibid. Due to the Church to be discharged, 92  
Templars. Their Original, and why so named, 12. The Crimes of which they were accused, 13, 14. Prosecutions against that Order, 12 & sequ to 21. The Dissolution of it, 19, 95. The use of their Revenues, 19 Reasons alleged for the Justification of that Order 20. Arguments to prove the Justice of Abolishing it, 20, 21  
Testaments or Last Wills. To be brought to the Bishops, 98. A Canon about those of Lay-Men, 92  
Tabor. The Contests of the Greeks about the Light which appeared there, at Christ's Transfiguration, 84, 85  
Thomas de Wallis, a White Friar, Why Punished by Pope John XXII. 28  
Tholo●se made an Archbishopric. And its Suffragans appointed 22  
Tons●●e Ecclesiastical. To whom not allowed, 43, 93  
Trin●ty. A● Error about it condemned in England, 115  
Tull● ma●e a Bishopric, 22  
Turlupins. A Sort of Heretics, why so call d, and their Errors, 115  
Tyths or Tenths. The Punishment of those that detain them, 93. Tenths. Recalled in France by Boniface VIII. 2. & sequ. and Benedict XII. 30. The opposition of the University of Paris, to the Levy of Tenths in France, by Benedict XIII. 45   

V  
VAbres made a Bishopric, 22  
Vicars of Churches, Obliged to residence, 95  
Visions, Of Private Persons not easily to be believed, 33. The Visions of Janovez, 115  
Vision of God, or Beatific Whether the Souls of the Just enjoy it immediately after Death, 27, 28, 29  
Umbilicans, A sort of Greek Quietists, 84  
University of Paris, The Decision of the Faculty of Divines there for the Templars, 15. The means they proposed to extinguish the Schism, 38. Their Demeanour in that Business, ibid. etc. 43, 45, 46  
Universities Public, Several Established by Urban V. 32  
University of Thoulouse, Opposes the Judgement of that of Paris, about the Substraction of Obedience to Benedict XIII. 41. Their Letter in favour of that Pope Condemned, 43  
Urban VI Chosen by force, 33, etc. Protestations against his Election, 35. which is declared null, 36, 37. The Ambition of that Pope for the advancement of his Nephew, 35, 36, 37. His cruel usage of those Cardinals who blamed his Actions, 37  
Usury forbidden, 39, 94, 96. And such as maintained it lawful condemned for Heretics, 96  
Usurers, Canons against them, 92, 93, 94   

W  
WEnceslaus Emperor, His Election confirmed by Urban VI 35. who follows that Prince's Interest, ibid. and 36  
Whipping Friars; A Letter against them; 31  
Wichboldus Archbp. of Colen. Constitutions of his Diocese. 92  
Will, Its Liberty according to Bradwardin.  
Wills. See Testaments.  
William Cardinal Bishop of S. Sabina. Constitutions made by him in a Council, 100, 101  
William de Aigrefeville Cardinal, Present at the Election of Urban VI 33. How he appeased the Romans, who were for an Italian Pope, 34  
William de Brye, Archbishop of Rheims, The Rules he Published in his Councils, 105  
William de Flavacourt Archbishop of Ausche, The Constitutions he Published in his Councils, 103, 104, 105  
William de Melun Archbishop o● Sens, The Constitutions he made in his Councils, 107  
William de Nogaret. The Effect of his first Embassy to Pope Boniface, 4. His Accusations of that Pope 7. His Prosecution of Boniface VIII. 9, 10, 11. He is Excommunicated by Benedict XI. 10. His endeavours to get Absolution, ibid. & 11, 12.  
Peter de Nogaret, Employed in the business of of the Templars, 13. ●is Accusations against them, 16  
William d' Orillac. Bishop of Paris, Condemns the Doctrine of John of Paris the Dominican, concerning the Eucharist.  
William de Plessis. His Accusarion against Pope Boniface VIII. 8. Sent Ambassador to Benedict XI. 10  
Women. Christian Women forbidden to Marry with Infidels, 94  
Works. An Heresy concerning Original Sin, and the Merit of Good Works Condemned, 32   

Y  
YEar. Ordered to begin at the Festival of Christmas, 95  
Year of Grace. What it is, 95. To whom the Revenues of that Year cannot be Bequeathed, Ibid.   
FINIS.   

A NEW Ecclesiastical History; Containing an ACCOUNT of the CONTROVERSIES IN RELIGION: THE LIVES and WRITINGS OF Ecclesiastical Authors; AN Abridgement of their Works, And a JUDGEMENT on their STYLE and DOCTRINE: ALSO A Compendious HISTORY of the COUNCILS, AND All Affairs Transacted in the Church. Written in FRENCH By Lewis Ellies du PIN, Doctor of the SORBON.  
VOLUME the THIRTEENTH; Containing the HISTORY of the FIFTEENTH CENTURY.  
LONDON, Printed by H. Clark, for TIM. CHILD, at the White Hart in St. Paul's Churchyard, M DC XCIX.   

PREFACE.  
THE Fifteenth Century of the Church is full of great Transactions, which deserve a very particular Consideration: The Schism of the Popes, which appeared at the beginning of it, was for many Years the great Care and Business of the Prelates, and Christian Princes of the West: After this, the Difference between the Council of Basil and Pope Eugenius IU. and th● Project of the Reunion of the Greeks to the Latin Church, wer● the great Concerns of the whole World; but the former ha● not those mischievous Consequences which were feared, nor th● latter that Success which was hoped for. Some time before thi● Century, there arose a 
* Allowance must be made for the Author's Opinion.  Heresy in England, which hath sinc● produced great Revolutions in Europe; for it travelled from England into Germany, and there kindled great Commotions bot● in Church and State. Among many bad Effects, it produc'● these two good ones; it put Men upon the study of useful Learning, and chief upon searching into the Holy Scripture an● Tradition; and it obliged the Prelates to labour after the Reformation of the Manners of Christians, and of the Ecclesiastcal Discipline. The Faculty of Theology at Paris was con●derable in this Century, not only for the great Men which can out of its Bosom, but for the Care it took to proscribe the Erors which appeared, and to maintain the Purity of Faith a● Manners by its excellent Censures, which are as full of Wisdom and Prudence, as of Knowledge and Learning. This is one the most delicate and curious Morsels of the History of t● Fifteenth Century, which therefore we have handled with gr● Care, by relating exactly what we find of it in our Registe I add no more, but that I desire of the public the same Fvour for this Work, as for the former.   

A TABLE of the CONTENTS.  

CHAP. I.  
An History of the Councils of Pisa, Perpignan, and Udine, and of the Popes until the Council of Constance, Page 1  
Councils appointed about the Schism ibid.  
The Council of Perpignan under Benedict XIII. ibid.  
Preparatives for the Council of Pisa 2  
The Council of Pisa from p. 3 to p. 6  
The Election of Alexander V. 6  
The Council of Aquileia under Gregory XII. 7  
The Flight of Gregory into the Kingdom of Naples 8  
Alexander V. ibid.  
The Election of John XXIII. 9  
A War between Laodislaus and John XXIII. ibid.  
John XXIII. driven from Rome ibid.  
The Designs of John XXIII. rejected in France ibid.   

Chap. II.  
An History of the Council of Constance, and of the Schism of the Popes, until the Election of Martin V. 10  
The appointing of the Council of Constance ibid.  
The opening of the Council of Constance 11  
John XXIII. his Renunciation of the Papal Dignity 12  
The Flight of John XXIII. 13  
The Council of Constance 14 to 17  
A Defence of the Council of Constance concerning the Authority of a Council 15  
The Deposition of John XXIII. 17  
The Renunciation of Gregory XII. 18  
The Agreement between Sigismond and the King of Arragon about Benedict XIII. 19  
The Deposition of Benedict XIII. 20  
The Contests about Annates 21  
The Election of Martin V. 23  
The Regulation made in France about the Discipline of the Church ibid.  
The End of the Council of Constance ibid.  
The Sequel of the Council 24  
The Obstinacy of Benedict XIII. ibid.  
The Death of Benedict ibid.  
The Election of Clement VII. ibid.  
The Renunciation of Clement VII. and the end of the Schism 25   

CHAP. III.  
The History of the Councils of Basil, and Florence, of the Differences between the Fathers of Basil, and Eugenius; of the Election of Felix, of the Union of the Greeks, and the Extinction of the Schism of the Popes under Nicholas V.  
Martin V Enters Rome 25  
The Negotiation of Martin V with the Greeks, to obtain an Union. ibid.  
The opening of the Council at Pavia, and its Translation to Sienna 26.  
The Council begun at Sienna 27  
The Dissolution of the Council at Sienna, and the Appointment of that of Basil ibid.  
New Negotiations with the Greeks ibid.  
The Opening of the Council of Basil 28  
The Council of Basil 29, 30  
The Decree of Eugenius for dissolving the Council rejected 29  
The State of the Pope's Affairs in Italy 30  
The Approbation of the Council of Basil by Eugenius 31  
The Council of Basil continued ibid.  
The Negotiations of the Council with the Greeks ibid.  
The Council of Basil continued 32  
The Negotiation of the Popes with the Greeks 33  
The departure of the Greeks for the West 35  
The Council of Basil continued ibid.  
The Appointing and Opening of the Council of Ferrara ibid.  
The Council of Basil continued 36  
The Pope arrives at the Council of Ferrara ibid.  
The Council of Basil continued ibid.  
The Arrival of the Greeks 37  
The Opening of the Council of Ferrara ibid.  
The Conferences of the Greeks with the Latins at Ferrara, about Purgatory ibid.  
Other Conferences of the same Persons about the Addition to the Creed 38  
The Translation of the Council from Ferrara to Florence 40  
The Conferences of the Greeks and Latins at Florence, etc. 41  
The Decree of Union between the Greeks and the Latins 45  
Conferences after the Publication of the Decree of Union 46  
The Departure of the Greeks 47  
The Divisions of the Greeks about the Decree of Union ibid.  
The Union rejected by the Patriarches ibid.  
The Council of Basil continued 48  
Regulations made in France and Germany, concerning the Council ibid.  
The Pragmatic Sanction ibid.  
The Resolutions of the Assemblies held in Germany about the Neutrality ibid.  
The Disputes of the Divines at Basil about the Authority of a Council 49  
The Council of Basil continued 50  
The Deposition of Eugenius ibid.  
The Council of Basil continued ibid.  
The Decree of the Council of Florence against that of Basil 51  
The Council of Basil continued ibid.  
The Election of Felix V ibid.  
The Council of Basil continued 52  
The Constitutions of Eugenius for the Armenians, Jacobites, etc. ibid.  
The Censures of Eugenius against Felix ibid.  
The Council of Basil continued ibid.  
The Assembly of Bourges 53  
How Christendom stood affected towards Eugenius. and Felix ibid.  
The Resolutions of divers Assemblies of States about the difference between Felix and Eugenius ibid.  
The Council of Basil continued 54  
The Translations of the Councils of Basil, and Florence 55  
The End of the Schism under the Pontificate of Nicholas V ibid.  
Callistus III. 56  
Pius II. ibid.  
Paul II. ibid.  
Sixtus IU. ibid.  
Innocent VIII. ibid.   

CHAP. IU.  
Of the Ecclesiastical Authors who Flourished in the West in the Fifteenth Century 57  
A Judgement upon the Authors of the Fifteenth Century ibid.,  
Peter of Ailly a Cardinal 57  
John Charlier, Surnamed Gerson 59, 60  
Nicholas Clemangis, Doctor of Paris, 70, 71, etc.  
Gerard Machet, Bishop of Castres' 75  
John de brevi Coxa, or, Court Cuisse, Bishop of Geneva 76  
John de Lignano, a Civilian ibid.  
Nicolas Biart, a Dominican ibid.  
Adrian the Carthusian ibid.  
Thomas Abbot of St. Andrews, of Verceil ibid.  
John Petit, a Friar Minor ibid.  
Martin Poree, Bishop of Arras ibid.  
Paul an Englishman, Doctor of Law ibid.  
John Lattebur, a Friar Minor 77  
Richard Ullerston, a Doctor of Oxford ibid.  
Boston a Benedictin Monk ibid.  
Theodoric of Niem, Bishop of Ferden ibid.  
Jerom of St. Faith, a Converted Jew ibid.  
Paul Bishop of Burgos ibid.  
Peter of Ancharano a Civilian ibid.  
St. Vincent Ferrier of the Order of Friars-Preachers 78  
John Capreolus a Dominican ibid.  
Lupus of Olivet an Hieronymite ibid.  
Boniface Ferrier General of the Carthusians ibid.  
Anthony Rampelogus an Augustine ibid.  
Gobelin Persona Dean of Bilfield ibid.  
Henry of Hesse, or Langesteyn, a Canon of Worms ibid.  
Henry of Hesse a Carthusian ibid.  
Henry of Hesse an Augustine 79  
Thomas of Walsingham a Benedictin Monk ibid.  
Nicolas of Inkelspuel Rector of the University of Vienna ibid.  
Theodoric of Ingelhuse a Canon of Hildesheim ibid.  
Herman Petri of Stutdorp a Carthusian ibid.  
Thomas Waldensis, or of Walden, a Carmelite ibid.  
Peter of Rosenheim a Benedictin Monk 80  
John of Imola a Civilian ibid.  
John Nider a Dominican ibid.  
Nicolas Auximanus a Friar Minor ibid.  
And St. Bernardin of Sienna 81  
Augustin of Rome Archishop of Nazareth ibid.  
William of Lindwood Bishop of St. David's ibid.  
Alexander Carpenter an Englishman 82  
Raimund of Sabunda, or Sebeida, Professor at Tholouse ibid.  
Peter of Jeremy a Dominican ibid.  
John of Ragusa a Dominican ibid.  
Henry of Kalteisen Archbishop of Nidrosia, and Caesarea ibid.  
John Polemar archdeacon of Barcelona ibid.  
John the Patriarch of Antioch ibid.  
John Archbishop of Tarentum ibid.  
Gerard Landrianus Bishop of Lodi ibid.  
Jourdan Brice a Civilian ibid.  
Dominic of Capranica a Cardinal 83  
Alphonsus Tostatus Bishop of Avila ibid.  
Laurentius Justinian Patriarch of Aquileia ibid.  
Bernard Justinian ibid.  
Albert of Sarciano Vicar-General of the Friars Minors ibid.  
John of Anagnia a Civilian 84  
Francis de la Place a Civilian ibid.  
John Felton an English Priest ibid.  
Anthony de Rosellis a Doctor of Law. ibid.  
St. Katherine of Bologne ibid.  
Leonard of Udine a Dominican ibid.  
St. John Capistran ibid.  
Laurentius Valla a Canon of St. John of Lateran ibid.  
Blondus Flavius, Secretary to Eugenius IV. 85  
Ambrose of Camaldule ibid.  
Mapheus Vegius Datary to Martin V ibid.  
St. Antonin Archbishop of Naples ibid.  
Leonard Aretin, and Baptista Poggio 86  
John Stavelo, and John Loss, Benedictin Monks ibid.  
Matthew Palmier a Florentine ibid.  
Mathias Palmier ibid.  
John Capgrave an Augustine ibid.  
Nicolas de Cusa a Cardinal ibid.  
Julian Caesarin Cardinal 87  
Nicolas Tudescus, called Panormitanus, Archbishop of Palermo ibid.  
Aeneas Silvius, or Pius II. a Pope 88  
John Gobelin Secretary to. Pius II. ibid.  
James Picolomini a Cardinal ibid.  
John Canales a Friar Minor ibid.  
William of Vorilong a Friar Minor ibid.  
James of Clusa, of Paradise, or Junterbunk, a Carthusian 89  
John of Turrecremata a Cardinal ibid.  
Henry Arnold a Carthusian ibid.  
Alphonsus Spina a Friar Minor 90  
Giles Charlier Dean of Cambray ibid.  
Gregory of Heimburg a Civilian ibid.  
Theodore Laelius Bishop of Feltre ibid.  
Henry Gorcome, or Gorichem, Vicechancellor of the University of Collen ibid.  
Thomas of Kempis a Canon Regular 90, 91  
John Busch a Canon Regular 92  
William Houpelande a Doctor of Paris ibid.  
Denys Rickel a Carthusian ibid.  
James of Gruytrode a Carthusian 93  
Roderic Sance of Areval, Bish. of Calahorra ibid.  
Henry Harphius, or of Herph, a Friar Minor ibid.  
Gabriel Barlette a Dominican 94  
Bartholomew, or Baptista Platina, Library-Keeper of the Vatican ibid.  
Martin the Master Confessor to K. Lovis XI. ibid.  
Robert Fleming Dean of Lincoln ibid.  
Peter Natalis a Venetian ibid.  
Alexander of Imola a Civilian ibid.  
John Wessel, or of Wessales, Dr. of Divinity, 95  
James Perez Bishop of Chrysople ibid.  
John Picus of Mirandula ibid.  
Augustin Patricius Bishop of Pienza 98  
Peter Shot Canon of St. Peter' s in Strasburg ibid.  
Arnold Bostius, or Boschius, a Carmelite ibid.  
Donat Bossius a Milanese ibid.  
Boniface Simonet, Abbot of the Order of Cistercians ibid.  
Nicolas Barjan an Augustine ibid.  
Gabriel Biel, a Canon-Regular ibid.  
Augustus Patricius, a Canon of Sienna ibid.  
John Baptista Salvis, or of Salis, a Friar Minor ibid.  
Pacificus, a Friar Minor 99  
Angelus de Clavasio, a Friar Minor ibid.  
John Baptista Trovamala, or Novamala, a Friar Minor ibid.  
Charles Ferdinand, a Benedictine Monk ibid.  
John Fernand ibid.  
Marsilius Ficinus, a Canon of Florence ibid.  
John de Circy, Abbot of Balerna ibid.  
Wernerus Rolwinck of Laer, a Carthusian ibid.  
Bernard Aquila, of the Order of Friars Minors ibid.  
Anthony of Baloche, of the same Order 100  
Bernardin of Tom, of the same Order ibid.  
Bernardin de Bustis, of the same Order ibid.  
Robert Caraccioli, Bishop of Aquila ibid.  
Michael of Milan, a Friar Minor ibid.  
Robert Gaguin, General of the Order of the Holy Trinity ibid.  
Felinus Sandeus, Bishop of Lucca ibid.  
Stephen Brulefer, a Friar Minor ibid.  
Vincent of Bandelle, a General of the Dominicans ibid.  
John Naucler, Rector of Tubinga 101  
John Paleonydorus, or of Oudewater, a Carmelite ibid.  
Oliver Maillard, a Friar Minor ibid.  
Michael Francis, Bishop of Saluzzes ibid.  
Nicolas Simon, a Carmelite ibid.  
James Springer, and Henry Institor, Dominicans ibid.  
John Raulin, a Benedictine Monk ibid.  
John a Lapide, a Carthusian ibid.  
John de Dieu, a Carthusian 102  
John Trithemius, a Benedictine Abbot ibid.  
Jerom Savonarola, a Dominican ibid.  
Aelius Antonius Lebrixa, or Nebrissensis, a Spanish Doctor 103  
The Writers of the Fifteenth Century whose Works are lost 104, etc.   

CHAP. V.  
The History of the Greek Writers of the Fifteenth Century, and their Works 108  
Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica ibid.  
Joseph Briennius, a Greek Monk ibid.  
Demetrius Chrysoloras ibid.  
Macarius, Archbishop of Ancyra ibid.  
Nicolas Sclengia ibid.  
Esaias, a Greek Monk ibid.  
Mark Eugenicus, Archbishop of Ephesus ibid.  
John Eugenicus 109  
George Gemistius Plethon, a Greek Philosopher ibid.  
Sylvester Sguropulus, the Grand Ecclesiarch ibid.  
George Scholarius, who was an Enemy to the Latins ibid.  
Manuel, or Michael Apostolius ibid.  
Bessarion, a Cardinal ibid.  
George Scholarius, of the Latins side 100  
Joseph, Bishop of Merona ibid.  
Gregory Mamas, the Protosyncelle ibid.  
Andrew, Archbishop of Rhodes ibid.  
Isidore, Archbishop of Kiovia ibid.  
Hilation, a Greek Monk 111  
George of Trebizonde, and John Argyropulus ibid.  
George Phranza ibid.  
Matthew Camariote ibid.  
Ducas, a Greek Historian ibid.  
George Codinus Curolopata ibid.  
Laonicus Calchondilus ibid.  
Nicolas Secundinus ibid.   

CHAP. VI  
Of the Councils held in the Fifteenth Century ibid.  
The Council of Oxford in 1408 ibid.  
The Council of Saltzburg in 1420 112  
The Council of Collen in 1423 113  
The Council of Paris in 1429 ibid.  
The Council of Tortose in the same Year ibid.  
The Council of Rouen in 1445 115  
The Council of Angers in 1448 113  
The Council of Soissons in 1456 114  
The Council of Toledo in 1473 ibid.  
The Council of Sens in 1485 115   

CHAP. VII.  
A History of the Heresies of the Wicklefites, and Hussites, of John Wicklef, John Huss, Jerom of Prague, their Errors and their Condemnation ibid.  
The History of Wicklef ibid.  
The Councils of London against Wicklef 116  
The Retractation and Death of Wicklef 117  
A Trialogue written by Wicklef ibid.  
A Council of London against the Wicklefites ibid.  
Another Condemnation of Wicklef by Thomas Arundel, in 1408 118  
The Books of Wicklef carried into Bohemia and condemned ibid.  
John Huss defends the Writings of Wicklef 119  
John Huss condemned at Rome ibid.  
John Huss persists in his Opinions ibid.  
John Huss goes to the Council of Constance 120  
A Process drawn up against John Huss in the Council of Constance 121  
The Condemnation of the Articles of Wicklef by the Council of Constance ibid.  
A Continuation of the Process against John Huss 122  
The Condemnation of John Huss 123  
The Works of John Huss ibid.  
The Retractation of Jerom of Prague 124  
The Troubles and Wars in Bohemia ibid.  
A Deputation from the Bohemians to the Council of Basil 125  
A Treaty of the Council with the Bohemians ibid.  
Sigismond is acknowledged in Bohemia 126  
The Decrees of the Council about Communion in both kinds ibid.  
The State of Bohemia under the Successors of Sigismond ibid.   

CHAP. VIII.  
An History of the Errors published and condemned in the Fifteenth Century, chief by the Faculty of Theology at Paris, all whose Censures are related 127  
A Censure of the Errors of John Monteson, a Friar Preacher ibid.  
The Appeal of John Monteson 128  
John Monteson condemned by the Pope ibid.  
The Retractations of the Bishop of Eureux, and many Dominicans ibid.  
The Dominicans excluded the University 128  
A Treatise of the University in its own Defence ibid.  
The Restauration of the Dominicans 129  
The Errors of John Petit and his Condemnation 130  
A Condemnation of the Errors of John Petit in the Council of Constance ibid.  
A Censure of the Faculty of Theology at Paris in 1389 against some Propositions of the Magical Art ibid.  
A Conclusion of the same Faculty in 1408 about the Blood of Jesus Christ ibid.  
A Censure of the Errors of John Gorel about the Hierarchy ibid.  
A Conclusion of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, about the Observation of Sunday ibid.  
The Satisfaction of Peter Chonac to the same Faculty 131  
A Censure of the Errors of Sarrazin in 1430 about the Hierarchy ibid.  
A Censure of a Proposition about the Admonition of Bishops ibid.  
A Censure of the Errors of Quadrigarii, an Augustin ibid.  
A Censure of the Propositions of a Friar Minor in 1448 about the Hierarchy 132  
A Censure of the Propositions of John Bartholomew, a Friar Minor in 1451 against the Rites of Parish-Priests ibid.  
The Differences of the University with the Regulars Mendicants about a Bull of Privilege which they had obtained ibid.  
A Censure of some Propositions maintained in Theses of Philosophy ibid.  
A Censure in 1470 against some Propositions about the Hierarchy 133  
A Conclusion of the Faculty about the Truth of some Propositions in the Creed ibid.  
A Censure of a Proposition about the Trinity ibid.  
A Censure of an Erroneous Proposition about Indulgences ibid.  
The Censures of the Propositions of John Angeli about the Hierarchy ibid.  
Censures of the Impertinent Propositions of John Merchant, a Regular Observantine 134  
A Censure of the Errors of John Lailier ibid.  
The Sentence of the Bishop of Paris about Lailier 135  
An Appeal of the Faculty from the Sentence of the Bishop of Paris ibid.  
The Pope's Bulls against Lailier ibid.  
Some other Propositions censured in 1486 ibid.  
A Conclusion of the Faculty about a Contract for Usury ibid.  
A Conclusion against a superstitious Prayer against the Plague ibid.  
The Sentence of the Faculty, and the Parliament about judicial Astrology 136  
Propositions about the Incarnation censured ibid.  
A Censure against a Sermon of John Grillot, a Friar Minor about the Conception ibid.  
A Censure of two Propositions in 1495 ibid.  
A Censure in 1497 about the Sense of a Prophecy ibid.  
A Retractation of a Sermon made by Friar John Alutarii ibid.  
A Deerce of the Faculty in 1497 about the immaculate Conception ibid.  
The Retractation of John Verger, a Friar Preacher ibid.  
A Censure against the Propositions of John Marcel, a Friar Preacher 137  
An Answer of the Faculty to the King about the Celebration of a General Council ibid.  
A Censure of Sixteen extravagant Propositions of John Vitrier, an Observantine ibid.  
The Errors of Matthew Grabon, a Dominican ibid.  
The Errors of Augustin of Rome, and their Condemnation ibid.  
The Errors of Peter of Osma 138  
The Impieties of William Hildernissen and Giles of Chantre ibid.  
The Adamites of Germany ibid.  
The Diggers of Bohemia ibid.  
The Impieties of Herman Riswick ibid.   

CHAP. IX.  
Ecclesiastical Observations upon the Fifteenth Century 138  
The Principal Questions debated in the Fifteenth Century ibid.  
The Pretensions of the Court of Rome ibid.  
The Reformation of the Church ibid.  
Observations upon Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction 139  
Of Tithes and other Ecclesiastical Revenues ibid.  
Of the Jubilee and Indulgences ibid.  
Of Commendams ibid.  
The Differences of the Parish-Priests with the Regulars about Confession, and the Hierarchical Functions ibid.  
The Institution of New Religious Orders 140  
Of Military Orders 141   

A Dissertation about the Author of the Book, concerning the Imitation of Jesus Christ.  
Wherein the Contests, that have arisen upon this Subject are related, and the Reasons which have been alleged in favour of those to whom it is attributed; the Manuscripts, the Editions and Testimonies, which are made use of to maintain the Right of each Pretender, are examined; and upon the whole, an equitable and impartial Judgement is given 142  
§. 1. A History of the Contest about the Author of the Book, concerning the Imitation of Jesus Christ, from the Beginning of our Age to this present Time 143  
§. 2. The Authors to whom the Book about the Imitation of Jesus Christ has been attributed, Proofs that it is not St. Bernard's 144  
§. 3. An Examination of the Manuscripts of the Book about the Imitation of Jesus Christ which carry the Name of Thomas de Kempis, a Canon-Regular of Zwol 148  
§. 4. Editions of the Book about the Imitation of Jesus Christ, under the Name of Thomas de Kempis 151  
§. 5. Testimonies of Authors alleged in favour of Thomas de Kempis 153  
§. 6. The Reasons which are brought to show that the Book about the Imitation of Jesus Christ is Thomas the Kempis' 155  
§. 7. An Examination of the Reasons which are alleged against Thomas de Kempis; viz. Whether there be some Writers which mention this Book about the Imitation of Christ before it could be written; and whether it is to be found in Manuscripts more ancient than he was. A List of all the Manuscripts about the Imitation of Jesus Christ which are come to our knowledge. Whether the Author of this Book was a Monk 158  
§. 8. The Manuscripts of the Book about the Imitation of Jesus Christ, which go under the Name of John Gerson, Chancellor of the University of Paris  
§. 9 Editions of the Book about the Imitation of Jesus Christ, which go under the Name of John Gerson  
§. 10. Reasons that may be alleged to prove that prob●…y J●… Gerson was the Author of the Book about the ●…itation of Jesus Christ  
§. 11. Rea●…●…ich prove that the Book about the ●…esus Christ is not John Gerson's  
§. 12. An Examination of the Manuscripts which are produced in b●… of John Gersen, or Gessen, an Abbot: Whether there was such an one as John Gersen Abbot of Verceil, of the Order of St. Benedict; whether John Gersen was taken for John Gerson; or on the contrary, John Gerson, for John Gersen  
§. 13. A Judgement upon all that has been said in this Question; wherein that which is certainly false is separated from that which is uncertain; and an Attempt is made to discover what is most probable.   

The Titles of the TABLES.  
A Chronological Table of the History of the Fifteenth Cen●…y of the Church  
A Chronological Table of the Ecclesiastical Writers of the Fifteenth Century, and of their Works.  
A Chronological Table of the Councils held in the Fifteenth Century, and of their Acts, Letters, Canons, and Chapters.  
A Table of the Works of the Ecclesiastical Writers of the Fifteenth Century, which are ranged according to the Order of their Subjects.  
An Alphabetical Table of the Ecclesiastical Writers of the Fifteenth Century of the Church  
An Alphabetical Table of the Councils held in the Fifteenth Century  
A Table of the Principal Matters contained in this History of the Fifteenth Century.    

An ALPHABETICAL TABLE of the Ecclesiastical Writers in the Fifteenth Century of the Church.  

A  
ADrian the Carthusian page 76  
Aelius Anthony Lebrixa, or Nebrissensis 103  
Aeneas Silvius, or Pius II. Pope 56, 88  
Ailly (Peter) a Cardinal 57  
Alanus de la Roche 106  
Albert of Sarciano 83  
Alexander V Pope 6, 8  
Alexander VI Pope 56, 95  
Alexander Carpenter 82  
Alexander of Imola 94  
Alphonsus Spina 90  
Ambrose the Camaldulian 85  
Ambrose Coriolan 105  
Amirutzes, a Grecian 109  
Andrew Archbishop of Rhodes 110  
Andrew of Utrecht 105  
Angelus of Clavasio 99  
Angelus Corarius, or Gregory XII. Pope 7, 18  
Angelus the Saxon 106  
Anthony of Baloche 100  
Anthony of Genoa 104  
Anthony of Parma ibid.  
Anthony of Rosellis 84  
St. Antonine 85  
Apostolius (Manuel or Michael) 109  
Aretin (Leonard) 86  
Argyropulus (John) 111  
Augustin Patricius, Bishop of Pienza 98  
Augustin Patricius, Canoa of Sienna ibid.  
Augustin of Rome 33, 81, 83   

B  
BAchon (Francis) 104  
Balthasar Cossa, or John XXIII. Pope 9, 10  
Baptista of Ferrara 107  
Barlette (Gabriel) 9●  
Bartholomew, a Carthusian 105  
Benedict XIII. Pope at Avignon 1, 19, 24  
Benedict Capra 106  
Benedict Stendel of Halles 105  
Bernard of Aquila 99  
Bernardin de Bustis 100  
Bernardin of Sienna 81  
Bernardin of Tom 100  
Bessarion, a Cardinal 109  
Biel (Gabriel) 98  
Blondus Flavius 85  
Bostius, or Boschius (Arnold) 98  
Boston, an English Monk 77  
Briennius (Joseph) 108  
Brulefer (Stephen) 100  
Busch (John) 92   

C  
CAllistus III. Pope 56  
Calteisen, vide Kilteisen  
Canneman, vide Kanneman  
Caraccioli (Robert) 100  
St. Katherine of Bologne 84  
Charlier (Giles) 90, 125  
Charlier (John) or Gerson, 59, 60, etc.  
Chrysoloras (Demetrius) 108  
Clemangis, or of Clemenge (Nicolas) 70  
Codinus (George) 111  
Conrade of Rodemberg 106  
Conrade of Zaberne 106   

D  
DEnis Rickel, or Denis the Carthusian 92  
Dominic Bolan 107  
Dominic of Capranica 82  
Dominic de Dominicis 106  
Ducas 111   

E  
ESaias, a Greek Monk 108  
Eugenius IV. Pope 28, 50, 52  
Eugenicus (John) 109  
Eugenicus (Mark) 1●8  
Eymericus of Champ 105   

F  
FElinus Sandeus 100  
Felix V Pope 51, &c  
Fernand (Charles) 99  
Ferrier (Boniface) 78  
Ferrier (Vincent) ibid.  
Flavius Blondus 85  
Forleon (William) 105  
Francis Diede 106  
Francis de la place 84   

G  
GAbriel of Spoletto 104  
Gaguin (Robert) 100  
George Gemistius Plethon 109  
George Phranza 111  
George of Trebizonde ibid.  
Gerard of Elton 106  
Gerard of Stredam 105  
Gerson (John) 59, 60, etc.  
Gobelin (John) 88  
Gobelin Persona 78  
Godeschalcus of Meschede 105  
Gorcome, or Goricheme (Henry) 90  
Gregory XII. Pope at Rome 7, 18  
Gregory of Heimburg 90  
Gruytrode (James) 93  
Gulielmus of Aix la Chapelle 107  
Gulielmus Vorilongus 88   

H  
HEnry Arnould 89  
Henry of Coffelde 104  
Henry de Gande 105  
Henry Gulpen ibid.  
Henry of Hachemburg 104  
Henry Harphius, or of Herph 93  
Henry of Hesse, an Augustin 79  
Henry of Hesse, a Carthusian 78  
Henry of Hesse, or Lancestein 78  
Henry of Piro 105  
Henry Prudent 106  
Henry of Werlis 105  
Herbrant of Duren (Michael) 104  
Herman, a Monk of the Cistercians 105  
Herman Petri of Stutdorp 79  
Hilarion, a Greek Monk 111  
Houpelande (William) 92  
Hugh of Slestat 104   

I  
JAmes of Clusa 89  
James of Junterbuck ibid.  
James of Paradise ibid.  
James Perez 95  
James Springer 101  
James Stralen 107  
James of Thessalonica 104  
James of Wimphelinge 107  
John XXIII. Pope 9, 10  
John Abbot of Nivelle 105  
John Archbishop of Tarentum 82  
John Bishop of Lombez 104  
John Patriarch of Antioch 82  
John Andrew Bishop of Aleria 106  
John of Anagnia 84  
John of Aurbach 104  
John Beetz 106  
John Bertram 107  
John Capgrave 86  
St. John Capistran 84  
John Cap●●olus 78  
John of Circy 99  
John of Courtecuisse 76  
John Cousin 106  
John of Dendermonde 104  
John Dieppourg, or of Frankfurt ibid.  
John de Deo, a Carthusian 102  
John Dominici 104  
John of Dorsten 106  
John of Duren 104  
John Ernest 105  
John Felton 84  
John Fernand 99  
John Gauter 105  
John Gritsch ibid.  
John of Hagen, or de Indagine 107  
John of Huesden 92, 157  
John Huss 119, 123  
John of Imola 80  
John of Keyserberg 107  
John Lattebur, 77  
John of Lignano 76  
John of Loss 86  
John of Lutrie 106  
John of Malines 105  
John of Milbach 107  
John Noblet 105  
John Petit 23, 24  
John Pheffer 107  
John a Lapide 101  
John Plaeth 104  
John Plusiadenus 110  
John of Ragusa 82  
John Raulin 101  
John of Rode 105  
John of Roseau 107  
John Soreth 106  
John of Stavelo 86  
John Tinctor 105  
John Wessel, or of Wessales 95  
John Zachary 104  
John Baptista Poggio 86  
Jerom of Milan 107  
Jerom of Prague 121, 124  
Jerom of St Faith 77  
Jerom Savonarola 102  
Innocent VIII. Pope 56  
Institor (Henry) 101  
Joseph Bishop of Metona 110  
Josse ●…us 107  
Jordan Augustin 104  
Jordan of ●●ice 82  
Isidore Archbishop of Russia 110  
Julian Caesaria, a Cardinal 87  
Justinian (Bernard) 8●  
Justinian (Laurence) ibid.   

K  
KAlteis●n (Henry) 82, 125  
Kantem●n (John) 105  
Kunne of Dude●stat (John) 154   

L  
LAelius (Theodore) 90  
La●drianus (Gerard) 82  
Laonicus Calchondilus 111  
Laurence Burel 107  
Laurence Calcaneus 106  
Laurence Valla 84  
Lebrixa, or Nebrissensis (Anthony) 96  
Leonard (Hubert) 107  
Leonard of Udine 84  
L●●dwood (Wi●…m) 81  
Lo●… 〈◊〉 106  
Lupus of ●…vet 78   

M  
Macarius' Archbishop of Ancyra 108  
Macarius Macres ibid.  
Machet (Gera●●) 75  
Ma●●la●● (Oliver) 101  
Names (Gregory) 110  
Mancini (Dominic) 107  
Maphaeus Vegius 85  
Marsilius Ficinus 99  
Martin V. Pope 23, 25  
Martin the Master 94  
Martin Poree 76  
Matthew Camariote 111  
Mauburne (John) 154  
Maurocenus (Peter) 104  
Michael Francis 101  
Michael of Milan 100  
Molitoris (George) 106   

N  
NAucler, or Vergehaus (John) 101  
Nebrissensis (Anthony) 103  
Nettelet (Giles) 107  
Nicasius of Voerde 106  
Nicolas a Monk of the Ciste●cians 106  
Nicolas Auximanus 80  
Nicolas Barjan 98  
Nicolas Biart 76  
Nicolas of Creutzach 106  
Nicolas of Cusa 86  
Nicolas d'Inkelspuel 79  
Nicolas Lackman 105  
Nicolas of Orbe●is 89  
Nicolas Simon 101  
Nicolas Susat 105  
Nicolas Tudeschus, called Panormitanus 53, 87  
Nicolas of Wachenheim 1●6  
Nider (John) 80  
Novamala, or Trovamala (John Baptista) 99   

P  
PAcificus a Friar Minor 99  
Poleonydorus (John) 101  
Palmier (Mathias) 86  
Palmier (Matthew) ibid.  
Panormitanus, or Nicolas Tudes●●us, 53, 87  
Paul II. Pope 56  
Paul a● English Doctor 76  
Paul of Burgos 77  
Paul of Venice 104  
Picus of Mirandula (John Francis) 95  
Picolomini (James) 88  
Pius II. Pope 56, 88  
Peter Bishop of Citanova 104  
Peter of Ancharano 4, 77  
Peter Brutus 107  
Peter of Colle 105  
Peter of Jeremy 82  
Peter of Luna, or Benedict XIII. Pope 1, 19, 24  
Peter Natalis 94  
Peter of Rosenheim 80  
Peter Shot 98  
Peter of Spire 104  
Platina (Bartholomew, or, John Baptista) 94  
Polemar (John of▪) 82   

R  
RAimund of Sabonde, or Sebeide, 82  
Ramp●logus (Anthony) 78  
Raulin (John) 101  
Reinard of Fronthoven 104  
Richard Ullerston 77  
Robert Fleming 94  
Rodolphus of Brussels 105  
Rolwinck de ●aer (Wernerus) 99   

S  
SAlvis, or of Salis (John Baptista) 98  
Sancius of Areval (Roderic) 93  
Savonarola (Jerom) 102  
Scholarius (George) 109, 410  
Schonhove (John of) 64  
Sclengia (Nicolas) 108  
Sebastian Tition, or Brant 107  
Secundinus (Nicolas) 111  
Siffroy, Bishop of Cyrene 105  
Silvester Sguropulus, or Scyropulus, 109  
Simeon of Thessalonica 108  
Simonet (Boniface) 98  
Sixtus IV. Pope 56  
Stephen of Caieta 106   

T  
THeodoric of Herxen 106  
Theodoric of Ingelhusa 79  
Theodoric of Niem 77  
Theodoric of Ossembruck 107  
Thomas Abbot of Verceil 79  
Thomas of Haselbach 104  
Thomas a Kempis 90, 142, etc.  
Thomas Waldensis, or of Walden 79  
Thomas of Walsingham ibid.  
Thomasinus a Jacobin 106  
Tilman of Hachemberg 104  
Tilman of Ravensburg 106  
Tostatus (Alphonsus) 83  
Trithemius (John) 102  
Trovamala, or Novamala, (John Baptista) 99  
Turrecremata (John of) 89   

V  
VErgehaus, or Naucler (John) 101  
Vincent of Bandelle 100  
St. Vincent Ferrier 78  
Vincent Gruner 104   

W  
Wickleff, 115, 121   

Z  
ZEnus (James) 105    

An Alphabetical Table of the Councils held in the Fifteenth Century of the Church.  

A  
THe Council of Angers, Years 1448 Pages 113   

B  
The Council of Basil from 1431, to 1443. 28 ..... 125  
The Assembly of Bourges. 1438 .... 48  
The Council of Bourges 1440 ... 5●   

C  
The Council of Colen. 1423.. 113  
The Council of Constance from 1414, to 1419. 10 ..... 121   

F  
The Council of Ferrara from 1433, to 1439. 35  
The Council of Florence from 1439, to 1442. 41  
The Assembly of 

Frankfurt— 1409 .... 2. 3.  
Frankfurt— 1438.— 48  
Frankfurt.— 1442.— 53     

L  
The Council of 

Lambeth— 1377— 116  
Lausane— 1443— 55  
London— 1377— 115  
London— 1382— 116  
London— 1396— 117  
London— 1413— 118     

M  
The Assembly of 

Mayence 1439 .... 49  
Mayence 1441 .... 53     

N  
Two Assemblies at Nuremberg 1438. 48  
An Assembly at Nuremberg 1443.. 54   

O  
The Council of Oxford— 1408.. 111   

P  
The Council of 

Paris— 1429— 113  
Pavia— 1423— 26  
Perpignan— 1408— 1. 108  
Pisa— 1409— 2     

R  
The Council of 

1412 and 1413. 118  
Rome— 1443 ... 54 ... 55  
Rouen— .. 1445— 115    
The Council of 

Salizburg— .. S..— 1420— 112  
Sens— 1485— 115  
Sienna 1423 and 1424 27  
Soissons— 1456— 114     

T  
The Council of Toledo— 1473— 114  
The Council of Tortosa— 1429— 113   

U  
The Council of Udine— 1409— 7    

AN HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSIES AND OTHER Ecclesiastical Affairs Transacted in the Fifteenth Century.  
CHAP. I.  
The History of the Councils of Pisa, Perpignan and Udine; and of the Popes, until the Council of Constance.  
IN the Year 1408. three Councils were appointed concerning the Schism which then disturbed 
Councils appointed about the Schism in the year, 1408.  the Church of Rome: The first at Perpignan, by the Bull of Benedict XIII, dated June 15th. The second in the Province of Aquileia, by the Bull of Gregory XII. dated July 2d, which was to meet on Whitsunday the next Year: And the third at Pisa, by the Letters of the Cardinals of the two Obediences, assembled at Leghorn, dated July 14th, in the Year 1408. which was to meet on the 25th of March in the next Year.  
Benedict being more diligent than the rest, opened his Council November 1st, of the same Year, 
The Council of Perpignan under Benedict XIII.  with a Discourse of Alphonsus the Patriarch of Constantinople, Administrator of the Church of Sevil, to the Prelates there present; after which the Council was prorogued until the 15th of the same Month. On the 14th Benedict gave the Title of Archbishop of Antioch to the Treasurer of Maguelone, Administrator of the Church of Ask, and the Title of Patriarch of Jerusalem to Francis Ximenes of the Order of Friars Minors, who were Consecrated the 20th of the same Month. The second Session of the Council was not held till the 17th, and then nothing else was done, save that Benedict read a Profession of Faith, and declared to the Council that he believed it. In the third Session, which was held the 21st, a Report was made to the Assembly of all that Benedict had done since his advancement to the Papal Dignity, and the Progress he had made towards obtaining the Peace of the Church. The Council was then made up of the Bishops of Castille, Arragon and Navarre, and some Prelates of France, Gascony and Savoy, being in all about 120, besides the 4 Archbishops, honoured with the Titles of Patriarches, and the Archbishops of Toledo, Sarragosa, and Tarragona. They spent 5 Sessions in examining the Account of what had been done by Benedict for restoring Peace, and the extirpation of the Schism. In fine, in the Session held the 5th of December, Benedict desired their Advice, as to the Means which were most proper to obtain Union, and to remove the Scandal, Errors and Schisms. It was not easy for them to decide this Question in their present Circumstances, and the Bishops of the Council were perplexed and divided into several Opinions about it. Some were of Opinion, That Benedict should immediately grant Power to his Legates to renounce the Papal Dignity; others thought that it were better to delay it for some time longer; a third sort proposed other Expedients. After th●s Difference arose, which lasted a long while, the greatest part of the Bishops withdrew from Perpignan, and the Council was reduced to the number of 18; but at last the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Prelates that remained, gave him their Opinion on February the first of the following Year, viz. That the Council did hold and acknowledge him for the true Pope, the Catholic and lawful Vicar of Jesus Christ; That they did believe him to be very far from being a Heretic or Schismatic, or a Favourer of Heretics or Schismatics; That they thanked him for the Offers his Holiness had made towards an Union, and pr●y'd G●… to direct him, and make the Design successful for his own Glory. But withal they humbly bes●…h'd his Holiness and ●…is'd hi●, 1. To pursue effectually, in sp●te of all manner of H●…drance ●or Persecutions, the Design of ●niting the Church by the way of Renunciation, which they preferred to all other ways, yet without excluding any. 2. To enlarge the Offer he had made of Renouncing, if the Intruder should renounce or happen to die, to this Case further; If the Intruder should be really and actually deposed with the consent of those of his own Obedience. 3. To send Nuncio's in his Name to the Intruder, to the Anti-Cardinals, and the Cardinals at Pisa, with full Power to treat and agree upon the Place where his Holiness himself may be present in Person to execute what shall be agreed upon, or to send some Persons t●…ther authorised by Deputation from him to d● i● and even to resign the Papal Dignity if there shall be occasion. 4. To draw up this Instrument of Deputation in the largest and best Form that can be contrived. 5. To make Provision, in case he should happen to die, that no stop be put to the Design of Union, nor any new Schism be suffered to arise. 6. To make Constitutions forbidding all Persons, under certain Penalties, to raise a new Schism. This Writing, signed by the Prelates who were still at Perpignan, was presented by the Patriarch of Constantinople to Pope Benedict, who agreed to it, and accepted the Conditions contained in it▪ and promised to make choice of fit Persons▪ for executing this Agreement, in a solemn Session hel● February 12th: And accordingly he named s●veh Legates on the 9th of March, whom he sent to Pis●, to see on what Conditions a Peace might be concluded.  
While these Things were transacted in Arragon, the Cardinals of the two Colleges being assembled 
Preparatives of the Council of Pisa.  at Pisa, were labouring earnestly to persuade all Christian Princes to acknowledge their Council, and approve what they should do. The King of France of his own accord was very well affected towards them, and had already congratulated them by Letters in the Design they had in hand 
a [He had withdrawn his Obedience from Benedictus by a Decree of the Parliament of Paris, forbidden all the Pope's Servants to gather any First-Fruits; and when two of them brought Bulls which thundered Excommunication against the King and his Princes, they were crowned with Mitres of Paper, and disgracefully dragged about the City in a Dung. Cart. Carol. Molin. de Monarch. Franc. n. 140, 141, etc.] , and exhorted them to choose a Pope for all Christendom, assuring them that he should be acknowledged by all Christian Princes, and that for his own part he would not only acknowledge him, and cause him to be acknowledged in his Kingdom, but that he would employ his whole Power and Authority to support him. England also was very much inclined to own the Pope that should be chosen by the Council of Pisa, and the Cardinal of Bourdeaux who was sent thither by the Cardinals found no Enemies there 
b [Henry IU. of England had withdrawn his Obedience from Gregory XII. after his Cardinals were forced to fly to Pisa for promoting the Union, who wrote into England, that the vast Sums, of Money which were yearly brought thence, was the grea● cause why the Cardinals were so ambitious of the Papal Dignity, and so ●e●acious of it when once they were advanced to it; whereupon by the King's Command, it was decreed in a Synod-held this year 1408. at London, That no Money should be raised out of Bishoprics or Benefices, to be paid into the Exchequer of Rome. Spelman's Councils, Vol. 2d.] . There remained only Germany where Gregory was supported by Robert Duke of Bavaria, King of the Romans; and thither the Cardinals sent in the beginning of the Year 1409, Landolph Cardinal of Bar, who came to Frankfort to hold there an Assembly of the Prelates and Princes of Germany, that he might persuade them to come or send Deputies to the Council of Pisa, and his Cardinal was kindly received by the Princes. Gregory also sent the Cardinal Anthony his Nephew, who being present with the Cardinal of Bar at the Assembly of Frankfort, endeavoured to justify his Uncle, and made bitter Invectives against the Cardinal of Bar; which displeased the greater part of the Princes: But the King of the Romans, who favoured Gregory, would suffer no other Resolve to be taken hereupon, but the Ambassador should be sent into Italy to labour after an Union. Robert chose for this Embassy the▪ Archbishop of Riga, and the Bishop of Worms, then newly elected to the Bishopric of Ferden. Gregory persuaded this latter to go to Pisa in the Name of his Master, for there were already a great number of Prelates assembled, and to present unto them some Articles which contained among other Things, That if the Cardinals would make choice of another place, that was secure for Gregory and themselves, Gregory himself would come thither; and whether Peter de Lima should come or no, he would resign up his Papal Dignity at such time as the Council should prescribe unto him. But when the Cardinal refused to accept of this Proposal, the Bishop of Ferden appealed in the Name of King Robert, and signified in his Act of Appeal, That it belonged to the King of the Romans to call the Council; and declared▪ That since the Council of Pisa was assembled against his Will and without his Order, it could Decree nothing against Gregory. This Appeal he caused to be fixed upon the Gates of the Church, and then retired suddenly and secretly.  
The 25th of March, which was the Day appointed for the meeting of the Council, being come, it was opened in the Cathedral of Pisa, by the Cardinals of Palestrina, Albano, Ostia, Puy, Tuzi, Saluces and St. Angelo, of the Obedience of Benedict; and by the Cardinals of Naples, Aquileia, 
The Council of Pisa.  Colonna, Ursini, of Brancacio, Ravenna, Landi and St. Angelo, who were of the Obedience of Gregory. The Bishop of Meaux was present there in the Quality of Ambassador from the King of France, and the Bishop of Gap in the Name of the King of Sicily, with two Knights and a Secretary. One Knight, one Doctor and one Clergyman, were present from the King of England. The Cardinals were placed on high Seats at the right Hand of the Entry into the Choir, the Bishops and Abbots on both sides of the Nave of the Church, and the Deputies of Chapters and Monasteries underneath them; and the Ambassadors who were not Prelates, and the Doctors, in the Body of the Church. The Processions, the solemn Mass, and other usual Prayers being ended, two Cardinal-Deacons, two Archbishops, and two Bishops, together with some Doctors and Notaries, went by Order of the Council to the Gate of the Church, and asked with a loud Voice, Whether Peter de Luna and Angelus Corarius, Competitors for the Papal Dignity, were present, or any one for them? And no Person appearing, they made their Report to the Council, who nominated some Managers or Proctors in the Name of the Universal Church, to plead, inquire, and do whatever should be necessary or expedient for the Extirpation of Schism, against the two Competitors for the Pontificat, and for the Union of the Church. These Officers, named by the Council, presently accused them, and required that they should be declared Contumacious in the Matter of Schism and of Faith, and that they should be prouounced in Contempt. They caused to be read the Acts by which the two Competitors had been summoned, and the Verbal Process of the Citation. But the Council, notwithstanding the Affair was now ripe, put off any further Consolation about it until the next Session, which was to be held to Morrow: And then the Council caused them to be cited again as they were at first; and when no Body appeared for them, they put off this Affair until the 30th of the next Month. When this Day was come, the Competitors being called again, and no Body appearing for them, they were declared Contumacious in Matters of Faith and of Schism, and the Sentence was pronounced against them by the Cardinal of Palestrina, (otherwise called, of Poitiers) with the unanimous Consent of the Fathers of the Council; and the further Prosecution of this Affair was deferred till the 15th of April. On this Day it was ordained, That the Cardinal of Todi should be cited as adhering to Gregory, and the Cardinals of St. Sabine, St. Adrian, St. Marry in via lata of Flisque, and Challont, as adhering to Benedict; and that if the two Competitors and the Cardinals should not appear at this time, they should proceed further against them. The Cardinals of Milan and Bar, who had been at the Assembly of Frankfort, arrived in Pisa at this Session, and brought with him ninety, partly Archbishops and Bishops, partly Abbots and Doctors, who had not been present at the preceding Sessions.  
The Ambassadors of Robert Duke of Bavaria, Elect King of the Romans, appeared at the Fourth Session, and proposed several Objections against the Authority of the Council, and required that it should be removed and assembled in another place, at which Gregory offered to appear. Their Reasons were demanded in Writing, and Time was given them till the 24th of the same Month to bring in their Answer. Charles Malatesta of Rimini made the same Demand of the Council on behalf of Gregory, and proposed more Difficulties. Two Cardinals of each Obedience were deputed to confer with him, who gave him to understand, that he could not hope to obtain what he demanded, and answered his Objections. Notwithstanding this Remonstrance they went on with the Process, and after they had asked at the Church-gate if any of the two Competitors were come, they were declared anew to be Contumacious, and the next Session was put off to the 24th. In this Session the Advocate of the Council alleged all the Facts concerning the Schism from its first beginning, and from thence proved the Collusion, the erroneous Proceed and the unworthiness of the two Competitors, in 57 Articles; and required, in the Name of the Proctor of the Council, That the Assembly should declare that the Union of the two Colleges was lawful and just, that the Cardinals had Power to appoint the General Council, and that the City of Pisa was a fit Place for holding the Assembly; That the Citations given to the two Competitors should be confirmed, and that they should be reputed Contumacious, and their Favourers and Adherents should be deprived of all their Dignities, Benefices and Offices, and that it should be lawful for the Secular Judges to punish and chastise them in case they should oppose the Decree that was to pass against them; and that Kings and Princes should be absolved from their Oaths, and from any Obligation of Obedience to the two Competitors. He added, That altho' the Facts alleged against them were notorious, yet he required that the Council should name Commissioners to inform themselves more fully about them. The Council from this Day declared that the College of Cardinals, being united, had Power to call the Council, and that in the present Circumstances they had the Right to do it; That this General Council, representing the Church Universal, was lawfully assembled, and had Power to proceed to a Definitive Sentence; That the number of Prelates now assembled was sufficient; That the City of Pisa was a place very commodious; That Peter de Luna and Angelus Corarius had been sufficiently summoned and cited to the Council. The Remainder was put off to the next Session, which was appointed to be held on the last Day of March.  
Some time after Simon de Cra●aut Patriarch of Constantinople, the Deputies of the Universities, the Ambassadors of the Dukes of Brabant, Holland and Liege, those of the King of England 
* Viz. Robert halum Bishop of Salisbury, Henry Chichely Bishop of St. David's, and the Prior of Canterbury, who were chosen Ambassadors in a Synod held as London the beginning of the Year 1409, and arrived at Pisa April 25th; with whom were sent also, Thomas an Abbot, the Earl of Suffolk, John Colme Kt. and Richard Canyngston Doctor of the Laws. Dachery's Spicileg. Tom. 6. p. 346. , the Archbishops of Mayence and Collen, arrived at Pisa.  
In the 6th Session, the Bishop of Salisbury, Ambassador from the King of England, made a Discourse to the Council, taking for his Text the Words of the 83d Psalms, Justice and Judgement are the preparation of your Throne; from which he exhorted the Fathers of the Council to Peace, and said he had full Power from the King his Master as to all things, which were to be treated of in the Council. Nothing else was done in this Session, and the next was appointed to be May the 4th: In the mean time, the Cardinals of Bourdeaux and Spain, arrived at Pisa.  
The Council being Assembled on the Day appointed, Peter de Ancharano, a Dr. of Bologne, made a Discourse, wherein he answered some Questions proposed by the Ambassadors of the King of the Romans, altho' they were absent (for they had withdrawn themselves from the 21st of April, after they had published on the 9th of the same Month, an Act of Appeal against all that the Council had done, or should do) and showed, That the Objections were of no Force; That the Competitors had been lawfully Summoned; That the Council had Power to proceed against them; That the Intention was to procure the Peace of the Church; and on the contrary, the Design of the Ambassadors of the Duke of Bavaria was to hinder it. In this Session, Commissioners were Named, to receive and examine the Depositions of Witnesses, that should be produced by the Proctor of the Council, who were the Cardinals of Landi, and St. Angelo for the two Colleges; the Bishops of Liseaux, and the three Drs. for France, and one Dr. for England. It was also ordained, That the Council should send Deputies to Laodislaus, who called himself the King of Sicily, to pacify him. The next Session was put off to the 10th of May.  
In a Congregation, which was held before the General Assembly of the 8th Session, the Council named Deputies to assist in the Assemblies of the College of Cardinals, that all things might be done by common Agreement. The same Day the Cardinal of Albano told the Assembly, That he was informed that the Ambassadors of Peter de Luna would quickly come to Pisa, and that they must consider how they should be received. About this, there was a Consultation the next Day, being the 9th of May, and on the Day following, being that of the Session, the Proctor of the Council required, That they should Decree, that the Union of the two Colleges was lawfully made; That they were now become but one College; That they should declare the Calling of the Council to be Legal by them; That the Council was held in a secure and fit place; That it represented the Church Universal, and that the Cognizance and Decision of what concerned the Union and Peace of the Church, and the Extirpation of the Schism belonged to them. When it was demanded, If all of them were of this Opinion, the greater part answered affirmatively; But the Bishops of Salisbury and Eureux remonstrated as to the first Head of this Demand, That there could not be an Union of the two Colleges, as long as the Cardinals of Benedict obeyed him as they did, while all the rest refused to acknowledge Gregory the 12th; That it was necessary, there should be a general withdrawing of Obedience from them. Many more Things were said upon this Subject. The Patriarches of Alexandria, the Germans and French were of this Opinion; but the Cardinals of Benedict, who had not yet withdrawn their Obedience from him, could hardly be brought to any Resolution in this Case. In fine, the Proctor of the Council, having mounted into a Pulpit, demanded still, That in consideration of the Contumacy of the two Competitors, who were notoriously guilty of continuing a Schism in the Church by their Collusion, contrary to the Oaths they had taken, the Council would pronounce and declare, That from the time it had been manifest, the two Competitors had no mind to procure the Peace of the Church by the means they had sworn to make use of, it had been lawful to subtract Obedience from them, and that now they ought no more to be obeyed. He asked if this was the Opinion of the whole Council, and every one answered in the Affirmative with Joy, except two Bishops, the one of England, and the other of Germany. But notwithstanding their Opinion, the Matter was determined according to the Demand of the Proctor, and the Patriarch of Alexandria, having mounted into a Pulpit, together with the Bishop of Salisbury, pronounced the Definitive Sentence by the Authority of the Council. The Proctor demanded, That it should be drawn up in the Form of an authentic Act, which was granted him, and the next Session was put off to the 8th Day, that the Commissioners might have time to examine Witnesses.  
The 9th Session was held the 17th of May, and the Act of Subtraction which had been drawn up by some Doctors, and reviewed in private Congregations, was then presented, and the Proctor demanded that it should be read in full Council. The Patriarch took the Act, mounted into the Pulpit and read it with a loud Voice. It contained, That the Council judged it had been lawful to subtract Obedience from the two Competitors, ever since it was evidently proved, That they had no mind to procure Union by the way of Resignation, as they had sworn to do; That all Christians ought to subtract the Obedience from them; That the Council did Null and make Void all Sentences which the Competitors might have given, or should give against those that did subtract Obedience from them; That those who were Judges in the Council might be Witnesses against them; That the Commissioners might draw up Articles of Accusation, and a Verbal process of Interrogatories, as they should think convenient.  
In the 10th Session, which was held the 22d of the same Month, the Proctor caused the Advocate to inform the Council, That the Commissioners had heard Witnesses, and put the Depositions, in Order, and that they were ready to make the Report of them to the Council by the Mouth of the Archbishop of Pisa. The Council agreed to this Proposal, and Deputies were sent to the Church-gate, to know if any of the two Competitors, who had been cited to hear the Depositions of Witnesses, would appear; but they not being present, nor any one for them, they were declared Contumacious, and it was ordained, That the Prosecutors might proceed further to draw up a Process against them, and publish the Depositions of the Witnesses. After this, the Archbishop of Pisa went up into the Pulpit, and caused to be read the Articles proposed against the Competitors in the 10th Session, and observed upon each Article by how many Witnesses it was proved, and of what Quality they were. Twenty Articles were made ready this Session, and the rest in the next, which was held the Day after: After which, the Advocate of the Council mounted into a Pulpit, and required in the pain of the Proctors and Managers of the Council, That all the Facts alleged might be declared notorious, manifest and well proved, and that now they might proceed further. The Council deferred the Consultation about this Demand until the 25th of the Month, which was appointed for the next Session, in which they agreed with the Conclusions of the Advocate, the Sentence about them was published, and the Power of the Commissioners was recalled. The next Session was put off to the 29th of May, at which they were to declare the Day when they should give a Definitive Sentence. The Council was then made up of 140, partly Cardinals, partly Archbishops, Bishops and Mitred Abbots, of 26 Doctors of Divinity, of 300 Doctors of Civil and Canon Law, and of Ambassadors from the Kings of France, England, Jerusalem, Sicily, Cyprus, Poland, from the Dukes of Brabant, Austria, Bavaria, from the Count of Cleves, the Marquis of Brandenburg and Moravia, from the Archbishops of Collen, Mayence and Saltzburgh, from the Bishop of Utrecht, the Master of the Order of Prussia, from the Patriarch of Aquileia, and many Princes of Italy: There were also Deputies present from the University of Paris.  
On the 29th of May, the 12th Session was held, in which Peter Pluen, Dr. of Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, mounted into the Pulpit, and made a Discourse wherein he proved by many Reasons, That the Church was superior to the Pope, and made it appear, That Peter de Luna was an obstinate Schismatic, and even a Heretic; that he had fallen from the Right of the Pontifical Dignity, of which the Council should immediately deprive him; He said, That this was the Opinion not only of the University of Paris, but also of the Universities of Angiers, Orleans and Tholouse. An Italian Bishop Ascended after him into the Pulpit, and read the Opinion of 300 Doctors of the University of Bononia, which agreed with that of the University of Paris. In fine, the Advocate of the Council demanded, That a Day might be appointed for passing the Definitive Sentence against the two Competitors, and required that it might be Wednesday next, being the 5th of June, and that in the mean time a Congregation should be held on Saturday next, to hear new Depositions against the two Competitors. This was granted him, and on the 1st Day of June, an Assembly was held, wherein the Archbishop of Pisa repeated all the Articles, and upon each of them he declared the number and Quality of the Witnesses that deposed it, and gave public notice, That all those who would see the Depositions entire, might do it on Monday or Tuesday next, in the Convent of the Carmelites, where they should find Carmelites that would show them to any one that desired it.  
In fine, at the 14th Session which was held on Wednesday, being the 5th of June, the Advocate of the Council demanded, That they would proceed to a Definitive Sentence against the two Competitors. They were called for again several times at the Church-gate, and seeing neither of them appeared, nor any Person for them, the Council ordered, That the Patriarch of Alexandria should publish the Definitive Sentence against them, and in pursuance of this Order, this Patriarch assisted by the Patriarches of Antioch and Jerusalem, pronounced with a loud Voice in the presence of the Assembly and the People, who were now suffered to come into the Church, the Definitive Sentence, which was to this effect, That this Holy General Council representing the whole Church, to whom belonged the Cognizance and Decision of this Cause, having examined all Matters relating to the Union of the Church, and the Schism between Peter de Luna, called Benedict the 13th, and Angelus Corarius, otherwise called Gregory the 12th, upon mature Deliberation, have declared with an unanimous consent, That all the Facts alleged against them by the Proctors of the Council, are true and notorious, and that the two Competitors are manifestly Schismatics, Favourers of Schism, Heretics, guilty of Perjury, and of the Violation of their Oaths; that they give a Scandal to the whole Church by their manifest Obstinateness and Contumacy; that they are unworthy of all Honour and Dignity, and particularly of the Pontifical, and that they are fallen from it, deprived of it, and separate from the Church, ipso facto; That nevertheless the Church does now deprive them by this Definitive Sentence, and forbids them to use the Title of Sovereign Pontiffs; declares, That the Church of Rome is vacant, absolves all Christians from the Obedience which they may have promised them, and forbids any Person to obey them, to help or conceal them for the future; Ordains, That those who shall not obey this Sentence shall be punished by the Secular Powers; declares all the Judgements or Sentences which they have given or shall give, to be Null and Void, as well as the Nominations of Cardinals, which have been made by them some time ago, viz. those of Angelus Corarius, since the 3d of May, and those of Peter de Luna, since the 15th of June, in the Year, 1408. And lastly, to the end, That the Decrees made by the Competitors to the prejudice of Union may be Nulled, and what concerns the Promotions they have made may be Regulated, the Council appointed a Session on Monday next, being the 10th of June.  
On this Day, the Archbishop of Pisa read an Instrument in Writing, by which the Cardinals promised, That whoever among them should be chosen Pope, should continue the Council, and not dissolve it, nor suffer it to be dispersed, until it had made a Reformation of the Universal Church, and of its present State, both in the Head and the Members; and that in case any one of the Cardinals that was absent should be chosen, they should bind them by a Promise of sufficient Force and Validity, to execute what they had before, and did now at present approve, viz. the Continuation of the Council during the vacancy of the See. Nothing else was done in this Session, and the Council was adjourned to Thursday, the 13th of June.  
In this, a Writing was read, by which the Council consented, and ordained, That the two Colleges of Cardinals should proceed according to the usual Forms, to the Election of a Pope.  
The next Day, the Ambassadors from the King of Arragon, and those of Peter de Luna, presented themselves to the Council: The former were heard, and desired to be informed of what had passed in the Council, and tho' they protested that they did not hear with a Design to approve their Actions; yet Answer was made, That Deputies should be named to inform them: But as to the Ambassadors of Peter de Luna, they were answered that they came too late, and that they were not to be heard. Nevertheless, out of respect to the King of Arragon, it was resolved, That some part of what they had to say should be heard; but they could not endure that this King's Ambassadors should give him the Title of Pope Benedict the 13th; And when the Archbishop of Tarragona, and the other Ambassadors of Peter de Luna entered, a great Tumult was made: But John de Costa, who had formerly been Bishop of Mende, being their Orator, did first of all remonstrate, That there being an Agreement between the Florentines and Cardinals, by which every one is forbidden to oppose any thing that had been done in a Council, he could not propose what he had to say, unless assurance were given him, That he might speak with freedom, notwithstanding this Agreement. The Council answered him, That they could not dispense with this Law, yet he might say what he thought was to the purpose. Hereupon the Ambassadors of the King of Arragon, and of Peter de Luna, desired to see the Articles of that Agreement, and that this Matter might be delayed till the Morrow; which was granted them; but the Ambassadors of Peter de Luna withdrew without demanding Audience.  
On Saturday, the 19th of the same Month of June, the Bishop of Navarre having made a Discourse upon these Words, in Ch. 10. of the 4th Book of Kings, Choose ye one better, and set him upon the Throne: The Cardinals towards the Evening, entered into the Conclave to the Number 
The Election of Alexander the V.  of 24, and there continued until the 26th of the same Month; in which time they chose Unanimously for Pope, Peter Philaret of Candie, the Cardinal of Milan, of the Order of Friars Minors, who assumed the Name of Alexander the 5th, and immediately appointed a Session of the Council on the first of July next.  
He presided in Person at this Session, being seated on a high Chair among the Five Patriarches, and having read the Decree of his Election, he made a Discourse to the Council, and then ordered the Cardinal of Bononia to read a Decree; whereby First, He approved and ratisied all the Processes' Sentences and Regulations which had been made by the Cardinals for the Union of the Church, since the 5th of May, 1408. and all that had been done in the General Council, provided the Errors either in Matter of Right and Fact were corrected, if any such there were, as much as was necessary. Secondly, He United the two Colleges of Cardinals into one only. Thirdly, He dissolved the Difficulty concerning the Benefices of Cardinal Challant, who had continued longer with Peter de Luna than the rest, by remitting to him any Impediment he might have contracted by his slowness in forsaking that Faction. He added, That he would so order Matters, that the Prelates who had come to the Council, should return with contentment; that he would labour hard for the Reformation of the Church, as he had promised; and that he would choose Persons of Probity and Virtue to consult with the Cardinals about it. After this, it was ordered, That he should be Crowned the next Sunday, and then the Council adjourned till Wednesday, the 10th of July.  
In the 21st Session, the Pope was Complemented in the Name of the Florentines, and those of Sienna, and ordered a Decree to be published, wherein he declares to be Null, and perfectly makes Void all the Sentences that had been given by the two Competitors during the time of the Schism, against those that were not of their Obedience; or who had embraced Neutrality, while the Difficulty lasted of determining which of the two was the true Pope and Vicar of Jesus Christ. The next Session was put off to the Wednesday following, and after that the Council was Prorogued to the 27th of July, upon the account of the Arrival of Lovis of Anjou, King of Sicily.  
In this Session, the Pope caused the Cardinal Challant to publish a Decree, wherein he approved and ratified all the Collations, Provisions, Promotions, Translations of Bishoprics, Dignities, Benefices, Ecclesiastical Offices, all the Consecrations of Bishops, Ordinations of Clergymen, and other Acts done by the two Competitors, or their Predecessors, or by their Order, or their Authority, in such Places where Obedience was freely paid them; provided they were done Canonically, and that those who were promoted had been in peaceable Possession, excepting what had been done to the prejudice of the Union, or of those that adhereed to the Council, particularly since the 3d of May, in 1408. with respect to Angelus Corarius, and since the 15th of July, in the same Year, with respect to Peter de Luna. He confirmed also all the Elections, Postulations, Presentations, Institutions, Collations, etc. made Canonically by the Electors, Ordinaries, Patrons, etc. to those who adhered to the Council; he maintained all those who were in peaceable Possession of Benefices, to which they had been promoted by the ordinary ways, yet without derogating from the Regulations which had been made at Paris, in the last Assembly of 
The Council of Aquileia.  the Clergy of France, or from the Rights of the Cardinals, and particularly the Cardinal of Albano. He declared, That he would proceed against the Favourers of Peter de Luna and Angelus Corarius; and ordained, that he or his Successor, shall appoint another General Council to meet in the Year 1412. in the Month of April, at a convenient place which shall be fixed a Year before their meeting. He declared also, That if the Cardinal de Flisque will return within two Months, he shall be received in the Quality of Cardinal, and enjoy the Benefices he had before the 15th of June 1408. He confirmed also the Dispensations and Absolutions in Reserved Cases, agreed upon by the Bishops during the Neutrality. He caused the Archbishop of Pisa to publish, That he remitted to all the Churches the Arrears of great and mean Services which were due to the Apostolic Chamber until the Day of his Election; That he did not intent to heap up to himself the Spoils of dead Bishops, nor the Profits which should arise out of vacant Benefices. He prayed the Cardinals to make the same Allowance to all the Churches and ecclesiastics; which was approved by all the Prelates of the Council, except the Cardinal of Albano who opposed it. These Regulations being finished, the next Session was deferred till the 7th of August.  
This was the last Session of the Council of Pisa, wherein the Pope ordained, That the Revenues of the Church of Rome and other Churches, should neither be alienated nor mortgaged by the Pope or other Prelates, until the next Council; That in the mean time the Archbishops and Bishops should call their Provincial Councils, the Monks and Canons Regular should hold their General and Provincial Chapters; That the Pope should make no Translation against the Will of the Parties concerned; That Ambassadors should be sent to Kings and Christian Princes, to notify the Acts of the Council, and cause them to execute what had been ordained in it. He granted a Plenary Indulgence and Absolution both from Pain and Gild to all those who had assisted at this Council, and adhered to what had been determined in it. In fine he declared, That having a Design to Reform the Church in its Head and Members, and having taken much Pains already to that purpose, but not being able to finish it because of the Departure of some Prelates and Ambassadors, he did therefore delay this Reformation until the next Council, whereof the time was already prefixed, leaving all those who had been called to this Council at liberty to return to their own Homes.  
This is what was done in the Council of Pisa, the Acts of which have been published by Father Dom. Luc Dachery in the 6th Tome of his Spicilegium, and whereof we had nothing before but an Abridgement, containing the Names and Titles of those who were present, being in number 22 Cardinals, 67 Ambassadors, partly Ecclesiastical, partly Laical, from Kings or Sovereign Princes, 4 Patriarches, 2 Prothonotaries, 12 Archbishops, 67 Bishops in Person, and 85 by Deputies, a very great number of Abbots, of Generals, Ministers, and Proctors of Orders, and Convent-priors', of Deputies from the Universities of Paris, of Angiers and Montpellier, and of Proctors of an infinite number of Abbeys and Monasteries, of Chapters, Cities, Provinces, and other Communities. Alexander V confirmed the Acts of this Council by his Bull, dated the last of January 1410. Gregory and Benedict seeing themselves abandoned by the Old Cardinals, created some new ones: Benedict made 12 of Spaniards or Arragonese, and Gregory also created some out of the Prelates who were of his Obedience, among whom was Gabriel Condolmier, who was afterward Pope under the Name of Eugenius IU.  
Gregory XII. by a second Bull, dated December 18. in the Year 1408. had fixed the precise 
The Council of Aquileia under Gregory XII.  Place where his Council was to meet, which was Udine, a City of the Province of Aquileia, in Friuli. Thither he came at the time appointed, and opened the Council on the Festival-day of Corpus Christi, in the Year 1409. by solemn Processions; but there being scarce any Prelates present, he put off the next Session to the 22d of June, and invited the Bishops anew to come thither. This second Session was not more numerous than the former, nevertheless he gave order to declare, That the Elections and Enthronements of Urban VI Boniface IX. Innocent X. his Predecessors, and his own, were Canonical, and that they ought to be acknowledged for true and real Popes; and on the contrary, That the Election of Robert of Geneva, of Peter de Luna, and Peter de Candie, who was lately chosen, were temerarious, unlawful and sacrilegious, and that they were Schismatics and Usurpers; That they had no Right to the Papal Dignity, and that whatever they had done or should do was Null and Void. In fine, in the third Session, on the Fifth of September, or rather in a Congregation of a small number of Prelates which he had about him, he made a Declaration importing, That he was ready to resign the Pontifical Dignity really and actually, provided that Peter de Luna and Peter of Candy, would also personally resign at the same place, their pretended Rights to that Dignity, according to the Form prescribed in the Conclave; on condition nevertheless, that to make the Election of a new Pope valid, he must have two thirds of the Suffrages of the Cardinals of the two Obediences; and for appointing a place of meeting, that Power be given to Robert King of the Romans, and Laodislaus King of Jerusalem, and Sigismond King of Hungary, to make choice of the place: And in case his Adversaries would not accept of this Proposal, he gave Power also to Princes to call a General Council, at which he proinises to be present, and to stand to the Judgement which shall be there given by the greater part of each Obedience. This last Clause rendered the Execution of this Project impossible; for Sigismond, Laodislaus and Robert, were at War with one another, and therefore could act nothing by common Consent, in an Affair about which their Interests were quite different.  
However Gregory might put a good Face upon the Matter, he was really very much perplexed with the present State of Affairs, for he feared lest the Venetians should abandon him, or cause him to be apprehended, in Obedience to the Decree of the Council of Pisa, which exhorted all Secular Powers to oblige the Competitors to submit to the Determination of that Council; and this he feared the rather because the Patriarch of Aquileia, whom he would have deprived of his Dignity, appeared very vigorously against him, and the Cardinals whom he had newly created. Upon this 
The flight of Gregory into the Kingdom of Naples.  account he took up a Resolution to retire from Udine, but he could not easily put it in Execution, because the Venetians had guarded the Passes, lest he should escape. He wrote to King Laodislaus, who sent him two Galleys, and fifty Men for a Convoy. But this small number being too weak to force the Passes which were guarded by strong Troops, he made his Escape all alone on Horseback, being disguised in the Habit of a Merchant, with two Footmen, and got to the two Galleys. In the mean time, the Guards stopped Paul his Chamberlain, who Travelled in a Red Habit with his Equipage; and it was very unhappy for this poor Ecclesiastic that he counterfeited the Pope, for he was taken Prisoner, robbed, and received many Bastinadoes. By these Blows they Extorted from him a Confession, that he had 500 Florins sowed up in his Shirt, which were taken from him, and the next Day one of these that had robbed him, in derision of Gregory, put on the Pontifical Habit which Paul had, and being Clothed with it, went on Horseback into the City of Udine, giving the Benediction to the People by the way. The Equipage of Gregory was sold, Paul was put in Prison, some of those that belonged to his Court were abused; and others fearing the same Treatment, lay hid in the City, until they found a favourable opportunity to retire. In the mean time, Gregory arrived at Abruzzo, and took up his Residence at Caiete, under the protection of Laodislaus, having a very small Court, because no place acknowledged him but Apulia, and part of Tuscany, and Liguria, and Emilia.  
Alexander V. who was chosen at Pisa, by the Cardinals of the two Colleges, was a Greek, born in the Isle of Candie: He never knew his Father or Mother, but while he was yet very young, 
Alexander V.  and went about begging his Bread, he was taken up and entertained by an Italian Monk of the Order of Friars Minors, who was in that Isle, who having taught him Latin, made him take the Habit of his Order, and carried him with him into Italy. From Italy he was sent into England, to study at the University of Oxford, from whence he went to Paris, and took his Degrees, and commenced Dr. in Divinity. After this he went into Lombardy, and there falling into the Acquaintance of John Galeas, he was made by his Interest Bishop of Vicenza, and afterwards Archbishop of Milan, than Cardinal, and at last Pope. He was of a generous and liberal Disposition, and loved to make good Entertainments; at his Election he was Seventy Years Old. Balthasar Cossa, the Cardinal Deacon, who held the City and Country of Bononia, in the quality of Legate from the Holy See, had a greater share than any Man in all the Transactions at the Council of Pisa; by his Interest he procured him to be chosen Pope, but did himself really in effect govern during his Pontificat. He made no Reformation, but on the contrary he granted extraordinary Favours to all sorts of Persons, created new Officers in his Court, gave Dispensations contrary to Order, united and disunited a great many Benefices, and permitted some to possess a great many of them, tho' they were incompatible. Theodorick de Niem, who gives us this Testimony of him, adds, That he was not a fit Man for Business, or managing Affairs, and upon that account he scarce ever heard the Advocates plead in the public Consistories, as the Popes had usully done; That he had such a fondness for the Clergy that were about him, that instead of distributing the Petitions among the ordinary Officers of Chancery, to make an Abridgement of them, he gave them to these Clergymen, that they might have the profit of them; and because they understood, nothing of these Matters, many Errors were committed during his Pontificate, which threw the Dataries' Office into great Confusion. The same Author observes also, That this Pope favoured the Friar's Minors after an extraordinary manner, by giving them public and gainful Offices and bestowing upon them vacant Bishoprics and Benefices as much as he could. He renewed in their Favours the Privileges of Preaching and Confessing, granted to the Mendicant Orders, by Boniface the 8th, and John the 22d, and condemned some Propositions that prejudiced and diminished their Power, by his Bull dated October the 10th, 1409. which made a great noise in the University of Paris, who threatened to cut off the Mendicant Orders from their Body, unless they would renounce this Bull; against which Gerson made a public Discourse at a General Procession.  
Alexander V was acknowledged for Pope by all Christendom, except Apulia, and some part of Italy, which had not yet abandoned Gregory, and the Kingdoms of Arragon, Castille and Scotland, and the States of Count Armagnac, who acknowledged Benedict. Germany was divided, for Robert King of the Romans opposed the owning of Alexander for Pope, because in many of his Letters he gave the Title of King of the Romans, to Wenceslaus, King of Bohemia; tho' he himself had Possession of the Estate. But Alexander V found a means to gain the Archbishop of Mayence, by making him Legatus Natus 
* i e. One whose Legantine Power was annexed to his Office of Archbishop.  to the Holy See in his own Province; and the other Prelates of Germany he gained to his side, by granting them all the Favours and Benefices they desired of him, as also the Germane Lords by granting them any Dispensations for Marriage that they had a mind to. As to Italy, Rome was still under the Power of Laodislaus, when Alexander V was chosen; but Balthasar Cossa having sat down before it with an Army in September, 1409. strengthened the Party of Paul of Ursini, gained the Governor of the Castle of St. Angelo, and so ordered Matters, That the Officers of Laodislaus were driven away, and the City of Rome in appearance was reduced to the Obedience of Alexander, but in effect was under the Government of Paul of Ursins. The Court of Pope Alexander was then at Pistoya, and he thought himself obliged to go to Rome, where the Romans expected him: But Balthasar Cossa would carry him to Bohemia, under pretence that he was obliged to bring him thither, but really upon Design as 'tis thought, that himself might be chosen Pope after his Death (which he foresaw would quickly happen) the Cardinals being then in a City whereof he was Master. Howsoever this was, 'tis certain the thing happened after this manner, for Alexander V dying at Bohemia, May the 3d, 1410. Balthazar Cossa, who besides his own Interest, had a Recommendation from 
John the 23d Pope.  Lovis of Anjou, King of Sicily, was chosen Pope a few Days after, and took upon him the Name of John XXIII.  
This Pope was of a considerable Family in Naples; he had been Cardinal, and was appointed Legate of the Holy See at Bohemia, by Boniface the 9th. He amassed together great Riches in this Employment, by the Exactions and Tyrannies which he exercised in the City and Country of Bohemia, which he governed as an absolute Sovereign. He contributed very much to the Meeting of the Council of Pisa, and the Election of Alexander V and governed in his Name during his Pontificate.  
The first Design which John XXIII. undertook, after he was advanced to the Holy See, was 
War between Laodislaus and John the 2●d.  to deprive Laodislaus of the Kingdom of Naples, (which he had had a great mind to do for a long time, because Laodislaus had been the cause of condemning his Brethren to Death) and to put Louis Duke of Anjou in Possession of that Kingdom. For this end he raised an Army, and having joined it with the Troops of this Prince, he marched towards Capua. Laodislaus met them with an Army, and gave them Battle in May 1411. The Forces of Laodislaus were beaten; but the Conquerors being diverted with gathering the Spoil and Booty, gave an opportunity to Laodislaus, to escape into a Castle, and to the remainder of his Forces to make a Retreat. In the mean time, John XXIII. returning Triumphantly into Rome, and to show his Contempt of his Enemies, he caused their Ensigns which he had taken, to be dragged through the Dirt after a Solemn Procession which he made. But Lovis of Anjou was no sooner returned into France, than Laodislaus repaired his Losses, and strengthened his Interest, by gaining to his Party the principal Commanders of the Pope's Army, and then he sent an Army in the time of Harvest to the very Gates of Rome, which was beat back at the first Onset: But John XXIII. despairing of reducing Laodislaus by force, resolved to gain him by Money: And therefore he entered upon a secret Treaty with him, which being concluded, Laodislaus gave Order to Angelus Corarius to departed out of his Dominions. He was forced to obey, and therefore he fled to Marca Ancona, to shelter himself under the protection of Charles Malatesta, who was the only Person that continued faithful to him.  
The War being quickly kindled again between Laodislaus and John XXIII. the former 
John the 23d driven from Rome.  came with an Army to the Gates of Rome, in May 1413. which meeting with no Resistance entered into the City; for the Romans hated the Pope, who had drawn great sums of Money from the richest Men in the City. John XXIII. and all his Courtiers fled, and escaped with all speed to Sutri, Viterbo and Montefiascone; and the Pope not thinking himself safe here, continued his Journey through Sienna, as far as Florence, where he resided until Morning; and afterwards passing through Bohemia, he came the last Day of this Month into Lombardy, to treat about the Meeting of a Council with Sigismond King of Hungary, who had been chosen King of the Romans by one Party of the Electors of the Empire, after the Death of Robert of Bavaria, which happened May 18th, 1410. The other Party of the Electors had chosen Jesse, Marquis of Moravia; but he dying in a short time after, all their Suffrages were united in favour of Sigismond.  
John XXIII. having sent at the beginning of his Pontificate the Archbishop of Pisa's Legate into France, together with Nicolas de Robertis a Knight, and Jeffery de Peyrusse a Doctor, to raise Money there for the Procurations and Depradations of the ecclesiastics Deceased; The University of Paris opposed him herein, and maintained the Disposal that was made of 
The Designs of John the 23d rejected in France.  them by the King's Edict, in 1406. and solicited the Prelates, and other Universities to join with them in defeating this Design. But notwithstanding these Efforts, it was resolved that the Clergy of France should grant the Pope a charitable Subsidy of half the Tenths of the Revenues of their Benefices; the Prelates consented to it, and the University yielded, because this Subsidy was granted after that manner which it had offered at first.  
The Legate came to Paris, and presented to them a Bull of the Pope, wherein he declares after what manner he was chosen, and his good Intention to promote the Peace of the Church, and prayed the Court to assist him. This Bull being read by the Clerk, Jeffery of Peryusse gave an account of the Expenses the Pope had been at, to serve Louis Duke of Anjou, and assured them, That his Intention was to endeavour an Union of the Greek Church to the Latin, and to make Peace between the Kings of France and England, and to hold a Council at the time appointed by that of Pisa, to reform the Church both in its Head and Members. Upon the prospect of this Council, the Clergy of France was Assembled at Paris, by Order of the King, to draw up some Memoirs which were to be carried to the Council, containing a Complaint of the excessive Taxes wherewith the Clergy of France were oppressed. The Assembly was held in the Palace, where Benedict Gentian a Monk of St. Denis, spoke smartly against the Trouble which was given them by the Court of Rome; and particularly against the Pensions which the Cardinals raised upon the Churches of the Kingdom; against the Appeals to 
The Council of Const●nce.  the Court of Rome, and about the Promotions of Strangers to Benesices; and showed, That these were the ways made use of to draw Money out of France. He beseeched the Assembly to consider of these things; and Memorials of them were drawn up, which were entrusted with those that were sent to Constance.  
While these things were a doing, a Letter from the Legate to the Pope's Secretary was intercepted, wherein he acquaints him, That the Members of Parliament pretended to be Exempt from Subsidies for the Benefices which they possessed, and to have a Privilege for this Exemption from the Holy See; and that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was wholly abolished, because the Parliament took cognizance of Ecclesiastical Causes belonging to the Right of Possession between Ecclesiastical Persons, the Regulars, Bishops, and even Cardinals themselves. The Court was much offended with this Letter, ordered that an Information should be drawn against it, and that the King's Advocate should make a Discourse against it in the presence of His Majesty and the Legate; and at last determined, That the Privilege of not paying Tenths or Subsidies to the Pope should be searched for in the Treasury of the King's Papers; and that some should remonstrate to His Majesty of what great Consequence the pretention of the Legate was, that so for the future he might be forbid to maintain, That the King and his Judges, and particularly the Parliament, could not take cognizance of Causes belonging to the Right of possessing Benefices; and that, lastly, the King should be entreated to write about this Matter to the Pope and Cardinals. This is what passed in the beginning of the Year 1411.  
The next Year, the King, upon the Complaint of the University renewed his Letters, by which he maintained those that had been promoted to Benefices during the Neutrality: And to the end he might hinder the Traffic which had been made of the Benefices of the Kingdom by the Court of Rome; he, by the Advice of his Clergy and Universities ordained, That all Provisions and Commendams of Churches should be superseded in his Kingdom, and sent an Express to Pope John, for the redressing of this Grievance; which he neglecting to do, upon the Demand of the Proctor-General, and at the Solicitation of the Provost and Sheriffs of Paris, the Parliament and all the Courts of Justice being Assembled, with many Prelates and Members of the University, ordained, That the Edict made in the Month of February, 1406. should be put in Execution, as to Elective Benefices; And this Decree of the Court was confirmed by the King's Council. This is what passed in France, concerning the Pretensions of the Court of Rome, from the Sitting of the Council of Pisa, to the Meeting of the Council of Constance, of which we are to give an account in the next Chapter.   

CHAP. II.  
The History of the Council of Constance, and of the Schism of the Popes, until the Election of Martin V.  
JOHN XXIII. seeing himself pursued by King Laodislaus, who had made himself Master of 
The appointing of the Council of Constance.  Rome, and of the Neighbouring Cities, and was preparing to Besiege him even in Bononia, concluded with himself, That the only means of Deliverance and Safety that remained, was to put himself under the Protection of the Emperor Sigismond, and to call a Council by consert with him. His Predecessor, when he Prorogued the Council of Pisa, had ordained, That another should be held within three Years after: John XXIII. had pro forma, appointed it in the City of Rome, and had afterwards Prorogued it without appointing a place, or prefixing a time. Sigismond wrote to him to do nothing without Communicating it to his Ambassadors, whom he should send unto him. These Ambassadors found the Pope at Florence, and made divers Proposals to him about holding of a Council. The Pope on his part, to expedite this Affair the more speedily, sent two Cardinals, and Manuel Chrysoloras to Sigismond, with Power to agree with him, as to the Place and Time of the Council; As to the Place they agreed upon the City of Constance; and as to the Time, that it should be the 1st of November, in the next Year 1414. After this, the Pope having conferred with the Emperor, ratified what was agreed upon by his Legates, and called the Council to meet at Constance, November 1st, 1414. by his Bull dated at Lodi, November 2d, 1413. inviting the Patriarches, Archbishops, Bishops, and Prelates of all Christendom to be present in Person, or by their Deputies. Then he returned to Bononia, where he raised Troops to oppose Laodislaus, who was coming to Besiege him; but this Prince was seized with a Disease which obliged him to return to Naples, where he died, leaving his Kingdom to Joan, the second of that Name, his Sister, the Widow of William of Austria.  
This News was very joyful to Pope John XXIII. and his Court, who being now delivered from so formidable an Enemy, gave Orders for the securing of Bononia, and then set forth for Constance, October 1st, where he arrived on the 20th of the same Month. He opened the Council November 16th, on which Day he held the first Session, wherein after Reading of the Bull, by which they were called all together, Officers were appointed, and the next Session was put off to the 17th of December, but it was not held till the next Year, because a great number of Prelates and Princes, or their Ambassadors were expected.  
The Emperor Sigismond arrived there on Christmas-Eve, and some time after, the Deputies of Gregory and Benedict, among whom there were some Anti-Cardinals. It was disputed, whether they should be received with their Red Hats; and for Peace sake it was allowed. The Ambassadors of the former offered in their Master's Name the way of Resignation, but without having any Power in Writing to make it good: Those of the latter spoke not so clearly, and presented only an Agreement made between the Emperor, and the King of Arragon, to meet at Nice, in the Month of April, to confer together upon this Subject. Louis, Duke of Bavaria, who adhered to Gregory's Party, arrived also at the Council, and there declared, That Gregory, and those of his Obedience, were ready to embrace the way of Session, and that they would not ways hinder or delay the Union, nor any Endeavours for the Reformation of the Church in the Council, provided that John XXIII. should not preside in it, offering upon this Condition to submit to the Judgement of the Council, whether Gregory consented to it or no.  
After these Proposals, the Fathers of the Council consulted among themselves, and without 
The opening of the Council of Constance.  Communicating the Matter to John XXXIII. concerning the means of putting an end to the Schism, and reforming the Church in its Head and Members; They all agreed, as to the Legality of the Council of Pisa, and yet the greater number were of Opinion, That John XXIII. should renounce the Pontificat as well as Gregory and Benedict. Those who were not of this Opinion, said, That this was to impeach the Authority of the Council of Pisa, to treat a Lawful Pope, who was never suspected of Heresy, like deposed Schismatics; That no body could force him to renounce a certain Right, and he himself could not abandon his Right, without doing injury to his own Reputation, the Authority of the Council of Pisa, and the Church, whereof he was the Lawful Head; That there was another way of procuring Union, by condemning his Adversaries, and their Adherents, and reducing them to Obedience by a War. To this it was answered, That altho' the Council of Pisa had been lawfully celebrated, and the Election of Alexander V was Canonical; yet because those of the two other Obediences had not agreed to it upon the account of the difficulties about Right and Fact, it was expedient for avoiding these Disputes, and procuring speedily the Peace of the Church, that the three Competitors should receded from their pretended Rights to the Pontifical Dignity; That this Session would not ways prejudice the Authority of the Council of Pisa, but rather establish that which was the end and design of the Fathers of that Council; That altho' the Adversaries of John XXIII. had been condemned, yet we might hearken to what they should propose for promoting Peace; That altho' a lawful Pope, which had not been accused of any Crime, could not regularly be obliged to renounce the Pontificat; yet in the present Case, considering the difficulty there was otherwise to procure the Peace of the Church, he might be constrained to do it by the Universal Church, or by the Council which represented it; That the War which was proposed for reducing the Competitors, was a means contrary to the Spirit of the Church, which would retard the Peace, and render it almost impossible.  
It was also debated among the Fathers of the Council, who they were that had Right to give a Vote in the Council. Some maintained, That none but Bishops, and other Prelates or Abbots, aught to be admitted to give a Vote: Against whom the Cardinals of Cambray, and St. Mark gave in Memorials, to prove, That Curates, Doctors, the Deputies of absent Prelates, aught to be admitted to give their Votes, and even the Ambassadors of Princes, as to what concerned the Schism, and the Peace of the Church, because they were Interessed in it, and the Execution of their Decrees depended upon them.  
After this, it was consulted, whether Opinions should be reckoned in the Council by each single Person, or by Nations: The Right and Custom seemed to be, to reckon Suffrages by the Poll, but because there was almost a greater number of poor Bishops from Italy alone, than of Prelates from all other Nations; it was also resolved, That the Fathers of the Council should be distributed into Five Nations, viz. Italy, France, Germany, England and Spain; that the things which were to be proposed in the Council, should be examined and determined by the Plurality of Voices in each Nation, and by the Cardinals in their College; and that afterwards they should be reported to the Council to be there Decreed, according to the Plurality of the Votes of Nations.  
John XXIII. being advertised of the Consultations which were made among the Fathers of the Council, endeavoured by all means to divert them, and to sow Division among them; but notwithstanding his Attempts, the way of Session was decreed with the unanimous consent of all the Nations. While these things were under Deliberation, an Italian Bishop gave in a Memorial, containing many Heads of all sorts of Crimes, of which he accused John XXIII. and desired that the Information might be kept secret. The Nations of Germany, England and Poland, were of Opinion, That these Articles should not be published, and that this Information should not be given in, which could only serve to disgrace the Holy See, to scandalise the Church, and throw it into Confusion, by giving occasion to doubt of the validity of the Provisions and Promotions that had been made. Others maintained, That it was convenient to inform the Council of these Facts, and that it was easy to find Proof of them, so much the rather because the greatest part of them were notorious. John XXIII. knowing what had passed, was mightily perplexed, and at first resolved to go in Person to the Council, and there to own those things whereof he was accused, (if we may believe Theodorick de Niem) but still to maintain that the Pope could not be deposed, except for the Crime of Heresy. His Friends having remonstrated, That it was not convenient to take this Method, he changed his Opinion; and the Fathers of the Council did not enter upon the Examination of these Accusations, but resolved to propose to him the way of Session. John XXIII. knowing the Resolution which they had taken, sent for them on the 16th of February: And as to the Proposal which was made to him to Sign the Papal Dignity, because the other Competitors would make the same Session, and 
John XXIII. his Renunciation of the Papal Dignity.  there was no other way to procure the Peace and Union of the Church, he answered with Gravity, and in appearance with Joy, That he would voluntarily do what they desired, provided the two other Competitors were willing to do the same: And on a sudden he causes the Cardinal of Florence to read a Writing, wherein he declares, That altho' he was not obliged by any Vow, Oath or Promise to make the following Session, yet he was ready for the Repose of Christendom, voluntarily and freely to restore Peace to the Church by the way of Resignation, if Peter de Luna, and Angelus Corarius, condemned of Heresy and Schism by the Council of Pisa, and deposed from the Papal Dignity, would sufficiently and validly renounce the Right which they pretended to it; and that in such a manner, in such circumstances, and at such a time, as should be declared and determined, between him or his Deputies, and the Deputies of the Council. These Offers gave great Joy to the Fathers of the Council, but having examined them, they found that they were not sufficient, because they were made upon a Condescension which depended upon the Will of the two Competitors; and if it should happen, That one of the two would once resign, the Council would have laboured in vain: They demanded therefore from ●ohn XXIII. another Declaration more precise than this, and he gave them a second expressed ●fter the same manner, with a Promise to make a Bull of it; but he added to it, That the Process made in the Council of Pisa, against Peter de Luna, and Angelus Corarius, should be renewed and aggravated, tho' the Execution of it should be suspended, until time were given them to make a Resignation; and that the King of the Romans, the Prince's present in Council, the Ambassadors of King's absent, and the whole Council should engage to assist him with Spiritual and Temporal Weapons, in case the two Competitors would not resign. This second Declaration was judged yet more insufficient than the former, because he did not offer to renounce unless the others did so, and he would have the Process against the two others renewed. The Nations therefore having examined these two Declarations, and found them insufficient, did earnestly importune John XXIII. to give another more full and punctual; but he put them off from Day to Day, and endeavoured in the mean time to persuade the Members of the Council to espouse his Interest, treating these even with reproachful Language that spoke to him upon this Subject. At last, one was drawn up which was approved by three Nations, and presented to him by Sigismond, which he took time to consider of, and resolved at last to accept of it. After he had taken this Resolution, the Prelates of four Nations came to him the 1st of March, in the Year 1415. in his Palace, where the Emperor was present, and offered to him in the name of the Council, by the Patriarch of Antioch, the Declaration they had drawn up, which they prayed him to accept of. John XXIII. having taken and read it, told them, That his Design was always to give Peace unto the Church, and that he was come for this end to Constance, that he had always voluntarily and freely offered the way of Resignation; and after that he pronounced the Declaration which was conceived in these Words.  
I John XXIII. Pope, do acknowledge, promise, vow and swear to God, to the Church, and this Holy Council, That I will voluntarily and freely give Peace to the Church, by the way of my mere Resignation of the Pontificat; and this I will do, and effectually perform according to the Determination of this present Council, so soon as Peter de Luna called Benedict XXIII. and Angelus Corarius, called Gregory XII. in their Obedience, shall resign by themselves, or their lawful Proctors, the Right they pretend to have to the Papal Dignity; and also in all other Cases of Session, or of Death, or otherwise; wherein my Resignation may procure the Union of the Church, and the Extirpation of the Schism. When he had finished this Declaration, the Emperor thanked him in the Name of the Council, for his good Resolution, and a Session was appointed on the Morrow, that he might solemnly renew it in the Council. This was done in that Session, wherein John XXIII. repeated the former Declaration in the same Words, swore to put it in Execution, and ordered it to be drawn up in the form of a Bull.  
The Fathers of the Council having drawn this Declaration from John XXIII. considered of the means how to reduce Peter de Luna; and for this Reason prayed the Emperor, That he would confer with the King of Arragon, when he should have full Power to do it from John XXIII. who refused to grant it him, offering to go himself in Person into that City, where Peter de Luna should be present, to treat and agree with him upon the Conditions of Union. The Council foreseeing plainly, That this was only a pretence to elude the Execution of the promised Resignation, and that it was to be feared, lest the absence of the Pope should cause the Dissolution of the Council, and the Interview between the two Competitors would be of no effect, did therefore oppose it stoutly. In the mean time, Frederick, Duke of Austria, came to Constance, pretending that he was to go further; and said nothing of the League he had made with John XXIII. or that he was come upon his account. Nevertheless the Report spread immediately in the City, That he was come to favour the Escape of John XXIII. But he, the better to cover his Design, told the Emperor, That the Air of this City was disagreeable to him; The Emperor answered him, That he had Houses in the Country round about the City, where he might reside; but prayed him, That he would not go away until the Council was ended, or if he had a mind to do it, that he would not fly away secretly and indecently, for his Design was to observe the safe Conduct he had given him, and even to accompany him wherever he would go. John XXIII. promised him, That he would not retire until the 
The flight of John XXIII.  Council was ended; but did not keep his Promise, for he went out of Constance in a Disguise on the 21st of March, and retired to the Castle of Schafhausen, which was distant only four Leagues, belonging to the Duke of Austria, who had given him his Protection. The Cardinals of Pisa, Plaisance, Challant, Brande, Bar, and some others retired also from Constance on Palm-Sunday, and came to John XXIII. with many of his own Officers.  
Notwithstanding this Retreat, the third Session of the Council was held on Monday the 25th of March, at which the Cardinal of Cambray presided, and the Emperor was present in his Imperial Robes. After Mass, and the usual Ceremonies, the Cardinal of Florence read a Declaration in the Name of the Council, containing the following Articles. First, That this Council was justly and lawfully called, opened and celebrated. Secondly, That the Retreat of the Pope, and some other Prelates, whosoever they be, does not at all dissolve it, but that it continued in full Authority, whatsoever Ordinance might be made to the contrary. Thirdly, That this Council ought not, and shall not separate, until the Schism be Extirpated, and the Church Reformed in Faith and Manners, in the Head and its Members. Fourthly, That it shall not be translated from one place to another, except for a reasonable Cause, approved by the Advice and Determination of the Council. Fifthly, That the Prelates, and other Persons who ought to be present at the Council, shall not retire before it be ended, except for a reasonable Cause, which shall be examined and approved by the Deputies of the Council, with the permission of those who have Authority; in which Case, they shall transfer the Power to those who remain. All these Articles were approved by the Assembly, and an Act was made of them.  
On Wednesday following, four of the Cardinals, who went to Schafhausen, returned to Constance; and on this Day there was a general Congregation in presence of the Emperor, in which six Cardinals maintained, That the Council was dissolved by the Absence and Retreat of the Pope. They were answered in the Name of the Council with freedom and boldness, by many Persons of great Authority and Understanding, that the Pope was not above the Council, but inferior to it, which raised a great Dispute among them. After this, there was found a Placard fixed upon the Gate of the great Church of Constance, by which all Officers of the Pope were enjoined, under Form of Excommunication and Deprivation of their Offices, to come within a Week to Schafhausen. This Placard was brought into the Council, and raised great Complaints of the Bishops against the Cardinals, who accused them of returning to disturb the Peace. The Cardinals said, That they had no hand in this Placard, but that they knew it was to be published to Morrow at the same place; nevertheless they prorogued the Time appointed in this Citation.  
On the Morrow, being the 28th of March, the Emperor proposed to the Prelates, the Reasons which John XXIII. alleged for hindering the continuance of the Council, which were rejected as frivolous and insufficient; and they all cried with one Voice, That notwithstanding this, the Session does hold, which caused new Disputes between the Cardinals and the Nations.  
On Friday, being the 29th of the same Month, the Nations of Germany, France and England, having resolved to hold a Session on the Morrow, and ranged the Articles in order which they were to determine; the Cardinals Assembled in the Episcopal Palace of Constance, and having consulted among themselves, they offered to the Emperor in the Pope's Name to appoint a Proctor, together with the Cardinals, for the Resignation of the Pontificat. So that two Cardinals, by agreement with the Emperor might resign, even against his Will, and that his Court should not be translated from Constance, without consulting the Council. They promised to be present at the Session which was to be held on the Morrow, provided no other Regulations were made there. The Emperor having received these Offers, told them, That he would Communicate them to the Nations that were Assembled in the Cloister of St. Francis. At the same time the News arrived, That the Pope fearing to be Besieged by the Emperor in Schafhausen, had retired by himself alone to the Castle of Laufemburgh, (the Cardinals that were with him remaining still at Schafhausen) and that he had made Protestations before a Notary, against all that he had promised, and sworn at Constance, as being forced to it by violence and fear. The Emperor having received the Answer of the Nations, reported to the Cardinals, That they had refused their Proposal, that no Resolution should be made at the Council upon any other Articles, than what the Cardinals had proposed; but that he had prevailed for delaying the Session till Ten a Clock, and so between this time and that, they might see if they could agree.  
On Saturday the 30th of March, the Emperor, the Cardinals, and the Nations being come into the Episcopal Palace of Constance, there was a great Dispute about the Articles which were to be determined in the Session. The University of Paris prayed the Emperor, That he would not make War upon the Duke of Austria; which he would not agree to. Although the Cardinals and the Nations had not agreed, yet Mass was said for holding the Session, and the Prelates of the Nations were preparing to hold it alone, when the Cardinals of St. Mark and Florence desired to have a Conference with the Deputies of the Nations; and at last agreed with them upon the following Articles, which were read in the Council by the Cardinal of Florence. First, That the Synod being lawfully Assembled in the name of the Holy Ghost, which constituted the General Council, and represented the whole Catholic Church Militant, had its Power immediately from Jesus Christ; and that every Person of whatsoever State or Dignity, even the Pope himself, is obliged to obey it in what concerns the Faith, the Extirpation of Schism, and the General Reformation of the Church in its Members and its Head. Thus is the first Article expressed in the greatest part of the Editions of the Acts of the Council of Constance. In some, these Words, As to what concerns the Faith, are not to be found; and in some Manuscripts of the Vatican Library these are omitted, For the Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members; but they are found in many other Manuscripts, even those that were written at the time of the Council, in all the Manuscripts of the next Session; and Gerson relates it in the same Words, in two Discourses which he spoke in the Council; from whence it appears to be a Calumny in Schelstrate, to accuse, as he does, the Fathers of the Council of Basil, of being the Authors of this Addition; and, besides, it is not necessary to prove that the Council of Constance has determined, That the Pope is inferior to the Council, since the preceding Words, That every Person of whatsoever State or Dignity he be, even the Pope himself, is obliged to obey it, are alone sufficient to establish this Doctrine. In fine, tho' there were some difficulty in this Session about this Clause, that is fully taken away in the next, where this Decree was read again, and repeated with this Addition, as Schelstrate agrees, and which is proved by the Manuscript Acts which he himself has produced.  
The Second Article published in the fourth Session, contains, That John XXIII. cannot change the Officers of the Court of Rome, nor constrain them to follow him without the leave and consent of the Council, and that all which he can do against them upon this account shall be Null.  
The Third, That all Processes made, or to be made by the Pope or his Officers, to the prejudice of the Council shall be Null.  
The Fourth, That three Deputies shall be chosen out of each Nation, to examine the Causes of those who shall have a mind to Retire, and to proceed against them who shall departed without leave.  
The Fifth, That the better to promote the Union, there shall be no new Creation of Cardinals, and to prevent the Antedating of any such Creation, none shall be acknowledged for Cardinals, but those who were publicly known to be such, before the Pope Retired from Constance.  
These Articles were approved by the Cardinals and the Prelates of the Nations, by the Emperor, the other Princes present, and the Ambassadors of those that were absent. Towards Night, Renaud de Carnet, Archbishop of Rheims, reported to the Council, that being sent by the Ambassadors of France to Schafhausen, to inquire of the Pope the reason of his Retreat, the Pope had told him, That he would not return until he had received an Answer by the Cardinal of Challant, who came to him some time after; and he gave him four Briefs, the first addressed to the Emperor, the second to the Cardinals, the third to the Ambassador of France, and the fourth to the Deputies of the University of Paris; That upon his return to Constance, he had put them in the Hands of those to whom they were addressed; and at the same time told them, That the Pope had ordered him to declare, that he was not forced to Retire from Constance by violence or by fear, or by any fault of the Emperor, but only upon the account of his Health, and that he offered to perform what he had promised in the Council; That he had a love for the Emperor, and desired to have a Conference with him, if he would go to Nice, and meet Peter de Luna, to consider of the means to promote Peace; That 'twas true he had not received this Order from the Pope's own Mouth, but the Cardinal of Challant had delivered it to him in the Pope's Name. This Cardinal being present, acknowledged the thing to be so, and that the Pope had given him this Order; but that he was to tell him, That the Pope did not retire for fear of any Violence from the Emperor, but for fear of some great Men in his Court.  
The Saturday following, being the 6th of April, if we may believe the Manuscript Acts published by Schelstrate, there were some Debates between the Cardinals and the Nations, concerning the manner in which the Articles of the fourth Session were drawn up; but at last they came to an Agreement upon this Point. Only some Cardinals absented themselves, and others made a Protestation, because they hoped that John XXIII. would in good earnest make a Resignation, and they thought it would be convenient to wait some time longer, until the Intention of John XXIII. were more fully discovered. But notwithstanding this Remonstrance the Session was held, and many Cardinals were present at it; The Cardinal of Ursins presided at it, and the Articles decreed by the four Nations, were read by Andrew Bishop Elect of Posnania: The first is a Repetition of the first Article of the preceding Session. The second imports, That those who would not obey the Ordinances and Statutes of this General Council, or any other, whatever State, Condition or Dignity they were of, even the Pope's themselves not excepted, shall be put under Penance, and punished according to Law. The third and fourth are a Repetition of the second and third Articles of the fourth Session. The fifth is a Declaration that the Pope and the other Prelates of the Council had been, and were now perfectly free. The sixth, That the Pope was bound to renounce the Pontificate not only in the Cases expressed in his own Declaration, but in all other Cases, wherein his Renunciation might bring great Benefit to the Church, and procure the Union, and that in such Cases the Pope was bound to agree to the Declaration and Definition of the Council. The 7th, That if the Pope, being required by the Council to Renounce the Pontificate for the Peace of the Church, would not, or should delay to do it, he ought to be looked upon as one that had fallen from the Pontifical Dignity, to whom no Obedience was due. The eighth, That the Retreat of the Pope from the City of Constance was unlawful, and prejudicial to the Peace and Union of the Church, and that he ought to be summoned to return and perform his Promise, with a Declaration that if he did not return within the time appointed by the Council, they would proceed against him as a Favourer of Schism, and suspected of Heresy. The ninth, That if the Pope would return and effectually perform what he had promised, Assurance should be given him, That he should neither be arrested nor imprisoned, nor molested in his Person or Goods, before or after the Renunciation, but that he should enjoy perfect Freedom and Security.  
After this some preparatory Articles were read concerning the Errors of John Huss; and than it was resolved to write to all Princes in the Name of the Council, concerning the Flight of John XXIII. and that the Emperor should be entreated to endeavour his Return to Constance, that he might perform what he had promised to the Church and Council, provided still that he were left at Freedom and treated with Honour. The Emperor answered, That he knew the Pope was in the Castle of Laufemberg, in the Hands of the Duke of Austria, but he did not know whether he would return, or if the Duke would permit him to come; that however it might happen, he was ready to do what the Council desired, to write unto him and pray him to return, and send to him a safe Conduct; or if that would not do, to go himself in Person and bring him to the Council, either with his consent or against it. The Council approved this Resolution. The Emperor added, That he had sent some Troops to the City of Schafhausen, and ordered them to offer safe Conducts to the Cardinals and Officers of the Court of Rome that were there; who made Answer, That they would not return, nor follow John XXIII. but they would return to Rome, and that the Cardinals who were of Constance were of the same Opinion. Then the Cardinal of Florence declared, That 'twas true they had resolved, in case the Pope would resign, to defend him; but if he would not, they would abandon him and continue at the Council; That having no certainty whether he would hold to the Resolution he had made, they had always taken care to preserve his Honour, but that they knew nothing of the Cardinal's design to return to Rome. In fine, it was concluded, That the Emperor might stop those who should endeavour to retire from Constance in a disguised Habit.  
The Decree made in these two Sessions concerning the Authority of the Council above the 
A Defence of the Councils of Constance concerning the Authority of a Council.  Pope, did plainly decide the Question, and subjected the Pope, as well as to Faith as Manners, to the Judgement of a General Council. And this ought not to be understood only of a time of Schism, or in case the Pope were doubtful, but generally in all other Cases; 1. Because the Words of the Council are general; 2. They import that all the World, even the Pope himself, is obliged to obey the Council, not only as to what concerns the extirpation of the Schism, but also as to the Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members, as well in Doctrine as Manners; 3. Because they speak not only of this particular Council, but of any other Council lawfully assembled; 4. Because they contain general Penalties against all that should not obey the Council, of whatsoever Dignity they were; 5. Because they deduce the Authority of the Council above the Pope from its representation of the Church, and from its Infallibility, and this agrees to all general Councils at what time soever they were celebrated; 6. Because the Council acknowledges John XXIII. for lawful and undoubted Pope. From all which it appears, That there can be no place to doubt but this Decree was General.  
The Authority of this Decree cannot any longer be disputed, since it was made in full Council, after the Matter was resolved upon by the Nations, and with the unanimous consent of all the Fathers; for the Protestation of the Cardinals did not concern this Article, but had a particular Regard to the Person of John XXIII. In fine, all the Decrees of the Council of Constance being approved by John XXIII. in the 12th Session, and by Martin V in the 44th and 45th, without any exception; it cannot be doubted but this which was one of the principal Articles was comprised in the general Approbation, and consequently that it has the force of a Law. And even in the Bull of Martin V against the Errors of Wicliff, there are Articles wherein this Decree is particularly referred to; and in the 41st the Authority of the Universal Church is distinguished from that of the Pope, and there it is ordained, That the Universal Church, or the General Council, have a Sovereign Authority indefinitely; whereas 'tis only said of the Pope, that he hath a Primacy over other particular Churches, which amounts to the same thing with the Decision of the Council.  
The 6th Session was held on the 17th of April, and there an Instrument of Procuration was read, which they would have Pope John XXIII. to grant for renouncing the Papal Dignity; and Deputies were named, viz. two Cardinals and two Prelates of each Nation, to summon him to come to the Council, that he might perform what he had promised, or to name the Proctors whom the Council should appoint him, for executing the Procuration whereof the Council had sent him a Model, with a Power, in case he should refuse, to cite him to the Council. One of the Deputies of the University of Paris, read in this Session some Letters written in the Name of the University to the Pope, and to the Nation of Italy, wherein they exhort the Pope to return to the Council, and voluntarily to resign the Pontifical Dignity. The Deputies of the Council went to meet John XXIII. at Fribourg in Switzerland, whither he had retired, and executed their Commission by summoning him to name Proctors for renouncing the Pontificate, and declaring that otherwise the Council would proceed against him and Depose him. He answered them sharply, That he would send his Instrument of Procuration to the Council, which he did: But that which he sent was not judged sufficient. In the mean time he proposed divers Conditions which he desired they would engage to make good in case of Resignation, viz. That he should be Legate a Latere, to the Pope that should be chosen in Italy; That he should have a Sovereign Power over the County of Bolonia, and receive a certain Revenue from the Cities in it, and that he should not be subjected, nor obliged to give an Account of his Conduct to any Body.  
The Council perceiving that John XXIII. designed nothing else, but how to find out ways to avoid the Resignation, and that he refused to come to the Council, or give a sufficient Procuration, began to proceed against him in the 7th Session held the 2d of May, wherein it was resolved, That John XXIII. and his Favourers should be cited by a public Proclamation to appear within 9 Days, to answer to the Crimes of Heresy, Schism, Simony, wasting of the Ecclesiastical Revenues, and other Crimes whereof he was accused; and it was ordained, That his Flight from Constance should be declared prejudicial to the Church, scandalous and odious, to be a Means of disturbing the Union and Peace of the Church, and confirming the Schism, and to be contrary to his Promises and Oaths. This Citation made the Cardinal's return to Constance, and the greatest part of the Officers of the Court of Rome who were at Schaffhausen, or in the Retinue of John XXIII. Frederick Duke of Austria, seeing himself pursued by the Forces of the Emperor Sigismond, who had invaded his Dominions, returned to Constance on the last Day of April. He begged Pardon of the Emperor on the 4th of May in the 8th Session of the Council, and promised him, That he would make the Pope return to Constance, and submit to all that he should be decreed by the Council, on condition that no Violence should be offered to his Person, or his Goods; and consented to remain in the mean time an Hostage, until the Pope should come to Constance, or to any other place that the Emperor should appoint. The remainder of this Session was spent in proceeding to the Condemnation of the Errors of Wicliff.  
In the ninth Session, which was held the 13th of May, the Proctors of the Council demanded, That in pursuance of the Citation which had been made to John XXIII. and his Adherents, the Process should go on against him, and Commissioners should be named to give Instructions for it. The Cardinal of Florence risen up and said, That the Pope had sent a Bull to the Cardinals, in which he named for his Proctors three among them, viz. Peter of Cambray, William of St. Mark, Cardinal-Priests, and himself Cardinal-Deacon, to appear in Council, and answer the Accusations proposed against him. That these Cardinals being unwilling to accept of this Procuration, he had published a Brief exhorting them to do it; but notwithstanding they would not be his Proctors, and for his own part he renounced it: The Cardinal of St. Mark made the same Declaration; whereupon the Solicitors of the Council remonstrated, That the Citation being Personal, he ought to appear in Person, and not by a Proctor. They desired, That two Cardinal-Deacons and five Prelates should be sent to the Gate of the Church, to know whether John XXIII. and his Adherents were there, and would appear. The Cardinals refused to go, but the other Prelates went thither and summoned three times John XXIII. who appeared not. An Act was made of these Citations, and the Council named Commissioners to draw up the Process. Towards the end of the Sessions the Emperor and the Deputies of Five Nations, presented the Copy of a Bull granted by Angelus Corarius, called Gregory XII. to Charles Malatesta of Rimini in his Obedience, wherein he gave him Power to consent in his Name to what should be done in the Council: The Emperor gave it to the Deputies to be examined, that if it were any ways defective or insufficient, they might return it to Charles, who should cause it to be amended, as the Council should judge convenient.  
In the 10th Session, which was held the 14th of May, after they had again called for John XXIII. the Commissioners reported the Depositions of the Witnesses, and told the Council, It was sufficiently proved that John XXIII. had wasted the Revenues of the Church; that he was a Simoniack, a scandalous Person, and a Disturber of the Faith, and that as such he ought to be declared suspended from the government of the Church. Upon this Demand, which was made by the Solicitor and the Deputies of Nations, the Council declared him deprived of the Administration of the Revenues of the Church, as well to Spiritual as to Temporal Affairs, and forbade any to obey him, reserving still the Process against him to Depose him entirely. This Sentence of Suspension was read by the Patriarch of Antioch, and approved by all the Fathers of the Council.  
On Saturday the 25th of May the 11th Session was held, wherein the Solicitors of the Council presented in writing the Heads of an Accusation they had to propose against John XXIII. containing an infinite number of Crimes, that were either notorious or proved by Witnesses, as Lewdness and Disorders in his Youth, the purchasing of Benefices by Simony, his advancement to the Dignity of a Cardinal by the same means, his Tyranny while he was Legate at Bononia, his Incests and Adulteries while he was in that City, his Poisoning of Alexander V and his own Physician, his Contempt of the Divine Offices after he was Pope, his neglecting to recite the Canonical Prayers, and to practise the Fasts, Abstinences and Ceremonies of the Church, his denying Justice, and oppressing the Poor, his selling Benefices and Ecclesiastical Dignities to those that bid most, his authorising an infinite number of dreadful Abuses in distributing of Preferments, and committing a Thousand and a Thousand Cheats; his selling Bulls, Indulgences, Dispensations, and other Spiritual Graces, his wasting the Patrimony of the Church of Rome, and mortgaging that of other Churches, his Maladministration of the Spiritual and Temporal Affairs of the Church; and lastly, his breaking the Oath and Promise he had made to renounce the Pontificat, by retiring shamefully from Constance, to maintain and continue the Schism. At the end of each Article, the number and quality of the Witnesses that proved it was expressed, and a Remark was made from time to time of the Advice that had been given him to amend, notwithstanding which he had still continued in the same Disorders.  
While the Process was carried on against John XXIII. in the Council, the Pope having fled from place to place, and being abandoned by the Duke of Austria, was conducted from Fribourgh, by Order of the Council, to the Castle of Celle, two Leagues distant from Constance; from whence he wrote on the 26th of this Month a very submissive Letter to the Emperor, and signed a Writing, wherein he promised to submit to what should be ordained by the Council. The next Day, the Deputies of the Council went to meet him, and having repeated to him the Heads of the Charge that was given in against him, they required him to declare, Whether he would oppose the Continuation of the Process, or answer these Accusations; he declared, That he had always laboured for the Union of the Church, in the time of the Council of Pisa, and ever since that time, that he was hearty sorry for his shameful departure from Constance; That he had no Defence to offer against what was objected to him; That he was ready to perform the Promise he had made and signed the Day before, and to conform in every thing to the Determination of the Council; That he approved and ratified the Process made against him by the Council; That he would make no other Defence against the Heads of his Charge, but by acknowledging that the Council of Constance was most Holy, which could not Err; and that it was a Continuation of that at Pisa, which he would never contradict, tho' he were at Bononia, or in any other place; That he confessed he had no Right to the Pontifical Dignity. The Depositions of the Witnesses were read to him, to which he made no other Answer, but that the Council should be his Defence. He was cited to appear on the Morrow at Council, there to hear his Sentence; he said, That he approved and confirmed it befor-hand, only he recommended himself to the Council, and threw himself wholly upon them, both to take care of his Reputation, and provide for his Subsistence.  
The Bishop of Lavaur, who spoke in behalf of the Deputies, to Pope John XXIII. made 
The Deposition of John XXIII.  his Report to the Council in the 12th Session, held on May the 29th, of the Answers he had received; and afterwards, upon the Demand of the Proctor the Bishop of Arras read a Decree, in which the Council declared, That in case the Holy See should be vacant, none should proceed to the Election of a Pope, without the advice and consent of the General Council; and that if any were chosen otherwise, no Body should obey him. After this Declaration, the Definitive Sentence of the Council was read against John XXIII .. wherein it was declared, That the Clandestine Retreat of the Pope out of the City of Constance, was unlawful, scandalous, tending to the disturbance of the Peace and Union of the Church, and to continue the Schism, contrary to the Vow, Promise and Oath he had made to God, to the Church and the Council; that he was a notorious Schismatic, a waster of the Revenues of the Church, a bad Administrator of Spiritual and Temporal Revenues; that he had brought a Scandal upon the Church by his Disorders; that because he had not amended after Admonition, he ought to be deprived of his Papal Dignity and deposed, of which now the Council did actually deprive him and depose him; and declared, That all the Faithful were absolved from their Oath, and the Obedience due to him; forbade him to acknowledge or call him Pope; condemned him to be confined to a certain place, under the Guards of Sigismond, King of the Romans and Hungary; and reserved to themselves a Power of imposing other Penalties which his Crimes deserved, as should be agreed upon either according to the rigour of Justice, or the mitigation of Mercy. In a third Decree, the Council forbade to choose any of the three for Pope, who now pretended a Right to the Pontificat, and in case any of them should be chosen, it declared the Election Null, and forbade all Persons to obey him, of whatsoever Condition they were. After the reading of these Acts, Cardinal Viviers, Precedent of the Council, enquired if any one would contradict this Sentence; and no Body offering to oppose it, it was approved in the name of the College of Cardinals; and afterwards the Deputies of the five Nations, and generally all those who were present at the Council, declared, That they approved it. The Cardinal of Florence had a mind to read a Writing, which appeared to be some Protestation, but all the rest opposed it, and he was forced to hold his Peace. After this, the Seals of Balthasar Cossa were broken, being presented by the Archbishop of Riga, Vice Chancellor.  
In the Thirteenth Session, held June the 15th, a Decree was read, wherein the Heresy of those was condemned, who blame the Custom of giving the Communion to the Laity in one kind only; and it was ordained, That this way shall be observed, and obtain the force of a Law, which cannot be rejected or altered without the Authority of the Church, and that all those who disobeyed shall be proceeded against. In this Session, Commissioners were appointed, to proceed against Heretics.  
In the Fourteenth Session, held July the 4th, at which the Emperor presided, the Cardinal 
The Renunciation of Gregory XII.  of Ragusa, and Charles of Malatesta, Lord of Rimini, presented to the Council a Bull of Angelus Corarius, called by those of his Obedience Gregory XII. wherein he approved and authorised the Council, and all that it should do; together with an Instrument, whereby he Empowered Charles Malatesta to Act in his Name, and to do whatever he should judge convenient; and another Instrument Authorising all that the Council should do. These Instruments being read by the Cardinal of Ragusa, the Council approved them so far as was needful, united the College of Cardinals of Gregory XII. to that of the Cardinals of John XXIII. and ordained, That in the Acts which should hereafter be passed in the Council, no mention should be made of the Pope or Holy See, but only of the Years of the Emperor Sigismond. Afterwards was read a Bull of Gregory, containing expressly, That he Empowered Charles Malatesta to renounce or resign up his Right to the Pontificat: In pursuance whereof, Charles Malatesta asked the Council, whether they thought it convenient, That this Renunciation should be made at Constance, or that some should first be sent to Nice, to meet Peter de Luna. The Council answered by the Archbishop of Milan, That it was useful and expedient for promoting the Peace, That this Renunciation should be made at Constance, before any were sent to Nice, to know whether Peter de Luna would renounce or no. Afterwards the Council renewed the Decree, prohibiting to proceed to a New Election of a Pope, but with the consent of the Council, and after such a manner as it should prescribe; and that the Council should not be dissolved until a Pope was chosen. The Emperor was entreated to take care of this Matter, and to publish Declarations to this purpose, which he did. Then the Council confirmed all that had been done Canonically by Gregory in his Obedience; declared the Processes to be Null, which were made for the cause of Schism; and that the Prohibition they had made to choose Gregory anew, was not upon the account of his Incapacity, but only to promote the Peace, and avoid Scandal and Suspicion. The Council reserved to themselves also a Power, without doing wrong to any of the two Obediences, to take care of the Cardinals who had the same Title, and received the Cardinals of Gregory XII. confirmed them in their Offices and Privileges; and lastly, prayed the Emperor to provide for the safety of the Council, who immediately published a Declaration upon this Subject. Afterwards, Charles Malatesta, as Proctor of Gregory, after a long and eloquent Discourse, made a pure and simple Renunciation and Resignation of the Pontificat, and dismissed all his Right which he might have to it. This Renunciation was accepted by the Council, who caused an Instrument to be drawn up, wherein they gave Power to the Proctors of the Council, to require Peter de Luna to Renounce within Ten Days his pretended Right to the Papal Dignity; and if he should not do it, they declared him a notorious Schismatic, Incorrigible, Obstinate, Heretical, a breaker of his Oaths, and unworthy of all Honour, and of all Pontifical Dignity, deposed, deprived of all Right, which he had or could have, to the Pontificat; forbade him to assume the Title of Pope, and all the Faithful of whatsoever condition to obey him, or to harbour him; enjoined them to shun him, and treat him as a Schismatic, and a Disturber of the People of the Church, and a Heretic, and to do the same also to his Favourers. This Resolution was approved by Four Nations, by the Cardinal, and by the Emperor.  
The Fifteenth Session, held July 6th, was spent in making a Process against John Huss.  
The Sixteenth was held the 11th of the same Month, in which the Council deputed Fifteen Commissioners to go into Arragon, and treat with Peter de Luna by consert with the Emperor. After this, several particular Regulations were made concerning the Persons of the Prelates, and the Acts of the Council.  
In the Seventeenth Session, July the 15th, the Council congratulated the Emperor upon the Journey he undertook into Arragon, to confer with King Ferdinand, and agree with him about the Means of finishing the Peace of the Church; and ordained Prayers to be made for the success of his Journey, and thundered out Excommunications against all those that should cross his Design. In the same Session, the Council in Consideration of the generous manner of Gregory's Renunciation, and the better to entice Peter de Luna to do the same, confirmed him in the Dignity of Cardinal Bishop, granted him the first place in the Sacred College, saving to the future Pope, in case that Benedict should also Renounce voluntarily, the Power of ordering which of the two should have the precedency; declared him Legate to the Holy See for his whole Life, in Marca de Ancona, and in the Country of Farce, with the Jurisdiction annexed to this Dignity; confirmed all that he had done, even where there was some Default, and forbade any for ever to molest or accuse him, or prosecute him either Criminally or Civilly upon any account whatsoever.  
In the Eighteenth Session, August the 17th, the Council made some provisional Orders, and named Ambassadors for Italy, who were to regulate what was to be done in that Country, with Angelus Corarius, who had approved and confirmed the Renunciation made in his Name in the Council by Charles Malatesta, and laid aside the Pontifical Robes.  
In the Ninteenth Session, September 23d, after they had treated of the Affair of Jerom of Prague, and some other Heretics, two Orders were made; First, That the Beneficiaries who were present in the Council should enjoy the Revenues of the Benefices; and Secondly, That the Provisions of Benefices granted by John XXIII. should be confirmed until the Day of his Suspension.  
In the Twentieth, on November 21st, they treated of the Difference between the Bishop of Trent and Frederic, Duke of Austria, concerning some Lands belonging to that Bishop which the Duke had usurped the Possession of; and the Council granted a Monitory under pain of Excommunication, Suspension and Interdict, against those that should detain any Profits of Places belonging to that Bishop.  
While these Things were transacted at the Council, the Emperor went to Narbonne, and 
The Agreement between Sigismond and the King of Arragon, about Ben●dict XIII,  waited there some time for the King of Arragon, who was fallen Sick at Perpignan, whither the Emperor went to meet him with the Ambassadors of the Council. The other Princes and Deputies of the City of the Obedience of Benedict were present, and Benedict himself came thither also after they had waited a long time for him; but notwithstanding the earnest Prayers of the Emperor, the Kings, the Princes, and the People, he would not resolve to resign the Pontificat; and for fear lest he should be forced to do it, he retired secretly from Perpignan. After his Departure, the Princes and the People of his Obedience resolved to abandon him, and sent their Ambassadors to meet the Emperor and the Ambassadors of the Council, who were returned to Narbonne, to treat with them. This Treaty was concluded on December the 13th at Narbonne, on the following Conditions: First, That the Prelates of the Council of Constance should call those of the Obedience of Benedict, by Circular Letters sent by the King of Arragon to the Princes of that Obedience, to be given to their Prelates, to meet at the Council, within three Months after these Letters were delivered to the King of Arragon; and that the Kings and Princes of the Obedience of Benedict should write also Circular Letters to call the Prelates of the other Obedience to meet at the Council of Constance at the same time. Secondly, That in these Letters, the reason of the Councils meeting should be expressed only in general terms, viz. For the Extirpation of Schism and Heresies, for the Union of the Roman Church, for the Reformation of the Universal Church in its Head and Members, for the Election of one sole Pastor, and for other causes the cognizance whereof did of right pertain to a General Council: But that the Emperor and the Ambassadors of the Council should promise by a particular Instrument▪ that nothing should be Ordained contrary to the Interest of the Kings, Princes and Prelates of the Obedience of Benedict. Thirdly, That the Prelates of that Obedience should be received into the Council assoon as they should come, and then should proceed jointly with the rest against Benedict, if he would not voluntarily renounce the Pontificat; that his Process should be formed Juridicially, and without any regard to what was done in the Council of Pisa; and that another Pope should not be chosen until his Deposition was first pronounced. Fourthly, That so far as was necessary, all the Processes, Judgements, Decrees, etc. made by Gregory, John XXIII. or their Predecessors should be declared Null, and even those made by the Council of Pisa, against Benedict and his Adherents, and that they could not any ways proceed against them upon the account of the past Schism. Fifthly, That all the Provisions and Graces granted by Benedict to the Princes, Prelates, and others of his Obedience, should be approved and confirmed. Sixthly, That the Cardinals of his College should enjoy all the Dignities and Privileges of their Cardinalship. Seventhly, That Provision should be made for the Officers of his Court. Eighthly, That in case Benedict should happen to Die before his Renunciation or Deposition, the Princes of his Obedience should not suffer another Pope to be chosen in their Dominions; and that if one should be chosen they should not acknowledge or allow him, but remit the Election to a General Council, and own him whom they should approve. Ninthly, That the Cardinals of the different Obediences, who shall be found to have the same Title, shall retain it while the Council continues; and that before the end of the Council, Provision shall be made for the Honour and Maintenance of both of them. Tenthly, That Passports and Securities shall be given to Benedict, and all those of his Obedience, who have a mind to come to the Council. Elev●nthly, That the Emperor and Ambassadors of the Council shall be obliged by Oath to cause the preceding Articles to be approved and performed by the Prelates of the Council. Twelfthly, That the Dispatches of this Instrument shall be delivered to the Parties as there shall be occasion.  
This Treaty was brought to Constance by the Ambassadors of the Council, and read in a General Congregation held January 30th, in the Year 1416. at which it was approved and signed by the Cardinals and other Prelates of the Council.  
In the Twenty First Session, on May 30th, they treated of nothing but the Affair of Jerom of Prague, who was there condemned.  
In the Twenty Second, held on the 15th of October, the Ambassadors of Alphonsus' King of Arragon, who had succeeded his Father Ferdinand, took their Seats in the Council, and after reading the Letters of the Prelates at Constance, directed to the King of Arragon, for calling them to the Council, the Ambassadors of this Prince on their Part made a Convocation of the Council, which was accepted by the Prelates, who desired they should proceed to conclude the Union according to the Tenor of the third Article of the Treaty signed at Narbonne. The Ambassadors answered, That they would unite themselves to the Council, which Union the Council accepted of, and then they took their Seats on the same Bench with the Ambassadors of the King of France; after such a manner that the Count of Cardone, first Ambassador of Arragon, had his Seat next to Gerson, who was chief of the Ambassadors of France, and the others were placed alternatively; but not till those of France had first made their Protestations, that this should not prejudice the Right of Preference which belonged to the Ambassadors of the French King, nor give the Right of an Alternative Seat to the King of Arragon; which Protestations were admitted by the Ambassadors of the King of Arragon and the Council. The Ambassadors of Arragon were allowed the Right of giving their Suffrages in the Name of all the Prelates, not only of their own Kingdom, but also of their Obedience, until the Ambassadors of other Princes of the same Obedience should arrive; and after this, the Council approved, allowed and confirmed the Articles of the Treaty of Narbon.  
In the Twenty Third Session, on November the 5th, the Process against Peter de Luna was Commenced, who had retired to the Castle of Paniscole, a strong place of Arragon, by the Seaside, near to Tortose; and for that end Commissioners were named to go and inform summarily against him at these places which were nearest to Paniscole; and in the Twenty Fourth Session, held the 28th of the same Month, a Citation was read, which was to be given him to appear before the Council.  
The Ambassadors of the Count of Foix were received in the Twenty Fifth Session, held the 14th of December, and those of the King of Navarre in the Twenty Sixth, on the 24th of the same Month.  
In the Twenty Seventh, Feb●uary the 20th, and the Twenty Eighth, March the 3d, in the Year 1417. they proceeded against Frederick Duke of Austria, who had Possessed himself of the Revenues of the Bishop of Trent, and had detained him Prisoner,  
In the Twenty Ninth, on March the 8th, the Council named Officers for instructing a Process against Peter de Luna; and the Proctor demanded, That the Hundred Day being come, on which he was to appear, he should be summoned at the Church-gate, which was done; but he not being present, the Proctor required that he should be declared Contumacious, the Consideration whereof the Council put off to a further Day.  
In the Thirtieth Session, held the 29th of the same Month, the Commissioners of the Council reported after what manner they had cited Peter de Luna, and the Answer he had given them, and caused to be read the Instrument which they had drawn up about it. The Council approved the Subtraction of Obedience made by the King of Arragon, and revoked a Bull published to the contrary by Benedict.  
In the Thirty First Session, held the last Day of the same Month, nothing was done about the Affair of Peter de Luna; but a Monitory was decreed against the Count of Vertus, who kept the Bishop of Ask Prisoner; and the Difference was determined between the two Bishops of Baionne, one of the Obedience of John XXIII. and the other of that of Benedict XIII. in favour of the latter, on condition nevertheless that if he should Die, the Chapter of Baionne might supersede it at a New Election, as they should agree about it with the King of Arragon.  
In the Thirty Second Session, held the 1st of April, Peter de Luna was summoned again three times; who not appearing, nor any Body for him, Commissioners were named to instruct his Process, and to take the Depositions of Witnesses against him.  
Peter de Luna was again cited in the 33d Session held the 12th of May, and in the 34th held the 5th of June, the Commissioners made their Report of the Articles and Depositions of the Witnesses.  
The Ambassadors of John King of Castille and Lyons were received in the 35th Session, held on the 18th of the same Month, with the same Ceremonies that had been used to those of the King of Arragon, and the Subtraction of Obedience from Benedict, made by the King of Castille, was approved. The Count of Armagnac being the only Person of all the Princes of the Obedience of Benedict who had not sent to the Council, the Proctor enquired if any Person was there in his Name; whereupon Gerson risen up and said, That the Ambassadors of the King of France had a Writing, by which it appeared to be the Intention of this Count to follow the Example of the King: The Proctors remonstrated, That this was not sufficient, and protested publicly against him.  
In the 36th Session held the 22d of July, the Council ordered, That a new Citation against Benedict should be fixed up, whereby he should be summoned to appear the 26th of July, to hear the Definitive Sentence pronounced against himself: All the Processes made and Judgements given by Benedict XV. against the Princes, or others who had withdrawn their Obedience, were made null and void.  
Lastly in the 37th Session on the 26th of the same Month, at which the Emperor Sigismond was 
The Deposition of Benedict XIII.  present, Peter de Luna was declared contumacious, and condemned as a perjured Person, who gave Scandal to the Universal Church, favoured an old Schism, and disturbed the Peace of the Church, as a Schismatic, Heretic, and unworthy of all Title, Honour and Dignity, deprived of all Right he could have to the Pontificate, separated from the Church; and lastly, deposed by the Council, who forbade all the Faithful of whatsoever Quality and Condition to obey him, or harbour him; and declared all the Sentences, Processes, Prohibitions, Censures and Constitutions contrary to this Decree, to be null and void.  
In the 38th Session held the 28th of the same Month, the Council revoked severally the Decrees made against the Ambassadors of Henry the Infant of Castille, and gave the Ambassadors of Castille, Portugal and Navarre, the same Right of giving Votes for their Nations, which had been granted to those of Arrag●n. Towards the latter end of this Session there were great Contests between the Cardinals and Nations of Italy and Spain on the one side, and the Emperor and the Nations of Germany on the other side, concerning the Matters which were to be treated of in the Council. The Germans endeavoured with all their Might, That the Council should take care to make Decrees for the Reformation of the Church in its Head, before they proceeded to the Election of a Pope; and the Cardinals on the contrary, had a Mind to begin with the Election of a Pope, who should afterwards take care of the Reformation of the Church. This Contest lasted almost three Months, and the Cardinals made a Protestation against the Germane Nation; but at last it was agreed, That the Council should draw up the Articles for reforming the Head of the Church and the Court of Rome; and that it should be ordained, That the Pope who should be chosen, should make this Reformation before the Dissolution of the Council.  
In the 39th Session on the ninth of October, the Council considering that the frequent celebration of General Councils was a means most proper to extirpate Schisms and Heresies, and to reform Abuses and Disorders, made a Decree, by which they ordained, That another General Council should be held 5 Years after the end of this, a third 7 Years after the end of the second, and for the future one should be held every ten Years, in such Places as the Pope should appoint at the end of each Council, with the consent and approbation of the Council itself: That his Holiness with the advice of the Cardinals might shorten this time, but not prolong it, and that he could not change the place without necessity; in which case he must give notice, and appoint another place a Year beforehand: That in case of Schism, assoon as any two Persons appeared who took upon them the Title of Popes, the Council should be held the next Year, and all those who were wont to be present at the Council should immediately resort thither: That the two Competitors should be suspended from all Administration and all Power, assoon as the Council was opened: That in case any Election of a Pope should be made by Violence or a considerable Fright, it should be null; but that the Cardinals could not proceed to a new Election, until the Council had judged of the Validity of that which had been made; and that if they should proceed to do it the Election should be null, and they should be deprived of their Right to choose, and be degraded from their Dignities. The Council after this prescribed a Form of Faith which the Popes should be bound to profess for the future after their Election, and added to it two Constitutions; one by which they forbidden to translate Prelates against their Will to other Churches, and the other by which they abolished the Right which the Pope assumed to himself of receiving the Revenues of deceased Prelates, and the Exactions of the Rights of Visitation and Procuration.  
In the 40th Session held October the 30th, a Decree of the Council was published, wherein they ordained, That the future Pope shall join with the Council, or with those that shall be deputed by the Nations, in taking care to reform the Church in its Head and Members; and also the Court of Rome, according to Equity, and as was necessary for the good Government of the Church, before the Council should be dissolved, upon the Articles presented by the Nations, which are, 1. Concerning the number and quality of the Cardinals. 2. About Reservations made to the Holy See. 3. Concerning Annates. 4. About the Collation of Benefices, and the Promises of them when they shall be vacant, and about Confirmations of Elections. 6. About Causes which ought to be pleaded at Rome or elsewhere. 7. About Appeals to the Court of Rome. 8. About the Offices of the Chancery and the Penitentiary. 9 About Exemptions and Unions made during the Schism. 10. About Commendams. 11. About the Profits of vacant Benefices. 12. Against the Alienation of the Revenues of the Roman Church. 13. About those things for which the Pope ought to be punished or deposed. 14. About the Extirpation of Simony. 15. About Dispensations. 16. About Provisions in the Name of the Pope and the Cardinals. 17. About Indulgences. 18. About Tithes.  
All these Articles were disputed between the Nations and the Cardinals, but that about Annates 
The Contests about Annates.  was longest debated, for most Voices among the Nations carried it, That Annates were not at all due, and that this claim of Right ought not to be suffered; and that so much the rather because John XXIII. had abused it extravagantly, by exacting many Annates of vacant Benefices several times in the same Year. The Cardinals on the contrary were of Opinion, That these Abuses ought to be reformed, but the Right of Annates and mean Services should be maintained, and caused an Article to be drawn up after the following manner: That the Tax set down in the Registers of the Apostolic Chamber shall be paid for vacant Churches and Monasteries, to furnish the Pope and Cardinals with Means for their Maintenance; That if any of these Taxes were exorbitant they should be reformed; That they should be paid but once for one Church or Monastery, in case it should happen to be vacant twice in one Year. This Project being communicated to the Nations, they consulted about seven Days, and at last concluded, That Annates ought to be wholly taken away for the time past, the present, and the future. The Cardinals defended this Right by John de Scribanis their Proctor, who appealed from this Conclusion to the future Pope. The Nation of France, who had the greatest Hand in this Affair, gave a large Answer to this Appeal, wherein they gave a Reason for the Resolution of the Nations, and maintained that the Annates cannot be defended by any Privilege, Custom or Prescription; that excepting the Benefices vacant in Curia, there is no Rule of Law which favours these Annates; That the original of them came from a Reservation which John XXII. made of one part of the Revenues, of Dignities and Benefices, except Abbeys, for a certain Journey beyond Sea, and other urgent Occasions; That upon this account the Church pays nothing for Abbeys in England; That this Pope also excepted the Bishoprics, and made divers Restrictions to his Ordinance; That since his time many Popes had made the like Reservation for certain Causes which they expressed; That the Clergy, Princes and People, had sometimes endured them, but being at other times found too chargeable, they had refused to pay them, as they had done in England, and that they might do it with Reason and Justice, especially, because the Causes for which they were at first established had now ceased: That the granting the Revenue of one Year of Prelacies and vacant Abbeys, was introduced by the voluntary and free Oblation which some of those whose Election was confirmed, made to the Holy See; That it had the name of Common Service, because it was divided among the Officers of the Court of Rome, and that afterwards a Law was made to oblige Men to do it under pretence of Custom; That a Valuation had been made of Benefices; That this Exaction was Simoniacal, or at least suspected of Simony, and therefore could not be authorised by any Custom or Prescription; That altho' Annates might lawfully be exacted, yet it was convenient to abolish them upon the account of the Complaints, Violences, Scandals, Oppressions and Quarrels they had caused, and did cause every Day; That France had been forced to take them away by Provision; That it had demanded the Supression of them from the Pope, who had promised it, and did still demand the same at present of the Council. Afterwards they answered the Reasons alleged by John de Scribanis, to oppose the Resolution of the Nations, and justify the Annates. He objected as to the manner in which this Resolution was made, that they had not proceeded to a Scrutiny, nor proposed the thing to the Deputies of the Nations. To this it was answered, That there was no Law made for deliberating always by the way of Scrutiny, and that there were many Affairs about which they had consulted only viva voce; but that this at first had been carried to the Deputies of the Nations, according to Custom. As to the Matter it was alleged, That it must needs be granted, that the inferior Churches, which were descended from the Church of Rome, should furnish the Pope and the Cardinals with Necessaries. To which it was answered, That the Bishop of Rome had Revenues sufficient for his Subsistence as well as other Bishops, and in case they were not sufficient, the Clergy of his own City and Diocese, and even those of other Churches, might grant him Annates, by way of charitable Relief, for a time, and with regard to his present Necessities, but not as a Debt of perpetual Obligation: That moreover, altho' the Church of Rome was the chief, and the Mistress of all other Churches, upon the account of the Virtues and Merits of St. Peter, and those who had been her first Bishops, (for as to the latter Bishops they did not at all resemble the Primitive) yet it was not true that it had preceded all others, since the Greek Church was the first in order of time: That as to the Cardinals, they might be considered either as Curates and Bishops of their Titles, (and in this quality they ought to discharge the Function of Curates and Bishops) or as Counsellors to the Pope; but that they were by no means Coadjutors to the Pope: That this Title belongs to the Bishops, who are above the Cardinals by Divine Right, altho' these at present are advanced above them, and despise them; That they are rich and powerful enough upon their accounts to maintain their Dignity; That as to the Possession which Scribanis alleged and pretended the Pope and Cardinals had even in the Kingdom of France, it was answered, That they never had a Title to establish that Possession, and that if at any time they received Annates, it was only by Permission and Sufferance: That the Sums which the Pope exacted by means of Annates were excessive, since they amounted, according to the Taxation of the Apostolic Chamber, for the Bishoprics and Abbeys of France only, to the Sum of 697750 Livres of Revenue, which would make up almost 7 Millions for all the Nations; That the Pope and Cardinals had Revenue enough without this; and that by other ways the Nation of France paid them betwixt 60000 and 70000 Livres of Revenue: That if this Nation concerns itself more in this Affair than the rest, it is because there is none that is taxed higher; for the Apostolic Chamber takes nothing in England but the Revenue of the Vacancy of some Bishoprics, which are but few, and the Cardinals are not suffered to possess any Benefices there: That nothing is received from all Spain; That the Benefices of Italy are of small Value; That when the States find themselves taxed too high, they forbidden to give any thing, as was lately done by Florence, which deprived the Holy See for 5 Years of the Collation of Benefices in that▪ State, upon the account of the Abuses committed by John XXIII. in the Collation of an Abbey. Lastly, That in Germany there are only some Churches from which the Apostolic Chamber receives any thing, and that in others nothing is given to the Pope; That even the Apostolic Letters are not received there, but only so far as the Bishops please, who do often refuse their Vidimus; That there is no Nation but France that is overcharged, because it has been obedient and well-affected. After this, they discovered the weakness of John the Scribanis' Answers to their Objections against Annates, and particularly confuted the Reasons he made use of to excuse them from Simony. From whence they concluded, That the Appeal of Scribanis, and the other Appeals of the Cardinals to the future Pope upon this Head, ought not to be admitted; that no respect of Persons ought to be showed in this case; and that the Nation of France did not mean to show any, nor to change their Resolution in any thing, but to endeavour the reception of it in the Council, and in all other places, as occasion should require.  
Notwithstanding this Opposition, the Article remained in the same Form that it was drawn up by the Cardinals; but no more was spoke of it after the Election of the Pope: And this Article, as well as the greater part of those which concerned the Reformation of the Court of Rome, were never published, nor confirmed by Pope Martin V tho' the contrary was agreed upon in this Session.  
The Council ordained afterwards, That they should proceed to the Election of a Pope, notwithstanding the absence of the Cardinals of Peter de Luna, on condition nevertheless, that if they should come before the Election was finished, and unite themselves to the Council, they should be admitted to give their Votes: And to the end that this Election might be the more solemn, it was ordered, That for this time only, 6 Prelates of each Nation should be joined to the Cardinals; and that he who should be chosen by two thirds of the Cardinals, and by two Deputies of each Nation, should be acknowledged for Pope.  
In the 41st Session held November the 8th, Deputies were named, who were to be joined to the 
The Election of Martin V.  Cardinals to Elect a Pope; the Articles were read to which they were to Swear, and the manner of their Behaviour in the Conclave wes settled. They entered into it the same Day, and on Thursday following, which was the Festival of St. Martin, they did all with one Voice choose for Pope Odon Colonna Cardinal-Deacon, having the Title of St. George, who assumed the Name of Martin V upon the account of the Day of his Election; he was enthroned the same Day, and crowned the 21st of the same Month.  
He presided in the 42d Session, which was not held till the 28th of December, and there he caused to be read a Bull, by which he discharged the Emperor Sigismond and the Duke of Bavaria, from the trouble of keeping Balthasar Cossa, and obliged them to deliver him into the Hands of those whom he should name to receive him.  
In the 43d Session held the 21st of March, in the Year 1418. Pope Martin V published some Constitutions for the Reformation of the Church; The 1st. About Exemptions, wherein he recalls all those that had been granted by the Popes since the death of Gregory XI. The 2d, Concerning the Unions which he ordered to be examined anew. The 3d, About the Revenues of vacant Churches, which he forbade any to apply to the Benefit of the Pope, or the Apostolic Chamber. The 4th, about Simony, which is committed in Elections, Postulations and Collations. The 5th, Whereby he annulled all the Licenses granted by the Popes to possess Benefices which require one of the Holy Orders, without being obliged to take it. The 6th, Whereby he forbade to impose Tenths, or other Taxes, upon Churches or Ecclesiastical Persons, except for some great Advantage which concerned the Universal Church, with the consent of the Cardinals and Prelates of the Places. The 7th, Wherein he renewed the Laws about the modest Habits of Clergymen. The 8th, Wherein he declares that by the preceding Constitutions, and by the Concordats made with each Nation, he had satisfied the Decree concerning Reformation, made in the Session of the 30th of October last, by which means he eluded the Reformation of the Cardinals and the Court of Rome, which had been decreed in the Council.  
The News of the Election of Martin V being carried into France, and Lovis de Flisque being 
The Regulation made in France about the Discipline of the Church.  sent to communicate it to the King, this Prince held an Assembly of Prelates, of his Counsellors, his Court of Parliament, and the University, wherein it was resolved, That the Edict of the Year 1406, should remain in Force; and that for the future in Cathedral, Collegiate and Conventual Churches, and other Elective Benefices, they should be provided for by the Election or Postulation of the Chapters, Colleges and Communities, as well Regular as Secular; and that as to other Benefices which were not Elective, they should be provided for by the Presentations, Collations, and Institutions, of those to whom it belonged of common Right, or by Custom or Privilege, notwithstanding and without having regard to any general or special Reservations from any Person whatsoever. On the 26th of February 1418, the Dauphin coming to Parliament, forbade the University to acknowledge or obey the Pope chosen at Constance, until the King and his Council should order it. Nevertheless he was acknowledged for lawful Pope; but because the Council, in spite of the pressing Solicitations of the Ambassadors of France, would not take care to reform the Court of Rome, the Regulation made in 1406. concerning the Collation of Benefices, was confirmed anew in France.  
There remained no more to be done by Pope Martin V for satisfying the Decrees made by the Council before his Election, but to appoint the Place where the future Council was to be held; which he did in the 44th Session, April the 19th, wherein he read the Constitution for appointing the future Council at Pavia.  
In fine, on the 22d of the same Month the last Session of the Council of Constance was held, 
The end of the Council of Constance.  wherein, after the Mass of the Holy Ghost, Umbaud Cardinal-Deacon, by the Order of the Pope and the Council, said, Sirs, Go in Peace; and those who were present answered Amen. The Ambassadors of Poland demanded the Condemnation of a Book of John de Falkemberg, which contained most cruel Errors and Hersies, and had been condemned by the Deputies of the Nations. Whereupon Martin V made Answer, That he approved whatever had been determined, concluded and ordained, in Matter of Faith by the Council; that he approved and ratified what was done in it Conciliarly, and not what was done in it after another manner, i. e. That which had been concluded only by the Nations, and had not been approved in the General Assembly of the Council, as the Decrees of Reformation proposed in Session 40th, the Condemnation of the Errors of John Petit and Falkemberg. Gerson remonstrated, That there were yet many Articles to be decided in the Council, about Matters which had been already debated, and chief about divers Errors, that if they were not condemned some would impute this Omission to an affected Negligence, about Things which require a very particular Care and Attention, and which are of the greatest Consequence, such as the Error of John Petit, that every Tyrant might lawfully be killed; That others would believe it was through Ignorance that they would not decide some Propositions which are not of the first Principles of Faith, whether they are False or True, Holy or Impious, and whether they ought to be received or rejected; Others would pretend that they used respect of Persons, or were moved by the fear of Man, which would make these murmur against whom they had proceeded in Matters of Faith, as the Bohemians; Others would say, there was a denial of Justice in Matters of Faith and Manners, or at least a unblamable Dissimulation; a great many would impute it to the Covetousness of the Prelates, who sought nothing but their own profit in the Reformation of the Church, and not the Spiritual Good of others: Some would observe that it was a Contempt of Kings, Princes and Universities, as of the King of France, of Poland, and the University of Paris; Others would imagine, That they intended nothing but to weaken the Power of Ordinaries in their Diocese, and commit all Authority to the Court of Rome: Others would impute it to the Corruption of Manners in the Prelates of the Council, or to the negligence of the Ambassadors of Princes and the Universities, who had not done their Duty: Many would maintain, That this would weaken the Authority of what the Council had done; That it would expose the Truth, and those that Preached it to Danger; That it would give occasion to Murders, Perjuries, Seditions; That it would be so far from procuring the Conversion of Heretics, That it would confirm them in their Errors; That this would give occasion of slackening Obedience to the Pope newly chosen, and afford Matter of Derision to Infidels, and the Partisans of Peter de Luna, who would laugh to see that in the presence of the Council Errors were suffered or overlooked; and lastly, That this Silence might pass for a tacit Approbation of the Error. Gerson made these Protestations and gave them in Writing; but no Answer was made to him, nor any regard had to what he said. The Ambassadors of Poland insisted upon the Demand of the Condemnation of the seditious Book of Falkemberg, which at least warranted the Massacre of all the Polonians without hearing them; and when they saw that no Satisfaction was given them, they appealed to the future Council. The Pope opposed this Appeal with a Decree, wherein he declared, That it was not lawful in any Case to appeal from the Judgement of the Pope, which, as Gerson remarks, destroyed a Decree of the Council, and subverted the Fundamental Maxim upon which it was established. However, the Bull of Martin V containing the Prohibition of appealing to the Council, was not read, nor approved in this Session of the Council, but published in a private Assembly of the Cardinals.  
In the mean time, Pope Martin V without any regard to the Remonstrances of Gerson, or the Demands of the Ambassadors of Poland, put an end to the Council, by causing to be read a Constitution, wherein he gave leave to all who had been present in the Council to return to their own Houses, with plenary Indulgences for them and their Domestics. Thus ended the Council of Constance, which seemed to have wholly extinguished the Schism; yet it was not so fully done, but there remained still some Sparks of it. And as to what concerns the Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members, which was another end of the Council, it was scarce begun but it was put off to another time.  
Gregory XII. and John XXIII. held to that which was decreed in the Council; the former 
The Sequel of the Council.  died at Recanati, even before the Council was ended; the second having bribed his Guards with Money, delivered himself out of Prison, and came to Florence to cast himself at the Feet of Martin V and implore his Mercy: The Pope received him very courteously, made him Cardinal and Dean of the Sacred College, and gave him a Place more eminent than the rest. He enjoyed but a little while this Consolation, for within six Months after, being weary of leading a private Life, he died at Florence, where a sumptuous Funeral was made for him.  
There remained now only Benedict XIII. who was shut up in the Castle of Paniscole, where he 
The obstinacy of Benedict XIII  preserved still the Name and the Ensigns of the Papal Dignity, being accompanied with four Cardinals. Martin V sent the Cardinal of St. Eusebe a Florentine, his Legate in Arragon, to enjoin him, under the Penalty of Ecclesiastical Censures, to resign. The Cardinals that were with him remonstrated to him, That he ought to do it for the Benefit of the Peace. He answered them after his usual manner, That he would personally confer with his Competitor, to see what he would do about it. Upon this Answer two of his Cardinals forsook him, and there remained only two with him, whereof one was a Carthusian, and the other was called Julian of Obla. Then all Spain acknowledged Martin; the Scots quickly followed the Example, and at last the Subjects of the Count of Armagnac, so that all the Authority of Benedict was confined to the Castle of Panischole. Nevertheless some time after King Alphonsus being exasperated against Martin the Pope, because he had invested Lovis III. Duke of Anjou in the Kingdom of Naples, had a mind to revive the Pretensions of Benedict, and sent an Ambassador to the Council which was to be held at Sienna, to endeavour that Benedict might be owned, and Martin rejected; which was one Cause wherefore Martin put off the Council to another time. At last Benedict dying in his Contumacy, in the 
The death of Benedict.  Year 1424. the Cardinals that remained about him, chose for Pope Gillio de Munian, a Canon of Barcelona, a Spaniard, who took upon him the Name of Clement VII. created Cardinals, and did all the Acts of a Pope: But some time after Martin V having accommodated the Difference 
The Election of Clement VII.  with the King of Arragon, and appointed the Cardinal of Foix for his Legate in Spain, Clement was forced to resign into his Hands all his pretended Rights; and that he might do it with some Show of Germany, that he would refer the Choice of it to the Pope's Legates. Philibert, Bishop of 
The Opening of the Council of Pavia, and i●s Translation to Sienna.  Amiens, said as much in the name of the Deputies from France, who were six in number. Richard, Bishop of Lincoln, consented to it also in behalf of those from England, who were a much greater number; and declared, That for the present he would approve of that place which should be chosen by the Legates. There were no Deputies from the Nation of Spain, nor any other Italians but the Pope's Legates. The next Day, Andrew, Bishop of Posnania, having said Mass, the Archbishop of Toledo read a Writing, which contained, That the General Council being lawfully Assembled at Pavia, changed this City because of the Pestilence which was there, and in its room made choice of the City of Sienna, as a place fit and sufficient for the Continuation of this Council. The Archbishop of Crete answered in the name of the Nation of Italy, That he liked it well, altho' he had no Power over it. The Deputies of the Nations of Germany and England consented also to it. There is nothing said of what was done by those of the French Nation, but only 'tis observed, That they had not seen the Writing which was read by the Bishop of Posnania.  
By Virtue of this Decree, the Council was adjourned to Sienna, by the same Prelates, and 
The Council begun at Sienna.  some others who came thither. They began there with making a Decree, wherein they renewed the Penalties of Law against those who should give any assistance to the Wiclevites and Hussites; and a Plenary Indulgence was granted to all those that would prosecute them, and labour to ruin this Heresy. By a second Decree the Sentence of Condemnation was confirmed, that had been given in the Council of Constance against Peter de Luna; and the Fault of all those was aggravated who should continue or maintain the Schism after his Death. By a third Decree, the Ordinaries and Inquisitors were enjoined diligently to intent the seizing, condemnation and punishing of Heretics, or their Favourers, under the pain of Suspension for four Months, in case of Negligence. Afterwards the Affair of the Greeks was treated of in the Council, and the Relation of the Embassy of Antony Massanus, was read there; the Proposals he had made to the Emperor of the Greeks, and the Answer that was given to them. Before the Council took any Resolution in this Affair, and considered of the Reformation of the Church which had been proposed, Martin V fearing lest the Ambassador of the King of Arragon should attempt something against him, and lest the Council should make Orders about the Reformation contrary to the Interest of the Court of Rome; contrived to adjourn the Council to another Time and Place, under pretence of the small number of Prelates that were come to the Council, of the Wars wherewith the Emperor was distracted, and the Disputes which had been between the Prelates of the Council.  
Pope Martin had given a Power to his Legates to translate the Council with the Advice of 
The Dissolution of the Council ●t Sienna, and the Appointment of that of Basil.  the Prelates: By Virtue of this Power they resolved to put an end to the Council at Sienna, and to appoint another, and caused some Deputies of Nations to be named to agree about the place. These Deputies after many Debates, made choice of the City of Basil, for holding the Council seven Years after, according to a Decree of the Council of Constance, by their Consultation on the 19th of February, 1424. which was afterwards approved in full Council; First, by the Pope's Legates, and after them by the principal Prelates of each Nation, except the Archbishop of Toledo, who would not consent to it in behalf of his Nation, because, as he said, he had no Power, but only as Archbishop and Primate of Spain. This designed Dissolution of the Council displeased the greatest part of the Prelates, who complained loudly, That the Pope hindered the Reformation of the Church, which obliged his Legates to Protest, That by this Translation the Council of Sienna should not be accounted wholly dissolved, but that the Precedents of the Council should labour with the Deputies of the Nations in the Reformation of the Church. The Precedents of the Nations made also the same Protestation, and after this, the Decree of the Dissolution of the Council of Sienna was published on the 26th of the same Month of February, and on the 7th of March, the Precedents of the Council ordered the Prelates to retire to their Dioceses, and forbade them to make any Assembly, which might pass for a Continuation of the Council of Sienna. The Pope by his Bull dated the 12th of March, confirmed the Translation of the Council from Sienna, and renewed the Prohibition to continue it; and by another Bull dated the same Day, he appointed three Cardinals to receive and examine, the Informations, Instructions and Memorials that should be given in for the Reformation of the Ecclesiastical State.  
In the mean time, the Affairs of the Greeks declining daily, the Emperor John Palaeologus, 
New Negotiations with the Greeks.  who succeeded his Father, was obliged to renew the Negotiation of Peace with the Latins; and sent Ambassadors to the Emperor Sigismond, who entered upon a Conference with the Cardinals, delegated by the Pope. These proposed to determine the Differences between the two Churches, by appointing three famous Persons on one side and the other, and had a mind to engage them to come to Italy: But the Greeks answered, That they would write about it to the Emperor, and the Patriarch of Constantinople▪ and if they judged it convenient they would go thither; but withal, That their Voyage would be very costly: The Latins demanded of them what the Expense might amount to; They asked 75000 Florins, without reckoning the Expense of the Emperor's Voyage. The Pope having promised them this Sum, they went into Italy, where they saluted his Holiness; who exhorted them to push forward the Execution of this Design, to the end that a Council might be held, and the Union made while he was Living. The Ambassadors of the Greeks returned into Greece, with Andrew of Rhodes, and Eudemon Joannes, and reported the News to the Emperor, who sent to the Pope Marc Jagaris, General 
The Op●ning of the Council of Basil.  of his Troops; and Macarius the Long, an Abbot, who took Measures with the Pope for compassing the Union. In fine, the Emperor having held a Council about these Points, which were to be concerted with the Patriarch, sent to the Pope a third Embassy more numerous than the former, which arrived in Italy, after the Death of Pope Martin V. who died on the 20th of February, 1431. The Ambassadors addressed themselves to Eugenius iv his Successor, in whom they did not find the same sweetness of Temper, nor the same meek Disposition as were in his Predecessor: He wrote nevertheless to the Emperor and the Patriarch, that if they pleased he would translate the Synod, which was assembled at Basil, into Italy; but the rest of his Letters were full of Words of Contempt, which were no wise agreeable to the Greeks.  
The Year 1431. was the time appointed for the Meeting of the Council of Basil; and Martin V from the beginning of that Year, had named Julian the Cardinal of St. Angelo, to preside at this Council; with Power to propose, consult of, and ordain there what should be agreed upon for the Preservation and Increase of Religion, of the Faith of Jesus Christ, and the State of the Church, for the Reformation of the Clergy, for the Reunion of the Greeks, and of other Persons divided from the Church, for the maintenance of Ecclesiastical Liberty, for the benefit, the Peace and Tranquillity of States and Princes: The Bull by which he gave this Power is dated F●bruary the 1st, 1431. and he died the 20th of the same Month. The Cardinals chose in his room Gabriel Condolmier, a Venetian, a Son of Gregory XII's Sister, who had been advanced to the Bishopric of Sienna, and after that to the Dignity of Cardinal: He was chosen the 4th of March, and Crowned the 11th. One of the first things that he did after his Election, was to confirm the Dignity of Precedent of the Council of Basil, to Cardinal Julian. He ordered him by his Letter dated the last of May, in the same Year, to repair to Basil, there to preside at the Council, till the Affair of the Bohemians should be finished; judging it needless to send thither another Legate, because there were yet but a few Prelates come to Basil.  
This Cardinal, by Virtue of the Power which the Bull of Martin V gave him of Substituting other Persons, in case he could not be present at the Council, sent thither John Polmar, Chaplain to the Pope, and Auditor to the Sacred Palace; and John de Ragusa, Doctor in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, and Proctor General of the Order of Friars Predicant, to preside in his Name at the Council. They arrived at Basil the 19th of July, and opened the Council the 23d of the same Month; but because few Prelates were come, they kept only private Congregations until the Month of December. But when Cardinal Julian arrived himself, he made a Decree on the 7th of December, by which he appointed the first Session of the Council on the 14th of the same Month; and on that Day it was held, at which, after the usual Ceremonies were over, the Decrees of the Councils of Constance, and Sienna, and the Letters of the Popes, Martin and Eugenius, about appointing of the Council, were read. Then it was declared, That the General Council was lawfully Assembled in this City; First, To dissipate Errors; Secondly, To procure Peace; Thirdly, To reform Abuses. The Prelates were exhorted to give their Votes with freedom and sincerity, in the Spirit of Peace, and to observe there the Modesty prescribed in the Eleventh Council of Toledo; and to prevent the Contests which might arise about Ranks and Degrees, it was ordained, That the place which any one should have in the Council, and the quality which he should take upon him there, could not serve for the Title of a new Right acquired, nor prejudice any Body. In fine, Decrees were made against those who should disturb the Council, hinder the Prelates from coming thither, abuse them, or rob them on the Road. A Right was granted to all who should be there present to receive the Profits of their Benefices, altho' they were absent; and the Officers of the Council were then appointed, which was as follows.  
The manner after which they treated of Affairs in the Council was thus. All its Members were divided into four Classes, or equal Deputations in number, in which they placed, as near as was possible, an equal number of Persons of each Order, and each Nation. The first was called the Deputation of the Faith, the second of the Peace, the third of the Reformation, and the fourth of common Affairs. Each Deputation had its Precedent, its Proctor, and its Officers; these met apart three times in a Week, and consulted about the Matters which were proposed to them: Each of them had three Deputies, which met to examine and prepare Affairs, and then sent them back to that Assembly of the Deputations, to which the Cognizance of them of right belonged. When they had consulted about it, the Sentence which prevailed was carried to the three other Deputations; and after it was approved by all the Deputations, or at least by three of them, it was reported in the General Congregation, where the Precedent concluded in the Name of the Council, according to the Plurality of the Votes of the Deputations; and then this Conclusion was published in a Solemn Session, which was held in the principal Church of the City of Basil. The Precedent was present there in his Pontifical Robes, and was placed in an Episcopal Chair near the Altar; his Face was turned towards the Fathers of the Council, who were fitting on their Seats in Pontifical Robes on both sides of the Quire. The Ambassadors of Princes were in the middle, upon Benches, their Faces being towards the Precedent, and behind them were the Generals of Orders, the Doctors, and other ecclesiastics. The usual Prayers being ended, one or two Prelates mounted into a Pulpit, read the Decrees, and asked if they approved them. The Precedent of the Council, and those of each Deputation answered in the Affirmative, and so the Session ended.  
The Second Session was not held till the 15th of February, 1532. The Council for confirming and establishing its own Authority, and hindering Pope Eugenius from attempting to dissolve or translate it, renewed two Decrees of the Council of Constance; the First, whereby it was declared, That the Synod being Assembled in the Name of the Holy Spirit, which composed the General Council, and represented the Church Militant, has its Power immediately from Jesus Christ; and that every Person, of whatsoever State or Dignity, even the Pope himself, is bound to obey it in what concerns the Faith, the Extirpation of Schism, and the general Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members. The Second, by which the Council declares, That all those, of whatever Dignity or Condition, not excepting the Pope himself, who shall refuse to obey the Ordinances and Decrees of this General Council, or any other, shall be put under Penance and Punished. In pursuance of these Decrees, and of that which ordered the Holding of General Councils, the Council of Basil declared, That it never could, nor can be dissolved, translated, or Prorogued by any Person whosoever, nor even by the Pope himself, without the Consent and Decree of the Assembly: They declared every thing to be Null, which the Pope or any other should do to hinder the Holding of the Council, or to summon to another place those who were or should be present at it; and they were forbidden to departed upon any account whatsoever, without the leave of the Council.  
When certain News was brought, That Eugenius had published a Decree for the Dissolution 
The Decree of Eugenius, for dissolving the Council rejected.  of the Council, the Prelates appointed the Bishop of Lausane, and the Dean of Utrecht to go to the Pope and the Cardinals in the Name of the Council, and to desire of them earnestly the Recalling of this Decree. These two Deputies executed their Commission, and the Emperor also joined his Prayers with theirs; but they could not prevail with the Pope to grant this Revocation. When therefore they returned to Basil, and brought thither his Answer, the Council in the Third Session, held the 29th of April, having renewed the Decrees of the former Session concerning the Authority of a General Council, declared, That they had entreated, required, and advertised the Pope to recall the pretended Dissolution of the Council; and to publish his Revocation to all the World, not only that he should not hinder, but also that he should give all manner of Assistance for holding the Council, and that he would be there present in Person within three Months, if his Health would permit; or at least that he should send thither some Persons with full Power to Act in his Name; and in Case he should neglect to do it, the Council protested, That they would provide for the Necessities of the Church, as the Holy Spirit should dictate to them, and that they would proceed in the ways of Justice against him. They exhorted also, and advertised the Cardinals to be present at the Council within three Months, except those who had some Canonical impediment, and particularly the Cardinal of the Cross, who was Mediator of the Peace between the Kings of France and England; but as to the Cardinals of Plaisance, of Foix, and St. Eustache, who were nearer to the Council, they limited the Time to two Month. In fine, they ordained all Prelates to publish this Decree, to notify it to the Pope, if it could be done, and to cause it to be fixed up in Public Places; and declared, That from the time it should be read, published, and fixed upon the Gate of the Church of Basil, it should be reckoned to be signified to the Pope.  
In the Fourth Session, held June the 20th, after the safe Conduct had been read and approved, and the Letter of the Council to the Bohemians, divers Decrees were made for the Continuation of the Council. The First, That if the Holy See should be vacant during the holding of the Council, the Cardinals could not choose a Pope, but in the place where it was held: The Second, That no Person should be dispensed with for not coming to the Council, under pretence of an Oath, Promise or Engagement made to the Pope or any other Person; all which are declared Null, as well as all Processes made for this cause. The Third, That a Leaden Seal should be made for Sealing the Acts of the Council. The Fourth, That the Pope could not create Cardinals while the Council was Sitting. In the same Session, the Government of the City of Avignon, and the Countship of Venaissin, were given to the Cardinal of St. Eustache.  
The Fifth Session, held the 9th of August, was spent in appointing Officers and Judges for the Council.  
In the Sixth Session, held the 6th of September, the Proctors of the Council came to some Conclusions against Pope Eugenius, and required that he should be declared Contumacious: He was cited three times at the Gate of the Church, and at last the Archbishops of Tarente and Colosse, the Bishop of Magalone, and an Auditor appeared, and called themselves the Pope's Nuncio's; but not being able to justify their Power, the Proctor required that they should not be heard; nevertheless upon their Remonstrances, the Consultation about this Matter was put off. After the same manner the Cardinals were cited, and the Proctors of some of them appeared.  
In the Seventh Session, held the 6th of November, the time given to the Cardinals for entering into the Conclave after the vacancy of the Holy See, was enlarged; and it was ordered, That if the Holy See should be vacant, they should not proceed to the Election of another Pope till Sixty Days after.  
In the Eighth Session, held the 18th of December, the Council published a new Decree against Pope Eugenius, wherein it ordained, That he shall revoke within Sixty Days the Dissolution of the Council, notwithstanding any delays, or other times prefixed, and that otherwise they would proceed against him without a new Citation: All the Provisions and Collations of Benefices which he might grant between this time and that, are declared Null; all Officers and Prelates are enjoined to forsake him within Twenty Days after the Expiration of this Term. After this, another Decree was made, wherein they declared, That there cannot be but one General Council, and forbade all Prelates to go to Bononia, or any other place; or be present at another Council, under pain of Excommunication and Deprivation of their Benefices: They declared also those to be fallen from any Right to their Benefices, who shall desire or obtain of Pope Eugenius, the Deprivation of those who are present at the Council. Lastly, they forbade Pope Eugenius to alienate the Castles and Lands of the Church of Rome, as he had projected; and to lay new Taxes upon the City of Rome, or other places; and in case he should do it, they declared whatever shall be done to be Null.  
The Emperor Sigismond was present at the Ninth Session, held the 22d of January, 1433. wherein all Processes were made Null and Void, which Pope Eugenius might make against this Prince, against William Duke of Bavaria, and any other Person, upon the account of the Protection they afford to the Council.  
The Term of Sixty Days allowed to Eugenius for recalling the Dissolution of the Council being expired, the Proctors demanded in the Tenth Session, held February the 19th, That he should be condemned as Contumacious; yet the Council ordered him to be summoned three times, and put off the Consideration of it to another Day.  
In the Eleventh Session, held April the 27th, the Council renewed the Decree of the Council of Constance, concerning the Celebration of General Councils; Ordained, That it shall be free for all Prelates to be present at it, and that the Pope himself could not hinder the Cardinals, and those of his Court from coming to it; That the Council being Assembled, could not be dismissed or translated but with their own Consent, and with the Advice of two Thirds of the Prelates; and lastly, That a Month before the end of the Council, they shall be obliged to appoint a future Council. It was ordained also, That the Electors of the Pope when they enter into the Conclave shall swear to observe this Decree, and that it shall be published.  
In the Twelfth Session, held July the 14th, the Council made a third Decree against Eugenius, wherein they required him the third time to revoke the Dissolution of the Council of Basil; to declare that it was lawfully begun and continued, and that he approved it; and to draw up a Bull to this purpose within the Term of Sixty Days, otherwise they would declare him to be Contumacious, Incorrigible, one that gave Scandal to the whole Church; and who was suspended from all Administration of the Papal Power, as well in Spirituals as Temporals, which the Council declared to be forfeited in this Case; made Void all that Eugenius should do, forbade any to obey him, and enjoined the Prelates to come to the Council. In the same Session, the Council made another Decree, wherein they abolished the Reservations of Benefices, and ordained, That they should be provided for by the ways of common Right; that's to say, by Election, whereof the Council prescribed the Form, and declared the Duty of the Electors.  
In the Thirteenth Session, held the 11th of September, the Term of Sixty Days allowed to Pope Eugenius, being ready to expire, the Bishops of Spalatro and Cervia appeared in the Assembly on the Pope's behalf: The Cardinal of St. Angelo enquired of them in the Name of the Council, if they had brought an Instrument of Approbation of the Council by the Pope; They had nothing but a Bull of Credit, and gave no formal Consent to the Holding of the Council: But the Duke of Bavaria, and John of Offemburg, who had Letters of Credit from the Emperor, said in his Name, That he had solicited Eugenius to adhere to the Council, and to be Personally present at it, and that hearing the News of a Decree of an Admonition made against him, he had used all diligence to oblige him to obey what the Council had ordered; That he had made Answer to him, That he could not be ignorant of all that he had done and suffered for the Peace of the Church; That he prayed the Council to remember it, and to allow him Ten Days further; That the Emperor wished they would grant him this delay, and that he would cause the Princes and Prelates of Germany to come to the Council; That if the Pope in the mean time should use any Proceed against the Council, he would consent that the Council should annul them. This Delay was granted upon the Emperor's account, and another Decree was made against any thing that might have been done to the prejudice of the Prelates of the Council.  
While these things were a doing at Basil, the Pope's Affairs had suffered various changes in Italy. Eugenius, after his Advancement to the Papal Dignity, being advertised, That his Predecessor 
The State of the Pope's Affairs in Italy.  had left a great Treasure behind him, and that Poccius, his Vice-Chamberlain, knew where it was, gave order to Stephen Colonna to Arrest him. Stephen executed this Order, Arrested Poccius with much Violence and Noise, but did not rob him of his Treasure. Eugenius having declared himself discontented with Stephen, he retired to Palestrina, towards the Prince Colonna, and exhorted him to drive Eugenius out of Rome; because he persecuted the Colonna's, and stirred up Persecution against the Creatures of Martin V The Prince of Palestrina came with some Troops to Rome, and entered it; the Battle was fought in the City, where he and his Men were beat back; nevertheless the War continued, but at last Eugenius made a Peace. Some time after, Philip, Duke of Milan, having made Peace with the Venetians and Florentines, sent Francis Sforza, and Nicolas Forcebras, with some Forces against Eugenius; they ravaged the Campagne of Rome, without any opposition from Eugenius: The Romans took this in great Indignation, and being stirred up by those of Colonna's Party, revolted from him, drove 
The Approbation of the Council of Basil by Eugenius;  away his Magistrates, and created new ones. Eugenius made his Escape in the Habit of a Monk, and retired to Florence. The Romans having tried in vain to take the Castle of St. Angelo, returned to their Obedience about five Months after, and received the Magistrates created by the Pope. During these Transactions Sigismond came into Italy, and having made his Entry into Rome, he there received the Imperial Crown from the Hands of the Pope, from whence he returned to the Council, and was present in his Imperial Robes at the 14th Session held on the 7th of November, in the Year 1433. At this Session a further time of 90 Days was granted to Pope Eugenius, and there the Forms of the Bulls were drawn up, which he was to publish for Revoking those he had made against the Council, for Approving what had been done in it, and for its Continuation.  
In the 15th Session held November 2●th, the Council framed a Decree for holding of Provincial Councils.  
In the 16th held February the 5th, 1434. the Bishop's o● Tarente and Cervia presented to the Council a Bull of Pope Eugenius, dated December 15th. containing, That altho' he had nulled the Council of Basil, which was lawfully assembled, yet to avoid the Dissensions which had happened upon the occasion of this Dissolution, he declared and ordained, That the General Council of Basil had been lawfully continued since its first beginning, and that it ought to continue for the future as if it had never been dissolved; That this Dissolution was null, and that he approved and favoured the Council of Basil; That for this end he revoked two Bulls of Dissoluton which he had published; (for as to the third it had not been published by his Order nor under his Seal; yet it is inserted with the other two in this Revocation;) That he did also make void every thing that had any ways been attempted against the Authority of the Council, and all Processes made or commenced against the Members of it, and promised to desist and departed from every thing that might be any ways prejudicial to it. The Council accepted this Bull of Revocation, and declared that he had fully satisfied the Admonition that had been given him: It incorporated his Legates into the Council, on condition that they should swear they would approve the Decrees of the Council of Constance, concerning the Authority of a General Council.  
They were received as Precedents in the 17th Session held April the 26th, on condition that 
The Council of Basil.  they should have no Coactive Jurisdiction, and that the Forms of Proceeding, and the Orders hitherto made in the Council, should be observed; That one Congregation only should be held in a Week every Friday, unless the contrary were concluded upon by three Deputations, and that all Instruments should be expedited in the Name and under the Seal of the Council.  
The Decree of the Council of Constance concerning the Authority of General Councils, even above the Pope, was again published and confirmed in the 13th Session held the 25th of June, after the Emperor's departure, who had been present the 14th, 16th and 17th Sessions.  
The Council had sent Ambassadors into the East with Letters for the Emperor and Patriarch of 
Th● Negotiations of the Council with the Greeks.  Constantinople, to invite the Prelates to come to the Council, giving them hopes, That the Union might be concluded there more easily and more advantageously, because many Princes, and particularly the Emperor Sigismond favoured it, from whom they might expect greater Succours than from the Pope, whose Affairs were in a bad condition. The Greek Emperor being persuaded by these Reasons, sent a famous Embassy to the Council, which was made up of Demetrius Paleologus Grand General, of Isidore an Abbot, of the Lord John who was now Consul the second time. They set forth before Jagaris, who had been sent to the Pope, had returned, and were received in the 19th Session of the Council held the 7th of September. There they presented the Letter of the Emperor their Master, wherein he promised to perform what his Ambassadors should agree to, and another Letter from the Patriarch Joseph, who signified to the Fathers of the Council his great Joy; That they desired the Peace and Union of the two Churches; That for this end it was necessary to call an Ecumenical and Free Council, whose Decisions should be embraced unanimously by all the World. They proposed to the Deputies of the Council of Basil, That an Ecumenical Council should be held at Constantinople, and that in this case the Greek Emperor would contribute to the Expenses of the Latin Prelates who should be there present, whereas if they would have the Greeks to come into the West, it was but just, that it should be at the Expense of the Latin Church. The Deputies had a mind it should be held at Basil; but the Ambassadors of the Greeks said, That they had a Paper in which the Places where the Council might be held were set down, and that the City of Basil was none of them; That the Places noted were Calabria, Marca d'Ancona, and the other Ports; Milan, or any other City in Italy; and if out of Italy, Buda in Hungary, or Vienna in Austria, or any City of Savoy: They added nevertheless, That the Council might send Deputies to the Emperor and the Patriarch, to propose to them the City of Basil. At last it was agreed between them, 1. That the Emperor of the Greeks, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and three other Patriarches, the Greek Archbishops and Bishops, should come to the Council, with sufficient Power in behalf of their Churches. 2. That the Council should send Ambassadors with 8000 Ducats to pay the Expenses of the Assembly which shall be held at Constantinople. 3. That the Western Churches shall pay the Expenses of the four Galleys, which were necessary for transporting the Greeks into the West; That they shall furnish 15000 Ducats to the Emperor for the Expense of his Voyage from Constantinople to the Port where he shall land, and that they shall defray his Expenses, and maintain 700 Persons in his Retinue while he shall be in the West. 4. That the Council shall send within Ten Days two heavy Galleys and two light ones, to transport into Greece the Ambassadors who have the Charge of the 15000 Ducats for the Expense of the Emperor, the Patriarch and the Greek Prelates, and that they should have 10000 more ready by them to be employed for Succours ●o the City of Constantinople, if it should be necessary during the absence of the Emperor; That they would furnish also two Galleys and 300 Archers for the Defence of the City, besides the Mo●y necessary for arming the two heavy Galleys. 5. That they would name to the Emperor, before his Departure from Constantinople, the Port where he should land, and the Place which the Council should choose among these abovenamed, but that they would use their Endeavours with him for making choice of the City of Basil. 6. That during this time the Council should continue assembled at Basil, and shall not separate but for just and urgent Reasons; That if this Case should unhappily fall out, than the Council should translate itself to another Place, to be continued there, as was ordered by the Canon of the Council of Constance; That if the Emperor was not satisfied with the City of Basil, or the place where it should be, the Council should be bound to transport itself, within a Month after the Arrival of the Emperor, to one of those places abovenamed. They demanded of the Greek Ambassadors what they meant by the Terms of an Universal Synod? They answered, That it was a Synod where the Pope, the Patriarches and other Prelates, were present in Person or by their Proctor; That the Emperor of the Greeks and the Patriarch of Constantinople would be personally present at this Synod which was to be held▪ That every one should have liberty to speak his Thoughts without Contention, but that ●his did not exclude such Conferences, as were necessary, fair and peaceable. Lastly, That they should make a Report to the General Council of the Method wherein they were to proceed; That the Emperor of the Greeks and the Greek Church should demand no other Honours, but what they had when the Schism commenced, without any prejudice to the Rights, Honours, Privileges and Dignity of the Sovereign Pontiff of the Roman Church, and of the Emperor of the Romans; and in case any Disputes should arise about them, they would refer them to the Decision of the General Council. The Council approved this Agreement, and because the Greeks desired that the Pope would consent to it, they prayed him to approve of it, and to ratify it by a Bull in fo●m.  
At the same Session a Decree was made concerning the Jews, wherein the Ordinaries were exhorted to send able Men, to preach in those. Places where there were Jews and Infidels; and to the end they might be made fit for this Office, it was ordered, That according to the Constitution of the Council of Vienna, there should be in all the Universities two Professors of the Hebrew, Arabic, Greek and Chaldee Tongues. The Decree was renewed prohibiting to converse with Jews, or to sell or pawn to them the Books of the Church, the Chalices, Crosses, or other Ornaments of the Church; and it was ordained, That they should wear a particular Habit to distinguish them from others, and that they should dwell in separate places as much as may be. Lastly, Provision was made for instructing and maintaining new Converts.  
Pope Eugenius being informed of the Articles agreed upon between the Council and the Greeks, made a show of approving them, and at least declared, That he would by no means oppose them, nor hinder the execution of them. The Council on its part, sent into the East three Deputies (who accompanied the Ambassadors of the Greeks) one of which was, to return to bring the News of what was resolved upon in the East; and the other two were to remain there, to distribute the Money which was necessary, and to furnish the Expenses of the Transport. When they arrived at Constantinople, they found the Patriarch unwilling to undertake a Voyage beyond Sea. Some time after, the Deputies whom the Greeks had sent to the Pope, returned into the East with Christophilus de Corona, who were Commanded to make a show of consenting to the Agreement made with the Council of Basil, but had secret Orders to cross it: To compass this Design, he made Answer, That the Fathers of the Council of Basil, did neither agree among themselves, nor with the Pope. This notwithstanding, the Emperor resolved to Treat with the Legates of the Council, and made the Patriarch consent to do the same. Commissioners were appointed to take paths in this Negotiation: But when they saw the Decree of the Council, which contained, That the Fathers after they had abolished the new Heresy of the Bohemians, would also extinguish the ancient Heresy of the Greeks; these Words so offended the Greeks, that they would not hear of any Proposal, until this Decree was amended. The Deputies of the Council promised, that another Decree should be made, the Model whereof was drawn up. The Greeks demanded at the same time, that the Pope should be present in Person at the Council, that a safe Conduct might be given them in good form. And lastly, that they should be obliged to carry them back again, at the expense of the Council, whatever the event might be of this Negotiation. One of the Deputies of the Council was sent back to Basil, to carry thither the Project of this Decree, and persuade them to agree to the Demands of the Greeks.  
While these things were negotiating in Greece, the Fathers of the Council were hard at Work to make the Decrees for the Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members. In the 
The Council of Basil.  twentieth Session, held the 22d of January, 1435. a Decree was made against Clergymen who kept Concubines; another, wherein they declare, That none is obliged to avoid those who are Excommunicated, or to observe an Interdict, unless they be Denounced, or openly Excommunicated and Interdicted; a Third, wherein they forbade to put a Place or a Community under an Interdict for the Fault of a particular Person, unless they keep him two Days, after they have been admonished to drive him away by the Judge's Authority; and a Fourth, whereby they forbade any Person to appeal a second time from an Interlocutory Sentence.  
The twenty first Session held June the 9th in the same Year, the Council proceeding still in the Reformation. First, Forbade every Person, either to give or exact any thing in the Court of Rome or elsewhere, for the confirmation of Elections, Admissions, of Postulations, Presentations, Provisions, Collations, Elections, Institutions, etc. of all sorts of Benefices or Ecclesiastical Offices, any more than was done for the receiving of Orders, Benedictions, or the Pallium, upon any pretence whatsoever, such as the Expedition of the Letters, the Right of the Seal, the Annates, Mean-Services, First-Fruits, or any other, under the pain of incurring by the Disobedient the Penalties enacted against Simoniac●●s; and that in case the Pope should disobey, he shall be delated to a general Council. The Second Decree of this Session is a Law, whereby it is ordered, That those who have a colourable Title to a Benefice, and have been in peaceable Possession of it for three Years, cannot be molested. The other Regulations concern the method of celebrating Divine Service, as well in public as in private: Whereby 'tis Ordained, That in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, Divine Service shall be read distinctly by Clergymen in their Surplice, who shall observe the Gravity and Modesty which becomes the Place and their Office; That they shall not keep Silence, nor repeat their Office privately, while others are Singing; that none but those that are present shall have a share in the Distributions; That those who are Beneficed or are in Holy Orders, being obliged to repeat the Canonical Prayers, aught to do it privately, with Devotion; That they shall never neglect to Sing at Mass, the Creed and the Preface: The Canons are forbidden to oblige themselves to pay others Debts, under pain of Suspension from their Office, or to hold a Chapter in the time of grand Mass, or to suffer any Scenes to be Acted, or to ●ing profane Airs in the Churches.  
In the twenty second Session, held the 15th of October, the Book of Austin of Rome Archbishop of Nazaret was condemned, (which is divided into three Treatises: The First, of the Sacrament of the Unity of Jesus Christ and the Church. The Second, of Jesus Christ as he was Head, and of his Dominion. The Third, of the Charity of Jesus Christ to his Elect, and his infinite Love) as containing a Doctrine erroneous; and particularly this scandalous Proposition, That Jesus Christ sinned every Day in his Members; an● those other Propositions condemned in the Council of Constance, That the Elect only are the Members of Jesus Christ and his Church; That to make a Man a Member of Jesus Christ it was not sufficient to be united to him by Charity, but there must be another Union; That the Human Nature in Jesus Christ is the Person of Christ; That the Personality is not really distinguished from the Nature itself, and some other Propositions which are deduced from this.  
In the twenty third Session held the 25th of March 1436. the Council published their Regulations concerning the Election of the Pope, the Profession of Faith which he is bound to make, his Duty and his Conduct, the number of Cardinals which they reduced to twenty four, and their Titles, the manner of choosing them ●y the Votes of the College Cardinals, their Obligation and Duty, the restoring of Elections, and abolition of Reservations, and of all Promises of Benefices 
Gratiae expectativ●.  when they shall be vacant.  
In the twenty fourth Session on the 16th of April, the Project between the Ambassadors of the Council and the Greeks was proposed and approved, the safe conduct which the Council granted to them was read, and the Bulls of the Emperor and of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Council, and the Decree wherein the Council granted Indulgences to all those that should labour for the Reunion of the Greeks.  
These In●…ents being carried to Constantinople, the Greek Emperor obtained Procurations of 
The Negotiations of the Council and the Pope with the Greeks.  the Patriarches and Metropolitans of the Eastern Churches, for sending Persons in their Name to the Council in the West; and in the mean time the Council on their part put things in a readiness for performing what they had promised the Greeks, by treating with Nicolas de Montana, who lent the Sum of 30800 Ducats and obliged himself to equip four Galleys, and 300 Archers that were promised to the Greeks. All the difficulty, was to agree upon the place where the Council should be held, which they consulted about in many Congregations, and at last in a general Congregation, it was decreed by the Votes of more than two thirds of the Prelates, that the Council should be held at Basil, if the Greeks would accept of this City; but if not, that all endeavours should be used to make them agree to the City of Avignon; or whatever happened, that they would confine themselves to Savoy, which was one of the Places which the Greeks had proposed. The Council sent two Ambassadors to Pope Eugenius to communicate to him this Resolution, and observed to him that he himself had proposed the City of Avignon, and conjured him to come in Person to the Council, that they might Labour by consent in expediting the Indulgences, and imposing the Tenths for furnishing the necessary Expenses. Eugenius would not make a Bull about these Things, but he said, that he would signify his Intentions to the Council, by the Archbishop of Tarente, who was to be there present the first Day. At the same time two other Deputies of the Council concluded a Treaty with those of Avignon, who had already advanced 6000 Ducats to the Commander of the Galleys, and agreed with them, that before they furnished the other 70000 which they had promised, the Council should make a Decree for fixing the place where the Council was to be held at which the Greeks should be present, and that they should be permitted to name Receivers of the Profits that should arise as well from Indulgences as from the Imposition of Tenths, to whom they should be made over, until such time as they were wholly reimbursed the S●ms they should advance.  
The Greek Emperor being resolved to come into the West with the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Eastern Bishops, sent back his Ambassador John, to give the Pope and the Council assurance of his Intention, that they might get ready the Galleys. This Ambassador came to Basil at the beginning of February, 1437. and desired that the Council would agree of the place, and furnish the Galleys they had promised. The Precedent of the Assembly answered him, That the Council had named a Commander to conduct the Galleys, and that they had chosen for the place of the Assembly the City of Basil, or that of Avignon, or the Savoy. John made many Difficulties about this Choice, and said that when he proposed the Savoy, he meant only those Places which the Duke of Savoy had in Italy; and insisted upon this, That the Pope must be present in Person at the Council. When they showed no regard to his Remonstrances, he made Protestation as well in writing as viva voce; notwithstanding which it was resolved, That Ambassadors should be sent into Greece, who should pass by Avignon; and that in case this City could furnish within 30 Days the Sums agreed upon, the Council should make a Decree 8 Days after for confirming the choice of the City of Basil, Avignon, or the Savoy; That the Council would authorise by a Decree the Imposition of Tenths for the Security of the Sums that should be lent; That Power should be given to the Ambassadors to agree upon a Port in Italy where the Greeks should land; and that in case the Greeks would not come into the West, those of Avignon should be reimbursed the Sums they had advanced. This Instrument was agreed upon by Plurality of Voices, in spite of the opposition of the Pope's Legates.  
Some Days after the Archbishop of Tarente being sent by Eugenius▪ to the Council, declared, That the Pope intended not to grant Indulgences, nor the Imposition of Tenths, until they had agreed upon a City in Italy, which started another Dispute in the Council; but the News being brought that the City of Avignon had furnished 30000 Ducats, and was ready to furnish the rest, more than two thirds of the Prelates remained firm 〈◊〉 their first Resolution, insomuch that in the 25th Session held the 7th of May, the Decree was read by order of the Council in the place where Decrees were wont to be read; but at the same time the Legates and some other Prelates caused to be read in a lower place a private Decree, wherein Florence or Udine were named for holding of the Council, which was repeated with much Precipitation, and was not heard at all. When the Session risen, the Question was put concerning sealing the Decree, the Box in which the Seal was kept being in the Hands of the Cardinal of St. Angelo, and the Keys in the Hands of the four Deputies of the Council. These had a mind that the Decree should be sealed, but the Cardinal of St. Angelo being unwilling, this raised a Contest, which by Agreement was referred to the Cardinal of St. Peter at Lions, principal Legate to the Pope, Alphonsus' Bishop of Burges Ambassador to the King of Castille, and the Archbishop of Palermo Ambassador to the King of Arragon, who were entrusted to regulate what concerned the Seal, and the sending of the Letters and Instruments in question. These Commissioners caused to be sealed the De●eee made by plurality of Voices, and refused to seal the private Conclusion, and the pretended Decree made by a small number. They caused to be sealed also the Instrument of Security granted to the City of Avignon, and the Letter written to the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople, and sent these Dispatches to Avignon: But some Days after a Secretary and another Domestic of the Cardinal of St. Angelo, having taken away the Lock of the Box where the Seals were kept, caused the other Decree to be sealed, and other Letters for the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Council being informed of this Trick caused a Process to be made against those who were the Authors of it, arrested Bishop John, one of the Pope's Legates; who was accused of being a Complice in it, who discovered that this Accusation was not groundless, by making his Escape out of the City when he was to be tried.  
In the mean time the Pope, who minded nothing so much as to hinder the Council from continuing to sit at Basil, where it was held in a City out of Italy, confirmed the Conclusion of those who would translate the Council to Florence or Udine, by his Constitution published at Ravenna, May 29th; and to be beforehand with the Council, he caused 4 Galleys to be speedily equipped at Venice, on which the Ambassadors of the Greeks, who were entirely gained by the Pope, embarked, with three Bishops whom the Pope sent into the East in the Quality of Legates. These Ambassadors being arrived before those of the Council, informed the Greeks, That the Prelates of the Council by concert with the Pope, had consented that the Council for the Reunion should be held in Italy. Whereupon the Emperor, the Patriarch and the other Prelates, who were to go into the West, prepared to departed in the Pope's Galleys; when at the same time they were surprised to hear, That other Galleys were arrived from the Council. The Captain Condelmier, who commanded those of the Pope, had Orders to fight them; and he had done it if the Greek Emperor had not forbade him: But the Galleys of the Council being arrived, the Bishops who came on their behalf, presented to the Greek Emperor and the Patriarch, the Bulls and safe Conducts which they had brought, assuring them that they were come to execute the Treaty made with them, and importuned them to embark in the Galleys of the Council. The Emperor, who was preengaged on the Pope's behalf, answered them, That they came now too late, for he could not make use of their Galleys: They remonstrated to him, That it was not their fault but his Ambassador John's, who had told them it would be sufficient if they should arrive in the Month of October. When they saw that the Emperor persisted in his Resolution, they prayed him to send, before his Departure, Ambassadors to the Pope and Council, assuring him they would continue there, until he could determine, according to the Answer they should bring him, whether he would departed or no At the same time a Courier came from Sigismond, to dissuade John Palaeologus from his Voyage 
The Dep●●ture of the Greeks for the West.  into the West: But this Prince persisted in his Resolution, notwithstanding this Discouragement, and having made choice of those who were to accompany him and the Patriarch, he Embarked November the 24th, 1437. The Names of those whom he brought with him are as follow; Mark Eugenius, a Learned Monk lately advanced to the Dignity of the Archbishopric of Ephesus, Denys, Archbishop of Sardes, and Bessarion of Nice, who were made choice of to speak in the Name of all the Greeks; Dorothy, Archbishop of Trebizonde, Anthony of Heraclea, Metraphanes of Cyzicum, Macarius of Nicomedia, Ignatius of Tornobe, Dositheus of Monembasus, Dorothy of Mitylene, Joasaph of Amasea, Damianus of Muldoblach, Nathaniel of Rhodes, the Archbishops of Lacedemone and Stanrople, Matthew of Melenique, Dositheus of Drama, Gennadius of Ganna, Callistus of Distra, Sophronus of Anchiala, with Isidorus, Archbishop of Kiovia, Metropolitan of Russia, in all Twenty one Prelates of the first Rank: Of the second Theodorus, Xantopulus a Deacon, Grand Sacrist of the Church of Constantinople, Michael Balsamon, Grand Master of the Rolls, and Archdeacon of the same Church, Sguropulus, or Syropulus, Grand Ecclesiarch, George of Cappadocia, Grand Protector, and many other Officers of the same Church. Among the Monks, Gregory, the Emperor's Confessor, who was made Protosyncelle at Florence, Gerontius, Abbot of the Monastery of the Almighty, and the 
i e. Magnus Primicerius, as Bishop Creighton trans●●●es it in the Version of Scyropulus' History of the Florentine Council; perhaps, the Principal Secretary.  Abbots of the Monasteries of Cale and St. Basil, Moses, a Monk of the Laurel of the Holy Mount, Pacomus, Abbot of St. Paul, Dorotheus, a Monk of Batopede, Athanasius, a Monk of Periblet, the Learned Gemistius, Master to Bessarion, and Mark of Ephesus, and the Philosopher Ameruntra, George Scholarius, and some others, with the Prince Demetrius, Brother to the Emperor, and many Officers of the Empire. The Emperor took care to obtain Deputations from the Patriarches of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, which he entrusted with such of the Prelates as he pleased, to represent them in the Council.  
While these Things were transacted in the East, the Council of Basil in the West proceeded 
The Council of Basil.  against Pope Eugenius. He was accused of being refractory to the Decrees of the Council concerning Elections, Reservations and Appeals, of using Simony, of having ruined the City of Palestrina, and that he had wasted many other places of the Patrimony of St. Peter, on purpose to hinder the Reunion of the Greeks; of breaking the Oath he had made at his promotion to the Papal Dignity, and abusing his Authority many other ways; whereupon the Council thought fit to cite him to appear within Sixty Days, in Person or by a Proctor; and to declare to him, That if he did not appear there, they would proceed against him; and to order the Cardinals to be present there also at the same time. This was resolved upon, and published in the Twenty Sixth Session, held the last Day of July, 1457.  
In the Twenty Seventh, held the 27th of September, the Council declared the Promotion to be Null, which was made by Eugenius, of John, Patriarch of Alexandria, to the Dignity of a Cardinal; and all other Promotions which he might have made, or should make against the Decrees of the Council. It was declared also at the same Session, That the Decree by which Florence or Udine was appointed, was forged, and had been surreptitiously Sealed. In fine, by a third Decree, the Alienation was prohibited, which the Pope had a mind to make of the City of Avignon and the Countship of Venessin, and the Council took them into their Protection.  
The time allowed the Pope by the Council for Appearing, being expired on the 1st of October, the Proctors of the Council demanded in the Twenty Eighth Session, held the same Day, That he might be declared Contumacious. He was summoned according to Custom at the Church-gate, and afterwards declared Contumacious, and it was ordered that he should be further proceeded against.  
Eugenius, for his part, had published Twelve Days before a Bull, whereby he translated the Council of Basil to Ferrara, in case the Bishops should continue to proceed against him, and as soon as the Greeks should arrive, allowing them only the space of Thirty Days for treating about the Affair of the Bohemians, and declaring any other Translation to be Null, which was or should be made but by his Authority. At the same time he sent to all parts the Bulls for calling the Council at Ferrara.  
The Council of Basil opposed a Decree to this Bull, wherein they declared the Translation of the Council to Ferrara to be Null; enjoined the Pope to recall it under the Penalties ordained in the Eleventh Session, and confirmed the Decrees they had made concerning the Collation of Benefices. This Decree was published in the Twenty Ninth Session, on the 2d of October. The Council did nothing more this Year, but only made a Decree in the Thirtieth Session, held the 22d of December, concerning the Communion in both kinds, wherein they declared, That it was not necessary by a Divine Command. The 2d of the same Month the Emperor Sigismond Died.  
Eugenius looked upon the Decree of the Twenty Ninth Session, as a Contradiction to the 
The Council of Ferrara.  Prohibition he had made of proceeding against him, and by his Bull of the 1st of January, 1438. he declared the Council translated to Ferrara, where it should begin the 8th of January. And in effect, Nicolas, Cardinal of Santa Croix opened it on this Day, with some Italian Bishops, and held the First Session the 10th of this Month, wherein the Translation of the Council to Ferrara was approved; and the Council of Basil, and all that it had done since the Translation▪ and all that it should do for the future, was declared Null, except what they might have ordained concerning the Affair of the Bohemians. At the same time the Cardinal Julian, who had always continued till that time in the Office of Precedent to the Council, notwithstanding the Translation the Pope had made of it, retired from Basil, and carried away with him only four Prelates of the Council, while all the other remained as well as the Ambassadors of Princes, and continued to Assemble, to make Orders, and to proceed against Eugenius; having for their Head Lovis Allemand, Cardinal, by the Title of St. Cecil, commonly called the Cardinal of A●les, from the name of his Archbishopric, who continued Precedent of the Council, and maintained it to the end with all possible Prudence and Vigour.  
In the Thirty First Session, held the 25th of January, 1438. they made at first a Decree about Causes, whereby they ordained, That they shall all be determined upon the place, except the 
The Council of Basil.  great Causes, or those about Elections for Cathedrals and Monasteries; and since that their immediate Subjection made them devolve to the Holy See, they do therefore forbid them to appeal to the Pope, Omisso medio, or to appeal from any Interlocutory before the Definitive Sentence; at least they ordain, That the Injury done by the Interlocutory Sentence cannot be repaired in the Definitive Sentence; and that in case of Appeal to the Holy See, the Judges upon the place shall be commissioned; and lastly, That while the Council sits, all Causes of the Members of the Council which shall be carried to the Pope, shall be tried in the Council. After this, they 
Gr●tiae expectativae.  revoked by a second Decree all Promises of Benefices before they were vacant, which were granted, or should be granted for the future: Yet they left to the Popes a Power of providing for one Benefice in the Churches where there were ten prebend's, and for two in the Churches where there were fifty of them: And to the end, that Benefices may be filled with fit Persons, they ordained, That there shall be a Professor of Divinity in all Cathedral Churches, and that Collators shall be bound, so soon as occasion offers, to name a Doctor or a Bachelor in Divinity for a Canon, who had studied ten Years in some privileged University, that he may read Lectures twice a Week; That besides this, in each Cathedral or Collegiate Church, the third part of the prebend's shall be given to the Graduates, Doctors, Licentiates, or Bachelors in any Faculty; so that the first vacant Benefice in each Church shall be given to a Graduate, and then that which shall be vacant after the two next, and so onwards; That the same Method shall be observed with respect to Dignities; That the Curates of walled Cities shall at least be Masters of Arts; That all those who have the requisite Qualifications, shall be bound to give in their Names every Year, at Christmas, to the Collators of Benefices, that thy may have a Right to them, otherwise their Promotion shall be Null; Lastly, That the Benefices of Regulars shall be given to Regulars that are fit for them. The Council of Basil having made these Decrees, declared Pope Eugenius suspended from all kind of Administration of the Papal Power, as well in Spirituals as Temporals, which had now devolved to the Council; Decreed, That all he did should be Null, and forbade all sorts of Persons to obey him under pain of Excommunication.  
The Pope Eugenius, who had been at Ferrara ever since the 24th of January, called a Meeting 
The Council of Ferrara.  of the Prelates who were there present, on the 8th of February; and held a Session, wherein nothing was concluded, but that the Pope should remove these pretended Mischiefs which the Continuation of the Council of Basil occasioned. Afterwards they consulted about some Preliminaries of the Council, and particularly as to what concerned the Annulling of the Council of Basil, and the Calling of this New Council at Ferrara; and it was resolved, That not only all that had been done in the Council of Basil since the Translation should be declared Null, but also that the Prelates should be treated as Schismatics, who had or should attempt any thing to the prejudice of the Pope, and all their Benefices should be declared vacant; That the City of Basil should be put under an Interdict, if it did not drive them away within a Month; That the same Penalty shall be enacted against all the places that shall receive or favour them; That Princes shall be informed of these things, and invited to send their Ambassadors, and the Prelates of their Dominions to the Council of Ferrara; That all the Sums shall be stopped which had been gathered to contribute to the Union of the Greeks. This Resolution passed in the Congregations of the 11th and 14th of February, and was read and approved in the Session, held on the 15th of the same Month, at which the Bishop of Foro Julio read and published the Decree made in the Name of Eugenius, with the Approbation of the Council; whereby he declared, That the Prelates which remained at Basil had incurred the Penalties of Excommunication and Deprivation of their Dignities and Benefices enacted in the Bull of Translation; Nulled and made Void all that they had done since the Translation, or should do for the future; enjoined the Prelates to departed from Basil within Thirty Days, and the Magistrates and Inhabitants of the City to force them away under pain of Excommunication, and an Inderdict; and in case they should not do it, he forbade all sorts of Persons to enter within that City, under the same pains, and enjoined all Merchants to withdraw from it. This is what was done at Ferrara before the Arrival of the Greeks.  
On the other side, the Council of Basil understanding what had been decreed in the Second 
The Council of Basil.  Sessions of the Synod of Ferrara, opposed to this Decree a Synodal Answer, published the 17th of March, and in the Thirty Second Session, on the 25th of the same Month, they declared the Calling of the Council of Ferrara to be Null, and all that had been done there, or should be done there for the future; enjoined all the Prelates who were at Ferrara, and all the Officers of the Court of Eugenius, to come within 30 Days to Basil, and excommunicated all those who 
The arrival of the Greeks.  should directly or indirectly hinder or molest those that would come to Basil.  
The Greeks arrived at Venice on the 8th of February. The Emperor John Emmanuel Palaeologus was there in Person, with Joseph the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the other Prelates whom they had brought with them. They consulted for some time, whether they should go and meet the Pope at Ferrara, or expect News from the Council at Basil; but at last being resolved to go right to the Pope, they parted from Venice the 28th of the same Month, and arrived at Ferrara the 7th of March. At first there was some Difficulty as to the manner how the Patriarch and the Greek Bishops should address themselves to the Pope. He had a mind to require of them that they should prostrate themselves before him and kiss his Feet; but they refused it with so much Resolution, that the Pope was forced to recede from his Pretention, and to receive them without this Ceremony. The Patriarch and the other Greek Prelates entered six apiece into the Chamber where he was, and saluted him by embracing him. But he ordered none but the Patriarch to sit down in the place of Cardinals, and suffered the rest to stand; and he would not allow the Patriarch to carry his Cross, and give the Benediction in the City. Some Days after they began to talk about Affairs, and the Emperor solicited the Pope to call an Ecumenical Council, and to invite to it the Kings and Princes of the West, or their Ambassadors. The Pope answered him, That it could not be done at that time because of the Wars: But they agreed to be satisfied with the opening of the Council at Ferrara, and to adjourn it for four Months; and that the Prelates might have time to come thither, they fixed the Day of opening to the ninth of April.  
In the mean time there were several Disputes concerning the Seats of the Pope, the Emperor, 
The opening of the Council of Ferrara.  and the Patriarch: But at last it was agreed, That the Pope should be seated on a high Chair in the first place on the right Hand; That a Step below him a vacant Throne should be placed for the Emperor of the Latins; and below him, on the same side, should be placed the Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishops of the West: That the Greek Emperor should have a Throne on the other side, opposite to that of the Emperor of the Latins; That below that should be placed the Chair of the Patriarch, and then the Bench of the Vicars of the other Patriarches; and next to them the Greek Archbishops and Bishops; and that the Prince Demetrius, Brother of the Emperor, should sit on a Seat beside him. The Gospel was placed in the middle of the Church before the Altar. These Things being thus ordered, the opening of the Council was made in the Church of St. George, on the 9th of April. The Patriarch of Constantinople could not be present because of his Indisposition; but there was read a Declaration which he made, wherein he approves the calling of the Council at Ferrara, and consents they should allow the space of four Months; That the Bishops who were still at Basil, and all others who ought to be present there, might come, as well as the Kings and Princes of the West. After this the Decree of the Pope was read, by which he declares that the Ecumenical Synod shall be held at Ferrara. This Resolution was approved by the Latins and the Greeks; and thus ended the first Session of the Council of Ferrara.  
The Pope sent this new Bull of Convocation into all Kingdoms, and solicited earnestly the Princes to send to the Council of Ferrara; but not to lose any time, he pressed the Greeks to enter upon a Conference with the Latins about the Differences between the two Churches. The Greeks had a mind to put it off till such time as the Council should be assembled. But at last after many 
The Conferences of the Greeks with the Latins, about Purgatory.  Contests it was agreed, That on each side ten Persons should be appointed who should meet three times a Week in the Church of the Monastery of St. Andrew, and confer together about the Controversies. The Greeks, on their part, appointed Mark of Ephesus, the Bishops of Monembase, Nice, Lacedaemon and Anchiala, together with the Grand Master of the Rolls, the Grand Ecclesiarch, two Abbots and one Monk, to whom the Emperor joined Jagaris. The Latins appointed on their side the Cardinal Julian, the Cardinal of Farm, Andrew Bishop of Rhodes, John a Doctor of Spain, and six others. Mark of Ephesus, and Bessarian Bishop of Nice, were entrusted to speak in behalf of the Greeks, and to them it was recommended that they should not enter upon the principal Controversies, but reserve them to the Council. The Conference began with several Discourses on both sides, concerning the Benefits of Peace and Union. The Cardinal Julian would have had the Greeks enter upon the principal Question about the Union; but they shunned it in this first and the second Conference. In the third the same Cardinal said, That there were four Heads of Controversy between the Greeks and the Latins; The 1. Concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit. The 2. About Unleavened or leavened Bread in the Sacrifice. The 3. About Purgatory. And the 4. About the Primacy of the Pope; and he enquired of the Greeks with which of these Controversies they thought it convenient to begin their Conferences. They refused to Treat about the Procession of the Holy Spirit; and gave no Answer about the other Articles until they consulted the Emperor, without whose Orders they would do nothing. In the fourth Conference they offered to treat about Purgatory, or the Primacy, and left the Latins at liberty to choose which of them. The Cardinal Julian chose the Article of Purgatory; but they did not begin to debate this Matter until the fifth Session, held June the 5th. Upon the demand of the Greeks, That they would expound the Doctrine of the Church of Rome about this Point, Julian told them, It believed that the Souls of the Just, which were pure and without Stain, and free from mortal Sin, ascended straight into Heaven, and enjoyed eternal Repose; but that the Souls of those that had fallen into Sins after Baptism, tho' they had done Penance for them, if they had not perfectly accomplished the Penance imposed upon them, nor brought forth Fruits worthy of Repentance to obtain an entire remission of their Sins, passed through the Fire of Purgatory; and that some are there a longer, and some a shorter time, according to the quality of their Sins; and that at last being purified, they enjoyed perfect Happiness; but that the Souls of those who died in mortal Sins, or in original Sin, were sent immediately to the place of Torments. Mark of Ephesus answered, That the Doctrine of the Greek Church was not different from this but in a very small Matter, and that he hoped 'twas easy to rectify it by an Explication. This Difference was expounded in the sixth Conference, and the Greeks made it to consist in this, That the Latins said the Purification of Souls was made by Fire, whereas the Greeks believed that the Souls of Sinners went to a place of Darkness and Sadness, where they were for some time in Affliction, and deprived of the Light of God; but that they were purified and delivered from this place of Affliction, by Sacrifices and Alms; That they believed also that the Damned should not be perfectly miserable, nor the Saints enjoy a perfect Happiness till after the Resurrection of their Bodies. The Latins demanded, That this Declaration of the Greeks should be put in writing. When they were about to do it, Mark of Ephesus, and Bessarian of Nice, could not agree among themselves, and each of them drew up a different Writing; the former being persuaded that perfect Happiness was delayed until the Day of Judgement; and the other believing that they wanted nothing to perfect their Happiness but to receive their Bodies. This Contest embroiled them one with another, and from this time they acted no more by consent, and there was no good understanding between them. After this the Conferences degenerated into Heats, and ended about the end of the Month of July, without treating upon any other Points but that of Purgatory, and even about that they could not agree.  
When the time appointed for the sitting of the Synod drew near, the Greeks began to be uneasy, and the Pest was then in Ferrara. All these Considerations should have moved both of them to wish for a Conclusion of this Affair, but it was not easily to be compassed. The Princes sent neither Prelates nor Ambassadors to the Council; those who were at Basil remained there still; the Greek Emperor would not have the Synod begin until there were a considerable number of Prelates. Nevertheless the Pope, by his Importunity, made him resolve to hold the Council; telling him, That where the Pope, the Emperor and the Patriarch were, there was the Synod: But a new Difficulty happened; for the Greeks reflecting upon the smallness of their number, concluded, That if Things were carried in the Council by plurality of Votes, they must needs lose their Cause, and therefore they remonstrated, That the Case was different in this Council from what it had been in former Councils, wherein the Greek and Latin Church were at agreement; whereas in this the Difference which was to be determined was between them, so that the Judges themselves were divided; and therefore they proposed, That the Voices of each Party should not be reckoned by the Party, but in proportion to the number of which each Party consisted, so that if there were 20 on one side, and 200 on the other, the 20 Votes should be reckoned as equal to the 200. The Emperor took upon him to make the Pope agree to this Proposal, and he agreed with him about some things; but he did not otherwise explain himself to the Bishops, but by telling them, That they should be content, and that the Pope had granted them what they desired. After this a Resolution was taken to begin quickly the Sessions of the Council. The Emperor having sent for the six principal Archbishops, the Grand Master of the Rolls, the Grand Ecclesiarch, 
Chartophylax.  with the two Abbots who had been present at the Conferences, and three Doctors, acquainted them that the time of the Synod was now approaching, that they must consult where they should begin the Question about the Procession of the Holy Spirit, which consisted in two Points: The first was, to understand whether the Doctrine of the Latin Church, upon this Subject, was Orthodox and agreeable to the Sentiments of the Greek Church. The second, whether they had reason to add to the Creed, That He proceeded from the Son. They were divided in their Opinions, but the greater number thought that they must begin with this last Head. The Greeks and Latins appointed each of them six Persons to maintain the Dispute: Those who spoke on Behalf of the Greeks were Mark of Ephesus, and Bessarian of Nice; on the Latin side, the Cardinal Julian, Andrew Bishop of Rhodes, the Bishop of Forio-Julio, and a Spanish Doctor named John, were chosen with two others, to Answer the Greeks. The Emperor having the consent of his Clergy, for beginning the Council, sent Jagaris and Scyropulus the Grand Ecclesiarch, to advertise the Pope of three Things; 1. That the Greeks were ready to begin the Synod, and waited only for the Day which he would appoint. 2. That they desired to be the Aggressors, and that the Latins would answer them. 3. That the Sessions should be held in the Cathedral, or at least in some of the principal Churches. The Pope granted them the two first Articles, and fixed the first Session of the Council for the 8th of October: But he would never consent to the third, and caused all the Sessions to be held in the Chapel of his own Palace. The Places there were ordered very near after the same manner as they had been in the Church of St. George at the beginning of the Council.  
The Session began with a long Discourse made by Bessarian about the Advantages of Peace; 
The Conferences of the Greeks and Latins about the Addition to the Creed, held at Ferrara.  after which Mark of Ephesus having spoke of the Charity that was to be preserved in Disputes, gave them to understand that he would begin with discoursing about the Addition made to the Creed. Andrew of Rhodes answered on behalf of the Latins, by praising the Design of maintaining Charity, and would immediately have entered upon the Matter about the Addition: But Mark of Ephesus stopped him, and told him, That it was not yet time to answer about this Article; and having remarked, That the Church of Rome had neglected in times past that Peace which she desired at present, he said that she could not obtain it but by removing altogether the Principles of Discord; and demanded, That before any thing was done, the Decrees of former Councils should be read.  
In the next Session held the 13th of October, Andrew of Rhodes having a mind to begin a Discourse about the Addition to the Creed, was interrupted by the Greeks; and this Session was spent in Contests about the manner in which they should proceed: The Greeks insisting always upon it. That it belonged to them to propose, and that in the first place the Decrees of former Councils must be read.  
After much Dispute the Greeks carried it so far, That in the third Session held the 10th of October, they read the Prohibition made by the Council of Ephesus, to add any thing to the Creed; upon which Mark of Ephesus made some Reflections, and confirmed it by the Testimony of Saint Cyril and Pope Celestin: They reported also the Definition of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th General Councils, which would have nothing added to the Creed. The Latins produced a Manuscript of the 7th Council, where they pretended it would be found, That the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son; and assured them that this Manuscript was very ancient: But the Greeks replied, That if this had been so, Thomas Aquinas and other Latins, who were Defenders of this Addition, would not have failed to relate this Testimony as decisive in the Case.  
In the 4th Conference on the 20th of the same Month, after it was agreed, That nothing out of Synods should be alleged for or against Photius, that both Sides should be bounded by the 8th General Council, Andrew of Rhodes begun a long Discourse to show, That what the Greeks pretended to be an Addition, was a mere Explication, which was not forbidden to be made. He founded this Proposition particularly upon the Example of the second Council, which had added Words to the Nicene Creed to explain more clearly its Doctrine; That there was the same Reason as to the word Filioque, added by the Latins, which was only an Explication of what was in the Nicene Creed; That the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father, because the Son having all that is natural and essential to the Father, when 'tis said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, it must necessarily be understood that he proceeds also from the Son.  
Andrew of Rhodes continued the same Discourse in the next Conference held the 25th of October, and undertook to answer the Authorities produced by Mark of Ephesus, grounding always upon the same Principle, That they did not forbid to add Explications or Declarations of the same Faith, but only such Things as were contrary to, or different from the Doctrine contained in the Creed. He related many Passages of the Greek Fathers, to prove that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as from the Father, and insisted particularly upon the Authority of St. Cyril and Maximus. But the Greeks maintained that the Passage in this latter was falsified. He alleged also the Authority of Tarasus the Patriarch of Constantinople, and an ancient Manuscript of the 7th Council where the Addition was found. He laid some Stress upon the Silence of Photius, who had never objected this Addition to the Latins 
* [But this is notoriously false, as appears from his Encyclical Epistle to the Patriarches of the East, which is inserted into the 10th Book of Baronius' Annals, wherein be charges the Latins with corrupting the Nicene Creed, that they might the more freely propagate the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.] ; and lastly, he and the Cardinal Julian concluded this Conference with the Testimonies of St. Cyril and Agathon, who acknowledged that the Roman Church had Power to explain and establish the Doctrine of Faith.  
The Greeks having conferred among themselves about the Discourse of Andrew of Rhodes, appointed Bessarion of Nice to answer him: He made a long and learned Discourse in the Session held the first of November, wherein he undertook to prove, That all Additions to the Creed were forbidden, and so it was needless to examine whether that made by the Latins was an Explication or no; That there was sufficient ground to reject it, because it was an Addition; That it was not forbidden to explain the Faith, but to insert these Explications into the Creed; That until the time of the second Council this might have been allowed, but the third had absolutely forbidden it; That this Prohibition had been needless, if they had only forbidden to add any thing contrary to the ancient Faith, since that was always forbidden; That the Fathers of this Council had judged it not convenient to add to the Creed the Term of Mother of God, altho●… seemed necessary to do it; And that these Words were only an Explication of the Doctrine contained in the Creed; That the following Councils would not add their Definitions, tho' they were only an Explication of the Doctrine of the Creed.  
Bissarion having not finished his Answer to Andrew of Rhodes in this Session, continued it in the next held the 4th of November, and maintained that St. Cyril and Agathon did not only forbid to add any thing contrary to the Creed, but also disallowed of any kind of Addition: And as to what they had advanced in favour of the Church of Rome's Prerogatives, he said, That the Greeks knew very well the Rights and Privileges of that Church, but that they knew also the Bounds of them; and that when they denied the Universal Church and an Ecumenical Council a Right to add to the Creed, they had much more Reason to deny it to the Church of Rome, or rather they were persuaded that the Councils by their Decrees forbade it. When Bessarion had finished, Andrew of Rhodes undertook to reply, but being unprepared he wandered from the Subject, and after he had said many impertinent Things, at last he came to the chief Points of the Doctrine.  
John Bishop of Foro-Julio was made choice of by the Latins to answer Bessarion, in the Session held the 8th of November. After he had alleged many Reasons to prove that the word Filioque, was not an Addition but a mere Explication, he maintained not only that there was no Law forbidding to add any Explication to the Creed, but also that none could make such a Prohibition to the Church, and that it could extend only to private Persons, who would make this Addition without Authority.  
The Cardinal Julian finished this Dispute in the Session on November 11th, with many Remarks upon the Prohibition of the Council of Ephesus. 1. He observed, That this Law was to be understood with respect to the occasion on which it was made, which was the false Creed of the Nestorians, that the Council had condemned, and not that of Charisius, which was Orthodox. 2. That this Council did not only forbid to Add, but also to make any new Exposition of the Faith; and therefore if this Prohibition were extended to the Church or a Council, it would follow, That the Church could not make a new Exposition of the Faith; which the Greeks did own to be false. 3. That the Council of Ephesus having spoken only of the Nicene Creed, it would follow, That it must disapprove the Additions made to the Creed by the Council of Constantinople. 4. That the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, St. Cyril and St. Leo, had no other design, but to hinder the teaching or introducing of any new Doctrine. When he had finished these Remarks, he said it was now time to come to the principal Question, viz. Whether it were true that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son; and in ●…se the Greeks should prove that he did not proceed, than it would follow that the Roman Church had made a prohibited Addition to the Creed; but if on the contrary it should be proved, That this was sound and true Doctrine, than it must be confessed that the Roman Church had Power to add this Explication to the Creed. Nevertheless Bessarion said, That he would answer in the next Conference, to what the Cardinal Julian had now advanced.  
On the 15th of November, Mark of Ephesus and Cardinal Julian conrested among themselves, concerning the Creed of Charisius, and the Explication of the Prohibition of the Council of Ephesus. Towards the conclusion the Cardinal Julian observed, That there were Manuscripts of the Creed of Constantinople, in which these Words are not to be found, Descendit de Caelis, nor these, Secundum Scripturas; and that the Latins had added these, Deum de Deo, about which the Greeks made no opposition, as they did about the word Filioque. Andrew of Rhodes had also said in his Discourse, That the Phrase Desoendit ad inferos, was an Addition. Mark of Ephesus would have entered upon the Question, viz. Whether the Roman Church and the Pope had Power to add to the Creed: But the Cardinal would not enter upon it, and persisted in demanding importunately, That they would come to the principal Question, concerning the Truth of the Doctrine.  
The Ambassadors of the Duke of Burgundy were received in the 12th Session held the 27th of November, saluted the Pope, presented him a Letter from their Master, and made a Discourse in the Assembly: But because they had not shown the Greek Emperor the Respect that was due to him, nor presented him with a Letter, he would not allow them to take their Seat until he had received Satisfaction; which they gave him in the next Session by presenting him with a Letter in their Master's Name, and doing him Reverence; but after such a manner as did not perfectly satisfy.  
In the mean time the Conference continued, and was reduced to a private Contest between Mark of Ephesus, and the Cardinal Julian, about the Addition to the Creed.  
Another also was held on the 8th of December, which dwindled also into Heats, upon the same Subject, without the Agreeing of the Parties in any thing. The Latins would have them to enter upon the principal Point in Question; and after that was explained, if they should find it true, That the Holy Spirit did proceed from the Person of the Son, than the Addition should continue in the Creed; but if they should find this Proposition false, than it should be rejected. The Greeks, on the contrary, asserted, That they must begin with cutting off the word Filioque, from the Creed, and after that examine the main Question; That if the Doctrine of the Latins should be found to be true, it should be decreed, but if it were false it should be condemned. This Contest was the Cause why the Conferences ceased for some time; but at last the Greek Emperor made the Greeks resolve to enter upon the Dispute about the Truth of the Doctrine. The Pope proposed afterwards to translate the Council to Florence, because he could no longer conveniently furnish the necessary Expense for continuing it at Ferrara; and it was agreed with the Florentines, That they should raise him a considerable Sum, provided the Council were held at Florence. The Patriarch of Constantinople and the Greek Prelates opposed mightily this Proposal, but at last the Necessity to which they were reduced obliged them to accept of it, and to consent that the Synod might be translated to Florence; and this Translation was published in the last Assembly held at Ferrara, January the 11th, 1439. The pretence that the Pope alleged in the Bull, was the Pestilence which had been at Ferrara, and it was to be feared it would break forth again in the Spring. One part of what was owing to the Greeks was paid them. Some Relief of Money was sent to Constantinople, and the Greeks were promised, That the Expense of their Voyage and of their living at Florence should be defrayed, and that they should be carried home again, whether the Union were concluded or no. The Pope and Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Latin and Greek Prelates, parted after this for Florence, and arrived there at the beginning of February. After they had reposed themselves for some Days, they agreed upon certain Measures concerning the Method of continuing their Conferences: And the Emperor was of Opinion, That they should be held in private. The first was held the 26th of February. The Cardinal Julian and the Emepror who were the only Persons that spoke at it, came to an Agreement, That some Expedient should be searched for by both sides, to unite them together. The Patriarch being 
The Conferences of the Greeks and Latins at Florence.  grievously Sick, was not present at this, nor the following Sessions. The Emperor and Greek Prelates being present at his House, consulted about this Proposal which had been made, to search after some Means for uniting them together; but they all said, That they had none to offer, and that they were ready to answer the Latins; That they would meet in Private the next Saturday, and then enter upon a Conference. The Pope seeing that they would not propose any Expedient, but Dispute on still, put off the Meeting to Monday next, being the 2d Day of March.  
In this Session, and the five following, John the Theologue for the Latins, and Mark of Ephesus for the Greeks, disputed earnestly concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit; and after they had long contested concerning the Sense of divers Passages of the Greek Fathers, each remained of his own Opinion without agreeing in any thing. The Greek Emperor perceiving plainly, That these Disputes were so far from procuring Union, that they rather served to exasperate their Spirits, called his Prelates together to engage them to find out some Temper, by means of which an Union might be concluded; and he believed that he had found out an Expedient, by remarking that John the Divine had said, That the Father was the sole Cause of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The Greeks having searched for divers Expedients, thought at last they had found one in a Letter of St. Maximus, who says, That the Latins by affirming that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, do not pretend that the Son was the Cause of the Spirit, and that they know very well, that the Father is the sole Cause of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; of the Son by Generation, of the Holy Spirit by Procession; but they mean only that the Holy Spirit proceeds by the Son, because he is of one and the same Essence. All the Greeks, except Mark of Ephesus, and the Archbishop of Heraclea, agreed, That if the Latins would approve this Letter, the Union would easily be concluded. The News of this was carried to the Latins, who promised to give their Answer in the first Conference, which was to be held March the 21st. The Emperor would not have Mark of Ephesus, nor the Archbishop of Heraclea to be there present, so that John spoke alone in this Session, and in the next which was held the 24th of March. The Greeks were divided among themselves, some were Enemies to the Union, others on the contrary desired it, and sought out means to compass it. The Emperor supported the latter, and desired them earnestly to conclude an Union at any price whatsoever. He caused them therefore to resolve in the Assembly, that a Message should be sent to the Pope, to tell him, That Disputes were useless, and they must find out some other way for Union. The Pope made answer, That the Greeks must acknowledge, That the Latins had proved very well, That the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son, or else they should have brought Testimonies of Scripture expressly contrary to this Doctrine. If they did not, That an Assembly must be held, wherein they must make Oath upon the Gospels, to speak the Truth. That after this, every one should give his Opinion, and that Doctrine should be embraced which had a Plurality of Voices. This Answer being reported to the Emperor, he caused tell the Pope, That this was not the way to procure an Union, That this would end in a Dispute, and then they must come to a Decision of it, which is what they would avoid; and therefore they must pray his Holiness to find out some other way. In the mean time, Bessarion made a Discourse concerning Union, wherein he justified the Doctrine of the Latins. The Emperor having a Mind to put an end to this Affair, held after Easter a Meeting in the Patriarch's House, where the Cardinal Julian was present, who endeavoured to persuade the Greeks to resume their Conferences; but the Emperor would not hearken to this Proposal, and therefore went himself to meet the Pope, and agreed with him, That Ten Persons should be appointed on each side, who should meet, and give their Opinion, one after another, of the Means which they thought convenient for obtaining an Union. Bessarion proposed in the first Conference, That the Latins and Greeks should approve the Letter of Maximus to Marinus, without any Explication; but the Latins gave it a Sense which was not agreeable to the Greeks. Mark of Ephesus, proposed after this, That the Addition made to the Creed should be struck out; others offered for a Model, the Profession of Faith made by the Patriarch Tarasus, wherein 'tis said, That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Son: In fine, divers Expedients were proposed in five Conferences, which were held on this Subject; but not one of them was agreed upon by both Parties. After this, the Latins drew up a Profession of Faith, wherein they declared, That they would not admit two Principles, or two Causes in the Trinity; but one only Principle, which is the Action of the Father and of the Son, and their Productive Power, and that the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Son, as from another Principle, or another Cause, because there is but one Cause, one Root, and one Fountain of the Divinity which is the Father; That notwithstanding this, the Father and Son are two Persons, tho' they Act by one and the same Operation, and that the Person produced of the Substance and Subsistence of the Father and the Son is one; That those who say the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, must acknowledge that there was a time when the Son was not, or else separate the Substance from the Subsistence, which is absurd. This Profession of Faith was sent to the Greeks by the Latins, April the 29th. The Greeks not being satisfied with it, the Latins sent them another, which contained also the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son; yet in such a manner that 'twas said, the Father was the sole Cause of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Greeks after this gave one from their side, wherein they declared, That the Father was the Fountain and Root of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit came forth from the Son, and was sent by the Son. The Latins desired they would explain these Terms, and that they would tell in what Sense they took them, if they meant them of the Eternal and Substantial Procession of the Holy Spirit, or only of a Temporal Mission. The Greeks made a Difficulty of doing this. At last, a Profession of Faith was drawn up, conceived in these Words, We the Latins on one side, do Affirm and make Profession, That when we say, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son we intent not by this to deny that the Father is the Principle and Fountain of all the Divinity of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, or that the Son proceeds from the Father, or to admit two Principles, and two Producti●… of the Holy Spirit; but we assert and believe, That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one sole Principle, and by one sole Production. And we the Greeks on the other side, do acknowledge, That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that he appertains to the Son, that he came forth from him, and proceeds substantially from these two, viz. from the Father by the Son; and we are all united in this unanimous Profession of Faith. This Profession of Faith being read in the Assembly of the Greeks, was approved by some of them, and rejected by others: But at last, having passed by Plurality of Voices, it was sent to the Pop●… who demanded still several Explications. The Greeks were divided among themselves. 〈…〉 of Nice, and the Archbishop of Russia maintained that it might be said, That the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and from the Son, as the Latins said; or from the Father by the Son, according to the Expression of the Greeks; provided it were acknowledged, That he proceeded from the Father and the Son, as one only Principle and Cause; That this was a means of reconciling the Sentiments of the Fathers which seemed to contradict one another, and of coming quickly to an Union. Mark of Ephesus, the Archbishop of Heraclea, and many others were of a contrary Opinion, and maintained, That there was a great deal of difference, between saying that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father by the Son, and that the Holy Spirit poceeded from the Father and the Son. After they had for a long time disputed both on this Subject in the private Congregations, the Emperor called them all together to give their Opinion on the 2d of June. The Patriarch said, That since the Fathers taught in some places, that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son; and in others, That he proceeded from the Father by the Son; and that these Terms, from the Son, or by the Son, were equivalent, without making use of this Expression, That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; he said▪ That he proceeds from the Father by the Son Eternally and Substantially, as one sole Principle and one sole Cause, the Preposition, by, signifying in this place, that the Son is the C●… the Procession of the Holy Spirit. He added, That he would receive those of the West, who said, That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, provided they would not add it to the Creed, and that the Greeks would unite with them, without changing their Rites. The Emperor said only in general, That he did not believe this Council inferior to other General Councils; That he would follow its Decision, being persuaded that the Church cannot Err; provided the Latins would not oblige the Greeks to add any thing to the Creed, nor change any thing in their Rites. After the Emperor, Isidore, Archbishop of Russia, who represented the Patriarch of Antioch, said, That he believed also, we must approve the Doctrine of the Occidentals, That the Holy Spirit received his being from the Son, and that the Father and the Son were one sole Principle of the Holy Spirit. Bessarion was of the same Opinion, and made a long Discourse to prove it. But Anthony, Archbishop of Heraclea, one of the Vicars of the Patriarch of Alexandria, was of another Opinion, for he plainly rejected the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. But the 
* Magnus Primicerius.  Protosyncelle, second Vicar of the same Patriarchat, was of a contrary Opinion to him, and approved the Union with the Latins, altho' some Days before he had maintained, That the Baptism of the Latins was of no validity, because it was done by Sprinkling. Mark of Ephesus, Dositheus Bishop of Monembase, Vicar of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and Sophrone of Anchiala, would not acknowledge, That the Son was the Cause of the Holy Spirit in the Sense that the Greeks took the Word, Cause, for a Principle; and denied that it might be said, That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one only Principle. Scyropulus, Grand Ecclesiarch, was of the same Opinion, altho' he gave not his Vote for it. Dorotheus, Bishop of Mitylene, and 
The Archbishop of Trebizonde being Sick, would not send his Vote.  the Bishops of Lacedaemon, of Rhodes, of Nicomedia, Distra, Drama, and Melenique, approved the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and concluded for the Union; and so did Gregory the Penitentiary, and the Abbot Pacomus. All the Ministers of the Emperor applauded the Union, except Prince Demotrius, the Emperor's Brother; who would not give his Opinion, because he was contrary to the Union. The Ambassadors of the Princes and People of Greece, who were then present, approved also the Union, except those of the Iberians: The Bishops of Cyzicum, Trebisonde, Heraclea and Monembase, came over at last to the Opinion of the others; so that there were not any among the Bishops who persisted in a contrary Opinion, but only Mark of Ephesus, and Sophronius of Anchiala.  
The Emperor having thus disposed Matters towards an Union, thought it now high time to treat with the Pope about the Succours he wanted. He sent to him the Archbishop of Russia, to enter upon the Negotiation, and this Archbishop brought to him three Cardinals, who agreed upon the following Articles. First, That the Pope should furnish to the Greeks the Expenses of their Return; Secondly, That he should maintain every Year 300 Soldiers, and two Galleys to Guard the City of Constantinople; Thirdly, That the Galleys which carried the Pilgrims to Jerusalem, should go to Constantinople; Fourthly, That when the Emperor had occasion for 20 Galleys for six Months, or for 10 for a Year, the Pope should furnish him with them; Fifthly, That if there was occasion for Land-Forces, the Pope should earnestly solicit the Christian Princes of the West to furnish him with them.  
The next Day, being the 3d of June, the Emperor caused all the Greeks to come to the Assembly, and to repeat their Suffrages: The Patriarch said, That since the Latins did not say of their own Heads, but according to the Scripture, That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Son; he was of their Opinion, and that he thought this Preposition, by, denoted, That the Son was the Cause of the Holy Spirit; and thus they would unite with them, and embrace their Communion. All the Greeks, except Mark of Ephesus, followed the Opinion of the Patriarch, and acknowledged, That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, as one Principle and one Substance; That he proceeds by the Son, being of the same Nature and the same Substance, and that he proceeds from the Father and the Son, by one and the same Spiration and Production.  
On the 5th of the same Month, the Definition was put in Writing, and three Copies were made of it; the first which was carried to the Pope, the other to the Emperor, and the third to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The next Day it was carried to the Pope and Cardinals, who agreed to it, and there were Ten Persons appointed on each side, to put the last Hand to it: This being done on the 8th of the same Month; it was read in Greek and Latin, and approved by the Greeks and Latins.  
The next Day, the Archbishops of Russia, Nice, Trebisonde and Mitylene, being deputed to wait upon the Pope, he said unto them, God be thanked we are now agreed about the Principal Doctrine in which we differed; Ye must presently treat of the Questions about Purgatory, the Primacy of the Pope, and the use of Leavened and Unleavened Bread in the Eucharist, and about the Divine Sacrifice; to the end, That all occasion of Discord may be removed, and after that an Union be immediately settled; for the Time is short. They begun with the Question of Unleavened Bread, and it was determined, That they might use indifferently either that which is Leavened or Unleavened, provided it were made of Breadcorn; That the Minister had received Orders, and that the place of Celebration was consecrated. As to Purgatory; it was determined, That the Souls of Saints had obtained in Heaven a perfect Recompense, as they were Souls; That those of Sinners were punished to the highest degree, and that the Souls of those who were in a middle State between these two, were in a place where they endured Punishment; but it was not material, whether it be said, That this was done by Fire or by Darkness, by Tempest, or after any other manner. Concerning the Primacy of the Pope, it was decreed, That he should enjoy all the Privileges which he had at the beginning of, and before the Schism. In fine, the Latins demanded concerning the Sacrifice, why the Greeks, after they have pronounced these Words, This is my Body, This is my Blood, repeat this Prayer, Make this Bread the precious Body of your Christ, and what is in this Chalice his precious Blood, in changing them by your Holy Spirit. The Greeks answered, That they confessed the Bread was consecrated, and made the Body of Jesus Christ, by these Words, This is my Body, etc. But that as the Latins, after they have pronounced them, say, Order, O Lord, that these Gifts may be carried by the Hands of your Holy Angel unto your sublime Altar, so likewise the Greeks do pray, That the Holy Spirit may descend upon them, that he may make this Bread, the Body of Jesus Christ; and that which is in the Chalice his Blood, to purify the Souls of the Communicants, and forgive their Sins; and that it may never be the Cause of their Judgement and Condemnation. The Greeks were also asked, what they thought of the Essence and Operation of God; they answered, That their Sentiment about it was the same with that of all the East; That moreover they would go and give an account of all these Things to the Emperor. The same Deputies being returned the next Day, the Pope told them, That they were at present agreed, and that there remained only some small Questions, about which they must explain themselves; That they were noted down in a Writing which he had, and which he gave them to read. It contained four Heads. First, That the Holy See, and the Pope Vicar of Christ should enjoy their Privileges, and that they should acknowledge, he could add to the Creed what he had added unto it. The Second, That there were three kinds of those that Die, the Saints, Sinners, and those who are in a middle State; i. e. Christians who had sinned, and done Penance, but had not perfectly made satisfaction, for whom Prayers were made, and Alms given; That the first did see immediately the Essence of God, that the second were in Eternal Torments, and that the third were in the Fire of Purgatory; That after they are purified, they are placed in the number of those who see the Essence of God. The Third, That they might indifferently make use of Bread Leavened or Unleavened, provided it were made of Corn, and were consecrated by a Priest, and in an Holy Place. The Fourth, That the Questions concerning the Essence and Operation of God should be examined in the Council. The Deputies replied, That they had no Power from the Emperor to answer these Questions; but that in their own Name, and as Private Persons, they would declare what they thought about them. As to the first Head, That it was altogether unreasonable; for how said they, can we acknowledge, That the Pope has Power to add to the Creed without consulting his Brethren the Patriarches; and that therefore, tho' an Addition should be permitted, yet it could not be made without the consent of a Council: And they agreed to the second and third Head, but would give no answer to the last. It was proposed that they should take the Writing, but they would not charge themselves with it, and only told by word of Mouth to the Emperor and Patriarch what had been proposed to them. The same Night the Patriarch, who had been Sick for a long time, Died, having written some Moment's before his Death a Profession of Faith, wherein he declared, That he died in the Sentiments of the Roman Church. The next Day he was Interred, and the Greeks prayed the Pope to conclude quickly the Union, because they could continue there no longer, having no Patriarch. The next Day, the Pope sent for the Archbishops of Russia, Nice and Mitylene; and having made them his Compliments of Condoleance, he proposed anew the Questions of Unleavened Bread, of Purgatory, of the Pope's Supremacy, of the Addition to the Creed, and the Words of Consecration. The Greek Prelates answered, That they had no Power from a Synod of the East, but as Private Persons they said, That it was indifferent to make use of Bread Leavened or Unleavened: That it was needless to speak of Purgatory, since the Greeks had not divided upon this Subject, and that the Question between them and the Latins about it was not material: That as to the Supremacy, the Pope should enjoy all that of Right belonged to him: That as to the Addition to the Creed the Eastern Churches would never admit it: That they would only permit those of the West to make use of it, and acknowledge that this was not another Faith, but an Explication of the Creed. Lastly, as to Consecration, they confessed that it was made by the Words of Jesus christ, tho' they added after them a Prayer, wherein they desired that the Eucharist might be made the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. These Things being reported to the Emperor, he held an Assembly, wherein it was resolved, That in the Treaty of Union, they should speak of Unleavened Bread, the Supremacy of the Pope, and the Addition to the Creed; without saying any thing of Purgatory or the Consecration; but the Latins insisted upon Purgatory. Three Days after, the Emperor and Greek Prelates went to wait upon the Pope, who having exhorted them to admit the Article of Purgatory, caused two Discourses to be spoken before them, one concerning the Pope's Supremacy, and the other concerning the Unleavened Bread. The Emperor requested, That they should presently make an end, because he must return home, and prayed the Pope to cause prepare what was necessary for their Voyage.  
He said, That he had already taken care, and that he had sent a Captain to Venice, to take up some Galleys there. After he had said this, he would have given a Writing to the Emperor, who refused to receive it. The Pope being angry at this Refusal, withdrew; but he caused tell the Emperor by the Cardinal Julian, that after the Affair was concluded he might return; that he would defray his Charges as far as Venice, and give him assistance to go to Constantinople. The Greek Prelates having examined anew the Articles proposed by the Latins, found them reasonable, and passed even the Article of Purgatory.  
On the 17th of June, the Emperor called together the Greek Prelates, who were all found to be of the same Opinion about the Union, except Mark of Ephesus, who remained unmoveable. The next Sunday, they examined the Privileges of the Pope, and approved them all, adding to them two Conditions: First, That the Pope could not Call an Ecumenical Council without the Emperor and the Patriarches; Secondly, That in Case of an Appeal from the Judgement of the Patriarches, the Pope could not call the Cause to Rome, but he must send Judges to sit in the Places where the Fact is committed. The Pope being unwilling to pass these two Articles, the Emperor was ready to break off the whole Negotiation; but the Greek Prelates some Days after drew up the Article concerning the Pope, in these Words: As to the Pope's Supremacy, we confess, That he is the Highpriest and the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, who governs the Church of God, saving the Privileges and Rights of the Eastern Patriarches, viz. of Constantinople, who is next after the Pope, and then of Alexandria, of Antioch; and lastly, of Jerusalem. This Project was agreed to by the Pope and Cardinals, and all Parties consented to labour from the next Day in composing the Decree of Union. The first Difficulty which presented itself was to fix upon the Name that should be put at the Head; the Latins would have it to be that of the Pope, and the Emperor pretended to the contrary that it should be his. At last, it was ordered, That the Pope's Name should be put there, but than it should be added, with the Consent of the Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the other Patriarches. There was another Difficulty about the manner of expressing the Pope's Privileges. The Latins would have it put thus, that he should enjoy them as was determined in Scripture, and the Writings of the Saints. This Expression pleased not the Emperor, for, says he, If any Saint has made honorary Compliments in a Letter to the Pope, shall this be taken for a Privilege? And therefore he said, That he would not pass this Article as it was thus expressed. The Pope consented, but with Difficulty, that it should be amended, and that in stead of saying, according to the Writings of the Saints, it should be put, according as was contained in the Canons. The Archbishop of Russia and Bessarion, would have an Anathema pronounced against those who did not approve this Decree; but the Archbishop of Trebizonde, and the Protosyncelle opposed it, and the Emperor was of their Opinion. At last, all the Words of the Decree having been for a long time weighed and examined on both sides, it was fairly written out in Greek and Latin; and a Day was set for Signing it, and then concluding solemnly the Union.  
The manner of expressing this Decree is as follows. The Title of it is, The Definition 
The Decre● of Union between the Greeks and the Latins.  of the Holy Ecumenical Council celebrated at Florence, of Eugenius the Servant of the Servants of God, to serve for a perpetual Monument, with the Consent of our dear Son John Palaeologus, the Illustrious Emperor of the Greeks; and of those who supply the place of our most venerable Brethren the Patriarches, and of the other Prelates representing the Greek Church. The Preface is a kind of an Hymn which contains the joyful Thoughts and Thanksgivings for the Union of the two Churches; after which the Definition is expressed in these Words.  
The Greeks and Latins being Assembled in this Holy Ecumenical Council, have used all Care to examine with the greatest exactness possible the Article which concerns the Holy Spirit; and after the Testimonies of Holy Scripture, and the Passages of Greek and Latin Fathers were related, whereof some import that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; and others, that he proceeds from the Father by the Son; it was acknowledged, That they had all the same Sense, tho' they make use of divers Expressions; That the Greeks, by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, did not intent to exclude the Son; but in regard the Greeks thought, that the Latins by affirming, The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, admitted of two Principles, and two Spirations; therefore they abstain from saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son: The Latins on the contrary affirmed, That by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, they had no design to deny that the Father was the Fountain and Principle of the whole Divinity, viz. of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; nor to pretend that the Son does not receive from the Father, that wherein the Holy Spirit proceeds from him; nor lastly, to admit two Principles or two Spirations; but that they did acknowledge, there was one only Principle, and one only Procession of the Holy Spirit, as they had always held: And forasmuch as these Expressions came all to one and the same true Sense, they did at last agree, and conclude the following Union with unanimous consent. Therefore in the Name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, by the Advice of this Holy Ecumenical Council Assembled at Florence, we Define that the truth of this Faith be believed and received of all Christians; and that all profess, that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son; that he receives his Substance and his Subsisting Being from the Father and from the Son; and that he proceeds from these two eternally as one only Principle, and by one only Procession; declaring, That the Holy Doctors and Fathers, who say, That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the Son, have no other Sense; which they discover by this, That the Son is as the Father, according to the Greeks, the Cause; and, according to the Latins, the Principle of the Subsistence of the Holy Spirit; and by this, That the Father has Communicated to the Son in his Generation all that he has, except that he is the Father, and also has given him from all Eternity, that wherein the Holy Spirit proceedeth from him. We define also, That this Explication, and of the Son, was added lawfully and justly to the Creed, to clear up the Truth, and not without necessity. We declare also, That the Body of Jesus Christ, is truly consecrated in Breadcorn, whether it be Leavened or Unleavened, and that the Priests ought to make use of one and the other according to the usage of each Church: That the Souls of true Penitents, dying in the Love of God, before they have brought forth Fruits worthy of the Repentance of their Sins, are purified after their Death by the Pains of Purgatory, and that they are delivered from these Pains by the Suffrages of the Faithful that are Living, such as Holy Sacrifices, Prayers, Alms, and other Works of Piety, which the Faithful do for the other Faithful, according to the Orders of the Church; and that the Souls of those who have never Sinned since their Baptism, or of those who having fallen into Sins, have been purified from them in their Bodies, or after their departure out of them, as we were just now saying, enter immediately into Heaven, and see purely the Trinity, some more perfectly than others, according to the difference of their Merits. Lastly, That the Souls of those who Die in actual Mortal Sin, or only in Original Sin, descend immediately into Hell, to be there punished with Torments tho' unequal. We define also, That the Holy Apostolic See, and the Pope of Rome hath the Supremacy over all the Earth; That he is the Successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, the Father and Teacher of all Christians; and that Jesus Christ hath given him in the Person of St. Peter, the Power to Feed, to Rule and Govern the Catholic Church, as it is explained in the Acts of Ecumenical Councils, and in the Holy Canons: Renewing on the other Hand the Rank and Order of the Holy Patriarches appointed in the Canons, so that he of Constantinople is next after the Holy Pope of Rome, he of Alexandria the third, he of Antioch the fourth, and he of Jerusalem the fifth, without infringing any of their Privileges and Rights.  
This Definition was Signed July the 5th. The Emperor subscribed first, and after him the Archbishop of Heraclea, and the Protosyncelle, Vicars of the Patriarch of Alexandria; the Archbishop of Russia, Vicar of the Patriarch of Antioch; of Monembase, Vicar of the Patriarch of Jerusalem; of Cyzicum in his own Name, and in the Name, of the Archbishop of Ancyra; of Trebizonde in his own Name, and the Name of the Archbishop of Caesarea; Bessarion of Nice in his own Name, and the Name of the Bishop of Sardes; of Nicomedia in his own Name; of Tornobe in his own Name, and the Name of the Bishop of Nicomedia; of Mitylene in his own Name, and the Name of the Archbishop of Sida; of Muldoblach in his own Name, and the Name of the Bishop of Sebasta, of Amasia and Rhodes; and lastly of Distress, Ganne, Melenice, dram and Anchiala; together with the Grand Sacrist, the Grand Keeper of Records, the Grand Ecclesiarch, the Grand Protector, and the Archpriest of the Church of Constantinople, the Ecclesiarch of the Royal Monastery of the Holy Mount, and four Abbots. When the Greeks had Signed in the presence of the Cardinals, Ten Greek Archbishops went to wait upon the Pope; and Bessarion having made a Discourse to him, wherein he declared, That the Greeks were of the same Judgement with the Latins, concerning the Words of Consecration, the Pope Signed it, and after him Eight Cardinals, and about Sixty Bishops, and many Generals of Orders as well as Abbots.  
The next Day, the Ceremony was performed of publishing this Definition, and the Union in the Grand Church of Florence. The Pope, the Emperor, and the Greek and Latin Prelates were there present: After the Singing-men of the Greeks and Latins had sung some Hymns of Thanksgiving, the Cardinal Julian, and the Archbishop of Nice ascended into the Pulpit, and read the Definition of Faith, the one in Latin, and the other in Greek; and demanded, the one of the Latins, and the other of the Greeks, whether they approved it? Having all answered, Yes, they embraced one another. After this, Mass was solemnly celebrated, and the Ceremony being ended, every one retired.  
The next Day, the Emperor caused to be demanded of the Pope, That the Greeks might celebrate in the same Church, and that the Pope, Cardinals, and other Latin Prelates might be there present. The Pope made them answer, That he must know beforehand the Order of the Liturgy. The Archbishop of Russia having explained it to the two Cardinals, who spoke to him in the Pope's Name, they gave an account of it to him: But the Pope thought, That before he was present at their Ceremonies, it was necessary, That he should see them performed in private by some Greek Priest; or that the Cardinals should be present at a Mass of the Greeks, that he might be assured there was nothing in their Rites but what he could approve of. The Deputies having brought this Answer to the Emperor, he demanded this no more of the Pope. But the Pope continued still to put several Questions to him: As, Why do the Greeks divide the Bread into parts before the Oblation, and unite them into the Divine Bread of the Lord? Why do they bow the Head when they carry the Oblation before it is consecrated? Why do they mix warm Water in the Chalice? Why do not the Bishops, but the Priests confer the Unction of the Holy Chrism, it being reserved as peculiar to the former? Why do they anoint the Dead before they Bury them? Why do not the Bishops and Priests confess themselves before they say Mass? Why do they add after the Words of Consecration this Prayer, Make this Bread the precious Body of Jesus Christ, by changing it with the Holy Spirit? Why do they separate Married Persons? And lastly, why do they not choose a Patriarch, but will return home without 
Conferences after the Publication of the Decree of Union.  a Head? The Archbishop of Mitylene satisfiyed all these Demands, except those which concern the Dissolution of Marriage, and the Election of a Patriarch. The Pope desired of the Emperor, That he would send him some able Prelates to answer these Questions. He sent him some that were very Ignorant, who gave him only this Answer, That they would propose them to the Emperor, that he might answer them. On the 14th of July, the Pope called together the Greek Prelates, and made the following Proposals to them: First, That all the World complains of them, that they separate Married Persons, which is a thing that needs Reformation. Secondly, That they must call Mark of Ephesus to an Account for separating from the Synod, and punish him for his Disobedience. Thirdly, That they should choose a Patriarch before they departed. The Prelates said, That they could not give an Answer about these Articles without consulting the Emperor and the other Prelates; That as Private Persons they answered, They never ordered the Dissolution of Marriages but for just Causes; That Mark of Ephesus should be judged by the Greeks upon the place, if he continued to be refractory; but that the Patriarch should not be chosen except at Constantinople, because this was the Order of their Church. The Pope insisted upon the last Article, but he gained nothing; for the Emperor made him the same Answer. Nevertheless to satisfy the Pope in another way, they caused his Name to be recited in the Dyptiches, altho' this had not been demanded. These Things being thus concluded, the Greek Prelates desired to return home; but before their departure, the Emperor made them demand of the Pope the Restitution of the Churches which formerly depended upon them, as those of Crete, of Corfu, and the other Isles, which the Latin Archbishops were now Possessed of; and that he would make some other Provision for the Latin Prelates who had these Churches, that the Greeks might place there some of their Countrymen. The Pope made answer, That it was not just to turn out the Latins from the Churches they were in Possession of, but that things must continue in the same Condition wherein they were; Yet he granted, That in these Churches where there were two Bishops, one Greek, and the other Latin; if the Latin Bishop should Die first, that the Greek should remain the sole Possessor, and those who succeeded him should be Greeks; but if the Greek Bishop should Die first, the Latin Bishop should enjoy the Church alone, and after his Death the Pope of Rome should provide for that Church for ever. The Pope had a mind to see Mark of Ephesus, and to speak with him; and this Bishop went boldly to wait upon him, and was no ways dashed with his Menaces.  
At last, the Greek Prelates demanded importunately their Liberty to return, and the Payment 
The Departure of the Greeks.  of the Months that were due to them; but they were obliged before their departure to Sign yet four Copies. After they had done this, the five Months that were due were paid them, and they went with speed for Venice, whither the Emperor followed them some time after, and arrived there the 6th of September. The Greeks did solemnly Celebrate the Divine Service in a Church of the Latins, and Embarked the 11th of October, in order to their return to Constantinople, where they arrived the 1st of February, 1440. The Emperor and his Brother found after their arrival, that the Princesses their Spouses were dead.  
The Clergy which remained at Constantinople being prejudiced against the Union, would not admit 
The Divisions of the Greeks about the Decree of Union.  those who returned from the West after they had signed it, to perform the Ecclesiastical Functions. The Emperor having a mind that they should do it, the others retired and left them alone. In fine, things were pushed on with so great heat, that the Emperor's Name was struck out of the Dyptiches in the greatest part of the Churches. This Prince having a mind to put an end to this trouble which lasted for three Months, resolved to give order for the Election of a Patriarch. In the Assembly which was held upon this occasion, the Archbishop of Heraclea declared, That he was troubled for having consented to, and subscribed the Union, so that the other Prelates who has signed it, durst not propose him to be their Patriarch; the three whom they made choice of, were the Archbishops of Trebizonde, and of Cyzicum, and the Abbot Gennadius; the Names of these being carried to the Emperor, he sounded the Archbishop of Trebizonde, but finding him an enemy to the Union, he made the Lot fall upon Metrophanes Archbishop of Cyzicum, who was engaged by a Writing to maintain the Union. He was enthroned the Eve of Assumption-day, but the greatest part of the Clergy and People of Constantinople continued to declare against the Union, and upon that account divided from the Patriarch, who for his part, used all his endeavours to make them receive the Union, not only in the City of Constantinople, but also through all Greece; He punished the Disobedient; He drove some away from their Bishoprics, and Substituted others in their room who submitted to him. The Emperor also had a mind to maintain his own Work, but his grief for the death of the Empress his Wife rebated his heat at the beginning, and the broils he had afterwards with his Brother Demetrius, who raised a Civil War, hindered him from taking care of this matter.  
In the mean time Mark of Ephesus, the Archbishop of Heraclea, the Philosopher Gemistius, 
The Union rejected by the Patriarches.  the Recorder of the Church of Constantinople, Scuropulus the Grand Ecclesiarch, and many others, who had been present at the Council of Florence and signed the Union, set themselves to declaim against it by word of mouth and by writing, and drew into their Party most of the Greeks. At last the Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia having gone to Jerusalem, complained of the troubles and scandal which he pretended were caused by the Union of Florence, which approved the Doctrine of the Latins concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the Addition to the Creed, and the usage of unleavened Bread in the Celebration of the Holy Mysteries; and of Metrophanes; That he had usurped the See of Constantinople, and had embraced the Doctrine of the Latins; That he joined with the Emperor in persecuting those who retained the ancient Doctrine of the Greeks; That he advanced to Ecclesiastical Dignities those who were of his sentiments, and had already filled the Archbishoprics and Bishoprics depending upon the Church of Constantinople with persons devoted to the Latins, and had also Ordained four Metropolitans in Asia; Philotheus Patriarch of Alexandria, Dorotheus Patriarch of Antioch, and Joacim Patriarch of Jerusalem; whereupon they published a Synodical Letter, wherein they pronounce a Sentence of Deposition against all those whom Metrophanes had Ordained, and of Excommunication if they should continue to discharge the Ecclesiastical Functions contrary to their Prohibition, and gave the Archbishop of Caesarea Power to put it in execution. This Letter was dated in the Month of April, 1443. At the same time they wrote another to the Emperor, wherein they threaten to Excommunicate him, if he continued to protect Metrophanes and adhere to the Latins. The Emperor being provoked by these Menaces, and by the Remonstrances of Metrophanes, took up a Resolution to hold a Synod at Constantinople, that he might make the Union be received there; but the death of Metrophanes▪ happening the first of August, 1443, broke all his measures. After his death Gregory the Protosyncelle and Confessor to the Emperor was chosen Patriarch. John Palaeologus died in the Year 1445. without being able to establish among the Greeks the Union which he laboured so much for. Thus God permits sometimes for reasons unknown to Men, that the Projects which are most just and legal should fail of that success, which one would think might be expected. It is reported, That his Successor Constantine held a Council in the Church of Sancta Sophia at Constantinople, wherein Gregory was deposed from the Patriarchat, and Athanasius put in his room; That the Greeks who signed the Decree of Union at Florence retracted there; That this Council condemned all that had been done by this Decree, rejected the Doctrine of the Latins, concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son, the Addition made to the Creed, and the other Points about which the Latins differed from the Greeks; That he accused also the Latins of many abuses, which he pretended they were guilty of in the Ecclesiastical Discipline. The Acts of this Council were sent from Greece to Allatius, of which he published an Abridgement in an Appendix to his Book about the Consent of the Greek and Latin Churches; but he proves by good reasons that these Acts could not be true, and that they contain divers Things contrary to the History of that Time. Howsoever this were, 'tis certain that the Greeks continue still firm in their Adherence to the ancient Doctrine, and in their Schism from the Latins.  
To return now into the West, The Council of Basil had all this while continued with the 
The Comn●llo● Basil.  consent of the Emperor, the King of France, and other Princes, who had not approved its Translation to Ferrar●, nor sent Ambassadors to Florence (except the Duke of Burgundy) although they had not received the Decrees of the Council against Pope Eugenius, but continued still to acknowledge him for Pope, and so observed a kind of Neutrality. From the Twenty third of January, 1438. Charles the seventh King of France caused to be published an Edict, wherein he forbids the Prelates. of his Kingdom to go to Ferrara; but at the same time he declares that he would not departed from his Obedience to the Holy See. In Germany the Electors of the Empire Assembled at Frankfort after the death of Sigismond to choose an Emperor, and there made a Decree the Eighteenth of March▪ wherein they declare, That they do equally acknowledge Eugenius and the Council, 
Regulations made in France and Germany, concerning the Council.  and that ●●ey do not receive the Decrees made by the Council against Eugenius, or by Eugenius against the Council, and took six months' time to consult what they should do, during which time they Ordained, That the Church should be Governed according to the usual Laws. At the same time they sent Deputies to the Council of Basil, to persuade the Fathers to stop the Prosecution of their Process against Eugenius; which was also demanded by the Ambassador of the Duke of Milan, and maintained by the Italian and Spanish Prelates. But Lovis Cardinal of Arles, Precedent of the Council, and the greatest part of the Fathers, would have the Process go on without any stop. Hereupon a general Congregation was held the Twenty eighth of May; at which, in spite of the opposition they met with from the Ambassadors of the Kings of Castille, Arragon, and of the Duke of Milan, they received the Accusations that were framed against Eugenius, and it was ordered that proof of them should be made by witnesses. Albert of Austria, who had been chosen Emperor in the Assembly of Frankfurt the Twentieth of March, appointed for his Ambassadors to the Council, the Bishop of Lubeck, and George Wischel; the same that had been in Sigismund's time; approved the Council, and renewed the Securities his Predecessor had given to the Prelates there Assembled: And they in requital for this, granted him the Sums that had been gathered in Austria for the Voyage of the Greeks: But being pressed by the Legates of the Council to cause the Decrees made against Eugenius to be observed in Germany, he referred this Affair to the Assembly of the Princes of Germany, which was to be held the Twentieth of July. In the mean time the Electors having a mind to cure the Division that was between the Council and the Pope, sent Ambassadors to Eugenius, to persuade him, that he would appoint a third Place in Germany for the holding of a General Council. Eugenius made them answer, that he waited for the Ambassadors of the new Emperor, and that in the mean time, he thought it convenient, That an Assembly should be held in Germany to which he would send his Legates, wherein an Accommodation might be treated of, and declared to them, That if any other place should be thought more expedient for the good of the Church, wherein to hold the Council, he would consent to it. The Princes of Germany having obtained this promise from Eugenius, sent their Ambassadors to Basil, to pray the Fathers of the Council to delay the Process against Eugenius until the time of that Assembly. Fifty Persons were made▪ choice of to examine the Proposal, and to consider what was fit to be done; Some were of opinion, That, they should wholly supersede all kind of Prosecution against Eugenius for the space of three Months; the Cardinal of Arles on the contrary thought, That though they might stop the Sentence of Deposition for three Months, yet in the mean time they must receive the Depositions of Witnesses against Eugenius, That he might no longer glory of his Innocence, and that he did not believe the Council had accused him falsely; That this would Facilitate even the Accommodation, because Eugenius would ●e more pliable, when he knew that his Crimes were proved.  
In the Month of July the Cardinal of Tarragona, and the Ambassadors of the King of France, arrived at the Council of Basil. The latter brought thither the Pragmatic Sanction drawn up a little while before, and received the seventh of the same Month in the Assembly held at Bourges, and composed of Twenty three Articles drawn from the Decrees of the Council of Basil, and chief from those concerning the Authority of a General Council, about Collations, Elections, Promises of Benefices when they shall be vacant. Appeals, Annates and other Exactions, about the Celebration of Divine Service, Interdicts, etc. whereof some are nevertheless modified or explained. They were commanded to desire the Confirmation of it, from the Fathers of the Council, and at the same time to pray them to stop their Proceed against Eugenius, upon assurance which the King gave them that he would labour for Peace. The Council thought no●●it to delay, and therefore in the next Month of August declared in a General Congregation, That all those who were in the Retinue of Eugenius, or at Ferrara, under pretence of a Council, and all those who opposed the Council of Basil in any manner whatsoever, had incurred the Penalties Enacted by the Council.  
The Assembly of the Germane Princes being held at Nuremberg about the end of July, the Council sent thither its Deputies; those from the Emperor and the Princes proposed to them, 
The Resolutions of the Assemblies held in Germany about the Neutrality.  That they should appoint Mediators of the difference between the Council and the Pope, which they refused. Some time after, the Proceed against Eugenius were renewed; and notwithstanding the Opposition of the Ambassadors, and the Prelates of Spain, Navarre and Milan, it was resolved in a General Congregation held the 16th of October, That Eugenius should be cited to answer what had been produced against him.  
Another Assembly was held towards the end of the year at Nuremberg, to which the Pope sent the Cardinal of Sancta ●●uze, the Archbishop of Tarente, John de Turrecremata, and Nicholas Cusanus to act there on his behalf; the Council of Basil sent thither also, the Patriarch of Aquileia, and other Deputies. There it was proposed, That a third place might be made choice of, where the Prelates of Basil and Ferrara might Assemble. The Deputies of the Council having maintained, That this Proposal was not reasonable, made answer; That they had no Commands about this from the Council. They desired on behalf of the Council, That the Princes of Germany would receive its Decrees, and provide for its Security. To which it was answered, That the Emperor and Princes would make known their thoughts to the Council by their Ambassadors; while those from France advised the Fathers of the Council to hold to the three places they had made choice of, Basil, Avignon and the Savoy, if they could make the Pope and the Greeks agree to them; if not, to name many Cities, among which there should be some which the Pope could not reasonably refuse. The Ambassadors of the Emperor and the Princes of Germany being arrived at Basil, declared to the Fathers of the Council, That the Germans did acknowledge the Council for General; That the Emperor meant that all those who were Assembled should have security in that place; but that the Neutrality had been accepted by all the Prelates, Princes and People; That they honoured the Council and Eugenius both together; That they were of Opinion it was necessary for promoting Peace that the Fathers of Basil and Ferrara should meet in a third Place. The Ambassadors of the other Princes joined with those of Germany, and desired the same thing: At last after much Dispute, a Project was set on foot, whereby the Fathers of the Council were to name the Cities of Strasburgh, Constance, or Mayence; That the Emperor should communicate this choice to the Pope and the Greeks within a Month, and that a Month after he should be bound to accept one of these Cities; That the Pope▪ should confirm the Decrees of the Council, and the Council should take off the Suspension enacted against the Pope. This Project was neither acceptable to the Council of Basil, nor to Pope Eugenius; and so these matters remained in the same state in which they were.  
In the year 1439, the Council sent Deputies to the Assembly which was held at Mayence in the Month of March. The Ambassadors of the Princes who were at Basil came thither also, and some persons came thither secretly on behalf of the Pope, among whom was Nicholas Cusanus. The Deputies of the Council urged earnestly. That he should be obliged to receive its Decrees; and the Ambassadors of the Princes; That they would surcease the Decison of the Process against Eugenius. After much contest the Assembly received the Decrees of the Council, except those that were made against the Pope; and the Deputies of the Council promised that it would consent to the desire of the Emperor, the Kings and Princes, on condition that they would engage to continue the Council after its Translation upon the same foot, according to the same Laws, the same Order and Customs which were observed at Basil, and that in case Eugenius did not acknowledge the Truths established by the Council within the time that should be prefixed, nor execute what the Council had Ordained, they would abandon him and assist the Council, and adhere to its Decision. The Bishop of Quensa said, That the Pope could not accept these Conditions, and that the Princes would never consent to them: And thus the Deputies of the Council retired without making any agreement. After their departure two Deputies of the Pope's Legates arrived at Mayence, and would have them revoke the Resolution of the Assembly about the Decrees of the Council of Basil; which not being able to Compass, they opposed them, and made great Complaints, That the Princes maintained the Fathers of Basil to the prejudice of the Pope's Authority  
During this Negotiation at Mayence, the Divines which were at Basil disputed this Question, 
The Disputes of the Divines at Basil abou● the Authority of a Council.  viz. Whether Eugenius could be declared a Heretic, upon the account of his Disobedience, and the Contempt he had shown to the Orders of the Church? Some held the Affirmative, and others the Negative, and among them who maintained the Affirmative, some held him simply Heretical, and others an Apostate; at last after much Dispute, they drew up eight Theological Propositions or Conclusions expressed in these words. First, It is a Truth of the Catholic Faith, That the Holy General Council has Power over the Pope, and every other Person. Secondly, The General Council being lawfully Assembled, cannot be Dissolved, Translated, or Adjourned, by the Authority of the Pope without its own consent: This is a Truth of the same nature with the former. Thirdly, He that does obstinately resist these Truths ought to be accounted Heretical. These three Propositions are about Law; the other five concern the Facts and Person of Eugenius, and are as follows. Fourthly, The Pope Eugenius the 4th has opposed these Truths, when he attempted to Dissolve, or Translate, the first time, the Council of Basil, by the plenitude of his Power. Fifthly, Being admonished by the Holy Council, he hath revoked the Errors contrary to these Truths. Sixthly, The Dissolution, or Translation of the Council, attempted the second time by Eugenius, is contrary to these Truths, and contains an inexcusable Error in the Faith. Seventhly, Eugenius renewing his attempt to Dissolve, or Translate the Council, has relapsed into the Errors which he had revoked. Eighthly, Being admonished by the Council to revoke the second Dissolution, or Translation which he attempted, and persisting in his Disobedience after he had been Contumacious, and holding a Conventicle at Ferrara, he has discovered his Obstinacy.  
These eight Conclusions, being read in the Assembly, raised great Disputes among the Fathers of the Council, some meaning to approve, and others to reject them. The Archbishop of Palerma, who had formerly been one of the great Adversaries to Eugenius, having received Orders from the King of Arragon, was at the Head of those who would have them rejected. He acknowledged this Truth, That the Council is above the Pope, but he maintained, That this Doctrine ought not to pass for an Article of Faith: He confessed, That Eugenius had done wrong, but he did not believe that he ought to be looked upon and treated as a Heretic.  
Dr. John of Segovia maintained on the contrary, That this Truth was a matter of Faith, and that Eugenius by opposing it had fallen into Heresy. Amedaeus Archbishop of Lion's Ambassador from the King of France, accused also Eugenius of Heresy; on the contrary the Bishop of Burgos Ambassador from the King of Spain endeavoured to excuse him. An Abbot of Scotland and Thomas of Curcellis maintained what the Archbishop of Lions had advanced, and defended the Conclusions. The Grand Almoner of the King of Arragon opposed to them divers Difficulties. At last after many Deliberations, the eight Conclusions, were approved by the three first Deputations. The 4th would receive only the three first; and to hinder the matter from passing by plurality of Voices, they delayed to give their Opinion. On the day of the General Congregation, the Contests were renewed; the Italians and Spaniards opposed stoutly the reception of these Articles, and made Protestations. The Cardinal of Arles Precedent of the Council, was of opinion, That the three first Articles should be received which concern the Doctrine, and that the Publication of the last which concern the Person of Eugenius should be put off. The Archbishop of Aquileia, the Archbishop of Lions, and John of Segovia supported his Opinion. At last, notwithstanding the noise made by the Italians, and Spaniards, the Cardinal of Arles concluded for the reception of the three first Articles. After these Transactions the Ambassadors returned from the Assembly of Mayence, and were to oppose this Conclusion: The Cardinal of Arles caused it to be read in the Congregation before they entered upon it. This reading raised new Complaints and Contests; but the Cardinal of Arles being no ways terrified, caused it to be read a second time at the end of the Assembly, and appointed in the next Congregation, the Session to be held on the 16th of May.  
This was the 33d Session of the Council of Basil, wherein the three first Conclusions which 
The Council of Basil.  established the Doctrine of the Authority of the Council above the Pope, as a matter of Faith, were published. The Ambassadors of the Princes demanded, That the Deposition of Eugenius should be put off for four Months, which was granted them; but when they demanded also that nothing should be Decreed but the first Conclusion, this was refused; upon which refusal they withdrew. None of the Prelates of the Kingdom of Spain and Arragon were present at this Session, and there were but two Bishops of Italy; but the Doctors of these Nations were present, with 20 Bishops from the Nations of France and Germany. The Decree was read by the Bishop of Marseilles, and the Bishop of Albenga read a Protestation against it. At last the Ambassadors of the Princes, and particularly those of Germany and France, in the General Congregation May the 22d, approved the Decree made in this Session. All the Bishops almost came over also to the same Opinion, and many more of them came to the Council, chief from the Dominions of the Duke of Savoy. The Ambassadors of the Princes demanded in the Congregation held May the 23d, That they should delay to make any Process against Eugenius, and that the Council should agree in the choice of a third Place. Both the one and the other were refused by the Assembly, which confirmed the five other Conclusions, and cited Eugenius to appear at the Session held the 26th of the same Month, which the Ambassadors could not hinder.  
In pursuance of this Citation which was affixed upon the Gates of the Church, the Council consisting of 39 Prelates, and almost 300 ecclesiastics of the second Order, pronounced in the 34th Session held the 26th of May, the Deposition of Eugenius, by declaring him notoriously Contumacious, and Disobedient to the Commands of the Universal Church, one that persists in his Rebellion, a violator and contemner of the Holy Synodical Canons, a Disturber of the Peace and Unity, one that gives open Scandal to the whole Church, Simoniacal, Perjured, Incorrigible, 
The Deposition of Fugenius.  Schismatical, Heretical, Obstinate, a Destroyer of the Rights and Revenues of the Church, a bad Administrator of the Roman Papacy, and Unworthy of all Title, degree of Honour and Dignity; They forbade him for the future to take upon him the Title of the Bishop of Rome, or to execute the Functions belonging to it, and prohibited all Christians, of whatsoever Quality or Condition they were, to obey him, declaring all that he might have done or ordained contrary to this Decision to be Null and Void. The Fathers of the Council resolved after this to send Deputies to all the Princes of Christendom, to acquaint them with the Deposition of Eugenius, and persuade them to execute this Decree. Sometime after they received Letters from the King of France, who complained that the Council had not delayed, upon his Request, the Proceed against Eugenius, whereby they seemed to refuse that Peace which the Princes so ardently desired. They answered him, That his Majesty should know by the Deputies of the Council the Reasons they had, and that they doubted not but he would approve them, and so much the rather, because they could not give Peace to the Church to any good purpose, but by restoring it to Liberty, and that they would pray him to send the Prelates of his Kingdom to the Council, to consult about the Ecclesiastical Affairs.  
The Fathers of the Council deliberated for some time after this, whether they should proceed immediately to the Election of a new Pope, upon the account of the Pestilence which was then 
The Council of Basil.  very violent ●n the City of Basil, or whether they should wait 60 days longer, as the Council itself had ordered. It was thought to be more convenient to wait the ordinary time. In the mean time a Session was held on the 13th of July, wherein it was resolved, That they should remain in the Council until the matters for which they were assembled should be finished, and that the Council could not be Dissolved upon any pretence whatsoever, but by the advice of two Thirds of those who had a Vote in it; That in the mean time they should consider of the Election of a Pope, which should be made 60 days after the Deposition of Eugenius; That until that time all those who had adhered to the Party of Eugenius and the Council of Ferrara might have liberty to come over and join with those at Basil.  
The Pestilence continuing carried off many Members of the Council, and among the rest the Patriarch of Aquileia, the Bishop of Lubeck. the Apostolical Protonotary, the grand Almoner of Arragon, and many others of the first and second Order, insomuch that the Cardinal of Arles proposed on the 22d of August to Adjourn the Assemblies until the end of September, and to put off the Election of a new Pope until the 1st of November: When they had consulted about this Matter, they were of Opinion to continue the Sessions without interruption. This resolution being taken, the Council chose Deputies to be sent to an Assembly, which was to be held at Frankfurt on the 1st day of August, and others for the Provincial Council which was to be held at Mayence on the 15th of the same Month, and others for the Assembly appointed at Bourges by the King of France, and others to be sent to the Emperor and the King of Spain. On the last day of August the Council revoked all the Grants of vacant Benefices, and the Nominations to Benefices made by Eugenius. On the same day a Physician coming in the Habit of a Hermit to Basil, brought thither some Propositions extracted from a Book, Of the simple Soul, accusing Eugenius of maintaining them, and of hindering any person to oppose them.  
The Deputies of the Council of Basil who went into Germany, caused the Decree of the Deposition of Eugenius to be fixed upon the Gates of the Churches of Strasburgh, Spire and Worms; but having done the same at Mayence, the Decrees fixed up were torn in pieces, and they were forbidden to set up any more. They could not after this cause the Decree of the Council against Eugenius to be received in the Assemblies of Frankfurt and Mayence; and though they spoke against the Neutrality, yet they had no other Answer, but that for the present nothing could be changed; and those who made up this Assembly, fearing lest they should make use of the Censures Enacted by the Council against them, declared, That they Appealed to a more General Council, to Pope Eugenius, to the Holy See, or to those to whom of Right it belonged.  
On the 17th of September the 36th Session was held, wherein it was declared, That the Opinion of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was a pious Opinion, agreeable to the Worship of the Church, to the Catholic Faith, to Right Reason, and to the Holy Scripture; That all Catholics ought to approve it; That no Person shall be permitted to Teach or Preach the contrary, and that the Feast of the Conception shall be Celebrated on the 8th of December.  
While these things were adoing at Basil, the Pope who remained all this while with his Cardinals 
The Decr●● of the Council of Florence against that of Basil.  and some Prelates at Florence, renewed the Decree which he had published at Ferrara against the Assembly at Basil; declared all those who had been present there after his Prohibition, to be Deprived of all Dignities, Honours and Benefices; treated them as Schismatics and Rebels, and Nulled all that they had Ordained and defined in the two last Sessions. The Fathers of Basil made an Apology against this Decree which they call an Invective, wherein they show, That the Propositions which they have defined are true, and that they had Reason to depose Eugenius. It was also proposed, That they should condemn his Decree as Heretical; but this was put off to another time.  
In the Month of October, some Prelates came to Basil, and the Emperor caused it to be demanded 
The Council of Basil.  of the Council, That the Election of a new Pope should be stopped; but notwithstanding his desire, the Cardinal of Arles caused three Persons to be appointed on the 14th of October, to make choice of those who should give their Votes in the Election of a Pope; these three Persons were an Abbot of Scotland, John of Segovia, and Thomas of Curcellis; and because the Germans had made a scruple of approving this choice, these three Persons joined to themselves a Germane Doctor according to the permission that was given them. They took an Oath that they should choose no persons but such as were capable of making this Election, and engaged themselves not to declare to any person whatsoever, those that had been chosen, until they were obliged to make publication of them in the Conclave, and they made choice of 28 Persons who were to proceed to the Election together with themselves, on condition, That there must be two Thirds of the Voices to to make a Pope.  
In the 37th Session held the 24th of October, divers Orders were made about the future Election of a Pope.  
In the 38th held the 30th of the same Month, a Decree was made against the Invective of Eugenius, forbidding to publish or approve it, and in it the choice of the Electors of a future Pope appointed by the four Deputies was confirmed. The Cardinal of Arles was one by Law, and was not comprehended in this number; which consisted of 11 Bishops, 7 Abbots, and 14 Beneficed men or Doctors, drawn forth equally from the Nations, besides the Officers of the Conclave, the Nomination of which was also approved in this Session.  
These Electors entered the same day into the Conclave, on which it was built for them in the 
The Election of Felix. V  City of Basil, after they had taken the usual Oaths, and chose for Pope 6 days after Amedaeus Duke of Savoy, who had retired into the solitude of Ripaille in the Diocese of Geneva, where he lived as an Hermit, and had the Title of Dean of the Militia of St. Maurice. The Fathers of the Council confirmed their Election in the Thirty Ninth Session, held the 17th of November, and ordained, That he should be acknowledged for Pope. They sent to him a Deputation of Twenty five Persons, and the Cardinal of Arles at the head of them, to acquaint him with his Election, and to pray him to consent to it. They arrived at Ripaille the 20th of December, and having laid open before him their Commission, he made some scruple of taking the Oath that was required of him, of leaving off his Habit, and changing his Name; yet he did not long demur upon it, but took upon him the Name of Foelix V received the Pontifical Robes, and wrote about his Election to the Council of Basil, and the Christian Princes.  
In the mean time, the Emperor Albertus of Austria dying on the 27th of October, the Electors 
The Council of Basil.  of the Empire promised their Protection to the Council, but they would not approve of their Decrees against Eugenius, and continued still in the Neutrality. These assembling afterwards at Frankfurt, chose for Emperor on the 2d of February, Frederick Duke of Austria. The Deputies of the Council of Basil, who were present at that Assembly, desired that they would acknowledge Foelix for Pope; but the new Emperor and the Princes would alter nothing of their Resolution, and said only that they would so manage Things as to procure the Peace of the Church. Foelix, that he might come to Basil with the greater State, created four Cardinals, who were approved by the Council, and the consent which they had given to his Election was read and confirmed in the Fortieth Session, held on the 26th of February, in the Year 1440. whereby all those were Excommunicated which would not acknowledge him for Lawful Pope; the Decrees made against Eugenius were renewed, and all the Acts by him were declared Null. It was proposed in the Council, That some Provision should be granted the Pope and the Court of Rome in lieu of Annates, but the French opposed this Proposal. The Letters wherein Foelix continued the Legatship and the Presidency of the Council to the Cardinal of Arles were read, and because they did not please the Assembly others were drawn up. At last, Foelix came in Person to the Council, and arrived at Basil the 24th of June.  
Eugenius, to advance his own Party, and set up such Creatures as might oppose Foelix and 
The Constitutions of Eugenius for the Armenians, Jacobites, etc.  the Council, created Seventeen Cardinals; among whom there were many worthy of Commendation for their Learning. At the same time, there arrived at Florence Deputies on behalf of Constantine, Patriarch of the Armenians, whom the Pope had solicited by the Consul of Caffa to send, to make a Reunion of the Churches of Armenia. These Deputies presented their Credential Letters to the Pope, on the Month of November; and after some private Conferences with three Cardinals, and some Doctors, they received the Instruction; Entitled, the Decree for the Armenians, which was published in the Assembly of Prelates, held on the 22d of November: It contained the Creed of Constantinople with the Addition, the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon, and of the sixth Council; an acknowledgement of the Ecumenical Councils celebrated since that of Ephesus; an Explication of the seven Sacraments, which treated of their Matter, their Form, their Minister, their Necessity, and their Effects; the Creed attributed to St. Athanasius, the Decree of the Union made with the Greeks, and an Order to celebrate the Feast of the Annunciation of the Virgin, on the 25th of March; the Nativity of St. John, on the 24th of June; the Feast of Christmas, on the 25th of December; the Circumcision on the 1st of January, the Epiphany on the 6th of the same Month, and the Purification on the 2d of February; and in fine, an Approbation of all that was held and taught by the Holy Apostolic See, the Roman Church, the Doctors and Fathers whom it Honoured, and a Condemnation of the Doctrines and Persons which it rejected. There came also the next Year a Deputy on behalf of the Patriarch of the Jacobites, to Alexandria, whom Eugenius caused to be invited to the Council; at which he gave a long Exposition of Faith, wherein is inserted a Catalogue of the Canonical Books, which includes such as the Jews do not acknowledge; an Explication of the Doctrine of Ecumenical Councils, and the Decrees for the Greeks and Armenians. This Instrument was not finished and published till the 4th of February, 1441. There appeared also at Florence in this Year, a Man who called himself Abbot of the Ethiopians of Jerusalem, entrusted with Letters from the King of Ethiopia, called Prester-John, who gave hopes, That he would come in Person into Italy; but it does not appear what Issue this Negotiation had. When Eugenius returned to Rome, he made also Constitutions in the Year 1444. for the Syrians, the Caldaeans of Cyprus, for the Nestorians and the Maronites, who followed the Doctrine of the Monothelites, which he gave to some Persons who called themselves Deputies on their behalf; insomuch that he would have reunited all the Sects of the East to the Church of Rome, if these Decrees had been received in these places; but by Misfortune they had not that Effect, and all these Sects remain still no less addicted to their own Errors, nor less contrary to the Roman Church than they were before.  
To return now to what concerns the Affairs of the West: Assoon as Pope Eugenius understood the Election of Amedaeus, he did not fail on his part to proceed against him; to declare 
The Censures of Eugenius against Foelix.  him Heretical and Schismatical, and to Excommunicate his Electors, Favourers or Partisans, if they did not forsake his Faction, within fifty Days, by a Decree dated the 23d of April; but the Fathers of the Council of Basil gave him a Rowland for his Oliver, by nulling this Decree, and forbidding to bring it there, by another Decree published in the 41st Session, held the 23d of July. The next Day, Foelix was Consecrated and Crowned Pope, and to the end, 
The Council of Basil,  he might have where-withal to maintain his Dignity, while he could not yet touch any of St. Peter's Patrimony; it was resolved in the 42d Session, held the 6th of August, that for five Years, the Tenth Penny of the Revenues of Benefices should be granted him.  
It was not enough to create a Pope, but he must be acknowledged by the Princes, for without 
The Assembly of Bourges.  that he was but a vain Phantom without Authority; and therefore the Fathers of the Council bestirred themselves very vigorously to this purpose; and Eugenius on his part forgot nothing which might divert this Storm: Both the one and the other sent Deputies to the Assembly which Charles the 7th, King of France, had appointed at Bourges. The Legates of Eugenius, who were the Archbishop of Crete, the Bishop of Digna, of Grenada, and the Abbot of Cernai desired four things of the King: First, That he would reject the Council of Basil, since its Translation to Ferrara, and that he would approve the Council of Ferrara, and what was done in it. Secondly, That he would not approve the Deposition of Eugenius, nor the Election the Council had made of the Duke of Savoy, but on the contrary reject it. Thirdly, That he would send no Ambassador to the Assembly which was to be held at Mayence, without the consent of Eugenius. Fourthly, That he would suspend and abrogate the Pragmatic and then Eugenius would provide for the Benefices of the Kingdom as he should desire. The next Day, the Envoys of Foelix, and the Council of Basil, who were Gerard, Bishop of St. Pons, the Abbot. of Vezelai, Hugo Archdeacon of Mets, and Thomas of Curcellis, Doctor and Canon of Paris, were heard. The last made a long Discourse to prove, First, That the Doctrine of the Council of Basil, about the Authority of General Councils is true and certain; Secondly, That it was just to condemn Eugenius, who opposed this Doctrine, and that the Sentence given against him is well-grounded and legal: Thirdly, That they had duly proceeded to the Election of another Pope, that it was made after a Canonical manner, and that there was just and sufficient Cause for choosing him to this Dignity. He concludes his-Discourse with showing, of what Consequence it would be to maintain what had been done by the General Council, and how beneficial to the Church, the Union and good Understanding of Foelix and the Council would be; and that the only Means to put an end to the Schism, and procure the Peace of the Church, was to acknowledge the New Pope.  
The Assembly having consulted for six Days about this Affair, made Answer: First, The Most Christian King Protested, That he following the Footsteps of his Ancestors, was always ready to hear the Church being lawfully Assembled: Secondly, He had always held the Council of Basil to be lawful; That he had sent his Ambassadors to it; That this Council had made many good Constitutions which he approved; and that he never had owned, nor did own the Assembly of Ferrara for a Council: That as to the Deposition of Eugenius, and the Election of Foelix, because many Persons of Probity and Authority, doubted whether his Suspension and Deposition, and the Election which followed upon it, had been done justly, canonically and lawfully; and whether at such time as this was done, the Congregation did sufficiently represent the Universal Church, to do so considerable Acts as these, which concern the whole Church; therefore the King not being sufficiently informed about these things, did still persevere and remain in the Obedience of Eugenius; but if he should be informed of the Truth of this Cause by the Ecumenical Council, or by another General Council, or even by a more numerous Assembly of the Gallican Church with its Dukes, Barons and other Lords, or in an Assembly of all the Christian Princes, that then having known and examined the Truth, he would adhere to it; and therefore he prayed, That Pope Eugenius would call together and celebrate a Council, and that he would be there himself in Person: Thirdly, That he would consider what was to be done at a convenient time and place about the Embassy of Mayence: Fourthly, That as to the Pragmatic Sanction he would have it to be inviolably observed, That if any thing in it appeared too rigid to the Council of Basil, it might be moderated. He advised also the Ambassadors of the Council of Basil, That they would endeavour the Celebration of another future Council. This Answer was given in the Assembly of Bourges, in the presence of the King, assisted by Charles, Duke of Anjou, and the other Princes of the Blood, on the 2d of September, 1440. and accompanied with a Discourse which the Bishop of Clermont made, wherein the King testifies his Displeasure against the Heats and Animosities which were between the Pope and the Council; That he should have been glad, if it were in his Power, to favour the Duke of Savoy, who was his Kinsman; but that he could do nothing against Justice; that 
How Christendom stood affected towards Eugenius and Foelix.  he exhorted the Fathers of the Council to seek after Peace, and not to trouble his Subjects with Censures; Lastly, That he hoped the Duke of Savoy would accommodate this Affair by his ordinary Prudence.  
The Deputies of Basil were not well satisfied with this Answer, which lowered the Expectations of Foelix's Party; but they were raised again by the Letter they received in October, from the King of Arragon, wherein he gave the Title of General Council to the Council of Basil; by the Letter from the Queen of Hungary, Sigismund's Widow, to Pope Foelix; and yet 
The Resolutions of divers Assemblies of States about the Difference between Foelix and Eugenius.  more by the acknowledgement of Albert, Duke of Bavaria, and Albert, Duke of Austria, Kinsmen to Frederick. Foelix, to make himself more Creatures depending upon him, created Eight Cardinals in the Month of October, and Six others that were Frenchmen in November, among whom was John of Segovia, and Nicolas Archbishop of Palerma.  
The University of Paris, the Universities of Germany, and that of Cracovia, wrote in Defence of the Authority of the Council above the Pope, and acknowledged Foelix. He was also owned by the Carthusians, and by a Party of the Order of Friars Minors.  
Many Prelates and Princes of Germany favoured also his Party; but in the Assembly which was held at Mayence, in April 1441. the Deputies on both sides being heard, no other Resolution was taken, but that a General Council should meet the next Year in the Month of August, in another place than Basil and Florence, and in a City of Germany or France, and that the Emperor should invite the Competitors to be there present. But this Proposal had no Effect, for the Emperor referred the Affair to the Assembly of Frankfurt, which was held in the Month of May, the next Year, where the Emperor was present in Person; and having heard the Deputies of the Council, and Eugenius, confirmed the Resolution that was taken to call a Council, and in the mean time to remain in the Neutrality. In pursuance of this, he sent Ambassadors to Eugenius, and the Council, to persuade them to yield to the Celebration of a Council, and he himself came to Basil. The Fathers of the Council agreed upon the Translation of the Council, and to name many Cities, whereof the Emperor should choose one. But Eugenius, after he had consulted a long time, made answer, in the Year 1445; That it was no ways necessary to call a New Council, since there was one already called; That in the mean time, to satisfy the Emperor, assoon as he should come to Rome, he would call together in the Palace of the Lateran, whither he had translated the Council, a great number of Prelates, with whom he would consult whether it were expedient to call another. The Emperor Frederick, seeing that neither the Fathers of Basil, nor Eugenius would consent to what he desired, wrote a Letter to all Christian Princes in June, 1443. wherein he desires their Consent for a General Council which he would appoint, and prays them to send their Ambassadors to the Diet, which was to be held at Nuremburg, at the St. Martin, that they might there consult together of the Means for putting an end to the Schism. This Assembly was not numerous; Foelix sent thither his Legates; but there was no treating about this Affair, which was put off to another time. In the mean time, Alphonsus, King of Arragon, the Venetians, the Florentines, the Siennese, and the other People of Italy solicited the Emperor to consent, That a General Council should be held in the Church of St. John of Lateran; and some time after, the Emperor also sent Aeneas Silvius to Pope Eugenius, to promise him to take off the Neutrality. England had no great share in the Transactions at the Council of Basil, there being no Prelates in the Council from that Nation. The Council had sent Deputies into this Kingdom before the Election of Foelix, to whom the English gave almost the same Answer with the French, That they honoured the Council, and approved its Decrees, except those which had been made against Eugenius, whom they acknowledged for lawful Pope. The Fathers of the Council sent thither also other Deputies after the Election of Foelix; to whom some hopes were given, but they had no positive Answer. Scotland, except some Lords, declared for Eugenius, and the Prelates of this Kingdom being Assembled in a Provincial Council, Excommunicated Foelix, and the Fathers of the Council of Basil. Poland promised to acknowledge Foelix, if he would give to their King the Title of King of Hungary, and remit to the Lords the Money which had been gathered by Indulgences granted for the Union of the Greeks. No Body thought that he had Power to grant these Desires; yet this proved favourable to Foelix, and the King of Poland forbade any to obey Eugenius. Italy continued firm to Eugenius, except Piedmont and Savoy. The Duke of Milan begun a Treaty with Foelix, and seemed to have agreed with him upon Conditions; but it was not concluded. Ferdinand, Duke of Calabria, sent an Ambassador to the Council, who was ordered to promise Obedience to Foelix. Francis Sforza caused great Promises to be made, which came to no Effect. Alphonsus, King of Arragon, perceiving that Eugenius would favour Charles of Anjou, in the Pretensions he made to the Kingdom of Naples, declared for Foelix in the Year 1441. and promised by a Letter written in October to the Council, That he would cause him to be owned in his six Kingdoms, and gave hopes also of doing something more if a Legate were sent unto him. But he made these Offers for no other reason, but only to engage Eugenius in his Interest; for after he had treated with the two Competitors, he declared himself for the latter, who gave him more advantageous Conditions, and was better able to perform them; and when the Treaty was Signed, he caused to be published a Declaration, June the 20th, 1443. importing, That after he had been a long time doubtful about the Affairs of the Church, God at last had discovered to him that Eugenius was the true Pope, and that he revoked the Declarations he had made in favour of Foelix, and the Council of Basil: At the same time he gave Order to the Archbishop of Palerma, the Bishops of Tortose and Vic, who had been promoted to the Dignity of Cardinals by Foelix, and to the other Bishops of his Dominions, to retire from Basil, and go into Italy, or to their own Dioceses.  
While the Deputies of the Council being sent to all Christian Princes, used their utmost Endeavours 
The Council of Basil.  to make them acknowledge him for Pope, whom the Council had chosen, which was the grand and principal Affair; the Prelates that remained at Basil, continued their Meetings, and held their Sessions from time to time, tho' they were less frequented than before. Foelix presided in the private Congregations held in 1441. in the absence of the Cardinal of Arles, who was sent into Germany, and there made the following Orders: First, That the Precedent of the Assembly should always be the most ancient Prelate: Secondly, That no regard be had to the Collations of Ordinaries, unless it be evident, That there was Time enough from the Death of the last Incumbent unto the Date of the Collation, wherein the Collator might be informed of his Death, and that the Acts of Collation were not passed before by a Notary: Thirdly, That the Doctors or Nobles who have a Benefice of 300 Livres or more in Revenue, cannot obtain a Dispensation to possess two incompatible Benefices; and that those who are not of this Quality, and have a Benefice of 200 Livres, cannot have two Cures, two Dignities, or two Canonries. Fourthly, That the Doctors or Nobles can have but two Prebendaries in the Metropolitan Churches, three in the Cathedral, or four in the Collegiate; and that those who are not of that Quality, can have but one in the Metropolitan Churches, two in the Cathedral, and three in the Collegiate; that the former can have but eight simple Benefices, and the latter but three. Fifthly, That the Cardinals who have 6000 Livres of Rent can have no Benefices in Commendam, nor the Patriarches who have 4000 Livres, nor the Archbishops who have 3000, nor the Bishops and Protonotaries who have 2000, and the Abbots who have 1000 Sixthly, That Ordinations shall not be made too lightly in the Council, but Persons shall be chosen to examine those who present themselves to be Ordained. Foelix having desired that the Reservations of the Benefices of Savoy might be granted him, was denied.  
There was a long Consultation about the Celebration of the Feast of the Visitation of the Virgin, which was Instituted by Boniface IX. in the time of the Schism: At last, a Decree was drawn up, and published in the Name of the Council, and not in the Name of the Pope, as some would have it, in the Forty Third Session, held the 1st of July 1441.  
In the Year 1442. the Pope Eugenius translated the Council from Florence to Rome, in the 
The Translations of the Councils of Basil and Florence.  Church of St. John of Lateran, by his Bull dated May the 3d. The Council of Basil on its part published a long Decree in the Forty Fourth Session, held the 10th of August, for securing the Instruments and Persons of the Council, and voiding and nulling all that might be done against them, or to their prejudice. Towards the end of the Year Foelix retired to Lausane, with a part of his Cardinals; In the mean time, the Council continued to make Congregations at Basil, and in them to regulate several private Affairs: It condemned many Propositions advanced by the Friar's Mendicants against the Rights of Curates, and particularly this, That those who die in the Habit of St. Francis, remain in Purgatory but one Year, because St. Francis descends thither once every Year, and brings forth all those of his Order. The Council invited Foelix to return to Basil, but whatever importunity they used, he would not return; and he created four New Cardinals. At last, the Wars of Germany, the departure of the Bishop's subject to King Alphonsus, the Importunity of the Emperor for holding of another Council, the Absence of Foelix, and the small assistance the Prelates could expect while they stayed at Basil, obliged them to break up after they had appointed the future General Council to be held three Years after in the City of Lions; and they continued this of Basil, if it could be done, in that City, or the City of Lausane, by the Decree published in the Forty Fifth Session, the 16th of May 1143.  
Thus ended the Councils of Basil and Florence, rather wearied with the Struggle than overcome, for neither the one nor the other would yield; and they found a way to put an end to their Disputes without making Peace or any Accommodation, by translating themselves in appearance to another place, where scarce any thing more was done: Nevertheless the Schism continued still until upon the Death of Eugenius iv (which happened February the 23d, in 1447.) Nicholas V was chosen in his room March the 6th, who was a meek Man, and of a peaceable Temper; and readily complied with the Proposals of Accommodation which were made to him by the Christian Princes, and chief by the French King, who did with great Vigour promote the Peace of the Church, by making application both to this Pope and Foelix, and the Prelates Assembled at Lausane: For altho' Savoy had been given to Nicholas V. who had granted Indulgences to those who would assist him to conquer it, and upon this account Politic Reasons should have prevailed with him to push Things to extremity against Foelix; yet he preferred Justice and the Peace of the Church before his own Interest, concluded an Accommodation upon Conditions very advantageous to both Parties, which were, That Foelix should renounce the Papal Dignity, but he should be the first of the Cardinals, and Perpetual Legate to the Holy See in Germany; That they should revoke on both sides all the Excommunications, Censures and other Penalties, enacted by the Councils, or by the Contending Popes, against those of the opposite Party; That all those on both sides should be maintained, who were in Possession of Dignities, Benefices and Ecclesiastical Offices, and that to this purpose all the Collations, Provisions, Postulations, Elections, etc. made in each Obedience should be confirmed; That likewise the Dispensations, Indulgences, and other Graces granted by the Councils, or the Popes of the two Obediences, as also the Decrees, Dispositions, and Regulations they had made should be confirmed; That the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and other Beneficiaries, should remain peaceable Possessors of the Benefices they were in Possession of, and all Sentences, Judgements and Processes to the contrary should be made Null and Revoked; That the Cardinals of both Obediences shall remain in their Dignities, and Provision should be made for those who had one and the same Title, as was done at the time of the Council of Constance; That the Officers of both Courts shall remain in their Offices, and where there shall be found two promoted to the same Office, he shall be recompensed who shall be obliged to Resign; Lastly, That Nicholas V shall engage to Call a General Council in France seven Months after the Accommodation. 
The end of the Schism under the Pontificat of Nicolas V.   
All these Conditions, except the last, were granted and executed; and Foelix after he had confirmed the Collations, and other Acts he had done during his Pontificat, and revoked by his Bulls dated April the 5th, 1449, the Censures passed against Eugenius, Nicholas and their Adherents, Renounced on the 9th of the same Month the Papal Dignity, and all the Right which he could pretend to it: The Fathers of the Council of Lausane approved of his Demission, revoked also the Excommunications and other Censures enacted by the Council of Basil against Eugenius, elected and acknowledged Nicholas V for Pope: And after this, Nicholas V on his part revoked by his Bulls published the 18th of June, all the Censures, Excommunications, and other Penalties enacted against the Fathers of the Council of Basil and Lausane, against Foelix and their Adherents, confirmed all the Collations and Dispositions made by these Councils, and by Foelix; maintained in their Dignities, Prelacies and Benefices all those that Possessed them in that Obedience, and appointed Foelix to be the first Cardinal, and perpetual Legate to the Holy See in Germany. Thus a full end was put to the Schism, and Nicholas V was acknowledged by all for Lawful Pope. He spent the rest of his Pontificat in allaying the Commotions in Italy, and died the 25th of March, in the Year 1455.  
From this time to the end of this Century, nothing considerable was transacted about Ecclesiastical Matters in the Church of Rome; and the Popes were more taken up with the Wars of Italy, the Projects of Designs against the Turk the Cares of aggrandizing their Temporal Power, and Settling their Families than with Ecclesiastical Affairs. Nevertheless, many Letters and Bulls were written in their Name, about the Affairs which are commonly carried to the Court of Rome, as the Canonisations of Saints, the Privileges of Monasteries, the Affairs of Religious Orders, of Dispensations, Processes between Churches, etc. the greatest part of which has been collected by Rainaldus, and the other Annalists, and in the Bullarium. I shall only add the Names of the Popes, who succeeded Nicholas V together with the time of their Advancement to the Pontificat, and of their Death.  
Alphonsus B●rgia of Catalonia, a Cardinal of the Promotion of Eugenius iv in 1440. was 
Callistus III.  chosen in the room of Nicholas V on the 8th of April, in the Year 1455. and was called Callistus III. He declared War against the Turks, and established the Festival of the Transfiguration of our Lord. Being very old when he was advanced to the Papal Dignity, he did not govern long the Holy See, but died August the 6th, in the Year 1458.  
To him succeeded Aeneas Silvius Cardinal, of the Family of the Picolomini, who was chosen 
Pius II.  the 19th of August, in the same Year, and named Pius II. We shall have occasion to speak of him among the Writers of this Century, among whom he holds a considerable Rank. He died August the 14th, 1464.  
Paul II. a Venetian, Nephew by his Mother's side to Eugenius IU. who was named before 
Paul II.  Peter Barbo, succeeded Pius II. and governed the Church of Rome, from the beginning of September, in the Year 1464. till the 25th of July, 1471. and then died of an Apoplexy. Some hold that he was the first Author of that Institution, that the Cardinals should wear Red Hats. In the Year 1467. he created Cardinal Francis of Rovere, a Monk of the Order of Friars Minors, and Vicar-general of his Order in Italy, descended of an Illustrious Family in Savonna, who succeeded him under the Name of Sixtus IU. This Pope made two Decrees about the 
Sixtus IU.  Conception of the Virgin, one wherein he grants Indulgences to those who shall celebrate the Feast of the Conception, and say the Office composed by Nogarol, a Canon of Verona: The other wherein he forbids under pain of Excommunication, the Sentence being reserved to the Pope, to treat with Heretics, or accuse those of Mortal Sin, who believed or maintained. That the Virgin was conceived without Sin. He ordained, That for the future a Jubilee should be granted every Twenty five Years. Before he was made Pope, he had written some Treatises, viz. a Book of the Blood of Jesus Christ, a Treatise of the Power of God, printed at Rome in 1471. an Explication of the Treatise of Nicholas Richard, about the Indulgences granted for the Souls of Purgatory, printed with the Treatise itself in 1487. He died the 12th of August, in the Year 1484.  
His Successor was Innocent VIII. a Genoese, who had been made Cardinal in 1473. and died the 25th of July, 1492. Theodorick Borgia, Nephew to Callistus III procured his own Election 
Innocent VIII.  in the room of Innocent VIII. by his Canvasing, his Money and the Promises he made to the Cardinals, to give them Benefices and Lands, and took upon him the Name of Alexander VI He disgraced his Dignity by his Ambition, his Avarice, his Cruelties, and his Debaucheries, and died on the 18th of August, in the Year 1503. having taken by a mistake that Poison which he had prepared for poisoning the Cardinals whom he had invited.   

CHAP. IU.  
Of the Ecclesiastical Writers that flourished in the West in the Fifteenth Century.  
IN the Fifteenth Century, the love and relish of that true and useful Learning, which had 
A Judgement of the Writers of the Fifteenth Century.  been a long time banished, begun to revive in the World, and produce in it some good Effects. That Theology, which is founded upon the Principles of Scripture and Tradition, begun to be cultivated by the most able Divines, who applied themselves to useful Questions about Doctrine and Morality, and handled them after a clear and solid manner, without entangling them with Philosophical terms, and the thorny Questions of Metaphysics. Peter of Ailly, John Gerson, and Nicholas Clemangis led the way, and showed an Example, cleared their Writings of that Barbarism and Obscurity, which reigned before them in the Sums, and the ordinary Commentaries of Theologues; and without insisting upon Questions purely Scholastical, handled divers Matters of Doctrine, of Morality and Discipline. In the Disputes which the Latin Church had against the Greeks, and against the Wiclefites and Hussites, they had recourse to Scripture, and the Tradition of the Church for opposing them, which occasioned the Writers of Controversy to study the Greek and Latin Fathers in their Originals. There were also able Men in the Hebrew and Greek Tongues, such as Paul of Burges, Jerome of St. Faith, and Anthony Lebrixa, who applied themselves to explain the Literal Sense of Holy Scripture; and to resolve the chief Difficulties that might be raised about those Passages that were more obscure. Great pains also was taken for reforming the Manners and Discipline of the Church; and many Authors signalised themselves by publishing excellent Works upon this Subject, wherein they did freely expose the Abuses, and showed the Remedies that might be applied unto them. The Doctors of the Canon-Law did no longer slavishly tie themselves to the Decrees and Decretals, but begun to look higher to the Original Canons, and to inform themselves of the Ancient Discipline. Devotion was advanced to the highest degree, and by some even to those Excesses which are not tolerable. In those times indeed there was no perfect Historian, but there were many moderately good, whose Style was tolerable. The Casuists had their Rise almost about that time, and from their first beginning they introduced some lose Opinions, and debated useless Questions; besides, That the meanness of their Style renders them contemptible. Yet there were some Authors who wrote upon these Subjects with all the Elegance and Sublimity of Style that was possible: But the Eloquence of the Pulpit had not the good fortune to be so easily restored; all that can be said in honour of the Preachers of this Age, is this, That among many whose Sermons were mean, childish, and unworthy of bearing the Name of the Word of God, there were some that delivered sound Morality and useful Instructions, but without Eloquence and Loftiness of Style. The Study of Greek, Latin, Poetry and Polite Learning flourished towards the end of this Century, which has furnished us with most valuable Writers of this kind. This is in general the Idea which may be formed of the Writers in the Fifteenth Century: We shall now say something of each in particular, and insist upon the Works of those who deserve to have Extracts taken out of them, passing slightly over the rest of them. We shall begin with three famous Theologues of the University of Paris.  
The first is Peter of Ailly, born at Compiegne, in the Year 1350. of a very obscure Family, 
Peter of Ailly, (Petrus de Alliaco) Cardinal.  who risen by his Merits to the Dignity of Cardinal. He owes this Advancement to the College of Navarre, which received him into the number of its Bursars, about the Year 1372. From that time he begun to make himself known by his Writings of Philosophy, wherein he follows the Principles of the Nominals. Afterwards, in the same place, he explained the Master of the Sentences towards the Year 1375. His Reputation procured him to be chosen to assist at a Synod in Amiens, where he made a Discourse to the Priests of that Diocese, tho' he himself was yet but Sub-deacon. He received the Doctor's Bonnet at Paris, the 11th of April 1380; and the next Year made a Discourse before the Duke of Anjou, in the name of the University, wherein he proved that it was necessary to Call a General Council to put an end to the Schism. The same Year he was made Canon of Noyon, and stayed there till the Year 1384. when he was called back to Paris to be the Superior of the College of Navarre; he discharged the Duty of the Place with Honour, and deserved Commendation for his Lessons and Sermons. Out of his School came John Gerson, Nicholas Clemangis, and Giles of Champs, the most celebrated Theologues of this Time. The University of Paris could find no Person more fit than this Doctor, to maintain their Cause against John Monteson, at the Tribunal of Pope Clement VII; whom therefore they deputed to the Court of Avignon, where he pleaded himself the Cause of the University against Monteson, with so much Vigour, That the Pope and Cardinals confirmed the Judgement of the University. Being returned from this Deputation, in the Year 1389. he was honoured with three considerable Dignities, viz. of Chancellor of the University, Almoner and Confessor to King Charles VI In the Year 1394▪ he was appointed Treasurer of the Holy Chapel, and sent by the King to Benedict XIII. to labour for the Peace of the Church. After this, he was chosen successively to two Bishoprics, in the Year 1395. to that of Puy in Velay; and in the Year 1396. to that of Cambray; he took Possession of the latter, and laid down his Office of Chancellor of the University in favour of John Gerson. He took great pains afterwards to extirpate the Schism, and assisted at the Council of Pisa. In fine, John XXIII. made him Cardinal by the Title of St. Chrysogone, in the Year 1411; and in this Quality he was present at the General Council of Constance, and was one of those that had a great Hand in all that was done there. There he composed some Treatises, and made many Sermons about the Matters which were handled in the Council; and afterwards he returned to Cambray, where he died in the Year 1425.  
There are many Works of Peter of Ailly, Printed and in Manuscript. The Printed are as follows. Short Commentaries upon the four Books of the Sentences, Printed apart in the Year 1500, and at Stratsburgh in 1490, together with the following Treatises, Questions or Principles upon the four Books of the Sentences, a Recommendation of the Holy Scripture, Principles upon the Course of the Bible, and chief upon the Gospel of St. Mark. Quaestio Vesperiarum, Whether the Church of Jesus Christ is governed by the Law? The Question de Resumpta, Whether the Church of St. Peter is governed by a King, regulated by a Law, confirmed by the Faith, and has a Right to Dominion. In the same year, and at the same place there were also Printed many Treatises of Piety, by the same Author, which have been also reprinted at Dovay, in 1634, viz. the Mirror of Consideration which contains twelve Chapters; A Compend of Contemplation divided into three Treatises, whereof the 1st consists of 12 Chapters of the 2d of the 2d of St. Thomas; the 2d is of the Spiritual Genealogy of Jacob, and the Figures which serve for Contemplation; the 3d of the Spiritual Senses of a Man elevated to Contemplation; A work of the four steps of a Spiritual Ladder taken from St. Bernard; A short Discourse upon the Book of Psalms; Meditations upon the thirtieth Psalm, upon the Psalm, Judica me Deus, upon the seven Penitential Psalms, upon the Canticles, upon the Ave Maria, upon the Songs of the Virgin, Zachary and Simeon; together with an Epilogue of the four Spiritual Exercises; A Treatise of the Lord's Prayer, a Tract of the twelve Honours of St. Joseph: The Treatise of the Soul, reprinted at Paris, in 1505. Twenty Sermons, among which is a Sermon of the Trinity, Preached in the year 1405. at Geneva, before Benedict XIII. wherein he persuades him to cause the Feast of the Holy Trinity to be celebrated in every Church, with a Constitution of this Pope upon this Subject, and a Treatise of the form and manner of choosing a Pope, which was made in the time of the Council of Constance, as also his Treatise of the Reformation of the Church, presented to the Fathers of this Council in the year 1415, Printed in the Collection Entitled, Fasciculus rerum expetendarum, and a Treatise of the Authority of the Church and Cardinals among the Works of Gerson. There is also a Sacramental, which goes under the Name of Peter of Ailly, printed at Louvain in 1487. and the Life of St. Peter of Moron, or Celestine, printed at Paris in 1539. A Treatise of Ecclesiastical Power; A Treatise of the Interdict; A Treatise of the Permutation of Benefices, of Laws, and of a General Council; Some Questions about the Creation; An Answer to the Conclusions of Friar Matthew, for the Sect of Whippers, together with the Book of the Agreement of Astrology and Theology: These two last are among the Works of Gerson, the other have been printed at Collen, with some other Treatises of Astronomy: A Treatise of the Sphere printed at Paris in 1494▪ and at Venice in 1508; A Treatise upon the Meteors of Aristotle, and the Impressions of the Air, printed at Strasburg in 1504 and at Vienna in 1509. He had a great esteem of Judicial Astrology, and refers to the Stars not only Civil Events, but also Changes of Religion▪ and the Birth of Heresies; and he believed, That by the Principles of this Science, a Man might even foretell, the Birth of Heretics, Prophets, and of Jesus Christ himself.  
The Manuscript Works of Peter of Ailly, which are to be found in the Bibliotheque of the College of Navarre, according to Monsieur Launoy, who has made a Catalogue of them, are as follows; A Question decided in the Schools of Navarre, viz. Whether it be Heretical to say, That 'tis lawful to give or receive Money for obtaining a Right to Preach; A Proposition made before the Pope against the Chancellor of the University of Paris, which gins with these Words, Lord, I suffer Violence; A Question upon the Reprimand which St. Paul gave St. Peter; An Answer made in the Sorbon upon this Question, viz. Whether it be a Perfection to be three Subsistences in one and the same Nature; Another Question to which he answered in the Sorbon, viz. Whether the erroneous Conscience of a reasonable Creature can excuse its Action; An Answer made in the Hall of the Bishopric, viz. Whether he that has a Power which Jesus Christ has given him can be justly damned; Another Question, viz. Whether the Liberty of reasonable Creatures is equal before and after the Fall; An Invective of Ezechiel against False Preachers; A Sermon made in the Chapter of the College of Navarre upon this Text, Truth is gone out of the Earth▪ A Sermon upon St. Bernard; A Sermon upon these Words, The Kingdom of Heaven belongeth to them; A Sermon preached in the Synod of Amiens, when he was yet but Subdeacon, upon this Text, Let your Priests be clothed with Righteousness; Another Sermon preached in the Synod of Paris; A Treatise upon Boetius' Book of Consolation; Two Treatises upon the False Prophets, in the latter of which he treats of Hypocrisy, of Knowledge, of the Discourse of good and bad Angels, and of Judicial Astrology; A Discourse of the Vision of the Garden of Scripture, which serves as a Preface to his Commentary upon the Canticles; Two Discourses spoke before the Pope and the Consistory of Cardinals, against Friar John of Monteson; A Treatise made in the Name of the University of Paris, against the Errors of the same Friar, whereof the greatest part is printed at the end of the Master of the Sentences.  
The most considerable Work of Peter of Ailly, is his Treatise of the Reformation of the Church, which is nothing but an Abridgement of many other Works which he wrote upon the same Subject. He shows in the Preface the necessity of Reforming the Church, because of the Disorders which abound in the greatest part of its Members, which will still increase unless a speedy Remedy be applied. The Body of the Work is divided into six Chapters, the first is, about the necessity of Reformation in the Universal Church; for which end he shows, That General Councils must be celebrated oftener than they have been in Times past, and that Provincial Councils must be held every two Years: The second concerns what must be reformed in the Head of the Church, i. e. in the Pope and the Court of Rome, wherein there are many Things to be reformed: First, That Abuse which has been the Origin of Schism, that one Nation should detain the Pope in their Country for a considerable time to the prejudice of the rest of Christendom; and to prevent this, he thought it would be convenient, That no more Cardinals should be made of one Nation than Another. Secondly, That to hinder the Cardinals from alleging, they had made the Election of a Pope through fear or violence; a Time must be fixed, after which this Exception shall be no more received; and that the Council must judge to whom it belongs to take cognizance of it. Thirdly, That a Remedy must be applied to the three principal Grievances that the other Church's object against the Church of Rome; and which consist in the great number of Exactions, of Excommunications and Constitutions▪ Fourthly, That care must be taken as to Collations and Elections of Benefices, to retrench many Exemptions which the Court of Rome had granted to Abbots, Convents and Chapters; and to abolish many Rights which the Officers of the Court of Rome had usurped. The third Chapter is concerning the Reformation of the Church in its Principal Parts, i. e. the Prelates of the first Order; there he explains the Qualities which Bishops ought to have, after what manner they should live; he proves the Obligation they lie under to Reside in their Diocese, and shows what care they ought to have to avoid all appearance of Simony, and to take nothing for Orders, nor for the Administration of the Sacraments; He adds, That it would be expedient to declare, That many things which pass for Commands of the Church are only Counsels, to moderate the Laws of the Church, to abridge and purge the Divine Offices, to retrench a part of the Images and Festivals, and not to Canonize so many new Saints. The fourth Chapter is about the Reformatión of the Religious Orders: He thinks it would be convenient that there should not be so great a Number of them, nor so many different Orders, particularly of the Mendicants, whose great Number is burdensome and prejudicial to the other States of the Church: That the begging of Preachers should be suppressed, which renders the Word of God contemptible, and the Monks must be hindered from going out of their Houses, under pretence of Study: That it was also necessary to reform the Military Orders, and to bring them back to their ancient Institution: That as to the Nuns no Monasteries should be suffered, which have not sufficient Revenues to maintain the Nuns that are shut up in them, for want of which they are forced to go abroad. The fifth Chapter is about the Reformation of mere ecclesiastics; he desires that Benefices should be filled with Persons capable and worthy to possess them, That Dignities should not be given but only to those who are Doctors in Divinity or Law: He believed also, That the Universities wanted Reformation, and that they should retrench the useless Studies that were in use there. He wished that the Manners of ecclesiastics were reformed, which were very disorderly; That Archdeacon's were obliged to do their Duty; That the Order of Priesthood should not be given but only to those who were Qualified, and of good Morals. That for the Instruction of those who are already Ordained, Lectures should be made in Latin and French, about those things of Religion which are most necessary, as about Virtues and Vices, about the Articles of Faith, the Sacraments, the manner of Confessing, and that they should be published in the Synods; That there should be in each Church a Reader in Divinity, and a number of sufficient Books. The sixth Chapter is about the Reformation of Laymen, and chief of Christian Princes, where he gives them excellent Instructions concerning their Behaviour towards the Church and the General Council.  
John Charlier surnamed Gerson, from the name of a Village in the Diocese of Rheims, near 
John Charlier surnamed Gerson.  Rhetel, in which he was born December the 14th, 1363. was Educated in Piety by his Father Arnulphus, and his Mother Elizabeth. When he arrived at the Age of Fourteen Years at Paris, he was received into the Society of Artists of the College of Navarre, and after he had studied there Humanity and Philosophy he was received in the Year 1382. into the Society of Divines: And having studied Divinity for Ten Years under Peter of Ailly, and Giles Deschamps, he took his Degrees in the Faculty of Theology, and received the Doctor's Cap in the Year 1392. Some time after, he succeeded Peter of Ailly in the Dignity of Chancellor and Canon of the Church of Paris. The Murder of Lovis, Duke of Orleans, who was Massacred in the Year 1407. by Order of the Duke of Burgundy, stirred up the Zeal of Gerson against John Petit a Divine; who, by a base Compliance had undertaken to justify this Action. Gerson made many Sermons against this Sanguinary Doctrine, caused it to be Censured by the Faculty of Theology, and the Bishop of Paris: He bestirred himself vigorously for the Extirpation of the Schism before the Council of Pisa, but chief in the Council of Constance; at which he assisted in the Quality of Ambassador from the King of France, and of Deputy from the University of Paris, and the Province of Sens. He wrote several things, and spoke many Discourses during the time of the Council, and was there looked upon as the most able of all the Divines. There he opposed stoutly the Error of John Petit, and caused him to be condemned by the Council, which brought upon him the Indignation of the Duke of Burgundy; insomuch that he durst not return to Paris, and was forced to retire into Germany Disguised in the Habit of a Pilgrim. There he stayed for some time, but at last he returned to Lions, where he ended his Days on the 12th of July 1439. at the Age of 76 Years.  
Gerson wrote many Books which have been Printed many times in Germany, at Colen in 1483. at Strasburg in 1488. and in 1444. at Basil in 1489. and in 1518; by Martin Flacius, in 1502. by John Knoebauch in 1514; and twice at Paris, in 1521. in the Gothic Letter, and in 1606. These Editions were divided into four Parts.  
The first contains the Treatises concerning Faith and the Ecclesiastical Power. Before it there is placed an Encomium of the Works of Gerson, after which follows a Concordance of the four Evangelists. The first of the Treatises about Ecclesiastical Power, is the Work which he composed upon this Subject at Constance while the Council was held, Entitled, Of the Eccleliastical Power, and the Origin of Right and Laws. It contains Thirteen Considerations: In the first he gives the Definition of Ecclesiastical Power expressed in these Words: The Ecclesiastical Power is a Power that was conferred supernaturally and specially by Jesus Christ to his Apostles, and their Disciples, to pass to their Lawful Successors to the end of the World, for the Edification of the Church Militant according to the Laws of the Gospel, and for obtaining Eternal Life. He distinguishes in the second Consideration two sorts of Ecclesiastical Power, the Power of Order, and the Power of Jurisdiction; and divides the former into two, the Power of Order as to the Mystical and true Body of Jesus Christ and its Consecration, and the Power of Order as to the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ in its Members, i. e. the Church. The Power of Jurisdiction is also divided into two, that which concerns the External Court, and that which concerns the Internal; and the former is either such as Jesus Christ did immediately appoint, or such as Human Constitutions have ordained. The Power of Order which concerns the Consecration of the Body of Jesus Christ is equal in the Priests and the Bishops; but as to the Power of Confirmation and the Ordination of Ministers, that belongs to the Bishops, at least in its Plenitude and Perfection, and is equal in them and in the Pope, as Gerson proves in the third Consideration. He treats in the fourth of the Power of Jurisdiction in the External Court, which is Exercised over Christians whether they will or no, but with respect to Eternal Happiness; such is the Power of Excommunicating and Interdicting. He says, That this Power was given by Jesus Christ to his Church to be Exercised by a General Council; That altho' it was conferred upon St. Peter and his Successors, yet it was chief given to the Church: First, Because the Church is infallible, which cannot be said of the Pope: Secondly, Because the Church can set Bounds to the Power of the Pope, which the Pope cannot do to the Power of the Church: Thirdly, Because the Church comprehends all the Ecclesiastical Powers, even that of the Pope: Fourthly, Because the Church can make Laws to oblige the Pope and reform him, whereas the Pope cannot judge the whole Church, nor set any Bounds to its Power. As to the Effects of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, Gerson says, That the last Penalty that the Church can inflict is Penal Excommunication, and that it has no Right to make use of any Corporal Punishment, but by the Concession of Princes; wherefore he does not approve that so many Censures have been used for maintaining this Jurisdiction. He treats in the fifth Consideration of the Power of Jurisdiction in the Internal Court, which is Exercised over those that voluntarily submit to it; by enlightening and perfecting them with Instructions, and the Administration of Sacraments, and Purifying them by Baptism and by Penance. After he has Established these Principles, he applies them in the following Considerations. The Ecclesiastical Power considered in itself is unvariable, and continues the same from the beginning of the Church unto the end, and comprehends all the different Powers, even the Authority of the Pope: The same Power considered respectively in its particular Subjects is variable, since the Subjects are changed by Natural or Civil Deaths, by Deposition, Renunciation, etc. The Pope himself may voluntarily resign the Pontificat, or be Deposed. The Power which respects the Institution of Ministers has very much varied in the Church, and the Ambitious Desires of Men has caused so great Confusions about it, that 'tis difficult to distinguish what is in it of Jesus Christ's Institution from that which is of Human appointment: The History of the Popes, of General Councils, and the Decretals of the Pope plainly discover this variety. But we ought to consider the many Processes about Benefices which busy the Court of Rome, the Collations and Seals of the Pope, the Annates, and an infinite number of Practices, by which the Pope would usurp the Institutions, the Rights, the Offices and the Benefices of all the Churches; they ought to remember, That God has not given them a Power but to Edification; they have a Right to reform Abuses, to watch over the whole Church, to turn out Intruders, to advance the Humble and Poor without Prayers or Presents. The Ecclesiastical Power considered according to its Usage and Exercise is variable, for tho' it be the Institution of Jesus Christ, yet the Use and Exercise of it is conveyed from some Men to others, according to the various Necessities of the Church. The Plenitude of this Power is subjecttively in the Pope only, supposing that he be Ordained, which was given by Jesus Christ to St. Peter, for him and his Successors: But the Church and Princes have granted them Rights which they had not by the Institution of Jesus Christ, and the General Councils could make Laws which the Pope could not destroy, but only by dispensing in case of necessity or apparent advantage, because Human Laws can never be made so general, but they will admit of some Exception and Interpretation; Gerson there gives Excellent Rules about Dispensation. After this, he proceeds to the Authority of the Church, and a General Council, which he proves to be the Sovereign Authority in the Church, and to have Right to exercise the Pontifical Jurisdiction; and also to take care of it for a time, tho' they cannot abolish it for ever. The twelfth Consideration is about the Power of the Pope with respect to Temporal Revenues. He says, That he has no Power to dispose of the Revenues of Clergymen, and much less of those of Laymen, altho' the Government, Direction and Regulation of these Revenus belong to him. He owns, That these Doctrines are contrary to two opposite Errors, whereof one is, That the ecclesiastics ought not to have Temporal Revenues, that if they have any they are only Alms which are not due, and which they ought not to enjoy, but to live in the Poverty of Jesus Christ; the other is, That the Pope is the Sovereign Lord of Temporals as well as Spirituals; That all Kings receive their Power from him, or at least that he is absolute Lord of the Ecclesiastical Revenues, and that he can dispose of them according to his Will without being guilty of Simony, and without admitting any Appeal from his Judgement. He concludes from all these Considerations, That the Power of the Pope is much Superior to all other Power Ecclesiastical and Temporal; but that the Power of the Church and a General Council is more extensive and large, not only for its Infallibility, but for the Right it has to Reform the Church in its Head and Members, and to decide as the last resort the Causes of Faith. He defines a General Council a Congregation made in any place by a Lawful Authority, of all the Hierarchical Orders of the Catholic Church, from which none of the Faithful are excluded, who has a mind to be heard in order to the Management of what concerns the Government of the Church in Faith and Manners. It belongs to the Pope to call them together except in three Cases, in which the Congregation of a Council may be made without the Pope: The first is, If the Pope be naturally dead, civilly or canonically, if he be Deposed, Distracted, or a Prisoner in any place where he cannot be addressed unto; The second is, If being required to call a Council, he does obstinately refuse to do it; The third is, If a General Council being Lawfully Assembled appoint the time and place of a subsequent Council. The Prelates that ought to be present at a Council are those of the first Order, viz. Archbishops and Bishops who succeed the Apostles; and Prelates of the second Order who are Successors to the 72 Disciples: Both the one and the other have a Definitive Voice in the Council, other Persons have only a Consultative Voice. By the Prelates of the second Order are understood the Parish-Priests; but this cannot be extended to the Regulars, who Exercise no Hierarchical Functions but by Privilege. The thirteenth Consideration contains the Definition and Division of the differen sorts of Laws of Jurisdiction and Government. This Treatise of Gerson was written and repeated in the Council of Constance 1417.  
The second Work of the same first Part is a Discourse spoken at the same Council in 1415. upon occasion of the Processions that were made for the happy Voyage of the King of the Romans to Peter de Luna; wherein he explains the Progress which the Council made towards Peace, by removing the Obstacles which hindered the Extirpation of the Schism and Heresy, and the Reformation of Manners. In it he confirms the Authority of the Council above the Pope in Matters of Faith, and as to the Reformation of Manners.  
The third Treatise is Entitled, de Auferibilitate Papae ab Ecclesia, the Subject whereof is not as some imagine, That the Church can take away the Pope for ever; but that there are many Cases wherein the Church may be for a time without the Pope, and that there are some Cases wherein he may be Deposed. He takes for the Text of his Discourse the Words of Jesus Christ in St. Mark Ch. 2. The time will come when the Bridegroom shall be taken away from you, whereupon he inquires; First, Whether Jesus Christ who is the Bridegroom of the Church can be taken from the Church and its Members. And first, he lays it down for certain, That he cannot be taken away from the whole Church according to the Ordinary Law; Secondly, That tho' he may cease to be the Spouse of particular Believers in the Church Militant, yet he cannot cease to be the Spouse of the whole Church Collectively; Thirdly, That he cannot cease to dispense continually his Graces to the whole Church, and every one of its Living Members; Fourthly, That it was not possible, That Jesus Christ should be taken away from the far greatest part of his Spouse, so that the Church should subsist in one Woman only, or in the Sex of Women only, or in Laymen only. This is what concerns Jesus Christ. Now follow the Propositions which concern the Pope his Vicar; First, The Monarchical State of the Church Established by Jesus Christ cannot be changed. Secondly, A Pope may cease to be the Vicar of Jesus Christ by Session or Resignation of the Pontificat. Thirdly, He may be removed by a General Council, even against his Will in some Cases; and tho' the Council cannot take from him the Power of Order, yet it may Deprive him of the lawful Execution of the Power of Order, and of his Jurisdiction. Fourthly, The Council has Power to do this legally and with Authority. Fifthly, The Pope may be Deposed as a Heretic and Schismatic, tho' he be only mentally so, in such Cases as he may be presumed and judged to be such. Sixthly, He may in some Cases be deprived of the Pontificate without any Fault of his, though not without cause, as if he become incapable of doing his Duty, if he do not prove that his Election was Canonical; if his Deprivation be a means to procure the Peace of the Church, or the Reunion of a great many People; or if he has promised to resign. Seventhly, The Church cannot take away the Vicar of Jesus Christ unto the end of the World, supposing that it shall last yet for some time: From whence he concludes, That those who contribute to maintain a Schism, oppose the Order of Jesus Christ, because they hinder the Church from having a lawful Head.  
The 4th Treatise of Gerson, is about the manner of our Behaviour during a Schism; where he shows, That when it is doubtful which of the Competitors is the true Pope, we ought to abstain from Condemning one another, and endeavour to procure the Peace of the Church, either by obliging the Competitors to resign their pretended Rights, or by withdrawing our Obedience to them; but above all things, we ought not to divide the Communion of one from the other. At the end of this Treatise, he has added an Appendix, wherein he gives a Catalogue of the Schisms of the Church of Rome.  
The 5th Work, is a Treatise of the Unity of the Church, wherein he shows with what Zeal we ought to seek after Union with one sole Head the Vicar of Jesus Christ; and of what importance it is to procure it.  
After this follows a Treatise of the different States of the ecclesiastics, of their Duties and Privileges; First, With respect to the Pope, who hath the Supremacy in the Church, tho' he be subject to the Laws of General Councils; and ought also to pay a Deference to other positive Laws. Secondly, With respect to the Bishops, who are of Divine Institution, and exercise their Power in Subordination to the Pope, yet so that he cannot destroy it, nor deprive the Bishops of it without Reason, or restrain their Rights or Jurisdictions beyond reasonable Bounds. Thirdly, With respect to Parish-Priests, who succeed the 72 Disciples, and who are also instituted by Jesus Christ, who, although they be inferior to Bishops, yet are superior to the Regulars, having a Right to Preach and Administer the Sacraments. Fourthly, With respect to the Regulars, who are privileged, and have been chosen to Preach, and hear Confessions a long time after the Establishment of the Church; a Privilege which they ought to use Charitably, and not from a Principle of Interest, Emulation or Ambition, and to the Prejudice of the Parish-Priests, and not at all but when they are approved by the Bishop.  
The next Treatise is a Work purely of Morality, wherein Gerson collects many Christian Maxims for all Estates; after which follows a Sermon preached at Constance, wherein he relates divers Signs of the approaching Destruction of this World; among which he places the Pomp, Pride and Tyranny of the Prelates of his time, and the Novelty of Opinions.  
After this we find a Catalogue of the Faults of ecclesiastics, which are many: The plurality of Benefices is not forgotten there, nor the Tricks and Solicitations that are used to obtain them, the Absence of Bishops from their Dioceses, the Negligence of ecclesiastics in performing their Office, and reading Divine Service; their Ignorance, the worldly Life which they lead, the Pomp and Pride of Cardinals and other Prelates, and an infinite number of Disorders both in the Manners and Behaviour of the ecclesiastics.  
The three following Treatises were Composed before the Council of Constance, at such time as Benedict XIII. was yet acknowledged by France; wherein he proves the Right that Benedict had to the Pontificat, and would have him put an end to the Schism, by way of Compromise or Session, rather than by a General Council.  
Gerson being sent to Pope Benedict by the University of Paris, preached before him two Sermons at Taraseon, in the Year 1404. one on the day of our Lord's Circumcision, and the other about the Peace of the Church; wherein he undertakes to persuade the Pope that he ought to embrace all ways for procuring it, even by resigning, if need were, his Right to his Adversary. This Discourse was ill taken, wherefore Gerson was forced to justify himself by two Letters which he wrote; whereof one is addressed to the Duke of Orleans, and the other to the Bishop of Cambray. In these Letters he speaks of another preceding Sermon, delivered before the same Pope at Marseilles; wherein he declares the Occasion of his Embassy, which is printed after the other two, whereof we have now spoken, although it should be before them; and there is also among them a Discourse which was not preached by Gerson till a long time after, in the presence of Alexander V.  
The other Pieces of Gerson about the Schism, are a Discourse spoken in the Name of the University of Paris, in 1408. in the presence of the Ambassadors from England, who were going to the Council of Pisa, wherein he congratulates them, that they were going to this Council to endeavour after the Peace of the Church, exhorts them to make a Peace, and shows them the means of procuring it. There is a Trialogue of his about the matter of the Schism; wherein he introduces Zeal, goodwill and Discretion, disputing together, about the means of putting an end to Contention; a Letter in the Name of the University of Paris, against the Letter in the Name of the University of Tholouse; and a Letter in the Name of the King of France, to justify his Substraction of Obedience from Peter de Luna.  
After these Works follow many Sermons preached at Constance during the time of the Council. In the second he sets himself against the Partisans of the Duke of Burgundy, who would hinder the Council from Examining and Condemning the Errors of John Petit; and shows by many Reasons that 'tis very necessary to be done. At the end of this Sermon there is a small piece wherein he recollects divers Errors, chief about this Precept of the Decalogue, Thou shalt not kill; against which some had advanced many cruel and sanguinary Propositions, prejudicial to the Security of Princes; and about the Validity of Confessions made to Friars Mendicants. The Duke of Burgundy having caused the Proposition of John Petit to be maintained by Peter Bishop of Arras, That it was lawful to kill Tyrants; Gerson replied to him in the Name of the King of France, in a long Discourse spoken in an Assembly of the Fathers of the Council, on the 5th of May 1416. and made two other Sermons, wherein he searches this Matter to the bottom, and refutes at large the Propositions of John Petit, and relates the Censure of it, made at Paris, both by the Bishop and the Doctors.  
The three following Treatises are not concerning the Affair of the Schism, but the Principles of Faith: The first is entitled a Declaration of the Truths which must be believed, and according to him they are as follow; First, All that is contained literally in the Canonical Books; Secondly, All that is determined by the Church, and received by Tradition from the Apostles; not all that it tolerates, or permits to be read publicly, but only what it defines by a Judgement, condemning the contrary; Thirdly, The Truths which are certainly revealed to some private Persons; Fourthly, The necessary Conclusions of Truth which are established upon the preceding Principles; Fifthly, The Propositions which follow from these Truths by a probable Consequence, or which are deduced from a Proposition of Faith, or any other supposed to be true; Sixthly, The Truths which serve to cherish and maintain Devotion, though they be not perfectly certain, provided they be not known to be false. From these Propositions he draws the following Corollaries; First, That 'tis false and heretical to affirm, That the literal Sense of Scripture is sometimes false; Secondly, That 'tis Blasphemy and Heresy to maintain, That nothing that is evidently known can be of Faith; Thirdly, That 'tis also Heretical and Blasphemous to say, That the Precepts of the Decalogue are not of Faith, and that the contrary Propositions are not Heretical; Fourthly, That the Learned are obliged to believe with an explicit Faith many Propositions that are the Consequences of the prime Truths, which the common People are not obliged to believe; Fifthly, That the Pastors, Doctors, and other Persons placed in Ecclesiastical Dignity, are obliged to believe explicitly the Precepts of the Decalogue, and many other Points of Faith, which other Christians are obliged to believe only implicitly. The second Treatise is entitled, Of Protestation or Confession in Matters of Faith against Heresies; where he treats of Protestations both general and particular, and of Revocations and Retractations which we are obliged to make in Matters of Faith; and shows, that a general Protestation is not sufficient to justify a Man when he is guilty of particular Errors; that a particular Protestation which is conditional, and expressed in these Words, I would believe this Truth if it were known to me to be so, does no: justify neither before God nor Men. He that revokes an Error which he hath held, ought not: to satisfy himself with making a particular Protestation of the contrary Truth; but aught to mention, that he retracts the Error which he maintained; and this Revocation does not hinder him from being an Heretic before: Yet this is not necessary with respect to those who have been in Error, but did not know it, nor maintain it obstinately. Lastly, A Retractation does not hinder but he who has made it may still be suspected of Heresy, if he discovers by external Signs that his Revocation is not sincere. The third Treatise contains the Characters of Obstinacy in Matters of Heresy. In it he defines Obstinacy, a Depravation of the Will caused by Pride or some other Vice, which hinders him that is in Error from seeking carefully after the Truth, or embracing it when it is made known to him. The Signs of Obstinacy are these, when he who is in Error suffers Excommunication; when being Cited he does not appear; when he defends an Error contrary to the Truth, which he is obliged to believe with an explicit Faith; when he hinders the explaining and defining of the Truth; when he declares himself an Enemy to those who would have the Matter decided; when he denies a Truth which he had formerly taught; when being required to explain the Truth to the Doctor or Judges, he will not follow their Advice; when he stirs up Wars and Seditions, because the Truth has been explained; when he declares, That he would rather die than change his Opinion; when he defends or maintains a Heretic, knowing that he is in an Error; lastly, when one does not oppose an Error as he may, or aught, either by his Office, if he be a Judge, or from brotherly Charity. These, according to Gerson, are the 12 Signs of Obstinacy.  
The Treatise upon that Question, Whether it be lawful to appeal from the Judgement of the Pope in Matters of Faith? was composed by Gerson, after the Election of Martin V upon occasion of that Pope's refusal to condemn the Propositions, of which the Polanders desired the Condemnation. There he maintains the Affirmative, because the Judgement of the Pope is not infallible, as that of a General Council is; wherefore in Matters of Faith, no judicial Determination of any Bishop, or even of the Pope himself, does oblige the Faithful to believe a Truth as of Faith; although it oblige them under pain of Excommunication not to be Dogmatical in affirming the contrary, unless they have evident Reason to oppose against the Determination founded on the Holy Scripture, or Revelation, or the Determination of the Church and a General Council; but in every Case, as we may appeal from the Judgement of a Bishop to the Pope, so we may appeal from the Judgement of a Pope to a General Council.  
The following Pieces are concerning the Processes made against Peter de Luna in the Council, to show that he is Perjured, Schismatical, one that gives Scandal to the Church of God, and is suspected of Heresy, and that as such he ought to be deposed.  
In the last Piece he examines this Proposition, Whether the Sentence of a Pastor, tho' it be unjust, aught to be observed; and he maintains, That it is false, erroneous, suspected in Matter of Faith. He explains also this other Proposition, Unjust Sentences are to be feared, that is, that they may sometimes be the occasion of fear, with respect to timorous Consciences, but not that they are in themselves formidable.  
The Treatise of the Incarnation, which follows, consists of two Parts; in the first, he treats of the Natural Incarnation of Jesus Christ; and in the second, of the Eucharist. In the former he speaks of the immaculate Conception of the Virgin, of the Perfections and Graces which she received from Jesus Christ, who gave her all those, which he in his Wisdom thought convenient, but not all those which he could have given her. As, for instance, he gave her not the perfect use of her Reason immediately after her Conception or Birth, which would be a rash Assertion. In the second Part he treats of the actual Reception of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist; he examines what we ought to think of the Spiritual Sentiments of Love, and the Tenderness which some of the Faithful feel; and shows, that they are not necessary, that often times they are Illusions, that when one gives himself up to them, he is liable to fall into Extravagances and Errors.  
John Rusbroek had fallen into this Excess, in the third part of his Book about the Ornament of the Spiritual Marriage; where he advances many Propositions about the Union of the Contemplative Soul with God. Gerson refutes him in the Letter which he wrote to a Carthusian; wherein he shows how dangerous it was to make use of new Terms to express the more sublime Truths of Divinity; and that those who have not studied the Doctrines of Religion, how contemplative soever they may be, ought not to meddle with Teaching, or talking of speculative Truths, because they are liable to fall into dangerous Errors, or at least to advance many Propositions that are false and ill-expressed, which give occasion to the common People to fall into Error. John Schonhow wrote a Piece to defend the Treatise of Rusbroek; to which Gerson answered in a second Letter, wherein he shows, that these Novelties cannot be excused, nor maintained. This Piece of John Schonhow, and the Answer of Gerson follow the first Letter whereof we now speak.  
The two Lectures upon St. Mark are Discourses, wherein he handles divers Questions of Morality and Discipline; as, about the Validity of Confessions made to Friars Mendicants, the Reiteration of Confession, the literal Sense of the Scripture, the Causes of Errors, etc.  
He shows in a Piece about the Communion of the Laity under both kinds, that though the Scripture is the Rule of Faith, yet it may admit some Interpretations; and that it belongs to the Church to explain it. In the second Part of this Piece he opposes the Error of those who maintained, That it was necessary to Salvation for the Laity to communicate under both kinds; and relates the Reasons for justifying the taking away the Cup from them.  
The two next Treatises are very useful for establishing such genuine Principles, whereby we may distinguish true Doctrine from that which is false. The former is entitled, The Trial of Spirits; and the latter, The Examination of Doctrines: In the former, he gives Rules for distinguishing false Revelations from true; in the latter, he lays down the Maxims by which we may know, to whom it belongs to examine a Doctrine, and what Rules they are to follow in this Examination. A General Council is the Sovereign Judge of Doctrines of Faith; after it the Pope, whose Authority nevertheless is not infallible, and each Bishop in his own Diocese, whose Decision is different from that of the Pope; so that the Authority of the first extends to the whole Church, whereas the two last can oblige only those that are subject to their Jurisdiction. The Doctors also have an Authentic Judgement in Matters of Doctrine; and each Person instructed in Scripture and Tradition may also give his Judgement, and teach even the Pope and Prelates those Truths which he knows. The same is to be said of those who have the Spirit of Discretion and Understanding. The Rules which we are to follow in judging of a Doctrine, whether it be sound or no, are these: First, That it be agreeable to Scripture and Tradition: Secondly, That he who Teaches have Authority to do it, and be worthy of Credit; upon which account the Visions and Revelations of Women are commonly suspected, because they may be easily seduced: Thirdly, That we ought to examine the Design of him that publishes a Doctrine, whether he be acted by Pride, Interest or Pleasure. In the end of this Treatise he relates the Example of a Woman in a Town of Bresse, who persuaded many Persons that she had delivered Souls out of Hell, by feigning Ecstasies and wonderful Things, and by using extraordinary Abstinence; and who being taken, confessed that she feign'd all these things to get a Livelihood. He adds afterwards other Rules very useful to preserve us from these ways of Seducing.  
He makes an Encomium of St. Bonaventure, in a Letter written 1426, to a Frair Minor at Lions, and in another Letter written 1424. to Oswald a Carthusian.  
In the Letter addressed to the Students of the College of Navarre, he gives his Opinion about the Studies a Divine aught to follow. As to the Schoolmen, he advises them to read William Auxerres, St. Bonaventure, Durand, Henry of Gandavo, and St. Thomas, chief in his 2d of the 2d. He blames these Authors and the like, only for one thing, That they have handled Questions purely Physical, Metaphysical, or even Logical, in Theological terms. As to Morality, he advises them to read Matters of History, the Dialogues of St. Gregory, the Conferences and Lives of the Fathers, the Confessions of St. Austin, and the Legends of the Saints: As to Preaching, the Mystical Expositions of the Fathers; such as the Morals and Pastoral care of St. Gregory, the Commentary of St. Bernard upon the Canticles, and some Works of Richard of St. Victor, and of William of Paris. As to the Works of Profane Authors, he would not have a Christian give his Mind wholly to them; but only look into them, and curiously run them over, like a Traveller, to pick up their moral Sentences, to form a Style, and to render himself moderately skilled in History and Poetry.  
In a Letter written to the same, he gives them Instructions, and exhorts them not to oppose the Re-establishment of the French Preachers in the University of Paris, but to favour it.  
Gerson being consulted by a Carthusian, if he might quit his Convent, or forbear to repeat some part of his Office, that he might have more time to read and study, and about the Books which he should read; answers this Regular in Eighteen Propositions, whereof the Twelve first tend to show that the Design of this Regular is dangerous and irregular, and the Six last to inform him in the Studies he should follow. Upon this occasion he refers him to his Book about the Examination of Doctrines, advises him to read Spiritual Books, as most agreeable to his Profession; among the rest, the Works of St. Bernard, the Morals of St. Gregory, the Spiritual Works of Richard, and Hugo of St. Victor, and of Bonaventure.  
In another Tract he notes the Books which must be read with Precaution; among which are the Works of the Abbot Joachim, of ‛ Ubertin of Casal, of Raimund Lul, and among the Ancients the Ladder of John Climacus.  
In another Treatise he gives the Signs for discerning between true and false Visions; the First is Humility; the Second, Submission; the Third, Patience; the Fourth, the Truth of all the Predictions and Things which are said to be revealed; and the Fifth, Charity.  
The Trilogue of Astrology Theologised, is a Dogmatical Work, wherein he treats of the Heaven, the Stars, their Influences, of the Angels; and establishes Principles for confuting Judicial Astrology.  
In the next Treatise he opposes the superstitious Opinions of those who believed certain Days to be happy or unhappy; and in two other Treatises, the Superstition of two Physicians of Montpelier; whereof one made use of a Medal, whereon was engraven the Figure of a Lion, for curing Diseases; and the other would not make use of his Remedies but on certain days.  
In a fourth Treatise about this Matter, he confutes the Errors of the Magical Art by very solid Principles; and proves that this Art is equally false and criminal. He relates at the end of this Treatise, a Censure of the Theological Faculty at Paris, made the 19th of September, 1398. against 27 Propositions which tend to justify the Practice of Magic.  
A Regular of the Order of Friars Preachers, named Matthew Grabon, of the Convent of Weimar, in the Diocese of Mersbourg in Saxony, having asserted some Propositions, which advanced the State of the Regulars so far above that of the Seculars, that he affirmed there could be no Perfection out of the Religious Orders; and that the Evangelical Counsels, and the Virtue of Poverty could not be practised in the World: This Doctrine was condemned by the Cardinal of Cambray, about which Gerson relates his own Opinion, and found'st it upon six Propositions: First, That the Christian Religion can only be properly called a Religion: Secondly, That it does not oblige Men to the Observation of the Evangelical Counsels: Thirdly, That it may be perfectly observed without a Vow, which obliges to the practice of these Counsels: Fourthly, That particular Rules are not necessary for the more perfect Observation of the Christian Religion: Fifthly, That 'tis an improper Speech to say, That Religious Orders instituted by Men, are a State of Perfection: Sixthly, That the Pope, Cardinals and Prelates, aught to observe the Christian Religion more perfectly than the Regulars. From these Principles he draws Conclusions contrary to the Propositions of Friar Matthew Grabon. This Affair being examined in the time of the Council of Constance, this Regular was forced to Retract; and his Retractation follows afterwards in the Treatise of Gerson against these Errors.  
The next Treatise is against the Sect of Whippers, and the public Whip. He observes at first, that the Law of Jesus Christ ought not to be burdened with servile Works, nor mingled with Superstitions; that its Virtue proceeded from Mercy and the Grace which is produced by the Sacraments; from whence he concludes, that the Whippers who maintain, that Whipping is of more Virtue for Remission of Sin, than Confession, and who equal it to Martyrdom, are in an Error: He says, 'tis to be feared lest this Effusion of the Blood of Ecclesiastical Persons, and in holy Places, should make the former fall into Excommunication or some Irregularity, and profane the latter; that when it is forbidden to impose public Penance upon Clergymen, it is much less lawful to chastise them publicly with Whip, which are contrary to Modesty and Decency; that to make these Whip lawful, they should be imposed as a Penance by some Superior; that 'tis convenient they should be used by the hand of another with Moderation, without Scandal, without Ostentation and Effusion of Blood, as it is practised in some approved Convents, and by devout Persons; that public Whip are a dangerous Novelty condemned by the Church, and are the cause of infinite Mischiefs, as the contempt of Priests and Sacraments, the Idleness, the Robbery, the Lewdness, etc. From whence he concludes, That a stop must be put to this Practice lest it should revive and prevail, by opposing it with Preaching, with Laws, and by Chastising the Disobedient; and besides, as it is not lawful to cut off any Member unless it is for the Health of the Body, so neither does it seem to be lawful to draw Blood out of the Body by Violence, unless it be by the way of Medicine. After this Treatise, follows a Letter addressed to St. Vincent Ferrier of the Order of Friars Predicants, which does not so vigorously oppose this Usage, but rather recommends the Care of it to him; and desires him to come to Constance, there to procure the Condemnation of this Sect of Whippers. These things were written in the Year 1417.  
The next Treatise, against the Proprietors, who make Profession of the Rule of St. Austin, is falsely attributed to Gerson. This is the last Piece of the first part of his Works.  
The second part consists of Moral Writings: The first is entitled, Moral Rules, and is a Collection of many Axioms and Maxims upon different Subjects, which appear not to have Gerson's Style, as neither has the next Treatise, which is an Abridgement of Speculative and Moral Theology.  
The Tripartite Work, wherein he treats of the Precepts of the Decalogue, of Confession, and the Art of dying well, was found so useful, that the Bishops of France made choice of it in their Synods, to serve for an Instruction to Priests, and to the Faithful of their Dioceses; recommended it to the Curates to be read in their Exhortation, and inserted into the Rituals. The first part contains an easy Exposition of the Articles of Faith, and a very useful Explication of the Precepts of the Decalogue; the second, the different Sins of which one may accuse himself in Confession; and the third, Exhortations and Prayers to assist a Man at the time of Death. These things are handled in this Piece, after a plain, but solid and instructive manner.  
The Treatise of the Difference between Venial and Mortal Sins, was written in French by Gerson, and translated into Latin by some Person at the same time. To distinguish between these two Sins, he lays down as a Principle, That among the Commands of God, there are some which we are obliged to practise, under pain of forfeiting his Grace, and incurring eternal Damnation, viz. those which bind us to the Obedience we own to God, and those which maintain Society among Men, as the Commands of loving God, of not Killing, not Stealing, etc. There are other Commands which have only a temporal Penalty annexed to them; to violate the former is a mortal Sin, and to transgress, the latter is only a venial Sin. But a Command may be violated either upon mature Deliberation, with certain Knowledge and an express Consent, or through Ignorance from a first Motion, and without a formal Consent; and in this Case they do not always Sin mortally by transgressing one of the former Commands, because it is the Consent that makes the Sin: And thus these Sins which are called Mortal, are not always so. Vainglory of itself is only a Venial Sin; but it becomes a Mortal Sin, upon the account of the end, or the Action wherein the Vainglory is sought for. He distinguishes the Cases wherein it is a Mortal Sin, and wherein it is not. He runs over also the other Capital Sins, and examines what Circumstances render them Mortal or Venial. He shows also on what occasion Ignorance or Sincerity excuses from Sin. He gives many Instructions about Confession, and the Sins which are committed in the way of Traffic, about the Obligation to take off the Excommunication which is incurred, and having no Commerce with those who are excommunicated. Lastly, he proves that we should avoid all kind of Sins, and explains by a Comparison which are Mortal, and which Venial.  
The following Treatises are concerning the Sacrament of Penance. In the first, entitled, Of the Art of hearing Confession, he gives divers Rules to Confessors concerning their Office. In the second, he teaches them after what manner they ought to behave themselves, to make their Penitents confess the Sin of Debauchery. In the third, he teaches them divers Remedies which they may apply to hinder a Relapse. In the fourth, he reprimands a Custom of the Order of the Carthusians, whereby the Confessors of that Order did not grant Absolution, but only for Venial Sins; and as to Mortal Sins, referred them to their Superiors. In the fifth, he treats of the different kinds of Excommunication, and of Irregularities, and of the manner of granting Absolution. In the sixth, he treats of the form of Sacramental Absolution, of the other Absolution, of Excommunication, of Indulgencies and their Effect. In the next Piece he inquires whether a dead Man may be absolved. In the eighth and ninth, he speaks of reserved Cases. In the tenth, he explains wherein consists the Power of binding and losing. In the following Treatises he decides divers Cases about Irregularities and Absolutions. Lastly, he treats of Indulgencies in two particular Tracts, wherein he has very useful Discourses about Indulgencies and their Effects. After all he concludes, that a Man ought not to be Prodigal of them, lest they should become contemptible; that he ought to give them only for the public Good, and that he ought to take heed lest he appear to grant them out of Interest.  
In another Treatise he resolves four Questions, viz. First, If it be always a Sin to speak Evil of another in his Absence; Secondly, If he that has made a feigned Confession be obliged to confess all his Sins anew; Thirdly, Whether the Person Confessing being suspected of not examining his Conscience sufficiently, may be Absolved without putting other. Questions to him; Fourthly, If the Eucharist may be celebrated upon broken Altars, with Girdles which are not Blessed, or patched Priestly Garments.  
He answers to the first, That we ought to consider the end which he has who speaks Evil of his Neighbour; which may be, First, The Instruction or Information of those to whom he speaks, that they may shun these Faults, or that they may not be deceived by those of whom he speaks; Secondly, The profit of those who are absent, that those to whom it is spoken, may advertise them of it, or pray for them; Thirdly, Curiosity, or an itch of talking; Fourthly, Hatred or Envy. One may speak Evil of his Neighbour without Sin, nay, and deserve well, when he does it from the two former Motives; the third is seldom free from Sin, and sometimes it is Mortal; the last is always a Sin. For resolving the second he distinguishes four sorts of Fictions in Matter of Confession; The first, which is made by a pernicious Lie; the second, by a deceitful Reservation; the third, because he has not a true Resolution to forsake his Sin; the fourth, because he has not duly examined himself. The first of these Fictions renders the Absolution null, and the second also, if it be done with a design of Fraud, and to deceive the Confessor; but not in Case some Sin be concealed, which the Penitent believes he ought not to discover to this Confessor for certain good Reasons. The third renders also the Confession null; the fourth does not always render the Confession null. As to the third Question, he says, That if the Confessor be not a Curate, he may delay the Confession, or refer the Penitent to another Confessor; but if he be a Curate, and be obliged to grant him Absolution, and the Penitent will not answer his Questions, he ought to grant it him with a tacit Condition, That it shall be of no use to him if he conceals any Sin; but if the Penitent be willing to be examined and asked Questions, he ought to do it with Prudence. Lastly, as to the fourth he answers, That he must follow the Customs of the place.  
He resolves many other Questions in the next Tract, whereof the principal are these. First, Whether one does Sin mortally with respect to the Vow of Obedience? To which he answers, No, because it is not credible, That those who command others, would oblige them under the pain of Mortal Sin; and so at least when there is no formal Contempt of the Command, there is no Sin. Secondly, If any can be certain that God has remitted his Sins at least as to Gild, and if he cannot, how long time he ought to bewail his Sin? He answers, That no Body can be certain of this, but that we are to believe that he who confesses his Sins, and is firmly resolved to Sin no more, is in a State of Grace; and that when he has completed the Penance imposed upon him, he ought no more to reflect upon his past Sins, but go on to perfect himself in Virtue, except when he is tempted with Pride. Thirdly, Whether a Priest who has a private Mass to say, can celebrate it for all the People? And if he do celebrate it for all the People, whether the Sacrifice is more for all the People, than for those to whom he is specially obliged? He answers, That the Priest ought not to trouble himself about these things, but leave it to God to make Application of the Sacrifice, as if he should say, Lord have pity of all, as thou knowest needful, and as thou canst, and as thou thinkest fit, be willing, O Lord I pray thee; Besides, That mass ought not to be celebrated but when we pray for all those that are in the Communion of the Church; and if any would restrain the Efficacy of it to some particular Persons, this aught to be done without prejudice to the whole Church; and lastly, That it were better to make a General Prayer to God, than to restrain yourself to particular Persons; That it is not convenient during Mass to think particularly of this or that Man, because it may be the cause of Distraction; That we ought to think of them before Mass, and 'tis sufficient when we say it, to recommend in General those for whom we ought to pray, unless we be obliged to pray for one that is Dead. After this, he resolves divers other Cases about what may happen during the Celebration of the Mass; and then proceeds to the Sacrament of Penance, as to which he answers many Questions, about the Power of an Abbot in Confession; about the secrecy of Confession, that he would not have it revealed in any Case, or for any Reason; about imposing of Penance, the Circumstances of the Sins whereof he is accused, admission into a Convent, etc. After this Treatise here follow two small Tracts, one about Venial and Mortal Sin, and the other about the Rebuke of our Neighbour.  
The Treatise of the manner of conducting Children to Jesus Christ, contains several Precepts very useful for their Education.  
The Treatise about Contracts contains certain Rules for judging of the Justice and Injustice of Contracts, founded upon the Principles of Nature and Reason; where he treats also of difficult Questions, about different kinds of Contracts.  
The Treatise of Simony is about another Matter which is yet more nice, where he handles divers Cases about Simony, and the means which a Council ought to use for the Extirpation of it. There he condemns the Annates of Simony, because it is an Exaction which the Pope imposes for granting the Provisions of a Benefice; and tho' he believes that the Money may be excused from absolute Simony, which is given or received for things which have a certain Price, as the Dispatches of Letters, Men's Care and Pains; yet he does not approve that any thing should be given or exacted upon this Pretence: Nevertheless he does not condemn the Custom of giving or receiving something from those to whom the Sacraments are Administered; provided it be not the Principal Motive of Administering them, and that it be done without Scandal, and without appearance of Covetousness.  
In the next Treatise, E●…d, Of the Cure of ecclesiastics; addressed to the Celestines, he resolves Sixteen Questions about the foundations of Prayer and Divine Service; the Application of Masses to those who give a Recompense to the Priest, the Intention we ought to have in Prayer for Founders or Benefactors.  
The next pieces are Tracts of Piety, viz. Twelve Considerations to make a Christian Sacrament, a Letter about disposing of his Books after his Death, another Letter to the Celestines to desire their Prayers, the Establishment of an Anniversary in the Church of St. Paul at Lions, granted to Gerson by the Archbishop, the daily Testament of a Pilgrim in Prose and Verse; a Letter of Consolation in Verse to his Brother John a Monk of St. Remigius of Rheims, upon the Death of Nicholas one of their Brothers who was a Celestin, and a Treatise of Preparation for the Mass.  
The Works which follow are concerning Discipline; A Treatise of Celibacy, and the Chastity of ecclesiastics; An Apology of the Order of Carthusians against those who attacked it; A Letter to justify this Order, as to what was objected, That they are never permitted to eat Victuals; Many Decisions of a Case proposed about a Married Soldier in Debt who was made a Carthusian; A Treatise of the Moderation that ecclesiastics ought to observe in their Table and Habit; A Sermon about the Life and Behaviour of Clergymen; Many Sermons Preached on Holy- Thursday, viz. A Sermon of Humility, A Sermon of Penance, A Sermon of Evangelical Dominion, A Sermon against the Covetousness of Clergymen, A Sermon about the Resurrection Preached on Easter-Day, A Discourse of the Office of Pastors spoken in the Council of Rheims, in the Year 1408. A Treatise of the Visitation of Prelates, and the Care they ought to take of their Curates, A Sermon upon the Dedication of a Church, Many Sermons upon the Feast of All-Saints, A Sermon for the Day of Our Lord's Nativity, Two Sermons Preached on the Day of Septuagesima; Panegyrics of St. Bernard and St. Lovis, A Sermon upon Prayer Preached to the Council of Constance, A Sermon of the Holy Spirit, A Treatise upon the Words of Our Lord, Come unto me all ye that are in Pain and Affliction, A piece containing the Reasons why he would quit the Dignity of Chancellor, A Discourse to the Licentiates of Law, A Treatise of Nobility, and an Instruction for Princes.  
There are also in this part three Books which are not Gersons, viz. A Treatise of the Conception of the Virgin Mary, A Dialogue between an Englishman and a Frenchman, and some Reflections upon the Victory at Pucelle in Orleans.  
The third Part of the Works of Gerson gins with a Book, which is Entitled, The Imitation of Boethius, Concerning the Consolation of Divinity, which he composed during his Exile in Germany, partly in Verse, partly in Prose, by way of Dialogue; wherein he collects many Principles of Christian Philosophy, to serve him for Meditation and Consolation.  
The second is an Apology, or rather Complaint by way of Dialogue, That the Doctrine of John Petit, who affirmed it to be lawful to kill Tyrants, was not condemned in the Council.  
After these Treatises there follow some Poetical Pieces, and among the rest a Poem of the Life of St. Joseph, after which there is a Discourse of the Nativity of the Virgin.  
The Centilegium of Ideas is a Work purely Philosophical. The Treatise of the Spirimal Life of the Soul, is not so much Mystical, but rather a Work of Morality and Discipline; wherein he handles many important Questions, about the nature and distinction of Mortal and Venial Sin, the different kinds of Laws and their Obligation: There he maintains, That Laws purely Human, and which have no foundation in the Divine Law, cannot oblige under pain of Sin, unless in case of Scandal or Contempt.  
In the next Work he treats of the different kinds of Impressions which Men receive either from God, or Angels, or Evil Spirits.  
In the Treatise of Mystical Theology, he handles this Science Methodically, and by way of Principles, and afterwards gives Rules as to what concerns the Practice: To these are joined some Explications upon the same Subject. In this Treatise he avoids the Excesses of Mystical Divines, and advances nothing but what is rational; and there he lays down very useful Maxims to hinder Men from falling into these Follies and Errors, into which the Mystical Authors are many times led by an indiscreet Devotion.  
In the next Treatise addressed to William Minand, formerly Physician to the Cardinal of Saluzzes, and then a Carthusian; he resolves divers Questions which he had put to him, as to the manner, in which the Prior of the Carthusians ought to behave himself upon different occasions towards his Regulars.  
In the Treatise, Entitled, A Theological Question, viz. Whether the Light which shines in the Morning begot the Sun? He treats of the Practice of Evangelical Counsels, and the Perfection of their State who take upon them a Vow to Practise them; and shows, That the State of Prelates and Curates is more perfect than that of Monks and Regulars. The same Question he handles in the Treatise of the perfection of the Heart which is written by way of Dialogue.  
The following Treatises are Works of Piety, whose Titles discover their Subject: viz. A Treatise of Meditation, A Treatise of Purification, or Simplicity of Heart, A Treatise of Uprightness of Heart, A Treatise of the Illumination of the Heart, A Treatise of the Eye, A Treatise of the Remedies against Pusillanimity, Scruples, false Consolations, and Temptations, written in French, and translated into Latin; A Treatise of divers Temptations of the Devil, translated also out of French, An Instruction concerning the Spiritual Exercises of simple Devotionists, A Treatise about the Communion, A Piece against a Regular Professed, who was Disobedient, and another about the Zeal of a Novice, Eight Spiritual Letters, A Treatise of the Passions of the Soul, Two Spiritual Poems, A Treatise of Contemplation which was also translated out of French, A Conference of a Contemplative Man with his own Soul, whereof the second Part contains several Prayers and Meditations, A Letter to his Sisters, about the Thoughts we ought to entertain every Day, An Act of Appeal from the Justice of God to his Mercy, A Treatise of Prayer and its Effects, An Explication of these Words in the Lord's Prayer, Pardon our Sins, etc. A Prayer of a Sinner unto God, Many Treatises upon Scripture-Songs, particularly upon the Magnificat and the Canticles, A Treatise of the Elevation of the Soul to God, or the Alphabet of Divine Love, A Treatise upon the seven Penitential Psalms, Donatus Moralised, that's to say, Moral Questions in the form of Donatus' Grammar, A Poem of a Solitary Life. These are the Books contained in the second Part of Gerson's Works, at the end of which are put two Epitaphs of the Author, and a Letter from his Brother John the Celestine, about Gerson's Works; after which follows a Caralogue which contains a Great Part of the Works whereof we have spoken.  
The fourth Part contains many Sermons, some Letters and divers Treatises. The first Sermon is a Discourse about the Angels, rather Dogmatical than Moral; after which follows a Conference about the Angels, A Sermon about Circumcision, and the Panegyrics of St. Lovis and St. Nicholas, Two Discourses for the Licentiates in Law, A Sermon upon the Supper of Our Lord, A little Tract wherein he advises to read the Ancients rather than the Moderns, Three Letters about Spiritual and Contemplative Writers to Peter of Ailly, Bishop of Cambray, A Supplement to a Sermon which gins with these Words, A Deo exivi, A Memorial about the Duty of Prelates during the Subtraction, Two pieces containing divers Proposals for the Extirpation of Schism, A Tree of Right and Laws, and the Ecclesiastical Power, containing their Divisions, A second Panegyric of St. Lovis, and a Letter to John Morel, Canon of St. Remigius of Rheims, about the Life of a Holy Woman which he thought not convenient to publish.  
The Treatises which follow are more considerable; the First contains a Definition of all the Terms of Speculative and Moral Divinity, and also of the Virtues, Vices and Passions; the Second is an Addition to the Treatise of Schism; the Third is a Letter addressed to the Abbot of St. Denis, to persuade him to suppress a Placard injurious to the Parisians, wherein he accuses them of an Error and a Fault about the Relics of St. Denis; the Fourth contains some Proposals about the Extirpation of Schism; the Fifth, two Lectures against Curiosity and Novelty in Matters of Doctrine; the Sixth, a Treatise against Horoscopes and Judicial Astrology; the Seventh, a Sermon for Holy- Thursday; the Eighth, another Sermon upon the Feast of St. Lovis; the Ninth, two Letters about the Celebration of the Feast of St. Joseph; the Tenth, a Treatise of the Marriage of St. Joseph and the Virgin, with the Office of the Mass for that Day; the Eleventh, divers Conclusions about the Power of Bishops in Matters of Faith; the Twelfth, a Treatise of the Illumination of the Heart; the Thirteenth, a Resolution of a Case, viz. whether it be lawful for the Regulars of St. Benedict to eat Victuals in the House where they use to do it; to which he answers affirmatively; the Fourteenth, a Tract against the Superstition of those who affirm, That such as will hear Mass on a certain Day, shall not die a sudden Death. The Fifteenth, Instructions to John, Major Preceptor to Lovis XI. Dauphin, about his Duty; the Sixteenth, a Sermon preached at Lions in 1422. about the Duty of Pastors; the Seventeenth, a Treatise to justify what he had written of Lascivious Pictures, against the Writing of one who would justify this Custom; the Eighteenth, a Treatise of Good and Evil Signs to discern where a Man is Just or Unjust; the Nineteenth, an Imperfect Sermon about the Nativity of the Virgin; the Twentieth, of Principles against a certain Monk who preferred the Prayers of a devout Woman and Lay men before those of ecclesiastics who are Sinners; the Twenty first, a Sermon Preached the Day after Pentecost; the Twenty second, a Rule for a Hermit of Mount Valerian; the Twenty third, an Opposition made to the Subtraction of Obedience from Benedict XIII; the Twenty fourth, a Letter written from Bourges in the Year 1400. about the Calamities of the Church; the Twenty fifth, the Articles for the Reformation of the University; the Twenty sixth, the Centilegium of the final cause of the Works of God; the Twenty seventh, a Treatise of Metaphysics and Logicks.  
After these Treatises follow many Sermons preached in French by Gerson, and translated into Latin by John Briscoique, after which there are printed also some other Tracts, viz. a Treatise of Consolation upon the death of his Kindred; A Discourse spoken in the Lovure, in the presence of King Charles VI the Dauphin, and the Court, containing many Instructions for a Prince, to which are joined Ten Considerations against Flatterers; Another Discourse spoken also before the same King, in the Year 1408. about the Peace of the State and the Church; A third Discourse about Justice; A Sermon upon the Passion, preached in the Church of Notre Dame in Paris; A Treatise against the Romance of the Rose; Some Conclusions against the Sport of Fools, that's to say, against the Custom which was introduced of going disguised into the Churches on certain days; An Admonition to the Duke of Berry, to cause the Feast of St. Joseph to be celebrated; Some devout Meditations upon the Ascension of our Lord; Certain means by which those who could not go to Rome in the Year of Jubilee, might make this Pilgrimage in a spiritual manner; An Instruction for the Government of the Tongue▪ The means of Conceiving and Nourishing of Jesus Christ within us; A piece in Prose, entitled, The M●…rour of a good Life; A Discourse in favour of the Hospital of Paris; Several Considerations against Blasphemers; A Complaint of the Dead who are in Purgatory, addressed to the Living, to desire their Prayers; An Admonition to Regulars; Instructions about Tribulation; Advices about Scruples; Twelve Considerations upon Prayer; A Treatise about shameful Temptations, and a Dialogue in Prose, between Reason, Conscience, and the Senses.  
From the time of St. Bernard, the Church had never an Author of greater Reputation, more profound Knowledge, and more solid Piety than Gerson. His Style is harsh and careless; yet he is methodical, Reasons well, and exhausts the Subjects which he handles: He found'st his Resolutions upon certain Principles drawn from Scripture, or natural Reason: He handles Morality, sometimes Dogmatically, sometimes in a moving and mystical manner: He defends the Truth upon all Occasions with an admirable and undaunted Courage: He suffered a cruel Persecution for a righteous Cause, and died in Exile for maintaining it with Vigour. His Reputation was so great, that in the Council of Constance, he was owned and commended by Cardinal Zabarella, as the most excellent Doctor in all Christendom. Yet it must be confessed, that all his Works are not of equal Strength, that there are some of them which are inconsiderable, and that he does not always take the right side of the Questions which he handles and decides. Nevertheless, many of his Books are excellent, and Divines cannot profit more than by reading, them diligently; this Study would be very useful to them, and from them they might draw a great many Principles and Maxims which would be very serviceable to them: It were to be wished, that his Books were more common, and that this Author were not so much neglected, so little known, and so little read as he is at present. The new Edition of his Works, which Mounsieur Her●…al a Canon Regular of St. Victor had undertaken to publish from many Manuscripts, might have rendered them more Correct and more Common, if his Design had been put in Execution.  
Nicholas Clemangis, or, of Clemange, which is the Name of a Village in the Diocese of Chalons, was sent to Paris at twelve Years of Age, to follow his Studies there, in the College of 
Nicholas Clemangis a Doctor of Paris.  Navarre; where he had for Masters John Gerson, Peter of Nogent, and Gerard Machet. His Accomplishments were chief Eloquence and Poetry, and he was created Rector of the University in the Year 1393. About this time he applied himself to Writing; and the first of his Pieces, was a Letter which he addressed to King Charles VI about the Schism of the Church; wherein he discovers three ways for putting an end to it. After this he wrote upon the same Subject to Pope Clement VII. and after this Pope's death, to the Cardinals. Benedict XIII. who succeeded Clement VII. sent for him to come and live with him. He defended stoutly his Party, and wrote to King Charles VI to dissuade him from subtracting his Obedience. He was suspected of having composed the Letter which Benedict XIII. wrote against the King and Kingdom of France, dated in the Month of May, 1407. though he had retired two Months before from this Pope's Court to Genoa, and did afterwards return into France to take Possession of a Canonry, and the Treasurers' Place in the Cathedral Church of 
* Lingones.  Langres, to which he was promoted during his Sojourning at Avignon: Though he asserted that he was not the Author of this Letter, yet he was believed to be so, and was obliged to hid himself in the Convent of the Carthusians, at Valfonds, or the Fountain in the Wood In this Retirement he wrote the greatest part of his Treatises and Letters, without returning to the Court of Pope Benedict, though he was earnestly solicited to do it. Having obtained favour of the King, he returned to Langres, where he sojourned a long while. He was afterwards Chantor of the Church of Baieux, and at last retired towards the end of his Life into the College of Navarre, where he died before the Year, 1440.  
The greatest part of Clemangis' Works have been published by Lydius a Protestant Minister, and printed in Holland by Elzevir, in the Year 1613. The first is a Treatise, Entitled, Of the corrupt State of the Church, written about the Year 1414. the design of which Treatise is to reprove the Vices and Disorders of the ecclesiastics. He says, That while he was reading the first Epistle of St. Peter, he light upon these Words, Now is the time that Judgement shall begin at the House of God; That they shamed and astonished him, and made him reflect upon the Afflictions and Calamities which the Church endured; That at the same time some very just Causes of these Miseries were presented to his Mind, while he thought of the Ministers of the Church, whereof Jesus Christ alone is the Portion; That they ought to be free from all Lust; That 'twas reasonable, that those who handled, consecrated, and distributed the Celestial Sacraments, and the most excellent Price of the Redemption of Mankind, should be chaste and without spot; That those who represent a Judge who is merciful, just and humble, should have his Virtues, and that those who are Mediators of the Peace and Agreement between God and Man, should live in Peace and Union; Lastly, that those who are appointed to instruct others, ought to show themselves an Example and Pattern of Virtue; and yet these very Persons are defiled with all kind of Vices, Why then should we wonder, that Miseries befall them, since their Crimes bring upon them the Wrath of God? After this he undertakes to discover and rebuke these Disorders; and beginning with Lust, which is the Fountain and Root of all Vices, he says, that the Contempt of the Riches and Goods of this World, which the Ministers of Jesus Christ expressed in the Primitive Church, brought upon them the Blessing of Heaven, the liberal Gifts of Princes, and the Riches of this Life; that it was by this means only that the Church became Powerful, that Monasteries, Chapters, Cathedral and Parochial Churches were founded and established; the ecclesiastics, who had obtained these Goods by their Virtues, did not employ them to profane Uses, but for Alms and Exercises of Charity; they had no other Treasure but that of their good Works; no Vessels of Gold or Silver, nor any Equipage, and then they enjoyed all kind of Prosperity: That than Charity, Innocence, Faith, Piety, Justice, and sincere Friendship reigned upon the Earth, and that Fraud and Calumny were banished out of it, because the Pastors instructed their People in these Virtues by their sound Doctrine, and their holy Life; but that Abundance having produced Luxury and Pride, Religion grew cold by degrees, and Avarice took Possession of the minds of Men, and extinguished Charity in them; that after this, the Salvation and Edification of the Faithful was not designed in the Ecclesiastical Offices of Divine Service, but only the great Revenue of Benefices; that the greatest part of beneficed Men, thought only of Ravishing the Profit without putting themselves to the trouble of discharging the Office. Afterwards he enters upon the particular Abuses which Lust has introduced among the ecclesiastics, and gins with those which the Passion of domineering and enriching themselves, has introduced into the Court of Rome: Such as are the Collations of all Benefices, which the Popes have engrossed in their own Hands to the prejudice of Elections; the Sums which the Apostolic Chamber hath exacted for these Collations; the Promises of vacant Benefices which they have granted to unworthy Men, who have rendered the Priesthood contemptible; the Rights of Vacancy, the Tenths, and the other Taxes of Pence which have been exacted with an unparallelled Rigour; an infinite number of Processes which the Court of Rome hath given Birth to, and maintained by its Tricks; the Pride and Pomp of Cardinals, who being formerly employed for burying of the dead, are now so highly advanced that they despise not only the Bishops, whom they call in derision Little Bishops, but even the Archbishops, the Primats and Patriarches; who heap together an infinite number of incompatible Benefices, uniting in their own Persons the Titles of Monks and Canons, Regular and Secular, and possessing Benefices of all sorts of Order and Nature, not only to the Number of two or three, but even to twenty, nay a hundred or more of the most considerable and richest Benefices; while a great number of poor ecclesiastics have not whereupon to live, and are forced sometimes to purchase Benefices of them. He accuses them of being the Authors and Causes of Schism, of selling their Votes, of making Creatures and Dependants by the Benefices which they give. After this he proceeds to other Prelates, and reprehends the Ignorance and Avarice of some, the absence of others from their Benefices, and the neglect of discharging their Duties; the Disorders of some Canons, the Excesses of some Monks, and the Pride of some Religious Mendicants. He describes in Words very sharp, and apparently passionate, the Disorders which were in some Monasteries of the Regulars. Lastly, having compared together the Manners of the Christians of his time, and those of the Primitive Church, for fear lest what he had said should be abused; he adds this Caution, That his Intention was not to comprehend all ecclesiastics without Exception, as being guilty of the Disorders which he had spoke of; That he knew that Jesus Christ who cannot lie, had said, Peter, I pray for thee, that they Faith fail not; That he was persuaded there was in each State many just and innocent Persons, who have no hand in the Disorders of which he had complained, although he believed that the Number of wicked Men was far greater. After this, he aggravates the Disorders of the Pope's Court at Avignon, and the miserable Consequences of the Schism; and says, That we must have recourse to God, and pray him to reunite his Church, and heal the Breaches which were among its Members: He concludes all with a Prayer directed to Jesus Christ for this purpose. After this Work follows a poetical Piece in Hexameter Verse; wherein he bewails the Schism of the Church, and exhorts Pope Benedict XIII. to extinguish it.  
The Treatise of the Falling and Restauration of Justice, addressed to Philip Duke of Burgundy, is a Work rather Political than Theological, wherein he shows that without Justice a State cannot be maintained; he detests the Civil Wars, the Contempt of Justice and Religion, and the other Disorders which reigned then in France, and inquires after Means to remedy them.  
The third Dogmatical Treatise of Clemangis, is about the Infallibility of a General Council. This he wrote when the Council of Constance was sitting, and the University of Paris did vigorously maintain the Infallibility of General Councils. Clemangis wrote then two Pieces by way of Conferences with a Scholastical Divine of Paris; wherein he proposes the Difficulties and Doubts which there are about this Question, and the Reasons which are brought to prove this Infallibility: He says himself at the end of this Work, That he has no design to affirm any thing, but only to propose his Doubts and Difficulties, that the Matter may be cleared up; and that he is ready to retract or amend what he has written upon this Subject, if it shall be found contrary to Truth, or be the cause of Scandal. This Temper may serve to excuse what he has written so boldly in this Treatise against the Infallibility of General Councils, though he does not oppose the Infallibility of Councils in Matters of Faith, which he acknowledges but only in Questions of Fact about Morality or Discipline.  
To these three Treatises must be joined his Book about Theological Studies, published by Father Dom Luc Dachery, in the Seventh Tome of his Spicilegium. It is addressed to John of Piedmont, Bachelor of Divinity, who had consulted him whether he should Commense Doctor. He answers him in this Book, That we must distinguish between him who is truly a Doctor, and him who has only the external Marks of that Degree; that undoubtedly he would do well to be a Doctor in the first Sense, that's to say, to be capable of Teaching, and doing the Office of one by his Discourses, and by his Life; but if he enquired whether he ought to take upon him the exterior Marks of one, i e. the Degree and Cap of a Doctor, he must consult himself, and reflect upon his own Mind and Design, because it was a thing which might be well used or abused; yet he must examine what Motives moved him to assume this Degree, and search the secret Corners of his Heart, that he might discover the Springs of this Action: From thence he takes occasion to explain to him what ought to be the Object and End of a Divine's Studies; he blames those who study this Science out of Interest or Vanity, and think of nothing but to enrich themselves by this Means: He would have a Divine who is a Preacher, to be in Truth the same thing which he says; to live according to God, and give an Example of that Life which he Preaches; that his Sermons should be the Effect of the Charity of the Holy Spirit spread abroad in his Heart; that he should read continually the Scriptures, and the Books of the Holy Fathers: He complains of the Divines of his own time, that they read the Holy Scriptures negligently, and employ their Wit and Time in barren Subtleties: He says that the Ancient Father's asserted nothing which they did not ground upon the Holy Scriptures; whereas the greatest part of the Schoolmen valued them so little, that they laughed at these Discourses which are founded upon Authorities; which rendered them so lazy, and so unfit for Preaching and Instruction, which ought to be the end of a Divine's Studies: For, says he, he ought not only to study to understand Divinity, which would be a vain Curiosity; nor to purchase the Favour and Applause of the People, which would be Vainglory; nor to acquire Reputation, which would be a barren Commendation; nor to gain Revenues and Riches, which would be Covetousness; nor to be advanced to Honours and Dignities, which would be Ambition; nor to be honoured with the Title of Master, which would be Vanity, nor to medi●ate in Peace and at Leisure, which would consopite his Mind and make it more remiss; but he ought to study to improve that Talon of Doctrine which God has entrusted with him, by using it faithfully, and conducting as many as he can to Life eternal; and herein consists true Charity. He admonishes Divines therefore to take good heed, that they do not aspire to the Title of Doctor by a blind Ambition; as may be seen in many, says he, at this day, who will have high Titles, not that they may Teach, but that they may gain Riches, even to excess: They make their Court to Prelates, and obtain Benefices by their Importunity; of which they are so Covetous, that there is nothing which they will not do to obtain them; I dare not say after what manner they use them, after they have got into Possession. Certainly it had been much better for this People never to have aspired to the Title of Doctor, than thus to be thrown down by their Ambition into so many Pains and Disorders. After this he inquires which is the most excellent Employment and most conducing to Salvation, to Preach to the People; or after they have taken a Doctor's Degree, to stay in the University, and read Lectures there. He confesses there is one whom the School calls a Solemn Doctor, who prefers the latter; but he is not of his Opinion, but esteems the former much more Excellent and more Useful. Above all, he blames those negligent Pastors who excuse the little Care they take of their Flocks with a pretence of Study, and those beneficed Men who cloak the Plurality of their Benefices with the same Pretence: Nevertheless, he confesses, that the Office of Professors is necessary; but he says, it belongs to those who are not called to other Employments to discharge that Office; and he does by no means approve that those who are called to the Care of Souls, should neglect it for Studying or Teaching Divinity.  
Of the five other Treatises of Clemangis, printed among his Works, there are three of Morality, viz. the Discourse of the Parable of the Prodigal; wherein he discovers the bad Use which Men make of the Benefits of God; the Treatise of the Advantage of Solitude, and that of the Improvement of Adversity, wherein these things are handled with as much Eloquence and Politeness, as Beauty and Strength: The two other are concerning two important Points of Discipline; the former to show, that 'tis not convenient to appoint new Festivals; and the second, against the Simony of Prelates.  
In the former, he undertakes to prove, That it was not convenient in his time to appoint new Festivals in the Church, chief without necessity, because they are become so numerous already that it were more expedient to retrench some of them than to add to them; and so much the rather, because things that are rare, are more esteemed, whereas those that are common become contemptible. It remains only to be considered, says he, with how little Devotion Christian People do celebrate these Festivals: Few come to Church on these days; many hear not Mass at all, others hear but a part of it, and go away before the Priest says, Ite, missa est: Some satisfy themselves with entering into the Church, and taking there a little consecrated Water, or falling down on their Knees for a moment, saluting the Image of the Virgin, or of any Saint, or adoring the Body of Jesus Christ during the Elevation. As to the Office of Matins or Vespers, few Persons are present at it, and often times the Pressed repeats alone with an Under-Clerk; scarce one can be found sometimes to answer at the Mass. Some go to their Houses in the Country, others go about their Affairs, the greatest part go to Fairs, which they seldom do, but on these days; many take the diversion of a Comedy, or a Play: The Rich make Feasts on these Days with great Pomp and Magnificence, but take no care to purge their Consciences. The meaner sort of People profane the Holiness of these Days by going to the Alehouse, where they Swear, Blaspheme, Quarrel, and Beat one another, and spend Night and Day in Riot and Luxury. The younger sort of People come to Church on these Days only to see the Women, who are better Dressed on these Days than others. In fine, an infinite number of Crimes are committed on these Days. Those are severely punished who labour in the Vineyard, or in digging the Ground on these Festival Days; and yet they are not punished at all, who violate the Holiness of these Days by their Crimes; tho' St. Austin affirms, that it is less Criminal to Till the Ground, than to Dance on a Festival Day. Clemangis concludes from all this, that these Disorders are almost inevitable; that it was expedient to retrench the Festivals which are not necessary, rather than to add to them, as the Church has abolished the Vigils which were formerly used in Churches with much advantage to Piety, because they became the occasion of Debauchery, whereof there are still remaining shameful Examples in some Churches. He explains afterwards the Reason of the Institution of Festivals, and the manner in which they should be Celebrated.  
There comes no benefit to the Saints, says he, from our Worship, nor from the Praises we give them; they did not themselves rejoice in the Glory they had upon Earth, which they despised, when they were Clothed with this Mortal Flesh; all the advantage of their Festivals is for us, if we Celebrate them as we ought to do: They are appointed for our Salvation, to excite our Devotion, that being delivered on these Days for a little time from the Cares of the World, and the Labour of the Body, we may take pains for the good of the Soul.  
And because it rarely happens but in our daily Labours, and the Care of our Domestic Affairs, we fall into some Sin, either through Infirmity, or Weakness, or by Negligence, therefore the Lord's Day and other Festivals are appointed, that Men being freed from such Cares on these Days, may descend into their own Breast, recollect themselves, examine their own Conscience, reflect upon their Sins, and blot them out by their Contrition, wash them with their Tears, drive them away by Prayer, ransom them by Alms, and by praying to God for Pardon, through the Invocation of Jesus Christ, and the Saints, and for Grace to forsake them for the time to to come; for he is not a true Penitent, nor worthy of Pardon, who has not a firm Resolution to forsake his Sins. Now to the end that the Heart may be quickened to this Devotion, the Faithful must be assisted on these Days with Holy Mysteries; they must hear Mass, and the Word of God, which is able to soften the hardest Hearts, if they hear it with attention; they must Meditate on the Actions and Virtues of the Saints, whose Festival is Celebrated, that they may imitate their Example. 'Tis probable, that the Saints are more favourable to those who Pray to them, who Honour them on the Days of their Festivals, than at other times; and that Jesus Christ has then a greater regard to their Intercession: But the Faithful must so prepare themselves, that the Saints may Pray to Jesus Christ for them, and that Jesus Christ may hear their Prayers.  
He declaims afterwards against the Profaneness of the greater part of Christians in his time on these Days, and the Disorders which they committed. But since it might be objected to him, that tho' many Persons had abused the Festivals, yet there were many others who Celebrated them with Devotion, and spent these Days in Prayer, and Goodworks: That the Festivals being chief appointed for Persons of Piety, it was not convenient to abolish them, but that even new ones might be added to them, to procure farther means of Edification, and so much the rather, because the Administrations of the Church are chief designed for the benefit of the Elect, which herein follow the footsteps of its Head: He proposes therefore this Objection, and before he answers it, he observes that there is a great deal of difference between the Commandments of God, and the Traditions of Men, as to what concerns their Observation, or Neglect; that the Commandments of God cannot be abrogated by any Human Institution, upon any pretence of profit whatsoever, because no Man has a Right to change the Law of God: But as to Ecclesiastical Constitutions, altho' they have been appointed for just and sufficient Reasons, they do not oblige so indispensably, but they may often be changed, with respect to Times, Places, and Customs, by the Universal Church, or even by particular Churches. He alleges Images for an Example, which were though: to be forbidden in the Primitive Church, for fear lest the Faithful, who were newly Converted from Paganism, should believe that there was some Divinity in them, and which were afterwards allowed, when the Faithful were confirmed in the Faith, and this Inconvenience was no more to be feared. He adds, that about four years ago, Michael Bishop of Antisiodorum, a Prelate of great Virtue, and lately deceased, had taken away by his Synodical Decrees many Festivals which were wont to be Celebrated in his Diocese, upon the account of the Disorders which were committed at them, and the necessities of the Common People, that this Retrenchment did not hinder Pious Persons from Celebrating them with Devotion, and assisting at the Office; that 'tis true, the Church ought to manage all things for the good of the Elect, but than it ought not to despair of any Man, nor to look upon any Christian as a Reprobate while he lives upon Earth; that it ought to take care of the good, and the bad; that according to the Gospel, we should rather cut off our Hand, or our Foot, and pluck out our Eye, than give offence to the least of our Brethren: How much more Reason is there then to take away a thing which gives Scandal both to Great and Small. He intimates also, that the Consideration of the Miseries to which the Common People in his time were reduced, was sufficient Reason for abolishing these Festivals, which deprived them of the means of gaining their livelihood. Lastly, he blames the New Festivals, whose Rents they cannot enjoy, without Celebrating them in their Churches; an Abuse which had so subverted the Divine Service in the greatest part of the Churches, that the Office for the Day was scarce any more regarded, because these New Saints had Engrossed all the Days, and sometimes had even taken up the Days of the Festivals Consecrated to God; from whence it came to pass, that the Holy Scripture was no more read in the Office, but only the History of the Saints; and that there was a necessity of changing every day the Ancient Offices, and the Order of the Church. He complains that these Novelties were introduced into the greatest part of the Churches, and even into the Cathedrals, except that of Lions, which he says did not receive these Novelties. Lastly, he Conjures those who had more Zeal than was necessary for the Institution of the New Festivals, to reflect upon these Reasons, and if they found them Just, to acquiesce in the Truth; if they found any thing in them worthy to be blamed, to acquaint him wherein he was deceived, and declares that he was ready to Correct what he had written, if it were against the Rule of the Church; and protests that he had not Composed this Book to contradict their Affection, which he believed to proceed from a good Intention, b●t to discover the Scandal and Mischief which arise from this multiplication of Festivals, for the instruction and satisfaction of those, who not considering them, procure these Novelties out of a good Zeal, but not according to Knowledge.  
In the Treatise of Simoniacal Prelates, Addressed to Gerson, he declaims earnestly against the Custom of some Bishops in his time, who took and exacted Money for Conferring of Orders, under pretence of dispatching the Letters, or otherwise. Tell me, O Bishops, says he, who are not ashamed to sell Doves in the Church of Jesus Christ, wherefore think ye that Ecclesiastical Benefices were Appointed? Was it not for the performing of some Office? And what is the Office for which ye were Ordained? Ye will not tell me that it was to Baptise, to Consecrate the Eucharist, to hear Confessions, to give Absolutions, to Celebrate Marriages, since this is common to you, with the Curates and Priests of your Diocese. Neither will you say, that it was to Preach; for altho' it belongs to you to discharge this Duty, yet ye do it very rarely, and negligently, and commonly turn it over to others: What then is the Office which is not common to you with others? 'Tis chief to Confer Orders in your Diocese, this is the Principal End for which ye were Ordained Bishops. How comes it to pass then that ye do not discharge this Duty gratis, having so great Revenues of your Bishoprics for this very Reason? As to what might be objected to him, that there were many Bishops of great Piety that used to do this; and that it was Authorised in some Places by an Ancient Custom. He answers, That no Custom nor Prescription ought to be alleged against the Law of God, the Holy Decrees of Councils, the Commands of the Holy Fathers, and against Decency, and Good Manners. He refutes also the excuse which some allege, who would defend this Usage. We do not, say they, sell the Orders, it is not for Orders that the Money is given, but for the Letters, the Seal, and the Notary. These, says he, are Fictions, and not Truths; for it often happens, that those who refuse to take the Letters to shun this Simony, have nevertheless been obliged to give the Money to be Ordained; what say I, to be Ordained? Their Names are not so much as set down in the Catalogue of those who are to receive Orders, unless they pay what is demanded of them: Whether this turn to the profit of the Bishop, or his Secretary, God is witness, and the Secretary may be also. But suppose that this turn to the profit of the Secretary, is it just that the Bishop should pay to him another's Money; and among so many Officers, cannot he maintain a Secretary at his own Charges? Besides, that it is expressly forbidden in the Canons to take any thing, not so much as for the Writing, which excludes all kind of pretence. In fine, he affirms, that this Abuse is the Fountain of all the Disorders that are in the Church; for whence, says he, comes the Indevotion of the People, the Contempt of Priests, the Abolishing of the Rights and Liberties of the Church, but because it is full of contemptible Persons, and unworthy of their Ministration? Whence comes it to pass that an infinite number of ignorant Persons, are admitted to the Priesthood, who understand no Latin, and scarce can Read; and who in Repeating or Singing the Prayers, know not whether they Bless or Curse the Lord, and so many others of bad Morals, who live in all sorts of Debauchery. The Bishops are the chief Cause of these Disorders, because they admit to Orders indifferently all sorts of Persons, without examining their Learning, or their Manners; and they are satisfied with punishing them in their Purse, without endeavouring to reform their Faults. And after all this, can any one wonder, that the Ecclesiastical State should be trampled upon, despised, hated, afflicted, oppressed, robbed, and Persecuted? These are the words which Clemangis makes use of to exaggerate the Disorders of the ecclesiastics in his time, which thanks be to Heaven, to the Decrees of Holy Councils, and chief to that of Trent, and to the Pastoral Vigilance of our Bishops, are now Corrected and Reformed in our Age, which abounds with ecclesiastics of singular Learning, and extraordinary Piety.  
The Collection of Clemangis' Letters contains 137. all Written with much Elegance and Chastity, and full of Christian, Moral and Politic Instructions; of the Descriptions of Vices, and Virtues, of Draughts of History, of Critical Questions, of wholesome Advices, and Compliments. The most considerable, with reference to Ecclesiastical Matters, are those which were written about the Schism, and about the State of the Church, viz. the first, addressed to King Charles VI wherein he exhorts him in a most Pathetical manner to labour for the Reformation of the Church, and the Extirpation of Schism. The second, addressed to Pope Benedict XIII. lately chosen, written with a great deal of Art upon the same Subject. The third, wherein he makes an Apology for the former. The thirteenth, addressed to Benedict about the Inconveniences of the Substraction. The fifteenth, to John Gerson, about the danger in which the Church was. The seventeenth, to King Charles VI to dissuade him from the Substraction, which is very long and eloquent. The twenty ninth, addressed to Peter of Ailly, Bishop of Cambray, about the Afflictions of the Church. The fortieth, addressed to Renald of Fountains, to justify, That he was not the Author of the Letter which Benedict sent into France, for Excommunicating the King and the Kingdom. The forty second, to the University of Paris, upon the same Subject. The forty third, to Renald of Fountains, to clear himself of some other things which he was accused of writing in Letters intercepted. The forty fourth, forty fifth and forty sixth▪ about the Persecution which he suffered upon this occasion. The fifty fifth, against the Enemies of Pope Benedict. The hundred second, of the Qualifications which Deputies ought to have that are sent to a General Council. And the hundred twelfth, addressed to the Council of Constance, wherein he praises the Fathers of that Council who were already Assembled for two Years, and exhorts them not to part till they had procured the Peace of the Church; and insinuates to them towards the end of the Letter, That it would be more convenient to choose one of the Competitors, than not to conclude the Peace of the Church; signifying withal, That he did not approve the Decree, which some said they had made, That they would not choose one of the Competitors.  
Those which are written about the Civil Wars, and the Mischiefs wherewith France was Afflicted at that time by the Divisions of Princes, are equally strong and beautiful; they are full of Christian Maxims and Politics about the Peace and Reformation of the State: See the Letters 59, 63, 67, 68, 69, 89, 90, 97, 98, 101, 103, 107, and 132. to which may be added the 56, to Lovis Duke of Aquitain, Eldest Son to King Charles VI wherein he exhorts him to Mildness and Clemency. The 93d about the Instructions of this Prince, addressed to John D▪ Arcanval his Governor, and the 136 to Henry King of England about Justice, and the other Virtues of a Prince.  
In many of his Letters he gives lively Descriptions of the Disorders, and Corruption of Manners in the ecclesiastics and Secular Men of his Time: See the 14, 15, 28, 31, 35, 54, 133. In others he treats of important Points of Morality, as in the 9th, of Patience under Afflictions, in the 11th, That the Health of the Soul is preferable to that of the Body, in the 60th, of shunning Vainglory, in the 62d, of the advantages of Afflictions and Persecutions; In the 65, 73, 74. of Preaching, of the Fervour and Constancy that should be used in this Ministration, in the 75th, of the Vigilance of Pastors, and the things wherein they ought to employ themselves. There he confirms the same Principles, which are in his Books of the Corruption of the Church and the Study of Theology; in the 82d, he treats of the uncertainty and shortness of this Life; and in the 92d, of Alms and Christian Watchfulness.  
There are some Letters, which are not about serious Matters, and so do not discover the Learning and Excellent Wit of Clemangis, as the fourth and fifth, in which he refutes what Petrarch had affirmed, That no where but in Italy there were any Popes and Orators of Worth; the Twenty third, wherein he inquires, Whether one might make use in Latin Letters of the form of Salutation used by the Ancients; the Twenty fourth, wherein he describes very pleasantly a Property he had of smelling an Evil Scent in Pestilential Places; the Twenty seventh, wherein he treats Leamedly of the Causes of the Pest; the Thirty ninth, wherein he relates two Stories which had been told him by a Man whom he met in a Journey, one about an Assassination discovered in an extraordinary manner; and the other, of a Wild ●nd Hairy Man taken in a Forest; the Sixty first, wherein he relates a Story of a visible Judgement upon a wicked Wretch.  
This Author is no whit inferior to the Ancients for Eloquence and Nobleness of Thought, and as to the Purity of his Words, and the Chasteness of his Latin Style he does even surpass them: His Discourse is adorned with the Natural Ornaments of true Eloquence without Affectation, and abounds in choice Words, rich Thoughts, and happy Applications of the Passages of Sacred and Profane Authors: It is a little too Luxuriant in his Declamations, and too Biting in his Satyrs, but it is pleasant in his Descriptions, polished in his Na●artives, full in his Instructions, earnest in his Exhortations, and wise in his Advices. In fine, whatever may be said of him, he will always pass in any Age whatsoever, for an Author worthy to be read and valued.  
Gerard Machet, after he had studied in the College of Navarre, towards the end of the preceding 
Gerard Machet Bishop of Castres'.  Century, took a Doctor's Degree in 1411. He was promoted some time after to a Canonry in the Church of Paris, and discharged the Office of Vicechancellor in the absence of Gerson; and in this Quality he was appointed by the University to harangue the Emperor Sigismond as he passed through France: Charles VII. made choice of him for his Confessor, and gave him the Bishopric of Castres'. He wrote many Letters which are found in Manuscript in the Church of St. Martin at Tours, whereof Monsieur Launoy speaks in his History of the College of Navarre, and has given us the Titles of the Chief of them; but he has drawn nothing from them very remarkable as to Ecclesiastical Matters.  
John de Courtecuisse (in Latin Brevicoxa) born in the Country of Mayence, was admitted in 
John de Courtecuisse Bishop of Geneva.  the Year 1367. into the College of Navarre, where he took the Degree of Doctor in 1388. and after that was one of the Ambassadors from King Charles VI to the Pope's Benedict and Boniface, for obtaining the Peace of the Church: He was afterwards of the Opinion of the Substraction, and made a Discourse in 1408. against the Interdict under which the Kingdom was laid by Benedict, for which he was rewarded with the Office of Almoner to the King. He performed the Duty of Chancellor to the University of Paris, in the absence of Gerson, and was afterwards chosen Bishop of Paris in 1420: But because he was not acceptable to the King of England, who was then Master of that City, he could not continue in the Possession of the Bishopric, but was forced to hid himself in the Monastery of St. german Despres, and chose rather to quit Paris and go to Geneva (whereof he had been made Bishop) in the Year 1422. than submit to the Domineering of the English. The Year of his Death is not certainly known: His Works are not yet come to Light: Those which are found in Manuscript, are as follow: A Treatise of the Power of the Church and the Council, in the Bibliotheque of St. Victor; A French Version of a Treatise about the Virtues of Seneca, in the King's Library; Divers Questions of Theology, and Lectures upon many places of the Gospel▪ in the Libraries of St. Victor, and of the Church of Paris.  
John of Lignano, a Lawyer of Milan, wrote a Book upon the Clementines, and divers other Treatises of Ecclesiastical and Civil Law, which are to be found in the Collection of Law-Treatises, 
John of Lignano a Lawyer.  Printed at Venice in 1584. Among the rest, there is a Treatise of Friendship, a Treatise of the Plurality of Benefices, a Treatise of Ecclesiastical Censures, a Treatise of the Canonical Hours, a Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Interdict, and some Explications of the Three first Books of the Decretals. He flourished at the beginning of the Fifteenth Century. Rainaldus has published at the end of the Seventeenth Tome of his Annals, a Treatise of this Learned Lawyer in behalf of Urban VI wherein he defends the Election of that Pope.  
Nicholas Biart, an Englishman of the Order of Friars Predicant, flourished at the beginning of the Fifteenth Century, and wrote some Sermons, some Moral Distinctions, and a Sum about 
Nicholas Biart a Dominican.  Abstinence, Works which are to be met with in Manuscript in England.  
Adrian, the Carthusian, a Fleming, flourished at the beginning of this Century, and wrote in imitation of Petrarch, a Treatise of the Remedies of both Fortunes, Printed at Colen in 
Adrian the Carthusian.  1471.  
Thomas, Abbot of St. Andrew at Verceil, of the Order of St. Benedict, according to some, and according to others, Canon-Regular, wrote a Commentary upon the Books attributed to 
Thomas, Abbot of St. Andrew at Verceilles.  St. Denis the Areopagite, Printed at Colen in 1526. with the Commentary of Denis the Carthusian upon the same Books. There is also attributed to him a Commentary in Manuscript upon the Canticles. He flo●…sh'd according to some at the beginning of this Century, and according to others in the Thirteenth.  
John Petit, a Licentiate in Theology, of the Faculty of Paris, of the Order of Friars Minors, 
John Petit Friar Minor.  being a Mercenary Soul, had the Impudence to maintain by word of Mouth and by Writing, the Assassination of the Duke of Orleans, in the Year 1407. by Order of the Duke of Burgundy, whose Creature this Regular was; He being condemned for this, and driven away from the University of Paris, retired to Hesdin, where he died in 1411. He wrote, besides this Treatise which was burnt at Paris, another Book about Schism, and some Questions which are to be met with in Manuscript in the Library of St. Victor.  
At the same time, a Regular of the Order of Friars Predicant, called Martin Poree, undertook to defend the same Cause, and wrote a Treatise upon the same Subject, for which he was 
Martin Poree Bishop of Arras.  rewarded with the Bishopric of Arras. This Treatise is to be found in Manuscript in the Library of the College of Navarre, together with the Answer. Poree was one of the Ambassadors from the Duke of Burgundy to the Council of Constance, and afterwards made a Journey into England. He died September the 6th, 1426.  
There was towards the end of the Pontificat of Boniface IX. an English Writer named Paul, a Doctor in Law, who wrote about the Year 1404. a Treatise, Entitled, A Mirror of the Pope 
Paul an English Doctor in Law.  and his Court, by way of Dialogue, wherein he writes against the Abuses of the Court of Rome concerning Collation of Benefices. 'Tis divided into three Parts; in the first he treats of the Nature of Benefices, of the Order which is among Prelates, of the Canonical ways of Promotion to a Benefice, of the Injustice of Reservations, and Promises of vacant Benefices, of the Simony that is committed for the obtaining of Benefices, and the Enormity of the Crime of Simony, of the Penalties which Simoniacs and those who have a hand in Simony do incur. In the second, he shows, That the Pope may commit Simony by receiving Money for the Collation of Benefices, directly or indirectly. In fine, he alleges in the last, That the Court of Rome and its Officers, commit Simony by receiving Money for the Dispatch of Bulls, of Benefices and Graces; That the Cardinals partake in this Simony; That the Pope cannot be excused when he grants Exorbitant Graces, and that the Plenitude of his Power does not give him Right to grant Dispensations without Cause and without Reason. This Treatise is printed in the second Tome of the Monarchy of Goldastus, Page 1527.  
About the same time flourished another Englishman, called John Lattebur, of the Order 
John Lattebur a Friar Minor.  of Friars Minors, who wrote a Moral Commentary upon the Lamentations of Jeremy, printed in 1482. and some other Treatises in Manuscript, viz. Theological Distinctions, a Moral Alphabet, and some other Pieces which are wholly lost, as Commentaries upon Jeremy, upon the Psalms, upon the Acts of the Apostles; some Lectures upon the Scripture, and some Sermons.  
Richard Ullerston, Doctor and Professor of Divinity at Oxford, flourished also at the beginning 
Richard Ullerston a Doctor of Oxford.  of this Century, and wrote in the Year 1408. a Treatise of the Reformation of the Church, at the desire of Robert 
a [Halam]  Cardinal Bishop of Salisbury. This Treatise is to be found in Manuscript, in a Library at Cambridge; 
b [viz. in the Library of Trinity College.]  and the Title of it is, The Petitions of Richard, for the Defence of the Church Militant. It contains sixteen Articles; the first is about the Election of a. Pope, the second of Simony; those that follow are against the Abuses of the Revenues of the Church, against Dispensations, Exemptions, Plurality of Benefices, Appeals, Privileges, about the Life and Manners of the beneficed Clergy, and the Celebration of Divine Service. In this Piece he speaks boldly against the Disorders of the Court of Rome. There is in the same Manuscript 
c Reformation, as the Title is published by Mr. Wharton, Hist. Lit. App. p. 86. Boston a Benedictine Monk.  a Treatise of the Duty of a Soldier, written by the same Author at the desire of Richard Courtnay his Master, and dedicated to Henry Prince of Wales. There is also mention made of some other Treatises of the same Author, which are not to be found, viz. a Defence of the Donation of Constantine, Commentaries upon the Psalms and the Canticles, of the Ordinary Lessons, and a Treatise upon the Creed.  
Some time after, Boston a Benedictine Monk of the Monastery of St. Edmund 
d This Boston was of the Abbey of St. Edmundsbury, Whart. Hist. Lit. App. p. 90. Theodorick of Niem, Bishop of Ferden.  [at Usk in the Province of Wales] wrote a Catalogue of the Writers, which he had found in the Libraries of England, which is only in Manuscript. There is also another Treatise attributed to him, entitled, The Mirror of the Monks, and the Chronicle of his Monastery, which Works are lost.  
Theodorick of Niem, a Germane, Secretary to some Popes; and according to some, Bishop of Ferden, and afterwards of Cambray, wrote the History of the Schism of the Popes, from the death of Gregory XI. to the Election of Alexander V in three Books; to which he added another Work, entitled, Nemus Unionis, which contains the Original Pieces written on both sides about this Schism; and a third, wherein he writes the Life of Pope John XXIII. and the Transactions of the Council of Constance, until the Deposing of this Pope. The two former were printed at Basile in 1566. at Nuremberg in 1592. and at Strasburg in 1608. and in 1629. the latter was printed at Frankfurt in 1620. He wrote also a Treatise of the Privileges of the Empire, as to the Investiture of Bishoprics and Abbeys, printed at Basil in 1557. and at Strasburg in 1609. and 1618. The Exhortation to Robert King of the Romans, which is in Goldastus, is one of the Chapters of his Book about Union. The Style of this Author is harsh and unpleasant; but he is full of Vigour, faithful and exact in his Relations.  
Jerom of St. Faith, a Spanish converted Jew, and Physician to Benedict XIII. is the Author of 
Jerom of St. Faith a converted Jew.  two Treatises against the Jews; whereof the one is entitled, The m●●ns of Refuting and Convincing the Jews; and the other is against the Talmud. Both of them have appeared under the Title of Hebraeomastix, and were printed at Frankfurt in 1602. and in the last Bibliotheque of the Fathers. In the former he proves, That the twenty four Conditions, which the Jews acknowledge, should happen at the coming of the Messiah, according to Scripture and their own Tradition, are all accomplished in Jesus Christ. In the second, he discovers the Errors and wild Conceits of the Talmud; and shows that it contains things contrary to Charity, to the Law of Nature, to the Service of God, to the Law of Moses, and Blasphemies against Jesus Christ. These two Treatises were written by Jerom of St. Faith in the Year 1412. and many Jews were converted by reading them.  
About the same time flourished another Spaniard, who was also a converted Jew, called Paul 
Paul Bishop of Carthagena.  of Carthagena, a Native of Burgos, who was Bishop of Carthagena, and after that of Burgos, Chancellor of the Kingdoms of Leon and Castille, and at last Patriarch of Aquileia. He had three Children before his Conversion, Alphonsus, Gonsalvus, and Alvarus Garsias: The first succeeded him in the Bishopric of Burgos, the second was Bishop of P●aisance, and the last continued in a Secular Life. He died in the Year 1435. Aged 82 Years, and in the preceding Year he finished a Work, entitled, The Scrutiny of the Bible, printed at Mantua in 1474. and at Burgos in 1591. But his principal Work is an Addition to the Postils of Nicholas of Lyra, upon the whole Bible, printed with that Gloss. He wrote also a Treatise about the Name of God, printed with the Notes of Drusius at Franeker in 1604. There is much Jewish Learning in this Work, and they are very useful for the understanding of Scripture.  
Peter of Ancharano of Bononia in Italy, descended of the Family of the Farnese, a Disciple 
Peter of Ancharano a Lawyer.  of Baldus, and a famous Lawyer, flourished from the Year 1410. until about the middle of this Century. He wrote Commentaries upon the Decretals and Clementines, printed at Lions in 1549. and 1553. and at Bologne in 1581. and some other Treatises of Law. 
* viz. Consilia, sive juris Responsa, printed at Venice, in 1568, 1585., 1569, 1599 & Selectae Quaestiones omnium praestantissimorum Jurisconsultorum in 〈◊〉 Tomos digestae, Francofurt, 1581. Wharton Hi●t. Lit. App. p. 90.   
St. Vincent Ferrier, born at Valence in Spain, of the Order of Friars Predicant, made himself 
St. Vincent Ferrier of the Order of F. F. Preachers.  famous by his Sermons, by the Holiness of 〈◊〉 Life, and by his Miracles. He was Confessor to Benedict XIII. and Master of the Sacred Palace. He was present in 1418. at the Council of Constance, and died the next Year at Vannes in Britain, April the 5th. He was Canonised by Callistus III. in 1455. He was the Author of a great many Treatises of Piety; among the rest, of a Treatise of the Spiritual Life, or the Interior Man, printed at Magdeburg in 1493. at Venice in 1500. and in many other Places; of a Treatise of the Lord's Prayer, printed at Lions in 1523. and at Antwerp in 1573. a Treatise of the End of the World, or the Ruin of the Spiritual Life, the Ecclesiastical Dignity, and the Catholic Faith; and of the twofold coming of Antichrist, containing divers Predictions and Threaten, printed at Naples; a Treatise of Consolation in the Changes of Faith, printed with the Treatise of a Spiritual Life, and the following Letters at Valence in 1591. The first of these Letters is addressed to Benedict XIII. the second to John de Podio General of the Order of Friars Preachers; the third, whereof there remains only a Fragment, to Boniface General of the Carthusians; the fourth, which is also imperfect, to John Gerson; two Letters to the Infant of Arragon, sent to King Peter IU. a Letter to Ferdinand I. King of Arragon. As to the Collection of Sermons, printed under his Name, at Ulme in 1475. at Colen in 1485. at Strasburg in 1493. and 1503. at Lions in 1527. and at Venice in 1606. 'tis no ways credible that 'tis made up of the true Sermons of St. Vincent Ferrier, those which it contains being unworthy of his Gravity and Piety.  
John Capreolus of the Order of Friars Predicant, of the Diocese of Tholouse, and Professor 
John Capreolus a Dominican.  in the University of that City, flourished from the Year 1415. until the Year 1451. when he was present at the Council of Basil. He wrote Commentaries upon the four Books of Sentences, with a Defence of the Doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, printed at Venice in 1484. in 1514. and 1588.  
Loup of Olivet, a Spaniard, Brother to St. Vincent Ferrier, Prior General of the Order of 
Lupus of Olivet a Hieronymite.  Hieronymites, hath framed the Rule of his Order, which is to be found among the Works of St. Jerom, from whence it is taken, and is the Author of many Manuscript Sermons; he lived till after the Year 1420.  
Boniface Ferrier, of the Order of the Carthusians, another brother to St. Vincent Ferrier, General 
Boniface Ferrier General of the Carthusians.  of his Order, wrote a Treatise of the Approbation of his Order; a Discourse to show the Reason why so few of the Carthusians were Canonised, and so few Miracles were done in their Order, and some Letters. These Works of his were never yet printed.  
Anthony Rampelogus, Doctor of Divinity, of the Order of Friars Hermit's of St. Augustin; 
Antony Rampelogus an Augustin.  who flourished at the beginning of this Century, composed a Collection for the young Preachers of his Order, entitled, Figures of the Bible, printed at Paris in 1511. at Strasburg in 1516. and at Lions in 1558. and 1570. There he relates the History of the Bible, and draws Moralities from them; but there are a great many Fables and Falsities in this Work.  
Gobelin Persona, a Germane of Westphalia, born in the Year 1358, after he had stayed a long time in the Court of Rome, was ordained Priest in 1386. and made Curate of the Church of 
Gobelin Persona Dean of Bilfeld.  the Holy Trinity of Paderborne: Having preached against an Edict of the Magistrates of that City, he was driven away from his Benefice; but in Recompense, he was made this Bishop's Official: He was quickly obliged to leave this Employment, because of the Contests he had with the Benedictines, and then he retired to Bilfeld, where he was made Dean of the Cathedral Church. He died at last, being a Monk, aged 60 Years: He is the Author of the Chronicon, entitled, Cosmodromium, from the beginning of the World to the Year 1418. printed at Frankfurt in 1599▪ he wrote also the Life of St. Meinulphus, printed at Mayence in 1616.  
Henry of Hesse, or Langestein, Licentiate in Theology, of the University of Paris, flourished 
Henry of Hesse, or Langestein, Canon of Worms.  there at the end of the preceding Age; and having returned into Germany, he was made Canon of Worms, and called to Vienna in Austria, to teach there in the University. Trithemius attributes to him some Commentaries upon the Sentences, upon Genesis, a Treatise of the Antichrist and of Schism, a Treatise of the Instruction of the Priesthood, a Treatise of the Contemplative Soul, the Mirror of the Soul, a Treatise of the Canonical Hours, a Treatise against Astrologers, a Treatise of the Lord's Prayer, of the Angelic Salutation, and of the Creed of the Apostles; a Treatise of the Contempt of the World; a Treatise against a Wicklefite and a Friar, Telesphorus; a Treatise of Canons Regular, some Sermons and Letters: Some of these Treatises are to be met with in Manuscript, in the Library of Ausburg. I believe we must attribute to the same Author, the Rules for discerning between Mortal and Venial Sin, printed with the Treatise of Instructions to the Confessors of St. Antonine; the Book of Contracts, and of the Order of Rents, which is among the Works of Gerson, and the Treatise of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, against the Disputes of the Friars Minors, and to vindicate St. Bernard, printed at Milan in 1480.  
There is another Henry of Hesse a Carthusian, who Flourished some time after, and was Prior of the Monastery of St. Mary in Guelderland, to whom Trithemius attributes also the following 
Henry of Hesse a Carthusian.  Works; a Commentary upon the Master of the Sentences, Commentaries upon Genesis, upon Exodus, upon the Proverbs of Solomon, and upon the Revelations of St. John, a Dialogue between a Bishop, and a Priest, and some Sermons. He died about the Year 1428.  
Some pretend that there was a Third Henry of Hesse, of the Order of the Hermit's of St. Augustine, 
Henry of Hesse an Augustine.  to whom they attribute a Treatise of the Keys of the Church, and of Indulgences; and others confound him with the First.  
Thomas of Walsingham, an Englishman, of the County of Norfolk, a Monk of St. Alban, 
Thomas of Walsingham, a Benedictin● Monk.  wrote two Histories of England, one a short History, from the year 1273. until the year 1422. and the other more large, from the Conquest of England by the Normans, i. e. from the year 1066. to the 6th. year of Henry V being the 1417th. of Jesus Christ. These have been Printed in the Collection of the Historians of England, at London, in 1574. and at Frankfort, in 1602. he has also continued the Polychronicon of Ranulph Higden. 
* Whereof Dr. Wharton saw one Manuscript Copy, in the Library of Gonvil, and Caius, which reaches no further than the Year 1398. tho' the History was continued from 1342, to 1417. Whart. Hist. Lit. Appius▪ P. 120.   
Nicholas of Inkelspuel of Suabia, Rector of the University of Vienna, Flourished at the beginning 
Nicolaus Dinkelpulius, Rector of the University of Vienna.  of this Century, and was present in the Councils of Constance, and Basil. He wrote a Commentary upon the Four Books of Sentences, and some Ques●ions upon the same Books; but these Treatises are lost; there remains now only of his some Discourses of Piety, Printed at Strasburg, in 1516. viz. Eleven Sermons, and Discourses upon the Precepts of the Decalogue, the Lord's-Prayer, upon the Three parts of Penance, upon the Eight Beatitudes, upon the Seven Mortal Sins, and the Tribunal of a Confessor. Trithemius also mentions a Treatise of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, a Treatise of Charity, a Treatise of the Sins of the Tongue, and of the Eight Capital Vices; and many Sermons which Aeneas Silvius says were much sought after in his time. The Treatise of the Seven Gifts is to be found in Manuscript in the Library of Ausburg, together with a Treatise of Gratitude, and Ingratitude, and a Treatise of Sacramental Communion.  
At the same time Flourished Theodoric of Ingelhuse, a Germane, Canon of Hildesheim, who wrote 
Theodoricus Ingelhusius, Canon of Hildesheim. Herman Petri of Stutdorp, a Carthusian. Thomas Waldensis, or of Walden, a Carmelite.  the Chronicon of Chronicons, or an Universal Chronicon from the beginning of the World, to the year 1420. Published by Macerus, and Printed at Helmstadt, in the year 1671.  
Hermani Petri of Stutdorp, a Germane, Carthusian of the Monastery of St. Anne, near Bruges, died in the year 1428. wrote a Treatise of the Government of Nuns, and many Sermons; whereof Fifty upon the Lord's-Prayer have been Printed at Louvain, in 1484.  
Thomas Waldensis, or of Walden, a Village in the County of Essex, in England, the Son of John Netter, and Matthilda, Studied at Oxford, and after he had taken the Degree of Doctor, he entered into the Order of Carmelites: He was present at the Councils of Pisa, and Constance, and was chosen for Confessor to Henry V King of England, whom he waited upon in his Journey to France, where he died at Rouen, November the 3d, 1430. He stoutly opposed the Errors of Wiclef, and confuted them, and established the Truth of the Doctrine of the Church; he wrote a great Book, Entitled, A Doctrinale of the Antiquities of the Faith of the Catholic Church, against the Wiclefites. and Hussites, divided into three Tomes, and Printed at Paris, in 1532. at Salamanca, in 1556. and at Venice, in 1571. This Work is Dedicated to Martin V and approved by this Pope. In it the Author proposes to himself to relate the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, of the Apostles, and the Fathers, against the Errors of the Wiclefites, and joins Tradition, and the Testimony of the Universal Church, and of the Councils with the Holy Scripture, which are the Principles he lays down for his Foundation, in refuting the false Maxims of Wiclef, who following the footsteps of the Ancient Heretics, rejected the Tradition and Authority of the Church, pretending that we ought to found our Doctrines upon the Scripture only.  
The First Tome of this Work contains Four Books against the Errors of Wicklef. In the 1st he Refutes the Errors of Wicklif concerning the Divinity, the Human Nature, and the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. In the 2d. he Treats of the Pre-eminence of St. Peter among the Apostles, of the Church, of the Primacy and Privileges of the Pope, and of the Roman Church; of the Authority, Rights and Prerogatives of Bishops, and other Pastors, as well in Matters of Faith, as for the Government of the Church. In the 3d. he defends the profession of the Regulars; and in the last, he justifies particularly the Orders of the Regulars Mendicants, of those who live by the Labour of their Hands, and of those who have Revenues; and shows against Wicklef, that the ecclesiastics may possess Temporal Revenues.  
In the Second Tome he lays down the Doctrine of the Church about the Sacraments, and shows against Wicklef, 1st. that the Consecration and Administration of the Sacraments by Ministers is valid, tho' they be Sinners. After this he Treats of the Eucharist, and having proved the Real Presence, and Transubstantiation, he shows that the Communion under both kinds is not necessary. As to Baptism, he establishes the absolute necessity of it to Salvation, and proves that Infants who die without Baptism are Damned, and that this Sacrament imprints a Character. As to Confirmation, he insists chief upon discovering the effects of it, and shows that the Bishops only can Administer it. As to the Sacrament of Orders, he makes it evident that the Distinction between Bishops and Priests was Established from the beginning of the Church; that the Priests ought to be Ordained by the imposition of the hands of the Bishops; that the Reprobate may Consecrate as well as others, and that the Celibacy of Priests is according to the Spirit and Genius of Holy Scripture, and agreeable to the practice of the Ancient Church. As to Marriage, he shows, That this Sacrament may subsist between Persons who preserve Continence, That it 
Thomas Waldensis, or of Walden, a Carmelite.  ought to be contracted according to the Forms prescribed by the Church, and with the Benediction of the Priest, and distinguishes between Marriages which are Lawful, and which Unlawful. In the Treatise of Penance he defends the necessity of Confession, the Virtue of Absolution, and the Practices of the Church, against the Accusations and Errors▪ of Wicklef. There he Establishes the difference between Sins Mortal and Venial, against Wicklef, who made no distinction between them, but with respect to the predestination of God, and who admitted no other Mortal Sin but final Impenitence. He shows also that the Predestinate may lose Charity against the Opinion of the same Heretic. Lastly, he shows that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction was Founded by Jesus Christ, and his Apostles; and that the Sacrament produces its effect by its own Virtue, and not only by the Merits of the Prayers of those who Administer or Receive it.  
In the Third Tome he Treats of those things which are called Sacramentals; and first of the Effects and the Necessity of Prayer in general. 2. Of Singing Prayers in the Church. 3. Of the Service of the Church. 4. Of the Mass, and its parts. 5. Of the Ceremonies of the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Orders, and Penanc●. 6. Of the Observances of the Regulars, and the Vow of Obedience. 7. Of the Participation of Suffrages and Prayers among the Living. 8. Of Prayers for the Dead. 9 Of Prayers for the Saints, and the Worship that is due to them. 10. Of the Canonising of the Saints, and the Honour that is given to their Relics. 11. Of Devout Pilgrimages, and the Festivals of the Saints. 12. Of Building of Churches, their Dedication, their Ornaments, of Images, Crosses, and their Worship. 13. Of the Benediction of the Paschal Wax-Candle, of Bread and Water, and the First Fruits and Exorcisms.  
The Last part of this Work, which was about Fasts, Indulgences, Rights, and Ecclesiastical Privileges, was never Printed.  
The Method in which the Author handles these Questions, is, First, To relate the Errors of Wiclef, or the Wiclefites, to oppose against them passages of the Holy Scripture, of the Fathers, or Ecclesiastical Writers, which he sets down at full length, and then to draw from them Conclusions when it is needful, but in few words. So that the ground of this Work is a Collection of Passages out of different Authors, about the Matters which he handles, which is the Fountain from which many Writers of Controversy since his time, have drawn those passages, which they make use of against the late Heretics.  
He wrote also many other Works, which have never seen the light to this day; some whereof are mentioned, as follows. A Commentary upon the Four Books of the Sentences, Postils upon the whole Bible, a Bundle of the Tares of Wiclef, out of which Balaeus has given us some Fragments 
† And Archbishop Ʋsher had another Copy of it, as he himself tells us, Whart. Hist. Lit. App. p. 88 Peter of Rosenheim, a Benedictine ; a Treatise of the Catholic Truth, Sermons and Commentaries upon the Books of Aristotle's Philosophy. The Titles of some other Treatises are also mentioned, as, Of the Religion of the Perfect, of the Body of Jesus Christ, of Divination, of Prescience, and Predestination, of Faith, of Indulgences, of the Sacraments, of Poverty; a Book addressed to the Council of Constance, and two Books Entitled, a Defence of the Peace; but 'tis not known what's become of these Works, neither is it certain if ever there were any such, and whether they be different from some Chapters of the Doctrinal of the Faith, which are upon the same Subjects.  
Peter of Rosenheim, a Germane, of the Order of St. Benedict, Dedicated to Cardinal Branda of Chatillon, Legat to the Holy See in Austria, some Moral Distiches, Entitled, a Memorial of Roses, of Divine Things, Printed at Strasburg in 1544. 'Tis said that he wrote also a Sum of Theology, and of the Gospels in Verse, with Figures. He Flourished about the year 1430.  
John of Imola, a Bohemian Lawyer, a Disciple of Baldus, died at Bologne the 18th. of February, 
John of Imola a Lawyer.  1436. He is the Author of a Commentary upon 3 Books of the Decretals, upon the 6th. of the Decretals, and upon the Clementines, Printed at Venice in 1575. to say nothing of his Works of the Civil Law.  
John Nider a German, of the Order of Friars Predicant, Inquisitor in Germany, Flourished in the University of Vienna, and was one of its Deputies at the Council of Basil, which appointed 
John Nider, a Dominican.  him to go and Invite the Bohemians to come to the Council; He died at Nuremberg, in 1438. He wrote divers Tracts of Morality, and Piety, whereof here follows a Catalogue. The Consolation of a Timorous Conscience, Printed at Paris, in 1494. and at Rome, in 1604. Fornicarius, or a Dialogue Exhorting to a Christian Life, from the Example of an Ant, Printed at Paris, in 1519. and at Douai, in 1602. A Treatise of the Precepts of the Decalogue, Printed at Paris, in 1507. and 1515. and at Douai▪ in 1612. The Alphabet of Divine Love, which is to be found among the Works of Gerson; The manner of Living well, under the Name of St. Bernard to his Sister, Printed at Paris, in 1484. and at Rome, in 1604. Three Books of the Reformation of the Regulars at Antwerp, in 1611. A Treatise of the Contracts of Merchants in the Collection of the Treatises about Law; Sermons for the whole Year; Two Letters to the Bohemians, and other Pieces in the Acts of the Council of Basil. There are many other Works of this Author in Manuscript.  
Nicolas Auximanus of Marca d'Ancona, of the Order of Friars Minors, Flourished about the Year 1430. He wrote a Summary of Cases of Conscience, Printed at Venice, in 1484. an Interrogatory 
Nicolaus Auximanus, a Friar Minor.  of Confessors, Printed at the same Place, in 1489. He wrote also a Commentary upon the Rule of Friars Minors, an Abridgement of the Canon-Law, and some Sermons never Printed.  
St. Bernardin of Sienna, so called, because he was the Son of Tollus, of the Family of the Albizeschi 
St. Bernardin of Sienna.  in that City, who came to settle at Massa in Tuscany, and there Married the Daughter of a Gentleman of that place, called Nera; was born there in 1383. Having lost his Mother when he was three, and his Father when he was seven years old, he was Educated by one of his Aunts till he was thirteen years of Age, and then his Kindred sent for him to Sienna, where he Studied Grammar under Onuphrius, and Philosophy under John of Spoletto. Some time after he entered into the Confraternity of the Disciplinators of the Hospital of the Scala in Sienna; there he assisted with much Fervour and Zeal those who were infected with the Pest, and practised great Austerities. In the year 1405. he made profession of the Rule of St. Francis, in the Monastery of the Observantines of Columbarius, which was near to Sienna. Being Ordained. Priest, he addicted himself to Preaching, and Founded in Italy many New Monasteries of the Observance, and Reformed those that were Ancient. He was afterwards sent to Jerusalem, and made Guardian of the Holy-Land; and having returned from thence, he continued to Preach in Italy; and the more to stir up the Devotion of the People towards our Lord, he had a Custom of showing the Name of JESUS, painted in a Circle surrounded with the Sun, and made a great many such Pictures, which Sold very well. His Enemies accused him of affirming in his Sermons many false things, and delated him to Pope Martin, who Cited him to appear before himself, and caused his Works to be examined. But finding nothing in them worthy of Condemnation, after the Pope had heard his Defence, he Absolved him, and sent him back, with permission to continue his Preaching. The Cities of Sienna, Ferrara, and Urbino, desired Pope Eugenius the Fourth to make him Bishop, but he refused the Bishopric, notwithstanding the Importunity of this Pope in urging it upon him: He would only accept of the Title of Vicar-General of the Friars of the Observance for all Italy; and there he Reformed or Founded a new near 300 Monasteries. He died at last in the City of Aquila in Abruzzo, May the 20th, 1444. he was Canonised by Nicolas V in 1450.  
The Works of this Saint are divided into Four Tomes; the 1st. contains Sixty one Sermons, under the Title of the Quadragesimale of the Christian Religion. The 2d. another Quadragesimale, Entitled, The Eternal Gospel. The 3d. two Advents, one upon the Beatitudes, and the other about Inspirations: two Quadragesimale's, one Entitled, Of the Spiritual Combat, and the other Seraphim; and some particular Sermons. A Treatise of Confession, the Mirror of Sinners, a Treatise of the Precepts of the Rule of Minors; a Letter to the Regulars of his Order in Italy, containing some Regulations; Aspirations to God for all the days of the Week; a Discourse by way of Dialogue, between the World, and Religion, before the Pope; a Treatise of Obedience, by way of Dialogue. Father La hay does not think that the two Quadragesimale's which are in this Tome are truly St. Bernardin's, because they are of another Style, and are written with less Exactness, Elevation, and Judgement.  
The last Tome contains Sermons upon other Sundays of the Year, and the Festivals of our Lord, and the Saints, with a Commentary upon the Revelations. The Treatise of the Conception of the Virgin, mentioned by Trithemius, and other Authors, is not St. Bernardin's.  
The Sermons of this Saint are not of a sublime Style, but they contain a solid Morality, and well drawn out into Particulars; and the Author does not fall into such false and Childish Thoughts, as other Predicants have done.  
These Works have been Printed at Venice, in 1591. by the Care of Rodulphus Bishop of Sinigaglia, and at Paris, in 1636. by the Care of Peter de lay hay, in 2 Volumes in Folio.  
Augustine of Rome, of the Order of the Hermit's of St. Augustine, was chosen their General 
Augustine of Rome, Archbishop of Nazareth.  in the Year 1419. made Bishop of Cesena in 1431. and afterwards Archbishop of Nazareth in the Kingdom of Naples, and died in 1443, or 1445. He wrote many Books, a Treatise upon the four Books of the Sentences, Commentaries upon the Epistles of St Paul and the Revelations, a Book of Original Sin, a Book of freewill, a Treatise of the Power of the Pope, a Treatise of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and of his Church, a Treatise of Jesus Christ as Head of the Church, a Treatise of his Charity towards the Elect, and of his Infinite Love. 'Tis not known where these Works are: Bellarmine says, That the three last are in the Index of Prohibited Books, which makes it credible that they have been printed. Possevin affirms, That he saw in the Library of the Augustine's at Milan, a Manuscript containing this Author's Commentaries upon St. Paul's Epistles, the Canonical Epistles, and the Revelations.  
William Lyndwood, a famous English Canonist, in the University of Oxford, flourished under 
William Lynwood Bishop of St. David's.  the Reign of Henry V King of England, and was sent by this Prince Ambassador into Spain and Portugal in 1422. After the Death of this Prince, who died in France, in the Castle of Vincennes, he forsook the Court and retired into England, where he was made Bishop of St. David's in 1434. and died in the Year 1446▪ He wrote a Collection of the Constitutions of the Archbishops of Canterbury, from the time of Stephen Langton to Henry Chichely, divided into five Books, printed at Paris in 1505. at London in 1557. and at Oxford in 1579. and 
Dr. James in his Tract of the Corruption of the Fathers, p. 201. adds, that Lynwood being sent Ambassador from Henry VI to the Council of Basil, presented an Appeal in the King's Name to the Fathers of that Council, against the Pride and Arrogance of the Popes, and asserted that the Kings of England, own no Superior o● Earth in Temporals; which Appeal, says he, is hitherto fradulently le●● out by all the Editors of the Councils.  1663*.  
Alexander Carpenter so called, because he was the Son of an Englishman of that Trade, 
Alexander Carpenter a English- man.  flourished about the Year 1430. and wrote a Treatise, Entitled, Destructorium Vitiorum, printed at Nuremburg in 1496. and at Venice in the Year 1582. under the Name of Alexander the Englishman▪  
About the same time flourished Raymund of Sabunde, or Sebeyde, a Spaniard, Professor at Tholouse, 
Raymunde of Sabunde Professor at Tholouse.  who is the Author of a Treatise, Entitled, The Natural Theology of Men and Creatures, or a Treasure of Divin Considerations, printed at Daventer without Date, at Strasburg in 1496. at Paris in 1509. at Lions in 1540 at Venice in 1581. at Frankfurt in 1631. He put the same Work in the form of a Dialogue, Entitled, The Violet of the Soul, which differs not from the former but only as it the Form, printed at Colen in 1501. and at Lions in 1568. This Work of Natural Theology, was translated out of Spanish into French, by Montague, who shows a greater value of it than it deserves. It is a Work that contains many wild and metaphysical Discourses and Reflections upon Religion and Christian Morality.  
Peter of Jeremy, of Palermo, entered into the Order of Friars Predicant at Bologne, and returning 
Peter of Jeremy a Dominican.  into Sicily, he founded there, and reformed many Monasteries of his own Order, after which he returned, an● died at Bologne in 1452. He was famous for Preaching, and has left us Sermons for the whole Year, and upon the Festivals of the Saints, an Explication of the Lord's Prayer, an Explication of the Decalogue, a Treatise of the Passion of Our Lord, and a Treatise of Faith. These Works were printed at Hagenau in 1514.  
John of Ragusio, of the Order of Friars Predicant, was present at the Council of Basil, and made there a long Discourse about Communion under both kinds, against John of Rocksana; 
John of Ragusio a Dominican.  After this, he went over to the Party of Pope Engenius, who made him Bishop, and sent him to Constantinople, in the Quality of Legate, to the Emperor John Palaeologus. His Discourse is at the end of the Acts of the Council of Basil.  
Henry Kalteisen, a Native of Coblentz, of the Order of Friars Predicant, a Doctor of Colen, 
Henry Kalteisen Archbishop of Nidrosia and of Caesarea.  was appointed by the Pope to Preach the Crusade against the Bohemians. He was present at the Council of Basil, where, in a Discourse that lasted three Hours, he refuted Ulrick, a Priest of the Sect of the Orphelines, concerning Preaching of the Word of God: His Design is chief to show, That mere Priests ought not to thrust themselves upon the Office of Preaching without a Mission. He was honoured with the Dignity of being Master to the Sacred Palace in 1440. and wa● made Inquisitor General in Germany. In the Year 1452. he was Consecrated by Nicholas V Archbishop of Nidrosia, or Drant in Norway, and of Caesarea, and he died October the 3d in 1465. The Discourse which he spoke in the Council of Basil, is printed in the Twelfth Tome of the Councils. Trithemius assures us, That he wrote also many Sermons, of Time and of Saints, and upon the Magnificat, some Questions and Conferences.  
We may also place in the Rank of Ecclesiastical Writers, John Polemar archdeacon of Barcelona, 
John Polemar archdeacon of Barcelona.  a Doctor of Vienna, who opened the Council of Basil, and made there many Discourses; among the rest, one about the Temporal Dominion of the Clergy, against the Discourse of Peter pain an Englishman, which is printed in the Twelfth Tome of the Councils.  
John Patriarch of Antioch, who was present at the Council of Basil, in the Year 1434. wrote 
John Patriarch of Antioch.  a Treatise of the Superiority of the Council above the Pope, which is at the end of the Acts of this Council.  
At the same time, and in the same Council, flourished John Archbishop of Taranto, who 
John Archbishop of Taranto.  made an Harangue to the Fathers of the Council, which is in the Acts of that Council; where there is also a Discourse of Gerard Landrianus, Bishop of Lodi, Ambassador from the Council to the King of England and his Council, and many other Discourses of the same Nature, 
Gerard Landrianus Bishop of Lodi.  which are to be found 〈◊〉 the Acts of the Council of Basil.  
Jordan of Brice a Civilian, Consistorial Advocate and Grand Judge of the Province, in the Year 14●3. wrote a P●ece at the desire of the Cardinal of Foix, to defend the Election of Eugeaius iv against the Objections made by Cardinal Dominick of Capranica. This Cardinal was 
Jordanus Brixius a Civilian. Dominick of Capranica Cardinal.  advanced to his Dignity by Martin V on the 24th of May in 1426. together with the Bishop of Lorida, Prosper Colonna, and Julian Caesarine; but his Promotion was kept secret until the Death of Martin V. which happened six Years after, at which time he had done no Office belonging to a Cardinal. When this Pope died, Capranica came to enter into the Conclave by Virtue of the Decree of Nomination Signed by the Cardinals, importing, That in Case Martin V should die before the Publication of this Nomination, the Cardinals chosen should be published immediately after, and admitted into the Conclave; yet the College of Cardinals would not receive him, and the E●ection was made without him: He was also cited before the Cardinals whom Eugenius appointed to judge of this Affair, but he appealed from them to the Council of Basil, whither he came in Person, and there he was acknowledged for Cardinal. Nevertheless he was Reconciled to Pope Eugenius, and waited upon him at Florence, where he received a Cardinal's H●t from his Hand, and lived after that till the Year 1458. in great Credit at the Court of Rome. While he was at the Council of Basil, some would have made use of his Exclusion to nullify the Election of Eugenius IV; Upon which Question, the Civilian of whom we are speaking, wrote in favour of Eugenius IU. and proves, First, That the Decree of Nomination made by Martin V is null; Secondly, That the Consent which the Cardinals gave 
Jordanus Brixius the Civilian.  to it is also null, and does not oblige them at all; Thirdly, That tho' this Decree should be of some force, yet the E●ection of Eugenius would be valid, and that the Exclusion of Capranica did not make it null. These are the three Points which this Author handles after the method of the Canonists, in his Consultation published by Monsieur Baluzius, in the third Tome of his Miscellanies, together with the Funeral Oration of the Cardinal of Capranica, made by Baptista Poggio his Son.  
The Cardinal of Capranica wrote also some Treatises, as, an Introduction for the Administration 
Dominic of Capranica Cardinal.  of the Pontificat, the Art of dying well, a Discourse to Alphonsus' King of Naples, some Letters to Philelphus, and some other Works.  
Alphonsus Tostatus, a Spaniard, finished his Studies in the University of Salamanca, at the 
Alphonsus Tostatus, Bishop of Avila.  Age of 22 Years, and made so great Progress in all Sciences, that he was fit to Teach them at that Age, and did it. He was present at the Council of Basil, and was afterwards made Bishop of Avila, and advanced to the chief Offices in the Kingdom of Spain. He died in the Year 1454, aged 40 Years, and was interred in the Church of Avila, with this Epitaph, Hic stupor est mundi qui scibile diseutit omne.  
In effect, his Memory was burdened with an infinite number of things, and he was an able Man in all Sciences: But what is most astonishing is this, That in the time of a very short Life he could not only study so many different things, but also write such a great number of Volumes upon all sorts of Subjects; for there is scarce any Author whose Works amount to so great a Collection: There are 27 Volumes in Folio of them, whereof the first 24 are Commentaries upon the following Books of Scripture: The first upon Genesis, the second and third upon Exodus, the fourth upon Leviticus, the fifth and sixth upon the Book of Numbers, the seventh upon Deuteronomy, the eighth and ninth upon Joshua, the tenth upon the Books of Judges and Ruth, the eleventh and twelfth upon the first Book of Kings, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth upon the three other Books, the sixteenth and seventeenth upon the Book of Chronicles; the seven following Volumes upon the Gospel of St. Matthew: The twenty fifth contains his Tracts; which are, the Defence of three Conclusions, a Book of five figured Paradoxes, a little piece of the Trinity, another upon these Words, A Virgin shall bring forth a Son, a Work against Concubinary Priests, a Treatise of the State of Souls after Death, and another of Good Politics; the two last Tomes are Tables. All these Works were printed at Venice in 1530. by the Order of Cardinal Ximenes, at the same place in 1596. and at Collen in 1612. 'Tis the last Edition which is in twenty seven Volumes: Besides this, there are also some other Treatises of Tostatus, printed apart by themselves, as the Censure of the Conference at Ratisbonne, printed in 1608. a Commentary upon the Chronicle of Eusebius, in Spanish printed at Salamanca in 1506. fourteen Questions, whereof the first four are an Abridgement of the History of Scripture, and the rest of the Morality, printed in Spanish at Antwerp in 1551. He wrote also many other Books, as well upon Profane Sciences as Ecclesiastical Matters; among the rest, a Treatise of five Laws, i. e. of the Law of Nature, of the Law of Moses, of the Laws of Pagans, of those of Mahomet, and the Laws of Christians; A Treatise of the Origin and Distinction of Jurisdictions; A Treatise of the Power of the Pope; A Treatise of the Reformation of the Church; A Treatise of Indulgences; A Treatise of the Councils; A Work against the Jews, and another against the Alcoran; A Book of Love and Friendship, dedicated to the Queen of Castille, and many other Works. There are also attributed to him many Sermons.  
Laurence Justinian, a Noble Venetian, Canon-Regular of St. George in Alga, was made Bishop 
Laurence Justinian Patriarch of Aquileia.  of Venice in the Year 1435. by Eugenius IU. and advanced to the Dignity of a Patriarch by Nicholas V He died in 1455. aged 74 Years, and was Canonised by Clement VII. in 1524. He wrote many Books of Piety, full of Unction, whereof here follows the Catalogue: The Tree of Life; of Discipline and Spiritual Perfection; of the Chaste Marriage of the Word and the Soul; the Packet of Love; of the Triumphant Combat of Jesus Christ; of the Interior Conflict, the Complaints of Christian Perfection, many Sermons upon the Festivals of Jesus Christ, of the Virgin, the Saints and the Eucharist; A Treatise of a Solitary Life, another of the Contempt of the World. These Works were written before he was Bishop: He wrote afterwards those which follow, a Book of the Spiritual Death of the Soul; two Books of his Spiritual Resurrection, by the Operation of the Grace of Jesus Christ, Mediator between God and Man; Treatises of God, and the Instruction of Prelates, of Obedience, of Humility, of the Degrees of Perfection, of inflaming the Divine Love, and some Letters. All these Works were printed at Basil in 1560. at Lions in 1568. and at Venice in 1606. The Life of Laurence Justinian was written by his Nephew Bernard Justinian, who was also the Author of a History, 
Bernard Justinian. Albert of Sarciano, Vicar-General of the Friars Minors.  of some Sermons and many Letters, whereof the Style is pure and elegant.  
Albert of Sarciano, a City of Tuscany, a Man well versed in the Greek and Latin Tongues, and in sacred and profane Learning, Interpreter to the Council of Florence, and Vicar-General of the Order of Friars Minors, composed some Pieces which are well enough written, but have not yet seen the Light; whereof Vaddingus gives the following Catalogue in the Library of the Authors of his own Order; A Treatise of Penance written in 1433. A Discourse upon the Eucharist spoken in 1422. A Discourse upon the Conditions of Friendship, and the Malice of Envy; Another Discourse to show that the meanness of Extraction is no hindrance to Virtue; Another about the Reprimands which should be given to insolent Persons, made in the Year 1446. A Treatise addressed to Eugenius iv against those who blame the Martyrs; A Discourse spoken in the General Chapter of his Order, held at Milan in 1443. Many Letters to Pope Eugenius, and to Christophilus Bishop of Rimini. Vaddingus has inserted some Fragments of these Works in the Fourth Tome of his Annals, which discover the Excellency of his Wit, and the Politeness of this Author, who died at Milan in 1450.  
John of Anagnia, a Civilian of Bononia, Professor and archdeacon in that City, flourished about the Year 1440. and died in 1455. He wrote Commentaries upon the Books of the Decretals, 
John of Anagnia, a Civilian.  printed at Milan in 1492. and 1497. at Lions in 1596. not to mention his other Works of the Civil Law.  
Francis de la Place, a Civilian of Bononia, wrote about the Year 1440. a Summary of the Mysteries of the Faith of Jesus Christ; wherein he treats of Restitutions, of Usury, of Marriage, 
Francis de la Place, a Civilian.  of Ecclesiastical Censures, of Excommunication, etc. printed at Milan in 1473.  
About the same time flourished John Felton an Englishman, Vicar of the Church of St. Magdalen in the Suburbs of Oxford, who compiled some Sermons for all the Sundays in the Year, which are to be found in Manuscript in the Libraries of England.  
Anthony de Rossellis of Arezzo, Doctor in Law, who was sent to the Council of Basil by Eugenius IU. and was afterwards Secretary to the Emperor Frederick III. is the Author of a considerable 
Antonius de Rossellis, Doctor of Law.  Work, entitled, Of the Monarchy; wherein he treats of the Power of the Emperor and the Pope, viz. Whether the Pope has the Power of the two Swords; and of the Authority of a Council according to the method of the Canonists. 'Tis a complete Treatise, wherein he decides an infinite number of Questions about the Ecclesiastical and Secular Power. It was printed at Venice in 1483. and 1587. and is to be found in the First Tome of the Monarchy of Goldastus. There are some other Treatises of Civil and Canon-Law written by the same Author, in the Grand Collection of Treatises about Law.  
St. Catherine of Bologne, a Nun of the Order of St. Clare, and Governess of the Monastery 
St. Catherine of Bologne.  of the Order founded at Bologne, in honour of the Body of Jesus Christ, wrote about the Year 1440. some Revelations that were made to her, which have been printed at Bologne in 1511. and 1536. and at Venice in 1583. 'Tis said, that she wrote also a Rosary of the Mysteries of the Passion of our Lord, and the Life of the Virgin, and a Book of the seven necessary Weapons for a Spiritual Combat, which have not been printed. She died the 9th of March, 1463.  
Leonard of Udine, of the Order of Friars Predicant, Professor at Bologne, and Preacher to Eugenius iv has left us many Sermons preached in divers places, and printed many times in 
Leonardus de Utino, a Dominican.  different places, and in many Volumes; a Treatise of the Common Places of Preachers, printed at Ulme in 1478. and a Treatise of Laws at Venice in 1473.  
St. John Capistran, a Disciple of St. Bernardin of Sienna, and of the same Order, employed himself, 
St. John Capistran.  as did his Master, in Preaching, under the Pontificate of Martin V. Eugenius IU. Nicholas V and Callistus III. He was made General of the Crusade against the Fratrice●●i and the Hussites, burned a great many Villages whither the former had retired, defeated the Bohemians; and with 100000 fight Men succoured Belgrade when it was besieged with the Turks. He died the 3d of October, 1456. aged 71 Years; he was Beatified by Gregory XV. and Canonised a little while after. There are of his the following Treatises; A Treatise of the Authority of the Pope, and of a Council, against the Council of Basil, printed in the Collection of the Treatises of Law at Venice; A Mirror of the Clergy, or a Discourse to the Clergy, spoken in a Diocesan Synod at Trent, printed at Venice in 1580. together with an Instruction for Priests, and an Apology for the third Order of St. Francis; The Mirror of Conscience, a Penitential; A Treatise of Excommunication, and a Treatise of Marriage, in the Collection of Treatises of Law; Some Treatises of the Civil Law, and a Treatise of Usury and Contracts, printed at Venice in 1583. and 1587. A Treatise of the Universal Judgement, of Antichrist and the Spiritual War, printed at Venice in 1578. This is what is printed under the Name of this Author, Those who have spoke of them do mention also the following Treatises, Of the Ecclesiastical Dignity to Pope Nicholas, of the Pains of Hell, and of Purgatory; of Restitutions and Contracts; a Commentary upon the Rule of Friars Minors, three Books of Lust, a Discourse of the Conception of the Virgin, and one upon the Passion of our Lord; a Treatise against the Hussites, and a Discourse against Rocksane.  
Laurence Valla, a Roman Patrician, Canon of the Church of St. John of the Lateran, did not only excel in Polite Learning, and a Critical Knowledge of the Tongues; but made himself 
Laurence Valla Canon of St. John of the Lateran.  famous also by some Pieces which respect Religion, and particularly by his Notes upon the New Testament, which yet are rather Grammatical than Theological; but still they are useful for understanding of the Text; they have been printed at Paris in 1505. at Basil in 1541. at Amsterdam in 1631. and in the great Critics of England. With them we must join the Discourse about the Forgery of Constantine's Donation, which is written rather like an Orator than a Critic, which has been printed in the Collection of Grotius, and apart at Leyden in 1620. a Treatise of freewill, printed at Basil in 1540 and a Discourse upon the Eucharist, printed at Strasburg in 1490. This Author flourished at Rome about the Year 1440. He went out of it to go to Naples in 1443. where he taught Latin to Alphonsus V King of Arragon. 'Tis said, that he was delated to the Inquisition, and that he escaped the Flames only by the favour of King Alphonsus, who yet could not save him from being publicly whipped with Rods: But this History appears so much the rather fabulous, because when he returned to Rome, he was honoured with a Pension, and taught there publicly. He died in 1465. aged fifty Years. 
Flavius ●londus Secretary to Eugenius IU.   
Flavius Blondus, or rather Blondus Flavius, was born at Forc-livio in 1388. He was sometime Secretary to Pope Eugenius IU. and died under the Pontificate of Pius III. on the 4th. of June, in the year 1463. He made himself Famous by his three Decades of the History of the Western Empire, from the year 410. to the year 1440. of which Aeneas Silvius has made an Abridgement. He wrote also other Books to Illustrate the History of Italy, viz. Three Books, Entitled Rome Restored, which contain a Description of the City of Rome, as it was in his time; Eight Books of Italy Illustrated, wherein he gives a New Description of the State of Italy, as it was in his time; a Treatise of the Origin and Actions of the Venetians, from the year 450. to the year 1291. and a Treatise Entitled Rome Triumphant, divided into Ten Books, which contains a Description of what belongs to the Government of Ancient Rome. All these Works were Printed at Basil, in 1559.  
Ambrose of Camalduli, may justly be ranked among Ecclesiastical Writers; as well upon the 
Ambrose Camaldulensis.  Account of his Profession, as an Hermit in the Abbey at Camalduli, which he embraced at the Age of Fourteen Years, as because of his Works, which are almost all about Ecclesiastical Matters. He was Born at Pertico, a small City of Romandiola, and was the Disciple of Emanuel Chrysoloras, under whom he learned the Greek Tongue, which he understood better than any Latin Authors of his time, in the judgement of Scuropulus. He Flourished under the Pontificate of Eugenius IU. and was made General of the Order of the Camaldule Hermit's in 1431. He was one of the Divines who was present at the Councils of Basil, Ferrara, and Florence: 'Twas he that drew up in the last, the Form of the Union. He died at his return from this Council, October the 21st. in the year 1439. His Chief Works are his Translations of the Greek Authors, viz. of the Life of St. John Chrysostom, written by Palladius, and Printed at Venice in 1533. of the Spiritual Meadow, Printed at Lions, in 1617. of the Ladder of St. John Climacus at Venice, in 1531. of Four Books of Manuel Calecas, against the Errors of the Greeks, Printed at Ingolstadt, in 1603. of some Sermons of St. Ephrem; of the Books attributed to St. Denis, of the Celestial Hierarchy, of a Treatise of Virginity by St. Basil; of a Treatise of St. Athanasius against the Gentiles; of three Books of St. Chrysostom to Stagyrius; of his Homilies upon St. Matthew, and of many other Works of the Fathers. Of the other Works of St. Ambrose there are none Printed, but his Voyage into Italy, published at Florence, in 1681. wherein he describes the Disorders of many Monasteries which he had Visited: But there are many more Manuscripts of his at Florence, in the Library of St. Mark, viz. Sixteen Books of Letters, the Chronicon of Mount Cassinus, two Books of his own Actions, while he was General of the Camaldulians; a Treatise of the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ; a Treatise against the Greeks, about the Procession of the Holy Spirit: Some Discourses spoken in the Councils of Ferrara, and Florence; and in the Library of St. Justina at Milan, a Treatise against those who censure a Monastic Life. The Style of Ambrose the Camaldulian is Latin good enough, but he takes a great deal of liberty in his Translations, and does not always render the words according to their true and proper signification.  
Maphaeus Vegius, of the City of Lodi near Milan, Datary to Martin V is the Author of this 
Maphaeus Vegius, D●… to Martin V.  Age, who wrote most Usefully, most Pleasantly, and most Elegantly. He wrote a Treatise of the Christian Education of Children, which is the most Complete that we now have of this kind. There he Treats of the Duties of Fathers and Mothers, of the Studies of Children, and the Virtues that ought to be inspired into them; 'tis full of a most Christian Morality, and an uncommon Prudence. The Six Books of the same Author about perseverance in Religion, contain a solid Piety, and most useful Instructions for making great progress in it, and for maintaining and preserving a sense of Piety and Religion; which is also the design of his Discourses concerning the four last ends of Man, which he handles excellently well. The Dialogue of Truth Banished is a piece of Wit. I say nothing of his profane Works; as his Supplement to the Twelfth Book of Virgil, and some other pieces of Poetry and Eloquence, wherein he excelled, and came near to the Ancients. He died in 1458.  
St. Antonine being Born at Florence in 1389. studied Law at Fiesoli, and at the Age of Sixteen 
St. Antonine Archbishop of Naples.  years entered into the Order of Friars Predicant. Among them he spent some part of his Life, tho' he was employed by the Republic of Florence in divers Negotiations, and was at last made Archbishop of Naples, by Eugenius iv in 1446. He died the 2d. of May, in 1459. His Principal Work is an Historical Summary, or a Tripartite Chronicle, from the beginning of the World, to the year 1459. which is nothing but a Collection taken out of many Historians, and without much choice. It was Printed at Venice, in 1480. at Nuremberg, in 1484. at Basil, in 1491. and at Lions, in 1586. His Theological Sum was Printed at Memmingen, in 1483. at Strasburg, in 1496. and at Venice, in 1591. His Sum of Confession has been Printed in many Places; at Strasburg, in 1492. and 1499. at Paris in 1516. at Lions, in 1564. and at Venice, in 1572. There are Treatises of this Author about Excommunication, and the other Ecclesiastical Censures, Printed in the Collection of Law-Treatises. There is also a Treatise of his about the Disciples of Emaus, Printed with his Life, before the year 1500. a Treatise of Virtues, Printed at Nuremberg, in the year 1472. and Annotations upon the Donation of Constantine, Printed at Collen, in 1535. besides many other Manuscript Works.  
Leonard Aretine, and Poggio, who were Celebrated Authors for Polite Learning, employed their 
Leonard Aretine, and John Baptista Poggio.  pains about Matters very different from Religion, yet some of their Works may have a Reference to it, as the excellent Discourse of the former against Hypocrites, Printed in the Collection of Othuin Gratius, and with a Dialogue against Hypocrisy, by Poggio, at Lions, in 1679. The description of the Death of Jerom of Prague, Addressed by Poggio to Leonard Aretine in the same Collection, and among the Works of John Huss. The Funeral Orations of Francis Zabarella, Nicolas Albergat Cardinals, and of Laurence de Medicis by Poggio; Four Books of the variety of Fortune, Dedicated to Nicolas V by the same Author; a Discourse of the Authority and Power of the Pope, and Council, by the same; a Treatise of Nobility, and another of Human Misery. These two Authors excelled in the Study of the Greek and Latin Tongues, and both of them were Secretaries to Popes; the former under Gregory XII. Alexander V and John XXIII. the latter under the following Popes: The former died in 1443. and the latter in 1459. both of them at Florence, whither Laurentius de Medicis had called them.  
John de Stavelo, of the Diocese of Liege, a Benedictine Monk, of St. Laurence of Liege, wrote 
John de Stavelo, and John Loss, Benedictine Monks Matthew Palmier a Florentine.  the History of the Actions of the Bishops of Liege, to the year 1449. and was continued by another. John de Loss, of the same Order.  
Matthew Palmier, a Florentine, wrote a Chronicle from the beginning of the World, to the year 1449. of which there is nothing Printed but what follows the Chronicle of St. Prosper, i. e from the year 444. in the Edition of Basil, of the Chronicle of Eusebius. 'Tis said, that this Author having made a Poem about the Angels in Italian, was accused of Arianism, upon the account of some words that escaped him in that Work, and that he refusing to retract his Errors, was burnt; but this Story is groundless.  
The Chronicle of this Author was continued down to the year 1481. by another, who had or took upon him the same Surname, and is no otherwise distinguished, but by the name of Mathias, 
Mathias Palmerius.  which was given him instead of that of Matthew; this Author was also of Pisa or Vicenza: He Translated also the History of Aristeas, which was Printed at Basil, in 1536. and 1551.  
John Capgrave, an Englishman. of the Order of Friars Hermit's, of St. Augustine, a Doctor of 
John Capgrave an Augustine.  Oxford, and Confessor to the Duke of Gloucester, Flourished about the middle of this Century, and died in the year 1464. He wrote a Catalogue or a Legend of the Saints of England, Printed at London, in 1516. and there are in England many other Manuscript Works of the same Author. 
† Viz. His Comment upon Genesis and the Acts of the Apostles, and the Lives of all the Famous Henry's, to H. VI. Whart. App. p. 132. Nicolas Cusanus Cardinal.   
Nicolas of Cusa, so called from the Name of the place of his Birth, situate upon the Banks of the Moselle, in the Diocese of Treves, the Son of a poor Fisherman; was advanced by his Merits to the Highest Ecclesiastical Dignities. He was at first a Canon-Regular, afterwards Archdeacon of Liege, and Dean of St. Florin in Constance; He was present at the Council of Basil, and was one of the greatest Defenders of the Authority of the Council above the Pope: Upon this Occasion he wrote a Considerable Work, Entitled, Of Catholic Agreement, which was divided into Three Parts. After this he changed sides, and turned over to Pope Eugenius' Party, and was Employed by him in Embassies into Germany, and France, and promoted by Nicolas V. December the 20th, 1448. to the Dignity of a Cardinal, with the Title of St. Peter adVincula. He was sent again into Germany, and made Bishop of Brixen in the County of Tyrol, which occasioned a difference with Sigismond Duke of Austria, who forced him at last to departed out of Germany. He died at Todi in Italy, August 12. 1464. Aged 63 years. The Works which he wrote are these following: Three Books of Learned Ignorance, wherein he endeavours to give Ideas of the Essence of God, of the Trinity, and of other Mysteries of Religion, drawn from Metaphysical and Mathematical Principles. This Work is very abstract and obscure; which being attacked by somebody, he wrote an Apology for it. The two Books of Conjectures are yet less intelligible, and less useful, and contain nothing but Metaphysical Notions, which are of no use. The Piece about the Filiation of God is founded upon the same Principles, and written in the same method. The Dialogues upon Genesis, upon Wisdom, and Wit, and about Statical Experiments, have something in them more solid, and descend more to particulars. The Treatise of the Vision of God is more pathetical, and contains fine Meditations. The two Books of the Globe are written to give an Idea of the Mystery of the Trinity by this Figure, and he enlarges upon the same Argument in another Dialogue. The Book about Beryl contains divers Metaphysical Principles, which are very confused. The Books of the Gifts of the Father of Lights, of seeking after God, of the pursuit of Wisdom, contain divers abstract and general Maxims, which are above our knowledge. The Book of the top of Theory is almost unintelligible; the Dialogue of an Unknown God may be of some use. These are the Works contained in the First Tome, now follow those in the Second. A Dialogue upon the Annunciation of the Virgin, a Work Entitled Excitations, divided into Ten Books, which contain Allegorical and Mystical Reflections upon many Select passages of Holy Scripture: Three Books of Catholic Agreement; wherein he Treats 1. Of the Church in itself. 2. Of the Priesthood, and the Authority of General Councils, and of the Pope. 3. Of the Empire, and the Power of Princes. He wrote this Treatise before he was Cardinal, during the Council of Basil, and in it he handles these Questions with much moderation. The Principal Points which he establishes in it are these; that the Church is the Union of all Souls with Jesus Christ its Spouse; that there are in this Church different Degrees; that altho' it be united, yet it may be divided into Militant, Dormant, and Triumphant; that the two last parts are made up only of the Predestinate, and that the first is a mixture of those who are good and evil: That the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy has its degrees resembling those 
Nicholas of C●… a Cardinal.  of the Angels; That there is but one s●… Chair in the Church, which is filled by all the Bishop's Successors to St. Peter, among whom the Bishop of Rome is the first. That the Roman Church is taken in different senses, sometimes for the Pope, and the Clergy, and the Diocese of Rome; sometimes for those who belong to that Patriarchate, and sometimes for the Universal Church, because the true Church is at present reduced to the Patriarchate of Rome; that in this last sense only 'tis Infallible; that regularly it belongs to the Pope to call a General Council, and to preside in it: That to the end a Council may be General, it must be composed of Five Patriarches, and be kept publicly; and that its ●…cisions may be Infallible, 'tis necessary that it should be free, and that they be made with common consent, upon which chief depends the Authority of the Council; That the Canons of the●… Councils do not oblige particular Churches till after their Acceptance; That the Validity of the Council does not depend at all upon the Pope; That an Universal Council is above him, whose Laws he can neither change, nor repeal; That Provincial and National Councils have 〈◊〉 their own Authority; That the Pope has a Right to judge in difficult Cases, to receive App●…s from the Judgements of particular Churches, to take Care of the Universal Church; Lastly, That his Primacy is of Divine Right, and that he received it from Jesus Christ, with the consent of the Church; That the Imperial Power does not at all depend upon that of the Pope. That 'tis not he who has translated the Empire from the Greeks to the Latins, nor created the Electors; That the Power of the Empire is Sovereign. That he received it immediately from Jesus Christ; That he can Call Councils by way of Exhortation, be present at them, maintain Order in them, and cause their Decrees to be put in Execution. Lastly, He proposes divers Regulations for the Reformation of the Empire, and concludes with showing, That nothing 〈…〉 more contrary to the good of the Church than a Discord between the Empire and the Priesthood. He follows the same Principles in a Letter in 1442. to Roderick, Ambassador of the King of Castille at the Diet of Frankfurt. The two next Letters are addressed to the Bohemians about the Communion of the Laity under one kind, and there he makes it appear, That the Church has Power to take away the Use of the Cup, and that no more Grace is received by Communicating under both kinds than under one; the three other Letters are also addressed to the Bohemians, about the Peace and Unity of the Church; and the seventh is also about Communion in one kind. The Treatise of the Agreement or Peace of Faith, is a Dialogue between Persons of many Religions and Nations about Matters controverted in Religion. In fine, the last Work of the Tome is a Treatise which he wrote about the Alcoran, Entitled, The Alcoran sifted, wherein he does not only prove the falsehood of this Book, but also makes use of such places which are to be met with in it as favour the Christian Religion, to persuade the Mahometans to embrace it. There is at the end of this Tome a little piece, Entitled, A Conjecture upon the 〈◊〉 Times, wherein he relates what is said in Scripture about the last Times, without determining any thing precisely, as to the time that the World shall yet last. The last Tome contains his Works of Mathematics, Geometry and Astronomy, which show his profound Knowledge in these Sciences; so that each Tome of his Works have their peculiar Characters; Metaphysics reign in the first, Theology in the second, and Mathematics in the third. As to the Style it ●s clean and easy, without Affectation and Ornament. This Cardinal knew the Oriental Languages, and it cannot be denied, but that he was a Man of profound Learning, and a sound Judgement. His only Fault was, That he was too Abstract, and too Metaphysical in many of his Works. All his Works are printed at Basil in 1565.  
Julian Caesarin, of an Illustrious Family in Rome, being appointed Cardinal-deacon with the 
Julian Caesarin a Cardinal.  Title of St. Angelo, in the Year 1426. and afterwards Cardinal-priest with the Title of St. Sabina; and lastly, Cardinal-bishop of ●…scati, was sent by Martin V against the Bohemians, and appointed to assist in the Quality of Legate to the Holy See at the Council of Basil. Eugenius iv confirmed him in these Employments, and he presided at the beginning of the Council of Basil. He would not Dissolve it, as he had received Orders from the Pope; but when the Greeks arrived he left the Council of Basil, and went to Ferrara, where he was at the Head of the Latins, who were appointed to Confer with the Greeks. There are two Letters of this Cardinal addressed to Pope Eugenius, to dissuade him from the Dissolution of the Council, printed in the Collection of Gratius and elsewhere, a Discourse which he made in the Council of Basil against the Bohemians, and many Discourses which he spoke at Ferrara and Florence. He was Eloquent, Learned, and a Great Politician.  
At the same time flourished Nicholas Tadeschus a Sicilian, commonly called Panormitanus, because 
Nicholaus Tedeschus Panormitanus Archbishop of Palermo.  he was Abbot of an Abbey of the Order of St. Benedict in Palermo, and afterwards Archbishop of that City. He is one of the most famous Canonists we have▪ He was present at the Council of Basil, and had a great Hand in what was done there against Pope Eugenius; in recompense for which Service, he was named Cardinal by Foelix V in 1440. But at last he was obliged by the Orders of the King of Arragon his Master, to return to his Archbishopric, where he died of the Pest in 1445. His Works are; A great Commentary upon the five Books of the Decretals, printed at Venice in 1492. and at Lions in 1586. Some Commentaries upon the Clementines and their Glosses; 118 Counsels, and 7 Questions, printed also at Lions in 1584., and 1586; A Treasure of Canon-Law, and some other Treatises: But the most curious of all his Works, is his Treatise of the Council of Basil against Pope Eugenius, wherein he gives a History of all the Transactions in that Council until the Suspension of Eugenius; and after that 
Nicholaus T●deschus Panormitanus Archbishop of Palermo.  makes it appear First. That the Council of Basil is an Ecumenical Council; Secondly, That this Ecumenical Council being above the Pope, has the Power to proceed against Eugenius; Thirdly, That the Council has done nothing against him but what is just. This Author handles the Question of the Superiority of the Council above the Pope, and gives a very solid Decision of it, ●…wers Objections according to the Principles of Canonis●● themselves, and omits nothing in the Questio●… of Fact and Right, which may serve to strengthen the Cause which he defends. This excellent Treatise well known and esteemed by the Learned, has been lately translated into our Language, and published by Monsieur Ger●ais, Doctor of the Sorbon, whose Version makes People● to read it with as much pleasure as profit. All the Works of Panormitan were printed together about the Year 1500. at Lions in 1547. at Venice in 1592. and 1617.  
Aeneas Syl●… of the Family of the Picolomini, was born in the Year 140●. at Pienza in the 
Aeneas Silvius, or Pius II. Pope.  Territory of Sienna, where his Father was in Banishment. After he had studied at Sienna, he went in 143●. with the Cardinal of Capranica, to the Council of Basil, and was for the space of Ten Yea●… one of the most Zealous Secretaries to the Council, and afterwards in favour with Pope Foelix. He was called in the Year 144●. to be near the Emperor Frederick, and sent some time after to Pope Eugenius, whom he acknowledged at last in the name of the Germane Nation, in the Year 1●46. After the Death of Eugenius, he was made choice of to take care of the Conclave, and ●aving done his Duty well in that place, he was made Archbishop of Sinea. In the Year 14●2. he waited upon the Emperor Frederick to Rome, and was appointed Legate of Bohemia and Austria. At last, being sent in 1456. by the Emperor into Italy, to treat with Pope ●…stus II. about a War with the Turks, he was then appointed Cardinal, and a● length chosen Pope August the 10th 1458. under the Name of Pius II. Immediately after this he made a Bul●… wherein, he retracted all that he had written formerly in favour of a Council and forbad●… to Appeal from the Pope to this Tribunal. During his Pontificat he made great Preparations for an Expedition against the Turks; but he died at Ancona, whither he went to see his Army Embark, August the 14th 1464. He wrote before he was made Pope two Books of Memoirs, of the Transactions at the Council of Basil, after the Suspension of Eugenius until the Election of Foelix, printed in the Collection of Gratius, and apart at Basil in 1577 together with a Letter about the Coronation of Foelix; the History of the Bohemians from the Original until the Year 1458. printed at Rome in 1475. at Basil in 1532. and 1575. at Hanover in 1602. and in other places: An Abridgement of the Decades of Blondus Elavius, printed at Basil in 1●33. two Books of Cosmography, printed at Paris in 153●. and 1543. and at Colen in 1●73. Two Discourses in Praise of Alphonsus King of Arragon, and some Notes upon the History of the Prince written by Anthony, a Poet of Palermo, printed at Wittemburg in 1585. a Poem upon the Passion of our Lord, Tracts of the Education of Children; of Grammar, of Rhetoric, and a Topography of Germany, printed at Rome in 1●84. a Treatise of the Authority of the Roman Empire, in the Second Tome of the Monarchy of Goda●stus; two Answers to the Ambassadors of the French, in the Assembly of Mantua, related in the Thirteenth Tome of the Councils; a Treatise of bad Women, Printed at Strasburg, in 1●07. a Collection of 43●. Letters, whereof man are Tracts upon different Subjects, and some upon Questions of Theology, on Ecclesiastical Discipline; as the 130th, which is a Dialogue written against the Taborites and Bohemians, about Communion in one kind; the 188th, of the Duties of the Pope and his Officers; the 3●9th, which is an Excuse against the Complaints of the Germane Nation; the 396th, of the 〈◊〉 of Christians, and the Vanity of the Sect of Mahomet and the 131st, 397th, 398th and 399th, which are Discourses upon the War against the Turks. This Collection of Letters was printed at Nuremberg in 1481. at Louvain in 1483. and at Lions in 1497. The Bull of Retractation which he made when he was Pope, and that about Appeals, are to be found in the Council. There are also some Constitutions, and some more Letters of his. His Secretary John Gobelin, wrote his History in Twelve Books, or, according to some, 〈◊〉 his Name to this 
John Gobelin Secretary to Pius II.  Pope, who composed them himself. It was printed at Rome in 1584. and 1589. and at Frankfurt in 1614 together with Seven Books of Memoirs, written by James Picolomini a Cardinal, who had been Secretary to Callistus III. and Pius II. who made him Cardinal, which contain 
James Picolomini a Cardinal.  the History of the Transactions in Europe, from the Voyage of Pius II. to Ancona, until the Death of Cardinal ●…, i. e. from the Year 1464. to the Year 1469.  
John Canales, of the Order of Friars Minors, flourished at Ferrara about the middle of this Century. He wrote some Books of Piety, viz. a Treatise of a Heavenly Life▪ a Treatise of 
John Canales a Friar Minor.  the Nature of the S●… and its Immortality; a Treatise of Paradise, and the Happiness of the Soul; 〈…〉 of Hell and its Torments. These Works were printed at Venice in ●494.  
About the same time flourished William Vorilong, a Flemish Regular of the same Order, who was sent for to Rome under the Pontificat of Pius II. to maintain the Dispute of the Cordeliers 
Galielmus Vorilongus a Friar Minor.  against the Dominicans, about the Blood of our Lord. He died there in 146●. He wrote a Commentary upon the four Books of Sentences, printed at Lions in 148●. at Paris in 1503. and at Venice in 151●. an Abridgement of Theological Questions, Entitled, Wade 〈◊〉, printed at Strasburg in 1507.  
Nicholas de Orbellis, a Franciscan Regular of the same Order, flourished about the same time 
Nicholas de Orbellis a Friar Minor.  at Poiticrs. He wrote also an Abridgement of Theology according to the Doctrine of Scotus, printed at Haguenaw in 1503, and at Paris in 1511, 1517, and 1520. There are also some Sermons of his upon the Lent-Epistles, printed at Lions in 1492. and divers Treatises of Philosophy.  
James of Clusa, who, according to most Writers, is not different from James of Paradise; 
James of Clusa, a Carthusian.  after he had spent some part of his Life in the Order of Cistercians, entered into that of the Carthusians, because he would not be made Abbot of his own Order. After this, he spent Twenty Years in the Carthusian Monastery at Erford, and died there Aged Eighty Years, in 1465. The Treatise of the seven States of the Church, described in the Revelations, is attributed to him, wherein he shows the necessity of reforming the Church in its Head and Members: There he proves that the Pope is peccable and fallible, and subject to a Council; and the necessity there is, That a Council should take care of the Reformation of the Church. This Treatise is in the Second Tome of the Monarchy of Goldastus; perhaps it was written before he was a Carthusian.  
Some confound this Author with James of Junterbuck, and there is some probability that he is not different; for he was a Carthusian of Erford, lived at the same time, and the Treatises attributed to him are near akin to that whereof we have just now spoken. Howsoever this ●be, there are many Treatises about Discipline and the Reformation of the Church, and upon divers Points of Morality, which go under the name of James Junterbuck, which Surius found 〈◊〉 Manuscript in the Library of the Carthusians at Collen; and whereof he has given us a Catalogue, which is to be found in the Bibliotheque of Carthusian Writers by Petreius: Some of them also are printed, viz. the Art of curing Vices, the Complaint of a Sinner, the State and Duty of Ecclesiastical Persons, printed at Amsterdam in 1617.; a Treatise of Souls separate from the Body, printed at Basil in 1475. a Treatise of the Truth in speaking or keeping Silence, printed at Basil, and a Treatise of the Manners and Errors of Christians, printed at Lubeck in ●1488.  
John de Turrecremata, so called in Latin from the name of the place in which he was born, 
John de Turrecremata a Cardinal.  called in Spanish, Torquemado, in the Diocese of Palenza, entered into the Order of St. Domi●rick, in the Convent of Valladolid. He flourished at first in the University of Paris, where he took the Degree of Doctor, and there he professed Theology and the Canon-Law. He returned afterwards into Spain, where he stayed not long, being sent for in the Year 1431. by Pope Eugenius, and made Master of the Sacred Palace. He was sent to the Council of Basil, where he opposed the Hussites, and strenously defended the Pope; from thence he was called back to the Council of Florence, where he was one of those who entered the Lists with Mark of Ephesus, for which Service he was rewarded with the Title of Cardinal-Priest of St. Sixtus, in the Year 1434. and was sent Legate into France, where he presided at the Council of Bourges: After he had been employed in many Ambassies, he was nominated in 1450. to a Bishopric in Galicia, and after that to be Bishop of Albana, which he changed in 1464. for that of St. Sabina. He died September the 28th, in 1468. Here follows a Catalogue of his Works: A Commentary upon the Decree of Gratian in five Tomes, printed at Lions in 1555. and at Venice in 1578; A Summary about the Church and its Authority, in four Books, printed at Lions in 1496. and at Venice in 1561; A Treatise of the Authority of the Pope and a General Council, against the Orator of the Council of Basil, printed at Venice in 1563. and in the Thirteenth Tome of the Councils. An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, printed at Basil in 1493; A Commentary upon the Psalms of David, printed at Venice in 1513; A Course of Sermons for the whole Year, and for the Festivals of the Saints, at Lions in 1509; Quodlibetical Questions at Strasburg in 1490; A Treatise of Holy Water, at Rome in 1559; A Treatise of the truth of the Conception of the Virgin, divided into thirteen parts, printed at Rome in 1547; A Commentary upon the Rule of St. Benedict, at Paris in 1494, and at Colen in 1575.; An Exposition of the Rule of St. Bridget, at Colen in 1628. and an Apology for the Revelations of this Saint among his Works: The Salvation of the Soul, or the Confirmation of the Catholic Faith, at London in 1509; A Treatise against the Principal Errors of Mahomet, at Paris in 1465; A Collection of the Questions of St. Thomas Aquinas about the Authority of the Pope, printed at Lions, and at Ausburg in 1496. and at Venice in 1562; Meditations upon the Tables, which he placed in the Church of Minerva at Rome, printed at Rome in 1467. and 1473; A Dissertation against the Greeks about Unleavened Bread in the Thirteenth Tome of the Councils. Trithemius mentions also Questions upon the Gospels for Sundays, and the Festivals of the Saints. This Author was an able Man in Scholastic Learning, and in the New Canon-Law; he understood Subtleties very well, and could use them with ease. His Style has nothing sublime in it, and savours of the Barbarism and Dryness of the Schoolmen and Canonists. He maintained Pope Eugenius stoutly against the Council of Basil, and defended the Superiority of the Pope above the Council.  
Henry Arnold a Saxon, having performed the Office of Secretary in the Council of Basil, entered 
Henry Arnold a Carthusian.  into the Order of Carthusians, and wrote many Treatises of Piety, which were never printed, and a Book of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, printed at Antwerp in 1527. He died in the Year 1487.  
Alpho●sus Spina, a Spanish converted Jew, a Regular of the Order of St. Francis, and Rector 
Alphonsus Spina, a Friar Minor.  of the University of Salamanca, is the Author of a Treatise, Entitled, The Fortress of Faith, against the Jews, Saracens, and other Enemies of the Faith, printed at Nuremberg, without the Name of the Author, in 1494. and published afterwards by William Totan, of the Order of Friars Predicant in 1511. printed at Lions: But John Mariana attributes it to Alphonsus. Spina, and the Author observes in the Work itself, That he wrote it at Valladolid in 1458. 'Tis a Work that promises more in the Title than it performs, for it is not well-written; it contains no deep Inquiries, and often makes use of Proofs, Arguments and Answers, which are very weak; yet there is some Learning in it, and it may be of some use.  
Giles Charlier, born at Cambray, studied in the College of Navarre: After he had finished there 
Aegidius Carlerius, Dean of Cambray.  with credit the Explication of the Master of the Sentences, in 1414. he took the Degree of Doctor in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, and was chosen in 1431. Dean of the Chapter of Cambray. He was present at the Council of Basil, and was one of the Envoys from the Council to the Bohemians. He lived a very long time, and was Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, and died not till the 23d of November, in 1472. He composed many Works, whereof some have been printed at Brussels, in 1478. under the Title of the Sporta, and Sportula, viz. under the first Title, a Treatise of the Preservation of the Goods of the Church, a Defence of the Church, a Treatise of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, a piece against the 
* i e. Those who opposed Images.  Iconomachi, and a Treatise of the Celibacy of ecclesiastics: And under the last Title, the following Treatises, Of the Election of the Traitor Judas, of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, of Revenues for Life, of Tithes, of Images, of Confession, of abstaining from Meat among the Benedictines and Carthusia 〈◊〉, against the Calculators of the past Age, about the Cloistering of the Monks of the Order of St. Dominick. There is at the end of the Acts of the Council of Basil, a Discourse against the second Article of the Bohemians about the Correction of Public Sins. His Commentary upon the Master of the Sentences is Manuscript, in the Library of Navarre, and many other Treatises upon different Subjects, as, upon the Communion of the Laity in one kind, upon some Propositions against the Authority of the Church, upon Indulgences, upon the Eucharist, and upon several other Questions of Practice, or Cases of Conscience, with a multitude of Sermons.  
Gregory of Heimburg, Doctor in Law, was one of the most violent Enemies to the Pope which 
Gregory of Heimburg, a Civilian.  this Age produced: He was present at the Council of Basil, and was afterwards called to Nuremberg, where he did the Office of Syndick for the space of Thirty Years, and was honoured with the Title of Counsellor to Frederick of Austria. He wrote a Treatise against the Temporal Power which the Popes pretend to have over Princes, wherein he does not contain himself within the bounds of the Question, but lashes out in Invectives against the Popes. The Contest which the Cardinal of Cusa had with Sigismond Duke of Austria, gave occasion to Gregory of Heimburg, to discharge his Gall against the Popes, and in particular against Pius II. who had formerly been one of his Friends. Upon the Difference which happened between the Cardinal of Cusa and Duke Sigismond, about the Execution of the Cardinal's Jurisdiction in his Bishopric of Brixen, Pope Callistus III. cited this Duke, and forbade him under pain of an Interdict to trouble the Cardinal in the exercise of his Jurisdiction: This Montion did nothing but irritate the Duke, who persecuted this Cardinal. Pius II. renewed the Censures against the Duke, and cited him and his Adherents anew. Then Sigismond appealed to a Council, and the Act of Appeal was drawn up by Heimburg. The Pope Excommunicated the Duke and his Adherents, and pronounced an Interdict against their Estates, by his Bull published at Sienna, August the 2d, in 1460: Sigismond appealed also from this Proceeding. The Pope denounced him Excommunicate again by his Mandates in the Month of January the next Year. He Excommunicated also Gregory of Heimburg, by his Bull dated October the 18th, in the Year 1460. This Civilian made railing Annotations, and an Act of Appeal against this Bull. Theodore Laelius, Bishop of Feltre, who died after he was chosen Cardinal in the Year 1464. made a Reply, which is very well written, to Heimburg's Act 
Theodore Laelius Bishop of Feltre.  of Appeal: Against which he wrote an Apology full of Reproaches, and he made an Invective yet more passionate against the Cardinal of Cusa. All these Pieces have been published by Goldastus, in his first and second Tome of the Monarchy, and printed apart at Frankfurt in 1608.  
Henry Gorcome, or Goricheme, a Hollander, Vicechancellor of the University of Colen, flourished about the Year 1460; He wrote a Treatise of Festivals, and a Treatise of some 
Henricus Gorcomius, or Gorichemius.  Superstitious Observances and Ceremonies, printed at Colen in 1503. and at Lions in 1621.: A kind of Table of Conclusions, or the Agreement of the Bible and the Canons, upon the Master of the Sentences, together with a Catalogue of the Opinions of the Master of the Sentences, which are rejected at Paris, and in England, printed at Colen in 1502. at Venice in 1506. and at Basil in 1513; not to mention his Commentaries upon some Books of Aristotle.  
Thomas, commonly called a Kempis, or de Kempis, was of Kempen, a City in the Diocese of Collen, as he says himself in his Chronicle of the Mount of St. Agnes, Chap. 8. & 10. and not 
Thomas of Kempis a Canon-Regular.  of Kampen in the Diocese of Utrecht, as some have said. He was born at this place about the Year 1380. and was surnamed Hemerken, which signifies a Hammer; his Father was called John and his Mother Gertrude; he had a Brother named John de Kempis, Prior of the Monastery of the Canons Regular of the Congregation of Gerard le Grand, in the Mount of St. Agnos near to Zwol. Thomas was educated in the Society of the Scholars of Deventer, where he learned to write, to read the Bible, and to understand Treatises of Piety and Morality: After this he went in 1399. to Zwol, to obtain the Indulgences which Pope Boniface IX. had granted to the Church of this place, and there he desired to be admitted into the Monastery of the Mount of St. Agnes; into which he was received in the Month of October the same Year by his Brother, and made Profession the 10th of June, 1406. The Author of the Continuation of his Chronicle of the Mount of St. Agnes, relates that in the first Year after he entered into this Monastery, he endured great Hunger, and Trials, and considerable Pains. He was ordained Priest in 1423. One of the chief Employments of the Canons Regular of this Congregation, was to write out the Bible, the Writings of the Fathers, and Treatises of Piety. Thomas a Kempis applied himself with Vigour to this Labour, copied out the whole Bible, a Missal, and a multitude of other Works; and in performing this Office, he practised the Advice of one of the Ancients, that in writing Books he did not only seek by the Labour of his Hands to gain Food for his Body, but also to Refresh his Soul with Heavenly Nourishment: For he so possessed his Mind with the Maxims and Truths contained in the Books which he copied out, that he prepared himself to instruct others by his Example, and by his Doctrine, by Word of Mouth and by Writing; which he did in his Conversation, in his Discourses, in the Instructions he gave to his Brethren, and in the Works of Piety which he composed. He was humble, meek, ready to give Consolation, fervent in his Exhortations and Prayers, Devout, Spiritual and Contemplative. His Style is plain and has nothing sublime in it; but his Thoughts are solid, and full of Unction, and withal intelligible and useful to the whole World; having nothing of that lofty and extravagant Devotion of some Mystical Divines, whose Language is uncommon and very singular. He lived 70 Years in his Order, and died not till the Year 1471. on the 24th of July.  
The largest Edition of his Works is that of Colen, in the Year 1660. which is divided into three Tomes.  
The first contains the Discourses of Thomas a Kempis, viz. first, thirty Sermons to the Novices, which are Conferences that Thomas a Kempis had with the Novices of his Order at different times, and which he afterwards collected together and addressed to his Brethren, under the Name of a Pilgrim Friar. These Discourses contain wholesome Instructions and Advices to the young Regulars, founded upon Passages of Scripture, and supported by some Examples which are related at the end. Secondly, Nine Discourses to his Brethren, containing most sublime Thoughts upon the principal Virtues of Regulars, viz. upon Self-denial, Compunction, Chastity, Silence and Solitude. Thirdly, Thirty six Discourses upon the Incarnation, the Birth, the Life, the Death, the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ, and also upon the Mission of the Holy Ghost, and upon the Primitive Church, which are almost wholly composed of Passages of the Holy Scripture.  
The Second Tome contains Spiritual Treatises, at the head of which are the four Books of the Imitation of Jesus Christ: The Title of the first is, Useful Advices for the Spiritual Life; Of the second, Advices or Documents of the Interior Life; Of the third, Of inward Consolation; Of the fourth, Of the August Sacrament of the Eucharist; Or, A devout Exhortation to the Holy Communion. After this Treatise of Thomas a Kempis, which is contested, there follow many others which without scruple are attributed to him: The first is the Soliloquy of the Soul, wherein he hath collected many Meditations drawn out of the Holy Scripture, containing divers Thoughts and Motions of Piety, of the Thankfulness and Affection of the Soul towards God: The second is a Work, entitled, The little Garden of Roses, containing divers Advices for the Spiritual Life, which are also in the third, entitled, The Valley of Lilies. In the fourth, which bears this Title, Of the three Tabernacles, he treats of Poverty, of Humility and Patience. The fifth is of the Discipline of those who are in the Cloister: There he treats of the Duties, Employments, Exercises of those who are in the Cloister, and of the means they ought to use for performing them well. The fifth is about a faithful Steward, or the Ministry of Martha; where he speaks of the external Employments of the Regulars: The seventh is entitled, The Hospital of the Poor; Or, of the Contempt of the Things of this World. It contains divers Spiritual Instructions, particularly about Prayer, Temptations and Humility. The eighth is a Dialogue about Novices, wherein he brings in a Novice speaking to an ancient Regular, who instructs him in the chief Duties of Religion. The Spiritual Exercises are the ninth Work, whereof the first part is about interior Duties, and the second of external Employments. The tenth is entitled, The Doctrinal, or the Manual of young People. There he recommends the reading of the Holy Scripture, the study of good Books. Singing, frequenting Divine Service, Humility, Diligence, Self-denial, and Affection to Heavenly Things. The Book of Compunction of Heart, is a most fervent Prayer to God, of one who acknowledges himself a Sinner, and lays open his own Misery. The twelfth Book, after that about the Imitation, discovers the Usefulness of Solitude and Silence. These are the Treatises contained in the first Part of the Second Tome; the second contains many other shorter Tracts, the Titles whereof are these; Of the Acknowledgement of our own Frailty, a short Epitaph, or a Manual of the Monks, the Manual of Little Ones, of the Elevation of the Mind to God, to seek after the Sovereign Good, the little Alphabet of a Monk for the School of Jesus Christ, the Consolation of the Poor and Sick, seven Prayers, little pieces of the Mortification of ourselves, of Humility, of a good and peaceable Life, the Life of a good Monk in Rhyme, and some Hymns.  
The third Tome contains in the first part, the Life of Gerardle Grand, of Florentius, and nine of his Disciples, who are John Ground, John Brinkerincke, Robert Berner, Henry Brune, Gerard of Zutphen, Aemilius of Buren, James of Viana, John Ketel, Arnold of Schoonhove. In the second it contains the Life of Lidwine or Lidewige a Virgin, in two parts; in the third, six Letters of Piety, many Prayers and some Hymns.  
These are the Works which go under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, and which have been printed at Nuremberg in 1494. At Paris, of the Impression of Badius, in 1520, 1521, and 1523. And of the Impression of Roginius, in 1549. At Venice in 1535, 1568, and 1576. At Antwerp in 1574. and by Sammalius in 1660. and 1607. At Bilingen in 1576. And at Colen in 1660. The Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, which is among these Works, under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, is found also printed under the Name of Gerson; and has since been ascribed to the Abbot Gerson, upon the Credit of some Manuscripts, who is pretended to be of the Order of St. Benedict, which has occasioned a very hot Dispute between the Canon's Regular and the Benedictines; of which we shall give the History in a particular Dissertation at the end of this Volume, where we shall examine the Authorities and Reasons which are alleged on both sides.  
John Busch, a Canon Regular of Windesem at Zwoll in Overyssel, entered into this Convent 
John Busch a Canon Regular.  about the beginning of this Century, where he continued till the Year 1464. that he finished his Chronicle of Windesem which is divided into two Books; whereof one contains the Establishment of the Convent of Gerard le Grand, and of the Monasteries that depend upon it; and the other, contains the History and Life of the Illustrious Men who have flourished in the Monastery of Windesem since its Establishment. This Work was published by Rosweyde, and printed at Antwerp in 1621. with a Letter which Trithemius attributes to him about Spiritual Exercises, upon the Life and Passion of Jesus Christ, which is the Work of John Huesden Prior of Windesem, full of Spiritual Maxims and Thoughts. John Busch died about the Year 1470.  
William Houpeland, a Native of Bullen in Picardy, Doctor of Paris, Curate of St. Severine, and afterwards Canon of Notre-Dame, and archdeacon of Brye, died when he was Dean of the 
William Houpeland a Doctor of Paris.  Faculty of Theology of Paris, August the 11th, in the Year 1492. He wrote a Book of the Immortality of the Soul, and of its State after death, filled with many Passages of the Holy Fathers, Philosophers, Poets and Doctors, printed at Paris in 1499.  
Denys Rickel, so called from the Name of the Place where he was born, which is situated in the Diocese of Liege, is known by the Name of DENYS THE CARTHUSIAN; because 
Denys Rickel a Carthusian.  he entered in the 21st Year of his Age into the Order of the Carthusians, and there spent the remainder of his Days until the Year 1471. in which he died March the 12th, aged 69 Years. There is no Author whom he may not Rival for the great Number of Works he composed, whereof he himself made a Catalogue: In which there are Commentaries upon all the Books of the Old and New Testament, printed at Colen in 1538. A Work entitled, Monopanton, i. e. all the Epistles of St. Paul ranged according to the Order of their Subject-matter, printed at Lions in 1547. and at Paris in 1551. and 1631. A Commentary upon the Books attributed to St. Denys the Areopagite, printed at Colen in 1536. A Commentary upon the Book of Sentences, printed at Venice in 1584. The Marrow of the Sum of St. Thomas, and of the Sum of William Auxerres; a Treatise upon Boethius, of the Consolation of Philosophy; an Explication of the ancient Hymns, printed with the Commentaries upon Scripture; a Commentary upon the Ladder of John Climacus, and upon the Works of Cassian, printed at Colen in 1605. and 1640. Divers Works of Philosophy, an Abridgement of Theology, two Books of the Christian Theory, printed at Antwerp in 1569. and at Venice in 1572. and Books of the Catholic Faith against the Gentiles, printed at Venice in 1568. Four Books against the Perfidiousness of Mahomet, printed at Colen in 1533. A Dialogue between a Christian and a Saracen upon the same Subject, printed at the same place; a Letter to Catholic Princes, exhorting them to make War against the Turks, at the same place; a Treatise against the Art of Magic, and the Errors of the Vaudois; a Treatise against Superstitions; divers Treatises of the Essence and Perfections of God; four Books of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, Hours upon the Mystery of the Trinity, and the Passion of our Lord, Meditations upon the Passion, an Explication of the Passion of our Lord, according to the four Gospels, an Exposition of the Mass, a Dialogue about the Celebration of the Sacrament of the Altar, a Treatise of frequent Communion, printed in many Places; six Sermons about the holy Sacrament of the Altar, eight Books of Praises, and of the Dignity of the Virgin Mary, of the mutual Knowledge of the Saints in Heaven, of the Veneration of Saints and their Relics, and of the manner of making Processions for them. These are the Dogmatical Treatises; what follow are concerning Discipline: Of the Cause of the Diversities of Events, of the Disorders and Reformation of the Church; this Treatise, and those which follow upon the same Subject, were printed at Colen in 1559. Of the Authority and Duty of the Pope, of his Power and Jurisdiction, of the Authority of General Councils, of the Life and Administration of Prelates and Arch-deacons, printed at Antwerp in 1532. Of the Office of Legates, of the Life and Condition of Canons, Priests and other Ministers of the Church; a Dialogue between an Advocate and a Canon, printed at Louvain in 1577. A Treatise of the Life and Administration of Parish-Priests; of the Virtuous Conversation of the Clergy; of the Doctrine of the Schoolmen; of the Life of Noblemen; of the Administration of Princes; two Dialogues between Jesus Christ, a Prince and a Princess; of a Military Life; of the Life of Merchants, and of the just Price of Things; of Political Administration; of the Life of married Persons; of the Life of Virgins; two Dialogues of Jesus Christ, one with an old Man, the other with a Child; of the Life and Example of the ancient Fathers, an Encomium of the Order of the Carthusians, an Explication of the Rule of the third Order of St. Francis, of the Reformation of the Regulars, of the Life of Hermits, of the Life and End of a Hermit, an Encomium of a Solitary Life, of the Life of Recluses: The third Classis contains the Works of Morality, four Collections of Sermons, two for Seculars, and two for Regulars; many of which are printed at Collen in 1542. A Summary of Virtues and Vices; some Treatises against the Plurality of Benefices, against Simony, against Covetousness, against Ambition, against the Propriety of Monks, against Distractions in repeating the Divine Service, of the manner of Singing devoutly, of the manner and order of Fraternal Correction, of the heinousness and enormity of Sin, of the Conversion of Sinners, of the straight Way of Salvation, and Contempt of the World, the Mirror of the Lovers of this World; these three last Treatises were printed at Besanzon in 1488. The Institution of Novices, of the Vows and Profession of Regulars, of the means of spending Time usefully, two Books of the Purgative Life, a Discourse of quickening Mortification and of internal Reformation, of the Fountain of Light, and the Path of Life, printed at Louvain in 1577. of the Remedies of Temptations, of the Discernment of Spirits, of the Passions of the Soul, of the Purity and Happiness of the Soul; the Cordial printed at Louvain in 1577. of keeping the Heart and making Spiritual Progress, of Spiritual Joy, of internal Peace, of the Elevation of the Mind to God, of Prayer, of Meditation and Contemplation, the Sound of him that appoints a Festival; incentives to the Love of God, printed at Collen in 1605. Two Dialogues of Charity, a Treatise of the Rules of a Christian Life, a Discourse of a particular Judgement at the death of every Person, a Treatise of the four Last Things of a Man, printed at Delf, in 1487. Wherein he maintains that the Souls which are in Purgatory, are not certain whether they are in a State of Salvation, or Damnation. Two Conferences, one for the General Chapter of the Carthusians, and the other for that of the Friars Minors; Twelve Letters, some Poems, a great number of Discourses, of Conferences, and Decisions of Cases. The Apocalypse, or the Revelations which God made to himself. This is the Catalogue which Denys the Carthusian has given us of his own Works; at the end of which, he reckons up the Authors and Books which he had Read for the space of Forty Six years, while he was in his Order, and by which his mind was improved. We have added to the Catalogue of his Works their Editions; Those to which we have not added any, are either such as have not seen the light, or such as are not to be found. This Author wrote with much ease, but his Style is plain, and has nothing Polite or Sublime in it; he had Read and Studied much, and wanted not Learning in common things. His Judgement was very good, and he had a great happiness in applying passages of Scripture; he is sober and wise in his Devotion, and full of wholesome Maxims and Instructions. In fine, there is scarce any Mystical Author, whose Works are Read with more profit and pleasure, particularly those which he wrote about Reforming the Life of all the several States of the Church.  
James of Gruytrode, a Germane, and a Carthusian, of the Monastery of the Holy Apostles near 
James of Gruytrode. a Carthusian.  Liege, is the true Author of the Mirror of the Five sorts of States, which is Attributed to Denys the Carthusian, for Trithemius has put it among the Works of Gruytrode, whereof he has given us a Catalogue. This Authordied in February, 1472.  
Roderic Sance of Areval, a Spaniard, Doctor in Law of Salamanca, Bishop of Palantia, and afterwards 
Rodericus Sancius de Arevalo, Bishop of Calahorra.  of Calahorra, Flourished about the year 1470. He wrote the History of Spain, divided into Four Books, from the beginning of that Nation, to the year 1469. which is Printed at Frankfort, in 1603. and in Spanish Illustrated; and also a Work divided into two Books, Entitled, The Mirror of Human Life, Printed at Rome in 1468. at Paris, in 1475. and at Besanzon in 1488. In the First Book of this Work he Treats of all the Conditions of the People of the World; and in the Second, of the Spiritual State of Life, both Ecclesiastical, and Regular; it is Dedicated to Paul II. and is rather a Moral than Spiritual Treatise. Thomasinus informs us that there are at Milan Three Manuscript Treatises of this Author; one an Appeal from the decision of the Pope, another of General Councils, and a third, of the Remedies of the Church Militant afflicted by the Turks.  
Henry Harphius, or of Herp, a Fleming, of the Order of Friars Minors of the Observance, 
Henry Harphius a Friar Minor.  died in the year 1478. He excelled in Mystical Divinity, and wrote three Books about it, whereof the 1st. is Entitled Epithalamium, or the Bridal Song; the 2d. a Golden Directory of the Contemplative; the 3d. Eden, or the Terrestrial Paradise of the Contemplative, Printed at Collen, in 1538. and 1555. and Corrected by Order of the Holy-See at Rome, in 1585. at Brescia, in 1601. and at Collen, in 1611. He wrote also some other Treatises of the same Nature, viz. The Golden Mirror upon the Precepts of the Decalogue, Printed at Nuremberg, in 1481, at Basil, in 1496. and at Strasburg, in 1520. The Mirror of Perfection, Printed at Venice, in 1524. Three Conferences of the Perfection of Life, or an Abridgement of the Directory, Printed at Collen, in 1536. Some Sermons Printed at Haguenaw, in 1509. with a Discourse of the three parts of Repentance, and another about the threefold Advent of Jesus Christ. He wrote all these Books in Dutch, but they have been since translated into Latin.  
Gabriel Barlet, a Native of Apulia, of the Order of Friars Predicant, lived until the year 1480. 
Gabriel Barlet, a Domini can.  Two Tomes of Sermons are attributed to him, which are full of Impertinencies, and Ridiculous things, unworthy of the gravity wherewith the Word of God should be preached. There is an Old Edition of them in the year 1470. and two others Printed at Venice, in 1571. and 1585. Some pretend that 'tis the Work of one who had a mind to Ridicule the Sermons of Barlet, and that he is not at all the Author of them. Leander Albertus says, that he knew in his Youth the Man that forged this Work. In the mean time the Writers of the Sixteenth Century attribute it to him as his genuine Work. And Altamura Library-Keeper to the Dominicans owns them, and endeavours to defend them.  
Bartholomew, or according to others, Baptista Platina, Born at Piadena, or Platina, near Cremona, 
Bartholomew or Baptista Platina, Library Keeper of the Vatican.  of inconsiderable Parents; after he had for some time followed the profession of a Soldier, applied himself to the Study of Learning, wherein he made a considerable Progress. He went to Rome under the Pontificate of Callistus III. and was their entertained by the Cardinal Bessarion, who took him into his House. Pius II. made him Apostolical Abbreviator, and gave him two Benefices: But Paul II. having abolished all the Abbreviators, without paying them the Rents that belonged to their Offices, he, as well as the rest, was robbed of all; and by his Remonstrances against this Injustice, drew upon himself the indignation of the Pope; and having the boldness to write to him a Letter, wherein he complains of this Treatment, and threatens to have recourse to Christian Princes, and desire of them a Council, the Holy Father clapped him up in Prison, and put Irons upon his Feet, from which he was set at liberty for this time, after he had stayed there four Months. But three years after, the same Pope suspecting he had Conspired against his Person, caused him to be put in Prison again, and Tortured; and when he could not by this means extort a Confession from him of the pretended Crime, he accused him of Heresy, and of having some bad Opinions about the Immortality of the Soul. Nevertheless, upon the request of the Cardinals. Bessarion, and Gonzaga, he granted him at last his Liberty, but he was not Restored till the Pontificate of Sixtus IU. who made him Library-Keeper of the Vatican, and gave him a House in the Quirinal, where he died, in the year 1481. Aged Sixty Years. He wrote the Lives of the Popes, from our Lord, until the Pontificate of Sixtus iv with freedom enough, and in a tolerable Style, but not with all the exactness and discretion that were to be be wished. They were Printed at Venice, in 1479. at Nuremberg, in 1481. and at Lions, in 1512. together with the Continuation of Onuphrius at Louvain, in 1572. and at Collen, in 1600, and 1610. Besides this, he wrote many Works of Morality; as three Dialogues of that which is truly and falsely good; another against Amours; a Dialogue of true Nobility, two Dialogues of a good Citizen; a Panegyric upon Cardinal Bessarion, a Discourse to Paul II. upon the Peace of Italy, and the Declaration of War against the Turks. All these Works of Platina were Printed at Collen, in 1529, and 1574. and at Louvain, in 1572. There is a Book of his about the Means of preserving Health, the Nature of things, and the Art of Cookery, Dedicated to the Cardinal of Rovera, Printed at Bologne, in 1498. and at Lions, in 1541. upon which Sannazar made this Excellent Epigram,  
Ingenia & mores, vitasque obitusque notasse,  
Pontificum, argutae lex fuit Historiae.  
Tu tamen hic lautae tractas Pulmenta Culinae,  
Hoc Platina est ipsos pascere Pontifices.  
There was under the Reign of Lovis XI. a Divine named Martin the Master, a Native of 
Martinus Magister, Confessor to the King.  Tours, Doctor in Divinity, of the Faculty of Paris, of the House of Navarre, and Principal of the College of St. Barbara; who tho' he was of a very mean Extraction, as being the Son of a Butcher, yet attained the High Offices of Almoner and Confessor to the King. He was famous for the Treatises of Philosophy and Morality which he taught. There is a Treatise of his about Valour, Printed at Paris, in 1489. A Treatise of Temperance, Printed in the same City, in 1400. A Treatise of the Consequences that follow from the Doctrine of the Nominals, Printed at Paris without Date; an Explication of the Universals of Porphyry, Printed at Paris, in 1499. and a Question of Fate, Printed at the same place. This Author was admitted Bachelor in 1469. took the Degree of Doctor, in 1473. and died in 1482.  
Robert Fleming an Englishman, after he had spent some years at Rome, under the Pontificate 
Robert Fleming, Dean of Lincoln.  of Sixtus iv returned into his own Country, where he was made Dean of Lincoln. While he was at Rome, he wrote in the year 1477. a Poem in praise of Sixtus iv Entitled Lucubrationes Tiburtinae, wherein he gives the History and a Panegyric of this Pope in Heroical Verses, which are a little harsh; his Work was Printed at Rome at the same time.  
Peter Natalis, a Venetian, in the year 1482. finished a History, or a Catalogue of the Martyrs, and Saints, which was Printed at Venice, in 1493. at Strasburg, in 1501. and at Lions, in 
Peter Natalis a Venetian.  1542.  
Alexander of Imola, a Civilian, the Disciple of John of Imola, Taught Law for the space of Thirty years with good Credit in the Cities of Pavia, Ferrara, and Boulogne, and died in the 
Alexander of Imola, a Civilian.  year 1487. aged fifty four years. He wrote Commentaries upon the Sixth Book of the Decretals, and upon the Clementines, Printed at Venice, in 1571, and 1597. no● to mention his other Works of the Civil Law.  
John Wessel, or of Wessales, (for 'tis the same) of Groningen, Doctor of Divinity, to whom 
John Wessel, or Wessales.  some have given the Epithet of The Light of the World, was an Able Man in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Tongues, and in Profane Sciences, as well as in Theology. He Flourished from the year 1470. and died in 1489. being Aged more than seventy years. He wrote many Books, wherein he advances a multitude of Propositions, which are too free and bold, which brought upon him the Condemnation of the Inquisitors of Germany, which was passed in the year 1479. wherein many of his Propositions are Censured, according to the Opinion of the Doctors of the Universities of Heidelberg, and Collen, and by the Authority of the Archbishop of Mayence, who presided at that Assembly.  
James Perez, of Valence in Spain, was made Bishop of Chrysopolis, in 1468. died in 149●. 
Jacobus Perezius, Bishop of Chrysopolis.  wrote Allegorical and Anagogical Commentaries upon the Psalms of David, and upon the Canticles, with a Treatise against the Jews, Printed at Lions, in 1512, and at Venice, in 1568. an Exposition upon the Canticles, with a Question about the Merits of Jesus Christ, Printed at Paris, in 1498. and at Lions, in 1513.  
John Pick, Prince of Mirandula, and Concordia, was Born in 1465. he had from his Infancy a 
Johannes Picus, of Mirandula.  wonderful sharpness of Wit, and a prodigious Memory; at Fourteen years of Age he Studied Law at Bologne. After this he spent Seven years in Travelling to the most Famous Universities of France, and Italy; and after he had Conversed with the most Learned Men in those places, he went to Rome, where he proposed Theses upon all sorts of Sciences, while he was yet but Twenty three years of Age; he published them over all the World, and engaged to maintain them publicly. But Envy stirred him up Enemies, who found something to be blamed in his Theses, and accused some of them of Heresy. The Pope appointed Commissioners to Examine them, who found some of them suspected of Heresy. Picus made an Apology, wherein he justified himself, and explained in a good sense the Propositions which were blamed, and submitted himself to the judgement of the Holy See; yet still the Pope forbade the Reading of his Theses, and when Picus Retired from Rome, he caused him to be Cited some time after. While these things were thus depending, Alexander VI granted him a Brief of Absolution, June the 18th. in the year 1493. After this, Picus applied himself wholly to the Study of the Holy Scripture, undertook to confute the Jews, and Mahometans, and to confound Judicial Astrology; he resigned also his own Sovereignty, and distributed all his goods among the Poor. He died at Florence, November 17. in the year 1494. His Theses which contain 900 Questions, were Printed at Rome in 1486. at Nuremberg, in 1532. and at Collen, in 1619. and together with his other Works, which are an Apology for his Theses; Seven Books upon the beginning of Genesis, a Treatise of Being and Unity, a Treatise of the Dignity of Man, Twelve Rules or Precepts for the Institution of a Christian Life, a Commentary upon the Fifteenth Psalm, a Treatise of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, and of the Vanity of the World, an Exposition of the Lord's-Prayer, a Book of Letter's, Twelve Books upon Astrology, Three Books upon Plato's Banquet. All these Works were Printed together at Venice, in 1498. and at Strasburg, in 1504 at Basil, in 1573, and 1601. and at Mirandula, in 1596. He wrote also other Pieces, whereof John Francis Picus of Mirandula his Nephew makes mention in his Life, viz. A Book of the Fidelity of the Version of the Bible by St. Jerom, against the Calumnies of the Hebrews; a defence of the Septuagint's Version upon the Psalms; a Treatise of the true Computation of Time; a Commentary upon the New Testament; a Treatise against the Seven Enemies of the Church; which are the Atheists, the Pagans, the Jews, the Mahometans, the Christian Heretics, the Impious Christians, who are Catholics in appearance, and the Impious and Heretical Christians; some Books against all Heretics, and other Treatises of Philosophy, and Grammar.  
The 900 Conclusions of Picus of Mirandula are for the most part Metaphysical and Scholastical Questions; many of them are upon the Philosophy of Aristotle and Plato, upon the Principles of the Cabbala, and of Magic, and some upon the Questions disputed by the Scholastical Divines. Upon this last he was attacked, and Thirteen of them were accused of Heresy, Error, or Rashness. The 1st. that Jesus Christ did not really descend into Hell, as to his presence, but only as to his effects: The 2d. That an infinite pain is not due to a Mortal Sin of a finite Time, but only a pain that is finite; the 3d. That we ought not to adore the Cross, nor any Image, with the Adoration of Latria, no not in the sense of St. Thomas; the 4th. That he was not certain that God could be united hypostatically to every Creature, but only to a Rational Creature; the 5th. That there is no Science that renders us more certain of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, than the knowledge of Magic, and the Cabala: the 6th. That supposing the common Opinion that the Word may be hypostatically united to an Inanimate Creature, than the Body of Jesus Christ may be really upon the Altar, tho' the Bread be not changed into his Body, nor annihilated; which is to be understood of the possibility of the thing, and not in any way as if it were actually so; the 7th. That 'tis more reasonable to believe that Origen should be Saved, than be Damned: the 8th. That as no Person is of any Opinion, merely because he would be of it; so neither can any Person believe, precisely, because he has a mind to believe; the 9th. That he who will maintain that the Accidents cannot subsist, unless they be sustained by the Eucharist, may nevertheless maintain the truth of the Sacrament, and believe that the substance of the Bread is not there; the 10th. That the words of Consecration are repeated by the Priest materially, and exactly; and not only by way of signification; the 11th. That the Miracles of Jesus Christ are not an evident proof of his Divinity, upon the account of the Operation, but upon the account of the Manner in which they were wrought; the 12th. That 'tis more improper to say of God, that he is Intelligent, or has Understanding, than to say of an Angel that he is a Rational Soul; the 13th. That the Soul does not understand nor conceive distinctly any thing but itself. Picus of Mirandula in his Apology, declared the Motives which his Adversaries might have to accuse him. He says, that some blamed his Design, and the manner of his Philosophising; others thought it was a Rashness in one of his Age to attempt such great things; some reproved him for the great number of Theses he had proposed; and lastly, some Divines accused him of Heresy; that he thought he ought not to be silent upon this Accusation, having learned from St. Jerom, and Ruffinus, that a Man ought to endure all sorts of Reproaches, except that of Heresy, but under that he ought not to be patiented. Nevertheless he answers the Objections which are made against his manner of Philosophising, against the great number of his Theses, and particularly as to his discovery of the secret of the Jewish Cabbala, and lastly he explains himself, and defends the Thirteen Propositions. As to the First, he confesses that we ought to believe that the Soul of Jesus Christ descended into Hell; but as to the manner of it there is nothing determined; and that the Soul being separate from the Body is no more in a place by its presence, but by its Operation; which was the only sense of his Proposition, and cannot be Condemned of Heresy. But on the contrary, those who Condemn it as such, are in Error, because they believe a thing to be of Faith, when it is not. As to the Second, That we must distinguish two things in Sin, the Aversion from God, and the Conversion to the Creature; and that we may also say, Pain is due to Sin in a twofold sense; either as it shall be effectually endured, or as it is that which is justly deserved: That Mortal Sin as it is an Aversion from God, who is an Infinite Good, is objectively Infinite, and deserves Eternal Pains; but that Eternal Pains will not be inflicted for Mortal Sin, except when the Sin is Infinite in its duration, viz. in case the Man continue in this Sin, and persevere in it through all Eternity: For if he reputes of it before his Death, and continue in it only for a finite time, his pain shall not be Infinite. As to the Third, that the Opinion of St. Thomas as to the Adoration of the Cross, and of Images is this, that they are Worshipped as they are Images. That on the contrary, William Durant, H●nry de Gandavo, Robert Holcot, and many other Divines maintain that we ought in no ways to adore an Image, nor the Cross, but only to Worship that which they represent; that he followed this latter Opinion as more probable, and rejected that of St. Thomas. As to the Fourth, That he does not affirm, as Henry de Gandavo does, that absolutely speaking, the Divinity cannot be united to a Creature devoid of Reason, but only he suspends his Judgement as to the Question. As to the Fifth, That it ought to be restrained to those Sciences which are not founded upon Revelation; and that it is of these only that he meant it. As to the Sixth, That it does no ways impeach the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. He debates the Question, viz. Whether any other way may be alleged for explaining the Conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, than that of Transubstantiation, and whether to this end they may not pretend the Union of Jesus Christ with the Bread; and after he has produced the Reasons and Authorities on both sides, he answers to those which are brought to show that another manner of explaining the Real Presence may be maintained different from Transubstantiation, and proves that his Conclusion does no wise favour this Opinion. As to the Seventh, He confesses, that the Heresies attributed to Origen are Impious, and have been justly condemned by the Church; but he maintains that he can aver without Rashness, that they have been falsely attributed to him; and that in case he had maintained them, he might believe that he had repent of them: That the Church has never determined that Origen is Damned; and lastly, that tho' it had done so, he would not be obliged to hold its Judgement in this as a matter of Faith, because it would be no more certain than that of Canonising the Saints, which according to the Opinion of St. Thomas, is not of Faith. As to the Eighth Proposition, he maintains it to be true, because no Man can believe any thing, unless he has sufficient Motives which oblige him to believe it; but than it does not follow from thence, that the Act of Faith is not free. As to the Ninth, That it may be maintained, because we may affirm with St. Thomas, that there is a real distinction between the Existence and Essence of the Bread, and that in this Case God may preserve the Existence to sustain the Accidents. As to the Tenth, That the words of Consecration in the mouth of Jesus Christ are to be understood in a Literal sense, because he gave effectually to his Apostles his Body which was to be broken, and his Blood which was to be shed; but in the mouth of a Priest, who does not give his own Body and his own Blood, but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which is no more to be broken or shed, they are to be considered only as a Narrative. As to the Eleventh, That the Miracles of Jesus Christ prove indeed precisely that he did them in the Name of God, but that which proves he was God, is that he did them by his own Authority. As to the Twelfth, He defends himself by the Authority of the Books attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite, who would not have any to say that God is an Intelligence. As to the Thirteenth, He observes that this ought not to be extended to all sorts of knowledge, but only to that secret knowledge which the Soul has immediately from itself.  
His Treatise upon the Creation of the World, is rather an Essay than a perfect Work. The Treatise of Being and Unity is very Metaphysical: That about the Dignity of Man, discovers divers Secrets of the Jewish Cabbala, of the Chaldean and Persian Philosophers. His Letters are full of Wit. There is a great deal of Reason and Learning in his Books against Astrology. In fine, all the Works of this Author are written with much Elegance, Easiness, and Cleanness; and in them he discovers as well the sharpness of his Wit, as the extent of his Knowledge.  
His Nephew John Francis Picus of Mirandula, has also left us many Works, which are printed 
John Francis Pi●us of Mirandula.  with the preceding in the Edition of Basil, in 1601. viz. A Treatise of the Study of Divine and Human Philosophy, wherein he compares Profane Philosophy with the knowledge of the Scripture; and shows how much more excellent this latter is, and what use we ought to make of the former: A Treatise to prove that we ought to meditate on the Death of Jesus Christ, and our own; a Treatise of Unity and Being, in defence of that written by his Uncle; a Treatise of the Imagination; two Treatises of Physics, one of the first Matter, the other of the Elements; a Treatise of Imitation, addressed to Bembus, together with the Answer of Bembus, and the Reply▪ of Francis of Mirandula; Theorems of Faith, and of what we are obliged to believe; wherein he Treats very largely of the Principles of our Faith in 26 Theorems. After he has shown that the Faith of Christians is well grounded, he proves in the 1st. Theorem, that we cannot be Saved without Faith in Jesus Christ; but he believes that God will show that favour to all those who observe the Law of Nature, as to give them Faith. In the 2d, That the Faith of a Christian is the Gift of God. In the 3d, That all those who have the Habit of Faith, give their consent to the Truths of Faith, which are proposed unto them, or at least do not oppose them with obstinacy. In the 4th, that every one is obliged to believe and observe all that the Catholic Church has determined, by an express or tacit Decision, at least as to what concerns Faith and Manners; for as to other things she may deceive, and be deceived; as in the Canonization of Saints, according to the Opinion of Thomas, and Panormitan. In the 5th, That every one is obliged to believe all that is literally expressed in the Old and New Testament. In the 6th, That we are also obliged to believe and practise all that the Church has learned or received from the Apostles. In the 7th, That the same is to be said of those Truths which follow by necessary Consequence from such as are founded upon the preceding Principles. In the 8th, That we ought also to believe the Definitions and Decrees of Popes, when the Church does not oppose them. In the 9th, That the Truths which God reveals to private Persons are not of Faith, save only for those to whom they are revealed. In the 10th, That we ought to obey the Decisions of Bishops in their Dioceses, when they Condemn any Doctrines as contrary to Faith or Good Manners. In the 11th, That every one is obliged to believe and practise what is necessary for attaining happiness. In the 12th, That among Christians the difference of Dignities, States, and Understanding, obliges some to have more knowledge of Matters relating to Religion than others. In the 13th, That no Person is obliged to believe what one or many private Persons teach, but only the Doctrine of the Catholic Church is to be embraced by every one. In the 14th, That none is obliged to follow the Opinion of Saints and Doctors, and to give credit to their Miracles and Revelations. In the 15th, That we are not obliged to give Credit to the Words or Writings of Men, even in such things as do not relate to Faith and Manners. In the 16th, That in case a Council and the Pope be of contrary Opinions, we must adhere to the Decision of a Council; and when the Fathers of a Council are divided, we must follow the Majority. In the 17th, That when there are two Persons who call themselves Popes, we must endeavour to discover whose Election was Canonical; and in case it be difficult to know this, that it will be better to follow his Party who is thought to have the greatest probability on his side, than to own no Pope at all. In the 18th, That when Divines or Interpreters differ about any Opinion, we must follow that which is thought to be most true; but if their Opinions happen to be equally probable, we must follow that which is taught by the most Famous and Holy Persons. In the 19th, That in Matters of Controversy and Faith, a Man is not at liberty to follow what Opinion he pleases, when the thing is once defined. In the 20th, That when it is not determined, we ought to follow what is most agreeable to the Gospel, and best founded. In the 21th, That in case the Opinions appear to be equally reasonable, we ought to shun that against which anathemas are thundered out. In the 22th, That in Controversies of Faith, which cannot be explained, we ought to suspend our Judgement. In the 23th, That those who have a pure heart, who pray to God without ceasing, that they may know the Truth, and have an humble submissive Spirit, cannot Err dangerously in matters of Faith. In the 24th, That those Truths which one is not obliged to believe explicitly at the beginning, because they were not explained and defined, become afterwards necessary Points of Faith when they are. In the 25th. That every Christian is instructed, Spiritually nourished and perfected in the Unity of one only Church, and its Head. In the 26th, That 'tis not sufficient to have Faith, but it must be accompanied with good Works, whereof God is the Author; that we must love God, and live in conformity to his Will. After this Treatise follows a Piece upon a passage of St. Hilarius, of the manner after which Jesus Christ is in us, reported by Gratian in the Decree, Distinct. 2. de Consecrat. A Translation of the Exhortation of St. Justin to the Greeks; a Poem upon the Mysteries of the Cross; Nine Books of the prescience of Things, wherein he treats of the Divine Prescience, and of that knowledge which some pretend to of things future, by Compacts with Evil Spirits, by Astrology, Chiromancy, Geomancy, etc. which he confutes at large in this Treatise; and therein he justifies these Predictions, which Prophets Divinely inspired, Angels, and even God himself has given us of things future. The Six Books of the Examination of the Vanity of the Doctrine of the Gentiles, and of the Truth of the Christian Religion, oppose the Errors of Philosophers, and particularly those of the Aristoteleans. There are also Four Books of Letters written by this Author, which are almost all upon Profane Subjects; at the end of which there is a Discourse addressed to Leo X. about the Reformation of Manners. There is not so much Wit, Vigour, Subtlety, nor Elegance in the Works of Francis Picus, as in those of his Uncle; nor yet so much Learning, but there is in them more solidity and evenness. This Prince was unhappy during his Life; for he was driven out of his Dominions by his younger Brother Lovis, and being restored in 1510. after the death of his Brother, he was again forced away two years after by the French; but at last he was restored a second time, and enjoyed peaceably his Principality, till the year 1533. when he was cruel●y Massacred by Galeote the Son of Lovis.  
Augustin Patricius, of the Family of the Picolomini, Bishop of Pienza, is different from Augustin 
Augustin Patricius, Bishop of Pienza.  Patricius, Secretary to the Cardinal of Sienna; he wrote the Life of Fabian Bencius, and a Relation of the Reception of the Emperor Frederick III. at Rome, by Paul II. These two pieces have been published by Father Mabillon, in the first Tome of his Cabinet of Italy. The same Patricius being the Master of the Ceremonies under the Pontificate of Innocent VIII. composed a Book of the Ceremonies of the Pope, and the Church of Rome, which Christophlus Marcellus who was chosen Archbishop of Corfu did afterwards ascribe to himself, and published under his own Name, under the Pontificate of Leo X. whereof he is accused by Paris of Crassis. Father Mabillon has published it in the Second Tome of the foresaid Collection; the Epistle Dedicatory of this Work by Patricius of Sienna, to Innocent VIII. dated the first of March in 1488. and the ●etter of Paris of Crassis, who relates what happened upon occasion of the publication of this Work by the Archbishop of Corfu.  
Peter Shottus, Born at Strasburg, in 1459. a Canon of St. Peter's in that City, after he had improved himself in the Sciences at the Universities of Paris and Bologne, returned into his own 
Petrus Shottus, a Canon of St. Peter's in Strasburg.  Country, where he died, in the year 1491. To him belong the Lives of St. John Baptist, St. John Evangelist, and St. John Chrysostom, which are written in Elegiac Verse; the Encomium of John Gerson also in Verse, some Letters, and divers Questions about Cases of Conscience, Printed at Strasburg, in 1498.  
Arnold Bostius, or Boschius, a Germane Regular of the Order of Carmelites, in the Monastery 
Arnoldus Bostius, or Boschius, a Carmeli●e.  of Gant, where he died in 1499. has left us Two Books of Illustrious Men of the Order of the Carthusians, printed at Colen in 1609. He wrote also a Book of the Illustrious Men of his own Order, a Work against Vincent of Newfort, or Chateauneuf; a Treatise of the four last things of a Man, a Piece of the Patronage of the Virgin, and divers Letters mentioned by Trithemius.  
Donat Bossius, a Milanese, born in 1436. flourished till the Year 1489. in which he finished 
Donatus Bossius, a Milanese.  his Chronicle of the Archbishops of Milan: He was also the Author of a Chronicle of the Principal Revolutions in the World till his own time. These two Works were printed at Milan in 1492.  
Boniface Simonet, a Milanese, Abbot of the Monastery of St. Stephen, of the Order of Cistercians, 
Boniface Simonet, Abbot of the Order of Cistercians.  in the Diocese of Placentia, Dedicated to Charles VIII. King of France, a Work about the Persecutions of Christians, and the History of the Popes from St. Peter to Innocent VIII. and writ many Letters divided into six Books. This Work was printed at Milan in 1492. and at Basil in 1509.  
Nicholas Barjan, of Placentia, of the Order of Hermit's of St. Augustine, flourished in the 
Nicolaus Barjanus, an Augustine.  Year 1494. and defended the Pre-eminence of his own Order against that of the Friars Minors: He wrote a Work upon this Subject, printed at Cremona, in the Year 1500. a Treatise of the Mounts of Piety▪ printed at the same place in 1496. a Quadragesimale, and 77 Quodlibetical Questions, about Predicable Matters, printed at Bononia in 1501.  
Gabriel Biel, of Switzerland, or according to others, of Spira, of the Order of Canons Regular 
Gabriel Biel, a Canon Regular.  of Daventer, Professor in the University of Zurick, which was founded in the Year 1477. by Eberard Duke of Wittenberg, whither he sent for Biel, to teach Philosophy and Divinity, flourished there until the Year 1494. and within a little time after he died. He wrote a Commentary which is highly esteemed, upon the four Books of the Master of the Sentences, printed at Basil in 1512. and at Brescia in 1574. There is also attributed to him an Exposition of the Mass, which he only Copied from Eggeling of Brunswick, as he acknowledges at the end of that Work, printed at Lions in 1542. at Venice in 1576. at Brescia in 1580. and at Bergamo in 1594. He wrote also many Sermons for the whole Year, and upon different Subjects, printed in 1499. at Basil in 1519. and at Brescia in 1583. and a Treatise of the Use and Value of Money, printed at Nuremberg in 1542. at Colen in 1574. and at Lions in 1505. besides an Abridgement in Manuscript of the Book of William Ockam, and a Table to the Five Books of Sentences. This Author was one of the best Scholastic Divines of his Time.  
Augustine Patricius, a Canon of Sienna, Secretary to Francis Picolomini, Cardinal of Sien●, 
Augustine Patricius, a Canon of Sienna.  wrote a Relation of the Transactions at the Assembly of Ratisbonne, where he was with the Cardinal of Sienna, whom Pope Paul II. sent thither to desire Succours against the Turks; and moreover a History of the Councils of Basil and Florence, Extracted from the Memoirs which he found at Basil: 'Tis exact and faithful, written in very good Order, and in a neat and easy Method; and is inserted into the Thirteenth Tome of the Councils of Father Labbee. His History of the Assembly of Ratisbonne is among the Historians of Germany, published by Freherus.  
John Baptista Salvis, or of Salis, of Liguria, of the Order of Friars Minors, who flourished 
John Baptista Salvis, or of Salis, a Friar Minor.  about the Year 1480. and died after the Year 1494. is the Author of a Summary of Cases of Conscience, which is called from his own Name, Baptistiniana, printed at Paris in 1499.  
About the same time flourished another Casuist of the same Order, called Pacificus, who wrote 
Pacificus, a Friar Minor.  also a Summary of Cases of Conscience which go under his Name, Translated into Italian by Francis of Treviso, a Carmelite, and printed at Venice in 1574. and 1580.  
Angelus of Clavasio, of the same Order, and the same time, (for he died in the Year 1495.) 
Angelus de Clavasio, a Friar Minor.  is also the Author of a Summary of Cases of Conscience, called The Angelic Sum, and printed at Venice in 1490. and in 1569; at Strasburg in 1513. at Nuremburg in 1498. and in 1588.; he wrote also some other Treatises, as a Treatise of Restitutions, a Treatise, Entitled, The Ark of Faith, and others printed at Alcala in 1562.  
There is a fourth Author Co-temporary with the last, of the same Nature, of the same Country, 
John Baptista T●ovamala, or Novamala, a Friar Minor.  and of the same Order, called, John Baptista Trovamala, or Novamala, who wrote an Alphabetical Summary of Cases of Conscience▪ Entitled, The little Rose, printed at Venice in 1499. at Paris in 1515. and at Strasburg in 1516.  
Charles Fernand, of Bruges, Regent in the University of Paris, lost his Sight in his Youth, 
Charles Ferdinand, a B●nedictine Monk.  and yet became a famous Orator, Philosopher, Poet, and even a Preacher. About the end of his Life he was made a Benedictine Monk, in the Monastery of St. Vincent of Man's, and died in the Year 1494. His Works are these which follow, Two Books of the Tranquillity of the. Soul, two Books of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, four Books of Monastical Conferences, the Mirror of Monastical Discipline, a Discourse upon the Observation of the Rule of St. Benedict: These Works were printed at Paris by Badius, the three first in 1512. the fourth in 1515. and the fifth in 1516. There are also some other Works of his in Manuscript.  
There was another Friar named John Fernand, who wrote also some Christian Poems, among 
John Fernand.  the rest Hymns upon St. John Baptist, upon the Cross, and upon the Compassion of the Virgin, Discourses and some Sermons: He lived till the beginning of the next Century.  
Marsilius Ficinus, a Florentine, Canon of the Cathedral Church of Florence, and Educated at 
Marsilius Ficinus, a Canon of Florence.  the Expense of Laurence de Medicis, excelled in the Greek and Latin Tongue, and in the Philosophy of Plato, whose Works he Translated. In his younger Years he lived like a Philosopher, but being converted by the Preaching of Savonarola, he lived Religiously the rest of his Days, and died at Corregio, near Florence in 1499▪ aged Sixty Six Years. We shall not mention his Works of Philosophy, nor his Translation of Profane Authors, but we cannot be excused from observing those which have some reference to Religion, which are these: A Treatise of the Christian Religion and of the Piety of Faith, Dedicated to Laurence de Medicis, and printed at Paris in 1510. and 1559. and at Breme in 1617.; Eight Books of the Immortality of the Soul, and Eternal Happiness; a Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans; Six Sermons; a Theological Discourse to God among his Letters; a Dialogue between Paul and the Soul, to show, That we do not go to God without God; a Discourse of Christians to Sixtus iv a Treatise of the Divinity of the Christian Law; a Discourse of Charity; the Translation of the Works attributed to St. Denys the Areopagite. All these Works may be seen in the Collection of the Works of Marsilius Ficinus, printed at Venice in 1516. and at Basil in 1561. and 1576.  
John de Circy, of the Order of Cistercians, Abbot of the Monastery of Balerna, in the County 
John de Circyo, Abbot of Balerna.  of Burgundy, who was chosen General of the Order in 1476. opposed the Commendams vigorously in the Council of Orleans in 1477. and in the Council of Tours in 1478. and at the Court of Pope Innocent VIII. of whom he obtained many Privileges for his Order: He Resigned his Office of General, and died in 1503. He wrote an Abridgement of the Saints of his Order, and a Collection of the Privileges that have been granted to it, by Kings, Princes and Popes, printed at Dijon in 1491. and the latter at Antwerp in 1530. with an Exhortation to the Monks of the Order of Cistercians.  
Wernerus Rolwink of Laer, of the Diocese of Munster, a Carthusian at Colen, flourished at 
Wernerus Rolwink, of Laer, a Carthusian.  the end of this Century, and died in the Year 1502. aged Seventy seven Years, after he had spent 55 years in his Order. He wrote a Chronicle Entitled Fasciculus Temporum, from the beginning of the World, to the year 1481. which is to be found among the Historians of Germany, by Pistorius, Printed at Frankfort in 1584. whereof the First Edition was at Louvain, to the year 1476. and a Work Entitled The Paradise of Conscience, Printed at Collen, in 1475. A Treatise of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and of the benefit of Masses, Printed at Collen in 1535. a Sermon upon St. Benedict, Printed before the year 1494. He wrote also many other Works which have not been Printed; as a Calendary, a Martyrology, a Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul, Seven Books of the Life of St. Paul, and some other Pieces, whereof he himself has given us a Catalogue, which is inserted by Trithemius, in his Book of the Illustrious Writers of Germany.  
Bernard d'Aquila a Native of Fossa in Abruzzo, Proctor General of the Order of Friars Minors 
Bernard D'Aquila, of the Order of Friar's Min●rs.  at Rome, Flourished from the year 1480. to the year 1503. in which he died. He wrote some Books of Instruction, as the Funeral, Printed at Venice in 1572. A Treatise for the Instruction of those who have a mind to Marry, which is in the Collection of Law-Treatises; some Advertisements about a Spiritual Life, Printed in Italian at Venice, in 1572. There are also in Italy some other Works of his in Manuscript; as the Abridgement of the History of the Illustrious Men of his Order in Italy; many Sermons, the Lives of St. Bernardin, and Philip of Aquila.  
About the same time Flourished Anthony de Balocho, of the Diocese of Vercelli, a Regular of the 
Antonius de Balocho, a Friar Mino●.  same Order, who wrote a Quadragesimale of the Twelve Excellencies of the Faith of Jesus Christ, Printed at Venice, in 1592. and at Lions, in 1504 A Treatise of Virtues, Printed at Haguenaw, in 1513. and a Quadragesimale in Manuscript of the Eternal Benefits of the Holy Scripture.  
At the same time there Flourished also Bernardine of Tom, Surnamed the Little, a Regular of 
Bernardinus Tomitanus, a Friar Minor.  the same Order, who died in 1494. He has left us a small Treatise of the manner of Confession, Printed at Brescia, in 1542. and some Italian Sermons of the Perfection of a Christian Life, Printed at Venice, in 1532.  
At the same time there Flourished also Bernardine de Bustis, a Milanese, a Regular of the same Order, Author of an Office about the Conception of the Virgin, a Famous Preacher, who died 
Bernardinus de Bu●tis, a Friar Minor.  after the year 1500. He wrote many Sermons about the Virgin upon all her Festivals, and upon the Saturdays of the year, whereof there is a Collection made, and Printed at Milan, in 1494. and at Strasburg, in 1496. under the Name of Mariale; a Quadragesimale Printed at Strasburg in the same year; another Collection of Sermons for the whole year, and upon different predicable Matters, Printed at Haguenaw in 1500. at Lions, in 1507, and 1525. and together with the Mariale, at Brescia, in 1588. There are also two Treatises in defence of the Monuments of Piety, whereof he was the Founder in Italy, Dedicated to the Cardinal of Carvajal, written in the year, 1497. and printed at Milan, in 1503. He is also the Author of the Office of the Conception of the Virgin, and of the Office of the Name of Jesus, which the Cordeliers make use of.  
Robert Caracciolus, Born at Lycium in the Kingdom of Naples, of the Order of Friars Minors, 
Robert Caracciolus, Bishop of Aquila.  and afterwards Bishop of Aquila, had the Reputation of an excellent Preacher in this Century; he died in 1495. after he had been a Preacher for 50 years. There are several Collections of his Sermons printed at Venice, and at Basil, about the end of this Century; a Treatise of the Formation of Man, printed at Nuremberg, in 1470. and a Mirror of the Christian Faith, Printed at Venice, in 1555. The greatest part of these Works were Collected and Printed at Venice, in 1490. and at Lions, in 1503.  
Michael of Milan was also a Famous Preacher of the same Order; he has left many Sermons 
Michael of Milan, a Fri●r Minor.  which were Printed at Venice about the end of this Century; a Method of Confession, printed at Venice, in 1513. a Treatise of the Christian Faith, some Treatises about Sins, and some Sermons printed at Basil, under the name of Michael de Cacano, in 1479.  
Robert Gaguinus of Artois, of the Order of the Holy Trinity, or of the Redemption of Captives, 
Robert Gaguinus, General of the Order of the Holy Trinity.  Studied at Paris in the Convent of the Mathurins, and there took the Degree of Doctor in Law. He was chosen General of his Order in 1473. and employed in divers Embassies by King Charles VIII. and Lovis XII. He died in the year 1501. May 22. He wrote Eleven Books of Annals of the History of France, from the year 300. to the year 1500. printed at Paris▪ in 1511. and at Frankfort, in 1520. This is his principal Work, which is written in a passable stile of Latin. But there are other Works of his which have more relation to Theological Matters, as a Treatise of the Immaculate Conception against Vincent of Chateauneuf, or Newfort, Printed at Paris in 1598. a Discourse in Verse upon the same Subject, printed apart; Poems of the passion of St. Richard the Martyr, the different Orders of ecclesiastics, of the Misery of Man, a Dialogue against the Sluggish, printed at Paris, in 1598.  
Felinus Sandeus of Ferrara, Doctor in Law, began to teach the Canon Law in 1464. at 20 
Felinus Sandeus, Bishop of Lucca.  years of Age, in the University of Pisa, and continued there till the year 1481. that he was called to Rome by Pope Innocent VIII. to be Precedent of the Rota. He was afterwards made Bishop in Partibus, and Coadjutor of the Bishopric of Lucca, to which See he succeeded in 1499. A little while after this he was forced away by the Cardinal Julian, and afterwards restored in 1501. and died in this Bishopric in 1503. He wrote many Books of Law, printed at Basil, and afterwards at Venice, in 1570. among which his Commentary upon the 5 Books of Decretals, printed apart at Venice, in 1498. and at Lions, in 1549, and 1587. is one of the Chief.  
Stephen Brulefer Doctor of Paris, of the Order of Friars Minors, taught Theology at Mayence, 
Stephen Brulefer, a Friar Minor.  and at Metz towards the end of the Fifteenth Century, and died in a Convent of Britain, his Country, at the beginning of the next Century. There are several of his Treatises of Theology, viz. Commentaries upon the 4 Books of the Sentences of St. Bonaventure, printed at Basil in 1501. at Venice, in 1504 and at Paris, in 1507. a Treatise of the Trinity, some Sermons of the Poverty of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, printed at Paris in 1500. an Apology against a Bishop of the Order of Friars Minors, who blamed the Friars of the Observance, because they assumed another Name than that which is appointed by the Rule; a Treatise of Servile fear, and the Gifts of God; a Treatise of Formalities, according to the Opinion of Scotus, printed at Venice, in 1516. an Explication of the Identities and Distinctions of things, according to Scotus, printed at Basil, in 1507. a Discourse of the value of Masses, spoken in a Synod of Mayence. The greatest part of these Works have been printed at Paris, in 1499, and 1500.  
Vincent of Bandelle, Born at Newfort, in the Diocese of Tortona in Lombardy, of the Order of Friars Predicant, Doctor of Bononia, and chosen many time's Vicar-General of his Order, 
Vicentius Bandellus, General of the Dominicans.  and at last General in 1501. died in 1506. at the Age of 70 years. He was Famous for his Work of the Conception of the Virgin, which he Entitled, A Treatise of the Singular Purity and peculiar Prerogative of our Saviour Jesus Christ; wherein upon occasion of a Famous Dispute he had at Ferrara about the Conception of the Virgin, he alleges many passages of 260 Authors, to show that the Virgin was Conceived in Original Sin. This Work which made a great noise in its time, was printed at Bononia, in 1481. and at Milan, in 1475. and reprinted a little while after. The Learning of the Author sufficiently appears from the great number of Testimonies which he produces, and this he has Collected with so much exactness, that those who have written upon his Principles since his time, can scarce find out any which he has not alleged; and the fineness and subtlety of his Wit appears in the Method which he observes, and the Answers he gives to the Objections that are proposed: But his Style is neither Elegant, nor Polite. He wrote also several Treatises, viz. An Explication of the Constitutions of his own Order, extracted from the Acts of the General Chapters, printed at Milan, in 1505. an Explication of the Constitutions of the Nuns of the same Order, and some other Tracts which concern the Discipline of his Order, printed at Lions, in 1515.  
John Naucler, or Vergehaus, a Germane, Doctor in Law, Professor and Rector of the University 
Johannes Nauclerus of Tubinga.  of Tubinga, Precedent of the Church of Stutgart, and afterwards of that at Tubinga, is the Author of an Universal Chronicle from the beginning of the World, to the year 1500. In this Work he shows much greater exactness and judgement than the far greater part of the Authors of this Nature. It was Printed at Tubinge, in 1515. at Collen, in 1544. and with the Addition of Surius at Collen, in 1564, and 1579.  
John Poleonydore, who had this Name by turning into Greek the Name of the place where he 
John Poleonydorus, or Veteraquinas, a Carmelite.  was Born, which was called Oudewater, (i. e. Old-Waters) near Utrecht, was a Regular of the Order of the Carmelites, in the Convent of Malines, and Flourished till the year 1507. He wrote a History of his own Order, which he Entitled Trimerestus Anaphoricus, Panegyricus, de Origine, Statu & Progressu Ordinis Carmelitanis, Printed at Mayence, with a Manual for the same Order; and the Buckler of the Carmelites, printed at Venice, in 1570.  
Oliver Maillard a Parisian, of the Order of Friars Minors, a Preacher at the Court of the 
Oliver Maillard, a Friar Minor.  French King, and the Duke of Burgundy, Flourished towards the end of this Century, and died in the year 1502. He himself caused his Sermons to be Printed at Lions, in 1499. which served only to discover that the way of Preaching was not very fine in his time.  
Michael Francis, of the Order of Friars Preachers, a Native of Isle in Flanders, a Doctor of 
Michael Francis, Bishop of Saluzzes.  Collen, Confessor and Preacher to Philip I. Archduke of Austria, was made Bishop of Saluzzes a little before his Death, which happened in 1502. He has left us no Works, which give us any great Idea of his Parts and Abilities, viz. Discourses upon the 7 pains of the Virgin, and upon the Fraternity Instituted to her Honour, printed at Antwerp; other Discourses upon the Fraternities of the Holy Rosary, Printed at Collen, in 1476. and at Paris, in 1518. a Commentary upon the Salve Regina, and some others of the same nature. 
Nicolas Simon a Carmelite.   
Nicolas Simon of Harlem, of the Order of Carmelites, Flourished about the end of this Century, and lived until the year 1511. He is the Author of a Commentary upon the 2d. Book of the Decretals, and of a Treatise about the Power of the Pope, of the Emperor, and of a Council, Printed at Milan in 1505. and 1510. of many Lectures of Disputations, Printed at Venice, in 1497. of some Sermons Printed, and some other Works in Manuscript.  
James Springer, a Germane, of the Order of St. Dominick, who was appointed by Innocent VIII. 
James Springer, and Henry Institor Dominicans.  Inquisitor in Germany, together with Henry Institor a Regular of the same Order, wrote a Piece divided into 3 Books, against Women who practise Witchcraft, Entitled Malleus Maleficarum, Printed at Venice, in 1576. at Frankfort, in 1580. and at Lions, in 1620. He composed also a Book about the Institution and Approbation of Miracles, and of Indulgences of the Rosary of the Virgin, which was never Printed. His Colleague in the Office of the Inquisition, wrote a Treatise about the Power of the Pope, against the Monarchy of Rosellis, printed at Venice, in 1499.  
John Raulin of Toul, after he had finished his Studies in the College of Navarre, took the Degree 
John Raulin, a Benedictine Monk.  of Doctor in Divinity in 1479. and succeeded in 1481. to William of Castlefort, in the Government of this College, and afterwards retired in 1497. into the Order of Clunie, which he reformed in 1501. He died in the Month of February, 1514. Aged Seventy one Years. The Works Printed under his Name are these; Sermons upon the Advent, printed at Paris in 1516, and 1519. and at Venice, in 1584. Sermons for Lent in 2 Parts, printed at Paris, in 1523. and at Venice, in 1584. Sermons upon the Festivals of the Saints for the whole year, in 2 parts, printed at Paris in 1524. The Itinerary of Paradise, at Paris in the same year, and at Venice, in 1585. A Doctrinale concerning 3 Deaths, viz. Of Nature, of Sin, and of Hell, printed at Paris, in 1520. and at Venice, in 1585. Fourteen Sermons upon the Eucharist, Fifty Five Letters, a Conference for the Festival of St. Lovis, another Conference held in the Convent of Clunie, about the perfection of the Order of St. Benedict, printed at Paris, in 1520. A Discourse of the Reformation of the Clergy at his General Chapter at Basil, in 1478. All these Works were printed at Antwerp, in 1612. and all the Sermons at Paris, in 1642. not to mention his Commentary upon the Books of Aristotle's Logicks, printed at Paris, in 1500.  
John a Lapide, a Germane, after he had taken his Degree of Doctor at Paris, was one of the 
John a Lapide a Garthusian.  First Founders of the Universities of Basil, and Tubinga; he had many Benefices, but he quitted them all, to be made Canon and Preacher of the Cathedral Church of the City of Basil, and at last entirely renounced the World to become a Carthusian. He wrote besides many Books of Grammar, and Philosophy, a Discourse about the Qualifications requisite in a Priest; a Resolution of Doubts about the Accidents which may happen at Mass; a Summary of the Passion of Jesus Christ; some Sermons, and Letters. The Resolution of Cases which happen at the Celebration of Mass, was printed at Venice, in 1516. at Constance, in 1596. and at Milan, in 1599 'Tis observed, that he divided the Works of many ancient Authors into Chapters, and added Arguments before them. He was alive still in the Year 1494.  
John de Deo, a Carthusian of Venice, wrote many Books of Morality, whereof the Chief is a 
John de Deo, a Carthusian.  Treatise upon that Saying of one of the Wise Men of Greece, Know thou thyself; which is divided into 3 Books, and Printed at Venice in 1480. and at Heidelberg in 1489. His other Works mentioned by Trithemius, are, a Treatise of Patience and Humility, the Mirror of Dying Persons, the Crown of Old Men, some Sermons and Letters. He finished these Works in 1480. Trithemius did not know whether he was then alive, when he was Writing, in 1494.  
John Trithemius, or Trittenhem, Born in the year 1462. in a Village of that Name, Scituate 
John Trithemius, a Benedictine Monk.  upon the Moselle, near Treves, of Parents of an indifferent Fortune, having Studied in the Universities of Treves, and Heidelberg, became a Monk in the Abbey of Spanheim, of the Order of St. Benedict, at the Age of 22 years, and was chosen Abbot of the same in 1483. He governed it for the space of 22 years, but at last he was forced to leave it, in 1505. by the Faction of some Monks; and after he had entirely resigned his Abbot's Place, he was chosen by the Bishop of Wirtzburg to be Governor of a Monastery in that City, where he spent the rest of his days in Study, and died in 1518. He was a Person of vast Learning, a Philosopher, Mathematician, Poet, Historian, and Divine; not to mention his knowledge in the Hebrew Greek and Latin Tongues, wherein he was versed, tho' he wrote not Elegantly or Politely. He wrote a very great number of Books, of History, of Morality, and Philosophy. Those of History are, a Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, printed at Mayence, in 1494. which is the time when it was finished; printed at Paris in 1512. at Collen in 1531, and 1546. at Basil in 1594. It contains the Lives, and a Catalogue of the Works of 870 Authors, with the general Characters of each Author. The Catalogue of the Illustrious Men of Germany, an Abridgement of the History of the first Kings of France, from Marconiz, until Pepin, printed at Paris in 1539. a Work full of Fables, (as is also another Work of his, about the Origine of the French, printed at Basil in 1547. 
* He wrote also two Volumes, wherein he continues the History of the French, from Pepin, to the 29th year of Maximilian Caesar, and the 1514th. of Christ, Whart. App. ad Hist. Lit. p. 169. ) A Chronicle of the Dukes of Bavaria, and the Count's Palatine, Printed at Frankfort, in 1544, and 1549. The Chronicle of the Monastery of Richenaw, from the year 830. to the year 1370. there are two Editions of it, the one is an Abridgement, printed at Mayence in 1559. and the other is very much larger, printed a little while ago in Germany: The Chronicle of the Monastery of St. Martin in Spanheim, from the year 1044. to the year 1511. These Historical Works were printed together with two Books of Letters, at Frankfort in 1601. To these we must add the Chronology of the Monastery of St. James of Wirtzburg: 4 Books of the Illustrious Men of the Order of St. Benedict, printed at Collen, in 1575. the Lives of St. Maximin Archbishop of Treves, and of St. Maximus Archbishop of Mayence in Surius, at the 16th. and 18th. of November, and the History of the War in Bavaria, in 1504 in the Collection of the Historians of Germany, by Freherus. The Works of Morality and Piety, are his Sermons or Institutions to the Monks, printed at Strasburg, in 1486, at Antwerp, in 1574, and at Florence, in 1577. A Commentary upon the Rule of St. Benedict, printed at Valenciennes, in 1608. an Abridgement of the Spiritual Life, 2 Books of the Temptations of Regulars; a Treatise against the Vice of Property in Monks, a Treatise in the praise of those who writ Manuals, a Treatise of a Sacerdotal Life, a Discourse of the Vanity and Misery of Human Life, a Complaint of the sad Condition and Ruin of the Order of St. Benedict, which he attributes to the negligence of that Order in maintaining Holiness, and studying the Holy Scripture. These Works were printed at Florence in 1577. The Discourses spoken at the Chapters of his Order, a Treatise of the manner of Celebrating the provincial Chapter of Mayence; a Treatise of the Visitation of Monks, 5 Books of the Miracles done by the Invocation of the Virgin, at Dittelbach, and Wirtzburg, were printed at Mayence, in 1504 A Treatise in the praise of the Carmelites was printed at Florence in 1593. and at Lions in 1639. An Encomium of St. Anne, an Office for the Festivals of St. Anne, and St. Joachim, were printed at Mayence in 1605. and at Collen in 1624. a Treatise of Providence, printed at Altorf in 1611. His Works of Philosophy, are a mystical Chronology of the Intelligences which move the Heavens, printed at Collen in 1576. 4 Books Entitled Antipalus Maleficiorum, a Solution of 8 Questions proposed by the Emperor Maximilian, Entitled Royal Curiosity, were printed at Oppenheim in 1515. at Frankfort in 1550. at Mayence in 1605. at Dovay in 1621. The Polygraphy in Six Books, wherein he explains the different ways of expressing our Thoughts in Writing, printed in 1318. and at Collen in 1571. The Steganography, or the Art of writing in Ciphers, printed at Frankfort in 1606. a Work which gave occasion to suspect him of Magic; a Treatise of Chemistry, printed in 1611. and at Strasburg in 1613. He wrote also many other Pieces which were never printed.  
Jerom Savonarola, Descended of a Family in Milan, was Born at Ferrara the 21st. of October, 1452. He entered into the Order of St. Dominick in 1474. and made himself Famous by his 
Jerom Savonarola, a Dominican.  frequent and fervent Sermons; and by the Austerity of his Life and his Preaching he acquired so great Reputation in the City of Florence, that he Governed it for the space of 4 years as if he had been its Sovereign; until his Enemies took him by force out of his Monastery, in 1498. clapped him up in Prison, and Condemned him to be Burnt; which Punishment he suffered May 23. of the same year, with all possible Constancy, and with Exemplary Piety. He wrote a prodigious number of Moral, Spiritual, and Ascetic Books, whereof here follows a Catalogue: The Triumph of the Cross, or of the Truth of Religion, divided into 4 Books; 5 Books of the Simplicity of a Christian Life; 3 Books against Judicial Astrology; Explications of the Lord's Prayer, and the Angelical Salutation; Treatises of Humility, of the Love of Jesus Christ, and of the Life of Widows; a Lamentation of the Spouse of Jesus Christ against false Apostles, or an Exhortation to the Faithful to pray unto God for the Renovation of the Church, and a Prediction upon this Subject; 7 Dialogues between the Soul and the Spirit, and 3 between Reason and Sense; 2 Books of Prayer, Rules about Prayer, and a Christian Life; an Explication of the Decalogue; a Treatise of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and its Mysteries; a Letter of frequent Communion, the Benefits granted to Christians by the Mystery, and by the Sign of the Cross; a Discourse of the manner of Living well, and tending towards God; a Letter to his Father upon his taking the Habit in the Order of St. Dominick; of the perfection of the State of Regulars; Rules for living with discretion, and according to Order in Religious Houses; many Letters to the Friars of his Congregation, of Spiritual reading to Sisters of the third Order of St. Dominick; a Discourse which he made at Receiving the Holy Sacrament after his Condemnation; a Treatise of the Degrees whereby we ascend to the perfection of a Spiritual Life; 7 Rules which ought to be observed by all Regulars; a Prayer or Meditation upon the Psalm Diligam te Domine; a Treatise of the Mystery of the Cross; Meditations upon the Psalms, 30, 50, 79, and many others; the Manual and Instruction for Confessors; 30 Sermons for the Sundays of the Year, and upon the Festivals of Saints; a Quadragesimale Composed of 48 Sermons; Homilies upon the Books of Exodus, Ruth, Esther, and Job, upon the Psalms, and Canticles, upon the Prophets, Ezekiel, Micah, Haggai, Amos, and Zachary; upon the Lamentations of Jeremy, and the first Epistle of St. John; and many Sermons upon different Subjects; a Course of Sermons for Advent, and another for Lent; some Apologetical Letters, and one in particular, to show the Nullity and Injustice of the Excommunication passed against him by Alexander VI of which he Discourses boldly; 3 Apologetical Letters to this Pope, an Apologetical Discourse upon this Text in Psalm 7th. O Lord my God, I have hoped in thee; an Apology for the Friars of the Congregation of St. Mark, of his own Order, which was Founded at Florence; 9 Dialogues of the Prophetical Truth, an Abridgement of Revelations, and many other Spiritual and Ascetic Letters. All these Works being for the most part written in Italian were printed at Florence, and in other places. He wrote also Commentaries upon many Books of Scripture; a Treatise of the Government of the Republic of Florence; Treatises of Moral Divinity, about Usury, Simony, the Defence of our Neighbour, and Theft; and when he was in Prison, he wrote a Commentary upon the 7 Penitential Psalms. The Works of this Author are full of Spiritual Thoughts, and Maxims of Piety; in them he speaks freely against Vices, and teaches a most pure and sublime Morality.  
Aelius Antony de Lebrixa, who turned his Name into Nebrissensis in Latin, a Spaniard, was 
Aelius Antonius Nebrissensis, a Spanish Doctor.  not inferior to any person of his time, for beauty of Thought, and Learning of all kind. He was Born in 1444. in the Village of Lebrixa, Scituate upon the Guadalquivir. After he had Studied Mathematics and Philosophy at Salamanca, he went into Italy, where he perfected himself in the Languages, and Divinity. In the year 1473. being recalled by Alphonsus Fonseca, Archbishop of Sevil, he restored the Study of Polite Learning, and the Sciences in Spain, by his public Lectures. After the death of this Archbishop he left Sevil, and went to Salamanca, where he was honoured with 2 Chairs, one of Grammar, and the other of Poetry; in which he laboured to banish away that Barbarism which had reigned in Spain till his time. He set himself to oppose the Schoolmen, who accused him of favouring Novelties, and in the year 1488. he retired to the House of John Stunica, Grand Master of the Order of Alcantara; but he was quickly recalled to fill the first Chair of the University at Salamanca, which happened to become vacant. King Ferdinand knowing his worth, sent for him to his Court, in 1504 that he might write the History of his own Life, and Cardinal Ximenes employed him in publishing the Edition of the Polyglot-Bible. In the year 1513. he quite forsook the University of Salamanca, and addicted himself entirely to the Service of Cardinal Ximenes, who gave him the Government of his own University of Complutum, or Alcala d'Enarez, where Nebrissensis died, the 11th. of July, in 1522. Aged 77 years. He wrote an infinite number of Books about Grammar, whereof we shall say nothing here; 2 Decades of the History of King Ferdinand, and of Queen Elizabeth, from the year 1509. and 2 Books of the War of that Prince against the King of Navarre, in the year 1512. His principal Work of Divinity is a Treatise of Critcism for explaining 50 difficult places of Scripture, Entitled Quinquagenae, printed by itself at Paris, in 1520. at Basil, in 1543. at Antwerp in 1600. and in the Great Critics of England; there is much Learning and profound Judgement in this Work. There are also some Notes of his upon the Lessons taken out of the Epistles of St. Paul, and the Prophets, which are Read in the Service of the Church, upon the Prayers and Hymns of Divine Service, upon the Hymns and Psychomachia of Prudentius; a Paraphrase upon Sedulius' Poem about the Miracles of Jesus Christ, and some other Works.  
I shall now Present you with an Account of some Authors whose Works are lost, which we have from Trithemius, who has preserved the Names of the Authors, and the Titles of their Books.  
JOHN of Duren, of the Order of Friars Minors, who wrote some Sermons and Treatises upon 
Writers of the 15th Century, whose Works are lost.  the Seven Mortal Sins, upon concealed Vices, and Confession.  
Tilman, of Hachenberg of the same Order, the Author also of some Sermons.  
Hugo of Sletstat, a Germane Doctor, who wrote some Treatises of School-Divinity.  
Paul of Venice, of the Order of Hermit's of St. Austin, the Author of a Treatise against the Jews, of some Sermons, and many Books of Philosophy.  
James of Thessalonica, of the Order of F. F. Preachers, the Author of some Sermons.  
Thomas of Hasselbach a Germane Doctor, and Reader of Divinity in the University of Vienna, who spent 21 years in Commenting upon the first Chapter of Isaiah, and was the Author of a Commentary upon the Books of Sentences, of many Sermons, of a Treatise about the Decalogue, and of a Treatise about the 5 Senses of a Man.  
Thomasinus, of the Order of F. F. Preachers, the Author of many Sermons.  
Nicholas a Monk, of the Monastery of the Holy Cross, of the Order of Cistercians in Austria, who wrote 3 Books in honour of the Virgin, and some Sermons.  
Francis Bachon, and Michael Herbrant, of Duren, of the Order of Carmelites, the Authors of some Sermons, and Works about their own Order.  
Peter of Spira, of the Order of the Hermit's of St. Austin, the Author of some Sermons, and Philosophical Works.  
Reinard of F●onthoven, the Author of some Sermons.  
Henry of Coeffelde, a Carthusian, who wrote Commentaries upon Exodus, and the Epistle to the Romans, and Composed Treatises about the Monastic Vows, against the property of Monks, about the Institution of Novices; of the 3 Monastic Observances, of the Sacrament of the Altar, of the Mystical Circumcision; a Panegyric upon St. Paul the Hermit, some Sermons, and Letters. He died the 19th. of July, in the year 1410. in the Carthusian Monastery at Bruges.  
Henry of Hachemburg, of the Order of Friars Preachers, the Author of some Sermons.  
Jourdain, of the Order of the Hermit's of St. Austin, the Author of a Commentary upon the Revelations of St. John, of an Apology for his own Order, and many Sermons.  
Peter Bishop of Citta-Nuova in Italy, who wrote a Dictionary of the History of the Bible, a Commentary upon the Books of Sentences, and upon the whole Bible almost.  
〈◊〉 G●… a Professor in the University of Leipsick, who wrote 3 Books upon the Mass, and divers Que●●ions.  
〈◊〉 of A●…, a Priest of Bamberg, who wrote a Treatise of the Sacraments of the Church.  
●…ne, of the Order of Friars Preachers, was made Cardinal by Gregory XII.  
〈…〉 the Cardinal of Ragusa, and was sent by this Pope to the Council of Con●… 〈…〉 was Sitting. He wrote many considerable Books, viz. Commentaries upon 〈…〉 〈◊〉, the Gospel of St. Matthew, the Magnificat, and the Epistle to the 〈…〉 The Lamp of the Night, and another, the Itinerary of Devotion, and ●…; many Sermons, and some other Works.  
〈…〉 B●…op of 〈…〉 Native of Basil, wrote upon the Sentences, and Composed many 〈◊〉  
〈…〉 of Erford, wrote upon the Sentences, 4 Commentaries upon the Pentateuch, and the Epistles of St. Paul, and some Sermons.  
〈◊〉 o● Spo●●to, of the Order of F. F. Hermit's of St. Austin, wrote against the Heretics, and the Fra●ricelli.  
Peter M●urocenus a Venetian, and Cardinal, wrote upon the Decretals.  
J●●n of Den●ermonde a Carthusian, the Author of many Treatises of Piety, viz. Of the Knowledge of God, of the Restoration of Fallen Man, of the Joy of Man, of the Faith of Christians, of the Conception of the Virgin Mary, of the Nature and Fall of Man, of the Love of God, the Sacrament of the Altar, and the Honour of God.  
Anthony of Genes an Augustin, the Author of a Treatise about the Figures of Mortality.  
Anthony of Parma, General of the Order of Camalduli, the Author of some Sermons.  
All these Authors Flourished from the beginning of this Century, till about the year 1420.  
John Pla●th, a Professor in the University of Heidelberg, wrote upon the first Book of the Decretals, and the first Book of the Sentences; and Composed a Treatise against the Bohemians, and many Sermons.  
John Di●ppou●g, Surnamed of Frankfort, a Doctor of the same University, wrote against the Hussites, a Treatise of Predestination, some Discourses, and Sermons.  
Henry Gulpen, an Abbot of the Monastery of St. Giles of Nuremberg, of the Order of St. Benedict, 
Writers of the 15th Century, whose Works are lost.  wrote a Treatise of Penance, one of Consecration, and another of the Passion of Jesus Christ.  
Rodolphus of Brussel, in the Bishopric of Spira, a Professor in the University of Heidelberg, wrote Questions upon the Sentences, some Sermons and Discourses to the Fathers of the Council of Basil.  
Henry of Gande, a Professor in the same University, wrote a Book of Questions upon the Sentences, a Treatise of Celebration, divers Questions and Discourses.  
Nicolas of Susat, a Germane Doctor, wrote upon the Sentences, some Sermons, and Questions.  
John Gritsch, of the Order of Friars Minors, the Author of some Sermons.  
John Noblet of Paris, of the Order of Carmelites, wrote a Commentary upon the 4 Books of Sentences, 7 Books upon the Canonical Epistles, a Centiloquy of Enigmas.  
Eimeric du Champ, Vicechancellor to the University of Collen, and Deputed by this University to the Council of Basil, wrote a Piece about the Authority of Councils, a Commentary upon the 4 Books of Sentences, an Abridgement of Theology, divers Questions, and Sermons.  
Nicolas Lackman, of the Order of Friars Minors, wrote upon the Sentences, and some Sermons.  
Peter of Colle, of the same Order, wrote a Treatise of the Authority of a Council, Commentaries upon the Sentences, and some Sermons.  
Herman, a Monk of the Order of Cistercians, of the Diocese of Munster, wrote also of the Power of the Pope, and a Council; a Treatise of Schism, and another of Neutrality.  
John Gawer, a Carmelite, of Mayence, wrote a Treatise upon the 4 Books of Sentences, a Commentary upon Exodus, a Harmony of the Gospels, 3 Courses of Lent Sermons, and many others.  
All these Authors Flourished from the time of the Council of Basil, until the year 1440.  
Gerard of Stredam a Hollander, and a Carthusian, who died in 1443. wrote the following Treatises of Pastoral Care, of the 7 Sacraments, of Virtues and Vices, of the Precepts of the Decalogue, some Sermons, and a Mirror of the Regulars.  
John Ernest, a Doctor of Heidelberg, is the Author of 2 Books of Questions, of a Treatise about the Authority of a Council, of many Sermons, and some Discourses.  
Bartholomew, a Carthusian, of the Monastery of Ruremonde, wrote many Treatises of Morality, whereof some are to be met with in Manuscript in the Monastery of the Carthusians of Collen, where he died, in the Month of July, in 1446. and among others, the Treatises of the Passions, of the Virtues, of Prayer, Humility, Fraternal Correction, of the Praise of the Regulars, of Abstinence from Meat in the Order of Cistercians, and a Dogmatical Treatise of the Authority of the Council above the Pope.  
Henry of Werlis, of the Order of Friars Minors, of the Province of Collen, wrote upon the Sentences, and a Treatise of Ecclesiastical Power, and some Sermons.  
Andrew of Utrecht, a Monk of the Abbey of Spanheim, the Author of many Treatises of Piety.  
John of Rode of Treves, after he had taken his Degrees in the University of Heidelberg, and possessed several Benefices, became a Carthusian in the Monastery of Treves, and was afterwards removed from thence by the Archbishop, to be made Abbot of the Monastery of St. Mathias, in that City, of the Order of St. Benedict, and to Reform it; who died there in 1439. He wrote a Book of Constitutions, and of the Qualifications of an Abbot.  
John Canneman, a Germane, of the Order of Friars Minors, created himself much trouble, by asserting some bold Propositions about Ecclesiastical Power; he was the Author of an Apology in his own Defence, of many Sermons, and some Questions.  
John of Malines, a Doctor in Divinity, of the University of Collen, wrote upon the Sentences, and Psalms, many Questions, and Sermons. These 2 last Authors Flourished about 1460.  
John Abbot of Nivelle, wrote a Concordance of the Bible, and some Sermons.  
James Zenus, a Patrician of Venice, who died in 1477. wrote the Lives of the Popes.  
William Forleon, of the Order of Friars Minors, a Doctor of Paris, Master to Stephen Brulifer, wrote upon the Sentences.  
Ambrose Coriolan, General of the Augustine's, was the Author of the Commentaries upon the Rule of St. Austin, of his Life, and a Panegyric upon this Saint, and some Discourses.  
Benedict Stendel of Halles a German, Doctor of the University of Erford, the Author of a Commentary upon the Pentateuch, and some Sermons.  
Siffroy, of the Order of Friars Preachers, a Titular Bishop of Cyrene, and Vicar of the 
Siff●idus▪  Archbishop of Mayence, wrote a Treatise of Usury, and another of Taxes, and Redemption, some Sermons, Conferences, and Questions.  
Godeschalchus' of Meschede, a Germane of Westphalia, Doctor of the University of Erford, wrote upon the Sentences, some Sermons, Conferences, and Questions.  
Henry of Piro, a Doctor of Collen, and afterwards a Carthusian, wrote some Observations upon the Statutes of his Order, a Treatise to the Novices, and some Sermons.  
John Tinctor, a Doctor of C●llen, wrote a Piece about the Differences between Scotus, and St. Thomas, and some Questions upon the Sentences.  
John Beetz, of the Order of Carmelites, wrote a Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans; some Treatises about the Law of God, about the Sacraments of the Altar, and some Sermons.  
Gerard of Elten, a Doctor of Collen, and Inquisitor, wrote some Questions upon the Sentences, some other Questions, some Sermons, and Conferences.  
John Soret, General of the Carmelites, wrote upon the Sentences, some Commentaries upon the Rule of his Order, and some Constitutions.  
John of Lutrie, a Doctor of Erford, wrote upon the Sentences, some Sermons and Questions.  
Alanus de la Roche, of the Order of Friars Preachers, being very devout towards the Virgin, wrote an Abridgement of the Virgin's Psalter, a Treatise of the Miracles of the Rosary, and some Sermons.  
Conrade of Zaberne, a Germane, wrote some Treatises about Singing, and some Sermons.  
Laurentius Calcaneus, of Bresse, a Knight, and Doctor of Law, wrote a Piece recommending hard Study, and about the Conception of the Virgin Mary, and of the 7 Mortal Sins.  
John of Dorsten, a Germane, of the Order of the Hermit's of St. Austin, wrote some Sermons.  
Angelus le Saxon, of Brunswick, a Doctor of Erford, and Preacher at May●nce, wrote a Treatise upon the Canon of the Mass, some Questions, and Sermons.  
Theodoric of Herxens, a Germane, of the Order of Friars of the Common Life, wrote many Treatises of Piety, among the rest, some Considerations upon the Psalms, upon the Lord's-Prayer, upon the Ave-Maria, the Passion of our Lord, and the Desire of Death.  
Dominic de Dominicis, a Venetian, Bishop of Torcello, and afterwards of Bresse, was the Author of some Treatises, and Sermons.  
Lodovic Donat, a Venetian, Bishop of Bergamo, wrote upon the Sentences, and some Discourses.  
Conrade of Rodemberg, Abbot of the Monastery of St. John of Richenaw, of the Order of St. Benedict, wrote in honour of the Virgin a thick Volume, Entitled, The Vine of the Lord of Hosts; because in praising her, he made use of the Similitude of a Clu●●er of Grapes. He wrote also the Exercise of Novices, a Preparation to the Mass, a Discourse about the Ruin of his Order; another about the Causes of the Ruin, and a 3d. about Pastoral Care, and many Conferences held in the Chapter of his Order. This Author died in the year 1486. on the 25th of December.  
Stephen of Caiete, a Neapolitan, Dedicated to John of Bentevole, Councillor to Ferdinand King of Sicily, a Treatise of the Sacraments, divided into 7 Books.  
George Molitoris, of Nuremberg, Professor of Divinity at Erford, wrote upon the Sentences, and some Sermons, and Questions.  
Nicholas of Wachenheim, Professor in the University of Heidelberg, wrote some Questions upon the Sentences, some Sermons, and Conferences.  
Michael of Milan, of the Order of Friars Minors, was the Author of many Sermons upon several Subjects.  
John Cousin, a Portugese, of the Order of the Carmelites, refuted the Heresies of his time, by word of mouth, and by Writing, and wrote a great Volume about Contracts and Exchanges, Entitled, Of Commutative Justice, divided into 4 Books, and also many Sermons.  
Henry Prudent, a Prior of the Carthusian Monastery at Bruges, died in the year 1484. He was the Author of a Tetralogue of Devotion, divided into 3 Parts; wherein he brings in as Speakers, an Angel, and a Monk, Jesus, the Heavenly Father, and the Virgin.  
Francis Diede, a Venetian, the Author of the Life of St. Roch, some Discourses, and Letters.  
Tilman, a Canon Regular of St. Austin, in the Monastery of St. Christophlus, of Ravengsburg, in the Diocese of Mayence, wrote some pieces of Devotion, as of the Spiritual Vine, of the Instruction of Novices, and some other little Exercises.  
Nicolas of Creutznach, professed Divinity at Vienna, in Austria, towards the end of this Century, has left us 4 Books of Questions upon the Sentences, a Collection of Conferences and Discourses, many Sermons, and a Treatise of the Conception of the Virgin. He died in the year 1491.  
Nicasius, of Voerde, of Malines, tho' he became Blind at 3 years of Age, yet this did not hinder him from acquiring great Knowledge in the Liberal Arts; for he was Professor of Law at Collen, was admitted Licentiate in Divinity at Louvain, was Ordained Priest by a Dispensation from the Holy-See. He was a Preacher, Confessor, and could say Mass by heart; he was admitted Doctor of Law at Collen, and has left a Commentary upon the 4 Books of Sentences, many Sermons, divers Questions and Letters addressed to Thithemius, who is a Credible Witness of the Truth of a Fact so extraordinary as this. He died in 1492.  
Benedict Capra, a Lawyer of Prussia, wrote upon the Decretals, and also John Andrew Bishop of Aleria, in the Isle of Corfu.  
The greater part of the preceding Writers Flourished after the year 1470. and died about the year 1490. those which follow, lived to the year 1494. wherein Trithemius finished his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers.  
Dominic Bolan, a Venetian, the Author of a Treatise about the Conception of the Virgin.  
James of Straelen, a Divine of Collen, wro●e upon the Revelations.  
John Pheffer, of Widemburg, the Founder of the College of Friburg, wrote a Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul, and a Sacerdotal Directory.  
Baptista de Ferrera, of the Order of Carmelites, wrote a History from the beginning of the World, Entitled Florida; a Treatise of the Decay of the Roman Empire, a Chronicle of Ferrara, a Chronicle of his own Order, a Treatise of Mount-Sinai, 3 Books of the Life of St. Mathilda, and several Sermons.  
Peter Brutus, Bishop of Cataro, a great Enemy to the Jews, has left us a considerable Work against them.  
William, of Aix la Chapelle, a Preacher at Basil, and Reader at Erford, wrote upon the Gospel of St. John, upon the Passion of our Lord, an Itinerary of the Holy-Land, some Questions, and some Sermons.  
Laurence Burel of Dijon, of the Order of Carmelites, wrote an Heliad, and a Treatise of the Illustrious Men of his own Order.  
Hubert Leonard, of the same Order, a Doctor of Paris, an Inquisitor of the Faith in the Country of Liege, was made Bishop of Daria: He has left some considerable Works, as a Commentary upon the Gospel of St. Luke, a Treatise of Ecclesiastical Immunities, a Book against the Heretics of Nivelle, a Course of Sermons for Lent, and many other Sermons; not to mention his Genealogy of the Noblemen of France, and an account of their Actions.  
John of Milbach, a Divine of Erford, wrote upon the Epistles of St. Paul, and an Encomium of St. Jerom, and some Sermons, and Questions.  
John of Roseau, a Germane, of the Order of Carmelites, left the Commentaries upon the Book of Wisdom, upon the Psalm Beati Immacula●●, upon the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, and some Sermons.  
John Bertram, of Newburg, taught at Erford, and Mayence, and left a Prologue to the Bible, some Conferences and a Treatise of the price of the Mass.  
John of Keyserberg, a Germane and Preacher at Strasburg, wrote many Sermons, and to him we own the first Edition of Gerson's Works.  
Sebastian Tition, or Brant of Strasburg, the Author of many Christian Poems.  
James Wimphelinge, a Priest of the Church of Spire, wrote a Poem, which is Dedicated to Bertholdus Archbishop of Mayence, Entitled, Of a Threefold Candour; a Piece in praise of the Virgin Mary, the Office of the Compassion of the Virgin, an Encomium of the Church of Spire, a Discourse about the Holy Spirit, some other Discourses, and Letters.  
Josse Besselius, a Germane, wrote divers Pieces of Profane Learning, and some Ecclesiastical, as that of the Ambition of a Christian, and some Tracts upon the Rosary.  
Giles Nettelet, Dean of the Church of Cambray, wrote a Collection of Morals, taken out of the Epistles of St. Jerom.  
Theodoric of Osembruck a German, of the Order of Friars Minors, and Preacher at Collen, wrote a Treatise of the Passion of our Lord, a Manual of Simples, and a Discourse of Interior Exercise, which he Read to Trithemius.  
Jerom of Milan, and Dominic Manchini, Italians, wrote each of them a Poem upon the Passion of our Lord.  
We have omitted a Writer who is considerable for his numerous Works, whereof there is only one in Print, and that is John of Hagen, or de Indagine, a Carthusian, who was admitted into the Carthusian Monastery of Erford, about the year 1440. and lived till about the year 1475. Trithemius has given us a Catalogue of a great number of this Author's Spiritual Treatises, and Petreius has added to them a great many more, in his Carthusian Library, which make up a Catalogue of many Pages, containing 433 Titles of divers Treatises, Moral, Spiritual, or Ascetic. The two Books of the Perfection and Exercises of the Order of the Carthusians, were Printed at Collen, in the year 1608.   

CHAP. V.  
The History of the Greek Writers in the Fifteenth Century, and of their Works.  
THo' the Greek Empire was now in its Declension, yet it still afforded a great many Inquisitive Men, who applied themselves to the Study of Eloquence, Philosophy, and Divinity, even till it was utterly ruind. The Disputes they had with the Latins obliged them to study the Subjects about which they contested, and to read their Ancient Writers; but at the same time these Disputations made them negligent of other matters, accustomed their minds to excessive subtlety, and inspired them with such a Spirit of Cavilling and Contention, * as they could not easily shake off afterwards. Those who lived in the Age whereof we are now speaking, had still some remainder of good Learning; but those who came after them, did continually degenerate, and at last sunk into that Ignorance, not to say Stupidity, in which we see them at this present. And therefore the Writers whereof we shall now give an account, may be looked upon as the last good Authors among the Greeks.  
Simeon Archbishop of Thessalonica, Flourished at the beginning of this Century, and rendered 
Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica.  himself equally Famous for his Virtue, and his Learning. His principal Work is a Treatise of the Liturgy; wherein he explains what belongs to Churches, Ministers, Sacerdotal Habits, the Celebration of the Mass, and the other Ceremonies of the Church, which was published by Father Goart in his Collection of the Greek Rituals: He wrote also a Book against Heresies by way of Dialogue, wherein he has Collected the passages of Scripture, and the Fathers about Matters of Faith, and the Sacraments of the Church, which is to be found in Manuscript in the Libraries of the Vatican, and the Emperor, and out of which Father Morin has given us an Extract about the Sacrament of Penance, at the end of his Book about Penance. There are also many other Treatises in Manuscript of this Author in the Vatican Library, of which Allatius has published the following Titles; viz. 85 Answers to the Questions of Gabriel of Pentapolis; a Treatise of the Priesthood, Dedicated to a Monk; an Explication of the Creed; another Exposition of the Creed, wherein he shows whence the Articles were taken, and against whom they were drawn up; Twelve Articles which contain the whole Faith of Christians, a Treatise against the Innovations of the Latins. Simeon died in 1429.  
Joseph Briennius, a Monk of Constantinople, Flourished under the Empire of Manuel Paleologus, 
Joseph Briennius, a Greek Monk.  in the time of the Patriarch Joseph, and discharged the Office of a Preacher. He has left us 18 Discourses about the Trinity, against the Doctrine of the Latins, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, which are to be found in Manuscript in the Vatican Library, where Allatius who quotes them, saw them. He quotes also 2 Sermons of the same Author about a Future Judgement, and Eternal Happiness. He observes in one of these Discourses, that he spoke it in the year 1420. after the Birth of our Lord.  
Macarius' Macres, a Monk of Mount Athos, Flourished about the same time: He was sent by the Emperor John Paleologus, with Mark Jagre, into Italy, to Pope Martin V. where he died, 
Macarius' Macres, a Greek Monk.  January 7th, in 1431. He wrote a Treatise about the Procession of the Holy Spirit, against the Latins.  
Demetrius Ch●ysoloras, Flourished under the Empire of Manuel Paleologus, who had a great 
Demetrius Chrysoloras.  respect for him. He wrote against the Latins a Synoptical Discourse taken out of the Works of Nil of Thessalonica; a Dialogue to show that the Orthodox ought not to accuse others who are Orthodox; and lastly, a Dialogue against a Piece which Demetrius Cydonius wrote against Nil Cabasilas.  
At the same time lived Macarius, Archbishop of Ancyra, who wrote a Treatise against the Latins, at the end whereof he has added also Barlaam, Acindynus, and their Followers. 
Macarius, Archbishop of Ancyra. Nicolas Sclengia. Esaias, a Monk.   
At the same time also, Nicolas Sclengia published against the Latins; a Collection of Authorities out of the Fathers, about the Procession of the Holy Spirit, which falling into the hands of a Monk of Cyprus, called Esaias; this Monk wrote a Letter to confute it, addressed to Pope Nicolas, wherein he undertakes to show that Sclengia did mis-understand the passages of the Fathers which he alleges; whereupon the latter wro●e a very sour Answer to the Letter of Esaias. Allatius who saw these Works in Manuscript, relates a part of Esaias' Letter.  
The Conferences of the Greeks and Latins at the Council of Florence, discovered the Judgement and Eloquence of the most able Men among the Greeks, and gave occasion to many Books; but some among them sincerely embraced the Union with the Latins, and wrote afterwards in defence of it; whereas on the contrary, others remained in their former Sentiments, and continued still to write against the Latins. Among the latter, the most considerable is 
* Marcus Eugenicus, Archbishop of Ephesus.  Marcus Eugenicus, who having for a long time professed to teach Eloquence, was appointed Archbishop of Ephesus, and made choice of to speak in behalf of the Greeks, at the Conferences they were to have in the West with the Latins. There he maintained their Cause with all the subtlety and vigour which they could desire, and was almost the only Person who would not sign the Decree of Union; and in fine, the 1st. who stood up and wrote against it, after the Greeks who had been at Florence were returned to Constantinople. There are in the 13th Tome of the Councils 2 Circular Letters of his addressed to all Christians, against the Council of Florence. He wrote a Profession of Faith, which is to be found in Manuscript in the Vatican Library, as also a Treatise about the Procession of the Holy Spirit against the Latins; a Letter to the Emperor John Paleologus, and another Letter to George Scholarius, against the Rites and Sacrifice of the Church of Rome. There is also a Treatise to show that Consecration is made not only by the words of our Lord, but also by the Prayer and Blessing of the Priest, which is Printed among the Liturgies. There is in the Acts of the Council of Florence, and in the History of Sguropulus, a part of the Discourses which he spoke in this Council, and there are in the King's Library some other Manuscript Works of the same Author; as 2 Discourses of Purgatory, spoken at Ferrara; Answer to the Questions of the Cardinals, and about the Consecration of the Body of Jesus Christ; the Solution of two Questions proposed by the Emperor, and some Letters against the Latins.  
Mark Eugenicus had a Brother named John, who came with him to the Council of Florence, and 
John Eugenicus.  there adhered to the same Party, who also wrote a Piece against the Council of Florence, out of which Allatius relates some Fragments, in his Book of Purgatory.  
George Gemistius Plethon, a Celebrated Platonic Philosopher, did no less oppose the Union 
George Gemistius Plethon, a Greek Philosopher.  than Mark of Ephesus; he set himself against the Proposal which was made of beginning a Conference with the Latins; he gave Advices contrary to the Union in the Council of Florence; he derided it when it was made, and stood up against it after he was returned to Constantinople; he lived a long time, and wrote against the Latins. Allatius mentions two Treatises which he wrote about the Procession of the Holy Spirit, which are in Manuscript, in the Vatican Library. Bessarion who had been his Scholar, writing to his Children after his Death, gives a fine Encomium of him. There are many Historical or Philosophical Works of this Author in Print.  
To Gemistius we must join another Philosopher, named Amirutzes of Trebizonde, who was 
Amirutzes, a Greek Philosopher.  present also at the Council of Florence, disallowed the Union, and wrote against it after he returned to Constantinople; his End was unhappy, for he Apostatised, and became a Mahometan.  
We must not forget to place among the rest Silvester Sguropulus, or Scyropulus, Grand Ecclesiarch 
Silvester Sguropulus, the Grand Ecclesiarch.  of the Church of Constantinople, who came with the Patriarch to the Council of Florence, was present there, was always against the Union, and yet Signed it; but he was no sooner returned to Constantinople, but he declared openly against it, and wrote the History of the Council of Florence after such a manner as was little to the advantage of that Council. This has been Translated and Published by Robert Creighton, a Doctor of the Religion in England, and afterwards Bishop of Bath and Wells, and Printed at the Hague, in 1660. It is written by way of Memoirs, but with much fineness and purity; the Translation of it is not faithful in some places; 
* Here Dupin should have mentioned the Places.  and the Translator speaking of the Ceremonies of the Church, does often make use of Contemptuous and Reproachful terms, which do not at all agree with those which are in the Original.  
We must place in the number of those who were Enemies to the Latins, George Scholarius a 
George Scholarius, Enemy to the Latins.  Monk, who is different from that George Scholarius who wrote for the Latins in the Council of Florence; for this of whom we speak, was a Scholar and Friend to Mark of Ephesus, and is the Author of a Treatise against the Council of Florence, Printed in Greek at London, without the Date of the year. He wrote many Letters, which Allatius saw, and quoted.  
Lastly, we must add to these Authors Manuel or Michael Apostolius, a Learned Man, but Poor, 
Manuel, or Michael Apostolius.  whom Cardinal Bessarion maintained a long time; but he being moved by Envy against those Learned Men who deserved Praise and Commendation from him, set himself to Write against them, and so drew upon his head the Rebukes of Bessarion, who abandoned him; insomuch that he was forced to retire about the end of this Century into the Isle of Crete, where he got a livelihood by Writing Books, and teaching Children. Then it was that he wrote a Treatise against the Doctrine of the Latin Church, contained in the Decree of Union made by the Council of Florence, which is published by Monsieur Le Moine, in his Collection of Pieces. He wrote also a Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Spirit against Plethon, wherein he Reprimands that Philosopher, because he did not found his Doctrine upon Principles of Divinity, but upon Arguments of Philosophy, whereof Allatius makes mention.  
Among the Greeks who sincerely embraced the Union and maintained it to the last, there was none 
Bessarion, a Cardinal.  more Illustrious than Bessarion, who from being a Monk of the Order of St. Basil, was advanced to be Archbishop of Nice, that he might assist and speak in behalf of the Greeks, at the Conferences with the Latins. He behaved himself worthily in this Employment, and spoke with a great deal of Eloquence in the Council of Florence. After he had Disputed earnestly for the Greeks, he came to a Temper, and was the chief promoter of the Union: By this means he became odious to the Greeks, who were displeased with it, and therefore he stayed in Italy, and was honoured with the Dignity of a Cardinal, or rather he honoured the Purple which he wore, by his Learning, Wisdom and Piety. He deserved to have been Pope, and should have been so, if he would have made some advances to obtain that Supreme Dignity, but he preferred Retirement, Study and Repose before the Pontifical D●● 〈◊〉, and thought that he could not in Conscience seek after it. He died in 1472. Aged 77 years, after his return from his Embassy into France, whither he had been sent by the Pope.  
The Works of Bessarion which now remain are these which follow; a Treatise of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and of the words of Consecration, wherein he proves that the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, by virtue of the words of our Lord, and not by Prayer; and answers the Objections of the Greeks, by explaining their Liturgy according to the Doctrine of the Greek Fathers; a Dogmatical Discourse about the Causes of Schism, and another about Union, in the Acts of the Council of Florence; a Treatise addressed to Alexis Lascaris, concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit, and in Defence of the Definition of the Council of Florence, related in the 13th Tome of the Councils, p. 1228. A Letter of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, an Apology for Veccus, together with a Confutation of the Treatise of Palamas; a Letter to those of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and an Answer to 4 Arguments of Planudes about the Procession of the Holy Spirit; which works were published by Arcadius, and printed at Rome, in 1630. These are all the Theological Works of Bessarion, not to mention those of Philosophy, which discover that he was as great a Philosopher as Divine. He defends the Philosophy of Plato in 4 Books, against George of Trebizonde who attacked it; he wrote about that Philosopher's Books of Laws, and a Treatise of Nature and Art, addressed to George of Trebizonde; he Translated the Metaphysics of Aristotle and Theophrastus which Works were printed at Venice in 1503. and 1516. He wrote a Letter to the Governor of the Children of Prince Thomas Paleologus, about their Education, which is published by Pontanus, in his Notes upon the History of Phranza, printed at Ingolstat, in 1504 and by Meursius at Leyden, in 1613. There was also printed at Islebon in 1603. An Exhortation to Christian Princes to make War against the Turks; and Bzovius has inserted into his History a Discourse which Bessarion made upon the death of the Emperor Manuel Paleologus. There are also some Letters of his in Print, and in Manuscript.  
There is no Greek Author of this time, who has left us more Works in favour of the Latins, than George Scholarius, who was Professor at Constantinople, who being Consulted at 1st by John Paleologus, about the project of Union, answered him very freely, came afterwards with him into the 
George Scholarius, who was of the Latins ●ide.  West, and was present at the Council of Florence, where he declared for the Union. He wrote upon this Subject a Letter addressed to the Greek Bishops, and 3 Discourses to the Council about Peace; and after the Council was ended, he defended stoutly the 5 Articles of its Decree, about the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Unleavened Bread, Purgatory, the Happiness of Souls after Death, and about the Primacy of the Pope, in an Excellent Apology printed in Latin at Dilingen, in 1581. in Greek at Rome, in 1577. and in Greek and Latin in 1628. He wrote also a Treatise about the Procession of the Holy Spirit, against Mark of Ephesus, which remains imperfect, and was never yet printed. But besides these Books of Controversy with the Greeks, he wrote also other Treatises about Religion, viz. A Dialogue about the Mysteries of the Trinity, and Incarnation, between a Christian, and a Mahometan, printed at Frankfurt, in 1583. an Abridgement of the Dogmata of Religion, printed at Basil in 1556. and at Helmstadt in 1611. A Treatise of Predestination, addressed to Joseph a Monk of Thessalonica, printed at Ausburg in 1593. and at the end of St. Basil's Works of the Edition in 1618. A Discourse about the Trinity, printed at Venice in 1501. all which Works are in Latin, in the last Bibliotheque of the Fathers. He wrote also many other Treatises which are in Manuscript, or lost. This Author wrote with ease, abounds in words, is Noble in his Expressions, and solid in his Reasonings.  
Joseph Bishop of Metona, maintained also the Union made at the Council of Florence, and wrote upon this Subject an Answer to the Treatise of Mark of Ephesus, against the Council of 
Joseph, Bishop of Metona.  Florence, related at the end of the Acts of this Council.  
Gregory, Surnamed Mamas the Protosyncelle, Confessor to the Emperor, and afterwards Patriarch of Constantinople, after he had done much towards the Union which was made in the Council of 
Gregory Mamas, the Protosyncelle.  of Florence, maintained it also against Mark of Ephesus, by refuting the Letter which this Author wrote against the decree of Union, and justifying all the Articles which it contains, in an excellent Apology which is at the end of the Acts of this Council. There is also a long Letter of this Author about the Procession of the Holy Spirit, addressed to Alexis Comnenus, the Emperor of Trebizonde, wherein he justifies the doctrine of the Latins, and the Addition made to the Creed. It was published by Allatius, in the first Tome of Orthodox Greece.  
To these Authors we must join John Phisiadenus, under which Name we find in the same Book of Allatius, an Apology for the Council, written by way of Dialogue; but 'tis very probable, as Allatius has shown, that this Book is Joseph's of Metona, of whom there is a Letter found against Mark of Ephesus, in some Manuscripts under the same Name.  
Andre● Archbishop of Rhodes, who was sent by Pope Eugenius to the Council of Basil, where he spoke a Discourse, defended in the Council of Florence the Cause of the Latins; and Isidore 
Andrew, Archbishop of Rhodes. Isidore, Archbishop of Kiovia.  Archbishop of Kiovia in Russia, who was also one that acted for the Latins in this Council, ought rather to be considered as one for the Latins, than for the Greeks, since he always adhered to the Latin Church.  
We may also place in this Rank the Monk Hilarion, who wrote a Tract of the use of Unleavened 
Hilarion, 〈◊〉 Greek Monk.  Bread in the Eucharist, according to the doctrine of the Latins, published by Allatius in the first Tome of the Orthodox Faith,  
As to George of Trebizonde, and John Argyropulus, who retired into Italy, the former before 
George of Trebizonde, and Argyropulus.  the taking of Constantinople, they may be looked upon rather as Learned Men, than as Divines. Nevertheless the former wrote a Letter to John Paleologus, exhorting him to come to Florence, rather than to Basil; 2 Treatises of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, against the Sentiment of the Greeks, which are published by Allatius in the first Tome of Orthodox Greece. He Treats also in the last, of the Unity of the Catholic Church, and of the Primacy of the Church of Rome; and alleges that the 5 Patriarchal Churches have a kind of Subordination one to another, according to their Rank and Degree; and that during the Vacancy of the Church of Rome, the Government of the Universal Church belongs to the Patriarch of Constantinople. This Author wrote also a Discourse upon these words of Jesus Christ, about St. John the Evangelist, If I will that he tarry, etc. wherein he alleges that St. John never died; which was printed at Basil in 1543. and the Martyrdom of St. Andrew of Chio, who was Martyred by the Turks, which is Related by Surius, at the 22th of May. He Translated many Works of the Fathers, viz. The Commentaries of St. Cyril upon the Gospel of St. John, and his 14 Treatises about the Trinity, many Homilies of St. Chrysostom, the Treatise of St. Gregory of Nyssen, of the Life of Moses, the Books of St. Basil against Eunomius, and Eusebius' Treatise of Evangelical Preparation. As to John Argyropulus, the only Theological Treatise which we have of his, is a Work of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, in defence of the Decree of the Council of Florence, which is published by Allatius in the first Tome of Orthodox Greece.  
There are also some other Greek Authors of this Century, whose Works are purely Historical, 
George Phranza.  as George Phranza an Officer of the Emperor's Court, who wrote the Byzantine History, from the year 1260. to the year 1476. which is published by Pontanus, and printed at Ingolstadt, in 1604.  
Matthew Camariote, who wrote a Letter about the taking of Constantinople by the Turks, 
Matthew Camariote.  made Commentaries upon Synesius, and a Treatise of the Light of Thabor, against the Barlaamites.  
Ducas wrote the Byzantine History from the year 1341. to the year 1462. which was printed 
Ducas, a Greek Historian.  at Paris in 1649.  
George Codinus Curolopata, was the Author of divers Pieces about the State, the Empire and 
George Codinus Curolopata. Laonicus Chalcondylus. Nicolas Secundinus.  City of Constantinople, which are printed at Paris in 1655.  
Laonicus Chalcondylus wrote the History of the Turks, from the year 1300. to the year 1463, which is printed in Latin at Paris, in 1550. and at Basil in 1556, and 1562. in Greek and Latin at Geneva, in 1615. and at Paris, in 1650.  
Nicolas Secundinus, who served as an Interpreter to the Council of Florence, wrote an Abridgement of the History of the Turks, until the Taking of Constantinople, which is printed at Louvain, in 1553.   

CHAP. VI  
Of the COUNCILS held in the Fifteenth Century.  
THere were very few Provincial or National Councils held in the Fifteenth Century, the Church being then divided by Schisms, and busied in attending upon General Councils. Here follow some which are most Remarkable.  

The Council of Oxford, in the Year 1408.  
The Council held at Oxford, in 1408. by Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury, made 
The Council of Oxford, in 1408.  Thirteen Regulations, to put a stop to the Progress of Wicklef's Errors.  
The First is, That no Ecclesiastic Secular or Regular, shall be admitted to Preach the Word of God, until he has been examined and approved by the Bishop of the Diocese.  
The Second, That no Person shall be permitted to Preach in the Church, or in the Churchyard, unless he be approved.  
The Third, That the Preachers shall Preach after a manner suitable to their Auditory, without inveighing against the Disorders of the Clergy.  
The Fourth, That nothing shall be Taught about the Sacraments, or the Faith, but what is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church.  
The Fifth, That Masters of Arts shall not Treat of Divinity, nor suffer their Scholars to Treat of it.  
The Sixth, That no Books shall be published, which are not approved by the Universities of 
The Council of Oxford, in 1●68.  Oxford, or Cambridge, or by Twelve Doctors Chosen by the University, with the consent of the Bishops.  
The Seventh, That no Translation shall be made of the Scripture into the vulgar Tongue, which is not approved by the Ordinary.  
The Eighth, That no Proposition shall be advanced which has a bad sense, under pretence that 'tis capable of a good sense.  
The Ninth, That the Points of Doctrine decided by the Church shall not be disputed, and the Authority of the Decretals and Synodal Constitutions shall not be opposed.  
The Tenth, That a Priest shall not be admitted to Celebrate Divine Service out of his own Diocese, without a Testimonial from his Bishop.  
The Eleventh, That the Heads of Colleges shall take care to inform themselves of the Life and Manners of their Scholars, and to punish those who are Convicted of Heresy.  
The Twelfth, That those who do not observe these Constitutions shall be thrust out of their Benefices.  
The Thirteenth, That the Process shall be drawn up Summarily and Extraordinarily in Matters of Heresy, as in Cases of High-Treason.   

The Council of Saltzburg, in 1420.  
Eberhard Archbishop of Saltzburg, Legat to the Holy-See, held in the year 1420. in his Metropolitan 
The Council of Saltzburg, in 1420.  City a Council, wherein he published 34 Decrees.  
In the First, He declares that 'tis an Error to Teach that a Curate or Priest who is in a state of Mortal Sin cannot Absolve or Consecrate; and that 'tis not true that a Bishop or Curate cannot Absolve a Priest from the Crime of Fornication.  
The Second is, That Provincial and Diocesan Synods shall be held as is Ordained by the Holy Canons.  
The Third Abrogates the Customs that are Established contrary to the Liberty of Churches.  
The Fourth Ordains, That no Person shall be admitted to Holy Orders, who has not first Confessed.  
The Sixth Excludes Bastards from the Order of the Clergy.  
The Seventh Forbids Inferior Judges to hinder an Appeal to the Superior.  
The Eighth, Orders Parish-Priests to give an Honourable Revenue to their Curates,  
The Ninth, Forbids to pronounce a Sentence of Interdict lightly, or impertinently.  
The Tenth, Explains the Duty of Prelates, and to whom they ought to have a regard in their Visitations.  
The Eleventh Forbids the Chaplains of private Chapels to Celebrate Divine Service there, without making their submission to the Bishop, or archdeacon, and enjoins them to come to Synods.  
The Twelfth, Deprives those who extort Absolutions by violence, of the benefit of them.  
The Thirteenth, Ordains that no Person shall be excused for neglecting to execute the Order of his Superior, under pretence of loss of Goods, or Corporal damage, unless the thing be proved, and that as to Negative Commands, no Excuse shall be admitted.  
The Fourteenth, That Resignations of a Right shall be made in the presence of the Bishop, or the Official, after the Parties shall have taken an Oath that they are serious.  
The Fifteenth, Regulates the manner of Citing those whom the Curates dare not Cite, because they fear them.  
The Sixteenth, Forbids to traduce the Clergy before a Laical Tribunal.  
The Seventeenth, Renews the Canons concerning the modesty of the Apparel of ecclesiastics, and forbids Regulars who are made Bishops, to quit their Religious Habit.  
The Eighteenth, Deprives Concubinary Clergymen of their Benefices, and declares them incapable of possessing them.  
The Nineteenth, Decrees, That Clergymen who have a Benefice, before they take possession of it, shall make Oath before the Bishop or the archdeacon, that they have not committed Simony to obtain it.  
The Twentieth, Forbids Patrons, or Collators of Benefices, to detain any thing, upon any pretence whatsoever.  
The One and Twentieth, Excommunicates those who have stolen any thing, unless they restore it within a Month.  
The Two and Twentieth, Declares that he who Mortgages any Demain upon the account of which he has a Right of Patronage, does not Mortgage that Right.  
The Three and Twentieth, Leaves Clergymen and others at liberty to make a Testament.  
The Twenty Fourth, Ordains that Divine Service shall be said for an Archbishop or Bishop when they are dead; for the former, in all the Bishoprics of the Province, and for the second, in all the Parishes of his Diocese.  
The Twenty Fifth, Forbids a Curate to hear Confession from, or Administer the Sacraments to any Person who is not of his own Parish, unless he has desired and obtained leave of the proper Parish-Priest.  
The Twenty Sixth, Deprives of the Right of Patronage, those who rob the Churches whereof they are Patrons, after the death of the present Possessor.  
The Twenty Seventh, Forbids Priests to give a Treat upon the day of their first Mass.  
The Twenty Eighth, enjoins Parish-Priests to teach their Parishioners the form of Baptism.  
The Twenty Ninth, Forbids the Processes which are made about Churches.  
The Thirtieth, Ordains that the Constitutions of the Council of Constance against Simoniacs, shall be published 3 times in a year in the Cathedral and Collegiate Churches.  
The One and Thirtieth, Excommunicates those who Bury the Dead in a Churchyard during an Interdict.  
The Thirty Second, Is against the Hussites.  
The Three and Thirtieth, Order the Men that are Jews to wear a Corner'd Cap, and the Jewish Women a little Bell, to distinguish them from others.  
The Thirty Fourth, Is against Luxury, and the Ornaments of Women.   

The Council of Collen, in 1423.  
This Provincial Council held under Theodoric Archbishop of Collen made 11 Regulations. 
The Council of Collen, in 1423.   
The First, is against Concubinary Clergymen.  
The Second, Is against the Lords who forbidden their Subjects to have any Commerce with ecclesiastics.  
The Third, enjoins the Officials to observe the Common Law in Cases of Appeal.  
The Fourth, Forbids under pain of Excommunication to abolish the Customs introduced by the piety of the Faithful.  
The Fifth, Forbids to appoint any but Priests to be preachers of Indulgences.  
The Sixth, Forbids Canons and other Clergymen to prattle during the time of Divine Service, under the penalty of being deprived for 8 days of the Distributions.  
The Seventh, forbids Parish-Priests to take Mendicant Monks for Vicars, when they can have others.  
The Eighth, Concerns public Concubinaries.  
The Ninth, is concerning the destruction of the Hussites, and Wicklefits.  
The Tenth, Ordains, That a Bell shall be rung every Friday at Noon, and every day at Sunrising, and that Indulgences be granted to those who say certain Prayers when it Rings.  
The Eleventh, Ordains the Celebration of the Feast of the Compassion of the Virgin Mary.   

The Council of Paris, in 1429.  
John of Nanton, Archbishop of Sens, held in the Month of April, in 1429. a Council of the 
The Council of Paris, in 1429.  Bishops of his Province at Paris, where he drew up 40 Articles of Regulations concerning the duty and behaviour of ecclesiastics, Monks and Canons Regular, the Observation of Sunday, the Licenses dispensing with the Banns of Matrimony, which he forbade to grant easily.   

The Council of Tortose, in 1429.  
In the same year Peter Cardinal of Foix, Legate of the Holy-See, held a Council in the Province 
The Council of Tortose, in 1429.  of Tarragona, at Tortose, wherein he published 20 Decrees about Divine Service, the Ornaments of Churches, the Instruction of Youth, the Qualifications of Beneficed Men, the Rights of Bishops and Churches, etc.   

The Council of Angers, in 1448.  
John Bernard Archbishop of Tours, held a Council of his own Province at Angers, in 1448. wherein he made 17 Regulations. 
The Council of Angers, in 1448.   
The First, Concerning Rescripts.  
The Second, About the time of Ordination.  
The Third, Of the Life and Manners of Clergymen.  
The Fourth, Of Beneficed Men who do not Reside.  
The Fifth, Of Observing Silence in the Quire.  
The Sixth, Of Plays, and Feasts that are forbidden.  
The Seventh, Which forbids to Preach out of Churches, and Ordains that none shall use in preaching excessive Clamours, or extraordinary Gestures.  
The Eighth, Forbids Abbots to detain the Goods of vacant Priories.  
The Ninth, Regulates the Rights of Visitation.  
The Tenth, Is against Concubinaries, and about the Forms which are to be observed in pronouncing an Excommunication.  
The Twelfth, Forbids Clandestine Marriages, and Night Revels.  
The Thirteenth, Is for the Immunity of Churches.  
The Fourteenth, Forbids to carry about the Relics of the Saints for Gain.  
The Fifteenth, Order that Indulgences granted by the Holy-See, shall be published by Persons who are knowing, and known, and of a good Life.  
The Sixteenth, Concerns the Publication of the Decrees of this Council.  
The Seventeenth, Gives the Diocesan Bishop a Power to Absolve from the Censures Enacted by Synods.   

The Council of Soissons, in 1456.  
John Juvenal of Ursins, Archbishop of Rheims, held in 1456. a Council of his Province at 
The Council of Soissons, in 1456.  Soissons, wherein he Resided, Published and Ordained the Execution of the Regulations made by the Council of Basil, which were confirmed in the Assembly of Bourges.   

The Council of Toledo, in 1473.  
This Council was called together by Alphonsus of Carilla, Archbishop of Toledo, in the Burrow of Aranda, where he published 29 Regulations about Ecclesiastical Discipline. 
The Council of Toledo, in 1473.   
The First, For the Celebration of Diocesan and Provincial Synods.  
The Second, enjoins Parish-priests to take care that they Instruct the People in the chief Articles of Religion.  
The Third, Forbids the promotion of those to Holy Orders, who understand not Latin.  
The Fourth, Forbids to receive the Clergy of another Diocese, without a Letter from their Bishop.  
The Fifth, and Sixth, Are about the Habit of Bishops and Clergymen, whereby they are forbidden to wear Garments of Silk, or such as are short, under pain of a Fine.  
The Seventh, Is about the Observation of Sunday, and the Festivals.  
The Eighth, Forbids ecclesiastics to wear Mourning.  
The Tenth, Forbids to admit those ecclesiastics who do not understand Latin, to Parish-Cures, or prebend's.  
The Eleventh, Forbids Clergymen to play at Dice.  
The Twelfth, enjoins Priests to Celebrate Mass at least 4 times in a year▪ and Prelates 3 times, under pain of being Fined.  
The Thirteenth, Forbids Preachers to preach, without the Bishop's Leave.  
The Fourteenth, Is against Inferior Clerks, who do not use the Clerical Habit, and the Tonsure.  
The Fifteenth, Forbids Clergymen to provide Soldiers to Temporal Lords, except to the King.  
The Sixteenth, Forbids to Celebrate Marriage at any other time than what is permitted by the Laws of the Church, and Condemns those Clergymen to be Fined, who give the Nuptial Blessing at the times forbidden.  
The Seventeenth, Is against Clandestine Marriages.  
The Eighteenth, Excommunicates those who Buy or Sell the Revenues of vacant Benefices.  
The Nineteenth, Forbids to Act Comedies, or other Plays, to make Masquerades, to repeat Songs, or hold profane Discourses in Churches.  
The Twentieth, Deprives of Christian Burial those who die of the Wounds they have received in a Duel, even tho' they should have received the Sacrament of Penance before their death.  
The One and Twentieth, Ordains the same Penalty against Ravishers.  
The Two and Twentieth, Excommunicates those who prejudice the Immunities of ecclesiastics.  
The Three and Twentieth, Ordains that the Excommunication which is passed in one Diocese, shall be observed in all others.  
The Twenty Fourth, Lays an Interdict upon that place, which drives away a Clergyman by violence.  
The Twenty Fifth, Forbids to exact or receive any thing for Ordination, either before or after it, not so much as for the Seal, or the Wax.  
The Twenty Sixth, Declares that the Penalties Enacted against Beneficed Men, shall extend to all sorts of Prelates.  
The Twenty Seventh, Grants the Bishop's power to Absolve from the Censures that are passed in a Synod.  
The Twenty Eighth, and Twenty Ninth, Ordain the Publication of these Decres in the Diocesan and Cathedral Synods.   

The Council of Sens, 1485.  
Tristand of Salazar, Archbishop of Sen● assembled in 1485. a Synod at Sens, wherein he confirms 
The Council of Sens, in 1485.  the Constitutions made in another Synod, held 25 Years before by Lovis of Melun, Archbishop of Sens, upon 4 Heads;  
The First, About the Celebration of Divine Service.  
The Second, About the Reformation of the Clergy, the Duty of Prelates, the Habits and Behaviour of ecclesiastics.  
The Third, About the Reformation of Regulars.  
The Fourth, Abou● the Duty of Laymen towards the Church, viz. the Celebration of Festivals, the Payment of Tithes, Marriages, Ecclesiastical Immunities, etc. These Regulations were drawn out of the Councils of Basil, of Lateran, from the pragmatic Sanction, the Decretals and other provincial Councils.   

The Council of Rouen, in 1445.  
We have also 40 Articles of Constitutions, from a Council held at Rouen in 1445. by Raoul 
The Council of Rouen, in 1445.  Russel, Archbishop of that City, and the Bishops his Suffragans, which contain many good Regulations about the Discipline of the Church. There is one against the Superstition of those who give particular Names to the Images of the Virgin, as, Our Lady of Recovery, of Pity, of Consolation, of Grace, etc. because this gives occasion to believe that there is more Virtue in one Image than another.    

CHAP. VII.  
An History of the Wicklefites and Hussites, of John Wicklef, John Huss, and Jerom of Prague, of their Errors and their Condemnation.  
JOHN Wicklef, an English Doctor, and Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, and Rector of Lutterworth in the Diocese of Lincoln, flourished with good Reputation in 
An History of Wicklef.  that University, until the Dissensions happened at Oxford between the Monks and the Seculars, by which he was oppressed and engaged to declare against the Interest of the Pope and the Church. He had been chosen by the Seculars Head of a College, founded at Oxford for the Scholars of Canterbury; but the Monks being newly admitted into that College, had a mind to prefer a Regular to that Place; whereupon Wicklef and his Regulars drove them out of the College. These being expelled, had recourse to Simon Langham, Cardinal and Archbishop of Canterbury, who took them into his Protection, and ordered Wicklef to resign up that Place to a Monk named Henry Wodehull; but Wicklef refused to obey, whereupon the Archbishop sequestered the Revenues of the College. The Affair was carried to Pope Urban V by Wicklef and his Associates, and he appointed a Cardinal to hear the Cause, who decided it in favour of the Monks, and ordered that Wicklef and his Associates should leave the College after they had made Satisfaction to the Monks. The Pope confirmed this Sentence by his Bull, published in 1370. Thus Wicklef was obliged to resign; but this Disgrace disgusted him against the Court of Rome, and put him upon seeking out some way of Revenge. The Belief of the Authority of the Pope and the Church in Temporals was then sufficiently established in England, and the Jurisdiction of Bishops there was of a very large Extent. Wicklef set himself to oppose both the one and the other, in which Contest he found many Complices and Protectors, because the Doctrine which he espoused was favourable to the King, whose Power was weakened and diminished by that of the Pope and the Bishops, to the great Lords who were in Possession of the Revenues of the Church, and had a mind to shake off the Yoke of Ecclesiastical Censures; and to the People, to whom the Tax of Peter-pences and the o●●er Impositions of the Church of Rome were burdensome. The Books of Marsilius of Milan, and John of Jande, and some other Authors, who had written of Ecclesiastical and Temporal Power according to the Interest of Princes, against the Pretensions of Popes▪ furnished him with Matter enough upon this Subject; and he did not only blindly follow the Extravagances into which these Authors had fallen, but carried the matter higher, and ●et himself to teach and preach publicly against the Jurisdiction of the Pope and the Bishops. When this Doctrine begun to spread and make a Noise, Simon Sudbury, Archbishop of Canterbury, assembled in the Month of February, 1377. a Council at London, to which he caused Wicklef to be cited, to give there an account of his Doctrine. Wicklef came thither accompanied with the Duke of Lancaster, who had then the principal Share in the Government of the Kingdom Edward III drawing near his end, and being weak in Body and Mind) and with many other Lords and there he defended himself, and was dismissed without any Condemnation. But Pope Gregory XI. being advertised of the Doctrine which was spread by Wicklef in England, and of the Protection he met with to save him from Condemnation, wrote to the Bishops of England, to cause him to be apprehended, or if they could not compass that, to cite him to Rome, and at the same time sent them 19 Propositions advanced by Wicklef, which he condemns as Heretical and Etroneous. The Doctrine contained in these Propositions may be referred to 4 Heads: The 1st is, That God hath not given his Church Temporal Revenues to possess them always, and that Temporal Princes may take from it the Possession of them for just Reasons; the 2d, That the Church cannot make use of Excommunication and other Censures to exact temporal Revenues, and that Excommunication has no effect at all but only in so far as it is agreeable to the Law of God; the 3d, That every Priest lawfully ordained has sufficient Power to administer the Sacraments, and consequently to absolve all contrite Persons from any Sin whatsoever; the 4th, That all sorts of ecclesiastics, even the Pope of Rome himself, may be reproved and accused by their Inferiors, tho' they be Laymen. These Letters of Gregory being brought into England, and delivered to the Prelates of the Kingdom after the Death of King Edward, they held a Council at Lambeth about the end of this Year, where Wicklef appeared, and now a 2d time avoided Condemnation by the Protection of the Lords and the People, who declared so stoutly for him, that the Bishops durst not do any thing but command him to be silent after he had explained the Propositions in a Sense wherein they may be maintained.  
The Minority of Richard II. who succeeded his Father Edward at Twelve years of Age, gave occasion to great Insurrections of the common People against the Nobility, to the great Disturbance of the Kingdom. The Seditious shook off the Yoke of the Lords and the Magistrates, refused to pay them their customary Deuce, robbed them of their Estates, massacred the Archbishop of Canterbury, made themselves Masters of London, killed the King's principal Officers, and committed an infinite number of Outrages throughout the whole Kingdom. Wicklef had no hand in these Seditions, altho' his Doctrine may have given occasion to them; but he continued still to spread his new Doctrines, and added to them some new Errors more dangerous than the former, and drew after him a great number of Disciples who taught the same Doctrine.  
William Courtnay, Archbishop of Canterbury, having a mind to put a stop to this Disorder, called together at London, in May, 1382. a Council consisting of 8 Bishops, and many Doctors and Bachelors 
Councils at London against Wicklef.  of Divinity and Law, wherein he condemned 24 Propositions of Wicklef or his Disciples, viz. 10 as Heretical, and 14 as Erroneous, and contrary to the Definition of the Church. The 10 first are as follow, 1st, That the Substance of Material Bread and Wine remains in the Sacrament after Consecration; 2dly, That the Accidents do not remain without a Subject in this Sacrament; 3dly, That Jesus Christ is not there indentically, truly and really, according to his proper Corporal Presence; 4. That a Priest who lives in Mortal Sin, does not at all ordain, consecrate, or baptise; 5. That when a Man is contrite as he ought to be, his External Confession is useless; 6. That there is no Foundation in the Gospel, to believe that Jesus Christ established the Mass; 7 That God is obliged to obey the Devil; 8. That if the Pope is a Reprobate and a wicked Man, and consequently a Member of the Devil, he has no Power over the Faithful, except perhaps by the Emperor; 9 That we ought not to acknowledge any Pope since Urban VI and that every Nation ought to live as the Greeks do, according to their peculiar Laws; 10. That it is contrary to the Holy Scripture, that ecclesiastics should have Temporal Revenues. The Propositions Erroneous are these, 1st, That a Prelate ought not to excommunicate any Person whom he does not know to be excommunicated by God; 2. That he who excommunicates otherwise, is a Heretic, and excommunicates himself; 3. That a Prelate who excommunicates a Clergyman, that appeals to the King or his Council, is a Traitor to the King and Kingdom; 4. That those who abstain from Preaching or Hearing the Word of God, upon the Account of Excommunication from Men, are indeed excommunicate, and shall be treated as Traitors at the Tribunal of God; 5. That a Priest or Deacon has Authority to preach the Word of God, though they have no Power from the Holy See, or a Bishop; 6. That those who are in Mortal Sin are no longer Bishops or Prelates, nor so much as Temporal Lords; 7. That Temporal Lords may take away the Temporal Revenues from ecclesiastics, who live in a Custom of Sin, and that private Persons may correct their Superiors when they commit a Sin; 8. That Tithes are pure Alms; That the Parishioners may detain them upon the account of the Sins of their Pastors, and need not pay them but when they please; 9 That private Prayers applied to a Person by the ecclesiastics or Regulars, are no more to the Advantage of that Person than General Prayers; 10. That those who enter into a particular Monastery, render themselves more incapable of observing the Commands of God; 11. That the Saints who instituted Regulars, whether they be Mendicants or such as are endowed, did sin in making such a Foundation; 12. That the Regulars who live in private Houses, are not at all of the Christian Religion; 13. That the Regulars are obliged to get their Livelihood by the Labour of their hands, and not by begging; 14. That those who give Alms to the Regulars who preach, and who admit them, are excommunicate. These Propositions being censured in the Assembly held June 12st, Mr. Nicholas Herford, and Philip Rapington, a Canon-Regular, Professors of Divinity, were summoned to appear to give their Opinion about them. After they had made a General Protestation, that they would submit to the Decisions of the Church, and obey the Archbishop of Canterbury, they acknowledged that these Propositions were heretical and erroneous, at least in some sense, which they determined in their Declarations. Th●se Restrictions did not please the Archbishop of Canterbury, who required of them a pure and simple Condemnation, and caused tell them by the Doctors there present at the Assembly, that the Answers of these Two Divines, were insufficient, heretical, deceitful, erroneous and malicious.  
In pursuance of this Declaration, he summoned the accused to answer purely and simply, and they being unwilling to do it off hand, he gave them time till the 27th of the same Month. The like Admonition he gave to John Aisthon, Master of Arts in Oxford, who was also cited; but he answered more insolently than the Two former. The Acts of the Council do not inform us what these Divines did afterwards; but there are some Historians who relate that Herford and Aisthon persisted in their Errors, and that Rapington renounced them, ●…d that Wicklef himself, when he came to this Council, made a Confession of Faith wherein he retracted his Errors, and owned the real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Howsoever this be, the Council condemned the Errors of Wicklef and his Disciples, and obtained a Declaration of King Richard, a Declaration against all those who should teach or preach this Doctrine, wherein he permits the Archbishops and Bishops to cause them to be apprehended. In pursuance of this Proclamation, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Prelates, caused those among the Wicklefites to be seized who published new Doctrines, or wrote for them with greater Warmth. In the mean time, Wicklef died a little while after at Lutterworth, Dec. 31th in 1384, and left many Books behind him for the establishing of his Doctrine. The chief of them is his Treatise, entitled, A Trialogue, wrote in form of Dialogue between Alethia, (i. e. Truth) Pseudis, (i. e. a Lie) and Phronese, (i. e. Wisdom) which is divided into 4 Books.  
In the 1st he treats of God; in the 2d of Men and Angels; in the 3d of Virtues and Sins, of 
The Trialogue of Wicklef.  Grace, Liberty and the Incarnation of Jesus Christ; 4. in the, last of Signs or Sacraments, and of the Four Ends of Man. The principal Errors contained in these Books, are as follow, That God cannot but do but what he does; that every thing which happens comes to pass by Necessity; that God could not hinder the Sin of the ●irst Man, nor pardon it without the Satisfaction of Jesus Christ, and that it was impossible but the Son of God must be incarnate, make Satisfaction and die; That God acts by Necessity, that he cannot hinder Sin, that he can save none but those who are actually saved, that he he wills Sin to bring good out of it. As to the Sacraments he admits the number of Seven, but he does not think that this Name agrees to them all universally, i. e. according to the same Idea; he denies Transubstantiation, and the real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and maintains, that the Substance is really Bread, and the Body of Jesus Christ sacramentally and figuratively; he believes that Infants may be saved without the Baptism of Water, and those that are damned suffer the Pain of Sense. The Sacrament of Order is not univocally so with the other Sacraments, 'tis a Power and not a Sacrament. He says, That in the time of St. Paul and the Primitive Church, there were but Two Orders; he condemns the Riches and secular Power of the ecclesiastics, and the Foundations which are made for Perpetuity. He admits the Sacrament of Marriage to come under the general Idea of a Sacrament, but he pretends that it is only made by the internal Consent of the Parties, and that it were as good, nay better to express it by Words de futuro, than by Words de praesenti. He believes that external Penance and the Confession which is made to a Priest, are not necessary, and that they may be left off; he observes that Extremeunction has not much Foundation in Holy Scripture. After this he declaims against the Institution of the Orders of Friars Mendicants, against Mendicity, against Fraternities and Indulgences. The Style of this Work is dry and Scholastical, there is but little Solidity, and much Heat and Passion in his Arguments.  
This is almost the only Work of Wicklef which has been printed. There appeared in Germany 
The Works of Wicklef.  in 1525, written in English with this Title, The Little Gate of Wicklef, composed against Transubstantiation, and printed at Nuremberg in 1546, and at Oxford in 1612. It is a Work of some of his Disciples, since it was not written till 1395. There was also Two Books of Wicklef in English published by James, and printed at Oxford in 1608, viz. a Request to Richard II. and all the Orders of the Kingdom, that they would reduce the Friar's Mendicants to their Duty, and a Memorial containing 50 Articles of Errors or Crimes whereof he accuses them. There are also in Historians and Acts of Council, some Propositions and Declarations of Wicklef. He translated the Bible into English, and his Version is to be found in M. S. in some of the Libraries of England, as also, a Commentary upon the Psalms and the Canticles, upon the Epistles and Gospels, upon some select Passages of Scripture, an Harmony of the Evangelists, Sermons for the whole Year, and many other Treatises of Doctrine or Morality.  
While the Works of Wicklef were spreading after his Death, and his Diciples continued still to publish their Errors, Thomas Arundel, who succeeded William Courtnay in the Archbishopric of 
A Council at London against the Wicklesites.  Canterbury, held a provincial Council at London in 1396, wherein he condems 18 Articles drawn out of the Trialogue of Wicklef: Whereof the 1st is, That the Substance of. Bread continues upon the Altar after Consecration, and that it does not cease to be Bread; the 2d, That as John was Elias by a Figure and not personally, so the Bread is figuratively the Body of Jesus Christ, and that without doubt these Words, This is my Body, are a figurative way of speaking, like that, John is Elias; the 3d, That in the Chapter, Ego Berengarius, it was determined that the Eucharist is naturally true Bread; the 4th, That those who determine, that the Children of the Fa●… die without Baptism are no●●…d are presumptuous and foolish; the 5th, That the conferr●… of the Sacrament of Confirmation is not reserved peculiarly to the Bishop; the 6th; That 〈…〉 time of 〈…〉 Paul and the Apostles there were but two Orders i● the Church, that of Priests and that of Deacons and that there is no difference between the Pope, the Patriarches and the Bishops 〈…〉 would be sufficient if there were only Priests and Deacons, and that it was Pride which 〈…〉 the other Degrees; the 〈◊〉, That Marriages made between ancient Persons, whose end 〈◊〉 not to ●ave Children, are not true Marriages; 8▪ That the Causes of Divorce upon the account of Consanguinity or Affinity, are human Constitutions and groundless; the 9th, That ●t would be better to use in the Celebration of Marriage, these Words, I will take you for my Wife, 〈…〉 these I take you for my Wife, and that when a Man is ●●ed to one Woman by the former, and afterwards to another by the latter, the former Marriage is to be held good; the 10th, That the Pope, Cardinals, Patriarches, Archbishops, Bishops, Officials, Deans, Monks, Canons, Mendicants, Beggars, are the 12 Forerunners and Disciples of Antichrist; the 11th, That ●he Precept given to the Priest under the Law, and to the Levites, that they ought to have no Share in the Re●… of Lands, but to live upon Tithes and Oblations, is a Negative Precept, and obliges for ever the 12th, That there is not a greater Heretic, than a Priest who ●eaches, that 'tis lawful for Priests and Levites, under the Gospel to possess Temporal Revenues; the 13th, Tha● Temporal Lords not only may, but are even obliged to take away all Temporal Revenues from ●he Church that is habitually disorderly; the 14th, That Jesus Christ, and the Apostle would have appointed Corporal Unction if it had been a Sacrament; the 15th, That he who is ●ast in the Church is the greatest in the Sight of God, and the Vicar of Jesus Christ; the 1●th, That in order to the possessing of a true Temporal Demand, 'tis necessary that a Man be in a state of Righteousness, and that those who live in Mortal Sin are not Masters of any thing the 17th, That every thing which happens comes to pass necessarily; the 18th, That we ought no● to believe or practise every thing which the Pope and Cardinals enjoin, but only what follows clearly from Scripture, and that all other things ought to be rejected and despised as heretical▪ Widford was employed to defend the Condemnation which was decreed in this Council, which he d●d in a Book written on purpose, which is printed in the Collection of Orthun●● Gratus, wherein he opposes the Errors of Wicklef, not by Scholastical Arguments, but by Authorities drawn from the Holy Scripture, the Fathers and the Canon-Law: His Treatise is solid and learned for that time, tho' it is not well-written.  
At last Thomas Arundel utterly banished the Heresy of Wicklef, by the Constitutions which he made in a Synod held at Oxford in 1408. wherein he ordains, 1st, That no Ecclesiastic, whether 
Another Condemnation of Wicklef by Thomas Arundel, in 1408.  Secular or Regular, shall be suffered to preach, unless he be authorised and approved by the Bishop; 2●…, That those who shall preach any Doctrine contrary to that of the Church, shall be punished severely; 3, That the Professors shall teach no new Doctrine, nor suffer their Scholars to lea●… any; That no Book of Wicklef, or any others, shall be read unless it be approved by the University of Oxford, or of Cambridge, or by 12 Doctors whom these Universities shall appoint; 5, That no Version of the Scripture into the vulgar Tongue shall be read, unless it be approved by the Diocesan Bishop, or a provincial Council; 6, That none of the Propositions which are condemned shall be maintained, and that no Person shall oppose the Doctrines and Practices received by the Church, as the Worship of the Cross, of Images, and of the Relics of Saints; 7, That no Priest shall be admitted to the Celebration of Mass in another Diocese, unless he has a Letter recommendatory from his Bishop, or some others in the Dioceses where ●…he has lived; 8, That the Principals and Heads of Colleges shall take Care to examine every Month ●…e Morals and Doctrine of the Scholars, and to punish those who shall advance any Errors; Lastly, That all those who are accused by common Fame, or suspected of Heresy, shall be condemned after a simple Citation, if they do not appear. These Constitutions were, published at London the next Year, and confirmed by the King's Authority.  
In the Year 141●▪ Pope John XXIII. condemned in a Council at Rome, the Books of Wicklef; ●et he ●…anted to all those who had a mind to defend his Memory, the Term of 9 Months to appear before the Holy See, and to allege what they might think convenient in his Defence, In the same Year▪ John Oldcastle was convicted and condemned of Heresy at London, and saved his Life for this time, by escaping out of the Tower of London, where he was Prisoner; but being re●ake● in 141●, and convicted of Rebellion, he was burnt: Many other Wicklefites suffered after the same manner. At last the Prelates of England being supported by the Royal Authority, used their a most Endeavours to exterminate this Heresy utterly out of the Kingdom, and hindered it from receiving any public Settlement there.  
The Books of Wicklef being carried into Bohemia by Peter pain, an Englishman one of his Disciples, spread there so far in a little time, that the greatest part of the Masters and Scholars 
The Books of Wicklef carried into Bohemia, and condemned.  of the University of Prague had got them into their Hands. Sbynko, Archbishop of that City being informed of it and foreseeing the Mischief they would produce, made 2 Orders in 1408. one addre●… to all he Members of the University of Prague, wherein he enjoins them to bring him the Books of Wicklef, that those in which any Errors were found might be burnt; and the other addressed to all the Parish-priests and Preachers, wherein he ordains them to teach the People, that after the Pronunciation of the Words of the Holy Sacrament, there remained nothing but the Body of Jesus Christ under the Species of Bread, and the Blood of Jesus Christ in the Cup. There was then in the University of Prague a Master of Arts and Bachelor of Divinity, named John Huss, or of Hussenitz, the Place of his Birth, who had taught Grammar, 
John Huss des fends the Book of Wicklef.  and Philosophy, and having afterwards applied himself to the Study of the Holy Scripture, and the Latin Fathers, was become an able Preacher, and Chaplain in the Church of the Holy Innocents', called▪ Bethlehem, at Prague. He was one of those who were most respected in the University of that City, because he had obtained of Wenceslaus the King, the Revocation of the Privileges of other Nations, in favour of the Bohemians; for the University of Prague being Founded by Charles iv after the Example of that at Paris, it was composed of four Nations, B●hemia, Bavaria, Saxony, and Poland. Those of the three latter Nations being almost all Germans, and having 3 Voices against one, were become absolute Masters of the greatest part of the Professors Chairs and Places, and Governors of all the Affairs of the University, Disposers of the Chief Benefices in the City, to the utter Exclusion of the Bohemians, who depended entirely upon them, until that John Huss obtained of King Wenceslaus the Revocation of the Privileges of these other Nations, and the Restoration of the Bohemians to the Principal Places of the University. The Professors of other Nations being offended at this Treatment, retired to Misnia, and carried away with them more than 2000 Scholars. John Huss having by this means acquired a great deal of Credit and Authority in the University, easily persuaded many of its Members that the first Order of the Archbishop was an Infringement of the Privileges and Liberties of the University, which the Members ought to enjoy, whereby they were allowed to Read all sorts of Books; and that the second contained an intolerable Error, in that it seemed to affirm that there was nothing but the Body of Jesus Christ under the species of Bread, and nothing but his Blood in the Cup. Upon this Ground they appealed from these Orders to Pope Gregory XII. who was owned for Pope in Germany. Their Appeal was received, and the Archbishop of Prague was Cited to Rome by the Pope. But this Archbishop having informed Alexander V that these Errors of Wicklef began to take root in Bohemia, by the means of their Sermons who had read his Books, obtained from him a Bull, whereby the Pope Commissions him to hinder the publishing of these Errors in his Province.  
In virtue of this Bull, he Condemned by a Definitive Sentence the Writings of John Wicklef, 
John Huss Condemned at Rome.  proceeded against 4 Doctors who had not brought to him the Copies which they had of them, and by another Sentence forbade them to Preach in any Chapels, whatever Privilege they might have. John Huss, and some other Members of the University of Prague, and the Patron of the Chapel of Bethlehem, made their protestations against the Proceeding of the Archbishop of Prague; and on the 25th of June, in 1410. entered a new Appeal from his Sentences. The Affair being carried before John XXIII. he ordered that John Huss▪ who was accused of Preaching many Errors and Heresies, should appear in Person at the Court of Rome, and granted a Commission to Cardinal Colonna to Cite him. John Huss excused himself, and so ordered the matter, that Wenceslaus King of Bohemia, the Queen, the Barons, and the University, sent to the Pope to pray him that he would dispense with John Huss' Personal presence; that he would not suffer the Kingdom of Bohemia to be defamed by accusing them of Heresy, that he would give leave to Preach the word of God freely in their Chapels, and that he would send Legates to sit upon the Place, at the Expense of the Bohemians, for correcting Abuses, if any such there were. John Huss sent 3 Proctors, who appeared for him before Cardinal Colonna, and alleged Excuses for his Absence; protesting that they were ready to answer on his behalf; but the Cardinal showed no regared to them, declared him Contumacious, and as such, Excommunicated him. These Proctors having appealed to the Pope, he appointed the Cardinals of Aquileia, Brancas, Venice, and Zabarella, to draw up the Process of this Affair. These Commissioners confirmed the Judgement given by Cardinal Colonna, and carried the matter higher, by extending the Excommunication which was passed against John Huss, against his Disciples, and his Friends; they declared him a Ringleader of Heresy, and pronounced an Interdict against him. But notwithstanding this Decision, from which he appealed to a future Council, he continued still to Preach and publish his New Doctrines by word of mouth, and by Writing, tho' he was driven away from the Church of Bethlehem, and had retired to the place of his Nativity. At this time he wrote many Letters, and Composed his Treatise of Reading the Books of Heretics; wherein he maintains, that it cannot be absolutely forbidden; but he particularly justifies Wicklef's Book of the Trinity, answers a Treatise written against Wicklef, by one Stokes an Englishman, and another nameless Author, who had written against him, and accused him of Disobedience.  
After this, he sets himself to declaim against the Clergy, the Pope, and the Cardinals: At the 
John Huss persists in his Opinions.  same time he wrote a Discourse to prove that the Vices and Faults of ecclesiastics ought to be reproved in Sermons. He handles also other Questions, whereof one respects the Blood of Jesus Christ, of which many pretend to have a Relic, and in what sense Jesus Christ may be called Bread. As to the First, He determines, that Jesus Christ being Glorified, did take up with him all his own Blood, and that there is no Remains of it on Earth; and that the greatest part of the Miracles which are reported about the Apparition of the Blood of Jesus Christ, are the Frauds and Impostures of Covetous Men. In the Second, He maintains that Jesus Christ may be called Bread; but neither in the one nor the other does he departed from the Doctrine of the Church, about the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  
At the same time Peter of Dresden being driven out of his own Country, came to Prague, and persuaded Jacobelle of Misnia, a Priest of the Chapel of St. Michael, to preach up the Re-establishment of the Communion under the Species of Wine. The Hussites embraced this Opinion, and began to Preach that the use of the Cup was necessary to the Laity, and that the Sacrament should be Administered under both kinds. Sbinko seeing this Disorder, implored the help of Wenceslaus; but when this Prince did not afford any Cure to these Novelties, the Archbishop had recourse to Sigismond King of Hungary, who promised him that he would come quickly into Bohemia, to set in order the Affairs of the Church in that Kingdom; but before he could make this Journey Sbinko died in Hungary. Wenceslaus Advanced to his Place an Ignorant Man, Covetous, and Negligent, named Albicus, who never troubled himself about his Church, nor took any care to oppose the Hussites, but suffered them to continue their Sermons.  
The Bulls of John XXIII. Published at Prague, in 1412. against Laodislaus King of Naples, by which the Pope ordered a Crusade for making War with this Prince, and granted Indulgences to all those who should go to this War, furnished ample Matter to John Huss, who was now returned to Prague, who Declaimed against the Indulgences, the Croisades, and Confuted these Bulls. The Populace being animated by his Discourses, began to publish that John XXIII. was Antichrist; the Magistrates having caused some of the most Seditious to be apprehended, the Common People put themselves in Arms to deliver them, and the Magistrates had much ado to pacify them, by promising that no hurt should be done to the Prisoners. But they were so far from keeping their word, that they ordered them to be secretly Executed in the Judgment-Hall; and the Blood which ran out from the place of Execution, discovering the Massacre of these Men to the Common People, they took Arms again, carried off by force the Bodies of those who were put to death, Interred them Honourably in the Church of Bethlehem, and looked upon them as Martyrs.  
The Magistrates having a mind to publish their Reasons why they opposed the Doctrine of the Hussites, called together many Doctors of Divinity at Prague, who drew up a Censure of Forty Five Propositions of Wicklef, and put a Preface before it; wherein they assert the Authority of the Pope, the Cardinals, and the Church of Rome, and accuse the Hussites of Faction. It was about this time that John Huss wrote a great many Books and Discourses against the Censure of these Doctors, whom he calls Praetorians. He maintains some of the Articles which they had Condemned, viz. Those which concerned the Liberty of Preaching, the Power of Secular Princes over the Revenues of ecclesiastics, the voluntary payment of Tithes, and the forfeiture which Spiritual and Temporal Lords make of their Power, when they live in Mortal Sin.  
He wrote a Great Treatise about the Church, to confute the Preface of that Censure, wherein he maintains that the Church consists only of those who are predestinate; That Jesus Chest is the Head and Foundation of it; That the Pope and Cardinals are only Members of it, and that the other Prelates are Successors to the Apostles as well as they; That none is obliged to obey them, but when they Command what is agreeable to the Law of God, and not in things that are evil, or indifferent; That an Excommunication which is groundless does not bind at all. He answers also particularly the Writings of Stephen Paletz, of Stanislaus Zuoima, and of Eight other Doctors, who had written against the Censure▪ and caused a Writing to be fixed up upon the Church of Bethlehem, wherein he accuses the Clergy of Six Errors. First, Of believing that the Priest by saying Mass becomes the Creator of his Creator. Second, Of saying that we ought to believe in the Virgin, in a Pope, and in the Saints. Third, That the Priests can when they will, and when it pleases them, remit the pain and guilt of Sin. Fourth, That every one must obey his Superiors, whether they Command what is just, or unjust. Fifth, That every Excommunication, just, or unjust, binds the Excommunicate. Sixth, About Simony. He wrote two particular Pieces against the second of these pretended Errors; wherein he confesses that we must believe the Church, and the Saints; but maintains, that it cannot be said that we must believe in the Church, as 'tis said that we must believe in God, which was never affirmed by any Catholic. He insinuates in one of these two Pieces, that Confession to a Priest is not necessary. He wrote also at the same time three thick Volumes against the Clergy; the 1st, Entitled The Anatomy of the Members of Antichrist; the 2d, Of the Kingdom of the People, and the Life and Manners of Antichrist; the 3d, Of the Abomination of Priests, and Carnal Monks in the Church of Jesus Christ, and some other Tracts against Traditions, about the Unity of the Church, Evangelical perfection, the Mystery of Iniquity, and the Discovery of Antichrist. His heat and passion transport him against the Clergy in all these Pieces, and the same Principles and Errors are found in them.  
The Council of Constance being now appointed, the Pope and Emperor Invited John Huss to come thither, and give an account of his Doctrine; and that he might do it with all freedom, 
John Huss goes to the Council of Constance.  the Emperor granted him a safe Conduct, whereby he gave him leave to come freely to the Council, and return from it again. John Huss before his Departure out of P●ague, caused some Placarts to be fixed upon the Gates of the Churches in that City, wherein he declares that he went to the Council to answer all the Accusations that were made against him, and that he was ready to appear at the Court of Conrade Archbishop of Prague, to hear all those who had any thing to say against him, and to justify his Innocence. He demanded also of the Bishop of Nazaret the Inquisitor, whether he had any thing to propose against him, from whom he received a favourable Testimony; but when he presented himself at the Court of the Archbishop who had called an Assembly against him, he was denied admission. After this he parted from Prague, accompanied with the Lord Wences of Dunbar, and John of Chlum, to go to Constance; and through all the Cities as he went, he made public Declarations that he was going to the Council to justify himself, and to answer the Accusations that should be made against him; and exhorted all those who had any thing to say against him, to be there present. He arrived at Constance November the 3d, in the year 1414. His Adversary Stephen Paletz came thither a little time after; and having joined with Michael of Causis, who had formerly been a Parish-Priest at Prague, but went from thence to stay at the Court of Rome, they declared themselves to be his Accusers, and drew up a Memorial of his Errors, which they presented to the Pope, and Prelates of the Council.  
John Huss was Ordered twenty six days after his Arrival, to appear before the Pope, and 
The Process of John Huss, drawn up in the Council of Constance.  Cardinals; thither he went, accompanied with the Lord John of Chlum, and declared to them that he was ready to submit to their Correction, in case he should be Convicted of having taught any Error. The Cardinals afterwards retired to Consult what they should do with John Huss, and left him in the mean time under a strong Guard. The Result of their Consultation was, that he should be put in safe Custody; whereupon they told John of Chlum that he might withdraw, but as to John Huss, he was Conducted to the Chantry-House of the Church of Constance, where he was kept for Eight days, and from thence removed to the Prison of the Convent of Friars-Preachers, where he fell Sick. His Accusers presented a Petition to the Pope, containing the Heads of the Accusation which they had to propose against him, and desired that Commissioners might be named to draw up his Process. The Patriarch of Constantinople, and two Bishops were the Persons Commissioned, who heard many Witnesses against John Huss, and ordered his Books to be Examined. While this Process was drawing up, Pope John XXIII. retired from Constance, as we have already said, and his Officers who had the Charge of keeping John Huss followed him, and left the Keys of the Prison to the Emperor Sigismond, and the Cardinals, who delivered John Huss into the hands of the Bishop of Constance, by whose Order he was shut up in a Castle beyond the Rhine, near to Constance. The Council at this time in Session 5. April the 6th, in 1415. appointed the Cardinals of Cambray, and St. Mark, the Bishop of Dol, and the Abbot of the Cistercians, to finish the Process of John Huss, and renew the Condemnations which were passed against the Doctrine of Wicklef, especially that of the 45 Articles Censured by the University of Paris, and Prague; and in the next Session, held the 17th of the same Month, the Council joined to these Commissioners a Bishop for each Nation, and granted a Commission to Cite Jerom of Prague, the Companion and Friend of John Huss, who was next to him one of the principal Preachers of this new Doctrine. He had Traveled very much, and was admitted Master of Arts, not only in the University of Prague, but also in those of Paris, Collen, and Heidelberg, where he was accused of making disturbances. He had Traveled into England, where he had Copied out the Books of Wicklef, and returned into Prague, leven'd with his Doctrine, he combined with John Huss to propagate it. He arrived the 4th of April at Constance, and understanding how John Huss had been treated, and that he also would be seized, he retired the next day to Iberlingen, an Imperial City near Constance, and wrote from thence to the Emperor and Council to desire a safeconduct; one was presented to him, which gave him leave to come, but not to return. He caused a Protestation to be fixed up, wherein he declares that he would appear before the Council to justify himself, if a safe Conduct were granted him, and demands of the Lords of Bohemia an Act of his Declaration. After this he began his Journey to return into Bohemia; but he was stopped at Hirsau, by the Officers of John the Son of Prince Clement, Count Palatine, who had the Government of Sultzbach, and afterwards carried away to Constance, by Louis, the Son of the same Prince.  
The Council before they proceeded against the Persons of John Huss, and Jerom of Prague, 
The Condemnation of the Articles of Wickliff, by the Council of Constance.  in the 18th Session, held May 4. Condemned the 45 Articles of the Doctrine of Wickliff, which were Censured by the Universities of Paris, and Prague: The first 24 are the Propositions Censured by Simon Courtnay, Archbishop of Canterbury. The 25th, That all those who are obliged to Pray for such who entangle themselves with Temporal Affairs are Simoniacs. The 26th, That the Prayer of a Reprobate is of no value. The 27th, That all things happen by an Absolute Necessity. The 28th, That Confirmation, Ordination, and the Consecration of Churches are reserved to the Pope and Bishops from no other Motive but Covetousness and Ambition. The 29th, That Universities, Studies, Colleges, and Degrees were introduced only by a vain Superstition, and do as much mischief to the Church as the Devil. The 30th, That we ought not to fear the Excommunication of the Pope, because it is the Censure of Antichrist. The 31st, That those who found Cloisters commit a Sin, and those who enter into them are Diabolical Men. The 32d, That to Enrich the Church, is to act contrary to the Law of Jesus Christ. The 33d, That St. Sylvester and Constantine failed in Endowing the Church. The 34th, That all the Regulars of the Order of Mendicants are Heretics, and all those who give them Alms are Excommunicate. The 35th, That those who enter into Religious Houses, put themselves out of a capacity of working out their own Salvation, and that they shall never be Saved, unless they Apostatise. The 36th, That the Pope and all the Clergy who have Revenues are Heretics, as also all those who approve them. The 37th, That the Church of Rome is the Synagogue of Satan, and the Pope is not the immediate Vicar of Jesus Christ and the Apostles. The 38th, That the Decretal Epistles are Apocryphal, that they pervert Men from the Faith of Jesus Christ, and that the Clergy who study them are Fools. The 39th, That the Emperor, and Secular Princes were seduced by the Devil, when they Endowed the Church with Temporal Revenues. The 40th, That the Election of a Pope by the Cardinals, was introduced by the Devil. The 41st, That it is not necessary to Salvation, to believe that the Church of Rome is Supreme over all other Churches. This Article may be explained after the following manner; It is an Error if by the Roman Church be understood the Universal Church, or a General Council, and in as much as it denies the Primacy of the Pope over other particular Churches. The 42d, That 'tis a folly to give credit to the Indulgences of the Pope, and the Bishops. The 43d, That the Oaths which are made for the confirming of Civil Contracts and Matters of Commerce, are unlawful. The 44th. That Austin, Benedict, and Bernard are Damned, if they did not repent of receiving Revenues, and Instituting Religious Orders; and that all from the Pope down to the meanest of the Regulars are Heretics. The 45th, That it was the Devil who introduced all Religious Houses. The Council Condemned, together with these 45 Propositions, the Books of Wicklef, and forbade the Reading of 'em, declared him a Notorious and Obstinate Heretic, who died in Heresy, Anathamatized, and Condemned his Memory, Ordained that his Body and Bones should be dug up, if they could be distinguished, and thrown out of Holy-Ground.  
On the Fourteenth of the same Month, the Lords of Bohemia and Poland presented a Petition to the 
The Continuation of the Trocess against John Huss.  Emperor and Council, wherein they desired John Huss to be set at liberty, who had been Seized and Imprisoned contrary to the safe Conduct of his Imperial Majesty, and complained of a Report which was spread about, that in Bohemia the Blood of Jesus Christ was carried in Vessels Unconsecrated, and that Cobblers heard the Confessions of the Faithful, and Administered the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  
The Bishop of Litomissel perceiving that this Accusation concerned him, desired that he might have leave to answer for himself. The Council put off this Affair till the 17th of May, on which day a Bishop answered in the Name of the Council, that John Huss had no safe Conduct when he was first Summoned, that he had it not till after he had been Cited to Rome, and Excommunicated by Alexander V That he was a Ringleader of Heresy, and that he had Preached his wicked Doctrine even since his arrival at Constance, and therefore it was just to seize him. The Bishop of Litomissel said that it was certain the new Sectaries gave the Communion in Bohemia to the Laity in both kinds, and affirmed that 'twas necessary to Communicate after this manner; and that if the Clergy opposed it, they ought to be looked upon as Sacrilegious; that he knew also that the Blood of Jesus Christ was carried to the Sick in Unconsecrated Vessels, and that he had heard from Persons worthy of Credit, that a certain Woman of that Sect had taken the Communion by herself, and had said that the Absolution of a good Layman was of more value than that of a wicked Priest; moreover, that he had never said that the Cobblers did take Confessions, or Administer the Sacraments; but that it was to be feared this might come to pass, unless the Council provided a Remedy against it. Two days after, the Lords of Bohemia presented a Memorial to the Council, in Reply to the Answer which had been made to them on behalf of the Council; wherein they maintained that John Huss had a safe Conduct from the Emperor, from the 25th of July, of the preceding year; that it was none of his fault that he had not appeared at Rome, which he could not do without danger of his Life; and that it was not at all true that he had Preached at Constance, for he never went for one moment out of the Hospital where he was Lodged. They produced at the same time a Declaration which John Huss made the first of September, 1411. wherein he protests that he was falsely accused of teaching that the substance of material Bread remained in the Eucharist; that the Body of Jesus Christ is in the Host when it is elevated, and is not in it afterwards; that a Priest who lives in Mortal Sin does not Consecrate; that the Lords may take away the Temporal Revenues of Churches, and refuse to pay them Tithes; that Indulgences are of no use, that Clergymen may lawfully be killed, and some other Errors. The Council not making any Answer to the Bohemians, they presented to it a new Libel on the last day of May, wherein they declare that John Huss had many times protested that he would not departed from the Truth, nor teach any Error: They maintain that the Propositions which his Enemies had drawn out of his Books were mutilated and falsified, on purpose to put him to death; they prayed the Council to set him at liberty, that he might be heard for himself, and offered to give Bond for him: To this Libel they joined the Certificate of the Bishop of Nazaret. The Patriarch of Antioch answered in the Name of the Council, that they could not set John Huss at Liberty; but that on the 5th of June they would send for him to the Council, and permit him to speak for himself, and give him a favourable hearing. The Lords of Bohemia meeting with a refusal from the Council, addressed to Sigismond, but they could obtain nothing more from him.  
In the Congregation which was held June the 5th, it was Resolved, that before they sent for John Huss, the Articles drawn out of his Books should be Examined, and that they should be Condemned even without hearing him; but the Emperor upon the Request of the Lords of Bohemia, caused to tell the Prelates that they must hear him, before they Condemned him. Whereupon he was sent for, and was ordered to own his Books; and then the first of the Articles whereof he was accused was read unto him. He had a mind to defend himself, but he could not be heard that day. On the 7th of June the Emperor came to the Congregation of the Prelates, and John Huss being brought thither was accused of teaching, that the Substance of material Bread remained in the Eucharist after Consecration, which he constantly denied. 'Twas objected to 'em, That he had followed the Errors of Wicklef; to which he answered, That he had taught no Error, and that he knew not whether Wicklef had taught any in England; but that he did not oppose the Condemnation of the Books of Wicklef by the Archbishop of Prague, upon any other Account, but because he had condemned some Articles which he thought maintainable, viz. That Pope Sylvester and Constantine had done ill in granting Revenues to the Church; and that as to the Article which affirms, That a Priest being in mortal Sin, doth not Consecrate nor Baptise; he had limited it by saying, That he does Consecrate and Baptise, but unworthily, because being in mortal Sin, he is an unworthy Minister. of the Sacraments of Jesus Christ. He maintained also, That Tithes were Alms, tho' Men were obliged to give them. Lastly, he declared, That he had never obstinately maintained any of Wicklef's Propositions; but that he did not approve of condemning them without bringing Reasons for the Condemnation taken out of the Holy Scripture. Afterwards he related the difference which he had with his Archbishop, and how having appealed from his Sentence to Rome, and not being able to obtain Justice there, he had afterwards appealed to Jesus Christ. He confessed, That he had sometimes said, that he had some Hopes that John Wicklef was saved, and that he could wish his Soul were where his was; but he denied that he had stirred up the common People to take up Arms, or was the Cause of the Commotions in the Kingdom of Bohemia; and also that it was by any Fault of his that the Germane Nation had quitted the University of Prague. The Cardinal of Chambre and the Emperor, when they sent him back again to Prison, exhorted him to submit to the Decision of the Council, and not to persist obstinately in his Errors: He answered, That he took God to Witness, he was come to Constance upon no other design, but only to change his Opinion, if any one should make it appear to him that he was in an Error. The next Day he was brought again before the Assembly, and after they had read to him 89 Articles, which were said to be drawn out of his Books, they exhorted him to submit to the Council and abjure his Errors; he made answer, that there were many of these Propositions which he had never maintained, and that as to others, he was ready to explain his Opinion, and inform the Council of his Thoughts about them. After many Disputes he was sent back to Prison, and then a Resolution was taken to put him to Death by buming, if he did not retract.  
On the 7th of July, John Huss was conducted to the Place where the 15th Session of the 
The Condemnation of John Huss.  Council was held, and after the Bishop of Lody had made a Discourse about the Destruction of Heresies, the Proctor of the Council demanded that the Process against John Huss should be finished. The Errors of Wicklef's Doctrine were read, viz. about the real Presence and Transubstantion, about the Salvation of Infants dying without Baptism, about Confirmation and Confession made to Priests, about Marriage, about the Primacy of the Pope, about the Forfeiture of those who are in mortal Sin, of their Power and Rights; about the Unprofitableness of Religious Orders, the Liberty of paying Tithes or not, the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, of the Revenues of Churches, the absolute Necessity of Events, and about some other Questions more metaphysical. These Errors being condemned in the Council, 30 Propositions were read, drawn out of the Books of John Huss, which may be reduced to the following Dogmes, viz. That the Church does consist only of those who are predestinate, that the Pope is not the Head of the Roman Church, that Ministers who are not righteous and predestinate are no true Ministers, that Heretics ought not to be delivered up to the Secular Power, that Ecclesiastical Obedience is an Invention of Man, that all Priests have the Power to preach, and that Excommunication ought not to debar them from it. John Huss explained some of these Propositions, and defended many of 'em. Many other Articles of Accusation were also read, which were proved by Witnesses against him, and afterwards upon the Demand of the Proctor of the Council, his Books were condemned, and he was declared a manifest Heretic, convicted of having taught many Heresies and pernicious Errors; of having despised the Keys of the Church and Ecclesiastical Censures, of having seduced and given Scandal to the Faithful by his Obstinacy, and of having rashly appealed to the Tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ; and thus the Council having censured him for being obstinate and incorrigible, ordained that he should be deposed, degraded and delivered over to the Secular Power; which was presently put in Execution. The Bishops appointed by the Council stripped him of his Priestly Garments, degraded him, and having put upon his Head a Mitre of Paper, on which there were Devils painted with this Inscription, A Ringleader of Heresy, they delivered him up to the Emperor, who put him in the hands of the Duke of Bavaria. His Books were burnt at the Gate of the Church, and he was led to the Suburbs, was tied to a Stake and burned alive, persisting even until Death in his Errors. His Ashes were gathered together, and thrown into the Rhine.  
He wrote while he was in Prison some Treatises about the Commands of God, of the Lord's 
The Works of John Huss.  Prayer, of mortal Sin, of Marriage, of the Knowledge and Love of God, of the three Enemies of Man and the seven mortal Sins, of Repentance, and the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord; and some Days after he arrived at Constance, he drew up a little piece about the Communion in both kinds. He wrote also in Prison an Answer to the Propositions drawn out of his Books, which had been communicated to him, and prepared three Discourses; one about the Sufficiency of the Law of Jesus Christ, the other to explain his Faith about the last Articles of the Creed, and the third about Peace, and some▪ Letters to his Disciples in Bohemia. All these Treatises of John Huss, and other Acts which we have hithetto mentioned, are to be found in the first Tome of his Works, printed at Nuremberg, in 1558. The second contains a Harmony of the four Evangelists with Moral Notes, many Sermons, a Commentary upon the seven first Chapters of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, Commentaries upon the seven Canonical Epistles, and upon the 109 Psalms, and those which follow to the 119; a Piece against that Proposition, that a Priest is a Creator of the Creator, wherein he does nevertheless maintain Transubstantiation, as in all his other Works: But he pretends that it cannot be said, That the Priest is the Creator of the Body of Jesus Christ, because the Body of Jesus Christ exists before the Bread is changed into it: A Treatise of the Adoration of Images, wherein he maintains, that the Humanity of Jesus Christ ought not to be adored with the Worship of Latria, but only with the Worship of Hyperdoulia; and that the Images of Jesus Christ ought not at all to be adored, not only with the Worship of Latria, but even with an internal Worship, altho' we may bow the Knee, pray, set Wax Candles before the Images, and use before them any external Signs of Adoration, which belong to the thing which they represent.  
After John Huss was executed, Jerom of Prague being in Prison, was urged to abjure his Errors, which he consented to do; and being brought to the Council, he read in the 19th Session, 
The Retractation of Jerom of Prague.  held September 23, his Retractation, wherein he anathematised the Errors of Wicklef and John Huss, and protested, That he was in every thing of the same Sentiments with the Roman Church, the Holy Apostolic See, and the Holy Council; and professed that he would follow their Doctrine above all things, chief about the Keys, the Sacraments, the Orders, the Offices, and the Censures of the Church; about Indulgences, the Relics of Saints, Ecclesiastical Liberty, the Ceremonies, and every thing which concerned the Religion of Jesus Christ; and lastly, That he approved the Condemnation of the Articles which the Council prescribed, acknowledged that they were faithfully drawn out of the Books of John Huss, and that he was justly dondemned. He explained also his Opinion about the Reality of Universals, and the Faith of the blessed, and at last swore upon the Holy Gospels, That he would for ever adhere to the Faith of the Church, that he would for ever Anathematise those who opposed it, and that he submitted to all the Severity of the Canonical Penalties, and eternal Damnation, if he had or should teach a contrary Doctrine. But notwithstanding this Retractation, he was carried back to his Prison, and was presently accused of being insincere in making this Retractation, and of teaching still the same Errors: New Articles of Accusation were also brought against him, and it was proved, That it would be dangerous to let him go; insomuch that his Commissioners could not set him at Liberty, as they wished. He quickly repent also of his Abjuration, and of condemning John Huss; and having desired Audience of the Council, he was twice heard in the general Congregations held in the Month of May, 1416. in which One Hundred and Seven Heads of Accusation were proposed against him, to which he endeavoured to give an Answer; and lastly made a Discourse, wherein he declared, That he repent of this Retractation, and of having approved the Condemnation of John Huss and Wicklef. The Fathers of the Council being fully satisfied by his own Confession of his Relapse, sent for him to come the 21st Session, held May the 30th, wherein after the Bishop of Lody had made a Discourse, Jerom of Prague declared, That he still persisted in his last Retractation, but yet he professed to hold Transubstantiation; whereupon he was condemned as a Heretic relapsed, delivered over to the Secular Power, and led away to Death, which he endured with great Constancy.  
The News of the Death of John Huss was no sooner carried to Prague, but it stirred up the 
The Troubles and Wars in Bohemia.  Hussites to Sedition; who robbed the Palace of the Archbishop, and the Houses of the ecclesiastics, and massacred many Persons. The Nobility of Bohemia and Moravia being incensed by the Breach of Promise made to them, made a League among themselves, That they would never receive the Decrees of the Council, spoke aloud in defence of the Memory of John Huss and Jerom of Prague, and wrote Letters very fiercely upon that Subject to the Council; who wrote also back to them in their own Justification, and persuaded them, That John Huss and Jerom of Prague had been justly condemned: The Council also ordered a very great number to be cited of those who defended the Person and Doctrine of John Huss, against whom it pronounced the Sentence of Condemnation. Then it was, that the Sect of the Hussites begun to be divided into two parts; whereof one were called Calixtines, because the principal Point wherein they differed from the Church, was about the use of the Cup, whereas the other part denied Transubstantiation, and the real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and had many other Errors about the Sacraments, which last Party were called Thaborites. It was not long before they declared War against the Catholics; for having gathered together near 30000, they begun to rob and destroy the Churches, and to commit many Outrages. The City of Prague was not exempt from them; for they made themselves Masters of it, and massacred some of the Magistrates. In the mean time, King Wenceslaus died in 1418. and tho' after his Death the Kingdom of right belonged to the Emperor Sigismond; yet the Hussites set up against him the Famous Zisca, who having gathered together some Troops, and built him a strong place, which he named Thabor, obtained many Victories over the Emperor Sigismond, and made himself Master of all Bohemia. Zisca dying in 1424. the Sect was again divided into two Parties, whereof one still retained the Name of Thaborites, and the other took that of Orphelines; but however, they were divided among themselves, they were both united in the Ha●red which they bore to the Roman Church, and joined together when they consulted about fight against the Roman Catholics, whose Armies they defeated also twice, when they were under the Conduct of Cardinal Julian.  
The Pope and Emperor perceiving that it was not possible to reduce them by Force, resolved to try if they could bring 'em back into the Bosom of the Church, and to their Duty, by inviting 
A Deputation from the Bohemians to the Council of Basil.  them to the Council of Basil: The Emperor wrote to them about it, and the Council sent Deputies to invite them to come thither, with Promises of all kind of Safety and Liberty. These Advices when they arrived found them divided amongst themselves; for the Orphelines and the common People would have no Person sent thither, alleging the Example of John Huss and Jerom of Prague; but the Nobility thought it would be more expedient to send Deputies thither, that they might find out some means of allaying the Commotions in the Kingdom of Bohemia, and of restoring Peace there. The Council granted them a very ample safe Conduct, and they sent a solemn Deputation of 300 Persons, at the Head whereof were the Famous Captain Procopius, John Rocksana, a Priest and Disciple of Jacobel, Nicholas Galecus, a Thaborite, and Peter Pain, an Englishman. The Bohemians reduced their Pretensions to four Heads. First, That the Eucharist should be administered to the Laity in both kinds. Second, That the Word of God might be freely preached by those whom it belonged, i. e. by the Priests. Third, That the ecclesiastics should have no more Revenues, nor temporal Demesnes. Fourth, That public Crimes should be punished by the Magistrates. They declared in a public Letter, That they maintained no other Articles but these Four; That they were ready to defend them, and charged the Deputies to the Council not to departed from them. When they arrived there the Cardinal Julian made a fine Discourse to them about the Benefits of Peace, and exhorted them to submit to the Judgement of the Church: They answered, That they desired nothing more than Peace; That they had never despised the Church nor the Councils, but they had been unjustly condemned, and without being heard by the Council of Constance; That they maintained nothing but what was founded upon the Gospel; That they were come to give an Account of their Doctrine; That they desired to be heard publicly, and that the Laymen might have leave to speak as well as the ecclesiastics; they proposed afterwards four Articles, which they insisted upon, and chose four Persons to defend them. John Rocksana spoke upon the first Article about the Communion in both kinds, and John Ophragusa, a Dominican was made choice of by the Council to answer him; which he did in a Discourse that lasted eight Hours. Nicholas Galecus, a Thaborite, made a Discourse upon the Article of punishing public Crimes, wherein he maintained that the Crimes of ecclesiastics, and even their Disorders in Matters of Religion, aught to be punished by the Secular Magistrates; Giles Charliere, Dean of Chambre, answered him in a Discourse four Hours long. Ulric a Priest, among the Orphelines, maintained the Article about the Liberty of preaching; Henry Kalteisen, a Dominican of Colen, refuted him in a Discourse, wherein he enlarged about the Hierarchy. At last, Peter Pain an Englishman, undertook to prove, That it was unlawful for the Clergy to have Demains and temporal Revenues; John Polemar, Archdeacon of Bayeux, and Auditor of the Rota, made a Discourse to the contrary. These four Discourses of the Catholic Doctors, are inserted into the 12th Tome of the Councils; the Discourses of the Bohemians are to be met with in Manuscript. These Disputes begun in the Month of January, 1433. and lasted Fifty Days without any Success, for the Deputies of the Bohemians persisting in their Opinions returned back into Bohemia.  
The Council sent Deputies to them, to see if they could be brought to any Accommodation, who dealt with the Nobility, which thereby became suspected to the Thaborites and Orphelines. 
A Treaty of the Council with the Bohemians.  The Nobility on their part resolved to shake off the Yoke of Procopius and the Thaborites, against whom they made War, and chose for their General Alstion de Risenburgh; the Thaborites and Orphelines, were defeated in a great Battle, where Procopius was killed. After this Defeat the Emperor Sigismond was acknowledged for King of Bohemia, and the Deputies of the Council made a Treaty with the Bohemians; whereby it was agreed, That the Bohemians and the Moravians should be reunited to the Church, and should conform in every thing to its Rites, except as to Communion in both kinds, as to which Rite it was allowed, That those who had a Custom of communicating after this manner, might still preserve it: It was also agreed, That the Council should decide whether this Practice was according to a Divine Precept, and should regulate the Matter by a general Law, as they should think most convenient for the Benefit and Salvation of the Faithful; That if the Bohemians persisted afterwards in desiring to communicate in both kinds, they should send an Embassy to the Council, which should leave the Priests of Bohemia and Moravia at Liberty, to communicate in both kinds, such Persons as were come to the Age of Discretion, who desired it, provided they gave a public Advertisement to the common People, That the Flesh of Jesus Christ is not alone under the Species of Bread, nor the Blood alone under the Species of Wine, but that Jesus Christ is whole and entire under each Species. The Emperor agreed also to leave the Revenues of the Church, by way of Mortgage, in the Hands of those who were possessed of them, until they were redeemed for a valuable Consideration. The Bohemians granted leave to the Monks, and other exiled Persons, to return into their own Country; upon condition nevertheless, that the Monasteries which had been demolished should never be rebuilt. The Archbishopric of Prague was promised to Rocksana, and the Disposal of the Churches of Bohemia was left to the Pope, and Six Years were allowed to the Orphelines and Thaborites, to come in and accept of this Treaty, which was confirmed at Ratisbone, and perfectly concluded at Iglaw▪ Rocksana, with four other Priests promised in the Name of all the Clergy, who were of his Patty, to obey the Pope, and received Absolution from the Legates of the Council; but the same Day he gave the Communion publicly in both kinds to a Layman, which was pretended to be an Infraction of the Treaty, because he was in a strange Church; yet this Contest was hushed, for fear lest it should break the Peace.  
The Emperor Sigismond made his public Entry into Prague, in the Month of September, 1436. 
Sigismond is acknowledged in Bohemia.  Philbert, Bishop of C●nstance, and some other Prelates sent from Basil, restored the Usages and Ceremonics of the Roman Church in the Churches of Prague. Rocksana being frustrated of the Hope that was given him, that he should be made Archbishop of Prague, quickly renewed the Troubles; but he was forced to fly, and the Rebels were executed or dispersed. The Emperor Sigismond dying in 1437. Albert of Austria, who had espoused his Daughter, was declared King of Bohemia in spite of the Intrigues of the Empress Dovairiere, and of some of the Lords of Bohemia.  
While these things were transacted in Bohemia, the Council of Basil in the 30th Session, held 
The Decrees of the Councils about the Communion in both kinds.  the 22d of December, 1437. made a Decree concerning the Communion in both kinds; wherein it declares, That the Faithful, whether Laymen or Clergymen, who receive the Communion and do not consecrate, are not obliged by a Divine Command to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds; That it belongs to the Church which is governed by the Holy Spirit, and with which Jesus Christ will continue unto the end of the World, to regulate after what manner it ought to be administered to those who do not consecrate, as it shall judge most expedient, with respect to the Sacrifice and Salvation of the Faithful; That whether we communicate in one kind or in two, the Communion is useful to those who receive it; That we must not at all doubt but Jesus Christ is whole and entire in each kind; and lastly, That the Custom of giving the Communion to the Laity in one kind, was justly introduced by the Church, and by the Holy Fathers, has been observed for a long time, and approved by Divines and Canonists, which ought therefore to be esteemed a Law; and that it is not lawful for any Person to condemn it, or change it without the Authority of the Church.  
Albert of Austria lived but two Years after his Election, and when he died he left his Wife big with Child of Laodislaus. After his Death, the Bohemians chose for King Albert Duke of 
The State of Bohemia under the Successors of Sigismond.  Bavaria, who refused to accept of a Kingdom that did not belong to him, and exhorted them to acknowledge Laodislaus: Whereupon they addressed themselves to the Emperor Frederick, and offered him the Government either in his own Name, or as Tutor to the young Prince. The Emperor advised them to choose Governors until Laodislaus came to be of Age; and they chose Tascon and Mainard, whereof the former favoured Rocksana, and the latter was entirely a Catholic. The Death of the former was the Cause of the Ruin of the latter; for the Complices of Rocksana not being able to endure him, chose George Pogebrac for their Captain, who made himself Master of Prague, shut up Mainard in the Citadel, where he died, and remained sole Governor of the Kingdom of Bohemia even after Laodislaus had taken Possession of it, and he succeeded this Prince, who died in 1458 at the Age of Nineteen Years. He banished the Thaborites, to whom Rocksana was no less an Enemy than the Catholics themselves; but he maintained the Usage of communicating in both kinds, which became common in the greatest part of the Churches of Bohemia, tho' that Precaution was not observed of advertising the People, that there was no Necessity of this Usage. The Cardinal's Carvasal and Aeneas Silvius, Legates in Bohemia, used all their Efforts to abolish this Practice, but in vain; for Pogebrac and Rocksana maintained it, which gave occasion to Pope Paul II. to proceed against Pogebrac, declare him a Heretic, and to give away his Kingdom to Mathias King of Hungary; who after he had made War for some time against him, made Peace with him, and left him in peaceable Possession of his Kingdom in spite of the Emperor and the Pope. Although Pogebrac and Rocksana had totally ruined the Thaborites, yet there remained many Persons who were tinctured with their Principles, that separated from the Calixtines, and made a new Sect under the Name of The Brethren of Bohemia. When they declared themselves openly, they had for their Captain a Cordwainer named Kelesisky, who drew up for them a Form of Faith; and for their Pastor, one named Mathias Convaldus; they rebaptized all those who were admitted into their Sect, they explained themselves darkly about the real Presence, refused to adore Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and were mortal Enemies to the Clergy and the Roman Church; insomuch, That they made no great Scruple of joining with the Lutherans and Calvinists, as we shall hereafter declare.   

CHAP. VIII.  
An History of the Errors Published and Condemned in the Fifteenth Century, Chief by the Faculty of Theology at Paris; all whose Censares are here Related.  
WE shall now give you an Historical Account of the Errors that were Censured in the Fifteenth Century, by the Sentence given-against John Monteson a Dominican, and against those of his Order, by the Faculty of Theology at Paris. For tho' this Affair was begun in the preceding Century, yet it was not ended till the beginning of this, whereof here follows the Relation.  
John Monteson, a Catalonian, of the Order of Friars-Preachers, Doctor of Divinity of the 
A Censure of the Errors of John Monteson, a Friar Preacher.  Faculty at Paris, advanced in 1387. many Erroneous Propositions in his Acts De Vesperiis, and de Resompta, and in his public Lectures. The Faculty of Theology being certainly informed of this, appointed three Deputies who were Seculars, and three who were Regulars, to Examine the 
* i e. a Parcel of Paper consisting of 3 or 4 sheets.  Ca●ire from whence they were extracted, but these being unwilling to make their Report, unless there were a greater number of Deputies, the Faculty appointed Six more who gave their Opinion in Writing; whereupon the Faculty being assembled July the 6th of the same year, Condemned the 14 following Propositions, and declared that this Regular aught to retract them. 1st, That the Hypostatical Union in Jesus Christ is greater than the Union of the three Persons in the Essence of God. 2. That it was possible he should be a mere Creature, who could merit for himself and all others after the same manner as the Soul of Jesus Christ did, by the assistance of habitual Grace; tho' it was not at all possible that he could Redeem and Save Man with the same Convenience and Sufficiency as Jesus Christ. 3. That a pure Rational Creature cannot really see the Essence of God as the Blessed do. 4. That 'tis possible there should be a mere Creature more perfect than the Soul of Jesus Christ as to merit, such as was the Grace of the Soul of Jesus Christ. 5. That such a Creature if he were in the World, would be above all kinds of Creatures. 6. That it is not a Doctrine contrary to the Faith, to suppose it absolutely necessary that any Creature should exist. 7. That a thing may exist necessarily, and yet be produced by a Cause. 8th, That 'tis more agreeable to the Faith to say that some other thing is absolutely necessary, besides the first Being, than to say without Exception that he is the only necessary Being. 9th, That 'tis a Heresy to affirm that a Proposition contrary to Scripture may be true; (this Proposition is not Condemned, but only so far as it is meant universally of all Propositions which are contrary to Scripture, tho' this contrariety be not evident.) 10th, That it is expressly contrary to Faith, to say that every Man except Jesus Christ did not contract the guilt of Original Sin. The Faculty Ordained that this Proposition should be retracted as false, scandalous, offensive to Pious Ears, and presumptuously advanced, notwithstanding the probability of the Affirmative in that Question, viz. Whether the Blessed Virgin was Conceived in Original Sin? The 11th, That 'tis expressly contrary to Faith, to say that the Blessed Virgin Mary Mother of God did not contract the guilt of Original Sin. 12th, That it was as much contrary to Scripture to say that one Person only was exempt from Original Sin, as Jesus Christ was, as to except ten. 13th, That 'tis more expressly contrary to Scripture, to say that the blessed Virgin was not conceived in Original Sin, than to affirm that she was Blessed and Victorious in the Instant of her Conception and Sanctification. 14th, That in the explication of Holy Scripture, whether the Church define a Matter, or the Doctors explain it, or some exception be deduced about it, we must not draw any Decision, Declaration, or Exception, but only from the Scripture itself. The Faculty declared that this Proposition ought to be retracted as false and erroneous, if the meaning of it be, that the Exposition or Exception ought to be found expressly, or explicitly in Scripture; and that there are many general Propositions in Scripture which have Exceptions that are not expressly set down therein, whereof they give for an Example the following Propositions: Every thing which enters into the mouth is cast forth; all Men from the highest to the lowest are addicted to Covetousness; no Man hath ascended into Heaven, but the Son of God who came down from it; if we say that we have no Sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. The Faculty observes afterwards, that this Rule is prejudicial to the Decisions and Usages of the Catholic Church, because in the Primitive Church there were many explications of Scripture by Revelation, or by the Inspiration of God, and by the Information of the Apostles. John Monteson was acquainted with this Censure by the Dean of the Faculty, and Charitably admonished to retract these Propositions; but instead of doing it, as he had promised, he protested that he would defend them till death. Then the Faculty of Theology accused him to the University, which approved the Sentence of the Faculty, and presented it to the Bishop of Paris (Peter Orgemont) who being the ordinary Judge in such Matters, ordered John Monteson to be Cited, who not appearing, he published a Sentence on the 23d of August, wherein he forbids under pain of Excommunication, Ipso Facto, to maintain or teach the Propositions which had been Condemned, and ordains that John Monteson should be taken up, Arrested, and clapped up in Prison, with the assistance of the Secular Power, if it were necessary.  
Monteson appealed from this Sentence, and from the Decision of the Faculty, to Pope Clement 
The Appeal of John Monteson.  VII. who Resided at Avignon, and went to that City to maintain his Appeal. The University sent thither on their behalf for Deputies, Peter of Ailly, Giles of Champs, and John of Neuville, Doctors of Divinity, together with Peter of Alinville Doctor of the Canon-Law. After this Affair had been debated in many Consistories, in presence of the Pope and the Cardinals, (in one of which Peter Ailly made a Discourse which was very acceptable to the Pope, in defence of the Cause of the University) the Cardinal of Embrun in the Name of the Pope, forbade Monteson to absent from the Court of Rome until his Affair was determined by the decision 
John Monteson Condemned by the Pope.  of the Holy-See; but notwithstanding this Prohibition, Monteson foreseeing that the Event would not be favourable to him, and that this Prohibition was made for no other end but to seize him, and send him back to Paris to make his Retractation there, as the Deputies of the University should require of him, he retired secretly from Avignon, and went into Arragon, where he embraced the Obedience of Urban VI and wrote in his favour against Clement. After his departure, this Pope appointed Guy the Cardinal of Palestrina, the Cardinal of St. Sixtus, and Amelius Cardinal by the Title of St. Eusebe, to judge of this Affair, and ordered them to make a Process against Monteson. They caused to search for him in the place where he Lodged at Avignon, and having learned by the Search which was made, that he went from thence August the 3d, in 1388. they caused him to be Summoned by public Placarts, Sentenced him as Contumacious, and declared him Excommunicate; they ordained also that this Excommunication should be solemnly published, and Excommunicated those who should hold any Correspondence with him. The Sentence of these Cardinals is dated January 27. in 1389. and was thundered out against him at Paris the 17th of March following.  
While these things were Transacted at Avignon, the University of Paris being highly offended 
The Retractations of the Bishop of Eureux, and many Dominicans.  with the Behaviour of John Monteson, and his Superiors who protected him, and of other Dominicans who publicly approved his Opinion, obliged many amongst them to retract the Propositions which they had advanced against the Belief of the Immaculate Conception, and in defence of the Doctrine of John Monteson. We have many of these Retractations in the Registers of the Faculty of Divinity at Paris. The most Remarkable is that which was made by William Valon Bishop of Eureux, and Confessor to the King, in the presence of his Majesty, the Deputies of the University, and the Chancellor of the Church of Paris, on the 21st of February, in 1388 where he retracted what he had said in favour of the Doctrine of John Monteson. After this follow the Retractations of John of St. Thomas, on the 21st of March in the same year; of Friar Adam of Soissons, on the 16th of May, in 1389. of Richard Mary in the same year; of John Adam in the Month of August; of Peter Chancey in the Month of October, and of John Nicholas in the Month of September of the same year. All these Friars-Preachers were obliged to retract the Propositions they had advanced, or other public Discourses against the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, and against the Feast of the Conception.  
The Common People were no less Scandalised at the Doctrine of the Dominicans than the Divines, and conceived so great a hatred against them, that they durst hardly appear in public. At last, when the Confirmation of the Condemnation of Monteson was obtained from the Pope, the University made a Decree, wherein they exclude from their Society all those who would not Swear to maintain the Condemnation of the Errors of Monteson, and Ordained that for the future those who would take any Degrees, should take the same Oath.  
The Dominicans being persuaded that this Censure impeached the Doctrine of St. Thomas, would not take this Oath, and therefore were excluded from the Faculty, which rendered them 
The Dominicans excluded from the University.  so odious, that after this they were not admitted to Preach, nor to take any Confessions, nor do any other Office; and the Common People did not only refuse to give them their usual Alms, but also abused and persecuted them. The Dominicans to allay this Storm, had recourse to the Pope, and in their general Chapter held in the Province of Tholouse, in 1389. they appointed ten Doctors of their Order to go and maintain the Cause of St. Thomas at the Pope's Court against the University of Paris, who should be maintained at the expense of the Regulars of their Order, who should all contribute towards it; viz. the Doctors 20 Sous, and the other Regulars 10 Sous, as is to be seen in the Original Instrument, which is in the hands of Monsieur Baluzius.  
The University at this time caused a Treatise to be written in its own defence, which is at 
A Treatise of the University in its own defence.  the end of the Master of the Sentences; wherein they undertake to prove, 1st, That the Faculty of Theology, and the Bishop of Paris, have not exceeded their Power in Condemning the Propositions of John Monteson. 2dly, That these Propositions are justly Condemned. 3dly, That the Doctrine of St. Thomas was not approved by the Church after such a manner, that the Approbation could hinder the Execution of the Sentence given by the Bishop of Paris.  
As to the first Point, the Faculty distinguishes two sorts of Approbations or Condemnations of Error; the one Doctrinal and Scholastical, and the other Authoritative and Judicial; and divides this latter into Sovereign and Inferior. This distinction being supposed, it lays down the following Conclusions. 1st. That it belongs to the Holy Apostolic See to define Matters which concern the Faith, by a Supreme Judicial Authority. 2d, That it belongs to the Bishops to decide them by the same Authority, but which is Inferior and Subordinate. 3d, That it belongs to Divines to give a Doctrinal Judgement upon these Matters, since it is their Duty to teach the Holy Scripture, and to make use of it for rejecting Heretical Opinions, and approving Catholic Truths. 4th, That the Bishop and the Faculty of Theology may jointly or severally Condemn Heretical and Erroneous Propositions, after the manner which has been now explained. 5th, That the Condemnation which is passed by the Faculty, may be even judicial with respect to its Members. 6th, That the Superior Judge ought not to hinder the Bishop nor the Faculty to proceed to some Condemnation, unless it be in a Cause very favourable, nor to delay till the Appeal is made before him, without mature deliberation. From these Conclusions they draw the following Inferences. First, That the Faculty of Theology may Condemn the Errors of Monteson Doctrinally. Secondly, That this Faculty being joined to the other 3 Faculties, may pronounce this Sentence before the Bishop of Paris the ordinary Judge. Thirdly, That the Faculty of Theology may forbid these Propositions to be maintained and taught in their Schools, and the Bishop of Paris may order the same prohibition in his Diocese. Afterwards they answer an Objection, which the Dominicans made, that some of the Propositions of Monteson were taken out of St. Thomas, whose Doctrine had been formerly Condemned by the Faculty of Divinity at Paris, but was maintained by Stephen Bishop of Paris, and approved by Urban V in his Bull to the University of Tholouse, wherein he ordains that the Doctrine of St. Thomas shall be followed by all Divines. They add, that it belongs only to the Holy See to Decide, Condemn, and approve in Matters of Faith. To this the Faculty answers, that they always protested their Intention never was to Condemn the Doctrine of St. Thomas, which was very different from the Propositions of Monteson, tho' it could not be concluded from the Bull of Urban V that it was approved in all things, and there were many Propositions in his Works which might be accused of Error.  
As to the Second Point, which concerns the Propositions Condemned, the Faculty observes in the first place, that tho' a good sense may be put upon a Proposition, yet it may be Condemned, as that which ought to be retracted upon the Account of a bad sense. After this they relate the 14 Propositions which are Censured, and the Qualifications which signify upon whom the Condemnation falls, and refer them to a Treatise which was written by Peter of Ailly to maintain the Censure.  
As to the Third Point, the Faculty remarks that a Doctrine may be approved by the Church 3 ways. 1. As useful, probable, and common amongst Scholastic Divines. 2. As a Doctrine which every one is obliged to believe to be true in all its parts. 3. As a Doctrine which is neither Erroneous nor Heretical in any part: For, add they, there are many Propositions false which do not concern the Faith, and do not bring a Man into a damnable Error, which cannot be accused of Heresy because that implies a corruption of the Christian Faith. The Doctrine approud in the first way may contain Falsities, and even Errors, which is therefore more common and ordinary; besides this, an Approbation may be either express, or tacit, a Toleration or an Owning. These Principles being supposed, the Faculty maintains, that the Doctrine of St. Thomas was approved only in the first sense, and not in the two other senses, and that it contains Contradictions and Errors in matters of Faith, whereof they bring Examples taken out of his Works; and they also produce other instances of many Saints, and many Authors who fell into some Errors, viz. St. Peter, St. Cyprian, St. Jerom, the Master of the Sentences, Gratian, St. Anselm, Hugo de Sancto Victore, and some others, whose Doctrines they affirm to be held in greater veneration than that of St. Thomas. They maintain particularly that the Doctrine of St. Thomas about the absolute necessity of some Creatures, is Erroneous, or at least suspected of Error, and refuted by many Reasons.  
They observe also that he is too much addicted to apply Principles of Philosophy, and Sentences of Philosophers to Conclusions of Divinity, wherein he does ill; for, say they, Divines ought not to speak as Philosophers do, as St. Austin remarks in the 10th Book of the City of God, Chap. 23. in these words: Philosophers do freely make use of what terms they please, and are not at all afraid to offend Religious Ears about such things as are very difficult to comprehend; but as to us we must not speak but according to a certain Rule, for fear lest the liberty which we take of using some terms as we please, should convey an Opinion of the things themselves, which is disagreeable to Piety.  
We do not find that the Dominicans obtained of the Court of Rome any Decision in their Favour; 
The Restoration of the Dominicans.  but on the contrary, we see that to put a stop to the Persecution which they endured, they were obliged to Celebrate in France the Conception of the Virgin as others did, and no longer to maintain publicly that she was Conceived in Sin, but to be silent as to that Question. By observing this Conduct they procured their own Repose, and were restored to their Functions; but they remained still excluded from the Faculty for the space of 25 years, because they would not take an Oath to approve the Condemnation of the Propositions of Monteson, until at last the Faculty admitted them upon the importunate Request of the King, August 21. in 1403. upon Condition that they should Renounce the Appeal they had made from the Decree of the Faculty, and that those who were admitted into the Faculty should promise for the future to obey this Decree of the Faculty.  
The Affairs of John Petit made no less noise in the University of Paris than that of Monteson; 
The Process of John Petit, and his Condemnation.  this Doctor in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, undertook to maintain the Action of John Duke of Burgundy, who had caused the Duke of Orleans to be Assassinated, and wrote upon this Subject a Treatise entitled, The Justification of the Duke of Burgundy, wherein he maintains that it was lawful for a private Person to put a Tyrant to death. This Book being for some time sheltered from Censure by the Power of the Duke of Burgundy, was at last Censured in 1414. by the Faculty of Theology, at the instance of John Gerson, and Condemned by Gerard Montague Bishop of Paris, and John Polet the Inquisitor. The Censure of the Faculty is to be met with among the Works of Gerson; it contains 9 Propositions, with convenient Qualifications, whereof the 7 first concern the point in question; that 'tis lawful to kill Tyrants, and that those who do it, do not only deserve to be exempt from any Punishment, but aught also to be Rewarded. The Eighth Proposition which is Condemned as Erroneous is this, That to observe always the literal sense of Scripture is to kill a Man's own Soul. The 10th, which is Condemned as Erroneous and Seditious is this, that no Man is bound to observe that Alliance or Oath which he has made, when it happens that this Oath or Alliance is contrary to the welfare of his Spouse or Children who made them. The Bishop and Inquisitor by one and the same Sentence did jointly Condemn the Doctrine of John Petit as Erroneous in Faith, and good Manners, and as Scandalous; they Ordained that the Copies of his Book should be brought to them, and forbade any to maintain or teach such Propositions. This Sentence is dated February 23. in 1413. according to the Style of the Gallican-Church; i. e. according to our ●way of Reckoning in 1414. It was Published the 25th of the same Month, and the Propositions of John Petit were publicly burnt. The King on the 16th of March of the same year, published Letters Patent directed to his Parliaments, wherein he confirms the Sentence of the Bishop of Paris and the Inquisitor, and Ordains that they should cause it to be entered in their Registers, and to be executed; but it was not entered in the Register of the Parliament of Paris, till the 4th of June, in 1416.  
The Duke of Burgundy appealed from this Sentence to Pope John XXIII. who appointed three Cardinals to Examine it, whose Opinion was that it was null; but Gerson carried this Affair to the Council of Constance. The Duke of Burgundy wrote to 'em upon this Occasion, and demanded that nothing should be done against the Book of John Petit but in the presence of his Ambassadors. Martin Porree Bishop of Arras objected to Gerson that he had not faithfully extracted the Propositions out of the Book of John Petit, and that he did not take them in the sense of the Author.  
The Council appointed Deputies to examine this Affair, which was warmly debated on both sides; and at last in the 15th Session of the Council held July the 6th, in 1415. the Proposition 
The Condemnation of the Errors of John Petit, in the Council of Constance.  of John Petit, that 'tis Lawful and even Meritorious for a Vassal or Subject to kill a Tyrant, was Condemned as Heretical and Scandalous, without naming the Author, but only declaring in General that those who should defend it obstinately should be reputed Heretics, and punished as such. The Duke of Burgundy sent to Paris John Montleon his Almoner, to engage the University, or at least the Nation of Picardy, to pray the Dauphin that he would write to the Council a Letter Condemning the Conduct of Gerson in this Affair, as having forged a Proposition which was none of John Petit's. Gerson on his part sent a Declaration to the University of Paris, against all those who should hinder the Duke of Burgundy from acknowledging publicly that he had committed a Crime, by causing the Duke of Orleans to be Assassinated.  
The Faculty of Theology at Paris passed also in this Century many other doctrinal Censures.  
From the year 1389. they had declared by their Conclusion dated September the 19th, against many Propositions of the Magical Art, wherein Compacts made with the Devil are excused, 
A Censure in 1389. against some Propositions of the Magical Art. A Conclusion of the Faculty in 1408. about the Blood of Jesus Christ. A Censure of the Errors of John Gorel about the Hierarchy.  and the Superstitions of that detestable Art, to which a notable Virtue and Efficacy is attributed.  
In 1408. the same Faculty Consulted about a Question moved in the Diocese of Saintes, whether we may believe that some of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed upon the Cross was still remaining upon Earth? To which they answered May 28. that this Opinion was no ways contrary to Piety.  
In the same year the Faculty Condemned 5 Propositions advanced by Friar John Gorel of the Order of Friars Minors, Licentiate in Divinity, and obliged him to retract them. These Propositions are, First, That the Sacrament of Penance does no ways operate by its own virtue in him who has Grace, because the principal effect of that Sacrament concerns only the Remission of Sins. Secondly, That he who has rightly confessed, can no ways be obliged to confess a second time. Thirdly, That it no ways belongs to Parish-Priests as Parish-Priests, to Preach, take Confessions, give Extreme Unction, and to Bury, nor to receive Tithes, because they were not Instituted by Jesus Christ, nor the Primitive Church. Fourthly, That it agrees more essentially and naturally to Regulars than to Parish-Priests to Preach. Fifthly, That Parish-Priests who have any other means to live upon cannot receive Tithes. The Faculty Condemns these Propositions, and declares that Parish-Priests are Prelates and Hierarches of an Inferior Order, to whom the Right belongs of hearing Confessions, and of Administering the Sacraments, which agrees to the Regulars only by accident.  
In 1426. on the Month of October the same Faculty having Consulted about the Obligation and 
A Conclusion of the Faculty in 1426. about the Celebration of Sunday.  Manner of observing Sundays, and Festivals, ordered Giles Charlier to draw up a Writing, wherein they lay down certain and solid Principles about the Celebration of Sundays, and decide, 1st, That every Man is obliged to set apart some time, which ought to be particularly and only employed in worshipping God; 2dly, That this time under the old Law, was Saturday; 3dly, That the Obligation to observe Saturday, was not a Law purely positive, and ceremonial, but also moral and natural; That the Observation of Sunday succeeded under the new Law to that of the Sabbath; 5thly, That we ought to attend the Service of God on Sundays and Festivals; 6thly, That we may on Sunday do such Works as are Liberal, both Spiritual and Corporal, which concern the Service of God or Charity towards our Neighbour; 7thly, That we ought to abstain from servile Works, of which there are three sorts; first, Sin; secondly, the Service which we pay to another Man; thirdly, every Employment or Action which hinders us from applying ourselves to the Service of God, without reckoning the Works which concern that Service; 8thly, That these last Works are always lawful; 9thly, That it is more criminal to sin on Sunday than on another Day; 10thly, That no Man is obliged to abstain from these servile Works, which are necessary for the Preservation of the Body, as the dressing of Meat, a Man's defending himself when he is attacked, and in danger of his Life; 11thly, That these servile Works, whose end is temporal Gain, are unlawful on Sundays and Festivals; 12thly, That 'tis not lawful on these Days to keep Markets for such things as are not necessary to Life, and chief during the time of Divine Service; 13th, That one may buy and sell the Necessaries of Life on these Days; 14th, That when there is some Necessity, a Dispensation may be granted for labouring on Sundays; 15th, That this Necessity cannot be described by a general Rule, but in these Cases we must have Recourse to the Judgement of a wise and good Man; 16th, That those who have a mind to abstain on these Days, from buying, selling, and doing such things as are even necessary to Life, ought not to be dissuaded from it; 17th, That the Transgression of this Command is very criminal.  
A Regular of the Order of Friars Minors, called Peter Chonac, having advanced and preached 
The Satisfaction of Peter Chonac to the Faculty. A Censure of the Errors of Sarrazin, concerning the Hierarchy, in 1430.  some erroneous Propositions, and spoke some Words prejudicial to the Faculty, was obliged to make Satisfaction in 1428.  
In 1429, John Sarrazin, Licentiate in Theology, of the Order of Friars Preachers, was delated to the Faculty, and accused of having advanced, in his Act de Vesperiis, Eight Propositions concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, contrary to the Doctrine of the Faculty, viz. 1st, That all the Powers of Jurisdiction in the Church, which are different from that of the Pope, are from the Pope in their Institution and Collation; 2dly, That these Powers are not of Divine Right, nor instituted by God immediately; 3dly, That Jesus Christ says nothing of these Powers, but only of the Supreme, to which he entrusted the founding of his Church; 4thly, That when any thing is decreed in a Council, all the Authority which gives force to its Decrees, resides only in the Pope; 5thly, That there is no Text in the Gospel, by which it expressly appears, That the Power of Jurisdiction was granted to any other Apostle but St. Peter; 6thly, That it is repugnant in some manner to Truth, to affirm that the Power of Jurisdiction in Inferior Prelates, whether Bishops or Parish-Priests, is immediately from God as the Power of the Pope is; 7thly, That no other Spiritual Authorities can do any thing of Right against the Pope; 8thly, That the Pope cannot commit Canonical Simony, which is forbidden by a positive Law. The Faculty having caused these Propositions to be examined by Deputies, obliged Sarrazin to retract them publicly, and to make Profession of eight Propositions contrary to them, wherein he owns, 1st, That all the Powers of Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions, which are different from that of the Pope, are from Jesus Christ as to their first Institution and Collation, and from the Pope and the Church, as to their Limitation and Ministerial Dispensation; 2dly, That these Powers are of Divine Right, instituted immediately by Jesus Christ; 3dly, That we find in Scripture, that Jesus Christ founded his Church, and expressly instituted other Powers besides that of the Pope; 4thly, That when any thing is decided in a Council, the Authority which gives force to its Decrees, does not reside only in the Pope, but chief in the Holy Spirit and the Catholic Church; 5thly, That there are express Texts in the Gospel, by which it appears, That Jesus Christ has given his Apostles and Disciples an Authority of Jurisdiction; 6thly, That 'tis agreeable to Evangelical and Apostolical Truth, to affirm, That the Power of Jurisdiction in inferior Prelates, whether Bishops or Parish-Priests, is immediately from God; 7thly, That there is a Power, viz. That of the Church, which can do something of Right in certain Cases against the Pope; 8thly, That every Man, in this Life, having the Use of Reason, of whatsoever Dignity, Authority and Pre-eminence, even the Pope himself, may commit the Crime of Simony. This Retractation was spoken by Sarrazin, in an Assembly of the Faculty, March the 30th, 1429. according to the way of reckoning in France at that time, i. e. in 1430.  
In 1432. The Faculty was consulted in the Name of the Bishop of Eureux, and the Inquisitor 
A Censure of a Proposition about the Admonitions of Bishops.  of that Diocese, about a Proposition which one had advanced, That the Admonitions of Bishops are Abuses, and it declared by its Conclusion, dated May the 16th, That this Proposition was reproachful, presumptuous, rash, scandalous, tending to Sedition and Rebellion, and to weaken the Ecclesiastical Censures, contrary to the Doctrine of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, and favourable to some Errors condemned in the Council of Constance.  
In 1442. Nicholas Quadrigarii, a Doctor of Divinity, of the Order of Friars Hermit's of 
A Censure of the Errors of Quadrigarii and Augustin.  St. Austin, having advanced in his Act de Vesperiis, two Propositions; 1st, That every thing which happens by Divine Providence, comes to pass necessarily; the other, That there is no other Power of Jurisdiction in the Church but the Pope's, which is immediately from Jesus Christ, was obliged by the Order of the Faculty, to retract these two Propositions on the 9th of January, and to make Profession of the contrary Doctrine.  
In 1448. a Regular of the Order of Friars Minors, having advanced in the Diocese of Tournay, 
A Censure of the Propositions of a Friar Minor about the Hierarchy, in 1448. A Censure in 1451. against the Propositions of John Bartholomew, a Friar Minor, contrary to the Rites of Parish Priests.  many Propositions contrary to the Rights of Parish-Priests, like those which had been formerly advanced in 1429. by John Sarrazin; the Grand Vicars of the Bishop addressed themselves to Giles Charlier, who wrote a piece to refute them, which is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, in the Censure against Sarrazin.  
In 1451. John Bartholomew, of the Order of Friars Minors, advanced at Rouen in his Sermons many Propositions contrary to the Rights of Parish-Priests, chief about Confession; viz. That the Parishioners may freely confess themselves to Regulars Mendicants, without ask leave of the Parish-Priests: Whereupon the Proctor of the Archbishopric caused an Information to be drawn up against him, and the Affair being brought before the University of Paris, this Regular appeared in the Assembly of the University December the 4th, and refusing to own that the Parishioners were obliged to confess themselves once a Year to their Parish Priests; it was resolved, That the Degree of a Licentiate should be denied him, and that the deciding of the Question should be referred to the Faculties of Theology and Law.  
In 1456. this Question was started again with some Warmth in the University, upon occasion 
The Differences of the University with Regulars Mendicants, about a Bull of privilege which they had obtaimed.  of a Bull obtained from Pope Nicholas V by the Mendicants, who gave them leave to take Confessions, to the prejudice of the Right of Parish-Priests, established by the Canon Omnis utriusque Sexus; and also, by Order of the Clementine Dudum. The University understanding that it had been presented to the Official of Paris by some Regulars Carmelites, interposed an Appeal, and cited the Mendicants to appear on Monday, May the 24th, to declare to them, That they should be excluded from the University, unless they renounced the obtaining of that Bull, and would promise to obtain the Revocation of it within a certain time. The Mendicants having appeared, and refusing to do it, the University declared them perjured and excluded from their Society.  
The Mendicants instead of procuring the Revocation of that Bull, addressed themselves to Pope Callistus; complained of the Treatment they met with from the University, and obtained of him a Bull, which confirmed that of Nicholas V and nulled all that the University had done against them. Notwithstanding this, the University continued firm, and the Mendicants were obliged to seek out some ways of Accommodation; the Archbishop of Rheims, the Bishop of Paris, and the Parliament concerned themselves in the Affair. At first it was proposed, That the Mendicants should declare they pretended not to acquire any new Right by this Bull: But this Proposal appeared to be captious, and was not at all accepted. Several other means were afterwards proposed, which were also rejected, and none but one was accepted, viz. That the Mendicants should refer the Examination of this Bull to a future Council; and that in the mean time, they should adhere to the Definition of the Council of Lateran, and the Doctrine of the Gallican Church; but the Mendicants refused to submit to this Condition. In the Month of September, Pope Calistus granted a Bull wherein, for promoting Peace, he revokes all the Privileges granted to the prejudice of the Clementine Dudum, which he order all to observe. This Bull was sent to the University, and read in the Assembly held February the 3d, in 1457. At last the Mendicants resolved to submit in order to their Restauration, and interposed the Authority of Prince Artus of Brittainy, Count of Richmont, Constable of France, who came with the Archbishop of Rheims, and the Bishop of Paris, to the Assembly of the University, which was held the 18th of that Month; where it was proposed, That in order to the restoring of Peace to the University, the Bull in question should remain in the hands of the Bishop of Paris; and that the Regulars Mendicants should be readmitted into the University, as they were before this Contest, upon Condition that they would obey the Bull of Calistus III. which had revoked that of Nicholas V The Prior of the Dominicans demanded this in the Name of all the rest; but because he had not done it with Submission enough, the Constable was obliged to bring the Regulars back into the Assembly, and to cause them to make a most humble Supplication by the Mouth of the Prior of the Augustins; after which they were admitted, upon Condition that they should never make use of that Bull which remained in the Hands of the Bishop of Paris, That they would obey the Bull revocatory, and cause it to be approved within a Year by their Generals; and that they would no more, for the future, obtain such Bulls under pain of the same Exclusion. On the 11th of July following, a Friar-Preacher came to wait upon the Rector of the University in the Name of his General, and declared to him, That he had Orders to forbid the Friars of his Order to enter into the University upon these Conditions. The Rector made him no Answer, but summoned the Friars Preachers to ratify the Agreement, and when they refused to do it, upon the Account of the Prohibition of their General, the University excluded them yet a second time from their Society until at last they were brought to supplicate on the eighth of October, That they would receive them, and promise to observe the Treaty made in the presence of the Constable.  
In 1465. the Faculty ordered its Deputies to examine three Propositions, which had been 
A Censure of some propositions maintained in Theses of philosophy.  maintained in the Schools that are in the Street at Fovarra, by a Scholar who answered about Physics; 1st, That every Man is an infinite number of Men, and that an infinite number of Men have but one Soul; 2d, That no Man shall be corrupted, tho' a Man ought to be corrupted; 3d, That each part of a Man is Man. The Faculty condemned these Propositions, and referred the Propositions of other Respondents, which do not concern the Faith, to the Decision of the University.  
In 1470. about the end of the Month of August, the Faculty condemned also a Proposition 
A Censure in 1470. against some propositions concerning the Hierarchy.  like those of Sarrazin and Quadrigarii, concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, viz. That the Apostles did not receive their Power immediately from Jesus Christ, but from St. Peter, which was advanced by John Meunier, of the Order of Friars-Preachers; who made Satisfaction, by declaring, That he knew not that the Faculty had condemned this Proposition, and that he submitted to their Decision.  
In the same Assembly a Doctor of Divinity, of the Order of Friars Minors, called Donat 
A Censure of some propositions concerning the Hierarchy.  Dupuy, who had obtained from the Pope an Exemption of his Order, and was principal of the College of Lombard's, where he stayed, desired to be admitted to Profess, representing that he was not a Regular but in Name, and making great account of the Services he had done in the Restoration of this College. The Faculty thanked him, but they would not grant his Desire, lest they should infringe the Regulations made concerning the number of Professors of the Mendicant Orders.  
In the Month of November in the same Year, the Faculty of Theology at Paris was consulted 
A Conclusion of the Faculty about the Truth of some propositions of the Creed. A Censure of a proposition about the Trinity.  by that of Louvain, whether the Propositions of the Creed which respect the Future, such as these, Jesus Christ will come, The Resurrection of the Dead will happen, Be true, whether those who affirm it do not fall into the Error of them who think that all things happen by Necessity? And the Faculty answered affirmatively by its Conclusion, on the 12th of this Month.  
In 1477. the Faculty being assembled January 15th, condemned this Proposition, which had been advanced by a Divine called William Milletis; viz. That the three Persons are constituted by three Properties, whereof one is not God, and declared it scandalous, false and erroneous: The Theologue who advanced it, submitted to this Condemnation.  
In 1482. John Bethencourt, a Professor of Meaux, presented to the Faculty the following Proposition, 
A Censure of an erroneous proposition about Indulgences.  which was preached in the Diocese of Saints; That every Soul which is in Purgatory is delivered from it as soon as any gives for it six Blancs of Alms to the Church of St. Peter of Saintonge. This Proposition was founded upon a Bull of Indulgence granted by Pope Sixtus iv to this Church August the 2d, 1476. The Faculty declared by its Conclusion November 20th, That this Proposition was not in that Bull, and ought not be asserted or preached.  
At the Beginning of the next Year, the Chapter of the Church at Tournay sent to the Faculty 
The Censure of some propositions about the Hierarchy, advanced by John Angeli.  fourteen Propositions, which were advanced by Friar John Angeli, of the Order of Friars Minors, in the Sermons which he preached during the Lent of the preceding Year, in the Cathedral Church at Tournay, and the Parish-Churches of St. Peter and St. Quintyn. The Faculty having examined them, condemned them by its Conclusion, dated February the 1st. Here follow the Propositions and their Qualifications. Proposition 1st, The Friar's Minors being presented and admitted by the Bishop, are much more proper Priests and true Rectors than the Parish-Priests, because they hold their Power of the Pope, whereas the Priests hold it only of the Bishop: Qualification, Whatever may be said of the first part of this Proposition, by reason of the Equivocalness of the Word Proper; the Faculty declares, That the Proposition in itself, and as to all its parts, and the Proof of the last part, wherein 'tis said, That the Priest receives only his Power from the Bishop, is scandalous, erroneous in the Faith, destructive of the Hierarchical Order; and that it ought to be publicly retracted and abjured, for the Preservation of that Order. The second Proposition, A Parishioner who has confessed to these Friars, has satisfied the Decretal Omnis utriusque Sexus, and is not obliged to confess himself once a Year to his proper Rector, nor to desire leave of him: The Qualification, This Proposition according to the Terms wherein it is conceived, is scandalous, contrary to common Right, and aught to be publicly retracted upon the account of the Obedience and Respect which Inferiors own to Prelates. The third Proposition, If a Rector refuse to administer the Eucharist to a Parishioner, who has confessed to a Regular, he may come to this Regular and he shall administer it to him: The Qualification, This Proposition is false, suspected of Heresy, contrary to common Right, and aught to be publicly retracted. The fourth Proposition, A Parish-Priest can receive nothing from his Parishioners for Confession, nor for Administration of the Sacraments; but the same is not to be said of the Mendicants: The Qualification, This Proposition is contrary to the Disposition of Natural Right, and the express Command of God, and therefore false and notoriously Heretical. The fifth Proposition, the Parish-Priest who affirms, That his Parishioners are obliged to confess to him once in a Year, under pain of mortal Sin, is excommunicate; and if he celebrate Divine Service he is irregular: The Qualification, This Proposition is false and reproachful. The sixth Proposition, He who causes Mass to be said by a Priest, who keeps a Woman in his House, or is otherwise of ill Behaviour, sins mortally: The Qualification, This Proposition being indefinite is doubtful, rash, and ought never to be preached to the common People. The seventh Proposition, The Friar's Mendicants are not obliged to pay what is enacted in the Clementine Dudum: The Qualification, This Proposition is contrary to common Right. The eighth Proposition, The Pope can destroy all the Canon Law, and make a new one: The Qualification, This Proposition is scandalous, blasphemous, notoriously Heretical, and Erroneous. The ninth Proposition, Some Saints are furiously mad: The Qualification, This Proposition is scandalous, blasphemous, offensive to pious Ears. The tenth Proposition, The Souls which are in Purgatory, are under the Jurisdiction of the Pope, and if he pleases, he may empty all Purgatory: The Qualification, This Proposition in itself is doubtful, and in the meaning of him who advanced it about ordinary Jurisdiction, it is false, scandalous, and ought not to be preached to the common People. The eleventh Proposition, The Pope may take away from an Ecclesiastic the half of the Revenues of his Benefices, and give them away to another without showing any Cause for so doing: The Qualification, This Proposition is dangerous, and ought not to be preached in these times. The twelfth Proposition, Whosoever contradicts the Will of the Pope acts like a Pagan, and incurs the Sentence of Excommunication Ipso facto. The Pope cannot be reproved by any person, except in case of Heresy: The Qualification, This Proposition is false, and contains a manifest Lye. The fourteenth Proposition, Friar John Angely has many times affirmed, That these Articles are true, and that he would maintain them at Paris, and over all the Earth, even till he was burnt, without ever revoking them; and that he was not of the number of those Preachers who retract: The Qualification, This is the Discourse of a Man who is impudent and obstinate; and there is sufficient Reason to proceed against him judicially, as one who is very strongly suspected of Heresy.  
Another Friar Minor Observantine, called John Merchand, having preached in 1486 in the City of Besancon, many Impertinencies about the Prerogatives of St. Francis, the Faculty of 
The Censures of some impertinent prepositions of John Merchand, a Regular Observantine.  Theology at Paris, by their Conclusion April the 10th, censured twelve of his Propositions. The 1st, That Lucifer, who was the Head of the Angels, having left his place vacant, which was wonderfully set off and adorned, it was reserved for St. Francis only; because as Lucifer was driven from it upon the account of his Pride, so there was no Saint found upon Earth, which had so much Humility as St. Francis; upon which account he was preferred to that place. He added, if any Person will not believe me unless he go thither and see, I would rather see it than believe it. The Faculty examined this Proposition by its parts; as to the 1st, which is Copulative, it was found false, contrary to the Sentiment of the Saints; the 2d, which concerns the vacant place of Lucifer, which was above the Angels, whither the Preacher affirms that St. Francis was taken up, appeared to them rash, presumptuous, and derogatory from the singular Prerogative of the Virgin; the 3d, which is of the Humility of St. Francis, is also declared temerarious, presumptuous, false, reproachful to the other Saints; and in fine the last part, If any one will not believe, etc. is declared indecent. The second Proposition is, That St. Francis is like to Jesus Christ in forty Respects, That he is a second Christ, and a second Son of God. This Proposition is justly censured as false and Heretical. The third, That the Conception of St. Francis was foretold to his Mother by an Angel, like that of Jesus Christ: This is censured as rash and groundless. The following Propositions until the 11th, contain the Fables about the Brands of St. Francis, which are censured as having no Authority. The 11th, That St. Francis descends every Year on the Day of his Festival into Purgatory, and delivers out of it all those of his own Order, and that he carries them into Paradise, as Jesus Christ carried thither the Souls of the ancient Fathers. This Proposition is censured as suspected of Heresy, contrary to the Justice and the Law of God, preached for Interest, and on purpose to deceive the People. The 12th, That St. Francis obtained of God, That all the Regulars of his Order, who do not observe his Rule as they ought, shall not continue in this World; and that those who shall speak evil of his Regulars shall be punished, a thing which he never told to any but his Confessor, who revealed it after his Death. This Proposition is condemned as schismatical, seditious notoriously false, impertinent, and suspected of Heresy.  
As there were some Preachers who exceeded all due Bounds in their Devotion or Superstition towards the Saints, so there were some others who fell into the contrary Extreme; and among 
The Censures of the Errors of John Lailier.  the rest one named Lailier, a Licentiate in Theology of the Faculty of Paris, who preaching in the same Year, 1486. at Paris, advanced many bold Propositions against the Authority and Laws of the Church. The Faculty equally condemned both these Extremes, and with no less Constancy opposed the Novelties of Lailier, than those of the Regulars Observantines', of whom we have already spoken. Among the Propositions advanced by Lailier, they made choice of the nine following. The 1st, You ought to keep the Commands of God and the Apostles, and as to the Commands of the Bishops, they are no better than Chaff, for they have destroyed the Church by their Reveries; The 2d, St. Francis is rather in the place where Lucifer is at present, i. e. in Hell, than in the place where Lucifer was before his Fall, i. e. in Heaven; The 3d, I am not bound to believe that a Man is a Saint because he is canonised; since he is canonised for Money, and none are canonised but those who give something for it; The 4th, If a Priest marry clandestinely, and come to me and confess it, I would not enjoin him Penance; The 5th, The Priests of the Eastern Church do not sin in marrying, and I believe that neither should we sin in the Western Church, if we should marry; The 6th, Four Hundred Years ago all Priests were forbidden to marry by a Pope or a Butterfly 
* D'un Pape ou un Papillon. , I don't know whether he could do it; The 7th, I would give two Blancs to him that will produce any passage of Scripture, whereby we are obliged to fast in Lent; The 8th, since the time of St. Sylvester, the Roman Church is not the Church of Jesus Christ, but the Church of Caesar and of Silver; The 9th, There is no more reason to believe the Legends of the Saints than the Chronicles of the Kings of France. The Faculty by its Conclusion dated June the 6th, 1486. condemned these Propositions, and applied to each the suitable Qualifications of heretical, erroneous, schismatical, scandalous, rash, etc. together with another Proposition which the same Preacher advanced in his Sorbonica; That a mere Priest can as well consecrate the Chrism, and confer Orders, as the Pope, or the Bishop, and that all Priests are equal in the power of Order and Jurisdiction, 
A Censure of the Errors of John Lailier.  as were also all the Apostles. The Faculty resolved at the same time to deny the degree of Doctor to Lailier; whereupon he Addressed himself to the Parliament, who referred this Affair to the Bishop of Paris, to be Examined and Judged by him jointly with the Inquisitor, and by 4 Doctors deputed from the Faculty. Lailier presented to the Official of Paris a Writing, for explaining some of his Propositions, wherein he affirms that he had said, First, I never found in the Old or New Testament, that our Lord or his Apostles Commanded to Fast Corporally in the time of Lent, by way of a Precept, under pain of Mortal Sin, or of Damnation; and even the Holy Fathers who speak of it or describe it, do not Command it under pain of the great Excommunication, or of Mortal Sin; they never used these words about it, Praecipimus & Mandamus. Secondly, I never said that the Church can oblige under pain of Mortal Sin, or cannot, in a Sermon, but in a Disputation according to the Custom of the School, when the Reverend Father in God Monsieur de Meaux was present, I argued Pro & Contra about it, as a Problematical Matter, as Mr. John Gerson, and Peter de Alliaco have done. Thirdly, I never said that Priests can Marry after they have received Holy Orders, but I said that from the Passion of our Lord, to the time of Gregory VII. they did Marry. i e. until the year 1073. and that St. Peter, and St. Paul, St. Philip the Apostle and Deacon, St. Fabian the Pope and Martyr, St. Hillary the Bishop of Poitiers, St. German of Auxerres, and many others were Married; and 'tis now two years since I said this. Fourthly, that there are some Propositions more bold than mine in Gerson's Treatise about the Spiritual Life of the Soul. The Faculty Censured anew these Propositions, except the 2d, as to which it declared that it no ways concerned them. The Bishop and Inquisitor did each on their part draw up the Process of Lailier. The Inquisitor Communicated the Informations he had made to the Bishop, but the Bishop would not Communicate his to him; and without Appealing he decided the Cause of Lailier Summarily, and after he had caused him to own and abjure the Propositions Censured by the Faculty, he gave him Absolution from the Excommunication, and restored him by his Sentence, to his Functions, Honours and Dignities, and gave him a Right of being promoted to other Degrees, and abolished all Marks of Infamy.  
This Sentence was given and pronounced by the Bishop of Paris, assisted with the Ecclesiastical 
The Sentence of the Bishop of Paris, concerning Lailier.  and Secular Judges whom he had called together June 23d. in 1486. and in pursuance of it on the 29th of the same Month Lailier abjured publicly in a Sermon Preached at the Cathedral Church at a Solemn Procession, the Errors contained in the Propositions Censured by the Faculty; afterwards he used his Endeavours to be promoted to the Degree of Doctor, but the Faculty continued still to deny him; and when the Bishop of Paris would force them to grant the Degree according to his Sentence, they interposed an Appeal to the Person to whom it belonged, by their Act dated November the 6th. Pope Innocent VIII. being informed of this Affair, sent 2 Bulls, 
An Appeal of the Faculty from the Sentence of the Bishop of Paris. The Bulls of the Pope against Lailier.  one Addressed to John Cossart an Inquisitor, by which he forbids Lailier to Preach, and entrusts this Affair with that Inquisitor, the Archbishop of Sens, and the Bishop of Meaux; the other Addressed to the Faculty, whose Zeal he commends, and approves what they had done against Lailier, forbids them to give him the Degree of Doctor, makes void and nulls the Sentence of the Bishop of Paris. These Bulls are dated the 6th and the 9th of December, in 1486. There is no more about this Affair in our Registers, but an Extract of some Propositions which Lailier maintained in his Act of Sorbonica, dated July the 30th, in 1484. among which there is one which affirms that Confession is not of Divine Right: The other tend to overthrow the Primacy of the Pope, and the Episcopal Power, and to establish an equality of Power and Jurisdiction among the Ministers of the Church.  
Some time after the Bishop of Meaux presented to the Faculty the 7 following Propositions. 
Some other Propositions Censured, in 1486.  1st, 'Tis a greater Crime to have to do with ones Godmother, than their Mother. 2d, The Bishop cannot Absolve from such a Crime. 3d, A Priest who is a Fornicator cannot say Dominus Vobiscum, nor repeat Divine Service in any place. The 4th, The Sacraments which are Administered, or the Service which is said by such a Priest, is of no more value than the barking of Dogs. 5th, There is but one St. Ives among the Advocates who is Saved. 6th, Hell is all filled with Advocates, and therefore no person ought to fear that he shall go there. 7th. The Apothecaries, Artificers of Arms, Physicians, and those who make profession of other Trades, shall never go to Paradise, unless they be carried thither by the Devils, or upon the Tail of a Mule. The Faculty Censured these Propositions as false, scandalous, and impertinent, on the 3d of November, in 1486.  
On the 2d of August, in 1490. the Faculty declared a Contract to be guilty of Usury, whereby 
A Conclusion of the Faculty about a Contract for Usury.  a Church had bought a Rent of 30 Livres for 300 Livres, because they had added this clause to it, that when the Church would, the Sellers should be obliged to restore the Principal to that Church without diminution of their Interest: On the contrary, the Faculty determined that the Interest of 26 years which the Church had received, aught to charged upon the Principal.  
Four days after the Faculty made a Conclusion, wherein it Condemned the Superstition of a 
A Conclusion against a Superstitious Prayer made against the Plague.  Prayer used against the Plague.  
In 1493. the Faculty was Consulted by the Parliament, about the Profession, and the Books of Judicial Astrology of Simon Phares. This Man having exercised this Art at Lions, was apprehended by Order of the Official, his Books were seized, and he was forbidden by a Sentence to practise Judicial Astrology; and was Condemned to some Punishment for having done it. 
A Sentence of the Faculty and Parliament about Judicial Astrology.  Phares appealed from this Sentence to the Parliament. The Parliament would not judge in this Affair, without having the Opinion of the Faculty, and sent to them the Books of Judicial Astrology which were found in the hands of Phares, and seized by the Official of Lions to be examined. The Faculty appointed Deputies to examine these Books, and Condemned this Art. Whereupon an Act was drawn up in the Name of the Faculty, which contained the Sentence that the Deputies had given of all these Books, and by which it exhorts the Parliament to oppose the Progress of this Art, which it declares to be pernicious, Fabulous, Groundless, Superstitious, and adds that it Usurps the Honour of God, corrupts good Manners, and was invented by Devils for the destruction of Men. According to this Opinion the Parliament confirmed by its Decree the Sentence of the Official of Lions, and upon the Remonstrance of the Faculty, forbade to exercise Judicial Astrology, to Consult Diviners, to Sell the Books mentioned in the Decision of the Faculty, or to use them, and Ordained that the Copies seized upon Phares, should be sent back, together with his Person, and delivered into the hands of the Official of Paris.  
In the same year the Faculty, according to the Opinion of its Deputies, Censured the two following Propositions, which were advanced by Henry Banquevil a Friar Minor. The First, 
Some Propositions about the Incarnation Censured.  Man was made God. The Second, Jesus Christ had a beginning. It declared that the first of these Propositions taken rigorously was False and Erroneous, forbade any to teach or maintain it, except they express the sense wherein some Doctors had affirmed it; i. e. that 'tis come to pass that Man is God; it declared also the second to be False, Scandalous, and Heretical, being taken rigorously.  
About the end of the same year Friar John Grillot of the Order of Friars Minors, having Preached on the day of the Virgin's Conception, Evening and Morning, in the Church of St. german of 
A Censure against a Sermon of Grillot, a Friar Minor, 'bout the Conception.  Auxerres, and having taken for the Text of his Sermon in the Morning these words, This Woman was taken in Adultery, and given Reasons to prove that the Virgin was Conceived in Sin, tho' he asserted the contrary in the Sermon Afternoon, was Cited before the Faculty, and obliged to Condemn this way of Preaching, and to acknowledge that it tended rather to the Subversion of People, than their Education. This Retractation is dated December the 25th.  
In 1495. the Faculty by its Conclusion of January the 15th, Censured the Falsity and Heresy of the two following Propositions; 1st, The Essence of God is a continued quantity; 2dly, Jesus 
A Censure of two Propositions. A Censure in 1497. about the sense of a Prophecy.  Christ is a continued quantity.  
On the 15th of April, in 1497. the Faculty Condemned this Proposition; when the Prophet David says in the Psalms, I am a Worm, and not a Man, etc. tho' this may be verified of Jesus Christ according to the Allegorical and Anagogical Sense, yet it could no ways agree to him according to the Literal Sense.  
A little while after the Faculty obliged John Alutarii to retract a Sermon which he had Preached at St. John in Greve on the Birthday of the Virgin, because tho' he had maintained 
The Retractation of a Sermon made by Friar John Alutarii. A Decree of the Faculty in 1497 about the Immaculate Conception.  that the Virgin had not committed Venial Sin, yet he brought Reasons and Authorities against it, and handled this Question indiscreetly, and to the Scandal of the People.  
On the 23d of August in the same year, the Faculty drew up and published its Decree about the Immaculate Conception; wherein, after they had Consulted about this Matter in 3 Assemblies; whereof the 1st was held March the 3d, 1496. and the 2d the 9th of the same Month, they resolved to oblige themselves by Oath, to maintain that the Virgin was preserved from Original Sin, and never to admit any into their Society but those who would take this Oath, and declared that they would deprive of all Honour, and banish, all those who did maintain the contrary Proposition, which they judged false, impious, and erroneous.  
Notwithstanding this Decree, there was a Jacobine of Rouen, called Friar John of Verger, who was so bold as to Preach at Diep the contrary Doctrine; the Faculty Censured 3 Propositions 
The Retractation of John of Verger, a Friar Preacher.  which he had advanced upon this Subject, by their Conclusion dated September the 19th. in 1497.  
On the 23d of August in the same year, the Faculty Censured also 4 Propositions of another Dominican, Named John Morcel, who derogated from the Honour of the Virgin. Here follow 
A Censure against the Propositions of Morcel.  these Propositions, and their Qualifications.  
First Proposition, God can produce a mere Creature more Glorious than the Virgin Mary by his absolute Power, although he cannot do it according to his ordinary Power: The Qualification; this Proposition tho' true as to its first part, yet was Preached foolishly, indiscreetly, and did no ways tend to the Benefit and Edification of the People, and ought not at all to have been Preached; and as to the second part, if he compares the Virgin to the Humanity of Jesus Christ, and his Soul as to Glory, it is false and Erroneous in Faith, and aught to be retracted.  
The Second Proposition, It is a Problem, viz. whether the Virgin Mary was Corporally more Beautiful than Eve: The Qualification, This Proposition is rash, derogatory from the Honour and Dignity of the Virgin, false, contrary to the Doctrine of the Saints, suspected of Heresy, and therefore aught to be retracted.  
The Third Proposition, It is Apocryphal to say that Jesus Christ was before the Virgin in his Assumption: The Qualification; this Proposition is false, contrary to the Writings of the Doctors, favours of Impiety, and is offensive to pious Ears.  
The Fourth Proposition, We are not obliged to Believe under pain of Mortal Sin, that the Virgin 
A Censure against the Propositions of Moreel.  was taken up into Heaven in Body and Soul, because this is not an Article of Faith: The Qualification; this Proposition as it is expressed is rash, scandalous, impious, tending to diminish the Devotion of People towards the Virgin, false and Heretical. Many People will find that there is some Extravagance in these Qualifications.  
On the Month of January in 1498. the Faculty being Consulted by King Charles VIII. about 
The Answer of the faculty to the King, about the Celebration of a General Council.  the necessity of Celebrating General Councils, decided the Questions which his Majesty had proposed to them after this manner. First, That the Pope was bound to call together every tenth year a General Council, chief upon the account of any Notorious Corruption in the Head and Members of the Church. Secondly, That if the Pope being desired, did refuse or delay to do it, the Ecclesiastical and Secular Princes might call it together. Thirdly, That in this Case those who make up the Assembly might Celebrate the Council, and provide for the Necessities of the Church. This Conclusion is dated February the 10th.  
About the end of the same year the Faculty was Consulted concerning Sixteen Extravagant 
A Censure of 16 Extravagant Propositions of John Vitrier, an Observantine.  Propositions, which were Preached at Tournay by John Vitrier, a Regular of the Order of Friars Minors of the Observance, which it Censured, and qualified by its Conclusion dated October the 2d.  
First, It would be better to Cut a Child's Throat, than to place it in a Religious Society which is not Reformed.  
Secondly, it would be better to take your Daughter by the hand, and lead her to a Lewd place, than to place her in a Nunnery that is not Reformed. These two Propositions are Censured as Scandalous, Seditious, savouring of the pride of the Pharisees, as false and contrary to good Manners.  
Thirdly, Whosoever hears Mass said by a Priest who has a Wife at home, sins mortally.  
Fourthly, whosoever makes a Priest that keeps a Wife at home Celebrate Mass, sins mortally, and by giving him Money, you put a halter about his neck.  
Fifthly, If your Parish-Priest, or any other Priest keep Women in their Houses, you ought to go and pull them out by force, and drive them out of their House. These Propositions are Condemned as Scandalous, Seditious, False, etc.  
Sixthly, The Music which is Sung at Notredam, is nothing but Lewdness, and a provocation to Lewdness. The Qualification which the Faculty gave of this Proposition was this; Although we approve not Lascivious and Theatrical Songs, if any such be Sung in the Church, yet we commend and approve the Singing of Music, which is usually done in the Church, because it excites the People to Devotion.  
Seventhly, The King never gave the Privilege of so much Wine Custom-free at Tourney, to 
Les malles Tantes de vin a Tournay.  maintain the Lewd Canons and ecclesiastics. This is Censured as Scandalous, and Reproachful.  
Eighthly, No Money is due to Churches for Pardons.  
Ninthly, Pardons are never given for Lewd Places.  
Tenthly, Pardons come from Hell. These Propositions are Censured as Scandalous, False, and Heretical, etc.  
Eleventhly, When you hear Mass, you ought to say nothing, and when the Holy Sacrament is Elevated, you ought to look towards the ground, and not upon the Holy Sacrament. This General Proposition is declared false, and contrary to the practice of the Church.  
Twelfthly, The Hours of the Virgin ought not to be said by the Seculars.  
Thirteenth, The Saints ought not to be prayed to. These Propositions are Censured as False and Heretical.  
Fourteenth, There are some who say certain Prayers of the Virgin Mary, to the end that at the hour of death they may see the Virgin Mary; thou shalt see the Devil, and not the Virgin Mary. The Qualification of this Proposition is thus: If the meaning be that it is not lawful to repeat certain devout Prayers, to the end that the Virgin may assist at the death of him who prays devoutly; This Proposition is false: But if the meaning be to Condemn the Superstitious Credulity of some, who think that by virtue of certain Prayers rather than other, the Virgin will appear to them visibly at the hour of Death, we do not Condemn this Sense.  
Fifteen, It would be better for a Married Woman to break her Vow of Marriage, than to break her Fast.  
Sixteenth, I would rather be the Cause of a Man's death, than lie with a Woman. These two Propositions are Censured as False, Scandalous, etc.  
We may also rank among the Errors that were started in the Fifteenth Century, the Propositions 
The Errors of Grabon.  of Matthew Grabon, against the Poverty of those who were not Regulars, which are Condemned in the Council of Basil, whereof we have already spoken; and the Reveries of Augustin of Rome, of the Order of Friars Hermits of St. Austin, who wrote a Treatise of the Church, divided into three parts; whereof the first was, Of the Union of Jesus Christ and his Church, or, of Jesus Christ entire; the second, Of Jesus Christ as Head, and of his Illustrious Dominion; the third, Of the Charity of Jesus Christ towards the Elect, and of his Infinite Love. He carried this matter so high in this Work of the Union of the Human Nature with the Divine, that he advanced some Propositions, wherein he attributes to the Human Nature in Christ, what agrees only to the Divine, as That the human Nature in Jesus Christ is truly, naturally, and properly God; that the two Natures in Jesus Christ are equally amicable; that the Soul of Jesus Christ sees God as perfectly as his Divinity: And concerning the Union of the Members with Christ; that the Union of Charity is not sufficient to make a Member of Jesus Christ, but a Man must be of the number of the Elect and Predestinate.  
These Errors, and the Book of this Author were Condemned in the Council of Basil, Sess. 22. only his Person was spared, because he testified his Submission, and gave good Reasons for his Absence.  
Lastly, We must join to all the rest who wandered from the right way in the Fifteenth Century, 
The Errors of Peter Osma.  Peter Osma, a Professor at Salamanca, who published a Book wherein he maintains that Confession is not the Institution of Jesus Christ, but the Invention of Man; that Mortal Sins are blotted out by Contrition alone, and Sins of thought by a mere Remorse. This Opinion was Condemned, and the Author was Anathematised (if he did not retract) by the Archbishop of Toledo, Alphonsus Carrilla, whose Sentence was Confirmed by the Constitution of Sixtus iv Published at the beginning of August, in 1479.  
There were also some fanatics in this Century, who published Extravagant Errors, among the rest a certain Carmelite, named William of Hildernissen, and Giles Le Chantre, both Flemings, 
The Impieties of William Hilldernissen, and Giles Le Chantre. Adamites.  who called themselves new Prophets, Preached a New Law, permitted all sorts of Crimes, denied the Resurrection, and advanced many other Errors which were Condemned by Peter Ailly, and by the Inquisitor of Flanders, in 1412. Another Fleming called Pikard, was Head of the Sect of the Adamites in Germany, who led an infamous Life, and were destroyed by Zisca. Of this sort were the Diggers of Bohemia, so called because they dug their Assemblies in Forests and Caves, where they derided the Church, its Ministers, and Sacraments. 
The Diggers.   
Harman Risvich, a Hollander, taught horrible Impieties, that the Soul dies with the Body, that there is no Hell, that Matter is Eternal, that God never Created the Angels, that Moses and 
The Impieties of Harman Risvich.  Jesus Christ were Impostors, that our Creed is a Fable, and the Gospel a Foolery. He was Condemned to perpetual Imprisonment, in 1499. and having made his escape out of it, and continuing still to vomit forth his Blasphemies, he was burnt alive at the Hague, in 1512.   

CHAP. IX.  
Ecclesiastical Observations upon the Fifteenth Century.  
THOSE who had any thing to do in Ecclesiastical Affairs, did almost wholly spend the first years of this Century about the Schism of the Popes. It gave occasion to handle the Questions 
The Principal Questions Deba●ed in the Fifteenth Century.  of the Superiority of a General Council above the Pope, and of its Infallibility. The Project of the Reunion of the Greeks deserved the serious consideration of the whole Earth, but the Effects did not answer the Expectations which many had of that Undertaking. The Wicklefites and Bohemians made a terrible Schism in the Latin Church, which could not be wholly extinguished, neither by violent nor by gentle means. These were the great Affairs of the Church in this Century as to Doctrine, for I reckon not in this rank the Errors of some private Divines which were stifled at their Birth, nor the Disputes of Schoolmen about Questions purely Theological. This Science, I mean Theology purely Scholastical, degenerated also in this Century, and begun to be laid aside by Men of the best Judgement, who applied themselves to a Theology more solid, founded upon the Holy Scripture, and Tradition, and who Cultivated the Sciences, and polite Learning, as we have already observed in the beginning of the Fourth Chapter of this Work.  
The Court of Rome continued her Endeavours to make herself Master of all Benefices by Reservations, Promises of vacant Benefices, Preventions, Annates, etc. but was stoutly opposed 
The Pretensions of the Court of Rome. Gratiae expectativae.  herein, chief by France, and Germany; the Decrees of the Council of Constance, and Bazil, the Laws of our Kings and Emperors, the pragmatic Sanction, and the Germane Concordate put a stop to their Covetousness, and maintained the Election of Elective Benefices, and the Collations of Ordinaries. But the Court of Rome found a way to break through these Bars at last, to Abolish the Pragmatic, to Restore the Annates, to Ruin the Elections, and to obtain the Sovereign disposal of all Benefices. This is what she attempted about the end of this Century, and which she compassed at the beginning of the next, as we shall show hereafter.  
The Necessity of the Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members as to Discipline and Manners, was acknowledged by the Councils of Constance, and of Bazil. They did in vain 
The Reformation of the Church.  make attempts to compass it, for it was always put off and eluded. The General Councils which were to meet every ten years to take pains about it, was a Project that was never put in execution. There were scarce any General Councils, and those who did meet, thought of nothing but the most gross disorders of the Inferior Clergy; the Declarations and Remonstrances of private Men about the abuses of that time were fruitless, and served only to preserve the Memory of them to Posterity.  
The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over the Temporal Affairs, was by little and little, restrained 
Observations upon Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.  in this Century as to Laymen; but the Exemptions of the Clergy from a Laical Tribunal, were maintained with Vigour by the Councils. The Council of Basil and the Pragmatic Sanction, granted the Pope the Right of receiving Appeals in all kind of Causes, and the Decision of the greater Causes in the first Instance, but upon Condition that he should name Judges to sit upon the several places where the Fact was committed.  
During the Schism, the ecclesiastics were often vexed with Tenths and other Impositions 
Of Tithes and Ecclesiastical Revenues.  which the Popes laid upon the Ecclesiastical Revenues. Martin V in Session 43, of the Council of Constance, forbade other Prelates to impose any, and even the Popes themselves to do it, unless it was for a Cause of great Importance, which was difficult, and concerned the Benefit of the Universal Church, with the consent of the Cardinals and Prelates; and without consulting the Bishops of that Kingdom or Province upon whom the Tax was laid, who must consent to it either one third part, or at least the greatest part of them; and in this case, he ordered that the Tax should be gathered by Ecclesiastical Persons, and by Apostolical Authority. In the mean time, the Popes have since frequently imposed Tenths upon Churches. Eugenius iv granted the King of Cyprus in 1431. the hundredth part of the Ecclesiastical Revenues of France, Spain, and England, to set at Liberty the Hostages which he had left with the Sultan. He granted also King Alphonsus a Sum of 200000 Florins, to be levied upon the Churches of Arragon and Sicily, Nichelas V imposed Tenths in 1453. upon all the Clergy for a War against the Turk. Callistus III. in 1457. laid another Tax on them upon the same Occasion. Pius II. did the like in 1459. but the Germans refusing to pay it, he was forced to remit it as to them. In 1490. Innocent VIII. would have imposed Tenths upon the Clergy of France, for a War against the Turk, but the University of Paris opposed it, and appealed from the Decree of the Pope, by their Act dated September the 13th, in 1491. and it continued in these Sentiments; for Alexander VI. having a mind to impose also Tenths upon the Clergy of France, made use of Censures against those who would not pay them; the Faculty of Theology being consulted in 1501. made answer, That these Censures were null, that none ought to delate any Person, nor so much as fear them. The Heirs of ecclesiastics succeeded them in all their Goods which they left, without making any Distinction of Ecclesiastical Revenues, provided they made good the Repairs of Churches and Buildings, and they could dispose of them by Will. The Regulars were also Heirs to their Kindred as if they had been Men of the World, and could dispose of these Inheritances.  
Pope Sixtus iv put off the Jubilee from twenty five Years to twenty five Years. The Popes 
〈…〉  easily granted a very great Number of Indulgences, and begun even to make a kind of Traffic with 'em. The greatest part of Benefices were held in Commendam, which became so frequent, that Paul II. being lately advanced to the Pontifical Dignity, said, That since the Pontificate of Callistus III. there had been more than five hundred Monasteries held in Commendam. The Cardinal of Porto opposed this Custom, and Pope Paul II. approved his Remonstrance. Nevertheless he continued still to grant the greatest part of Abbeys in Commendam, and this Custom passed as it were into a Law. The Right of Nomination by Graduates, derived its Original from the Decree of the Council of Bazil, and the Pragmatic. Resignations and Translations were not ordinarily made, according as was enacted in the Decretals.  
Notwithstanding the Regulations of the Popes, the Parish-Priests and Regulars Mendicants were always contesting about the Administration of the Sacraments, and particularly about the 
The Differences of Parish-priests with the Regulars about Confession, and the Hierarchical Functions.  Easter Confession. The Regulars diminished as much as they could the Authority of the Parish-Priests, and equalled themselves to, or even preferred themselves above them, as having their Mission immediately from the Pope. The Parish-Priests on the contrary, maintained, That they were true Pastors appointed by Jesus Christ; and that the Regulars were only by Sufferance, by accident in case of Necessity, and with the Consent of the Ordinaries and Parish-Priests. We have lately seen the Propositions which Gorell, Sarrazin, Quadrigarii, and other Regulars Mendicants taught upon this Subject, and the Censures of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, which maintained the Right and Dignity of the Parish-Priests. The Regulars maintained also, That any Person might confess to them at Easter, as at any other time; and that none was obliged to confess himself to his Parish-Priest, nor to ask leave of him to go and confess himself to the Regulars. The Popes favoured the Regulars Mendicants, yet they durst not plainly decide in their Favours, and contented themselves with granting general Privileges, without entering upon Particulars. Alexander V by his Bull dated October the 10th, in 1409 confirmed the Decretals of Boniface VIII. and John XXII. whereof we have already spoken in the Observations upon the preceding Centuries. And whereas it was represented to 'em on behalf of the Regulars Mendicants, that the Errors of Poilly were revived, which had been condemned by the Decretal of John XXII. and that the following Propositions were maintained; 1st, That he who confesses himself to a Regular in the Form enjoined by the Decretal Dudum, is obliged to confess anew the same Sins to his Parish-Priest; 2dly, That the Propositions of John Poilly, which were condemned by John XXII. are defensible and true, and that the Constitution of this Pope is null, because he was a Heretic; 3dly, That neither God nor the Pope can dispense with the Obligation of confessing to a Parish-Priest as long as the Canon Omnis utriusque sexus does continue in force; 4thly, That the Confession which is made to Regulars being doubtful, and that which is made to a Parish-Priest being certainly good, we must hold to that which is certain, and leave what is uncertain; 5thly, That altho' the Regulars being approved, have the power to absolve and take Confessions; yet the people have not power to confess themselves to them without the leave of the Parish-Priest; 6thly, That the Regulars who desire the privileges of hearing Confessions, are in mortal Sin and excommunicate, as well as those who confirm or grant them; 7thly, That the Parish-Priest has more Right than the Pope to dispense with the Canon Omnis utriusque sexus. Alexander V condemned all these Propositions, and thundered out an Excommunication against those who maintained them. This Bull being brought to Paris, made a great Noise there in the University. Gerson was entrusted to make a Sermon upon this Subject, wherein after he had observed that the Writing in form of a Bull might be the Cause of Disorder, and be prejudicial to the Hierarchical Order; That this had been obtained by surprise, through the Importunity of Regulars Mendicants, and before the Pope had examined the Matter; That he was persuaded, that whenever the Pope was better informed he would revoke it; That the University thought it intolerable until it was examined; That his Design was not to show all the Evil which it contained, but he might say in general, That it would be the Cause of much trouble to the whole Hierarchical Order of Superior Prelates, and the inferior who are Parish-Priests; That he would content himself with reading an Act drawn up by the Parish-Priests, which he would explain, to prevent the evil Consequences that might ensue. After this, he lays down the following Maxims; That Parish-Priests are Pastors of the Hierarchy; That a Pope ought not to send Mendicants but where they are wanted, and with the Consent of the Parish-Priests; That there may be some Occasions wherein a Penitent shall be obliged to confess to his Parish-Priest the Sins which he had already confessed to a Regular; That the Privileges of Mendicants ought to have certain Bounds. The Bull of Alexander V was confirmed by Eugenius IU. and afterwards by Nicholas V whose Bull alarmed, as we have seen the University of Paris against the Mendicants. Callistus III had a mind at first to maintain this Matter in its highest Rigour, and granted a Bull upon this occasion; but perceiving that he could not compass his end, he was forced to moderate the Matter by his Bull, dated August the 20th, in 1456. in which he kept a kind of Medium, by blaming both one and t'other side; for after he had by it confirmed the Decretals of Boniface VIII. Clement V and John XXII. he said, That upon the Complaints of the Bishops and Parish-Priests, that came to him from all parts against the Regulars, who were accused of disobeying these Decretals, upon pretence of Privileges and Favours which they have since obtained; and upon the Information he had received, That Bishops, Parish-Priests, and other Priests do also molest the Regulars, being persuaded that these Regulars seduced their Parishioners from their Parishes, by telling them, That they may freely come to their House on Festival Days to hear Divine Service; That they are the proper Priests and Rectors to whom they ought to make Easter-Confession; That the Parish-Priests maintain also, That Confessions made to Regulars ought to be reiterated; That these Disputes being the Cause of Scandal, Hatred, Divisions and Scruples, he ordains both one and the other to put an end to these Contests, and each to continue within the same Bounds which of Right belonged to 'em, without attempting to invade the Right of others, or to enlarge their own Pretensions. For which end he renewed the Clementine Dudum, revoked the Enlargements which might be made of it, and all such Privileges which may have been granted beyond what is contained in that Bull, which he declares null; and condemns the Propositions which were advanced, as well by the Regulars to seduce the Parishioners from their Parish, as by the Seculars against the Privileges granted to the Mendicants by this Decretal. Sixtus IU. without any regard to this Revocation of Callistus, revived in 1473. the Bulls of Alexander V and Eugenius IU. and gave the same Power which the Mendicants had of administering the Sacraments of the Eucharist, and Extreme Unction, to those whom the Curates refused without a lawful Cause. But he was aftewards forced to explain himself upon Occasion of the Differences which arose in Germany, between the Mendicants and the Parish-Priests; and declared by his Bull, dated June the 17th, in 1478. 1st, That the Orders of Mendicants were very advantageous to the Church; 2d, That the Friars Mendicants ought not to preach, That the Parishioners were not obliged to hear Mass in their Parishes on Festivals and Sundays; 3dly, That neither the Regulars nor the Mendicants ought to solicit the Laity to choose their place of Burial among them, because in this they ought to be left to their Liberty; 4thly, That the Mendicants ought not more to preach, That Parishioners are not obliged to confess themselves at least at Easter to their Parish-Priests, because the Parishioners are bound of Right to confess themselves at Easter to their proper Priests; That in the mean while, the Friar's Mendicants are not excluded by this from hearing Confessions, and imposing Penances according to common Right, and the Privileges which were granted them; 5thly, That the Usage shall be observed as to the Hours of Divine Service, That the Regulars shall not seduce the Parishioners from their Parishes; and that the Parish-Priests shall not hurt the Mendicants, that so there may appear to be a perfect Union and Charity between them. This Decision of Sixtus did wholly remove the Difficulty about the Easter-Confession, and plainly decided the Question in favour of the Parish-Priests.  
The new Religious Societies instituted in this Century, are the Society of Canons Regulars of St. Saviour, founded near Sienna, by Stephen a Regular Augustin, who had leave of the Pope 
The Institutions of new religious Orders.  to change the Habit, and was approved by Gregory XII. in 1408. to which the Church of St. Mary of Escoupetto of Florence, was united; from whence the Monastery was called Scopetto, and the Canon's Scopettines; the Order of Mount Olivet, which was a Reformation of the Hieronymites, who followed the Rule attributed to St. Jerom, which was compiled by Loup, a Brother to St. Vincent Ferrier, and approved by the Pope's Gregory XII. and Martin V the Society of Canons Regulars of George of Alga, founded in 1407. by Laurence Justinian, the Patriarch of Venice: The Congregation of St. Justina of Milan, which was a Reformation of the Benedictine Order in Italy, made by Lewis Barbe a Venetian, Canon of the Congregation of St. George of Alga, in 1409. which was approved by Eugenius IU. and John XXIII. and honoured with many Privileges by the Popes: The Congregation of Bursfeld, which is a Reformation of the Benedictines in Germany, that was begun by John Rhodes, who passed from the Order of Carthusians to that of St. Benedict, and was made Abbot of the Abbey of St. Mathias near Treves, and finished by John Abbot of Bursfeld, who united many Monasteries into one Congregation: The Order of Minims, whose Author was St. Francis of Paul, who built about the Year 1467. a little Monastery of Regulars near that City, under a Rule which was approved by Sixtus IU. Alexander VI and Julius II. At first they bore the Name of the Hermits of St. Francis, and afterwards that of the Minims, because they called themselves in Humility, Minimi fratres Eremitae: The Order of the Nuns of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which was instituted at Toledo by Beatrix at Sylva, a Portugese Woman, and approved in 1489. by Innocent VIII. upon the Prayer of Isabel Queen of Spain. While Beatrix lived they followed the Rule of the Cistertians; after her Death they assumed that of St. Claire in 1494.  
The Military Orders founded in this Century, are that of the Annunciade, instituted by Amideus 
The Military Orders.  V Count of Savoy, in 1420. That of St. Maurice instituted by Amideus VII. who was afterwards chosen Pope; That of the Golden Fleece instituted in 1431. by Philip the Good Duke of Burgundy; That of the Knights of Luna, by Renatus Duke of Anjou, King of Sicily in 1464. That of the Knights of St. George, by Frederick III. Emperor; That of St. Michael, by King Louis XI. in 1469. That of St. Stephen, by Cosmus of Medicis, which was approved in 1561. by Pius IU. and some others that are less famous.   

A DISSERTATION ABOUT THE Author of the Book, CONCERNING THE Imitation of JESUS CHRIST.  
Wherein the Contests that have arisen upon this Subject are Related, and the Reasons which have been alleged in favour of those to whom it is Attributed; the Manuscripts, the Editions and Testimonies which are made use of to maintain the Right of each Pretender, are Examined; and upon the whole, an Equitable and Impartial Judgement is given.  
THERE never was a Book in the World, whose Author was Contested with more heat, and about which more Pieces have been Written, than about the Book of the 
A Dissertation about the Author of the Imitation of Jesus Christ.  Imitation of Jesus Christ. This Question which appears not to be of any great Consequence, nor to be worthy of the pains of Learned Men, is now become Famous, by the contrary Pretensions of two great Religious Societies about it; by the different Judgements which Learned Men have given of it; by the Curious Inquiries which have been made on both sides; by the great number of Reasons and Authorities which have been alleged; by the Learning and Eloquence of the Contenders, and by the noise it has made in the World. All these Reasons have obliged us to search this Matter to the bottom in this Dissertation, wherein we have Collected together all that has been done or written upon this Subject in near Forty different Books, from the beginning of our Age.  

SECTION I.  
A History of the Contest about the Author of the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, from the beginning of our Age, until this present time.  
THE Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, after it had often appeared under the Name of St. Bernard, was printed many times under the Name of Gerson, and of Thomas a Kempis; but since the Edition of Badius, in 1520. it was more commonly published under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, and he passed for the Author of it, without much contest, until the beginning of this Century, that some maintained it could not be his. This Doubt was first started in Spain, which was grounded upon this, That the Imitation of Jesus Christ was Cited in the Conferences attributed to St. Bonaventure, who died before the Birth of Thomas a Kempis. Don Pedro Mauriquez was the first that maintained this Opinion in Writing, in a Spanish Book Entitled, Appareios para administrar el Sacramento de la Penitentia, printed at Milan, in 1604. Some Spaniards having spread this Opinion in Italy, Father Rossignol a Jesuit confirmed it by the Authority of a Manuscript of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, which he found in the House of the Jesuits of Arona, which was formerly an Abbey of the Order of St. Benedict, in which it is attributed in four places to John Gersen, or Gesen, or Gessen, an Abbot. He believed that this Manuscript belonged to the Ancient Library of the Benedictines of Arona, and communicated this Discovery to Possevin, and Bellarmin, who thought this Opinion probable. On the contrary, Rosweidus a Flemish Jesuit wrote a Letter in 1615. wherein he maintains that Thomas a Kempis is the true Author of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, and denies that the Conferences attributed to St. Bonaventure were truly his. On the other side, Constantin Cajetan of Syracuse, Abbot of the Monastery of St. Barontus, of the Order of St. Benedict, of the Congregation of Mount Cassin, a Man very Zealous for the Interest of his own Order, having the Manuscript of Arona Communicated to him by the Jesuit Nigroni, caused the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ to be printed at Rome, in 1616. under the Name of John Gessen, Abbot of the Order of St. Benedict, together with a Dissertation, wherein he maintains, that the Conferences are Bonaventure's, and that the Manuscript of Arona is a decisive Piece, to show that the Book of the Imitation is an Abbot's of his Order. Rosweidus wrote immediately a Book against Cajetan, which he Entitles, VINDICIAE KEMPENSES, The Defence of Kempis; wherein he answers his Reasons, and maintains that the Name of Gersen was put for that of Gerson, in the Manuscript of Arona, which did not at all belong to the Ancient Library of the Benedictines of Arona, as the Abbot Cajetan supposed, but was brought from Genua to Arona, in 1599 by Father Maiole a Jesuit, who found it in his Father's House. This Answer of Rosweidus came forth in 1617. and made Bellarmin change his Opinion, because he thought that Rosweidus had sufficiently answered the Objections of the Abbot Cajetan. This latter stayed not long before he made a Reply, but quickly put forth an Apology for his Opinion, which was printed at Paris in 1618. And that his Opinion might spread through the World, he asked leave of the Congregation de Propaganda Fide, to print the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ in Greek, under the Name of the Abbot Gessen.  
The Canons Regulars being alarmed at this Design, presented a Petition to this Congregation to hinder it, and desired to prohibit the printing of this Book under any other Name than that of Thomas a Kempis. This way of Proceeding did not take effect, and the Contest was hushed up till the year 1626. in which Rosweide revived it, by Publishing a fair Edition of the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, in which he inserted a Dissertation about the Author of this Book, which he Entitled, Plain Testimonies to prove that Thomas a Kempis is the Author of the Imitation of Jesus Christ. Bollandus Reprinted it after the death of Rosweidus, in 1630. and 1634. Francis Walgrave an English Benedictin opposed to this Edition of Rosweidus, a new Edition of the Book of Imitation, under the Name of John Gersen, whom he Entitles Abbot of Verceil, printed at Paris by Sebastian Hure, in 1638. with Apologetical Notes about the Title and the Text of this Book, wherein he produces 4 Manuscripts out of Italy, to prove that this Book was Gersen's, that of Arona, that of the Monastery of Padolirona, where the Name of Gerson is found in two places; that of the Cardinal of Biscia, wherein the Author of the Imitation is called John de Canabaco, and an Edition of the Imitation at Venice, in 1501. under the Name of Gerson; at the end of which, there was written in an ancient Character, This Book was not Compiled by John Gerson, but by John ..... Abbot of Verceil, whose Manuscript is to this day in this Abbey. From this Remark Walgrave Conjectures that Gersen was Abbot of St. Stephen of Verceil, and there are 4 Manuscripts, which Cajetan calls the Chariot of Gold, upon which John Gersen is Carried in Triumph. Father Fronto a Canon Regular of St. Genvieve of Paris, wrote an Answer two years after to this Piece of Walgraves, Entitled. Thomas a Kempis Vindicated by one of the Canous Regulars of the Congregation of France. It was printed by Cramoisy. in 1641.  
At the same time Cardinal Richlieu having given Orders to print at the Lovure the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ; Father Gregory Tarissus, Superior of the Benedictines of the Congregation of St. Maur, desired of this Cardinal, that this Impression should be published under the Name of John Gersen, a Regular of the Order of St. Benedict, whom he affirmed to be the true Author of this Book, upon the Authority of four Ancient Manuscripts which were at Rome. Cardinal Richlieu answered Father Tarissus, that he would write to Rome to have a Certificate from some Person worthy of Credit, that these Manuscripts were agreeable to what he had said, and gave order to Mr. Desnoyer to search what Light he could find upon this Subject. And it was Resolved that this Question should be Examined by the Messieurs, Du Val, Hallier, and St. Beuve, Doctors, and by the Father's Petavius, and Sirmondus, Jesuits, who might call in to their assistance the Priors of St. German de Prez, of St. Genevieve, and St. Victor. Father Tarissus having written to Rome, the R. R. F. F. Dom. Placidus le Simon, Proctor General of the Benedictines, of the Congregation of St. Maur, in the Court of Rome, and Dom John M. Proctor-General of the English Benedictines, came on the 30th of January, in 1641. to Cardinal Bagni, who had been Nuncio in France, and prayed him to look upon the four Manuscripts which they presented him, that he might assure Cardinal Richlieu they did really bear the Name of John Gerson. Cardinal Bagni answered them, that to make an Authentical Instrument, it would be convenient to appoint two Persons expert in these Matters, to examine these Manuscripts, and make a Report of them, in the presence of himself, and a Notary. They agreed upon the Sieur Gabriel Naudaeus Secretary to this Cardinal (in whose hands they left the Manuscripts) and the Sieur Fioravente Martinel, one of the Under-keepers and Writers of the Vatican-Library. The Sieur Naudaeus having Examined these Manuscripts by himself, found in that which belonged to the Cardinal of Biscia, and which was then Allatius', the Name of Canabaco at the top, tho' this might be written by the same hand, and by the same Writer. He found also in this Manuscript a Bull of the Apostolical Legate in Germany, which was dated in 1448. which showed that this Manuscript was later than that year, whereof he judged the Writing to be at the end of the Fifteenth Century, or the beginning of the Sixteenth. As to the Second Manuscript, which was that of Padolirona, he found that these words had been written some time after the rest, Incipit Liber Johannis Gerson Primus, which were of a Vermilion more bright and fresh than the rest of the Title; and that at the end of the same Manuscript Gerson was changed into Gersen. As to the Third, which was that of the Abbey▪ of Cave, as it was without the Name of the Author, and had only the Figure of a Benedictine upon the first Letter, from which they would draw some Inference; he Remarks that nothing can be concluded from this Representation, and that there is no manner of proof that this is the Figure of the Author of this Book. The Fourth was not a Manuscript, but was printed at Venice under the Name of John Gerson, and at the bottom of the Page it was observed, that this Work was not Gersons, but Gersen's, the Abbot of Verceil. He meddles not at all with the time of writing this Note, which he judged a very late Forgery, and to be put in the room of another which had been carefully erazed; that the traces of some whole words were still to be seen, and even the Letters of Thomas which had been erazed. Monsieur Naudaeus having made these Remarks, Communicated them to Cardinal Bagni, and to Sieur Fioravente, who was of the same Opinion. The Fathers Dom Placidus, and Dom John coming afterwards with their Notary, the thing was Examined in their presence, and even the traces of three Letters were picked out in the Ancient Title of the first Manuscript, which did not at all correspond to the new Letters. They did not find that this Report would be to their advantage, and therefore they never ordered an Instrument of it to be drawn up before a Notary. But Messieur Naudaeus drew up one by his own Authority, which he caused to be attested by Vincent Galeotte, Auditor to Cardinal Bagni, and sent it the same year to the Messieurs D● Puy.  
In France Father Sirmondus having met with a Manuscript of the Imitation in the Library of the College of Jesuits which was Anonymous, but such as he judged to be more ancient than Thomas a Kempis, founded upon this his Opinion, that Thomas was not the Author of it. On the contrary, Father Petavius considering the agreement of the stile of this Book, with that of the other Books which were contestable owned to be Thomas a Kempis', made no scruple to affirm that it was his, being otherwise persuaded that Rosweidus had answered all the Difficulties of the Abbot Cajetan. Monsieur de St. Beauve declared, That it was more probable, that this Book was Gersons, the Chancellor of the University of Paris, than Gersen's or Thomas a Kempis'. The Opinion of the other two Doctors is not known. The Result of this whole Enquiry was, That the Book of the Imitation was printed at the Lovure, without the Name of the Author. Notwithstanding the Remarks made by Monsieur Naudaeus, the Abbot Cajetan would still maintain his own Opinion, and alleged the same Manuscripts attested by the bare Instrument of a Notary, and the same Reasons which he had formerly made use of in an Apology which he published at Rome, in 1644. for John. Gersen, together with a new Edition of the Imitation under his Name.  
The Book of Walgrave, and the Apology of Cajetan, were refuted by a Flemish Canon Regular, and by Simon Werlin, Rector of Diessen, who wrote in 1641. a Treatise against Walgrave, and a second in 1647. against Cajetan: This second was not printed till the Year 1649. after the Death of the Author, with this Title, Vindiciae Vindiciarum Kempensium.  
In the same Year Father Fronto, a Canon-Regular of St. Genevieve, reprinted the Dissertation which had appeared in 1641. wherein he inserted the Relation of Mr. Naudaeus, about the Manuscripts of Rome. His Work is divided into three Parts. In the ●st he intends to prove, That the Imitation is not Ge●sen's, nor a Benedictin Abbot's; In the 2d, That it is not Gersons; And in the last, That it is Thomas a Kempis': And at the same time, he printed the Book in a large Character under the Name of Thomas a Kempis.  
This Book of Father Fronto was, as it were, a new Signal which renewed the War between the two Parties, whereof one was for Gersen, and the other for Thomas a Kempis: For immediately Father Robert Quatremaires, of the Congregation of St. Maur, being a Man of Wit and Learning, but hot and eager, made an Answer to the Book of Father Fronto, by Word of Mouth, wherein he accused Mr. Naudaeus of Unfaithfulness in the Examination of the Manuscripts, and in the Relation he had made of them; he suspected him of having falsified the Manuscripts in Question while he had them in his hands, and of having given this Testimonial, for the Reward of a simple Priory which he had in their Order, altho' it was not given him till four Years after he had sent this Relation to the Messieur Du Puy.  
Some time after, Father Francis Walgrave wrote another Answer, wherein he treats the Sieur Naudaeus no better. Both the one and the other published a Tract of the deceased Monsieur Launoy, Doctor in Divinity, of the Faculty of Paris, which was much more wise and moderate; wherein he gives his Judgement about the Author of the Books of Imitation, in favour of Gersen, and against Thomas a Kempis.  
The Sieur Naudaeus seeing himself attacked, and accused of Forgery and Falsification, did not only make use of the ordinary Defence to Men of Learning, which is, to justify himself by public Writings, that discover the Innocence of the accused; but he had recourse also to the Magistrates to demand Satisfaction, for the Reproach that had been thrown upon him, and presented his Libel to the Court of Justice at Paris, praying, That the Copies of the Books of Quatremaires and Walgrave, might be seized and suppressed. But the Benedictins removed the Cause to the Court of Requests at the Palace, wherein the Sieur Naudaeus offered to justify the Truth of his Relation, by exhibiting the Manuscripts. All the Difficulty was how to fetch them from Rome. He was Master of the Manuscript of Allatius, the Inspection of which plainly showed, That the Word Canabaco was interlined, and added some time after the other Words, tho' it was of the same Writing and the same Vermilion. As to the other three Manuscripts, he could not fetch them, whatever Diligence and Importunity he used with the Benedictines of Rome to produce them: He offered even in the Court of Justice to consign a Sum of 3000 Livres, to be distributed for the Benefit of the Hotel Dieu, or employed to make a Silver Lamp, which should be placed before the Grand Altar of the Church of St. german de Prez, provided the Benedictines would send the three Manuscripts in Question within six Weeks, and that these Manuscripts should not be judged to agree with what he had said in his Relation. This Process lasted some time; the Canons-Regulars of St. Genevieve interposed in the Cause, and desired that the Book of the Imitation might be prohibited to be printed under any other Name but that of Thomas a Kempis. At last, after the Cause had been pleaded by all Parties, it was ordained Feb. the 12th, 1652. That all reproachful Words which had been used by any Party should be suppressed; That nevertheless Justice should be done upon the Copies of Walgrave's Book which had been seized; That all Persons should be forbidden to print the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, under the Name of John Gersen, the Abbot of Verceil, and a Permission should be granted to print it under the Name of Thomas a Kempis. The Benedictines appealed from this Sentence of the Court of Requests at the Palace to the Grand Court, but this Appeal was not prosecuted.  
While this Cause was depending before the Magistrates, the Writers continued still to publish their Books. Father Fronto answered the Book of Walgrave, and that of Mr. Launoy. The Sieur Naudaeus wrote many Pieces about it in French and Latin, in an elegant Style, but brisk and passionate, and cruelly outraged the poor Abbot Cajetan in his Piece, Entitled, Causae Kempensis Correctio. He attacked also very rudely Mr. Launoy in another Piece, Entitled, Velitatio Kempensis. An English Priest, Confessor to the English Benedictines at Paris, called Thomas Carr, who had formerly written in English about this Controversy, wrote a Book more moderate than those of Mr. Naudaeus, to defend the Cause of Thomas a Kempis, which he Entitled, Thomas a Kempis a seipso restitutus. The chief thing which he did in this Book, was to compare the Terms, Phrases, Sentences and Doctrine of the Book of the Imitation, with the other Books of Thomas a Kempis, and thereby to prove, that there is a perfect Agreement between them; yet to this, he added some ancient Editions and ancient Testimonies. Tho' it is not the most elegant, yet it is the most solid Piece that hitherto had been written in Defence of Thomas a Kempis. Father Fronto produced too new Arguments, one taken from the Agreement of the Imitation, with the Books of the Canons-Regular of that time; and the other taken from the Name of Devout, which the Canons-Regular assumed, and is sometimes used in the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ. Mr. Launoy did not keep silence, but wrote a Reply to the Answer of Father Fronto. About the same time Father Vanquaille wrote also a Confutation of what Mr. de Marilla● had said in his Preface to the Translation of the Imitation, in favour of John Gersen.  
But the Canons-Regular had no sooner gained their Cause, as to what concerned the printing of the Imitation, under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, but they presently cried out Victoria, and printed a Latin Book, Entitled, The Triumph of Thomas a Kempis over his Adversaries, which was written by Father Desnos, and a Treatise in French, Entitled, The Contest about the Author of the Imitation of Jesus Christ fully cleared, by comparing together all the Proofs offered by the Benedictines and Canons-Regular, together with the Proofs justifying the Claim of Thomas a Kempis. This Book had not the Name of the Author; but 'tis well enough known, That it was written by Father Boissy, a Canon-Regular of St. Genevieve. It is divided into three Parts: The first contains the Proof of the Claim of Thomas a Kempis; the second, The Answer to the Reasons which are made use of to oppose it; and the Third, The Claim of Gersen produced and rejected: At the end there are added some Pieces justifying the Claim of Thomas a Kempis. This Book repeats every thing in the best Order, which had been said hitherto, to prove that the Book of the Imitation was Thomas a Kempis'. This Book met with no Reply from the Benedictines; but Mr. Launoy made some Notes to it, as to what concerned himself, in a French Dissertation, dedicated to Mr. de Montmor.  
The Controversy was for some time hushed up, till the Benedictines gathered from all parts, such Manuscripts as might give new Strength to their Pretensions. They fetched out of Italy the Manuscripts of Padolirona, of Allatius and Cave, which Mr. Naudaeus had accused of Forgery, and many others out of Flanders and Germany; and being thus armed, they presented them in 1671. to Mr. de Lamoignon, first Precedent, at a Conference where the F. F. Lalemant and du Moulinet opposed them, and maintained that these Manuscripts were unserviceable to their Cause. Some time after, they addressed themselves to Francis Harlay, Archbishop of Paris, and prayed him that these Manuscripts might be examined in his Presence by Learned Men; to which this Prelate consented. Whereupon they brought into his Palace, on the 14th of August, 1671. twelve Manuscripts and some ancient Editions, under the Name of Gersen. Mr. Faure, Doctor in Divinity, of the Faculty of Paris, Father le Cointe, of the Congregation of the Oratory, Mr. Vion of Herouval, Mr. Valesius, Mr. Baluzius, and Mr. Cotelier, were there present: They examined these Titles in the Presence of the Archbishop, made their Report; of which they drew up a Process in writing, and among other things, judged the Writing of the Manuscript of Padolirona to be unchanged, which the Sieur Naudaeus had judged to be corrupted. Upon this Report, the Benedictines reprinted in 1674. cum Privilegio, the Books of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, by Billain, in a fair Character, under the Name of John Gersen, Abbot of St. Stephen of Verceil, of the Order of St. Benedict, together with the Instrument which we just now mentioned; and a Dissertation which they printed also apart, written by Father Delfau, which produces all the Reasons which can be alleged, to maintain the Opinion of those who believed, That John Gersen was the Author of this Treatise.  
Some time after, the Benedictines of the Abbey of St. german de Prez, received also another Manuscript from Mr. Sluse, which had at the end the Name of John Gersen, which was examined, judged unalter'd, and 200 Years old, by the Messieurs Du Cange, Herouval, Baluzius, Valesius, Launoy, Cotelier, and by Father Cointe, according to the Act which they published, bearing Date August 23d, 1674.  
The Canons-Regular put forth in 1677. an Answer to the Dissertation of Father Delfau, under the Name of Vindiciae Kempenses, written by Father Testellette, a Canon-Regular; which was quickly confuted by some Observations.  
At last the Canons-Regular, that they might oppose an Authentic Instrument to that of the Benedictines, made a Collection also of the Manuscripts and Titles upon which they grounded their Opinion; and having examined them in Order, in the Presence of the Archbishop of Paris, by the Messieurs Faure, Baluzius, Vion of Herouval, du Cange, and by the F. F. Gardiner and Hardovin, Jesuits; F. Du Bois, of the Oratory, and F. Alexander, a Jacobin, a Process in writing was drawn up of this Matter, March 4th, 1681.  
At last F. Dom John Mabillon, and F. Dom Michael, having brought with them at their Return from their Journey into Italy, the Famous Manuscript of Arona, together with a Manuscript of the Monastery of Bobio, and another of the Church of St. John of Parma, wherein the Name of John Gersen was found, assembled on the 28th of July, 1687. the Messieurs Faure, Du Cange, D' Herouval, and many other able Men, well versed in these Matters, who did me the Honour to receive me into their Number; who having examined these three Manuscripts, judged, That the Name of Gersen was written in them by the first Hand; That the Writing of the first Manuscript did not appear less ancient than 300 Years; Non videtur inferior trecentis annis; That the second was of the same Antiquity, and that the third contained (before the Book of Imitation) the Rule of St. Benedict, which had been fully written and finished, according to the Date which is at the end, August the 8th, in the Year 1466.  
Thus you see what is the State of the Controversy, which remains undecided to this Day, altho' the Process was wholly drawn up, and the Cause ripe for a Sentence, from the Books and Reasons which have been produced and alleged on both sides; and were at first examined, owned, and verified by Persons of Probity and Ability, as all must acknowledge. Let us now therefore make an Extract out of the Writings, and Exhibits of the Parties, and let us then see if there be any way left to give a Decision, and in whose Favour, Justice and Truth require it should be given.   

SECTION II.  
The Authors to whom the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ has been ascribed. Proofs that it is by no means St. Bernard's.  
THERE are but four Authors who can have any Pretention to the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ; St. Bernard, John Gerson, the Chancellor of the University of Paris Thomas a Kempis, and John Gessen or Gersen, an Abbot: For I will not mention Ludolphus the Saxon, to whom it has been ascribed in a Manuscript, and under whose Name an ancient Translation of it has been printed, because he has so slender a Claim, that he cannot with any Congruity, be joined with the rest in their Pretensions.  
St. Bernard seems to have been the first who was in Possession of it, at least it was under his Name, that the first Edition appeared, that we now have of the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, which was printed in 1485. at Brescia, and taken without doubt, from a Manuscript more ancient, which went under his Name, Incipit Opus D. Bernardi saluberrimum de Imitatione Christi, & contemptu omnium Vanitatum Mundi, quod Joanni Gersoni Cancellario attribuitur. It was also under his Name, that the first Version of the Imitation was made: For in the Inventory of the Books of John Count of Angoulesme and Perigueux, which was made in 1467. and is in the Court of Exchequer, we find it under this Title, The Inventory of the Books which are found in the Closet of the deceased Monseigneur, on the 1st Day of January, in 1467. For towards the end we meet with it in these Words, The Imitation of St. Bernard, with many Prayers and Devotions, in common Letter and Paper, which are very much perished. Observe these last Words, which show that this Manuscript was then very old in 1467. and consequently, That this Version had been made a long while before, from a Manuscript which went under the Name of St. Bernard. Wherefore in the first French Edition of the Imitation at Paris, by Lambert, in 1493. 'tis observed, That till that time this Book had been ascribed to St. Bernard, or Gerson: Here gins the most wholesome Book, Entitled, De Imitatione Christi, which has hitherto by every one been ascribed to St. Bernard, or Mr. John Gerson: And in another Edition at Paris, by Lenoix, about the Year 1500. we have this Title, The Book of the Imitation of our Lord, ascribed to St. Bernard or John Gerson, translated out of Latin into French: Lastly, There are still some Manuscripts, in which it is ascribed to St. Bernard; among the rest, there is one in the Library of St. Genevieve, M. Numb. 413.  
In the mean time it is impossible to maintain, That it is St. Bernard's, and the Book itself affords a demonstrative Proof, that it is not; for St. Francis is quoted in it, in the 50th Chapter of the third Book. A Man is only of so much worth, as he is in your Eyes, Lord, and nothing more; says the humble St. Francis. Now St. Bernard died in 1153, and St. Francis was not born till 1226. Besides, the Style of the Book of the Imitation is much more plain, and the Discourse more unpolished than that of St. Bernard's: We must therefore say, That it was by the Fault of Transcribers or Printers, that this Work has been ascribed to him; for they finding it without the Author's Name, joined to some Work of St. Bernard's, as it is still to be found in some Manuscripts, thought that it must certainly be the same Author's, and so boldly put his Name to it. This plainly shows, that we must not always trust to the Inscriptions of Manuscripts, and the most ancient Editions. This is all that concerns St. Bernard. If the three others had no more Claim than he, or the Reasons were no less convincing for taking it away from them, this Enquiry would quickly come to an end. But the Case is not the same; for they produce many more Proofs and Testimonies, and there can be no Reason, without some Reply to them, either to establish or destroy their Claim. And this is what we intent to do in the following Paragraphs, wherein we shall first examine the Manuscripts which each produces for himself. 2dly, The ancient Editions which they produce, that are almost equivalent to the Manuscripts, because Printing begun a little time after the Publication of this Work, and there are even Manuscripts later than some Editions. 3dly, The Testimonies which they allege. 4thly, The Reasons they bring to establish their Claims. 5thly, The Answer they give to the Proofs which are offered to destroy it.   

SECTION III.  
An Examination of the Manuscripts of the Book of the Imitation, which go under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, a Canon-Regular of Zwoll.  
THE first of the contending Parties whom we will hear, is Thomas a Kempis, whose most probable Title is founded upon a Manuscript of the Imitation, which is to be found in the Jesuits House at Antwerp, written with his own Hand in 1441. as these Words written at the end of the Manuscript, give Reason to believe: Finitus & completus Anno Domini, 1441. per manus fratris Thomae Kemp. in monte S. Agnetis prope Zwol, i. e. Being finished and completed in the Year of our Lord, 1441. by the Hand of Friar Thomas a Kempis in the Mount of St. Agnes near Zwoll. This Manuscript contains the four Books of the Imitation of Jesus Christ under four different Titles: The 1st under this Title, Useful Advertisements for a Spiritual Life; alias, Of the Imitation of Jesus Christ. The 2d under this, Advices which carry a Man inward. The 4th, which is transposed and placed in the room of the 3d, under this Title, Of the Sacrament of the Altar. The 3d, which is placed last, under this Title, Of the Interior Speech of Jesus Christ. And besides these four Books, there are some other Treatises of Thomas a Kempis, viz. A Treatise of the Discipline of those who are in the Cloister; A Letter of a Devout Person to a Regular; A Recommendation of Humility, of the Mortified Life, the Peaceable Life of good Men; Of the Elevation of the Heart; A short Advice about External Behaviour. Now all these Treatises are, without Dispute, Thomas a Kempis'; from whence it is inferred, That the four first are also his, and so much the rather, because if they had been another Author's, he would not have failed to have set down his Name. This Manuscript is Authentic, for it is marked at the beginning, That it is at the Monastery of the Canons-Regular of Mount-saint Agnes, a Virgin and Martyr, near to Zwoll. And afterwards, we find written with a later Hand, That Friar John Latomus, a Regular of the Order of Regulars, in the House near Herental, Minister-General of this Order, having visited the Monastery of St. Agnes, near Zwoll, had removed the Ruins of this Monastery, lest it should entirely be lost, and carried it to Antwerp, where he had left it in 1577. in the hands of his Ancient and Faithful Friend John Beller, who had given it in favour of his Children, to the F. F. of the Society of Jesus, in 1590.  
Those who maintain, That Thomas a Kempis is not the Author of the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ; Answer, That this Manuscript rather favours them than the contrary: 1st, Because it proves only, that Thomas a Kempis is the Transcriber of the Books of Imitation, and not that he is the Author of them. This is all that is signified by what is set down at the end, and the same Observation is to be met with in a Volume of a Bible, written by Thomas a Kempis; Finished and Completed in 1439. on the Vigil of St. James, by the hands of Friar Thomas a Kempis, etc. which shows, That this is the common and ordinary Form which mere Transcribers used to make use of at that time. 2dly, That tho' this Manuscript be written with the hand of Thomas a Kempis, yet it cannot be said, That this is the Original of that Book, because it is evident, and confessed by all the World, That there are Manuscripts of the Book of Imitation, more ancient than this; among the rest, a Manuscript of the first Book, which ends thus, Here ends this Treatise written in the Council of Basil, in 1437. and finished with the help of God, by me Gottingen: It cannot therefore be said, That this is the Original of Thomas a Kempis' Composition; it can be no more than a Copy which he wrote out of his own Works. 3dly, There are some things in this Manuscript which may make it doubtful, whether Thomas a Kempis be the Author of the Book; for if he were, 'tis reasonable to believe, That he would not have placed the fourth Book in the room of the third; he would not have left in it so many Faults, such as Omissions, particularly at B. 1. ch. 13. after this Verse, Principiis obsta, sero medicina paratur, this other Verse necessary for completing the Sense, is omitted, Cum mala per longas invaluere Moras, and at B. 2. ch. 11. Raro invenitur tam spiritualis, the Word invenitur is forgotten; and gross Faults, as at B. 1. ch. 12. Non bene nobis creditur, for de nobis; at B. 2. ch. 5. Debes habere for velles habere, B. 4. (which is the third Book in the printed Copies) ch. 36. succumbi for succumbere, ch. 55. stips for stipes or stirps; and Words repeated twice and erazed. If these things be true, say they, than those who published the Book of the Imitation under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, have not in every thing followed this Manuscript as they ought to have done, if it were certain that this was the last Copy of the Author, which ought therefore to be most correct. 4thly, 'Tis pretended, That this is not a Proof that the Imitation is Thomas a Kempis', because it is joined to the Works which are ascribed to him, That there are very often found in one and the same Volume, the Works of different Authors; and perhaps there may be some cause to doubt, whether these other Works which are joined to this, are all of them Thomas a Kempis'.  
To the 1st Objection it is replied, That 'tis true, it cannot be inferred merely from the Words that are at the end of this Manuscript, That it is Th●ma● a Kempis'; nay 'tis confessed, That in Humility he would not put his Name to this Work, That he loved rather to pass for the Transcriber than the Author of it; but still it is pretended, that this being joined to the other Works which are contestable his, in one and the same Manuscript, all written out with his own hand, 'tis no ways probable that it should be any other Author's; and so much the rather, because Thomas a Kempis did not make any Distinction between them, and never observed that the Imitation was another Author's. As to the 2d, That 'tis not pretended, that this Manuscript was the first Original of Thomas a Kempis, but that it was only a Copy written out in 1441. of a Work which he composed about the Year 1410. As to the 3d, 'Tis replied, That an Author who transcribes his own Work, may sometimes commit Faults through Inadvertency; That the Transposal of the Book is not a Fault, since these Books never had any certain Order; That the Verse Cum mala per longas, etc. is omitted not only in this Manuscript, but in many others which go not under the Name of Kempis; and that Cajetan and Walgrave did think it needless, since they have not put it in their Editions. As to the last, 'Tis replied, That this Manuscript being written from beginning to end, with the hand of Thomas a Kempis, it cannot be said, that it was by chance he joined these Works together, and that 'tis no wise probable, he should write a Treatise which is none of his, with those Treatises which are his, and never make any Distinction between them.  
There is another Manuscript also written with the hand of Thomas a Kempis, which has a Declaration written at the end of it, in 1586. by John Ulimmerius; Hic liber est scriptus manu & characteribus Reverendi & Religiosi Patris, P. Thomae Kempis, Canonici Regularis, in Monte St. Agnetis, qui est Author horum libellorum devotorum: Joannes Ulimmerius scripsit, 1586. This Manuscript is in the Library of St. Martin of Louvain, it contains the Soliloquy of the Soul, the three first Books of Imitation, the Treatise of the Elevation of the Soul, a brief Advice for spiritual Exercise, the Treatise of the Sacrament (which is the fourth Book of Imitation) whereof there is nothing but the Preface: 'Tis partly written on Parchment, and partly on Paper. There are in it the same Omissions which are in the other, and the same Reflections may be made upon them; and so much the rather, because it is not himself, but another who testifies, that it was written with the hand of Thomas a Kempis, and that he is the Author of it; and this he did in 1586. which is more than a Hundred Years after his Death; which renders his Testimony, both as to the Writing and Composure of Thomas a Kempis, of little Authority. Those who have seen these two Manuscripts, and might have compared them together, have never told us, whether the hands be like one another. Let us now proceed to the other Manuscripts, which are not written out with the hand of Thomas a Kempis, but only go under his Name, which are produced by the F. F. of St. Genevieve.  
The first is a Manuscript of St. Martin of Louvain, which contains the little Garden of Roses, and three Books of Imitation, viz. the 1st, the 4th, and the 3d, at the end whereof these Words are read; Expliciunt tractatus quatuor Fratris Thomae Kempis devoti & interni, scripti, illuminati & ligati per manus fratris Symonis Jacobi, de Leydis, Professi in Leyderdorp, pro tunc Socii Rectoris hujus Monasterii sancti monialium Antiqua●um in Aemstelredam Anno scilicct Domini 1482. in professo Willibrord Episcopi, i. e. Here end the four Treatises of Friar Thomas a Kempis, a devout and inward Man, written, enlightened, and bound up by the hands of Friar Simon James, of Leyden, a Regular of Leyderdorp, at that time the Companion of the Rector of the Ancient Nuns of this Monastery of Amsterdam, in the Year of our Lord, 1482. on the Festival Day of St. Willibrord, Bishop. Here is a Manuscript of 1482. whose Transcriber does plainly ascribe three Books of the Imitation to Thomas a Kempis.  
The second is a Manuscript of the House of St. Peter and St. Anthony, at Delhem, wherein there is found an Extract taken out of the Treatise of the Cloister of the Soul, by Hugo Foliot, written in 1475. and the Book of Imitation under this Title, A Treatise of the Contempt of the World; at the end whereof there is written with another hand: Explicit libellus de Contemptu Mundi, quem fecit frater Thomas Kempis, professus in Monte Agentis Ordinis Canonicorum Regularium, obiit aetatis suae Anno 92, in Ordine devotus 65, requiescat in perpetua pace de primis pro quo solvi debitum, Anno 1471. Cosmae & Damiani quo Anno obiit, i. e. Here ends the Book of the Contempt of the World, which was made by Friar Thomas a Kempis a Regular of Mount-Saint-Agnes, of the Order of Canons Regulars, who died in the 92 Year▪ of his Age, in the 65 after his Admission into his Order, and in 1471. on the Day of St. Cosmas of St. and St. Damian: Let him rest in Eternal Peace. This Manuscript does not contribute much to confirm the Claim of Thomas a Kempis, because this Observation was not made with the hand of him who wrote the Manuscript, who left the Treatise Anonymous.  
The third is a Manuscript of the Canons-Regular of the Holy Cross of Ausburg, which contains four Books of the Imitation, at the end whereof are found these Words; Compilator hujus Opusculi fuit quidam frater Thomas nomine de Conventu & Ordine Canonicorum Regularium Ordinis St. Augustin, Montis sanctae Agnetis Trajectensis, i. e. The Compiler of this Treatise is Friar Thomas, of the Convent and Order of Canons-Regulars, of the Order of St. Augustin, of Mount-Saint-Agnes, of Utrecht. Bollandus and Heserus have pretended, that this Manuscript is of the Year 1440, but in that which was produced by the Canons-Regulars of St. Genevieve, there was no Date at all, and those who are well versed in these Matters, could not pitch upon the time in which it might be written; and therefore we cannot tell, whether it be more ancient or later than that of 1441. besides, That Thomas a Kempis is here described only as a Compiler.  
The fourth is a Manuscript in the Library of St. Martin at Louvain, which at the head of the first Book, has the Name of Thomas a Kempis, Liber primus fratris Thomae a Kempis, Canonici Regularis de Imitatione Christi. This Manuscript has its Date at the end, which is but in the Year 1524. Ultima Decemb●is finientis Anni 1524. in Festo St. Sylvestri Papae & Confess●…is.  
They allege also many other Manuscripts which have been seen and quoted by those who have written about these Matters, whose Testimonies they relate, as a Manuscript of the Convent of the Carthusians at Brussels, written in 1463. containing the four Books of Imitation without the Name of the Author indeed, but only under the Title of a Regular: Explicit devotus tractatus cujusdam Regularis, de interna locutione Christi ad Animam fidelem, scriptus per manus Jacobi Baeust, Laici redditi. Finitus in Anno Jubil●eo, 1473. die mensis Octobris, & pertinet ad Carthusienses Domus Sylvae Sancti Martini prope Geraldi Montem. This Manuscript is cited by Chistetius, in the 7th Chapter of his Apology, and he affirms that he had it in his hands. There is another Manuscript at Utrecht cited by the same Author, upon the Credit of Lappius, who believed it to be of the 14th Century, in which the Name of Thomas a Regular is thrice repeated. There are two Manuscripts in the Monastery of St. John Baptist, of Rebdo●f, without Date, which according to the Certificate of Father Breidend●nch, Subprior of this Monastery, and of a Notary, go under the Name of Thomas a Kempis; a Manuscript in the Library of Afflighew, cited by Sanderus, upon the Testimonial of Father Cambiere, a Benedictine Regular of that Abbey, which goes under the Name of Thomas a Kempis; a Manuscript in the Monastery of Canons-Regulars of Maseyke, quoted by Rosweidus, which was written in 1477. by Cornelius Offermans, which goes under the Name of Thomas a Kempis; a Manuscript in the Library of David Ehinger, of the City of Kirchen, in the Duchy of Wirtemberg, quoted by Prosper Farandus, which contains three Books of the Imitation, with the Name of Thomas a Kempis; upon which it is observed, that this Book is of the Author's hand, who wrote it in 1425. But since there is now no such Manuscript, neither is it said, with what hand this is observed, no great matter can be built upon it: A Manuscript in the Library of Ausburg, attested by the Surrogate Bishop of that City, without any Date, wherein the Imitation carries the Name of Thomas a Kempis; a Manuscript in the Library of Ausburg, which contains four Books of the Imitation under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, as the Catalogue printed in 1633. gives ground to believe; and wherein there is no more but the last joined to the other Treatises of Thomas a Canon-Regular of Mount-Saint-Agnes in a Volume, on the 1st Page whereof it is observed, That this Book was for the Use of Friar John Lefort, a Reader of Divinity, and that it was given in 1490. in the Octave of St. Martin, by John Carpenter, Provincial of the Order of the Carmelites.  
To these particular Manuscripts of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, which go under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, we may join the Ancient Collections of the Works of this Author, among which the Imitation is placed. The 1st is a Manuscript in the Library of the Monastery of St. Barbe, of the Carthusians of Collen▪ containing divers Treatises, the Titles whereof are at the Top, viz. The Mirror of Henry of Hesse, the Book of discerning Spirits by the same, and afterwards, Some Tracts of a Devout Regular (where some Person has added on the Margin, whose Name is Thomas Kempis, of a Convent near to Zwoll) Of the Sacrament of the Altar; Of the seven things which most pleased God in his Elect; The Breviloquium of Spiritual Exercises; A Treatise of some Virtues; The Soliloquy of the Soul by way of Dialogue; The little Book which is called, Qui sequitur me. Towards the end of the Book, about the Sacrament of the Altar, 'tis observed, That this Treatise was written in 1447. on St. Simon and St. Jude's Day. The two first Treatises of this Manuscript, which are Henry Hesse's, and the last which is the first Book of the Imitation, are written in a different hand from the rest, which are written in a hand resembling that in which the Catalogue is written. This was the Judgement of men well versed in these matters: But the Name of Thomas a Kempis appears to be written lately. There are also two other Collections alleged, one which is in the Monastery of Benedictines of Mount Blandin, near Gant; which according to the Certificate of Father Vanheul, Library-keeper to this Abbey, authorised by the Dean of the Church of Gant, contains many Works of Thomas a Kempis, which begin with the Sermons to the Novices, together with their Preface, which is Entitled, Here gins the Prologue of that devout Man Friar Thomas Kempis, a Priest, a Canon-Regular professed, who died in the Monastery of St. Agnes near Zwol; after this follow the Sermons: There are many other Works of the same Author, among which is found that of the Imitation. This Manuscript has no Date, and there was never any Judgement given of its Antiquity. The third Collection is, that which is found in the Library of the Benedictines of St. Martin at Tournay, which is alleged by Chifletius, it contains the Book of the Discipline of those who are in the Cloister; Spiritual Exercises; the Treatise of a Man's Acknowledgement of his own Frailty; A short Advertisement of the Spiritual Exercise; Useful Advices for a spiritual Life (this is the 1st Book of the Imitation) Advertisements which carry a man inward (that's the 2d Book) and at the end is written with the same hand and in Red, Friar Thomas a Kempis, Canon-Regular of the Monastery of St. Agnes near Zwoll, in the Diocese of Utrecht, wrote the Tracts above recited. This Manuscript is without Date.  
To these Collections we may add the Manuscript Catalogues of Books, wherein the Imitation is found commended under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, such as that of the Library of Endovia, which is joined to another Catalogue of Sancta Maria of Arnhem, dated in the Year 1472. A Catalogue of the Books of about a hundred Libraries of Germany, which contain short Characters of Authors, wherein there is found at Page 302. what follows, Friar Thomas a Kempis, of the Diocese of Collen, a Canon-Regular at Mount St. Agnes near Zwoll, of the Diocese of Utrecht, being well versed in the Holy Scripture, has Compiled many Tracts, which are witnesses of his Devotion, and useful for Regulars; viz. Advertisements for a Spiritual Life, otherwise called, of the Imitation of Jesus Christ; Advices which lead to an inward Life, and of inward Conversation; of Internal Consolation or Speech; of the Holy Communion, or the Preparation of a Man for the Communion. There is another Catalogue joined to the preceding, wherein at the Letter T. there is put under the Name of Thomas a Kempis the four Books of the Imitation, together with the Book of the Three Tabernacles, and of Mary and Martha; these three Catalogues are in the Library of St. Martin of Louvain. There is also a Catalogue in the Library of St. Maria of Arnhem, dated in 1496. wherein the four Books of the Imitation are found under the Name of Tho. a Kempis. Three ancient Catalogues in the Library of the Monastery of St. John Baptist de Rebdorf, containing the Titles of all the Works of Thomas a Kempis, among which are found the Books of the Imitation; whereof one bears date 1488. and goes under the Name of Friar Nicolas Numan of Frankfurt, a Regular of Frankendal. An Observation which is at the end of the Monastery of St. Catherine of Ausburg, wherein are the Lives of Gerard and Florence in Germane; wherein 'tis observed that this Book is Thomas a Kempis', who wrote a Devout Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ.  
The General Answer which is given to all these Manuscripts is this, that being all later than that of Antwerp, in 1441. which has the Name of Thomas a Kempis at the end of it, altho' it be only in the quality of a Transcriber, and not of the Author, it was very possible that one of these might be taken for the other, and that the Book might be ascribed to Thomas a Kempis as the Author, which he had only Transcribed. That this it is which has deceived some of those who have since Copied out or Printed this Work, and many Authors who have ascribed it to him. That there is not any Manuscript found before the year 1441. which goes under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, and that there were many of the same time and since that, which are Anonymous. That these Manuscripts are not more considerable nor more ancient than those which ascribe the same Book to St. Bernard, to Gerson, or Gersen, even while Thomas a Kempis was alive. But on the contrary, the latter are more ancient. That no where but in Flanders or Germany are there any Manuscripts to be found which go under the Name of Thomas, and that all those which are in France and Italy are anonymous, or go under the Name of Gerson, or Gersen; which shows that those who first put his Name to the Manuscripts, were deceived by the Manuscript of Thomas a Kempis, in 1441. That in the Manuscripts which carry the Name of Thomas a Kempis, the four Books are parted, and under different Titles, as if they were four different Treatises, and often they are transposed; whereas in the greatest part of the other Manuscripts which are more ancient, the four Books of Imitation are placed there under the same Title, and in their Natural Order. These are the Exceptions which are made against the great number of Manuscripts which are alleged on behalf of Thomas a Kempis, which depend upon the Manuscripts which the others produce, whereof we shall speak hereafter. Let us now come to the Editions which have been made under the name of Thomas a Kempis.   

SECTION IU.  
The Editions of the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ under the Name of Thomas a Kempis.  
'TIS true, the First Edition which is alleged with a Date of the Imitation of Jesus Christ under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, is in 1475. tho' the Copy of it is never produced; but then 'tis said that there is one in the Library of the Republic of Ausburg, Cod. 32. of Theological Books, wherein the 4 Books of the Imitation are printed in Folio, without a Date indeed, but at the end there is found this Note, Viri Egregii Thomae Montis Sanctae Agnetis in Trajecto Regularis Canonici, Libri de Christi Imitatione numero quatuor finiunt feliciter, per Zanitherum Zainer ex Rentlingen progenitum, literis impressi aheneis: i. e. Here end the 4 Books of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, by that Excellent man Thomas a Canon Regular of Mount St. Agnes of Utrecht, printed in Letters of Brass by Gonther Zainer, a Native of Rentlingen; Zainer died April the 14th, in 1475. as is proved by the Burial-Book of the Canons Regular of the Holy-Cross of Ausburg, and therefore this Edition must be more ancient than the former. There is an Edition of the Mirror of Human Life by Roderic of Zamora, printed in 1471. by Zainer. And lastly it is observed upon the Copy whereof we are now speaking, that it was bought by the Convent of Friars Carmelites of Ausburg. Supposing the truth of these matters of Fact, it cannot be denied but the Books of the Imitation were printed under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, a little time after his Death.  
The Second Edition which is alleged is that of Strasburg, in 1487. 'Tis said that it was in the Library of Prague; and Heserus relates that he found it at Ausburg, in the Library of the Canons Regular of St. George. It gins thus; Incipit Liber p●imus fratris Thomae de Kempis, Canonici Regularis, Ordinis St. Augustini, de Imitatione Christi, & de contemptu omnium vanitatum Mundi, Capitulum primum. Qui sequitur me, etc. and at the end, Fratris Thomae de Kempis de Imitatione Christi, & de contemptu omnium vanitatum Mundi, devotum & utile Opusculum fi●it feliciter, Argentinae impressum, per Martinum Flach, Anno Dom. 1487.  
There is also alleged another Edition in the same year at Nuremberg, which is mentioned in the Addition to the History of the Library of Nuremberg.  
There are 3 Editions in 1480. one at Ingolstad, the other at Lions, and a 3d at Memmingen, and one at Lunenburg, in 1493.  
The first which fell into our hands is the French at Paris, in 1493. which we have already quoted, and has these words at the top, Here gins the most wholesome Bock Entitled, Of the Imitation of Jesus Christ our Lord, and a perfect contempt of this miserable World; which by some has been hitherto ascribed to St. Bernard, or Mr. John Gerson, tho' really it does not belong to them: For the Author of this Book under our Lord, was a Venerable Father, and most Devout Canon-Regular, who in his own time lived in a Regular Olservation of the Rule of my Lord St. Austin, named Friar Thomas de Kempis.  
After this follows an Edition of the Works of Thomas a Kempis, in 1494. at Nuremberg, by Gaspar Hochfeder, by the Care of Peter Danhausser, and at the solicitation of George Pickamer, Prior of the Carthusians of that City, wherein the Treatise of the Imitation is at the head of all the Works, with this Observation; Dulcissimi & Divi Thomae de Kempis viri piissimi, religiosissimique de Imitatione Christi, Opus: quod falso apud vulgares Gersoni Parisiensi Cancellario impingitur.  
There are also before that at Paris, one by Badius in 1520. which some have thought to be the first Edition, under the Name of Thomas a Kempis; that of Collen, in 1507. and that at Antwerp, in 1519.  
In the Editions of the Works of Thomas a Kempis by Badius, in 1520, 1521, and 1523. the Book of the Imitation is there with this Note, that it was falsely ascribed to Gerson. It was also printed at Venice, in 1535. among some Works of Thomas a Kempis with the same Note. I pass over in silence the Paris Editions of the years 1541, 1549, 1561, and 1574. and at Antwerp, in 1535, 1550, 1552, 1559, 1575., 1587., 1592., 1599, 1607. after which followed that of 1616. by Bellerus from the Manuscript written with the Author's own hand, in 1441. at Lions in the years 1554, 1555, 1596, and 1601. at Vienna in Austria, in 1561. at Lisbon in the same year; at Dilingen in the years 1571, and 1576. at Basil in 1563. in which the 3 first Books are turned into fine Latin by Sebastian Castalio, which have been published since after the same manner by Francis Toll, who Translated the 4th Book, and printed them together at Antwerp, in 1575. at Collen in the years 1575., 1582, 1591., 1601, 1607, and 1610. and at Rome, in 1583. wherein the Book of the Imitation is printed under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, a Canon Regular, or with this Observation, that it has been falsely ascribed to Gerson. Neither shall I mention the Editions in Vulgar Tongues, such as the French Version, printed in 1565. the Italian printed at Venice in 1569. a Spanish Version of Lovis de Grenada, printed in 1542. two other Versions in the same Tongue, printed in 1615, and 1633. a Version into Flemish by Nicholas Winge a Canon-Regular of Louvain, printed at Louvain in 1584., and 1576. and at Antwerp, in 1591. a Germane Version printed at Di●ingen in 1554, and 1555. the Translations into the Turkish Language, in 1580. into the Bohemian in 1600. into the English in 1611. into the Greek at Ausburg, in 1615. into the Japan, Arabic and Hungarian Tongues in 1636.  
This multitude of Editions does no ways terrify the Adversaries of Thomas a Kempis, for the latter are of no great Authority, and to the former they oppose Editions equally ancient, which ascribe this Book to St. Bernard, or to Gerson, under whose Name it appeared many times in Italy, and France, before the Name of Thomas a Kempis was mentioned. These Editions were Published since the death of the Author, at a time when some in Germany and Flanders thought the Book of Imitation was his; and they are either in Germany, or Flanders; for there is never an ancient Edition in Italy or France under the Name of that Author; but they are almost all under the Name of Gerson. Lastly, It is not by Editions that we must decide this Question, but by Manuscripts; for if another Author has some of these more ancient than Thomas a Kempis, this Book can be none of his.  
If those which go under the Name of Gerson, or Gersen, are more ancient and more authentical than those which go under the Name of Thomas, 'tis more natural to ascribe it to them than to this latter. Upon this depends the Decision of the Question, and the number of later Editions ought not to be any prejudice against the Manuscripts.   

SECTION V.  
The Testimonies of Authors which are alleged in Favour of Thomas a Kempis.  
THE Testimony of Cotemporary Authors who wrote and lived immediately after an Author, is of great moment to discover his true Works; and many such Testimonies are produced to prove that the Book of the Imitation is Thomas a Kempis'.  
The 1st is John Busch, a Canon-Regular of Windesem, who finished the Chronicle of his Monastery in 1464. as he himself observes in his Preface, and as may be inferred from Chap. 4. and 5, of the 2d Book of that Chronicle, wherein he remarks that it was more than 70 years since the Monastery of Windesem was founded. This Author speaking in Chap. 21. of the 2d Book of the death of John of Huesden, Prior of the Monastery of Windesem, says, that a few days before his death it happened that two considerable Friars of Mount St. Agnes near Zwoll, of his own Order, came to meet this Prior, and consult him about some things; of whom, one was Friar Thomas a Kempis, a man of an Exemplary Life, who wrote many devout Books, (viz. He that follows me, Of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, with some others,) and the next Night he had a Dream which presaged future things; For he saw in the Night time a Meeting of Blessed Spirits in Heaven, who crowded as it were for the death of a certain Person; and when he heard the Bell Knowl, as it used to do for a Dying-man, he awoke out of Sleep; and from hence he conjectured that the Prior of Windesem would quickly die. Contigit ante paucos dies sui obitus, ut duo fratres notabiles de monte Sanctae Agnetis prope Zwollis Ordinis nostri, dictum Priorem nostrum super certis rebus consulturi in Windesem advenirent, quorum unus frater Thomas de Kempis, Vir probatae vitae, qui plures devotos libros composuit, Viz. Qui sequitur me, De Imitatione Christi, cum aliis, nocte insecuta somnium vidit praesagium futurorum. Aspexit namque in visu noctis concursum Spirituum be●torum fieri in coelestibus, quasi pro alicujus morte celeriter festinantium statimque tabulam tanquam pro morientis exitu in somnis audivit pulsari, ut exinde experrectus evigilaret. In se itaque reversus caepit tacite cogitare, quod Prior in Windesem in brevi esset migraturus. This Passage is not only printed by Busch, but is found also in a Manuscript of the Abbey of St. Martin of Louvain, and in another Manuscript of St. Peter and St. Anthony of Dalhem, which were exhibited by the Canon's Regular of St. Genevieve, in a Manuscript of the Library of Utrecht, and in that of Rebdorf, according to the Authentic Testimonies of the Library-Keeper of Utrecht, and the Suffragan Bishop of Ausburg. The Manuscript in the Library of Rebdorf, was written in 1477. by Friar John Offenburg, aged 70 years, as is observed in the Manuscript. Finit feliciter per me fratrem Joannem Offenburg in Kerpgarten Professum feria tertia ante Dionysii festum, anno aetatis meae circiter septuagesimo, anno vero Incarnationis 1477. sine speculo oculari scriptum. This Offenburg died in 1479. as is observed in the same Page, Anno Incarnationis Dominicae 1479. objit idem frater Joannes Offenburg. Nevertheless this Parenthesis is suspected of Forgery, Quorum unus frater Thomas de Kempis, etc. or at least these words, Qui sequitur me, de Imitatione Christi; and 'tis pretended the Parenthesis was added some time after. First, Because it has no Connexion, nor Relation to what goes before, and what follows after. Secondly, Because it promises to speak of two Friars, and yet it names only Thomas a Kempis. Thirdly, Because in order to the Revelation of this Vision, it was needless to allege that Thomas a Kempis had wrote Devout Books. Fourthly, Because it seems to be an Affectation among these Books to name only the Imitation of Jesus Christ. That if one observes narrowly this Construction, qui plures devotos libros composuit, viz. Qui sequitur me, de Imitatione Christi, he will find it very probable that these words, viz. Qui sequitur me, etc. are added. This Conjecture would be passed all doubt, if there be, as one told me, a Manuscript of the Chronicle by Busch, written in 1464. wherein this Parenthesis is not to be found; for the Manuscripts wherein it is, being Copied out since that time, 'tis easy to conceive that this Addition was made to them, as many others have been: But tho' it were manifest that this Parenthesis was written by Busch, in 1464. yet it is possible that this Author may be deceived, and ascribe to Thomas a Kempis a Book whereof he was only the Transcriber.  
The Second Witness is Mathias Farinator, of the Order of the Carmelites of Vienna in Austria, who is the Author of a Book of Moralities, Entitled, The Light of the Soul, printed at Antwerp, in 1477. 'Tis said, that he wrote the Book of the Imitation with his own hand, under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, and that his Copy is found with the other Treatises in the Library of Ausburg, as the Catalogue of that Library shows. The Books of the Imitation are only in Manuscript, but there are other Books at the end of which, 'tis observed, that they were written in 1472. with the hand of Muthias, and another which is a Soliloquy of Hugo, in 1475.  
As to this Witness, 'tis said that he may do very much hurt to Thomas a Kempis, but can do him no service; because this Mathias Farinator lived under the Pontificate of John XXII. who sat in the Holy-See, from 1316. to the year 1334. by whose Order he undertook to Compose the Book of the Light of the Soul. Possevin and Simlerus place him at the same time. If it be thus, and that he Transcribed the Book of the Imitation, than it could not be Thomas a Kempis', since this Farinator must be dead before the year 1406. wherein Thomas became a Regular Professed. To this 'tis Replied, that Mathias Farinator was not of the Fourteenth, but of the Fifteenth Century, as the Date of his Manuscript shows; that Trithemius has not put him in the Catalogue of his Writers, which ends at the year 1494. nor Arnold Bostius, in his Catalogue of the Writers of the Order of Carmelites, which was finished about the same time: That Possevin and Simler were deceived, because they thought that Mathias Farinator wrote his Book by the Order of John XXII. for there is no such thing said in the Preface, as these Author's thought; That Farinator Composed this Book by the Order of Pope John XXII. but, That this Book was written in the time of Pope John XXII. and after it had remained a long while concealed and in obscurity, he had put it into better Order, divided it into Chapters and Paragraphs, and made a Table to it. Here follow the words; Liber Meralitatum jussu Joannis Pontificis Maximi Lumen Animae dictus, quem post diutinam occultationem cum adhuc informis esset, Simplicioribus rudis & obscurus appareret, frater Matthias Farinatoris de Vienna, Sacri Ordinis, B Dei Genetricis & Virgins Mariae, de Monte Carmeli Lectorum Sacrae Theologiae minimus, in Titules, & Titulos in Paragraphos distinxit; Moralitates omnes pariter Naturales per binas Tabulaturas ●…gnans, & editus est anno, 1477. 'Tis therefore very probable that Mathias lived at the end of the Fifteenth Century, and that he did not Compose but put in Order, Correct, and Publish the Book of Moralities. If this be so, it may be said, that supposing he had written the Imitation of Jesus Christ under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, yet he was imposed upon by some Manuscript which was taken from that of 1441. which made some believe that this Book was Thomas a Kempis'. I say, suppose he had written it under his Name, for there is no such thing in this Manuscript; yet it may be, that the Author of the Catalogue having drawn it up at such a time as Thomas a Kempis was commonly believed to be the Author of the Book of Imitation, might add this Name to it, tho' it was not in this Manuscript. Lastly, Since we have not the Original written with Farinator's own hand, we can lay no great stress upon this.  
The Third Witness which is produced for Thomas a Kempis, is the Anonymous Author of his Life, who ascribes to him the Book of the Imitation; and in the Body of the Life he says, that we may see in his Treatise of the Interior Conversation of Jesus Christ with the Soul, Ch. 2. what he said to the Lord in his Solitude, and in the Ancient Catalogue which concludes his Life.  
Against this Witness, 'tis alleged, that he was not Cotemporary to Thomas a Kempis; that he had neither seen nor known him, since he says, that he learned what he wrote of his Life from the Friars of his Convent, who were still alive; A Fratribus illius Conventus qui adhunc vivunt; and that he speaks of the time when Thomas became a Regular, as a thing that was past many years ago: Tunc temporis fuit Consuetudinis ut sic per sex annos probentur, priusquam investiantur. And therefore we must not wonder that he speaks according to the Common Opinion in Germany, of the Book of Imitation: That besides, this Life was Interpolated, and that neither the Catalogue, no● the last words wherein he promises it, are to be found in the Editions of Venice, in 1568, and 1576. That the Catalogues of the Works of Thomas a Kempis do neither agree among themselves, nor with that of Trithemius. Lastly, That the Continuator of the Chronicle of Mount St. Agnes, who wrote the Life of Thomas in 1477. says nothing like this which is in the Life of the Anonymous, and speaks not any ways of the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ; but only observes that he Composed some Tracts for the Edification of younger People in a plain and easy Style, but very considerable for their Sense and Force.  
The Fourth is Peter Shot, a Canon of Strasburg, who Published in 1488. an Edition of the Works of Gerson, wherein he observes, that he has not added here those Treatises which had been sometimes ascribed to Gerson, and who have certainly another Author, as the Book of the Contempt of the World; which, as is manifest, was written by one Thomas a Canon-Regular; quem constat esse a quodam Thoma Canoico Regulari editum: But that which seemed manifest to Shot, will not appear so to those who ascribe this Book to Gerson.  
The Fifth is John Kunne of Dunderstat, who printed in 1489. a Book of the Elevation of the Soul to God, wherein he ascribes the Book of the Imitation to Thomas a Kempis.  
The Sixth is John Mauburne, an Abbot of Liury, the Author of the Spiritual Rosary, printed at Basil, in 1491. who quotes in this Work the Book of the Imitation, under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, and who in another Manuscript Work of the Ecclesiastical Writers, of the Order of Canons-Regular, ranks in this Number Thomas a Kempis, upon the account of the Books which he Composed; among which he names that which gins with these words, Qui sequitur me; which some have falsely ascribed to Gerson. This Author wrote not this till towards the end of the 15th Century. He owns that from this time this Book had been ascribed to Gerson; nevertheless he thinks that it was Thomas a Kempis', but he gives no manner of proof of this Opinion, and so his Testimony is not decisive in the Case.  
The seventh at last is Trithemius, who in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, which was finished in 1494. places the Imitation of Jesus Christ, which he entitles De contemptu Mundi, beginning with these Words, Qui sequiturme, at the Head of the Works of Thomas a Kempis, who flourished about the Year 1410. But the same Author, in his Book of the Illustrious Men of Germany, written some time after, distinguishes two Thomas a Kempis', both Canons-Regular of Mount-Saint-Agnes, of Zwoll, whereof one was more ancient, and flourished in the time of Gerard le Grand, past for the Author of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, tho' some were not of that Opinion: His Words are these; Et notandum quod duo feruntur hujus fuisse Nominis ambo de Kempis, Regulares in Monte Sanctae Agnetis, ambo varia cudentcs Opuscula, quorum primus temporibus M. Gerardi Magni ad Religionem conversus, divinis Revelationibus dignus habitus, ea quae supra recensuimus Opuscula scripsisse dicitur. Secundus vero adhuc nostris temporibus pene viguit in humanis, & varia composuit quae ad manus nostras non venerunt, & forsitan primo nonnulla sunt ascripta, quae secundus fecisse putatur. Libellus autem de Imitatione Christi primi fertur Auctoris, quem ante multos Annos seniores nostri suos ferunt legisse seniores; quamvis sciam nonnullos in hac re scntire contrarium. Claruit autem Thomas iste senior sub Ruperto Bavaro Cl. Imperatore Anno Dom. 1410. Trithemius having learned, after he had wrote his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, that Thomas a Kempis had lived till his time, could not imagine that it was he who flourished in 1410, and who wrote the Book of the Imitation, which was more ancient, and had been read, as he says, by his Seniors Seniors. He does therefore distinguish two Thomas a Kempis', the one more ancient, the Disciple of Gerard le Grand, and the other later, confounding John a Kempis the Brother of Thomas, who had been indeed the Disciple of Gerard le Grand, and Canon-Regular of Zwoll, with Thomas himself: And therefore this Testimony of Trithemius seems to prove, That the Book of the Imitation is more ancient than Thomas a Kempis, and that in his time it was not certain that it was his.  
To these Authors some join George Pirkamer, Prior of the Carthusians of Nuremberg, and Peter Danhausser, who procured the Edition of the Books of the Imitation in 1494. under the Name of Thomas a Kempis; and an Anonymous Author, who wrote a Manuscript Letter in the Library of St. German des Prez, in 1496. who quotes the Imitation as Thomas a Kempis', John Geiler, of Keiserberg, who quotes it under the Name of Thomas, in 1499. in his Treatise, Entitled, Navicula sive speculum Fatuorum; Philip of Bergamo, who praises Thomas a Kempis, and attributes to him the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ in his Chronicle at the Year 1506, and many other Authors of the 16th Century, which it were needless to mention, because their Testimony is of no Authority.   

SECTION VI.  
The Reasons which are brought to show, That the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ is Thomas a Kempis'.  
THE Reasons upon which this Opinion is grounded, That the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ is Thomas a Kempis' are these; 1. The Agreement of the Style of this Work with that of the other Works of Thomas a Kempis. 2. The Agreement of the Thoughts and Sentences. 3. The Flemish Expressions which discover that the Author is of that Country. 4. The Doctrines and Maxims of the Canons-Regular of the Congregation of Gerard le Grand, which show that this is one of his Disciples. 5. The Name of Devout, which he often gives to the Congregations, and among whom he seems to rank himself, which is the Title that is commonly given to the Canons-Regular of that Congregation.  
The Agreement of the Style appears, 1st, In the Use of certain, extraordinary and barbarous Terms which are in the Imitation of Jesus Christ, and which frequently occur in the Works of Thomas a Kempis and his Brethren, such as these, Regratiari, pensare, querulosum, passionatus, contentare, contranare, compassivus, cordialiter, meliorari, solatiosus, sufferentia; 2d. By the Usage of Interjections, Eia, O quam, O si, which is common with them; 3d, By the same manner of expressing himself in low and mean Terms, but such as are expressive and moving; 4th. By the Use of a short and sententious Style, so that every Phrase is a Sentence and a Maxim.  
To this 'tis answered, That the Style of the Imitation is more close, more brisk and sententious, than that of the Works of Thomas a Kempis, which is more prolix and faint; That there is a remarkable difference between them in this, That Thomas a Kempis citys the Passages of Scripture, and the Fathers at full length, and alleges the Places from which they are taken; whereas the Author of the Imitation takes only the Substance and Sense of the Books (which he adapts to his purpose, without citing the Places) and not the very Words themselves; which shows, That the former had mediated more upon than Thomas a Kempis, but he did more fully understand their meaning. As to the Terms, they are not particular to Thomas a Kempis, and the Author of the Imitation; for they are common to him with many other Authors, who wrote in these dark Ages, and the Exclamations and Interjections are ordinarily used by all affectionate and spiritual men; besides, That Thomas a Kempis having often read and transcribed the Imitation, and framed his mind according to it, it is no great Wonder, that he should use the same Terms in his Works which are in it.  
The same Doctrine and the same Morality, are to be found in the Imitation, which are in the other Works of Thomas a Kempis, the same Sentiments about the Contempt of the World and himself, about avoiding Pleasures, about Humility, the Vanity of Sciences, about Retirement, the Life of Monks, Mortification, the Resignation of ourselves to God, and particularly about the Love of the Cross; there are found in it the same Sentences and the same Maxims, almost in the same Words, which are in his other Works, of which I shall here give you some Examples.  

The Book of Imitation.  
HAbitus & tonsura modicum conferunt, sed mutatio morum & integra mortification Passionum, Lib. 1. Cap. 7. Numero 2.  
Quid pr●dest tibi alta de Trinitate disputare, si careas humilitate, l. 1. c. 1. n. 3.  
Si non vincis parva & levia, quomodo superabis difficiliora, l. 1. c. 11 in fine.  
Valde vilis quandeque res est unde gravis tentatio provenit, l. 1. c. 12.  
Sancta illa anima quae dixit, mens mea solidata est, & in Christo fundata, l. 3. c. 45. n. 3.  
Ama nesciri, & pro nihilo reputari, l. 1. c. 2. n. 3.  
Miser es, ubi●unque fueris, & quocunque te verteris, nisi ad Deum te convertas.  
Omnia vanitas praeter amare Deum, l. 1. c. 11. n. 3.  
Domine, hoc non est opus unius diei, nec ludus parvulorum, etc. l. 3. c. 32. n. 2.  
Plures invenit Jesus socios mensae, sed paucos abstinentiae, l. 1. c. 11. n. 2.  
Dixit quidam, quoties inter homines fui, minor homo redii, l. 1. c. 20. n. 2.  
In cella invenies quod de foris saepius perdes, & ibid. n. 5.  
Tota vita Christi Crux fuit & martyrium, l. 2. c. 12. n. 7.  
Saepe videtur esse Charitas & magis est Carnalitas, l. 1. c. 15. n. 2.  
Vita boni Monachi Crux est, sed dux paradisi, l. 3. c. 56. n. 4.   

The other Works of Thomas a Kempis.  
NON vestis pulchra perfectum facit Religiosum, sed perfecta secuii abrenunciatio, & vitiorum quotidiana mortificatio, Serm. 14. ad novit. n. 9  
Quid prodest altus status sine humilitate & charitate, ibid.  
Si non potes parva vincere, non poteris graviora superare, Hort. Rosar. c. 15. n. 2.  
Saepe valde parva res est, unde homo valde graviter tentatur, ibid.  
Beata Agatha ingenua virgo, & spectabilis genere, ait, mens mea solidata est & in Christo fundata.  
Ama nesciri, & pro nihilo reputari, Opusc. 5. p. 686.  
Quocunque te vertere disponis, dolores semper invenies, & taedia multa, nisi fueris ad Creatorem conversus, Soliloq. anim. c. 12. n. 10.  
Omnia pereunt praeter amare Deum, Man. Par. c. 7. & alibi saepius.  
O Domine Jesus, quid sic facis? quid est iste ludus? O Pie Jesus, etc. Soliloq. anim. c. 13. n. 4.  
Christus multos habet amatores & sodales mensae, sed paucos sectatores abstinentiae, Hort. Rosar. c. 7. n. 2.  
Dixit quidam expertus, quicquid boni tacendo colligo, hoc fere totum l●quendo cum hominibus dispergo, Serm. ad novit. 13. n. 8.  
Qui foris saepius evagatur, raro inde melioratur, etc. Hort. Rosar. c. 10. n. 2.  
Tota vita Jesu Christi Crux fuit & Martyrium, in Cant. Spir. Cant. 8.  
Saepe putatur esse Charitas, & est magis Carnalitas libenter, etc. de Discip. Claustr. c. 11. n. 2.  
Vita boni Monachi Crux est, sed dux Paradisi, Opusc. 12.   
Thus it appears, that many of the Thoughts and Sentences are certainly alike; but it may be said, That we must not wonder at this, since these are Sentiments of Piety and Devotion, which come from the Spirit unto all those who writ spiritual Books, and that the like Sentences are to be met with, not only in the Works of Thomas a Kempis, but also in those of St. Bernard, of Ludolphus the Saxon, of John Rusbroek, Denis the Carthusian, and many other Spiritual Writers; besides, That Thomas a Kempis being entertained a long time with the Thoughts and Sentiments of the Book of Imitation, 'tis no surprising thing, that he should draw from thence some Sentences, as he often does from the Books of Holy Scripture.  
Some Authors, and among the rest, Rosweidus and Heserus, have taken a great deal of pains to collect together all the Flemish, or Teutonic Phrases, which they thought were to be met with in the Book of Imitation; others on the contrary, have imagined that they see in it a multitude of Italian Phrases; but neither the Remarks of one, nor the other, are a convincing Proof; for the greatest Part of the Phrases which they have observed, as Teutonisines, or Italian Phrases, are the ordinary ways of speaking, which are used by those who do not speak good Latin. Nevertheless, there is one which is wholly Flemish, Scire totam Bibliam exterius, i. e. To get the Bible by heart; for the Flemings say, To get a thing without, instead of, To get a thing by heart. But this Expression also is not to be found in the greatest part of the Italian Manuscripts; and therefore it may have been added by Thomas a Kempis in his Copy.  
The Doctrine, the Spiritual Advices, and the Sentiments of the Book of the Imitation, are agreeable to the Spirit and Rules of the Congregation of Canons-Regular of Gerard le Grand, to which purpose this Book has been compared with the Letter of John of Huesden, one of the first Priors of Windesme, wherein the same Maxims are to be found. Here follow some Instances of it.  

The Letter of John of Huesden.  
QUI perseveraverit usque in finem hic salvus erit.  
Dilecte frater habeas praescripta verba ante cordis tui ●culos, & persevera usque in finem in sancta cruse Poenitenti●, i. e. in vita religiosa & monastica, quam propter am●rem Jesu Christi suscepisti, Initio Epist.  
Eorum inspice multiplices & pergraves labores, & quam perfecte Deo obtulerunt amicos, & cognatos omnes, & possessiones, temporalia bona, & mundi honores, ibid.  
Si ad breve tempus perseveraveris in hoc exercitio, Sanctissim● Vitae & Passionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ista praecepta & multo majora tibi scribi poterunt quiet & cito adjicientur, p. 3.  
Quid dulcius, O dilecte frater, quid securius, quid simplici Columbae salub●ius, quam in Petrae foramine, he● est, in Christi Jesu vulneribus delitescere & requiescere, ibid.  
Ad externa Officia nullatenus, frater dilecte, aspires, nec aliquam Praelaturam affects, p. 21.  
Libenter, cum potest fieri, solus sis, p. 22.  
Nhihil penitus agas sine consilio, & plus semper expertis quam tibi ipsi credas, p. 23.  
Ama nesciri & ab aliis contemni opta, p. 26.   

The Book of the Imitation.  
DOmine suscepi de manu tua Crucem, portabo eam usque ad mortem sicut imposuisti mihi: Vere vita Monachi Crux est, sed dux paradisi— Eia fratres, propter Jesum suscepimus hanc Crucem, propter Jesum perseveremus in Cruse, l. 3. c. 56. n. 4. & 5.  
Intuere sanctorum Patrum vivida exempla, O quam multas & graves tribulationes passi sunt Astoli & Martyrs, Confessores, Virgins, & reliqui omnes,— omnibus divitiis, dignitatibus, honoribus, amicis & cognatis renu●ciabant, l. 1. c. 18. n. 1, 2, & 3.  
Religiosus qui se intent & devote in sanctissima & passione Domini exercet, omnia utilia & necessaria sibi abundanter ibi inveniet; nec opus est ut extra Jesum aliquid melius quaerat. O si Jesus Crucifixus in Cor nostrum veniret, quam cito & sufficienter docti essemus!  
Requiesce in Passione Christi, & in sacris vulneribus ejus libenter habita, si enim ad vulnera & pretiosa stigmata Jesus devote confugeris magnam in tribulatione confortationem senties, l. 2. c. 1. n. 4.  
Multo tutius est stare in subjectione quam in Praelatura, l. 1. c. 9 n. 1.  
Pete secretum tibi, ama solus habitare tecum, l. 3. c. 53. n. 1.  
Cum sapiente & conscientioso viro consilium habe, & quaere potius instrui a meliori, quam tuas adinventiones sequi, l. 1. c. 4. n. 2.  
Ama nesciri & pro nihilo reputari, l. 1. c. 2. n. 3.   
Lastly, The Canons-Regulars of the Congregation of Gerard, were called by the particular Name of Devoto's, Devout Clerks, the Congregation of the Devout: This is the Name which Thomas a Kempis himself gives them in the Lives of Gerard le Grand, Florence, and others; this is the Name which John Busch gives them in the Chronicle of Windesem. The Author of the Imitation speaks often of the Devout, and gives us to understand, That he dwells with them, God grant that the Progress of Virtue may not be hindered among you, who have seen such great Examples of the Devout, l. 1. c. 18. n. 6. I confess I am not worthy to dwell among your Dev●to's, l. 3. c. 52. n. 2. I offer you all the Pious Desires of the Devout, l. 4. c. 9 n. 5. He speaks of these Devoto's in many Places, as a particular Society, l. 1. c. 18. n. 6. Diversity of Opinions does often cause Dissensions among Friends and Inhabitants in the same City, and Lawsuits between the Regulars and the Devout, l. 2. c. 9 n. 6. Whether they be good Men, or devout Friars: From whence it is conjectured, that he lived at a time▪ and in a Country, where this Name was given to the Congregations of Canons-Regular, and that he was one of them. To this Objection, they think it enough to answer, That the Name of Devoto's is a General Name, which is given indeed to the Clergy of the Congregation of St. Gerard, but not as a Name which is peculiar to them, and does not agree to any other; That the Word is to be found in a multitude of other Authors, who wrote before there was any Congregation of St. Gerard, as in Richard de sancto Victore, in St. Bonaventure; That even the Author of the Imitation of Jesus Christ uses it for all those that are fervent in the Exercises of Piety: Although I am not fired, says he, with such a Passion to receive you, as those who are your particular Devoto's, Licet tanto desiderio tam specialium devotorum tuorum non ardeo, l. 4. c. 14. n. 3. and in many other places: In these very Passages which are alleged, there is nothing to signify, that the Name Devout is used in them, for Persons of a particular Order or Congregation.   

SECTION VII.  
An Examination of the Reasons which are alleged against Thomas a Kempis, viz. Whether there be Authors which mention the Book of Imitation, before he could write it, and whether it be in Manuscripts that are more ancient than he. A List of all the Manuscripts of the Imitation, whereof we have any Knowledge. An Enquiry whether the Author of this Book was a Monk.  
THE first Argument which is made use of to show, that the Book of the Imitation is not Thomas a Kempis', is this, That this Book is more ancient than he. 'Tis certain, that if this Fact is well proved, it cannot any ways be ascribed to him. Now here follow the Proofs which are brought of it.  
First, 'Tis said. That the Book of the Imitation is cited by St. Bonaventure, who was dead before the Death of Thomas a Kempis. This Fact appears notorious; for there are found among the Conferences to the Novices, which are among the Works of St. Bonaventure, and go under his Name, some Extracts taken out of Ch. 25. of the Imitation which the Author citys; Ut patet in devoto libello de Imitatione Christi. This Testimony alone would be decisive, if it were certain, that these Conferences were St. Bonaventure's; but it is maintained, that they are none of his, and for this a Proof is brought which appears to be unanswerable. The first Conference, say some, is taken out of the Book of a Crucified Life, by Ubertin of Casal, which he did not write, as he himself observes in the Preface, That it was finished in 1305. in the 32d Year of his being a professed Monk, Mensae Septembri terminavi in vigilia Michaelis Archangeli anni praesentis 1305. a felicissimo ortu veri Solis Jesus, a mea vero vili conversione anno 32 & die 9 Martii in Quadragesima in Festo 40 Martyrum inchoatus est iste liber. If Ubertin did not compose this Work till 1305. and did not enter into the Order of Friars Minors till 1273. How could St. Bonaventure, who died in 1274. cite this Book? Add to this, That these Conferences are not found in the Editions of his Works at Strasburg, in 1489. nor in the Manuscripts of the Libraries of the Vatican, of Sforca, of Colonna, of the Oratory of Bologne, and of Thoulouse; That Marianus of Florence, who wrote his Chronicle in 1486. is the first that puts them in the Catalogue he made of the Works of St. Bonaventure, which was done very carefully; That they are to be found indeed in the Edition of Strasburg, in 1495. but in the Edition at Rome of Zamora, they are not ascribed to him, because tho' they had appeared in Print under his Name, yet it was not done upon the Authority of any Manuscript, Ut in impressis hactenus Opusculis fertur; last, That the Occasion of ascribing these Conferences to St. Bonaventure, was this, because he had written 91 Conferences different from these.  
Those who in spite of these Reasons will still maintain, that these Conferences are St. Bonaventure's, do follow Wadingus, in saying, 1st, That St. Bonaventure did not take from Ubertin what is found in these Conferences, but Ubertin took it from St. Bonaventure, and that the Citation of Ubertin (for it is there cited under his Name) is not in the Original Text, but has been inserted afterwards in some Marginal Note: But this is no ways probable, because the Author of the Conferences is only a Compiler, who composed them of Passages taken out of four or five Authors; and therefore they have recourse to another Solution of this Difficulty. 'Tis said, That Ubertin, of Casal, wrote, That he had received the Habit of his Order from John of Parma, General of the Friars Minors, who being deposed in 1256. Ubertin must needs have been a Regular of this Order, before 1273. and that he might compose his Book since that time. 'Tis true, That John of Parma was deposed in 1256. but he lived also Thirty Years in an Hermitage near to Rieti, where Ubertin of Casal says, That he went to meet him, without observing that he had given himself the Habit. However this be, the time when Ubertin of Casal entered into the Monastery, and when he wrote his Book, being certain by his own Testimony, 'tis needless to look after Conjectures. 'Tis said, That Marianus of Florence flourished about the Year 1400. according to Rodolphus Tossinian, or in 1430. according to Pocciantius, a Writer of the History of Florence; and therefore, that he is more ancient than Thomas a Kempis, and consequently, That the Conferences attributed to St. Bonaventure were written before Thomas a Kempis, which is sufficient. To these Authors some oppose Mark of Lisbon, who says, That Marianus of Florence died not till after the Year 1528. But this is very uncertain, for this Author is not worthy of Credit; but 'tis certain, by his Chronicle, that he lived till the Year 1480. in which Year Servita, the Author of the History of Florence, places his Death. Now supposing that about the Year 1480. Marianus had seena Manuscript of the Conferences under the Name of St. Bonaventure, than he who is the Author of them must have lived before that time; and this Author, having, when he wrote, an Anonymous Manuscript of the Imitation in Italy, 'tis probable, say they, That this Book was composed before Thomas a Kempis could write it. But this is what those deny who maintain, that the Book was written by Thomas in 1410. And so the Testimony drawn from these Conferences is not concluding.  
'Tis alleged, That St. Thomas took something out of the 4th Book of the Imitation, and inserted it into the Office of the Holy Sacrament, viz. That which he says in the Responses of the Magnificat, at the Feast of the Holy Sacrament; O quam suavis est, Domine, spiritus tuus, qui ut dulcedi●em tuam in filios demonstrares, Pane suavissimo de Caelo praestito, esurientes reples bonis, fastidioses divites dimittens inan●s; for the very same Words almost are to be found in Ch. 13. of B. 4. of the Imitation; O quam suavis est spiritus tuus, Domine, qui ut dulcedinem tuam in filios demonstra●es, pane suavissimo de Coelo descedente illos reficere dignaris. But what Proof is there, That St. Thomas did rather take this from the Imitation, than the Author of the Imitation should take it from the Office of the Holy Sacrament; especially if we consider, That this Author does often take Sentences out of the Offices of the Church, as in ch. 3. of the Same Book, O mira circa nos tuae Pietatis dignatio? Which Words are used at the Blessing of the Easter Wax-Candle; and again in ch. 55. there is a Prayer taken from the Orison on the 16th Sunday after Whitsunday.  
Mathias Farinator is also alleged, but to this pretended Witness we have already answered; from whence it appears, That it is not demonstratively proved, that the Imitation of Jesus Christ was cited by any Author, before that Thomas a Kempis could have written it.  
There remains only a Passage of Trithemius, which we have already produced, which is, That his Ancestors said, that their Ancestors had seen the Book of the Imitation many Years before; Quem ante multos annos seniores nostri suos ferunt legisse seniores. Trithemius wrote this in 1495. His Ancestors were then between Sixty and Seventy Years of Age, and these being young men, had seen the Book in the hand of their Ancestors, who read it many Years ago: This will make his Age at least to go back to the beginning of the Century; which is the Reason also why Trithemius ascribes it to a Thomas more ancient, and not to him that lived until his time. It may be said, That supposing Thomas had written the Imitation in 1410. which Trithemius in that Place says, may be true, and that the Ancient Thomas to whom he ascribes it, was no older; then consequently the whole matter depends upon knowing, whether in 1410. Thomas was capable of composing this Book, which we shall examine hereafter.  
Let us now see, whether there are any Manuscripts of this Book, whether they be Anonymous, or have the Author's Name, whether they be dated or without Date, which prove that this Book was in being before it could be composed by Thomas a Kempis.  
The first of all which we produce, shall be that which is pretended to have been written with the hand of John the Abbot of Verceil, who is said to be the Author, which Manuscript was in the Abbey of that City, if it be true which is written upon an ancient Edition at Venice in 1501. under the Name of Gerson; Hunc librum non compitavit Joannes Gerson, sed D. Joannes ..... Abbas vercel ...... ut habetur usque hodie propria manu scriptum in eadem Abbatia; But since it is not known by whom, nor when this Note was first put upon this printed Book, and that it was certainly done since the Year 1501. since that Mr. Naudaeus avers, that this was written even since the Controversy about this Book begun; and the F. F. Benedictines did not produce this Copy, in 1671. nor in 1674. altho' they had it in their hands, I think we need not be concerned about it.  
The Manuscript of Arona, which goes under the Name of the Abbot Gersen, and that in the Monastery of St. Columbanus of Bobio, were judged in 1687. to be 300 Years old, Scriptura non videtur inferior annis tricentis; and if so, than they were written at the end of the 14th Century, and consequently before Thomas a Kempis could write them.  
Father Sirmondus has given the same Judgement of an Anonymous Manuscript which he had, and which is in the Library of the College of Jesuits at Paris. Mr. Naude judged it much later, but I shall rather refer myself too F. Sirmond than Mr. Naude.  
There is also alleged an Anonymous Manuscript in the Abbey of Grandmont, together with the Certificate before a Notary, of Peter Almaert, a Monk and Library-keeper of the Monastery of St. Adrian of Grandmont, who testifies, That he had seen and read upon the last Leaf of this Manuscript which was tore off some Years after, an Inscription which said, That this Book was written by Friar Louis Du Mont, who died before the Year 1400. Hic liber conscriptus fuit a F. Ludovico de Monte, qui obiit ante Annum millesimum quadringentesimum. But since, 'tis not known by whom this Note was added, nor at what time, and that this Manuscript contained the Book of the Discipline of those who are in the Cloister by Thomas a Kempis, it cannot be made use of to prove, that the Imitation is more ancient than he.  
The Manuscript of the Monastery of St. James of Liege, in Paper, wherein is found the 4th Book of the Imitation, under the Title of a Book about the Sacrament of the Altar, without the Name of the Author, has this Note written upon the first Leaf, Anno Dom. 1417. die mensis Octobris 15. indutus fui habitum Ordinis sancti Benedicti, in Monasterio aedificato in honore sanctorum Apostolorum Jacobi & Andreae: But it is not necessary, That this Note should be written from the time that this Regular was professed; and it happens sometimes, that the Regulars set down the Day of their being professed upon Books, which they had not till a long time after; yet 'tis very probable, that this was not written a long time after.  
The First Manuscript which has a certain Date, is that which was cited in a Register of the Monastery of Melice, written and framed in 1517. by F●ia● Stephen Purckhardi, wherein there is mention made of a Volume in Manuscript containing the Treatise of St. Austin, of the Visitation of the Sick, the first Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, and a Meditation upon the Passion by St. Bernard, at the end of which it is remarked, Explicit Contemplatio B. Bernardi de Passione Domini, sinita Anno. 21 in die sancti Joannis Baptistae. This Date of 21 can be nothing but 1421. since the Register was framed in 1517. It may be said perhaps, That the Imitation of Jesus Christ was by another hand and at another time, than the Treatise of St. Bernard; but the Register supposes them both to be of the same time and the same Writing, and in the same Volume, and those who have seen them, have given us no Advertisement about them.  
The Date of the Manuscript at Weingarten is yet more certain; for the Manuscript itself is produced, wherein are the three first Books of the Imitation, and at the end of the third is written with the same hand, Explicit liber internae Consolationis, finitus Anno Dom. 1433. secunda Feria ante Festum Assumptionis Beatae Virgins Mariae per me fratrem Conradum Obersperg, tunc temporis Conventualem in Weingarten. Here then is a Manuscript in 1433. which is not the Original of Thomas a Kempis, and which does not bear his Name.  
The Second Manuscript of Melice follows quickly after this, and is dated in the Year 1434. It contains The Manual of St. Augustin, the Rule attributed to St. Jerom about the manner of living in Monasteries, the Book of the Reformation of Man, divided into four Parts, whereof the first Book is of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, and the Contempt of the Vanities of the World; and after the four Books of Imitation, there are some Treatises of Gerson, whereof the last is, 25 Considerations for hearing of Confessions, at the end whereof p. 120. is written, Explicit die Kiliani 34. which denotes the Year 1434. because there is mention made of it in the Register, framed as we have already said, in 1517.  
Father Mabillon assures us in his Journey into Italy, That he saw at Milan in the Library of the Abbey of St. Justina, a Manuscript of the Imitation dated 1436. whereof the Ancient Title was erazed, and instead of it there was written Gerson, or rather Thomas de Campis. The ancient Title therefore was not by Thomas a Kempis; for if it had been so, it would not have been razed to write the same again with a later hand.  
The Manuscript of the Monastery of St. Ulric of Ausburg, which contains the first Book of the Imitation without the Name of the Author, is written in 1437. at the time of the Council of Basil, as is observed at the end; Et est finis hujus Tractatus scripti in Consilio Basileensi Anno Dom. 1437. Et sic cum Dei adjutorio finitus est iste Tractatus per me Georgium de Gottingen, tunc temporis Capellan. in Wiblengen.  
The Manuscript written by Thomas a Kempis in 1441. may pass for one that is Anonymous, since Th. a Kempis put his Name to it as a Transcriber, and not as an Author.  
The Manuscript of the House of the Carthusians of St. Barbe of Colen, wherein the first Book of the Imitation is found written, in 1447. has not the Name of the Author; only it is observed in the Index, that this Treatise, and those which follow that are Tho. a Kempis', are a Devout Regular's, Cujusdam devoti Regularis.  
The Manuscript of St. Martin of Louvain, which contains the 3d Book of the Imitation, Dated in 1449. and produced by the F. F. of St. Genevieve, is Anonymous.  
The ancient French Anonymous Version made in 1447. by a Regular of Marchia, for Bernard of Armagnac, is printed at Rouen, in 1498.  
Another French Version which was found in 1467. in the Study of Monsieur the Count of Angoulesme, is under the Name of St. Bernard.  
There is in the Abbey of St. German de Prez, a Manuscript of the 4 Books of Imitation, Dated in the year 1460. under the Name of Gerson.  
That of Allatius, which goes under the Name of Canabaco, is Dated in 1463.  
That of Saltzburg of the same year, bears the Name of John Gerson.  
There is an Anonymous Manuscript of the same year at Brussels, Cited by Chiffletius.  
That of Parma, which has the Name of Gersen at the beginning of the 4th Book, contains, besides the 4 Books of Imitation, a Rule of St. Benedict, written with the same hand, at the end whereof the Date is set down, Die Octo. Aug. 1466.  
There is also one Cited which was given in 1468. to a Monk of the Order of Olivet, by a Visitor of that Order, and which the Father Delfau found in the Cabinet of Monsieur of St. Hilary.  
Those of Slusa and Padolirona, which have the Name of Gersen, were written about the same time, being judged to be 200 years old in 1671, and 1674.  
That of St. Peter of Dalhem is Anonymous in the 1st Writing, and 'tis only since that, 'tis observed, that the Book of the Imitation is Tho. a Kempis'.  
The First Manuscript which attributes this Book to Tho. a Kempis as the Author, is that in 1477. quoted by Rosweidus, and written by Offermans.  
The Second is that of James of Leyden, Dated in 1482.  
The Third is a Manuscript of the Holy-Cross at Ausburg, which some give out to be of 1440. but is without Date, as are also those of Rebdorf, and Lappius, to which we must join the Collections and Catalogues which we have above related.  
That which is in the Library of St. Genevieve, and which attributes this Book to St. Bernard, is without Date; it is at least 200 years Old.  
That of Mr. Lechassier, Cited by Mr. Launoy, wherein the 4 Books of Imitation are under the Name of Gerson, is written before 1497. for it is written by James Lupus, who is designed Bachelor of Divinity, who was Licentiate in 1497. and Died in 1498.  
These are almost all the Manuscripts of the Books of the Imitation, which we could come to the knowledge of. The Reflections which may be made upon them are these. 1. That there are Manuscripts either Anonymous, or under the the Name of Gersen, which the most Able Men in these matters judge to be written at the end of the Fourteenth Century, and in the first years of the Fifteenth. 2. That there are some Manuscripts in 1421, 1433, 1434, 1436, 1437. and that during all that time from 1420. to 1441. there is not any Manuscript that goes under the Name of Thomas a Kempis, and that these Manuscripts are not the Author's, but the Transcribers, who Copied them out from others which were more ancient. 3. That the Manuscript of 1441. does not discover him for the Author but for the Transcriber. 4. That from 1441. until the end of that Century, there are divers Manuscripts which are either Anonymous, or which attribute this Book to Gersen, to Gerson, or to St. Bernard. 5. That there is never a Manuscript during the Life-time of Thomas a Kempis, until the year 1471. which goes under his Name, as the Author. 6. That after his death, his Name is found in Manuscripts and Editions, until the end of that Century; but that there are many other Manuscripts, and many Editions at the same time, which give it to St. Bernard, to Gerson, or to Gersen.  
The Defenders of Tho. a Kempis answer, that all those Manuscripts make nothing against him, because all those who have a Date, are posterior to the year 1410. wherein they say that Tho. a Kempis Composed that Work, and that it cannot be proved, that those who have no Date are more ancient. To them 'tis replied, That as to the Manuscripts without Date, there are some of them, as those of Arona, and Bobio, which appear more ancient than the year 1410. to those Persons who are most expert in matters of this kind. As to those which are Dated, tho' there be none but what are since the year 1410. (in which year it pleases them, without Proof, to place the Composing of the Book of Imitation by Tho. a Kempis,) yet it may probably be inferred that this Book was Composed before this year; for these Manuscripts being taken from other Copies, and being found in Places far distant from the Abode of Tho. a Kempis, as in Italy, 'tis difficult to imagine that this Book was so lately made. But some go further, and maintain, that in 1410. Tho. a Kempis was not capable of Composing this Book. Thomas was in 1399. a Scholar at Deventer, about the end of that year he entered into the Monastery of Zwoll. He was not a Monk professed, till in 1406. he had Learned to Write and Read the Bible, and to hear Books of Piety, as he himself observes in the Life of Arnoul of Schonhove: Ibi quippe didioi scribere, & Sacram Scripturam legere, & quae ad mores spectant devotosque tractatus audire. He endured at first much hunger, and had great pain; he set himself afterwards to write out Books for Money, and for the House, Pro Domo & pro Pretio; these are the words of the Continuator of his Chronicle of Mount St. Agnes. He perfectly Transcribed a Missal, and the Prayers of the Office in 1414. The Bible he did not finish till 1439. He was not made a Priest till 1423. Which Circumstances do show, that 'tis very probable, he was not capable in 1410. of Composing the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, for he was then young, and had not Studied much, nor had made any progress in a Spiritual Life. He was not then a Priest, and the Imitation is the Work of an Ancient and perfect Regular, who had Practised for a long time what he had Written, who had made great Advances in the Spiritual Life, who had read very much, and meditated upon the Holy Scripture, and the Books of Spiritual Men, and who was a Priest. The Imitation by the Confession of all the World is more sublime and perfect than the other Works of Thomas a Kempis; who then can believe that it is his First Essay, or one of his First Works? This is no ways probable.  
Mr. Launoy brings also another Reason, drawn from the advantageous Testimony which the Author of the Imitation gives of the Life of the Monks of his time, Book 1. Ch. last; which does not at all agree to the state of the Monks at the beginning of the Fifteenth Century, who lived in great Disorder, as Nicolas Clemangis observes. Father Fronto Answers this Argument, that there were at this time a multitude of Regulars very orderly, that those of the Cistertians lived very Regularly; that the Benedictines were reformed from the time of the Council of Basil, that the Dominicans had been Reformed in 1400. and the Friars Minors in 1411. that about the year 1350. which is the time wherein it is supposed that the Author of the Imitation Lived, there were also Regulars Disorderly, as many Authors of that time testify; that Clemangis has stretched the matter too far, in the Description he has given of the Disorders of the Monks. It must be confessed, that Launoy's Argument is not very strong, because the Author of the Imitation speaks not of the Regulars in general, but only of many Monks who lived very Regularly; and 'tis certain that it was then true of some, as the Carthusians, and Cistercians, whom this Author gives for an Example in the same place, and some others. The Author of the Imitation does not dissemble the Disorders among the Monks in his time, Lib. 1. Cap. 18. N. 5. 'Tis thought much at present, not to transgress the Monastic Rule, Ibid. Ch. 3. N. 5. If Men would take as much pains to Extirpate Vices, and Establish Virtue, as to Debate Questions, there would not be so much Mischief done, nor so great Scandal given to the People; neither would there be so great a dissolution of Manners in the Monasteries; Nec tanta Dissolutio in Caenobiis.  
But there is another Argument against Thomas a Kempis, which appears much stronger. The Author of this Book declares himself a Monk, Lib. 5. C. 10. N. 2. Ye have shown great Mercy, says he, to your Servant, and ye have favoured and gratified him much beyond his merit. What then shall I render unto you for this Grace, for it is not given to all to Renounce the World, by quitting all, and embracing a Monastic Life. And at Ch. 56. N. 4. of the same Book, I have received from your hand the Cross, I will carry it until Death, as ye have laid it upon me. Yes, the Life of a good Monk is the Cross, it is that which Conducts him to Heaven, L. 1. Ch. last, N. 8. How do many other Regulars, who being locked up by the Discipline of the Cloister, go forth but seldom, live and eat poorly, are coarsely Clothed, Labour hard, etc. 'Tis certain that these things agree only to Monks, and not to Canons Regulars. The Author therefore reckoning himself among the Regulars, tam multi alii Religiosi, 'tis reasonable to believe that he was a Monk in the same sense. In fine, he proposes always the Rule of St. Benedict, the Benedictines and Monks for his Pattern. He says nothing of the Rule of St. Augustin, nor of the Canons Regulars, whereof Tho. a Kempis speaks in almost all his Works.  
To this, 'Tis Answered, that the Name of Monk is commonly given to the Canons Regulars, as Mauburne Remarks in his Book, Entitled, Venatorium, Nam & generali compellatione Canonici Clerici Monachorum nomine compellantur, ut Juristae notant. That nothing is more common in the Works of Thomas a Kempis, than to give the Name of Monks to his Friars, Part 2. Serm. 1. N. 6. Caenobium Monachorum est sicut salsum Mare, Part 2. Serm. 4. N. 3. O Frater Monache, qui Sanctitatis speciem geris habitu & nomine. In the same Sermon, N. 7. Beatus Monachus desolatus, cui mundus exilium, Coelum Patria, cella▪ Paradisus, Serm. 5. N. 6. Onus quippe Ordinis diurnum & nocturnum collo Monachi impositum, Part 3. Serm. 1. N. 12. Haec est via Sanctae Crucis; haec Doctrina nostri Salvatoris, haec sapientia Sanctorum, haec Rogula Monachorum. Ibid. O Religiose Monache, & sectator arctioris vitae, noli ab assumpta Cruce in Ordine recedere, sed sustine & porta Crucem usque ad Mortem. A Passage which is very like that which is cited, Opusc. 11. Ch. 1. Monache ad quid venisti, quare Mundum dereliquisti? These are words which he Addressed to hsi Brethren the Canons-Regular, whom he therefore designs by the word Monks. It was for them also that he wrote the Books Entitled by the same Name; as the Epitaph or Abridgement of Monks, the Life of a good Monk. Not to mention the Monk's Alphabet, which some have attributed to St. Bonaventure. There are also some Works wherein he makes no mention of the Canons-Regular, as in his Sixth Tract of the Discipline of these who are in the Cloister, C. 3. N. 3. Recte suum (Diabolus) per totum mundum subtiliter texit ac latissime expandit; Monachos & Moniales, subditos & praelatos, solitarios & Officiales circumd●c & tentat, Ch. 4. N. 3. Fortissimum vincendi genus est seipsum perfecte vincere, & abnegare propter obedientiam, quae Monachorum est laus maxima, & omnium Religiosorum Corona pulcherrima, Ch. 6. N. 4. Accipe ergo exemplum bona operandi a Christo Jesus, a S. Paulo, a S. Antonio, a S. Augustino, a S. Hieronymo, a S. Benedicto, a S. Francisco, a S. Dominico, & ab omnibus Sanctis Patribus, qui Regulas Monachorum Scripserunt. And therefore tho' the Author of the Imitation of Jesus Christ ranks himself among the Monks, it does not follow that he was not a Canon-Regular; and much less that he was a Benedictine. This is what may be said for and against Thomas a Kempis: Let us now see what may be alleged for Gersen.   

SECT. VIII.  
The Manuscripts of the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, which go under the Name of John Gerson, Chancellor of Paris.  
IT cannot be denied that the more Common Opinion in France and Italy, about the latter end of the Fifteenth Century, was, that Gerson was not the Author of the Imitation: But the same Care has not been taken to Collect all the Manuscripts which are under the Name of Gerson, which has been used to gather all those which are under the Name, of Gersen or Thomas a Kempis, because there is no Society concerned for him; tho' 'tis certain there are many such Manuscripts.  
There is a very fine one in Parchment, Dated in 1460. in the Library of St. German de Prez, which gins with these words; Incipit Libellus devotus & utilis Magistri Joannis Gerson, de Imitatione Christi, & contemptu omnium vanitatum Mundi. And at the end of the Fourth Book, Explicit Liber quartus & ultimus de Sacramento Altaris, Anno Dom. 1460. 13 Kalend. Septembris.  
The Manuscript of Saltzburg in Paper, of the year 1463. contains many Treatises; and in the Table, the Book of the Imitation is thus designed; De Imitatione Christi, Joh. Gers. which signifies Gerson, for Gersen was not then known in Germany; besides, that an unknown Name, as that of Gersen, is not commonly abridged; whereas that of Gerson being well known, is often abbreviated. At the end of the Book it is thus written: Explicit Liber internae consolationis per Fratrem Benedictum die Sabbati ante Festum omnium Sanctorum, Anno 1463. & Scriptus Saltzburg Monasterii Sancti Petri.  
There is another Manuscript which belongs to Mr. Lechassier, which goes under the Name and Title of Gerson, which Mr. Launoy describes after the following manner. This Manuscript is, says he, all of Parchment; it contains 4 Books of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, and afterwards the Treatise of John Gerson, of the Meditation of the Heart; and Lastly, the Synonyma's of Isidore of Sevil. On the backside of the first Leaf is the Picture of Gersond rawn in Miniature, in the Habit of a Doctor writing; and in the next Page are these words: Incipit Liber Primus Joannis Gerson Cancellarii Parisiensis de Imitatione Christi, & de contemptu omnium vanitatum Mundi, Cap. 1. Qui sequitur me, etc. And at the end of Book 4. Liber Magistri Joannis Gerson Cancellarii Parisiensis de Imitatione Christi, una cum Meditatione Cordis, unicuique Religioso & devoto necessarius finite. At the end of the Volume, Expliciunt Synonimons Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi de homine & ratione ●mendata & summa cum diligentia castigata, per Magistrum Jacobum Lupi Sacrae Theologiae Baccalaureum formatum, bene meritum. James of Lupi was Licentiate in Theology, of the Faculty of Paris, in 1497. January the 13th, and died in the Month of March, in 1498. There is no other Title given him here, but that of a Bachelor Formatus; which shows that this Manuscript precedes the year 1497. in which he was Licentiate.  
Those who stand up for Thomas a Kempis, have not any Manuscript more Ancient to oppose against Gerson; but those who assert that this Book is the Abbot Gersen's, ground their Opinion upon some Manuscripts which they pretend to be more Ancient than Gerson, or the Manuscripts that are Anonymous, or in which the Name of the Author is not John Gerson, but John Gersen, or Gesen, who is designed in the Manuscript of Arona, by the Surname of Abbot, which does no ways agree to Gerson. The Partisans of Gerson may answer, that there is no Manuscript of which any can be certain; that it is more ancient than Gerson, and that the Name of Gersen which is found in some, is nothing but a Corruption of the Name of Gerson. Others on the contrary maintain, that Gersen is the Name of the true Author, which gave occasion to ascribe it to Gerson, whose Name was better known than that of Gersen. This is a Controversy which can hardly be decided, but by Examining the Manuscripts which go under the Name of Gersen, as we shall do hereafter.   

SECTION IX.  
The Editions of the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, under the Name of Gerson.  
I Doubt not but there are many other Manuscripts of the Imitation under the Name of Gerson, which might be discovered; if the same Pains and Care were taken to search after them, which have been used to find out the Manuscripts of Gersen, and Thomas a Kempis. However this be, 'tis very certain that there are many of them, since the first Editions of Italy and France, under his Name.  
The Edition of Brescia in the year 1485. is under the Name of St. Bernard; but it is Remarked, that before that time it was ascribed to Gerson: Incipit Opus D. Bernardi celeberrimum de Imitatione Christi, & contemptu omnium Vanitatum Mundi, quod Joanni Gersoni Cancellario Parisiensi attribuitur; from whence it follows, that before the year 1485. the more common Opinion was, that this Work was Gersons.  
There is a very ancient Edition without the Date of the Year, or the Place, and one without the Date of the Year at Paris, by Marnef, which may have been written before the Death of Thomas a Kempis.  
The Editions of Venice in 1486, 1488, and 1501. and that of Milan in 1488. that of Paris in 1489. by Higman, that of 1491, and 1492. by Pygonchet, that of 1500 by Petit, in Latin, and in French by Noir, go under the Name of Gerson.  
In the French Edition of 1493. 'tis observed, as we have already said, that this Book was commonly ascribed to St. Bernard, or to Gerson. This latter continued in possession of this Title in the next Age, which produced also divers Editions under his Name, as those of Paris, in 1513. by Thomas Reed, in 1515, and 1517. by John Petit, and a Version in 1515. at Venice in 1518. by Aribaverius, at Vienna in 1561. at Lions in 1567., and 1608. at Rome in 1583, etc.  
Against these Editions it i● Objected, 1. That there are other Editions as ancient under the Name of St. Bernard, and Thomas a Kempis. 2. There is a Catalogue of the Books of Gerson made by his Brother, in a Letter written in 1423. wherein the Imitation is not found; as neither is it in the Catalogue of Caresius, made in 1429. 3. There are many Editions of the Works of Gerson, among which the Book of the Imitation is not reckoned, which is judged to be Tho. a Kempis', according to the Note of Peter Schot, in the Edition of the Works of Gerson, at Strasburg, in 1488. Neither is it to be found in the Edition of some Works of Gerson, Printed at Collen, in 1483. nor in the Editions at Strasburg, in the year 1494, and 1514. at Basil in 1489, and 1518. and at Paris, in 1521, and 1606.  
These Reflections may very much weaken the Authority of the Editions which are alleged, but they do not absolutely prove that this Book is none of Gersons, for the Catalogues alleged do not generally contain all the Works of Gerson, no more than the Edition, in 1483. As to the Edition of Schot, and those which followed, that were made by his Copy, these being published in Germany, where the Common Opinion was, that the Book of the Imitation was Tho. a Kempis', 'tis no wonder that they did not insert this Book among the Works of Gerson.   

SECTION X.  
Reasons which may be alleged to show, that 'tis probable Gerson was the Author of the Book of Imitation.  
THere are not wanting either Reasons or Conjectures, for ascribing the Book of the Imitation to Gerson.  
To which purpose it may be observed,  
First, That 'tis very probable the Author did not write either in Germany, where there is an Emperor, or in Italy, or in Piedmont, but in a Country which was governed by a King, because he says B. 1. C. 2. N. 1. Nemo sine tribulatione aliqua quamvis Rex sit vel Papa; for if he had written in Germany, he would have said, Quamvis sit Imperator vel Papa; and if he had written in Italy, or in Piedmont, he would have said, Quamvis sit Papa, or quamvis magnus Dux sit aut Papa; which signifies that he lived under the Government of a King, as did Gerson in France.  
Secondly, That 'tis very probable the Author of the Imitation was Educated in an University, and that he had a great Acquaintance and Conversation with the Doctors and Canons of his time, who died before him; for this appears from what he says, B. 1. C. 3. N. 5. Dic mihi, ubi sunt modo omnes illi Domini & Magistri, quos bene novisti dum adhuc viverent, & in studiis florerent! Jam eorum praebendas alii possident: He says not Ubi sunt omnes Abbates, Priores Religiosi? but he says, Ubi sunt modo omnes illi Domini & Magistri: He says not, Jam eorum Abbatias, Prioratus alii possident; but he says, jam eorum Praebendas alii possident: He says not only, Qui fuerunt ante te, but he says, Quos bene novisti dum adhuc viverent, & in studiis florerent. He often makes use of these ways of speaking, B. 3. C. 43. N. 2. Veniet tempus quando apparebit Magister Magistrorum Christus: He does not say, Abbas Abbatum, B. 1. C. 3. N. 2. Taceant omnes Doctores: He speaks of the Disputes of the School, Ibid. Quid curae nobis de generibus & speciebus? Ibid. N. 3. Quid prodest tibi alta de Trinitate disputare? He speaks like a Man whose Business it was to read and hear, Ibid. N. 2. Taedet me saepe multa legere & audire. He shows what use we should make of our Studies, Ibid. C. 2. N. 3. Noli ergo extolli de ulla arte vel scientia, sed potius time de data tibi notitia. C. 7. N. 1. Non confidas in tua scientia. B. 3. C. 43. N. 1. Nunquam ad hoc legas verbum ut doctior aut sapientior possis videri.  
Thirdly, It may be observed, that Gerson had 5 Brethren, and 7 Sisters; that his Father and Mother had lived very Piously; that 3 of his Brethren were Regulars, and that one of them died when he was an Infant, as did also one Sister; and that of the 6 other Sisters there was but one that Married, as he himself testifies in an Epigram which he wrote, with other Poems upon his own Testament; and that in 1428. probably his Sister Paulina, and his Brother Nicolas died of the Plague. He says also in the same place, that his Country was Gerson, Gerson origo fuit. Now all this does perfectly correspond to what we read in the 4th Book of the Imitation, C. 9 N. 5. Offero tibi omnia pia desideria devotorum, necessitates Parentum, Amicorum, Fratrum, Sororum, omniumque carorum meorum. If we understand the Author as speaking in his own Person, then Necessitates Parentum may be meant of the Spiritual Wants which Fathers and Mothers may have in another Life, for it is not probable that they were then alive, since they were Aged 60 Years. But these words cannot be understood of Thomas a. Kempis, supposing that he speaks in his own Person, and not in the Person of another; for Rosweidus says, that he never had but one Brother, as is reported.  
Fourthly, The Sentiments and Doctrine of the Author of the Imitation do perfectly resemble those in the Books of Piety written by Gerson. He inspires the Reader with a great Contempt of all vain Knowledge in the whole first Book, and chief in●… 〈◊〉. 1st, number 2, & 3. and speaking of Benefices, B. 3. C. 3. N. 2. Pro modica, says he, Praebenda longa via curritur. Now Gerson was Doctor, and Flourished a long while in the University of Paris, in the Quality of Chancellor: After the same manner he speaks in his Epistle, de Conversione & perseverentia in bono proposito, in the 3d part of his Works, fol. 374. Recogita ubinam sunt tecum students, ubi illi familiares S●cii, cum quibus vivere & sapere dulce erat .... quam multi jam obierunt, quam multi jam vagi in saeculo remanserunt .... audisti alios Romam pergere, & pro Beneficiis laborare; alios Parisiis residere & ad Magisterium tendere. And what is yet more remarkable, when he writes to his Brother Nicolas, to testify to him the joy he had conceived for his becoming a Regular, he tells him that he had perished if he had continued in a Secular Life, and had taken the Degree of a Licentiate, or Master of Arts; Ille qui a puero misertus est tibi, dans tibi cor pium & timoratum, & super Afflictos compatientem, superaddidit misericordiam ut te repelleret a saeculo nequam in quo jam demergendus pene fueras irrevocabiliter, si Licentiam aut Magisterium in Artibus adeptus fuisses. Et proprias conjecturas ex aliis accipe. May it not therefore be that it was with respect to this Brother, that he wrote what is in the first Book of the Imitation; for he had a great esteem of this Brother, and 'tis he, of whom he says, that he was Conceived by the Vows of his Mother: Denique noli oblivisci misericordiam Domini in Progenitoribus nostris, in Matre praesertim, quae ineffabilibus Votis etiam ante tui conceptum, te talem aliquem a Domino quaesivit, velut Anna altera Samuelem. Deinde natum & adultum jugibus fere lachrymis, in hoc statu, sicut pie sentio, progenuit. Meministi, opinor, literarum quae super hoc praebent indicium, & quae alteram Augustini Matrem repraesentant, eam erga te redd●s ei vicem orationum tuarum, & in te uno nos omnes erga Deum Intercessorem habebimus. 'Tis to him that he writes thus, Omnis homo qualis Interius est, talis ei exterior adversitas erit .... Non est magna Patientia quam parva res perturbat .... Tu ergo esto libenter reus, ut fias ante Deum Innocens, tu primo a teipso incipe, & sic poteris alium sanare. Audeas tamen qui zelum videris habere adversus aliorum defectus .... quia recte & prudenter ageres, si zelum tuum etiam centra commotionem tuam exerceres .... Quid enim mihi prodest, si aliquem verbis meis sanavero, & in propriis meis passionibus mansero? Which is very like to that which is in the 2d Book of the Imitation, C. 3. N. 1. Tene te primo in pace, & tunc poteris alios pacificare .... Habe primo Zelum super teipsum, & tunc juste zelare poteris etiam proximum tuum. 'Tis to the same Brother he says, Impedit nos valde quod non audemus violentiam inferre Naturae .... Hodie aliquid inchoare, & eras modicum addere .... Perficit hominem virtuosum; which is very agreeable with what is in the first Book of the Imitation, C. 11. N. 5. Si omni anno unum vitium exti paremus, cito viri perfecti efficeremur .... Si modicam violentiam faceremus in principio, tunc postea cuncta possemus facere cum levitate & gaudio. 'Tis to him that he says, O quantos labores faciunt homines pro terrenis lucrandis, & nos pro aeternis bonis marcescimus; which is very consonant to what is in B. 3. of the Imitation, C. 3. N. 2. Pro modica Praebenda longa via curritur, pro vita aeterna a multis vix pes semel a terra levatur. 'tis to him that he says, Considera teipsum quod quaeris in Operibus tuis, quod diligis, & quod non diligis. Secundum desideria sua fit homo stabilis aut vagus. Qui multum concupiscit, & multa habere vult, quomodo in se manebit? dispergitur in omnem ventum Coeli, & capitur laqueo desiderii terreni. Parva res est saepe propter quam adipiscendam generatur homini perplexitas magna, sed qui omnia a se expellit, permittens unumquodque stare sicut venit, been in pace erit .... O quanta adhuc discere habet, qui non videt quantum adhuc ille deficit, & O quam longe stat! 'Tis to him that he says, Suscipiamus, Carissime, De manu dei, quicquid voluerit super nos venire Deus, nihil enim sine certa & justa causa agitur in terris; & ideo nos Deo oportet subjicere Cor nostrum & sensum nostrum, ut respiciens humilitatem & patientiam nostram, bene disponat desiderium nostrum, etc. 'Tis to him that he says, the Philosophers have not known the Truth, but Jesus Christ being come, has said, He that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, which are the first words of the first Book of the Imitation. 'Tis to him that he says, Via Crucis via nostra, via Electorum, via Paucorum .... Frangere propriam voluntatem crux est .... Memento quantum sancti pro vita aeterna laboraverint, in qua nunc cum Christo sine fine regnantes gaudent .... Quanto in inferiori & humiliori statu cor fuerit, tanto verius saepe bona agit, & facilius habita custodit, Si alii praecedunt nos, quid ad nos, sequamur Jesum humilitate & simplicitate, & non curemus humanam vanitatem .... Quae major gloria quam cum Christo gloriari in Cruse? quae major consolatio cordis, quam portare viventem imaginem Crucifixi? 'Tis to him that he says, Quam multi divites, Nobiles & Potentes, quam multi sapientes, literati & famosi adolescentes in hoc saeculo miserabiliter fluctuant & abjicere jugum Diaboli a suis cervicibus non praevalent, nec illo Spiritu adhuc moventur ut saeculo renuntient. O vanitas vanitatum mundum diligere & quae Dei sunt minus curare! Venit tempus, venit cito tempus, quod omnes seculares & carnales voluptates finem habebunt. And lastly, 'tis to him that he says, Denique Frater Carissime, noli in vanum gratiam accipere quae data est in te; audisti carissime, quomodo teipsum debes vincere. All which Sentiments and Maxims are very agreeable to those in the Book of Imitation.  
The Style of Gerson's Works of Piety, is not so different from that of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, as may be imagined at first. His Style is more dry and harsh in his Books of Doctrine, but in his Books of Piety and Devotion it is more sweet and soft, and very like to that of the Imitation.  
Sixthly, Gerson Cites no part of the Book of Imitation; he exhorts the Celestines to read Books of Piety, such as those of St. Bernard, and others, in an Epistle which he wrote to their Provincial. He Exhorts likewise an Hermit of Mount Valerian to Read Books of Devotion, and he sets down many of them for him; but he never mentions any part of the Imitation, which proves that he had no knowledge of it: Yet you may see in Gerson Sentences and Expressions very like to those which are in the Book of Imitation; if you will read the Letter which he addresed to this Hermit, in the Fourth part of his Works, P. 51. the Letters which he wrote to his Brother Nicolas in the same Part, Fol. 372, 373, 374. the Book de Mendicitate Spirituali, Fol. 387. and the Treatise de Considerationibus quas debet habere Princeps, Part 2. Fol. 279. All which gives occasion to conjecture that the Author of the Imitation is not more ancient than Gerson, and that it was he, or some other who had read his Works, who wrote this Book.   

SECTION XI.  
The Reasons which prove that the Book of the Imitation is not Gersons.  
THere are but two Reasons alleged against Gerson, the Profession of the Author, who declares himself a Monk, as we have seen, and the difference of Style.  
The First of these Reasons may appear decisive against Gerson; yet it may be said, that he speaks in the Person of those for whom he writes, and so Gerson does in the Treatise upon these words, Venite ad me omnes, for says he, Si semel nos Jugo astrinxerimus, non liceat nobis de Monasterio egredi & collum excutere de subjugo Regulae .... Propter quod natus est▪ benedictus legislator noster. And in the Tract, De Solitudine Ecclesiasticorum, written for the Celestines, he says, hoc jubet supremus Abbas noster Jesus Christus. And in the Epistle, Pro Confortatione alicujus tentati, he says, Vita Clericorum, Monachorum & omnium Religiosorum in Cruse, etc. si aliam viam quaerimus, erramus.  
We may also Observe, 1st, That Gerson lived as an Hermit for the space of 10 years at Lions before his death; for he died in 1429. And it appears from the Letter of his Brother John the Celestine, to his other Brother Anselm, written in 1423. that he had then retired for the space of 4 years, and that he lived there in great peace of mind, which made him say, that he never had so clear and vigorous a Spirit. And he adds, that he could hardly prevail with him to put forth some Tracts under his Name, except only those which he was obliged to write by reason of his Office as Chancellor, or Doctor; and that he neglected a great number of them, whereof some are lost, as that which he wrote, de Nuptiis Sapientiae, which was the Cause why he could not exactly set down all his Books. 2dly, That Gerson had been desired by the Celestines to write something upon these words: Si quis vult venire post me abneget seipsum, & tollat Crucem suam, & sequatur me. For this he says plainly in a Letter which he wrote to them, which is about the end of the 3d Part of his Works; And his Brother John the Celestine says also that they had prayed him to write something for their Edification. It appears also that he composed for them a Treatise upon these words, Venite ad me omnes qui onerati estis, which are the same with which the 4th Book of the Imitation gins. He wrote also other Treatises for them. May it not therefore be, that during this Retreat he applied himself particularly to meditate upon the Principal Maxims of Renouncing the World, and so Composed the Book of the Imitation about the end of his Life, that he might send it to them? All this may be made use of to show, that it is not altogether impossible that Gerson should be the Author of the Imitation, altho' the Author speaks like one that had embraced a Monastic Life.  
As to the difference of Style, 'tis true that the Style of Gerson is different from that of the Imitation, and that he handles matters in a manner more methodical, and less moving; but this difference is not so sensible in his Books of Piety; and it may be, that having a mind to compose a Work which might excite and nourish Piety, he applied himself so much the more to sweeten his Style, and to fill his Book with affecting thoughts, and so assumed a Style and way of Writing, suitable to his Design.   

SECTION XII.  
An Examination of the Manuscripts produced for John Gersen, or Gessen, an Abbot; whether there was one John Gersen Abbot of Verceil, of the Order of St. Benedict; whether John Gersen was taken for John Gerson; or on the contrary, John Gerson, for John Gersen.  
THere remains only now John Gersen, whose Claim to this Book is chief founded upon Manuscripts.  
The first and most ancient is that which is found at Arona a City of Italy, belonging to the Prince's Boromees, in the Novitiat of the Jesuits, which was formerly an Abbly of St. Benedict. This Manuscript came not as Cajetan at first believed, from the ancient Library of the Benedictines of this Monastery; but was brought thither from Geno● in 1579. by Father Maiolus, who found it in his Father's House. The Author of these Books is there called in three places John Gesen the Abbot, once the Abbot John Gesen, and once the Abbot John Gersen. The first Title upon the first Leaf is written with Red Ink: Incipiunt Capitula libri primi Abbatis Joannis Gesen, de Imitatione Christi, & contemptu omnium vanitatum mundi, Caput primum. At the beginning of the second Book there is also written in Red Letters, Incipit tabula libri secundi Abbatis Joannis Gesen de interna Conversatione, Caput primum. At the beginning of the third Book it is also written in Red Letters, Incipit Tabula tertii libri Abbatis Joannis Gesen, de interna Christi locutione ad animam fidelem. At the beginning of the fourth Book, that which follows is written with black Ink, Incipiunt Capitula quarti libri Abbatis Joannis Gessen, cum quanta reverentia Christus sit suscipiendus. Caput primum. At the end of the Book is written with Red Ink, Explicit liber quartus & ultimus Abbatis Joannis Gersen, de Sacramento Altaris. After these Books there follows a Treatise of St. Bernard to his Kinsfolk, of St. Ambrose about Morality and a good Life, and another Fragment of St. Bernard's. All this is fairly written upon Parchment with one and the same hand, and in the same Character, which was judged by the Assembly in 1687. to be 300 Years old. This is not the Original Manuscript of the Author, who would certainly have written his own Name everywhere after the same manner, but it is some Copy.  
There appears nothing which can be reasonably objected against this Manuscript. It cannot be accused of Falsification in five places, neither can any say, That these Titles are later, after they have been viewed and examined by unexceptionable Judges: Neither can the Book be thought very late, after the Judgement they have given of its Antiquity: All that can be said, is, That the Writer may have put the Name of John Gesen, Gessen, or Gersen, for that of John Gerson, But whence then comes it to pass, That he should always give him the Title of Abbot? From whence did he take it? There is no Similitude between Cancellarii and Abbatis: How then should it come into the mind of this Transcriber to give to John Gerson the Title of Abbot? This is difficult to be explained.  
The second is the Manuscript of the Monastery of St. Columbanus of Bobio, which the Assembly in 1687. judged to be of the same Antiquity with that of Arona, which has the Name of John Gersen at the beginning of the 4th Book only; for at the beginning and end of the other, there is no Name at all. Here follows the beginning, In nomine Domini, Amen. Incipit libellus de Imitatione Christi, & contemptu omnium vanitatum mundi. Capitulum primum. And at the end of the three first Books, Incipit liber Joann s Gersen cum quanta reverentia & devotione sacratissimum dominicum corpus & sanguinem sit sumendum. And at the end of the 4th Book, Explicit, D●o laus & Beatissimae Mariae Virgini. There is afterwards another Treatise of Piety, which gins with these Words, Quoniam Charissime, & hujus miserabilis vitae fugientis aerumnosa via, etc.  
The third Manuscript is that of the Congregation of St. Justina, in the Monastery of St. Benedict of Padolirona near to Mantua, as is remarked at the end, Iste liber est Monachorum Sanctae Justinae de observantia deputatus Monasterio Sancti Benedicti de Padolirone signatus numero, 451. Where the Name of John Gersen is found twice, once in red Letters at the beginning, Incipit liber Joannis Gersen primus de contemptu Mundi & de Imitatione Christi, and at the end of the Book in black Ink, Explicit liber quartus Joannis Gersen de Sacramento Altaris. As to this last, there is no Suspicion of any changing or razing the Writing, and the Name of John Gersen is certainly written with the first hand. Mr. Naude suspected, That there it ought to have been Gerson, and that the o might have been changed into an e: But he durst not maintain this at last, and the very Inspection of the Manuscript which is in the Abbey of St. German de Prez, discovers, That there is no Change nor Razure in this place, as the Assembly in 1671. judged. As to the first Title, there is more Difficulty, Mr. Naude says in his Report, That having considered this Title, Incipit liber Joannis Gersen primus, whose Words are not in their natural Order, he perceived the Footsteps of a former and more ancient Title, all whose Traces the new superadded Title could not perfectly cover, but still there appeared I. H. O. and the Moieties of other Letters which might be seen assoon as they are looked upon with a little Attention: Neither can it be said, That they are the Strokes of the Letters which are on the other side of the Leaf, because being pierced with the point of a Penknife, they do not hit against them. Lastly, These words, Liber Joannis Gersen primus, were written with a Red Ink more shining than the following, De contemptu Mundi & Imitatione Christi; so that by this Difference alone of Red and Vermilion, we may certainly know, or at least more clearly prove the Fraud. Wherefore adds he, tho' the Congregation of St. Justina has forgotten it after more than 200 Years; yet 'tis certain this does not give any Antiquity to this Title, since it is altogether false and superadded to another more ancient (which was likewise false, viz. Joannis Gerson, from whence came the three old Letters, I. H. O.) not by a bare Change of Gerson into Gersen, but by reversing and changing the whole Title, for fear lest the Word Cancellarii being left, or any other which could not so well agree to Gersen, it might give occasion to discover the Fraud: For otherwise the Letter o of the Name of Gerson, might very easily be changed into the Letter e.  
This Manuscript being carried to Paris, was viewed and considered in 1652. by the deceased Mr. de Launoy, who made upon it the following Observations, in the Remarks he wrote upon a Work of a Father of St. Genevieve, Part 3. p. 89. Upon this occasion, I will tell what I have observed in a Manuscript of the Book of the Imitation, which is in the Abbey of St. German des Prez, and which is said to be the Manuscript of Mantua. The Title is thus, Incipit liber Joannis Gersen primus de contemptu Mundi, & de Imitatione Christi: The end is thus, Explicit liber quart●● Joannis Gersen de Sacramento Eucharistiae. In this end there appears not, that ever any Word was changed, or any Letter altered. That which appears, is what was written at first by the Transcriber. This being so, it seems no ways credible, that there ever was or should be any Change or Alteration in that which is common to the Title and the end, i. e. in Joannis Gersen, because there could be no Reason to change or alter Joannis Gersen in the Title of the Book, and not to change or alter Joannis Gersen at the end of the Book. I hold this, without Dispute, to be reasonable; nevertheless, I have observed three things in this Title: 1st, That these Words, Liber Joannis Gersen primus, were written with a Red Ink a very little more shining than the rest, which I believe proceeds only from the greater Abundance of Red Ink in the Pen, when these four Words were formed, than when the rest were made. We find by Experience, That the Letters which are formed with much Red Ink in the Pen, are more shining than those which are formed with less Ink in the Pen, tho' they be all formed at the same time. 2dly, That the Line of Paper upon which these Words, Incipit Liber Joannis Gersen, are written, is a little smoothed and polished, which reaches above the Line; but I believe this happened by the Fault of the Transcriber, who beginning to write, and having misshaped the first Words of the first Line, he blotted them out with his Finger by drawing it over the Line; yet he could not do it so perfectly, but there would still remain some Mark upon the Paper, where he begun to write what we now read there. However this be, 'tis not possible to say with any Certainty, what the Transcriber had first written. 3dly, That this Mark and Blot of the Paper, whatever it may have been, goeth above the Word Gersen, but cometh not below it at all; so that in this Word, there appears no Change or Alteration which may decide the Question. This Word is written with the same hand which transcribed the whole Book, which is very considerable; for if there had been any Falsification, it must have been in this Word Gersen, and not in that Joannis, because Joannes Gersen and Joannes Gerson, agree in this Name of Joannes. Moreover, I would very willingly persuade myself, That this Manuscript whereof I am now speaking, is not that whereof the Sieur Naude gives his Judgement in his Report, which the R. F. the Abbot of St. Genevieve published in Latin and French, in the third Part of his Book. The Reasons which I have for this are chief four. 1st, That the Sieur Naude says in his Report, That these three old Letters, I. H. O. are to be read, which were in the Title of the Manuscript which he saw, which are not to be read in that which I saw, and any one may see. 2dly, That the Sieur Naude says, the Word Cancellarii was in the same Title; which cannot any ways be affirmed of the Manuscript whereof I am now speaking, as every one must believe who will take the pains to consider it. 3dly, That the Word Cancellarii is always followed by Parisiensis, there being no Book, nor Tract of Gerson, which goes under this Name Gerson, wherein there is Cancellarii without Parisiensis. But this cannot be affirmed of this Manuscript which I saw, not only because there is no Appearance that ever Parisiensis was there, but also because there is no room to place it there, in that condition wherein the Title of the Book is. 4thly, That the Sieur Naude makes no doubt, but at the end of the Manuscript which he saw, there had been before Joannis Gerson: But in that which I saw these Words had never been.  
The Assembly in 1671. judged, that the Writing of the first Inscription of this Manuscript was entire and unchanged in the proper Name, and that there was no just Suspicion of Falsification there, nor yet in the Subscription which is at the end written with the same hand.  
I saw this Manuscript a little while after, and when I had well-considered the Title in question, I judged, 1st, That it was written wholly with the same hand. 2dly, That 'tis the same hand which wrote the whole Work. 3dly, That 'tis true, the first Words had been blotted out, and particularly the Word Incipit. 4thly, That still some Letters of that which had been written at first might be observed, and among the rest the Term Incipit; and that it might be, the same was also observed at the time when Mr. Naude saw the Letters I H. O. tho' they do not appear at present, nor yet the Prickings which are said to have been made in that place. 5thly, That these Words were not defaced by scraping the Parchment, for looking upon it by the Light, it is of the same thickness, and it appears not at all to be diminished in that place; besides, That if there had been any such Razure, the ancient Letters would no more be seen. 6thly, I observed after Mr. Launoy, That there remained at the top above the first Line, a speck of dark Red, which appeared to me to proceed from hence, that the Transcriber had dashed out with his finger what he had written in Red, and so spread the Red further, which could not so perfectly be taken off, but that still some speck of it would remain. 7thly, I judged from hence, That the Transcriber having begun the first Words of his Title, Incipit Liber Joannis, had dashed them out again; perhaps, because his Pen being overcharged with Red Ink, had made a Botch, which obliged him to blot out the whole. 8thly, The Space will not allow, that ever there should have been a longer Title in it. 9thly, The Traces of the old Word Incipit are yet to be seen, and those of Joannis were seen at the time when the Title was viewed by Mr. Naude, and therefore it was the same Title. 10thly, It is of a brighter Colour at the beginning, because the Pen of the Transcriber was then more full of Red Ink than at the end, but the first Words are not so lately written as the last. Besides, the Age of this Manuscript, according to the time that it has been in the Congregation of St. Justina, to which it belongs, is no more than 200 Years, according to the Judgement of expert Men, and the Confession of Mr. Naude.  
There is one important Remark to be made upon this Manuscript of Padolirona, which is this, That upon the first Leaf there is the Epitaph in Verse of John Gerson, Chancellor of the University of Paris, the same which is to be found upon his Tomb in the Church of St. Paul, at Lions expressed in these Words,  
Magnum parva tenet virtutibus urna Joannem,  
Praecelsum meritis Gerson cognomine dictum.  
Parisius celsae Professor Theologiae,  
Claruit, Ecclesiae qui Consolarius Anno  
Milleno Domini centum quater atque viceno  
Nono, luce petit superos Julii duodena.  
Cajetan mentions this Epitaph: The Sieur Naude never perceived it; for he makes no mention of it in the Report made in 1671. Father Delfau says nothing of it; whereupon his Antagonist crowing over him, he who answered confesses, That it was in this Manuscript, but of a late Writing. If it had been written with the same hand which wrote the rest of the Manuscript, there is do doubt but it would have clearly proved, That the Name of John Gersen was put in that place for that of John Gerson; but since it is written with a much later hand, as the bare Inspection of it discovers, it shows only that a certain Person, into whose hands this Manuscript fell, finding there the Name of Gersen at the top, and imagining that this should be Gerson, to whom he knew this Work had been ascribed thought fit to write upon the first Leaf being blank, this Epitaph of Gerson; and therefore from hence no Consequence can be drawn as to the first Author.  
The fourth Manuscript, which is that which the Benedictines bought of Mr. Sulsa, and which they have in their Library, is also 200 Years old, according to the Confession of those able men, who gave their Judgement about it in 1674. There we find at the end these Words written with Red Ink by the first Hand, Explicit liber quartus & ultimus de Sacramento Altaris Joannis Gersen.  
The fifth is the Manuscript in the Monastery of St. John of Parma in little, which contains a Rule of St. Benedict and the Book of the Imitation written with the same hand, whereof the Year is set down at the end of the Rule of St. Benedict; Sanctissimi Benedicti explicit Regula discretione praecipua & sermone luculenta die octavo Augusti, 1466. At the end of the fourth Book of the Imitation is written with the same hand, Explicit liber quartus & ultimus Joannis Gersem de Sacramento Altaris, Amen. The Name is written in this Manuscript as in that of the Monastery of Bobio with an m Gersem, and not Gersen, as in the rest.  
The sixth is the Manuscript of Leo Allatius, which belonged formerly to the Cardinal of Biscia, which probably came from Germany; for the binding was of that Country, and it contained the Works of Nicholas D' Inkelspuel, Rector of the University of Vienna, and of John of Tambach, Regent of the University of Prague, and the Bull of a Legate published at Vienna, in 1448. 'Tis written on Paper, and has this Title in Red Letters, Incipit Tractatus Joannis de Canabaco de Imitatione Christi, & contemptu omnium vanitatum mundi, & dividitur in quatuor libros. The Bull dated in 1448. written with the same hand, shows that it could not be written before this Year The Name of Canabaco was added some time after, and above the Line, but still it is done by the same hand, in the same Writing, and with the same Vermilion. Mr. Naude and the Assembly in 1671. are in this of the same Opinion. Mr. Naude judged, that the Writing of the Manuscript was no older than 1480, or 1500. The Assembly gave no Judgement of its Antiquity. This Surname of Canabacum given to John the Author of the Book of the Imitation, has been differently explained. Some say, That Canabacum was the place of the Birth of this John, whom they suppose to be the same with Gersen; and since Canabacum is a Place unknown, they have interpreted it Cavaglia, which is a Borough in the Country of Verceil: This was the Opinion of Quatremaires and Walgrave. Father Delfau and those who have written since, seem to have forsaken this Opinion, and durst not maintain, that Canabacum was the Country of John Gersen, and that this Place was Cavaglia: And so it is not known, what the Surname is, from whence it was taken, nor what gave occasion to mention it here. Some may conjecture, that the Writer of this Manuscript having copied it from another, wherein the Gersonio, was ill written, wrote Canabaco for Gersonio; or rather, that lighting upon a Manuscript wherein there was Cancellario abbreviated, as Can●lrio, he read it Canabaco. Howsoever this be, it cannot be proved by any Place, that this Joannes de Canabaco is the same who is called Joannes Gersen in the other Manuscripts.  
The seventh is the Manuscript of Cave, upon which it is written, Iste Liber est Congregationis Cassinensis, and a little after, asservatur in Monasterio Cavae. The Book of the Imitation in this Manuscript is written upon Parchment, in fair Characters, and has no Name of the Author, nor any Date of the Time, being imperfect at the end. But in the first Letter Q there is the Image of a Benedictine Monk, having a Cross in his hand; some think that this is the Portraiture of Gersen. Afterwards 'tis said, That the Words of ch. 56. B. 3. gave occasion to this Picture, I have received from your hand a Cross, and I will carry it until Death. It may indeed be, that this Sentence gave occasion to him who wrote this Manuscript to make this Picture at the beginning: But upon what grounds can it be thence concluded, That the Book of the Imitation was therefore written by a Benedictine Monk? All that can be thence conjectured is, That the Writer of this Manuscript was a Benedictine.  
The last Piece which is produced is a Copy of some Works printed at Venice in 1501. among which is the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, under the Name of John Gerson, Chancellor of the University of Paris, at the end whereof are to be found these Words written upon Design; Hunc librum non compilavit Johannes Gerson, sed D. Johannes. This Word Johannes has been mended by the Confession of Father Delfau, and that which followed has been razed out, in the room whereof there is still a blank space, and after it there are these Words, Abbess Vercellensis: After which there is yet more Writing razed out, and then at last follow these Words; Ut habetur usque hodie propria manu scriptus in eadem Abbatia. This Copy being one of those which were presented at Rome in 1641. to Sieur Naude, he judged that this Manuscript Observation had been falsified, and pretends, That Johannes had been made of the Name Thomas, after so gross a manner, That the Sieur Vincent Galeotti, when he came to read this Writing, read Thomas for Joannes. This Copy was not produced at the Assembly in 1671. tho' it was at Paris, and Father Delfau gave no other Reason for it, but that it was in the Library among the printed Books without his knowledge. If this had been the only Reason which hindered the Benedictines from producing it then, they would certainly have shown it in the Assemblies in 1674. and 1687: But they had Reason to suppress it, because they truly judged that this Manuscript Note was of no Authority: First, Because 'tis well known that 'tis much later than 1501. but 'tis not known at what time it was written, nor who is the Author of it: Secondly, Because the Name of Johannes being foisted in, and that of Gersen, or Gessen being not there, it was unserviceable to their Cause: Thirdly, Because this Note, however very late, yet was falsified by a Forger who put into it all that he pleased: Fourthly, Because the space might be filled up with any other Name besides that of Johannes Gersen, or even that of Thomas a Kempis, that perhaps he might be called Abbess Windesemensis, or perhaps even Abbas Vercellensis, because there was one Thomas a Canon-Regular of St. Victor, Abbot of St. Andrew of Verceil, whom some make a Canon-Regular upon the Credit of an ancient Register of Burials of St. Victor's, and others a Benedictin, according to the Picture of a Monk which is said to be upon his Tomb: Fifthly, Because 'tis not certain whether these Words Abbess Vercellensis are the Forgers, or his who first wrote this Note. And thus the Title of the Abbot of Verceil, which is given to John Gersen, being founded only upon this Note is a mere Chimaera, since Gersen is not at all named there, and the Name of John is foisted in, and therefore no regard ought to be had to a Piece of this Nature. There are two Abbeys at Verceil, that of St. Stephen, and that of St. Andrew: This latter was founded at the Expense of Henry II. King of England, after the Murder of Thomas of Canterbury: Whereof the first Abbot in 1227. was Thomas Gallas, a Canon-Regular of St. Victor, or according to others an English Benedictine. He was Abbot till the Year 1260. Upon which account John Gersen is made Abbot of St. Stephen of Verceil, and not of St. Andrew. This Monastery is more ancient, and was of the Order of St. Benedict, until Paul III. in the Year 1536. gave it to the Canons-Regular, after which it was destroyed in 1581. But no ancient Author speaks of this Abbot John Gersen. Francis Augustin a Clergyman hath indeed placed him in the Edition of his Chronicle at Piedmont in 1648. among the Abbots of Verceil, and ascribed to him the Imitation of Jesus Christ, but 'tis only upon hear-say from some Benedictine since the Contest of Cajetan, and he durst not mention him in his History of Verceil. There is also cited a Manuscript History of Verceil, written by John Baptista Modena, who says, That we still read in an ancient Manuscript of other Abbots of St. Stephen, which were never reckoned among the rest. Among whom is another John, who is thought to be the Author of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, because this John, Abbot of Verceil, cannot be Abbot of any other Abbey but the Monastery of St. Stephen. 'Tis doubted whether this Testimony is true; but supposing it were, 'tis plain, That this Author said this only upon occasion of what had been alleged since the starting of this Controversy by the Abbot Cajetan. It must be confessed, That there is no Proof that John Gersen was Abbot of St. Stephen's at Verceil, no more than there is, That he was a Native of Canabaco, and that Canabaco was Cavaglia: And it is not at all known who is this John Gersen, Gersem, Gesen, or Gessen, whose Name is found in the Manuscripts of the Imitation which we have now mentioned. There is none of them which gives him the Title but that of Arona, where he is always styled the Abbot Abbatis; but 'tis never observed, of what Order, or what place he was: And therefore the Benedictines have no more right to appropriate him to themselves than the Bernardins or any other Regulars, which have Abbeys and Abbots. John Gesen, or Gersen, or Gessen an Abbot, is grounded upon nothing but only the Manuscript of Arona. John Gersen, or Gersem, without a Title, is founded upon four uncorrupted Manuscripts worthy of Credit, That of St. Columbanus of Bobio, That of Padolirona, That of Slusa, and that of Parma. John, surnamed of Canabaco, is only to be found in the Manuscript of Allatius, written since the Year 1448. and this Surname is there interlined, tho' it be written with the same Hand. John, Abbot of Verceil, is founded only upon a Forgery. But for none of these John's can any ancient Author be produced who knew him, of has mentioned him, nor any Edition before that of Cajetan in 1616. taken from the Manuscript of Arona, which is Entitled, Venerabilis viri Joannis Gessen Abbatis, Ordinis Sancti Benedicti; wherein the Order, of which he was Abbot, is added without Proof, and without Authority. Walgrave has changed the Name of Gessen into Gersen, and has ventured to set down his Country and the Place of his Abbey, by causing the Imitation to be printed with this Title in 1638. Johannis Gersen Abbatis Vercellensis, Italo-Benedictini. At last, Father Delfau, who nevertheless ought to have observed the weakness of the Proofs upon which the Title of Abbot of the Order of St. Benedict of Verceil is founded, has carried this Matter yet higher, by giving him the Name of the Abbot of Stephen of Verceil in his last Edition of 1674. Johannis Gersen Abbatis Sancti Stephani Vercellensis Ordinis Sancti Benedicti. There is nothing of this Title but the bare Name of Johannis Gersen, which is Authorised by many Manuscripts, and the Title of Abbatis, only by the Manuscript of Arona: All the rest is without any Foundation.  
When there want Editions and Authors who give the Imitation to John Gersen an Abbot, than the Editions and Authors are alleged which ascribe it to Gerson, which are said to be favourable to John Gersen. For since, as they suppose, 'tis manifest that the Book was not Gerson's the Chancellor of Paris, and that the Author was certainly a Monk; 'tis pretended that the Reason why it is ascribed to Gerson the Chancellor is the similitude of the Name; and that John Gersen being less known than John Gerson, and almost altogether unknown in France, the Name of John Gersen was taken for that of Gerson. That this is much more probable than to say, that the Name of John Gesen, Gessen, Gersen, or Gersem, was put for that of John Gerson. 1. Because there are Manuscripts of Gersen which are thought more ancient than the time wherein Gerson could have Composed this Work; for there is one of Melice Dated in 1421. and those of Arona and Bobio without Date are of the Fourteenth Century. 2. Because the Name Abbatis is in that of Arona, a Title which no ways agrees to Gerson. 3. Because it is no ways credible, that it should be written so many ways, in so many different Places, Gersen, Gesen, Gessen, or Gersem, for Gerson, which was a Name well enough known. To this it may be answered, that the Name of Gerson was put there, either because he was the Author of it, or because this Work was joined to the Works of Gerson in the same Manuscript as is really found in the Manuscript of Melice, in 1434. After the same manner it has been ascribed to St. Bernard, because it was joined with the Works of this Father, as in the former Manuscript of Melice, wherein Gersen is put for Gerson, because the Name of Gerson was perhaps abbreviated in the Manuscript from which this was Transcribed, as in the Manuscript of Saltzburg 'tis written John Gers. or rather because the 〈◊〉 was taken for an e. That one Manuscript of that Nature, such as that of Arona, could never be the Cause of the Mistake which is found in all the rest; That this Mistake is found only in the Manuscripts of Italy, which may have been Copied out from that of Arona; that the Name Abbatis which is in this, may proceed from the Ignorance of the Transcriber; that the various ways in which this Name is written, sometimes Gesen, sometimes Gessen, and sometimes Gersen, all which are found in the same Manuscript of Arona, do plainly show that the Name of the Author was not well known to him who wrote it; that he added of his own head the Title of Abbot. Lastly, That this Abbot John Gesen, Gessen, or Gersen being wholly unknown, and no Person having ever mentioned him before the Controversy arose between the Benedictines, and Canons Regular about the Author of the Imitation; it is very probable, that he is only a Phantom who never had any real Existence.   

SECTION XIII.  
A Judgement upon all that has been said in this Question, wherein that which is certainly false is separated from that which is uncertain, and an Attempt is made to discover what has most probability.  
AFter I have Examined and Related all that has been said and written by Learned Men upon the Controversies about the Author of the Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, I cannot but apply to them the words of Terence. 
Fecistis probe  
Incertior sum multo quam dudum   
And I doubt not but the same thought will come into all the minds of those who shall read what we have now written. For in effect, the great number of Manuscripts, Editions, Authorities, and Reasons, which are alleged on one side and the other, instead of clearing up the matter, do rather darken it; and instead of discovering the Author of the Book of the Imitation, they render him more uncertain, and more unknown. Nevertheless let us attempt to draw from what has been said some Inferences, and if we cannot conclude any thing that is certain, yet let us discern between what is false, and what is uncertain, between what is probable, and what is not.  
First, 'Tis certain that this Work is not St. Bernard's, altho' it hath been ascribed unto him. Secondly, Neither is there any probability that it is Ludolphus'.  
Thirdly, There is no convincing proof that it is Thomas a Kempis', for this proof must either be founded upon the Manuscripts, or the Editions, or the Report of Contemporary Authors, or the Agreement of the Style. The Manuscripts do not at all prove it in a convincing manner, since the first which was in the year 1441. has not the Name of Thomas a Kempis as the Author, but only as the Transcriber of the Book, and this may have given occasion to put his Name to other Manuscripts, and to Writers who followed him to ascribe it to him. 'Tis very probable that the Passage of Busch was added, and tho' it were not, yet neither he, nor other Authors, nor the Manuscripts nor Editions later than the Manuscript in 1441. are any convincing Proofs, since these are found in conjunction with other Manuscripts, Editions, and Testimonies, even such as are more ancient in favour of St. Bernard, of Gerson, and Gersen. The agreement of Style, with the other Works which go under the Name of Tho. a Kempis is not still a certain Proof, for in general the agreement of the Style of one Work with another is not commonly sufficient to ascertain who is the Author of it. Besides this Agreement is not entire; and lastly, neither is it certain that all the Works which go under the Name of Thomas a Kempis are his; since by the Confession of those who favour him, his Humility would not suffer him to put his Name to any of his own, and he Transcribed many Books of others.  
Fourthly, There is some probability that the Book of the Imitation is more ancient than Tho. a Kempis, the Manuscripts of Arona, of Sirmondus, and Bobio, tho' without Date, are judged more ancient, by those who are best skilled in such matters, which is a proof of it. The Manuscripts of Italy, Dated in the years 1421, 1433, 1434, 1436, and 1437, make it credible. They are indeed later than the year 1410. wherein 'tis supposed without ground, that T. a Kempis Composed this Work, tho' there is little probability that he did write it at that time. But two things are to be observed; 1st, That these Manuscripts are found in different places, far distant one from another. 2. That these are not Originals written with the Author's own hand, but Copies written out from other Copies more ancient. Now there is scarce any probablity, that in so short a time the Book of the Imitation should have been Copied out so often, and carried to so many different Places. The same Reflection may be made upon the French Version in 1447. and upon the French Manuscript found in 1467. in the Library of the Count of Angoulesme; and this may be Confirmed by the Testimony of Trithemius, who says plainly in 1494. that the Seniors of his Seniors had read this Work, which carries us up to the beginning of the Century.  
Fifthly, 'Tis certain that in the Life time of T. a Kempis, the Book of the Imitation was ascribed to St. Bernard, to Gerson, and Gersen: The Manuscripts and Editions are a proof of this; which is a strong Argument that T. a Kempis was not then owned for the Author of it.  
Sixthly, 'Tis also certain that the most ancient Manuscripts are either Anonymous, or else go under the Name of Gerson; which is a good reason why it cannot be ascertained that Thomas a Kempis is the Author of this Book.  
Seventhly, John Gerson Chancellor of the University of Paris, among the 3 Competitors, seems to have the best Right to this Book: If we consider only external Testimonies, he was in possession of it before Tho. a Kempis. All the Manuscripts which are for John Gersen, or Gesen, except only that which gives him the Title of Abbot, may be understood of him by a Corruption of his Name. The Common Opinion of France and Italy was for him in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century: He is a solid Author, and of great Reputation, who has written Books of a like Nature. But there are 2 things which counterpoise these Proofs, the Title of Monk which is given to the Author of the Imitation, and the difference of Style.  
Eighthly, The Titles of Abbot of St. Stephen of Verceil, of the Order of St. Benedict, which are given to the pretended John Gersen, are not built upon any good ground, nor upon any Testimony worthy of Credit. There is only the Title of Abbot in the Manuscript of Arona, and in the rest he appears Naked and divested of all Titles, sometimes under the Name of Gersen, sometimes under that of Gesen, or Gessen, or Gersem, an Author unknown to this very day.  
Lastly, 'Tis not easy to decide, whether John Gesen, Gessen, Gersen, or Gersem, is really the Name of an Abbot, or whether it be only the Corruption of the Name of John Gerson. There are Conjectures Pro and Con, which have their probability on both sides.  
After all, the Author of the Book of the Imitation remains still uncertain, as he was at the beginning of this Discourse; and each of the three Pretenders may still preserve the probability of his Right, tho' he be not able to establish it by contestable Evidence.    

A Chronological TABLE OF THE Ecclesiastical History of the Fifteenth Century.  
The Years of the Vulgar Aera. The Popes. The Emperors and Kings of the West. The Emperors of the East. Ecclesiastical Affairs. Councils. Ecclesiastical Writers. 1400 Benedict Pope at Avignon, & Boniface Pope at Rome. 
The Electors of the Empire Depose the Emperor Wenceslaus.  
Josse, Marquis of Moravia, his Nephew, chosen in his room by the Archbishops of Mayence and Colen; Dyed 6 Months after.  
Robert, Duke of Bavaria. and Count Palatine of the Rhine, is chosen and Crowned Emperor.  
I. Charles VI King of France. in the 20th Year of his Reign.  
Henry III. King of Castille, in the 10th Year.  
Martin King of Arragon, in the 5th Year.  
John King of Portugal, in the 7th Year.  
Henry IU. King of England, in the 2d Year.  
Manuel the 2d. IX.  
Year of his Reign.  1400  
Peter of Ailly.  
John Charlier, called Gerson.  
Gerard Machet.  
John de Court Cuisse.  
John of Lignano.  
Henry of Coeffeld.  
Gobelin Persona.  
John of Huesden.  
Simeon of Thessalonica.  
Joseph Briennius.  
Macarius' Macres.  
Demetrius Chrysoloras.  
Macarius' Archbishop of Ancyra.  
Nicolas Sclengia.  
Esaias a Greek Monk.  
Nicolas Biart.  
Adrian a Carthusian.  
John of Duren.  
Tilman of Hackemberg.  
Hugh of Sletstad.  
Paul of Venice.  
James of Thessalonica, Flourished.  1401  II. Robert goeth into Italy with an Army, and is beat back by Galeas Viscount of Milan, and forced to return into Germany. X. 1401   1402  III. XI. Isa-Celebis, is Killed by his Brother Soliman, who is declared Emperor of the Turks. 1402   1403 The Substraction of Obedience to Benedict, was taken off upon certain Conditions. iv XII. 1403 An Assembly of the Clergy of France, held at Paris, May 28th, which took off the Substraction.  1404 
Benedict proposes the ways of Union to Boniface.  
The Death of Boniface happened Octob. 1. The Cardinals of his Party chose, the 12th. of this Month, Cosmatus Melioratus of Sulmona, who assumed the Name of Innocent VII.  
Laodislaus King of Naples, makes himself Master of Rome, and drives away Innocent.  V XIII. 1404  Paul an English Man. John Lattebur, Flourished. 1405 Innocent VII. is recalled to Rome, and the Partisans of Laodislaus are driven away. VI XIV. 1405  St. Bernardin was Professed in the Order of Friars Minors. 1406 
A new Substraction in France of Obedience to Benedict.  
Innocent VII. Dies November the 6th.  
The Cardinals of his Party choose Angelus Corarius, who assumed the Name of Gregory XII. upon Condition that he should procure Peace by the way of Resignation.  VII. XV. 1406 An Assembly of the Clergy of France, held at Paris Decemb. the 21st, which renewed the Substraction. Thomas of Kempis, was professed a Canon-Regular in the Monastery of Mount St. Agnes of Zwoll, on the 10th of June. 1407 Benedict XIII. pronounces an Interdict against the Kingdom of France. The Duke of Burgundy causes the Duke of Orleans to be Assassinated in the Night on the 23d. or 24th of Nou. Henry the III. King of Castille dies, John the II. his Son, succeeds him, under the Tutelage of Ferdinand his Uncle. XVI. The Institution of the Fraternity of St. George of Alga, by Laurence Justinian.  Nicholas Clemangis is suspected of composing the Letter which Benedict the XIII. wrote in the Month of May against the King and Kingdom of France. 1408 Three Councils appointed about the Schism, one at Perpignan, by Benedict the XIII. another at Aquileia, by Gregory the XII. and the last at Pisa by the Cardinals. IX. XVII. 
1408. The Condemnation of the Errors of Wicklef, in a Council at Oxford.  
The Writings of Wicklef carried into Bohemia, condemned by Sbinko, Archbishop of Prague.  
A Conclusion of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, about the Blood of Christ shed upon the Cross.  
A Censure of the same Faculty against the Propositions of Gorel about the Hierarchy.  
An Approbation of the Order of Scopetins.  
A Council at Oxford. The Council of Perpignan under Benedict the XIII. begun Nou. the 1st. and ended Feb. the 12th.  
The Assembly of the Cardinals at Pisa.  
John de Courtcuisse made a Discourse against the Interdict denounced by Benedict the XIII. against the Kingdom of France.  
Richard Ullerston wrote his Treatise of the Reformation of the Church.  
John Petit a Friar Minor, maintained by word of Mouth, and by writing the Assassination of the Duke of Orleans.  
Martin Poree was made Bishop of Arras for maintaining the same Cause by Writing.  1409 
The Deposition of Benedict XIII, and Gregory XII, on the 5th of June.  
On the 19th of the same Month, Alexander V is chosen.  
I. Balthasar Cossa retakes Rome from Laodislaus King of Naples.  X. XVIII. 
1409. John Huss maintains at Prague, the Writings of Wicklef. He has many Complices in the University of that City; and they appeal to the Pope from the Sentence of Sbinko.  
Alexander V confirms the Decretals of Boniface VIII. and John XXII. about the Privileges of Regulars Mendicants, and Condemns the Propositions, which were contrary to the Institution of the Order of St. Justina of Milan.  
An Assembly at Frankfurt, about the Schism.  
The Council of Pisa begun March 25th, and ended August the 7th.  
The Council of Udine begun in the Month of June, and ended in September.   1410 
The Death of Alexander V on the 3d of May.  
The Election of John XXIII on the 17th of the same Month.  
Robert of Bavaria dies May the 18th. Sigismond King of Hungary, is chosen by one part of the Electors; the rest chose the Marquis of Moravia, who Dying a little while after, all the Suffrages were united in the Person of Sigismond.  
The Death of Martin King of Arragon.  
Ferdinand IU. Son to his Sister Eleonora, is declared King.  XIX. 
1410. Another Appeal of John Huss, and some others, to the Pope.  
John Huss is Condemned at Rome.  
The Institution of the Order of Mount Olivet.   
John of Schonhove. Boston.  
Peter of Ancharano.  
St. Vincent Ferrier.  
Henry of Hesse, or Longesteyn, a Canon of Worms.  
Henry of Hesse, an Augustine.  
Henry of Coeffelde, Died July the 10th.  
Thomas of Haselbach Thomasinus.  
Nicolas of the Holy Cross.  
Francis Bachon.  
Michael Herbrant of Duren.  
Peter of Spire.  
Renard of Fonthoven Flourished.  1411 
John XXV. makes War with Laodislaus, and defeats his Troops.  
Laodislaus recruits his Forces, and leads an Army even to the Gates of Rome: The Pope makes a Secret Treaty with him.   XX. 
1411. The Archbishop of Pisa being Legate in France, obtains a Charitable Subsidy for the Pope.  
The Troubles in Bohemia.   
Peter of Ailly, was made Cardinal.  
Gerard Machet took the Degree of Doctor.  
Henry of Hachenbach.  
Jordan, an Augustine.  
Peter Bishop of Cita Nuova.  
Vincent Gruner Flourished.  
The Death of John Petit.  1412 Angelus Corarius is driven out of the Dominions of Laodislaus, and retires to Marca D'Ancona.  XXI. 
1412. The Parliament upon the Suit of the University, ordains the Execution of the Edict made in 1406, about Benefices.  
The Publication of the Bull of John XXIII. against John Huss at Prague; which raises new Commotions there.  
The Condemnation of many Impieties of William of Hildernissen, and Giles le Chantre, by Peter of Ailly.  A Council at Rome, against the Wicklefites, & Hussites. 
John of Aurbach.  
John of Lombez Flourished.  
Jerom of St. Faith, wrote his two Treatises against the Jews.  1413 IU. John XXIII. being driven from Rome by K. Laodislaus, goes to Lombardy, where he treats with the Emperor Si●…d, about holding of the Council, which he appointed at Constance by his Bull, dated November the 2d. 
III. The Death of Henry iv King of England.  
Henry V his Son succeeds him.  XXII. Mahomet I. put to Death his Brother Muza, and Usurps the Empire of the Turks. 1413. A Council at London. Giles Charlier takes the Degree of Doctor in the University of Paris. 1414 
V. The Death of Laodislaus King of Naples.  
His Sister Joan succeeds him.  iv XXIII. 
John Huss arrives at the Council of Constance, the 3d of November.  
He is seized 26 Days after, and his Process is drawn up.  
A Censure of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, against the Book of John Petit, written in Justification of the Assassination of the Duke of Orleans, by the Order of the Duke of Burgundy.  
A Sentence of the Bishop of Paris against this Book.  
An Appeal from it by the Duke of Burgundy to the Pope.  The Council of Constance, began November the 16th.  1415 
Joha XXIII. Renounces the Pontificate on the first of March.  
After this he flies from Constance, he is Cited by the Council, detained Prisoner, and Deposed on the 29th of May.  
Gregory XII. Renounces the Papal Dignity by his Proctors.  
An Agreement between the Emperor Sigismond, and the K. of Arragon, about the Deposition of Benedict XIII.  V XXIV. 
1415. 45 Articles of the Doctrine of Wicklef Condemned in the Council of Constance, on the 4th of May.  
The Process of John Huss is finished, he is Condemned and Burnt the 15th of July.  
Jerome of Prague, arrives at Constance the 4th of May; he endeavours to escape, but is Apprehended. He Retracts on the 23d of September.  
The Proposition of John Petit Condemned in the Council of Constance, on the 6th of July.   
John Dominici, Cardinal of Ragusa.  
Theodoric of Niem.  
Leonard Aretin.  
John Zachary.  
Gabriel of Spoleto.  
Peter Maurocenus.  
John of Dendermonde.  
Anthony of Genua.  1416 A Process made against Benedict XIII. 
Ferdinand IU. King of Arragon, Dies on the 2d of April.  
Alphonsus' his Son, succeeds him.  XXV. 
Jerome of Prague is Accused a new, Condemned in the Council of Constance, and Burnt May the 30th.  
The Troubles and Wars in Bohemia about Religion.   
Anthony of Parma.  
John Capreolus Flourished.  1417 
The Deposition of Benedict XIII. in the Month of July.  
The Election of Martin V on the 11th of November. I.  VII. XXVI. 1417  
John Baptista Poggio. spoke a Funeral Oration upon Cardinal Zabarella.  
Thomas of Walsingham finished his larger History of England.  1418 II. VIII. XXVII. 1418. An Assembly of the States of the Kingdom of France, which Orders the Execution of the Edict made in 1406.  The Death of John Dominici, Cardinal of Ragusa. 1419 
III. The Death of Gregory XII.  
John XXIII. escapes out of Prison, and goes to meet Marin V at Florence, where he Dies.  
Benedict XIII. continueth obstinate, and is abandoned by all those of his own Obedience, except those in the City of Paniscole.  IX. XXVIII. John Manuel Palaeologus is associated with his Father Manuel in the Empire. 1419 The Council of Constance ends on the 19th of April. 
St. Vincent Ferrier Died April the 5th.  
Augustine of Rome, was made General of the Order of Augustine's, in the Month of August.  1420 IU. X. XXIX. 1420. The Institution of the Order of the Anunciatiun, by Amedaeus, the 5th Earl of Savoy. The Council of Saltzburg. 
John de Courtecuise is chosen Bishop of Paris, but he did not enjoy that Bishopric. Loup of Olivet.  
Boniface Ferrier.  
Anthoni Rampelogus.  
Henry of Hesse, Carthusians; Flourished.  1421 
V. Martin V enters into Rome.  
Joan Queen of Naples, craves the Assistance of Alphonsus King of Sicily, and Arragon, and Adopts him for her Heir.  
Louis of Anjou, and Alphonsus, make War upon one another.  XI. XXX. A●urath succeeds his Father Mahomet, in the Empire of the Turks. 1421. The beginning of the Negotiations between the Greeks, and the Latins, by Eudemon Joannes.  
Nic●las of In●elspuel.  
Ihe●●●ric of Ingelhusa.  
Herman Petri of Stutdorp.  
Thomas Waldensis of Walden.  
John of Imola.  
William Lyndwood.  
John Pleath.  
John Dieppourg.  
Henry Gulpen.  
Rodolph of Brussels Flourished.  1422 VI. 
XII. Charles VI K. of France, dies October the 21st.  
The Duke of Bed●●rd causes Henry▪ King of England, his Nephew, to be Proclaimed King of France; but Charles the VII, Son to Charles the VI, as Lawful Heir, succeeded him, and Retook afterwards the greatest part of his Kingdom, which was possessed by the English.  
The Death of Henry V King of England, who left a Son of Catharine, Daughter to Charles VI King of France, called Henry VI.  
XXXI. The Emperor Manuel Palaeologus falls sick of a Palsy, in the Month of October.  
John Manuel, gins to reign alone.  1422. Massanus being sent from the Pope, to Constantinople, treats with the Greek Emperor.  
John de Courtecuise, is made Bishop of Geneva, and died the next Year.  
Albert of Sa●ciano, spoke his Discourse about the Eucharist.  
John of Walsingham finished the Abridgement of his History of England.  1423 VII. XIII. I. 1423. 
The Council of Collen.  
The General Council opened at Pavia, June 22d, and immediately translated to Sienna, where it is continued.  
William Lindwood begun his Collection of the Constitutions of the Archbishops of Canterbury.  
Thomas of Kempis, is Ordained Priest.  
Dennis Rickes enters into the Order of the Carthusians.  1424 
VIII. The Death of Benedict XVII.  
The Cardinals who were with him, choose Giles Munion, who assumed the Name of Clement VIII.  XIV. II. 1424 The Council of Sienna, translated to Basil.  1425 IX. XV. III. 1425. The Negotiations with the Greeks, are renewed.  The Death of Peter of Ailly, Cardinal. 1426 X. XVI. iv 1426. The Conclusion of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, about the Observation of Sundays, and Festivals.  
Julian Caesarin, and Dominic of Ca●ranica, are advanced to the Degree of Cardinals.  
Martin Poree dies September the 26th.  1427 XI. XVII. V 1427.   1428 XII. XVIII. VI 1428.  
Herman Petri of Stutdorp, dies the 24th of April.  
The Death of Henry of Hesse, a Carthusian, about this Year.  1429 XIII. Clement VIII. Renounces the Papal Dignity, and the Schism is perfectly extinguished. XIX. VII. 1429. 
The Council of Paris.  
The Council of Tortosa.  
Alex●…r the Carpenter, wrote his Treatise, entitled, Destructorium Vit●orum.  
The Death of Simeon of Thessa●onica.  1430 XIV. XX. VIII. 1430. A Censure of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, against the Propositions o●… Sarrazin, about Ecclesiastical Power, and the Hierarchy.  
William L●ndwood finished his Collection of Constitutions.  
Nicolas Auximanus.  
St. Bernardin of Sienna.  
Raimund of Sabonde, or Sebeide.  
Peter of Jeremy.  
Maphaeus Vegius; Flourished.  
Thomas Waldensis, or of Walden, died November the 3d.  1431 
The Death of Martin V. February the 20th.  
Eugenius iv is chosen March the 4th.  
I. Joan, Qu●en of Naples, being at War with Alp●n●us King of Arragon, Adopts Lovis Duke of Anjou, and makes him King.  XXI. IX. 
1431. Eugenius iv grants the King of Cyprus, the 100th part of the Ecclesiastical Revenues of France, Spain, and England, to set at Liberty the Hostages he had le●t with the Sultan.  
The Institution of the Order of the Golden Fleece, by Philip Duke of Bu●gu●dy.  The Opening of the Council of Basil, July the 23d. 
Macarius' Macres, died January 7th.  
Ambrose the Camaldulian, was admitted General of his Order.  
Augustine of Rome, is made Bishop of Cesena, and some time after Archbishop of Nazareth.  
John of Turrecremata, is made Master of the Sacred College.  
Giles Charlier is made Dean of Cambray, in the Month of Oct●ber.  1432 II. Eugenius IU. is driven out of Rome, and returns into it again, five Months after. XXII. Sigismond is Crowned Emperor at Rome. X. 1432. A Conclusion of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, about the Admonitions of Bishops. Eugenius iv has a mind to Dissolve the Council of Basil, which continues to sit in spite of his Decree, and proceeds against him. 
Giles Charlier, and John Nider, are deputed by the Council of Basil to the Bohemians.  
John, Archbishop of Tarentum, makes an Harangue in favour of the Pope, in the Council of Basil.  
Henry of ●ande.  
Nicolas of Susat.  
John Gritsch; Flourished.  1433 III. XXIII. John ●ing of ●…gal, d●es on the 12th of August, and his Son Edward succeeds him. XI. 1433. The Deputies from the Bohemians, arrive at the Council of Basil, and make a long Discourse there.  
Giles Charlier, John of Rag●sa, Henry Kalteisen, and John Polemar, Dispute against the Bohemians, in the Council of Basil.  
This Council sends into England, Gerard ●…us, who made a Discourse before the King, in an Assembly of the S●at●s of the Kingdom.  
Jordan 〈◊〉 w●o●e in Dese●●e of the Election of Eugenius IU.  
Albert of Sarcia●… composed his Treatise of Tenance.  
The Bi●●● of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉 the 19th.  1434 
IU. Lovis Duke of Anjou dies.  
Joan gives the Kingdom of Naples to Renatus of Anjou, his Brother.  
Alphonsus lays claim to it, but is Vanquished by Philio Duke of Milan, who sets him at liberty.  XXIV. XII. 1434. The Negotiation of the Council of Basil, and the Pope, with the Greeks, to bring them into the West. On the 5th of February, the Pope revokes the Dissolution of the Council of Basil, & confirms its Decrees. 
Paul of Burgos finished his Work, entitled, The Scrutiny of the Bible, and died the next Year.  
John, Patriarch of Antioch, wrote his Treatise of the Superiority of the Council above the Pope.  
William Lindwood is made Bishop of St. David's.  
John of Ragusa is sent into the East, to invite the Greeks, to come to the Council of Basil.  1435 V. XXV. XIII. 1435. The Council of Basil Condemns three Treatises of Augustine of Rome, and many Propositions, whereof some had been already Condemned in the Council of Constance.  
Laurence Justinian, is made Bishop of Venice.  
John Noblet. Eymeric du Champ.  
Nicolas Lackman. Peter of Colle.  
Herman, a Monk of the Cistercians.  
John Gauwer. Gerard of Stredam, Flourished.  1436 VI. XXVI. XIV. 1436. A Treaty of Accommodation, with the Bokemians.  John of Imola died February the 18th. 1437 VII. XXVII. The Death of the Emperor Sigismond, on the 9th of December. XV. 
1437. The Greek Emperor takes up a Resolution to come into the West with the Greek Bishops, and to Treat with the Pope, rather than with the Council of Basil.  
A Decree of the Council of Basil, about Communion in both kinds.  
Differences about the Translation of the Council of Basil.  
The Council proceeds against the Pope.   1438 VIII. The Suspension of Pope Eugenius, by the Council of Basil, on January the 25th. 
Albert of Austria, is choson Emperor in the Assembly of the Electors and Princes of the Empire, held at Frankfurt, the 20th of March.  
I. Edw. King of Portugal, dies the 9th of December: His Son Alphonsus succeeds him, under the Tutelage of Qu. Eleonora his Mother; and afterwards under that of Peter Duke of Conimbre.  XVI. 
1438. The Greeks arrive at Venice, February the 8th, and come to Ferrara, March the 7th.  
They enter upon a Conference with the Latins.  
The Edict of the French King on the 23d of January, which forbids the Prelates of his Kingdom to go to Ferrara.  
The Pope translates the Council from Basil to Ferrara, b● his Bull dated January the 1st, and opens it on the 8th of February.  
The Council of Basil is continued; a new Convocation of the Council at Ferrara.  
Conferences between the Greeks, and Latins, at Ferrara, until the end of the Year.  
The Assembly of Frankfurt, held in the Month of May, wherein a Neutrality is resolved upon, as to the Difference between the Council of Basil, and the Pope.  
An Assembly at Banzoes', on the 7th of July, wherein the Pragmatic Sanction is published.  
Two Assemblies held at Nuremberg, in the Month of July, and towards the end of the Year, about the Transactions at Basil.  
St. Katherine of Bologne, wrote the Revelations.  
The Death of John Nider.  1439 
IX. The Deposition of Eugenius, on the 26th of May.  
Felix V is chosen October the 30th, by the Electors appointed by the Council of Basil.  II. The Death of the Emperor Albert of Austria, on the 27th of October. XVII. 
1439. After many Disputes, the Union is concluded between the Greeks, and Latins, on the 5th of July.  
The Greeks return, and arrive at Constantinople on the 1st of February in the following Year.  
The Union of the Armenians, with the Latins, on the 29th of November.  
A Decree of the Council of Basil, on the 17th of September, which Ordains, That the Feast of the Conception of the Virgin, shall be Celebrated on the 8th of December.  
The Translation of the Council from Ferrara, to Florence, and the Continuation of the Conferences between the Greeks, and Latins.  
A Decree of Union between them, concluded on the 5th of July.  
An Assembly at Mayence, in the Month of March, which approves the Decrees of the Council of Basil, except what it attempted against Eugenius.  
John of Turrecremata, is made Cardinal. John Gerson dies July the 2d.  
Ambrose the Camaldulian, on the 21st of October, and John of Rode on Decemb. 1st.  
Nicolas Tudeschus, called Panormitanus.  
George of Trebizonde.  
Mark Eugenicus Archbishop of Ephesus.  
John Eugenicus.  
George Gemistius. Plethon.  
Amirutzes.  
George Scholarius, a Greek Monk.  
Silvester Scuropulus.  
Andrew Archbish. of Rhodes.  
Isidore Archbish. of Kiovia Nourished.  1440 X. Pope Felix comes to the Council of Basil, on the 5th of June, and is Consecrated and Crowned. Frederick of Austria, the Third of that Name, is chosen Emperor in the room of Albert, on the 2d of February. XVIII. 
1440. The Clergy of Constantinople, and the greatest part of the Greek Bishops, declare against the Unions; the Emperor maintains it, and causes Metrophanes to be chosen Patriarch of Constantinople.  
The Union of the Jacobites, and Ethiopians with the Latins.  An Assembly at Bourges, on the 2d of Septemb. which owns Eugenius, and the Council of Basil. 
John Argyropuius.  
Manuel, or Michael Aposiolius.  
George Scholarius, the Patriarch of Constantinople.  
Bartholomew, a Carthusian; Flourished.  
Henry Kalteisen, was made Master of the Sacred Palace, and Inquisitor General in Germany.  
Nicholas Clemangis died about this Year.  1441 XI. II. XIX. 
1441. Divers Negotiations among Christian Princes, on be half of Eugenius, and the Council of Basil.  
A Decree published by this Council, for the Celebration of the Festival of the Visitation of the Virgin, which was instituted by Boniface IX.  An Assembly at Mayence, held in the Month of April, for the calling of a new General Council. 
Thomas of Kempis wrote a Copy of the Book about the Imitation of Christ.  
Joseph, Bish. of Metona.  
Gregory Mamas.  
Hilarion, a Gr. Monk  
John of Anagnia.  
Francis de la Place.  
John Felton.  
Anthony de Rosellis.  
Nicolas Secundinus.  
Leonard of Udine.  
St. John Capistran.  
Laurence Valla; Flour.  1442 XII. Alphonsus' King of Arragon, retakes Naples. III. XX. The Revolt of Demetrius, against the emperor John Manuel Palaeol●gus. 
1442. A Retractation made by Friar Quadrigarin of two Propositions, according to the Order of the Faculty of Paris.  
Many Propositions against the Rights of Parish Priests, and about the Prerogatives of St. Francis, Condemned in the Council of Basil.  
A Translation of the Council from Florence to Rome, by the Bull of Eugenius, dated May the 3d.  
An Assembly at Frankfurt, for the holding a New General Council.  
Flavius Blondus.  
John Ernest.  
Henry of Werlis.  
Andrew of Utreckt; Flourished.  
Leonard Aretin, died the 9th of March, aged 74 Years.  
The Death of Gerard of Stredam.  
Augustine of Rome died in this Year, or rather in 1445.  1443 XIII. iv XXI. 
1443. A Letter of the Eastern Patriarches against Metrophanes Patriarch of Constantinople.  
The Death of Metrophanes on the 1st of August.  
Gregory the Protosyncelle chosen in his room.  
A Council at Jerusalem, against Metrophanes the Patriarch of Constantinople, held in the Month of April.  
A Translation of the Council of Basil to Lausane, by the Decree of May the 16th.  
An Assembly at Nuremberg, held about the Feast of St. Martin, for the Peace of the Church.   1444 XIV. V XXII. 1444. Decrees of the Pope Eugenius, for the Syrians, Chaldeans, Nestorians, Maronites, and other Sects in the East.  
The Birth of Aelius, Anthony le Brixa, or Nebrissensis.  
St. Bernardin of Sienna, died the 20th of May.  
The Death of Julian Caes●in a Cardinal.  1445 XV. VI XXIII. The Death of the Emperor John Manuel Palaeologus, on the 31st of October: His Son Constantine succeeded him. 1445. The Council of Rouen. The Death of John Tudeschus, who was called Panormitanus. 1446 XVI. VII. I. 1446.  
St. Antonine is made Archbishop of Naples, in the Month of February.  
Albert of Sarciano, wrote his Treatise about the Rebukes that were due to Insolent Men.  
Nicolas Cusanus was nominated Cardinal December 20th. Bartholomew a Carthusian, died the 12th of July. The Death of William Lyndwood.  1447 
The Death of Eugenius IU. Febr. the 23d.  
Nicolas V is chosen in his room, on the 6th of March.  VIII. II. 1447.   1448 II. IX. III. 1448. The Council of Angers. Gerard Machel, died the 17th of July. 1449 III. Felix Renounced the Papal Dignity, and so put an end to the Schism. X. iv 1449.  
Matthew Palmier finished his Chronicle.  
John of Stavelo finished his Chronicle, and died.  1450 IU. XI. V 1450.  
John of Turrecremata, is promoted to the Bishopric of Ozenle in Gallicia, which he quitted for that of Albano in Italy.  
Laurence Justinian is advanced to the Dignity of Patriarch of Aquileia.  
John Capgrave: John Canales; Flourished. The Death of Albert of Sarciano.  1451 V. XII. VI Amirath the Emperor of the Turks, dies in the Month of February; and his Son Mahomet II. succeeded him. 1451. A Censure of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, against two Propositions, contrary to the Rights of Parish-Priests, advanced at Rouen, by John Bartholomew of the Order of Friars Minors.  
John of Hagen, or of Indagine.  
James of Clusa of Paradise, or Junterbuck; Flourished.  1452 VI. XIII. VII. 1452.  
Henry Kaltesein, is made Archbishop of Nidrosia, or Dront, in Norway, and of Caesarea.  
The Death of Peter of Jeremy.  1453 VII. XIV. 
VIII. The Taking of the City of Constantinople by the Turks, under the Command of Mahomet TWO, on the 29th of May.  
The Emperor Constantine was killed in it, and the Empire of the Greeks at Constantinople, ended in his Person.  1453. The Pope imposes Tenths upon the Clergy for a War against the Turks.   1454 VIII. XV. John II. King of Castille, died the 10th of July. Henry IU. his Son, succeeded him.  1454.  The Death of Alphonsus Tostatus. 1455 
The Death of Nicolas V on the 25th of March.  
Callistus III is chosen in his room, on the 8th of April.  XVI.  1455. The beginning of the Contest between Sigismond, Duke of Austria, and the Cardinal of Cusa, about the execution of the Cardinal's Jurisdiction in his Bishopric of Brixen. The Duke is cited by the Pope.  
Laurence Justinian dies on the 8th of January.  
The Death of John of Anagnia.  1456 II.  XVII. 
1456. An Appeal made by the University of Paris, from a Bull of Pope Nicolas V against the Rights of Parish-Priests, in favour of the Regulars Mendicants; who are Expelled the University.  
A Revocation of that Bull, by Calistus III.  The Council of Soissons. St. John Capistran dies the 3d of October, aged 71 Years. 1457 III.  XVIII. 
1457. The Regulars Mendicants renounce the Bull, and are at last restored to the University.  
The Pope imposes Tenths for a War against the Turks.    1458 
The Death of Callistus III. on the 6th of August.  
Pius II. is chosen on the 19th of the same Month. I.   
XIX. Alphonsus, King of Arragon, dies at Naples, on the 27th of June.  
John his Brother succeeds him.  1458. Pope Pius renews the Censures of his Predecessor against the Duke of Austria; who appeals from him to a Council, and Gregory of Heimburg draws up the Act of Appeal.  
Alphonsus Spina, writes his Treatise, entitled, The Fortress of Faith.  
The Death of Dominic Capranica.  
The Death of Maphaus Vegius.  1459 II.  XX. 
1459. The Imposition of Tenths, for a War against the Turks, which Germany would not endure.  
The Duke of Austria takes the Cardinal of Cusa Prisoner, who could not obtain his Liberty without paying a great Ransom.   
St. Antonin finishes his Historical Sum, and dies the 2d of May, aged 70 Years.  
The Death of John Baptista Poggio.  1460 III. XXI. Henry VI K. of England, is Conquered by Richard Duke of York, who causes himself to be declared King: This latter was overcome and slain by Queen Margaret the Daughter of Renatus Duke of Anjou. 1460. Bulls of Excommunication by the Pope, dated August the 2d, against the Duke of Austria, and his Adherents. Another Bull of Excommunication of October 18th. against Gregory of Heimburg; who wrote Notes upon it, and made a Reproachful Appeal against this Bull.   
William of Vorilong.  
Nicolas of Orbellis.  
Gregory of Heimburg.  
Theodore Laelius.  
Henry Gorcome, or Goricheme.  
John Gobelin.  
Henry Arnold.  
Matthew Camaride.  
George Codinus.  
William Houpelande, Flourished.  1461 IU. 
XXII. Charles VII. K. of France, dies on the 22d of July, in the 30th Year of his Reign; and Lovis XI, his Son, succeeds him.  
Edward IX, Son of Richard, drove away Henry VI and Margaret his Wife, and is declared King of England in the Month of June.  1461   
James Picolomini is made Cardinal.  
Denis Rickel, a Carthusian.  
John of Grinstrode.  
John Canneman.  
John of Malines.  
John of Nivelle.  
James Zenus, Flourished.  1462 V. XXIII. 1462.   
The Birth of John Trithemeus, on the 1st of February.  
Ducas a Greek Author finished his Byzantine History.  1463 VI. XXIV. 1463.   
St. Katherine of Bologne, died the 9th of March, and Flavius Blondus the 4th of June.  
Leonicus Calchondylus finished his History of the Turks.  
The Birth of John Picus of Mirandula.  1464 
Pius II. dies on the 14th of August.  
Paul II. is chosen the 1st of September. I.  XXV.  1464. The Institution of the Order of the Knights of the Moon, by Renatus Duke of Anjou.  
John of Turrecremata, exchanged his Bishopric of Albano, for that of Sabina.  
John Busche finished his Chronicle of Windesem.  
Nicolas of Cusa, and John Capgrave, die August 12th.  
The Death of William of Vorilong, and Theodore Laelius.  1465 II. XXVI.  1465. A Censure of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, against some Propositions maintained in the Schools in Fovara Street.  
John Beetz. John Soreth.  
Alanus de la Roche; Flourished.  
Laurence Valla died, aged 50 Years; and James of Clusa, aged 80 Years.  
Henry Kalteisen, died on the 3d of October.  1466 III. XXVII.  1466.   1467 IU. XXVIII.  1467. The Institution of the Order of Minims, by St. Francis of Paul.  
The Death of Anthony of Rosellis.  
John of Turrecremata, died the 28th of September.  
James Perez, was made Bishop of Chrysopolis, on the 1st of October.  1468 V. XXIX.  1468.   1469 VI. XXX.  1469. The Institution of the Order of St. Michael, by Lewis XI.  Roderick Sans of Areval, finished his History of Spain. 1470 VII. XXXI.  
1470. A Censure of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, against a Proposition of John Meamer, about Ecclesiastical Power.  
A Conclusion of the same Faculty, about the Truth of some Propositions of the Creed.   
Henry Harphius, or of Herp.  
Gabriel Barlette.  
John Baptista Platina.  
Alexander of Imola.  
John of Lutrie.  
Laurence Cabaneus.  
Dominic of Dominici.  
Lovis Dona.  
Conrade de Rodemberg.  
Stephen of Caiete.  
George Melitoris.  
Tilman of Ravensburg.  
John Wessel, or of Wessales.  
William Forleon.  
Ambrose Coriolan.  
Benedict Stendel of Halles.  
Sifroy Bishop of Cyrene.  
Godeschalcus' of Meschede; Flourished.  1471 
Paul II. dies on the 25th of July.  
Sixtus iv is chosen on the 2d of August.  XXXII. Henry VI King of Enggland, is restored by Lovis XI, and driven away, and killed quickly after by Edward.    
Denis Rickel, died on the 12th of March, aged 69 Years; Thomas of Kempis on the 24th of July, aged 70 Years; and John Soreth on the 25th of the same Month.  
Henry of Pizo.  
John Tinctor, Flourished.  1472 II. XXIII.  1472.  
Conrade of Elten.  
Conrade of Zaberne.  
John of Dorsten.  
Angelus the Saxon; Flourished.  
John of Gruistrade, died February the 12th.  
The Death of Cardinal Bessarion.  
Giles Charlier, died the 23d of November.  1473 III. XXXIV.  1473. A Bull of Sixtus iv in favour of the Regulars Mendicants. The Council of Toledo. 
Martin the Master, takes the degree of Dr. in the Faculty of Theology at Paris.  
Robert Gaguin, is chosen General of the Order of Trinitarians.  1474 IU. XXXV. The Death of Henry iv King of Castille, Ferdinand of Arrigon, who Married his Daughter Isabel, succeeded him.  1474. Sixtus iv puts off the Jubilee for 25 Years.  
Jerom Sabonarola, enters into the Order of Friars Preachers.  
The Death of Alanus de la Roche.  1475 V. XXXVI.  1475.  
Theodorick of Herxen.  
Nicolas of Warhenheim.  
Michael of Milan, John Cousin.  
Henry Prudens; Flourished.  
John of Hagen, or of Indagine, died about this Year.  1476 VI. XXXVII.  1476.  
John of Circy, is chosen General of the Order of Cistercians.  
John Beetz, died the 23d of July.  1477 VII. XXXVIII.  1477. A Censure of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, about a Proposition concerning the Trinity. The Council of Orleans. 
Robert Fleming wrote a Poem in Commendation of Sixtus IU.  
John of Circy disputes stoutly against the Commendations of Monasteries, in the Council of Orleans, and the next Year after in the Council of Tours.  
The Death of James Zenus.  1478 VIII. XXXIX.  1478. A Bull of Sixtus IV, which put an end to the Differences between the Parish-Priests, and Regulars Mendicants. The Council of Tours. 
Dominick de Dominicis, died the 17th of February.  
The Death of He●●y Harphius, and Laurence Calcaneus.  1479 IX. XL.  1479. A Condemnation of the Errors of Peter of Osma, at Toledo, and at Rome.  
John Raulin takes the Degree o Doctor of Divinity at Paris.  
The Death of John of Latrie.  1480 X. XLL. John King of Arragon, dies on the 16th of February: Ferdinand V, his Son, succeeds him, and unites in his own Person, the Kingdoms of Castille and Arragon.  1480. The Pope approves the Office of the Conception of the Virgin, composed by Bernardin de Bustis.  
Augustine Patricius, Canon of Sienna, wrote his History of the Councils of Basil and Florence.  
John de Deo.  
Bernandin de Bustis.  
John Picus of Mirandula.  
Peter Shottus.  
John Kimne of Duderstat.  
John Manburne.  
Arnold Bostius, or Boschius.  
George Phran●a.  
Gabriel Biel.  
John Baptista Salvis, or de Salis; Flourished.  
John de Indagine, died about this Year.  1481 XI. XLII. Alphonsus the King of Portugal dies on the 28th of August; John TWO, his Son, succeeds him.  1481.  
Mathias Palmier, finished his Continuation of the Chronicle of Matthew Palmier.  
Pacificus of Novara.  
Angelus de Clavasio.  
John Baptista Trovanala, or Novamala.  
John Loss. Charles Fernand.  
John Fernand. Marfilius Ficinus.  
Wernerus Rolwink of Laer; Flourished.  
John Baptista Platina, died aged 60 Years.  1482 XII. XLIII.  1482. A Censure of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, against a Proposition about Indulgences.  
Peter Natalis, finished his Catalogue of Saints.  
Bernard Aquila.  
Anthony of Baloche.  
Bernardin of Tom.  
Robert Caraccioli.  
Michael of Milan.  
Nicolas of Creutznach.  
Nicasius of Voerde.  
Benedict Capra.  
John Andrew; Flourished.  
Martin the Master died, aged 〈◊〉 Years.  1483 XIII. 
XLIV. The Death of Lovis XI. King of France, on August 29; C●arles VIII, his Son, succeeds him.  
Edward IU. Ring of England dies, Richard III. Duke of Gloucester, his Brother having put his Nephews to Death, usurps the Crown.   1483. A Censure of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, against some Propositions of John de Angeli, about the Hierarchy.  
Augustine Patricius is made Bishop of Pienza.  
John Trithemius, is chosen Abbot of Spanheim.  
The Death of Francis Diede.  1484 
The Death of Sixtus iv on August 12.  
Innocent VIII. is chosen on October 29. I.  XLV.  1484.  The Death of George Melitoris, and Henry Prudent. 1485 II. XLVI.  1485. The Council of Sens. 
Peter Brutus.  
William of Aix la Chapelle, Baptista of Ferrara; Flourished.  
The Death of Tilman of Ravensburg.  1486 III. XLVII. Henry of Richmond, the Son of John, Brother to Henry VI King of England, killed Richard Duke of Gloucester, and by Marrying Elizabeth the Daughter of Edward IV, united in his own Person, the Rights of the Houses of York and Lancaster, to the Crown of England, and was the 7th King of England, of the Name of Henry.  
1486. A Censure of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, against some Propositions of John Merchant a Friar Minor, about St. Francis.  
A Censure of the same Faculties against some Propositions of John Lailier.  
A Petition of Lailier to the Official of Paris.  
A new Censure of the Faculty against Lailier.  
Lailier's Retractation, and his Absolution by the Bishop of Paris.  
The Condemnation of Lailier by the Pope.  
A Censure of the same Faculty against some Propositions of Morality:   Conrade of Redemberg, died the 25th of December. 1487 IU. XLVIII.  1487.  Alexander of Imola died, aged 54 Years. 1488 V. XLIX.  1488.   1489 VI. L.  1489. The Approbation of the Order of Nuns, of the Conception of the Virgin Mary.  
Don●t Possius finished his Chronicle of the Archbishops of Milan.  
The Death of John Wessel, aged 57 Years.  
James Picolomini died the 11th of December.  1490 VII. LI.  
1490. A Conclusion of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, about Contracts for Usury.  
Another Conclusion of the same Faculty against a Superstitious Prayer.  
Innocent VIII. had a mind to impose Tenths upon the Clergy of France; but the University of Paris, opposed him, and appealed from his Decree.   
John Pheffer.  
Felinus Sandaeus.  
Stephen Brulefer.  
Vincent of Bandelle.  
John Paleonydorus.  
Oliver Maillard.  
Michael Francis.  
Nicolas Simon.  
James Spinger.  
Henry Institor; Flourished.  1491 VIII. LII.  1491.  
John Picus of Mirandula, Renounced his Sovereign Power, and gave all his Estate to the Poor.  
John de la Pierce.  
Jerom Savonarola.  
Aelius Anthony Lebrixa, or Nebrissensis.  
John Francis Picus of Mirandula.  
Dominic Bolan. James of Stralem; Flourished.  
The Death of Peter Shot at the Age of 31 Years.  
The Death of James Perer, and of Nicolas Creutznach.  1492 
The Death of Innocent VIII on the 25th of July.  
Alexander VI is chosen on the 4th of August. I.  LIII. 1492.   
William of Houpelande, died the 11th of August, and Nicasius of Voerde the 24th.  
Hubert Leonard.  
John of Milbach.  
John of Roseau.  
John Bertram; Flourished.  1493 II. The Death of the Emperor Frederick, on the 19th of August; Maximilian I. his Son succeeded him.  
1493. A Censure of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, against Judicial Astrology.  
Other Censures of the same Faculty against some Erroneous Propositions of Henry de Banqueville, about the Incarnation; and of John Grillot, about the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin.  
Alexander VI published a Brief of Absolution for John Picus of Mirandula, as to all the Prosecutions that had been against him, upon the account of some Propositions he had advanced in his Theses.   
John of Keyserberg.  
Sebastian Tition, or Brant.  
James Wimphelinge.  
Josse Beysselius.  
Giles Netteler.  
Theodorick of Osembruck.  
Jerome of Milan.  
Dominick Mancini; Flourished.  1494 III. II.  1494. The Nuns of the Conception, quit the Rule of the Cistercians, and take up the Rule of Sancta Clara.  
Trithemius finished his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers.  
Nicolas Barian, Flourished.  
Bernardin of Tom died the 28th of September; and John Picus of Mirandula, the 17th of November.  1495 IU. III. John II. K. of Portugal, died without Issue, on the 25th of Octob. Emanuel, his Cousin-German, the Son of Ferdinand, his Uncle, succeeded him.  1495. A Censure of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, against some Propositions about thè Essence of God.  
Laurence Buzel, Flourished.  
The Death of Gabriel Biel of Angelus de Clavalio, and Robert Caraccioli.  1496 V. iv  1496.   1497 VI. V  
1497. A Censure of the Faculty of Theology, at Paris, about the sense of some Prophecies.  
The same Faculty publishes its Decree about the Immaculate Conception.  
A Censure of this Faculty against many Propositions of Morcel, about the Blessed Virgin Mary.   John Raulin, a Doctor of Paris, enters into the Order of Clunie. 1498 VII. 
VI Charles VIII. K. of France, dies without Issue on the 6th of April.  
Louis XII. Duke of Orleans, the next Heir of the Male Line, succeeded him.   
1498. A Conclusion of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, about the Power of the Pope, and the Celebration of a Council.  
A Censure of the same Faculty against many wicked Propositions of John Vitrier, a Regular Observantine.   Jerom Sabonarola is burnt at Florence, the 23d of May, aged 46 Years. 1499 VIII. VII.  1499. The Condemnation of Herman Risvich, who was Convicted of many Blasphemies.  
John Nauder, or Vergehaus.  
Arnold Bossius died the 4th of April.  
The Death of Marsilius Ficinus.    

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE Ecclesiastical Writers OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY, AND Of their Genuine WORKS.  

PETER DE LUNA, or BENEDICT XIII, POpe at Avignon; was chosen Pope in 1394, deposed in 1409, in the Council of Pisa, Excommunicated in the Council of Constance in 1417, died in 〈◊〉. 

His Genuine Works which we now have,  
Are many Letters in Defence of his Right to the Papal Dignity, in Theodoric of Niem and in the Councils.  
An Answer to the Emperor Sigismond, in Bzovius in the Year 1415.  
The Bull wherein he Excommunicates those who did own him, in the Councils, Tome 12.  
Five Letters in the Councils, Tome 2.  
Some other Bulls and Letters in the Bullarium, and the Annalists.  
A Book of Consolation in Adversities, which is attributed to him, printed in Spanish.  
A Treatise of the Power of the Pope, and the Council, which is said to be in Manuscript in the Vatican Library.    
ANGELUS CORARIUS, or GREGORY XII, Pope at Rome, was chosen Pope in 1409, deposed in 1409, in the Council of Pisa, resigned in 1415 in the Council of Constance, died in 1417. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Letters in his own Defence, in the Councils, Tom 11, and in Theodoric of Niem.  
Other Letters Ibid. Tome 12, in the Annalists and Bullary.    
PETER of AILLY, Cardinal-Bishop of Cambray; was born at Complegne, in 1350, took the Degree of Doctor in the University of Paris in 1380, was made Bishop of Cambray in 1396, and Cardinal in 1411, died in 1425. 

His Genuine Works in Print and Manuscript.  
See the Catalogue of them, Pag. 58.    
JOHN CHARLIER, called GERSON, Chancellor of the University of Paris; was born the 14th of December in 1363, made Dr. at Paris in 1392. and some time after Chancellor of the Church and University of Paris, died in 1439. 

His Genuine Works which now remain.  
A Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Power, and the Origine of Right and Laws.  
A Discourse spoken in the Council of Constance, about the Authority of the Pope and the Council.  
A Treatise entitled, de Auferibilitate Papae.  
Of the manner how we ought to behave ourselves during the Schism.  
A Treatise of the Unity of the Church.  
— of the Differences of Ecclesiastical States.  
Maxims for all Estates.  
The Signs of the approaching Ruin of the World.  
Of Ecclesiastical Defects.  
Three Discourses upon the means of putting an End to the Schism of the Popes.  
Two Sermons upon the Circumcision of our Lord, and the Peace of the Church.  
A Discourse about the Schism to the Ambassadors of England.  
A Trialogue about the Schism.  
Two Letters about the Schism.  
Sermons Preached at Constance, while the Council was held there.  
A Declaration of the Truths which we must believe.  
A Protestation, or Confession, in Matters of Faith.  
Characters of Obstinacy in Cases of Heresy.  
A Treatise upon the Question, Whether it be lawful to Appeal from the Decision of the Pope, in Matters of Faith.  
Some Pieces about the Deposition of Peter de Luna.  
A Treatise showing, whether the unjust Sentences of Pastors ought to be observed and feared.  
A Treatise of the Incarnation.  
A Treatise to a Carthusian against John Rusbroek.  
A Treatise of the Communion of the Laity under both kinds.  
A Treatise of the Trial of Spirits, and the Examination of Doctrines.  
An Encomium of St. Bonaventure.  
A Letter about the Studies of a Divine.  
A Letter to a Carthusian about the Stability of his Order, and what Studies he ought to follow.  
A Piece upon such Books as must be read with Precaution.  
A Treatise of the Signs to distinguish true Religion▪ from false.  
A Trialogue about Astrology.  
Some Pieces upon Happy, or Unhappy Days, and against Talismans', and the Magical Art.  
A Treatise against the Sect of Whippers.  
A Tripartite Work.  
A Treatise of the Difference between Venial and Mortal Sins.  
The Art of hearing Confession.  
Other Questions about Confession.  
Some Resolutions of other Moral Questions.  
Some Pieces about Mortal and Venial Sins, and of the Correction of our Neighbour.  
Of the manner of conducting Children to Jesus Christ.  
A Treatise of Simony.  
Questions about Fundamentals.  
Letters of Piety.  
A Treatise of the Celibacy of ecclesiastics.  
An Apology for the Order of Carthusians.  
Divers Sermons; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 68  
Of the Consolation of Theology.  
A Complaint about the Affair of John Petit.  
Poetical Pieces.  
A Centilogium of Ideas.  
A Treatise of the Spiritual Life of the Soul.  
— of the Impressions which Men receive.  
— of Mystical Theology.  
— to a Carthusian about the Behaviour of a Prior of that Order.  
A Theological Question about the State of Parish-Priests, compared with that of Regulars.  
A Treatise of the Perfection of the Heart.  
Works of Piety; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 69.  
Sermons upon different Subjects.  
A Treatise of the Terms of Theology.  
An Addition to the Treatise of Schism.  
A Letter to the Abbot of St. Denis, about the Relics of that Saint.  
A Treatise against Curiosity and Novelty in Matters of Doctrine.  
A Piece against Horoscopes.  
Sermons, and Letters.  
A Treatise of the Marriage of St. Joseph and the Virgin.  
Some Conclusions about the Power of Bishops in Matters of Faith.  
A Treatise about the Illumination of the Heart.  
A Resolution of that Question, Whether it be lawful for a Regular of St. Benedict to eat Meat in such Monasteries where 'tis usual to do it.  
A Piece against those who affirm, that by hearing Mass on a certain Day, they shall not Die a sudden Death.  
An Instruction to John Major about the Office of a Praeceptor to a Prince.  
A Sermon of the Pastoral Office.  
A Sermon against Lascivious Pictures.  
Of the Signs for discerning whether a Man be Just, or Unjust.  
An imperfect Sermon about the Nativity of the Virgin.  
A Question, Whether we must prefer the Prayers of a Woman, and Laymen, who are Devout, before the Prayers of ecclesiastics, who are Sinners.  
A Rule for a Hermit of Mount-Valerian.  
An Opposition to the Substraction of Obedience to Benedict XIII.  
A Letter about the Calamities of the Church.  
Many Sermons, whereof see the Subjects, P. 69.  
Divers other Treatises of Piety, Morality, and Discipline; whereof see the Catalogue, Pag. 60, etc.   

Supposititious Works.  
A Treatise against the Regulars who are Proprietors.  
Moral Rules.  
A Treatise of the Conception of the Virgin Mary.  
A Dialogue between an Englishman and a Frenchman.  
Reflections upon the Victory of the Virgin of Orleans.  
A Treatise of Contracts which is written by Henry of Hess, or of Langestein.  
A Treatise against the Fable of the Rose.    
JOHN WICKLEF, Separated from the Church in 1370, is Condemned in 1382, dies in 1384. 

His Genuine Works.  
A Trialogue, and other Works; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 117.    
JOHN HUSS, Sep●…ted from the Church in 1410, is Condemned in the Council of Constance, and Burnt in 1415. 

His Genuine Works.  
See the Catlogue of them at P. 119, etc. and chief at P. 123.    
JEROM of PRAGUE, Separated from the Church with John Huss, came to the Council of Constance in 1415, where he Retracted his Errors, was Condemned and Burnt in 1416. 

His Genuine Works are.  
Articles extracted from his own Books: See P. 124.    
ALEXANDER V Pope; was chosen a● Pisa in 1409, died in 1410. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
A Bull in favour of the Regulars Mendicants.    
BALTHAZAR COSSA, or JOHN XXIII. Pope; was chosen Pope in 1410, deposed in 1415, in the Council of Constance, died 1419. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
A Bull of the Convocation of the Council of Constance, in the Councils, Tome 12.  
Some Letters in the Annalists.    
GERARD MACHET, Dr. and Canon of Paris, Confessor to King Charles VII. and at last Bishop of Castres'; was admitted Dr. in 1411, made Bishop after the Year 1444, died in 1448, on the 17th of July. 

His Manuscript Works are  
Letters: See P. 75.    
JOHN of COURTECUISSE, Dr. of Paris, and Bishop of Geneva, was made Dr. in 1388, chosen Bishop of Paris in 1420, and of Geneva in 1422, died within a Year after. 

His Manuscript Works.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 76.    
GOBELIN PERSONA, A Dean of Bilfeld, was born in 1358. died in 1418. 

His Genuine Works ●re  
A Chronicle, entitled, Cosmodromum.  
The Life of St. Meinulphus.    
JOHN of HUESDEN, A Canon-Regular and Prior of Windesem, Flourished at the beginning of this Century. 

His Genuine Works are,  
A Letter about Spiritual Exercises, upon the Life and Passion of Jesus Christ.    
JOHN of LIGNANO, A Lawyer of Milan; Flourished at the beginning of this Century. 

His Genuine Works are,  
A Commentary upon the Clementines, and other Treatises of Law; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 76.    
JOHN of SCHONHOVE, A Canon Regular of St. Augustine, Flourished in the Time of the Council of Constance. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are,  
A Letter to Gerson, in Defence of John Rusbroek, P. 64.   

His Works that are lost, are  
A spiritual Exhortation.  
Of 〈◊〉 Course of a Monk.  
Of the Progress of a Monk.  
Some Discourses and Letters.    
NICOLAS of CLEMANGIS, or of CLEMANGE, Chanter of the Church of Bayeux, was born in 1360, made Rector of the University of Paris in 139● died before 1440. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
A Treatise of the corrupted State of the Church.  
A Poem upon the same Subject.  
A Treatise of the Loss and Restauration of Justice.  
Two Treatises of the Infallibility of a General Council.  
A Treatise of Theological Studies.  
A Discourse upon the Parable of the Prodigal Son.  
A Treatise of the Advantage of Solitude●  
— of the Benefit of Adversity.  
— against the New Festivals.  
— against Simoniacal Prelates.  
137 Letters, P. 70. to P. 75.   

His Works in Manuscript.  
Some Letters and Discourses.    
MARTIN V Pope; was chosen Pope November the 11th 1417, died in 1431. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
Bulls confirming the Council of Constance, and calling together, or Translating the Councils of Pavia, Sienna, and Bisil, in the Councils.  
Many Letters and Bulls in the Councils, Annalists, and Bullarium.    
SIMEON Archbishop of Thessalonica, flourished at the beginning of this Century, and died in the Year 1429. 

His Genuine Work which remains, is  
A Treatise of the Liturgy.   

His Manuscript Works.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 108.    
JOSEPH BRIENNIUS, A Greek Monk; Flourished under the Empire of Manuel Palaeologus. 

His Manuscript Works are,  
A Discourse about the Trinity. Sermons.    
MACARIUS' MACRES, A Greek Monk; Flourished at the beginning of this Century, and died in 1431. 

His Manuscript Work is,  
A Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Spirit.    
DEMETRIUS' CHRYSOLORAS, Flourished under the Empire of Manuel Palaeologus. 

His Manuscript Works.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 108.    
MACARIUS' Archbishop of Ancyra; Flourished at the beginning of this Century. 

His Manuscript Work is,  
A Treatise against the Latins.    
NICOLAS SCLENGIA, Flourished at the beginning of this Century. 

His Manuscript Works are,  
A Treatise about the Procession of the Holy Spirit. An Answer to Esaias the Monk.    
ESAIAS, A Greek Monk; Flourished at the beginning of this Century. 

His Work in Manuscript is,  
A Letter against Nicholas Sclengia.    
NICOLAS BIART, An Englishman, of the Order of Friars Preachers; Flourished at the beginning of this Century. 

His Manuscript Works.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 76.    
ADRIAN, The Carthusian; Flourished at the beginning of this Century. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
Of the Remedies of both Fortunes.    
THOMAS Abbot of St. Andrew of Verceil; at what time he Flourished is uncertain. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
A Commentary upon the Books of St. Denis.   

His Manuscript Work is,  
A Commentary upon the Canticles.    
JOHN PETIT, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished at the beginning of this Century. 

His Manuscript Works are,  
A Treatise about the Murder of Tyrants.  
A Discourse about Schism.  
Some Questions.    
MARTIN POREE, Of the Order of Friars Preachers, and Bishop of Arras; was made Bishop in 1408, died September the 6th, in 1426. 

His Manuscript Work is,  
A Treatise in Defence of the Murder of the Duke of Orleans.    
PAUL An Englishman, Doctor in Law; Flourished at the beginning of this Century. 

His Genuine Work which remains, is  
A Mirror of the Pope and his Court.    
JOHN LATTEBUR, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished at the beginning of this Century. 

His Genuine Work which remains, is  
A Moral Commentary upon the Lamentations of Jeremy.   

His Works that are lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 77.    
RICHARD ULLERSTON, A Doctor of Oxford; Flourished at the beginning of this Century. 

His Manuscript Works are,  
A Treatise of the Reformation of the Church.— of Military Duties, and other Treatises.    
BOSTON, An English Benedictine Monk; Flourished at the beginning of this Century. 

His Works in Manuscript, or which are lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 77.    
THEODORIC of NIEM, Secretary to some Popes; Flourished under the Pope's Gregory XII, Alexander V and John XXIII. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
The History of the Schism of the Popes, from Gregory XI.  
A Treatise, entitled, Nemus Unionis.  
The Life of Pope John XXIII.  
A Treatise of the Privileges of the Empire.    
LEONARD ARETIN, Secretary to some Popes; was born in 1369; Flourished under the Pontificates of Gregory XII. Alexander V and John XXIII. and ied in 1443. 

His Genuine Works, are  
A Treatise against Hypocrites, etc. P. 86.    
JOHN BAPTISTA POGGIO, Secretary to some Popes; Flourished under Pope John XXIII. and his Successors, and died in 1459. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are,  
A Description of the Death of Jerom of Prague.  
Funeral Orations upon Zabarella, and Albergat Cardinals, and Laurence de Medicis.  
Four Books of the Unconstancy of Fortune.  
A Discourse of the Authority and Power of the Pope and Council.  
A Treatise of Nobility.  
— of Humane Misery.    
JEROM of St. FAITH, A Converted Jew; Flourished under the Pontificate of Benedict XIII. and wrote in 1412. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
A Treatise against the Jews, and the Talmud, entitled, Hebraeomastix.    
PAUL Bishop of Burgos; was born in 1353; Flourished at the beginning of this Century. 

His Gunuine Works, etc. are  
A Scrutiny of the Bible.  
Additions to the Postils of Nicolas Lyra.  
A Treatise of the Name of God.    
PETER of ANCHARANO, A Civilian of Bologne; Flourished from the Year 1410, till about the Middle of this Century. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
Commentaries upon the Decretals, and upon the Clementines, P. 77.    
St. VINCENT FERRIER, Of the Order of Friars Preachers; Flourished at the beginning of this Century, and died in 1419. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
Treatises of Morality and Piety; whereof see the Catalogue P. 78.   

His Supposititious Works are,  
Sermons.    
JOHN CAPREOLUS, Of the Order of Friars Preachers; Flourished from about the Year 1415, to about the Year 1440. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
Commentaries upon the four Books of Sentences.  
A Defence of the Doctrine of St. Thomas.    
LOUP of OLIVET, Prior of the Hieronymites; Flourished till about 1420. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
The Rule of his Order, P. 78.    
BONIFACE FERRIER, General of the Carthusians; Flourished till about 1430. 

His Works in MS. or which are lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 78.    
ANTHONY RAMPELOGUS, Of the Order of Hermit's of St. Austin; Flourished at the beginning of this Century. 

His only Genuine Work which remains, is  
The Figures of the Bible, P. 78.    
●ENRY of HESSE, or of LANGESTEIN, A Canon of Worms; Flourished at the end of the preceding Century, and the beginning of this. 

His Genuine Works in Print, or MS.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 78.    
HENRY of HESSE, A Carthusian; died about the Year 1428. 

His Works which are lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 78.    
HENRY of HESSE, Of the Order of Hermit's of St. Augustine; Flourished, as is thought, at the beginning of this Century. 

His Works which are lost, are  
Treatises of the Keys of the Church, and of Indulgences.    
THOMAS of WALSINGHAM, An English Benedictine Monk; Flourished till about the Year 1420. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
Two Histories of England, P. 79.    
NICOLAS D'INKELSPUEL, Rector of the University of Vienna; Flourished till about the Year 1440. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
Works of Piety; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 79.   

His Works that are lost, are  
A Commentary and Questions upon the Sentences.    
THEODORIC of INGELHUSA, Canon of Hildesheim; Flourished till about the Year 1436. 

His Genuine Work is,  
An Universal Chronicle, P. 79.    
HERMAN PETRI of STUTDORP, ●…an; died in 1428, on the 24th of April. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
Sermons.   

His Work that is lost, is  
A Treatise of the Government of Nuns.    
THOMAS WALDENSIS, or of WALDEN, Of the Order of the Carmelites; Flourished at the beginning of this Century, and died in 1430. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are,  
The Doctrinal of the Antiquities of the Faith of the Catholic Church, against the Wicklefites and Hussites.   

His Works that are lost, are  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 80.    
PETER of ROSENHEIM, A Germane Benedictine Monk; Flourished about the Year 1430. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Moral Distiches, entitled, a Memorial of Roses.    
JOHN of IMOLA, A Civilian of Bologne; died in 1436. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Commentaries upon three Books of the Decretals, upon the Sixth, and upon the Clementines.    
JOHN NIDER, Of the Order of Friars Preachers; Flourished in the time of the Council of Basil, who deputed him 〈◊〉 go to the Bohemians in 1432, he died in 1438. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
Works of Morality and Piety; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 80.    
NICOLAS AUXIMANUS, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished about the Year 1430. 

His Genuine Works, and those that are lost,  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 80.    
St. BERNARDIN of SIENNA, Of the Order of Friars Minors; was born in 1383, professed in 1405, died May the 20th in 1444. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
Sermons and other Works of Piety; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 81.    
AUGUSTINE of ROME, Of the Order of Hermit's of St. Augustino, Archbishop of Nazareth; was chosen General of his Order in 1419, made Bishop of Cesena in 1431, and afterwards Archbishop of Nazareth; he died in 1443, or 1445. 

His Works that are lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 81.    
WILLIAM LYNDWOOD, Bishop of St. David's; Flourished from 1420, was made Bishop in 1434, and died in 1446. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Collection of the Constitutions of the Archbishops of Canterbury.    
ALEXANDER CARPENTER, An Englishman; Flourished about 1430. 

His Genuine Work is.  
The Destructorium Vitiorum, P. 82.    
RAIMUND of SABONDE, or SEBEIDE, Professor of Divinity at Tholouse; Flourished about the Year 1430. 

His Genuine Works are,  
The Natural Theology of Man, and the Creatures, or a Treasure of Divine Considerations, or the Violet of the Soul.    
PETER of JEREMY, Of the Order of Friars Preachers; died in the Year 1452. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
Sermons.  
An Explication of the Lord's Prayer.  
— of the Decalogue.  
A Treatise upon the Passion of our Lord.  
— of the Faith.    
MAPHAEUS VEGIUS, Datary to Martin V Flourished in the Pontificate of this Pope; and after died in 1458. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
A Treatise of the Education of Children.  
Six Books of Perseverance in Religion.  
A Dialogue of Truth banished.    
EUGENIUS IU. Pope; was advanced to the Holy See, March the 14th, in 1431, deposed in the Council of Basil, in 1439, died in 1447. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
Decrees for the Institution of the Armenians, Syrians, Chaldeans, Nestorians, and Maronites, which are in the Councils.  
Many Letters and Bulls in the Councils, the Annalists, and the Bullarium.    
JULIAN CAESARIN, A Cardinal; was made Cardinal in 1426, died in 1444. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
Two Letters to Pope Eugenius.  
Some Discourses in the Councils of Basil, Ferrara, and Florence.    
GILES CHARLIER, Doctor of Paris, and Dean of Cambray; was made Doctor in 1414, Dean of Cambray in 1431, died in 1472. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
Many Treatises under the Title of Sporta and Sportula.  
Discourses against the Bohemians.   

His Manuscript Works are  
A Commentary upon the Master of the Sentences, and some other Pieces, P. 90.    
JOHN of RAGUSA, Of the Order of Friars Preachers; Flourished in the time of the Council of Basil, and of Florence. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
Discourses about Communion, in both kinds.    
HENRY KALTEISEN, Archbishop of Caesarea; Flourished from the opening of the Council of Basil, till 1465, when he died. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are,  
Discourses about Preaching the Word of God.   

His Works that are lost, are  
Sermons.  
Questions and Conferences.    
JOHN POLEMAR Archdeacon of Barcelona; Flourished in the time of the Council of Basil. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
Discourses about the Temporal Dominion of the Clergy.    
JOHN, Patriarch of Antioch; Flourished in the time of the Council of Basil. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
Discourses about the Superiority of a Council above the Pope.    
JOHN, Archbishop of Tarentum; Flourished in the Time of the Council of Basil. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
An Harangue to the Council of Basil.    
GERARD LANDRIANUS, Bishop of Lodi; Flourished in the time of the Council of Basil. 

His Genuine Work is,  
An Harangue to the Council of Basil.    
AMBROSE, The Camaldulian; was made General of his Order in 1431, died in 1439. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
Translations of many Pieces of the Fathers; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 85.  
A Voyage into Italy.   

His Manuscript Works.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 85.    
JOHN of TURRECREMATA, A Cardinal; was present at the Councils of Basil, and Florence, made Cardinal in 1439, and died in 1468. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 89.    
GEORGE of TREBIZONDE, A Greek Author; Flourished about the Year 1440. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
A Letter to John Palaeologus.  
Two Treatises about the Procession of the Holy Spirit.  
Discourses upon these Words of I. G. If I will that he tarry, etc.  
Many Versions of the Greek and Latin Fathers.    
MARK EUGENICUS, Archbishop of Ephesus; Flourished in the Council of Florence, and died some time after his Return into Greece. 

His Genuine Works which now remain.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 109.    
JOHN EUGENICUS Flourished at the same time with Mark his Brother. 

His Work in Manuscript is,  
A Piece against the Council of Florence.    
GEORGE GEMISTIUS PLETHON, A Greek Philosopher; Flourished in the Council of Florence. 

His Manuscript Works are,  
Treatises against the Latins, about the Procession of the Holy Spirit.    
AMIRUTZES, A Greek Philosopher; Flourished at the time of the Council of Florence. 

His Genuine Work is,  
An History of the Council of Florence.    
GEORGE SCHOLARIUS, A Greek Monk; Flourished at the time of the Council of Florence. 

His Genuine Work, etc. is  
A Treatise against the Council of Florence.   

His Manuscript Works are,  
Many Letters, P. 109.    
SILVESTER SGUROPULUS ECCLESIARCH, Of the Church of Constantinople; Flourished at the time of the Council of Florence. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A History of the Council of Florence.    
ANDREW, Archbishop of Rhodes; Flourished in the time of the Council of Florence. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are.  
Discourses in the Council of Florence.    
ISIDORUS, Archbishop of Kiovia; Flourished at the time of the Council of Florence. 

His Genuine Works are,  
Discourses in the Council of Florence.    
JOHN ARGYROPULUS, 〈◊〉 Greek Author; Flourished at the Time of the Council of Florence. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Treatise of the Procession of the Holy Spirit.    
MANUEL, or MICHAEL APOSTOLIUS, Flourished after the Time of the Council of Florence. 

His Genuine Work etc. is  
A 〈◊〉 against the Decree of Union made by the Council of Florence.   

His Manuscript Works are,  
Some Treatises which are mentioned by Allatius.    
BESSARION, A Cardinal; Flourished in the time of the Council of Florence, and after it, until the Year 1472, in which he died, aged 77 Years. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 110.    
GEORGE SCHOLARIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople; Flourished in the Time of the Council of Florence, and after it. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 110.    
JOSEPH, Bishop of Metona; Flourished after the time of the Council of Florence. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
An Answer to the Treatise of Mark of Ephesus against the Council of Florence.  
An Apology for the Council of Florence, under the Name of John Plusiadenus.    
GREGORY MAMAS, The Protosyncelle; Flourished after the time of the Council of Florence. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
Two Letters for the Decree of the Council of Florence.    
HILARION, A Greek Monk; Flourished after the Council of Florence. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Treatise of the use of Unleavened Bread.    
JORDAN BRICE, A Civilian; Flourished in the time of the Council of Basil. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Treatise of the Validity of the Election of Pope Eugenius IU.    
NICOLAS TUDESCHUS, Commonly called Panormitanus, Archbishop of Palermo; Flourished in the time of the Council of Basil, died in 1445. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
Treatises of the Common Law; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 87.  
A Treatise of the Council of Basil, P. 87, 88    
DOMINIC of CAPRANICA, A Cardinal; was made Cardinal in 1426, died in 1458. 

His Works that are lost,  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 82.    
ALPHONSUS TOSTATUS, Bishop of Avila; was born in 1414; Flourished after 1430, till the Year 1454, in which honeyed. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
A Commentary upon the Holy Scripture, and other Works contained in 27 Volumes in Folio, and Printed a part; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 83.    
LAURENCE JUSTINIAN, Patriarch of Aquileia; was made Bishop of Venice, in 1435, promoted to the Dignit●… a Patriarch in 1450, died in 1455, aged 74 ●…s. 

His Genuine Works 〈◊〉,  
Works of Piety; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 83.    
ALBERT of SARCIANO, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished from the Year 1420, till 1450, in which he died. 

His Manuscript Works.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 83, 84.    
JOHN of ANAGNIA, A Lawyer of Bologne; Flourished about the Year 1440, and died in 1445. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Commentary upon the Decretals.    
FRANCIS de la PLACE, A Lawyer of Bologne; Flourished about the Year 1440. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Sum about Canonical Matters.    
JOHN FELTON, An English Priest; Flourished about the Year 1440. 

His Works in Manuscript are,  
Some Sermons, P. 84.    
ANTHONY of ROSELLIS, A Dr. in Law; Flourished from the Year 1430, to 1467, in which he died. 

His Genuine Works are,  
A Treatise of Monarchy.  
Other Treatises of Law, P. 84.    
THOMAS of KEMPIS, A Canon-Regular; was born in 1380, Professed in 1406, was Ordained Priest in 1423, died in 1471. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are,  
Sermons.  
Works of Piety; whereof see the Catalogue,  
Pag. 91.  
The Lives of the Saints of his own Order.   

A Doubtful Work is,  
The Book of the Imitation of Jesus Christ.    
St. ANTONIN, Archbishop of Naples; was born 1389, made Archbishop of Naples in 1446, died in 1459. 

His Genuine Works are,  
An Historical Summary.  
A Theological Summary.  
A Sum of Confession.  
A Treatise of Excommunication.  
A Treatise about the Disciples going to Emaus.  
A Treatise of the Virtues.    
St. KATHERINE of BOLOGNE, A N●n of Sancta Clara; Flourished about 1440, died in 1465. 

Her true Works, etc.  
Revelations.   

Works lost.  
Some Treatises of Piety, P. 84.    
NICOLAS SECUNDINUS, A Greek Writer; Flourished at the time of the Council of Florence, and after it. 

His True and Genuine Work is,  
An Abridgement of the History of the Turks, to the Taking of Constantinople.    
LEONARD of UDINE, Of the Order of Friars Preachers; Flourished under the Pontificate of Eugenius IU. 

His Genuine Works, are  
Sermons, and common Places for Preachers.    
St. JOHN CAPISTRAN, Of the Order of Friars Minors; was born in 1385; Flourished in 1440, died in 1456, on the 3d of October. 

His Genuine Works, and those which are lost.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 84.    
LAURENCE VALLA, A Canon of St. John of the Lateran; was born about 1415; Flourished about 1440, and died in 1465. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Notes upon the New Testament.  
A Treatise of the Donation of Constantine.    
FLAVIUS BLONDUS, Secretary to Eugenius IV; was born in 1388; Flourished under the Pontificate of this Pope, and died in 1463. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
Three Decades of the History of the Empire.  
Other Books about the History of Italy; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 85.    
JOHN of STAVELO, A Benedictin Monk, Flourished till the Year 1449, in which he died. 

His Genuine Work is,  
An History of the Bishops of Liege.    
MATTHEW PALMER A Florentine; Flourished about 1450. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Chronicle ●ill the Year 1449.    
JOHN CAPGRAVE, An Englishman, of the Order of the Hermit's of St. Augustin; Flourished about the middle of this Century, and died in 1464, on the 12th of August. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Legend of the Saints of England.    
JAMES of CLUSA, or of PARADISE, or JUNTERBUCK, A Carthusian; was born about the end of the preceding Age, died in 1465, aged 80 Years. 

His Genuine Works are,  
A Treatise of the seven States of the Church.  
Other Treatises by the same Person, under the Name of Junterbuck; whereof see the Cata●…ue, P. 89.    
JOHN of HAGEN, or DEINDAGINE, A Carthusian; was admitted into his Order in 1440; Flourished till the Year 1475. 

His Genuine Works in Print, are  
Two Books of the Perfection and Exercises of the Order of the Carthusians.   

His Works in Manuscript, or which are lost.  
Many Moral, Spiritual, and Ascetic Treatises; whereof Trithemius, and Petreius, have given us a Catalogue, P. 107.    
NICOLAS V A Pope; promoted to the Papal Dignity in 1447, died the 25th of March in 1455. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
Five Letters and Memorial for the Extirpation of the Schism, which are to be met with in the Councils.  
Many other Letters and Bulls in the Annalists, and Bullarium.    
NICOLAS of CUSA, A Cardinal; was born in 1401, was present at the Council of Basil, was made Cardinal in 1448, and died in 1464 on the 12th of August. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Treatises of Theology; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 86.  
The Catholic Agreement, and other Treatises of Ecclesiastical Doctrine and Discipline; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 86, 87.    
CALLISTUS III. Pope; was promote to the Holy See on the 8th of April in 1455, died the 6th of August in 1458. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Letters and Bulls which are in the Councils, the Annalists and Bullarium.    
AENEAS SILVIUS, or Pope PIUS II. Was born in 1405; Flourished in the Council of Basil, was made Cardinal in 1456, and Pope in 1458; he died in 1464. 

His Genuine Works are,  
A Memorial of the Transactions at the Council of Basil, from the Suspension of Eugenius, to the Election of Felix, together with a Letter about the Coronation of Felix.  
The History of the Bohemians.  
Other Treatises upon different Subjects; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 88  
432 Letters, P. 88    
JOHN CANALES, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished from the middle of this Century. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
Works of Piety; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 88    
WILLIAM of VORILONG, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished under the Pontificate of Pius TWO, and died in 1464. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Commentary upon the Master of the Sentences. An Abridgement of Theology, entitled, Vade Mecum.    
NICOLAS ORBELLIS, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished about the same time. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
An A●…gment of Theology.  
S●…  
Treatises of Philosophy.    
GREGORY of HEIMBURG, A Civilian; was present at the Council of Basil, and Flourished till after the Year 1460. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Works about the Temporal Power of the Popes.    
T●●ODORE LAELIUS, A Cardinal; Flourished at the same time. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Reply to Gregory of H●imburg.    
HENRY GORCOMF, or GORICHEME, Vicechancellor of Collen; Flourished about the Year 1460. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Treatise of Festivals.  
— of Superstitious Ceremonies.  
A Concordance of the Bible.  
A Catalogue of the Opinions of the Master of the Sentences, which are rejected.    
JOHN GOBELIN, Secretary to Pope Pius TWO; Flourished about the Year 1460. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
The History of Pope Pius II.    
JAMES PICOLOMINI, A Cardinal; was born in 1432, made a Cardinal in 1461, died in 1489, on the ●…th of September. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A History of the Transactions in Europe, from 1464, to 1469.  
Letters which he wrote from 1462, to 1489, printed at Milan.    
JOHN BUSCH, A 〈◊〉 Reg●… was 〈…〉 his Order in the beginning of this 〈…〉 die● in 1470. 

His 〈…〉  
A Chronicle of W●….    
●…RY ●…, A Carthusi●●; died in 1487. 

His 〈…〉  
A Treati●… of the 〈…〉 of the Virgin.    
ALPHONSUS SPINA▪ Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished about the Year 1460. 

His 〈…〉  
The Fortress of 〈◊〉.    
MATTHEW CAMARIOTE, A Greek Writer; Flourished 〈◊〉 the Year 1460. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Letter about the Taking of Constantinople by 〈…〉 Turks.  
A Letter about the Light of Th●…r.    
DUCAS, A Greek Writer; Flourished about the Year 1460. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Byzantine History from the Year 1441, to 1462.    
GEORGE CODIMUS C●●OL●PORT●▪ Flourished about the Year 〈◊〉. 

His Genuine 〈◊〉, etc.  
Divers Works about the Empire, and the City of Constantinople.    
LAONICUS CHALCO●…EUS, A Greek Writer 〈◊〉 flourished 〈◊〉 the Year 1460. 

His 〈◊〉 Work 〈◊〉,  
A History of the Turks.    
PAUL the TWO, Pope; promoted to the Papal Dignity in the Month of September, of the Year 1464, died the 25th of July in 1471. 

His Genuine Works are.  
Letters and Bulls which are in the Councils, i● the Annalists, in a Collection Printed at Rome in 1579, and in the Bullarium.    
WILLIAM HOUPELANDE, A Dr. of Paris; Flourished about the Year 1460, and died in 1492. 

His Genuine Work, etc.  
A Treatise of the Immortality o● the Soul, Printed at Paris in 1499.    
DENIS RIC●●●, A Carthusian; born 14●●, 〈…〉 Order in 142●, and died in 〈◊〉. 

His ●….  
See the Catalogue of them▪ P. ●2.    
JAMES ●…, A 〈◊〉; died 〈…〉 12th of February. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Mirror of the five sorts of States.    
ROD●… Bishop of 〈◊〉; Flourished about the Year 1470. 

His 〈◊〉 Works, etc.  
A History of 〈◊〉.  
The Mirror of Humane Life.    
HENRY 〈◊〉, ●…, Of the Order of Friars 〈◊〉, Died in 1478, 

His 〈…〉  
Mystical Works; where of see the Catalogue, P. 93.    
GABRIEL BARLETTE, Of the Order ●…; Lived till the Year 1480. 

His ●…, are  
Sermons, P. 9●.    
JOHN BAPTISTA PLATINA, 〈…〉 Flourished under Pope Callis●us III, and his Successors, and died in 148●, ●… 

〈…〉  
The Lives of the Popes.  
M●…al Works; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 94.    
MARTIN the MASTER, Dr. of Paris, and Confessor to the King; took the Degree of Dr. in 1473, and died in 1482, aged 50 Years. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 94.    
SIXTUS, IV, Pope; promoted to the Holy See in 1471, died on the 12th of August in 1484. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
Two Decrees about the Conception of the Virgin, which are in the Councils.  
Many Letters and Bulls which are in the Bullary.  
A Trea●… of the Blood of our Lord, and a Treatise of the Power of God, which he wrote when he was Car●… Printed at Rome in 1471.  
A Treati●● 〈◊〉 Indulgences, Printed in 1487.    
ROBERT FLEMING, An English D●…; Flourished under the Pont●…e of Sixtus IU. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are,  
A Poem in the Praise of Sixtus IV, entitled, Lucubrationes 〈…〉    
JOHN de D●O, A 〈…〉 F●…sh'd about the Year 1480. 

His Genuine Works, Printed or not Printed.  
See the Catalogue 〈◊〉 them, P. 100L.    
PETER NATALIS, A Venetian; wrote about the Year 1480. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
A Catalogue of the Saints, P. 94.    
MATHIAS PALMIER, Flourished about the end of this Century▪ 

His 〈…〉 which now remains, is  
A Continuati●● of 〈…〉 of Matthew Palmier, till 1481.    
ALEXANDER of IMOLA, A Civilian; died in 1487, aged 54 Years. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Commentary upon the 6th Book of the Decretals.    
JOHN WESSEL, or of WESSALES, A Dr. of Divinity; Flourished from the Year 1470, and died in 1489. 

His Manuscript Works are,  
Divers Treatises which are censured, P. 95.    
JAMES PEREZ, Bishop of Chrysopolis; was made Bishop in 1468, died in 1491. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
Commentaries upon the Psalms.  
A Treatise against the Jews.  
An Exposition upon the Canticles.  
Questions about the Merit of Jesus Christ.    
INNOCENT VIII. Pope; was promoted to the Papal Dignity in 1484, died in July 1492. 

His Genuine Works which now remain, are  
Many Letters and Bulls in the Annalists, and Bullarium.    
JOHN PICUS of MIRANDULA; Was born in 1463; Flourished about the Year 1480, and died in 1494. 

His Genuine Works, are  
Theses, and other Works; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 95.    
AUGUSTINE PATRICIUS, Bishop of Pienza; Flourished under the Pontificates of Paul TWO, Sixtus IV, and Innocent VIII. 

His Genuine Works are,  
The Life of Fabian Bencius.  
A Relation of the Entry of Frederick III. Emperor, into Rome.  
A Book of the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, printed under the Name of Chrystophilus Marcellus of Corfu.    
PETER SHOT, A Canon of St. Peter's of Strasburg; was born in 1459, died in 1491. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
The Lives of St. John the Baptist, John the Evangelist, and John Chrisostome.  
An Encomium of Gerson.  
Cas●s of Conscience.    
JOHN KUIME of DUDERSTAT, Flourished about the end of this Century. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Book of the Elevation of the Soul to God.    
JOHN MAUBURNE, Abbot of Liury; Flourished about the end of this Century. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Spiritual Rosary.    
ARNOLDUS BOSTIUS, or BOSCHIUS, Of the Order of Carmelites; Flourished about the end of this Century, died in 1499, on the 4th of April. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
The Lives of the Illustrious Men of the Order of the Carthusians.   

His Manuscript Works.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 98.    
GEORGE PHRANZA, A Greek Writer; Flourished about the end of this Century. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Byzantine History from 1460, to 1476.    
DONAT BESSIUS, a MILANESE, Was born in 1436; Flourished till 1489. 

His Genuine Works; etc. are,  
A Chronicle of the Archbishops of Milan.  
A Chronicle of the principal Revolutions in the World.    
BONIFACE SIMONET, Abbot of the Order of Cistercians; Flourished about the end of this Century. 

His Genuine Work, etc.  
An Historical Treatise of the Persecutions of Christians, and of the Lives of the Popes.    
NICOLAS BARJAN, Of the Order of the Hermit's of St. Augustine; Flourished about the end of this Century. 

His Genuine Works are,  
A Defence of the Pre-eminence of his Order, against that of the Friars Minors.  
A Treatise of the Mounts of Piety.  
A Quadragesimal, and predicable Questions.    
GABRIEL BIEL, A Canon-Regular; Flourished from 1480, to 1494, died a little while after. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
A Commentary upon the Master of the Sentences, and other Works; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 98.    
AU●…STINE PATRICIUS, A Canon of Seena; Flourished about the end of this Century. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
An History of the Councils of Basil and Florence.  
A Relation of the Assembly at Ratisbon.    
JOHN BAPTISTA SALVIS, or of SALIS, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished from 1480, and died after 1494. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Summary of Cases of Conscience, entitled, Summa Baptistiana.    
PACIFICUS of NOVARA, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished about the end of this Century. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
A Summary of Cases of Conscience, and other Treatises of Morality.    
ANGELUS de CLAVASIO, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished about the end of this Century, and died in 1495. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
A Summary of Cases of Conscience, and other Moral Works.    
JOHN BAPTISTA TROVAMALA, or NOVAMALA, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished at the end of this Century. 

Hic Genuinè Works which now remain, are  
A Summary of Cases of Conscience, entitled, The Little Rose.    
JOHN LOSS, A Benedictine Monk; Flourished at the end of this Century. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Continuation of the History of the Bishops of Liege, written by John of Stavela.    
CHARLES FERNAND, A Benedictine Monk; Flourished about the end of this Century, and died in 1494. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
Moral, and Ascetic Works; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 99    
JOHN FERNAND, Flourished at the end of this Century, and the beginning of the next. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Hymns and Sermons.    
MARSILIUS FICINUS, A Canon of Florence; was born in 1433, on the 19th of October, died in 1499. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
A Treatise of the Christian Religion. Eighteen Books of the Immortality of the Soul. Other Treatises; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 99    
JOHN of CIRCY, Abbot of Balerna; was chosen General of the Order of Cistercians, in 1456, died in 1503. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
An Abridgement of the Saints of his own Order.  
A History of the Privileges of the same Order.    
WERNERUS ROLWINK of LAER, A Carthusian; Flourished at the end of this Century, and died in 1502, aged 77 Years. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
A Chronicle.  
The Paradise of Conscience.  
A Treatise of the Eucharist.  
A Sermon upon St. Benedict.   

His Works that are lost,  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 99    
BERNARD of AQUILA, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished at the end of this Century, and died in 1503, aged 83 Years. 

His Genuine Works, Printed and not Printed,  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 99    
ANTHONY of BALOCHE, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished at the end of this Century. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
Quadragesimals, and Treatises of Virtues.    
BERNARDIN of TOM, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished at the end of this Century, and died in 1494, on the 28th of September. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
A Treatise of the manner of Confession.  
Sermons.    
BERNARDIN de BUSTIS, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished about the end of this Century, and died in 1500. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
The Office of the Virgin.  
Many Sermons.    
ROBERT CARACCIOLI, Bishop of Aquila; Flourished about the end of this Century, and died in 1493. 

His Genuine Works are,  
Sermons and other Treatises.    
MICHAEL MILAN, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished at the end of this Century. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Sermons and Works of Morality.    
ALEXANDER VI Pope; promoted to the Holy See in 1492, died in 1503. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Many Letters and Bulls in the Annalists, the Bullarium, and in the Life of Cardinal Ximenes.  
The Buckler of the Defence of the Faith of the Roman Church, Printed at Strasburg, in 1497.    
ROBERT GAGUIN, General of the Order of the Holy Trinity; was chosen General of his Order, May the 22th in 1501. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Annals of the History of France.  
Theological Treatises; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 100    
FELINUS SANDEUS, Bishop of Lucca; Flourished from 1464, was made Bishop in 1499, died in 1503. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Commentary upon the Decretals.  
Other Treatises of Law.    
STEPHEN BRULEFER, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished about the end of this Century, and died after 1500. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Treatises of Theology; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 100    
VINCENT of BANDELLE, Of the Order of Friars Preachers; Flourished at the end of this Century; was made General of his own Order, in 1501, and died in 1506, aged 70 Years. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
A Treatise of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin.  
Treatises of Monastical Discipline.    
JOHN NAUCLER, Rector of Tubinga; Flourished at the end of this Century, and the beginning of the next. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Universal Chronicle, to 1500.    
JOHN PALEONYDORUS, Of the Order of Carmelites; Flourished till the Year 1503. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A History of his own Order.    
OLIVER MAILLARD, Of the Order of Friars Minors; Flourished at the end of this Century, and died in 1502. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Sermons.    
MICHAEL FRANCIS, Bishop of Saluces; Flourished at the end of this Century, and died in 1502. 

His Genuine Works, are,  
Works of Piety; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 101.    
NICOLAS SIMON, Of the Order of Carmelites; Flourished at the end of this Century, and died in 1511. 

His Genuine Works are,  
A Commentary upon the 2d Book of the Decretals.  
A Treatise of the Pope's Power.  
Questions.  
Sermons.    
JAMES SPRINGER, Of the Order of Friars Preachers, Flourished at the end of this Century. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
A Treatise against the Art of Magic.  
A Treatise upon the Rostry.    
HENRY INSTITOR, Of the Order of Friars Preachers; Flourished at the end of this Century. 

His Genuine Work is,  
A Treatise of the Pope's Power.    
JOHN RAWLIN, A Benedictine Monk; was born in 1448, made Doctor of Paris in 1479, became a Monk in 1497, died on the 6th of February, in 1514, aged 71 Years. 

His Genuine Works which remain, are  
Sermons, and other Works.    
JOHN de la PIERRE, A Carthusian; Flourished at the end of this Century. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
Divers Works of Discipline and Morality; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 101.    
JOHN TRITHEMEUS, A Benedictin Abbot, was born in 1462, chosen Abbot of Spanheim in 1483, died in 1518, on the 13th of December. 

His Genuine Works, etc.  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 102.    
JEROM SABONAROLA, Of the Order of Friars Preachers; was born in 1452, entered into his Order in 1474, and died in 1478. 

His Genuine Works which remain, ●re  
Moral and Ascetic Works; whereof see the Catalogue, P. 103.    
AELIUS ANTHONY LEBRIXA, or NEBRISSENSIS, A Spanish Doctor, was born in 1444; Flourished from the Year 1470, and died in 1522, the 1●th of July. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are,  
The History of King Ferdinand,  
A Work upon the Bible, entitled, Quinquagesima.  
Notes upon the 〈◊〉 of the Church.    
JOHN FRANCIS PICUS of MIRANDULA, Flourished at 〈◊〉 end of this Century, and the beginning of the next, and died in 1533. 

His Genuine Works, etc. are  
See the Catalogue of them, P. 97.      

A Chronological TABLE of the COUNCILS held in the Fifteenth Century, and of their Acts, Letters, Canons, and Chapters.  
Councils. ●ears▪ Acts, Letters, Canons, and Chapters. A Council at London in 1377 Mentioned by the Writers of that time. A Council at Lambeth 1377 Mentioned by the Authors of that time. A Council at London 1382 Its Acts condemn the Errors of Wicklef. A Council at London 1396 Its Acts condemn the Errors of Wicklef. A Council at Oxford 1408 Its Preface, and 13 Constitutions against the Lollards. A Council at Perpignan, held by Benedict XIII. 1408 and 1409 Fragments of the Acts, and Mention made of this. Council in the Writers of that time. An Assembly at Frankfurt 1409 Mentioned in the Writers of that time. A Council held by the Cardinals, at Pisa 1409 It's Acts. A Council held by Gregory XII. at Udine 1409 It's Acts. A Council at Rome 1412 Its Decree against the Wicklefites and Hussites. A Council at London 1413 The History of it in Thomas of Walsing●am. A Council at Constance 1414 Its Acts and Decrees. A Council at Saltzburg in 1419 and 1420 It's 34 Chapters. A Council at Collen 1423 It's 11 Regulations. A Council at Pavia 1423 A Decree of the Translation of this Council to Sienna. A Council at Sienna 1423 and 1424 Its Acts, and a Decree of Translating it to Basil. A Council at Paris 1429 Its Acts divided into 41 Chapters. A Council at Tortosa 1429 Its Acts and 20 Constitutions. A Council at Basil 1431 Its Acts and Decrees. A Council at Ferrara 1438 It's Acts. An Assembly at Frankfurt 1438 Mentioned in the Writers of that time. An Assembly at Bourges 1438 The Pragmatic Sanction. An Assembly at Nuremberg 1438 Mentioned in the Writers of that time. A Council at Florence 1439 Its Acts and Decree of Union. An Assembly at Mayence 1439 Mentioned in the Writers of that time. An Assembly at Bourges 1440 It's Acts. An Assembly at Mayence 1441 Mentioned in the Writers of that time. An Assembly at Frankfurt 1442 Mentioned in the Writers of that time. A Council at Rome 1443 Mentioned in the Writers of that time. A Council at Lausane 1443 It's Acts. An Assembly at Nuremberg 1443 Mentioned in the Writers of that time. A Council at Rouen 1445 It's 40 Regulations. A Council at Angers 1448 It's 17 Regulations. A Council at Soissons 1456 Its Decree. A Council at Toledo 1473 It's 29 Regulations. A Council at Sens 1485 Its Acts containing divers Regulations.   

A Chronological TABLE of the Eccesiastical Writers, of the Fifteenth Century, Ranged according to the Order of the Matters handled in them.  

Works about the Truth of Religion, against Pagans, Mahumetans, Magicians, Astrologers, and Impious Persons.  
A Treatise of the Christian Religion by Marsilius Ficinus.  
Eighteen Books of the Immortality of the Soul, by the same Author.  
A Treatise of the Christian, and other Religions, by Jerom Sa●onarola.  
The Alcoran sifted by Nicolas of Cusa.  
A Treatise establishing the Faith against the chief Errors of Mahomet, by the same.  
The Fortress of Faith, by Alphonsus Spina.  
Eight Books of the Faith against Mahomet, by Denis Rickel, a Carthusian.  
A Treatise against the Magical Art by the ●ame.  
— of the Immortality of the Soul. by William of Houpelande.  
— of the Soul, by Peter of Ailly.  
Questions about the Creation, by the same.  
Of the Agreement of Theology and Astrology, by the same.  
A Treatise of Astrology, by Gerson.  
A Treatise of John and Francis Picus of Mirandula, upon the same Subject.  
Pieces of Gerson, about Happy, or Unhappy Days.  
Against Talismans', and the Art of Magic, by the same.  
Censures of the Faculty of Paris, against Judicial Astrology.  
A Treatise against the Magical Art, by James Springer.   

Works against the Jews.  
Treatises of Jerome of St. Faith, against the Jews, and the Talmud, called, Hebraeomastix.   

Treatises of the Greeks against the Latins.  
A Discourse upon the Trinity, by Joseph Briennius.  
Treatises of Macarius Macres, Demetrius Chrysoloras, Macarius of Ancyra, and Nicolas Sclengia, about the Procession of the Holy Spirit.  
Discourses and Pieces of Mark Eugenius; whereof one is about Consecration.  
A Pi●ce against the Council of Florence, by John Eugeni●us.  
Treatises of Plethon, about the Procession of the Holy Spirit.  
A Treatise of Amiratzes against the Council of Florence.  
— of George Scholarius against the Council of Florence.  
— of Manuel Apestolius against the Council of Florence.   

Treatises of the Greeks for the Latins.  
Treatises of Bessarion.  
— of George Scholarius.  
The Answer of Joseph of Metona, to Mark of Ephesus.  
An Apology for the Council of Florence, by the same, under the Name of Plusiadenus.  
Two Letters of Gregory Mamas.  
A Discourse of Andrew of Rhodes, and Isidore of Kiovia, to the Council of Florence.  
A Treatise of Hilarion, a Greek Monk, about Communicating with Unleavened Bread.  
A Letter of George of Trebizonde, and two Tracts by the same, about the Procession of the Holy Spirit.  
A Treatise of John Argyropulus about the Procession of the Holy Spirit.  
A Treatise of the Light of Thabor, by Matthew Camariote.   

Treatises of Theology and Controversy, or the Principles and Dogmes of Religion.  
The Natural Theology of God, and the Creatures, by Raimund of Sabunda.  
A Treatise of the Agreement, or Peace of the Faith, by Nicolas of Cusa.  
Divers Treatises of Theology, by Denis Rickel.  
A Doctrinal of the Antiquity of the Faith of the Catholic Church, against the Wickle●ites, and Hussites, by Thomas Waldensis.  
A Theological Summary, by St. Antonin.  
A Treatise of Learned Ignorance, by Nicolas of Cusa.  
Other Treatises of Theology, by the same.  
The Theses of John Picus of Mirandula.  
Other Works by the same.  
A Treatise of Philosophical and Divine Study, by Francis Picus of Mirandula.  
Theorems of the Faith by the same.  
Other Treatises upon different Theological Matters, by the same.  
Of the Examination of Doctrines and Trial of Spirits, by Gerson.  
A Declaration of the Truths which must be believed, by the same.  
A Protestation, or Confession, in Matters of Faith, by the same.  
The Characters of Obstinacy in the Case of Heresy, by the same.  
A Letter by the same about the Studies of a Divine.  
A Treatise of the Incarnation, by the same.  
Of Books which must be read with Precaution, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Terms of Theology, by the same.  
A Treatise against Curiosity and Novelty, in Matters of Doctrine, by the same.  
Conclusions about the Power of Bishops in Matters of Faith, by the same.  
A Treatise of Theological Studies, by the same.  
Of the Signs whereby to discern whether a Man is Just, or Unjust, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Conception of the Virgin, by Henry of Hesse, or of Langestein, by Henry Arnold, by Charles ●errand, by Robert Gaguin, by Vincent of Barndel●c.  
A Conjecture about the last Times, by Nicolas of Cusa.  
Treatises by Cardinal John of jurrecremata.  
Censures of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, against divers Errors.  
Questions about the Merit of Jesus Christ, by James Perez.  
Decrees of the Councils of Constance and Basil, against the Wicklefites, and Hussites, and the History of all the Transactions upon that occasion.   

Commentaries upon the Book of Sentences, and Sums of Theology.  
A Commentary, and Questions upon the Sentences, by Peter of Ailly, Cardinal.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences, and a Defence of the Doctrine of St. Thomas, by John Capreolus.  
A Commentary of Vorilong upon the Sentences.  
An Abridgement of Theology, entitled Vade Mecum, by the same.  
An Abridgement of Theology, by Nicolas of Orbellis.  
A Catalogue of the Opinions of the Master of the Sentences, which are rejected at Paris, and elsewhere, by Henry Goricheme.  
A Commentary upon the Book of Sentences, by Denis Rickel.  
The Marrow of the Sum of St. Thomas, by the same.  
A Commentary and Table, by Gabriel Biel, upon the Master of the Sentences.  
A Commentary upon the Sentences, and other Treatises of Theology, by Stephen Brulefer.   

Treatises upon the Discipline and Policy of the Church.  
A Resolution of that Question, Whether it be lawful for a Monk of St. Benedict, to eat Meat in these Monasteries, where it is usually done, by Gerson.  
A Treatise against those who affirm, that by hearing Mass on a certain Day, one shall never die a sudden Death, by the same.  
A Sermon about the Duty of Pastors, by the same.  
A Resolution of the Question, Whether we should prefer the Prayers of a Devout Woman, or Layman, before the Prayers of ecclesiastics, who are Sinners, by the same.  
A Rule for a Hermit of Mount Valerian, by the same.  
Divers Treatises upon Matters of Discipline, by the same.  
A Treatise against the New Festivals by Clemangis.  
A Treatise against Simoniacal Prelates, by the same.  
A Mirror of the Pope and his Court, by Paul an English Doctor.  
Rules to discern Mortal Sin from Venial, by Henry of Hesse.  
A Discourse of the Communion in both kinds, by John of Ragusa.  
A Discourse of Henry Kalteisen, about Preaching the Word of God.  
A Treatise of the Liturgy by Simeon of Thessalonica.  
A Treatise of Gerson about the Communion in both kinds.  
A Treatise of the Sect of Whippers, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Difference between Venial and Mortal Sins, by the same.  
The Art of hearing Confession, by the same.  
Other Questions about Confession, by the same.  
Other Questions about the Vow of Obedience, Justification, and Confession, by the same.  
A Treatise of Contracts, which is published under the Name of Gerson, but which belongs to Henry of Hess, or of Langestein.  
A Treatise of Simony, by Gerson.  
Questions about Fundamentals, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Celibacy of the ecclesiastics, by the same.  
An Apology for the Order of Carthusians, by the same.  
A Treatise of a Spiritual Life, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Impressions which Men receive from God, Angels, and Devils, by the same.  
A Treatise to a Carthusian, about the Behaviour of a Prior, by the same.  
A Theological Question about the Perfection of the State of Parish Priests, compared with that of Regulars, by the same.  
A Treatise upon the same occasion, of the Perfection of the Heart, by the same.  
A Letter from the same, to the Abbot of St. Denis, about the Relics of that Saint.  
A Treatise of the Marriage of St. Joseph and the Virgin, by the same.  
A Discourse of John of Polemar, about the Temporal Dominion of the Clergy.  
The Theological Works of Tostatus.  
The Works of St. John Capistran.  
A Sum of Confession, by St. Antonine.  
A Discourse about Communion in one kind, by Nicolas of Cusa.  
Letters to the Bokemians by the same.  
Letters of Julian Caesarin, about the Council of Basil, and Discourses spoken at that Council.  
Divers Treatises and Letters of Aenaeas Silvius.  
Treatises of James of Clusa, or Junterbunk.  
Many Treatises of John of Turrecremata.  
Many Treatises of Giles Charlier, under the Title of Sporta, and Sportula.  
A Discourse against the Bohemians, by the same.  
A Treatise of Festivals by Goricheme.  
A Treatise of Superstitious Ceremonies, by the same.  
Treatises of Denis the Carthusian, about several Points of Doctrine and Discipline.  
A Book of the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, by Augustin Patricius Bishop of Pienza.  
A Treatise of the Mounts of Piety, by Nicolas Barian.  
An Exposition of the Mess, by Gabriel Biel.  
A Treatise of the Usefulness and Value of Money, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Eucharist, by Rolwink de Laer.  
Treatises of Stephen Brulefer, about the Poverty of J. C. and the Value of Messes.  
An Apology for the Order of Friars Minors, by the same.  
Treatises of St. Bernardin of Sienna.  
Divers Works of John de la Pierre, a Carthusian.  
Treatises of Discipline, by Jerome Sabonarola.  
Decrees of Provincial Councils.  
Censures of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, against Gorel, about the Hierarchy, and against Saracen.  
A Censure of the same Faculty about the Observation o● Sunday.  
Other Censures of the Faculty, upon the same occasion.  
Decision of the Faculty about the Rights of Parish Priests. About Ecclesiastical Admonitions. About the Hierarchy.  
Treatises of Monastical Discipline, by Vincent of Bandelle.   

Works about the Church, the Councils, the Schism, and the Hierarchy, and Ecclesiastical Power.  
Two Questions by Peter of Ailly, about the Church.  
A Treatise of the Authority of the Church, and the Cardinals, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Reformation of the Church, by the same.  
A Sacramentale, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Form of choosing a Pope, by the fame.  
A Treatise of Ecclesiastical Power, of Laws, of the Interdict of a Council, by the same.  
A Treatise of Ecclesiastical Power, and the Origine of Right and Laws, by Gerson.  
A Discourse spoken in the Council of Constance, about the Authority of a Pope and Council, by the same.  
A Treatise ae Auseribilitate Papae, by the same.  
Of the manner how we ought to behave, during the Schism, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Unity of the Church, by the same.  
A Treatise of the different Ecclesiastical States, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Defects of ecclesiastics, by the same.  
Three Discourses about the Means of putting an end to the Schism, by the same.  
Divers Treatises about the Schism, by the same.  
A Treatise upon this Question, Whether it be lawful to appeal from the Sentence of the Pope, in Matters of Faith, by the same.  
Some Pieces about the Deposition of Peter de Luna, by the same.  
Treatises about the unjust Sentences of Pastors, viz. Whether they are to be observed and feared, by the same.  
Lectures upon St. Mark, by the same.  
Treatises of the Examination of Doctrines and Trial of Spirits, by the same.  
An Addition to the Treatise of Schism, by the same.  
Propositions about the Extinction of the Schism, by the same.  
An Opposition made against the Substraction of Obedience to Benedict XIII.  
A Treatise of the Corrupt State of the Church.  
A Poem upon the same Subject, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Infallibility of a General Council, by the same.  
Letters about the Schism, by the same.  
A Treatise of John of Lignano, in Defence of Urban VI and others.  
A Mirror of the Pope and his Court, by Paul, an English Doctor.  
A Treatise of the Privileges of the Empire, and of Investitures, by Theodoric of Niem.  
A Discourse of the Superiority of a Council, of the Temporal Dominion of the Clergy, of Preaching, and Communion in both kinds, by four Divines in the Council of Basil.  
A Treatise of Jordan Brice, about the Validity of the Election of Eugenius IU.  
A Treatise of Monarchy, by Anthony of Rosellis.  
A Treatise of the Authority of a Council, by St. John Capistran.  
A Treatise of the Power of a Pope and a Council, by Poggio.  
A Treatise of Catholic Agreement, by Nicolas of Cusa.  
A Letter from the same.  
Two Letters of Julian a Cardinal, about the Dissolution of the Council of Basil.  
A Treatise of the Council of Basil, by Panormitan.  
A History of the Council of Basil, by Aeneas Silvius.  
A Treatise of the Authority of the Roman Empire, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Seven States of the Church, by James of Clusa.  
Some Treatises of the same Person under the Name of James of Junterbunck.  
A Sum about the Church and its Authority, by Turrecremata.  
A Collection of the Questions of St. Thomas Aquinas, about the Power of the Pope.  
The Works of Gregory of Heimburg, and the Reply of Theodore, Laelius, about the Temporal Power of the Popes.  
The Treatises of Denis the Carthusian, about the Ecclesiastical Power.  
A Treatise of the Power of the Pope, by Simon of Harlem.  
A Treatise of Ecclesiastical Power against Anthony of Rosellis, by Henry Institor.  
Some Censures of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, against Gorel, against Sarazin, against Nicolas Quadrigaru, against another Friar Minor, against John Bartholomew, against John Meunier, against John D' Angeli, about the Observation of Sunday.   

Treatises of Canon. Law.  
A Commentary upon the Clementines, and other Treatises of John of Lignano, a Lawyer of Milan.  
Commentaries upon the Decretals, and the Clementines, by Peter of Ancharano.  
Commentaries upon three Books of the Decretals, upon the sixth, and the Clementines, by John of Imola.  
A Collection of the Constitutions of the Archbishop of Canterbury, by William Lyndwood.  
A Commentary upon the Decretals by John of Anagnia.  
A Sum by Francis de la Place, a Lawyer of Bologne.  
A Treatise of Monarchy, by Anthony of Rosellis.  
Other Treatises of Law, by the same.  
The Treatises of St. John Capistran.  
A Treaty of St. Antonin about Excommunication.  
A Commentary upon the Decretals, and the Clementines, and some other Treatises by Panormitan.  
A Commentary upon the Sixth, by Alexander of Imola.  
A Commentary upon the Decretals, and other Treatises of Law, by Felinus Sandaus.  
A Commentary upon the 2d Book of the Decretals, by Simon of Harlem.   

Commentaries and Treatises upon the Holy Scripture.  
Principles upon the Course of the Bible, and the Gospel of St. Mark, by Peter of Ailly.  
Lectures of Gerson upon St. Mark.  
A Moral Commentary upon the Lamentations of Jeremy, by John Lattebur.  
A Scrutiny of the Bible, by Paul of Burgos.  
Additions to the Postils of Nicolas Lyra, upon the whole Bible, by the same.  
A Treasise of the Name of God, by the same.  
A Commentary of Alphonsus Tostatus, upon the Holy Scripture.  
Notes of Laurence Valla, upon the New Testament.  
The Incentives of Nicolas of Cusa, a Cardinal.  
Commentaries upon the Psalms, and the Epistles of St. Paul, by Cardinal John of Turrecremata.  
A Concordance of the Bible by Henry Goricheme.  
The Commentaries of Denis Rickel, upon the whole Bible.  
A Piece upon the Epistles of St. Paul, by the same.  
Mystical Commentaries upon the Psalms, by James Perez.  
An Exposition upon the Canticles, by the same.  
Seven Books upon Genesis, and a Commentary upon the 15th Psalm, by John Picus of Mirandula.  
Some Treatises of Jerome Sabonarola.  
A Commentary upon the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, by Marsilius Ficinus.  
A Work upon the Bible, entitled, Quinquagesima, by Anthony Nebrissensis.  
Notes by the same Person, upon the Lessons out of the Epistles and Prophets.   

Treatises of Morality and Piety.  
Divers Treatises, by Peter of Ailly.  
Maxims for all Estates, by Gerson.  
The Signs of the approaching Ruin of the World, by the same.  
The Defects of the ecclesiastics, by the same.  
The second part of Gerson's Treatise about the Incarnation, concerning the Motions of Piety in those who receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  
A Letter against John Rusbroek, by the same.  
A Letter of John of Schon●ove, in Defence of Rusbroek, and the Answer of Gerson to it.  
Treatises about the Trial of Spirits, and Examination of Doctrines, by Gerson.  
A Letter to a Carthusian, about Stability in his Condition, and the Studies he ought to follow, by the same.  
A Treatise to distinguish true Visions from those that are false, by the same.  
A Tripartite Work, by the same.  
Some Treatises of the Difference between Mortal and Venial Sins, of Confession, and the Resolutions of divers Questions of Morality, by the same.  
Some Pieces about Mortal and Venial Sins, and the Rebuke of our Neighbour, by the same.  
Of the Christian Instruction of Children, by the same.  
Treatises of Contracts, and Simony, by the same.  
Letters of Piety, by the same.  
Of the Consolation of Theology, by the same.  
A Complaint about the Affair of John Petit, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Spiritual Life of the Soul, by the same.  
A Treatise of Mystical Divinity, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Impressions which Men receive from God, Angels, and Devils, by the same.  
Works of Piety, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Illumination of the Heart, by the same.  
Instructions to John Major, concerning the Office of a Praeceptor to a Prince, by the same.  
A Letter against Lascivious Pictures, by the same.  
A Letter about the Miseries of the Church, by the same.  
A Centilogium of the Final Causes of the Works of God, by the same.  
Other Treatises of Morality, and Piety, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Failing and Restoration of Justice, by Clemangis.  
A Treatise of Theological Studies, by the same.  
A Discourse upon the Parable of the Prodigal Son, by the same.  
A Treatise about the Advantages of Solitude, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Benefit of Adversity, by the same.  
Many Moral Letters, by the same.  
The Remedies of both Fortunes, by Adrian the Carthufian.  
Treatises and Letters, by St. Vincent Ferrier.  
Treatises of Piety, by Nicolas D'Inkelspuel.  
Moral Distiches; entitled, The Memorial of Roses, by Peter of Rosenbeim.  
The Works of John Nider.  
A Sum of Cases of Conscience, and an Interrogatory of Confessors, by Nicolas Auximanus.  
The Destructory of Vices, by Alexander Carpenter.  
Explications of the Lord's Prayer, and the Decalogue, by Peter of Jeremy.  
Treatises of the Passion of our Lord, and of Faith, by the same.  
The Moral Works of Alphonsus Tostatus.  
Works of Piety, by Laurence Justinian.  
The Revelations of St. Katherine of Bologne.  
A Treatise of the Education of Children, by Maphaus Vegius.  
Six Books of Perseverance in Religion, by the same.  
Truth banished, by the same.  
A Treatise of Virtue, and a Discourse upon the Disciples going to Emma●s, by St. Antonin.  
A Discourse against Hypocrites, by Leonard Aretin.  
A Treatise of Hypocrisy, by John Boptista Poggio.  
Four Books of the Inconstancy of Fortune, by the same.  
A Treatise of Nobility, and another of Humane Misery, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Education of Children, by Aeneas Silvius.  
Works of Piety, by John Canales.  
Works of Piety, by John of Turrecremata.  
Sermons, and other Treatises of Piety, by Thomas Akempis.  
The Imitation of Christ, attributed to the same Author.  
Works of Morality, Piety, and Spirituality, by Denis the Carthusian.  
The Mirror of five forts of States, by James Gruytrode.  
The Mirror of Humane Life by Roderick Sancius, of Arebal.  
Spiritual Works, by Henry Harphius.  
Dialogues about what is truly and falsely good, and other Moral Works, by Bartholomew, or Baptista Platina.  
Treatises of Valour, Temperance, and some other by Martin the Master.  
A Treatise of the Dignity of Man, by John Picus of Mirandula.  
Rules, or Precepts for the Institution of a Christian Life, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, by the same.  
A Treatise of the Vanity of the World, by the same.  
An Exposition of the Lord's Prayer, by the same.  
Letters, by the same.  
A Discourse of the Reformation of Manners, by John Francis Picus of Mirandula.  
Cases of Conscience, by Peter Shot.  
Sums of Cases of Conscience, by John Baptista Salvis, Pacificus, Angelus of Clavasio, and John Baptista Travamala.  
Other Moral Works, by Angelus of Clavasio.  
Moral and Ascetic Works, by Charles Ferrand.  
Moral Works, by Marsilius Ficinus.  
The Paradise of Conscience, by Wenerus Rolwinck of Laer.  
Works of Morality and Piety, by Bernard of Aquila.  
A Treatise of Virtues by Anthony of Baloche.  
A Treatise of the Manner of Confessing, by Bernardin of Tom.  
Moral Works, by Robert Caraccioli, and Michael of Milan.  
Works of Piety, by Michael Francis, Bishop of Saluzzes.  
Works of John de Deo, and John de la Pierre, Crrthusians.  
Works of Morality and Piety, by John Trithemius.  
Moral, Spiritual, and Ascetic Works, by Jerome Sabonarola.  
Censures against the Proposition of John Petit, about the Murder of Tyrants.  
A Condemnation of Magic, by the Faculty of Theology at Paris, and of Judicial Astrology.  
A Conclusion of the same Faculty, about the Observation of Sunday.  
Censures of some Propositions of Morality, by the same Faculty.  
Conclusions of the same Faculty about a Contract for Usury, and against Superstition.   

SERMONS.  
The Figures of the Bible, by Anthony Rampelogus.  
Sermons. by Peter of Ailly.  
Two Sermons by Gerson, Preached before Benedict XIII.  
Other Sermons, Preached by the same at Constance.  
Other Sermons by the same, about Ecclesiastical Discipline.  
Other Sermons, by the same.  
Sermons and Letters, by the same.  
A Sermon, by the same, upon the Nativity of the Virgin.  
Other Sermons in French, by the same.  
Sermons attributed to St. Vincent Forrier.  
The Sermons of Herman Petri of Stutdorp, a Carthusian.  
The Sermons of St. Bernardin of Sienna.  
The Sermons of Peter of Jeremy.  
Sermons and Common Places for Preachers, by Leonard of Udine.  
— by Nicolas of Orbellis.  
— by John of Turrecremata.  
— by Thomas Akempis.  
— by Henry Harpbius.  
— by Gabriel Barlette.  
A Quadragesimale, and Questions to be preached upon, by Nicolas Barjan.  
Sermons by Gabriel Biel.  
Sermons upon St. Benedict, by Wernerius Ralwinck of Laer.  
Quadragesimale's, and other Sermons, by Anthony of Baloche.  
Sermons by Bernardin of Tom.  
— by Bernardin de Bustis.  
— by Robert Caraccioii.  
— by Michael of Milan.  
— by Stephen Brulefer.  
— by Oliver Mailiard.  
— by Simon of Harlem.  
— by John Raulin.   

Universal History.  
Cosmodromium, by Gobelin Persona.  
A Chronicle of Chronicles, by Theodoric of Ingelhuse.  
Decades of History, by Blondus Flavius.  
Other Books of the History of Italy, by the same.  
A Voyage into Italy, by Ambrose the Camaldulian.  
An Historical Sum of St. Antonine.  
A Chronicle of Matthew Palmier, continued by Mathias Palmier.  
A Chronicle of the Principal Changes of the World, by Arnold Bostius.  
Fasciculus Temporum, by Wernerus Rolwinck de Laer.  
A Chronicle by John Naucler.   

Particular Histories.  
An History of the Schism, by Theodorick of Niem.  
A Treatise entitled, Nemus Unionis, by the same  
The Life of John XXIII, by the same  
A Treatise of the Privileges of the Empire, by the same.  
An History of England, by Thomas of Walsirgham.  
A Treatise of Lawence Valia, about the Lonation of Constantine.  
A Treatise of St. Antonine, about the same Donation.  
A Description of the Death of Je●●●● of Prague, by John Baeptista Poggio.  
Funeral Orations upon Zabarella, and Albergat, Cardinals, and upon Laurence of the Medici, by the same.  
An History of Liege, by John of Stavelo, continued by John Loss.  
Histories of the Council of Basil, by Panormitanus, and Aeneas Silvius.  
An History of the Council of Florence, by Sylvesier Sguropulus.  
A Letter of the Coronation of Felix V, by Aeness Silvius.  
The History of the Bohemians, by the same.  
An Abridgement of the Decades of Blondus, by the same.  
An History of 〈◊〉 Silvius, by John Gebelin.  
An History of James Picolomini, from 1464, to 1469.  
A Chronicle of Windesem, by John Busch.  
An History of Spain, by Roderick Sancius D▪ Areval.  
The Lives of the Popes, by Platina.  
A Poem in praise of Sixtus the IVth, by Robert Fleming.  
The Life of Fabian Bencius, and a Relation of the Reception of Frederick III. at Rome, by Augustine Patricius, Bishop of Pienza.  
The Lives of the Illustrious Men of the Carthusians, by Arnold Bossius.  
A Chronicle of the Archbishops of Milan, by Donat Bostius.  
An Historical Treatise of the Persecutions of the Christians, and of the Lives of Popes, by Boniface Simonet.  
A Defence of the Pre-eminence of the Order of Hermit's of St. Augustine, against the Order of Friars Minors, by Nicolas Barjin.  
Histories of the Councils of Basil and Florence, and of the Assembly at Ratisbon, by Augustine Patricius, a Canon of Sienna.  
An History of the Privileges of the Order of Cistersians, by John of Circy.  
Annals of the History of France, by Robert Gaguin.  
An History of the Order of Carmelites, by John Paleonydorus.  
Historical Works of Trithemius; whereof see the Catalogue.  
An History of Ferdinand King of Spain, by Authony Nebrissensas.   

Greek History.  
The Byzantine History from the Year 1260, to 1476, by George Phranza.  
The Byzantine History of Ducas, from 1341, to 1462.  
A Letter of Matthew Camariote, about the Taking of Constantinople.  
Divers Works by George Codinus, about the State of the Empire, and the City of Constantinople.  
An History of the Turks, by Laonicus Chalcondilus.  
An Abridgement of the History of the Turks, till the Taking of Constantinople, by Nicolas Secundinus.   

The Lives of Saints.  
The Life of St. Celestin, by Peter of Ailly.  
An Encomium of St. Bonaventure, by Gerson.  
The Life of St. Meinulphus, by Gobelin Persona.  
A Legend of the Saints of England, by John Capgrave.  
The Lives of the Canon-Regulars, and others who were Saints, by Thomas Akempis.  
The Lives of the Illustrious Men of the Fraternity of Gerard le Grand, by John Busch.  
A Catalogue of the Saints, by Peter Natalis.  
The Lives of the Saints, John the Baptist, John the Evangelist, and John Chrysostom, by Peter Shot.  
An Encomium of Gerson, by the same.  
The Lives of the Illustrious Men of the Carthusians, by Arnold Bostius.  
The Lives of the Saints of the Order of Cistercians, by John of Circy.  
A Discourse of George of Trebizonde, to prove, that St. John is not dead.  
The Martyrdom of St. Andrew of Chio, by the same.    

A TABLE of the Principal Matters contained in this History of the Fifteenth Century.  

A  
Abbot's. A Regulation abou● their Behaviour, page 113  
Absolution. When it is extor●●● by Violence is Null, 1ST  
Adamites. Infamous Heretics 〈◊〉  
Alexander the 5th Pope. His 〈◊〉 ion, Life and Death 6, 7 ●●d 8  
Alexander the 6th Pope. The unjust ways he made use to obtain the Papal Dignity, 56. His violent Death, Ibid.  
Alphonsus' Patriarch of Constantinople. Made a Discourse at the opening of the Council of Perpignan, 1  
Alphonsus of Carrilla, Archbishop of Toledo. The Regulations which he published in a Council, 114  
Angelus, Corarius, called, Greg●y the 12th Pope. The Protection which Robert of Bavaria granted him, 2. The Proposals which he made to the Cardinals assembled at Pisa, for putting an End to the Schism, the proceed against him by the Council of Pisa, ibid. and 3. He was deposed by this Council, 5. The Council which he held at Udine, 7. He escapes from Udine, and goes to Coricte, 8. He retires to Ancona, 9 He renounces the Papal Dignity by his Deputies at the Council of Constance, 18. The Council treats him favourably, ibid. His Death, 24  
Annates. Contests about Annates, 21. They are forbidden by the Council of Basil, 33  
Antioch. The Title of Archbishop of Antioch, when and upon whom conferred, by Benedict the XIIIth, 1  
Appeals. Regulations about Appeals in Sentences, 112, 113  
Approbations. Divers sorts of Approbations, and the Manners of approving distinguished, 129  
Armenians. The Instructions of Eugenius the IVth. for the Armenian●, 52  
The Magical Art. Condemned, 130  
Judicial Astrology. Condemned by the faculty of Theology at Paris, 135   

B.  
BAnns of Matrimony. Forbidden to be easily granted, 113  
Baptism. Parish-Priests ordered to teach their Parishioners the form of Baptism, 113  
Bastards. Excluded from the Clergv, 112. A Law about the Triennial possession of Benefices, 33  
Benefices. The Cognizance of the ●ight of Possession as to Benefices, belongs to secular Judges, 10. Collations, Provisions, Translations of Benefices made by Anti-popes', approved by Alexander the Vth, 6. Regulations about the Collations of Benefices in France, 10. They are Confirmed afterthe Council of Constance, 23. The Revenues of Benefices that are Ruinous, before the Death of the Incumbents granted to the Patrons, upon condition of Repairing them, 19  
Beneficed Persons. The Regulations of the Council of Basil, about Beneficed Persons, 36, 54, 55  
Benedict the XIIIth. See Peter de Luna.  
Bishops. Of their Habits, 112, 114. Of their Duty, 112. The Jurisdiction of Bishops and other Prelates, by Divine Right, 131. Prayers ordained for 'em when Dead, 112  
Blood. Blood of Jesus Christ, whether it remains upon Earth, 130  
Bohemians. A Deputation from the Bohemians to the Council of Basil, 125. A Treaty of the said Council with the Bohemians. Ibid. The State of the Churches of Bohemia, after the Death of Sigismond, 126  
Books. Books, the approbation of 'em by the Doctors, 112  
Bread. Bread Unleavened, the use of it in the Eucharist, 43  
Burials. Burials, Christian, forbidden to Duelists, 114   

C.  
Calixtins'. The Followers of John Huss, and their Errors, 124  
Cardinals. When they first begun to wear a Red Hat, 56. A Meeting of Cardinals, at the Council of Pisa, about the Election of a Pope, 5, 6. Eighteen New Cardinals created by Gregory and Benedict after the Council of Pisa, 9  
Causes Ecclesiastical. A Decree of the Council of Basil, about Ecclesiastical Causes, 35  
Celibacy. Propositions reproaching the Celibacy of Priests, censured, 134, 135  
Chapels. Priests forbidden to Celebrate in private Chapels without the Bishop's Approbation, 112  
Charivaris, or Night Revels. Forbidden at Marriages, 113  
Christophilus Marcellus, Archbishop of Corfu. Accused of a Book which was ascribed to him, whereof he was not the Author, 97, 98  
The Church. Profane Shows forbidden to be represented in Churches, 114. An Obligation to keep Silence in those Places, 113. The Liberties of Churches maintained, 112. They are exempt from Exactions, 113  
The Churches of Bohemia. The State of the Churches of Bohemia, after the Death of Sigismand, 126  
The Greek Church. Negotiations for obtaining an Union between the Greek and Latin Church, and Proposals made for that end on both sides, 25, 26. The Meetings of the Council of Basil, with the Ambassadors of the Greeks, 31, 32. Negotiations of the Council of Basil, and Eugenius IV, with the Greeks, in their own Country, 33, 34. The Departure of the Greeks, to come into the West, 34, 35. The Arrival of the Greeks at Venice and Ferrara, 37. The Disputes of the Greeks and Latins at Ferrara, 37. 38. Heads of the Differences between the Greeks and Latins, 38. Conferences and Disputes of the Greeks and Latins, upon these Heads, 38, 39, etc. The Decree of Union between them, 45. The Greeks will not choose their Patriarch but in Greece, 46. An Agreement of the Greeks and Latins, about the Bishoprics, in which there were two Bishops, Ibid. The Departure of the Greeks, 47. What became afterwards of this Union, in the East, which at last was rejected there, ibid.  
The Church of Rome. Some Heads of such things as want Reformation in it, 59  
Cameterie●. Pena●ies against th●se who Bury the Dead in Caemiteries, during an Interdict, 113  
Cle●gy Men. Decrees against Concubinary Clergy Men, 32, 112, 113 See ecclesiastics,  
Collation of Benefices. The Collators forbidden to take any thing for the Collation of Benefices, 112 A Regulation about the Collation of Benefices in France, during the Schism of the Popes, 10. This Regulation confirmed after the Holding of the Council of Constance, 23  
Commendams. They become frequent, 139  
Communion. A Decree of the Council of Constance, about Communion in one kind, 17. A Treatise of Gerson upon this Subject, 64. A Decree of the Council of Basil, about Communion in both kinds, 125. The Bohemians permitted to take it in both kinds, Ibid.  
The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. A Decree of the Council o● Basil upon this Subject, 51. The Opinion of Gerson upon the same Subject, 64. The Errors of Monteson, and other Dominicans, about the Conception of the Virgin, rejected by the University of Paris, 127. The Retractation of those who had opposed the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, 128. A Decree of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, about the Immaculate Conception, 136. The Institution of the Order of the Conception of the Virgin, 141  
Councils. Of the Necessity of Calling them, 61. A Decree for the Celebration of General Councils every 10 Years, 21. The Order of Sitting, observed in the Council of Pisa, 3. The manner of Voting by Nations in the Council of Constance, 11. And by Deputations in the Council of Basil, 28. Another particular manner of counting Votes in the Council of Florence, 38. A Decree of the Council of Constance, about the Authority of a General Council, 14, 15. Decrees of the Council of Basil, upon the same Subject, 28, 29, 31, 50. The Sentiments of Divines about the Authority of a Council, 49, 60, 61, 231. Of the Infallibility of a General Council, 71. Divers Questions about Councils, 61. 87, 88 An Appeal from the Pope to the Council of Constance, 24. This is forbidden by Martin V, Ibid. Maintained by Gerson, 63. Of the Holding of Provincial Councils, 112, 113.  
Confession. Every one obliged to make it to his own Parish Priest, 112. Contests upon this Subject between the University of Paris, and the Regulars Mendicants, 132. Rules and Instructions about Confession, 66, 67. The Differences between Parish Priests, and Regulars Mendicants at last ended, 139 The Errors of Peter of Osma against the Necessity of Confession, 137, 138  
Confirmation. The Unction of Holy Chrysm conferred by Priests among the Greeks, 46  
Convents of Nuns. Instituted in the 15th Century, 140, 141  
The Creed. The Conferences of Greeks and Latins, about the Addition of Filioque to the Creed, 38, 39 An Agreement of the Greeks and Latins upon this Subject, 44  
Curates, or Parish-Priests. Regulation, about their Office, 112, 113. The Dignities and Rights of Parish-Priests, maintained against the Regulars Mendicants, 130, 131, 132, 133, 139, 140   

D.  
Dice. Playing at Dice, forbidden to Clergyinen, 214  
Diggers. Infamous Heretics, 138  
Donat Dupuy of the Order of Friars Minors. Doctor of Divinity, and Principal of the College of Lombard's, desires to profess a Monastic Life, as a Secular, 133  
Duel. Duelists deprived of Ecclesiastical Burial, 114   

E.  
Eberard Archbishop of Saltzburg. The Decrees which he caused to be published at a Council, 112  
ecclesiastics. Of Modesty in their Habits, 112, 114. That they ought not to be received in another Diocese, without a Letter from their own Bishop, 112. ecclesiastics forbidden to wear Mourning, 114, and to play at Dice, Ibid.  
Enthusiastic Devotion. A Condemnation of that Frantic Devotion, and of the bad Use which some made of it, 64, 68  
Eucharist. The Use of Levened and Unlevened Bread in the Eucharist, 43. Of the Words of Consecration, 43, 44, Viz. Whether the Words of Consecration be Operative, or only Significative in the Mouth of a Priest, 95, 96. After what manner the Real Presence may be explained, 95, 96. Even without believing that the Accidents subsist by themselves, 96. Divers Usages of the Greeks about the Celebration of the Eucharist, 46  
Eugenius IV. Pope. His Election, 28. He has a mind to dissolve the Council of Basil, and Translate it to Ferrara, 29. 36. He is cited by the Council, and the Process against him is begun, 29. He is driven from Rome, 30. He approves the Council of Basil, 31. His Deal with the Council of Basil, 35. He is Deposed by this Council, 50. Nevertheless he is owned for Lawful Pope in France, and elsewhere, 52. His Death, 55  
Evil-speaking. That 'tis always a Sin to speak evil of another, 66, 67  
Exactions. They are forbidden to be used towards Churches, 112, 113  
Excommunication. Being Decreed in one Diocese, aught to be observed in the rest, 114. Whether an unjust Excommunication is to be feared, 64. That we are not obliged to avoid those who are under Excommunication and an Interdict, unless Sentence be denounced against them, or it be notoriously known, that they lie under these Sentences, 32   

F.  
Faculties. The Right of Faculties to Decree Doctrinal Censures established, 128  
Faith. The Principles of Faith, 63. Suppose Motives of Credibility, 95  
Fasting. We are obliged to observe the Fasts which are commanded, 35  
Felix V The Election of Felix V, 51. He Translates the Council of Basil to Lausane, 55. He Renounces his Right to the Papal Dignity, and makes an Accommodation with Nicolas V Ibid.  
Festivals. Of appointing new Festivals, 44, etc. The Festival of the Compassion of the Virgin, was Ordained in the Council of Collen, in 1423, 113. And the Feast of the Visitation regulated in the Council of Basil, 55. Of the Obligation and Manner of observing Sundays and Festivals, 114, 115. 131  
St. Francis. Some extravagant Propositions about his Prerogatives, are censured, 134. And our Propositions against his Sanctity, are also censured, Ibid.  
Francis Ximenes, of the Order of Friars Minors. Is made Patriarch of Jerusalem, 1  
Friars Minors. They are favoured by Alexander V, 8  
Friars Preachers. Expelled the University of Paris, and restored, 129. Expelled and Restored a second time, 132   

G.  
George of Alga. The Institution of the Fraternity of St. George of Alga, 140, 141  
Giles Munion. Chosen Antipope in Arragon, under the Name of Clement VII, after the Death of Benedict XIII. 24. He Submits, Renounces his Right, and is made Bishop of Majorca. 25  
John Gorel a Dominican. A Censure of his Propositions, 130  
Graces. Extraordinary Graces, and Dispensations granted by Alexander V, 8  
Graces Expectative, or the Promises of Vacant Benefices while they are full. They are fobidden by the Council of Basil, 36  
Graduates. The Right of Nominating Graduates, is established by the Council of Basil, and by the Pragmatic Sanction, 139  
Gregory XII. See Angelus Corarius.   

H.  
Habits. Regulations about the Habits of ecclesiastics, 112, 114, 115  
Heresy. What is Heresy, and what Obstinacy makes a Heretic, 63. That no Person ought to endure the Accusation of Heresy, without defending himself, 96  
Heretics. Regulations made against them, 111, 113  
Herman Risvich. His Impieties, and his Condemnation, 138  
Hierarchy. The State of Superior and Inferior Prelates, more perfect than the State of Monks, 65, & 68  
Homicide. That 'tis not lawful to kill a Tyrannical Prince, 24 The Censure and Condemnation of a Book and the Doctrine in it, upon this Subject, by the Faculty of Theology, and the Bishop of Paris, 130. And by the Council of Constance, Ibid. Contests upon this Subject at the end of the Council, 24. The Prosecution of Gerson against this Doctrine, 59, 63  
Hussites. They are divided into Calixti●s and Thaborites, 124. The Wars which they raise in Bohemia, 124, 125   

I.  
Jacobelle, a Priest of Prague. Preaches the Necessity of the Cup, 120  
Jews. A Decree of the Council of Basil, about the Jews, 22. That they ought to wear some Mark of Distinction in their Habit, 113  
Images. That they ought not to be Adored, 96. The Superstition of those who give particular Names to the Images of the Virgin, condemned, 115  
Immunities Ecclesiastical. Regulations for their Preservation, 112, 113, 114, 115  
Incarnation. Whether the Divine Nature may be united Hypostatically to a Creature deprived of Reason, 96. In what sense the Soul of I. C. descended into Hell. Ibid. The Errors of Augustine of Rome, about the Union of Christians with I. C. and the Nature of I. C. condemned in the Council of Basil, 33. 140. A Censure of two Propositions about the Incarnation, 136  
Indulgences. They are made too common, 139. By whom they ought to be Preached 113  
An Interdict. An Interdict ought not lightly to be Denounced, 112 A Prohibition of laying a Society under an Interdict for the Fault of a Private Person, 32. The place where Violence is offered to Clergymen, is liable to an Interdict, 114  
John XXIII. The Intrigues for his Election, 9 His War with Laodislaus King of Naples, Ibid. The Legate he sent into France, Ibid. He is obliged to call the Council of Constance, 10. Renounces the Papal Dignity, 12. Makes an Escape from Constance, 13. Refuses to return, 16. The Drawing up of his ●roce's, Ibid. His Deposition, 17. He escapes out of Prison, goes to wait upon Pope Martin V at Florence, where he Dies, 24  
John of Angeli, of the Order of Friars Minors. A Condemnation of his Propositions about the Hierarchy, 133  
John Bern●… Archbishop of Tours. The Regulat●… which he caused to be published in a Council of his Province, 113, 114  
John de Costa. Deputed from Peter de Luna, to the Council of Pisa, 6  
John Huss. Defends the Books of Wicklef against Sbinko Archbishop of Prague, 119. Preaches at Prague a new Doctrine, 120. Goes to Constance, 121. A Process is drawn up against him, 122. His Condemnation and Execution, 123  
John Juvenal of Ursius Archbishop of Rheims. Causes the Regulations of the Council of Basil, to be confirmed in a Council of his own Province 114  
John Merchant of the Order of Friars Minors. A Censure of his wild Propositions about St. Francis, 134  
John of Nanton, Archbishop of Sens. A Council was held under this Archbishop, 113  
Jerom of Prague. The History of him, 121. His Arrival at Constance, Ibid. His Flight, and his Apprehension, Ibid. His Retractation, 124. His Relapse and Execution, Ibid.  
St. Justina of Milan. The Institution of the Congregation of St. Justina of Milan, 141   

L.  
Lailier, a Licentiate in Theology. A Condemnation of his Errors, 134. His Absolution by the Bishop of Paris, 135. His Condemnation by the Pope. Ibid.  
Landulph Cardinal of Bar. His Embassy into Germany, from the Cardinal Assembled at Pisa, 23  
Laodislaus King of Naples. He is driven out of Rome, whereof he was made Master by Alexander V, 8. His Forces are beaten by Pope John XXIII, 9 He sends an Army to the Gates of Rome, and forces John XXIII. to Treat with him, Ibid. He enters into Rome, Ibid. His Death, 10  
Humane Laws. Whether the Transgression of them be a Sin, 155. And when it is so, 68   

M.  
Marriage. Forbidden to be Celebrated, except at the Times allowed by the Churches, 114. The Times in which Marriage is forbidden, Ibid. Clandestine Marriage forbidden, 113. A Dissolution of Marriage allowed among the Greeks, 46  
Martin V. His Election, 23. He goes to Rome after the Dissolution of the Council of Constance, 25. He Negotiates with the Greeks, Ibid. He appoints the Council of Pavia, 26. He Translates it to Sienna, and from Sienna to Basil, 27. His Death, 28  
Mess. Of the Application of the Sacrifice of the Mess to particular Persons, 67. Priests and Bishops are obliged to celebrate it at least 3 or 4 times in a Year, 114  
John Meunier a Dominican. A Retractation of a Proposition which he had advanced, about the Hierarchy, 133  
Minims. The Institution of the Order of Minims, 141  
Miracles. In what sense they prove the Divinity of Christ, 95, 96  
Monitions. Their Usage, 131  
John of Monteson, a D●minican. His Errors and his Condemnation, 127  
Morality. Extravagant Propositions about Morality, 135, 137  
Mourning. ecclesiastics forbidden to wear Mourning, 114   

N.  
Nicolas V His Election, 55. His Life and Death, 56  
Nicolas Quadrigarii an Augustine. A Censure of two of his Propositions, 131, 132   

O.  
Obedience. That all Sins against the Vow of Obedience, are not Mortal, 67  
Officialc. That they ought to observe Common Law in Cases of Appeal, 113  
John Oldcastle a Wicklesite. He is condemned at London, 118  
Ordination. A Prohibition to Ordain those who do not understand Latin, 114. A Prohibition to demand anything for Ordination, Ibid.  
The Order of the Conception of the Virgin. Its Institution, 141  
Military Orders. Instituted in the 15th Century, Ibid.  
The Order of Mount Olivet Its Institution, 140  
Origines. Of his Salvation, 95, 96  
Orphelines. A Branch of the Sèct of the Hussites, 125   

P.  
Paris of Crassis. The Subject of his Letter against Christophilus Marcellus Archbishop of Corfu, 98  
Patronage. Of the Right of Patronage, 112, 113. The Cases wherein a Patron may be deprived of that Right, Ibid.  
Patrons. That they ought to take nothing for the Benefices which are collated by them, 112 That the Right of Patronage is not Mortgaged or Sold together with the Estate in Land, Ibid. Those who rob Churches, are deprived of the Right of Patronage, 113  
Paul, the Chamberlain of Gregory XII. Represents the Pope at Udine, and is evil entreated, 8  
Peter, Cardinal of Felix. The Council which he caused to be held during his Embassy into Spain; 113  
Peter of Ancharano, a Doctor of Bologne. Maintains in a Discourse, the Validity of the Council of Pisa, against the Opposition of Robert of Bavaria, 4  
Peter de Luna, called, Benedict XIII. Assembles a Council at Perpignan, 1. The Means which the Prelates of this Council proposed to him to put an end to the Schism, and which he accepted, 2. Proceed against him by the Council of Pisa, 3. His Deposition published in this Council, 5. The Council of Constance sent Deputies into Arragon to Treat with him, 18. Sigismond goes thither, and concludes a Treaty upon this occasion with the King of Arragon, 19 Benedict would by no means agree to it, and therefore retires to Paniscola, 20. His Process is drawn up in the Council, Ibid. He is Deposed, Ibid. There he spends the rest of his Days in his Obstinacy, and there dies, 24  
Peter of Osma, a Spanish Doctor. His Error against the Necessity of Confession, and its Condemnation, 138  
Peter Plaon, Doctor of Paris Made a Discourse in the Council of Pisa, about the Superiority of the Council above the Pope, 5  
Peter pain an Englishman. Carries into Bohemia the Books of Wicklef, 118  
Playing at Games of Hazard. Forbidden to ecclesiastics, 118  
Popes. A Decree of the Council of Florence about the Primacy of the Pope, 43, 44. Regulations about the Popes, 33. The Bounds of their Power, 60, 131, 133. The Original of this Power, 61. The Exorbitant Pretensions of Popes suppressed, 138. The Right of Appeal, and of giving Sentence in greater Causes in the first Instance, granted to the Popes, 139. Whether the Church can at any time be without a Pope, and how, and in what Cases it may be deprived of him, 61, 62  
Poverty. When voluntary without a Vow, approved of, 65  
Ecclesiastical Power. Of the different sorts of Ecclesiastical Power▪ and their Extent, 60. etc. That it does not reside only in the Pope, 131  
Prayers. Indulgences granted to those who repeat the Morning prayers when a Bell rings, and on Friday at Noon, 113  
Preachers. Regulations concerning Preachers, 111, 113, 114  
Presentation to Benefices. That the Cognizance of the Right of presenting to Benefices belongs to the Secular Judges, 10  
Priests. That a ●…iest can Absolve, or Consecra●… though he be in a State of Mortal Sin, 112. That he ought to Celebrate Mess at least 4 times in a Year, 114. That a Priest cannot Celebrate out of his own Diocese, without a Testimonial from his own Bishop, 112, 114  
Privileges. Granted to Regulars Mendicants, by Alexander V. 8  
The Procession of the Holy Spirit. Is controverted between the Greeks and the Latins in the Council of Florence, 41. A Decision of this Council upon this Subject, 43  
Divine Properties. Whether the Properties which Constitute the three Persons of the Trinity, are God? 133  
Purgatory. The Opinion of the Greeks and Latins about Purgatory, 37. A Decision of the Council of Florence about this Matter, 43. A Sentence given about this Proposition, That Souls are delivered out of Purgatory, assoon as any one gives Alms to the Church for them, 133. Whether the Souls, which are in Purgatory are under the Pope's Jurisdiction, Ibid. A Condemnation of this Proposition, That St. Francis delivers every Year the Friar's Minors out of Purgatory, 134   

R.  
Raoul Russel, Archbishop of Rouen. A Council held under this Archbishop. 115  
Kavishers. The Penalty enacted against them. 114  
Reformation. The Articles of Reformation proposed in the Council of Constance. 21. The Constitutions published by Martin V upon this Subject. 23. The Remainder put off to another time. Ibid.  
The Reformation of the Church. Attempted in vain. 138. Treatises of the Reformation of the Church, 59, 62, 76, 77  
Regulars. May be Heirs to their Kindred. 139. Those who are made Bishops, are forbidden to lay aside their Religious Habit. 112  
Regulars Mendicants. That they cannot be Vicars to Parish-Priests, except in case of Necessity. 113  
Relics. A Prohibition to carry them about for Gain. 114  
Ecclesiastical Repairs. The Heirs of Beneficed Men, are bound to make good the Repairs, by receiving the Revenues of the Benefices, when the Houses are ruinous before the Death of the present Incumbent. 139  
Residence. Enjoined to all that have Benefices. 113  
Restitutions. Enjoined under pain of Excommunication. 112  
Revelations. Rules to discern those that are true from those that are false. 64  
Ecclesiastical Revenues. The Alienation of Vacant Benefices forbidden. 114. The Revenues of Benefices, whose Houses are ruinous before the Death of the Incumbent, are granted to their Heirs, upon Condition that they make good the Repairs. 139  
Robert of Bavaria, King of the Romans. Protects Angelus Corarius, called Gregory XII. against the Council of Pisa.. 2. The Legality of the Council of Pisa, contested by him. 3. It's Legality maintained against the Proposals of this Prince. 3, 4  
Rocksana, the Captain of the Bohemians. He is one of their Deputies to the Council of Basil, and there discourses of the Communion in both kinds. 125. Swears to observe the Treaty between the Bohemians and the Council. 126. Being frustrated of the hopes he had of being Archbishop of Prague, he renews the Schism and the War in Bohemia, 126. He is driven away. Ibid. He returns, and wholly expels the Theborites. Ibid.   

S.  
Sacraments. Are valid, though they be Administered by Unworthy Ministers. 112. That a Parish-Priest cannot Administer them out of his own Parish. Ibid.  
Saints. The Respect that is due to Canonised Saints, 134  
John Sarazin a Dominican. A Censure of his Propositions about the Hierarchy. 131  
St. Saviour. The Institution of the Congregation of St. Saviour. 140  
Sbinko Archbishap of Prague. Condemns the Book of Wicklef. 118 An Appeal from his Sentence to the Pope by the University of Prague. 119. His Sentence is confirmed at Rome. Ibid. His Death. 120  
Schism. How to avoid it. 60. The Councils about the Schism in 1408. 1, 2, etc.  
Holy Scripture. The Literal-Sense of Prophecies. 136. That all Translations in the Vulgar Tongue, aught to be approved by the Ordinary. 112  
Divine Service. The Manner of Reading it. 33. All forbidden to prate in the time of it. 113  
Shows. Forbidden to be Represented in the Church, 114  
Sigismond the Emperor. His great care for Assembling the Council of Constance, 10. He comes to Constance, and is present at the Council, 11. Makes a Journey into Arragon, to procure the Peace of the Church, and Treats with the King of Arragon. 18, 19 Succeeds Wenceslaus in the Kingdom of Bohemia. 124. Makes his Entry into Prague. 126. His Death. Ibid.  
Silence. Of observing Silence in Churches. 113  
Simon of Cramant, Patriarch of Alexandria. Is present at the Council of Pisa. 3, 4. What Functions he discharged there. 4, 5  
Simony. Forbidden. 112, 114. Divers Cases of Simony condemned. 67. A Prohibition to demand or receive any thing for the Collation of Benefices, 33, 74. Those who are Beneficed, are bound to swear, That they have not committed Simony. 112. A Prohibition to demand any thing for Ordination. 114. A Prohibition to Sell or Buy the Profits of Vacant Benefices. Ibid.  
Simoniacs. Regulations against them. 113  
Sin. In what fence Eternal Pain is due to it. 96. Of the Difference between Venial and Mortal Sins. 66  
Soul. How it conceives itself. 96  
The Holy Spirit. Conferences of the Greeks and Latins, about the Procession of the Holy Spirit. 41. The Decision of the Council of Florence about this Matter, 43  
Study. The Books which a Divine aught to Study, 65  
Superstition. A Superstitious Prayer about the Pestilence. 135   

T.  
Tenths. When and how levied 139. John XXIII. had a mind to levy them upon the Clergy of Fraence. 9 10. But the University and Parliament oppose him. 9, 10  
Thaborites. Their Errors. 124  
Scholastical Theology. Degenerates in the 15th Century. 138  
Theodorick Archbishop of Collen. The Regula●… which he published in a Counc●… 113  
Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury. The Regulations which he published in a Cowcil against the Errors of Wicklef. 111  
Tithes. Of the payment of Tithes. 115  
Latin Tongue. That one must understand the Latin Tongue, in order to his being Ordained. 114. and taking possession of a Benefice. Ibid.  
Tonsure. Edjoyned to be used by the Inferior Clergy. 114  
Ecclesiastical Tribunal. Regulations about some Formalities of this Tribunal. 112  
Trisland of Salazar Archbishop of Sens. A Council held under this Archbishop. 113   

V.  
Vicars. When Parish-Priests are forbidden to take Regulars Mendicants for Vicars. 113. That an Honourable Revenue ought to be allowed them. 112  
Virgin Mary. Of her Immaculate Conception. See Conception. Of her Exemption from VenialSin. 136 Her Perfection and singular Holiness. 134, 136. Yet in this she ought not to be compared to I. C. 136. Of her Assumption. Ibid. That we ought not too much to trust to Prayers to the Virgin at the point of Death. 137. The Superstition of giving particular Names to the Images of the Virgin, condemned. 115  
Visitation. Of the Visitation of Prelates. 112  
Vows. That all Sins against the Vow of Obedience are not Mortal, 67  
Usury. A Contract declared to be guilty of Usury by the Faculty of Theology at Paris. 135  
Wicklef. The beginning of his Separation from the Church. 115. He is Acquitted in England, 165, Condemned at Rome. Ibid. And in a Council at London. Ibid. He Retracts and Dies. 117. Forty Articles of his Doctrine condemned in the Council of Constance. 121  
Wicklefites. The Condemnation of the Wicklefites in a Council at London. 117, 118. Another Condemnation of them. 118   

Z.  
Zisa. A Captain of the Thaborites. 124   
The End of the Table of Matters.